EVALUATION OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES FOR USE IN WARM MIX ASPHALT Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this thesis is my own or was done in collaboration with my advisory committee. This thesis does not include proprietary or classified information. ________________________________________ Graham Craft Hurley Certificate of Approval: ________________________ ________________________ David Timm Elton R. Brown, Chair Associate Professor Professor Civil Engineering Civil Engineering ________________________ ________________________ Randy West Stephen L. McFarland Assistant Director Dean National Center for Graduate School Asphalt Technology EVALUATION OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES FOR USE IN WARM MIX ASPHALT Graham Craft Hurley A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science Auburn, Alabama August 7, 2006 iii EVALUATION OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES FOR USE IN WARM MIX ASPHALT Graham Craft Hurley Permission is granted to Auburn University to make copies of this thesis at its discretion, upon request of individuals or institutions and at their expense. The author reserves all publication rights. ______________________________ Signature of Author ______________________________ Date of Graduation iv VITA Graham Craft Hurley, son of John D., Jr. and Susan W. Hurley, was born October 29, 1976, in Mobile, Alabama. He graduated with honors from Daphne High School in Daphne, Alabama, in 1995. After graduation, Graham attended Faulkner State Community College on a baseball scholarship for two years where he obtained an Associate in Science degree in Pre-engineering before transferring to Auburn University in the Fall of 1997. While working towards his Bachelor?s degree at Auburn, Graham completed the Cooperative Education program, in which he was employed by the National Center for Asphalt Technology at Auburn University. After finishing the Cooperative Education program, Graham worked part-time with the National Center for Asphalt Technology. Graham graduated from Auburn University with a Bachelor of Civil Engineering degree in August, 2000. He was then hired full-time by the National Center for Asphalt Technology in August, 2000 in the position of Civil Engineer. After employment, he entered Graduate School at Auburn University in August, 2001, to pursue a Master of Science in Civil Engineering. v THESIS ABSTRACT EVALUATION OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES FOR USE IN WARM MIX ASPHALT Graham Craft Hurley Master of Science, August 7, 2006 (BCE, Auburn University, 2000) (AS, Faulkner State Community College, 1997) 231 Typed Pages Directed by E. Ray Brown Several new processes have been developed with the goal of reducing the mixing and compaction temperatures of hot mix asphalt without sacrificing the quality of the resulting pavement. Three potential Warm Mix Asphalt processes were evaluated in this study. They were Aspha-min?, Sasobit?, and Evotherm?. A laboratory study was conducted to determine the applicability of these processes to typical paving operations and environmental conditions commonly found in the United States, including the performance of the mixes in quick traffic turn-over situations and high temperature conditions. Superpave gyratory compactor (SGC) results indicated that Aspha-min?, Sasobit?, and Evotherm? increase the density of lab compacted samples. Therefore, it is vi currently recommended to determine the optimum asphalt content with a typical PG binder and then substitute in the Warm Mix Asphalt additive. All three processes were shown to improve the compactability of mixtures in both the SGC and vibratory compactor. Statistics indicated an overall reduction in air voids with the Warm Mix Asphalt processes. Improved compaction was noted at compaction temperatures as low as 190?F (88?C). The addition of Aspha-min?, Sasobit?, or Evotherm? did not affect the resilient modulus of an asphalt mix nor did they increase the rutting potential measured by the Asphalt Pavement Analyzer. The rutting potential did increase with decreasing mixing and compaction temperatures, which may be related to the decreased aging of the binder resulting from the lower temperatures. There was no evidence of a difference in indirect tensile strength over different age times for the mixes containing Aspha-min? and Evotherm? when compared to the control mixes, indicating that a prolonged cure time before opening to traffic is not an issue. Regarding the Sasobit?, statistical analysis conducted on the laboratory data indicated that a cure may be beneficial before opening to traffic. However, field data pertaining to Sasobit? indicated that traffic could be opened quickly with no negative effects. A second potential problem area that was observed deals with moisture susceptibility. The lower mixing and compaction temperature used when producing Warm Mix Asphalt may increase the potential for moisture damage. Overall, Aspha-min?, Sasobit?, and Evotherm? appear to be viable tools for reducing mixing and compaction temperatures that can be readily added to hot mix asphalt mixtures in the United States. Reductions in the mixing and compaction temperatures are expected to reduce hot mix asphalt (HMA) plant fuel costs, reduce plant vii emissions, extend the paving season, and facilitate specialized paving applications, such as airport runway construction, where rapid opening to traffic is essential. viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to take the time to thank the members of his graduate committee; Dr. E. Ray Brown, Dr. David Timm, and Dr. Randy West. It was their guidance and input that made this research complete. The author would also like to thank Mr. Brian D. Prowell for his assistance with the statistical analysis and all laboratory personnel responsible for the timely completion of the work needed to fulfill this investigation. Finally, a very special thanks goes to my family, wife April and son Logan, for their love and support. I love you. ix Style manual or journal used: National Cooperative Highway Research Council Computer software used: Microsoft Word 2002, Microsoft Excel 2002, MINITAB? Release 14.13 x TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES xiii LIST OF FIGURES xviii CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 BACKGROUND 1 1.2 OBJECTIVES 2 1.3 SCOPE 2 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 4 2.1 INTRODUCTION 4 2.2 ASPHALT EMISSIONS AND FUMES 5 2.2.1 The Kyoto Protocol 5 2.2.2 The BITUMEN Forum 6 2.2.3 Emission Regulation in the United States 7 2.3 WARM MIX ASPHALT TECHNOLOGIES 10 2.3.1 WAM-Foam? 10 2.3.2 Aspha-min? 14 2.3.3 Sasobit? 20 2.3.4 Asphaltan B? 25 2.3.5 Evotherm? 26 2.4 PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE AS A FUNCTION OF COMPACTION TEMPERATURE 32 2.5 PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE AS A FUNCTION OF COMPACTION TEMPERATURE ? POST SUPERPAVE 45 2.6 PERFORMANCE TESTING EQUIPMENT AND METHODS 47 xi 2.6.1 Resilient Modulus Testing 47 2.6.2 Asphalt Pavement Analyzer Testing 49 2.6.3 Indirect Tensile Strength Testing 50 2.6.4 Moisture Resistance Testing 51 2.6.5 Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device Testing 53 2.7 SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW 56 CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH APPROACH 59 3.1 INTRODUCTION 59 3.2 MATERIAL VARIABLES 60 3.2.1 Aggregates 60 3.2.2 Asphalt Cements 60 3.2.3 Blend Gradations 60 3.3 TEST PLAN 62 3.3.1 Mix Designs 62 3.3.2 Compactability 63 3.3.3 Resilient Modulus 65 3.3.4 Asphalt Pavement Analyzer 65 3.3.5 Indirect Tensile Strength 65 3.3.6 Moisture Resistance 66 3.3.7 Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device 70 CHAPTER 4. RESEARCH DATA SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS 71 4.1 MIX DESIGN 71 4.2 COMPACTIBILITY 73 4.3 RESILIENT MODULUS 79 4.4 ASPHALT PAVEMENT ANALYZER 82 4.5 INDIRECT TENSILE STRENGTH 85 4.6 MOISTURE RESISTANCE 88 4.6.1 Treatment Options 92 4.6.1.1 Oven Dry Aggregate 92 xii 4.6.1.2 Liquid Anti-stripping Agent 92 4.6.1.3 Hydrated Lime 94 4.7 HAMBURG WHEEL TRACKING DEVICE 94 4.8 CRITICAL COMPACTION TEMPERATURE 97 4.9 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 99 CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 104 5.1 INTRODUCTION 104 5.2 CONCLUSIONS 104 5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS 106 CHAPTER 6. REFERENCES 108 APPENDICES 115 APPENDIX A ? Mix Design Data 116 APPENDIX B ? Compactability Data 119 APPENDIX C ? Resilient Modulus Data 129 APPENDIX D ? Asphalt Pavement Analyzer Data 139 APPENDIX E ? Indirect Tensile Strength Data 148 APPENDIX F ? Moisture Resistance Data 157 APPENDIX G ? Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device Data 177 APPENDIX H ? Minitab? Statistical Analysis Data 181 xiii LIST OF TABLES TABLE DESCRIPTION PAGE 2.1 Road Trial Results at Intermediate Temperatures 13 2.2 Asphalt Plant Details Illustrating Reduction in Emissions 13 2.3 Field Trial Results, with and without Aspha-min? 16 2.4 Rut Depths with and without Aspha-min? 18 2.5 U.S. Field Trial Production and Compaction Temperatures 19 2.6 U.S. Field Trial In-place Density Results 19 2.7 U.S. Field Trial Core Densities and Indirect Tensile Strengths After One Year 20 2.8 Major Uses of Asphalt Emulsions 27 2.9 Binder Results on Lab and Field Samples 30 2.10 Combustion Gas Sampling Results 31 2.11 Fuel Consumption Results 32 2.12 Pavement Cooling Data of Bituminous Concrete Wearing Course Mixture for Various Ranges of Air Temperatures 36 2.13 Penetrations of Recovered Asphalt from Pavement Samples 38 2.14 Aggregates, Asphalts, and Mix Temperatures 41 2.15 Compaction Temperatures and Test Results from Field Projects 42 3.1 Experimental Designs for Evaluating the Influence of Warm Asphalt Processes on Mixture Volumetrics and Performance 59 xiv TABLE DESCRIPTION PAGE 3.2 Target Gradations and Asphalt Contents 61 3.3 Indirect Tensile Strength Experiment Aging Periods 66 4.1 Volumetric Mix Design Data for Granite Aggregate 72 4.2 Volumetric Mix Design Data for Limestone Aggregate 72 4.3 ANOVA Results for Gyratory Data 73 4.4 ANOVA Results for Densification 77 4.5 ANOVA Results for Resilient Modulus 80 4.6 ANOVA Results for APA Rutting 83 4.7 Two Sample t-Test Results for Indirect Tensile Strength 86 4.8 Tensile Strength Results for Granite and Limestone 89 4.9 Additional Tensile Strength Results for Granite Aggregate 93 4.10 Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device Results 95 4.11 Results of Comparison of Additives to Hot Mix at 300?F (149?C) 98 A1 Mix Design Verification Summary for Granite with No Additive 117 A2 Mix Design Verification Summary for Limestone with No Additive 118 B1 Compactability Data for Granite - No Additive 120 B2 Compactability Data for Granite - Aspha-min? Zeolite 121 B3 Compactability Data for Granite - Sasobit? 122 B4 Compactability Data for Granite - Evotherm? 123 B5 Compactability Data for Limestone - No Additive 124 B6 Compactability Data for Limestone - Aspha-min? Zeolite 125 xv TABLE DESCRIPTION PAGE B7 Compactability Data for Limestone - Sasobit? 126 B8 Compactability Data for Limestone - Evotherm? 127 B9 Compactability Data for Granite; Fine Graded Mix - No Additive 128 C1 Resilient Modulus Data for Granite - No Additive 130 C2 Resilient Modulus Data for Granite ? Aspha-min? Zeolite 131 C3 Resilient Modulus Data for Granite - Sasobit? 132 C4 Resilient Modulus Data for Granite - Evotherm? 133 C5 Resilient Modulus Data for Limestone - No Additive 134 C6 Resilient Modulus Data for Limestone - Aspha-min? Zeolite 135 C7 Resilient Modulus Data for Limestone - Sasobit? 136 C8 Resilient Modulus Data for Limestone - Evotherm? 137 D1 Asphalt Pavement Analyzer Data for Granite - No Additive 140 D2 Asphalt Pavement Analyzer Data for Granite ? Aspha-min? Zeolite 141 D3 Asphalt Pavement Analyzer Data for Granite - Sasobit? 142 D4 Asphalt Pavement Analyzer Data for Granite - Evotherm? 143 D5 Asphalt Pavement Analyzer Data for Limestone - No Additive 144 D6 Asphalt Pavement Analyzer Data for Limestone - Aspha-min? Zeolite 145 D7 Asphalt Pavement Analyzer Data for Limestone - Sasobit? 146 D8 Asphalt Pavement Analyzer Data for Limestone - Evotherm? 147 E1 Indirect Tensile Strength Data for Granite - No Additive 149 E2 Indirect Tensile Strength Data for Granite - Aspha-min? 150 xvi TABLE DESCRIPTION PAGE E3 Indirect Tensile Strength Data for Granite - Sasobit? 151 E4 Indirect Tensile Strength Data for Granite - Evotherm? 152 E5 Indirect Tensile Strength Data for Limestone - No Additive 153 E6 Indirect Tensile Strength Data for Limestone - Aspha-min? 154 E7 Indirect Tensile Strength Data for Limestone - Sasobit? 155 E8 Indirect Tensile Strength Data for Limestone - Evotherm? 156 F1 Moisture Resistance Results for Granite ? ASTM D4867 158 F2 Moisture Resistance Results for Granite ? ASTM D4867 with Aspha-min? Zeolite 159 F3 Moisture Resistance Results for Granite ? ASTM D4867 with Sasobit? and 250?F Compaction Temperature 160 F4 Moisture Resistance Results for Granite ? No Additives 161 F5 Moisture Resistance Results for Granite ? Aspha-min? Zeolite 162 F6 Moisture Resistance Results for Granite ? Sasobit? 163 F7 Moisture Resistance Results for Granite ? Evotherm? 164 F8 Moisture Resistance Results for Limestone ? No Additives 165 F9 Moisture Resistance Results for Limestone ? Aspha-min? Zeolite 166 F10 Moisture Resistance Results for Limestone ? Sasobit? 167 F11 Moisture Resistance Results for Limestone ? Evotherm? 168 F12 Moisture Resistance Results for Granite ? Aspha-min? and Oven Dry Aggregate 169 F13 Moisture Resistance Results for Granite ? No Additives and 0.75% ADHERE 170 xvii TABLE DESCRIPTION PAGE F14 Moisture Resistance Results for Granite ? Aspha-min? Zeolite and 0.75% ADHERE 171 F15 Moisture Resistance Results for Granite ? Aspha-min? Zeolite and 1% Hydrated Lime 172 F16 Moisture Resistance Results for Granite ? Aspha-min? Zeolite and 1.5% Hydrated Lime; Two Stage Addition 173 F17 Moisture Resistance Results for Granite ? Aspha-min? Zeolite and 1.5% Hydrated Lime; All Added Dry 174 F18 Moisture Resistance Results for Granite ? Sasobit? and 0.4% Magnabond 175 F19 Moisture Resistance Results for Limestone ? Evotherm?; New Formula 176 G1 Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device Results ? Granite 178 G2 Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device Results ? Limestone 179 G3 Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device Results - Granite with Anti-stripping Additives 180 xviii LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE DESCRIPTION PAGE 2.1 Emission Exposure Values of Employees when Working with Conventional and Low Temperature Asphalt 7 2.2 Exposure to Fumes and Aerosols from Bitumen by Laying Normal and Low Temperature Asphalt 7 2.3 Schematic of WAM-Foam? Process 12 2.4 Emissions Data at Two Plant Locations 14 2.5 Granulated Aspha-min? 17 2.6 Mixing and Compaction Temperatures for PG 64-22 Binder 23 2.7 Sasobit? Flakes (Left) and Prills (Right) 24 2.8 Sasobit? Pneumatic Feed to Mixing Chamber 24 2.9 Effect of Compaction Temperature on Air Voids 34 2.10 Influence of Asphalt Viscosity on Ease of Compaction of Paving Mixtures 39 2.11 Wet Tensile Strengths and Density Values as a Function of Compaction Temperature for Laboratory Study 45 2.12 Resilient Modulus Testing Apparatus 48 2.13 Asphalt Pavement Analyzer 49 2.14 Superfos/Couch Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device 53 2.15 Hamburg Test Results, Defining Rutting Rate and Stripping Inflection Point 55 xix FIGURE DESCRIPTION PAGE 3.1 Target Gradations for Granite and Limestone Aggregates 62 3.2 Vibratory Compactor used for Compaction of Test Samples 64 3.3 Introduction of Moisture to Aggregate for TSR Samples 68 3.4 Heating of Wet Aggregate to Mixing Temperature 69 3.5 Warm Mix Asphalt in Bucket Mixer 69 4.1 Densification Results over Range of Compaction Temperatures ? Granite Mix 75 4.2 Densification Results over Range of Compaction Temperatures ? Limestone Mix 75 4.3 Comparison of Coarse and Fine Mix Gradations 76 4.4 Densification Results over Range of Compaction Temperatures ? Fine Graded Mix (No WMA Additive) 76 4.5 Interaction Plots for Densification Data 78 4.6 Interaction Plots for Resilient Modulus 81 4.7 APA Rutting Results for Granite Aggregate 82 4.8 APA Rutting Results for Limestone Aggregate 83 4.9 Interaction Plots for APA Rutting 85 4.10 Indirect Tensile Strength Results ? Granite 87 4.11 Indirect Tensile Strength Results ? Limestone 88 4.12 Example of Cohesive Stripping Failure ? Granite 91 4.13 Example of Adhesive Stripping Failure ? Granite 91 4.14 Rutting Rate and TSR Results versus Stripping Inflection Point 96 C1 Relationship between Resilient Modulus and Air Voids 138 1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND A number of new products have become available that have the capability of reducing the temperature at which hot mix asphalt (HMA) can be efficiently mixed and compacted without compromising the performance of the pavement. These new products can reduce production temperatures by as much as 40 percent (1). North American asphalt mixes are generally produced at 300?F (149?C) or higher, depending mainly on the grade of binder used. Mixes produced with these new products are being produced at temperatures of about 250?F (121?C) or lower, a 17 to 18 percent reduction in production temperature. Lower plant mixing temperatures mean fuel cost savings to the HMA producer, and findings have shown that lower plant temperatures can lead to a 30 percent reduction in energy consumption (1). Lower temperatures also mean that any emissions, either visible or non-visible, that may contribute to health, odor problems, or greenhouse gas emissions, will also be reduced (2). The decrease in emissions represents a significant cost savings, considering that 30-50 percent of overhead costs at an asphalt plant can be attributed to emission control (1). Lower emissions may allow asphalt plants to be sited in nonattainment areas, where there are strict air pollution regulations. An asphalt plant located in a nonattainment area and producing hot mix asphalt with a product that allows for a lower operating temperature will allow shorter haul distances, which will improve production 2 and shorten the construction period, thus reducing the possible headache of traffic congestion. Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA) will also allow longer haul distances and a longer construction season if the mixes are produced at normal operating temperatures. Another potential advantage of lower mixing temperatures is reduced oxidative hardening of the asphalt, which may reduce thermal cracking, raveling, block cracking, and preventing the mix from being tender when placed. 1.2 OBJECTIVES The primary objective of this study was to determine if three products used in Warm Mix Asphalt applications are applicable to typical paving operations and environmental conditions commonly found in the United States. A laboratory study was conducted to evaluate the three Warm Mix Asphalt processes with respect to compactability, quick turnover to traffic, mix stiffness, rutting potential, and to moisture susceptibility. A second objective was to determine a critical compaction temperature for the three different Warm Mix Asphalt processes. 1.3 SCOPE To accomplish the objectives of this study, a literature review was first conducted. This review explored the issue of compaction temperatures and their effect on the performance of hot mix asphalt. It also touched on the issue of emissions due to elevated operating temperatures because emissions were a major impetus in the development of processes to lower the compaction temperature of hot mix asphalt. The literature review also 3 investigated several Warm Mix Asphalt processes that have been developed in Europe and in the United States since the early to mid 1990?s. In order to evaluate the applicability of several different Warm Mix Asphalt additives to asphalt construction practices typically found in the United States, laboratory samples were compacted using the automated vibratory compactor over a range of compaction temperatures. Resilient modulus, rutting resistance, indirect tensile strength, moisture susceptibility, and Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device testing were then performed according to their respective test methods and procedures. Data obtained from the testing was then analyzed and conclusions and recommendations were made, based on the statistical findings. 4 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 INTRODUCTION Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA) was developed in Europe in the mid 1990?s (3) to combat emissions that were being released into the atmosphere, both at the production plant and at the construction site. This technology is known as low temperature asphalt and warm asphalt mixes in areas throughout Europe, but has generally been referred to as Warm Mix Asphalt in the United States. Warm Mix Asphalt has not only been successful in its intended purpose of lowering asphalt fumes and emissions through lowering mixing and compaction temperatures, but has also been found to possess numerous other benefits for the asphalt paving industry. These additional benefits include reduced plant fuel consumption, reduced odor, less wear of the asphalt plant, reduced binder ageing, and a possible extension to the paving season. Warm Mix Asphalt may also act as a compaction aid for stiffer mixes that are more difficult to compact, such as Stone Matrix Asphalt, when used at typical compaction temperatures. Therefore, this technology caught the interest of the asphalt community here in the United States. Knowledge of the initial success of this relatively new technology made its way to the United States, and in the summer of 2002, a delegation comprised of asphalt paving technologists and representatives from the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) (3, 4) conducted a study tour of asphalt plants, paving sites, and 5 completed roads in Germany and Norway. The main objective of the tour was to investigate different processes that were being used to lower the operating temperatures of asphalt mixtures, and to determine whether or not the concept of Warm Mix Asphalt would work in the United States. Upon completion of the study tour, European experts from Germany?s BITUMEN Forum were invited to the United States to give their first- hand experience on the state of art practice of low temperature asphalt (3). The concept of WMA is not complex, even though several totally different approaches exist. An additive is combined with hot mix asphalt (HMA) mixture, reducing the mixture?s viscosity, improving its workability, both during production and placement. This, in turn, allows the mixture to be compacted at a lower temperature, while potentially retaining the performance characteristics of asphalt compacted at more ?normal? compaction temperatures. 2.2 ASPHALT EMISSIONS AND FUMES 2.2.1 The Kyoto Protocol Protecting the environment has become an increasingly important issue throughout the world. One of the main issues when discussing the environment is the amount of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions being produced around the world. Carbon dioxide is one of the leading causes of the greenhouse effect. One of the most recent attempts at reducing the amount of emissions produced is in the form of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (5). Adopted by a consensus at the third session of the Conference of the Parties in December 1997, it seeks industrialized countries to cut emissions of carbon 6 dioxide and other greenhouse gases by 5.2 percent between the years 2008 and 2012, using emission values from 1990 as the baseline value. For the Protocol to become legally binding for the participating countries, it had to be ratified by countries accounting for at least 55 percent of the total greenhouse gas emissions. This did not occur until November 2004, when Russia ratified the treaty (6). 2.2.2 The BITUMEN Forum Following the terms of the Kyoto Protocol, the European Union (EU) agreed to reduce the production of CO 2 emissions by 15 percent by 2010. As a member of the European Union, the government of Germany took an even stricter approach and set a reduction of 25 percent compared to 1990 emission values, and achieved this reduction in 2005 (7). Germany achieved its desired reduction in emissions partly through the action of the BITUMEN Forum. With support from the German Ministry for Labour and Social Affairs, the BITUMEN Forum was formed in Germany in the early part of 1997 (3, 4). Representing all sectors of the asphalt industry in Germany, the primary objective of the Forum was to tackle the issue of asphalt fumes and aerosols produced from hot bitumen, and have had much success in assessing possible health hazards arising from handling bitumen. Today, the most important objective of the BITUMEN Forum is the promotion of low temperature asphalt (4). This is accomplished through disseminating information on the performance characteristics of low temperature asphalt, the technologies used, and by conducting air monitoring tests on construction sites, to measure the level of exposure of employees to emissions from low temperature asphalt. Examples of these are shown in Figures 2.1 and 2.2. Within Figure 2.2, the red bars represent hot mix asphalt, while the blue bars represent low temperature asphalt, illustrating the reduction of fumes produced by an asphalt pavement. Employee Conventional Asphalt 160-180?C Low Temperature Asphalt approx. 130?C Paver Operator 6.5 mg/m 3 0.4 - 3.1 mg/m 3 Screed Operator 10.4 mg/m 3 0.6 - 6.9 mg/m 3 Figure 2.1. Emission Exposure Values of Employees when Working with Conventional and Low Temperature Asphalt (8). Figure 2.2. Exposure to Fumes and Aerosols from Bitumen by Laying Normal and Low Temperature Asphalt (4). 2.2.3 Emission Regulation in the United States In comparison to other industrialized countries throughout the world, the United States is the world?s biggest polluter. However, the United States did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, citing that costs associated with the necessary changes would be too high, and that the agreement is flawed. This does not mean, however, that the United States is ignoring emissions. The subject of asphalt fumes and emissions has been a topic of concern for years. The origin of the issue can be traced back to 1977, when NIOSH recommended an 7 8 exposure limit (REL) for asphalt fumes of 5 mg/m 3 measured as total particulate matter (TPM) during any 15 minute period, based on available data on the health effects of occupational exposure to asphalt and asphalt fumes (9). Then, in 1988, NIOSH recommended to the Occupational Safety and Health Association (OSHA) that asphalt fumes be considered a potential occupational carcinogen (10). This was based on results from lab generated roofing asphalt fumes. As a result, OSHA proposed a permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 5 mg/m 3 as an eight hour time-weighted average (TWA) for asphalt fumes. This limit was significantly tighter than the NIOSH REL recommended five years before. The National Asphalt Paving Association (NAPA) objected to this ruling, claiming that coal tar pitch used for roofing asphalt and paving asphalt are not synonymous and should not be labeled the same. NAPA also stated that the roofing asphalt used in the research had to be heated to temperatures as high as 600? F (316?C) to generate the fumes tested. These temperatures were significantly higher than asphalt paving temperatures. Later that same year, OSHA removed asphalt fumes from their list of carcinogens and suspended a final ruling until further research could be conducted. During the following years, numerous studies were conducted that determined asphalt paving fumes were chemically different than roofing asphalt fumes. Consequently, in 1992, OSHA proposed another limit for asphalt fumes that contained a PEL of 5 mg/m 3 (TPM) for general asphalt use. The proposed limit was to ensure avoidance of possible adverse respiratory effects. This possible irritation also led the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) to set a threshold limit value (TLV ? ) for asphalt fumes at 0.5 mg/m 3 (8-hr. TWA) for benzene-soluble 9 aerosol (the inhalable fraction of asphalt fumes) (11). The ACGIH does not classify asphalt fumes as a human carcinogen. In 2000, the NIOSH published a report (15) that stated: ?Current data are considered insufficient for quantifying the acute and chronic health risks of exposure to asphalt, asphalt-based paint, or asphalt fumes and vapors?..the data available, however, do not preclude a carcinogenic risk from asphalt fumes generated from the asphalt paving process.? NIOSH recommended minimizing possible acute or chronic health effects from asphalt fumes by adhering to the current REL of 5 mg/m 3 during any 15 minute period. What this did for the paving industry was to allow them to concentrate on developing methods of minimizing emissions without having the federal government impose strict regulations on asphalt fumes. The United States paving industry took notice of the controversy over asphalt fumes and emissions. Not only were there limits being placed on asphalt fumes, but new national air quality regulations were being proposed. An example was the Clean Air Act of 1990, which set limits on gaseous emissions containing air pollutants. Included in these pollutants are sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), nitrogen oxides (NO x ), carbon monoxide (CO), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (12, 13). All these pollutants exist in emissions from the production of hot mix asphalt. Therefore, in 1996, a joint effort between NAPA, NIOSH, the Asphalt Institute, the Laborers? Health and Safety Fund of North America, and the International Union of Operating Engineers led to the publication of a report (14) that set engineering control guidelines for asphalt pavers, with the goal of reducing the amount of exposure of workers to asphalt fumes. 10 The United States is continuing to regulate air quality today, as evidence by the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). According to the EPA?s website, the CAIR will result in the largest reduction in SO 2 and NO x emissions in more than a decade. The end result will be a 70 percent decrease in SO 2 and a 60 percent reduction in NO x in the 28 eastern U.S. states by the year 2015. Although primarily aimed towards power plants, the CAIR will have an effect on the asphalt paving industry due to the fact that SO 2 and NO x are found in asphalt emissions. 2.3 WARM MIX ASPHALT TECHNOLOGIES Currently, there are several different processes that are being used to produce Warm Mix Asphalt. Among them are WAM-Foam?, Aspha-min?, Sasobit?, Asphaltan B?, and Evotherm?. These technologies are discussed in the following sections. 2.3.1 WAM-Foam? Foamed asphalt is not a new idea. The concept was originally developed by Cyansi during the mid 1950?s (16). A pre-set amount of water is injected into hot bitumen, foaming the binder and creating a volume increase of about 10 to 20 times that of the binder itself. The bitumen foam is then immediately mixed with cold, moist aggregate so the foam can disperse and coat the aggregate. Foamed asphalt has primarily been associated with soil stabilization and cold in-place recycling. Jenkins et al. (17) reported that when the aggregate was heated above ambient temperatures, but below 212?F (100? C), there were additional benefits of foamed asphalt. Included were improved particle coating, mix cohesion and tensile strength, and 11 improved compaction when compared to traditional cold foam mixtures. Heating the aggregate somewhat before the addition of foamed asphalt also allowed for a wider range of mix gradations to be used, where limitations existed in more gap graded gradations with the cold foamed asphalt mixtures. WAM-Foam? (Warm Asphalt Mixture Foam) is the result of a joint venture between Shell International Petroleum Company Ltd., London, U.K., and Kolo- Veidekke, Oslo, Norway. Initial process development began in 1995 with the objective of compacting asphalt in the intermediate temperature range 176-248?F (80-120?C) without compromising the asphalt mixture performance or quality. These lower operating temperatures are achieved through the combination of a soft binder grade and a hard binder grade with aggregate in a two step mixing approach. The function of the soft binder is to achieve a level of ?pre-coating? of the aggregate. The properties of this soft binder control the minimum compaction temperature. Since this initial coating is taking place at or below the boiling point of water, the addition of an adhesion promoter is strongly recommended (18). The hard binder is then added to the ?pre-coated? aggregate. The rate at which the hard binder dissolves into the soft binder determines the workability of the mixture and the initial binder composition and properties. Therefore, care must be taken when selecting the binders in order to make this process work. During the initial trials, the hard binder was introduced in three different ways; as a powder, as an emulsion, and as foam (18). The foam option was ultimately selected because it did not have the environmental and health risks of the powder, nor did it have the increase in cost of an emulsion (19). Figure 2.3 illustrates the WAM-Foam? process and conditions schematically. Figure 2.3. Schematic of WAM-Foam? Process (18). Koenders et al. (18) reported on constructed field trials in Norway, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands between 1996 and 2001 to study the WAM-Foam? process in the field. Test results from several of these road trials are summarized in Table 2.1. Within this table, the abbreviations NAT and CAT represent the Nottingham Asphalt Tester and the Californian Abrasion Test, respectively. Table 2.2 and Figure 2.4 show the reduction in fuel consumption, dust, and CO 2 emissions produced between conventional hot mix and mixes with WAM-foam?. Visual observations immediately after and up to three years after construction indicated that the WAM-Foam? process performed similar to conventional hot mix in terms of stability and mix adhesion, based on cores taken. 12 TABLE 2.1 Road Trial Results at Intermediate Temperatures (18) Location, date, tonnes, type of mix Voids range, % cores taken after Voids in Mix, % NAT axial str. % NAT strain rate ?m/m/ld CAT @ 4?C g (? 2g) Norway, 1996, 190 t, Agb 11 emulsion 180/200 pen Warm 2.7 - 5.2 6 weeks 5.0 5.4 / 4.6 17.6 / 13.3 27 80/100 pen Hot 4.2 - 7.5 6 weeks 4.5 2.9 6.5 27 emulsion 180/200 pen Warm - 1 year 2.6 / 3.8 1.6 / 1.8 4.0 / 6.3 26 80/100 pen Hot - 1 year 4.5 / 5.2 2.4 6.7 27 Norway, 1997, 450 t, Agb 11 emulsion 50/60 pen Warm 6.0 - 7.0 6 weeks 7.0 / 6.8 1.7 / 3.5 5.5 / 8.0 29 emulsion 60/70 pen Warm 4.7 - 8.6 6 weeks 5.0 2.6 8.8 23 emulsion 80/100 pen Warm 3.8 - 5.3 6 weeks 3.8 / 4.9 3.6 / 2.4 9.2 / 7.5 23 Norway, 1999, 200 t, Agb 11 foam 180/200 pen Warm 2.5 - 3.6 6 weeks 2.9 ? 0.5 2.8 ? 0.6 8.3 ? 1.0 21 United Kingdom, 1997, 150 t, DCM 0/14 emulsion 80/100 pen Warm 9.0 - 12.6 3 months 9.0 - 12.6 1.4 / 1.2 3.3 / 3.1 40 80/100 pen Hot 7.9 - 11.5 3 months 7.9 - 11.5 1.2 3.0 40 the Netherlands, 1999, 400 t, DAC 0/11 emulsion 80/100 pen Warm 4.0 - 8.2 6 weeks 4.0 / 5.7 2.9 / 1.5 5.1 / 4.4 23 80/100 pen Hot 2.8 - 3.7 6 weeks 3.4 / 3.7 2.8 / 2.4 5.5 / 5.0 26 TABLE 2.2 Asphalt Plant Details Illustrating Reduction in Emissions (18) (info ex Veidekke 1996) warm mixture hot mixture requirements Production Capacity, tonnes/hr 70 120 NA Fuel Consumption, litres/tonne 4.5 6 to 7 NA CO 2 emission, % 1.0 3.0 not set Dust cons. Dry, mg/m 3 1 3 max 150 Dust emission, kg/hr 0.03 0.09 max 5.4 NA = No Requirements Set 13 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 Location 1 Location 2 Location 1 Location 2 mg/ m 3 hot mix WAM foam Total Particulate Matter Benzene Soluble Matter Figure 2.4. Emissions Data at Two Plant Locations (19). 