Applications of Superpave System For Bituminous Mix Design Based On The Gaza Strip Conditions

The Islamic University of Gaza
High Studies Deanery

Faculty of Engineering
Civil Engineering Department
Infrastructure Engineering Master Program
Applications of Superpave System for

Bituminous Mix Design
Based on the Gaza Strip Conditions
Submitted by:
Eng. Anwar K. Harara
Supervised by:
Prof.Dr.Shafik Jendia
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for degree of Master of Science in Civil

Engineering / Infrastructure Engineering.
4102
Dedication
To my father and my mother who taught me how to give
To the soul of my Brother, the martyr Mohammed and to the soul
of my nephew, the martyr Ahmed
To my wife who supported me whole heartedly
To all my teachers who supported me
To all my friends who spare no effort to help
To my university The Islamic University of Gaza which is
continuously improving the research
To the Palestinian people who have suffered and will be struggling
with the persistence to have a free Palestine.
To all of them I dedicate this work
Anwar Harara
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my supervisor Prof. Dr. Shafik Jendia, for

his continuous support, through preparing the study.
Thanks are extended to the General Directorate of Meteorology

at the ministry of transportation for providing and analyzing
weather data for the Gaza Strip.
Special thanks are given to Islamic Relief Palestine team for all
their assistance throughout the study.
iii
Abstract
In Gaza Strip, Marshal Mix design procedure (ASTM D 1559) is used for design
flexible pavements, but most of the roads are suffering from severe rutting, fatigue and
thermal cracking. Many studies point out that the main reasons of theses stress are the
environmental conditions and the fast rating of aging asphalt binder. The Marshall
procedure is empirical and suffer the limitation of accuracy in determining the full
effects of variation in environmental and loading conditions, also material properties
and types on pavement performance, so more countries trended to adopt SUPERPAVE
system. Now, the Gaza Strip uses asphalt binder classified according to penetration
grade, and this system is not taking into consideration the environmental conditions, and
there is a need to develop a design system for roads that would account for load,
materials and climate to production of mixtures with more stability and durability.
The main aim of this study is to find the asphalt binder grade suitable for the roads in
the Gaza Strip taking into consideration the environmental conditions. To fulfill the
objectives of this study, the environmental data for 31years were collected and
analyzed. The analysis was based on SHRP SUPERPAVE system procedure for asphalt
grading, the collected air temperature data were converted into pavement temperature,
selecting asphalt binder and adjusting binder grade for traffic speed and loading. The
performance grades (PG) are recommended for use in the Gaza Strip.
The results of this study showed that the asphalt binder grade suitable for the region
studied (the Gaza Strip) and according to region temperature is (PG 64 -10), and it
should be corrected for traffic volume.
iv

( )ASTM D 1559
, .
31, ,
, ,
( )
( )PG 64-10 .

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ............................................................................................................................ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..................................................................................................... iii
Abstract .............................................................................................................................. iv
.......................................................................................................................... v
Chapter 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ............................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................. 2
1.3 Study Importance ........................................................................................................ 3
1.4 Thesis Aim and Objectives ........................................................................................... 3
1.4.1 Aim ..................................................................................................................... 3
1.4.2 Objectives ............................................................................................................ 3
1.5 Methodology ............................................................................................................. 4
1.5.1 Developing Asphalt Binder ...................................................................................... 6
1.5.2 Collection of actual data (weather data) ...................................................................... 6
1.5.3 Analysis of collected data ........................................................................................ 6
1.5.4 Application of Models to Convert Air to Pavement Temp. ............................................. 6
1.5.5 Selecting performance grade (PG) ............................................................................. 6
1.5.6 Testing cases of various reliability factors ................................................................... 6
1.5.7 Adjusting performance (PG) grade for traffic volume and speed ...................................... 6
1.5.8 Getting the final Performance grade (PG) ................................................................... 7
1.5.9 Constructing map to performance grade (PG)for the Gaza Strip regions ........................... 7
1.5.10 Comparison between the Gaza Strip and west bank based on (PG) ................................... 7
1.5.11 Testing the adequacy of local material ........................................................................ 7
1.6 Thesis Structures ........................................................................................................ 7
Chapter 2 SUPERPAVE System Overview .............................................................................. 9
2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 9
2.2 Background of SHRP .................................................................................................. 9
2.3 SHRP Program ......................................................................................................... 10
2.4 LTPP Program ......................................................................................................... 10
2.5 Overview of SUPERPAVE ......................................................................................... 11
2.6 Technical Aspect of SUPERPAVE Mix Design .............................................................. 11
2.7 Concept of SUPERPAVE Mix Design .......................................................................... 12
2.8 Steps of SUPERPAVE Mix Design .............................................................................. 12
2.9 SUPERPAVE Performance Grade (PG) ........................................................................ 13
2.9.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 13
2.9.2 Asphalt Binder Evaluation ..................................................................................... 13
2.9.3 Design Pavement Temperature ............................................................................... 14
2.10 Comparison between PG System and AC and AR System ................................................ 15
2.11 Materials Selection Aggregates.................................................................................... 16
2.12 Gradation Requirements ............................................................................................. 17
2.13 Summary ................................................................................................................ 18
Chapter 3 Adaptation SUPERPAVE in other Countries .......................................................... 19
3.1 Application of SUPERPAVE in Others Countries ........................................................... 19
3.1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 19
vi
3.1.2 Studies and Research ............................................................................................ 19
3.1.3 Summary ............................................................................................................ 24
3.2 Comparison Between SUPERPAVE Mix Design and Marshall Mix Design ......................... 25
3.2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 25
3.2.2 Studies in Other Countries ..................................................................................... 26
3.2.3 Summary ............................................................................................................ 28
3.3 Development of Asphalt Pavement Temperature Models .................................................. 30
3.3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 30
3.3.2 Studies and Researches ......................................................................................... 30
Chapter 4 Results and Analysis............................................................................................. 33
4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 33
4.2 Pavement temperature ............................................................................................... 33
4.3 SHRP Model ........................................................................................................... 33
4.3.1 SHRP High-Temperature Model ............................................................................. 33
4.3.2 SHRP Low-Temperature Model .............................................................................. 34
4.4 Long Term Pavement Performance Program (LTPP) ....................................................... 34
4.4.1 LTPP High-Temperature Model with Reliability ........................................................ 34
4.4.2 LTPP Low-Temperature Model with Reliability......................................................... 34
4.5 Performance Grade Selection Procedure ........................................................................ 35
4.6 Temperature Data Base .............................................................................................. 35
4.6.1 Climatic Data Collection ....................................................................................... 36
4.6.2 Low air Temperature ............................................................................................ 37
4.6.3 High air Temperature ............................................................................................ 37
4.7 Temperature Data Analysis ......................................................................................... 41
4.7.1 Data Statistical Analysis ........................................................................................ 41
4.7.2 Converting Air to Pavement Temperatures and Selecting PG ........................................ 44
4.7.3 Pavement high and low temperature ........................................................................ 45
4.7.4 The Final Performance Grade (PG).......................................................................... 46
4.8 Testing cases of various reliability factors...................................................................... 46
4.9 Adjusting performance (PG) grade for traffic volume and speed ........................................ 48
4.9.1 Adjusting performance (PG) grade according to standard classification .......................... 48
4.9.2 Adjusting performance (PG) grade according to selected classification roads in Gaza ........ 49
4.10 Comparison between the Gaza Strip and west bank based on asphalt binder ......................... 51
4.11 Local material (Asphalt binder and aggregate) used in the Gaza Strip ................................. 54
4.11.1 Asphalt Binder (Bitumen) used in the Gaza Strip ........................................................ 54
4.11.2 Aggregate Used in the Gaza Strip ............................................................................ 57
4.11.3 Aggregate Gradation............................................................................................. 60
4.12 Summary ................................................................................................................ 63
Chapter 5 Conclusions and Recommendations ....................................................................... 65
5.1 Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 65
5.2 Recommendations..................................................................................................... 66
References .......................................................................................................................... 67
Appendix (A): Tables and Figures ........................................................................................ 75
Appendix (B): Calculations .................................................................................................. 93
Appendix (C) : Superpave Gradation Specification ................................................................. 96
Appendix (D) : SUPERPAVE - Specification Summary Table ................................................ 102
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Prediction of PG Grades for Different Crude Oil Blends (Washington state Dot, 2007) ............................ 15
Table 2.2: Prior Limitations vs. SUPERPAVE Testing and Specification Features (after Roberts et al., 1996) .......... 16
Table 3.1: Summary of SUPERPAVE studies in different countries ........................................................................... 25
Table 3.2: Comparison between Marshall and SUPERPAVE design methods (Baraily et al,2011) ............................ 29
Table 4.1: Highest temperature day for each month per year in the Gaza Strip oC ...................................................... 37
Table 4.2: Lowest temperature day for each month per year in the Gaza Strip C ........................................................ 38
Table 4.3: Hottest seven days for each year in the Gaza Strip C(Gen. Direct. of Meteorology, 2012) ........................ 40
Table 4.4: Minimum temperature for each year in the Gaza Strip C(Gen. Direct. of Meteorology, 2012) .................. 41
Table 4.5: Calculation of Average and Standard deviation based on max and min temperature .................................. 41
Table 4.6: Statistical Comparison for High and Lowpavement temp. for SHRP Model ............................................. 44
Table 4.7: Statistical Comparison for High and Low pavement temp. for LTPP Model .............................................. 45
Table 4.8: High and Low Air and Pavement Temperatures with PG Grading ............................................................. 45
Table 4.9: Z-Values for Degree of Reliability .............................................................................................................. 47
Table 4.10: Summary of binder selection results for different reliability ..................................................................... 47
Table 4.11: ESAL and Traffic Designation (AASHTO, 2001) .................................................................................... 48
Table 4.12: SUPERPAVE Binder Selection Adjustments (Bumping) for Design ESALs and Loading Rate .............. 48
Table 4.13: asphalt binders for 98% Reliability in SHRP Model ................................................................................. 49
Table 4.14: Different roads classifications for selected roads at specific area in the Gaza Strip .................................. 50
Table 4.15: Summary for the results of the analyzed data for each city in the west bank(Abdullah ,2008) ................. 52
Table 4.16: Summary for the results of the analyzed data for the Gaza Strip .............................................................. 53
Table 4.17: comparison between west bank cities and Gaza strip based on asphalt binder.......................................... 53
Table 4.18: physical properties for used asphalt binder (CCQC report,2013).............................................................. 55
Table 4.19: physical properties for used asphalt binde (IUG lab report,2013) ............................................................. 55
Table 4.20: physical properties for used asphalt binder, (Engineers Syndicate lab)..................................................... 56
Table 4.21: physical properties for used asphalt binder, (El-Saikaly, 2013) ................................................................ 56
Table 4.22: The properties of the aggregate for job mix (Al-Qaoud Company May 2013) ......................................... 58
Table 4.23: The properties of the aggregate for job mix (Al-Amal Company April 2013) .......................................... 59
Table 4.24: The relationship between SUPERPAVE and traditional gradation of aggregate ...................................... 60
Table 4.25: The relationship between SUPERPAVE and traditional gradation of aggregate - Al Amal Company ..... 61
viii
Table A- 1: Minimum temperature over the months (1976 1986)........................................................... 76
Table A- 4: Maximum temperature over the months (1976 1986) .......................................................... 79
Table A- 7: Seven Hottest Days per year (From 1976 to 1986) ................................................................. 82
Table A- 10: Minimum Temperature per year (From 1976 to 1986) ......................................................... 85
Table A- 13: High and Low Pavement temperature based on SHRP and LTPP models for reliability...... 87
Table A- 14: data about weather stations in Palestine ................................................................................ 90
Table A- 15: Max. Temperature during 2006 ............................................................................................. 91
Table A- 16: Minimum Temperature during 2006 ..................................................................................... 92
Table C - 1: Superpave Gradation for 37.5 mm (1 1/2 inch) Nominal Size .............................................. 97
Table C - 2: Superpave Gradation for 25 mm (1 inch) Nominal Size ....................................................... 98
Table C - 3: Superpave Gradation for 19 mm (3/4 inch) Nominal Size .................................................... 99
Table C - 4: Superpave Gradation for 12.5 mm (1/2 inch) Nominal Size ............................................... 100
Table C - 5: Superpave Gradation for 9.5 mm (3/8 inch) Nominal Size ................................................. 101
Table D - 1: Performance Graded Asphalt Binder Specifications (AASHTO, 2001)...105
Table D - 2: Roads list according to ESALs (million) and function (Abu Isied, 2005)107
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: SUPERPAVE gradation specifications (Williams 2006) ......................................................... 17
Figure 3.1: Temperature zoning for asphalt binder specifications for Jordan ............................................ 20
Figure 3.2: Optimun Binders in the West Bank ......................................................................................... 21
Figure 3.3: Temperature Zoning for PG System in Egypt .......................................................................... 22
Figure 3.4: Binder PG Contour for Jordan ................................................................................................. 23
Figure 3.5: Temperature Zoning for PG System in Pakistan. ..................................................................... 23
Figure 4.1: Location map of Gaza Strip, Palestine. .................................................................................... 36
Figure 4.2: Optimum Binder in the Gaza Strip ........................................................................................... 46
Figure 4.3: Optimum Binder in the Gaza Strip (10 to <30 Million) & Slow 20 to 70 km/hr ..................... 51
Figure 4.4: Optimum Binder in the Gaza Strip (10 to <30 Million) & Standing < 20 km/hr ..................... 51
Figure 4.5: High values at 98% Reliability ................................................................................................ 53
Figure 4.6: Low values at 98% Reliability ................................................................................................. 54
Figure 4.7: The relationship between SUPERPAVE and traditional gradation of aggregate ..................... 61
Figure 4.8: The relationship between SUPERPAVE and traditional gradation of aggregate - Amal Co. .. 62
Figure A- 1: Lowest Temperature per month from 1976 to 1986 .............................................................. 76

Figure A- 4: High Temperature per months from 1976 to 1986 ................................................................. 79
Figure A- 7: Seven Hottest Days - from 1976 to 1986 ............................................................................... 82
Figure A- 10: Minimum Temperature per Year - from 1976 to 1986 ........................................................ 85
Figure A- 13:High pave. Temp. SHRP ....................................................................................................... 88
Figure A- 14: High pave. Temp. LTPP ...................................................................................................... 88
Figure A- 15: Low. pave. Temp. SHRP ..................................................................................................... 89
Figure A- 16: Low. pave. Temp. LTPP ...................................................................................................... 89
Figure C - 1: Superpave Gradation Chart for 37.5 mm ............................................................................. 97
Figure C - 4: Superpave Gradation Chart for 25 mm ................................................................................ 98
Figure C - 3: Superpave Gradation Chart for 19 mm ............................................................................... 99
Figure C - 4: Superpave Gradation Chart for 12.5 mm ........................................................................... 100
Figure C - 5: Superpave Gradation Chart for 9.5 mm ............................................................................ 101
x
List of Abbreviations
SUPERPAVE Superior Performing Asphalt Pavements
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

AV Air voids
ESAL Equivalent Single Axle Load
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
HMA Hot Mix Asphalt
LTPP Long Term Pavement Performance
OBC Optimum Bitumen Content
PG Performance Grading
SHRP Strategic Highway Research Program
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
VMA Voids in Mineral Aggregate
WES Waterways Experiment Station
TRB Transportation Research Board
SMA Stone Matrix Asphalt
SGC Super pave Gyratory Compactor
FAA Fine Aggregate Angularity
EMA Egyptian Meteorological Authority
LA Los Angeles abrasion
F and E Flat and Elongated
OAC Optimum Asphalt Content
SMP Seasonal Monitoring Program
AR Aged Residue
AC Absolute Viscosity
xi
List of Symbols
T20mm (high) High pavement design temperature at a depth of 20 mm.
Tair (high) Seven-day average high air temperature (oC)

Lat The projects location in degrees latitude.
Tair (low) average of minimum air temperature
T (low) low pavement design temperature
TMAX Daily maximum temperature.
TMIN Daily minimum temperature.
d pavement depth in mm
T(pav) high High pavement temperature below the surface, C
T(air) high Seven-day average high air temperature, C
H Depth of pavement surface, mm
air (high) Standard deviation of the high 7-day mean air temperature.
Z From the standard normal distribution table, Z =2.055 for 98% reliability.
T(pav)low Low pavement temperature below the surface, C
T(air)low Low air temperature, C
air (low) Standard deviation of the mean low air temperature.
xii
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Background
This study concentrates on evaluation on flexible pavements in general. The goal of this
study is to develop new design methods such as superior performance asphalt pavement,
which could simulate for our research project according to geographical location,
climate and traffic load and material properties.
There are many mix design methods used throughout the world (e.g., Marshall mix
design method, Hubbard-eld mix design method, Hveem mix design method, Asphalt
Institute Triaxial method of mix design, etc.). Currently, the conventional Marshall
method is widely used in some countries to design asphalt layers of flexible
pavement(ASTM, 1997).
In the Gaza Strip and West Bank, Marshall Mix design procedure (ASTM D 1559) is
used for designing the asphalt concrete mixes.In the Gaza Strip and West Bank most of
the roads are suffering from severe rutting and cracking in asphalt pavements due to
increased traffic loads and environmental conditions.
In 1987, the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) began a significant research
effort with the objective to create an improved asphalt mix design procedure. The final
product of the SHRP asphalt program area is SUPERPAVE. SUPERPAVE is an
acronym which stands for (Superior Performing Asphalt Pavements). Traditional mix
design methods, Marshal and Hveem, are based on the concept that if the mixture
volumetric properties satisfy a set of specifications, the mix would perform well under
any condition. In terms of field performance, very little testing were done to validate the
claims. The design method of SUPERPAVE is based on performance-based
specification. Even though it uses traditional volumetric mix design methodologies, it
also includes a performance concept. The tests and analyses have direct relationships to
field performance. In addition, the SUPERPAVE mix design system integrates material
selection (asphalt and aggregate) and mix design into procedures based on pavement
structural section, design traffic, and climate conditions.
1
In SUPERPAVE, test procedures and performance-based models are used to estimate
the performance life of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) in terms of equivalent single-axle
loads (ESALs). Since its implementation, the SUPERPAVE methodology has helped
state agencies to achieve better performance of their mixes in terms of enhanced
resistance to permanent deformation, fatigue, low-temperature cracking, moisture-
induced damage, workability, and skid resistance to durable pavement layer (Roberts et.
al, 1996).
More countries in the world trended to adopt SUPERPAVE system because it is

effective method, gives better results and into consideration the factors that are
responsible for the typical distresses on asphalt pavements: rutting, fatigue and thermal
cracking and simulated pavements under real conditions.
The most important steps in research are to conduct a theoretical study and to determine
SUPERPAVE performance-grade binder specification for temperature zones throughout
the Gaza Strip based on local conditions. Recommendation of this study can be used as
a concept for asphaltic mixtures design in Palestine for the future projects.
1.2 Statement of the Problem

Pavements suffer from several problems that affect on their age so that there were more
research to development methods to get more durable pavements focusing on the most
effective problems such as rutting, cracking etc. Currently, the conventional Marshall
method is not widely used specially in flexible pavement with bituminous surfacing
design.
From 1987 to 1993, strategic highway research program (SHRP) developed a new
concept for the design of asphaltic mixtures referred to as SUPERPAVE. More
countries in the world started to use SUPERPAVE system due to the better performance
over the Marshall Mix design so, SUPERPAVE mixtures are now the standard HMA
used in different countries.
In Palestine, there is a need to develop a design system for roads that would account for
load, materials and climate to produce mixtures with more stability and durability. A
study is required to evaluate the applicability of the SUPERPAVE mix design method
based on local construction materials properties and climatic conditions.
2
1.3 Study Importance
The following points show the importance of this study as follows:
1. This study will be able to help researchers and engineers to understand the new
method and perform more studies and researches in the same field according to
the local conditions of Gaza Strip.
2. Determine the optimum performance grade for Gaza Strip region according to
the new SUPERPAVE method, where it is expected to be used in future rather
than Marshall Method.
1.4 Thesis Aim and Objectives

1.4.1 Aim
The main aim of this study is to highlight on the new SUPERPAVE mix design
method in Gaza Strip based on the local construction materials properties and
climatic conditions.
1.4.2 Objectives
The main objectives of the study are:

1. To develop climatic (temperature) zones for Gaza Strip according to the
SUPERPAVE asphalt binders PG system.
2. To determine the performance grade(PG) of asphalt optimum binder for
Temperature Zone throughout the Gaza Strip.
3. To select the proper performance grade PG of asphalt binder for the Gaza Strip
region based on, traffic volume and speed according to SUPERPAVE system.
4. To compare Selected PG for the Gaza Strip with PG for West Bank region and
others Countries.
3
1.5 Methodology
In order to achieve the objectives of this study, Methodology included the main tasks as
follows:
A. Review of literature, publications, books, journals, ,manuals and articles specific to

SUPERPAVE mix designs which include predicting models, parameters,
procedures, properties and requirements.
B. Literature review of previous studies which include adopting of SUPERPAVE
system in others countries.
C. Developing local criteria to select optimum binder for Gaza Strip by using
specification of SUPERPAVE system.
D. Conclusions and recommendations.
In Gaza Strip as well as west bank the performance graded (PG) based system is not yet
implemented to evaluate the currently used asphalt cements for paving works, It appears
that not only the unavailability of test equipment is resulting in this delay but also the
lack of clear understanding of what steps could be taken to incorporate this system.
Thus, methodology of study presents all steps that performed to achieve the objective
set of this study. The procedure includes all the information relevant to the required
data, and Performance Grade Selection Procedure. See Figure (1.1).
4
Literature Collecting Data
Review
Overview of Studies in others Collecting Construction

SUPERPAVE Countries Weather Data material Data
System
Developing Asphalt Binder
Analysis of Collected Data
Application of Models to Convert Air

to Pavement Temp.
High Pavement Low Pavement

Temperature Temperature
Applying Applying
two Models two Models
SHRP LTPP SHRP LTPP

Model Model Model Model
Adjusting PG for Selecting Testing Cases of Adequacy of

Traffic Volume Performance Various local material
& Speed Grade (PG) Reliability used in the mix
5
1.5.1 Developing Asphalt Binder
Developing local criteria to select optimum binder for Gaza Strip by using specification
of SUPERPAVE system.
1.5.2 Collection of actual data (weather data)

Minimum and seven-day consecutive maximum air temperature data from the one
weather station located in the Gaza City were collected from the Palestinian
Meteorological Department, The air temperature (maximum and minimum) recorded by
weather station covered of minimum 30 years from 1976 to 2006 of continuous
temperature recording, The location (latitude in degrees) for Gaza city station was
obtained from geographical map.
1.5.3 Analysis of collected data

The mean and standard deviation for each of the yearly minimum air temperature,
hottest yearly 7-day temperature were calculated for Gaza city station.
1.5.4 Application of Models to Convert Air to Pavement Temp.

