pavement design

GEORGIA GEORGIA LOCAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM SEPTEMBER 2004
LTAP
FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION
FDR
FOAMED ASPHALT – PAVEMENT DESIGN
PART 1 (AM) TECHNOLOGY
FULL DEPTH ROADWAY RECLAMATION
FOAMED ASPHALT STABILIZATION
PART 2 (PM) PAVEMENT DESIGN
JOHN EMERY, ALAIN DUCLOS, EMILY CHANG, JESSICA HERNANDEZ
JOHN EMERY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING LIMITED
TORONTO, ONTARIO, CANADA
www.jegel.com JEGEL – ISO 9001 jemery@jegel.com
THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE OF BLAIR BARNHARDT (BLOUNT CONSTRUCTION)
IS GRATEFULLY ACKNOWLEDGED.
COUNTY OF WELLINGTON WR 50 FDR PROJECT COMPLETED IN 1997
CONDITION IN DECEMBER 1999

FOAMED ASPHALT PART 1 CONCLUSIONS
• ADVANTAGES
– EASY APPLICATION
– FLEXIBLE LAYER WITH GOOD RUTTING AND FATIGUE PROPERTIES
– ECONOMIC (LCCA)
– RAPID STRENGTH GAIN - ROAD CAN BE OPENED AFTER COMPACTION
– REFLECTIVE CRACKING MITIGATION
• DISADVANTAGES
– REQUIRES A SUPPLY OF HOT (~160°C, 320°F PLUS) ASPHALT CEMENT
– STABILIZED MATERIAL SHOULD HAVE 5 TO 15 PERCENT PASSING 75 µm
• FOAMED (EXPANDED) ASPHALT STABILIZATION WELL ESTABLISHED, PROVEN
AND COST EFFECTIVE
• REFLECTIVE CRACKING MITIGATION
• PROFILE CORRECTION AND SUPERELEVATION RESTORATION
• RECOMMEND AGENCY EVALUATE PAVEMENT/SET PERFORMANCE
SPECIFICATIONS AND ACCEPTANCE (QA)
• RECOMMEND CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR DESIGN/PROCESS/MATERIALS
PERFORMANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL
• RECOMMEND STABILIZATION PROCESS BE SEPARATE PAY ITEM
• a 1 OF ~ 0.35 TO 0.40 FOR AASHTO SN (GBE OF ~ 1.8) FOR PROPERLY DESIGNED
AND CONSTRUCTED FOAMED ASPHALT STABILIZATION (QUALITY VERY
IMPORTANT)

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN
THE QUALITY OF WORK PERFORMED
DIRECTLY INFLUENCES THE USEFUL LIFE OF
THE PAVEMENT, MAINTENANCE COSTS, LEVEL
OF SERVICE AND USER COSTS
CHALLENGING TIME FOR PAVEMENTS
• INCREASING TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND TRUCK LOADINGS
• LIMITED CAPITAL AND MAINTENANCE FUNDS
• NETWORKS IN NEED OF MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT
• MANY BRIDGES ARE DEFICIENT
DON VALLEY PARKWAY IN TORONTO
LONG-LIFE ASPHALT PAVEMENT – PERPETUAL PAVEMENT

PART 2
F
E
E
D
B
A
C
K
INVENTORY
INVENTORY
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN
INPUT
INPUT
INFORMATION
INFORMATION
PERFORMANCE
PERFORMANCE
CRITERIA
CRITERIA
PAVEMENT
PAVEMENT
MODELS
MODELS
PAVEMENT
PAVEMENT
SERVICEABILITY
SERVICEABILITY
PAVEMENT
PAVEMENT
MATERIALS
MATERIALS
PAVEMENT
PAVEMENT
DESIGN
DESIGN
NEW,
NEW,
OVERLAY,
OVERLAY,
REHABILITATION
REHABILITATION
CONSTRUCT
CONSTRUCT
PAVEMENT
PAVEMENT
OR
OR
OVERLAY
OVERLAY
PAVEMENT
PAVEMENT
OR
OR
REHABILITATE
REHABILITATE
PAVEMENT
PAVEMENT
SYSTEMATIC
SYSTEMATIC
PAVEMENT
PAVEMENT
MAINTENANCE
MAINTENANCE
MAINTENANCE
MAINTENANCE
MANAGEMENT
MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM
SYSTEM
PAVEMENT
PAVEMENT
MANAGEMENT
MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM
SYSTEM
PERFORMANCE
PERFORMANCE
MONITORING
MONITORING
SAFE,
SAFE,
SMOOTH,
SMOOTH,
SURFACES
SURFACES
HAPPY
HAPPY
CUSTOMERS
CUSTOMERS
LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS AND VALUE ENGINEERING
• TRAFFIC (ESALs)
•SUBGRADE
• DRAINAGE CONDITIONS
• ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
• BUDGET
• RUTTING
•FATIGUE
• THERMAL
•INITIAL
•TERMINAL
• PCI - PSR
•IRI
• SUBBASE
• BASE
• ASPHALT CONCRETE
SUPERPAVE
PGAC, VOLUMETRIC, PERFORMANCE
•GBE
• AASHTO 93
• COMING SOON - AASHTO 2002
• LCCA AND VE
•QC
•QA
• CRACK SEALING
• SUMMER MAINTENANCE
• WINTER MAINTENANCE
• PAVEMENT PRESERVATION
• INVENTORY (DATA BANK)
• MONITOR PERFORMANCE
• NETWORK LEVEL
• PROJECT LEVEL
• BUDGET
• WINTER SURFACE CONDITION
• MOVING TO PMS/MMS/AMS
•PERPETUAL FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS
• STRONG
• DURABLE
• SMOOTH
• SAFE
• ECONOMIC
HIGHWAY AND AIRPORT
CITY OF TORONTO ROYAL YORK ROAD 1997 CIR PROJECT WITH HMA SURFACE
CURRENT CONDITION