2.3.2 Aspha-min? Aspha-min? is a product of Eurovia Services GmbH, based in Bottrop, Germany. According to Eurovia?s website, research efforts on Aspha-min? actually began in the early 1990?s. However, in 2000, Eurovia took a more pro-active approach to develop products that would protect the environment. The end result was the development of Aspha-min? ? a synthetic zeolite that releases water to create a foamed asphalt effect, capable of lowering operating temperatures by over 54?F (30?C). Natural zeolites are the result of very low grade metamorphism and typically form in the cavities of volcanic rocks (20). They are framework silicates that consist of interlocking tetrahedrons of SiO 4 and AlO 4 , and in order to be a zeolite, the ratio of silica 14 15 and aluminum to oxygen must equal one half. Zeolites are officially tectosilicates, but differ in the fact that zeolites have large vacant spaces in their structures to allow the movement of cations, such as sodium and calcium. They also allow the presence of large cation groups, such as water molecules and ammonia. This is the reason zeolite has many uses; the main use being in water softeners. Zeolites that are charged with sodium ions allow ?hard? water containing calcium to pass through its structure. Then the zeolite will exchange the sodium ions with the calcium. This process is reversible. Zeolites have the ability to absorb ions and other molecules, acting as a filter. Water contained in the zeolites can be driven off by heat without losing their structural integrity. Then the zeolite can act as a delivery system for the new fluid. This process is commonly found in the livestock industry, where zeolites contained in livestock feed will absorb toxins that are damaging or even fatal to the growth of animals. Aspha-min? contains approximately 21 percent water by mass and uses its ability to release water to create a controlled foaming effect when added at the same time as the asphalt binder in the production of hot mix asphalt. This is accomplished at a temperature range of 212 to 392?F (100 to 200?C). As with the WAM-Foam?, Aspha-min? will create a volume expansion of the binder, creating a higher workability of the mixture at a lower temperature. Barthel et al. (7) reported on the laboratory and field trial evaluations of Aspha- min?, investigating both the decrease of temperature on mixture performance and the reduction of emissions, both at the plant and at the paving location. An addition rate of 0.3 percent Aspha-min? by total weight of mix, or about six pounds per ton produced, was recommended for optimum performance. Aspha-min? is approximately a 50 mesh material and can be added to the plant in a number of different methods; for a batch plant, it can be manually added to the pug mill or automatically using a weigh bucket. For a drum plant, Aspha-min? can be added through the recycled asphalt pavement (RAP) collar, but the preferred method requires a specially built feeder, such as a vane feeder that can control the quantity and can then pneumatically blow the Aspha-min? into the drum. Granulated Aspha-min? is shown in Figure 2.5 (21). Based on the field trials (7), production and laying temperatures were reduced, on average, by 54?F (30?C), depending on the type of asphalt plant. Mix performance data obtained from comparative testing on a conventional mixture, a mixture containing Aspha-min? compacted 54?F (30?C) cooler, and a conventional mixture compacted 54?F (30?C) lower than normal is presented in Table 2.3. Results clearly illustrate the increased capability to achieve density of the warm asphalt mixture at lower temperatures. TABLE 2.3 Field Trial Results, with and without Aspha-min? (7) Samples Mode of Manufacture Type of Compaction Voids (%) Voids corrected for 5 cm (%) Modulus (mPa) 170?C without zeolite Immediate compaction 6.7 6.0 11,000 Differed compaction 8.5 8.4 10,6 140?C with zeolite Immediate compaction 5.3 6.6 12,400 Differed compaction 11.8 11.3 140?C without zeolite Immediate compaction 8.5 9.2 10,400 30 9,700 16 Figure 2.5. Granulated Aspha-min? (21). Emission and energy consumption data collected during the field trials indicated that by reducing the mix temperature by approximately 55?F (30-35?C), the energy consumed was reduced by 30 percent. Barthel put this percentage into actual numbers, indicating that an asphalt mixing plant uses eight liters of fuel per ton of mix produced. A 30 percent reduction is equal to 2.4 liters per metric ton. In Germany, where 65 million metric tons of asphalt is produced annually, this reduction in fuel consumption results in 400,000 metric tons of CO 2 not being released into the atmosphere (7). An even more dramatic reduction was found at the paving location, where over 90 percent of the measured fume emissions were removed when mix temperature was lowered by 63?F (35?C) (7). 17 18 In 2002, Collins and Vaughan (22), both of Pavement Technology Inc., reported the findings of a laboratory investigation of Aspha-min? using aggregates native to the state of Georgia. A 12.5mm NMAS coarse-graded Superpave mix was evaluated with and without the use of Aspha-min?. The warm mix was compacted at a temperature 50?F (28?C) lower than the control mixture. Collins noted that the warm mixture appeared to bleed slightly after compaction in the Superpave gyratory compactor, a possible indication that the Aspha-min? could lower the optimum asphalt content of an asphalt mixture. Test results from the Asphalt Pavement Analyzer indicated that the warm asphalt mixture performed as well as the control mixture compacted at normal temperatures (Table 2.4). TABLE 2.4 Rut Depths with and without Aspha-min? (22) Sample ID Average APA Rut Depth (mm) Standard Deviation of Rut Depth (mm) with zeolite 4.1 1.18 without zeolite 4.4 1.16 By the end of 2004, ten field research projects totaling more than 53,000 tons of Warm Mix Asphalt using Aspha-min? have been produced in France, Germany, and in the United States. These projects have used a wide range of pavement courses, mix formulations, asphalt binder types, productions methods, laying conditions, and road types. Field results from a trial section in Florida of Warm Mix Asphalt using Aspha- min? in early 2004 were published in a report by Hurley and Prowell (23). The mixture was a fine-graded Superpave mixture that contained 20 percent RAP, with Aspha-min? added at a rate of 0.3 percent as recommended by Barthel (7). Test results from both the control mixture and warm asphalt mixture are presented in Tables 2.5 and 2.6. TABLE 2.5 U.S. Field Trial Production and Compaction Temperatures (23) Temperature, ?F Mix Discharge Stack Trucks at Plant Lay Down Behind Screed Control 336 155 307 to 320 293 to 315 Aspha-min? 300 150 265 to 275 256 to 260 TABLE 2.6 U.S. Field Trial In-place Density Results (23) Lane Density, pcf Average Density, pcf Control 1 139.1 Control 2 141.3 140.2 Aspha-min? 1 141.2 Aspha-min? 2 139.0 Aspha-min? 3 140.0 140.1 After one year, samples were taken from the two sections to determine if the lower compaction temperatures resulted in any moisture damage. From the data in Table 2.7, Aspha-min? was equally resistant to moisture damage as the control mixture, based on tensile strength values. 19 20 TABLE 2.7 U.S. Field Trial Core Densities and Indirect Tensile Strengths after One Year (23) Sample Air Voids, % Height, in Tensile Strength, psi Control Mix C1 6.6 1.9 195.2 C2 5.8 1.8 65.5 1 C3 5.9 1.8 167.6 C4 8.9 1.7 152.2 C5 7.9 1.8 165.6 Average 7.0 1.8 149.2 Aspha-min? Warm Mix W1 8.8 1.8 160.1 W2 9.6 1.8 158.2 W3 8.0 1.8 172.1 W4 6.1 1.6 195.1 W5 7.6 2.1 141.2 Average 8.0 1.9 165.3 1 Appear to be an outlier; average = 170.2 psi without this sample. 2.3.3 Sasobit? Sasobit? is the trademarked name developed by Sasol Wax, located in South Africa, for a synthetic paraffin wax produced from the gasification of coal or natural gas feedstocks using the Fischer-Tropsch (FT) process. It is also known as FT hard wax. To summarize the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, originally developed in 1926, coal or natural gas (methane) is partially oxidized into carbon monoxide (CO), which is subsequently reacted with hydrogen (H) under catalytic conditions, producing a mixture of hydrocarbons having molecular chain lengths of C 1 to C 100 and greater. The process begins with synthesis gas, which is a combination of carbon monoxide (from coal gasification) and hydrogen (from air separation), then reacted with an iron or cobalt 21 catalyst to form products such as synthetic naphtha (i.e. flammable petroleum solvents), kerosene, gasoil and waxes. The liquid products are separated and the FT waxes are recovered or hydrocracked into transportation fuels or chemical feedstocks. Asphalt binder, or bitumen, is basically the residue remaining from the distillation of certain types of crude oils. The earliest sources of bitumen were naturally occurring wax-free naphthenic crude oils, where the wax was consumed by microorganisms during its formation. Eventually, the more widespread paraffinic crude oils were used for bitumen. Paraffinic crude oils, however, contain four to six percent petrolatum, the wax contained in the crude oil (24, 25). This material has been regarded in some countries as an undesirable ingredient in bitumen, as it can have adverse effects on the bitumen?s quality, especially in terms of rutting susceptibility. Research through the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP), however, indicated that the content of natural waxes found in asphalt binder has no impact on its quality (25). Therefore, no limit exists for wax content in the SHRP specifications and it is an optional requirement in Europe, with some countries (Germany, for example) setting limits of 2.2 or 4.5 percent, depending on the test method used for measuring wax content (26). The Fischer-Tropsch waxes used in bitumen have carbon chain lengths of 40-100 atoms and greater (26, 27). By comparison, macrocrystalline bituminous paraffin waxes have carbon chain lengths ranging from 25-50 carbon atoms (28). The longer carbon chains in the FT wax lead to a higher melting point. The fine crystalline structure of the FT wax reduces brittleness at low temperatures as compared to bitumen paraffin waxes (26). 22 Sasobit? is described as an ?asphalt flow improver?, both during the asphalt mixing process and during laydown operations, due to its ability to lower the viscosity of the asphalt binder (25, 26). This decrease in viscosity allows working temperatures to be decreased by 32-97?F (18-54?C). Figure 2.6 demonstrates how Sasobit? can reduce viscosity in the mixing and compaction temperature range while producing approximately the same (or in some cases greater) viscosity at in-service pavement temperatures. The compaction temperature for the Sasobit? modified PG 64-22 is approximately 32?F (18?C) less than the compaction temperature for the PG 64-22 control binder (29). Sasobit? has a melting temperature of about 216?F (102?C) and is completely soluble in asphalt binder at temperatures higher than 248?F (120?C). At temperatures below its melting point, Sasobit? reportedly forms a crystalline network structure in the binder that leads to the added stability (26, 28). During the production of HMA, Sasol recommends that Sasobit? be added at a rate of 0.8 percent or more by mass of the binder, with an optimum percentage being three percent. Sasobit? should never be added at a rate over four percent by weight of binder due to the possible negative impact on the binder?s low temperature properties (26). Temperature, C V i scosity, cP Control PG 64-22 Sasobit PG 64-22 0.1 1 10 52 58 88 100 150 165 180 200 Mixing Range Compaction Range 64 76 8270 120 135 100 500 Figure 2.6. Mixing and Compaction Temperatures for PG 64-22 Binder (29). Sasobit? can be introduced into the asphalt plant in several different forms. In commercial applications in Europe, South Africa, and Asia, Sasobit? has been added directly onto the aggregate mix as solid prills (small pellets) or as molten liquid (produced from flakes), as seen in Figure 2.7. In the United States, Sasobit? has been blended with the binder at the terminal (no high shear mixing required) and as prills blown directly into the mixing chamber at the same point cellulose fibers were being added to an SMA (Figure 2.8) (29). Commercial supplies of Sasobit? are available in 25 kg bags and 600 kg super-sacks (27). 23 Figure 2.7. Sasobit? Flakes (Left) and Prills (Right) (29). Sasobit Feed Figure 2.8. Sasobit? Since 1997, over 142 projects have than 2,716,254 square yards (2,271,499 s constructed in Austria, Belgium, China, Hungary, Italy, Macau, Malaysia, Netherla Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom Pneumatic Feed to Mixing Chamber (29). been paved using Sasobit?, totaling more quare meters) of pavement (30). Projects were Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, nds, New Zealand, Russia, South Africa, , and the United States. The projects included 24 25 a wide range of aggregate types and mix types, including dense graded mixes, stone mastic asphalt and Gussasphalt (mastic asphalt). Sasobit? addition rates ranged from 0.8 to four percent by mass of binder. 2.3.4 Asphaltan B? Asphaltan B? is a second type of synthetic wax and is manufactured by Romonta GmbH, based in Amsdorf, Germany. A member of the Romontan wax family, Asphaltan B? is representative of mountain wax (ozokerite) in general, and is a mixture of Montan wax constituents and high molecular weight hydrocarbons (26, 27). Crude Montan wax is found in Germany, Eastern Europe, and areas in the United States in certain types of lignite or brown coal deposits. These coal deposits formed over millions of years by the transformation of fossilized sub-tropical vegetation that flourished during the Tertiary Period. The wax that protected the plant leaves from the extremes of climate did not decompose, but enriched the coal instead. The wax?s insolubility in water and high stability allowed it to survive over long geological time periods (26, 27). As the Montan wax was forming, a slight compositional change occurred that led to the formation of high molecular weight substances, mostly in the form of esters. Romontan waxes may also be denoted as esterified wax (26). After mining, the Montan wax is extracted from the coal through the use of a toluene solvent that is distilled from the wax solution and removed with super heated steam (27). Romonta currently produces three synthetic waxes for use as ?asphalt flow improvers?, these being Romonta N?, Asphaltan A?, and Asphaltan B?. The first two 26 are specifically formulated for use with mastic asphalt, while Asphaltan B? is engineered for paving asphalt. In addition to lowering the viscosity of the binder, the greatest effect of Asphaltan B? is increasing the softening point of asphalt binder. However, this increase is not as much as Fischer-Tropsch waxes, due to the difference in molecular size and chain length of Asphaltan B? (Asphaltan B? has carbon lengths in the range of 24- 32 atoms). Binder adhesion with the aggregate is also improved by the inclusion of Asphaltan B? (26). Romonta recommends a rate of addition of two to four percent by weight of binder. Compaction temperatures 36?F (20?C) lower than normal have been reported with no adverse effects on the mixture?s workability (26). Asphaltan B? can be obtained in granular form in 25 kg bags and added directly at the asphalt plant or at the asphalt terminal (27). 2.3.5 Evotherm? Emulsions have been around for close to a hundred years, but the general use of emulsions in the asphalt industry did not occur until the 1920?s (31). Asphalt emulsion is a combination of asphalt, water, and an emulsifying agent, also known as a surfactant. The emulsifying agent (emulsifier) keeps the droplets of asphalt suspended in the water and controls the ?breaking? time. Asphalt emulsions ?break? when separation occurs between the asphalt and water, usually shortly after contact with aggregate in a mixer or after spraying on the roadbed. Upon curing, the residual asphalt retains all of the adhesion, durability, and water resistance of the asphalt cement from which it was produced (31). Asphalt emulsions have primarily been used in applications ranging from surface treatments to full depth reclamation projects. Other uses can be seen in Table 2.8 (31). TABLE 2.8 Major Uses of Asphalt Emulsions (31) Surface Treatments Asphalt Recycling Fog sealing Cold in-place Stabilization (soil and base) Prime coats Sand sealing Full depth Maintenance patching Crack filling Slurry sealing Hot in-place Tack coats Protective coatings Micro-surfacing Central plant Dust pallatives Cape sealing Other Applications The Major Uses of Asphalt Emulsions Asphalt emulsions are typically classified based on particle charge and setting properties. Emulsions currently used today are anionic, cationic, or nonionic. The first two are most commonly used in asphalt applications. Emulsions are classified further based on how quickly they ?break?, and are labeled RS, MS, SS, and QS for anionic emulsions. The abbreviations simply stand for rapid set, medium set, slow set, and quick set. Cationic emulsions use the same abbreviations, but are preceded with a C (CRS, CMS, etc.). Certain types of anionic emulsions are assigned the abbreviation HF, which stands for high float. These emulsions have a gel quality to them, mainly through the addition of certain chemicals, which allows for a thicker film thickness to be placed on the aggregate particles and prevents asphalt from being drained off the aggregate. These particular grades are used primarily for cold and hot plant mixes, seal coats, and road mixes (31). Evotherm? was developed during the summer of 2003 and is a proprietary technology based on a chemistry package that includes additives to improve coating and workability, adhesion promoters, and emulsification agents. It is manufactured by 27 28 MeadWestvaco?s Asphalt Innovations division, based in Charleston, South Carolina. The total Evotherm? package is typically 0.5 percent by weight of emulsion, as was the case for this study. The chemistry is delivered using a Dispersed Asphalt Technology (D.A.T.) (32) system in an emulsion with a relatively high asphalt residue (approximately 70 percent). Unlike traditional asphalt binders, Evotherm? is stored at 176?F (80?C). The water in the emulsion is liberated from the Evotherm? in the form of steam when it is mixed with the heated aggregate. The resulting warm mix appears like hot mix in terms of coating and color. By October 2005, two Evotherm? field trials have been constructed in South Africa, one in the United States, and two in Canada. The South African trials, constructed in November 2003, used dense-graded 12.5 mm NMAS siliceous aggregates and viscosity-graded AC20 and AC10 binders. Parallel-flow drum plants were used to produce dense-graded mix at temperatures as low as 160?F (71?C); and in the field, laydown and compaction temperatures were as low as 140?F (60?C). The United States trial was constructed in July 2005, near Indianapolis, Indiana. The asphalt mix was a 12.5 mm NMAS Superpave design produced with a dolomitic limestone aggregate and 15 percent reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP). The emulsion was produced from a PG 64-22 base binder. Discharge temperatures from the mixing drum were approximately 200?F (93?C). Even at such low temperatures, the aggregate was completely coated and appeared like conventional hot mix with none of the brown or grey coloration often associated with emulsions. Steam release was evident at times from both ends of the mixing drum and the slat conveyor, but varied in quantity throughout the 29 production process. The baghouse was examined after all the warm mix was produced and appeared dry, with no evidence of moisture in the bags or in the fines. The two Canadian trials with Evotherm? were conducted in August and October 2005 by McAsphalt Engineering Services and Miller Paving. Two separate reports present the findings from these two field trials (33, 34). In the first trial, optimum operating temperatures were established that would satisfy the physical properties of the mix and specification requirements. These temperatures were determined to be 248?F (120?C) for a mixing temperature and 203?F (95?C) as the compaction temperature. By comparison, the control hot mix asphalt was compacted at a temperature of 280?F (138?C), a 77?F (43?C) increase from the Evotherm? warm mix compaction temperature. The in-place densities for the Evotherm mix averaged 95 percent of the maximum theoretical density of the mix. In addition to the determination of the volumetric properties of the warm mixture, residual asphalt binder was recovered to determine to what degree the binder age hardened during the production process. These test results were compared with test results determined from the base asphalt used in the field trial and with emulsion residue that was obtained when all the water was evaporated from the emulsion. Tests were performed in accordance with SHRP protocols, and the test results are presented in Table 2.9 (33). The abbreviation NA represents data that was not available or able to be determined. The data shows that the asphalt cement was not aged to the same extent at the lower temperatures, based on the stiffness values. Some of the difference could be attributed to the fact that the asphalt was held at a temperature of 302?F (150?C) for 30 minutes so all of the solvent used in the distillation process was removed, and this may have prematurely aged the sample. TABLE 2.9 Binder Results on Lab and Field Samples (33) Sample Base Asphalt Cement Emulsion Residue Recovered Asphalt Cement Spec Tests on Original AC Rotational Viscosity @ 135?C, Pa.s 0.280 0.290 NA 3.0 max @ 165?C 0.093 0.090 NA Dynamic Shear Rheometer G*/sin ?, kPa, @ 52C 1.0 min @ 58C 1.180 1.340 NA @ 64C 0.540 0.610 NA RTFO Residue (AASHTO T240) Mass Change, % 0.428 NA NA 1.0 max Dynamic Shear Rheometer G*/sin ?, kPa, @ 52C NA NA 3.420 2.2 min @ 58C 3.110 2.880 1.550 @ 64C 1.360 1.250 NA PAV Residue (AASHTO R18) C 100 100 100 Dynamic Shear Rheometer G* x sin ?, kPa, @ 19C 2717 4142 3596 5000 max @ 16C NA 6370 5322 Bending Beam Rheometer Creep Stiffness @ -12C, Mpa NA 105.0 81.2 @ -18C, Mpa 233.0 249.5 176.5 300 max @ -24C, Mpa 468.0 491.5 403.0 Slope, m-value @ -12C, Mpa NA 0.377 0.387 .300 min @ -18C, Mpa 0.310 0.312 0.333 @ -24C, Mpa 0.262 0.260 0.277 PGAC Temperature Range (BBR Basis) 59.3 - 29.3 60.2 - 29.6 55.3 - 31.9 PGAC Temperature Range (Direct Tension) NA 60.2 - 28.0 55.3 - 29.3 Penetration @ 25C, 100g, 5 sec 118 110 105 The second trial conducted in Canada was performed to confirm the findings from the first trial, except on a larger scale. This trial also conducted field emissions and fuel consumption testing between conventional hot mix and warm mix asphalt with Evotherm?. During construction, the hot mix was compacted at a temperature of 293?F (145?C), resulting in an in-place density of 97.5 percent of maximum density. For the 30 31 Evotherm? warm mix, the compaction temperature was 199?F (93?C), which represents a decrease of 94?F (52?C), while achieving an in-place density of 97.0 percent of maximum density. This indicated that there was no difficulty in obtaining compaction for the Evotherm? at a much lower temperature, using the same compactive effort as for the control mixture. As with the initial trial, binder testing was performed on the recovered asphalt, with results paralleling the test results from the first field trial. Emissions testing and fuel consumption evaluations were conducted to determine to what degree the use of Evotherm? would decrease both the emissions released into the atmosphere and the amount of fuel used during production. Regarding emissions, testing was conducted to include oxygen (O 2 ), carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), carbon monoxide (CO), sulphur dioxide (SO 2 ), and nitrogen oxides (NO x ). Results are presented in Table 2.10 (34). The data within the table illustrates the potential reduction in emissions produced at the asphalt plant when using Evotherm?. The production of warm asphalt mix with Evotherm? also lowered the amount of fuel consumed by approximately 55 percent, as seen in Table 2.11, representing a significant decrease in costs at today?s prices. TABLE 2.10 Combustion Gas Sampling Results (34) Concentration Combustion Gas Hot Mix Warm Mix Reduction, % Oxygen 14.60% 17.50% Carbon Dioxide 4.80% 2.60% 45.8 Carbon Monoxide 70.20% 25.90% 63.1 Sulphur Dioxide 17.2 ppm 10.1 ppm 41.2 Oxides of Nitrogen (as NO) 62.2 ppm 26.1 ppm 58.0 Average Stack Gas Temperature, ?C 162 121 25.3 TABLE 2.11 Fuel Consumption Results (34) Product Fuel Level Before (Liters) Fuel Level After (Liters) Volume Used (Liters) Tons of Mix Produced Volume per Ton (Liters) Hot Mix 39605.0 28546.7 11058.3 973 11.37 Evotherm? Mix 28546.7 25347.6 3199.2 615 5.20 2.4 PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE AS A FUNCTION OF COMPACTION TEMPERATURE The following statements have been made about the compaction of hot mix asphalt: ?The compaction and densification of asphalt mixtures are the most important construction operations with regard to the ultimate performance of the completed pavement, regardless of the thickness of the course being placed.? (35) and ?The single most important construction control that will provide for long term serviceability is compaction.? (36) These two comments regarding the importance of proper compaction of asphalt mixtures in order to acquire the maximum performance of the asphalt mixture being placed made it necessary to investigate the history of compaction temperatures used during the production of hot mix asphalt. Although other factors are significantly related to the proper compaction of an asphalt mixture, only compaction temperature was investigated for this literature review due to the research objective of ultimately defining a critical compaction temperature when using Warm Mix Asphalt. In order to adequately investigate the history of the range of compaction temperature and its effect on the 32 33 densification of asphalt mixtures, this particular section of this chapter is in chronological order. Parr et al. (37) conducted a study to offer a field correlation on the comparative behavior of the various asphalt cements used in actual road construction. The authors stated that newer sources of asphalt cements being used in Michigan had different physical characteristics than those with which satisfactory service experience had been obtained, including differences in viscosities and temperature susceptibilities of the various asphalts and their stability towards heat. Therefore, the authors constructed field test sections to evaluate the new asphalt cements. Mix temperature was recorded during construction, and had a range from 265?F to 335?F (129.5 to 168.5?C). In-place densities were also determined for each of the field sections. The significant finding that relates to this research is that little change in density existed between mixes laid at 265?F (129.5?C) and 335?F (168.5?C). Gallaway (38) compared laboratory and field densities of asphalt mixtures in the state of Texas. Twelve test sections were constructed and evaluated, with samples taken from two to nine months after initial construction. As with Parr et al., mix temperatures were recorded at time of construction, ranging from 250 to 310?F (121 to 154.4?C). Densities determined from field samples showed that adequate compaction occurred in asphalt mixtures compacted at the lower temperatures, when compared to those constructed at the higher temperatures. Parker (39) presented the documentation of steel-wheeled rollers of static type used in highway construction. The primary results of this document are not significant to this particular research; however, the author did state that compaction temperature had a big effect on the compaction in a mixture. Asphalt mixes designed for surface and binder courses were compacted in the laboratory at various temperatures using the Marshall method using 50 blows per face. The results are presented in Figure 2.9. This figure illustrates the relationship between air voids and compaction temperature, based on a compaction temperature of 275?F (135?C). At temperatures higher than 275?F (135?C), there was no significant change in air voids, according to the trendline produced from the data. However, at temperatures below 275?F (135?C), the change was dramatic. For instance, samples compacted at 199?F (93?C) had air voids twice as high as those at 275?F (135?C), while a compaction temperature of 151?F (66?C) resulted in an air void content that was four times greater than those at 275?F (135?C). Parker (39) noted that this finding confirmed the compaction problem observed in the field when mix was compacted at low temperatures, especially in fall paving in northern climates. y = 336908x -1.6241 R 2 = 0.9454 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Compaction Temperature (C) Air Voids in C o m p acte d Mix, % of Va lue a t 135C Figure 2.9. Effect of Compaction Temperature on Air Voids (after 39). 34 35 In 1962, Serafin and Kole (40) presented the findings of a series of comparative studies focusing on properly evaluating the pneumatic tire rollers that had recently been used in order to achieve higher in-place density. The comparative studies were performed in 1960 and 1961, where standard construction procedures were modified so that rolling operations, mixture deviations, and rolling temperatures were closely controlled or measured. Results from this research suggested that there was no significant difference in the densities obtained from either steel wheel or pneumatic tire rollers. However, the authors (40) confirmed that the compaction temperature of a mixture is a significant factor in the densification of an asphalt pavement. Data of particular importance to this research are presented in Table 2.12. In this table, pavement temperatures with respect to time are reported. It can be observed that the highest mixture temperature prior to compaction was 285?F (140.5?C), with an overall average of about 263?F (128.5?C). TABLE 2.12 Pavement Cooling Data of Bituminous Concrete Wearing Course Mixture for Various Ranges of Air Temperatures (40) Air Temp. Range 40-50 60-70 75-85 85-95 Time (min.) 0 285 266 259 240 1 265 251 244 238 2 250 238 235 226 3 248 225 232 222 4 234 222 217 215 5 219 214 215 216 6 217 214 205 210 7 208 204 207 202 8 197 200 200 205 9 200 195 192 196 10 185 190 192 194 11 186 187 192 189 12 177 183 186 188 13 176 180 185 192 14 173 177 184 180 15 169 174 178 182 16 160 168 178 179 17 162 169 171 177 18 153 165 175 179 19 157 164 172 175 20 151 160 165 172 21 150 154 164 168 22 138 158 167 169 23 145 153 162 164 24 141 155 160 166 25 140 145 159 160 26 139 148 157 165 27 131 142 157 158 28 134 143 155 161 29 134 144 148 160 30 125 139 150 157 35 NA 135 147 NA 40 115 127 138 145 45 109 122 135 NA 50 103 120 131 140 55 100 117 128 NA 60 96 113 125 135 65 NA 112 122 NA 70 NA 108 119 NA 75 NA 106 118 NA 80 NA 105 115 NA Temperature (?F) NA = No Data Available 36 37 Bright et al. (41) conducted research to observe the effect of viscosity on the mixing, laying, and compaction operations of hot mix asphalt, using a wider than normal range of viscosities in construction. In addition, the authors wanted to study the changes on the physical properties of the binder over a period of time and the actual performance of the test strips under traffic. This was accomplished through the construction of twenty- four, 600 foot test strips of a one inch asphalt surface mix that had a range of viscosities from 900 to 40 Saybolt Furol Seconds. Twelve sections contained crushed granite, while the other twelve had crushed gravel. For each set of twelve, four different mix temperatures (225, 250, 287, and 345?F (107, 121, 141.5, and 174?C)) were used with a common grade asphalt to give the varying viscosities. Cores were taken from the sites at 4, 9, and 21 months after construction, with penetrations and viscosities being determined from the recovered asphalt binder. The data showed that there was no visual difference in the mixing and compaction characteristics of the mixes made at the different viscosities used. The average compaction was the highest at the 225?F (107?C) mixes, while compaction was greatest at the 287?F (174?C) mixes. All mixes, however, satisfied density requirements, and in some cases higher densities were obtained on test strips mixed at the lower temperatures. Less hardening of the asphalt takes place at the lower mix temperatures. After 21 months, the penetration values for the lower compaction temperature were lower than those from the higher compaction temperature. This is shown in the data contained in Table 2.13. There also appears to be an optimum mix temperature for best compaction of approximately 287?F (174?C) for this particular study. TABLE 2.13 Penetrations of Recovered Asphalt from Pavement Samples (41) Samples Taken at Time of Construction Samples Taken at Age 4 Months Samples Taken at Age 9 Months Samples Taken at Age 21 Months I-a 225 72 49 35 28 II-a 250 66 49 36 31 III-a 287 67 49 36 33 IV-a 345 52 48 36 33 V-a 225 63 47 34 28 VI-a 250 62 48 37 39 VII-a 287 64 48 47 48 VIII-a 345 54 48 36 35 IX-a 225 63 44 35 30 X-a 250 68 46 35 32 XI-a 287 60 60 49 36 XII-a 345 55 47 35 35 I-b 225 67 53 35 33 II-b 250 70 53 39 30 III-b 287 63 57 39 36 IV-b 345 51 50 33 29 V-b 225 69 54 33 33 VI-b 250 67 46 40 34 VII-b 287 54 48 32 29 VIII-b 345 55 46 33 28 IX-b 225 66 47 35 30 X-b 250 66 45 34 32 XI-b 287 61 42 35 30 XII-b 345 53 40 33 36 Proposed Mix Temp., ?FStrip No. Penetrations In 1967, McLeod (42) published his findings on the influence of the viscosity of asphalt cements on compaction of asphalt paving mixtures in the field. He stated that compaction of any given asphalt mixture, whether easy or hard, is influenced by a number of factors, among them the viscosity temperature characteristics of the asphalt cement, the temperature of the mixture during compaction, the gradual increase in 38 stability and density of the mix as compaction proceeds, the rate of cooling of the mix behind the spreader, the type of compaction equipment used, and by the use of low rather than high viscosity asphalt cements. The author?s (42) findings regarding the compaction temperature of the mix and the use of low versus high viscosity asphalt cements are the significant factors related to this research. Figure 2.10 illustrates the influence of asphalt viscosity on the ease of compaction of paving mixtures. It can be seen that, for a given density, the lower viscosity asphalt will achieve this density at a compaction temperature approximately 50?F (28?C) cooler than the high viscosity asphalt cement. This fact, the author stated, could have practical application for pavement construction in colder weather. Figure 2.10. Influence of Asphalt Viscosity on Ease of Compaction of Paving Mixtures (42). 