After analysis of collected data , the Collected air temperature data were converted into
pavement temperatures using two models, strategic highway research program (SHRP)
and long term pavement program LTPP model.
1.5.5 Selecting performance grade (PG)

selecting asphalt binder grades to use pavement temperature rather than air temperature,
obtained air temperatures were converted into pavement temperatures were selected
based on performance graded asphalt binder specification developed by super pave
system.
1.5.6 Testing cases of various reliability factors

Applying reliability concept to determine the appropriate performance grade (PG),
Based on 50% and 98% percent reliability, temperatures can be determined based on
the standard deviations for the high and low air temperature data.
1.5.7 Adjusting performance (PG) grade for traffic volume and speed
To account for traffic volume and speed or both, adjustments can be made to the
selected asphalt binder PG according to SUPERPAVE criteria.
6
1.5.8 Getting the final Performance grade (PG)
Finally, the performance grades of binders required to be used all over the Gaza Strip
can be found depend on SUPERPAVE criteria.
1.5.9 Constructing map to performance grade (PG)for the Gaza Strip regions
Analyzed to generate the temperature zoning map for the Gaza Strip& display
performance grade (PG) on the Gaza Strip map for different reliability, traffic volume
and speed.
1.5.10 Comparison between the Gaza Strip and west bank based on (PG)
Based on results of final performance grade PG for the Gaza Strip, we can compare the
performance grade of both the Gaza Strip and west bank according to results that
included in previous studies.
1.5.11 Testing the adequacy of local material

The specification of local material (Aggregate and Asphalt binder) will be tested and
compared from different companies and studies in Gaza Strip.
1.6 Thesis Structures

Thesis includes five chapters and seven appendices. A brief description of chapter
contents is presented below:
Chapter 1 : Introduction.
This chapter is a briefly introduction, which highlights the concept of research. In
addition, statement of problem ,aim, objectives and methodology of research are
described.
Chapter 2 : SUPERPAVE system overview.
The chapter presents SHRP and LTPP background ,overview ,benefits ,technical aspects
,concepts ,and steps of SUPERPAVE System.
Chapter 3 : Literature Review.
Detailed review of different studies and researches about determining performance
grade PG and adaptation SUPERPAVE system in other countries. This chapter includes
comparing between SUPERPAVE system and Marshall method in different countries
based on local conditions.
7
Chapter 4 : Development of Asphalt Binder (PG).
This chapter presents the results and analysis. The optimum binder for the Gaza Strip
region using the SUPERPAVEsystem.
Chapter 5 : Conclusion and Recommendations.
This chapter presents conclusions and recommendations based on findings from the
study.
8
Chapter 2
SUPERPAVE System Overview
2.1 Introduction
Throughout the evolution of asphalt mix design; several different types of laboratory
compaction devices have been developed to produce specimens for volumetric and/or
physical characterization (Harman et al., 2002).
Most of the hot mix asphalt (HMA) produced during the 50 years between the 1940 and
mid 1990 were designed using the Marshall methods, and the increase in traffic
volumes and heavier loads became initiative for the Strategic Highway Research
Program (SHRP) in 1988. After five years of efforts, a new mix design, Superior
Performing Asphalt Pavements (SUPERPAVE), was developed. SUPERPAVE takes
into consideration the factors responsible for the typical distress on asphalt pavements,
rutting, fatigue, and thermal cracking. With the introduction of SUPERPAVE Mix
Design, the Marshall method of Mix design has become obsolete in highway pavement,
(Vasavi, 2002).
2.2 Background of SHRP

The Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) was established by Congress in 1987
as a five-year, $150 million dollars, product driven, research program to improve the
quality, efficiency, performance, and productivity of highways and to make them safer
for motorists and highway workers. It was developed in partnership with States,
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO),
Transportation Research Board (TRB), Industry, and Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA). SHRP research focused on asphalt (liquids and mixtures), concrete and
structures, highway operations, and long-term pavement performance (LTPP)(Harman
et al.,1999).
Research for SHRP was performed by independent contractors, largely universities, and
paid for by a set-aside of funds appropriated annually from the US Federal Government
budget for distribution to the states in support of the nations primary surface
transportation system. Although the competition for funding is strong at all levels of
government, the State Departments of Transportation agreed to this set-aside for
9
research because it promised better performing roads, lower life cycle costs, and thus, in
the long run a more effective use of funds (Tappeiner, 1996).
2.3 SHRP Program

The Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP), consisted of research concentrated
in four key areas:
Asphalt: This area consists of research to develop a completely new approach to
HMA mix design.
Concrete and structures: This area consists of research in the areas of mix design
and assessing, protecting and rehabilitating concrete pavements and structures.
Highway operations. This area consists of pavement preservation, work zone safety
and snow and ice control research.
Pavement performance: This area consists of the Long Term Pavement Performance
Program (LTPP), a 20-year study of over 2,000 test sections of in-service U.S. and
Canadian pavements to improve guidelines for building and maintaining pavements.
SHRP research activities were completed in 1992 and SHRP was closed down in
1993. To date, SHRP has produced more than 100 new devices, tests and specifications
and, perhaps more importantly, has spawned a full-scale on-going implementation drive
by such organizations as the FHWA, AASHTO and TRB. (FHWA, 1998).
SUPERPAVE is a performance-related asphalt binder and mixture specification.
SUPERPAVE is not just a computer software package, nor just a binder specification,
nor just a mixture design and analysis tool. SUPERPAVE is a system which is inclusive
of all these parts.
2.4 LTPP Program

The Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) program is a 20-year study of in service
pavements across North America. Its goal is to extend the life of highway pavements
through various designs of new and rehabilitated pavement structures, using different
materials and under different loads, environments, sub grade soil, and maintenance
practices. LTPP was established under the Strategic Highway Research Program, and is
now managed by the Federal Highway Administration (Mohseni and Semons,1998).
10
2.5 Overview of SUPERPAVE
The SUPERPAVE mix design system is a comprehensive method of designing paving
mixes tailored to the unique performance requirements dictated by the traffic,
environment(climate), and structural section at a particular pavement site. It facilitates
selecting and combining asphalt binder, aggregate, and any necessary modifier to
achieve the required level of pavement performance.
The SUPERPAVE system is applicable to virgin and recycled, dense-graded, hot mix
asphalt (HMA), with or without modification. In addition, the SUPERPAVE
performance tests are applicable to the characterization of a variety of specialized
paving mixes such as stone matrix asphalt (SMA). It can be used when constructing
new surface, binder, and base layers, as well as overlays on existing pavements.
Through materials selection and mix design, it directly addresses the reduction and
control of permanent deformation, fatigue cracking, and low-temperature cracking. It
also explicitly considers the effects of aging and moisture sensitivity in promoting or
arresting the development of these three distresses (SHRPA-407,1994).
2.6 Technical Aspect of SUPERPAVE Mix Design

SUPERPAVE system incorporates performance-based, bitumen materials
characterization with the design environmental conditions to improve performance by
controlling rutting, low temperature (Thermal) cracking and fatigue cracking. The three
major components of SUPERPAVE are the asphalt binder specification, mixture design
and analysis system, and a computer software system.
The super pave mix design system integrates material selection and mix design into
procedures based on projects climate and design traffic. One of the key feature in super
pave mix design is the change in laboratory compaction methods. Laboratory
compaction is accomplished using a super pave gyratory compactor (SGC). Its main
purpose is to compact test specimens.The SGC can provide information about the
compact ability of the particular mixture by capturing data during compaction.
The MS-2 booklet Mix Design Methods for Asphalt Concrete and other hot mix types
provides methodology for Marshall and Hveem designs. The SP-2 booklet Super pave
Mix Design provides the methodology for the super pave procedure (Baraily etal.,
2011)
11
The differences between the mix designs are well documented in the SP-2 booklet.
Although the Marshall Mix design method has used for many years, many engineers
believe that the impact compaction used with the Marshall method does not stimulate
mixture densification as if occurs in real pavement. Furthermore, Marshall Stability
does not adequately estimate the shear strength of HMA.
2.7 Concept of SUPERPAVE Mix Design

The objective of the SUPERPAVE mix design system is to define an economical blend
of asphalt. Therefore, binder and aggregate that yields a paving mix having:
Sufficient asphalt binder for durability.
Sufficient voids in the mineral aggregate and the paving mix as a whole.
Sufficient workability.
Satisfactory performance characteristics over the service life of the pavement.
The SUPERPAVE mix design system contains three distinct levels of design, termed
level 1,level 2, and level 3. This permits the selection of a design process that is
appropriate for the traffic loads and volume (expressed as total 80 kN ESALs over the
service life of the pavement) expected at the paving project. All three levels of design
explicitly consider the effects of climate (environment) on pavement performance.
Selection of the performance grade (PG) of asphalt binder is guided by the high and low
pavement design temperatures at the project location. Candidate paving mixes are
evaluated for acceptable moisture sensitivity. Asphalt binders and paving mixes are
aged in the laboratory to simulate the effects of short and long-term aging on
performance (SHRP-A-410,1994)
2.8 Steps of SUPERPAVE Mix Design

SUPERPAVE mixture design provides for a functional selection, blending, and
volumetric analysis of proposed materials, along with an evaluation of moisture
sensitivity. There are four steps immixture design(Asphalt Institute, 2001).
Selection of materials;
Selection of design aggregate structure;
Selection of design asphalt binder content; and
Evaluation of moisture susceptibility.
As it is with all hot mix asphalt, the design compaction levels must be established.
12
SUPERPAVE mix design consists of three levels. These levels relates to the expected
traffic and other considerations for different degree of reliability. Expected traffic levels for
the design life of the pavement characterized by the equivalent standard axle loads (ESALs)
are quantified as low (1 million ESALs), medium (1 10 million ESALs) , and high (10
million ESALs) (Tappeiner, 1996). The three levels are described as follow:
Level one mixture design incorporates careful material selection and volumetric
proportioning to produce a mixture that will perform satisfactorily. It is for asphalt
pavements exposed to low traffic. The laboratory compacted effort is adjusted to suit
the traffic loading expected, and compaction temperature.
Level two and three applies all the level one procedure and at the same time, included
two additional pieces of laboratory equipment to test a range of mixture performance
tests such as permanent deformation and fatigue cracking to evaluate the asphalts
response to various loading and temperature conditions.
2.9 SUPERPAVE Performance Grade (PG)
2.9.1 Introduction
asphalt binders are typically categorized by one or more shorthand grading systems.
These systems range from simple (penetration grading) to complex (SUPERPAVE
performance grading) and represent an evolution in the ability to characterize asphalt
binder. This subsection briefly describes performance grade as part of the
SUPERPAVE research effort new binder tests and specifications were developed to
more accurately and fully characterize asphalt binders for use in HMA pavements. in
addition to Comparison between PG System and AC and AR System.
2.9.2 Asphalt Binder Evaluation

SUPERPAVE uses its own asphalt binder selection process, which is, of course, tied to
the SUPERPAVE asphalt binder performance grading (PG) system and its associated
specifications. SUPERPAVE PG asphalt binders are selected based on the expected
pavement temperature extremes in the area of their intended use. SUPERPAVE
software is used to calculate these extremes and select the appropriate PG asphalt
binder using one of the following three alternate methods (Roberts et al., 1996).
Pavement temperature. The designer inputs the design pavement temperatures
directly.
13
Air temperature. The designer inputs the local air temperatures, then the
software converts them to pavement temperatures.
Geographic area. The designer simply inputs the project location (i.e. state,
country and city). From this, the software retrieves climate conditions from a
weather database and then converts air temperatures into pavement
temperatures.
2.9.3 Design Pavement Temperature

The SUPERPAVE mix design method determines both a high and a low design
pavement temperature. These temperatures are determined as follows:
High pavement temperature - based on the 7-day average high air temperature
of the surrounding area.
Low pavement temperature - based on the 1-day low air temperature of the
surrounding area.
Using these temperatures as a starting point, SUPERPAVE then applies a reliability
concept to determine the appropriate PG asphalt binder. PG asphalt binders are
specified in 6C increments.
SUPERPAVE performance grading is reported using two numbers the first being the
average seven-day maximum pavement temperature (C) and the second being the
minimum pavement design temperature likely to be experienced (C). Thus, a PG 58-22
is intended for use where the average seven-day maximum pavement temperature is
58C and the expected minimum pavement temperature is -22C. Notice that these
numbers are pavement temperatures and not air temperatures (these pavement
temperatures are estimated from air temperatures) as reported in (SHRP,1994).
As a general rule-of-thumb, PG binders that differ in the high and low temperature
specification by 90C or more generally require some sort of modification (see Table
2.1).
14
Table 2.1: Prediction of PG Grades for Different Crude Oil Blends (WSDOT,
2013)
High Temperature, oC
52 58 64 70 76
52-16 58-16 64-16 70-16 76-16
Low Temperature, oC
-16
-22 52-22 58-22 64-22 70-22 76-22
-28 52-28 58-28 64-28 70-28 76-28
-34 52-34 58-34 64-34 70-34 76-34
-40 52-40 58-40 64-40 70-40 76-40
= Crude Oil
= High Quality Crude Oil
= Modifier Required
2.10 Comparison between PG System and AC and AR System

SUPERPAVE performance grading (PG) is based on the idea that an HMA asphalt
binders
properties should be related to the conditions under which it is used. For asphalt
binders, this involves expected climatic conditions as well as aging considerations.
Therefore, the PG system uses a common battery of tests (as the older penetration and
viscosity grading systems do) but specifies that a particular asphalt binder must pass
these tests at specific temperatures that are dependent upon the specific climatic
conditions in the area of use. This concept is not new selection of penetration or
viscosity graded asphalt binders follows the same logic but the relationships between
asphalt binder properties and conditions of use are more complete and moreprecise with
the SUPERPAVE PG system (SHRP,1994).
Table (2.2) shows how the SUPERPAVE PG system addresses specific penetration, AC
and AR grading system general limitations.
15
Table 2.2: Prior Limitations vs. SUPERPAVE Testing and Specification
Features(Roberts et al., 1996)
SUPERPAVE Binder Testing and

Limitations of Penetration, AC and
Specification Features that Address Prior
AR Grading Systems
Limitations
Penetration and ductility tests are The physical properties measured are directly
empirical and not directly related to related to field performance by engineering
HMA pavement performance. principles.
Test criteria remain constant, however, the

Tests are conducted at one standard
temperature at which the criteria must be met
temperature without regard to the climate
changes in consideration of the binder grade
in which the asphalt binder will be used.
selected for the prevalent climatic conditions.
The range of pavement temperatures at

any one site is not adequately covered.
The entire range of pavement temperatures
For example, there is no test method for
experienced at a particular site is covered.
asphalt binder stiffness at low
temperatures to control thermal cracking.
Three critical binder ages are simulated and

Test methods only consider short-term tested:
asphalt binder aging (thin film oven test) 1. Original asphalt binder prior to mixing
although long-term aging is a significant with aggregate.
factor in fatigue cracking and low 2. Aged asphalt binder after HMA
temperature cracking. production and construction.
3. Long-term aged binder.
Asphalt binders can have significantly

Grading is more precise and there is less
different characteristics within the same
overlap between grades.
grading category.
Tests and specifications are intended for

Modified asphalt binders are not suited
asphalt "binders" to include both modified and
for these grading systems.
unmodified asphalt cements.
2.11 Materials Selection Aggregates

The next step in the SUPERPAVE design process is the selection of the aggregate to be
used in the mix. Aggregates are the major components of hot mix asphalt. The quality
of the aggregates is critical to the performance of the asphalt mixes. Aggregates make
up 80 to 85% of the mixture by volume. Aggregate characteristics are a major factor in
16
the performance of an asphalt mixture. In the SUPERPAVE mixture design system
many aggregate criteria were included to assure the performance of the asphalt mix.
These criteria included coarse aggregate angularity, un compacted voids in fine
aggregate or fine aggregate angularity (FAA), flat and elongated particles, clay content,
and gradation parameters (Cominsky et al. ,1994).
2.12 Gradation Requirements

After the specific characteristics of the aggregate are determined, they then have to be
combined to produce a mix gradation. Gradation controls are also an important part of
the SUPERPAVE specifications. The 0.45 power chart maximum density line is used to
evaluate the potential performance of a gradation. The concept of an aggregate
maximum density line was first validated by Nijboer (1948). Goode and Lufsey (1962)
refined the concepts of the maximum density line. Huber and Schuler (1992) established
the gradation requirements and control points for the SUPERPAVE systems use of the
FHWA .45 power gradation chart to define a permissible gradation.
The chart is a unique graphing technique to evaluate the cumulative particle-size
distribution of the aggregate blend. An important feature of this power chart is the
maximum density gradation. The maximum density gradation is a gradation where the
aggregate particles fit themselves in the densest possible arrangement.
Figure 2.1: SUPERPAVE gradation specifications (Williams , 2006)
17
The plot of the maximum density line (MDL) is a straight line from the maximum aggregate
size to the origin. While designing aggregate structures, this gradation line should be
avoided to obtain the optimum asphalt film thickness and thereby, to produce a durable
mixture. Figure 2.1 shows the gradation specifications in SUPERPAVE mix design.
2.13 Summary
Researches and studies done by others were reviewed in this chapter. It began with the
discussion of SUPERPAVE. SUPERPAVE originated from the SHRP, a collaborative
research program that has initially focused on the asphalt binder. SUPERPAVE mix
design consisted of three levels, but only level one is widely in use. Steps of
SUPERPAVE, Performance grade, Aggregate requirements and gradations
The biggest differentiating aspects of the SUPERPAVE method are:
1. The use of formal aggregate evaluation procedures (consensus requirements).
2. The use of the PG asphalt binder grading system and its associated asphalt
binder selection system.
3. The use of the gyratory compactor to simulate field compaction.
4. Traffic loading and environmental considerations.
5. Its volumetric approach to mix design.
Even given its many differences when compared to Marshall methods, SUPERPAVE
still uses the same basic mix design steps and still strives for an optimum asphalt binder
content that results in 4 percent design air voids. Thus, the method is quite different but
the ultimate goals remain fairly consistent.
18
Chapter 3
Adaptation SUPERPAVE in other Countries
3.1 Application of SUPERPAVE in Others Countries
3.1.1 Introduction
this part of the study focuses on the previous studies that related to application of
SUPERPAVE system at different regions in the world , For example Many research
programs have been conducted in many countries around the world to develop asphalt
binder performance grades fitting with environmental locally conditions.
3.1.2 Studies and Research

