CHIP SEAL – MIX DESIGN AND

PERFORMANCE TEST
Contents
TESTING OF GEOGRIDS IN......................................................................................................................................... 1

ASPHALT PAVEMENT.................................................................................................................................................. 1

1. Comparing and predicting rutting resistance of asphalt pavements with rigid and flexible geogrid layers
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950061821018961)....................................................................3

2. Evaluation of permanent deformation of geogrid reinforced asphalt concrete using dynamic creep test
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0266114415000618)..................................................................................5

3. Crack propagation analysis in bituminous mixtures reinforced by different types of geogrids using digital
image correlation (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950061821022789)....................................................6

4. Mechanical response of full-scale geosynthetic-reinforced asphalt overlays subjected to repeated loads

(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214391221001070)....................................................................9

5. Comparative assessment of the interlayer shear-bond strength of geogrid reinforcements in hot-mix

asphalt 10

6. Effect of binder rates and geogrid characteristics on the shear bond strength of reinforced asphalt
interfaces (field-laboratory coupled testing)..................................................................................................................... 12

7. Finite Element Analysis of Flexible Pavement with Geogrids.....................................................................14

8. Effects of geosynthetics on reduction of reflection cracking in asphalt overlays........................................15

9. Performance of composite geogrid reinforced unpaved pavements under cyclic loading..........................17

10. Performance of AC overlays using geogrids on PCC contraction joints.................................................19

11. Laboratory evaluation of interfacial mechanical properties in geogrid-reinforced bituminous layers..22

12. The use of geogrid reinforcement for enhancing the performance of concrete (PCC) overlays: An
experimental and numerical assessment.......................................................................................................................... 26

13........................................................................................................................................................................... 31

2
 1.1. Chip seal mix design of McLeod method
To ensure the proper performance of the project, a mix design should be performed to determine the following:
 Application rate for aggregate
 Application rate for binder
 Appropriateness of materials
It should be noted that the design rates are only a guide and should be adjusted for field variances such as
pavement conditions and traffic.
Two of most notable chip seal design methods are the McLeod method and the Modified Kearby method.
1.2. Laboratory tests for Key components of McLeod method
The design procedure recommended by the author is based on the one first presented in the late 1960’s by
Norman McLeod. This procedure was later adapted by the Asphalt Institute and the Asphalt Emulsion Manufacturers
Association. It was also the design procedure used by the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) for designing the
Special Pavement Study chip seal sections constructed across the United States.
In the McLeod procedure, the aggregate application rate depends on the aggregate gradation, shape, and specific
gravity. The binder application rate depends on the aggregate gradation, absorption and shape, traffic volume, existing
pavement condition and the residual asphalt content of the binder.
The McLeod procedure is based on two basic principles:
1. The application rate of a given cover aggregate should be determined so that the resulting seal coat will only
be one-stone thick. This amount of aggregate will remain constant, regardless of the binder type or pavement
condition.
2. The voids in this aggregate layer need be 70 percent filled with asphalt cement for good performance on
pavements with moderate levels of traffic.

Fig 1.1. McLeod design: One-stone thick & proper embedment

Figure 2 shows an inspector checking for proper chip embedment. Notice that the chip is embedded about 70
percent into the residual asphalt. This will help to ensure good chip retention.

3
 Fig 1.2. Proper embedment (~70%) into the residual asphalt
The key components of the McLeod design procedure are as follows:
1.1.1. Median Particle Size
The Median Particle Size (M) is determined from the gradation chart. It is the theoretical sieve size through which
50 percent of the material passes (50 percent passing size). The gradation is determined using the following sieves:
Table 1. Sieve nest for seal coat gradations

Sieve Name Opening U.S. Customary Units Opening S.I. Metric Units

1 inch 1.000 in. 25.0 mm

3/4 inch 0.750 in. 19.0 mm
1/2 inch 0.500 in. 12.5 mm
3/8 inch 0.375 in. 9.5 mm
1/4 inch 0.250 in. 6.3 mm
No. 4 0.187 in. 4.75 mm
No. 8 0.0937 in. 2.36 mm
No. 16 0.0469 in. 1.18 mm
No. 50 0.0117 in. 300 pm
No. 200 0.0029 in. 75 pm
Flakiness Index (FI) is a measure of the percent, by weight, of flat particles. It is determined by testing a small
sample of the aggregate particles for their ability to fit through a slotted plate (Figure 3).
There are five slots in the plate for five different size fractions of the aggregate. If the chips can fit through the
slotted plate they are considered to be flat. If not, they are considered to be cubical. The lower the Flakiness Index, the
more cubical the material is. The test is run according to Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD) DFT-508 (9).
The five slots in the plates are for the following:
 Slot 1: Material passing the 1 in. sieve (25 mm) but retained on the 3/4 in. sieve (19 mm).
 Slot 2: Material passing the ¾ in. sieve (19 mm) but retained on the 1/2 in. sieve (12.5 mm).
 Slot 3: Material passing the 1/2 in. sieve(12.5 mm) but retained on the 3/8 in. sieve (9.5 mm).
 Slot 4: Material passing the 3/8 in. sieve (9.5 mm) but retained on the 1/4 in. sieve (6.3 mm).
 Slot 5: Material passing the 1/4 in. sieve(6.3 mm) but retained on the No.4 sieve (4.75 mm).