39 40 Epps et al. (43) conducted a study to more accurately define the influence of material properties, mix design, weather conditions, and traffic on the long term density gain of pavements. The study evaluated pavement density on 15 projects in Texas over a two-year period. Cores were sampled from the sites after one day, one week, one month, four months, one year, and two years. The authors (43) concluded that ?eighty percent of the total two-year compaction, due to traffic and environmental effects, was complete within one year of service on all of the projects studied.? This document was included in this review because it contained mixture temperatures for all 15 projects during construction, and are presented in Table 2.14. From the table, it can be seen that compaction temperatures ranged from 145-225?F (62-107?C) at time of breakdown. The authors (43) also only labeled five of these projects as having low compaction temperatures, which implies that compaction temperatures around 225?F (107?C) were common. TABLE 2.14 Aggregates, Asphalts, and Mix Temperatures (43) Field A B C A B C A B C Air Breakdown Final Section B, IWP Childress 3 wheel tandem, 2 wheel tandem, Pneumatic, US 287 4 3 6 12 ton; 5'-4' 4 4 4 10 ton; 5'-4' 14 14 14 25 ton 51 145 125 8.69 25-42-9 diameter diameter 60 psi Matador Pneumatic, US 70 11 11 11 3 wheel 10 ton 5 11 21 Tandem, 10 ton 7 13 25 25 ton 63 225 145 7.68 25-145-8 75 psi Sherman Pneumatic, SH 5 6 12 24 3 wheel 10 ton 5 5 9 Tandem, 8 ton 10 20 40 12 ton 80 200 135 8.26 1-47-3 70 psi Cooper Tandem, 10 ton; SH 24 3 5 9 3 wheel 10 ton 3 5 9 4' diameter 1 4 7 Pneumatic 82 155 75 10.85 1-136-3 Cumby Pneumatic IH 30 3 7 13 3 wheel 10 ton 3 5 9 Tandom, 8 ton 3 5 9 22.3 ton 46 205 100 5.51 1-9-13 102 psi Clifton 3 wheel 10 ton, Pneumatic Tandem, 8.8 ton, SH 6 3 3 6 60"- 42" 4 8 16 16.3 ton 3 7 14 60"- 48" 96 220 150 9.89 9-258-7 diameter 75 psi diameter Waco Tandem, 8 ton, Pneumatic US 84 4 3 9 Tandem, 8 ton, 4 4 4 54" diameter 15 15 15 8 ton 101 180 135 7.39 9-55-8 54" diameter 44-52 psi Robinson 3 wheel 10 ton, Tandem, 8 ton, Pneumatic, US 77 3 3 7 60"- 42" 4 4 4 54" - 42 ' 12 12 18 25 ton 98 160 130 8.53 9-209-1 diameter diameter 60 psi Milano 3 wheel 10 ton, Tandem, 8 ton, Pneumatic, SH 36 3 3 7 60" - 38" 3 3 3 54" diameter 3 7 13 25 ton 95 160 145 20.79 17-184-4 diameter 60 psi Bryan 3 wheel 10 ton, Tandem, 8 ton, Pneumatic, Spur 308 3 6 12 60" 3 3 3 54" diameter 4 4 8 12 ton 95 170 135 18.76 17-599-1 diameter 75 psi Tamina 3 wheel 10 ton Pneumatic Tandem IH 45 3 7 4 42" - 66" 6 6 24 10 ton 2 2 2 10 ton 97 185 145 12.72 12-110-4 diameter 85 psi 60" diameter Conroe 3 wheel 10 ton Pneumatic Tandem FM 1495 3 7 14 60" 10 10 20 25 ton 3 3 6 8 ton 95 155 135 12.34 12-1062-35 diameter 65-70 psi 54" diameter Baytown 3 wheel 10 ton, Tandem Spur 330 3 6 12 60" None None 3 3 3 8 ton 108 180 100 25.88 12-508-7 diameter 60" diameter Orange 3 wheel 10 ton, Tandem SH 12 5 7 13 5'-3' None None 3 5 11 12 ton 90 200 170 10.02 20-499-3 diameter 4.5' - 3.5' Bridge City Tandem IH 87 5 9 15 None None None 5 7 11 8 ton 85 200 165 13.83 20-306-3 5' - 4' Initial Air Voids, % Type Roller/Size Type Roller/Size Type Roller/Size Passes/Section Final Rolling Temperature, ?F Test Section Passes/Section Passes/Section Breakdown Rolling Intermediate Rolling Compaction Equipment Terrel and Holen (44) presented the findings from an evaluation of the performance of several projects constructed by use of the drum mixer type of asphalt plant. At the time of this document, drum plants had only been in service for about five years, and many contractors were hesitant in using them. They feared that mixing the binder in the presence of the burner gases would prematurely age harden the binder and worried that the mix was being discharged cooler than usual and contained more moisture than normally was considered acceptable. Even though earlier research had presented 41 results stating that these concerns should be laid aside, more assurance was needed before contractors would begin to accept the drum mix plant. Five projects that were constructed from 1970 to 1973 were sampled in 1975 to evaluate the overall quality, measured in terms of the Present Serviceability Index (PSI), and to compare the findings with pavements constructed with mixes produced at batch plants. Marshall Stability, in-place density, and penetration tests were performed on the samples taken form the five projects. Results of the laboratory testing are presented in Table 2.15. TABLE 2.15 Compaction Temperatures and Test Results from Field Projects (44) Project Compaction Temperature, ?F In-Place Density, % % Marshall Stability after 24hr. Soak @ 140?F Retained Penetration, % of Original PSI, out of 100 Alaska 238 95.5 86 41 NA Arizona NA 87.3 96 53 93 Oregon 190 90.6 100 62 90 North Dakota NA 92.1 100 59 85 Washington 200 92.8 NA 34 NA NA = No Data Available From the results, several determinations were made. First, it was concluded that all the projects sampled appeared to be in good condition and had no defects that can be attributed to the drum mix plant. Second, the recovered asphalt penetration was greater than expected, compared to similar projects constructed with batch plants, and the penetration values decreased with age, though not as rapidly as mixes produced with 42 43 batch plants. Thirdly, the Marshall Stability values determined after the 24 hour soak time ranged from 85 to 100 percent of the original, indicating no tendency toward stripping. The authors (44) concluded that the ?general quality of drum mixed pavements appears to be at least as good, and maybe somewhat better, than conventionally mixed pavements.? Finn and Epps (45) published a state of the art review on the compaction of hot mix asphalt. In this document, the authors summarize why compaction is important and how adequate compaction can be achieved. Factors that influence compaction, including aggregate characteristics, asphalt properties, asphalt concrete properties, cessation temperature, equipment, and related factors (joints and subgrade support) are discussed at length. In addition to the recommendations of a density requirement to assure adequate compaction and a VMA (voids in mineral aggregate) requirement, the authors also recommended a compaction temperature range of 260-285?F (126.5-140.5?C) for most well graded mixes depending on the viscosity of the asphalt and the stability of the mix. As a result of the decrease in compaction temperatures being used since the introduction of the drum mix plant, Kennedy et al. (46) conducted a research study to document the effect of these lower compaction temperatures on the engineering properties of asphalt concrete mixtures, both in the field and in the laboratory. The field study was accomplished by examining the construction data to evaluate factors, including mixing and compaction temperatures and in-place densities. For the laboratory study, samples were made using various compaction temperature and density combinations that were observed in the field in order to determine Hveem stability and static tensile strengths, both in the wet and dry condition. 44 For the field study, mixing and compaction temperatures were obtained, with the average mixing temperature being 210?F (149?C) and 200?F (93.5?C) being the average compaction temperature. The low temperatures were partly due to the use of an asphalt emulsion that was used for the asphalt binder in the field study. Low densities measurements were determined from cores that were sampled from the road immediately prior to the removal of the road. Therefore, the weakened state of the road may have caused the densities to be low. Indirect tensile strengths were determined, and results indicated an increase of tensile strength with increasing compaction temperature. In the laboratory portion of this research, test results confirmed the results from the field study; the indirect tensile strengths, both in the wet and dry condition, increased as the compaction increased, illustrated in Figure 2.11. Also noted is that the density of the test samples increased with the compaction temperature, which could have an influence in the tensile strengths determined. [The author notes that the highest compaction temperature used in this study, 250?F (121?C), is the minimum recommended compaction temperature for the Warm Mix Asphalt additives evaluated. All test results determined at 250?F (121?C) in the document by Kennedy et al. (46) are adequate values based on today?s standard practices.] Figure 2.11. Wet Tensile Strengths and Density Values as a Function of Compaction Temperature for Laboratory Study (46). 2.5 PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE AS A FUNCTION OF COMPACTION TEMPERATURE ? POST SUPERPAVE Superpave (SUperior PERforming PAVEment) was the result of five years of intense research and development under the Strategic Highway Research Program. Implementation of the Superpave system, which began in 1992, led to several changes in the way asphalt mixtures were designed. These changes led to the use of coarser aggregate structures rather than well graded aggregate gradations and the increased use of modified binders. 45 46 These two changes led to changes in the way asphalt mixtures were constructed in the field as well. The typical compaction temperature ranges that were used prior to Superpave to achieve adequate in-place density in the past now were not effective. Therefore, contractors increased the mixing temperatures in order keep the asphalt at an elevated temperature longer to achieve the minimum required in-place density. In 1999, Brown et al. (47) reported the early construction issues that arose after the implementation of Superpave. They also presented an early performance evaluation of Superpave asphalt mixtures. A construction survey was conducted to get a better indication of what the contractors were experiencing with the new Superpave mixes. The survey included topics such as materials, mix design, plant operations, paving operations, compaction, and quality control. The survey results included 68 projects from 20 states, and spanned a wide range of construction factors. The significant finding for this research is the compaction issues. The authors (47) reported that 50 percent of the reviewers stated that the mixing temperature had to be increased 9 to 14?F (5 to 8?C), possibly due to the increased use of modified asphalt binder and coarser aggregate gradations. This, in turn, led to approximately the same amount of increase in the compaction temperature. In fact, the construction problems encountered was the most common issue in the survey. The results indicated that even though the majority of the projects achieved adequate density, more effort was required, in terms of more rollers and the increase in compaction temperature. Another research project that presented compaction temperature data was NCHRP 9-27, Relationship of Air Voids, Lift Thickness, and Permeability in Hot Mix Pavements (48). An investigation into the relationships between air voids, lift thickness, and 47 permeability, the study included the evaluation of 20 field projects. Included in the data obtained from these field projects were mixture temperatures at the time of compaction. From data obtained from 15 of the 20 projects evaluated, the compaction temperatures ranged from 255 to 315?F (124 to 157?C), with the overall average being 290?F (143.5?C). A second objective of the study was to recommend a proper lift thickness based on aggregate gradation. To accomplish this task, field trial sections were constructed with different gradations and varying lift thicknesses. Compaction temperatures were recorded during construction of these test sections; the range of compaction temperature was 269 to 320?F (131.5 to 160?C), and averaged 300?F (149?C). 2.6 PERFORMANCE TESTING EQUIPMENT AND METHODS 2.6.1 Resilient Modulus Testing Resilient modulus, or Repeated Load Indirect Tensile, is defined as the ratio of the applied stress to the recoverable strain when a repeated load is applied, and is used during pavement design to determine pavement thickness. Resilient modulus testing can be conducted using tensile or compressive stress, with tensile stress used more often due to the fact that fatigue cracking is primarily due to tensile failure at the bottom of an HMA layer. Tensile stress can be generated by two modes of loading: axial and diametral. The diametral resilient modulus test uses dynamic pulse loads applied diametrally to cylindrical test samples, and the vertical or horizontal deformations or both are recorded and used to calculate the resilient modulus. The concept of resilient modulus was first introduced in 1962 by Seed et al. (49) through the investigation of the elastic response of subgrade soils and their relation to fatigue failures in asphalt pavements. The resilient modulus was once the preferred and most common method to measure the stiffness of an asphalt mixture, mainly due to its simplicity and applicability to test both laboratory and field samples (50). Today, the dynamic modulus test is used over the resilient modulus for mixture stiffness measurement. The standard test specification for determining the resilient modulus of an asphalt mixture is ASTM D 4123, Indirect Tension Test for Resilient Modulus of Bituminous Mixtures. The testing apparatus is shown in Figure 2.12. System Regulator Data Acquisition System Load Cell Sample Holder Figure 2.12. Resilient Modulus Testing Apparatus. 48 2.6.2 Asphalt Pavement Analyzer Testing With the increase in traffic and heavier pavement loads, it has become extremely important that an asphalt mixture be resistant to permanent deformation, or more commonly termed rutting. The Asphalt Pavement Analyzer (APA) has hence become widely accepted as a straightforward method to evaluate the rutting resistance of HMA. The APA, first manufactured by Pavement Technology, Inc. in 1996, is a second generation version of the Georgia Loaded Wheel Tester (GLWT) and is shown in Figure 2.13. The initial GLWT was developed in 1985 through a joint effort of the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) and the Georgia Institute of Technology. The original GLWT was based on a machine to test slurry seals, and then was modified to perform efficient and effective laboratory testing and field quality control of asphalt mixtures against rutting susceptibility. Steel Wheel Measuring Device Test Samples Figure 2.13. Asphalt Pavement Analyzer. 49 50 Many research studies have focused on the evaluation of the APA in terms of asphalt performance. In one such study, Kandhal and Mallick (51) concluded that the APA appeared to have the potential to predict the relative rutting potential of HMA mixtures. Based on their research data, they recommended terminal rut depths less than 4.5 to 5.0 mm after 8000 loading cycles to ensure a rut resistant pavement in the field. Another study, on a larger scale, was NCHRP 9-17, Accelerated Laboratory Rutting Tests: Evaluation of the Asphalt Pavement Analyzer (52). The main objectives of this study were to evaluate the APA to determine its applicability as a general method of predicting rutting potential and for use in field QC/QA (quality control/quality assurance) testing and to compare the APA to other loaded wheel testers currently being used and with a simple strength test. The findings determined that the APA correlated well with other methods used to predict the rutting potential of HMA, and a provisional test procedure was developed to determine the rutting potential of an asphalt mixture by the use of the APA. 2.6.3 Indirect Tensile Strength Testing Several of the new technologies that have been developed to lower the operating temperatures of hot mix asphalt incorporate the use of water or steam to aid in decreasing the mixture?s viscosity. The lower viscosity, in turn, allows the mixture to be more workable at lower temperatures. However, there was concern that a ?cure? time would be necessary to allow the moisture in the mixture to fully dissipate out of the asphalt mixture before traffic was allowed on the roadway. In some European countries, a ?cure? time is 51 required before traffic is allowed on the pavement (e.g. Germany requires 24 hours for SMA mixtures). Previous research has been conducted on the cure time of asphalt mixtures, especially when asphalt emulsions were used as the asphalt binder. Maccarrone et al. (53) observed the cure time for foamed asphalt and a high binder content emulsion, both in terms of binder type and filler type. Resilient modulus testing was conducted on the test samples. Results for curing at room temperature showed that curing was faster with the higher binder content emulsion. The author also noted that the resistance to moisture was higher with the higher binder content emulsion. For the effect of filler type, Maccarrone et al. (53) indicated that almost 80 percent of the dry resilient modulus was obtained after one day of curing when using cement works flue dust as a filler with the foamed asphalt. Koenders et al. (18) noted that for all field trials using WAM-Foam?, a rapid structural integrity was obtained, allowing a quick opening of the road, minimizing traffic delays. 2.6.4 Moisture Resistance Testing Moisture damage has been a significant problem that has resulted in the premature failure of many asphalt pavements. Loosely defined as the ?separation of asphalt film from aggregate surfaces due primarily to the action of water? (54), moisture damage has been investigated and studied since the introduction of pavement technology in the 1930?s (55, as cited by 56). Since then, numerous studies have been conducted to try and define a qualitative and quantitative solution towards understanding and predicting the stripping potential of hot mix asphalt. The end result from these studies is that the issue of moisture damage is not completely understood, even to this day. 52 Moisture damage can be categorized into two basic types: softening and stripping (57). Softening, also known as cohesive stripping, is due to a softening of asphalt cement in the presence of water which weakens the bond between the asphalt concrete and the aggregate. The type labeled here as stripping is also known as adhesive stripping, and involves the loss of adhesion and the physical separation of the asphalt cement and aggregate through the presence of moisture. These two types of failure are interrelated; overall moisture damage within an asphalt pavement may be a combined result of both cohesive and adhesive failures (58). Numerous test procedures have been developed throughout the years to attempt to assess the moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixtures. Among them is the boiling water test (ASTM D3625), the static-immersion test (AASHTO T182), the immersion- compression test (AASHTO T165, ASTM D1075), the Lottman test, the Tunnicliff and Root Conditioning test (ASTM D4867), and the Modified Lottman test (AASHTO T283). The Modified Lottman test has become the most widely accepted by specifying agencies, and is currently included in the Superpave mix design specification. However, the inconsistency of results using the test procedure has led many researchers to question the accuracy of the test results (61). Researchers have reported that the test procedures do not accurately correlate the performance of laboratory mixes to the performance of field mixes. Also, the saturation specification may allow mixes to fail the test criteria when saturated to the high end of the specification limits, but pass the criteria when saturated to the low end of the specification limits (59). For this research, the Tunnicliff and Root Conditioning test, which serves as the basis for ASTM D4867, was used as the test procedure to evaluate moisture resistance. The main reason for this choice was that it does not incorporate the lengthy curing times that the current version of ASSHTO T283 contains. This allowed for a faster determination of the test results. Also, many state agencies have eliminated the cure time. 2.6.5 Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device The Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device (HWTD) was developed in Hamburg, Germany in the 1970?s. This device was based on a similar device developed in Britain that used a rubber tire; the HWTD uses a steel wheel to track across the surface of the test sample. The original use of the Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device was to evaluate the rutting susceptibility of asphalt mixtures (60), but it was later found to be sensitive to multiple variables, including the quality of aggregates, the stiffness of the asphalt binder, the length of short term aging, the refining process or crude oil source of the asphalt binder, anti-stripping agents, and compaction temperature (61). All these factors are related to the moisture susceptibility of an asphalt mixture. This allows the Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device to be useful in determining the moisture susceptibility of HMA. Steel Wheel Sample Applied Load Figure 2.14. Superfos/Couch Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device. 53 54 The Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device used for this research study was manufactured by Superfos/Couch Construction and is shown above in Figure 2.14. It differs slightly from the more common version of the HWTD in that is can only test one sample at a time and in the speed of the wheel. Test samples for the HWTD can either be slabs, field cores, or gyratory compacted samples. Testing is accomplished on test samples submerged in a water bath at temperatures ranging from 77 to 158?F (25 to 70?C), with 122?F (50?C) being the most common testing temperature used. The samples are loaded with a vertical load of 158 pounds. The wheel makes 50 passes over the sample per minute. Testing of a sample is completed when either the wheel makes 20,000 total passes (10,000 total cycles) or when 20 mm of deformation occurs. The results from the Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device include rut depth, creep slope, stripping slope, and stripping inflection point, and are presented in Figure 2.15. The creep slope relates the rutting from plastic flow. It is calculated from the inverse of the rate of deformation in the linear region of the deformation curve after compaction effects have ended and before the onset of stripping. The stripping slope is related to the severity of moisture damage. It is the inverse of the rate of deformation in the linear region after stripping begins. The stripping inflection point is the number of passes at the intersection of the creep slope and the stripping slope. It is related to the resistance of the HMA to moisture damage. Research indicates that moisture resistant pavements have stripping inflection point exceeding 10,000 passes (61). The stripping inflection point allows the HWTD to discriminate between pavements of varying field stripping performance. 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Cycles Rut Dept h (mm) stripping inflection point rutting rate Figure 2.15. Hamburg Test Results, Defining Rutting Rate and Stripping Inflection Point. Several downsides of the test results from the Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device have been identified. The HWTD, on occasion, can indicate a low resistance to moisture damage for asphalt mixtures with known histories of high stripping resistance. This could lead to the rejection of acceptable mixtures. Also, the data collected cannot be used to determine the modulus of the mixture or layer coefficients used in the AASHTO design guide, due to the complex and unknown state of stress in the samples (60). 55 56 2.7 SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW The concept of using additives in an asphalt mixture for the purpose of lowering the mixing and compaction temperatures was developed in Europe during the early 1990?s (3). The ensuing technology was termed low temperature asphalt or warm asphalt mixes.In the United States, it is known as Warm Mix Asphalt. The development of warm asphalt mixes was due to the increase in concern over the environment; as the production temperature of HMA increased, so too did the production of emissions and fumes that were being released into the atmosphere. The literature indicated that concern over emissions produced in the manufacture of hot mix asphalt began in the 1970?s. The NIOSH recommended an exposure limit (REL) for asphalt fumes of 5 mg/m 3 measured as total particulate matter (TPM) during any 15 minute period, based on available data on the health effects of occupational exposure to asphalt and asphalt fumes (9). As the asphalt industry argued that the results were not representative of emissions produced by the asphalt paving industry, more research was conducted. The final result was that NIOSH could find no significant evidence to quantify the chronic health risks associated with asphalt paving fumes and recommended minimizing possible acute or chronic health effects from asphalt fumes by adhering to the current REL of 5 mg/m 3 during any 15 minute period (15). Several different additives are used to lower the operating temperatures of an asphalt mixture, including WAM-Foam?, Aspha-min?, Sasobit?, Asphaltan B?, and Evotherm?. These technologies target the reduction of viscosity of the asphalt mixture, both during production and placement. The lower viscosity allows the mixture to be compacted at lower temperatures, yet potentially retaining all the performance 57 characteristics of asphalt compacted at more standard temperatures. The different technologies employ several different technologies to achieve the lower operating temperatures. Literature also indicated that compaction temperature significantly influences the density of an asphalt mixture. As the temperature decreases, the viscosity of the mix increases, thus making the asphalt mixture more difficult to compact. Prior to Superpave, the compaction temperature of a typical dense graded asphalt mixture was generally in the range of 275?F (135?C). The literature presented data that stated compaction temperatures was lowered to around 200?F (93.5?C) without any adverse affects. [The author believes that lowering the compaction temperature of an asphalt mixture to about 200?F (93.5?C) would generally results in potential problems.] With the implementation of Superpave, the compaction temperatures started to increase, partly due to the coarser nature of the aggregate structure and the increased use of modified binders. These factors made the asphalt mixture harder to compact; therefore more effort had to be used to ensure proper density. As a result, compaction temperature increased as well. Today, the compaction temperature of most mixes are in the range of approximately 300?F (149?C) or more. The literature also described new technologies and processes have been developed in Europe that will lower the operating temperatures of an asphalt mixture, thus reducing emissions and fumes, reduces the age hardening of the asphalt binder, reduces the wear and tear of an asphalt plant, acts as a compaction aid for stiff mixes, and reduces fuel consumption of an asphalt plant. These benefits have been observed in Europe for several years. However, no long term performance has been evaluated. An in-depth evaluation is 58 needed to assess the possible applicability of these technologies and processes to the different mix designs and paving practices that exist in the United States. CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH APPROACH 3.1 INTRODUCTION A test plan was conceived that would thoroughly evaluate the Warm Mix Asphalt processes for paving practices commonly found in the United States using laboratory procedures. Table 3.1 presents the experimental plan for this investigation. It should be noted that only three potential processes were evaluated for this research. TABLE 3.1 Experimental Designs for Evaluating the Influence of Warm Asphalt Processes on Mixture Volumetrics and Performance Number of Samples Tested Granite Limestone Control Aspha-min? Sasobit? Evotherm? Control Aspha-min? Sasobit? Evotherm? Mix Design 6 6 Volumetrics 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Compactability 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 Resilient Modulus 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 APA Rutting 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 Moisture Sensitivity 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Strength Change with Time 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 59 60 3.2 MATERIAL VARIABLES 3.2.1 Aggregates This study used two different aggregate sources to evaluate the three Warm Mix Asphalt processes. These two aggregate sources were granite and limestone. The aggregates were selected due to their known differences in moisture susceptibility; granite aggregates have a tendency to be sensitive to moisture, while limestone aggregates are known to be more moisture resistant. Both aggregate sources are widely used for hot mix asphalt construction in several states throughout the Southeastern United States. 3.2.2 Asphalt Cements The analysis of all data determined for this research was based on a PG 64-22 binder grade. However, two base binder grades were used for this study. They were a PG 58- 28 binder and a PG 64-22 binder grade. To achieve the PG 64-22 binder used with the Sasobit? additive, 2.5 percent Sasobit? was added to a base PG 58-28 binder to produce the PG 64-22 binder. The Aspha-min? and Evotherm? additives used the base PG 64-22 binder. 3.2.3 Blend Gradations A single blend gradation was used for all testing in this study. The mix design gradation replicated a 12.5mm nominal maximum aggregate size Superpave coarse- graded crushed granite mix produced by Hubbard Construction, Orlando, Florida. The mix design gradation used for both aggregate types is shown in Table 3.2 and Figure 3.1. This gradation was used in the first field trial evaluated in the United States using Aspha-min?. The aggregates used in this field evaluation were obtained and used for this research study. The gradations for the granite and limestone aggregates shown in Table 3.2 differed from the job mix formula due to several possible reasons. One, the stockpile gradations used in the laboratory blending of the aggregates were different than the ones used for the field trial. This was most likely the cause for the granite. Two, a possible cause for the limestone aggregate is due to adherent fines. The coarse aggregate portion of the gradation contained some adherent fines, which produced a higher dust content when a washed gradation of the mix design blend was performed. The difference in the laboratory gradations may have also resulted in the difference in the optimum asphalt contents that were determined in the laboratory. TABLE 3.2 Target Gradations and Asphalt Contents JMF 1 Granite LMS 2 19.0 100.0 99.0 100.0 12.5 90.0 87.9 90.9 9.5 83.0 79.9 83.6 4.75 52.0 49.6 52.7 2.36 34.0 32.2 32.6 1.18 25.0 23.6 23.7 0.600 19.0 18.6 17.5 0.300 13.0 14.7 12.3 0.150 5.0 5.3 6.0 0.075 2.9 2.9 3.1 AC, % 5.3 5.1 4.8 1: Job Mix Formula; 2: Limestone % Passing Sieve Size 61 Design Gradations 1. 18 2.3 6 4. 75 9. 5 12 . 5 19 0. 075 0. 1 5 0. 3 0. 6 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Sieve Size (mm) Pe r c ent Pass ing Granite Limestone Figure 3.1. Target Gradations for Granite and Limestone Aggregates. 3.3 TEST PLAN 3.3.1 Mix Designs As was mentioned earlier in this chapter, a single blend gradation was used for both aggregates. Based on the information obtained from the job mix formula from Hubbard Construction, the optimum asphalt content was 5.3 percent at the design gyration level of 125 gyrations. The asphalt content was adjusted slightly to achieve four percent air voids for the granite and limestone aggregates using the same design gyration level. Once the mix designs were performed at 300?F (149?C), each combination was then compacted at three lower temperatures (265, 230, and 190?F (129, 110, 88?C)). The mixing temperature was approximately 35?F (14?C) above the 62 63 compaction temperature. This was done to determine the volumetric properties of each mixture combination at the different compaction temperatures evaluated. 3.3.2 Compactability Once the optimum asphalt contents and volumetric properties for each aggregate/binder combination were determined, test samples were then produced to evaluate the different mixes? compactability over a range of temperatures. These test samples were prepared using oven dried aggregate. Before test samples were made, the anticipated number of test specimens were batched and then randomized for each of the different sets to eliminate potential bias in the test results. The evaluation of each mixture combination?s compactability was achieved by compacting a set of six samples per mix at the three lower temperatures mentioned previously (265, 230, and 190?F (129, 110, 88?C)), as well as a set compacted at 300?F (149?C). Again, the mixing temperature was approximately 35?F (14?C) above the compaction temperature. Each sample was aged for two hours at its corresponding compaction temperature prior to compaction. No coating problems were observed for any of the Warm Mix Asphalt processes. Test samples were compacted using a vibratory compactor, as seen in Figure 3.2. The vibratory compactor was selected for several reasons. One reason was that the literature suggested that the Superpave gyratory compactor was insensitive to temperature changes due to its constant strain behavior. A second reason was that it was found to be easier to produce samples for the Asphalt Pavement Analyzer (APA) with the vibratory compactor than with a Marshall hammer, both of which exhibit a constant stress type of behavior. A third reason was that the vibratory compactor applies a vertical load, frequency, and amplitude that is comparable to those found in a typical vibratory roadway compactor. Test samples, 6 inches in diameter and 3.75 inches tall, were compacted in the vibratory compactor for a time period of 30 seconds. This was the length of time that produced an air void content of 7 percent in preliminary testing using the PG 64-22 control mixture with the granite aggregate. Once the air void content was determined, these same samples were then used to determine the resilient modulus and APA rut resistance of each mix at the various compaction temperatures. Vibratory Motors Sample Mold Figure 3.2. Vibratory Compactor used for Compaction of Test Samples. Control Box 64 65 3.3.3 Resilient Modulus Resilient modulus is a measure of the stiffness of the hot mix asphalt. The resilient modulus was determined according to ASTM D4123, Indirect Tension Test for Resilient Modulus of Bituminous Mixtures. The testing was conducted at 73?F (23?C) as recommended by Lottman (62). Resilient modulus was selected as the test method to determine mixture stiffness over the dynamic modulus mainly because of the time factor. Resilient modulus can be determined relatively quickly, where as the dynamic modulus is time intensive. Since resilient modulus is also a non-destructive test, additional testing was conducted on the same set of test samples for each mix combination. 3.3.4 APA Rutting Once the resilient modulus testing was completed, each mixture set was placed in the APA to determine the rut resistance of each Warm Mix Asphalt mixture combination for the different compaction temperatures. All testing was conducted at 147?F (64?C). Testing was conducted using a hose pressure of 120 psi and a vertical load of 120 pounds, based on recommendations from previous research (53). 3.3.5 Indirect Tensile Strength An evaluation of indirect tensile strength change with time was also conducted because of the possible changes in the stiffness of the asphalt due to the lower operating temperatures from the inclusion of Warm Mix Asphalt additives. This was done to address the concern that the workability of the mixture would not dissipate 66 prior to being opened to traffic, thus creating the potential for rutting. Ten samples of each mix were prepared for short-term and long-term mix aging per AASHTO PP2. The mixing temperature was approximately 275?F (135?C). Mixture strength was evaluated based on indirect tensile strength at 77?F (25 ?C). The indirect tensile strength of an asphalt mixture is sensitive to binder (or mastic) stiffness. Indirect tensile strength testing was performed on samples after the aging periods shown in Table 3.3. TABLE 3.3 Indirect Tensile Strength Experiment Aging Periods Set Short Term Aging (hours) at 250?F (121 ?C) (prior to compaction) Long Term Aging (days) of Compacted Samples at 185?F (85 ?C) 1 2 0 2 4 3 2 1 4 3 5 2 5 3.3.6 Moisture Resistance If the moisture contained in the aggregate does not completely evaporate during mixing due to the lower mix temperatures, water may be retained in the aggregate which could in turn lead to increased susceptibility to moisture damage. Therefore, test samples were produced and tested according to ASTM D4867, Effect of Moisture on Asphalt Concrete Paving Mixtures, to assess the potential for moisture susceptibility of each mixture combination. The ASTM procedure is similar to the AASHTO T283 procedure except for the aging times. 67 To simulate the actual mixing process of a typical drum plant, a bucket mixer and a propane torch were used to heat the aggregate and mix the samples for making the TSR test samples. This was selected based on a methodology developed to study the effects of residual moisture on compaction, primarily for tender mixes (63). The bucket mixer used can be seen in Figure 3.3. Before the aggregate was combined with the binder, three percent water in addition to the absorption value of each aggregate was added to the mix before it was heated. For example, the granite aggregate had an absorption value of 1.1 percent, so a total of 4.1 percent water by aggregate weight was added to the oven dry material before the binder was added. The addition of the aggregate to the bucket mixer took place in two steps because it was found that when the entire gradation was added at once, by the time the aggregate was heated to the mixing temperature of 275?F (135?C), all of the fine material had moved to the bottom of the bucket. This caused a problem with inadequate coating of the fine material. This was alleviated by adding the coarse and fine aggregate separately. The appropriate percentage of moisture was added to the fine aggregate portion, and then was set aside. The coarse aggregate was added to the bucket, and the appropriate percentage of moisture was introduced to the coarse aggregate (Figure 3.3) and then it was heated to 250?F (121?C) (Figure 3.4). Then the fine aggregate portion was added to the bucket and the aggregate was heated with the propane torch back to the intended mixing temperature. When this temperature was reached, the dust proportion of the blend and the binder was added to the bucket, mixing continued until the aggregates were thoroughly coated. Each bucket mix produced three test samples. During the mixing process, some temperature was lost, so each test sample was placed in an oven until the compaction temperature (250?F (121?C)) was reached, usually about 10-15 minutes. Compaction was achieved using the Superpave Gyratory Compactor, with a target air void content of 7 ? 1 percent. This process is shown in Figures 3.3-3.5. Figure 3.3. Introduction of Moisture to Aggregate for TSR Samples. 68 Figure 3.4. Heating of Wet Aggregate to Mixing Temperature. Figure 3.5. Warm Mix Asphalt in Bucket Mixer. 69 70 3.3.7 Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device As a second method for evaluating moisture damage potential, test samples were prepared and tested in the Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device. This test has been found to be sensitive to several factors, including asphalt cement stiffness, length of short- term aging, compaction temperature, and anti-stripping treatments (61). All these factors have previously been observed as possible problem areas in the evaluation of Warm Mix Asphalt, so the test results generated from the Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device were thought to be vital in accurately establishing a good performing Warm Mix Asphalt. Test samples were produced using the Superpave Gyratory Compactor. Individual compacted gyratory samples of 95 mm in height were then saw cut to produce two 40 mm tall samples with an air void content of 7 ? 1 percent. Duplicate test samples of each mixture combination were then evaluated in the Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device. Testing was performed at a temperature of 122?F (50?C). 