University of Nevada, Reno

Analysis of Fine Asphalt Concrete Mixture Gradations from Various Sources to

Enhance Durability

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of Master of Science in

Civil and Environmental Engineering

by

Nader Badreddine

Dr. Adam J. Hand/Thesis Advisor

August, 2024
 THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
We recommend that the thesis
prepared under our supervision by

NADER BADREDDINE

entitled

Analysis of Fine Asphalt Concrete Mixture Gradations from Various Sources to

Enhance Durability

be accepted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Adam J. Hand, Ph.D.

Advisor
Elie Y. Hajj, Ph.D.
Committee Member
Peter E. Sebaaly, Ph.D
Committee Member
Mihye Ahn, Ph.D.
Graduate School Representative
Markus Kemmelmeier, Ph.D., Dean
Graduate School
August, 2024
 i

Abstract

In an effort to reduce the negative effects on our environment caused by the construction

of vital economic infrastructure such as the roadway system, extending pavement service

lives will help lessen the toll on the former. One of the factors that can influence the

durability of asphalt mixtures, is the gradation. This thesis will look into the effect of fine

aggregate dense gradations on asphalt mixture durability for sources from the state of

Nevada. Based on the available literature, finer gradation asphalt mixes have lower air void

content and therefore higher moisture damage resistance. This is because the finer

aggregates tend to fill the voids that were otherwise not filled by the coarse aggregates.

This will lead to enhanced durability because less water and air can penetrate the mix,

leading to less oxidation and moisture damage. Finer gradations can also offer better

cracking resistance due to the higher asphalt content and the lower air voids can create

better cohesion in the mix. It was widely accepted that coarser mixes, such as SMA,

provided better rutting resistance especially in heavy traffic conditions and higher

temperatures due to the improved stone to stone contact which may act as a stronger

aggregate skeleton for the mix. However, recently more DOTs have been shifting to finer

gradation as studies have shown that they can have better rutting resistance. This research

suggests there are a few factors to consider when designing an asphalt mixture, including

the traffic loads and environmental conditions. However, a finer gradation can provide an

overall improved moisture resistance and fatigue life so it should be considered carefully

when designing asphalt mixtures. Therefore, a well-balanced mix design that can achieve

the best rutting and cracking resistance is recommended to achieve the most ideal gradation

that works best for the specific regions of Nevada.

 ii

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my graduate advisor at the University of Nevada, Reno, Dr. Adam

Hand, for his support and guidance during my time at the Pavement Engineering and

Science program. It was through his extensive experience in the field and continuous

support I was able to complete my thesis, and for this I’m forever grateful.

I would also like to extend my gratitude to Dr. Elie Hajj and Dr. Peter Sebaaly, who were

always there to support me with any question I had during my research. Their invaluable

experience in the field and continued support during my time here gave me the necessary

motivation to continue learning and growing. I’d like to also thank Siththarththan

Arunthavapalan and Ashraf Al Rajhi who through their diligent training and working

tirelessly to make sure the lab was always ready and well equipped for the research needed.

I cannot forget to thank my colleague Nishanthan Raveendran, who has diligently trained

me on using the test equipment at the lab and it was through his work that I was able to

continue to work on this research topic.

I would also like to thank everyone at the Nevada Department of Transportation who made

this research possible, particularly those in the Materials, Maintenance, and Construction

Divisions who were actively involved and shared their thoughts and knowledge.

I would like to acknowledge my fellow graduate students for being so welcoming and

advising me during my time here. Last but not least, I would like to thank my wife, Liana

and daughter, Helen, who provided me the unwavering support and motivation during my

time here. Their unconditional love has been an immense strength and motivation for me.
 iii

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background .......................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Research Objectives ............................................................................................................ 2

Chapter 2: Review of Literature on Gradation ................................................................. 3

2.1 Influence of Gradation on Mixture Properties ................................................................. 3

2.2 Influence of p200 on Mixture Properties ........................................................................... 4

2.3 Influence of Dust Proportion on Mixture Properties ....................................................... 5

2.4 Bailey Method and Gradation Factors .............................................................................. 6

Chapter 3: Mixture Gradation Design and Performance Test Methods ......................... 8

3.1 Mixture Gradation Design .................................................................................................. 8

3.1.1 Aggregate Batching for Gradation Control ................................................................................. 11

3.1.2 Hveem Mix Design ..................................................................................................................... 12

3.1.3 Anti-strip Additive to Improve Resistance to Moisture Damage ................................................ 14

3.1.4 Analysis of Stabilometer Number ............................................................................................... 14

3.2 Mixture Performance Test Methods ................................................................................ 17

3.2.1 Moisture Sensitivity Testing by Tensile Strength Ratio ............................................................. 17

3.2.2 Hamburg Wheel Track (HWT) ................................................................................................... 18

3.2.3 IDEAL-CT .................................................................................................................................. 21

3.2.4 Dynamic Modulus Mixture Test and Mixture Mastercurve Development ................................. 23

3.2.5 Texas-Overlay Reflective Cracking Test .................................................................................... 25

3.2.6 Repeated Flexural Beam Bending Fatigue Test .......................................................................... 28

 iv

Chapter 4: Laboratory Test Results and Analysis .......................................................... 30

4.1 Raw Materials Selection .................................................................................................... 30

4.2 Gradation Specifications and Compliance ...................................................................... 31

4.3 Mixture Volumetrics ......................................................................................................... 32

4.4 Performance Test Results and Analysis .......................................................................... 38

4.4.1 Hveem Mixture Design Stability Test ........................................................................................ 38

4.4.2 Tensile Strength Ratio Test ......................................................................................................... 39

4.4.3 Hamburg Wheel Track (HWT) ................................................................................................... 42

4.4.4 IDEAL-CT .................................................................................................................................. 47

4.4.5 Dynamic Modulus (E*)............................................................................................................... 54

4.4.6 Texas-Overlay Reflective Cracking Test .................................................................................... 57

4.4.7 Repeated Flexural Beam Bending Fatigue Test Results ............................................................. 60

4.4.8 Use of Performance Space Diagrams to Assess Factors Influencing Performance .................... 62

Chapter 5: Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Modeling ................................................ 80

5.1 Application of AASHTOWare Pavement ME Software ................................................ 80

5.2 Pavement Performance Modeling .................................................................................... 81

Chapter 6: Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations ........................................... 83

6.1 Findings and Conclusions ................................................................................................. 83

Chapter 7: References ...................................................................................................... 87

 v

List of Tables

Table 1. Ratio Ranges Summary for Fine Graded Mixes ................................................... 7

Table 2. Fine Graded Mix Bailey Factor Ratios ................................................................. 8

Table 3. Gradation Specifications Each Gradation Met ..................................................... 9

Table 4. NDOT Mix Design Requirements ...................................................................... 14

Table 5. Height Corrections Curves for Stability Values [14].......................................... 16

Table 6. Acceptance Criteria for E* Test Results [24] ..................................................... 25

Table 7. Stockpile Gradations ........................................................................................... 31

Table 8. NDOT Aggregate Gradation Specifications ....................................................... 32

Table 9. Stockpile Blend Percentages – Spanish Springs ................................................. 32

Table 10. Volumetric Properties Summary [13] ............................................................... 33

Table 11. Tensile Strength Ratio Test Results .................................................................. 42

Table 12. Ideal-CT Test Results ....................................................................................... 48

Table 13. Dynamic Modulus Test Results ........................................................................ 56

Table 14. Texas-Overlay Test Results .............................................................................. 59

Table 15. Flexural Beam Fatigue Coefficients ................................................................. 61

Table 16. Factor Influence on Performance Test Results. ................................................ 86

Table 17. Recommended "Type 2G" and comparison to “Type 2F” Specification. ........ 86
 vi

List of Figures

Figure 1. 0.45 Gradation Chart for Spanish Springs Gradations ...................................... 10

Figure 2. 0.45 Power Gradation Chart for Lockwood Gradations .................................... 10

Figure 3. Steps of Accurate Aggregate Batching Process ................................................ 12

Figure 4: Hveem Kneading Compactor ............................................................................ 13

Figure 5. Stability Corrections for Height Deviations [14]. ............................................. 17

Figure 6. Hamburg Wheel Track Machine ....................................................................... 20

Figure 7. HWT Deformation Curve Obtained from the Output [18]................................ 20

Figure 8. Ideal-CT Testing Equipment ............................................................................. 21

Figure 9. Ideal-CT Load vs. Displacement Data [21]....................................................... 23

Figure 10. Representation of Dynamic Modulus Testing Haversine Loading [24] .......... 24

Figure 11. Test Specimen Dimensions [29] ...................................................................... 26

Figure 12. Overlay AMPT Test Machine ......................................................................... 27

Figure 13. Kneading Beam Compactor ............................................................................ 29

Figure 14. Gradation-01 Asphalt Mixture Volumetric Properties .................................... 35

Figure 15. Gradation-03 Asphalt Mixture Volumetric Properties .................................... 36

Figure 16. Gradation-04 Asphalt Mixture Volumetric Properties .................................... 37

Figure 17. Gradation-01 Stability Number plot ................................................................ 38

Figure 18. Gradation-03 Stability Number plot ................................................................ 39

Figure 19. Gradation-04 Stability Number plot ................................................................ 39

Figure 20. TSR Results – Spanish Springs ....................................................................... 40

Figure 21. TSR Results – Lockwood ................................................................................ 41

Figure 22. Dry and Wet Tensile Strength – Spanish Springs ........................................... 41
 vii

Figure 23. Dry and Wet Tensile Strength - Lockwood ..................................................... 42

Figure 24. HWT Results at 50°C – Spanish Springs ........................................................ 44

Figure 25. HWT Results at 52°C – Lockwood [13] ......................................................... 44

Figure 26. Rut Depth with Effective Binder Content – Spanish Springs ......................... 45

Figure 27. Rut Depth with Effective Binder Content – Lockwood [13] .......................... 45

Figure 28. Rate of Rutting Gradation 01 – Spanish Springs ............................................ 46

Figure 29. Rate of Rutting Gradation 03 – Spanish Springs ............................................ 46

Figure 30. Rate of Rutting Gradation 04 – Spanish Springs ............................................ 47

Figure 31. CT-index Results for Spanish Springs and Lockwood [13] ............................ 49

Figure 32. CT Index vs I75/m75 Ratio Plot ...................................................................... 50

Figure 33. CT Index vs m75 Plot ...................................................................................... 51

Figure 34. CT Index vs I75 Plot........................................................................................ 51

Figure 35. CT Index vs Peak Load Plot ............................................................................ 52

Figure 36. CT Index vs Pbe Plot ....................................................................................... 52

Figure 37. CT Index vs p200 Plot ..................................................................................... 53

Figure 38. P75 vs I75/m75 Ratio Plot............................................................................... 53

Figure 39. Dynamic Modulus Master Curve – Spanish Springs ...................................... 55

Figure 40. Dynamic Modulus Master Curve – Lockwood [13]........................................ 55

Figure 41. Dynamic Modulus Results at 20°C and 10Hz – Spanish Springs ................... 57

Figure 42. Dynamic Modulus Results at 20°C and 10Hz – Lockwood [13] .................... 57

Figure 43. Cycles to Failure and Peak Load – Spanish Springs ....................................... 58

Figure 44. Cycles to Failure and Peak Load – Lockwood [13] ........................................ 59

Figure 45. Critical Fracture Energy and Crack Propagation Rate - Spanish Springs ....... 60
 viii

Figure 46. Critical Fracture Energy and Crack Propagation Rate - Lockwood [13] ........ 60

Figure 47. Comparison of Fatigue Relationship between Asphalt Mixtures .................... 61

Figure 48. TSR vs Rut Depth Performance Diagram ....................................................... 63

Figure 49. Rut Depth vs CT Index Performance Diagram ............................................... 63

Figure 50. TSR vs CT Index Performance Diagram......................................................... 64

Figure 51. OL Failure Cycles vs CT Index Performance Diagram .................................. 64

Figure 52. OL Failure Cycles vs Rut Depth Performance Diagram ................................. 65

Figure 53. Reflective Cracking Performance Space Diagram .......................................... 66

Figure 54. Rut Depth vs DP Diagram ............................................................................... 67

Figure 55. CT Index vs DP Diagram ................................................................................ 67

Figure 56. TSR vs DP Diagram ........................................................................................ 68

Figure 57. OL Failure Cycles vs DP Diagram .................................................................. 68

Figure 58. Rut Depth vs Stability Number Diagram ........................................................ 69

Figure 59. CT Index vs Stability Number Diagram .......................................................... 69

Figure 60. TSR vs Stability Number Diagram.................................................................. 70

Figure 61. OL Failure Cycles vs Stability Number Diagram ........................................... 70

Figure 62. Stability Number vs p200 Diagram ................................................................. 71

Figure 63. Rut Depth vs p200 Diagram ............................................................................ 71

Figure 64. CT Index vs p200 Diagram ............................................................................. 72

Figure 65. TSR vs p200 Diagram ..................................................................................... 72

Figure 66. OL Failure Cycles vs p200 Diagram ............................................................... 73

Figure 67. Stability vs Pbe Diagram ................................................................................. 74

Figure 68. Rut Depth vs Pbe Diagram .............................................................................. 74

 ix

Figure 69. CT Index vs Pbe Diagram ............................................................................... 75

Figure 70. TSR vs Pbe Diagram ....................................................................................... 75

Figure 71. OL Failure Cycles vs Pbe Diagram ................................................................. 75

Figure 72. Stability Number vs FAc Ratio Diagram ........................................................ 76

Figure 73. Rut Depth vs FAc Ratio Diagram ................................................................... 77

Figure 74. CT-Index vs FAc Ratio Diagram .................................................................... 77

Figure 75. TSR vs FAc Ratio Diagram ............................................................................. 77

Figure 76. OL Failure Cycles vs FAc Ratio Diagram ...................................................... 78

Figure 77. Stability Number vs PCS% Diagram .............................................................. 78

Figure 78. Rut Depth vs PCS% Diagram.......................................................................... 79

Figure 79. CT-Index vs PCS% Diagram........................................................................... 79

Figure 80. TSR vs PCS% Diagram ................................................................................... 79

Figure 81. OL Failure Cycles vs PCS% Diagram............................................................. 80

Figure 82. Aggregate Gradations for Spanish Springs Gradations ................................... 93

 1

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Background

The asphalt mixture industry has been highly focused on sustainability over the last decade

and one of the main factors that can propel the industry is by designing more durable

pavement mixtures. What is durability of an asphalt mixture? It is the ability of a mixture

to withstand different forms of deterioration over time while maintaining its functional and

structural integrity. Mixture durability directly impacts the lifespan and maintenance of the

road.

