AP-T311-16 Permeability of Sprayed Seals Literature Review

Technical Report
AP-T311-16
Permeability of Sprayed Seals

Literature Review
Permeability of Sprayed Seals: Literature Review

Prepared by
Publisher
Steve Patrick and Melissa Dias
Austroads Ltd.
Level 9, 287 Elizabeth Street
Sydney NSW 2000 Australia
Phone: +61 2 8265 3300
austroads@austroads.com.au
www.austroads.com.au
Project Manager
John Esnouf
Abstract
About Austroads
This report describes a literature review on the permeability of

sprayed seal surfacings. This review work was conducted to explore
the permeability limits of sprayed seal surfacings, and to determine
the influencing factors which allow seals to remain sufficiently
waterproof. The testing methods and related equipment that may be
used to determine permeability were also investigated.
Austroads is the peak organisation of Australasian road

transport and traffic agencies.
The findings indicate that water ingress is possible through a sprayed

seal under atmospheric conditions, and is exacerbated by the
presence of higher pressures and dynamic loading, like that caused
by passing vehicle tyres. A number of factors (e.g. treatment types,
quality of work/maintenance) greatly influence the waterproofing
capabilities of sprayed seals.
Conducting permeability testing on sprayed seals is complicated by
their typically coarse texture, which makes generating a watertight
seal between the equipment and the surface very difficult. These
interface problems and lack of proper sample collection and/or
preparation techniques appear to be the main barriers to conducting
routine assessment of the permeability of sprayed seals.
Large scale accelerated loading facilities may be utilised for testing
permeability of sprayed seal surfacings as these provide realistic
pavements and sprayed seals. These also enable intensive
monitoring and data collection that would not be readily possible on
an in-service road.
Keywords
Sprayed seal, permeability, flexible granular pavement
Austroads purpose is to support our member organisations to

deliver an improved Australasian road transport network. To
succeed in this task, we undertake leading-edge road and
transport research which underpins our input to policy
development and published guidance on the design,
construction and management of the road network and its
associated infrastructure.
Austroads provides a collective approach that delivers value
for money, encourages shared knowledge and drives
consistency for road users.
Austroads is governed by a Board consisting of senior
executive representatives from each of its eleven member
organisations:
Roads and Maritime Services New South Wales
Department of State Growth Tasmania
Australian Government Department of Infrastructure and

Regional
Australian Local Government Association
Roads Corporation Victoria

Department of Transport and Main Roads Queensland
Main Roads Western Australia
Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure
South Australia
Department of Transport Northern Territory
Transport Canberra and City Services Directorate,
Australian Capital Territory
New Zealand Transport Agency.
ISBN 978-1-925451-21-4
Austroads Project No. TT1820
Austroads Publication No. AP-T311-16
Publication date July 2016
Austroads 2016
This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under
the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any
process without the prior written permission of Austroads.
Pages 27
This report has been prepared for Austroads as part of its work to promote improved Australian and New Zealand transport outcomes by
providing expert technical input on road and road transport issues.
Individual road agencies will determine their response to this report following consideration of their legislative or administrative
arrangements, available funding, as well as local circumstances and priorities.
Austroads believes this publication to be correct at the time of printing and does not accept responsibility for any consequences arising from
the use of information herein. Readers should rely on their own skill and judgement to apply information to particular issues.
Summary
Sprayed seal surfacings on unbound granular pavements are widely used in Australia, and comprise the
majority of light and moderately trafficked rural roads, as well as having applications for more heavily
trafficked roads.
Additionally to providing a wearing course surface for passing traffic, sprayed seals are intended to provide a
waterproofing layer to the pavement basecourse. Austroads documentation recognises the intention for
sprayed seals to create impervious layers, yet also identifies that in practice they do not always completely
achieve this. While the Austroads sprayed seal design method presently provides some guidance for
practitioners attempting to achieve a desired waterproofing capability, there is not a framework for
determining and testing the extent to which this is attained.
A literature review was conducted to explore the permeability limits of sprayed seal surfacings, and to
determine the influencing factors that allow seals to remain sufficiently waterproof. The testing methods
and related equipment that may be used to determine permeability were also investigated.
The reviewed research indicated that water ingress is possible through a sprayed seal under certain
atmospheric conditions, and is exacerbated by the presence of higher pressures and dynamic loading, like
that caused by passing vehicle tyres. The waterproofing capabilities of sprayed seals can be maximised by
careful selection of treatment type, and are also heavily reliant on good construction practices that produce
seals that are free of flaws, and ongoing upkeep to ward off forms of distress that could provide access
points for the ingress of water.
Conducting permeability testing on sprayed seals is complicated by their typically coarse texture, which
makes generating a watertight seal between the equipment and the surface very difficult, for both in situ and
laboratory testing. If the interface problems between sprayed seal and testing equipment can be resolved,
and sample collection and/or preparation techniques developed further, there is good potential for further
quantitative research into the permeability of sprayed seals.
Testing on large-scale accelerated loading facilities has shown good potential for exploring sprayed seal
performance and capabilities, and thus these can be utilised for permeability assessment. It allows for
realistic pavements and sprayed seals to be constructed in an experimental environment, providing an
opportunity for intensive monitoring and data collection that would not be readily possible on an in-service
road.
Austroads 2016 | page i
Contents
Summary ......................................................................................................................................................... i
1.
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1
2.
Permeability of Sprayed Seal Surfacings ............................................................................................ 2

2.1 Are Sprayed Seals Waterproof? ...................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Possible Mechanisms and Causes of Water Movement .................................................................. 3
2.2.1
Thin Seal Membranes on High Traffic Roads ..................................................................... 3
2.2.2
Flushing and Blistering ........................................................................................................ 5
2.2.3
Cracks, Joints and Faults .................................................................................................... 7
2.2.4
Binder and Aggregate Interface .......................................................................................... 7
2.2.5
Static and Dynamic Loading ................................................................................................ 8
2.2.6
Road Shape and Profile ...................................................................................................... 8
2.2.7
Pavement Materials, Properties and Design Issues ........................................................... 9
2.3 Influence of Prime Coat .................................................................................................................... 9

2.4 Influence of Seal Type .................................................................................................................... 10
2.4.1
Single Layer Sprayed Seals .............................................................................................. 10
2.4.2
Multiple Layer Seals .......................................................................................................... 11
2.4.3
Geotextile Reinforced Seals .............................................................................................. 11
2.4.4
SAM and SAMIs ................................................................................................................ 12
2.4.5
Maintenance Treatments ................................................................................................... 12
2.5 Influence of Binder Type ................................................................................................................ 12

2.6 Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 13
3.
Permeability Test Methods ................................................................................................................. 14

3.1 Infiltrometers and Permeameters ................................................................................................... 14
3.1.1
Field Permeameters/Infiltrometers .................................................................................... 14
3.1.2
Laboratory Permeameters ................................................................................................. 18
3.2 Sprayed Seal Samples for Laboratory Testing .............................................................................. 21

3.2.1
Extracting Samples from the Field .................................................................................... 21
3.2.2
Creating Samples in the Laboratory .................................................................................. 21
3.3 Accelerated Loading Facilities ....................................................................................................... 22

3.4 Wheel Tracking Membrane Performance ...................................................................................... 22
3.5 Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 23
4.
Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 25
References ................................................................................................................................................... 26
Austroads 2016 | page ii
Tables
Table 2.1:
Effect of sprayed seal and combined resurfacing treatments on existing surfacing