71 CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH DATA AND ANALYSIS 4.1 MIX DESIGN Volumetric properties of the SGC compacted specimens for each of the 32 mix design combinations (one binder grade, two aggregates, three processes and one control mix type, and four compaction temperatures) are presented in Tables 4.1 and 4.2. Individual results for each data set are presented in Tables 4.1 and 4.2 are reported in Appendix A. The data for both aggregates with Sasobit? compacted at 190?F (88?C) were not obtained due to a limited quantity of the binder. It was decided not to acquire additional binder to prevent any variability due to different binder sources. From the results of the mix design verifications using the control mixtures, asphalt contents of 5.1 and 4.8 percent were determined for the granite and limestone aggregate, respectively. These asphalt contents were used throughout the study. TABLE 4.1 Volumetric Mix Design Data for Granite Aggregate Process Temperature, F AC, % G mm % G mm @ N i G mb Air Voids, % VMA VFA Control 300 5.1 2.467 88.0 2.365 4.1 13.6 69.6 Control 265 5.1 2.467 88.2 2.371 3.9 13.3 71.0 Control 230 5.1 2.467 87.7 2.360 4.4 13.8 68.4 Control 190 5.1 2.467 87.5 2.356 4.5 13.9 67.6 Aspha-min? 300 5.1 2.457 88.8 2.376 3.3 13.9 76.4 Aspha-min? 265 5.1 2.457 88.9 2.382 3.0 13.6 77.7 Aspha-min? 230 5.1 2.457 88.7 2.378 3.2 13.1 75.5 Aspha-min? 190 5.1 2.457 88.3 2.368 3.6 13.5 73.2 Sasobit? 300 5.1 2.461 88.4 2.375 3.5 13.9 74.8 Sasobit? 265 5.1 2.461 88.0 2.377 3.4 13.8 75.5 Sasobit? 230 5.1 2.461 88.0 2.360 4.1 14.4 71.7 Sasobit? 190 5.1 2.461 NA NA NA NA NA Evotherm? 300 5.1 2.465 88.7 2.389 3.1 12.7 75.7 Evotherm? 265 5.1 2.465 88.5 2.387 3.2 12.8 75.2 Evotherm? 230 5.1 2.465 88.4 2.384 3.3 12.9 74.5 Evotherm? 190 5.1 2.465 88.6 2.390 3.0 12.7 76.0 NA = No Data Available TABLE 4.2 Volumetric Mix Design Data for Limestone Aggregate Process Temperature, F AC, % G mm % G mm @ N i G mb Air Voids, % VMA VFA Control 300 4.8 2.544 85.4 2.433 4.4 15.0 70.8 Control 265 4.8 2.544 85.1 2.430 4.5 15.1 70.3 Control 230 4.8 2.544 85.3 2.435 4.3 14.9 71.3 Control 190 4.8 2.544 85.5 2.439 4.1 14.8 72.1 Aspha-min? 300 4.8 2.544 85.8 2.442 4.0 14.7 72.8 Aspha-min? 265 4.8 2.544 85.8 2.449 3.7 14.4 74.3 Aspha-min? 230 4.8 2.544 85.7 2.444 3.9 14.6 73.2 Aspha-min? 190 4.8 2.544 84.8 2.418 4.9 15.5 68.2 Sasobit? 300 4.8 2.545 86.1 2.459 3.4 14.1 76.1 Sasobit? 265 4.8 2.545 86.3 2.463 3.2 14.0 76.7 Sasobit? 230 4.8 2.545 86.3 2.465 3.1 13.9 77.4 Sasobit? 190 4.8 2.545 NA NA NA NA NA Evotherm? 300 4.8 2.547 86.0 2.472 3.0 13.6 78.4 Evotherm? 265 4.8 2.547 85.6 2.458 3.5 14.1 75.3 Evotherm? 230 4.8 2.547 86.2 2.477 2.8 13.5 79.6 Evotherm? 190 4.8 2.547 85.2 2.451 3.8 14.4 73.9 NA = No Data Available 72 Tables 4.1 and 4.2 indicated that the different processes had little effect on the maximum specific gravity (G mm ) of the mixture. Previous research has indicated that the Superpave gyratory compactor (SGC) was insensitive to compaction temperature (64, 65). In Tables 4.1 and 4.2 there are very slight trends of increasing air voids with 73 decreasing temperature for some of the combinations. An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test was conducted on the gyratory data to better assess the effect of compaction temperature. The results are shown in Table 4.3. These data show that for each Warm Mix Asphalt additive and the control mix, the results were not sensitive to the change in compaction temperature using the SGC. It can also be seen from the data that the different additives are significant in the laboratory densification of hot mix asphalt. Based on the reduction of air voids and VMA for each of the WMA additives, it can be estimated that the optimum asphalt content would be reduced by 0.1 to 0.5 percent for the WMA mixtures. Similar reductions in air voids were noted in previous research on Sasobit? (26). However, as stated previously, the asphalt contents presented in Table 3.2 were used for the production of the remaining test samples to reduce the number of variables. TABLE 4.3 ANOVA Results for Gyratory Data Source DF Adj. MS F-stat p-value Significant 1 Temperature 2 0.0154 0.14 0.872 No Additive 3 1.3526 12.16 0.000 Yes Aggregate 1 0.0704 0.63 0.437 No Error 17 0.1112 Total 23 1 Significant at the 95 percent confidence interval (? = 0.05) 4.2 COMPACTABILITY As described in Chapter 3, samples were compacted in the vibratory compactor over a range of temperatures. The average densification results for both the granite and limestone mixes are shown in Figures 4.1 and 4.2. Complete test results are presented in Appendix B. The results in Figures 4.1 and 4.2 show that the addition of Aspha-min?, 74 Sasobit?, and Evotherm? improved compaction over the control mixture for all binder, aggregate, and temperature combinations. Figure 4.1 shows that the air void content for the control mixtures increased when the mix temperature was lowered from 300?F (149?C) to 265?F (129?C), but did not increase at the lower compaction temperatures. This was thought to be due to less aging of the binder at the lower temperature, or possibly from the coarse nature of the mix. To verify if the coarse nature of the mix had an influence on the densification of the mixtures, a fine gradation was evaluated in the vibratory compactor at the different compaction temperatures, and their corresponding air voids was determined. Figure 4.3 presents the gradation used to evaluate the fine mixture. The results from this evaluation are shown in Figure 4.4 and indicated a gradual increase in the air void content with the decrease in compaction temperature. The coarse nature of the mix is hence believed to have some influence in the fluctuation of the densification at the lower compaction temperatures. The test results for the fine gradation can be seen in Appendix B. 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 Control Aspha-min? Sasobit? Evotherm? Air Voids, % 300F 265F 230F 190F Figure 4.1. Densification Results over Range of Compaction Temperatures ? Granite Mix. 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 Control Aspha-min? Sasobit? Evotherm? Air Voids, % 300F 265F 230F 190F 75 Figure 4.2. Densification Results over Range of Compaction Temperatures ? Limestone Mix. 0. 60 0. 30 0. 15 0. 075 19. 00 12. 50 9. 50 4. 75 2. 36 1. 1 8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Sieve Size (mm) Pe r c e n t Pa s s i n g WMA Lab Study (Coarse) Alternate Fine Figure 4.3. Comparison of Coarse and Fine Mix Gradations. 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 300F 265F 230F Air Voids, % Fine Coarse Figure 4.4. Densification Results over Range of Compaction Temperatures ? Fine Graded Mix (No WMA Additive). 76 77 An ANOVA was conducted to analyze the densification data with air voids as the response variable and aggregate type, presence of additive, and compaction temperature as factors. The results from the ANOVA are presented in Table 4.4. From the results, all factors along with all possible interactions are statistically significant. TABLE 4.4 ANOVA Results for Densification Source DF Adj. MS F-stat p-value Significant 1 Temp 3 8.8115 31.33 0.000 Yes Additive 3 18.8782 67.13 0.000 Yes Agg 1 28.5208 101.42 0.000 Yes Temp*Additive 9 2.2346 7.95 0.000 Yes Temp*Agg 3 1.3168 4.68 0.004 Yes Additive*Agg 3 1.4257 5.07 0.002 Yes Temp*Additive*Agg 9 0.5641 2.01 0.042 Yes Error 160 0.2812 Total 191 1 Significant at the 95 percent confidence interval (? = 0.05) A Tukey?s post-ANOVA test was then conducted on the data for several reasons. One was to compare the different additives to the control and to each other, to see if any additive was statistically different from another additive. A second reason was to determine how much each additive lowered the air void content, based on the fact that the optimum asphalt content might be altered by the addition of a Warm Mix Asphalt additive, discussed earlier in the report. Based on the results from the Tukey?s test, Evotherm? lowered the air void content the most, with Sasobit? next, and Aspha-min? lowered the air void content the least. Statistically speaking, all additives significantly lowered the air void content, compared to the control. The statistical analysis results can be seen in Appendix H. Interaction plots for the densification data are shown in Figure 4.5. Interaction plots are one way to graphically visualize the data. From these plots, a couple of observations can be made. One, the granite aggregate consistently produced lower air void contents, based on both compaction temperature and the presence of any additive. And two, Evotherm? produced lower air void contents over the range of compaction temperatures. Aggregate Additive Temp ZeoliteSasobitNoneEvotherm 300265230190 7 6 5 7 6 5 Aggregate Granite LMS Additive Sasobit Zeolite Evotherm None Figure 4.5. Interaction Plots for Densification Data. 78 79 As can be seen from the statistical data contained in Appendix H, the Evotherm? lowered the air void content by an average of 1.5 percent, with a 95 percent confidence interval of 1.2 to 1.8 percent. The Sasobit? lowered the air void content by 0.9 percent, with a 95 percent confidence interval of 0.6 to 1.2 percent. Aspha-min? lowered the air void content by an average of 0.8 percent, with a 95 percent confidence interval of 0.5 to 1.1 percent. All results were compared to the control mixtures data compacted at 300?F (149?C). It is ultimately believed that the addition of any additive will ease the field compaction of hot mix asphalt, based upon the statistical findings from the densification data. 4.3 RESILIENT MODULUS An ANOVA was performed to determine which factors (aggregate type, additive, and compaction temperature) significantly affected the measured resilient modulus. These results are presented in Table 4.5. Based on the results, only two factors (compaction temperature and additive) and two interactions (between compaction temperature and additive and between additive and aggregate type) had a significant effect on the resilient modulus. 80 TABLE 4.5 ANOVA Results for Resilient Modulus Source DF Adj. MS F-stat p-value Significant 1 Temp 3 5.68E+10 5.51 0.001 Yes Additive 3 2.96E+10 2.87 0.038 Yes Agg 1 2.23E+10 2.16 0.143 No Temp*Additive 9 2.90E+10 2.81 0.004 Yes Temp*Agg 3 7.92E+09 0.77 0.514 No Additive*Agg 3 4.08E+10 3.96 0.009 Yes Temp*Additive*Agg 9 1.18E+10 1.14 0.336 No Error 160 1.03E+10 Total 191 1 Significant at the 95 percent confidence interval (? = 0.05) Tukey?s post-ANOVA test was conducted on the resilient modulus data to compare the different additives to the control and to each other, as was done for the densification data. From these results, located in Appendix H, it was observed that Evotherm? increased the measured resilient modulus the most, with Aspha-min? next. Sasobit? actually decreased the measured resilient modulus, according to the data. However, none of the additives significantly affected the measured resilient modulus values, one way or the other, based on the Tukey?s rankings. Interaction plots for the measured resilient modulus data are shown in Figure 4.6. Interaction plots are just another way to graphically visualize the data. From these plots, a couple of observations can be made. First, the limestone aggregate consistently produced higher resilient modulus values for two of the three additives and over the range of compaction temperatures. And second, Evotherm? produced higher resilient modulus values over the range of compaction temperatures, except for the 300?F (149?C) compaction temperature. Several attempts were made to try and explain the scatter in the data for the WMA additives at the 300?F (149?C) compaction temperature. First, Grubbs Test (66) was performed to try and identify any outliers in the data for the Sasobit? and Aspha-min? mixtures; the results indicated that no outliers existed in the data for the two additives. Then a comparison was conducted between air voids and resilient modulus to try and determine if the density of the compacted samples had any influence on the resilient modulus. This can be seen graphically in Appendix C. The results indicated that for the data obtained, no relationship existed between density and resilient modulus at the 300?F (149?C) compaction temperature. Additional research is needed to validate the collected data for the Sasobit? and Aspha-min? mixtures at the 300?F (149?C) compaction temperature. Aggregate Additive Temp S a s o b i t N o n e E v o t h e r m A s p h a - m in 3 0 0 2 6 5 2 3 0 1 9 0 500000 400000 300000 500000 400000 300000 Aggregate Granite LMS Additive None Sasobit Aspha-min Evotherm Figure 4.6. Interaction Plots for Resilient Modulus. 81 4.4 ASPHALT PAVEMENT ANALYZER Once each set of test samples was tested to determine its resilient modulus value, it was placed in an oven at 147?F (64?C) for a minimum of six hours to ensure that it was equilibrated to the APA test temperature. Each set was then placed in the Asphalt Pavement Analyzer to determine their rutting potential at a temperature of 147?F (64?C). The average rutting results for the granite and limestone aggregates are shown in Figures 4.7 and 4.8. The whisker marks represent the standard deviation of each data set. 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 24.00 Control Aspha-min? Sasobit? Evotherm? Ru t Depth, mm 300F 265F 230F 190F Figure 4.7. APA Rutting Results for Granite Aggregate. 82 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 24.00 Control Aspha-min? Sasobit? Evotherm? Ru t Depth, mm 300F 265F 230F 190F Figure 4.8. APA Rutting Results for Limestone Aggregate. From the data contained in Tables 4.7 and 4.8, several observations were made. One, as the compaction temperature decreased, the rutting increased. This was most likely due to the decreased aging of the binder. And two, the limestone aggregate, on average, had lower rut depths compared to the granite aggregate. This was possibly due to the higher binder content for the granite aggregate and/or the higher dust content with the limestone aggregate. ANOVA results from the rutting data are presented in Table 4.6. Based on these results, all factors and interactions except for the one three-way interaction between compaction temperature, additive, and aggregate type were found to be significant factors. 83 TABLE 4.6 ANOVA Results for APA Rutting Source DF Adj. MS F-stat p-value Significant 1 Comp. Temp. 3 483.59 36.64 0.000 Yes Additive 3 37.67 2.85 0.039 Ye Agg 1 591.93 44.85 0.000 Comp.Temp.*Additive 9 32.23 2.44 0.012 Yes Comp. Temp.*Agg 3 40.73 3.09 0.029 Yes Additive*Agg 3 64.88 4.92 0.003 Ye Comp. Temp.*Additive*Agg 9 24.82 1.88 0.058 No Error 160 13.20 Total 191 s Yes s 1 Significant at the 95 percent confidence interval (? = 0.05) A Tukey?s post-ANOVA test was performed on the rutting results to determine how much the WMA additives would, if any, decrease the measured rut depths, compared to the control mixture. The results from the Tukey?s suggested that the Evotherm? lowered the rut depths the most (by an average of 1.8 mm); Sasobit? decreased the rut depths by 1.4 mm, while the Aspha-min? decreased the rutting potential by an average of 0.2 mm. However, none of the additives significantly increased or decreased the rutting potential compared to rutting results from the hot mix asphalt control samples at all compaction temperatures, based on Tukey?s rankings. The complete statistical analysis is presented in Appendix H. Interaction plots for the measured rutting data are shown in Figure 4.9. From these plots, a couple of observations can be made. First, the limestone aggregate consistently produced lower rutting values for all mixtures for all compaction 84 temperatures. And second, the additives produced lower rutting values over the range of compaction temperatures, except for the Aspha-min? at the 265?F (129?C) compaction temperature, but this may be caused by variability in the test data. Aggregate Additive Temp S a s o b i t N o n e E v o t h e r m A s p h a - m in 3 0 0 2 6 5 2 3 0 1 9 0 15 10 5 15 10 5 Aggregate Granite LMS Additive None Sasobit Aspha-min Evotherm Figure 4.9. Interaction Plots for APA Rutting. 4.5 INDIRECT TENSILE STRENGTH The indirect tensile strength experiment was conducted to evaluate the rutting potential immediately after construction. The average results from the strength gain experiment for both aggregates are presented in Figures 4.10 and 4.11. The results generally showed that the tensile strengths decreased at the first long term aging period, compared to the tensile strengths from only short term aging. This was possibly due to the testing procedure used; no confinement was used to prevent possible slumping of the samples 85 86 during the aging process. Even though these tensile strengths varied over the range of aging periods, there was no statistical difference in the tensile strengths between the control mixture and either the Aspha-min? or Evotherm? mixtures. This can be seen from the statistical data in Table 4.7. This suggests that there is no evidence to support the need for a cure time before traffic can be allowed on an asphalt mixture containing Aspha-min? or Evotherm?. TABLE 4.7 Two Sample t-Test Results for Tensile Strength Control Aspha-min? Sasobit? Evotherm? Mean 97.167 99.350 63.668 103.615 Variance 553.253 360.398 247.703 786.049 Observations 9 10 10 9 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 Degrees of Freedom 15 14 16 t Statistic -0.221 3.607 -0.529 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.414 0.001 0.302 t Critical one-tail 1.753 1.761 1.746 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.828 0.003 0.604 t Critical two-tail 2.131 2.145 2.120 The data for the Sasobit? generally indicated reduced tensile strength, except for the long term aging samples for the limestone aggregate. Statistical results from Table 4.7 indicated that there was a significant difference in tensile strengths between the control mixture and the Sasobit? mixture, over the range of aging periods. This indicates that, based on the laboratory data, a cure time may be beneficial for the Sasobit? mixture before opening to traffic. However, previous research conducted at 41?F (5?C) on a Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA) mixture containing Sasobit? indicated no difference in tensile strength between the control and Sasobit? mixes (67). Based on the rutting data discussed earlier, there is no evidence to support the need for a cure time before traffic can be allowed on the asphalt mixture containing Sasobit?. This is consistent with the reported congealing point (212?F (100?C)) for Sasobit? (26). Schumann Sasol (now Sasol Wax) reported that a project in Italy was opened to traffic five hours after paving began (68). Sasobit? was also used in the repaving of the main runway at the Frankfurt, Germany airport. Twenty-four inches of HMA was placed in a 7.5 hour period. The runway was then reopened to jet aircraft at a temperature of 185 ?F (85?C) (69). 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 2 Hours 4 Hours 2 Hours + 1 Day 2 Hours + 3 Days 2 Hours + 5 Days I ndire ct T e nsi l e S t r e ngth, psi Control Aspha-min? Sasobit? Evotherm? Figure 4.10. Tensile Strength Results ? Granite. 87 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 2 Hours 4 Hours 2 Hours + 1 Day 2 Hours + 3 Days 2 Hours + 5 Days I ndire ct T e nsi l e S t r e ngth, psi Control Aspha-min? Sasobit? Evotherm? Figure 4.11. Tensile Strength Results ? Limestone. 4.6 MOISTURE RESISTANCE As was mentioned in Chapter 3, ASTM D 4867 was used to determine the moisture sensitivity test results. A compaction temperature of 250?F was selected based on compaction, resilient modulus, and rutting results to be an acceptable temperature for all three WMA technologies. The TSR results for both aggregates are shown in Table 4.8. Also included in Table 4.8 are test results from samples that were prepared using oven dried aggregate and compacted in the gyratory compactor after being aged at 300?F (149?C) for two hours. This testing was conducted to see what kind of behavior the additives exhibited in the mixture. From the test results for samples prepared with oven 88 89 dried aggregate, the presence of Aspha-min? decreased the TSR value, but still resulted in an acceptable value. TABLE 4.8 Tensile Strength Results for Granite and Limestone Indirect Tensile Strength Aggregate Mix Type Unsaturated, psi Saturated, psi TSR, % Granite Control 126.6 123.4 0.97 1 Granite Aspha-min? 155.0 126.3 0.81 1 Granite Control 75.9 80.9 1.07 Granite Aspha-min? 72.5 48.7 0.67 Granite Sasobit? 53.2 38.0 0.71 Granite Evotherm? 70.8 67.7 0.96 Limestone Control 109.5 71.2 0.65 Limestone Aspha-min? 86.6 44.2 0.51 Limestone Sasobit? 53.9 49.1 0.91 Limestone Evotherm? 75.0 46.8 0.62 1 Samples were prepare in SGC following ASTM D 4867 at 300?F compaction temperature Once this testing was concluded, TSR samples were then produced at a lower compaction temperature (250?F (121?C)) using the bucket mixer, previously discussed in Chapter 3. These results are presented in Table 4.8. Initially, testing was performed without the presence of any type of anti-stripping agent. Results from this testing showed that the Aspha-min? lowered the TSR value as compared to the control mixture; the resulting TSR value does not satisfy the recommended minimum value for Superpave mixes (minimum of 0.80). The test results also exhibited some variability in the data from one aggregate type to the next. For example, the Sasobit? increased the resistance to moisture for the limestone, but decreased the resistance for the granite, compared to their 90 corresponding control mixes, whereas the Evotherm? did the opposite; increasing the TSR value with the granite aggregate and decreasing the TSR with the limestone aggregate, compared to the corresponding control. It is believed that the testing precision is decreased when the tensile strength values are low, which is apparent by the data presented in Table 4.8. Figure 4.12 presents a sample containing Aspha-min? exhibiting a cohesive failure. It is believed that the binder was somewhat emulsified due to the moisture released from the Aspha-min?, causing the cohesive failure. It is possible that a cure time would dissipate the moisture in the binder, eliminating the potential of a cohesive failure. In Figure 4.13, the conditioned control sample exhibited an adhesive failure. But the unconditioned control samples also exhibited visual stripping resulting from adhesive failures. It is expected that the adhesive failure resulted from moisture remaining in the aggregate from the lower mixing and compaction temperature. However, the cohesive failure in the samples containing the Aspha-min? resulted in lower tensile strengths. Figure 4.12. Example of Cohesive Stripping Failure ? Granite. Figure 4.13. Example of Adhesive Stripping Failure ? Granite. 91 92 4.6.1 Treatment Options It is believed that the failing TSR values were possibly due to several factors, those being moisture retained in the aggregate, or due to residual moisture left behind by the microscopic foaming process of the Aspha-min?. To evaluate these hypotheses, additional TSR tests were conducted with the granite aggregate as shown in Table 4.9. 4.6.1.1 Oven Dry Aggregate To determine if the lower TSR values were caused by moisture in the aggregate, TSR testing was conducted using oven dry aggregate. The aggregate was placed in a 250?F (121?C) oven prior to mixing to make sure there was no internal moisture present. Test results from the oven dry aggregate also resulted in failing TSR values; therefore the decrease in tensile strength is not believed to be solely due to internal aggregate moisture. 4.6.1.2 Liquid Anti-stripping Agents To determine if the moisture resistance could be increased, anti-stripping agents were then evaluated. First, one type of liquid anti-stripping agent, ARMAZ LOF 6500, was used with the control and Aspha-min? mixtures. This additive is routinely used with the granite aggregate source. For the control mixture, the liquid anti-strip visually reduced the adhesive failure, increased the unconditioned tensile strengths while the conditioned tensile strengths remained the same as the control mixture without liquid anti-strip. For the mixture with Aspha-min?, the liquid anti-strip increased the unconditioned tensile strengths, but it decreased the conditioned tensile strengths, thus resulting in a low TSR value (0.38). The decrease in the saturated tensile strength may possibly be the result of a reduction in binder viscosity from the liquid anti-stripping agent. Regarding the Sasobit?, Sasol Wax recommended adding a liquid anti-stripping agent that has been commonly used in commercial paving applications. Kling Beta 2912 is manufactured by AKZO Nobel and is more commonly known as Magnabond. Additional TSR testing was conducted using Magnabond at 0.4 percent by weight of binder. These test results are also included in Table 4.9. The results indicated a substantial increase in the TSR value, compared to the test results from the PG 64-22 binder with only Sasobit? added. The additional TSR testing using the liquid anti- stripping agent resulted in an acceptable value, based on Superpave requirements. However, the individual tensile strengths (both unsaturated and saturated) were substantially lower than the other strengths obtained. TABLE 4.9 Additional Tensile Strength Results for Granite Aggregate Indirect Tensile Strength Anti-Stripping Additive Mix Type Unconditioned, psi Conditioned, psi TSR None Aspha-min?; Oven Dry Aggregate 67.2 40.4 0.60 0.75% LOF 6500 Control 104.7 90.5 0.86 0.75% LOF 6500 Aspha-min? 96.0 36.2 0.38 1% Lime Aspha-min? 110.6 85.5 0.77 1.5% Lime Aspha-min?; Two-stage addition 79.9 69.3 0.87 1.5% Lime Aspha-min?; All Added Dry 90.2 67.3 0.75 0.4% Magnabond Sasobit? 17.5 16.5 0.94 None Evotherm?; New LMS Formula 85.6 93.9 1.10 93 94 4.6.1.3 Hydrated Lime Hydrated lime was then evaluated. Hydrated lime was used in two different percentages (1 and 1.5 percent), while for the 1.5 percent hydrated lime, the mixture was evaluated in two methods ? all added dry and in a two stage addition (0.5 percent added to wet aggregate and the remaining percent added to the dry aggregate). For the addition of just the one percent hydrated lime, it was added to the dry aggregate. From the results in Table 4.9, the Aspha-min? mixture with one percent hydrated lime increased the TSR value to just below the minimum requirement for Superpave mixes. As was mentioned before, the use of 1.5 percent hydrated lime was added by two methods. First, 0.5 percent was added to the wet aggregate. This was performed to try and improve the adhesion problem exhibited in the previous trials. The remaining one percent was added to the dry aggregate to possibly solve the cohesive problem seen in the previous trial as well. From the test results, this added amount of hydrated lime produced an acceptable TSR value. But the split addition process may add unnecessary cost, so the 1.5 percent hydrated lime was evaluated again, but added all at once to the dry aggregate. These results, shown in Table 4.9, indicated a decrease in TSR value to an unacceptable value. 4.7 HAMBURG WHEEL TRACKING DEVICE Average test results from the Hamburg wheel-tracking device are presented in Table 4.10. Also included are the corresponding TSR values for each of the mix types. Different conclusions can be made regarding the moisture damage resistance of the mixtures based on both the Hamburg and TSR tests. In some cases, the Hamburg confirmed the data determined from the TSR test (e.g. Evotherm?), while in other cases the Hamburg data showed a decrease in the moisture resistance of a particular mix. This is mainly true for the mixes containing Sasobit?. The Hamburg test results also confirmed the observation that the mixture containing Aspha-min? had a lower resistance to moisture than the control mixture. This is based on the stripping inflection point. When describing the stripping inflection point, it is the number of cycles at which the deformation of the sample is the result of moisture damage and not rutting alone. Illustration of the stripping inflection point was shown in Figure 2.15. It is related to the resistance of the mix to moisture damage. A lower stripping inflection point is an indication of a decrease in the resistance to moisture for an asphalt mix. Stripping inflection points over 10,000 cycles, in a general sense, represent good mixes. TABLE 4.10 Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device Results Aggregate Mix Type Treatment Stripping Inflection Point, cycles Rutting Rate, mm/hr TSR Granite Control None 6500* 1.841 1.16 Granite Sasobit? None 3975 2.961 0.71 Granite Aspha-min? None 3450 5.139 0.67 Granite Evotherm? None > 10,000 1.708 0.96 Granite Aspha-min? 1.5% Hydrated Lime 2 Stage Addition 8500* 1.912 0.87 Granite Aspha-min? 1.5% Hydrated Lime All Added Dry > 10,000 0.687 0.75 Granite Sasobit? 0.4% Magnabond > 10,000 0.164 0.94 Limestone Control None 2500 4.284 0.65 Limestone Aspha-min? None 1700 2.835 0.51 Limestone Sasobit? None 2900 3.976 0.91 Limestone Evotherm? None 2550 3.178 0.62 95 Note: * individual sample did not have a stripping inflection point; reported value is average of 10,000 cycles and recorded stripping inflection point of second sample The rutting rate determined from the HWTD test results correlated well with the stripping inflection point; that as the inflection point increased, indicating an increase in moisture resistance, the rutting rate decreased. This is shown in Figure 4.14. Rutting rate is defined as the slope of the secondary consolidation tangent. The addition of Sasobit? improved the rutting rate in all cases as compared to the control mixes, except for the granite aggregate. This corresponds to the findings with the APA. The test results indicated that the addition of a liquid anti-stripping agent in combination with Sasobit? produced the lowest rutting rate, which in turn will result in an added benefit of decreased rutting potential of asphalt mixes produced at lower operating temperatures. R 2 = 0.52 R 2 = 0.60 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Stripping Inflection Point, cycles Rutting Rate , mm /hr 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 Tensi l e Strength Ra tio Rutting Rate TSR Figure 4.14 Rutting Rate and TSR Results versus Stripping Inflection Point. 96 97 The HWTD results also indicated the split addition of 1.5 percent hydrated lime improved both the stripping inflection point and the rutting rate, when compared to the results with just Aspha-min? added. In terms of rutting rate, this was an improvement of 63 percent. The addition of 1.5 percent dry lime resulted in of a stripping inflection point greater than 10,000 cycles and further improvement in the rutting rate. The results from the Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device, also shown in Figure 4.14, correlated well with the TSR values, validating the earlier claim that the addition of Aspha-min? increased the potential for moisture damage. The Hamburg results for the addition of 1.5 percent dry lime indicate a mixture resistant to moisture susceptibility while the TSR results were marginal. Generally, the Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device test is considered to be the more accurate predictor of moisture damage as compared to the TSR test. Lime will also stiffen the binder (70), thus also providing a benefit in the rutting potential of WMA?s that are compacted at a lower temperature (less than 250?F (121?C)). 4.8 CRITICAL COMPACTION TEMPERATURE In order to accurately evaluate the warm asphalt additives, a comparison was made between the test results for each of the different processes and the test results for the control mix at a normal compaction temperature, this being 300?F (149?C) for this particular study. The reason for this comparison was to determine a critical compaction temperature; more specifically, a minimum compaction temperature at which Warm Mix Asphalt compacted at any temperature below this compaction temperature, the performance of in-place asphalt mixture may not perform as well as hot mix asphalt laid at normal compaction temperatures. The results of these comparisons can be seen in Table 4.11. In Table 4.11, the row labeled ?none? refers to hot mix asphalt without any WMA additives added. It does not mean hot mix that was mixed at normal temperatures and let cool to a particular compaction temperature, but rather mixed and compacted at the three different temperatures evaluated, these being 265?F (129?C), 230?F (110?C), and 190?F (88?C). The less than (<) sign means the performance is not as good as typical hot mix asphalt, where the greater than (>) sign indicates performance that is better than HMA. All equal signs in Table 4.11 indicate that there is no statistical difference between the additive in question and hot mix asphalt at 300?F (149?C). The values in parentheses indicate the p-value of each comparison, to illustrate the significance of the comparison. TABLE 4.11 Results of Comparison of Additives to Hot Mix at 300?F (149?C) Density Resilient Modulus Rutting Resistance Temperature 265 230 190 265 230 190 265 230 190 None = (0.8895) = (0.1161) = (1.0000) = (0.9695) = (0.9969) = (0.2692) = (0.3071) < (0.0002) < (0.0095) Aspha-min? = (0.2250) > (0.0122) = (0.9842) = (0.9968) = (0.9391) = (0.2720) < (0.0025) < (0.0420) < (0.0317) Sasobit? > (0.0006) > (0.0059) = (0.0525) = (1.0000) = (0.8911) = (0.6002) = (0.9926) = (0.9752) < (0.0009) Evotherm? > (0.0000) > (0.0001) > (0.0000) = (0.9801) = (0.9987) = (0.8520) = (0.9833) < (0.0087) = (0.0557) In regard to compactability, these results indicated all processes were either not statistically different from the control mixture, or significantly improved the compaction of the laboratory samples, down to 190?F (88?C). For example, based on the p-values 98 99 determined at a 95 percent confidence level, at the 230?F (110?C) compaction temperature, each of the Warm Mix Asphalt technologies significantly improved the densification of compacted samples. Regarding resilient modulus, all processes neither significantly increased nor decreased the measured resilient modulus values, down to 190?F (88?C). This holds true for the mix type with no additive as well. This indicates that no Warm Mix Asphalt additive significantly affect the stiffness of an asphalt mixture. Based on the results for the APA rutting tests, Sasobit? neither increased nor decreased the rutting potential, down to 230?F (110?C). For the Aspha-min?, there was a significant increase in the rutting results for all compaction temperatures. Observation of the p-values suggests that the rutting was more significant at the 265?F (129?C) compaction temperature; however, this may be due to some testing variability from the APA device. The test results for the Evotherm? suggest that there may be an increased potential for rutting at the 230?F (110?C) compaction temperature. 4.9 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The primary objective of this research study was to determine if three products used in the production of Warm Mix Asphalt are applicable to typical paving operations and environmental conditions commonly found in the United States. To accomplish this objective, a literature review was conducted partly to investigate several Warm Mix Asphalt processes that have been developed in Europe since the early to mid 1990?s and one process developed in the United States since 2003. These processes include Aspha- min?, Sasobit?, and Evotherm?. 