EVALUATION OF VACUUM DRYING FOR DETERMINATION OF BULK SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF HMA SAMPLES
|
|
- Brianne Webster
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Cross and Pokhrel 1 EVALUATION OF VACUUM DRYING FOR DETERMINATION OF BULK SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF HMA SAMPLES 6784 Equivalent Words by: Stephen A. Cross, Ph.D., P.E. Professor School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma Tel: (405) Fax: (405) steve.cross@okstate.edu and Gyanendra Pokrel Graduate Research Assistant School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma Tel: (405) Fax: (405) gyanendra120@hotmail.com Paper submitted for presentation and publication at the 88 th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, January 11-15, 2009, Washington, D.C.
2 Cross and Pokhrel 2 EVALUATION OF VACUUM DRYING FOR DETERMINATION OF BULK SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF HMA SAMPLES ABSTRACT Stephen A. Cross and Gyanendra Pokhrel Text 3840 words Abstract 194 words 2 Figures 500 words 9 tables 2250 words Total 6784 words Determination of bulk specific gravity (Gmb) of bituminous paving mixtures is an important part of the Superpave mix design system and construction quality control/ quality assurance programs. Two problems commonly associated with AASHTO T 166 are the time it takes to dry test specimens and potential damage to the sample caused by drying at elevated temperatures. A vacuum drying technique has been developed to overcome these shortcomings. Field core samples and laboratory compacted samples of dense graded HMA and SMA were obtained for testing. The objectives of the study were to determine if dry mass and resultant Gmb of laboratory compacted and pavement core samples determined using vacuum drying procedures produces statistically similar results to AASHTO T 166 procedures. A second objective was to compare the dry mass obtained from AASHTO T 166 Method A to that of Method C. Comparisons of the means were made using ANOVA techniques along with paired t- testing. The practical significance of any statistically different results was also evaluated by using the precision statement of AASHTO T 166. Results indicated that vacuum drying is an acceptable procedure for determining dry mass and bulk specific gravity of HMA samples.
3 Cross and Pokhrel 3 EVALUATION OF VACUUM DRYING FOR DETERMINATION OF BULK SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF HMA SAMPLES INTRODUCTION Determination of bulk specific gravity (Gmb) of bituminous paving mixtures is an important part of the Superpave mix design system and construction quality control/ quality assurance programs. Two problems commonly associated with AASHTO T 166 are the time it takes to dry test specimens and potential damage to the sample caused by drying at elevated temperatures. According to InstroTek (1), the CoreDry TM apparatus (figure 1) was introduced to overcome these problems. The CoreDry TM system uses high vacuum in conjunction with a thermoelectric cold trap to draw moisture out of a specimen, evaporate the moisture, and subsequently condense the moisture in a separate chamber. As such, the specimen remains at or near room temperature, which helps to retain the HMA characteristics that can be altered due to prolonged exposure to heat and oxidation potential present in forced-draft ovens. The CoreDry apparatus is also reported to provide a constant mass in less time than traditional oven-drying techniques (1). FIGURE 1 CoreDry TM vacuum drying device. The CoreDry TM is already accepted by ASTM and the test procedure is available as ASTM D Rapid Drying of Compacted Asphalt Specimens Using Vacuum Drying Apparatus (2). However, there was little peer reviewed literature found verifying that dry mass and resultant Gmb determined from CoreDry TM is the same as that determined using AASHTO T 166 procedures.
4 Cross and Pokhrel 4 Hall (3) investigated the ability of the CoreDry TM vacuum drying system to provide consistent and accurate estimates of constant mass for compacted HMA specimens. Hall concluded that the CoreDry TM vacuum drying system consistently provides a reasonable estimate of constant mass for specimens with degrees of saturation ranging up to fully saturated. Retzer (4) evaluated how well CoreDry TM dry mass compared to conventional oven drying procedures using 100 mm and 150 mm diameter field cut cores. Cores were first tested in CoreDry TM and then oven dried at 110 ± 5ºC (230 ± 9 o F) (AASHTO T166, Method C) to a constant mass. Initial results indicated that the average difference in density was 0.17 % and never exceeded 0.60 %. Similarly, the difference in bulk specific gravity determined from the two dry masses averaged and never exceeded Retzer (4) reported possible bias in his results due to testing order. To overcome bias, 12 more samples with a 90 second vacuum saturation were tested. This time, comparisons of specimen weight before saturation, after saturation, after drying with CoreDry TM and after oven drying were made. The average efficiency of CoreDry TM in removing water from vacuum saturated samples was found to be 86.9% whereas the average efficiency was found to be 91.2 % for oven drying. The author s final conclusions were that CoreDry TM can be accepted as an alternative to oven drying methods of AASHTO T 166. OBJECTIVES The objectives of this study were to determine if dry mass and resultant Gmb of laboratory compacted and pavement core samples determined using the CoreDry TM apparatus produces statistically similar results to AASHTO T 166 procedures. This was accomplished by comparing dry mass and Gmb of laboratory compacted and field core samples using the CoreDry TM apparatus to the dry mass and Gmb obtained by Methods A and C of AASHTO T 166. For laboratory molded samples, one extra dry mass measurement was obtained and used in the analysis, initial dry mass after cooling to room temperature. A second objective was to compare the dry mass obtained from AASHTO T 166 Method A to that of Method C. Comparisons of the means were made using ANOVA techniques along with paired t-testing. The practical significance of any statistically different results was also evaluated by using the precision statement of AASHTO T 166 (5). MATERIALS Laboratory Compacted Samples For laboratory compacted samples, three mixes were used; an ODOT S-3 mix, an ODOT S-4 mix and an ODOT Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA) mix. ODOT S-3 and S-4 mixes are fine graded mixes with nominal maximum aggregate size of 19.0 mm (3/4 inches) and 12.5 mm (1/2 inches), respectively. The S-3 and S-4 mixture were made with PG asphalt. For the laboratory compacted S-3 and S-4 mixes, two different sample heights, 95 ± 5 mm and 115 ± 5 mm were prepared. The 95 ± 5 mm and 115 ± 5 mm high samples were compacted at 7 ± 0.5% and 4 ± 0.5% VTM, respectively. Eight to nine samples were made for each mix at each height, for a total of 33 samples. Sample heights and void contents were selected to match typical laboratory compacted samples for mix design, moisture damage testing (AASHTO T 283) and rut testing.
