Development of a Volumetric Mix Design

Protocol for Dense-Graded Cold Mix Asphalt

Cheng Ling, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE 1; and Hussain U. Bahia, Ph.D. 2

Abstract: Cold mix asphalt (CMA) provides a number of benefits that make it a promising alternative to hot mix asphalt and warm mix
asphalt, including reduction in both heating energy and emissions, as well as longer working time for transportation and placement of the
mixture. However, the challenges faced in the mix design procedure to control the volumetrics and performance of CMA limit the widespread
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 07/18/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

use of CMA. In this paper, a volumetric-based mix design protocol for asphalt emulsion-based CMA is proposed to consider the residual
water retained in the mixture after curing and ensure a uniform process for selection of design emulsion content and preparation of mixture
samples. The protocol steps include selection of materials, compaction, curing, density measurements, volumetric analysis, simple perfor-
mance test, and evaluation of moisture sensitivity. Mixtures utilizing two aggregate sources with different absorptions are used to show
examples of applying the volumetric mix design protocol. The design emulsion content is determined based on the volumetric analysis
in the proposed design. The moisture sensitivity is also evaluated for the mixture at design emulsion content in the form of tensile strength
ratio under modified wet condition. It is anticipated that the proposed mix design protocol advances the current state of practice for all
emulsion-related mixtures, such as dense-graded cold mixes and cold recycled mixes. DOI: 10.1061/JPEODX.0000071. © 2018 American
Society of Civil Engineers.

Background which does not need to be considered in the traditional volumetric

Compared to traditional hot mix asphalt (HMA) and warm mix as-
phalt (WMA), cold mix asphalt (CMA) offers a number of advan-
tages that make it an attractive alternative for a wide range of paving
applications from preventative maintenance and repair to full-scale
pavement construction. Namely, CMA does not require heating the
asphalt binder or full drying of the aggregate material, saving sig-
nificant amounts of energy in mix production and decreasing fuel
and dust emissions from the plant. CMA can also be stockpiled and
can be formulated to have a longer working life, meaning it can
be transported longer distances and placed in locations generally
inaccessible or impractical for more traditional methods (Jarrett
et al. 1984).
For the purposes of this study, CMA is defined as a mixture
of aggregate and asphalt emulsion produced at ambient or near-
ambient temperature. The aggregate is assumed to be damp prior
to mixing, with little to no additional heating. The emulsion is
mixed at delivery temperature, which for most mixing grade emul-
sions is no more than approximately 50°C. Dense-graded CMA
refers to the aggregate gradation, which plots substantially near
the maximum density line on a 0.45 power gradation chart.
Despite the benefits of CMA, a number of design-related
concerns need to be addressed before CMA can be systematically
applied in the field. A primary challenge associated with the mix
design of dense-graded CMA is the presence of water in the mixture,
1
Technical Manager, Oldcastle Materials, Inc., 15900 158th St., West,
Rosemount, MN 55068 (corresponding author). Email: cling@hardrivesinc
.com
2 Research Objectives
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ.
of Wisconsin, 3350 Engineering Hall, 1415 Engineering Dr., Madison,
WI 53705. Email: bahia@engr.wisc.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on October 12, 2017; approved on
April 24, 2018; published online on July 18, 2018. Discussion period open
until December 18, 2018; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Transportation
Engineering, Part B: Pavements, © ASCE, ISSN 2573-5438.
design for HMA. There are two sources of water in CMA: residual
moisture in the aggregate material because it is not completely dried
during production and the water present in the asphalt emulsion. In
both instances, the water slowly evaporates over time as the mixture
cures, which in turn affects the bulk mixture physical and mechani-
cal response. As water within the binder film evaporates, the mix-
tures shrink with density being reduced (Swiertz et al. 2012). Or, if
the water is entrapped between aggregates, air voids are created. As
a direct result of the residual moisture within the mixture, the volu-
metric analysis for traditional HMA cannot be applied directly and
needs to be modified for CMA.
Relative to HMA, the development of mix design methods for
CMA is lacking because no widely accepted mix design procedure
for CMA exists and most of the methods used by different agencies
worldwide are empirical and based on field experience with limited
lab testing (Darter et al. 1978). Several agencies and industry
entities have developed their own detailed methods including
Chevron, the U.S. Forest Service, the California Department of
Transportation, the Asphalt Institute, and others [Darter et al. 1978;
Asphalt Institute MS-14 (Asphalt Institute 1989); Asphalt Institute
MS-19 (Asphalt Institute 1997)]. However, few of them provide a
detailed volumetric analysis guideline considering the presence of
moisture in the mixture. Therefore, significant research efforts are
needed to develop a reliable and practical volumetric mix design
protocol for CMA to understand the compositions in the mixture
and further promote the use of the technology.
The overall goal of this research is to develop a volumetric mix
design protocol for dense-graded CMA. To meet this goal the
following objectives are proposed:
• Develop a volumetric-based mix design framework for dense-
graded cold mix asphalt based on currently available hot mix
asphalt mix design methods.

