Impact of Superpave Mix Design Method On Rutting Behaviour of Flexible Pavements

Impact of Superpave Mix Design Method on
Rutting Behaviour of Flexible Pavements
Author
Kamran Muzaffar Khan

04-UET/PhD-CIVIL-08
Supervisor
Dr. Mumtaz Ahmed Kamal

Professor, Department of Civil Engineering
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

FACULTY OF CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
TAXILA
August 2008
i
Impact of Superpave Mix Design Method on Rutting
Behaviour of Flexible Pavements
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy (PhD) in Civil Engineering (Specialization in Transportation Engineering)
Author
Engr. Kamran Muzaffar Khan
(04-UET/PhD-CIVIL-08)
Checked and Recommended by the Foreign Experts:
Dr. David Hughes Prof. Dr. Ali Porbaha

Senior Lecturer, Civil Engineering Department,
The Queen’s University of Belfast California State University Sacramanto,
N.Ireland, UK. CA, USA.
Approved by:
Prof. Dr. M. A. Kamal

Supervisor/Internal Examiner
Prof. Dr. Muhammad Wasim Mirza Prof. Dr. Mir Shabbar Ali
External Examiner External Examiner
Department, of Transportation Chairman, Department of Urban and
Engineering & Management Sciences, Infrastructure Engineering, NED, UET,
UET, Lahore Karachi
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

FACULTY OF CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY TAXILA
AUGUST 2008
ii
ABSTRACT
Effective communication is a key to national progress. Pakistan is located in a region

where South-Asia converges with Central Asia and the Middle East. Blessed with
extensive natural resources and rich agricultural land, it improves its economy
particularly by exporting valuable items. In order to improve trade and economic
activities and to materialize regional linkages with China, Afghanistan, Iran, Russia and
other neighbouring Central Asian countries, the country is gearing up towards a large
infrastructure network. Roads constitute a vital part of the infrastructure. In Pakistan most
of the roads are constructed using flexible pavement concept, due to their comparatively
low construction and maintenance cost.
Pakistan has national highways with a length over 9555 Kilometers and motorways of
515 Kilometers. The drastic increase in traffic volume during the last few decades has
resulted in premature pavement failures of almost the whole infrastructure of Pakistan.
Premature rutting of flexible pavements is one of the major pavement distresses being
faced by the country which is primarily due to uncontrolled axle load and high ambient
temperatures. Rutting in asphaltic concrete depends on many factors, such as the
composition of asphalt mixes, grading and quality of aggregates, type of binder,
percentage of the bituminous binder, air void contents, degree of compaction,
environmental conditions, load repetition, the substructure, and the bearing capacity of
the subgrade.
The objective of this research work was to compare the Superpave, Stone Mastic Asphalt
(SMA) and Marshall methods of mix design of asphaltic concrete and to propose rut
resisting asphalt mix suitable for local loading and environmental conditions. The mixes
selected for the study were dense graded in case of Superpave and Marshall methods
whereas gap graded for SMA. A comprehensive testing program was conducted on the
samples prepared in the laboratory at the design asphalt contents and aggregate
gradations.
iii
Physical properties of aggregates and asphalt were determined in the laboratory
confirming to ASTM and AASHTO specifications. Mechanical Properties of Marshall,
Superpave and Stone Mastic Asphalt (SMA) were evaluated by performing Indirect
Tensile Modulus Test, Uniaxial Loading Strain Test (Creep Test), Dynamic Modulus
Test and Wheel Tracking Test under prevailing load and environmental conditions of
Pakistan in order to compare the performance of mixes.
The study revealed that Superpave mixes performed better than Marshall and SMA mixes
in terms of low induced permanent strains, high modulus of resilience, high dynamic
modulus and better resistance against wheel rutting during wheel tracking test. Superpave
technology can be adopted for the design of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) pavements in the
country due to its superiority over the conventional mix design procedures. The
guidelines for implementing Superpave mix design procedure in Pakistan have been
proposed.
In addition, a performance grading map has been proposed to be implemented in Pakistan

by dividing it into seven zones according to the highest and lowest pavement
temperatures.
Keywords: Superpave, Rutting, Hot Mix Asphalt, Pavement
iv
UNDERTAKING
I certify that research work titled “Impact of Superpave Mix Design Method on Rutting
Behaviour of Flexible Pavements” is my own work. The work has not been presented
elsewhere for assessment. Where material has been used from other sources it has been
properly acknowledged / referred.
Kamran Muzaffar Khan
04-UET/PhD-CE-08
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express deep gratitude to my creator The Allah for giving me talent, skill
opportunity, perseverance and power to reach this milestone in my career. I would also
like to pay my regards to Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) whose ideal life guided me
through difficult and tough situations.
Prof. Dr. M. A. Kamal, my thesis supervisor for his incessant support and exceptional
guidance throughout my research work. His efforts in promoting the research culture in
the field of Transportation Engineering in Pakistan resulted in the establishment of Taxila
Institute of Transportation Engineering (TITE). State of the art testing equipments of
International Standards helped me a lot to carry out my testing work.
Dr. Zia Zafir, California, U.S.A and Prof. Dr. Muhammad Waseem Mirza, UET Lahore,
helped me a lot in selection of my research topic and testing matrix. Engr. Asim Amin,
GM (Design) and Dr. Shahab Khanzada, (Pavement Specialist), NHA, for their technical
assistance is noteworthy.
Special thanks to worthy Prof. Dr. Habibullah Jamal, Vice Chancellor for his efficient
management that made me feel no hindrance. Chairman, Prof. Dr. Abdul Razzaq
Ghumman, for his throughout encouragement during my research work and raising my
moral. He also spared me from extra academic and administrative loads which enabled
me to focus my research engagements.
I would like to thank all of my colleagues, especially Engr. Imran Hafeez for his
assistance. Mr. Toqeer Mehmood and Mr. Shakeel Hussain were always ready to help me
whenever I was in need of them. I would always remember the continuous assistance of
Engr. M. Hasan Khalil in executing laboratory work and thesis compilation.
The invaluable contribution of my Parents, Wife and Children in the form of prayers,
encouragement and patience who suffered the most due to my research commitments are
highly appreciated.
(Kamran Muzaffar Khan)
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract.………………………………………………………………………..……….. iii
Undertaking.…………………………………………………………..……….……...... v
Acknowledgement………………………………..…………………………….………. vi
List of Figures…………………………………………………………….…………..… x
List of Tables.……………………………………………………………….………….. xv
Chapter I: Introduction
1.0 General………………………………………………………….…….... 2
1.1 Structural Behavior of Flexible Pavement……………………….…….. 2
1.2 Visco-Elastic Behavior of Asphalt…………………………………….. 3
1.3 Flexible Pavements Distresses in Pakistan…………………………….. 5
1.3.1 Rutting……………………………………………………….. 5
1.3.2 Fatigue……………………………………………………….. 6
1.4 Solutions to the Rutting Problems in Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA)……….. 7
1.5 Research Objectives……………………………………………………. 9
1.6 Scope of Work…………………………………………………………. 9
Chapter II: Literature Review
2.1 Permanent Deformation in Flexible Pavements……………………….. 14
2.2 Types of Rutting in Asphaltic concrete………………………………... 15
2.2.1 Rutting due to Densification……………………………….... 15
2.2.2 Rutting due to Shear Failure……………………………….... 16
2.3 Factors affecting Rutting………………………………......................... 17
2.4 Rutting Potential of Different mixes………………………………........ 21
2.5 Performance of SMA against Rutting………………………………...... 22
2.6 Standard Types of Performance Testing Methods……………………... 23
Chapter III: Superpave Mix Design Method
3.0 Introduction…………………………………………………………….. 29
3.1 Superpave Asphalt Binder Tests……………………………………….. 29
3.1.1 Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR)…………………………... 30
3.2 Formation of Binder Grades…………………………………………… 37
3.3 Volumetric Properties of Superpave Mixes……………………………. 39
3.3.1 Percent VMA in compacted Paving Mixture........................... 40
vii
3.3.2 Percent VFA in Compacted Mixture………………………... 41
3.3.3 Percent Air Voids in compacted Mixture…………………… 42
3.4 Performance Evaluation of Superpave Mixes…………………………. 42
3.5 Comparison of Superpave with Conventional Mixes………………….. 44
Chapter IV: Performance Grading of Asphalt
4.0 Introduction……………………………….............................................. 47
4.1 Collection of Air Temperature Data across Pakistan………………….. 48
4.2 Analysis of the Air Temperature Data…………………………………. 50
4.3 Zoning of Pakistan on the basis of Pavement Temperatures…………... 53
Chapter V: Material Characterization
5.0 Introduction……………………………….............................................. 56
5.1 Aggregates Properties……………………………….............................. 56
5.1.1 Consensus Aggregate Properties…………………………….. 56
5.1.1.1 Coarse Aggregate Angularity……………………. 57
5.1.1.2 Fine Aggregate Angularity………………………. 58
5.1.1.3 Flat and Elongated Particles……………………... 59
5.1.1.4 Clay Content (Sand Equivalent)…………………. 60
5.1.2 Source Aggregate Properties………………………………… 61
5.1.2.1 Toughness………………………………………... 61
5.1.2.2 Soundness………………………………………... 62
5.1.2.3 Deleterious Materials……………………………. 62
5.2 Aggregate Gradation…………………………………………………… 63
5.2.1 Control Points……………………………….......................... 64
5.2.2 Restricted Zone……………………………………………… 64
5.3 Binder Testing………………………………...……………………….. 68
Chapter VI: Performance Based Testing
6.0 Introduction………………………………...…………………………... 71
6.1 Indirect Tensile Modulus Test………………………………................. 72
6.2 Uniaxial Loading Strain Test (Creep Test)…………………………….. 74
6.3 Dynamic Modulus Test………………………………............................ 97
6.4 Wheel Tracking Test……………………………….............................. 110
viii
Chapter VII: Discussion
7.0 Introduction………………………………...…………………………. 121
7.1 Volumetric Study of Different Mixes……………………………….... 121
7.2 Performance Based Properties………………………………............... 122
7.2.1 Modulus of Resilience………………………………............ 122
7.2.2 Repeated Uniaxial Loading Strain Test Properties………… 122
7.2.2.1 Accumulated Strain…………………………... 123
7.2.2.2 Creep Stiffness………………………………... 124
7.2.2.3 Resilient Strain……………………………….. 124
7.2.2.4 Resilient Modulus…………………………….. 125
7.2.3 Dynamic Modulus……………………………….................. 125
7.2.3.1 Permanent Strains…………………………….. 126
7.2.4 Rut Depth………………………………............................... 127
7.3 Master Curves Development……………………………….................. 127
Chapter VIII: Conclusions, Recommendations and Research Potential
8.1 Conclusions………………………………...…………………………. 131
8.2 Recommendations……………………………….................................. 134
References ………………………………...………………………………................ 136
Abbreviations ………………………………...………………………………............ 145
Annexure A ………………………………...………………………………............... 147
Annexure B ………………………………...………………………………............... 177
Annexure C ………………………………...………………………………............... 185
Annexure D ………………………………...………………………………............... 190
List of Publications ………………………………...………………………………... 194
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Page
Fig 1.1 Typical Asphalt Pavement Showing Stress and Strain…………………………3
Fig 1.2 Temperature Shift Behaviour of Asphalt Binder……………………………… 3
Fig 1.3 Microscopic Views of Liquid Flow Properties…………………………………4
Fig 1.4 Visco Elastic Behavior of Asphalt……………………………………………..5
Fig 1.5 Rutting in Outer Lane (Kashmir Highway) ……………………………………6
Fig 1.6 Severe Rutting due to Shear Failure (Islamabad Highway) ……………………6
Fig 1.7 Fatigue Cracking at (M-9 North Bound) ………………………………………7
Fig 1.8 Fatigue Cracking at (M-2 North Bound) ………………………………………7
Fig 1.9 Flow Chart Diagram (Scope of Work)……………………………….………. 10
Fig 2.1 Rutting due to Densification…………………………….……….……………16
Fig 2.2 Rutting due to Shear Failure……………………………….………………… 17
Fig 3.1 Superpave Laboratory Tests with Relation to Performance……………….….30
Fig 3.2 Dynamic Shear Rheometer Operations………………………………………. 31
Fig 3.3 Viscoelastic Behavior of Binder………………………………………………32
Fig 3.4 DSR Moulds, Specimens, Plates and Spindles………………………………. 33
Fig 3.5 Asphalt Sample Configurations in DSR………………………………………34
Fig 3.6 Dynamic Shear Rheometer……………………………………………………35
Fig 3.7 Stress-Strain Output………………………………………………………….. 35
Fig 3.8 Stress- Strain Response of a Visco elsatic Material……………………………36
Fig 3.9 Asphalt Specimen Calculations……………………………………………….37
Fig 3.10 Component Diagram of Compacted HMA Specimen…………………………39
Fig 4.1 Location Map of Different Weather Stations………………………….……... 50
Fig 4.2 Zoning Map…………………………………………………………………... 54
Fig 5.1 Fine Aggregate Angularity Apparatus……………….……….……………… 58
Fig 5.2 Measuring Flat and Elongated particles…………….………….….…………. 59
Fig 5.3 Sand Equivalent Test Apparatus…………………….………….…….……… 60
Fig 5.4 Superpave Gradation Limits……..………………….………….………….….64
Fig 5.5 Design Aggregate Gradations for three Mixes………………………………..67
Fig 6.1 Comparison of Resilient Modulus between Marshall, Superpave
and SMA at Different Temperatures………………………………………… 73
x
Fig 6.2 Creep Testing using UTM-5P........................................................................... 74
Fig 6.3 Relationship between Resilient Strain and Stress at 25°C for 3 mixes………. 77
Fig 6.6 Relationship between Resilient Strain and Temperature at 100 KPa
for 3 mixes…………………………………………………………………… 78
for 3 mixes.…………………………………………………………………… 79
for 3 mixes…………………………………………………………………… 79
Fig 6.9 Relationship between Accumulated Strain and Pulse Count at
100 KPa and 25°C……………………………………………………………. 81
100 KPa and 40°C……………………………………………………………. 81
100 KPa and 55°C……………………………………………………………. 82
300 KPa and 25°C……………………………………………………………. 82
300 KPa and 40°C……………………………………………………………. 83
300 KPa and 55°C……………………………………………………………. 83
500 KPa and 25°C……………………………………………………………. 84
500 KPa and 40°C...................................................................................... 84
500 KPa and 55°C……………………………………………………………. 85
Fig 6.18 Relationship between Accumulated Strain and Stress Level at 25°C.............. 85
Fig 6.19 Relationship between Accumulated Strain and Stress Level at 40°C.............. 86
Fig 6.20 Relationship between Accumulated Strain and Stress Level at 55°C……….. 86
Fig 6.21 Relationship between Accumulated Strain and Temperature at 100 kPa…… 87
xi
Fig 6.24 Relationship between Resilient Modulus and Stress Level at 25°C………… 90
Fig 6.25 Relationship between Resilient Modulus and Stress Level at 40°C................ 90
Fig 6.26 Relationship between Resilient Modulus and Stress Level at 55°C................ 91
Fig 6.27 Relationship between Resilient Modulus and Temperature at 100 kPa……... 91
Fig 6.30 Relationship between Creep Stiffness and Stress Level at 25˚C…….............. 94
Fig 6.33 Relationship between Creep Stiffness and Temperature at 100 kPa……........ 95
Fig 6.36 Extracted Sample for Dynamic Modulus Testing From 6” Dia.
Original Gyratory Sample……........……........……........……........……........ 97
Fig 6.37 Dynamic Modulus Testing Arrangement using NU-14……….….…..…..…. 98
Fig 6.38 Relationship between Resilient Strain and Stress at 25°C for 3 mixes……... 100
Fig 6.39 Relationship between Dynamic Modulus and No. of Cycles for
Marshall, SMA, Superpave Mix at 500 kPa and 25°C……........……........... 100
Fig 6.44 Relationship between Dynamic Modulus and No. of Cycles for 103
Marshall, SMA, Superpave Mix at 35 kPa and 55°C……........…….............
Marshall, SMA, Superpave Mix at 50 kPa and 55°C……........……............. 103
xii
Marshall, SMA, Superpave Mix at 65 Kpa and 55°C……........……............ 104
Fig 6.47 Relationship between Permanent Strain and No. of Cycles for
Fig 6.56 Roller Compactor Viewed from End……........……...................................... 111
Fig 6.57 Loaded wheel in contact with the specimen……........……..........……......... 112
Fig 6.58 Specimen showing rutting after completion of the test……........…….......... 112
Fig 6.59 Relationship between No. of Passes and Rut Depth for SMA
Mix at different Temperatures……........……..........……........…….............. 116
Fig 6.60 Relationship between No. of Passes and Rut Depth for Marshall
Fig 6.61 Relationship between No. of Passes and Rut Depth for Superpave
Fig 6.62 Comparison of SMA, Marshall and Superpave at 25°C……….....……...…. 118
Fig 6.63 Comparison of SMA, Marshall and Superpave at 40°C……...……….......... 118
Fig 6.64 Comparison of SMA, Marshall and Superpave at 55°C………..................... 119
xiii
Fig 7.1 Effect of Stress and Resulting Accumulated Strain at the end of Test…...… 126
Fig 7.2 Master Curve for Superave Mix……………………………….…..….......... 128
Fig 7.3 Master Curve for Marshall Mix……………………………………….......... 129
Fig 7.4 Master Curve for SMA Mix……………………………..………….……… 129
xiv
LIST OF TABLES
Number Page
Table 2.1 Factors Affecting Rutting of Asphalt-Concrete Mixtures………………… 21
Table 2.2 Standard Types of Performance Based Testing Methods
and Equipment……………………………………………...…………..... 27
Table 3.1 Superpave Binder Test Aging Condition…………..…………….……… 30
Table 3.2 Binder Selection on the basis of Traffic Speed and Traffic Level..……... 38
Table 3.3 Superpave Volumetric Mixture Design Requirements……....….….….… 41
Table 4.1 Location of Weather Stations across Pakistan….…..……………...….…. 49
Table 4.2 Air Temperature Data for Islamabad….…..……………...….…………… 52
Table 4.2a Maximum Pavement Temperature for Islamabad….…..……………...….…
52
Table 4.2b Minimum Pavement Temperature for Islamabad….…..……………...….…52
Table 4.3 Summary of Zoning….…..……………...….….….…..……………...….…53
Table 5.1 Superpave Aggregate Consensus Property Requirements….…..………… 57
Table 5.2 Aggregate Consensus Properties…………….………………………………..…. 61
Table 5.3 Aggregate Source Properties….…………………………....……...…………..… 63
Table 5.4 Superpave Mixture Gradations………….…………………………..…..... 65
Table 5.5 Superpave Aggregate Gradation Control Points……..…………………… 66
Table 5.6 Boundaries of Aggregate Restricted Zone………………….....………..… 66
Table 5.7 Design Aggregate Gradations…………………………………….………. 67
Table 5.8 Mix Design Characteristics of Three Mixes……………….….....……….. 68
Table 5.9 Physical Properties of Asphalt………………………….……..…..…….... 68
Table 5.10 Summary of Performance Based Binder Properties of 60/70
Grade Bitumen…………………………………………….………..…….. 69
Table 5.11 Summary of Performance Based Binder Properties of Polymer
Modified Bitumen (1.6% Elvaloy 4160) ……………….……………....... 69
Table 6.1 Testing Conditions for Indirect Tensile Modulus Test…………….……... 72
Table 6.2 Resilient Modulus for Marshall, Superpave and SMA at
Different Temperatures………………………...………..…………………73
Table 6.3 Uniaxial Loading Strain Test Conditions……………..…….…………..... 75
Table 6.4 Uniaxial Loading Strain Test Results Showing
Resilient Strain(%)………………………..…………………….………... 76
xv
Table 6.5 Uniaxial Loading Strain Test Results showing
Accumulated Strain(%)………………………………..…………..…...… 80
Table 6.6 Uniaxial Loading Strain Test Results Showing Resilient Modulus............ 89
Table 6.7 Uniaxial Loading Strain Test Results Showing Creep Stiffness…………. 93
Table 6.8 Dynamic Modulus Test Conditions Marshall, SMA and Superpave
Mix at 25°C…………………………………………..………...………… 98
Table 6.9 Comparison of Dynamic Modulus Results for Marshall, SMA
and Superpave Mix at 25°C …………………………...………..…...…… 99
and Superpave Mix at 40°C…………………………………..……...…… 99
and Superpave Mix at 55°C…………………………………..……...…… 99
Table 6.12 Comparison of Permanent Strain Results for Marshall, SMA
and Superpave Mix at 25°C……..………………………………………. 104
and Superpave Mix at 40°C………………………………………..……. 105
and Superpave Mix at 55°C…………………..……………....……..…... 105
Table 6.15 Wheel Tracking Test Conditions…………….………..…….………..…. 111
Table 6.16 Relationship between No. of Passes and Rut Depth for SMA……......…. 113
Table 6.17 Relationship between No. of Passes and Rut Depth for Marshall…......... 113
Table 6.18 Relationship between No. of Passes and Rut Depth
for Superpave…………………………………...………...……….…….. 114
Table 6.19 Comparison of Rut Depth (mm) between SMA, Marshall and
Superpave Mix at 25˚C…………………………………………..……… 114
Superpave Mix at 40˚C………………………………...…..………..…… 115
Superpave Mix at 55˚C………………………………...…..…….....…… 115
Table 6.22 Summary of Wheel Tracking Test Results for Three Mixes……..….... 116
xvi
ANNEXURE A
Table A.1 Air Temperature Data for Dalbandin…………..……………………..…..147
Table A.1a Maximum Pavement Temperature for Dalbandin………………..……... 147
Table A.1b Minimum Pavement Temperature for Dalbandin………………..……… 147
Table A.2 Air Temperature Data for Hyderabad…………..……………...…..……. 148
Table A.2a Maximum Pavement Temperature for Hyderabad ……………………... 148
Table A.2b Minimum Pavement Temperature for Hyderabad …..…………..……… 148
Table A.3 Air Temperature Data for Jacobabad……………………………………. 149
Table A.3a Maximum Pavement Temperature for Jacobabad…..…...……………… 149
Table A.3b Minimum Pavement Temperature for Jacobabad………………..……… 149
Table A.4 Air Temperature Data for Karachi……………………………….....…… 150
Table A.4a Maximum Pavement Temperature for Karachi…………....……..……... 150
Table A.4b Minimum Pavement Temperature for Karachi………………………….. 150
Table A.5 Air Temperature Data for Lassbella……………………….…..……....... 151
Table A.5a Maximum Pavement Temperature for Lassbella………………..………. 151
Table A.5b Minimum Pavement Temperature for Lasbella………………..…..……. 151
Table A.6 Air Temperature Data for Nawabshah…………………………..……..... 152
Table A.6a Maximum Pavement Temperature for Nawabshah…………........……... 152
Table A.6b Minimum Pavement Temperature for Nawabshah…...………..………... 152
Table A.7 Air Temperature Data for Nokkundi……………………..…...…………. 153
Table A.7a Maximum Pavement Temperature for Nokkundi…………..…………… 153
Table A.7b Minimum Pavement Temperature for Nokkundi……...……………....... 153
Table A.8 Air Temperature Data for Pasni…………………………………....……. 154
Table A.8a Maximum Pavement Temperature for Pasni…………..……………....... 154
Table A.8b Minimum Pavement Temperature for Pasni…………...…………..……. 154
Table A.9 Air Temperature Data for Quetta………………………………..…...….. 155
Table A.9a Maximum Pavement Temperature for Quetta…………………………... 155
Table A.9b Maximum Pavement Temperature for Quetta……………………..……. 155
Table A.10 Air Temperature Data for Rohri……………………………….…..……. 156
Table A.10a Maximum Pavement Temperature for Rohri………………..……..……. 156
Table A.10b Minimum Pavement Temperature for Rohri………………..…...………. 156
Table A.11 Air Temperature Data for Sibbi…………………………………………. 157
xvii
Table A.11a Maximum Pavement Temperature for Sibbi……………..…..………….. 157
Table A.11b Minimum Pavement Temperature for Sibbi…………..……...…………. 157
Table A.12 Air Temperature Data for Zhob…………………………………....……. 158
Table A.12a Maximum Pavement Temperature for Zhob………..……………...……. 158
Table A.12b Minimum Pavement Temperature for Zhob……...………………..……. 158
Table A.13 Air Temperature Data for Astor……………………………..………...... 159
Table A.13a Maximum Pavement Temperature for Astor…………..……..…………. 159
Table A.13b Minimum Pavement Temperature for Astor………………...……..……. 159
Table A.14 Air Temperature Data for Bahawalpur……………………….....………. 160
Table A.14a Maximum Pavement Temperature for Bahawalpur……………..……… 160
Table A.14b Minimum Pavement Temperature for Bahawalpur…………….......…… 160
Table A.15 Air Temperature Data for Balakot…………………………………...….. 161
Table A.15a Maximum Pavement Temperature for Balakot……………….....…….... 161
Table A.15b Minimum Pavement Temperature for Balakot………………….………. 161
Table A.16 Air Temperature Data for Chitral………………………….……………. 162
Table A.16a Maximum Pavement Temperature for Chitral……………….....……….. 162
Table A.16b Minimum Pavement Temperature for Chitral…………..……………….. 162
Table A.17 Air Temperature Data for Dera Ismail Khan………………....…...…….. 163
Table A.17a Maximum Pavement Temperature for Dera Ismail Khan……...…..…… 163
Table A.17b Minimum Pavement Temperature for Dera Ismail Khan……….…….… 163
Table A.18 Air Temperature Data for Dir……………………………………...……. 164
Table A.18a Maximum Pavement Temperature for Dir………………….……..……. 164
Table A.18b Minimum Pavement Temperature for Dir…………………....…………. 164
Table A.19 Air Temperature Data for Faisalabad…………………………..….……. 165
Table A.19a Maximum Pavement Temperature for Faisalabad……………..……….. 165
Table A.19b Minimum Pavement Temperature for Faisalabad………………………. 165
Table A.20 Air Temperature Data for Gilgit……………………………..…….……. 166
Table A.20a Maximum Pavement Temperature for Gilgit………………....………… 166
Table A.20b Minimum Pavement Temperature for Gilgit………………..…..…….… 166
Table A.21 Air Temperature Data for Islamabad……………………..………….….. 167
Table A.21a Maximum Pavement Temperature for Islamabad………….....…………. 167
Table A.21b Minimum Pavement Temperature for Islamabad……….…....…………. 167
xviii
Table A.22 Air Temperature Data for Khanpur……………………………..……….. 168
Table A.22a Maximum Pavement Temperature for Khanpur………….…..…...…….. 168
Table A.22b Minimum Pavement Temperature for Khanpur…………….……….…... 168
Table A.23 Air Temperature Data for Kotli…………………………………....……. 169
Table A.23a Maximum Pavement Temperature for Kotli…………………...…..……. 169
Table A.23b Minimum Pavement Temperature for Kotli…………………...…..……. 169
Table A.24 Air Temperature Data for Lahore…………………………..………........ 170
Table A.24a Maximum Pavement Temperature for Lahore……………...…..………. 170
Table A.24b Minimum Pavement Temperature for Lahore…………………..………. 170
Table A.25 Air Temperature Data for Multan……………………………….………. 171
Table A.25a Maximum Pavement Temperature for Multan………...……..…………. 171
Table A.25b Minimum Pavement Temperature for Multan……………..……………. 171
Table A.26 Air Temperature Data for Murree…………………………..………........ 172
Table A.26a Maximum Pavement Temperature for Murree…………….....…………. 172
Table A.26b Minimum Pavement Temperature for Murree……………..……………. 172
Table A.27 Air Temperature Data for Muzaffarabad……………………..…………. 173
Table A.27a Maximum Pavement Temperature for Muzaffarabad………....………… 173
Table A.27b Minimum Pavement Temperature for Muzaffarabad…….....…………... 173
Table A.28 Air Temperature Data for Parachinar…………………………...………. 174
Table A.28a Maximum Pavement Temperature for Parachinaar…………....………... 174
Table A.28b Maximum Pavement Temperature for Parachinaar…………..……..…... 174
Table A.29 Air Temperature Data for Peshawar………………………..……...……. 175
Table A.29a Maximum Pavement Temperature for Peshawar………...……..……….. 175
Table A.29b Minimum Pavement Temperature for Peshawar………………..………. 175
Table A.30 Air Temperature Data for Sialkot……………………………..…...……. 176
Table A.30a Maximum Pavement Temperature for Sialkot……………………...…… 176
Table A.30b Minimum Pavement Temperature for Sialkot…………………………... 176
Table B1 Performance Based Requirements for Binder…………………………… 178
Table B2 Station wise Performance Grading …………………………………….. 180
Table C1 Performance Based Binder Properties of 60/70 Grade Bitumen………... 185
Table C2 Performance Based Binder Properties of Polymer Modified Bitumen
(1.6% Elvaloy 4160)……………………………………………………. 187
xix
Table D1 Summary Results of Uniaxial Loading Strain Test…………………....... 190
Table D2 Summary Results of Dynamic Modulus Test at 25°…………………….. 191
Table D3 Summary Results of Dynamic Modulus Test at 40°C………………….. 192
Table D4 Summary Results of Dynamic Modulus Test at 55°C………………….. 193
xx
Chapter One
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.0 General
An efficient transportation system is vital for the development of any country. Pakistan has a
very important geographical and diplomatic location and has been surrounded by China (on
its far north-east), India (on its east) Afghanistan and Iran (on its west). In future, the roads of
the country will be the exit routes for gas and petroleum, worth hundreds of millions of
dollars flowing from South Asia to the entire world through Pakistan. Among other
transportation modes, highways are being used extensively for the transportation of
passengers and goods. Flexible pavements, with bituminous surfacing as wearing course are
being widely used in road construction industry due to their comparatively low construction
and maintenance costs.
1.1 Structural Behaviour of Flexible Pavement
Flexible pavement structure flexes under traffic loading and is classically composed of
numerous layers of different material types and gradations. Each layer gets the load from the
upper layer, spreads it and transfers the same to the underneath layer. Top layers being
subjected to greater load intensity, must have a high bearing capacity as compared to the
underlying layers. A typical flexible pavement structure consists of the asphalt layer at the
top with underlying unbound granular layers as shown in Figure 1.1. Horizontal tensile strain
is prominent at the bottom of asphalt layers, whereas vertical compressive stress and strain is
maximum at the top of the subgrade. The Asphalt wearing course layer is directly exposed to
the climatic variations i.e. temperature, precipitation and various types of loading
combinations and intensities. Being stiffest and contributing the most to pavement strength
and durability, wearing course is given due consideration during design and construction.
2
Figure 1.1: Typical Asphalt Pavement Showing Stress and Strain
1.2 Visco-Elastic Behavior of Asphalt
Asphalt concrete is a complex three-phase material which consists of aggregates, asphalt

