Construction and Building Materials 99 (2015) 62–72

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Measurement of HMA shear resistance potential in the lab: The Simple

Punching Shear Test
Abu N.M. Faruk a,⇑, Sang I. Lee a, Jun Zhang b, Bhaven Naik c, Lubinda F. Walubita d
a
Texas A&M Transportation Institute, College Station, TX 77843, USA
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA
c
Department of Civil Engineering, Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701, USA
d
TTI & PVAMU, The Texas A&M University System, College Station, USA

h i g h l i g h t s

Rutting/permanent deformation (PD) is one of the major distresses for HMA pavements.

Current HMA PD tests are not inherently designed to capture HMA shear properties.

SPST is explored as a potential routine test to evaluate HMA shear properties.

SPST has promising potential to screen HMA in terms of their shear resistance.

SPST can be a useful tool as a surrogate HMA rutting/shear test.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Rutting or permanent deformation (PD) is one of the major distresses occurring in hot-mix asphalt (HMA)
Received 10 March 2015 pavements. The primary mechanism of HMA rutting is shear deformation often caused by large stresses
Received in revised form 26 August 2015 in the HMA layers under traffic loading, particularly at elevated temperatures. The current HMA rutting
Accepted 8 September 2015
and PD tests, though have a fairly proven history of successfully identifying and screening HMA mixes
Available online 19 September 2015
that are prone to rutting, are not inherently designed to capture the HMA shear properties such as shear
strength, shear strain, and shear modulus. As supplement to the traditional PD and rutting tests, a new
Keywords:
HMA test method, namely the Simple Punching Shear Test (SPST), was explored as a potential routine lab-
HMA performance testing
Rutting
oratory test to evaluate and characterize the HMA shear properties. The SPST protocol and the input
Simple Punching Shear Test parameters were established through a series of comprehensive trial testing of HMA mixes commonly
SPST used in Texas. SPST data analysis models were derived to evaluate various HMA shear parameters includ-
Shear strength ing the shear strength, shear modulus, and shear strain energy (SSE). The corresponding results indicated
Shear strain energy that the SPST has promising potential to routinely differentiate and screen HMA mixes in terms of their
shear resistance potentials. The test is fairly simple to run and very repeatable (coefficient of variation of
the measured HMA shear strength are less than 10%) with measured shear strength values within range
of typical HMA shear strengths as reported in the literature. Additionally the test demonstrated high sen-
sitivity to HMA volumetric design parameters such as the asphalt binder content with HMA shear resis-
tance decreasing with increasing asphalt binder contents. A comparison with the Hamburg Wheel
Tracking Test (HWTT), which is a traditional HMA rutting test, showed that while, in general, the HMA
rutting/shear properties obtained from the two tests are qualitatively comparable, some differences do
exist in terms of the shear performance prediction from the two tests. This evidently indicates that the
SPST is able to capture and expose certain shear characteristics of the HMA that the HWTT is not able
to capture and vice versa. Overall, this study has shown that the SPST can be a useful tool for character-
izing the HMA shear properties and has promising potential to be used as a surrogate rutting/shear test.
Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction

Rutting or permanent deformation (PD) is one of the primary

⇑ Corresponding author.
failure modes of flexible pavements constructed with hot-mix
E-mail address: abu.mdfaruk@gmail.com (A.N.M. Faruk).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.09.006
0950-0618/Published by Elsevier Ltd.
 A.N.M. Faruk et al. / Construction and Building Materials 99 (2015) 62–72
asphalt (HMA), particularly in hot climatic regions and under
heavy traffic loading [1,2]. Traditionally, rutting has been reported
to occur throughout the pavement layers; however, rutting that is
primarily concentrated at the surface of the asphalt concrete layer
has become increasingly evident in recent years [3]. For assessing
the rutting or PD susceptibility of HMA in the laboratory, several
testing methods such as the Hamburg Wheel Tracking Test
(HWTT), Repeated Loading Permanent Deformation (RLPD), and
Dynamic Modulus (DM) tests, are often used. In particular, the
HWTT is routinely used in Texas for assessing HMA mixes’ suscep-
tibility to rutting moisture damage (stripping). Whilst these tests
have a fairly proven history of successfully identifying and screen-
ing HMA mixes that are prone to rutting, several rutting failures
have recently occurred in the field with HMA mixes that performed
acceptably in the laboratory [4]. These failures occurred mostly in
high shear locations, in particular with slow moving (accelerating/
decelerating) traffic at controlled intersections, in areas of elevated
temperatures, heavy/high traffic loading, and/or where lower
asphalt-binder performance grades (PG) have been used.
While one of the primary mechanisms of HMA permanent
deformation is the lateral movement, i.e., the shear failure of the
HMA under traffic as illustrated in Fig. 1, the existing HMA rutting
and PD tests are not able to directly capture the HMA shear prop-
erties such as shear strength, shear strain, and shear modulus [4,5].
That is, they can capture the consolidation of the HMA through
accumulation of small amounts of unrecoverable strain as a result
of repeated loads applied to the pavement, but are not inherently
designed to measure the HMA shear properties [6,7].
Thus, there is a need to explore other rapid HMA shear tests to
supplement the existing routine HMA rutting/shear laboratory
tests. Several tests have been developed and explored in the recent
years for evaluating the shear resistance of HMA mixes in the lab-
oratory. Bi [9] introduced the uniaxial penetration test (UPT) in
which a cylindrical HMA specimen is subjected to uniaxial static
or cyclic loading from a steel rod at elevated temperatures to sim-
ulate HMA shear failure. Chen et al. [8] further explored the test
method and suggested that the test showed promising potential
in characterizing the shear resistance of the HMA mixes with
repeatable test results. The UPT test method is somewhat similar
in the test setup with the double-punch test (DPT) reported by
Chen and Colgrove [10,11], Jimenez [12], and Wen et al. [13]
where, a cylindrical asphalt concrete specimen is compressed ver-
tically through two steel punches placed concentrically on the top
and bottom sides. However, the failure modes of the two tests are
quite different. In the DPT, the penetration of the cones that are
applied between the punches serves to split the specimen along
HMA
BASE
SUBGRADE
(a)
Fig. 1. (a) Rutting in HMA pavements, (b) mechanisms of rutting: lateral shear flow of HMA, (c) mechanisms of rutting: consolidation through unrecoverable PD [5,8].
63
the weakest radial plane in a tensile failure mode, whereas in the
UPT, the specimens are mainly damaged because of shear forces.
In this study, a new test method, namely the Simple Punching
Shear Test (SPST), was developed as a supplementary and/or surro-
gate HMA rutting shear test to complement the existing rutting
and PD tests. In an effort to develop the testing procedure, a com-
prehensive laboratory testing plan was undertaken with the fol-
lowing primary objectives:
(1) To formulate and set up the SPST protocol and the related
test parameters.
(2) To derive the SPST data analysis models to capture the HMA
shear parameters from the output data.
(3) To comparatively evaluate the shear properties of HMA
mixes commonly used in Texas.
(4) To evaluate the sensitivity of the SPST results to HMA volu-
metric design parameters such as the asphalt binder
content.
(5) To correlate and compare the test output with the other rou-
tine HMA rutting and PD tests such as the HWTT.
(6) To compare and validate the test results with field perfor-
mance of the mixes.
To achieve these objectives, the SPST protocol was first estab-
lished through a series of trial testing. Extensive laboratory testing
of various HMA mixes commonly used in Texas was then accom-
plished using the established test protocols, and the recorded shear
response of the HMA mixes were analyzed using the developed
data analysis models.
In the subsequent sections of this paper, an overview of the
SPST setup, the selection of the input parameters, and the derived
models for computing the HMA shear parameters are presented;
followed by the experimental design plan. The experimental test
results are then presented and analyzed in comparison with the
standard HWTT test. Comparison and validation of the laboratory
test results with field performance data are then presented. Finally,
a summary of key findings and recommendations is presented to
conclude the paper.
2. SPST setup and selection of test input parameters
In SPST, a cylindrical HMA specimen is compressed vertically
via a steel punch, placed concentrically on the top of an opening
at the base, as depicted in Fig. 2 [14]. The HMA specimen fails along
the diametrical plane due to the tensile strain generated in the tan-
gential direction. The SPST protocol was developed by selecting the
test input parameters through a series of trial testing. The test
Lateral
Shear Flow
Consolidation through
unrecoverable PD
(b) (c)
64 A.N.M. Faruk et al. / Construction and Building Materials 99 (2015) 62–72

