PERMEABILITY AND MOISTURE DAMAGE

 34 out of 50 states (Hicks 1991) or 15 out of 24
states surveyed by Mogawer et al. (2002) have
some pavements that suffer from moisture
damage
 Reducing permeability may reduce interaction
between water and pavement materials
 Moisture damage is measured by the ratio of wet
to dry sample’s Indirect Tensile Strength (IDT)
 Wet conditioning is done by the AASHTO T 283
and Moisture Induced Sensitivity Testing (MIST)
 Hamburg wheel tracker is also used to determine
the stripping potential

AASHTO T 283 MIST MIST Device IDT Testing IDT Device

 Sample is saturated using a  Sample is placed inside the  Sample is compressed along
vibro-deairator or CorelokTM
 Saturated sample is placed
chamber of MIST
 Chamber is filled with water
  the diagonal
 Tensile failure perpendicular to
inside a Ziplock bag and inside and closed loading direction occurs
a freezer  Chamber is pressurized to  IDT is determined using the
 Damage occurs due to 40psi and release for 3500 following equation:
pressure by increased volume cycles  TSR is determined using
of water due to icing  Increase of chamber pressure equation:
 Sample is thawed on hot cause increase in pore  Minimum allowable TSR is
water bath, causing more pressure of the sample and 0.85 for New Mexico
damage damage occurs

HAMBURG WHEEL TRACKER TEST RESULTS

Summary for good pavements Summary for bad pavements
Pavement Initial Rut Inflectio Comment Pavemen Initial Rut Inflection Comment
Section Compaction depth n point t Section Compacti depth point
(mm) (mm) on (mm) (mm)
1 1 2.6 >20000 ok 9 1 5 >20000 Ok
3 1.5 15.5 17500 Rut depth- 10 1 7.5 >20000 Ok
not ok,
Stripping 11 1 3.4 >20000 Ok
potential –ok 12 1 7 >10000 Ok
 Hamburg wheel tracker was first used in Germany in mid 70s 4 1 3.1 >20000 Ok 13 1 6.1 >20000 Ok
 Cylindrical or slab samples are placed in the mold 5 2 4.2 >20000 Ok 14 1 8.2 >20000 Ok
 Metal wheels of 158lbs weight roll over the sample for 20000 6 6 8.1 >20000 Ok 15 1 10.2 >20000 Ok
cycles 7 3.8 8.8 >20000 Ok
16 1 >20 ≈5000 Fail
 After several cycles, the rut depth increases suddenly which is 8 1 8 >20000 Ok
a measure of moisture damage susceptibility  It is seen that all the good pavements satisfies the stripping potential criteria set by other
DOTs
MIST TSR Vs Permeability  Only one of the bad pavements has rutting and stripping Potential
1  Hamburg wheel tracking doesn’t yield significant result for New Mexico Pavements

0.8 R² = 0.09 Field damage with MIST Damage

1 1
0.9
0.6 0.8 0.8
MIST TSR

1 9
0.7
2 10
0.6 0.6
0.4 3 11
0.5
TSR

TSR

0.4 4 12
0.4
0.3 5 13
0.2 6 14
0.2 0.2
0.1 7 15
0 0 8 0 16
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Top Layer Middle layer Bottom layer Top layer Middle layer Bottom layer
(c) Permeability of layered samples (×10-5 cm/s) Good pavements Bad pavements

 Many mixes from bad pavements have TSR higher than 0.85
 MIST shows a bad correlation with field or laboratory  MIST doesn’t represent the field exactly
permeability
AASHTO T 283 TSR vs Permeability
AASHTO T 283 TSR vs Permeability 1 1
1
0.8 1 0.8 9
0.9 2 10
0.6 0.6
0.8 3 11
TSR

TSR

R² = 0.38 0.4 4 12
0.7 0.4
5 13
0.6 0.2 0.2
6 14
0.5 0 7 15
TSR

Top layer Middle Layer Bottom layer 0

8 Top layer Middle layer Bottom layer 16
0.4
Good pavements
Bad pavements
0.3
0.2
 12 mixes from good pavements have TSR less than 0.85 and 3 mixes from bad pavements
0.1
0 have more TSR than 0.85. Therefore, AASHTO T 283 doesn’t represent the field exactly.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Permeabillity (× E-5 cm/s) Conclusions
 Permeability and moisture damage are slightly related
 AASHTO T 283 shows a better correlation with samples  None of the present moisture damage evaluation methods predicts moisture susceptibility
separated at layers of a asphalt mix that well.