100 Once the literature review was completed, a test plan was produced to effectively evaluate the three Warm Mix Asphalt technologies. Laboratory samples were compacted using the automated vibratory compactor over a range of compaction temperatures. Resilient modulus, rutting resistance, indirect tensile strength, Tensile Strength Ratio, and Hamburg Wheel Tracking testing were then performed according to their respective test methods and procedures. Once the testing was completed, a thorough statistical analysis was conducted, from which conclusions and recommendations were made. To accomplish the test plan, laboratory samples were prepared and compacted over a range of temperatures, from 300?F (149?C) down to 190?F (88?C) to measure the compactability of each aggregate/additive mixture combination at lower temperatures. The data obtained were then analyzed using an ANOVA to determine what factors, if any, were significant in the densification of the different mixtures. From the analysis, several conclusions could be made. One, the coarse nature of the aggregate structure has some influence on the densification of the mixture at the lower compaction temperatures. Two, all additives significantly improved the compactability of the mixtures when compared to their respective control samples. And three, the Evotherm? reduced the air void content the most, by an average of 1.5 percent. Therefore, it is ultimately believed that the addition of any additive will reduce the effort required for field compaction of HMA, based upon the statistical findings from the densification data. After the samples were analyzed with regards to compactability, they were then used to determine the resilient modulus values at the different compaction temperatures. This testing was conducted to determine if the addition of any WMA additive would potentially affect asphalt thickness in the mix design procedure. Once the test results 101 were determined, an ANOVA was performed to see if any factors significantly affected the resilient modulus of the mixtures. From the analysis, it was concluded that the resilient modulus increased as the compaction temperature increased, which increased the densification of the test samples. So it can be concluded that resilient modulus increases with increasing densification. Also, based on Tukey?s post-ANOVA analysis, no WMA additive significantly affected the resilient modulus. Therefore, no changes in pavement thickness design would be required from the inclusion of a WMA additive. The test samples were then analyzed in the Asphalt Pavement Analyzer (APA) to determine their resistance to rutting at the lower compaction temperatures. The data were then compared to the control samples. From a Tukey?s post-ANOVA performed on the data, it was determined that Evotherm? lowered the rutting potential by an average of 1.8 mm; Sasobit? lowered the potential by 1.4 mm, and Aspha-min? lowered the rut depths by an average of 0.2 mm. These results were compared to the rut depths for the control mixture. However, the addition of any of the three WMA additives did not significantly increase or decrease the rutting potential, based on the results from the Tukey?s post- ANOVA analysis. To determine if the inclusion of any WMA additive would require a cure time before opening to traffic, samples were prepared and aged for various time periods. Tensile strength testing was then conducted after the aging process. This was done to address the concern that the workability of the mixture would not dissipate prior to being opened to traffic, thus creating the potential for rutting. The results indicated no statistical difference in tensile strength between the control mixture and the Aspha-min? or Evotherm? mixtures. Therefore, no cure time would be required when using any of these 102 two additives. For the Sasobit?, a statistical difference in tensile strengths was determined when compared to the control mixture. Hence, based upon laboratory tests, a cure time may be beneficial before opening to traffic. However, field data collected from previous research suggest that no cure time is necessary. Lower operating temperatures may not allow for complete evaporation of moisture that may be retained in the aggregate, which could lead to increased susceptibility to moisture damage. Moisture testing in accordance to ASTM D4867 was conducted for each mixture combination to address this concern. TSR testing was conducted at a compaction temperature of 250?F (121?C) based on the densification, resilient modulus, and rutting results obtained from this study for all three WMA technologies. Test results indicated that the lower compaction temperatures resulted in increased moisture sensitivity for all three WMA additives. Anti-stripping additives were then evaluated to mitigate the potential for moisture damage. Hydrated lime in a two- stage addition procedure improved the moisture resistance for Aspha-min?, while the liquid anti-stripping agent Magnabond increased the resistance for the mixtures containing Sasobit?. For the Evotherm?, an adjustment made in the chemical package was evaluated, and resulted in improved moisture resistance. Therefore, moisture damage from the lower compaction temperatures could be mitigated in the laboratory. Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device testing was conducted to verify the test results from the TSR procedure. Test results generated from the Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device were thought to be vital in accurately establishing a good performing Warm Mix Asphalt. Generally, the results from the HWTD correlated well with the TSR results, especially for the rutting rate values, shown in Figure 4.14. The lower resistance to 103 moisture for each mixture combination was verified by an increase in the rutting rate, compared to the control mixtures. The Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device also determined that the addition of the various anti-stripping agents used improved the HWTD test results. A secondary objective for this research study was to determine a critical compaction temperature for WMA. This is a minimum compaction temperature at which WMA should be compacted to ensure optimal performance. At any temperature below this minimum compaction temperature, the performance of WMA may not perform as well as HMA laid at normal compaction temperatures. Test results were compared to HMA that was compacted and evaluated at a compaction temperature of 300?F (149?C). From the comparisons in Table 4.11, it was observed that the performance of the Warm Mix Asphalt additives at a compaction temperature somewhere between 265 and 230?F (129 and 110?C) was significantly less than the performance of HMA produced at 300?F (149?C). Therefore, a minimum compaction of 250?F (121?C) is recommended for optimum performance of Warm Mix Asphalt, with a minimum mixing temperature of 275?F (135?C) to ensure complete coating of the aggregate and a compaction temperature of at least 250?F (121?C). 104 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 INTRODUCTION After applying the analysis procedures to the data produced for all three Warm Mix Asphalt technologies investigated in this study, the following conclusions and recommendations could be developed. 5.2 CONCLUSIONS 1. The gyratory compactor was shown not to be sensitive to the reduction in compaction temperature. Therefore, all test samples to simulate field compactability were compacted in the vibratory compactor. 2. The addition of any of the three Warm Mix Asphalt additives evaluated lowers the measured air voids of specimens compacted in the gyratory compactor by 0.8 to 1.5 percent. Improved compactability was noted at temperatures as low as 190?F (88?C) for all three additives. The new Evotherm? formulation was obtained and only evaluated to improve the moisture resistance. Therefore, this reduction in air voids was not confirmed for the new formulation of Evotherm?. 3. The addition of the WMA additives evaluated in this study did not affect the resilient modulus for mixtures having the same PG binder. Therefore, there 105 would not be any potential effect on pavement thickness design when using Warm Mix Asphalt. 4. Based on the Asphalt Pavement Analyzer results, the addition of WMA additives evaluated in this study did not increase the rutting potential of an asphalt mix, compared to the control mixtures. The rutting potential for all mixes increased with decreasing mixing and compaction temperatures and this may be related more to the decreased aging of the binder when heated to lower temperatures. 5. It appears that the addition of Aspha-min? or Evotherm? does not require a cure time for the asphalt mixture prior to opening to traffic. The study indicated that a cure time may be beneficial for the Sasobit?. However, field experience from Europe has indicated that the addition of Sasobit? does not require a cure time prior to opening to traffic. 6. Lower temperatures used when producing WMA may increase the potential for moisture damage. The lower mixing temperatures can result in incomplete drying of the aggregate, leading to moisture damage. Reduced tensile strength and visual stripping were observed in the WMA samples compacted at 250?F (121?C). 7. Hydrated lime (1.5 percent in two-stage addition) used with Aspha-min? appeared to be effective in improving the resistance to moisture damage with the granite aggregate. The addition of AKZO Nobel Magnabond (Kling Beta 2912) improved the TSR values to acceptable levels for the Sasobit?; however, the Magnabond greatly reduced the individual tensile strengths in 106 both the conditioned and unconditioned samples. The new formulation of Evotherm? increased the moisture resistance to acceptable levels with the limestone aggregate. 8. Hamburg wheel-tracking tests indicated good performance in terms of moisture susceptibility and rutting for the mixtures containing Sasobit? and Magnabond. Hamburg results also showed the lime will improve the rutting resistance of Warm Mix Asphalt mixtures with Aspha-min? compacted at lower temperatures due to the lime stiffening the asphalt binder. 9. A good correlation was observed between the stripping inflection point from the Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device and Tensile Strength Ratio. 5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The modified binder containing Sasobit? must be engineered to meet the desired Performance Grade. As an example, in this study a PG 58-28 was used as the base asphalt with the addition of 2.5 percent Sasobit? to produce a PG 64-22. 2. The optimum asphalt content should be determined without the addition of any Warm Mix Asphalt additive. Additional samples should then be produced with the additive at the anticipated reduced production temperatures so the field target density can be adjusted (e.g. If the laboratory air void content with any additive included was decreased in the lab by 0.5 percent, then the field target density should be increased by 0.5 percent). 107 3. Additional research should be performed to determine if the new Evotherm? package would lower the air void content in gyratory-prepared samples. While this could be used to indicate a reduction in the optimum asphalt content, at this time it is believed that additional research is required. 4. Based on the critical compaction temperature analysis, a minimum field mixing temperature of 275?F (135?C) and a minimum field compaction temperature of 250?F (121?C) are recommended. 5. Tensile strength ratio testing should be conducted on specimens mixed and compacted at the anticipated field production temperatures. If test results are determined to be unfavorable, anti-stripping agents should be added to the mix to increase the tensile strength ratio. 6. More research is needed to further evaluate both long term and short term field performance, the selection of the optimum asphalt content, the effect of Warm Mix Asphalt additives on mixture volumetrics, and the selection of binder grades for lower production temperatures. 108 CHAPTER 6: REFERENCES 1. The Asphalt Pavement Association of Oregon, ?Warm Mix Asphalt Shows Promise for Cost Reduction, Environmental Benefit?; Centerline, The Asphalt Pavement Association of Oregon, Salem, OR, Fall 2003. 2. Stroup-Gardiner, M. and C. Lange, ?Characterization of Asphalt Odors and Emissions,? Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Asphalt Pavements, Copenhagen, Denmark, August 2002. 3. Cervarich, M.B., ?Cooling Down the Mix ? New ?Warm Mix Asphalt? Technologies Developed in Europe?; Hot Mix Asphalt Technology, National Asphalt Pavement Association, Lanham, MD, March/April 2003. Pp 13-16. 4. Buhl, R. The German BITUMEN Forum ? Co-Operation in Partnership. Third Eurasphalt & Eurobitume Congress. Vienna, Austria, May 12-14, 2004. 5. Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Last ratified November 2004. 6. BBC News, ?Kyoto Protocol Comes into Force?. www.news.bbc.co.uk/ 1/hi/sci/tech/4267245.stm. Accessed December 2005. 7. Barthel, W., J.P. Marchand, M. Von Devivere, ?Warm Mix Asphalt by Adding a Synthetic Aspha-min,? www.aspha-min.com Assessed September 2005. 8. BITUMEN discussion group. Practical Solutions: BITUMEN Forum ? Low Temperature Asphalt. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. 9. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, ?Criteria for a Recommended Standard ? Occupational Exposure to Asphalt Fumes,? U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Publication No. 78-106, September 1977. 10. Gunkel, K. O?C., ?Study of Paving Asphalt Fumes,? National Asphalt Paving Association, Riverdale, MD, September 1989. 109 11. ACGIH, ?2000 TLV ? s and BEI ? s ? Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents, Biological Exposure Indices,? American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Cincinnati, OH, 2000. 12. Asphalt Pavement Environmental Council (APEC), Best Management Practices to Minimize Emissions During HMA Construction, EC 101, 2000. 13. United States Environmental Protection Agency, ?Emissions Monitoring and Analysis Division, Hot Mix Asphalt Plants Emission Assessment Report,? EPA 454/R-00-019, EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC, December 2000. 14. Mead, K. and L. Mickelson, ?Engineering Control Guidelines for Hot Mix Asphalt Pavers,? NIOSH Publication No. 97-105, January 1997. 15. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, ?Hazard Review ? Health Effects of Occupational Exposure to Asphalt,? U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Publication No. 2001-110, December 2000. 16. Cyansi, L., ?Foamed Asphalt in Bituminous Paving Mixtures? Highway Research Board, Bulletin 160, National Academy of Sciences, January 1957, Pp 108-122. 17. Jenkins, K., J. de Groot, M. van de Ven, A. Molenaar, ?Half-Warm Foamed Bitumen Treatment, A New Process,? 7 th Conference on Asphalt Pavements for Southern Africa, Victoria Falls, August-September 1999. 18. Koenders, B., D. Stoker, C. Bowen, P. de Groot, O. Larsen, D. Hardy, K. Wilms, ?Innovative Process in Asphalt Production and Placement to Obtain Lower Operating Temperatures,? 2 nd Eurasphalt & Eurobitume Congress. Barcelona, Spain, 2000. 19. Koenders, B., D. Stoker, C. Robertus, O. Larsen, J. Johansen, ?WAM-Foam?, Asphalt Production at Lower Operating Temperatures,? 9 th International Conference on Asphalt Pavement, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2002. 20. Mineral Gallery, ?The Zeolite Group of Minerals,? www.mineral.galleries. com/minerals/silicate/zeolites.html Accessed December 14, 2005. 21. Prowell, B. and G. Hurley, ?Evaluation of Warm Asphalt Technologies,? Presentation to the Southeastern Asphalt User/Producer Group, Baton Rouge, LA, November 2004. 22. Collins, R. and K. Vaughan, ?The Use of Zeolite as an Additive to Reduce Mixing and Compaction Temperatures in Hot Mix Asphalt,? Pavement Technology, Inc., Atlanta, GA, October 2002. 110 23. Hurley, G. and B. Prowell, ?Evaluation of Aspha-min? Zeolite for Use in Warm Asphalt Mixes,? NCAT Report No. 05-04, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, June 2005. 24. Richter, F. and H. Gregori, ?Synthetic Paraffins Enhance Bitumen Stability,? Erdol Erdgas Kohle, Urban-Verlag, Hamburg, Germany, 2000, Pp. 509-512. 25. Richter, F. ?Asphalt Stability Improved by Using Synthetic Wax Additives,? Better Roads, Dallas, TX, October 2002, Pp. 34-35. 26. Damm, K-W, J. Abraham, T. Butz, G. Hidebrand, and G. Riebeschl, ?Asphalt Flow Improvers as ?Intelligent Fillers? for Hot Asphalts ? A New Chapter in Asphalt Technology,? Journal of Applied Asphalt Binder Technology, April 2002, Pp. 36-69. 27. U. S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, ?Warm Mix Technologies and Research,? www.fhwa.dot.gov/ pavement/wma.html. Accessed February 17, 2004. 28. Butz, T., I. Rahimian, and G. Hildebrand, ?Modifications of Road Bitumens with the Fischer-Tropsch Paraffin Sasobit?,? Journal of Applied Asphalt Binder Technology, October 2001, Pp. 70-86. 29. Hurley, G. and B. Prowell, ?Evaluation of Sasobit? for Use in Warm Asphalt Mixes,? NCAT Report No. 05-06, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, June 2005. 30. Sasol Wax, ?Roads and Trials with Sasobit?,? www.sasolwax.com/ data/sasolwax/Bitumen%20Modification/Roads%20and%20trials%20e.pdf Accessed May 13, 2005. 31. Asphalt Institute and Asphalt Emulsion Manufacturers Association, A Basic Asphalt Emulsion Manual, Manual Series No. 19, Third Edition, Brown and Brown, Inc., Salina, KS, 1997. 32. Corrigan, M., ?Warm Mix Asphalt Technology,? Presentation to the AASHTO Standing Committee on Highways Technical Meeting, Nashville, TN, September 2005. 33. Davidson, J., ?Evotherm? Trial ? Aurora Ontario,? McAsphalt Industries Limited, August 31, 2005. 34. Davidson, J., ?Evotherm? Trial ? Ramara Township,? McAsphalt Industries Limited, December 12, 2005. 111 35. Marker, V., ?Construction Methods ? Symposium on Thick Lift Construction,? Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Vol. 41, Cleveland, OH, 1972, Pp 354-264. 36. Noel, R.B., ?Compacting Heavy Duty Highway Pavements,? Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Vol. 46, San Antonio, TX, 1977, Pp 309-326. 37. Parr, W., P. Serafin, and T. Humphries, ?Michigan State Highway Experimental Bituminous Concrete Construction Project,? Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Vol. 24, New Orleans, LA, 1955, Pp 125-177. 38. Gallaway, B., ?Laboratory and Field Densities of Hot-Mix Asphalt Concrete in Texas,? Highway Research Board, Bulletin 251, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1960, Pp 12-17. 39. Parker, C., ?Steel-Tired Rollers,? Highway Research Board, Bulletin 246, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1960, Pp 1-40. 40. Serafin, P.J. and L.L. Kole, ?Comparative Studies of Pneumatic Tire Rolling,? Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Vol. 31, New Orleans, LA, 1962, Pp 418-456. 41. Bright, R., B. Steed, J. Steele, and A. Justice, ?The Effect of Viscosity of Asphalt on Properties of Bituminous Wearing Surface Mixtures,? Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Vol. 35, Minneapolis, MN, 1966, Pp 164-206. 42. McLeod, N.W., ?Influence of Viscosity of Asphalt-Cements on Compaction of Paving Mixtures in the Field,? Highway Research Record, No. 158. Highway Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, Pp 76-115. 43. Epps, J.A., B.M. Gallaway, and W.W. Scott, Jr. ?Long-Term Compaction of Asphalt Concrete Pavements,? Highway Research Record, No. 313. Highway Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1970, Pp 79-91. 44. Terrel, R.L. and D.J. Holen, ?Performance of Asphalt Concrete Pavement Mixtures Produced by the Drum Mixer Process,? Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Vol. 45, New Orleans, LA, 1976, Pp 169-198. 45. Finn, F.N. and J.A. Epps, ?Compaction of Hot Mix Asphalt Concrete,? TTI Report 214-21, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 1980. 112 46. Kennedy, T.W., F.L. Roberts, and R.B. McGennis, ?Effects of Compaction Temperature and Effort on the Engineering Properties of Asphalt Concrete Mixture,? Placement and Compaction of Asphalt Mixtures, American Society for Testing and Materials, Special Technical Publication No. 829, 1982. 47. Brown, E.R., D. Decker, R.B. Mallick, and J. Bukowski, ?Superpave Construction Issues and Early Performance Evaluation,? Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Vol. 68, Chicago, IL, 1999, Pp 613-660. 48. Brown, E.R., M.R. Hainin, L.A. Cooley, Jr., and G.C. Hurley, ?Relationship of Air Voids, Lift Thickness, and Permeability in Hot Mix Asphalt Pavements,? NCHRP Report 531, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Washington DC, 2004. 49. Seed, H.C., C.K. Chan, and C.E. Lee, ?Resilient Characteristics and Their Relation to Fatigue Failures in Asphalt Pavements,? Proceedings, International Conference on the Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, University of Michigan, 1962. Pp 50. Roberts, F.L., P.S. Kandhal, E.R. Brown, D.Y. Lee, and T.W. Kennedy, ?Hot Mix Asphalt Materials, Mixture Design, and Construction,? NAPA Education Foundation, Lanham, MD, Second Edition, 1996. 51. Kandhal, P. S. and R. B. Mallick, ?Evaluation of the Asphalt Pavement Analyzer for HMA Mix Design,? NCAT Report No. 99-04, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, June 1999. 52. Kandhal, P. S. and L. A. Cooley, Jr., ?Accelerated Laboratory Rutting Tests: Evaluation of the Asphalt Pavement Analyzer,? NCHRP Report 508, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Washington DC, 2003. 53. Maccarrone, S., G. Holleran, and A. Ky, ?Cold Asphalt Systems as an Alternative to Hot Mix,? Ninth Australian Asphalt Pavement Association International Asphalt Conference, November 1994. 54. Ruth, B.E., ?Overview,? Evaluation and Prevention of Water Damage to Asphalt Pavement Materials, American Society for Testing and Materials, Special Technical Publication No. 899, 1984. 55. Hubbard, P., ?Adhesion of Asphalt to Aggregate in the Presence of Water,? Highway Research Board, Volume 8, Part 1, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1938. 113 56. Kiggundu, B., and F.L. Roberts, ?Stripping in HMA Mixtures: State-of-the-Art and Critical Review of Test Methods,? NCAT Report No. 88-02, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, September 1988. 57. Kennedy, T.W., ?Prevention of Water Damage in Asphalt Mixtures,? Evaluation and Prevention of Water Damage to Asphalt Pavement Materials, American Society for Testing and Materials, Special Technical Publication No. 899, 1984, Pp 119-133. 58. Hicks, R.G., ?Moisture Damage in Asphalt Concrete,? National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Synthesis of Highway Practice No. 175, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1991. 59. Khosla, N.P., B.G. Birdsall, and S. Kawaguchi, ?Evaluation of Moisture Susceptibility of Asphalt Mixtures: Conventional and New Methods,? Transportation Research Record No. 1728, Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, 2000, Pp 43-51. 60. U. S. Department of Transportation, ?Bituminous Mixtures Laboratory (BML), Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device,? www.fhwa.dot.gov/ pavement/asphalt/labs/mixtures/hamburg.cfm Accessed December 14, 2005. 61. Aschenbrener, T., ?Evaluation of Hamburg Wheel-Tracking Device to Predict Moisture Damage in Hot Mix Asphalt,? Transportation Research Record 1492 Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Washington D.C. 1995. Pp 193-201. 62. Lottman, R.P., ?Predicting Moisture-Induced Damage to Asphaltic Concrete,? National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 246, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1982. 63. Huber, G.A., R.L. Peterson, J.A. Scherocman, J. D?Angelo, M. Anderson, and M.S. Buncher, ?Determination of Moisture in Hot-Mix Asphalt and Relationship with Tender Mixture Behavior in the Laboratory,? Transportation Research Record 1813 Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Washington D. C. 2002. Pp 95-102. 64. Bahia, H.U., and D.I. Hanson, ?A Project NCHRP 9-10 Superpave Protocols for Modified Asphalt Binders,? Draft Topical Report (Task 9), Prepared for National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, May 2000. 114 65. Huner, M.H. and E.R. Brown, ?Effects of Re-Heating and Compaction Temperature on Hot Mix Asphalt Volumetrics,? NCAT Report No. 01-04, National Center for Asphalt Technology, Auburn, AL, 2001. 66. Taylor, J.K, ?Quality Assurance of Chemical Measurements,? Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, MI, 1987. 67. Butz, T., ?Sasobit?: Characterization of Properties and Effects on Binder and Asphalt,? 41 st Conference of the Association of Road and Traffic Engineers, Saxonia, Leizig, Germany, 2005. 68. Schumann Sasol, ?State Road, Piemont Italy,? Product Information, Hamburg, November 2001. 69. Australian Asphalt Pavement Association, ?Frankfurt Takes Off from Asphalt,? www.aapa.asn.au/docs/frankfurt.html Assessed August 13, 2004 70. Little, D. and J. Epps, ?The Benefits of Hydrated Lime in Hot Mix Asphalt,? National Lime Association, 2001. 115 APPENDICES 116 APPENDIX A: MIX DESIGN VERIFICATION DATA 117 Agg r egate: G r a n ite Asph alt Sp ecific Gravit y (Gb): 1 . 028 Ndesig n: 125 Apparen t Speci fic Gravity (Gsa): 2.673 N i nit i al: 9 Effectiv e S p ecific Grav ity (G se): 2. 667 Bulk S p ecific Gravi t y (Gs b ): 2. 597 1 4 .8 467 4.9 2717 .3 4 685.6 2 .3 75 2 . 47 8 4 .2 1 2 .9 67 .9 3 . 8 2 4 .8 468 4.5 2706 .8 4 699.4 2 .3 51 2 . 47 8 5 .1 1 3 .8 62 .9 3 . 8 A v g . 2 . 36 3 2 . 4 78 4. 6 1 3 . 4 6 5. 4 3 . 8 3 5 .3 473 1.5 2747 .9 4 737.6 2 .3 78 2 . 46 0 3 .3 1 3 .3 74 .9 4 . 3 4 5 .3 472 4.3 2745 .5 4 729.4 2 .3 81 2 . 46 0 3 .2 1 3 .2 75 .7 4 . 3 A v g . 2 . 38 0 2 . 4 60 3. 3 1 3 . 2 7 5. 3 4 . 3 5 5 .8 470 7.2 2733 .4 4 711.8 2 .3 79 2 . 44 2 2 .6 1 3 .7 81 .3 4 . 8 6 5 .8 474 6.4 2764 .9 4 748.6 2 .3 93 2 . 44 2 2 .0 1 3 .2 84 .7 4 . 8 A v g . 2 . 38 6 2 . 4 42 2. 3 1 3 . 5 8 3. 0 4 . 8 VM A, % TA BL E A1 Mix Des i gn V erif i cation Su m m ary f o r Gr a n i t e w i th N o A d d i tiv e VFA , % Effect ive Asphalt Content, % Sa m p le Num b er Asphal t C ont ent, % TM D (G mm ) B u lk (Gm b ) I n A i r (gms ) In W a t e r (gms) SS D (g m s ) VT M, % 118 Ag g r eg a t e: L i m e sto n e A sph a l t S p eci fic Gra v it y (G b): 1 .02 8 Nd esig n: 1 2 5 A pp arent S p e c i f i c G r avi t y (Gsa): 2.75 5 Nin i t i al : 9 Effecti v e S p ecific Grav it y (G se): 2.74 9 B u l k Spe c if ic G r a v it y (G sb ): 2 . 7 2 5 1 4 .5 43 63.8 258 0.2 4 37 0.6 2 .43 7 2 . 552 4.5 14.6 6 9.2 4 .2 2 4 .5 43 43.3 256 6.8 4 36 3.8 2 .41 7 2 . 552 5.3 15.3 6 5.4 4 .2 Av g . 2.42 7 2 .552 4.9 14.9 6 7.3 4 .2 3 5 .0 43 73.1 259 5.1 4 37 9.1 2 .45 1 2 . 532 3.2 14.5 7 8.1 4 .7 4 5 .0 43 89.5 260 0.4 4 39 8.4 2 .44 1 2 . 532 3.6 14.9 7 5.9 4 .7 Av g . 2.44 6 2 .532 3.4 14.7 7 7.0 4 .7 5 5 .5 43 86.6 262 0.7 4 38 9.6 2 .48 0 2 . 513 1.3 14.0 9 0.6 5 .2 6 5 .5 44 07.5 262 0.8 4 41 2.4 2 .46 0 2 . 513 2.1 14.7 8 5.7 5 .2 Av g . 2.47 0 2 .513 1.7 14.3 8 8.1 5 .2 T A BL E A2 Mi x Desig n V e r i f i catio n S u m mary f o r Li m e ston e w i th No A d d i ti ve Sam p le Numbe r As pha l t Content, % In A i r (g ms) In W a t e r (gm s ) VM A, % V FA , % Ef fec t ive Asp h alt Content, % SSD (gm s ) B u lk (Gmb) TMD (G mm ) VTM, % 119 APPENDIX B: COMPACTABILITY DATA 120 Ag g r eg ate: Gr an ite A s ph a l t Sp e c ific Gr avi t y (Gb): 1 .02 8 Nde s ig n: 125 A ppare n t Spec i f ic Gra v ity ( G s a ): 2.673 Nini tial: 9 E ff ective Specif i c Gravity (G s e ) : 2.667 B u lk Spe c ific Gr avity ( G sb) : 2.597 1 5 .1 3 0 0 4 7 2 5 . 3 2 73 4. 9 4 73 4.4 1 25 .8 11 5. 5 2 .3 63 2 . 4 6 7 4 .2 1 3 . 6 6 9 .2 88 .0 2 5 .1 3 0 0 4 7 2 5 . 5 2 74 2. 4 4 73 8.3 1 26 .4 11 6. 0 2 .3 68 2 . 4 6 7 4 .0 1 3 . 5 7 0 .1 88 .1 Avg . 2.3 6 5 2 .4 67 4.1 1 3. 6 6 9.6 8 8 . 0 3 5 .1 2 6 5 4 7 2 7 . 1 2 74 4. 7 4 73 5.1 1 25 .3 11 5. 1 2 .3 75 2 . 4 6 7 3 .7 1 3 . 2 7 1 .8 88 .4 4 5 .1 2 6 5 4 7 2 7 . 9 2 73 9. 4 4 73 6.0 1 25 .4 11 5. 0 2 .3 68 2 . 4 6 7 4 .0 1 3 . 5 7 0 .2 88 .0 Avg . 2.3 7 1 2 .4 67 3.9 1 3. 3 7 1.0 8 8 . 2 5 5 .1 2 3 0 4 7 1 0 . 4 2 72 5. 6 4 72 0.7 1 25 .5 11 5. 2 2 .3 61 2 . 4 6 7 4 .3 1 3 . 7 6 8 .7 87 .8 6 5 .1 2 3 0 4 7 2 8 . 6 2 73 7. 9 4 74 3.2 1 26 .2 11 5. 6 2 .3 58 2 . 4 6 7 4 .4 1 3 . 8 6 8 .1 87 .6 Avg . 2.3 6 0 2 .4 67 4.4 1 3. 8 6 8.4 8 7 . 7 7 5 .1 1 9 0 4 7 2 4 . 8 2 72 8. 0 4 73 9.9 1 26 .1 11 5. 7 2 .3 48 2 . 4 6 7 4 .8 1 4 . 2 6 6 .1 87 .3 8 5 .1 1 9 0 4 7 3 3 . 0 2 73 5. 4 4 73 3.9 1 26 .9 11 6. 0 2 .3 68 2 . 4 6 7 4 .0 1 3 . 5 7 0 .3 87 .8 Avg . 2.3 5 8 2 .4 67 4.4 1 3. 8 6 8.2 8 7 . 5 T A BL E B 1 Com p act a bility D a t a f o r Granite - N o Addi t i ve % Gmm @ Ninitial, % Compaction Temp e r ature (? F) V M A, % V FA, % SS D (g m s ) B u lk (G m b ) TM D (Gmm ) VTM, % Heig ht @ Niniti a l , (m m) Heig ht @ Ndesig n, (mm ) Sample Nu m b e r Asphalt Content, % I n Air (gm s ) In W a t e r (gm s ) 121 Agg r egat e: Gr an i t e A sp h a lt S p eci fi c G r av i t y (Gb ) : 1 . 0 2 8 Ndes ig n: 125 App a r e nt S p e c i f i c Gr avity (Gsa ) : 2.673 Ni n i ti al : 9 E f fect i v e S p eci fi c G r av i t y (Gs e ): 2 . 6 5 5 B u lk Spe c if ic G r a v ity ( G sb) : 2.597 1 5 .1 300 4733.8 2760.5 4743.7 125.7 115.3 2 .387 2 . 457 2.9 12.8 77.7 89.1 2 5 .1 300 4707.7 2729.8 4719.6 125.9 115.5 2 .366 2 . 457 3.7 13.5 72.6 88.3 Avg. 2.376 2 . 457 3.3 13.2 75.2 88.7 3 5 .1 265 4713.3 2742.7 4718.3 124.7 114.3 2 .386 2 . 457 2.9 12.8 77.4 89.0 4 5 .1 265 4714.2 2743.3 4725.0 125.8 115.4 2 .379 2 . 457 3.2 13.1 75.7 88.8 Avg. 2.382 2 . 457 3.0 12.9 76.5 88.9 5 5 .1 230 4736.8 2757.4 4745.7 126.2 115.6 2 .382 2 . 457 3.0 12.9 76.5 88.8 6 5 .1 230 4731.0 2746.1 4739.0 125.7 115.3 2 .374 2 . 457 3.4 13.3 74.5 88.6 Avg. 2.378 2 . 457 3.2 13.1 75.5 88.7 7 5 .1 190 4749.5 2752.5 4758.3 126.3 115.8 2 .368 2 . 457 3.6 13.5 73.1 88.4 8 5 .1 190 4743.6 2750.1 4752.6 126.3 115.6 2 .369 2 . 457 3.6 13.4 73.3 88.2 Avg. 2.368 2 . 457 3.6 13.5 73.2 88.3 TA BLE B2 C o m p act a bilit y D a t a f o r G r anit e - A s pha- m i n ? Ze o l i t e Sa m p le Number Aspha lt Conte n t, % In A i r (gm s ) In W a t e r (gm s ) % G mm @ N i niti al , % Compa c tion T e m p era t u r e (? F) VM A, % V FA, % SS D (gm s ) B u lk (Gm b ) TMD ( G mm) VT M , % He ig ht @ N i nitia l, (m m) Hei g ht @ Ndesi g n, (m m) 122 Ag g r eg ate: Gra n ite A spha lt S p eci fic G r av i t y (G b ) : 1 . 0 2 8 Nde s i g n: 125 Appa rent S p e c ific Gra v ity (Gsa ): 2.673 Nini ti al : 9 E ffect ive S p ecifi c G r avit y (Gse): 2.660 B u lk Sp ec if ic G r a v i t y ( G sb ) : 2 . 5 9 7 1 5 .1 300 4707.2 2734.1 4711.7 124.3 113.9 2 .3 80 2.4 6 1 3 .3 1 3 .0 74.8 88.6 2 5 .1 300 4694.5 2720.4 4702.1 125.8 115.3 2 .3 69 2.4 6 1 3 .7 1 3 .4 72.2 88.2 Av g . 2.3 7 5 2 .4 61 3.5 1 3.2 73.5 88.4 3 5 .1 265 4723.1 2747.3 4726.9 126.2 115.7 2 .3 86 2.4 6 1 3 .1 1 2 .8 76.2 88.9 4 5 .1 265 4716.7 2736.4 4727.4 126.2 115.4 2 .3 69 2.4 6 1 3 .7 1 3 .4 72.2 88.0 Av g . 2.3 7 7 2 .4 61 3.4 1 3.1 74.2 88.5 5 5 .1 230 4703.6 2718.7 4712.4 126.2 115.8 2 .3 59 2.4 6 1 4 .1 1 3 .8 70.0 88.0 6 5 .1 230 4748.0 2750.1 4760.8 126.6 116.1 2 .3 61 2.4 6 1 4 .0 1 3 .7 70.5 88.0 Av g . 2.3 6 0 2 .4 61 4.1 1 3.7 70.2 88.0 TABLE B3 Com p ac tability Data for G r anite - Sasobit ? % Gmm @ Ni nit i a l , % C o mpac t i on T e m p erat u r e (?F) VMA, % V FA, % SS D (g m s ) B u lk (Gm b ) TM D (Gm m ) VTM, % He ig ht @ Ni n i t i a l , (mm ) He ig ht @ Nd es i g n , (m m) Sa mp l e Nu m b e r Aspha l t Co nte n t, % In A i r (g m s ) In W a t e r (g m s ) 123 A g g r e g a t e : G r a n i t e A sp ha lt Sp e c i f ic G r a v ity ( G b ) : 1 .0 28 Nd e s ig n : 12 5 A pp a r e n t Spe c if ic G r a v it y ( G sa ) : 2 . 6 7 3 Ni nit i a l : 9 Ef f e c t ive Spe c if ic Gr a v it y ( G se ) : 2 . 6 6 4 B u lk Spe c if ic Gr a v it y ( G sb) : 2 . 5 9 7 1 5 . 1 3 0 0 4 71 3. 7 2 73 8. 6 4 71 9. 0 1 2 4 . 2 11 4. 2 2 . 3 8 0 2. 46 5 3 .4 1 3 . 0 7 3 . 6 8 8 . 8 2 5 . 1 3 0 0 4 74 3. 7 2 76 8. 2 4 74 6. 9 1 2 4 . 0 11 3. 9 2 . 3 9 7 2. 46 5 2 .7 1 2 . 4 7 7 . 9 8 9 . 3 Av g . 2. 38 9 2 . 4 6 5 3 . 1 1 2. 7 7 5. 7 8 9. 1 3 5 . 1 2 6 5 4 73 4. 8 2 75 6. 2 4 73 8. 8 1 2 4 . 5 11 4. 3 2 . 3 8 8 2. 46 5 3 .1 1 2 . 7 7 5 . 5 8 8 . 9 4 5 . 1 2 6 5 4 73 9. 1 2 75 6. 3 4 74 3. 0 1 2 4 . 5 11 4. 3 2 . 3 8 5 2. 46 5 3 .2 1 2 . 8 7 4 . 8 8 8 . 8 Av g . 2. 38 7 2 . 4 6 5 3 . 2 1 2. 8 7 5. 2 8 8. 9 5 5 . 1 2 3 0 4 73 5. 5 2 75 1. 6 4 73 8. 9 1 2 4 . 2 11 3. 9 2 . 3 8 3 2. 46 5 3 .3 1 2 . 9 7 4 . 2 8 8 . 7 6 5 . 1 2 3 0 4 73 9. 0 2 75 7. 3 4 74 4. 2 1 2 4 . 4 11 4. 3 2 . 3 8 5 2. 46 5 3 .2 1 2 . 8 7 4 . 8 8 8 . 9 Av g . 2. 38 4 2 . 4 6 5 3 . 3 1 2. 9 7 4. 5 8 8. 8 7 5 . 1 1 9 0 4 75 3. 1 2 76 8. 7 4 75 7. 7 1 2 4 . 8 11 4. 5 2 . 3 9 0 2. 46 5 3 .1 1 2 . 7 7 5 . 9 8 8 . 9 8 5 . 1 1 9 0 4 74 6. 8 2 76 4. 6 4 75 0. 6 1 2 4 . 6 11 4. 1 2 . 3 9 0 2. 46 5 3 .0 1 2 . 7 7 6 . 0 8 8 . 8 Av g . 2. 39 0 2 . 4 6 5 3 . 0 1 2. 7 7 6. 0 8 8. 9 TA BLE B4 Co m p ac ta bili ty D a t a f o r G r anit e - E v o t he r m ? Sa m p le Nu m b er Asp h alt Co nt e n t , % I n Air (g m s ) In W a t e r (g m s ) % Gmm @ N i ni tia l, % Co mp a c t i o n T e m p er at ur e (? F ) VM A, % V F A , % SS D (g m s ) Bu lk (G m b ) TMD (Gm m ) VTM , % He ig ht @ Ni nit i al , (m m ) He ig ht @ Nd esig n , (m m ) 124 A g grega t e: L i m e s t o n e A s p h a l t S p eci fic G r av it y (G b ) : 1 .0 2 8 Nde s ig n: 125 A ppare nt S p e c i fic Gra v it y (G sa ): 2.7 5 5 N i n i ti al: 9 Effect iv e S p ec ific G r av i t y (Gs e ): 2 . 7 4 9 B u lk Sp eci f i c Gravit y (Gs b ): 2.7 2 5 1 4 .8 300 4369.3 2579.8 4376.7 115.9 1 03.5 2 .432 2.545 4.5 1 5 . 1 70.4 8 5 . 3 2 4 .8 300 4371.3 2583.0 4379.2 116.0 1 03.6 2 .434 2.545 4.4 1 5 . 0 70.8 8 5 . 4 Avg . 2.433 2.545 4.4 1 5 . 0 70.6 8 5 . 4 3 4 .8 265 4376.6 2586.1 4385.1 116.4 1 03.8 2 .433 2.545 4.4 1 5 . 0 70.6 8 5 . 2 4 4 .8 265 4374.5 2582.5 4385.4 116.6 1 03.9 2 .426 2.545 4.7 1 5 . 2 69.4 8 5 . 0 Avg . 2.430 2.545 4.5 1 5 . 1 70.0 8 5 . 1 5 4 .8 230 4380.7 2593.5 4388.5 116.1 1 03.6 2 .441 2.545 4.1 1 4 . 7 72.1 8 5 . 6 6 4 .8 230 4383.5 2586.0 4390.7 116.7 1 04.0 2 .429 2.545 4.6 1 5 . 1 69.9 8 5 . 1 Avg . 2.435 2.545 4.3 1 4 . 9 71.0 8 5 . 3 7 4 .8 190 4370.8 2586.7 4377.1 116.3 1 03.7 2 .441 2.545 4.1 1 4 . 7 72.3 8 5 . 5 8 4 .8 190 4375.1 2587.2 4382.8 116.6 1 03.9 2 .437 2.545 4.3 1 4 . 9 71.4 8 5 . 3 Avg . 2.439 2.545 4.2 1 4 . 8 71.8 8 5 . 4 TABLE B5 Com p actab ili ty Data f o r Lim e s t on e - No Ad d i tive Sampl e Num b e r Aspha l t Con t e n t, % I n A i r (g ms ) I n Wate r (gm s ) % Gm m @ Nin iti al , % Compac ti on Tem p erat u r e (?F) VMA, % V F A , % SSD (g ms ) B u lk (Gm b ) TM D (Gmm ) VTM, % He i g ht @ Nini tial, (m m) He i g h t @ Nd e s i g n , (mm ) 125 A g g r e g ate : L i m e stone A spha lt Spe c if ic G r a v ity ( G b): 1 .028 Ndesig n: 125 App a rent S p e c ific Gra v ity (Gsa): 2.75 5 N i nitia l: 9 E f f e c tive Spe c if ic Gr avity (G se) : 2.748 B u lk Spec ific Gr avity ( G s b ) : 2.725 1 4 .8 300 437 1.9 2584 .3 43 82.6 116 .3 1 04.1 2 .4 31 2.544 4 . 4 15.1 7 0.6 85.5 2 4 .8 300 437 0.4 2596 .7 43 77.9 109 .6 1 03.3 2 .4 54 2.544 3 . 6 14.3 7 5.1 90.9 Avg. 2.4 4 2 2 .544 4 . 0 14.7 7 2.8 88.2 3 4 .8 265 438 9.2 2608 .7 43 94.6 116 .1 1 03.5 2 .4 58 2.544 3 . 4 14.1 7 6.0 86.1 4 4 .8 265 438 9.4 2599 .8 43 97.8 117 .0 1 04.1 2 .4 41 2.544 4 . 0 14.7 7 2.6 85.4 Avg. 2.4 4 9 2 .544 3 . 7 14.4 7 4.3 85.8 5 4 .8 230 439 1.5 2600 .4 43 99.5 116 .5 1 03.9 2 .4 41 2.544 4 . 1 14.7 7 2.5 85.6 6 4 .8 230 439 5.1 2607 .6 44 03.2 116 .4 1 03.9 2 .4 48 2.544 3 . 8 14.5 7 3.9 85.9 Avg. 2.4 4 4 2 .544 3 . 9 14.6 7 3.2 85.7 7 4 .8 190 439 2.1 2582 .1 44 04.8 117 .8 1 05.0 2 .4 10 2.544 5 . 3 15.8 6 6.6 84.4 8 4 .8 190 438 6.8 2591 .6 43 98.9 117 .2 1 04.7 2 .4 27 2.544 4 . 6 15.2 6 9.8 85.2 Avg. 2.4 1 8 2 .544 4 . 9 15.5 6 8.2 84.8 TA B LE B6 Com p ac tabilit y D a ta f o r Lim e st one - A s p h a- m i n ? Z e olite % G m m @ Ninitia l, % C o mpac tion Temper atur e (?F) VMA, % V F A , % SSD (g m s ) Bulk (G m b ) TM D (Gm m ) VT M, % He ig ht @ N i nitial, (mm) He i g ht @ Nde s i g n, (m m ) Sa mp le Nu m b e r Asphalt Conte n t , % I n Air (gm s ) In W a t e r (gm s ) 126 A g g r eg ate : L i mestone A spha lt Spec ific G r avity ( G b): 1 .028 Ndesig n : 12 5 A ppare n t Specif i c Gr avity ( G sa): 2.7 5 5 Ninitial: 9 E f f e c tive Spe c if ic Gr avi t y (G s e ): 2.748 B u lk Specif i c Gr avity (G s b ) : 2.7 2 5 1 4 .8 30 0 4 351 .5 25 88. 9 435 6.0 1 15 .0 10 2.5 2 .4 63 2 . 54 5 3 .2 14 .0 76 .8 8 6 .2 2 4 .8 30 0 4 348 .6 25 84. 9 435 5.3 1 16 .1 10 3.3 2 .4 56 2 . 54 5 3 .5 14 .2 75 .4 8 5 .9 Av g. 2 . 45 9 2 . 5 45 3 . 4 1 4. 1 7 6. 1 8 6 . 1 3 4 .8 26 5 4 370 .6 26 00. 9 437 5.5 1 14 .8 10 2.5 2 .4 63 2 . 54 5 3 .2 14 .0 76 .9 8 6 .4 4 4 .8 26 5 4 366 .1 25 98. 8 437 0.2 1 15 .2 10 2.7 2 .4 65 2 . 54 5 3 .2 13 .9 77 .3 8 6 .3 Av g. 2 . 46 4 2 . 5 45 3 . 2 1 3. 9 7 7. 1 8 6 . 4 5 4 .8 23 0 4 373 .3 26 02. 4 438 1.2 1 14 .8 10 2.6 2 .4 59 2 . 54 5 3 .4 14 .1 75 .9 8 6 .3 6 4 .8 23 0 4 385 .8 26 17. 0 439 1.3 1 15 .4 10 2.6 2 .4 72 2 . 54 5 2 .9 13 .6 78 .9 8 6 .4 Av g. 2 . 46 5 2 . 5 45 3 . 1 1 3. 9 7 7. 4 8 6 . 3 TABLE B7 C o m p ac tabili t y D a t a for Lim e stone - Sasobit ? Sa mp le Nu m b er Asphalt Content, % I n Air (g ms) In W a t e r (gm s ) % Gmm @ Ninitial, % Compaction Te m p er ature (?F ) VM A , % V FA , % S S D (gm s ) Bulk (G m b ) TM D (Gmm) VT M, % He ig ht @ Ninitial, (m m ) He i g ht @ Ndesig n, (mm ) 127 Ag g r e g a t e: L i m e st one Aspha l t S p e c i fic Gra v i t y (Gb): 1 .028 Nde s i g n : 125 Appa rent S p e c i fic Gra v ity (Gsa ): 2.755 N i n i ti al : 9 Effe cti v e S p ec ifi c G r a v it y (G s e ): 2 . 7 5 1 B u l k S p ec ifi c Gra v it y (G sb): 2.725 1 4 .8 300 448 5.2 2 6 75.5 4 489.9 117 .3 1 04.4 2 .472 2.5 4 7 2 .9 13.6 78.4 86.4 2 4 .8 300 447 5.7 2 6 68.7 4 479.6 116 .9 1 04.3 2 .472 2.5 4 7 3 .0 13.7 78.3 86.6 Avg . 2.472 2.5 4 7 3 .0 13.6 78.4 86.5 3 4 .8 265 447 4.1 2 6 58.4 4 480.0 117 .6 1 04.9 2 .456 2.5 4 7 3 .6 14.2 74.9 86.0 4 4 .8 265 448 1.9 2 6 67.1 4 488.6 117 .6 1 04.9 2 .461 2.5 4 7 3 .4 14.0 75.8 86.2 Avg . 2.458 2.5 4 7 3 .5 14.1 75.3 86.1 5 4 .8 230 448 4.8 2 6 75.8 4 488.7 116 .6 1 03.9 2 .474 2.5 4 7 2 .9 13.6 78.8 86.5 6 4 .8 230 448 2.8 2 6 79.4 4 487.1 116 .7 1 04.0 2 .480 2.5 4 7 2 .6 13.4 80.3 86.8 Avg . 2.477 2.5 4 7 2 .8 13.5 79.6 86.7 7 4 .8 190 448 6.5 2 6 67.8 4 494.9 118 .2 1 05.2 2 .456 2.5 4 7 3 .6 14.2 74.7 85.8 8 4 .8 190 449 1.4 2 6 64.9 4 500.2 118 .5 1 05.6 2 .447 2.5 4 7 3 .9 14.5 73.0 85.6 Avg . 2.451 2.5 4 7 3 .8 14.4 73.9 85.7 TAB LE B8 C o m p actability Data f o r Lim e s t o n e - Evother m ? % Gm m @ Ni n i t i a l , % C o m p act io n T e mpe r ature (?F) VM A , % V FA , % SSD (g ms ) B u lk (Gm b ) TM D (Gm m ) VTM, % Heig ht @ Nin i t i a l , (mm ) He i g h t @ Ndes i g n, (mm ) Sa mp l e Number Asphalt C ontent, % In A i r (g m s ) In W a t e r (g m s ) 128 Ag greg at e: Grani t e As phal t Speci fi c Gravi t y (Gb): 1 .028 Nde s i gn: Apparent S p eci fi c Gr avit y (Gsa): Ni nit i a l : Effect i v e S p eci fi c Gravi t y (Gs e ): 2.848 Bul k S p eci fi c Gravit y (Gs b ): 1 5 .5 300 30 79.7 1839.2 3081 .8 2.478 2.595 4 . 5 2 5 .5 300 30 91.0 1843.8 3092 .6 2.475 2.595 4 . 