Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
NATIONAL ASPHALT
PAVEMENT ASSOCIATION
HMA Pavement
Mix Type
Selection Guide
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
Publications produced and published by the National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA) and the Federal High-
way Administration (FHWA) are copyrighted and may not be republished or copied (including mechanical repro-
ductions) without written consent. To obtain this consent, contact NAPA at the address given in this publication or
call 1-888-468-6499.
NATIONAL ASPHALT
PAVEMENT ASSOCIATION
This document was developed by an expert task group. Its members were:
E. Ray Brown, National Center for Asphalt Technology
Jon Epps, Granite Construction
Jose Garcia, Federal Highway Administration
Wouter Gulden, Georgia Department of Transportation
Kent Hansen, National Asphalt Pavement Association
Jason Harrington, Federal Highway Administration
Larry Michael, Maryland State Highway Administration
Gale Page, Florida Department of Transportation
Karen Petros, Federal Highway Administration
Larry Scofield, Arizona Department of Transportation
Ron Sines, New York Department of Transportation
Jack Weigel, Payne & Dolan Inc.
Mr. Garcia and Mr. Hansen were the principal authors of this report.
Mr. David E. Newcomb was the NAPA staff manager for developing the publication.
iii
Foreword
The HMA Pavement Mix Type Selection Guide provides designers with methods for
selecting appropriate mix types while considering factors such as traffic, environment,
subsurface pavement structure, existing pavement condition and preparation, and
economics. The pavement mix types targeted are Open-Graded Friction Courses
(OGFC), Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA), and fine- and coarse-graded dense mixes. The
Guide combines the selection criteria for these different pavement mix types into
one document.
To develop this document, information was obtained from a combination of literature
reviews, current State DOT/local government practices, and from an expert task group
(ETG) of pavement experts, knowledgeable in the HMA industry, from private and
public organizations. The experts represented different geographical areas of the
country and were jointly selected for their expertise and perspectives in the topic of
pavement mix types by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the National
Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA). The group identified the pertinent pavement
mix type selection details during a technical workshop held in April 2000 at the NAPA
offices in Lanham, Maryland.
This document consists of guidelines for maximizing the effectiveness of SMA, OGFC,
fine- and coarse-graded dense mixes to ensure the success of each. This Guide is not
intended to cover every situation that will be encountered. However, its purpose is to
provide a valuable reference tool to both pavement designers and field personnel. It
represents a joint product by FHWA and NAPA.
6
HMA Pavement Mix Type
Selection Guide
Traffic
Designation ESALs Typical Roadway Applications
Low <300,000 Roadways with very light traffic volumes such as local roads, county
roads, and city streets where truck traffic is prohibited or at minimum.
Traffic considered local in nature, not regional, intrastate, or interstate.
Special purpose roadways serving recreational sites or areas.
Moderate 300,000 to < 10,000,000 Two-lane, multilane, divided, and partially or completely controlled
access roadways.
Medium to highly trafficked city streets, state routes, U.S. highways,
and some rural interstates.
High > 10,000,000 Two-lane, multilane, divided, and partially or completely controlled
access roadways.
Medium to highly trafficked city streets, state routes, U.S. highways,
and many of the interstates.
Truck-weighing stations or truck-climbing lanes on two-lane roadways.
FIGURE 2: Recommended General Mix Types for Surface, Intermediate, and Base Courses
Relative Appropriateness of Mix Type
High
Surface Layer
Moderate
Low
Dense SMA OGFC Dense SMA OGFC Dense SMA OGFC
Graded Graded Graded
Low Traffic Medium Traffic High Traffic
Relative Appropriateness of Mix Type
High
Intermediate Layer
Moderate
Low
Dense SMA OGFC Dense SMA OGFC Dense SMA OGFC
Graded Graded Graded
Low Traffic Medium Traffic High Traffic
Relative Appropriateness of Mix Type
High
Base Layer
Moderate
Low
Dense SMA OGFC Dense SMA ATPB Dense SMA ATPB
Graded Graded Graded
Low Traffic Medium Traffic High Traffic
FIGURE 3: Recommended Mix Types for Surface, Intermediate and Base Courses
80
Lift Thickness Ranges, mm
75.0 75.0
Recommended Minimum
70.0
70
62.5 62.5
Surface Layer
60
50.0 50.0 57.0
50
50.0 50.0 37.5
40 37.5 37.5 37.5
37.5
30 25.0
30.0 30.0
20 19.0 25.0 25.0 25.0
Low Traffic 19.0
10 Medium Traffic
High Traffic
12.5
0
DFG DFG DFG DFG SMA SMA SMA OFG OGF DCG DCG DCG
4.75 9.5 12.5 19.0 9.5 12.5 19.0 C 9.5 C 12.5 9.5 12.5 19.0
120
Lift Thickness Ranges, mm
Recommended Minimum
Intermediate Layer
100.0 100.0
100
80 75.0
70.0
75.0 75.0 62.5
60
57.0
50.0 50.0
40
0
DFG 19.0 DFG 25.0 DCG 19.0 DCG 25.0 SMA 19.0
140
120
Base Layer
150 mm
150 mm
both important. traffic requires a 150 mm (6")
The total thickness of HMA required for this overlay. Traffic loading is classified
project is 150 mm (6"). Traffic loading is as moderate to high.
classified as moderate.
