Please do not remove this page

Stone Mastic Asphalt for Australian Airport

Pavements
Jamieson, Sean
https://research.usc.edu.au/discovery/delivery/61USC_INST:ResearchRepository/12126753430002621?l#13130022220002621

Jamieson. (2019). Stone Mastic Asphalt for Australian Airport Pavements [University of the Sunshine
Coast, Queensland]. https://doi.org/10.25907/00387
Document Type: Thesis

USC Research Bank: https://research.usc.edu.au

research-repository@usc.edu.au
It's your responsibility to determine if additional rights or permissions are needed for your use.
Downloaded On 2022/11/14 21:19:11 +1000

Please do not remove this page

 University of the Sunshine Coast
School of Science and Engineering

Stone Mastic Asphalt for

Australian Airport Pavements

By Sean Jamieson
B. Eng. (Civil & Structural) with First Class Honours

A thesis submitted for the award of

Master of Science (Civil Engineering)

Abstract

Flexible airport pavements in Australia have traditionally been surfaced with Marshall-
designed dense graded asphalt (DGA). Grooving is undertaken on runways to avoid aircraft
skidding incidents during wet weather conditions, as well as satisfying regulatory surface
texture requirements as set by Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). Groove
closure is a common distress experienced at airports surfaced with DGA in Australia, inhibiting
the pavement’s ability to shed water, ultimately increasing the risk of hydroplaning. Repairing
of grooves is costly and effects the operational capability of an airport for the period of repair
works. Consequently, this has led to the investigation of stone mastic asphalt (SMA) as an
alternate runway surfacing. Due to the gap-graded nature of SMA, and therefore increased
surface texture, grooving can be avoided.
SMA is commonly used internationally as a runway surface due to its high rut resistance,
increased fatigue resistance and coarse texture. In Australia, SMA has been employed on roads
as a premium product for heavy duty traffic. The use of SMA on Australian airport pavements
is extremely limited with only two airports undertaking non-runway trials in the recent past,
with mixed results. The confidence for Australian aerodrome operators to employ this material
is low as the solution has neither been translated or validated for Australian airports. This
research aimed to perform that validation.
For SMA to be validated in the Australian airport context it was tested against performance
and regulatory requirements expected of airport asphalt. This research undertook laboratory
performance testing on two commonly used international SMA runway specifications using a
variety of aggregate sources and a polymer modified binder. Testing was completed against
elements of the following performance criteria:
• Deformation resistance
• Fracture resistance
• Surface texture and friction
• Durability

Results from laboratory tests found that SMA can achieve all published Australian airport
runway performance requirements for fracture resistance and durability. It can also achieve
minimum performance requirements for deformation resistance when test parameters are
representative of in-field conditions.
On completion of laboratory trials, a full field trial was performed on an active taxiway at an
airbase in Australia. This trial allowed for in-field measurement of surface texture and surface
friction. Surface texture was found to be compliant with the minimum CASA skid resistance
requirement, validating the material as an ungrooved runway surface from a regulatory
perspective. Surface friction was initially below minimum friction levels but improved over
time as the film of surface binder, characteristic of new SMA surfaces, wore down with traffic
and weathering.
The laboratory phase of this research and subsequent field trial led to the development of a
performance-based specification for SMA as an ungrooved runway surface. The first draft of
this specification is included in this thesis and it is recommended that industry adopt it for
future runway overlays utilising SMA. This research has concluded that SMA can achieve the
minimum performance and regulatory requirements expected of Australian airport asphalt,
and therefore its validation and suitability as an ungrooved runway surface for Australian
airports.

i
 Declaration of Originality
The work contained in this Thesis has not been previously submitted for a degree or diploma
at any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the Thesis
contains no material previously published or written by another person, except where due
acknowledgement of reference is made.

_______
17 June 2019
Sean Jamieson
B. Eng (Civil & Structural, 1st Class Hons)

ii
 Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge and thank the following individuals and organisations for their
assistance with this research. Such an undertaking cannot be achieved by an individual working
alone and its timely completion is a reflection of the level of support that has been provided.

Assistance for the initial scoping of the project was facilitated by the Australian Asphalt
Pavement Association (AAPA), in particular, Dr. Erik Denneman, who also provided peer review
of outcomes throughout the conduct of the research.

AAPA members provided the use of their laboratories, staff hours and resources, as well as
guidance and support of technical aspects of the research. A significant amount of time and
effort was provided by Fulton Hogan, Downer, Colas and Boral.

Steve Willis from Cairns International Airport advised on the Australian airport experience with
SMA by providing a tour of the airport, as well as allowing for access to past SMA specific
project data.

Horst Erdlen and David Black assisted with understanding the German experience and history
of SMA development internationally.

My employer, Department of Defence, for first allowing me the opportunity to conduct this
research, and secondly providing the funds and facilitating the field trial. In particular, WGCDR
John Force, FLGOFF Matt Goulding, SQNLDR Rhys Belnap, SGT Cameron Lambert, Ray Kwan
from the National Airfields Maintenance Project (Aurecon-Beca Joint Venture), and all RAAF
Base Amberley staff who assisted in the operational aspects of the field trial.

My co-supervisor Dr. Adrian McCallum assisted in research outputs and review of submissions.

Finally, my principal supervisor Dr. Greg White of the Australian Airport Pavement Research
Program. Greg’s passion for airport pavement research enabled this project to be realised. I
am very grateful for Greg’s encouragement, support, technical expertise, direction and good
discussions throughout the conduct of this research.

Without your assistance and support, this Thesis would not have come to fruition. Thank you
all.

iii
 Table of Contents

Preliminaries
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................................... i
DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY......................................................................................................ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................. iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................. vii
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................ ix
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS .................................................................................................................. xi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................................................... xii

Contents
1 Introduction........................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Statement of problem ................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Aim and Scope ............................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Significance of study...................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Overview of study ......................................................................................................... 4
2 Context and existing knowledge ........................................................................... 5
2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 5
2.2 Airport Asphalt .............................................................................................................. 5
2.3 Performance Requirements .......................................................................................... 9
2.4 Alternates to grooved runways ................................................................................... 13
2.5 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 14
3 Review of Stone Mastic Asphalt .......................................................................... 16
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 16
3.2 Development and Use ................................................................................................. 16
3.3 Specification and Design ............................................................................................. 17
3.4 Friction and Surface Texture ....................................................................................... 21
3.5 Use as a Runway Surface............................................................................................. 22
3.6 Summary of background ............................................................................................. 29
4 Method Statement .............................................................................................. 30
4.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................... 30
4.2 Development of preliminary specifications ................................................................ 30

iv
4.3 Laboratory production of trial mixtures...................................................................... 31
4.4 Laboratory performance testing ................................................................................. 33
4.5 Field validation of optimal specification ..................................................................... 41
4.6 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 46
5 Development of preliminary specifications ........................................................ 48
5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 48
5.2 Aggregate Particle Size Distribution ............................................................................ 50
5.3 Constituent Materials.................................................................................................. 53
5.4 Marshall properties ..................................................................................................... 56
5.5 Volumetrics ................................................................................................................. 57
5.6 Binder drain-off requirements .................................................................................... 58
5.7 Laboratory Performance requirements ...................................................................... 59
5.8 Preliminary laboratory specifications ......................................................................... 59
5.9 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 64
6 Laboratory performance of trial mixtures .......................................................... 66
6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 66
6.2 Materials and mixture production .............................................................................. 66
6.3 Performance Results ................................................................................................... 75
6.4 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 79
7 Field performance of SMA .................................................................................. 81
7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 81
7.2 Materials and mixture production .............................................................................. 81
7.3 Issues with construction.............................................................................................. 82
7.4 Field test results .......................................................................................................... 84
7.5 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 87
8 Discussion ............................................................................................................ 89
8.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 89
8.2 Laboratory performance ............................................................................................. 89
8.3 Field performance ....................................................................................................... 94
8.4 Development of an SMA performance-based specification ....................................... 99
8.5 Cost considerations ................................................................................................... 102
8.6 Evaluation of surface texture measuring methods ................................................... 104
8.7 Summary ................................................................................................................... 107

v
 9 Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................. 109
9.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 109
9.2 Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 109
9.3 Recommendations and future work ......................................................................... 111
9.4 Limitations ................................................................................................................. 111
9.5 Other observations.................................................................................................... 112
10 References ......................................................................................................... 114

Appendix A: Constituent Materials Summary

Appendix B: Conversion of German SMA 11S to SMA-G11S
Appendix C: Detailed Laboratory Performance Results
Appendix D: Considerations for wheel tracking tests for SMA mixtures
Appendix E: Grip tester surface friction results
Appendix F: Draft performance-based specification for SMA for Australian airports
Appendix G: Surface texture methods evaluation data

vi
 List of Tables

Table 1 - Summary of airport asphalt performance requirements (White, 2018b) ................... 10

Table 2 - Australian airport asphalt deformation resistance requirement (AAPA, 2018)........... 10
Table 3 - Australian airport asphalt fracture resistance requirement (AAPA, 2018) .................. 11
Table 4 - Australian airport asphalt durability requirement (AAPA, 2018) ................................. 12
Table 5 - Grip Tester (95km/h) results at Johannesburg Airport (Joubert et al., 2004).............. 22
Table 6 - MOS 139 Friction Values for Grip Tester (CASA, 2017) ................................................ 22
Table 7 - Cairns International Airport SMA patch locations........................................................ 25
Table 8 - Summary of background .............................................................................................. 29
Table 9 - Properties of A15E polymer modified binder (Austroads, 2019) ................................. 32
Table 10 - Laboratory trial mixtures ............................................................................................ 32
Table 11 - Typical tracking depths for laboratory specimens of 10,000 passes using AG:PT/T231
(Austroads, 2014) ........................................................................................................................ 35
Table 12 - Summary of laboratory performance test methods .................................................. 41
Table 13 - SMA layer requirements for field trial........................................................................ 43
Table 14 - SMA specifications reviewed...................................................................................... 49
Table 15 - SMA grading envelopes (% passing by mass) ............................................................. 51
Table 16 - Marshall properties of SMA mixes ............................................................................. 56
Table 17 - Volumetrics of SMA specifications ............................................................................. 57
Table 18 - Binder drain-off requirements ................................................................................... 59
Table 19 - Preliminary specification - coarse aggregate requirements ...................................... 61
Table 20 - Preliminary specification - fine aggregate requirements ........................................... 61
Table 21 - Preliminary specification - filler requirements ........................................................... 62
Table 22 - Preliminary specifications - combined aggregate grading envelope ......................... 63
Table 23 - Preliminary specifications - additional volumetrics ................................................... 64
Table 24 - Coarse aggregate properties ...................................................................................... 67
Table 25 - Fine aggregate properties .......................................................................................... 69
Table 26 - SMA-G11S laboratory mixture gradings ..................................................................... 70
Table 27 - SMA-G11S laboratory mixture volumetrics................................................................ 71
Table 28 - SMA-C13 laboratory mixture gradings ....................................................................... 73
Table 29 - SMA-C13 laboratory mixture volumetrics .................................................................. 74
Table 30 - Laboratory wheel tracking results (10,000 passes at 65 °C) ...................................... 75
Table 31 - Laboratory surface texture results for SMA-G11S ..................................................... 77
Table 32 - Laboratory surface texture results for SMA-C13 ....................................................... 78

vii
Table 33 - Summary of laboratory performance results against Australian airport requirement
..................................................................................................................................................... 80
Table 34 - JMF combined particle distribution ........................................................................... 81
Table 35 - JMF volumetrics to 50 blow/face Marshall compaction ............................................ 82
Table 36 - Field trial production compliance - wheel tracking results (60 °C) ............................ 84
Table 37 - Field trial compaction results ..................................................................................... 85
Table 38 - Field trial surface texture results................................................................................ 86
Table 39 - Grip tester results (two days after placement) .......................................................... 87
Table 40 - Grip tester result (23 days after placement) .............................................................. 87
Table 41 - Depreciation analysis of grooved DGA versus extended life ungrooved SMA......... 104

viii
 List of Figures

Figure 1 - Difference between macrotexture and micro-texture ................................................. 6

Figure 2 - Runway grooves (left) and groove closure (right) (White and Rodway, 2014)............. 8
Figure 3 - Representative mixture drawing of (1) DGA, (2) SMA, & (3) OGFC ............................ 16
Figure 4 - Example particle distributions for SMA compared to other asphalt mixtures (AAPA,
2018, Austroads, 2014) ............................................................................................................... 18
Figure 5 - Cairns International Airport SMA patch locations ...................................................... 25
Figure 6 - Cairns SMA international apron typical surface finish ................................................ 26
Figure 7 - Cairns Airport Aerial View - SMA Bay 19 compared to DGA ....................................... 27
Figure 8 - Cairns Airport - SMA Bay 19 compared to DGA .......................................................... 27
Figure 9 - RWY 15/33 intersection, SMA on right, DGA on left................................................... 28
Figure 10 - (a) Typical laboratory compactor and (b) wheel tracking device ............................. 34
Figure 11 - Four-point bending test ............................................................................................ 35
Figure 12 - Volumetrics sand patch equipment (left) and ELAtextur laser measurement device
(right) ........................................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 13 - Sand patch test on SMA-G11(bottom) and SMA-C13 (top) wheel tracking slabs. ... 38
Figure 14 - Indirect TSR testing equipment................................................................................. 39
Figure 15 - Los Angeles drum machine for particle loss test ...................................................... 40
Figure 16 - RAAF AMB Taxiway Alpha frequent traffic (a) KC-30, (b) C-17A, (c) C-27J, (d) F/A-18F
(RAAF, 2018) ................................................................................................................................ 42
Figure 17 - Taxiway Alpha condition prior to field trial works .................................................... 43
Figure 18 - Field trial construction .............................................................................................. 44
Figure 19 – Griptester device ...................................................................................................... 45
Figure 20 - Particle size distribution of SMA specifications ........................................................ 50
Figure 21 - Comparison of select SMA 13/14 particle distributions ........................................... 52
Figure 22 - Comparison of select SMA 10/11 particle distributions ........................................... 53
Figure 23 - Preliminary specifications aggregate distribution: before and after conversion from
original specifications .................................................................................................................. 63
Figure 24 - SMA-G11S laboratory mixture gradings ................................................................... 70
Figure 25 - SMA-C13 Laboratory mixture gradings ..................................................................... 73
Figure 26 - SMA-G11S Laboratory wheel tracking results (65 °C) ............................................... 76
Figure 27 - SMA-C13 Laboratory wheel tracking results (65°C) .................................................. 76
Figure 28 - Laboratory fatigue resistance results........................................................................ 77
Figure 29 - Laboratory stripping potential results ...................................................................... 78
Figure 30 - Laboratory particle loss results ................................................................................. 79
Figure 31 - Delamination of lower asphalt layer after profiling .................................................. 82

ix
Figure 32 - Area of bleeding at start of first paving lane ............................................................ 83
Figure 33 – 6 mm depression due to early static loading ........................................................... 83
Figure 34 - Field trial production compliance - wheel tracking .................................................. 84
Figure 35 - Core from field trial ................................................................................................... 85
Figure 36 - Surface finish of SMA trial and sand patch test ........................................................ 86
Figure 37 - Effect of different type of binders for a DGA 14 mixture on wheel tracking results at
60°C (data provided by an Australian asphalt company) ............................................................ 91
Figure 38 - ELAtextur surface texture reading for SMA-G11 slab showing fat spot between 0 –
110mm. ....................................................................................................................................... 93
Figure 39 - ELAtextur surface texture reading for SMA-C13 slab showing a more homogenous
texture distribution ..................................................................................................................... 93
Figure 40 - Comparison of Amph-Gr SMA-C13 deformation resistance testing at two different
temperatures .............................................................................................................................. 96
Figure 41 - Surface texture from field (left), and that achieved in the laboratory (right) .......... 97
Figure 42 - MPD versus MTD for full data set ........................................................................... 106
Figure 43 - MPD versus MTD for data set below 1.8 mm ......................................................... 106

x
 List of Publications

A number of journal and conference papers have resulted from the research contained in this
thesis. Some of these publications address material that is ancillary, but inherently linked to
the research generated.

The following works have been published:

• White, G & Jamieson, S (2018), ‘Introducing Stone Matrix Asphalt to Australian

Runways’, Proceedings 1st International Conference on Stone Matrix Asphalt, Atlanta,
Georgia, USA, 5 – 7 November, National Asphalt Pavement Association.

• Jamieson, S & White, G (2018), ‘Review of Stone Mastic Asphalt as a high performance
ungrooved runway surfacing’, Road Materials and Pavement Design, DOI:
10.1080/14680629.2018.154688

In addition, the following publications have been submitted for peer review or are in press.

• Jamieson, S & White, G (2019), ‘Developing a performance-based specification for

stone mastic asphalt as an ungrooved runway surface’, Proceedings International
Airfield and Highway Pavements Conference, Chicago, Illinois, USA, 21 – 24 July,
American Society for Civil Engineers. Article-in-press

• Jamieson, S & White, G (2019), ‘Stone Mastic Asphalt as an ungrooved runway surface
for Australian airports’, Proceedings 18th AAPA International Flexible Pavements
Conference & Exhibition, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, 18 – 21 August,
Australian Asphalt Pavement Association. Article-in-press

• Jamieson, S & White, G (2019) ‘Improvements to the Australian wheel tracking

protocol for asphalt deformation resistance measurement’, Australian Geomechanics.
Article-in-press

• White, G, Ward, C & Jamieson, S (2019) ‘Field evaluation of a handheld laser meter for
pavement surface macro texture measurement’, International Journal of Pavement
Engineering. Article-in-review

xi
 List of Abbreviations

AAA Australian Airports Association

AAPA Australian Asphalt Pavements Association
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ACN Aircraft Classification Number
AC14 Asphaltic Concrete 14 mm / DGA 14 mm
AG:PT Austroads Test Method
AMB Amberley (RAAF base)
Amph-Gr Amphibolite and Greywacke
AS Australian Standard
AS/NZS Australian / New Zealand Standard
ASTB Australian Transport Safety Bureau
BBA Bétons Bitumeux Aéronautique
BPN British Pendulum Number
BPS Break Point Sieve
BS British Standard
CASA Civil Aviation Safety Authority
CFME Continuous Friction Measuring Equipment
CWTD Coopers Wheel Tracking Device
DGA Dense Graded Asphalt
DGAC French Civil Aviation Authority
DoD Department of Defense (of the USA)
DPTI Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (South Australia)
EAPA European Asphalt Pavement Association
EME2 Enrobés á Module Élevé Class 2
EN European Standard
ETD Estimated Texture Depth
FAA Federal Aviation Administration (of the USA)
FOD Foreign Object Debris
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organisation
JMF Job Mixture Formula
LA Value Los Angeles Value
LVDT Linear Variable Displacement Transducer

xii
MOD Ministry of Defence (of the UK)
MOS 139 Manual of Standards Part 139
MPD Mean Profile Depth
MRWA Main Roads Western Australia
MTD Mean Texture Depth
MTV Material Transfer Vehicle
MVR Mixture Volume Ratio
NAPA National Asphalt Pavement Association (of the USA)
NMAS Nominal Maximum Aggregate Size
NOTAM Notice to Airmen
NQA North Queensland Airports
NSW New South Wales
OGFC Open Graded Friction Course
PCN Pavement Classification Number
PMB Polymer Modified Binder
QLD Queensland
RAAF Royal Australian Air Force
RAP Recycled Asphalt Pavement
RQ Research Question
SMA Stone Mastic Asphalt
TSR Tensile Strength Ratio
TMR Transport and Main Roads (QLD)
TRMS Transport, Road and Maritime Services (NSW)
UFGS Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (of the USA)
UK United Kingdom
US United States (of America)
USA United States of America
USAF United States Air Force
VCA Voids in the Coarse Aggregate
VCADRC Voids in the Coarse Aggregate in the Dry Rodded Condition
VCAMix Voids in the Coarse Aggregate of the Mixture
VIC Victoria
VMA Voids in the Mineral Aggregate
WA Western Australia

xiii
1 Introduction

Australian airport runways are typically surfaced with grooved Marshall-designed dense
graded asphalt (DGA). Grooving is undertaken to enable the runway to shed water during wet
weather events, as well as satisfying regulatory requirements set by the Australian Civil
Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) for surface texture (CASA, 2017). Groove closure is a common
distress at Australian airport runways and inhibits the drainage ability of the runway surface
(White, 2018b). This distress can decrease the friction characteristics of the pavement surface
and increases the likelihood of hydroplaning – a serious phenomenon that has caused multiple
aircraft safety incidents (ASTB, 2008). In addition, when groove closure does occur, the cost of
repairing is substantial, as is the impact to the operational capability of the runway.

There are alternate surface materials to grooved DGA that are commonly used internationally
for runways. Of these materials, stone mastic asphalt (SMA) is employed due to its high rut
resistance, increased fatigue resistance and coarse texture. The coarse texture in larger
nominal aggregate size mixtures can satisfy surface texture requirements set by CASA,
potentially negating the need for grooving.

SMA has been employed on Australian roads as a premium product for heavy duty traffic;
however, the use of SMA on Australian airport pavements is extremely limited with only two
airports undertaking non-runway trials in the recent past, with mixed results. The confidence
for Australian aerodrome operators to employ this material is low as the solution has neither
been translated or validated for Australian airports.

This research aims to validate SMA as an ungrooved runway surface for Australian airports.
This is performed by developing preliminary SMA specifications and testing these
specifications against performance requirements expected of airport asphalt for resistance to
deformation, resistance to fatigue, surface friction and texture, and durability.

1.1 Statement of problem

Although there have been many studies undertaken on the performance and evaluation of
SMA for Australian roads and international airports, this surfacing material has yet to be
validated in the Australian airport context, in particular as an ungrooved runway surface. For
SMA to be employed as an Australian airport runway surface material it must be tested against
performance requirements expected of airport asphalt.

1
In February of 2018, the Australian Asphalt Pavement Association (AAPA) released the first
iteration of a performance-based specification for Australian airport DGA pavements (AAPA,
2018). The specification includes performance-indicative laboratory tests and published
requirements for resistance to deformation, resistance to fatigue and durability. It follows that
for SMA to be validated as an Australia airport runway surface material, it must be tested
against these performance requirements.

In addition to the published Australian airport DGA performance requirements, for any runway
surface material to be deemed suitable for use in Australia, it must also satisfy skid resistance
regulations as set by CASA. CASA has mandated that any sealed runway must either (CASA,
2017):

• maintain at least 1 mm surface texture, or

• provide adequate wet friction levels when measured with continuous friction
measuring equipment (CFME), or
• have its surface grooved.

As SMA is to be validated as an ungrooved runway surface, it either must meet the regulatory
surface texture requirement or achieve the required wet friction levels post construction.
Surface friction cannot be tested prior to construction, as a significant amount of pavement
length is needed. Therefore, developing a laboratory surface texture test method may
progress efficiencies with performance-based mixture design and improve the confidence for
SMA to be employed as an ungrooved surface. Surface texture must be tested to determine if
the CASA regulatory requirement is achieved, and surface friction should be tested to
determine if adequate surface friction is obtained to enable safe aircraft operations.

With over 100 airport runways in Australia being sealed with an asphalt surface (White, 2013),
any validation of a new material must consider the effect of the difference in aggregate
properties due to source rock and location. Therefore, to validate SMA as a suitable material in
the Australian context, several mixtures using material from different quarries should be
tested against the performance requirements.

1.1.1 Research questions

To determine if SMA can be used as an ungrooved runway surface for Australian runways, five
research questions (RQ) were formulated:

2
 • RQ1: Can SMA achieve the same performance criteria as the Australian airport DGA
specification?
• RQ2: Can this performance criteria be achieved using a variety of Australian aggregate
sources?
• RQ3: Can SMA achieve the regulatory surface texture as specified by CASA?
• RQ4: Are the initial field friction characteristics suitable for aircraft operations?
• RQ5: Are the surface texture field conditions comparable to those measured from
laboratory samples?

1.2 Aim and Scope

1.2.1 Aim

The aim of this research is to determine if ungrooved SMA is suitable as an alternate runway
surface to grooved DGA for Australian airports.

1.2.2 Scope

This research focuses on assessing the performance of SMA as an ungrooved runway surface.
The assessment of the material’s suitability is based on laboratory performance testing of
deformation resistance, fatigue resistance, surface texture and durability; and field assessment
of surface friction and texture. In all cases, SMA is only assessed as a wearing course, and not
as an underlying pavement layer.

A limitation of this research is the mixture design process. Performance-based mixture design
is a two-level process: the first level is to undertake design to satisfy prescriptive requirements
such as target grading and volumetrics, and the second level is to undertake performance
indicative testing (Austroads, 2014). If level two testing does not achieve the required
performance results, level one is repeated with either target grading, volumetrics, or
constituent materials tweaked to enable level two requirements to be achieved. Due to
resourcing constraints, no optimisation of mixtures will be undertaken if performance testing
does not meet airport requirements. It is not the intent of this research to optimise SMA
design, but to validate its use as an airport surfacing.

1.3 Significance of study

The primary significance of this study is the validation of SMA as a wearing course for
Australian runways. This study will allow airport owners to make informed decisions on

3
selecting what surface type to use if undertaking an overlay project on an airport runway. As
SMA can have a longer service life compared to DGA and eliminates the need for grooving and
therefore groove-related distresses, it can have a significant decrease to the final cost of
airfield capital and maintenance works over the service life of a runway.

A secondary outcome of this study will be the development of a performance-based

specification for SMA as an ungrooved runway. Analysis of laboratory and field performance
results will allow for the development of this specification, which will be issued to AAPA and its
member organisations for consideration in any future runway performance-based
specifications. This outcome not only provides the validation of SMA as a suitable material, but
also provides the mechanism for how to employ the material in the Australian airport industry.

1.4 Overview of study

This thesis consists of eight following chapters across four main parts. Part I (Chapters 2 & 3)
contains the context, existing knowledge and literature review of the research topic. Part II
(Chapter 4) contains the research methods used. Part III (Chapters 5- 8) presents the results,
analysis and discussion of the laboratory and field phases of this research. Finally, Part IV
(Chapter 9) contains conclusions and recommendations, the research’s findings that are
significant for industry, and opportunities for further research.

4
2 Context and existing knowledge

2.1 Introduction

This chapter of the thesis presents the context and existing knowledge of current Australian
airport asphalt practice. There is a focus on performance and regulatory requirements of
airport asphalt, namely: deformation resistance, fracture resistance, surface friction and
texture, and durability. Finally, alternate surface types are detailed that can be used in lieu of
the traditional grooved DGA runway surface.

2.2 Airport Asphalt

Although the fundamental design, construction and maintenance of airport asphalt is similar in
nature to roads, there are far more stringent requirements placed on the performance of
airport asphalt (AAA, 2017). This is due to the design traffic being aircraft. Compared to road
vehicles, aircraft are heavier, have higher tyre pressures, are more susceptible to undulations
in pavement surface, are less stable on ground and can suffer catastrophic damage fragile
aircraft engines by loose stones and other foreign object debris (FOD) (AAA, 2017).

Performance requirements for airport asphalts relate directly to asphalt distress modes that
minimise the life of an asphalt pavement, and increase the risk to safe aircraft operations.
Resistance to deformation, resistance to fracture, resistance to moisture damage (durability),
and friction and surface texture, are key performance requirements for the life of an airfield
asphalt.

2.2.1 Traditional Dense Graded Airport Asphalt

In Australia the predominant airfield surfacing for flexible sealed pavements is Marshall-
designed DGA (White, 2018b). The Marshall method was developed to design and control
asphalt mixtures by the United States Department of Defense from World War II to the late
1950s (White, 1985). In short, the Marshall method involves compacting a laboratory sample
using a Marshall hammer to a desired number of blows that simulate the expected traffic in
field conditions. An optimum binder content is then selected based on laboratory results of
Marshall Stability, Marshall Flow, unit weight of the total mix, percent voids in the total mix
and percent voids filled with asphalt.

5
In Australia, this method has determined a DGA design requiring voids in the mineral
aggregate (VMA) by volume in the range 13 – 17 %, and a total air voids content of 3.5 – 4.5 %
for a 14 mm sized mixture (AAPA, 2018). Typically, Marshall-designed airport DGA will usually
have a bitumen content of 5.4 – 5.8 % to satisfy these requirements (White, 2017a).

2.2.2 Skid resistance

A key functional requirement for airport runways is skid resistance. Landing speeds of modern
aircraft are typically in the range of 260 – 280 kilometres per hour in all conditions (AAA,
2017). Aircraft operators cannot reduce their landing speed to account for differences in
surface conditions. They instead rely on adequate pavement surface to tyre interaction to
provide the required friction for stopping within the available distance. The skid resistance is
influenced by two key factors: micro-texture and macrotexture.

Micro-texture provides the adhesion friction force between tyre and pavement surface. It
results from the shear resistance at the molecular level between the rubber of the tyre and the
aggregate within the asphalt mix, its magnitude is determined by the properties of the two
materials in contact (Joubert et al., 2004). At low speeds (50km/h or less), skid resistance is
largely a function of the micro-texture (Austroads 2007). Physically, micro-texture refers to
texture having wavelengths lower than 0.5mm as in Figure 1.

Figure 1 - Difference between macrotexture and micro-texture

In contrast, macrotexture refers to texture having wavelengths greater than 0.5 mm and is
determined by the overall asphalt mix design including the gradation of the aggregates, binder
content and air void content. At speeds greater than 50 km/h, macrotexture plays a greater
part in skid resistance. Macrotexture affects the friction component of hysteresis, by creating a
deformation of the tyre rubber through interaction with the pavement surface (Prowell et al.,
2009). Additionally, macrotexture determines the reduction in friction available to an aircraft

6
tyre as a consequence of the film of water between the aircraft tyre and the pavement surface
during wet weather conditions (AAA, 2017). Combined with adequate geometrical design,
macrotexture provides the ability for the water to drain from the top of the pavement surface,
minimising the risk of hydroplaning and the effect of the water film on the stone-to-tyre
interaction.

Hydroplaning is a major safety concern for aircraft operators and has led to multiple runway
incidents. Hydroplaning significantly reduces the runway skid resistance friction coefficient, by
up to 95 percent compared to a dry runway, and can occur with a film of water on top of a
runway surface of just 3 mm (ASTB, 2008). There are three types of hydroplaning that can
cause a reduction in friction (Horne et al., 1968); dynamic hydroplaning, where the water lifts
the tyre completely off the surface; viscous hydroplaning, where a thin film of water acts as a
lubricant and reduces the runway coefficient; and reverted-rubber, where wheels ‘lock up’ and
are dragged across a wet runway, creating steam from the friction, heating the tyre surface
until it reverts to its unvulcanised (i.e. sticky and deformable) state (ASTB, 2008).

2.2.3 Grooving

To provide adequate skid resistance of aircraft, the International Civil Aviation Organisation
(ICAO) recommends a minimum 1 mm surface texture (ICAO, 2016), measured using
techniques such as the volumetric sand patch test. CASA has mandated this recommendation
in the regulatory document Manual of Standards Part 139 (MOS 139) and requires all sealed
airfields to either (CASA, 2017):

• achieve 1 mm surface texture, or

• achieve minimum friction levels when measured using CFME, or
• have its surface grooved.

New DGA will not achieve the 1 mm requirement and will typically have a surface texture of
0.4 – 0.6 mm (White, 2017c). Additionally, the initial surface friction of DGA is marginal when
compared to CASA published requirements. Therefore, to fulfil the regulatory texture
requirement, and to ensure surface water can escape to minimise the effects on the friction
coefficient and the risk of hydroplaning during wet weather, airport DGA is typically grooved in
Australia (Figure 2).

7
 Figure 2 - Runway grooves (left) and groove closure (right) (White and Rodway, 2014)

Grooving normally takes place within 4 – 8 weeks after the surface is constructed, allowing for
the asphalt to stiffen, thereby preventing dislodgment or tearing of aggregate during the
sawing process. In Australia, grooves are sawn to a depth and width of 6 mm, with centre to
centre spacing of 38 mm (White and Rodway, 2014). The United States (US) groove to the
same dimensions. Not all countries follow the same grooving practice as Australia and the US.
For example, the United Kingdom (UK) typically grooves at 25 mm spacing to a depth and
width of 4 mm, and Norway will saw grooves at 125 mm spacing to a depth and width of 5 –
7 mm (Luftfartsilsynet, 2006).

The introduction of grooving to an airfield pavement is costly and introduces the risk of groove
related distresses. Groove closure (Figure 2) is one of the most commonly reported airport
asphalt surface distresses in hot climates, and affects the ability of the pavement to remove
surface water due to the reduction in volume of the grooves (White, 2018b). The US Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) AC 150/5320-12C provides guidance relating to groove
effectiveness and when intervention should take place (FAA, 1997):

When 40 percent of the grooves in the runway are equal to or less than 1/8 inch (3 mm) in
depth and/or width for a distance of 1,500 feet (457 m), the grooves’ effectiveness for
preventing hydroplaning has been considerably reduced. The airport operator should take
immediate corrective action to reinstate the 1/4 inch (6 mm) groove depth and/or width.

Repairing closed grooves by re-sawing is not possible. Rather, the only solution is to plane off
the closed grooves, overlay with a new asphalt layer, and then regroove the new surface
(White and Rodway, 2014). Not only is this process costly, but also effects the operational
capability of an airport for the period of repair works.

8
New technologies to improve the effectiveness of grooves have been developed in the US
(White, 2014). The use of trapezoidal grooves in lieu of standard grooves has been shown to
provide improved water evacuation, reduced rubber contamination, and reduced risk of
groove closure and edge break (Patterson, 2012). Engineering a solution to reduce the
likelihood of groove closure makes practical sense as the benefits of grooving to minimise the
risk of hydroplaning are well known and recommended, especially in areas that experience
torrential rainfall (ICAO, 2016). However, from an Australian regulatory perspective, mixtures
that achieve a 1 mm surface texture without grooving are equally valid. Consequently, an
alternate surface material to grooved DGA that achieves the minimum surface texture criteria
is sought.

2.3 Performance Requirements

Traditionally airfield asphalts have been specified using a prescriptive or recipe based
approach (White, 2017d). The prescriptive requirements focus on gradation limits, Marshall
properties and volumetric properties based on the Marshall method for designing and
controlling asphalt mixtures. However, since the Marshall method’s development around the
1950s, aircraft have evolved to become heavier with significantly higher tyre pressures.
Coupled with anecdotal evidence that binder quality has reduced in Australia due to changes
in the bitumen supply chain processes (White, 2016), a number of airport asphalts that are
compliant with the prescriptive requirements have failed to perform as expected in the field
(White, 2018b).

The reduction in confidence of traditional prescriptive-based specifications, has led to the

development of a performance-based specification of asphalt for Australian airports (White,
2017d). This performance-based specification was first released in February of 2018 and
focuses on four main physical requirements built to protect the pavement surface from
common distresses. In the performance-based specification are laboratory performance-
indicative standardised tests to be able to assess each physical requirement at mixture design
(AAPA, 2018). The performance-indicative testing provides confidence and proof that the
mixture design can perform as expected in the field, prior to the commencement of any
asphalt paving. Table 1 details these performance requirements (White, 2018b).

9
 Table 1 - Summary of airport asphalt performance requirements (White, 2018b)

Physical Requirement Protects against Level of importance

Deformation resistance Groove closure High
Rutting
Shearing / shoving
Fracture Resistance Top down cracking Moderate
Fatigue cracking
Surface friction and texture Skid resistance High
Compliance requirement
Durability Pavement generated FOD Moderate
Resistance to moisture damage

2.3.1 Deformation resistance

Deformation resistance is the ability for the asphalt to resist distresses such as rutting,
shearing / shoving and groove closure (as discussed earlier). Asphalt rutting appears as
longitudinal depressions in the wheel paths with small upheavals to the sides. The primary
mechanism that causes this phenomenon is shear deformation, a secondary mechanism is
densification of the asphalt surface layer (Sousa et al., 1994). The ruts can retain water,
reducing the skid resistance of the pavement. Like rutting, horizontal shoving is also caused by
excessive shear stress, however in the case of horizontal shoving the orientation of the critical
stress is along the pavement surface rather than vertically through the pavement surface
(White, 2018b). Consequently, horizontal shoving is more likely to occur in areas of heavy
breaking and turning (Wang et al., 2017). The importance of protecting against asphalt
deformation is high, as rideability and skid resistance is affected, necessitating early
maintenance intervention in areas that experience this type of distress.

The current performance-based specification for Australian airport asphalt contains two
performance-indicative test criteria to ensure the appropriate resistance to deformation for an
asphalt design as detailed in Table 2. The wheel tracking test assesses the ability to resist
distresses caused by excessive shear stress, in particular rutting; and the refusal density test
checks for over-compaction risk and rutting by densification.

Table 2 - Australian airport asphalt deformation resistance requirement (AAPA, 2018)

Test Property Standard Requirement

Wheel Tracking Test (Final rut AG:PT/T231 Not more than 2.0 mm
depth after 10,000 passes at 65 °C)
Air Voids at Refusal density AS/NZS 2891.2.2 Not less than 2.0 %

10
2.3.2 Fracture resistance

The resistance to fracture of an asphalt pavement is related to its ability to withstand top-
down and fatigue cracking. Top-down cracking is a result of three-dimensional, non-uniform
contact stress distribution between the tyre and pavement, which can induce large tensile
strains in the pavement surface (Collop and Roque, 2004). Conversely, fatigue cracking initiates
from the bottom of the pavement surface where the tensile stress is at its greatest. This
bottom-up cracking is more conventional and has long been controlled by pavement thickness
design. Fatigue failure is evident through crocodile cracking which is a series of interconnected
cracks that propagate from the bottom of the asphalt layer after repeated loading (Castell et
al., 2000). Top down and fatigue cracking are not as common for airfield pavements due to the
small number of passes in comparison to roads. The consequence of this type of distress can
lead to interconnected cracks creating FOD; therefore, there is still a moderate level of
importance to ensure a pavements resistance to fracture is appropriate.

The current performance-based specification for Australian airport asphalt tests a mixture
design’s fracture resistance only through assessing performance-indicative fatigue resistance
properties. This is performed by a repeated bending test as detailed in Table 3.

Table 3 - Australian airport asphalt fracture resistance requirement (AAPA, 2018)

Test Property Standard Requirement

Fatigue life (at 20 °C and AG:PT/T274 Not less than 500,000 cycles to
200 µƐ three beams only) 50 % of initial flexural stiffness

2.3.3 Surface friction and texture

As discussed earlier in section 2.2.2, surface friction and texture are key requirements of an
airfield pavement to enable appropriate skid resistance as well as satisfying the CASA MOS 139
regulatory requirement of 1 mm surface texture. However, there is no defined parameter for
texture in the current performance-based specification. This reflects the fact that DGA cannot
achieve a 1 mm surface texture with grooving provided as an alternate approach.

A runway surface should provide the desired friction level immediately following construction.
Surface friction changes over the lifespan of a pavement; it usually increases with age,
however can decrease due to contaminants such as rubber build up and any surface
rejuvenation treatments (White, 2018b). ICAO and CASA specify friction values for new
surfaces as well as minimum allowable friction levels and maintenance planning levels (CASA,

11
2017, ICAO, 2002). These values are obtained using CFME with a self-wetting capability. Each
device will report a friction value slightly differently, to account for this, ICAO and CASA define
each friction value requirement per device. Tests for surface friction are unable to be
conducted at the laboratory mixture phase as a substantial length of pavement is required.
Therefore, these tests are conducted after construction of a new pavement.

2.3.4 Durability

The durability of an asphalt pavement is determined by its ability to resist moisture damage
(asphalt stripping), and its ability to resist oxidative ageing resulting in ravelling. In the case of
stripping, water can enter the asphalt causing a loss of adhesion at the bitumen-aggregate
interface (Gorkem and Sengoz, 2009). This weakening of the material can result in rutting and
shoving; ultimately reducing the life of the pavement. The risk of stripping can be minimised
with the use of polymer modified binders (PMB) or anti-stripping agents such as hydrated lime
(Gorkem and Sengoz, 2009). Ravelling is exhibited as a loss of coarse aggregate from the
surface, leading to an increase in FOD. It can be caused by bitumen embrittlement with age,
incorrect mixture volumetrics, insufficient binder-aggregate adhesion and environmental
factors (White, 2018b).

The current performance-based specification for Australian airport asphalts tests durability
only through assessing the moisture susceptibility of an asphalt mixture. This is performed by
measuring the indirect tensile strength ratio (TSR) as detailed in Table 4. The indirect TSR test
measures the tensile strength of a dry sample compared to the tensile strength of a sample
conditioned with water.

Although there are tests available to assess ravelling potential, such as the Cantabro test which
assesses the ability for a binder to hold aggregate particles together (Jiménez et al., 2008), the
Australian specification relies on traditional aggregate grading, volumetrics and controlling
constituent material properties to account for ravelling (White, 2017b).

Table 4 - Australian airport asphalt durability requirement (AAPA, 2018)

Test Property Standard Requirement

Indirect Tensile Strength Ratio (TSR) AG:PT/T232 Not less than 80 %

12
2.4 Alternates to grooved runways

Grooved DGA has been the asphalt design of choice when constructing runways in Australia.
However, grooving is expensive and groove closure is a significant issue for airport pavements.
Consequently, many European and Asian countries have developed alternate surface mixtures,
including open graded friction course (OGFC), bétons bitumeux aéronautique (BBA) and SMA.
Although these surface options generally provide an increase in surface texture, it is not
known that they always exceed the 1 mm minimum that is mandated in Australia. This reflects
some countries not mandating the ICAO recommendation or applying the ICAO guidance only
to larger or busier airports.

2.4.1 Open Graded Friction Course

OGFC is a gap graded asphalt mixture with intermediate sized and fine aggregate fractions
omitted from the grading. It is characterised by a very porous texture, allowing for water to
drain away through its interconnected air voids to the pavement’s free edges. OGFC was used
as a runway material in the mid 1970’s in Australia due to its high surface texture, good friction
characteristics and good drainage; negating the need for grooving (Rodway, 2016). A major
disadvantage with OGFC is the increased likelihood of asphalt stripping and ravelling due to its
permeable nature. In addition, the service life of OGFC is reduced compared to DGA due to its
increased porosity, allowing the binder to be exposed to more oxygen (White, 2017c). OGFC
was discontinued as a runway surface in Australia due to significant loose stone generation
(White, 2018b), coinciding with grooving practices becoming more commonly available and
significantly cheaper (Rodway, 2016).

2.4.2 Bétons Bitumeux Aéronautique

BBA is an airfield surfacing developed in France and used at the majority of the country’s
airports (Widyatmoko et al., 2008). It is either a dense-graded or gap-graded mixture and used
in conjunction with a high modulus base course asphalt known as Enrobés á Module Élevé
Class 2 (EME2) (Hakim et al., 2014). Although the French Civil Aviation Authority (DGAC) does
not specify surface texture depths for larger aggregate sized BBA (DGAC, 2009); gap-graded
14 mm nominal-aggregate sized BBA will typically have a mean surface texture of 1.3 mm
(Widyatmoko et al., 2012). Due to its early life skid resistance properties without the need for
grooving, the UK have been trialling BBA mixtures at a number of their airports. Initial trials
included grooving at the request of the aerodrome operator (Hakim et al., 2014); however, a

13
recent trial at Manchester Airport in 2011 allowed for a gap-graded mixture without grooving
(Widyatmoko et al., 2012).