4
 Fig 1.3. Flakiness Index Testing Plate
For most seal coat aggregate in Minnesota only the smallest three slots are used. This is because most seal coat
projects do not use 1, 3/4 or 1/2 inch (25, 19 or 12.5 mm) stone.
The weight of material passing all the slots
Flakiness Index=
Total weight
1.1.2. The weight of material passing all the slots
The Average Least Dimension, or ALD (H), is determined from the Median Particle Size (M) and the Flakiness
Index (FI). It is a reduction of the Median Particle Size after accounting for flat particles. It represents the expected seal
coat thickness in the wheelpaths where traffic forces the flat chips to lie on their flattest side.
M
H= (1)
1.139285+(0.011506)(FI )
Where:
H = Average Least Dimension, inches or mm
M = Median Particle Size, inches or mm
FI = Flakiness Index, in percent
1.1.3. Loose Unit Weight of the Cover Aggregate
The loose unit weight (W) is determined according to ASTM C 29 and is needed to calculate the voids in the
aggregate in a loose condition. The loose unit weight is used to calculate the air voids expected between the chips after
initial rolling takes. It depends on the gradation, shape, and specific gravity of the aggregate. Well-graded aggregate and
aggregate with a high dust content will have the highest loose unit weight because the particles pack together tightly
leaving little room for air. This air space between the aggregate particles is the only space available to place the binder.

5
 Fig 1.4. Loose Unit Weight Test
1.1.4. Voids in the Loose Aggregate
The voids in the loose aggregate (V) approximate the voids present when the chips are dropped from the spreader
onto the pavement. Generally, this value will be near 50 percent for one-size aggregate, less for graded aggregate. After
initial rolling, the voids are assumed to be reduced to 30 percent and will reach a low of about 20 percent after sufficient
traffic has oriented the stones on their flattest side. However, if there is very little traffic, the voids will remain 30 percent
and the seal coat will require more binder to ensure good chip retention. One of the following equations is used to
calculate the voids in the loose aggregate:
S.I.Metric Units:
W
V =1− (2)
1000 G
Where:
V = Voids in the Loose Aggregate, in percent expressed as a decimal
W = Loose Unit Weight of the Cover Aggregate, ASTM Method C 29, kg/m 3
G = Bulk Specific Gravity of the Aggregate
1.1.5. Bulk Specific Gravity
Table 2. Typical Bulk Specific Gravity of Common Seal Coat Aggregates in Minnesota

Class A Class B Class C

Aggregate type Granite Quartzite Trap Rock Limestone Red Rock Pea Rock
Bulk Min. 2.60 2.59 2.95 2.40 2.50 2.55
Specific Max. 2.75 2.63 2.98 2.67 2.52 2.66
Gravity Avg. 2.68 2.62 2.97 2.61 2.51 2.62

1.1.6. Aggregate Absorption

Most aggregates absorb some of the binder applied to the roadway. The design procedure must be able to correct
for this condition to ensure enough binder will remain on the pavement surface. Table 3 can be used as a guideline. A good
rule of thumb is that Class A aggregates generally do not require a correction for absorption, whereas Class B and C
aggregates generally do. McLeod suggests an absorption correction factor, A, of 0.02 gal/yd 2 (0.09 L/m2) if the aggregate
absorption is around 1 percent. The author recommends using this correction if the absorption is 1.5 percent or higher.
Table 3. Typical Absorption of Common Seal Coat Aggregates in Minnesota

Aggregate type Class A Class B Class C

Granite Quartzite Trap Rock Limestone Red Rock Pea Rock
Min. 0.40 0.61 0.31 1.75 no data 1.14
Max. 0.92 0.72 0.59 5.44 no data 2.32
Percent Absorption
Avg. 0.59 0.67 0.43 2.80 - 1.69
1.1.7. Traffic Volume
The traffic volume on the pavement surface, in terms of the number of vehicles per day, plays a role in
determining the amount of asphalt binder needed to sufficiently embed the chips. Generally speaking, the higher the
traffic volume, the lower the binder application rate