characteristics ........................................................................................................................ 10
Figures
Figure 2.1:
Figure 2.2:
Figure 2.3:
Figure 2.4:
Figure 3.1:
Figure 3.2:
Figure 3.3:
Figure 3.4:
Figure 3.5:
Figure 3.6:
Figure 3.7:
Figure 3.8:
Figure 3.9:
Figure 3.10:
Flow chart for design of binder application rates for a single/single seal ................................ 3
Basic voids factor (Vf) traffic volume 0 to 500 vehicles/lane/day .......................................... 4
Basic voids factor (Vf) - traffic volume 500 to 10 000 vehicles/lane/day.................................. 4
Visible pinholes in sprayed seal surface .................................................................................. 6
NCAT field infiltration test apparatus ..................................................................................... 15
Field permeameter no. 1, NCAT ............................................................................................ 16
Field permeameter no. 2, commercial ................................................................................... 16
Field permeameter no. 3, NCAT ............................................................................................ 17
Field permeameter no. 4, commercial ................................................................................... 17
Components of the North Central Superpave Centre laboratory permeability test
components, and assembled test apparatus ......................................................................... 18
Laboratory permeability test Ball, Logan and Patrick (1999) ................................................. 18
Florida DOT laboratory permeameter .................................................................................... 19
TMR laboratory permeameter ................................................................................................ 20
Schematic of pavement sealing membrane test specimens.................................................. 23
Austroads 2016 | page iii
1. Introduction
Sprayed seal surfacings on unbound granular pavements comprise some 90% of the length of all surfaced
roads in Australia (Austroads 2012). This type of pavement structure is extensively used due to its low initial
cost. It comprises the majority of light and moderately trafficked rural roads, and can also be used
successfully for more heavily trafficked roads.
Additionally to providing a wearing course surface for passing traffic, sprayed seals are intended to provide a
waterproofing layer to the pavement basecourse.
Austroads documentation recognises the intention for sprayed seals to create impervious layers, yet also
identifies that in practice they do not always completely achieve this. The Austroads sprayed seal design
method presently provides some guidance for practitioners attempting to achieve a desired waterproofing
capability, but does not provide a framework for determining and testing the extent to which this is attained.
Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE) (2011) reported that the Australian
freight task has increased fourfold since the 1970s, and is projected to double again over the next two
decades. With sprayed seals increasingly used for heavily trafficked roads, and high tyre pressures on
modern vehicles, the stresses exerted on surfacings are expected to increase. Retaining the waterproofing
capabilities of sprayed seals under these circumstances is considered very important, in order to ensure
appropriate protection to the underlying pavements for their optimum performance.
The purpose of this review was to investigate the permeability of sprayed seal surfacings, and to determine
the influencing factors that allow seals to remain sufficiently waterproof. The testing methods and related
equipment that may be used to determine permeability are included.
Austroads 2016 | page 1
2. Permeability of Sprayed Seal Surfacings

2.1
Are Sprayed Seals Waterproof?
Austroads (2015) defines a sprayed seal as a thin layer of binder sprayed onto a pavement surface with a
layer of aggregate incorporated and which is impervious to water. However, it has been suggested that
water can move through the sprayed seal, which is thus permeable to some degree.
From as early as 1956 it has been noted that seals are not waterproof. Hanson (1956) stated a primary
cause of road failures being that very few sealed roads have a completely waterproof surface under the
continuous action of traffic. Hanson (1956) suggested that the ingress of water through the sealed surface is
proportional to the length of time free water is present on the surface and the traffic volume that forces the
water through the seal.
According to the Guide to Pavement Technology Part 4K: Seals (Austroads 2009a) sprayed seals can be
used as a treatment to waterproof and protect the pavement where the surface has developed cracking or
ravelling, and has thus become permeable. One of their aims is to prevent moisture ingress into the
pavement structure so that the base is protected from the effects of traffic and the environment. The
impermeability of the seal can be further improved with the application of a prime or primerseal, multiple
layer seals, and polymer or crumb rubber modified binders, which provide a thicker and more flexible
membrane.
The Guide to Pavement Technology Part 10: Subsurface Drainage (Austroads 2009c) states it is rare that
thin bituminous surfacings are ever 100% watertight, and even newly placed waterproof surfaces permit
some moisture to infiltrate the base layer under certain conditions. In most cases the small amounts of water
are sucked and dispersed into the underneath granular layer or slowly evaporate back through the surfacing,
often without damaging the pavement. At other times, it is possible that the infiltrated water has not
dissipated fast enough, leading to moisture build-up in the base layer. Subsequent traffic loading may then
induce very high hydrostatic pressures that can cause localised erosion of the base material, leading to the
ejection of fine particles through the surfacing. This may explain how some potholes develop.
Thicker surfacings offer additional protection to any granular base layer. Significantly less water would be
expected to infiltrate into the base via the air voids within thick asphalt layers (> 60 mm) compared with thin
asphalt layers and bituminous sprayed seals. For all surfacing types, surface cracks are the prime source of
water entry.
It is stated in Towler and Ball (2001), in New Zealand it has traditionally been believed that sprayed seals are
impermeable when a minimum bitumen application rate of 1.5 L/m 2 is applied, however the authors state
testing has shown that this is not the case.
2.2
Possible Mechanisms and Causes of Water Movement
There are a number of studies that investigate various mechanisms that allow the movement of water
through the seal, such as seal defects, loss of bond between the stone and bitumen, or vapour pressure.
These mechanisms are summarised below.
2.2.1 Thin Seal Membranes on High Traffic Roads

The Austroads sprayed seal design method AP-T68-06 (Austroads 2006a) aims for residual binder to be
about 5065% of the height of the aggregate layer two years after construction, in order to make a strong
and safe wearing course for traffic, and create a waterproofing membrane to protect the pavement. The
quantity of binder required depends on the volume and nature of the traffic, aggregate properties, aggregate
embedment into the base, existing surface texture, and binder absorption by pavement or aggregate.
A flow chart demonstrating the binder application rate design process is shown in Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1: Flow chart for design of binder application rates for a single/single seal
Source: Austroads (2006a).
A key element of the Austroads sprayed seal design method is the basic voids factor, which is related to
traffic level. The designer uses Figure 2.2 and Figure 2.3 to select a basic voids factor corresponding to
calculated design traffic.
Figure 2.2: Basic voids factor (Vf) traffic volume 0 to 500 vehicles/lane/day

Figure 2.3: Basic voids factor (Vf) - traffic volume 500 to 10 000 vehicles/lane/day
As illustrated in the above figures, the basic voids factor, which in turn is directly related to the basic binder
application rate, reduces as traffic increases. This indicates that less binder is required for higher traffic
levels.
During construction, aggregate particles rearrange into a stable position under rolling, and continue to
reorientate under traffic. The rate of this reorientation, and amount of subsequent change in void volume,
and thus binder required, is dependent on the traffic volume, and particularly the number of heavy vehicles.
An adjustment factor is applied to the basic binder application rate when there is a high proportion of heavy
vehicles, in order to further reduce the design binder application rate.
BITRE (2011) reported that the Australian freight task has increased fourfold since the 1970s, and is
projected to double again over the next two decades. It is anticipated that most of this additional freight
would be carried by road or rail, and that a key component of this increase is a drive towards freight
efficiency (BITRE 2011), utilising larger and higher mass heavy vehicles.
The higher traffic and large proportions of heavy vehicles on the road network lead to a general reduction in
binder application rate for sprayed seal surfaces. With less binder being placed, the binder membrane
becomes thinner, potentially lessening its waterproofing capabilities.
2.2.2 Flushing and Blistering

Ball, Logan and Patrick (1999) identified flushing as one of the major triggers for resealing on the New
Zealand state highway system. A flushed surface is where the binder is level with or above the surfacing
aggregate (NZ Transport Agency 2005). Work was subsequently commissioned to investigate causes of
flushing, including water vapour in and below sprayed seals. The objective was to determine ways of
minimising flushing in order to extend sprayed seal life.
Two mechanisms of water movement that could be causing flushing were explored:
vapour pressure from water in the base pushing bitumen up through the seal layer
water entering through the surface (through debonded areas between the stone and binder, or cracks in
the binder) and becoming trapped, then vaporising when the temperature rises, creating blisters in the
seal binder.
The effect of water vapour pressure was modelled, considering bitumen flow through a capillary, under a
pressure gradient corresponding to the saturated vapour pressure of water. The calculations indicated that it
is likely there is sufficient bitumen flow to produce flushing at the seal surface. Seal thickness and bitumen
grade are listed as second order effects to the water vapour effect, with the primary requirement being a
sufficiently wide continuous passage through the seal layer for the bitumen to travel. It is not resolved as to
whether water vapour is present beneath seals at sufficient pressure, and at sufficiently high temperatures
for long enough time to cause significant flushing.
In order to determine whether water can enter through the surface, a permeameter (described in
Section 3.1.2) was used to measure water ingress through sprayed seals. Cores were extracted from a
number of sites with different seal types, and were tested with a head of water applied at a pressure typical
to truck tyres on wet roads. Both the static and dynamic pressure methods were used during permeameter
testing.
Both the static and dynamic tests found that water flowed through the surface. This supports the notion that
traffic on a wet road can force water through the surface, from where it may vaporise and form blisters in the
seal that eventually lead to flushing. It was found that the rates of water ingress were higher than expected,
and also water ingress could occur at pressures below car tyre pressure. Ball, Logan and Patrick (1999)
noted this testing indicates that water ingress under traffic may be a widespread phenomenon with chip
seals, and not restricted to seals that are obviously flushing.
According to Herrington et al. (2015) water-induced flushing, by way of the formation of blisters caused by
the evaporation of trapped water, has been extremely common. The blisters may burst, or remain intact upon
cooling, where they will form a hollow shell or collapse to form a blob of bitumen, identified as spot
flushing. In trafficked areas the blisters may flatten rapidly, but their position remains apparent as vent holes
that are sometimes several millimetres in diameter. This can create a passage for water to flow through.
Blisters have also been shown to occur on the road shoulder and areas where there is little or no traffic.
Herrington et al. (2015) also observed blisters forming on laboratory-prepared seals constructed on steel
plates, after they were exposed to rain.
An example of pinholes in a flushed sprayed seal surface is seen in Figure 2.4.
Figure 2.4: Visible pinholes in sprayed seal surface
A study conducted by Main Roads Western Australia (2006) investigated the propensity of bituminous
materials to blister when used in waterproof membranes for concrete bridge decks.
Each membrane type was applied to a concrete slab surface under ambient laboratory conditions, and to
another slab that had been air dried with an infrared lamp. The membrane was left to set for approximately
24 hours, after which the surface was heated to approximately 60 C by infrared lamp. The membrane was
monitored over a period of 8 hours, and visually assessed for the formation of blisters.
The specimens that were dried prior to the application of the membrane had less bubbles occur in the
membrane, compared to those without drying. This indicates vaporisation of the moisture is the likely cause
of the blistering, and the surface drying prior to the application of the membrane has reduced the potential for
vaporisation. The experiment showed a significantly reduced potential for blistering in the concrete surface
membrane interface, if concrete is air dried after completion of curing.
2.2.3 Cracks, Joints and Faults