binder, and air voids. Their behavior can be explained by the interaction between these three
phases and the intricate viscoelastic behavior of the binder, which depends on temperature
and loading frequency. The effects of time and temperature are inter related i.e. the behavior
of asphalt at high temperature conditions for short time spans is equivalent to its performance
at low temperature conditions for longer time durations. This concept floated by McGennis et
al. (1995) is called temperature shift or in other words the superposition theory of asphalt
binder and has been shown in Figure 1.2.
Figure 1.2 Temperature Shift Behaviour of Asphalt Binder (After McGennis et al. (1995))
3
In hot climatic conditions or under slow moving trucks, asphalt behaves like a viscous liquid
and only aggregates are the contributing element to stiffness or resistance to deformation of
hot mix asphalt that bear the traffic loads. At micro level, the contiguous layers of molecules
seem sliding past each other. This phenomenon has been presented by McGennis et al.
(1995) as shown in Figure 1.3.
Figure 1.3: Microscopic View of Liquid Flow Properties (After McGennis et al. (1995))
Whereas in cold climatic conditions or under fast moving trucks (rapidly applied loads),
asphalt behaves like an elastic solid and deforms when loaded, but returns to its original
shape when unloaded. If it is stressed beyond its strength, it may rupture.
At intermediate temperature conditions, asphalt binder exhibits the characteristics of both

viscous liquids and elastic solids. Due to this property of asphalt, it is considered to be an
excellent adhesive material for use in paving, but an extremely complicated to understand
and explain. When heated, asphalt acts as a lubricant, allowing the aggregate to be mixed,
coated, and tightly-compacted to form a smooth and dense surface. After cooling, it acts as a
glue to hold the aggregate together in a solid matrix. In its finished state, the behavior of the
asphalt is termed as visco-elastic i.e., it has both elastic and viscous characteristics, which
depends on the temperature and rate of loading as shown in Figure 1.4. Mainly the response
is elastic or viscoelastic whereas a part of the response is plastic and non-recoverable which
appears in the form of permanent deformation.
4
Figure 1.4: Visco Elastic Behavior of Asphalt
1.3 Flexible Pavement Distresses in Pakistan
1.3.1 Rutting
Rutting in asphaltic concrete layer in flexible pavements is a major concern for the highway
authorities in Pakistan which is due to heavy loadings, high temperature and unavailability of
pavement design guidelines suiting to local conditions. It develops gradually with load
repetitions and is reflected on the surface in the form of longitudinal depressions in wheel
paths. Rutting is being observed on almost all of the National Highways and Motorways as
shown in Figure 1.5 and Figure 1.6 which is primarily due to shear flow of material. These
depressions are critical due to the following three reasons:
i) Water is accumulated on the impervious surface causing hydroplaning

ii) With the increase in rut depths, driver loses control on vehicle causing traffic
safety hazards
iii) Premature failure of the pavement which causes considerable economical loss
and inconvenience to road users during long periods of reconstruction and
rehabilitation.
5
Figure 1.5: Rutting in Outer Lane Figure 1.6: Severe Rutting due to Shear Failure
(Kashmir Highway) (Islamabad Highway)
1.3.2 Fatigue
There are many reasons that cause fatigue failure. These include bad quality construction,
inadequate structural design, application of heavier loads than anticipated during design,
stripping at the bottom of hot mix asphalt layer and failure of base, subbase or subgrade
support. Fatigue is a series of interconnected cracks, resulting due to fatigue failure of the
asphaltic concrete surface under repeated traffic loading.
Fatigue cracking instigates either from bottom or from top of the pavement. It initiates at
bottom of the asphaltic concrete layer where the tensile stress is maximum which further
propagates to the surface resulting in one or more longitudinal cracks. These cracks initiate
from the top in areas of high localized tensile stresses due to tires and pavement contact or
due to the asphalt binder aging. Under the action of repeated loadings, the longitudinal cracks
connect and develop multi sided pattern resembling the back of an alligator as shown in
Figures 1.7 and 1.8. Fatigue is an indication of structural failure of the pavement. The cracks
allow moisture infiltration which causes roughness on the road surface and ultimately results
in formation of potholes.
6
Figure 1.7: Fatigue Cracking at Figure 1.8: Fatigue Cracking at
(M-9 North Bound) (M-2 North Bound)
1.4 Solutions to the Rutting Problems in Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA)
Rutting problem is being addressed throughout the world. Solutions have been proposed to
minimize rutting problem by various highway agencies and researchers. Some of them
recommended improvement in quality of materials, while several others suggested use of
innovative materials and a few concluded that solution lies in the development of new mix
design methods. But only a few of the suggested solutions got widespread acceptance and
practical adoption. These include using Crumb Rubber Modified Bitumen (CRMB), SMA,
polymer modifications and adopting Superpave mix design method etc.
CRMB is a combination of selected grades of bitumen and crumb rubber modifier. The
modifier restores the required visco-elastic balance of the asphalt binder, which improves
binder resistance to permanent deformation while maintaining high resistance to fatigue,
thermal and low temperature cracking. CRMB also increases the life of pavement. CRMB
has excellent adhesion to different types of aggregates which therefore diminish rutting,
cracking and deformations. It has excellent resistance to thermal and low temperature
cracking, superior resistance to any form of permanent deformation, better adhesion between
aggregate and binder, overall improved performance in severe climatic conditions, higher
fatigue life of mixes, highly flexible and stable. These conclusions were made by Tiki Tar
Products (2008).
7
Qiu and Lum (2006) utilized aggregate packing concepts to design and quantify aggregate
stone-to-stone contact in SMA. This SMA is expected to provide high resistance to rutting,
maintaining volumetric properties and providing resistance to distresses. The stability and
rutting resistance of SMA is obtained from coarse aggregate stone to stone contact and
proper aggregate packing. Durability of SMA Mix is achieved by proper mix design.
Gilles et al. (2004) carried out a comprehensive research on use of polymer modified bitumen
and concluded that high quality asphalt binder is needed to facilitate pavements to withstand
increasing traffic intensity and axle loads in extreme climatic conditions. Special binders such
as modified bitumen address the rutting problems in asphaltic concrete. Polymer modified
bitumen (PMB) has proved itself giving superior results against the distresses especially the
rutting which occur at extreme temperature conditions.
Superpave (Superior Performing Asphalt Pavements) is the major revolution in pavement

industry in past few years. The Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) in USA carried
out a $50 million research project from October 1987 to March 1993 to develop new
guidelines to identify, test, and design asphalt materials. The ultimate product of the SHRP
asphalt research project was that Superpave represented an improved method for identifying
the components of asphaltic concrete, asphalt mixture design and analysis, and asphalt
pavement performance based evaluation as reported by Yildirim, Y. (1996)
8
1.5 Research Objectives
Following were the objectives of the research work;
• Critical analysis of the available information relating to rutting of asphaltic concrete.
• Characterization of the locally available materials such as aggregates and asphalt
binder according to Superpave mix design criteria.
• Establishing performance grades of Asphalt to suit local environmental conditions
which is one of the mile stones in implementing Superpave mix design method in
Pakistan
• Evaluation of the performance of Superpave, Marshall and Stone Mastic Asphalt

(SMA) mixes using Indirect Tensile Modulus Test, Uniaxial Loading Strain Test
(Creep Test), Dynamic Modulus Test and Wheel Tracking Test.
1.6 Scope of Work
The tasks conducted to achieve the objectives of this research are presented in Figure 1.9 as
flow chart.
9
Literature Review
Collection of
Materials
Physical Characterization of Physical and Mechanical

the Asphalt (Binder) Characterization of the
Collection of
Aggregates
Weather Data
Generation of Temperature
Zoning Map
Selection of NHA’s Selection of Aggregate Selection of Optimal

Aggregate Gradation Gradation Aggregate Gradation Using
Superpave Procedure
Asphalt Content Optimization Asphalt Content Optimization Asphalt Content Optimization

According to Marshal Mix According to SMA Design According to Superpave Mix
Design Procedure Procedure Design Procedure
Preparation of Test Samples Preparation of Test Samples Preparation of Test Samples

@ Optimum Marshall Asphalt @ Optimum SMA Content @ Optimum Superpave
Content Asphalt Content
Performance Evaluation of
Prepared Samples
- Indirect Tensile Modulus Test

- Repeated Uniaxial Strain Test
- Dynamic Modulus Test
- Wheel Tracking Test
Analysis of the data
Conclusion
Recommendations
Figure 1.9: Flow Chart Diagram (Scope of Work)

10
The summary of the chapter breakdown is described in seriatim as follows:
Chapter 2 illustrates the critical view of literature relating asphalt properties and
performance evaluation of asphalt against different types of distresses, especially the rutting.
Chapter 3 presents an overview of Superpave Mix Design Method. It includes introduction
to Superpave Asphalt Binder Testing, Formation of Binder Grades, Volumetric Properties of
Superpave Mixes, Moisture Sensitivity Testing, Performance Evaluation of Superpave Mixes
and Comparison of Superpave with Conventional Mixes
Chapter 4 involves Performance Grading of Asphalt and Preparation of Superpave binder
performance grading map. It explains collection of air temperature data across Pakistan from
30 stations for the last 20 years through Pakistan Meteorological Department, analysis of air
temperature data, zoning of PAKISTAN on the basis of pavement temperatures and grade
adjustments according to Superpave criteria for performance grades. Finally a zoning map
has been proposed to be implemented for Pakistan.
Chapter 5 explicates Materials Characterization of materials to be used for the current
research, based on their properties obtained through various tests. Aggregates testing include
exploring conventional mechanical properties, source properties and consensus properties. In
addition, aggregate gradation according to Superpave Specifications is also explained.
Bitumen Testing includes physical properties required according to Superpave Binder
Testing criteria.
Chapter 6 expounds Performance Based Testing of asphaltic concrete samples at different
temperatures, loading frequencies and stress levels. The tests are described one by one with a
11
brief description of the preparation of test samples and testing standard procedure. The
results are then plotted among different variables for an in depth study of the behavior of
different mixes. The tests include Indirect Tensile Modulus using UTM-5P Uniaxial Loading
Strain (Creep Test) using UTM-5P, Dynamic Modulus using NU-14 and Wheel Tracking
Test.
Chapter 7 is a Discussion oriented chapter dealing with a comparative study of different
mixes based on the results obtained through testing. The parameters which are discussed
consist of Modulus of Resilience, Accumulated Strains, Creep Stiffness, Resilient Strain,
Dynamic Modulus, Permanent Strains and Rut Depth.
Chapter 8 concludes the discussion with substantial and favourable recommendations
achieved on the basis of research study.
12
Chapter Two
13
Chapter 2
Literature Review
2.1 Permanent Deformation in Flexible Pavements
Rutting or permanent deformation of a pavement is caused by progressive movement of

material under repeated traffic load through consolidation or plastic flow. Contrary to the
original idea given by AASHO Road Test Report (1962) that rutting occurs primarily due to
lateral movement of the subgrade, studies carried out on rutted pavements by Huber and
Heiman (1987), Anani et al. (1990), Lee et al. (1989), Brown et al. (1990), Parker et al.
(1992) have reported that although rutting may occur as a result of weak underlying layers,
the rutting observed in existing pavements is almost entirely due to the permanent
deformation in the HMA (Hot Mix Asphalt) layers of the pavements. This incidence in
rutting is due to increase in truck tire pressures, axle loads, and traffic volumes as reported in
joint research study performed by AASHTO and FHWA (1987).
Ford and Miller (1988) through rutting studies have shown that pavements with air voids
lower than 3.0 percent tend to rut while those with higher air voids do not, as long as the
aggregate quality is satisfactory. They also concluded that pavements with air voids
considerably lower than 3.0 percent have a propensity to rut severely. Brown and Cross
(1990) reported that HMA (Hot Mix Asphalt) pavements constructed at approximately 7.0 to
8.0 percent air voids are further compacted to approximately 4.0 percent air voids under
traffic loads, if the mix is properly designed.
Pomeroy, C. D. (1978) commented that HMA has both elastic and viscous characteristics and
is referred to as a visco-elastic material. They also added that behavior of asphalt is
dependent on time of loading and temperature. Findley et al. (1976) studied the creep and
relaxation properties of nonlinear viscoelastic materials and concluded that under constant
static or repeated loading, a visco-elastic material undergoes flow or ‘creep’, which includes
14
recoverable and irrecoverable, time dependent and time independent components of
deformation. Furthermore they elucidated that instantaneous elasticity, creep under constant
stress, instantaneous recovery, delayed recovery, and permanent strain can be used to
characterize viscoelastic materials including HMA.
Nair and Chang (1973) worked on creep behaviour of asphalt and stated that under repeated
load in HMA there is a time dependent and time independent component of deformation. The
deformation consists of three components. First recovered at removal of load, another
recovered gradually and the third remaining as permanent strain. It was also reported that
temperature of the HMA at the time of loading and stress level of loading significantly
influenced the response.
2.2 Types of Rutting in Asphaltic Concrete

Mouratidis and Freitas (2007) assessed the rutting of the pavement due to asphalt flow. They
found that plastic flow or post-compaction may be regarded as the reason behind pavement
deformation in the asphalt layers. Plastic flow usually occurs at constant volume conditions
and results from the movement of the mix laterally away from the wheel path due to shear
strain whereas the continued compaction of the pavement after construction resulting from
the traffic loads is called post-compaction. They reported that rutting may also be due to
insufficient compaction of the asphalt layers and low bearing capacity of the asphalt layers.
The rutting process is gradual and increases with the increasing number of load applications
and ultimately appears in the form of longitudinal depressions in the wheel path in addition
to small upheavals to the sides. When the surface deformation is a result of subgrade
settlement, the ruts are generally wider. Rutting is most common in warmer climate areas,
heavily trafficked roads, approaches to intersection and climbing lanes. Rut depth in access
of 1 cm poses a safety hazard since it may result in hydroplaning, wheel scatter and vehicle
handling difficulties.
2.2.1 Rutting Due to Densification
Huber and Heiman (1987) performed comprehensive research on causes of rutting and found
15
that densification can also be a significant cause. Due to the additional compaction in the
pavement surface or in any of the underlying layers (base, subbase or subgrade), rutting by
densification occurs after the road is open to traffic. Moreover due to inadequate compaction
during the construction of the pavement, the surface may undergo further compaction under
traffic loading resulting in rutting. Construction of the asphalt concrete pavement is usually
carried out at initial void content of 7 – 8 % which upon further compaction under traffic is
anticipated to reduce at about 4 % after which the conditions may stabilize. Upon uniform
compaction of the asphalt surface by traffic, densification by rutting is not a problem. Most
of the densification occurs in the wheel path with channelized traffic flow creating
longitudinal ruts. Further compaction of the base or subbase due to the under designed
pavement surface or due to the poor subsurface drainage results in the rutting of the
pavement surface. These ruts have a sloping saucer shape cross section and are fairly wide
(750 -1000 mm) as shown in Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1: Rutting due to Densification
2.2.2 Rutting due to Shear Failure
Huber and Heiman (1987) studied the rutting properties of asphalt mixtures and reported that
asphalt mixtures may be subjected to shear deformation subjected to traffic loading when air
void content is very low i.e., less than 4 %. Signs of mixture instability appear due to the
lateral displacement of the pavement material along shear planes. This type of shear failure
can be in longitudinal and transverse directions. The ruts appear as depressions in the loaded
area in the wheel paths and ridges appear along both the edges of the wheel path. Due to the
tire pressures, resistance to the shear stresses generated in the pavement surface is reduced
16
which results in shear deformation as shown in Figure 2.2. Asphalt type, asphalt content and
weak aggregate skeleton are the main factors responsible for the lack of the shear resistance.
Besides, this type of rutting is also influenced by the temperature and rate of loading as well
as the magnitude of loading. Shear weakness may also result due to the moisture damage.
Figure 2.2: Rutting due to Shear Failure
2.3 Factors Affecting Rutting
Tarefder et al. (2003) explained that the main factors which showed significant contribution
to rutting in asphaltic concrete pavements were binder grade, temperature, gradation,
moisture of test specimens and binder content. Another factor which affects rutting is the
method of mix design. Bahia, H.U. (1993) examined that a variety of mix design methods are
being practiced all over the world e.g. Asphalt Institute Triaxial method of mix design,
Marshall mix design method, Hubbard-field mix design method, Superpave mix design and
Hveem mix design method, etc. Marshall, Superpave and Hveem mix design methods are
most popular among all those are being practised these days. Marshall mix design procedure
(ASTM D 1559) is being practiced locally for the design of asphaltic concrete. The use of
Marshall Mix design procedure for asphaltic concrete is one of the contributing causes to
early distresses developed in Pakistani pavements. The Marshall mix design method does not
take into consideration variation in temperature, loads and material properties, which is its
greatest drawback.
Swami et al. (2004), after comparing both the Superpave and Marshall Mix design methods,
recommended that Marshall Compactor is not able to identify the rutting susceptibility of
17
asphaltic concrete. Roberts et al. (2002) commented that the high degree of shear
vulnerability of asphalt mixes is not well identified by Marshall compactor and compaction
procedure of Marshall mix method does not replicate the actual compaction which occurs
under moving traffic. Due to these drawbacks it was eliminated from ASTM standards in
2004. SHRP (Strategic Highways Research Program) has concentrated on formation of
performance based binder and asphalt mixture specifications. Major aim of SHRP (Strategic
Highway Research Program) asphalt research was to develop such a mix design procedure
that includes performance based binder specifications and performance based testing
procedures.
Brown and Pell (1974) concluded that a continuously graded mixture exhibits less
deformation than a gap graded mixture due to less aggregate interlocking in gap graded
mixture. Evidences show that the effects of rutting can be reduced by use of dense aggregate
gradations. On proper compaction, mixtures with dense or continuous aggregate gradations
are more closely spaced than open or gap graded mixtures and therefore have fewer voids.
Also at higher temperature, the aggregate interlocking becomes more prominent so gap
graded mixtures are more susceptible to rutting at higher temperature which was later on
confirmed by test track results. Surface texture of the aggregate is particularly important for
good rutting resistance in thicker asphalt-bound layers and hotter climates where a rough
surface texture is required. Shape of the particle is also an important factor.
Uge and Van de Loo (1974) performed shear creep test and found that angular aggregate
mixtures were more stable and deformed to minor extent than rounded aggregate mixtures
having same composition and grading. Crushed aggregates produce stiffer mixtures at a
given void content. Use of the “large-stone” mixtures has gathered a lot of interest with the
increased tire pressures, axle loads, and load repetitions.
Davis, R (1988) found that some asphalt pavements constructed with large maximum
aggregate size (1½ in. or larger), soft asphalts, high volume concentrations of aggregate and
low air-void contents are more stable and resistant to rutting. So he recommended that
mixtures made by using larger maximum aggregate size (about 2/3 of layer thickness) are
18
more resistant to rutting subjected to high tire pressures.
Mahboub and Little (1988) found that mixtures containing less viscous asphalts are less stiff
and are more prone to rutting using the uniaxial creep testing. Monismith et al. (1985) also
recommended more viscous asphalt cements in thicker pavements and hotter climates on the
basis of similar observations.
Monismith and Tayebali (1988) examined the relative behavior of mixtures with and without
modifiers. They found that mixtures containing modified asphalt cement showed better
resistance to rutting at high temperatures than the mixture containing the neat asphalt cement.
Resistance to rutting may be improved by the use of modifiers (polymers, microfiollers, etc.)
which make asphalt binder more viscous at higher temperatures without any adverse effect at
low temperature.
Rutting is also influenced by the binder content. Monismith et al. (1985) recommended that
asphalt content which may produce the air void content of nearly 4 percent may be suitable.
An absolute value of 3 percent air voids was recommended to prevent rutting and instability.
Mahboub and Little (1988) found that rutting increases with the increase in asphalt content
producing lower air voids since the void space is filled with asphalt. The increase in asphalt
content can be said equivalent to the introduction of lubricants between aggregate particles
otherwise separated by a very tight network of air voids resulting in more susceptibility to
permanent deformation.
Cooper et al. (1985) studied that low voids in mineral aggregates (VMA) results in good
resistance to permanent deformation. Rutting resistance of asphalt mixture can also be
improved by reducing air voids up to a certain limit. Higher compaction energy results in a
low air void content in the field.
Uge and Van de Loo (1974) found that at moderate or high temperature, the relative
displacements of mineral particles occurring during laying or compaction under prolonged
19
loading may accelerate rutting. Therefore, they recommended the use of mixtures with low
workability and those prepared with heavy rollers in order to improve the arrangement of
mineral skeleton and internal friction and hence to minimize rutting potential. So they
concluded that harsh mixtures that are well compacted after laying will be highly resistant to
rutting.
Linden and Van der Heide (1987) evaluated that the degree of compaction is an important
parameter for the performance of mixtures. Thus well-compacted, well-designed and well-
produced mixture has better durability and mechanical properties. Compaction also plays an
important role for the preparation of specimens for laboratory evaluation in order to better
simulate orientation and interlocking of aggregate particles, the extent of inter-particle
contact, air-void content and void structure, and number of interconnected voids, with the
actual field compaction.
Von Quintus et al. (1988) determined the extent to which various types of laboratory
compaction simulates field conditions. The study compared field cores with laboratory
specimens compacted using the Texas gyratory-shear compactor, the California kneading
compactor, the mobile steel wheel simulator, the Arizona vibratory/kneading compactor, and
the Marshall hammer. The compaction devices on the basis of their simulation with the field
cores are ranked by the researchers as;
1) Texas gyratory-shear compactor,

2) California kneading compactor and mobile steel wheel simulator,
3) Arizona vibratory/kneading compactor, and
4) Marshall Hammer.
Sousa and Chan (1991) concluded on the basis of above research studies that laboratory
fabricated specimens should simulate the field compaction due to repeated traffic in order to
evaluate the permanent deformation characteristics.
20
The above discussed factors updated by Mouratidis and Freitas (2007) have been
summarized in Table 2.1 below.
Table 2.1: Factors Affecting Rutting of Asphalt-Concrete Mixtures (After Sousa et al.
(1991))
Effect of Change in
Factor Change in Factor Factor on Rutting
Resistance
Surface texture Smooth to rough Increase
Gradation Gap to continuous Increase

Aggregate
Shape Rounded to angular Increase
Size Increase in maximum size Increase
Binder Stiffness Increase Increase
Binder content Increase Decrease
Air void content b Increase Decrease

Mixture
VMA Increase Decrease c
Method of compaction Up to optimum 95-97 % Increase
Temperature Increase Decrease
Increase in tire contact

State of stress/strain Decrease
Test field pressure
conditions
Load repetitious Increase Decrease
Decrease if mix is
Water Dry to wet
water sensitive
2.4 Rutting Potential of Different Mixes

Palit et al. (2004) investigated mixes of different gradation to compare their fatigue and other
characteristics. They used Superpave gradation, Ministry of Surface Transport of India’s
gradation and One Gap gradation. They found that Superpave mixes gave better overall
performance compared to the mixes of other gradation. Different performance testing proved
the superiority of crumb rubber modified mixes in terms of improved fatigue and different
pavement characteristics.
21
Collop et al. (1995) treated permanent deformation or rutting in bituminous pavements as a
linear visco-elastic flow phenomenon and found that permanent deformation per wheel pass
is directly proportional to the static axle load and inversely proportional to the vehicle speed.
The phenomenon is quite useful for investigating the road damaging potential of heavy
vehicles and evaluating important trends.
2.5 Performance of SMA against Rutting
Chui and Li (2006) studied the performance of SMA using Ground Tire Rubber (GTR) in the
lab. They concluded that the SMA mixes containing Asphalt Rubber (AR-Asphalt containing
blended ground tire rubber) were not significantly different from conventional SMA mixtures
with respect to moisture susceptibility. But rutting resistance of AR-SMA, mixture was better
than conventional SMA at 60 oC.
Qiu and Lum (2006) utilized aggregate packing concepts to design and quantify aggregate
stone-to-stone contact in SMA. This SMA is expected to provide high resistance to rutting
maintaining volumetric properties and providing resistance to distresses. The stability and
rutting resistance of SMA is obtained from coarse aggregate stone to stone contact and
proper aggregate packing. Durability of SMA mix is achieved by proper mix design. The test
results proved that SMA mixtures had excellent rutting resistance characteristics. A positive
correlation existed between the rutting obtained from wheel tracking test and deformation
strain from uniaxial creep test.
Asi, I. M. (2007) compared SMA mixtures and conventional dense graded asphalt mixtures
on the basis of laboratory performance testing which included Marshal stability, loss of
Marshall stability, split tensile strength, loss of split tensile strength, resilient modulus,
fatigue and rutting. Optimum Binder contents were 5.3% for control mixes and 6.9% for
SMA mixtures, 0.3% mineral fibre by weight of mixture were used to avoid drain down of
excess asphalt. SMA mix proved its superiority over the conventional mixes showing better
resilience, rutting resistance and durability.
22
2.6 Standard Types of Performance Testing Methods
Brown et al. (2001) comprehensively evaluated the test methods which could be used as
standard to evaluate performance potential. They evaluated the existing information on
permanent deformation, fatigue cracking, low-temperature cracking, moisture susceptibility,
and friction properties but main emphasis was laid on permanent deformation. They
compared and reviewed the available tests concerning specific contemplations, such as
simplicity, test time duration, cost of the equipment, availability of data to support use,
published test method, available criteria etc.
They chose tests types with ultimate potential to simulate the field conditions during
performance evaluation of HMA, validated potential test types based on documented studies
and evaluated if the selected test methods illustrate the right trend in permanent deformation
performance. Methods that had been used to evaluate permanent deformation were discussed
in detail by them. A summary of advantages and disadvantages of each of the tests
considered for permanent deformation (rutting) has been shown in Table 2.2 reproduced
from Brown et al. (2001).
Numerous tests were evaluated for measuring rutting potential. Tests which were suggested
for immediate acceptance included the following three wheel tracking tests: Asphalt
Pavement Analyzer (APA), Hamburg Wheel-Tracking Device (HWTD), and French Rutting
Tester (FRT).
23
Table 2.2 Standard Types of Performance Based Testing Methods and Equipment
(After Brown et al. (2001))
Test Method Sample Advantages Disadvantages

Dimension
4 in. diameter • Test is easy to perform • State of stress is nonuniform
Diametral Static × 2.5 in. height • Equipment is generally available and strongly dependent on the
Fundamental: Diametral Tests
(creep) in most labs shape of the specimen

• Specimen is easy to fabricate • Maybe inappropriate for
Diametral 4 in. diameter • Test is easy to perform estimating permanent
Repeated Load × 2.5 in. height • Specimen is easy to fabricate deformation
Diametral 4 in. diameter • Specimen is easy to fabricate • High temperature (load)
Dynamic Modulus × 2.5 in. height • Non destructive test changes in the specimen shape
Diametral 4 in. diameter • Test is easy to perform affect the state of stress and the
Strength Test × 2.5 in. height • Equipment is generally available test measurement significantly
in most labs • Were found to overestimate
• Specimen is easy to fabricate rutting
• Minimum test time • For the dynamic test, the
equipment is complex
Uniaxial Static 4 in. diameter • Easy to perform • Ability to predict performance
(Creep) × 8 in. height • Test equipment is simple and is questionable
& others generally available • Restricted test temperature and
• Wide spread, well known load levels does not simulate
• More technical information field conditions
• Does not simulate field
dynamic
Fundamental: Uniaxial Tests
phenomena
• Difficult to obtain 2:1 ratio
specimens in lab
Uniaxial 4 in. diameter • Better simulates traffic • Equipment is more complex
repeated Load × 8 in. height conditions • Restricted test temperature and
& others load levels does not simulate
field conditions
• Difficult to obtain 2:1 ratio
specimens in lab
Uniaxial 4 in. diameter • Non destructive tests • Equipment is more complex
Dynamic × 8 in. height • Difficult to obtain 2:1 ratio
Modulus & others specimens in lab
Uniaxial 4 in. diameter • Easy to perform • Questionable ability to predict
Strength Test × 8 in. height • Test equipment is simple and permanent deformation
& others generally available
• Minimum test time
(Continued)
24

Dimension
Triaxial Static 4 in. diameter • Relatively simple test and • Requires a triaxial chamber
(creep confined) × 8 in. height equipment • Confinement increases
& others • Test temperature and load levels complexity of the test
better simulate field conditions
than unconfined
• Potentially inexpensive
Triaxial 4 in. diameter • Test temperature and load levels • Requires a triaxial chamber
Repeated Load × 8 in. height better simulate field conditions • Confinement increases
others than unconfined complexity of the test
• Better expresses traffic
Fundamental: Triaxial Tests
conditions
• Can accommodate varied
specimen sizes
• Criteria available
Triaxial 4 in. diameter • Provides necessary input for • At high temperature it is a
Dynamic × 8 in. height structural analysis complex test system (small
Modulus & others • Non destructive test deformation measurement
sensitivity is needed at high
temperature)
• Some possible minor problem
due to stud, LVDT
arrangement.
• Equipment is more complex
and expensive
• Requires a triaxial chamber
Triaxial 4 or 6 in. • Relative simple test and • Ability to predict permanent
Strength diameter × 8 in. equipment deformation is questionable
height & others • Minimum test time • Requires a triaxial chamber
(Continued)
25

