Criteria for Asphalt-Rubber Concrete in Civil Airport Pavements … · 2012-11-19 · OI-83-C-30076 "Criteria for Asphalt-Rubber Concrete in Civil Airport Pavements" and it includes

I " I r I i .~

! , I v

DOT! FAA! PM·86!39,11 Program Engineering and Maintenance Service Washington, D.C. 20591

Criteria for Asphalt-Rubber Concrete in Civil Airport Pavements Vol. II-Evaluation of Asphalt-Rubber Concrete

Denise M. Hoyt Robert L. Lytton Freddy L. Roberts

Texas Transportation Institute Texas A&M University College Station, Texas

March 1987

Final Report

This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161

US Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

N~I~

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof.

r

T ...,hnl .. 1 It.,.n Doc ..... '.I1 ... Page

t. ,,_H •. 2. 0. .......... Acre ••• '''' He. lI. III~'''''. \; ...... He.

DOT/FAA/PM-86/39, II

4. Til' ..... "~III'. I"' ''_D ••• Criteria for Asphalt-Rubber Concrete in Civil March, 1987 Airport Pavements: Evaluation of Asphalt-Rubber 6. P ... , .... "I 0'..,.1 ...... CaH

Concrete .0 Perfa .. ", O'gllfti •• Ueft • .,.... H •. I. "",,,.r,) Denise M. Hovt Robert L. Lytton Freddy L. Roberts RF 4982-2

•. '., ........ 0, ... ' ... 1." Hama eftd Add,. .. 10. "' ... IMII N •• ITR"'S)

Texas Transportation Institute Texas A&M University 11. C&n"act Of Gren' He.

College Station, Texas DTFA 01-fl3-C-u. T"....f Rapet'f eM P.,I" c. .......

1~. .... • .,h •• A .... e" H .... Gft" ",.u,. .. Fi na 1 September 1983 u.s. Defartment of Transportation March 1987 Federa Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue, S. W. 14 ................... ,c:.d. Washington, D.C. 20591 APM-700

15. ~I"",'''''' Hahn

16. AlutfClC'

Asphalt-rubber concrete and an asphalt concrete control were tested in the laboratory and materials characterizations were generated, including Marshall Stabil ity, resilient modulus, fatigue and fracture properties, creep compliance, and permanent deformation properties. The characterization parameters and an air-port runway model for a municipal airport were input into the modified ILLIPAVE computer program for analysis of rutting and cracking damage and the relative lives of the materials in each of four climatic zones. An economic evaluation was then performed comparing the costs and service lives of each material in each zone.

A cracking index of 0.2 was chosen as a comparative level. The asphalt-rubber concrete passed the entire design period of 20 years for all climatic zones without reaching this comparison level. The asphalt concrete reached this level in 10 years or more. A rut depth of 0.7 inches was chosen as the critical rutting level. For all four climatic zones, the asphalt concrete control reached the critical rutti ng 1 eve 1 before the asphalt-rubber concrete; but both materials reached the critical level within the 20-year design period. Rutting was chosen as the expected critical failure mode for both materials in all zones.

An equivalent uniform annual cost per square yard over the life of the pavement for the construction cost of each pavement was determined. The material with the least equivalent uniform annual cost was selected as the most cost-effective. Only in the dry-no freeze zone was the asphalt concrete more cost-effective than the asphalt-rubber concrete. In the other three zones, the low or medium (optimum) binder content asphalt-rubber concrete was the most cost-effective material.

17. Kay W.,d. 18, Diotrib."tion Slah,men'

Asphalt-rubber concrete, materials No restrictions. This document is characterization, modified ILLIPAVE, available to the public through the rutting, cracking National Technical Information Service,

5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virainia 22161.

19. Socurity CI.nil. (of rhi. , • .,.,.1 20. S.a.lrity Ctuoif, (of .hi. ,8G8) 21. Ho .• f POtJo, 22. P rica

Unclassified Unclassified 239

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8_72) Reproduction of compl ••• d pogo authorl •• d

~,

~,

~,

METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS

Svmbo l

,n

" yd m,

,n' ", yd'

m"

a, Ib

". Tblp

II 01

.' .' g" II'

yd'

OF

Approximate Conversions to Motric Measures

Whon You Know

Incho,

foot vord, milO1

squlro Incho. IqUIfO foot ~uorl Vlrdl IqUlr. mihn .UOI

DUne" pound, 'hor! ton.

[2000 Ibl

I""poon, llblo",oon.

flUid DUnC"

CUI>'

plnn qU,HtI

gallom

cubiC hit cubIC Vllds

Multiply bv

LENGTH

'75 30

0.' ,. AREA

.5 00. 0.8 2 .•

0.'

MASS Iweigh,l

28 0'5 0.'

VOLUME

5 IS 30 0" 0.41 0.95 38 003 0.76

To Fmd

tOntlmotlf' contimalOfI mal.n kilo mat on

Iqwra tlmimotars loQuor. motors loQu.ra mIte" Iqu.,a kilonl8tor, hoct.un

graml k,lD'ijr.ml ton no,

mll1illlotl

milltll'er, millIlIter, hICn, Ittllr, itler, IlIlIr,

cubiC metor,

CUl1lC mll!lIHI

TEMPERATURE 1 ••• c,1

Fah,onh.lt tlmper.tur,

5/9 (Iftor IUbHICtino

321

Col'lus lemp.,.luto

Svmbol

<m em m km

em' m' m' km' h_

g

kg

ml ml ml I

m' m'

°c

m

m

...

'"

'"

..

w

....

, n ~

S

., In .. 2.54 (itlillctly" For othor ouct connr110m .nd moro dotiliod ,obi." soo NBS MISC. Publ 286. Un.n of Wllghll and MOOIUfOl, P'ICO S2.2tt. SO Catllog No. C1J. to;286.

~

=-

~

N

N N

;;

o N

'" '" ~

m

" .= '"

= M

N

~- ~ ~- en

;;;;;: III

~

'" ~

'" ~

~

= N

= -:;~

Symbol

mm em m

m km

om' m' km' ha

g kg

ml I I I m' m'

°c

Approximote Conversiom from Metric Me;u.urel

Whon You Know

millimlltuTi (entlmo'o',

mate" me'efl kllomolol1

MultiplV by

LENGTH

0.04 0.' 3.3 1.1 0 .•

AREA

"<lUUO confuTlcne'l 0.16 Iquorl m01"l 1.2 ~u .. re kilomfl!Il!" 0.4 hll!ctoros (10.000 mIl 2.5

gram' k,loqloms

tonn ... t' 000 kg)

m,II,I,'or, lit., ,

lite" h,." cub.c m.t~f\

cubiC mol,,,

MASS Iweightl

0.035 2.2 1.t

VOLUME

O.OJ 2. I 1.06 02.

35 I 3

To Find

Inch •• inchot fool yards mlll.'I

loqu.ro inchos

IQUO'O vordl IqUiIlro milo,

OC'"

ourw::o, pound, ihor' ton,

flUid ounce,

plnll

qUlin

gll10nl cubiC IU8t

cubit ylrd,

TEMPERATURE lexactl

ells,u\ tomperllurfl

9/5 {than odd 321

Flh'll!nhol! lampo,alur.

0, (IF 32 98.6 112

-4fl I!?' I .1 4,0

1 IBO,~20. I 1'~' ~.~~Oi

! 1 I It. I -40 -20 0 20 40 60 60 lOa

(Ie 31 0e

Symbol

in in

" yd mi

on' vd ' m,'

a. Ib

flo1 .' Q'

u- ' ", yd'

0,

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors extend appreciation to Dr. Aston McLaughlin of the FAA who served as the contract technical representative and who met with

project personnel on several occasions to discuss project progress. His

comments were always helpful and incisive and his assistance with decisions involving certain elements of the research helped immeasurably.

Mr. Robert A. Benko of the Great Lakes Region of the FAA is to be thanked for sharing his experience and valuable data on the construction

of Wexford County Airport, Cadillac, Michigan. This project included a rubberized bituminous surface course constructed with unvulcanized synthetic rubber in liquid latex form. While the rubberized bituminous material is quite different from the asphalt-rubber material produced

from scrap rubber, the construction experience was useful for the

recommendations made in this report on construction guidelines. We want to extend our thanks to two consultants who provided valuable

literature and special help in preparing the specifications for field

preparation of asphalt-rubber materials: Dr. Rudy Jimenez and Ray Pavlovich. Thanks also is due to Dr. Scott Shuler and Cindy Adams who

coordinated their work with ours so that the most effective use of

available research funds could be realized.

v

PREFACF

This report is the result of a project ~I)onsorpd by the Federal

Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, and conducted

by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTl) of Texas A&M UniverSity.

This is the second of two reports on contract number DTFA OI-83-C-30076 "Criteria for Asphalt-Rubber Concrete in Civil Airport

Pavements" and it includes the testing and material characterization of

an asphalt-rubber concrete and an asphalt concrete control, a performance

evaluation, and an economic evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of the

two materials.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DISCLAIMER • • .

ACKNO~LEDGEMENTS

PREFACE. • . . • LIST OF TABLES.

LIST OF FIGURES.

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION.

A. Objectives B. Scope of Volume I.

C. Scope of This Volume

II. LABORATORY EVALUATION OF ASPHALT-RUBBER CONCRETE.

A. Overall Testing Objectives •.•• B. Selection of Materials for Testing

a. Aggregate •••.•.•.•. b. Asphalt Concrete Control Mix

c. Asphalt-Rubber Concrete Mi x. C. Design of Experiments •••••.

D. Testing Program and Characterization of Materials.

a. Marshall Stability •.••••• b. Resilient Modulus •••••••• c. Fatigue Testing and Fatigue Parameters d. Overlay Testing and Fracture Properties.

e. Creep Testing and Creep Compliances •.• f. Repeated Load Testing and Permanent Deformation

Parameters ............... .

III. PERFORMANCE PREDICTION OF ASPHALT-RUBBER CONCRETE AND ASPHALT CONCRETE.

A. Design Data ••• a. Airport Type and Traffic

vii

iv

v

vi

x

xii

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

12

17

IB 19

19

24

3B

47

59

71

71

71

Section Page

IV.

b. Pavement Structure •.

c. Environmental Effects and Seasonal Temperatures

B. Evaluation of Airport Pavement Performance.

a. The Modified ILLIPAVE Program

1. Permanent Deformation •• b. Maximum Stresses and Strains. c. Cracking Analysis: Comparison by Aircraft.

d. Permanent Deformation Analysis: by Aircraft •..••.•••.

Comparison

e. Mixed Traffic Damage Evaluation: Comparison of Mixes •••••

. . .

f. Relative Lives of Airport Pavements in Different

78

78

81

81

82

84

85

90

91

Climatic Zones. . • . • . . . • . . • • • . . 98

COST-EFFECTIVENESS COMPARISON BETWEEN ASPHALT-RUBBER CONCRETE AND ASPHALT CONCRETE. • • • • • . .•.

A. Cost Data for Asphalt-Rubber Concrete and Asphalt Concrete .••.••....

B. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Based on Projected Lives

99

99

of Pavements. . • • • • • • • • • • • 102

a. Construction Cost Per Square Yard. . • • • 102 b. Equivalent Uniform Annual Costs per Square

Yard of Materials in Place. • • • . 103

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 107

A. Modifications to the Marshall Method of for Asphalt-Rubber Concrete · · · · . . a. Aggregate Gradation · · · · . . b. Mixing and Compaction Temperatures.

c. Mixing. . . . . . • · d. Compactive Effort. • • e. Extrusion of Specimens from Molds f. Air Void Content. . · . · · · ·

B. Differences in Material Properties.

a. Compaction and Air Voids.

b. Stability ••••••••

viii

Mix Design 107

107

108

108

108

108

109

109

109

110

Sect ion Paqe

c. Resilient Modulus. • . • • • • . . . • • • • • 110

d. Creep Compliance and Temperature Susceptibility 110

e. Beam Fatigue Tests. • • . • • • • • • 111

f. Crack Propagation and Fracture Tests. 111

g. Permanent Deformation. 112

c. Predicted Field Performance

D. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis •.

E. Recommended Future Research

F. Recommended Future Practice

112

113

113

114

REFERENCES 115

APPENDIXES

A. Suggested Guide Specification For Production Of Asphalt-Rubber Binder And Its Use In Construction. •• 118

B. Changes To Asphalt Concrete Mix Design Procedures And Construction Guidelines For Use Of Asphalt-Rubber Concrete As A Pavement Material. • • • • • • • • . . 127

C. Permanent Deformation Analysis: Strain Versus Cycles To Failure Plots. • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I?:

D. Permanent Deformation Parameters For All Material, Aircraft, And Temperature Combinations; And Sample Plots, Permanent Deformation Parameters Versus Temperature .•.•..••.••••.•.••..

E. Summary Of Aircraft Data; And Calculated Estimates

156

For Tire Contact Pressure Distributions. • • • • • 181

F. Beam Fatigue Laboratory Data For Asphalt Concrete And Asphalt-Rubber Concrete. • • • • • . • • 187

G. ILLIPAVE Damage Results, With Description Of Calculations For Combined Traffic Damage. • 194

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

1977 FAA Aggregate Grading Band for Bituminous Surface Course with 1/2" (12.5mm) Maximum Particle Size*. • 6

Weight Percentages Used From Each Type of Aggregate Obtained From the Producer •••••••••

Calculation of Modified Aggregate Gradation for Rubber Particles in Asphalt-Rubber Concrete Mix ••.•••.•

Material Parameters Calculated from Laboratory Fatigue Tests Performed in This Study •••••••••.•.•

Comparison of the Fatigue Parameter K2 from Laboratory Tests Conducted in This Study to the Parameter K2 Calculated From the Regression Equation Developed in Reference 17 •••••••••••••••••••

Regression Equations Generated From Laboratory Data and Used to Predict Fatigue Parameters for Any Temperature (OF) ..••••••.....••...

Fatigue Parameter Values Calculated for Selected Temperatures from Regression Equations Developed for the Materials in this Study

Results of Fracture Tests.

Slopes of the 10910 A Versus n Graph.

Creep Compliance of Asphalt-Rubber and Asphaltic Concrete Materials ••.•••••••••••

Creep Compliance Properties of Asphalt-Rubber Concrete and Asphaltic Concrete Materials

Time-Temperature Shift Constants.

Calculated Fracture Exponents ••

Permanent Deformation Parameters From Lab Tests

Stresses in Top Pavement Layer Used to Calculate Permanent Deformation Parameters for the Field Conditions (Aircraft Loads) •••••••••••

x

. . . . .

8

14

30

33

36

37

43

46

49

51

55

58

64

66

Table

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Summary of Aircraft Traffic Data From the Aviation Department, City of Austin, Texas •.••.

SUlTll1ar'y of Ai rcraft Traffic Wander Factors for Each Aircraft Considered in the Pavpment Evaluation.

SUlTll1ary of Aircraft Passes Per Da'y = [Total Yearl'y Traffic x Wander Factor/365 Da'ys Per Year] ••••

Average Seasonal Temperature for Each of Four Seasons for Each Climatic Zone. • • •• • •••••••

Stresses Calculated Under the Main Gear Assemblies of the DC-10 and B-727 at Various Depths ••••

Rankings of Each of the Five Aircraft Relatin9 Several Aircraft Characteristics to the Pavement Damage Indicators • • ••••••••

Field Cracking Indices for Combined Traffic at 20 Years. • • • • • . •.•••.

. . . . .

Times to Rut Depths of 0.7" or More for Combined Traffic and for Various Materials and Climatic Zones

Representative Prices (1984) for Asphalt-Rubber Binders per Ton, as Used in Chip Seal and Interlayers* •••.••.••••.•••.•

Unit Cost Per Ton of Material in Place for Asphalt Concrete and Asphalt-Rubber Concrete

In-Place Costs Per Square Yard for Asphalt Concrete and Asphalt-Rubber Concrete ••••••••••••

27 Equivalent Uniform Annual Construction Costs Per Square Yard of Asphalt Concrete and Asphalt-Rubber Concrete •••••••••• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xi

Page

73

74

76

80

86

89

93

96

100

101

104

106

Fi gu re

2

3

4

5

6

7

fl

LI ST OF F I {;IJlH \

1977 FAA Specification Aggregate (;radinq Rand for 1/2-inch Maximum Particle Size; Mid-Rand Gradation is Shown ..••....•.....•.....•• . . . Aggregate Rlends Resulting from Two Sieve Methods and FAA Specification Aggregate Gradation (Mid-Band).

Test Property Curves for the Marshall Method Mix Design for the AC-10 Asphalt Concrete Control Material ••••

Gradation of the Rubber in the Victoria Asphalt-Rubber Binder .•.••.••.•••...••......

Property Curves for the Marshall Method Mix Design for the Victoria Asphalt-Rubber Concrete Material •

Comparison of Marshall Stabilities of Mixes Used in the Testing Program •••••••••••••••

Plots of Resilient Modulus Versus Temperature for Each of the Four Materials in This Study •••

Combined Plot Showinq Resilient Modulus Versus Temperature for the Four Materials in This Study.

. .

9 Repeated Flexural Apparatus Used for Beam Fatigue

10

11

12

13

14

15

Tests . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Computer Printout of Fatigue Data Analysis and Calculated Fatigue Parameters.. • •••••

Computer Plot of Laboratory Fatigue Test Results.

Combined Plot of Fatigue Parameters Calculated from Laboratory Data • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Plots of Ilog Kli Versus Log T Showing Laboratory Data Points and Linear Regressions ••••••••

Plots of K2 Versus Log Kl Showing Laboratory Data Points and Linear Regressions ••••••••••

. . . .

Schematic Diagram of the Texas Transportation Institute Overlay Tester ••••••••••• . . . . . . .

xii

Page

7

9

11

13

16

20

22

23

26

28

29

31

34

35

39

Fi gu re

16

1 7

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Computed Relation Between Change of Strpss Intensity Factor and Crack Length ••••••••.••••••

Typical Graph of Crack Speed Versus Chanqe of Stress Intensity Factor ••••

Graph of Lo91O A Versus n

Creep Test Sample with LVDT Measuring Collar and Test Equi pment • • • • • • • .

Typical Plot of Creep Compliance Versus Time.

Time-Temperature Shift Function aT as a Function of Temperature ••••••••••••••••••

Typical Plot of Strain Versus Number of Loading Cycles.

Typical Repeated Load Test Results Showing Total and Accumulated Strains •••••••••••••••••

Calculated Contact Pressures (psi) for Two Different Ti re Loads •••••••.•••••••••

Schematic of the Pavement Structure Used in the ILLIPAVE Analysis. • • • • •••

Plot of Relative Cracking Index Cracking Comparison of the Five Traffic Pattern. • •••

Versus Year Showinq Aircraft in the Mixed

Plots of Cracking Index (Adjusted to Field Fatigue Condition) for Combined Traffic Versus Year, Showing Four Materials in Each Climatic Zone •••••••••

Plots of Rut Depth Versus Year for Combined Traffic, Showing Four Materials in Each Climatic Zone •••••

xiii

Page

41

42

45

48

50

53

60

61

77

79

88

94

97

CHAPTER I. INTROOUCTION

The introductory chapter in the first volume of this report gives

some historical background on the development and use of asphalt-rubher

in highway pavements.

That introduction highlighted the interest that has been shown by thR

engineering community in the use of asphalt-rubber since it was developed

by Charles H. McOonald, Consulting Engineer, Phoenix, Arizona beginning

in the 1960's. It also suggested some of the areas in which there are

additional needs for information concerning field performance,

relationships between laboratory-developed properties and performance,

design techniques, specifications and tests for compliance and

construction practices.

Airport pavements are special cases that have not heen treated widely

in the literature and they pose special problems for the asphalt-rubber

mixes hecause of the high tire pressures and multiple loads that are

applied.

OBJECTIVES

The primary ohjectives of the research in this project are to:

1. Develop processes for preparing asphalt-rubber binders in the

laboratory that have properties similar to those produced in the

field.

2. Modify the FAA laboratory asphalt concrete mixture design

procedure for use with these asphalt-rubber binders.

3. Determine the engineering properties of typical asphalt-rubber

concrete materials.

4. Perform a cost-effectiveness analysis to determine if these

materials should be considered as alternatives in future

designs.

5. Develop model specifications and construction procedures for the

use of these materials in the field.

1

SCOPE OF VOLUME 1

The first volume of this report DOT/FAA/PM-86/39, entitled "Criteria

for Asphalt-Rubber Concrete in Civil Airport Pavements: Mixture Desiqn",

addressed Objectives One and Two and the model sppcifications in

Objective Five. Specifically, that volume includerl the development of

the laboratory procedure for preparing asphalt-ruhher for use in mixture

design, the development of the mixture design procedure, and the guide

specifications for field production of the asphalt-rubber binders.

SCOPE OF THIS VOLUME

This volume is concerned with the remaining Objectives, numbers Three

and Four, and the construction procedures in Objective Five.

Specifically, this volume includes the laboratory tests for materials

characterization of asphalt rubber in stability, modulus, fatigue,

fracture, creep, and permanent deformation; the prediction of the

performance of airport pavements under a variety of climatic conditions;

the comparison of costs of asphalt concrete and asphalt-rubber concrete

over their predicted performance lives; and the production and

construction procedures which should be used with asphalt-rubber CQncrec=

to achieve a uniformly high quality pavement which performs well U"~~'

aircraft traffic. The production and construction procedures are

included as Appendix A and the remaining appendixes record the data on

material properties, aircraft, and tire contact pressures that were used

in this report.

2

CHAPTER I I. LABORATORY EVALIIAT ION or I\SI'HI\U -RIJR8ER CIINCRETE

This chapter presents the results of a testinq proqram to determine

the materials characteristics of asphalt-rubher concrete with low,

medium, and high binder contents and a commonly used asphalt concrete

with an AC-10 asphalt cement binder. These properties are used in

predicting the relative performance of airport pavements constructed with

these materials, which are, in turn, used in a cost-effectiveness

analysis of these materials.

The materials properties and the tests that are used to determine

them are presented in this chapter. The materials properties include:

1. Stability (Marshall Stability)

2. Modulus (Indirect Tension Loading)

3. Fatigue (Beam Fatigue Loading)

4. Fracture ("Overlay" Test)

5. Creep Compliance (Creep Test)

6. Permanent Deformation (Repeated Load Test)

Each of the tests will be described followed by typical results of

the testing of each of the four mixes that are considered.

OVERALL TESTING OBJECTIVES

The tests on each of the four mixes were made to determine the

properties of asphalt-rubber concrete and asphalt concrete at a variety

of temperatures and typical loading rates so as to allow the prediction

of the performance of a typical airport pavement in four different

climatic zones: (1) wet-freeze, (2) wet-no freeze, (3) dry-freeze, and

(4) dry-no freeze. More will be explained about these climatic zones in

the chapter on performance prediction. The computer program used in the

analysis is capable of taking into account th~ seasonal changes of

temperature and material properties that occur during the life of the

pavement. Also, by determining the stiffness of each of the four mixes

at different temperatures, it is possible to determine the temperature

susceptibility of each mix; i.e., those mixes which change modul~s the

3

most will hI' thp. most advl'rsf'ly iltfE'ctf'd by temrprature chanqes in the

field.

All samples of asphalt-rubher concrete that were used for testing

were prepared in accordance with the modifications to the Asphalt

Institute's MS-2 manual procedures that were recommended in Volume I,

except that a compaction temperature of 3750 F (191 0 C) was found to be too

high to compact the beam specimens used for fatigue and overlay testing.

The asphalt-rubber concrete material at 3750 F (191 0C) moved too much

under the compactor to be well-compacted. Therefore, a lower compaction

temperature (325 0 F, or 1630 C) was used for all specimens prepared in the

mix design and materials characterization in this portion of the study.

The asphalt concrete samples were prepared in accordance with the MS-2

manual procedures as they are.

The sample preparation and testing were done with one primary

objective in view: to permit a realistic comparison of asphalt-rubber

concrete with ordinary asphalt concrete performance and

cost-effectiveness when they are used in airport pavements.

SELECTION OF MATERIALS FOR TESTING

Aggregate

A mixture of crushed limestone and field sand was chosen for the

aggregate, as these materials generally produce a high quality mix which

performs well in both test and field conditions. A maximum particle size

of 1/2" (100 percent passing the 1/2 in. sieve; some retained on the 3/8

in. sieve) was chosen. ASTM C125 defines the maximum size of coarse

aggregate as the smallest sieve opening through which the entire sample

passes (Ref 1). The aggregates were blended to meet the 1977 FAA

aggregate grading specification for pavements with a bituminous surface

course and designed to accommodate aircraft with gross weights of 60,000

pounds (27,000 kg) or more, or with tire pressures of 100 psi (690 kPa) or

more (Ref 2). This grading band is similar to the 1983 ASTM

specification grading band for bituminous paving mixtures and 3/8"

4

nominal maximum siz~ of aggreqate (InO pf'rcf'n~. passing t.hE' 1/2 in. sieve;

some retained on the 3/8 in. sieve) which is r:onnnnnly usen for hiqhway

pavements carrying heavy truck traffic (Ref I). ASrM grading

requirements are hased upon nominal maximum size which allows for a sinal I

percentage (usually about 5%) of the sample weight to he retained on that

sieve (Ref 1). The percents of material passing through standard sieve

sizes for the FAA and the ASTM specifications are shown in Table 1.

The middle of the FAA grading band was chosen as the target for the

combined aggregate grading. The band and the mid-band gradation are

shown in Figure 1.

The limestone and the field sand were obtained from White's Mines in

Brownwood, Texas. The limestone was obtained from the producer in four

different sizes and the material was weighed from each batch of material

as shown in Table 2. The limestone dust had to be sieved before use

because it contained too high a percentage of fines (material passing the

#200 sieve) to meet the grading specifications. The field sand was

sieved through the #B sieve before use to remove sticks and organic

debris and to break up large clods.

Two sieving methods were used to produce a final aqgreqate hlend.

For the initial testinq which was descrihed in Volump 1 of this renort.

small hand shakprs were IIs~d and only t.hp 1 imestone dust. was sieved, as

described above. However, this was found to be a very time-consuminq

process and was not satisfactory for the production of the samples needed

for the material characterization and testing described in this volume.

A sieve method in which all of the limestone and field sand materials

were sieved through large sieves on a Gillson mechanical shaker was

therefore adopted. The combined aggregate was then produced by weight

from the resulting sized material. Both sieving and weighing methods met

the mid-band of the FAA grading specification, and are shown in Figure 2.

Asphalt Concrete Control Mix

The material chosen for the control was an AC-10 Lab Standard

(American Petrofina was used). A Marshall mix design was performed and

5

TABLE 1. 1977 FAA Aggregate Grading Band for P,itJminous Surface Course with 112" (12.5 mm) Maximum Particle Size.*

Sieve Size

1/2 ; n. (12.5mm)

3/8 in. (9.5mm)

#4 (4.75mm)

#8 (2.36mm)

#16 (1. l8mm)

#30 (600)Jm)

#50 (300)Jm)

#100 (150)Jm)

#200 (7 5)Jm)

% passing (by weight)

FAA Specification ASTM Specification

100

79-93

59-73

46-60

34-48

24-38

15-27

8-18

3-6

100

90-100

55-85

32-67

7-23

2-10

*For aircraft weighing 60,000 pounds or more or with tire pressures of 100 psi or more; compared with the 1983 ASTM aggregate grading band for bituminous paving mixtures with 3/8" (9.5 mm) nominal maximum size of aggregate.

6

Cl Z Ul Ul « 11.

I-Z w ..... u cr W 11.

-' ... ... 0 I-

200 100 50 30 16 6 4 3/6' 1/2' 3/4' 100

90

80

E-

~ .I

=-- /I 70

60

/ V// = // V =--

50

40

30

20

10

0

~ ~ // =-- ~ V/ /

/ ~ V

I: /" b /' c

=-- ~ :? "/

~ ,

-

200 100 50 30 16 8 4 3/8' 1/2' 3/4'

AGGREGATE GRADATION

Figure 1. 1977 FAA Specification ft.ggregate Grading ~and for liZ-Inch f.1aximum Particle ~ize; Mid-Band Gradation is Shown.

1-1' 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 1- l'

TABLE 2. Weight Percentages tJsed From E~ch Typp of Agqregate Obtained From the Producer.

Material/Size

-1/2", +3/8" only, limestone

3/8" grade limestone, as supplied by producer

1/4" grade limestone, as supplied by producer

Brownwood field sand

Limestone dust (crusher supply), as supplied by producer then broken down by the following sieves:

Sieve Size

#8

#16

#30

#50

#100

#200

passing #200

8

"/, Used

13.5

12.9

17.2

17.2

1.8

12.5

9.8

8.1

0.0

5.2

1.8

<!l z iii rn « Il.

.... Z UJ ()

\D II: UJ Il.

..J « .... 0 ....

200 100 50 30 16 8 4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4" 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0- ~ l :----

0 o Target Gradation-FAA h~ I:: Specification, mid -band

,/ E r- 1:>-. ~ First (Earlier) Sieve Method

~ 0- - -0 Second (Later) Sieve Method

~ r r-

I: // § /. /" to V E-

L1

=- V . ~

~ =-- ..-0-/ . /

~ 7 ~ l: /t /

E ~-E 0 ...

200 100 50 30 16 8 4 3/8" 112" 3/4"

AGGREGATE GRADATION

Figure 2. Aggregate Blends Resulting ft'OIll rlVll Sil've t-lethods and FAA Specification Aggregate Gradation (Mid-Band),

1-1" 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

o 1-1"

the results arf' plotted in Fi~ur(' 3. Thf' npt.illllJlII bindl'r contpnt was

chosen as follows:

Property

Unit Wei ght

Marshall Stability

% Air Voids

Optimum

Use

% Rindf'r

5.30%

4.82%

4.41%

4.84%

4.8%

The target air voids content was 4%, the median of the air void range

specified in the Marshall mix design method (Ref 4).

The Marshall mix design method, in the May 1985 addendum to MS-2 (Ref

4) which updates Figure JJJ-5 on VMA, prescribes a minimum VMA of about

15.5% for a nominal maximum particle size of 3/8 in. MS-2 describes the

nominal maximum particle size as "the largest sieve size listed in the

applicable specification upon which any material is permitted to be

retained" (Ref 4: p. 32), which was 3/8 in. for the aggregate gradation

specification used in this study.

Surface Course (Ref 2) prescribes

The FAA specification for a Bituminous

a minimum VMA of 15% for the same

aggregate gradation, described as a 1/2 in. maximum particle size (100

percent passing the 1/2 in. sieve) by FAA. However, Figure 3 in this

report shows that the VMA of the asphalt concrete mix at 4.8% binder

content is around 13%. The mix meets the other criteria described in

MS-2, and therefore the mix was accepted with a 4.8% binder content in

spite of the low VMA. Studies have been reported (Ref 5) which indicate

that a minimum VMA in mix design will not guarantee good pavement

performance, and that minimum VMA requirements can eliminate some

aggregates from use which have acceptable service records. Some studies

(Ref 5) have indicated that a minimum VMA limit under 12% is a more

appropriate specification limit. Because of the questionable value of

the current minimum VMA standards and because the limestone aggregate

used in this research had previously been used in many successful mixes,

10

.. J:l

>-I-.... III 0( I-m .... .... 0( :c III a: 0(

:Ii

152 .., -- 151 J:l --I- 150 :c CJ w 149 ~

I- 148 z ::>

2300

2200

2100

2000

1900

--- ~ ~ .. ~.-

~ --

-

J - ---I

4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0

% A.C. BY WGT. OF AGGR.

I ~ 1\

/ \

\ 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0


12

.c 11

" c ~

10 0

0 9

~ 0 .... 8

/ ...

III o o > a: 0(

i'-

6

5

4

3

2

1

14

0( 13 :Ii

> 12 i'-

11

10

I

/ /

---_ .. ~ - "--- -

I--- - -- --

\. ~ " ,...., """'-- r-

4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0

% A.C. BY WGT. OF AGGR •

\ / \ /

, I

........... ........ ~ I

4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0


4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0


Figure 3. Test Property Curves for the Marshall Method Mix D~sign for the AC-IO Asphalt Concrete Control Material.

11

the VMA of 13~ for the asphalt concrete mix with 4.8~ binder content was

accepted.

Asphalt-Rubber Concrete Mix

The asphalt-rubber binder was obtained from a Texas State Department

of Highways and Public Transportation project in Victoria, Texas and

shall hereafter be referred to as Victoria asphalt-rubber. The job was

being performed by the Arizona Refining Company, who produced the

asphalt-rubber material. Victoria asphalt-rubber was a mix of 77% AC-10

asphalt cement with 3% extender oil and 20% rubber which was digested for

about two hours. The rubber was a blend of the following types of

ambient grind, vulcanized whole tire rubber: Baker CR40 (40~) and C107

(20%), and Genstar C106 (30%) and Cl12 (10%). The combined rubber

gradation is shown in Figure 4. As discussed in Volume 1 of this report,

an adjusted aggregate blend must be calculated which accounts for :"e

rubber particles in the mix. The calculated, adjusted aggreaate ::e"~

for the Victoria asphalt-rubber concrete is shown in Table 3 and i,

compared with the unadjusted aggregate blend which meets the FAA

specification at mid-band. It can be seen from this table that the

adjusted blend of the mineral aggregate (aggregate weight, for blend with

rubber) was almost the same as the unadjusted aggregate mixture

(aggregate weight, for blend without rubber) which did not account for

rubber particles acting as aggregate in the mix. The difference between

the two aggregate blends was too small to be accurately measured when

preparing the aggregate mixture for use in making test specimens. Also,

the difference in the two blends was probably smaller than random

differences in the aggregates would be. Therefore, it was decided that

in this case the same aggregate weights could be used for both the

asphalt concrete control and the asphalt-rubber concrete test samples.

It must be emphasized here that the aggregate mixture modification which

accounts for the rubber particles in the mix must always be checked

before this decision can be made.

A modified Marshall mix design was performeQ USing the Victoria

asphalt-rubber and the FAA specification mid-band aggreqate gradation.

12

100

90

80

en c: 70 '" '" '" 0-

200 100 16 50 30 8 3/8" 1/2" 3/4" 4 1-1 "

~ I c / ~ E E I I--E E f ~

100

90

80

70

...., 60 c: OJ u "-OJ 50 0-

..... w~

'" ...., 0 40 I-

30

~ I r-Io / r l- I E-E

C I E-

60

50

~o

30

20

10

0

=-- / :: / ~

21)

10

o AA AA CA ,n " n . -. ,,..,,, , • ..,. II -. I A 01 'I 'I"

Aggregate Gradation

Figure 4. Gradation of the Rubber in the Victoria Asphalt-Rubber Binder.

..... "'"

TABLE 3. Calculation of Modified Aggregate Blend to Account for Rubber Particles in Asphalt-Rubber Concrete Mix.

Mix Weights: aggregate, 1200 g.

asphalt-rubber, 56.76 g.*

rubber only, 11.35 g. (= 20% rubber in asphalt-rubber)

total, aggregate + rubber particles, 1211.35 g.

% PASSING: % PASSING:

for blend without rubber** for blend with rubber (total aggregate = 1200g) (total solids = 1211.35g) Size Aggr. % Weight(g.) Rubber% Weight(g.) Aggr.%*** Weight(g. )

1/2" 100.0 1200.00 100.0 11. 35 100.0

3/B" 86.0 1032.00 100.0 11. 35 85.9

#4 66.0 792.00 100.0 11 .35 65.7

#8 53.0 636.00 100.0 11 • 35 52.6

#16 41.0 492.00 100.0 11 • 35 40.4

#30 30.5 366.00 62.5 0.59 30.7

#50 20.0 240.00 20.8 2.36 20.0

#100 13.0 156.00 1.8 0.20 13.1

#200 4.5 54.00 0.00 4.5

*using 4.73% (by weight of aggregate) Victoria asphalt-rubber **using aggregate gradation from 1977 FAA srecification

1200.00

1030.41

788.14

630.67

485.30

368.87

239.91

157.27

54.51

Rubber+Aggr. Weight(g)**

1211.35

1041.76

799.49

6<12.02

496.65

369.46

242.27

157.48

54.51

***NOTE: this column becomes the n~w .lqqrpqate job mix formula which is used for portioning out the miner~l ,1Qqro'qate for the asphalt-rubber concrete mixture.

However, it was quickly realized that the air void contents in these

Marshall samples were higher than the air void contents in the asphalt

concrete control samples, and that the standard requirement in the

Marshall mix design method for three to five percent air voids could not

be met. The difficulties experienced by earlier researchers in

compacting asphalt-rubber materials in the laboratory was discussed in

Volume 1 of this report. Higher air void contents and swelling of

samples after extrusion from molds have been experienced previously.

This was due possibly to a rebound action of the rubber particles away

from the walls of the mold. Because of this, an air void content of 7%

was chosen as the optimum for the asphalt-rubber concrete in this mix

design, with the realization that the asphalt-rubber concrete might still

perform well in the testing phase of the study and that it might compact

better in the field. An air void content of 7% was considered to be low

enough to avoid the problem of the air voids becoming interconnected

within the mix, causing moisture susceptibility. Plots of the mix design

results for the Victoria asphalt-rubber concrete are shown in Figure 5.

The optimum binder content was chosen as follows:

Property % Binder

Unit Weight 4.875%

Marshall Stability 4.050% % Air Voids 5.265% Optimum 4.730%

Use 4.73%

The mix design data summarized above resulted in optimum binder

contents for the two materials (asphalt concrete control and Victoria

asphalt-rubber concrete) which were close enough to each other to be

considered the same. This was not expected.

Construction guidelines generally specify a + 0.5% tolerance on

binder content. Therefore, the asphalt-rubber concrete was tested at the

optimum binder content and at optimum~ 0.5%. In the testing program in

this study, four mixes were tested as shown below.

15

-.. Sl

> .... ..J

CD -C .... III

..J

..J -C l: III IX: -C ::IE

... ---: 146 Sl --.... 145 l: Cl

UJ 144

iI: .... 143 z ::l

2400

2300

2200

2100

2000

1900

- - --- --

-- - ---- --

-- --- V -- --- I\" /

V ---

/ ---"- --- ---

3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5


J~

I \

/ ~\ I \

\

3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5

% A.C. BY WGL OF AGGR.

.c 10 u c

~ 9

0

0 8

iI: 0

7 ..J IL

6

III C -o > IX:

-C

a'-

11

10

9

8

7

17

-c 16 ::IE

> 15 a'-

14

13

3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5

% A.C. BY WGL OF AGGR.

vjj ~ / ""-. V

---

----- -- -

3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5_5


7---

-

,---

/ 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5


Figure 5. Property Curves for the Marshall Method Mix Design for the Victoria Asphalt-Rubber Concrete Material.

16

't, Asphalt Cement and

Materi 01 Ri nder Content extender Oi 1 't, Rubber % Bind e r

Control AC-1O Optimum 100 0 4.80 Asphalt-Rubber Low (-0.5't,) 80 20 4.23

Conc rete

Asphalt-Rubber Medium (Optimum) 80 20 4.73 Concrete

Asphalt-Rubber High (+0.5%) 80 20 5.23 Conc rete

DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTS

In order to make a comparison of the performance and life cycle cost

of asphalt concrete with asphalt-rubber concrete, a number of laboratory

tests were performed to characterize the important properties of each

mix. These tests included: Marshall Stability, Resilient Modulus Tests,

Beam Fatigue Tests, Crack Propagation Tests with the TTl ·Overlay"

Tester, Creep Tests, and Repeated Load Tests. The properties determined

by these tes'ts are subsequently used in predicting the performance of an

airport pavement under a variety of commercial aircraft. The results of

these predictions are discussed in Chapter III of this volume. Each of

these tests is described in more detail in the following sections.

It is important to determine the material properties over a practical

range of stress and temperature conditions and to test a sufficient

number of replicates to permit a reliable representation of these

properties.

In the resilient modulus tests, three temperatures were used, 33°F

(DoC), nOF (25°C), and 104°F (40°C), for all four materials: the AC-10

control mix, and the low, medium, and high binder content asphalt-rubber

concrete. Three replicates were used for each combination of temperaturp

and mi x.

Beam fatigue tests were made at three temperatures: 34 0 F (loC), 68 0 F

(20°C), and 104°F (40°C) in order to obtain the temperature riependeoce of

the fatigue properties of each mix. Three replicates were used at Adch

17

of t.hree initiol ';trf'SS levels, makinq a t.DLll III nine i>pam tpsts that

were marlp for pach comhination of temperat.lJrp dnd mix.

The Crack Propagation Tests were made with the Texas Transportation

Institute overlay tester which will be described more in detail in a

subsequent section. The device is designed to repeatedly open and close

a crack of constant width along the bottom edge of a beam sample and is

used to measure the fracture properties of the beam material. This test

has been found to be more reliable and repeatable than the beam fatigue

tests in providing material properties. Tests were made at two

temperatures, 340 F (loC) and 77 0 F (2S oC). Two replications were made on

each combination of temperature and mix.

Repeated load tests were also made on cylindrical samples of the same

size as the creep tests, i.e., 4 inches (10 cm) in diameter and S inches

(20 cm) high. The purpose of the test is to determine how permanent, or

plastic, deformation is accumulated in a material that is subjected to

repeated stresses similar to those which are applied by passing aircraft

traffic. The testing procedure is as recommended by the Federal Highway

Administration to provide input data for the VESYS programs (Ref 6). The

test procedure is described in more detail in a subsequent section.

Tests were made at three temperatures, 40°F (4.4oC), 70°F (21.1 oC) and

100°F (37.SoC). O~e sample was tested for each combination of material

and temperature.

TESTING PROGRAM AND CHARACTERIZATION OF MATERIALS

Laboratory test results were used for most of the material

characterization of the asphalt material comprising the top layer. The

material parameters and the tests used to define them are described

below.

For the underlying layers, typical materials were selected and the

material characterization for these layers was estimated and then held

constant for all combinations of surface material, environmental zone,

and aircraft traffic. (See the section on Desiqn Data in Chapter III in

this report.) This was done to ensure that differences in the result3nt

IS

pavement damaq~ cauld be attributed to differences in the material

"~;DQn5~ 0f the t.op (bituminous) layer, which was varied from asphalt

:on(r~te through t.hree hinder contents of asphalt-rubber concrete.

Marshall Stability

The Marshall stability results from the mix designs were used to

obtain a preliminary evaluation of the comparative resistance to

deformation of the materials. Marshall stabilities were performed as

described in the Marshall mix design method as outl ined in MS-2 of the

Asphalt Institute (Ref 4).

The maximum stabilities for the two mixes (AC-10 asphalt concrete

control and Victoria asphalt-rubber concrete) were approximately equal, but the maximum stability for the AC control material occurred at a

higher binder content (4.8%) than that of the asphalt rubber concrete

material (4.1%). The shapes of the stability versus binder content

curves were similar (as shown in Figure 6), indicating that the

stabilities of the two materials were about equally sensitive to changes

in the binder content. For the asphalt concrete, a 2 0.5% range in

binder content above and below the point of maximum stability resul~e~ '.

a stability range of about 2,160 to 2,320 pounds; the same range in

binder content about the maximum stability point of asphalt rubber

concrete resulted in a stability range of about 2,035 to 2,330 pounds.

The stabilities were well above the minimum stability required for

heavy traffic in the Marshall mix design (1,500 pounds), and therefore no

difficulty was expected in achieving the minimum stability at the design

binder contents.

Resilient Modulus

In this study, resilient moduli were used as input data to the

modified ILLIPAVE analysis program (Ref 7, 8,9). The resilient modulus,

defined as the ratio of repeated axial deviator stress to the recoverable

axial strain, was measured by a Mark IV device as developed by Schmidt

(Ref 10). This device applies a 0.1 second load pulse every teree

19

..... • III :9 .... >-.... ;;;! III « .... en ..J ..J « J: en ex: « ::

2400

2300

2200

2100

2000

1900

3.5

o Victoria Asphalt-Rubber Concrete

A AC-10 Asphalt Concrete Control

4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5

% BINDER BY WEIGHT OF AGGREGATE

Figure 6. Comparison of Marshall Stabilities of Mixes Used in the Testing Program.

20

seconds across the vertical diameter of a cylindrical, Marshilll type

specimen. The resultant deformation (a dynal"ic tpst response) across the

horizontal diameter is measured by Goulci Stilthalll Iiniversal Transducing

Cells (UC3's) (Ref 11). Resilient modulus is calculated according to the

following formula:

M = P(~ + 0.2734) R lit

where P = load (lbs)

~ = Poisson's Ratio for asphalt ~ 0.35

II = change in diameter, or deformation (in.xlO-6)

t = sample height (in.)

( 1 )

Curves of resilient modulus (psi) versus temperature (oF) were

plotted for each material and are shown in Figure 7. A combined plot of

resilient modulus versus temperature, shown in Figure 8, indicated that

the asphalt concrete control material had a modulus which was more

temperature susceptible than the moduli of the asphalt-rubber materials.