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN
ASPHALT
GRANLAR BASE OR FOAMED ASPHALT
GRANULAR SUBBASE
SUBGRADE
TYPICAL PAVEMENT STRUCTURE

• PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
– RUTTING AND FATIGUE
• PAVEMENT DESIGN INPUT REQUIRED
– TRAFFIC
– SUBGRADE
– DRAINAGE CONDITIONS
- KEY TO PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE
- DRAINAGE, DRAINAGE, DRAINAGE
- TAKE THE WATER OUT, KEEP THE WATER OUT
– ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
– MATERIALS
- GRANULAR MATERIALS
- FOAMED ASPHALT
- ASPHALT CONCRETE
– SERVICEABILITY
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN
- INITIAL AND TERMINAL

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN
• PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
RUTTING
TOTAL PAVEMENT - SUBGRADE, GRANULAR SUBBASE,
GRANULAR BASE, FOAMED ASPHALT AND/OR ASPHALT
CONCRETE
FATIGUE
ASPHALT CONCRETE AND FOAMED ASPHALT

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN
CRITICAL STRAINS FOR MECHANISTIC ANALYSIS
HORIZONTAL STRAIN AT BOTTOM
OF ASPHALT CONCRETE
OR FOAMED ASPHALT
VERTICAL STRAIN AT TOP OF SUBGRADE

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN
PAVEMENT DESIGN
INPUT REQUIRED
•TRAFFIC
TYPE, MASS AND NUMBER (AADT)
ESALs

• TRAFFIC
• SUBGRADE
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN
PAVEMENT DESIGN
INPUT REQUIRED
BOREHOLE INVESTIGATION
CBR TESTING
LABORATORY MR TESTING
DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER TESTING
FWD TESTING
PARTICULARLY FOR REHABILITATION

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN
PAVEMENT EVALUATION
• VISUAL CONDITION SURVEY
• CORING/BOREHOLE INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE THE
THICKNESS OF THE ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT
LAYER(S) AND GRANULAR BASE/SUBBASE AND TO OBTAIN
SAMPLES FOR LABORATORY TESTING
• FALLING WEIGHT DEFLECTOMETER (FWD) LOAD/DEFLECTION
TESTING TO DETERMINE THE STRUCTURAL CAPACITY OF
THE PAVEMENT
• LABORATORY TESTING OF MATERIALS OBTAINED ON SITE
• EMPIRICAL OR MECHANISTIC-EMPIRICAL PAVEMENT
STRUCTURE ANALYSIS (DESIGN)
IS THIS A SUITABLE SECTION FOR FOAMED ASPHALT
•DRAINAGE?
•STRUCTURAL ADEQUACY? FWD

• TRAFFIC
• SUBGRADE
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN
PAVEMENT DESIGN
INPUT REQUIRED
• DRAINAGE CONDITIONS
KEY TO PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE
1. DRAINAGE
2. DRAINAGE
3. DRAINAGE
TAKE THE WATER OUT. KEEP THE
WATER OUT.

