UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI

i
MASTERS OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING
(TRANSPORTATION)

CE 462

SUPERPAVE HOT MIX ASPHALT DESIGN

Presenter
OTWANI J. A
F56/67543/2013

NOVEMBER 2013
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1
1.1 Background :
Superpave stands for SUperior PERforming
asphalt PAVEments. (FHWA:US-DoT)
Developed in the US (1987 1993) through
the Strategic Highway Research Programme
(SHRP)
Adopted in SA in 2001 blend of Marshall and
Superpave.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2
1.2 Problem statement
Increasing traffic loads, traffic volumes and
tyre contact stresses have resulted in
increased incidences of premature distress
(rutting, ravelling, cracking and potholes)
Marshall method does not satisfactorily
address secondary compaction.
 1.0 INTRODUCTION
3
1.3 Research Questions
What are the inherent deficiencies in the
Marshall method of mix design?
How does the superpave design method
address the deficiencies in the Marshall
method?
 1.0 INTRODUCTION
4
1.3. Study objectives
To outline inherent deficiencies in the
Marshall method of HMA design.
To illustrate how the superpave method
addresses inherent deficiencies in the
Marshall method of HMA design.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
5

1.4. Scope and Limitations of Study

The study covers the superpave method of
HMA design adopted from SA.
 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
6
2.1 Overseas Road Note 19
Details the types of HMA
Materials specifications for HMA
Marshall design method
Superpave design method
Mix design specifications.
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
7
2.2 Strategic Highway Research
Programme (FHWA, 1998)
Initiated in 1987 by the US Congress
5-year, $150 million applied research program
Aimed at improving the performance,

durability, safety, and efficiency of the US

highway system.
 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
8
2.2 Strategic Highway Research Programme
(FHWA, 1998)- cont
Three primary objectives:
Investigate why some pavements perform well,
while others do not.
Develop tests and specifications for materials
Work with highway agencies and industry to have
the new specifications put to use.
 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
9
2.2 Strategic Highway Research Programme
(FHWA, 1998) cont..
Results of SHRP:
Superpave HMA design method.
Three levels of design for low, intermediate and high
traffic volumes (ESA).
Complexity of mix design increases from level 1 to 3
Performance based criteria used to select mix design.
4.0 SUPERPAVE HMA DESIGN METHOD
4.1 FLOW CHART
10
4.0 SUPERPAVE HMA DESIGN METHOD CONTD
4.1 Selection of bitumen and source of aggregates

11
Bitumen grade selected to suit temperature
conditions and traffic loading.(Pen, Softening
point)
Aggregates tested to confirm compliance with
specs(LAAV, SSS, FI, ACV)
4.0 SUPERPAVE HMA DESIGN METHOD CONTD
4.1 Grading of aggregates

12
4.0 SUPERPAVE HMA DESIGN METHOD CONTD
4.1 Grading of aggregates cont

13
4.0 SUPERPAVE HMA DESIGN METHOD CONTD
4.1 Grading of aggregates cont

14
Aggregate single size and combined grading

Agg size 14-30mm 6-14mm 3-6mm 0-3mm Filler GRADING

Proportions Theoretical Actual Control points

Sieve 39 20 12 29 0 grading grading sieve min max

37.5 100 100 100 100 100 100 37.5 100
28 100 100 100 100 100 99 25 90 100
20 64 100 100 100 86 88 19 90
14 29 100 100 100 72 73 2.36 19 45
6.3 0.5 4 100 100 42 43 0.075 1 7
2 1 75 22 21 Caution zone
1 47 14 13 sieve min max
0.3 25 7 7 4.75 39.5 39.5
0.075 11 3.2 3 2.36 26.8 30.8
1.18 18.1 24.1
0.6 13.6 17.6
Flakiness
Index 18.6 25 17.5 0.3 11.4 11.4
4.0 SUPERPAVE HMA DESIGN METHOD CONTD
4.1 Grading of aggregates cont

15

COMBINED AGGREGATE GRADING FOR DBM 0/30MM SUPER PAVE

% Passing

Sieve Size (mm)

cp1 caution zone Rz2 ACTUAL CURVE Co ntrol points limits

4.0 SUPERPAVE HMA DESIGN METHOD CONTD
4.1 Compaction of superpave mix design

16
4.0 SUPERPAVE HMA DESIGN METHOD CONTD
4.1 Compaction of superpave mix design contd

17
Constant pressure of 600 kPa on compacting
ram.
Constant rate of rotation of the mould at 30
gyrations per minute
Mould positioned at compaction angle of 1.25
degrees.
Compaction effort depends on design traffic
loading
4.0 SUPERPAVE HMA DESIGN METHOD CONTD
4.1 Compaction of superpave mix design contd

