Upload
ricardogr2005
View
107
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
9/4/2014 Superpave Mix Design | Pavement Interactive
http://www.pavementinteractive.org/article/superpave-mix-design/ 1/8
Design Mix Design Flexible Pavement Mix Design Superpave Mix Design
Publish date: January 26, 2011 | Author: Pavement Interactive
Superpave Mix Design
One of the principal results from the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) was the Superpave mix design method. The
Superpave mix design method was designed to replace the Hveem and Marshall methods. The volumetric analysis common to the
Hveem and Marshall methods provides the basis for the Superpave mix design method. The Superpave system ties asphalt binder
and aggregate selection into the mix design process, and considers traffic and climate as well. The compaction devices from the
Hveem and Marshall procedures have been replaced by a gyratory compactor and the compaction effort in mix design is tied to
expected traffic.
This section consists of a brief history of the Superpave mix design method followed by a general outline of the actual method. This
outline emphasizes general concepts and rationale over specific procedures. Typical procedures are available in the following
documents:
Roberts, F.L.; Kandhal, P.S.; Brown, E.R.; Lee, D.Y. and Kennedy, T.W. (1996[1]). Hot Mix Asphalt Materials, Mixture Design,
and Construction. National Asphalt Pavement Association Education Foundation. Lanham, MD.
Asphalt Institute. (2001[2]). Superpave Mix Design. Superpave Series No. 2 (SP-02). Asphalt Institute. Lexington, KY.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). (2000[3] and 2001[4]). AASHTO Provisional
Standards. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Washington, D.C.
Superpave History
Under the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP), an initiative was undertaken to improve materials selection and mixture
design by developing:
1. A new mix design method that accounts for traffic loading and environmental conditions.
2. A new method of asphalt binder evaluation.
3. New methods of mixture analysis.
When SHRP was completed in 1993 it introduced these three developments and called them the Superior Performing Asphalt
Pavement System (Superpave). Although the new methods of mixture performance testing have not yet been established, the mix
design method is well-established.
Superpave Procedure
The Superpave mix design method consists of 7 basic steps:
1. Aggregate selection.
2. Asphalt binder selection.
3. Sample preparation (including compaction).
4. Performance Tests.
5. Density and voids calculations.
6. Optimum asphalt binder content selection.
7. Moisture susceptibility evaluation.
Aggregate Selection
9/4/2014 Superpave Mix Design | Pavement Interactive
http://www.pavementinteractive.org/article/superpave-mix-design/ 2/8
Superpave specifies aggregate in two ways. First, it places restrictions on aggregate gradation by means of broad control points.
Second, it places consensus requirements on coarse and fine aggregate angularity, flat and elongated particles, and clay
content. Other aggregate criteria, which the Asphalt Institute (2001[2]) calls source properties (because they are considered to be
source specific) such as L.A. abrasion, soundness and water absorption are used in Superpave but since they were not modified
by Superpave they are not discussed here.
Gradation and Size
Aggregate gradation influences such key HMA parameters as (read about these parameters here) stiffness, stability, durability,
permeability, workability, fatigue resistance, frictional resistance and resistance to moisture damage (Roberts et al., 1996[1]).
Additionally, the maximum aggregate size can be influential in compaction and lift thickness determination.
Gradation Specifications
Superpave mix design specifies aggregate gradation control points, through which aggregate gradations must pass. These control
points are very general and are a starting point for a job mix formula.
Aggregate Blending
It is rare to obtain a desired aggregate gradation from a single aggregate stockpile. Therefore, Superpave mix designs usually
draw upon several different aggregate stockpiles and blend them together in a ratio that will produce an acceptable final blended
gradation. It is quite common to find a Superpave mix design that uses 3 or 4 different aggregate stockpiles (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Screen shot from HMA View show ing a typical aggregate blend from 4 stockpiles.
Typically, several aggregate blends are evaluated prior to performing a complete mix design. Evaluations are done by preparing
an HMA sample of each blend at the estimated optimum asphalt binder content then compacting it. Results from this evaluation
can show whether or not a particular blend will meet minimum VMA requirements and Ninitial or Nmax requirements.