6
 Table 4. Traffic Correction Factor, T

Traffic Factor
The percentage, expressed as a decimal, of the ultimate 20 percent void space in the cover aggregate to be
filled with asphalt
Traffic - Vehicles per day
Under 100 100 to 500 500 to 1000 1000 to 2000 Over 2000
0.85 0.75 0.70 0.65 0.60
1.1.8. Traffic Whip-Off
The McLeod procedure also recognizes that some of the cover aggregate will get thrown to the side of the roadway
by passing vehicles as the fresh seal coat is curing. The amount that will do this is related to the speed and number of
vehicles on the new seal coat. To account for this, a traffic whip-off factor (E) is included in the aggregate design equation.
A reasonable value to assume is 5 percent for low volume, residential type traffic and 10 percent for higher speed roadways
such as county roads. The traffic whip-off factor is shown in Table 5
Table 5. Aggregate Wastage Factor, E (Source: Asphalt Institute MS-19, March 1979)
Percentage Waste*
Allowed For Wastage Factor, E

1 1.01
2 1.02
3 1.03
4 1.04
5 1.05
6 1.06
7 1.07
8 1.08
9 1.09
10 1.10
11 1.11
12 1.12
13 1.13
14 1.14
15 1.15
*Due to traffic whip-off and handling

1.1.9. Existing Pavement Condition

The condition of the existing pavement plays a major role in the amount of binder required to obtain proper
embedment. A new smooth pavement with low air voids will not absorb much of the binder applied to it. Conversely, a
dry, porous and pocked pavement surface can absorb a tremendous amount of the binder. Failure to recognize when to
increase or decrease the binder application rate to account for the pavement condition can lead to excessive chip loss or
bleeding.
The McLeod procedure uses the descriptions and factors in Table 4.6 to add or reduce the amount of binder to
apply in the field.
Table 6. Surface Correction Factor, S
Existing Pavement Texture Correction,S

7
 S.I.Metric (L/m2) U.S.Customary (gal/yd2)
Black, flushed asphalt -0.04 to -0.27 -0.01 to -0.06
Smooth, non-porous 0.00 0.00
Slightly porous & oxidized +0.14 +0.03
Slightly pocked, porous & oxidized +0.27 +0.06
Badly pocked, porous & oxidized +0.40 +0.09

Fig 1.5. Example of a smooth, nonporous surface(a); Slightly porous and oxidized surface (b); Slightly pocked, porouse and oxidized
surface (c); Badly pocked, porouse and oxidized surface (d)
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Fig 2. Example of a smooth, non-porous surface
to

assume is 5 percent for low volume, residential type traffic and 10 percent for higher speed roadways such as county roads.
The traffic whip-off factor is shown in Table 6
1.3. McLEOD SEAL COAT DESIGN EQUATIONS
Once all the lab testing as completed, the following equations are then used to determine the aggregate and binder
application rates. While the results may need to be adjusted in the field, especially the binder application rate, they have
shown to provide a close approximation of the correct quantity of materials.
1.2.1. Aggregate Design Equation
The aggregate application rate is determined from the following equations:
C=( 1−0.4 V ) HGE
Where:
C = Cover Aggregate Application Rate, kg/m2
V = Voids in the Loose Aggregate, in percent expressed as a decimal (Equation 2)
H = Average Least Dimension, mm
G = Bulk Specific Gravity of the Aggregate
E = Wastage Factor for Traffic Whip-Off (Table 5)
1.2.2. Binder Design Equation
S.I.Metric Units:
( 0.40 ) ( H )( T ) (V )+ S+ A
B= (3)
R
Where:
B = Binder Application Rate, liters/m2
H = Average Least Dimension, mm
T = Traffic Factor (based on expected vehicles per day, Table 4)
V = Voids in Loose Aggregate, in decimal percent (Equation 2)
S = Surface Condition Factor, liters/m2 (based on existing surface, Table 6)
A = Aggregate Absorption Factor, liters/m 2
8
 R = Residual Asphalt Content of Binder, in percent expressed as a decimal
1.4. Modified Kearby Design Method
The design method described in this section is based on a modification of the original Kearby method and was
first recommended to TxDOT by Texas Transportation Institute in 1981 (Epps et al., 1981). It is still the method most
commonly used by TxDOT today.
2.1. Laboratory Tests:
This design methodology requires the knowledge of some physical characteristics of the aggregate, such as unit
weight, bulk specific gravity, and the quantity of aggregate needed to cover one square yard of roadway. Once the
contractor has identified the aggregate to be used for the seal coat, samples of the stockpiled materials should be obtained
to perform the following laboratory tests:
 Dry Loose Unit Weight—TxDOT Test Method Tex-404-A
 Bulk Specific Gravity—TxDOT Test Method Tex-403-A for all natural aggregate and Tex- 433-A for
lightweight aggregates
 Board Test.
2.2. Determining Design Rates
2.2.1. Aggregate Spread Rate.
The Board Test is used to find the quantity of aggregate on a board of known aggregate such that full coverage, one
stone in depth, is obtained. A one-half square yard area is a convenient laboratory size. The weight of aggregate applied in
this area is obtained and converted to units of pounds per square yard. The quantity of aggregate needed to cover one
square yard of roadway can also be determined in terms of volume as shown in Equation 4
S=27 W / Q (4)
where:
S = quantity of aggregate required in square yards per cubic yard (SY/CY);
W = dry loose unit weight in pounds per cubic foot (lbs/CF); and
Q = aggregate quantity determined from the board test (lbs/SY).
2.2.2. Asphalt Application Rate
The asphalt application rate for asphalt cement can be obtained from Equation 5 once the aggregate properties
and existing roadway conditions are known.
A=5.61 E (1−W /62.4 G)T +V (5)
where:

 A = asphalt rate in gal/SY at 60°F

 E = embedment depth calculated using Eq. 6
 G = dry bulk specific gravity of the aggregate
 T = traffic correction factor (see Table 7)
 V = correction for surface condition (see Table 8).
E=e∗d (6)
where:
 d = average mat depth in inches, as calculated from Eq. 7
 e = percent embedment expressed as a decimal from Figure 2.1.

9
 d¿ 1.33 Q/W (7)

where:
 Q = aggregate quantity determined from the board test in lbs/SY
 W = dry loose unit weight in lbs/CF.

Fig 2.1. Relation of Percent Embedment to Mat Thickness for Determining Quantity of Asphalt. (After Epps et al.,
1981)
Table 7. Asphalt Application Rate Correction for Traffic.

Traffic - Vehicles per day per lane

Traffic Correction Factor (T) >1000 500-1000 250-500 100-250 <100

Traffic Correction Factor (T) 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20

Table 8. Asphalt Application Rate Correction for Existing Pavement Surface Conditions.

Description of Existing Surface Correction for Surface Condition (V), gal/SY

Flushing, slightly bleeding surface -0.06

Smooth, nonporous surface -0.03

Slightly porous, slightly oxidized surface 0.00

Slightly pocked, porous, oxidized surface +0.03

Badly pocked, porous, oxidized surface +0.06

These surface conditions may vary throughout the project, and adjustments should be made accordingly.

2.3. Adjustment for Asphalt Emulsions or Cutbacks

For emulsions, the application rate (A from Eq. 5) should be increased to take into account the water in the
emulsion. Therefore, Equation 5 is presented to determine the recommended emulsion application rate. In theory, the

10
asphalt cement rate from Eq. 5 can be converted to the required emulsion rate by dividing this amount by the residual
asphalt present in the emulsion. However, field experience shows that if this value is utilized, flushing is likely to occur.
Therefore, the recommended emulsion application rate is adjusted as shown below:
A recommended= A+ K (A theoretical− A) (8)
where:
Arecommended = recommended quantity of emulsion
A = asphalt application rate from Eq. 2
K = seasonal adjustment factor as shown below
Atheoretical = theoretical quantity of emulsified asphalt, (A/R). where:
R = percent residual asphalt in the emulsion expressed as a decimal. Check with supplier to determine percent
residual asphalt content of emulsion.
Suggested K factors for emulsions are as follows:
K = 0.60 for spring construction
K = 0.40 for summer construction
K = 0.70 for fall construction
K = 0.90 for winter construction.
Suggested K factors for cutbacks are as follows:
K = 0.70 for spring construction
K = 0.60 for summer construction
K = 0.80 for fall construction
K = 0.90 for winter construction.
The K factors have not been verified by extensive controlled field experiments and therefore should only be used
as a guideline.
1.5. Performance testing
Table 9. Test method used to evaluate asphalt chip seals

Applicability
Test Methods Property measured
Lab Field

Sweep test x   % mass loss

Vialit Adhesion Test x   % mass loss

Frosted Marble Test x   % mass loss

Australian Aggregate Pull-out Test   x Necessary pull-out force

Pennsylvania Aggregate Retention Test x   % mass loss

British Pendulum Number
British Pendulum Test x x
(BPN)
Locked Wheel Skid Test   x Skid Number (SN)