Under a cooperative agreement, the Pavement Engineering and Science program at the

University of Nevada, Reno and the NDOT partnered to study different index-based

performance tests to evaluate the laboratory performance of mix design and material

changes on asphalt mix rutting, cracking, and durability performance [1]. A

comprehensive evaluation of the impact of the amount of material passing the number 200

sieve (p200) on mixture rutting and cracking was conducted on seven mixtures from across

the State that included materials from all three NDOT Districts. The study shows that with

an increase in the factors such as dust proportion, which is defined as the ratio of effective

asphalt content to p200, the ability of the mix to resist cracking decreases. To enable this

study to be completed, there were three p200 levels taken into consideration. One set is for

laboratory-mixed laboratory-compacted (LMLC), and the other is field-mixed laboratory-

compacted (FMLC).
 2

Some previous NDOT studies also showed that the p200 material in the mix directly

influenced the mix fatigue resistance and thermal cracking temperature [2]. This same

research concluded that the p200 material had little to no impact on rutting resistance.

This study aimed to examine the effects of fine aggregate asphalt gradations on hot mix

asphalt (HMA) durability. Specifically, the research investigated how the gradation and

volumetrics affected the performance of laboratory produced asphalt mixtures. Further, the

mixtures were modeled using AASHTOWare Pavement Mechanical-Empirical Design

Software to compare estimated field performance.

1.2 Research Objectives

To enable the study to be accomplished, the tasks that were commenced were as follows:

• Conduct a literature review based on current and relevant research.

• Evaluation of laboratory asphalt mixtures made with finer and cleaner gradations

within the NDOT Type 2, Type 2C, and Type 3 specifications.

• Evaluation and comparison of the results of the previous studies conducted on other

sources in NDOT District 2.

• Evaluating the asphalt mix performance using similar index and performance-based

test methods used in previous studies: Moisture Susceptibility Test (TSR),

Hamburg Wheel Track (HWT), CT-index, Dynamic modulus (E*), Texas Overlay

(TxOL) and Beam Fatigue tests.

• Assess the impact of mixture gradation and composition, including volumetric

properties, on mix performance test results.

 3

• Conduct preliminary analysis of relative mix performance using AASHTOWare

Pavement ME Design Software to assess the impact of gradation on performance.

Chapter 2: Review of Literature on Gradation

The main goal of an asphalt mixture design is to optimize selection of the available

materials to achieve the best mix design properties for the intended mixture purpose.

According to Sangsefidi et al., aggregate make up a high proportion of volume and mass

in the mix, hence it is predicted to have a key impact on the mixture properties [3]. Hot

mix asphalt properties such as air void, voids in mineral aggregate (VMA), stability,

frictional resistance, rutting resistance and resistance to moisture damage are all affected

by the variation of the aggregate gradation. Therefore, it is imperative to have an optimum

blend of aggregates to enable the mix to achieve the required performance and durability.

The volumetric properties of the mix are also affected by the gradation type, such as asphalt

content, VFA, VMA, and effective binder content.

2.1 Influence of Gradation on Mixture Properties

Since mineral aggregates make up to around 95% of a mixture by weight, the aggregate

properties and gradation may significantly affect the volumetric properties and mechanical

performance of a mixture. Aggregate gradation affects nearly all aspects of a mix design,

from stability to modulus to volumetric properties (Ruth et al. 2002) [4]. Some state DOT’s

utilize a range the aggregate gradation specifications for application in various HMA layers

in a pavement structure. For example, Nevada DOT use an open graded friction course in

high-traffic volume to optimize stability, friction, and improve drainage. Another point to
 4

consider is the workability of a mix-design. It requires more energy to compact coarse

asphalt mixtures than intermediate and fine mixes [5]. In addition, the more the number of

passes needed to compact the HMA to the required density, the higher the chances that

there will be aggregate breakdown. However, a recent study published by the National

Center for Asphalt Technology suggests that aggregate gradation may have less of an

impact on achieving target mat density as many think. This is due to the fact that weather

it’s a fine or coarse graded mix, the compaction procedure can be altered to achieve the

desired density. Other factors such as volumetric properties have had a bigger impact on

in-place density than aggregate gradation [6].

Many factors can and may affect the volumetric properties related to gradation, and one of

them is the variation between the mix design gradation and the actual aggregate delivered

to a mix plant. This could be due to a change in the source of the aggregate in the quarry,

the crushing method, and also the handling process [7]. Therefore, it is important to stay

consistent with aggregate handling and managing process so that there is a consistent result

between lab aggregate design and hot mix plant aggregate gradation.

2.2 Influence of p200 on Mixture Properties

The impact of p200 material on an asphalt mixture is multifaceted. Increased p200 content

can enhance the performance by increasing the tensile strength, resistance to permanent

deformation, cohesive strength and the resistance to raveling. However, an increase in p200

content could have an adverse effect on moisture susceptibility, mixture workability,

increase binder content and compaction. An increase in p200 results in a decrease in the

VMA [8]. The effect of this control point of the mixture also has an effect on the asphalt
 5

film thickness. This in turn has an effect on the aging of the binder. Studies has shown that

an asphalt film thickness between 9-10 microns shows a strong resilient modulus, below

which the asphalt mixture aged at an accelerated rate [9]. It is vital to control that p200

material as it influences the film thickness.

The mineral filler material themselves can vary due to difference in properties such as

gradation, particle shape, void content, surface area, mineral composition and physio-

chemical properties. According to research conducted by Kandhal et al., six aggregate

sources were selected that represent a wide range of mineralogical composition and particle

sizes. The HMA mixes using the different aggregate mineral fillers were tested by the

Superpave shear tester and indirect tensile strain tester for permanent deformation and

Hamburg wheel tracking test for stripping. The study found that the D60 (the particle size

of p200 material at 60% passing) and the methylene blue value were the primary and

secondary independent variables affecting permanent deformation of the HMA mixture.

Stripping was also affected by the D10 (the particle size of p200 at 10% passing) and the

Methylene blue were the primary and secondary factors affecting stripping potential of the

HMA mix [10]. Therefore, the type and size of p200 material play a crucial role in

determining the performance of asphalt mixtures.

2.3 Influence of Dust Proportion on Mixture Properties

Dust proportion is an important parameter that is considered in design and performance of

the HMA mix as it can influence mixture mechanical properties and durability. It is defined

as the ratio of fine particles (p200 sieve) to the effective binder content in an asphalt mix.

This can also affect the volumetric properties of the mix such as AV and VMA. When there
 6

is more dust in the asphalt mix it can reduce the VMA, which can make it be out of the

lower band of the specification [11].

2.4 Bailey Method and Gradation Factors

The Bailey Method is a systematic approach to aggregate gradation design that aims to

optimize the volumetric properties and performance of asphalt mixtures [12]. Developed

by Jim A. Bailey, the method focuses on achieving a balanced aggregate structure that

provides adequate density, stability, and durability. Utilizing concepts such as aggregate

packing and control points and ratios to achieve desired mixture properties. Aggregate

packing involves rearranging aggregates to maximize density and minimize voids.

Additionally, the Control points and ratios act as a guide in the gradation design. These

include Primary Control Sieve (PCS), Secondary Control Sieve (SCS), and Tertiary

Control Sieve (TCS). The process begins with identifying the NMAS and the control

sieves. Then the Primary Control Sieve is identified by multiplying 0.22 x NMAS. This

breaks down the break between the coarse and fine aggregates in the blend. The same

method was used to determine the SCS and TCS. Then ratios such as Coarse Aggregate

(CA), Fine Aggregate Coarse Ratio (Fac), Fine Aggregate Fine Ratio (FAf) and finally the

Fine Aggregate Total Ratio (FAT) are calculated using a set of equations 1 through 4.

% 𝐻𝑎𝑙𝑓 𝑆𝑖𝑒𝑣𝑒 − % 𝑃𝐶𝑆

𝑂𝐿𝐷 𝐶𝐴 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 = (1)
100% − % 𝐻𝑎𝑙𝑓 𝑆𝑖𝑒𝑣𝑒

% 𝑁𝑒𝑤 𝐻𝑎𝑙𝑓 𝑆𝑖𝑒𝑣𝑒 − % 𝑁𝑒𝑤 𝑃𝐶𝑆

𝑁𝑒𝑤 𝐶𝐴 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 = (2)
% 𝑂𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑃𝐶𝑆 − % 𝑁𝑒𝑤 𝐻𝑎𝑙𝑓 𝑆𝑖𝑒𝑣𝑒
 7

% 𝑁𝑒𝑤 𝑆𝐶𝑆
𝑁𝑒𝑤 𝐹𝐴𝑎 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 = (3)
% 𝑁𝑒𝑤 𝑃𝐶𝑆

% 𝑁𝑒𝑤 𝑇𝐶𝑆
𝑁𝑒𝑤 𝐹𝐴𝑓 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 = (4)
% 𝑁𝑒𝑤 𝑆𝐶𝑆

Since the design is a fine-graded mixture, there is a target range of ratios that need to be

fulfilled to ensure optimal packing and performance. The recommended ratio ranges are

displayed in Table 1.

Table 1. Ratio Ranges Summary for Fine Graded Mixes

37.5 mm 25 mm 19 mm 12.5 mm 9.5 mm 4.75 mm

NMAS
(1- ½”) (1”) (3/4”) (1/2”) (3/8”) (#4)
Old CA
0.80–0.95 0.70-0.85 0.60-0.75 0.50-0.65 0.40-0.55 0.30-0.45
Ratio
New CA
0.6-1.0
Ratio
New Fac
0.35-0.50
Ratio
For these mixes, only the New CA
New Faf
0.35-0.50 and New Fac Ratios can be
Ratio
determined

The results of ratios of the Bailey Method utilized to produce the mix design for the

different gradations are in Table 2. Whilst not all the ratios fell within the recommended

values, this just provides a starting point and the acceptable ranges have to be reviewed in

accordance with existing mixes.

 8

Table 2. Fine Graded Mix Bailey Factor Ratios

Bailey Ratios Gradation-01 Gradation-03 Gradation-04

OLD CA 0.59 0.74 0.37
CA 0.59 0.21 0.36
Fac 0.35 0.51 0.34
Faf N/A 0.398 N/A

Chapter 3: Mixture Gradation Design and Performance Test Methods

3.1 Mixture Gradation Design Methodology

This research is a continuation of a study that was initiated using the Lockwood Nevada

quarry material source to investigate the performance of fine-dense graded asphalt concrete

for different gradations. Additionally, material was sampled from a Spanish Springs

Nevada quarry. The NDOT 2014 Standard Specifications for Road and Bridges

Construction, includes three gradations which are Type 2, Type 2C, and Type 3

specification limits. Two more gradations were added to evaluate the Spanish Springs

gradations. Type 2F and Type 2N. Type 2F is the specification recommendation suggested

after conducting testing on Lockwood source materials with fine graded mixes [13]. Type

2N is a new gradation specification which is developed by Nevada DOT, to be between

Type 2 and Type 3. This is summarized in Table 3. Only three of the gradations were

chosen to represent a more diverse range of gradation specification. Only Gradation 01

complied with both Type 2 and Type 2C, while Gradation 03 complied with Type 2, 2F,

and 2N specifications. Finally, Gradation 04 complied with Type 3 only.

 9

Table 3. Gradation Specifications Each Gradation Met

Mix ID Type 2 Type 2C Type 2F Type 2N Type 3

Gradation-01 √ √
Gradation-03 √ √ √
Gradation-04 √

The Hveem mix design method with 15% RAP, PG64-28NV asphalt binder, and 1.5%

hydrated lime was used for all gradations. It was used to obtain the optimum binder content

and the stability number of each gradation. After which, the Superpave gyratory compactor

was used to compact samples used for performance testing.

The gradations that were selected are represented on a 0.45 power gradation chart to get a

visual representation of the material passing each sieve size as seen in Figure 1 Figure 2

for both Spanish Springs and Lockwood source material.