The UTM
System

(b)

(a) (c) (d) (e)

Fig. 2. The SPST setup: (a) the UTM system, (b) schematic diagram of the test loading configuration, (c) test jigs (loading heads and base), (d) sample setup with and without
confinement, (e) samples before and after testing.

input parameters were carefully selected so as to ensure that the
test can be routinely conducted in commonly used laboratory test-
ing equipment such as the universal testing machine (UTM) or the
uniaxial MTS loading instruments, and that the test captures
meaningful interpretable data that is comparable with other tradi-
tional HMA rutting and PD tests, namely the HWTT [14]. Fig. 2 and
Table 1 present the SPST setup and the test parameters respec-
tively followed by brief discussions on the factors considered while
selecting some of the key input parameters, e.g., sample dimen-
sion, test temperature, loading rate, sample confinement, and load-
ing head diameter.
2.1. Sample dimension, test temperature, and loading rate
For practicality, simplicity of sample fabrication, and ease of
comparison, the HMA specimen configuration used for the Ham-
burg test was adapted for the SPST, i.e., 63.5 mm (2.5 in.) thick
by 152.4 mm (6.0 in.) in diameter. As documented elsewhere by
these authors [14], three test temperatures, 40, 50, and 60 °C, were
applied for trial testing to simulate the high Texas summer tem-
perature when HMA is more prone to shear failure and rutting.
Finally, 50 °C was selected as the preliminary SPST test tempera-
ture to facilitate the easy comparison with the other rutting and
PD tests such as the HWTT (at 50 °C), RLPD (at 40 and 50 °C), Flow
Number (FN, at 50 °C), and DM (i.e., 54 °C) [14–19].
Since the SPST is conducted in a displacement-controlled mode,
the output results were sensitive to the loading rate (applied dis-
placement rate). In order to select a loading rate for the SPST, trial
testing was conducted using different loading rates, namely 0.1,
0.2, and 0.3 mm/s. (0.23, 0.47, and 0.71 inch/min, respectively),
for four different HMA mixes. Three replicate samples were tested
for each mix type and the SPST trial testing results for the four
mixes are presented in Fig. 3 along with their respective mix
design details.
For the 0.3 mm/s loading rate, the resulting peak load was com-
paratively higher for some HMA mixes, thus posing a risk of max-
ing out the UTM load cell capacity when testing stiff mixes. For the
0.1 mm/s loading rate, the variability in the test results was unde-
sirably high and in fact, was the highest among the three loading
rates that were evaluated, with COV values greater than 30%. The
0.2 mm/s loading rate, on the other hand, yielded the best test
results with good repeatability and consistency (i.e., COV  30%).
Also, for the mixes evaluated, the 0.2 mm/s loading rate did not
pose any risk of maxing out the UTM load cell capacity. Therefore,
0.2 mm/s loading rate was selected for use throughout this study.
The test was designed to terminate after 63.5 mm of vertical ram
displacement which is essentially the sample thickness [14].

Table 1
The SPST protocol.

# Item Description
1 Schematic
Punching Block
Specimen (152.4 mm φ x 63.5 mm)
Support
2 Test objective Characterization of HMA shear resistance properties
3 Specimen dimension 152.4 mm (6.0 in.) diameter  63.5 mm (2.5 in.) thick
4 Loading mode Monotonic axial compressive loading at a uniform rate of displacement
5 Initial contact load 0.036 kN(8 lb.) or contact stress of 2 kPa (0.29 psi)
6 Loading rate 0.2 mm/s (0.47 inch/min)
7 Specimen confinement Yes
8 Loading head diameter 38.1 mm (1.5 in.) diameter
9 Test temperatures 50 ± 2 °C (122 °F)
10 Data capturing frequency Every 0.10 s (at least every 5 s)
11 Test termination 63.5 mm (2.5 in.) vertical ram movement
12 Total test time 610 min
13 Measured parameters Temperature, time, load, & shear deformations (actuator [ram] – No LVDTs)
14 Number of specimen replicates per test condition P3
15 Target specimen air voids 7 ± 1% for HMA mixes, 20 ± 2% for porous friction course (PFC) mixes
 A.N.M. Faruk et al. / Construction and Building Materials 99 (2015) 62–72 65