5 Cross and Pokhrel 5 Twenty-five field produced SMA samples were obtained from a contractor s laboratory for an Interstate paving project. The sample heights ranged from mm. Void contents varied. Field Cores Field cores of HMA were provided from various projects by a commercial testing laboratory and two contractor labs. There were two different sizes of cores provided, 100 mm (4 inches) and 150 mm (6 inches) nominal diameters, respectively. The cores provided by the commercial testing laboratory were from old projects that were slated for disposal. Therefore, not all of these cores could be identified by project or mix. TEST PLAN Test Procedures CoreDry All CoreDry testing was performed in accordance with the manufacturer s recommendations (1) and the procedures of ASTM D 7227 (2). The Gmb was determined using dry mass determined from CoreDry and the appropriate volume determined from either AASHTO T 166 or AASHTO TP 69 (ASTM D 6752). AASHTO T 166 The Gmb of each sample was determined in accordance with AASHTO T Method A and Method C (5). There are two Gmb procedures under Method A and one under Method C. The procedures are based on how dry mass of the sample is determined. Method B uses a volumeter and does not appear to be that popular among DOTs. AASHTO T 166 is not recommended for samples where the water absorption exceeds 2 percent, by volume. Method A Note 1 of Method A (5) defines constant mass as the mass at which further drying at 52 ± 3ºC (125 ± 5ºF) does not alter the mass by more than 0.05 %. Samples partially saturated with water are dried overnight at 52 ± 3ºC (125 ± 5ºF) and then weighed at two-hour drying intervals until the mass loss is less than 0.05 %. Dry mass determined in this manner was used with the submerged mass and saturated surface dry mass (SSD) to determine Gmb and was designated as Method A dry mass or Gmb. Note 1 of Method A (5) states that recently molded lab samples, which have not been exposed to moisture, do not require drying. Note 2 of Method A (5) states that the sequence of testing may be changed to expedite testing. For lab molded samples, the dry mass is usually recorded first. The dry mass and Gmb determined in this manner was designated Initial. Method C Method C of AASHTO T 166 (5) outlines procedures for determining dry mass and Gmb of laboratory compacted and field core samples which have a substantial amount of moisture and are not required for further testing. The determination of sample volume is similar to Method A. The only difference in this method is determination of dry mass (A). The sample is placed in a pan and dried at 110 ± 5ºC (230 ± 9ºF) to a constant mass. Dry mass is defined as the weight at which further drying at 110 ± 5ºC (230 ± 9ºF) does not alter the mass by more than 0.05% when weighed at 2-hour intervals. The dry mass and Gmb determined in accordance with
6 Cross and Pokhrel 6 Method C was designated Method C. The only disadvantage to Method C is that the sample is not available for further testing; therefore, method C was always performed last. Method C of AASHTO T 166 is basically the same as ASTM D Bulk Specific Gravity and Density of Non-Absorptive Compacted Bituminous Mixtures. ASTM D 2726 does not allow drying of samples at reduced temperatures, 52ºC (125 ºF, as allowed by AASHTO T 166 (Method A) (6). Absorptive Samples AASHTO T 166 (5) requires samples that absorb more than 2.0% water, by volume, be tested in accordance with AASHTO T 275. However, AASHTO T 275 is rarely used and most DOTs require the use of AASHTO TP Bulk Specific Gravity and Density of Compacted Asphalt Mixtures Using Automatic Vacuum Sealing Method (7). Samples that exceeded 2.0% absorption were tested in accordance with AASHTO TP (ASTM D 6752) and the appropriate dry mass was used with each of the above methods to determine Gmb. Only 14 of 219 cores and no lab compacted samples had absorptions exceeding 2.0%. Testing Sequence The same test samples used for evaluation of dry mass were used for evaluation of Gmb test methods. Saturated surface dry (SSD) mass and submerged mass were used along with the dry masses to calculate the appropriate Gmb. The testing sequence is shown in figure 2. Over 250 samples were tested for this study. The test results are too extensive for this report and can be found in the final report by the authors (8). The same general test sequence was followed for laboratory compacted samples as field cores. The only difference was field cores could not be verified as dry; therefore, there is no initial dry mass or initial Gmb. For lab compacted samples, initial dry molded mass was recorded. Next, each specimen was tested for submerged mass and SSD mass in accordance with AASHTO T After recording submerged and SSD mass, the dry mass was determined using CoreDry and Methods A and C of AASHTO T 166. Method C is a destructive test and was performed last. The appropriate bulk specific gravities were then calculated. Method A and CoreDry are non-destructive tests; however, order of testing could result in biased measurements. To prevent bias, test samples were divided into two groups, Group A and Group B. For Group A samples, Method A Gmb was determined followed by CoreDry. For Group B samples, the order was reversed. For no significant difference in Gmb between Method A and CoreDry there would have to be no significant difference in both groups.
7 Cross and Pokhrel 7 Test Sample Initial* Dry Mass & Gmb Submerged Mass Group A T 166 Method A Dry Mass & Gmb SSD Mass Group B CoreDry TM Dry Mass & Gmb CoreDry TM Dry Mass & Gmb T 166 Method C Dry Mass & Gmb T 166 Method A Dry Mass & Gmb *Laboratory compacted specimens only. FIGURE 2 Test procedures for evaluation of dry mass and Gmb. ANALYSIS OF DRY MASS TEST RESULTS ANOVA Techniques Laboratory Compacted Samples S-3 and S-4 Superpave mixes consisted of two sets of samples with different heights, 95 mm and 115 mm. SMA samples were all approximately 115 mm high. For effective comparisons, samples of approximately equal dry mass are necessary. Therefore, ANOVA tests were performed separately for Superpave and SMA mixtures. S-3 & S-4 Mixtures ANOVA results for S-3 and S-4 mixes, by group, are shown in table 1. The ANOVA indicates that there is no statistical difference between the four methods used to determine dry mass. However, there were significant differences between dry mass by mix type and sample height, as expected. There were significant interactions between mix type and sample
8 Cross and Pokhrel 8 height as well. However, there were no significant interactions involving test methods. Initial, CoreDry, Method A and Method C means for Group A samples were g, g, g and g, respectively and g, g, g and g, respectively for Group B. The results show that, for laboratory compacted dense graded samples, there was no statistical difference in dry mass between initial, CoreDry or the oven drying methods of AASHTO T 166. TABLE 1 ANOVA on Dry Mass for Superpave Laboratory Compacted Samples Degrees Sum of Mean Source Freedom Squares Square F Value Prob. > Fcr Group A Method Mix < Ht < Method* Mix Method*Ht Mix*Ht < Method*Mix*Ht Error Total Group B Method Mix < Ht < Method* Mix Method*Ht Mix*Ht < Method*Mix*Ht Error Total SMA Samples SMA samples were of the same approximate height and from the same mix. Therefore, a 1-way ANOVA on test methods, by group, was performed. The results are shown in table 2. The ANOVA indicates that there is no statistical difference between the four methods used to determine dry mass. Initial, CoreDry, Method A and Method C means for Group A SMA samples were g, g, g and g, respectively and g, g, g and g, respectively for Group B. The results show that, for laboratory compacted SMA samples, there was no statistical difference in dry mass between initial, CoreDry or the oven drying methods of AASHTO T 166.