 10

Figure 1. 0.45 Power Gradation Chart for Spanish Springs Gradations

Figure 2. 0.45 Power Gradation Chart for Lockwood Gradations

 11

3.1.1 Aggregate Batching for Gradation Control

This is a process that is used to ensure that the gradation of batched samples is very similar

to the gradation of a given mixture design and include focus on p200. It recognizes that

during the batching process, there is fine material that is stuck to the coarser aggregate that

will make its way to the pan material sieve. Hence, adjusting the aggregate batching is

necessary to avoid excess p200 material in the mix. It is an iterative process that requires

the assumption that the initial batched gradation is cleaner than the target gradation. After

batching, washing and drying the sample, the weight on each sieve is measured and the

difference is noted. To enable the iterative process of batching to be completed, there are

certain difference limits that should be fulfilled before the accurate gradation can be

considered complete. Those differences that are the following:

• For the coarsest sieve, less than or equivalent to 0.5%.

• For the sieves in between the coarsest and the finest the difference should only be

between 0.1% and 0.5%. Less than or equal to 0.1% for the No.200 sieve.

This process is illustrated in a flow chart in Figure 3.

 12

1. Calculate the Average Gradation for Each Stockpile Material Using QC Records.

2. Collect at least five samples of each stockpile material using proper sampling techniques and dry
them to a constant mass.

4o
3. Blend rigorously the mix to five or more samples per stockpile among themselves

4. Batch the dry samples in Bulk to the bin percentages pre-determined

5. Dry sieve the mixed batch and separate each sieve into a separate bucket for future sampling

6. Using the JMF as a guide, two samples are batched from the individual dry buckets.

7. The actual gradation can be determined by performing a wet sieve analysis, where the weight of the
retained aggregates on each sieve is compared before and after the Washed Sieve Analysis (AASHTO
T11 and T27)

8. The new batch will be sampled after taking into consideration the difference in gradation from the
previous sieve analysis

9. Determine the Actual Gradation of the Batched Sample by Performing a Sieve Analysis (AASHTO T11
and T27)

10. Repeat Steps 8 and 9 Until the Actual Gradation and Target Gradation are within the acceptable
difference ranges
( 0.5% difference on largest sieve size to  0.1% difference on the #200 sieve)

Figure 3. Steps of Accurate Aggregate Batching Process

3.1.2 Hveem Mix Design

The mix design method used in the state of Nevada is the Hveem Mix Design. Four

different binder contents, with a replica of each, were chosen between 4-6% generally and

the optimum binder content was obtained at the 4% air void level. The samples were

compacted to a height of 2.5 ± 0.1 inches by 4-inch diameter, using a California Kneading
 13

Compactor. This is according to NDOT test method Nev. T303D “Method of the test for

Stabilometer value of Bituminous paving Mixtures”[14]. The initial compaction effort is

20 tamps at 250 psi with the mold firmly fixed in place, followed by releasing the tightening

screw and allowing side to side movement of the mold while 150 tamps at 500 psi are

applied.

Figure 4: Hveem Kneading Compactor

After the compaction, the mold with the compacted mixture was placed in the 140°C

(60°C) oven for 1.5 hours before applying a 12,566 lbf (1000 psi) leveling of load at a rate

of 0.25 in. (6.4 mm) per minute. The double plunger method used the leveling load, in

which a free-fitting plunger was placed below the sample and on top. The height of the

specimen was measured right after the leveling load to the nearest 0.01 in, and the specimen

was returned to the 140°C (60°C) oven to retain the temperature for testing.
 14

3.1.3 Anti-strip Additive to Improve Resistance to Moisture Damage

Hydrated lime is used in some states primarily for its beneficial effects on the performance

and durability of asphalt pavements, however in some states it is necessary due to the

climatic conditions, and aggregate sources. In Northern Nevada, it is used in the regions

where there is a freeze-thaw cycle and it can help combat moisture-related pavement

distresses. used for NDOT mixtures[15]. Each aggregate sample was marinated with 1.5%

hydrated lime by dry weight. Initially, the aggregate was mixed with water for 2 minutes

before adding the hydrated lime. Once the lime was added, mixing continued for an

additional 3 minutes. The lime-treated samples were then stored in a sealed plastic

container for 48 hours. After the marination period, the samples were dried at 230°F and

then mixed with the asphalt binder following standard HMA mixing procedures.

3.1.4 Analysis of Stabilometer Number

As part of the Hveem mix design, and as outlined in the 2014 Standard Specifications for

Road and Bridges Construction [16], NDOT requires the HMA mix to pass a minimum

stabilometer value requirement depending on the type of mix as shown in Table 4.

Table 4. NDOT Mix Design Requirements

 15

This test is used to evaluate the stability of the HMA mixture. Values of stability can vary

between 0 and 100; the stability of water is 0, and the stability of steel approaches 100. The

test measures the mixture's ability to resist deformation and shear stress under load,

primarily by assessing its internal friction characteristics. The steps to perform the stability

test are as follows:

1- After returning the leveled-off sample to the oven for 1.5 hours at a temperature of

140°C (60°C), the specimen is placed on top of the stabilometer and using a

plunger, hand lever and a special fulcrum [14]. The base plate of the stabilometer

was conditioned for 1.5 hours at 140°C (60°C) prior to the test.

2- A vertical load was applied to the specimen at a rate of 0.05 in/min (1.27 mm/min),

and the lateral pressure was measured at 500 lbf and at 1,000 lbf intervals to 6,000

lbf. A rubber membrane in the stabilometer provides a confining pressure similar

to the cohesion provided by the asphalt binder in the field. The horizontal pressure

corresponding to 5000 lbf (22.24 kN) is noted as Ph.

3- The axial pressure is immediately dropped to 1,000 lbf and the number of

revolutions required for the stabilometer lateral pressure to go from 5 psi to 100 psi

at two hand revolutions per second is noted as D.

The stabilometer value is calculated using equation 5. The stability was adjusted if the

height of the specimen fell within a certain range as shown in Table 5. The correction curve

represented the overall height values. The corrected stabilometer value was determined

using Figure 5. The stability at the optimal binder content met the required criterion for the

three gradations within the different type of gradations.

 16

22.2
𝑆=
𝑃 .𝐷 (5)
[𝑃 ℎ− 𝑃 ] + 0.222
𝑣 ℎ

Where,

S: Stabilometer value

Pv: vertical pressure, typically 400 psi (2800 kPa) corresponding to a 5000 lbf (22.24 kN)
total load applied on a 4.0 in. (100 mm) diameter Hveem sample.

Ph: horizontal pressure corresponding to Pv in psi (kPa)

D: displacement of the specimen

Table 5. Height Corrections Curves for Stability Values [14]

Overall Specimen Height Correction Curve
2.80 to 3.00 in. (71 to 76 mm) A
2.60 to 2.79 in. (66 to 70 mm) B
2.40 to 2.49 in. (61 to 65 mm) C
2.20 to 2.39 in. (56 to 60 mm) D
2.00 to 2.19 in. (51 to 55 mm) E
 17

Figure 5. Stability Corrections for Height Deviations [14].

3.2 Mixture Performance Test Methods

3.2.1 Moisture Sensitivity Testing by Tensile Strength Ratio

The Tensile Strength Ratio (TSR) test, as specified in AASHTO T 283-22, is used to

evaluate the moisture susceptibility of compacted hot-mix asphalt (HMA) mixtures. The

primary purpose of the TSR test is to assess the potential for stripping, which is the loss of

adhesion between the asphalt binder and the aggregate due to the presence of water. The

test measures the indirect tensile strength of specimens under dry and wet conditions to

determine the mixture's ability to resist moisture-induced damage. There are two sets of

samples prepared, conditioned and non-conditioned, with target air voids of 7 ±0.5% [17].
 18

Test specimens are compacted using the Superpave Gyratory Compactor (SGC), with a

diameter of 150mm and height of 95mm. Unconditioned test specimens were stored in a

dry condition at room temperature. The conditioned samples were vacuum saturated

between 70%-80%, wrapped in plastic film and placed in a plastic bag with 10± 5 mL of

water. The samples were frozen at -18 ± 3°C (0 ± 5°F) for a minimum of 16 hours. The

specimens were thawed in a water bath at 60 ± 1°C (140 ± 2°F) for 24 ± 1 hours. Finally,

the specimens are transferred to a water bath at 25 ± 0.5°C (77 ± 1°F) for 2 ± 0.5 hours

before testing.

1- The indirect tensile strength test was performed on both the dry and conditioned

specimens using a loading rate of 51 mm/min (2 in/min) at 25 ± 0.5°C (77 ± 1°F).

and the maximum load at failure was measured and the indirect tensile strength

(ITS).

3.2.2 Hamburg Wheel Track (HWT)

The Hamburg Wheel-Tracking (HWT) is widely used to evaluate the moisture damage and

rutting susceptibility of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) by state DOTs [18]. This test provides

essential insights into the performance of asphalt mixtures under conditions that simulate

traffic and environmental stresses [19]. The HWT test displays sensitivity to the premature

failure of the HMA mixtures due to improper binder stiffness, weak aggregate packing,

moisture damage, and insufficient adhesion between the aggregate and binder. The HWT

uses a steel wheel rather than a rubber wheel. The procedures for using HWT and preparing

specimens are specified in AASHTO T324. According to the standard, the device works

by moving a steel wheel with the load of 705 ± 4.5 N (158 ± 1.0 lb) backward and forward
 19

across the surface of HMA specimens submerged in a constant temperature water bath

specified at 50 ± 1 °C. The equipment is capable of testing a pair of specimens

simultaneously. The steel wheels weigh X pounds, have a diameter of 203 mm (8 inches)

and a width of 47 mm (1.85 inches) and oscillate at frequencies ranging between 36-70

passes per minute. The typical setup of the HWT device, specimen preparation, and failure

specimens are shown in Figure 6.

The results of the HWT produce the following performance related parameters:

- Creep Slope: related to rutting resistance, the depth of rutting in each loading pass

in the creep stage.

- Stripping Slope: related to moisture damage, the depth of rutting in each loading

pass in the stripping stage

- Stripping Inflection Point (SIP): indicating the onset of moisture damage, it is

calculated as the intersection of the regressive lines in the creep stage and the

stripping stage [20].

The creep slope is the inverse of the deformation rate within the linear region of the

deformation curve after post compaction and prior to stripping (if stripping occurs). The

stripping slope is the inverse of the deformation rate within the linear region of the

deformation curve, after the onset of stripping. The stripping inflection point is the number

of wheel passes corresponding to the intersection of the creep slope and the stripping slope.

This value is used to estimate the relative resistance of the HMA sample to moisture

induced damage. The output of the Hamburg Wheel Track is shown in Figure 7.
 20

Figure 6. Hamburg Wheel Track Machine

Figure 7. HWT Deformation Curve Obtained from the Output [18]

 21

3.2.3 IDEAL-CT

The IDEAL-CT test is a simple to prepare test that’s purpose is to determine the cracking

resistance of asphalt mixtures at intermediate temperatures. The goal is to generate a CT-

Index which can be used to identify mixes that are susceptible to cracking during mix

design and production quality control and acceptance testing [21]. Typically, the testing

temperature ranges from 41 to 95°F (5 to 35°C). The sample preparation involves

compaction using a Superpave gyratory compactor with a diameter of 150±2mm and a

height of 2.4 in (62 mm) with no further modification required for the sample. This is one

of the reasons this test is popular and widely used in specifications in many agencies. The

test temperature is 25°C and a monotonic load at a constant displacement rate (50mm/min).

The test setup is shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8. Ideal-CT Testing Equipment

 22

The CT-Index is calculated by obtaining the failure energy, the deformation tolerance at

75% of the peak load and the post-peak slope of the load displacement curve. Then the area

under the load-displacement curve, identified as work of failure (Wf) is calculated.

Thereafter, by dividing the work of failure by the measured cross-sectional area of the

specimen, which should be constant, we can get the failure energy value. Equation 6 is then

used to calculate the CT-Index. Figure 9 is a graphical representation of the calculations.

𝑡 𝑙75 𝐺𝑓
𝐶𝑇𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 = 𝑥 𝑥 𝑥 106 (6)
62 𝐷 |𝑚75 |

Where:

Gf: failure energy (joules/m2)

|m75|: the absolute value of the post-peak slope m75 (N/m)

l75: displacement at 75% of the peak load after the peak (mm)

D: specimen diameter (mm)

t: specimen thickness (mm)

 23

Figure 9. Ideal-CT Load vs. Displacement Data [21]

Generally, a higher CT-Index means that the mix is better at cracking resistance. One

indicator that can affect the cracking resistance is the stiffness of the mix. By adding RAP

to the mixture, the aged material in the RAP can contribute to the cracking resistance.

According to Marin-Uribe et. al, dense mixes with 25% RAP increased tensile strength

than 0% RAP [22]. According to the current ASTM Standard, the within-laboratory

standard deviation is reported to be 13.5 [21]. Recent studies have been conducted to

reevaluate the variability of the test. Romero-Zambrana determined a coefficient of

variation within the same laboratory to be between 15%-22% [23].

3.2.4 Dynamic Modulus Mixture Test and Mixture Mastercurve Development

The Dynamic Modulus Test is essential for evaluating the stiffness of asphalt mixtures

across varying temperatures of 39, 68, and 122°F (4, 20, and 50°C) and loading

frequencies. The procedure involves preparing and conditioning cylindrical specimens,

applying sinusoidal haversine compressive stress at 10 Hz, 1 Hz, and 0.1 Hz (0.01 only

used at 35°C) and analyzing the resulting stress and strain data to calculate the dynamic
 24

modulus phase angle (φ). Figure 10 represents the phase angle, the delay between peaks of

stress and strain. This test provides critical data for pavement design and performance

prediction, the development of durable and resilient pavement structures.