18
4.0 SUPERPAVE HMA DESIGN METHOD CONTD
4.1 Compaction of superpave mix design contd

19
4.0 SUPERPAVE HMA DESIGN METHOD CONTD
4.2 Refusal density determination

20
4.0 SUPERPAVE HMA DESIGN METHOD CONTD
4.2.1 Mix properties at refusal density

21

Refusal density Test by Vibrating Hammer Method

Binder content 3.5 4.0 4.5

Refusaldensity 2.225 2.249 2.26

Maximumspecificgravity 2.380 2.364 2.348

Refusalvoidsinmix 6.5 4.9 3.7

Voidsinmineralaggregates 13.4 12.9 13.0

VoidsfilledwithBinder 51.5 62.5 71.2

4.0 SUPERPAVE HMA DESIGN METHOD CONTD
4.2.2 Refusal density property curves

22
Refusal voids
7.0 V.M.A
14.0
6.0
Refusal voids
5.0 13.0
V.M.A
4.0 12.0
3.0
3 3.5 4 4.5 5 11.0
3 3.5 4 4.5 5
% Binder by wt of mix
% Binder by wt of mix

V.F.B

V.F.B

3 3.5 4 4.5 5

% Binder by wt of mix
4.0 SUPERPAVE HMA DESIGN METHOD CONTD
4.2.3 Determination of optimum bitumen content

23

Parameter BC

1.At4.0%Refusalvoids 4.4

2.A13.0%VoidsinMineralAggregates 3.9

3.At65%VoidsFilledWithBinder 4.1

Total 12.4

Average 4.1

Design binder content from vibrating hammer test 4.1%

4.0 SUPERPAVE HMA DESIGN METHOD CONTD
4.2.4 Mix properties at design binder content

24

Summary of DBM mix properties at the design binder content (4.1%)

Parameter Unit Result Specifications

Min Max
Marshallstability@60C KN 12.8 5
Flow (mm) 3.4 2 5
VoidsinMixfrommarshalltest (%) 6.9 4 10

VoidsinMixfromV.Htest (%) 4.7 3

Voidsinmineralaggregates (%) 12.9 12

Voidsfilledwithbitumen (%) 65 65 75
 4.3 MARSHALL HMA DESIGN METHOD
4.3.1 Marshall test data

25

Marshall Test Data

Binder Content (%) 3 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

TheoreticalMax.RelativeDensity 2.397 2.381 2.365 2.348 2.333

BulkRelativeDensity 2.172 2.191 2.193 2.209 2.203

Voidsinmix(%) 9.4 8.0 7.3 5.9 5.6

Voidsinmineralaggregates(%) 15.0 14.7 15.1 14.9 15.6

VoidsfilledwithBinder(%) 37.5 45.9 52.0 60.2 64.4

Stability(KN) 12.65 13.09 12.51 12.15 10.59

Flow(mm) 2.7 3.3 3.5 3.9 3.5

4.3 MARSHALL HMA DESIGN METHOD
4.3.2 Marshall design curves

26
Bulk density 14 STABILITY (KN)
13
Bulk density Stability(KN)
12

11

10
2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
% Binder by wt of mix % Binder by wt of mix

10.0 % VIM 16.0 VMA(%)

9.0
8.0 15.0
% VIM 7.0 VMA(%)
6.0 14.0
5.0
4.0 13.0
2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
% Binder by wt of mix % Binder by wt of mix
4.3 MARSHALL HMA DESIGN METHOD
4.3.2 Marshall design curves cont
27
FLOW (mm)
4.5
4.0
Flow(mm)
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
% Binder by wt of mix

VFB(%)

VFB(%)

2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5

% Binder by wt of mix
4.3 MARSHALL HMA DESIGN METHOD
4.3.3 Determination of optimum bitumen content.
28
From the Marshall design curves:

Parameter BC
1. AtmaximumDensity
4.6
2.AtmaximumStability
3.5
3.At7%VIM
4.0
4.At3.5mmFlow
4.3
5.At14.9%VMA
3.5
6.At65%VFB
5
TOTAL 24.9

Average = 4.2

Therefore, the Optimum Binder Content from the Marshall test is, 4.2%

4.3 MARSHALL HMA DESIGN METHOD

4.3.4 Calculation of Voids In Mineral Aggregates
(VMA).
29
4.3 MARSHALL HMA DESIGN METHOD
4.3.5 Calculation of Voids In Mix (VIM).
29
4.3 MARSHALL HMA DESIGN METHOD
4.3.6 Calculation of Voids Filled with Bitumen (VFB).
29
 30

THANK YOU

QUESTIONS, COMMENTS
AND SUGGESTIONS