11
 Third Scale Model Mobile Loading
x   % mass loss
Simulator (MMLS3)
Pull-off adhesion strength
Pneumatic Adhesion Tension Test x  
achieved at failure

3.1. Sweep test:

Performed to measure performance of chip seal samples in terms of aggregate mass loss. Sweep test was
performed on chip seal samples fabricated in the laboratory (see Figure 3.1). Sweep test procedure was performed

according to the ASTM D7000 “Standard Test Method for Sweep Test of Bituminous Emulsion Surface Treatment
Samples and steps followed applied during test can be summarized as follows:
 Chip seal samples were conditioned at 35oC in 30% of relative humidity for an hour.
 Chip seal sample weight measured before sweep test (A).
 Sweep test was performed with setting #1 (0.83 gyrations per second) for 1 minute.
 Chip seal sample weight was measured after the test (B).
Note that hot mix asphalt (HMA) weight below the chip seal was measured before chip seal fabrication (C).
Percent mass loss was calculated by using eq 10.
A−B
%Mass Loss= ×100 (9)
A−C
Where: A = chip seal sample weight before the test,
B = chip seal sample weight after the test, and
C = HMA weight below the chip seal surface.

ETD=0.2+0.8 × MPD (10)

Where: ETD = estimated texture depth (in mm), MPD = mean texture depth (in mm).

Fig 3.1. Sweep test procedure on chip seal surface

3.2. Vialit Adhesion Test
The Vialit test, was used to evaluate aggregate retention.
A brief synopsis of the test is as follows: a chip seal is simulated on a 7- x 7-in. steel plate and is allowed to cure for
various time intervals (typically 10 min, 30 min, 2 hr, 5 hr, and 24 hr). The plate is then weighed, inverted for 10 sec,
12
weighed, and inverted while a steel ball is dropped three times on the back of it. The plate is weighed again, and the
material retained is calculated.
The Vialit plates were placed on the pavement 6 ft from and parallel to the center line (Figure 3.2 a). These plates
proved to be heavy enough to allow construction to proceed as usual with one exception: rollers were slowed to half their
normal speed to prevent the metal plates from flipping up and damaging the samples. After the last roller and before the
brooms had passed, the plates were picked up and tested (Figure 3.2 b). Figure 3.2 c shows the testing apparatus.
Samples were then tested after the appropriate time interval. The test times were limited to 10 min, 30 min, and 2
hr for viscosity grade binders because of the large quantity of test sections being placed and the limited mobile storage for
test plates. The 2-hr limit was chosen on the basis of previous research by UNR that indicated results for viscosity grade
did not change after this time interval.

(a) (b) (c)

Fig 3.2. Typical test section (a); Removal of Vialit Plates for testing (b); Vialit test aparatus (c).

Fig 3.3. Adhesion failure generally occurs between the steel plate and the binder.
3.3. Frosted Marble Test
FMT is aimed to look at binder adhesion by applying torque to marbles fixed with the binder. FMT setup is
illustrated in the Figure 3.4. Test setup consists of torque wrench, hooked foot for applying shear and tray on which binder
is spread and marbles are placed, respectively.

13
 Fig 3.4. Frosted marble test setup
3.4. Australian Aggregate Pull-out Test
This test method was developed for finding necessary pull-out force to separate aggregates from the asphalt
bitumen material in seal surface treatments. After seal surface treatment is prepared, embedded aggregates are fixed by a
crocodile clip and 20 g/sec pull-out rate is applied to the stone until it is detached and during this procedure, load
measurements are taken continuously (Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads 2012).
One of the uses of this test method is to determine the duration of traffic control after construction. In addition,
coated average area of the binder on the aggregate can be observed visually to correlate with the peak tensile stress needed
to pull out the aggregate. (Senadheera et al. 2006).
3.5. Pennsylvania Aggregate Retention Test
The test simulates the effect of traffic on the seal surface treatments by using the ‘Mary Ann Laboratory Sieve
Shaker’. Surface seal treatment sample is prepared within the pan and after compression and curing process, initial
aggregate loss is obtained by turning upside down. Then, the pan is placed in the sieve shaker upside down at an
inclination of 45o. After 5 minutes of shaking, aggregate loss is measured and calculated as a percentage.

Fig 3.5. Sample Fabrication and Mary Ann Sieve Shaker (source: Kandhal and Motter 1991)

14