© ASCE 04018039-1 J. Transp. Eng., Part B: Pavements

J. Transp. Eng., Part B: Pavements, 2018, 144(4): 04018039

 Table 1. Experimental matrix for CMA mix design (1) selection of materials for acceptable coating and adhesion,
Factor Level Description (2) workability/compaction, (3) curing evaluation, (4) density mea-
surements and volumetric analysis, (5) indirect tension test to de-
Emulsion 1 CSS-1h
termine the strength of mix, (6) determination of design emulsion
Aggregate 2 Granite and limestone
Gradation 1 Dense-coarse
content, and (7) moisture damage evaluation. Examples of data are
Aggregate moisture 1 Saturated surface dry (SSD) included in each to explain the relevance and method of selection of
Emulsion content 4 Trial − 0.75%, Trial, Trial þ 0.75%, the final design.
Trial þ 1.5%
Replicates 3 1-Gmm and Coating sample, 2-Gmb Selection of Materials for Acceptable Coating and
(volumetrics), 3-Gmb (volumetrics)
Adhesion
Note: CSS-1h = cationic slow setting emulsion with low viscosity and hard
asphalt; Gmb = bulk specific gravity; and Gmm = maximum specific gravity.
Many existing cold mix design methods specify a minimum extent
of coating to ensure the compatibility between asphalt emulsion
and aggregate and prevent early moisture damage. For instance, the
• Develop a detailed volumetric analysis protocol to account for
Asphalt Institute MS-14 (Asphalt Institute 1989) requires a mini-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 07/18/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the moisture in the mixture and better understand the mixture

mum degree of coating of 50% for the base courses and 75% for the
compositions of dense-graded cold mix asphalt.
wearing courses in the design. Nikolaides (1994) suggested a mini-
mum coating of 85% for both base and wearing courses. Other than
the extent of coating, the quality of coating (namely adhesion) was
Experimental Matrix found to be more directly related to the moisture sensitivity of the
compacted mixtures (Ling et al. 2016). As a result of previous re-
One type of cationic mixing grade asphalt emulsion and two differ-
search efforts by the authors (Ling et al. 2013, 2014, 2016), image-
ent aggregate sources common throughout the United States were
based coating test and boiling test were proposed to examine the
selected to develop the volumetric mix design protocol; aggregate
compatibility between the aggregate mineralogy and asphalt emul-
moisture content was held constant for this study. Four emulsion
sion selected, including the extent and quality of coating as an ini-
contents were evaluated. The experimental matrix for this study is
tial evaluation of moisture sensitivity. The tests include the coating
shown in Table 1.
extent before and after the boiling test based on digital imaging
The CSS-1h cationic emulsion used in this study had a residual
technique. The coating ratio parameter can be used as an index
asphalt content of 57.2% and was selected based on the coating and
to evaluate the coating quality and as a means to ensure adequate
bonding properties studied by the authors in previous research stud-
bonding between asphalt and aggregate. Results of previous studies
ies (Ling et al. 2013, 2014, 2016).
(Ling et al. 2016) show that the coating ratio correlates well with
Granite and limestone were selected to represent the different
the compacted mixture tensile strength ratio (TSR) according to
aggregate minerologies and absorptions. Note that the limestone
AASHTO T283 (AASHTO 2014) as presented in Fig. 1.
aggregate has much higher absorption (1.53%) relative to granite
For the proposed CMA design framework, the 75% limit for the
aggregate (0.40%). The dense-coarse gradation was designed
degree of coating is recommended based on the Asphalt Institute
based on the Wisconsin Department of Transportation gradation
MS-14 recommendations for dense-graded surface mixes. The
limits for mixtures with a nominal maximum aggregate size
users may also define the coating ratio limit based on their target
(NMAS) of 12.5 mm, which has been shown in the authors’
TSR to ensure adequate moisture resistance in the mixes. For
previous work (Ling et al. 2016). Saturated surface dry (SSD)
example if the TSR limit is set at 75%, the coating ratio needs
condition was selected as the premix aggregate moisture condition
to be higher than 89% according to the correlation shown in Fig. 1.
to simulate the field condition.
Therefore the coating and boiling tests are recommended as part of
The four different emulsion contents were selected to provide a
the mix design process, and the detailed procedure of the tests can
reasonable variation for mix design and to maintain consistency
be found in previous works (Ling et al. 2013, 2014, 2016).
with Superpave HMA mix design procedure. The trial emulsion
content was selected based on surface area calculation [NCHRP
Report 673 (NCHRP 2011)]; for the gradation used in this study Mixing and Compaction Evaluation
the trial is determined as 8%. Three replicates were prepared: one is Dry aggregates are poured into the mixing bucket and mixed with
for maximum specific gravity (Gmm ) measurement, and the other premix water (to the desired moisture content) until uniform
two are for bulk specific gravity (Gmb ) measurements.
120.0%

Proposed Mix Design Framework for Dense-Graded 100.0%

Cold Mix Asphalt y = 2.5609x - 1.5298
R² = 0.9947
80.0%
Currently limited guidance regarding a volumetric-based mix
TSR

design protocol exists for dense-graded CMA, and the critical volu-
metric parameters used in HMA such as voids in mineral aggregate 60.0%
(VMA) and voids filled with asphalt (VFA) are not well defined for
CMA due to the lack of calculation methods considering the mois- 40.0%
ture in the mix. The authors propose to follow specific steps for
a volumetric-based mix design framework selected based on a de- 20.0%
tailed literature review [Swiertz et al. 2012; Darter et al. 1978; 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

NCHRP Report 673 (NCHRP 2011); Hemsley 2002; Lesueur Coating Ratio
2004; Peter and Kennedy 1979; Kim and Lee 2006; Harder
Fig. 1. Correlation between coating ratio and TSR (Ling et al. 2016).
2006]. The seven steps, explained in the following sections, include

© ASCE 04018039-2 J. Transp. Eng., Part B: Pavements

J. Transp. Eng., Part B: Pavements, 2018, 144(4): 04018039

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 07/18/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Perforated gyratory mold.