Dimension
SST Frequency 6 in. diameter • The applied shear strain simulate • Equipment is extremely
Sweep Test – × 2 in. height the effect of road traffic expensive and rarely available
Shear Dynamic • AASHTO standardized • Test is complex and difficult to
Modulus procedure available run, usually need special
• Specimen is prepared with SGC training
samples • SGC samples need to be cut
• Master curve could be drawn and glued before testing
from different temperatures and
frequencies
Fundamental: Shear Tests
• Non destructive test
SST Repeated 6 in. diameter • The applied shear strains • Equipment is extremely
Shear at × 2 in. height simulate the effect of road traffic expensive and rarely available
Constant Height • AASHTO procedure available • Test is complex and difficult to
• Specimen available from SGC run, usually need special
samples training
• SGC samples need to be cut and
glued before testing
• High COV of test results
• More than three replicates are
needed
Triaxial Shear 6 in. diameter Short test time • Much less used
Strength Test × 2 in. height • Confined specimen
requirements add complexity
Marshall Test 4 in. diameter • Wide spread, well known, • Not able to correctly rank mixes
× 2.5 in. height standardized for mix design for permanent deformation
or • Test procedure standardized • Little data to indicate it is
6 in. diameter • Easiest to implement and short related to performance
× 3.75 in. height test time
• Equipment available in all labs.
Hveem Test 4 in. diameter • Developed with a good basic • Not used as widely as Marshall
× 2.5 in. height philosophy in the past
Empirical Tests
• Short test time • California kneading compacter

• Triaxial load applied needed
• Not able to correctly rank mixes
for permanent deformation
GTM Loose HMA • Simulate the action of rollers • Equipment not widely available
during construction • Not able to correctly rank mixes
• Parameters are generated during for permanent deformation
compaction
• Criteria available
Lateral Pressure Loose HMA • Test during compaction • Problems to interpret test
Indicator results
• Not much data available
(Continued)
26

Dimension
Asphalt Cylindrical • Simulates field traffic and • Relatively expensive except for
Pavement 6 in. × temperature conditions new table top version
Analyzer 3.5 or 4.5 in. • Modified and improved from
or GLWT
beam • Simple to perform
• 3-6 samples can be tested at the
same time
• Most widely used LWT in the
US
• Guidelines (criteria) are
available
• Cylindrical specimens use SGC
Hamburg 10.2 in. × 12.6 • Widely used in Germany • Less potential to be accepted
Wheel-Tracking in. × 1.6 in. • Capable of evaluating moisture widely in the United States
Simulative Tests
Device induced damage

• 2 samples tested at same time
French Rutting 7.1 in. × 19.7 • Successfully used in France • Not widely available in U.S.
Tester in. × 0.8 to 3.9 • Two HMA slabs can be tested at
in. one time
PURWheel 11.4 in. × 12.2 • Specimen can be from field as • Linear compactor needed
in.× 1.3, 2, 3 well as lab-prepared • Not widely available
in.
Model Mobile 47 in. × 9.5 • Specimen is scaled to full-scaled • Extra materials needed
Load Simulator in.× thickness load simulator • Not suitable for routine use
• Standard for lab specimen
fabrication needs to be
developed
RLWT 6 in. diameter • Use SGC sample • Not widely used in the United
× 4.5 in. height • Some relationship with APA rut States
depth • Very little data available
Wessex Device 6 in. diameter • Two specimens could be tested • Not widely used or well known
× 4.5 in. height at one time • Very little data available
• Use SGC samples
Fundamental diameteral, uniaxial, triaxial, shear, empirical and simulative tests were studied with
sample dimensions, their advantages and disadvantages. Indirect Tensile Modulus test using UTM-
5P can be used for the assessment of Asphaltic Concrete Modulus of Resilience (MR), whereas
Uniaxial repeated loading strain test using UTM-5P test can be used for assessing rutting potential
of Asphalt mix. Uniaxial Dynamic Modulus Test using NU-14 is suitable to study behavior of
Asphaltic Concrete under dynamic loading whereas rutting susceptibility of Asphalt mix is
checked through Wheel Tracking Machine. All of the above mentioned equipment is available in
Taxila Institute of Transportation Engineering (TITE).
27
Chapter Three
28
Chapter 3
Superpave Mix Design Method
3.0 Introduction
The Superpave (SUperior PERforming Asphalt PAVEments) mix design method was
developed to provide highway agencies, engineers and contractors such a system that
would perform superior under diverse temperature ranges and traffic loads. Superpave
which was developed by the researchers of Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP)
mainly addresses two pavement distresses i.e. permanent deformation (rutting) and low
temperature cracking. The distinctive aspect of the Superpave system is its test
procedures which have direct correlations with the field performance. Superpave has
advanced system for identifying asphalt binders and mineral aggregates, designing
asphalt mix and pavement performance prediction.
The asphalt binder specifications help selecting asphalt binder suitable for the maximum
and minimum temperatures and the heavy traffic volumes for a particular pavement
section. This is perhaps a unique trait of the Superpave that different binders are
suggested to be used in various parts of the country and for different types of highways.
The binders to be used in hot areas need modification to meet the performance grade
requirement for those specific locations.
3.1 Superpave Asphalt Binder Tests
Asphalt Institute in Superpave Series No. 1 classifies three stages of asphalts life; original
state, after mixing and construction, and finally in service. To quantify the performance
of the asphalt in each of the three stages, Superpave binder tests are used. To simulate
them in service aging, the Pressure Aging Vessel (PAV) is used whereas to simulate the
binder aging that occurs during mixing and construction, Rolling Thin Film Oven
(RTFO) test is used. The binder’s aging condition used in the Superpave binder tests is
29
shown in the Table 3.1 (Reproduced from Asphalt Institute’s Superpave Series No. 1).
The tests relations to performance are shown in Figure 3.1(Reproduced from Asphalt
Institute’s Superpave Series No. 1).
Table 3.1 Superpave Binder Test Aging Condition
Superpave Binder Test Binder Condition

Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR) Original Binder
RTFO – Aged Binder
PAV – Aged Binder
Rotational Viscometer (RV) Original Binder
Bending Beam Rheometer (BBR) PAV – Aged Binder
Direct Tension Tester (DTT) PAV – Aged Binder
Figure 3.1: Superpave Laboratory Tests with Relation to Performance
3.1.1 Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR)
McGennis et al. (1995) found that loading time and temperature are the factors upon
which the asphalt behavior depends. Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR) is a device that
30
tests the asphalt binder behaviour considering both of the above mentioned factors. The
DSR also known as Dynamic Rheometer or Oscillatory Shear Rheometer shown in
Figure 3.6(Reproduced from Asphalt Institute’s Superpave Series No. 1), when used to
test asphalt binders, measures the properties such as complex shear modulus (G*) and
phase angle (δ) (known as rheological properties) at different temperatures as shown in
Figure 3.2(Reproduced from Asphalt Institute’s Superpave Series No. 1).
Figure 3.2: Dynamic Shear Rheometer Operation
Asphalt Institute in Superpave Series No. 1 describes the operation of DSR. Asphalt
sample of required quantity is placed between two parallel plates. One of the plates is
fixed and the other oscillates. The plate oscillations cause the center line of the plate at
point A to move to the point B. The plate then moves back and passes A to reach point C.
From point C it goes back to point A. This completes one cycle which is continuously
repeated during the whole operation. The speed of oscillation is at a frequency of 10
radians per second (approximately 1.59 Hz). Stress and strain measurements are made
during each cycle.
Anderson et al. (1995) studied that both elastic and viscous behavior is characterized by
DSR by the measurement of rheological properties of asphalt binders. Among these
properties, the complex shear modulus (G*) measures the total resistance of a material to
deformation when exposed to repeated pulses of shear stress. Its two components are
elastic (recoverable) and viscous (non recoverable). The other property is phase angle
which gives an indication of the relative amounts of recoverable and non recoverable
31
deformation. Both of the above mentioned properties highly depend upon the frequency
of loading and temperature. Asphalt has no recoverable or rebounding capacity at high
temperature and behaves like viscous fluids. For the case, the viscous component could
be used to represent the asphalt and no elastic component of G*, since δ = 90°. On the
other hand, asphalt behaves like elastic solids which rebound from deformation
completely at very low temperatures. The elastic component is used to represent the
asphalt condition with no viscous component, since δ = 0°.
Anderson et al. (1995) found that asphalt binder behaves both as viscous liquids and
elastic solids at normal pavement temperatures. Hence DSR completely visualizes the
behavior of asphalt by the measurement of the G* and δ. In Figure 3.3 (Reproduced from
Asphalt Institute’s Superpave Series No. 1), G1* and G2* are the complex moduli of
asphalts 1 and 2 respectively. Figure 3.3 shows that although both the asphalts behave
visco elastically and has the same G, but the elasticity of Asphalt 2 is more than 1,
because of its smaller phase angle so the Asphalt 2 with the larger elasticity will recover
much more deformation from an applied load. So both G* and δ are needed to assess the
asphalt behavior.
Figure 3.3: Viscoelastic Behavior of Binder
According to Kennedy et al. (1995) an asphalt specimen with a disk shape and diameter
equal to the oscillating plate of DSR is required for testing. Proper asphalt specimen
32
thickness between the fixed plate and the oscillating plate must be made by adjusting gap
between two plates. After the plates are mounted in the Rheometer and before mounting
the asphalt sample, the gap between two plates must be set. A micrometer wheel is used
for precise adjustment of the gap. In binder tests, two oscillating plates with different
diameter and corresponding gap thickness are used. Both the diameter and the thickness
depend upon the aged state of the asphalt being tested. 25mm diameter plate and a gap
thickness of 1000 micron are required for RTFO aged and original (unaged) binders
whereas a diameter of 8mm and a gap of 2000 microns gap are required to test PAV-aged
binders. An extra 50 microns gap is added to the 1000 or 2000 microns before mounting
the specimen. Test specimen is prepared by heating the asphalt binder until fluid, stirring
to achieve occasionally to remove air bubbles and a homogenous sample. The upper limit
of temperature is 163°C with modified asphalt binders requiring higher temperature than
the unmodified binders. Different methods are used for specimen preparation but
commonly by pouring the asphalt binder sample within appropriate diameter and
thickness moulds for testing as shown in Figure 3.4 (Reproduced from Asphalt Institute’s
Superpave Series No. 1). The sample must be removed after 2 hours before loading into
DSR as lighter constituents of the asphalt binder sample may be absorbed by the silicone.
Figure 3.4: DSR Moulds, Specimens, Plates and Spindles
After placement of asphalt, the specimen is flushed with the plates by trimming its
projected edges so that the extra 50 microns is dialed out bringing the gap to its desired
33
value. Slight bulging of the specimen will occur as shown in Figure 3.5 (reproduced from
Asphalt Institute’s Superpave Series No. 1). Rheometers are provided with a precise
mean of controlling sample temperature. A circulating fluid bath or a forced air oven is
used for this purpose. Water is used as a fluid in circulating bath and circulated through a
temperature controller whereas in air ovens, air is used, which surrounds the sample
during testing. In any case, the temperature must be uniform and varies by no more than
1°C across the gap.
Figure 3.5: Asphalt Sample Configuration in DSR.
According to Solaimanian et al. (1995) after stabilization of the test temperature, the
specimen temperature is allowed to equilibrate for a minimum of additional 10 minutes.
Thermistors placed between parallel plates are used to verify temperatures which are
wrapped with very thin silicone rubber sheeting material. The DSR test parameters are
computer controlled and the results are recorded. The DSR is set to apply a constant
oscillating stress and measure the resulting strain and time lag. The oscillation speed is 10
radians/second according to Superpave specifications. The operator sets an approximate
shear strain which varies from 1-12% depending upon the binder aged state being tested.
Strain values of 10 -12% are used for original and RTFO aged binders whereas 1% strain
is used for PAV-aged binders. In any case, to keep the binder response as linear
viscoelastic, strain values must be small. At these values of strain, there is no virtual
effect on G*.According to Solaimanian et al. (1995) the specimen is loaded for 10 cycles
in order to condition the sample. During this period, Rheometer measures the stress
corresponding to the set shear strain and the stress is maintained during the entire test.
34
Shear strain may vary to keep constant stress during test and is controlled by Rheometer
software. Ten additional cycles are applied after 10 conditioning cycles to obtain test
data. The software computes G* and δ from the applied stress and resulting strain
relationship and reports it.
Figure 3.6: Dynamic Shear Rheometer
Totally elastic and totally viscous behavior is shown in Figure 3.7 (reproduced from
Asphalt Institute’s Superpave Series No. 1).
Figure 3.7: Stress-Strain Output
35
Asphalt Institute in Superpave Series No. 1 defines the ratio of the total shear stress to
total shear strain as the complex shear modulus (G*). Phase angle is related to time lag
between the applied stress and the resulting strain or the applied strain and the resulting
stress. The time lag or the phase angle is zero for a perfectly elastic material, where an
applied load causes an immediate response. Time lag between load and response is
typically large for viscous material where the phase angle is 90°. Asphalt binders lie
between these two extremes as they behave as a viscoelastic material at normal
temperature and the DSR shows the response as shown in Figure 3.8 (reproduced from
Asphalt Institute’s Superpave Series No. 1)
Figure 3.8: Stress- Strain Response of a Visco elsatic Material
The formulas used to calculate maximum shear stress and maximum shear strain are
shown in Figure 3.9 (reproduced from Asphalt Institute’s Superpave Series No. 1).
36
Figure 3.9: Asphalt Specimen Calculations
Only G* and δ are required for Superpave specifications, although DSR is capable of
providing much more information. There are two forms of G* and δ that are used in the
binder specifications. Permanent deformation for original binder is governed by limiting
the G*/sin δ at the test temperature to values greater than 1.00 kPa and 2.20 kPa after
RTFO aging. For fatigue cracking the governing limit of G* sin δ of for pressure aged
material is less than 5000 kPa at the test temperature.
3.2 Formation of Binder Grades
Research by Anderson et al. (1995) evaluated previous grading systems with Superpave
binder specifications. Previous grading systems were based on the empirical relationships
between physical properties and the observed performance. The Superpave binder
specifications are based directly on the performance and are selected on the basis of the
climate in which the pavement will serve. Among various binder grades, the distinction is
the specified maximum and minimum temperatures meeting the requirements. A binder
classified as a PG 64 – 10 means that the binder will meet the high temperature physical
property requirements up to a temperature of 64˚C and the low temperature physical
property requirements down to -10˚C.
37
The adjustment of high traffic grades for traffic loading and speed is called “grade
bumping”. The AASHTO’s grade-bumping policy is presented in Table 3.2. The
selection procedure for the asphalt binder is for typical highway loading conditions which
assume that the pavement is subjected to a design number of fast, transient loads. The
speed of loading additionally affects the performance for high temperature design
situation, controlled by the specific properties related to permanent deformation.
Asphalt Institute in Superpave Series No. 2 specifies that Superpave additionally requires
the selected high temperature binder grade for slow and standing load applications. The
binder would be selected one high temperature grade higher for slow moving design
loads and two high temperature grades higher for standing design loads. Also Superpave
requires shift for extraordinarily high number of heavy traffic loads. The binder would be
selected one high temperature binder grade higher than the selection based on climate
when the design traffic is expected to be between 10,000,000 and 30,000,000 equivalent
single axle loads (ESAL) and for more than 30,000,000 ESAL, the binder must be
selected one temperature grade higher than the selection based on the climate. The
adjustment to the Binder PG Grade is given in Table 3.2 (reproduced from Asphalt
Institute’s Superpave Series No. 2)
Table 3.2: Binder Selection on the basis of Traffic Speed and Traffic Level
Adjustment to Binder PG Grade

Design ESALs
Traffic Loading Rate
(million)
Standing Slow Standard
< 0.3 -(1)
0.3 to < 3 2 1
3 to < 10 2 1
10 to < 30 2 1 -(1)
≥ 30 2 1 1
1. Consideration should be given to increasing the high temperature grade by one grade
equivalent.
38
Anderson et al.(1995) showed that the pavement performance cannot be guaranteed by
the conservative binder selection. Performance of the road against fatigue cracking is
significantly affected by the pavement structure and the traffic. Whereas rutting is greatly
influenced by the aggregate properties. The cracking of the pavement at low temperature
is significantly related to the binder properties. Therefore, while selecting binders, a
compromise has to be made among various factors.
3.3 Volumetric Properties of Superpave Mixes
The volumetric properties of Superpave mixes are air voids, voids in mineral aggregates
and void filled with asphalt. The volumetric component diagram of HMA is shown in
Figure 3.10. These properties indicate the performance of the Superpave mixes in the
field. The volumetric properties are usually determined from the Superpave gyratory
compactor test specimens by simulating the effect of traffic on an asphalt pavement.
Figure 3.10: Component Diagram of Compacted HMA Specimen
39
3.3.1 Percent VMA in compacted Paving Mixture
Asphalt Institute in Superpave Series No. 2 defines the intergranular void space between
the aggregate particles in a compacted paving mixture. It includes the air voids and the
effective asphalt content, expressed as a percent of the total volume as Percent Void in
Mineral Aggregates (VMA). The objective is to furnish enough space for asphalt binder
so as to provide adequate adhesion required to bind the aggregate but without bleeding as
the asphalt expands on the rise of temperature. It is calculated by subtracting the
aggregate volume determined by its bulk specific gravity from bulk volume of the
compacted paving mixtures so we can say that VMA is expressed as a percentage of the
bulk volume of the compacted paving mixture.
For mix composition determined on the basis of percent by mass of total mixture:
G
VMA =100 − mb × Ps ---------------------------------------------------------------- (3.1)
G
sb
Where,
VMA = voids in the mineral aggregate, percent of the bulk volume,
Gsb = bulk specific gravity of total aggregate
Gmb = bulk specific gravity of the compacted mixture
Ps = aggregate content, percent by mass of total mixture
For the mix composition determined on the basis of percent by mass of aggregate:
G 100
VMA = 100 − mb × ×100 ---------------------------------------------- (3.2)
Gs 100 + P
b
Where,
Pb = asphalt content, percent by mass of the aggregate.
40
Specified minimum values for VMA at the design air void content of four percent are a
function of nominal maximum aggregate size. The values are shown in the Table 3.3
(reproduced from Asphalt Institute’s Superpave Series No. 2)
Table 3.3: Superpave Volumetric Mixture Design Requirements
Required Density
(% of Theoretical Voids – in – the Mineral Aggregates
Maximum Specific (Percent), minimum Voids
Design Dust – to
Gravity) Filled
ESALs – Binder
Nominal Maximum Aggregate Size with
(million) Ratio
(mm) Asphalt
NInitial Ndesign Nmax
37.5 25.0 19.0 12.5 9.5
< 0.3 ≤ 91.5 70 - 80
0.3 to < 3 ≤ 90.5 65 - 78
3 to < 10 0.6 – 1.2

96.0 ≤ 98.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0
10 to < 30 ≤ 89.0 65 - 75
≥ 30
3.3.2 Percent VFA in Compacted Mixture:
The percentage of the voids in mineral aggregates that contain asphalt, and not the
absorbed asphalt is called Voids filled with asphalt (VFA). It is determined using the
equation 3.3.
VMA − Va
VFA =100 × ----------------------------------------------------------------- (3.3)
VMA
Where,
VFA = Voids filled with asphalt, percent of VMA
VMA = Voids in mineral aggregates, percent of the bulk volume
Va = Air voids in compacted mixture, percent of total volume
41
The acceptable range of VFA at four percent air voids is a function of traffic level and is
given in the Table 3.3.
3.3.3 Percent Air Voids in compacted Mixture:
The small air spaces between the coated aggregate particles in the total compacted paving
mixture are called air voids. It can be determined by using the equation 3.4.
G −G
Va =100 × mm mb ------------------------------------------------------------ (3.4)
Gmm
Where,
Va = air voids in compacted mixture, percent of total volume
Gmm = maximum specific gravity of paving mixture (as determined directly for
a paving mixture by ASTM D2041 / AASHTO T209)
Gmb = bulk specific gravity of compacted mixture
3.4 Performance Evaluation of Superpave Mixes
There is still a question in mind about the performance test for Superpave mix. FHWA in
collaboration with the University of Maryland is now working to find a simple test
procedure that would offer the highway agencies an effective, simple and economical
way to assess the performance of Superpave mixes. Proposed test would be based on the
fundamental engineering properties of the mix. Simple Performance test would have the
capability to work in different climates and to test different type of materials
Asi, I. M. (2007) evaluated Superpave mix and compared it with the conventional
Marshall mix. Samples for both mixes were prepared at optimum asphalt content and
aggregate gradations. Dynamic creep, static creep, resilient modulus and moisture
sensitivity testing were selected as performance based testing. Superpave mix showed
overall better performance as compared to the Marshall Mix.
42
Swami et al. (2004) compared Superpave and Marshall Methods of asphalt mix design.
They found that Marshall Compactor was unable to predict the rutting resistance of the
mix. They also revealed that Superpave Gyratory Compactor could compact the
specimens in the same way as actual compaction under the action of moving vehicles at
different temperature and loading conditions.
Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) during full implementation of Superpave

mixture designs for their highways construction performed full scale performance
evaluation of Superpave mixes using accelerated load testing facility. Superpave mixes
do not have any mechanistic test to capture the field performance. Therefore it is a dire
need to have critical stress and strain evaluation method for Superpave mixes. KDOT
sought to address the issue of Superpave Mix performance using Kansas Accelerated
Testing Laboratory (K-ATL) at Kansas State University (Zhong et al.). They used two
different types of Superpave mixes with 15% and 30% sand. Evaluation was done under
the action of different load intensities and combinations. Rutting damage analysis
revealed relationship between number of loading cycles and rut depth (mm). Rutted
vertical profiles showed that rutting occurred either due to the densification or shear flow.
According to Pennsylvania Transport Institute (PTI), two test procedures for performance
evaluation of Superpave mixes under consideration are Superpave Shear Tester and
Indirect Tensile Tester. However, according to FHWA, it would be a supplement and not
a replacement of the existing Superpave Performance test procedures. The confined
Dynamic Modulus Test applies lateral confining pressure to the asphalt specimen of 4 in.
x 8 in. But it can also be used for smaller specimen heights with success as reported by
Brown et al. (2001). NCHRP Project 9-29 demands that the testing equipment must be
capable of conducting the following tests:
1. Static Creep Test.

2. Repeated Load Uniaxial Compression Test.
3. Dynamic Modulus Test for Permanent Deformation.
4. Dynamic Modulus Test for Fatigue Cracking.
43
3.5 Comparison of Superpave with Conventional Mixes
According to Asphalt Institute (1965), Hubbard – Field Method was the first Asphalt Mix
design method developed to design sand – asphalt mixtures and then later on modified for
aggregates. The drawbacks of using this method are for mixes containing aggregate sizes
larger than about ½ in. if the mould diameter to maximum particle size ratio is to be
maintained at 4:1.Many queries remained about what the test actually modeled relative to
the performance of paving mixtures. Due to these limitations, other design methods
moved forward.
In the late 1920s, on many of the rural roads, the California Division of Highways started
the use of combination of aggregates and the asphaltic oil mixed either in a plant or on
the road itself, spread by blade and then compacted by traffic. The mix was referred to oil
mix which was a compromise between the cheaper low performance penetrative method
(asphalt oil sprayed on a roadway surface of unbound particles) and more expensive high
performance HMA. The design of these oil mixes necessitated the determination of the
correct amount of oil based on the aggregate surface area which in turn could be
determined from gradation as reported by Vallerga and Lovering (1985). Even with the
determination of the right oil content, roads containing hard glassy surface textured
aggregates deformed excessively under load whereas, roads containing rough irregular
surface texture aggregates proved more stable. For the reason, Hveem developed
Stabilometer, a device that would measure stability. Another problem was that
compaction of the specimens carried out in the laboratory did not produce the same
readings as those obtained from the field cores. For this reason, California Kneading
Compactor was developed for the close simulation of the compaction produced by the
rollers in the field. When compared to the other design methods, the two biggest
differentiating aspects of the Hveem method are the kneading compactor and the Hveem
Stabilometer according to Vallerga and Lovering (1985).
The preparation and testing of the laboratory specimens by the Hveem design procedure
required equipment that was too expensive to be purchased for the laboratories. Therefore
the Marshall method of mix design was preferred over the Hveem design procedure for a
44
large majority of the hot mix asphalt industry. Marshall Method primarily addresses the
determination of the asphalt binder content. The advantages of this method are the
determination of density and the void properties of the asphalt mixtures. In addition the
equipment required for the Marshall Mix Design Method is relatively inexpensive and
portable and thus lends itself to remote quality control operations. Side by side, the
disadvantages of this method are that impact compaction used with the Marshall method
does not simulate mixture densification as it occurs in the real pavement. Also Marshall
Stability does not adequately estimate the shear strength of HMA. So there was a
growing feeling among the asphalt technologists that Marshall Method has outlived its
usefulness for modern asphalt mixture design as reported by White, T. D. (1985).
The Superpave mix design method addresses all the elements of the mix design and was
designed to replace the Hveem and Marshall methods. The design system integrates
material selection and mix design into procedures based on project’s climate, design
traffic and age which are known to be the most critical factors affecting asphalt
performance in pavements according to Bahia and Anderson (1994). The mix design
method is based on the properties of the asphalt binder and aggreagates and also on the
volumetric properties of the hot mix asphalt (HMA) which were common to Marshall and
Hveem design methods. The compaction devices used for Hveem and Marshall
procedures have been replaced by a gyratory compactor and the compaction effort in mix
design is tied to expected traffic. The performance-grading (PG) system used in
superpave mix design method is considered better over the viscosity and penetration
systyem as the conditions at which the testing is carried out have close simulation with
the actual pavement conditions. According to Roberts et al. (2002), it predicts much
improved reliability as it considers the engineering parameters related to the actual failure
mechanism leading to pavement deterioration.
45
Chapter Four
46
Chapter 4
Performance Grading of Asphalt
4.0 Introduction
Binder plays a crucial role in asphalt performance, due to which it has been given
immense importance by the asphalt industry. Binder grading systems are used to
characterize binders based on their physical properties. As reported by Roberts et al.
(2002), three principal asphalt binder grading systems are being practiced in pavement
industry, i.e. Penetration, Viscosity and Performance Grading. The first two have
limited ability for complete asphalt binder characterization, where as Superpave mix
design system addresses hot mix asphalt pavement performance based issues such as
rutting, fatigue and thermal cracking.
The basic inspiration behind Superpave performance grading (PG) is that a Hot Mix
asphalt binder’s properties should be associated with prevailing climatic conditions
and aging considerations. McGennis et al. (1995) performed a comprehensive
research study for United States Department of Transportation (USDOT)
“Background of Superpave mixture design and analysis”, in which they formulated
basic guidelines for binder’s performance grading based on maximum and minimum
pavement design temperatures.
Regarding temperature selection the hottest seven day period was selected and the
average maximum air temperature was calculated for each year. Then average of
seven hottest temperatures across 20-year air temperature data was taken which
presented the maximum air temperature data for a particular area. The criterion for
minimum air temperature was somewhat different in the sense that for each year
coldest day’s temperature was selected and from 20 years temperature data one
temperature was selected which was the lowest. The conversion of air temperatures
into pavement temperatures was the next step as for the selection of asphalt binder
grades, the design temperatures were the pavement temperatures not the air
temperatures.
47
Superpave recommends the location for the high pavement design temperature at a
depth 20mm below the pavement surface and the low pavement design temperature at
the pavement surface, as studied by McGennis et al. (1995). Therefore using the
following empirical equations 4.1 and 4.2 recommended by Asphalt Institute in
Superpave manual series no. 1 and 2, air temperatures could be converted into the
maximum and minimum pavement design temperatures. (Superpave Manual Series
No. 1 & 2)
Tmax = T = (Tair − 0.00618 Lat 2 + 0.2289 Lat + 42.2) × (0.9545) −17.78 .. (4.1)
20mm
Where
T20mm = high pavement design temperature at a depth of 20 mm, 0C
Tair = seven-day average high air temperature, 0C
Lat = the geographical latitude of the project in degrees.
T = 0.859Tair + 1.7° C ……………………………..……………………….. (4.2)

min
Where
Tmin = minimum asphalt pavement temperature below surface, 0C
Tair = minimum air temperature, 0C
4.1 Collection of Air Temperature Data across Pakistan
Temperature data of following 30 stations as listed in Table 4.1 was collected from
Pakistan Metrological Office, Karachi from year 1987 to 2006. The location of each
station has been shown on Pakistan map in Figure 4.1.
48
Table 4.1: Location of Weather Stations across Pakistan
Description of Weather Stations
Sr. No. Station Sr. No. Station
1 Dalbandin 16 Chitral
2 Hyderabad 17 Dera Ismail Khan
3 Jacobabad 18 Dir
4 Karachi 19 Faisalabad
5 Lassbella 20 Gilgit
6 Nawabshah 21 Islamabad
7 Nokkundi 22 Khanpur
8 Pasni 23 Kotli
9 Quetta 24 Lahore
10 Rohri 25 Multan
11 Sibbi 26 Murree
12 Zhob 27 Muzaffarabad
13 Astor 28 Parachinar
14 Bahawalpur 29 Peshawar
15 Balakot 30 Sialkot
49
Figure 4.1: Location Map of Weather Stations
4.2 Analysis of Air Temperature Data
Contrary to the previous grading systems, the Superpave binder specification is

theoretically based on performance rather than on empirical relationships between
basic physical properties and observed performance. Performance graded binders
were selected based on the climate in which the pavement would serve.
The distinction among the various binder grades is the specified minimum and
maximum temperatures at which the requirements must be met as given in Table B1
at Annexure B formulated by McGennis et al. (1995).
50
For example a binder classified as a PG 58-34 means that it will meet the high
temperature physical property requirements up to a temperature of 58˚C and the low
temperature physical property requirements down to - 34˚C. For a particular area the
high and low temperatures grades would extend as far as necessary in the standard
six-degree increments as stated by McGennis et al. (1995).
Maximum and minimum air temperatures were identified as shown in Table 4.3,
using the standard procedure as described by McGennis et al. (1995). Maximum and
minimum pavement design temperatures were calculated using the standard equations
4.1 and 4.2. Station wise precise performance grades were developed using statistical
analysis with 98% reliability. The performance Grades for the 30 stations were
established as given at Annex A. A typical data for one station (Islamabad) has been
presented in Tables 4.2, 4.2a and 4.2b. Further, using these performance grades, the
whole country was divided into four zones.
51
Table 4.2: Air Temperature Data for Islamabad
Station Islamabad
Daily Maximum Daily Minimum
Sr.No. Year Temperature (˚C) Month Temperature (˚C) Month
1 1987 39.00 July 2.90 Jan
2 1988 38.60 June 4.60 Dec
3 1989 38.90 June 2.50 Jan
4 1990 39.50 June 4.90 Dec
5 1991 37.90 June 2.90 Jan
6 1992 38.40 June 5.20 Jan
7 1993 38.10 June 3.00 Jan
8 1994 40.10 June 4.40 Jan
9 1995 40.70 June 2.40 Jan
10 1996 36.00 June 1.20 Dec
11 1997 36.30 June 2.10 Jan
12 1998 38.70 June 3.20 Dec
13 1999 39.10 June 3.60 Dec
14 2000 39.90 June 4.00 Jan
15 2001 34.40 May 2.10 Jan
16 2002 39.00 June 3.00 Jan
17 2003 39.40 June 1.80 Jan
18 2004 36.70 June 5.10 Jan
19 2005 39.90 June 2.00 Dec
20 2006 37.80 June 3.80 Jan
Table 4.2a: Maximum Pavement Temperature for Islamabad
Maximum Pavement Temperature
T20mm = [Tair -0.00618 Lat2 + 0.2289 Lat + 42.2] x 0.9545 -17.78
Maximum Pavement Temperature @ Depth of 20 mm from the
T20mm top of Pavement 61.15
T air Seven Days Average Maximum air Temperature in °C 39.800
Lat The Geographical Latitude of Project in Degrees 33°-43' 33.72
Table 4.2b: Minimum Pavement Temperature for Islamabad
Minimum Pavement Temperature
Tpav = 0.859 Tair +1.7˚C
Tpav Minimum Pavement Temperature 2.73
Tair Minimum Air Temperature 1.20
52
4.3 Zoning of Pakistan on the Basis of Pavement Temperatures
Summary of the complete data for 30 stations has been presented as station wise
performance grading at Annexure B (Table B2). Different performance grading zones
identified on 30 stations have been summarized in Table 4.3 and shown in Figure 4.2.
Table 4.3: Summary of Zoning
Zone No. of stations in the Zone Performance Grade
Zone-1 6 PG 76-4
Zone-2 13 PG 70-4
Zone-3 5 PG 64-4
Zone-4 2 PG 58-10
Zone-5 1 PG 70-10
Zone-6 2 PG 64-10
Zone-7 1 PG 58-4
53
Figure 4.2: Zoning Map
54
Chapter Five
55
Chapter 5
Material Characterization
5.0 Introduction
Mineral aggregate, filler, binder and air constitute asphaltic concrete. Depending upon the
aggregate gradation and the proportions of the constituents, a wide range of asphalt mixtures
can be produced. The strength of a typical continuously graded mixture depends upon the
aggregate interlocking structure and the lubrication for compaction is generally provided by
the binder which also serves to glue the mixture together. On the other hand, strength of a
typical gap-graded mixture depends on the coarse aggregate skeleton bound by a
bitumen/filler “mortar” since it poses a discontinuous aggregate gradation. Irrespective of the
mixture type, the overall material performance depends upon the micro mechanical behavior
of aggregate particles, binder and air voids.
5.1 Aggregate Properties
The permanent deformation of the pavement structure is greatly dependent upon aggregate
properties whereas low temperature cracking and fatigue cracking is less dependent.
According to the Asphalt Institute Superpave Series No. 2, in the Superpave system, there are
two categories of aggregate properties that are used; these are consensus properties and
source properties.
5.1.1 Consensus Aggregate Properties
Aggregate properties which are critical to well performing HMA are called Consensus
Properties because there is a wide agreement in their use and specified values. These
properties are based on the criterion of traffic level and position within the pavement
structure. Materials closer to the pavement surface requires strict consensus properties as
these are subjected to high traffic levels. The criterion must not be applied to individual
56
component but is intended to be applied to proposed aggregate blend. The consensus
aggregate properties are:
• Coarse Aggregate Angularity