Dust- to-Binder Ratio
In order to ensure the proper amount of material passing the 0.075 mm (No. 200) sieve (called silt-clay by AASHTO definition and
dust by Superpave) in the mix, Superpave specifies a range of dust-to-binder ratio by mass. The equation is:
Dust-to-binder ratio specifications are normally 0.6 1.2, but a ratio of up to 1.6 may be used at an agencys discretion (AASHTO,
2001)[4].
Consensus Requirements
9/4/2014 Superpave Mix Design | Pavement Interactive
http://www.pavementinteractive.org/article/superpave-mix-design/ 3/8
Consensus requirements came about because SHRP did not specifically address aggregate properties and it was thought that
there needed to be some guidance associated with the Superpave mix design method. Therefore, an expert group was convened
and they arrived at a consensus on several aggregate property requirements the consensus requirements. This group
recommended minimum angularity, flat or elongated particle and clay content requirements based on:
The anticipated traffic loading. Desired aggregate properties are different depending upon the amount of traffic loading.
Traffic loading numbers are based on the anticipated traffic level on the design lane over a 20-year period
regardless of actual roadway design life (AASHTO, 2000b[5]).
Depth below the surface. Desired aggregate properties vary depending upon their intended use as it relates to depth below
the pavement surface.
These requirements are imposed on the final aggregate blend and not the individual aggregate sources.
Coarse Aggregate Angularity
Coarse aggregate angularity is important to mix design because smooth, rounded aggregate particles do not interlock with one
another nearly as well as angular particles. This lack of interlock makes the resultant HMA more susceptible to rutting. Coarse
aggregate angularity can be determined by any number of test procedures that are designed to determine the percentage of
fractured faces. Table 1 lists Superpave requirements.
Table 1. Coarse Aggregate Angularity Requirements (from AASHTO, 2000b[5])
20-yr Traffic Loading
(in millions of ESALs)
Depth from Surface
100 mm (4 inches) > 100 mm (4 inches)
< 0.3 55/- -/-
0.3 to < 3 75/- 50/-
3 to < 10 85/80 60/-
10 to < 30 95/90 80/75
30 100/100 100/100
Note: The first number is a minimum requirement for one or more fractured faces and the second number is a minimumrequirement for two or more fractured faces.
Fine Aggregate Angularity
Fine aggregate angularity is important to mix design for the same reasons as coarse aggregate angularity rut prevention. Fine
aggregate angularity is quantified by an indirect method often called the National Aggregate Association (NAA) flow test. This test
consists of pouring the fine aggregate into the top end of a cylinder and determining the amount of voids. The more voids, the more
angular the aggregate. Voids are determined by the following equation:
Table 2 shows the Superpave recommended fine aggregate angularity.
Table 2. Fine Aggregate Angularity Requirements (from AASHTO, 2000b[5])
20-yr Traffic Loading
(in millions of ESALs)
Depth from Surface
100 mm (4 inches) > 100 mm (4 inches)
< 0.3 - -
0.3 to < 3 40 40
3 to < 10 45
10 to < 30
30 45
Numbers shown represent the minimum uncompacted void content as a percentage of the total sample volume.
The standard test for fine aggregate angularity is:
9/4/2014 Superpave Mix Design | Pavement Interactive
http://www.pavementinteractive.org/article/superpave-mix-design/ 4/8
AASHTO T 304: Uncompacted Void Content of Fine Aggregate
Flat or Elongated Particles
An excessive amount of flat or elongated aggregate particles can be detrimental to HMA. Flat/elongated particles tend to
breakdown during compaction (giving a different gradation than determined in mix design), decrease workability, and lie flat after
compaction (resulting in a mixture with low VMA) (Roberts et al., 1996[1]). Flat or elongated particles are typically identified using
ASTM D 4791, Flat or Elongated Particles in Coarse Aggregate. Table 3 shows the Superpave recommended flat or elongated
particle requirements.
Table 3. Flat or Elongated Particle Requirements(from AASHTO, 2000b[5])
20-yr Traffic Loading
(in millions of ESALs)
Maximum Percentage
of Particles with
h/Thickness > 5
< 0.3 -
0.3 to < 3 10
3 to < 10
10 to < 30
30
Clay Content
The sand equivalent test measures the amount of clay content in an aggregate sample. If clay content is too high, clay could
preferentially adhere to the aggregate over the asphalt binder. This leads to a poor aggregate-asphalt binder bonding and
possible stripping. To prevent excessive clay content, Superpave uses the sand equivalent test requirements of Table 4.