2.4.3 Stone Mastic Asphalt

SMA is a gap-graded asphalt originally designed in Germany in the 1960s to resist the damage
caused by snow-studded tyres (Druschner and Schafer, 2005). Characterised by a high
resistance to rutting due to its internal stone-on-stone contact, SMA has been used as a
common airfield material in countries such as Germany, the US, Netherlands and China
(Blazejowski, 2011, Campbell, 1999). SMA is a common surface material for Australian roads;
however, there has been very limited trials of the material on Australian airport surfaces
(Campbell, 1999). One key advantage is its coarse surface texture, typically greater than 1 mm
(Blazejowski, 2011, EAPA, 1998, Joubert et al., 2004); removing the requirement for grooving.
Due to its proven performance as a surface material on international runways, and the
familiarity of the mixture as a road material in Australia, SMA is the most suitable alternative
to be investigated as an ungrooved runway surface for Australian airports.

2.5 Summary

This chapter detailed the context and existing knowledge of current Australian airport runway
asphalt practice.

The current industry practice for Australian asphalt runways is to use a Marshall-designed DGA
14 mm mixture. To satisfy regulatory requirements for surface texture and skid resistance,
DGA runway surfaces are typically grooved. For countries that experience hot climates like
Australia, groove closure is a common and significantly costly surface distress.

Performance requirements of airport asphalt are generally higher than that of roads due to the
operationally more demanding, and physically more damaging effects of aircraft traffic. Airport
asphalt must meet performance requirements for four main physical attributes: deformation
resistance, fracture resistance, surface friction and texture, and durability. To ensure these
requirements are met, AAPA released a performance-based specification for Australian airport
asphalt surfaces in February 2018. This specification includes required laboratory
performance-indicative testing at mixture design, to ensure suitable asphalt performance prior
to any in-field paving operations.

14
Although grooved DGA is the standard Australian runway surface, there are alternate surfaces
to DGA that are used internationally that have a high surface texture which can negate the
need for grooving. Of these alternate surfaces, SMA is predicted to be the most suitable
alternate as an ungrooved runway surface for Australian airports.

15
3 Review of Stone Mastic Asphalt

3.1 Introduction

This chapter of the thesis presents a review of SMA. The original development and use of SMA
is detailed before the fundamentals of SMA specification and design are presented. SMA
properties for surface friction and texture are also analysed. Finally, its use as an airfield
surfacing material are discussed, including the international experience for runways, and the
Australian experience for non-runway surfaces.

3.2 Development and Use

The original SMA, or Splittmastixasphalt (as it is known in Germany) was first developed by Dr.
Zichner, a German engineer of the Central Laboratory for Road Construction in an attempt to
reduce the distresses in wearing courses caused by the use of studded tyres (Blazejowski,
2011).

Conceptually, SMA consists of three parts: a coarse aggregate skeleton, a mastic, and air voids.
The coarse aggregate skeleton, which is composed of aggregate passing a certain sieve size,
provides high deformation resistance to rutting due to stone-on-stone contact. The mastic
consists of fine aggregates, filler 1 and a high volume of binder (approximately 6 – 7 % by mass).
The large binder content leads to a very durable and fatigue resistant asphalt mix. The large
binder content also introduces a risk of binder drain-off during production, transport and
laydown; to account for this, an SMA mixture will also include stabilisers, or drainage inhibitors
that are commonly in the form of cellulose fibres. Figure 3 details a representation of an SMA
mixture compared to a traditional airport DGA mixture and the previous OGFC Australian
airport mixture.

Figure 3 - Representative mixture drawing of (1) DGA, (2) SMA, & (3) OGFC

1
Filler is defined as the particles that pass through the 0.063 mm sieve for European standards, and the
0.075 mm sieve for Australian and US standards.

16
Until the 1980s, SMA was only used in Germany. After this point, other European countries
that used snow-studded tyres started to adopt SMA for their roads (Blazejowski, 2011). In the
early 1990s the US National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA) investigated the use of SMA
in Germany and developed designs and implemented test sections in various states of the US
(Brown, 1992). From there, Australia and New Zealand have used SMA as a heavy-duty road
surface, and US and China have developed specifications for SMA as an ungrooved runway
surface (Prowell et al., 2009).

Compared to DGA, SMA exhibits better or comparable performance characteristics including

high deformation resistance due to the interlocked stone-on-stone coarse aggregate, and a
higher resistance to fatigue due to the increased binder content (Blazejowski, 2011, Rebbechi
et al., 1997). In addition, an SMA surfacing has good macrotexture due to the gap-graded
nature of the mixture. Conversely, SMA does have the disadvantage of a higher initial
production cost due to the requirement for stabilisers and increase in bitumen and filler
content. However, SMA is reported to have an increased service life, reducing the whole-of-life
cost of the pavement compared to DGA. China has reported an increase of service life by five
to ten years (Jialiang and Yu, 2000). Another perceived disadvantage of SMA is its low initial
skid resistance. Due to the increased binder content, a thick film of binder will coat the surface
of the pavement after construction. SMA has shown to have a lower initial skid resistance
compared to DGA (Joubert et al., 2004), however this value increases with traffic and
weathering as the film of binder wears down (Rebbechi et al., 2003).

3.3 Specification and Design

SMA is usually specified through a prescriptive-compliance means with required values for
gradation, volumetric properties, binder drain-off, and in some instances, Marshall properties.
SMA used for heavy duty applications will also undertake performance testing typically in the
form of wheel tracking tests. The following section details elements of these specifications
that are typical of SMA. This section also briefly describes design methods that are applicable
to SMA specifications.

3.3.1 Particle Distribution

The particle distribution shows the defined grading for the aggregate portion of the asphalt
mixture. Figure 4 details typical distributions of an SMA mixture compared to that of DGA and
OGFC.

17
 SMA DGA OGFC
100

90

80
PERCENT PASSING BY MASS (%)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

4.75

6.7

9.5
0.075

SIEVE SIZE (mm) 2.36

Figure 4 - Example particle distributions for SMA compared to other asphalt mixtures (AAPA, 2018, Austroads, 2014)

Important to SMA particle distribution curves is the position of the break point sieve (BPS). The
BPS indicates the area of gap gradation. Particles that are retained on this sieve are ‘active’, in
that they form the coarse aggregate skeleton of the mixture by providing the stone-on-stone
contact (Blazejowski, 2011). Particles that pass through this sieve are considered ‘passive’, in
that combined with the binder, they form the mastic. The larger the BPS, the coarser the
surface texture of the mixture. If the BPS is ill defined, there is a risk of medium sized
aggregates providing a physical barrier to the interaction of coarse aggregates, which could
initiate a rolling action between particles and an unstable mixture. The BPS allows for the
appropriate three-dimensional packing of particles (Qiu and Lum, 2006); for mixtures with a
Nominal Maximum Aggregate Size (NMAS) larger than 12.5 mm the BPS is 4.75 mm (Brown et
al., 1997a).

3.3.2 Volumetrics

In addition to aggregate grading, SMA specifications typically control air voids, bituminous
binder content and / or VMA. Like for DGA, the percent air voids is an important parameter as
it ensures enough space to prevent flushing when binder flows under compaction; however,

18
this value cannot be too high as it will increase the permeability, creating a less durable
mixture. Similar to airport DGA, percent air voids for laboratory samples are typically specified
in the range of 2 – 5 %.

VMA is the percentage of voids within a mixture that is filled with either air or binder. SMA
specifications will generally detail VMA, binder mass, or a combination of both. However, by
first principles of asphalt volumetrics, specifying both binder content and VMA is redundant, as
when percent air voids and one other parameter are known, the other can be easily calculated.
Nevertheless, VMA and binder content in SMA is generally higher than that of airport DGA,
with values of a minimum 17 % by volume and minimum 6 % by mass respectively. The
increased binder content, and therefore VMA leads to a more durable and fatigue resistant
mixture.

3.3.3 Binder drain-off

Due to its high binder content, SMA mixes require a stabiliser to prevent excess binder
drainage during the production, storage, transport and paving phases of asphalt works. In
Australia, stabilisers are typically in the form of cellulose fibres that are added to the mixture,
although other materials such as glass, polyester and mineral fibres can also be used and still
satisfy performance requirements (Wan et al., 2014). Binder drain-off requirements are
generally specified as an amount of stabiliser by mass, usually greater than 0.3 % by total mass
of mix, or through laboratory performance requirements of minimum binder drain-off
(typically less than 0.3 % of total mass) through testing means such as the Schellenberg test
(Druschner and Schafer, 2005).

3.3.4 Marshall properties

As airport traffic is considered heavy duty, the current Australian airport asphalt specification
requires a Marshall compaction of 75 blows/face (AAPA, 2018). However, most SMA
specifications limit Marshall compaction to 50 blows/face. SMA compacts quickly, and
increasing the blows beyond 50 will not significantly increase the density and may cause
excessive breakdown in aggregate (Brown, 1992). Consequently, a 50 blows/face Marshall
compaction regime is appropriate for heavy duty SMA.

Marshall Flow and Stability values and generally specified in DGA mixtures; however, they are
not suitable for the evaluation for SMA, and if tested can incorrectly indicate lower
deformation resistance when compared to DGA (Druschner and Schafer, 2005, Shoenberger et

19
al., 1997). Some specifications still detail a required value for Marshall Flow and Stability. This
may indicate that the test values although not comparable to DGA, are repeatable, and could
be used as a quality assurance parameter during asphalt production. However, the
repeatability of Marshall properties for high binder mixtures should still be further investigated
to determine its reliability.

3.3.5 Design methods

SMA mixtures can be designed differently to the Marshall method for DGA. There are multiple
methods in use, such as the original German method that is based on determining volumetric
parameters and then finding an optimum variant that meets specification requirements for
percent air voids and binder content. In contrast, the method developed in the US focuses on
ensuring geometric stone-on-stone contact of the active particles (Brown et al., 1997a). As in
the US, Australian design methods typically focus on optimising aggregate gradation to ensure
stone-on-stone contact, such as the Voids in the Coarse Aggregate (VCA) procedure
(Austroads, 2013).

The VCA procedure involves tamping the coarse aggregate to a dry rodded condition, where
the coarse aggregate is defined as the active particles. The procedure can be used to estimate
the proportion of mastic (fine aggregate, filler, stabiliser and binder) that can fill the VCA
without dilating the mixture and preventing a physical barrier to stone-on-stone contact. A
requirement for the VCA ratio (VCA of the mixture divided by VCA in the dry rodded condition)
can be found in international specifications such as the Chinese SMA 13, as well as domestic
specifications such as QLD SMA 14 and NSW SMA 10 where it is referred to as the Mix Volume
Ratio (MVR). If the ratio is less than or equal to one, theoretically stone-on-stone contact is
achieved.

Airport asphalt mixture design is increasingly becoming performance-based, evident by the

performance-based specification for airport DGA being published (AAPA, 2018). Airport SMA in
Australia is required to perform similarly with regard to deformation resistance, fracture
resistance and durability. It follows that Australian airport SMA should be designed using the
same approach as Australian airport DGA, with the addition of binder drain down and surface
texture limits. That is, on conclusion of mixture design for target grading and volumetrics,
performance-indicative tests must be undertaken before determining the mixture to be fit for
purpose.

20
3.4 Friction and Surface Texture

The key characteristic that makes SMA an attractive alternate to DGA for airport pavements in
Australia is its inherent surface texture. Prowell et. al. (2009) reported an average surface
texture of 1.28 mm with a sand patch test method for a 12.5 mm maximum aggregate sized
mixture. When measuring a 4.75 mm sized mixture, this texture dropped to 0.58 mm;
demonstrating that the coarse aggregate size is directly proportional to surface texture. Work
undertaken by Patzak et al. (2016) investigated surface texture of a German size 11 mm at
mixture design, asphalt production and asphalt paving using laser-based techniques. The
average estimated texture depth (ETD) of each stage was measured to be 0.73 mm, 0.74 mm
and 0.94 mm respectively 2.

Experimental sections in runway touch down zones at Johannesburg International airport

reported an SMA 9 mm mixture to have an initial surface texture of 1.33 mm, this dropped to
0.9 mm after 5 months of traffic and the build-up of rubber contamination on the surface
(Joubert et al., 2004). Rubber contamination is a problem also encountered by grooved DGA,
necessitating regular maintenance regimes for rubber removal. Clearly, the initial texture is
critical in evaluating the appropriateness of ungrooved SMA for runway surfacing. Larger
aggregate SMA will provide larger surface textures, with 14 mm and 16 mm mixtures providing
texture between 1.5 – 2.0 mm (EAPA, 1998). It follows that SMA for runway surfacing should
contain as large as maximum aggregate size as reasonable and durable with regard to ravelling
resistance.

An issue that has been highlighted for SMA on the use of international and Australian roads is
that of early life skid resistance (Bastow et al., 2005, MRWA, 2010). Due to the higher binder
content within an SMA mixture, there is a larger film thickness of binder on the surface of the
pavement immediately after construction. Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA) investigated
road surfaces in Western Australia and determined that the initial surface friction of SMA was
approximately 20 % lower than newly laid DGA (MRWA, 2010). To account for the reduced
early life skid resistance, some countries, for example Germany, will specify a gritting
treatment to be applied to new pavement. This treatment can be in the form of crushed sand
of particle sizes up to 2 mm (Druschner and Schafer, 2005). For Australian roads, there are
generally no engineered actions taken for the initial skid resistance, instead administrative

2
Patzak et al. (2016) calculated mean profile depth (MPD) based on laser-based techniques. The values
for ETD have be calculated using the transformation equation from EN ISO 13473-1.

21
controls such as reduction in speed and erection of warning signs are employed until the
binder film is removed by traffic and weathering (Rebbechi et al., 2003). Recently however, a
number of Australian state road authorities have included a requirement for gritting
treatments in their SMA specifications (MRWA, 2017, TMR, 2017a).

Application of a gritting treatment is unacceptable for airfield pavement works as it introduces

a FOD risk to aircraft engines. It may also be redundant, as even though SMA does exhibit
lower friction values than what is expected of a DGA pavement immediately after
construction, it may still be above relevant intervention levels. Table 5 details skid resistance
testing results using a Grip Tester at 95 km/h at Johannesburg airport (Joubert et al., 2004).
The friction level for the SMA test section is approximately 20 % less than that of DGA
immediately after construction; however, when comparing to the required friction levels for
Australian runways in Table 6, not only is the friction value above the minimum and
maintenance planning levels, it has also achieved the design objective friction value for new
surfaces. Also, of note in Table 5 is the increase of friction after 5 months; this corresponds to
the expected wearing down of binder film thickness after traffic and weathering. Prowell et al.
(2009) stated that once this film thickness decreases, SMA maintains a skid resistance greater
than other mixture types.

Table 5 - Grip Tester (95km/h) results at Johannesburg Airport (Joubert et al., 2004)

Time of measurement Dense Graded Asphalt (-) Stone mastic Asphalt (-)
After construction 0.79 0.64
After 5 months 0.38 0.71

Table 6 - MOS 139 Friction Values for Grip Tester (CASA, 2017)

Test Speed Design objective for new Maintenance Planning Minimum Friction
(km/h) surface (-) Level (-) Level (-)
65 0.74 0.53 0.43
95 0.64 0.36 0.24

3.5 Use as a Runway Surface

Detailed research into SMA as a runway surface has been undertaken by Campbell (1999) and
Prowell et al. (2009). The latter determining that SMA performance characteristics in
comparison to a typical DGA airport mixture is either similar or better based on laboratory
testing, literary review and analysis of in-service airfields across Europe, China and limited use
in the US.

22
As part of this research project, Cairns international airport was visually inspected with the
North Queensland Airports (NQA) Airport Engineering Manager. This was to further build on
the work by Campbell (1999) and Prowell et al. (2009), and allow for a long term performance
assessment of SMA on non-runway Australian airport pavements.

3.5.1 Europe

Norway has used SMA as a runway surface extensively with 15 runways resurfaced with the
material between 1992 and 1998 (Campbell, 1999). SMA 11 and 16 sized mixtures were used,
with another runway built in 2002 using a smaller 8 mm sized gradation (Prowell et al., 2009).
The practice of SMA as a runway surface continues with Oslo airport – Norway’s main
international airport - having its western runway overlaid with polymer modified binder (PMB)
SMA 11 in 2015 (Jacobsen, 2015).

Germany uses DGA or heavy duty SMA on international runways. When SMA is used a SMA 11
mixture is employed with no natural sand (Beer et al., 2012). Both Hamburg Airport, and
Spangdahlem US Air Force Base have used the German specified SMA 11S for runways in 2001
and 2007 respectively (Prowell et al., 2009).

Other European countries that have used SMA as a runway surface include the UK, Spain, Italy,
Austria, Denmark, Belgium and Sweden. The UK uses size 6 and 10 mm mixtures for surfacing
courses, and 14 and 20 mm sized mixtures for underlying courses (MOD, 2009). Belgium and
Sweden have reported good performance of the material; however, have had issues relating to
the application of de-icer, and have since reverted back to traditional DGA for airport runways.
(Campbell, 1999, Prowell et al., 2009).

The longevity of SMA use in the European airport context increases the confidence that this
surfacing can be employed as a suitable high performing alternate to grooved DGA.

3.5.2 China

SMA was introduced into China in 1992, with the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC)
introducing specifications in 1997 (Xin, 2009). Since then, China has become the leader in SMA
with over 40 airports using the material as a runway surface including Beijing International
(CACC, 2016). China uses either an SMA 16 or SMA 13 mixture, with each reporting minimum
texture depths of 1.2 mm and 1.0 mm respectively. China continues to use SMA due to its
greater durability, low maintenance, improved skid resistance and lower life-cycle cost

23
(Prowell et al., 2009). The Chinese experience highlights that in addition to the reported higher
performance characteristics, the use of SMA as an ungrooved runway surface can have
significant cost savings for airport infrastructure works.

3.5.3 United States

The US has conducted SMA field tests on a large taxiway at Indianapolis airport in 2005, using a
mixture with a 12.5 mm maximum aggregate size. Friction results recorded from this
pavement were reportedly better than other surfaces at the airport (Prowell et al., 2009). The
US Defense Force has developed a specification for SMA for airfields that details a single
mixture size of NMAS 12.5 mm (DoD, 2017). This mixture was employed during construction of
a runway at a US Air Force base at Aviano, Italy in 1999. As of 2006, no maintenance (except
for rubber removal) had been undertaken and the runway was still demonstrating no issues
related to performance (Prowell et al., 2009). Still, runways in the US remain primarily surfaced
with grooved DGA or are concrete pavements (White, 2018b).

3.5.4 Australia

The use of SMA in Australia has been limited to roads and only two airfield locations - Sydney
and Cairns international airports.

3.5.4.1 Sydney International Airport

Sydney International Airport undertook an SMA trial at one of its taxiways in 1999 using a
design very similar to the Chinese SMA 13 specification, except for VMA that was at a level of
16 %, compared to the Chinese minimum requirement of 17 %. The trial was unsuccessful with
between 20 and 30 % of the pavement demonstrating a very coarse, uneven and poor surface
finish (Campbell, 1999). Ravelling was evident on the taxiway, and to prevent further
generation of FOD, a surface treatment was placed on the section in 2004 (Prowell et al.,
2009). The poor surface finish is likely to have been caused by issues encountered during
construction, including plant difficulties, operational delays with transport, and low mixing
temperatures (Campbell, 1999, Prowell et al., 2009).

3.5.4.2 Cairns International Airport

Cairns International Airport first undertook trial sections of SMA in 1998 and 1999. Since then,
it has been employed on multiple airport pavement surfaces as detailed in Table 7 and Figure

24
5. As part of this research, a site visit was conducted on 11 June 2018 to inspect all SMA
surfaces to evaluate its long-term performance in the Australian airport context.

Table 7 - Cairns International Airport SMA patch locations

Serial Year Location Notes

1 1998 International Apron Bay 2 165 m2 of SMA 10 and 165 m2 of SMA 14
Domestic Apron Bay 19 on International Apron.
1,800 m2 on Bay 19 Domestic Apron.
2 1999 International Apron Bay 3 SMA 14 – 250 m2
3 2004 Apron TWY behind Bays 18-20 SMA 12
4 2005 International Apron SMA 12 – 32 000 m2
5 2008 Intersection of RWY 15/33 SMA 14 (4 m x 130 m x 50 mm)
and TWY B5

International Apron

RWY 15/33 TWY B5 Intersection

Domestic Apron B19

Figure 5 - Cairns International Airport SMA patch locations

In 1998 and 1999, three trial sections on aprons at Cairns international airport were overlayed
with 10 mm and 14 mm SMA mixtures based on the Queensland main roads specification
(Campbell, 1999). The pavement required minimal maintenance up until 2007; excluding the
first four to six weeks where sweeping operations would occur after each movement to
remove loose stones that were generated from aircraft tyres. Prowell et al. (2009) theorised
that the potential FOD generation could have been avoided if a stiffer binder was used. In
2005, the entire international apron (approximately 32,000m2) was resurfaced with 12 mm
SMA with a 320/1000 Multigrade binder (note: Multigrade binder was also used for the initial
trials). After the 2005 overlay, water trucks were employed to spray the pavement for the first
two to four weeks. This was to counteract the ‘tackiness’ of the SMA, which was leaving a
small amount of binder on aircraft tyres when traversed. The 2018 site visit showed that
excluding a small number of longitudinal and traverse cracks, the pavement was still
performing well. There were some differences in surface texture between areas where the
pavement had been traversed compared to areas that rarely experience traffic as in Figure 6. It

25
is suggested that aircraft loading created a kneading effect that has ‘tightened’ the surface. It
has also been suggested that the difference in surface texture could be caused by the large
variability of air voids on the finished layer – a concern raised by the NQA Airport Engineering
Manager after construction. Nevertheless, the now 13-year-old pavement is still operationally
sound.

Figure 6 - Cairns SMA international apron typical surface finish

During the 1998 trial on Domestic Apron Bay 19, the adjacent Bay 18 was overlayed with a
typical DGA 14. Both pavements have since undergone surface treatment with a sealing
application which has reduced the surface texture of the SMA to that akin of DGA. However,
excluding surface texture, this area has allowed for a direct comparison of DGA to SMA in
terms of performance requirements. As demonstrated in Figure 7 and Figure 8, the SMA patch
has performed substantially better than DGA regarding fracture resistance. Evident in both
figures is a large amount of crack sealing for the DGA section, and only minimal for the SMA
area. This higher resistance to fracture for SMA corresponds with literature and is likely due to
the increased binder content when compared to DGA.

26
 Figure 7 - Cairns Airport Aerial View - SMA Bay 19 compared to DGA

Figure 8 - Cairns Airport - SMA Bay 19 compared to DGA

In 2008, the intersection of RWY1533 and TWY B5 was overlaid with an SMA 14 mm patch (4 m
wide x 130 m long at 50 mm depth) as in Figure 9. Although not required to satisfy surface
regulatory requirements, the SMA section was grooved to provide consistency with the

27
adjacent DGA surface. 3 This area previously demonstrated reflective cracking from the base
material, and maintenance consisted of DGA patches being installed approximately once every
two years. Since the 2008 SMA patch, maintenance has been substantially reduced with only
one patch required to repair a small area of reflective cracking in 2018. This area has
highlighted the decrease in whole-of-life cost and increase in resistance to reflective cracking
of SMA when compared to DGA.

Figure 9 - RWY 15/33 intersection, SMA on right, DGA on left

In the Australian airport context, SMA as a surface material has only undergone limited trials
on non-runway surfaces. Good performance reporting at Cairns International Airport has
demonstrated that the material is likely to satisfy performance requirements expected of
runway asphalt. It is still apparent, however, that further research is required to confirm if this
asphalt surfacing can be employed in Australia to the same performance criteria as the
Australian airport DGA performance specification and for that of international runways.

3
It could be argued that introducing grooves to an SMA surface can increase the likelihood of FOD due
to the lack of horizontal confinement and potential to compromise the stone-on-stone contact.
However, the 10-year old SMA patch showed no signs of FOD generation caused by the grooves.
Additionally, Norway practice has involved grooving of 10 mm sized SMA at 125 mm spacing
(Luftfartsilsynet, 2006). This demonstrates that although not required, the potential to groove SMA may
be possible.

28
3.6 Summary of background
Table 8 provides a summary of key points from the existing knowledge and review of SMA, as
well as each point’s significance to this research.
Table 8 - Summary of background
Serial Key point
Australian runways are predominately
1. constructed of Marshall-designed grooved
DGA.
Groove closure is a common distress of
2. Australian airport DGA.
A performance-based specification for
3. Australian airport DGA was released in
February 2018.
SMA is a gap-graded asphalt mixture with
4. a high coarse texture.
SMA is used as an airfield surfacing
5. material internationally. It has also been
used successfully on domestic heavy-duty
roads; however, use on Australian airports
has been limited.
To validate SMA as an Australian runway
6. material, it must be tested against both
performance and regulatory requirements.
29
Significance
Grooving is undertaken to satisfy skid
resistance requirements including the
regulatory 1 mm surface texture.
This distress reduces the friction
characteristics and the ability to shed
water off the runway. Cost to repair is
substantial.
This specification is outcome-focused,
relating performance requirements to
common airfield distress mechanisms.
The gap-graded nature of the mixture
negates the need for grooving to
satisfy the regulatory 1 mm surface
texture requirement.
The use of SMA as an Australian
airport runway material is yet to be
validated.
The Australian airport DGA
specifications provides performance
requirements that is expected of
airport asphalt. CASA provides surface
texture and skid resistance regulatory
requirements.
4 Method Statement

4.1 Overview

The research design was structured to answer all research questions posed in section 1.1. In
short, the research design involved the development of prescriptive SMA specifications that
were tested against Australian airport asphalt performance and regulatory requirements to
deem if it is suitable as an alternative to grooved DGA. The research method was divided into
four phases:

• Phase 1: Development of preliminary specifications. These specifications were used

as the basis for all performance testing. Specifications were based on a technology
transfer of two proven international airport standards.
• Phase 2: Laboratory production of trial mixtures. Multiple trial mixtures were
produced to ensure an appropriate and representative sample size.
• Phase 3: Laboratory performance testing. The trial mixtures were tested against
similar performance criteria used in the Australian airport DGA specification, with the
addition of surface texture testing. This aim of this phase was to answer research
questions RQ1, RQ2 and RQ3.
• Phase 4: Field validation of optimal specification. The final phase involved a field trial
of a mixture using the optimal of the two preliminary specifications, primarily to test
initial friction and surface texture characteristics. The aim of this phase was to answer
research questions RQ3, RQ4 and RQ5.

4.2 Development of preliminary specifications

The first stage of the research design was to develop an SMA prescriptive specification that
was likely to satisfy all performance requirements. A desktop study was undertaken to analyse
SMA specifications that were employed for airports internationally, and those that were used
on roads domestically. Key parameters investigated were:

• aggregate particle size distribution

• constituent material properties
• laboratory compaction
• volumetrics
• binder drain-off requirements, and

30
 • typical performance requirements.

Reviewing the limits and bounds of international standards is important to understand what
parameters were essential for mixture designs to perform in the airport context. Comparing
these standards to Australian specifications allowed for an understanding of what is achievable
in the domestic scope. The preliminary specifications were based on a technology transfer of
two international airport standards: German SMA 11S (Blazejowski, 2011) and Chinese SMA 13
(Xin, 2009, Prowell et al., 2009). The German specification was chosen due to it being the
original SMA design and therefore its longevity in industry application. The Chinese
specification was chosen due to its utilisation on over 40 airports with positive performance
reporting.

4.3 Laboratory production of trial mixtures

Four asphalt producers that typically design and construct flexible airport pavement surfaces
agreed to undertake laboratory mixture production and performance testing at each of their
facilities for the purposes of this research. Preliminary specifications that were developed from
Phase 1 of this research were sent out to all laboratories to undertake testing using their staff,
equipment and materials. Utilising four laboratories enabled the validation of industry
application of the preliminary specifications, as well as balancing resources for the
accumulation of test data.

To ensure that a suitable sample size was tested, and that the sample represented real
material that is available and employed in the Australian airport pavement industry, each
asphalt producer provided aggregate from a separate source that was typical of aggregates
used for either heavy duty roads or airport asphalt. The utilisation of different aggregate
enabled validation for the Australian context.

A PMB class A15E (Austroads, 2019) was used at all laboratories for mixture production with
properties detailed in Table 9. This variable was kept constant to allow for analysis of the
effect of different aggregate sources on the mixture performance. A PMB was selected as most
airfield and heavy-duty road applications use a PMB instead of a conventional binder due to
the increased performance characteristics. A15E was chosen as it is recommended as a
suitable binder for SMA applications (Austroads, 2013b) and is specified in a number of
Australian road applications (TMR, 2017a, VicRoads, 2012).

31
 Table 9 - Properties of A15E polymer modified binder (Austroads, 2019)

Binder Property Test method Requirement

Viscosity at 165 °C (Pa.s) max AS/NZS 2341.4 0.9
Torsional recovery at 25 °C, 30 s (%) AGPT/T122 55 – 80
Softening point (°C) AGPT/T131 82 – 105
Consistency 6% at 60 °C (Pa.s) min AGPT/T121 900
Stiffness at 25 °C (kPa) max AGPT/T121 30
Segregation (%) max AGPT/T108 8
Flash point (°C) min AGPT/T112 250
Loss on heating (% mass) max AGPT/T103 0.6

Filler type was stipulated as ground limestone, however in two cases, different fillers were
used due to availability, and to satisfy binder drain-off requirements (further discussed in
section 6.2). Three asphalt laboratories undertook testing on the two specifications, whereas
one asphalt laboratory only tested a single specification. Therefore, a total of seven mixtures
were produced for performance analysis as in Table 10.

Table 10 - Laboratory trial mixtures

Aggregate Specification
Mixture Filler Type
Type based on
1. Latite Ground limestone German SMA 11S
2. Latite Ground limestone Chinese SMA 13
3. Basalt Ground limestone / hydrated lime German SMA 11S
4. Basalt Ground limestone / hydrated lime Chinese SMA 13
5. Amphibolite Dolerite baghouse fines German SMA 11S
6. Amphibolite Dolerite baghouse fines Chinese SMA 13
Amphibolite
7.* Ground limestone Chinese SMA 13
Greywacke
* For mixture 7., Greywacke washed dust was added to the fine aggregate portion of the
particle distribution.

Performance-based mixture design is a two-level process. The first level is to undertake design
to satisfy prescriptive requirements such as target grading and volumetrics. The second level is
to undertake performance indicative testing (Austroads, 2014). If level two testing does not
achieve the required performance results, level one is repeated and either target grading,
volumetrics, or constituent materials are tweaked to enable level two requirements to be
achieved. It should be noted that it was outside of the scope of this research to repeat level
one designs to satisfy performance requirements. Optimisation of mixtures could not be

32
undertaken due to resourcing; however, using the seven mixtures would provide enough data
to formulate valuable conclusions.

4.4 Laboratory performance testing

The purpose of laboratory performance testing was to allow for a direct comparison of
multiple SMA mixtures against the Australian airport DGA specification to see if it achieved the
physical outcomes required for Australian runways. Performance testing was undertaken
utilising the same methods presented in the Australian airport DGA specification, except for
minor changes to deformation resistance, and durability. In addition, surface texture
measurements were included. All testing used Australian standards where possible. As with
the production of the trial mixtures, performance testing was undertaken at four different
laboratories to validate industry application.

4.4.1 Deformation resistance

As detailed in Table 2, there are two tests for deformation resistance in the Australian airport
DGA specification. Namely a wheel tracking test in line with AG:PT/T231 (Austroads, 2006a) to
measure the ability to resist rutting by excessive shear, and refusal density testing in line with
AS/NZS 2891.2.2 (SAI, 2014) to measure the ability to resist rutting through densification, and
the risk of failure through over compaction. Refusal density testing was deemed unsuitable for
the assessment of SMA, as over compaction would lead to stone-crushing, and would not
necessarily be representative of what occurs under aircraft loads. Furthermore, the results
would be more representative of the influence of the coarse aggregate property of Los Angeles
(LA) Value, and not necessarily of the overall asphalt mixture. Therefore, this test was omitted
and only wheel tracking tests were undertaken.

Wheel tracking tests can be used to rank the performance of mixtures with respect to rutting
(Cooley Jr. et al., 2000) and as a proof test for rutting performance (Kandhal and Cooley Jr.,
2002). AG:PT/T231 involves compacting a specimen to 300 x 300 x 50 mm at 5 ± 1 % air voids
using a laboratory compactor described in AG:PT/T220 (Austroads, 2005a) and shown in Figure
10(a) 4. The sample is then traversed by a wheel with a vertical loading of 700 ± 20 N for
10,000 passes in a dry state as in Figure 10(b). Multiple depth measurements are taken, and

4
This is a typical laboratory compactor that was used by two of the laboratories. The other two
laboratories had different compactors, and the potential effects of this are further discussed in
Appendix D.

33
the average tracking depth is recorded. In addition to rut depth, a tracking rate is recorded as
the slope of rut depth over passes from 4,000 – 10,000 passes (mm/kpass).

(a) (b)
Figure 10 - (a) Typical laboratory compactor and (b) wheel tracking device

In line with the test method minimum recommendations, two wheel tracking tests per mixture
were performed. Air voids were set to the standard recommendation of 5 ± 1 % air void. Field
air voids of SMA mat are generally specified in the range of 2 – 6 % and an average of 4 %
(Druschner and Schafer, 2005, TMR, 2017a) , compared to field air voids of airport DGA mat of
2 – 8 % and an average of 5 % (AAPA, 2018). Although the SMA average field voids are lower
than the test recommendation of 5%, the test range of 4 – 6 % still fits inside the allowable
range for compacted field density. The standard temperature for wheel tracking tests is 60 °C;
however, the Australian airport DGA specification uses a non-standard temperature of was of
65 °C. To ensure consistency with the Australian airport specification, the non-standard
temperature was used.

Austroads (2014) recommends rut depths of < 3.5 mm indicate superior performing asphalt
when using AG:PT/T231. Further performance results are highlighted in Table 11; these results
are indicative only, and references should be made to each specification’s requirement. For
the purpose of Australian airport asphalt, a suitably performing DGA requires no more than
2 mm rut depth after 10,000 passes to satisfy the deformation resistance requirement (AAPA,
2018). There is no requirement for wheel tracking rate in the Australian airport DGA
specification.

34
 Table 11 - Typical tracking depths for laboratory specimens of 10,000 passes using AG:PT/T231 (Austroads, 2014)

Superior performance Good Performance Medium Performance Low performance

< 3.5 mm 3.5 – 8 mm 8 – 13 mm > 13 mm

4.4.2 Fracture resistance

Fracture resistance was assessed through a four-point bending test as detailed in

Table 3. This was performed using the standard test method AG:PT/T274 (Austroads, 2016).
This test method characterises the stiffness and fatigue behaviour of bituminous mixtures. A
specimen with dimensions 390 x 50 x 63.5 mm and 5 ± 0.5 % air voids is prepared in
accordance with AG:PT/T220 (Austroads, 2005a). This is then loaded into the test equipment
as demonstrated in Figure 11.

Figure 11 - Four-point bending test

The ends of the specimen are clamped down, and two loading points spaced equidistance
between the clamps apply a sinusoidal load to a controlled strain at 20 °C. The initial stiffness
(MPa) is recorded for the beam, and a failure criterion based on reduction in stiffness is set.
For the purpose of airport asphalt, a suitably performing asphalt mixture requires no more
than 50 % reduction in stiffness after 500,000 cycles at a controlled strain of 200 µƐ. In line
with the Australian airport DGA performance specification, three beams per mixture were
tested to determine resistance to fatigue.

35
4.4.3 Surface friction and texture

The current Australian airport DGA specification does not contain laboratory performance test
requirements for surface friction or texture. Surface friction is tested post construction, and
surface texture measurements are typically not required as the finished surface is grooved.
There are test methods for indicative surface friction that can be employed in the laboratory
such as the British Pendulum test. This test reports a British Pendulum number (BPN) that can
be approximated to 100 x the Grip number obtained from an in-field Grip Tester (DPTI, 2016).
However, there is still disagreement if the BPN is dependant solely on micro-texture, or as a
combination of micro and macrotexture (Ahammed and Tighe, 2011). Noting the evidence of
SMA skid resistance properties detailed in section 3.4, and the high importance of field testing
of skid resistance over laboratory testing for airport applications, it was deemed unnecessary
for this research to develop and implement laboratory surface friction tests. Conversely,
surface texture measurement techniques that are used in field conditions were implemented
in laboratory settings to determine if the CASA regulatory 1 mm surface texture requirement
was satisfied.

There are two methods for determining surface texture: volumetric and laser-based methods.
Volumetric methods are based on the ratio between a volume and a surface area, while laser-
based methods are based on the ratio between a length and a surface area (Praticò and
Vaiana, 2015). Volumetric methods, such as the sand patch test, rely on spreading sand of a
known quantity over a sample of pavement to fill all the voids on the surface. This volume of
sand is divided by the covered surface area to give a three-dimensional mean texture depth
(MTD) by Equation 1 (Austroads, 2008). The MTD can be defined as the average depth of the
pavement surface macrotexture.

Equation 1

4𝑉𝑉 × 1000
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 =
𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋2

Where: MTD = mean texture depth (mm)

V = volume of sand in patch (cm3)
D = average diameter of sand patch (mm)

The volumetric test is known to have poor repeatability, especially in field conditions;
however, due to the availability of significant earlier research results it is used as the reference
ground-truth standard throughout the world (Flintsch et al., 2003).

36
Laser-based methods rely on two-dimensional measuring techniques to give the mean profile
depth (MPD). MPD is defined as the average value of profile depth over a certain distance or
baseline (ISO, 2004). Numerous studies have been undertaken that compare measurements
for MPD to MTD for multiple laser texture devices, and in the case of laboratory size devices
the correlation has been very good (Fisco and Sezen, 2013, Hanson and Prowell, 2004). To
allow for comparisons of laser-based methods to sand patch methods, the two-dimensional
MPD must be converted to a three-dimensional estimated texture depth (ETD). The
international standard ISO 13473-1 (2004) contains a transformation equation to allow for this
as in Equation 2.

Equation 2

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = 0.2 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 + 0.8 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀

Where: ETD = estimated texture depth (mm)

MPD = mean profile depth (mm)

ETD will give values which are as close as possible to MTD values measured using a sand patch
method. Although it is expected that there is an error in this transformation equation, this
error is estimated to be much less than the variation due to different operators and equipment
of the volumetric sand patch method (ISO, 2004).

A key consideration when undertaking surface texture testing in a laboratory is the size and
compaction of the sample that is being tested. Marshall samples are compacted to represent
the expected field conditions; however, the diameter of a Marshall sample is 102mm, which is
too small for the size of a sand patch test. Therefore, asphalt slabs were constructed large
enough to undertake suitable volumetric surface texture testing. Slabs that were used for
wheel tracking tests were first used for surface texture testing. These slabs were constructed
using the standard test method AG:PT/T220 (Austroads, 2005a) to a size of 50 mm x 300 mm x
300 mm. Each slab was compacted to 5 (± 1) % air voids in line with the standard test method
recommendation. This density aligns within the field density target for SMA, therefore it was
assumed that these slabs would be representative of the field density and texture of a
completed SMA wearing course.

Both a laser-based and volumetric surface texture test were undertaken on the wheel tracking
slab prior to deformation resistance testing using the equipment displayed in Figure 12.

37
 Figure 12 - Volumetrics sand patch equipment (left) and ELAtextur laser measurement device (right)

The laser-based method utilised an ELAtextur measuring device manufactured by German

company IWSmesstechnik. The ELAtextur uses a rotating laser sensor that scans the pavement
surface with a horizontal resolution of 0.2 mm. The circumference of the circular path is
400 mm. Four calculations for profile depth are undertaken for the circular path each using a
100 mm base line. The MPD is then calculated by averaging the four measurements of profile
depth. The MPD is then converted to MTD using Equation 2.

To ensure that any inconsistencies in surface texture were considered, a minimum of five laser
readings were taken on each slab. The mean result for MPD and MTD were calculated. After
the laser-based method was performed, a sand patch test was undertaken on the same slab
using the standard test method AG:PT/T250 (Austroads, 2008), as in Figure 13.

Figure 13 - Sand patch test on SMA-G11(bottom) and SMA-C13 (top) wheel tracking slabs.

38
4.4.4 Durability

The Australian airport DGA specification has only one test for durability. It assesses the
stripping potential of asphalt through the indirect TSR test AG:PT/T232 as detailed in Table 4.
AG:PT/T232 requires a sample to be compacted in a Gyratory compactor to air voids of
8 ± 1 %. This air voids value is in the range of ‘pessimum’ voids, a concept that was advanced
by Terrel and Shute (1989). With air voids below the pessimum voids range, asphalt is thought
of as impermeable and therefore the effect of moisture is minimal; after the pessimum voids
range the asphalt is thought to be free draining, and once again the effect of moisture is
minimised. Therefore, testing at 8 % air voids should in theory demonstrate the worst-case
scenario for asphalt stripping.

Six samples were created per test. Three of these samples were in a dry state, and the other
three were conditioned with water and through a single freeze thaw cycle. Each sample was
loaded into Marshall testing equipment as demonstrated in Figure 14. An increasing force is
then applied to each specimen until failure. From this failure point the indirect tensile strength
can be calculated. The indirect TSR is calculated by the percentage strength of the moisture
conditioned samples to the unconditioned samples. AG:PT/T232 was conducted on each
mixture, and to be suitable for Australian airport DGA, the indirect TSR must achieve a
minimum value of 80 %.

Figure 14 - Indirect TSR testing equipment

39
There are no tests for ravelling potential detailed in the Australian airport DGA specification,
instead it relies on traditional aggregate grading, volumetrics and controlling constituent
material properties to protect against this defect. The lack of experience with SMA on
Australian airports, coupled with the past issues of FOD generation at the Sydney airport trials
necessitated a test to determine ravelling potential of this material.

For the purposes of this research, the only readily-available test to asses ravelling was a
Cantabro (or particle loss) test in line with AG:PT/T236 (Austroads, 2005b). This test is
commonly used for OGFC mixtures, due to the mixture’s reliance on the binder cohesion
between aggregate particles for durability. The test involves compacting a sample either
through Gyratory or Marshall compaction and then determining its weight. The sample is
inserted into a Los Angeles drum machine as in Figure 15 for 300 revolutions and then weighed
again to determine its particle loss.