After reading numerous literature review related to this study, it was found different
studies similar to the subject of this thesis in Gaza Strip. The following is a summary of
studies close to the topic of this research:
Al-Abdul Wahhab et al. ( 1997) conducted a study about Development of performance-
based bitumen specifications for the Gulf countries, countries including Saudi Arabia,
Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman, This research was undertaken
to provide a performance-based binder specification for the Gulf countries, based on the
findings of the Strategic Highway Research Programme (SHRP) carried out in the
United States, considering the prevailing environmental and traffic conditions and type
of locally produced bitumen.
The study recommended five performance-graded binder zones ranging from PG58-10
to PG76-10 for the entire Gulf area and also proposed modification of the currently used
binders to suite the proposed grades.
Asi (2007) conducted laboratory research in Jordan to evaluation of the locally available
aggregate usually used in the asphalt concrete mixtures was carried out to ensure that
these materials conform to the new mix design procedures developed by SUPERPAVE.
A performance grading map was generated to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. See
figure (3.1) in this map the country was divided into different zones according to the
highest and lowest temperature ranges that the asphalt might be subjected to. Using
local materials, loading and environmental conditions. the conclusion of This research
conducted to find the adoptability of superior performance asphalt pavements
SUPERPAVE mixture specifications to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan specific
19
material,traffic and environmental conditions, the conclusion of study is a temperature
zoning map was developed for the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan.
It consisted of three grade zones,PG 64-10,PG 64-16,and PG 70-10. as shown in figure
(3.1).
Figure 3.1: Temperature zoning for asphalt binder specifications for Jordan
(Asi , 2007).
Kobbail and Osman (2007) Performed study about determination of Sudan temperature
zoning based on SUPERPAVE system ,the data collected was from available
meteorological 18 weather stations that cover Sudan states for five years, were used on
the study, The analysis was based on SHRP SUPERPAVE system procedure for asphalt
grading, The study concluded that the range of the mean lowest and highest air
temperatures during the study period is between (5.36 C to 13.78C) and (38.8C to
46.1C) respectively. The Study of Sudan temperature conditions showed that the
maximum pavement design temperature is 70 C and the minimum pavement design
temperature is -10 C. The temperature zoning in Sudan was thus distributed into two
zones, namely PG 70-10 and PG 64-10 according to the collected and studied data.
Abdullah (2008) performed research study about application of SUPERPAVEsystem
for binder selection based on local condition in west bank. The analysis of data showed
that most of Palestinian area required one type of binder which is PG 64-10 excluding
Jericho which requires PG 70-10 Through the study it is recommended to use
SUPERPAVE system in west bank because it has better performance over the Marshall
mix design, as found by several studies. See Figure (3.2).
20
Figure 3.2: Optimun Binders in the West Bank (Abdullah ,2008).
Hassan et al. (2008) conducted study to predict high and low asphalt pavement
temperatures in Oman ,the research have proposed asphalt binder performance grades
(PG) for the various regions of Oman. These binder performance grades were found to
be PG52, 58, 64, and 70 for high temperature grades covering all different regions in
Oman. As for the low temperature grades they found that, the low temperatures
experienced in all regions of Oman are well above the available low temperature
available PG grades according to SUPERPAVE System, and therefore, the grades were
restricted to PG-10 and PG-16.
Al-Jumaily (2010). performed study about adapting of performance grading system for
local asphalt cement in Iraq, the air temperature data used in the study covered
approximately 20 years time period for seven Iraqi cities in north and south which
represent unique region in Iraq, the results indicated to determine performance grade
for the regions, it consisted four grade zone PG 70-16 for north region, PG 70-10 for
middle, PG 64-10 for west, and 76-10 for south. on the side the study included
performing tests on local asphalt cement with penetration grades 40-50 and 60-70 by
both conventional test method and SUPERPAVE method to determine the equivalent
performance grade for each type of penetration graded asphalt and the results indicated
penetration grade are equivalent to PG 70-16,PG70-10 and PG76-10 while asphalt with
penetration grade 60-70 is equivalent to PG 64-10.
21
Saleh et al. (2010) conducted study aim to generate an asphalt performance grading map
for Egypt based on the SUPERPAVE and LTPP programs. 60 weather stations data and
air temperatures (maximum and minimum) recorded by Egyptian Meteorological
Authority (EMA) collected covered of minimum 30 years of continuous temperature
recording. the study concluded that four types of asphalt binder performance grades (at
98% reliability) are recommended for use in Egypt. The grades were PG 70-10, 76-10,
76-16 & 76-28. as shown in Figure (3.3).
Figure 3.3: Temperature Zoning for PG System in Egypt (Saleh et al. , 2010).
Ghuzlan and Al-khateeb(2011) performed study to selection and verification of

performance grading for asphalt binders produced in Jordan. The research concluded
that There are two main climatic zones in Jordan: the first zone includes the desert area
in the east, the Ghore area in the west and the Aqaba area which needs binder PG 70-10,
22
whereas the remaining areas of Jordan are suitable for binder PG 64-10.See Figure
(3.4).
Figure 3.4: Binder PG Contour for Jordan (Ghuzlan and Al-khateeb,2011).

Mirza et al.(2011) Performed study to divide Pakistan into temperature zones according
to the PG requirements developed under SHRP, SHRP prediction models for high and
low temperatures were selected for the development of PG zones for Pakistan, the study
concluded that Pakistan is divided into six temperatures zones requiring PG 70-10 as the
most important binder that covers more than 70 percent of the area. & PG 70-10 is not
produced by any of the two refineries in Pakistan.See Figure (3.5).
Figure 3.5: Temperature Zoning for PG System in Pakistan (Mirza et al. , 2011).
23
3.1.3 Summary
This part focused on the review of previous studies about determine performance grade
PG according to SUPERPAVE system , Table (3.1) below is summarized to what had
been done in other countries through studies, researches that related in applications of
SUPERPAVE System according to local conditions at each region.
It was noticed that, the first study was done in gulf countries by Al-Abdul Wahhab et al.
(1997) , the study recommended five performance-graded binder zones ranging from
PG58-10 to PG76-10 for the entire Gulf area. In Jordan Asi (2007) conducted study in
Jordan and recommended to divided region into three PG zones respectively PG 64-
10,PG 64-16 and PG 70-10, in another study was done in Jordan by Ghuzlan and Al-
Khateeb (2011) to determine PG ,the study recommended to divided region into two
zones respectively PG 64-10 and PG 70-10.
Hassan et al. (2007) was conducted study in Oman and recommended four zones and
suggested performance grades PG .
in West Bank Abdullah (2008) conducted study about application of SUPERPAVE
system based on local conditions and recommended to divided the region into two zones
respectively PG 64-10 and PG 70-10.
Al-Jumaily (2010) In Iraq and Saleh et al. (2011) in Egypt , two studies were
performed related in applications of SUPERPAVE system, the results of these studies
were divided each region into four zones as shown in table (3.1).
Finally Mirza et al. (2011) conducted study in Pakistan , results of their study refer to
divided the country to six performance-graded binder zones as shown in table (3.1)
below.
the Gaza Strip, like many parts of the world possesses a different environment from that
of North America. The main objective of this study is to develop the asphalt binder
performance grades fitting with the Gaza Strip environmental conditions.
24
Table 3.1: Summary of SUPERPAVE studies in different countries
Number. of
Year of Suggested Performance
NO. Country/Region Suggested
Study Grade (PG)
Zones
ranging from PG58-10 to
1 Gulf Countries 1996 5
PG76-10
PG 64-10, PG 64-16,
2 Jordan 2007 3
PG 70-10
3 Sudan 2007 2 PG 70-10 , PG 64-10
PG 52,58,64,70 TO
4 Oman 2008 4
PG -10,-16
West Bank.
5 2008 2 PG 70-10 , PG 64-10
Palestine
PG 70-16 , PG 70-10
6 Iraq 2010 4
PG 76-10 , PG 64-10
PG 70-10 , PG 76-10
7 Egypt 2010 4
PG 76-16 , PG 76-28
8 Jordan 2011 2 PG 70-10 , PG 64-10
PG (64,70,76)-10
9 Pakistan 2011 6
PG (58,64) -16 PG 58-22
3.2 Comparison Between SUPERPAVE Mix Design and Marshall Mix Design
3.2.1 Introduction
A design procedure for asphalt mixtures generally involves (1) preparing and
compacting the asphalt mixtures in the laboratory to simulate the field condition, (2)
characterizing the laboratory compacted specimens, and (3) determining the optimum
mix design based on the properties of the tested specimens and the set criteria for these
properties. Different design methods generally differ from one another by (1) the
equipment and method used to prepare and compact the asphalt mixtures, (2) the
properties of the compacted specimens to be measured, and (3) the criteria used for
selecting acceptable and optimum mix designs.
25
3.2.2 Studies in Other Countries
Several research studies have been conducted to compare SUPERPAVE and Marshall
Asphalt mixtures in terms of volumetric properties and performance. In the following
paragraphs, a summary of results for previous studies is presented.
Habib et al. (1998) Compared the SUPERPAVE and Marshall mix designs for low-
volume roads and paved shoulders in term of volumetric properties; the project site was
Kansas Route 177 in northeast Kansas. Three different locally available aggregates were
selected: crushed limestone and coarse and fine river sands. For material selection, three
different aggregates were combined to design the aggregate structure in this study. It
was found in their study that the SUPERPAVE mix design for low-volume
roads/shoulders resulted in lower estimated asphalt content compared to the Marshall
method, and therefore, SUPERPAVE mixtures will be more economical than Marshall
mixtures for these applications due to the lower asphalt content.
Musselman (1998) presented Floridas early experience about the SUPERPAVE field
implementation in the state of Florida. In their study, a review of the major
SUPERPAVE projects in different counties of Florida was conducted. It was concluded
in the study that compaction of coarse-graded SUPERPAVE mixes is (as expected)
significantly more difficult than the compaction of fine-graded Marshall Mixes. It was
also found that coarse-graded SUPERPAVE mixes required a higher level of density to
reduce the water permeability to a level that was comparable with existing fine-graded
Marshall Pavements. This level appeared to equate to an in-place air void content of 6 -
7 percent. This was notably lower than that required for existing Marshall mixes. Based
on the findings of this study, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) made
several changes to the existing SUPERPAVE specifications.
Xie and Watson (2004) compacted five aggregates in three Nominal Maximum
Aggregate Size (NMAS) by Marshall Hammer and SUPERPAVE Gyratory Compactor
(SGC). The relationship between aggregate breakdown and influencing factors
including compaction effort, Los Angeles (LA) abrasion, and flat and elongated (F and
E) particles content were investigated. The influence of aggregate breakdown on
volumetric properties was also investigated. The aggregate breakdown by the Marshall
hammer was found to be significantly higher than the breakdown by the SGC. LA
abrasion was found to have a strong relationship with aggregate breakdown, and also
26
directly related to the Voids in Mineral Aggregate (VMA) of stone matrix asphalt
(SMA) mixtures. F and E content had a moderate relationship with aggregate
breakdown, but had relatively little effect on VMA.
Swami et al.(2004) compared the design of asphalt concrete by SUPERPAVE and
Marshall method of mix design for Indian conditions and studied the properties of
SUPERPAVE mixes at different angles and different numbers of gyrations. They found
that SUPERPAVE mixes fulfilled all the criteria for easy and good construction at
lesser binder content than the Marshall mixes (4.4 percent versus 5.3 percent). It was
also found that SUPERPAVE mixes are least affected by water. Study recommended
that Marshall Mix design should be replaced by SUPERPAVE mix design for Indian
national highways
Asi (2007) conducted a study to find the adoptability of SUPERPAVE mixtures
specifications to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan specific materials, traffic, and
environmental conditions. A comparison study was carried out to use local materials to
design the asphalt mixtures using both Marshall and SUPERPAVE mixtures. Design
procedures in addition to performance of both mixtures were evaluated. One of the
conclusions of the study was that the SUPERPAVE design procedure provided lower
asphalt content than that predicted by Marshall design procedure.
Khan and kamal (2008) investigated SUPERPAVE technology adoption for the design
of flexible pavements in Pakistan. The study was done by comparing SUPERPAVE and
Marshall Methods of design using local materials. In order to evaluate mixes, they were
subjected to indirect tensile strength, creep performance, and moisture sensitivity. The
SUPERPAVE mix showed better results compared to the studied properties of asphalt.
Guidelines for implementing the SUPERPAVE mix design procedure in Pakistan have
been proposed.
Ksaibati and Stephen (1998)conducted a study in order to compare the SUPERPAVE
mix design to the Marshall Mix design on a typical aggregate source in Wyoming
(USA). The comparison concentrated on the resistance to rutting and low-temperature
cracking of asphalt mixes prepared using the two design methods. The study concluded
that the aggregate gradation used in the Marshall Mix design is unacceptable for use in
the SUPERPAVE mix design. The asphalt cement used in the Marshall Mix design was
determined to be an acceptable grade for use in the SUPERPAVE mix design.
27
Al-Khateeb et al. (2010)compared the SUPERPAVE asphalt mixture design procedures
with the Marshall asphalt mixture design method. The comparison was based on several
issues including evaluation of materials prior to mixture design, the design asphalt
content, and the relationship between mixture design and pavement performance.
Results of the study showed that the design asphalt content (DAC) obtained using the
SUPERPAVE mixture design procedure was 5.4 percent and the optimum asphalt
content (OAC) obtained using the Marshall mixture design method was 5.6 percent
when taking the optimum at 4.0-percent air voids; however, when taking the OAC as
the average of: the asphalt content at the maximum stability, the asphalt content at the
maximum unit weight, and the asphalt content at 4.0-percent air voids, the OAC was
determined as 5.4 percent, which was similar to the DAC obtained using the
SUPERPAVE mixture design procedure. In the former case, the design asphalt content
from the SUPERPAVE design procedure was lower than that obtained from the
Marshall design method. Consequently, asphalt mixtures designed using the
SUPERPAVE design procedures would be less rutting susceptible than Marshall
mixtures and probably have less bleeding.
Tie (2005) conducted study include presenting the fundamental principles and practice
of four commonly used asphalt mixture design procedures in the United States. The
study covered four methods include Marshall and SUPERPAVE design methods.
where Emphasis was placed on comparing them with regards to the three main
elements of mix design procedures, namely (1) the method for preparation and
compaction of the asphalt mixtures, (2) the properties of the compacted specimens to be
measured, and (3) the criteria used for selecting acceptable and optimum mix designs.
the conclusion of the study was comparing of two method, and presented the general
methodologies of different mix design methods for HMA mixtures and determine
Similarities and differences ,and It can be shown in detailed paragraphs in appendix (c)
3.2.3 Summary
the conclusion in several researches and studies are the different results found in the
previous literature. For instance, Habib et al. (1998) found in their study that
SUPERPAVE mix design for low-volume roads/shoulders resulted in lower estimated
asphalt content compared to the Marshall method. Swami et al. (2004) found in their
study that SUPERPAVE mixes fulfilled all the criteria for easy and good construction at
28
lesser binder content than the Marshall mixes (4.4 percent versus 5.3 percent). In
addition, Asi (2007) concluded that the SUPERPAVE design procedure provided lower
asphalt content than that predicted by Marshall design procedure. On the other hand
Ghuzlan1and Al-Khateeb et al. (2010) found in their study that the asphalt contents of
SUPERPAVE mix designs were higher than those of the Marshall mix design for the
same traffic level.
Finally Tie (2005) conducted study include presenting the fundamental principles and
practice for SUPERPAVE and Marshall include all differences and similarities.
From the previous studies it noted that the SUPERPAVE method was different about
Marshall according to main elements related to preparation ,compaction ,prosperities
and criteria. Table(3.2) below shows a comparison between Marshall and SUPERPAVE
design methods.
Table 3.2: Comparison between Marshall and SUPERPAVE design methods

(Baraily et al. ,2011)
Parameter SUPERPAVE Marshall
Performance based binder (For

Selection of Binder Penetration grade binder
extreme weather condition)
Coarse aggregate with more Aggregate fracture faces not

Selection of Aggregate
fractured faces defined
Compaction method Gyratory compactor Marshal compactor
Mix design method As per SP - 2 As per MS 2
0.45 Power graph with restricted 0.45 power graph but no

Gradation
zone restricted zone.
Information is directly displayed on

Volumetric Analysis Need separate calculation
compactor's screen
Rutting Less rutting effect More rutting tendency
During laboratory compaction

During laboratory compaction no
Noise pollution noise pollution due to blows of
any noise
Marshall hammer
29
Parameter SUPERPAVE Marshall
More moisture susceptible
Moisture Less moisture susceptibility which
stripping and revering failure
Susceptibility reduce stripping and raveling failure
may develop earlier
Resistant to effects of water Less resistance of effects of
Water Penetration
penetration water penetration
Dust Binder Ratio Defined Not defined
3.3 Development of Asphalt Pavement Temperature Models
3.3.1 Introduction
Asphalt pavements form an integral part of any transportation system. The structural
capacity of the hot mix asphalt concrete layers depends on many factors including its
temperature. Moreover, temperature can be a major contributor to several types of
distresses such as permanent deformation or rutting (typically associated with high
temperature environments), bleeding, and thermal cracking(associated with low
temperature environments).Therefore, temperature is a significant factor that affects the
performance and life span of a pavement(Hassan et al. ,2004)
3.3.2 Studies and Researches

The majority of previously published research on pavement temperature prediction has
consisted of predicting the annual maximum or minimum pavement temperature so as
to recommend a suitable asphalt binder performance grade. To determine the pavement
temperature profile, the influence of ambient temperature and seasonal changes must be
understood such that the effects of heating and cooling trends within the pavement
structure can be quantified (Diefenderfer et al.,2002)
Many research studies on temperature distribution in flexible and rigid pavements have
been carried out, in different climatic areas of the world. These studies were either of
manifestations of temperature variations or attempts to incorporate temperature effects
in pavement analysis and design. The Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP), for
example, used the average of consecutive seven-day maximum and minimum pavement
30
temperatures in the application of new asphalt performance-based specifications
FHWA(1994)
The Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) established the Long Term
Pavement Monitoring Program (LTPP) program in 1987 to support a broad range of
pavement performance analyses leading to improved engineering tools to design,
construct, and manage pavements (Diefenderfer et al., 2002).
The Seasonal Monitoring Program (SMP) was established as an element of LTPP in
1991 to measure and evaluate the effects of temperature and moisture variations on
pavement performance and validate the available models (Mohesni ,1998).
From the initial SHRP testing and SMP data, several pavement temperature models
were developed to assist in the proper selection of the asphalt binder performance grade
(Diefenderfer, et al. 2002) conducted study to develop models that considered the daily
solar radiation or latitude , these models can be applied to any location. The suggested
location independent model was successfully validated utilizing data from the Virginia
Smart Road and two LTPP-SMP sites.
Al-Abdul Wahhab and Balghunaim (1994) conducted a study in two regions in Saudi
Arabia to manually measure pavement temperatures in different pavement sections. The
study concluded that the extreme pavement temperatures in arid environment ranged
between 3 and 72C, while in coastal areas, the temperature ranged from 4 to 65C.
In another study, Al-Abdul Wahhab et al. (1997) recommended five performance
graded binder zones for the whole Gulf area. The study also proposed modification of
the currently used binders to suite the proposed grades.
Hassan et al. (2004) conducted a study to develop models to predict high and low
asphalt pavement temperatures in Oman. A pavement monitoring station was set-up to
monitor air, pavement temperatures and solar radiation. Data were collected for 445
days. Daily minimum and maximum temperatures were recorded. A regression analysis
was used to develop the low pavement temperature model. A stepwise regression was
used to develop high temperature models using air temperature, solar radiation, and
duration of solar radiation as independent variables. The developed models were
compared with the SHRP and LTPP models. The SHRP and LTPP models were found
to be more conservative than the developed models, which are more suitable for
predicting pavement temperatures in Oman, and more generally in the Gulf region.
31
Ramadhan and Wahhab (1997) conducted study to develop procedures for design and
analysis that account for temperature considerations. Two field experiments were
carried out for the monitoring of temperature variations of asphalt concrete and Portland
cement concrete pavements at King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals
(KFUPM) in Dhahran, Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. A temperature data base was
developed and used to generate regression models for predicting temperatures flexible
pavements, and temperature differentials in rigid pavements, from measured air
temperatures. These models are essential for pavement design and analysis.
Adwan (2013), conducted study to development of model reflecting the relation
between air temperature and asphalt layers temperature in the Gaza strip, in the study
the distribution of pavement temperature at three depth 2cm,5.5cm and 7cm was
determined using the temperature data instruments, surface temperature was found less
than the temperatures in all three depths mentioned above. Using correlation and
regression method. relationship for determining the pavement temperature at different
specific depths and air temperature was suggested.
3.3.3 Summary
After reviewing the previous researches and studies to developing models that connect
between air temperature and pavement temperature, there were different models which
can predict asphalt temperature depend on specific factors such as geographic area, the
environmental and climatic conditions. These factors differ from country to another but
it is important to know SHRP is the most important model in the world because these
models considered the daily solar radiation or latitude and can be applied to any
location. there were important study conducted by Adwan(2013) to development model
reflecting the relation between air temperature and pavement temperature in the Gaza
strip. it is important to continue the studies to develop and construct of standards
suitable for Gaza strip.
the Gaza strip is the same with another countries in needed to determine performance
grade using SHRP model depend on local conditions, especially more of region has
started the studying of application for the system and taking into account all criteria
that related to this method. In this research, studying for SUPERPAVE system was
carried out. and performance grade was determined based on Gaza strip conditions.
32
Chapter 4
Results and Analysis
4.1 Introduction
In this chapter, all the data which was obtained from the general directorate of
meteorology at ministry of transport will be analyzed to determine pavement design
temperature for the Gaza Strip.
4.2 Pavement temperature
There are two models to predict the high and low pavement temperature based upon the
air temperature data was established during the strategic highway research program
(SHRP). However later SHRP established the long term pavement performance (LTPP)
program to support abroad range of pavement performance analysis leading to improved
engineering tools to design, construct and manage pavement.
4.3 SHRP Model
The SUPERPAVE protocol for selecting a PG binder grade is the determination of the
pavement design temperatures for the proposed construction site based on the models
which will be discussed during this chapter.
A temperature database was developed by SHRP based on data from over 7500 weather
stations. This database will calculate the high and low pavement temperature for any
given project location based on the flowing relationship(Asphalt Institute, 2001).
4.3.1 SHRP High-Temperature Model

T20mm = (Tair - 0.00618 Lat2 + 0.2289 Lat + 42.2)(0.9545) - 17.78 . (4.1)
Where:
T20mm= High pavement design temperature at a depth of 20 mm.
Tair= Seven-day average high air temperature (oC)
Lat= The projects location in degrees latitude.
33
4.3.2 SHRP Low-Temperature Model
T= Tair+0.051d+0.000063d2 .. (4.2)
Where:
Tair = average of minimum air temperature
d= pavement depth in mm
4.4 Long Term Pavement Performance Program (LTPP)

Long Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) has developed an relationship for predicting
pavement temperatures(LTPP,1998), The LTPP relationship is as follows (Mohseni, A.
,1998).
4.4.1 LTPP High-Temperature Model with Reliability