The diametral resilient modulus described above "is often subjected

to criticism because of the light load used, the conditions of biaxial

stressing and the rigid assumptions which should be closely adhered to,

but are not, in order for the cylindrical, diametrically loaded specimen

to respond elastically" (Ref 12, p. 182). However, for this study, the

resilient modulus was chosen because it is easily obtained at different

temperatures; and for purposes of comparison of materials it was felt

that the resilient modulus was a sufficient estimate of modulus to be

used in the analysis program. In reality, however, for viscoelastic

materials like asphalt and rubberized asphalt, the modulus is variable

and depends upon load duration and temperature. Creep compliance, which

is the inverse of the time-dependent modulus, is commonly used by

researchers to describe the variation of modulus with load duration of

viscoelastic materials (Ref 13). In this study, creep compliances were

calculated and compared for the asphalt materlals. (See the sectioo on

Creep Testing and Creep Compliances in this reDort.)

21

1.20 AC-10 Coniroi 1.20 ARC low

1.00 1.00

0 .80 0 .80

0. 0.

'" '" ~ ~ - - .60 a: .60 a: ~ ~

.40 .40

.20 .20

0 0 20 40 60 80 100 20 40 60 80 100

TEMPERATURE I"F) TEMPERATURE I"F)

1.20 ARC Medium 1.20 ARC H)gh

1.00 1.00

• .80 • .80 0. 0.

00 '" 0 0

.60 .60 a: a: ~ ~

.40 .40

.20 .20

0 0 20 40 80 80 100 20 40 60 80 100

TEMPERATURE ("F) TEMPERATURE ("F)

Figure 7. Plots of Resilient Modulus Versus Temperature for Each of the Four Materials in This Study.

22

1.2r------------------------------------------,

1.0

0.8

Ul Q.

'" 0.6 o ... -a:

:::E

0.4

0.2

RESILIENT MODULI

o ARC High

6 ARC Medium

o o ARC Low

.. AC Control

, o

o.o~-__:~-~~-__:~-__:~-~~-~~-~ o 20 40 eo 80 100 120 140

TEMPERATURE, of

Figure 8. Combined Plot Showing Resilient Modulus Versus Temperature for the Four Materials in This Study.

23

It is a better approximation of field conditions to use a modulus for

the underlying layers which is stress-sensitivE and is calculated by the

program for each stress condition. The ILLIPAVE program as modified at

Texas A~M University and used in this study has this capability (Ref 8).

However, primarily to ensure a consistent response of the underlying

layers, the moduli were input as constants for those layers. The

assumption was made that temperature effects were only felt in the

bituminous layer, which was 15.5 inches thick.

Fatigue Testing and Fatigue Parameters

Fatigue is the phenomenon "of repetitive load-induced cracking due to

a repeated stress or strain level below the ultimate strength of the

material" (Ref 10, p. 282). Fatigue cracking generally is considered to

initiate at the bottom of the asphalt layer and then propagate upwards to

the pavement surface. Thus, the tensile strain at the bottom of the

stiff layer (often the asphalt layer) is chosen as one of the failure

criteria in most pavement analyses. Several methods of fatigue testing

and analysis can be performed using various types of specimens. The

phenomenological regression approach and the fracture mechanics approac r .

were applied to the materials in this study.

The phenomenological regression approach is the most commor1y :Jsed

method for analyzing highway materials (Ref 12). The surface layer is

characterized for fatigue using the familiar relation:

where

(2 )

Nf = number of repetitions or load applications to failure

Et = tensile strain induced

Kl, K2 = regression constants

This equation describes a straight line on a plot of cycles to failure

versus bending strain, where log Kl is the intercept of the y-axis

(y-axis occurs where log Kl = 0, or Kl = 1), and -K2 is the slope of the straight line. The parameters are influenced by such factors as the type

24

of load, dimensions of the test specimen, loading rate, test type,

temperature, and properties of the mix, including air voids, aggregate

gradation and type, asphalt content and viscosity, etc. Thus, Kl and K2

are not material properties (Ref 12). This study used beam fatigue tests. These can be performed in

either a controlled stress or a controlled strain mode. The type of

pavement being simulated in the testing determines which mode of testing

is proper (Ref 12). Previous researchers have stated that controlled

stress loading is typically experienced by stiff, thick pavements (six

inches thick or more). Controlled strain loading is encountered in thin

pavements of two inches thick or less (Ref 14; this reference quotes Ref

15). Because airfield pavements are designed for heavy aircraft loads,

they would be thick and therefore subject to controlled stress loading.

This was the type of loading applied in the beam fatigue tests.

This study followed the procedures for fatigue testing which are

described in the VESYS 11M User's Manual (Ref 6). VESYS uses a repeated

load flexure device with beam specimens. The third-point loading

configuration theoretically applies a constant hending moment over the

center 4 inches of a 15 inch long specimen (Ref 6). The deflection up

and down is measured at the center of the beam with a Linear Variable

Differential Transformer, LVOT, which in these tests was bonded to the

specimen with a stiff clay. This study used a device which applied a

repeated tension-compression load in the form of a haversine wave for 0.1

second duration with 0.4 second rest periods. A schematic of the device

is shown in Figure 9.

Temperature (which affects binder stiffness) and stress level both

have a pronounced effect upon fatigue life. Therefore, the temperature

around the fatigue devices was controlled and fatigue tests were

performed at a variety of temperatures and stress levels. Tests were

performed in temperature chambers at 340 F (loC), 680 F (200C), and 104 0 F

(400C). Applied loads were chosen so that some specimens failed at cycle

numbers in the thousands, some at cycle numbers in the tens of thousands,

and some at cycle numbers in the hundreds of thousands. This was dooe by

a trial-and-error method; but the aim of obtaining a range of data points

25

1. Reaclton clamp 2. load clamp 3. Restrainer 4. Specimen 5. loading rod 6. Stop nuts

Key.

7 load bar 8. Piston rod 9. Thomps.on ball bushing

10. lVDT hulder 11.LVDT

Figure 9. Repeated Flexural Apparatus Used for Beam Fatigue Tests. (Reference 10)

26

was achieved fai rly easily. A strip chart wa" w,(>rt to record chart load

and chart deformation. This information, "lon'l with initial bendinq

strain and the number of cycles to failure, w~s put into a computer

program which calculated the followinq: load in pounds, deflection in

inches, elastic modulus, bending strain, and the parameters Kl and KZ

with an R-value to estimate the goodness of fit (Figure 10). Initial

bending strain was the strain measured in the beam at the beginning of

the test, usually at or around ZOO cycles. At ZOO cycles, it was assumed

that the test machine was set up and functioning smoothly and that at

this time the initial bending strain could be read without fluctuation

introduced by adjusting the equipment setup or by transient responses in

the test specimen. The program also plotted initial bending strain, Ei,

versus number of cycles to failure, Nf (Figure 11). On this plot there

is one data point for each specimen tested; the data points should plot

approximately as a straight line. However, in this research and in all

other published fatigue test results there is quite a hit of scatter in

the data points. Therefore, a best-fit line is regressed through the

data points. The parameters and the R-values which describe the

goodness-of-fit of the regression equations calculated from the

laboratory tests are summarized in Table 4.

Several researchers have postulated that "a 1 inear relationship

exists between K2 and log Kl, irrespective of mixture properties and test

procedures" (Ref 16, p. 40; contains references to Ref 17 and Ref 18).

The results from the laboratory tests in this study were therefore

plotted to see if this held true for the tests in this study (Figure 12).

As can be seen in the plot, a roughly linear relation was confirmed.

Kennedy (Ref 16, 17) developed the following linear regression

relationship from combining several sets of data:

KZ = 1.350 - 0.252 log K1 (R = 0.95; se = 0.29) ( 3 )

27

BEAM FAT! GUE DATA

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TTI RF4982 - ARC-MEDIUM E> 104 F.

TEST DATE 9-23-85

BEAM CHART LOAD CHART DEF IN E NUMBER LOAD POUNDS DEF INCHES MODULUS

FIOM 3 60 3.2 .0266656 11835.4 F13M 2 40 7.4 .0123284 17066.2 FI4M 3 60 6.6 .0219978 143410.8 FI6M ::; 50 6 .0099% 26310.5 FI8M 2 40 7 .011662 18041.5 FI9M 3.6 72 6 .019998 18937.8 F20M 3 60 3.6 .0299988 1(1520.4 F22M 2.2 44 5.8 .0096628 23951.6 F23M 5 SO 5.6 .0093296 28189.8

THE REGRESSION EQUATION IS OF THE FORM: CYCLES TO FAILURE='('* «I/BENDING STRAIN)~"2)

IN THIS SAMPLE, THE CONSTANTS KI AND 1(2 ARE: K 1 = 1. 048751 99046E -5 ~,~= 3. :5894736888

CORRELATION COEFFICIENT R=-.e3~~75432648

THIS EQUATION GIVES THE FOLLOWING RESULTS.

BENDING CYCLES TO STRAIN FAILURE

.0022508 4186

.0010406 15460

.0018568 13780

.0008437 37986

.0009843 413700

.001688 6769

.0025322 3071

.0008156 358793

.0007875 81467

CYCLES TO FAILURE SAMPLE NUMBER BENDING STRAIN PREDICTED ACTUAL

I :;: 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Figure 10.

.00225(18605 4459 4186

.0010406482 5'5096 15460

.0018568485 8348 13780

.0008437688 109131 37986

.0009843969 66035 413700

.0016880441 11389 6769

.002532218 3039 3071

.0008156431 121980 3587'93 -.0007875175 136646 91467

Computer Printout of Fatigue Data Analysis and Calculated Fatigue Parameters.

28

-1

I I

~

-2 J ~ ~ w 0 - ~ x ~

~ • z I ~

< ~ -3 ~ • ~ • u z ~

Q Z W W ~ < ~

~ ~ -4 z ~

I -W

-5 ~--~-r-r~~nll----r-Ti-r""",r,njl--~r-r,-r,,',','T'nil----r-T'-r' ,',','T,nii---'--J-rllnn 2 3 4 5 6

NF-NUMBER OF CYCLES TO FAILURE (IXl0'EJ

TTl RF49B2 - ARC-MEDIUM 0 104 F.

Figure 11. Computer Plot of Laboratory Fatigue Test Results.

29

TABLE 4. Material Parameters Calculated from Lahoratory Fatigue Tests Performed in This Study.

Temperature. Number of Materi al of (oC) Samples R Kl K2 10gK)

AC-10 Control 104 (40 ) 8 -0.89 3.21xlO-3 2.35 -2.49

68 (20) B -0.95 9.48xlO- 12 4.69 -11. 02

34 (1) 7 -0.63 1.43xlO-6 2.92 -5.85

ARC-Low 104 (40 ) 10 -0.96 2.72xlO-6 3.38 -5.57

68 (20) 9 -0.92 1.03xlO-6 3.17 -5.99

34 (1) 7 -0.93 4.47xlO- 12 4.48 -11. 35

ARC-Medium 104 (40) 10 -0.85 2.82xlO-6 3.47 -5.SS

6R (20) 9 -0.98 3.16xlO-5 2.82 -4.S0

34 (1) 9 -0.86 9.91xlO-10 4.04 -9.00

ARC-High 104 (40) 10 -0.91 1.02xlO-4 2.95 -3.g9

68 (20 ) 10 -0.99 4.90xlO-4 2.52 1 l' -J • ...) 1

34 (1) 8 -0.81 (l.82xlO- 7 3. 1 9 -6.az

30

K2

5 FATIGUE CONSTANTS

0 l1li

4

~ 8l1li

3 0 A 8

., 0

2 ., ARC High

A ARC Medium

1 l1li ARC Low

o AC Control

0 -12 -10 -8 -8 -4 -2 0

Log K1

Figure 12. Combined Plot of Fatigue Parameters Calculated from Laboratory Data.

31

The Kl values computed from the lab data in this study were used in

Kennedy's regression equation to see how well the KZ values calculated

from Kennedy's equation compared with the KZ values calculated from the

lab data. The results and comparisons are tabulated in Table 5.

In order to use the laboratory results in a comparative analysis

which was sensitive to the differences due to both material and

temperature, a double regression procedure was applied to the lab data,

as follows. First, Ilog Kli versus log T (where T indicates temperature

in Fahrenheit degrees) was plotted and a linear regression was performed

for each of the four materials (asphalt concrete control and three binder

contents of asphalt-rubber concrete; see Fiqure 13). This yielded a set

of equations (one for each material) where temperature was the

independent variable and Kl was the dependent variable. Then K2 versus

log Kl was plotted and a linear regression was performed for each

material (see Figure 14). This yielded a set of equations with log Kl as

the independent variable and KZ as the dependent variable. Using th~se

sets of equations, any temperature could he chosen and the fatigue

rarameters could be calculated for each material at that temperatur~.

The equations thus derived are shown in Table 6. The fatigue paramet~rs

calculated for some of the temperatures used to characterize seasons

within the environmental zones are shown in Table 7.

Several researchers have previously shown that the number of cycles

to failure experienced by materials in the laboratory is lower than that

experienced hy materials in the field. Such factors as healing of the

pavement between load applications, residual stresses, and variability in

the position of the wheel load are not accounted for by the laboratory

fatigue relationship (Ref 12). This difference can be adjusted for by

applying a multiplier to the laboratory value of Kl. Finn (Ref 19),

after looking at field data versus laboratory data from the AASHO Road

Test in Illinois, has suggested that a multiplier of 13 applied to the

value of K1 would adjust the lab data to more accurately represent the

field fatigue life of asphalt materials. Therefore, a sampling of the

computer runs made in this study were rerun with (Kl )Field = 13*(Kl )Lab.

In general, the result was to divide the calculated cracking index by 13

when the (Kl)Field was used. Therefore, the cracking index for total

32

TABLE 5. Comparison of the Fatigue Parameter K2 From Laboratory Tests Conducted in This Study to the Parameter K2 Calculated From the Regression Equation Developed in Reference 17.

Reg res s i on Equation from Reference 17:

K2 = 1.350 - 0.252 lo~K1

(R = 0.95; se = 0.29)

From From Lab Tests, Ref 17 /', =

Temperature, This Study Equat ion, (K2)lab -

Materi a1 of (OC) (K1 h ab (K2)lab (K2)Ref 17 (K2)Ref 17

AC-10 Control 104 (40) 3.21x10-3 2.35 1. 98 0.37 68 (20) 9.48x10-12 4.69 4.13 0.50 34 (1) 1. 43x1 0-6 2.92 2.82 0.10

ARC-Low 104 (40) 2.72x10-6 3.38 2.75 0.63 68 (20) 1. 03x1 0-6 3.17 2.86 0.31 34 ( 1 ) 4.47x10-12 4.48 4.21 0.27

ARC-Medium 104 (40) 2.82x10-6 3.47 2.75 0.72 68 (20 ) 3.16x10-5 2.82 2.48 0.34 34 (1) 9.91x10-1O 4.04 3.62 0.42

ARC-High 104 (40) 1. 02x1 0-4 2.95 2.36 0.59 68 (20) 4.90x10-4 2.52 2.18 0.33 34 (1) 3.82x10-7 3.19 2.97 0.23

33

12 AC-10 Control ARC Low ... Lab leat reDu!ts .• Lab teal rnults

11

10 12

9 11

8 10 I'og K11

7 9

6 I'og K11

8

5 7

4 8

3 5

2 4 1 2 3 2

log T I"F) log T I"F)

9 ARC Medium ARC High ·"lab lest reBults ·"Lab lest results

7

8

6

l'Og K,I 7

I'og K,ls

6

4

5

3 2 3 2

log T (·F) log T (-F!

Figure 13. Plots of I log Kl I Versus Log T Showing Laboratory Data Points and Linear Regressions.

34

3

3

K2

5

4

3

AC-l0 Control --Lab t •• t r.sulla

2~--~--~----~--~--~~ -,2 -,0 -8 -6 -4 -2

log K,

5 ARC Medium ·"Lab laat results

•

3

2 ~ __ -J ____ ~ ____ ~ ____ ~ ____ ~ __

-12 -10 -8 -6 -. -2

log K 1

K2

5 ARC Low

--Lab t8.1 rDsults

4

3

2L-__ ~ __ ~ ____ ~ __ ~ ____ ~

-,2 -'0 -8 -6 -4 -2 log K,

5 ARC High --Lab test results

4

3

2L---__ --' ____ -'-____ -'--____ --'-____ ..L-_

-12 -10 -8 -6 -. -2

log K 1

Figure 14. Plots of K2 Versus Log K1 Showing Laboratory Data Points and Linear Regressions.

35

TAOLE 6. Regression Equations Generated From laboratory Data and Used to Predict Fatigue Parameters for Any Temperature (oF).

110g Kll vs. log T(oF)

AC-l0 Control 110g Kll = 14.630 4.558 log T

ARC-Low 110g Kll = 30.034 12.488 log T

ARC-Medium 110g K 1 1 = 20.483 7.879 log T

ARC-High 110g Kll = 14.466 5.516 log T

K2 vs. 109Kl

AC-l0 Control K2 = l. 512 - 0.280 (log Kl)

ARC-Low K2 = 2.052 0.213 (log Kl)

ARC-Medium K2 = 1.900 0.243 (log K 1 )

ARC-High K2 = 2.033 0.187 (log Kl)

36

TABLE 7. Fatigue Parameter Values Calculated for Selected Temperatures from Regression Equations Developed for the Materials in This Study.

Kl Temperature (not adjusted to Nf, when

Materi al of (OC) field conditions) K2 e: = 1O-3in/;n

AC-10 Control 35 ( 1 .7 ) 2.56xlO-8 3.64 2,130 50 (10.0) 1.30xlO-7 3.43 2,530 60 (15.6) 2.99xlO-7 3.34 3,130 75 (23.9) 8.26xl0-7 3.21 3,520 90 (32.2) 1.90xl0-6

3. " 4,060 105 (40.6) 3.83xl0-6 3.03 4,710

ARC-Low 35 (1.7) 1. 77xl 0-" 4.34 190 50 (10.0) l.52xl0-9 3.93 940 60 (15.6) 1.4Bxl0-B 3.72 2,140 75 (23.9) 2.41xl0-7 3.46 5,780 90 (32.2) 2.35xlO-6 3.25 13,200

105 (40.6) 1.61xl0-5 3.07 26,100

ARC-Medium 35 (1 .7) 4.Blxl0-9 3.92 2,770 50 (10.0) 7.99xlO-B 3.62 5,790 60 (15.6) 3.36xl0- 7 3.47 B,640 75 (23.9) l.95xl0-6 3.29 14,500 90 (32.2) B.20xl0-6 3.13 20,100

105 (40.6) 2.76xl0- 5 3.01 29,600

ARC-High 35 (1. 7) 1.l2xl0-6 3.14 2,950 50 (10.0) B.03xl0-6 2.98 1 ,990 60 (15.6) 2.20xl0-5 2.90 11 ,000 75 (23.9) 7.52xl0- 5 2.BO lB,900 90 (32.2) 2.06xl0-4 2.72 29,BOO

105 (40.6) 4.81xl0-4 2.65 42,900

37

combined traffic from each ILLIPAVE run was divided by 13 to give the

field estimate of fatigue life. In this report, the designation of field

fatigue life is used to describe the calculated cracking index after it has been divided by the adjustment factor of 13.

The adjustment factor of 13 which was derived by Finn to be applied

to laboratory values of Kl may not be accurate for all types of materials. A means has been developed to derive the Kl adjustment factor

for a material from laboratory data which involve the creep, permanent deformation, and healing properties of the material (Ref 20). Additional

tests involving healing would need to be performed on the materials in this study to apply this method.

The phenomenological regreSSion approach to fatigue is a somewhat

simple approach which has been adopted by many researchers. However, this approach does not consider crack initiation and propagation. This

aspect is considered by fracture mechanics methods. The test described

in the next section is one of these methods.

Overlay Testing and Fracture Properties

The Texas Transportation Institute "overlay tester" was originally developed to investigate thermal reflection cracking in overlays but its versatility and repeatability have made it a regular part of the

laboratory investigation of paving materials. The overlay tester is shown schematically in Figure 15. A beam made of the paving material is fastened to two platens, one fixed and the other movable. The center

line of the beam is placed above the joint between the two platens. A force, P, is exerted on the movable platen to open and close a crack in the bottom of the beam. The maximum opening is pre-set and the opening,

u, is monitored continuously with a Linear Variable Differential Transformer, LVDT, while, at the same time, the load, P, is measured with a load cell. Repeated opening and clOSing of the joint drives the crack upward progressively and it eventually reaches the top of the beam, at

which time the test is terminated. The test was devised to simulate the opening and closing of the crack

or joint in an old pavement beneath an overlay due to changes in daily

38

FORCE, P

TENSION

COMPRESSION

PRE-SET MAXIMUM OPENING

OPENING, U

TOP FIBER STRAIN

c CRACK LENGTH

d HEIGHT OF SAMPLE

M VABLE PLATEN P

FEEDBACK CONTROLLED FORCE FOR OPENING AND CLOSING THE CRACK

-II-U

CYCLIC OPENING AND CLOSING MAXIMUM OPENING CONTROLLED BY LVDT

Figure 15. Schematic Diagram of the Texas Transportation Institute Overlay Tester.

39

temperature. The crack length is observed and measllreri visually on each

side of the beam sample and the average crack lenqth is used to compute

the fracture properties of the beam material. The strain in the top

fiber is measured with another LVDT principally when a strain relieving

layer has been built into the beam so as to determine the extent to which

strain has been relieved.

The fracture properties that are measured are the constants A and n

that appear in Paris' Law (Ref 21), as follows:

(4)

where c = the crack length

N = the number of load cycles

dc/dN = the "crack speed", or the rate of growth of the crack.

6K = the change of "stress intensity factor" during the . application of the load

A = the fracture coefficient

n = the fracture exponent

The "stress intenSity factor" is calculated with an elastic finite

element computer program and is taken from a graph of Kd lEu versus cld,

as shown in Figure 16. Once the crack length ratio, cld, is known, the

value of the change of stress intensity factor, 6K, during the load cycle

can be calculated.

A graph of the "crack speed", dc/dN, versus the change of stress

intenSity factor, both on a logarithmic scale, shows a straight-line

portion with a slope, n, and an intercept, A, as shown in Figure 17.

The measured values of A and n are given in Table 8, along with some

of the other test data.

Although these constants are derived empirically from this test, it

has been shown theoretically (Ref 22) that the fracture coefficient, A,

depends upon the tensile strength and creep compliance of the beam

material in tension and that the fracture exponent, n, depends solely

upon the slope of the creep compliance curve. This relationship will be

shown in a subsequent section of this chapter. Because both A and n

40

a: 0 l-t.) « u. >-I-(/J

t.Kd 1/2 z w I- Eu z (/J (/J w a: I-(/J

u. 0 w CJ z « :r: t.)

o 1

c/d

RELATIVE CRACK LENGTH

Figure 16. Computed Relation Between Change of Stress Intensity Factor and Crack Length.

41

CRACK SPEED

log (~~)

6K= 1 log 6K

CHANGE OF STRESS INTEN SITY FACTOR

Figure 17. Typical Graph of Crack Speed Versus Change of Stress Intensity Factor.

42

TABLE B. Results of Fracture Tests.

Load No. of Crack Cycle Cycles Fracture

Sample Temp. Opening, Time, to Properti es Material No. of (OC) in. sec. Fail ure A n AC-10 T1C 34 (10) 0.02 20 4 0.160xl01 -0.075 (4.73% T4C 34 (1 0) 0.02 20 30 0.363xlO-3 0.B75 Binder) T2C 77 (25°) 0.07 10 9 0.292xlO-4 1. 61

BC 77 (25°) 0.05 10 142 0.300x10-10 3.34

ARC-Low T1L 34 (1 0) 0.02 20 400 0.123x104 -1.47 (4.23% BL 34 (1 0) 0.02 20 B34 0.2Blxl06 -2.12 Binder) T4L 77 (25° ) 0.05 10 50 0.6B1xlO-9 3.16

T2L 77 (25°) 0.05 10 7 0.312xlO-4 1.56

ARC-Medium T2M 34 (1 0) 0.02 20 1253 0.756xlO-B 2.34 (4.73% T4M 34 (1 0) 0.01 20 10B4 0.367xl03 -1.26 Binder) BM 77 (25°) 0.07 10 4 0.595xlO-2 0.836

T1M 77 (25°) 0.06 10 2 0.677xlOO O,rJ7 0

ARC-High T2H 34 (l 0) 0.02 20 241 0.977xlO-8 1. ~ 2

(5.23% T4H 34 ( 1 0) 0.02 20 470 0.304xl06 -2.11 Binder) T5H 77 (25° ) 0.05 10 410 0.178xlO- 18 6.67

43

depend upon the tensile creep compliance of the material in a simple way,

it is expected that they are related to each other. This expectation is borne out in fact and illustrated in Figure 18 which is a graph of 10g10

A versus n. The most apparent feature of the graph in Figure 18 is that all of

the lines are roughly parallel with each other. In fact, the slopes are

not equal between materials but are virtually identical for the same material measured at high and low temperatures. The slope of each line

is given in Table 9. It has been found empirically that the sum of nand 10910 A, which is

called the "Crack Speed Index", is a good indicator of the relative

effectiveness of the material in retarding cracking. The lower the Crack Speed Index, the better is the material in reducing cracking. The last

column in Table 9 gives average values of the Crack Speed Index.

On the basis of the Crack Speed Index the ranking of the four

materials for fracture resistance at low temperatures (340F) from the

best to the worst is:

1. ARC-Medium 2. ARC-High

3. AC-l0 4. ARC-Low Because the fourth sample of the high binder content asphalt-rubber

concrete proved to be defective, not all of the materials can be ranked

for fracture resistance at moderate temperatures (77 oF). However, of the three that can the ranked, their order, from the best to the worst is:

1. AC-l0 2. ARC-Low 3. ARC-Medium These results indicate that, with respect to fracture resistance, the

asphalt-rubber concrete with medium (optimum) binder content performs

best at low temperatures (34oF) whereas the asphalt concrete performs

best at moderate temperatures (77 0F).

44

.... (J1

-1 B. 7 5 -0 ARC-High

.. . .

-14 -13 -12 -11

. .

0---- ARC High Blndar Content

" -.- ARC Med. Binder Content a ••••••• ARC Low Binder Content

0--- AC-10 Control

"'-'- -. 0__ .~ e ........... --- ._---", --- . ----------..:

-10 -9 -B -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2

log 10 A

n

7

6

5

4

3

2

3 .... ---.: I -. :--.! 2 -1 _ .-........;:.-.......

-1 -.....,-,,_.

-2

Figure 18. Graph of Log iO A Versus n.

4 5 6

~ --...... -..xJ

TABLE 9. Slopes of the 10910 A versus n Graph.

Temperature C rack Speed Material of (OC) Slo~e Index AC-10 34 (l0) 0.261 -1. 223

77 (25°) 0.289 -5.054

ARC-Low 34 (1°) 0.276 2.474 77 (25°) 0.283 -4.476

ARC-Medium 34 (1°) 0.337 -2.288 77 (25°) 0.368 -0.740

ARC-High 34 (l0) 0.291 -1. 408 77 (25°)

46

Creep Testing and Creep Compliances

The creep of asphaltic concrete and asphalt-rubber concrete is not

only an important material property in itself, it is also related to and

is an indicator of several important properties of these materials

including their permanent deformation, temperature susceptibility, and

fracture properties. Because a creep test is simple and quick to run at a variety of temperatures, it is useful to run a series of these tests to

assist in interpreting the expected performance of pavements built with these materials.

The creep test is made in a temperature chamber on a cylindrical

sample that is 4 inches (10.8 cm) in diameter and 8 inches (21.6 cm) high. Collars are clipped around the sample to support two LVOT's which

measure the displacement of the middle half of the sample. A schematic and a photograph of a creep sample mounted in the testing equipment are

shown in Figure 19.

A stress that is less than half of the expected failure stress of the sample is applied to the top surface of the sample and is held constant

for 1000 seconds while the two LVOT's measure the displacement on

opposite sides of the sample. The displacement is divided by the distance between the two LVOT collars to give a at several times during the length of the test.

strain which is recorded The strain, e:(t), is

divided by the constant applied stress, DO, to give the creep compliance, O(t). The results of the creep tests which were made on the four materials are given in Table 10. A plot of some of the typical results

is shown on a semi-logarithmic graph in Figure 20. Averages of the compliances measured at each temperature were fit

with a curve of the form

(5)

with the resulting constants as shown in Table 11. It is apparent f"rom this table that as the temperature increases, the values of 01 increase

and the values of m decrease.

47

STRESS

K

t: LVDT

~g

- ........ ..,.

1 1 f r f

Figure 19. Creep Test Sample with LVOT Measuring Collar and Test Equipment.

48

~ LVDT ,

TABLE 10. Creep Compliance of Asphalt-Rubber and Asphaltic Concrete Materials.

Time After Loading (sec) Mat'l Sample Temp. (OF) 1.00E-01 1. OOE+OO 1.00E+01 1.00E+02 1.00E+03

AC10Cont AC10-3 40 6.88E-07 1.47E-07* 3.44E-06 7.47E-06 1.59E-05 AC10-5 40 7.50E-07 1.84E-06 3.47E-06 8.59E-06 1. 89E-05 AC10-1O 40 5.47E-07 9.84E-07 1.95E-06 4.84E-06

AC10-7 70 3.67E-06 1.02E-05 1.89E-05 2.69E-05 4.04E-05 AC10-2 70 1.09E-06* 1.13E-05 2.23E-05 2.92E-05 3.90E-05 AC10-8 70 2.89E-06 8.28E-06 1.53E-05 2.23E-05 3.38E-05 AC1 0-1 100 1.46E-05 2.90E-05 3.44E-05 3.96E-05 4.62E-05 AC10-4 100 1.04E-05 2.27E-05 2.55E-05 2.84E-05 3.44E-05 AC10-6 100 8.13E-06 1.88E-05 2.56E-05 2.88E-05 3.98E-05

AR-Low AR1L 40 1. 44E-06 2.66E-06 6.50E-06 1.16E-05 1.87E-05 AR3L 40 8.44E-07 1.78E-06 3.66E-06 6.88E-06 1.33E-05 AR7L 40 1.88E-07 2.81E-07 6.88E-07 1.45E-06 2.23E-06

AR2L 70 3.13E-06 8.36E-06 1.56E-05 2.23E-05 2.81E-05 AR4L 70 3.13E-06 7.81E-06 1.41E-05 2.13E-05 3.01E-05 AR8L 70 3.13E-06 8.59E-06 1.62E-05 2.58E-05 3.92E-05 AR5L 100 8.54E-06 1.70E-05 2.38E-05 2.75E-05 3.09E-"): AR6L 100 7.92E-06 1. 49E-05 2.lOE-05 2.71E-05 3.3E-~5 AR9L 100 3.44E-06 1.58E-05 2.38E-05 3.15E-05 4.22E_cJ5

AR-Med. AR2M 40 5.31E-07 1.31E-06 2.98E-06 5.56E-06 8.93E-:)6 AR4M 40 9.06E-07 2.06E-06 4.50E-06 7.75E-06 AR6M 40 1.00E-06 2.06E-06 4.00E-06 7.72E-06 1.34E-05

AR5M 70 5.86E-06 1. 65E-05 2.68E-05 3.56E-05 5.08E-05 AR9M 70 3.13E-06 8.59E-06 1.51E-05 2.25E-05 3.45E-05 AR1M 70 4.58E-06 1. 04E-05 1.47E-05 1.77E-05 2.25E-05 AR3M 100 1.04E-05 2.07E-05 2.88E-05 3.65E-05 4.81E-05 AR10M 100 4.69E-06 1. 04E-05 1.47E-05 1.78E-05 2.26E-05 AR8M 100 1. 03E-05 2.22E-05 3.27E-05 4.24E-05 5.64E-05

AR-High AR1H 40 7. 19E -07 1.53E-06 3.42E-06 6.92E-06 1.43E-05 AR5H 40 6.41E-07 1.44E-06 3.16E-06 6.03E-06 9.84E-06 AR8H 40 4.38E-07 1.20E-06 2.89E-06 6.17E-06 1.22E-05 AR3H 70 3.20E-06 8.75E-06 1. 69E-05 2.51E-05 3.89E-05 AR6H 70 4.30E-06 1.05E-05 1.93E-05 3.lOE-05 5.00E-05 AR7H 70 3.05E-06 7.97E-06 1.34E-05 1.76E-05 2.34E-05

AR2H 100 4.17E-06 9.38E-06 1.31E-05 1.46E-05 2.29E-05 AR4H 100 9.06E-06 1.77E-05 2.48E-05 3.08E-05 4.00E-05 AR9H 100 6.15E-06 1. lOE-05 1.50E-05 1.69E-05 1.94E-05

*Questionab1e measurement

49

co I

UI IS ...

)(

,.... ..0 -...... C\I , C -'-'

"" a tl Z < ..... ...J 0... %

8 0... UI UI a: u

flfB

~

5lIlE-

.~ 31111-

2111

1111

1/1

UliE-2

TEMP. = 71<l F

SYMBOL BINDER 0 AC-ll<l )( AR-Low .. AR-M .. d

+ AR-Hi

UliE-l

S6Mf1.END. 2

4L 9M 6H

/'/

UliEIII UliE1 UliE2

TI ME (S .. oond .. )

Figure 20. Typical Pl"t of Creep Compliance Versus Time.

/' .-x

UliE3 UliE4

TABLE 11. Creep Compliance Properties of Asphalt-Rubber Concrete and Asphalt Concrete Materials.

Material Temperature of (OC) Dl m

AC10 Control 40 (4.4) 1.38xlO-6 0.354

70 (21.1) 7.9lxlO-6 0.254

100 (37.8) 1.83xlO-5 0.128

AR-Low 40 (4.4) 1.19xlO-6 0.290

70 (21.1) 7.01xlO-6 0.247

100 (37.8) 1.24xlO-5 0.177

AR-Medium 40 (4.4) 1. 70xl 0-6 0.289

70 (21.1) 9.20xlO-6 0.211

100 (37.8) 1. 42xl 0-5 0.164

.~R-Hi gh 40 (4.4) 1.35xlO-6 0.328

70 (21.1) 7.65xlO-6 0.245

100 (37.8) 1.04xlO-5 0.146

51

The degree to which these values shift with temperature is an

indicator of the temperature susceptibility of each material. In order

to compare these properties numerically, a time-temperature shift property of each materi al was determi ned. The average creep compl i ance curves for each temperature were shifted horizontally parallel to the

time-axis until each lined up with the curve for 700 F (21.1 0C), which was

designated as the "master" creep curve. The amount of the shift in time with changing temperature is expressed as a ratio, aT, which is itself, a

function of temperature. The ratio, aT, is

aT = t (6)

where:

tTo

tTo = the time at which a given compliance is reached when the

material is at the "master" temperature, To. In this

case the master temperature is 70°F (21.1 oC). t = the time at which the same compliance is reached when the

material is at some other temperature.

It is more desirable for the value of aT to change by a small amount over any temperature range. Values of the aT function for each of the materials are shown in Figure 21, and this indicates that there is some

variation of aT between the four materials. Two commonly-used functions were fit to the curves in Figure 21 to

produce numerical comparisons of the temperature susceptibility of the four materials. The fi rst of these is commonly used in the

VESYS-analysis method developed by the Federal Highway Administration (Ref 6). The function is

log aT = - 6(T-To)

where 6 = the temperature susceptibility constant

To = the master curve temperature T = any other temperature

52

(7)

3.0

2.0

1.0

log aT

o

-1.0

40 -30

50 -20

60 -10

- - - - ARC High Blndar Content

70 o

ARC Med. Binder Content

ARC Low Binder Content

AC-l0 Control

.~

~ ........ .. ~ . . . ....... '. '-.... . ........ ..... .. . "'-

". ........... ......... . . . . . . ............

80 10

90 20

100

30

Figure 21. Time-Temperature Shift Function aT as a Function of Temperature.

53

The second function is one that is commonly used to describe the

time-temperature shift of viscosity in polymers. It is known as the

"WLF" equat ions a fter its ori gi nators, Will i ams, Lande 1. and Ferry (Ref

23). The equation is

log aT = -C1(T-To)

(C/I-Io) (8 )

in which Cl, C2 = the material constants. Of the two, the constant Cl serves as a temperature susceptibility constant.

The values of the temperature shift constants, S, Cl, and C2 are

given in Table 12.

On the basis of the WLF Equation, the materials in this study are

ranked in order of ascending temperature susceptibility:

1. Asphalt-rubber concrete, high binder content

2. Asphalt-rubber concrete, medium binder content

3. Asphalt-rubber concrete, low binder content

4. Asphaltic concrete, control

It appears that the addition of rubber helps the material to maintain a

more stable compliance (or modulus) during temperature changes. This

result agrees reasonably well with the results from the resilient

modulus testing described earlier.

Although permanent deformation is not measured directly by the creep

test, it is commonly considered that at least a part of the permanent

deformation in pavements is due to non-recoverable, time-dependent creep.

The other part of permanent deformation is due to plastic deformation

when the material follows a different stress-strain curve on loading and

unloading.

It is common to estimate the non-recoverable time-dependent creep by

subtracting the ordinates of the creep recovery curve after the load has

been removed from the ordinates of the creep curve under load. Although

the creep reovery curve was not observed in these tests, it usually has

the same general shape as the creep curve, and thus the difference

between the two has roughly the same shape.

54

TABLE 12. Time-Temperature Shift Cons t~nts.

Time-Temperature Temperature Shift Constants

Materi al of (OC) 1 091 OaT fl Cl C2

AC-10 40 (4.4) 2.25 0.060 6.75 120

(Control) 70 (21.1) 0.0 100 (37.8) -1.35

AR-Low 40 (4.4) 2.65 0.0625 3.76 72.6

70 (21.1 ) 0.0

100 (37.8) -1.10

AR-Medium 40 (4.4) 2.70 0.060 2.70 60.0

70 (21.1) 0.0 100 (37.8) -0.90

AR-High 40 (4.4) 2.40 0.053 2.40 60.0

70 (21.1) 0.0

100 (37.8) -0.80

55

If the non-recoverable strain were equal to the creep curve alone,

which it is not, it would be possible to account for that part of the

permanent deformation that is due to non-recoverable, time dependent

creep by using the creep curve alone. Then, the equation for the

time-dependent portion of permanent strain after N repetitions of load

pulses would be:

(9 )

The percentage of the resilient strain, Er , which is accumulated with

each stress pulse is F(N) as given by:

where: 0 0 = the stress applied to the sample

D1 = the compliance coefficient

m = the compliance exponent

Er = the resilient strain

lit = the time duration of the stress pulse N = the total number of load pulses

F(N) = the percentage of the resilient strain that remains as permanent accumulated strain.

(10)

The cl uster of terms, 00 D1 m (ll t )m/Er' corresponds to the permanent

strain coefficient, GNU, which is explained in the next section of this

chapter, and the term (l-m) corresponds to ALPHA, the permanent strain

exponent. This exponent has the property that the closer it is to 1.0,

the more the material behaves elastically and the closer it is to 0.0,

the more the material behaves plastically. On this basis, at 700 F

(21.1 0C), the four materials are ranked in order of increasing plastic

behavior, as judged from the m-exponent:

56

1. Asphalt-rubber concrete, medium binder content

2. Asphalt-rubber concrete, high binder content

3. Asphalt-rubber concrete, low binder content

4. Asphalt concrete, control This result indicates that the asphalt concrete control material would

experience the most time-dependent permanent deformation of the four

materials. The fracture of asphaltic concrete obeys a law of fracture mechanics

known as Paris' Law (Ref 21). Although it was originally considered an

empirical relation, it has subsequently been derived from first

principles of mechanics by Schapery (Ref 22). Paris' Law is stated as

fo1lows:

dc = A(lIK)n (11) dn

where dc/dn = the rate of growth of a crack with each load cycle, N

lIK = the change of stress intensity factor, a calculated quantity, with each stress pulse

A,n = the fracture coefficient and exponent which are determined by experiment.

Schapery's derivations showed that the two material properties A and

n are, in fact, determined by simpler material properties including the creep compliance and tensile strength (Ref 22). He found that the

fracture exponent, n, can be determined simply as

where mt = the slope of the tensile log-log plot of creep compliance versus time.

(12 )

The creep compliance tests that are reported here were compressive,

not tenSile, but their relative size will indicate the way that the fracture exponent varies with binder and with temperature. Table 13

57

TABLE 13. Calculated Fracture Exponents.

Compressive Estimated Fracture Vol umetri c Tens il e

Compressive Exponent Concentration Fracture Temperature Compliance n - 2 of Bi nder Exponent

Materi a 1 of (OC) Slope. mc c mc Cb nt

AC-10 Control 40 (4.4) 0.354 5.65 0.667 (4.73% Binder) 70 (21.1) 0.254 7.87 0.118 0.929

100 (37.8) 0.128 15.63 1.844

AR-Low 40 (4.4) 0.290 6.90 0.738 (4.23% Binder) 70 (21.1) 0.247 8.10 0.lD7 0.867

100 (37.8) 0.177 11.30 1.209

AR-Medium 40 (4.4) 0.289 6.92 0.817 (4.73% Binder) 70 (21.1) 0.211 9.48 0.118 1. 119

100 (37.8) 0.164 12.20 1.440

AR-High 40 (4.4) 0.328 6.10 0.787 (5.23% Binder) 70 (21.1 ) 0.245 8.16 0.129 1.053

100 (37.8) 0.146 13.70 1.767

58

shows the slope of the compressive creep compliance curve and the

fracture exponent derived from it. The fracture exponents are larger

than those that were measured at 340 F (l.lOC) and 77 0 F (250C) with the

overlay tester indicating, correctly, that the compliance of the

asphalt-rubber concrete and asphaltic concrete in tension is greater than

it is in compression. Typically, the value of tensile mt is between 0.5 and 1.0, which gives tensile fracture exponents between 1.0 and 2.0.

If the compressive fracture exponent is multiplied by the volumetric concentration of binder, as is suggested by the rule of mixtures, the

resulting tensile fracture exponents are shown in the last column of Table 13. These estimated tensile fracture exponents are in the expected

range. The compressive creep test is a simple, quick and valuable test to

give not only the creep compliance of a material but also indications of

its temperature susceptibility, permanent deformation properties, and

fracture exponent.

Repeated Load Testing and Permanent Deformation Parameters

Permanent deformation parameters were used to characterize the materials for rutting susceptibility. Typically, the results of creep or

permanent deformation testing are used to plot strain versus number of

loading cycles, as shown in Figure 22, and the resulting curve can then be used to predict the rutting life of a pavement. In this study, repeated load tests were performed and an equation with three material

parameters was used to describe the accumulated strain versus loading cycles curve. This permanent deformation characterization method was one

of the reasons for choosing the modified ILLIPAVE program for analysis instead of the VESYS program initially chosen for use. Typical repeated

load test results are plotted in Figure 23, which shows total and accumulated strain.

The VESYS pavement structural analysis program (Ref 6) uses two terms, ALPHA and GNU, to characterize permanent deformation. ALPHA and GNU are calculated from the intercept and the slope of the straight line

relationship between the logarithm of the permanent strain and the

59

-If') QI ~

'" c .... 0_

Ell (l)E E.

4982 AC10-5 LAB DATA Permanent DeformatIon CharacterizatIon

6 ~---------------------------------------------------------,

5

4

3

2

1

04---~----.---~----.----.----.----.----.----.----~---;

o 2 4 6 (Thousands) Cycles (N)

Figure 22. Typical Plot of Stl'.lill V"rsus Number of Loading Cycles.

a 10

a......

STRAIN €

LOADING

UNLOADING TIME. t

MAXIMUM OR TOTAL STRAIN. E t

~ ( t€r-RESILIENT

€B ACCUMULATED

STRAIN

lit

STRAIN

Figure 23. Typical Repeated Load Test Results Showing Total and Accumulated Strains.

logarithm of the number of load applications (Ref 14). They are defined

as follows:

GNU = I*S/e:r (13 )

and

ALPHA = 1-5 (14 )

where I = the arithmetic value of the intercept (not a logarithm)

S = the slope of the linear portion of the logarithmic relationship

e:r = resilient strain.

However, it has been shown (Ref 8,9,24) that a three-parameter, nonlinear equation more accurately describes the material behavior of asphalt

composites due to permanent deformation. The three parameters are developed from the following equation, which is used to describe the same

permanent strain versus loading cycles curve:

where e:a = permanent (accumulated) strain N = loading cycle

EQ, p, and S are calculated parameters

(15 )

This equation describes an S-shaped curve with the strain at a high number of cycles approaching some horizontal asymptote. The change in

di rection of the S-shape occurs at N = p, or where e:a = e:O*e-l = .368e:0. Using this equation, the relationship between strain and cycles never becomes linear and therefore more accurately represents the material

behavior. The procedures for calculating the three parameters, as well as the

method of using these parameters for calculating rut depths in the modified ILLIPAVE computer program, are described elsewhere (Ref 8).

In this study, repeated load compression tests were performed to 10,000 or more cycles on cylinders following the VESYS procedures for

62

. --....

direct compression testing (Ref 6). One test was performed for each

material at every test temperature (40oF, 700 F and 100oF; or 4.4oC,

2l.l oC, 37.SoC). A plot of permanent strain versus cycles was made for

each sample tested to determine the shape of the curve and whether the

three parameter equation could be used to describe the material behavior (see Appendix C).