20 Type B1 20 Type C1
(4.6% PG 64-22+limestone+30% RAP) (4.6% PG 64-22+limestone+17% RAP)
16 16 0.1 mm/sec
0.1 mm/sec
0.2 mm/sec 0.2 mm/sec
12

Load (kN)

Load (kN)
0.3 mm/sec 12 0.3 mm/sec

8 8

4 4

0 0
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

20 Type D2 20 Type F
(5.3% PG 64-22+limestone/dolomite+ RAP/RAS) (6.8% PG 76-22 + Sandstone)
16 16
0.1 mm/sec 0.1 mm/sec
0.2 mm/sec 0.2 mm/sec
Load (kN)

12

Load (kN)
12
0.3 mm/sec 0.3 mm/sec
8 8

4 4

0 0
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Fig. 3. SPST trial test results for selecting the loading rate.

2.2. HMA sample confinement the confined specimens. Thus, all subsequent SPST testing in the
study were conducted in the confined mode. To maintain consis-
Another set of trial testing was conducted to decide between tency of the applied confining pressure, a metal ring was used
unconfined and confined loading modes. A hard plastic ring with around the plastic confinement tightened to a set torque of
150 mm diameter was used to confine the samples. The induced 20 inch-lb for all tested sample [14].
confining pressure was analytically estimated to be about
140 kPa and did not differ significantly from the values (120–
190 kPa) computed based on the mechanistic-empirical (M-E)
2.3. Loading head diameter
modeling using hypothetical Texas pavement structures [4,14].
Furthermore, this confining pressure level (ffi140 kPa) is compara-
Three loading (punching) heads of diameter 38.1, 50.8, and
ble to those reported in the literature by other researchers [20–22].
63.5 mm (1.5, 2.0, and 2.5 in., respectively) were investigated and
As evident in Fig. 4, the unconfined loading mode resulted in
the corresponding results are shown in Fig. 5. In the case of the
rupturing of the HMA specimens prematurely without capturing
50.8-mm diameter head, the induced high loading due to high
the representative HMA shear behavior or yielding any meaningful
shear resistance of the head’s surface area caused the confinement
results. In the absence of any lateral confinement, the HMA speci-
material to rupture prior to the specimen reaching its failure point,
mens were susceptible to radial crack propagation; thus, the failure
and thus, could not capture the true shear response of the HMA.
mode was fracture rather than shear. As a result, the unconfined
Whereas, with the 63.5-mm diameter head, the UTM load cell
specimens failed prematurely at about 30–50% lower load than
capacity was exhausted due to high shear resistance induced by

12

10

8
Load (kN)

6 UnConfined Confined

2 Aer Tesng Aer Tesng

(Confined Sample) (Unconfined Sample)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Displacement (mm)

Fig. 4. Comparison of confined and unconfined samples in SPST.

66 A.N.M. Faruk et al. / Construction and Building Materials 99 (2015) 62–72

Fig. 5. SPST load, displacement vs time curves for different loading head sizes.

Table 2
SPST data analysis models.

# Item Description
1 Output data
Pmax

dPmax

Displacement, x
2 Shear peak failure load (kN) P max
3 Shear failure deformation @ peak load (inch or mm) Deformation @ P max ¼ dPmax
4 HMA shear strength (MPa) ss ¼ Pmax Pmax
A ¼ pDt
5 Shear failure strain @ peak load (mm/mm) dPmax
cs ¼ t
6 HMA shear modulus (MPa) Pmax
Gs ¼ scs ¼ pDðdP max Þ
2
s
R
1 1
R1
7 Shear strain energy (SSE) (J/m ) SSE ¼ A o f ðxÞdx ¼ p1Dt 0 f ðxÞdx
R
8 Description of equation parameters: f ðxÞdx =Area under the shear stress–strain response curve
D =Diameter of the punching (loading) head (in.)
t =Thickness of the sample (mm)

the large surface area of the head (Fig. 5). So, the 38.1-mm loading
head was selected for subsequent use throughout the study.
3. SPST output data and data analysis models
The primary output data obtained from the SPST is the shear load
versus displacement curve that can be further analyzed to generate
HMA shear properties. To facilitate this, data analysis models were
derived based on the fundamental principles of mechanics and
HMA visco-elastic behavior when subjected to monotonic loading
[14]. The derived parameters are presented in Table 2.
Along with the routine HMA shear properties, i.e., the shear
strength (ss ), shear strain (cs ), and shear modulus (Gs ), this study
introduced a novel HMA shear parameters, namely the shear strain
energy (SSE) [14]. The SSE is defined as the total work required for
shearing the HMA by a unit area. The total required work is mea-
sured by the area under the load–displacement curve. In general,
the physical interpretation of the SSE parameter is based on the
assumption that a mix with high shear resistance will absorb a
higher amount of shear strain energy denoted by a larger area
under the load–displacement curve.
4. Experimental design plan
One of the primary concerns while developing a new laboratory test method is
to determine the HMA mix screening ability of the test, i.e., if the test is able to dis-
criminate between good and poor performing mixes. In order to address this issue,
several HMA mixes commonly used in Texas were tested using the newly devel-
oped SPST setup to comparatively evaluate their shear resistance performance.
Therefore, the experimental design plan incorporated a wide array of HMA mixes
with different mix-design characteristics that are listed in Table 3. For each HMA
mix, a minimum of three replicate samples were tested. With the exception of
the field cores at in-situ density, all the laboratory prepared HMA samples including
plant-mix materials were molded to a final target density of 93 ± 1%, i.e., an air void
content of 7 ± 1% [23].
5. Laboratory test results and analysis
Bearing in mind that HMA is a visco-elastic material, it should
be noted that the results presented herein pertain only to the SPST
test conditions defined in this study. Therefore, the overall findings
and conclusions may not be exhaustive. The results generally rep-
resent an average statistics of a minimum of three replicate speci-
mens per HMA mix per test condition with a target Coefficient of
Variation (COV) threshold of 30% [14]. The SPST load–displacement
 A.N.M. Faruk et al. / Construction and Building Materials 99 (2015) 62–72 67

Table 3
HMA mix characteristics.