9 Cross and Pokhrel 9 TABLE 2 ANOVA on Dry Mass for SMA Laboratory Compacted Samples Degrees Sum of Mean Source Freedom Squares Square F Value Prob. > Fcr Method 3 Group A Error Total Group B Method Error Total Field Cores Laboratory compacted samples had four sets of dry masses. Field cores have only three dry masses, CoreDry (CoreDry), AASHTO T 166 Method A (Method A) and AASHTO T 166 Method C (Method C), as the specimen cannot be assumed to be initially dry. As with laboratory compacted samples, field core samples were analyzed in two groups to overcome bias. For the methods to give statistically similar results, the methods must be statistically similar for both groups. Two different nominal core diameters were provided, 100 mm and 150 mm; hence, a 2- way ANOVA was performed with nominal diameter and test method as the main effects. The analysis was performed by group and the results are shown in table 3. TABLE 3 ANOVA for Field Core Samples Degrees Sum of Mean Source Freedom Squares Square F Value Prob. > Fcr Group A Method Diameter < Method*Dia Error Total Group B Method Diameter < Method*Dia Error Total
10 Cross and Pokhrel 10 The ANOVA indicates a significant effect of diameter, as expected. There is no statistical difference between the three methods used to determine dry mass and no significant interactions. CoreDry, Method A and Method C means for Group A samples were g, g, and g, respectively and g, g and g, respectively for Group B. The results show that, for field cores, there was no statistical difference in dry mass between CoreDry and the oven drying methods of AASHTO T 166. Paired t-test The ANOVA showed that there was no statistical difference among test methods. The same set of data was also analyzed using a one-tail paired t-test for two sample means. A one-tailed paired t-test was used because dry mass after a drying method is less than or equal to dry mass after the previous drying method. The analysis was performed by group to remove bias due to testing sequence. For the means to be the same, they must be the same for each group. The paired t-test results for laboratory compacted and field core samples, performed at a confidence limit of 95% (α = 0.05), are presented in table 4. TABLE 4 Paired t-test Results for Dry Mass Pairs Degrees t Statistic 1-tail 2-tail Significant Group Paired Comparison n Freedom t o t cr t cr Difference* Laboratory Compacted Specimens A Initial vs Method A Yes A Initial vs CoreDry Yes A Initial vs Method C No A Method A vs CoreDry Yes A Method A vs Method C Yes A CoreDry vs Method C Yes B Initial vs CoreDry Yes B Initial vs Method A Yes B Initial vs Method C Yes B CoreDry vs Method A Yes B CoreDry vs Method C Yes B Method A vs Method C Yes Field Core Specimens A Method A vs CoreDry Yes A Method A vs Method C Yes A CoreDry vs Method C Yes B CoreDry vs Method A Yes B CoreDry vs Method C No B Method A vs Method C No *Alpha = 0.05
11 Cross and Pokhrel 11 According to the paired t-test results, not all methods are statistically different from each other. However, due to bias in the testing sequence, for the methods to be similar they must be similar in each group. The Group A cores were dried using Method A followed by CoreDry. The Group B cores were dried using CoreDry followed by Method A. Based on the paired t- testing, the methods give different dry mass results. Practical Significance The paired t-test is a very powerful comparison test that can, with a large sample size, show statistically different results when there is little practical difference between test results (9). To evaluate the practical differences among methods, the difference in means between methods were calculated and compared with the AASHTO T 166 requirement for dry state of mass, which is a mass loss less than 0.05 % of total mass. A summary of the results for laboratory compacted and field core samples are presented in table 5. TABLE 5 Practical Difference in Dry Mass Number Specimens % Method Comparison Group Specimens Different Different Laboratory Compacted Initial Method A A Initial Method C A&B Initial CoreDry B Method A CoreDry A Method A Method C A CoreDry Method A B CoreDry Method C B Field Cores Method A CoreDry A Method A Method C A CoreDry Method A B CoreDry Method C B For laboratory compacted samples, the comparisons show a practical difference between initial dry mass and AASHTO T 166 Method A and C dry mass. The percent of samples different between initial and Method C is 5.1 percent, which is similar to the 95% confidence limit used in the statistical analysis. Method A dry mass was outside the 0.05% limit when compared to Method C and CoreDry. CoreDry dry mass was within the 0.05% limit when compared to
12 Cross and Pokhrel 12 Method A and Method C. It appears that Method A of AASHTO T 166 does not dry a sample as dry as initial lab molded dry mass, Method C dry mass or the CoreDry dry mass. It is significant to note that ASTM D 2726 does not allow the Method A drying procedure of AASHTO T 166 (6). For field core samples, the results show a practical difference in dry mass between the methods and considerably more scatter than laboratory molded samples. There were a high percentage of samples that exceeded the 0.05% difference in mass as prescribed by AASHTO T 166. The dry mass of field core samples was considerably less than the mass of laboratory compacted samples. All laboratory compacted samples exceed 3,000 g in dry mass. Ninety percent of field cores had a dry mass of less than 3,000 g and 70 percent were less than 2,000 g. All samples were weighed on a scale with a precision of 0.1 g. The range in mass of the field cores, and the lower total dry mass as compared to laboratory compacted samples, could be affecting the results. ANALYSIS OF BULK SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST RESULTS ANOVA Techniques Laboratory Compacted Samples For laboratory compacted samples, the dry masses previously obtained were used to calculate Gmb for the AASHTO and CoreDry procedures. Calculating Gmb normalizes the data and removes the effects of sample size. Therefore, the ANOVA was performed by mix type only. The results are shown in table 6. S-3 and S-4 Mixtures As shown in table 6, the ANOVA indicates no significant difference in Gmb between test methods for the S-3 and S-4 mixes. The mean Gmb for all four methods was and for Group A and Group B samples, respectively. SMA Samples Results of the ANOVA on Gmb for SMA samples, shown in table 6, indicates there is no significant difference in Gmb by test method. For the Group A samples, mean Gmb was for Initial, CoreDry and Method A, and for Method C. For the Group B samples, mean Gmb was for Initial and CoreDry, and for Method A and Method C. Field Core Samples Laboratory compacted samples had three different Gmbs. Field cores cannot be considered dry and, therefore, do not have an initial lab molded Gmb. Field core samples were analyzed together, not by mix, as was done with lab compacted samples. Sample diameter should not have an effect on Gmb; therefore, the ANOVA was performed on test methods only. To overcome bias, samples were analyzed by group. For the methods to give statistically similar results, methods must be statistically similar for both groups. The results of the one-way ANOVA performed on field core samples are shown in table 7. The results show that test method had no significant effect on Gmb. For the Group A samples, mean Gmb was for CoreDry and Method A, and for Method C. For the Group B samples, mean Gmb was for CoreDry, for Method A and for Method C.
13 Cross and Pokhrel 13 TABLE 6 ANOVA on Gmb for Laboratory Compacted Samples Degrees Sum of Mean Source Freedom Squares Square F Value Prob. > Fcr S3 & S4 Mixtures Group A Method Error Total Group B Method Error Total SMA Mixture Group A Method Error Total Group B Method Error Total TABLE 7 ANOVA on Gmb of Field Core Samples Degrees Sum of Mean Source Freedom Squares Square F Value Prob. > Fcr Group A Method Error Total Group B Method Error Total
14 Cross and Pokhrel 14 Paired t-test The same data set was also analyzed using a one-tail paired t-test for two sample means. Onetailed paired t-test was used because Gmb after a drying method is less than or equal to Gmb after the previous drying method. The analysis was performed by group to remove bias due to testing sequence. For the means to be statistically similar, they must be similar for each group. The paired t-test results for laboratory compacted and field core samples, performed at a confidence limit of 95% (α = 0.05), are presented in table 8. TABLE 8 Paired t-test on Gmb Pairs Degrees t Statistic 1-tail 2-tail Significant Group Paired Comparison n Freedom t o t cr t cr Difference* Laboratory Compacted Specimens A Initial vs Method A Yes A Initial vs CoreDry Yes A Initial vs Method C No A Method A vs CoreDry Yes A Method A vs Method C Yes A CoreDry vs Method C Yes B Initial vs CoreDry Yes B Initial vs Method A Yes B Initial vs Method C Yes B CoreDry vs Method A Yes B CoreDry vs Method C Yes B Method A vs Method C Yes Field Core Specimens A Method A vs CoreDry Yes A Method A vs Method C Yes A CoreDry vs Method C Yes B CoreDry vs Method A Yes B CoreDry vs Method C Yes B Method A vs Method C Yes *Alpha = 0.05 According to the paired t-test results, all methods were statistically different from each other except Initial and Method C from Group A. However, due to bias in the testing sequence, for the methods to be similar they must be similar in each group, which they are not. The statistical difference between test methods for paired t-testing compared to ANOVA results (f-test) is due to the power of the paired t-test.