Table 4. Sand Equivalent Requirements (from AASHTO,2000b[5])
20-yr Traffic Loading
(in millions of ESALs)
Minimum Sand Equivalent (%)
< 0.3 40
0.3 to < 3
3 to < 10 45
10 to < 30
30 50
Asphalt Binder Evaluation
Superpave uses its own asphalt binder selection process, which is, of course, tied to the Superpave asphalt binder performance
grading (PG) system and its associated specifications. Superpave PG asphalt binders are selected based on the expected
pavement temperature extremes in the area of their intended use. Superpave software (or a stand-alone program such as
LTPPBind) is used to calculate these extremes and select the appropriate PG asphalt binder using one of the following three
alternate methods (Roberts et al., 1996[1]):
1. Pavement temperature. The designer inputs the design pavement temperatures directly.
2. Air temperature. The designer inputs the local air temperatures, then the software converts them to pavement temperatures.
3. Geographic area. The designer simply inputs the project location (i.e. state, county and city). From this, the software retrieves
climate conditions from a weather database and then converts air temperatures into pavement temperatures.
Once the design pavement temperatures are determined they can be matched to an appropriate PG asphalt binder.
Design Pavement Temperature
The Superpave mix design method determines both a high and a low design pavement temperature. These temperatures are
determined as follows:
High pavement temperature based on the 7-day average high air temperature of the surrounding area.
Low pavement temperature based on the 1-day low air temperature of the surrounding area.
Using these temperatures as a starting point, Superpave then applies a reliability concept to determine the appropriate PG asphalt
binder. PG asphalt binders are specified in 6C increments.
Design Pavement Temperature Adjustments
Design pavement temperature calculations are based on HMA pavements subjected to fast moving traffic (Roberts et al., 1996[1]).
9/4/2014 Superpave Mix Design | Pavement Interactive
http://www.pavementinteractive.org/article/superpave-mix-design/ 5/8
Specifically, the Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR) test is conducted at a rate of 10 radians per second, which corresponds to a
traffic speed of about 90 km/hr (55 mph) (Roberts et al., 1996[1]). Pavements subject to significantly slower (or stopped) traffic
such as intersections, toll booth lines and bus stops should contain a stiffer asphalt binder than that which would be used for fast-
moving traffic. Superpave allows the high temperature grade to be increased by one grade for slow transient loads and by two
grades for stationary loads. Additionally, the high temperature grade should be increased by one grade for anticipated 20-year
loading in excess of 30 million ESALs. For pavements with multiple conditions that require grade increases only the largest grade
increase should be used. Therefore, for a pavement intended to experience slow loads (a potential one grade increase) and
greater than 30 million ESALs (a potential one grade increase), the asphalt binder high temperature grade should be increased by
only one grade. Table 5 shows two examples of design high temperature adjustments often called binder bumping.
Table 5. Examples of Design Pavement Temperature Adjustments for Slow and Stationary Loads
Original Grade Grade for Slow Transient Loads
(increase 1 grade)
Grade for
Stationary Loads
(increase 2 grades)
20-yr ESALs
> 30 million
(increase 1 grade)
PG 58-22 PG 64-22 PG 70-22 PG 64-22
PG 70-22* PG 76-22 PG 82-22 PG 76-22
*the highest possible pavement temperature in North America is about 70C but two more high temperature grades werenecessary to accommodate transient and stationary loads.
Sample Preparation
The Superpave method, like other mix design methods, creates several trial aggregate-asphalt binder blends, each with a different
asphalt binder content. Then, by evaluating each trial blends performance, an optimum asphalt binder content can be selected. In
order for this concept to work, the trial blends must contain a range of asphalt contents both above and below the optimum asphalt
content. Therefore, the first step in sample preparation is to estimate an optimum asphalt content. Trial blend asphalt contents are
then determined from this estimate.
The Superpave gyratory compactor (Figure 2) was developed to improve mix designs ability to simulate actual field compaction
particle orientation with laboratory equipment (Roberts, 1996[1]).