T(pav) = 54.32+0.78 T(air) -0.0025 -15.14 + Z (9 +0.61 air).. (4.3)
where:
T(pav) = High pavement temperature below the surface, C
T(air) = Seven-day average high air temperature, C
Lat = Latitude of the project location, degrees
H = Depth of pavement surface, mm
air = Standard deviation of the high 7-day mean air temperature.
Z = From the standard normal distribution table, Z =2.055 for 98% reliability.
4.4.2 LTPP Low-Temperature Model with Reliability

T(pav) = 1.56+0.72 T(air) -0.004 +6.26 -Z (4.4 +0.52 air) .. (4.4)
where:
T(pav) = Low pavement temperature below the surface, C
T(air) = Low air temperature, C
air = Standard deviation of the mean low air temperature.
Z = From the standard normal distribution table, Z =2.055 for 98% reliability
Note: The low pavement design temperature can be selected as either the low air-temperature,
which is rather conservative, or can be determine from the above equation.
34
4.5 Performance Grade Selection Procedure
In order to achieve the objective of the study the procedure summarized in Figure (1.1)
was applied. This procedure consisted of three main steps. The first step was collecting
the required climatic data. The second step was statistical analysis of these data. Finally
the third one was the application of appropriate models to get the final performance
grades. Two models were used in this research to predict pavement temperatures from
air temperatures. LTPP model was selected to predict low pavement temperature and
consequently low PG grade. As for the high pavement temperature prediction, both
LTPP and the SHRP model were used to select the high PG grade.
4.6 Temperature Data Base
In this study, climatic zones have been developed based on temperature data for the
Gaza Strip region in Palestine for the last 31 years. the Gaza Strip is a narrow strip of
land on the Mediterranean coast. It borders the occupied lands (Green Line) to the east
and north and Egypt to the south. it is located in the Middle East region , It is
approximately 41 kilometers long, and between 6 and 12 kilometers wide, with a total
area of 360 square kilometers. the Gaza Strips topography is mostly flat to rolling,
sand- and dune-covered coastal plain, the Gaza Strip has a temperate climate, There are
two main seasons in the Gaza Strip: the summer season, which is hot and dry, and the
wet season which is cool to cold and rainy. The average annual rainfall varies from 470
mm/year in the North to 242 mm/year in the South. The coldest month in the Gaza Strip
is January, and the hottest month is August.
Gaza weather station is located in the southeastern corner of the Mediterranean basin
(See Figure 4.1). Gaza weather station located on the coastal plain, It is about 50 m
from the shoreline and with 13 m above the sea level. it is located in the region between
latitude 31o30N and longitude 34o 27E (Sharon and Ronberg, 1987).
35
Figure 4.1: Location map of Gaza Strip, Palestine (Zur Institute , 2013).
4.6.1 Climatic Data Collection
In order to establish the performance Grade(PG) for temperature conditions inthe Gaza
Strip, the air temperature data were collected from Gaza weather station for 31years.
The station covered almost all geographical area of the Gaza Strip(Gen. Direct. of
Meteorology, 2012).
For Gaza weather station the following elements were extracted from source database to
be used as the raw data.
TMAX: Daily maximum temperature determined as the maximum temperature reading

for 24 hours. Unit measurement was whole degrees centigrade.
TMIN: Daily minimum temperature determined as the minimum temperature reading

for24 hours. Unit measurement was whole degrees centigrade.
LATITUDE: the latitude in degrees for Gaza weather station.
36
4.6.2 Low air Temperature
The lowest air temperature over the year was selected for each year of the past 31
years(from 1976 to 2006) for selected station.
4.6.3 High air Temperature
The highest air temperature over the year was selected for each year of the past 31
years, (from 1976 to 2006) to calculate the high pavement temperature using the two
models.
This parameter was calculated from the highest7-days moving average of high air
temperatures.
The data which was obtained from general directorate of meteorology for the Gaza Strip
represent the air temperature data for 31 years, Tables(4.1)and(4.2) show the high and
low temperature data for each month for the period from 1976 to 2006respectively.
Table 4.1: Highest temperature day for each month per year in the Gaza
StripoC(Gen. Direct. of Meteorology, 2012)
MONTH
Year JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEB OCT NOV DEC
1976 28 23.7 28 40 32.5 29.2 30 30.6 30.5 35.5 33.5 23.8

1977 20.4 29.4 29 36 36.5 35.6 31 31.5 30.4 28.7 31.2 23.4
1978 24.5 31.5 32.5 34 40.4 34.4 30.4 29 33.5 31.3 27 23.4
1979 25 32 28 38.6 28.7 32.6 29.8 30.3 28.7 35.3 34.4 22.1
1980 20 21.9 31.5 38.5 42.2 28.7 31.2 30.4 28.8 28.7 26 31.5
1981 21.4 25.7 35.6 31.5 33.5 30.8 29.7 30 29.6 27.8 26.4 24
1982 23 23.5 27.2 36 36.6 29.6 29.4 29.5 29.8 33.5 30.6 23.6
1983 18 20.5 32 30.4 29.5 29 32.2 30.5 29.5 31.8 28.8 27
1984 20 25 34.8 34.3 40 33.5 31 29 32.7 29.3 27 23
1985 28.2 26.7 27.3 33.2 40.2 37.6 29.4 31 29.2 28 29.6 23.5
1986 23.7 24 25.2 34.8 25.8 32.3 30.8 31 30.8 27.2 25.5 23.5
1987 28.8 29.5 28.6 26.5 38.5 30.8 30.8 31.6 30.5 29 30.2 25.2
1988 23.7 25 27.2 36.8 43 33.7 31.2 31 30 27.8 27.8 26.5
1989 17.5 28.7 30.4 30.5 28.4 32.8 29.5 30.5 30 30.5 30 25.2
1990 22 22.5 24.6 35 30.5 34.5 29.8 29.6 34.6 32.5 28.6 30.5
1991 21.6 29.8 27.8 37.3 31.3 28.4 29.4 30 28.5 30 26 21.5
1992 21 24.5 25 37.7 35 33.2 30.4 30.8 31.8 29 33.5 24.6
1993 19.3 27 31 39.5 36.5 40 30.8 31 30.2 33.5 26.3 23
1994 25 26 21.8 41.2 32.8 28.8 30.4 30.7 32.6 37.4 33.8 26
37
MONTH
1995 20.0 19.6 26.2 32.0 29.2 36.0 36.0 31.0 30.4 30.0 29.7 0.0
1996 23.6 25.8 31.4 30.4 36 29.2 31.5 30.6 33.4 35.8 30.2 25.5
1997 23.8 20 28.7 37.5 28.2 33 33.5 30.2 31.4 29.4 28.6 22.8
1998 23.5 26.7 28.5 40.4 36.8 29.8 31.4 33.2 32 39 27.5 31.4
1999 22.9 30 30.6 30 28.6 29.8 31.2 31.5 31 29.6 28.4 24.4
2000 21.0 19.6 20.8 36.8 29.2 29.4 32.2 31.2 31.2 29.6 30.2 24.2
2001 23.2 23.3 36.2 37.5 37.4 28.3 30.3 32 32.4 28.4 29.2 22.8
2002 19.0 26.8 35.4 34.8 30.8 30.4 31.6 32.9 35.2 28.2 28.8 24.4
2003 16.1 11.9 12.6 17.1 21.6 24.2 28.1 28.2 26.0 22.7 20.2 15.0
2004 22.1 33.0 37.4 28.5 39.4 35.4 31.6 30.3 29.8 27.9 29.7 25.2
2005 28.8 32.0 35.6 41.2 43.0 40.0 36.0 33.2 34.6 39.0 34.4 31.5
2006 25.7 29.4 30.3 35.4 30.5 30.3 30.6 32.7 32.5 32.2 28.0 24.1
Table 4.2: Lowest temperature day for each month per year in the Gaza Strip
C(Gen. Direct. of Meteorology, 2012)
Month
1976 5.4 4.0 3.6 11.0 14.0 16.0 19.7 19.4 16.2 15.5 11.0 9.0
1977 5.6 8.0 6.3 10.6 13.4 17.0 20.3 21.2 18.9 12.2 11.0 4.5
1978 6.5 8.2 9.2 10.2 13.2 16.5 19.5 19.5 18.5 15.0 7.8 8.5
1979 6.2 8.0 8.6 11.8 13.5 18.0 19.5 19.7 19.4 16.7 13.2 8.0
1980 4.4 6.0 6.4 9.5 12.5 16.0 20.0 20.0 9.2 15.6 11.0 7.8
1981 5.0 6.7 7.5 8.0 13.6 16.4 20.0 20.6 17.2 17.5 9.0 9.3
1982 5.0 5.7 7.5 12.0 12.8 17.5 20.0 21.0 19.5 15.6 9.2 5.0
1983 5.2 5.8 7.0 9.5 13.0 17.0 20.0 20.8 18.5 14.5 12.5 8.0
1984 8.2 8.0 8.6 10.5 13.5 17.5 19.0 19.0 18.5 15.0 12.4 5.2
1985 7.2 7.0 5.2 11.2 11.4 17.8 20.0 21.5 19.7 13.3 12.5 7.1
1986 7.2 8.2 10.0 13.0 13.4 14.5 19.5 21.0 21.0 17.0 8.7 7.2
1987 6.0 8.5 7.0 10.3 12.4 16.4 20.5 21.5 20.4 15.0 13.0 8.0
1988 8.0 7.0 8.5 10.5 15.0 17.8 22.4 21.0 20.2 15.4 7.5 7.5
1989 3.5 2.5 8.6 11.5 14.8 18.2 20.0 21.6 19.5 15.1 11.0 9.2
1990 6.0 7.0 8.4 7.4 12.6 15.8 20.8 21.4 20.2 16.5 14.5 8.5
1991 6.0 7.7 10.0 10.5 13.4 16.6 20.8 21.6 19.6 16.0 12.0 7.0
1992 4.0 3.6 7.0 11.0 14.0 17.2 20.2 21.8 18.6 22.5 8.0 6.4
1993 4.4 4.2 7.5 10.0 14.0 17.5 20.8 22.0 19.4 18.2 9.8 8.0
1994 9.0 8.5 9.5 11.0 14.4 18.8 20.6 21.0 22.0 18.2 10.6 6.5
1995 7.0 8.5 9.8 9.5 13.4 18.6 22.0 22.5 21.0 16.8 10.0 **
1996 7.5 9.5 8.2 11.8 16.5 18.2 22.3 22.0 20.5 14.0 14.2 10.8
1997 8.5 4.9 8.0 8.5 14.5 18.0 22.0 21.5 19.4 16.0 14.5 9.5
1998 5.0 8.6 8.0 10.5 15.2 19.0 20.0 22.3 21.2 17.0 14.8 9.6
38
Month
1999 9.0 8.3 11.0 11.6 16.6 18.8 22.0 23.0 21.5 18.6 9.6 8.8
2000 4.0 8.6 9.4 14.0 14.2 19.6 22.6 22.6 20.0 14.2 13.0 10.4
2001 7.2 8.5 12.0 19.4 21.0 19.2 21.6 23.1 20.9 15.9 11.1 8.8
2002 4.5 8.9 11.0 12.0 15.4 18.8 21.8 22.7 20.6 18.0 14.0 9.8
2003 9.7 6.3 8.1 11.5 16.5 19.6 22.1 22.9 20.3 16.5 13.1 8.5
2004 8.3 8.1 8.9 11.4 14.8 17.5 21.9 21.3 21.0 19.5 10.0 7.2
2005 8.3 7.8 10.5 11.4 14.0 19.7 22.1 23.2 21.1 15.9 12.4 9.6
2006 8.6 9.7 10.1 13.6 15.7 19.6 22.3 22.9 21.2 16.5 12.6 7.74
Tables (4.3) and (4.4) show the yearly high and low air temperature values based on
hottest seven-day period for each year and the minimum temperature for the same
period respectively
39
Table 4.3: Hottest seven days for each year in the Gaza Strip C(Gen. Direct. of
Meteorology, 2012)
Day
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Year
1976 40 37.8 35.5 35 32.5 32.3 32
1977 36.5 36 35.6 34 33.6 31.5 31.2
1978 40.4 34.4 34 33.5 32.5 32.4 31.5
1979 38.6 37.8 37.5 36.6 35.3 34.4 32.6
1980 42.2 39.4 38.5 36.5 34.5 31.5 31.2
1981 35.6 33.5 31.5 30.8 30.7 30.6 30.4
1982 36.6 36 34 33.5 33 31.9 31
1983 32.2 32 31.8 30.5 30.4 30 29.5
1984 40 36 35 34.8 34.3 33.5 32.8
1985 40.2 37.6 36 33.2 31.3 31 30.8
1986 34.8 32.3 31.2 31 30.8 30.5 30.4
1987 38.5 36 35 31.6 31.2 31 30.8
1988 43 36.8 35.2 33.7 31.2 31 30.8
1989 32.8 30.5 30.4 30.2 29.6 29.5 29.4
1990 35 34.6 34.5 32.5 31.6 30.5 30
1991 37.3 37.2 31.6 31.3 31 30 29.8
1992 37.7 35 33.5 33.2 32.8 31.8 31.5
1993 40 39.5 36.5 35.5 33.5 32 31.5
1994 41.2 40 39.8 37.4 36.7 36.4 36
1995 36 34.8 32.9 32 31 30.9 30.8
1996 36 35.8 34 33.5 33.4 33 32.8
1997 37.5 33.5 33 32.2 31.5 31.4 31.2
1998 40.4 39 37.4 36.8 36 35 34.5
1999 31.5 31.4 31.2 31 30.8 30.6 30.5
2000 36.8 32.6 32.2 31.4 31.2 31 30.8
2001 37.5 37.4 36.2 35 32.4 32 31.8
2002 35.44 35.2 34.78 33.69 33.31 32.91 31.56
2003 41.1 40.19 38.45 36.19 33.16 31.78 31.22
2004 39.4 37.56 37.42 35.41 34.26 33.81 33.18
2005 33.81 33.08 31.86 31.13 31.02 31.01 30.98
2006 35.43 32.69 32.5 32.48 32.21 31.96 31.81
40
Table 4.4: Minimum temperature for each year in the Gaza Strip C(Gen. Direct. of
Meteorology, 2012)
Year 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982
Min. Temp. 3.6 4.5 6.5 6.2 4.4 5 5
Year 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
Min. Temp. 5.2 5.2 5.2 7.2 6 7 2.5
Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
Min. Temp. 6 6 3.6 4.2 6.5 7 7.5
Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Min. Temp. 5 5 8.3 4 7.2 4.5 6.254
Year 2004 2005 2006
Min. Temp. 7.16 7.76 7.74
4.7 Temperature Data Analysis

From the air temperature data, pavement temperatures are predicted using the SHRP
and LTPP approaches, comparison of the predicted pavement temperatures from two
models is presented in Table (4.6). The results show the statistical comparison for low
and high pavement temperature data at 50% & 98% level of reliability for temperature
data.
4.7.1 Data Statistical Analysis

The mean and standard deviation for each of the yearly lowest air temperature, highest
yearly 7-days temperature were calculated.
The yearly high and low temperature data were then used for the computation of
average and standard deviation as follows:
Table 4.5: Calculation of Average and Standard deviation based on max and min
temperature
Seven-day maximum average air
The minimum air temperature for 31 years
temperature for 31 years
The average of maximum The average of minimum
33.83 5.71
air temperature air temperature
standard deviation
2.97 standard deviation 1.44
** See the example below
41
From table (4.5) it is noticeable that the data was scattered as the standard deviation of
the maximum temperature was 2.97,and for minimum temperatures it was 1.44.
The average seven-day maximum temperature for that period was 33.83 and the lowest
temperature for the same period was 5.71.
The following is mathematical calculations high and low pavement temperature using
SHRP and LTPP models. for 98 percent reliability
SHRP High-Temperature Model
T20mm = (Tair - 0.00618 Lat2 + 0.2289 Lat + 42.2)(0.9545) - 17.78

where:
Tair= 33.83oC (seven-day average high air temperature)
Lat= 31.3
There is a 2 percent chance that the seven-day maximum will exceed (33.83+ 2 *2.97) oC
(maximum air temperature for 98 percent reliability is 39.93oC).
T20mm = (39.93 - 0.00618 x 31.32 + 0.2289 x 31.3 + 42.2)(0.9545) - 17.78 = 61.68
1. SHRP Low-Temperature Model

T = Tair + 0.051d + 0.000063d2
Where:
Tair = 5.71 (average of minimum air temperature)
d = 0 (pavement depth in mm). it equals "Zero" as we calculate at the surface of the pavement so
that the depth is 0.
Lat= 31.3
There is a 2 percent chance that the average of minimum air temperature will decreased
(5.71- 2 *1.44) oC (average of minimum air temperature for 98 percent reliability is 2.75oC).
T = Tair + 0.051d + 0.000063d2 = 2.75 + 0 + 0 = 2.75
2. Long Term Pavement Performance Program (LTPP)
pavement temperatures, The LTPP relationship is as follows:
42
2.1 LTPP High-Temperature Model with Reliability
T(pav) = 54.32+0.78 T(air) -0.0025 Lat -15.14 log10(H + 25)+ z (9 +0.61 air)
where:
T(air) = 33.83oC (seven-day average high air temperature, C)
Lat = 31.3 (Latitude of the section, degrees.)
H = 0 (Depth below surface, Assumed to be zero for example)
air = 2.97 (Standard deviation of the high 7-day mean air temperature, C)
: Average of the highest seven days temperature (See table 4.5) = 33.83
n: Number of sample = 31 x 7 = 217.
Z = From the standard normal distribution table, Z=2.055 for 98% reliability and 0 for
50% Reliability.
T(pav)=54.32+0.78 x 33.83 -0.0025 x 31.3 -15.14 log10(0 + 25)+ 2.055 (9 +0.61x 2.97) =
61.02
2.2 LTPP Low-Temperature Model with Reliability
T(pav) = 1.56+0.72 T(air) -0.004 Lat +6.26 log10(H + 25)-z (4.4 +0.52 air)
where:
air = Standard deviation of the high 7-day mean air temperature, C
z = From the standard normal distribution table, z=2.055 for 98% reliability
T(pav) = 1.56+0.72 x 5.71-0.004 x31.3 +6.26 log10(0 + 25)-2.055 (4.4 +0.52 x 1.44) = 5.69
43
4.7.2 Converting Air to Pavement Temperatures and Selecting PG
Two models were applied and the high and low pavement temperatures were predicted
at station over a period of 31 years. The final high and low PGs of Gaza weather station
for two different reliabilities were determined as shown in tables(4.6) & (4.7).
From Tables(4.6) and (4.7), No significant difference was observed for high and low
pavement temperature values using the SHRP and LTPP approach at50% & 98% level
of reliability.
The highest pavement temp. at 98% level of reliability was 61.68 for SHRP prediction
and 61.02 for LTPP prediction, but on the other hand, The high pavement temp. at 50%
level of reliability was 55.85 for SHRP and 53.23 for LTPP.
The low pavement temp. at 98% level of reliability was 2.75 for SHRP and 5.69 for
LTPP at 50% reliability, the low pavement temp. was 5.71 for SHRP and 10.5 for
LTPP.
Tables4.6 and 4.7 show the Statistical Comparison for High and Lowpavement temp.
for SHRP & LTPP Models respectively.
Table 4.6: Statistical Comparison for High and Lowpavement temp. for SHRP
Model
SHRP Model
HIGH LOW
SHRP SHRP
Reliability Total Reliability Total
high low
At98% Reliability
61.68 included 61.68 5.71 included 2.75

At 50% Reliability
44
Table 4.7: Statistical Comparison for High and Low pavement temp. for LTPP
Model
LTPP Model
HIGH LOW
LTPP LTPP
Reliability Total Reliability Total
high low
At98% Reliability

At 50% Reliability
53.23 included 53.23 included included 10.5
4.7.3 Pavement high and low temperature

Pavement high and low temperature was estimated using both SHRP and LTPP model.
Table (4.8) shows a summary of high and low air and pavement temperatures used for
estimating the PG grading at 50% and 98% level of reliability
Table 4.8: High and Low Air and Pavement Temperatures with PG Grading
PG Grade @ 50% PG Grade @ 98%

PG Grade @
Reliability Reliability
% Reliability
SHRP LTPP SHRP LTPP

Model
Model Model Model Model
High 55.85 53.23 61.68 61.02

Low 5.71 10.5 2.75 5.69
PG Grade for SHRP & LTPP PG 58-10 PG 58-10 PG 64-10 PG 64-10
45
4.7.4 The Final Performance Grade (PG)
According to the previous results, the high and low design pavement temperatures were
found using equations for SHRP model and LTPP model.
In both models the lowest air temperature is more than -10. Therefore, the air
temperature could be considered as low design pavement temperature using 98% &
50% reliability.
Referring to table (4.6) and (4.7) and by using high and low design pavement
temperature, the results in table (4.8)show PG grade at 50% reliability was PG 58-10 for
LTPP and SHRP models, on the other hand PG grade at 98% reliability was 64-10 for
LTPP and SHRP models.
Based on the 98%level reliability, the optimum binder for the Gaza Strip is PG 64-10
For detailed calculations.
PG 64 - 10
Figure 4.2: Optimum Binder in the Gaza Strip
4.8 Testing cases of various reliability factors