wetting is observed; emulsion is added at the specified amount and Density Measurements and Volumetric Properties
mixed for an additional for 1.5–2 min with the aid of a mechanical Analysis
mixer. The mixtures are then discharged into a shallow pan to a After curing, the bulk specific gravity (Gmb ) and maximum specific
depth of 3–5 cm and cured at ambient temperature for 2 h prior gravity (Gmm ) are measured using the vacuum sealing method
to compaction to simulate the stockpiling and transportation that [ASTM D2041 (ASTM 2011) and D6752 (ASTM 2017a)]. A pre-
occurs in the field [similar to the AASHTO R30 (AASHTO vious study (Swiertz et al. 2012) indicated that little moisture is lost
2002) HMA laboratory conditioning process]. after 24-h curing at ambient temperature. Therefore 24-h curing is
Due to the possible buildup of pore water pressure in CMA
deemed adequate for density measurement of loose mix. A critical
mixes, the compaction of cold mix is more challenging relative
step in calculating the volumetric parameters for CMA is the con-
to HMA. Hemsley (2002) used perforated gyratory molds to allow
sideration of the water and asphalt binder absorption by the aggre-
for water drainage during compaction. Lesueur (2004) also tried to
gate. Two approaches are considered in this study as shown in
compact the mixture to the onset of water drainage using perforated
Fig. 3: in Fig. 3(a) part of the water and asphalt residue is absorbed
molds based on the assumption that the density achieved in lab at
into the aggregate, and in Fig. 3(b) the water fills the permeable
the drainage point is similar to what is achieved in the field during
voids of aggregate and no asphalt is absorbed; meanwhile, some
compaction. In this study, it is recommended that a perforated
free water exists in the voids in mineral aggregates.
gyratory mold with diameter of 150 mm is used for compaction
The definitions for the conditions are listed as follows:
(as shown in Fig. 2) to allow for removal of water in mixture during • Emulsion content (EC): The percent of the asphalt emulsion by
compaction. weight of the combined weight of the emulsion and dry
After the 2-h conditioning, the loose mixtures are poured into the aggregates.
mold and compacted to a specified number of gyrations using a pres- • Residual asphalt content (R): The percent of asphalt residue by
sure of 600  18 kPa by a Superpave gyratory compactor (SGC, the weight of asphalt emulsion.
Troxler, Raleigh, Carolina). For the examples in this study, 100 gy- • Absorption (Abs): A measure of the amount of water that an
rations is selected as the design compaction effort for an HMA mix aggregate can absorb into its pore structure.
designed for high traffic (8 million equivalent single axle loads), and
it exceeds the compaction effort required for mixes rated for lower
traffic volumes. The number of gyrations is also selected to ensure
the locking point is achieved. The locking point is defined as the
number of gyrations at which no noticeable change of sample height
is observed after three consecutive gyrations (Swiertz et al. 2012)
and is used as a measure of mixture workability. The lower the num-
ber of gyrations to the locking point, the more workable is the mix.
A maximum limit on the locking point can be specified as a measure
of workability.

Curing
After compaction, samples are cured in confining molds in a 60°C
oven for 72 h and then left to cool at ambient temperature for an-
other 24 h. Aluminum perforated confining molds can be used to (a) (b)
prevent samples from collapsing immediately after compaction and
Fig. 3. (a) Scheme 1—below SSD condition [assumed absorbed binder
during the early stages of curing. To evaluate rate of curing, mois-
volume (AVBA) >0]; and (b) Scheme 2—equal to or above SSD
ture loss by mass is monitored at 24-h intervals during this curing
condition (AVBA ≤ 0).
period.

© ASCE 04018039-3 J. Transp. Eng., Part B: Pavements

J. Transp. Eng., Part B: Pavements, 2018, 144(4): 04018039

 • Water content (Pw ): The percent by weight of water remaining Gmb
VFW ¼ ðP − Pagg AbsÞ ð7Þ
in the total mixture after curing, including binder, water, and Gw w
aggregate.
• Binder content (Pb ): The percent by weight of residue asphalt It has been found that the Pw values calculated from both
binder in the total mixture after curing, including binder, water, schemes maintain the same form.
and aggregate. Step 3: Solve all other volumetric parameters based on Pw .
• Aggregate content (Pagg ): The percent by weight of aggregate in With the steps presented previously, the detailed calculation
the total mixture after curing, including binder, water, and procedure and equations are organized and listed as follows:
aggregate. 1. Calculate VA for each mixture using Eq. (8):
• Air voids (VA): The total volume of the small pockets of air  
between the coated aggregate particles throughout a compacted G
VA ¼ 100 1 − mb ð8Þ
paving mixture, expressed as a percent of the bulk volume of the Gmm
compacted paving mixture.
• Total binder volume (VB): The total volume of residue asphalt where Gmb = bulk specific gravity of the mixture; and Gmm =
binder in the mixture after curing. theoretical maximum specific gravity of the mixture.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 07/18/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