Resilient strain was read from the dynamic test output at 200 cycles

and the three permanent deformation parameters were calculated. Two

methods were used to calculate the three parameters: a linear regression program written at Texas A&M University, and a nonlinear regression program which is part of the S.A.S. statistical analysiS package. The

linear regression program is based on a method which takes the logarithm

of both sides of the S-shaped curve equation and then reduces the result to the linear form y = mx + b, where m is the slope of the line and b is the y-intercept. A least squares regression is then applied to the test

data and a linear best fit is calculated. Alternatively, the S.A.S. nonlinear regression program uses an iterative process in which an

initial guess of each parameter must be input. At least one of these methods produced a good fit for every test, but rarely did both methods produce a good fit for the same test results. Table 14 gives a summary

of the calculated permanent deformation parameters and the method of calculation used for each test sample.

The permanent deformation parameters were sensitive to several factors, including stress level and temperature. The laboratory testing

had to be performed with an applied load which was much lower than that which would be expected in the field conditions. This was because an axial load was applied to a cyclindrical specimen with a small diameter (4 inches) which had no confining pressure applied, and the specimen

failed at much lower stresses than in the field where every element of material is supported by the lateral pressure of surrounding elements. Therefore some adjustment had to be made to the permanent deformation

parameters to account for the differences in applied versus field

stresses. First, typical field stresses were calculated for each horizontal element (seven elements were defined in the top pavement layer

63

TABLE 14. Permanent Deformation Parameters from Lab Tests.

Reg ress ion Mater; al T(OF) Sample e:0 RHO BETA e:O/e:r Method

AC-10 40 AC10-5 0.0187E+0 1.1539E16 0.0637 1,662 Nonlinear

70 AC10-7 0.8232E-3 0.9817E04 0.2070 27.44 Linear

100 AC10-1 0.9355E+0 6.3750E16 0.0591 31,509 Nonlinear

ARC-Low 40 AR-3L 0.0326E+0 3.4221E16 0.0651 2,219 Nonlinear

70 AR-4L 0.4379E+0 2.5438E16 0.0670 13,738 Nonlinear

100 AR-5L 1. 1542E-2 0.1917E05 0.1292 94.89 Linear

ARC-Med. 40 AR-4M 0.0181E+0 3.4514E16 0.0645 1,445 Nonlinear

70 AR-9M 0.0238E+0 2.8904E16 0.0524 544 Nonlinear

100 AR-8M 0.0588E+0 2.5023E16 0.0560 1,680 Nonlinear

ARC-High 40 AR-5H 0.0357E+0 1. 2988E15 0.0709 4,967 Nonlinear

70 AR-6H 0.7124E-2 0.4716E11 0.0738 165 Linear

100 AR-9H 0.4829E-3 0.5229E03 0.1528 14.72 Linear

64

for the finite element mesh used in the modifierl ILLIPAVE program).

These typical stresses were calculated using the modified ILLIPAVE

program with typical parameters for asphalt concrete as input values. The typical parameters were derived from other studies and compiled at

Texas A&M University and are presented in Ref 9. The calculated typical

stresses are tabulated in Tables 15. Using the typical stresses and some regression equations generated from the compiled data base, a ratio of (permanent deformation parameter) at the level of stress expected in the

field for a typical asphalt material to the same (permanent deformation parameter) at the level of stress applied in the laboratory for the same typical asphalt material was calculated for every combination of the seven elements of the top pavement layer, each of five aircraft in the

traffic distribution, and each of three test temperatures. The following assumption was made:

( ermanent deformation arameter)field stress, typical asphalt material permanent eformatlon parameter a stress, tYPlca asp a t materia

( ermanent deformation arameter)field stress, test material permanent e ormatlon parameter a stress, test materla

The calculated ratio for a typical asphalt material was then multiplied

by the permanent deformation parameter calculated from the laboratory test results on a test material to obtain an adjusted (field) value for

the permanent deformation parameter for the test material at that temperature, for that aircraft, and in that element of the top pavement

layer. The adjusted values of the permanent deformation parameters were then

plotted versus temperature so that the relationship with changing temperature could be determined. The adjusted values of the parameters

for all material, aircraft, and temperature combinations are contained in Appendix D along with samples of the plots. For input to the modified ILLIPAVE program, a value for each permanent deformation parameter was

read from the plots for each average seasonal temperature chosen. The program used these adjusted parameters to calculate rut depths at specified time increments.

65

TABLE 15. Stresses in Top Pavement La'yer Used to Calculate Permanent Deformation Parameters for the Field Conditions (Aircraft Loads).

Aircraft Temperature Element Stress{Field) Stress (Lab)

DC-09 40 2 70.90 20

3 86.90 20

4 80.8 20

5 78.18 20

6 85.00 20

7 104.89 20

70 1 10.8 20

2 69.60 20

3 84.79 20

4 76.90 20

5 69.55 20

6 69.80 20

7 79.06 10

100 1 69.30 10

2 117.67 10

3 113.47 10

4 89.70 10

5 70.99 10

6 59.21 10

7 51.58 10

66

TABLE 15. (Continued)

Ai reraft Temperature Element Stress(Field) Stress (Lab)

DC-10 40 2 47.00 20

3 94.25 20 4 110.31 20

5 121.86 20 6 141.64 20

7 179.49 20

70 2 54.60 20 3 93.63 20 4 102.40 20 5 104.67 20 6 112.70 20 7 132.04 20

100 1 67.10 10

2 124.75 10 3 138.54 10 4 123.45 10 5 105.60 10 6 92.30 10 7 83.20 . 10

67


Ai reraft Temperature Element StreSS(Field) Stress(Lab)

B-727 40 2 52.40 20

3 B8.07 20 4 96.06 20

5 102.04 20

6 116.36 20 7 146.30 20

70 2 56.80 20 3 86.85 20 4 89.86 20 5 88.61 20

6 93.49 20 7 108.47 20

100 1 63.90 10

2 116.20 10

3 124.40 10

4 107.30 10

5 89.80 10 6 77 .40 10

7 69.10 10

68


Aircraft Temperature Element StreSS(Field) Stress(Lab)

B-737 40 1 8.20 20

2 61.80 20 3 74.20 20 4 70.80 20 5 69.70 20 6 76.40 20 7 94.60 20

70 1 17.80 20 2 61. 70 20

3 72.60 20 4 67.20 20 5 61.70 20 6 62.50 20 7 71.10 20

100 1 71.34 10 2 103.60 10 3 98.10 10 4 78.80 10 5 62.90 10 6 52.80 10 7 46.20 10

69


Ai reraft Temperature Element StreSS(Field) StreSS(Lab)

8-757 40 1 0.40 20

2 76.70 20

3 93.40 20

4 86.40 20

5 83.40 20

6 90.60 20

7 111. 70 20

70 1 12.30 20

2 75.20 20

3 91.10 20

4 82.30 20

5 74.20 20

6 74.40 20

7 84.22 20

100 1 74.70 10

2 126.70 10

3 121.60 10

4 96.00 10

5 75.80 10

6 63.20 10

7 55.00 10

70

CHAPTER III. PERFORMANCE PREOICTION OF ASPHALT-RUBBER

CONCRETE AND ASPHALT CONCRETE

In this chapter, the design data and the results of calculations with the modified ILLlPAVE program are presented. In the final section of

this chapter a comparison is made of the predicted lives of a typical airport pavement using each of the four mixes under conditions of mixed traffi c.

DESIGN DATA

The comparative analysis of this project was accomplished by selecting an airport type, pavement structure, and traffic pattern, and

holding these constant. Four environmental zones were simulated by

choosing four typical seasonal temperatures for each zone, and the (~nvironmental zones and the material in the surface layer were varied in mUltiple computer runs of the modified ILLIPAVE program.

Airport Type and Traffic

Asphaltic materials are most typically used as surface layer

materials at a medium to small civil airport. Asphaltic materials creep under heavy loads of more than a very short duration, and thus are subject to moderate to severe rutting. Therefore, they are generally not

considered as suitable materials for larger airports with heavier wheel

loads, higher traffic counts and more likelihood of planes standing in line. The Robert Mueller Municipal Airport in Austin, Texas, was selected as an appropriate airport model for this study. This airport uses runways and taxiways made of asphalt concrete. Austin has

experienced a tremendous growth in recent years and its airport has

experienced the damage problems associated with rapid population and, therefore, traffic growth. The major runway was used as the structural model for the analyses in this study. Some significant distresses were

71

expected in the damage analyses, thus providing an actual scenario in

which to compare the performance of the materials considered.

Total numbers and types of aircraft using the Austin Airport between

1969 and 1981 were known, and projections were available for the years

1985 and 1990 (Ref 25). Only the air carrier aircraft were considered,

because the smaller aircraft (general aviation and air taxi/commuter aircraft) have widely varied taxi patterns. Also, the smaller aircraft

individually cause little to no significant pavement damage compared with the larger and heavier air carrier traffic (Ref 25). Five air carriers

were included in the traffic: OC-9, DC-10, B-727, B-737, B-757. Since the major runway of the Austin municipal airport was used as

the structural model, it was assumed that all of the traffic logged by

the airport used the runway being considered. Therefore, no runway routing percentage factors were applied to the traffic counts. Table 16 gives a summary of the aircraft traffic data. However, not all aircraft

follow exactly the same wheel paths. Much more lateral wander from the

centerline of the path of travel is exhibited by aircraft over the width of a runway than is exhibited by trucks over the width of a highway. Thus, anyone point in the airfield pavement does not experience the same stresses from every aircraft because the airplane gears pass by that point at different distances from the point. Because of this, "wander

factors" must be applied to the numbers of aircraft to obtain an estimate of the number of coverages which pass over the area experiencing the maximum or critical strain. It was assumed that the lateral movement of each aircraft type over the width of the runway is normally distributed.

Using this assumption and the basic aircraft characteristics, wander factors were computed by Rauhut, et al. (Ref 25), generally following the procedure outlined by Ho Sang (Ref 26). This procedure "was modified somewhat to account for the transverse profile of the critical pavement

response parameters of asphalt concrete tensile strain and subgrade

vertical compressive strain" (Ref 25, p.IV.5). The wander factors derived by Rauhut, et a1. were used in this study and are listed in Table 17. The total traffic counts for each year and each aircraft were multiplied by the wander factors and then divided by 365 to obtain an

72

TABLE 16. Summary of Aircraft Traffic Data From the Aviation Department, City of Austin, Texas.

Ai rc ra ft T~l2e

Year DC-9 DC-l0 B-727 8-737 8-757

1969 32,660

1970 29,482

1971 17,410 2,176 2,176

1972 7,520 5,640 5,640

1973 3,660 7,320 7,320

1974 2,570 15,430 7,710

1975 1,680 10,080 5,040

1976 1 ,870 11 ,230 5,610

1977 2,120 12,740 6,370

1978 2,940 17,650 8,830

1979

1980 4,000 24,000 12,000

1981 5,200 31 ,200 15,600

1985 2,910 580 36,670 17,460 580

1990 3,100 3,100 37,200 15,500 3,100

73

TABLE 17. Summary of Aircraft Traffic Wander Factors for Each Aircraft Considered in the Pavement Evaluation.

Aircraft Wander Factor*

B-727 0.77

B-737 0.57

8-757 0.61

DC-9 0.68

DC-10 0.72

*Wander Factor is simply the inverse of the Pass-to-Coverage Ratio

74

estimate of the maximum or critical number of passes per day for each

aircraft. See Table 18 for a summary of the numbers of critical passes

per day.

The stress analyses were performed considering only the main landing

gear assembly. The nose gear was not considered in the analysis because

it is lighter and smaller than the main landing gear, and it does not traverse the same section of pavement as does the heavier main gear assembly. Therefore, the main landing gear assembly was considered as

the critical loading condition. The five carrier aircraft used in the analysis involved a variety of

main landing gear configurations, wheel loads and sizes, and tire pressures. The aircraft data used in this study are summarized in Appendi x E.

Previous research has confirmed that the tire contact pressures that are experienced by a pavement can in reality be much higher than the

"known" tire inflation pressure (Ref 8). This can have significant

consequences for the amount of pavement damage caused by heavy vehicles and thus for the design life of a pavement. However, not much previous

work has been done in quantifying the tire contact pressures resulting from different load, radius, and inflation pressure combinations. Also,

the work which has been done to this point has looked at stationary vehicles (static loads) and not at moving vehicles (dynamic loads with

both horizontal and vertical components). There are a great many difficulties in measuring loads due to moving vehicles. However, considering the importance of tire contact pressures versus tire

inflation pressures, some estimate was needed for this study of the tire contact pressures of aircraft. Therefore, a known but static contact pressure distribution and the known tire inflation pressures and wheel

loads of the five aircraft in this study were used to create an estimate of the tire contact pressure distribution for each of the five aircraft considered. The "known" pressure distribution was a previously calculated pressure distribution for a 32x8.8 Type VII aircraft tire.

This was a nose gear tire used in WWII on the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress (Ref 27; see Figure 24). As a starting point, the tire inflation

75

TABLE 18. Sunvnary of Aircraft Passes Per lJay " [Total Yearly Traffic x Wander Factor/365 Days Per Yearl.

Year # DC-09 DC-10 B-727 B-737 B-757 Total

1 61 61

2 55 55

3 32 5 3 40

4 14 12 9 35

5 7 15 11 33

6 5 33 12 50

7 3 21 8 32

8 4 24 9 37

9 4 27 10 41

10 6 37 14 57

11 7 44 16 57

12 8 51 19 78

13 10 66 24 100

17 5 1 77 27 1 111

20 6 6 78 24 5 119

76

AIRCRAFT TIRE CONTACT PRESSURE DISTRIBUTIONS

---- ---------- ---... 48.7 -.... .... "-,- "-,. 90.5

, I ,

I 21.3 105.6 21. 3 \ I \ I 34.4 10S.6 34.4 \ I 2S.3 \ 90.7 psi 2S.3

I I , 34.4 10S.6 34.4 I , I

\ 21.3 105.6 21.3 I \ I , 90.5 /

" / ..... 4S.7 "., -- -- -------------- --(a) 6' 0.75 in., Fz • 2200 lb

------------------------ -, "., " ,./ 12.9 130.4 12.9 "

/ " 45.1 IS7.9 45.1 / \ I 57.3 135.9 57.3 \ I \ , 42.9 132.6 42.9 I

I 3S.2 108.9 psi 3S.2 I 1 I I 42.9 132.6 42.9 I

\ 57.3 135.9 57.3 I \ I \ 45.1 187.9 45.1 / , /

" 12.9 130.4 12.9 / " ".,

'~---------------------~~ (b) 6 • 1.00 In., Fz • 3700 lb

Note: Inflation Pressure: 95 psi (655 kPa). Tire Type: 32xB.B TYPE VII Aircraft Tire. This tire type was used as the nose gear on the Boeing B52 (Stratofortress) in Worl d ~Iar I I. A hi gh-pressure version is used on the nose gear of the U.S. space shuttle.

Figure 24. Calculated Contact Pressures (psi) for Two Different Tire Loads (Ref 27) .

77

pressure of the aircraft being considered was set at the center of the

tire. Then a pressure distribution was created having the same ratios

between adjacent points on the tire as were calculated fer the "known"

model. Then a cylindrical volume of revolution was calculated and the

result was compared with the known wheel load for that tire. The newly

calculated pressure distribution was then adjusted up or down at the center, and the procedure was repeated, until the cyl indrical volume of revolution was approximately equal to the wheel load. The resulting tire

pressure distribution was used as input to the ILLIPAVE program. The calculated estimates of tire contact pressures for each of the five aircraft are shown in Appendix E.

Pavement Structure

The thicknesses and materials of the structural layers at the Austin municipal airport vary slightly over the length of the main runway. A

typical pavement section was chosen and then was held constant for this analysis. Material properties were then estimated for the underlying structural layers, and laboratory characterizations were used for the top

layer, which was variable depending upon the material being analyzed. Figure 25 shows the typical cross section of the runway pavement

structure used in this analyis.

Environmental Effects and Seasonal Temperatures

Because asphaltic materials are temperature sensitive, the analysis was performed at different temperatures to determine temperature effects. Four environmental zones which represent typical areas of the U.S. were

chosen: wet-freeze, wet-no freeze, dry-freeze, and dry-no freeze. Seasonal average temperatures were used whenever temperatures were needed as input values for the analysis. Table 19 gives a summary of the climatic zones and the seasonal temperatures that were used to represent

them.

78

/ /

15.5·

/

5.0· V /

8.0·

/ /

A.C. or A.R.C.

Crushed Limestone

Lime-Stab. Clay

Brown Clay with Gravel Over

E:- 40,000 y-130 pct

E;:;- 70,000

y=140 pcl

fL=0.45

Tan Silty Clay, Some Gravel

E;;;" 20.000

y= 110 pct

fL= 0.45

E=modulus

y =density

fL=Poisson's ratio

Figure 25. Schematic of the Pavement Structure Used in the ILLIPAVE Analysis.

79

TABLE 19. Average Seasonal Temperature for Each of Four Seasons for Each Climatic Zone.

Zone Season Tem~erature,oF (DC)

Wet-Freeze Winter 35 (1.7) Spri ng 65 (18.3) Summer 95 (35.0) Fall 60 (15.6)

Wet-No Freeze Winter 75 (23.9) Spri ng 95 (35.0) Summer 105 (40.6) Fall 95 (35.0)

Dry-Freeze Winter 35 (1. 7) Spri ng 60 (15.6) Summer 90 (32.2) Fall 50 (10.0)

Dry-No Freeze Winter 55 (12.8) Spring 75 (23.9) Summer 95 (35.0) Fall 75 (23.9)

80

EVALUATION OF AIRPORT PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE

In this section of Chapter III, the computer program that was used in

the analysis is described and the results of the analysis for individual

aircraft are presented.

The Modified ILLIPAVE Program

The modified ILLIPAVE program used in this analysis is the third in a series of finite element computer programs that were developed to analyze

the stresses, strains, and displacements in a pavement. The first program in this series was developed by Duncan, et a1. (Ref 28), in

cylindrical coordinates and provided for one circular load with non-uniform vertical and horizontal contact pressure distributions, multiple layers, and non-linear stress-strain curves for the materials ic each layer. The second program was a revision of the first. It pro.ided

for one circular load with a uniform vertical pressure distribution and included a variety of methods of estimating the stress-dependent

resilient modulus of each element depending upon whether the layer was composed of granular or fine-grained soil. Because this revision was

made at the University of Illinois (Ref 7), the program was re-named ILLIPAVE. This second program was obtained by Texas A&M University at

which further modifications were made. This third version of the program, referred to as the "modified ILLIPAVE" program, provides for multiple tires on one or two axles, non-uniform vertical and horizontal contact pressure distributions on circular loaded areas, and all of the

non-linear stress-strain curve capabilities that were available in the two previous programs. In addition, the program predicts rut depth, variance of rut depth, slope variance, present serviceability index (for

highway applications) and fatigue cracking with increasing numbers of

load applications. It also has the capability, not present in the previous programs, of using interface elements which permit one layer to slip with respect to another either with or without resistance that is

proportional to the slip (Ref 8).

81

Because it is the only finite element program that has all of these

capabilities including the multiple tire - multiple axle ability, the ability to predict distress, the ability to represent actual tire contact

pressure distributions, and the ability to consider seasonal variations of material properties, it was chosen for the analysis that is reported

below.

Permanent Deformation. The permanent deformation properties that are used in the "modified ILLIPAVE" program are of the three - parameter type that have been developed at Texas Transportation Institute (Ref 8,9).

The permanent strain in the vertical direction, Ea, is assumed to be related to the number of load repetitions by the relation

_(2.)13 Ea = EO e N (16)

where Ea = the permanent strain in the vertical direction

N= number of load repetitions EO' p, 13 = material parameters

These parameters depend upon the stress level in the material as well as other factors such as asphalt or water content, and others (Ref 9),

and must be specified for the material in each layer in order to predict the rutting which is due to the vertical compression of the layers. Rutting also results from the lateral plastic flow of material away from the wheel path, but this component of rutting is not predicted by the

modified ILLIPAVE. Fatigue cracking is predicted in the modified ILLIPAVE program by

using a fatigue law applied to the calculated strain at the bottom of the

asphaltic layer. The number of cycles of load level i to cause fatigue

cracking during the jth season is

(17)

82

where Ei j = the strain at the bottom of the asphalt layer due to

the ith load level in the jth season

Kl j , K2j = fatigue "constants" for the jth season

Nij = the number of load cycles to cause fatigue cracking

due to the ith load level in the jth season.

A "cracking index" is derived from these calculated fatigue lives and

the actual number of repetitions of the ith load level and the jth

season, as follows

n .. -2J.

- N .. lJ

where ck = the cracking index after k seasons

(18 )

nij = the actual number of repetitions of load level i and season j Nij = the number of repetitions to cause fatigue cracking of load

level i in the jth season

It is assumed that ck has a normal probability distribution which

allows the calculation of an expected area of cracking E[CkJ and a pr.obability that the actual cracking index is greater than 1.0. The percentage of the total area of the pavement that has cracked is assumed

to be proportional to the probability that the cracking index is greater

than 1.0. A detailed development of the cracking index equations is

found in Reference (13). In this report, the modified ILLIPAVE program was used to calculate

the distress that occurs in a standard airport pavement placed in four different climatic zones and carrying the landing gear of five different aircraft. The capability of the program to represent multiple tires on

each of two axles, non-uniform vertical and horizontal tire contact pressures, and seasonal material variations made it particularly useful

for these analyses. The data used as input to the program is discussed in the preceding sections of this report, and the results of the analyses

are in the following sections.

83

Maximum Stresses and Strains

The structural deterioration of flexible pavements is usually related

to two failure criteria, the load-induced cracking of the bituminous surface course and the development of ruts in the wheel paths. Fatigue cracking of an asphaltic material, which generally manifests itself as

alligator cracking, is considered to be the result of repeated flexural stresses causing large tensile strains at the bottom of the surface

course. Rutting occurs in all layers and results both from permanent vertical strain and lateral plastic flow in each layer. The compressive

stresses at the top of the subgrade are a good indication of whether the layers placed above it are sufficiently thick so that only minimal

rutting occurs in the subgrade. In order to locate the point under each aircraft gear assembly where

the largest of each of these types of stress or strain is reached, multiple runs of the BISAR pavement structural analysis program were run.

BISAR (~itumen 2tructures .Analysis in B.0ads) is "a general-purpose program for computing stresses, strains and displacements in an elastic multilayered system subjected to one or more uniform loads, acting

uniformly over circular surface areas" (Ref 29). This program was written by Shell Research Laboratory in Amsterdam. The program was run using a pavement structure similar to the one finally used in the materials analysis and comparison in this report, and it was run for a

range of surface layer stiffnesses. Stresses and strains were calculated at points under and between the wheels of the main gear assemblies.

In all cases, the largest tensile stresses or strains at the bottom

of the asphaltic surface material were found to occur directly under one of the wheels. These stresses or strains increased with increasing wheel load and with increasing surface layer stiffness.

The maximum vertical compressive stresses or strains in the entire pavement structure occurred directly under the wheels and at the pavement

surface. The vertical compressive stresses or strains diminished with depth, so that at the top of the subgrade (at a depth of 28.5") they were much less than at the surface of the pavement. At the top of the subgrade, the maximums occurred either directly under the wheel (e.g.,

84

for the DC-IO, at all stiffnesses; and for the 8-727, at lower

stiffnesses) or at the center point of the gear assembly (e.g •• for the

B-727 at higher stiffnesses). However, at this depth (28.5"), the

differences between vertical compressive stresses or strains from point to pOint under the gear assembly were small. Thus, the vertical

compressive stresses or strains at the top of the subgrade may be

considered to be the same at every point under the gear assembly.

Summaries of the results for the DC-IO (four wheels in the main gear assembly) and the B-727 (two wheels in the main gear assembly) are shown in Table 20.

Cracking Analysis: Comparison by Aircraft

Because the modified ILLIPAVE computer program can handle only one

type of load at a time, the computer runs in this study were made initially with the entire traffic count being made up of one aircraft

type for each computer run. Therefore, a direct comparison may be made of the relative cracking damage done by each aircraft. For all

environmental zones and for all materials, the DC-IO aircraft produced the most cracking damage, followed by the B-727, the B-757, the DC-9, and then the B-737. Figure 26 shows an example plot of the cracking index

versus year for the wet-no freeze environment and indicates the relative

cracking damage due to each aircraft. It must be emphasized that these cracking indices were obtained using each aircraft as the entire traffic count and so they are only useful here for comparison of damage due to

different aircraft. Also, the single-aircraft cracking indices have not been adjusted from laboratory to field fatigue conditions. Cracking indices due to mixed traffic will be discussed in a later section.

The cracking damage ranking of the five aircraft can easily be

understood by comparing some of the aircraft characteristics for each of the planes. In Table 21, the aircraft are ranked for each of several variables. It can be seen that the cracking damage rank is directly

correlated with the wheel load and with the tire inflation pressure. The sizes and spacing of the tires also affected the damage ranking.

85

TABLE 20. Stresses Calculated Under the Main Gear Assemblies of the DC-10 and 8-727 at Various Depths.

l' 8-727 ,.19 v ..

0 • x

Surface Layer St iff- Depth ness psi Point# ( in. ) Stress xx Stressyy IResultantl* Stresszz **

200,000 1 8.0 -15.40 -15.40 21.8 -110.00 15.5 26.10 19.20 32.4 -45.00 20.5 16.30 10.60 19.4 -28.10 28.5 7.11 3.80 8.1 -17.40

2 8.0 -7.95 -29.20 30.3 -12.20 15.5 17.60 -9.84 20.2 -21. 90 20.5 13.60 -1.30 13.7 -21. 00 28.5 7.27 1.82 7.5 -17.10

880,000 1 8.0 -9.70 -10.60 14.4 -96.30 15.5 116.0 93.60 149.1 -24.50 20.5 10.50 6.90 "12.6 -16.70 28.5 4.52 2.60 5.2 -11.50

2 8.0 -4.06 -24.80 25.1 -9.26 15.5 89.80 28.00 94.1 -16.70 20.5 9.80 2.79 10.2 -14.90 28.5 4.76 2.25 5.3 -12.00

*Maximum Resultant of Stresses in the x and y Directions is Underlined **Maximum Compressive Stress at the top of the Subgrade is Underlined

86

TABLE 20. (Cent i nued)

t DC-10 ,.rQ +,0 v

II>

(£).¢O • x

• • .. • 64

Surface Layer Stiff- Depth ness psi Peint# ( in. ) St ressxx Stressyy IResultantl* Stress zz**

200,000 1 B.O -lB.60 -lB.60 26.3 -126.0 15.5 26.60 25.50 36.B -53.00 20.5 15.30 14.40 21.0 -32.7 2B.5 5.52 5.05 7.5 -19.80

2 B.O -6.92 -13.00 14.7 -3.22 15.5 4.92 -17.30 1B.0 -9.57 20.5 4.41 -10.50 11.4 -12.00 2B.5 3.17 -3.20 4.5 -13.00

3 B.O -5.92 -6.55 B.B -1. 90 15.5 -10.60 -6.66 12.5 -5.51 20.5 -B.26 -4.65 9.5 -7.61 2B.5 -3.62 -1.22 3.8 -9.79

4 B.O -B.07 -6.12 10.1 -2.21 15.5 -15.BO 1.30 15.8 -6.52 20.5 -11.30 1. 61 11.4 -8.65 28.5 -4.66 1.89 5.0 -10.30

B80,000 1 8.0 -13.10 -13.40 18.7 -110.0 15.5 117.0 114.0 163.4 -2B.50 20.5 8.70 B.29 "1"2.0 -19.40 2B.5 3.07 2.94 4.3 -13.60

2 8.0 -7.2B -14.80 16.5 -5.26 15.5 43.30 -10.30 44.5 -11. 80 20.5 3.92 -2.95 4.9 -12.20 2B.5 2.21 -0.21 2.2 -11. 90

3 8.0 -11.60 -7.65 13.9 -4.48 15.5 -19.10 2B.80 34.6 -9.55 20.5 -4.61 2.32 5.2 -10.30 2B.5 -1.43 1.69 2.2 -10.50

4 B.O -9.99 -9.91 14.1 -4.43 15.5 -B.78 6.58 11. 0 -9.38 20.5 -3.47 -0.B3 3.6 -10.40 28.5 -1.06 0.51 1.2 -11. 00

87

Vi' a; Qj E III ~

III c.. .. :J .,. ;: 0 ... ..a 0

....I ~

x .. " 00 .5 00 CD c :;;: 0 III

U

.~ iii W a:

Figure 26.

WET/NO FREEZE AC-10 CONTROL - EACH PLANE - TOT. TRAF.

24

22 0 DC-9

20 + DC-10

18 0 B-727

6 B-737 16

)( B-757

14

12

10

IS

1:1

4

2

0 1 :5 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19

V .. ar

Plot of Relative Cracking Index versus Year, Showing Cracking Damage Comparison of the Five Aircraft in the Mixed Traffic Pattern. (Note: For this Plot, Each Aircraft is Separately Considered as Making Up the Total Traffic).

00 \D

TABLE 21. Rankings of Each of the Five Aircraft Relating Several Aircraft Characteristics to the Pavement Damage Indicators.

DC-9 DC-l0 B-727 B-737 B-757 Variable Rank Val ue Rank Val ue Rank Value Rank Value Rank Va 1 ue

Wheel Load (lbs) 4 26,900 50,300 2 39,900 5 25,800 3 28,600

Tire Radius (in) 2 7.25 5 9.30 4 8.69 3 7.45 1 7.21

Tire Inflation Pressure (psi) 4 163 1 185 3 168 5 148 2 175

Diagonal Ti re Spacing (in) 1 24 5 83.7 3 34 2 30.5 4 56.4

20-Year Cracking Index*, all 4 Zones, All 4 Materials: 4 var var 2 var 5 var 3 var

*Rankings of Cracking Index are in order of decreasing damage.

Permanent Deformation Analysis: Comparison by Aircraft

8ecause the modified ILLIPAVE computer runs in this study were made

initially with the entire traffic count being made up of the same aircraft for each computer run, a direct comparison could be made of the

relative rutting damage done by each aircraft. However, the comparison

results were not as simple as they were in the case of the relative cracking damages. In general, the most rutting was produced by the DC-la, followed by the 8-727, then the 8-757, DC-9, and the 8-737. In

some cases the B-757 moved either up or down by one place in the ranking of aircraft by the rutting damage produced. As was seen in Table 21, the

8-757 has a relatively high tire inflation pressure (ranked second highest of the five aircraft being considered), and higher tire pressures are expected to cause more damage. The B-757 also has the second largest

tire spacing of the five aircraft considered, which affects the superposition of the loads caused by the two tires at any point. The

interplay between the aircraft characteristics of the 8-757 and the permanent deformation calculated in the finite element mesh (as affected by the permanent deformation parameters, which were both temperature and

stress dependent) may be the cause of the variable rutting ranking of that aircraft.

The wet-no freeze environmental zone with seasonal average

temperatures of 75°F, 95°F, 105°F, and 95°F (23.9 0C, 35.0oC, 40.6oe,

35.0oC) experienced the highest rut depths during the twenty-year

pavement life considered for all aircraft. For the asphalt concrete

control material, the dry/no freeze zone with temperatures of 55°F, 75°F,

95°F, and 75°F (12.SoC, 23.9 0C, 35.0oC, 23.9 0C) exhibited the lowest rut depths; but for the asphalt-rubber concretes, the dry-freeze zone with

temperatures of 35°F, 60°F, 90°F and 50°F (l.7 oC, l5.6oC, 32.2oC, lOoe) had the lowest rut depths in the twenty-year life. Thus, the

asphalt-rubber concrete appears to be a better material for resisting deformation in cold temperatures than the asphalt concrete.

9D

The analyses were made using one aircraft at a time which permitted

an evaluation of the relative amount of damage done by each aircraft.

This evaluation, while important, does not reflect the effect of actual mixes of these aircraft on the damage of an airport pavement. In the

following section, the effect of mixed traffic will be considered.

Mixed Traffic Damage Evaluation: Comparison of Mixes

Appendix G contains an explanation of how the damage due to mixed traffic was calculated, as well as year by year results for both single

and combined aircraft traffic. The mixed traffic damage calculations

contain the adjustment from laboratory fatigue to field fatigue which was

described in Chapter II of this report under Fatigue Testing. Rutting was chosen as the critical mode, because the cracking indices

for the mixed traffic in the field fatigue condition never got very large. A rut depth of 0.7 inches was considered as the critical level. A rut of this depth on a cross-slope of 2 percent would have a surface

depression of approximately 6 feet (1.8 m) wide, which is fairly typical

and which would be expected to start collecting water. A cracking index of 0.2 (adjusted to the field fatigue condition) was

used as a basis for comparison, and not as a failure criterion. A pavement with a cracking index of 0.2 would contain low severity level fatigue cracking. Some fine, longitudinal hairline cracks would be

detected running parallel to each other in the wheel paths, with very few

of the cracks being interconnected and none of the cracks being spa11ed. Approximately two-tenths of the length of the wheel paths would contain these low severity cracks.

In all cases, the asphalt-rubber concrete performed better (i.e.,

experienced less damage) than the asphalt concrete control. This was true for all four environmental zones, and for mixed as well as single

vehicle traffic. For all four environmental zones, the field damage index (i.e.,

laboratory damage index 13, as previously discussed in the section of this report on fatigue testing) was highest for the asphalt concrete control material and lowest for the asphalt-rubber concrete with medium

91

binder content. This predicted that the asphalt concrete control

pavement will fatigue much earlier than will the asphalt-rubber concrete

pavement. However, the wet-no freeze environment, with seasonal

temperatures of 750F, 950F, 1050F and 950F (23.90e, 35.00e, 40.60e,

35.00e), displayed the widest difference between the cracking

performances of the control and the rubberized materials. Also, the damage indices were the highest for all materials in this zone, which has

three seasons with high ~900F) temperatures. This result shows that the cracking behavior of all four materials is most susceptible to high

temperatures, with the asphalt concrete control being the worst case.

Thus, in an area with high temperatures for much of the year, the asphalt-rubber concrete appears to be a better paving material choice for

cracking resistance than the asphalt concrete.

The wet-freeze environment, with seasonal temperatures of 350F, 65 0F,

95 0F, and 600F (1.70e, lB.30e, 35.00e, l5.60e), and the dry-freeze

environment, with seasonal temperatures of 350F, 600F, 900F and 50 of

(1.7 0e, l5.60e, 32.2 0e, lOoe), had the least difference between the cracking performances of the control and the rubberized materials. However, the difference between the two types of materials was still

significant. Also, both the asphalt concrete control and the asphalt-rubber concrete performed better in these two zones than they did in the two "no-freeze" environments. It must be emphasized, however, that this analysis did not include consideration of moisture freeze/thaw

effects. Only temperature effects on the material properties were accounted for. The two "freeze" environments each had one cold season, two moderate seasons, and one hot season. The cold/moderate seasonal temperature combination seemed to create the better environment for the

cracking performances of both materials. Table 22 shows the 20-year field damage indices which illustrate these observations. Figure 27 shows

plots of field damage index versus time for all four materials in each environmental zone; these plots provide a graphic comparison of the material performances with respect to cracking.

92

TABLE 22. Field Cracking Indices for Combined Traffic at 20 Years.

Zone Cracking Index (Temeeratures,OF) Materi al (Field, 20 Years)

Wet-Freeze AC-10 Cant ro 1 0.21

(35-65-95-60) Asphalt-Rubber, Low 0.07

Asphalt-Rubber, Medi um 0.04

Asphalt-Rubber, High 0.05

Dry-Freeze AC-10 Control 0.16

(35-60-90-50) Asphalt-Rubber, Low 0.06



Wet-No Freeze AC-10 Control 0.83

(75-95-105-95) Asphal t-Rubber, Low 0.15



Dry-No Freeze AC-10 Control 0.35

(55-75-95-75) Asphalt-Rubber, Low 0.13 Asphalt-Rubber, Medium 0.06

Asehalt-Rubber, High 0.07

93

,NET FREEZE DRY FREEZE CQUB1NED TRAFflC COJ,lBIHEO TRArrlC

0.21 0.16 0.2 ~ n~[';'u"!'rl 'illUl aN'·","l O.l~

0.19 WIM." " ~IM •• ,; 0.18 '""~ " 0.1. I.,,"') ,0

0.17 ,-, " '-' , "II M 0.13 I,ll " D.HI

" 0.12 0.15 0 AC 0 AC 0 .- 0.14 • AR-C .- 0.11 AR-C

S 0.13 AR-W S 0.' • AR-W

· 0.12 • AR-H 0.09 • AR-H · 0.1 t ;

• • E 0.' E O.OB

~ 0.0<1 0 ~ 0.07 0 < j ~ 0.08

0 o.oe e 0.07 • 0 e u 0.06

0 u 0.05 0

0.05 0 0.04 0

0 0 0.04-

0 0 0.0.3 0 •

0.03 0 • 0 0

0 • • 0.02 • • 0.02 0 • • 0 • •

0 , t • 0 • • 0.01 0 , t I , • 0.01 0

0 I • • • ! • • • , 0 0 , • 7 • " "

,. " ,. , • 7 • " "

,. "

,. ,- Yoar

'" ... WET/NO FREEZE DRY, NO FREEZE

CONBiNED 'T'RAFAC COUBIH£D TRAFAC 0.' 0'>'

It~:..,;, ;rll'(RAIUlIqoq y~ w.tU1'llU,"fj

0.6 -I ~1n\.' " WlnUr " !iQr''''l " 0.' ~rl .... " ,-, '"' -, " 0.7

fa'! " Fall "

0 AC 0 AC 0 0.25 · 0 .• • AR-C 0

.- • AR-C

~ ;;

• AR-W S AR-W

· 0.' • AR-H ; 0.2 • AR-H

• • £ £ ~ 0.' ~ 0.15 < ~

0 :;; 0 • e • 0.' 0

0

u u 0.' 0 0

0 02 0

0 0

0 0

0 0.05 0 0 • 0.' -I 0 .

0 0 • 0

0 • 0 0 • , ; I 0 0 , • • • • • • • • • • • 0 0

0 2 • • B 10 12 1A 1. 1. '0 , • 7 • " " " "

,. Yoar Voar

Figure 27. Plots of Cracking Index (Adjusted to Field Fatigue Condition) for Combined Traffic versus Year, Showing Four Materials in Each Climatic Zone.

All of the materials considered reached a rut depth of 0.7 inches or

more during the 20-year consideration period. The times to this failure

level for all materials in each climatic zone are shown in Table 23.

For all four environmental zones, the asphalt concrete control material experienced the largest rut depths; and the asphalt-rubber

concrete, medium binder content, experienced the smallest rut depths. For all zones except the dry-no freeze zone, with seasonal temperatures

of 5SoF, 75°F, 95°F and 7SoF (12.80C, 23.90C, 35.00C, 23.90C) the rut

depths of the asphalt concrete control were much higher than those of the

asphalt-rubber materials. For the dry-no freeze climate, the rut depths

of all four materials were similar. Therefore, it was evident that, at moderate temperatures and with respect to resistance to permanent deformation, either the asphalt concrete or the asphalt-rubber concrete

could be used equally well as a pavement surface material. But at either

hot or cold temperatures, the asphalt-rubber concrete appeared to be

considerably more resistant to permanent deformation than the asphalt concrete control material. The wet-no freeze environment, with seasonal

temperatures of 7SoF, 95°F, 105°F, and 95°F (23.90C, 3S.00C, 40.60C,

35.00C), was the harshest zone for the asphalt concrete; this mix was computed to fail in less than a year in the hot temperatures.

The cr~parisons of rutting behavior discussed above can be visualized

by looking at plots of rut depth versus year for each climatic zone, as shown in Figure 28.

In general, the addition of rubber to an asphalt paving mixture seemed to impart increased resistance to both cracking and rutting at

high temperatures (2900F). At cold/moderate temperature combinations, the addition of rubber imparted some cracking resistance, but the

performance difference was not as marked as at high temperatures. At ~oderate temperatures, the asphalt concrete control material performed

almost as well as the asphalt-rubber concrete with respect to rutting

(permanent deformation).

95

TABLE 23. Times to Rut Depths of 0.7" or More for Combined Traffic and for Various Materials and Climatic Zones.

ZONE RUT DEPTH (Seasonal (First Rut DAMAGE INDEX

Temperatures, Depth Over (Field Fatigue oF) MATER I AL YEAR 0.70 in.) Parameters)

Wet/Freeze AC-I0 Control 04 0.71 0.020 (35-65-95-60) Asphalt-Rubber, Low 17 0.73 0.050

Asphalt-Rubber, Med. 17 0.70 0.027

Aspha It-Rubber, High 17 0.76 0.038

Dry /Freeze AC-I0 Control 05 0.73 0.017

(35-60-90-50) Asphalt-Rubber, Low 18 0.72 0.054 Asphalt-Rubber, Med. 18 0.72 0.025

Asphalt-Rubber, High 17 0.72 0.033

Wet/No Freeze AC-I0 Control 1 1.61 0.019 (75-95-105-95) Asphalt-Rubber, Low 13 0.70 0.062


Asphalt-Ruhher, Hi gh 13 0.75 0.045

Dry/No Freeze AC-I0 Control 15 0.75 0.201 (55-75-95-75) Asphalt-Rubber, Low 16 0.73 0.083


Asphalt-Rubber, Hi2h 15 0.73 0.038

96

WET FREEZe: WET, NO FREEZE COI.IBINE;O TfU,.F"FIC COWSINED TRAFFlC ... '0 ...... TDl'tUT\lltt !"q

L_ .'ft\er " - ID!UAT\IItt 'on

U S, .. I .. "

IU~r " ~ " 0 "0 """ .. 0 r.lI ~ -. ...

" fill "

L' 0 AC 0 AC

0 00 0 R, c • "' 0

R" 0 0

~ 0 i "" 0 0." • RH

0 0 ~ 40 RH 0

< 0 5 0 .. 0" 0 0

~ 0 ~ 0

0' 0 , & 30 0

'; 0 '; 0 c 0 0." • 0

• 0.' • • 0

• • 20 • • 0._ • • •

I • 0.3 • •

I • '0 I 0.2 • I 0.' 0

3 0 , " " " '. " ." l 0 , • " " .. " " Vaar 'raar

<.0

" DRY FREEZE DRY, NO FREEZE

COUBINED ~FIC COI.ISINED TRAFFlC LO

L_ ""'" TDf'{U11JII{ !"'! ""'" TEII'ERATUJt[ (OP

111ft"' .. " U ....... ~ 0.' 1I1.l.oIr " -, " 0 """ " " rill ~ - .. 0

0." hll " • " 0 AC .

0 0 AC 0

R, 0

R" 0 07 R!.

!. 0 0 .• 0 c R" 2 • RH 0 ~

'J. 0." 0 0

'J. 0.' • RH 2 ,

& 0.7 0 0 • 2

0 0 o. 2 '; 0' 0

I ; R

, • I " R

0.' I 0_ 9 I R

, 0._ • •

j • • I I • 0.3 • 0.3 0 ,

• • ~ • 0.2 • ::1 • ~ o. 0 ...... - .'--'----'-

3 • • " " .- " " 3 • , • " " " " •• Vaor 'rao ..

Figure 28, Plots -of' Rut Depth for Combined Tra ffi c versus Year, Showing Four Materials in Each Climatic Zone.

Relative Lives of Airport Pavements in Uifferent Climatic Zones

A cracking index of 0.2 was chosen as a comparison level for this

study. The following are the cracking lives in years to a cracking index of 0.2 for combined traffic acting on the asphalt concrete control and

the asphalt-rubber concrete, medium binder content, in each environmental zone:

Envi ronment AC-I0 Control ARC-Medium Wet-Freeze 20 >20 Wet-No Freeze 10 >20

Dry-Freeze >20 >20 Dry-No Freeze 15 >20

The asphalt-rubber concrete passed the entire design period for all

environmental zones without reaching the comparison level of 0.2 for cracking index. The asphalt concrete control had a varying cracking life, with the shortest life occurring in the wet-no freeze environment.

A rut depth of 0.7 inches was chosen as the critical level for this study. The fo110winq are the rutting lives in years for combined traffic for the two materials in each environmental zone:

Envi ronlnen t AC-I0 Control ARC-Medium Wet-Freeze 4 17 Wet-No Freeze 1 15 Dry-Freeze 5 18

Dry-No Freeze 15 16

Comparing the times for cracking to the critical times for rutting shows

that rutting is the expected critical failure mode for both materials in •. 11 four environmental zones. Because of this, the rutting failure times

will be used for the economic evaluation performed in the following section.

98

CHAPTER IV. COST-EFFECTIVENESS COMPARISON BETWEEN

ASPHALT-RUBBER CONCRETE AND ASPHALT CONCRETE

In this chapter, approximate costs of asphalt-rubber concrete and asphalt concrete will be estimated for these materials compacted in

place. A cost-effectiveness analysis of each of the four materials that

have been analyzed in the previous chapters will be performed. Because the only difference between the pavements analyzed is the materials used in the surface layer, it is the cost-effectiveness of that layer which is

analyzed.

COST DATA FOR ASPHALT-RUBBER CONCRETE AND ASPHALT CONCRETE

Estimates for asphalt-rubber concrete are based on (1) the cost of

producing the asphalt-rubber binder and (2) substituting the cost of the asphalt-rubber binder for the cost of asphalt cement in asphalt concrete

unit prices. Since the asphalt-rubber binder produced for use in seal coat

construction is the same as that to be used in asphalt-rubber :01creco. the component prices presented by Shuler, et al. (Ref 30) were updated for current prices and are shown in Table 24.