Figure 15 - Los Angeles drum machine for particle loss test

A downfall of AG:PT/T236 is that it only assesses particle loss through abrasion and the
application of mechanical energy when the asphalt sample impacts the walls of the drum.
Ravelling can also be caused by deterioration of binder and therefore mastic by oxidation,
ageing or weathering (Defence, 2015); AG:PT/T236 does not account for this. At the time of
this research there was no test available in Australia that could predict ravelling due to
deterioration of mastic, as well as loss of adhesion between binder and aggregate.
Development of a test to assess true ravelling potential is an area for further research, and out

40
of scope for this project. Nevertheless, AG:PT/T236 was still undertaken on mixtures using
unaged samples prepared with a combination of Marshall and Gyratory compaction, and those
that were moisture conditioned and non-conditioned. The results were compared to a typical
result for DGA, and requirements from international specifications, in particular the Chinese
SMA-13 specification as detailed in Section 5.7.

4.4.5 Summary of laboratory performance test methods

Table 12 summarises the test methods used for Phase 3 of this research: laboratory
performance testing.

Table 12 - Summary of laboratory performance test methods

Physical Requirement Test Property Standard

Wheel Tracking Test (Final rut depth after AG:PT/T231
Deformation resistance 10,000 passes at 65°C)

Fatigue life (at 20°C and 200 µƐ three AG:PT/T274

Fracture resistance beams only)

Mean profile depth (laser texture meter) ELAtextur &

Estimated texture depth ISO 13473-1
Surface Texture
Mean texture depth (sand patch test) AG: PT/T350

Indirect Tensile Strength Ratio (TSR) AG:PT/T232

Durability
Particle loss test AG:PT/T236

4.5 Field validation of optimal specification

The purpose of the field trial was to validate the highest performing specification from the
laboratory testing in a field condition under real aircraft loads. This main intent of this phase
was to determine the surface texture and friction characteristics of the mixture in field
conditions.

A field trial location was selected at Taxiway Alpha at Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Base
Amberley (AMB). Taxiway Alpha is a heavy-duty airport manoeuvring area with a pavement
classification number (PCN) of PCN 73/F/C/1750/T. That is, it is a flexible pavement that has
been technically evaluated, built over a low strength subgrade, able to take a maximum tyre

41
pressure of 1750 kpa of an aircraft with aircraft classification number (ACN) of 73 without
concessions. Taxiway Alpha has frequent heavy-duty traffic including KC-30A Multi Role Tanker
Transport (based on an Airbus A330) and C-17A Globemaster movements. Smaller aircraft
including C-27J Spartans, and high tyre-pressured, fighter-jet aircraft such as the F/A-18F Super
hornet also traffic this area as in Figure 16. The heavy loads of the KC-30A and C-17A coupled
with the high tyre pressures exerted by the F/A-18F, deemed the taxiway a suitable trial area
that would experience demanding loads as expected of runway surfaces.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 16 - RAAF AMB Taxiway Alpha frequent traffic (a) KC-30, (b) C-17A, (c) C-27J, (d) F/A-18F (RAAF, 2018)

A field trial performance-based specification was drafted based on laboratory performance

results obtained from Phase 2. The contractor through the project manager was able to select
the aggregate and binder based on the requirements set in the specification, and reported the
laboratory target grading, volumetrics and performance results of the mixture. In November
2018, the field trial was undertaken over one day.

The trail area consisted of two paving lanes, each 2.8 m wide by 100 m long. The size allowed
for both the mat and joint to be analysed, as well as 100 m runs of continuous friction
measurements to be undertaken. The condition of the taxiway prior to works was poor, with

42
both functional and structural rutting evident in KC-30 and jet-fighter aircraft wheel paths.
Cracking was prevalent with several applications of rubberised bitumen banding (RBB) visible
as shown in Figure 17.

Figure 17 - Taxiway Alpha condition prior to field trial works

Nominal thickness and in-situ air voids for the field trial were defined as in Table 13. The
nominal thickness was based on QLD SMA 14 specifications which closely aligned with German
recommendations to have the compacted thickness 3 – 4 times the maximum aggregate size
(Blazejowski, 2011), and typical Chinese airfield practice (Xin, 2015). The in-situ air voids also
aligned with the QLD SMA 14 specification, as well as German practice (Druschner and Schafer,
2005). In-situ air voids are slightly lower than those that are expected of heavy duty DGA,
typically with a maximum air voids of 6.0% for SMA compared to 8.0% for DGA (AAPA, 2018,
TMR, 2017a). An increase of air voids above this can increase the permeability and decrease
the durability of the mixture (Rebbechi et al., 2003).

Table 13 - SMA layer requirements for field trial

Test Property Minimum Maximum

Nominal Layer Thickness Limits 50 mm 60 mm
In-situ Air Voids (Mat) 2.0 % 6.0 %
In-situ Air Voids (Joints) 2.0 % 9.0 %

In line with a performance-based approach, construction techniques were not defined in the
specification that was delivered to the contractor. It was assumed that the contractors were
familiar with the material and lay down procedures from SMA experience on roads.

43
4.5.1 Production compliance testing

In addition to typical production compliance testing for volumetrics and combined aggregate
grading, during the asphalt production, samples were prepared to undergo the following
performance testing:

• Wheel tracking (AG:PT/T231), and

• Indirect TSR (AG:PT/T232).

The purpose of this was to assess any differences between mixture design performance testing
and asphalt production performance testing. Therefore, acting as an in-depth compliance
testing process.

4.5.2 Asphalt construction

Asphalt placement utilised a Material Transfer Vehicle (MTV), an asphalt paver, and a
combination of static and low vibration steel drum rollers as in Figure 18. An MTV was used to
minimise temperature and material segregation. Paving operations took approximately four
hours to complete.

Figure 18 - Field trial construction

4.5.3 Surface friction

Surface friction was assessed using a vehicle equipped with a Griptester using the standard
test method BS 7941-2:2000 (BSI, 2000). The Griptester is an 85 kilogram three-wheeled
trailer with a single measuring wheel that is braked by 15 % as in Figure 19. The load and drag
on the wheel is continually measured. In line with CASA CFME requirements, the Griptester
delivers a controlled stream of water to allow for friction measurements in wet conditions.

44
 Figure 19 – Griptester device

Griptester runs were completed on both paving lanes two days after placement of the
pavement. Runs were completed in both directions at 65 km/h and 95 km/h along the centre
of each paving lane. The values were then compared to the CASA requirements for surface
friction. A second lot of Griptester runs were then undertaken 23 days after placement to
determine the increase of friction due to traffic and weathering.

4.5.4 Surface texture

Surface texture testing was undertaken using the volumetric sand patch test and the
ELAtextur. A total of nine tests were undertaken, with seven tests on mats and two tests on
joints. The final texture results were averaged and compared to the CASA regulatory 1 mm
requirement. The surface texture results were also compared to those that were achieved in
laboratory conditions on slabs prepared for wheel tracking tests; this was to determine if
laboratory texture tests could predict field texture.

4.5.5 In-situ Compaction

Core samples were retrieved from the field trial to assess the in-situ compaction and average
thickness of the SMA layer. A total of seven cores were retrieved including five cores on mats
and two cores on joints. Air voids were assessed using the same methods presented in
laboratory performance trials; that is, AS/NZS 2891.9.2 Pre-saturation method and AS/NZS
2891.7.1 Water displacement method for bulk density and maximum density respectively. The
results were compared to requirements specified to the contractor prior to the field trial.

45
4.5.6 Long term performance assessment

Although outside of the scope of this research, it is expected that the field trial will be
monitored on a six-monthly basis to assess its long-term performance. Performance
monitoring will include friction testing, texture testing, and visual inspection of defects in the
case that any appear.

4.6 Summary

This chapter described the methodology of the research. The research can be divided into four
phases:

• Phase 1: Development of preliminary specifications

• Phase 2: Laboratory production of trial mixtures
• Phase 3: Laboratory performance testing, and
• Phase 4: Field validation of optimal specification.

The methodology for Phase 1 was to undertake a desktop review of SMA specifications to
develop preliminary specifications for performance testing. Focus was on international use of
airfields, and domestic use of heavy duty roads. Constituent materials, aggregate particle size
distribution, volumetrics, laboratory compaction, binder drain-off and typical performance
requirements were analysed. From the review, two preliminary specifications were developed
based on a technology transfer of German and Chinese airfield specifications.

Phase 2 involved producing multiple SMA mixtures to ensure that a suitable sample size could
be tested and that the materials used represented real materials that could conceivably be
employed in the Australian airport context. Four established airport asphalt producers in
Australia provided four separate aggregates and the use of their facilities for the conduct of
the laboratory testing phases. A total of seven mixtures were produced for performance
testing.

Phase 3 involved laboratory performance testing of the seven mixtures. Performance testing
assessed deformation resistance, fatigue resistance and durability using similar methods to
those presented in the Australian airport DGA performance-based specification. The results
from these tests were compared to Australian airport performance requirements. Additionally,
surface texture testing was performed using volumetric and laser-based methods to determine

46
if the regulatory 1 mm surface texture requirement could be achieved. The methodology for
this phase of the research was developed to answer research questions RQ1, RQ2, and RQ3.

Phase 4 involved a field validation of a mixture using the best-performing specification. Of the
two specifications tested in the laboratory, the higher performing specification was tested in
the field. A trial was undertaken on an active taxiway using two paving lanes at a length of 100
m. Surface texture and surface friction measurements were performed to determine if the
regulatory skid resistance requirements were achieved. For compliance testing, performance
tests were completed during asphalt production, and core samples were retrieved to examine
asphalt thickness and compaction. The methodology for this phase of the research was
developed to answer research questions RQ3, RQ4, and RQ5.

47
5 Development of preliminary specifications

5.1 Introduction

This phase of the research involved a desktop review of current SMA standards to allow
development of preliminary, prescriptive SMA specifications for testing performance
characteristics. The concept behind the development of these specifications was to determine
what international standards had performed well in the airport context, compare them to
what has been used in the Australian road context, and finally, apply the international airport
standards to the Australian airport context.

Two preliminary specifications were developed based on a technology transfer of well

performing international airport standards. The German SMA 11S was chosen due to it being
the original SMA design and therefore its longevity in industry application. The Chinese SMA 13
specification was chosen due to its utilisation on over 40 airports with positive performance
reporting. Interestingly, the Chinese SMA 13 specification is almost identical to the QLD
SMA 14 specification, initially bolstering the confidence for its successful application in the
Australian context.

One may argue why not just apply the Australian road standards to airports. DGA designs in
Australia are slightly different for roads to airports, typically using more binder, as the
tolerances are stricter, the loading of aircraft tyres are more damaging than that of road
vehicles, and the requirement for no FOD to be produced from damaged pavement. The same
may be expected of SMA. Furthermore, the desktop review highlighted that each state’s
specifications, although similar, had some marked differences in key elements of volumetrics.
Application of proven international airport specifications was assessed to increase the
likelihood of successful laboratory performance. Table 14 details the specifications that were
reviewed.

48
 Table 14 - SMA specifications reviewed

Context Specification Notes

German SMA TL-Asphalt 2007 SMA 11S. (Blazejowski, 2011)
11S
Specification for SMA in heavy duty areas, including airfields
(Beer et al., 2012).
Sweden ABS 11 VVTBT Bitumenbundna lager 2008:113. (Blazejowski, 2011)
International

Reported to be no longer used on airfields due to issues

caused by acetate and formate de-icing chemicals (Campbell,
1999)
China SMA 13 Specification used on Chinese airfields (Xin, 2009, Prowell et
al., 2009).
UFGS SMA United States Air Force (USAF) specification for SMA on
military airfields (DoD, 2017).
QLD SMA 10 QLD TMR MRTS 30 (TMR, 2017a).
WA SMA 10 WA SPEC 502 (MRWA, 2017).
Austroads SMA Austroads recommendations as detailed in guide to pavement
Domestic

10 technology Part 4B (Austroads, 2014).

VIC SMAH Heavy duty SMA as detailed in Vic Roads Section 404
(VicRoads, 2012).
NSW SMA 10 NSW R121 SMA10 (TRMS, 2013)
QLD SMA 14 QLD TMR MRTS 30 (TMR, 2017a). Also used at Cairns Airport.
Sydney Airport Sydney Airport mixture from 1999 trial. (Prowell et al., 2009).

Airfield specifications were in the nominal aggregate size of 11 – 13 mm, for this reason, all
road specifications analysed were as close to this size as possible, noting that larger mixture
sizes will be more likely to satisfy the 1 mm surface texture requirement. Roads for Australian
heavy duty applications are usually in the 10 or 14 mm size, with smaller sized mixtures
feasible for lighter duty applications (Rebbechi, 2000). Parameters pertinent to this research
were:

• aggregate particle size distribution

• constituent material properties
• laboratory compaction
• volumetrics
• binder drain-off requirements, and
• laboratory performance requirements.

49
This chapter summarises the findings of the desktop review and provides analysis between
each of the investigated specifications. Finally, two preliminary prescriptive specifications are
presented that were used for the laboratory performance testing phase of this research.

5.2 Aggregate Particle Size Distribution

Figure 20 displays the average particle size distribution for each specification as well as the
current Australian airport DGA specification for comparison. Table 15 displays the grading
envelope for each of these specifications.

German SMA 11S UFGS SMA QLD SMA 10 WA SMA 10

VIC SMAH NSW SMA 10 Airport DGA 14 China SMA 13
Sweden ABS 11 Sydney Airport QLD SMA 14 Austroads SMA 10

100
90
80
PERCENT PASSING BY MASS (%)

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
9.5

13.2
0.075

0.15

6.7
1.18
0.3

4.75
2.36

0.06 0.6 6
SIEVE SIZE (mm)

Figure 20 - Particle size distribution of SMA specifications

50
 Table 15 - SMA grading envelopes (% passing by mass)

Austroads SMA 10
German SMA 11S
Sieve Size (mm) 1.

Sweden ABS 11

Sydney Airport
China SMA 13

NSW SMA 10
QLD SMA 10

QLD SMA 14
WA SMA 10
UFGS SMA

VIC SMAH
19 100 100 100
16 100 100 100
13.2 90 – 100 100 100 100 100 100 84 - 100 90 - 100
12.51 90 – 100
11.2 90 – 100 90 – 100
9.5 45 – 65 50 – 85 85 – 100 90 – 100 90 – 100 90 – 100 80 – 100 40 – 65 50 – 65
8 50 – 65 35 – 60
6.7 40 – 62 25 – 40 25 – 40 25 – 45 31 – 64 25 – 45 30 – 44
5.6 35 – 45
4.75 22 – 34 20 – 40 25 – 45 18 – 30 18 – 30 18 – 32 16 – 44 18 – 32 21 – 32
4 24 – 35
2.36 18 – 27 16 – 28 18 – 31 15 – 28 15 – 28 15 – 30 13 – 31 14 – 28 16 – 26
2 20 – 30 19 – 30
1.18 14 – 22 14 – 28 13 – 24 13 – 24 13 – 24 11 – 27 12 – 24
0.6 12 – 19 12 – 24 12 – 21 12 – 21 12 – 21 8 – 24 10 – 20
0.5 12 – 24
0.3 10 – 16 10 – 20 10 – 18 10 – 18 10 – 18 7 – 21 9 – 17 11 – 18

0.15 9 – 14 8 – 17 9 – 14 9 – 14 9 – 15 8.5 – 16 7.5-14.5

0.075 8 – 12 8 – 11 6.5-12.5 8 – 12 8 – 12 8 – 12 7.5-12.5 6.5-12.5 8 – 12

0.063 8 – 12 9 – 13
Notes:
1. All Australian Standard sieve sizes are shaded.

Aside from the maximum nominal particle size, the various SMA grading envelopes are similar,
with around 8 – 12 % passing the 75 µm sieve and 18 – 40 % passing the 4.75 mm sieve. For
the 14 mm specifications, the BPS appears to be at 4.75 mm. This BPS size corresponds to
literature for mixture sizes in this range (Brown et al., 1997b). The Australian road
specifications generally display a more defined gap in grading than that of the international
airfield mixtures. This may imply that the airfield specifications have lower permeability and
are more easily compactible to the Australian road specifications. Compaction can be difficult
if there is too little of smaller coarse grains in a mixture (Blazejowski, 2011).

Although there are multiple Australian 14 mm mixture specifications, size 10 mm mixtures are
more common. It would be beneficial to use a larger size to ensure the texture depth is greater
than 1 mm. As discussed earlier, a larger aggregate size mixture leads to a deeper surface
texture.In addition, it has been shown for SMA mixtures that a larger aggregate size leads to an
increase of resistance to rutting, and simultaneously a decrease in resistance to fatigue (Hafeez
et al., 2015). As in Table 1, although both performance parameters are important, deformation

51
resistance should be considered a higher priority due to the heavier, and less frequent traffic
experienced on airfield pavements. Therefore, when developing the specifications, a larger
aggregate size is more desirable to ensure appropriate surface texture and deformation
resistance.

Of note is the similarity between the size 13/14 specifications. Comparing the Sydney Airport
trial mixture, QLD SMA 14 and Chinese SMA 13 shows an almost identical distribution as in
Figure 21. This also indicates that the poor result of the Sydney trail was likely caused by issues
during the construction phase rather than the design of the mixture.

China SMA 13 Sydney Airport QLD SMA 14

100
90
PERCENT PASSING BY MASS (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
13.2
6.7
0.075

9.5
2.36

4.75
0.3
0.15

1.18

0.06 0.6 6
SIEVE SIZE (mm)

Figure 21 - Comparison of select SMA 13/14 particle distributions

Comparatively, the size 10/11 specifications, although alike, have an increased dissimilarity to
the size 13/14 specifications as in Figure 22. The Swedish, German and Queensland
specifications are all very similar in terms of aggregate distribution, whereas VIC SMAH and
WA SMA 10 have a more defined gap. This transformation from the original German SMA
design may be due to ‘tweaking’ of the mixtures over the years of employment for Australian
conditions, and / or the difference in locally available materials and performance requirements
in each state.

52
 German SMA 11S QLD SMA 10 WA SMA 10
VIC SMAH NSW SMA 10 Sweden ABS 11
100
90
PERCENT PASSING BY MASS (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.075

0.15

0.3

13.2
4.75
1.18

6.7
2.36

9.5
0.06 0.6 6
SIEVE SIZE (mm)

Figure 22 - Comparison of select SMA 10/11 particle distributions

5.3 Constituent Materials

Due to accessibility of international specifications of constituent materials, and similarity in

Australian constituent material specifications, only four SMA standards were analysed for this
element of the research. These standards were:

• German SMA 11S

• China SMA 13 (Note: only limited information could be sourced.)
• NSW SMA 10 (TRMS, 2015, TRMS, 2018)
• QLD SMA 10 / SMA 14 (TMR, 2017c, TMR, 2017b).

Appendix A details the specification analysis. Also included in the analysis are the constituent
material requirements for the current Australian airport DGA specification for comparison. The
below sections highlight pertinent findings to this research. Where relevant, other
international specifications for constituent material requirements are also mentioned.

5.3.1 Coarse Aggregate

Coarse Aggregate shape is of particular importance to SMA mixtures, as it allows for the
appropriate packing to achieve stone-on-stone contact. Compared to the Australian airport
DGA specification, a more stringent flakiness index is required in the German and Queensland
specifications: ≤ 20 % compared to the Australian airport DGA requirement of ≤ 25 %. Strength

53
and durability requirements were very similar between all specifications, highlighting the need
for premium aggregate when constructing pavements with SMA. Only the German and
Australian airport DGA specifications detailed limits for contaminants. This displays the stricter
requirements when constructing airport pavements compared to that of roads.

5.3.2 Fine Aggregate

As with coarse aggregate requirements, fine aggregate requirements were all similar regarding
strength and durability. There is however, a considerable difference between soundness (using
sodium sulphate) properties for the Australian road specifications compared to the Australian
airport DGA specification (≤ 12 % compared to ≤ 3 %), highlighting the need for premium
materials in the airport context.

The NSW and German specifications have test methods for determining fine aggregate
angularity. This is to ensure a stable mixture with appropriate stone-on-stone contact. In line
with the angularity tests, SMA specifications tend to either limit or preclude the use of natural
sand altogether. Natural sand is more rounded than crushed sand which would lead to a
decrease in angularity. The difference between the German SMA 11S (used for heavy duty
applications), and the German SMA 11 (used for non-heavy duty) is that the 11S specification
disallows natural sand. In some cases, limiting natural sand can restrict the mix designer from
achieving the specified gradation. This was the case for Beijing International airport, where
crushed sand was not available and the designers were required to utilise 15 % natural sand
(Prowell et al., 2009). QLD specifications recommend that if natural sand is to be used it should
be minimised. It becomes apparent that the use of natural sand in SMA should be minimised, if
not precluded all together; and if not possible, angularity tests should be undertaken to ensure
the fine aggregate material is suitable.

5.3.3 Filler

Compared to DGA and OGFC, SMA has an increased content of filler. The content and type of
filler has a large effect on the mixture stiffness (Austroads, 2013a), therefore the filler must be
of a high quality. Unlike DGA specifications that allow a variety of materials for fillers, SMA
standards typically specify either ground limestone, hydrated lime, or a blend of both. Fillers
such as fly ash are generally not recommended for SMA as the larger surface area often
requires a higher bitumen content which may not be economic. Additionally, the use of fly ash
can lead to an unworkable mixture due to its high stiffening effect (Vos et al., 2006). Baghouse

54
dusts are not allowed as fillers in China (Prowell et al., 2009), possibly due to its increased
variability and risk of contaminants.

The German specification defines ground limestone as the added mineral filler with a
minimum Calcium Carbonate content of 70 % (Blazejowski, 2011). Ground limestone is also the
preferred filler for SMA in the US (Vos et al., 2006). Airports across Europe and China typically
use ground limestone as the mineral filler, including the USAF Aviano air base in Italy, Beijing
International and Xiamen International (Prowell et al., 2009).

The NSW specification requires a minimum 1.5 % hydrated lime by mass of total aggregate.
Hydrated lime was also successfully used for multiple patch works at Cairns International
airport. There are benefits to using hydrated lime as it increases the mixture’s resistance to
stripping. Hydrated lime also increases the mixture’s stiffness, which in turn can assist in
increasing the deformation resistance of the mixture (Austroads, 2013a). However, too much
hydrated lime can make a mixture too stiff, unworkable and susceptible to cracking, eventually
leading to a poor performing final product. Like other European countries, hydrated lime is not
a popular filler for SMA surfaces in Germany (Blazejowski, 2011), and the German SMA 11S
does not define a requirement for this material, however does allow a hydrated lime content
to be used within the mixture. The use of a mixed filler (for example, ground limestone with
hydrated lime) is difficult in Australia. A mixed filler would require two silos during the
construction phase, which is operationally limiting, particularly in remote areas.

Obvious from the review is the importance of filler on the stiffening and resulting workability
of an SMA mixture. In many of the specifications a requirement for Rigden voids is detailed.
The Rigden voids is a measure of the volume of voids in the dry compacted filler. The higher
the voids in the dry compacted filler, the increased stiffening effect of the filler on the binder.
If this value is too low, there can be too much unbonded, excess binder which will introduce a
greater risk of mixture instability, binder drain-off, and low deformation resistance
(Blazejowski, 2011). The QLD and NSW SMA specifications detail a minimum Rigden voids of 38
and 40 % respectively. The German specification details an allowable range from 28 to 45 %.
Austroads (2013a) recommended that the filler requirements for SMA on Australian
pavements be reduced to a minimum 28 % to align with German standards. It also highlighted
however, that the in-service temperatures of Australian pavements are hotter than European
pavements, and a stiffer mastic may be required. Therefore, for each design, both Rigden voids
and binder stiffness are important properties and both should be considered.

55
5.3.4 Binder

Germany specifies the use of PMBs for high trafficked areas when using SMA. NSW and QLD
specify the use of PMBs for all SMA applications. China allows for either an unmodified or
modified bitumen as the binder (Jialiang and Yu, 2000). Although there is an emphasis for SMA
to obtain rutting resistance through stone-on-stone contact of the mixture, it has been shown
in multiple research studies that the use of a modified binder significantly increases this
performance characteristic (Blazejowski, 2011).

5.4 Marshall properties

Due to the inapplicability of Marshall stability and flow for SMA mixture design, only a small
number of specifications detail requirements for these parameters as in Table 16. Compactive
effort amongst nearly all specifications is at 50 blows/face with the Marshall hammer. The
exceptions being for the NSW SMA 10 and Austroads SMA 10, which require gyratory
compaction at 120 cycles. This number of cycles is equivalent to 75 blows/face or very heavy
duty traffic as defined by Austroads (Austroads, 2014). Research conducted by the FAA has
shown that 120 cycles may be too extreme of a compactive effort for airport pavements and
instead recommend 70 cycles for a very heavy duty pavement (Christensen, 2013). Note
however the study involved analysis of only DGA pavements. Nevertheless, for the application
of SMA on roads and airfields, 50 blows/face with a Marshall hammer is the most common
compactive effort.

Table 16 - Marshall properties of SMA mixes

Parameter German Sweden China UFGS - VIC WA QLD SMA

SMA ABS 11 SMA 13 SMA SMAH SMA 10 / SMA
011/S 10 14
Marshall
N/A N/A >6 N/A 5.5 >6 N/A
Stability (kN)
Marshall
N/A N/A 2-5 N/A N/A 2-5 N/A
Flow (mm)
Marshall
Compaction 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
(blows/face)

56
5.5 Volumetrics

Volumetrics of SMA specifications are typically defined as air voids, accompanied by minimum
binder content by mass and / or minimum VMA as in Table 17.

Table 17 - Volumetrics of SMA specifications

Binder Content Minimum VMA

Specification Air Voids (%)
(% by mass) (%)
German SMA 11S > 6.6 - 2.5-3.0
Sweden ABS 11 > 6.0 - 2.0-3.5
China SMA 13 > 5.5 17 3.0-5.0
UFGS - SMA - 17 3.0-4.0
QLD SMA 10 - 16.51 2.0-5.0
WA SMA 10 6.0-7.0 18 3.5-5.5
Austroads SMA 10 6.3-7.0 18 3.5-4.5
VIC SMAH 6.0-7.0 18 4.8-5.2
NSW SMA 10 6.2-7.2 - 3.0-6.0
QLD SMA 14 - 15.5 1
2.0-5.0
Sydney airport 5.7-6.7 16 3.0-6.0
Notes:
1
QLD specifies a volume of effective binder (14.5 % and 13.5 % for SMA 10 and SMA 14
respectively). Minimum VMA was calculated by adding effective binder to minimum
required air voids for this specification (2 %).

Of note, is the reliance of air voids percentage to the testing methods. The German standard is
relatively low with 2.5 – 3.0 %; however, in an earlier standard the percent air voids was 3.0 –
4.0 % (Druschner and Schafer, 2005). The change coinciding with a different test method to
measure air voids (Blazejowski, 2011). Test methods were investigated to determine if the
international tests matched the Australian tests for bulk and maximum density to calculate air
voids. The US and European standards all use test methods equivalent to the Australian
standards AS 289.1.9.2 – Bulk density by presaturation and AS – 2891.7.1 – Maximum density
of asphalt – water displacement method. It was paramount to ensure that when the
preliminary specifications were developed, that the equivalent Australian tests methods were
also included.

The average binder content by mass for the SMA mixtures is slightly greater than 6 %, this
value is higher than the DGA requirement of 5.4 – 5.8 % which corresponds with literature. The
minimum VMA requirements for airfield specifications are slightly lower than that of the
Australian roads, 17 % compared to 18 % respectively. This is due to the slight increase in

57
maximum size of the aggregate of the airfield specifications. VMA can decrease with an
increase of maximum aggregate size of a mixture (Austroads, 2014).

5.5.1 Voids in the coarse aggregate

The VCA ratio, or MVR, was briefly introduced in section 3.3.5 for determining if stone-on-
stone contact of a mixture has been achieved. If the voids in the coarse aggregate of the
mixture (VCAMix) is larger than the voids in the coarse aggregate in the dry rodded condition
(VCADRC), then it is possible that the mastic will provide a physical barrier for the stone-on-
stone interaction, potentially providing an unstable mixture. Of the specifications reviewed,
the Chinese, QLD and NSW standards were found to have a VCA ratio or MVR requirement. For
the Chinese and NSW specification the requirement for the ratio is defined as less than one.
For the QLD specification, the requirement for the MVR is ≤ 1.04. The UFGS – SMA
specification has an implicit requirement to measure VCAMix and VCADRC (Prowell et al., 2009)
and confirm that the ratio is less than one. This specification references the American
Association of State highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standard specification for
designing SMA, which does require that the VCA ratio is determined.

5.6 Binder drain-off requirements

Binder drain-off requirements for each specification are detailed in Table 18. The requirements
are either prescriptive-based (stabiliser additives by mass) or performance-based (binder
drain-off by mass). For most of the specifications, a performance-based limit of 0.3 % binder
drain-off by mass of whole mix is detailed. Although there is no binder drain-off limit for the
German specification, best practice is to limit it to ≤ 0.15 % at 170 °C (Druschner and Schafer,
2005). Of importance is the temperature that the binder drain-off test performed. The Chinese
SMA 13 and German SMA 11S, conduct binder drain-off tests at 170 °C. The Australian test
method AG:PT/T235 recommends the test be conducted at 185 °C for a PMB (Austroads,
2006b). It is expected that there will be a notable change in binder viscosity for a temperature
change of 15 °C. For a performance-based approach to asphalt mixture design, a drain-off test
is more appropriate than a prescriptive minimum stabilising additive content, and a suitable
testing temperature must be defined.

58
 Table 18 - Binder drain-off requirements

Stabiliser additives Binder drain-off

Specification
(% by mass of whole mix) (% by mass of whole mix)
German SMA 11S 0.3-1.5 -
Sweden ABS 11 - -
China SMA 13 - ≤ 0.15
UFGS - SMA - ≤ 0.3
QLD SMA 10 ≥ 0.3 ≤ 0.3
WA SMA 10 ≥ 0.3 ≤ 0.3
Austroads SMA 10 - ≤ 0.3
VIC SMAH ≥ 0.3 ≤ 0.3
NSW SMA 10 ≥ 0.3 ≤ 0.3
QLD SMA 14 ≥ 0.3 ≤ 0.3
Sydney airport 0.2 – 0.3 ≤ 0.3

5.7 Laboratory Performance requirements

In the specifications analysed, there were generally nil requirements for laboratory mixture
performance indicative tests. A few exceptions included the UFGS – SMA specification and
Chinese SMA 13 specification which detailed a minimum requirement for TSR of ≥ 75% (CACC,
2016, DoD, 2017) and the Chinese SMA 13 specification which required a particle loss test
using the Cantabro abrasion test of no more than 15 % for a PMB mixture (Guobiao-Standards,
2004).

Deformation resistance requirements were in two specifications: QLD SMA 10 (and 14)
required ≤ 2.0 mm rut depth using AG:PT/T231, and NSW SMA 10 (and 14) required ≤ 2.5 mm
rut depth using the same method. It is also a value to be reported German and Swedish
specifications, however, there were no minimum requirements in those standards
(Blazejowski, 2011). Deformation resistance is a key requirement for heavy duty DGA, and it is
expected to be the same for heavy duty SMA.

5.8 Preliminary laboratory specifications

Using the information from the SMA review, two preliminary specifications were formulated
based on a technology transfer of the German SMA 11S and Chinese SMA 13. These
preliminary specifications have been named SMA-G11S and SMA-C13 for the rest of this study.
Standardised Australian tests are also included to allow for industry validation. The better

59
performing of these two preliminary specifications will undergo a field trial and results from
this trial will inform the development of a final airport SMA specification.

5.8.1 Constituent Materials

Only one specification was developed for the constituent materials due to the similarity in all
standards analysed for these properties. Table 19, Table 20, and

Table 21 define the coarse aggregate, fine aggregate and filler requirements respectively. The
most restrictive requirements of each of the properties were selected as the controlling
requirement for coarse and fine aggregate properties. This included a requirement for a
polished aggregate friction value, although it was acknowledged that this value may have little
effect on the end friction characteristics, as priority for airfield runways is for macrotexture
over micro-texture. An angularity test was introduced for fine aggregate properties that
matched NSW specifications; the German angularity test was not included as it was assessed
that the NSW test would be more readily available in Australia. Filler requirements were used
to match those of ground limestone in line with the German specification. A blended filler was
considered unsuitable as operationally it would be restrictive to employ due to the need of
multiple silos in remote areas.

60
 Table 19 - Preliminary specification - coarse aggregate requirements

Dimension Properties Test Requirement

Flakiness Index AS 1141.15 ≤ 20 %
Shape Crushed particles AS 1141.18 100 % crushed
aggregate
Wet strength AS 1141.22 ≥ 150 kN

Wet / Dry strength AS1141.22 ≤ 30 %

variation
Soundness (using AS 1141.24 ≤3%
Strength & Durability
sodium sulphate)
Polished Aggregate AS 1141.41, or ≥ 51
Friction Value AS 1141.42
Los Angeles Value AS 1141.23, B or K ≤ 20 %
Grading
Material finer than AS1141.12 ≤ 2.0 % for 10 mm
0.075 mm in Agg and larger
≤ 2.0 % for 7 mm and
Contaminants larger
Secondary Mineral AS 1141.26 ≤ 20 % (basic rock
Content types only)
Friable particles AS 1141.32 ≤ 0.2 %
Particle Density AS 1141.6.1 ≥ 2300 kg/m3
Other
Water absorption AS 1141.6.1 ≤2%

Table 20 - Preliminary specification - fine aggregate requirements

Dimension Properties Test Requirement

Particle density
Crushed particles
Wet / dry strength
Coarse Aggregate variation As for Coarse
As for Coarse Aggregate
Equivalencies Los Angeles Value Aggregate
Properties
Soundness Properties
Wet Strength
Secondary mineral
content
Plasticity Index AS 1289.3.3.1 Non-plastic
Water Absorption AS 1141.5 Crushed Agg ≤ 2.5 %
Fine Aggregate
Specifics
Angularity (AASHTO AASHTO T304-96 ≥ 43 %
method) Method A

61
 Table 21 - Preliminary specification - filler requirements

Dimension Properties Test Requirement

Ground Limestone - > 75 % by mass of CaCO3.

Composition Make Up AS2150 Mineral Material, dry and free

from lumps, organic material
or other deleterious matter.

Combined Rigden AS 1141.17 28 - 45 %

Stiffening
Voids

5.8.2 Combined Aggregate Grading

The combined aggregate grading for each preliminary specification was determined by
converting the specified sieve sizes to Australian standard (AS) sieve sizes. For the case of
SMA-C13, this was as simple as bumping the maximum sieve size from 16 mm to the AS sieve
size of 19 mm, as Chinese sieve sizes are very similar to those used in AS. European sieve sizes
are significantly different to AS specifications. Consequently, to determine SMA-G11S, the
German SMA 11S grading envelope was plotted on a logarithmic graph, and where the
maximum and minimum trend lines intersected AS sieve sizes, these values were used as the
new grading requirements. At the higher end of the aggregate grading, the conversion of the
German mixture diverges from the original specification. This is due to the increased difference
in European to AS sieve sizes for larger coarse aggregate. The original German SMA 11S has
100 % passing the 16 mm European sieve. As a larger nominal size stone was more desirable,
when converting to AS sieve sizes, the 100 % passing value was bumped up to AS 19 mm,
instead of reducing to AS 13.2 mm. The graphical conversion is detailed in Appendix B. Figure
23 displays the specifications before (German SMA 11S and China SMA 13) and after (SMA-
G11S and SMA-C13) conversion to AS sieve sizes. Table 22 defines the combined aggregate
grading envelope for the preliminary specifications.

62
 German SMA 11S China SMA 13 SMA-G11S SMA-C13

100
90
80
PERCENT PASSING BY MASS (%)

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.15

9.5

13.2
2.36
0.075

0.3

4.75
6.7
1.18

0.06 0.6 6
SIEVE SIZE (mm)

Figure 23 - Preliminary specifications aggregate distribution: before and after conversion from original specifications

Table 22 - Preliminary specifications - combined aggregate grading envelope

Percent passing by mass (%)

AS Sieve Size (mm)
SMA-G11S SMA-C13
19 100 100
13.2 94 – 100 90 – 100
9.5 70 – 82 45 – 65
6.7 42 – 55 -
4.75 33 – 43 22 – 34
2.36 22 – 32 18 – 27
1.18 18 – 27 14 – 22
0.6 16 – 24 12 – 19
0.3 13 – 20 10 – 16
0.15 11 – 17 9 – 14
0.075 8 - 12 8 – 12

5.8.3 Additional Volumetrics

Additional volumetrics for the preliminary specifications were determined by using the
German and Chinese requirements and matching the test methods to equivalent AS test
methods as in Table 23. Some minor changes to the original specifications were implemented
and are detailed below:

63
 • VMA for SMA-G11 to be reported to allow for comparison to SMA-C13
• Binder content for SMA-C13 to be reported to allow for comparison to SMA-G11S
• Allowable binder drain-off for SMA-G11 set to ≤ 0.15 % to match German best practice
• Binder drain-off to be determined for 185 °C and 170 °C to determine the difference in
Australian and international practice
• Stabiliser (% by mass) of SMA-C13 to be reported to allow for comparison to SMA-
G11S
• MVR of both mixes to be reported.

Table 23 - Preliminary specifications - additional volumetrics

Property Test Method SMA-G11S SMA-C13

VMA (% by volume) AS/NZS 2891.8 Report ≥ 17
Binder Content (% by mass) 1.
AS/NZS 289.1.3.1, or ≥ 6.6 Report
AS/NZS 289.1.3.12,
or
AS/NZS 289.1.3.3
Air Voids (% by volume) 2. AS/NZS 2891.8 2.5 – 3.0 3.0 – 5.0
Marshall Compaction (blows/face) AS/NZS 2891.5 50 50
Binder drain-off at 185° (% by mass) AG:PT/T235 ≤ 0.15 ≤ 0.15

Binder drain-off at 170° (% by mass) AG:PT/T235 ≤ 0.15 ≤ 0.15

Stabiliser (% by mass) - 0.3 – 1.5 Report

MVR (VCAMix / VCADRC) AASHTO T19, or TMR Report Report
Q318, or TRMS T646
Notes:
1. Single source PMB A15E to be used for all mixtures.
2. Must use AS/NZS 2891.9.2 Presaturation method for bulk density, and AS/NZS 289.1.7.1
Water displacement method for maximum density

5.9 Summary

This chapter investigated Australian road and international airfield SMA specifications. In the
case of size 13/14 mm mixtures, the Australian road specifications were found to be extremely
similar to that of the Chinese airfield specification. In the case of the size 10/11 mm mixtures,
although alike, there was an increased dissimilarity when compared to that of size 13/14 mm
mixtures.

Constituent material properties amongst all specifications were very similar. Compared to the
Australian airport DGA specification, coarse aggregate requirements for SMA mixtures were
more stringent for shape properties. The key difference for constituent materials in the

64
Australian context to the international context was the use of hydrated lime as filler. European
countries typically use ground limestone for filler, Australian road authorities typically require
a minimum content of hydrated lime as a filler. Due to the difficulty employing blended fillers
during the construction phase for remote areas, ground limestone was defined as the required
filler for the preliminary specifications.

Two preliminary, prescriptive specifications were developed based on a technology transfer of

a Chinese SMA 13 and German SMA 11S design; and are named for the rest of this study as
SMA-C13 and SMA-G11S respectively. Only one specification for constituent materials was
required for both SMA-C13 and SMA-G11S due to the similarity in all specifications reviewed.
Separate specifications for combined aggregate grading and additional volumetrics were
developed using AS test methods to determine each parameter. These preliminary prescriptive
specifications were used to determine performance characteristics as detailed in the next
chapter.

65
6 Laboratory performance of trial mixtures

6.1 Introduction

This chapter of the thesis covers Phase 2: Laboratory production of trial mixtures and Phase 3:
Laboratory performance assessment. The first part of this chapter details the mixture
production and issues that were experienced when creating trial mixtures using the two
preliminary specifications and provided materials. As the mixtures and materials were the
basis for all the performance testing, any non-compliances are discussed in detail. The second
part of this chapter details performance results for deformation resistance, fracture resistance,
surface texture and durability. Analysis and discussion of the performance results are detailed
later in Chapter 9 along with discussion of the results from the field phase of the research.

6.2 Materials and mixture production

Seven different mixtures were produced using four different aggregate sources provided by
individual asphalt producers and classified as Latite, Basalt, Amphibolite and Amph-Gr
(combination of Amphibolite coarse aggregate and Greywacke fine aggregate) as in Table 10.
Each of the aggregate types were sourced from quarries that have been recently used for
heavy-duty road or airport applications. The first part of the mixture production was to
compare the aggregate and added filler properties to those specified in the preliminary
laboratory specification for non-compliances and what effect those non-compliances would
have on performance results. The next step was to undertake theoretical mixture design, then
produce Marshall specimens to determine if the target grading and required volumetrics were
achieved.

6.2.1 Coarse aggregate properties

Not all laboratories were located in the same state, therefore some aggregate properties were
characterised using different test methods than those stipulated in the preliminary laboratory
specification. For example, there was no flakiness index recorded for Latite, as that state
authority preferred to characterise particle shape by proportional calliper and percentage
misshapen particles. This was also the case for values related to strength and durability. AS
2758.5 is the Australian standard related to classifying coarse asphalt aggregate. Within the
standard it recommends that a combination of strength and durability tests be conducted
dependant on the local experience and the particular rock source selected (CCAA, 2014). To

66
satisfy AS2758.5 in terms of strength and durability, a source rock can either be tested for wet
strength and wet/dry strength variation; or LA value and sodium sulfate soundness; or LA
value and unsound and marginal stone content. The coarse aggregate properties including
non-compliances to the preliminary laboratory specification are detailed in Table 24.

Table 24 - Coarse aggregate properties

Dimension Properties Requirement Latite Basalt Amphibolite Amph-Gr

Flakiness ≤ 20 ** 19 13 15
Index (%)
Shape
Crushed 100 100 100 100 100
particles (%)
Wet ≥ 150 293 252 195 306
strength
(kN)
Wet / Dry ≤ 30 28 *33 *31 25
strength
variation
(%)
Soundness ≤3 1.3 *6.4 1.6 0.1
Strength & (using
Durability sodium
sulphate)
(%)
Polished ≥ 51 *50 59 ** 53
Aggregate
Friction
Value (%)
Los Angeles ≤ 20 ** ** 20 9
Value (%)
Material ≤ 2.0 for 0.8 0.2 0.1 1.5
finer than 7mm and
0.075mm in larger
Agg (%)
Contaminants Secondary ≤ 20 (basic ** 15 6 6
Mineral rock types
Content (%) only)
Friable ≤ 0.2 ** ** 0 0
particles (%)
Particle ≥ 2300 2626 2770 2860 2860
Density
(kg/m3)
Other
Water ≤2 *2.1 1.7 0.8 0.8
absorption
(%)
*Non-compliance with preliminary specification
**Value was not tested or provided by asphalt laboratory

67
Although the aggregates were not compliant with all stipulated values in the preliminary
laboratory specification, it was determined that the non-compliances would have little, if any
effect on the outcomes of the performance testing.

