Factors Affecting Asphalt Pavement Density and the Effect on Long Term Pavement Performance

158 Pages·2011·1.75 MB·English

by  J. Fisher

Research Report
KTC-10-05/RSF14-05-1F
KENTUCKY TRANSPORTATION CENTER
FACTORS AFFECTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT DENSITY
AND THE EFFECT ON LONG TERM PAVEMENT
PERFORMANCE
OUR MISSION
We provide services to the transportation community
through research, technology transfer and education.
We create and participate in partnerships
to promote safe and effective
transportation systems.
OUR VALUES
Teamwork
Listening and communicating along with
courtesy and respect for others.
Honesty and Ethical Behavior
Delivering the highest quality
products and services.
Continuous Improvement
In all that we do.
Research Report
KTC-10-05/RSF14-05-1F

Factors Affecting Asphalt Pavement Density and the
Effect on Long Term Pavement Performance

By
Jonathan Fisher
Research Engineer
And
Clark Graves
Program Manager
And
Phillip Blankenship
Asphalt Institute
And
Salman Hakimzadeh-Khoee
Asphalt Institute
And
R. Michael Anderson
Asphalt Institute

Kentucky Transportation Center
College of Engineering
University of Kentucky
Lexington, Kentucky

In cooperation with

Kentucky Transportation Cabinet
And
Asphalt Institute

The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible
for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not
necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the University of Kentucky,
the Transportation Cabinet, nor the Asphalt Institute. This report does not
constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The inclusion of
manufacturer names and trade names are for identification purposes and are
not to be considered as endorsements.

May, 2010

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.
KTC-10-05/RSF14-05-1F
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
Factors Affecting Asphalt Pavement Density and the May 2010
Effect on Long Term Pavement Performance
6. Performing Organization Code

8. Performing Organization Report No.
KTC-10-05/RSF14-05-1F

7. Authors 10. Work Unit No. (TRIAS)
Jonathan Fisher, Clark Graves, Phillip Blankenship, Salman
Hakimzadeh-Khoee, R. Michael Anderson
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 11. Contract or Grant No.
University of Kentucky
RSF14-05-1F
College of Engineering
Kentucky Transportation Center
176 Oliver Raymond Building
Lexington, KY 40506-0281
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Kentucky Transportation Cabinet
200 Mero Street
14.Sponsoring Agency Code
Frankfort, KY 40622

15. Supplementary Notes
Prepared in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration, US Department of Transportation

16. Abstract
The Kentucky Transportation Center, the Asphalt Institute, and the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet worked together in order to
identify factors that affect asphalt pavement density, and to then evaluate their effect on long term pavement performance.
By determining which variables are most influential to pavement performance (i.e. roller pattern, temperature when rolled, etc.),
and then monitoring the attention given to those variables, Kentucky would be able to increase the service life of asphalt
roadways by at least 25%, therefore saving as much as $30 million annually on a resurfacing budget of $129.2 million (2007),
while still maintaining the current roadway level of service.
Ensuring that the pavement roller is able to roll the surface at the appropriate temperature can result in increases in density of up
to 4%. An asphalt mix having 11% voids failed at approximately 400,000 cycles @ 350 microstrains, compared to that same mix
at 7% air voids failing at 600,000 cycles @ 350 microstrains, resulting in a lab fatigue life increase of 50%.
Two primary results were found from this study. First, by ensuring the compaction roller reaches the pavement before the
temperature is allowed to drop substantially, up to a 4% increase in density can be achieved. Second, by increasing density 4%,
lab fatigue life can be increased by as much as 50%. From these results, by practicing proper construction techniques one could
conservatively expect to see increases in the service life of an asphalt surface of up to 25% in the field.
17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement
Asphalt, Durability, Density, Rolling Pattern, AIP, Fatigue, Unlimited, with approval of the Kentucky
Increase Binder Content Transportation Cabinet
19. Security Classification (of 20. Security Classification (of 21. No. of Pages 22. Price
this report) this page) 28 w/o appendix
None None
Form DOT 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... vii 
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... ix 
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 
1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................... 1 
1.2 Problem Statement ................................................................................................................ 1 
1.3 Current Research Study ........................................................................................................ 2 
2.0 Field Work ................................................................................................................................ 3 
2.1 Pilot Field Projects ................................................................................................................ 3 
2.2 Field Testing ......................................................................................................................... 4 
2.3 Future Work .......................................................................................................................... 6 
3.0 Laboratory Work ....................................................................................................................... 7 
3.1 Laboratory Testing ................................................................................................................ 7 
3.2 Mixture Design ..................................................................................................................... 7 
3.3 Test Matrix ............................................................................................................................ 9 
3.4 Specimen Preparation ......................................................................................................... 10 
4.0 Tests and Results..................................................................................................................... 11 
4.1 Varying Density Testing ..................................................................................................... 11 
4.2 Varying Asphalt Binder Content Testing ........................................................................... 16 
4.3 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 18 
References ..................................................................................................................................... 19 

i
ii
List of Figures and Tables

Figure 1. Surface Cracking Image .................................................................................................. 1 
Figure 2. Surface Testing Schematic ............................................................................................. 4 
Figure 3. Air-Induced Permeameter Image .................................................................................... 4 
Figure 4. Distribution of Pavement Density across Lane ............................................................... 5 
Figure 5. Relationship of Pavement Rolling Temperature (first roller pass) and In-Situ Density . 6 
Figure 6. Beam fatigue cycles to failure for varying air voids and strains ................................... 12 
Figure 7. Dynamic modulus comparison of varying air voids ...................................................... 14 
Figure 8. Highest and lowest air void samples after Flow Number testing .................................. 15 
Figure 9. Comparison of dynamic modulus and flow number as a function of air voids ............. 16 
Figure 10. Effect of AC content on fatigue, rutting and gyratory density .................................... 17 

Table 1. Field Project Locations ..................................................................................................... 3 
Table 2. Aggregate Stockpile Percentages and JMF ...................................................................... 8 
Table 3. Mixture Design Properties ................................................................................................ 9 
Table 4. Test Matrix of Various Densities .................................................................................... 10 
Table 5. Average Air Voids of Compacted Samples .................................................................... 11 
Table 6. Dynamic Modulus Output from SPT (20°C) .................................................................. 13 
Table 7. Testing on Samples of Varying AC Content and 7±0.5 Percent Air Voids ................... 17 

iii
iv