• Fine Aggregate Angularity
• Flat and Elongated Particles
• Clay Content (Sand Equivalent)
The detailed description of these properties is given below:
5.1.1.1 Coarse Aggregate Angularity
Asphalt Institute’s Superpave Series No. 2 defines the coarse aggregate angularity as “The
percentage by mass of the aggregates larger than 4.75 mm with one or more fractured faces”.
High shear strength for rutting resistance and a high degree of internal friction can be
achieved by specifying this property. The standard test method specified by Superpave Mix
Design Technology for Coarse Aggregate Angularity is ASTM D5821, “Test Method for
determining the Percentage of Fractured Faces in Coarse Aggregate”. The required minimum
values for coarse aggregate as a function of traffic level and position within the pavement are
presented in Table 5.1(reproduced from Asphalt Institute’s Superpave Series No. 2)
Table 5.1: Superpave Aggregate Consensus Property Requirements
Uncompacted Void
Coarse Aggregate Sand Flat and
Design Content of Fine
Angularity (Percent), Equivalent Elongated
ESALs Aggregate (Percent),
minimum (Percent), (Percent),
(million) minimum
minimum maximum
≤ 100 mm > 100 mm ≤ 100 mm > 100 mm
< 0.3 55/- -/- - - 40 -
0.3 to < 3 75/- 50/- 40 40 40 10
3 to < 10 85/80 60/- 45 40 45 10
10 to < 30 95/90 80/75 45 40 45 10
≥ 30 100/100 100/100 45 45 50 10
57
5.1.1.2 Fine Aggregate Angularity
Asphalt Institute’s Superpave Series No. 2 defines the fine aggregate angularity as “The
percent air voids present in loosely compacted aggregates smaller than 2.36 mm”. Fractured
faces are indicated by the void content. Greater the void content more will be the fractured
faces. High degree of internal friction and high shear strength for rutting resistance can be
achieved by specifying this property. Particle shape, surface texture and grading influence
fine aggregate angularity. AASHTO T304 (Uncompacted Void Content of Fine Aggregate) is
the test method specified by the Superpave.
Fine, washed and dried aggregate sample is poured through a standard funnel into a small
calibrated cylinder as shown in Figure 5.1 (reproduced from Asphalt Institute’s Superpave
Series No. 2). The mass of the fine aggregate in the filled cylinder of known volume is
measured and from the difference between the cylinder volume and fine aggregate volume
collected in the cylinder, the void content can be determined. The fine aggregate volume is
calculated using the fine aggregate bulk specific gravity (Gsb)
The minimum values required for fine aggregates angularity as a function of traffic level and
position within the pavement are presented in Table 5.1.
Figure 5.1: Fine Aggregate angularity apparatus
58
5.1.1.3 Flat and Elongated Particles
Asphalt Institute’s Superpave Series No. 2 defines the flat and elongated particles as “The
percentage by mass of coarse aggregates that have a maximum to minimum dimension ratio
greater than five “These particles have the tendency to break down during construction and
under traffic so these are undesirable. ASTM D4791 (Flat or Elongated Particles in Coarse
Aggregates) is the test procedure used. The test is limited to coarse aggregates larger than
4.75 mm.
A proportional caliper device as shown in Figure 5.2 (reproduced from Asphalt Institute’s
Superpave Series No. 1) is used for the measurement of the dimensional ratio of a
representative sample of aggregate particles. Aggregate particle with its largest dimension is
placed between the swinging arm and the fixed post at position A as shown in Figure 5.2.
When the aggregate is placed between the swinging arm and fixed post at position B, the
swinging arm remains stationary. Aggregates that are unable to fill this gap are counted as
flat or elongated particle.
Table 5.1 presents the required maximum values for flat and elongated particles in coarse
aggregates.
Figure 5.2: Measuring flat and elongated particles
59
5.1.1.4 Clay Content (Sand Equivalent)
Asphalt Institute’s Superpave Series No. 2 defines the clay content as “clay content is the
percentage of the clay material contained in the aggregate fraction that is finer than a 4.75
mm sieve” .AASHTO T176 (Plastic Fines in Graded Aggregate and Soils by Use of the Sand
Equivalent Test) ASTM D2419 is the test procedure for the measurement of the clay content.
Fine aggregate and a flocculating solution are mixed in a graduated cylinder and are agitated
in order to loose the clay fines present in and coating the aggregates. The clayey material is
held into suspension above the granular aggregates by the flocculating solution. After the
settlement of the granular aggregates, the settled sand and the cylinder height of the
suspended clay is measured as shown in Figure 5.3 (reproduced from Asphalt Institute’s
Superpave Series No. 2). The ratio of the sand to clay height expressed as a percentage gives
the sand equivalent value. Table 5.1 gives the allowable clay content values for the fine
aggregates.
Figure 5.3: Sand Equivalent Test Apparatus
60
The consensus aggregate properties and their comparison with the Superpave recommended
values are shown in Table 5.2:
Table 5.2: Aggregate Consensus Properties
Sr. Aggregate Consensus Properties Test Results Criteria

No. (Percent) (Asphalt Institute)
(%)
1 Coarse Aggregate Angularity 70 55-100
2 Fine Aggregate Angularity 42 40-45
3 Sand Equivalent 72 40-50
4 Flat and Elongated 4.75 10(Max)
5.1.2 Source Aggregate Properties
The aggregate properties whose critical values are source specific are often used by the
agencies to classify local sources of aggregates. The properties may be used as a source
acceptance control and are relevant during the mix design process. The source aggregate
properties are:
• Toughness
• Soundness
• Deleterious Materials
The description of each of these properties is as under:
5.1.2.1 Toughness
Asphalt Institute’s Superpave Series No. 2 defines the toughness as “toughness is the percent
loss of material from an aggregate blend during the Los Angeles Abrasion Test (AASHTO
T96 or ASTM C131 or C535)”. The toughness property test estimates the coarse aggregate
resistance to abrasion and mechanical degradation that occurs during handling, construction
and service. To perform the test, coarse aggregates larger than 2.36 mm are subjected to
impact and grinding by steel spheres. Due to this mechanical degradation, the mass
percentage of the coarse material lost gives the toughness. Typically the maximum loss
61
values range from 35 – 45 percent.
5.1.2.2 Soundness
According to Asphalt Institute’s Superpave Series No. 2, soundness is defined as “The

percent loss of material from an aggregate blend during the sodium or magnesium sulfate
soundness test (AASHTO T104 or ASTM C88)”. The resistance of aggregate to in-service
deterioration is determined by using this test. The test is applicable to both coarse and fine
aggregates.
An aggregate sample is subjected to repeated immersions in saturated sodium or magnesium

sulfate solution followed by oven drying. Salts precipitate in the permeable void space of the
aggregate during the drying period and rehydrates upon re-immersion with internal expansive
forces similar to the expansive forces of the freezing water. This cycle constituting one
immersion and drying is called soundness cycle. The total percent loss for the required
number of cycles over various sieve intervals gives the soundness. Typical values for the
maximum loss range from 10 to 20 percent for five cycles.
5.1.2.3 Deleterious Materials
Asphalt Institute’s Superpave Series No. 2 defines the deleterious materials as “Deleterious
materials are defined as the mass percentage of contaminants such as clay lumps, shale,
wood, mica, and coal in the blended aggregates (AASHTO T112 or ASTM C142)”. The test
is applicable to both coarse and fine aggregates.
A wet sieving aggregate size fraction over the specified sieves is done and the percentage by
mass of the material lost as a result of it gives the percent of the clay lumps and the friable
particles. Maximum allowable percentage of these materials ranges from as low as 0.2
percent to as high as 10 percent and depends upon the exact composition of the contaminant.
The source aggregate properties and their comparison with the Superpave recommended
values are shown in Table 5.3:
62
Table 5.3: Aggregate Source Properties
Sr. No. Aggregate Source Properties Test Results Criteria

(%) (Asphalt Institute)
(%)
1 Soundness 3.25 10-20
2 Toughness 36 35-45
3 Deleterious materials 1 0.2-10
5.2 Aggregate Gradation
Asphalt Institute’s Superpave Series No. 2 specifies the gradation by modifying an approach
already used by some agencies. Permissible gradation is defined by the 0.45 power gradation
chart. To show the cumulative particle size distribution of an aggregate blend, the 0.45 power
chart uses a unique graphing technique. The chart is between the percent passing and sieve
size in millimeters raise to the 0.45 power with percent passing as ordinate and arithmetic
scale of sieve size in millimeters as abscissa.
Maximum density gradation is an important feature of the 0.45 power chart. The maximum
density line represents a gradation where aggregate particles fit together in their closest
possible arrangement and gives a straight line relationship between sieve size, raised to 0.45
power and percent passing from the maximum aggregate size to the origin.
Superpave defines the maximum and nominal maximum size, as the maximum size is “one
sieve larger than the nominal maximum size” and the nominal maximum sieve size as “one
sieve size larger than the first sieve to retain more than 10 percent”.
The Superpave Gradation Limits are shown in Figure 5.4 (reproduced from Asphalt
Institute’s Superpave Series No. 2)
Two additional features; Control point and Restricted Zone have been added to the 0.45
power chart to specify aggregate gradation as reported by McGennis et al (1995)
63
Figure 5.4: Superpave Gradation Limits
5.2.1 Control Points
According to Anderson et al. (1995), the function of the control points is to act as master
ranges through which gradations must pass. These are placed at the smallest size (0.075 mm),
intermediate size (2.36 mm) and at the nominal maximum size. The limits of these points
vary with the nominal maximum aggregate size of the design mixture.
5.2.2 Restricted Zone
According to McGennis et al. (1995), along the maximum density gradation between the
intermediate size (either 4.75 mm or 2.36 mm) and the 0.3 mm size, the restricted zone
resides. It is generally recommended that the gradation should not pass through the band
formed by the restricted zone. Gradations are called humped gradations when they pass
through the restricted zone from below the zone because of the characteristic hump in the
grading curve.
According to Kennedy et al. (1995), a mixture containing too much fine sand in comparison
with the total sand or an over-sanded mixture represents a humped gradation resulting in
tender mix behavior, evident by compaction problems during construction. Moreover, the
64
resistance to the permanent deformation (rutting) is reduced by using these mixtures.
According to Solaimanian et al. (1995), gradations following the maximum density line in
the fine aggregate sieves are prevented by the restricted zone as these gradations have
inadequate VMA to allow space for sufficient asphalt for durability. With minor variations in
the asphalt content these gradations can easily become plastic.
Gradations passing below the restricted zone are recommended by Superpave but it is not a
requirement; gradations passing above the restricted zone may be used successfully. Some of
the gradations passing through the restricted zone perform satisfactorily and before using
them, experience or testing is evaluated to determine if the aggregate performs satisfactorily.
Asphalt Institute use the term “Design Aggregate Structure” to describe the aggregate
particle size distribution. Superpave gradations require that the design aggregate structure
resides between the control points.
Table 5.4 (reproduced from Asphalt Institute’s Superpave Series No. 2) provides the five
mixture gradations by their nominal maximum aggregate size defined by Superpave. Table
5.5 (reproduced from Asphalt Institute’s Superpave Series No. 2) gives the Superpave
aggregate gradation control points and Table 5.6 (reproduced from Asphalt Institute’s
Superpave Series No. 2) introduces the Boundaries of Aggregate restricted zone.
Table 5.4: Superpave Mixture Gradations
Superpave Designation Nominal Maximum Size Maximum Size

(mm) (mm)
37.5 mm 37.5 50.0
25.0 mm 25.0 37.5
19.0 mm 19.0 25.0
12.5 mm 12.5 19.0
9.5 mm 9.5 12.5
65
Table 5.5: Superpave Aggregate Gradation Control Points
Sieve Nominal Maximum Aggregate Size – Control Points ( Percent Passing)

Size 37.5 mm 25.0 mm 19.0 mm 12.5 mm 9.5 mm
(mm)
Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max.
50.0 100
37.5 90 100 100
25.0 90 90 100 100
19.0 90 90 100 100
12.5 90 90 100 100
9.5 90 90 100
4.75 90
2.36 15 41 19 45 23 49 28 58 32 67
0.075 0 6 1 7 2 8 2 10 2 10
Table 5.6: Boundaries of Aggregate Restricted Zone
Sieve Minimum and Maximum Boundaries of Sieve Size for Nominal Maximum
Size Aggregate Size ( Minimum and Maximum Percent Passing)
within 37.5 mm 25.0 mm 19.0 mm 12.5 mm 9.5 mm
Restricted
Zone Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max.
(mm)
0.300 10.0 10.0 11.4 11.4 13.7 13.7 15.5 15.5 18.7 18.7
0.600 11.7 15.7 13.6 17.6 16.7 20.7 19.1 23.1 23.5 27.5
1.18 15.5 21.5 18.1 24.1 22.3 28.3 25.6 31.6 31.6 37.6
2.36 23.3 27.3 26.8 30.8 34.6 34.6 39.1 39.1 47.2 47.2
4.75 34.7 34.7 39.5 39.5 - - - - - -
Table 5.7 and Figure 5.4 show the aggregate gradations adopted for the research work.
Whereas Table 5.8 shows the mix design characteristics of the three mixes.
66
Table 5.7: Design Aggregate Gradations
Sieve Size Trial Blend Trial Blend Trial Blend

(mm) Superpave Marshall SMA
(% Passing) (% Passing) (% Passing)
37.5 100 100 100
25 100 100 100
19 95 95 100
12.5 80 82 95
9.5 63 66 65
4.75 43 44 28
2.36 29 30 20
0.075 5 4 10
SUPERPAVE MARSHALL SMA
120
100
80
% a g e Pa ssing
60
40
20
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Seive Diameter (mm)
Figure 5.5: Design Aggregate Gradations for three Mixes
67
Table 5.8: Mix Design Characteristics of Three Mixes
Sr. Mix characteristics Marshall SMA Superpave

No. (Dense Graded Mix) (Gap Graded Mix) (Dense Graded Mix)
1 Binder grade 60-70 60-70 PG 64-22

2 Binder content (%) 4.3 6 4
3 Compacting machine Marshall Marshall Gyratory
Hammer Hammer Compactor
4 Aggregate gradation NHA Class A Gap Graded Superpave
Wearing Course Criteria
5 Vma 15.58% 17% 13.5%
6 Air voids 6.3% 4% 4.12%
7 Type of additives Nill Cellulose fibre Nill
(Interfibe Road-Cel™
8 Amount of additive Nill 0.3% Nill
9 Original Specimen 4 inch 4inch 6 inch
Size
5.3 Binder Testing
Conventional binder properties and their comparison with the AASHTO M 20 specifications
are shown in Table 5.9 below:
Table 5.9: Physical Properties of Asphalt
Test Test Result Criteria

0
G*/sin δ @ 64 C (Fresh) kPa 1.939 1.0 minimum
G*/sin δ @ 64 0C (RTFO) kPa 4.356 2.2 minimum
Flash point(0C) 300 230 0C minimum
Penetration 63 60-70
Specific Gravity at 25 0C 1.02 1.01-1.06
Ductility at 25 0C 114 100 minimum
Softening point(0C) 50 48-56
Performance based binder testing in collaboration with Attock Oil Refinery Rawalpindi
(ARL) was performed using the procedures recommended by Asphalt institute (SP-1)
Manual. Binder testing was performed on both the neat (60/70 Grade) asphalt and polymer
modified bitumen (1.6% Elvaloy 4160).
68
The results are tabulated in Annexure C (Tables C1 and C2).Summary of the results is given
in Table 5.10 and 5.11.
Table 5.10: Summary of Performance based Binder Properties of 60/70 Grade Bitumen
SHRP PERFORMANCE GRADE ANALYSIS

Sample: PAKISTAN BASE, ATTOCK 60/70 PEN, NEAT
Precise SHRP Grade PG 62.6 – 24.5
Table 5.11: Summary of Performance based Binder Properties of Polymer

Modified Bitumen (1.6 % Elvaloy) Results.

Sample: 01-102A - Pakistan Attock 60 - 70 Pen 1.6% 4170, 0.7% SPA, Overnight cook,
1600C
Precise SHRP Grade PG 78.6 – 23.3
69
Chapter Six
70
Chapter 6
Performance Based Testing
6.0 Introduction
One of the essential aspects regarding asphalt mix or pavement design and evaluation
procedure is material testing. In order to understand the behavior of materials in service, it is
important to study their different properties subjected to various parameters. To evaluate the
performance of materials a general procedure which is conventionally followed includes the
following steps;
• Determination of factors affecting properties of the materials.
• Selection of the testing equipment and procedures that simulates field conditions.
• Selection of the material design properties which correlate with the design
procedures.
Flexible pavements involve bound and unbound material testing. Performance based testing
to predict rutting in asphaltic wearing course mix is the focus of this research. The over all
purpose of this chapter is to present comprehensive performance based testing of asphaltic
concrete samples using Superpave, Marshall and Stone Mastic asphalt (SMA) mixes.
Following tests were performed to evaluate the comparative performance of asphalt mixes;
• Indirect Tensile Modulus Test
• Uniaxial Loading Strain Test (Creep Test)
• Dynamic Modulus Test
• Wheel Tracking Test

Each test has been described with sample preparation, testing conditions, test procedure, test
results in tabular and graphical form.
71
6.1 Indirect Tensile Modulus Test
This test was performed according to ASTM D4123 using UTM – 5P (Universal Testing
Machine – 5 Pulses). The five pulse indirect tensile modulus test is actually a material
stiffness test in which a pulsed diametric loading force is applied to a specimen diametrically
and the resulting total recoverable diametric strain is then measured at axes 90˚ from the
applied force.
A value of 0.4 for Poisson’s ratio is used as constant. For controlled temperature testing, the
specimen’s skin and core temperatures were estimated by transducers inserted in a dummy
specimen and located near the specimen under testing. The specimens were mounted in the
indirect test jigs as per procedure described by the manual (Manual UTM-5P) and the results
were stored in the computer data base. Specimens were tested at test pulse period of 1000ms,
pulse width of 400ms and peak loading force of 500N.
The test conditions are shown in Table 6.1 below:
Table 6.1: Testing Conditions for Indirect Tensile Modulus Test
Mix Type Temperature(0C) Indirect Tensile Modulus Test
25
Marshall
Test Pulse Period=1000ms
SMA
40 Pulse Width=400ms
Superpave
Peak Loading Force=500N
55
The results obtained for different mixes are shown in Table 6.2 below:
72
Table 6.2: Resilient Modulus for Marshall, Superpave and SMA at Different Temperatures
Resilient Modulus (Mpa)

Temperature (°C)
Marshall Superpave SMA
25 5053 8000 2673
40 908 2000 734
55 242 550 296
The results obtained for different mixes are graphically shown in Figure 6.1 below;
10000
RESILIENT MODULUS (Mpa)
1000
100
10
25 40 55
o
TEMPERATURE ( C)
Marshall SuperPave SMA
Figure 6.1: Comparison of Resilient Modulus between Marshall, Superpave and SMA at
Different Temperatures
73
6.2 Uniaxial Loading Strain Test (Creep Test):
This test was performed by using UTM – 5P (Universal Testing Machine – 5 Pulses). The
machine has the capability to apply uniaxial repeated loadings of different magnitudes and at
different temperatures. Uniaxial strain test initially applies a static conditioning stress to the
specimen and measures the resulting accumulated strain. The magnitude and applied time
duration of the conditioning stress were set to 10 KN/m2 and conditioning time as 100
seconds. The loading pulse period of 2000ms (2 sec) and pulse width of 500 ms (0.5 sec) was
taken. The specimen was subjected to repeated pulse loading of 3600 cycles at stress levels
of 100, 300 and 500 KN/m2 and at temperature of 25°C, 40°C and 55°C. As pulse loading
continued, the accumulated strain was measured using two Linear Variable Displacement
Transducers (LVDTs) during both the conditioning and pulsed loading stages of the test and
displayed as a plot with linear scale axis. For each test, the temperature inside the testing
cabin was brought to the desired value before the commencement of the test. The specimen
to be tested was kept inside the temperature controlled chamber for approximately two hours
before the start of test in order to achieve a uniform temperature. The conditioning time of
two hours was found to be sufficient by measuring the temperature within a dummy core
specimen. Specimen set inside the UTM – 5P chamber is shown in Figure 6.2.
Figure 6.2: Creep Testing using UTM-5P
74
The results obtained from the creep test are shown graphically in Figures 6.3 through 6.5. It was
found that accumulated strains (%) increased with the increase in temperature and number of
cycles. At low temperatures amount of accumulated strains (%) were lower for all the mixes than
that at higher temperatures. Superpave mixes behaved better than the Marshall and SMA mixes
during creep test in terms of low accumulated strains (%) even at higher temperatures. SMA
performed better as compared to the Marshall Mix. Testing conditions are shown in Table 6.3
Table 6.3: Uniaxial Loading Strain Test Conditions
Mix Type Temperature(°C) Creep Testing Parameters

No. of Pulses = 3600
Pulse Period = 2000ms = 2 sec
Pulse Width = Loading Time
= 500ms = 0.5 sec
Rest Period = 1.5 sec
Stress Level (Kpa)
100
25 300
Marshall
500
SMA 100
40 300
Superpave
500
100
55 300
500
Following different results obtained from the above test are given below:
• Resilient strain
• Accumulated Strain
• Resilient Modulus
• Creep Stiffness
Results obtained from the creep test have been summarized at Annexure D (Table D1).also
they have been discussed one by one in the preceding section.
75
Resilient Strains (%) obtained at specified testing conditions for the three mixes have been
presented in the Table 6.4 below:
Table 6.4: Uniaxial Loading Strain Test Results Showing Resilient Strain (%)
Resilient Strain (%)
Stress Temperature Mix Type

Level (°C) Superpave SMA Marshall
Individual Average Individual Average Individual Average
0.016 0.017 0.0057
0.026
25 0.011 0.014 0.026 0.0247 0.019
0.015 0.035 0.024
0.019 0.04 0.0355
100KPa 40 0.038 0.027 0.02 0.033 0.0322 0.034
0.024 0.037 0.0348
0.022 0.031 0.0333
55 0.038 0.031 0.071 0.059 0.0103 0.039
0.033 0.075 0.0734
0.032 0.025 0.05
25 0.037 0.036 0.048 0.046 0.039 0.043
0.039 0.064 0.04
0.053 0.11 0.055
300Kpa 40 0.064 0.059 0.11 0.097 0.065 0.067
0.060 0.07 0.081
0.08 0.08 0.14
55 0.11 0.1 0.13 0.11 0.16 0.13
0.11 0.12 0.09
0.03 0.11 0.05
25 0.05 0.04 0.064 0.097 0.03 0.045
0.04 0.116 0.055
0.073 0.077 0.09
500Kpa 40 0.079 0.071 0.19 0.107 0.02 0.08
0.061 0.053 0.13
0.092 0.15 0.11
55 0.124 0.11 0.136 0.16
0.123 0.14
0.114 0.083 0.15
76
The above results are being graphically presented at different temperatures and stress levels
in Figures 6.3 through 6.8.
0.12
0.1
RESILIENT STRAIN (%)
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
STRESS LEVEL (kPa)
S PAVE SMA MARSHALL
Figure 6.3: Relationship between Resilient Strain and Stress at 25°C for 3 mixes
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
STRESS LEVEL (kPa)
S PAVE SMA MARSHALL
77
Figure 6.4: Relationship between Resilient Strain and Stress at 40°C for 3 mixes.
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
STRESS LEVEL (kPa)
S PAVE SMA MARSHALL
Figure 6.5: Relationship between Resilient Strain and Stress at 55°C for 3 mixes.
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
20 30 40 50 60
0
TEMPERTAURE ( C)
S PAVE SMA MARSHALL
Figure 6.6: Relationship between Resilient Strain and Temperature at 100 KPa for 3 mixes.
78
0.14
0.12

0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
20 30 40 50 60
0
TEMPERATURE ( C)
S PAVE SMA MARSHALL
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
20 30 40 50 60
0
TEMPERATURE ( C)
S PAVE SMA MARSHALL
79
Accumulated Strain (%) obtained from the Uniaxial Loading Strain Test at different test
conditions are shown in Table 6.5 below:
Table 6.5: Uniaxial Loading Strain Test Results showing Accumulated Strain (%)
Accumulated Strain (%)
Mix Type
Stress Temperature
Level (°C)
Super Pave SMA Marshal

0.1415 0.30 0.0552
25 0.1625 0.15 0.25 0.36 0.25 0.39
0.1502 0.52 0.52
0.1451 0.45 0.88
100KPa 40 0.4235 0.28 0.35 0.45 0.99 0.85
0.2757 0.55 0.67
0.40 0.45 1.35
55 0.36 0.38 0.65 0.57 0.44 1.35
0.38 0.61 0.42
0.39 0.5 0.41
25 0.22 0.31 0.8 0.77 0.56 0.5
0.32 1.0 0.54
0.15 1.29 1.23
300KPa 40 0.40 0.35 1.74 1.5 1.13 1.14
0.50 1.45 1.07
0.45 5.9 1.78
55 0.5 0.47 4.9 4.5 2.16 2.18
0.46 2.7 2.59
0.14 1.00 0.56
25 0.52 0.33 0.91 1.07 1.67 1.0
0.33 1.30 0.76
0.39 2.67 2.55
500KPa 40 0.48 0.44 3.72 3.5 2.96 3.05
0.45 4.16 3.69
0.82 5.7 5.61
55 0.76 0.70 3.8 4.5 2.52 4.4
0.52 4.0 2.07
80
The above results are being presented graphically in Figures 6.9 through 6.23.
1.8
1.6
ACCUMULATED STRAIN(%) 1.4
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
PULSE COUNT
S PAVE MARSHALL SMA
Figure 6.9: Relationship between Accumulated Strain and Pulse Count

at 100 KPa and 25°C
3.5
3
ACCUMULATED STRAIN(%)
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
PULSE COUNT
S PAVE MARSHALL SMA