Austroads (2006b) notes that cracks allow the ingress of water, and can be exacerbated by the ingress of
water. It is also stated in Austroads (2009a) that pavement cracking can allow moisture into underlying
materials, causing loss of pavement strength, increased roughness and more needs for patching and routine
maintenance.
A joint sealing study (Olson & Robertson 2000) was conducted at the MnROAD test facility, a purpose-built
pavement test track in Minnesota. The study investigated drained concrete test sections, and involved
examining pavement drainage in response to single rain events, before and after a shoulder joint had been
sealed.
Precipitation data was collected from an on-site weather station, while drainage data was collected using
tipping buckets installed at the headwall of the edge drain outlets. Results showed that sealing the edge joint
on concrete pavements reduced the volume of water drained through the edge drains by as much as 85%.
This suggests that the primary source of infiltration into the pavement system is through the edge joint, and
as such, it may be cost-effective to seal joints to prevent infiltration in order to avoid pavement deterioration
and distress.
In the work conducted by Ball, Logan and Patrick (1999), several aggregate particles were removed from the
seal surface of a core sample following permeability testing, where the presence of water beneath the
aggregate was evident. There were also holes on the surface, which were observed to extend down into the
seal. These observations supported the likelihood that water ingress into the seal occurs where there is a
specific fault, rather than it being uniformly spread across the seals. It was also observed that, under typical
truck tyre pressures, it is probable that faults on sprayed seals through which water can enter into the
underneath layer will gradually enlarge.
2.2.4 Binder and Aggregate Interface

Bagshaw (2014) investigated the bond between the aggregate and bitumen in the presence of water. This
experiment and past experiments showed that the affinity between aggregate and water is stronger than that
between aggregate and bitumen. The study investigated the resistance of standard bitumen and epoxy
bitumen seals to water-induced stripping. This was done using the modified vialit plate test, in which bitumen
was poured onto the steel plates and aggregate was placed by hand. The aggregate was not pre-coated.
The aggregate was either placed dry, damp or wet onto a thin film of standard or epoxy bitumen prepared on
the plates. The plates were then immersed in water for a period of time, removed from the water bath and
drained, then were immediately subjected to a ball impact test.
For the standard bitumen, the dry aggregate samples showed 7080% aggregate loss, and the damp and
wet samples showed 70100% aggregate loss. The dry aggregate that were stripped had a small amount of
bitumen retention, whereas the damp and wet aggregate had no residual bitumen.
The epoxy bitumen test results differed, with the dry aggregate and damp aggregate with slower curing time
having 100% retention, and the wet aggregate having 5080% loss. The epoxy bitumen aggregate appears
to have a permanent chemical bond that has a strong resistance to water stripping. Brittle fracture of the
bitumen occurred at lower temperatures, causing some aggregate to break away. However, these aggregate
particles still had residual bitumen attached that could not be removed from the surface, demonstrating the
strong adhesion of aggregate to epoxy bitumen.
The results indicate that the bond between aggregate and bitumen can degrade rapidly when immersed in
water, which can lead to aggregate loss. The implication is that when sealing aggregate is spread onto
bitumen during construction, it is vital that the aggregate is rolled in early so the bitumen can form a good
physical coverage, and good adhesion to the aggregate, in order to restrict infiltration of water into the
interface. The paper does not explicitly draw a link to overall permeability; however, it is reasonable to
conclude that poorly bonded interface between the aggregate and binder, and stripping of aggregate
particles, is an influence that will adversely affect the waterproofing capabilities of a sprayed seal.
Another possible mechanism for water movement is through gaps around the aggregate particles that were
created by shrinkage of the binder in cool temperatures (Cornwell 1983). When the binder shrinks, detrital
particles could be trapped in the resulting voids, and therefore when the binder expands back in warmer
weather, it cannot bond to the aggregate, leaving the voids as a passage for water.
2.2.5 Static and Dynamic Loading

As discussed in Section 2.2.2, through static and dynamic permeability testing of sprayed seals, Ball, Logan
and Patrick (1999) observed water flowing through sprayed seal surfaces, with absorption into pavement
materials occurring at pressures below those found in car tyres, and not just at high pressures typical of truck
tyres. For the static tests, fixed pressures ranging from 100 kPa to 500 kPa were applied to the surface. In
the dynamic test a head of water was pulsed at a pressure of approximately 500 kPa (the authors state
40 kPa) for one second, at one second intervals.
Towler and Ball (2001) used the apparatus developed in the Ball, Logan and Patrick (1999) study and
investigated the permeability of sprayed seals (known locally as chip seals) in New Zealand, and the
possibility that water may be penetrating the top of the sprayed seal by tyre pressure, and causing distress,
e.g. flushing, as the water vaporises back out through the surface. Core samples were taken from various
types of sealed surfaces. The seal samples were then subjected to a series of static water pressures ranging
from 100 kPa to 300 kPa to investigate the effect of tyre pressure on wet roads. The flow rate of water was
measured using a burette.
It was observed that some samples with relatively low flow rates at 100 kPa would see an increase in flow
rate once the pressure was increased. It was also noted that reversion to the lower pressure resulted in a
higher flow rate than the initial value. Pinholes approximately 0.5 mm in diameter were observed in the
binder after testing in some seals, and it could also be seen that these holes extended deep into the seal.
Overall it was found that seals became permeable to water when under pressure, and the amount of water
ingress would depend on the amount of rainfall and the amount of traffic loading. It should be noted,
however, that there was no relationship between the water permeability and the amount of traffic the surface
had experienced until the samples were taken, as the two sites that provided samples with the lowest
permeability had traffic flows per lane of approximately 6.5 million and 870 000 vehicles, respectively,
whereas the site that provided most permeable samples had a traffic flow of about 4.9 million vehicles per
lane. Another site investigated during this study had a polyester paving fabric reinforced seal surfacing, and
also had a layer of hot mix asphalt, which was found to provide an effective barrier to water.
Hussain et al. (2011) conducted permeability testing with static and dynamic loading using the CAPTIF
testing facility (see Section 3.3 for details). Time domain reflectometry (TDR) gauges were set to measure
relative change in moisture of the basecourse, while water was applied over the test track pavement. For
unprimed sections, there was a definite change in moisture level in the basecourse layers when water flowed
over the pavement surface without wheel loading. This was said to be due to balling up of the binder,
allowing a passage for water to move through. In this static test, there was no observable change in moisture
content in primed sections. In the dynamic tests, however, water was able to penetrate through both primed
and unprimed sections. The wheel loading was said to create a wedge of water in front of the moving tyre,
creating hydraulic pressure that could push the water through the surface. The primed sections
demonstrated a much lower relative moisture increase compared to the unprimed sections.
2.2.6 Road Shape and Profile

Pavement deformation and distress that alter the shape and profile of the road can provide undesirable
conditions that encourage water ingress.
Austroads (2011) states that water ponding on the pavement, shoulders or verges or depressions are typical
conditions that may contribute to moisture-related distress. Flexible pavement distress types that may be
caused or accelerated by moisture include potholes, ruts, and a loss of surface shape (depressions).
As discussed in Section 2.2.4, it has been shown that water can infiltrate a sprayed seal under static
conditions, and the effect will be exacerbated with the addition of pressure from passing car tyres. Water that
is allowed to pool in rutted wheelpaths is particularly susceptible to ingress into the pavement, especially in
the presence of other forms of distress, such as crocodile cracking in the sprayed seal that would be typical
when there are areas of pavement weakness.
2.2.7 Pavement Materials, Properties and Design Issues