15 Cross and Pokhrel 15 Practical Significance The paired t-test is a very powerful comparison test that can, with a large sample size, show statistically different results when there is little practical difference between test results (9). To evaluate the practical differences among methods, the difference in means between methods were calculated and compared with the AASHTO T 166 precision statement that duplicate specific gravity results by the same operator should not be considered suspect unless they differ by more than The summary of the results are presented in table 9. TABLE 9 Practical Difference in Gmb Number Specimens % Method Comparison Group Specimens Different Different Laboratory Compacted Initial Method A A Initial Method C A&B Initial CoreDry B Method A CoreDry A Method A Method C A CoreDry Method A B CoreDry Method C B Field Cores Method A CoreDry A Method A Method C A CoreDry Method A B CoreDry Method C B The results in table 9 show no practical difference in laboratory molded Gmb for the four methods evaluated. For field core samples, the Gmb was within the required 0.02 limit for over 90% of the samples, indicating good agreement between CoreDry, Method A and Method C Gmb. CoreDry did exceed the 0.02 limit of AASHTO T 166, however, a check of the data indicated the CoreDry Gmb was lower than both Method A or Method C. This could indicate testing error as the samples would have to gain mass. CONCLUSIONS Based on the test results obtained and analysis of the test data, the following conclusions are warranted.
16 Cross and Pokhrel Based on ANOVA testing of laboratory compacted and field core samples, there was no statistical difference in dry mass or Gmb between initial, AASHTO T 166 Method A, AASHTO T 166 Method C or CoreDry TM procedures. 2. Paired t-test analysis, which is a much more powerful test than the F-test (ANOVA), showed a statistical difference in dry mass and Gmb, at a 95 percent confidence limit (α = 0.05), between initial, AASHTO T 166 Method A, AASHTO Method C and CoreDry TM procedures. 3. The practical significance between methods for determining dry mass was evaluated by comparing the difference in dry mass between methods for each sample to the AASHTO T 166 requirement of a mass loss of less than 0.05 % between two consecutive drying operations. a. For laboratory compacted samples, there was no practical difference found between CoreDry TM dry mass and either initial laboratory compacted dry mass or Method C of AAASHTO T 166. There was no practical difference found between initial laboratory compacted dry mass and Method C of AAASHTO T 166. There was a practical difference found between AASHTO T 166 Method A dry mass and initial laboratory compacted dry mass, Method C dry mass and CoreDry dry mass. b. For field core samples, there was a practical difference in dry mass between CoreDry, Method A and Method C of AASHTO T 166. The smaller dry mass of core samples compared to laboratory compacted samples could have had an effect on results. 4. The practical significance between methods for determining Gmb of laboratory compacted specimens was evaluated using the precision statement of AASHTO T 166 that duplicate specific gravity results by the same operator should not be considered suspect unless they differ by more than 0.02 (3). There was no practical difference in laboratory compacted samples between CoreDry TM, initial, AASHTO T 166 Method A or AASHTO T 166 Method C procedures. 5. The practical significance between methods for determining Gmb of field core samples was evaluated using the precision statement of AASHTO T 166 that duplicate specific gravity results by the same operator should not be considered suspect unless they differ by more than 0.02 (3). There was a practical difference in dry mass between CoreDry, Method A and Method C of AASHTO T 166. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The CoreDry TM apparatus should be considered as an equivalent procedure to Method A of AASHTO T 166 for determining dry mass and Gmb of HMA specimens. REFERENCES 1. CoreDry Operators Guide, Version 4, InstroTek Inc. Raleigh, NC, June Standard Test Method for Rapid Drying of Compacted Asphalt Specimens Using Vacuum Drying Apparatus, ASTM Designation: D Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Volume , American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA., Hall, Kevin D. Evaluation of Drying Efficiency for Hot-Mix Cores Using Vacuum Drying Method. Compendium of Papers, 86 th Annual Meeting of the Transportation
17 Cross and Pokhrel 17 Research Board. CD-ROM. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., January Retzer, N., Review and Research of InstroTek s CoreDry Report, Materials and Geotechnical Branch, Colorado Department of Transportation, Denver, Colorado, Bulk Specific Gravity of Compacted Hot-Mix Asphalt Using Saturated Surface-Dry Specimens, AASHTO Designation: T 166. Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Twenty-fifth Edition, Part 2A, Tests, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., Standard Test Method for Bulk Specific Gravity and Density of Non-Absorptive Compacted Bituminous Mixtures, ASTM Designation: D Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Volume , American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA., Bulk Specific Gravity and Density of Compacted Asphalt Mixtures Using Automatic Vacuum Sealing Method, AASHTO Designation: TP AASHTO Provisional Standards for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Twentyfifth Edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., Cross, Stephen A. and Gyanendra Pohkrel. Validation of the CoreDry and CoreReader Apparatus. Final Report, OTC Project Number: HWY Oklahoma Transportation Center, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, March 2008, 80 pp. 9. Montgomery, Douglas C., George Runger and Norma Hubele. Engineering Statistics, Fourth Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, 2007.
OHD L-14 METHOD OF TEST FOR DETERMINING THE SPECIFIC GRAVITY AND UNIT WEIGHT OF COMPACTED BITUMINOUS MIXTURES
Page 1 METHOD OF TEST FOR DETERMINING THE SPECIFIC GRAVITY AND UNIT WEIGHT OF COMPACTED BITUMINOUS MIXTURES I. SCOPE. This method of test covers the procedures for determining the bulk specific gravity
More informationEFFECTS OF TEST VARIABILITY ON MIXTURE VOLUMETRICS AND MIX DESIGN VERIFICATION
EFFECTS OF TEST VARIABILITY ON MIXTURE VOLUMETRICS AND MIX DESIGN VERIFICATION Authors: Adam J. Hand 1 Amy L. Epps 2 December 1, 1999 Revised for Presentation and Publication 2000 Annual Meeting of the
More informationTARGET AND TOLERANCE STUDY FOR THE ANGLE OF GYRATION USED IN THE SUPERPAVE GYRATORY COMPACTOR (SGC) By
TARGET AND TOLERANCE STUDY FOR THE ANGLE OF GYRATION USED IN THE SUPERPAVE GYRATORY COMPACTOR (SGC) By Ghazi Al-Khateeb Senior Research Engineer Asphalt Pavement Team Federal Highway Administration Turner-Fairbank
More informationCE330L Student Lab Manual Mineral Aggregate Properties
Mineral Aggregate Properties Introduction In this lab module several characteristics of aggregates are determined. Tests will be conducted on both coarse and fine aggregates. The results of some of these
More informationAsphalt Mix Designer. Module 2 Physical Properties of Aggregate. Specification Year: July Release 4, July