The concept of reliability can be introduced by adding Z to the equation where Z is
related to the degree of reliability and is the standard deviation of the seven-day
average high temperatures in which case Tair is replaced by (Tair + Z) and (Tair-Z) for
minimum temperature for the SHRP Model, but in the LTPP Model the degree of
reliability Z is included in the equations for high and low temperature. So,the previous
46
results included that applied reliability concept to determine performance grade PG
based on 50% & 98% reliability and performance grade can be determine with different
reliabilities to measure effect of degree of reliability on selection performance grade.
Table 4.9: Z-Values for Degree of Reliability

Reliability Z
90% 1.282
95% 1.655
98% 2.055
99% 2.327
According to the previous table, the high and low design pavement temperatures were
found using equations for SHRP model and LTPP model with different degree of
Reliability. Table (4.10) shows the summary of binder selection results for different reliability.
Table 4.10: Summary of binder selection results for different reliability
90% Reliability 95% Reliability

Model High High
Low Temp Low Temp
Temp. PG Temp. PG
SHRP 59.48 3.86 PG 64 - 10 60.54 3.33 PG 64 - 10
LTPP 58.09 7.50 PG 64 - 10 59.50 6.63 PG 64 - 10
98% Reliability 99% Reliability

Model High High
Low Temp Low Temp
Temp. PG Temp. PG
SHRP 61.68 2.75 PG 64 - 10 62.45 2.36 PG 64 - 10
LTPP 61.02 5.69 PG 64 - 10 62.05 5.06 PG 64 - 10
It is shown in table (4.10) that the performance grade is PG 64-10 and the same for
different degree of reliability 90%, 95%, 98% and 99% for SHRP and the same in LTPP
47
4.9 Adjusting performance (PG) grade for traffic volume and speed
In SUPERPAVE, Traffic is defined as the total anticipated project level equivalent
single axle load (ESALs) on the design lane for period of 20 years. To simplify the
design process, traffic class designations for each ESALs that appears in the
SUPERPAVE system is specified herein, If there is no classification of roads that
included specify the ESALs, we can use the information provided in Table (4.11) to
select the traffic classes needed to establish SUPERPAVE criteria.
Table 4.11: ESAL and Traffic Designation (AASHTO, 2001)

Class Designation ESALs Range Applications
Agricultural roads with light traffic,
VL Very Light Less than 300,000
local and city streets without trucks
L Light 300,000 to 3 million Agriculture, feeder and collector roads
M Medium 3 million to 10 million Main roads and city streets
10 million to 30
H Heavy Highways and expressway
million
Heavily trafficked highways, industrial
VH Very Heavy More than 30 million
areas
4.9.1 Adjusting performance (PG) grade according to standard classification

According to SUPERPAVE criteria, the high temperature grade selection should be
shift to higher grade, the shift is based on traffic volumes and traffic speed. For > 10
million ESALs - increase 1 grade higher; for > 30 million ESALs - increase 2 grades
higher; for slow moving traffic - increase 1 grade higher; for stopped traffic - increase 2
grades higher. So, According to previous studies at numerous sites across the United
States,PG should bump up to higher grade. Table (4.12) indicates the SUPERPAVE
binder selection adjustments for different ESAL and loading rates.
Table 4.12: SUPERPAVE Binder Selection Adjustments (Bumping) for Design

ESALs and Loading Rate (AASHTO, 2001)
High Temperature Grade Increase in 6 C Grade Equivalents
Design ESALs
Heavy Traffic (Trucks and/or Buses) Loading Rate (Speed)
Million
Standing < 20 km/hr Slow 20 to 70 km/hr Standard > 70 km/hr
< 0.3 - - -
0.3 - < 3 2 1 -
3 10 2 1 -
10 - < 30 2 1 -
> 30 2 1 1
48
According to above table, the performance grade should bump up and criteria are
applied to the Gaza Strip region, the following asphalt binders for 98% Reliability in
SHRP Model for each case will be obtained in Table (4.13).
Table 4.13: asphalt binders for 98% Reliability in SHRP Model

Design ESALs
Million
Standing < 20 km/hr Slow 20 to 70 km/hr Standard > 70 km/hr
< 0.3 PG 64-10 PG 64-10 PG 64-10
0.3 - < 3 PG 76-10 PG 70-10 PG 64-10
3 10 PG 76-10 PG 70-10 PG 64-10
10 - < 30 PG 76-10 PG 70-10 PG 64-10
> 30 PG 76-10 PG 70-10 PG 70-10
Table (4.13) illustrates that adjustment the binder PG according to traffic speed and
loading rate, for example ,for standing (<20 km/hr) increased high temperature grade by
2 grade.
4.9.2 Adjusting performance (PG) grade according to selected classification

roads in the Gaza Strip
Networks in the Gaza Strip consist of different classes Abu Isied (2005) classified some
roads according to specific criteria, the main variable considered in the classification in
his study is the ESALs. Table (4.14) herein after indicate different roads classifications
for selected roads at specific area in the Gaza Strip, so that ,we can use the information
provided in table 4.12 to select the traffic classes needed to establish SUPERPAVE
criteria.
49
Table 4.14: Different roads classifications for selected roads at specific area in the
Gaza Strip (Abu Isied, 2005)
Design ESALs
Million
Standing
Slow 20 to Standard
Road < 20
70 km/hr > 70 km/hr
km/hr
Big Mosque, Abu
< 0.3 Khaled Prep. Girl PG 64-10 PG 64-10
PG 64-10
School
Al Kholafa, Khaled El
0.3 - < 3 Hassan, Palestine, Al PG 76-10 PG 70-10
PG 64-10
Quds
Al Nasser,
ShohadaBuriej, Jamal
3 10 A, Salah Eddin Khan., PG 76-10 PG 70-10
PG 64-10
Salah EddinGaza,Al
Rashid Nuseirat, Al Jala
10 - < 30 Al Rashid Gaza PG 76-10 PG 70-10 PG 64-10
> 30 **** PG 76-10 PG 70-10 PG 70-10
The table illustrates that adjustment the binder PG for selected rods according to traffic
speed and loading rate, for example, Big Mosque and Abu Khaled Prep. School with
ESALs<0.3 are very light traffic it is clear from the actual function of these roads as
access to the residents houses or building. but the 2nd group of roads with ESALs from
0.3 to less than 3 are collector road or feeder road with light traffic, according to
SUPERPAVE criteria PG should bump up one grade when speed is slow from 20 to
70km/hr and bump up 2 grade when standing <20km/hr, For the 3rd group with ESALs
from 3 to 10 ,it is main rods and city streets with medium traffic, the PG should bump
up one grade when speed is slow and bump 2 grade when standing and 4 th group with
ESALs from 10 to less than 30 the same in adjustment of PG with 2nd and 3rd group.
Figures 4.3 &4.4 show maps for the Gaza Strip for binder selection according to traffic
volume and speed.
50
PG 70 - 10
Figure 4.3: Optimum Binder in the Gaza Strip (10 to <30 Million) & Slow 20 to 70
km/hr
PG 76 - 10
Figure 4.4: Optimum Binder in the Gaza Strip (10 to <30 Million) & Standing < 20
km/hr
4.10 Comparison between the Gaza Strip and west bank based on asphalt binder
Abdullah (2008) concluded that , the temperature zoning map was developed for west
bank based on SUPERPAVE criteria, the study included all geographic regions in the
51
west bank, and the data which has been received from the general directorate of
meteorology was taken for period ten years or less and some data was not available.
It is noticeable that the high average yearly seven-day temperature was 43.8 in Jericho,
and the lowest temperature was -0.733 in Hebron, but in other regions the high
temperature. is range from 33 to 38 and the lowest temperature is range from 0.5 to 4.5.
So, the most area in the west bank with one binder performance grade with PG 64-10
except Jericho region which requires PG 70-10 and The PG for the Gaza Strip region is
the same with the most area in the west bank .
From Figure (4.2), when the SHRP model is considered, the Gaza Strip and west bank
could be represented by only one zone with PG64-10 with one exception, Jericho with
PG 70-10.
Table (4.15) shows a summary for the results of the analyzed data for each city in the
west bank.
Table 4.15: Summary for the results of the analyzed data for each city in the west
bank(Abdullah ,2008).
Low
Low Des.
Min. High High Des.
Latitude Max. Min. Des. Tepm.
Max. Air Air Des. Pav. Tepm. Co Binder
City in Stand. Stand. Pav. Co
Temp. Tem Tepm. (98% Selection
Degrees Dev. Dev. Tepm. (98%
p. (C) Reliability)
(C) Reliabi
lity)
Ramallah 31.9 33.5 2.408 0.64 1.48 55.44 60.26 0.64 -2.32 PG 64-10
Nablus 32.23 35.3 1.597 1.77 1.71 57.11 60.30 1.77 -1.66 PG 64-10
-
Hebron 31.54 33.2 1.713 0.73 1.39 55.21 58.64 -0.73 -3.52 PG 64-10
3
Tulkarm 32.32 37.1 2.007 4.5 2.14 58.81 62.83 4.50 0.22 PG 64-10
Jenin 32.47 38.6 1.342 2.77 2.39 60.22 62.90 2.77 -2.02 PG 64-10
Maythalon 32.35 37.8 1.373 -0.6 1.67 59.47 62.22 -0.60 -3.94 PG 64-10
Jerico 31.85 43.8 1.488 4.3 1.18 65.28 68.18 4.30 1.93 PG 70-10
52
Table 4.16: Summary for the results of the analyzed data for the Gaza Strip
Max Low Deg.
Latitu High Deg.
Max. . Min. Min. Tepm. Co
de in Tepm. Co Binder
City Air Stan Air Stand. (98%
Degre (98% Selection
Temp. d. Temp. Dev. Reliability
es Reliability)
Dev. )
SHRP Model
31.30 33.83 2.97 5.71 1.44 61.68 2.75

Gaza
PG 64-10
LTPP Model
31.30 33.83 2.97 5.71 1.44 61.02 5.69 PG 64-10
Table (4.17) and Figures (4.5) and (4.6) shows a comparison between west bank cities
and Gaza strip based on asphalt binder
Table 4.17: comparison between west bank cities and Gaza strip based on asphalt
binder
High Deg. Tepm. Co Low Deg. Tepm. Co Binder

City
(98% Reliability) (98% Reliability) Selection
Ramallah 60.26 -2.32 PG 64-10

Nablus 60.3 -1.66 PG 64-10
Hebron 58.64 -3.52 PG 64-10
Tulkarm 62.83 0.22 PG 64-10
Jenin 62.9 -2.02 PG 64-10
Maythalon 62.22 -3.94 PG 64-10
Jerico 68.18 1.93 PG 70-10
Gaza 61.68 2.75 PG 64-10
High values at 98% Reliability

70
68
66
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
Figure 4.5: High values at 98% Reliability
53
Low values at 98% Reliability
4
3
2
1
0
Ramallah
Maythalon
Jenin
Nablus
Hebron
Jerico
Gaza
Tulkarm
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
Figure 4.6: Low values at 98% Reliability
4.11 Local material (Asphalt binder and aggregate) used in the Gaza Strip
The following data shows the specifications of local material (Aggregate and Asphalt
binder) that are used in the Asphalt Job Mix Design in different companies and stated in
some of studies and researches in Gaza Strip.
4.11.1 Asphalt Binder (Bitumen) used in the Gaza Strip
According to studies and researches that were done and Asphalt job mix designs were
conducted for several projects in the Gaza Strip, there were different results for
prosperities of binder, The results of this researches indicate that the properties of
asphalt differ according to the sources, some of used asphalt binder imported from Israel
and another from Egypt. Variety in the sources leads to a difference in the physical
properties and therefore difference in binder grade. in the following paragraph some of
results reviewed.
CCQC Soil & Material testing lab has conducted asphalt mix design upon AL Qaoud
contracting company dated on 04/05/2013,the report represented the tests results of
binder. Table 4.18shows the physical properties for used asphalt binder
54
Table 4.18: physical properties for used asphalt binder (CCQC report,2013)
Test Unit Result Requirements Specification
Penetration 1/10 mm 63 60 70 ASTM D5-06
o
Flash Point C 263.0 Min 230o C ASTM D92-02
Density g/ml 1.00 0.97 1.06 ASTM D3289-03
Solubility % 99.5 Min 99.0% ASTM D 2042-01
The results of report referred that the properties of used asphalt binder (Bitumen) in
job mix design was (60/70 penetration asphalt)
The material & soil Lab of the Islamic University has Performed asphalt mix design
upon Al-Amal Company dated on 14/10/2012. Table (4.19) shows the physical
properties for used asphalt binder (Bitumen)
Table 4.19: physical properties for used asphalt binde (IUG lab report,2013)
ASTM Specification
No. Physical Properties Sample
Standard
Penetration
1 D5 74.6 60-70
(1/10mm)-25c
2 Ductility D113 153 Min 100
3 Flash Point (C) D3143 235 230
4 Softening Point (C) D36 49.75 48-56
5 Solubility (%) D2042 99.5 98
The results of report referred that the properties of used asphalt binder in job mix
design was (70/80 penetration asphalt)
The engineers Syndicate lab has conducted job mix design according to request on
febuary,27,2013 for Al - Farra asphalt factory. Table 4.20 shows the physical properties
for used asphalt binder.
55
Table 4.20: physical properties for used asphalt binder, (Engineers Syndicate lab)
ASTM Specification
No. Physical Properties Sample
Standard
Penetration
1 D5 89 60-70
(1/10mm)-25c
2 Ductility D113 125 Min 100
3 Flash Point (C) D3143 270 230
4 Softening Point (C) D36 48 48-56
5 Solubility (%) D2042 99.5 >99.0
The results of report referred that the properties of used asphalt binder in job mix
El-Saikaly (2013) performed study of the Possibility to Reuse Waste Plastic Bags as a
Modifier for Asphalt Mixtures Properties (Binder Course Layer),the asphalt binder was
tested and determined. Table 4.21 shows the physical properties for used asphalt binder,
Table 4.21: physical properties for used asphalt binder (El-Saikaly, 2013).
ASTM
No. Physical Properties Results ASTM specification limits
Standard
1 Penetration (1/10mm)-25c ASTM D5-06 70.34 70-80 (70/80 binder grade)
2 Ductility ASTM D113-86 144.67 Min 100
3 Softening Point (oC) ASTMD36-2002 46.4 (45 52)
4 Flash Point (oC) ASTM D92-02 272 Min 230oC
5 Fire Point (oC) ASTM D92-90 286
6 Specific Gravity (g/cm3) ASTMD D70 1.023 0.97 1.06
The results of tests referred that the properties of used asphalt binder in job mix
According to specification of Ministry of public works and Housing and Municipalities,

Asphalt binder was graded as 60/70 for Gaza strip region, the grade was determined
based on trial job mix designs according to local material .
Asi (2007) conducted study about Performance evaluation of SUPERPAVE and

Marshall asphaltmix designs to suite Jordan climatic and traffic condition, the study
indicated that the used asphalt can be graded as (60/70-penetration asphalt) achieve the
56
SUPERPAVE performance grade PG 64-16, Based on Asi (2005) this asphalt has met
both the high temperature property requirements at least up to a temperature of 64 C and
low-temperature physical property requirements of at least _16 C
Abdullah (2008) referred that the same asphalt binder is used in west bank (60/70-
penetrationasphalt),therefore achieve the properties of PG 64-16 grade, in addition to
the study stated that most region in west bank require abinder grade of PG 64-10
excluding Jericho, in Jericho area local asphalt should be modified to shift its grade to
PG 70-10
4.11.2 Aggregate Used in the Gaza Strip
SUPERPAVE requirements for aggregate properties are based on both consensus and
source properties. Consensus properties include coarse aggregate angularity, fine
aggregate angularity, flat and elongated particles and clay content Consensus properties
levels of acceptance depend on traffic level and depth of the layer below the surface.
Source properties include toughness, soundness, and deleterious materials, and they
depend on the source specification limits.
The aggregate selected for the job mix design was obtained from available aggregate
that used in asphalt mixes in the Gaza strip, Physical evaluation of the collected
aggregate samples was conducted according to Marshall requirements.
57
Al Qaod Company
Table (4.22) shows the properties of the aggregate for job mix which was conducted on
May 2013.
Table 4.22: The properties of the aggregate for job mix (Al-Qaoud Company May
2013)
Results
Test Specification
Specimen I Specimen II Specimen III
Los Angeles
ASTM C130 4.2 4.7 5.6
100%
Los Angeles
ASTM C130 21.5 22 23.1
500%
Bulk
Specific ASTM C127 2.553 2.593 2.599
Gravity
Flatness
BS 812 11 14 17
index
Elongation
BS 812 7 13 14
index
Soundess
ASTM C88 1% 1.2% 1.4%
Course
Soundness
ASTM C88 0% 0% 1.8%
Fine
Clay Lumps ASTM C142 0.37% 0.17% 0.50%
Absorption ASTM C128 1.1 1.7 1.8
58
Al Amal Company
Table (4.23) shows the properties of the aggregate for job mix which was conducted on
April 2013.
Table 4.23: The properties of the aggregate for job mix (Al-Amal Company April
2013)
Results
Test Specification Standard
Specimen I Specimen II Specimen III
Los Angeles
ASTM C130 3.4 4.1 3.1
100%
Los Angeles
ASTM C130 17.7 14.9 13.7
500%
Bulk Specific
ASTM C127 2.564 2.573 2.574 2.63
Gravity
Flatness index BS 812 - - -
Elongation
BS 812 - - -
index
Soundess
ASTM C88 0.8% 1.1% 1.9%
Course
Soundness
ASTM C88 0% 0% 1.7%
Fine
Clay Lumps ASTM C142 0.7 1 0.8
Absorption ASTM C128 1.5 1 0.8 1.5
The results of some tests referred that the properties of used aggregate in job mix
designs Achieve the some of SUPERPAVE requirements. these tests conducted to
ensure achieve the local aggregate to local requirements according to Marshall Method.
Some of studies was conducted to determine properties of aggregate that used in

SUPERPAVE mixes design. Asi (2007) indicated that the used aggregate meets both
the consensus properties and source in Jordan
Bayomy (2010) conducted study about Dynamic Characterization of Egyptian Hot Mix
Asphalt Concrete for Highway Pavement Design and Evaluation, the study stated that
the used Egyptian coarse and fine aggregates have been characterized using both the
59
conventional and SUPERPAVE approaches. The results of tests referred that the used
coarse and fine aggregates satisfy all requirements except the clay lumps & friable
materials percentage, the fine aggregate angularity, and the coarse aggregate angularity
only for surface layer requirements.
4.11.3 Aggregate Gradation

The following analysis shows the relationship between SUPERPAVE and traditional
gradation of aggregate. (The analysis was selected for sieve size = 19 mm) and the
specifications are based on the soil and materials lab in the IUG.
Table 4.24: The relationship between SUPERPAVE and traditional gradation of

aggregate
Specification Restricted Zone Max

Sieve, Raised Control
% Boundary Density
mm to 0.45 PASSING MIN MAX Points Gradation
Min Max
25 4.26 100 100 100 100
19 3.76 99.88 100 100 90 100 88.38
12.5 3.12 89.08 80 100 73.20
9.5 2.75 77.897 70 87 64.70
4.75 2.02 55.613 50 65 47.36
2.36 1.47 42.485 35 52 23 49 34.6 34.6 34.57
1.18 1.08 40.746 22.3 28.3 25.31
0.6 0.79 30.396 16.7 20.7 18.67
0.3 0.58 14.158 13.7 13.7 13.67
0.15 0.43 10.88 10 20 10.00
0.075 0.31 6.545 4 9 2 8 7.32
0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00
60
Sieve Size 19 mm
Contro Points 1 Control Points 2
Max Density Gradation Res Zone Min
Res Zone Max %PASSING Specification
MIN Specification MAX Specification
120
100
80
% Passing
60
40
20
0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50
Sieve Size, Raised to 0.45 Power
Figure 4.7: The relationship between SUPERPAVE and traditional gradation of

aggregate
Another comparison was conducted based on (Al-Amal Company) job mix design and
the following results were raised.
Table 4.25: The relationship between SUPERPAVE and traditional gradation of

aggregate - Al Amal Company
Specification Restricted Zone Max
Sieve, Raised Control
% Boundary Density
mm to 0.45 PASSING MIN MAX Points Gradation
Min Max
25 4.26 100 100 100 100
19 3.76 98 100 100 90 100 88.38
12.5 3.12 82 73 91 73.20
9.5 2.75 70 63 81 64.70
4.75 2.02 50 45 63 47.36
2.36 1.47 37 32 50 23 49 34.6 34.6 34.57
1.18 1.08 33 23 41 22.3 28.3 25.31
0.6 0.79 29 15 33 16.7 20.7 18.67
0.3 0.58 19 10 24 13.7 13.7 13.67
0.15 0.43 10.00
0.075 0.31 6.4 3 7 2 8 7.32
0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00
61
Sieve Size 19 mm_Al Amal Company
Max Density Gradation Res Zone Min
Res Zone Max %PASSING Specification
MIN Specification MAX Specification
120
100
80
% Passing
60
40
20
0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50
Figure 4.8: The relationship between SUPERPAVE and traditional gradation of