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN
• TRAFFIC
• SUBGRADE
• DRAINAGE CONDITIONS
IMPROVE OR INSTALL AS NECESSARY

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN
PAVEMENT DESIGN
INPUT REQUIRED
• TRAFFIC
• SUBGRADE
• DRAINAGE CONDITIONS
• ENVIRONMENTAL
CONDITIONS
FROST SUSCEPTIBILITY

• TRAFFIC
• SUBGRADE
• DRAINAGE CONDITIONS
• ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
• PAVEMENT SERVICEABILITY
INITIAL
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN
PAVEMENT DESIGN
INPUT REQUIRED
LOW TRAFFIC EXAMPLE

• TRAFFIC
• SUBGRADE
• DRAINAGE CONDITIONS
• ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
• PAVEMENT SERVICEABILITY
INITIAL
TERMINAL
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN
PAVEMENT DESIGN
INPUT REQUIRED
IS THIS A CANDIDATE FOR FOAMED ASPHALT?
FWD
LOW TRAFFIC EXAMPLE

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT EMPIRICAL DESIGN METHODS
AASHTO 93 IS COMMONLY USED AASHTO 2002 COMING SOON
• TRAFFIC
• SUBGRADE
• DRAINAGE CONDITIONS
• ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
• PAVEMENT SERVICEABILITY
• MATERIALS
GRANULAR SUBBASE
GRANULAR BASE
FOAMED ASPHALT
ASPHALT CONCRETE
GBE
AASHTO 93 a i
ASPHALT PAVEMENTS
SN = a 1 D 1 + a 2 D 2 m 2 + a 3 D 3 m 3

• TRAFFIC
• SUBGRADE
• DRAINAGE CONDITIONS
• ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
• PAVEMENT SERVICEABILITY
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN
PAVEMENT DESIGN
INPUT REQUIRED
• MATERIALS
GRANULAR SUBBASE
GRANULAR BASE
FOAMED ASPHALT
ASPHALT CONCRETE
GBE
AASHTO 93 α i
AASHTO 93 GRANULAR SUBBASE LAYER COEFFICIENT

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN
PAVEMENT LAYERS THICKNESS DESIGN
AASHTO 93
SN = a 1 D 1 + a 2 D 2 m 2 + a 3 D 3 m 3
WHERE
SN
a 1 , a 2 , a 3
D 1 , D 2 , D 3
m 2 , m 3
=
=
=
=
DESIGN STRUCTURAL NUMBER
LAYER COEFFICIENTS REPRESENTATIVE
OF SURFACE (INCLUDING FOAMED
ASPHALT) BASE, AND SUBBASE
COURSES, RESPECTIVELY
ACTUAL THICKNESS OF SURFACE
(INCLUDING FOAMED ASPHALT), BASE,
AND SUBBASE COURSES, RESPECTIVELY
DRAINAGE COEFFICIENTS FOR BASE
AND SUBBASE COURSES, RESPECTIVELY
CHECK FOR FATIGUE
DESIGN STRUCTURAL NUMBER

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN
WHY AASHTO 93?
AASHTO 93
• STRONG EMPIRICAL BACKGROUND
AASHO ROAD TEST 1960s
• WIDELY RECOGNIZED
• EVOLVING INTO AASHTO 2002
• DARWIN TM

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN
DARWIN IS A PAVEMENT DESIGN SOFTWARE
PROGRAM BASED ON “AASHTO GUIDE FOR THE
DESIGN OF PAVEMENT STRUCTURES, 1993”.

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN
LANE DISTRIBUTION FACTOR
AASHTO 93
NUMBER OF LANES
IN EACH DIRECTION
PERCENT OF 18-kip
ESAL IN DESIGN
LANE
1 100
2 80 – 100
3 60 – 80
4 50 - 75

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN
LEVELS OF RELIABILITY
AASHTO 93
FUNCTIONAL
CLASIFICATION
INTERSTATE
AND OTHER
FREEWAYS
PRINCIPAL
ARTERIALS
LEVEL OF RELIABILITY
URBAN RURAL
85 – 99.9 80 – 99.9
80 – 99 75 – 95
COLLECTORS 80 – 95 75 – 95
LOCAL 50 - 80 50 - 80

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN
INPUT REQUIRED
AASHTO 93 DRAINAGE COEFFICIENTS
FOR FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN
CHECK FOR FATIGUE
AASHTO 93
SHELL

RMRC RESEARCH

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT EMPIRICAL DESIGN METHODS
~ GRANULAR BASE EQUIVALENCY (GBE) FACTORS
ONTARIO EXPERIENCE
• NEW PROJECTS
• HOT-MIX ASPHALT (INCLUDING RECYCLED) 2.0
• GRANULAR BASE (CRUSHED, CBR ≥ 60) 1.0
• GRANULAR SUBBASE (CBR < 60) 0.67
• OGDL (NOT RECOMMENDED) 1.0
• RESURFACING PROJECTS
• OLD HOT-MIX ASPHALT 1.25
• OLD GRANULAR BASE 0.75
• OLD GRANULAR SUBBASE 0.50
• RECONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
• OLD HOT-MIX ASPHALT 1.0
• OLD GRANULAR BASE 0.6
• OLD GRANULAR SUBBASE 0.4
• PULVERIZED RAP/GRANULAR BLEND 1.00
• CIP 1.80
• FOAMED/EXPANDED ASPHALT 1.80
• RUBBLIZED BASE CONCRETE 1.0+