Specification Year: July 2005 Release 4, July 2005 2-1 The first step in the development of an HMA mix design is to identify the materials that will be used in the pavement. In Florida the asphalt binder
More informationBULK SPECIFIC GRAVITY ROUND-ROBIN USING THE CORELOK VACUUM SEALING DEVICE
NCAT Report 02-11 BULK SPECIFIC GRAVITY ROUND-ROBIN USING THE CORELOK VACUUM SEALING DEVICE By L. Allen Cooley, Jr. Brian D. Prowell Mohd Rosli Hainin M. Shane Buchanan Jason Harrington Mike Huner December
More informationPRECISION OF HAMBURG WHEEL-TRACK TEST (AASHTO T 324)
PRECISION OF HAMBURG WHEEL-TRACK TEST (AASHTO T 324) By: Dr. Haleh Azari AASHTO Advanced Pavement Research Laboratory (AAPRL) Gaithersburg, Maryland and Alaeddin Mohseni, Ph.D., P.E. Pavement Systems (PaveSys)
More informationAF2903 Road Construction and Maintenance. Volumetric Analysis of Asphalt Mixtures
AF2903 Road Construction and Maintenance Volumetric Analysis of Asphalt Mixtures Royal Institute of Technology Stockholm, April 8 th 2014 Dr. Alvaro Guarin Highway and Railway Engineering Department of
More informationStandard Practice for Heat Aging of Plastics Without Load 1
Designation: D 3045 92 (Reapproved 2003) Standard Practice for Heat Aging of Plastics Without Load 1 This standard is issued under the fixed designation D 3045; the number immediately following the designation
More informationCommonwealth of Pennsylvania PA Test Method No. 709 Department of Transportation October Pages LABORATORY TESTING SECTION. Method of Test for
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania PA Test Method No. 709 Department of Transportation 15 Pages LABORATORY TESTING SECTION Method of Test for EFFECTIVE ASPHALT CONTENT OF BITUMINOUS PAVING MIXTURES 1. SCOPE
More informationHaleh Azari, Ph.D. AASHTO Materials Reference Laboratory HSOM Meeting, Aug. 2008
Haleh Azari, Ph.D. AASHTO Materials Reference Laboratory HSOM Meeting, Aug. 2008 AMRL Research Program Mission Meet the Research and Standards Needs of the AASHTO Member States Outline Accomplished work
More informationCOARSE VERSUS FINE-GRADED SUPERPAVE MIXTURES: COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF RESISTANCE TO RUTTING
NCAT Report 02-02 COARSE VERSUS FINE-GRADED SUPERPAVE MIXTURES: COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF RESISTANCE TO RUTTING By Prithvi S. Kandhal L. Allen Cooley, Jr. February 2002 277 Technology Parkway Auburn, AL
More informationMETHOD OF TEST FOR RELATIVE DENSITY AND ABSORPTION OF FINE AGGREGATE
Laboratory Testing Manual Date: 12 04 01 Page 1 of 10 METHOD OF TEST FOR RELATIVE DENSITY AND ABSORPTION OF FINE AGGREGATE 1. SCOPE 1.1 This method covers the determination of relative density (oven-dry
More informationSUPERPAVE VOLUMETRIC MIXTURE DESIGN AND ANALYSIS HANDBOOK
SUPERPAVE VOLUMETRIC MIXTURE DESIGN AND ANALYSIS HANDBOOK Volume III Laboratory Study Manual (2017) Developed by: & October 2016 Compiled by: Mustaque Hossain, Ph.D., P.E. Department of Civil Engineering
More informationPrecision Estimates of Selected Volumetric Properties of HMA Using Non-Absorptive Aggregate
NCHRP Web Document 54 (Project D9-26): Contractor s Interim Report Precision Estimates of Selected Volumetric Properties of HMA Using Non-Absorptive Aggregate Prepared for: National Cooperative Highway
More informationSPECIFIC GRAVITY AND ABSORPTION OF COARSE AGGREGATE FOP FOR AASHTO T 85
SPECIFIC GRAVITY AND ABSORPTION OF COARSE AGGREGATE FOP FOR AASHTO T 85 Scope This procedure covers the determination of specific gravity and absorption of coarse aggregate in accordance with AASHTO T
More informationROUND ROBIN EVALUATION OF NEW TEST PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING THE BULK SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF FINE AGGREGATE
NCAT Report 05-07 ROUND ROBIN EVALUATION OF NEW TEST PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING THE BULK SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF FINE AGGREGATE By B Brian D. Prowell Nolan V. Baker November 2005 277 Technology Parkway Auburn,
More informationNote 2: For mechanical hammers, the lab shall determine its own equivalency to the 75 blows of the manual hammer.
YEAR 2019 CCIL CORRELATION MIX COMPLIANCE (BC, MB, NB, NL, NS and SK) SAMPLES Two bulk samples, one identified as Material MC-III-(N) and the other as Material MC-IV- (N), have been provided. Each of these
More informationVolumetric Tests. Overview
Volumetric Tests Qualified Aggregate Technician Overview Volumetrics Specific Gravity Different types Uses Density Why density? Unit Weight 62 What are Volumetrics? All matter has weight and occupies space
More informationEverything you ever wanted to know about HMA in 30 minutes. John D AngeloD The mouth
Everything you ever wanted to know about HMA in 30 minutes John D AngeloD The mouth Are they all the same? Background SHRP A-001 A Contract Development of Superpave Mix Design Procedure Gyratory Compactor
More informationThe Superpave System Filling the gaps.
The Superpave System Filling the gaps. John A. D Angelo Federal Highway Administration FHWA Binder lab Continuous support to the States: Training / Ruggedness / Development / Validation Trouble shooting
More informationNuclear Gauges and Cores HOW CAN WE GET THE BEST CONSISTENCY AND CORRELATION PERTAINING TO DENSITY?
Nuclear Gauges and Cores HOW CAN WE GET THE BEST CONSISTENCY AND CORRELATION PERTAINING TO DENSITY? Introduction Nuclear Gauge Performance can be associated with the operator, equipment s functionality,
More informationSPECIFIC GRAVITY AND ABSORPTION OF COARSE AGGREGATE FOP FOR AASHTO T 85
SPECIFIC GRAVITY AND ABSORPTION OF COARSE AGGREGATE FOP FOR AASHTO T 85 Scope This procedure covers the determination of specific gravity and absorption of coarse aggregate in accordance with AASHTO T
More informationVOL. 2, NO. 11, Dec 2012 ISSN ARPN Journal of Science and Technology All rights reserved.
Factorial Design Approach to Investigate the Effect of Different Factors on the Resilient Modulus of Bituminous Paving Mixes 1 Muhammad Babar Khan, Afaq Khattak, 3 Muhammad Irfan, Sarfraz Ahmed 1 Assistant
More informationWhat is on the Horizon in HMA. John D AngeloD Federal Highway Administration
What is on the Horizon in HMA John D AngeloD Federal Highway Administration Are they all the same? Internal Angle of Gyration Internal Angle of Gyration Development of the Dynamic Angle Validator (DAV)
More informationWACEL AGGREGATE LABORATORY TESTING TECHNICIAN
STUDY GUIDE WACEL AGGREGATE LABORATORY TESTING TECHNICIAN August 2016 Study Guide Aggregate Laboratory Testing General: An aggregate laboratory technician shall have sufficient training, education, and
More informationOf course the importance of these three problematics is affected by the local environmental conditions.
SHRP METHOD/SUPERPAVE SYSTEM The Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) of the U.S. National Research Centre deals with, amongst other things, road construction and between 1987 and 1993 new classification
More informationSECTION AGGREGATE OR GRANULAR SUBBASE
SECTION 02230 AGGREGATE OR GRANULAR SUBBASE PART 1 GENERAL 1.01 SECTION INCLUDES A. Aggregate or granular subbase as shown on the drawings. 1.02 RELATED SECTIONS A. Section 01400 Quality Requirements.