• Assumed absorbed binder volume (AVBA): The volume of re- 2. Calculate Pw , Pagg , and Pb using Eqs. (9)–(11):
sidue asphalt binder absorbed into the aggregate when the mix- h i
ðEC·Rþ1−ECÞGw R 1−EC
ture is assumed to be below SSD condition at the beginning of Gmm þ ð1 − ECÞAbs − EC · Gb þ Gsb Gw
volumetric calculation. This is a key parameter for determining Pw ¼ 100 h i
to which volumetric design scheme the mixture belongs. ðEC · R þ 1 − ECÞ þ ð1 − ECÞAbs − EC · GRb þ 1−EC Gsb Gw
• Absorbed water volume (VWA): The volume of water absorbed ð9Þ
into the aggregate after curing.
• Absorbed binder volume (VBA): The volume of binder ab-
sorbed into the aggregate after curing. 1 − EC
Pagg ¼ ð100 − Pw Þ ð10Þ
• Effective binder volume (VBE): The volume of binder that is not EC · R þ 1 − EC
absorbed into the aggregate after curing.
• Free water volume (VFW): The volume of water existing in the
mixture after curing that is not absorbed into the aggregate. EC · R
Pb ¼ ð100 − Pw Þ ð11Þ
• Voids in the mineral aggregate (VMA): The volume of the EC · R þ 1 − EC
intergranular void space between the aggregate particle of a
compacted paving mixture that includes the air voids and the where Gsb = bulk specific gravity of the aggregate; Gb = specific
effective binder content, expressed as a percent of the total gravity of the emulsion residue asphalt binder; and Gw = specific
volume of the specimen. gravity of water.
• Voids filled with asphalt (VFA): The percentage of the VMA 3. Calculate VB using Eq. (12) and AVBA using Eq. (3):
filled with binder. Pb Gmb
The three major steps for the derivation of volumetric equations VB ¼ ð12Þ
are summarized as follows: Gb
Step 1: Calculate the weight proportions of aggregate and
residue asphalt binder, namely Pagg and Pb , in the form of Pw based Determine the volumetric design scheme to which the mixture
on Eqs. (1) and (2): belongs. If AVBA > 0, the mixture belongs to Scheme 1 in which
the aggregate is below SSD condition and part of the asphalt binder
Pb is absorbed. Otherwise, when AVBA ≤ 0, the mixture belongs to
R
EC ¼ Pb ð1Þ Scheme 2, which has free water in voids. The two schemes are
R þ Pagg
shown in Fig. 3.
If AVBA > 0, the mixture belongs to Scheme 1. Calculate
Pb þ Pagg þ Pw ¼ 100 ð2Þ
VBA, VBE, VMA, and VFA using Eqs. (13)–(16):
Step 2: Calculate AVBA following Eq. (3): VBA ¼ AVBA ð13Þ


P Pagg 100
AVBA ¼ Gmb b þ − ð3Þ VBE ¼ VB − VBA ð14Þ
Gb Gsb Gmm

where Gb = specific gravity of asphalt residue. VMA ¼ VA þ VBE ð15Þ

If AVBA > 0, calculate VWA in two different ways and solve
Pw from Eqs. (4) and (5): VBE
VFA ¼ 100 ð16Þ
VMA
Gmb
VWA ¼ P Abs − AVBA ð4Þ If AVBA ≤ 0, the mixture belongs to Scheme 2. Then calculate
Gw agg
VBA, VBE, VFW, VMA, and VFA using Eqs. (17)–(19) and
Gmb Eq. (16), respectively.
VWA ¼ P ð5Þ
Gw w
VBA ¼ 0 ð17Þ
If AVBA ≤ 0, calculate VFW in two different ways and solve
Pw from Eqs. (6) and (7): VBE ¼ VB ð18Þ