81
4
3.5
3
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
PULSE COUNT
S PAVE MARSHALL SMA

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
PULSE COUNT
S PAVE SMA MARSHALL

82
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
PULSE COUNT
S PAVE SMA MARSHALL

2.5
2
1.5
0.5
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
PULSE COUNT
S PAVE MARSHALL SMA

83
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
PULSE COUNT
S PAVE MARSHALL SMA

At 500 KPa and 25°C
3.5
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
PULSE COUNT
S PAVE MARSHALL SMA

84
6
4
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
PULSE COUNT
S PAVE MARSHALL SMA

1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
STRESS LEVEL(KPa)
S PAVE SMA MARSHALL
Figure 6.18: Relationship between Accumulated Strain and Stress Level at 25°C
85
4
3.5
3
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
STRESS LEVEL(KPa)
S PAVE SMA MARSHALL
4.5
4
ACCUMULATED STRAIN
3.5
2.5
(%)
1.5
0.5
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
STRESS LEVEL(KPa)
S PAVE SMA MARSHALL
86
1.6
1.4
ACCUMULATED STRAIN
1.2
(%) 1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
20 30 40 50 60
0
TEMPERATURE ( C)
S PAVE SMA MARSHALL
Figure 6.21: Relationship between Accumulated Strain and Temperature at 100 kPa
2.5
ACCUMULATED STRAIN
2
(%)
1.5
0.5
0
20 30 40 50 60
0
TEMPERATURE ( C)
S PAVE SMA MARSHALL
87
5
4.5
4
ACCUMULATED STRAIN
3.5
2.5
(%)
1.5
1
0.5
0
20 30 40 50 60
0
TEMPERATURE ( C)
S PAVE SMA MARSHALL
88
Resilient Modulus obtained from different mixes at different test conditions is shown in
Table 6.6 below:
Table 6.6: Uniaxial Loading Strain Test Results Showing Resilient Modulus
Resilient Modulus (MPa)
Mix Type
Stress Temperature
Level (°C) Super Pave SMA Marshal
705 300 416

25 760 734 255 278 404 410
737 154 1756
359 268 286
100KPa 40 412 398 501 262 286 300
423 256 314
650 109 137
55 573 609 94 100 306 137
604 97 986
742 1213 336
25 684 714 620 440 497 673
716 461 597
599 272 624

300KPa 40 587 577 262 317 695 477
545 417 699
543 107 258

55 501 517 92 100 280 249
507 101 208
749 454 545

25 723 734 780 554 503 521
730 428 515
567 645 379

500KPa 40 560 556 261 453 1477 477
541 944 576
539 104 343

55 502 517 91 100 327 330
510 105 320
89
The results are graphically presented in Figures (6.24 – 6.29)
1400
1200
RESILIENT MODULUS (MPa)
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
STRESS LEVEL (KPa)
S PAVE SMA MARSHALL
Figure 6.24: Relationship between Resilient Modulus and Stress 25°C
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
STRESS LEVEL (KPa)
S PAVE SMA MARSHALL
Figure 6.25: Relationship between Resilient Modulus and Stress Level at 40°C
90
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
STRESS LEVEL (KPa)
S PAVE SMA MARSHALL
Figure 6.26: Relationship between Resilient Modulus and Stress Level at 55°C
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
20 30 40 50 60
0
TEMPERATURE ( C)
S PAVE SMA MARSHALL
Figure 6.27: Relationship between Resilient Modulus and Temperature at 100 kPa
91
800
700

600
500
400
300
200
100
0
20 30 40 50 60
0
TEMPERATURE ( C)
S PAVE SMA MARSHALL
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
0
TEMPERATURE ( C)
S PAVE SMA MARSHALL
Creep Stiffness obtained from different mixes at different test conditions is shown in Table
6.7 below:
92
Table 6.7: Uniaxial Loading Strain Test Results Showing Creep Stiffness
Creep Stiffness (MPa)
Mix Type
Stress Temperature
Level (°C) Superpave SMA Marshall
71 34 180
25 60 67 39 31 40 30
70 19 19.4
68 22 11
100KPa 40 23 46 29 23 11 15
47 18 15
25 21 7.42
55 59 42 15 18 23 12
42 18 25
167 59 71
25 85 112 37 41 53 60
84 28 55
75 23 24
300KPa 40 69 72 17 20 26 26
72 20 27
55 11 16
55 50 53 9 10 14 14
54 10 11
86 49 89
25 73 83 54 47 30 62
90 38 65
72 18 19
500KPa 40 79 76 13 14 11 14
77 12 13
63 15 8.84
55 72 70 10 13 20 14
75 14 24
93
The results are graphically presented in Figures 6.30 through 6.35.
120
100
CREEP STIFFNESS (%)
80
60
40
20
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
STRESS LEVEL (KPa)
S PAVE SMA MARSHALL
Figure 6.30: Relationship between Creep Stiffness and Stress Level at 25˚C
120
100
CREEP STIFFNESS (%)
80
60
40
20
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
STRESS LEVEL (KPa)
S PAVE SMA MARSHALL
94
120
100
CREEP STIFFNESS (%) 80
60
40
20
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
STRESS LEVEL (KPa)
S PAVE SMA MARSHALL
80
70
CREEP STIFFNESS (%)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
20 30 40 50 60
0
TEMPERATURE ( C)
S PAVE SMA MARSHALL
Figure 6.33: Relationship between Creep Stiffness and Temperature at 100 KPa
95
80
70
CREEP STIFFNESS (%)

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
20 30 40 50 60
0
TEMPERATURE ( C)
S PAVE SMA MARSHALL
80
70
CREEP STIFFNESS (%)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
20 30 40 50 60
0
TEMPERATURE ( C)
S PAVE SMA MARSHALL
96
6.3 Dynamic Modulus Testing:
Dynamic modulus testing is used to accurately characterize the strength and load resistance
of asphalt mixes. Dynamic modulus of asphalt is a viscoelastic test response developed under
sinusoidal loading conditions. It is the absolute value of dividing the peak-to-peak stress by
the peak-to-peak strain for a material subjected to a sinusoidal loading. Dynamic modulus
test was performed according to AASHTO TP 62-4 test method using NU – 14 machine on
asphalt cylindrical specimens of 4 x 6 inch size at three temperatures and nine different stress
levels. For Superpave mix, samples of 4” diameter were extracted from original 6” samples
as shown in Figure 6.36 below:
Figure 6.36: Extracted Sample for Dynamic Modulus Testing From 6” Dia. Original
Gyratory Sample
The machine is capable of applying dynamic loading of different magnitudes and frequencies
at different temperature conditions. Strains were measured using gauges affixed at fixed
positions on the test specimens as shown in Figure 6.37, and the data was automatically fed
into a computer to calculate the test results.
97
Figure 6.37: Dynamic Modulus Testing Arrangement using NU-14
The conditions during test are described in Table 6.8 below:
Table 6.8: Dynamic Modulus Test Conditions
Dynamic Modulus Test
No. of Cycles=200
Mix Type Temperature(0C)
Frequencies(Hz)=25,10,5,1,0.5,0.1
Stress Level(Kpa)
300
25 500
700
Marshall 150
SMA 40 200
Superpave 250
35
55 50
65
The results in summarized form are given at Annexure D (Tables D2, D3 and D3)
98
The results obtained are shown in Tables 6.9 – 6.11
Table 6.9: Comparison of Dynamic Modulus Results for

Marshall, SMA and Superpave Mix at 25°C
Dynamic Modulus (MPa) at 25°C
Frequency MARSHALL SMA SUPERPAVE
(Hz) 300 500 700 300 500 700 300 500 700
kPa kPa kPa kPa kPa kPa kPa kPa kPa
25 7000 7631 7360 5558 7223 7066 7700 11649 8942
10 4901 5700 5773 3981 5076 5137 6294 9238 7048
5 3961 4424 4463 3239 4087 4149 5070 7843 5884
1 2259 2550 2752 1919 2338 2567 3316 5249 3833
0.5 1784 1977 2254 1469 1842 2116 2592 4420 3192
0.1 1104 1179 1474 867 1081 1358 1647 2800 2080
(Hz) 150 200 250 150 200 250 150 200 250
25 2654 3450 2556 7066 3832 1703 8942 5077 5145
10 1876 2367 1846 5137 2474 1216 7048 3871 3698
5 1502 1854 1449 4149 2032 994 5883 2927 2883
1 931 1132 950 2570 1134 643 3833 1680 1665
0.5 794 938 829 2116 898 469 3192 1341 1344
0.1 586 665 628 1358 542 454 2080 850 889

(Hz) 35 50 65 35 50 65 35 50 65
25 379 421 435 427 464 485 735 742 737
10 299 327 346 341 372 396 558 549 571
5 273 296 310 315 340 361 479 484 493
1 229 247 261 260 286 303 357 373 386
0.5 205 227 246 240 269 289 323 337 351
0.1 180 199 220 223 254 212 264 286 305
99
The results are presented graphically in figures 6.38 through 6.46
9000
8000
7000
DYNAMIC MODULUS
6000
5000
(MPa)
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
NO. OF CYCLES
SP SMA MARSHALL
Figure 6.38: Relationship between Dynamic Modulus and No. of Cycles for Marshall, SMA,
Superpave Mix at 300 kPa and 25°C
14000
12000
10000
DYNAMIC MODULUS
8000
(MPa)
6000
4000
2000
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
NO. OF CYCLES
SP SMA MARSHALL
100
10000
9000
DYNAMIC MODULUS 8000

7000
6000
(MPa)
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
NO. OF CYCLES
SP SMA MARSHALL
10000
9000
8000
DYNAMIC MODULUS
7000
6000
(MPa)
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
NO. OF CYCLES
SP SMA MARSHALL
101
4500
4000
3500
DYNAMIC MODULUS
3000
2500
(MPa)
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
NO. OF CYCLES
SP SMA MARSHALL
3000
2500
DYNAMIC MODULUS
2000
(MPa)
1500
1000
500
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
NO. OF CYCLES
SP SMA MARSHALL
102
800
700
600
DYNAMIC MODULUS
(MPa) 500
400
300
200
100
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
NO. OF CYCLES
SP SMA MARSHALL
800
700
600
DYNAMIC MODULUS
500
(MPa)
400
300
200
100
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
NO. OF CYCLES
SP SMA MARSHALL
103
800
700
600
DYNAMIC MODULUS
(MPa) 500
400
300
200
100
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
NO. OF CYCLES
SP SMA MARSHALL
Superpave Mix at 65 Kpa and 55°C
The Permanent Strain obtained from the Dynamic Modulus Test are shown in Tables 6.12
through 6.14
Table 6.12: Comparison of Permanent Strain Results for Marshall, SMA and Superpave Mix
at 25°C
Permanent Strain at 25°C

MARSHALL SMA SUPERPAVE
Frequency
(Hz) 300 500 700 300 500 700 300 500 700
(10-4) (10-4) (10-4) (10-4) (10-4) (10-4) (10-4) (10-4) (10-4)

25 5.6 9.11 6.13 12.48 8.51 8.54 2.27 1.78 4.35
10 7 15.68 11.38 18.57 13.14 13.74 4.32 3.03 6.58
5 7.7 19.82 15 22.9 16.65 17.21 5.6 4.56 7.7
1 8.7 26.55 20.09 30.73 23.26 23.5 7.75 7.57 9.5
0.5 9 28.88 21.79 33.49 25.77 25.87 8.49 8.52 10.09
0.1 9.8 35.3 26.23 41.94 33.32 32.67 9.52 10.86 11.88
104
at 40°C

Frequency
(Hz) 150 200 250 150 200 250 150 200 250
(10-4) (10-4) (10-4) (10-4) (10-4) (10-4) (10-4) 10-4) (10-4)

25 4.27 4.31 5.95 31.96 9.25 69.54 3.88 4.1 4.35
10 4.58 4.75 6.87 39.35 11.24 87.69 4.45 4.59 4.77
5 4.73 5.01 7.44 43.53 12.49 96.53 4.66 4.83 4.99
1 4.89 5.19 8.09 47.96 13.34 104.87 4.75 5.06 5.21
0.5 5.01 5.31 8.28 49.01 13.49 106.61 4.86 5.14 5.32
0.1 5.18 5.42 8.84 50.69 13.61 109.35 5.03 5.27 5.47
at 55°C

Frequency
(Hz) 35 50 65 35 50 65 35 50 65
(10-4) (10-4) (10-4) (10-4) (10-4) (10-4) (10-4) (10-4) (10-4)

25 19.74 7.84 7.09 16.31 5.91 6.2 2.27 2.31 2.94
10 22.87 9.52 8.39 18.51 6.21 6.91 2.49 2.37 2.99
5 24.44 10.5 9.19 19.33 6.34 7.11 2.61 2.41 3.03
1 26.45 11.75 9.96 19.96 6.45 7.23 2.74 2.46 3.12
0.5 27.07 12.16 10.19 20.06 6.57 7.36 2.77 2.53 3.25
0.1 28.74 13.28 10.59 20.93 6.73 7.5 3 2.67 3.37
105
The results are presented graphically in Figures 6.47 through 6.55
0.0045
0.004
0.0035
PERMANENT STRAIN
0.003
0.0025
0.002
0.0015
0.001
0.0005
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
NO. OF CYCLES
SP SMA MARSHALL
Figure 6.47: Relationship between Permanent Strain and No. of Cycles for Marshall, SMA,
0.004
0.0035
0.003
PERMANENT STRAIN
0.0025
0.002
0.0015
0.001
0.0005
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
NO. OF CYCLES
SP SMA MARSHALL
106
0.0035
0.003
PERMANENT STRAIN 0.0025
0.002
0.0015
0.001
0.0005
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
NO. OF CYCLES
SP SMA MARSHALL
0.00068
0.00063
PERMANENT STRAIN
0.00058
0.00053
0.00048
0.00043
0.00038
0 50 100 150 200 250
NO. OF CYCLES
SP SMA MARSHALL
107
0.00158
0.00138
PERMANENT STRAIN
0.00118
0.00098
0.00078
0.00058
0.00038
0 50 100 150 200 250
NO. OF CYCLES
SP SMA MARSHALL
0.0122
0.0102
PERMANENT STRAIN
0.0082
0.0062
0.0042
0.0022
0.0002
0 50 100 150 200 250
NO. OF CYCLES
SP SMA MARSHALL
108
0.0035
0.003
PERMANENT STRAIN 0.0025
0.002
0.0015
0.001
0.0005
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
NO. OF CYCLES
SP SMA MARSHALL
0.0014
0.0012
0.001
PERMANENT STRAIN
0.0008
0.0006
0.0004
0.0002
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
NO. OF CYCLES
SP SMA MARSHALL
109
0.0012
0.001
PERMANENT STRAIN
0.0008
0.0006
0.0004
0.0002
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
NO. OF CYCLES
SP SMA MARSHALL
6.4 Wheel Tracking Test
This test was performed according to EN 12697-22 test method using Wheel Tracking
Device. The susceptibility of bituminous material to rut under wheel load is determined using
the wheel tracking test. Specimens prepared in laboratory or cut from the real pavement can
be tested for rutting due to repeated passes of a loaded wheel at different temperatures.
The apparatus consists of a loaded wheel which passes repeatedly over the sample held
securely on a table and an attached device monitors the rate at which rut develops at the
specimen surface. Temperature control device is required so that the temperature of the test
specimen during testing remains uniform and maintained constant at ± 1 °C. Test specimens
were prepared in the laboratory using Roller Compactor as shown in Figure 6.56.
110
Figure 6.56: Roller Compactor Viewed from End
This process of compaction involved four stages. In the first stage, the specimen was
compacted under 2 bars pressure with 10 number of passes. In the second stage, the specimen
was further compacted under 5 bars of pressure with 10 number of passes. In stage 3, the
specimen was compacted under 4 bars of pressure with 5 number of passes and in final stage
4; the specimen was compacted under 3 bars of pressure with 5 number of passes. Size of the
specimen used was 305mm X 305mm X 50mm.
Table 6.15 shows the test conditions.
Table 6.15: Wheel Tracking Test Conditions
Mix Type Temperature(0C) Wheel Tracking Test
25
Marshall
SMA 40 No. of Passes = 10,000
Superpave
55
111
First of all specimens were conditioned at a specified temperature. After the placement of the
compacted specimen in the wheel tracking machine, the loaded wheel was brought in contact
with the specimen and the rut development was monitored with an automatic displacement
measuring device. Wheel Tracking Machine with specimen under load wheel is shown in
Figure 6.57.
Figure 6.57: Loaded wheel in contact with the specimen
Specified temperature of the specimen and the chamber were maintained at 25˚C, 40˚C and
55˚C during the test. The displacement measuring device automatically transferred the
measured rut depth at increments of 100 cycles to the attached computer. The tracking
continued for 10,000 cycles or for a period when the specified rut depth was achieved. Final
condition of the specimen at the end of the test is shown in Figure 6.58.
Figure 6.58: Specimen showing rutting after completion of the test
112
The results obtained from Wheel Track Test in terms of Rut Depth (mm) obtained at
different temperatures have been tabulated in the following tables (Table 6.16 – 6.21)
Table 6.16: Relationship between No. of Passes and Rut Depth for SMA
Rut Depth at Specified Temperature (mm)

No. of Passes
25˚C 40˚C 55˚C
0 0 0 0
1000 0.3 1.56 1.29
2000 0.37 1.95 2.19
3000 0.52 2.21 2.52
4000 0.69 2.39 3.26
5000 0.82 2.65 3.85
6000 0.94 2.79 4.32
7000 0.99 2.88 4.87
8000 1.14 3.01 5.3
9000 1.12 3.47 5.88
10000 1.29 3.6 5.98
Table 6.17: Relationship between No. of Passes and Rut Depth for Marshall

No. of Passes
25˚C 40˚C 55˚C
0 0 0 0
1000 0.7 0.56 1.15
2000 0.96 0.94 2.4
3000 1.27 1.42 4.03
4000 1.53 1.91 5.7
5000 1.79 2.42 7.5
6000 2.01 3.11 9.1
7000 2.2 3.39 10.37
8000 2.43 3.76 12.5
9000 2.63 3.95 15.35
10000 2.82 4.18 17.15
113
Table 6.18: Relationship between No. of Passes and Rut Depth for Superpave

No. of Passes
25˚C 40˚C 55˚C
0 0 0 0
1000 0.03 0.78 1.15
2000 0.39 1.48 2.4
3000 0.67 2.2 3.5
4000 0.88 2.88 4.7
5000 1.11 3.62 5.8
6000 1.28 4.15 6.6
7000 1.46 4.78 7.3
8000 1.71 5.36 8.2
9000 1.92 5.88 9.34
10000 2.15 6.4 10.1
Table 6.19: Comparison of Rut Depth (mm) between SMA, Marshall and Superpave Mix at 25˚C
Rut Depth at 25˚C For Different Mixes

No. of Passes
SMA Marshall Superpave
0 0 0 0
1000 0.3 0.7 0.15
2000 0.37 0.96 0.39
3000 0.52 1.27 0.67
4000 0.69 1.53 0.88
5000 0.82 1.79 1.11
6000 0.94 2.01 1.28
7000 0.99 2.2 1.46
8000 1.06 2.43 1.71
9000 1.12 2.63 1.92
10000 1.29 2.82 2.15
114
Table 6.20: Comparison of Rut Depth (mm) between SMA, Marshall and Superpave Mix at
40˚C

No. of Passes
0 0 0 0
1000 1 0.56 0.78
2000 1.7 0.94 1.48
3000 2.21 1.42 2.2
4000 2.39 1.91 2.88
5000 2.65 2.42 3.62
6000 2.79 3.11 4.15
7000 2.95 3.39 4.78
8000 3.25 3.76 5.36
9000 3.47 3.95 5.88
10000 3.6 4.18 6.4
Table 6.21: Comparison of Rut Depth (mm) between SMA, Marshall and Superpave Mix at 55˚C

No. of Passes
0 0 0 0
1000 1.29 1.15 1.15
2000 2.19 2.4 2.4
3000 2.5 4.03 3.5
4000 3.26 5.7 4.7
5000 3.85 7.5 5.8
6000 4.32 9.1 6.6
7000 4.87 10.37 7.3
8000 5.3 12.5 8.2
9000 5.88 15.35 9.34
10000 6.15 17.15 10.1
115
Results in summarized form are shown in Table 6.22 indicating the final rut depth (mm).
Table 6.22: Summary of Wheel Tracking Test Results for Three Mixes
Rut Depth (mm)

Temperature
25˚C 1.2 2.82 2.15
40˚C 3.6 6.4 4.18
55˚C 6.15 17.15 10.1
Graphical presentation of the rut depth data has been shown in Figures 6.59 through 6.64.
5
RUT DEPTH (mm)
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
NO. OF PASSES
25˚C 40˚C 55˚C
Figure 6.59: Relationship between No. of Passes and Rut Depth for SMA Mix at different
Temperatures
116
20
18
16
14
RUT DEPTH (mm)
12
10
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
NO. OF PASSES
25˚C 40˚C 55˚C
Figure 6.60: Relationship between No. of Passes and Rut Depth for Marshall Mix at different
Temperatures
12
10
RUT DEPTH (mm)
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
NO. OF PASSES
25˚C 40˚C 55˚C
Figure 6.61: Relationship between No. of Passes and Rut Depth for Superpave Mix at
different Temperatures
117
3
2.5
RUT DEPTH (mm ) 2
1.5
0.5
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
NO. OF PASSES
SMA MARSHALL SUPERPAVE
Figure 6.62: Comparison of SMA, Marshall and Superpave at 25°C
5
RUT DEPTH (mm)
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
NO. OF PASSES
118
20
18
16
RUT DEPTH (mm) 14
12
10
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
NO. OF PASSES
119
Chapter Seven
120
Chapter 7
Discussion
7.0 Introduction
The objective of this study was to compare the design of asphaltic concrete by Superpave,
Marshall and Stone Mastic Asphalt mix methods for typical asphaltic concrete mixes used in
Pakistan. They were subjected to a comprehensive laboratory testing after samples of mixes
were prepared at the design asphalt contents and aggregate gradations. A comprehensive
laboratory based performance testing of these mixes was carried out at different
temperatures, stress levels and loading frequencies in order to compare their relative
properties which influence asphalt rutting and performance. The previous chapters explained
in detail different aspects of this research work.
7.1 Volumetric Study of Different Mixes