6 3 5 .5 300 31 00.3 1850.4 3105 .5 2.470 2.595 4 . 8 Avg . 2.477 2.595 4 . 6 4 5 .5 265 30 90.4 1838.5 3091 .9 2.466 2.595 5 . 0 5 5 .5 265 30 89.2 1837.3 3091 .8 2.462 2.595 5 . 1 6 5 .5 265 30 89.9 1838.6 3093 .4 2.462 2.595 5 . 1 Avg . 2.464 2.595 5 . 0 7 5 .5 230 30 88.2 1823.4 3092 .3 2.434 2.595 6 . 2 8 5 .5 230 30 89.9 1823.3 3092 .6 2.434 2.595 6 . 2 9 5 .5 230 30 92.6 1829.4 3100 .7 2.433 2.595 6 . 3 Avg . 2.434 2.595 6 . 2 TABLE B9 Com p ac t a bilit y Dat a for G r a n it e ; F i ne G r ade d M i x - No Addit i ve Sample Number Asphalt Content, % I n Air (g m s ) In W a t e r (g m s ) Compaction Tem p erat ure ( ?F ) VMA, % V F A , % SS D (gms) B u lk (Gm b ) TMD (Gmm ) VT M , % 129 APPENDIX C: RESILIENT MODULUS DATA TABLE C1 Resilient Modulus Data for Granite - No Additive Aggregate: Granite Poisson's Ratio: 0.35 77? F (25? C) 2.467 Asphalt Content: 5.1% 18 300 3123.6 1782.0 3150.1 2.283 7.5 79.4 467,171 39 300 3127.9 1790.0 3138.2 2.320 6.0 78.1 294,065 42 300 3134.5 1783.1 3135.4 2.318 6.0 78.8 572,998 49 300 3125.3 1795.2 3133.3 2.336 5.3 79.3 420,863 51 300 3136.3 1795.1 3149.6 2.315 6.1 80.0 215,163 85 300 3121.7 1789.7 3131.6 2.326 5.7 78.7 218,717 6.1 79.1 364,830 0.7 0.7 145,399 8 265 3112.1 1782.4 3123.2 2.321 5.9 78.4 272,652 29 265 3088.1 1772.1 3097.3 2.330 5.5 78.2 239,237 53 265 3129.6 1821.3 3226.3 2.227 9.7 82.8 289,367 67 265 3120.5 1788.2 3150.5 2.291 7.1 79.2 577,025 88 265 3110.3 1780.5 3136.0 2.295 7.0 79.6 281,952 89 265 3117.6 1784.8 3138.0 2.304 6.6 79.2 366,632 7.0 79.6 337,811 1.5 1.7 124,486 101 230 3124.7 1804.6 3127.8 2.361 4.3 77.0 315,579 105 230 3127.0 1787.8 3132.9 2.325 5.8 78.0 310,433 109 230 3122.4 1788.7 3127.6 2.332 5.5 78.5 426,761 122 230 3124.5 1792.3 3131.1 2.334 5.4 77.4 349,150 104 230 3119.1 1794.7 3123.9 2.347 4.9 76.5 485,897 125 230 3127.6 1791.6 3133.4 2.331 5.5 77.0 276,334 5.2 77.4 360,692 0.5 0.7 79,815 108 190 3122.6 1781.8 3131.8 2.313 6.2 77.9 332,202 112 190 3131.5 1783.8 3142.4 2.305 6.6 79.8 230,832 117 190 3123.6 1782.8 3136.9 2.307 6.5 78.1 368,541 127 190 3125.8 1780.9 3140.8 2.299 6.8 79.5 288,445 120 190 3124.2 1787.5 3133.2 2.322 5.9 78.0 432,910 116 190 3123.6 1784.4 3137.0 2.309 6.4 78.0 310,051 6.4 78.6 327,164 0.3 0.9 69,270 Test Temperature: Resilient Modulus (psi) Maximum Specific Gravity (Gmm): Average: Standard Deviation: Average: Standard Deviation: Average: Standard Deviation: Bulk (Gmb) VTM, % In Water (gms) SSD (gms) Average: Standard Deviation: Sample Height, (mm) Sample Number Compaction Temperature (?F) In Air (gms) 130 TABLE C2 Resilient Modulus Data for Granite ? Aspha-min? Zeolite Aggregate: Granite Poisson's Ratio: 0.35 77? F (25? C) 2.457 Asphalt Content: 5.1% 36 300 3107.7 1789.4 3121.3 2.333 5.0 77.8 687,767 46 300 3106.5 1783.1 3123.0 2.318 5.6 79.4 682,167 48 300 3109.5 1783.2 3126.0 2.316 5.8 79.7 487,386 76 300 3110.8 1793.2 3128.8 2.329 5.2 77.8 433,168 82 300 3107.9 1793.5 3120.8 2.342 4.7 77.1 529,635 91 300 3107.9 1794.0 3117.7 2.348 4.4 76.9 477,301 5.1 78.1 549,571 0.5 1.1 109,286 1 265 3103.0 1778.7 3118.5 2.316 5.7 78.7 509,675 16 265 3104.7 1781.6 3114.1 2.330 5.2 77.9 272,691 30 265 3105.1 1777.4 3117.7 2.317 5.7 78.6 543,764 58 265 3092.7 1770.8 3112.4 2.305 6.2 79.2 280,185 66 265 3097.1 1773.5 3130.0 2.283 7.1 80.9 290,417 77 265 3109.8 1779.4 3142.7 2.281 7.2 80.4 254,065 6.2 79.3 358,466 0.8 1.1 131,313 11 230 3098.2 1765.8 3118.6 2.290 6.8 78.8 401,439 44 230 3102.8 1773.1 3123.9 2.297 6.5 76.2 169,512 69 230 3091.4 1770.9 3112.0 2.305 6.2 79.7 320,211 86 230 3104.2 1782.4 3112.8 2.333 5.0 76.2 596,461 97 230 3107.9 1777.8 3121.5 2.313 5.9 76.2 300,014 98 230 3106.8 1785.7 3125.3 2.319 5.6 76.2 458,273 6.0 77.2 374,318 0.6 1.6 146,646 103 190 3114.9 1781.9 3121.3 2.326 5.3 77.1 397,954 113 190 3117.1 1777.1 3126.1 2.311 6.0 78.4 318,320 124 190 3115.1 1781.4 3129.0 2.312 5.9 77.5 261,642 119 190 3118.7 1784.4 3132.9 2.313 5.9 78.9 301,191 100 190 3115.8 1781.8 3128.1 2.314 5.8 77.3 260,236 107 190 3114.5 1781.8 3125.4 2.318 5.7 77.7 201,267 5.8 77.8 290,102 0.2 0.7 66,551 Average: Standard Deviation: Average: Standard Deviation: Average: Standard Deviation: Sample Height, (mm) Resilient Modulus (psi) Average: Standard Deviation: Test Temperature: Maximum Specific Gravity (Gmm): Sample Number Compaction Temperature (?F) In Air (gms) In Water (gms) SSD (gms) Bulk (Gmb) VTM, % 131 TABLE C3 Resilient Modulus Data for Granite - Sasobit? Aggregate: Granite Poisson's Ratio: 0.35 77? F (25? C) 2.461 Asphalt Content: 5.1% 34 300 3105.2 1782.0 3114.1 2.331 5.3 77.0 256,341 51 300 3104.9 1780.0 3112.0 2.331 5.3 77.4 345,309 16 300 3096.8 1776.4 3106.0 2.329 5.4 76.6 216,508 21 300 3109.2 1788.7 3117.3 2.340 4.9 77.2 296,066 3 300 3098.6 1789.5 3104.1 2.357 4.2 77.3 408,657 22 300 3100.2 1781.4 3111.9 2.330 5.3 77.9 291,797 5.1 77.2 302,446 0.4 0.4 67,503 28 265 3096.9 1776.5 3104.3 2.332 5.2 78.2 294,986 27 265 3095.8 1768.0 3106.0 2.314 6.0 77.7 220,596 13 265 3112.5 1775.9 3121.8 2.313 6.0 78.7 199,955 35 265 3109.5 1781.9 3118.5 2.326 5.5 78.4 459,184 42 265 3105.0 1786.1 3114.1 2.338 5.0 78.3 376,923 52 265 3093.4 1778.9 3100.5 2.341 4.9 76.9 232,128 5.4 78.0 297,295 0.5 0.6 102,136 37 230 3114.4 1790.5 3126.0 2.332 5.2 77.6 245,023 20 230 3095.9 1767.9 3105.8 2.314 6.0 77.2 400,953 11 230 3104.4 1780.1 3119.3 2.318 5.8 78.2 230,897 33 230 3112.8 1780.8 3121.6 2.322 5.7 78.5 196,361 41 230 3091.7 1770.4 3106.8 2.313 6.0 77.2 288,890 39 230 3090.9 1773.8 3103.2 2.325 5.5 79.0 270,607 5.7 77.9 272,122 0.3 0.7 70,788 1 190 3114.1 1797.8 3118.9 2.357 4.2 76.6 353,533 2 190 3056.4 1758.6 3064.8 2.340 4.9 76.6 392,056 3 190 3073.3 1764.5 3080.5 2.335 5.1 76.0 329,561 4 190 3079.7 1769.8 3088.1 2.336 5.1 75.7 458,088 5 190 3074.6 1768.9 3081.9 2.342 4.8 76.8 335,651 6 190 3087.2 1780.5 3095.2 2.348 4.6 75.9 335,933 4.8 76.3 367,470 0.3 0.5 49,909 Average: Standard Deviation: Average: Standard Deviation: Average: Standard Deviation: Sample Height, (mm) Resilient Modulus (psi) Average: Standard Deviation: Test Temperature: Maximum Specific Gravity (Gmm): Sample Number Compaction Temperature (?F) In Air (gms) In Water (gms) SSD (gms) Bulk (Gmb) VTM, % 132 TABLE C4 Resilient Modulus Data for Granite - Evotherm? Aggregate: Granite Poisson's Ratio: 0.35 77? F (25? C) 2.465 Asphalt Content: 5.1% 1 300 3071.0 1776.9 3076.0 2.364 4.1 76.1 494,925 2 300 3073.2 1778.0 3079.4 2.361 4.2 75.8 255,852 3 300 3073.8 1777.4 3079.0 2.362 4.2 76.4 325,132 4 300 3077.2 1793.3 3083.6 2.385 3.3 75.8 398,841 5 300 3067.4 1774.1 3073.4 2.361 4.2 76.3 422,122 6 300 3067.8 1773.7 3072.1 2.363 4.1 76.5 471,223 4.0 76.2 394,683 0.4 0.3 90,320 3 265 3085.9 1776.6 3094.2 2.342 5.0 76.1 396,105 12 265 3087.2 1773.7 3103.9 2.321 5.8 76.6 721,394 20 265 3082.9 1777.7 3095.8 2.339 5.1 75.5 302,279 21 265 3083.5 1774.2 3092.4 2.339 5.1 75.9 252,856 24 265 3083.0 1773.7 3098.0 2.328 5.6 76.1 264,369 30 265 3071.2 1762.3 3080.9 2.329 5.5 76.0 502,908 5.4 76.0 406,652 0.3 0.4 180,682 1 230 3080.7 1762.8 3088.6 2.324 5.7 76.7 305,878 4 230 3077.7 1752.0 3092.2 2.296 6.8 77.3 256,110 7 230 3087.9 1769.9 3092.1 2.335 5.3 75.8 286,165 14 230 3040.6 1755.2 3046.6 2.354 4.5 75.3 364,771 22 230 3066.7 1769.7 3072.4 2.354 4.5 76.6 360,688 39 230 3089.0 1782.8 3094.6 2.355 4.5 76.1 230,165 5.2 76.3 300,630 0.9 0.7 54,599 2 190 3091.6 1781.2 3099.2 2.346 4.8 76.6 395,008 9 190 3096.4 1777.5 3106.7 2.330 5.5 77.3 265,107 23 190 3097.3 1781.5 3106.5 2.338 5.2 76.3 350,227 25 190 3106.3 1783.6 3116.3 2.331 5.4 77.1 314,235 32 190 3094.9 1779.2 3105.9 2.333 5.4 76.8 417,382 35 190 3061.0 1739.6 3071.3 2.299 6.8 76.3 212,857 5.5 76.7 325,803 0.7 0.4 77,907 Test Temperature: Maximum Specific Gravity (Gmm): Sample Number Compaction Temperature (?F) In Air (gms) In Water (gms) SSD (gms) Bulk (Gmb) VTM, % Sample Height, (mm) Resilient Modulus (psi) Average: Standard Deviation: Average: Standard Deviation: Average: Standard Deviation: Average: Standard Deviation: 133 TABLE C5 Resilient Modulus Data for Limestone - No Additive Aggregate: Limestone Poisson's Ratio: 0.35 77? F (25? C) 2.545 Asphalt Content: 4.8% 2 300 3074.8 1790.2 3103.3 2.342 8.0 76.9 298,143 7 300 3139.1 1822.5 3151.2 2.363 7.2 76.7 327,752 9 300 3129.7 1824.1 3141.7 2.375 6.7 75.4 497,695 44 300 3121.6 1811.0 3140.1 2.349 7.7 76.9 295,254 70 300 3144.3 1821.6 3167.7 2.336 8.2 76.3 396,668 94 300 3152.2 1824.6 3177.1 2.331 8.4 76.7 420,900 7.7 76.5 372,735 0.7 0.6 80,123 11 265 3119.8 1813.8 3137.2 2.357 7.4 75.9 337,083 21 265 3119.9 1813.1 3139.5 2.352 7.6 76.4 435,035 54 265 3109.0 1810.5 3129.6 2.357 7.4 76.3 287,729 55 265 3114.7 1807.4 3127.7 2.359 7.3 75.5 337,065 69 265 3119.6 1811.0 3136.2 2.354 7.5 76.8 338,496 72 265 3119.0 1810.1 3131.0 2.361 7.2 76.0 303,359 7.4 76.2 339,795 0.1 0.4 51,236 8 230 3113.8 1811.1 3136.7 2.349 7.7 77.1 398,798 24 230 3115.2 1814.8 3135.1 2.359 7.3 76.3 222,463 26 230 3118.2 1816.7 3144.6 2.348 7.7 77.6 302,232 60 230 3117.1 1810.6 3135.8 2.352 7.6 76.6 316,623 78 230 3119.3 1815.8 3135.3 2.364 7.1 76.9 454,714 82 230 3115.5 1817.8 3139.7 2.357 7.4 76.1 390,027 7.5 76.8 347,476 0.2 0.5 83,153 120 190 3116.8 1819.5 3142.3 2.356 7.4 76.6 270,330 121 190 3117.2 1821.9 3143.2 2.359 7.3 77.2 202,146 108 190 3118.8 1815.9 3139.2 2.357 7.4 75.9 409,698 123 190 3115.7 1814.9 3132.6 2.364 7.1 75.8 245,769 118 190 3116.7 1818.0 3145.7 2.347 7.8 77.0 274,062 112 190 3117.7 1817.1 3143.5 2.350 7.6 76.2 219,205 7.4 76.5 270,202 0.2 0.6 73,896 Average: Standard Deviation: Average: Standard Deviation: Average: Standard Deviation: Sample Height, (mm) Resilient Modulus (psi) Average: Standard Deviation: Test Temperature: Maximum Specific Gravity (Gmm): Sample Number Compaction Temperature (?F) In Air (gms) In Water (gms) SSD (gms) Bulk (Gmb) VTM, % 134 TABLE C6 Resilient Modulus Data for Limestone - Aspha-min? Zeolite Aggregate: Limestone Poisson's Ratio: 0.35 77? F (25? C) 2.544 Asphalt Content: 4.8% 20 300 3111.4 1815.2 3118.1 2.388 6.1 74.5 478,491 27 300 3107.2 1809.0 3115.1 2.379 6.5 74.8 350,333 31 300 3112.1 1822.4 3119.9 2.399 5.7 76.2 475,634 45 300 3105.3 1817.5 3111.4 2.400 5.7 75.0 666,245 75 300 3105.7 1824.0 3112.0 2.411 5.2 74.0 322,710 79 300 3107.2 1823.1 3113.2 2.408 5.3 74.2 604,166 5.8 74.8 482,930 0.5 0.8 135,372 3 265 3112.4 1808.6 3126.8 2.361 7.2 76.3 418,459 13 265 3111.6 1820.5 3120.6 2.393 5.9 76.2 309,849 16 265 3112.1 1813.5 3127.4 2.369 6.9 75.3 329,377 37 265 3105.8 1810.9 3114.2 2.383 6.3 75.5 315,048 40 265 3110.8 1816.4 3116.7 2.392 6.0 75.7 378,661 64 265 3114.5 1816.9 3123.0 2.385 6.3 76.0 324,986 6.4 75.8 346,063 0.5 0.4 43,127 89 230 3117.0 1823.0 3127.2 2.390 6.1 74.6 434,645 92 230 3122.0 1823.9 3133.4 2.384 6.3 75.4 282,399 100 230 3115.6 1822.7 3124.0 2.394 5.9 74.7 278,984 104 230 3118.6 1818.9 3131.3 2.376 6.6 76.1 378,760 105 230 3116.1 1818.9 3126.8 2.383 6.3 75.0 205,147 106 230 3115.1 1817.8 3126.7 2.380 6.4 76.3 206,560 6.3 75.4 297,749 0.3 0.7 92,500 115 190 3118.9 1821.3 3142.7 2.360 7.2 75.8 308,882 119 190 3119.3 1825.1 3142.7 2.367 6.9 76.0 364,895 127 190 3119.2 1825.8 3146.3 2.362 7.1 75.8 241,164 99 190 3120.3 1821.1 3138.8 2.368 6.9 76.4 353,368 114 190 3119.6 1824.0 3140.1 2.370 6.8 75.3 270,390 126 190 3120.7 1824.4 3144.1 2.365 7.0 77.1 307,420 7.0 76.1 307,687 0.1 0.6 47,281 Test Temperature: Maximum Specific Gravity (Gmm): Sample Number Compaction Temperature (?F) In Air (gms) In Water (gms) SSD (gms) Bulk (Gmb) VTM, % Sample Height, (mm) Resilient Modulus (psi) Average: Standard Deviation: Average: Standard Deviation: Average: Standard Deviation: Average: Standard Deviation: 135 TABLE C7 Resilient Modulus Data for Limestone - Sasobit? Aggregate: Limestone Poisson's Ratio: 0.35 77? F (25? C) 2.545 Asphalt Content: 4.8% 10 300 3139.1 1841.7 3145.5 2.408 5.4 74.8 337,358 17 300 3132.2 1838.8 3141.6 2.404 5.5 75.8 297,320 26 300 3137.9 1843.7 3149.6 2.403 5.6 75.5 471,217 40 300 3136.4 1845.7 3147.5 2.409 5.3 75.4 255,892 48 300 3134.3 1844.6 3146.2 2.408 5.4 75.9 181,684 39 300 3142.8 1845.9 3147.2 2.415 5.1 75.2 209,677 5.4 75.4 292,191 0.2 0.4 104,360 29 265 3139.6 1831.4 3146.9 2.387 6.2 76.1 636,016 52 265 3141.3 1841.0 3147.4 2.405 5.5 75.4 446,225 38 265 3138.4 1829.1 3146.5 2.382 6.4 75.7 253,693 34 265 3174.6 1860.5 3182.6 2.401 5.7 76.8 332,667 49 265 3163.7 1856.3 3168.7 2.411 5.3 75.5 542,245 23 265 3132.5 1824.8 3140.5 2.381 6.4 75.4 434,460 5.9 75.8 440,884 0.5 0.5 137,965 7 230 3154.5 1840.3 3174.6 2.364 7.1 76.4 298,667 9 230 3165.0 1850.8 3172.9 2.394 5.9 75.9 333,557 54 230 3133.4 1826.6 3145.9 2.375 6.7 75.5 444,113 8 230 3141.5 1830.2 3151.8 2.377 6.6 76.7 600,905 36 230 3141.4 1829.3 3149.1 2.380 6.5 75.9 330,688 51 230 3158.0 1843.1 3163.0 2.393 6.0 75.6 317,233 6.5 76.0 387,527 0.4 0.4 116,373 1 190 3177.5 1853.7 3186.2 2.385 6.3 76.3 365,072 2 190 3142.3 1838.1 3149.6 2.396 5.9 75.7 500,290 3 190 3150.1 1843.4 3157.4 2.397 5.8 76.1 245,273 4 190 3149.2 1840.6 3154.7 2.396 5.8 75.3 425,107 5 190 3161.2 1848.5 3167.3 2.397 5.8 75.7 398,810 6 190 3133.2 1825.1 3139.6 2.384 6.3 75.0 314,439 6.0 75.7 374,832 0.3 0.5 88,736 Average: Standard Deviation: Average: Standard Deviation: Average: Standard Deviation: Sample Height, (mm) Resilient Modulus (psi) Average: Standard Deviation: Test Temperature: Maximum Specific Gravity (Gmm): Sample Number Compaction Temperature (?F) In Air (gms) In Water (gms) SSD (gms) Bulk (Gmb) VTM, % 136 TABLE C8 Resilient Modulus Data for Limestone - Evotherm? Aggregate: Limestone Poisson's Ratio: 0.35 77? F (25? C) 2.547 Asphalt Content: 4.8% 7 300 3257.9 1918.7 3262.7 2.424 4.8 77.2 347,682 17 300 3253.5 1916.1 3257.4 2.426 4.8 77.3 563,202 25 300 3263.5 1923.4 3267.4 2.428 4.7 76.4 271,011 29 300 3257.4 1922.3 3261.8 2.432 4.5 77.5 537,561 30 300 3260.4 1929.2 3265.3 2.440 4.2 76.2 375,629 37 300 3252.0 1920.0 3254.3 2.437 4.3 76.2 337,883 4.5 76.8 405,495 0.3 0.6 117,647 1 265 3252.0 1906.2 3260.7 2.401 5.7 77.6 310,068 6 265 3255.7 1913.8 3261.5 2.416 5.2 76.6 279,233 9 265 3254.6 1911.4 3262.5 2.409 5.4 77.5 410,908 11 265 3252.9 1908.3 3257.4 2.411 5.3 77.8 538,571 23 265 3261.8 1914.1 3267.6 2.410 5.4 77.2 430,599 38 265 3253.9 1903.9 3259.1 2.401 5.7 77.1 336,251 5.5 77.3 384,272 0.2 0.4 95,404 8 230 3260.0 1901.1 3269.9 2.382 6.5 78.6 435,817 12 230 3258.9 1905.0 3266.1 2.394 6.0 77.7 453,508 28 230 3260.8 1901.6 3268.7 2.385 6.4 78.0 716,368 32 230 3255.7 1905.4 3265.4 2.394 6.0 77.5 379,249 36 230 3260.6 1907.7 3267.6 2.398 5.9 77.6 352,414 42 230 3256.3 1895.9 3264.0 2.380 6.6 78.5 424,074 6.2 78.0 460,238 0.3 0.5 130,948 1 190 3119.5 1821.2 3126.9 2.389 6.2 74.4 297,219 2 190 3126.5 1826.4 3137.1 2.385 6.3 75.4 408,175 15 190 3288.9 1919.1 3297.6 2.386 6.3 78.4 327,303 24 190 3256.5 1906.5 3267.1 2.393 6.0 77.7 311,189 26 190 3253.0 1903.0 3263.1 2.392 6.1 78.9 420,200 35 190 3256.8 1906.4 3266.7 2.394 6.0 78.9 289,257 6.2 77.3 342,224 0.1 1.9 57,353 Test Temperature: Maximum Specific Gravity (Gmm): Sample Number Compaction Temperature (?F) In Air (gms) In Water (gms) SSD (gms) Bulk (Gmb) VTM, % Sample Height, (mm) Resilient Modulus (psi) Average: Standard Deviation: Average: Standard Deviation: Average: Standard Deviation: Average: Standard Deviation: 137 R 2 = 0.003 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 2.03.04.05.06.07.08.09 Air Voids, % R e si li ent Modul us, psi Aspha-min Control Evotherm Sasobit .0 Figure C1. Relationship between Resilient Modulus and Air Voids. 138 139 APPENDIX D: ASPHALT PAVEMENT ANALYZER DATA TABLE D1 Asphalt Pavement Analyzer Data for Granite - No Additive Aggregate: Granite Applied Wheel Load (lbs): 120 64? F (147? C) Hose Presure (psi): 120 Asphalt Content: 5.1% 2.467 18 300 3123.6 1782.0 3150.1 2.283 7.5 10.4 39 300 3127.9 1790.0 3138.2 2.320 6.0 8.1 42 300 3134.5 1783.1 3135.4 2.318 6.0 9.2 49 300 3125.3 1795.2 3133.3 2.336 5.3 7.6 51 300 3136.3 1795.1 3149.6 2.315 6.1 7.0 85 300 3121.7 1789.7 3131.6 2.326 5.7 4.1 6.1 7.7 0.7 2.2 8 265 3112.1 1782.4 3123.2 2.321 5.9 13.4 29 265 3088.1 1772.1 3097.3 2.330 5.5 12.5 53 265 3129.6 1821.3 3226.3 2.227 9.7 9.0 67 265 3120.5 1788.2 3150.5 2.291 7.1 12.1 88 265 3110.3 1780.5 3136.0 2.295 7.0 13.4 89 265 3117.6 1784.8 3138.0 2.304 6.6 10.9 7.0 11.9 1.5 1.7 101 230 3124.7 1804.6 3127.8 2.361 4.3 18.9 105 230 3127.0 1787.8 3132.9 2.325 5.8 10.8 109 230 3122.4 1788.7 3127.6 2.332 5.5 18.1 122 230 3124.5 1792.3 3131.1 2.334 5.4 15.9 104 230 3119.1 1794.7 3123.9 2.347 4.9 19.5 125 230 3127.6 1791.6 3133.4 2.331 5.5 11.6 5.2 15.8 0.5 3.8 108 190 3122.6 1781.8 3131.8 2.313 6.2 19.4 112 190 3131.5 1783.8 3142.4 2.305 6.6 23.9 117 190 3123.6 1782.8 3136.9 2.307 6.5 22.0 127 190 3125.8 1780.9 3140.8 2.299 6.8 20.3 120 190 3124.2 1787.5 3133.2 2.322 5.9 13.6 116 190 3123.6 1784.4 3137.0 2.309 6.4 13.8 6.4 18.9 0.3 4.3 Maximum Specific Gravity (Gmm): Test Temperature: Average: Standard Deviation: Average: Standard Deviation: Average: Standard Deviation: Bulk (Gmb) VTM, % In Water (gms) SSD (gms) Average: Standard Deviation: Rut Depth, (mm) Sample Number Compaction Temperature (?F) In Air (gms) 140 TABLE D2 Asphalt Pavement Analyzer Data for Granite ? Aspha-min? Zeolite Aggregate: Granite Applied Wheel Load (lbs): 120 Test Temperature: 64? F (147? C) Hose Presure (psi): 120 Asphalt Content: 5.1% 2.457 36 300 3107.7 1789.4 3121.3 2.333 5.0 10.1 46 300 3106.5 1783.1 3123.0 2.318 5.6 11.7 48 300 3109.5 1783.2 3126.0 2.316 5.8 13.8 76 300 3110.8 1793.2 3128.8 2.329 5.2 15.5 82 300 3107.9 1793.5 3120.8 2.342 4.7 10.4 91 300 3107.9 1794.0 3117.7 2.348 4.4 5.9 5.1 11.2 0.5 3.3 1 265 3103.0 1778.7 3118.5 2.316 5.7 10.6 16 265 3104.7 1781.6 3114.1 2.330 5.2 15.1 30 265 3105.1 1777.4 3117.7 2.317 5.7 14.3 58 265 3092.7 1770.8 3112.4 2.305 6.2 12.9 66 265 3097.1 1773.5 3130.0 2.283 7.1 22.0 77 265 3109.8 1779.4 3142.7 2.281 7.2 15.8 6.2 15.1 0.8 3.9 11 230 3098.2 1765.8 3118.6 2.290 6.8 12.8 44 230 3102.8 1773.1 3123.9 2.297 6.5 9.8 69 230 3091.4 1770.9 3112.0 2.305 6.2 14.1 86 230 3104.2 1782.4 3112.8 2.333 5.0 8.9 97 230 3107.9 1777.8 3121.5 2.313 5.9 13.9 98 230 3106.8 1785.7 3125.3 2.319 5.6 17.8 6.0 12.9 0.6 3.2 103 190 3114.9 1781.9 3121.3 2.326 5.3 14.4 113 190 3117.1 1777.1 3126.1 2.311 6.0 22.6 124 190 3115.1 1781.4 3129.0 2.312 5.9 13.6 119 190 3118.7 1784.4 3132.9 2.313 5.9 13.4 100 190 3115.8 1781.8 3128.1 2.314 5.8 14.7 107 190 3114.5 1781.8 3125.4 2.318 5.7 24.4 5.8 17.2 0.2 5.0 Rut Depth, (mm) Average: Standard Deviation: Maximum Specific Gravity (Gmm): Sample Number Compaction Temperature (?F) In Air (gms) In Water (gms) SSD (gms) Bulk (Gmb) VTM, % Average: Standard Deviation: Average: Standard Deviation: Average: Standard Deviation: 141 TABLE D3 Asphalt Pavement Analyzer Data for Granite - Sasobit? Aggregate: Granite Applied Wheel Load (lbs): 120 Test Temperature: 64? F (147? C) Hose Presure (psi): 120 Asphalt Content: 5.1% 2.461 34 300 3105.2 1782.0 3114.1 2.331 5.3 6.7 51 300 3104.9 1780.0 3112.0 2.331 5.3 2.2 16 300 3096.8 1776.4 3106.0 2.329 5.4 7.1 21 300 3109.2 1788.7 3117.3 2.340 4.9 5.4 3 300 3098.6 1789.5 3104.1 2.357 4.2 2.8 22 300 3100.2 1781.4 3111.9 2.330 5.3 4.5 5.1 4.8 0.4 2.0 28 265 3096.9 1776.5 3104.3 2.332 5.2 4.4 27 265 3095.8 1768.0 3106.0 2.314 6.0 10.2 13 265 3112.5 1775.9 3121.8 2.313 6.0 10.0 35 265 3109.5 1781.9 3118.5 2.326 5.5 10.4 42 265 3105.0 1786.1 3114.1 2.338 5.0 6.2 52 265 3093.4 1778.9 3100.5 2.341 4.9 5.0 5.4 7.7 0.5 2.8 37 230 3114.4 1790.5 3126.0 2.332 5.2 11.5 20 230 3095.9 1767.9 3105.8 2.314 6.0 11.4 11 230 3104.4 1780.1 3119.3 2.318 5.8 6.0 33 230 3112.8 1780.8 3121.6 2.322 5.7 8.4 41 230 3091.7 1770.4 3106.8 2.313 6.0 8.6 39 230 3090.9 1773.8 3103.2 2.325 5.5 10.3 5.7 9.4 0.3 2.1 1 190 3114.1 1797.8 3118.9 2.357 4.2 8.2 2 190 3056.4 1758.6 3064.8 2.340 4.9 12.3 3 190 3073.3 1764.5 3080.5 2.335 5.1 6.6 4 190 3079.7 1769.8 3088.1 2.336 5.1 7.9 5 190 3074.6 1768.9 3081.9 2.342 4.8 13.5 6 190 3087.2 1780.5 3095.2 2.348 4.6 10.0 4.8 9.7 0.3 2.7 VTM, % Maximum Specific Gravity (Gmm): Rut Depth, (mm) Average: Standard Deviation: Sample Number Compaction Temperature (?F) In Air (gms) In Water (gms) SSD (gms) Bulk (Gmb) Average: Standard Deviation: Average: Standard Deviation: Average: Standard Deviation: 142 TABLE D4 Asphalt Pavement Analyzer Data for Granite - Evotherm? Aggregate: Granite Applied Wheel Load (lbs): 120 Test Temperature: 64? F (147? C) Hose Presure (psi): 120 Asphalt Content: 5.1% 2.465 1 300 3071.0 1776.9 3076.0 2.364 4.1 6.4 2 300 3073.2 1778.0 3079.4 2.361 4.2 7.0 3 300 3073.8 1777.4 3079.0 2.362 4.2 8.4 4 300 3077.2 1793.3 3083.6 2.385 3.3 6.7 5 300 3067.4 1774.1 3073.4 2.361 4.2 8.6 6 300 3067.8 1773.7 3072.1 2.363 4.1 7.7 4.0 7.5 0.4 0.9 3 265 3085.9 1776.6 3094.2 2.342 5.0 6.4 12 265 3087.2 1773.7 3103.9 2.321 5.8 7.0 20 265 3082.9 1777.7 3095.8 2.339 5.1 4.8 21 265 3083.5 1774.2 3092.4 2.339 5.1 8.6 24 265 3083.0 1773.7 3098.0 2.328 5.6 8.3 30 265 3071.2 1762.3 3080.9 2.329 5.5 9.3 5.4 7.4 0.3 1.7 1 230 3080.7 1762.8 3088.6 2.324 5.7 10.1 4 230 3077.7 1752.0 3092.2 2.296 6.8 12.3 7 230 3087.9 1769.9 3092.1 2.335 5.3 14.7 14 230 3040.6 1755.2 3046.6 2.354 4.5 10.1 22 230 3066.7 1769.7 3072.4 2.354 4.5 16.6 39 230 3089.0 1782.8 3094.6 2.355 4.5 13.6 5.2 12.9 0.9 2.6 2 190 3091.6 1781.2 3099.2 2.346 4.8 11.1 9 190 3096.4 1777.5 3106.7 2.330 5.5 16.9 23 190 3097.3 1781.5 3106.5 2.338 5.2 13.1 25 190 3106.3 1783.6 3116.3 2.331 5.4 5.5 32 190 3094.9 1779.2 3105.9 2.333 5.4 19.2 35 190 3061.0 1739.6 3071.3 2.299 6.8 18.1 5.5 14.0 0.7 5.1Standard Deviation: Average: Standard Deviation: Average: Standard Deviation: Rut Depth, (mm) Average: Standard Deviation: Average: Maximum Specific Gravity (Gmm): Sample Number Compaction Temperature (?F) In Air (gms) In Water (gms) SSD (gms) Bulk (Gmb) VTM, % 143 TABLE D5 Asphalt Pavement Analyzer Data for Limestone - No Additive Aggregate: Limestone Applied Wheel Load (lbs): 120 Test Temperature: 64? F (147? C) Hose Presure (psi): 120 Asphalt Content: 4.8% 2.545 2 300 3074.8 1790.2 3103.3 2.342 8.0 5.4 7 300 3139.1 1822.5 3151.2 2.363 7.2 7.8 9 300 3129.7 1824.1 3141.7 2.375 6.7 7.8 44 300 3121.6 1811.0 3140.1 2.349 7.7 6.8 70 300 3144.3 1821.6 3167.7 2.336 8.2 10.4 94 300 3152.2 1824.6 3177.1 2.331 8.4 5.9 7.7 7.3 0.7 1.8 11 265 3119.8 1813.8 3137.2 2.357 7.4 5.7 21 265 3119.9 1813.1 3139.5 2.352 7.6 4.1 54 265 3109.0 1810.5 3129.6 2.357 7.4 6.3 55 265 3114.7 1807.4 3127.7 2.359 7.3 10.1 69 265 3119.6 1811.0 3136.2 2.354 7.5 10.6 72 265 3119.0 1810.1 3131.0 2.361 7.2 5.7 7.4 7.1 0.1 2.6 8 230 3113.8 1811.1 3136.7 2.349 7.7 7.6 24 230 3115.2 1814.8 3135.1 2.359 7.3 5.0 26 230 3118.2 1816.7 3144.6 2.348 7.7 9.9 60 230 3117.1 1810.6 3135.8 2.352 7.6 8.7 78 230 3119.3 1815.8 3135.3 2.364 7.1 16.1 82 230 3115.5 1817.8 3139.7 2.357 7.4 14.4 7.5 10.3 0.2 4.2 120 190 3116.8 1819.5 3142.3 2.356 7.4 17.4 121 190 3117.2 1821.9 3143.2 2.359 7.3 7.2 108 190 3118.8 1815.9 3139.2 2.357 7.4 15.3 123 190 3115.7 1814.9 3132.6 2.364 7.1 6.9 118 190 3116.7 1818.0 3145.7 2.347 7.8 8.4 112 190 3117.7 1817.1 3143.5 2.350 7.6 8.0 7.4 10.5 0.2 4.6 Rut Depth, (mm) Average: Standard Deviation: Maximum Specific Gravity (Gmm): Sample Number Compaction Temperature (?F) In Air (gms) In Water (gms) SSD (gms) Bulk (Gmb) VTM, % Average: Standard Deviation: Average: Standard Deviation: Average: Standard Deviation: 144 TABLE D6 Asphalt Pavement Analyzer Data for Limestone - Aspha-min? Zeolite Aggregate: Limestone Applied Wheel Load (lbs): 120 Test Temperature: 64? F (147? C) Hose Presure (psi): 120 Asphalt Content: 4.8% 2.544 20 300 3111.4 1815.2 3118.1 2.388 6.1 4.3 27 300 3107.2 1809.0 3115.1 2.379 6.5 3.9 31 300 3112.1 1822.4 3119.9 2.399 5.7 8.3 45 300 3105.3 1817.5 3111.4 2.400 5.7 7.4 75 300 3105.7 1824.0 3112.0 2.411 5.2 2.9 79 300 3107.2 1823.1 3113.2 2.408 5.3 2.1 5.8 4.8 0.5 2.5 3 265 3112.4 1808.6 3126.8 2.361 7.2 6.7 13 265 3111.6 1820.5 3120.6 2.393 5.9 5.7 16 265 3112.1 1813.5 3127.4 2.369 6.9 4.5 37 265 3105.8 1810.9 3114.2 2.383 6.3 9.8 40 265 3110.8 1816.4 3116.7 2.392 6.0 7.3 64 265 3114.5 1816.9 3123.0 2.385 6.3 12.5 6.4 7.7 0.5 2.9 89 230 3117.0 1823.0 3127.2 2.390 6.1 10.9 92 230 3122.0 1823.9 3133.4 2.384 6.3 13.0 100 230 3115.6 1822.7 3124.0 2.394 5.9 7.8 104 230 3118.6 1818.9 3131.3 2.376 6.6 5.2 105 230 3116.1 1818.9 3126.8 2.383 6.3 9.6 106 230 3115.1 1817.8 3126.7 2.380 6.4 7.4 6.3 9.0 0.3 2.8 115 190 3118.9 1821.3 3142.7 2.360 7.2 17.8 119 190 3119.3 1825.1 3142.7 2.367 6.9 7.9 127 190 3119.2 1825.8 3146.3 2.362 7.1 5.9 99 190 3120.3 1821.1 3138.8 2.368 6.9 15.6 114 190 3119.6 1824.0 3140.1 2.370 6.8 5.8 126 190 3120.7 1824.4 3144.1 2.365 7.0 9.3 7.0 10.4 0.1 5.1Standard Deviation: Average: Standard Deviation: Average: Standard Deviation: Rut Depth, (mm) Average: Standard Deviation: Average: Maximum Specific Gravity (Gmm): Sample Number Compaction Temperature (?F) In Air (gms) In Water (gms) SSD (gms) Bulk (Gmb) VTM, % 145 TABLE D7 Asphalt Pavement Analyzer Data for Limestone - Sasobit? Aggregate: Limestone Applied Wheel Load (lbs): 120 Test Temperature: 64? F (147? C) Hose Presure (psi): 120 Asphalt Content: 4.8% 2.545 10 300 3139.1 1841.7 3145.5 2.408 5.4 8.4 17 300 3132.2 1838.8 3141.6 2.404 5.5 14.7 26 300 3137.9 1843.7 3149.6 2.403 5.6 4.8 40 300 3136.4 1845.7 3147.5 2.409 5.3 7.9 48 300 3134.3 1844.6 3146.2 2.408 5.4 9.0 39 300 3142.8 1845.9 3147.2 2.415 5.1 15.9 5.4 10.1 0.2 4.3 29 265 3139.6 1831.4 3146.9 2.387 6.2 8.4 52 265 3141.3 1841.0 3147.4 2.405 5.5 6.9 38 265 3138.4 1829.1 3146.5 2.382 6.4 5.8 34 265 3174.6 1860.5 3182.6 2.401 5.7 3.1 49 265 3163.7 1856.3 3168.7 2.411 5.3 8.0 23 265 3132.5 1824.8 3140.5 2.381 6.4 7.1 5.9 6.5 0.5 1.9 7 230 3154.5 1840.3 3174.6 2.364 7.1 5.2 9 230 3165.0 1850.8 3172.9 2.394 5.9 7.2 54 230 3133.4 1826.6 3145.9 2.375 6.7 8.1 8 230 3141.5 1830.2 3151.8 2.377 6.6 8.3 36 230 3141.4 1829.3 3149.1 2.380 6.5 5.5 51 230 3158.0 1843.1 3163.0 2.393 6.0 8.5 6.5 7.1 0.4 1.5 1 190 3177.5 1853.7 3186.2 2.385 6.3 8.1 2 190 3142.3 1838.1 3149.6 2.396 5.9 5.6 3 190 3150.1 1843.4 3157.4 2.397 5.8 10.3 4 190 3149.2 1840.6 3154.7 2.396 5.8 4.1 5 190 3161.2 1848.5 3167.3 2.397 5.8 6.9 6 190 3133.2 1825.1 3139.6 2.384 6.3 5.1 6.0 6.7 0.3 2.2 Rut Depth, (mm) Average: Standard Deviation: Maximum Specific Gravity (Gmm): Sample Number Compaction Temperature (?F) In Air (gms) In Water (gms) SSD (gms) Bulk (Gmb) VTM, % Average: Standard Deviation: Average: Standard Deviation: Average: Standard Deviation: 146 TABLE D8 Asphalt Pavement Analyzer Data for Limestone - Evotherm? Aggregate: Limestone Applied Wheel Load (lbs): 120 Test Temperature: 64? F (147? C) Hose Presure (psi): 120 Asphalt Content: 4.8% 2.547 7 300 3257.9 1918.7 3262.7 2.424 4.8 2.4 17 300 3253.5 1916.1 3257.4 2.426 4.8 5.1 25 300 3263.5 1923.4 3267.4 2.428 4.7 3.2 29 300 3257.4 1922.3 3261.8 2.432 4.5 4.3 30 300 3260.4 1929.2 3265.3 2.440 4.2 4.3 37 300 3252.0 1920.0 3254.3 2.437 4.3 5.1 4.5 4.1 0.3 1.1 1 265 3252.0 1906.2 3260.7 2.401 5.7 9.0 6 265 3255.7 1913.8 3261.5 2.416 5.2 6.9 9 265 3254.6 1911.4 3262.5 2.409 5.4 4.4 11 265 3252.9 1908.3 3257.4 2.411 5.3 4.6 23 265 3261.8 1914.1 3267.6 2.410 5.4 6.7 38 265 3253.9 1903.9 3259.1 2.401 5.7 8.2 5.5 6.6 0.2 1.9 8 230 3260.0 1901.1 3269.9 2.382 6.5 14.0 12 230 3258.9 1905.0 3266.1 2.394 6.0 12.2 28 230 3260.8 1901.6 3268.7 2.385 6.4 6.1 32 230 3255.7 1905.4 3265.4 2.394 6.0 11.3 36 230 3260.6 1907.7 3267.6 2.398 5.9 11.5 42 230 3256.3 1895.9 3264.0 2.380 6.6 6.9 6.2 10.3 0.3 3.1 1 190 3119.5 1821.2 3126.9 2.389 6.2 18.6 2 190 3126.5 1826.4 3137.1 2.385 6.3 8.1 15 190 3288.9 1919.1 3297.6 2.386 6.3 9.5 24 190 3256.5 1906.5 3267.1 2.393 6.0 11.0 26 190 3253.0 1903.0 3263.1 2.392 6.1 14.2 35 190 3256.8 1906.4 3266.7 2.394 6.0 14.4 6.2 12.6 0.1 3.9Standard Deviation: Average: Standard Deviation: Average: Standard Deviation: Rut Depth, (mm) Average: Standard Deviation: Average: Maximum Specific Gravity (Gmm): Sample Number Compaction Temperature (?F) In Air (gms) In Water (gms) SSD (gms) Bulk (Gmb) VTM, % 147 148 APPENDIX E: INDIRECT TENSILE STRENGTH DATA 149 Gr anite 5.1% 1 2 0 369 6.6 2110.1 3 7 23.2 2 .29 2 7.1 3600 104.4 2 2 0 369 8.0 2104.0 3 7 22.5 2 .28 5 7.4 3475 100.8 7.2 3538 102.6 0 . 28 82 . 5 3 4 0 371 3.5 2130.9 3 7 40.3 2 .30 7 6.5 5075 147.2 4 4 0 370 8.8 2113.4 3 7 37.7 2 .28 3 7.4 3300 95.7 7.0 4188 121.5 0.7 1255 36.4 5 2 1 371 8.8 2119.1 3 7 40.9 2 .29 3 7.1 2250 65.3 6 2 1 371 5.9 2116.3 3 7 35.2 2 .29 5 7.0 2400 69.6 7.0 2325 67.5 0.1 106 3.0 7 2 3 369 6.8 2112.1 3 7 27.2 2 .28 9 7.2 3200 92.8 8 2 3 369 1.4 2114.1 3 7 16.0 2 .30 4 6.6 3600 104.4 6.9 3400 98.6 0.4 283 8.2 9 2 5 369 8.0 2110.8 3 7 27.6 2 .28 7 7.3 3250 94.3 10 2 5 7.3 3250 94.3 TABLE E1 Str e n gth Ga in Da ta f o r Gr anit e - No Addit i ve VT M, % In A i r (g m s ) SS D (g m s ) A v e r ag e: Asphalt C o nt ent: A v e r ag e: S t a nda r d Dev i a tion: B u l k (Gmb) S t a nda r d Dev i a tion: L ong Te r m Age @ 85?C ( 185?F ) ( d a y s) In W a t e r (g m s ) A v e r ag e: S t a nda r d Dev i a tion: A v e r ag e: S t a nda r d Dev i a tion: A v e r ag e: S t a nda r d Dev i a tion: Tensile St r e ng th (p s i ) Ag g r eg a t e: M a x i m u m S p ecifi c Grav i t y (Gm m ) : 2 .4 67 M a xi mu m Lo a d ( l b s ) Sam p l e Num b er Shor t Te r m Ag e @ 110? C ( 230?F ) ( h r s ) 150 Gra n ite 5.1% 1 2 0 3699 .9 2 126.5 372 5.8 2 .313 5. 8 4175 121.1 2 2 0 3696 .7 2 105.6 371 9.5 2 .291 6. 8 3850 111.7 6. 3 4013 116.4 0. 7 230 6.6 3 4 0 3693 .4 2 098.8 371 4.4 2 .286 7. 0 4000 116.0 4 4 0 3695 .1 2 104.7 371 6.9 2 .292 6. 7 4150 120.4 6. 8 4075 118.2 0. 2 106 3.1 5 2 1 3694 .9 2 108.1 371 9.3 2 .293 6. 7 2450 71.1 6 2 1 3695 .9 2 105.1 371 3.3 2 .298 6. 5 2525 73.2 6. 6 2488 72.2 0. 1 5 3 1 .5 7 2 3 3694 .0 2 103.6 372 2.0 2 .283 7. 1 3350 97.2 8 2 3 3705 .1 2 114.2 373 4.4 2 .287 6. 9 3750 108.8 7. 0 3550 103.0 0. 1 283 8.2 9 2 5 3696 .7 2 110.4 371 8.4 2 .299 6. 4 2900 84.1 1 0 2 5 3698 .5 2 115.1 372 7.9 2 .293 6. 7 3100 89.9 6. 5 3000 87.0 0. 2 141 4.1 TA BLE E2 St r e n gt h G a in Dat a for G r a n it e - A s pha - m i n ? Z e olite Av erage : S t a nda rd D e viation: Te nsile St r e n g t h (psi ) Ag g r eg a t e: 2.45 7 Ma x i mum L o ad (lbs) Samp le Numb er S h ort Te rm Ag e @ 1 10?C (230?F) (hrs) Av erage : S t a nda rd D e viation: Av erage : S t a nda rd D e viation: S t a nda rd D e viation:B u lk (G m b ) S t a nda rd D e viation: L ong Te rm Ag e @ 85 ?C (185?F) (day s ) Av erage : In A i r (g m s ) A s p h alt Conten t : Av erage : Ma x i mu m S p ec ific G r a v ity (G mm): VT M, % In W a t e r (g m s ) SS D (g m s ) 151 Gran i t e 5.1% 1 2 0 3 6 7 1 . 5 2 0 86.4 3 709 .9 2.2 6 1 8 .1 160 0 4 6 . 4 2 2 0 3 6 9 9 . 2 2 1 04.6 3 723 .5 2.2 8 5 7 .2 167 5 4 8 . 6 7.6 163 8 4 7 . 5 0.7 5 3 1 .5 3 4 0 3 6 6 6 . 5 2 0 82.4 3 702 .4 2.2 6 3 8 .0 202 5 5 8 . 7 4 4 0 3 6 9 8 . 4 2 1 06.7 3 724 .7 2.2 8 6 7 .1 210 0 6 0 . 9 7.6 206 3 5 9 . 8 0.6 5 3 1 .5 5 2 1 3 6 9 4 . 7 2 0 95.0 3 719 .2 2.2 7 5 7 .6 225 0 6 5 . 3 6 2 1 3 6 9 5 . 2 2 0 93.9 3 725 .3 2.2 6 5 8 .0 225 0 6 5 . 3 7.8 225 0 6 5 . 3 0.3 0 0.0 7 2 3 3 6 8 8 . 6 2 0 99.3 3 721 .2 2.2 7 4 7 .6 182 5 5 2 . 9 8 2 3 3 6 7 6 . 0 2 0 92.0 3 707 .0 2.2 7 6 7 .5 195 0 5 6 . 6 7.5 188 8 5 4 . 7 0.1 8 8 2 .6 9 2 5 3 6 8 1 . 2 2 0 96.1 3 709 .8 2.2 8 1 7 .3 320 0 9 2 . 8 10 2 5 36 80 .6 20 89.9 3 718 .3 2.2 6 0 8 .2 307 5 8 9 . 2 7.7 313 8 9 1 . 0 0.6 8 8 2 .6 TA BLE E3 St r e n gt h G a i n D a t a for G r ani t e - Sa sobit ? Averag e : Sta n da r d D e via t ion : Tensi l e Str e n g th (p s i ) Ag g r eg ate: Max i m u m S p ecific Grav it y (Gm m ) : 2 .46 1 Ma ximu m Lo a d ( l b s ) Sa mple Number Sho r t Te rm Ag e @ 11 0?C (2 30 ? F ) (h rs ) Averag e : Sta n da r d D e via t ion : Averag e : Sta n da r d D e via t ion : A s pha lt Conte n t: Averag e : Sta n da r d D e via t ion : B u l k (G m b ) Sta n da r d D e via t ion : Lo n g T e r m A g e @ 85 ?C ( 185 ?F ) (d ay s ) In W a t e r (gm s ) VTM , % In A i r (g ms ) SSD (g ms) Averag e : 152 Gr anite 5. 1 % 1 2 0 3 7 60.9 2 1 50.1 378 1.6 2 .305 6.5 370 0 1 07.3 2 2 0 3 6 85.3 2 0 93.6 371 4.8 2 .273 7.8 350 0 1 01.5 7.1 360 0 1 04.4 0.9 1 41 4.1 3 4 0 3 6 86.1 2 1 01.4 371 4.5 2 .285 7.3 470 0 1 36.3 44 0 7.3 470 0 1 36.3 5 2 1 3 7 53.2 2 1 17.8 377 1.2 2 .270 7.9 207 5 6 0 . 2 6 2 1 3 7 64.3 2 1 47.6 378 2.8 2 .302 6.6 210 0 6 0 . 9 7.3 208 8 6 0 . 5 0.9 1 8 0 .5 7 2 3 3 7 54.7 2 1 45.4 377 8.8 2 .299 6.7 357 5 1 03.7 8 2 3 3 7 48.2 2 1 46.5 378 1.1 2 .293 7.0 350 0 1 01.5 6.9 353 8 1 02.6 0.2 5 3 1 .5 9 2 5 3 7 63.9 2 1 33.3 378 5.6 2 .278 7.6 435 0 1 26.2 10 2 5 37 65.5 2 1 48.6 378 3.9 2 .303 6.6 465 0 1 34.9 7.1 450 0 1 30.5 0.7 2 12 6.2 TABLE E4 St r e n g t h G a in D a ta for G r anit e - Ev othe r m ? VTM, % In A i r (g ms) SS D (g ms ) Av erag e: I n Wa te r (g ms) Aspha lt Conte n t: Av erag e: Sta nda r d De via t ion: B u l k (G m b ) Sta nda r d De via t ion: L ong Te rm A g e @ 85?C ( 185?F ) (d ay s) Av erag e: Sta nda r d De via t ion: Av erag e: Sta nda r d De via t ion: Av erag e: Sta nda r d De via t ion: Tensi l e Str e n g th (p s i ) Ag g r eg at e: M a x i m u m S p eci fic Grav i t y (Gm m ): 2. 4 6 5 Ma x i mu m Lo a d ( l b s ) Sa mp le Number Sh o r t T e r m A g e @ 110 ?C ( 2 3 0 ? F ) (h r s ) 153 Li m e s t o n e 4. 8% 1 2 0 389 4.8 2 278.6 3915 .2 2 . 380 6. 5 4 6 0 0 1 3 3 .4 2 2 0 389 5.0 2 281.7 3921 .4 2 . 375 6. 7 4 5 5 0 1 3 2 .0 6 . 6 4 57 5 1 32 . 7 0. 1 3 5 1 .0 3 4 0 389 0.5 2 273.7 3917 .6 2 . 367 7. 0 3 7 5 0 1 0 8 .8 4 4 0 389 5.5 2 281.9 3919 .2 2 . 379 6. 5 3 9 0 0 1 1 3 .1 6 . 8 3 82 5 1 10 . 9 0 . 3 1 06 3. 1 5 2 1 389 5.2 2 280.7 3919 .5 2 . 377 6. 6 3 1 5 0 9 1.4 6 2 1 389 7.6 2 283.6 3919 .9 2 . 382 6. 4 2 6 0 0 7 5.4 6. 5 2 8 7 5 8 3.4 0 . 1 3 89 11 . 3 7 2 3 388 0.9 2 264.6 3908 .9 2 . 360 7. 3 2 9 0 0 8 4.1 8 2 3 388 9.4 2 275.3 3915 .2 2 . 372 6. 8 2 8 0 0 8 1.2 7. 0 2 8 5 0 8 2.7 0. 3 7 1 2 .1 9 2 5 389 6.5 2 283.7 3921 .8 2 . 379 6. 5 2 5 7 5 7 4.7 10 2 5 388 6.1 2 273.2 3911 .8 2 . 372 6. 8 2 5 7 5 7 4.7 6. 7 2 5 7 5 7 4.7 0. 2 0 0 . 0 TA BL E E5 St ren gt h G a in D a t a f o r L i m e st on e - No Add i t i ve St a n da r d D e via t ion : Sample Nu m b er Shor t Te r m A g e @ 11 0?C (2 30 ? F ) (h rs) L ong T e r m A g e @ 85?C ( 185? F ) (d a y s) In A i r (g m s ) S S D (g m s ) B u lk ( Gmb ) In W a t e r (g ms) Ma x i mum Lo a d ( l b s ) Av erag e: Ten sil e St r e ng t h (p si ) Av erag e: St a n da r d D e via t ion : VTM , % Av erag e: St a n da r d D e via t ion : Av erag e: St a n da r d D e via t ion : Av erag e: St a n da r d D e via t ion : Ma x i mum Spe c i f i c G r a v ity ( Gmm) : 2 .54 5 Ag g r eg ate: A s ph a l t Conte n t: 154 Li m e s t o n e 4. 8% 1 2 0 3 90 8.4 228 7.1 3 9 25.2 2 .38 6 6 . 2 4 0 0 0 1 1 5 .6 2 2 0 3 90 6.7 228 3.5 3 9 26.6 2 .37 8 6 . 5 4 0 0 0 1 1 5 .6 6. 4 4 00 0 1 15 .6 0. 2 0 0.0 3 4 0 3 90 7.4 229 3.1 3 9 33.3 2 .38 2 6 . 4 3 8 0 0 1 1 0 .2 4 4 0 3 91 0.9 229 1.5 3 9 32.1 2 .38 4 6 . 3 3 9 0 0 1 1 2 .8 6. 3 3 85 0 1 11 .5 0. 0 7 1 1 .8 5 2 1 3 90 6.0 229 1.0 3 9 26.4 2 .38 8 6 . 1 2 7 0 0 7 7 . 9 6 2 1 3 90 8.8 229 2.5 3 9 29.2 2 .38 8 6 . 1 2 6 7 5 7 7 . 3 6. 1 2 68 8 7 7. 6 0. 0 1 8 0 .4 7 2 3 3 90 5.1 228 7.5 3 9 30.6 2 .37 7 6 . 6 3 1 0 0 9 0 . 0 8 2 3 3 90 1.9 228 3.1 3 9 25.9 2 .37 5 6 . 6 3 0 7 5 8 9 . 3 6. 6 3 08 8 8 9. 7 0. 0 1 8 0 .5 9 2 5 3 91 6.7 229 1.7 3 9 35.7 2 .38 2 6 . 4 2 7 5 0 7 9 . 7 1 0 2 5 39 10 .0 2 2 9 3 . 1 3 93 4 . 8 2 .3 82 6. 4 2 80 0 8 1. 3 6. 4 2 77 5 8 0. 5 0. 0 3 5 1 .1 TABL E E 6 Stre n g th G a in Dat a f o r L i m e st one - Asph a-m i n ? Z e olite Max i mum Spe c ific Gra v ity (Gmm ): 2.544 Ag g r e g ate: A s ph a lt Con t e n t: Avera g e: Sta n d a rd D e viatio n: Avera g e: Sta n d a rd D e viatio n: Avera g e: Sta n d a rd D e viatio n: Max i mum Lo a d ( l b s ) Avera g e: T e n s ile Stre ng th (psi ) Avera g e: Sta n d a rd D e viatio n: VTM, % In W a t e r (g ms) Sta n d a rd D e viatio n: Sample Nu mb er Short Te rm A g e @ 11 0?C (230?F) (hrs) Lo n g T e r m Age @ 85 ?C (185?F) (day s) In A i r (gm s ) SS D (g ms) Bulk (Gm b ) 155 Li m e s t o n e 4. 8% 1 2 0 387 8.5 2 256.0 3898 .8 2 . 361 7. 2 3900 113. 1 2 2 0 388 1.2 2 259.0 3900 .8 2 . 364 7. 1 3950 114. 6 7. 2 3925 113. 8 0. 1 3 5 1 .0 3 4 0 387 4.9 2 267.7 3900 .4 2 . 373 6. 7 3950 114. 6 4 4 0 388 4.9 2 269.6 3911 .0 2 . 367 7. 0 3750 108. 8 6. 9 3850 111. 7 0. 2 141 4.1 5 2 1 388 3.9 2 277.3 3907 .5 2 . 382 6. 4 1300 37.7 6 2 1 387 8.1 2 261.1 3902 .2 2 . 363 7. 1 1300 37.7 6. 8 1300 37.7 0. 5 0 0.0 7 2 3 388 3.9 2 267.0 3903 .2 2 . 374 6. 7 1725 50.0 8 2 3 388 4.9 2 263.5 3903 .0 2 . 370 6. 9 2225 64.5 6. 8 1975 57.3 0. 1 354 10.3 9 2 5 386 3.2 2 247.5 3895 .6 2 . 344 7. 9 3000 87.0 10 2 5 387 8.5 2 261.0 3904 .9 2 . 359 7. 3 3925 113. 8 7. 6 3463 100. 4 0. 4 654 19.0 T A BLE E7 Stren g t h G a in Data f o r Li m e stone - S a so b i t ? St a n da r d D e via t ion : Sample Nu m b er Shor t Te r m A g e @ 11 0?C (2 30 ? F ) (h rs) L ong T e r m A g e @ 85?C ( 185? F ) (d a y s) In A i r (g m s ) S S D (g m s ) B u lk ( Gmb ) In W a t e r (g ms) Ma x i mu m Lo a d ( l b s ) Av erag e: Tensile St reng th (p si ) Av erag e: St a n da r d D e via t ion : VTM , % Av erag e: St a n da r d D e via t ion : Av erag e: St a n da r d D e via t ion : Av erag e: St a n da r d D e via t ion : Ma x i mum Spe c i f i c G r a v ity ( Gmm) : 2 .54 5 Ag g r eg ate: A s ph a l t Conte n t: 156 Li m e s t o n e 4. 8% 1 2 0 3 83 2 . 1 2 24 6 3 8 7 9 .9 2.3 4 5 7.9 2 60 0 7 5.4 2 2 0 3 8 29. 1 2 243 .9 3 869 .3 2 . 356 7 . 5 2 7 0 0 7 8 . 3 7.7 2 65 0 7 6.9 0.3 7 1 2 .1 3 4 0 3 8 30. 1 2 248 .6 38 81 2 . 346 7 . 9 3 7 0 0 1 0 7 .3 4 4 0 3 8 31. 9 2 246 .5 3 883 .7 2 . 341 8 . 1 3 5 5 0 1 0 3 .0 8.0 3 62 5 1 05 .1 0.2 1 06 3.1 5 2 1 3 8 32. 9 2 254 .6 3 880 .8 2 . 357 7 . 5 2 5 0 0 7 2 . 5 6 2 1 3 8 32. 7 2 253 .8 3 876 .3 2 . 