It can be difficult to identify and isolate the origin of water that enters pavement layers. Sources of water
ingress to the pavement are discussed in AGPT10 (Austroads 2009c), and may include:
rainfall that soaks the unpaved road shoulder thus increasing the moisture of the pavement layers
moisture increases from sublayers due to subsoil moisture movements
water from rainfall that enters the pavement directly through the surface.
From the possible mechanisms of water movement through a sprayed seal, it can be seen that the ingress of
water can be a cause and an effect. As Ball, Logan and Patrick (1999) explained, flushing caused by water
in the pavement vaporising and creating binder blisters when escaping, may in turn create an entrance for
water to enter the pavement.
2.3
Influence of Prime Coat
Primes are a preliminary treatment to the application of bituminous surfacing. The function of priming is to
assist in achieving and maintaining a strong bond between the pavement and the surface treatment, by
suppressing surface dust, sealing pores in pavement material, providing additional strength to the pavement
near the surface, and ultimately waterproofing the pavement materials (Austroads 2006a).
Hussain et al. (2011) and Alabaster et al. (2015) investigated road failures around New Zealand, which were
indicating that sprayed seals potentially do control water ingress enough to prevent early failures on
high-volume roads with unbound granular materials. The objective of their research was to compare
waterproofing of sprayed seal wearing courses with and without the addition of a bitumen emulsion prime
coat.
Testing was carried out in the CAPTIF facility, utilising a double/double sprayed seal over unprimed and
primed examples of three different basecourses. On the primed sections, an emulsion primer was sprayed
followed by a double/double sprayed seal using grade 3 and grade 5 aggregates (approximately equivalent
to 16 mm and 10 mm aggregates respectively) and a 180/200 grade bitumen. A standard axle load was
applied over the track sections at a speed of 40 km/hr while water was being sprayed to the surface. TDR
gauges were set to measure relative change in moisture of the basecourse.
Under static conditions (without wheel loading) the unprimed sections were significantly more permeable
than the primed sections, where the moisture content of the basecourse measured by the TDR guages
increased by 3% to 5% for the unprimed sections. The primed sections showed minimal change, with only
one guage showing a perceptible moisture content increase of 1%. The moisture change in the unprimed
sections exceeded expectations. The particularly high rate of moisture ingress in the unprimed section was
considered to be due to the presence of blistering in the seal, which Alabaster et al. (2015) supposed may
have been avoided if the surface of the basecourse had been slightly dampened prior to sealing.
Once the trial pavement was subjected to wheel loading, water was able to be pushed through both the
unprimed and primed surfaces; however, the primed section did demonstrate a much lower relative moisture
increase compared to the unprimed section. The ability for water to be pushed through the seals was said to
be due to a pressure wedge formed under the front of the moving tyre.
The effect of the increase in moisture in the pavement structure was demonstrated by rapid failures once
loading was applied with water flowing across the surface. The failures were mostly concentrated around the
manifold locations where water was directed to the pavement, confirming that the water film formed in these
locations was driving the failures. The unprimed sections had all failed within 1000 wet laps, whereas the
final failure of a primed section occurred at 3863 wet laps (the usual life of CAPTIF trial pavements is around
50 000 standard axle loading cycles in dry conditions).
Whilst acknowledging the concerns regarding construction quality of the unprimed sections, the primed
sections in these experiments achieved longer pavement life, because the application of primer purportedly
decreased the amount of water penetrating the surface and entering the basecourse.
A later experiment with CAPTIF, discussed in Section 2.4, again tested a two-coat seal applied to the
basecourse without a prime. These seals were successfully constructed and did not feature any observable
distress, such as the blistering described above. In this case, similar amounts of trafficking were achieved to
the primed sections described above. This lead to the conclusion that the presence of a prime coat assisted
in the satisfactory construction of a seal, but did not directly add to the impermeability of a well-laid seal.
2.4
Influence of Seal Type
The permeability of a sprayed seal is influenced by the type of the seal used.
Table 2.1 (Austroads 2009b) is a guide to the effect that resurfacing treatments have on certain pavement
properties, including waterproofing. It shows geotextile reinforced seals (GRS) have the best waterproofing
properties, followed by multiple applications seals, single application seals, and finally surface enrichment
showing the least improvement in impermeability. Correction or regulation courses plus a strain alleviating
membrane (SAM) and strain alleviating membrane interlayer (SAMI) treatments also show excellent
waterproofing properties.
Table 2.1:
Effect of sprayed seal and combined resurfacing treatments on existing surfacing characteristics
Sprayed seal treatments

Property
Single
Multiple
Geotextile
Surface
requiring
application
reinforced
enrichment application
improvement
sprayed seal sprayed seal
sprayed seal
(single/single)
Waterproofing Reasonable Good
properties
Very good
Excellent
Combined treatments
Correction or
regulation
course plus
SAM/SAMI
Correction or
regulation course
plus SAM/SAMI with
asphalt surface
Excellent
Excellent
Source: Austroads (2009b).
2.4.1 Single Layer Sprayed Seals

As listed in Table 2.1, a single application sprayed seal (single/single) is expected to have a good level of
improvement for waterproofing properties when applied to an existing surfacing.
For cracked pavements, and to improve impermeability, Austroads (2006a) recommends the use of a SAM,
which is typically a single/single seal; however, may be a double/double when there are also high stress
conditions (Austroads 2013b). SAM seals are discussed further in Section 2.4.4.
Research undertaken by Patrick (2009) investigated the ingress of water through first coat (initial seal on a
unprimed pavement) sprayed seal surfacings, by monitoring the changes in moisture content at the top of the
basecourse after rain, under a range of surfacing types and traffic loadings. This theorised that water is
pushed through the seal by tyre/road interaction.
The moisture content was measured for dry pavements, and then within 12 hours after rainfall. The results
showed that the moisture content increased after rain on all sites except for one; however, the changes were
not as significant as expected. It was also noted that there was no pattern between traffic volume and
permeability of the sprayed seal, nor did the single layer seal show any significant difference from the
double/double seal. In one test, a new double/double sprayed seal (applied as the first coat) was found to
show visible damage after rainfall, and developed shear and pothole damage soon after completion.
The report confirmed that water can be forced through sprayed seals that do not have visible cracks;
however, it is said that it will only occur when a water film is on the surface that is above the surface texture
of the pavement. It was recommended that further testing be done on the effects of water film thickness and
different treatments on water ingress.
2.4.2 Multiple Layer Seals

As listed in Table 2.1, a multiple application sprayed seal (commonly a double/double) is expected to have a
very good level of improvement for waterproofing properties when applied to an existing surfacing.
Alabaster et al. (2015) continued studies with CAPTIF to explore the permeability of a traditional two-coat,
double/double seal, comparing it to a racked-in seal, featuring a single layer of bitumen, with two layers of
aggregate. Equivalently to their previous CAPTIF experiments described in Section 2.3, three grades of
basecourse were used in the experiment. The basecourse was not primed, and the total application rate of
binder for both seals was equivalent (two layers of 1.0 L/m2, and one layer of 2.0 L/m2 respectively). It was
postulated that the single layer of bitumen in the racked-in seal applied directly to the basecourse would
improve permeability performance, and in turn pavement performance, by making a singular thick
membrane.
However, testing indicated that the racked-in seal was less waterproof than the double/double seal. There
were also pinholes observed in the racked-in seal, which may have been a contributing factor. Once
trafficking was commenced, failures first occurred in the racked-in sections, followed by the double/double
sections.
2.4.3 Geotextile Reinforced Seals

As listed in Table 2.1, a geotextile reinforced seal is expected to provide an excellent level of improvement
for waterproofing properties when applied to an existing surfacing.
Geotextile reinforced seals (GRS) are produced by spraying a layer of bitumen onto a pavement (bond coat),
then covering this bitumen with a layer of geotextile and lightly rolling. A single/single or double/double seal
is then applied over the geotextile.
Austroads (2009d) states:
Geotextiles are sometimes combined with other materials to produce a composite material that may
be used to provide a waterproofing membrane. They may also be used to provide protection to
waterproof membranes from puncture by overlying rocks.
Towler and Ball (2001) tested the permeability of sprayed seals, including a case with geotextiles. This seal
was composed of multiple layers, with two layers of sprayed seals covered by asphalt smoothing courses,
followed by a top layer of geotextile covered by sprayed seal. The seal showed a low initial permeability at
100 kPa, which increased with pressure and at 300 kPa water was emerging in the region of the fabric layer.
It was not clear as to whether the fabric layer or the hot mix smoothing coat below it resisted the water
pressure. Compared with the other seals, the GRS seal had a very low water flow rate at 0.007 mm/min at
100 kPa (other seals typically showed flow rates of around 0.20.8 mm/min at this pressure) and hence very
low permeability.
2.4.4 SAM and SAMIs