# Mix designation Mix type HMA mix-design Sample type Highest PVMNT temperature (°F)
1 Type B1 Type B 4.6% PG 64-22 + Limestone + 30% RAP (Coarse-graded) PMLC 131.3
2 Type B2 Type B 4.2% PG 64-22 + Bridgeport Rock + 30% RAP (Coarse-graded) FC 130.0
3 Type C1 Type C 4.6% PG 64-22 + Limestone + 17% RAP (Dense-graded) PMLC 140.0
4 Type C2 Type C 5.2% PG 64-22 + Basalt/Traprock + 1% Lime + 20% RAP (Dense-graded) PMLC 145.5
5 Type C3 Type C 4.1% PG 64-22 + Limestone/Dolomite + 1.0% Lime + 17% RAP + 3% RAS (Dense-graded) PMLC 127.5
6 Type D1 Type D 5.2% PG 64-22 + Quartzite + 20% RAP PMLC 135.5
7 Type D2 Type D 5.3% PG 64-22 + Limestone/Dolomite + RAP/RAS (Dense-graded) PMLC 132.5
8 Type D3 Type D 4.7–5.7% PG 64-22 + Quartzite + 20% RAP (Dense-graded) LMLC –
9 Type D4 Type D 4.5–5.5% PG 64-22 + Limestone (Dense-graded) LMLC –
10 Type D5 Type D 6.1–7.1% PG 64-22 + Limestone/Dolomite + 1% Lime + 15% RAP + 5% RAS (Dense-graded) LMLC –
11 Type F Type F 6.8% PG 76-22 + Sandstone (Fine-graded) PMLC 136.0
12 CAM CAM 7.0% PG 64-22 + Igneous/Limestone (Fine-graded) PMLC 137.5
13 PFC PFC 6.7% PG 76-22 + Sandstone (Porous-graded) PMLC 135.5

PMLC = Plant Mixed & Lab Compacted, FC = Field Core from APT (accelerated pavement testing), LMLC = Lab Mixed & Lab Compacted.

Type B1
16 Type B2
Type C1
Type C2
12
Type C3
Load (kN)

Type D1
8 Type D2
Type F
PFC
4 CAM

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Displacement (mm)

Fig. 6. SPST load–displacement response summary.

outputs and the obtained shear parameters are presented in Fig. 6

and Table 4, respectively. From Table 4, it was evident that the
SPST produces fairly repeatable test results marked by shear Table 4
SPST results summary and discriminatory ratios.
parameter COV values that are well within the acceptable range
of 30% [14]. For the shear strength and SSE parameters, the COV Mix Shear Shear Shear SSE (kJ/m2) Comment*
values are in fact less than 10%. The HMA shear strength values designation strength strain modulus
(MPa) (mm/mm) (MPa)
measured for the tested samples are also within the range of
HMA shear strengths obtained from uniaxial penetration test Type B1 2.10 0.12 17.6 41.68 Very good
(7.0%)** (5.90%) (0.70%) (1.20%)
reported by Chen et al. [4].
Type B2 1.43 0.108 13.6 26.79
(5.60%) (21.40%) (26.90%) (6.20%)
Type C1 1.34 0.091 15.0 23.12 Good
5.1. Screening and differentiating of HMA mixes (9.10%) (13.70%) (21.20%) (5.20%)
Type C2 1.48 0.108 13.7 28.54
The SPST results showed promising potential to characterize (1.80%) (1.90%) (3.50%) (7.40%)
and differentiate the HMA shear resistance properties. As is theo- Type C3 1.05 0.114 9.2 15.94
(4.50%) (9.20%) (12.40%) (5.70%)
retically expected, the coarse-graded Type B1 mix exhibited the
Type D1 1.93 0.135 14.3 37.30
highest shear resistance potential based on its higher shear (1.10%) (9.80%) (8.50%) (4.40%)
strength (2.10 MPa) compared to the other mixes evaluated; refer Type D2 0.94 0.087 10.9 15.41
to Table 4 and Fig. 6, respectively. The shear strain energy (SSE) (13.30%) (11.60%) (10.70%) (12.70%)
Type F 1.14 0.089 13.0 19.09 Moderate
results also reaffirmed that a higher amount of energy (41.68 kJ/
(9.80%) (19.10%) (11.00%) (4.10%)
m2) was expended to impact shear failure in this mix as compared CAM 0.82 0.085 9.9 12.96
to say the PFC mix (12.43 kJ/m2). (4.90%) (14.70%) (19.40%) (6.60%)
It needs to be noted that, the mixes in Table 4 are rated/grouped PFC 0.59 0.157 4.0 12.43
in three categories based on their historical rutting performance in (12.60%) (26.10%) (41.20%) (18.30%)
the field and the lab (HWTT). However, the test results do not *
Mix rating in the last column are based on their historical rutting performance
always necessarily conform to these historical rutting performance in the field and the lab (HWTT).
**
ratings. For example, the Type F mix has higher shear strength and Values in the italic parenthesis denote Coefficient of Variation (COV) of the
replicates tested.
SSE values than the Types C3 and D2 mixes even though, histori-
68 A.N.M. Faruk et al. / Construction and Building Materials 99 (2015) 62–72