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN
MTO GBE STRUCTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR FLEXIBLE
PAVEMENTS - SECONDARY HIGHWAYS

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN
LOW TRAFFIC ROAD EXAMPLE
• TRAFFIC
• SUBGRADE
• DRAINAGE CONDITIONS
• ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
• PAVEMENT SERVICEABILITY
• MATERIALS
AASHTO 93

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN
DARWIN BASED ON AASHTO 93
EXAMPLE LOW VOLUME

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN
AASHTO 93 DARWIN

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN
CHECK FOR FATIGUE
AASHTO 93 SHELL BISAR EXAMPLE COMPLETED

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT OVERLAY DESIGN
DEFLECTION OF PAVEMENT SECTION
IN ADDITION TO THE SEASONAL VARIATIONS, THE DEFLECTION OF A PAVEMENT
SECTION MAY VARY ALONG ITS LENGTH. TO REDUCE THE EFFECT OF BOTH
VARIABLES, A STATISTICAL PROCESS IS USED WHEN ESTIMATING THE MAXIMUM
DEFLECTION.
• DIVIDE THE PAVEMENT INTO SECTIONS WHICH ARE 300M LONG. THE SECTIONS CAN BE
OF VARIABLE LENGTH PROVIDED THEY ARE HOMOGENEOUS WITH RESPECT TO THE
FACTORS WHICH INFLUENCE THE PAVEMENT DESIGN (E.G., SUBGRADE AND TRAFFIC)
• SELECT AT LEAST 10 STRATIFIED TEST POINTS WITHIN EACH SECTION USING A TABLE
OF RANDOM NUMBERS
• OBTAIN THE DEFLECTION MEASUREMENT AT THE SELECTED TEST POINTS USING THE
FALLING WEIGHT DEFLECTOMETER
• CALCULATE THE AVERAGE DEFLECTION (X) AND THE STANDARD DEVIATION (σ x
)
• CALCULATE THE ESTIMATED MAXIMUM PROBABLE DEFLECTION VALUE
D max = ( X + 2σ x )
WATCH FOR OUTLIERS (LOCAL REPAIR), ADJUST FOR SEASON, SPRING ~ 1.5 x FALL,
CONVERT TO STATIC (BENKELMAN BEAM EQUIVALENT), BENKELMAN BEAM ~ 1.5 X FWD

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT OVERLAY DESIGN
FWD
• DEFLECTION
• LAYER MODULI
GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION OF TYPICAL FWD DEFLECTION BASIN

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT OVERLAY DESIGN
MTO
ONTARIO PAVEMENT OVERLAY DESIGN CRITERIA
PAVEMENT THICKNESS/DEFLECTION RELATIONSHIP
ASPHALT
INSTITUTE
HAS
SIMILAR
APPROACH

TESTING OF FOAMED ASPHALT AND HMA
PERFORMANCE AND CHARACTERIZATION TESTING
APA
ASPHALT
PAVEMENT
ANALYZER
(PTI)
APA
DESIGN
LABORATORY
PROOF
TESTER
ASPHALT
PLANT
PLACEMENT
LINK BETWEEN LABORATORY TESTING
AND FIELD PERFORMANCE
NAT
RESILIENT MODULUS
PERMANENT DEFORMATION
FATIGUE ENDURANCE
FOR RESILIENT MODULUS OF SUBGRADES AND GRANULAR MATERIALS
JEGEL USES FWD, DCP AND LABORATORY SOIL DYNAMICS TESTING
ASPHALT PAVEMENT ANALYZER AND NOTTINGHAM ASPHALT TESTER IN JEGEL LABORATORY

TECHNICAL LITERATURE INDICATES THE STRUCTURAL
COEFFICIENTS FOR FOAMED ASPHALT ARE GENERALLY
SIMILAR TO THOSE FOR CIR FOR PROPERLY DESIGNED
AND CONSTRUCTED FOAMED ASPHALT STABILIZATION
(QUALITY VERY IMPORTANT)
MTO HIGHWAY 3 CIR COMPLETED IN 1992
1.4 PERCENT HF 150P, CONDITION IN 1997