As listed in Table 2.1, SAM and SAMI are expected to provide an excellent level of improvement for
waterproofing properties when applied to an existing surfacing.
SAM and SAMI sprayed seal binders contain a high amount of crumb rubber or polymer modifier. They are
designed to resist reflective cracking and provide waterproofing, as they are generally applied at the most
practicable, maximum binder application rate. For SAM seals the increased binder application rate aims to
create a thick membrane and assist with aggregate retention, without a significant reduction in surface texture.
SAMI seals are used to minimise reflective cracking from old pavements, and thus prevent water ingress
(Dawson 2008). In order to avoid a stress concentration in the SAMI seal which would lead to reflective
cracking, SAMIs provide a small degree of horizontal movement between the old pavement and the new
asphalt layer, allowing movement either side of the existing cracks in the old pavement.
2.4.5 Maintenance Treatments

As part of a study into the effectiveness of sprayed emulsion fog seals and rejuvenators, King and King
(2008) conducted laboratory permeability testing on a number of different pavement and surfacing types. It
must be noted that permeability results were obtained by testing full-depth cores and not just the surfacing.
Sprayed seal samples, with a typical permeability of 0.0001 cm/sec, were found to be less permeable than
both dense graded (typically 0.0003 to 0.01 cm/sec) and open graded asphalt (typically 0.0003 to
0.02 cm/sec) samples, and it was also found that the fog seals were more effective at sealing out moisture
than the rejuvenators. Field testing was also attempted; however, this was not successful due to difficulties in
attaching the testing apparatus to textured seals.
2.5
Influence of Binder Type
The principle binder used for sprayed sealing is bitumen, which is obtained from refining crude petroleum oils
and is known for its waterproofing, sealing, cohesive and adhesive properties (Austroads 2008).
Improvements in binder toughness and elasticity can be achieved by utilising polymer modified binders
(PMBs), which aim to improve aggregate retention, or to provide more effective waterproofing membranes
over cracked or weak pavements in sprayed sealing applications.
In effect, modified binders can be used to create a more robust sprayed seal, which in turn is expected to
provide superior waterproofing capabilities. No quantitative assessment of the relative permeability of
different binders in a sprayed seal system could be found in the literature.
A study conducted by Main Roads Western Australia (2006) investigated the propensity of bituminous
materials to blister when used in waterproof membranes for concrete bridge decks. As discussed in
Section 2.2.2, blistering will allow a seal to be permeable.
Membranes of C170 bitumen, C170 bitumen modified with 20% rubber granules, and S25E and S35E PMBs,
were applied to concrete slabs. The membrane was left to set for approximately 24 hours, after which the
surface was heated to approximately 60 C by infrared lamp. The membrane was monitored over a period of
8 hours, and visually assessed for the formation of blisters.
The testing was inconclusive in determining which binder type was most able to withstand vapour emissions.
There were small differences in the apparent performance for each membrane type, in terms of the number
and size of the blisters.
This may be as a result of variations in the properties of the concrete, however it was considered that these
variations in the binder performance are for the most part due to the differing properties of each binder.
Properties such as bond strength, cohesion, viscosity, ductility and elasticity may have an impact on the
performance of the binder.
2.6
Discussion
The reviewed literature suggests that, whilst sprayed seals are used as waterproofing treatments for
pavements, they do not completely halt the ingress of water and remain somewhat permeable. Whilst
sprayed seals are capable of waterproofing to a degree, achieving this relies on a number of factors.
The nature of sprayed seal design sees binder application rates reduce with an increase in traffic. It can be
reasonably postulated that thin membranes (that were designed to account for increased traffic) are more
susceptible to be permeable, and high traffic levels exacerbate the risk of water ingress; however no
literature explicitly exploring the minimum levels of sprayed seal thickness (or other properties) that are
required to prevent overly-permeable surfacings was found.
Work by Herrington et.al (2015) explored water-induced flushing of sprayed seals. A circular
cause-and-effect relationship was demonstrated, where water trapped in the base vents through the surface,
causing blistering on the surface and spot flushing, and leaving holes that provide a passage for further
water ingress into the pavement.
It is noted by Austroads (2006b) that cracks allow water ingress into pavements, which can result in a loss of
strength. This loss of strength can further contribute to deformation and distress, which may interfere with the
soundness of the surface, further exacerbating the problem in another example of a circular cause and effect
circumstance. The study by Olson and Robertson (2000) showed that sealing shoulder joints dramatically
reduced the volume of water entering pavement drains after rain events.
Work by Bagshaw (2014) indicated the rapid degradation of the bond between aggregate and bitumen when
immersed in water, indicating a need to achieve good adhesive bonds at the time of construction in order to
avoid seal distress. It is highlighted by Cornwell (1983) that shrinkage of binders in cool temperatures may
create voids around aggregate particles, allowing detritus to gather in the resulting gaps, fouling the bond
between binder and aggregate and providing a passage for water.
Several studies (Ball, Logan & Patrick 1999; Hussain et al. 2011; Towler & Ball 2001) have demonstrated
that water ingress is possible through a sprayed seal under atmospheric conditions when water is allowed to
collect on the surface. Austroads (2011) states that water ponding on the pavement, shoulders or verges or
depressions are typical conditions that may contribute to moisture-related distress, as the collected water
can enter the pavement through the seal. The presence of higher pressures and dynamic loading, like that
caused by passing tyres, will substantially increase the potential flow into the pavement.
Testing with the CAPTIF accelerated loading facility (Alabaster et al. 2015) showed that seals on unprimed
basecourses were more permeable than those placed on primed examples. The range of experiments
conducted suggested that this was because the prime assisted in the successful construction of the seal,
maximising its waterproofing capabilities, rather than directly contributing to restricting permeability itself.
Further testing with CAPTIF found that a double/double seal was less permeable than a racked-in seal, with
both featuring the same total amount of binder. Advice from Austroads (2009b) indicates that the more
robust the sprayed seal treatment, the more waterproofing capability can be expected, i.e. a GRS is better
than a double/double, which is in turn better than a single/single.
3. Permeability Test Methods

This section reviews the methods and equipment that may be used to test the permeability of sprayed seals
in situ and in the laboratory.
3.1
Infiltrometers and Permeameters
Infiltrometers and permeameters are the main types of equipment used for permeability testing of road
materials. The main differences are that infiltrometers are used for in situ testing on asphalt, whereas
permeameters are used for extracted or laboratory-produced core samples. However, there are a number of
references to infiltrometers as field permeameters in literature.
When using a permeameter, Darcys law is used to measure the permeability of a material. This law
demonstrates that the rate of water flow is proportional to the hydraulic gradient and area of a sample. The
water flow is assumed to be one dimensional.
The constant head test and falling head test can be used to measure the permeability using derivations of
Darcys law. The constant head test involves determining the flow rate of water through a saturated sample
while maintaining a constant head of water. The falling head test determines the amount of head loss
through a given sample over a given period of time.
It has been stated that a falling head permeability test method is better for materials with lower permeability,
such as sprayed seals, with a constant head test more applicable for materials with higher permeability, as it
can take an extended amount of time to accumulate the required significant discharge (Cooley 1999).
This suggests that, for measuring the permeability of sprayed seals in the laboratory, the falling head test
may be more suitable given the expected low degree of permeability.
With laboratory testing, the sample (manufactured or extracted from the field) dimensions are known, and
thus the effective areas of flow are known. The flow of water is one dimensional, i.e. the water flows down
through the sample within the area of the cylinder from which the water is being delivered. When testing in
situ, water entering the pavement can flow in any direction, and thus the effective area must be assumed.
Different types of asphalt permeameters (both field and laboratory) are examined below. These
permeameters all use the falling head method.
3.1.1 Field Permeameters/Infiltrometers