Figure 10. Representation of Dynamic Modulus Testing Haversine Loading [24]

Cylindrical sample preparation was in accordance to AASHTO T378-22 [24], the asphalt

mixtures underwent evaluation under short-term aging conditions [25]. Following

AASHTO R 83 [26] final specimens of 100 mm in diameter and 150 mm in height were

obtained by coring from the center of a 150 mm diameter by 170 mm height SGC sample

ensuring the compaction of all test specimens was maintained at 7.0±0.5% air voids. The

test results had to be within the acceptance criteria, as outlined by AASHTO R 84 [27] and

shown in Table 6, for the results to be considered for analysis.

 25

Table 6. Acceptance Criteria for E* Test Results [24]

Data Quality Statistic Limit

Load Standard Error 10%
Deformation Standard Error 10%
Deformation Uniformity 30%
Phase Uniformity 3 degrees

A technique called time-temperature superposition, involves using a sigmoidal fitting

model to adjust the relative E* values from different temperatures to the corresponding

frequencies. By shifting dynamic modulus values, measured at different temperatures and

frequencies of loading, to a reference temperature, the master curve can be developed.

Equation 7 and Equation 8, are derived from AASHTO R 84 [23], which provide the fitting

and shifting equations needed to develop the master curve.

𝑀𝑎𝑥 − 
log |𝐸 ∗ | =  + (7)
1 + 𝑒 + 𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑓𝑟

∆𝐸𝑎 1 1
log[a(T)] = ( − ) (8)
19.14714 𝑇 𝑇𝑟

The reduced frequency, 𝑓𝑟, and the fit parameters 𝛽, 𝛿, and 𝛾 are used to characterize the

shape of the dynamic modulus master curve. These coefficients are defined in the fitting

equations provided by AASHTO R 84 [27].

3.2.5 Texas-Overlay Reflective Cracking Test

The purpose of the Overlay Tester OT is to evaluate the resistance of asphalt mixture to

reflective cracking. Fatigue cracking occurs in two stages; crack initiation and crack
 26

propagation. According to Zhou et al., the OT can be used as a simple performance test for

evaluating fatigue cracking as well due to the ability of the test to evaluate crack initiation

and propagation [28]. By forcing an initial crack during the first loading cycle, a peak load

is reached before the specimen reaches maximum displacement. Then comes the phase of

crack propagation, the load decreases with every cycle until the load is reduced by 93% of

the initial cycle. The test is then completed at a maximum of 5000 cycles [29].

The OT sample is prepared by first compacting to a height of 115mm and a diameter of

115mm using a Superpave gyratory compactor. Then the sample is trimmed to a length of

150mm, height of 38mm and a width of 76mm. The samples had a target density of 93%

according to the tex-248-F standard. The final trimmed specimen is shown in Figure 11.

Figure 11. Test Specimen Dimensions [29]

The trimmed sample is then mounted and glued to a base plate then placed on a mounting

jig. The sample was conditioned for two hours at 25°C. Using a hacksaw, the specimen

was scored at the gap between the plates to force the specimen to crack at the gap opening

[29]. Then a cyclic triangular load with a maximum displacement of 0.06 cm is applied to

the testing specimen. Figure 12 shows the overlay testing specimen at the AMPT machine.
 27

Figure 12. Overlay AMPT Test Machine

The critical fracture energy and Crack Progression Rate, CPR, are illustrated in Equation

9 and Equation 10 .

𝑊𝑐
𝐺𝑐 = (9)
𝑏∗ℎ

𝐺𝑐 = Critical Fracture Energy (kN-mm2)

𝑊𝑐 = Fracture Area (kN-mm)

𝑏 = Specimen Width (mm)

ℎ = Specimen Height (mm)

𝑁 𝐶𝑃𝑅 = 𝑁 (0.0075∗𝛽−1) (10)

CPR = Crack Progression Rate

 28

𝛽 = Crack Resistance Index

N = Number of Cycles to Failure

The following was reported for each specimen:

• trimmed specimen density,

• starting load,
• final load,
• percent decline in load,
• number of cycles to failure and
• test temperature.

3.2.6 Repeated Flexural Beam Bending Fatigue Test

A beam fatigue test is a mechanistic test used to evaluate the resistance of asphalt mixtures

to long term fatigue cracking. This test simulates the bending loading that a pavement is

exposed to under traffic conditions to predict the fatigue resistance and performance. The

test is conducted according to standards as AASHTO 321-22 “Determining the fatigue life

of Compacted Asphalt Mixtures Subjected to Repeated Flexural Bending” [30].

The specimens were compacted in a kneading beam compactor, shown in Figure 13, then

trimmed to the dimensions of 380 ± 6 mm in length, 63 ± 2 mm in width, and 50 ± 2 mm

in height. The beams were compacted to a target air void level of 7 ± 1.0 percent.

Additionally, the orientation in which the beams were compacted (top and bottom) was

marked and maintained for the fatigue testing as well. The compacted samples were then

subject to Long-Term Oven Aging (LTOA) of 5 days at 85°C The beam fatigue apparatus

applies a haversine loading at a frequency of 10Hz. The samples were conditioned to a

temperature of 20°C (72°F) for two hours before testing. Three strain levels were selected
 29

such that all specimens will undergo at least 10,000 cycles before their stiffness decreased

to 50 percent of the initial stiffness. The number of cycles (Nf), where the stiffness is

reduced to 50 percent, were recorded at each strain level (εt). The sample is considered

failed when there’s a 95% reduction in stiffness in comparison to the initial stiffness. The

results were plotted in log scale: Strain (Єt) Vs. Number of cycles (Nf). Using Equation 11

to calculate the fatigue life.

Figure 13. Kneading Beam Compactor

1 𝑘2
𝑁𝑓 = 𝑘1 ( ) (11)
∈𝑡

Where,

Nf = Fatigue life (number of load repetitions to fatigue damage)

 30

∈𝑡 = Applied tensile strain.

k1 , k2 = Experimentally determined coefficients.

Chapter 4: Materials and Performance Test Results and Analysis

4.1 Raw Materials Selection

The aggregate used were sampled from a Spanish Springs quarry in Northern Nevada. The

gradation of each stockpile material was determined per AASHTO T 11 and AASHTO T

27 [31], [32]. Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) was also obtained from the Spanish

Springs plant source in Northern Nevada also. The specific gravities and absorption

measurements for each aggregate stockpile were determined by following AASHTO T 84

or AASHTO T 85 protocols [33], [34]. The results for the gradation and specific gravity

values for each individual stockpile material are presented in Table 7.

 31

Table 7. Stockpile Gradations

% Passing
Sieve size
Crusher Washed
3/4" 1/2" 3/8" RAP
US SI (mm) fine sand
1" 25 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3/4" 19 77.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1/2" 12.5 22.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3/8" 9.5 4.7 71.9 96.8 100.0 100.0 94.3
#4 4.75 1.7 9.5 15.2 98.0 100.0 59.0
#8 2.36 1.4 1.8 2.1 62.9 97.0 40.0
#10 2 1.4 1.7 1.8 55.3 91.7 37.0
#16 1.18 1.3 1.4 1.4 39.9 69.7 29.9
#30 0.6 1.2 1.3 1.2 26.5 41.1 22.9
#40 0.425 1.2 1.2 1.1 21.1 28.0 19.7
#50 0.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 16.5 17.0 17.0
#100 0.15 1.1 0.9 0.8 9.1 5.4 12.3
#200 0.075 0.9 0.8 0.5 5.2 2.7 9.2
Bulk Specific
2.631 2.521 2.645 2.661 2.679 2.629
Gravity

The binder used for this project was a PG64-28NV which is an SBS Polymer-modified

binder is utilized in northern Nevada. Moreover, in the same region all asphalt mixture

designs incorporate hydrated lime to mitigate damage caused by moisture and stripping.

Therefore, all the samples were marinated in lime for a period of two days.

4.2 Gradation Specifications and Compliance

In order to obtain a mix design that can comply with NDOT Type 2 and Type 2C, the bin

percentages were adjusted to fall within the specification limits on control sieves. However,

after further investigation the finer mix designs could not comply with Type 2, or Type 2C

while also complying Type 3. Therefore, the three mixes that were selected included a
 32

varying range of compliance with various NDOT mix types. Table 8 presents the Type 2,

Type 2C and Type 3 gradation specifications. Type F is a gradation specification that was

recommended after research was conducted on the Lockwood source material [13].

Table 8. NDOT Aggregate Gradation Specifications

Type 2 Type 2C Type 3

Sieve Size
Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper
1" 100 100 100 100 - -
3/4" 90 100 88 95 - -
1/2" 70 85 100 -
3/8" 63 85 60 78 85 100
#4 45 63 43 60 50 75
#10 30 44 30 44 32 52
#40 12 22 12 22 12 26
#200 3 8 3 8 3 8

The adjusted stockpile percentages to develop the blend within the specification limits are

given in Table 9.

Table 9. Stockpile Blend Percentages – Spanish Springs

Stockpiles
Crusher Washed
3/4" 1/2" 3/8" Lime RAP
fine sand
Mix ID
Gradation -01 35.5 4.9 0.0 30.4 12.8 1.5 15.0
Gradation -02 20.0 17.5 0.0 31.0 15.0 1.5 15.0
Gradation -03 12.0 15.0 6.0 31.5 19.0 1.5 15.0
Gradation -04 0.0 9.0 15.0 34.5 25.0 1.5 15.0

4.3 Mixture Volumetrics

Volumetric properties are important to ensure that the mixture will not rut and will have

good durability [35]. One important component that controls volumetrics is the amount of
 33

asphalt binder in the mixture. The three properties included in volumetrics are air voids,

voids in mineral aggregate (VMA), and voids filled with asphalt (VFA). The VMA is

primarily controlled by the aggregate gradation and is used to make sure that the amount

of asphalt in the mixture exceeds some minimum desired amount. The air voids and VFA

properties are primarily controlled by the amount of asphalt in the mixture. All of these

properties help to ensure the proper amount of asphalt is added to the mixture to get

optimum performance. The specimens were tested to calculate the bulk specific gravity

(Gmb) after performing the stability number testing. The Optimum Bitumen Content

(OBC) was then chosen to be at 4% air voids (AV). The corresponding volumetric

properties for both Spanish Springs (SS) and Lockwood (LW) sourced materials are

displayed in Table 10. Properties such as VMA, VFA, DP, and Pbe, were determined at

the optimum binder content and are provided in Figures 14 through 16.

Table 10. Volumetric Properties Summary [13]

DP Asphalt
OBC VMA VFA Pbe p200 Film
Mix ID With W/O
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Thickness
Lime Lime
(microns)
Gradation -01
SS 4.5 13.0 70.0 3.7 1.36 1.01 5.0 7.8
Gradation -03
SS 5.0 14.5 73.0 4.4 1.20 0.88 5.1 8.3
Gradation -04
SS 5.7 14.8 72.0 4.5 1.17 0.90 5.3 8.7
Gradation -01
LW 5.0 13.5 72.0 4.2 1.50 1.20 6.2
Gradation -02
LW 5.5 14.4 72.0 4.5 1.40 1.12 6.3
Gradation -03
N/A
LW 4.8 13.4 72.0 4.2 1.46 1.18 6.1
Gradation -04
LW 5.9 15.2 73.0 4.9 1.58 1.35 7.9
Gradation -05
LW 5.5 14.3 73.0 4.6 1.72 1.46 7.8
 34

The NMAS is 3/4” for Gradation 01,1/2” for Gradation 03, and 3/8” for Gradation 04.

AASHTO M323-22, “Superpave Volumetric Mix Design”, dictates a DP to be between 0.6-

1.2, which all the gradations met [36]. Gradations 01 and 03 met NDOT specs with a DP

higher than 1.2. It is noticeable that the DP decreases as the gradation becomes finer, which

seems counterintuitive. This is due to a very small difference in the p200 between the

coarsest and finest gradations. However, the effective binder content increases significantly

between gradations.
 35

7.0% 14.0%
6.0% 13.5%

Air Voids (%)

5.0%

VMA (%)
13.0%
4.0%
12.5%
3.0%
12.0%
2.0%
1.0% 11.5%
0.0% 11.0%
4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5
Asphalt Content (%) Asphalt Content (%)

100.0% 10.0%

90.0% 8.0%
VFA (%)

6.0%

Pbe (%)
80.0%
70.0% 4.0%

60.0% 2.0%

50.0% 0.0%
4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5
Asphalt Content (%) Asphalt Conent (%)

2.00
DP (With Lime)

1.60

1.20

0.80

0.40

0.00
4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5
Asphalt Content (%)

Figure 14. Gradation-01 Asphalt Mixture Volumetric Properties

 36

7.0% 16.0%
6.0%
Air Voids (%) 5.0% 15.0%

VMA (%)
4.0%
3.0%
2.0% 14.0%
1.0%
0.0% 13.0%
4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5
Asphalt Content (%) Asphalt Conetnt (%)

100.0% 10.0%
90.0% 8.0%
VFA (%)

80.0% 6.0%

Pbe %
70.0% 4.0%
60.0% 2.0%
50.0% 0.0%
4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5
Asphalt Conetnt (%) Asphalt Conent (%)

1.60
DP (With Lime)

1.20

0.80

0.40

0.00
4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5
Asphalt Content (%)

Figure 15. Gradation-03 Asphalt Mixture Volumetric Properties

 37

8.0% 17.0%

7.0% 16.0%

Air Voids (%)

VMA(%)
6.0% 15.0%

5.0% 14.0%

4.0% 13.0%

3.0% 12.0%
4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
Asphalt Content (%) Asphalt content (%)

80.0% 8.0%

70.0% 6.0%
VFA (%)

Pbe (%)
60.0% 4.0%

50.0% 2.0%

40.0% 0.0%
4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
Asphalt content (%) Asphalt Conent (%)

2.00

1.60
DP (With Lime)

1.20

0.80

0.40

0.00
4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
Asphalt content (%)

Figure 16. Gradation-04 Asphalt Mixture Volumetric Properties

 38

4.4 Performance Test Results and Analysis

4.4.1 Hveem Mixture Design Stability Test

After the compaction of the Hveem mix design samples, and leveling off, the stability test

was conducted on all the samples. The stability number is a numerical value to measure

the stability of the mixture, and thus, a higher number signifies better stability.