362 7 . 3 2 4 7 5 7 1 . 8 7.4 2 48 8 7 2.2 0.1 1 8 0 .5 7 2 3 3 8 34. 4 2 251 .4 3 881 .1 2 . 353 7 . 6 2 5 2 5 7 3 . 2 8 2 3 3 8 34. 2 2 249 .1 3 885 .4 2 . 343 8 . 0 2 4 0 0 6 9 . 6 7.8 2 46 3 7 1.4 0.3 8 8 2 .6 9 2 5 383 9 2 241 .1 3 872 .3 2 . 353 7 . 6 3 2 0 0 9 2 . 8 10 2 5 38 47. 1 2 246 .8 3 877 .4 2 . 359 7 . 4 3 0 7 5 8 9 . 2 7.5 3 13 8 9 1.0 0.2 8 8 2 .6 TA BLE E8 St r e n gt h G a in D a t a f o r Lim e st one - Evo t he r m ? Max i m u m Sp ecific Grav ity (Gmm ): 2 . 54 7 Ag g r eg a t e: Asph a lt Conte n t: Av erag e: Sta n da r d De via tion: Av erag e: Sta n da r d De via tion: Av erag e: Sta n da r d De via tion: M a x i mu m Lo a d ( l b s ) Av erag e: Te n s ile Stren g th (p si ) Av erag e: Sta n da r d De via tion: VTM , % I n Water (g ms) Sta n da r d De via tion: Samp l e Num b er Sho r t Ter m Ag e @ 11 0?C (23 0 ? F) (h rs ) Lo n g T e r m Ag e @ 85?C (1 85 ?F) (d ay s ) In A i r (g m s ) SS D (g m s ) B u lk (Gm b ) 157 APPENDIX F: MOISTURE RESISTANCE DATA TABLE F1 Moisture Resistance Results for Granite ? ASTM D4867 Sample Identification: Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 0.98 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 94.20 94.20 87.20 N / A N / A N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 124.324 120.089 122.143 N/A 2.278 2.275 124.449 126.419 2.467 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 4100 4200 N/A 125.4 119.6 125.4 N/A 121.7 4325 4125 4325 4800 N/A N/A 139.1 118.8 75.8 78.4 71.4 3797.6 3793.0 3787.1 2.467 7.6 119.476 2.467 2.467 2.467 2.467 3734.4 2.278 2.284 2.281 2.285 3704.4 2112.5 2110.6 3733.7 3729.7 2108.2 2110.3 2111.3 2114.6 3733.2 3737.8 3738.6 3.710 3703.4 3698.8 3699.9 3701.3 3.710 3.710 3702.6 6 3.710 3.710 3.710 (M) SSD Weight, gm Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 5.920 5.920 5.920 5.920 5.920 5.920 (J) SSD Weight, gm (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*?)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*?)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [A/(D - E)] 5427 7.4 7.5 7.4 7.7 7.8 123.4 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] 126.6 Granite; PG 64-22 Control: ASTM D 4867 3 Sample Number (A) Diameter, in 158 TABLE F2 Moisture Resistance Results for Granite ? ASTM D4867 with Aspha-min? Zeolite Sample Identification: Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 0.81 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 69.40 65.00 79.90 N / A N / A N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 103.429 103.956 111.500 N/A 2.310 2.302 97.936 103.375 2.457 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 5325 5600 N/A 128.2 127.1 123.5 N/A 161.4 4450 4400 4300 5175 N/A N/A 149.9 153.8 67.162.571.7 3816.5 3825.3 3819.7 2.457 6.4 112.702 2.457 2.457 2.457 2.457 3756.4 2.301 2.301 2.289 2.287 3760.5 2153.2 2143.5 3765.2 3776.7 2136.7 2142.3 2132.1 2122.9 3765.7 3787.4 3777.4 3.720 3747.1 3760.3 3739.8 3736.6 3.730 3.730 3774.6 3 3.726 3.727 3.739 (M) SSD Weight, gm Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 5.931 5.911 5.929 5.910 5.910 5.920 (J) SSD Weight, gm (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*?)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*?)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [A/(D - E)] 5314 6.46.86.96.06.3 126.3 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] 155.0 Granite; PG 64-22 with Zeolite: ASTM D 4867 1 Sample Number (A) Diameter, in 159 TABLE F3 Moisture Resistance Results for Granite ? ASTM D4867 with Sasobit? and 250?F Compaction Temperature Sample Identification: 59.5 Granite; PG 64-22 Sasobit @ 250F with 2 hr. Age: ASTM D 4867 6 Sample Number (A) Diameter, in 7.06.96.96.17.4 40.6 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] 7519 (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [A/(D - E)] (J) SSD Weight, gm (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*?)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*?)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (M) SSD Weight, gm Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 5.928 5.924 5.926 5.934 5.935 5.928 8 3.726 3.728 3.721 3763.0 3745.0 3.727 3753.5 3719.8 3723.2 3726.8 3.738 3.722 3741.7 3717.7 2144.6 2114.3 3765.8 3746.2 2140.3 2121.6 2117.0 2117.6 3742.3 3743.4 2.309 2.290 2.291 2.292 3826.7 3803.8 3811.3 2.461 6.2 111.456 2.461 2.461 2.461 2.461 73.074.378.4 57.7 1525 1325 1375 2100 N/A N/A 60.4 60.3 4.038.239.7N/A N/A 2.312 2.280 98.002 120.054 2.461 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 2100 2000 N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 100.307 113.101 112.419 Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 0.68 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 73.20 84.00 88.10 N / A N / A N/A 160 TABLE F4 Moisture Resistance Results for Granite ? No Additives Sample Identification: Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 1.06 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 70.00 63.40 N / A N / A N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 111.837 115.564 N/A 2.289 116.319 2.467 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 2600 N/A 76.9 84.8 N/A 75.2 2650 2925 2650 N/A N/A 76.7 62.6 54.9 3763.5 3755.6 7.0 117.262 2.467 2.467 2.467 3716.3 2.296 2.290 2.288 3697.0 2105.2 3713.1 2104.1 2093.3 2102.2 3705.5 3720.1 3.727 3693.5 3692.2 3692.7 3.7233.709 3.710 (M) SSD Weight, gm Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 5.917 5.916 5.904 5.910 (J) SSD Weight, gm (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*?)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*?)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [A/(D - E)] 316 7.2 7.3 7.2 80.9 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] 75.9 Granite; PG 64-22 Control @ 250F with 0 hr. Age 4 Sample Number (A) Diameter, in 161 TABLE F5 Moisture Resistance Results for Granite ? Aspha-min? Zeolite Sample Identification: Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 0.67 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 71.10 93.50 87.50 N / A N / A N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 118.001 120.540 114.479 N/A 2.293 2.273 107.526 121.040 2.457 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 2400 2500 N/A 54.1 46.4 45.6 N/A 72.8 1850 1600 1575 2550 N/A N/A 74.7 70.0 60.3 77.6 76.4 3759.3 3776.2 3776.0 2.457 7.3 107.584 2.457 2.457 2.457 2.457 3693.2 2.278 2.274 2.283 2.292 3682.7 2089.0 2082.0 3707.1 3701.9 2088.0 2082.5 2093.4 2087.0 3709.1 3696.2 3701.9 3.679 3688.2 3682.7 3688.5 3682.1 3.702 3.694 3684.7 4 3.699 3.711 3.711 (M) SSD Weight, gm Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 5.889 5.919 5.919 5.905 5.896 5.920 (J) SSD Weight, gm (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*?)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*?)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [A/(D - E)] 5216 7.4 7.1 6.7 6.7 7.5 48.7 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] 72.5 Granite; PG 64-22 Warm @ 250F with 0 hr. Age 3 Sample Number (A) Diameter, in 162 TABLE F6 Moisture Resistance Results for Granite ? Sasobit? Sample Identification: Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 0.71 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 72.50 80.00 64.60 N / A N / A N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 98.771 103.531 97.284 N/A 2.314 96.830 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 1800 N/A 37.5 37.6 39.0 N/A 1300 1300 1350 1875 N/A N/A 54.3 52.2 73.4 77.3 66.4 3844.3 3814.0 3831.2 2.461 6.1 103.043 2.461 2.461 2.461 2.461 3773.5 2.312 2.304 2.314 2.306 2137.0 3783.0 3750.1 2151.6 2129.3 2147.0 2139.9 3774.8 3753.7 3.710 3771.8 3734.0 3766.6 3766.7 3.703 3740.4 3 3.726 3.715 3.709 (M) SSD Weight, gm Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 5.922 5.930 5.934 5.929 5.930 (J) SSD Weight, gm (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*?)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*?)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [A/(D - E)] 654 6.4 6.0 6.3 6.0 38.0 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] 53.2 Granite; PG 64-22 Sasobit? @ 250F with 0 hr. Age 2 Sample Number (A) Diameter, in 163 TABLE F7 Moisture Resistance Results for Granite ? Evotherm? Sample Identification: Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 0.96 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 94.40 98.80 99.40 N / A N / A N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 122.464 130.550 126.446 N/A 2.275 127.523 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 2400 N/A 6.563.473.2N/A 2300 2200 2550 2550 N/A N/A 73.0 68.7 7.175.778.6 3805.3 3812.2 3845.1 2.465 7.5 130.760 2.465 2.465 2.465 2.465 3768.8 2.280 2.268 2.276 2.270 2120.6 3727.7 3728.1 2099.8 2091.1 2119.4 2115.2 3765.4 3773.6 3.732 3710.9 3713.4 3745.7 3753.8 3.725 3760.3 3 3.701 3.707 3.715 (M) SSD Weight, gm Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 5.948 5.961 5.969 5.962 5.972 (J) SSD Weight, gm (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*?)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*?)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [A/(D - E)] 876 8.07.77.97.7 67.7 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] 70.8 Granite; PG 64-22 Evotherm? @ 250F with 0 hr. Age 2 Sample Number (A) Diameter, in 164 TABLE F8 Moisture Resistance Results for Limestone ? No Additives Sample Identification: 109.5 LMS; PG 64-22 Control @ 250F with 0 hr. Age 3 Sample Number (A) Diameter, in 6.1 6.0 6.2 6.2 6.0 71.2 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] 4216 (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [A/(D - E)] (J) SSD Weight, gm (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*?)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*?)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (M) SSD Weight, gm Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 5.922 5.946 5.924 5.913 5.913 5.929 5 3.711 3.690 3.686 3850.3 3844.9 3.712 3834.5 3841.6 3837.4 3843.6 3.700 3.684 3833.2 3837.1 2244.1 2240.1 3850.5 3849.5 2241.2 2241.8 2240.9 2246.9 3845.7 3858.1 2.383 2.390 2.391 2.386 3908.6 3910.2 3900.5 2.544 6.3 100.351 2.544 2.544 2.544 2.544 72.6 70.3 65.5 106.4 2450 2350 2550 3800 N/A N/A 110.2 112.0 71.0 68.2 74.3 N/A N/A 2.387 2.391 99.439 96.506 2.544 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 3850 3650 N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 102.028 97.637 96.388 Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 0.65 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 74.10 68.60 63.10 N / A N / A N/A 165 TABLE F9 Moisture Resistance Results for Limestone ? Aspha-min? Zeolite Sample Identification: Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 0.51 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 83.70 87.70 68.70 N / A N / A N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 119.289 114.335 97.590 N/A 2.392 95.099 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 2975 N/A 43.645.243.6N/A 1500 1550 1500 2950 N/A N/A 85.7 87.6 70.276.770.4 3901.0 3908.7 3883.2 2.544 7.4 116.300 2.544 2.544 2.544 2.544 3830.3 2.357 2.364 2.389 2.361 2233.3 3830.1 3835.1 2210.3 2218.8 2229.4 2214.0 3826.4 3829.5 3.704 3817.3 3821.0 3814.5 3816.0 3.659 3818.8 3 3.698 3.693 3.695 (M) SSD Weight, gm Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 5.918 5.915 5.921 5.916 5.910 (J) SSD Weight, gm (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*?)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*?)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [A/(D - E)] 615 7.16.17.26.0 44.2 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] 86.6 LMS; PG 64-22 Warm @ 250F with 0 hr. Age 2 Sample Number (A) Diameter, in 166 TABLE F10 Moisture Resistance Results for Limestone ? Sasobit? Sample Identification: 53.9 LMS; PG 64-22 Sasobit? @ 250F with 0 hr. Age 2 Sample Number (A) Diameter, in 6.6 6.9 7.5 6.3 6.9 49.1 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] 6315 (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [A/(D - E)] (J) SSD Weight, gm (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*?)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*?)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (M) SSD Weight, gm Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 5.934 5.934 5.925 5.961 5.921 5.922 4 3.686 3.678 3.679 3828.1 3822.0 3.688 3812.7 3819.8 3817.7 3814.9 3.675 3.685 3818.5 3811.1 2227.3 2213.7 3823.3 3828.1 2214.8 2220.6 2216.2 2204.8 3828.1 3824.9 2.370 2.376 2.368 2.355 3888.4 3891.2 3885.9 2.545 6.9 121.122 2.545 2.545 2.545 2.545 68.6 67.0 61.0 52.5 1800 1575 1675 1900 N/A N/A 55.0 54.1 52.4 45.9 48.9 N/A N/A 2.385 2.370 100.407 110.815 2.545 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 1850 1800 N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 110.386 106.596 111.821 Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 0.91 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 75.70 71.40 68.20 N / A N / A N/A 167 TABLE F11 Moisture Resistance Results for Limestone ? Evotherm? Sample Identification: Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 0.62 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 73.60 78.50 74.40 N / A N / A N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 110.017 113.697 111.446 N/A 2.367 2.371 114.296 111.822 2.547 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 2550 2600 N/A 46.9 46.7 46.7 N/A 76.2 1600 1600 1600 2550 N/A N/A 74.4 74.5 66.9 69.0 66.8 3904.5 3917.6 3909.3 2.547 6.8 117.306 2.547 2.547 2.547 2.547 3850.2 2.373 2.368 2.371 2.363 3839.8 2225.7 2233.0 3847.6 3860.4 2233.5 2239.4 2231.2 2229.4 3848.3 3845.1 3852.4 3.685 3830.9 3839.1 3834.9 3829.4 3.673 3.671 3833.5 3 3.673 3.685 3.681 (M) SSD Weight, gm Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 5.915 5.920 5.925 5.921 5.934 5.921 (J) SSD Weight, gm (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*?)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*?)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [A/(D - E)] 6415 7.0 6.9 7.2 7.1 6.9 46.8 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] 75.0 LMS; PG 64-22 Evotherm? @ 250F with 0 hr. Age 2 Sample Number (A) Diameter, in 168 TABLE F12 Moisture Resistance Results for Granite ? Aspha-min? and Oven Dry Aggregate Sample Identification: Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 0.60 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 89.80 80.50 73.80 N / A N / A N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 114.430 108.422 103.821 N/A 2.281 2.295 116.989 106.971 2.457 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 2175 2300 N/A 39.8 36.0 45.5 N/A 66.2 1375 1250 1575 2525 N/A N/A 72.8 62.6 78.5 74.2 71.1 3813.8 3802.8 3793.4 2.457 7.0 108.443 2.457 2.457 2.457 2.457 3741.6 2.285 2.293 2.299 2.293 3723.9 2107.3 2118.9 3746.8 3746.4 2116.7 2123.0 2121.0 2119.4 3738.7 3738.9 3741.5 3.728 3724.0 3722.3 3719.6 3719.3 3.729 3.732 3721.4 3 3.725 3.728 3.724 (M) SSD Weight, gm Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 5.905 5.926 5.920 5.921 5.930 5.924 (J) SSD Weight, gm (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*?)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*?)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [A/(D - E)] 5416 6.7 6.4 6.7 7.2 6.6 40.4 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] 67.2 Granite; PG 64-22 Warm @ 250F with 0 hr. Age: Oven Dry Aggregate 2 Sample Number (A) Diameter, in 169 TABLE F13 Moisture Resistance Results for Granite ? No Additives and 0.75% ADHERE Sample Identification: Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 0.87 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 73.40 68.00 70.50 N / A N / A N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 112.307 107.906 109.788 N/A 2.287 2.275 108.345 116.570 2.452 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 3400 3700 N/A 87.2 94.9 89.4 N/A 107.5 3000 3275 3100 3725 N/A N/A 107.9 98.5 65.4 63.0 64.2 3753.1 3750.4 3750.0 2.452 7.0 114.965 2.452 2.452 2.452 2.452 3687.6 2.281 2.288 2.285 2.277 3679.3 2091.5 2076.8 3694.1 3696.5 2081.1 2086.8 2085.9 2075.0 3696.3 3699.6 3693.9 3.709 3679.7 3682.4 3679.5 3672.2 3.714 3.705 3677.4 5 3.698 3.715 3.720 (M) SSD Weight, gm Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 5.923 5.911 5.931 5.928 5.915 5.915 (J) SSD Weight, gm (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*?)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*?)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [A/(D - E)] 4316 6.7 6.8 7.1 6.7 7.2 90.5 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] 104.6 Granite; PG 64-22 w/ 0.75% ADHERE @ 250F with 0 hr. Age - Control 2 Sample Number (A) Diameter, in 170 TABLE F14 Moisture Resistance Results for Granite ? Aspha-min? Zeolite and 0.75% ADHERE Sample Identification: 96.0 Granite; PG 64-22 Warm @ 250F with 0 hr. Age; 0.75% ADHERE 1 Sample Number (A) Diameter, in 7.9 7.4 7.2 7.6 7.6 36.2 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] 5426 (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [A/(D - E)] (J) SSD Weight, gm (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*?)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*?)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (M) SSD Weight, gm Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 5.919 5.937 5.939 5.945 5.943 5.935 3 3.711 3.699 3.682 3688.4 3691.2 3.699 3663.8 3666.3 3667.6 3668.0 3.701 3.708 3669.3 3667.6 2077.7 2081.4 3690.5 3697.7 2085.3 2083.2 2083.3 2091.0 3689.1 3694.2 2.282 2.271 2.284 2.288 3746.6 3756.0 3746.6 2.466 7.4 115.771 2.466 2.466 2.466 2.466 Broke 69.3 70.2 66.6 95.5 1300 1200 3500 N/A N/A 101.3 91.2 37.7 34.8 N/A N/A 2.278 2.278 122.744 122.533 2.466 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 3150 3300 N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 119.474 127.760 118.533 Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 0.38 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 82.80 89.70 79.00 N / A N / A N/A 171 TABLE F15 Moisture Resistance Results for Granite ? Aspha-min? Zeolite and 1% Hydrated Lime Sample Identification: Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 0.77 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 76.40 82.00 66.30 N / A N / A N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 110.987 114.123 101.078 N/A 2.289 2.292 109.700 107.892 2.457 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 3700 3875 N/A 86.080.889.6N/A 112.6 2975 2800 3075 3875 N/A N/A 111.9 107.3 68.871.965.6 3758.0 3761.3 3743.5 2.457 6.9 112.765 2.457 2.457 2.457 2.457 3702.7 2.288 2.283 2.302 2.285 3675.2 2081.9 2081.7 3698.5 3698.6 2089.1 2087.0 2091.0 2091.4 3688.7 3688.1 3685.4 3.717 3681.6 3679.3 3677.2 3681.9 3.701 3.693 3676.9 3 3.713 3.720 3.685 (M) SSD Weight, gm Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 5.930 5.930 5.930 5.930 5.930 5.930 (J) SSD Weight, gm (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*?)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*?)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [A/(D - E)] 6425 7.16.37.06.86.7 85.5 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] 110.6 Granite; PG 64-22 Warm @ 250F with 1% Hydrated Lime 1 Sample Number (A) Diameter, in 172 TABLE F16 Moisture Resistance Results for Granite ? Aspha-min? Zeolite and 1.5% Hydrated Lime; Two Stage Addition Sample Identification: Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 0.87 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 71.90 81.50 71.90 N / A N / A N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 90.610 104.138 96.862 N/A 2.314 2.290 91.507 107.585 2.452 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 3025 2300 N/A 81.2 55.8 71.0 N/A 66.4 2800 1925 2450 2950 N/A N/A 85.6 87.8 79.4 78.3 74.2 3822.7 3800.6 3795.6 2.452 5.6 93.044 2.452 2.452 2.452 2.452 3762.5 2.315 2.294 2.305 2.311 3723.4 2143.9 2109.9 3766.9 3730.8 2146.6 2109.9 2124.9 2140.5 3740.4 3764.2 3736.0 3.707 3750.8 3719.1 3723.7 3749.0 3.701 3.719 3748.6 4 3.709 3.704 3.703 (M) SSD Weight, gm Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 5.921 5.933 5.929 5.921 5.924 5.931 (J) SSD Weight, gm (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*?)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*?)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [A/(D - E)] 5316 6.4 6.0 5.7 5.6 6.6 69.3 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] 79.9 Granite; PG 64-22 Warm @ 250F with 1.5% Hydrated Lime; Two Stage Addition 2 Sample Number (A) Diameter, in 173 TABLE F17 Moisture Resistance Results for Granite ? Aspha-min? Zeolite and 1.5% Hydrated Lime; All Added Dry Sample Identification: Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 0.75 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 82.20 78.30 81.60 N / A N / A N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 106.841 105.610 106.843 N/A 2.283 2.299 110.479 99.271 2.451 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 3100 3125 N/A 66.5 69.8 65.5 N/A 91.1 2300 2400 2250 3100 N/A N/A 89.3 90.1 76.9 74.1 76.4 3771.1 3768.5 3772.7 2.451 6.6 111.800 2.451 2.451 2.451 2.451 3705.5 2.289 2.290 2.289 2.282 3687.6 2087.7 2096.1 3706.0 3704.4 2094.1 2093.2 2091.1 2088.6 3703.9 3702.3 3699.9 3.714 3688.9 3690.2 3691.1 3689.0 3.689 3.683 3686.6 8 3.706 3.693 3.694 (M) SSD Weight, gm Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 5.937 5.925 5.922 5.948 5.940 5.928 (J) SSD Weight, gm (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*?)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*?)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [A/(D - E)] 7649 6.6 6.6 6.9 6.8 6.2 67.3 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] 90.2 Granite; PG 64-22 Warm w/ 1.5% Hydrated Lime Added ALL Dry@ 250F 5 Sample Number (A) Diameter, in 174 TABLE F18 Moisture Resistance Results for Granite ? Sasobit? and 0.4% Magnabond Sample Identification: 17.5 Granite; PG 64-22 Sasobit? @ 250F with 0 hr. Age and 0.4% Magnabond 1 Sample Number (A) Diameter, in 6.3 6.5 6.7 6.5 16.5 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] 546 (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [A/(D - E)] (J) SSD Weight, gm (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*?)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*?)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (M) SSD Weight, gm Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 5.915 5.928 5.933 5.936 5.928 2 3.693 3.690 3.678 3693.1 3.668 3716.7 3716.7 3685.7 3682.0 3.671 3685.7 2096.4 3723.7 3724.2 2113.4 2117.4 2097.0 2092.2 3693.5 3690.0 2.308 2.313 2.309 2.304 3775.4 3773.3 3746.7 2.469 6.5 106.508 2.469 2.469 2.469 2.469 55.9 55.8 58.8 625 625 450 650 N/A N/A 19.0 16.1 18.2 18.2 13.1 N/A N/A 2.308 103.909 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 550 N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 104.954 101.454 103.709 Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 0.94 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 58.70 56.60 61.00 N / A N / A N/A 175 TABLE F19 Moisture Resistance Results for Limestone ? Evotherm?; New Formula Sample Identification: 85.6 LMS; PG 64-22 Evotherm? @ 250F with 0 hr. Age - New Formula 2 Sample Number (A) Diameter, in 7.2 7.1 6.8 8.0 7.0 93.9 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] 5416 (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [A/(D - E)] (J) SSD Weight, gm (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*?)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*?)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (M) SSD Weight, gm Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 5.932 5.941 5.937 5.933 5.967 5.925 3 3.714 3.703 3.691 3837.0 3837.9 3.698 3824.9 3827.6 3824.4 3826.7 3.694 3.692 3818.5 3822.3 2203.1 2219.9 3844.9 3844.0 2221.6 2219.5 2216.5 2222.4 3838.6 3840.1 2.356 2.356 2.358 2.366 3893.0 3895.0 3895.2 2.539 7.2 110.532 2.539 2.539 2.539 2.539 58.3 57.6 61.1 93.9 3425 3425 2875 3075 N/A N/A 89.2 73.6 99.0 99.1 83.5 N/A N/A 2.337 2.362 129.961 112.565 2.539 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 2550 3225 N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 116.841 116.977 115.838 Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 1.10 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 68.10 67.40 70.80 N / A N / A N/A 176 177 APPENDIX G: HAMBURG WHEEL TRACKING DEVICE DATA 178 Gra n ite 40 5.1 122 250 1 N one 158 7.2 9 0 1 .6 1 598.0 2 .2 79 2 . 467 7.6 N A 434 0 N A 0 .581 2 N one 159 0.9 8 9 7 .6 1 598.1 2 .2 71 2 . 467 7.9 3000 379 2 4 9 3 .100 Av g . 2.2 7 5 2 .467 7.8 6500 236 0 N A 1 .841 3 Z eolite 1511. 7 8 64. 9 1523.8 2 . 2 94 2. 457 6.6 3900 616 148 4 .088 4 Z eolite 1688. 1 9 61. 9 1698.8 2 . 2 91 2. 457 6.8 3000 407 123 6 .189 Av g . 2.2 9 3 2 .457 6.7 3450 512 1 3 6 5 .139 5 S asobit? 161 6.6 9 1 3 .6 1 622.1 2 .2 82 2 . 461 7.3 3000 893 2 4 8 2 .822 6 S asobit? 159 0.6 8 9 7 .7 1 593.6 2 .2 86 2 . 461 7.1 4950 813 3 1 7 3 .100 Av g . 2.2 8 4 2 .461 7.2 3975 853 2 8 3 2 .961 7 E vother m ? 170 9.4 9 7 2 .9 1 722.0 2 .2 82 2 . 465 7.4 N A 353 7 N A 0 .713 8 E vother m ? 158 9.7 9 0 5 .3 1 598.3 2 .2 94 2 . 465 6.9 N A 932 NA 2.703 Av g . 2.2 8 8 2 .465 7.2 N A 223 5 N A 1 .708 T A B L E G 1 Ham b urg Wheel T r acking Device Results - Granite Sa mple He i g ht ( mm): Te sting Te mpe r a t ur e ( ? F ) Ag g r e g at e: Asphalt Con t ent ( % ): Co mp a c tion Temper ature (?F ) : Cr e e p Slope ( c y cl es ) Sample Num b er Additi ve I n A i r (g ms) In W a t e r (gm s ) Rutti ng Rat e (mm/hr) Stripping I n flec tion Po int ( c y cl es ) Stripping Slope Slo p e SS D (g ms) Bulk (G m b ) TMD (G mm) VT M , % 179 Li m e s t o n e 40 4.8 122 250 1 N on e 1 6 26.4 953 .9 1642.0 2 .3 64 2.544 7.1 3 0 0 0 471 281 5.348 2 N on e 1 6 13.6 941 .6 1623.5 2 .3 66 2.544 7.0 2 0 0 0 783 99 3.220 A v g . 2.3 6 5 2 .544 7.1 2 5 0 0 627 190 4.284 3 Z eol i t e 16 77.6 978 .5 1688.5 2 .3 63 2.544 7.1 1 8 0 0 166 7 6 1 1 .512 4 Z eol i t e 16 43.4 958 .3 1653.2 2 .3 65 2.544 7.0 1 6 0 0 606 182 4.158 A v g . 2.3 6 4 2 .544 7.1 1 7 0 0 113 7 122 2.835 5 S aso b it ? 1 7 01.0 985 .9 1705.3 2 .3 64 2.545 7.1 3 2 5 0 865 286 2.912 6 S aso b it ? 1 7 06.5 989 .5 1710.2 2 .3 68 2.545 7.0 2 5 5 0 500 159 5.040 A v g . 2.3 6 6 2 .545 7.1 2 9 0 0 683 223 3.976 7 E vo th e r m? 16 42.1 962 .2 1648.5 2 .3 93 2.547 6.0 2 6 0 0 113 6 135 2.218 8 E vo th e r m? 16 26.3 953 .9 1634.6 2 .3 89 2.547 6.2 2 5 0 0 609 100 4.138 A v g . 2.3 9 1 2 .547 6.1 2 5 5 0 873 118 3.178 TA BLE G 2 Ham b ur g W h e e l T r ac king De v i c e R e sult s - Lim e st o n e Creep Sl ope (cy c l e s ) S t r i ppi ng Slop e Slop e Ru tti ng Rat e (mm/hr) Bulk (Gmb) TMD (Gmm) VT M , % S t ri ppi ng I n fl ect ion P o in t (cy c l e s) In W a t e r (gm s ) SS D (gm s ) Ag g r eg at e: Sam p l e Hei g h t (m m ) : Asp h a lt Co n t e n t (% ): T e stin g Te m p e r a t u r e (? F ) Com p a c t i on Tem p eratu r e (? F): Sample Number A d di ti ve In A i r (g ms) 180 G r anite 40 5.1 12 2 250 1 Z eolit e 1.5% Hy dra t e d L i m e ; All Adde d Dry 1616.8 924.2 1 6 31.3 2 .28 7 2.451 6.7 N A 4301 NA 0 . 586 2 Z eolit e 1.5% Hy dra t e d L i m e ; All Adde d Dry 1480.6 841.1 1 4 88.3 2 .28 8 2.451 6.7 N A 3203 NA 0 . 787 Avg . 2.28 7 2 .451 6 . 700 N A 3752 NA 0 . 687 3 Z eolit e 1.5% Hy dra t e d L i m e ; Two St a g e Additi on 1495.2 856.8 1 5 10.5 2 .28 7 2.452 6.7 7000 1030 457 2 . 446 4 Z eolit e 1.5% Hy dra t e d L i m e ; Two St a g e Additi on 1522.6 871.8 1 5 32.7 2 .30 4 2.452 6.0 N A 1828 NA 1 . 378 Avg . 2.29 6 2 .452 6 . 350 8500 1429 457 1 . 912 5 S a s obi t? 0.4% Mag n a bond 1548.0 884.2 1 5 65.3 2 .27 3 2.469 7.9 N A 1 5 417 NA 0 . 613 6 S a s obi t? 0.4% Mag n a bond Avg . 2.27 3 2 .469 7.9 N A 1 5 417 NA 0 . 613 TABL E G 3 Ham bu r g Wh e e l Trac k i n g Device R e su lts - Gr an ite w i th Anti-str i p p i n g Ad d i t i ve s Rutt ing Rate (mm/ hr ) St r i pping I n fle c ti on P o int (c y c l e s ) S t rippi ng S l ope S l ope SS D (g m s ) B u lk (Gmb) TMD (Gmm ) VTM, % Comp a c tion Te m p e r a t ur e (?F) : Cree p S l ope (c y c l e s) S a m p le Nu m b er A n t i -St r i pping Addi tive I n Air (g ms) In W a t e r (g ms) A ddi tive Sampl e H e ig ht (mm): Te s ting Te mp e r a t u r e (?F) Ag g r e g ate: Asphalt C ontent ( % ) : 181 APPENDIX H: MINITAB? STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 182 COMBINED STATISTICAL ANALYSIS General Linear Model: Air Voids, Modulus, ... versus Aggregate, Additive, ... Factor Type Levels Values Aggregate fixed 2 Granite, LMS Additive fixed 4 Evotherm, None, Sasobit, Zeolite Temp fixed 4 190, 230, 265, 300 Analysis of Variance for Air Voids, using Adjusted SS for Tests Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P Aggregate 1 28.5208 28.5208 28.5208 101.42 0.000 Additive 3 56.6346 56.6346 18.8782 67.13 0.000 Temp 3 26.4346 26.4346 8.8115 31.33 0.000 Aggregate*Additive 3 4.2771 4.2771 1.4257 5.07 0.002 Aggregate*Temp 3 3.9504 3.9504 1.3168 4.68 0.004 Additive*Temp 9 20.1117 20.1117 2.2346 7.95 0.000 Aggregate*Additive*Temp 9 5.0767 5.0767 0.5641 2.01 0.042 Error 160 44.9933 44.9933 0.2812 Total 191 189.9992 S = 0.530291 R-Sq = 76.32% R-Sq(adj) = 71.73% Unusual Observations for Air Voids Obs Air Voids Fit SE Fit Residual St Resid 1 7.50000 6.15000 0.21649 1.35000 2.79 R 25 5.90000 6.96667 0.21649 -1.06667 -2.20 R 26 5.50000 6.96667 0.21649 -1.46667 -3.03 R 27 9.70000 6.96667 0.21649 2.73333 5.65 R 32 5.20000 6.18333 0.21649 -0.98333 -2.03 R 36 7.20000 6.18333 0.21649 1.01667 2.10 R 58 5.00000 6.00000 0.21649 -1.00000 -2.07 R 68 6.90000 5.23333 0.21649 1.66667 3.44 R 96 6.80000 5.51667 0.21649 1.28333 2.65 R 99 6.60000 7.66667 0.21649 -1.06667 -2.20 R R denotes an observation with a large standardized residual. Analysis of Variance for Modulus, using Adjusted SS for Tests Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F Aggregate 1 22292009605 22292009605 22292009605 2.16 Additive 3 88943262649 88943262649 29647754216 2.87 Temp 3 1.70506E+11 1.70506E+11 56835234602 5.51 Aggregate*Additive 3 1.22546E+11 1.22546E+11 40848692842 3.96 Aggregate*Temp 3 23765618753 23765618753 7921872918 0.77 Additive*Temp 9 2.61039E+11 2.61039E+11 29004291952 2.81 Aggregate*Additive*Temp 9 1.06004E+11 1.06004E+11 11778172014 1.14 Error 160 1.65028E+12 1.65028E+12 10314255595 Total 191 2.44538E+12 183 Source P Aggregate 0.143 Additive 0.038 Temp 0.001 Aggregate*Additive 0.009 Aggregate*Temp 0.514 Additive*Temp 0.004 Aggregate*Additive*Temp 0.336 S = 101559 R-Sq = 32.51% R-Sq(adj) = 19.44% Unusual Observations for Modulus Obs Modulus Fit SE Fit Residual St Resid 3 572998 364829 41461 208169 2.25 R 28 577025 337811 41461 239214 2.58 R 44 721394 406652 41461 314742 3.39 R 56 169512 374318 41461 -204806 -2.21 R 58 596461 374318 41461 222143 2.40 R 133 636016 440884 41461 195132 2.10 R 135 253693 440884 41461 -187191 -2.02 R 160 600905 387527 41461 213378 2.30 R 165 716368 460238 41461 256130 2.76 R 183 188353 383625 41461 -195272 -2.11 R R denotes an observation with a large standardized residual. Analysis of Variance for Rut Depth, using Adjusted SS for Tests Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P Aggregate 1 591.93 591.93 591.93 44.85 0.000 Additive 3 113.00 113.00 37.67 2.85 0.039 Temp 3 1450.77 1450.77 483.59 36.64 0.000 Aggregate*Additive 3 194.65 194.65 64.88 4.92 0.003 Aggregate*Temp 3 122.18 122.18 40.73 3.09 0.029 Additive*Temp 9 290.10 290.10 32.23 2.44 0.012 Aggregate*Additive*Temp 9 223.35 223.35 24.82 1.88 0.058 Error 160 2111.86 2111.86 13.20 Total 191 5097.83 S = 3.63306 R-Sq = 58.57% R-Sq(adj) = 50.55% Unusual Observations for Rut Depth Obs Rut Depth Fit SE Fit Residual St Resid 35 22.0300 15.1167 1.4832 6.9133 2.08 R 84 24.3500 17.1650 1.4832 7.1850 2.17 R 87 36.7600 19.5500 1.4832 17.2100 5.19 R 89 10.6800 19.5500 1.4832 -8.8700 -2.67 R 94 5.5300 13.9750 1.4832 -8.4450 -2.55 R 169 17.4300 10.5200 1.4832 6.9100 2.08 R 175 17.7800 10.3800 1.4832 7.4000 2.23 R R denotes an observation with a large standardized residual. 