cally, Type F has moderate rutting performance due to its finer to their better differentiation/screening performance in any statis-
aggregate grading. This superior shear resistance of the mix is pre- tical comparison.
sumably due to the higher asphalt binder PG grade of the mix (PG By contrast, one of the possible reasons for the perceived failure
76-22) as compared to the other two mixes (both PG 64-22) of the ‘shear strain’ and the ‘shear modulus’ parameters to effec-
(Table 3). Indeed, the superior shear resistance of the Type F mix tively screen and statistically differentiate the mixes could be
was also evident by its lower HWTT rut depth than the other due to the lower repeatability of the shear strains and shear mod-
two mixes, as will be illustrated subsequently in this paper. ulus (i.e., high variability denoted by higher COV values than those
To comparatively evaluate the ability of the shear parameters to for the Shear Strength in Table 4). Statistical analyses based ANOVA
screen and discriminate HMA mixes, the concept of discriminatory and Tukey’s HSD are greatly impacted by variability in the test data
ratio (DR) was introduced in the data analysis [24]. DR is an arith- and the SPST data is no exception [4,14,25]. So, although within the
metic ratio of two corresponding parametric values (e.g., shear 30% COV threshold, Type B2 and the PFC for example, have com-
strength, strain, modulus, or SSE) comparing a good material with paratively higher COV values for the shear strains and shear mod-
a relatively poor or reference material. The larger the DR in magni- ulus than for the Shear Strength parameter and therefore, affecting
tude, the greater the difference between the materials, and the their statically screening and differentiating capabilities. The Shear
more effective the parameter is in discriminating and differentiat- Modulus for PFC even has a COV value greater than 30%, i.e.,
ing the two materials. A listing of these discriminatory ratios, with COV = 41.2%. Note that as per Table 2, the Shear Modulus is com-
the PFC as the reference mix, is shown in Table 5. Based on the DR puted as a function of the Shear Strain, and so, a high variability
values presented in Table 5, it is evidently clear that the SPST has in the Shear Strain values will compoundly affect the Shear Modu-
potential to differentiate, discriminate, and screen mixes. lus results.
To further analyze the potential of the SPST parameters to dif-
ferentiate the HMA mixes, ANOVA and Tukey’s honestly significant 5.2. SPST sensitivity to variation in asphalt binder content
difference (HSD) statistical analysis method [25] was applied at
95% reliability level, and the mixes were categorized into different To evaluate the potential application of the SPST in HMA mix
‘alphabetical groups’: A, B, C, and D as shown in Table 6. HMA design practices, the sensitivity of SPST to changes in asphalt bin-
mixes in the same group have parametric values that are statisti- der contents was evaluated in this study. Three Type D mixes, des-
cally not significantly different and vice versa. Numerical values ignated as Type D3, Type D4, and Type D5 (Table 3), were mixed
of parameters in groups are arranged as follows: A > B > C > D. from raw aggregates in the laboratory with three asphalt binder
As was observed with the study of the DR parameters, it was contents (AC) from 0.5% below to 0.5% above the optimum asphalt
evident that the Shear Strength is the most suitable SPST parame- binder content (OAC). The corresponding SPST results are pre-
ter for HMA mix screening and differentiation followed by the SSE. sented in Table 7 and Fig. 7, respectively.
The shear strength was able to categorize the mixes in four statis- As presented in Table 7 and Fig. 7, it was found that the SPST is
tically distinct groups (A, B, C, and D), whereas the SSE categorized reasonably sensitive to the asphalt binder contents. Among the
the mixes in three statistically distinct groups (A, B, and C). On the four shear parameters calculated from the SPST, the shear strength
other hand, for the remaining two parameters, there were only two was the most sensitive to AC variability. This superiority was con-
statistically distinct groups (A and B). However, it needs to be firmed by the ability of the Shear Strength parameter to categorize
noted that the relatively low variability of the shear strength and the mix AC levels in three statistically distinct groups (A, B, and C),
SSE parameters (denoted by low COV values in Table 4) contribute whereas the shear modulus and the SSE parameters were some-
what less successful in determining the statistical difference of
the HMA mixes at different AC levels with two statistical
Table 5 categories.
Discriminatory ratios (DR) for the SPST shear parameters. While all the other mixes (particularly Type D4) show a fairly
Mix designation Shear strength Shear strain Shear modulus SSE consistent decrease in the shear strength values as the AC level is
Type B1 3.59 0.76 4.39 3.37
Type B2 2.44 0.69 3.39 2.16
Table 7
Type C1 2.30 0.58 3.76 1.87
SPST sensitivity to AC variation: results summary and statistics.
Type C2 2.53 0.69 3.41 2.31
Type C3 1.80 0.73 2.30 1.28 Mix AC Shear Shear strain Shear mod. SSE
Type D1 3.31 0.86 3.57 3.01 description strength (mm/mm) (MPa) (kJ/m2)
Type D2 1.62 0.55 2.72 1.25 (MPa)
Type F 1.95 0.57 3.24 1.55
CAM 1.40 0.54 2.43 1.05 Type D3 4.7% 1.84 (A)* 0.117 (A) 15.8 (A) 33.97 (A)
PFC (reference) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 8.20%** 8.10% 8.30% 10.40%
5.2% 1.23 (B) 0.115 (A) 10.9 (B) 24.69 (B)
3.90% 4.30% 0.00% 8.10%
5.7% 1.15 (B) 0.14 (A) 8.2 (B) 22.94 (B)
Table 6 11.30% 7.00% 14.00% 17.20%
SPST ANOVA and Tukey’s HDS statistical analysis @ 95% reliability level. Type D4 4.5% 1.46 (A) 0.101 (A) 14.4 (A) 25.92 (A)
1.50% 6.30% 7.40% 7.00%
Mix Shear Shear strain Shear SSE 5.0% 1.32 (B) 0.098 (A) 13.4 (A) 21.71 (A)
strength (psi) (in/in) modulus (ksi) (lb-in/in2) 4.10% 12.90% 16.90% 11.80%
Type B1 A B A A 5.5% 1.19 (C) 0.111 (A) 10.8 (B) 21.01 (B)
Type B2 B B A B 5.20% 12.90% 8.50% 12.40%
Type C1 B B A B Type D5 6.1% 1.59 (A) 0.098 (A) 16.3 (A) 27.84 (A)
Type C2 B B A B 3.90% 5.50% 8.30% 11.90%
Type C3 C B B C 6.6% 1.40 (B) 0.102 (A) 13.7 (A) 24.34 (A)
Type D1 A B A A 7.20% 15.30% 8.00% 3.60%
Type D2 C B A C 7.1% 1.07 (C) 0.102 (A) 10.5 (B) 18.21 (B)
Type F C B A C 3.20% 6.40% 9.60% 2.20%
CAM D B A C *
Tukey’s HSD statistical grouping (Alphabetic) of the mix in parenthesis.
PFC D A B C **
COV in italic.
 A.N.M. Faruk et al. / Construction and Building Materials 99 (2015) 62–72 69

(a) (b) (c)

16 Type D3: AC Variation 16 Type D4: AC Variation 16 Type D5: AC Variation

4.7% AC 4.5% AC 6.1% AC

12 12 12
5.2% AC 5.0% AC 6.6% AC
5.7% AC 5.5% AC 7.1% AC

Load (kN)
Load (kN)

Load (kN)
8 8 8

4 4 4

0 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Fig. 7. SPST load–displacement responses for AC variation study.