More informationDESIGN OF ULTRA-THIN BONDED HOT MIX WEARING COURSE (UTBHMWC) MIXTURES
Test Procedure for DESIGN OF ULTRA-THIN BONDED HOT MIX WEARING COURSE TxDOT Designation: Tex-247-F Effective Date: August 2008 August 2016. 1. SCOPE 1.1 This test method determines the proper proportions
More informationYEAR 2018 CCIL CORRELATION. MIX COMPLIANCE (Ontario)
MIX COMPLIANCE (Ontario) PLEASE NOTE: Type B Marshall Only and Type B Marshall and Superpave laboratories are required to carry out Marshall compliance testing using two Plant Mix samples. SAMPLES Two
More informationPerformance Characteristics of Asphalt Mixtures Incorporating Treated Ground Tire Rubber Added During the Mixing Process
Innovative Research in Asphalt Pavements Performance Characteristics of Asphalt Mixtures Incorporating Treated Ground Tire Rubber Added During the Mixing Process Dr. Walaa S. Mogawer, PE, F.ASCE Director
More informationRelationships of HMA In-Place Air Voids, Lift Thickness, and Permeability Volume Two
NCHRP Web Document 68 (Project 9-27) Relationships of HMA In-Place Air Voids, Lift Thickness, and Permeability Volume Two Prepared for: National Cooperative Highway Research Program Submitted by: E. Ray
More informationDensity Gradients in Asphalt Pavements
Density Gradients in Asphalt Pavements Prof Scott Shuler, Ph. D., P. E. Colorado State University Synopsis Asphalt pavement density measurements were made using a conventional nuclear density guage and
More informationThe Use of Expanded Shale, Clay and Slate Lightweight Aggregates in Granular Geotechnical Fills
Information Sheet 6660.0 January 2017 The Use of Expanded Shale, Clay and Slate Lightweight Aggregates in Granular Geotechnical Fills For over 50 years Rotary Kiln produced Expanded Shale, Clay & Slate
More informationSpecific Gravity and Absorption of Aggregate by Volumetric Immersion Method (Phunque Test)
Specific Gravity and Absorption of Aggregate by Volumetric Immersion Method (Phunque Test) ASTM June 2015 Meeting by Bryce Simons, P.E. Eliminating the Guesswork A New Absorption/Specific Gravity Test
More informationResearch Article SGC Tests for Influence of Material Composition on Compaction Characteristic of Asphalt Mixtures
The Scientific World Journal Volume 2013, Article ID 735640, 10 pages http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/735640 Research Article SGC Tests for Influence of Material Composition on Compaction Characteristic
More informationInclusion of the Dynamic Angle Validator (DAV) In AASHTO T AASHTO Subcommittee on Materials Branson, Missouri August 2002
Inclusion of the Dynamic Angle Validator (DAV) In AASHTO T 312-01 -03 AASHTO Subcommittee on Materials Branson, Missouri August 2002 TRB Superpave Committee Mix/Agg ETG - DAV Task Group Randy West (APAC)
More informationStandard Test Method for Thermal Conductivity of Refractories 1
Designation: C 201 93 (Reapproved 1998) Standard Test Method for Thermal Conductivity of Refractories 1 This standard is issued under the fixed designation C 201; the number immediately following the designation
More informationEXPERIMENT 3 DETERMINATION OF SPECIFIC GRAVITY AND WATER ABSORPTION OF AGGREGATES
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CE405 Construction Materials and Testing 1 st Semester SY 2016-2017 EXPERIMENT 3 DETERMINATION OF SPECIFIC GRAVITY AND WATER ABSORPTION
More informationBasic Aggregates Study Guide
Basic Aggregates Study Guide General Conversions 1) There are pounds in one ton. 2) There are grams in one pound. 3) One kilogram consists of grams. 4) The linear distance that one station covers is feet.
More informationLaboratory Study for Comparing Rutting Performance of Limestone and Basalt Superpave Asphalt Mixtures
Laboratory Study for Comparing Rutting Performance of Limestone and Ghazi G. Al-Khateeb 1 ; Taisir S. Khedaywi 2 ; Turki I. Al-Suleiman Obaidat 3 ; and Ahmad Mirwais Najib 4 Abstract: The primary objective
More informationSIEVE ANALYSIS OF AGGREGATE (Kansas Test Method KT-2)
5.9.02 SIEVE ANALYSIS OF AGGREGATE (Kansas Test Method KT-2) 1. SCOPE This method of test covers procedures for the determination of the particle size distribution of aggregates using standard sieves.
More informationUSE OF BBR TEST DATA TO ENHANCE THE ACCURACY OF G* -BASED WITCZAK MODEL PREDICTIONS
USE OF BBR TEST DATA TO ENHANCE THE ACCURACY OF G* -BASED WITCZAK MODEL PREDICTIONS Mekdim T. Weldegiorgis * PhD. Candidate, Department of Civil Engineering, University of New Mexico, USA * 1 University
More informationStandard Title Page - Report on Federally Funded Project 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient s Catalog No.
Standard Title Page - Report on Federally Funded Project 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient s Catalog No. FHWA/VTRC 07-CR1 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Determination of the
More informationEstimating Damage Tolerance of Asphalt Binders Using the Linear Amplitude Sweep
Standard Method of Test for Estimating Damage Tolerance of Asphalt Binders Using the Linear Amplitude Sweep AASHTO Designation: TP 101-14 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
More informationEstimating Fatigue Resistance Damage Tolerance of Asphalt Binders Using the Linear Amplitude Sweep
Standard Method of Test for Estimating Fatigue Resistance Damage Tolerance of Asphalt Binders Using the Linear Amplitude Sweep AASHTO Designation: TP 2b xx (LAST)101-1214 American Association of State
More informationTESTING of AGGREGATES for CONCRETE
TESTING of AGGREGATES for CONCRETE The properties of the aggregates affect both the fresh and hardened properties of concrete. It is crucial to know the properties of the aggregates to be used in the making
More informationGeoShanghai 2010 International Conference Paving Materials and Pavement Analysis
Particle Shape, Type and Amount of Fines, and Moisture Affecting Resilient Modulus Behavior of Unbound Aggregates Debakanta Mishra 1, Erol Tutumluer 2, M. ASCE, Yuanjie Xiao 3 1 Graduate Research Assistant,
More informationHot mix asphalt longitudinal joint evaluation
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville ScholarWorks@UARK Civil Engineering Undergraduate Honors Theses Civil Engineering 5-2009 Hot mix asphalt longitudinal joint evaluation Annette Porter University of
More informationAPPENDIX C. Modified ASTM C 1260 Test Method to Evaluate Aggregate Reactivity in Presence of Deicer Solutions
APPENDIX C Modified ASTM C 1260 Test Method to Evaluate Aggregate Reactivity in Presence of Deicer Solutions INTERIM TEST PROTOCOL Modified ASTM C 1260 Test Method to Evaluate Aggregate Reactivity in Presence
More informationTexas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas
1. Report No. FHWA/TX-04/0-1819-2 4. Title and Subtitle PRECISION STATISTICS FOR FREQUENCY SWEEP AT CONSTANT HEIGHT TEST 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. Technical Report Documentation
More informationCoefficient of Thermal Expansion of Concrete Pavements
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion of Concrete Pavements Erwin Kohler Ramon Alvarado David Jones University of California Pavement Research Center TRB Annual Meeting, Washington D.C. January 24 th, 2007
More informationDYNAMIC MODULUS MASTER CURVE AND CHARACTERIZATION OF SUPERPAVE HMA CONTAINING VARIOUS POLYMER TYPES
DYNAMIC MODULUS MASTER CURVE AND CHARACTERIZATION OF SUPERPAVE HMA CONTAINING VARIOUS POLYMER TYPES Al-Hosain M. Ali 1, Mohamed S. Aazam 2, and Mohamed A. Alomran 3 1 Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering.