In order to fulfill the NDOT requirement specifications, the stability number for each type

of mix has to pass the minimum. Type 2 and Type 2C are 35 and 37, and Type 3 is 30 [16].

The stability numbers for each gradation are shown in Figures 17 to 19. Gradation 01, with

the coarsest gradation, had the highest stability at 39, passing Type 2C. Gradation 03 had

a stability of 36 passing Type 2 minimum requirement. Gradation 04 passed Type 3

gradation requirement at 31.5.

50.0

40.0
Stability Number

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0
4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5
Asphalt Content (%)

Figure 17. Gradation-01 Stability Number plot

 39

50.0

40.0

Stability Number
30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0
4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
Asphalt Content (%)

Figure 18. Gradation-03 Stability Number plot

40.0

35.0
Stability Number

30.0

25.0

20.0

15.0

10.0
4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
Asphalt content (%)

Figure 19. Gradation-04 Stability Number plot

4.4.2 Tensile Strength Ratio Test

The minimum requirements of the Nevada DOT Standard Specifications had to be fulfilled

for the TSR test. A minimum of 70% for TSR and a minimum dry strength of 65 psi [16].

Figure 20 shows that all gradations had 100% or close to it (Except Gradation 03) and

therefore passed the 70% minimum requirements. The error bars in the figure illustrate the

95% confidence interval (CI). In comparison, the TSR results for the Lockwood source

material also passed the 70% minimum requirement, however there was greater differences
 40

between the wet and dry tensile strengths. This is demonstrated in Figures 21 and 23. It is

common in Nevada for the aggregates to possess high water absorption, which increases

the risk of moisture damage. Spanish Springs material had higher wet tensile strength than

dry tensile strength, shown in Figure 22, which could be attributed to the hydrated lime

marination for 48 hours for all samples, which significantly improved the asphalt mixtures

resistance to stripping. The results of the dry and wet tensile strengths for each gradation

are demonstrated in Table 11.

110%
100% 100%
100% 97%

90%
TSR (%)

80%

70%

60%

50%
Gradation- 01 Gradation- 03 Gradation- 04
(4.5%AC) (5.0%AC) (5.7%AC)

----- Specification Minimum of 70%

Figure 20. TSR Results – Spanish Springs

 41

----- Specification Minimum of 70%

Figure 21. TSR Results – Lockwood

140.00
120.00
Tensile Strength, psi

100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
Gradation- 01 Gradation- 03 Gradation- 04
(4.5%AC) (5.0%AC) (5.7%AC)
Dry Tensile Strength Wet Tensile Strength

Figure 22. Dry and Wet Tensile Strength – Spanish Springs

 42

Figure 23. Dry and Wet Tensile Strength - Lockwood

Table 11. Tensile Strength Ratio Test Results

Gradation- 01 Gradation- 03 Gradation- 04

Sample and Statistical (4.5%AC) (5.0%AC) (5.7%AC)
Data Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet
S1 94.1 108.7 112.4 106.8 110.0 114.8
S2 99.1 94.5 106.5 99.2 104.4 110.6
S3 97.8 99.7 115.2 117.7 101.9 106.6
Average 97.0 101.0 111.4 107.9 105.4 110.7
Dry CL (95%) 6.4 11.1 10.2
Wet CL (95%) 17.8 23.0 10.2
Standard Deviation 2.59 7.18 4.43 9.27 4.12 4.10
COV 2.7% 7.1% 4.0% 8.6% 3.9% 3.7%

4.4.3 Hamburg Wheel Track (HWT)

The HWT was run with the water temperature at 50°C as per the AASHTO T 324-22

“Hamburg Wheel-Track Testing of Compacted Asphalt Mixtures.” [18]. There were four

samples per gradation with a threshold of 12.5 mm of rutting depth and 20,000 passes or
 43

until failure. The air voids of all the test samples were 7±0.5%. Figure 24 shows the test

results for the rut depth versus the number of wheel passes, exhibiting a high resistance to

rutting for all gradations with the rutting depth ranging between 3.9 mm to 4.4 mm. The

same figure shows the rate of rutting for the Three Gradations of Spanish Springs which is

calculated from cycle 2,760 until cycle 20,000. Figure 25 depicts the test results for

Lockwood source material at 52°C. The criteria set for the test were a threshold of 12.5

mm for rutting depth and 20,000 passes until failure. What is noticeable is that the stripping

inflection point was not observed at any of the gradations for Spanish Springs.
 44

0.0

-2.0

Rut Depth (mm)

-4.0

-6.0

-8.0

-10.0

-12.0

-14.0
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Number of Passes

Gradation-01 (AC-4.5%) Gradation-03 (AC-5.0%)

Gradation-04 (AC-5.7%) Limit

Figure 24. HWT Results at 50°C – Spanish Springs

Figure 25. HWT Results at 52°C – Lockwood [13]

Figures 26 and 27 show the rut depth (bars) at 20,000-wheel passes of the evaluated asphalt

mixtures and the respective effective binder content (Pbe) (lines). There was no observable

correlation between the rut depth and percent of effective binder in the Spanish Springs
 45

material. Gradation 01 has the lowest Pbe it also shows the highest rut depth, however the

difference between the highest and lowest rut depth is only 0.5 mm.

12.0 5.0

10.0 4.0 Rut

depth
Rut Depth, mm

8.0 (mm)
3.0

Pbe (%)
6.0
4.4 4.2 2.0
3.9
4.0 Pbe

2.0 1.0

0.0 0.0
Gradation-01 Gradation-03 Gradation-04
(4.5%AC) (5.0%AC) (5.7%AC)

Figure 26. Rut Depth with Effective Binder Content – Spanish Springs

Figure 27. Rut Depth with Effective Binder Content – Lockwood [13]
Looking into another result of the HWT test, it is important to determine the rate of rutting.

This occurs when the curve is at the steady-state rutting potion, which should be typically

linear. The slope of this section of the trendline is the rate of rutting. This starts from round

cycle 2,760 until cycle 20,000. Figures 28-30 display the rate of rutting for all the Spanish
 46

Springs gradations to better understand how is the rutting rate changing with the number

of cycles.

0.0012
0.001
0.0008
Rate of Rutting (mm/Cycles)

0.0006
0.0004
0.0002
0 Gradation-01
(AC-4.5%)
-0.0002
-0.0004
-0.0006
-0.0008
-0.001
-0.0012
10,650
11,400
12,150
12,900
13,650
14,400
15,150
15,900
16,650
17,400
18,150
18,900
19,650
2,760
3,060
3,360
3,660
3,960
4,650
5,400
6,150
6,900
7,650
8,400
9,150
9,900

Cycles

Figure 28. Rate of Rutting Gradation 01 – Spanish Springs

0.0012
0.001
0.0008
Rate of Rutting (mm/Cycles)

0.0006
0.0004
0.0002
Gradation-03
0 (AC-5.0%)
-0.0002
-0.0004
-0.0006
-0.0008
-0.001
-0.0012
12,100
10,500
11,300

12,900
13,700
14,500
15,300
16,100
16,900
17,700
18,500
19,300
2,760
3,080
3,400
3,720
4,100
4,900
5,700
6,500
7,300
8,100
8,900
9,700

Cycles

Figure 29. Rate of Rutting Gradation 03 – Spanish Springs

 47

0.0012
0.001
Rate of Rutting (mm/Cycles) 0.0008
0.0006
0.0004
Gradation-04
0.0002
(AC-5.7%)
0
-0.0002
-0.0004
-0.0006
-0.0008
-0.001
-0.0012
2760

10250
11100
11950
12800
13650
14500
15350
16200
17050
17900
18750
19600
3100
3440
3780
4300
5150
6000
6850
7700
8550
9400 Cycles

Figure 30. Rate of Rutting Gradation 04 – Spanish Springs

4.4.4 IDEAL-CT

The primary objective of the IDEAL-CT is to determine the Cracking Tolerance Index (CT

Index), which quantifies the mixture’s resistance to cracking, especially under intermediate

temperatures [18]. The load-displacement curve was analyzed to calculate the cracking

tolerance index (CT-index) determined from the work of fracture, or the total area under

the load displacement curve, and the slope of the curve at 25% reduction from the peak

load. The test was conducted on three replicate specimens at the optimum binder content

(OBC) and tested at a temperature of 25°C. The loose mix was conditioned for two hours

before being compacted and conditioned for another 2 hours at testing temperature before

conducting the test. Figure 31 shows the CT index value for each gradation mixture for

Spanish Springs (SS) and Lockwood (LW) with 95% confidence interval bars.
 48

The gradations with the high binder content for both source material showed a higher CT

index value, as was expected. This is due to the asphalt content increasing the stiffness of

the mixture, which in turn enhances its cracking resistance. However, looking at the results

from an economic perspective, Gradations 03 from Lockwood and Gradation 01 from SS

are the most economical to construct. The results of the Ideal-CT test for all gradations are

presented in Table 12.

Table 12. Ideal-CT Test Results

Sample and Statistical Gradation-01 Gradation-03 Gradation-03

Data (4.5%AC) (5.0%AC) (5.7%AC)
S1 51.7 55.6 94.4
S2 70.5 50.7 92.5
S3 59.5 73.1 85.3
S4 72.3
S5 72.8
S6 54.4
S7 88.4
Average 67.1 59.8 90.7
CL (95%) 11.8 29.3 11.9
Standard Deviation 12.78 11.77 4.8
COV 19.1% 19.7% 5.3%
 49

Figure 31. CT-index Results for Spanish Springs and Lockwood [13]

To understand better the relationship between the CT-Index and the parameters obtained

from the Ideal-CT test, Figures 32 to 38 illustrate that relationship. First looking at the

I75/m75 ratios. The ratio between I75/m75 and the CT index shows a strong correlation.

As expected, gradations 01 and 03 have lower I75/m75 ratios; Gradation 04 indicates a

higher ratio with a higher CT index. The CT index increases with I75/m75 ratio, indicating

that the mix is moving toward to greater cracking resistance. Alternatively, P75, which is

75% of the peak load, decreases with I75/m75 ratio. According to the trend, the CT index

is reducing with the increasing P75. That was verified for both Spanish Springs and

Lockwood source materials.

 50

Gradation 04 shows the highest CT index value with the lowest m75, and Gradations 01

and 03 illustrate a lower CT index with a higher m75. Similar to the peak load relationship

with the CT Index, asphalt mixtures indicate lower cracking resistance with increased post-

peak slope (m75). There was a less significant relationship between the CT Index and

volumetric properties such as Pbe, p200. For Pbe, normally, the higher the binder the higher

the CT-index as Gradation 01 shows 68 and Gradation 04 shows 91 for the CT-Index

results. But since Gradation 03 has a higher Pbe and lower CT Index, the correlation

couldn’t be formed. However, for p200, increasing material passing the 200 sieve helps to

improve the cracking resistance of the asphalt mixtures.

200.0
y = 46.464x - 24.142 Gradation- 01 (4.5%AC)
150.0 R² = 0.9986
CT Index

Gradation- 03 (5.0%AC)
100.0
Gradation- 04 (5.7%AC)
50.0
Linear (trend)
0.0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
I75/m75

Figure 32. CT Index vs I75/m75 Ratio Plot

 51

200.0
y = -83.504x + 243.11 Gradation- 01 (4.5%AC)
150.0 R² = 0.9982
CT Index
100.0 Gradation- 03 (5.0%AC)

50.0
Gradation- 04 (5.7%AC)
0.0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
m75 (kN/mm)

Figure 33. CT Index vs m75 Plot

Figure 34. CT Index vs I75 Plot

 52

200.0
y = -53.848x + 602.05 Gradation- 01 (4.5%AC)
150.0 R² = 0.9983

CT Index 100.0 Gradation- 03 (5.0%AC)

50.0
Gradation- 04 (5.7%AC)
0.0
9.0 10.0 11.0
Peak Load (kN)

Figure 35. CT Index vs Peak Load Plot

200.0
y = 13.947x + 14.421
Gradation- 01 (4.5%AC)
150.0 R² = 0.1427
CT Index

100.0 Gradation- 03 (5.0%AC)

50.0
Gradation- 04 (5.7%AC)
0.0
3.5 3.7 3.9 4.1 4.3 4.5 4.7
Pbe

Figure 36. CT Index vs Pbe Plot

 53

200.0
y = 87.857x - 378 Gradation- 01 (4.5%AC)
150.0 R² = 0.6954

CT Index
100.0 Gradation- 03 (5.0%AC)

50.0
Gradation- 04 (5.7%AC)
0.0
4 4.5 5 5.5 6
P200

Figure 37. CT Index vs p200 Plot

12.0
y = -0.6393x + 10.087
Gradation- 01 (4.5%AC)
R² = 0.0724
10.0
P75 (kN)

Gradation- 03 (5.0%AC)
8.0
Gradation- 04 (5.7%AC)
6.0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
I75/m75

Figure 38. P75 vs I75/m75 Ratio Plot

 54

4.4.5 Dynamic Modulus (E*)

The dynamic modulus (E*) is a fundamental property of asphalt mixtures, and it is one of

the primary input parameters in the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide

(MEPDG). This property represents the stiffness of asphalt mixtures, and it is a function

of loading rate and temperature. AASHTO T 378-22 was followed to evaluate the E*

property of the three asphalt mixtures [24]. Two replicates were prepared for each

gradation and tested at 4°C, 20°C, and 35°C according to the binder grade used. Using a

specific reference temperature of 20°C following AASHTO R 84 [27] the dynamic

modulus master curve was established. Using the time-temperature superposition principle,

the shift factors that align the dynamic modulus data at different temperatures to a reference

temperature. Then the testing frequencies were converted to a reduced frequency using the

calculated shit factors. Then using a sigmoidal function, the curve was generated and the

fitting parameters were obtained by an optimization technique which produces the least

sum of squared errors. This is illustrated in Figure 39 and 40 for Spanish Springs and

Lockwood respectively. The results of the dynamic modulus test that were used to generate

the master curve are displayed in Table 13.