CIR STRUCTURAL EQUIVALENCY FACTOR
CORES FROM MTO HIGHWAY 3
THE CIR BASE HAS THE APPEARANCE OF HMA

CIR STRUCTURAL EQUIVALENCY FACTOR
MECHANISTIC DESIGN MODULI
GRANULAR BASE EQUIVALENCY (GBE)
• NOTTINGHAM ASPHALT TESTER (NAT)
– RESILIENT PROPERTIES
– LABORATORY AND FIELD SAMPLES
• REPRESENTATIVE FIELD SAMPLES TESTED
– PROJECTS COMPLETED FROM 1991 TO 1996
• MECHANISTIC DESIGN SUBGRADE STRAINS
(BISAR)
• GBE OF ~ 1.8 (a 1 ~ 0.35 - 0.40) NOTE – GBE AND a 1 ARE FOR
PROPERLY DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED FOAMED
ASPHALT STABILIZATION (QUALITY VERY IMPORTANT)

CIR STRUCTURAL EQUIVALENCY FACTOR
GRANULAR BASE EQUIVALENCY (GBE) FACTOR INCREASE WITH AGE
OF COLD IN-PLACE RECYCLED ASPHALT

FOAMED ASPHALT STABILIZATION
CHARACTERIZATION IN JEGEL NAT
• RESILIENT MODULUS
• PERMANENT DEFORMATION (RUTTING)
• FATIGUE ENDURANCE

CHARACTERIZATION OF HMA AND FDR (FOAMED ASPHALT) CORES
FROM TYPICAL GEORGIA PROJECTS – BLOUNT CONSTRUCTION
LOCATION AND DEPTH OF CORES SUPPLIED BY CONTRACTOR
GEORGIA
LOCATION
HOUZE WAY
CORE
ID.
AVERAGE LAYER
DEPTH
HMA FOAMED
(mm) ASPHALT
(mm)
DESCRIPTION
H-1 44 125 CENTERLINE EB TURNING LANE INTO FUDDRUCKERS
H-2 35 132 CENTERLINE WB TURNING LANE INTO ROSWELL BICYCLE PATH
H-3 32 118 CENTERLINE WB TURNING LANE INTO 600 HOUZE WAY
TRAMMEL
ROAD
JOTTEM DOWN
ROAD
MCGINNIS
FERRY ROAD
T-1 32 189 CENTERLINE LEFT SIDE, APPROX. 150M FROM PROJECT END
T-2 38 159 CENTERLINE RIGHT SIDE, IN FRONT OF MAIL BOX 3711
T-3 25 150 CENTERLINE LEFT SIDE, IN FRONT OF MAIL BOX 378
J-1 49 156 CENTERLINE OF LANE, IN FRONT OF MAIL BOX 8700
J-2 41 151 CENTERLINE OF LANE, ACROSS FROM MAIL BOX 9030
J-3 50 152 CENTERLINE OF LANE, IN FRONT OF MAIL BOX 7865
M-1 35 120 CENTER TURNING LANE AT WINDWARD RIDGE
M-2 32 152 CENTER TURNING LANE AT JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPE
M-3 25 165 CENTER TURNING LANE AT BROOKWOOD SUBWAY
NOTE: 1. THREE CORES WERE SUPPLIED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT EACH LOCATION DESCRIBED ABOVE.

CHARACTERIZATION OF HMA AND FOAMED ASPHALT
SUMMARY OF FOAMED ASPHALT MIX DESIGN PROPORTIONS
AT VARIOUS PROJECT LOCATIONS
GEORGIA
LOCATION
ASPHALT
MATERIAL
(%)
EXISTING
GRANULAR
(%)
MATERIAL
ASPHALT
CEMENT
(67-22)
(%)
HYDRATED
LIME
ADDITION
(%)
ASPHALT
MATERIAL
(%)
EXISTING
GRANULAR
(%)
MIX
ASPHALT
CEMENT
(67-22)
(%)
HYDRATED
LIME
ADDITION
(%)
TOTAL TOTAL
ASPHALT MOISTURE
CEMENT CONTENT
CONTENT (%) [2]
(%) [1]
HOUZE WAY
(SECTION A)
HOUZE WAY
(SECTION B)
TRAMMEL
ROAD
JOTTEM
DOWN ROAD
MCGINNIS
FERRY ROAD
85.0 15.0 - - 83.1 14.7 2.2 - 6.73 6.3
49.5 49.5 - 1.0 48.2 48.2 2.6 1.0 5.22 5.9
75.0 25.0 - - 73.1 24.4 2.5 - 7.14 6.0
74.5 24.5 - 1.0 73.0 24.0 2.0 1.0 6.72 6.5
- - - - - - - - - -
NOTES: 1. INCLUDING RESIDUAL PLUS ADDED.
2. INCLUDING IN-SITU PLUS ADDED.