Representative prices for asphalt-rubber binders, as used in chip seals and interlayers, are given in Table 24. These prices are based on industry-supplied data for asphalt-rubber binder containing 70 percent

asphalt, 25 percent rubber and 5 percent petroleum additives. The price

per ton was developed from an application rate of 0.60 gal/yd2• The cost information indicates that the cost of materials represents about one-half of the in-place cost. Blending and reacting the asphalt and

rubber and distribution of the asphalt-rubber binder represents about 20

percent of the total in-place cost of the binder. Approximate in-place component costs for hot mixes made with asphalt

cement and asphalt-rubber binders are given in Table 25. Using an asphalt-rubber binder increases the cost of the concrete by about 40

99

TABLE 24. Representative Prices (1984) for Asphalt-Ruhber Hinders per Ton, as Used in Chip Seal and Interlayers.*

Cost Component $/Ton Percent

A. Materi al s 1 • Asphalt Cement

$175 per ton f.o.b. refi nery $122.50 28.0 Transportation - $12 per ton 0.60 0.14

2. Rubber

$0.18 per lb. f.o.b. plant 90.00 20.5

Transportat ion - $12 per ton 0.60 0.14

3. Additive $0.128 per lb. f.o.b. refi nery 10.00 2.3

Transportation - $12 per ton 0.60 0.14

B. Blending and Reacting 30.22 6.9

C. Binder Distribution 53.33 12.2

D. Travel to Job Site 20.00 4.5

E. Profit, Overhead, Taxes, Insurance, Contingencies, etc. 109.28 25.0

TOTAL $437.13 $100.0

*Based on industry-supplied data with the asphalt-rubber binder containing 70 percent asphalt cement, 25 percent rubber and 5 percent petroleum additive. Application rate 0.60 gal/yd 2 or 4.5 Ibs/yd2•

100

TABLE 25. Unit Cost Per Ton of Material in Place for Asphalt Concrete and Asphalt-Rubber Concrete.

Asphalt-Rubber Cement Binder

Asphalt Cement Binder Low Binder Content Medium Binder Content High Binder Content

Com~onent $/Ton Percent $/Ton Percent $/Ton Percent $/Ton Percent

Binder* 8.40 25.0 18.61 40.7 20.81 43.1 23.01 45.2 Aggregate 8.85 26.4 8.85 19.4 8.85 18.3 8.85 17.4 Energy Costs 1.20 3.6 1.28 2.8 1. 28 2.7 1.28 2.5

Mixing 3.51 10.5 3.51 7.7 3.51 7.3 3.51 6.9 ..... Haul. Laydown • C) ..... and Compaction 5.92 17.6 5.92 13.0 5.92 12.3 5.92 11.6

Miscellaneous 0.66 2.0 0.66 1.4 0.66 1.4 0.66 1.3

Mark-Up (15%) 5.04 15.0 6.85 15.0 7.24 15.0 7.63 15.0

33.58 100.0 45.68 100.0 48.27 100.0 50.86 100.0

* 4.8% - Asphalt Cement Binder; 4.23% - Low Asphalt-Rubber Cement Binder; 4.73% - Medium Asphalt-Rubber Cement Binder; 5.23% - High Asphalt-Rubber Cement Binder. Asphalt Cement at $175 per ton and Asphalt-Rubber Cement at $440 per ton at the plant.

percent. Most of this cost difference 1s directly related to producing

the asphalt-rubber binder itself.

COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS BASED ON PROJECTED LIVES OF PAVEMENTS

The type of distress which controls the useful life of all pavement

surface layers is rutting. In accordance with common practice, a

limiting rut depth of 0.50 inches (1.27 cm) was set and annual costs were calculated for each pavement in each climatic zone. However, it was

found that the asphaltic concrete control pavement was predicted to reach this level of rut depth within one year. Seeking a more realistic cost comparison between the four materials, a limiting rut depth of 0.70

inches {l.B cm} was set and new pavement lives were determined. The cost figures for both limiting rut depths are presented below.

The steps in this cost comparison are as follows: 1. Determine the construction cost of each paving material in place

per square yard. 2. Determine the equivalent uniform annual cost per square yard of

each pavement over its predicted life. 3. Select the most cost-effective material in each climatic zone as

the one which provides the least equivalent uniform annual cost

per square yard for the life of the pavement. The equivalent uniform annual cost per square yard is the annual C0st

per square yard which, if paid annually over the life of the pavement, has a present value equal to the in-place cost per square yard of

construction of the asphaltic surface layer. The interest rate that is used in calculating the equivalent uniform annual cost is 4.0 percent and is considered to be a reasonable estimate of the difference between

actual interest and actual inflation rates as applied to construction.

Construction Cost Per Square Yard

The determination of the in-place construction cost per square yard for the lS-inch {38 cm} thick asphalt surface layer uses the following

steps:

102

1. Determine the in-place density of each of the four materials.

The compaction curves shown in Chapter II were considered to be

sufficiently accurate for the purposes of this economic

analysi s.

2. Determine the tons per square yard of each material. 3. Determine the cost per square yard from the previously determined

cost per ton of material in place.

The results of these determinations are contained in Table 26.

Equivalent Uniform Annual Costs per Square Yard of Materials in Place

The equivalent uniform annual cost per square yard of each material in place is similar to a life-cycle cost of each material except that it includes only the cost of construction distributed uniformly over the

expected life of the pavement. It does not include the cost of

maintenance or rehabilitation of the pavement or the costs to the user while these activities are being carried out. Because these are largely

unknown for asphalt-rubber concrete pavements, it is assumed for the purposes of this cost-effectiveness analysis that they will be roughly proportional to the equivalent uniform annual cost of construction and

that a comparison of these will provide a rational means of selecting the preferable material in each climatic zone.

The formula for the equivalent uniform annual cost per square yard is

EUAC = (PV/S.Y.) (i) (19 )

S. Y. (l+i) [l-(l+i )-nJ

where EUAC S. Y. = the equi val ent uniform annual cost per square yard

PV = the "present value" or construction cost per square yard. S~ = the effective interest rate which is assumed to be the

difference between the actual interest and actual inflation rate and was set at 4 percent for this analysis. In this case i is the interest rate in percent divided by 100.

n = the useful life of the pavement in years.

103

TARLE 26. In-Place Costs Per Square Yard for Asphalt Concrete and Aspha1tRubber Concrete.

In-Place In-Place Percent Costs per Tons per Costs per Binder Ton Density, Square Yard Square Yard

Material % $/Ton 1 b/ft3 T/S.Y. $/S.Y.

Asphalt Concrete 4.BO $33.5B 151. 2 0.B51 $2B.56

Asphalt-Rubber Concrete

Low Bi nder 4.23 45.6B 144.8 0.B15 37.21

Medium Binder 4.73 4B.27 145.3 0.B17 39.45

High Binder 5.23 50.B6 144.9 0.B15 41.46

104

Two comparisons are made in Table 27, one for a critical rut depth of

0.5 inches (1.27 cm) and the other for a critical rut depth of 0.7 inches

(1.8 cm). The most cost-effective material to use depends, not surprisingly,

upon the climatic zone and the level of the critical rut depth. Only in

the dry-no freeze zone is the asphaltic concrete more cost effective than the asphalt-rubber concrete. Elsewhere, the most cost-effective

materials are either the low or medium (optimum) binder content asphalt-rubber concretes. In the wet-freeze zone, the best material

changes from the medium to the low binder content material as the

critical rut depth is deepened. On the basis of this study, it appears to be desirable to perform

full scale experiments with asphalt-rubber concrete to determine whether

these findings, which are based upon laboratory tests and computer

analysis, are borne out in practice.

105

..... 0 0'1

TABLE 27. Equivalent Uniform Annual Construction Costs per Square Yard of Asphalt Concrete and Asphalt-Rubber Concrete.

0.5 in. Rutting 0.7 in. Rutting

Climatic Cost* per Cost* per Zone Age, Square Yard Age, Square Yard

Material Temperature, of Years eer Year Years eer Year

Asphalt Concrete Wet-F reeze 1 28.56 4 $7.57 Asphalt-Rubber Concrete {35-65-95-60}

Low Bi nder 12 3.81 17 2.94 Medium Binder 13 3.80 17 ~ High Binder 12 4.2"5 17 3.28

Asphalt Concrete Dry-Freeze 28.56 5 6.17 Asphalt-Rubber Concrete {35-60-90-50}

Low Bi nder 13 3.58 18 2.83 Medi um Bi nder 13 "Dffi 18 DiD High Binder 12 4.25 17 3.28

Asphalt Concrete Wet-No Freeze 28.56 1 28.56 Asphalt-Rubber Concrete {75-95-105-95}

Low Binder 9 4.81 13 3.58 Medium Binder 11 4.33 15 3.41 High Binder 8 5.92 13 3.99

Asphalt Concrete Dry-No Freeze 10 3.39 15 2.47 Asphalt-Rubber Concrete {55-75-95-75}

Low Binder 11 4.08 16 3.07 Medium Binder 12 4.04 16 3.27 High Binder 11 4.55 15 3.59

* Most cost effective choices in each climatic zone are underlined.

CHAPTER V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This concluding chapter summarizes the changes in the Marshall

method of mix design which were necessary to produce a satisfactory mix

design for asphalt-rubber concrete. It also presents a brief summary of the results of the laboratory testing, computer analysis, and prediction

of field performance, and the study of the cost effectiveness of asphalt

concrete as contrasted with asphalt-rubber concrete that have been

presented in the three previous chapters.

MODIFICATIONS TO THE MARSHALL METHOD OF MIX DESIGN FOR ASPHALT-RUBBER CONCRETE

The Marshall method of mix design for asphalt concrete (Ref 4) can be

used to produce an adequate mix for asphalt-rubber concrete, but several modifications must be made to the design procedure. These modifications

were presented in the two volumes of this report, and are summarized

below.

Aggregate

An aggregate gradation should be chosen based on the project specifi

cations, and the final aggregate blend combination (mineral aggregate plus rubber particles) must meet the gradation requirements. Before

producing the aggregate blend for production, a calculation must be

performed which adjusts the aggregate quantities and which treats the rubber as an additional aggregate. The rubber particles may contribute

significantly to the total amount of solid particles in the mix, thereby

necessitating a reduction in some components of the mineral aggregate

blend. If this is the case, then the mineral aggregate blend used in the

mix design must be modified to permit space for the rubber particles.

107

Mixing and Compaction Temperatures

The Marshall method of mix design calls for determination of mixing and compaction temperatures by viscosities. However, the absolute

viscosity of asphalt-rubber produced from ground reclaimed rubber and measured with capillary tube viscometers is highly variable. (See Volume

I of this report, page 7). Therefore, viscosity as measured by capillary tube viscometer could not be used in the Marshall mix design of

asphalt-rubber concrete. Mixing and compaction temperatures for producing asphalt-rubber

concrete for mix design must be higher than those used for asphalt concrete. In this study, temperature and compactive effort experiments

showed that mixing and compaction at 37SoF (191 0C) produced asphalt-rubber concrete with higher stabilities and lower air voids than

were attained at lower temperatures. In the materials characterization

portion of this study, a mixing temperature of 37SoF (191oC) was used. But the beam specimens used in several of the test procedures could not

be compacted at this high of a temperature; therefore, a compaction

temperature of 32SoF (1630 C) was adopted for the mix design and specimen

production.

Mixing

Mixing must be performed using a high energy mechanical mixer.

Compactive Effort

Compactive effort of 7S blows per face of the specimen has been recommended in this study, regardless of gear load, to obtain desired air

voids contents.

Extrusion of Specimens from Molds

Asphalt-rubber concrete specimens must be allowed to cool to room , temperature (about 24 hours) before being extruded from the molds. This

108

prevents the swelling of the specimens which had previously been ohserved

by other researchers, as mentioned in Volume 1 of this report.

Air Void Content

Percent air voids requirements must be raised from those specified in

the Marshall method when designing an asphalt-rubber concrete mixture. Difficulty was experienced with the mixes tested in this study in attain

ing air void contents below about 7% in the laboratory. Therefore, it is recommended that the band on air voids requirement should be between 3% and 8% for the Marshall mix design. However, it may be possible to

better compact the asphalt-rubber concrete in the field.

DIFFERENCES IN MATERIAL PROPERTIES

Laboratory testing of asphalt concrete and asphalt-rubber concrete included tests of compaction and air voids, Marshall stability, resilient

modulus, creep compliance and temperature susceptibility, beam fatigue, crack propagation and fracture in the Texas Transportation Institute

"overlay" test, and permanent deformation. There were four materials tested: an asphalt concrete at the optimum binder content of an AC-10

hinder (AC): an asphalt-rubber concrete at the optimum binder content (ARC-Medium Binder Content); and two other asphalt-rubber concretes at hinder contents above and below optimum by 0.50 percent by weight

(ARC-Low and High Binder Content). The results of the comparisons of

these four materials are summarized below.

Compaction and Air Voids

The asphalt-rubber concrete (ARC) had lower density and higher air voids than the asphalt concrete (AC) at the same level of laboratory

compaction. The maximum density of the AC was about 6 lb/ft 3 greater

than the ARC and the air voids about 4.5 percent less at the optimum binder content which was, in the materials tested, about the same in the AC and the ARC.

109

Stabil ity

The maximum Marshall stabilities of the AC and the ARC mixes were

nearly identical at the same level of compaction, but the maxima occurred

at different binder contents: 4.1% for the ARC and 4.8% for the AC. For the binder contents used in the testing program, the Marshall stabilities

were approximately 2100 for ARC and 2300 for the AC, both of which are

above the minimum required in the Marshall mix design method for heavy

traffic.

Resilient Modulus

The resilient moduli of the materials at the same compaction level

varied from one temperature to the next. In general, at low

temperatures, the resilient modulus of the AC was greater than that of

any of the ARC mixes tested, and at high temperatures was lower than that

of the ARC mixes. The change of modulus with temperature, which is a

measure of temperature susceptibility, was greater in the AC followed by

the ARC-High, ARC-Low, and ARC-Medium, in that order.

Creep Compliance and Temperature Susceptibility

Creep tests were made on the four mixes at three different tempera

Lures and the time-temperature shift functions for each were determined.

At the 700 F (21.1 0C) master temperature and at 10 seconds after loading, the average creep compliances arranged in order of increasing magnitude

were as folloNs: ARC-Low, ARC-High, AC, and ARC-Medium. At the 700 F

(21.1 0C) master temperature and at 1,000 seconds after loading, the

average creep compliances arranged in order of increasing magnitude were

as follows: ARC-Low, ARC-Medium, ARC-High, and AC. The temperature susceptibility, as indicated by the time-temperature

shift functions, in decreasing order were: AC, ARC-Low, ARC-Medium, and

ARC-High. The addition of the rubber to the binder helps the material to

maintain a more stable compliance as temperature changes.

110

Beam Fatigue Tests

Beam fatigue tests were made at three temperatures to determine how

the fatigue properties changed with temperature. Linear relations were

found between 10910 Kl and K2 for each mix and the dependence of 10910 Kl on temperature was also found for each mix. The fatigue resistance of these materials in the field depends upon these properties as well as the level of strain imposed on the material in the pavement structure.

Therefore, it is not strictly correct to compare the fatigue resistance

of these materials on the basis of laboratory tests alone. At a tempera-

ture of 750 F (24°C) the values of Kl are arranged in decreasing order as

follows: ARC-High, ARC-Medium, AC, and ARC-Low. At a temperature of

3SoF (2°C), the values of Kl in decreasing order are: ARC-High, AC, ARC-Medium, and ARC-Low.

Crack Propagation and Fracture Tests

The Texas Transportation Institute overlay tester was used to deter

mine the fracture properties of each mix at a low temperature, 34°F

(l.loC) and a moderate temperature, 77 0 F (2SoC). By using a "Crack Speed

Index", which can be determined from the test results, the materials can be compared in their ability to resist cracking. At the low temperature,

the mixes are arranged in the following order of decreasing crack resistance: ARC-Medium, ARC-High, AC, and ARC-Low. At the moderate temperature, the materials were arranged in a different order, again

decreasing in crack resistance: AC, ARC-Low, and ARC-Medium. According to Schapery's theory of crack growth (Ref 22), crack

resistance is approximately a function of the square of the ratio of the tellsile strength to the modulus. The reversal of the order of crack

resistance of the asphalt concrete as compared to the asphalt-rubber concrete, medium binder content, as the temperature decreases from

moderate to low temperature is primarily due to the fact that the modulus of the asphalt-rubber concrete decreases relative to that of the control

material. See Figure 8 in this report.

III

Permanent Deformation

Repeated load tests were run on each mix at three different tempera

tures and material properties were characterized by three parameters which were used to calculate rut depth in the modified ILLIPAVE analyses.

At 700 F (2l 0Cl, the values of the scale parameter, p, which is an indicator of resistance to rutting, are ranked in decreasing order as

follows: ARC-Medium, ARC-Low, ARC-High, and AC.

PREDICTED FIELD PERFORMANCE

A typical pavement which was built at Robert Mueller Airport in Austin, Texas was used for all the predictions of field performance.

Four climatic zones, five aircraft, and four materials were analyzed

in separate runs using the modified ILLIPAVE computer program for a total of 80 runs. The results were analyzed separately to evaluate the rela

ti ve effect of di fferent ai rcraft, different materi al s. and different climatic zones on the cracking and rutting performance of the typical

pavement. Subsequently. the effect of mixed traffic. using a typical mix of the five aircraft. was evaluated to determine the expected useful life

of the pavement in each climate using each of the four materials. The aircraft were the DC-g. DC-10. 8-727. 8-737 and 8-757. The most damaging aircraft in both cracking and rutting was the DC-10.

In all cl imates. the rutting criterion was more critical than the cracking criterion. The materials that lasted longest in each climate

were as follows: wet-freeze. ARC-Medium; dry-freeze. ARC-Medium and Low; wet-no freeze, ARC-Low; dry-no freeze. ARC-Medium. The materials that were more resistant to cracking in each climate were as follows:

wet-freeze. ARC-Medium; dry-freeze. ARC-Medium; wet-no freeze.

ARC-Medium; dry-no freeze. ARC-Medium. The wet-no freeze climate was the most severe in all cases.

112

LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS

The costs of each of the materials compacted in place were estimated and were used to compute the cost per square yard of pavement surface for

the typical pavement that was used in the analyses. The use of the

rubber in the asphalt-rubber concrete increases the cost per ton by $12 to $17, increasing with the percent binder that is used. The percentage increase is 36 to 51 percent. The useful life of the pavement, as

dictated by the critical rutting criterion, was used to calculate an

equivalent uniform annual cost of each material in each climate. An interest rate of four percent, representing the difference between actual

interest and actual inflation rates, was used to calculate these annual

costs. A comparison of these equivalent uniform annual costs per square yard revealed the most cost effective materials. In each climate, these

were as follows: wet-freeze, ARC-Low and Medium; dry-freeze, ARC-Medium; wet-no freeze, ARC-Medium; and dry-no freeze, AC. Thus, according to these analyses, in all climates but the dry-no freeze zone, the

additional cost of adding rubber to the binder is justified by the increased life and rlecreased life cycle costs of the ARC material. There are still questions that remain and these are discussed in the following two sections of this chapter.

RECOMMENDED rUTURE RESEARCH

In view of the promiSing results of this study of asphalt-rubber concrete, further research is warranted both in the laboratory and in the

field. Laboratory research should investigate the healing, low temperature

(11eking and mOisture susceptibility of asphalt-rubber concrete and a mc,'e extensive study of the fracture and permanent deformation properties

of ARC should be made with different types of rubber and aggregate. The

healing property is particularly important in calculating the 1ab-tofield fatigue shift factor which was assumed to be 13 in this study. The low temperature cracking should include determination of the thermal coefficient of expansion, glass-transition temperature, and further

113

studies of the fracture properties of ARC. The possible effect of the

increased air void content on an increase in the rate of oxidation and aging is another important study that needs to be conducted. An assess

ment of the effect of each of these on the predicted useful life and cost

effectiveness of the ARC material, as was done in this report, is an essenti al part of the research eval uation.

Field research with demonstration projects are warranted on the basis of these results. Particularly important is to experiment with laydown

and compaction methods to achieve the desired level of compaction, to run tests on cores taken from the completed project, and to make periodic

assessments of the condition of the pavement. Because both traffic and

climate make a difference in the performance of pavement made with an ARC surface course, it is worthwhile to find sites for demonstration projects in all climatic zones where ARC appears to be cost effective.

RECOMME NDED FUTURE .PRACTICE

The use of asphalt-rubber concrete for airport pavement appears to be justified on the basis of its expected cost effectiveness. Production and construction practices must be altered somewhat to account for the

rlifferent properties and the increased temperatures and increased cor.Jpactivp. effort that will be required to mix and place ARC properly. ?roduction and construction practices should be in accordance with the

procedures which are outlined in Appendixes A and B. On the basis of this study, asphalt-rubber cement used as a binder,

t~9~ther with a densely graded aggregate, when properly constructed, should provide a superior cost-effective asphalt-rubber concrete for use on cirport pavements in three of the four unique climatic zones in the

United States, excluding only the dry-no freeze zone.

114

REFERENCES

1. Mindess, S. and Young, J. F., Concrete, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1981.

2. "Bituminous Surface Course," STANDARDS FOR SPECIFYING CONSTRUCTION OF AIRPORTS - New Standard for Plant Mix Bituminous Materials, Advisory Circular No. 150/5370-10, Item P-401, Federal Aviation Administration, May, 1977.

3. "Standard Specification for Hot-Mix, Hot-Laid Bituminous Paving Mixtures," 1983 ANNUAL BOOK OF ASTM STANDARDS, Designation D 3515-83, Volume 04.03, Philadelphia, PA., 1983.

4. "Mix Design Methods for Asphalt Concrete and Other Hot-Mix Types," Manual Series No.2 (MS-2), The Asphalt Institute, College Park, Maryland, May, 1984.

5. Foster, C. R., "The Effect of Voids in Mineral Aggregate on Pavement Performance," Information Series 96/86, National Asphalt Pavement Association, Riverdale, Maryland, 1986.

6. Kenis, W. J., "Predictive Design Procedures, VESYS User's Manual - An Interim Design Method for Flexible Pavement Using the VESYS Structural Subsystem," Final Report No. FHWA-RD-77-154, Federal Highway Administration, January, 1978.

7. "ILLIPAVE User's Manual," Transportation Facilities Group, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, May, 1982.

8. Roberts, F. L., Tielking, J. T., Middleton, D., Lytton, R. L. and Tseng, K., "Effects of Tire Pressures on Flexible Pavements," TTl Research Report No. 372-1F, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, December, 1985.

9. Tseno, K. and Lytton, R. L., "Prediction of Permanent Deformation on Flexible Pavement Materials," Paper prepared for publication at the ASTM Symposium on Implication of Aggregates in the Design, Construction, and Performance of Flexible Pavements, New Orleans, LA., December, 1986.

10. Yoder, [. J. and Witczak, M. W., Principles of Pavement Design, 2nd edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1975.

11. Schmidt, R. J., "A Practical Method for Measuring the Resilient Modulus of Asphalt-Treated Mixes," HIGHWAY RESEARCH RECORD NO. 404, Highway Research Board, 1972, pp. 22-32.

115

12. Little, D. N., Al-Balbissi, A. H., Gregory, C. and Richey, B., "Design and Characterization of Paving Mixtures Based on Plasticized Sulfur Binders - Engineering Characterization," TTl Draft Final Report RF 4247, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, July, 1984.

13. Rauhut, J. B., D'Quin, J. C. and Hudson, W. R., "Sensitivity Analysis of FHWA Structural Model VESYS II," Volume 1 and 2, Federal Highway Administration, Report No. FHWA-RD-76-23, Washington, D.C., March, 1976.

14. Little, D. N., Haxo, H. E. and Saylak, D., "Development of Second Generation Sulphlex Binders for Paving Mixtures," Texas Transportation Institute, Final Report for Federal Highway Administration, May, 1985.

15. Epps, J. A. and Monismith, C. L., "Fatigue of Asphalt Concrete Mixtures - Summary of Existing Information: Fatigue of Compacted Bituminous Aggregate Mixtures," American Society for Testing and Materials, Special Technical Publication No. 508, 1972.

16. Austin Research Engineers, Inc., "Material Properties to Minimize Distress in Zero-Maintenance Pavements," Research Report No. FHWA-RD-80, April, 1980.

17. Adedimila, A. S. and Kennedy, T. W., "Fatigue and Resilient Characteristics of Asphalt Mixtures by Repeated-Load Indirect Tensile Test," Research Report No. 183-5, Center for Highway Research, The University of Texas at Austin, August, 1975.

18. Pell, P. S. and Cooper, K. E., "The Effect of Testing and Mix Variables ~n the Fatigue Performance of Bituminous Materials," Proceedings, Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Volume 44, 1975, pp.

19. Finn, F., Saraf, C., Kulkarni, R., Nair, K., Smith, W. and Abdullah, A., "The Use of Distress Prediction Subsystems for the Design of Pavement Structures," Proceedings, Fourth International Conference -Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, Volume I, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, January, 1977, pp. 3-38.

"n Al-Balhissi, A. H., "A Comparative Analysis of the Fracture and Fatigue Properties of Asphalt Concrete and Sulphlex," Ph.D. Dissertation, Texas A&M University, August, 1983.

21. Pari s. P .C. and Erdogan, F., "A Critical Analysis of Crack Propagation Laws," Transactions of the ASME, Journal of Basic Engineering, Series D, Volume 85, No.3, 1963.

22. Schapery, R. A., "A Theory of Crack Growth in Viscoelastic Media," Technical Report No. MM 2764-73-1, Mechanics and Materials Research Center, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, March, 1973.

116

23. Williams, M. L., Landel, R. F. and Ferry, J. D., "Visco-Elastic Properties of Polymers," Journal of American Chemical Society, Vol. 77, p. 3701, 1955.

24. Lytton, R. L., personal communication, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, 1986.

25. Brent Rauhut Engineering, Inc., "Runway and Taxiway Pavement Evaluations: Robert Mueller Municipal Airport, Austin, Texas," Report Prepared for the City of Austin Aviation Department, January, 1982.

26. Ho Sang, V., "Field Survey and Analysis of Aircraft Distibution on Airport Pavements," Final Report, Federal Aviation Administration, February, 1975.

27. Tielking, J. T., "A Tire Contact Solution Technique," Tire Modeling, NASA Conference Publication 2264, Proceedings of a Workshop held at Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, September, 1982, pp. 95-121.

28. Duncan, J. M., Monismith, C. L. and Wilson, E. L., "Finite Element Analysis of Pavements," Highway Research Record 228, Highway Research Board, 1968, pp. 18-33.

29. "BISAR (Bitumen Structures Analysis in Roads) User's Manual," Abbreviated Version, Koninklijke/Shell-Laboratorium, Shell Research N.V., Amsterdam, July, 1972.

30. Shuler, T. S., Pavlovich, R. D., Epps, J. A. and Adams, C. K., "Investigation of Materials and Structural Properties of Asphalt-Rubber Paving Mixtures," TTl Final Report RF 48711-1F, Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, Texas, September, 1985.

117

APPENDIX A

Suggested Guide Specification For Production

Of Asphalt-Rubber Binder And Its Use In Construction

lIB

APPENDIX A. SUGGESTED GUIDE SPECIFICATION FOR PRODUCTION OF

ASPHALT-RUBBER BINDER AND ITS USE IN CONSTRUCTION

1. DESCRIPTION

This guide* involves production of asphalt-rubber binders for use in hot asphalt-rubber concrete for pavement surfaces in accordance with the plant and other specifications. The main differences between the use of

asphalt-rubber cement and the use of asphalt cement occur in the production of the asphalt-rubber binder. Construction experience has

indicated that the same guidelines as those used for other hot-mix types (in particular, for asphalt concrete) will produce an acceptable

asphalt-rubber concrete pavement surface. Therefore, construction operations which are not described herein (e.g., mixing, placement, and

compaction) should follow the regular FAA Specifications. This specification describes two known proprietary processes for production of

the binder hereinafter known as Method A and Method B. Method A uses

ground reclaimed "devulcanized" rubber and an extender oil whereas Method B uses ground reclaimed vulcanized rubber and a kerosene diluent. Either method is acceptable based on proper compliance with the specifications

and certification of materials.

2. MATERIALS

Asphalt-rubber, as currently used, shall include between 15 and 28 percent by total weight of dry rubber in an asphalt cement matrix. (See Volume I of this report, page 18.)

* The bulk of this guide was prepared by Ray Pavlovich.

119

2.01 ASPHALT CEMENT

Asphalt cement shall meet the requirements of AASHTO M 20-70 (Table

1), M226-80 (Table 1), or M226-80 (Table 3). Acceptable grades for the respective materials will depend on location and circumstances and will require approval of the Supplier of the asphalt rubber. In addition, it

shall be fully compatible with the ground rubber proposed for the work as determined by the Supplier.

2.02 RUBBER EXTENDER OIL (METHOD A)

Extender oil shall be a resinous, high flash point aromatic

hydrocarbon meeting the following test requirements.

Viscosity, SSU, at 1000 F (ASTM D 88)

Flash Point, CDC, degrees F (ASTM D 92)

Molecular Analysis (ASTM D 2007): Aspha1tenes, Wt.%

Aroma tic s, wt. %

2.03 KEROSENE TYPE DILUENT (METHOD B)

2500 min.

390 min.

0.1 max. 55.0 min.

The kerosene type diluent used shall be compatible with all

materials used and shall have a flash point (ASTM D 92) of not less than

800 F. The Initial Boiling Point shall not be less than 3000 F with total

distillation (dry point) before 4500 F (ASTM D 850). The Contractor is

cautioned that a normal kerosene or range oil cut may not be suitable.

2.04 GROUND RUBBER COMPONENTS

A. For Method A. The rubber shall meet the following physical and

chemical requirements:

1. Composition. The rubber shall be a dry, free flowing blend of 40 Wt.% powdered devu1canized rubber and 60 Wt.% ground vulcanized rubber scrap specially selected to have a natural

120

rubber content of at least 40 Wt.1" of the rubber. It shall be

free from fabric, wire, or other contaminating materials exceDt

that up to 4 Wt.% of a mineral powder (such as calcium

carbonate) may be included to prevent sticking and caking of

the particles.

2. Sieve Analysis (ASTM C 136):

Si eve Number % Passing

8 100

30 60-80

50 15-40

100 0-15

3. Chemical Analysis (ASTM D 297):

Natural Rubber Content, Wt.% 30 min.

4. Mill Test:

When 40-50 grams of rubber retained on the Number 30 sieve are

added to the tight 152.4 mm rubber mill, the material will J3":

on the mill roll in one pass, and will usually be retaine~ JO

the mill roll. This will indicate the presence of a sufficient

quantity of reclaimed devulcanized rubber.

B. For Method 8. The rubber shall be a ground tire rubber, 100%

vulcanized, recommended by the Contractor for this use and with the

approval of the Engineer and meeting the following requirements:

1. Composition. The rubber shall be ground ti re rubber, dry

and free flowing. The specific gravity of the rubber shall be

1.15 ~ 0.05 and shall be free from fabric, wire, or other

contaminating materials except that up to 4 Wt.% of a mineral

powder (such as calcium carbonate) may be included to prevent

sticking together of the particles.

121

... 2. Sieve Analysis (ASTM C 136):

Sieve Number

8

10 30

50

% Passing 100

98-100

0-10

0-2

2.05 AGGREGATES

Aggregates shall be a dry, clean material meeting the requirements

of AASHTO M 283-81 and the additional requirements listed below:

A. Only crushed stone or slag will be acceptable (hot or precoated aggregates, if used, will be by special provisions in the contract

documents).

B. The aggregate shall not contain more than 5 Wt.% chert or other known stripping material.

C. Gradation shall be according to ASTM D 448-80, Size 7 with the

addition that no more than 1 Wt.% shall pass the Number 50 sieve.

D. The aggregate shall be essentially free of deleterious material such as thin, elongated pieces, dirt, dust, and shall contain not more than 1 Wt.% water (ASTM C 566).

2.06 CERTIFICATION AND QUALITY ASSURANCE

Prior to production, the Contractor shall submit certification of

specification compliance for all materials to be used in the work. Also certification shall be submitted concerning the design of the asphalt-rubber blend as follows:

A. Method A. The Contractor shall submit certification that the asphalt cement is compatible with the rubber and has been tested to determine the quantity of extender oil (usually 1 to 7 Wt.%)

required and that the proposed percentage will produce an absolute

viscosity of the blended materials of 600 to 2000 poises at 1400 F

122

when tested in accordance with the requirements of AASHTO T 202-80.

New certifications \;i1l be required if the asphalt cement lot or

source is changed.

B. Method B. The Contractor shall submit certifi cati ons that the

asphalt cement is compatible with the rubber. New certifications

will be required if the asphalt cement lot is changed.

3. EQUIPMENT

3.01 PRE-BLENDING

Rubber and a portion of the asphalt for the asphalt-rubber blend

shall be preblended in a master batch prior to introduction of the master

batch to the distributor. The master batch can be diluted with

additional asphalt and additives in the distributor to the formulation

recommended by the Supplier.

4. PRODUCTION DETAILS

4.01 PREPARATION OF BINDER: METHOD A.

A. Preparation of Asphalt-Extender Oil Mix Blenrl

Blend the preheated asphalt cement (250 to 4000 F), and

sufficient rubber extender oil (1 to 7 Wt.%) to reduce the

viscosity of the asphalt cement-extender oil blend to within the

specified viscosity range. Mixing shall be thorough by

recirculation, mechanical stirring, air agitation, or other

appropriate means. A minimum of 400 gallons of the asphalt

cement-extender oil blend shall be prepared before introduction of

the rubber.

B. Preparation of Asphalt-Rubber Binder

The as pha It-extender oil blend shall be heated to wi thi n the

range of 350 to 425 0 F. The asphalt-rubber blend for the master

batch shall be preblended in appropriate preblending equipment as

specified by the supplier prior to introduction of the master batch

123

into the distributor. Addition of asphalt cement into the

distributor to provide the specified formula shall be as directed

by the supplier. The percentage of rubber shall be 20 to 24 Wt.%

of the total blend as specified by the supplier. Recirculation

shall continue for a minimum of 30 minutes after all the rubber is

incorporated to insure proper mixing and dispersion. Sufficient

heat should be applied to maintain the temperature of the blend

between 375 and 4250 F while mixing. Viscosity of the asphalt-rubber

shall be less than 4000 centipoises at the time of application

(ASTM D 2994 with the use of a Haake type viscometer in lieu of a

Brookfield Model LVF or LVT if desired).

4.02 PREPARATION OF BINDER: METHOD B.

A. Preparation of the Asphalt-Rubber Blend - Mixin9

The asphalt cement shall be preheated to within the range of

350 to 4500 F. The asphalt-rubber blend for the master batch shall

be preblended in appropriate preblending equipment as specified by

the supplier prior to introduction of the master batch into the

distributor. Addition of asphalt cement and diluent into the

distributor to provide the specified formula shall be as directed

by the supplier. The percentage of rubber shall be 20 to 24 Wt.%

of the total asphalt-rubber mixture (including diluent). Mixing

and recirculation shall continue until the consistency of the

mixture approaches that of a semi-fluid material (i.e., reaction is

complete). At the lower temperature, it will require approximately

30 minutes for the reaction to take place after the start of the

addition of rubber. At the higher temperature, the reaction will

take place within approximately five minutes; therefore, the

temperature used will depend on the type of application and the

methods used by the Contractor. Viscosity of the asphalt-rubber

shall be less than 4000 centipoises at the time of application

(ASTM 0 2994 with the use of a Haake type viscometer in lieu of a

124

Brookfield Model LVF or LVT if desired). After reaching the proper

consistency, application shall proceed immediately.

B. Adjustment to Mixing Viscosity with Diluent

After the full reaction described in MIXING (4.02) above has

occurred, the mix can be diluted with a kerosene type diluent. The amount of diluent used shall be less than 7.5 percent by volume of

the hot asphalt rubber composition as required for adjusting viscosity for better wetting of the aggregate. Temperature of the

hot composition shall not exceed the kerosene initial boiling point at the time of adding the diluent.

4.03 JOB DELAYS

Prior to preparation or use of asphalt-rubber (prepared by either

Method A or B) maximum holdover times due to job delays (time of application after completion of reaction) to be allowed will be agreed upon between the Contractor, Supplier, and Engineer. However, holdover

times in excess of 16 hours will not be allowed at temperatures above

2900 F. Retempering including reheating and the addition of asphalt, rubber or diluent (kerosene/extender oil) will be allowed with the

approval of the Engineer.

4.04 APPLICATION OF BINDER

The binder material shall be applied at a temperature of 375 to

4250 F for Method A and 290 to 3500 F for Method B at a rate specified by

the Engineer.

5. METHOD OF MEASUREMENT

The asphalt-rubber binder will be measured by the number of tons of

materi al actually used.

125

6. BASIS OF PAYMENT

The unit price bid per ton shall include the cost of furnishing all

material, all labor and equipment necessary to complete the work.

126

APPENDIX B

Changes To Asphalt Concrete Mix Design Procedures And Construction Guideline For

Use Of Asphalt-Rubber Concrete As A Pavement Material

127

APPENDIX B. CHANGES TO ASPHALT CONCRETE MIX DESIGN PROCEDURES

AND CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES FOR USE OF ASPHALT-RUBBER CONCRETE

AS A PAVEMENT MATERIAL

1. DESCRIPTION

This guide involves the mix design for asphalt-rubber concrete and the use of asphalt-rubber concrete as a pavement material. Mix design

and construction experience have indicated that the same procedures as those used for other hot-mix types (in particular, for asphalt concrete) will produce an acceptable asphalt-rubber concrete pavement surface.

Therefore, mix design procedures not discussed herein should follow the Marshall method of mix design as described in the Asphalt Institute's Manual MS-2 (Ref 4). Construction operations not described herein (for

example, methods of mixing, placement, and compaction) should follow the regular FAA specifications for construction with asphalt concrete.

2. MODIFICATIONS TO MARSHALL MIX DESIGN METHOD FOR ASPHALT-RUBBER CONCRETE

To produce an adequate mix for asphalt-rubber concrete, the followinq

modifications must be made to the Marshall mix design method for asphalt concrete (Ref 4):

2.01 AGGREGATE

A calculation must be performed which adjusts the aggregate blend to treat the rubber particles in the binder as an additional aggregate. If this adjusted aggregate blend is significantly different from the original aggregate blend, then the adjusted blend shall be used to combine the aggregate to produce a final blend.

128

2.02 MIXING AND COMPACTION TEMPERATURES

The Marshall method of mix design calls for determination of mixing

and compaction temperatures to be dependent upon viscosity of the

material. However, capillary tube viscometers shall not be used to

measure viscosity of asphalt-rubber concrete made with ground reclaimed rubber. If viscosity is used to determine mixing and compaction temperatures, then the Schweyer rheometer, the Haake rotational

viscometer, or the Brookfield viscometer may be used*.

If specific temperatures are recommended, then the mixing and

compaction temperatures for mix design of asphalt-rubber concrete shall be higher than temperatures for asphalt concrete. A mixing temperature

of 375°F is suggested by this study; a compaction temperature of above

325 0 F(1630C) is suggested.

2.03 MIXING

Mixing shall be performed using a high energy mechanical mixer.

2.04 COMPACTIVE EFFORT

A compactive effort of 75 blows per face of the specimen shall be

applied, regardless of the gear level.

2.05 EXTRUSION OF SPECIMENS FROM MOLDS

Asphalt-rubber concrete specimens shall be allowed to cool to room

temperature before being extruded from the molds. (The project engineer should specify a minimum cooling time; 24 hours is recommended by this

study.)

*Personal communication with T. S. Shuler, New Mexico Engineering Research Institute, and B. M. Gallaway, Texas A&M University, March, 1987.

129

2.06 AIR VOID CONTENT

The upper 1 imit on ai r void content shall be 8%. The lower 1 imit specified by MS-2 (Ref 4) can remain at 3%.

3. MODIFICATIONS TO CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES WHEN USING ASPHALT-RUBBER CONCRETE

The primary modification to construction procedures involves the

temperatures at which the material is mixed, transported, placed, and compacted. Other construction procedures used for asphalt concrete have

been successfully used in construction with asphalt-rubber concrete.

3.01 TEMPERATURES

It is recommended that the mixing temperature be in the range of

325-350oF(163-177 oC). It is recommended that compaction be allowed to control the

temperatures of the materials during the placement process. The contractor shall construct a test strip which shall be tested for air

void content after placement. The suggested temperature range for

placement shall be "greater than 300oF(l490 C)" and it is recommended that

the initial test strip be placed at a temperature of 32SoF(1630C) or

above, if possible. If the material cannot be sufficiently compacted at a temperature

below 350 0 F(177 0C), then it is recommended that the compactive effort be

increased rather than increasing the temperature of the materials above

350oF(177 oC). This is due to the high cost of heating the materials. It is possible that 3 to 5 percent air void contents may be attained

in the field, but field verification will be necessary.

3.02 SMOKE CONTROL

At the higher temperatures required for placement of asphalt-rubber concrete, the material may emit smoke. Applicable pollution control measures may need to be taken.

130

APPENDIX C

Permanent Deformation Analysis:

Strain Versus Cycles To Failure Plots

131

ASPHALT CONCRETE AC10-1 Permanent Deformation Characterization

0.0032 AI

0.003

0.0028

0.0026

'20.0024

~0.0022 .-- 0.002 c: 'e 0.0018 ....

t;; III 0.0016 "'"0

20.0014 o :; 0.0012 E ~ 0.001

~ 0.0008

0.0006

0.0004

0.0002

o ~T~--~----~----~----~-----r-----r-----r----~----~----~ o 2

o Lab Data

4 6 (Thousands) Cycles (N)

<> Calculated (Nonlin)

8 10

-2.4 -2.5 -2.6 -2.7 -2.8

,-.,. -2.9 .E -3 0 L. -3.1 ....

fI)

"0 -3.2 IU -3.3 .... 0

..... :::J -3.4 t:: E -3.5

:::J u -3.6 u 5 -3.7 01 -3.8 0 -l -3.9

-4 -4.1 -4.2 -4.3 -4.4

0

0


2

Lab Data


o Calculated (Nonlin)

8 10

4982 AC10-7 Permanent Deformation Characterization

0.00035 ;oIjJ

0.0003

0.00025 .E ~ ....

CIl 0.0002 "0 4D ..........

w o .j:>-

~.00015 :J u u «

0.0001

0.00005

o ~.~-~----~----~----~----~-----r-----r----~----~---~ o 2

o Lab Data


+ Calculated (Linear)

8 10

-3.4

-3.6 -

-3.8 -

-4 -

- -4.2 -c: .-0

-4.4 -... o+J VI

"0 -4.6 -u

o+J -4.8 -0 .... :J ~ E -5 -

:J u -5.2 -u ~ -5.4 -01 0 -5.6 -..J

-5.8 -

-6 -

-6.2 ;

-6.4 0

ASPHALT CONCRETE AC 1 0-7 Permanent Deformation Characterization

2

C Lob Data

1 r--I



r 8 10

,...., e .-

........... e

-,...., elf) .- I Ow .be

...... Vl.-~ 1:1 1/1

411411 ..... E .2i= ::1_ E ::I U U «


6

5

4

:3

2

1

O~'~--~---r----r----r---.----~---r----r----r---.--~

o 2

C Lob Data

468 (Thousands) Cycles (N)


10


-4.2 -4.3 -4.4 -4.5 -4.S -4.7

......... -4.8 c: -0 -4.9 ... .... -5 III

"0 -5.1 QJ

-5.2 .... 0 1-':; -5.3

~ E -5.4 :::J u -5.5 u < -5.S ....... 01 -5.7 0 -5.8 ...J

-5.9 -S

-S.1 -S.2 -S.3 -S.4

0 2 4 S 8 10

0 Lab Data

(Thousands) Cycles (N)

<> Calculated (Non lin)

ASPH,L\LT RUBBER CONCRETE -- AR4L Permanent Deformation Characterization

0.0006 .-------------------------------------------------------~

0.0005

.E 0.0004 D L. ....