 55

10,000.00

1,000.00
Dynamic Modulus (E*) (ksi)

100.00

Gradation -01

10.00 Gradation -03

Gradation -04

1.00
1.0E-07 1.0E-04 1.0E-01 1.0E+02 1.0E+05
Reduced Frequency (fr) [Hz]

Figure 39. Dynamic Modulus Master Curve – Spanish Springs

Figure 40. Dynamic Modulus Master Curve – Lockwood [13]

 56

Table 13. Dynamic Modulus Test Results

Sample and Statistical Gradation- 01 Gradation- 03 Gradation- 04

Data (4.5%AC) (5.0%AC) (5.7%AC)
S1 637.3 594.1 530.1
S2 757.6 668.3 602.6
S3 685.6 635.4 575.0
Average 693.5 632.6 569.2
CL (95%) 150.0 92.3 90.9
Standard Deviation 60.53 37.18 36.60
COV 8.7% 5.9% 6.4%

All the gradations for both sources have demonstrated excellent stiffness level and stability.

Looking into the results for both sources, it can be deduced that the highest dynamic

modulus comes from the lowest OBC (Gradation 01 SS) and the dynamic modulus number

has an inverse relation to the OBC. According to Hajj et al. [37], an E* value of over 300

ksi at 20°C and 10 Hz indicates excellent stability. On the other hand, an E* value above

1,500 ksi at 20°C and 10 Hz implies that the HMA is susceptible to cracking. At 20°C and

10 Hz, Figures 41 and 42 illustrates that all asphalt mixtures demonstrated an E* value

ranging between 300 and 1,500 ksi.

 57

1200.0

Dynamic Modulus at 20°C and

1000.0
693.5
800.0 632.6
10Hz (ksi) 569.2
600.0

400.0

200.0

0.0
Gradation-01 Gradation-03 Gradation-04
(4.5%AC) (5.0%AC) (5.7%AC)

Figure 41. Dynamic Modulus Results at 20°C and 10Hz – Spanish Springs

Figure 42. Dynamic Modulus Results at 20°C and 10Hz – Lockwood [13]

4.4.6 Texas-Overlay Reflective Cracking Test

To evaluate the performance of the various mix designs for resistance to reflective

cracking, the number of cycles to failure was calculated. According to the Tex-248-F

Overlay Test, a mixture that lasts over 300 load cycles to failure, which is a 93% reduction

in load from the initial load, are considered sufficient to predict acceptable and accurate
 58

resistance to cracking [29]. The crack propagation rate and critical fracture energy have

recently been looked at as new parameters to indicate an asphalt mixtures resistance to

cracking [38].

The cycles to failure with a peak load for all gradation mixtures for both Spanish Springs

and Lockwood sources are shown in Figures 43 and 44. The test results that were obtained

from the overlay test performed on the AMPT tester are displayed in Table 14.

6,000 450

5,800 400
Cycles to
5,600 350 Failure
Cycles to Failure

300
5,400

Peak Load
250

(lb)
5,200
5000 5000 200
5000
5,000
150 Peak
4,800 100 Load
(lb)
4,600 50
4,400 0
Gradation -01 Gradation -03 Gradation -04
(4.5%AC) (5.0%AC) (5.7%AC)

Figure 43. Cycles to Failure and Peak Load – Spanish Springs

 59

Figure 44. Cycles to Failure and Peak Load – Lockwood [13]

Table 14. Texas-Overlay Test Results

Figures 45 and 46 show the critical fracture energy and the variation of crack propagation

rates observed. While for Spanish Springs, Gradation 01 showed the lowest propagation

rate having despite having the lowest binder content, Gradation 03, in Lockwood, indicated

a higher crack propagation rate than other mixtures. The results are inconclusive and need

further investigation as to reason for the variance.

 60

Figure 45. Critical Fracture Energy and Crack Propagation Rate - Spanish Springs

Figure 46. Critical Fracture Energy and Crack Propagation Rate - Lockwood [13]

4.4.7 Repeated Flexural Beam Bending Fatigue Test Results

The beam fatigue was conducted on all five gradations from Lockwood. Each gradation

mixture was tested at 70°F at multiple strain levels between 800 and 1800 microns. A

regression function was used to assess the number of cycles to failure based on the applied

strain, and Figure 47 displays the fatigue behavior of the assessed gradations at 70°F.
 61

According to the failure cycles, Gradations 05 and 01 mixtures exhibit better fatigue

performance than the rest of the mixtures in this test. The experimentally determined

laboratory coefficients for all mixture gradations are shown in Table 15. However, it is

very important to note that the fatigue performance is very dependent on the location of

the mixture in the pavement structure, as well as the properties of the materials located

above and below the mixture in the pavement structure. Due to time constraints, only the

Lockwood material was tested for this performance indicator.

10,000
Gradation 01
Flexural Strain (microns)

(5.0%AC)
1,000 Gradation 02
(5.5%AC)

100 Gradation 03
(4.8%AC)
Gradation 04
10 (5.9%AC)
Gradation 05
(5.5%AC)
1
1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000
Cycles to Failure
Figure 47. Comparison of Fatigue Relationship between Asphalt Mixtures

Table 15. Flexural Beam Fatigue Coefficients

Gradation Gradation Gradation Gradation Gradation

Coefficients
01 02 03 04 05

K1 2.795E-13 1.285E-08 3.169E-12 1.950E-13 4.337E-12

K2 6.111 4.120 5.207 5.849 5.797

 62

4.4.8 Use of Performance Space Diagrams to Assess Factors Influencing Performance

The performance space diagram makes it easier to evaluate the balance between different

performance characteristics by illustrating the quadrants that represent desirable asphalt

mixture performance properties, regarding cracking, rutting, and moisture susceptibility.

The performance metrics that were utilized for Lockwood will be used for the Spanish

Springs source material. For the performance space diagram, rut depth, TSR, CT index,

and the number of failure cycles for OL are assigned as 12.5mm, 70, 90, and 750,

respectively, for minimum requirements. Even though no minimum requirement for the

CT index is available for Nevada and other states, 90 is considered for the performance

space diagram plots as the project is focused on durability of the pavement.

The shaded quadrant of the quadrants is an area where the results are preferred and

indicates the well-performing behavior of the mixture according to the parameters that are

measured. As shown in Figures 48 to 52, all the key performance parameter values are

plotted against each other. Gradations 04 was the only asphalt mixture that satisfied all the

performance minimum requirements. On the other hand, Gradation 01 and 03 satisfied the

rutting, TSR, and Overlay minimum values but not the Ideal CT. Generally, Gradation 04

had the best cracking resistance which is a good indicator of durability in the field, mainly

due to the higher binder content and p200.

 63

100.0

90.0

80.0
TSR (%)

70.0

60.0

50.0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Rut Depth (mm)
Gradation- 01 (4.5%AC) Gradation- 03 (5.0%AC) Gradation- 04 (5.7%AC)

Figure 48. TSR vs Rut Depth Performance Diagram

25.0

20.0
Rut Depth (mm)

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0
0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0
CT Index
Gradation- 01 (4.5%AC) Gradation- 03 (5.0%AC) Gradation- 04 (5.7%AC)

Figure 49. Rut Depth vs CT Index Performance Diagram

 64

100.0

90.0

80.0
TSR (%)

70.0

60.0

50.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
CT Index
Gradation- 01 (4.5%AC) Gradation- 03 (5.0%AC) Gradation- 04 (5.7%AC)

Figure 50. TSR vs CT Index Performance Diagram

6,000

5,000
Failure cycles- OL

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
CT Index

Gradation- 01 (4.5%AC) Gradation- 03 (5.0%AC) Gradation- 04 (5.7%AC)

Figure 51. OL Failure Cycles vs CT Index Performance Diagram

 65

6,000

5,000
Failure cycles- OL
4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
Rut Depth (mm)
Gradation- 01 (4.5%AC) Gradation- 03 (5.0%AC) Gradation- 04 (5.7%AC)

Figure 52. OL Failure Cycles vs Rut Depth Performance Diagram

Other metrics that are analyzed, are the crack propagation rate (CPR) and crack fracture

energy (CFE) which are related to the behavior of the asphalt mixes during crack

propagation in the Overlay Test. These values are both calculated by fitting a power

equation to the load reduction curve. Utilizing similar categorization metrics used for

Lockwood, and according to Garcia et al. [39], the cracking resistance of asphalt mixtures

can be subjectively categorized into four categories: I) Tough-Crack Resistant, which

demonstrates good resistance during both crack initiation (tough) and propagation

(flexible). It is desirable for the asphalt mixtures to fall within this quadrant; II) Tough-

Crack Susceptible, which exhibits good resistance to crack initiation (tough) but is

susceptible to crack propagation (brittle); III) Soft-Crack Resistant, which has easier crack

initiation (soft) but can effectively slow down the propagation of the crack (flexible); and

IV) Soft-Crack Susceptible, which displays significantly poor resistance to both crack
 66

initiation and propagation. The corresponding test results are presented in Figure 53

according to this concept. All gradations were within quadrant III which suggests that the

fatigue cracks can initiate easily but the crack propagation is slow.

5.0
4.5
Fracture Energy, CFE (lbs*in/in2)

4.0
3.5
Tough Crack Resistant Tough Crack Susceptible
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5 Soft Crack Resistant
Soft Crack Susceptible
1.0 Minimum Fracture Energy
0.5
0.0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
Crack Propagation Rate, CPR

Gradation -01 (4.5%AC) Gradation -03 (5.0%AC) Gradation -04 (5.7%AC)

Figure 53. Reflective Cracking Performance Space Diagram

Performance Analysis with Dust Proportion (DP)

Dust proportion is an important factor in evaluating an asphalt mixture’s performance. The

variation of the other performance test results with the DP is shown in Figures 54 to 57 for

all the gradations. The data shows that HWT Rut Depth decreases slightly as DP increases,

while the TSR and Overlay failure cycles are relatively independent from the DP. The CT

Index decreases with the increase in DP. This is opposite to the results obtained from the
 67

Lockwood source material, which contained higher DP for a higher OBC mixture.

Gradations 01 and 04 indicate relatively similar TSR despite having different DP values.

Gradation 04 demonstrates good resistance to cracking and rutting while having the lowest

DP of all the asphalt mixtures in Spanish Springs. This is due to the fact that the gradation

of the stockpiles contains less p200 material compared to Lockwood (5.2% vs 14.9% for

Crusher Fines).

15.0
y = 1.7412x + 2.0018 Gradation- 01 (4.5%AC)
Rut Depth (mm)

R² = 0.4995
10.0
Gradation- 03 (5.0%AC)
5.0
Gradation- 04 (5.7%AC)
0.0
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
DP

Figure 54. Rut Depth vs DP Diagram

200.0
y = -64.217x + 152.84
Gradation- 01 (4.5%AC)
150.0 R² = 0.1661
CT Index

100.0 Gradation- 03 (5.0%AC)

50.0
Gradation- 04 (5.7%AC)
0.0
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
DP

Figure 55. CT Index vs DP Diagram

 68

100.0 y = 6.23x + 91.254 Gradation- 01 (4.5%AC)

90.0 R² = 0.135
TSR (%) 80.0 Gradation- 03 (5.0%AC)
70.0
60.0 Gradation- 04 (5.7%AC)
50.0
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
DP

Figure 56. TSR vs DP Diagram

6,000
Failure cycles- OL

5,000 Gradation- 01 (4.5%AC)

4,000
3,000 Gradation- 03 (5.0%AC)
2,000
1,000 Gradation- 04 (5.7%AC)
0
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
DP

Figure 57. OL Failure Cycles vs DP Diagram

Performance Analysis with Stability Number

Since it is one of the specifications required by NDOT for an asphalt mix design, Hveem

stability was assessed against the performance parameters in Figures 58 to 61. According

to the diagrams only the CT index was decreasing as the stability number increased.

However, parameters such as rut depth, TSR, and Tx-OL were insensitive to stability

numbers. Similar to previous assessments, Gradation 04 has a higher cracking resistance

to with the lowest stability number, while Gradation 01 has lower cracking resistance with
 69

a high stability number. This is in contrast to the results obtained from the Lockwood study

[10]. This could be attributed to the low p200 number in all Spanish Springs gradations as

compared to Lockwood gradations.