VFW ¼ −AVBA ð6Þ VMA ¼ VA þ VBE þ VFW ð19Þ

© ASCE 04018039-4 J. Transp. Eng., Part B: Pavements

J. Transp. Eng., Part B: Pavements, 2018, 144(4): 04018039

 Indirect Tension Test
Performance tests for dense-graded CMA are required to evaluate
mechanical properties after curing. Typical performance tests used
for CMA include Marshall stability test, compressive strength test
under immersion, rutting resistance test, stiffness modulus test, etc.
[MS-14 (Asphalt Institute 1989); Dybalski 1983; USIRF 2008].
The indirect tension test (IDT) is also an effective tool to evaluate
the mixture quality and initial assessment of potential for rutting
and cracking. The IDT has been widely used by previous research-
ers in mix design procedures (Peter and Kennedy 1979; Kim and
Lee 2006; Hadley et al. 1971). This study adopted the standard IDT
test procedure specified in ASTM D6931 (ASTM 2017b) as a sim-
ple performance test in the mix design process.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 07/18/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Determination of Design Emulsion Content
Once all the aforementioned procedures for mix design are com-
pleted, the design emulsion content (DEC) is determined based on
target air voids and IDT results. In the Superpave mix design, the
optimum asphalt content for HMA is determined by mixture with a
target air void level of 4%. However, it is reported that the field air
void content of many CMA pavements is typically much higher
than HMA after compaction but will continue to decrease after
opening to traffic. It is reported that CMA mixtures have in-place
air voids of 15–25%, which decreases to 10–15% during their
medium service life (Harder 2006; Eckmann et al. 2001; USIRF
2008). In this study, 12% is selected as the target air voids in the
proposed mix design.
Evaluation of Moisture Sensitivity
The tensile strength ratio (TSR) test specified in AASHTO T283
can be generally followed with modifications to the target air voids
content for the mixture samples and the moisture conditioning
procedure for the CMA design. The target air void level for CMA
is determined from the mix design (this is explained later). In ad-
dition, the standard moisture conditioning procedure detailed in
AASHTO T283 was found to be too severe for CMA due to the
high air voids and possible incomplete curing; a modified moisture
condition with exposure of mixture in water bath at 25°C for 48 h
was used, which was proposed in previous research (Ling et al.
2013, 2016). Two replicates were tested for both dry and moisture
conditioned samples. No freeze-thaw cycle was included. The ten-
sile strength ratio was calculated based on the ratio of the dry tensile
strength to the wet tensile strength.
Results and Discussions
This section shows examples of applying the design procedure in
which two aggregates are used. As mentioned earlier, the out-
come of the mix design procedure is the selection of design emul-
sion content (DEC) based on volumetric analysis and simple
performance testing. The extent of coating for both emulsion-
aggregate combinations used in this study were over 90% [well
above 75%, which is the criterion specified by Asphalt Institute
MS-14 (Asphalt Institute 1989)]. The coating ratio, which is mea-
sured as after-to-before the boiling test, was 74.0% for limestone
mixes and 70.5% for granite mixes. Both ratios were lower than
89% (corresponding to 75% of TSR according to Fig. 1), indicat-
ing potentially high moisture susceptibility for these mixes. The
mix design process was not stopped because the boiling test is
only an initial indicator. The following sections explain the
results of the other design steps.
© ASCE 04018039-5
J. Transp. Eng., Part B: Pavements, 2018, 144(4): 04018039
Compaction Results
Compaction curves were constructed as the relationship between
density (%Gmm ) versus compaction effort (gyrations) for both aggre-
gate types and range of emulsion contents. Results are presented in
Fig. 4(a). The granite aggregates used in this study demonstrate more
sensitivity to changes in emulsion content relative to limestone, pos-
sibly due to the lower total liquids content in the granite mixes.
Compaction curves were used to determine the locking points
for all combinations, and the results show that locking points of all
compactions are below 100 gyrations (ranging from 85 to 96),
indicating that all compactions had achieved the locking points.
Furthermore, locking point values for all mixes are in a variation
range of 11 gyrations, meaning that all demonstrate similar behav-
ior. All values of locking point are well above 70, indicating a mix
that is harsh or difficult to compact (Swiertz et al. 2012). The
relative insensitivity of locking point to emulsified asphalt content
indicates that the only way to improve workability (reduce locking
point) is to change gradation.
Due to the insensitivity of the locking point values to emulsion
content and aggregate source, an alternative parameter called the
construction densification index (CDI), which is the value of the
area under the densification curve from density at 8 gyrations to
density of 92% Gmm was used. It represents the work done during
the construction period to achieve 8% air voids (Faheem and Bahia
2004). In this study, because the density of CMA mixes cannot
reach 92% Gmm, the 88% Gmm was selected instead and the
CDI for each mix with different emulsion content was calculated
accordingly and presented in Fig. 4(b).
As shown in the figure, the CDI is much more sensitive to emul-
sion content and it shows some sensitivity to aggregate types. The
results clearly show that with increased emulsion content, the CDI
values for both type of mixes decreased significantly due to the
better lubrication within the mix during the compaction. Similarly
to what was observed in the compaction curves, the granite mixes
show higher sensitivity to the increase of emulsion content relative
to the limestone mixes. In general the CDI values for granite mixes
are lower than the values for limestone mixes, indicating better
constructability.
Curing Results
The moisture losses per day versus time plots for both types of
mixes with different emulsion content are provided in Fig. 5. A
majority of the moisture was lost during the first 24 h, and all mixes
follow similar trends regardless of aggregate type or emulsion con-
tent. After three days curing, moisture loss of both groups reduced
to less than 0.3%.
Samples dimensions were also monitored before and after the
complete curing process at ambient temperature. Two mechanisms
may exist and work simultaneously to cause the change in dimen-
sions: (1) shrinkage due to the moisture loss and decreasing of air
voids (2) thermal expansion due to heating as curing is conducted at
elevated temperatures. The results of all sample dimension changes
demonstrate that the samples expanded in both height and diameter,
with the amount of expansion slightly related to emulsified asphalt
content. However, these changes in dimensions were insignificant
because all were less than 1 mm, and thus no correction is needed to
sample dimensions during the volumetric analysis to account for
the curing effect.
Volumetric Analysis Results
The calculations followed the equations introduced in the previous
section. The critical volumetric parameters are listed in Table 2,
J. Transp. Eng., Part B: Pavements
 100.00% 100.00%

7.25%
95.00% 7.25% 95.00%
8.00%
8.00%
8.75%
90.00% 8.75% 90.00%
9.50%
9.50%
85.00% 85.00%

80.00% 80.00%

75.00% 75.00%
1 10 100 1 10 100

(a)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 07/18/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Limestone Mixes Granite Mixes

70.0

60.0 Limestone

Granite
50.0

40.0
CDI

30.0

20.0

10.0
0.0
7.00% 7.50% 8.00% 8.50% 9.00% 9.50% 10.00%
(b) Emulsion Content

Fig. 4. Comparison of (a) compaction curves; and (b) construction densification index for CSS-1h mixes.

2.5% 2.5%

2.0% 2.0%

1.5% 7.25% 1.5% 7.25%

8.00% 8.00%
1.0% 8.75% 1.0%
8.75%
9.50%
0.5% 0.5% 9.50%

0.0%
Day 1 Day 2 Day3 Day 1 Day 2 Day3
Limestone Granite

Fig. 5. Moisture loss per day during curing for CSS-1h mixes.