A version of in situ permeability testing was demonstrated by Cornwell (1983). The apparatus includes:
infiltrometer acrylic base plate with 150 mm diameter pressure cell machined on the underside and
fitted with an inlet tailpiece, an air bleed valve, a standpipe for measuring the head of water applied,
dipstick for measuring sealant thickness, and a foot screw at each corner to screw onto the pavement. An
overflow tank is fitted to the underside for the base plate and waste water is conducted away from the test
area using a plastic tube
reservoir and connecting tube acrylic tube that applies the head of water with a graduated scale to
measure water loss and a tube connecting the reservoir to the infiltrometer
retort stand and clamp to vary the height of the reservoir/head of water
sealant and weights - the apparatus is secured to the pavement using a non-hardening sealant and is
weighed down with weights.
In this arrangement, the use of weights to press down and create a seal with a non-hardening sealant avoids
the problematic task of gluing the apparatus to the road surface in order to make a seal. This simplifies and
decreases the time required for the set-up and operational process.
The National Centre for Asphalt Technology (NCAT) infiltration test (Figure 3.1) is designed to test field
pavement permeability. It is a portable test and is a variation of the ring infiltrometer tests, using the falling
head of water principle. It uses a 3-tier standpipe, intended to make the permeameter more sensitive to the
flow of water in the pavement. For relatively impermeable pavements, water level will fall very slowly in the
top standpipe. As the permeability increases, water will fall more quickly in the top standpipe, but slow down
as it reaches the middle. For very permeable pavements, water will flow quickly through the top two
standpipes, and slow down in the largest diameter bottom section.
Figure 3.1: NCAT field infiltration test apparatus
Source: King and King (2007).
As described in King and King (2007), the NCAT infiltration test was used as part of an investigation into the
effectiveness of sprayed emulsion rejuvenators on road-wearing surfaces; however, results were not
considered reliable as there was inadequate sealing at the interface of the permeameter and road surface.
Cooley (1999) also states a similar problem experienced with the NCAT device while conducting the National
Cooperative Highway Research Program Study 98, Designing Stone Matrix Asphalt Mixtures (Brown &
Cooley 1999). The stone mastic asphalt being tested had a rough textured surface and it was difficult to
obtain a watertight seal between the permeameter cylinder and pavement surface. This is still a potential
problem for testing the permeability of sprayed seals, both in the field and in the laboratory.
A new method for creating a reliable watertight seal, moreover, one that does not permanently damage a
sprayed seal if used in situ, would be required for the successful application of this type of apparatus.
Cooley (1999) conducted a study comparing four different types of field permeameters. Two of the
permeameters were from commercial suppliers and two were designed by NCAT. All four permeameters
used the falling head approach, with the main difference between them being the method of sealing the
permeameter to the pavement surface.
The first permeameter is shown in Figure 3.2. This permeameter was based on the NCAT design,
incorporating a larger base in an attempt to provide a better seal. A silicone-rubber caulk sealant is placed on
the bottom of the base, which is then pushed against the pavement to seal the permeameter to the
pavement surface. For pavements with rougher surfaces, it was sometimes necessary to place some sealant
material onto the pavement as well to ensure the voids were completely sealed.
Figure 3.2: Field permeameter no. 1, NCAT
Source: Cooley (1999).
Figure 3.3 shows the second permeameter. This permeameter consists of a Marshall mould with a plastic
cap fitted, and the standpipe placed through a hole cut in this cap. A rubber ring, 50 mm larger in diameter
than the Marshall mould, is used to assist sealing the permeameter to the surface. The ring is placed around
the mould and heated paraffin poured between them, which penetrates the surface voids and seals the
permeameter to the surface when it hardens.
Figure 3.3: Field permeameter no. 2, commercial
The third permeameter used by Cooley (Figure 3.4) is the NCAT permeameter as described and pictured in
Figure 3.1. The only different is that a rubber base has been added, as it was thought that the flexible rubber
would help push the sealant down into the surface voids. A silicone-rubber caulk sealant was used to seal
the permeameter to the surface and also the permeameter to the rubber base.
Figure 3.4: Field permeameter no. 3, NCAT
The last permeameter used by Cooley (1999) has the same structure as the permeameter shown in
Figure 3.5; however, a rubber caulk sealant is used instead of paraffin. For this test the sealant was placed
along the inside and outside of the base mould.
Figure 3.5: Field permeameter no. 4, commercial
A series of experiments were performed with these field permeameters, investigating their correlation against
laboratory devices, repeatability, and ease of use. Based on these criteria, it was determined that the third
permeameter was preferred.
3.1.2 Laboratory Permeameters

In the King and King study (2007) cores of asphalt pavement with three surfacing types (dense and open
grade asphalts, and sprayed seals) were extracted from the field and were subjected to permeability testing.
The components of the North Central Superpave Centre permeameter are shown in Figure 3.6. The samples
had a weather strip seal held in place with electrical tape in order to create a watertight seal along the walls
of the permeameter. In spite of this, the difficulties of dealing with an open-textured surface were exhibited as
water escaped from the perimeter of the equipment. In this test, water was applied under static conditions,
therefore it can be assumed that any additional pressure to the water head would exacerbate this issue.
Figure 3.6: Components of the North Central Superpave Centre laboratory permeability test components,
and assembled test apparatus
Source: King and King (2007).
Ball, Logan and Patrick (1999) developed a water permeability seal testing apparatus that applies a head of
water to the surface of a cored asphalt sample collected from the field, at pressures typical to truck tyres on
the wet road surface (Figure 3.7). The apparatus comprises a base plate, connecting rods, top plate and
measuring cylinder. A polyurethane seal was cast onto the samples leaving a 150 mm test area in diameter
between the sample and top plate, which was filled with water. The ingress of water was also measured by
the flow of water using a burette and stopwatch. Static and dynamic tests were conducted.
Figure 3.7: Laboratory permeability test Ball, Logan and Patrick (1999)
Source: Ball, Logan and Patrick (1999).
Florida Department of Transportation test method FM 5-565 (2014) and Transport and Main Roads test
method Q304A (Department of Transport and Main Roads 2014) describe methods for determining the flow
of water through asphalt in the laboratory using two different types of permeameters.
Figure 3.8 shows the permeameter used in FM 5-565. Either laboratory-compacted samples or cores
collected from the field can be used. This permeameter is pressurised to seal the sample, and does not use
any sealants to attach the equipment to the sample. The samples are confined using a sealing tube and
O-rings are used to maintain a seal against the sealing tube. Water is dispensed through a graduated
cylinder and allowed to flow through the asphalt sample. The interval of time taken to reach a known change
in the head of water is recorded. Petroleum jelly is used to fill the air void pockets on the sides of the sample.
The nature of the sample preparation of this test limits its applicability for use with sprayed seals. The asphalt
cores must be trimmed at the top and bottom to fit the apparatus, which is not a practically achievable option
for a sprayed seal applied to a granular pavement. Cores collected with unbound pavement materials are
likely to break up. Also, a smooth surface is required on the top of the core to interface properly with the
graduated cylinders and avoid leakages, which is not possible due to the typically coarse texture of a
sprayed seal.
Figure 3.8: Florida DOT laboratory permeameter
Source: Florida Department of Transportation (2014).
TMR test method Q304A (Department of Transport and Main Roads 2014) describes the process for
determining permeability using the ponding method. Figure 3.9 shows the laboratory permeameter used for
this method. Either laboratory-compacted or field cores can be used. Compared to FM 5-565, it does not use
pressurised testing equipment. A perspex cylinder is connected to the sample using a silicone sealant. The
sealant is also used down the sides of the sample. Water is poured into the cylinder and allowed to flow
through the sample and the time taken for the water to drop from one timing mark to the next is recorded.
Figure 3.9: TMR laboratory permeameter
Source: Department of Transport and Main Roads (2014).
3.2
Sprayed Seal Samples for Laboratory Testing
From the literature reviewed, there is a lack of developed methods for preparing sprayed seal samples in the
laboratory. Comparatively, the test methods for preparing asphalt samples in the laboratory or recovering
them from the field and testing in the laboratory are well established and readily used.
3.2.1 Extracting Samples from the Field

One option is to extract cores from the field and test them in the laboratory. The relatively thin and fragile
nature of a sprayed seal demands that care be taken during sample collection to minimise the possibility of
the seal bending or cracking.
Ball, Logan and Patrick (1999) described cored samples being transported with seal surface downwards on a
flat board, in order to minimise damage. The collected samples had a minimum of two sprayed seal layers.
The thickness of basecourse that remained adhered to the 250 mm diameter cored seals varied between
10 mm and 50 mm. A layer of open sand/cement mix was applied to the basecourse while the sample was
still in the inverted as received position, to produce a uniform cylinder of 80 mm height. The extra layer was
designed to have a sufficiently high permeability for the maximum water flow from a bench tap to not
overflow a 150 mm sand/cement sample contained in a CBR mould. Once this was cured, the sample was
turned over to expose the surface of the sprayed seal. A 150 mm diameter polyurethane seal was cast onto
the sprayed seal, readying the sample for testing with the apparatus developed by Ball, Logan and Patrick
(1999), seen in Figure 3.7.
Testing saw a rapid initial flow of water in the samples (probably compression of residual air in the
apparatus), which settled down to a slower linear flow. Water was generally visible exiting the base of the
sand/cement mix or exiting between seal layers.
The test method AGPT-T253 Seal Behaviour (Austroads 2006c) describes the process for recovery of
sprayed seal samples from the field, without disturbing the aggregate orientation. This process involves
pouring epoxy onto the seal and then placing a plate on top. A saw is then used to cut around the plate and
the excess material (basecourse and previous seals) are then removed from the plate/sample. Using this
method, the seal is permanently attached to the epoxy and plate. Bitumen content determination and texture
depth of the aggregate attached to the surface can be carried out; however, permeability testing would not
be possible.
3.2.2 Creating Samples in the Laboratory