Shape properties were satisfied for all aggregates. Latite had no flakiness index recorded;
however, its proportion for misshapen particles was less than 17 % for a 2:1 ratio and less than
6 % for a 3:1 ratio. This easily satisfied the requirements of AS 2758.5 of maximum 35 % and
10 % for a 2:1 and 3:1 ratio respectively (SAI, 2009). Coupled with the fact that all sourced
aggregates had 100 % crushed particles, the shape characteristics would have had nil negative
impact on the packing requirement of SMA to achieve the stone-on-stone interaction.

The non-compliances for strength and durability were minimal, except for sodium sulfate
soundness value for the Basalt aggregate. This property was over 200 % of the minimal
requirement. However, sodium sulfate soundness tests are used to accelerate the normal
weathering process by increasing the aggregate’s exposure to the elements (CCAA, 2014), and
although an important value for airport asphalt, in the case of the performance testing of the
laboratory samples, influences on long term weathering would not be tested. Therefore, all
aggregate sources were deemed suitable for the laboratory phase of this research.

6.2.2 Fine aggregate properties

As the fine aggregate was sourced from the same quarries as the coarse aggregate, only fine
aggregate specifics were compared as detailed in Table 25. This was with the exception of
Amph-Gr that used a separate source for fine aggregate. The Greywacke characteristics were
compared to all coarse aggregate properties and found to be compliant.

Most asphalt producers did not provide results for Angularity using AASHTO T304-96
Method A. This method is an indirect test to measure the shape of the fine aggregate to
ensure that there is not an excess of rounded particles that could create a rolling action when
packing and therefore an unstable mixture, and may only be required for mixtures where
natural sand is used Only a small number of road authorities in Australia specify this test and
therefore equipment is not available in all states. However, as the fine aggregate was sourced
from crushed rock, and not natural sand, then due to the inherent angular nature of crushed
particles, this value should be satisfied. Therefore, as all the aggregate was sourced from 100
% crushed material, the lack of an Angularity value would have no effect on the performance

68
testing. This is with the exception of one mixture that required a portion of natural sand to
satisfy the target grading envelope, and is discussed further in Section 6.2.4.

Table 25 - Fine aggregate properties

Dimension Properties Requirement Latite Basalt Amphibolite Amph-Gr

Plasticity Non-plastic Non- Non- Non-plastic Non-
Index plastic plastic plastic
Fine Water ≤ 2.5 2.2 2.4 0.9 0.8
Aggregate Absorption
Specifics (%)
Angularity ≥ 43 47.8 ** ** **
(%)
**Value was not tested or provided by asphalt laboratory

6.2.3 Added mineral filler

Two characteristics were specified for the filler component of the mixture. The added filler was
to be ground limestone, and the combined Rigden voids requirement was between 28 and
45 % by volume. As combined Rigden voids is a function of the proportions of material in the
coarse and fine aggregate below 0.075 mm, as well as the added mineral filler, it is instead
discussed in the subsequent sections.

The Latite and Amph-Gr mixtures contained ground limestone as the mineral filler with the
Calcium Carbonate content requirement satisfied. The Amphibolite mixture used dolerite dust
as an added filler in lieu of ground limestone. The Basalt mixture used a blend of hydrated lime
and ground limestone. Hydrated lime was employed as the binder drain-off requirement was
not satisfied even with the addition of 0.5 % fibres by mass. It was deemed impractical to add
more fibres to the mixture as it would not replicate an efficient workflow if the mixture were
to go into asphalt production; instead, the Rigden voids were increased by adding hydrated
lime at a 50:50 ratio to ground limestone to stiffen the mastic. The addition of the hydrated
lime proved successful in solving binder drain-off issues for the Basalt mixtures.

6.2.4 Mixture gradings and volumetrics – SMA-G11S

The three mixtures’ particle distributions for SMA-G11S are visible in Figure 24 and further
detailed in Table 26. Additional volumetrics for these mixtures are detailed in Table 27. Issues
encountered with mixture production for the SMA-G11S preliminary specification included:

• target gradings not being achieved

• target binder content not being achieved, and

69
 • excessively large MVR, or not being reported at all.

SMA-G11S Lower SMA-G11S Upper Latite SMA-G11S

Basalt SMA-G11S Amphibolite SMA-G11S

100

90

80
PERCENT PASSING BY MASS (%)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0.15

0.3

6.7

9.5

13.2
4.75
1.18

2.36
0.075

0.06 0.6 6
SIEVE SIZE (mm)

Figure 24 - SMA-G11S laboratory mixture gradings

Table 26 - SMA-G11S laboratory mixture gradings

AS Sieve Size Percent passing by mass (%)

(mm) Specified Latite Basalt** Amphibolite
19 100 100 100 100
13.2 94 – 100 97 100 97
9.5 70 – 82 78 *66 72
6.7 42 – 55 46 *41 54
4.75 33 – 43 37 33 *32
2.36 22 – 32 29 25 *19
1.18 18 – 27 20 19 *15
0.6 16 – 24 *15 *15 *13
0.3 13 – 20 13 13 *11
0.15 11 – 17 11 *9.5 *9
0.075 8 - 12 8.6 8.3 *7.6
*Non-compliance with preliminary specification
**This mix utilised 6 % natural sand to achieve the design grading

70
 Table 27 - SMA-G11S laboratory mixture volumetrics

Property Specified Latite Basalt Amphibolite

VMA (% by volume) Report 16 17.4 17
Binder Content (% by mass) ≥ 6.6 6.7 *6.4 *6.1
Air Voids (% by volume) 2.5 – 3.0 3.0 2.5 *3.3
Binder drain-off at 185 °C ≤ 0.15 *0.17 0.11 0.1
(% by mass)
Binder drain-off at 170 °C ≤ 0.15 0.1 - -
(% by mass)
Stabiliser (% by mass) 0.3 – 1.5 0.4 0.5 0.3
VCAMix / VCADRC (-) Report 1.17 ** 1.11
Combined Rigden Voids 28 - 45 34 40 34
(% by volume)
*Non-compliance with preliminary specification
**Value was not tested or provided by asphalt laboratory

Through multiple design iterations, all the mixtures failed to comply with the specified grading
envelope. The Latite mixture was almost compliant with only one sieve size missing its target
by one percent. The Basalt mixture underwent five iterations before a final design was
established; however, this was only completed with the addition of six percent natural sand.
The use of natural sand could introduce a risk of mixture instability due to a decrease in
angularity of the fine aggregate and could lead to a poor deformation resistance result.

Minimum binder content requirements were not achieved in two of the mixtures. The German
specification only details values for minimum binder content and not VMA or effective binder
content. This is due to the experience and familiarity with their local aggregate sources. Not
specifying either VMA or effective binder means that the difference in separate aggregate
sources abilities to absorb binder is not accounted for. As VMA was still reported, it shows that
the expected minimum value of 17 % for a size 14mm mixture is achieved for all the designs
except for the Latite mixture.

The MVR was only reported for the Latite and Amphibolite mixtures. This value was above the
recommended 1 or 1.04 in US and Chinese, and Australian standards respectively. However,
the original German standard does not contain a requirement for this value to determine
stone-on-stone contact as it relies on traditional gradings from experience instead. Therefore,
the absence or non-compliance of this value was deemed insignificant for the purpose of this
mixture.

71
It is theorised that all issues related to this preliminary specification’s non-compliances were
caused by the conversion from European sieve sizes to AS sieve sizes. From section 5.8, when
converting from the German SMA 11S to SMA-G11S, the 100 % passing sieve size was changed
from the European 16 mm to AS 19 mm. This change may have been too large and more
appropriate could have been dropping the 100 % passing sieve size to 13.2 mm. This would
convert the mixture to an Australian size 10 mm maximum aggregate, which would mean that
the BPS would be changed to 2.36 mm instead of 4.75 mm, therefore altering the calculations
significantly for the MVR.

Although there were non-compliances in the mixtures, performance testing was still
undertaken to determine if this specification could be suited as an airport pavement.

6.2.5 Mixture gradings and volumetrics – SMA-C13

The four mixtures’ particle distributions for SMA-C13 are visible in Figure 25 and further
detailed in Table 28. Additional volumetrics for these mixtures are detailed in

Table 29. The only production issue specific to this design was the target grading not being
achieved for the Amphibolite mixture. However, although not compliant with the SMA-C13
specification, the mixture was compliant with the QLD SMA 14 specification. This allowed for
the opportunity to compare the Australian QLD SMA 14 with an SMA-C13 specification. From
Chapter 5, it was determined the main difference between those two specifications was the
larger allowed tolerances on the QLD specification in terms of air void content and grading
envelope. The similarity between the two specifications may also be the reason why there
were less non-compliances when compared to mixtures designed using the SMA-G11S
specification. As SMA-C13 is almost the same as an Australian SMA specification, there is
industry familiarity with the design, and it may be better suited to Australian constituent
materials.

72
 SMA-C13 Lower SMA-C13 Upper Basalt SMA-C13
Amph-Gr SMA-C13 Latite SMA-C13 Amphibolite SMA-C13

100

90

80
PERCENT PASSING BY MASS (%)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

13.2
9.5
4.75
0.3

2.36
0.15
0.075

6.7
1.18

0.06 0.6 6
SIEVE SIZE (mm)

Figure 25 - SMA-C13 Laboratory mixture gradings

Table 28 - SMA-C13 laboratory mixture gradings

AS Sieve Percent passing by mass (%)

Size (mm) Specified Latite Basalt Amphibolite Amph-Gr
19 100 100 100 100 100
13.2 90 – 100 96 100 96 96
9.5 45 – 65 65 59 63 54
6.7 - 35 36 - 35
4.75 22 – 34 29 33 27 26
2.36 18 – 27 23 23 *16 20
1.18 14 – 22 16 14 *13 16
0.6 12 – 19 13 12 *11 14
0.3 10 – 16 11 11 10 13
0.15 9 – 14 9.6 10 *8.1 10.5
0.075 8 - 12 8 9 *6.2 8.7
*Non-compliance with preliminary specification

73
 Table 29 - SMA-C13 laboratory mixture volumetrics

Property Specified Latite Basalt Amphibolite Amph-Gr

VMA (% by volume) ≥ 17 17.5 19 18 17
Binder Content (% by mass) Report 6.6 6.8 6.4 6.1
Air Voids (% by volume) 3.0 – 5.0 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.2
Binder drain-off at 185°C ≤ 0.15 *0.83 0.11 0.0 0.13
(% by mass) (0.3% fibre)
Binder drain-off at 170°C ≤ 0.15 *0.66 - - -
(% by mass) (0.3% fibre)
0.14
(0.4% fibre)
Stabiliser (% by mass) Report 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.3
VCAMix / VCADRC Report 1.05 1.01 1.04 **
Combined Rigden Voids 28 - 45 34.2 40.3 34 36.5
(% by volume)
*Non-compliance with preliminary specification
**Value was not tested or provided by asphalt laboratory

6.2.6 Binder drain-off considerations

Similar in both mixtures were issues for binder drain-off. It is common practice in Australia to
add 0.3 % by mass of fibre to the mixture to satisfy any drain-off requirements, which are
typically specified as ≤ 0.3 % drain-off by mass of total mixture. As the two preliminary
specifications had a more stringent requirement (≤ 0.15 %), several mixtures did not achieve
the binder drain-off requirement with only 0.3 % mass of fibre.

It was noted that the temperature to conduct the test of binder drain-down in the original
Chinese and German specifications is 170 °C, whereas the AS recommendation is to conduct
the test at 185 °C. The difference in testing temperature may be the reasoning behind why the
international specifications have different binder drain-off requirements. Consequently, when
undertaking the testing, if the requirement was not satisfied at 185 °C, the binder drain-off test
was repeated at 170 °C. If it was satisfied at this temperature, that mass of fibre was deemed
satisfactory for the mixture. If the requirement was still not satisfied, an additional 0.1 % of
fibre was added to the mixture and the tests repeated.

For one mixture, a total of eight iterations of binder drain-off testing had to be completed to
determine a content of fibre that satisfied the ≤ 0.15 % requirement. Multiple types of
cellulose fibres were used, at multiple test temperatures, with only one type of fibre providing
a conforming result; and then only with the addition of hydrated lime to stiffen the mixture.

74
The issues with this mixture has highlighted that only specifying a prescriptive percent fibre by
mass could lead to binder drain-off issues during construction. Specifying an outcome-focused
binder drain-off requirement is preferable as it considers the effect of the fibres, and the
influence of the binder, aggregate source and mastic stiffness.

6.3 Performance Results

6.3.1 Deformation Resistance

Results for deformation resistance are detailed in Table 30, and include air voids, final rut
depth and wheel tracking rate. Figure 26 and Figure 27 detail the wheel tracking graphs for the
SMA-G11S mixtures and SMA-C13 mixtures against the airport requirement respectively.
Neither preliminary specifications were able to achieve the maximum airport rut depth
requirement of 2 mm; however, the SMA-C13 result was clearly the higher performing
specification with a mean rut depth of 3.21 mm compared to the SMA-G11S rut depth of
4.02 mm.

Table 30 - Laboratory wheel tracking results (10,000 passes at 65 °C)

SMA-G11S SMA-C13
Aggregate Air Voids Rut Depth Tracking Air Voids Rut Depth Tracking
Source (%) (mm) Rate (%) (mm) Rate
(mm/kpass) (mm/kpass)
Latite 4.3 4.29 0.52 4.1 3.64 0.38
4.2 4.96 0.55 4.2 2.13 0.25
Basalt 3.5 2.64 0.06 2.6 2.64 0.05
5.2 3.77 0.08 5.6 4.05 0.09
Amphibolite 5.4 4.53 0.67 4.6 3.66 0.28
4.1 3.92 0.38 4.1 3.19 0.23
Amph-Gr - - - 5.0 3.22 0.06
Mean 4.5 4.02 0.38 4.3 3.21 0.17

75
 Maximum Airport Requirement Latite SMA-G11S slab1
Latite SMA-G11S slab2 Amphibolite SMA-G11S slab1
Amphibolite SMAG-11S slab2 Basalt SMA-G11S slab1
Basalt SMA-G11S slab2
5
4.5
4
Rut depth (mm)

3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Pass number

Figure 26 - SMA-G11S Laboratory wheel tracking results (65 °C)

Maximum Airport Requirement Amphibolite SMA-C13 slab1

Amphibolite SMA-C13 slab2 Latite SMA-C13 slab1
Latite SMA-C13 slab2 Basalt SMA-C13 slab1
Basalt SMA-C13 slab2 Amph-Gr SMA-C13

5
4.5
4
3.5
Rut depth (mm)

3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Pass number

Figure 27 - SMA-C13 Laboratory wheel tracking results (65°C)

6.3.2 Fracture Resistance

Results for fatigue resistance are summarised in Figure 28, with the full laboratory data
presented in Appendix C. For both SMA-G11S and SMA-C13, all mixtures passed the minimum
airport requirement of no more than 50 % reduction in stiffness after 500,000 cycles at 200µƐ.

76
 60
Reduction in intial stiffness after 500,000 ccyles at
50

40

SMA-G11S
30
200 µƐ(%)

SMA-C13

20 Maximum Airport
Requirement

10

0
Latite Basalt Amphibolite Amph-Gr
Aggregate type

Figure 28 - Laboratory fatigue resistance results

6.3.3 Surface Texture

Surface texture results are summarised in Table 31 and Table 32 for the SMA-G11S and SMA-
C13 mixtures respectively. Appendix C details the complete data of this section of laboratory
performance testing, including values for MPD and ETD. Both mixtures satisfy the 1 mm
surface texture requirement when considering mean values. However, 50 % of the slabs
produced with the SMA-G11S specification failed to achieve the 1 mm surface texture.
Therefore, SMA-G11S is considered to only marginally pass this requirement.

Table 31 - Laboratory surface texture results for SMA-G11S

ELAtextur ETD (mm) Sand patch MTD (mm)

Aggregate
Slab 1 Slab 2 Average Slab 1 Slab 2 Average
Latite 1.10 0.98 1.04 1.05 0.90 0.98
Basalt 1.50 1.42 1.46 1.61 1.64 1.63
Amphibolite 0.77 0.80 0.79 0.77 0.81 0.79
Amph-Gr - - - - - -
ETD mean 1.10 MTD mean 1.13

77
 Table 32 - Laboratory surface texture results for SMA-C13

ELAtextur ETD (mm) Sand patch MTD (mm)

Aggregate
Slab 1 Slab 2 Average Slab 1 Slab 2 Average
Latite 1.18 1.37 1.12 1.30 1.58 1.44
Basalt 1.62 1.78 1.70 1.84 1.58 1.71
Amphibolite 1.31 1.21 1.26 1.39 1.55 1.47
Amph-Gr 1.01 - 1.01 1.21 - 1.21
ETD mean 1.27 MTD mean 1.46

6.3.4 Durability

A summary of results for the indirect TSR test are presented in Figure 29 and further detailed
in Appendix C. In all cases, the Australian airport requirement of 80 % was satisfied.

120

100

SMA-G11S
80
Tensile Strength Ratio (%)

SMA-C13
60

40 Minimum
Airport
Requirement
20

0
Latite Basalt Amphibolite Amph-Gr
Aggregate type

Figure 29 - Laboratory stripping potential results

Figure 30 summarises the results of the particle loss test. Full laboratory data, including sample
preparation is detailed in Appendix C. In addition to comparing SMA results to the Chinese
specification baseline of ≤ 15 %, a sample was prepared and tested to a typical airport DGA 14
specification with A15E and basalt aggregate. The DGA14 sample achieved 3.0 % particle loss.
In all cases, the particle loss requirement of ≤ 15 % was satisfied.

78
 16

14
SMA-G11S
Average Particle Loss (% by mass)

12

10
SMA-C13
8

China SMA-13
4
maximum
requirement
2

0
Latite Basalt Amphibolite Amph-Gr
Aggregate type

Figure 30 - Laboratory particle loss results

6.4 Summary

This chapter was divided into two parts: The first discussed materials used and the production
of laboratory mixtures to preliminary specifications; the second detailed results from all
laboratory performance testing.

In terms of materials, four separate aggregate sources were used. Although there were non-
compliances with the constituent material requirements presented in the preliminary
specification, these non-compliances were minor and deemed to have minimal effect on the
asphalt laboratory performance tests for the purpose of this research.

In terms of mixture production, there were several non-compliances with the SMA-G11S
specification in terms of target grading and volumetrics. It is theorised most of these non-
compliances were due to the conversion from European to AS sieve size. All except one of the
SMA-C13 mixtures were compliant with the preliminary specification, and this is likely due to
the similarity of this mixture with common Australian SMA mixtures.

A summary of performance results against the Australian airport requirement are detailed in
Table 33. Both specifications achieved airport performance requirements for durability, fatigue
and surface texture (although SMA-G11S was marginal for texture). Neither specification
achieved the minimum 2 mm rut depth requirement for wheel tracking; however, the SMA-
C13 specification was higher performing than SMA-G11S for this property.

79
 Table 33 - Summary of laboratory performance results against Australian airport requirement

Australian airport requirement achieved?

Performance Test
SMA-G11S SMA-C13
Wheel Tracking No *No
Fatigue Yes Yes
Surface Texture Marginal Yes
Indirect TSR (stripping) Yes Yes
Particle Loss Yes Yes
* SMA-C13 was the higher performing of the two specifications in terms of wheel tracking.

80
7 Field performance of SMA

7.1 Introduction

As demonstrated in section 6.4, of the two preliminary specifications that underwent

laboratory testing, SMA-C13 was the higher performing. Therefore, the field trial utilised a job
mixture formula (JMF) compliant to that specification. The main intent of the field trial was to
obtain values for surface texture and surface friction to see if SMA achieves the CASA
regulatory requirements, as well as providing a long-term performance monitoring
opportunity. This chapter details the materials and mixture used for the field trial, and issues
that were experienced with construction. Results from asphalt production compliance testing
are then presented before surface texture and friction results are detailed. Analysis and
discussion of this chapter is then presented later in section 8.3.

7.2 Materials and mixture production

The Amph-Gr SMA-C13 mixture design analysed in section 6 was used for the field trial.
Constituent material properties for this mixture can be found in Table 24 and Table 25. The
JMF for the design is detailed bel ow in Table 34 and Table 35. Performance testing was not
repeated for this design as all information was previously obtained in the laboratory
performance section of this research (section 6.3). Instead, performance tests were
undertaken on samples taken at asphalt production to confirm compliance with laboratory
mixture design.

Table 34 - JMF combined particle distribution

AS Sieve Size Percent passing by mass (%)

(mm) Specified JMF
19 100 100
13.2 90 – 100 96
9.5 45 – 65 54
6.7 - 35
4.75 22 – 34 26
2.36 18 – 27 20
1.18 14 – 22 16
0.6 12 – 19 14
0.3 10 – 16 13
0.15 9 – 14 10.5
0.075 8 - 12 8.7

81
 Table 35 - JMF volumetrics to 50 blow/face Marshall compaction

Property Specified JMF

VMA (% by volume) ≥ 17 17
Binder Content (% by mass) Report 6.1
Air Voids (% by volume) 3.0 – 5.0 4.2
Binder drain-off at 185°C (% by mass) ≤ 0.15 0.13
Stabiliser (% by mass) Report 0.3
Combined Rigden Voids (% by volume) 28 - 45 36.5
Binder Type PMB A15E

7.3 Issues with construction

Three issues during field trial construction occurred:

• delamination of the older asphalt layer during profiling (Figure 31)

• bleeding of a small area (1.5 m x 0.4 m) (Figure 32)
• five small depressions due to loading asphalt prior to cooling to ambient temperature
(Figure 33).

The implications of these issues on the performance of the field trial are later discussed in
section 8.3.

Figure 31 - Delamination of lower asphalt layer after profiling

82
Figure 32 - Area of bleeding at start of first paving lane

Figure 33 - 6 mm depression due to early static loading

83
7.4 Field test results
7.4.1 Production Compliance

Production compliance tests consisted of assessing gradation and volumetric properties, as

well as performance properties. Assessing detailed performance properties for a field trial is
not routinely performed; however, for this research it was undertaken specifically to allow
comparison of lab to field properties. For the case of volumetric and gradation, all tests
demonstrated the mixture to comply within the specification limits.

Two performance tests were undertaken: wheel tracking and indirect TSR. All tests were
completed with the same parameters as performed in section 6 of this research except for
wheel tracking, which used a cooler temperature (60 °C compared to 65 °C) and lower air voids
(5 % compared to 4 %). The purpose of the changes to the wheel tracking test is later detailed
in section 8.2. Table 36 and Figure 34 present results for wheel tracking. Durability results
showed a mean indirect TSR of 96 % across six specimens, compliant with the minimum airport
requirement of 80 %.

Table 36 - Field trial production compliance - wheel tracking results (60 °C)

Sample No. Air Voids (%) Rut depth (mm) Tracking rate (mm/kpass)
1. 4.3 1.72 0.03
2. 4.1 1.03 0.01
Mean 4.2 1.38 0.02

Maximum Airport Requirement SMA-C13 Field (60 degC) slab1

SMA-C13 Field (60 degC) slab2
5
4.5
4
Rut depth (mm)

3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Pass number

Figure 34 - Field trial production compliance - wheel tracking

84
7.4.2 Compaction

To check for compaction and thickness compliance, a number of cores were randomly sampled
from the trial site. Table 37 details the results from core tests as well as the mean air voids and
thicknesses per core location. In all cases, the required field air voids as specified in Table 13
were achieved. As shown in Figure 35, coarse aggregate stone-on-stone interaction is visible
within the SMA portion of the core, compared to the older DGA pavement below.

Table 37 - Field trial compaction results

Core No. Location Thickness (mm) Air Voids (%)

1. Mat 53 3.9
2. Mat 59 2.2
3. Mat 59 2.1
4. Mat 54 4.5
5. Mat 53 6.0
6. Joint 53 7.0
7. Joint 46 5.8
Mean Mat 56 3.7
Mean Joint 50 6.4

Figure 35 - Core from field trial

85
7.4.3 Surface texture

Sand patch and laser surface texture tests were performed at nine random locations on the
field trial, this included seven mat tests and two joint tests (Table 38). An example of the
finished surface texture and sand patch testing method is displayed in Figure 36. The mean
texture depths when using laser and volumetric techniques were 1.51 mm and 1.32 mm
respectively. This complies with the regulatory requirement of greater or equal than 1 mm.

Figure 36 - Surface finish of SMA trial and sand patch test

Table 38 - Field trial surface texture results

Test no. Location ELAtextur ETD (mm) Sand Patch MTD (mm)
1. Mat 1.28 1.26
2. Joint 1.62 1.63
3. Mat 1.93 1.38
4. Joint 1.55 1.29
5. Mat 2.08 1.55
6. Mat 1.45 1.32
7. Mat 1.35 1.09
8. Mat 1.14 1.26
9. Mat 1.16 1.13
Mean 1.51 1.32

86
7.4.4 Surface friction

Results from Griptester runs undertaken two days after placement and 23 days after
placement are displayed in Table 39 and Table 40 respectively, including their corresponding
MOS139 friction compliance levels. The Grip number presented is the average friction result of
the two paving lanes in that direction of the run (i.e. N – S represents Griptester runs running
from north to south). The full friction results and graphs are presented in Appendix E.

Table 39 - Grip tester results (two days after placement)

Speed Direction Average Grip MOS139 Compliance

(km/h) number (-)
65 N–S 0.39 Below minimum friction level for 65 km/h test (< 0.43).
65 S–N 0.39
95 N–S 0.31 Above minimum friction level for 95 km/h. Within
95 S–N 0.33 maintenance planning level (0.24 – 0.36).

Table 40 - Grip tester result (23 days after placement)

Speed Direction Average Grip MOS139 Compliance

(km/h) number (-)
65 N–S 0.46 Above minimum friction level for 65 km/h. Within
65 S–N 0.45 maintenance planning level (0.43 – 0.53).
95 N–S 0.35 Above maintenance planning level for 95 km/h (0.36 –
95 S–N 0.38 0.64).

7.5 Summary

This chapter presented results obtained from the field performance phase of this research.
Firstly, the materials and mixture design were detailed, as well as any issues experienced
during asphalt construction. Results for production compliance, compaction, surface texture
and surface friction were then presented.

In terms of construction compliance, all job specified limits for volumetrics and combined
particle distribution were satisfied. Additionally, performance indicative tests achieved the
required airport requirements for wheel tracking, fatigue resistance, and indirect TSR. Of note
is the 1.38 mm average wheel rut depth achieved when altering the wheel tracking parameters
for temperature and air voids, the purpose of which is discussed in depth in section 8.2.

87
Surface texture results exhibited a mean texture of 1.51 and 1.32 mm using laser and sand
patch methods respectively. These values are compliant with the CASA MOS139 regulatory
surface texture requirements.

Initial surface friction results were below the 65 km/h CASA minimum friction level but
achieved the 95 km/h CASA minimum friction level. In line with expectations, a test conducted
23 days after asphalt placement showed an increase of mean friction that was above the
minimum friction levels for both the 65 and 95 km/h runs.

88
8 Discussion

8.1 Introduction

This chapter analyses and discusses results obtained from Chapter 6 – Laboratory performance
of trial mixtures and Chapter 7 – Field performance of SMA. The results from these chapters
has enabled the development of a performance-based specification. The development of this
specification is discussed in detail with reference to the original AAPA Australian airport DGA
performance-based specification. Cost considerations are also mentioned briefly before an
evaluation of surface texture methods is presented.

8.2 Laboratory performance

8.2.1 Deformation Resistance

Of all the performance testing undertaken on the preliminary SMA specifications, wheel
tracking assessments were the only tests found to be non-compliant with airport
requirements. This was the case for both the SMA-C13 and SMA-G11S preliminary
specifications. However, of the two specifications SMA-C13 was clearly the higher performing.
The non-compliances have determined deformation resistance testing to be the most crucial
of all performance tests for SMA for airports. Due to the high importance of this testing,
further investigation was undertaken into the test method itself and is detailed in Appendix D.
Major conclusions and considerations from Appendix D are summarised below and include:

• the effect of segregation during sample preparation

• the effect of air voids of the sample, and
• specified test temperature.

For many slabs, there was an uneven surface finish. This surface finish was likely due to
segregation when the material was dropped from the mixing device into the slab mould.
Segregation can cause a dynamic impact on the slab when the loaded wheel traverses the
surface irregularity potentially inducing a larger deformation. As surface texture is larger for
SMA compared to DGA, the surface irregularities could have an increased effect on final rut
depth for SMA.

The recommended air void content for asphalt slabs for wheel tracking tests is 5 ± 1 %. This air
void content aligns with typical mean air voids for in-field DGA mixtures. However, SMA is a
denser mixture than DGA, and will generally be specified to have field mean air voids of

89
approximately 4 % (Druschner and Schafer, 2005, MRWA, 2017, TMR, 2017a). Evident from
this research and past studies is that rut depth increases with air voids of a test sample
(Austroads, 2011). Therefore, as the SMA mixtures were tested at 5 ± 1 %, and not their mean
field air voids, the results may indicate a poorer performing deformation resistance than what
would occur in the field. It is the recommendation of this research that to ensure a fair
comparison of deformation resistance testing, asphalt slabs for wheel tracking should be
prepared to the mean field air voids. That is, SMA slabs prepared for wheel tracking tests
should be compacted to air voids of 4 ± 1 %.

The largest contributor to the non-compliance of wheel tracking tests was determined to be
the test temperature. The standard test recommendation for temperature is 60 °C, whereas
the airport DGA performance requirement (and the test temperature of this study) was a non-
standard temperature of 65 °C. This increase is to mimic the hotter operating temperatures at
the top of the surface of the asphalt, to better consider the most common airport deformation
distress – groove closure. As SMA is being validated as an ungrooved runway surface, this
increase in temperature was not required. Austroads (2006c) conducted wheel tracking tests
on a DGA 14 sample at 60 °C and 65 °C. The difference in final rut depth was approximately
6.5 mm as demonstrated in Appendix D. Although such a large change in rut depth is not
expected for SMA, it is likely that an increase in this performance criteria will occur when the
temperature is reduced due to minimising the softening effect of the binder.

Another consideration that was not tested during this phase of the research was the effect on
binder type. Although SMA obtains its deformation resistance through stone-on-stone
interaction, it is well known that this performance property increases when a PMB is used
compared to a conventional binder (Blazejowski, 2011). The same may be said if a proprietary
binder is used for improved airport pavement performance. Figure 37 demonstrates the rut
depth of an airport DGA 14 mixture when using a conventional, multigrade, polymer modified
and proprietary binder. This data was provided by an asphalt company and was used in
assessing the effects of binder type at an Australian airport. Of significance is the test
temperature of 60 °C, and that only the proprietary binder was able to achieve the AAPA
airport 2 mm requirement. (Note: it is not known if optimisation of mixtures were performed
for these laboratory tests.) Using a proprietary binder may improve the deformation resistance
of SMA.

90
 7

Rut depth (mm)

4

0
Proprietary A10E Multigrade C320
Binder type

Figure 37 - Effect of different type of binders for a DGA 14 mixture on wheel tracking results at 60°C (data provided
by an Australian asphalt company)

Although the preliminary specifications did not achieve the AAPA airport 2 mm rut depth
requirement, this does not necessarily mean that SMA is unsuitable to be used as an
ungrooved runway surfacing material. Even with the increase of temperature, and higher air
voids than representative field density, the SMA-C13 specification still achieved a rut depth
representative of superior performing asphalt if using Austroads recommendations (< 3.5 mm).
It is extremely likely that with a decrease in test temperature, and reduction in air voids, the
SMA-C13 specification will achieve the rut depth requirement. This is evident from the QLD
SMA 14 specification, which is an almost identical mixture that achieves the 2 mm rut depth
requirement, with the only significant difference being the temperature for the wheel tracking
test. For the SMA-G11S specification, this may be less likely, as this mixture did not perform as
well. The hypothesis that the SMA-C13 would satisfy wheel tracking requirements at reduced
temperatures could only be checked by undertaking further tests at 60 °C, which was
completed for the field trial and is later discussed in section 8.3.2.

8.2.2 Fracture Resistance

The results from fatigue testing indicated that for both the SMA-G11S and SMA-C13
specifications, the resistance to fatigue was high. Fatigue resistance is a function of binder
content and type, and as binder content increases, so does this performance characteristic. As
an SMA mixture has a significantly higher binder content than airport DGA (by approximately
1 %), the resultant fatigue values easily satisfied the airport performance requirement. The
mean fatigue result across all mixtures and specifications was 25 % reduction in initial flexural

91
stiffness. This is 25 % lower than the minimum Australian airport requirement of no more than
50 % reduction in initial flexural stiffness.

The results from this element of laboratory testing supports the use of the material for areas
that exhibit reflective cracking, as was the case for the Cairns International airport RWY / TWY
patch discussed in section 3.5.4. Conclusively, SMA has achieved the minimum performance
requirements to prevent fatigue cracking and therefore achieves the required fracture
resistance in the context of Australian airports.

8.2.3 Surface Texture

The results from surface texture testing show that the SMA-C13 mixture is likely to satisfy the
1 mm requirement with an average surface texture utilising the sand patch method of
1.46 mm and all seven slabs achieving the minimum requirement. The SMA-G11S mixture on
the other hand may not satisfy the requirement. Although there was a compliant average
surface texture of 1.13 mm utilising the sand patch method, three of the six slabs failed the
minimum 1 mm requirement. The increased surface texture for the SMA-C13 mix is expected
as it is based on a slightly coarser specification compared to that of the SMA-G11S mixture.
Although both mixtures contain 14 mm aggregate, the SMA-G11S mixture is more comparable
to an Australian size 10 mm specification. The results for the SMA-G11S mixture align closely
with those reported from Patzak et al. (2016) using laser based techniques. Therefore, giving
extra confidence in the results for the SMA-G11S mixture.

What became apparent during testing is that all slabs were not necessarily homogenous in
terms of texture throughout their entire area. Figure 38 shows an output from a laser texture
measurement for a typical SMA-G11S slab; from measuring point 0 – 110 mm there is a low
surface texture compared to that of 110 – 155 mm. This lack of consistency in texture was
caused by a fat spot on the surface and is likely due to two factors:

• the small quantity of material required to construct the slab, which could result in non-
uniform mixing, and
• the height of which the material was dropped into the slab mould, which could cause
segregation.

Not all laser texture measurements displayed a surface inconsistency of such severity, as
demonstrated in Figure 39. Nevertheless, undertaking multiple measurements and

92
determining the mean value for each test sample enabled the variability of the surface texture
to be minimised.

Figure 38 - ELAtextur surface texture reading for SMA-G11 slab showing fat spot between 0 – 110mm.

Figure 39 - ELAtextur surface texture reading for SMA-C13 slab showing a more homogenous texture distribution

In terms of ranking a mixture’s surface texture, utilising the wheel tracking slab to represent
field conditions was deemed successful as SMA-C13 was consistently reporting the expected
higher results than SMA-G11S. Determining if this surface texture was truly representative of
field conditions would only be possible after a field trial and is discussed later in section 8.3.

8.2.4 Durability

The indirect TSR results demonstrated that in all mixtures the Australian airport requirement
was satisfied. In one case, the wet indirect tensile strength was larger than the dry indirect
tensile strength, resulting in an indirect TSR greater than 100 %. This was for the mixture that
contained a blend of hydrated lime as filler. It is likely that anti-stripping effects of the
hydrated lime was the cause of this anomaly. The lowest value achieved for this test as 84 %,
which approaches the minimum Australian airport requirement of 80 %. This highlights the
importance of the indirect TSR test to check if there is an issue with stripping of an asphalt
mixture prior to asphalt production.

The particle loss results demonstrated that all mixtures achieved the minimum requirements
as detailed in the Chinese SMA-13 specification (≤ 15 %). Also, of note is the similarity between

93
the results obtained from samples prepared using Marshall or Gyratory compaction, with no
substantial differences between the two preparation methods. The particle loss results
obtained from the airport DGA 14 mixture (3.0 %) were also very comparable to those
obtained for the SMA mixtures (mean of 3.1 %).

An issue discussed in the Methods chapter of this research was the applicability of the
Cantabro particle loss test to assess ravelling potential. The very small reduction in mass for
every sample tested revealed that a negligible amount of particle loss occurred for all
mixtures, which in turn provided little usable data for analysis. One may argue that the results
indicate that the mixtures have a high resistance to ravelling; however, it is more prudent to
state that this test may not be suitable for assessment of this performance criterion for an
SMA design. The Cantabro test has only demonstrated that the mastic holds the mixture
together under the kinetic energy provided by the drum and that the aggregates are of high
quality that resist abrasion; which was expected as a high quality PMB and premium
aggregates were used. The test has not revealed the ability of the mastic to hold the mixture
together after weathering, ageing and oxidisation. Therefore, as no useable results were
obtained from this test method, the applicability of this test to assess SMA ravelling potential
is deemed unsuitable. This indicates a need for a performance test to be developed that
assesses true ravelling potential.

8.3 Field performance

8.3.1 Construction issues

As presented in section 7.3, there were three issues experienced during the construction field
trial that are worth noting: delamination of older asphalt layer, bleeding of asphalt (fat spot),
and five small depressions. This section details those distresses and how they may affect the
long-term performance of the field trial.

On completion of profiling, there were a number of areas of delamination between the

removed asphalt layer and the older base layer (approximately 15 % of the total field trial area,
and close to the centreline of the taxiway). This is a common issue with any asphaltworks on
roads and airfields. Delamination between layers can contribute to several types of pavement
surface distresses, such as wheel patch cracking and tearing of the surface. Therefore, to
minimise any effects of this delamination, all loose parts of the layer were removed using
shovels and extra sweeping runs.

94
A longitudinal fat spot was visible in the first paver run near the start of asphalt paving. This is
the most frequent seen defect when using SMA and is characterised by an excessive binder
layer visible on the surface of the SMA course, with regular SMA underneath. That is, there is a
surplus amount of unbonded binder (Blazejowski, 2011). This type of defect is commonly
attributed to either design or production. If it were a design issue, the defect would have been
detected through binder drain-off testing. As the mixture had a laboratory binder drain-off
measurement of 0.13 % at 185 °C, this defect cannot be attributed to design. Therefore, it is
more likely that it was an issue with asphalt production. Possibly caused by an over-dosage of
binder during mixture production, or an uneven mixing process for the first supply of asphalt
material. Nevertheless, the fat spot was relatively small (1.5 m x 0.4 m) and will be monitored
over time. It is expected that with traffic and weathering, the excess unbonded binder will be
removed and will have minimal to no functional impact on the operational aspects of the
pavement. This defect has highlighted the importance of trial areas before commencing any
asphalt works on runways. Undertaking trial works will ensure mixture production is optimised
and the risk of fat spots occurring is limited.

The final issue that occurred during asphalt construction was that of five small depressions,
each approximately 6 mm deep by 100 mm in diameter. All these depressions occurred at
areas where the vehicle used to extract core samples was parked. There were no depressions
within wheel paths of where the vehicle was moving, only in areas where the vehicle was
stationary. Coring was undertaken approximately three and a half hours after completion of
asphalt works; this may have been too early for the asphalt to resist stationary loads. That is,
the asphalt had not cooled enough to ambient temperatures to build up full strength.

The time between asphalt construction and trafficking is a major consideration for laying SMA
on active runways, as runway paving works are usually performed during a night shift with
heavy traffic to traverse the area the next day. It is imperative that the pavement is only
trafficked once the asphalt temperature reaches that of the ambient temperature to ensure no
deformation defects arise. The UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) specifies for SMA used on
airfields that trafficking can only take place once the asphalt cools to ambient temperatures.
Additionally, no parking is permitted within 24 hours of summer works, and 12 hours of winter
works (MOD, 2009). A similar approach would be appropriate for SMA works on Australian
airfields, and undertaking works in cooler months should be considered to minimise the time
between asphalt paving and re-commencement of runway operations.

95
8.3.2 Production Compliance

All production compliance testing achieved the minimum specified requirements, proving that
the SMA-C13 specification is achievable in the Australian airport context. This was expected
due to the similarity between this specification and the QLD SMA 14 specification. Compliant
results for compaction, volumetrics, aggregate grading and performance ensured that the field
trial patch was suitable for surface texture and friction tests as well as long term monitoring.

Of high importance in production compliance testing is the results achieved for deformation
resistance. Two slabs were produced to undergo wheel tracking with testing parameters
changed to better reflect SMA field conditions. That is, temperature was adjusted to 60 °C
from 65 °C as the higher temperature was not needed due to SMA being ungrooved, and air
void content was adjusted from 5 ± 1 % to 4 ± 1 % to reflect the denser mean air voids
expected in the field. It was hypothesised in section 8.2.1 that with these parameters changed
the SMA wheel tracking results would be compliant with the airport maximum 2 mm rut depth
requirement. This hypothesis was deemed correct with both wheel tracking slabs achieving the
airport requirement as in Figure 40. Due to the change of parameters, the mean rut depth
reduced from 3.22 mm to 1.38 mm, a reduction of over 50 %.

Maximum Airport Requirement SMA-C13 Laboratory (65 degC)

SMA-C13 Field (60 degC) slab1 SMA-C13 Field (60 degC) slab2

5
4.5
4
Rut depth (mm)

3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Pass number

Figure 40 - Comparison of Amph-Gr SMA-C13 deformation resistance testing at two different temperatures

Not only do these results prove that SMA deformation resistance properties are suitable for
Australian airports, but they also highlight the importance of ensuring defined parameters for
performance-indicative tests are representative of field conditions. Consequently, when
specifying any performance-based mixture, test inputs should be explicitly stated, instead of

96
relying on recommended values in standards that may be broad and only applicable to a
certain mixture type.

8.3.3 Surface Texture

Surface texture results from the field trial demonstrated a mean result of 1.51 mm and
1.32 mm when using laser and volumetric methods respectively. Using volumetric methods,
the deepest surface texture recorded was 1.63 mm, whereas the shallowest surface texture
recorded was 1.09 mm. The deeper 1.63 mm recording was performed on a joint, which is
slightly less homogenous than the texture visible on the mat.

Comparing the homogeneity of the surface to those achieved in laboratory samples, showed a
much more consistent finish for the field trial as in Figure 41. This indicated that the wheel
tracking slabs were not representative of field surface texture.

Figure 41 - Surface texture from field (left), and that achieved in the laboratory (right)

As surface texture greater than or equal to 1 mm was achieved for all testing sites, this field
trial has satisfied the CASA regulatory surface texture requirement. The importance of this
finding is substantial, as from a regulatory perspective, if SMA is to be used as a runway
surface it does not need to be grooved. Additionally, as the final surface texture was at least
0.3 mm larger than the minimum requirement, it also builds confidence that any SMA mixture
design consistent with the SMA-C13 specification will satisfy texture requirements.