In case of Superpave Mix samples, specific gravity (Gmb) of the asphalt mix increased by
about 3.1% and 1.9% as compared to Marshall and SMA samples respectively. This could be
due to better compaction achieved through the kneading action of Superpave Gyratory
Compactor. Superpave samples had 35% less air voids (Va) than Marshall samples which
indicate higher percentage of air voids than that required at optimum asphalt content. SMA
and Superpave Mix had almost same air voids content. The higher percentage of air voids
results in a more permeable mix allowing air and water to pass through easily and may result
in premature and brittle failure of the mix.
Voids in Mineral Aggregates (VMA) in Superpave samples were less than Marshall and
SMA samples by about 13.3% and 20.6% respectively which show increased density and
reduced air voids. Voids Filled with Asphalt (VFA) in Superpave samples were more than
Marshall and SMA samples by 16.8% and 9% respectively. Excessive VFA value can
produce inadequate space for asphalt expansion, loss of aggregate to aggregate contact,
rutting and shoving in high traffic areas. Similarly lesser VFA value can result in loss of
121
bond and consequently loss of mix stability. Superpave Method provided significant
improvement in the Volumetric Properties of the mix.
7.2 Performance Based Properties
7.2.1 Modulus of Resilience (Mr)
An essential input for the flexible pavement design, the Modulus of resilience (Mr) generally
relates the load spreading ability of materials and indicates their load associated deformation
characteristics. It varies with temperature and loading frequencies due to the visco-elastic
properties of asphalt. In the present study, samples of Superpave (6” Dia), Marshall (4”Dia)
and SMA (4”Dia) were tested according to Standard Test Method for Indirect Tension Test
for Resilient Modulus of Bituminous Mixtures (ASTM D 4123-82) using UTM-5P
(Universal Testing Machine).
The graphical relationships between Modulus of resilience (Mr) and temperature have shown
that Mr decreased with the increase in temperature. It also exhibits that Superpave mixes
showed maximum values of Mr at all temperatures than the other two mixes.
After the critical analysis of the results for all mixes, it can be generalized that Mr decreases
with the increase in temperature. The Mr of Marshall mix decreased from 5053(Mpa) at 250C
to 908 (Mpa) at 400C and 242 (Mpa) at 550C. The Mr of Superpave mix decreased from
8000(Mpa) at 250C to 2000 (Mpa) at 400C and 550 (Mpa) at 550C. The Mr of Stone Mastic
Asphalt (SMA) decreased from 2673(Mpa) at 250C to 1650 (Mpa) at 400C and 296 (Mpa) at
550C. A rapid decrease in Mr Value is evident during temperature shift from 250C to
400C.Superpave mix performed better as compared to the other two mixes. Even at 400C Mr
for Superpave is sufficient enough. Load carrying capacity of asphalt decreases with the
increase in temperatures.
7.2.2 Repeated Uniaxial Loading Strain Test Properties
Repeated Uniaxial Loading Strain test was performed in order to study the rutting behaviour
122
of different asphalt mixes. Following parameters were studied for this test:
• Accumulated Strain (%)
• Creep Stiffness
• Resilient Strain
• Resilient Modulus
7.2.2.1 Accumulated Strain (%)
Results for accumulated strain by Superpave, SMA and Marshall Methods reveal that
Superpave samples gave much lower values as compared to the SMA and Marshall Method.
The accumulated strain values of Superpave samples were 160% and 135% lower than SMA
and Marshall Methods at 25˚C respectively. Whereas the Accumulated Strains resulting from
Superpave samples were 379% and 354% lower than SMA and Marshall Methods at 40˚C.
Even at 55˚C the Superpave samples induced accumulated strains were 483% and 382%
lower than SMA and Marshall Methods.
Accumulated strain (%) plotted against the number of load cycles showed that it increased
with the increase in loading pulses and increase in temperature at different stress levels of
100,300 and 500 kPa. The trend was almost the same under different temperatures and stress
levels. Superpave mixes induced minimum accumulated strains while Marshall and SMA
induced maximum.
A shift of asphalt behaviour was observed in case of SMA as shown in Figure 6.21-6.23.
Accumulated strain (%) abruptly increased when stress level was increased from 100 kPa to
300 kPa and 500 kPa. This could be due to the fact that the SMA samples were not confined
when tested for repeated uniaxial loading strain test .Consequently at higher stress levels
,mix showed high accumulated strain.
It reflected that permanent deformation increases with the increase in load repetitions
creating ruts. Also the effect of high temperatures in summer on rutting is clear from the
aforementioned results. The improved volumetric properties of Superpave mixes resulted in
excellent performance in terms of lowest induced accumulated even at extreme temperatures
and stress levels. As compaction method of Superpave mixes simulates the field compaction,
123
therefore Superpave mix design can be used efficiently to solve the critical problems in
asphalt especially the permanent deformation.
7.2.2.2 Creep Stiffness
Creep Stiffness or stiffness modulus (Ec) can be explained using equation 7.1.
Ec=Stress Applied/Accumulated Axial Strain=σ/ξc……………………………….(7.1)
Kamal and Niazi (2007) also studied the effect of different asphalt mixes on rutting and
stiffness and concluded that stiffness of mixture is enhanced to resist loads. Stiffness is the
ratio of uni-axial stress and resulting strain. The resulting strain depends upon temperature
and loading time due to the visco-elastic nature of Asphalt. At low temperatures and short
loading times, the material behaves like an elastic material. Under these circumstances the
mixture stiffness depends on binder and VMA (Voids in Mineral Aggregates) which is called
elastic stiffness. At higher temperatures and longer loading times, the stiffness is called
viscous stiffness and depends on the type, grading, shape and texture of aggregates and the
method of compaction and VMA of the mix.
After comparing the results of Marshall, Superpave and SMA Mixes, it was evident that the
Creep Stiffness of Superpave mix is much greater than SMA and Marshall mixes. The values
of Superpave mix were 244% greater than SMA and 81% greater than Marshall Mix at 25˚C.
The values of creep stiffness for Superpave Mix were 267% greater than SMA and 275%
greater than Marshall Mix at 40˚C. The values of creep stiffness for Superpave Mix were
333% greater than SMA and 309% greater than Marshall Mixes at 55˚C.
7.2.2.3 Resilient Strain
The values of resilient strain for Superpave mix are 85% smaller than SMA Mix and 23%
smaller than Marshall Mix at 25˚C. The values of Superpave mix are 45% smaller than SMA
samples and 17% smaller than Marshall Samples at 40˚C. The values of Superpave samples
are 37% smaller than SMA samples and 27% smaller than Marshall Samples at 55˚C.
124
Lesser values of resilient strain indicate more stable mix.
7.2.2.4 Resilient Modulus
Resilient modulus (Mr) can be explained using equation 7.2.
Mr = Stress Applied/Resilient Axial Strain = σ/ξr…………………………………….(7.2)
The values of Superpave in this case were 86% and 22% greater than SMA and Marshall
Mixes respectively at 25˚C. The values of Superpave mix were 52% greater than SMA and
23% greater than Marshall Mixes at 40˚C. The values of Superpave Mix were 447% greater
than SMA and 169% greater than Marshall Mixes at 55˚C.
7.2.3 Dynamic Modulus
Zhou et al. (2003) reported that the distinction between resilient modulus test and the
dynamic modulus test is that the first one applies loading of any waveform with a specified
rest period while the second one applies a sinusoidal or haversine loading with no rest period
as shown in Figure 7.1 (reproduced from pavement guide for Washington state department of
transportation (WSDOT)). They also concluded from their research study that complex
modulus is one of the techniques to elucidate the visco elastic property of asphalt mix, which
is a complex quantity whose real part presents the elastic stiffness and the imaginary part
shows the internal damping of asphalt mix. The absolute value of the complex modulus is
generally stated as the dynamic modulus. Dynamic modulus test is a candidate for Superpave
Simple Performance Test Development and one of the essential inputs for flexible pavement
design using 2002 Design Guide.
Dynamic Complex Modulus testing was performed on different samples of the three mixes
based on wide range of temperatures (250C, 400C, 550C) and frequencies (25Hz, 10 Hz, 5 Hz,
1 Hz, 0.1 Hz, 0.01 Hz).
125
Figure 7.1: Effect of Stress and Resulting Accumulated Strain at the End of Test
After comparing the numeric values of dynamic modulus it was found that dynamic modulus
at 25˚C for Superpave mix was greater than the SMA Mix by 72% and was greater than the
Marshall Mix by 53%. Dynamic modulus at 40˚C for Superpave mix was greater than the
SMA Mix by 87% and greater than the Marshall results by 135%. Dynamic modulus at 55˚C
for Superpave mix was greater than the SMA mix by 40% and greater than the Marshall
results by 60%.
7.2.3.1 Permanent Strains
Kandhal et al. (2003) studied the potential of dynamic creep to predict rutting and found that
dynamic creep was capable of quantifying the aggregate and gradation type on rutting
potentials of asphalt mixes.
The values of dynamic permanent strain (creep) for Superpave mix samples were 245%
smaller than SMA Mix samples and 150% smaller than Marshall Mix samples at 25˚C. The
values of dynamic permanent strain (creep) for Superpave mix samples were 930% smaller
than SMA Mix samples and 19% smaller than Marshall Mix samples at 40˚C. The values of
dynamic permanent strain (creep) for Superpave mix samples were 300% smaller than SMA
Mix samples and 457% smaller than Marshall Mix samples at 55˚C.
126
Low dynamic permanent strain (creep) values indicate less rutting susceptibility where as
higher values indicate high rutting susceptibility.
7.2.4 Rut Depth
In wheel tracking test, the rut depth (mm) is measured with respect to the number of passes.
More rut depth indicates poor mix performance and the less rut depth indicates excellent mix
performance. The results indicate that the rut depths of Superpave mix were 79% greater
than SMA and 31% less than Marshall at 25˚C. The results indicate that the rut depths of
Superpave mix were 16% greater than SMA and 53% less than Marshall at 40˚C. The results
indicate that the rut depths of Superpave mix were 64% greater than SMA and 69% less than
Marshall at 55˚C.
Stone mastic asphalt (SMA) performed best during wheel track test showing minimum rut
depths even at the high temperatures. At 550C, a totally different behavior of asphalt was
observed. Marshall mix failed before completing the total number of passes (10,000). An
abrupt change in rut depth was observed during shifting of temperature from 400C to 550C.
The performance of Superpave Mix was better as compared to Marshall Mix during Wheel
Track Test.
The above performance indicates that the better performance of SMA could be due to the gap
graded aggregate structure of SMA and formation of a stone to stone aggregate skeleton.
7.3 Master Curves Development
Master curves were developed using dynamic modulus values determined at multiple
temperatures and loading frequencies to account for temperature and rate of loading effects
on the modulus of asphalt concrete. The Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide uses
a modulus determined from master curve. Master curves were developed using the principle
of time-temperature superposition. First a standard reference temperature was selected, which
was 40°C for present study. After that measured dynamic modulus data at various
127
temperatures were shifted with respect to loading frequency until the curves combine into a
single smooth curve. The master curve of dynamic modulus as a function of frequency
explains the loading rate dependency of the material. The amount of shifting at each
temperature required to form the master curve describes the temperature dependency of the
material.
Three types of master curves are developed which are described as follows:
1. Master Curve for Superpave Mix at different temperatures(25°C, 40°C, 55°C) and
frequencies(25Hz,10Hz,5Hz,1Hz,0.5Hz,0.1Hz), shown in Figure 7.2.
2. Master Curve for Marshall Mix at different temperatures(25°C, 40°C, 55°C) and
frequencies(25Hz,10Hz,5Hz,1Hz,0.5Hz,0.1Hz), shown in Figure 7.2
3. Master Curve for SMA Mix at different temperatures(25°C, 40°C, 55°C) and
frequencies(25Hz,10Hz,5Hz,1Hz,0.5Hz,0.1Hz), shown in Figure 7.4
Figure 7.2 Master Curve for Superpave Mix
128
Figure 7.3 Master Curve for Marshall Mix
Figure 7.4: Master Curve for SMA Mix
129
Chapter Eight
130
Chapter 8
Conclusions, Recommendations and Research Potential
8.1 Conclusions
The aim of present research work was to check whether Superpave mix design method using
indigenous materials, under local traffic loading conditions and prevailing temperature
regime has superiority over the conventional mixes with respect to rutting or not. Basically
two dense graded and one gap graded mix was studied. Dense graded mixes were prepared
using Superpave and Marshall Mix Design approaches while gap graded mix (Stone Mastic
Asphalt) was prepared using Marshall Mix Design Method. Nominal maximum aggregate
size for dense graded mixes was 12.5 mm whereas it was 9.5 mm for gap graded mix. All of
the mixes were prepared at optimum asphalt contents. Size of Superpave and Marshal Mix
samples was 6 inch (Dia.) *6 inch (Height) and 4 inch (Dia.) *2 ½ inch (Height) respectively.
The main conclusions drawn from the current research work are being presented in this
chapter. Recommendations offered by the present research work have the potential to
stimulate researchers for further study which will open new vistas of knowledge for
technology.
1. Superpave mix showed better performance in terms of low accumulated strains (%)
(Permanent deformation) as compared to Marshall and SMA mixes which is an indication
of highly rut resistant mix. Accumulated strains increased with the increase in number of
load repetitions, stress level and temperature but percent increase in accumulated strains
(%) was more in the case of Marshall and SMA mixes to that of Superpave. It reflects
that under conditions of heavy traffic loadings and high temperatures, Superpave mix can
be a better option against rutting.
131
2. When accumulated strain (%) data was plotted against number of loading pulses, it was
noted that the shape of curve became flat for Superpave mixes after some initial strain
accumulation and continued with the same trend up to 3600 pulses, whereas for other two
mixes the curve trend kept on increasing up to the end of test. It indicates that permanent
deformation phenomenon continues throughout the performance life of Marshall and
SMA mixes whereas Superpave mix is capable of resisting permanent deformation after
some initial compaction.
3. Superpave mix showed in better performance in terms of low resilient strains (%), high
resilient modulus and high creep stiffness as compared to Marshall and SMA mixes.
4. During Indirect Tensile Modulus Testing, higher values of Modulus of Resilience (Mr)
were observed in case of Superpave mixes. Even at the maximum testing temperature
(55oC), Superpave mix performed better than the other two mixes.
5. Dynamic modulii of Superpave mix were also relatively higher at different dynamic
stress levels and temperatures as compared to SMA & Marshall. Permanent strain
induced revealed that Superpave mix behaved as a more stable mix in terms of lower
dynamic creep values .Dynamic creep increased with the increase in temperature for all
the mixes. It reflects that rutting is a function of dynamic loading and high temperature.
6. Aggregate gradation recommended by National Highways Authority (Class A Wearing
Course) falls well within the limits of Superpave gradation criteria. Aggregates used for
investigation satisfy both Superpave consensus and source properties requirements which
proved to be a good indication for implementation of Superpave locally.
132
7. Asphalt performance grades for Pakistan were formulated on the basis of comprehensive
air temperature data collection and analysis. It consisted of seven performance grades
namely, PG 76-4, PG 70-10, PG 70-4, PG 64-10, PG 64-4, PG 58-10 and PG 58-4.
Temperature zoning map was proposed to be implemented in Pakistan. The performance
grade of locally available 60/70 grade asphalt was found PG 64-28, which could be used
without any modification for zones 3(PG 64-4), 4(PG 58-10), 6(PG 64-10) and 7(PG 58-4).
For the hotter zones of the country, asphalt should be modified using polymer to achieve
PG 76-4, PG 70-4 and PG 70-10.
8. Rut depth increased with the increase in number of loaded wheel passes and temperature
for all mixes during Wheel Tracking Test .Stone Mastic Asphalt (SMA) performed better
against rutting as compared to the Superpave and Marshall mixes. Superpave mix was the
second least rutting susceptible mix during wheel tracking test. Marshall samples failed
during wheel tracking test before completing 10,000 wheel passes. At highest testing
temperature of 55oC, rut depth was 6.15 mm in the case of SMA. It could be due to the
confining provided to SMA mix during this test. SMA should be preferred in hot climatic
conditions.
9. Wheel tracking test can be referred as simple performance test for the comparison of
rutting resistance of various asphalt mixes.
10. SMA needs confinement for its proper study so Triaxial repeated loading and Triaxial
Dynamic Modulus testing should be preferred.
133
8.2 Recommendations
1. More HMA mixes (Polymer Modified Bitumen, CRMB etc.) should be evaluated
using Marshall and Superpave technologies.
2. While comparing with other mixes , SMA should be tested in confined conditions to
get better results
3. Full scale accelerated testing should be carried out to investigate the performance of
Superpave mixes in comparison with Marshall and SMA mixes.
4. Superpave technology should be adopted in Pakistan as a lot of infrastructure

development is still to be carried out.
5. Dynamic Modulus test should be used to simulate field rutting performance of hot
mix asphalt.
6. Dynamic Modulus Test should be used for rutting prediction in the laboratory using
its permanent deformation data.
7. Stone Mastic Asphalt should be evaluated thoroughly using other stabilizing agents
also.
8. Comprehensive guidelines should be developed for rut resistant asphalt mixes in

collaboration with NHA Pakistan.
9. Restrictions should be imposed on axle loads to avoid premature pavement failures.
134
References
135
REFERENCES
AASHO Road Test 1962.Special Report No.73 Washington DC Publication No.1012
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004.

Resistance of Compacted Bituminous Mixtures to Moisture Induced Damage, AASHTO
Designation T283.

Uncompacted Void Content of Fine Aggregate, AASHTO Designation T304.

Plastic Fines in Graded Aggregate and Soils by Use of the Sand Equivalent Test, AASHTO
Designation T176.

Theoretical Maximum Specific Gravity and Density of Bituminous Paving Mixtures,
AASHTO Designation T209.

Standard Method of Test for Resistance to Degradation of Small-Size Coarse Aggregate by
Abrasion and Impact in the Los Angeles Machine, AASHTO Designation T96.

Standard Method of Test for Soundness of Aggregate by Use of Sodium Sulfate or
Magnesium Sulfate, AASHTO Designation T104.

Clay Lumps and Friable Particles in Aggregate, AASHTO Designation T112.

Determining Dynamic Modulus of Hot-Mix Asphalt Concrete Mixtures, AASHTO
Designation TP 62-03.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2004. Standard Test Method for
Resistance to Degradation of Small-Size Coarse Aggregate by Abrasion and Impact in the
Los Angeles Machine. ASTM Designation C131
136
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2004. Standard Test Method for True
Specific Gravity of Refractory Materials by Water Immersion. ASTM Designation C135
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2004. Standard Test Method for
Soundness of Aggregates by Use of Sodium Sulfate or Magnesium Sulfate. ASTM
Designation C88
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2004. Standard Test Method for Clay
Lumps and Friable Particles in Aggregates. ASTM Designation C142
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2004. Test Method for determining the
Percentage of Fractured Faces in Coarse Aggregate. ASTM Designation D5821
Percentage of Flat or Elongated Particles in Coarse Aggregates. ASTM Designation D4791
Percentage of Plastic Fines in Graded Aggregate and Soils by Use of the Sand Equivalent
Test. ASTM Designation D2419
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2004. Test Method for Theoretical
Maximum Specific Gravity and Density of Bituminous Paving Mixtures. ASTM Designation
D2041
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2004. Test Method for Indirect
Tension Test for Resilient Modulus of Bituminous Mixtures. ASTM Designation D4123
Anani, Bassam A., Balghunaim, F. A., and Abdulrahman, S. 1990. Laboratory and Field
Study of Pavement Rutting in Saudia Arabia. Transportation Research Record, Chip Seals,
Friction Courses, and Asphalt Pavement Rutting, Transportation Research Record 1259.
Washington D.C.
137
Anderson, R. M., McGennis, R. B., Kennedy, T. W. and Solaimanian, M. 1995. Background
of Superpave Asphalt Mixture Design & Analysis. Publication No. FHWA-SA-95-003.
National Asphalt Training Center Demonstration Project 101.
Asi, I. M. 2006. Laboratory comparison study for the use of stone matrix asphalt in hot
weather climates. Construction and Building Materials v. 20, p 982-989.
Asi, I. M. 2007. Evaluating skid resistance of different asphalt concrete mixes. Building and
Environment v. 42, p 32-329.
Asi, I. M. 2007. Performance evaluation of SUPPERPAVE and Marshall asphalt mix designs
to suite Jordan climatic and traffic conditions. Construction and Building Materials v. 21, p
1732-1740.
Asphalt Institute. 2001. Performance Graded Asphalt Binder Specification and Testing.
Superpave Series No. 1.
Asphalt Institute. 2001. Superpave Mix Design. Superpave Series No. 2.
Bahia, H. U. 1993. Bibliographies for Physical Properties of Asphalt Cement. Strategic

Highway Research Program (SHRP – A – 626).
Bahia, H. U., and Anderson, D. A. 1994. The Pressure Aging Vessel (PAV): A Test to
Simulate Rheological Changes due to Field Aging. Special Technical Publication 1241,
ASTM. Philadelphia.
Brown E. R., Prithvi S. Kandhal, Jingna Zhang 2001.Performance Testing For Hot Mix
Asphalt (Executive Summary) NCAT Report 01-05A.
Brown, E. R. 1990. Density of Asphalt Concrete – How much is needed? Transportation

Research Record 1282, Transportation Research Board, Washington D. C.
Brown, E. R., Cross, Stephen A. 1990. A Study of In-Place Rutting of Asphalt Pavements.
The Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists v. 59.
Brown, S. F. and Pell, P. S. 1974. Repeated Loading of Bituminous Materials. CAPSA 74.
National Institute for Road Research, Republic of South Africa, Durban.
138
Byung, W. J., Ghi, H. T. and Chang, H. K. 2007. Uniaxial creep behavior and prediction of
recycled-PET polymer concrete. Construction and Building Material v. 21, p 1552-1559.
Capitao, S. D. and Santos, L. P. 2006. Assessing Permanent Deformation Desistance of High

Modulus Asphalt Mixtures. Journal of Transportation Engineering v. 132, p 394-401.
ASCE.
Chui, T. C. and Li, C. L. 2006. A Laboratory Study on Stone Matrix Asphalt Using Ground
Tire Rubber. Construction and Building Materials v. 21, p 1027-1033.
Collop, A. C., Cebon, D. and Hardy, S. A. 1995. Viscoelastic Approach to Rutting in

Flexible Pavements. Journal of Transportation Engineering v. 121, Issue 1, p. 82-93.
Cooper, K. E., Brown, S. F., and Pooley, G. R. 1985. The Design of Aggregate Gradings for
Asphalt Base courses. The Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists v. 54.
Daehyeon, K., Rodrigo, S. and Altschaeffl, A. G. 2005. Effects of Supersingle Tire Loadings
on Pavements. Journal of Transportation Engineering. ASCE, v. 131, p 732-743.
Davis, R. 1988. Large Stone Mixes: An Historical Insight. National Asphalt Paving
Association. IS-103
European Standard (EN). Bituminous mixtures — Test methods for hot mix asphalt — Part
22: Wheel Tracking, EN 12697-22 Test
Findley, W. N., Lai, J. S., and Onaran, K. 1976. Creep and Relaxation of Non linear Visco-
elastic Materials. North Holland Publishing, Amsterdam.
Ford, Miller C. 1988. Pavement Densification Related to Asphalt Mix Characteristics.

Flexible Pavement Construction, Transportation Research Record 1178. Transportation
Research Board, Washington D. C.
Gilles, O., Valery, M. J., Menapace, A, Hemsley, M. and Baumgardner, G. L. 2004. Rutting
and Moisture Resistance of Asphalt Mixtures Containing Polymer and Polyphosphoric Acid
Modified Bitumen. Road Materials and Pavement Design.
139
Haff, E. Y., Sebaaly, P. E. and Weitzel, D. 2005. Fatigue Characteristics of Superpave and
Hveem Mixtures. Journal of Transportation Engineering. ASCE. v. 131, Issue 4, p 302-310.
Highway Research Board. 1962. AASHO Road Test. Washington DC. Special Report No.
73, Publication No. 1012.
Huber, G. A. and Heiman, G. H. 1987. Effects of Asphalt Concrete Parameter on Rutting

Performance: A Field Investigation. Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists v. 56.
Kamal, M. A. and Niazi, M. J. M. 2007 Effects on rutting and stiffness by varying coarse and
fine aggregates. Advanced Characterization of Pavement and Soil Engineering Materials-
Loizos, Scarpas & Al-Qadi, p 1285-1296
Kamal, M. A., Shahzib, F. and Yasin, B. 2005. Resilient Behaviour of Asphalt Concrete
under Repeated Loading and Effects of Temperature. Journal of East.
Kandhal P. S., Mallick R. B. and Brown, E. R. 1998. Hot Mix Asphalt for intersection in hot
Climates. NCAT Report 98-96.
Kennedy, T. W , McGennis, R.B., Anderson, R. M.,. and Solaimanian, M. 1995. Background

Of Superpave Asphalt Mixture Design & Analysis. Publication No. FHWA-SA-95-003.
Lee, H. J., Lee, H. H. and Park, H. M. 2007. Performance evaluation of high modulus asphalt
mixtures for long life asphalt pavements. Construction and Building Materials v. 21, p 1079-
1087.
Lee, Kang W., and Mohamad A. 1989. Rutting, Asphalt Mix Design and Proposed Test Road
in Saudia Arabia. Implication of Aggregates in The Design, Construction and Performance of
Flexible Pavements. STP 1016, American Society for Testing Materials.
Linden, F., and Van der Heide, J.1987. Some Aspects of the Compaction of Asphalt Mixes
and its Influence on Mix Properties. The Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists v. 56.
Lu. Y and Wright, P. J. 2000. Temperature Related Visco-Elastoplastic Properties of Asphalt

Mixtures. Journal of Transportation Engineering, p 58-65.
140
Mahboub, K. and Little, D. N. 1988. Improved Asphalt Concrete Design Procedure.
Research Report 474-1F. Texas Transportation Institute.
Marks, V. J., Monroe, R. W. and Adam, J. F. 1991. Relating Creep Testing to Rutting of
Asphalt Concrete Mixes. For presentation at the Transportation Research Board 7-th Annual
Meeting January 13-17. Washington, D.C.
McGennis, R.B., Anderson, R. M., Kennedy, T. W. and Solaimanian, M. 1995. Background

Monismith, C. L., and Tayebali, A. A. 1988. Permanent Deformation (Rutting)

Considerations in Asphalt Concrete Pavement Sections. The Association of Asphalt Paving
Technologists v. 57, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Monismith, C. L., Epps, J.A. and Finn, F.N.1985. Improved Asphalt Mix Design. The
Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists v. 54.
Mouratidis, A. and Freitas, A. R. 2007. Assessment of Pavement Rutting due to Asphalt

Flow. Advanced Characterization of Pavement and Soil Engineering Materials-Loizos,
Scarpas & Al-Qadi, p. 1297-1304.
Nair, K., and Chang, C.Y. 1973. Flexible Pavement Design and Management Material
Characterization. NCHRP Report 140. Highway Research Board.
NEVADA Department of Transportation, Materials Division. 2000. Evaluation of Rutting

Resistance of Superpave and Hveem Mixtures Volume 1- Introduction and Background.
Research Report No. 1393-2.
Palit, S. K., Reddy, K. S. and Pandey, B. B. 2004. Laboratory Evaluation of Crumb Rubber
Modified Asphalt Mixes. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering v. 16.
Parker, Frazier, and Brown, E. R. 1992. Effects of Aggregate Properties on Flexible

Pavement Rutting in Albama. Effects of Aggregate and Mineral Fillers on Asphalt
Performance. ASTM STP 1147. Philadelphia.
141
Pelland, R. J., Gould, J. S. and Mallick, R. B. 2003. Selecting a Rut Resistant Hot Mix
Asphalt for Boston-Logan International Airport. Airfield Pavements Specialty Conference,
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA. September 21–24.
Pomeroy, C. D. 1978. Creep of Engineering Materials. A Journal of Strain Analysis

Monograph. Mechanical Engineers Publication Limited. London.
Qiu, Y. F. and Lum, K. M. 2006. Design and Performance of Stone Mastic Asphalt. Journal
of Transportation Engineering v. 132.
Roberts, F. L., Mohammad, L. M. and Wang, L. B. 2002. History of Hot Mix Asphalt
Mixture Design in the United States. ASCE 150th Anniversary Civil Engineers Paper.
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering v.14, no.4, p279-293.
Ruenkrairergsa, R., Phromsorn, C., Silarom, P. and Ketnoot, W. 2004. Engineering

Properties of Foam Bitumen Mixtures in Thailand. Conference on Ashpalt Pavements for
Southern Africa (CAPSA’04).
Salama, H. K. & Chatti, K. A.2007 laboratory investigation of the effect of multiple axle and
truck configuration on HMA mixture rutting. Advanced Characterization of Pavement and
Soil Engineering Materials-Loizos, Scarpas & Al-Qadi p 1305-1314.
Shen, D. H., Kuo, M. F. and Du, J. C. 2005. Properties of Gap-Aggregate Asphalt Mixture
and Performance Deformation. Construction and Building Materials v.19, p 147-153.
Shenoy, A. 2004. High Temperature Performance Grading of Asphalts through a

Specification Criterion that Could Capture Field Performance. Journal of Transportation
Engineering © ASCE, v.130, Issue 1, p 132-137.
Shu, X. and Huang, B. 2007. Micromechanics-based dynamic modulus prediction of

polymeric asphalt concrete mixtures.
Simple Performance Tester for Superpave Mix Design. 2001. NCHRP Project 9-29.
Solaimanian, M ,Kennedy, T. W , Anderson, R. M.,. and. McGennis, R.B.,1995. Background

142
Sousa, J. B., and Chan, C. K. 1991. Computer Application in the Geotechnical Laboratories
of the University of California at Berkeley. Prepared for Presentation to the Geotechnical
Engineering Congress, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).
Sousa, J. B., Craus, J. and Monismith, C. L. Summary Report on Permanent Deformation in

Asphalt Concrete. SHRP-A/IR-91-104.
Swami, B. L., Mehta, Y. A. and Bose, S. 2004. A Comparison of the Marshall and Superpave
Design Procedure for Materials Sourced in India. Journal of Pavement Engineering v. 5(3),
p. 163-173.
Tarefder, R.A., Zaman, M. and Hobson, K. 2003. A Laboratory and Statistical Evaluation of
Factors Affecting Rutting v. 4(I), p 59-68.
Tayfur, S., Ozen, H. and Aksoy, A. 2007. Investigation of rutting performance of asphalt
mixtures contining polymer modifiers. Construction and Building Materials v. 21, p 328-
227.
Tiki Tar Products. 2008. Report on CRMB. India.
Uge, P., and Van de Loo, P. J. 1974. Permanent Deformation of Asphalt Mixes,
Koninklijke/Shell-Laboratorium. Amsterdam.
Uzan. J. 2004. Permanent Deformation in Flexible Pavements. Journal of Transportation

Engineering. ASCE. v. 130, Issue 1, p 06-13.
Vallerga, B. A. and Lovering, W. R.1985. Evolution of the Hveem Stabilometer Method of

Designing Asphalt Paving. Asphalt Paving Technologists v. 54.
Von Quintus, H.L., Scherocman, J .A., Hughes, C. S and Kennedy, T. W. 1988.

Development of Asphalt- Aggregate Mixture Analysis System. AAMAS, Preliminary Draft
Final Report. Phase II, v. I,Brent Rauhut Engineering Inc., Austin, Texas.
White, T. D. 1985. Marshall Procedures for Design and Quality Control of Asphalt
Mixtures. Asphalt Paving Technologists v. 54.
143
Yeggoni, M., Button, J. W and Zollinger, D. G. 1996. Fractals of Aggregates Correlated with
Creep in Asphalt Concrete. Journal of Transportation Engineering v. 122, Issue 1, p 22-28.
Yildirim, Y. 1996. Superpave Asphalt Technology Program. The University of Texas,

Austin.
Zhong, Wu., Hossain, M., Vijayanath, B. K. and Gisi, A. J. 1999. Instrumentation of the
Superpave Test Sections at the Kansas Accelerated Testing Laboratory. International
Conference on Accelerated Pavement Testing. Reno, Nevada.
Zhou, F., Chen, D. H., Scullion, T. and Bilyeu, B. 2003. Case Study: Evaluation of
Laboratory Test Methods to Characterize Permanent Deformation Properties of Asphalt
Mixes. Journal of Pavement Engineering v. 4, p. 155-164.
Zhou, F., Scullion, T. and Sun, L. 2004. Verification and Modeling of Three-Stage
Permanent Deformations Behavior of Asphalt Mixes. Journal of Transportation
Engineering. ASCE. v. 130, Issue 4, p 486-494
144
ABBREVIATIONS
AASHO American Association Of State Highway Officials
AASHTO American Association Of State Highway And Transportation
Officials
APA Asphalt Pavement Analyzer
ARL Attock Oil Refinery Limited Rawalpindi
ASTM American Society For Testing Materials
BBR Bending Beam Rheometer
DSR Dynamic Shear Rheometer
DTT Direct Tension Tester
FHWA Federal Highway Authority
FRT French Road Tester
Gmb Bulk Specific Gravity of Compacted Mixture
Gmm Maximum Specific Gravity of Paving Mixture
Gsb Aggregate Bulk Specific Gravity
GTR Ground Tyre Rubber
HMA Hot Mix Asphalt
HWTD Hamburg Wheel-Tracking Device
K-ATL Kansas Accelerated Testing Laboratory
KDOT Kansas Department of Transportation
Kpa Kilo Pascal
Mpa Mega Pascal
Mr Modulous Of Resilience
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NHA National Highway Authority Pakistan
PAV Pressure Aging Vessel
PG Performance Grade
PMB Polymer Modified Bitumen
PTI Pennsylvania Transport Institute
RTFO Rolling Thin Film
RV Rotational Viscometer
SHRP Strategic Highway Research Program
SMA Stone Mastic Asphalt
SUPERPAVE Superior Performing Pavements
USDOT United States Department of Transportation
UTM-5P Universal Testing Machine -5 Pulse
Va Air Voids
VFA Voids Filled with Asphalt
VMA Voids in Mineral Aggregates
VMB Bulk Volume of Paving Mix
VMM Void Less Volume of Paving Mix
WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation
145
Annexure A
146
Table A.1: Air Temperature Data for Dalbandin
Station Dalbandin
Sr.No. Year Temperature (˚C) Month Temperature (˚C) Month
1 1987 42.30 August 1.8 Jan
2 1988 44.00 June 2.7 Jan
3 1989 42.60 June -0.80 Jan
4 1990 43.50 July 4.10 Dec
5 1991 43.50 July 3.90 Jan
6 1992 43.10 June 2.20 Jan
7 1993 42.80 July 2.30 Dec
8 1994 43.00 June 2.30 Dec
9 1995 42.50 July 1.30 Jan
10 1996 42.20 July 1.00 Dec
11 1997 44.00 July 2.60 Jan
12 1998 44.20 July 4.50 Jan
13 1999 43.60 July 1.90 Dec
14 2000 43.10 May 2.30 Jan
15 2001 48.50 May -0.70 Jan
16 2002 44.10 June
17 2003 43.60 June
18 2004 43.70 July 0.90 Dec
19 2005 45.00 July 0.60 Dec
20 2006 44.80 July -0.50 Jan
Table A.1a: Maximum Pavement Temperature for Dalbandin

Maximum Pavement Temperature
T20mm = [Tair -0.00618 Lat2 + 0.2289 Lat + 42.2] x 0.9545 -17.78
Maximum Pavement Temperature @ Depth of 20 mm from
T20mm the top of Pavement 66.79
Table A.1b: Minimum Pavement Temperature for Dalbandin
Minimum Pavement Temperature
Tpav = 0.859 Tair +1.7˚C
Tpav Minimum Pavement temperature 1.01
Tair Minimum air temperature -0.80
147
Table A.2: Air Temperature Data for Hyderabad
Station Hyderabad
Sr.No. Year Temperature(˚C) Month Temperature(˚C) Month
1 1987 41.40 June 11.60 Jan
2 1988 42.90 May 12.80 Jan
3 1989 41.20 May 10.50 Jan
4 1990 40.20 May 13.20 Jan
5 1991 41.60 June 10.90 Jan
6 1992 41.50 May 11.60 Jan
7 1993 41.20 May 8.50 Dec
8 1994 42.10 May 11.60 Jan
9 1995 42.20 May 11.30 Jan
10 1996 41.10 May 12.00 Dec
11 1997 39.50 May 10.50 Jan
12 1998 41.50 May 11.80 Jan
13 1999 40.60 April 12.10 Jan
14 2000 40.60 April 11.60 Jan
15 2001 40.30 May 10.10 Jan
16 2002 42.60 May 10.70 Jan
17 2003 41.20 May 11.60 Jan
18 2004 41.70 May 11.40 Jan
19 2005 41.20 May 10.60 Jan
20 2006 41.80 May 10.30 Jan
Table A.2a: Maximum Pavement Temperature for Hyderabad
Maximum Temperature
T20mm = [Tair -.00618 Lat2 + .2289 Lat + 42.2] x .9545 -17.78