Table 8
parameters obtained from the SPST were compared with the HMA
SPST result correlations with traditional HWTT rutting test.
rutting parameters obtained from the HWTT test. The correspond-
Mix SPST HWTT ing results and findings are presented in Table 8. The HWTT rutting
designation
Shear Shear Shear Rut Rut Rut Rut modulus (last column of Table 8) was calculated as the ratio of the
strength strain mod. (mm) strain stress mod. HWTT rutting stress and strain, where the rutting stress was
(MPa) (mm/mm) (MPa) (mm/mm) (MPa) (MPa)
defined as the applied HWTT wheel load over unit area of shear
Type B1 2.10 0.12 17.6 2.8 0.045 0.59 13.2 failure [14].
Type B2 1.43 0.108 13.6 12.4 0.197 0.59 3.0
Correlation curves were developed by plotting the HWTT rut
Type C1 1.34 0.091 15.0 8.1 0.129 0.59 4.6
Type C2 1.48 0.108 13.7 3.6 0.057 0.59 10.4
depth against the SPST shear strength (Fig. 8a) and HWTT rutting
Type C3 1.05 0.114 9.2 9.4 0.148 0.59 4.0 moduli versus the SPST shear moduli (Fig. 8b). However, while
Type D1 1.93 0.135 14.3 4.3 0.068 0.59 8.7 comparing results from these two tests, it needs to be considered
Type D2 0.94 0.087 10.9 12.4 0.197 0.59 3.0 that the two test methods are fundamentally different. The SPST
Type F 1.14 0.089 13.0 5.3 0.086 0.59 6.9
is a displacement controlled monotonic loading test designed to
CAM 0.82 0.085 9.9 12.4 0.197 0.59 3.0
PFC 0.59 0.157 4.0 16.0 0.254 0.59 2.3 capture the HMA shear properties, whereas, the HWTT is a
repeated loading test aimed at identifying the number of load
passes to rutting failure. Therefore, results from the two tests need
to be compared qualitatively, instead of a direct numerical com-
increased, the difference in shear strengths between 4.7% and 5.2%
parison [14].
AC for the Type D3 mix is significantly large. This is evident in Fig. 7
Ideally, higher shear strength of a mix would indicate lower rut-
(a), which shows an unexplained huge jump in the failure peak
ting susceptibility. Therefore, the SPST shear strength and the
load for the Type D3 mix from 4.7% to 5.2% AC. This behavior could
HWTT rut depth should have an inversely proportional correlation.
be attributed to experimental errors and possible aggregate segre-
From Fig. 8(a), it is obvious that most of the HMA mixes are follow-
gation in the 4.7% AC samples. Nonetheless, the trend and the
ing an inversely proportional trend. However, there is at least one
inverse proportional relationship are distinctively evident in all
clearly outlier data point (Type B2 – APT field core sample) show-
the mixes that as the AC level is increased, the shear strength
ing high HWTT rut depth and relatively high SPST shear strength.
decreases.
In case of Fig. 8(b), it is observed that the shear moduli calculated
from the two test methods are following a fairly linear correlation
5.3. Correlation with the traditional HWTT rutting test with the two outlier mixes. These two outliers are the Type B2 (APT
field core) and the Type C1 mixes. The contradicting shear/rutting
To use the SPST as a routine laboratory test for determining the performance prediction of the two test methods for these two
shear and rutting resistance of HMA mixes, it is vital that the test mixes indicate that the SPST is able to capture and expose some
results are compared and correlated with the traditional HMA rut- properties for these HMA mixes that the HWTT is not capturing
ting test methods such as the HWTT. In this study, the HMA shear and vice versa. However, further testing and field evaluation is

(a) 20 (b)
14
HMA Modulus from HWTT

12
16
HWTT Rutting (mm)

10
12 y = 0.8687x - 3.5811
8
(MPa)

y= 8.9029x-1.379 R² = 0.7753
8 R² = 0.8353 6
4
4
2
0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
SPST Shear Strength (MPa) SPST Shear Modulus (MPa)

Fig. 8. SPST result correlations with HWTT rutting test: (a) HWTT rutting vs. SPST shear strength and (b) HWTT modulus vs. SPST modulus.
70 A.N.M. Faruk et al. / Construction and Building Materials 99 (2015) 62–72

Table 9
Description of the selected in-service highway test sections for SPST field correlation.

Mix designation PVMNT type Date of construction Climatic region Max PVMNT temperature AADTT*
**
Type B1 New Construction Oct’11 Moderate 131.3 °F 53
Type C2 New Construction June’12 Dry-warm 145.5 °F 60
Type C3 Overlay-HMA-FB July’12 Wet-warm 127.5 °F 560
Type D1 Overlay-HMA-LTB Apr’11 Wet-cold 135.5 °F 1502
CAM Overlay-HMA-CTB Oct’11 Wet-cold 137.5 °F 468
*
AADTT = Average annual daily truck traffic.
**
Frontage (service) road.