More informationDynamic Resilient Modulus and the Fatigue Properties of Superpave HMA Mixes used in the Base Layer of Kansas Flexible Pavements
06-1012 Dynamic Resilient Modulus and the Fatigue Properties of Superpave HMA Mixes used in the Base Layer of Kansas Flexible Pavements by Stefan A. Romanoschi, Nicoleta Dumitru, Octavian Dumitru and Glenn
More informationStandard Guide for Determination of the Thermal Resistance of Low-Density Blanket-Type Mineral Fiber Insulation 1
Designation: C 653 97 Standard Guide for Determination of the Thermal Resistance of Low-Density Blanket-Type Mineral Fiber Insulation 1 This standard is issued under the fixed designation C 653; the number
More informationFACTORS AFFECTING RESILIENT MODULUS
FACTORS AFFECTING RESILIENT MODULUS Saleh M & S J JI University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand ABSTRACT: Resilient modulus is an important property for asphalt concrete design and for mechanistic
More informationFlexible Pavement Design
Flexible Pavement Design The Mechanistic-Empirical Way Presented by: Keith D. Herbold, P.E. 1 Presentation Outline What s new in flexible design Example of new design Differences Capabilities Tests and
More informationChapter 2. The Ideal Aggregate. Aggregates
Chapter 2 Aggregates The Ideal Aggregate Strong and resists loads applied Chemically inert so it is not broken down by reactions with substances it comes in contact with Has a stable volume so that it
More informationState of Nevada Department of Transportation Materials Division
State of Nevada Department of Transportation Materials Division Test Method Nev. T335G METHOD OF TEST FOR RELATIVE COMPACTION OF PLANTMIX BITUMINOUS SURFACE USING A NUCLEAR DENSITY GAUGE SCOPE This test
More informationrom the Job-mix Formu on the Properties of Paving Mixtures
rom the Job-mix Formu on the Properties of Paving Mixtures By Norman W. McLeod* ABSTRACT Substantial ranges of values for air voids, VMA, Marshall stability, and flow index, due to differences in paving
More informationArizona Pavements and Materials Conference Phoenix, Arizona. November 15-16, John Siekmeier P.E. M.ASCE
Arizona Pavements and Materials Conference Phoenix, Arizona November 15-16, 2017 John Siekmeier P.E. M.ASCE Minnesota DOT Districts and Local Agencies Other State DOTs, FHWA and NCHRP Contractors and Manufacturers
More informationScope. Overview. Apparatus. FOP for AASHTO T 329. Sample. Procedure. Moisture Content of Asphalt Mixtures by Oven Method
FOP for AASHTO T 329 Scope Overview Apparatus Sample Procedure This procedure covers the determination of moisture content of asphalt mixtures in accordance with AASHTO T 329-15. Moisture content is determined
More informationAn evaluation of Pavement ME Design dynamic modulus prediction model for asphalt mixes containing RAP
An evaluation of Pavement ME Design dynamic modulus prediction model for asphalt mixes containing RAP Saman (Sam) Esfandiarpour Ph.D candidate, Department of Civil Engineering University of Manitoba E-mail:
More informationThe response of ground penetrating radar (GPR) to changes in temperature and moisture condition of pavement materials
Loughborough University Institutional Repository The response of ground penetrating radar (GPR) to changes in temperature and moisture condition of pavement materials This item was submitted to Loughborough
More informationCALCULATIONS FOR THE MARSHALL MIX DESIGN OF BITUMINOUS MIXTURES
5.10.4. CALCULATIONS FOR THE MARSHALL MIX DESIN OF BITUMINOUS MIXTURES 1. Scope. This method covers the formulas used to compute the various values used in the Marshall Mix Design of % virgin aggregate
More informationStandard Test Method for Flat Particles, Elongated Particles, or Flat and Elongated Particles in Coarse Aggregate 1
Designation: D479 0 Standard Test Method for Flat Particles, Elongated Particles, or Flat and Elongated Particles in Coarse Aggregate This standard is issued under the fixed designation D479; the number
More informationMeasuring Humidity in the Charters of Freedom Encasements Using a Moisture Condensation Method
Measuring Humidity in the Charters of Freedom Encasements Using a Moisture Condensation Method Speaker: Cecil G. Burkett NASA Langley Research Center Mail Stop 236 Hampton VA 23681 PH: 757-864-4720 FAX:
More information2008 SEAUPG CONFERENCE-BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA
Introduction Overview M E E Design Inputs MEPDG Where are we now MEPDG Inputs, Outputs, and Sensitivity Southeast Asphalt User Producer Group Bill Vavrik 19 November 2008 2 Implementation Timeframe DARWin
More informationNCAT Report Results of Inter- laboratory Study for AMPT Pooled Fund Study TPF- 5(178) By Adam Taylor, P.E. Nam Tran, Ph.D., P.E.
NCAT Report 14-1 Results of Inter- laboratory Study for AMPT Pooled Fund Study TPF- 5(178) By Adam Taylor, P.E. Nam Tran, Ph.D., P.E., LEED GA April 214 1. Report No. NCAT Report No. 14-1 4. Title and
More informationUnited States 3 The Ultran Group, Inc. Boalsburg, Pennsylvania, Unites States
NON-CONTACT ULTRASONIC CHARACTERIZATION OF HOT MIX ASPHALT (HMA) M. Dunning 1, M. Karakouzian 2, R. Vun 3, and M. Bhardwaj 3 1 Clark County, Las Vegas; Nevada, United States 2 University of Nevada, Las
More informationMETHODS FOR EVALUATING RESILIENT MODULI OF PAVING MATERIALS
Project Number ST 2019-7 Summary Report METHODS FOR EVALUATING RESILIENT MODULI OF PAVING MATERIALS sponsored by The State of Alabama Highway Department Montgomery, Alabama Frazier Parker, Jr. David J.
More informationMechanistic Investigation of Granular Base and Subbase Materials A Saskatchewan Case Study
Mechanistic Investigation of Granular Base and Subbase Materials A Saskatchewan Case Study Curtis Berthelot, P. Eng. Department of Civil and Geological Engineering University of Saskatchewan 57 Campus
More informationModulus of Rubblized Concrete from Surface Wave Testing
from Surface Wave Testing Nenad Gucunski Center for Advanced Infrastructure and Transportation (CAIT) Infrastructure Condition Monitoring Program (ICMP) 84 th Annual NESMEA Conference October 8, 2008 Route
More informationStatus Update: NCHRP Project 9-48
Status Update: NCHRP Project 9-48 Field versus Laboratory Volumetrics and Mechanical Properties Louay N. Mohammad Mostafa Elseifi Sam Cooper, III Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering LA Transportation
More informationNevels, et al 1 KAY COUNTY SHALE SUBGRADE STABILIZATION REVISITED
Nevels, et al 1 Title: KAY COUNTY SHALE SUBGRADE STABILIZATION REVISITED Submitted: 15 November 2012 (revised) Word Count: 3581 + 7 figures = 5331 Name: Affiliation: Email: Joakim G. Laguros, Ph.D., P.E.
More informationThe Nottingham eprints service makes this work by researchers of the University of Nottingham available open access under the following conditions.