184 Tukey 95.0% Simultaneous Confidence Intervals Response Variable Air Voids All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Additive Additive = Evotherm subtracted from: Additive Lower Center Upper --+---------+---------+---------+---- None 1.2483 1.5292 1.8101 (--*--) Sasobit 0.3628 0.6438 0.9247 (-*--) Zeolite 0.4795 0.7604 1.0413 (--*-) --+---------+---------+---------+---- -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 Additive = None subtracted from: Additive Lower Center Upper --+---------+---------+---------+---- Sasobit -1.166 -0.8854 -0.6045 (--*--) Zeolite -1.050 -0.7687 -0.4878 (-*--) --+---------+---------+---------+---- -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 Additive = Sasobit subtracted from: Additive Lower Center Upper --+---------+---------+---------+---- Zeolite -0.1642 0.1167 0.3976 (--*--) --+---------+---------+---------+---- -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 Tukey Simultaneous Tests Response Variable Air Voids All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Additive Additive = Evotherm subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Additive of Means Difference T-Value P-Value None 1.5292 0.1082 14.127 0.0000 Sasobit 0.6438 0.1082 5.947 0.0000 Zeolite 0.7604 0.1082 7.025 0.0000 Additive = None subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Additive of Means Difference T-Value P-Value Sasobit -0.8854 0.1082 -8.180 0.0000 Zeolite -0.7687 0.1082 -7.102 0.0000 Additive = Sasobit subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Additive of Means Difference T-Value P-Value Zeolite 0.1167 0.1082 1.078 0.7036 185 Tukey 95.0% Simultaneous Confidence Intervals Response Variable Air Voids All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Aggregate Aggregate = Granite subtracted from: Aggregate Lower Center Upper --------+---------+---------+-------- LMS 0.6197 0.7708 0.9220 (--------------*--------------) --------+---------+---------+-------- 0.70 0.80 0.90 Tukey Simultaneous Tests Response Variable Air Voids All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Aggregate Aggregate = Granite subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Aggregate of Means Difference T-Value P-Value LMS 0.7708 0.07654 10.07 0.0000 Tukey 95.0% Simultaneous Confidence Intervals Response Variable Air Voids All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Temp Temp = 190 subtracted from: Temp Lower Center Upper ------+---------+---------+---------+ 230 -0.691 -0.410 -0.1295 (-----*----) 265 -0.625 -0.344 -0.0628 (----*-----) 300 -1.310 -1.029 -0.7483 (----*-----) ------+---------+---------+---------+ -1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 Temp = 230 subtracted from: Temp Lower Center Upper ------+---------+---------+---------+ 265 -0.2142 0.0667 0.3476 (----*-----) 300 -0.8997 -0.6188 -0.3378 (-----*----) ------+---------+---------+---------+ -1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 Temp = 265 subtracted from: Temp Lower Center Upper ------+---------+---------+---------+ 300 -0.9663 -0.6854 -0.4045 (----*-----) ------+---------+---------+---------+ -1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 186 Tukey Simultaneous Tests Response Variable Air Voids All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Temp Temp = 190 subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Temp of Means Difference T-Value P-Value 230 -0.410 0.1082 -3.792 0.0012 265 -0.344 0.1082 -3.176 0.0096 300 -1.029 0.1082 -9.508 0.0000 Temp = 230 subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Temp of Means Difference T-Value P-Value 265 0.0667 0.1082 0.616 0.9269 300 -0.6188 0.1082 -5.716 0.0000 Temp = 265 subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Temp of Means Difference T-Value P-Value 300 -0.6854 0.1082 -6.332 0.0000 Tukey 95.0% Simultaneous Confidence Intervals Response Variable Modulus All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Additive Additive = Evotherm subtracted from: Additive Lower Center Upper -------+---------+---------+--------- None -91209 -37411 16386 (--------*--------) Sasobit -102573 -48775 5023 (--------*--------) Zeolite -55436 -1639 52159 (--------*--------) -------+---------+---------+--------- -60000 0 60000 Additive = None subtracted from: Additive Lower Center Upper -------+---------+---------+--------- Sasobit -65161 -11364 42434 (--------*--------) Zeolite -18025 35773 89571 (--------*--------) -------+---------+---------+--------- -60000 0 60000 Additive = Sasobit subtracted from: Additive Lower Center Upper -------+---------+---------+--------- Zeolite -6662 47136 100934 (--------*--------) -------+---------+---------+--------- -60000 0 60000 187 Tukey Simultaneous Tests Response Variable Modulus All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Additive Additive = Evotherm subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Additive of Means Difference T-Value P-Value None -37411 20731 -1.805 0.2750 Sasobit -48775 20731 -2.353 0.0907 Zeolite -1639 20731 -0.079 0.9998 Additive = None subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Additive of Means Difference T-Value P-Value Sasobit -11364 20731 -0.5482 0.9469 Zeolite 35773 20731 1.7256 0.3139 Additive = Sasobit subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Additive of Means Difference T-Value P-Value Zeolite 47136 20731 2.274 0.1086 Tukey 95.0% Simultaneous Confidence Intervals Response Variable Modulus All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Aggregate Aggregate = Granite subtracted from: Aggregate Lower Center Upper -----+---------+---------+---------+- LMS -7399 21550 50500 (-----------------*------------------) -----+---------+---------+---------+- 0 16000 32000 48000 Tukey Simultaneous Tests Response Variable Modulus All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Aggregate Aggregate = Granite subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Aggregate of Means Difference T-Value P-Value LMS 21550 14659 1.470 0.1435 188 Tukey 95.0% Simultaneous Confidence Intervals Response Variable Modulus All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Temp Temp = 190 subtracted from: Temp Lower Center Upper --------+---------+---------+-------- 230 -16267 37530 91328 (----------*---------) 265 -2457 51341 105139 (---------*----------) 300 29249 83046 136844 (----------*---------) --------+---------+---------+-------- 0 50000 100000 Temp = 230 subtracted from: Temp Lower Center Upper --------+---------+---------+-------- 265 -39987 13811 67608 (----------*----------) 300 -8282 45516 99314 (----------*----------) --------+---------+---------+-------- 0 50000 100000 Temp = 265 subtracted from: Temp Lower Center Upper --------+---------+---------+-------- 300 -22093 31705 85503 (---------*----------) --------+---------+---------+-------- 0 50000 100000 Tukey Simultaneous Tests Response Variable Modulus All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Temp Temp = 190 subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Temp of Means Difference T-Value P-Value 230 37530 20731 1.810 0.2723 265 51341 20731 2.477 0.0675 300 83046 20731 4.006 0.0006 Temp = 230 subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Temp of Means Difference T-Value P-Value 265 13811 20731 0.6662 0.9097 300 45516 20731 2.1956 0.1289 Temp = 265 subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Temp of Means Difference T-Value P-Value 300 31705 20731 1.529 0.4224 189 Tukey 95.0% Simultaneous Confidence Intervals Response Variable Rut Depth All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Additive Additive = Evotherm subtracted from: Additive Lower Center Upper -------+---------+---------+--------- None -0.163 1.7615 3.686 (---------*--------) Sasobit -1.575 0.3498 2.274 (---------*--------) Zeolite -0.315 1.6092 3.534 (---------*---------) -------+---------+---------+--------- -2.0 0.0 2.0 Additive = None subtracted from: Additive Lower Center Upper -------+---------+---------+--------- Sasobit -3.336 -1.412 0.5128 (---------*---------) Zeolite -2.077 -0.152 1.7722 (--------*---------) -------+---------+---------+--------- -2.0 0.0 2.0 Additive = Sasobit subtracted from: Additive Lower Center Upper -------+---------+---------+--------- Zeolite -0.6651 1.259 3.184 (--------*---------) -------+---------+---------+--------- -2.0 0.0 2.0 Tukey Simultaneous Tests Response Variable Rut Depth All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Additive Additive = Evotherm subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Additive of Means Difference T-Value P-Value None 1.7615 0.7416 2.3752 0.0861 Sasobit 0.3498 0.7416 0.4717 0.9652 Zeolite 1.6092 0.7416 2.1699 0.1362 Additive = None subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Additive of Means Difference T-Value P-Value Sasobit -1.412 0.7416 -1.904 0.2307 Zeolite -0.152 0.7416 -0.205 0.9969 Additive = Sasobit subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Additive of Means Difference T-Value P-Value Zeolite 1.259 0.7416 1.698 0.3280 190 Tukey 95.0% Simultaneous Confidence Intervals Response Variable Rut Depth All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Aggregate Aggregate = Granite subtracted from: Aggregate Lower Center Upper +---------+---------+---------+------ LMS -4.547 -3.512 -2.476 (------*-----) +---------+---------+---------+------ -4.5 -3.0 -1.5 0.0 Tukey Simultaneous Tests Response Variable Rut Depth All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Aggregate Aggregate = Granite subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Aggregate of Means Difference T-Value P-Value LMS -3.512 0.5244 -6.697 0.0000 Tukey 95.0% Simultaneous Confidence Intervals Response Variable Rut Depth All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Temp Temp = 190 subtracted from: Temp Lower Center Upper -+---------+---------+---------+----- 230 -5.497 -3.573 -1.648 (-----*------) 265 -7.684 -5.760 -3.835 (------*-----) 300 -9.249 -7.325 -5.400 (------*-----) -+---------+---------+---------+----- -9.0 -6.0 -3.0 0.0 Temp = 230 subtracted from: Temp Lower Center Upper -+---------+---------+---------+----- 265 -4.112 -2.187 -0.263 (------*-----) 300 -5.676 -3.752 -1.827 (-----*------) -+---------+---------+---------+----- -9.0 -6.0 -3.0 0.0 Temp = 265 subtracted from: Temp Lower Center Upper -+---------+---------+---------+----- 300 -3.489 -1.565 0.3597 (------*-----) -+---------+---------+---------+----- -9.0 -6.0 -3.0 0.0 191 Tukey Simultaneous Tests Response Variable Rut Depth All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Temp Temp = 190 subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Temp of Means Difference T-Value P-Value 230 -3.573 0.7416 -4.818 0.0000 265 -5.760 0.7416 -7.767 0.0000 300 -7.325 0.7416 -9.877 0.0000 Temp = 230 subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Temp of Means Difference T-Value P-Value 265 -2.187 0.7416 -2.949 0.0190 300 -3.752 0.7416 -5.059 0.0000 Temp = 265 subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Temp of Means Difference T-Value P-Value 300 -1.565 0.7416 -2.110 0.1543 192 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS FOR 265?F COMPACTION TEMPERATURE General Linear Model: Air Voids, Modulus, ... versus Aggregate, Additive Factor Type Levels Values Aggregate fixed 2 Granite, LMS Additive fixed 5 Evotherm, HMA, None, Sasobit, Zeolite Analysis of Variance for Air Voids, using Adjusted SS for Tests Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P Aggregate 1 4.5375 4.5375 4.5375 9.51 0.003 Additive 4 27.8583 27.8583 6.9646 14.59 0.000 Aggregate*Additive 4 3.7617 3.7617 0.9404 1.97 0.113 Error 50 23.8683 23.8683 0.4774 Total 59 60.0258 S = 0.690917 R-Sq = 60.24% R-Sq(adj) = 53.08% Unusual Observations for Air Voids Obs Air Voids Fit SE Fit Residual St Resid 1 7.50000 6.15000 0.28207 1.35000 2.14 R 8 5.50000 6.96667 0.28207 -1.46667 -2.33 R 9 9.70000 6.96667 0.28207 2.73333 4.33 R R denotes an observation with a large standardized residual. Analysis of Variance for Modulus, using Adjusted SS for Tests Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P Aggregate 1 8453173032 8453173032 8453173032 0.62 0.434 Additive 4 21688401978 21688401978 5422100495 0.40 0.809 Aggregate*Additive 4 55563647537 55563647537 13890911884 1.02 0.405 Error 50 6.79997E+11 6.79997E+11 13599931505 Total 59 7.65702E+11 S = 116619 R-Sq = 11.19% R-Sq(adj) = 0.00% Unusual Observations for Modulus Obs Modulus Fit SE Fit Residual St Resid 10 577025 337811 47609 239214 2.25 R 26 721394 406652 47609 314742 2.96 R R denotes an observation with a large standardized residual. Analysis of Variance for Rut Depth, using Adjusted SS for Tests Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P Aggregate 1 125.976 125.976 125.976 21.35 0.000 Additive 4 174.345 174.345 43.586 7.39 0.000 Aggregate*Additive 4 112.525 112.525 28.131 4.77 0.002 Error 50 294.994 294.994 5.900 Total 59 707.840 193 S = 2.42897 R-Sq = 58.32% R-Sq(adj) = 50.82% Unusual Observations for Rut Depth Obs Rut Depth Fit SE Fit Residual St Resid 13 10.6300 15.1167 0.9916 -4.4867 -2.02 R 17 22.0300 15.1167 0.9916 6.9133 3.12 R 48 12.4800 7.7317 0.9916 4.7483 2.14 R R denotes an observation with a large standardized residual. Tukey 95.0% Simultaneous Confidence Intervals Response Variable Air Voids All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Additive Additive = Evotherm subtracted from: Additive Lower Center Upper -----+---------+---------+---------+- HMA 0.7105 1.5083 2.306 (----*----) None 0.9689 1.7667 2.564 (-----*----) Sasobit -0.5228 0.2750 1.073 (----*----) Zeolite 0.1105 0.9083 1.706 (----*----) -----+---------+---------+---------+- -1.5 0.0 1.5 3.0 Additive = HMA subtracted from: Additive Lower Center Upper -----+---------+---------+---------+- None -0.539 0.258 1.0561 (-----*----) Sasobit -2.031 -1.233 -0.4355 (-----*----) Zeolite -1.398 -0.600 0.1978 (----*----) -----+---------+---------+---------+- -1.5 0.0 1.5 3.0 Additive = None subtracted from: Additive Lower Center Upper -----+---------+---------+---------+- Sasobit -2.289 -1.492 -0.6939 (----*----) Zeolite -1.656 -0.858 -0.0605 (----*-----) -----+---------+---------+---------+- -1.5 0.0 1.5 3.0 Additive = Sasobit subtracted from: Additive Lower Center Upper -----+---------+---------+---------+- Zeolite -0.1645 0.6333 1.431 (----*-----) -----+---------+---------+---------+- -1.5 0.0 1.5 3.0 194 Tukey Simultaneous Tests Response Variable Air Voids All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Additive Additive = Evotherm subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Additive of Means Difference T-Value P-Value HMA 1.5083 0.2821 5.3475 0.0000 None 1.7667 0.2821 6.2633 0.0000 Sasobit 0.2750 0.2821 0.9749 0.8652 Zeolite 0.9083 0.2821 3.2203 0.0183 Additive = HMA subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Additive of Means Difference T-Value P-Value None 0.258 0.2821 0.916 0.8895 Sasobit -1.233 0.2821 -4.373 0.0006 Zeolite -0.600 0.2821 -2.127 0.2250 Additive = None subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Additive of Means Difference T-Value P-Value Sasobit -1.492 0.2821 -5.288 0.0000 Zeolite -0.858 0.2821 -3.043 0.0293 Additive = Sasobit subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Additive of Means Difference T-Value P-Value Zeolite 0.6333 0.2821 2.245 0.1803 Tukey 95.0% Simultaneous Confidence Intervals Response Variable Air Voids All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Aggregate Aggregate = Granite subtracted from: Aggregate Lower Center Upper +---------+---------+---------+------ LMS 0.1917 0.5500 0.9083 (-----------------*----------------) +---------+---------+---------+------ 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 Tukey Simultaneous Tests Response Variable Air Voids All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Aggregate Aggregate = Granite subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Aggregate of Means Difference T-Value P-Value LMS 0.5500 0.1784 3.083 0.0033 195 Tukey 95.0% Simultaneous Confidence Intervals Response Variable Modulus All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Additive Additive = Evotherm subtracted from: Additive Lower Center Upper ---------+---------+---------+------- HMA -161339 -26679 107980 (------------*-------------) None -191319 -56659 78001 (------------*-------------) Sasobit -161032 -26372 108288 (------------*-------------) Zeolite -177857 -43197 91463 (-------------*------------) ---------+---------+---------+------- -100000 0 100000 Additive = HMA subtracted from: Additive Lower Center Upper ---------+---------+---------+------- None -164639 -29980 104680 (------------*------------) Sasobit -134352 307 134967 (------------*------------) Zeolite -151177 -16518 118142 (------------*-------------) ---------+---------+---------+------- -100000 0 100000 Additive = None subtracted from: Additive Lower Center Upper ---------+---------+---------+------- Sasobit -104373 30287 164947 (------------*------------) Zeolite -121198 13462 148122 (------------*-------------) ---------+---------+---------+------- -100000 0 100000 Additive = Sasobit subtracted from: Additive Lower Center Upper ---------+---------+---------+------- Zeolite -151485 -16825 117835 (------------*-------------) ---------+---------+---------+------- -100000 0 100000 196 Tukey Simultaneous Tests Response Variable Modulus All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Additive Additive = Evotherm subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Additive of Means Difference T-Value P-Value HMA -26679 47609 -0.560 0.9801 None -56659 47609 -1.190 0.7570 Sasobit -26372 47609 -0.554 0.9810 Zeolite -43197 47609 -0.907 0.8928 Additive = HMA subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Additive of Means Difference T-Value P-Value None -29980 47609 -0.6297 0.9695 Sasobit 307 47609 0.0065 1.0000 Zeolite -16518 47609 -0.3469 0.9968 Additive = None subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Additive of Means Difference T-Value P-Value Sasobit 30287 47609 0.6362 0.9684 Zeolite 13462 47609 0.2828 0.9986 Additive = Sasobit subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Additive of Means Difference T-Value P-Value Zeolite -16825 47609 -0.3534 0.9965 Tukey 95.0% Simultaneous Confidence Intervals Response Variable Modulus All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Aggregate Aggregate = Granite subtracted from: Aggregate Lower Center Upper +---------+---------+---------+------ LMS -36740 23739 84218 (----------------*----------------) +---------+---------+---------+------ -35000 0 35000 70000 Tukey Simultaneous Tests Response Variable Modulus All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Aggregate Aggregate = Granite subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Aggregate of Means Difference T-Value P-Value LMS 23739 30111 0.7884 0.4342 197 Tukey 95.0% Simultaneous Confidence Intervals Response Variable Rut Depth All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Additive Additive = Evotherm subtracted from: Additive Lower Center Upper -----+---------+---------+---------+- HMA -2.275 0.5300 3.335 (-------*-------) None -0.345 2.4600 5.265 (-------*-------) Sasobit -2.702 0.1025 2.907 (-------*-------) Zeolite 1.604 4.4092 7.214 (-------*-------) -----+---------+---------+---------+- -3.5 0.0 3.5 7.0 Additive = HMA subtracted from: Additive Lower Center Upper -----+---------+---------+---------+- None -0.875 1.9300 4.735 (-------*-------) Sasobit -3.232 -0.4275 2.377 (-------*-------) Zeolite 1.074 3.8792 6.684 (-------*-------) -----+---------+---------+---------+- -3.5 0.0 3.5 7.0 Additive = None subtracted from: Additive Lower Center Upper -----+---------+---------+---------+- Sasobit -5.162 -2.358 0.4472 (-------*-------) Zeolite -0.856 1.949 4.7539 (-------*-------) -----+---------+---------+---------+- -3.5 0.0 3.5 7.0 Additive = Sasobit subtracted from: Additive Lower Center Upper -----+---------+---------+---------+- Zeolite 1.502 4.307 7.111 (-------*-------) -----+---------+---------+---------+- -3.5 0.0 3.5 7.0 198 Tukey Simultaneous Tests Response Variable Rut Depth All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Additive Additive = Evotherm subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Additive of Means Difference T-Value P-Value HMA 0.5300 0.9916 0.5345 0.9833 None 2.4600 0.9916 2.4808 0.1115 Sasobit 0.1025 0.9916 0.1034 1.0000 Zeolite 4.4092 0.9916 4.4464 0.0005 Additive = HMA subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Additive of Means Difference T-Value P-Value None 1.9300 0.9916 1.9463 0.3071 Sasobit -0.4275 0.9916 -0.4311 0.9926 Zeolite 3.8792 0.9916 3.9119 0.0025 Additive = None subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Additive of Means Difference T-Value P-Value Sasobit -2.358 0.9916 -2.377 0.1385 Zeolite 1.949 0.9916 1.966 0.2975 Additive = Sasobit subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Additive of Means Difference T-Value P-Value Zeolite 4.307 0.9916 4.343 0.0006 Tukey 95.0% Simultaneous Confidence Intervals Response Variable Rut Depth All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Aggregate Aggregate = Granite subtracted from: Aggregate Lower Center Upper -----+---------+---------+---------+- LMS -4.158 -2.898 -1.638 (----------*---------) -----+---------+---------+---------+- -3.6 -2.4 -1.2 0.0 Tukey Simultaneous Tests Response Variable Rut Depth All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Aggregate Aggregate = Granite subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Aggregate of Means Difference T-Value P-Value LMS -2.898 0.6272 -4.621 0.0000 199 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS FOR 230?F COMPACTION TEMPERATURE General Linear Model: Air Voids, Modulus, ... versus Aggregate, Additive Factor Type Levels Values Aggregate fixed 2 Granite, LMS Additive fixed 5 Evotherm, HMA, None, Sasobit, Zeolite Analysis of Variance for Air Voids, using Adjusted SS for Tests Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P Aggregate 1 20.0682 20.0682 20.0682 63.11 0.000 Additive 4 9.0277 9.0277 2.2569 7.10 0.000 Aggregate*Additive 4 6.6277 6.6277 1.6569 5.21 0.001 Error 50 15.8983 15.8983 0.3180 Total 59 51.6218 S = 0.563885 R-Sq = 69.20% R-Sq(adj) = 63.66% Unusual Observations for Air Voids Obs Air Voids Fit SE Fit Residual St Resid 1 7.50000 6.15000 0.23021 1.35000 2.62 R 26 6.90000 5.23333 0.23021 1.66667 3.24 R 33 6.60000 7.66667 0.23021 -1.06667 -2.07 R R denotes an observation with a large standardized residual. Analysis of Variance for Modulus, using Adjusted SS for Tests Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P Aggregate 1 22380599681 22380599681 22380599681 2.04 0.159 Additive 4 21892539815 21892539815 5473134954 0.50 0.736 Aggregate*Additive 4 1.12300E+11 1.12300E+11 28074882969 2.56 0.050 Error 50 5.47943E+11 5.47943E+11 10958869641 Total 59 7.04516E+11 S = 104685 R-Sq = 22.22% R-Sq(adj) = 8.22% Unusual Observations for Modulus Obs Modulus Fit SE Fit Residual St Resid 3 572998 364830 42737 208169 2.18 R 14 169512 374318 42737 -204806 -2.14 R 16 596461 374318 42737 222143 2.32 R 52 600905 387527 42737 213378 2.23 R 57 716368 460238 42737 256130 2.68 R R denotes an observation with a large standardized residual. 200 Analysis of Variance for Rut Depth, using Adjusted SS for Tests Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P Aggregate 1 128.715 128.715 128.715 15.90 0.000 Additive 4 256.354 256.354 64.088 7.91 0.000 Aggregate*Additive 4 44.025 44.025 11.006 1.36 0.261 Error 50 404.860 404.860 8.097 Total 59 833.953 S = 2.84556 R-Sq = 51.45% R-Sq(adj) = 42.71% Unusual Observations for Rut Depth Obs Rut Depth Fit SE Fit Residual St Resid 38 4.9600 10.2717 1.1617 -5.3117 -2.04 R 41 16.1200 10.2717 1.1617 5.8483 2.25 R R denotes an observation with a large standardized residual. Tukey 95.0% Simultaneous Confidence Intervals Response Variable Air Voids All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Additive Additive = Evotherm subtracted from: Additive Lower Center Upper -----+---------+---------+---------+- HMA 0.5239 1.1750 1.8261 (------*-----) None -0.0428 0.6083 1.2595 (-----*------) Sasobit -0.3095 0.3417 0.9928 (-----*------) Zeolite -0.2511 0.4000 1.0511 (------*------) -----+---------+---------+---------+- -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 Additive = HMA subtracted from: Additive Lower Center Upper -----+---------+---------+---------+- None -1.218 -0.5667 0.0845 (-----*------) Sasobit -1.484 -0.8333 -0.1822 (------*-----) Zeolite -1.426 -0.7750 -0.1239 (-----*------) -----+---------+---------+---------+- -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 Additive = None subtracted from: Additive Lower Center Upper -----+---------+---------+---------+- Sasobit -0.9178 -0.2667 0.3845 (-----*------) Zeolite -0.8595 -0.2083 0.4428 (------*-----) -----+---------+---------+---------+- -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 Additive = Sasobit subtracted from: Additive Lower Center Upper -----+---------+---------+---------+- Zeolite -0.5928 0.05833 0.7095 (------*-----) -----+---------+---------+---------+- -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 201 Tukey Simultaneous Tests Response Variable Air Voids All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Additive Additive = Evotherm subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Additive of Means Difference T-Value P-Value HMA 1.1750 0.2302 5.104 0.0001 None 0.6083 0.2302 2.643 0.0778 Sasobit 0.3417 0.2302 1.484 0.5774 Zeolite 0.4000 0.2302 1.738 0.4210 Additive = HMA subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Additive of Means Difference T-Value P-Value None -0.5667 0.2302 -2.462 0.1161 Sasobit -0.8333 0.2302 -3.620 0.0059 Zeolite -0.7750 0.2302 -3.367 0.0122 Additive = None subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Additive of Means Difference T-Value P-Value Sasobit -0.2667 0.2302 -1.158 0.7746 Zeolite -0.2083 0.2302 -0.905 0.8937 Additive = Sasobit subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Additive of Means Difference T-Value P-Value Zeolite 0.05833 0.2302 0.2534 0.9991 Tukey 95.0% Simultaneous Confidence Intervals Response Variable Air Voids All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Aggregate Aggregate = Granite subtracted from: Aggregate Lower Center Upper ------+---------+---------+---------+ LMS 0.8642 1.157 1.449 (-----------------*------------------) ------+---------+---------+---------+ 0.96 1.12 1.28 1.44 Tukey Simultaneous Tests Response Variable Air Voids All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Aggregate Aggregate = Granite subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Aggregate of Means Difference T-Value P-Value LMS 1.157 0.1456 7.944 0.0000 202 Tukey 95.0% Simultaneous Confidence Intervals Response Variable Modulus All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Additive Additive = Evotherm subtracted from: Additive Lower Center Upper -------+---------+---------+--------- HMA -132531 -11652 109228 (-----------*-----------) None -147229 -26350 94530 (-----------*-----------) Sasobit -171489 -50609 70270 (-----------*-----------) Zeolite -165280 -44400 76479 (------------*-----------) -------+---------+---------+--------- -100000 0 100000 Additive = HMA subtracted from: Additive Lower Center Upper -------+---------+---------+--------- None -135578 -14698 106181 (------------*-----------) Sasobit -159837 -38958 81921 (-----------*-----------) Zeolite -153628 -32749 88131 (-----------*-----------) -------+---------+---------+--------- -100000 0 100000 Additive = None subtracted from: Additive Lower Center Upper -------+---------+---------+--------- Sasobit -145139 -24260 96620 (------------*-----------) Zeolite -138930 -18050 102829 (-----------*-----------) -------+---------+---------+--------- -100000 0 100000 Additive = Sasobit subtracted from: Additive Lower Center Upper -------+---------+---------+--------- Zeolite -114670 6209 127089 (-----------*-----------) -------+---------+---------+--------- -100000 0 100000 203 Tukey Simultaneous Tests Response Variable Modulus All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Additive Additive = Evotherm subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Additive of Means Difference T-Value P-Value HMA -11652 42737 -0.273 0.9987 None -26350 42737 -0.617 0.9718 Sasobit -50609 42737 -1.184 0.7603 Zeolite -44400 42737 -1.039 0.8361 Additive = HMA subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Additive of Means Difference T-Value P-Value None -14698 42737 -0.3439 0.9969 Sasobit -38958 42737 -0.9116 0.8911 Zeolite -32749 42737 -0.7663 0.9391 Additive = None subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Additive of Means Difference T-Value P-Value Sasobit -24260 42737 -0.5676 0.9791 Zeolite -18050 42737 -0.4224 0.9931 Additive = Sasobit subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Additive of Means Difference T-Value P-Value Zeolite 6209 42737 0.1453 0.9999 Tukey 95.0% Simultaneous Confidence Intervals Response Variable Modulus All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Aggregate Aggregate = Granite subtracted from: Aggregate Lower Center Upper -----+---------+---------+---------+- LMS -15663 38627 92917 (-----------------*-----------------) -----+---------+---------+---------+- 0 30000 60000 90000 Tukey Simultaneous Tests Response Variable Modulus All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Aggregate Aggregate = Granite subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Aggregate of Means Difference T-Value P-Value LMS 38627 27029 1.429 0.1592 204 Tukey 95.0% Simultaneous Confidence Intervals Response Variable Rut Depth All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Additive Additive = Evotherm subtracted from: Additive Lower Center Upper ------+---------+---------+---------+ HMA -7.337 -4.052 -0.7659 (------*-----) None -1.851 1.435 4.7208 (------*-----) Sasobit -6.646 -3.360 -0.0742 (-----*------) Zeolite -3.967 -0.682 2.6041 (------*-----) ------+---------+---------+---------+ -5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 Additive = HMA subtracted from: Additive Lower Center Upper ------+---------+---------+---------+ None 2.201 5.4867 8.772 (------*------) Sasobit -2.594 0.6917 3.977 (-----*------) Zeolite 0.084 3.3700 6.656 (------*-----) ------+---------+---------+---------+ -5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 Additive = None subtracted from: Additive Lower Center Upper ------+---------+---------+---------+ Sasobit -8.081 -4.795 -1.509 (-----*------) Zeolite -5.402 -2.117 1.169 (------*-----) ------+---------+---------+---------+ -5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 Additive = Sasobit subtracted from: Additive Lower Center Upper ------+---------+---------+---------+ Zeolite -0.6074 2.678 5.964 (-----*------) ------+---------+---------+---------+ -5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 205 Tukey Simultaneous Tests Response Variable Rut Depth All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Additive Additive = Evotherm subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Additive of Means Difference T-Value P-Value HMA -4.052 1.162 -3.488 0.0087 None 1.435 1.162 1.235 0.7310 Sasobit -3.360 1.162 -2.892 0.0429 Zeolite -0.682 1.162 -0.587 0.9764 Additive = HMA subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Additive of Means Difference T-Value P-Value None 5.4867 1.162 4.7230 0.0002 Sasobit 0.6917 1.162 0.5954 0.9752 Zeolite 3.3700 1.162 2.9009 0.0420 Additive = None subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Additive of Means Difference T-Value P-Value Sasobit -4.795 1.162 -4.128 0.0013 Zeolite -2.117 1.162 -1.822 0.3727 Additive = Sasobit subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Additive of Means Difference T-Value P-Value Zeolite 2.678 1.162 2.306 0.1602 Tukey 95.0% Simultaneous Confidence Intervals Response Variable Rut Depth All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Aggregate Aggregate = Granite subtracted from: Aggregate Lower Center Upper -------+---------+---------+--------- LMS -4.405 -2.929 -1.454 (------------*-----------) -------+---------+---------+--------- -3.6 -2.4 -1.2 Tukey Simultaneous Tests Response Variable Rut Depth All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Aggregate Aggregate = Granite subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Aggregate of Means Difference T-Value P-Value LMS -2.929 0.7347 -3.987 0.0002 206 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS FOR 190?F COMPACTION TEMPERATURE General Linear Model: Air Voids, Modulus, ... versus Aggregate, Additive Factor Type Levels Values Aggregate fixed 2 Granite, LMS Additive fixed 5 Evotherm, HMA, None, Sasobit, Zeolite Analysis of Variance for Air Voids, using Adjusted SS for Tests Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P Aggregate 1 16.6427 16.6427 16.6427 76.98 0.000 Additive 4 10.3967 10.3967 2.5992 12.02 0.000 Aggregate*Additive 4 1.3440 1.3440 0.3360 1.55 0.201 Error 50 10.8100 10.8100 0.2162 Total 59 39.1933 S = 0.464973 R-Sq = 72.42% R-Sq(adj) = 67.45% Unusual Observations for Air Voids Obs Air Voids Fit SE Fit Residual St Resid 1 7.50000 6.15000 0.18982 1.35000 3.18 R 4 5.30000 6.15000 0.18982 -0.85000 -2.00 R 9 6.60000 7.66667 0.18982 -1.06667 -2.51 R 36 6.80000 5.51667 0.18982 1.28333 3.02 R 51 6.40000 7.25000 0.18982 -0.85000 -2.00 R R denotes an observation with a large standardized residual. Analysis of Variance for Modulus, using Adjusted SS for Tests Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P Aggregate 1 7917139062 7917139062 7917139062 1.10 0.299 Additive 4 40863477858 40863477858 10215869465 1.42 0.241 Aggregate*Additive 4 54378971105 54378971105 13594742776 1.89 0.127 Error 50 3.59371E+11 3.59371E+11 7187410097 Total 59 4.62530E+11 S = 84778.6 R-Sq = 22.30% R-Sq(adj) = 8.32% Unusual Observations for Modulus Obs Modulus Fit SE Fit Residual St Resid 3 572998 364830 34611 208168 2.69 R 51 188353 383625 34611 -195272 -2.52 R 53 566745 383625 34611 183120 2.37 R R denotes an observation with a large standardized residual. 207 Analysis of Variance for Rut Depth, using Adjusted SS for Tests Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P Aggregate 1 327.09 327.09 327.09 12.76 0.001 Additive 4 529.89 529.89 132.47 5.17 0.001 Aggregate*Additive 4 151.50 151.50 37.87 1.48 0.223 Error 50 1282.02 1282.02 25.64 Total 59 2290.49 S = 5.06363 R-Sq = 44.03% R-Sq(adj) = 33.95% Unusual Observations for Rut Depth Obs Rut Depth Fit SE Fit Residual St Resid 27 36.7600 19.5500 2.0672 17.2100 3.72 R R denotes an observation with a large standardized residual. Tukey 95.0% Simultaneous Confidence Intervals Response Variable Air Voids All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Additive Additive = Evotherm subtracted from: Additive Lower Center Upper ---+---------+---------+---------+--- HMA 0.538095 1.0750 1.612 (-----*------) None 0.538095 1.0750 1.612 (-----*------) Sasobit 0.438095 0.9750 1.512 (------*------) Zeolite 0.004762 0.5417 1.079 (------*-----) ---+---------+---------+---------+--- -0.80 0.00 0.80 1.60 Additive = HMA subtracted from: Additive Lower Center Upper ---+---------+---------+---------+--- None -0.537 0.0000 0.536905 (------*------) Sasobit -0.637 -0.1000 0.436905 (------*-----) Zeolite -1.070 -0.5333 0.003571 (-----*------) ---+---------+---------+---------+--- -0.80 0.00 0.80 1.60 Additive = None subtracted from: Additive Lower Center Upper ---+---------+---------+---------+--- Sasobit -0.637 -0.1000 0.436905 (------*-----) Zeolite -1.070 -0.5333 0.003571 (-----*------) ---+---------+---------+---------+--- -0.80 0.00 0.80 1.60 Additive = Sasobit subtracted from: Additive Lower Center Upper ---+---------+---------+---------+--- Zeolite -0.9702 -0.4333 0.1036 (------*-----) ---+---------+---------+---------+--- -0.80 0.00 0.80 1.60 208 Tukey Simultaneous Tests Response Variable Air Voids All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Additive Additive = Evotherm subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Additive of Means Difference T-Value P-Value HMA 1.0750 0.1898 5.663 0.0000 None 1.0750 0.1898 5.663 0.0000 Sasobit 0.9750 0.1898 5.136 0.0001 Zeolite 0.5417 0.1898 2.854 0.0472 Additive = HMA subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Additive of Means Difference T-Value P-Value None 0.0000 0.1898 0.000 1.0000 Sasobit -0.1000 0.1898 -0.527 0.9842 Zeolite -0.5333 0.1898 -2.810 0.0525 Additive = None subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Additive of Means Difference T-Value P-Value Sasobit -0.1000 0.1898 -0.527 0.9842 Zeolite -0.5333 0.1898 -2.810 0.0525 Additive = Sasobit subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Additive of Means Difference T-Value P-Value Zeolite -0.4333 0.1898 -2.283 0.1676 Tukey 95.0% Simultaneous Confidence Intervals Response Variable Air Voids All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Aggregate Aggregate = Granite subtracted from: Aggregate Lower Center Upper ------+---------+---------+---------+ LMS 0.8122 1.053 1.294 (---------------*---------------) ------+---------+---------+---------+ 0.90 1.05 1.20 1.35 Tukey Simultaneous Tests Response Variable Air Voids All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Aggregate Aggregate = Granite subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Aggregate of Means Difference T-Value P-Value LMS 1.053 0.1201 8.774 0.0000 209 Tukey 95.0% Simultaneous Confidence Intervals Response Variable Modulus All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Additive Additive = Evotherm subtracted from: Additive Lower Center Upper -------+---------+---------+--------- HMA -63125 34769 132663 (--------*---------) None -133225 -35331 62563 (--------*---------) Sasobit -113243 -15349 82545 (--------*---------) Zeolite -133013 -35119 62775 (--------*---------) -------+---------+---------+--------- -100000 0 100000 Additive = HMA subtracted from: Additive Lower Center Upper -------+---------+---------+--------- None -167994 -70100 27794 (---------*---------) Sasobit -148012 -50118 47776 (---------*---------) Zeolite -167782 -69888 28006 (---------*---------) -------+---------+---------+--------- -100000 0 100000 Additive = None subtracted from: Additive Lower Center Upper -------+---------+---------+--------- Sasobit -77912 19982.0 117876 (---------*---------) Zeolite -97682 211.5 98105 (---------*---------) -------+---------+---------+--------- -100000 0 100000 Additive = Sasobit subtracted from: Additive Lower Center Upper -------+---------+---------+--------- Zeolite -117664 -19771 78123 (---------*---------) -------+---------+---------+--------- -100000 0 100000 Tukey Simultaneous Tests Response Variable Modulus All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Additive Additive = Evotherm subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Additive of Means Difference T-Value P-Value HMA 34769 34611 1.005 0.8520 None -35331 34611 -1.021 0.8446 Sasobit -15349 34611 -0.443 0.9917 Zeolite -35119 34611 -1.015 0.8474 Additive = HMA subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Additive of Means Difference T-Value P-Value None -70100 34611 -2.025 0.2692 Sasobit -50118 34611 -1.448 0.6002 Zeolite -69888 34611 -2.019 0.2720 210 Additive = None subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Additive of Means Difference T-Value P-Value Sasobit 19982.0 34611 0.577336 0.9778 Zeolite 211.5 34611 0.006111 1.0000 Additive = Sasobit subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Additive of Means Difference T-Value P-Value Zeolite -19771 34611 -0.5712 0.9787 Tukey 95.0% Simultaneous Confidence Intervals Response Variable Modulus All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Aggregate Aggregate = Granite subtracted from: Aggregate Lower Center Upper --------+---------+---------+-------- LMS -20993 22974 66941 (----------------*-----------------) --------+---------+---------+-------- 0 25000 50000 Tukey Simultaneous Tests Response Variable Modulus All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Aggregate Aggregate = Granite subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Aggregate of Means Difference T-Value P-Value LMS 22974 21890 1.050 0.2990 Tukey 95.0% Simultaneous Confidence Intervals Response Variable Rut Depth All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Additive Additive = Evotherm subtracted from: Additive Lower Center Upper -----+---------+---------+---------+- HMA -11.61 -5.758 0.08864 (-------*------) None -4.46 1.384 7.23114 (-------*------) Sasobit -2.84 3.004 8.85114 (-------*------) Zeolite -5.38 0.469 6.31614 (-------*------) -----+---------+---------+---------+- -8.0 0.0 8.0 16.0 Additive = HMA subtracted from: Additive Lower Center Upper -----+---------+---------+---------+- None 1.2955 7.142 12.99 (------*------) Sasobit 2.9155 8.762 14.61 (------*------) Zeolite 0.3805 6.227 12.07 (-------*------) -----+---------+---------+---------+- -8.0 0.0 8.0 16.0 211 Additive = None subtracted from: Additive Lower Center Upper -----+---------+---------+---------+- Sasobit -4.227 1.6200 7.467 (------*------) Zeolite -6.762 -0.9150 4.932 (------*------) -----+---------+---------+---------+- -8.0 0.0 8.0 16.0 Additive = Sasobit subtracted from: Additive Lower Center Upper -----+---------+---------+---------+- Zeolite -8.382 -2.535 3.312 (------*------) -----+---------+---------+---------+- -8.0 0.0 8.0 16.0 Tukey Simultaneous Tests Response Variable Rut Depth All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Additive Additive = Evotherm subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Additive of Means Difference T-Value P-Value HMA -5.758 2.067 -2.786 0.0557 None 1.384 2.067 0.670 0.9620 Sasobit 3.004 2.067 1.453 0.5969 Zeolite 0.469 2.067 0.227 0.9994 Additive = HMA subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Additive of Means Difference T-Value P-Value None 7.142 2.067 3.455 0.0095 Sasobit 8.762 2.067 4.239 0.0009 Zeolite 6.227 2.067 3.013 0.0317 Additive = None subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Additive of Means Difference T-Value P-Value Sasobit 1.6200 2.067 0.7837 0.9342 Zeolite -0.9150 2.067 -0.4426 0.9918 Additive = Sasobit subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Additive of Means Difference T-Value P-Value Zeolite -2.535 2.067 -1.226 0.7362 212 Tukey 95.0% Simultaneous Confidence Intervals Response Variable Rut Depth All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Aggregate Aggregate = Granite subtracted from: Aggregate Lower Center Upper ------+---------+---------+---------+ LMS -7.296 -4.670 -2.044 (------------*------------) ------+---------+---------+---------+ -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 Tukey Simultaneous Tests Response Variable Rut Depth All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Aggregate Aggregate = Granite subtracted from: Difference SE of Adjusted Aggregate of Means Difference T-Value P-Value LMS -4.670 1.307 -3.572 0.0008