aggregate - Al Amal Company
When a mix design process is carried out, one of the main factors considered are the
aggregate properties because aggregate proportion constitutes more than 90% of the
whole mixture by weight. Among the aggregate properties, gradations are considered
important as they play a significant role in providing stability to the asphalt mix
(Kandahal et al. ,1999). In the SUPERPAVE mix design process, several requirements
were introduced for the aggregate gradations. These included the control limits, --
restricted zone and maximum density line plotted on a 0.45 gradation chart --, to ensure
that the percentage of articles of maximum size present in the mixture is not too large or
too small and to accommodate sufficient voids in mineral aggregates (El-Basyouny et
al. , 1999). Specifications require that all the gradations should pass through the control
limits and also avoid from the maximum density line. At the same time, it is
recommended to avoid the restricted zone (Asphalt Institute, 1996) (Anderson et al. ,
1997).This would provide a good aggregate structure that would enhance resistance of
the mixture to rutting and also achieve sufficient void space for mixture durability.
62
Figure2.3 shows the 0.45 power gradation chart consisting of control points, restricted
zone and the maximum density line. The control points are included to serve the
purposes of controlling the top size of the aggregate relative proportion of coarse and
fine aggregates, and the amount of dust (Anderson et al. , 1997). The purpose of the
restricted zone is to discourage the use of fine natural sand in an aggregate blend
(Asphalt Institute, 1996). The presence of excessive natural sand results in a mix that
causes compaction problems during construction, contributing to reduced resistance to
rutting. Also, restricted zone prevents a gradation from following the maximum density
line and having inadequate voids in mineral aggregates (VMA).(Asphalt Institute,
1996), (Aschenbrener et al., 1994). Mixtures having less VMA lack durability (Asphalt
Institute, 1996).SUPERPAVE generally recommends the gradations to pass below the
restricted zone(coarse gradation) to achieve improved mix performance (Asphalt
Institute, 1996), (Kandahal et al. , 1999). However, recent studies by (Adu-Osei et al.,
1999) found out that the gradations passing above the restricted zone (fine gradation)
showed better performance than the gradation passing below the restricted zone.
However, it has also been found out that gradations passing through the restricted zone
are performing the same or even better than the other gradations which are not passing
through the restricted zone (Kandahal,et al. ,1999) (Jared et al., 1997).
4.12 Summary
Selecting the suitable PG for a flexible pavement project will depend on many factors as
listed below:
Category (class) of road which controls the required level of reliability. Higher
reliability corresponds to a high scale projects.
Model of predicting pavement temperature (SHRP model is more conservative

than LTPP model).
Location (geographic location in the Gaza Strip).
Traffic (magnitude and repetitions), heavier traffic warrants the use of higher
PG. Table (4.13) shows the proposed required PGs after traffic adjustments. It is
63
clear from table (4.14) that higher traffic level gives higher PGs with one step
for the Gaza Strip region.
Speed of traffic, slower traffic causes more damage to pavement. Consequently

slow traffic may requ1aire higher PG for asphalt. Table (4.12) presents
requirements for normal speed traffic.
64
Chapter 5
Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 Conclusions
The main objective of study is to determine performance grade for asphalt binder
according to PG requirements developed under SHRP& LTPP model , Several
conclusions are briefly presented below:
1- The applied two model: SHRP and LTPP for the prediction of pavement
temperatures resulted into similar predictions both for high and low
temperatures.
2- It was found that the optimum asphalt binder for the Gaza Strip is PG 64-10
based on the 98% level reliability.
3- The PG for the Gaza Strip region is the same with the most area in the west
bank except Jericho region, which requires PG 70-10.
4- the Gaza Strip was one region for performance grade binder, the very small
length and width of the Gaza Strip can't be compared with those of the regions
of USA and other big countries.
5- The selected performance grade binder increased one or two grades for traffic
volume and speed under various cases such as standing, slow or standard.
6- The use of 98% level of reliability provides additional safety margin against
high traffic volume and over loadings and A higher percent means lower risk
and it depend on road class, traffic load binder cost and availability.
7- The data for one weather station in north of the Gaza Strip for 31 years of
continuous temperature recording by Palestinian meteorological authority, the
station only was found to cover climatic conditions all over the Gaza Strip, the
available data was limited and covered geographic area partially.
8- The asphalt binder used in the Marshall Mix design in the Gaza Strip is
acceptable grade for use in the SUPERPAVE mix design where asphalt with
penetration grade (60-70) is equivalent to PG 64-10.
65
5.2 Recommendations
The following recommendations can be drawn from the analysis of the information and
data collected in this study:
1- It is recommended to investigate the suitability of the properties of local

aggregates (consensus and source properties) for SUPERPAVE mix design.
2- For traffic load and traffic speed, it is recommended, as in specifications, to

shift up asphalt grade and asphalt binder should be modified using polymer to
achieve.
3- SUPERPAVE should be used for Bituminous Mix Design in the Gaza Strip
area, because it has better performance than Marshall Method. so, it is
recommended to transfer from Marshall mix design procedure to
SUPERPAVE mix design procedure which will need to provide SUPERPAVE
labs.
4- It is recommended to apply standards and procedures by the responsible

authorities and to sure that local asphalt factories qualified and able to
manufacture asphalt mixtures according to SUPERPAVE requirements.
5- One of the limitations of this study is unavailability of SUPERPAVE test

equipment in the Gaza Strip, therefore it is recommended to have special lab to
performing all required tests according to SUPERPAVE requirements and to
do more studies on the subject.
6- one of limitations of the study is the data collected from only meteorological
station located in Gaza city, and therefore there is no enough air temperature
data on the region covered by the study, and there are need to obtain
modified and updated for traffic volume and traffic speed, to determine
performance grade according to SUPERPAVE criteria.
7- It is recommended to evaluate the designed SUPERPAVE mixtures with

performance indicator tests, including Marshall flow/stability.
66
References
1. "Asphalt job mix design 3/4" Binder Course Mix " for Al Qa'oud Contracting
Company.Report Consulting Center for Quality and Calibration,May,2013.
2. "Asphalt mix design Binder Course 3/4" Mix " for Al-amal Co. Report No.
122498/1, Material & Soil Laboratories ,IUG , October, 2012.
3. "Asphalt mix design Binder Course 3/4" Mix " for Al-Farra asphalt Ready Mix
Co., Report Engineers Syndicate Lab ,February, 2013.
4. Abdullah A.,(2008) " Application of SUPERPAVE System for binder selection

based on local conditions " thesis in transportation engineering, faculty of
graduate studies, An-najah National University,Nablus,Palestine.
5. Abu Isied,Kh. (2005) " Study of the CBR Requirements of Sub grade for Roads
Design in the Gaza Strip" thesis in Infrastructure Engineering, The Islamic
University of Gaza, Gaza Strip,Palestine.
6. Adu-Osei, A., Stephen A. Cross, R. K. Fredrichs, and MohdRosliHainin,(1999)

" Effects of Gradation on Performance of Asphalt Mixtures", 78th Annual
Meeting ofTransportation Research Record, TRB, National Research Council,
Washington,DC.
7. Adwan I.,(2013) " Development of model reflecting the relation between air
ambient temperature and asphalt layers temperature in Gaza strip " Master of
science in infrastructure engineering. The Islamic university of Gaza, Gaza-
Palestine
8. Al-Abdul Wahhab, H.I. and Balghunaim, F.A.,(1994) "Asphalt Pavement

Temperature Related to Arid Saudi Environment," J. of Materials in Civil
Engineering,American Society of Civil Engineers, 6 (1), pp. 1-14.
9. Al-Abdul Wahhab, H.I., Asi, I.M., Al-Dubabe, A. and Ali, M.F.,(1997)

"Development of Performance-Based Bitumen Specifications for the Gulf
Countries," Construction and Building Materials, 11(1), pp. 15-22.
67
10. Al-Jumaily, M.A.H.,(2010) " Adapting of Performance Grading System for
Local Asphalt Cement", KUFA JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING, Year: 2010
Volume: 2 Issue: 1 Pages: 1-16, Kufa University
11. Al-Khateeb, G., Khedaywi,T., and Obaidat,T.,( 2010) Volumetric Analysis-

Based Comparison between SUPERPAVE and Marshall Mixture Design
Procedures, Roads Evaluation and Maintenance (REM) Workshop, Amman,
Jordan, April 12th of 2010.
12. Anderson, R. M., and Hussain U. Bahia,(1997) "Evaluation and Selection of

Aggregate Gradations for Asphalt Mixtures Using Superpave", Transportation
Research Record 1583, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC,
1997, pp. 91 -97.
13. Aschenbrener, T., and C. MacKean, "Factors that Affect the Voids in the
Mineral Aggregate of Hot-Mix Asphalt", Transportation Research Record 1469,
TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1994, pp. 1-8.
14. Asi, I.M.,(2007) "Performance evaluation of SUPERPAVE and Marshall asphalt

mix designs to suite Jordan climatic and traffic conditions", Construction and
Building Materials, Volume 21, Issue 8, August 2007, Pages 1732-1740
15. Asphalt Institute, (1996), " Superpave mix design " , Superpave series No.2 ( SP
-2 ) .
16. Asphalt Institute, (2001) " Superpave Mix Design " superpave Series No.2 (SP-
2).
17. ASTM, (1997) " Standard test methods ", vol. 4.03. West Conshohocken, PA:
ASTM; 1997.
18. Baraily,J.,Regmi,R.K.andKakoko,D.(2011) "Arusha Minjingu Rehabilitation

Project"Presentation,TANROADS,Arusha,august2011,
www.piarcseminararusha.or.tz.
68
19. Bayomy, Fouad M. S.(2010)," Dynamic Characterization of Egyptian Hot Mix
Asphalt Concrete for Highway Pavement Design andEvaluation", University of
Idaho, U.S.-Egypt Cooperative Research, Final Report: 0612630.
20. Cominsky, R.J., Huber, G.A., Kennedy, T.W., and Anderson, M. (1994). The
SUPERPAVE Mix Design Manual for New Construction and Overlay, SHRP-
A-407, National Research Council, Washington, DC.
21. Diefenderfer, B.K., Al-Qadi, I.L., Reubush, S.D. and Freeman, T.E.,(2002) "
Development and Validation of A Model to Predict Pavement Temperature
Profile," Presented at Transportation Research Board 82nd Annual Meeting,
Washington DC.
22. El-Basyouny Mohammed M., and Michael S. Mamlouk, (1999) "Effect of

Aggregate Gradation on the Rutting Potential of Superpave Mixes", 78th Annual
Meeting of Transportation Research Record, TRB, National Research Council,
Washington,DC.
23. El-Kadi,A. (2005) " a study of the Gaza temperature variations in the period
1976-1995, Islamic University Magazine 13(2): 1-19.
24. El-Saikaly,M. (2013) "Study of the Possibility to Reuse Waste Plastic Bags as a
Modifier for Asphalt Mixtures Properties (Binder Course Layer)" thesis in
Infrastructure Engineering, The Islamic University of Gaza, Gaza
Strip,Palestine,2013.
25. FHWA, (1994) "Specific pavement studies--experiments design and research

plan for experiment" SPS-9A,SUPERPAVE asphalt binder study. McLean, VA.
26. General Directorate of Meteorology (2012)." Weather Data (1976-2006)",the

Gaza Strip, Palestine.
27. General Directorate of Meteorology (2012)." Weather Data (1976-2006)",the

Gaza Strip, Palestine.
69
28. Ghuzlan, Kh. and Al-Khateeb, Gh.,(2011) "Selection and verification of
performance grading for asphalt binders produced in Jordan" Department of
Civil Engineering, Jordan University of Science and Technology, P.O. Box
3030, Irbid 22110, Jordan,December 2011
29. Ghuzlan,Kh.,and Al-Khateeb,Gh.,(2011) "Selection and verification of

performance grading for asphalt binders produced in Jordan" Department of
Civil Engineering, Jordan University of Science and Technology, P.O. Box
3030, Irbid 22110, Jordan,December 2011
30. Goode, J.F., and A. Lufsey (1962). "A New Graphical Chart for Evahlating
Aggregate Gradations. Proc.", Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists,
Vol. 31, 1962, pp 176-207.
31. Habib, A., Hossain, M., Kaldate, R., and Fager, G. A.(1998) " Comparison of
SUPERPAVE and Marshall Mixtures for Low-Volume Roads /Shoulders" The
Transportation Research Board (TRB) 77th Annual Meeting,, Transportation
Research Board (TRB), National Research Council, Washington, D.C., USA.
32. Harman, T., Bukowski, J., Moutier, F., Huber, G., and McGennis, R. (2002).
"The History and Future Challenges of Gyratory Compaction 1939 to 2001".
Journal of Transportation Research Board. Volume 81.
33. Harman, T., Bukowski, J., Moutier, F., Huber, G., and McGennis, R. (2002).
"The History and Future Challenges of Gyratory Compaction 1939 to 2001".
Journal of Transportation Research Board. Volume 81.
34. Harman, Th., D'Angelo,J.,andBukowski,J.,(1999) SUPERPAVE Asphalt

Mixture Design" Workshop Workbook"SUPERPAVE Asphalt Mix Design &
Field Management",Demonstration Project No. 90, U.S. Department of
Transportation,Federal Highway Administration, Version 6.2, July 1999
35. Hassan FH, Al-Nuaimi A, Al-Oraimi S, Jafar TMA." Development of asphalt

binder performance grades for Omani climate". Constr Build Mater
2008;22(8):168490.
70
36. Hassan, H.F., Al-Nuaimi, A.S., Taha,R. and Jafar, T.M.A.( 2004) "
Development of Asphalt Pavement Temperature Models for Oman" The Journal
of Engineering Research Vol.2, No. 1 (2005) 32-42.
37. HUBER, G.A. and SHULER, T.S (1992)," Providing Sufficient Void Space for
Asphalt Cement: Relationship of Mineral Aggregate Voids and Aggregate
Gradation", ASTM STP 1147.
38. Jared, David, Andrew Johnson, and Donald E. Watson, "The Superpave
Gradation Restricted Zone and Performance Testing With the Georgia Loaded
Wheel Tester", Transportation Research Record 1583, TRB, National Research
Council, Washington, DC, 1997, pp. 106- 1 1 1.
39. Kamran,M.K.,(2008) " Impact of SUPERPAVE mix design method on rutting

behaviour of flexible pavement in pakistan" The Arabian Journal for Science
and Engineering, Volume 33, Number 2B,October 2008.
40. Kandhal, Prithvi S., and R.B. Mallick,(1999) "Evaluation of Rut Testers for
HMA Mix Design", Final Report.
41. Khan, K. M., & Kamal, M. A.,(2008) " Impact of SUPERPAVE mix design
method on rutting behaviour of flexible pavement in pakistan " The Arabian
Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 33, Number 2B. 2008.
42. Kobail, A., Osman, S.A., (2007) "Determination of Sudan Temperature Zoning
based on SUPERPAVE System", Journal of Buildings and Roads Research,
University of Khartoum, Vol. 8, ISSN 1858-5019, Dec. 2007
43. Ksaibati, Kh. and Stephen,J.,(1998)"A preliminary Evaluation of SUPERPAVE

Level One Mix Design Procedure " Wyoming Department of Transportation,
University of Wyoming,1998.
44. LTPP Seasonal Asphalt Concrete Pavement Temperature Models (1998).

Publication No. FHWA RD-97-103; 1998.
71
45. Mirza,M.W., Abbas,Z.andRizvi, M. A.,(2011) " Temperature Zoning of Pakistan
for Asphalt Mix Design", Pak. J. Engg. & Appl. Sci. Vol. 8, Jan., 2011 (p. 49-
60).
46. Mohseni A. (1998) " LTPP seasonal asphalt concrete (AC) pavement
temperature models". Report No. FHWA-RD-97-103, Federal highway
administration, US Department of Transportation, 1998.
47. Mohseni A. Symons M.(1998) " Improved AC pavement temperature models

from LTPP seasonal data". In: Presented at transportation research board 77th
annual meeting, Washington, DC, 1998.
48. Mohseni, A.,(1998) "LTPP Seasonal Asphalt Concrete (AC) Pavement

Temperature Models," Report FHWA-RD-97-103, Federal Highway
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, p. 71.
49. Nijboer, L.W.,(1948) "Plasticity as a Factor in the Design of Dense Bituminous

Road Carpets", Elsevier Publishing Company, 1948, asphalt concretes, Int.
Journal Road Material and Pavement Design, Vol.11.
50. Ramadhan, RH; Wahhab, HIAA. (1997)," Temperature Variation Of Flexible

And Rigid Pavements In Eastern Saudi Arabia " King Fahd University of
Petroleum & Minerals, Pergamon-ELSevier science LTD, Building and
Environment; pp: 367-373;Vol: 32
51. Roberts, F. L., Kandhal, P. S., Brown, E. R., Lee, D., and Kennedy, T. W.
(1996). Hot Mix Asphalt Materials, Mixture Design and Construction.
National Asphalt Pavement Association Research and Education Foundation,
2nd Edition, Lanham, Maryland.
52. Saleh, A.M.M.; Trad, M.,(2010) " Generation of asphalt performance grading
map for Egypt based on the SUPERPAVE program ". Construction and
Building Materials, Volume 25, Issue 5, May 2011, Pages 2248-2253
72
53. Sharon, D. and Ronberg, B.(1987)," Intra-annual weather fluctuation during the
rainy season in Israel, In Recent climatic change-A regional approached" S.
Gregory, 102-115.London: Belhaven
54. SHRP, (1994), "Superior Performing Asphalt Pavement (SUPERPAVE)",

Strategic Highway Research Program Report No.SHRP-A-410, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C..USA.
55. SHRP, (1994), "The SUPERPAVE Mix Design Manual for New Construction
and Overlays", Strategic Highway Research Program Report No.SHRP-A-407,
National Research Council, Washington, D.C..USA.
56. SHRP,(1994) " Level One Mix Design: Materials Selection,compaction, and
Conditioning ",Strategic Highway Research Program Report No.SHRP-A-408,
National Research Council ,Washington , D.C.USA.
57. Swami, B.L.,Mehta, Y.A. & Bose, S. (2004), A Comparison of the Marshall
and Superpave Design Procedure for Materials Sourced in India., published in
International Journal of Pavement Engineering, Vol.5 (3), pp. 163-173 Hanover
NH 03755, U.S.A.
58. Tappeiner,W.J.,(1996)."SHRP SUPERPAVE: Background and Significance for

Transportation Infrastructure in Malaysia". 2nd Malaysian Road Conference.
June 11. Kuala Lumpur: MRC, 23-52.
59. Tia,M.,(2005)"Fundamentals and Practice of Asphalt Mixture Design

Procedures to Assure Adequate Performance" Paper for presentation at the 13th
Conference on Pavement Engineering, Hsin Chu, Taiwan, 13-14 October 2005.
60. VasaviKanneganti , (2002), " Comparison of 19mm SUPERPAVE and Marshall

base II mixes in west Virginia" ,Thesis , M.SC, department of civil and
environmental engineering. Washington, DC, 1997, pp. 106- 1 1 1.
61. Williams, S. G.,(2006), " Development of 4.75mm SUPERPAVE Mixes

MBTC-2030", Department of Civil Engineering, University of Arkansas, 700
Research Center Blvd. May 2006.
73
62. Washington State Department of Transportation, WSDOT Pavement Guide
,(2013, December 30). Pavement Interactive. Retrieved December 30, 2013,
from Pavement Interactive: http://www.pavementinteractive.org
63. Xie, H., and Watson, D.E.,(2004) Lab Study on Degradation of Stone Matrix
Asphalt (SMA). Presented at the 83rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation
Research Board,Washington DC. 2004.
64. Zur Institute , ( 2013, December 30), Retrieved December 30, 2013, from Zur
Institute : http://www. ZurInstitute.com
74
Appendix (A):
Tables and Figures
In this appendix, the important tables and the relevant figures will be
illustrated as it represents some of the important calculations in the study.
75
Minimum Temperature, Maximum Temperature and Seven
hottest days Temperature
The following tables and figures show the records of 30 years of temperature as a
sample to compare between the years.
1- Minimum Temperature over the months