Table 2. Volumetric analysis for CSS-1h mixes

Emulsion
Aggregate content (%) Gmm Gmb VA (%) Pw (%) AVBA (%) VMA (%) VFA (%) AFT (μm)
Limestone 7.25 2.630 2.345 10.8 0.0 3.6 17.2 36.7 7.8
8.00 2.603 2.357 9.5 0.1 3.2 17.2 45.2 9.6
8.75 2.576 2.364 8.2 0.3 2.8 17.6 53.0 11.6
9.50 2.549 2.371 7.0 0.5 2.3 17.9 60.9 13.6
Granite 7.25 2.500 2.218 11.3 0.2 0.4 20.3 46.1 12.2
8.00 2.477 2.257 8.9 0.4 0.0 19.4 54.2 13.6
8.75 2.437 2.285 6.2 1.0 −1.5 19.3 60.2 15.0
9.50 2.393 2.289 4.3 1.8 −3.3 20.2 62.3 16.4

including air voids content (VA), residual water content in mix in granite mixes is higher than that in limestone mixes, although the
(Pw), assumed absorbed binder volume (AVBA), voids in the min- premix moisture added to limestone aggregate to reach the SSD
eral aggregate (VMA), voids filled with asphalt (VFA), and appar- condition is much higher than granite mixes due to the higher
ent film thickness (AFT). It is shown that residual moisture content absorption. As discussed in the compaction section, the liquid

© ASCE 04018039-6 J. Transp. Eng., Part B: Pavements

J. Transp. Eng., Part B: Pavements, 2018, 144(4): 04018039

 (premix water and emulsion) may be sufficient for limestone mixes
to provide lubrication at all emulsion contents; therefore, extra liquid
drained out through the perforated compaction molds, which de-
creased the actual total liquid content in the mixture after compac-
tion. For the granite mixes, most liquid could remain in the mixes
after compaction, resulting in a high moisture content left in the
mixes after curing. This also indicates that the mixtures had different
water contents relative to their respective absorptions—i.e., the
moisture contents for both aggregates were not at SSD condition.
Assumed absorbed binder volume (AVBA) is the key parameter
determining which scheme the mixture sample belongs to, as dis-
cussed previously. From the Table 2, the AVBA of the limestone
samples are all above 0, which means they belong to Scheme 1, in
which the aggregate is below SSD condition and part of the asphalt
is absorbed. Half of the granite samples belongs to Scheme 1,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 07/18/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
whereas the other half belongs to Scheme 2 based on the fact that
AVBA is less than 0. Other important volumetric parameters are
presented in Figs. 6(a–d) as functions of emulsion content for fur-
ther comparison.
Results of the air voids against asphalt content are consistent
with findings in the literature review that CMA mixtures are not
typically capable of meeting the air void levels used in HMA
mix design (Harder 2006; USIRF 2008). The VA and VMA values
are all higher than what normally are required for HMA, whereas
the VFA values are lower. Different sensitivities to emulsion
content are also observed, specifically at higher emulsion contents
as granite shows much lower air void values. This trend has been
observed in the comparison of compaction curves and explained by
the effect of sufficient lubrication in limestone mixes.
The VMA shows different trends to the change of emulsion con-
tent for both types of mixtures. However in general, the granite
mixes have much higher VMA relative to limestone mixes. Higher
VMA is expected for the granite mixes because the granite aggre-
gates have less absorption and hence more effective asphalt than
the limestone aggregates. The VFA increases with the increased
amount of emulsion and the VFA for granite mixes is also higher
than that for limestone mixes. Higher asphalt binder film thickness
is expected for the granite mixes due to the low absorption of the
granite aggregates.
Indirect Tensile Strength Results
The indirect tension test was used to evaluate the CMA mix quality
at different emulsion contents. The indirect tensile strength (ITS)
for both mixture types was tested in previous research by the au-
thors to validate the proposed image-based boiling test (Ling et al.
2016), with the results presented in Fig. 6(e).
It can be clearly seen that ITS decreases with increased emulsion
content for both combinations of emulsion and aggregate. The
emulsion content versus ITS presented in this study is inconsistent
with findings from the literature (Peter and Kennedy 1979; Kim
and Lee 2006; Hadley et al. 1971). In previous work, this relation-
ship was curvilinear and the emulsion/asphalt content that corre-
sponds to maximum ITS strength was defined as optimum.
Based on these results it appears that the factors selected only cap-
tured behavior on the wet side of the ITS curve. However, it should
also be noted that the perforated mold was used during the com-
paction in this research but not in those studies presented in the
literature. ITS results and observations of the fracture surface
indicate that even though samples prepared at higher emulsion
contents result in lower air voids, it does not necessarily lead to
improved performance as curing rate is decreased and lower
strength values are observed. These results are supported by pre-
vious work by Dybalski (1983) who compared several mechanical
© ASCE 04018039-7
J. Transp. Eng., Part B: Pavements, 2018, 144(4): 04018039
properties of CMA and HMA, and found that the three types of
dense-graded cold mixes (CSS-1, CSS-1 modified, and CMS-2)
have tensile strength values ranging from 0.55 to 0.76 MPa, which
are generally comparable with the data obtained in this study. The
HMA mixes used in that study have higher tensile strengths
(∼1.03 MPa) relative to the CMA mixes.
Determination of Design Emulsion Content
As mentioned previously, the design emulsion content (DEC) can
be determined through the target air voids of 12% and also the
indirect tensile strength (ITS) results. Since no optimum emulsion
content corresponding to the maximum ITS strength was observed,
the design emulsion content was determined purely based on the
target air voids of 12%. According to Fig. 6(a) the corresponding
design emulsion contents for both types of mixtures were therefore
determined as 7.0% through extrapolation.
Moisture Sensitivity Results
The TSR results under modified condition of the two types of
mixtures at design emulsion content are summarized in Table 3. In
addition, a modified emulsion (CSS-1hl) and cement were used to
improve the moisture resistance of the original mixtures, and the
test results were also included for comparison. Note that at least
two replicates were performed for each condition and only average
values are listed in the table.
From Table 3 it can be seen that CSS-1h mixes are not sound
after moisture conditioning with relatively low TSR values. Modi-
fied emulsion CSS-1hl significantly improves the TSR values for
both aggregate types. The addition of cement also improves mois-
ture resistance. The use of cement in CMA is a common practice in
many regions, but this data serves to illustrate another effective
alternative: the use of modified emulsion. Which method is ulti-
mately adopted should be based on economical and practical con-
siderations in the field.
Many states require a minimum TSR of 75 or 80% for HMA.
However, direct comparison of CMA performance to limits defined
for HMA is not possible due to the much higher air voids and modi-
fied conditioning time/temperature used in this study. As a result,
the effects of conditioning time/temperature are confounded with
possible differences in material performance. Future research is
needed to provide a direct comparison between HMA and CMA by
maintaining consistent conditions.
Summary and Concluding Remarks
This paper proposes a rational volumetric-based mix design proto-
col for CMA mixes based on using the Superpave gyratory com-
pactor and commonly followed methods used for HMA. It includes
coating, compaction, volumetric, mechanical strength, and mois-
ture sensitivity analyses. The method was verified using two sour-
ces of aggregates to show the typical results that could be found,
and some limits for various critical parameters are included. The
major findings can be summarized as follows:
• Coating and compatibility of emulsions with aggregates can be
used as a first screening step to evaluate mix components. Also
the densification curves using a perforated mold in the standard
Superpave gyratory compactor offer a tool to evaluate workabil-
ity of mix by estimating the construction densification index. A
limit of the coating extent, coating ratio, and CDI can be used to
screen mixture materials for constructability and durability.
• The mix design method for CMA proposed in this study was
evaluated for CSS-1h emulsion and two different aggregate
J. Transp. Eng., Part B: Pavements
 12.0% 21.0%