CHARACTERIZATION OF HMA AND FOAMED ASPHALT
FOAMED ASPHALT MIX DESIGN DATA VS. LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS
AT VARIOUS PROJECT LOCATIONS
GEORGIA
SIEVE
SIZE
PERCENT
PASSING
Section
A,
JMF
HOUZE WAY TRAMMELL ROAD JOTTON DOWN
ROAD
Section Top Lower JMF Top Lower JMF Top Lower
B, FDR FDR
FDR FDR
FDR FDR
JMF Layer Layer Layer Layer Layer Layer
MCGINNIS FERRY
ROAD
JMF Top Lower
FDR FDR
Layer Layer
50.0 mm 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0
37.5 mm 100.0 95.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0
26.5 mm 98.9 91.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0
19.0 mm 97.7 82.6 98.6 98.3 97.6 100.0 100.0 97.0 94.7 100.0 - 98.6 98.9
16.0 mm 94.7 77.1 98.2 97.1 94.5 96.9 99.1 94.2 92.2 99.0 - 97.9 98.9
13.2 mm 89.2 73.3 95.7 95.0 91.8 96.0 99.1 92.3 90.2 97.2 - 97.7 98.5
9.5 mm 81.8 68.1 88.8 91.4 86.7 94.1 96.9 89.5 87.6 94.7 - 96.5 95.1
4.75 mm 62.4 49.8 73.4 76.4 60.8 76.4 82.0 72.8 74.9 84.5 - 81.4 77.9
2.36 mm 46.8 39.5 57.4 60.1 43.1 58.2 62.5 61.5 63.5 72.9 - 62.5 60.6
1.18 mm 38.3 34.4 47.1 49.0 34.5 45.7 50.9 54.0 53.9 62.7 - 51.4 49.1
600 µm 31.9 30.6 38.8 40.1 28.6 35.9 43.4 48.3 44.2 51.6 - 44.1 39.5
300 µm 25.3 25.6 30.4 31.1 22.5 26.9 35.8 35.5 32.2 37.3 - 36.4 30.3
150 µm 18.9 19.6 21.2 21.6 15.6 17.2 25.1 24.2 19.4 21.9 - 25.2 19.8
75 µm 13.9 14.4 13.3 14.3 9.9 9.7 15.7 15.5 10.9 12.6 - 15.0 12.0
ASPHALT CEMENT
CONTENT 6.73 5.22 5.83 5.59 7.14 5.97 6.27 6.72 6.03 3.89 - 6.43 5.36
Percent by Mass
AIR VOIDS (%) 8.2 10.1 11.8 14.9 9.8 14.1 14.9 8.9 19.4 24.8 - 15.8 19.4
BRD 2.118 2.100 2.197 2.127 2.198 2.065 2.044 2.091 1.974 1.907 - 2.018 1.956

CHARACTERIZATION OF HMA AND FOAMED ASPHALT
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE BRD, MRD, AIR VOIDS AND RESILIENT MODULUS
OF ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE, TOP FOAMED ASPHALT
COURSE AND BOTTOM FOAMED ASPHALT COURSE SAMPLES
GEORGIA
SAMPLE
HMA
TOP
FOAMED
ASPHALT
LOWER
FOAMED
ASPHALT
SAMPLE
LOCATION
AVERAGE
BULK
RELATIVE
DENSITY
(BRD)
COMPOSITE
MAXIMUM
RELATIVE
DENSITY
(MRD)
AVERAGE
AIR
VOIDS
(%)
AVERAGE
RESILIENT
MODULUS
@ 20°C
(MPa)
AVERAGE
RESILIENT
MODULUS
AFTER
CONDITIONING
@ 20°C
(MPa) [2]
HOUZE WAY 2.363 2.538 6.9 7957 -
TRAMMEL ROAD 2.303 2.498 7.8 9031 -
JOTTEM DOWN ROAD 2.380 2.492 4.5 7668 -
MCGINNIS FERRY ROAD 2.296 2.535 9.4 4442 -
HOUZE WAY 2.197 2.491 11.8 4804 -
TRAMMEL ROAD 2.065 2.405 14.1 2398 -
JOTTEM DOWN ROAD 1.974 2.450 19.4 2989 -
MCGINNIS FERRY ROAD 2.018 2.396 15.8 3337 -
HOUZE WAY 2.127 2.499 14.9 2540 -
TRAMMEL ROAD 2.044 2.403 14.9 2492 1564
JOTTEM DOWN ROAD 1.907 2.535 24.8 1829 1199
MCGINNIS FERRY ROAD 1.956 2.424 19.4 2566 1786
NOTES: 1. ALL AVERAGE VALUES WERE OBTAINED BASED ON THE TEST OF THREE SAMPLES
EXCLUDING OUTLIERS.
2. LOWER LAYER FOAMED ASPHALT SAMPLES WERE IMMERSED IN WATER FOR 24 HOURS AT
TEMPERATURE RANGED BETWEEN 20 TO 25°C, THEN DRAINED AND DRIED UNDER
LABORATORY AMBIENT AIR FOR 1 HOUR PRIOR TO TESTING.