10.0
y = 0.0143x + 3.6643
Gradation- 01 (4.5%AC)
Rut Depth (mm)

R² = 0.0357

5.0 Gradation- 03 (5.0%AC)

Gradation- 04 (5.7%AC)
0.0
30 35 40 45 50
Stability Number

Figure 58. Rut Depth vs Stability Number Diagram

200.0
y = -4.1053x + 217.37 Gradation- 01 (4.5%AC)
150.0 R² = 0.7212
CT Index

100.0 Gradation- 03 (5.0%AC)

50.0
Gradation- 04 (5.7%AC)
0.0
30 35 40 45 50
Stability Number

Figure 59. CT Index vs Stability Number Diagram

 70

100.0
Gradation- 01 (4.5%AC)
90.0

TSR (%)
80.0 Gradation- 03 (5.0%AC)
70.0
y = -0.1128x + 102.97
60.0 R² = 0.047 Gradation- 04 (5.7%AC)
50.0
30 35 40 45
Stability Number

Figure 60. TSR vs Stability Number Diagram

6,000
Failure cycles- OL

Gradation- 01
5,000
(4.5%AC)
4,000
Gradation- 03
3,000
(5.0%AC)
2,000
y = 5000 Gradation- 04
1,000 R² = #N/A (5.7%AC)
0
30 35 40 45 50
Stability Number

Figure 61. OL Failure Cycles vs Stability Number Diagram

Performance Analysis with p200

As discussed earlier, p200 plays a vital role in the durability of the asphalt mixture. Since

both Lockwood and Spanish Springs source materials showed varying levels of p200 for

the individual stockpiles, and ultimately in the mix, the effect of this volumetric property

can be more noticeable. Figures 62 to 66 illustrate how the other performance test results

change with p200 for all the gradations. The data for the mixture gradations evaluated

indicates that only the CT-Index increases with the increase of the p200. On the other hand,
 71

the Rut Depth, TSR and Overlay tests all are insensitive to the DP increase. In contrast, the

Stability decreases with the increase of p200. This is to be expected, since the coarse

aggregates have higher resistance to deformation.

50.0
y = -21.786x + 147
Stability Number

Gradation- 01 (4.5%AC)
45.0 R² = 0.9992

40.0 Gradation- 03 (5.0%AC)

35.0
Gradation- 04 (5.7%AC)
30.0
4 4.5 5 5.5 6
P200

Figure 62. Stability Number vs p200 Diagram

10.0
y = -0.3571x + 6 Gradation- 01 (4.5%AC)
Rut Depth (mm)

8.0
R² = 0.047
6.0
Gradation- 03 (5.0%AC)
4.0
2.0 Gradation- 04 (5.7%AC)
0.0
4 4.5 5 5.5 6
P200

Figure 63. Rut Depth vs p200 Diagram

 72

200.0
y = 87.857x - 378 Gradation- 01 (4.5%AC)
150.0 R² = 0.6954

CT Index
100.0 Gradation- 03 (5.0%AC)

50.0
Gradation- 04 (5.7%AC)
0.0
4 4.5 5 5.5 6
P200

Figure 64. CT Index vs p200 Diagram

100.0
Gradation- 01 (4.5%AC)
90.0
TSR (%)

80.0 Gradation- 03 (5.0%AC)

70.0 y = 2.1429x + 88
60.0 R² = 0.0357 Gradation- 04 (5.7%AC)
50.0
4 4.5 5 5.5 6
P200

Figure 65. TSR vs p200 Diagram

 73

6,000

Failure cycles- OL
5,000 Gradation- 01 (4.5%AC)
4,000
3,000 Gradation- 03 (5.0%AC)
2,000
y = 2E-10x + 5000
1,000 R² = #N/A Gradation- 04 (5.7%AC)
0
4 4.5 5 5.5 6
P200

Figure 66. OL Failure Cycles vs p200 Diagram

Performance Analysis with Pbe

The final volumetric factor that is considered a crucial factor influencing the durability and

mixture performance is the effective asphalt binder content (Pbe). The relationship of the

performance test results with the Pbe is shown in Figures 67 to 71 for all the gradations.

For the three mixture gradations evaluated for Spanish Springs, the data shows that stability

decreases as the Pbe increases. At the same time, the rut depth, TxOL, and CT-Index are

relatively insensitive to Pbe. Initially, these observations appear counter-intuitive,

especially the rutting resistance, which was increased with the increase of p200 for the

Lockwood source. Further, Gradation 04 indicates a higher cracking resistance, TSR value,

and rutting resistance with higher Pbe, while Gradations 01 and 03 indicate a lower

performance in cracking with lower Pbe.

 74

40
y = -6.1842x + 61.14
Gradation- 01 (4.5%AC)

Stability Number
R² = 0.6556

35 Gradation- 03 (5.0%AC)

Gradation- 04 (5.7%AC)
30
3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6
Pbe

Figure 67. Stability vs Pbe Diagram

15.0
y = -0.4211x + 5.9351 Gradation- 01 (4.5%AC)
Rut Depth (mm)

R² = 0.5319
10.0
Gradation- 03 (5.0%AC)
5.0
Gradation- 04 (5.7%AC)
0.0
3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6
Pbe

Figure 68. Rut Depth vs Pbe Diagram

 75

200.0
y = 13.947x + 14.421
Gradation- 01 (4.5%AC)
150.0 R² = 0.1427

CT Index 100.0 Gradation- 03 (5.0%AC)

50.0
Gradation- 04 (5.7%AC)
0.0
3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6
Pbe

Figure 69. CT Index vs Pbe Diagram

100.0
Gradation- 01 (4.5%AC)
90.0
TSR (%)

80.0
Gradation- 03 (5.0%AC)
70.0
60.0 y = -1.5789x + 105.63
Gradation- 04 (5.7%AC)
R² = 0.1579
50.0
3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6
Pbe

Figure 70. TSR vs Pbe Diagram

6,000
Failure cycles- OL

5,000 Gradation- 01 (4.5%AC)

4,000
3,000 Gradation- 03 (5.0%AC)
2,000
1,000 Gradation- 04 (5.7%AC)
0
3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6
Pbe

Figure 71. OL Failure Cycles vs Pbe Diagram

 76

Performance Analysis with Bailey Method Factors

For this assessment with the Bailey Factors, the key variables that were chosen to be

assessed are the Fine Aggregate Coarse (FAc) and the Primary Control Sieve. For the First

set of figures, the relationship between the performance tests and the FAc ratio are plotted.

This factor is important because the variables that affect it are the PCS, SCS and how it

relates to the NMAS. Figures 72 to 76 reveal a strong correlation between the FAc and the

Rut depth and the TSR. As the FAc ratio increases the rutting potential decreases, while

that same increase may reduce the moisture resistance. There was no significant influence

between FAc and stability number, and CT-Index.

50.0
y = 8.3434x + 31.825
Stability Number

Gradation- 01 (4.5%AC)
45.0 R² = 0.0605

40.0 Gradation- 03 (5.0%AC)

35.0
Gradation- 04 (5.7%AC)
30.0
0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
FAc

Figure 72. Stability Number vs FAc Ratio Diagram

 77

10.0
y = -2.3209x + 5.0962 Gradation- 01 (4.5%AC)

Rut Depth (mm)

8.0
R² = 0.8196
6.0
Gradation- 03 (5.0%AC)
4.0
2.0 Gradation- 04 (5.7%AC)
0.0
0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60
FAc

Figure 73. Rut Depth vs FAc Ratio Diagram

200.0
y = -118.16x + 120.32 Gradation- 01 (4.5%AC)
150.0 R² = 0.5194
CT Index

100.0 Gradation- 03 (5.0%AC)

50.0
Gradation- 04 (5.7%AC)
0.0
0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60
FAc

Figure 74. CT-Index vs FAc Ratio Diagram

100.0
90.0 Gradation- 01 (4.5%AC)
TSR (%)

80.0
Gradation- 03 (5.0%AC)
70.0
y = -17.636x + 106.06
60.0 Gradation- 04 (5.7%AC)
R² = 0.9991
50.0
0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60
FAc

Figure 75. TSR vs FAc Ratio Diagram

 78

6,000

Failure cycles- OL
5,000 Gradation- 01 (4.5%AC)
4,000 y = 5000
3,000 R² = #N/A Gradation- 03 (5.0%AC)
2,000
1,000 Gradation- 04 (5.7%AC)
0
0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60
FAc

Figure 76. OL Failure Cycles vs FAc Ratio Diagram

As for the percent passing Primary Control Sieve Factor and how it relates to the

performance tests, the results suggest a strong correlation between the PCS and the TSR

and Rut Depth only. It suggests that the rutting potential decreases when the percent

passing PCS increases, and the moisture sensitivity increases with the increase of the PCS.

This is demonstrated in Figures 77 to 81.

40
y = -0.1208x + 41.461
Gradation- 01 (4.5%AC)
Stability Number

R² = 0.1804

35 Gradation- 03 (5.0%AC)

Gradation- 04 (5.7%AC)
30
30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
PCS (%)

Figure 77. Stability Number vs PCS% Diagram

 79

10.0
y = -0.0208x + 5.2525 Gradation- 01 (4.5%AC)

Rut Depth (mm)

8.0
R² = 0.9395
6.0
Gradation- 03 (5.0%AC)
4.0
2.0 Gradation- 04 (5.7%AC)
0.0
30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
PCS (%)

Figure 78. Rut Depth vs PCS% Diagram

100.0
Gradation- 01 (4.5%AC)
75.0
CT Index

50.0 Gradation- 03 (5.0%AC)

25.0 y = -0.1613x + 81.405

R² = 0.0138 Gradation- 04 (5.7%AC)
0.0
30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
PCS (%)

Figure 79. CT-Index vs PCS% Diagram

100.0
90.0 Gradation- 01 (4.5%AC)
TSR (%)

80.0
Gradation- 03 (5.0%AC)
70.0
y = -0.1172x + 105.1
60.0 R² = 0.6268 Gradation- 04 (5.7%AC)
50.0
30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
PCS (%)

Figure 80. TSR vs PCS% Diagram

 80

6,000

Failure cycles- OL
5,000 Gradation- 01 (4.5%AC)
4,000
3,000 Gradation- 03 (5.0%AC)
2,000 y = 5000
R² = #N/A
1,000 Gradation- 04 (5.7%AC)
0
30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
PCS (%)

Figure 81. OL Failure Cycles vs PCS% Diagram

Chapter 5: Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Modeling

5.1 Application of AASHTOWare Pavement ME Software

The AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software is a tool used for designing and

evaluating new and rehabilitated flexible pavement structures based on mechanistic-

empirical principles. The user can predict pavement distresses and smoothness over a

design/analysis period based on project-specific climate, traffic, and materials data to

predict pavement distress.

The software leverages the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Long-Term

Pavement Performance (LTPP) program to apply Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for

Research and Applications (MERRA) for use in the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement

Design (MEPDG). MERRA provides an hourly climatic database, which can be accessed

by the Pavement ME software from the closest weather station to the project location to

estimate hourly climate data [36].

 81

Additionally, the software doesn’t rely on Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL), instead it

employs actual traffic input and considers the axle load distribution for different vehicle

classes. The following lists the main user data inputs needed for conducting a flexible or

semi-rigid pavement design (new and AC overlay) using the Pavement ME Design

software:

• General Design Inputs.

• Performance Criteria.

• Traffic.

• Climate.

• Pavement Structure Definition and Materials.

• AC Layer Properties.

• Back calculation.

• Calibration Factors.

5.2 Pavement Performance Modeling

The performance models and transfer functions from the Pavement ME Design for flexible

pavements were calibrated to Nevada’s local conditions for materials, traffic, and climate.

The calibration was limited to the AC bottom-up fatigue cracking (alligator cracking) and

permanent deformation (rutting).

The main benefit of using the MEPDG software, is that it utilizes the existing performance

database available through the FHWA LTTP. Therefore, every region that is covered by

the program can custom design a new pavement while including inputs such as climate,

traffic, material and layer properties into the software, and through transfer functions, it
 82

can predict the performance with relation to distresses. NDOT have been developing a user

manual called “Manual for Designing Flexible Pavements in Nevada Using

AASHTOWare Pavement-ME Design”. In this Manual are calibration factors that are

District specific and have been developed based on the field performances. In that regards,

the University of Nevada Reno has partnered with NDOT to help generate the calibration

factors that are unique to every district.

The first input required in the software is the type of design and for Gradations 02, 03, and

04 Lockwood source, this was the case. The design for Gradations 01 and 05 were

completed in a previous study [13]. This modeling aims to compare the performance of the

gradation mixtures. The mixtures' volumetric properties, dynamic modulus and beam

fatigue were obtained from the laboratory tests. In the Mechanical properties section, data

such as type of Binder and its phase angle, Ideal-CT, Dynamic Modulus, Creep

Compliance and these were all found from NDOT Manual for District II [40]. The

pavement design includes 3 layers: subgrade, Crushed Aggregate Base Course (CAB), and

Flexible Asphalt Layer. Staying consistent with the layer thicknesses used in the previous

study with Lockwood material, the pavement section was designed as an asphalt layer of 7

inches over an aggregate base of 12 inches with 20,000 psi modulus with a subgrade of

8,000 psi at an Average Annual Daily Truck Traffic (AADTT) of 700.