Surface texture generally increases with age of the pavement due to oxidisation and loss of the
mastic. It can also decrease due to contaminants such as rubber entering the surface voids. As
the surface texture was recorded to be substantially above the minimum regulatory limit, this
indicates that treatments for rubber removal at touchdown zones may be undertaken at

97
longer intervals than if the texture was closer to the 1 mm requirement. Furthermore,
experiments by Joubert et al. (2004) demonstrated that the rubber build up on an SMA surface
is less than that of a DGA wearing course, and that when rubber removal is undertaken on
SMA through high pressure water blasting, no significant deterioration of the surface is
observed.

8.3.4 Surface Friction

Initial surface friction results for the trial area achieved the 95 km/h test runs but failed at
65 km/h when comparing to regulatory CASA values. The faster speed test results are
reflective of friction due to hysteresis (macrotexture), whereas the slower tests reflect
adhesion (micro-texture). As the macrotexture of SMA is large, the compliant friction results
for the faster test run were expected. The non-compliant friction results for the slower run was
due to the film of binder on the surface of the SMA, hiding the micro-texture of the aggregate
and therefore reducing the effect of adhesion.

The non-compliances of surface friction do not necessarily deem the material unsuitable as an
ungrooved runway surface. Referring to the CASA regulatory requirements, either 1 mm
surface texture must be achieved, or satisfactory friction results are to be obtained with CFME.
As the surface texture is compliant, from a regulatory perspective SMA is still suitable. The
CASA MOS139 does however require low friction values to be promulgated to aircraft
operators through a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) if minimum friction levels are not achieved
(CASA, 2017). This approach is similar to what can occur for new DGA prior to grooving. For
example, if the friction is marginal for a DGA runway, a NOTAM will be issued for the 8 weeks
prior to grooving operations to advise of the low friction characteristics.

The Griptester results obtained 23 days after asphalt placement demonstrated that there had
been a marked improvement in friction. Both the 95 km/h, and 65 km/h test runs achieved the
minimum friction level. The 95 km/h run also achieved friction values above the maintenance
planning level. This improvement was due to binder wear down from the surface due to traffic
and weathering. During the 23 days between placement and the second Griptester run,
multiple wet weather events had occurred, and the field trial area had been trafficked, mainly
by FA-18F aircraft and local airbase fire-fighting trucks. This increase in friction aligns with past
research, for example both Prowell et al. (2009) and Joubert et al. (2004) demonstrated that
SMA friction increases with time to levels higher than DGA.

98
This research has demonstrated that although there may be a marginal friction result for SMA
initially, the friction does increase in time with traffic and weathering. In fact, minimum
regulatory friction levels are exceeded in less than a month from asphalt construction.
Operationally, the low friction values would be managed through administrative controls such
as NOTAMs for the first month, and then NOTAMs would be removed once the surface
achieved the minimum friction levels. It is likely that the friction values will further increase for
the SMA field trial area due to more traffic, and it is recommended that additional Griptester
runs be completed on a minimum yearly basis as discussed later in section 9.3 in order to
quantify the increase of friction.

8.4 Development of an SMA performance-based specification

A key output possible because of this research was the development of a performance-based
specification that could be used by the airport pavement industry for airports wanting to
employ SMA as the surface course. The development of a performance-based specification
meant that the outputs obtained from the laboratory and field trials of this research would
have real world application in the Australian airport asphalt industry. To avoid recreating
tendering, superintendence and other general contractual requirements, the AAPA airport
(Australian airport DGA) performance-based specification was used as the template for this
specification. DGA requirements were retained and SMA specific requirements and clauses
were added where needed. This approach allows for the user of the specification to select
their preferred surfacing within project particulars without having to complicate contractual
requirements by consulting separate specifications. The performance-based specification in
full is presented in Appendix F. Major changes to the specification include Constituent Material
Properties, Mixture Volumetrics and Target Grading, Mixture performance requirements and
Construction Compliance. The changes are discussed below in reference to the original AAPA
airport performance-based specification.

8.4.1 Constituent Material Properties

Section 5 of the AAPA performance-based specification details constituent material

requirements. Additions and alterations to this section have been made for coarse aggregate,
fine aggregate, added filler and additives.

For coarse aggregate, all requirements have been retained except for alterations to Flakiness
index and LA Value. Due to the importance of stone-on-stone contact for SMA; shape and

99
durability requirements are more stringent. Therefore, maximum Flakiness Index for SMA is
reduced to 20 % (compared to DGA 25 %), and maximum LA Value is defined as 20 %
(compared to DGA 25 %). These changes align with international practice and ensure that
premium coarse aggregates are used for SMA mixtures.

The only alteration for fine aggregate is precluding the use of natural sand. To ensure fine
aggregate with high angularity is employed, the specification stipulates that no natural sand
should be used. Although natural sand has been used in the past for SMA surfaces on airfields,
precluding the use of it all together ensures premium fine aggregates with high angularity are
employed. This also aligns with German SMA practice for heavy duty pavements.

Filler type has a significant influence on the mastic stiffness of SMA; therefore, more
restrictions are placed on this property when compared to DGA. Only two types of filler are
allowed for this mixture – ground limestone, or a blended filler composed of ground limestone
and hydrated lime. Mastic stiffness can influence wheel tracking results, and there is a risk of a
designer stiffening the mixture to satisfy wheel tracking requirements; which in turn could lead
to an unworkable and crack-prone mixture in the field. Therefore, to prevent this, a maximum
limit of hydrated lime content is included (1.5 %), as well as a specified range for combined
filler Rigden voids (28 – 45 %). This range aligns with German practice.

A clause for the allowance of stabilisers to prevent binder drain-off is added to the
specification. This clause only stipulates the use of cellulose fibres that can satisfy binder drain-
off requirements detailed later in mixture design clauses. This clause purposely has minimal
detail, as binder drain-off requirements are kept outcome-focused and not prescriptive-
focused.

8.4.2 Mixture Design

Section 6 of the AAPA performance-based specification details mixture design and consists of
target grading, volumetrics, mixture performance requirements, and bitumen and mastic
performance requirements. The alterations to the specification to include SMA were on target
grading and volumetrics, and mixture performance requirements.

8.4.2.1 Target Grading and Volumetrics

As SMA-C13 was the higher performing specification throughout this research, its target
grading and volumetrics were added to the performance-based specification.

100
A binder drain-off requirement of < 0.15 % by mass is included in additional volumetrics
clauses. Throughout this research two test temperatures have been included: 185 °C to check
for compliance with Australian road practices and 170 °C to check for compliance with typical
international practice for airfields. More appropriate to a specification is to only include one
testing temperature, and that temperature should align with maximum production mixing
temperatures. Therefore, instead of stipulating a single value for temperature, an outcome-
focused ‘< 0.15 % at maximum production mixing temperature’ is stated.

Although the MVR was used throughout this research for mixture design, it has not been
included in the performance-based specification. MVR will indicate theoretical stone-on-stone
contact which indirectly checks the deformation resistance of an SMA mixture. However, the
wheel tracking performance test will more directly measure the deformation resistance
property. As MVR is theoretical, and the wheel tracking has a more tangible output, it was
determined for the purposes of performance, specifying the MVR was redundant.

8.4.2.2 Mixture performance requirements

The requirements for fatigue and indirect TSR for DGA mixtures were retained in the
specification for SMA. In all laboratory assessments these two physical properties were
achieved. However, there were test results that approached the minimum airport limits:
32.6 % compared to maximum 50 % for reduction in initial stiffness for fatigue tests, and 84 %
compared to 80 % for indirect TSR tests. Retaining these tests ensures these performance
requirements are confirmed for each mixture.

Of all performance testing undertaken during the laboratory phase, wheel tracking was proven
to be the most important for SMA design, with multiple mixtures failing this criterion.
Therefore, this test is still included in the performance-based specification. However, two test
parameters have been altered to better predict the performance property: target air voids and
testing temperature. As discussed in section 8.2.1 and Appendix D, average field air voids for
airport SMA is 4 % compared to airport DGA of 5 %. Consequently, the air void requirement for
the wheel tracking slab is defined as 4 % for SMA to better represent field conditions. In the
AAPA performance-based specification, the temperature for wheel tracking is raised from the
test method’s recommendation of 60 °C to 65 °C. The original intent for this change was to
better account for grooving. As the predominate deformation distress witnessed in Australia
was groove closure, which can only be experienced at the top of the asphalt layer, the
temperature was increased to account for the hotter surface, compared to the cooler middle

101
of the asphalt layer. As grooving is not required for SMA, the temperature has been returned
to the standard recommendation of 60 °C for this mixture.

Although this research has undertaken particle loss tests to check for ravelling potential, and
volumetric sand patch tests to check for surface texture, these tests have not been included in
the mixture performance testing of the specification. Particle loss is not included as it was
determined that the Cantabro test does not simulate the oxidation mechanisms that cause
ravelling of an SMA mixture in the field. Texture tests are not included as the laboratory
samples were not necessarily consistent in surface finish. Consequently, for both ravelling
potential and surface texture, retaining the traditional grading and volumetrics of the mixture
will satisfy the check of the performance properties for the time being. However, this should
be revisited when a suitable ravelling potential performance test is developed.

8.4.3 Construction, compliance and acceptance

Section 8, 10, 11 and 12 of the AAPA performance-based specification contains clauses for
Production and Construction Trial, Asphalt Construction, Compliance Testing, and Acceptance
Criteria respectively. Updates to these sections to contain SMA requirements included nominal
layer thicknesses, field air voids and surface texture requirements.

Nominal asphalt layer thickness for construction was defined as 50 – 60 mm. This aligns with
current Australian SMA road practice for size 14 mm mixtures. It is also compliant with
German recommendations for layer thickness versus aggregate size.

Field air voids are defined as 2.0 – 6.0 % at mat, and 2.0 – 9.0 % at joints. This requirement is
denser than the airport DGA field voids requirement; however, it aligns with German and QLD
road practice.

As surface texture is a key performance requirement for SMA to be used as an ungrooved

runway surface, clauses for mean surface texture to be greater or equal to 1 mm are included
in all construction and compliance related sections.

8.5 Cost considerations

Although not directly in the scope of this research, it would be amiss not to mention the cost
considerations of utilising SMA as an ungrooved runway surface.

102
SMA is more expensive to produce than DGA due to increased requirements for filler, binder
and stabilisers. Airport DGA only requires approximately 5 % filler, whereas SMA requires 8 –
12 %. Airport DGA only needs 5.6 % binder, whereas SMA requires approximately 6.4 %. In
addition to the added expenses for stabilisers for SMA, when producing DGA, costs can be
saved due to the inclusion of recycled asphalt pavement (RAP), which typically prohibited for
use in SMA wearing courses.

The advantage of using SMA as evident by this and past research is the increased resistance to
fatigue, increased durability, and therefore increased service life. The Chinese experience
reports an increased service life from five to ten years (Jialiang and Yu, 2000). Work completed
by McGhee and Clark (2008) that predicted asphalt service life by pavement condition surveys
determined that an SMA road surface can have an increased service life of six years when
compared to a similar DGA mixture. Most recently, research conducted by Yin and West (2018)
on multiple SMA road surfaces found a predicted service life of 5 to 8 years more than a
polymer modified DGA – an increase of 32 – 45 %.

Clearly, SMA can present a value for money option if the savings associated with the increased
service life and lack of grooving account for the increased capital cost for production of the
mixture. To check for cost savings in the Australian context, a very simple depreciation exercise
was performed. This exercise includes several assumptions and inputs that were determined
from typical values used in the Australian airport paving industry as below:

• Grooved DGA typically cost 500 AUD/tonne, or 75 AUD/m2

• Extra production costs for SMA are due to:
o Increased binder: add 10 – 15 AUD/tonne
o Increased filler: add 10 – 15 AUD/tonne
o Stabilisers: add 10 – 15 AUD/tonne
• Converting to area, extra production costs for SMA are approximately 5 – 9 AUD/m2
• The cost of grooving a is 8 AUD/m2
• The expected life of a DGA overlay in regional Australia is 11 years (White, 2018a)
• Maintenance costs will be minimal compared to capital costs and are not included
• Paving costs are assumed to be similar for DGA and SMA wearing courses
• Runway overlay dimensions are 2 km long x 40 m wide x 60 mm depth

Table 41 gives the expected depreciation of DGA over eleven years and compares it to an
ungrooved SMA overlay with a low, medium and high cost range, based on extra production

103
costs of 5 – 9 AUD/m2, and ungrooved surface savings of 8 AUD/m2. That is, a difference in
capital cost of -3 to +1 AUD/m2. Depreciation costs for the minimum and maximum expected
service life extensions as determined by Yin and West (2018) are included, as are
corresponding yearly savings when compared to the annual depreciation cost of 11-year-
service life DGA.

Table 41 - Depreciation analysis of grooved DGA versus extended life ungrooved SMA

Costs Grooved SMA SMA SMA

DGA (low-range) (mid-range) (high-range)
Capital $6.00 mil $5.72 mil $5.84 mil $6.08 mil

Depreciation cost per year: $545,000 $520,000 $531,000 $552,000

11 year service life (saving $25k) (saving $14k) (saving $-7k)

Depreciation cost per year: - $358,000 365,000 $380,000

11 (+5) year service life (saving $187k) (saving $180k) (saving $165k)

Depreciation cost per year: - $301,000 $307,000 $320,000

11 (+8) year service life (saving $244k) (saving $238k) (saving $225k)

Clearly, this cost-benefit exercise has shown that even without an extended service life,
ungrooved SMA is likely to be a more affordable option than grooved DGA. Furthermore, if the
SMA production cost is in the low-range, and the extended service life achieves the full extra
eight years, depreciation savings of approximately 244,000 AUD/year are possible.

Like all models, the depreciation analysis presented here has limitations, as it is based on a
restricted amount of inputs, and several assumptions. For any new runway overlay project it is
important to undertake a proper cost-benefit analysis to determine if SMA will be the most
cost-effective surfacing solution for the location and specifics of each particular airfield works.
Yin and West (2018) also proposed the same approach, as their work found no consistent
conclusion for comparing the cost effectiveness for SMA versus a conventional DGA mixture.
However, their research only focused on the analysis of roads, and therefore did not have to
consider the significant extra cost of grooving for DGA runways.

8.6 Evaluation of surface texture measuring methods

Of note in this research is the comparison of the surface texture measuring techniques
employed. The ELAtextur has not been validated against the sand patch method in the
Australian context for flexible pavements, and this research may provide a unique opportunity

104
to commence that validation. Appendix G details all surface texture data obtained during this
research. In addition to this data, several measurements from an SMA road that was
constructed using a QLD SMA-14 specification are included.

To validate the ELAtextur, the relationship between three values introduced in section 4.4.3
must be analysed and discussed. These values are:

• MPD: the two-dimensional texture depth obtained from the laser meter
• ETD: the estimated three-dimensional texture depth calculated from MPD using the
linear ISO transformation as in equation 2
• MTD: the three-dimensional ‘ground truth’ measurement obtained using the
volumetric sand patch method.

To validate the ELAtextur, two simple techniques were undertaken. The first was to compare
ETD and MTD to determine the absolute error of all readings. The second was to plot MPD
versus the ‘ground truth’ MTD to determine if there is a linear relationship in line with the ISO
transformation equation, and if so, how accurate this relationship is. If the ISO transformation
is accurate, ETD obtained from a laser reading should equal MTD for the exact same surface
location.

Firstly, comparing ETD to MTD with the 30 data points presented in Appendix G gives an
absolute error of 0.16 mm. This is for the full data set, with MPD values ranging from 0.7 –
2.34 mm. Figure 42 shows the plot of MPD versus MTD, including the expected linear
relationship given by the ISO transformation equation for MPD to ETD. What becomes clear is
that the relationship is not necessarily linear when the values for MPD are larger than 2 mm,
instead, a polynomial equation gives a better fit. This aligns with the errors between ETD and
MTD obtained from this research’s measurements. With larger texture depths, the difference
between ETD and MTD typically became larger.

105
 2.5

2
Sand Patch MTD (mm)

1.5 ISO Transformation

y = 0.5587x + 0.4941 y= -0.4289x2 + 1.822x - 0.366 Data
1 R² = 0.6022 R² = 0.6941
Poly. (Data)
Linear (Data)
0.5

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Laser MPD (mm)

Figure 42 - MPD versus MTD for full data set

Noting that the absolute error typically increases between MTD and ETD when approaching
larger texture depths, the three largest values (greater or equal to 1.9 mm) were removed and
the data set was replotted, this time in the MPD range of 0.7 – 1.78mm as in Figure 43. The
line of best fit for this data almost exactly matches the ISO transformation, additionally the
absolute error of the data set drops to 0.12 mm. This demonstrates that the ISO
transformation equation correlates well to convert MPD to ETD, but potentially only for a
limited range (approximately up to 1.8 mm.) Further research is recommended to validate the
equipment using larger data sets, more detailed statistical analysis and for texture depths
greater or equal to 1. 8 mm.

2.5

2
Sand Patch MTD (mm)

ISO Transformation
1.5
y = 0.8107x + 0.1971
R² = 0.7122 Data

1
Linear (Data)

0.5

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Laser MPD (mm)

Figure 43 - MPD versus MTD for data set below 1.8 mm

106
8.7 Summary

This chapter provided discussion and analysis of results from the laboratory and field phases of
this research. This analysis lead to the development of a performance-based specification for
SMA as an ungrooved runway surface which was also presented. Finally, cost considerations
and evaluation of surface texture measuring methods were briefly discussed.

The laboratory phase of this research showed that in terms of fracture resistance and
durability, SMA achieved the minimum performance requirements in line the AAPA airport
performance-based specification. Surface texture measurements satisfied the regulatory 1 mm
requirement; however, due to the lack of surface homogeneity of the samples it was
determined that laboratory surface texture may not be representative of field surface texture.
Deformation resistance requirements were not achieved at testing parameters of 65 °C and
5 % air voids. However; it was determined that those testing parameters were not suitable for
SMA tests as it is an ungrooved surface and a denser mixture and should have been tested at
60 °C and 4 % air voids. Consequently, any further testing using wheel tracking methods should
be undertaken at the revised parameters to ensure a fairer comparison against performance
requirements.

There were three main findings from the field phase: compliant wheel tracking results,
compliant surface texture results and marginal surface friction. Results from wheel tracking
tests on samples created at production using the revised temperature and density parameters
were compliant with the airport performance requirements. This demonstrated that SMA can
achieve suitable deformation resistance when field conditions are replicated in the laboratory.
Surface texture results demonstrated full compliance with CASA surface texture requirements,
consequently deeming the material as a suitable ungrooved runway surface from a regulatory
skid resistance perspective. Surface friction testing did not meet the minimum regulatory
requirement for 65 km/h Griptester runs; however, the friction increased in 23 days to suitable
levels. The initial marginal result was likely due to the film of binder on top of the pavement
surface smoothing out the micro-texture of individual aggregates. Friction increases over time
for SMA surfaces due to the impact of traffic and weathering removing the excessive surface
binder. This initial result does not deem SMA unsuitable as an ungrooved runway surface,
instead it highlights that administrative procedures such as NOTAMs may have to be enacted
until the binder film wears down – this is typically the same approach for new DGA surfaces
before they are grooved.

107
A draft performance-based specification was developed using results from the laboratory and
field phases of this research. The original AAPA DGA performance-based specification was
used as the template, with extra clauses added for SMA specific requirements. The main
changes included:

• update of SMA specific constituent material properties

• addition of volumetrics and target aggregate grading for SMA
• update of testing parameters for deformation resistance testing of SMA
• extra clauses for construction compliance in terms of surface texture.

A simple depreciation exercise was performed to understand if ungrooved SMA would be

cheaper or more expensive than grooved DGA in terms of life-cycle cost. It was determined
that capital costs for ungrooved SMA were likely to be cheaper than that of grooved DGA.
Using expected increased service life values obtained from recent research, it was shown that
in the best-case scenario, depreciation savings when using SMA could be in the order of
240,000 AUD/year.

Finally, evaluation of two surface texture methods used throughout this research was
undertaken. Laser methods were compared to traditional volumetric methods and good
correlation was found for the two procedures when testing surface texture between 0.7 –
1.8 mm, with an absolute error of 0.12 mm. Further research is recommended to be
undertaken to determine the relationship between MPD and MTD outside of this range.

108
9 Conclusions and Recommendations

9.1 Introduction

Conclusions and recommendations from this research are presented in this chapter. The
research aim is discussed, and each individual research question is answered to validate if SMA
is suitable as an ungrooved runway surface for Australian airports. Recommendations for
industry and further research are then presented before limitations and other observations of
this research are made known.

9.2 Conclusions

The original research aim was to determine if ungrooved SMA is suitable as an alternate
runway surface to grooved DGA for Australian airports. Five research questions were posed,
and the conduct of this project led to all research questions answered. In terms of
performance and regulatory requirements, this research has validated SMA as a suitable
ungrooved runway surface for Australian airports. The below sections detail the individual
responses to each research question.

9.2.1 Laboratory performance requirements

RQ1: Can SMA achieve the same performance criteria as the Australian airport DGA
specification?

Results from the laboratory performance phase of this research answered RQ1. In terms of
durability and fracture resistance, SMA can achieve the performance criteria. In terms of
deformation resistance, SMA can achieve this performance criterion but only after returning
wheel tracking test protocol for temperature to the standard condition to ensure a fairer
comparison of grooved DGA to ungrooved SMA. This was evident with wheel tracking
production results from the field phase demonstrating a compliant rut depth when retesting at
60 °C.

9.2.2 Different aggregate sources

RQ2: Can this performance criteria be achieved using a variety of Australian aggregate source?

As for RQ1, this RQ was answered using data and analysis of the laboratory phase of this
research. The laboratory phase demonstrated that performance criteria was achieved with a

109
variety of aggregate sources. It is imperative however, that as with any airfield surfacing
project, premium aggregates that satisfy minimum constituent material properties are
employed, and that regardless of constituent material properties, all asphalt performance-
based testing is still undertaken.

9.2.3 Minimum surface texture requirements

RQ3: Can SMA achieve the minimum 1 mm surface texture as specified by CASA?

Results from the laboratory and field phase of the research concluded that the minimum
surface texture of 1 mm is achieved when using SMA. However, this was only achieved when
using a larger size aggregate (SMA-C13 equivalent to Australian size 14 mm SMA mixtures.)
Previous literature and laboratory results from SMA-G11S samples indicated that smaller sized
mixtures (10 – 11 mm) were marginal in satisfying the regulatory surface texture requirement.
Therefore, Australian airport SMA should be constructed using size 14 mm mixtures.

9.2.4 Minimum field friction requirements

RQ4: Are the initial field friction characteristics suitable for aircraft operations?

The initial field friction results taken two days after placement satisfied CASA compliance for
macrotexture passes (95km/h) but were marginal for micro-texture passes (65km/h). The
friction characteristics improved with time, and measurements within approximately three
weeks after asphalt placement demonstrated that CASA minimum friction levels for both test
speeds were exceeded. Therefore, SMA friction characteristics are suitable; however, NOTAMs
would have to be issued for the first month of operations as an administrative control to
advise of low friction until the surface binder film wears down through traffic and weathering.

9.2.5 Laboratory versus field surface texture comparison

RQ5: Are the surface texture field conditions comparable to those produced in laboratory
samples?

Visual comparison of laboratory samples used for surface texture testing demonstrated a very
non-homogenous finish when compared to field conditions. Therefore, slabs used for wheel
tracking are not representative of field conditions in terms of surface texture. Although it may
be useful to use laboratory samples to rank mixtures for surface texture, it is more appropriate

110
to rely on traditional aggregate grading to satisfy field surface texture regulatory requirements
for an individual specification.

9.3 Recommendations and future work

This research identified a number of recommendations for both industry and further research.

9.3.1 Recommendations to industry

This research has provided validation of SMA as an ungrooved runway surface. However, for it
to be implemented, there must be a mechanism, and that mechanism is the draft
performance-based specification for SMA for Australian airports (Appendix F). It is
recommended that through AAPA, the specification is finalised in collaboration with the
pavement industry.

9.3.2 Recommendations for future research

It is recommended that the SMA field trial be further monitored to validate its long-term
performance. Key areas that must be observed are: surface friction, surface texture, and
recording of any future distresses. It is expected that after this research, as a minimum,
surface texture and surface friction recordings will be performed on a yearly basis.

It is also recommended that a laboratory ravelling resistance test be developed to objectively

assess this performance property. The Cantabro test was deemed unsuitable to assess
ravelling potential due to not accounting for oxidisation and ageing of binder. Consequently,
development of a laboratory ravelling resistance test will further improve performance-based
design and limit the reliance on traditional aggregate gradation and volumetrics to determine
acceptable asphalt durability.

9.4 Limitations

There were three major limitations to this study:

• no long-term monitoring of the SMA field trial

• no design optimisation of SMA mixtures
• only one PMB being analysed.

111
The first limitation was due to the restricted time available to conduct this research. Although
long-term monitoring of the field trial was not undertaken, the performance of this trial area
will be monitored over time and findings are likely to be reported. This has been discussed
above in recommendations for future research.

The second limitation was no optimisation of mixture designs. Performance-based mixture

design is a two-level process. Level one is to design to prescriptive volumetrics and aggregate
gradation and level two is to confirm performance through performance-indicative testing. If
level two fails, level one is repeated through adjusting mixture prescriptive properties. Due to
the restricted timeline of this research, level one could not be repeated if any mixtures failed
performance-indicative testing. As all laboratory mixtures failed level two testing for wheel
tracking at 65 °C and 5 % air voids, ideally level one would have been repeated. However,
adjusting temperature and air voids for the Amph-Gr mixture showed that wheel tracking was
satisfied when using more appropriate parameters that represent field conditions. It is
expected that the Amphibolite, Basalt and Latite mixtures may also produce compliant rut
depths with change in temperature to standard conditions.

The final limitation was only using one PMB. Proprietary PMBs that have been developed for
improved airport asphalt performance are the typical binder choice for runway overlay works.
However, proprietary PMBs were not made available for this research and instead a standard
PMB A15E was used in lieu. It is likely that wheel tracking results would have improved if a
highly modified and plastomeric proprietary PMB was used. Nevertheless, as with the second
limitation of this study, adjusting wheel tracking parameters still allowed for SMA to be
validated in the Australian airport context even with a standard PMB.

9.5 Other observations

Two observations not core to the research aim, were made during the conduct of laboratory
and field testing. Both observations are important in their own right and are mentioned below.

9.5.1 Comparison of laser and volumetric surface texture methods

Throughout this research, surface texture recordings had been performed using the ELAtext
laser texture meter and the traditional volumetric sand patch test. The laser meter was
originally employed to use in case the laboratory samples were too small for the sand patch
test. This research showed good correlation between the two methods within the texture
range of approximately 0.7 – 1.8 mm, with a mean absolute error of 0.12 mm. The laser

112
recordings are a much quicker and simpler method compared to the sand patch test and may
be the preferred method for industry when working on active runways where reducing vacate
times is important. However, it is recommended that further research be conducted to
determine the relationship between MPD and MTD outside of the 0.7 – 1.8 mm range.

9.5.2 Revision of wheel tracking protocols for non-DGA mixtures

A final key observation of this research was the potential to revise common protocols for
wheel tracking tests in Australian pavement industry. This includes specifying spreader devices
as mandatory to minimise the degree of segregation of a sample. Most importantly though,
each individual standard should specify test parameters of air voids and temperature to ensure
that expected field conditions are simulated. Relying on recommended values in standard test
methods may be too broad and only applicable to a certain mixture type, therefore not
allowing for a fair ranking or proof of a mixture’s deformation resistance characteristic.

113
10 References

AAA 2017. Airport Practice Note 12 - Airfield Pavement Essentials, Australia, Australian Airports
Association.

AAPA 2018. Performance-based Airport Asphalt Model Specification - Version 1.0. Australian
Asphalt Pavement Association - National Technology & Leadership Committee.

AHAMMED, M. & TIGHE, S. 2011. Asphalt pavements surface texture and skid resistance -
Exploring the reality. Canadian Journal of Civil engineering, 39, 1-9.

ASTB 2008. Runway excursions - Part 1: A worldwide review of commercial jet aircraft runway
excursions. Canberra, ACT: Australian Transport Safety Bureau.

AUSTROADS 2005a. AG:PT/T220 Sample Preparation - Compaction of asphalt slabs suitable for
characterisation. Sydney, Australia: Austroads.

AUSTROADS 2005b. AG:PT/T236 - Asphalt Particle Loss. Sydney, Australia: Austroads.

AUSTROADS 2006a. AG:PT/T231 - Deformation resistance of asphalt mixtures by the wheel

tracking test. Sydney, Australia: Austroads.

AUSTROADS 2006b. AG:PT/T235 - Asphalt Binder Drain-off. Austroads.

AUSTROADS 2006c. AP-T58/06 - Wheel tracking temperature sensitivity and repeatability

investigation. Sydney, Australia: Austroads.

AUSTROADS 2008. AG:PT/T250 - Modified surface texture depth (Pestle method). Sydney,
Australia: Austroads.

AUSTROADS 2011. AP-T191-11 - Uncertainty of Measurement Estimates for Austroads Asphalt

Test Methods. Sydney, Australia: Austroads.

AUSTROADS 2013a. AP-T219-13 -Mastic Performance Assessment in Stone Mastic Asphalt

Sydney, Australia, Austroads.

AUSTROADS 2013b. AP-T235-13 - Guide to the Selection and use of Polymer Modified Binders
and Multigrade Bitumens. Sydney Australia: Austroads.

AUSTROADS 2014. Austroads Guide to Pavement Technology Part 4B: Asphalt, Sydney
Australia, Austroads.

AUSTROADS 2016. AGPT/T274 - Characterisation of Flexural Stiffness and Fatigue Performance

of Bituminous Mixes. Austroads.

AUSTROADS 2019. AGPT/T190 - Specification Framework for Polymer Modified Binders.

Sydney, Australia: Austroads.

BASTOW, R., WEBB, M., ROY, M. & MITCHELL, J. 2005. An investigation of the skid resistance of
stone mastic asphalt laid on a rural English county road network. International Surface
Friction Conference: roads and runways: improving safety through assessment and
design. Christchurch, New Zealand.

114
BEER, F., DRUSCHNER, L., HASE, M., PLATZEK, W., RADENBERG, M., RAJEWSKI, G., RIEKERT, J. &
SCHMIDT, A. 2012. Asphalt auf Flugbetriebsflächen (Translation: Asphalt on airport
surfaces). Bonn, Germany: German Asphalt Association, Deutscher Asphaltverband.

BLAZEJOWSKI, K. 2011. Stone Mastic Asphalt Theory and Practice, Florida, CRC Press.

BROWN, E. R. 1992. Experience with stone matrix asphalt in the United States. Auburn,
Alabama: National Center for Asphalt Technology.

BROWN, E. R., HADDOCK, J. E., MALLICK, R. B. & LYNN, T. A. 1997a. Development of a mixture
design procedure for stone matrix asphalt. Alabama, United States: National Center for
Asphalt Technology.

BROWN, E. R., MALLICK, R., HADDOCK, J. & BUKOWSKI, J. 1997b. Performance of stone matrix
asphalt (SMA) mixtures in the United States. Auburn, Alabama: National Center for
Asphalt Technology.

BSI 2000. BS 7941-2:2000 : Methods for measuring the skid resistance of pavement surfaces.
Test method for measurement of surface skid resistance using the Grip Tester braked
wheel fixed slip device. British Standards Institution.

CACC 2016. Practice on Asphalt Overlay in China. ICAO 4th Aerodromes Operations and
Planning Working Group. Bangkok, Thailand: China Airport Construction Group
Corporation.

CAMPBELL, C. 1999. The use of stone mastic asphalt on aircraft pavements. Submitted in
fulfillment of the requirements for SEN713 Research/Professional Practice Projects.
School of Engineerng and Technology, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria.

CASA 2017. Manual of Standards Part 139 - Aerodromes. Australian Civil Aviation Safety
Authority.

CASTELL, M. A., INGRAFFEA, A. R. & IRWIN, L. H. 2000. Fatigue growth in pavements. Journal of
Transportation Engineering, 126, 283-290.

CCAA. 2014. Tech Note 71 - Coarse asphalt aggregate - The requirements of AS2758.5 - 2009
[Online]. Cement Concrete & Aggregates Australia. Available:
https://www.ccaa.com.au/imis_prod/documents/Library%20Documents/Tech%20Not
e%2071%20Course%20Asphalt%20LR.pdf [Accessed 26 Sep 2018].

CHRISTENSEN, D. W., JR. 2013. Review of recent research on using gyratory compaction to
design hot mix asphalt for airfield pavements. Washing, DC: Federal Aviation
Administration.

COLLOP, A. C. & ROQUE, R. 2004. Report on the Prediction of Surface-Initiated Longitudinal

Wheel Path Cracking in Asphalt Pavements. Road Materials and Pavement Design, 5,
409-434.

COOLEY JR., L. A., KANDHAL, P. S., BUCHANAN, M. S., FEE, F. & EPPS, A. 2000. Loaded wheel
testers in the United States: State of the practice. Auburn, US: National Center for
Asphalt Technology.

115
DEFENCE, D. O. 2015. Airfield Pavement Maintenance Manual. Canberra, Australia: Australian
Government, Department of Defence, Defence Support and Reform Group.

DGAC 2009. Guide d’application des normes 2e édition - Enrobés hydrocarbonés et enduits
superficiels pour chaussées aéronautiques. French Civil Aviation Authority -
Département Infrastructures Aéroportuaires

DOD 2017. Stone Mastic Asphalt for Airfield Pavements Specification, UFGS 32 13 17. . USA
Whole Building Design Guide.

DPTI 2016. Road Surface Friction (Skid Resistance & Pavement texture) Recommended
investigatory levels - Tech Note 24. South Australia: Department of Planning, Transport
and Infrastructure.

DRUSCHNER, L. & SCHAFER, V. 2005. Stone Mastic Asphalt. Bonn, Germany: German Asphalt
Association, Deutscher Asphaltverband.

EAPA 1998. Heavy duty surfaces. The arguments for SMA., Breukelen, The Netherlands,
European Asphalt Pavement Association.

FAA 1997. US FAA AC 150/5320-12C - Measurement, Construction, and Maintenance of Skid

Resistant Airport Pavement Surfaces. Federal Aviation Administration.

FISCO, N. & SEZEN, H. 2013. Comparison of surface macrotexture measurement methods.

Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 19, S153-S160.

FLINTSCH, G. W., DE LEÓN, E., MCGHEE, K. K. & AL-QADI, I. L. 2003. Pavement Surface
Macrotexture Measurement and Applications. Transportation Research Record.

GORKEM, C. & SENGOZ, B. 2009. Predicting stripping and moisture induced damage of asphalt
concrete prepared with polymer modified bitumen and hydrated lime. Construction
and Building Materials, 23, 2227-2236.

GUOBIAO-STANDARDS 2004. JTG F40-2004 Technical Specifications for Construcion of Highway

Apshalt Pavements. Standaridization Administration of China.

HAFEEZ, I., KAMAL, M. A. & MIRZA, M. W. 2015. An experimental study to select aggregate
gradation for stone mastic asphalt. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, 38, 1-
8.

HAKIM, B., WIDYATMOKO, I., FERGUSSON, C. & RICHARDSON, J. 2014. UK airfield pavement
design using French asphalts. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers -
Transport, 167, 27-35.

HANSON, D. I. & PROWELL, B. D. 2004. Evaluation of Circular Texture Meter for measuring
surface texture of pavements. Auburn, Alabama: National Center for Asphalt
Technology.

HORNE, W. B., YAGER, T. J. & TAYLOR, G. R. 1968. Review of causes and alleviation of low tire
traction on wet runways. Langley Research Center: National Aeronautics and Space
Administration.

116
ICAO 2002. Airport Services Manual - Part 2 - Pavement Surface Conditions. International Civil
Aviation Organization.

ICAO 2016. International Standards and Recommended Practices. Aerodromes. Annex 14

Volume 1. International Civil Aviation Organization.

ISO 2004. ISO 13473-1 Characterization of pavement texture by use of surface profiles - Part 1:
Determination of mean profile depth. International Organization for Standardization.

JACOBSEN, Y. 2015. Norwegian record at Oslo Airport. NYNAS News [Online]. Available:
https://www.nynas.com/en/media/newslist/norwegian-record-at-oslo-airport/.

JIALIANG, W. & YU, J. 2000. Stone Mastic Asphalt - Pavement Technology for the Modern
China. 2nd Asia Pacific Conference & Exhibitionn on Transportation and Environment.
Beijing, China.

JIMÉNEZ, F. P., RECASENS, R. M. & MARTÍNEZ, A. 2008. Effect of Filler Nature and Content on
the Behaviour of Bituminous Mastics. Road Materials and Pavement Design, 9, 417-
431.

JOUBERT, P. B., GOUNDER, L. & VAN WYK, S. 2004. Experimental asphalt sections in the
runway touch down zone on Johannesburg International Airport. 8th Conference on
Asphalt Pavements for Southern Africa. Sun City, South Africa.

KANDHAL, P. S. & COOLEY JR., L. A. 2002. Evaluation of permanent deformation of asphalt

mixtures using loaded wheel tester. Auburn, United States: National Centre for Asphalt
Technology.

LUFTFARTSILSYNET. 2006. Regulations on the design of major airports (BSL E 3-2) [Online].
Available: https://lovdata.no/dokument/SF/forskrift/2006-07-06-968#KAPITTEL_19
[Accessed 28 July 2018].

MCGHEE, K. K. & CLARK, T. M. 2008. Cost-Comparison Methodology for Selecting Appropriate

Asphalt Concrete Mixes. Transportation Research Record, 2057.

MOD, U. 2009. Stone Mastic Asphalt for Airfields. Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands, United
Kingdom: Defence Estates, Ministry of Defence (United Kingdom).

MRWA 2010. Initial Skid Resistance of Stone Mastic Asphalt - Doc No. 71/06/1359. Materials
Engineering Branch, Main Roads Western Australia.

MRWA 2017. Stone Mastic Asphalt, Specification 502. Government of WA, Main Roads
Western Australia.

PATTERSON, J., JR 2012. Evaluation of Trapezoidal-Shaped Runway Grooves. Virginia, United

States: Federal Aviation Administration.

PATZAK, T., HASE, M., ROOS, R. & WÖRNER, T. 2016. Friction of different surface courses. 6th
Eurasphalt & Eurabitume Congress. Prague, Czech Republic.

PRATICÒ, F. G. & VAIANA, R. 2015. A study on the relationship between mean texture depth
and mean profile depth of asphalt pavements. Construction and Building Materials,
101, 72-79.

117
PROWELL, B. D., WATSON, D. E., HURLEY, G. C. & BROWN, E. R. 2009. Evaluation of Stone
Matrix Asphalt (SMA) for airfield pavements. Auburn, Alabama: National Center for
Asphalt Technology.

QIU, Y. F. & LUM, K. M. 2006. Design and performance of stone mastic asphalt. Journal of
Transportation Engineering, 132, 956-963.

RAAF. 2018. Air Force -Technology - Aircraft [Online]. Canberra, Australia: Royal Australian Air
Force. Available: https://www.airforce.gov.au/technology/aircraft [Accessed 25 Sep
2018].

REBBECHI, J. 2000. Stone mastic asphalt design & application guide. Implementation guide no.
4, Australia, Australian Asphalt pavement Association.

REBBECHI, J., MACCARRONE, S. & KY, A. 1997. Evaluation of stone mastic asphalt performance.
10th AAPA International Flexible Pavements Conference. Perth, Western Australia.

REBBECHI, J., MANGAN, D., NICOLLS M & J, B. 2003. Stone Mastic Asphalt - A Decade of
Australian Experience. 21st ARRB Transport Research Conference. Cairns, Queensland,
Australia.

RODWAY, B. 2016. Flexible aircraft pavement surfacing - Australian practice. Eighth

International Conference on Maintenance and Rehabilitation of Pavements. Singapore.

SAI 2009. AS 2758.5-2009 Aggregates and rock for engineering purposes Part 5: Coarse asphalt
aggregates. Sydney NSW: Standards Australia.

SAI 2014. AS/NZS 2891.2.2:2014 : Methods of sampling and testing asphalt - Sample
preparation - Compaction of asphalt test specimens using a gyratory compactor.
Sydney, NSW: Standards Australia.

SHOENBERGER, J. E., GODWIN, L. N., GILBERT, P. A. & LYNCH, L. N. 1997. Technical Report GL-
97-18 - Evaluation of Stone Matrix Asphalt. Waterways Experiment Station,
Mississippi, US: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

SOUSA, J. B., SOLAIMANIAN, M. & WEISSMAN, S. L. 1994. Development and use of the
repeated shear test (constant height): an optional superpave mix design tool.
Washington DC: Strategic Highway Research Program, National Research Council.

TERREL, R. L. & SHUTE, J. W. 1989. Summary Report on Water Sensitivity. Washington DC,
United States: Strategic Highway Research Program.

TMR 2017a. Asphalt pavements, MRTS 30. QLD Government, Transport and Main Roads.

TMR 2017b. MRTS101 Aggregates for Asphalt. QLD Government, Transport and Main Roads.

TMR 2017c. MRTS103 Fillers for Asphalt. QLD Government, Transport and Main Roads.

TRMS 2013. Stone Mastic Asphalt, Specification R121. NSW Government, Transport, Road &
Maritime Services.

TRMS 2015. QA specification 3152 Aggregates for Asphalt. NSW Government, Transport, Road &
Maritime Services.

118
TRMS 2018. QA specification 3211 Cements, binders and fillers. NSW Government, Transport,
Road & Maritime Services.

VICROADS 2012. Stone Mastic Asphalt, Section 404. Victorian Government VicRoads.

VOS, R., MANGAN, D. & PASHULA, C. 2006. Australian application of international

developments in Stone Mastic Asphalt (SMA). 22nd ARRB Conference - Research into
Practice. Canberra Australia.

WAN, C. G., WANG, Q. T., MA, B. F. & ZHANG, Y. 2014. Influence of fiber type on road
performance of stone mastic asphalt. Advanced Materials Research.

WANG, H., LI, M. & GARG, N. 2017. Investigation of shear failure in airport asphalt pavements
under aircraft ground manoeuvring. Road Materials and Pavement Design, 18, 1288-
1303.

WHITE, G. 2013. Developing Warm Mix Asphalt for Airports. 15th AAPA International Flexible
Pavements Conference. Brisbane, Queensland, Australia: Australian Asphalt Pavement
Association.

WHITE, G. 2014. New Airport Pavement Technologies from the USA. Australian Airports
Association National Conference. Gold Coast, Australia.

WHITE, G. 2016. Changes in Australian paving-grade bitumen: are they real and what should
Australia do about it? 27th ARRB Conference. Melbourne, Victoria.

WHITE, G. 2017a. Binder for Airport Asphalt Surfacing. 17th AAPA International Flexible
Pavements Conference. Melbourne, Australia.

WHITE, G. 2017b. Developing a Performance Specification for Airport Asphalt. 17th AAPA
International Flexible Pavements Conference. Melbourne, Australia.