The CAPTIF facility uses sprayed seals specifically prepared for experimental purposes; however, this is
done on a large scale with large-scale customised construction equipment.
A number of problems must be overcome in order to produce smaller scale representative samples for
testing with laboratory equipment. It is common for sprayed seals to be applied to unbound granular
pavements, which cannot be used to create stable cores, as is required for much of the laboratory
permeability equipment described above in Section 3.1.2.
There is potential for cores to be created with bound materials underneath, for example asphalt or concrete,
onto the surface of which a bituminous binder may be poured or spread. As described in Section 3.2.1, cores
of seals on granular pavement materials were amended with a sand/cement mix to make a uniform size, and
a similar approach could be pursued when creating samples from scratch. The relative permeability of any
bound materials would need to be compared to that of the materials they are intended to replace.
It is unknown whether the action of pouring or spraying of the seal will affect the overall permeability of the
seal, in comparison to when the binder is applied from a bitumen sprayer as per normal construction
practices.
Likewise, it is difficult to simulate the field application of aggregate particles, and their subsequent
rearrangement by rolling and traffic effects, in order to make representative samples. No published accounts
of manual or automated means to successfully achieve this were found in literature.
The vialit plate test, where bitumen is poured onto a plate and aggregate particles are placed by hand, is
used to assess the adhesive qualities of bitumen (Read & Whiteoak 2003). Testing involves turning the plate
over and dropping a steel ball onto the reverse side, and counting the number of detached aggregate
particles to provide an indication of performance. However, this type of sample has limited applicability for
permeability testing.
The Shell Mini Fretting Test (private communication, Nigel Preston, September 2011) is used to evaluate the
amount of aggregate lost from a seal prepared and tested under laboratory conditions. For this test, an
emulsion is poured onto an aluminium plate and distributed evenly using a spatula, followed by the
aggregate particles being evenly spread by hand. The plate is placed on a vibrating table to aid with
aggregate arrangement. It is then placed in a Hobart mixing bowl and an abrasion foot is rotated on the
surface. Following this, the plate is immersed in water and then the abrasion is repeated. The weight of the
abraded plate is recorded and the percentage of the bitumen and aggregate still on the plate is calculated. In
terms of the precision of this method, it is stated that duplicate results by the same operator should be
considered suspect if the percentage of retained material differs by more than 2%. The reproducibility for
this test is yet to be established. This method of preparation of a seal on a plate, although good for this
fretting test, is not very adaptable for permeability testing. Moreover, it is not a representative way of testing
a sprayed seal in the field.
3.3
Accelerated Loading Facilities
The Canterbury Accelerated Pavement Testing Indoor Facility (CAPTIF) is an indoor road surface facility that
tests different types of pavement and surfacing under a revolving, loaded dual-tyred truck wheel that closely
replicates actual road conditions (NZ Transport Agency 2016).
In the case of sprayed seal permeability testing, as completed by Hussain et al. (2011), sets of six pavement
sections were constructed. A variety of sprayed seal wearing courses and pavement types were tested, as
were primed and unprimed basecourses. A standard axle load was applied over the circular track at a speed
of 40 km/h. A surface water application system was developed, which applied water to the pavement surface
with plastic manifolds. The manifolds were connected to six tanks and the water runoff could be pumped
back into the tanks and recycled for a continuous water supply. The outflow of water was the same for each
section of pavement. TDR gauges were placed in the basecourse to measure the relative change in moisture
as the water and load were being applied to the surface.
As discussed in Section 2.2.4, Section 2.4 and Section 2.4.2, the experiments conducted with CAPTIF
explored the relative permeability of different kinds of sprayed seals, and the subsequent effect of water
infiltration into the pavement layers when under simulated traffic loads.
3.4
Wheel Tracking Membrane Performance
This laboratory experiment carried out by Austroads (2013a) assessed the capability of membranes on
wheel tracking slabs to provide an impermeable barrier to water, in both liquid and vapour state. Membranes
such as these may be due to macro and micro sized pathways through the membrane. The test was
performed by monitoring weight change (as an indication of moisture loss) of unsealed and sealed
laboratory-compacted samples in the compaction moulds. Three sealing membranes were tested
polyurethane membrane, polymer modified bitumen emulsion and a flexible epoxy. These seals were
poured, as opposed to sprayed, onto the surface and no aggregate was attached.
The test used gyratory-compacted specimens that, once compacted, were left in their compaction moulds
and the upper surface was sealed with the sealing membranes. For each sealing material trialled, one
sample was left unsealed as a control, and another sample of the seal on its own was placed on a plastic
disc of the same diameter as the samples. A schematic of the specimens is shown in Figure 3.10. The
specimens were kept in a temperature-controlled room, and the mass of the specimens were recorded to
calculate the loss of moisture. The samples were not loaded during the moisture loss measurements.
Figure 3.10:
Schematic of pavement sealing membrane test specimens
The results showed that the bitumen emulsion sealed samples allowed moisture loss. The mass loss in the
sealant-only specimen was largely limited to the first eight hours of observation, as the water portion of the
emulsion evaporated. However, the loss in moisture for the sealed specimen continued past this time,
indicating that the cured sealant was allowing the passage of water vapour. The polyurethane membrane
acted in a similar manner; however, the flexible epoxy membrane was found to successfully prevent moisture
loss throughout the testing.
Although this experiment investigated the water movement from the pavement materials up through the seal
(as opposed to water entering from the seal surface and infiltrating into the pavement), it may provide a way
of evaluating whether the binder component of a bituminous sprayed seal is permeable.
3.5
Discussion
Infiltrometers and permeameters are the main types of equipment used for testing the permeability of road
materials, and are frequently employed for asphalt and pavement materials. Infiltrometers are typically used
for in situ field testing, whereas permeameters are used for extracted or laboratory-produced core samples.
Cooley (1999) stated that a falling head permeability test method is better for materials with lower
permeability, such as sprayed seals, with a constant head test more applicable for materials with higher
permeability, as it can take an extended amount of time to accumulate the required significant discharge.
In situ testing of sprayed seals can be problematic, as sealing the interface of the permeameter and the
relatively high textured road surface, so that it is watertight, is very difficult (Cooley 1999, King & King 2007).
A new method for creating a reliable watertight seal, moreover, one that does not permanently deform a
sprayed seal if used in situ, would be required for the successful application of this type of apparatus.
Laboratory permeability testing of sprayed seals also presents its challenges. As with in situ testing, there is
still a requirement to create a watertight interface between the testing equipment and the seal, which is
difficult due to the high texture of sprayed seals (King & King 2007).
Retrieving or creating representative samples of sprayed seals on granular pavements for use in the
laboratory presents difficulties. Cores may be extracted from the field, but the relatively thin and fragile
nature of sprayed seals demands careful handling to avoid damage. The loss of underlying granular material
can be expected, which Ball, Logan and Patrick (1999) addressed by applying a layer of open sand/cement
mix to the cores in order to create samples of uniform size. In order to create representative samples, the
relative permeability of any bound materials used for this would need to be compared to that of the materials
they are intended to replace.
There is little published literature concerning creating sprayed seal samples for laboratory testing. It is
difficult to recreate the in-situ construction of sprayed seals, which is typically done on a large scale with
specialist equipment. Laboratory samples require different approaches to binder and aggregate application,
and the subsequent rolling of the seal. It is not clear what effect laboratory construction would have on the
properties of the sprayed seal, when compared to typical sprayed seal construction in-situ.
Testing of moisture loss, by monitoring mass loss of prepared pavement specimens (Austroads 2013a),
proved to be an effective measure for comparing the relative permeability of bitumen emulsion, polyurethane
and flexible epoxy membranes. This method could also be applied to relative testing of bituminous binders,
for example testing the resistance to water vapour escaping through different thicknesses of binder.
The work done with CAPTIF (NZ Transport Agency 2016) shows there is good potential for permeability
testing with large-scale accelerated loading facilities, as it allows for realistic pavements and sprayed seals to
be constructed in an experimental environment.
4. Summary and Conclusions