warranted to identify precisely what these HMA properties are and
how critical they are in describing the HMA rutting-shear
susceptibility.
6. Correlation with field performance
One of the primary challenges of developing a new laboratory
test procedure is to calibrate and validate it through comparison
and correlation with actual field performance data. To address this,
a comparative study of laboratory versus field HMA shear perfor-
mances was conducted in this study. Five in-service highway test
sections, with different climate, traffic, and pavement structural
conditions were selected and the details of the test sections are
presented in Table 9. For each test section, the work plan entailed
comparing the SPST shear parameters to the field rutting data col-
lected from the respective field highway sections.
It is noted that, in order to compare the laboratory versus field
performance data of the mixes, the rutting contribution of only the
relevant HMA layer should be considered. However, instead of a
full-scale forensic study, the contributions of the respective layers
were estimated through M-E modeling (using M-E PDG software)
of the in-service highway pavement structures. Each highway sec-
tion was modeled using the M-E PDG design software to calculate
the percentage contribution of each layer toward the total surface
rut depth. These contribution percentages were then used to esti-
mate the rutting contribution of the relevant layers from the total
surface rut depth measured from actual field surveys. The HMA field
rutting performances thus obtained were then compared to the SPST
HMA shear properties and the findings are presented in Fig. 9.
From Fig. 9, it is observed that the SPST shear load–displace-
ment curves present a good indication of a mix’s field rutting per-
formance. For example, the SPST output of the CAM mix gives a fair
indication of the mix’s poor rut resistance performance in the field.
On the other hand, the Type B1 mix has the best SPST performance
in terms of shear strength and SSE (larger area under the load–dis-
placement curve). Indeed, this mix shows the best performance in
the field in terms of rutting resistance. Another mix with good lab-
oratory shear performance is the Type D1 mix and from Fig. 9(b) it
is evident that the mix showed good early-life rut resistance. How-
ever, due to a considerably higher level of traffic loading (Table 8),
the highway section appears to be accumulating more rutting with
time. Fig. 9(c) presents a graphical plot correlating the SPST shear
strength of the mixes with their respective field rutting perfor-
mance. It is observed that, with the exception of one outlying
mix (Type C3), higher SPST shear strength, in general, is indicator
of good field rutting performance. However, caution needs to be
exercised while drawing conclusions from such correlations
between laboratory and field performance of in-service test sec-
tions to properly account for the diverse traffic, climatic, and pave-
ment structural conditions for each of these field test sections [14].
7. Preliminary SPST pass–fail screening criteria
Based on the mixes tested using the test protocols developed in
this study, it is evident that the SPST has promising potential to
serve as a supplement to the HWTT for evaluating HMA shear
properties. In particular the shear strength (ss ) and the shear strain
energy (SSE) parameters have been successful in statistically dis-
criminating mixes based on their susceptibility to shear failure.
Overall, the findings from this study endorse the potential use of
the SPST as a screening test for HMA mixes to be placed in high
shear zones and high high temperature environments – as a sup-
plement to the traditional HWTT. Based on the preliminary field
correlation results, correlations with the traditional HWTT results,
and historical rutting performances of the mixes, the following
preliminary HMA screening criteria is proposed for mixes tested
in SPST setup:
 Shear strength (ss ) P 1.4 MPa, and
 Shear strain energy (SSE) P 17 kJ/m2

(a) (b) (c)

SPST Result HMA Field Rutting Field Correlation
1.6
16 0.3
Field HMA Rutting (mm)

Type B1 Type B1
Type C2 Type C2
Field HMA Rutting (mm)

12 1.2
Type C3 Type C3
Load (kN)

0.2
Type D1 Type D1
8 0.8
CAM CAM
y = -0.2295x + 0.5156
0.1 R² = 0.931
4 0.4

0 0.0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 0 1 2 3
Displacement (mm) Months after construction SPST Shear Strength (MPa)

Fig. 9. SPST result correlations with field rutting performance: (a) SPST load–displacement curves, (b) HMA field rutting, & (c) correlation curve.
 A.N.M. Faruk et al. / Construction and Building Materials 99 (2015) 62–72
However, it needs to be emphasized that these preliminary
screening criteria are subject to further field validation and will
be modified through future studies to reflect precise field perfor-
mance of the mixes [14].
8. Summary – key findings and recommendations
In this study, the SPST protocol was investigated as a simple,
rapid performance test to measure shear/rutting potential of
HMA mixes. Through a series of trial tests, the input loading
parameters and data analysis models were developed. Thirteen
HMA mixes, most commonly used in Texas, were comparatively
evaluated in the SPST protocol. The key findings, conclusions, and
recommendations drawn from this study are summarized as
follows:

The key selected parameters included 38.1 mm (1.5-inch) load-
ing head diameter, 0.2 mm/s (0.47 inch/min) loading rate, and
50 °C test temperature. These parameters were selected to
ensure that the test can be conducted in commonly used uni-
versal testing machines (e.g., UTM). The need to capture mean-
ingful interpretable data as well as its comparability with other
routine HMA tests were also considered while selecting the
SPST input parameters. Also, confined samples were selected
to ensure a shear based failure mode.

Within the framework of this study, the SPST showed promising
potential to characterize and differentiate the HMA shear resis-
tance properties for screening purposes.

A comparison of the discriminatory ratios (DRs) of the shear
parameters calculated from the SPST showed that the shear
strength and shear strain energy (SSE) are more suitable in dis-
criminating and screening the HMA mixes. A statistical analysis
(Tukey’s HSD) at 95% reliability level reaffirmed this finding.

As is inherently typical of monotonic loading HMA tests, the
SPST showed high degree of test repeatability with COV values
well within the acceptable threshold of 30%.

The SPST was found reasonably sensitive to HMA mix variables
(i.e., asphalt binder content). Among the four shear parameters
calculated from the SPST, the shear strength was found most
sensitive to the asphalt binder content followed by the shear
strain energy (SSE) and shear modulus. A statistical analysis at
95% confidence level also showed the supremacy of the shear
strength and SSE parameters over the shear strain and SSE Index
parameters in capturing sensitivity to AC variation.

A direct comparison of the SPST and the more traditional HWTT
showed that the rutting/shear parameters produced by the two
tests compare fairly well. However, it was suggested that a
qualitative comparison of the mixes’ performances is more
advisable than a direct numerical comparison.

A preliminary comparison with the mixes’ field performance
was conducted using field rutting data from five in-service
highway test sections. The results showed that the laboratory
evaluation of the mixes’ shear resistance potential is fairly con-
sistent with their respective field rutting performance with one
outlying mix.