III

"D III

..... 00.0003 w -0:> :::J

E :::J U

~ 0.0002

0.0001

o4.~---,----~----~----~----_r----_r----~----~----~----4 o 2

[] Lab Data



8 10

-3.2

-3.4 -

-3.6 -

-3.B ....... c: -4 0 L. .... -4.2 Ul

"0 -4.4 Q.I .... 0

..... ::l -4.6 -~ E

::l -4.B -0 0 « -5 ..: "-'

01 -5.2 -a

..J

-5.4 -

-5.6 -

-5.B .,

-6 0

[J

ASPHALT RUBBER AR4L Permanent Deformation Characterization

r I

2

Lab Data

I I I I


o Calculated (Non lin)

I

B I

10

ASPHALT RUBBER CONCRETE AR5L Permanent Deformation Characterization

0.0006 ,-------------------------------------------------------~

0.0005

........ c , .!: 0.0004 '-'"

c o L +'

...... If) 0.0003 ~'O

@I .... o :J

~ 0.0002 u u <{

0.0001

o ~-----r----_r-----r----~----~----~----_,----_.r_--r_~--~ o 2

o Lab Data



8 10

........ c 0 L .... Ul

"t7 @) .... 0

.... :J ..,. E .... :J u u « ...., 0\ 0 -l

ASPHALT RUBBER CONCRETE -3.2

-3.3 -

-3.4 -

-3.5 -

-3.6 -

-3.7 -

-3.8 -

-3.9 -

-4 -

-41 -. I

-4.2 -

-4.3 -

-4.4 0

0

Permanent Deformation Characterization

2

Lab Data



.,. 8

AR5L

T

10

----c: .-, c:

.::::,. ............ c:U") .- I Ow .bo Vl.-

~-oUl N .., 1\1

"OE -1= ::l ........ E ::l U U «

ASPHALT RUBBER CONCRETE AR3L Permanent Deformation Charocterization

6

5

4

3

2

1

o ~'~--~----~----~----~----~-----r-----r----~----~----~ o 2

IJ Lab Data


o Colculoted (Nonlin)

8 10

-c 0 L ..... III

"0 @.I ..... 0

.... :J t; E

:J u u « ....., 01 0 .J


-4.4 -

-4.6 -

-4.B -

-5 -~

-5.2 .,

-5.4 -

-5.6 ...:

-5.B -

-6 -

-6.2 -

-6.4 -

-6.6 -•

-6.B 0


~

,-2

[] Lab Data

I

-



T

B

AR3L

......l

I

10

........ I:

'-I: '-" ........ 1:10 .- I Ow !:oo Ul .... ....

""""'Om """ iii QI

t5E 3t, E :::J U u «

ASPHALT RUBBER CONCRETE 3.4

3.2

3

2.8

2.6

2.4

2.2

2

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 0

[]


2

Lab Data


<> Calculated (Non lin)

AR4M

10 12

.....,. c c L. ....

11'1

1J u .... c

...... ::J ;';; E

::J 0 0 < ....., 01 0 ..J

ASPHALT RUBBER CONCRETE - AR4M -4.4

-4.6

-4.8

-5

-5.2

-5.4

-5.6

-5.8

-6

-6.2

-6.4

-6.6

-6.8

-7 0

IJ


2

Lab Data



10 12

ASPHALT RUBBER CONCRETE AR8M Permanent Deformation Characterization

0.00045 ,---------------------~----------------------------------_,

0.0004

0.00035 ,.... c

"-£ 0.0003 ....... c '2>.00025 ....

...... If) ..,. '" " !! 0.0002

0 :J

~.00015 0 0 «

0.0001

0.00005

o o 2

C Lab Data



8 10

....... .E

" ... -oJ III

" u -oJ

" ,.... :l

:!:i E :l u u c( '-"

0> 0 -I


-3.4

-3.5 . -3.6

-3.7

-3.B

-3.9

-4

-4.1

-4.2

-4.3

-4.4

-4.5

-4.6

-4.7

-4.B

-4.9 0

0


2

Lab Data



AR8M

B 10

ASPHALT RUBBER CONCRETE 0.00028

0.00026

0.00024

0.00022 .--.. c: '-0.0002 c:

q;J.00018 c: ·~)'0001 6 ... +'

..... 110.00014 ;!ij"t:l

*.00012 :::J E 0.0001 :::J ~.00008 « 0.00006

0.00004

0.00002


AR9M

o+T--~--~--~--~~--~--~--~--~~ o 2

D Lab + Calc (Lin)


~

8 10

Calc (Nonlin)

'"' c: D ... .... til

"D ., .... D

.... ~

~ E ~ U U

~ D\ 0

..J


-3.6 -

-3.7 -

-3.8 -

-3.9 -

-4 -

-4.1 -I~

-4.2 -

-4.3...!

-4.4 -

-4.5 -

-4.6 -

-4.7 ..;

-4.8 -:

-4.9

0

IJ Lob

2

+


--T

Cole (Un)


o

8

Calc (Non lin)

AR9M

I

10

ASPHALT RUBBER CONCRETE - AR9H 0.00028

0.00026

0.00024

0.00022

c: 0.0002 a .w.00018 II)

1'.00016 -~ J.00014 E ~.00012 u « 0.0001

0.00008

0.00006

0.00004

0.00002

0


2

IJ Lab Data



8 10

""' c: ·0 L.. ....

Ul

"0 G1 .... D

~ :::J ~ E

:::J U U « '-'

DI 0 -'

ASPHALT RUBBER CONCRETE Permanent Deformation Characterization

-3.5

-3.6 -

-3.7

-3.8

-3.9 -

-4 -

-4.1 ~

-4.2 -

-4.3 -

-4.4 -

-4.5 -I

-4.6 T---- 1 ---I I I ---,--- ------.-

0 2 4 6

o Lob Data


+ Calc'ulated (Linear)

.. 8

AR9H

-

.., 10

ASPHp\LT RUBBER CONCRETE - AR6H 0.00034

0.00032

0.0003

0.00028

0.00026

0.00024 c ·i1.00022 L

<OJ Ul 0.0002

j).00018 ..... <OJ

R.i ~.00016

~1.00014 g,.00012 c(

0.0001

0.00008

0.00006

0.00004

0.00002

0

0

Perrnanent Deformation Characterization

2

[] Lab Data



8 10

,..... c; 0 L..

-+J III

"0 u

<OJ 0

t;; :J w E

:J u u 5 0> 0 ..J


-3.5

-3.6

-3.7

-3.8

-3.9

-4

-4.1

-4.2

-4.3

-4.4

-4.5

-4.6

-4.7

-4.8

-4.9

0

[]


2

Lab Data



AR6H

8 10

ASPHALT RUBBER CONCRETE AR5H Permanent Deformation Characterization

7

6

5 c a_ LII}

iii I 4 1LI "00 IU~ ....

...... a UI ~:;IU

3 EE :::Ji= UV u «

2

1

O~+~----'------'-----'------.-----.------.-----'r---~ o 2 4 6 8

[J Lab Data



----- ---

ASPHALT RUBBER CONCRETE AR5H Permanent Deformation Characterization

-4

-4.2 - ..IiI

-4.4 -

-4.6 -,..... c: .- -4.8 -" ... .... Vl -5 -"0

" .... -5.2 -" _:::J

~E -5.4 ., :::J U u -5.6 -1 < '-'

0'1 -5.8 -0

...J -6 -

-6.2 -

-6.4 -

-6.6 +- 1 1-- - .--- I

0 2 4 6 8

c Lab Data



APPENDIX D

Permanent Deformation Parameters For All Material,

Aircraft, And Temperature Combinations; And Sample

Plots, Permanent Deformation Parameters Versus Temperature

156

APPENDIX D. PERMANENT DEFORMATION PARAMETERS FOR ALL MIIT[lUAI,

AIRCRAFT, ANlJ TEMPERATURE COMBINATIONS; AND SIIMPLE PLIlTS, PI:RMANENT

DEFORMATION PARAMETERS VERSliS TEMPFRATliRE

This appendix contains the permanent deformation parameters for each

material and each aircraft after the parameters have been adjusted to the

field stress level. Also in this appendix are samples of the plots of

the adjusted permanent deformation parameters versus temperature. The

plots for the DC-IO aircraft are included here.

In this appendix, the element numbers are the horizontal finite

element mesh rows, with element number 1 being at the top of the asphalt

layer and element number 7 being at the bottom. When no data are shown

for element number 1, the typical stress calculated for that aircraft

load in the top of the asphalt layer was negative. In that case, no

ratio (of permanent deformation parameter at field stress to D~rmaneot

deformation parameter at laboratory stress for the typical aspha;:

concrete material) could be calculated. This ratio was necessary far

calculating the parameter at field stress for the test material. Thus,

when no ratio could be calculated, the parameter from element number 2 was input in the computer program for element number 1 as well.

Note that the parameter does not change with element number, or

with increasing depth. This is because the parameter is not sensitive

to stress. It is, however, sensitive to temperature and to material.

157

PERMANENT DEFORMATION PARAMETER: p

AIRCRAFT: All

Temperature, of

Material Element 40 (4.4) 70 (21.1) AC-10 Control all 1.15xlO16 9.82xl03

ARC-Low all 3.42xlO16 2.54xlO16

ARC-Medium all 3.45xlO16 2.89xlO16

ARC-High all 1.30xlO15 4.72xl0 10

158

(oC)

100 (.37.7) 6.38xlO 16

1.92xlO4

2.50xlO16

5.23xl02

PERMANENT UEFORMATION PARAMETER: E o/Er

AIRCRAFT: DC-9

Temperatu re, of (oC)

Mater; a1 Element 40 (4.4) 70 (21.1) 100 (37.7)

AC-10 Control 2.46x101 6.43x10 4

2 3.07x103 4.99x101 1.15x105

3 3.72x103 5.99x10 1 1.0gx105

4 3.46x103 5.44x101 8.22x104

5 3.35x103 4.98x10 1 6.57x10 4

6 3.63x103 5.00x101 5.70x104

7 4.62x10 3 5.59x101 5.20x104

ARC-Low 1.23x104 1.94x10 2

2 4.10x103 2.50x104 3.47x102

3 4.96x103 3.00x104 3.30x102

4 4.61x103 2.73x10 4 2.48x10 2

5 4.47x103 2.49x104 1.98x102

6 4.85x103 2.50x104 1.72x102

7 6.17x103 2.80x104 1. 57x1,J 2

ARC-Medi um 4.87x10 2 3.43/ 1.'.'

2 2.67x103 9.88x102 6.14y1~;

3 3.23x103 1.19x103 0

5.84x10'

4 3.00x103 1.08x103 4.3gx103

5 2.91x103 9.88x102 3.50x103

6 3.16x103 9.91x102 3.04x103

7 4.01x103 1.11x103 2.77x103

ARC-High 1.48x102 3.01x101

2 9.17x103 3.00x102 5.38x101

3 1.11x104 3.60x102 5.12x101

4 1.03x104 3.27x102 1.84x101

5 1.00x104 3.00x102 3.07x101

6 1.09x104 3.00x102 2.66x101

7 1.38x104 3.36x10 2 2.43x10 1

159

PERMANENT DEFORMATION PARAMETER: B

AIRCRAFT: DC-9

Temperature, of (DC)

Material Element 40 (4.4) 70 (21.1) 100 (37.7)

AC-l0 Control 0.1870 0.0819

2 0.0789 0.2550 0.0896

3 0.0816 0.2640 0.0891

4 0.0806 0.2600 0.0856

5 0.0802 0.2550 0.0823

6 0.0813 0.2560 0.0798

7 0.0843 0.2610 0.0780

ARC-Low 0.0604 0.1790

2 0.0806 0.0827 0.1960

3 0.0834 0.0855 0.1950

4 0.0824 0.0841 0.1870

5 0.0819 0.0827 O.lflOO

6 0.0831 0.0827 0.1740

7 0.0861 0.0845 0.1700

ARC-Mectium 0.0472 0.0776

2 0.0799 0.0647 0.0849

3 0.0827 0.0669 0.0844

4 0.0816 0.0658 0.0811

5 0.0812 0.0647 0.0780

6 0.0823 0.0647 0.0780

7 0.0853 0.0661 0.0739

ARC-High 0.0665 0.2120

2 0.0878 0.0911 0.2320

3 0.0909 0.0942 0.2300

4 0.0897 0.0926 0.2210

5 0.0892 0.0911 0.2130

6 0.0905 0.0911 0.2060

7 0.0938 0.0931 0.2020

160

PERMANENT DEFORMATION PARAMETER: '-O/Er

AIRCRAFT: DC-l0

Temperature, of (OC)

Materi al Element 40 (4.4) 70 (21.1) 100 (37.7) AC-10 Control 6.27xlO4

2 2.30x103 4.l6xlO l 1.25xl0 5

3 4.06x103 6.66xlO l 1.48xl05

4 4.93x103 7.40xlO l 1.23xl05

5 5.66x103 7.60xl01 9.96xl04

6 7.19x103 8.38x101 8.49xl04

7 1.13xl04 1.06xl02 7.6lxl04

ARC-Low 1.89xl0 2

2 3.07x103 2.08x10 4 3.78xlO2

3 5.42xl03 3.33xl04 4.46xlO( 4 6.58xl03 3.70xlO4 3.72x10 2

5 7.56xl03 3.8lxl04 3.00xl02

6 9.60xl03 4.19x104 2.5fixl0 2

7 1.5lxlO4 5.29xlO4 2.29xlO2

ARC-Medium 3.34x103

2 2.00xl0 3 8.25xl02 6.69x103

3 3.53xl03 1.32x103 7.S9xl03

4 4.29xl03 1.47xl03 6.58xl03

5 4.92xl03 1.5lx103 5.31xl0 3

6 6.25xl03 1.66xl03 4.52x103

7 9.86xl03 2.l0xl03 4.06xl03

ARC-High 1 0.293xlO 2

2 0.687~1()4 0.250xl03 0.586xl02

3 O.12lxl05 0.400xl03 0.692xl0 2

4 0.147.<.105 0.445xlO3 O. 577xl 02

5 0.16 Q ·.105 0.457xlO3 0.465xl02

6 0.215,105 0.504xl0 3 0.396xl02

7 0.339xl05 0.636xl03 0.355xl02

161

PERMANENT DEFORMATION PARAMETER: (1

AIRCRAFT: DC-l0


Material Element 40 (4.4) 70 (21.1) 100 (37.7)

AC-l0 Control 1 0.0815

2 0.0736 0.2450 0.0905

3 0.0828 0.2690 0.0921

4 0.0850 0.2730 0.0903

5 0.0864 0.2740 0.0880

6 0.0886 0.2770 0.0860

7 0.0923 0.2850 0.0845

ARC-Low 0.1780

2 0.0752 0.0794 0.1980

3 0.0846 0.0869 0.2010

4 0.0868 0.0883 0.1970

5 0.0883 0.0886 0.1920

6 0.0906 0.0897 0.1880

7 0.0943 0.0921 0.1850

ARC-Medium 1 0.0772

2 0.0745 0.0621 0.0857

3 0.0838 0.0680 0.0873

4 0.0860 0.0690 0.0856

5 0.0875 0.0693 0.0834

6 0.0898 0.0702 0.0815

7 0.0934 0.0721 0.0801

ARC-High 0.2110

2 0.0819 0.0874 0.2340

3 0.0921 0.0958 0.2380

4 0.0946 0.0972 0.2340

5 0.0962 0.0976 0.2270

6 0.0987 0.0988 0.2220

7 0.1030 0.1010 0.2180

162

PERMANENT DEFORMATION PARAMETER: EO/Er

AIRCRAFT: 8-727

Temperature, DF (oC)

Material Element 40 (4.4) 70(21.1) 100 (37.7)

AC-10 Control 6.03xlO4

2 2.45x103 4.27xlO l 1.13xlO5

3 3. 77xl 03 6.14xlO l 1.25xlO5

4 4.15xl03 6.36xlO l 1.02xlO5

5 4.46xlO3 6.27xlO l 8.23xl04

6 5. 30xl 03 6.65xlOl 7.09xlO4

7 7.60xlO3 7.96xlO l 6.42xlO4

ARC-Low 1.82xlO2

2 3.28xlO3 2.14xlO4 3.41xlO 2

3 5.04xlO3 3.07xl04 3.76xlO2

4 5.55xlO3 3.19xlO4 3.06xlO 2

5 5.96xlO3 3.14xlO4 2.48xlO 2

6 7.08xlO3 3.33xlO4 2.14xl02

7 1.02xl04 3.99xlO4 1.93xl02

ARC-Medium 3.21xlO3

2 2.13xlO 3 8.47xl02 6.03xl03

3 3.28xlO3 1.22xl03 6.66xlO3

4 3.61xl03 1.26xl03 5.42xl03

5 3.88xl03 1.24xlO3 4.39xlO 3

6 4.61xlO3 1.32xl03 3.78xl03

7 6.61xlO3 1.58xl03 3.42xl03

ARC-High 2.80xlO l

2 7.34xl03 2.57xlO2 5.30xlO 1

3 1.13xlO4 3.69xlO2 5.80xl01

4 1.24xl04 3.83xl02 4.70xl01

5 1.33xlO4 3.77xlO2 3.80xl01

6 1.58xlO4 4.00xlO2 3.30xlO1

7 2.27xlO4 4.79xlO2 3.00xlO1

163

PERMANENT DEFORMATION PARAMETER: B

AIRCRAFT: B-727

Temperature, of (oC)

Mater; a1 Element 40 (4.4) 70 (21. 1 ) 100 (37.7)

AC-10 Control 1 0.0808

2 0.0749 0.2470 0.0894

3 0.818 0.2650 0.0904

4 0.0830 0.2670 0.0882

5 0.0839 0.2660 0.0856

6 0.0857 0.2690 0.0835

7 0.0891 0.2750 0.0819

ARC-Low 1 0.1767

2 0.0766 0.0799 0.1955

3 0.0836 0.0858 0.1977

4 0.0848 0.0864 0.1929

5 0.0857 0.0862 0.1871

6 0.0876 0.0869 0.1821::

7 0.911 0.0891 0.17~1

ARC-Med i urn 0.0766

2 0.0759 0.0625 0.0847

3 0.0828 0.0671 0.0857

4 0.0841 0.0675 0.0836

5 0.0849 0.0674 0.0811

6 0.0868 0.0680 0.0791

7 0.0902 0.0697 0.0776

ARC-High 0.2090

2 0.0834 0.0880 0.2312

3 0.0910 0.0945 0.2338

4 0.0924 0.0951 0.2281

5 0.0934 0.0949 0.2213

6 0.0954 0.0957 0.2159

7 0.0992 0.0982 0.2118

164

PERMANENT DEFORMATION PARAMETER: Eolr; r

AIRCRAFT: B-737


Materi al Element 40 (4.4) 70 (21.1) 100 (37.7)

AC-10 Control 1 1.44xlO3 2.67xl01 6.59xl04

2 2.75xlO3 4.53xlO l 9.72xl04

3 3.19xlO3 5.17xlOl 9.10xl04

4 3.06xl03 4.B4xlO l 7.21xlO4

5 3.02xl03 4.53xlO l 5.96xlO 4

6 3.28xl03 4.58xlO l 5.2hl04

7 4.08xl03 5.08xlOl 4.87xl04

ARC-Low 1.93xl03 1. 34xl 04 1.99xl0 2

2 3.67xl03 2.27xl04 2.93xlO2

3 4.26xl03 2.59xl04 2.74xl0 2

4 4.09xl03 2.42xlO4 2.17xl0 2

5 4.04xl03 2.27xl04 1.79xlO2

6 4.38xl03 2.29xl04 1.59xl02

7 5.45xl03 2.54xlO4 1.47xlO2

ARC-Medium 1.25xl03 5.30xlO 2 3.52xlO 3

2 2.39xl03 8.99xl02 5.18xlf)3

3 2.77xl03 1.02xl0 3 4.fl5xl0 3

4 2.66xl03 9.60xl0 2 3.85xlO 3

5 2.63xl03 8.99xl02 3.18xl03

6 2.85xl03 9.07xl0 2 2.81xl0 3

7 3.55xl0 3 1.01xlO 3 2.60xlO 3

ARC-High 4.31xlO3 1.61xl02 3.10xlO1

2 8.22xlO 3 2.73xl0 2 4.50xl01

3 9.54xl03 3.11xlO2 4.30xlO1

4 9.15xlO3 2.92xl0 2 3.40xl01

5 9.04xl0 3 2.73xl0 2 2.80xlO 1

6 9.80xl03 2.76xl0 2 2.50xl01

7 1.22xlO4 3.06xl02 2.30xlO1

165

PERMANENT DEFORMATION PARAMETER: S

AIRCRAFT: B-737

Temperature. of (oC)


AC-l0 Control 1 0.0548 0.2030 0.0823

2 0.0771 0.2500 0.0877

3 0.0795 0.2570 0.0869

4 0.0789 0.2540 0.n837

5 0.0786 0.2500 0.0806

6 0.0799 0.2510 0.0783

7 0.0828 0.2560 0.0765

ARC-Low 0.0560 0.0657 0.1800

2 0.0788 0.0810 0.1917

3 0.0812 0.0833 0.1899

4 0.0806 0.0822 0.1831

5 0.0804 0.0810 0.1762

6 0.0816 0.0812 0.1711

7 0.0846 0.0830 0.1673

ARC-Medium 0.0555 0.0514 0.n780

2 0.0780 0.0634 0.0831

3 0.0805 0.0651 0.0823

4 0.0798 0.0643 0.0793

5 0.0796 0.0634 0.0764

6 0.0809 0.0635 0.0742

7 0.0838 0.0649 0.0725

ARC-High 1 0.0610 0.0724 0.2129

2 0.0858 0.0892 0.2268

3 0.0885 0.0917 0.2246

4 0.0878 0.0906 0.2165

5 0.0876 0.0892 0.2084

6 0.0889 0.0894 0.2023

7 0.0922 0.0914 0.1979

166

PERMANENT DEFORMATION PARAMETER: EO/E:r

AIRCRAFT: 8-757



AC-10 Control 1.31xl03 2.50xl01 6.87xlO 4

2 3.29xl03 5.33xlO l 1.2Bxl05

3 4.02xl03 6.46xlOl 1.2lxl05

4 3.70xl03 5.BlxlOl 8.87xl04

5 3.57xl03 5.27xlOl 6.96xl04

6 3.89xl03 5.28xlO l 5.9Bxl04

7 5.01xl03 5.94xlO l 5.42xl04

ARC-Low 1.75xl03 1.25xl04 2.07xl02

2 4.39xl03 2.67xl0 4 3.B7xl02

3 5.37xl03 3.23xl04 3.64xl02

4 4.94xl03 2.91xl04 2.67xl02

5 4.76xl03 2.64xl0 4 2.10xl02

6 5.19xl03 2.64xl04 1.80x102

7 6.69xl03 2.98xl04 1.ii3xlO2

ARC-Medi um 1 1.14xl03 4.96xl0 2 3.66xl0 3

2 2.86xl03 1.06xl03 6.85x103

3 3.50xl03 1.2Bxl03 6.44xlO 3

4 1.21xl03 1.15xl03 4.73xl0 3

5 3.10xl03 1.04xl03 3.71xlO3

6 3.38xl03 1.05xl03 3.19xlO3

7 4.36xl03 1.lBxl03 2.B9xl03

ARC-High 3.92xl03 1.50xl02 3.20xlO l

2 9.B3xl03 3.21xl02 6.00xlO l

3 1.20xl04 3.89xl02 5.60xlOl

4 1.10xl04 3.50xl0 2 4.10xlOl

5 1.07xl04 3.17xl02 3.30xlO l

6 1.16xl04 3.18xl02 2.80xlO 1

7 1.50xl04 3.5Bxl02 2.50xlO l

167

PERMANENT DEFORMATION PARAMETER: 8

AIRCRAFT: B-757


Materi a 1 Element 40 (4.4) 70 (21. 1 ) 100 (37.7)

AC-10 Control 1 0.0329 0.1910 0.0830

2 0.0799 0.2590 0.0907

3 0.0826 0.2670 0.0901

4 0.0815 0.2630 0.0866

5 0.0811 0.2580 0.0832

6 0.0822 0.2580 0.0807

7 0.0852 0.2640 0.0788

ARC-Low 0.0337 0.0617 0.1814

2 0.0817 0.0838 0.1983

3 0.0844 0.0866 0.1970

4 0.0833 0.0851 0.1893

5 0.0829 0.0836 0.1819

6 0.0840 0.0836 0.1764

7 0.0870 0.0854 0.1722

ARC-Medium 0.0333 0.0483 0.0786

2 0.0809 0.0655 0.0860

3 0.0837 0.0677 0.0854

4 0.0826 0.0665 0.0820

5 0.0821 0.0654 0.0788

6 0.0832 0.0654 0.0764

7 0.0862 0.0668 0.0747

ARC-High 1 0.0367 0.0680 0.2145

2 0.0890 0.0923 0.2345

3 0.0920 0.0953 0.2330

4 0.0908 0.0937 0.2239

5 0.0903 0.0921 0.2151

6 0.0915 0.0921 0.2086

7 0.0948 0.0941 0.2037

168

Aircraft: DC-10

Material: AC-10 Control

20

18

16

14

12

0 .... · 0 · III 10 •

"0 -aJ All Elements ;;: .... Q. 8 ..... CJ 0 ..J

6

4

2

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

TEMPERATURE (OF.)

169

Aircraft: OC-10

Material: ARC-Low

Parameter: p

18

All Elemenls'_------_

18

14

jI: 12 o ~ ~ .. • 411 10 • :5! III -.... ....

a. 8 ..... ~ o .....

8

4

2

Og~~10~-2~0~~3~O~~4~O--~5~O--8~0~~7~O~~8~O--~80~~1~0~O-TEMPERATURE «ClFJ

170

Aircraft: DC-IO

Material: ARC-Medium

Parameter: p

17

All Elements

16

E ::I -1:1 4D E I • U • .. • 15 III •

1:1 -.! -..... Q. .... C-' 0 ..J

14

40 50 60 70 60 90 100

TEMPERA TURE (0 F.)

171

Aircraft: DC-10

Material: ARC-High

Parameter: p

18

18

14

s::. Cl12 -s::. I. U • .. • l1li 10 •

:5! CD --,..,

Q. 8 .... Cl o ..I

8

4

2

All Elements

OL-~ __ ~ __ ~~ __ ~ __ ~~~~ __ ~~~~ o 10 20 30 40 50 80 70 80 90 100

TEMPERATURE (OF.)

172

0 .... I · (,) •

III •

!! CD ;: .... ~

\oj .... 0

Co> ..... (!)

0 ...J

Aircraft: DC-lO

Material: AC-lO Control

Parameter: EOIEr

tI

6 Element

7

4

3

2

~~O------4~O~----~6~O----~G*O~----~70~----~8~O~----~90~----~100

TEMPERATURE (0 f.) 173

23 • 6

7

Aircraft: DC-10

Material: ARC-Low

Parameter: Eo/Er 5

~ 0 -I • u • .. •

&II •

:E .!! -,.. ~

I.l .....

0 I.l ..... ~

2

0 ...I

1

OL-~4~O----~50~----~e~O----~7~O~----~8~O~----~90~----~10~O~

TEMPERATURE (OF.) 174

3

2

5

6

7

Aircraft:

Material:

Parameter:

e :::I -'tI CD e I • U • .. •

III •

'tI -CD -..... -Co) .... 0 2 Co)

..... ~ 0 ...I

1

DC-IO

ARC-Medium

£0/ £r

Ob--4~O~----~5~O~----~80~----~7~O~----~8~O~----9~O~----1~O~O~


Aircraft: DC-10

Material:

Parameter:

4

&;

~ 3 &; I • U • ... •

III •

'C

.!! -,... ~

2 w .... Ii ... 0 0 ...I

1

o 10 20 30 40 150 80 70 80 90 100


2 4

7

0 ... I • 0 •

til •

"0 Q)

:;::: ,... CQ ....

Aircraft: DC-l0

Material; AC-l0 Control

Parameter: i3

0.32

0.26

o.

0.16

0.12

177

TEMPERATURE (OF.)

:t o I • (} · .. • 11!.

3:! Q)

;

....

Aircraft: DC-10

Material: ARC-Low

Parameter: S

0.24

TEMPERATURE (0 F.)

178

90 100

E :::J -0 Q)

E I • 0 • ... •

111

· -0 CIl .--......

CQ

.....

Aircraft: DC-I0

Material: ARC-Medium

Pa rameter: I'

0.10 Elemenl

7

3 0.09

~

0.08

0.07

0.08

0.05~ ____ ~ ____ ~~ ____ ~~ __ ~~ ____ ~~ __ ~~ ____ ~~_ 30 40 150 eo 70 80 90 100

TEMPERATURE (OF.)

179

.r.

.E'

.r. I q ~

.; :!i ., :;: .....

a::>

--

Aircraft: DC-10

Material: ARC-High

Parameter: i3

0.30

0.28

0.26

0.24

0.22

0.20

0.16

0.16

0.14

0.12

Element 7

0.081:0';------------

40 50 eo 70 80 90

TEMPERATURE (OF.)

180

100

APPENDIX E

Summary Of Aircraft Data; And Calculated

Estimates For Tire Contact Pressure Distributions

181

Aircraft: DC-9-41

Main Gear:

Type of Gear: Twin

Main Gear Dimension (in.): 24

Circular Imprint, Tire Radius (in.):

Tire Inflation Pressure (psi): 163

Max Load Per Tire (lbx10 3 ): 26.9

(Approximate)

Tire Contact Pressure Distribution:

Finite Element Node Number:

182

7.25

162.1

2

217.4

180.2 213.7

87.6

3 4 5 6

7.25 in.

Pircraft: DC-10-30 CF

Main Gear:

Type of Gear: Twin-Tandem

Main Gear Dimension (in.): 54x64

Circular Imprint, Ti re Radius (in.):


Max Load Per Tire (lbxl0 3 ): 50.3

(Approximate)

Ti re Contact Pressure Distribution:


183

9.30

184.3

247.1

204.9 242.8

99.5

2 3 4 5 6

9.30 in.

Aircraft: B-727-200

Ma in (;ear:

Type of Gear: Twin

Main Gear Dimension (in.): 34

Circular Imprint, Tire Radius (in.): 9.69


Max Load Per Ti re (lbxl0 3 ): 39.9

(Approximate)

Tire Contact Pressure Distribution:


184

167.3

1

224.4

196.0 220.5

90.4

2 3 4 5 6

R.69 in.

Aircraft: R-737-200C

Main Gear:

Type of Gear: Twin

Main Gear Dimension (in.): 30.5

Circular Imprint, Tire Radius (in.):


Max Load Per Tire (lbxl0 3 ): 25.8

(Approximate)

Ti re Contact Pressure Distribution:

Fi n ite E1 ement Node Number:

185

7.45

147.3

197.4

163.7 194.1

79.5

2 3 4 5 6

7.45 in.

Aircraft: R-757

Ma i n Gea r:

Type of Gear: Twin-Tandem Main Gear Dimension (in.): 34x45

Circular Imprint, Tire Radius (in.): 7.21 Tire Inflation Pressure (psi): 175 Max Load Per Ti re (lbx10 3 ): 28.6

(Approximate) Tire Contact Pressure Distribution:

Fi nite E1 ement Node Number:

186

174.3

2

233.7

193.8 229.7 94.1

3 4 5 6

7.21 in.

APPENDIX F

Beam Fatigue Laboratory Data For Asphalt

Concrete And· Asphalt-Rubber Concrete

187

APPENDIX F. BEAM FATIGUE DATA

Asphalt-Rubber Low at 340 F

Test Date: 11-B5 Actual Predi cted

Beam E Bending Cycles to Cycles to Number Modulus Strain Fail ure Fail ure

F19L 589400 .0001525 604510 542690

F23L 552600 .0001627 607140 406520

F24L 982300 .0001525 1003590 542690

F26L 468700 .0006394 4440 890

F27L 1171700 .0002557 15490 53670

F28L 901300 .0003325 12740 16590

F30L 937400 .0005115 700 2410

K1 = 4.466 E-12 K2 = 4.476

Correlation Coefficient R=- .93

Asphalt-Rubber Low at 680 F

Test Date: 7-85 Actua 1 Predi cted

Beam E Bending Cycles to Cycles to Number Modulus St ra in Fail ure Fail ure

F8L 124900 .0007196 9080 9100

F4L 153300 .0005864 19950 17400

F1L 146600 .000613 9410 15120

F3L 150100 .0003865 139250 65120

F9L 146500 .0004092 25730 54330

F2L 136800 .0004731 54270 34320

F6L 205000 .0002339 114670 319190

F7L 144200 .0003325 163660 104830

F5L 327400 .000183 1084220 693430

K1 = 1.026 E-6 K2 = 3.165


188

BEAM FATIGUE DATA

Asphalt-Rubber Low at 104°F

Test Date: 9-85

Beam Number

Fl0L

F11L

F13L

F14L

F15L

F17L

F20L

F21L

F22L

F27L

E Modulus

26500

13500

291000

44600

32100

28400

15300

19700

241000

9800

Bending St ra in

.0018125

.0026656

.0007996

.0005371

.0011195

.000144

.0023458

.0018125

.00143933

.0042628

Kl = 2.718 E-6 K2 = 3.383


Asphalt-Rubber Medium at 34°F

Test Date: 11-85

8eam Numbe r

F11M

F12M

F15M

F17M

F21M

F26M

F24M

F25M

F28M

E Modulus

328200

199500

398900

455900

389200

375900

409100

693800

5041000

Bending Strain

.0002029

.0005565

.0002782

.0002434

.0005704

.0005906

.0005425

.0003199

.0007033

K1 = 9.913 E-l0 K2 = 4.035

Correlation Coefficient R=- .85 189

Actua 1 Cycles to

Fa i 1 u re

2500

1990

130370

211740

14380

18530

2830

8870

4570

270

Ac t u a 1 Cycl es to Fai 1 ure

529760

19320

211120

868600

24680

55590

168100

39760

640

Predi cted Cycles to Fail ure

5140

1390

81950

314970

26250

68250

2150

5140

11220

280

Predicted Cycles to

Fa i 1 u re

7882100

13450

220430

377810

12170

10580

14890

125420

5230

BEAM FATIGUE DATA

Asphalt-Rubber Medium at 68 0 F

Test Date: 6-85

Beam Number

F8M

F1M

F5M

F9M

F2M

F7M

F6M

F4M

F3M

E Modulus

221000

731000

39500

46000

75800

145700

87600

67200

85100

Bending St ra; n

.0030919

.0009002

.001688

.0010128

.0003515

.0001828

.0003547

.0003965

.000313

Kl = 3.156 E-5 K2 = 2.822


Asphalt-Rubber Medium at 104 0F

Test Date: 9-85

Beam Number

Fl0M

F13M

F14M

F16M

F18M

F19M

F20M

F22M

F23M

F25M

E Modulus

35500

17100

14300

26300

18000

18900

10500

22500

28200

26300

Bending Strain

.00225081

.0010406

.0018568

.0008437

.0009843

.001688

.0025322

.0007875

.0007875

.0008437

K1 = 2.823 E-6 K2 = 3.469

Correlation Coefficient R=- .85 190

Actual Cycles to

Failure

680

7340

1780

8030

140350

1766120

92720

130000

449560

Actual Cycles to Failure

4190

15460

13780

37990

413700

6770

3070

358790

81470

327930

Predi cted Cycles to

Failure

380

12460

211 0

8940

177110

1121570

172630

126120

245780

Predicted Cycles to Failure

4340

63010

8450

130440

76410

11760

2880

165720

165720

130440

BEAM FATIGUE OATA

Asphalt-Rubber High at 34°F

Test Date: 12-85

Beam Number

F11 H

F14H

F16H

F17H

F18H

F21 H

F23H

F25H

E Modulus

585900

585900

585900

701700

701700

294700

208200

293300

Bending St ra in

.0008184

.0005115

.0005115

.0002135

.0002135

.000305

.0014393

.0012261

Kl = 3.824 E-7 K2 = 3.192


Asphalt-Rubber High at 680 F

Test Date: 7-85

Beam Number

F5H

F2H

F9H

F3H

F8H

F1H

F6H

F4H

F7H

Fl0H

E Modulus

116000

1061000

73600

56400

184100

36300

35100

80800

166500

52200

Bending Strain

.0002295

.0002573

.0003617

.0011812

.0003617

.0020819

.0025297

.0005495

.0003199

.0019131

K1 = 4.895 E-4 K2 = 2.516


191

Actual Cyc 1 es to

Failure

240

1660

11900

85400

357970

763400

1790

1820

Actual Cycles to

Fail ure

770870

504090

267030

6430

139820

2130

1940

117700

342230

5210

P red i cted Cycles to Fail ure

2740

12280

12280

199640

199640

63940

450

750

Predicted Cyc 1 es to Fai 1 ure

705580

529050

224660

11430

224660

2755

1680

78420

305860

33100

BEAM FATIGUE DATA

Asphalt-Rubber High at 104°F

Test Date: 10-85

Beam Number

F12H

F13H

F15H

F19H

F20H

F22H

F25H

F26H

F27H

F24H

E Modulus

21800

20400

16500

9400

24600

15200

41000

16500

15200

17300

Bending Strai n

.0016526

.0023456

.0021857

.005177

.0019458

.0015726

.005331

.0021857

.0010487

.001386

K1 = 1.020 E-4 K2 = 2.948


Asphalt Concrete Control at 34°F

Test Date: 12-85

Beam Number

F20C

F21C

F22C

F23C

F25C

F26C

F27C

E Modulus

435500

638300

531900

569900

1314100

1489300

785600

Bending St rai n

.0008156

.0003478

.0004173

.0001947

.0002365

.0002086

.0004521

K1 = 1.428 E-6 K2 = 2.920 Correlation Coefficient R=- .62

192

Actua 1 Cycles to

Failure

22080

6760

5430

510

2450

11650

620

27220

111 050

21050

Actua 1 Cycles to

Fail ure

470

97130

127640

469280

6590

15510

3700

Predi cted Cycles to Fai 1 ure

16290

5800

7140

580

10060

18860

520

7140

62280

27360

Predicted Cycles to

Failure

1490

17990

10560

97770

55470

79940

8360

BEAM FATIGUE DATA

Asphalt Concrete Control at 68 0F

Test Date: 8-85

Beam Number

F6C

F9C

F4C

F5C

F8C

F2C

F7C

F3C

E Modulus

133900

170400

151200

187500

119700

104200

117200

171500

8ending St ra in

.0004476

.0002813

.0003964

.0003836

.000601

.0006906

.0005115

.0002796

Kl = 9.475 E-12 K2 = 4.687


Asphalt Concrete Control at 104 0 F

Test Date: 10-85

Beam Number

FlOC

Fll C

F12C

F13C

F14C

F16C

F17C

F19C

E Modulus

4500

7000

8200

7700

10900

7200

6600

11700

Bending St ra in

.0079965

.0037946

.0032325

.0023069

.0016317

.0024757

.003373

.0007593

Kl = 3.209 E3 K2 = 2.348


193

Actua 1 Cycles to

Fa i 1 u re

32530

710110

56200

181800

9120

11100

17950

301300

Actual Cycles to

Fa i 1 u re

1080

520

1050

6970

9940

3040

16100

148900

P red i cted Cycles to Fail ure

47350

417330

83630

97520

11890

6200

25320

429280

Predictej Cyel es to

Fa; 1 ure

270

1550

2260

49100

11270

4240

2050

67940

APPENDIX G

ILLIPAVE Damage Results, With Descriptions

Of Calculations For Combined Traffic Damage

•

194

APPENDIX G. ILLIPAVE DAMAGE RESULTS, WITH DESCRIPTION OF

CALCULATIONS FOR COMRINED TRAFFIC DAMAGE

The printouts in this Appendix summarize the damage results of the

ILLIPAVE analyses performed for this study. There are 16 printouts, one

for each combination of the four climatic zones and the four materials

tested. Each printout shows the resulting damage when each plane was

considered as making up the total traffic number, and the resulting

damage after the combined traffic pattern containing five aircraft was

accounted for.

Table 18 in the text summarizes the numbers of aircraft passes per

day at the critical point in the pavement for each ai rcraft type during

each year. In order to calculate the damage due to the combined traffic,

the numbers of each aircraft had to be made cumulative for each year.

Then, for each year, the percentage of the total cumulative traffic which

each aircraft represented was calculated. This percentage appears in the

printouts in Column A labeled "~ of Total Traffic". The traffic data in

this form are shown in the table preceding the damage printouts.

The ILLIPAVE program calculated the damaqe index based on laJora~0'v

fatigue conditions and the rut depth which could be expected ~veri j~!'

if all of the trilffic had been made up of the same aircraft, ~nes~ oro

shown in the printouts in Columns Band D, which are labeled "Damage

Index - Total" and "Rut Depth - Total ". Multiplying Column A times

Column B gives Column C, which indicates the amount of damage index,

which that aircraft contributed in that year to the combined traffic

damage index. Multiplying Column A times Column D gives Column E, which

indicates the amount of rut depth which that aircraft contributes in that

year to the combined traffic rut depth. Summing Column C for each

aircraft for any year and dividing by 13 gives the damage index due to

the combined traffic for that year and adjusted from laboratory to field

fatigue conditions.

gives the rut depth

Summing Column E for each aircraft for any year

due to the combined traffic for that year. These

sums are shown on the second page of each printout next to "All Traffic".

195

Cumulative Critical Passes Per Day of Combined Aircraft Traffic.

OC-9 OC-1O 8-727 B-737 B-757 Total

Year Number % Number % Number '!; Number '!; Number % Number "f.

1 61 100.0 61 100.0

2 116 100.0 116 100.0

3 148 94.9 5 3.2 3 1.9 156 100.0

4 162 84.8 17 8.9 12 6.3 191 100.0 ..... <0 5 109 75.4 32 14.3 23 10.3 224 100.0 '"

6 174 63.5 65 23.7 35 12.8 274 100.0

7 177 57.8 86 28.1 43 14.1 306 100.0

8 181 52.8 110 32.1 52 15.2 343 100.0

9 185 48.2 137 35.7 62 16.1 384 100.0

10 191 43.3 174 39.5 76 17.2 441 100.0

11 198 39.0 218 42.9 92 18.1 508 100.0

12 206 35.2 269 45.9 111 18.9 586 100.0

13 210 31.5 335 4fUl 135 19.7 686 100.0

17 251 22.9 1 0.1 1110 55.6 234 21.3 1 0.1 1097 1 00 . I)

20 267 18.6 9 n.1i R42 58.6 312 21.7 B 0.5 143B 100.n

lllNI, ; MA lE." 1 (\1. :

W..;.t. 1·:I ... ·~~ZI···

(:,[; :10 Cunt.1" Cl'1

I'LANI:. t)( .. ()~,\

I)r; :I 0

:I 4

10

n:A" .[

I '.'

•. .1

6 , .'

:I

4 , . •• J

A Z of'

TO I • rRAf " '1 ,,000 !.oot) 0.'11"1 0.<'1411

B UAMA(it: tot n I

"/ ~ ,S:·~L" -o:~~ J..4:;1,~()l

J " 'J~.'" -- ():I ) •. .5'':::_ '0 I

0 .. '/'~',4 :.?" ~J(JF:" 0 J O.f.,:\~; . .').4,,1: .,,)! I)" ~')J<I :;-'" fJ3L "P] 0.:)2/ 4.:!91:"()\ O.4U;' 4,,80E.01 O.4.n 5. ::; 11,>0 I () . J 'I () (). :,0 :·.:d,· (,\ 1 O.\:·,J 7.:\·)b>Ol 0" :.11::, H. :',/f" 0:1 O.V'I 1.410,100 0" 1 1:::6 :1" U()L. t·OO

1.. of I)r-\I'IAGE 1 In • Tr,:AF Lui.,,·1

0.0(1) O.O()O 0.000 0,,000 0.000 O.(lOO ().,ooo 0.000 0 .. 000 O~(iO(>

0.000 0.000 0.000

C D E 1 ND[ X h'I.1'I lH.Y I H

total J,,67l··07 ~.~9~O] ~.49l-01

I. '~':",I:-O.l. 6.~!~11:.-()1. 6. L'I:.·' 0.1 ) U~.-,F··01 (),,()~'.L-()·! t-,,,:.I,()~·-O·J

;:>"O.h '()1 6.'/~)1·:·()! :,.B'): 'I)J

;.' ) rl. .. ·0:1 /,;.')"-OJ :""l,4f 0] '.1.., 17!- ·01 /.5:JI" 01 :t,,:.;I.I· '(j!

;-'.;:>.11.. ·0:1 i.U()I·(" 4,,:JII. 0:1 ;·~,,:;)6r .. O! n.O:~b:·OI 4.:!,:1I··()J ;;',,:IH .... OJ H.:?lL. 0:1 :.,,~";:I 0:1 :~ •. .l'i"1:·()1 ),401,0] ? ~jnF .() I. :.',. /01:····0:1

,'"2 .. 'F"() I. J.4f,I. ... ·0:l JNDD "to;'.::!-I ~~~ 0.001: I'O() O.OOl.+(lO 0.001' ,Oil o . (AiL.: 00 () • ',)0 Ie -+- 01.) O.OOf+OO 0" 0':.'" :·00 o. 00L .~ O() (i,nnL:OO 0.001. +00 ()., O()I: iOn 0.001.100 0.OOIC.100

n.5HE'()IL7}1 OJ. H.Y::'L'Ol :1,41'.1:. OJ 'I.)HI:·OI ,LJ7r::· III 'i , 7 OF 0:1 :1" 0 (, t= .. I) 1 1. I.n +00 2.,: . ..71'{)) 1 ~'.~)I.:IOc' ~~, ;-'?I'··(lj

IWT DrYT" total "1.(.-1 .. ",1'''<1.

O. O()I, +00 0.001.-+00 0,001::'00 0" 001-,' 00 ()" 001: .. +()O 0.001.+00 O.OOl+OO 0. OOf. '1·00 (). OOt, 100 0" OOf. '00 o ~ 00:. (,00 (>.001 '00 0" OOi:. 1·00

O~OOl 4ft311:.-+()O i,,,~1jt "O~1 : .. 1,.:)01:+0(.1 :" .. :·_)DL'~O~!' (I. 006 ~. /,7L : on :1.40\:,,02 )" 4n.10() I." ',2jl: .. ()~!