Table A- 1: Minimum temperature over the months (1976 1986)
MONTH
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEB OCT NOV DEC
Year
1976 5.4 4 3.6 11 14 16 19.7 19.4 16.2 15.5 11 9
1977 5.6 8 6.3 10.6 13.4 17 20.3 21.2 18.9 12.2 11 4.5
1978 6.5 8.2 9.2 10.2 13.2 16.5 19.5 19.5 18.5 15 7.8 8.5
1979 6.2 8 8.6 11.8 13.5 18 19.5 19.7 19.4 16.7 13.2 8
1980 4.4 6 6.4 9.5 12.5 16 20 20 9.2 15.6 11 7.8
1981 5 6.7 7.5 8 13.6 16.4 20 20.6 17.2 17.5 9 9.3
1982 5 5.7 7.5 12 12.8 17.5 20 21 19.5 15.6 9.2 5
1983 5.2 5.8 7 9.5 13 17 20 20.8 18.5 14.5 12.5 8
1984 8.2 8 8.6 10.5 13.5 17.5 19 19 18.5 15 12.4 5.2
1985 7.2 7 5.2 11.2 11.4 17.8 20 21.5 19.7 13.3 12.5 7.1
1986 7.2 8.2 10 13 13.4 14.5 19.5 21 21 17 8.7 7.2
Lowest Temperature per month from 1976

to 1986
19.5 21
1986
20 21.5 21
1985 14.5 19 19
17.8 19.7 17
1984 20 20.8 18.5
13.4 17.5 13.3
17 20 21 18.5 15
1983 11.4
13 13.5 17.5 20 20.6 19.5 14.5 8.7
11.2 13 15.6 12.5
1982 10.5 12.8 16.4 20 20 17.2 17.5 12.4
10 9.5 13.6 16 19.5 19.7 9.2 12.5 7.2
1981 8.2 5.2 12 19.4 15.6 9.2 7.1
7.2 7
8 8.6 8 12.5 18 19.5 9 5.2
8
7.2 5.8 7 9.5 13.5 19.5 18.5 16.7 11 5
8.2 5.7 7.5 16.5 9.3
1980 5.2
5 6.7 7.5 11.8 13.2 20.3 21.2 18.9 15 13.2 7.8
5
4.4 6
8 6.4
8.6 10.2 13.4 17 12.2 7.8 8
6.2
6.5 8.2 9.2 10.6 19.7 19.4 11 8.5
1979 5.6 8 6.3 11 14 16 16.2 15.5 11 4.5
9
5.4 4 3.6
1978
1977
Figure A- 1: Lowest Temperature per month from 1976 to 1986
76
MONTH
Year
1987 6 8.5 7 10.3 12.4 16.4 20.5 21.5 20.4 15 13 8
1988 8 7 8.5 10.5 15 17.8 22.4 21 20.2 15.4 7.5 7.5
1989 3.5 2.5 8.6 11.5 14.8 18.2 20 21.6 19.5 15.1 11 9.2
1990 6 7 8.4 7.4 12.6 15.8 20.8 21.4 20.2 16.5 14.5 8.5
1991 6 7.7 10 10.5 13.4 16.6 20.8 21.6 19.6 16 12 7
1992 4 3.6 7 11 14 17.2 20.2 21.8 18.6 22.5 8 6.4
1993 4.4 4.2 7.5 10 14 17.5 20.8 22 19.4 18.2 9.8 8
1994 9 8.5 9.5 11 14.4 18.8 20.6 21 22 18.2 10.6 6.5
1995 7 8.5 9.8 9.5 13.4 18.6 22 22.5 21 16.8 10 **
1996 7.5 9.5 8.2 11.8 16.5 18.2 22.3 22 20.5 14 14.2 10.8
Lowest Temperature per month from 1987 to 1996
22
22.3
20.5
22.5
22
21
1996 18.2 21
20.6 14
1995 18.6 22
22 16.8
20.8
1994 16.5 18.8 19.4 18.2
1993 21.8
13.4 20.2
17.5 18.6 18.2
1992 14.4 21.6 14.2
11.8 17.2 20.8 22.5
1991 14 19.6 10
9.5
8.2 16.6 20.8 21.4 10.6
1990 11 14 20.2 16
9.8 9.8
10 13.4 15.8 10.8
1989 9.5 9.5 20 21.6 8
7.5 11 19.5 16.5 12 6.5
0
7 8.5 7.5 12.6 8
1988 8.5 7 10.5 18.2
9 22.4 15.1 14.5 6.4
4.2 10 7.4 14.8 21 20.2 7
1987 4.4 3.6 17.8
4
6 7.7 8.4 11.5 15.4 11 8.5
6 7 8.6 15 9.2
3.5 2.5 10.5 20.5 21.5 20.4 7.5
8 7 8.5 12.4 16.4 15 13 7.5
8.5 7 10.3 8
6
77
MONTH
Year
1997 8.5 4.9 8 8.5 14.5 18 22 21.5 19.4 16 14.5 9.5
1998 5 8.6 8 10.5 15.2 19 20 22.3 21.2 17 14.8 9.6
1999 9 8.3 11 11.6 16.6 18.8 22 23 21.5 18.6 9.6 8.8
2000 4 8.6 9.4 14 14.2 19.6 22.6 22.6 20 14.2 13 10.4
2001 7.2 8.5 12 19.4 21 19.2 21.6 23.1 20.9 15.9 11.1 8.8
2002 4.5 8.9 11 12 15.4 18.8 21.8 22.7 20.6 18 14 9.8
2003 9.7 6.3 8.1 11.5 16.5 19.6 22.1 22.9 20.3 16.5 13.1 8.5
2004 8.3 8.1 8.9 11.4 14.8 17.5 21.9 21.3 21 19.5 10 7.2
2005 8.3 7.8 10.5 11.4 14 19.7 22.1 23.2 21.1 15.9 12.4 9.6
2006 8.6 9.7 10.1 13.6 15.7 19.6 22.3 22.9 21.2 16.5 12.6 7.7
Lowest Temperature per month from 1997 to 2006
22.9
22.3
21.2
23.2
22.1
19.6 21.1
21.3
2006 19.7 21.9
21 16.5
2005 15.7 22.9
17.5 22.1 15.9
2004 14 20.3
19.6 22.7 19.5
2003 14.8 21.8
13.6 20.6 12.6
16.5 18.8 16.5
2002 11.4 21.6
23.1 12.4
20.9 18 10
2001 10.1 11.4 15.4 19.2
10.5 11.5 22.6 22.6 13.1 7.7
2000 9.7 21 20 15.9 9.6
8.6 8.9 12 19.6 14
7.8 7.2
1999 8.3 8.1 19.4 22 23 14.2 11.1 8.5
8.1 11 14.2 21.5
8.3 6.3 18.8 9.8
1998 9.7 12 18.6 13
8.9 14 16.6 22.3 8.8
8.5 20 21.2 9.6
1997 4.5
7.2 9.4 19 10.4
8.6 11.6 15.2 17 14.8
4 11 8.8
9 8.3 10.5 22 21.5 19.4 9.6
8 14.5 18 16 14.5
5 8.6 9.5
8.5 4.9 8 8.5
78
2- Maximum Temperature over the months
Table A- 4: Maximum temperature over the months (1976 1986)
MONTH
Year
1976 28 23.7 28 40 32.5 29.2 30 30.6 30.5 35.5 33.5 23.8
1977 20.4 29.4 29 36 36.5 35.6 31 31.5 30.4 28.7 31.2 23.4
1978 24.5 31.5 32.5 34 40.4 34.4 30.4 29 33.5 31.3 27 23.4
1979 25 32 28 38.6 28.7 32.6 29.8 30.3 28.7 35.3 34.4 22.1
1980 20 21.9 31.5 38.5 42.2 28.7 31.2 30.4 28.8 28.7 26 31.5
1981 21.4 25.7 35.6 31.5 33.5 30.8 29.7 30 29.6 27.8 26.4 24
1982 23 23.5 27.2 36 36.6 29.6 29.4 29.5 29.8 33.5 30.6 23.6
1983 18 20.5 32 30.4 29.5 29 32.2 30.5 29.5 31.8 28.8 27
1984 20 25 34.8 34.3 40 33.5 31 29 32.7 29.3 27 23
1985 28.2 26.7 27.3 33.2 40.2 37.6 29.4 31 29.2 28 29.6 23.5
1986 23.7 24 25.2 34.8 25.8 32.3 30.8 31 30.8 27.2 25.5 23.5
High Temperature per months from 1976 to 1986
34.8 25.8
33.2 40.2 32.3

1986 25.2 30.8 31 30.8 27.2
34.3 40 37.6 25.5
1985 27.3 29.4 31 29.2 28
29.6
24 34.8 30.4 29.5 33.5 29.3
1984 31 29 32.7
27 23.5
23.7 26.7 36 31.8
1983 32 36.6 29 32.2 23.5
30.5 29.5 28.8
28.2 25
31.5 29.6 33.5 23
1982 20.5 27.2 33.5 29.4 29.5 29.8 30.6
20 27
23.5 38.5 30.8 27.8
1981 18 35.6 42.2 29.7 30 29.6 26.4
25.7 23.6
23 28.7 28.7
1980 31.5 38.6 31.2 30.4 28.8 26 24
21.4 21.9 28.7 32.6
1979 28.7 35.3 34.4 31.5
20 32 28 29.8 30.3
34 40.4
1978 25 34.4 30.4 29 33.5 31.3 27 22.1
31.5 32.5
24.5 36 36.5 23.4
1977 29 35.6 31 31.5 30.4 28.7 31.2
20.4 29.4 23.4
1976 40 32.5 35.5 33.5
28 23.7 28 29.2 30 30.6 30.5 23.8
Figure A- 4: High Temperature per months from 1976 to 1986
79
MONTH
Year
1987 28.8 29.5 28.6 26.5 38.5 30.8 30.8 31.6 30.5 29 30.2 25.2
1988 23.7 25 27.2 36.8 43 33.7 31.2 31 30 27.8 27.8 26.5
1989 17.5 28.7 30.4 30.5 28.4 32.8 29.5 30.5 30 30.5 30 25.2
1990 22 22.5 24.6 35 30.5 34.5 29.8 29.6 34.6 32.5 28.6 30.5
1991 21.6 29.8 27.8 37.3 31.3 28.4 29.4 30 28.5 30 26 21.5
1992 21 24.5 25 37.7 35 33.2 30.4 30.8 31.8 29 33.5 24.6
1993 19.3 27 31 39.5 36.5 40 30.8 31 30.2 33.5 26.3 23
1994 25 26 21.8 41.2 32.8 28.8 30.4 30.7 32.6 37.4 33.8 26
1995 20 19.6 26.2 32 29.2 36 36 31 30.4 30 29.7 0
1996 23.6 25.8 31.4 30.4 36 29.2 31.5 30.6 33.4 35.8 30.2 25.5
30.4 36
29.2
32 31.5 33.4 35.8
29.2 30.6
36 30.2
1996 41.2 36 30.4 30
31.4 32.8 31
28.8 29.7
1995 25.8
26.2 39.5 36.5 30.7 32.6 37.4
30.4 33.8
1994 19.6 40 25.5
23.6 21.8 30.2
26 30.8 31 33.5
1993 37.7 35 26.3 26
0
20 31 33.2
27 30.4 30.8 31.8
1992 25 31.3 29 33.5 23
24.5 25 37.3 28.4
1991 19.3 29.4 30 28.5 30 24.6
29.8 27.8 30.5 26
21 35 34.5 21.5
1990 29.8 29.6 34.6 32.5
21.6 24.6 28.4 28.6
22.5 30.5
1989 22 30.5 32.8 29.5 30.5 30
28.7 30.4 43 30.5 30
25.2
1989 17.5 36.8 33.7 31
27.2 31.2 30 27.8 27.8
23.7 25 26.5
1987 38.5
28.8 29.5 28.6 26.5 30.8 30.8 31.6 30.5 29 30.2 25.2
Figure A- 5:High Temperature per months from 1987 to 1996
80
MONTH
Year
1997 23.8 20 28.7 37.5 28.2 33 33.5 30.2 31.4 29.4 28.6 22.8
1998 23.5 26.7 28.5 40.4 36.8 29.8 31.4 33.2 32 39 27.5 31.4
1999 22.9 30 30.6 30 28.6 29.8 31.2 31.5 31 29.6 28.4 24.4
2000 21 19.6 20.8 36.8 29.2 29.4 32.2 31.2 31.2 29.6 30.2 24.2
2001 23.2 23.3 36.2 37.5 37.4 28.3 30.3 32 32.4 28.4 29.2 22.8
2002 19 26.8 35.4 34.8 30.8 30.4 31.6 32.9 35.2 28.2 28.8 24.4
2003 16.1 11.9 12.6 17.1 21.6 24.2 28.1 28.2 26 22.7 20.2 15
2004 22.1 33 37.4 28.5 39.4 35.4 31.6 30.3 29.8 27.9 29.7 25.2
2005 28.8 32 35.6 41.2 43 40 36 33.2 34.6 39 34.4 31.5
2006 25.7 29.4 30.3 35.4 30.5 30.3 30.6 32.7 32.5 32.2 28.0 24.1
35.4
30.5
30.3 30.6 32.7 32.5
41.2 32.2
30.3 43
2006 40 36 33.2 34.6 28
39
35.6 28.5
2005 29.4 39.4 31.6 30.3 29.8
34.4
35.4 24.1
2004 37.4 17.1 27.9
25.7 32 28.2 26 29.7 31.5
34.8 21.6 28.1
2003 28.8 24.2 22.7
33 12.6 30.8 31.6 32.9 35.2 20.2 25.2
35.4 37.5 30.4 28.2
2002 22.1 28.8
11.9 37.4 30.3 32 32.4 15
28.4
2001 16.1 26.8 36.2 36.8 28.3 29.2 24.4
19 32.2 31.2 29.6
2000 23.3 29.2 29.4 31.2 22.8
23.2 20.8 30 30.2
19.6 29.6 24.2
1999 21 30.6 28.6 29.8 31.2 31.5 31
40.4 28.4 24.4
22.9 30
1998 36.8 29.8 31.4 33.2 32 39
28.5 27.5 31.4
23.5 26.7
1997 37.5 33 33.5
28.7 28.2 30.2 31.4 29.4 28.6
23.8 20 22.8
Figure A- 6:High Temperature per months from 1997 to 2006
81
5- Seven Hottest days per year
Table A- 7: Seven Hottest Days per year (From 1976 to 1986)
Day
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Year
1976 40 37.8 35.5 35 32.5 32.3 32
1977 36.5 36 35.6 34 33.6 31.5 31.2
1978 40.4 34.4 34 33.5 32.5 32.4 31.5
1979 38.6 37.8 37.5 36.6 35.3 34.4 32.6
1980 42.2 39.4 38.5 36.5 34.5 31.5 31.2
1981 35.6 33.5 31.5 30.8 30.7 30.6 30.4
1982 36.6 36 34 33.5 33 31.9 31
1983 32.2 32 31.8 30.5 30.4 30 29.5
1984 40 36 35 34.8 34.3 33.5 32.8
1985 40.2 37.6 36 33.2 31.3 31 30.8
1986 34.8 32.3 31.2 31 30.8 30.5 30.4
Seven Hottest Days - from 1976 to 1986

1986
1985
1984
1983
1982
1981
1980
1979
1978
1977
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1976 Seven Hottest Days
Figure A- 7:Seven Hottest Days - from 1976 to 1986
82
Day
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Year
1987 38.5 36 35 31.6 31.2 31 30.8
1988 43 36.8 35.2 33.7 31.2 31 30.8
1989 32.8 30.5 30.4 30.2 29.6 29.5 29.4
1990 35 34.6 34.5 32.5 31.6 30.5 30
1991 37.3 37.2 31.6 31.3 31 30 29.8
1992 37.7 35 33.5 33.2 32.8 31.8 31.5
1993 40 39.5 36.5 35.5 33.5 32 31.5
1994 41.2 40 39.8 37.4 36.7 36.4 36
1995 36 34.8 32.9 32 31 30.9 30.8
1996 36 35.8 34 33.5 33.4 33 32.8
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Seven Hottest Days
83
Day
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Year
1997 37.5 33.5 33 32.2 31.5 31.4 31.2
1998 40.4 39 37.4 36.8 36 35 34.5
1999 31.5 31.4 31.2 31 30.8 30.6 30.5
2000 36.8 32.6 32.2 31.4 31.2 31 30.8
2001 37.5 37.4 36.2 35 32.4 32 31.8
2002 35.44 35.2 34.78 33.69 33.31 32.91 31.56
2003 41.1 40.19 38.45 36.19 33.16 31.78 31.22
2004 39.4 37.56 37.42 35.41 34.26 33.81 33.18
2005 33.81 33.08 31.86 31.13 31.02 31.01 30.98
2006 35.43 32.69 32.5 32.48 32.21 31.96 31.81
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Seven Hottest Days
84
6- Minimum Temperature per year
Table A- 10: Minimum Temperature per year (From 1976 to 1986)
Year 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986
Min.
3.6 4.5 6.5 6.2 4.4 5 5 5.2 5.2 5.2 7.2
Temp.
Minimum Temperature per Year -

from 1976 to 1986
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Figure A- 10: Minimum Temperature per Year - from 1976 to 1986
85
Year 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
Min.
6 7 2.5 6 6 3.6 4.2 6.5 7 7.5
Temp.
Minimum Temperature per Year -

from 1987 to 1996
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Figure A- 11: Minimum Temperature per Year - from 1987 to 1996
Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Min.
5 5 8.3 4 7.2 4.5 6.254 7.16 7.76 7.74
Temp.
Minimum Temperature per Year - from 1996 to

2006
10
8
6
4
2
0
Figure A- 12:Minimum Temperature per Year - from 1996 to 2006
86
8- High and Low Pavement temperature based on SHRP and
LTPP models for different values of reliability
Table A- 13: High and Low Pavement temperature based on SHRP and LTPP
models for different values of reliability
Reliability 50% 90% 95% 98% 99%

Average high temp. 33.83 33.83 33.83 33.83 33.83
Min temp. 5.71 5.71 5.71 5.71 5.71
Std. high temp. 2.97 2.97 2.97 2.97 2.97
Std. min. temp. 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.44
Lat. 31.3 31.3 31.3 31.3 31.3
z 0 1.282 1.655 2.055 2.327
High temp. 33.84 37.65 38.76 39.94 40.75
Min. temp. 5.71 3.86 3.33 2.75 2.36

High pave. Temp.
55.85 59.48 60.54 61.68 62.45
SHRP
High pave. Temp.
53.23 58.09 59.5 61.02 62.05
LTPP
Low. pave. Temp.
5.71 3.86 3.33 2.75 2.36
SHRP
Low. pave. Temp.
10.5 7.5 6.63 5.69 5.06
LTPP
87
High pave. Temp. SHRP
64
62.45
61.68
62
60.54
59.48
Temperature
60
58
55.85
56
54
52
50% 90% 95% 98% 99%
Reliability
Figure A- 13:High pave. Temp. SHRP
High pave. Temp. LTPP

64
62.05
62 61.02
59.5
60
58.09
Temperature
58
56
54 53.23
52
50
48
50% 90% 95% 98% 99%
Reliability
Figure A- 14: High pave. Temp. LTPP
88
Low. pave. Temp. SHRP
6 5.71
5
3.86
Temperature
4 3.33
3 2.75
2.36
2
0
50% 90% 95% 98% 99%
Reliability
Figure A- 15: Low. pave. Temp. SHRP
Low. pave. Temp. LTPP

12
10.5
10
7.5
Temperature
8 6.63
5.69
6 5.06
0
50% 90% 95% 98% 99%
Reliability
Figure A- 16: Low. pave. Temp. LTPP
89
9- Table include data about weather stations in Palestine
Table A- 14: data about weather stations in Palestine
Type/index no. Longitude Latitude