CHARACTERIZATION OF HMA AND FOAMED ASPHALT
SUMMARY OF RESILIENT MODULUS TESTING RESULTS
HOT MIX ASPHALT AND FOAMED ASPHALT MIX
HOUZE WAY, CITY OF ROSWELL, GEORGIA
LAYER
TYPE
AVERAGE RESILIENT MODULUS (MPa)
10°C 25°C 35°C 20°C
HMA 11809 5236 2115 7957
TOP FOAMED ASPHALT 6582 4947 3087 5319
LOWER FOAMED ASPHALT 5831 4536 2566 4457
BOTTOM FOAMED ASPHALT 1970 1639 994 2540
NOTES: 1. ALL RESILIENT MODULUS VALUES WERE OBTAINED BASED ON THE TEST OF THREE
SAMPLES EXCLUDING OUTLIERS.
2. TESTING RESULTS AT 20°C WERE CONDUCTED USING A DIFFERENT SET OF SAMPLE
SPECIMENS FROM THE SAME CORING LOCATION AS THE REST OF THE TESTING
SPECIMENS.

CHARACTERIZATION OF HMA AND FOAMED ASPHALT
RESILIENT MODULUS (MPa)
20000
18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
RESILIENT MODULUS VS. TEMPERATURE RELATIONSHIP
HOT MIX ASPHALT AND EXPANDED ASPHALT MIX
(HOUZE WAY, CITY OF ROSWELL, GEORGIA)
HMA
TOP FOAMED ASPHALT
LOWER FOAMED ASPHALT
BOTTOM FOAMED ASPHALT
HMA AT 20°C
TOP FOAMED ASPHALT AT 20°C
MIDDLE FOAMED ASPHALT AT 20°C
LOWER FOAMED ASPHALT AT 20°C
TYPICAL RANGE OF RESILIENT MODULUS
FOR DENSE-GRADED ASPHALT MIXTURES
4000
2000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
TEMPERATURE (°C)

CHARACTERIZATION OF HMA AND FOAMED ASPHALT
LTPP DESIGN SUMMER PAVEMENT TEMPERATURES ( O C)
98% RELIABILITY
CITY
DEPTH (mm)
0 50 100 150
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 60.1 55.2 52.4 50.5
DETROIT, MICHIGAN 56.4 51.5 48.7 46.8
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 60.6 55.7 52.9 50.9
TORONTO, ONTARIO 54.9 50 47.2 45.2

CHARACTERIZATION OF HMA AND FOAMED ASPHALT
RESILIENT MODULUS (MPa)
20000
18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
RESILIENT MODULUS VS. TEMPERATURE RELATIONSHIP
HOT MIX ASPHALT AND EXPANDED ASPHALT MIX
(HOUZE WAY, CITY OF ROSWELL, GEORGIA)
HMA
TOP FOAMED ASPHALT
LOWER FOAMED ASPHALT
BOTTOM FOAMED ASPHALT
HMA AT 20°C
TOP FOAMED ASPHALT AT 20°C
MIDDLE FOAMED ASPHALT AT 20°C
LOWER FOAMED ASPHALT AT 20°C
TYPICAL RANGE OF RESILIENT MODULUS
FOR DENSE-GRADED ASPHALT MIXTURES
4000
2000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
TEMPERATURE (°C)

FOAMED ASPHALT STABILIZATION CHARACTERIZATION IN JEGEL NAT
0.7
AASHTO 93 a 1 STRUCTURAL LAYER COEFFICIENT
FOR HOT-MIX ASPHALT AND FOAMED ASPHALT
0.65
STRUCTURAL LAYER COEFFICIENT a 1
0.6
0.55
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
HMA
UPPER FOAMED
ASPHALT
LOWER FOAMED
ASPHALT
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
TEMPERATURE ( o C)
a 1 DETERMINED FROM
a
⎡ E ⎤
0.40Log
⎢ 450⎥
⎣ ⎦
RT
1
= +
0.44
a 1 IS DOTTED WHEN GREATER THAN 0.5
AS GIVEN IN FHWA-RD-97-077