Al-Mosawe, Hasan and Thom, Nick and Airey, Gordon and Ai-Bayati, Amjad (2015) Effect of aggregate gradation on the stiffness of asphalt mixtures. International Journal of Pavement Engineering and Asphalt
More informationInfluence of Crushing Size of the Aggregates on Dense Bituminous Mix and Experimental Study on Mechanical Properties
Influence of Crushing Size of the Aggregates on Dense Bituminous Mix and Experimental Study on Mechanical Properties Assistant Professor, Gogte Institute of Technology. Belagavi ABSTRACT The aggregate
More informationBattling Segregation Using Pave IR System
Battling Segregation Using Pave IR System What is Thermal Segregation Thermal segregation is defined as temperature differences in the hot mix asphalt (HMA) mat as it is placed and is a potential cause
More informationGuide for Mechanistic-Empirical Design
Copy No. Guide for Mechanistic-Empirical Design OF NEW AND REHABILITATED PAVEMENT STRUCTURES FINAL DOCUMENT APPENDIX EE-1: INPUT DATA FOR THE CALIBRATION AND VALIDATION OF THE DESIGN GUIDE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTED
More informationCEEN Laboratory 4 Aggregates for Base Layers, Portland Cement Concrete & Hot Mix Asphalt
CEEN 3320 - Laboratory 4 Aggregates for Base Layers, Portland Cement Concrete & Hot Mix Asphalt INTRODUCTION Civil Engineering projects utilize aggregates for a variety of purposes, including unbound base
More informationProfessional Agreement Invoice and Progress Report
ITD 0771 (Rev. 10-06) itd.idaho.gov Professional Agreement Invoice and Progress Report Idaho Transportation Department This page must be filled out monthly by the Consultant and forwarded to the Agreement
More informationEvaluation of the dynamic modulus of asphalt mixture incorporating reclaimed asphalt pavement
Indian Journal of Engineering & Materials Sciences Vol. 20, October 2013, pp. 376-384 Evaluation of the dynamic modulus of asphalt mixture incorporating reclaimed asphalt pavement Zulkurnain Shahadan,
More informationMar 1, 2018 LAB MANUAL INDEX 1. Table of Contents Laboratory Testing Methods Reducing Aggregate Field Samples to Testing Size (Ver.
Mar 1, 2018 LAB MANUAL INDEX 1 Table of Contents Laboratory Testing Methods 1000 Standard Practices (Ver. Sep 23, 2014) 1001 Receiving and Identifying Samples (Ver. Mar 1, 2018) 1002 Reducing Aggregate
More informationAUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF BASIC AND APPLIED SCIENCES. Evaluating the Impact of Aggregate Gradations on Permanent Deformation of SMA Mixture
AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF BASIC AND APPLIED SCIENCES ISSN:1991-8178 EISSN: 2309-8414 Journal home page: www.ajbasweb.com Evaluating the Impact of Aggregate Gradations on Permanent Deformation of SMA Mixture
More informationEVALUATING GEORGIA S COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS FOR STONE MATRIX ASPHALT MIXTURES
FINAL REPORT EVALUATING GEORGIA S COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS FOR STONE MATRIX ASPHALT MIXTURES By: Randy C. West Jason R. Moore June 2006 EVALUATING GEORGIA S COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS FOR STONE MATRIX ASPHALT
More informationSoil Mechanics III. SOIL COMPOSITION WEIGHT-VOLUME RELATIONSHIPS TERMINOLOGY AND DEFINITIONS
Soil Mechanics III. SOIL COMPOSITION WEIGHT-VOLUME RELATIONSHIPS TERMINOLOGY AND DEFINITIONS Soil Basic Terminology Basic Terminology Porosity. Porosity of a soil mass is the ratio of the volume of voids
More informationSuperpave Volumetric Calculations Review
Superpave Volumetric Calculations Review Bulk Specific Gravity of the Combined Aggregate Aggregate 1 G 1 = 2.60, P 1 = 15 Aggregate 2 G 2 = 2.61, P 2 = 16 Aggregate 3 G 3 = 2.65, P 3 = 49 Aggregate 4 G
More informationGEOSYNTHETICS ENGINEERING: IN THEORY AND PRACTICE
GEOSYNTHETICS ENGINEERING: IN THEORY AND PRACTICE Prof. J. N. Mandal Department of civil engineering, IIT Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400076, India. Tel.022-25767328 email: cejnm@civil.iitb.ac.in Module-5 LECTURE-
More informationInfluence of Aggregate Flakiness on Dense Bituminous Macadam & Semi Dense Bituminous Concrete Mixes
INDIAN GEOTECHNICAL SOCIETY CHENNAI CHAPTER Influence of Aggregate Flakiness on Dense Bituminous Macadam & Semi Dense Bituminous Concrete Mixes D. Sakthibalan 1 ABSTRACT: The physical properties of coarse
More informationThe Development of a Performance Specification for Granular Base and Subbase Material
FHWA-NJ-2005-003 The Development of a Performance Specification for Granular Base and Subbase Material FINAL REPORT Mr. Thomas Bennert* Research Engineer Submitted by Dr. Ali Maher* Professor and Chairman
More informationInvestigation of Effects of Moisture Susceptibility of Warm Mix. Asphalt (WMA) Mixes on Dynamic Modulus and Field Performance
Investigation of Effects of Moisture Susceptibility of Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA) Mixes on Dynamic Modulus and Field Performance by Yichao Xu A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC
More informationStandard Test Methods for Glass-Bonded Mica Used as Electrical Insulation 1
Designation: D 1039 94 (Reapproved 1999) e1 An American National Standard Standard Test Methods for Glass-Bonded Mica Used as Electrical Insulation 1 This standard is issued under the fixed designation
More informationEVALUATION OF FATIGUE LIFE OF ASPHALT MIXTURES THROUGH THE DISSIPATED ENERGY APPROACH
Vargas-Nordcbeck, Aguiar-Moya, Leiva-Villacorta and Loría-Salazar 0 0 0 EVALUATION OF FATIGUE LIFE OF ASPHALT MIXTURES THROUGH THE DISSIPATED ENERGY APPROACH Submitted to the th Annual Meeting of the Transportation
More informationFULL-DEPTH HMA PAVEMENT DESIGN
FULL-DEPTH HMA PAVEMENT DESIGN Marshall R. Thompson Department of Civil Engineering University of Illinois @ U-C FULL-DEPTH HMA FULL QUALITY HMA IDOT & FULL-DEPTH HMA PAVEMENT (FD-HMA) BEFORE 1989 *AASHTO
More information2015 North Dakota Asphalt Conference
2015 North Dakota Asphalt Conference NDDOT Implementation of AASHTO Flexible Pavement Design Part I ADT & ESALs Nickie Reis, P&AM Part II Structural Numbers Tom Bold, M&R March 31 - April 1, 2015 Part
More informationHydraulic conductivity of granular materials
3 r d International Conference on New Developments in Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Hydraulic conductivity of granular materials Namir K.S.Al-Saoudi Building and construction Eng. Dept.
More informationDynamic Modulus of Western Australia Asphalt Wearing Course. Keywords: Asphalt mixtures; dynamic modulus; master curve; MEPDG; Witczak model
Jurnal Teknologi Full paper Dynamic Modulus of Western Australia Asphalt Wearing Course Gunawan Wibisono1 a,b, *, Hamid Nikraz, a a Civil Engineering Department, School of Civil and Mechanical Engineering,
More information2002 Design Guide Preparing for Implementation
2002 Preparing for Implementation By Monte Symons 2003 NCUAPG Annual Meeting Excerpts from the 2002 Guide Implementation Package 2002 Presentation Overview Need for NCHRP 1-37A - Status Guide Basics Asphalt
More informationWorkshop 4PBB First Steps for the perpetual pavement design: through the analysis of the fatigue life
Workshop 4PBB First Steps for the perpetual pavement design: through the analysis of the fatigue life N. Hernández & D. Suarez Introduction In Mexico, asphalt pavements often exhibit premature failures
More informationCOMPARISON OF TESTING MEHODS FOR DETERMINATION OF ASPHALT CONTENT FOR HIGH LOSS AGGREGATES
Paper Id: 132 COMPARISON OF TESTING MEHODS FOR DETERMINATION OF ASPHALT CONTENT FOR HIGH LOSS AGGREGATES Vikash Kumar 1, Aravind Krishna Swamy 2 1 BTech Student,Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New
More information