Each sample is heated to the anticipated mixing temperature, aged for a short time (up to 4 hours) and compacted with the gyratory
compactor, a device that applies pressure to a sample through a hydraulically or mechanically operated load. Mixing and
compaction temperatures are chosen according to asphalt binder properties so that compaction occurs at the same viscosity level
for different mixes. Key parameters of the gyratory compactor are:
Sample size = 150 mm (6-inch) diameter cylinder approximately 115 mm (4.5 inches) in height (corrections can be made for
different sample heights). Note that this sample size is larger than those used for the Hveem and Marshall methods (Figure 3).
Load = Flat and circular with a diameter of 149.5 mm (5.89 inches) corresponding to an area of 175.5 cm2 (27.24 in2)
Compaction pressure = Typically 600 kPa (87 psi)
Number of blows = varies
Simulation method = The load is applied to the sample top and covers almost the entire sample top area. The sample is
inclined at 1.25 and rotates at 30 revolutions per minute as the load is continuously applied. This helps achieve a sample
particle orientation that is somewhat like that achieved in the field after roller compaction.
9/4/2014 Superpave Mix Design | Pavement Interactive
http://www.pavementinteractive.org/article/superpave-mix-design/ 6/8
Figure 2. Gyratory compactor.
Figure 3. Superpave gyratory compactor sample (left) vs.
Hveem/Marshall compactor sample (right).
The Superpave gyratory compactor establishes three different gyration numbers:
1. Ninitial. The number of gyrations used as a measure of mixture compactability during construction. Mixes that compact too
quickly (air voids at Ninitial are too low) may be tender during construction and unstable when subjected to traffic. Often, this is a
good indication of aggregate quality HMA with excess natural sand will frequently fail the Ninitial requirement. A mixture
designed for greater than or equal to 3 million ESALs with 4 percent air voids at Ndesign should have at least 11 percent air
voids at Ninitial.
2. Ndesign. This is the design number of gyrations required to produce a sample with the same density as that expected in the field
after the indicated amount of traffic. A mix with 4 percent air voids at Ndesign is desired in mix design.
3. Nmax. The number of gyrations required to produce a laboratory density that should never be exceeded in the field. If the air
voids at Nmax are too low, then the field mixture may compact too much under traffic resulting in excessively low air voids and
potential rutting. The air void content at Nmax should never be below 2 percent air voids.
Typically, samples are compacted to Ndesign to establish the optimum asphalt binder content and then additional samples are
compacted to Nmax as a check. Previously, samples were compacted to Nmax and then Ninitial and Ndesign were back calculated.
Table 6 lists the specified number of gyrations for Ninitial, Ndesign and Nmax while Table 7 shows the required densities as a
percentage of theoretical maximum density (TMD) for Ninitial, Ndesign and Nmax. Note that traffic loading numbers are based on
the anticipated traffic level on the design lane over a 20-year period regardless of actual roadway design life (AASHTO,
2001[4]).
Table 6. Number of Gyrations for Ninitial, Ndesign and Nmax (from AASHTO,2001[4])
20-yr Traffic Loading(in millions of ESALs)
Number of Gyrations
Ninitial Ndesign Nmax
< 0.3 6 50 75
0.3 to < 3 7 75 115
3 to < 10* 8 (7) 100 (75) 160 (115)
10 to < 30 8 100 160
30 9 125 205
* When the estimated 20-year design traffic loading is between 3 and < 10million ESALs, the agency may, at its discretion, specifyNinitial = 7, Ndesign = 75 and Nmax = 115.
A ds by V iewPassword A d O ptions
9/4/2014 Superpave Mix Design | Pavement Interactive
http://www.pavementinteractive.org/article/superpave-mix-design/ 7/8
Table 7. Required Densities for Ninitial, Ndesign and Nmax (from AASHTO,2001[4])
20-yr Traffic Loading(in millions of ESALs)
Required Density (as a percentage of TMD)
Ninitial Ndesign Nmax
< 0.3 91.5 96.0 98.0
0.3 to < 3 90.5
3 to < 10 89.0
10 to < 30
30
The standard gyratory compactor sample preparation procedure is:
AASHTO TP4: Preparing and Determining the Density of Hot-Mix Asphalt (HMA) Specimens by Means of the Superpave
Gyratory Compactor
Performance Tests
The original intent of the Superpave mix design method was to subject the various trial mix designs to a battery of performance
tests akin to what the Hveem method does with the stabilometer and cohesiometer, or the Marshall method does with the stability
and flow test. Currently, these performance tests, which constitute the mixture analysis portion of Superpave, are still under
development and review and have not yet been implemented. The most likely performance test, called the Simple Performance
Test (SPT) is a Confined Dynamic Modulus Test.