10.0%
20.0%
8.0%
Air Voids
19.0%

VMA
6.0%
Limestone Limestone
18.0%
4.0% Granite Granite

2.0% 17.0%

0.0% 16.0%
7.00% 8.00% 9.00% 10.00% 7.00% 8.00% 9.00% 10.00%
(a) Emulsion Content (b) Emulsion Content

65.0% 18.0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 07/18/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

60.0% 16.0
55.0%
14.0

AFT (lm)
50.0%
VFA

12.0
45.0% Limestone Limestone
Granite 10.0 Granite
40.0%

35.0% 8.0

30.0% 6.0
7.00% 8.00% 9.00% 10.00% 7.00% 8.00% 9.00% 10.00%
(c) Emulsion Content (d) Emulsion Content

0.70

0.65

0.60
ITS (MPa)

Limestone
0.55
Granite
0.50

0.45

0.40
7.00% 8.00% 9.00% 10.00%
(e) Emulsion Content

Fig. 6. Comparison of volumetric parameters and indirect tensile strength for CSS-1h limestone and granite mixes: (a) air voids; (b) VMA; (c) VFA;
(d) AFT; and (e) ITS.

Table 3. TSR results with modified wet condition

Emulsion
Emulsion Aggregate Conditioning content (%) Air voids (%) Saturation (%) ITS (MPa) TSR
CSS-1h Limestone Wet 7.0 11.4 76.8 0.252 0.37
Dry 12.2 — 0.686
Granite Wet 7.0 11.9 72.6 0.148 0.28
Dry 11.8 — 0.539
CSS-1hl Limestone Wet 7.3 11.9 72.0 0.306 0.74
Dry 11.8 — 0.415
Granite Wet 9.0 11.4 72.0 0.379 0.97
Dry 11.2 — 0.392
CSS-1h þ 1.5% Cement Granite Wet 8.0 11.6 73.4 0.391 0.81
Dry 11.6 — 0.483
CSS-1h þ 3.0% Cement Granite Wet 8.0 11.3 74.1 0.575 0.99
Dry 11.3 — 0.582