The literature review has found that, whilst sprayed seals are used as waterproofing treatments for
pavements, they do not completely halt the ingress of water and remain somewhat permeable.
Water ingress is possible through a sprayed seal under atmospheric conditions, and is exacerbated by the
presence of higher pressures and dynamic loading, like that caused by passing vehicle tyres.
The waterproofing capabilities of sprayed seals can be maximised by careful selection of treatment type, are
heavily reliant on good construction practices that produce seals that are free of flaws, and ongoing upkeep
to ward off forms of distress that provide access points for the ingress of water.
Conducting permeability testing on sprayed seals is complicated by their typically coarse texture, which
makes generating a watertight seal between the equipment and the surface very difficult, for both in situ and
laboratory testing. Also, the fragility of a thin surfacing such as a sprayed seal makes it difficult to retrieve
representative samples from the field, and at present there are no widely accepted techniques to create
sprayed seal samples in the laboratory.
If the interface problems between sprayed seal and testing equipment can be resolved, and sample
collection and/or preparation techniques developed further, there is good potential for further quantitative
research into the permeability of sprayed seals.
Testing on large-scale accelerated loading facilities has shown good potential for exploring sprayed seal
performance and capabilities and thus these can be utilised for permeability assessment as well. It allows for
realistic pavements and sprayed seals to be constructed in an experimental environment, providing an
opportunity for intensive monitoring and data collection that would not be readily possible on an in-service
road.
References
Alabaster, D, Patrick, J, Hussain, J & Henning, T 2015, Effects of water on chipseal and basecourse on highvolume roads, research report 564, NZ Transport Agency, Wellington, NZ.
Austroads 2006a, Update of the Austroads sprayed seal design method, AP-T68-06, Austroads, Sydney,
NSW.
Austroads 2006b, Guide to asset management part 5e: cracking, AGAM05E-06, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2006c, Seal behaviour, test method AGPT-T253, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2008, Guide to pavement technology part 4f: bituminous binders, AGPT04F-08, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW
Austroads 2009a, Guide to pavement technology part 4k: seals, AGPT04K/09, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2009b, Guide to pavement technology part 3: pavement surfacings, AGPT03-09, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2009c, Guide to pavement technology part 10: subsurface drainage, AGPT10-09, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2009d, Guide to pavement technology part 4g: geotextiles and geogrids, AGPT04G-09,
Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2011, Guide to pavement technology part 5: pavement evaluation and treatment design, AGPT0511, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2012, Guide to pavement technology part 2: pavement structural design, AGPT02-12, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2013a, Development of a wheel-tracking test for rut resistance characterisation of unbound
granular materials, AP-T240-13, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2013b, Update of double/double design for Austroads sprayed seal design method, AP-T236-13,
Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2015, Austroads glossary of terms, 6th edn, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Bagshaw, S 2014, Preliminary investigations of epoxy bitumen for resilient and sustainable chipseal
(sprayed seal) road surfaces, ARRB conference, 26th, 2014, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia,
ARRB Group, Vermont South, Vic, 12 pp.
Ball, G, Logan, T & Patrick, J 1999, Flushing processes in chipseals: effects of water, research report no.
156, Transfund New Zealand, Wellington, NZ.
Brown, ER & Cooley, LA 1999, Designing stone matrix asphalt mixtures for rut-resistant pavements: part 1:
summary of research results, part 2: mixture design method, construction guidelines, and quality
control/quality assurance procedures, NCHRP report 425, Transportation Research Board, Washington,
DC, USA.
Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics 2011, Truck productivity: sources, trends and
future prospects, report no.123, BITRE, Canberra, ACT.
Cooley, AL 1999, Permeability of superpave mixtures: evaluation of field permeameters, NCAT 99-1,
National Center for Asphalt Technology, Auburn, Alabama, USA.
Cornwell, WL 1983, In-situ permeability of chipseal pavements, Auckland Engineering Laboratory, report
AEL 83/78, Ministry of Works & Development, Wellington, New Zealand.
Dawson, A 2008, Water in road structures: movement, drainage and effects, Nottingham Transportation
Engineering Centre, University of Nottingham, UK.
Department of Transport and Main Roads 2014, Permeability of asphalt: ponding method, Q304A, TMR,
Brisbane, Qld.
Florida Department of Transportation 2014, Measurement of water permeability of compacted asphalt paving
mixtures, FM 5-565, Florida Department of Transportation, Florida, USA
Hanson, FM 1956, The road structure, Proceedings of the NZ Institute of Engineers Conference, New
Zealand Engineering, New Zealand.
Herrington, P, Kodippily, S and Henning, T 2015, Flushing in chipseals, research report 576, NZ Transport
Agency, Wellington, NZ.
Hussain, J, Wilson, D, Henning, T & Alabaster, D 2011, What happens when it rains? Performance of
unbound flexible pavements in accelerated pavement testing, Road and Transport Research, vol.20, no.
4, pp. 3-15.
King, G & King, H 2007, Spray applied polymer surface seals, final report, National Center for Pavement
Preservation, USA.
King, G & King H 2008, Spray applied emulsion preventative maintenance treatments: FHWA research
study, International sprayed sealing conference, 1st , Adelaide, South Australia, ARRB Group, Vermont
South, Vic.
Main Roads Western Australia 2006, Concrete bridge decks evaluation of waterproofing membranes,
Pavements Engineering internal report no. 2005-31 IVI, MRWA, Perth, WA.
NZ Transport Agency 2016, Canterbury Accelerated Pavement Testing Indoor Facility (CAPTIF), webpage,
NZTA, viewed 28 June 2016, <https://www.nzta.govt.nz/roads-and-rail/road-composition/roadpavements/canterbury-accelerated-pavement-testing-indoor-facility-captif/>.
NZ Transport Agency 2005, Chipsealing in New Zealand, NZTA, Wellington, New Zealand.
Olson, R & Robertson, R 2000, Measured effects of joint and crack sealing, M&RR 01, Minnesota
Department of Transportation, Saint Paul, MN, USA.
Patrick, J 2009, The waterproofness of first-coat chipseals, research report no 390, NZTA, Wellington, New
Zealand.
Read, J & Whiteoak, D 2003, The Shell Bitumen handbook, 5th edition, Thomas Telford, London, UK.
Towler, J & Ball, G 2001, Permeabilities of chipseals in New Zealand, ARRB Transport Research
conference, 20th, 2001, Melbourne, Victoria, ARRB Transport Research, Vermont South, Vic, 16 pp.

AP-T311-16 Permeability of Sprayed Seals Literature Review

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

AP-T311-16 Permeability of Sprayed Seals Literature Review

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Technical Report

Permeability of Sprayed Seals

Permeability of Sprayed Seals: Literature Review

Steve Patrick and Melissa Dias

This report describes a literature review on the permeability of

Austroads is the peak organisation of Australasian road

The findings indicate that water ingress is possible through a sprayed

Austroads purpose is to support our member organisations to

Roads and Maritime Services New South Wales

Department of State Growth Tasmania

Australian Government Department of Infrastructure and

Australian Local Government Association

Roads Corporation Victoria

New Zealand Transport Agency.

Permeability of Sprayed Seals: Literature Review

Austroads 2016 | page i

Permeability of Sprayed Seals: Literature Review

Permeability of Sprayed Seal Surfacings ............................................................................................ 2

Thin Seal Membranes on High Traffic Roads ..................................................................... 3

Flushing and Blistering ........................................................................................................ 5

Cracks, Joints and Faults .................................................................................................... 7

Binder and Aggregate Interface .......................................................................................... 7

Static and Dynamic Loading ................................................................................................ 8

Road Shape and Profile ...................................................................................................... 8

Pavement Materials, Properties and Design Issues ........................................................... 9

2.3 Influence of Prime Coat .................................................................................................................... 9

Single Layer Sprayed Seals .............................................................................................. 10

Multiple Layer Seals .......................................................................................................... 11

Geotextile Reinforced Seals .............................................................................................. 11

SAM and SAMIs ................................................................................................................ 12

Maintenance Treatments ................................................................................................... 12

2.5 Influence of Binder Type ................................................................................................................ 12

Permeability Test Methods ................................................................................................................. 14

Field Permeameters/Infiltrometers .................................................................................... 14

Laboratory Permeameters ................................................................................................. 18

3.2 Sprayed Seal Samples for Laboratory Testing .............................................................................. 21

Extracting Samples from the Field .................................................................................... 21

Creating Samples in the Laboratory .................................................................................. 21

3.3 Accelerated Loading Facilities ....................................................................................................... 22

Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 25

Austroads 2016 | page ii

Permeability of Sprayed Seals: Literature Review

Effect of sprayed seal and combined resurfacing treatments on existing surfacing

Austroads 2016 | page iii

Permeability of Sprayed Seals: Literature Review

Austroads 2016 | page 1

Permeability of Sprayed Seals: Literature Review

2. Permeability of Sprayed Seal Surfacings

Are Sprayed Seals Waterproof?

Austroads 2016 | page 2

Permeability of Sprayed Seals: Literature Review

Possible Mechanisms and Causes of Water Movement

2.2.1 Thin Seal Membranes on High Traffic Roads

Source: Austroads (2006a).

Austroads 2016 | page 3

Permeability of Sprayed Seals: Literature Review

Source: Austroads (2006a).

Source: Austroads (2006a).

Austroads 2016 | page 4

Permeability of Sprayed Seals: Literature Review

2.2.2 Flushing and Blistering

Austroads 2016 | page 5

Permeability of Sprayed Seals: Literature Review

Austroads 2016 | page 6