According to the analysis using local calibrations, Gradation 02 and Gradation 05 show a

life span of 3 years more than the rest of the gradations. It was identified that bottom-up

fatigue cracking was the key distress that played a role in influencing the life span of those

gradations.
 83

Chapter 6: Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations

6.1 Findings and Conclusions

The research effort presented in this thesis is a continuation of a research that covered the

development of five dense graded aggregate gradation mixtures for Lockwood source

material. In this research, three dense graded gradation mixtures were developed for

Spanish Springs source material and were designed using the Hveem method and

evaluation of the engineering and performance properties of the designed mixtures. The

laboratory experiment evaluated three different gradations meeting the NDOT Type 2,

Type 2C, Type 2N, and Type 3 as well as recommended the previously recommended Type

2F gradation requirements. Based on mixture designs, performance tests and analysis from

the laboratory evaluations, the following findings and conclusions can be made:

• The Spanish Springs mixtures met the current NDOT mix design requirements that

are specific to the corresponding gradation type that it passed. Gradation 01 Hveem

stability value was the greatest at 39, well above the NDOT minimum requirement

of 35. While Gradation 04 was the lowest at 31.5. Therefore, the finer the mix the

lower the stability number. That is not the case for Lockwood as all the gradation

mixes were above 39.

• Table 16 shows a summary of factors that had the most impact on mixture

performance test results with the volumetric properties, and parameters from the

CT index test. In orange, the factors from the Lockwood aligned with the results

from the Spanish Springs source. This is further indication that those factors play
 84

an important role in the outcome of the asphalt mix design performance and

durability.

• Gradations 04 (Type 3) exhibited higher resistance to cracking due to relatively

higher VMA, DP, and Pbe than the other gradations. This indicates better durability

performance. The results are corroborated with the Lockwood source material.

• Gradations 04 (Type 3) had a relatively low HWT rut depth similar to Gradations

01 (Type 2) and 03 (Type 2C). The rut depth doesn’t show an increasing trend with

Pbe and P200. A higher rut depth was not associated a to higher effective binder

content. Inversely, Lockwood gradations had higher rut depth with increase in Pbe

and P200.

• Possibly due to lime marination of aggregates, all mixture gradations had TSR

values greater than 70%, and dry tensile strengths greater than 65 psi. Since the

Northern Nevada aggregates are susceptible to moisture, and lime margination is

recommended for Northern Nevada aggregates to reduce the moisture damage. This

was verified for both source material.

• Only Gradation 04 (Type 3) possessed CT-Index values greater than 90, indicating

good cracking resistance for short-term aged mixtures. Conversely, Gradations 01

and Gradation 03 with relatively lower p200 and Pbe, exhibited lower CT index

values close to 60.

• The Bailey Method was key in identifying the factors that can affect the optimum

aggregate gradation packing. Mainly those factors are the FAc and the PCS. A

densely compacted aggregate blend can help achieve the in-place density required

therefore significantly improving pavement performance. All gradations were

 85

within the FAc limit however they were not within the CA limit which means they

need further reviewed with existing mixes.

• All Gradations showed an excellent resistance to reflective cracking with the Texas

Overlay results, where all the gradations exceeded 750 cycles to failure. The only

difference is observed in the critical fracture energy, where Gradation 04 requires

a highest energy to create the fracture, which is important for reflective cracking.

• All Gradations were in the range of 300 to 1,500 ksi for the Dynamic Modulus test

which indicate good overall stiffness for all mix designs. The same results were

evident in the Lockwood performance tests.

• Table 17 shows the recommended “Type 2G” specification for NDOT District 2

and District 3 and a comparison to “Type 2F” specification. The recommendation

was based on the overall best performing mix gradation in Spanish Springs.

However, this should be refined by considering additional aggregate sources in

these Districts.

• Comparisons with previous work from the same study using different source

material indicate that both source and gradation play a factor in influencing

performance, not only gradation.

 86

Table 16. Factor Influence on Performance Test Results.

Hveem CT Texas Dynamic Flexural

Properties TSR HWT
Stability Index Overlay Modulus Fatigue
Gradation
√ - √√ √√ √√ √√ √√
Type
P200 √ - - √√ - √√ √√
%AC √ √ √√ √√ √√ √ √√
%VMA - √ √√ √√ √√ √ √√
%VFA - - - - - - -
DP √√ - - √√ - √√ √√
Pbe √ √ √√ √√ √√ √√ √√
I75/m75 √ - - √√ - - √√
m75 from
√ - - √√ - √ √√
CT index
Gf from
√ - - √√ - √ √√
CT index
FAc
- √ √√ √√ - √√ √√
Ratio
PCS% - √√ √ - - √ √√

Table 17. Recommended "Type 2G" and comparison to “Type 2F” Specification.

Type 2F (% Passing Type 2G (% Passing

Sieve
Range) Range)
1” 100 100
¾” 93 - 100 95 - 100
½” 79 - 95 90 - 99
3/8” 70 - 85 83 - 97
#4 50 - 63 55 - 74
#10 33 - 44 35 - 50
#40 15 - 22 15 - 22
#200 5-8 5-8
 87

Chapter 7: References

[1] F. Hierholzer and A. Hand, "Investigation of the Current Levels of Dust-to-Binder Ratio

on Durability of Asphalt Mixtures," University of Nevada, Reno, 2021.

[2] Peter E. Sebaaly and G. Bazi, “Impact of Construction Variability on Pavement

Performance,” University of Nevada, Reno, 2005.

[3] E. Sangsefidi, H. Ziari, M. Sangsefidi “The effect of aggregate gradation limits

consideration on performance properties and mixture design parameters of hot mix

asphalt.” Transportation Engineering, volume 20, p 385-392, 2015.

[4] Ruth, Byron E., et al. "Aggregate gradation characterization factors and their relationships

to fracture energy and failure strain of asphalt mixtures." Asphalt Paving Technology:

Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists-Proceedings of the Technical Sessions. Vol.

71. Association of Asphalt Paving Technologist, 2002.

[5] Al Shamsi, Khalid, and Louay N. Mohammad. "Estimating optimum compaction level for

dense-graded hot-mix asphalt mixtures." The Journal of Engineering Research [TJER] 7.1

(2010): 11-21.

[6] Aschenbrener, T., Brown, E., Tran, N. H., & Blankenship, P. B. (2020). Demonstration

project for enhanced durability of asphalt pavements through increased in-place pavement

density.

[7] “Segregation. Causes and Cures for Hot Mix Asphalt”. 1997. AASHTO, NAPA
 88

[8] Brown, E. Ray, and Hemant Manglorkar. “Evaluation of laboratory properties of SMA

mixtures.” Auburn, AL: National Center for Asphalt Technology, 1993.

[9] Kandhal, Prithvi S., and Sanjoy Chakraborty. "Effect of asphalt film thickness on short-

and long-term aging of asphalt paving mixtures." Transportation Research Record 1535.1

(1996): 83-90.

[10] Kandhal, Prithvi S., Cynthia Y. Lynn, and Frazier Parker. "Characterization tests for

mineral fillers related to performance of asphalt paving mixtures." Transportation research

record 1638.1 (1998): 101-110.

[11] Tran, Nam, et al. "Mix Design Strategies for Improving Asphalt Mixture Performance

NCAT Report 19-08." National Center for Asphalt Technology, Auburn, Al. Tran, N., Yin,

F., Leyva, F., Rodezno, C., Huber, G., and Pine, B., Adjustments to the Superpave

Volumetric Mixture Design Procedure for Selecting Optimum Asphalt Content. Final

Report of NCHRP (2019): 20-07.

[12] Vavrik, William R., William J. Pine, and Samuel H. Carpenter. "Aggregate blending for

asphalt mix design: Bailey method." Transportation Research Record 1789.1 (2002): 146-

153.

[13] Raveendran, Nishanthan. Investigation of Fine Asphalt Concrete Mixture Gradations with

Improved Durability. MS thesis. University of Nevada, Reno, 2023.

[14] “Test method Nev. T303D-Method of test for Stabilometer value of Bituminous Paving

Mixtures,” 2005, Nevada Department of Transportation.

 89

[15] Sebaaly, Peter E., Dallas N. Little, and Jon A. Epps. The benefits of hydrated lime in hot

mix asphalt. 2006.

[16] R. Malfabon, P. E. NDOT, and B. Sandoval, “Nevada Department of Transportation

Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction Board of Directors,” 2014.

[17] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, "Standard Method

of Test for Resistance of Compacted Asphalt Mixtures to Moisture-Induced Damage,"

AASHTO T283-22, Washington, DC, 2022.

[18] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, "Standard Method

of Test for Hamburg Wheel-Track Testing of Compacted Asphalt Mixtures," AASHTO

T324-22, Washington, DC, 2022.

[19] Lv, Quan, et al. "Investigation of the rutting performance of various modified asphalt

mixtures using the Hamburg Wheel-Tracking Device test and Multiple Stress Creep

Recovery test." Construction and Building Materials 206 (2019): 62-70.

[20] Yin, Fan, et al. "Novel method for moisture susceptibility and rutting evaluation using

Hamburg wheel tracking test." Transportation Research Record 2446.1 (2014): 1-7.

[21] ASTM International, "Standard Test Method for Determination of Cracking Tolerance

Index of Asphalt Mixture Using the Indirect Tensile Cracking Test at Intermediate

Temperature," ASTM D8225-19, West Conshohocken, PA, 2019. doi: 10.1520/D8225-19

[22] Marín-Uribe, Carlos Rodolfo, and Luz Marcela Restrepo-Tamayo. "Experimental study of

the tensile strength of hot asphalt mixtures measured with indirect tensile and semi-circular

bending tests" Construction and Building Materials 339 (2022): 127651.

 90

[23] Romero-Zambrana, P. (2023). Variability of the IDEAL-CT Test for Pavement Cracking

to Achieve a Balanced Asphalt Mix Design (No. MPC-589). Mountain-Plains Consortium.

[24] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, "Standard Method

of Test for Determining the Dynamic Modulus and Flow Number for Asphalt Mixtures

Using the Asphalt Mixture Performance Test (AMPT)," AASHTO T378-22, Washington,

DC, 2022.

[25] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. (2022). Standard

practice for laboratory conditioning of asphalt mixtures (AASHTO R30-22). Washington,

DC: AASHTO.

[26] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. (2022). Standard

practice for preparation of cylindrical performance test specimens using the Superpave

gyratory compactor (SGC) (AASHTO R83-22). Washington, DC: AASHTO.

[27] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. (2021). Standard

practice for developing dynamic modulus master curves for asphalt mixtures using the

asphalt mixture performance tester (AMPT) (AASHTO R84-17(2021)). Washington, DC:

AASHTO.

[28] Zhou, Fujie, et al. "Overlay tester: simple performance test for fatigue cracking."

Transportation Research Record 2001.1 (2007): 1-8.

[29] "Tex-248-F, Test Procedure for Overlay Test," Construction Division, Texas Department

of Transportation, 2017.
 91

[30] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. (2022). Standard

method of test for determining the fatigue life of compacted asphalt mixtures subjected to

repeated flexural bending (AASHTO T321-22). Washington, DC: AASHTO.

[31] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. (2022). Standard

method of test for materials finer than 75-µm (No. 200) sieve in mineral aggregates by

washing (AASHTO T11-22). Washington, DC: AASHTO.

[32] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. (2022). “Standard

method of test for sieve analysis of fine and coarse aggregates (AASHTO T27-22).”

Washington, DC: AASHTO.

[33] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. (2022). Standard

method of test for specific gravity and absorption of fine aggregate (AASHTO T84-22).

Washington, DC: AASHTO

[34] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. (2022). Standard

method of test for specific gravity and absorption of coarse aggregate (AASHTO T85-22).

Washington, DC: AASHTO

[35] E. Ray Brown, et al.” Airfield Asphalt Pavement Construction Best Practices Manual”.

Airfield Asphalt Pavement Technology Program, 2008.

[36] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. (2022 Standard

specification for Superpave volumetric mix design (AASHTO M323-22). Washington, DC:

AASHTO.
 92

[37] Hajj, Elie, Peter E. Sebaaly, and Luis Loria. Reflective Cracking of Flexible Pavements

Phase I and II Final Recommendations. No. 080-07-803. Nevada. Dept. of Transportation,

2008.

[38] Michael Vrtis, et. al “MnROAD Cracking Group Experiment: Validation of Low-

Temperature Cracking Tests for Balanced Mix Design”. National Center for Asphalt

Technology, 2023.

[39] Garcia, Victor, et al. “Improved overlay tester for fatigue cracking resistance of asphalt

mixtures. No. TxDOT 0-6815-1. 2017”.

[40] E. Y. Hajj, P. E. Sebaaly, M. Piratheepan and P. Nabhan, "Manual for Designing Flexible

Pavements in Nevada Using the AASHTOWare Pavement ME - WRSC-201504," Nevada

Department of Transportation, Carson City, 2019.

 93

Appendix

Figure 82. Aggregate Gradations for Spanish Springs Gradations

 ProQuest Number: 31556623

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality and completeness of this reproduction is dependent on the quality
and completeness of the copy made available to ProQuest.

Distributed by
ProQuest LLC a part of Clarivate ( 2024 ).
Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author unless otherwise noted.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17,

United States Code and other applicable copyright laws.

This work may be used in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons license
or other rights statement, as indicated in the copyright statement or in the metadata
associated with this work. Unless otherwise specified in the copyright statement
or the metadata, all rights are reserved by the copyright holder.

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
Ann Arbor, MI 48108 USA