Maximum Pavement Temperature @ Depth of 20 mm from the top
T20mm of Pavement 64.46
Table A.2b: Minimum Pavement Temperature for Hyderabad
Minimum Temperature
Tpav = .859 Tair +1.7
Tair Minimum air temperature 8.50
148
Table A.3: Air Temperature Data for Jacobabad
Station Jacobabad
1 1987 44.50 June 6.40 Dec
2 1988 46.80 May 8.00 Jan
3 1989 43.40 June 7.00 Jan
4 1990 44.50 May 8.00 Dec
5 1991 46.20 June 7.10 Jan
6 1992 47.30 June 8.20 Jan
7 1993 45.60 May 7.90 Dec
8 1994 44.90 My 7.30 Jan
9 1995 45.50 June 9.10 Jan
10 1996 43.40 June 5.20 Dec
11 1997 41.70 June 5.90 Jan
12 1998 43.70 June 8.20 Dec
13 1999 44.00 May 8.30 Dec
14 2000 45.30 May 7.10 Jan
15 2001 45.20 May 6.60 Jan
16 2002 46.60 May 7.70 Jan
17 2003 46.00 June 8.50 Jan
18 2004 44.50 May 9.60 Jan
19 2005 44.70 June 7.10 Dec
20 2006 46.00 June 6.60 Jan
Table A.3a: Maximum Pavement Temperature for Jacobabad
Maximum Temperature
T20mm = [Tair -0.00618 Lat2 + 0.2289 Lat + 42.2] x 0.9545 -17.78
Maximum Pavement Temperature @ Depth of 20 mm
T20mm from the top of Pavement 68.21
Tair Seven Days Average Maximum air Temperature in °C 46.357
Table A.3b: Minimum Pavement Temperature for Jacobabad
Minimum Temperature
Tpav = 0.859 Tair +1.7˚C
149
Table A.4: Air Temperature Data for Karachi
Station Karachi
1 1987 36.30 October 9.40 Jan
2 1988 36.10 June 11.70 Jan
3 1989 36.40 May 10.60 Jan
4 1990 35.50 October 10.70 Dec
5 1991 36.40 October 9.00 Jan
6 1992 36.20 May 11.00 Jan
7 1993 36.50 October 12.50 Dec
8 1994 36.40 June 11.40 Jan
9 1995 36.90 May 11.40 Jan
10 1996 35.90 June 10.30 Jan
11 1997 34.50 June 11.20 Jan
12 1998 36.60 May 12.70 Jan
13 1999 36.70 October 12.40 Jan
14 2000 35.90 October 12.50 Jan
15 2001 36.00 October 11.50 Jan
16 2002 36.50 October 12.80 Jan
17 2003 37.00 October 12.00 Dec
18 2004 36.80 May 12.90 Jan
19 2005 36.10 June 12.30 Jan
20 2006 35.40 June 11.70 Jan
Table A.4a: Maximum Pavement Temperature for Karachi
Maximum Temperature
T20mm = [Tair -0.00618 Lat2 + 0.2289 Lat + 42.2] x 0.9545 -17.78
Table A.4b: Minimum Pavement Temperature for Karachi
Minimum Temperature
Tpav = 0.859 Tair +1.7˚C
150
Table A.5: Air Temperature Data for Lassbella
Station Lassbella
1 1987 42.00 June 8.40 Dec
2 1988 42.90 June 10.30 Jan
3 1989 41.50 May 8.60 Jan
4 1990 41.20 May 9.90 Dec
5 1991 43.50 June 8.00 Jan
6 1992 42.90 June 8.90 Jan
7 1993 42.40 May 8.70 Dec
8 1994 42.70 June 8.30 Jan
9 1995 43.30 May 10.30 Jan
10 1996 40.90 June 8.80 Dec
11 1997 39.70 July 8.60 Jan
12 1998 42.20 June 9.90 Jan
13 1999 41.60 May 9.30 Jan
14 2000 41.00 June 8.10 Dec
15 2001 40.90 May 7.10 Jan
16 2002 42.90 May 7.70 Jan
17 2003 41.20 June 7.50 Dec
18 2004 42.60 May 7.90 Jan
19 2005 41.00 June 9.80 Jan
20 2006 42.50 June 8.60 Jan
Table A.5a: Maximum Pavement Temperature for Lassbella
Maximum Temperature
T20mm = [Tair -0.00618 Lat2 + 0.2289 Lat + 42.2] x 0.9545 -17.78
Maximum Pavement Temperature @ Depth of 20 mm
T20mm from the top of Pavement 65.31
The Geographical Latitude of Project in Degrees 24°-
Lat 44' 24.73
Table A.5b: Minimum Pavement Temperature for Lasbella
Minimum Temperature
Tpav = 0.859 Tair +1.7˚C
151
Table A.6: Air Temperature Data for Nawabshah
Station Nawabshah
1 1987 43.80 June 5.90 Dec
2 1988 45.80 May 7.70 Jan
3 1989 43.10 May 5.00 Jan
4 1990 44.20 May 8.50 Dec
5 1991 45.10 June 6.20 Jan
6 1992 46.20 June 7.50 Jan
7 1993 44.90 May 7.50 Dec
8 1994 45.10 May 7.30 Jan
9 1995 45.30 June 6.70 Jan
10 1996 43.10 June 4.80 Dec
11 1997 42.00 June 5.30 Jan
12 1998 44.70 June 7.10 Jan
13 1999 43.80 June 6.60 Jan
14 2000 45.10 June 5.60 Jan
15 2001 45.40 May 5.40 Jan
16 2002 47.80 May 6.40 Jan
17 2003 45.70 June 6.70 Jan
18 2004 45.10 May 7.50 Jan
19 2005 44.30 June 4.90 Jan
20 2006 46.40 May 4.50 Jan
Table A.6a: Maximum Pavement Temperature for Nawabshah
Maximum Temperature
T20mm = [Tair -0.00618 Lat2 + 0.2289 Lat + 42.2] x 0.9545 -17.78
Table A.6b: Minimum Pavement Temperature for Nawabshah
Minimum Temperature
Tpav = 0.859 Tair +1.7˚C
152
Table A.7: Air Temperature Data for Nokkundi
Station Nokkundi
1 1987 43.00 August 4.80 Jan
2 1988 44.80 June 4.50 Jan
3 1989 44.40 June 1.20 Jan
4 1990 45.50 June 6.00 Dec
5 1991 44.00 July 5.30 Jan
6 1992 44.10 June 2.90 Jan
7 1993 43.50 June 3.40 Dec
8 1994 44.20 June 3.00 Jan
9 1995 42.40 July 4.40 Dec
10 1996 41.90 June 3.10 Dec
11 1997 44.50 July 3.80 Jan
12 1998 43.80 July 5.40 Jan
13 1999 43.60 June 4.00 Dec
14 2000 44.00 May 5.70 Jan
15 2001 43.40 July 3.00 Jan
16 2002 44.00 June 6.20 Jan
17 2003 43.30 June 5.50 Dec
18 2004 42.90 June 7.30 Dec
19 2005 44.00 July 5.40 Dec
20 2006 43.70 June 3.00 Jan
Table A.7a: Maximum Pavement Temperature for Nokkundi
Maximum Temperature
T20mm = [Tair -0.00618 Lat2 + 0.2289 Lat + 42.2] x 0.9545 -17.78
Table A.7b: Minimum Pavement Temperature for Nokkundi
Minimum Temperature
Tpav = 0.859 Tair +1.7˚C
153
Table A.8: Air Temperature Data for Pasni
Station Pasni
Sr.No. Year Daily Maximum Daily Minimum
Temperature(˚C) Month Temperature(˚C) Month
1 1987 37.20 May 10.30 Jan
2 1988 36.80 June 12.90 Dec
3 1989 37.00 May 11.00 Jan
4 1990 35.40 May 10.80 Dec
5 1991 36.40 June 11.40 Jan
6 1992 36.10 June 11.50 Jan
7 1993 38.00 May 13.40 Dec
8 1994 34.80 May 11.30 Jan
9 1995 35.90 May 12.80 Jan
10 1996 35.40 June 10.90 Jan
11 1997 34.60 June 11.40 Jan
12 1998 35.80 June 12.10 Dec
13 1999 35.50 October 11.90 Jan
14 2000 34.40 May 11.40 Jan
15 2001 35.00 October 10.30 Jan
16 2002 35.20 May 12.70 Jan
17 2003 35.80 June 12.90 Jan
18 2004 36.60 May 15.00 Dec
19 2005 35.20 June 13.30 Jan
20 2006 35.10 June 11.10 Jan
Table A.8a: Maximum Pavement Temperature for Pasni
Maximum Temperature
T20mm = [Tair -0.00618 Lat2 + 0.2289 Lat + 42.2] x 0.9545 -17.78
Table A.8b: Minimum Pavement Temperature for Pasni
Minimum Temperature
Tpav = 0.859 Tair +1.7˚C
154
Table A.9: Air Temperature Data for Quetta
Station Quetta
1 1987 35.50 July -3.50 Dec
2 1988 37.20 July -1.80 Jan
3 1989 35.3 June -4.00 Jan
4 1990 37.30 July -2.00 Dec
5 1991 37.10 July -1.10 Jan
6 1992 35.90 July -0.50 Jan
7 1993 35.60 July -3.20 Dec
8 1994 36.30 June -3.50 Jan
9 1995 36.20 July -2.40 Jan
10 1996 36.10 July -4.70 Dec
11 1997 37.80 July -2.90 Jan
12 1998 37.60 July -2.10 Dec
13 1999 37.00 July -1.50 Jan
14 2000 36.40 July -2.30 Jan
15 2001 37.40 July -5.00 Jan
16 2002 36.30 June -1.40 Jan
17 2003 35.70 July -2.60 Dec
18 2004 36.00 July -0.20 Dec
19 2005 37.60 July -4.30 Dec
20 2006 37.90 July 0.10 Dec
Table A.9a: Maximum Pavement Temperature for Quetta
Maximum Temperature
T20mm = [Tair -0.00618 Lat2 + 0.2289 Lat + 42.2] x 0.9545 -17.78
Table A.9b: Minimum Pavement Temperature for Quetta
Minimum Temperature
Tpav = 0.859 Tair +1.7˚C
Tpav Minimum Pavement temperature -2.60
155
Table A.10: Air Temperature Data for Rohri
Station Rohri
1 1987 34.30 June 5.70 Jan
2 1988 44.00 June 8.10 Dec
3 1989 43.00 June 4.90 Jan
4 1990 43.00 May 6.10 Dec
5 1991 44.60 June 5.20 Jan
6 1992 44.90 June 8.90 Dec
7 1993 43.90 May 7.10 Jan
8 1994 43.70 May 7.10 Jan
9 1995 45.10 June 9.30 Jan
10 1996 42.50 June 7.50 Jan
11 1997 41.50 June 7.50 Jan
12 1998 43.60 May 6.80 Jan
13 1999 43.50 June 8.20 Dec
14 2000 44.40 May 8.10 Jan
15 2001 44.60 May 8.20 Jan
16 2002 45.90 May 8.50 Jan
17 2003 44.90 June 8.90 Jan
18 2004 44.50 June 9.50 Jan
19 2005 43.50 June 8.20 Dec
20 2006 44.90 May 8.70 Jan
Table A.10a: Maximum Pavement Temperature for Rohri
Maximum Temperature
T20mm = [Tair -0.00618 Lat2 + 0.2289 Lat + 42.2] x 0.9545 -17.78
Maximum Pavement Temperature @ Depth of 20 mm from the top of
T20mm Pavement 66.97
Table A.10b: Minimum Pavement Temperature for Rohri
Minimum Temperature
Tpav = 0.859 Tair +1.7˚C
156
Table A.11: Air Temperature Data for Sibbi
Station Sibbi
1 1987 45.30 June 5.0 Dec
2 1988 48.40 June 5.7 Jan
3 1989 44.00 June 4.70 Jan
4 1990 44.60 May
5 1991 46.20 June
6 1992 46.60 June
7 1993 44.80 May 8.1 Dec
8 1994 45.00 June 7.1 Jan
9 1995 46.50 June 6.1 Jan
10 1996 44.90 June 6.7 Dec
11 1997 41.70 June 6.7 Jan
12 1998 45.40 June 7.7 Jan
13 1999 45.80 June 6.5 Dec
14 2000 45.90 May 6.6 Jan
15 2001 46.40 May 5.0 Jan
16 2002 47.60 May 7.7 Jan
17 2003 46.70 June 7.2 Dec
18 2004 45.80 June 7.9 Jan
19 2005 45.00 June 5.4 Dec
20 2006 45.80 May 5.6 Jan
Table A.11a: Maximum Pavement Temperature for Sibbi
Maximum Temperature
T20mm = [Tair -0.00618 Lat2 + 0.2289 Lat + 42.2] x 0.9545 -17.78
Table A.11b: Minimum Pavement Temperature for Sibbi
Minimum Temperature
Tpav = 0.859 Tair +1.7˚C
157
Table A.12: Air Temperature Data for Zhob
Station Zhob
1 1987 37.50 July -1.20 Jan
2 1988 37.80 June 0.30 Dec
3 1989 35.30 June -3.70 Jan
4 1990 -1.60 Jan
5 1991 38.30 July 0.10 Jan
6 1992 36.90 June 1.20 Jan
7 1993 36.90 June -2.40 Jan
8 1994 37.50 June 2.50 Feb
9 1995 37.90 June -1.70 Dec
10 1996 37.60 June -6.50 Dec
11 1997 37.70 July -7.40 Jan
12 1998 35.60 June -0.10 Jan
13 1999 37.80 July 1.50 Jan
14 2000 36.70 July 1.00 Jan
15 2001 37.00 June 1.50 Jan
16 2002 38.00 July -0.80 Jan
17 2003 37.50 June 0.70 Dec
18 2004 38.10 July -1.90 Dec
19 2005 42.30 July -1.90 Jan
20 2006 38.00 July -1.90 Dec
Table A.12a: Maximum Pavement Temperature for Zhob
Maximum Temperature
T20mm = [Tair -0.00618 Lat2 + 0.2289 Lat + 42.2] x 0.9545 -17.78
Table A.12b: Minimum Pavement Temperature for Zhob
Minimum Temperature
Tpav = 0.859 Tair +1.7˚C
158
Table A.13: Air Temperature Data for Astor
Station Astor
1 1987 27.20 August -10.40 Jan
2 1988 27.40 July -4.90 Jan
3 1989 23.90 July -9.50 Jan
4 1990 28.50 July -4.10 Jan
5 1991 27.10 August -11.20 Jan
6 1992 27.10 August -5.30 Jan
7 1993 25.60 August -8.20 Jan
8 1994 28.90 August -5.00 Jan
9 1995 28.10 August -12.10 Jan
10 1996 26.70 August -9.50 Jan
11 1997 26.50 August -5.90 Jan
12 1998 28.30 July -6.70 Jan
13 1999 27.60 July -4.00 Jan
14 2000 26.40 July -7.00 Jan
15 2001 27.70 July -6.00 Jan
16 2002 27.70 August -12.00 Jan
17 2003 28.20 July -5.90 Dec
18 2004 26.10 July -5.80 Jan
19 2005 27.10 August -7.80 Jan
20 2006 29.30 July -6.40 Jan
Table A.13a: Maximum Pavement Temperature for Astor
Maximum Temperature
T20mm = [Tair -0.00618 Lat2 + 0.2289 Lat + 42.2] x 0.9545 -17.78
Table A.13b: Minimum Pavement Temperature for Astor
Minimum Temperature
Tpav = 0.859 Tair +1.7˚C
159
Table A.14: Air Temperature Data for Bahawalpur
Station Bahawalpur
Sr.No. Year Temperature (˚C) Month Temperature(˚C) Month
1 1987 41.80 June 5.60 Dec
2 1988 43.90 May 7.00 Jan
3 1989 41.40 May 5.30 Jan
4 1990 41.90 May 7.20 Dec
5 1991 43.20 June 5.30 Jan
6 1992 44.50 June 6.20 Jan
7 1993 43.30 May 6.20 Jan
8 1994 43.30 June 6.20 Jan
9 1995 43.60 June 5.50 Jan
10 1996 40.50 June 4.70 Dec
11 1997 40.10 June 5.60 Jan
12 1998 42.90 June 5.40 Jan
13 1999 41.70 May 6.70 Jan
14 2000 43.00 May 6.00 Jan
15 2001 42.90 May 4.90 Jan
16 2002 44.50 May 5.70 Jan
17 2003 43.00 June 5.50 Jan
18 2004 42.40 June 7.80 Jan
19 2005 43.00 June 5.40 Dec
20 2006 43.60 May 8.30 Dec
Table A.14a: Maximum Pavement Temperature for Bahawalpur
Maximum Temperature
T20mm = [Tair -0.00618 Lat2 + 0.2289 Lat + 42.2] x 0.9545 -17.78
Table A.14b: Minimum Pavement Temperature for Bahawalpur
Minimum Temperature
Tpav = 0.859 Tair +1.7˚C
160
Table A.15: Air Temperature Data for Balakot
Station Balakot
1 1987 35.80 July 1.10 Jan
2 1988 36.50 June 4.00 Jan
3 1989 36.30 June 1.30 Jan
4 1990 37.40 June 2.60 Dec
5 1991 36.10 June 0.70 Jan
6 1992 35.50 June 2.90 Jan
7 1993 33.90 June 2.30 Jan
8 1994 35.20 June 4.30 Jan
9 1995 36.10 June 1.70 Jan
10 1996 32.00 July 2.60 Jan
11 1997 31.20 July 2.30 Jan
12 1998 34.10 June 2.90 Jan
13 1999 35.40 June 2.70 Dec
14 2000 35.40 May 2.90 Dec
15 2001 33.90 May 0.80 Jan
16 2002 35.00 June 1.60 Jan
17 2003 35.20 June 2.80 Jan
18 2004 32.30 July 3.10 Jan
19 2005 35.50 June 0.10 Dec
20 2006 34.30 June 1.30 Jan
Table A.15a: Maximum Pavement Temperature for Balakot
Maximum Temperature
T20mm = [Tair -0.00618 Lat2 + 0.2289 Lat + 42.2] x 0.9545 -17.78
Table A.15b: Minimum Pavement Temperature for Balakot
Minimum Temperature
Tpav = 0.859 Tair +1.7˚C
161
Table A.16: Air Temperature Data for Chitral
Station Chitral
1 1987 35.20 August -0.30 Jan
2 1988 37.00 July 0.30 Jan
3 1989 34.50 July -1.10 Jan
4 1990 37.10 July -0.80 Jan
5 1991 35.30 July -2.00 Jan
6 1992 35.30 July -0.90 Jan
7 1993 35.10 July -1.10 Jan
8 1994 37.10 July -0.20 Jan
9 1995 37.00 July -1.10 Jan
10 1996 35.30 July -0.90 Dec
11 1997 37.40 July -2.10 Jan
12 1998 36.60 July -1.90 Jan
13 1999 36.70 July 0.20 Dec
14 2000 35.70 July -0.20 Jan
15 2001 37.10 July -0.60 Jan
16 2002 36.30 July 0.50 Dec
17 2003 37.20 July -1.80 Dec
18 2004 35.90 July -1.00 Jan
19 2005 36.40 July -0.70 Dec
20 2006 37.30 July -1.80 Jan
Table A.16a: Maximum Pavement Temperature for Chitral
Maximum Temperature
T20mm = [Tair -0.00618 Lat2 + 0.2289 Lat + 42.2] x 0.9545 -17.78
Table A.16b: Minimum Pavement Temperature for Chitral
Minimum Temperature
Tpav = 0.859 Tair +1.7˚C
162
Table A.17: Air Temperature Data for Dera Ismail Khan
Station Dera Ismail Khan
1 1987 41.00 June 5.1 Dec
2 1988 42.30 June 6.2 Jan
3 1989 40.70 June 4.6 Jan
4 1990 41.70 June 6.2 Dec
5 1991 41.20 June 4.9 Jan
6 1992 40.90 June 6.3 Jan
7 1993 40.50 June 4.6 Jan
8 1994 41.30 June 5.3 Jan
9 1995 41.90 June 4.7 Jan
10 1996 39.90 June 2.6 Dec
11 1997 39.50 July 3.3 Jan
12 1998 41.70 June 3.8 Dec
13 1999 41.20 June 4.4 Jan
14 2000 42.20 May 5.3 Jan
15 2001 41.40 May 5.2 Jan
16 2002 42.00 May 4.9 Jan
17 2003 42.60 June 3.5 Jan
18 2004 40.20 May 5.3 Jan
19 2005 42.20 June 2.10 Dec
20 2006 41.70 May 4.1 Jan
Table A.17a: Maximum Pavement Temperature for Dera Ismail Khan
Maximum Temperature
T20mm = [Tair -0.00618 Lat2 + 0.2289 Lat + 42.2] x 0.9545 -17.78
Table A.17b: Minimum Pavement Temperature for Dera Ismail Khan
Minimum Temperature
Tpav = 0.859 Tair +1.7˚C
163
Table A.18: Air Temperature Data for Dir
Station Dir
1 1987 32.20 July -2.10 Dec
2 1988 32.40 June -3.10 Dec
3 1989 32.50 June -7.20 Jan
4 1990 33.00 June -4.50 Dec
5 1991 32.80 June -4.70 Jan
6 1992 31.50 June -1.10 Jan
7 1993 32.70 June -2.70 Jan
8 1994 33.90 June -1.10 Dec
9 1995 34.10 June -4.30 Jan
10 1996 31.80 June -3.10 Dec
11 1997 32.20 July -2.90 Jan
12 1998 31.70 July -2.30 Jan
13 1999 33.50 June -2.00 Dec
14 2000 32.70 June -1.70 Jan
15 2001 31.70 June -2.20 Jan
16 2002 33.00 July -2.10 Jan
17 2003 33.50 June -1.10 Jan
18 2004 32.20 June 0.50 Jan
19 2005 33.30 June -1.50 Dec
20 2006 33.40 June -1.60 Dec
Table A.18a: Maximum Pavement Temperature for Dir
Maximum Temperature
T20mm = [Tair -0.00618 Lat2 + 0.2289 Lat + 42.2] x 0.9545 -17.78
Table A.18b: Minimum Pavement Temperature for Dir
Minimum Temperature
Tpav = 0.859 Tair +1.7˚C
164
Table A.19: Air Temperature Data for Faisalabad
Station Faisalabad
1 1987 40.10 June 4.30 Dec
2 1988 42.00 May 6.00 Jan
3 1989 39.70 May 4.50 Jan
4 1990 40.90 June 6.00 Dec
5 1991 40.60 July 4.40 Jan
6 1992 41.00 June 6.30 Jan
7 1993 41.10 June 4.60 Jan
8 1994 42.50 June 4.90 Jan
9 1995 41.90 June 4.40 Jan
10 1996 38.10 May 3.10 Dec
11 1997 38.60 June 3.50 Jan
12 1998 40.80 June 3.90 Jan
13 1999 40.60 May 5.80 Dec
14 2000 41.90 May 4.80 Jan
15 2001 41.10 May 4.30 Jan
16 2002 41.60 May 4.60 Jan
17 2003 41.90 June 5.00 Jan
18 2004 39.50 May 6.60 Jan
19 2005 41.90 June 3.20 Dec
20 2006 41.30 May 4.40 Jan
Table A.19a: Maximum Pavement Temperature for Faisalabad
Maximum Temperature
T20mm = [Tair -0.00618 Lat2 + 0.2289 Lat + 42.2] x 0.9545 -17.78
Table A.19b: Minimum Pavement Temperature for Faisalabad
Minimum Temperature
Tpav = 0.859 Tair +1.7˚C
165
Table A.20: Air Temperature Data for Gilgit
Station Gilgit
1 1987 36.20 August -4.60 Jan
2 1988 37.60 July -1.80 Dec
3 1989 33.00 June -3.70 Jan
4 1990 38.60 July -2.10 Dec
5 1991 36.10 August -3.10 Jan
6 1992 36.00 July -2.00 Dec
7 1993 34.60 August -3.60 Jan
8 1994 38.20 July -1.80 Dec
9 1995 36.90 July -5.50 Jan
10 1996 35.80 August -5.70 Dec
11 1997 39.70 July -4.30 Jan
12 1998 38.20 July -4.50 Dec
13 1999 37.80 July -6.80 Dec
14 2000 35.30 August -4.00 Jan
15 2001 37.20 July -5.60 Jan
16 2002 36.10 August -4.60 Jan
17 2003 38.20 July -3.20 Dec
18 2004 34.70 July 0.00 Jan
19 2005 35.90 August -6.00 Jan
20 2006 36.80 July -2.50 Dec
Table A.20a: Maximum Pavement Temperature for Gilgit
Maximum Temperature
T20mm = [Tair -0.00618 Lat2 + 0.2289 Lat + 42.2] x 0.9545 -17.78
T20mm 59.33
Pavement
Table A.20b: Minimum Pavement Temperature for Gilgit
Minimum Temperature
Tpav = 0.859 Tair +1.7˚C
166
Table A.21: Air Temperature Data for Islamabad
Station Islamabad
Sr. No. Year Temperature(˚C) Month Temperature(˚C) Month
1 1987 39.00 July 2.90 Jan
2 1988 38.60 June 4.60 Dec
3 1989 38.90 June 2.50 Jan
4 1990 39.50 June 4.90 Dec
5 1991 37.90 June 2.90 Jan
6 1992 38.40 June 5.20 Jan
7 1993 38.10 June 3.00 Jan
8 1994 40.10 June 4.40 Jan
9 1995 40.70 June 2.40 Jan
10 1996 36.00 June 1.20 Dec
11 1997 36.30 June 2.10 Jan
12 1998 38.70 June 3.20 Dec
13 1999 39.10 June 3.60 Dec
14 2000 39.90 June 4.00 Jan
15 2001 34.40 May 2.10 Jan
16 2002 39.00 June 3.00 Jan
17 2003 39.40 June 1.80 Jan
18 2004 36.70 June 5.10 Jan
19 2005 39.90 June 2.00 Dec
20 2006 37.80 June 3.80 Jan
Table A.21a: Maximum Pavement Temperature for Islamabad
Maximum Temperature
T20mm = [Tair -0.00618 Lat2 + 0.2289 Lat + 42.2] x 0.9545 -17.78
Table A.21b: Minimum Pavement Temperature for Islamabad
Minimum Temperature
Tpav = 0.859 Tair +1.7˚C
167
Table A.22: Air Temperature Data for Khanpur
Station Khanpur
1 1987 42.60 June 4.60 Dec
2 1988 44.40 May 5.40 Jan
3 1989 41.90 May 4.20 Jan
4 1990 43.00 May 5.20 Dec
5 1991 43.90 June 4.40 Jan
6 1992 44.80 June 6.00 Jan
7 1993 43.70 May 4.20 Jan
8 1994 44.90 May 5.80 Jan
9 1995 44.10 June 3.30 Dec
10 1996 41.30 June 1.90 Jan
11 1997 40.50 June 1.90 Jan
12 1998 42.80 June 1.50 Jan
13 1999 41.90 June 1.90 Jan
14 2000 42.60 June 3.10 Dec
15 2001 43.20 May 3.60 Jan
16 2002 44.40 May 5.00 Jan
17 2003 43.10 June 4.30 Jan
18 2004 42.50 May 6.40 Jan
19 2005 42.50 June 3.20 Dec
20 2006 43.80 May 4.90 Jan
Table A.22a: Maximum Pavement Temperature for Khanpur
Maximum Temperature
T20mm = [Tair -0.00618 Lat2 + 0.2289 Lat + 42.2] x 0.9545 -17.78
Table A.22b: Minimum Pavement Temperature for Khanpur
Minimum Temperature
Tpav = 0.859 Tair +1.7˚C
168
Table A.23: Air Temperature Data for Kotli
Station Kotli
1 1987 37.30 July 4.60 Jan
2 1988 38.00 June 5.40 Dec
3 1989 38.30 June 4.20 Jan
4 1990 38.70 June 5.20 Dec
5 1991 37.80 June 4.40 Jan
6 1992 37.70 June 6.00 Jan
7 1993 38.50 June 4.20 Jan
8 1994 39.20 June 5.80 Jan
9 1995 40.10 June 3.30 Jan
10 1996 32.90 June 1.90 Dec
11 1997 34.70 June 1.90 Jan
12 1998 36.80 June 1.50 Dec
13 1999 38.20 May 1.90 Dec
14 2000 39.90 May 3.10 Jan
15 2001 37.90 May 3.60 Jan
16 2002 39.10 May 5.00 Jan
17 2003 38.90 June 4.30 Jan
18 2004 36.90 June 6.40 Jan
19 2005 40.00 June 3.20 Dec
20 2006 38.80 May 4.90 Jan
Table A.23a: Maximum Pavement Temperature for Kotli
Maximum Temperature
T20mm = [Tair -0.00618 Lat2 + 0.2289 Lat + 42.2] x 0.9545 -17.78
Table A.23b: Minimum Pavement Temperature for Kotli
Minimum Temperature
Tpav = 0.859 Tair +1.7˚C
169
Table A.24: Air Temperature Data for Lahore
Station Lahore
1 1987 40.80 June 7.30 Jan
2 1988 43.10 May 8.20 Dec
3 1989 40.30 May 6.40 Jan
4 1990 40.30 June 8.00 Dec
5 1991 49.30 June 6.40 Jan
6 1992 40.90 June 8.30 Jan
7 1993 41.10 May 6.70 Jan
8 1994 41.70 June 8.30 Jan
9 1995 41.70 June 6.60 Jan
10 1996 38.10 May 7.20 Dec
11 1997 36.70 June 7.30 Jan
12 1998 40.20 June 7.30 Jan
13 1999 39.40 May 8.90 Jan
14 2000 40.40 May 7.90 Jan
15 2001 40.00 May 6.60 Jan
16 2002 41.00 May 8.20 Jan
17 2003 39.80 June 6.60 Jan
18 2004 38.80 May 9.60 Jan
19 2005 40.50 June 7.00 Dec
20 2006 39.50 May 8.40 Jan
Table A.24a: Maximum Pavement Temperature for Lahore
Maximum Temperature
T20mm = [Tair -0.00618 Lat2 + 0.2289 Lat + 42.2] x 0.9545 -17.78
Table A.24b: Minimum Pavement Temperature for Lahore
Minimum Temperature
Tpav = 0.859 Tair +1.7˚C
170
Table A.25: Air Temperature Data for Multan
Station Multan
1 1987 41.80 June 4.80 Dec
2 1988 44.10 May 6.60 Jan
3 1989 41.00 June 4.00 Jan
4 1990 42.30 June 6.60 Dec
5 1991 43.10 June 4.40 Jan
6 1992 43.70 June 6.20 Jan
7 1993 43.10 May 5.90 Jan
8 1994 43.60 June 5.90 Jan
9 1995 43.60 June 5.40 Jan
10 1996 40.30 June 4.70 Dec
11 1997 40.20 June 4.90 Jan
12 1998 41.40 May 4.70 Jan
13 1999 42.20 May 6.60 Jan
14 2000 43.40 May 5.30 Jan
15 2001 43.20 May 5.30 Jan
16 2002 43.80 May 4.90 Jan
17 2003 43.50 June 6.00 Jan
18 2004 41.50 May 7.00 Jan
19 2005 42.80 June 3.90 Dec
20 2006 43.00 May 4.40 Jan
Table A.25a: Maximum Pavement Temperature for Multan
Maximum Temperature
T20mm = [Tair -0.00618 Lat2 + 0.2289 Lat + 42.2] x 0.9545 -17.78
Table A.25b: Minimum Pavement Temperature for Multan
Minimum Temperature
Tpav = 0.859 Tair +1.7˚C
171
Table A.26: Air Temperature Data for Murree
Station Murree
1 1987 24.20 July 2.40 Jan
2 1988 24.80 May 2.20 Jan
3 1989 25.70 June -0.20 Jan
4 1990 26.40 June 1.80 Dec
5 1991 26.10 June 0.60 Jan
6 1992 26.00 June 2.10 Jan
7 1993 25.90 June -2.00 Jan
8 1994 28.00 June -3.50 Jan
9 1995 28.90 June -2.00 Jan
10 1996 24.80 June -2.10 Jan
11 1997 23.70 June 0.10 Dec
12 1998 26.60 June -2.00 Jan
13 1999 25.90 June -3.50 Jan
14 2000 25.40 June -5.30 Jan
15 2001 25.90 May -4.70 Jan
16 2002 26.20 May -4.80 Jan
17 2003 27.10 June -4.40 Jan
18 2004 24.30 July -4.00 Jan
19 2005 27.00 June -3.50 Jan
20 2006 26.80 May -3.40 Jan
Table A .26a: Maximum Pavement Temperature for Murree
Maximum Temperature
T20mm = [Tair -0.00618 Lat2 + 0.2289 Lat + 42.2] x 0.9545 -17.78
Table A .26b: Minimum Pavement Temperature for Murree
Minimum Temperature
Tpav = 0.859 Tair +1.7˚C
172
Table A .27: Air Temperature Data for Muzaffarabad
Station Muzaffarabad
1 1987 38.00 July 3.10 Jan
2 1988 39.30 May 5.00 Dec
3 1989 37.60 June 3.00 Jan
4 1990 38.60 June 3.60 Dec
5 1991 37.60 June 2.50 Jan
6 1992 37.10 June 4.20 Jan
7 1993 38.00 June 3.10 Jan
8 1994 39.00 June 4.50 Jan
9 1995 39.90 June 2.70 Jan
10 1996 34.90 June 2.60 Jan
11 1997 34.50 June 2.60 Jan
12 1998 37.80 June 2.30 Dec
13 1999 38.80 June 3.50 Dec
14 2000 38.90 May 3.60 Jan
15 2001 37.60 May 2.50 Jan
16 2002 37.90 June 2.40 Jan
17 2003 38.70 June 2.80 Jan
18 2004 35.90 June 4.40 Jan
19 2005 37.00 June 3.30 Jan
20 2006 38.00 May 1.20 Jan
Table A .27a: Maximum Pavement Temperature for Muzaffarabad
Maximum Temperature
T20mm = [Tair -0.00618 Lat2 + 0.2289 Lat + 42.2] x 0.9545 -17.78
Table A .27b: Minimum Pavement Temperature for Muzaffarabad
Minimum Temperature
Tpav = 0.859 Tair +1.7˚C
173
Table A.28: Air Temperature Data for Parachinar
Station Parachinar
1 1987 31.00 July -0.70 Jan
2 1988 30.90 June 0.10 Jan
3 1989 31.20 June -2.20 Jan
4 1990 31.30 June -0.20 Feb
5 1991 31.20 June -2.40 Jan
6 1992 30.40 June -2.90 Feb
7 1993 30.50 June -6.20 Jan
8 1994 32.10 June -3.10 Feb
9 1995 32.20 June -6.20 Jan
10 1996 30.10 June -6.50 Jan
11 1997 31.00 July -7.40 Jan
12 1998 30.70 July -8.70 Jan
13 1999 32.20 June -9.10 Jan
14 2000 31.10 June -7.50 Feb
15 2001 31.10 May -7.80 Jan
16 2002 31.60 June -7.60 Jan
17 2003 32.10 June -8.40 Jan
18 2004 30.10 July -6.80 Jan
19 2005 30.40 June -5.00 Jan
20 2006 30.10 July -5.80 Jan
Table A .28a: Maximum Pavement Temperature for Parachinaar
Maximum Temperature
T20mm = [Tair -0.00618 Lat2 + 0.2289 Lat + 42.2] x 0.9545 -17.78
Table A .28b: Maximum Pavement Temperature for Parachinaar
Minimum Temperature
Tpav = 0.859 Tair +1.7˚C
174
Table A.29: Air Temperature Data for Peshawar
Station Peshawar
1 1987 40.50 July 4.20 Jan
2 1988 39.90 June 6.30 Jan
3 1989 40.90 June 3.80 Jan
4 1990 40.80 June 5.00 Dec
5 1991 40.00 June 3.40 Jan
6 1992 43.30 June 5.30 Jan
7 1993 40.10 June 3.00 Jan
8 1994 41.90 June 4.90 Jan
9 1995 42.70 June 2.60 Jan
10 1996 39.80 June 2.50 Dec
11 1997 38.60 June 2.70 Jan
12 1998 40.50 June 3.80 Jan
13 1999 42.30 June 4.60 Dec
14 2000 40.40 May 4.50 Jan
15 2001 39.60 May 3.90 Jan
16 2002 39.50 June 4.40 Jan
17 2003 41.00 June 5.20 Jan
18 2004 38.50 June 6.10 Jan
19 2005 40.80 June 3.80 Dec
20 2006 39.40 May 4.70 Jan
Table A.29a: Maximum Pavement Temperature for Peshawar
Maximum Temperature
T20mm = [Tair -0.00618 Lat2 + 0.2289 Lat + 42.2] x 0.9545 -17.78
Table A.29b: Minimum Pavement Temperature for Peshawar
Minimum Temperature
Tpav = 0.859 Tair +1.7˚C
175
Table A.30: Air Temperature Data for Sialkot
Station Sialkot
1 1987 40.20 June 5.2 Dec
2 1988 40.80 May 5.9 Dec
3 1989 38.80 June 3.6 Jan
4 1990 39.90 June 6.3 Jan
5 1991 38.70 June 5 Jan
6 1992 39.30 June 6.3 Dec
7 1993 40.00 June 4.5 Jan
8 1994 41.00 June 6.7 Jan
9 1995 42.10 June 4.3 Jan
10 1996 36.90 May 2.7 Dec
11 1997 37.00 June 2.50 Jan
12 1998 40.40 June 4.8 Jan
13 1999 39.30 May 5.4 Dec
14 2000 40.20 May 5.2 Dec
15 2001 39.40 May 4 Jan
16 2002 41.00 May 4.8 Dec
17 2003 40.30 June 4.7 Jan
18 2004 38.70 May 6.8 Jan
19 2005 41.20 June 3.1 Dec
20 2006 39.50 May 5.3 Jan
Table A.30a: Maximum Pavement Temperature for Sialkot
Maximum Temperature
T20mm = [Tair -0.00618 Lat2 + 0.2289 Lat + 42.2] x 0.9545 -17.78
Table A.30b: Minimum Pavement Temperature for Sialkot
Minimum Temperature
Tpav = 0.859 Tair +1.7˚C
176
Annexure B
177
Table B1: Performance Based Requirements for Binder
PG-52
PG-58 PG-64 PG-70
Performance Grade
-10 -16 -22 -28 -34 -40 -46 -16 -22 -28 -34 -40 -16 -22 -28 -34 -40 -10 -16 -22 -28
Average 7-day
Maximum
<52 <58 <64 <70
Pavement Design
Temperature, (°C)
Minimum
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Pavement Design
-10 -16 -22 -28 -34 -40 -46 -16 -22 -28 -34 -40 -16 -22 -28 -34 -40 -10 -16 -22 -28
Temperature (°C)
Original Binder
Flash Point
Temperature, T48: 230
Minimum (°C)
Viscosity,
ASTM D 4402;
Maximum, 3 Pa.s 135
(3000 Cp),
Test Temp (°C)
Dynamic Shear , 70
TP5;
G*/sin δ,
Minimum, 1.00 52 58 64
kPa
Test Temp @10
rad/sec, (°C)
Continued...
178
Rolling Thin Film Oven ( T240) or Thin Film Oven ( T179) Residue
Mass Loss,
1.00
Maximum, %
Dynamic Shear ,
TP5;
G*/sin δ,
Minimum, 2.20 52 58 64 70
kPa
Test Temp @10
rad/sec, (°C)
Pressure Aging Vessel Residue (PPI)
PAV Aging
90 100 100 100(110)
Temperature, (°C)
Dynamic Shear ,
TP5;
G*/sin δ,
Maximum, 5000
25 22 19 16 13 10 7 25 22 19 16 13 28 25 22 19 16 34 31 28 25
kPa; Test Temp
@10 rad/sec, (°C)
Physical Hardening Report
Creep Stiffness,
TPI S, Maximum,
300 MPa
m value,
Minimum, 0.300
0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 -36 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 -6 -12 -18
Test Temp, @ 60
sec, (°C)
Direct
Tension,TP3:
Faiure Strain,
Minimum, 1.0 %
Test Temperature
0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 -36 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 -6 -12 -18
@ 1.0 mm/min,
(°C)
179
Table B2: Station wise Performance Grading
Selection of Performance Grades