Station Name Elevation
wmo ( East ) ( North )
Tulkarm Synp 40215 3501 E 3219 N 83 m
Nablus Synp 40223 3515 E 3213 N 570 m
Jenin Synp 40226 3518 E 3228 N 178 m
Hebron Synp 40240 3506 E 3132 N 1005 m
Jericho Synp 40247 3527 E 3151 N -260 m
Ramallah Synp 3523 E 3176 N 856 m
kardalah Synp 3529 E 3222 N - 100 m
meithaloun Clim40224 3516 E 3221 N 380 m
Al-arroub Clim 40242 3513 E 3256 N 550 m
Gaza Synp 40233 3427 E 3130 N 13 m
Khanyounis Clim 3429 E 3135 N 76 m
Beet lahea Clim 3521 E 3137 N 22-55 m
Rawabi ******** 3523 E 3235 N 740 m
90
1- Daily Temperature During the Year 2006
Table A- 15: Max. Temperature during 2006
DATE JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEB OCT NOV DEC
1 18.4 20.7 23.5 19.9 21.9 26.7 29.4 29.8 29.0 28.2 28.0 21.9
2 18.8 20.1 18.6 19.9 22.3 27.4 30.5 28.7 28.9 27.9 23.6 19.4
3 22.9 18.1 18.2 21.1 22.1 28.4 29.9 29.5 28.4 28.1 24.9 20.9
4 23.2 18.7 20.8 25.6 21.1 30.0 29.3 29.3 28.1 27.4 25.7 20.0
5 25.7 18.6 18.4 20.2 22.4 30.3 28.9 29.9 28.3 27.0 21.1 19.6
6 18.6 18.8 18.4 20.8 24.7 29.1 28.6 29.7 28.5 27.3 18.9 19.2
7 18.8 24.4 30.3 22.9 30.5 27.5 29.3 31.0 28.7 27.0 19.9 19.1
8 16.9 17.7 18.8 26.8 20.8 26.1 28.4 29.9 30.5 27.4 21.2 19.5
9 17.3 15.6 15.7 24.6 21.2 25.2 28.6 29.0 28.4 26.9 21.7 24.1
10 17.0 17.4 15.2 20.8 20.8 25.2 28.8 28.3 29.3 28.5 21.3 20.0
11 16.3 16.8 17.5 20.7 21.1 24.6 29.0 29.4 29.1 29.0 21.2 19.8
12 16.4 18.4 19.7 20.3 22.2 24.7 30.1 31.0 29.2 31.8 21.4 19.1
13 14.4 19.8 22.3 22.6 22.7 26.3 29.2 29.1 28.4 29.0 22.2 19.1
14 14.9 15.4 23.4 27.2 24.0 26.4 28.8 29.2 29.1 27.4 21.5 19.6
15 14.7 16.0 20.0 22.6 23.1 25.2 29.6 28.5 29.3 26.3 20.6 19.0
16 16.1 15.2 17.9 18.8 23.5 25.0 28.1 29.0 28.2 25.6 21.8 18.2
17 17.4 17.2 18.2 23.7 23.8 25.2 28.6 30.2 28.5 26.5 22.1 16.8
18 17.6 19.4 18.4 24.7 23.9 25.7 28.7 30.5 30.1 32.2 21.6 18.7
19 17.7 23.1 25.7 24.4 22.3 26.8 30.1 31.8 30.3 26.7 22.1 19.9
20 19.6 21.7 19.1 25.5 22.6 28.0 28.5 31.4 29.4 24.7 21.9 19.3
21 18.4 18.9 28.8 23.3 23.1 28.7 28.8 31.0 29.2 25.6 22.6 18.8
22 19.6 19.5 19.3 35.4 24.2 28.7 28.0 32.0 28.0 24.9 22.1 19.0
23 18.8 21.7 24.1 28.3 24.4 28.5 28.3 32.7 27.9 25.0 21.0 17.9
24 19.7 29.4 26.2 22.1 25.1 29.3 28.7 31.5 27.3 25.3 21.4 16.6
25 17.1 23.2 19.4 22.2 26.6 29.2 30.0 31.6 28.4 25.3 23.2 16.2
26 16.4 17.5 19.4 22.2 28.7 28.3 28.9 30.6 26.9 25.8 22.9 16.7
27 15.8 17.8 18.7 21.6 27.9 28.0 30.5 30.5 27.1 26.0 22.4 15.7
28 15.7 19.2 18.9 27.0 26.5 28.5 29.6 29.5 29.3 23.2 21.3 13.1
29 15.6 18.8 32.5 25.7 29.1 30.0 31.6 32.5 20.4 20.7 13.3
30 15.5 21.1 21.8 25.7 29.8 30.0 29.5 28.8 27.0 21.3 16.3
31 16.2 23.8 26.7 30.6 29.3 27.6 14.2
AVR. 17.8 19.3 20.6 23.6 23.9 27.4 29.2 30.2 28.8 26.8 22.0 18.4
91
Table A- 16: Minimum Temperature during 2006
DATE JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEB OCT NOV DEC
1 11.9 10.1 16.4 14.6 16.7 20.6 23.7 23.3 26.5 22.6 19.5 13.3
2 12.4 15.7 13.7 17.1 19.3 21.1 24.2 22.9 24.7 21.5 18.4 12.3
3 12.3 14.8 12.6 15.4 16.8 22.3 24.3 23.6 23.5 22.1 17.5 12.7
4 18.1 13.2 14.0 15.3 15.7 22.4 24.1 24.2 23.9 21.4 17.4 11.5
5 16.0 12.1 13.1 13.6 16.5 25.1 24.2 23.0 25.1 22.6 17.9 11.7
6 14.3 12.3 12.2 13.9 16.2 24.5 24.4 24.3 23.6 21.7 15.0 12.6
7 13.7 12.1 11.2 14.6 19.8 23.0 23.9 23.8 23.5 24.5 14.4 12.7
8 11.8 12.4 15.7 14.2 18.5 23.3 23.8 26.8 23.9 21.7 15.1 11.9
9 10.7 10.8 12.8 17.3 16.5 21.4 22.7 24.9 24.1 20.7 14.1 12.7
10 10.7 10.7 10.7 15.5 16.8 21.0 23.0 23.4 25.7 19.6 16.3 13.2
11 10.2 9.7 10.1 15.6 16.0 22.5 22.8 23.3 26.4 24.0 15.4 12.2
12 10.3 11.8 10.8 14.7 16.8 22.0 23.6 24.9 24.5 23.8 14.9 11.3
13 9.8 13.8 15.3 16.1 15.9 20.4 25.6 24.3 23.7 21.6 15.0 12.4
14 8.9 13.4 13.8 18.0 18.4 21.5 24.0 23.6 24.3 22.1 14.7 12.3
15 9.1 12.2 13.3 16.1 17.9 22.8 23.7 23.7 23.8 20.9 15.1 12.6
16 8.6 11.2 12.3 14.4 17.4 21.5 23.7 23.1 23.8 20.1 16.7 10.4
17 9.9 10.2 11.9 17.2 17.1 20.8 23.1 23.9 24.3 19.6 14.5 8.6
18 10.1 12.1 13.3 17.6 18.3 20.1 25.1 23.7 25.4 20.4 15.1 9.0
19 10.3 13.8 14.3 18.1 17.1 20.8 24.3 26.8 23.8 21.7 14.2 9.7
20 9.3 12.9 13.5 19.1 18.8 21.5 24.2 26.2 23.7 20.0 14.9 11.3
21 12.5 12.9 16.3 19.4 18.2 19.6 23.9 26.5 23.2 20.6 14.0 11.7
22 10.4 12.4 14.2 18.4 18.8 21.9 22.7 26.5 22.6 20.2 14.0 12.5
23 13.7 11.3 13.6 18.5 18.4 23.6 22.5 24.9 22.5 19.4 14.2 11.1
24 12.5 17.2 15.5 17.2 19.2 22.5 24.6 24.3 22.1 19.2 13.2 9.4
25 11.7 16.3 13.9 18.3 23.0 22.5 24.1 26.4 21.2 19.4 14.7 8.5
26 10.5 15.6 13.3 17.1 21.6 23.7 23.2 25.2 22.4 19.1 15.2 7.7
27 10.5 14.0 13.9 14.9 21.5 22.9 25.0 24.3 21.6 18.4 15.2 9.4
28 12.4 11.4 13.8 18.1 20.5 23.1 23.1 23.2 21.6 16.6 14.3 8.7
29 9.6 14.4 20.3 21.0 24.0 22.3 24.0 23.8 16.5 12.8 8.8
30 9.2 12.8 18.1 22.9 24.4 23.4 27.0 25.5 17.6 12.6 10.3
31 9.5 15.3 22.8 24.6 25.2 18.8 10.7
AVR. 11.3 12.7 13.5 16.6 18.5 22.2 23.8 24.5 23.8 20.6 15.2 11.1
92
Appendix (B): Calculations
In this appendix, the important calculations are shown in more details
especially the SHRP and LTPP models.
93
1. SHRP High-Temperature Model
T20mm = (Tair - 0.00618 Lat2 + 0.2289 Lat + 42.2)(0.9545) - 17.78
where:
Tair= 33.83oC (seven-day average high air temperature)
Lat= 31.3
There is a 2 percent chance that the seven-day maximum will exceed (33.83+ 2 *2.97) oC
(maximum air temperature for 98 percent reliability is 39.93oC).
T20mm = (39.93 - 0.00618 x 31.32 + 0.2289 x 31.3 + 42.2)(0.9545) - 17.78 = 61.68
1. SHRP Low-Temperature Model

T = Tair + 0.051d + 0.000063d2
Where:
Tair = 5.71 (average of minimum air temperature)
d = 0 (pavement depth in mm). it equals "Zero" as we calculate at the surface of the pavement so
that the depth is 0.
Lat= 31.3
There is a 2 percent chance that the average of minimum air temperature will decreased
(5.71- 2 *1.44) oC (average of minimum air temperature for 98 percent reliability is 2.75oC).
T = Tair + 0.051d + 0.000063d2 = 2.75 + 0 + 0 = 2.75
2. Long Term Pavement Performance Program (LTPP)
pavement temperatures, The LTPP relationship is as follows:
94
2.1 LTPP High-Temperature Model with Reliability
T(pav) = 54.32+0.78 T(air) -0.0025 Lat -15.14 log10(H + 25)+ z (9 +0.61 air)
where:
T(air) = 33.83oC (seven-day average high air temperature, C)
Lat = 31.3 (Latitude of the section, degrees.)
H = 0 (Depth below surface, Assumed to be zero for example)
air = 2.97 (Standard deviation of the high 7-day mean air temperature, C)
: Average of the highest seven days temperature (See table 4.5) = 33.83
n: Number of sample = 31 x 7 = 217.
Z = From the standard normal distribution table, Z=2.055 for 98% reliability and 0 for
50% Reliability.
T(pav)=54.32+0.78 x 33.83 -0.0025 x 31.3 -15.14 log10(0 + 25)+ 2.055 (9 +0.61x 2.97) =
61.02
2.2 LTPP Low-Temperature Model with Reliability
T(pav) = 1.56+0.72 T(air) -0.004 Lat +6.26 log10(H + 25)-z (4.4 +0.52 air)
where:
air = Standard deviation of the high 7-day mean air temperature, C
z = From the standard normal distribution table, z=2.055 for 98% reliability
T(pav) = 1.56+0.72 x 5.71-0.004 x31.3 +6.26 log10(0 + 25)-2.055 (4.4 +0.52 x 1.44) = 5.69
95
Appendix (C) :
Superpave Gradation Specification
96
Table C - 1: Superpave Gradation for 37.5 mm (1 1/2 inch) Nominal Size
Sieve Size 37.5 mm

Restricted
Raised Zone Max
Sieve,mm Control Points Boundary
to 0.45 Density
Min Max Gradation
50 5.814823 100
37.5 5.108743 90 100 87.86
25 4.2567 73.20
19 3.762176 64.70
12.5 3.116087 53.59
9.5 2.754074 47.36
4.75 2.0161 34.7 34.7 34.67
2.36 1.47167 15 41 23.3 27.3 25.31
1.18 1.077325 15.5 21.5 18.53
0.6 0.794636 11.7 15.7 13.67
0.3 0.581707 10 10 10.00
0.15 0.425835 7.32
0.075 0.311729 0 6 5.36
0 0 0.00
Sieve Size 37.5 mm

Max Density Gradation Res Zone Min Res Zone Max
120.00
100.00
80.00
% Passing
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Figure C - 1: Superpave Gradation Chart for 37.5 mm
97
Table C - 2: Superpave Gradation for 25 mm (1 inch) Nominal Size
Sieve Size 25 mm
Restricted
Raised to Control Zone Max Density
Sieve,mm
0.45 Points Boundary Gradation
Min Max
37.5 5.108743 100
25 4.2567 90 100 83.32
19 3.762176 73.64
12.5 3.116087 61.00
9.5 2.754074 53.91
4.75 2.0161 39.5 39.5 39.46
2.36 1.47167 19 45 26.8 30.8 28.81
1.18 1.077325 18.1 24.1 21.09
0.6 0.794636 13.6 17.6 15.55
0.3 0.581707 11.4 11.4 11.39
0.15 0.425835 8.34
0.075 0.311729 1 7 6.10
0 0 0.00
Sieve Size 25 mm
120.00
100.00
80.00
% Passing
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure C - 2: Superpave Gradation Chart for 25 mm
98
Table C - 3: Superpave Gradation for 19 mm (3/4 inch) Nominal Size
Sieve Size 19 mm
Restricted Zone
Raised to Control
Sieve,mm Boundary Max Density
0.45 Points
Min Max Gradation
25 4.2567 100
19 3.762176 90 100 88.38
12.5 3.116087 73.20
9.5 2.754074 64.70
4.75 2.0161 47.36
2.36 1.47167 23 49 34.6 34.6 34.57
1.18 1.077325 22.3 28.3 25.31
0.6 0.794636 16.7 20.7 18.67
0.3 0.581707 13.7 13.7 13.67
0.15 0.425835 10.00
0.075 0.311729 2 8 7.32
0 0 0.00
Sieve Size 19 mm
120.00
100.00
80.00
% Passing
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5
Figure C - 3: Superpave Gradation Chart for 19 mm
99
Table C - 4: Superpave Gradation for 12.5 mm (1/2 inch) Nominal Size
Sieve Size 12.5 mm

Restricted
Zone Max
Raised to Control
Sieve,mm Density
0.45 Points Boundary
Gradation
Min Max
19 3.762176 100
12.5 3.116087 90 100 82.83
9.5 2.754074 73.20
4.75 2.0161 53.59
2.36 1.47167 28 58 39.1 39.1 39.12
1.18 1.077325 25.6 31.6 28.64
0.6 0.794636 19.1 23.1 21.12
0.3 0.581707 15.5 15.5 15.46
0.15 0.425835 11.32
0.075 0.311729 2 10 8.29
0 0 0.00
Sieve Size 12.5 mm

120.00
100.00
80.00
% Passing
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
0 1 2 3 4
100
Table C - 5: Superpave Gradation for 9.5 mm (3/8 inch) Nominal Size
Sieve Size 9.5 mm

Restricted
Zone Max
Raised to
Sieve,mm Control Points Density
0.45 Boundary
Gradation
Min Max
12.5 3.116087 100
9.5 2.754074 90 100 88.38
4.75 2.0161 64.70
2.36 1.47167 32 67 47.2 47.2 47.23
1.18 1.077325 31.6 37.6 34.57
0.6 0.794636 23.5 27.5 25.50
0.3 0.581707 18.7 18.7 18.67
0.15 0.425835 13.67
0.075 0.311729 2 10 10.00
0 0 0.00
Sieve Size 9.5 mm

120.00
100.00
80.00
% Passing
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
0 1 2 3 4
101
Appendix (D) :
SUPERPAVE - Specification Summary Table
102
SUPERPAVE Performance Grade Asphalt Binder - Specification
Summary Table
The table below is the standard summary table presented in the AASHTO MP 1
specification for performance graded asphalt binder.The following items may help to
decipher this table:
The top several rows (all the rows above the "original binder" row) are used
to designate the desired PG grade.For instance, if the average 7-day
maximum pavement design temperature is greater than 52oC but less than
58oC then you should use the "< 58" column.The temperatures directly under
the "< 58" cell are selected based on the minimum pavement design
temperature in oC.
No matter what the desired PG binder specification, the same tests are
run.The PG specification (e.g., PG 58-22) just determines the temperature at
which the tests are run.
Tests are run on the original binder (no simulated aging), RTFO residue
(simulated short-term aging) and PAV residue (simulated long-term aging)
in order to fully characterize the asphalt binder throughout its life.Notice that
often the same test is run on different simulated binder ages.For instance, the
dynamic shear test is run on all three simulated binder ages.
The tests run on the binder are listed in the left-hand column.They are not
necessarily listed by their common names but the applicable AASHTO test
procedure is listed.For instance, "Flash Point Temp. T 48, Minimum (oC)"
means that the flash point is measured according to AASHTO T 48 and that
the value in the adjacent column represents the minimum allowable in
degrees Centigrade.
103
Table D - 1: Performance Graded Asphalt Binder Specifications (from AASHTO,
2001)
PG 46 PG 52 PG 58 PG 64
Performance Grade
34 40 46 10 16 22 28 34 40 46 16 22 28 34 40 10 16 22 28 34 40
Average 7-day Maximum Pavement Design
< 46 < 52 < 58 < 64
Temperature, oCa
Minimum Pavement Design Temperature, oCa -34 -40 -46 -10 -16 -22 -28 -34 -40 -46 -16 -22 -28 -34 -40 -10 -16 -22 -28 -34 -40
ORIGINAL BINDER
o
Flash Point Temp, T 48, Minimum ( C) 230
Viscosity, ASTM D 4402:b
135
Maximum, 3 Pa*s, Test Temp, oC
c
Dynamic Shear, TP 5:
G*/sinf, Minimum, 1.00 kPa 46 52 58 64
Test Temp @ 10 rad/s, oC
ROLLING THIN FILM OVEN RESIDUE (T 240)

Mass Loss, Maximum, percent 1.00
G*/sinf, Minimum, 2.20 kPa 46 52 58 64
PRESSURE AGING VESSEL RESIDUE (PP 1)

PAV Aging Temperature, C o d
90 90 100 100
G*/sinf, Maximum, 5000 kPa 10 7 4 25 22 19 16 13 10 7 25 22 19 16 13 31 28 25 22 19 16
Physical Hardeninge Report
Creep Stiffness, TP 1
Determine the critical cracking temperature as -24 -30 -36 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 -36 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30
described in PP 42
Direct Tension, TP 3
Determine the critical cracking temperature as -24 -30 -36 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 -36 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30
described in PP 42
a
Pavement temperatures are estimated from air temperatures using an algorithm contained in the LTPP Bind program, may
be provided by the specifying agency, or by following the procedures as outlined in MP 2 and PP 28.
b This requirement may be waived at the discretion of the specifying agency if the supplier warrants that the asphalt binder can
be adequately pumped and mixed at temperatures that meet all applicable safety standards.
c For quality control of unmodified asphalt binder production, measurement of the viscosity of the original asphalt binder may
be used to supplement dynamic shear measuremments of G*/sin at test temperatures where the asphalt is a Newtonian
fluid.
d
The PAV aging temperature is based on simulated climatic conditions and is one of three temperatures 90 oC, 90oC or
110oC. The PAV aging temperature is 100oC for PG 58- and above, except in desert climates, where it is 110oC.
e Physical hardening -- TP 1 is performed on a set of asphalt beams according to Section 12, except the conditioning time is
extended to 24 hours 10 minutes at 10oC above the minimum performance temperature. The 24-hour stiffness and m -
value are reported for information purposes only.
f G*/sin = high temperature stiffness and G*/sin = intermediate temperature stiffness
104
PG 70 PG 76 PG 82
Performance Grade
10 16 22 28 34 40 10 16 22 28 34 10 16 22 28 34
Average 7-day Maximum Pavement Design
< 70 < 76 < 82
Temperature, oCa
Minimum Pavement Design Temperature, oCa -10 -16 -22 -28 -34 -40 -10 -16 -22 -28 -34 -10 -16 -22 -28 -34
ORIGINAL BINDER
o
Flash Point Temp, T 48, Minimum ( C) 230
Viscosity, ASTM D 4402:b
135
Maximum, 3 Pa*s, Test Temp, oC
Dynamic Shear, TP 5:c
G*/sinf, Minimum, 1.00 kPa 70 76 82
o
Test Temp @ 10 rad/s, C
ROLLING THIN FILM OVEN RESIDUE (T 240)

Mass Loss, Maximum, percent 1.00
G*/sinf, Minimum, 2.20 kPa 70 76 82
PRESSURE AGING VESSEL RESIDUE (PP 1)

PAV Aging Temperature, oCd 100 (110) 100 (110) 100 (110)
G*sinf, Maximum, 5000 kPa 34 31 28 25 22 19 37 34 31 28 25 40 37 34 31 28
Physical Hardeninge Report
Creep Stiffness, TP 1
Determine the critical cracking temperature as 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 0 -6 -12 -18 -24
described in PP 42
Direct Tension, TP 3
Determine the critical cracking temperature as 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 0 -6 -12 -18 -24
described in PP 42
105
Table D - 2: Roads list according to ESALs (million) and function ( from Abu
Isied, 2005)
No. Road ESALs (million)
Residential B, ESALs for Roads < 0.05 million
1 Big Mosque 0.038
Residential A, ESALs for Roads from 0.05 0.1 million
1 Abu Khaled Prep Girl School (Average) 0.078
Local B, ESALs for Roads from 0.2 0.5 million
0 Al Kholafa 0.493
Local C, ESALs for Roads from 0.5 0.75 million
0 Khaled El Hassan 0.717
2 Palestine 0.706
2 Al Quds 0.559
Major Collector, ESALs for Roads from 2.0 5.0 million
1 Al Nasser 2.999
2 Al ShohadaBureij 2.29
Minor Arterial, Average ESALs for Roads from 5 10 million
1 Jamal A Average 9.939
2 Salah Eddin Khan Average 9.696
3 Salah Eddin Gaza Average 9.304
4 AL RasheedNuseirat Average 9
5 Al Jala' Average 6.703
Major Arterial, ESALs for Roads from 10 15 million
1 Al Rasheed Gaza 13.881
106
107
108

Applications of Superpave System For Bituminous Mix Design Based On The Gaza Strip Conditions

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

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

Applications of Superpave System For Bituminous Mix Design Based On The Gaza Strip Conditions

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

The Islamic University of Gaza

High Studies Deanery

Applications of Superpave System for

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for degree of Master of Science in Civil

To my father and my mother who taught me how to give

To the soul of my Brother, the martyr Mohammed and to the soul

of my nephew, the martyr Ahmed

To my wife who supported me whole heartedly

To all my teachers who supported me

To all my friends who spare no effort to help

To my university The Islamic University of Gaza which is

continuously improving the research

To the Palestinian people who have suffered and will be struggling

with the persistence to have a free Palestine.

To all of them I dedicate this work

I would like to thank my supervisor Prof. Dr. Shafik Jendia, for

Thanks are extended to the General Directorate of Meteorology

Figure A- 1: Lowest Temperature per month from 1976 to 1986 .............................................................. 76

SUPERPAVE Superior Performing Asphalt Pavements

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

Tair (high) Seven-day average high air temperature (oC)

TMIN Daily minimum temperature.

T(air) high Seven-day average high air temperature, C

H Depth of pavement surface, mm

T(pav)low Low pavement temperature below the surface, C

T(air)low Low air temperature, C

air (low) Standard deviation of the mean low air temperature.

More countries in the world trended to adopt SUPERPAVE system because it is

1.2 Statement of the Problem

1.4 Thesis Aim and Objectives

The main objectives of the study are:

A. Review of literature, publications, books, journals, ,manuals and articles specific to

Overview of Studies in others Collecting Construction

Developing Asphalt Binder

Analysis of Collected Data

Application of Models to Convert Air

High Pavement Low Pavement

SHRP LTPP SHRP LTPP

Adjusting PG for Selecting Testing Cases of Adequacy of

1.5.2 Collection of actual data (weather data)

1.5.3 Analysis of collected data

1.5.4 Application of Models to Convert Air to Pavement Temp.

1.5.5 Selecting performance grade (PG)

1.5.6 Testing cases of various reliability factors

1.5.11 Testing the adequacy of local material

1.6 Thesis Structures

2.2 Background of SHRP

2.3 SHRP Program

2.4 LTPP Program

2.6 Technical Aspect of SUPERPAVE Mix Design

2.7 Concept of SUPERPAVE Mix Design

2.8 Steps of SUPERPAVE Mix Design

2.9 SUPERPAVE Performance Grade (PG)

2.9.2 Asphalt Binder Evaluation

2.9.3 Design Pavement Temperature

-22 52-22 58-22 64-22 70-22 76-22

-28 52-28 58-28 64-28 70-28 76-28

-34 52-34 58-34 64-34 70-34 76-34

-40 52-40 58-40 64-40 70-40 76-40

2.10 Comparison between PG System and AC and AR System

SUPERPAVE Binder Testing and

Test criteria remain constant, however, the