WHITE, G. 2017c. Managing skid resistance and friction on asphalt runway surfaces. World
Conference on Pavement and Asset Management. Milan, Italy.

WHITE, G. 2017d. Towards a Performance-Based Airport Asphalt Specification. International

Conference on Highway Pavements and Airfield Technology Pennsylvania.

WHITE, G. 2018a. Regional airport pavement challenges and innovations. IPWEA - Queensland
National Conference. Gold Coast, Queensland Australia: Institue of Public Works
Engineering Australasia.

WHITE, G. 2018b. State of the art: Asphalt for airport pavement surfacing. International
Journal of Pavement Research and Technology, 11, 77-98.

WHITE, G. & RODWAY, B. 2014. Distress and Maintenance of Grooved Runway Surfaces.
Airfield Engineering and Maintenance Summit. Singapore.

WHITE, T. D. 1985. Marshall procedures for design and quality control of asphalt mixtures.
Asphalt Pavement Technology, 54, 265-285.

WIDYATMOKO, I., FERGUSSON, C., CANT, S., GORDON, J. & WOOD, J. 2012. French Airfield
Asphalt Concrete at Manchester Airport. Asphalt Professional, 18-23.

119
WIDYATMOKO, I., HAKIM, B., FERGUSSON, C. & RICHARDSON, J. 2008. The Use of French
Airfield Asphalt Concrete in the UK. European Road Review 13, Special Issue on Airfield
pavements.

XIN, S. 2009. Application of SMA in Chinese Airports China Airport Construction Group
Coporation.

XIN, S. 2015. Research and practice on asphalt overlay in China. ICAO Regional Workhop on
Airport Pavements-Design & Evaluation. Macao, China.

YIN, F. & WEST, R. 2018. Performance and Life-Cycle Cost Benefits of Stone Matrix Asphalt. 1st
International Conference on Stone Matrix Asphalt. Atlanta, Georgia, USA: National
Asphalt Pavement Association.

120
APPENDIX A
Constituent Materials Summary

This appendix summarises constituent material properties from relevant SMA specifications in terms
of coarse aggregate, fine aggregate and filler properties.

A-1
COARSE AGGREGATE PROPERTIES
Australian German SMA Chinese SMA
Dimension Properties Test Methods NSW SMA QLD SMA
Airport DGA 11S 13
Flakiness Index AS 1141.15 ≤ 25% (nominal ≤ 20% - - ≤ 20%
EN 933-3 10mm and
Q203 larger fractions)
Fractured Faces RMS T239 - 100 - > 85% at least 2 > 85% at least 2
EN 933-5 fractured faces fractured faces
> 100% at least 1 > 100% at least 1
fractured face fractured face
SHAPE

Shape Index EN 933-4 - ≤ 20% - - -

Polished Stone Value / Polished Aggregate Friction AS 1141.41 - ≥ 51% - ≥ 48% ≥ 48%
Value AS 1141.42
EN 1097-8
Soundness (using sodium sulphate) AS 1141.24 ≤ 3% - - -
Flat and Elongated Particles AS 1114.14 - - ≤ 12 % (3:1) ≤ 25 % (2:1) -
≤ 10 % (3:1)
Ratio of greatest to least dimension of aggregate RMS T278 - - - ≤ 2.1 -
fractions <10mm nominal size
Wet Strength AS 1141.22 ≥ 150kN - - ≥ 150kN ≥ 150kN
RMS T215
Strength &
Durability

Wet / Dry strength variation AS1141.22 ≤ 30% - - ≤ 35% ≤ 35%

Los Angeles Value AS 1141.23, B ≤ 25% ≤ 20% ≤ 30% - -
or K Grading
EN 933-5
Resistance to fragmentation (German EN 1097-2 - ≤ 18% - - -
Schlagzertrummerungswert) Impact shattering value Clause 5
Material finer than 0.075mm in aggregate AS1141.12 ≤ 2.0% for ≤ 2.0% - Report Report
EN 933-1 ≥ 10mm agg
Contaminants

≤ 3.0% for
≥ 7mm agg
Secondary Mineral Content AS 1141.26 ≤ 20% (basic - - - -
rock types only)
Friable particles AS 1141.32 ≤ 0.2% - - - -
Coarse lightweight contaminators EN1744-1 p.1.2 - ≤ 0.1% - - -
AS 1141.31
Particle Density AS 1141.6.1 ≥ 2300kg/m3 - - Report Report
Other Water Absorption AS 1141.6.1 ≤ 2.0% ≤ 0.5% - ≤ 2.5% ≤ 2.5%
EN 1097-9

A-2
FINE AGGREGATE PROPERTIES
Australian German SMA Chinese SMA
Dimension Properties Test Methods NSW SMA QLD SMA
Airport DGA 11S 13
Water Absorption AS 1141.5 Crushed Agg ≤ - - BOS Steel Quartz sands ≤
2.5% Furnace ≤ 4.0% 1.5%
Uncrushed Agg ≤ Quartz sands ≤ All other
Fine Aggregate

2.0% 1.5% aggregate ≤

specifics

All other 3.0%

aggregate ≤3.0%
Soundness (using sodium sulphate) A 1141.24 ≤ 3.0% - - - ≤ 12%
Plasiticity Index AS 1289.3.3.1 non-plastic <4 -
Angularity (flow Coefficient) EN 933-6 - 35 seconds - - -
Angularity (AASHTO Method) AASHTO T304- - Note: No natural - ≥ 43% Note: natural
96 Method A sand to be used sand to be
minimised

A-3
FILLER PROPERTIES
Australian Airport
Dimension Properties Test Methods German SMA 11S Chinese SMA 13 NSW SMA QLD SMA
DGA
Make up AS2150 Mineral material, dry Calcium carbonate Not specified, but Mineral Material, dry Mineral Material, dry
and free from lumps, commonly use ground and free from lumps, and free from lumps,
organic material or limestone. organic material or organic material or
other deleterious other deleterious other deleterious
matter. matter. matter.
Can also be fly ash and
hydrated lime.
Ground limestone EN 196-21 >70 % >75% by mass of >75% by mass of
Calcium carbonate CaCO3. CaCO3.
content If less than 80%, clay If less than 80%, total
content as determined organic carbon content
Composition

by the methylene blue determined in IAW EN

test must be < 1.2% 13639 must be < 0.50%
and total organic by mass.
carbon content SMA must contain, by
determined in IAW EN mass of total
13639 must be < 0.50% aggregate, not less
by mass. than 1.0% hydrated
The amount of lime if the combined
hydrated lime in SMA filler (excluding
must not be less than hydrated lime) has a
1.5%, by mass of total methylene blue value >
aggregate. 10mg/g and ≤ 18mg/g
Water Solubility EN 1744-4 - ≤ 10.0% - -
AS / NZS 1141.8
Methlyene blue AS 1141.66 <10mg/g (excluding < 18mg/g (excluding
value RMS T659 hydrated lime) hydrated lime)
Compacted voids AS 1141.17 - 28 - 45% > 40% >38%
Stiffening

of combined filler EN 1097-4

(Rigden voids)

Delta ring and ball EN 13179-1 - Min 8 deg C, Max 25 - -

deg C

A-4
APPENDIX B
Conversion of German SMA 11S to SMA-G11S

This appendix shows the graphical conversion from the original German SMA 11S combined particle
distribution to SMA-G11S used for this research. The conversion was necessary to specify SMA-G11S
using AS sieve sizes.

B-1
B-2
APPENDIX C
Detailed laboratory performance results

This appendix details the laboratory performance data for fatigue resistance, surface texture and
durability. Deformation resistance data is not included as it was presented in full in the main body of
the thesis.

C-1
Fatigue Resistance
Test method AG:PT/T274

SMA-G11S
Mixture Latite Basalt Amphibolite
Specimen 1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean
Air Voids (%) 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 7.3 7.2 7.3 7.3 5.0 4.5 4.6 4.7
Initial Stiffness (MPa) 1810 1667 1678 1718 1637 1571 1602 1603 1513 1535 1568 1540
Stiffness at 500,000
1220 1413 1135 1256 1230 1237 1273 1247 1110 1153 1095 1119
cycles (MPa)
% reduction in stiffness
at 500,000 cycles (%)
32.6 15.2 32.4 26.7 24.8 21.3 20.5 22.2 26.6 24.9 30.2 27.2

SMA-C13
Mixture Latite Basalt Amphibolite Amph-Gr
Specimen 1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean
Air Voids (%) 4.8 5 4.8 4.9 7.4 7.5 7.2 7.4 4.6 4.5 5.1 4.8 5.5 5.5 5.2 5.4
Initial Stiffness (MPa) 1614 1624 1702 *1619 1562 1522 1588 1557 1700 1760 1410 1623 1629 1647 1601 1638
Stiffness at 500,000
1387 1222 ** *1305 1151 1126 1091 1123 1268 1038 967 1091 1373 1316 1345 1345
cycles (MPa)
% reduction in stiffness
at 500,000 cycles (%)
14.1 24.7 ** 19.4 26.3 26 31.3 27.9 25.4 41 31.4 32.6 15.7 20.1 16 17.3

* Average of specimens 1 and 2 only

** Test terminated at 312,000 cycles due to power failure. Corresponding % reduction in stiffness was 15.5%

C-2
Surface Texture
Test method AG:PT/T250 and ELAtext laser method
SMA-G11S
Mixture Latite Basalt Amphibolite
Sample SLAB 1 SLAB 2 SLAB 1 SLAB 2 SLAB 1 SLAB 2
MPD ETD MPD ETD MPD ETD MPD ETD MPD ETD MPD ETD
Reading (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
Laser 1 1.31 1.25 0.91 0.93 1.55 1.44 1.61 1.49 0.66 0.73 0.73 0.79
Laser 2 1.16 1.13 1.01 1.00 1.51 1.41 1.39 1.31 0.9 0.92 0.77 0.82
Laser 3 1.06 1.05 0.93 0.95 1.59 1.47 1.47 1.37 0.54 0.64 0.8 0.84
Laser 4 1.01 1.01 0.90 0.92 1.91 1.73 1.73 1.59 0.62 0.7 0.67 0.74
Laser 5 1.06 1.05 1.10 1.08 1.59 1.47 1.44 1.35 0.82 0.86 - -
Mean Laser 1.12 1.10 0.97 0.98 1.63 1.50 1.53 1.42 0.71 0.77 0.74 0.80
Sand Patch diameter D = 246 D = 266 D = 199 D = 193 D = 288 D = 280
& MTD (mm) MTD = 1.05 MTD = 0.90 MTD = 0.61 MTD = 1.64 MTD = 0.77 MTD = 0.91

SMA-C13
Mixture Latite Basalt Amphibolite Amph-Gr
Sample SLAB 1 SLAB 2 SLAB 1 SLAB 2 SLAB 1 SLAB 2 SLAB 1 SLAB 2
MPD ETD MPD ETD MPD ETD MPD ETD MPD ETD MPD ETD MPD ETD MPD ETD
Reading (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
Laser 1 1.31 1.25 0.91 0.93 1.55 1.44 1.61 1.49 0.66 0.73 0.73 0.79 0.92 0.94 - -
Laser 2 1.16 1.13 1.01 1.00 1.51 1.41 1.39 1.31 0.9 0.92 0.77 0.82 1 1 - -
Laser 3 1.06 1.05 0.93 0.95 1.59 1.47 1.47 1.37 0.54 0.64 0.8 0.84 1.04 1.03 - -
Laser 4 1.01 1.01 0.90 0.92 1.91 1.73 1.73 1.59 0.62 0.7 0.67 0.74 0.9 0.92 - -
Laser 5 1.06 1.05 1.10 1.08 1.59 1.47 1.44 1.35 0.82 0.86 - - 1.18 1.14 - -
Mean Laser 1.12 1.10 0.97 0.98 1.63 1.50 1.53 1.42 0.71 0.77 0.74 0.80 1.01 1.01 - -
Sand Patch diameter D = 246 D = 266 D = 199 D = 193 D = 288 D = 280 D = 280 D= -
& MTD (mm) MTD = 1.05 MTD = 0.90 MTD = 0.61 MTD = 1.64 MTD = 0.77 MTD = 0.91 MTD = 0.91 MTD = -

C-3
Indirect Tensile Strength Ratio
Test method AG:PT/T232

SMA-G11S
Mixture Latite Basalt Amphibolite

Saturation (%)

Saturation (%)

Saturation (%)
Strength (kPa)

Strength (kPa)

Strength (kPa)
Air Voids

Air Voids
Air Voids
SAMPLE

Degree

Degree

Degree
Tensile

Tensile

Tensile
Swell

Swell

Swell
(%)

(%)

(%)
(%)

(%)

(%)
DRY 1 7.7 407 - - 7.5 546.7 - - 8.1 454 - -
DRY 2 7.7 399 - - 7.4 403.2 - - 7.4 453 - -
DRY 3 7.8 401 - - 7.6 508.8 - - 7.4 510 - -
DRY MEAN 7.7 402 - - 7.5 486.2 - - 7.6 472 - -
WET 1 7.8 398 0.2 69 7.8 491.6 0.4 65.7 7.9 473 0 64
WET 2 7.7 399 0.2 69 7.4 537.5 0.3 65.4 7.6 468 0.4 57
WET 3 7.7 389 0.3 70 7.1 615.2 0.3 59.8 7.2 427 0.0 55
WET MEAN 7.7 395 0.2 69 7.4 548.1 0.3 63.6 7.5 456 0.1 59
TSR = 98 % TSR = 113 % TSR = 97 %

C-4
SMA-C13
Mixture Latite Basalt Amphibolite Amph-Gr

Saturation (%)

Saturation (%)

Saturation (%)

Saturation (%)
Strength (kPa)

Strength (kPa)

Strength (kPa)

Strength (kPa)
Air Voids

Air Voids
Air Voids

Air Voids
SAMPLE

Degree

Degree

Degree

Degree
Tensile

Tensile

Tensile

Tensile
Swell

Swell

Swell

Swell
(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)
(%)

(%)

(%)
DRY 1 7.2 518 - - 8.1 454.1 - - 7.2 463 - - 8.1 448 - -
DRY 2 7.3 479 - - 8.4 418.9 - - 8.1 426 - - 7.7 391 - -
DRY 3 7.4 466 - - 7.1 534.3 - - 7.2 447 - - 7.2 493 - -
DRY MEAN 7.3 488 - - 7.9 469.1 - - 7.5 445 - - 7.7 444 - -
WET 1 7.3 385 0.1 69 7.6 462.5 0.1 64.8 7.4 461 0.3 67 8.2 435 0.1 65
WET 2 7.3 439 0.1 69 8.5 338.9 0.1 66.4 7.5 425 0.1 59 7.6 464 0.5 63
WET 3 73 406 0.1 69 7.5 451.3 0.0 63.8 7.2 406 0.1 68 7.2 385 0.3 72
WET MEAN 7.3 410 0.1 69 7.9 417.6 0.1 65 7.3 431 0.2 65 7.7 428 0.3 67
TSR = 84 % TSR = 89 % TSR = 97 % TSR = 96 %

C-5
Particle loss
Test method AG:PT/T236

SMA-G11S Airport DGA 14

Mixture Latite Basalt Amphibolite DGA 14 (Amphibolite)

Compaction

Compaction

Compaction

Compaction
(% by mas)

(% by mas)

(% by mas)

(% by mas)
Air Voids

Air Voids
Air Voids

Air Voids
SAMPLE

SAMPLE
Particle

Particle

Particle

Particle
Loss

Loss

Loss

Loss
(%)

(%)
(%)

(%)
DRY 1 3.0 1.3 - - 13.6 2 DRY 1 8.0 2.0
DRY 2 2.9 1.4 - - 13.7 5 DRY 2 8.6 3.0
50 Blow Marshall

50 Blow Marshall

80 Cycle Gryopac

80 Cycle Gryopac
DRY 3 2.9 1.4 - - 13.3 4 DRY 3 7.9 2.0
DRY MEAN 2.9 1.4 - - 13.5 3 DRY MEAN 8.2 2.3
WET 1 3.0 1.4 *NR 3.3 12.7 4 WET 1 8.6 4.0
WET 2 2.9 1.4 NR 4.9 14 4 WET 2 8.6 4.0
WET 3 3.0 1.4 NR 3.3 13.4 2 WET 3 7.8 3.0
WET MEAN 3.0 1.4 3.8 13.3 4 WET MEAN 8.3 3.7
DRY/WET DRY/WET
Particle loss = 1.4 % Particle loss = 3.8 % Particle loss = 3.5 % Particle loss = 3.0 %
MEAN MEAN

*NR means air voids not recorded.

C-6
SMA-C13
Mixture Latite Basalt Amphibolite Amph-Gr

Compaction

Compaction

Compaction

Compaction
(% by mas)

(% by mas)

(% by mas)

(% by mas)
Air Voids

Air Voids
Air Voids

Air Voids
SAMPLE

Particle

Particle

Particle

Particle
Loss

Loss

Loss

Loss
(%)

(%)
(%)

(%)
DRY 1 3.8 2.0 - - 14.6 5 3.2 2
DRY 2 3.9 2.2 - - 14.7 4 4.6 2.6

50 Blow Marshall

50 Blow Marshall

80 Cycle Gryopac
DRY 3 3.9 2.1 - - 14.7 3 - -

Shear Box
DRY MEAN 3.9 2.0 - - 14.7 4.00 3.9 2.30
WET 1 3.9 2.2 *NR 3.7 14.8 3 4.7 5.3
WET 2 3.9 2.5 NR 4.5 14.6 4 4.2 3.2
WET 3 3.8 2.3 NR 3.1 14.9 4 - -
WET MEAN 3.9 2.3 3.8 14.8 4 4.5 4.25
DRY/WET
Particle loss = 2.2 % Particle loss = 3.8 % Particle loss = 4.0 % Particle loss = 3.3 %
MEAN

C-7
APPENDIX D
Considerations for wheel tracking tests for SMA mixtures

D-1
1 Introduction
The purpose of this Appendix is to build on discussion points from deformation resistance results for
Chapter 8.2.1. Due to the wheel tracking results not achieving the expected airport requirement of
2 mm maximum rut depth, further investigation was warranted to determine the limitations and
nuances of the wheel tracking test method. This Appendix discusses the findings of the investigation,
how the findings relate to the research results, and details recommendations to improve the test
method for the purposes of airport performance-based specifications. Key elements discussed
include:

• Compaction methods
• Air Void Content
• Test Temperature
• Reported Values and test method recommendations

2 Background
Wheel tracking tests can be used to rank the performance of mixtures with respect to rutting (Cooley
Jr. et al., 2000) and as a proof test for rutting performance (Kandhal and Cooley Jr., 2002). In
Australia, the wheel tracking equipment used to asses this performance characteristic is the Cooper
Wheel Tracking Device (CWTD) (Figure 1). The simplified steps to use the CWTD are (Austroads,
2006b):

• A test sample (300 mm x 300 mm x 50 mm) is compacted using a laboratory compactor to a

specified air void content (recommended as 5 ± 1 %)
• This sample is inserted into a steel mould and fixed to the reciprocating table of the CWTD
• Heating is initiated to bring the test sample to the desired temperature (recommended as
60 °C)
• The test is started with the reciprocal table moving back and forward under a loaded wheel
(700 N) for 10,000 passes
• For each pass a linear variable displacement transducer (LVDT) determines the tracking
depth at several locations in the wheel path.

Figure 1 - Coopers Wheel Tracking Device

On completion of the wheel tracking test, the data that is reported includes:

• Air void content of test sample

D-2
 • Average rut depth per pass (mm)
• Average final rut depth (mm)
• Tracking rate (mm/kpass) (rate of rut depth from 4,000 - 10,000 passes).

Austroads (2014) recommends that for an asphalt to be considered superior performing, it must
achieve a final rut depth of less than 3.5 mm as in Table 1. A number of Australian road specifications
have a more stringent requirement for heavy duty roads. For example, Queensland Transport and
Main Roads (TMR) require a final rut depth of no more than 2.0 mm for both an AC 14H and SMA 14
mixture when using a polymer modified binder (PMB) (TMR, 2017). This value of 2.0 mm is also used
for the Australian airport DGA performance-based specification (AAPA, 2018).
Table 1 - Typical tracking depths for laboratory specimens of 10,000 passes using AG:PT/T231 (Austroads, 2014)

Superior performance Good Performance Medium Performance Low performance

< 3.5 mm 3.5 – 8mm 8 – 13 mm > 13mm

SMA tends to have a high deformation resistance due to its stone-on-stone interaction; however,
results from the deformation resistance testing of this research demonstrated that the 2.0 mm
requirement was not achieved for laboratory mixtures (although the 3.5 mm Austroads
recommendation was achieved for the Chinese based SMA-C13 mixture). As the SMA-C13 mixture
was almost identical to the QLD SMA 14 mixture, questions were raised of what could have caused
this difference. Consequently, investigations were undertaken into multiple elements of the wheel
tracking test.

3 Compaction methods
Four separate industry laboratories were used to undertake the laboratory performance phase of
this research, which included slab compaction for wheel tracking tests. Of these four different
laboratories, three different compaction device models were employed as demonstrated in Figure 2.
The Coopers slab compactor and BP segmental wheel compactor use similar mechanisms to compact
the slab. The compactors are designed to act like a steel drum roller with the curvature of the rolling
plate and the downward force simulating the compaction inputted by field plant (Austroads, 2009).
The shear box compactor provides a downward force as well as shearing forces in an attempt to
better replicate in field compaction in terms of homogeneity and particle orientation (Gabrawy,
2000).

D-3
 Figure 2 - Laboratory compactors (From L-R - Coopers slab compactor, Shear box compactor, BP segmental wheel
compactor)

Austroads (2005) states three criteria of finished samples for a laboratory compactor to be fit for
purpose:

• particle orientation to be uniform in respect to particle distribution and orientation

consistent with in-situ pavement materials
• uniformity of air voids, and
• no significant aggregate crushing.

All laboratory compactors used for the research are commonly used for industry tasks and therefore
have been certified as fit for purpose. However, although there was uniformity of air voids, and no
significant aggregate crushing, several of the SMA slabs showed a very non-homogenous surface
finish (Figure 3), further highlighted by a surface texture reading of a typical slab (Figure 4).

Figure 3 - Example of poor homogeneity of surface finish for SMA 14 slabs

Figure 4 - Laser Surface texture reading of an SMA slab showing poor homogeneity of surface finish

D-4
An uneven surface finish could lead to a dynamic impact on the slab when the loaded wheel
traverses the surface irregularity (Austroads, 2006b). A dynamic impact could induce a larger
deformation than expected for a specimen. It is likely that the uneven surface finish is not caused by
the laboratory compactor, but by two other factors:

• The relatively small quantity of material required to construct the slab, which could result in
non-uniform mixing
• The height of which the material is dropped into the slab mould, which could cause
segregation.

Increasing the quantity of the material would be uneconomical for the purposes of the test method.
Conversely, there are methods to minimise segregation when preparing a specimen. AG:PT/T220
(Sample Preparation - Compaction of asphalt slabs suitable for characterisation) describes the use of
two spreading devices as an option when preparing slabs. One spreading device uses a series of
baffles to slow the speed of the material falling into the mould, and to ensure appropriate particle
alignment. The other device uses an auger motion to simulate the action of a paver. Although these
devices are only optional for preparing specimens for wheel tracking, it is recommended that they
are specified as mandatory for testing SMA mixtures to avoid segregating the coarse aggregate
skeleton from the mastic.

4 Air void content

In AG:PT/T231 (Deformation resistance of asphalt mixture by the wheel tracking test), the standard
Air void content is defined as 5 ± 1 % (Austroads, 2006a). This value aligns with the typical average
field density expected of DGA mixtures as in Table 2.
Table 2 - Air voids for asphalt mixtures (%) (AAPA, 2018, TMR, 2017)

Mixture Laboratory range Laboratory mean Field range Field mean

QLD AC 14 3–6 4.5 3–7 5
Airport DGA 14 3.5 – 4.5 4 2–8 5
QLD SMA 14 2–5 3.5 2–6 4

Air void content can have a significant effect on the final result of a wheel tracking test. Austroads
(2011) conducted an experiment to determine the sensitivity of air voids to the wheel tracking depth
of a DGA mixture as in Table 3. It is demonstrated in this table that with increasing air void content,
rut depth increases.
Table 3 - Effect of air void content tolerance on tracking depth (Austroads, 2011)

Air void content (%) 2.1 2.6 2.7 4.2 5.5 6.1
Tracking depth (mm) 3.8 4.1 4.5 6.2 6.5 6.4

Figure 5 displays the results of all laboratory mixtures of this research in terms of final rut depth and
air void content. Although multiple aggregate sources and two separate specifications were used, it
is clear that with increasing air void content, there is an increase in final rut depth. This aligns with
results from the 2011 Austroads experiment.

D-5
 6
y = 0.4987x + 2.5899

Rut Depth (mm)

5 R² = 0.2507

2
1 2 3 4 5 6
Air Voids (%)

Figure 5 - Air Voids vs Rut depth of SMA mixtures

German SMA practice is to limit field air voids to between 2 – 6 % at mean of 4 % air voids
(Druschner and Schafer, 2005). This aligns with the QLD SMA 14 specification of 4 % mean field air
voids as in Table 2. With both the 2011 experiment conducted by Austroads, and the results from
this research demonstrating the importance of air void content on final rut depth, one must ask - is
it appropriate to test SMA at the same air void content as DGA when the field densities are
different? As wheel tracking is used as a ranking for deformation resistance, it would be more
appropriate to compare mixtures at their expected mean field densities, not necessarily at the same
air void content. Consequently, it is the recommendation of this research that when testing SMA for
wheel tracking results, slabs should be compacted to an air void content of 4 ± 1 %.

5 Test temperature
The standard test temperature defined in AG:PT/T231 is 60 °C. This temperature is used by road
authorities, whereas in the airport DGA performance-based specification, the temperature is raised
to 65 °C. The purpose of the 5 °C rise was to better consider groove closure as it is the most common
asphalt deformation distress experienced at Australian runways (White, 2018). As this distress occurs
at the top 10 % of the asphalt layer, 65 °C is used to simulate the hotter operating temperatures on
the surface of the asphalt, compared to the cooler temperature at the middle of the layer.

Temperature has two considerable effects on the results of the wheel tracking test: it reduces
repeatability and increases final rut depth. Rut depth is increased as the binder becomes softer with
increased temperature. Repeatability is decreased as evident in an experiment conducted by
Austroads (2006b) and detailed in Figure 6. In this experiment nine AC 14 slabs were prepared to the
same mixture specification and tested at three different temperatures. When the temperature was
increased from 60 °C to 65 °C, the difference in final rut depths of the specimens changed from
2.5 mm to 9 mm. Furthermore, the average final rut depth from the 60 °C to 65 °C tests increased
from approximately 4 mm to approximately 9 mm, demonstrating a significant change in
performance. The importance of testing temperature is further highlighted by Austroads (2011),
where it is determined that the sensitivity to temperature of the CWTD test is an increase of rut
depth by 4.7 % for every increase of degree in temperature.

D-6
 Figure 6 - Wheel tracking results of an AC 14 mixture at three different temperatures (Austroads, 2006b)

The temperature difference of 5 °C is determined to be the greatest factor of why the SMA-C13 and
SMA-G11S mixtures did not achieve the 2 mm airport rut depth requirement. Knowing that the
temperature was only raised to account for groove closure, it seems unnecessary that this
temperature increase is also applicable for an airport SMA mixture, as SMA is to be employed as an
ungrooved runway surface. Therefore, it is recommended that any wheel tracking tests for SMA
mixtures should have the test temperature specified as 60 °C.

6 Reported values and test method recommendations

As multiple laboratories were used to undertake wheel tracking tests, it provided the ability to
compare test reports from each facility. Although information was presented in full and to high
quality, a small number of differences were found in report details. The below points and
recommendations were compiled to help ensure consistency of reporting test results across all
facilities.

6.1 Number of Samples

In AG:PT/T231, there is a note that advises as a minimum to undertake testing on duplicate
specimens. The note also states that the number of replicates should be referenced in a
specification. Although this is the case for QLD specifications, the Australian airport DGA
performance-based specification does not define a minimum number of samples. To account for
repeatability of the test, it is recommended that any future specifications for SMA or airport DGA
specify a minimum of two samples.

6.2 Rut depth

Some wheel tracking reports are provided with final central rut depth. Other wheel tracking reports
are provided with final average rut depth. In line with AG:PT/T231 the final tracking depth should be
reported as the average rut depth. The average rut depth is calculated from seven points within the
central 75 mm as shown in Figure 6. Within the central 75 mm, the speed of the loaded wheel is
reasonably constant. Outside of the central area, the speed of the loaded wheel will slow down as
the reciprocating table changes direction. Since bituminous mixtures are more prone to deform
under a slower loading rate, a greater amount of deformation occurs outside the central 75 mm
(Austroads, 2006b).

D-7
 Figure 7 - Typical shape along the track of the wheel tracking slab after test is completed (Austroads, 2006b)

Results from this research showed that the difference between central rut depth and average rut
depth can be as high as 0.1 mm. Although this value may not seem significant, it could be the
difference between a compliant or non-compliant mixture design. As highlighted earlier, the surface
finish for SMA wheel tracking slabs is not always homogenous. Therefore, to account for surface
irregularities, it is more appropriate to define the average rut depth than the central rut depth.
Consequently, it is recommended that any airport SMA specification explicitly states a requirement
for final average rut depth for compliance.

6.3 Wheel tracking rate

AG:PT/T231 states that the wheel tracking rate is to be reported. The wheel tracking rate is defined
as the slope of the deformation (mm) over the pass number (kpass) from 4,000 passes to 10,000
passes. Although this value is to be reported, it is typically not used as a performance requirement in
any Australian specifications. However, it may be an indicator of the stability of a mixture after the
initial creep. For example, Figure 8 demonstrates wheel tracking results from this research for two
separate mixtures using different aggregate sources. Although both mixtures have a final rut depth
of 3.2 mm, the Amph-Gr (Amphibolite with Greywacke) mixture has a significantly smaller wheel
tracking rate (0.06 mm/kpass compared to 0.23 mm/kpass). It is apparent that if the test were to
continue beyond 10,000 passes the Amph-Gr mixture would likely perform much better than the
other mixture.

Maximum Airport Requirement Amphibolite SMA-C13 slab1

Amph-Gr SMA-C13

5
4.5
4
Rut depth (mm)

3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Pass number

Figure 8 - Wheel tracking test of two SMA mixtures at 65°C demonstrating different wheel tracking rates

D-8
It is the recommendation of this study that further research be conducted into characteristics of
wheel tracking rate and its inclusion into performance-based specifications. For example, if a mixture
only marginally fails a rut depth requirement, a limit for wheel tracking rate should be included to
determine if the mixture is still fit for purpose. This approach could help take into consideration the
effect of segregation on the sample preparation and initial deformation due to particle alignment.

7 Conclusions and Recommendations

Due to the laboratory mixtures for this research not achieving the specified Australian airport
deformation resistance requirements, further investigation was performed into elements of wheel
tracking tests. In particular, compaction methods, air void content and test temperature were
analysed. It was determined that the primary reason for the preliminary SMA specifications not
achieving the airport requirement was the test temperature of 65 °C, compared to the standard test
temperature of 60 °C.

Several recommendations have been developed for wheel tracking tests to better evaluate SMA
mixtures for ungrooved runway surfaces. These recommendations are:

• Spreading devices to be mandatory for preparing wheel tracking slabs for SMA mixtures to
minimise the effect of segregation
• Air void content to be specified as 4 ± 1 % for SMA mixtures to better simulate typical field
densities
• Temperature of wheel tracking test to be defined as 60 °C for SMA, as it is an ungrooved
surfacing
• Two wheel tracking samples to be defined as a requirement in airport specifications
• Airport specifications to explicitly state requirements for average final rut depth
• Further research be undertaken into wheel tracking rate and its potential to be included into
a performance-based specification for mixtures where rut-depth is only marginally non-
compliant.

8 References
AAPA 2018. Performance-based Airport Asphalt Model Specification - Version 1.0. Australian Asphalt
Pavement Association - National Technology & Leadership Committee.
AUSTROADS 2005. AG:PT/T220 Sample Preparation - Compaction of asphalt slabs suitable for
characterisation. Sydney, Australia: Austroads.
AUSTROADS 2006a. AG:PT/T231 - Deformation resistance of asphalt mixtures by the wheel tracking
test. Sydney, Australia: Austroads.
AUSTROADS 2006b. AP-T58/06 - Wheel tracking temperature sensitivity and repeatability
investigation. Sydney, Australia: Austroads.
AUSTROADS 2009. AP-T132-09 - Preparation of Asphalt Samples for Testing. Sydney, Australia:
Austroads.
AUSTROADS 2011. AP-T191-11 - Uncertainty of Measurement Estimates for Austroads Asphalt Test
Methods. Sydney, Australia: Austroads.
AUSTROADS 2014. Austroads Guide to Pavement Technology Part 4B: Asphalt, Sydney Australia,
Austroads.
COOLEY JR., L. A., KANDHAL, P. S., BUCHANAN, M. S., FEE, F. & EPPS, A. 2000. Loaded wheel testers
in the United States: State of the practice. Auburn, US: National Center for Asphalt
Technology.
DRUSCHNER, L. & SCHAFER, V. 2005. Stone Mastic Asphalt. Bonn, Germany: German Asphalt
Association, Deutscher Asphaltverband.

D-9
GABRAWY, T. 2000. Towards Laboratory Replication of Field Compaction "Asphalt Shear Box
Compactor". World of Asphalt Pavements 1st International Conference. Sydney, Australia.
KANDHAL, P. S. & COOLEY JR., L. A. 2002. Evaluation of permanent deformation of asphalt mixtures
using loaded wheel tester. Auburn, United States: National Centre for Asphalt Technology.
TMR 2017. Asphalt pavements, MRTS 30. QLD Government, Transport and Main Roads.
WHITE, G. 2018. State of the art: Asphalt for airport pavement surfacing. International Journal of
Pavement Research and Technology, 11, 77-98.

D - 10
APPENDIX E
Grip tester surface friction results

This appendix presents the full results from friction testing of the field trial area, undertaken at two
days and 23 days after initial placement of the material on the 19 Nov 2018. Graphs and tables show
friction tests results for the 100 m SMA patch, and the original DGA for the 100 m before and after
the trial area.

E-1
Field Trial Summary

Table E 1 - CASA MOS 139 Friction values for Griptester

Regulatory Level 65 km/h test (-) 95 km/h test (-)

New design / construction ≤ 0.74 ≤ 0.64
Above maintenance level 0.53 – 0.73 0.36 – 0.64
Maintenance planning level 0.43 – 0.52 0.24 – 0.35
Minimum Friction level < 0.43 < 0.24

Figure E 1 - Field trial orientation

Table E 2 - Mean Grip number (-) at 65km/h, 2 days after placement

NORTH
Area Chainage (m) Lane 1 Direction Lane 2 Lane 1 Direction Lane 2
DGA 100 - 200 0.50 0.49 0.50 0.58
SMA Patch 200 - 300 0.40 0.38 0.40 0.39
DGA 300 - 400 0.53 0.48 0.48 0.49
SOUTH

Table E 3 - Mean Grip number (-) at 95 km/h, 2 days after placement

NORTH
Area Chainage (m) Lane 1 Direction Lane 2 Lane 1 Direction Lane 2
DGA 100 - 200 0.46 0.40 0.39 0.39
SMA Patch 200 - 300 0.30 0.32 0.33 0.33
DGA 300 - 400 0.28 0.40 0.41 0.42
SOUTH

Table E 4 - Mean Grip number (-) at 65 km/h, 23 days after placement

NORTH
Area Chainage (m) Lane 1 Direction Lane 2 Lane 1 Direction Lane 2
DGA 100 - 200 0.39 0.49 0.46 0.46
SMA Patch 200 - 300 0.40 0.53 0.44 0.46
DGA 300 - 400 0.36 0.57 0.42 0.46
SOUTH

E-2
 Table E 5 - Mean Grip number (-) at 95 km/h, 23 days after placement

NORTH
Area Chainage (m) Lane 1 Direction Lane 2 Lane 1 Direction Lane 2
DGA 100 - 200 0.49 0.39 0.31 0.42
SMA Patch 200 - 300 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.38
DGA 300 - 400 0.45 0.31 0.55 0.43
SOUTH

Friction graphs two days after placement

Figure E 2 - Friction results for Paving lane 1 at 65 km/h (2 days after placement)

Figure E 3 - Friction results for Paving lane 2 at 65 km/h (2 days after placement)

E-3
 Figure E 4 - Friction Results for Paving lane 1 at 95km/h (2 days after placement)

Figure E 5 - Friction Results for Paving lane 2 at 95km/h (2 days after placement)

Friction graphs twenty-three days after placement

Figure E 6 - Friction results for Paving lane 1 at 65 km/h (23 days after placement)

E-4
Figure E 7 - Friction results for Paving lane 2 at 65 km/h (23 days after placement)

Figure E 8 - Friction Results for Paving lane 1 at 95km/h (23 days after placement)

Figure E 9 - Friction results for Paving lane 2 at 95 km/h (23 days after placement)

E-5
APPENDIX F

Draft performance-based specification for SMA for Australian

airports

The following draft specification is a proposed update of the AAPA Performance-based Airport
Asphalt specification (2018) to include requirements for SMA as an ungrooved surface layer. All DGA
elements have been retained and SMA specific clauses have been added.

Performance based specification for SMA & DGA - DRAFT

F -1
Appendix F

Performance-based Airport Asphalt Specification

Preamble
This specification is for the supply and construction of nominal 14 mm maximum sized airport asphalt
surfaces design based on performance properties. The intent is to allow asphalt suppliers more
flexibility to innovate for better performing asphalt surfaces in return to performance guarantees
regarding the asphalt and its construction. The specification is based on dense graded asphalt (DGA)
for surface and near-surface layers, and stone mastic asphalt (SMA) for surface layers. Other asphalt
types are not covered by this specification.

The following complimentary elements are recommended to be provided for in the tender documents
and/or the contract documents, however it is noted that this Preamble in not part of the technical
Specification and therefore these items do not form part of the Specification:

• Preliminaries. An overarching specification containing preliminary requirements including:

o Access and security.
o Laydown and site compound requirements.
o Working hours and restrictions.
• Tender schedules. The tender scheduled are recommended to require the Contractor to provide
the following documentation as part of the tender, which should form a significant component of
the non-cost evaluation of tenders and any issues or anomalies should form part of the contractual
negotiation, noting that when a tender is accepted, these items should also be deemed to be
accepted (where they are submitted with the tender), unless agreed through tender negotiations to
be modified or rejected (and presumably re-priced) as a tender clarification:
o Mixture Design Report (as detailed in 6.3 Mixture Design Procedure).
o Construction Procedures (as detailed in 4.6 Construction Procedures).
o Inspection and Test Plans (as detailed in 4.3 Inspection and Test Plans).
• Contract form. The Works Contract should be a Design and Construction or be a Construct Only
contract with provision for the asphalt mixture to be designed by the Contractor.
• Fully compliant tender. The works tender should require a fully-compliant submission, with any
deviation addressed through alternate offers. Permitting deviation from the requirements of this
specification is recommended within the compliant tender offer.
• Warranty Schedule. The Works Contract should include a warranty schedule for a performance
guarantee by the Contractor.
• Risk and Maintenance Pricing. The tender pricing schedules should require the tenderer to
transparently identify dollar values for risks associated with compliance with this specification, the
performance guarantee and the provision of maintenance services during the performance period.
• Maintenance provisions. The Works Contract should include a provision for the Contractor to be
involved in the planning and/or execution of maintenance during the warranty period.
• Prerequisites to Completion. The Works Contract should mandate, as a minimum, submission
to the Principal of the following, as prerequisites to granting of Practical Completion or Completion,
as defined in the Works Contract:
o All complete Lot submissions (as detailed in Clause Cl 27).
o All complete Process Control Records (as detailed in 4.4 Process Control Records) in Excel
format.
o Surface completion certification (as detailed in 12.5 Completion Certification).
o Retained bitumen sample register (as detailed in Clause Cl 206 a).

Performance based specification for SMA & DGA - DRAFT

1
Appendix F

Due to the intended requirement for tenderers to include mixture designs, construction procedures
and ITPs in the tender submission, a minimum of eight weeks (excluding the period 20 December to
10 January) should be provided for tendering.

The cost of preparing performance-based asphalt mixture designs during the tender period is
significant for tendering organisations. It is recommended where mixture designs are required to be
included in tenders, the airport considers providing financial compensation to the short-list of
companies invited to tender. It is recommended that $10-20 k per tenderer is appropriate.

It must be recognised that this specification covers only the design, production and construction of the
asphalt surface layer(s). Where distress results from structural pavement failure, deficiency in
underlying pavement layers or gross overloading of the pavement, the performance guarantee
associated with this specification are likely to be voided.

This specification is intended to make the Contractor responsible for self-delivery of the works to a
high quality. The Principal should, directly or utilising the assistance of an external professional
services provider, administer the Contractor and superintend the works. This includes the provision of
a full-time and suitably experienced presence on site during all work periods to release Hold Points
and Witness Points and to verify the Contractor undertakes all sampling and testing requirements
within the specification and the approved Construction procedures.

This specification requires the Contractor to retain and deliver to the Principal binder samples
collected throughout the works. These samples should be retained by, or on behalf of, the Principal,
for a period of five years (the Performance Period). The Principal should maintain a covered and
secure facility for binder sample storage and retain a register of all samples.

It is emphasised that the above contractual and tendering recommendations are intended to provide
guidance for airports, and their representatives, procurement airport asphalt based on this
Specification. However, this Preamble does not perform part of the Specification and the above
recommendations are in no way mandatory or binding.

The Specification also includes a number of testing requirements where the limit is ‘report only’. In
some cases, this relates to mixture design parameters to which tolerances are applied during
construction but in other cases the results are intended to allow a catalogue of airport asphalt data
that will allow future research and specification refinement in the future. At no stage should a specific
project or airport apply limits to items that are specified as ‘report only’.

This Specification was prepared collaboratively between asphalt contractors, design consultants and
airport company representatives. It is intended to present industry best practice for airport asphalt
design, production and construction and to reduce the risk of failures to the extent reasonably
practicable. However, like any Specification or Standard, its use cannot guarantee the avoidance of
defects or distresses in the resulting product.