Density and Voids Analysis
All mix design methods use density and voids to determine basic HMA physical characteristics. Two different measures of
densities are typically taken:
1. Bulk specific gravity (Gmb).
2. Theoretical maximum specific gravity (TMD, Gmm).
These densities are then used to calculate the volumetric parameters of the HMA. Measured void expressions are usually:
Air voids (Va), sometimes expressed as voids in the total mix (VTM)
Voids in the mineral aggregate (VMA)
Voids filled with asphalt (VFA)
Generally, these values must meet local or State criteria.
VMA and VFA must meet the values specified in Table 8. Note that traffic loading numbers are based on the anticipated
traffic level on the design lane over a 20-year period regardless of actual roadway design life (AASHTO, 2000b[5]).
Table 8. Minimum VMA Requirements and VFA Range Requirements (from AASHTO, 2001[4])
20-yr Traffic Loading(in millions of ESALs)
Minimum VMA (percent) VFA Range (percent)
9.5 mm(0.375 inch)
12.5 mm(0.5 inch)
19.0 mm(0.75 inch)
25.0 mm(1 inch)
37.5 mm(1.5 inch)
< 0.3 15.0 14.0 13.0 12.0 11.0 70 80
0.3 to < 3 65 78
3 to < 10 65 75
10 to < 30
30
Selection of Optimum Asphalt Binder Content
The optimum asphalt binder content is selected as that asphalt binder content that results in 4 percent air voids at Ndesign. This
asphalt content then must meet several other requirements:
1. Air voids at Ninitial > 11 percent (for design ESALs 3 million). See Table 5 for specifics.
2. Air voids at Nmax > 2 percent. See Table 5 for specifics.
3. VMA above the minimum listed in Table 2.
4. VFA within the range listed in Table 2.
9/4/2014 Superpave Mix Design | Pavement Interactive
http://www.pavementinteractive.org/article/superpave-mix-design/ 8/8
Copyright 2012 Pavia Systems, Inc.
If requirements 1,2 or 3 are not met the mixture needs to be redesigned. If requirement 4 is not met but close, then asphalt binder
content can be slightly adjusted such that the air void content remains near 4 percent but VFA is within limits. This is because VFA
is a somewhat redundant term since it is a function of air voids and VMA (Roberts et al., 1996[1]). The process is illustrated in
Figure 4 (numbers are chosen based on 20-year traffic loading of 3 million ESALs).
Figure 4. Selection of optimum asphalt binder content example: 4 basic steps.
Moisture Susceptibility Evaluation
Moisture susceptibility testing is the only performance testing incorporated in the Superpave mix design procedure as of early
2002. The modified Lottman test is used for this purpose.
The typical moisture susceptibility test is:
AASHTO T 283: Resistance of Compacted Bituminous Mixture to Moisture-Induced Damage.
Surveys
Superpave Dust to Binder Ratio Survey
Questions
AASHTO M 323 (Superpave Volumetric Mix Design) allows an agency to modify the required dust to binder ratio from 0.6-1.2 to
0.8-1.6 if the aggregate gradation passes beneath the PCS Control Point. Does your agency allow (or require) a dust to binder
ratio of 0.8 1.6? If so, when is this allowed/required?
Results
Superpave Dust to Binder Ratio Survey by NJDOT
Footnotes ( returns to text)
1. Hot Mix Asphalt Materials, Mixture Design, and Construction. National Asphalt Pavement Association Education Foundation. Lanham, MD.
2. HMA Construction. Manual Series No. 22 (MS-22). Asphalt Institute. Lexington, KY.
3. American Association of State Highw ay and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). (2000b). AASHTO Provisional Standards, April 2000 Interim Edition. American Association of
State Highw ay and Transportation Officials. Washington, D.C.
4. AASHTO Provisional Standards, April 2001 Interim Edition. American Association of State Highw ay and Transportation Officials. Washington, D.C.
5. AASHTO Provisional Standards, April 2000 Interim Edition. American Association of State Highw ay and Transportation Officials. Washington, D.C.
A ds by V iewPassword A d O ptions