Maximum Temperature Min. Temperatures
Sr. Pavement Pavement Temperature Pavement Selected

Station Performance Performance
No. Temperature including 98% Temperature Grade
Grade Grade
(°C) Reliability (°C) (°C)
1 Dalbandin 66.79 70.79 76 1.01 -4 PG 76-4
2 Hyderabad 64.46 68.46 70 9 -4 PG 70-4
3 Jacobabad 68.21 72.21 76 6.17 -4 PG 76-4
4 Karachi 59.33 63.33 64 9.43 -4 PG 64-4
5 Lasbella 65.31 69.31 70 7.8 -4 PG 70-4
6 Nawabshsh 68.16 72.16 76 5.57 -4 PG 76-4
7 Nokkundi 66.37 70.37 70 2.73 -4 PG 70-4
8 Pasni 59.45 63.45 64 10.55 -4 PG 64-4
180 Continued...
Selection of Performance Grades
Maximum Temperature Min. Temperatures
Sr. Pavement Pavement Temperature Pavement Selected

Station Performance Performance
No. Temperature including 98% Temperature Grade
Grade Grade
(°C) Reliability (°C) (°C)
9 Quetta 59.55 63.55 64 -2.60 -4 PG 64-4
10 Rohri 66.97 70.97 76 5.91 -4 PG 76-4
11 Sibbi 68.58 72.58 76 5.74 -4 PG 76-4
12 Zhob 60.42 64.42 70 -4.66 -10 PG 70-10
13 Astor 49.98 53.98 58 -8.69 -10 PG 58-10
14 Bahawalpur 65.65 69.65 70 5.74 -4 PG 70-4
15 Balakot 58.84 62.84 64 1.79 -4 PG 64-4
Continued...
181
Max. Temperatures Min. Temperatures
Sr. No. Station Pavement Pavement Temperature Pavement Selected Grade

Performance Performance
Temperature including 98% Reliability Temperature
Grade Grade
(°C) (°C) (°C)
16 Chitral 58.24 62.24 64 -0.1 -4 PG 64-4
17 Dera Ismail Khan 63.69 67.69 70 3.5 -4 PG 70-4
18 Dir 54.88 58.88 64 -4.48 -10 PG 64-10
19 Faisalabad 63.59 67.59 70 4.36 -4 PG 70-4
20 Gilgit 59.33 63.33 64 -4.14 -10 PG 64-10
21 Islamabad 61.15 65.15 70 2.73 -4 PG 70-4
22 Khanpur 66.23 70.23 76 2.99 -4 PG 76-4
23 Kotli 60.76 64.76 70 2.99 -4 PG 70-4
24 Lahore 64.26 68.26 70 7.2 -4 PG 70-4
Continued...
182
Max. Temperatures Min. Temperatures
Sr. No. Station Pavement Pavement Temperature Pavement Selected Grade

Performance Performance
Temperature including 98% Reliability Temperature
Grade Grade
(°C) (°C) (°C)
25 Multan 65.36 69.36 70 5.05 -4 PG 70-4
26 Murree 49.14 53.14 58 -2.85 -4 PG 58-4
27 Muzaffarabad 60.29 64.29 70 2.73 -4 PG 70-4
28 Parachinar 53.49 57.49 58 -6.12 -10 PG 58-10
29 Peshawar 63.04 67.04 70 3.85 -4 PG 70-4
30 Sialkot 62.48 66.48 70 3.85 -4 PG 70-4
183
Annexure C
184
Table C1: Performance Based Binder Properties of 60/70 Grade Bitumen
Pressure Aging Vessel Precise SHRP Grade PG 62.6 -

Temperature: 100 24.5
Sample: PAKISTAN BASE, ATTOCK 60/70 PEN,
NEAT
Passing Temp for PAV DSR
(62.6-24.5)/2 + 4 = 23.05
Precise SHRP DELTA:

62.6 + 24.5 = 87.1
HANDLING AND SAFETY PROPERTIES

TEST SPECIFICATION RESULT TEST SPECIFICATION RESULT
Flash Point, COC, 0C Min. 230 0C Solubility, Wt. % Min. 99 %
RTFO Mass Loss, Wt. % Max. 1.00 0.90% Specific Gravity NA
Brookfield Viscosity, Pass Max. 3 0.226 Penetration PROGRESSION RESULTS
SAMPLE PARAMETER TEMP
MIX PERFORMANCE PROPERTIES Unaged 1 kPa @ 62.6
UNAGED RTFO PAV USING RTFO RESIDUE RTFO 2.2 kPa @ 63.6
Direct Tension PAV-DS 5 Mpa @ 23.6
Test 0 BBR- Strain PAV-BBR 300 Mpa @ -14.5
C G*Sin(d) G*Sin(d) G*XSin(d) Stress
Phase Phase Phase BBR-S m 1mm/min
MIN MIN MAX 1mm/min PAV-BBR 0.300 SLOPE @ -15.9
Angle Angle Angle MAX MIN MIN
1.0_kPa 2.2_kPa 5000 kPa Mpa
DEG DEG DEG 300_Mpa 0.300 1.0%
DSR 70 0.356 88.4
DSR 64 0.81 87.6 2.083 2.1 CRITICAL CRACKING TEMPERATURE
DSR 58 1.939 86.3 4.365 83.4 << SHRP TEMP For Pavement Constant = 16 -21.2
DSR 52 For Pavement Constant = 18 -20.5
DSR 46
Continued...
185

Sample: PAKISTAN BASE, ATTOCK 60/70 PEN,
NEAT
(62.6-24.5)/2 + 4 = 23.05
Precise SHRP DELTA:
62.6 + 24.5 = 87.1
DSR 40 AGING RATIO @ SHRP TEMP
DSR 31 G*/Sin(d) @
DSR 28 Unaged SHRP TEMP 1.939
DSR 25 4012 49.8 G*/Sin(d) @
DSR 22 6339 46 RTFO SHRP TEMP 4.365
DSR 19 RATIO 2.25
DSR 16
DSR 13 DSR PHASE ANGLES
DSR 10 Unaged When 1/J" = 1 87.2
DSR 7 RTFO When 1/J" = 2.2 8.1
DSR 4 PAV When G" = 5000 48
DSR 1
DSR -2
DSR -5
BBR -6
BBR -9 0.89 2.26
BBR -12 227 0.336 0.67 2.26
BBR -15
BBR -18 444 0.281 0.3 2.08
BBR -21
BBR -24
186
Table C2: Performance Based Binder Properties of Polymer Modified Bitumen (1.6% Elvaloy 4160)

Sample: 01-102A - Pakistan Attock 60 - 70 Pen 1.6%
4170, 0.7% SPA, Overnight cook, 1600C
(78.6-23.3)/2 + 4 = 31.65
Precise SHRP DELTA:

78.6 + 23.3 = 101.9
HANDLING AND SAFETY PROPERTIES

TEST SPECIFICATION RESULT TEST SPECIFICATION RESULT
Flash Point, COC, 0C Min. 230 0C Solubility, Wt. % Min. 99 %
RTFO Mass Loss, Wt. % Max. 1.00 1.02% Specific Gravity NA
Brookfield Viscosity, Pass Max. 3 1.252 Penetration PROGRESSION RESULTS
SAMPLE PARAMETER TEMP
MIX PERFORMANCE PROPERTIES Unaged 1 kPa @ 78.6
UNAGED RTFO PAV USING RTFO RESIDUE RTFO 2.2 kPa @ 82.8
Direct Tension PAV-DS 5 Mpa @ 22.7
Test BBR- Strain PAV-BBR 300 Mpa @ -13.3
0
C G*Sin(d) G*Sin(d) G*XSin(d) Stress
Phase Phase Phase BBR-S m 1mm/min
MIN MIN MAX 1mm/min PAV-BBR 0.300 SLOPE @ -15.1
Angle Angle Angle MAX MIN MIN
1.0_kPa 2.2_kPa 5000 kPa Mpa
DEG DEG DEG 300_Mpa 0.300 1.0%
DSR 88 1.396 59.6
DSR 82 0.728 67.4 2.374 58.3 CRITICAL CRACKING TEMPERATURE
DSR 76 1.281 65.8 4.005 57.3 << SHRP TEMP For Pavement Constant = 16 -23.6
DSR 70 For Pavement Constant = 18 -22.6
DSR 64
Continued...
187

Sample: 01-102A - Pakistan Attock 60 - 70 Pen 1.6%
4170, 0.7% SPA, Overnight cook, 1600C
(78.6-23.3)/2 + 4 = 31.65
Precise SHRP DELTA:
78.6 + 23.3 = 101.9
DSR 58 AGING RATIO @ SHRP TEMP
DSR 31 G*/Sin(d) @
DSR 28 Unaged SHRP TEMP 1.281
DSR 25 3828 40.8 G*/Sin(d) @
DSR 22 5452 39 RTFO SHRP TEMP 4.005
DSR 19 RATIO 3.13
DSR 16
DSR 13 DSR PHASE ANGLES
DSR 10 Unaged When 1/J" = 1 66.5
DSR 7 RTFO When 1/J" = 2.2 58.6
DSR 4 PAV When G" = 5000 39.4
DSR 1
DSR -2
DSR -5
BBR -6
BBR -9
BBR -12 259 0.329 1.5 3.91
BBR -15
BBR -18 516 0.273 0.77 5.16
BBR -21
BBR -24
188
Annexure D
189
Table D1: Summary Results of Uniaxial Loading Strain Test
Test Conditions Mix Type
Superpave SMA Marshall

Temperat
Stress
ure Resilient Creep Resilient Creep Resilient Creep
Level Resilient Accumulated Resilient Accumulated Resilient Accumulated
(°C) Modulus Stiffness Modulus Stiffness Modulus Stiffness
Strain (%) Strain (%) Strain (%) Strain (%) Strain (%) Strain (%)
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
25 0.014 0.15 734 67 0.026 0.36 278 31 0.019 0.39 410 30
100KPa 40 0.027 0.28 398 46 0.033 0.45 262 23 0.034 0.85 300 15
55 0.031 0.38 609 42 0.059 0.57 100 18 0.039 1.35 137 12
25 0.036 0.31 714 112 0.046 0.77 440 41 0.043 0.5 673 60
300Kpa 40 0.059 0.35 577 72 0.097 1.5 317 20 0.067 1.14 477 26
55 0.1 0.47 517 53 0.11 4.5 100 10 0.13 2.18 249 14
25 0.04 0.33 734 83 0.097 1.07 554 47 0.045 1.0 521 62
500Kpa 40 0.071 0.44 556 76 0.107 3.5 453 14 0.08 3.05 477 14
55 0.11 0.70 517 70 0.123 4.5 100 13 0.14 4.4 330 14
190
Table D2: Summary Results of Dynamic Modulus Test at 25°
Mix Type MARSHALL SMA SUPERPAVE
Performance
Dynamic Modulus Dynamic Modulus (MPa) at Dynamic Modulus (MPa) at
Based Permanent Strain at 25°C Permanent Strain at 25°C Permanent Strain at 25°C
(MPa) at 25°C 25°C 25°C
Properties
300 500 700 300 500 700 300 500 700
Frequency 300 500 700 kPa kPa kPa 300 500 700 kPa kPa kPa 300 500 700 kPa kPa kPa
(Hz) kPa kPa kPa kPa kPa kPa kPa kPa kPa
(10-4) (10-4) (10-4) (10-4) (10-4) (10-4) (10-4) (10-4) (10-4)
25 7000 7631 7360 5.6 9.11 6.13 5558 7223 7066 12.48 8.51 8.54 7700 11649 8942 2.27 1.78 4.35
10 4901 5700 5773 7 15.68 11.38 3981 5076 5137 18.57 13.14 13.74 6294 9238 7048 4.32 3.03 6.58
5 3961 4424 4463 7.7 19.82 15 3239 4087 4149 22.9 16.65 17.21 5070 7843 5884 5.6 4.56 7.7
1 2259 2550 2752 8.7 26.55 20.09 1919 2338 2567 30.73 23.26 23.5 3316 5249 3833 7.75 7.57 9.5
0.5 1784 1977 2254 9 28.88 21.79 1469 1842 2116 33.49 25.77 25.87 2592 4420 3192 8.49 8.52 10.09
0.1 1104 1179 1474 9.8 35.3 26.23 867 1081 1358 41.94 33.32 32.67 1647 2800 2080 9.52 10.86 11.88
191
Table D3: Summary Results of Dynamic Modulus Test at 40°C
Performance
Dynamic Modulus Dynamic Modulus (MPa) at Dynamic Modulus (MPa) at
(MPa) at 40°C 40°C 40°C
Properties
150 200 250 150 200 250 150 200 250
Frequency 150 200 250 kPa kPa kPa 150 200 250 kPa kPa kPa 150 200 250 kPa kPa kPa
(Hz) kPa kPa kPa kPa kPa kPa kPa kPa kPa
(10-4) (10-4) (10-4) (10-4) (10-4) (10-4) (10-4) 10-4) (10-4)
25 2654 3450 2556 4.27 4.31 5.95 7066 3832 1703 31.96 9.25 69.54 8942 5077 5145 3.88 4.1 4.35
10 1876 2367 1846 4.58 4.75 6.87 5137 2474 1216 39.35 11.24 87.69 7048 3871 3698 4.45 4.59 4.77
5 1502 1854 1449 4.73 5.01 7.44 4149 2032 994 43.53 12.49 96.53 5883 2927 2883 4.66 4.83 4.99
1 931 1132 950 4.89 5.19 8.09 2570 1134 643 47.96 13.34 104.87 3833 1680 1665 4.75 5.06 5.21
0.5 794 938 829 5.01 5.31 8.28 2116 898 469 49.01 13.49 106.61 3192 1341 1344 4.86 5.14 5.32
0.1 586 665 628 5.18 5.42 8.84 1358 542 454 50.69 13.61 109.35 2080 850 889 5.03 5.27 5.47
192
Table D4: Summary Results of Dynamic Modulus Test at 55°C
Performance
Dynamic Modulus Dynamic Modulus (MPa) Dynamic Modulus (MPa) at
(MPa) at 55°C at 55°C 55°C
Properties
35 50 35
65 kPa 35 kPa 50 kPa 65 kPa 50 kPa 65 kPa
Frequency 35 50 65 kPa kPa 35 50 kPa
65 kPa 35 kPa 50 kPa 65 kPa
(Hz) kPa kPa kPa kPa kPa
(10-4) (10-4) (10-4) (10-4) (10-4) (10-4)
(10-4) (10-4) (10-4)
25 379 421 435 19.74 7.84 7.09 427 464 485 16.31 5.91 6.2 735 742 737 2.27 2.31 2.94
10 299 327 346 22.87 9.52 8.39 341 372 396 18.51 6.21 6.91 558 549 571 2.49 2.37 2.99
5 273 296 310 24.44 10.5 9.19 315 340 361 19.33 6.34 7.11 479 484 493 2.61 2.41 3.03
1 229 247 261 26.45 11.75 9.96 260 286 303 19.96 6.45 7.23 357 373 386 2.74 2.46 3.12
0.5 205 227 246 27.07 12.16 10.19 240 269 289 20.06 6.57 7.36 323 337 351 2.77 2.53 3.25
0.1 180 199 220 28.74 13.28 10.59 223 254 212 20.93 6.73 7.5 264 286 305 3 2.67 3.37
193
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS
1. PERFORMANCE GRADING (PG) OF ASPHALT FOR IMPLEMENTING
SUPERPAVE MIX DESIGN METHOD TO RESIST RUTTING
Authors: Kamran Muzaffar Khan and Prof.Dr.Mumtaz Ahmed Kamal
Proceedings of Sixth International Conference on Sustainable Aggregates,
Asphalt Technology and Pavement Engineering (21-22Feb 2007), Liverpool John
Moores University UK.
2. IMPACT OF SUPERPAVE MIX DESIGN METHOD ON RUTTING
BEHAVIOUR OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS IN PAKISTAN
Authors: Kamran Muzaffar Khan and Prof.Dr.Mumtaz Ahmed Kamal
Accepted for Publication at Arabian Journal of Science and Engineering (AJSE)
2008
3. PERFORMANCE OF SUPERPAVE AND OTHER MIXES AGAINST
ASPHALT RUTTING
Authors: Kamran Muzaffar Khan and Prof. Dr.Mumtaz Ahmed Kamal
Journal of Transportation Engineering, Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE)
(Under Review Process)
194

Impact of Superpave Mix Design Method On Rutting Behaviour of Flexible Pavements

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Impact of Superpave Mix Design Method On Rutting Behaviour of Flexible Pavements

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Impact of Superpave Mix Design Method on

Rutting Behaviour of Flexible Pavements

Kamran Muzaffar Khan

Dr. Mumtaz Ahmed Kamal

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

Checked and Recommended by the Foreign Experts:

Dr. David Hughes Prof. Dr. Ali Porbaha

Prof. Dr. M. A. Kamal

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

Effective communication is a key to national progress. Pakistan is located in a region

In addition, a performance grading map has been proposed to be implemented in Pakistan

Keywords: Superpave, Rutting, Hot Mix Asphalt, Pavement

Kamran Muzaffar Khan

(Kamran Muzaffar Khan)

1.1 Structural Behaviour of Flexible Pavement

1.2 Visco-Elastic Behavior of Asphalt

Asphalt concrete is a complex three-phase material which consists of aggregates, asphalt

At intermediate temperature conditions, asphalt binder exhibits the characteristics of both

1.3 Flexible Pavement Distresses in Pakistan

i) Water is accumulated on the impervious surface causing hydroplaning

1.4 Solutions to the Rutting Problems in Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA)

Superpave (Superior Performing Asphalt Pavements) is the major revolution in pavement

Following were the objectives of the research work;

• Critical analysis of the available information relating to rutting of asphaltic concrete.

• Characterization of the locally available materials such as aggregates and asphalt

binder according to Superpave mix design criteria.

• Establishing performance grades of Asphalt to suit local environmental conditions

• Evaluation of the performance of Superpave, Marshall and Stone Mastic Asphalt

1.6 Scope of Work

Physical Characterization of Physical and Mechanical

Selection of NHA’s Selection of Aggregate Selection of Optimal

Asphalt Content Optimization Asphalt Content Optimization Asphalt Content Optimization

Preparation of Test Samples Preparation of Test Samples Preparation of Test Samples

- Indirect Tensile Modulus Test

Analysis of the data

Figure 1.9: Flow Chart Diagram (Scope of Work)

Chapter 3 presents an overview of Superpave Mix Design Method. It includes introduction

to Superpave Asphalt Binder Testing, Formation of Binder Grades, Volumetric Properties of

Superpave Mixes, Moisture Sensitivity Testing, Performance Evaluation of Superpave Mixes

and Comparison of Superpave with Conventional Mixes

Chapter 4 involves Performance Grading of Asphalt and Preparation of Superpave binder

has been proposed to be implemented for Pakistan.

Chapter 5 explicates Materials Characterization of materials to be used for the current

exploring conventional mechanical properties, source properties and consensus properties. In

addition, aggregate gradation according to Superpave Specifications is also explained.

Bitumen Testing includes physical properties required according to Superpave Binder

Chapter 6 expounds Performance Based Testing of asphaltic concrete samples at different

Chapter 7 is a Discussion oriented chapter dealing with a comparative study of different

consist of Modulus of Resilience, Accumulated Strains, Creep Stiffness, Resilient Strain,

Dynamic Modulus, Permanent Strains and Rut Depth.

Chapter 8 concludes the discussion with substantial and favourable recommendations

achieved on the basis of research study.

2.1 Permanent Deformation in Flexible Pavements

Rutting or permanent deformation of a pavement is caused by progressive movement of

2.2 Types of Rutting in Asphaltic Concrete

2.2.1 Rutting Due to Densification

Figure 2.1: Rutting due to Densification

2.2.2 Rutting due to Shear Failure

Figure 2.2: Rutting due to Shear Failure

2.3 Factors Affecting Rutting

1) Texas gyratory-shear compactor,

Gradation Gap to continuous Increase