%, uf l.!(,f1A(il: lNDI::A: I~tn IJI: "" H 1m. Tf~AI'. t,ot.."l totaln:: tDt.al tot",nX

0.000 O.OOF+OO O.OOl{OO 0.000 O.OOE'OO O.OO~+()O O.O:I,:) :L ~"/L··(il L:I 41.:--02 H • ."H, OJ ;.>. B~;r·,O;'! ()" 08'; 4 •. iJI::>·() I. ,5, 8?r:-o;·~ ? :131::.'() 1 H" :WI:. ,OJ (),,'14.,~ ~.I"ln"Ol I.:\~'I:·();-' 1,',6t:rO:l :i.,\BI.--OJ O.?3/ 6.271.-01 1.49[-0! 1.02L+()O ).41r .. ()j

U.:'Ul ',.'.00101 J ,,'n'l OJ :I ,,()41 ':(l(! ~).'/!,r·(lJ o.:ln 7.f:l4F: .. Ol 2,,~·;:·)I::"·()J L,)HI:IOO \'';'.;(: .. OJ On:~~'j) B,,/nr:···()1 ~~,,],~!I:'-'O] 1 ~11E':OO :_·'"Y~.Jr "(>:1

O • .j9~) .l..OJH·()() .L?lll:.·()J 1..151:(10 4":"LOI (],,4;'''/ :1 ,,:iM+(lO 4 ,,','CI:' 0:1 1.:I'il'+(,il ';,.111: ()'I

O.4~:jY 1 .. ~41'+()() ,~".I2,1. ,01 1.·?4F+()O :,.,,',''>' \"1 O.4UB l.:;,/L+()() 1'"(,6\ .. ·01 l.;'''/L·\OO f,,!,H 'Or ().~56 2.~8l.()0 1.44~+0() 1.4Y~+UO H.~Ol()J ().~j86 3.401.+()() j ,,'J'?LlOO 1.621:+00 Y.48l 01

197

A B C D E 7- of DAMAGE INDEX I~LJT DEPTH

PLANE YEAI~ TDT • TI,AF • total total*% tot.al tot-a 'U,:' 1~"-737 1 0.000 6.4'iE-02 O.OOE+OO 4.89[-01 O.OOE+OO

" 0.000 1 .. 2~~E' ~~O 1 O.O()E+OO 5 .. ~j2E-Ol 0.00[+00 <.

:5 O.()19 .I .• 66E'-O 1 3.15E-0:3 ;:;. 88E -()1 1. UE--02 -4 o. 06:~ ::> .. O::IF --0 1. 1. 2UE-O~' 6.16E·"Ol 3. BBE-'()2 ::; 0.10:, 2. :.lO1~ -.. 01. 2 .. 45[.·--02 ('.39E>01. 6. ~'j(lI::"02 6 0.1.28 2,,'11[ .... 01 ~l .. nr.:--02 6" ;H.-Ol 8,,:::i9["'O::~ J 0.141 ' r,L'f:' 0 1 4 • ~:'j'iE--02 (,. 'lOE--O :1. 9. nE -o:;! .' ,~ .. .:..d _ .... . .

f;j O. ] ;:;;~ :L 6~)r:: -()l 5 .. ~J4E'-()2 7.10E-01 1. .. OU[·-O j 9 O. I. (, .l 4. OHE"O I. b" ~-j7l'-02 ./. 3.lL--O 1 1. HlI:::-O 1

10 0 .. 1 ~i'~.~ I, "i,'iE: -0:1. 8" 07[--O:~ 7" !:j'7L -0 :1. 1. .311:"·OJ 1 J o. HII ::i. 401::: ··01. 'i" JtIl~"O;~ 7.89E·()1 1 ,,"::\f.::-·!) 1

12 0 .. 18'/ 6 .. 23L-Ol :1 .113E--Ol B.21.L-O:l. 1. ,,!'/;jf:: .-. 01 1,1, 0.1.9; ).2'1E"OI. J .• 441:: "().l U • ;iBI'::-() l 1 • (, '.)1:.: -- 0 .l

L' O.2:i3 'J. .. 20L+OO 2.~j6L--O:l. '7.9 /,E-OJ. 2" 12F:--O 1 20 0.21/ J.::iHE+O() 3.4,3E-01. J. .OOEH)O 2. :l!:d: --0 1

'" of l)M~AGE INDEX I·Wl Ur.YIH I.

YEAI~ TDr • n;:AI'" • totdl l~otaU:% ~Clta 1. t.ot d 1.:( l.

B···/5'l 1. O.O()O O.O()[+OO o . () () L';()O r,

0.000 O.OOE+OO 0" 001,+00 .:. ~~ O.OO() 0.00[+00 0.001".+00 4 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO ::) 0 .. 000 O.O()F+(l() (l.OOE+OO

6 0.000 O.O()[+OO O.OOf::+OO 'l 0 .. 000 O.O()[+OO O.()()E+OO U 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOf::+()O

'i 0.000 O"OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 10 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 11 0.000 O.OOE+OO 0.00[+00 1 ''> ()"OOO 0.00[+00 O.OOE+OO

L.l O.O()() O.OOE+OO O.OOH·O() 11 0.001 1. (,71::+00 1. .b7E--·O.' L~6E+OO 1.2M:--O.5

20 o. ()O~j ;'.'. 20[ +00 1.lOE .... 02 1.36E+O() 6.80E-03 7- of f)MAGE INDEX fWT DEPTH

YEAR TOT, ·II\AF. tot. ,':%/13 tota'l.*% All. 'II' .. +'. .I. 1 .000 ::;.86E-03 5.49E-()l

., ,- 1.000 1.1~'[""()2 6.22E-01 .. .1 .• 000 J..54E-O~ 6.6'>'E-·01 .J

4 1.000 1 • 'J~'JE--O:'>' 'l.1.1E--O:1 I;: ,J .1..000 2. :.I!:lE .. O~ 7.4BE-01 6 J .000 3.10l--02 8.08E·-Ol ; 1.000 ;\ .. !:j7E"O:~ !:l.4H:--01

B 1.000 It .101:::--,02 8./61::--01

9 .1..000 4. /OE--'02 9.1:lE-01

10 1.000 5. !5:?L ·-02 9. ~j5E--O 1

11 1 .000 6. 4,9E -02 1.00E+()O 1 ~, 1 .. 000 7.62E·-02 L 05E+OO .-U .l.()OO 9.071:,,02 1.11E+OO

17 1.OO() 1.:)6E-01 1.301::+00

20 1.000 2.10E-01 1.43E+00

198

llJN~~ : Wet I-rl?~:'::.;o

MATERIAL:I~l.

I. of D(')MAGt J.lml::.X IILfl !.Il:YTII F'LANI,~ Y I,Af< rill .. 11@ totdl total'7. tot,ai. tot,~ 1 :.:;~ [)C-O~' J 1.000 ::.~ .. ()::~E ··-O:·! ? .. 02E·-02 1.ObE·01 1.06L·-0:1

') .. '" 1.000 ,5.841::,"-02 ,~. 84l-02 1 • 66b: -0 I. J. • f> 61: 01 ::l 0.94'1 ~j. ) 71:. ·-0;·) 4 .. '10l:·O~'. ~' .. O;:~r: -01 l .. ~·lL OJ 4 0.0411 6 • .5..5l ·02 5.37E-02 ~' •. SOl-O 1. 1 • Y~"L --0 I ~ o .l~,4 '1.4:·~E·O:·~ 5 .. bOI:--02 2. ~j4E:'()1 1.'12f..-OJ b o . b ~·S~:·; 9.08E-·02 5.76E-02 2.881::-01 J. • f-j,IL ·0 J

;' 0.5'78 1 .OH:--01. 5. 8bE -O~) 3. 08E -·():I 1.'78E-01 8 0.52/ 1.14E-01 5.99E-02 3 • .50E-01 I.. '74E -01 c,> 0.48~) 1. 27[·-01 6.13E-02 3.::i2E-01 1.'10[--01

10 0.43.5 1. 461:-01 6.33E·()2 ..5. 8~~t:-0 1 1.6~)I:·-Ol

11 0.390 1.68F-Ol 6. ~J6E--02 4 .1~jE--Ol 1 .. 62[:-01 1 ') "- O • . 3~j2 1.941::-.. 01 6.8.5[--02 4. ~:jOb:"O I. L~J8E-01

13 O.~H::; 2.27['01 'l.16E-02 4.91L·-01 1 • ~;:,[ ·-0 1 11 0.229 3.74E-·01 IL ~j'lE -·02 6.431:·()I. 1.4'7E-01 20 0.186 4 .. 93E-01 '1.161:--02 'l.42E-Ol J .. 38[.-01

7. of DANA[J[ INDEX l~lJ r DE:F'rH YEAR TOT. TI\(.lF. tot,)' t.ot a 1. ,:% 1.01.,,'1 t.eJl iJ 1 ,(7-

DClO .l 0.000 1.12[··01 O. OO[ H)() 2 • .I.J.E-·01. O.OOl+OO '" 0.000 ~'. .141:: .. ·01 0.00[+00 3.22E-01 0.00[+00 ,. 3 O.()OO 2.8'110-·01 O.OOF.::+OO 3.0/1'::"'01 O.OOE+OO 4 0.000 3.52E-0:1 O.OOE+OO 4.3'i'E-01 O. OOE·J 00 ~ 0.000 4. J.31:: ·01 O.OOL+OO 4.83E·-()1 O.OOL+OO 6 0.000 ~j. 05[--01. O.O()[+OO ~j.441:··01 O.O()~+OO

'7 0.000 :.:i.64t::--Ol 0.001:+00 :':;.80E·--01 0.00[+00 tl 0.000 6.3~'.E-O:l. 0.00[+00 (".201:-01 O.OOE+OO 9 0.000 'l.on·01. O. c)OE+OO 6.61E--OJ. O. OOl: +00

10 0.000 8.1 ~'.[·-Ol O.OOHOO 7.14[-01 O.OOE+OO 11 0.000 9.3::;I::--Ol 0.0010+00 '7. nt--01 O.OOHOO 1 ':, 0.000 1.08E+OO O.OOE+OO B.35[-Ol O.OOE+OO 13 0.000 1.26E+00 O.()OE+()O 9.09E·-()1 O.O()E+OO 17 O.OOJ 2.08E+OO 2.08E-03 1 .18E+00 L18E-03 20 0.006 2.74E+00 1. 64E-02 1..351::+00 8.0'/10-0.3

I. of' DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEPTH TOT.TRAF. t.ot.al totalr./. t.ot M 1 t.otal*X

B-n'l 1 0.000 4.9'7E-02 O.OOE+OO 1.39E-Ol 0.00[+00 2 0.000 9.451':-·02 O.OOE+OO 2.16['-01 O.OOl+OO 3 0.032 1 • ~~7E -·01 4.06E-03 2. 62E --01 8. 37E-0;~ 4 0.089 1.~;6E-Ol 1. ~mE·02 2.97[·--01 2 .. 6~jE-02

" ,J 0.143 1.82[-·01 2.61.E-02 3.28E-Ol 4.69[-02 6 0.237 2.2:S[-01 5.29E-02 3./11:::,01 8.'7YE02 '1 0.28:1. ~.'. 49E'Ol 'l.OOE-02 3.96E-01 1.111:'·-01 8 0 • ..521 2.79['01 8.97E-02 4.24[-01 1.:~6E--01

c,> 0.3~,'l 3.13E·-01 1.121:-01 4.53E-01 1.62[·-01. 10 O. 39~j 3.591::'-01 1.4~E-01 4.90E-Ol 1.'/4E-01 11 0.42</ 4.141::-'01 1. n[-01. ~.31[-O1 2.28E-Ol 12 0.45'7 4.1'/[-·01 ::'.191::-01 5.7::;E·01 ::'.641':--01 13 0.488 5.59E-Ol 2.'73E-01 6.2'lE-01 3. OM ·-01 1/ 0.556 9.20£-01 5.121:-01 8.18E--01 4.551::-01 20 0.586 1.21E+00 7.10E"·01 9.41E-01 5.51l·-01

199

i. of DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEPTH PLANE YEAR TOT.TRAF. tot.al total*% total tot.al*% 1!,-7,5 ! J 0.000 1.40E--02 O.OOi:+OO 9.22E-02 O.OOE+OO

" 0.000 2.67E·-02 O.OOE+OO 1.45E-01 O.OOE+OO <.

~~ 0.0J.9 3.5'/E-02 6. B:~F. --()4 1..771::·-01 s. ~~6E .. ·0.l , 0.063 4" 40E· .. O:·.' ~~ • '/7'1: "uO~'5 2.0IF·-OJ. j • ~)7E··(): •. ' 't

~~i 0 • .1.0,5 :..:i. I,sE .. 02 ~. ~H [·0.1 :'.23E·O.l. :~. :lOE·();c " O. j:·~U {;. :5:1I:>O~.' B.O'/[·-·O;1 ;;~,,53F-Ol ;'. .. :, 4 I",· () 2 0;;,\ .. ,

0.1.41 7.041::"02 9 .. <}JL -·0:5 ~'./li':"()l s. B~'I:·().2 /

0 O. J ~)2 /. H9E·-()2 :I. .. :·'OE,,·()::.' ::. 'JOE -()1 I; .. 41E"O:~ <} O. Ud 8.041':'02 .1..421:,:,02 ,j.1U:-·()J ::; .. OO[ -0;'>

1.0 (). j n :I..02F-()1 1 • 7~.iE·-·02 3.37F-01 ~i. !l()I:-'-02 11 O • .l.llJ. 1.1./r-:"·Ol 2 .. J. ~~I::-'02 ;l. MI:'''!).I. () . bJE ·-O;.·~ 1. :;.~ 0.189 :t.3!:iE-():1 2" ~:)!jL -.. 02 :5.'17E-01 -, .!)11-::·-02 , 13 O. 191 l ; 5t1i:: .. ·() 1 :5 ... l11:::-· O;~ 4.J5[ .. ·0.l iJ. ~61C:·-()2 1.'7 (I • ~~ 13 2.60[-01 ~.:j It ~j4E·-O::.~ ~L ?lE-OJ 1. .. ;,2E -():l 20 O.2J./ 3.42E-·01 / • 4JE -·02 6. ~YI::"'O 1 1 .. 4:1[-0.l

:1. of l)AMAG~: INDEX I(lJl DI'YTI·I YEAR TOT. TI(AF. t()ta1. totaH,% tOt-d I. total ;;:;;

e.-;~j'7 1. 0.000 3.1J.I::·-02 O.()OE+OO :I. 8:5E _.() 1 0.00[+00 " 0.000 5.92E-02 O.OOE+OO 2.59[-01. O.OOE+OO <.

:1 0.000 /.96[-,02 O.OO[+()O :~. 03E --01. O.OOE+()O 4 0.000 9.75E-02 O.OOE+OO 3 • .37E-01 O.OOI::+()O "' .J 0.000 1. • 14E"·Ol. O.OO[+()O ;5.67[·"()1 O.OOE+()O 6 O.O()O 1.40E·-·Ol O.OOE+OO 4.07E"·0l. O.OOE+OO -; 0.000 1 • ~j6E --0 1 O.()OE+OO 4.3l.E-O:l 0.00[+00 8 0.000 1.75E-·0.1 O.OOE+()() 4. 57E --0 l. O.()()E+()() 9 O.OO() 1.96E--Ol O.O()[+OO 4.B4E"-Ol O.OOE+O()

lO O.()OO 2 .~~5E-Ol 0.00[+00 5. l<}E ·-01 O.OOE+()O 11 0.000 2. 59E-"Ol. O.OOE+OO 5.57E·-OI O.OOE+OO 1. ~, O.()()O 2.99E-·Ol O.OOE+OO !':j.98E--Ol O.OOE+()O 13 0.000 :5 • ~j()E -·0:1. 0.00[+00 6.46E-()1 O.OOE+OO 1/ 0.001. 5.77E·-Ol ~;. '77E"04 8.21E·-01 a.21E-04 20 0.005 '7. 5'lE --0:[ .3. 79E --03 'l.33E--Ol 4.66E·-03

% of DAI'lAGE INDEX fWr DU:'TH YEAR TOT. TI(AF. tot.'.;Z!13 tot. a 1 *%

A I. l Tra f. 1 1.000 J. • 55E ·_·0;; L 061: -0 1 .. , <. 1.000 2. '76E'-0~1 j • <'>61-::,-0:[ ;5 l .000 4.141::,-,0;5 ~~. ()3E"0 l 4 j .000 5.40E·-03 2.34F·-OI ~-oJ 1.0(1) 6.72E-03 L. blE-Ol <'> I.OOO ? • 12E--O:1 3.03[-01 J J..OOO .I .• O7IC:--O:·~ J.2i'E-Ol 8 1..000 1. .241::'-02 3.54E·-Ol <} 1..000 L 441:-0;~ .3.8J.E--Ol

1.0 1.000 1 .• 71E-O~! 4.17E·-Ol 11. 1.000 2. 03E'-0~~ 4. ~j6E"-O 1 12 1..000 ~) 411:"-'0') ',.97E-01 ... • .. 6-

U 1.000 2.89E·-02 !':j. 4bE'-O 1 1"1 1.000 5.04E-02 7.261::-01 20 1.000 6.B9E-02 8.45E-()1

200

lDNI'::: Wet Fre~zl:?

MA1L.RIAL:RM

i( of DM~AGE INDEX IWl D~YIH

PL.ANI::: YEAI~ TO r • II~AF • total ·to La H,i( LO tal tot d 1 :0; lie'O'i 1. 1 .000 1 .181;"-02 1. .WE ·-O;! 1.03[-OJ j " 02.1: .. () 1

" J .()Ot) '2. • 241::~ 07 L. ~'41:::-0L J .• 60L-1) 1. I .• MiL: ·0.1 ,--, -, o ~ 94(/ ;"" 0:1 ~.-O:·.~ ;'. U(,~-02 1. 'I',l'-OJ J " H41;'-O:l 4 0.B48 :5.6')1::.····02 J. l3t::: ·O~! 2.:~lj:: OJ 1.8UL·01 ,.

0.754 4. 32E'0~) 3. :'{,j;:-·02 2.44[:··01 j " B4F--0:l '-' 6 ().6]~-j ~'j. 2YE· .. ·02 :5.. 3bL-·02 ~'./6E·OJ J • /~"L ·0 J 7 0.57B ~j. 91[,-02 :5" 4 :i.E ···()2 ~'. y!;;t; '-():I 1 ./lL--()j

8 O.~:jLJ 6.621:: -02 J.49E·-O:' .5.161:-01 1.661::-·0J 9 0.482 7. 4lE'O::~ 3" ~,7[-O::~ 3.38EOl 1. (,?,L-Ol

10 O.43:l 8.~lf>02 :3" 69E·-()2 :5.661:-,01 1" 50b>01 11 0.390 9.·81 E .. ();.:) 3.B2L-02 :5.96E·Ol 1.~j5[··0:1

1'" •. 0.352 1. UI'::-·Ol 3. <;BL·"02 4.29E-OJ. 1.51.1::·01 13 0.31. !) 1.32['01 4.17L·-02 4. 6BL --in l.41L·-OJ 1J 0.229 2.JHI::-Ol 4.99[-,02 6.1.017-01 1. 40E ·-01 ~~o O.lB6 2. BiE--OJ !;;. ;54L-0~' 7.01lC·01 1.:l0[·-OJ

i( of I)MAGF. INDEX Rur nf::!=' I'H YLAR T(n ,,'! HAl'. tot ;;'1 to'!,,,·!"-!. tot. i'I'1 t.ot.aU/.

DC lO 1 0.000 5. ::i31~~~"02 O. OOf:. +00 1.A~'E"()J 0.001::+00 " 0.000 1. O!',[ .. () J O.OOE+OO ?,,6BE-Ol 0 .. ()Ol: +O() A~·.

:5 o.O()O 1. 42E·_·O 1 O.OOE+OO .s.1. JF-OJ. 0" 001,: +00 ... 0.000 J. 'J3L"'OJ O.OOF+OO 3 .. ~~~JF -() 1 O.OOE+()O ~! 0.000 2.03COI 0" oo!::: +00 .5. 871:·\) 1. ()"OOI.::+OO 6 0.000 ::'..4'ii:-"OJ 0" OO[ H)() 4,,311'-01 (). 00['1 00 / 0.000 2. ltlt:.-O 1 0.001::+00 4. :5/1:>·01 O.OOE+OO 8 0.000 ~l • :t:1I::: - 0 1 0.00['100 4.8~jL-OJ O.OOL+O()

" 0.000 :.I. 4H1':'O 1. 0 .. 00[+00 :5.1.4[-Ol ()" OOt': ,·00 10 0.000 4.00f;-OJ O.OOE+OO ! .. " !:;11::-01 O"O()E+OO 11 0.000 4. 6U:'O 1- 0 .. OOHO{) :5. 'lJT ·01 O.OOl:+OO 1 ':, .~. 0.000 ~'j. 32["OJ O.O()[+OO 6.:54f>Ol (I.O()[+OO

13 0.000 6 • :·~~,t::: .. O 1. O. OOE 1·00 6.84[··O'l O.OOl,-j·OO 1/ 0.00] :1 • on:" 00 1. • 02E.· 03 8.63l-01 !3. <'dE ·-04 20 0.006 1.:.I!::Jt:+OO B.09t::-·O:l 9. 7~'jE -01. !::J. tl~"I,: "OJ

/. cd' DAI1AtiF INDEX !~lIT DEF'lH ruT. mAF. tot,,,; 1 t()tn1.~i( tot;! I. tot.al*i(

[?'-.. n7 1. 0.000 ::!.59E-"02 O.OOE+OO 1.4J[01 O.OOE+OO 2 0.000 4.91E-02 ().OOE+()O 2.17E-Ol. O.OO~+O() 3 O.O:I? 6.62E-02 2.1~'E-·03 2.62f:-·Ol 8.39E-03 4 o .Ot!',> 8.:10[-"02 7.21E-03 2. 97E -'(ll 2.65[-02 c' -, O.l4:l 9. ~jOE --02 1.36[-02 :3. 28l"Ol 4.60E-02 6 0.237 1.16E"01 2.75[-02 3.6<;E-01 8. 7!::J f-:. 02 )' 0.281 l.30E"·01 3.65E-02 3.94E"Ol 1.11F-01 8 0.321 1.461::-·0 J. 4.67['-02 4.21E-01 1. 35f,,'() 1 9 O. :l~7 1.631::-01 5.82E"-02 4.49E-Ol l .. 60E-Ol

10 0.:5<;5 1.87['01. J • 39t: ··02 4.861'::-01 :1 • <; ~!E-" () 1 11 0.429 2.1610'-01 9.24L--02 ~.26E--01 2,,2;:'[-01 1 " '" O. 4~j9 2. 4<;~>-O 1 1..14E·()1 5.68E-01 2,,6J.£ 01 13 0.488 2.91E·-01 1.42E-01 6.18E-01 3.02E-01 \.

17 0.556 4.79E--01. 2.61t::-()1 8.01£--01 4.461'::01 20 0.586 6.31E-01 3.70E.-01 9.19E-01 ::;.38E--01

201

I. of DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEPTH PL.ANE YE.AI~ TOT. TI~AF. tot.al total*% tot.al total"-/. /!'-73/ 1 0.000 8. 2'1E -O:j O.OOE+OO 9.17£-02 O.OOE+OO

2 0.000 1. .50E···02 O,OOE+OO 1.. 43E--01 0,,00[+00 ,5 0.019 2.l21:~"O·2 4.03E-·04 1.74E-01. :.1. ~~OE -·0.5 4 0.063 ~'" 60[ .. -02 1 • 64E-03 1. • 98E ... () 1. :1 .• 25E·-0;' ~;) 0.1.0;3 3.05E .. ()2 :3. 14E·-·03 2.10E··Ol 2" 25E~"02 6 O. 128 3" nE'-()~' 4. TlE-()3 2.47E'-·Ol 3 .. 16[·-02 I 0.14J. 4.16E·02 ;'j. B61::"O:3 2.641::-·0.1. .3. nE-'O~~ B 0" 1. ~)::,~ 4,,66E·()2 7" 09E'-O~~ 2.B3E-()1 4 .. 3()[-O2 '1 O.J.61 ~" 2:~E""O',? B. 40E"()~1 3 • O:~E"O 1 4. 87E-O;~

10 0.172 !:i. 9'lE -.. ():~ 1. O:~E-'O;~ :5. 2BE -O:l 5.63E"02 11 O. WJ. 6.'J.l.E-02 l.2;)I':'·()2 3. 55E -.()l (,,, 4:5[ -o:·~ :1.2 O.Hl'i' 7.'i'7E-02 1 ,Sl [·-02 ~L 8!5E--01 7.2'7E"02 .1.3 O.1.'l1 ? • 3)E -0) J. .. 84E .. ();.! 4. ~~OE'O I. n" :U[-O;' 1/ 0.213 1.!j4f::-01 3. 2;"ERMO~~ ~,,,4BF-O:l. 1.17£"01 :,~o O.~~J./ 2.02['-0.1. 4 .. :3'JE-()~ (;. :50t: .. ·01. 1. :371':-01

I. of l) Af'1 A G I:: INDEX FWT DEf"TI-I YEAII roT. I'I::AF , total tota 11'7. to t d I. t,()t"l :.;7-

B-7~)7 1. 0.000 :I..41E-02 O"OOE+OO L~2E-01 0.00[+00 ~~ 0.000 2.6UI:: .... 0? O.OO[+()() ;~ • 061::· 01. O .. ()O[+OO :3 0.000 3.611::--02 O. OO!::·j 00 2.37[-01 0.00[+00 4 O.()()O 4.421::-'02 0.00[:+00 2.61E·-{)l O. OOE H)C) L:- 0.000 ~'j .. :l(lE -02 O"OOE+OO 2.82E-OJ. O.OOE-+OO " (, 0.000 (,. J41': .... O::~ O"OOE+OO 3.1.0E"·01 O .. O()E+OO 7 0.000 /"OB/:-02 O .. OOE+OO :3.27E .. ·Ol 0.00[+00 8 0.000 7.94E-02 O.OOE+()() ;5. 45E·-01 O.OOE+OO 9 0.000 B. B'l[-"02 O"OOE+OO ;).63[--01. O.OOHOO

10 o • (){){) 1.02E-·01 O.OOE+OO :s .13"71':·-0 1 O.OOE+OO 11 0.000 1 .. 18E·-Ol O"OOHOO 4" :l3E--Ol O"OOE+OO J ",l .~ 0.000 1.3()E·-·Ol O.OOH·OO 4.41E-01 O.OOE+()O L~ O.OO() 1.. ~j<"E-"01 O"OOE+OO 4 .. ?3E·_·01 O.OO[+()O 11 0.001 2.6:2.17:"-01 2.62E-04 5.'lOE·"Ol ';:;. 90E --04 20 O. OO~j 3.44E-01 :I. .721::·-·03 6.63E>01. 3. 32[ --O~~

I. of OAMAGE INDEX RUT DEPTH YEAR TOT" TI~AF .. tot. ·:,1.11:1 totnP;%

A L I. TrM' • .l I.OOO 'r. O('E -.. 04 1. .031:::-,01 -, l.OOO J.72[--03 J.60/::,,·01 L

,) J..OO{) 2. :~'iF-()3 1. 'l6E·-·Ol i, I.OOO 3.0'iE-·03 2.26E--01 ,~. c, 1. 000 :5.I'rE-OJ 2.~4E"·01

6 1.000 ~,. 071::- .. 03 2. 'l~jE--01 / 1.000 ~j.B8r::-O:l :5. J.YE-OJ B 1.000 6.02E,,·03 3.4~jE--01

'i 1.000 J .. 811::-0:5 :1. nl:,"'o L 10 1.000 '1.31.E·-·03 ".OlE--OJ 11 1 • 000 :I. • 1 Of: -·02 4.44i:C-Ol 1':' 0 .. L 000 1.301:':"-02 4. 8~E·-01 1:5 1.000 1. ~)~E··"02 ::;.32E .. -{)1

17 1.000 2.70[-02 7.03E-01 20 1.000 3.67[-02 8.15E-·01

202

ZUNi: : W"t Ft~e~z.::

f1AHRIAL:RH

X of l)AMM'~. 11~[)EX Ii'ln liEf·'" II PI..ANI-. Yl::AI( TnT .11~AF" tota I tuLal*Y. toLdL t.()t~l n; DL'O'I J 1 .000 J ,,~;:5f.· O~) :L" 331::,-02 1.2'lr_-(lJ J • ~1/,f···Ol

"1 ,. .i..OOO ::~ • ~)~'H~ ···02 ~oo ~j,5L -·O:·! 1.8'lL .() :I. I "tj'iL-Ol '1 0.9.0\9 3.40[-0:) 3.nf.··02 ;:>. ::~n:-():I 2. :1 61:.·() J '-' 4 O.U48 4. I. /1::>-02 :.5 , ::iJ I:' 02 2.57E-Ol ~) " I. llI.. ·0 I " 0.?~4 4.8'11:-02 :',.68E02 ~~" !l:~b.: -O:J ~) • :I :.'1. . () :1 .J ,

().63~ :.i. ?UF::·O~l :5. !'iF .-()~) :,. U,I::-·Ol ~'" 0 U>O 1 i)

} 0.~j7!l 6oo(J7E-O~; ;5.06E·_·O:) ~~. 36/::-():1 :i.(>'4~·-()J

8 () • :j21 7.4HF·0?' 3.,9410-,02 3. :::iill: ·01. L 8'!L'() J ') o. 4B:~ B.:57E··02 4. 041:"-O~) 3.8H.-O:l l.D4~·():1

10 O.4:~,1 '1.62F·02 4.16l::-0~ 4.1U:·()J 1. ;m,OJ J 1 O.3'!O 1 • .1:1[-,,01 4.32F··()2 4. 4~',1;-()1 1. 73f: ·-0 J 1',' O.,\~j:2 1.;~BI::-Ol 4" ~jOE"02 4 • 7:3[-0 I. 1.6tll::.·OJ J:~ o . :!.:i. ~M.j 1 • :jOF·() 1 4. 7H ·02 3.:lBE"01 1.(,3['01 .l/ O. '2~.)'" 2. 46L·-0 1. 5.64E-02 6.6:::;1::·-01 1 • ~'; :!.I:-·() 1 20 0.106 ~~'" ?41:-'Ol 6. O:5E '-O~! 7.5'lE··O:L 1 .. 4:LE-()1

% of DMAUE INDEX IWT DEPT fI )TAR I [IT. TRAF. t.ota·1 total*/. tot-a'l totill ;.:%

1)(; -10 1 0.000 OooOOE+OO (). <)Ol,~ +00 " 0.000 0.00[+00 O.OOF+OO ., " 0.000 0.001::+00 0.001: +00 4 0.000 O"OOE+OO O. OOt_ +00 :i O.O()O 0.001::+00 (). 001:: 1-00 6 0.000 0.00[+00 O.OOL+OO 1 0.000 O.OOF+OO 0" OOb. +00 B 0,,000 O.OOHOO 0.001:+00 9 il.O!)!) o ,,()Ol,~ +00 O"OOHOO

10 0.000 0.00['100 0.001:-:'00 J .1 o . O~)O 0" OOHOO OooOOE+OO 1 ':' .. 0.000 O.OOt:+oo 0.001:. rOO 1 .,

,J 0.000 0" 001:.+00 O.OOL+OO 17 O.OOJ 'i'.:',lll:'-·O:i ~'. !:j8E - 04 :I. .. O::j~ +()O J • ()~Jf: '-03 20 0.00(, I .• ~'61' +00 J , !:'i71'::-0,5 I .• 1. if, +00 /.041':-·0:5

'I. of' DM'lp,GF. JIWD: RLI'I DFF'TH 1U'I. mAl' " tol·.·ilL t.()t~l(1. totAl LC1t ,', l".z

g-lD 1 0.000 O.OOHOO O.OOL+OO 2 0.000 O.OOt::+oo 0.00[-.+00 3 O.O~~:' 9. ~j7E'O::' 3.06F·03 2,.'161:-01 9 • .o\6L-0~~ 4 0.OU9 1.17E-01 1..04F.-02 o5.33J:::--OJ 2" \171:'··0:! " " 0.143 1 .3lf:.· 01 1" 'I6E-02 3.b6E-01 ~j" ~)~5t. ···02 6 () .237 1.6BE"·Ol 3.98L-02 4.101:"O.l 9./lL-·(L' 7 O.2Hl 1.8BE.··01 ~j. ~'7E,,·02 4.36["01 1 .23[-0 j 8 0.321 2.1.01::-01. 6.7!:'iE-02 4.641:: -·0 1 1.491::·01 9 0.357 ~l. :~6f:'-0 1 8.41[--02 4.94E-Ol 1.761:: -OJ

IO 0.059::; 2.701::-01 1.07E·-()1 ::;.32£-01 2.1.0EOl 11 0.429 :3.121::-·01 1.341:.-01 ~). 73[-·01 :.'" 46[ .. ·01 j ':) (). 4~j9 .5.5'11':: -0 1. 1. 65E·() 1 6. !BE-O 1 ).841::-,01

13 0.48B 4.21E·-01 2.05E-01 6.70E-Ol 3.2JE-Ol 17 0.:556 6.93E-01 3.85E·-01. 8. S8E-'() 1. 4.7/E·01 20 O.5fJ6 9.12F··01 5.:34[,-01 '1.78E-0J. ~j .13E -01

203

% ot' DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEPTH PLANE YEAR TOT. n~AF. t.ot. a 1 total*% tot.al tot.al?',% B-'73! 1 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+()O

2 0.000 0.001':+00 0.00[+00 3 0.019 2.9410-02 !:i.!WE-04 2.04E-Ol 3.B8E-OJ 4 0.063 ~,. 60t:: ,-,02 2.27E-03 2.30E·-Ol 1.45E-02 ~ 0.1.0J 4.23E-·02 4.J5E-03 2.53E-OJ. ~'. 60E-·Ij'.! 6 0.1 ~~B ~~,I .. l/E···(i2 (, .. 62E .. -03 2 .. !BE··Ol 3 .. 63[ ····O:c I 0.141 5.171::-"02 8.14[-0,3 " • O;·!I':"O 1 4 ,,2~)I: 'OJ 8 ().1~j2 6.47E··()2 S' .. B4E-'O;3 ;>,. 21,E'-():1 4. UBE'-O~' 9 0.16.1. 7. 2~i":-02 .I. .17[-,02 :5.421'::'-0.1 ~'j .. ::;01:: -O~.~

10 ON 172 B.32E:·()2 1 .. 43[-02 :r, • bBE -'(H 6 .. :;:~E"'()2 11 O.lH.I. 9. 5 'Jr:>" 0 2 1. /4E --02 .~. 9/1;: .. ·() I. 7. :I. HI:,--O',' 12 (). 1139 1. :I. H>--O 1 2 .. 09E'-O:~ 4.2E:E-O:t B.OUE·-02 .L:5 0.191 1. ~~()I;:'O 1 2. t:j5E·-()2 4.64\::,,01. () 1.41:::-·()~! . " 1. i' 0.213 2.1:31:::,,-01 4.~j4E-02 ~;:.I ~ <j~7;E - 0 J 1.270:-0:1. 20 0.211 :2. U n:·o 1 .S ,,0'7£'-02 "'.I'/E-·O'!' 1..4/1::01

'I •• of DAMAtiE INDEX I~UT DEPTH Y[Af~ rOT. rRAF • t. () I', c"- tot.al'';/. tot.! I. tot il Ui;

B-'l~;? 1 0.000 O.OOl+OO O.()OI::+()O :.! 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 3 0.000 O.OOE+OO 0.00[+00 4 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OO[+()() 5 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 6 0.000 0.00[+00 0.001::+00 7 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO {:) 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 9 0.000 O. OOI:~ +00 O.OOE+()O

10 0.000 O"OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 11 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 1 ') .- 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 13 0.000 0.00[+00 O.OOE+OO 1/ 0.001 3.44E·"01. 3.44E-04 9.471'::-01 'i.47E·-04 20 0.00:) 4. 5:~E -.. 0 1, 2.26E-03 l..03E+()O 5.14E-03

I. of OAMAGE INDEX I~UT OEPTII YEA/, TOT. Tr'AF. 1..01...:.;%113 totaV.;%

AI. I. TraY. 1 1. 000 1.02E·-·03 1. 24E-·Ol 2 1.000 1.9:)E.-03 1.B'?E"Ol :1 1.000 2.76[··03 ;:'. 29E -·0 1 4 1.000 3.69['-03 2.62E-OI ::oj 1.000 4.61310-03 ~~.<JIE"Ol

6 1.000 6.49[--03 3.34E·-·01 ! i.OOO / • b::;f:: -O;l :;.:59E-·01 8 1.000 a. <18E·-O:1 3.87E-01 9 1.000 1.0::;1::-02 4 • .I.~jE-·01

10 1.000 1. • 2!5E ·-02 4.~jlE·-01

1l 1.000 1.491::\·02 4.91E"01 12 1.000 1.7BE·-02 5.32E·-01 1.3 1.000 ~.14E··02 ::;.81E-·01 17 1.000 3.76E·-02 7.58E-·01 20 1.000 5.12[-02 8.74E-01

204

~m,lt' Dr'v Freeze M,~T[RIAL, AC--10 Contl"ol

A B C 0 E :1. of DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEF'TH

F'LA~IE YEAR TDT.TRAF. tot.al total*% total total*% DC-(>'l 1 1.000 5. 26E-(J2 5.26E-02 5.38E-01 5.38E-01

~ 1. 000 1.00E-01 1.00E-01 6.07E-01 6.07E-r)1 "' 3 0.949 1.35E-01 1.28E-01 6.46E-01 6. 13E-01 .q 0.848 1,,65E-01. 1.40E--01 6.76E-01 5.711E-Ol 5 (I. 754 1 .93[-0:1. 1. 46E-01- 7.02E-01 ~

..I. 30[-01 6 I), 635 2.36E:-01 1. 50E·-0 1 7.38E-01 4.69E-Ol 7 O~578 2. 64E-01 1 • 53E-"Ol 7.59[-01 4.39[-01 8 0"527 2" 9l:!I:::: -I) 1 1 . 56E'--0 1 7.81[-01 4. 12E--Ol 9 0" '1·82 ~'" 31[--01 1 .60E--Ol 8"05E-Ol 3. 8BE "'0.1

10 0" 4'n :). EIOE ",01 1. 65E' ···01 8. 3bE --I) 1 3.62E-01 1 1 f)·.3QO 4" 3@t'-Ol 1.71["01 8" 69£>'01 3 ,. 39E. --(I 'J

1 '7 r) • "';ooC::- ,., .', _I'::' 5.0~5E-(l1 1.78E-01 9 ()5E-Ol 3. 1 9E -_r) 1

13 O~~)l':.i 5,,9~E-Ol 1 ,,86E-01 9.47E-01 2. 98E--<)1 17 o. ~~29 9. 7::iE-(ll 2. 2~;E--O 1 1. 1 (lE+(lO 2. 52E--(l1 .'2 (1 0. 186 1 .. 2~3E+OO 2.38E-01 1.20E+OC) 2"23E-Ol

." r~jf DAMAGE INDEX f;:UT DEF'TH /"

Y~{4f=;: TOT. TRMc. t cot,,] tot".l * ./ '" total tot"l*i. DC:--l C' O,,{)OO O.OOE+OO O.OOE+(JO

':"' 0., 0(10 O.OOE+OO O .. OOE+OO . ....:. 0 .. 000 0.00[+00 0 . OOE+(JO 'I. O. 000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO ~ .. } OL(Jr)(J O~OOE+OO O.OOE+C)O 6 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 7 O. 000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 8 o. (100 O.OOE+OO O"OOE+(I0 9 0. 000 O.OOE+OO On OOE+c)I)

10 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+I)O 11 0.000 o. OOE+(lO O.OOE+OO 12 0.000 O.OOE+OO O. OOE+OO 1" '-' 0.000 O.OOE+(lO O.OOE+OO 17 0.001 3.42E+OO 3. 42E-03 2.31E+OO 2. :::lE-(13 20 0.006 4.51E+OO 2.70E-·02 2.46E+OO 1.48E-02

% of DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEF'TH TOT.TF:AF. total tot".l *% tot,;>l tot" 1 * ./ ,.

8-727 1 0.000 O.OOE+(lO O.OOE+(JO 2 0"000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 3 0.032 2.80E-01 8.96E-03 8.68E-01 2. 78E-(l2 4 0,,089 3.43E:-01 3.05E-02 9" 09E-·Ol 8. 09E-02 ~ _J O. 143 4.02E-01 5.75E-02 9.43E-01 1.:::5E-01 6 0.237 4.92E-Ol 1. 17E-Ol 9.90[-01 2. 35E -·-01 7 0.281 5.49E-01 1.54E-01 1~02E+O(J 2.86[-01 8 0.321. 6" 16E-01 1.98E-01 1.05E+(lO 3.36E--01 9 O. 357 6.89[-01 2.46E-01 1.08E+00 3.85E-01

10 1),,395 7.92E-01 .,. 13E":'01 1 • 12E+00 4.42E-Ol ._' . 11 0.429 9. 12E-01 3.91E-Ol 1- 16E+c)0 4. 99E-01 1.2 0.459 1.05E+OO 4.83E-Ol 1.21E+00 5.55E-Ol 13 0.488 1.23E+OO 6.01E-c)1 1.27E+00 6. 18E-01 17 0.556 2.03E+00 1. 13E+00 1 . 47E+OO 8. 16E-01 20 0.586 2. 67E+OO 1.56E+(l0 1.60E+00 9.35E-01

205

A B C 0 E !. of DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEPTH

PLANE YEAR TDT.TRAF. total total*1. total t.otal*1. 8-737 1 (ly(lOO O.OOE+()O O.OOE+OO

~

"" 0. O(l(j 0. O(lE +00 O.OOE+OO .." ._' 0.019 1.15E-Ol 2. 18E-03 5.75E-01 1. 09E-02 4 1),,1)63 1.40E-01 B.83E-03 6.01E-Ol 3. 79E-02 ",. ;oj O. 103 1.64E-Ol 1.69E-02 6.24E-Ol 6.43E-02 6 0.128 2.01E-Ol 2 .. 57E-02 6. 55E-Ol 8. 39E-02 7 <). 141 2.25E-Ol 3. 17E-02 6.74E-01 9.50E-02 8 0.152 2.52E-Ol :!'" 83E -(12 6.94E-01 1.05E-01 9 O. 161 2.82E-01 4. 54E-02 7. 14E-01 1.15E-01

10 O. 172 3.24E-01 5.57E-02 7.42E-01 1.28E-Ol 11 O. 181 3.73E-Ol 6. 75E-02 7.71E-01 1.40E-Ol 12 0.189 4.30E-01. B.13E-02 B.03E-Ol 1.52E-Ol 13 0.197 5.03E-Ol 9. 92E-02 B.40E-Ol 1.66E-Ol 17 0.213 B.29E-Ol 1.77E-01 9.77E-Ol 2.0BE-Ol 20 0.217 1.09E+00 2.37E-Ol 1.06E+00 2.31E-Ol

I. of DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEPTH YEAR TDT.TRAF. total total*i. total total*i.

8-757 1 (l~(lO(l O.OOE+(>O O.OOE+(JO " 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO .~

"":!; 0 .. 000 O.(I0E+(lO O.OOE+(JO 4 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO '" 0.000 (J,,(lOE+(lO O.OOE+C)O '" 6 0.(100 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 7 0 .. 000 O .. OOE+(lO O.OOE+(H) 8 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 9 0 .. 000 O.OOE+(lO O.OOE+OO

10 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 11 0.000 O.OOE+(JO O.OOE+OO 12 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 13 0 .. 000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+(JO 17 0.001 1. 16E+OO 1.16E-03 1.37E+OO 1.37E-03 20 0.005 1..53E+OO 7.64E-03 1.48E+OO 7.42E-03

I. of DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEPTH YEAj;: TDT.TRAF" tot.*i.113 t.otal*1.

All Tr-af. 1 1.000 4.05E-03 5.38E-01 2 1.000 7. 69E-03 6.07E-01 3 1.000 1.07E-02 6.52E-Ol 4 1,,000 1.3BE-02 6. 92E-(l1 5 1.000 1.69E-02 7.29E-Ol 6 1.000 2.25E-02 7.B7E-Ol 7 1.000 2.60E-02 B.20E-01 8 1.000 ·3.01E-02 B.54E-Ol 9 1.000 3. 47E-02 8.BBE-Ol

10 1.000 4.10E-02 9.31E-Ol 11 1.000 4.84E-02 9.77E-Ol 12 1.000 5.71E-02 1.03E+f)O 1-'-.~ 1.000 6. 82E-02 1.0BE+OO 17 1.000 1.1BE-Ol 1.2SE+OO 20 1.000 1.60E-Ol 1.41E+OO

206

ZONE: : Dry Freeze t1ATEF:J!\L, PL_

I. of DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEF'TH PLANE YEAR TOT.TRAF. tot a 1 total *1. total total *1. D[-(-9 1 1.000 2. 22E-02 2.2'2E-02 1.05E-Ol 1.05E-Ol .., 1.000 4.22E-02 4.22E-02 1.62E-Ol 1.62E-01 ~

~ 0.949 5.67E-02 5.38E-·02 1.96E-Ol 1.86E-01 . ....:. 4 0.848 tl.95E-(l2 5" 89E-02 2.22E-Ol 1. 89E--0 1 5 0.754 8. 15E··-02 6. 14E-02 2.45E-Ol 1.85E-Ol 6 (1.635 9.96E---02 6,,33E-02 2.77E-Ol 1.76E-Ol 7 0.578 1.11E-Ol 6.43E-O~ 2.96E-Ol 1.71E-Ol 8 0,,527 1.25E-Ol 6 .. 57E-02 ~ 17E-Ol 1.67E-01 ''':'.