Performance based specification for SMA & DGA - DRAFT

2
Appendix F

Performance-based Airport Asphalt Specification

Table of Content
1 Scope ............................................................................................................................................. 5
1.1 General .................................................................................................................................. 5
1.2 Contractor’s responsibilities ................................................................................................ 5
1.3 Basis of asphalt performance requirement....................................................................... 5
2 Definitions ...................................................................................................................................... 5
3 Reference document ................................................................................................................... 6
4 Quality Plan requirements........................................................................................................... 7
4.1 General .................................................................................................................................. 7
4.2 Hold and Witness Points ..................................................................................................... 8
4.3 Inspection and Test Plans................................................................................................... 8
4.4 Process Control Records .................................................................................................... 8
4.5 Lots ....................................................................................................................................... 10
4.6 Construction Procedures................................................................................................... 10
5 Constituent Materials ................................................................................................................. 11
5.1 General ................................................................................................................................ 11
5.2 Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement .......................................................................................... 12
5.3 Coarse aggregate............................................................................................................... 12
5.4 Fine aggregate.................................................................................................................... 13
5.5 Added filler........................................................................................................................... 14
5.6 Binder ................................................................................................................................... 14
5.7 Additives .............................................................................................................................. 14
5.8 Tack coat ............................................................................................................................. 14
6 Mixture design............................................................................................................................. 15
6.1 General ................................................................................................................................ 15
6.2 Changes in Mixture Design............................................................................................... 15
6.3 Mixture Design Procedure ................................................................................................ 15
6.4 Volumetrics.......................................................................................................................... 15
6.5 Asphalt performance requirements ................................................................................. 16
6.6 Bitumen and Mastic Performance.................................................................................... 17
6.7 Mixture design report ......................................................................................................... 17
7 Production Plant and Equipment ............................................................................................. 19
7.1 Minimum equipment requirements .................................................................................. 19
7.2 Production plant.................................................................................................................. 19
7.3 Testing Laboratory ............................................................................................................. 20
8 Production and Construction Trial ........................................................................................... 20
8.1 General ................................................................................................................................ 20
8.2 Asphalt Production trial ..................................................................................................... 20
8.3 Asphalt Construction trial .................................................................................................. 21
8.4 Production and Construction Trial Report ...................................................................... 21
9 Asphalt Production ..................................................................................................................... 22
9.1 Production requirements ................................................................................................... 22
9.2 Non-conforming materials ................................................................................................. 22
10 Asphalt Construction .............................................................................................................. 23
10.1 Weather limitations............................................................................................................. 23
10.2 Surface preparation ........................................................................................................... 23
10.3 Tack coat ............................................................................................................................. 23

Performance based specification for SMA & DGA - DRAFT

3
Appendix F

10.4 Asphalt paving .................................................................................................................... 24

10.5 Protection of finished surface ........................................................................................... 26
11 Compliance testing................................................................................................................. 26
11.1 General ................................................................................................................................ 26
11.2 Constituent materials ......................................................................................................... 26
11.3 Asphalt production ............................................................................................................. 29
11.4 Asphalt construction........................................................................................................... 30
11.5 Surface completion ............................................................................................................ 31
12 Acceptance criteria................................................................................................................. 33
12.1 General ................................................................................................................................ 33
12.2 Constituent materials ......................................................................................................... 33
12.3 Asphalt production ............................................................................................................. 34
12.4 Asphalt construction........................................................................................................... 35
12.5 Completion Certification .................................................................................................... 36
12.6 Non-conforming asphalt .................................................................................................... 36
13 Maintenance during the Performance period ..................................................................... 37
13.1 Periodic inspection ............................................................................................................. 37

Performance based specification for SMA & DGA - DRAFT

4
Appendix F

Performance-based Airport Asphalt Specification

Specification
1 Scope
1.1 General
Cl 1. This specification sets out the performance requirements for the design, materials,
manufacture, supply, placement, compaction, quality assurance and acceptance for airport asphalt
surface layer(s). The Contractor is responsible for the design of the asphalt mixture and guarantees
the performance of the asphalt surface layer(s) for the performance period.

1.2 Contractor’s responsibilities

Cl 2. Without limiting the Contractor’s liabilities, the Contractor is responsible for the:

a. Supply of all materials, labour, plant and equipment.

b. Asphalt mixture design.
c. Production and construction trials.
d. Asphalt production and process control testing.
e. Delivery, paving, compaction and finishing of asphalt.
f. Achieving all compliance requirements.
g. Repair or replacement of rejected asphalt.
h. Protection and cleaning of the pavement during construction.
i. Monitoring the asphalt throughout the performance guarantee period.
1.3 Basis of asphalt performance requirement
Cl 3. The most critical regular aircraft expected to utilise the aircraft pavement being surfaced or
resurfaced is prescribed in the Project Particulars. Occasional use of the aircraft pavement being
surfaced or resurfaced may also be made by the alternate aircraft prescribed in the Project
Particulars.

Cl 4. The surface layer of asphalt may be grooved for aircraft skid resistance. Where prescribed
in the Project Particulars, the asphalt mixture must be resistant to groove closure. Underlying layers
of asphalt will not be grooved.

Cl 5. The surface layer of asphalt may be constructed of either dense graded asphalt (DGA) or
stone mastic asphalt (SMA) as prescribed in the Project Particulars.

2 Definitions
Cl 6. Table 1 defines terms utilised in this specification.

Table 1 Definition of Terms

Term Definition
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
AC Advisory Circular
AS Australian Standard
BBI Boeing Bump index
The Contractor responsible for the design, supply, production,
Contractor
construction of the asphalt surface layer(s)
The asset owner or other entity, or their contractually nominated
Principal representative, responsible for contracting the Contractor to perform the
works, as may be defined by the Works Contract.

Performance based specification for SMA & DGA - DRAFT

5
Appendix F

Term Definition
ITP Inspection and Testing Plan
MOS Manual of Standards
MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet
NATA National Association of Testing Authorities
NZS New Zealand Standard
The Contractor’s guarantee that the asphalt will not suffer from
Performance guarantee significant, excessive and life shortening rutting, shoving, cracking or
ravelling during the performance period.
Five years from the date of Practical Completion or Completion, as
Performance period
defined in the contract
RAP Recycled Asphalt Pavement
TSR Tensile Strength Ratio
VFB Voids Filled with Binder
VMA Voids in the Mineral Aggregate
Works Contract Overarching contract for the construction works

3 Reference document
Cl 7. Table 2 summarises documents referenced in this specification.

Table 2 Referenced Documents

Document Description
Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular Number 150/5380-9, Guidelines and
AC 150/5380-9
Procedures for Measuring Airfield Pavement Roughness
Standard Method of Test for Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR) Test of Asphalt
AASHTO TP 70
Binder Using a Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR)
AG:PT/T101 Method of Sampling Polymer Modified Binders, Polymers and Crumb Rubber
AG:PT/T111 Handling Viscosity of Polymer Modified Binders (Brookfield Thermosel)
AG:PT/T122 Torsional Recovery of Polymer Modified Binders
AG:PT/T131 Softening Point of Polymer Modified Binders
AGPT/T190 Specification Framework for Polymer Modified Binders
AG:PT/T231 Deformation Resistance of Asphalt Mixtures by the Wheel Tracking Test
AG:PT/T232 Stripping Potential of Asphalt - Tensile Strength Ratio
AG:PT/T235 Asphalt binder drain-off
AG:PT/T250 Modified surface texture depth (pestle method)
AG:PT/274 Characterisation of Flexural Stiffness and Fatigue Performance of Bituminous Mixes
Methods for sampling and testing of aggregates Particle density and water absorption of
AS 1141.5
fine aggregate
AS 1141.6.1 Methods for sampling and testing aggregates - Particle density and water absorption of
coarse aggregate
AS 1141.11 Methods for sampling and testing aggregates Particle size distribution - Sieving method
Methods for sampling and testing of aggregates Materials finer than 75 micrometre in
AS 1141.12
aggregates (by washing)
AS 1141.15 Methods for sampling and testing aggregates Flakiness index
AS 1141.17 Methods for sampling and testing aggregates Voids in dry compacted filler
AS 1141.22 Methods for sampling and testing aggregates Wet/dry strength
AS 1141.23 Methods for sampling and testing aggregates Los Angeles value
AS 1141.24 Methods for sampling and testing aggregates Aggregate soundness - Evaluation by
exposure to sodium sulphate solution
Methods for sampling and testing aggregates Secondary minerals content in basic
AS 1141.26
igneous rocks

Performance based specification for SMA & DGA - DRAFT

6
Appendix F

Document Description
Methods for sampling and testing aggregates Weak particles (including clay lumps, soft
AS 1141.32
and friable particles) in coarse aggregates
AS 1160 Bituminous emulsions for the construction and maintenance of pavements
Methods of testing soils for engineering purposes Sampling and preparation of soils -
AS 1289.1.4.2
Selection of sampling or test sites - Stratified random number method
AS 1672.1 Limes and limestones Limes for building
AS 2008 Bitumen for pavements
AS 2150 Hot mix asphalt - A guide to good practice
AS/NZS 2891.1.1 Methods of sampling and testing asphalt Sampling - Loose asphalt
Methods of sampling and testing asphalt Sample preparation - Compaction of asphalt
AS/NZS 2891.2.2
test specimens using a gyratory compactor
Methods of sampling and testing asphalt Binder content and aggregate grading - Reflux
AS/NZS 2891.3.1
method
Methods of sampling and testing asphalt Binder content and aggregate grading -
AS/NZS 2891.3.2
Centrifugal extraction method
Methods of sampling and testing asphalt Binder content and aggregate grading -
AS/NZS 2891.3.3
Pressure filter method
Methods of sampling and testing asphalt Compaction of asphalt by Marshall method and
AS/NZS 2891.5
determination of stability and flow - Marshall procedure
Methods of sampling and testing asphalt Determination of maximum density of asphalt -
AS/NZS 2891.7.1
Water displacement method
Methods of sampling and testing asphalt Determination of maximum density of asphalt -
AS/NZS 2891.7.2
Trichloroethane displacement method
Methods of sampling and testing asphalt Voids and volumetric properties of compacted
AS/NZS 2891.8
asphalt mixes
Methods of sampling and testing asphalt Determination of bulk density of compacted
AS/NZS 2891.9.1
asphalt - Waxing procedure
AS/NZS 2891.10 Methods of sampling and testing asphalt Moisture content of asphalt
Methods of sampling and testing asphalt Determination of the resilient modulus of
AS/NZS 2891.13.1
asphalt - Indirect tensile method
Methods of sampling and testing asphalt Field density tests - Determination of field
AS/NZS 2891.14.2
density of compacted asphalt using a nuclear thin-layer density gauge
AS 3582.1 Supplementary cementitious materials for use with portland and blended cement Fly ash
ISO 9001 Quality management systems – Requirements
ISO/IEC 17025 General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories
MOS 139 Manual of Standards Part 139 - Aerodromes, Civil Aviation Safety Authority

4 Quality Plan requirements

4.1 General
Cl 8. The Contractor must maintain a quality system with regard to the constituent materials,
production of asphalt and construction of the asphalt surface, as well as the conformance testing.

Cl 9. The quality system must be certified as compliance with ISO 9001 or equivalent.

Cl 10. The Contractor must produce, maintain and follow a quality plan for the supply of constituent
materials, production and construction of asphalt, as well as any maintenance (where applicable) of
the surface during the performance period.

Cl 11. All laboratory testing required as a part of this specification must be undertaken by a
laboratory holding ISO/IEC 17025 (NATA) accreditation for the applicable test methods. For test
methods that are not included in the Contractor’s NATA accreditation, the Contractor must submit a
test method statement and details of the technician’s experience for approval by the Principal.

Performance based specification for SMA & DGA - DRAFT

7
Appendix F

4.2 Hold and Witness Points

Cl 12. The mandatory Hold and Witness Points listed in Table 3 apply to the work covered by this
specification and must be incorporated into the Contractor’s ITPs.

Cl 13. Where prescribed in the Project Particulars, additional Hold and Witness Points are
mandatory for this project.

Table 3 Summary of Mandatory Hold and Witness Points

Clause Hold Point Witness Point

Cl 15 ITP submission
Cl 64 Tack coat materials details
Cl 71 Mixture design changes
Cl 84 Mixture Design Report
Cl 126 Production and Construction Trial report
Steps to rectify non-conforming asphalt
Cl 137
production
Cl 141 Cold weather paving plan
Cl 142 Existing surface inspection
Cl 202 Point of delivery binder sampling
Cl 208 Point of delivery binder testing results
Cl 220 Rolling patterns
Cl 220 Surface texture away from joints
Cl 220 Surface texture at joint
Point of delivery binder testing out of tolerance
Cl 264
disposition

4.3 Inspection and Test Plans

Cl 14. The Contractor must prepare one or more ITPs covering all quality requirements of the
supply of constituent materials, production of asphalt and construction of the asphalt surface, as well
as the conformance testing.

Cl 15. Not less than 14 days prior to the Asphalt Production trial (8.2 Asphalt Production trial), the
Contractor must submit templates of all ITPs to the Principal. HOLD POINT.

Cl 16. Within seven days of submission, the Principal will either approve or reject (for modification
or resubmission) the Contractor’s ITP templates.

Cl 17. Each Lot of asphalt must have a separate set of ITP(s) completed by the Contractor.

Cl 18. The ITPs must include all Hold and Witness Points required by this specification, as well as
general construction quality processes, including but not limited to:

a. Aggregate supply, stockpiling, sampling and testing.

b. Bitumen supply, handling, heating/re-heating, sampling, testing or sample storage.
c. Existing surface inspection and preparation.
d. Texturing/milling, cleaning and tack coating.
e. Asphalt production, handling, transportation to site, sampling and testing.
f. Asphalt delivery to the paver, paving, rolling and finishing.
4.4 Process Control Records
Cl 19. Process Control Reports tabulate of graph one or more particular material or mixture
properties over the duration of the project.

Performance based specification for SMA & DGA - DRAFT

8
Appendix F

Cl 20. Process Control Records must be prepared and maintained by the Contractor for constituent
material properties, mixture production properties and asphalt construction parameters with
specification limits of production tolerances under this specification, including but not limited to:

a. Coarse Aggregate properties (Table 12):

i. For each aggregate fraction, the percentage of material passing the 0.075 mm
AS sieve.
ii. For each aggregate fraction, the percentage of material passing the 4.75 mm
AS sieve.
iii. For each aggregate fraction of nominal 10 mm maximum size and larger, the
percentage of material passing the 6.7 mm AS sieve.
iv. For each aggregate fraction of nominal 14 mm maximum size and larger, the
percentage of material passing the 9.5 mm AS sieve.
b. Fine Aggregate properties (Table 14):
i. For each aggregate fraction, the percentage of material passing the 0.075 mm
AS sieve.
ii. For each aggregate fraction, the percentage of material passing the 0.300 mm
AS sieve.
iii. For each aggregate fraction, the percentage of material passing the 1.18 mm
AS sieve.
c. Modified Binder production properties reported on the production certificate of
compliance, (11.2.4.1 Certificate of Compliance) and as a minimum:
i. Viscosity at 165°C.
ii. Torsional recovery at 25°C, 30 s.
iii. Softening point.
d. Modified Binder additional production properties (11.2.4.2 Addition Production Testing)
reported on the test certificate:
i. Jnr(0.1) at 64 C, 70 C and 76 C.
ii. Jnr(3.2) at 64 C, 70 C and 76 C.
e. Modified Binder Point of Delivery Properties (11.2.4.4 Point of delivery testing):
i. Viscosity at 165°C.
ii. Torsional recovery at 25°C, 30 s.
iii. Softening point.
f. Asphalt mixture properties (Clauses Cl 214 and Cl 218):
i. Percentage of the combined aggregate passing each AS sieve.
ii. Maximum density.
iii. Binder content.
iv. Air Voids content.
v. VMA and VFB.
vi. Moisture content
vii. Marshall Stability.
viii. Marshall Flow.
g. Surface construction parameters (Clauses Cl 223 and Cl 224):
i. Individual test location air voids content away from joints.
ii. Individual test location air voids content on longitudinal joints.
iii. Average Lot air voids content away from joints.
iv. Average Lot air voids content on longitudinal joints.
Cl 21. Process Control Records may be either Process Control Charts or Process Control
Registers, or a combination of the two, as detailed in the detailed in the approved Construction
Procedures.

Performance based specification for SMA & DGA - DRAFT

9
Appendix F

Cl 22. Process Control Registers must include:

a. Results for individual tests.

b. Average of individual test results by Lot, where applicable.
c. Specification limits, where applicable.
d. Mixture design target values, where applicable.
Cl 23. Process Control Charts must indicate:

a. Results for individual tests.

b. Mean, Standard Deviation and Coefficient of Variation over the progress of the job.
c. Average of individual test results by Lot, where applicable.
d. Specification limits, where applicable.
e. Mixture design target values, where applicable.
Cl 24. Process Control Records must be updated and submitted to the Principal not less than once
per week.

4.5 Lots
Cl 25. A Lot is a portion of material or a section of the works which has been supplied, produced
and constructed to the same mixture design, under essentially uniform construction conditions and
contains material of essentially uniform quality.

Cl 26. A Lot of asphalt must not exceed that produced and constructed in a single work shift.

Cl 27. The Contractor must submit a Lot Submission to the Principal within 48 hours of completion
of each Lot of asphalt. The Lot Submission must include, as a minimum but not limited to:

a. Lot identification number and plan indicating the location of the Lot within the works.
b. Date, weather conditions, timing of works.
c. Paving plan and traceability of asphalt deliveries to the asphalt surface.
d. Constituent material production test results for materials incorporated into the Lot.
e. Compliance testing results applicable to Constituent Materials, Asphalt Production and
Surface Construction, but excluding Surface Completion.
f. Summary of non-compliances, including disposition, prevention and remedial actions.
g. Demonstrative photographs of non-compliances or other issues arising.
4.6 Construction Procedures
Cl 28. The Contractor must prepare detailed Construction Procedures and submit to the Principal
not less than 14 days prior to the Asphalt Production Trial (8.2 Asphalt Production trial).

Cl 29. The Principal will approve or reject (for modification or resubmission) the Construction
Procedures within seven days of receipt.

Cl 30. The Construction Procedures must cover all the Contractor’s activities regarding the supply
and management of materials, production and construction, including but not limited to:

a. Aggregate supply:
i. Aggregate supplier(s) and location.
ii. Crushing and screening processes.
iii. Pre-delivery production testing.
iv. Delivery handling and stockpile management.
v. Sampling for compliance testing.
b. Reclaimed asphalt pavement management:
i. Source and type of RAP.

Performance based specification for SMA & DGA - DRAFT

10
Appendix F

ii. Crushing, screening and homogenisation processes.

iii. Stockpile management.
iv. Testing to ensure no adverse impact on asphalt properties.
c. Added filler supply:
i. Supplier and location.
ii. Delivery and handling.
d. Bitumen supply:
i. Unmodified bitumen supplier and location.
ii. Modified bitumen production plant and location.
iii. Pre-delivery production testing.
iv. Modified bitumen handling and transportation processes and timing.
v. Delivery transfer to asphalt production plant processes.
vi. Point of delivery storage (where applicable) handling, re-heating (where
applicable), sampling and testing.
vii. Reject and Investigate tolerances for point of delivery testing results.
e. Asphalt production:
i. Details of Asphalt Production and Construction trials, including timing, location,
volumes and testing.
ii. Asphalt production plant details.
iii. Asphalt production plant calibration procedures and frequencies.
iv. Asphalt contamination management procedures.
v. Production temperatures.
vi. Production rates and times in relation to paving operations.
vii. Asphalt sampling and testing procedures.
viii. Details and number of trucks for delivery of asphalt to the paving operation.
f. Surface construction:
i. Particular procedures for any patching or correction layers.
ii. List of construction equipment, including cold planers, pavers and rollers.
iii. Paving plans, including run lengths, run widths and sequences.
iv. Joint plans, including hot, warm and cold joints, as well as joint treatment.
v. Rolling processes, including patterns and sequencing behind paving.
g. Compliance testing:
i. List of equipment for testing.
ii. Location and details of testing laboratory(s).
iii. Details of Friction Survey, including provider and equipment.
iv. Details of survey and BBI determination, including providers and methods.
Cl 31. Where applicable, multiple methods must be detailed if different procedures are proposed
for different areas of stages or the works.

Cl 32. The Contractor must maintain the Construction Procedures throughout the work, including
amendment following completion and approval of the Production Trial and Construction Trial.

Cl 33. Any time that the Contractor changes the Construction Procedures, the proposed change
must be submitted to the Principal without delay and the Principal must accept or reject the change
without unreasonable delay.

5 Constituent Materials
5.1 General
Cl 34. The asphalt mixture must incorporate coarse aggregate, fine aggregate, added filler
(optional), binder, stabilisers (for SMA only) and additives (optional) conforming with this specification.
RAP may also be incorporated in DGA up to the maximum percentage (by mass of the aggregate) as
prescribed in the Project Particulars. RAP shall not be used for SMA surface layers.

Performance based specification for SMA & DGA - DRAFT

11
Appendix F

Cl 35. The Contractor must select the constituent materials to achieve the asphalt performance
requirements.

5.2 Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement

Cl 36. DGA mixture designs may include RAP up to portion prescribed in the Project Particulars,
for the surface and sub-surface layers respectively.

Cl 37. RAP may contain a combination of material obtained from milling or excavation of existing
asphalt layers and asphalt discarded during production. RAP must be free of foreign material such as
unbound granular base, broken concrete, or other contaminants. Asphalt containing tar must not be
used.

Cl 38. RAP must be crushed, homogenised and screened.

Cl 39. RAP must be stored in stockpiles not exceeding 1,000 tonne and separately metered into
the mixing process. The aggregate particles in the RAP must be 100% passing the 13.2 mm AS
sieve.

Cl 40. Management of RAP must be detailed in the Construction Procedures. The plan must
include a statement detailing how variations in the aggregate grading, binder content and moisture
content of the RAP material will be controlled, such that it will not affect the asphalt properties.

Cl 41. The properties of the RAP material shown in Table 4 must be reported for every stockpile.

Table 4 RAP Characterisation Tests

Property Test Method Requirement

Binder content and grading AS/NZS 2891.3.1, or Report only
AS/NZS 2891.3.2, or
AS/NZS 2891.3.3
Moisture content AS/NZS 2891.10 Report only

5.3 Coarse aggregate

Cl 42. Coarse aggregate comprises particles retained on the 4.75 mm AS sieve.

Cl 43. Coarse aggregates must be crushed from fresh quarried natural rock.

Cl 44. The coarse aggregates must consist of clean, sound, hard, dense and durable fragments of
uniform quality which are free from adherent coatings of dust, clay and silt and free from soft or
weathered particles, organic matter and other deleterious material.

Cl 45. Each coarse aggregate fraction must conform with the requirements in Table 5.

Performance based specification for SMA & DGA - DRAFT

12
Appendix F

Table 5 Coarse Aggregate Tests and Test Limits

Test Property Test Method Requirement for Compliance

Particle Density Coarse Aggregate AS 1141.6.1 Not less than 2300 kg/m3
Water Absorption AS 1141.6.1 Not more than 2.0%
Material Finer than 0.075 mm in AS 1141.12 Not more than 2.0% for 10 mm and larger fractions
Aggregates (by washing) Not more than 3.0% for 7 mm and larger fractions
Flakiness index AS 1141.15 Not more than 25% for DGA
(nominal 10 mm and larger maximum Not more than 20% for SMA
sized aggregate fractions)
Soundness (using Sodium Sulphate) AS 1141.24 Not more than 3%
Wet Strength AS 1141.22 Not less than 150 kN
Wet/Dry Strength Variation AS 1141.22 Not more than 30%
Los Angeles Value AS 1141.23, B Not more than 25% loss for DGA
or K Grading Not more than 20% loss for SMA
Secondary Mineral Content AS 1141.26 Not more than 20% (Basic rock types only)
Weak Particles AS 1141.32 Not more than 0.2%

5.4 Fine aggregate

Cl 46. Fine aggregate must consist of clean, non-plastic, sound, dense and durable particles free
from coatings of dust, clay or silt or other matter deleterious to asphalt, the majority of which passes
the AS 4.75 mm sieve and is retained on the AS 0.075 mm sieve.

Cl 47. Natural sand must consist of grains of quartz or other hard durable rock, free from lumps of
clay, organic matter and other deleterious matter. Fine natural sands must be washed. Natural sand
must not be used for SMA mixtures.

Cl 48. Crushed fine aggregate must consist of crushed natural stone from a source that complies
with the course aggregate requirements given in Table 5 for:

a. Particle Density Coarse Aggregate.

b. Water Absorption.
c. Soundness (using Sodium Sulphate).
d. Wet Strength.
e. Wet/Dry Strength Variation.
f. Los Angeles Value.
g. Secondary Mineral Content.
Cl 49. Each fraction or source of crushed fine aggregate and natural sand must conform with the
requirements given in Table 6.

Table 6 Individual Source Fine Aggregate requirements

Test Property Test Method Requirement for Compliance

Particle Density Fine Aggregate AS 1141.5 Not less than 2300 kg/m3
Water Absorption for: AS 1141.5
Crushed aggregate Not more than 2.5%
Uncrushed aggregate (DGA only) Not more than 2.0%
Soundness (using Sodium Sulphate) AS 1141.24 Not more than 3%
Plasticity Index AS 1289.3.3.1 Non-plastic

Cl 50. Where one or more of the crushed fine aggregate sources do not meet the Plasticity Index
requirement in Table 6, the combined fine aggregate must be non-plastic when tested in accordance
with AS 1289.3.3.1.

Performance based specification for SMA & DGA - DRAFT

13
Appendix F

5.5 Added filler

Cl 51. Each type of added filler from each source must be mineral material, dry and free from
lumps, organic material or other deleterious matter.

Cl 52. Where used, added filler may be a Hydrated Lime (Calcium Hydroxide) conforming with the
requirements of AS 2150 and AS 1672.1. For SMA, hydrated lime content must not exceed 1.5%
mass of total aggregate.

Cl 53. Where used, added filler may be a fine or medium grade Fly Ash conforming with the
requirements of AS 3582.1.

Cl 54. Added filler for SMA shall be Ground Limestone with Calcium Carbonate content not less
than 70%. A blended filler containing Hydrated Lime may also be used with Hydrated Lime content to
be reported. In all cases, the Rigden Voids of the combined filler must fall within 28 – 45% using AS
1141.17.

5.6 Binder
Cl 55. Binder is to be modified with either elastomeric, or plastomeric polymers, of a combination of
the two, manufactured from refined bitumen conforming to the requirements of AS 2008.

Cl 56. The Contractor must nominate any existing or bespoke binder to meet the asphalt
performance requirements.

5.7 Additives
Cl 57. A warm mix asphalt additive (including bitumen foaming) may be added to the asphalt to
assist the Contractor in achieving the asphalt performance and production requirements.

Cl 58. The type and proportion of the warm mix additive must not adversely impact the
performance of the asphalt mixture.

Cl 59. An approved liquid anti-stripping agent may be added to the asphalt.

Cl 60. The type and proportion of the adhesion agent must not adversely impact the performance
of the asphalt mixture.

Cl 61. For SMA, cellulose fibres must be added to the asphalt to prevent excess binder drain
down. The quantity of fibres included in the mixture must satisfy the binder drain down requirements
as detailed in Table 8.

5.8 Tack coat

Cl 62. Between the surface layer and the underlying layer, tack coat must be a modified bitumen
emulsion nominated by the Contractor.

Cl 63. Between the second and subsequent underlying layers, tack coat must be either rapid
setting cationic bitumen emulsion conforming with the requirements of AS 1160 or the modified
bitumen emulsion specified at Clause Cl 62.

Cl 64. Not less than 14 days prior to the Asphalt Production trial (8.2 Asphalt Production trial), the
Contractor must submit details of the proposed tack coat materials to the Principal. HOLD POINT.

Cl 65. Details must include the product type(s) or name(s), MSDS, technical specifications and
nominated production test properties and limits.

Cl 66. Within seven days of submission, the Principal will either approve or reject (for modification
or resubmission) the Contractor’s nominated tack coat.

Performance based specification for SMA & DGA - DRAFT

14
Appendix F

Cl 67. The submitted production test properties and limits nominated by the Contractor for the
approved tack coat material(s) must be reflected in the production compliance requirements of the
ITPs.

6 Mixture design
6.1 General
Cl 68. The Contractor must design the asphalt mixture by incorporating coarse aggregate, fine
aggregate, binder, added filler (optional), stabilisers (SMA only) and additives (optional)conforming
with this specification.

Cl 69. The combined aggregate must be designed from not less than four size fraction, nominally:

a. 14 mm.
b. 10 mm.
c. 7 mm.
d. Fine aggregate.
Cl 70. The Contractor must design the asphalt mixture to meet the performance requirements and
other properties detailed in this specification.

6.2 Changes in Mixture Design

Cl 71. Any change in the constituent materials or mixture design, occurring between the mixture
design submission and the completion of all asphalt production, must be immediately reported to the
Principal. The Contractor must detail the proposed mixture design verification testing to ensure that
the performance of the asphalt has not been adversely impacted by the change. HOLD POINT.

Cl 72. Within 24 hours of receipt of the Mixture Design report, the Principal will either accept the
Contractor’s proposal, or require the Contractor to undertake and resubmit a new Mixture Design
Report, as detailed in Clauses Cl 86 and Cl 87.

Cl 73. Changes in the constituent materials or mixture design include, but are not limited to:

a. Change in the coarse or fine aggregate source, rock face incorporating different
aggregate, crusher or screens.
b. Change in the added filler or other additive type or supplier.
c. Change in the polymer type, supplier or other change in binder formulation or
production plant.
d. Change in the target grading or bitumen content in the asphalt mixture.
6.3 Mixture Design Procedure
Cl 74. The Contractor is to design the mixture using the Marshall method, as follows:

a. A combined aggregate grading within the envelope specified at 6.4 Volumetrics.

b. Maintaining the VMA and Air Voids specified at 6.4 Volumetrics.
c. To achieve the asphalt performance requirements specified at 6.5 Asphalt
performance requirements.
d. And then reporting the resulting Marshall properties specified at 6.4 Volumetrics.
6.4 Volumetrics
Cl 75. The aggregate fractions must be combined to achieve an aggregate particle size distribution
conforming with the limits contained in Table 7.

Cl 76. The combined aggregate grading designed by the Contractor must not move from the upper
third of one the envelope for one AS sieve size to the lower third of the envelope for the next larger or
smaller AS sieve size.

Performance based specification for SMA & DGA - DRAFT

15
Appendix F

Table 7 Combined Aggregate Grading

DGA SMA
AS Sieve Size (mm) (Percentage Passing by Volume) (Percentage Passing by Mass)

19.0 100 100

13.2 96 – 100 90 – 100
9.5 76 – 88 45 – 65
6.7 66 – 74 -
4.75 56 – 64 22 – 34
2.36 40 – 48 18 – 27
1.18 29 – 37 14 – 22
0.600 21 – 28 12 – 19
0.300 13 – 19 10 – 16
0.150 7 – 13 9 – 14
0.075 4–6 8 – 12

Cl 77. The Contractor is to design the asphalt mixture volumetrics to also conform with the
requirements contained in Table 8 following 75 blow Marshall compaction for DGA, and 50 blow
Marshall compaction for SMA.

Table 8 Additional Volumetric Requirements

Test Property Test Method Requirement - DGA Requirement - SMA

VMA (by volume) AS/NZS 2891.8 13-17% ≥17%
Air voids AS/NZS 2891.8 3.5-4.5% 3.0-5.0%
VFB (by volume) AS/NZS 2891.8 Report only Report only
Marshall Stability AS/NZS 2891.5 Report only Report only
Marshall Flow AS/NZS 2891.5 Report only Report only
Binder film thickness AS/NZS 2891.8 Report only Report only
Binder content (by mass) N/A Report only Report only
Binder drain down (by mass) AG:PT/T235 N/A ≤0.15% at maximum
production temperature

Cl 78. The Maximum Density, as determined in accordance with AS/NZS 2891.7.1 or 7.2, must be
used to calculate the volumetric properties of the mixture in Table 8.

6.5 Asphalt performance requirements

Cl 79. The Contractor must design the asphalt mixture to also conform with the requirements
contained in Table 9.

Table 9 Asphalt Performance Requirements

Test Property Test Method Requirement

1.
Indirect Tensile Strength Ratio (TSR) AG:PT/T232 Not less than 80%
Indirect Tensile Strength (unconditioned) AG:PT/T232 Report only
Wheel Tracking Test (2 slabs, final
2.
AG:PT/T231 Not more than 2.0 mm
average rut depth after 10,000 passes)
Resilient Modulus (at 25°C) AS/NZ 2891.13.1 Report only
Fatigue life (at 20°C and 200 µƐ, three AG:PT/T274 Not more than 50% reduction of initial
beams only, to 500,000 cycles) flexural stiffness
3.
Air Voids at Refusal density AS/NZS 2891.2.2 Not less than 2.0%

Performance based specification for SMA & DGA - DRAFT

16
Appendix F

Notes:
1. Indirect TSR test to include freeze / thaw option
2. DGA test parameters: 5 ± 1% air voids at 65°C. SMA test parameters: 4 ± 1% air voids at 60°C.
3. For DGA only

6.6 Bitumen and Mastic Performance

Cl 80. The Contractor must test a sample of the modified binder, produced from the nominated
constituent materials, in accordance with AASHTO TP 70-12, at:

a. 64 C.
b. 70 C.
c. 76 C.
Cl 81. The Contractor must prepare mastic samples as follows:

a. Prepare a sample of the proposed combined fine aggregate.

b. Sieve the fine aggregate sample and retain a minimum 25 g of fine aggregate passing
the AS 0.075 mm sieve.
c. Heat 100±5 g of the proposed binder to 175±5°C and stir gently for 30 s.
d. Pour 10 g of retained fine aggregate into 10 g of heated binder and stir gently for 30 s.
Cl 82. Test the prepare mastic in accordance with AASHTO TP 70-12, at:

a. 64 C.
b. 70 C
c. 76 C.
Cl 83. The Contractor must report the binder and mastic properties in Table 10 which may be
utilised by the Principal as a benchmark in the event of changes in the asphalt mixture design
constituent materials (6.2 Changes in Mixture Design).

Table 10 Binder and Mastic Performance Requirements

Material Test Property Requirement

Binder Jnr(0.1) Report only
Binder Jnr(3.2) Report only
Mastic Jnr(0.1) Report only
Mastic Jnr(3.2) Report only

6.7 Mixture design report

Cl 84. For each mixture design proposed, the Contractor must submit to the Principal a Mixture
Design Report, not less than 14 days prior to the Asphalt Production trial (8.2 Asphalt Production
trial). HOLD POINT.

Cl 85. The Mixture Design Report must contain, as a minimum:

a. A covering commentary detailing:

i. Source of aggregates and reason(s) for their selection.
ii. Selection and details of the supplier and location of production of binder, and
reason(s) for the selection.
iii. Statement of compliance or proposed deviation from the volumetric, asphalt
performance and bitumen/mastic performance requirements specified.
iv. Certification by a suitably qualitied engineer or technician confirming that the
Contractor is satisfied that the mixture design meets the asphalt performance
requirements and is suitable for use on the aircraft pavement(s) to be surfaced.

Performance based specification for SMA & DGA - DRAFT

17
Appendix F

b. Mixture design summary sheet, summarising on one page:

i. Mixture designation (by project and mixture design).
ii. Source, rock type, apparent density, absorption and grading of each coarse
and fine aggregate fraction.
iii. Plasticity Index for the fine aggregate.
iv. Source, type and grading of each added filler.
v. Portion (by volume) of each fraction.
vi. Combined aggregate grading.
vii. Combined aggregate particle density.
viii. Binder type, grade and/or name.
ix. Bitumen content (by mass).
x. Asphalt mixture maximum and bulk density.
xi. VMA, VFB, air voids and binder film index.
xii. Marshall Stability and Marshall Flow.
xiii. TSR, Wheel tracking final rut depth and Fatigue life.
xiv. Binder drain down results (SMA only)
xv. Stabiliser content and type (SMA only)
c. Details of the coarse aggregate, including:
i. Source of each fraction.
ii. Petrological description of the source rock.
iii. Test certificates demonstrating compliance with all specified requirements.
d. Details of the fine aggregate, including:
i. Source of each fraction.
ii. Petrological description of the source rock.
iii. Test certificates demonstrating compliance with all specified requirements.
e. Details of the binder, including:
i. Grade and supplier of unmodified binder.
ii. Binder grade or name nominated by the Contractor.
iii. Where an AS 2008 or AG:PT/T190 grade of binder is nominated by the
Contractor, test certificates demonstrating compliance with all specified
requirements.
iv. Where a proprietary or project-specified binder formulation is nominated, the
suppliers product information and test certificates demonstrating compliance
with all specified requirements.
f. Binder properties, including:
i. Viscosity at 165°C according to AG:PT/T111.
ii. Torsional recovery at 25°C, 30 s according to AG:PT/T122.
iii. Softening point according to AG:PT/T131.
g. Details of the mastic and bitumen performance, including:
i. Binder Jnr(0.1) and Jnr(3.2) at each of 64°C, 70°C and 76°C.
ii. Mastic Jnr(0.1) and Jnr(3.2) at each of 64°C, 70°C and 76°C.
h. Test certificates demonstrating compliance with all asphalt performance requirements.
Cl 86. Where the Mixture Design Report demonstrates that the asphalt mixture meets all the
requirements of this specification, the Principal will accept the Mixture Design Report within seven
days of receipt of the Mixture Design Report.

Cl 87. Where the Mixture Design Report does not demonstrate that the asphalt mixture meets all
the requirement of this specification, the Principal may either reject the Mixture Design Report and
require the Contractor to resubmit following additional of modification, or may accept the Mixture
Design Report based on the Contractor’s recommendation that notwithstanding that non-
compliance(s), the asphalt mixture is suitable for the airport pavements being surfaced.

Performance based specification for SMA & DGA - DRAFT

18
Appendix F

7 Production Plant and Equipment

7.1 Minimum equipment requirements
Cl 88. The Contractor must provide and utilise the minimum number of operational pavers detailed
in the Project Particulars.

Cl 89. Where prescribed in the Project Particulars, the Contractor must supply and operate one
Material Transfer Vehicle, per operational paver, to transfer the asphalt between the delivery trucks
and the paver(s). For SMA, the use of a Material Transfer Vehicle per operational paver is mandatory.

Cl 90. For each operational paver, the Contractor must supply and operate adequate steel drum,
and pneumatic tyred rollers to meet the requirements of this specification. Pneumatic tyred rollers
shall not be used for SMA.

Cl 91. The Contractor must supply and operate adequate asphalt delivery trucks to maintain the
supply of asphalt to the paver(s) consistent with the production capacity of the production plant.

Cl 92. The Contractor must supply and operate adequate and suitable cold planers, bitumen
emulsion sprayers, hand tools, edge compactors, cutting wheels, coring machines, straight edges,
sand patch equipment, thermometers and other equipment to complete the works in accordance with
the approved Construction Procedures and the compliance requirements of this specification.

Cl 93. Where it is prescribed in the Project Particulars that the aircraft pavements are to be
returned to operational condition at the completion of each shift, the Contractor must provide back-up
equipment, including but not limited to one each of:

a. Cold planing machine.

b. Asphalt paver.
c. Steel drum roller.
d. Pneumatic tyred roller.
e. Material Transfer Vehicle (where specified as operational equipment).
Cl 94. In all cases, the Contractor must provide and utilise all equipment, in a serviceable and
operational conditional, as detailed in the approved Construction Procedures.

7.2 Production plant

Cl 95. Where it is prescribed in the Project Particulars, an asphalt production plant must be located
on the airport grounds at the location designated within the Works Contract documents.

Cl 96. In all cases, the Contractor must provide and utilise the production plant nominated in the
approved Construction Procedures.

Cl 97. The production plant may be a batch plant or a drum plant and must be designed and
constructed for the purpose of manufacturing hot or warm mixed asphalt, must be equipped with
automatic proportioning facilities, must be in satisfactory working order and must be capable of
producing asphalt in accordance with the requirements of this specification.

Cl 98. The production plant must be of adequate capacity and/or contain adequate hot storage to
supply the paving operation at a rate appropriate for the planned paving operation as detailed by the
Contractor in the approved Construction Procedures.

Cl 99. Where added filler is incorporated in the approved Asphalt Mixture Design, the production
plant must meter the added filler into the aggregate prior to the bitumen being incorporated.

Cl 100. The plant must be calibrated by the Contractor prior to the commencement of production
trials and the calibration checked and reliably maintained throughout the entire production for the
works as detailed in the approved Construction Procedures.

Performance based specification for SMA & DGA - DRAFT

19
Appendix F

Cl 101. The Contractor must provide and display certification that all weighing devices associated
with the production of asphalt be calibrated.

Cl 102. The plant must be equipped with facilities, which enable the operator to detect malfunctions
or abnormal operating conditions which may cause the production of material not conforming with the
specification.

Cl 103. Where the production plant is located on at airport grounds, the asphalt production plant
must not produce and supply other asphalt mixtures outside the project during the works, unless
otherwise approved by the Principal.

Cl 104. Where the production plant is located off airport grounds and is intended to produce, and
supply other asphalt mixtures during the works, the Contract must include processes to ensure
contamination does not occur within the Construction Procedures.

7.3 Testing Laboratory

Cl 105. The Contactor must supply and operate an ISO/IEC 17025 (NATA) accredited testing
laboratory, co-located with the asphalt production plant, for all testing required as part of the
production and construction of the asphalt layer(s).

8 Production and Construction Trial

8.1 General
Cl 106. Not less than 15 days before the asphalt paving is due to commence, all of the Contractor’s
mixing and paving plant and personnel proposed for use on the Works must be subject to Production
and Construction Trials.

Cl 107. The Asphalt Production trial must produce not less than 50 t of asphalt compliant with the
requirements of this specification.

Cl 108. The Asphalt Construction trial must produce not be less than 100 m in length and two
adjacent runs of not less than 3.75 m in width, nominally 60 mm thick.

Cl 109. The Asphalt Construction trial must follow the approved Asphalt Production and must be
located as detailed in the Works Contract.

8.2 Asphalt Production trial

Cl 110. The purpose of the Production Trial is to allow the Contractor to demonstrate the production
of asphalt to the quality and tolerance limits required by this specification and the approved
Construction Procedures.

Cl 111. The Contractor must determine minimum mixing times to meet the requirements of this
specification.

Cl 112. The Asphalt Production trial must not commence until acceptable mixing plant calibration
charts/records are provided to the Principal.

Cl 113. The Contractor must sample and test the asphalt produced in the Asphalt Production trial in
accordance with the requirements of 11.3 Asphalt production during asphalt production except that
the Contractor must take and test not less than three representative samples, taken at approximately
the quarter points in the Asphalt Production trial production and in accordance with AS 2891.1.1.

Cl 114. If the test results indicate that the asphalt produced in the Asphalt Production trial does not
conform to the properties of the submitted mix design in the approved Mixture Design Report and to
the requirements of this specification, the Contractor must make all and any adjustments that are

Performance based specification for SMA & DGA - DRAFT

20
Appendix F

necessary to achieve the production properties requirements for the approved mixture design detailed
in Clause Cl 214, within the tolerances specified in 12.3 Asphalt production.

Cl 115. If necessary, the Asphalt Production Trial must be repeated until asphalt conforming to the
properties of the approved mixture design is consistently produced.