© ASCE 04018039-8 J. Transp. Eng., Part B: Pavements

J. Transp. Eng., Part B: Pavements, 2018, 144(4): 04018039

 types. The air void levels achieved in this study are consistent
with the literature in the sense that the typical air void and VMA
levels for CMA are much higher than a typical HMA mixture,
whereas the VFA values are lower. An air void level of 12% is
recommended as the target to determine the design emulsion
content (DEC) for performance testing.
• Through the volumetric analysis it is confirmed that the air voids
and VMA decrease and the VFA increases with the increased
emulsion content. The VMA shows different sensitivity to the
change of emulsion content for different aggregates; however, it
is significantly affected by the total liquid content for mixtures
with different types of aggregate due to the different extents of
lubrication during the compaction.
• The examples of mix designs show that reaching ITS values of
0.48 or 0.55 MPa can be achieved and thus reasonable mechan-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 07/18/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ical stability can be expected for these CMAs.
• The modified TSR test results (wet conditioning is done at 25°C
for 24 h) demonstrate that the mixtures designed in this study
would be considered moisture susceptible with low TSR values
(<40%). However, by using modified emulsion or adding
cement, the moisture resistance of CMA can be significantly
improved.
Because the total liquid content has been found to significantly
affect the VMA, it is recommended the optimum added mixing
water content, or total liquid content, be considered as another step
before determining the design emulsion content in the proposed
mix design.
Acknowledgments
This study is part of the Asphalt Research Consortium project, and
support from FHWA and WRI is gratefully acknowledged by the
authors. The guidance and contributions of Mr. Daniel Swiertz and
Dr. Andrew Hanz are gratefully acknowledged.
References
AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials). 2002. Standard Practice for Mixture Conditioning of Hot
Mix Asphalt. AASHTO R30. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials). 2014. Standard Method of Test for Resistance of Compacted
Asphalt Mixtures to Moisture-Induced Damage. AASHTO T283.
Washington, DC: AASHTO.
Asphalt Institute. 1989. Asphalt cold mix manual series No. 14 (MS-14).
3rd ed. Lexington, KY: Asphalt Institute.
Asphalt Institute. 1997. A basic asphalt emulsion manual series No. 19
(MS-19). 3rd ed. Lexington, KY: Asphalt Institute.
ASTM. 2011. Standard Test Method for Theoretical Maximum Specific
Gravity and Density of Bituminous Paving Mixtures. ASTM-D2041.
West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2017a. Standard Test Method for Bulk Specific Gravity and Den-
sity of Compacted Asphalt Mixtures Using Automatic Vacuum Sealing
Method. ASTM-D6752. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
© ASCE 04018039-9
J. Transp. Eng., Part B: Pavements, 2018, 144(4): 04018039
ASTM. 2017b. Standard Test Method for Indirect Tensile (IDT)
Strength of Asphalt Mixtures. ASTM-D6931. West Conshohocken,
PA: ASTM.
Darter, M. I., S. R. Ahfield, P. L. Wilkey, and R. G. Wasill. 1978. Develop-
ment of emulsified asphalt-aggregate cold mix design procedure.
Project IHR-505. Urbana, IL: Illinois Cooperative Highway Research
Program.
Dybalski, J. N. 1983. “A comparison of properties of laboratory prepared
cold mixed emulsified and hot mixed asphalt mixtures.” In Proc., 10th
Annual Meeting of AEMA, Glen Ellyn, IL: Asphalt Emulsion Manufac-
turers Association.
Eckmann, B., J. J. Potti, M. Bourrel, P. Verlhac, C. Such, F. L. Calderon,
and J. S. Polo. 2001. Cold mix technology: The contribution. Rep. of
OPTEL Project. France: AIPCR.
Faheem, A., and H. Bahia. 2004. Using gyratory compactor to measure
mechanical stability of asphalt mixtures. WHRP 05-02 Project Rep.
Madison, WI: Wisconsin Highway Research Program.
Hadley, W. O., W. R. Hudson, and T. W. Kennedy. 1971. Evaluation and
prediction of the tensile properties of asphalt-treated materials.
Research Rep. No. 98-9. Austin, TX: Center for Highway Research,
Univ. of Texas at Austin.
Harder, G. 2006. “Emulsified asphalt cold mix wearing courses.” In Proc.,
AEMA/ARRA/ISSA Annual Meeting. Lexington, KY: Asphalt Institute.
Hemsley, M. 2002. “Cold mix design.” In Proc., AEMA Annual Conf., Glen
Ellyn, IL: Asphalt Emulsion Manufacturers Association.
Jarrett, P. M., A. N. S. Beaty, and A. S. Wojcik. 1984. “Cold-mix asphalt
technology at temperatures below 10°C.” J. Assoc. Asphalt Paving
Technol. 53: 50–97.
Kim, Y., and H. Lee. 2006. “Development of mix design procedure for cold
in-place recycling with foamed asphalt.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 18 (1):
116–124. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2006)18:1(116).
Lesueur, D. 2004. “Predicting the in-place compacity of cold mixes.”
In Proc., 2nd Eurasphalt and Eurobitume Congress, Breukelen,
Netherlands: Foundation Eurasphalt.
Ling, C., A. Hanz, and H. Bahia. 2014. “Evaluating moisture susceptibility
of cold mix asphalt.” Transp. Res. Rec. 2446: 60–69. https://doi.org/10
.3141/2446-07.
Ling, C., A. Hanz, and H. Bahia. 2016. “Measuring moisture susceptibility
of cold mix asphalt with a modified boiling test based on digital imag-
ing.” Constr. Build. Mater. 105: 391–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.conbuildmat.2015.12.093.
Ling, C., R. Moraes, D. Swiertz, and H. Bahia. 2013. “Measuring the
influence of aggregate coating on the workability and moisture suscep-
tibility of cold mix asphalt.” Transp. Res. Rec. 2372: 46–52. https://doi
.org/10.3141/2372-06.
NCHRP (National Cooperative Highway Research Program). 2011. A
manual for design of hot mix asphalt with commentary. NCHRP
Rep. No. 673. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
Nikolaides, A. F. 1994. “A new design method for dense cold mixtures.”
In Proc., 1st European Symp. on Performance and Durability of
Bituminous Materials. Leeds, UK: Univ. of Leeds.
Peter, D. B., and T. W. Kennedy. 1979. An evaluation of the Texas black-
base mix design procedure using the indirect tensile test. Research Rep.
No. 183-11. Austin, TX: Center for Highway Research, Univ. of Texas
at Austin.
Swiertz, D., P. Johannes, L. Tashman, and H. U. Bahia. 2012. “Analysis of
laboratory coating and compaction procedures for cold mix asphalt.”
J. Assoc. Asphalt Paving Technol. 81: 81–107.
USIRF (Union des syndicats de l′industrie routière française). 2008.
Bitumen emulsions. Paris: USIRF.
J. Transp. Eng., Part B: Pavements