9 0.482 1.40E-01 6.73E-02 3.38E-01 1.63E-01 10 0 .. 433 1.60E-Ol 6. 95E-02 ,3. 66E-01 1 . 58E -'01 1 1 0.390 1.85E-01 7.20E-02 3.96E-Ol 1.55E-01 12 0.352

.., 13E--Ol 7 .. 50E -·1)2 4.29E-Ol 1.51E-01 ..::..

13 0.315 2.50E-Ol 7.86E-02 4.68E-Ol 1.47E-Ol 17 0.229 4. l1E-Ol 9.41E--02 6.09E--Ol 1. ::;,9E--Ol 20 o. 186 5.41E--Ol 1.01E-Ol 7.00E-Ol 1.30E-01

'l., of DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEF'TH YEAR TOT. TRAF-. total total *1. total total *1.

DC--ll) 1 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO " On (Jr)(l O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO "' ~ 0.000 O.OOE+(l(J O.OOE+OO --'

4 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 5 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+(lO 6 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 7 0.000 O.OOE+(I(J 0 .. (JOE+(J(l

8 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 9 0.0(10 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO

10 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+(l(J 1 1 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+(JO 12 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+(J(I 13 0.000 O.OOE+f)O O.OOE+O(l 17 0.001 1.92E+00 1.92E-03 8. 15E-Ol 8. 15E-04 20 0.006 2. 53E+OO 1.52E-02 9.23E-01 5. 54E-03

I. of DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEF'TH TOT.TRAF. total total*% total total*1.

B--727 1 0.000 O.OOE+OO O~OOE+O(l

2 0.000 O.OOE+(JO O.OOE+OO

"" 0.032 1.15E--Ol 3. 68E-03 2.50E-Ol 8.00E-03 --' 4 0" 08', 1.41E-Ol 1.25E-02 2. 84E-(>l 2.52E-02 5 O. 143 1.65E-Ol 2. 36E-02 "" "-' . 13E-Ol 4.47E-02 6 O.~37 2.02E-(Jl 4.79E-02 3 .. 53E--Ol. 8.37E-02 7 0.281 2.26E-01 6.34E-02 3.77E--01 1.06E-01 8 0.321 2. 53E--Ol 8. 12E-02 4.03E-01 1.29E-01 9 0.357 2.83E-01 1.01E-Ol 4.29E-01 1.53E--Ol

10 (I ~ ::.95 3~25E-Ol 1.29E~01 4.65E-01 1.84E-Ol 1 1 0.429 3.75E-01 1.61E-01 5.03E-01 2. 16E-01 12 0.459 4. 32E-01 1.98E-Ol 5.45E-Ol 2.50E·-Ol 13 0.488 5,,06E-01 2.47E-Ol 5. 93E-Ol 2.89E-01 17 0.556 8.34E-Ol 4.64E--Ol 7.70E-Ol 4.28E-01 20 0.586 1.10E+00 6.43E-Ol 8.84E-Ol 5. 18E-Ol

207

:t. of DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEPTH F'LA~IE YEAR TOT.TRAF. tat .. l tot .. l*:t. total total*:t. B·-737 1 OuOOO O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO

2 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+(>O 3 0.019 3w95E-02 7.50E-04 1.74E-01 3.30E-03 4 0 .. 063 4. 84E-02 3.05E-03 1. 98E-01. 1.24E-02 ~

'"' o. 103 5. 67E-02 5. 84E-03 " ~. 18E-01 2.25E-02 6 o. 128 t..94E-02 8.88E-03 2.47E-01 3 .. 16E-02 7 O. 141 7.7SE-02 1.09E-02 2.64E-01 3.72E-02 8 o. 152 8. 68E-02 1.. 32E-02 2.82E-Ol 4.29E--02 q O. 161 9. 72E-02 1.57E-02 3.01E-Ol 4.85E-02

10 o. 172 1. 12E-Ol. 1.92E-02 3.26E-01 5.61E--02 11 o. 181 1.29E-Ol 2u33E-02 3.54E-01 6.40E-02 12 o. 189 1.48E-Ol 2 .. 80E-02 3.83E-Ol 7. 24E-02 13 o. 197 1.74E-01 3 .. 42E-02 4. 18E-01 8 .. 23E-02 1.7 0.213 :::::. 8bE-0 1 b.09E·-02 5 .. 45E-Ol 1. 16E-01 20 0.217 3. 76E-Ol 8. 17E-02 6.27E-01 1.36E-01

'1. of DAMAGE I~IDEX RUT DEF'TH YEAR TOT .. TRAF. tatal total. *1. total total *1.

B-757 1 0 .. 000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 2 0.000 O.OOE+OO O .. OOE+OO 3 0 .. 000 (I .. f)OE+OO O.OOE+(lO 4 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+(lO 5 0.000 O .. OOE+(JO O.OOE+OO {, 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 7 0.000 O.OOE+(JO O.OOE+OO 8 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 9 0.000 O .. OOE+OO O.OOE+OO

10 0 .. 000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 11 0 .. 000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+(JO 12 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 1~ . '-' 0 .. 000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 17 0.001 5.06E-Ol 5.06E-04 6.48E-01 6.48E-04 20 0.005 6.66E-Ol 3. 33E-03 7. 29E-Ol 3 .. 65E-03

I. of DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEPTH YEAr;: TOT.TRAF. tot.*1.113 total*:t.

All Tr ".f . 1- 1.000 1.71E·-03 1.05E-Ol .., 1.000 3.24E-03 1.62E-01 ~

3 1.000 4.4SE-03 1.97E-Ol 4 1.000 5. 73E-03 2.26E-Ol ~ 1.000 6. 99E-03 2.52E-Ol '"' 6 1 • (1)0 9.24E-0::;, 2.91E-Ol 7 1.000 1.07E-02 3. 14E-01 8 1.000 1.23E-02 3. 39E-(> 1 9 1.000 1.42E-02 3.65E-01

1.0 1.000 1.67E-02 3. 98E-01 11 1.000 1.97E-02 4.34E-01 12 1.000 2. 32E-02 4.73E-01 13 1.000 2. 77E-02 5. 19E-01 17 1.000 4.7BE-02 6.B5E-Ol 20 1.000 6.49E-02 7. 93E-01

208

?ONE, Dry Fr·eeze ~lln[RI I'll. ·PM

I. of DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEF'TH PLANE YEAF, TClT.TRAF .. t.ot a 1 tot.al *1. tot" 1 tDt",l *% DC-09 1 1.000 7. 99E-03 7.99E-03 9.94E-02 9.94E-02

2 1.000 1.52E-02 1.52E-02 l.55E-Ol 1 • 55E --01 3 0.949 2.04E-02 1 .94E-·02 1.SSE-Ol 1 . 79E-('1 4 1) .. 848 2.50E-(l2 2. 1?E-02 2. 14E-('1 1.82E--Ol ~ 0.754 2. 93E-02 2.21E--02 2.37E-01 1 .78E-')1 ..J

6 o. 635 3.59E-02 2.28E-·02 2.68E-01 1.70E--Ol 7 (l~578 4.01E-02 2. 32E-(l2 2.86E-Ol 1.65E-Ol B (1,,527 4.49E-02 2.37E·-02 ·3.1)6E-Ol 1 b 1 E-O 1 9 o. 482 5.03E'-02 2.42E-02 3. 27E--0 1 1 .S8E.1)1

10 1) .. 433 5. 78E-02 2 .. 50E-02 3.55E-(Jl 1.53E-Ol 1 1 0" 390 6.65E-02 2.59E-02 3.84E-Ol 1 .50E-Ol 1 ,:.\ r). ":"~··-l .,; • .J":':' 7. 67E-r)2 2,,7(JE-02 4. 16E-01 1 47E-(>1 13 (I" ::::1.5 8.9SE-02 2. 83E-02 4.54E-Ol 1 .43E-01 I 7 0" 22(7 1. 48E-0 1 3. 39E-02 5.92E-f)1 1.36E-Ol 20 0 .. 186 1 . 95E-C)1 3. 62E-02 6.81E-01 1. 27E--C) 1

~1. Df DAMAGE INDEX PUT DEPTH VEAF' TO"(. TRI,F . total total*1. total total*'l.

DC··_·l(' 1 0.000 O.OOE+C)O O.OOE+(J(I ~ o. 000 O.OOE+OO (J,,(JOE+OO ~

-, 1).0(10 OuOr)E+OO O.OOE+OO .-4 t) , (I f) (J O.OOE+OO o. OOE+(lO c ._, o. 000 O.OOE+(J(l O.OOE+O(l 6 o. 000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 7 O~ (l(l(l O.OOE+OO o. OOE+OO 8 o. (II)(J O.OOE+OO O.OOE+C)C) q (I. (Jell) O.OOE+OO O.OOE+(l(l

10 o. 000 O.OOE+OO O. OOE+OO 1 1 o. OC)O O.OOE+(lO (I,,(lOE+OO 1:: 0.000 O.OOE+OO O~OOE+OO 13 O. 000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 17 0.001 7.03E-01 7.03E-·04 8.45E--0! 8.45E-04 20 O~O(l6 '1. 26E-Ol 5n 55E-·03 9.55E-(l1 5. 73E-03

% elf DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEPTH TClT.TRAF .. total t(Jtal*1. tr.>tal total *i:

[1-7'2.7 ! 0"000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 2 0"000 O. (JOE +(>(1 O. OOE+(i(l

c' 0.03:.? 5.49E-··02 1.76E-03 ::.54E-·01 8. 14E-03 4 0.089 6.72E--·02 5. 98E-03 2. 89E-·Ol 2,,57E-02 e o. 143 7.89E-02 1. 13E-·02 ~ 18E-Cll 4.55E-02 J . .; .. 6 0.237 9. ~)5E-02 2.29E-02 3. 59E--Ol 8.50E-02 7 0.281 1 .08E-0! 3.03E-02 3.83E-Ol 1 . (l8E-01 8 O.32l 1 .21E-01 3.88E-02 4.09E·-Ol 1.31E-Ol 9 o. 357 1 . 35E--Ol 4.83E-02 4.37E-Ol 1 .56E-·01

10 0.395 1 . 55E··-(l 1 6. 13E"':'02 4.72E-Ol 1.86E-Ol 11 0.429 1 .79E-Ol 7.67E-02 ~ l1E-C):I. ~ 19E-01 ..J. ..::.~

12 o. 459 2.06E--·Ol 9.47E-02 5. 52E-(l1 2 .. 54E-Ol 13 0.488 2. 42E ·-01 1. 18E-Ol 6.01E--,('1 2.93E-01 17 0.556 3. 98E --01 2.21E-Ol 7. SOE--01 4.33E--01 20 0.586 5.24E-Ol ~ -' . 07E-Ol 8.94E-Ol 5.24E-Ol

209

I. of DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEPTH F'LA~IE YEAR TOT. TRAF, toted total *1. tot. •• l t.otal*1. B-737 1 O~OOO O. OOE+OO O.OOE+OO

2 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 3 0.019 1 . 98E-02 3. 77E-04 1 .68E-01 3. 19E-03 4 o. 063 2. 43E-02 1.53E-03 1- 91E-01 1 .. 20E-02 = o. 1,03 2. 85E-02 2. 93E-03 "' llE-01 "' 17E-02 ,J ~. ~.

6 o. 128 3.49E-"02 4. 46E-03 2.38E-01 3.05E-02 7 o. 141 3. 89E-02 5. 49E-03 2.55E-Ol 3 .. 59E-02 8 O. 152 4. ~.6E-02 6.63E-03 2.73E-01 4. 14E-02 9 o. 161 4.88E-02 7. 86E-03 2.91E-01 4.69E-02

10 o. 1.72 5.61E-02 9. 65E-03 "" h 16E-Ol 5 .. 43E-02 11 o. 181 6.46E-02 1. 17E-02 3.42E-Ol 6. 19E-02 12 O. 189 7,,45E-02 1 .41E-02 3.71E-01 7.00E-02 l' '-' o. 197 8. 73E-02 1.72E-02 4 .. 04E-01 7.96E-02 17 0" 21·3 1.44E-Ol 3~ 06E--02 5.27E-Ol 1 . 12E-"0 1 .'20 (1 .. 217 1.89E-01 4. 10E-'()2 6.07E-Ol 1.32E-Ol

!:, of DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEF'TH YEAR TOT.TRAF. tot.al total *1. total total*1.

8-757 1 o. 000 O.OOE+OO OuOOE+(JO 2 OuOOO O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 3 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO Lj. 0.000 0. OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 5 0.000 (J,,(JOE+(JO O.OOE+OO 6 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 7 0.000 O .. OOE+OO O.OOE+(JO 8 0.000 O.OOE+(JO O.OOE+OO 9 0.000 O.(JOE+(I0 O.OOE+OO

10 O~(lOO O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 1 1 0 .. 000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 12 (1 .. 000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 13 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 17 0.001 2.04E-01 2.04E-04 5.68E-Ol 5. 68E-04 20 0.0(15 2. 69E"-01. 1.34E-03 6. 39E-Ol ~ 19E-03 .";'.

:1. of DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEPTH YEAR TOT. TRAF. tot. *1./13 t.otal*1.

All Tl'"af. 1 1.000 6. 14E-04 9.94E-02 2 1.000 1. 17E-03 1.55E-Ol ~ 1.000 1, .66E-03 1.90E-01. .~.'

4 1 .000 2.21E-03 2. 19E-Ol = ,.J 1.000 2. 79E-03 2.46E-Ol 6 1.000 3. 85E-03 2.86E-01 7 1 .000 4.53E-03 3.09E-Ol 8 1. (lOO 5.31E-03 3. 34E-Ol 9 1.000 6. 18E-"03 3.60E-01

:to 1.000 7.38E-03 3.94E-Ol 1 1 1.000 8.80E-03 4.31E-Ol 12 1.000 1..04E-02 4.70E-01 13 1.000 1.26E-02 ~

-J. 16E-Ol 17 1.000 2.20E-02 6.83E-Ol 20 1 .000 3.01E-02 7.91E-Ol

210

:: o~\!c: DI-- '/ Ft-f.-?ez e MATEfn AL :: Fd·j

F'U\NF DC-(l9

DE-l0

8--727

YEAP 1 2

5 6 7

8 Ci

1 (I 1 .,

12 1"':

DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEPTH TOT, TRFlF, tot ,,11 total tote'] *%

1.(10(1 1.15E-02 1. 15E-02 1.12E-Ol 1.12E-Ol 1.000 2. 19E-02 2. 19E-02 1.72E-Ol 172E-Ol 0.949 2.95E-02 2.80E-02 2.08E-Ol 1 97E-Ol 0.848 3.61E-02 3.06E-02 2.35E-Ol 1.99E-Ol (1,,754 4,,24E-f)2 j.j9E--02 2.59E-t)1 1~95E-'IJl

0"635 5.j8E-(J2 3,,29E-02 2.92E-I-)1 1 SSE-Cl] 0.578 5.79E-02 3.34[-02 3.11E-Ol 180[-01 0.527 6.49E-r)2 3~4?E-r:17 3~3?E--()1 1 75E·-(11 (l" 482 7" 2t)[~··- (l~:;~ ? n 501:: -.. (l~,~ '"3" 54[ .-1) 1 1 70P- _./ J1 (),43~~; R,·34E:--r)~~ ·3"6:1E>···O:' 3.B2[~··-()1 j 65F:-.()1 (1" :·~,7'() 9" 61r-~·-(1~ 7..751::-··(1:·,:: 4.1.3E-·-("J! 1 61E·_·(q (J ':)5::~ :1 n 1. 1 E" -·-01 3" 90E --·02 4" 4hE·_·· r) j 1 57F':- n 1 0, -:::1.::.i 1 '"3(1F.::---CI1 4" (J9E>-O~·\ 4" 85[--(")1 1 53[-·rl1

17 (I, :.~;~q 2. j 4E .... r~J1 Ll., FJf';"E··-(\:? ti" ~~f-,E·-·(\1 1 Ll:,[···-I,·'J 7( I (I, 186 ":t B 1.1:· -r", 1 5 :,2::::;~.- , .. C<· .. 7 171;:-.;.:, 1 1 ~:.~,r:: - (,11

YEAF, 1

4

5

7 8 9

10 1 1 1:2

"I. nf OAMAGE I NDEX HIT DEF'TH TOT.TF'i~F, total totaU%

(I" r)1-}r"1 I). OOE·+c)(I 0. (l(Je)

(I" r)(l(l

I). (l()I')

(i" 0(,'0 0.000 r) ()()()

(\ 000 0 .. 000 0.000 0.000 0.000

f).OOE+(lO 0" OI)E +(l(l

0 .. (lOE+OO O.OOE+O(J O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO O.OOE+(l(J O.OOE+f)O O.OOE+r)O O.OOE+OO

toLd tota.l *~( O.OOE+(lO O~OOE+OO

O.OOE+(lO O.OOE+OO O.OOE+(lt) O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO O.OOE+(JO O.OOE+(lO O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO

13 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 17 0.001 9.97E-Ol 9.97E-04 9.72E-Ol 9.72E-04 20 0.006

f. of TOT.TRAF.

0.000

1.31E+OO 7.87E-03 1.09E+00 6.54E-03 DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEPTH totC'.l total*%

O.OOE+OO total total*%

O.OOE+OO 2 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.O(lE+OO 3 0.032 8.20E-02 2.62E-03 2.7BE-Ol B.89E-03 4 0.089 1.00E-Ol 8.93E-03 3. 14E-Ol 2.79E-02 5 0.143 1.ISE-01 1.68E-02 3.45E-Ol 4.93E-02 6 0.237 1.44E-Ol 3.41E-02 3.88E-Ol 9.19E-02 7 0.281 1.61E-Ol 4.S2E-02 4.13E-Ol 1.16E-Ol 8 0.321 1.80E-Ol 5.78E-02 4.40E-Ol 1.41E-Ol 9 0.357 2.02E-Ol 7.20~-02 4.69E-Ol 1.67E-Ol

10 0.395 2.32E-Ol 9. 15E-02 5.06E-(ll 2.0(IE-(l1 11 0.429 2.67E-OI 1.15E-Ol 5.46E-Ol 2.34E-Ol 12 0.459 3.08E-Ol 1.4IE-Ol 5.89E-Ol 2.70E-Ol 13 0.488 3.60E-Ol 1.76E-Ol 6.39E-Ol 3.12E-Ol 17 0.556 5.94E-Ol 3.30E-Ol 8.23E-Ol 4.57E-Ol 20 0.586 7.8IE-Ol 4.S8E-Ol 9.40E-Ol 5.51E-Ol

211

I. of DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEF'TH F'LANE YEAR TOT.TRAF. t.ot.al t.ot.al*1. t.otal t.otal*1. B-737 J O~OOO O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO

2 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 3 0.019 2. 94E-02 5. 59E-04 1.92E-Ol 3~65E-03 4 0.063 3.60E-02 2.27E-03 2. 17E-01 1.37E-02 ~ ,_, 0.103 4. 23E-02 4 .. 35E-O:::;, 2.38E-Ol 2.45E-02 6 o. 128 ~ ...!. 17E-(l2 6. 62E-03 2.67E-Ol 3. 42E-02 7 o. 141 5.77E-02 8. 14-E-03 2.84E-Ol 4.01E-02 8 0.152 6.47E-02 9. 84E-03 3.03E-Ol 4.60E-02 9 o. 161 7.24E-02 1. 17E-02 3.22E-01 ~

...!. 19E-02 10 0. 172 8.32E-02 1.43E-02 .3. 48E-Ol 5. 98E-Cl2 1 1 0.181 9.58E-02 1.73E-02 3. 75E-Ol 6. 79E-02 12 o. 189 1. liE-Oj 2'.09E-02 4.05E-Ol 7. 65E-02 13 O~ 197 1.29E-OJ 2. 55E-02 4.40E-01 8.66E-02 17 On213 2. 13E-··01 4.54E-02 5.67E-Ol 1.21E-Ol 20 0.217 2.81E-Ol 6.09E-02 6. 48E--Ol 1.41E-Ol

./ of DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEF'TH ,. YEAF, TOT. TRAF. total total *1. total total *1.

B-757 1 0.000 O.OOE+(lO O .. OOE+OO ~ 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO ..::. - (1.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OC) . .:.

4 0.000 O .. OOE+OO O.OOE+OO ~ ,.J 0.000 (I"OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 6 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 7 0.000 O.OOE+OO O .. OOE+OO 8 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 9 0 .. 000 (l .. OOE+OO O.OOE+OO

10 0 .. 000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 11 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 12 0.000 O~OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 13 OnO!)!) O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 17 0.001 2.91E-Ol 2.91E-04 9. llE-Ol 9. llE-e)4 20 0 .. 005 3. 82E-Ol 1.91E-03 9.89E-Ol 4.95E-03

I. of DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEPTH YEAR TOT.TRAF. tot. *1./13 total *1.

All TI-af. 1. 1.000 8. 87E-04 1.12E-Ol 2 1.000 1.69E-03 1.72E-Ol - 1.000 2.40E-03 2. 10E-Ol . ..,;. 4 1.000 3.22E-03 2.41E-Ol 5 1.000 4.09E-03 2.69E-Ol 6 1.000 5. 66E-03 3.11E-Ol ? 1.000 6. 67E-03 3.36E-Ol 8 1.000 7.84E--03 3. 62E-Ol 9 1.000 9. 13E-03 3.90E-Ol

10 1.000 1.09E-02 4.25E-Ol 11 1.000 1.30E-02 4.63E-(Jl 12 1..000 1.55E-02 5.04E-Ol 13 1.000 1.86E-02 5.51E-Ol 17 1.000 3.27E-02 7. 23E-Ol 20 1.000 4.47E-02 8. 36E-Ol

212

ZONE: Wet-No Freeze MATERIAL: ASPHALT CONCRETE CONTROL

A B C 0 E % of DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEPTH

PLANE YEAR TOT.TRAF. total tot,alll% total total$% DC-09 1 1.000 2.41E-Ol 2.41E-01 1.61E+01 1.61E+Ol

2 1.000 4.58E-01 4.58E-01 2.2SE+Ol 2.25E+Ol 7 ~, 0.949 6. 15E-Ol 5.84E-Ol 2.S8E+Ol 2.45E+Ol 4 0.848 7.53E-Ol 6. 39E-01 2. 82E+Ol 2.39E+Ol 5 0.754 8.84E-01 6.66E-Ol 3.01E+01 2.27E+Ol 6 0.635 1.08E+00 6.86E-01 3.26E+01 2.07E+Ol 7 0.578 1.21E+OO 6.98E-01 3.40E+Ol 1.97E+Ol 8 0.527 1. 35E+OO 7. 13E-01 3.55E+Ol 1.87E+Ol 9 0.482 1.52E+OO 7.30E-01 3.69E+01 1. 78E+C,'1

10 0.433 1.74E+OO 7.53E-01 3.88E+01 1.68E+Ol 11 0.390 2.00E+OO 7.82E-01 4.07E+01 1.59E+Ol 12 0.352 2.31E+OO 8. 13E-01 4.26E+01 1.50E+01 13 0.315 2.71E+OO 8.52E-01 4.48E+01 1.41E+Ol 17 0.229 4. 46E+00 1.02E+00 5.21E+01 1. 19E+Ol 20 0.186 5.87E+OO 1.09E+OO 5.63E+Ol 1.05E+01

% of DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEPTH YEAR TOT.TRAF. total total*/. total total*/.

DC-10 1 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 2 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 3 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 4 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 5 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+t)O 6 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 7 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 8 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 9 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO

10 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 1 1 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 12 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 13 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 17 0.001 1.79E+01 1.79E-02 1.88E+02 1.88E-Ol 20 0.006 2.36E+Ol 1.41E-01 2.03E+02 1.22E+OO

% of DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEPTH TOT.TRAF. total total*% total total*/.

B-727 1 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 2 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OI) 3 0.032 1.50E+OO 4.81E-02 3.42E+01 1.09E+00 4 0.089 1.84E+OO 1.64E-01 3.73E+01 3. 32E+00 5 0.143 2. 16E+00 3.08E-Ol 3.98E+Ol 5. 69E+OO 6 0.237 2.64E+OO 6.25E-01 4.30E+01 1.02E+Ol 7 0.281 2. 95E+OO 8. 28E-01 4.49E+Ol 1.26E+01 8 0.321 3.30E+OO 1.06E+OO 4.68E+01 1.50E+Ol 9 0.357 3.70E+OO 1.32E+OO 4.87E+01 1.74E+Ol

10 0.395 4. 25E+OO 1. 68E+I~O 5.11E+Ol 2.02E+Ol 1 1 0.429 4. 89E+OO 2.10E+OO 5.36E+01 2.30E+Ol 12 0.459 5. 64E+OO 2. 59E+OO 5.61E+Ol 2.57E+Ol 13 0.488 6.60E+OO 3. 22E+OO 5.90E+01 2.88E+01 17 0.556 1.09E+01 6.05E+OO 6.87E+Ol 3.82E+Ol 20 0.586 1.43E+Ol 8. 39E+OO 7.38E+01 4.33E+Ol

213

A B C 0 E % of DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEPTH

PLANE YEAR TOT.TRAF. total total*t. total total*t. B-737 1 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO ,..,

~ 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+Ot) 3 0.019 5.24E-Ol 9. 95E-03 2.20E+Ol 4.18E-Ol 4 0.063 6.41E-01 4.04E-02 2.4·0E+01 1.51E+OO 5 0.103 7.52E-Ol 7. 74E-02 2.56E+Ol 2. 63E+(lO 6 0.128 9. 19E-Ol 1.1SE-01 2.76E+01 3.54E+OO 7 O. 141 1.03E+00 1.45E-Ol 2.88E+01 4.06E+OO S 0.152 1. 15E+00 1.75E-Ol 3.00E+01 4.56E+OO 9 0.161 1.29E+OO 2.08E-01 3. 12E+Ol 5.03E+OO

10 0.172 1.4SE+OO 2. 55E-(Jl 3.27E+Ol 5. 63E+OO 11 O. 181 1.71E+OO 3.09E-Ol 4.33E+01 7. 84E+OO 12 0.189 1.97E+OO 3.72E-Ol 3.59E+Ol 6. 78E+OO 13 0.197 2.30E+OO 4.53E-Ol 3.77E+Ol 7. 42E+00 17 0.213 3. 79E+OO B.OBE-Ol 4.36E+01 9. 29E+OO 20 0.217 4. 99E+00 1.0BE+OO 4.70E+01 1.02E+(l1

% of DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEPTH YEAR TOT.TRAF. total total*t. total total*%

8-757 1 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 2 0.000 O.OOE+(JO O.OOE+OO 3 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+(I0 4 0.000 O.OOE+(JO O.OOE+OO 5 0.000 O.OOE+I)O O.OOE+OO 6 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 7 0.000 O.OOE+(lO O.OOE+OO 8 0.000 O.OOE+(}() O. (}()E +00 9 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO

10 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 11 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 12 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 1"" '-' 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 17 0.001 5. 23E+OO 5.23E-03 3.31E+Ol 3.31E-02 20 0.005 6.88E+OO 3. 44E-02 :::;,.63E+Ol 1.B1E-(l1

% of DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEPTH YEAR TOT.TRAF. tot. *%/13 total*%

All T .... af. 1 1.000 1.85E-02 1.61E+01 2 1.000 3. 52E-02 2 .. 25E+Ol 3 1.000 4.94E-02 2.60E+01 4 1.000 6. 48E-02 2.S7E+01 5 1.000 8.09E-02 3.10E+01 6 1.000 1. 10E-Ol 3.44E+01 7 1.000 1.2BE-01 3. 63E+Ol B 1 . 000 1.50E-01 3.83E+Ol 9 1.000 1.74E-Ol 4.02E+01

10 1.000 2.07E-Ol 4.26E+01 11 1.000 2.45E-Ol 4.67E+01 12 1.000 2.90E-01 4. 75E+01 13 1.000 3.48E-01 5.03E+Ol 17 1.000 6. OSE-I) 1 5. 96E+(ll 20 1. (100 8.26E-01 6. 53E+01

214

ZONE: Wet-No Freeze MATERIAL: ASF'HALT RUBBER LOW

% of DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEPTH PLANE YEAR TOT.TRAF. total total*% total total"'/. DC-09 1 1.000 4. 68E-02 4;68E-02 1.64E-Ol 1.64E-01

2 1.000 8.90E-02 8.90E-02 2.42E-01 2.42E-Ol

'" '-' 0.949 1.20E-01 1.14E-Ol 2.87E-01 2.72E-Ol 4 0.848 1.47E-Ol 1. 24E-01 3.22E-Ol 2.73E-Ol 5 0.754 1.'72E-Ol 1.30E-Ol 3.51E-Ol 2.65E-01 6 0.635 " L. 10E·-01 1.33E-Ol 3.92E-Ol 2.49E-01 '7 0.578 2.35E-Ol 1.36E-Ol 4.16E-Ol 2.41E-01 8 0.527 2. 63E-01 1.39E-Ol 4. 43E-Ol 2.33E-Ol 9 0.482 2.95E-Ol 1.42E-01 4.70E-01 2.26E-01

10 0.433 3.39E-·01 1.47E-01 5.05E-Ol 2.191::-01 11 0.390 3.90E-Ol 1.52E-01 5.44E-01 2.12E-Ol 12 0.352 4.49E-01 1.58E-01 5.85E-Ol 2.06E-01 1'" '-' 0.315 5.26E-Ol 1.66E-Ol 6.33E-01 2.00E-01 17 0.229 8.67E-01 1.98E-01 8.10E-01 1.85E-Ol 20 0.186 1. 14E+00 2. 12E-Ol 9.23E-Ol 1.72E-01

% of DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEPTH YEAR TOT.TRAF. total total*% total total*%

DC--I0 1 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 2 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 3 0.000 O .. OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 4 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 5 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 6 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 7 0.000 O.OOE+t)O O.OOE+OO 8 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 9 0.000 O.OOE+OU O.OOE+OO

10 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 1 1 0.000 O.OOE+I)O O.OOE+OO 12 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 13 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 17 0.001 3. 83E+OO 3. 83E-03 1.28E+OO 1.28E-03 20 0.006 5.04E+OO 3.03E-02 1.43E+OO 8.60E-03

% of DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEF'TH TOT.TRAF. total total*% total total*%

8-727 1 0.000 O.OOE+(lO O.OOE+OO 2 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 3 0.032 2.64E-Ol 8.46E--03 3.6::",E-01 1. 16E-02 4 0.089 3.24E-Ol 2. 88E-02 4.07E-t)1 3.62E-02 5 0.143 3.80E-01 5. 43E-02 4.45E-01 6. 36E-02 6 0.237 4.64E-Ol 1. 10E-01 4.97E-Ol 1.18E-Ol 7 0.281 5.19E-01 1.46E-01 5.27E-01 1.48E-Ol 8 0.321 5.81E-01 1.87E-Ol 5.60E-Ol 1.80E-01 9 0.357 6.51E-01 2.32E-Ol 5.95E-01 2. 12E-Ol

10 0.395 7.47E-01 2.955-01 6.39E-Ol 2.53E-Ol 11 0.429 8.61E-01 3.69E-01 6.88E-01 2.95E·-Ol 12 0.459 9.93E-01 4.56E-Ol 7.40E-Ol 3.40E-01 13 0.488 1.16E+OO 5.68E-Ol 8.01E-01 3.91E-01 17 0.556 1.92E+OO 1.06E+OO 1.02E+OO 5.69E-Ol 20 0.586 2. 52E+OO 1.48E+OO 1. 17E+OO 6.84E-01

215

'% of DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEPTH PLANE YEAR TOT.TRAF. total total *'% total total*,% B-737 1 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO

") ~ 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 3 0.019 8.61E-02 1.63E-03 2. 45E-(l1 4. 66E-03 4 0.063 1.05E-Ol 6. 64E-03 2.76E-01 1.74E-02 5 0.103 1.24E-01 1.27E-02 3.03E-Ol 3.12E-02 6 0.128 1.51E-01 1.93E-02 3.39E-01 4.34E-02 7 O. 141 1.69E-01 2. 38E-02 3.61E-Ol 5.09E-02 8 0.152 1.B9E-·Ol 2.88E-02 3.B4E-Ol 5.84E-02 9 O. 161 2. 12E-Ol 3.41E-02 4.09E-Ol 6.58E-02

10 0.172 2. 43E-('1 4. lBE-02 4.40E-Ol 7. 57E-02 1 1 O. lBl 2. BOE-Ol 5.07E-02 4.75E-Ol 8.59E-02· 12 0.lB9 3.23E-Ol 6.11E-02 5.12E-Ol 9.67E-02 13 0.197 3.7BE-('1 7. 45E-02 5.55E-Ol 1.09E-Ol 17 0.213 6.23E-01 1. ::nE-Ol 7. 14E-01 1.52E-(H 20 0.217 B.20E-01 1.7BE-Ol B.16E-Ol 1.77E-01

'% of DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEPTH YEAR TOT.TRAF. total total*,% total total*,%

B-757 1 0.0(10 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 2 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 3 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 4 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 5 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 6 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 7 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO B 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 9 0.000 O.OOE+t)(l O.OOE+OO

10 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 11 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 12 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 13 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 17 0.001 1.03E+OO 1.03E-03 1.05E+OO !.05E-03 20 0.005 1.35E+OO 6. 77E-03 1. 19E+OO 5. 96E-03

% of DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEPTH YEAR TOT.TRAF. tot.*%/13 total*%

All Traf. 1 1.000 3.60E-03 1.64E-Ol 2 1.000 6. B4E-O;o· 2.42E-Ol 3 1.000 9.51E-03 2.BBE-Ol 4 1.000 1.23E-02 3.26E-Ol 5 1.000 1.51E-02 3.60E-Ol 6 1.000 2.02E-02 4.10E-01 7 1.000 2. 35E-02 4.40E-Ol B 1.000 2. 72E-02 4.72E-01 9 1.000 3. 14E-02 5.05E-Ol

10 1.000 3. 72E-02 5.47E-01 11 1.000 4.40E-02 5.93E-Ol 12 1.000 ~

..J. 19E-02 6.42E-01 13 1.000 6.21E-02 7.00E-01 17 1.000 1.0BE-Ol 9.09E-Ol 20 1.000 1.46E-01 1.05E+OO

216

ZONE: Wcpt-No FrCPllllzlIII MATERIALIASPHALT RU88ER MEDIUM

% of DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEPTH PLANE YEAR TOT.TRAF. totill total *% total totill*% DC-09 1 1.000 2.9BE-02 2.9BE-02 1.38E-Ol 1.38E-Ol

2 1.000 5. 66E-02 5. 66E-02 2.07E-Ol 2.07E-Ol 3 0.949 7.61E-02 7.22E-02 2.48E-Ol 2. 35E-Ol 4 0.848 9. 32E-02 7.90E-02 2.80E-Ol 2.37E-Ol 5 0.754 1.09E-01 8. 24E-02 3.07E-01 2.31E-Ol 6 0.635 1.34E-Ol 8. 48E-02 3.45E-Ol 2.19E-Ol 7 0.578 1.49E-01 8.63E-02 3.67E-01 2.12E-Ol 8 0.527 1.67E-Ol 8. 82E-02 3.91E-01 2.06E-Ol 9 0.482 1.87E-Ol 9.03E-02 4.16E-01 2.01E-Ol

10 0.433 2. 15E-Ol 9.31E-02 4. 49E-Ol 1.95E-Ol 11 0.390 2.48E-Ol 9.66E-02 4.B5E-01 1.B9E-Ol 12 0.352 2. 86E-Ol. 1.01E-01 5. 23E-(l1 1. 84E-O 1 13 0.315 3.35E-Ol 1.05E-Ol 5.69E-Ol 1.79E-Ol 17 0.229 5.51E-Ol 1.26E-(>1 7.34E-Ol 1.6BE-Ol 20 0.186 7.25E-Ol 1.35E-Ol B.39E-Ol 1.56E-Ol

I. of DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEPTH YEAR TOT.TRAF. total total *1. total total *1.

DC-l0 1 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 2 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 3 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 4 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 5 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 6 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 7 0.1)1)0 O. (>OE+OO O. t)OE+OO 8 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 9 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO

10 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 1 1 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 12 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 13 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 17 0.001 2. 33E+OO 2.33E-03 1.05E+00 1.05E-03 20 0.006 3.06E+OO 1.84E-02 1. 18E+00 7.08E-03

I. of DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEPTH TOT.TRAF. total total *1. total total *1'.

8-727 1 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 2 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 7

'-' 0.032 1.91E-Ol 6.10E-03 3. 15E-Ol 1.01E-02 4 0.089 2.33E-Ol 2.08E-02 3.55E-Ol 3.16E-02 5 0.143 2.74E-Ol 3.91E-02 3.89E-Ol 5.56E-02 6 0.237 3. 35E-Ol 7. 93E-02 4. 36E-(l1 1.03E-Ol 7 0.281 3.74E-Ol 1.05E-Ol 4. 64E-(l1 1.30E-Ol 8 0.321 4. 19E-Ol 1. :::;.4E-Ol 4.94E-Ol 1.59E-Ol 9 0.357 4.69E-Ol 1. 67~-01 5.26E-Ol 1.88E-Ol

10 0.395 5.39E-Ol 2. 13E-Ol 5. 66E-Ol 2.24E-Ol 11 0.429 6.20E-Ol 2.66E-Ol 6.11E-Ol 2.62E-01 12 0.459 7. 16E-01 3. 28E-Ol 6.58E-Ol 3.02E-Ol 13 0.488 8. 38E-Ol 4.09E-Ol 7. 14E-Ol 3. 49E-Ol 17 0.556 1. 38E+OO 7.67E-Ol 9.18E-Ol 5.10E-Ol 20 0.586 1. 82E+00 1.06E+OO 1.05E+OO 6. 14E-Ol

217

% of DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEPTH PLANE YEAR TOT.TRAF. total total*% total total*% 8-737 1 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO

2 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO ~

'-' 0.019 6.49E-02 1.23E-03 2.21E-Ol 4.20E-03 4 0.063 7.95E-02 5.01E-03 2.49E-Ol 1.57E-02 5 0.103 9.32E-02 9.60E-0::;. 2.74E-Ol 2.82E-02' 6 0.128 1.14E-Ol 1.46E-02 3.08E-01 3.94E-02 7 0.141 1.27E-Ol 1.79E-02 3.28E-Ol 4.62E-02 8 0.152 1.43E-Ol 2. 17E-02 3.50E-Ol 5. 32E-02 9 0.161 1.60E-Ol 2. 57E-02 3.73E-Ol 6.00E-02

10 0.172 1.84E-01 3. 16E-02 4.02E-01 6. 92E-02 11 O. 181 2.11E-Ol 3. 83E-02 4.35E-Ol 7.86E-02 12 0.189 2.44E-Ol 4.61E-02 4.69E-01 8.87E-02 13 0.197 2.85E-Ol 5.62E-02 5.10E-Ol 1.00E-01 17 0 .. 213 4.70E-01 1.00E-Ol 6.59E-01 1.40E-Ol 20 0.217 6. 19E-Ol 1.34E-Ol 7.55E-Ol 1.64E-01

% of DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEPTH YEAR TOT.TRAF. total total*% total total*%

8-757 1 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 2 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 3 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 4 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 5 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 6 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 7 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 8 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 9 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO

10 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 1 1 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 12 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 13 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 17 0.001 6.51E-Ol 6.51E-04 6. 96E-Ol 6. 96E-04 20 0.005 8.57E-Ol 4.2BE-t)3 7.86E-Ol 3. 93E-03

'l. of DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEPTH YEAR TOT.TRAF. tot. *%/13 total*%

All Tr-af. 1 1.000 2. 29E-03 1. 38E-Ol 2 1.000 4. 35E-03 2.07E-01 3 1.000 6. 12E-03 2. 49E-01 4 1.000 8.06E-03 2.84E-Oi 5 1.000 1.01E-In 3. 15E-Oi 6 1.000 1.37E-02 3.61E-Ol 7 1.000 1.61E-02 3. 89E-Ol 8 1.000 1.88E-02 4. 18E-Ol 9 1.000 2. 18E-02 4.4BE-Ol

10 1.000 2.60E-02 4.B7E-(>1 11 1.000 3.09E-02 5.30E-Ol 12 1.000 3. 65E-02 5.75E-Ol 13 1.000 4. 39E-02 6.2BE-Ol 17 1.000 7. 67E-02 8.20E-Ol 20 1.000 1.04E-Oi 9. 45E-Ol

218

ZONE: Wet-No Freeze MATERIAL: ASPHALT RUBBER HIGH

% of DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEPTH PLANE YEAR TOT.TRAF. totill totill*% total total *% DC-09 1 1.000 3.33E-02 3.33E-02 1.94E-Ol L94E-Ol

2 1.000 6. :~AE-02 6. 34E-02 2.76E-Ol 2.76E-Ol 3 0.949 8.52E-02 8.09E-02 3.22E-Ol 3.06E-Ol 4 0.848 1.C>4E-Ol 8. 84E-02 3.58E-Ol 3.03E-Ol 5 0.754 1.22E-Ol 9.22E-02 3.88E-Ol 2.92E-Ol 6 0.635 1.50E-(>1 9 .. 50E-02 4.29E-Ol 2.72E-Ol 7 0.578 1.67E-Ol 9. 66E-02 4.53E-Ol 2.62E-Ol 8 0.527 1.87E-Ol 9.87E-02 4.79E-Ol 2.52E-Ol 9 0.482 2.10E-Ol 1.01E-Ol 5.06E-Ol 2.44E-OI

10 0.433 2.41E-Ol 1.04E-Ol 5.41E-Ol 2.34E-Ol 1 I 0.390 2.78E-Ol 1.08E-01 5.79E-Ol 2.26E-(Jl 12 0.352 3.20E-01 1.13E-OI 6. 19E-Ol ..,

~. 18E-Ol 13 O.~515 3.75E-Ol 1.18E-Ol 6.66E-Ol 2.10E-Ol 17 0.229 6.17E-Ol 1.41E-Ol 8.36E-Ol 1.91E-Ol 20 0.186 8.12E-Ol 1.51E-Ol 9.43E-Ol 1.75E-OI

I. of DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEPTH YEAR TOT.TRAF. total total*% total total *1.

DC-H) 1 0.000 O.OOE+OO (l.OOE+OC) ~,

'" 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 3 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+Ot) 4 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+(I0 5 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+(l(l

6 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+(I(l 7 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+(H)

8 (1.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+(>(l 9 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO

10 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+(lO 1 1 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 12 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 1"'" ~. 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 17 0.001 2.17E+OO 2. 17E-03 1.41E+OO 1.41E-03 20 0.006 2. 85E+OO 1.71E-02 1.55E+OO 9.29E-03

% of DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEPTH TOT.TRAF. total total*i'. total total*%

B-727 1 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 2 0.000 O.OOE+OI) O.OOE+OO ?

'-' 0.032 1.90E-01 6.07E-03 4.29E-Ol 1.37E-02 4 0.089 2.32E-Ol 2.07E-02 4.74E-Ol 4.22E-02 5 0.143 2.73E-Ol 3.90E-02 5. 12E-Ol 7.32E-02 6 0.237 3. ::!.3E-Ol 7.90E-02 5.64E-Ol 1. :".4E-Ol 7 0.281 3.72E-Ol 1.05E-Ol 5.95E-Ol 1.67E-Ol 8 0.321 4. 17E-01 1.34E-Ol 6.28E-Ol 2.01E-Ol 9 0.357 4.67E-Ol 1.67E-Ol 6. 62E-Ol 2.36E-Ol

1(> 0.395 5. 36E-Ol 2. 12E-'~1 7.06E-Ol 2.79E-Ol 1 1 0.429 6. 18E-Ol 2.65E-Ol 7.53E-Ol 3.23E-01 12 0.459 7. 13E-01 3.27E-Ol 8.04E-Ol 3.69E-Ol 13 0.488 8.34E-Ol 4.07E-Ol 8.63E-Ol 4.21E-(>1 17 0.556 1.38E+OO 7.67E-Ol 1.07E+00 5.97E-C>1 20 0.586 1. 81E+OO 1.06E+OO 1.21E+OO 7.08E-<)1

219

% of DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEPTH F'LANE YEAR TOT.TRAF. total total*% total total*% 8-737 1 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO

2 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 3 0.019 7.41E-02 1.41E-03 2.80E-Ol 5.33E-03 4 0.06:3 9.07E-02 5.71E-03 3.12E-Ol 1.96E-02 5 0.103 1.06E-Ol 1.10E-02 3.39E-Ol 3. 49E-02 6 0.128 1.30E-Ol 1.67E-02 ::!,.75E-Ol 4.80E-02 7 0.141 1.45E-01 2.05E-02 3.96E-Ol 5. 59E-02 8 0.152 1.6::!,E-Ol 2. 48E-02 4.20E-(l1 6. 38E-02 9 o. 161 1.82E-Ol 2. 94E-02 4.44E-Ol 7. 14E-02

10 0.172 2.09E-01 3.60E-02 4.75E-01 8.16E-02 1 1 o. 181 2.41E-Ol 4. 37E-02 5.08E-Ol 9.20E-02" 12 0.189 2.78E-01 5.26E-02 5.44E-Ol 1.03E-Ol 13 0.197 3.26E-Ol 6. 42E-02 5.86E-Ol 1. 15E-0 1 17 0.213 5.37E-01 1.14E-01 7.38E-01 1. 57E -01 20 0.217 7.06E-Ol 1.53E-01 8.34E-01 1.81E-01

% of DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEPTH YEAR TOT.TRAF. total total *i'. total total *1.