8.3 Asphalt Construction trial

Cl 116. The Asphalt Construction trial must incorporate all placement, compaction, finishing and
testing processes proposed to be carried out during the work, including construction of transverse and
longitudinal joints, thickness control, checking of layer thicknesses, compaction and smoothness
testing.

Cl 117. The Contractor must subject all the placing, compaction and finishing equipment and
operating and supervisory personnel proposed for use on the works to a trial using the Construction
Procedures proposed for the work.

Cl 118. The longitudinal joint between the lanes must be a warm or hot joint according to whichever
the Contractor proposes to use in the works.

Cl 119. Where prescribed in the Project Particulars, the Contractor must remove the trial sections
within 10 days of being instructed to do so by the Principal.

Cl 120. The trial section, which meets the requirements of this specification, must not be removed
until approval is provided in writing by the Principal for their removal.

Cl 121. The Contractor must test the asphalt density by nuclear density gauge, at not less than 12
locations away from paving joints and 4 locations on longitudinal joints, as agreed with the Principal.
The Contractor must cut cores from the asphalt surface at the tested locations, and determine the
core density in accordance with AS/NZS 2891.9.1.

Cl 122. The Contractor must utilise the measured core density to develop a mixture-specific
calibration for the nuclear density gauge, in accordance with AS 2891.14.2 to be utilised for
compliance testing during the works. Alternatively, cores tested according to AS2891.9.1 can be
used for compaction compliance.

Cl 123. The Contractor must test the asphalt surface texture (SMA only) in accordance with
AGPT/T250 at not less than 8 locations away from paving joints.

Cl 124. From the Asphalt Construction trial section, the Principal and Contractor must select a
reference area/s that have the surface finishes at joints, and in the finished mat, that both consider to
be the standard that is compliant with the specification and are to be achieved in the works.

Cl 125. The reference area(s) for surface finish must be used by the Contractor and Principal as the
basis of determining whether the surface finish achieved in the Works conform or do not conform to
the surface finish requirements in the specification.

8.4 Production and Construction Trial Report

Cl 126. Within 3 days of the Production and Construction Trials, the Contractor must provide the
Principal with a Production and Construction Trial Report. HOLD POINT.

Cl 127. The Production and Construction Trial Report must include, as a minimum but not limited to:

a. Time, date, location and extent of the Production and Construction Trials.
b. All compliance testing results for constituent materials, as detailed in 11.2 Constituent
materials
c. All compliance testing results for asphalt production, as detailed in 11.3 Asphalt
production.

Performance based specification for SMA & DGA - DRAFT

21
Appendix F

d. All compliance testing results for surface construction, as detailed in 11.4 Asphalt
construction.
e. Nuclear density gauge calibration as detailed in Clauses Cl 121 and Cl 122.
f. Demonstrative photographs of the accepted surface finish reference areas.
Cl 128. Within 7 Days of receiving the Production and Construction Trial Report, the Principal will
either accept the Production and Construction Trial Report, which will release the Hold Point, or reject
the Production and Construction Trial Report and outline the Clauses within this Specification that
have not been satisfied.

Cl 129. If rejected, the Contractor must resubmit revised versions of the Production and
Construction Trial Report until such a time that the requirements of this Clause are satisfied, at which
time the Principal shall release the Hold Point.

Cl 130. If required, the Contractor must carry out additional trials to demonstrate that this Clause
has been satisfied.

Cl 131. Within 5 days of release of the Hold Point under this Clause, the Contractor must update the
Construction Procedures to include the Production and Construction Trial results.

Cl 132. Once the Hold Point has been released, the Contractor must not change the plant,
equipment or methods without the written agreement from the Principal. Any changes will be
considered on a case-by-case basis and may require additional trials and/or a further update to the
Construction Procedures.

9 Asphalt Production
9.1 Production requirements
Cl 133. The Contractor must produce asphalt to be consistent and uniform in temperature, and
composition, consistent with the approved Construction Procedures to ensures all conformance and
quality requirements detailed in this specification are achieved.

Cl 134. The Contractor must monitor the bitumen consumed and must determine the average
bitumen content of each asphalt mix produced during each continuous mixing period or work period
based on the total quantity of bitumen used and total asphalt produced.

Cl 135. During asphalt production, the Contractor must monitor and actively control, within the limits
nominated in the approved Construction Procedures:

a. Bitumen temperature.
b. Aggregate temperature.
c. Asphalt production temperature.
d. Mixing time.
Cl 136. For each truck delivery, the Contractor must visually check the asphalt to ensure that the
coarse aggregate is fully coated with bitumen and there is no segregation of the asphalt mixture.

Cl 137. Where the asphalt is not fully coated or is segregated, the asphalt must not be used in the
works. The Contractor must advise the Principal of steps to be taken to remedy the non-conformance.
HOLD POINT.

9.2 Non-conforming materials

Cl 138. Any asphalt which is overheated, insufficiently heated or mixed, carbonised, contains free
water or excess moisture or contains uncoated particles, must not be incorporated in the works and
must be removed from site by the Contractor, at no additional cost to the Principal.

Performance based specification for SMA & DGA - DRAFT

22
Appendix F

10 Asphalt Construction
Cl 139. The Contractor must undertake the asphalt construction to achieve all the compliance
requirements detailed in the specification and in accordance with the approved Construction
Procedures.

10.1 Weather limitations

Cl 140. Asphalt must not be produced and constructed during weather, or expected weather, that
may be detrimental to the quality of the finished asphalt surface layer(s).

Cl 141. Where the existing surface temperature is below 15°C, the Contractor must develop and
submit cold weather construction procedures for the Principal’s approval. HOLD POINT.

10.2 Surface preparation

Cl 142. Asphalt must not be placed until the existing surface on which the asphalt is to be placed
has been jointly inspected by the Principal and the Contractor, and it is agreed to be suitable. HOLD
POINT.

Cl 143. Existing asphalt surfaces must be milled to achieved the design surface levels and minimum
layer thicknesses, or textured to a minimum thickness of:

a. With existing grooves. Minimum 7 mm.

b. Without existing grooves. Minimum 3 mm.
Cl 144. When the Project Particulars do not prescribe that the aircraft pavement(s) are required to
be returned to operational condition at the end of each work period, the milling/texturing of the existing
surface may be performed without restriction.

Cl 145. When the Project Particulars prescribe that the aircraft pavement(s) are required to be
returned to operational condition at the end of each work period, and:

a. When the Project Particulars prescribed that texturing ahead is not permitted, the
Contractor must perform all texturing and milling within the same work period as asphalt
surfacing.
b. When the Project Particulars prescribe that texturing ahead is permitted, the Contractor
may texture the surface, not more than two work periods ahead of the asphalt surfacing
operation.
Cl 146. Notwithstanding texturing ahead of the asphalt surfacing operation, in Clause Cl 145, the
Contractor must maintain the textured surface in a state that is free-draining and compliant with the
geometric constraints contained within MOS 139.

Cl 147. Following all milling and/or texturing, the surface must be thoroughly cleaned by skid steer
mounted broom, tractor broom and/or suction sweeper.

10.3 Tack coat

Cl 148. Tack coat must be applied to the prepared surface at a rate of 0.2-0.3 l/m2 of residual
bituminous material, calculated at 25°C.

Cl 149. Vertical faces of milled and excavated existing pavement must be thoroughly tack coated by
hand lance or other method in accordance with the approved Construction Procedures.

Cl 150. Tack coated surfaces must be protected from construction equipment trafficking to the
extent reasonably achievable.

Performance based specification for SMA & DGA - DRAFT

23
Appendix F

Cl 151. Asphalt paving must not commence until the tack coat is substantially broken over more
than 80% of the surface of the paving run.

10.4 Asphalt paving

Cl 152. Lanes of asphalt must be placed continuously within each work period, following the general
sequence detailed in the approved Construction Procedures.

Cl 153. Asphalt must be placed using mechanical pavers. The mechanical paver must be adjusted
and operated such as to continuously spread asphalt evenly and uniformly over the lane widths.

Cl 154. The asphalt paver must be operated at a uniform continuous speed matched to the
operating capacity of the mixing plant, the delivery of the asphalt, and the compaction process, and
such that the paver does not stop between planned transverse joints.

Cl 155. Each asphalt paver must be adjusted to ensure accurate operation using the computer level
control system and joint matching equipment for the automatic control of levels.

10.4.1 Layer thicknesses

Cl 156. Where the design is a variable asphalt thickness, asphalt must be paved to achieve the
design surface level after compaction, using computer controlled paving equipment and joint matching
devices.

Cl 157. Where the design is a nominal asphalt thickness, the asphalt must be paved to target the
nominated thickness.

Cl 158. The thickness of individual layers of asphalt, after compaction, must be within the limits
specified in Table 11.

Table 11 Individual Asphalt Layer Thickness Limits

Layer Minimum Thickness Maximum Thickness

Surface layer (DGA) 40 mm 80 mm
Surface layer (SMA) 50 mm 60 mm
Underlying layers (DGA only) 30 mm 100 mm

10.4.2 Compaction

Cl 159. The Contractor must compact the asphalt while the mix is at a temperature above that
nominated in the approved Construction Procedures.

Cl 160. All the rolling must be actively supervised continuously by the Contractor for the duration of
the work.

Cl 161. All rolling must be as nominated in the approved Construction Procedures and verified
during the Construction trials and to ensure the density and surface compliance requirement are met.

Cl 162. The Contractor must modify the equipment and/or the operation of the rollers to ensure that
pick-up on tyres and drums is prevented.

Cl 163. Rollers must not be permitted to stand on the finished asphalt until it has cooled to ambient
temperature throughout.

Cl 164. In all areas not accessible to rolling, the asphalt must be thoroughly compacted using
vibrating plate compacters, hot hand tampers or any other equipment as detailed in the approve
Construction Procedures.

Performance based specification for SMA & DGA - DRAFT

24
Appendix F

10.4.3 Edges and Tie-ins

Cl 165. Free edges without adjacent lanes of asphalt must be tied-in flush or rolled over as
prescribed in the Project Particulars and/or as prescribed in the Works Contract.

Cl 166. Where temporary tie-ins are required between work periods, the gradient of the temporary
tie-in ramp must not exceed:

a. 0.5%, where the different between the existing surface level and design surface level
is greater than 50 mm at the centreline of the aircraft pavement being surfaced.
b. 1.0% where the different between the existing surface level and design surface level
is 50 mm or less at the centreline of the aircraft pavement being surfaced.
10.4.4 Longitudinal Joints

Cl 167. Longitudinal joints are joints between adjacent paving lanes, aligned parallel to the direction
of paving.

Cl 168. The Contractor must plan the work to minimise cold joints and to provide the highest density
and quality longitudinal joints reasonably practicable.

Cl 169. Where the adjacent lane is constructed while the initial lane exceeds 125°C, an
uncompacted strip must be left and the strip must be compacted after the adjacent lane is paved,
simultaneously with the adjacent lane of asphalt.

Cl 170. Where the adjacent lane is constructed while the initial lane exceeds 110°C, the initial lane
must be compacted by overhanging the roller, without collapsing the edge, and the free-edge shaped
to a 45°C to the vertical using steel lutes, or heated hand operated rollers or similar equipment. After
placing of the adjacent lane, the initial passes with the rollers must overlap the previously placed lane
by at least 50 mm.

Cl 171. Where the adjacent lane is constructed when the initial lane is below 110°C, the initial lane
must be compacted by overhanging the roller, without collapsing the edge. The free edge must be
checked for shape loss at the rolled over edge. The free edge must be removed by cold planer by a
minimum of 50 mm, or greater to remove any out of shape material. The vertical face must be treated
with two uniform hand applications of tack coat before placing the adjoining asphalt.

Cl 172. Notwithstanding the above minimum requirements, all longitudinal joints must be planned,
constructed and treated in accordance with the approved Construction Procedures.

10.4.5 Transverse Joints

Cl 173. Transverse joints are joints, generally between adjacent Lots, aligned perpendicular to the
direction of paving.

Cl 174. Where the Project Particulars require the aircraft pavement(s) to be returned to operational
condition at the end of each work period, transverse joints must be finished as temporary tie-ins, flush
with the existing surface level, in accordance with 10.4.3 Edges and Tie-ins, and removed by cold
planning machine to a minimum of 2 m or to achieve the design surface level.

Cl 175. The vertical face must be treated with two uniform hand applications of tack coat before
placing the adjoining asphalt.

Cl 176. Notwithstanding the above minimum requirements, all transverse joints must be planned,
constructed and treated in accordance with the approved Construction Procedures.

10.4.6 Hand-work

Cl 177. Hand-work must be minimised to the extent reasonably practicable.

Performance based specification for SMA & DGA - DRAFT

25
Appendix F

Cl 178. During unavoidable hand-work the Contractor must exercise care in handling and placing
the asphalt to avoid segregation.

10.5 Protection of finished surface

Cl 179. Finished asphalt surfaces must be protected from all non-essential construction traffic, as
detailed in the approved Construction Procedures.

11 Compliance testing
11.1 General
Cl 180. For the asphalt surface layer(s) to be deemed compliant with this specification and accepted
by the Principal, all compliance testing requirements must be achieved and all test certificates, Lot
reports and other quality assurance documentation must be submitted to the Principal as detailed in
the approved Construction Procedures.

11.2 Constituent materials

11.2.1 Coarse aggregate

Cl 181. All coarse aggregate to be used in the works and stockpiled at the quarry or pit must be
tested and compliance confirmed, before delivery to the site/asphalt plant storage stockpiles.

Cl 182. All coarse aggregate supplied to the mixing plant must be sampled and tested on a routine
basis to determine their compliance with the specified properties.

Cl 183. The frequency of sampling and testing must be such as to ensure that changes in quality of
the aggregates are detected sufficiently in advance of the time aggregates are incorporated into the
asphalt to reject, verify or otherwise take action to avoid the inclusion of non-conforming aggregates.

Cl 184. The results of the tests on all coarse aggregate used in production of asphalt must be, at all
times, available at a location approved by the Principal but within 100 m of the mixing plant, for
inspection by the Principal. Each test property must be included in the Process Control Records for
each coarse aggregate fraction as well as the specification limits.

Cl 185. The frequency of sampling and testing for each coarse aggregate fraction must not be less
than specified in Table 12.

Table 12 Coarse Aggregate Frequency of Testing

Test property Test method Test frequency

Particle size distribution (grading) AS 1141.11 1 test per 500 tonnes aggregate

Material Finer than 0.075 mm in AS 1141.11 1 test per 500 tonnes aggregate
Aggregates (by washing)
Flakiness Index AS 1141.15 1 test per 1000 tonnes aggregate
Weak particles (including clay lumps, AS 1141.32 1 test per 1000 tonnes aggregate
soft and friable particles) in coarse
aggregate
Particle density AS 1141.6.1 1 test per 2000 tonnes aggregate
Water absorption AS 1141.6.1 1 test per 2000 tonnes aggregate

11.2.2 Fine aggregate

Cl 186. All fine aggregate to be used in the works and stockpiled at the quarry or pit must be tested
and compliance confirmed, before delivery to the site/asphalt plant storage stockpiles.

Performance based specification for SMA & DGA - DRAFT

26
Appendix F

Cl 187. All fine aggregate supplied to the mixing plant must be sampled and tested on a routine
basis to determine their compliance with the specified properties. The frequency of sampling and
testing must be such as to ensure that changes in quality of the aggregates are detected sufficiently in
advance of the time aggregates are incorporated into the asphalt to reject, verify or otherwise take
action to avoid the inclusion of non-conforming aggregates.

Cl 188. The results of the tests on all fine aggregate used in production of asphalt must be, at all
times, available at a location approved by the Principal but within 100 m of the mixing plant, for
inspection by the Principal. Each test property must be plotted on a Process Control Chart for each
fine aggregate fraction, or combined fine aggregate, as applicable, as well as the specification limits.

Cl 189. The frequency of sampling and testing for each fine aggregate fraction must not be less than
specified in Table 13.

Cl 190. The frequency of sampling and testing for the combined fine aggregate must not be less
than specified in Table 14.

Table 13 Individual Source Fine Aggregate Frequency of Testing

Test property Test method Test frequency

Particle size distribution (grading) AS 1141.11 1 test per 500 tonnes aggregate
Particle density AS 1141.5 1 test per 2000 tonnes aggregate
Water absorption AS 1141.5 1 test per 2000 tonnes aggregate

Table 14 Combined Fine Aggregate Frequency of Testing

Test property Test method Test frequency

Plasticity index AS 1289.3.3.1 1 test per 2000 tonnes aggregate

11.2.3 Added filler

Cl 191. A test certificate which demonstrates that the added filler complies with the applicable AS
must be supplied for every delivery to the asphalt mixing plant.

Cl 192. The test certificate must be for the production batch of added filler from which the delivered
quantity was supplied.

Cl 193. The test certificate must be provided to the Principal with the Asphalt Lot submission
immediately following the added filler delivery to site.

11.2.4 Binder

11.2.4.1 Certificate of Compliance

Cl 194. A test certificate for bitumen which demonstrates that the binder complies with the
Specification must be supplied for every delivery to the asphalt mixing plant.

Cl 195. The test certificates must be provided to the Principal with the asphalt Lot submission
immediately following the delivery to site.

11.2.4.2 Addition Production Testing

Cl 196. A sample of the binder must be obtained from each production batch of binder, from the
production facility.

Cl 197. The Contractor must test the sample of the binder in accordance with AASHTO TP 70-12,
at:

a. 64 C.

Performance based specification for SMA & DGA - DRAFT

27
Appendix F

b. 70 C.
c. 76 C.
Cl 198. The Contractor must report the binder properties in Table 10 which may be used by the
Principal to screen for changes in the binder constituent materials (6.2 Changes in Mixture Design).

Table 15 Additional Binder Production Testing

Material Test Property Requirement

Binder Jnr(0.1) Report only
Binder Jnr(3.2) Report only

Cl 199. The test certificates must be provided to the Principal within 48 hours of binder production.

11.2.4.3 Point of delivery sampling

Cl 200. Bitumen must be sampled from the asphalt production plant binder storage tank, delivery
tanker vessel or cold transport container, as detailed in the approved Construction Procedures, by the
Contractor for each delivery vessel/tank, not more than four hours prior to the commencement of
asphalt production or transfer of binder to the asphalt product plant binder storage tank.

Cl 201. Where the modified binder production plant and the asphalt production plant are co-located
with a direct pipe-transfer capability, the binder may be sampled directly from the modified binder
production plant or storage tank, not more than four hours prior to the binder being transferred to the
asphalt production plant.

Cl 202. All samples of bitumen must be obtained in accordance with AG:PT/T101. WITNESS
POINT.

Cl 203. A minimum of two samples, each not less than 0.5 L in volume, must be obtained. The
sample containers must be new clean, dry, cylindrical, tin plated, airtight, steel paint cans with
purpose manufactured removable friction top lids of the same material. The lids must seal the cans
airtight.

Cl 204. The Contractor must number, log and register all samples to identify, in the register and on
the sample tins:

a. The project from which the sample was obtained.

b. The binder manufacturer’s batch number.
c. The date and time the sample was obtained.
d. The date of incorporation of the binder into asphalt production.
Cl 205. Marking of sample tins must be durable and as detailed in the approved Construction
Procedures.

Cl 206. The Contractor must distribute the binder samples as follows:

a. Deliver one sample to the Principal not later than 6 hours after sampling.
b. Retain one sample for point of delivery testing by the Contractor and then retain the
residual of the sample in a dedicated, undercover storage area, within 100 m of the
asphalt production plant, until contractual practical completion is granted, at which time
the samples may be retained by the Contractor or disposed of by the Contractor. At
any time up to their disposal, the Principal may take possession and ownership of the
samples from the Contractor.
11.2.4.4 Point of delivery testing
Cl 207. The point of delivery sample, to be retained for point of delivery testing, must be tested by
the Contractor, prior to the commencement of asphalt production for the work period, for:

Performance based specification for SMA & DGA - DRAFT

28
Appendix F

a. Viscosity at 165°C according to AG:PT/T111.

b. Torsional recovery at 25°C, 30 s according to AG:PT/T122.
c. Softening point according to AG:PT/T131.
Cl 208. The test certificate(s) must be provided to the Principal prior to the commencement of
asphalt production for the work period. HOLD POINT.

11.2.5 Tack coat

Cl 209. A test certificate which demonstrates that the tack coat complies with AS 1160 or approved
modified tack coat production properties, must be supplied for every delivery to site.

Cl 210. The test certificate must be provided to the Principal with the asphalt Lot submission
immediately following the delivery to site.

11.3 Asphalt production

Cl 211. Routine sampling and testing of asphalt for compliance with the specified test properties
must be carried out by the Contractor.

Cl 212. Sampling must be carried out from delivery trucks in accordance with the method detailed in
AS 2891.1.1.

Cl 213. The number of samples and sets of tests on each nominal size of asphalt produced in the
work period must not be less than that specified in Table 16.

Table 16 Number of Test Sets on Asphalt in Each Work Period

Tonnes of Asphalt in the Lot Number of test sets

Not greater than 300 tonnes 2
300 to 600 tonnes 3
600 to 1,000 tonnes 4
Greater than 1,000 tonnes 5

Cl 214. Each test set must be tested in the on-site laboratory for:

a. Combined aggregate grading.

b. Maximum Density.
c. Bulk density.
d. Binder content.
e. VFB and VMA.
f. Air Voids.
g. Moisture content.
h. Marshall Stability and Marshall Flow.
i. Binder drain-off (SMA only).
Cl 215. The Reference Density for the production Lot must be calculated as the average of the
Maximum Density values applicable to the asphalt Lot, as determined by Clause Cl 213 and
Clause Cl 214, in accordance with AS/NZS 2891.7.1 or AS/NZS 2891.7.2

Cl 216. The Reference Density, determined in Clause Cl 215 must be used to calculate the
volumetric properties of the production mixture, where applicable, in Clause Cl 214.

Cl 217. The results of all tests on asphalt production samples must be, at all times, available at a
location approved by the Principal, for inspection by the Principal. Each test property must be plotted
on a Process Control Chart for each combined aggregate grading sieve, and each other test result,
along with the specification limits.

Cl 218. In addition, the following must be calculated for each Lot.

Performance based specification for SMA & DGA - DRAFT

29
Appendix F

a. Bitumen usage. During each work period, the quantity of bitumen used in each
production run for each nominal size of asphalt mix must be accurately recorded by
dipping the bitumen storage tank or by recording the plant digital read-outs before and
after each production run.
b. Mass of asphalt produced. The mass of each nominal size of asphalt mix produced
in each work period must be determined and recorded.
c. Average bitumen content. By using the quantity of bitumen used in the production
and the total mass of asphalt produced in each work period, the average bitumen
content must be calculated and reported.
Cl 219. All asphalt production test results must be reported in the Lot submission.

11.4 Asphalt construction

11.4.1 Construction processes

Cl 220. During every period of asphalt construction, the following must be actively monitored and
inspected, in conjunction with the Principal:

a. Roller patterns and operation consistent with the Asphalt Construction trial (8.3 Asphalt
Construction trial). WITNESS POINT.
b. Surface texture within the paving lanes tight and consistent with the Asphalt
Construction trial (8.3 Asphalt Construction trial). WITNESS POINT.
c. Surface texture at the joints tight and consistent with the Asphalt Construction trial
(8.3 Asphalt Construction trial). WITNESS POINT.
11.4.2 Compacted Air Voids

Cl 221. Based on the calibration between the nuclear density gauge and the asphalt cores
developed by the Contract during the Asphalt Construction trial (8.3 Asphalt Construction trial) the
Contractor must measure the density of the compacted asphalt at the following frequency:

a. Away from joints. Ten locations per Lot.

b. On longitudinal joints. Four locations per Lot.
Cl 222. The location of each in-situ density test must be chosen by a method of stratified random
sampling, according to AS 1289.1.4.2.

Cl 223. The Contractor must determine the Air Void content of the compacted asphalt layer as the
ratio between the compacted asphalt density and the maximum density for the Lot, determined from
Clause Cl 214.

Cl 224. The Contractor must monitor the Air Void content results using a Process Control Records.

11.4.3 Surface Smoothness

Cl 225. The finished surface of the asphalt must be tested for smoothness by the Contractor using
hand held and mobile straight edges within 48 hours of completion of compaction of the asphalt.

Cl 226. The full extent of the junction with the asphalt constructed in the previous work period must
be tested. The mobile straight edge must be operated by the Contractor at a speed not exceeding
5 km/hr, or at such slower speed that permits accurate detection of discontinuities, to detect any
surface irregularities that exceed the smoothness requirements specified.

Cl 227. Straight edge tests must be carried out on continuous longitudinal lines parallel to each
other and to the centreline of the pavement along the approximate centre of each placing lane.

Cl 228. The transverse smoothness must be tested at right angles to the centreline of the pavement
using the mobile straight edge or hand held straight edges along the placing lanes and across
longitudinal joints at intervals not exceeding 10 m.

Performance based specification for SMA & DGA - DRAFT

30
Appendix F

11.4.4 Surface Texture (for SMA surfaces only)

Cl 229. The finished surface texture of the asphalt must be tested by the Contractor using a
volumetric sand patch test in accordance with AGPT/T250, or with a suitable laser surface texture
measurement device within 48 hours of completion of compaction of the asphalt.

Cl 230. The surface texture must be measured no less than twice every 50m along each paving
lane, and not in the location of joints.

11.4.5 Layer thickness

Cl 231. The actual average compacted asphalt layer thickness must be compared to the theoretical
average compacted asphalt layer thickness, based on the surveyed milled/textured surface, the
design surface level and the area surfaced within the asphalt Lot.

Cl 232. Where a variable thickness asphalt surface is constructed, the average compacted asphalt
layer thickness must be determined by the Contractor based on the area surfaced within the Lot of
asphalt, the tonnes of asphalt placed and the average density of the compacted asphalt determined in
Clause Cl 221.

Cl 233. Where a nominal thickness asphalt surface is constructed, the average compacted asphalt
layer thickness must be determined by the Contractor based on the area surfaced within the Lot of
asphalt, the tonnes of asphalt placed and the average density of the compacted asphalt determined in
Clause Cl 221.

11.4.6 Surface level

Cl 234. The Contractor must complete an engineering survey of the surface level on the same grid
as the design surface level set-out.

Cl 235. All finished surface levels must be surveyed by precise levelling to an accuracy of 2 mm with
readings to 1 mm and the survey must be undertaken under the control of a licensed surveyor.

Cl 236. The Contractor must provide the Principal with a record of the surface levels, design surface
levels (applicable to the surface being constructed) and deviations between the finished and design
surface levels for the Lot.

11.4.7 Reporting

Cl 237. All asphalt construction test results must be reported in the Lot submission.

11.5 Surface completion

11.5.1 Surface level

Cl 238. The Contractor must complete an engineering survey of the finished surface level on the
same grid as the design surface level set-out, within 3 days of completion of all asphalt production.

Cl 239. The level data must be provided in a 12D compatible model and in Excel,and must show
deviations from the design level at every point by chainage and offset.

Cl 240. All finished surface levels must be surveyed by precise levelling to an accuracy of 2 mm with
readings to 1 mm and the survey must be undertaken under the control of a licensed surveyor.

Cl 241. The Contractor must provide the Principal with a record of the finished surface levels and
cross falls of the final asphalt surface, together with a summary indicating the magnitude of the
departures from the specified finished surface levels and cross falls detailed in the Works Contract or
the approved geometric design, within one day of completion of the survey.

Performance based specification for SMA & DGA - DRAFT

31
Appendix F

11.5.2 Friction survey (for runways only)

Cl 242. Where required by the Project Particulars, the Contractor must conduct a friction survey,
with a continuous friction measuring device with a 1 mm water film self-wetting capability, permitted by
MOS 139, within second days of completion of each of:

a. Completion of construction of any runway pavement surface.

b. Completion of runway grooving (where applicable).
Cl 243. The survey must include measurement along the full runway length, even if only a portion of
the runway length was surfaced, at:

a. 3 m and 6 m offsets from the runway centreline.

b. At both 65 km/hr and 95 km/hr test speeds.
c. In both runway directions.
Cl 244. Within 48 hours of completion of the friction survey, the Contractor must provide the
Principal with a statement regarding the general compliance of the runway to MOS 139 minimum
surface fiction requirements.

Cl 245. Within 14 days of completion of the friction survey, the Contractor must provide the Principal
with a written report detailing the conducting of the survey undertaken and all friction results reported
continuously, and as a 100 m rolling average, including graphical comparison to the MOS 139
minimum surface friction requirements.

11.5.3 Ride quality (for runways only)

Cl 246. Where required by the Project Particulars, the Contractor must survey the finished surface
level of the aircraft pavement(s) for ride quality within 24 hours of completion of construction of any
runway pavement surface.

Cl 247. All finished surface levels must be surveyed by precise levelling to an accuracy of 2 mm with
readings to 1 mm and the survey must be undertaken under the control of a licensed surveyor.

Cl 248. The survey must include the full runway length, even if only a portion of the runway length
was surfaced, at:

a. 4 m offsets on both sides of the runway centreline.

b. At a longitudinal internal not greater than 1 m.
Cl 249. Within seven days of completion of construction of any runway pavement surface, the
Contractor must submit a report to the Principal detailing the BBI, according to the method described
in AC 150/5380-9.

Cl 250. The report must include:

a. Tabulated finished surface levels by chainage and offset.

b. Method for calculation of the BBI.
c. BBI calculated for each 4 m offset, at bump lengths:
i. 2 m.
ii. 5 m.
iii. 10 m.
iv. 20 m.
v. 40 m.
vi. 60 m.
d. BBI graphed separately for each 4 m offset, for all bump lengths, at an internal of 1 m,
between 2 m and 60 m, colour coded to indicate BBI values:
i. not greater than 0.2,
ii. greater than 0.2 but not greater than 0.5,
iii. greater than 0.5 but not greater than 1.0, and

Performance based specification for SMA & DGA - DRAFT

32
Appendix F

iv. greater than 1.0.

12 Acceptance criteria
12.1 General
Cl 251. The Contractor must produce asphalt in accordance with the asphalt mixture design
accepted by the Principal.

12.2 Constituent materials

12.2.1 Coarse aggregate

Cl 252. When tested in accordance with, Table 12, conform with the material properties in Table 5.

Cl 253. The particle size distribution of any individual sample of each coarse aggregate taken from
stockpiles, deliveries, delivery vehicles, cold bins, feeders or conveyor belts must be consistent and
must not vary from the particle size distribution of that aggregate which was used to produce the
approved mixture design combined aggregate grading by more than the tolerances specified in
Table 17.

Table 17 Coarse aggregate tolerances on AS sieves

AS Sieve Size (mm) Tolerance

13.2 ±8%
9.5 ±8%
6.7 ±8%
4.75 ±8%

12.2.2 Fine aggregate

Cl 254. When tested in accordance with, Table 13, conform with the material properties in Table 6.

Cl 255. When tested in accordance with, Table 14, conform with the material properties in Clause Cl
50.

Cl 256. The particle size distribution of any individual sample of each fine aggregate taken from
stockpiles, deliveries, delivery vehicles, cold bins, feeders or conveyor belts must be consistent and
must not vary from the particle size distribution of that aggregate which was used to produce the
approved mixture design combined aggregate grading by more than the tolerances specified in
Table 18.

Table 18 Fine aggregate tolerances on AS sieves

AS Sieve Size (mm) Tolerance

2.36 ±6%
1.18 ±6%
0.600 ±5%
0.300 ±5%
0.075 ±2%

12.2.3 Added filler

Cl 257. Where Hydrated Lime (Calcium Hydroxide) is used, conforming with the requirements of
AS 2150 and AS 1672.1.

Performance based specification for SMA & DGA - DRAFT

33
Appendix F

Cl 258. Where a fine or medium grade Fly Ash is used, conforming with the requirements of
conforming to AS 3582.1.

Cl 259. For SMA, combined filler Rigden voids must conform to the requirement of 28 – 45%.

12.2.4 Binder

Cl 260. When tested in accordance with 11.2.4.1 Certificate of Compliance, binder must conform
with the material properties applicable to the grade of binder nominated by the Contractor.

Cl 261. When tested in accordance with 11.2.4.4 Point of delivery testing, not vary from the results
contained in the manufacturers certificate of compliance, for the same binder batch, by more than the
Investigate tolerances nominated by the Contractor in the Construction Procedures.

Cl 262. When a test result referred to in Clause Cl 261 outside the Investigate tolerance but not
outside the Reject tolerance, the Contractor must undertake further investigation as specified in
Clauses Cl 264 and Cl 265 and/or the approved Construction Procedures.

Cl 263. When a test result referred to in Clause Cl 261 falls outside the Reject tolerance, the binder
batch must be rejected, not included in the works and disposed of by the Contractor, at no additional
cost to the Principal.

Cl 264. The Contractor must prepare and submit to the Principal, a disposition regarding the binder
point of delivery test result, including: HOLD POINT:

a. The binder point of delivery test results for the batch.

b. The Process Control Charts for binder point of delivery testing.
c. The asphalt performance risks associated with acceptance of the binder batch.
d. The Contractor’s proposed disposition regarding acceptance or rejection of the binder
batch.
e. The Contractor’s proposed additional testing, which may include:
i. Repeated testing of the binder batch.
ii. Performance-testing of the associated Lot of asphalt surface.
f. The basis for acceptance of the Lot of asphalt.
Cl 265. When the Contractor’s propose additional testing, referred to in Clause Cl 264 fails to meet
with Contractor’s proposed basis for acceptance, the binder batch and/or Lot of asphalt must be
removed and replaced and disposed of by the Contractor, at no additional cost to the Principal.

12.2.5 Tack coat

Cl 266. All deliveries of modified bitumen emulsion must conform with the production test
requirements nominated by the Contractor.

Cl 267. If used, all deliveries of rapid setting cationic bitumen emulsion must conform the
requirements of AS 1160.

12.3 Asphalt production

12.3.1 Combined aggregate grading

Cl 268. All asphalt produced in accordance with the approved mixture design, must conform with the
combined aggregate grading tolerances shown in Table 19.

Table 19 Asphalt combined aggregate grading tolerances

AS Sieve Size (mm) Tolerance

13.2 ±6%
9.5 ±6%

Performance based specification for SMA & DGA - DRAFT

34
Appendix F

6.7 ±6%
4.75 ±6%
2.36 ±5%
1.18 ±5%
0.600 ±3
0.300 ±2
0.075 ±1.5

12.3.2 Volumetric properties

Cl 269. All asphalt produced in accordance with the approved mixture design, must conform with the
volumetric tolerances shown in Table 20.

Table 20 Asphalt volumetric tolerances

Test property Tolerance

VMA ±2%
Air voids ±1.5%
Binder content, by mass ±0.3%

12.3.3 Marshall properties

Cl 270. All asphalt produced in accordance with the approved mixture design, must conform with the
Marshall property tolerances shown in Table 21.

Table 21 Asphalt Marshall property tolerances

Test property Tolerance

Marshall Flow ±1.0 mm
Marshall Stability ±3.0 kN

12.3.4 Moisture content

Cl 271. All asphalt produced must have a moisture content not exceeding 0.5% when testing in
accordance with AS/NZS 2891.10.

12.4 Asphalt construction

12.4.1 Surface finish

Cl 272. The finished surface of the asphalt surface layer(s) must be a tightly bonded, closed
textured (DGA only), surface of uniform appearance, free of dragged areas, cracks, segregation and
open textured patches.

Cl 273. Joints must be tightly closed.

Cl 274. Surface texture must be consistent with the level achieved during the approved Asphalt
Construction trial (8.3 Asphalt Construction trial).

Cl 275. For SMA, the surface texture must be greater or equal to 1mm, and be homogenous across
the entire mat.

Performance based specification for SMA & DGA - DRAFT

35
Appendix F

12.4.2 Air Voids

Cl 276. The Air Voids content of the asphalt layer(s) must conform with the limits in Table 22.

Table 22 Lot Air Voids content Limits

Parameter DGA SMA

Each individual test location away from joints 2.0 – 8.0% 2.0 – 6.0%
Each individual test location on longitudinal joints 2.0 – 9.0% 2.0 - 9.0%
Average of the Lot test locations away from joints 3.0 – 6.5% 3.0 – 5.0%
Average of the Lot test locations on longitudinal joints 3.0 – 7.5% 3.0 - 7.5%

12.4.3 Surface smoothness

Cl 277. The finished surface of the surface layer must not deviate from the testing edge of an
approved 3.5 m straight edge, by more than 4 mm (longitudinally) and 6 mm (transversely) on aircraft
pavements, and 6 mm (longitudinally) and 7 mm (transversely) on shoulders.

12.4.4 Layer thickness

Cl 278. The average compacted layer thickness for each Lot must not vary from the nominated layer
thickness by more than ±4 mm.

12.4.5 Surface Level

Cl 279. In full strength pavement areas, no less than 95% of the deviations between design surface
level and finished surface level for each Lot must be no greater than 7 mm.

Cl 280. In shoulders and other non-full strength pavement areas, no less than 90% of the deviations
between design surface level and finished surface level for each Lot must be no greater than 7 mm.

Cl 281. On completion of the finished pavement surface, no less than 95% of the final finished
surface deviations between design surface cross fall and finished surface cross fall must be no
greater than 0.2%.

12.5 Completion Certification

Cl 282. Inspection, review of Quality System documentation and Certification by a suitably
experienced Technician or Engineer that the asphalt surface complies with the intent of this
specification, the approved mixture design and the approved construction processes.

12.6 Non-conforming asphalt

Cl 283. Unless explicitly allowed elsewhere in this specification, Lots or areas of asphalt assessed
as non-conforming with respect to the requirements specified herein must be addressed by
Contractor at no additional cost to the Principal.

Cl 284. The Contractor must investigate the non-conformance and provide the Principal a
disposition to address the non-conformance and to avoid similar non-conformances during the
remainder of the works.

Cl 285. The Principal may accept or reject the disposition and may instruct the Contractor how to
address the non-conformance or require the Contractor to develop an alternate disposition.

Performance based specification for SMA & DGA - DRAFT

36
Appendix F

13 Maintenance during the Performance period

13.1 Periodic inspection
Cl 286. During the performance period, and at the frequency prescribed in the Project Particulars,
the Contractor must inspect the asphalt surface in conjunction with the Principal.

Cl 287. The Contractor must identify, mark with paint, photograph and record (including approximate
chainage and offset) all distresses.

Cl 288. Within 7 days of the inspection, the Contractor must submit a written report to the Principal,
including as a minimum, but not limited to:

a. The date, time, attendees and general sequence of the inspection.

b. All distresses, including distress type, distress extent, a photo, chainage and offset.
c. Recommended maintenance treatment(s).
d. Potential consequences of not affecting the recommended maintenance.
Cl 289. Within 7 days of receipt of the written report, the Principal may either accept the report or
reject the report for resubmission, with reasonable comments to be addressed by the Contractor.

Cl 290. The Contractor must resubmit, taking into account the Principal’s comments, within 7 days
of receipt of the comments.

Performance based specification for SMA & DGA - DRAFT

37
Appendix F

Project Particulars
Cells highlighted GREY must be completed by the Principal. Other cells may be left blank of
completed by the Principal where project specific requirements dictate.

Section, Clause Description Specified particular If nothing specified

1.3, Cl 3 Regular critical aircraft N/A
1.3, Cl 3 Occasional critical aircraft N/A
Asphalt to be compatible with
1.3, Cl 4 Required
grooving
1.3 Cl 5 SMA or DGA surface N/A
Additional mandatory Hold/Witness
4.2 Cl 13 Not required
Points (per table below)
RAP percentage by mass in surface
5.2, Cl 36 0%
layer
RAP percentage by mass in
5.2, Cl 36 20%
underlying layer(s)
Minimum number of operating
7.1, Cl 88 1
pavers
Not required (DGA)
7.1, Cl 89 Material Transfer Vehicle mandatory
Mandatory (SMA)
7.1, Cl 93
Aircraft pavement returned to
10.2, Cl 144 and Cl 145 Required
service at the end of each shift
10.4.5, Cl 174
7.2, Cl 95 Production plant located on site N/A
8.3 Cl 119 Removal of construction trial Required
Surface texturing ahead of asphalt
10.2, Cl 144 and Cl 145 Not permitted
surface operation
11.5.2 Cl 242 Friction Survey (Runways only) Not required
11.5.3 Cl 246 Ride Quality (Runways only) Not required
13.1, Cl 286 Periodic inspection frequency Annually

Additional Mandatory Hold and Witness Points

Clause Description Hold or Witness Point

Performance based specification for SMA & DGA - DRAFT

38
APPENDIX G
Surface texture methods evaluation data

This appendix presents surface texture data obtained from all laboratory testing, the field trial, and
extra data from an SMA road site inspection at Second Range Crossing in Toowoomba QLD.

G-1
Source Description MPD (mm) ETD (mm) MTD (mm) Absolute
(Mean of (ETD = 0.8MPD sand patch error
minimum 4 + 0.2) (mm)
laser readings)
Latite SMA-G11S slab1 1.12 1.10 1.05 0.05
Latite SMA-G11S slab2 0.97 0.98 0.90 0.08
Basalt SMA-G11S slab1 1.63 1.5 1.61 0.11
Basalt SMA-G11S slab2 1.53 1.42 1.64 0.22
Amphibolite SMA-G11S slab1 0.70 0.77 0.77 0
Amphibolite SMA-G11S slab2 0.74 0.80 0.81 0.01
Laboratory

Latite SMA-C-13 slab1 1.22 1.18 1.30 0.12

Latite SMA-C-13 slab2 1.47 1.37 1.58 0.21
Basalt SMA-C13 slab1 1.78 1.62 1.84 0.22
Basalt SMA-C13 slab2 1.98 1.78 1.58 0.20
Amphibolite SMA-C13 slab1 1.39 1.31 1.39 0.08
Amphibolite SMA-C13 slab2 1.26 1.21 1.55 0.34
Amph-Gr SMA-C13 1.01 1.01 1.21 0.20
1. Mat 0.82 0.86 0.81 0.05
2. Mat 1.20 1.16 1.00 0.16
SMA road using

3. Edge of Joint 1.50 1.40 1.32 0.08

QLD SMA 14

4. Mat 1.30 1.24 1.08 0.16

5. Fat spot 0.95 0.96 1.02 0.06
6. Fat spot 1.11 1.09 1.19 0.10
7. Mat 1.16 1.13 1.00 0.13
8. Wheel Path 1.16 1.13 0.98 0.15
1. Mat 1.33 1.28 1.26 0.02
2. Joint 1.78 1.62 1.63 0.01
3. Mat 2.16 1.93 1.38 0.55
4. Joint 1.68 1.55 1.29 0.26
Field trial
SMA-C13

5. Mat 2.34 2.08 1.55 0.53

6. Mat 1.56 1.45 1.32 0.13
7. Mat 1.43 1.35 1.09 0.26
8. Mat 1.18 1.14 1.26 0.12
9. Mat 1.20 1.16 1.13 0.03

MEAN VALUES 1.36 1.29 1.25 0.16

G-2