FOAMED ASPHALT STABILIZATION CHARACTERIZATION IN JEGEL NAT
2.45
GRANULAR BASE EQUIVALENCY FOR HOT-MIX ASPHALT
AND FOAMED ASPHALT BASED ON MTO (GBE OF HMA = 2)
GRANULAR BASE EQUIVALENCY
2.25
2.05
1.85
1.65
1.45
HMA
UPPER FOAMED
ASPHALT
LOWER
FOAMED
ASPHALT
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
TEMPERATURE ( o C)
GRANULAR BASE EQUIVALENCY (GBE) OF HOT-MIX ASPHALT
TAKEN AS 2 BASED ON MTO
GBE IS DOTTED WHEN GREATER THAN 2.0

LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS
“WE GO OUT AND BUY PAVEMENTS LIKE WE WOULD ZUCCHINI.
ALL WE CARE ABOUT IS PRICE.”
DAMIAN J. KULASH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC
HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM, 1993

LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS
• ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF COMPETING, TECHNICALLY
SUITABLE SYSTEMS OVER DESIGN LIFE
• COST COMPONENTS
INITIAL COSTS (CAPITAL COSTS)
MAINTENANCE COSTS
REHABILITATION COSTS
RESIDUAL/SALVAGE VALUES
USER COSTS (TRAFFIC DELAY FOR INSTANCE)
• PRESENT WORTH METHOD
ANALYSIS PERIOD (TYPICALLY 30 TO 40 YEARS – AT LEAST ONE
REHABILITATION)
DISCOUNT RATE (TYPICALLY ABOUT 4 PERCENT)
PRESENT WORTH (REMEMBER RULE OF 72)
• FOAMED ASPHALT WITH HMA OVERLAY LIFE-CYCLE COST
ANALYSES GENERALLY VERY FAVOURABLE COMPARED TO
PULVERIZE/'THICKER ' HMA OR MILL/RECYCLED HMA/HMA

LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS
INITIAL COSTS
LARGELY DETERMINE THE LIFE-CYCLE COST
FOR 20 YEAR PAVEMENT DESIGNS
TYPICAL ONTARIO FDR PROJECT

LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS
MAINTENANCE COST EFFECTIVENESS
ASSET MANAGEMENT

EXAMPLE OF FOAMED ASPHALT OR CIR
LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS
• INTEREST RATE 8 PERCENT, INFLATION RATE 4 PERCENT
- DISCOUNT RATE 3.85 PERCENT
• ALTERNATIVES BASED ON EQUIVALENT GRANULAR BASE
EQUIVALENCIES (GBE)
- EXISTING PAVEMENT 100 mm ASPHALT CONCRETE
150 mm GRANULAR BASE
GRANULAR SUBBASE
SUBGRADE
• GBE OF 1.8 USED FOR FOAMED ASPHALT AND CIR
• INITIAL COST OF PAVEMENT STRUCTURE ONLY
- AVERAGE MTO 1996 UNIT PRICES
• MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION SCHEDULE BASED ON
JEGEL EXPERIENCE

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN
LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS
PULVERIZE 200 mm
40 mm HL 8
50 mm OF HL 3
EXAMPLE
FOAMED COLD IN-PLACE ASPHALT
OR RECYCLE CIR 100 mm
50 mm OF HL 3
MILL 40 mm
65 mm OF RECYCLED HL 8
50 mm OF HL 3
INITIAL COST 29,526 31,275 35,700
PRESENT
WORTH OF
MAINT. COSTS
PRESENT
WORTH OF
REHAB. COSTS
PRESENT
WORTH OF
RESIDUAL
COSTS
TOTAL
PRESENT
WORTH OF
COSTS
12,322 13,715 12,332
22,478 8,706 22,478
(10,178) (2,175) (10,277)
54,158 51,521 60,233
RANK 2 1 3

EXAMPLE OF VALUE ENGINEEING
SUPERPAVE PLUS
FOAMED ASPHALT OR CIR AND
SUPERPAVE OVERLAY

AASHTO 2002
AT EARLY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE
GENERAL DESIGN APPROACH
ENVIRONMENT
MATERIALS
TRAFFIC
PROCESS RAW INPUT FOR DISTRESS MODELING
ASSEMBLE INPUT AND TRIAL DESIGN
INFORMATION FOR EACH DISTRESS MODEL
STRESS DEFLECTION ANALYSIS
CALCULATE STRESS ∪ CALCULATE DAMAGE ∪ PREDICT AMOUNT OF DISTRESS
PREDICT SMOOTHNESS OVER TIME
CHECK PREDICTED PERFORMANCE
AGAINST DESIGN STANDARDS
[ REVISE DESIGN AS NECESSARY ]
TO SATISFY DESIGN STANDARD
DESIGN COMPLETE

QUESTIONS ?
PLEASE CONTACT JOHN EMERY AT JEGEL WITH YOUR QUESTIONS
416-213-1060 jemery@jegel.com www.jegel.com