B--757 1 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 2 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 3 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 4 0.000 O.OOE+(lO O.OOE+OO 5 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+Ot) 6 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 7 0.000 O.OOE+(lO O.OOE+OO 8 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 9 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO

10 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 1 1 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 12 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 13 0.000 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 17 0.001 7. 14E-01 7. 14E-04 9.33E-01 9.33E-04 20 0.005 9.39E-01 4. 69E-03 1.03E+OO 5. 13E-03

I. of DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEPTH YEAR TOT.TRAF. tot. *%/13 tot al *i'.

All Traf. 1 1.000 2.56E-03 1.94E-01 2 1 . 000 4.87E-03 2.76E-01 ?

"-' 1 • 000 6.80E-03 3.25E-Ol 4 1.000 8.83E-03 3.65E-Ol 5 1.000 1.09E-02 4.00E-01 6 1.000 1. 47E-02 4.54E-01 7 1.000 1.71E-02 4.S5E-01 8 1.000 1.9SE-02 5.1SE-01 9 1.000 2.29E-02 5.52E-Ol

10 1.000 2.71E-02 5.95E-01 11 1.000 3.21E-02 6.41E-Ol 12 1.000 3. 79E-02 6.90E-Ol 13 1.000 4. 53E-02 7.46E-01 17 1.000 7.S9E-02 9.4SE-01 20 1.000 1.07E-01 1.0SE+OO

220

tUNt::: Dry-No Freeze MHleH1AL:AS~HALT CONCRETt:: LON1RuL

A B C 0 E "- of DAMAuE INDE.X t-/Ul I.IE.P1H

PLANE YE:.AR TOT. TRAF. tc.tai total"" total total"'" 1.1"';-0':1 1 1. lH.H) '=I. !:lUt:.-lll ':I.!:lOr:.-Ol 1. '<be-Ul 1.'<bt:.-Ul

2 1. uOU 1. 8bE-Ol 1.8bE-Ol c.1BE-Ol c:. 18E-Ul ~ u. ':;'<':! <:. ~lt:.-lll <:.~et:.-Ul O=.bOt::-Ul c.47t£-Ul

'+ u.1:I48 .5.0/£-u1 2.6oe.-Ol c.':I2E-Ul <:.4BE-1)1 ::. u. 1'54 :O.bOt:.-Ul d. ~/lt:.-I)l ".20e-lll i::.41t:::-Ul

b I). b35 4.41)£-(>1 2.7'::1£-01 3.5I:1E-01 2.2"1£-1)1 I U.tlltj '<.9lt:.-U1 2.tJ4t::.-Ol 2..!:lOI:.-Ul ,~ .... 19£-Ul

d U.521 5.51 E-CIl 2. ':WE-01 4.04£-01 <:. 13£-01 '=I I).,+e~ b. Ilt:.-Ul <:.91t:.-Ul '+.29t:.-01 <::.07,e-u1

11) U."f..:S.3 7.01:1£-01 3.0-1£-01 4.51E-01 0:::. 00t::-1) 1 11 u. ~':ju e. 1be-lll 3. let::-lll 4.'::15t:.-Ul 1. 94t:.-u1 1e:: 1) • .5='2 ':I.'+I£-U1 3.31£-01 t..3,+E-Ol 1.88£-01 I"> U.315 1. lUt:.+lJU :0. '+ 71:.-ul 5. hIe -Ul 1. 1;2t::-1) 1 11 u. ~2':3 1.8<:E+OO '+. 1bE-01 7 • .51:1£-01 1. 5'=lt::-1)1 CU U. Il:1b a::: . .;s':lt:.+lKl 4. 44t:.-Ol i:I.40t:.-Ul 1.t.bl:.-Ul

" of I.IAMAl::it:: IND£X Hur DE.PTH Yt:HH I U r. 1 HAt- • t I:.t a 1 total"" t Cot al tc.tal"l<-

DC-II) 1 u.uuO O.UUE.+OO I). uOE+()(>

C O.uuu u.UOI::.+UU O .. uul::+OO .3 U.Uur) u.OC)E+uO O.OOe+I)O '< U. l)UU ll" UU1:.+00 O.OUt::+Oll =-; U.UUU U.OO£+OO o.OOE+UO b (I.OUU ll. uut:.+(JU l). uOE.+uO 1 U. (JUU I).I)()£+OO O.UOE+OO e u.uuu U.UOt:.+Ou O.uut::+OO ':! u.UUO O.(lOE.+Ou u.UO£+OO

10 U.l>UU O.uOt:.+(I0 ll.OOt::+110 11 O.uuO ll. OOE. +lH) u.LlOE+OO le:: u.OOu L>.uOI::.+OO (I. llO£+OO 1':; U .. OI)O L>. ()lIE +00 O.L>O£+OO 1 I U.OOI 'I. tl'::lI:.+Oll I. i:l9£-ll3 1. 20t::.+ (l() 1.201=.-03

2u 0.006 1.0'+E+u1 b.2~£-02 1.3'+£+00 tl.Olt::-U3 l<- cl ," JJAMHL:;E:. 1 NDt:: X RUT 1.It::~TH

rur. TkA~. total total"" total total"" .tI-1i:::! 1 O.OUI) o.uOc.+ou O. UlIt::+lH')

c: l).uOO O.OU£+(I(1 u.uut::+I)()

3 u.lI2iC: b.3'::it:.-lll 2.o4t::.-u2 :0. 481:.-Ul 1. 111:.-l12 '+ (). lI8:! 7.8<:E-01 o. l~bE-U2 3.8~£-(I1 3.47£-02 5 lI. 143 9. 111:.-111 1.311::.-01 4. 25t:-Ul 6.08t:.-(12 6 l).i=:37 1. 12£+(10 2.6bE-(I1 4. 74£-01 1 • 12E-()1 'I 0.281 1. c:::'1::. +00 3.e>21::.-1I1 ::'.02t::-ul 1. 41E:.-1l1 8 (). 321 1.40E+00 4.51E-Ol 5.33£-01 1. 11E-Ol 9 O.3'b1 1. e>71:.+00 !:>.b1E:.-Ol 5.66£-01 2.02E-Ul

10 1I.395 1. 81E+OL> 7. 131::-01 6.07E-Ol 2.40E-Ol 1 1 ll. '<2',; 2. tJi:h£+(HJ 1;.92£-01 b.e>21:.-1I1 2.!:l01:.-01 12 u. ,+5';3 2.4uE+OO 1. 10E+00 7.0UE-Ol 3.21£-01 13 ~I. '<81:! 2. I;J E.+OO 1. 37t::+00 7. 56e-Ol 3. 69t:.-lI1 11 u.556 4. 63E+OO 2. 57E+00 '3.5I;E-Ol 5.33£-01 0=0 ll. !:I8b 6.091::.+00 3.571:.+00 1. 09t::+(IO 6. 37E:.-Ol

221

A B C 0 E " of DAMAGE INUEX HUI DEP1H

t""L.Ht\lt::. n:.HH j U' • IHAt-. t Cit a 1 tc,t a 1 *" t c,'c a 1 tc,tal*" B-i.,1 l U. IJUll I). OOE+,OO U. lllll::.+ll(l

0::: ll. llUll ll. 1I111::.+1I1-, l).OOt:.+UU .:, U.Ol':3 2 . I.,E-Ol 4. (I::'E-O.3 2.2bE-Ol 4.~OE-()':;

4 ll. llb3 2.blt::-Ol 1.b4t:.-lJ2 2.~::;t:.-Ul 1. bll::.-u2 ::5 1I. 10.3 .3.U6E-Ul .3. 15£-02 2.7'::IE-01 2.88£-02 b 1I. l<::tl 3.751::.-01 4. 19t:.-uc: 3. 13t::-Ul 4.00t:.-U2 I O. 141 4. lcsE-UI ::1. ':3uE:-02 2i.32E-Ol 4.b91:::-02 /:I u. 1:;:)i=! 4.b91::.-1I1 't. 13t:.-Ui::: 3. 54t::.-U1 ~ '"' . ~8t:.-u2 ':1 1I. Ibl :5.2::'E-1l1 tI.4::'E-02 3.75E-lll b.O::'E-02

10 1I. 1 l i:: b.031:::-01 1. (l41::.-U1 4.0::.it:.-Ul b. '36t::.-u<:: 11 u. Itl1 b. '34E-01 1. 25E-01 4 • .3bE-Ol 1.1::I9E-02 12 (.I. 1/:1':" 1::1. 1I11::.-I.!1 1. 511:::"-1) 1 4.7UI::.-Ul 1::1. 88t=.:-Ui::: 12; o. 191 '':I • .3 1::1 E-I) 1 1. 85E-Ol ::;.03E-Ol 1. out:::-() 1

17 U.i:::l.:l 1. 55l:.+uu ~.i:::9t::.-CJl b.52t:.-Ul 1. 39t::.-Ul

20 u.217 2.0..sE+(lO 4.4lt:.-Ol 7. 44E-Ul 1. blE-I.>1

" of uA MAt.:.l 10 I NOI::.X HU r iJl::.J.lIH Yt::.AH ruT. THAI". tCI'tal total*" total tCltal*/,.

}:i-/t,,'1 1 (I.uut> U.Ollt:::+Oc) O. Ul>t::'+UU

.:: u.uuU O.OOE+OO u.()ut::.+OO ~ u.uuu u.()()t:..+1I0 1l.1I11£::.+UO 4 ().UUi) u.()uE+OO IJ.UUI::.+C)() ~

-' O.lIUU u.tJut::.+uu U. lH).t:.+l)O

b u.uuO U. l>Ut::.+OU U.llUt:.+OU I u. ()OU o. lH .. lt::.+(JU U.OUt:.+llC)

tl C).ouO U.UUI:.+OO ll.OOE+OO '':I O. lHJU U.l>Ut:.+(JO (J.UUc+()U

III O.OUt) O.OllE+OU u. OU~+Oll 11 U. llC)(J O. (IUI:::+lIU O. llllt::+UU li:: 0.000 U.OIJE+OO u.OOE+(lO 1"; U.UUU O. (>I)£::.+UU u.UOt:::.+(lu 17 1I.I)1I1 2. l~E+U(l 2. 15E-03 7. 95E-U1 "1.951:::-(14 20 0.005 2.~3~+(JO 1. 42t:::-02 B.93t::-(Jl 4.47<:'-03

~ of DAMAGE INDEX HUT DEJ.JTH VI::.HH I U I • T HHI-. t Cit. *;;. / 13 t CIt; a 1 *i'.

Hll l,'ai. 1 1.000 1.::'4E-03 1.4bE-01 2: 1.1I1111 1. 43t::-0i=: '-' ~. 181::.-U1 3 1. I)1I0 2.02E-02 2.6~C:-Ol

4 1. lH.JU 2.bbt:.-Oi:::: c. '38~-U 1 5 1. vvO 3.':;4E-02 ~.31t::-Ul

b 1 • 1I11l1 4.~bt::-()i:: 3. 73£::.-U1 7 1.000 ~ • .34E-02 4.01E-Ol to I.UlIlI b.c~c.-02 4. 38t::-I,.Il ',; 1.0Ull 7. 25E-02 4.5":110-01

HI 1.1I11U tj.b4t:.-Ui:::: 5.(l~E-(l1

11 1. Ollll 1.U:.>t::-Ul 5. 52E-Ol Ii::: 1. lH.)U 1.~2~-Ol ;:).381::.-1I1 13 1.0011 1.4bE-Ol b.51E-01 11 1. VOll i:::.561::.-lI1 8.431:::-01 20 1.000 ~.48E-Ol '::l.67E-01

222

LLJ"c:.: ut"V-I\ICt t-reeze f"1-1 ' en..j. Hl : ~~~HHt_. I I'<Ut<Ht:;1'< 1 U"l

~. n~ HAM"-Ibl-" fNIP-X I'<IJI Vt:;\.JIH fo'LHNt:. YI:.H~ 1 u I • TI'<HI-. tc.t a 1 tc.tal*" total total"''' lJL";-u':; .1 • t.H IU ~~. ,0) 11::.-( h:' .5. ,,1 I:.-uc I • i:'!:1~ -Il 1 1. c~r-:-l)l

.:: 1. llOO b.2~E-02 b.2':1E.-02 1 • ':l4E -01 1. ':14E-I)1 ~ ll. ':14'~ ~. 4::-1/::.-( ),-' H. (Ic't:: -(h- i:"' • .:;";2t:-Ul i:. i::'l~-(Jl

4 I.>. tl48 1. (l4c-lll 8.7!:1E-U2 2.5';;E-01 c::.~~t::-()l

::, Il. /04- 1 .. i:-' 1 t: -I J 1 ':; ~ 1 !:.It; --I k·: i::' .. t\'3t=: -(») c'. I !:II-: ·-1.>1 b (l.b'::::; 1.4':;1:::-1.11 ':3. 43E-02 3.25E-Ol 2. I)bE-1) 1 I o.!J/H 1 • btc.do -Ill '~. ~t:H:: -Ui.-:' :::-. 4bl:. -().1 '~

~. {,JUt:. -() 1

tI U.~27 1. 8bE-01 '~. 8UE-(l2 .3 .. 71)E.-Ol 1. ':1=..t::-Ul ':'} U.4tjc C:: .. 1,1t1t:.-U] l.()()~-{)l .. ~ •• 941:--0] ] .. I::jUb --I) 1

ltl U."t33 ~.3~E-(l1 1.0,5E-U1 4.2bE-01 1 • 84·E. -I) 1 I 1 l.l. ,j ':::H I c'" I!:'r: --I i 1 l.O/t::-Ul 4. b11::-I.11 l. bl)t ._1) 1 1':: u.3~2

, ~. 18E-01 1. 1 ;'-:E.-(> 1 4. ':;BE-Ol 1. !!:JE-Ul

1 ~~ u • .:') ~I ~. /c:I::.-{) 1 1. 17t-.-o) ~'. 4cl::.-UJ , . lIe-tIl

1 I 1.1. 2c":3 b. 1 i::'E-O 1 1.4I)E-01 7.03E-01 1. b1t:-Ul ,=U II. l~b 11 .. iJbt'.-fll , • ~}I ''': -f 1 1 1-1. I) /t. ... -(J 1 1. =.rl H:.-( IJ

1- of ORM~GO: INDt:X RU r De.PTH 'Yt:.Hh: I U r .. I h'1-H- ~ T. CIT. 20 1 toti::ll*i'- t c.t a] t.otaJ*'l·

IJL-l1'> 1 I.I .. U()U U.lJuE+UU u.u(lt:..+()()

c U .. U(JI.l t J. ()( 11::.+(.)( 1 U .. (IUI::.+()U

.5 (l. fH)U U.OuE:.+(lU U.UUt:.+UU 4 II .. I,H). I O. ()f)!--:+i){1 I)" ,li.lc: +UI I

::. U.U()U u.OUE+(I1) U.O(lI::.+UI)

b (l.I.)(JI) Il.I)fH::+(J(1 I) .. '.)(.lE:. +t>U

I u.uUU (.l. UUE+f)f) U.UOi::+UO tl (I. I)!.)!) (l. (J()t:.+(}f) U .. {IUt. +()U

':1 IJ.UUU U.OOE:.+uu u.IJuE+UU

III (l.IIt)!) (I. UUt:.+IYI U.UUI::.+f.lU

11 O.UUU O.OOE+(lU O.(Jut:..+UO

Ie: U.i.j()() u .. IH.lI::.+!)U u. (IUE:.+UU

1.5 u.uuu O.OuE+(lCl 1l.uOE+u(l ] 1 I). (HJl " . l..:;t:.+(HJ ~. 131::. -(J.:, '::4 .. 75E-Ul "'. 75t::-U4

2u U.O(lE. 4. lcE+(JO 2.47£-02 1. 11 E+(>O b.b5t:-03 l< of'" liHM~G~' J NDI:-. X RUl D~\.JIH

TuT. TRRF. tot a 1 tc,tal*% tota.L total*~

b-/c.1 1 (). U(H.l 1 J. (1)1::. +I.)() U.U{)t:.+I.lU

2 o.uOI) O.OuE+(>1) IJ.I)OE+UO ;" () .. (),.::.,,':: i.-:' • ..:;t.1t::.. -PI "1. bl)": -1)3 c' • H5f::-U1 '::l. lE-e.-1.>3 4 I).08·:J 2.'!::IIE-Ol 2.5'='E-02 3.24E-Cll 2.~81::.-U2 ~ I). 14~ .3.41t::.-C)1 4. t::H-II::.-Ui::' 2;. 5bl:.-f) 1 ~ JOI::.-Ui::' " -'. b 1).22i7 4. 17E-Ol '~. 8':iE -1)2 4.01E-Ol -:J.::'lE-1)2 / f.l.i::'el 4. bbt:.-I) I ] .. ,1 f,.-Il J 4. ~-:'8t.-()1 I • d(lt-:-Ul

tI 0 • ..::..21 ti.22E-01 1.5!:1E-01 4.57E-U1 1. 47t:-1)1

'" I). 3tJ I ~I. ~!:tIo:.-l.Il i,:::. I.I~"~ -t) 1 4.!:l71:.-0] 1. 740.-01 III O.~9:5 b. l2E-l)l 2.5::'E-01 S.25E.-Ol 2. Ot:H:. -01

11 lI.4t:'";':j { . f41:.-111 ,!1 • .5i::'f:. -t' 1 t..b91:.-l>l i:::'.44!::.-Ul

Ie:: 1I. 4~'~ !:l. ':32E-(l1 4. 10E-Ul 5. I~E-Ol <::.l::I2e.-01 J., 1l.4t-1t1 1 • (lOt:". +I)() ,'. lUt:.-I)} b.b9"'-01 .!o.c7!::.-ul

17 0.5::'5 l.72E+OO -:J.57E-01 a.o7E-01 4.t:l2E-Ul

<::U u.58b ii:'.27E+OO 1.33E+Oll ':1.9510-01 ~.~31:::-01

223

" of DAMAGt:: INDEX RUr DEPTH j..JL. Hr\lt-. Yr:.HR I U I. IRH~. t Cit a 1 tCttal*y.. total tc,t a1 *7. I!-I..,I 1 I). (lOll O. UUE +lll) IJ.lIlIE+O(l

i::: u.uuu U.l>UI::.+UU U.Ul>I=.+UU

~ ll. U1 ':i 1. 10:::1::-(12 1 • .3:;;;'E-OJ c:.01E-(i1 ~.~~~-()~

4 C).OO.j 1:1. "li:::t:.-UC ~. 4':iH:.-u3 2.2l:H:.-Ul 1.441::.-1)2 ::-, u. l(l~ 1.0e:E-Ol 1.U~E-02 2.51t:::-Ul C.:5S1I::.-UC b I). lc~ 1.i:::!:JI::.-Ol 1.bUr:.-Od e. tj 4 1::.-1.1 1 2,. b31::.-ui:"~

1 o. 141 1. 4uE-(.11 1. '371::-02 3.0~E-Ol 4. C:7t::.-Uc~

1:1 u. 1~C: 1.:::.71:.-<.>1 c:.~8t:.-uc ~.i:::4t:.-(,)1 4. 92!:.-u2 ';j U. lbl 1. 7~E-Ul 2.I:Ie:E-02 ":::;."+~t:-Ul ~.obE-()i:::

1U u. 1 Ie: 2.U11=.-1)1 .,j.4bl:.-Ui::: " ~. 74tO-Ol b. 4~t::-llc: 11 u. 11:11 c:.2i2E-OC: 4.i:::uE-O.3 4.1)~C:-Ol 1 • ':';.:i~ -uc:: 1.::: u. 11:1':1 i::.b~I=.-Ul :J.Ubt:.-Oc: 4."'I:It:.-01 tl.i:::C:St':.-Ui::: 1.:; IJ. 1';) 1 , l..!iE-Ul b. 1-/E-U2 4. 7!:1E-01 'j.41E::.-u2 ~.

1 1 U.i.:.'l~ ~ .,. 1 t,::,t:,-{) 1 1 • 1 ()t:.-u 1 b. i::c~t:.-f.I1 1. :.!-..!.ot:.-Ul

2u O.C:17 b. 7';jE-01 1. 47E-01 I. 1 bE-I.I1 l.::.~t:.=.:-Ul

:;< of UHJYlHbt:. 1 NUl:. X kUI VI:. fJT H YI:oAR TO'!. Ir(H~. t c,t a 1 tcotal*" tCIt 131 tcotal*"

Ct-I="/ 1 C). LIDO (). OCJb~ +(H) 1I.UOt:.+l)u e: I). (1)0 u.OI)E+OI) 1I.UUI::.+UU ~ o.U()u u.out:.+uu 1I.uOt:.+(l(J 4 l..I.uOu U.OUE+(JU o.(JUE+OO ~ ..J u. tJUU (J.OOt::.+th) (I.LlUt:.+UU b lJ.uUu u.uuE+OO u.uuE.+uO 1 U" U!JU (J.t1Ul:.+i)U U. f)Ut:. +()u

1:1 u.UOu O.OuE+uu CJ.uUE.+(JU ';j u.ouu u.uot:.+()() u. Utlt:.+t>U

lU u.()Uu u.OuE+OO u. c)uE+uU 1 1 o. UU() (J. (,.HJt:::+()U u.uut:.+U() 1e: u.uuu U.OUE+(Jt) 0.(1(1£+00 13 U .. Ulll) u.U()~+U() C.J. U()t:,+(H)

11 U.OUl 1.4c:t:-Ol 1.4e:E-O,+ '9.6.1 E-Ol '~. 011:0-«4 i::.l) u.ut>':) ':J • '1bl:.-01 4.I:II:II:.-U~ 1 • ()~t:. +lH) 5. 2..'::j~-lI2i

" Clt- VAJYlHl;;1:. INDEX RU i' DEPIH Y:::'f-iR I U I • I H'I-U- • t CI't .. *"-/1"::; tot al *"-

H.l I ,'a T. 1 1. uuu c:.54E-U.3 1. 21:11:.-U 1 i::: 1. uou '+.1:I41:.-u3 1. ':1'+1:. -u 1 .., 1 • lIlllJ b.!:IbE-u';; i:::."::;4t=.-Ul 4 1 • lH)U ':I • 1/1:.-U';' 2.bbt:::-1I1

::J 1. uOU 1. 1bE-U2 1.:::. '::I5£-u 1

b 1. Ol)U 1.bll:.-U2 ';;.~1:lI:.-Ul

7 I.UOO 1. '9ul:o-u2 ~. 63E-(.11 t; 1. lH)U ~.C:~t:.-uc: 2i. 1::I1t:-Ol ';j I. U(JU 2. :5 1:"E-02 '+. 19E-U1

lU I.liOU .:i .. Illt:-02 4. ::'7t:.-l)1

1 1 1. UlIU ~. 41 E-(J2. 4.':i7t::-U1 Ie: 1. .. t.H)U 4.4Ut=.-U;:: ::S.40t:.-Ol

1.3 I • Uf)O ::' • .3uE-02 ::-'.':i11:o-f.l1 1 1 l.OllU 9.31E:::-t.')c 'I. 7l:1E:;-ul i:::U 1. OOU 1. 27E-(ll ':i.uuE-Ol

224

LUN~: Dry-No I'-reeze M" I ~"l "L-: "o",H"L"1 I-(U"I:H:. f( MED1UM

,. of V"MI-lt.;~ INVE:x f(UT Vt:.",TH ",L"NE Y~AR TOT. TriAF. total total*" total total*" VL.:-U':i 1 1. UUU 1.~7E-Ui::: 1.o7t:.-O~ 1- 17~-lll 1- 1/~-U1

~ 1. vOO ~. ';:H:It:: - 0 2 2.9I:!E-02 1.80E-01 1.BUE-vl ~, u.'ii49 4. Ult::"-ll~ 3.!:\II::-U~ 2. 181::-1'>1 ~. 06~:-U1

4 1l.848 4. '::l1 E-02 4. lbE-02 2. 47E-Ol 2. O':;t::-I) 1 ~ u. /::,£+ ~. Ibt-.-Ui:"' 4."::';41::-Ui::' "J c. 12f:-1) 1 C'.O::Jt::-Ul

b u.b3::5 7.0e,E-02 4. 47t::-02 3.ubE-01 1. "::I 5 t:::-u 1 1 U. !J/l:;j 7" tj 7~-()i=' 4,,~OI::.-1)2 '!'" 27t::.-lll 1. I:!':i~-Ul

/:l u.027 ~.82E-02 4. 65E-02 .3.4':iE-01 1. !:!4E -I) I ':, (I. 4tk:: '-.j.~71::--()2 4. 161::-02 3./.;jti-ol 1. 81.>", -pi

III U.433 1. 13E-OI 4.3IE-02 4.03E-Ol 1.74E-l.il 1 1 u.39U I • 31 t:: -1.>1 t:1" O':lt:::-Ui=' 4.36"'-"1 1. 7U~-1)1 12 1l • .:.i~2 1. ::;1E~:-OI 5.3C>E-02 4.7IE-Ol 1. Gbt:.-UI ] 2; u.31::' 1.lbE-UI tl. t,bc.-OC ~

..J. 13t:.-(l1 l.b2~-ul

17 o. 22'9 c. ':ll E-01 G.G5E-02 b.b~E-Ol 1.~2t:.-1)1

cO u. l!:lb 3.~i.:::E:.-Ul -I. lll::.-Uc l.b31::-01 1. 42t:..-t11

" of DAMI-lGt:: INDEX RUr VEPTH 'y~HH IUT."II-(Af-. total tCltaJ.*~ total tot. C\ 1 *i'o

LJL;-IU I u.OOu O.OOE+UC> U.UvE+I)O 0=: U.I)UU 1I.UOt:.+uo u.uu£:.+uu .3 ().uOu u.OUE+OU U. UOl:::+I)U

4 i).(lUU o.oOt:::+oCJ U. (.JUt::. +(If)

::5 U.U(lu O. UOE+Oll u.uOt:.+(Iu b I). litH) u.UUI=.+O<) u. UU~+lIU

7 o.uoo O.OllE+Oll 1l.1l0E+UU e !.I.U!)!) U. '- IUI:_ +ou U.UUt:.+UU '~ u.uuU O.OllE+OO O.U(ll::.+Ut.)

III u.uuu O.UUI:::+(JO U. (JUt:. + (..I U II U. lHJU 1l.00(:+00 O. OOE:. +Ut)

12 (). uuu U.(JOI:::.+(JU u.UUt:.+lIU 1.3 U.uOO O.OOE+Oll u.uut::.+uO 1 1 ll.lllli 1 • -Sbto +OU 1.~bt:.-u3 SJ.=-Ol::.-lll (~. tJOt:.-U4 20 1l.005 1.7BE+00 1. 0/E-U2 1.07E+00 b.43t::-U3

"- c,t VAMAGt:. lNDt:.X Rur IJt:.",IH 1 OT. TRAF. total total*" t Cit a 1 total*"

1:<- -I 0=: 1 1 O.OOu 1I. 1I0E+(H) U.U()t:.+ou

2 v.OOO 1l.00E+1)0 O.OOE+OO 2; (). l>2i2 1.l)bto-OI 3.40t::-o.3 2.87£:-(>1 '::I. l!:!t:.-O-S 4 u.089 1.30E-(l1 1. 1bE-02 3.c4E-01 2.B9E-02 ~ 0. 143 1. 53!:::-u1 'J

~. 18t:.-u~ 3.~7t::-Ol ~. 10t:.-u2 G v.237 1.87E-01 4.4.!SE-02 4.01E-01 ':1. 51E-0c: 7 0.281 2. 1)':lE -01 5.8bt:-:-1)2 4.271:::-01 1. 2CH:. -C) 1

!:l 0.'!s21 ~.34E-Ol 7.5IE-02 4.5GE-01 1.4GE-ul ':I 0.357 2.b2t:-Ol 9.3::'I::.-U2 4.8Gt:.-01 1. -/3t::-u 1

10 U.395 3.01E-01 1. 1'::iE-01 5. 24E-01 c.07t::-01 1 1 o. 4i::'~ o:..4bE-Ul 1. 49t:.-01 5.GGt:.-01 i:::.43~-()1

12 0.459 4.00E-01 1.8.3E-(l1 G. llE-Ol 2.81E-U1 13 1l.48t:! 4.b8t:.-Ol 2.2810-01 b.b4t::-01 2;. 24t:.-v1 17 0.55G 7.71E-01 4. 28E-01 8. 57E-01 4.7GE-Ol 20 v.586 1. (> 1 E+(IO 5.941::-01 9.80!:.-lI1 5.741::-01

225

'" crf l!I .. 1 M f-l G~. lNUEoX Ru·r DEoI-'TH I-'Lf-lNE YEoHR fLH. TRAF. total total*" total total*'" b-I~I u. UUU I) • UUE:.+UU I). lJut:.+UI)

i=: o. 000 I). UOE+Ol) I). U<'JE+()I.)

,e. I) • U:1 ':J ',' 411::.-()~::' b. 41::H::.-04 1. ~41-:.-Ul 3. btU': -( 12; ~.

4 u. 053 4. 1l::iE-U2 . .,;. ~. 6~E-O,3

..;. ~. ~()E-(ll 1- 2,8l::.-UC:

~, u. 102; 4. '::IUI:::-(h.-:' ~

~'. utrl-;-()..j . ... ~. 4d~,-U] ~-:: . 4':J'=,-Uc

b u. 128 b. uOE-U2 I. 5/E-U3 ' .. ' ~. 72,E.-01 ..

~. 4':Ji::.-UC:

I d. J41 b. II)I::.-(k' '''1 ~ 441:-:.-(),~ i=: • '~l ~.'''U 1 4. 111::.--1)2

tI u. 11... "-' ...I~ I. ::ilH:: -02 1. 14E-02 " ~. 11E-Ul Lf • 1,jI:::-UC:

',.. (I. Ibl b. 4Ur-~ -Ue: 1. .~;::-J!::.-()i:": ':'. ':;ct:-() 1 ~ 3::..t:.--ui::. ...I.

10 \). 172 ':J • b::)E-02 1- bbE-(l2 ':'. :)~E-tll b. 1l:lEo-OC' 1 1 (l. 1t11 1. 11i=.-U.1 .~

L • ( lli::.-{);::: d. tI':!o: -U 1 I. U4t:.-UC·

Ii::: u. lB':! 1. C'l:lE-01 2. 4;;::1::.-02 Lf. 21~-(l1 I. f::1~t:._C)c:

1~ (I. 1 ':I I J • ::rUe -(I 1 c:. '-:lbl::.-()C' 4. ::''='I::. -f) 1 '~. ()2t:.-u;;::

17 U.i=:l.3 c.4/E-01 ~. .J. 2"/t:-OC: ~.

...I. l~tJE -(11 1. ciJ::.-Ul

i::U l). cl I ~. c::rt:. -l).1 I • (lbt-:.-(}c' b. d~~:-UJ 1. 4l::H:".-(11

" c,r UHMHGE INUEX HU r DEPIH Y<=-H" 1 IJ I • IHHI-. tot a 1 t Cit a 1 *i<o t: ot a 1 tot a 1 *7/.

0-1':;/ 1 !l. UOO o. UUE+()u u. O(JI::+UO

'" (l. (JUt) u. UO!::+()(,1 o. UUI:::+UU

,:, ll. ()UO u. UUI::,.+(iU ll. OOI::+C)u .. P. (JUt) (). UUI::.+UU o. (JU!::+I)U

::. U. UOli u. UOE+(HJ U. UOI::.+UU b u. UUI) u. OUt::.+()U C). uot:.+I)U

1 u. UOO u. OUE+OU u. UOt::.+uO e u. U(H) 1.1. UUt::.+(lU o. (lC)I::.+UU

'":1 u. lIUll u. OOE+(>O ll. UUt:.+uO 111 u. U()U u. UU!::+()U u. U()t:.+tll.)

11 u. U(JU I). UOE+(lO I). Out:.+Ul>

Ie () . (Jt)CJ (). (H)b..'+()( ) I). ucH::.+U{)

13 !J. UliU o. U(.lE+()U u. UUE.+Oll

1 I u. U(l.l " ., . 4Cjl:"_-U J ~;. 4eH-.. -l.l4 b. i::'~I-:-nl b. c:tJl::-u4 ell u. uc)::l Lf. ::l8E-C)1 c. 2':JE-(l3 l.O~E-(ll " ::'2t::-U~ " .

'Y. ot UHMHG" JNUI=X HU-I lJEo.., I H VE:.f-lH r 0'1 . T Rl-lt' • tot • *"/13 total*r.

Hll I }""'8 t. 1 1. 1..)( H .. ) 1. i:::ll::.-()~'!i 1. 1 11::.-(11

c: 1. llllll .~

~. 2'=JE-(l3 1. tlUEo-Ul .:! 1. U()O ':'. c'4t:.-t)..:S ....

~. 1'30:-01 4 1. Utle) Lf. ,~uE-O~ .~

~. ~2t=.-1)1 ~ ..! 1 .. I..IUI.I ':;. 41 t-:.-U.1 '. ~. tlle-UJ b 1- uoo I. 441::-03 3. i.::t.c-Ul

I 1. I)(H) 1:1. 14t:-{)~ ..'!i .. ::rUC.-lll

1:1 1 • UC)U 1.CJ2E-02 ..>. Il:lEo-Ul ;=1 1. uut) 1. 1 ':::It:.-I)c Lf. Ubt:.-Ul

III 1. UOo 1. 421:::-02 Lf. 43f.-ul 11 J . UUO 1 .. b'::it:::. -C)i::: Lf. 1l31=-U1 12 1. 000 .~

~. OlE-02 h .J. 261::.-Ul

1.?i 1 • UUU .~

~. 41t::.-Oi::: ~ ...I. Ibl::-01

1 1 1.OOU 4. 23E-02 I. 57t::-C) 1 2u 1. UOu O. lbEo-u(:! l:l. 74E-U1

226

lUNc: lJt"y-N() ",,-,."eeze r1'~ t t'" H.l ~L. : 1-'-:; f-.l· ... H-lt. 1 e(Ut:<j,i~e( Hll,H

"- Crf 111-1 fY1 1-11; 10 JN1110X HUI lJIo" I H j.JLHNc Vt:.AR fUT. HlAF. total total"''' total total"''' UL.:-' '':1 1 ) .. lJ(JU 1 .. '.::f'::1t:.-Ui::: 1. '~(:3E -0.::' 1.'+O£-Ul 1.'+'-'",-1)1

2 1. UOO .3. 79E-02 .3. 7'::lE-02 2.10E-01 2. lUIo-I)) .:, I.l ~ ':JL+ '::J ::'" 1)'7~. -(k: '+. t:\~~-Oi::.' c' .. =..()~ -I) 1 i.-: .. ..:=-t1t: -u 1

4 u.t:l4B 6. 24E-(J2 5.2':;E-(J2 2.1:32£-01 i::: .. 3SH::: -() 1 ~ ,I o. 1':::J4 I .. ..!i~I:::. -(lj::' ~.~cl:::.-Uc s. ()'::I';:-I)1 c.33f-:-Ul

b 0.b35 8. ':3~E-02 5. 58E-02 .3.4bE-01 2. 1'::lt:.-U) ( 1).=.,/tS ':;;. '::f'.::ft:.-uC' ~

...I. II::!Io-U':: ~.b7t-Ol c' .. lc~t:.-I)l

I::! 0.527 1. 12E-Ol 5.90E-02 .3.91£-01 2. 06t:.-1) 1

'" U.4~2 ).C'~I::.-(>l b.04t:.-IJi::' '+. 1 bt:.-I) 1 i:::.oUI::.-'(ll

If) u.lf.33 1. 44E-I.I1 5.24E-02 4.47£-01 1. ':1'+1:=' -I)) 11 u. 3';J( I 1. bbl:='-I) 1 b.471::.-<.lC' 4+.t:\21::.-Ul 1 • I:ltH: -I) 1 12 u.352 1. 91E-Ol 5.7'+E-02 c

...I. 19E-Ol 1.1:33c-01 13 CJ .. ~l::' c. C4t:.-I)1 I .. Obt:. -Ui::: tc,. b21o-1) 1 1. 1710-1)1

1 7 0.229 3. 59E-01 t:l.45E-02 7. 19E-Ol 1.65E-U1 i::'O I). l~b '+.I:lblo-Ul Y.o3t:.-oi::' 1:<. 19t:.-Ol 1. 52t:-Ul

l<- of DAMAGE INDEX RUT DEPTH 't:.He( I U I • IHHf-. t.ot a 1 total*'" t.ot a 1 tot a 1 *~

liL.:-I0 1 O.OO(J O.OOE+OO u.1.I0E+Ou C l).dUU U.UUI:.+otJ l).lJUI:.+OU

.3 U.UlIU O.OOE+Ou u.OOE+O(l -4 II. UUU I). UlH:.+Ou U .. (JOt:. +tH I

:;, 1.1.000 O.OUE+OO O.OOE+I)L' b I) .. OI,H) U.OOc+Oo U .. 001::. +(H)

7 u.L100 O.OOE+OO o.UOEO+I)(I 1:1 U .. UUU u.uut=.+UI) (). uut:.+I)U

'3 u.OOu O.OOE+OO O.OI)E+I)(I lU I)"UUU (I. UlJf:::.+UU O.UIJI=.+t)u

11 U.OOU O.OOE+OO u.OUE+Oll

Ie u.uou 0 .. UUI:.+tl(J U. fJUt:.+lH)

13 u.(>Ou O.uOE+(>O o. OUEO +')l' 17 U.OOI 1.'+l1o+UU 1.-41t:.-U"> 1. 15t:.+ou 1 • Iblo-u3 21.1 O.u06 1.I:3~E+OU 1- 11E-02 1. 29E+OU 7. 72E-03

7- ot lJI-IMHb~ 1 NlJl::X HU1 DE"TH rUT. THRF. total total"''' total total*lC.

~-h:: I J lJ. ()UU u.UUt:.+Ou ll.OO£+Ou

2 0.000 O.OOE+OO O. O('E +<)0 ;., u .. o32 1. l':lt:.-Ul 3.l:Ilt:.-L'''> .:i • .:i2t:.-Ol 1 .. UbI::. -lli:::

4 'J. 08'3 1. 45E-Ol 1.30E-02 3.73£-02 3. 32E-03 ~

" o. 1'+3 1. 11 t:.-Ul i:::.44t::-u2 '+.U8EO-Ol ~). ~41::.-0c

6 0.2".37 2.09E-01 4. 95E-02 '+.S5E-01 1.08c-01 -I U.<::ti1 c.~~I::.-Ul b.551:.-02 '+.t:l4t:.-Ul 1 • ..>bt:.-I))

8 u.321 e.52E-01 8.40E-02 5. 1~E-01 1.b5E-U1 '::I (J .. .!J~I c.. ~3r.-Ul 1.1)tJt:.-OJ :;'.'+/I:.-L'l ] .. '~~t::.-(Jl ,

1(' u.395 ..>.3bE-01 1.33E-01 5. 88E-01 2.321:::-01

11 U.~~':1 .:i.t:S~I:.-Ul I • b5~-(ll b • ..>21:.-01 i::' .. 11 t:.-U 1 12 0.459 4. 47E-01 2.05E-01 6.7'::1E-01 .!;. 1eE-01 13 0.481:1 :;'.23t:.-01 2.:;'5t:.-U1 7.351::-('1 ">.:;'';;jt:;-01 1 7 0.556 8. 52E-01 4.7':1E-01 9. 35E-01 e..20E-01 ;.::0 0.586 1. 131::+0u b.b5E-Ol 1.0E>I::+UO b.221:='-(·1

227

" c,t li F-l1'I ' .. H:;t" .I NUt::. X HU'r lit:.I-'TH i->L F-l Nt:: YEF-lH TOT. TRHF. tot ,,\.I total*" total total*" b-/~I 1 U.UUO O.OOI::+I,HJ U.OOE+Ou

~ U. Ul)U 1).OUE+(lO u. UOE+Ull .; U.Ul':I oCt .. 4.5t:.-Ui::: ~M 4C't::-()4 2. 22c.-Ul 4.21!::-ll2, 4 I).Ub" ::O.4~E-U2 .:i.4c:E-u" ~.5()E-Ol 1. 57E-,-'c: ~ u. lU3 b.':;6!=.-u2 b .. ':J'::Jc.-U6 e. -/4t:::.-Ul 2. l::S21::.-Uc~ "' b u. li:::d I. ltiE-u2 'oJ. ':lbE-I),'; .3.Ubt:-(il 3. ':li:::E-U2 I u. 141 d. b':1t:.-I)i=: 1.i:::3t:.-Ui::: ..:!I.2bl:.-Ul 4. ~':jt::-Ui..-:

tl I). l::'c ':I • 74E-u2 1.4tlE-02 ':;.4"1£-01 :j.i:::7t::-Od '::, u. 1bl 1. U':lt::.-Ul 1- !::)t:-UC: ~.bet=.-Ul ::s. '~~t:.-()c

lU u. 1/2 1. i::!5E-(l1 2. 15E-(l2 3. ':l7 E-(1 1 b.~2c:'-U2

11 U .. Itl1 l • .q..q.t:-Ul c'. bl!::.-U':: 4. i:::?"l:.-Ul -I. 74 1::-1.1 e:' Ie.: u. H:I':l l.bbt::.-Ul .3. 14E-(J2 4. buE-I)j 1;. IOE-U2 1..:. u. 1 ':U 1 .. '.::10t::. --U 1 ~.c;4t::-Ui::! 4. '~':3t:.'-() 1 ~.i:S3E:.-Uc:

1 I U .. i:::l~ .:fj.~l!::'-Ul b.84E-(I2 b.3':lt:::-1)1 l.,jbl::.-()l

..::u U. cl I 4.i:::a:::I::.-Ul '::} . Ibl=.-Ui::: "7 .. i:::':j,=, -1).1 1. ~l::H:.-UI

" or UHI'IHt.:;t::. 1 NU!::.X fiUI Dt::.PIH Y"::..HI"'( 1 U I. 'I fiHi-. t Cft a 1 total*'X. 't Cit a 1 tCltal*~

d-/'bl I t).UUtJ CJ.uuE+()u U.UUI::.+UU

c: ll. tH .. H) u.UUI::.+()U ll. UUt:,+UI)

" U.U(JU u.I')uE+OO (J" uUt:. +(JCJ

... (J" tH)() O.I)OI::.+I)U C).I)Ut:,+UU

:;;, O.Uf)ll U.U()E:.+()O u.uUE+<JU b U.l>UU O. lH)I::.+OU U. UlH::.+OU

I u.UUC) u.OuE+OO O.uUE+O(l b (I.OUU U.llUI::.+I)U U. UUI::.+(H)

'~ CI.UOU u.Oui::.+()O U.oUE+O(l IU U.llUU U. UUC.+UU u.Out:.+I)U

11 U.UlIU u.uOE+OO u.uuE+uu 1.::; 1l.UUU U.UUt::.+UU fJ.uut:::+uC) 1" u.uuu u. (Juc.+()(J U.<JUc.+uO

1 1 U.UUl 4. ~C:I:::.-l)} 4. ~Ct:.-U4 1.::"41:.-01 /,,::'4t::.-U4

':::1) !)" I)I)~ ::l.b':lt::.-Ul e:.b4E-03 /::l.~':IE-UI 4.cuE-1J6

" or VJ.4MHlji::. 1 NUt::. X "UI Ut::.fJIH YCHfi "I U I. 'I fi14F. tot.*"/13 total""

f.<ll I r"'e,'. 1. 1 • UO!) 1,. ::'31::. -I)~ 1. 40t::.-Ol e: 1" UU(I 2.':11t::.-U~ ~. 10t::.-1.I1 .:, 1" C)UO 4.Udt:.-U2i i:::.~i:::I::.-Ul

4 1. uuu ::I • .33E-(I.3 ~.::'l:i~-(jl

~ 1 " UUt) b.b.3t:.-()~ "'. 1 ':ito-U 1 b 1. U(JU 8. ':3::J/::.-u3 ".blE-Ul I 1. lhJU 1" 1./,,+1=. -l)'::: .:>.'::141::.-Ul

/::l 1" UUl) 1.i=:1t::-u2 4.i:::4t:.-Ul

';;! 1 " uut) 1.40/::.-UC: 4.0~t:-Ul

10 I.UOO 1.b/E-lIe: 4.':::;I41::-U1

11 1" (IOe) 1,. '::H:H:. - U i::: tJ.3bt:.-Ul

le.: 1. llOU i:::.2i4c.-·u2 ::o.tl1E-U1 1.3 1. llllll i:::.80t:.-Ui::: b .... 4t::.-lll 11 1. (IOU 4. 88E-02 8. 22E-Ul i::..U 1.UllU b.b21::.-02 9.4t..t:.-1I1

228

Documents

Criteria for Asphalt-Rubber Concrete in Civil Airport Pavements … · 2012-11-19 · OI-83-C-30076 "Criteria for Asphalt-Rubber Concrete in Civil Airport Pavements" and it includes