From this preliminary study, the following tentative HMA
screening criteria was proposed for the SPST:
– Shear strength (ss ) P 1.4 MPa, and
– SSE P 17 kJ/m2
As stated previously, the findings and conclusions drawn herein
relate to the test conditions and HMA mixes evaluated in this
study; with the need for more laboratory and field testing to sup-
plement these results. Further refinement of the SPST method as a
routinely useable HMA shear test through additional laboratory
testing and field validation studies is thus imperative. Nonetheless,
71
from this preliminary study, the test method has shown promising
potential to be established as a surrogate HMA shear test.
Disclaimer
The contents of this paper reflect the views of the authors who
are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented
herein and do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies
of any agency or institute. This paper does not constitute a stan-
dard, specification, nor is it intended for design, construction, bid-
ding, contracting, tendering, or permit purposes. Trade names were
used solely for information purposes and not for product
endorsement.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT)
and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for their financial
support and all those who helped during the course of this research
work. Special thanks go to the following individuals for their assis-
tance with laboratory work and documentation: Jason Huddleston
(TTI), David Contreras, Dung Nguyen (TTI), and Jesus Ipina Marti-
nez (TTI).
References
[1] D. Chen, J. Bilyeu, T. Scullion, D. Lin, F. Zhou, Forensic evaluation of premature
failures of texas specific pavement study-1 sections, J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
17 (2) (2003) 67–74.
[2] N. Hossain, P. Solanki, M. Zaman, K. Muraleetharan, S. Dharamveer,
Development of Field Rut Prediction Models from an Instrumented Test
Section on Interstate-35, TRB 92nd Annual Meeting, DC, USA, 2013.
[3] E. Brown, S. Cross, A national study of rutting in hot mix asphalt (HMA)
pavements, J. Assoc. Asphalt Paving Technol. 61 (1992) 535–582.
[4] L. Walubita, S. Lee, J. Zhang, A.N.M. Faruk, S. Nguyen, T. Scullion, HMA Shear
Resistance, Permanent Deformation, and Rutting Tests for Texas Mixes: Year-1
Report, Technical Report FHWA/TX-13/0-6744-1, Texas A&M Transportation
Institute, College Station, TX-77843, USA, 2013.
[5] E.R. Brown, P.S. Kandhal, J. Zhang, Performance Testing for Hot Mix Asphalt
National Center for Asphalt Technology, NCAT Report 01-05, Auburn, Alabama,
2001.
[6] H. Wen, S. Bhusal, X. Li, Double punch test: simple performance test to
evaluate the fatigue and rutting potential of asphalt concrete, J. Mater. Civil
Eng. 25 (2013) 645–652.
[7] J. Zhang, R.E. Brown, P.S. Kandhal, R. West, An overview of fundamental and
simulative performance tests for hot mix asphalt, J. ASTM Int. 2 (5) (2005).
[8] X. Chen, B. Huang, Z. Xu, Uniaxial penetration testing for shear resistance of
hot-mix asphalt mixtures, Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res. Board 1970 (2006)
116–125. Washington, DC.
[9] Y. Bi, Research on Anti-Shear Test Method and Parameter of Asphalt Mixture
(Ph.D. dissertation), School of Transportation Engineering, Tongji University,
Shanghai, China, 2004.
[10] W.F. Chen, Double punch test for tensile strength of concrete, J. Am. Concr.
Inst. 67 (12) (1970) 993–995.
[11] W.F. Chen, T.A. Colgrove, Double-punch test for tensile strength of concrete,
Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res. Board 504 (1974). Washington, DC.
[12] R.A. Jimenez, Testing for debonding of asphalt from aggregates, Transp. Res.
Rec.: J. Transp. Res. Board 515 (1974). Washington, DC.
[13] H. Wen, S. Bhusal, X. Li, Double punch test: simple performance test to
evaluate the fatigue and rutting potential of asphalt concrete, ASCE J. Mater.
Civil Eng. 25 (5) (2013) 645–652.
[14] L. Walubita, A.N.M. Faruk, S. Lee, D. Nguyen, R. Hassan, T. Scullion, HMA Shear
Resistance, Permanent Deformation, and Rutting Tests for Texas Mixes: Final
Year-2 Report, Technical Report FHWA/TX-15/0-6744-2, Texas A&M
Transportation Institute, College Station, TX-77843, USA, 2014.
[15] L. Walubita, G. Das, E. Espinoza, J. Oh, T. Scullion, S. Nazarian, I. Abdallah, J.
Garibay, Texas Flexible Pavement and Overlays: Data Analysis Plans and
Reporting Format, Technical Report FHWA/TX-11/0-6658-P3, Texas A&M
Transportation Institute, College Station, TX-77843, USA, 2011.
[16] TxDOT – Texas Department of Transportation Designation: Tex-242-F.
Hamburg Wheel Tracking Test, Austin, Texas, 2009.
[17] AASHTO TP 62-03, Standard Method of Test for Determining Dynamic
Modulus of Hot-Mix Asphalt Concrete Mixtures, American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington DC, USA, 2005.
[18] L.F. Walubita, J. Zhang, G. Das, X. Hu, C. Mushota, A.E. Alvarez, T. Scullion, Hot-
mix asphalt permanent deformation evaluated by Hamburg wheel tracking,
dynamic modulus, and repeated load tests, Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res.
Board 2296 (2012) 46–56.
72 A.N.M. Faruk et al. / Construction and Building Materials 99 (2015) 62–72
[19] J. Zhang, A.E. Alvarez, S.I. Lee, A. Torres, L.F. Walubita, Comparison of flow
number, dynamic modulus, and repeated load tests for evaluation of HMA
permanent deformation, J. Constr. Build. Mater. 44 (2013) 391–398.
[20] G. Chang, J. Meegoda, Micromechanical model for temperature effects of hot-
mix asphalt concrete, Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res. Board 1687 (1999) 95–
103. Washington, DC.
[21] J. Murali Krisnan, K. Rajagopal, Triaxial testing and stress relaxation of asphalt
concrete, Mech. Mater. 36 (2004) 849–864.
[22] L. Myers, R. Roque, B. Ruth, C. Drakos, Measurement of contact stresses for
different truck tire types to evaluate their influence on near-surface cracking
and rutting, Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res. Board 1655 (1999) 175–184.
Washington, DC.
[23] TxDOT – Texas Department of Transportation. Standard Specifications for
Construction and Maintenance of Highways, Streets, and Bridge. Austin, Texas,
2004.
[24] A.N.M. Faruk, X. Hu, Y. Lopez, L.F. Walubita, Using the fracture energy index
concept to characterize the HMA cracking resistance potential under
monotonic crack testing, Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. 7 (1) (2014) 40–48.
[25] J.W. Tukey, The Problem of Multiple Comparisons, Princeton University, USA,
Princeton, New Jersey, 1953. Unpublished manuscript.