37.5 mm
Project A: Referring to Figure 2 and then Project B: Referring to Figure 2 and then
Figure 3, a dense fine-graded (DFG) is the most Figure 3, all mix types are considered
highly recommended mix type for this traffic appropriate for this traffic. Because traffic
speeds are low, OGFC is not considered.
level. While SMA may be used in this situation, Resistance to rutting is a major concern due
the traffic level may not warrant the added to a high percentage of trucks, therefore a
expense, and DFG mixes have performed well larger stone mix may be used for the surface
in this area in similar situations. A 9.5 mm since appearance is not an issue. A 12.5 mm
DFG mix is selected, partially for appearance. dense coarse graded mix is selected for the
The mix will be placed 37.5 mm thick. surface. The mix will be placed 37.5 mm thick.
37.5 mm (1 1/2") < 35% Passing 4.75 Sieve > 35% Passing 4.75 Sieve
25.0 mm (1") < 40% Passing 4.75 Sieve > 40% Passing 4.75 Sieve
19.0 mm (3/4") < 35% Passing 2.36 Sieve > 35% Passing 2.36 Sieve
12.5 mm (1/2") < 40% Passing 2.36 Sieve > 40% Passing 2.36 Sieve
9.5 mm (3/8") < 45% Passing 2.36 Sieve > 45% Passing 2.36 Sieve
Fine-Graded Coarse-Graded
Workability (< 25 mm (1") NMS) Increased macro texture (< 25 mm (1") NMS)
150
140
Minimum Lift Thickness Range, mm
120
100
100
100
80 75.0 75.0
70.0 75.0
62.5
60
50.0 57.0
50.0
40 37.5
37.5
32.0 30.0
19.0
20 25.0
12.5
0
4.75 9.5 DFG 9.5 DCG 12.5 DFG 12.5 DCG 19 DFG 19 DCG 25.0 37.5
Mix Type, mm
Legend: Fine Graded Coarse Graded
Mix Purpose
Nominal Max. Agg. 4.75 and 9.5 mm 12.5 mm 19 mm 25.0 and 37.5 mm
Layer
Surface Wearing surface Wearing surface Friction N/A
Friction Friction Structure
Smoothness Smoothness
Structure
Intermediate Leveling Structure Structure
Smoothness Smoothness
Base N/A
A core sample of 25.0 mm shows a dense-graded mix. Samples of 9.5 and 12.5 mm dense-graded mixs.
Other Fibers
Antistrip as determined by testing
20 25.0
10
Mix Type, mm
The difference in aggregate structure between dense-graded
and SMA is shown in these core samples.
Mix Purpose
Layer
Surface Wearing surface
Friction
Structure
Smoothness
2. All European agencies specify minimum air voids, Binder draindown evaluation.
whereas few U.S. agencies do. The National Center for Asphalt Technology (NCAT)
3. European gradations generally allow for more gap- Report 99-3, Design of New-Generation Open Graded
graded mixtures, but not always. Friction Courses, provides a recommended mix design
4. European agencies use modified binders almost ex- procedure for OGFCs.
clusively.
5. U.S. agencies are shifting toward modified binders. TABLE 8: Materials for Open-graded Mixes
6. Aggregate standards are higher in Europe.
7. The higher air void contents specified in European Layer Traffic Medium High
mixtures require hard aggregates with a minimal ten- Surface Aggregate Crushed stone
dency to break or degrade during construction. OGFC Crushed gravel
or PEB Manufactured sands
As previously stated, both OGFC and PEM are used
as surface mixtures only. They reduce splash/spray from Asphalt Binder Modified binder
tires in wet weather and typically result in a smoother Other Fibers
surface than dense-graded HMA. Both are more expen- Antistrip as determined
by testing
sive per ton than dense-graded HMA, but the unit weight
of the mix in-place is lower, which partially offsets this Base Aggregate Crushed stone
higher cost. Both mixtures should only be used on high- ATPB Crushed gravel
or medium-traffic volume roadways with posted high Manufactured sands
speeds only. Higher speed traffic helps to keep the pores Asphalt Binder Unmodified
from clogging.
Other Antistrip as determined
In freezing climates, OGFC and PEM mixtures re- by testing
quire a different approach for winter maintenance. The
80
75.0
Minimum Lift Thickness Range, mm
70
60
50.0
50
40 37.50
37.5
30
25.0
25.0 25.0
20
19.0
10
0
9.5 Surface 12.5 Surface 12.5 ATPB 19.0 ATPB
Mix Type, mm
EXAMPLE 1: A structural evaluation for a new pavement on a high volume, urban highway
with heavy truck traffic requires a total thickness of 300 mm (12") of HMA.
State 1
Step 1: A 9.5 mm SMA surface is selected for its durability and resistance
to rutting from the heavy traffic. The mix will be placed 25 mm (1") thick.
The mix would include modified asphalt binder and fibers.
selected for its resistance to rutting for the intermediate course. The mix
will be placed in two lifts 75 mm (3") thick each, for a total depth of
150 mm (6").
Step 3: The remaining 125 mm (5") of the structural section will use two
lifts of a 19.0 mm dense, coarse-graded mix with an unmodified binder as
a HMA base course. An unmodified binder is used for this layer since
temperatures and compressive stresses that influence rutting are lower
than upper layers.
State 2
Step 1: A 9.5 mm OGFC is selected for friction and splash and spray
reduction. This mix will be placed 19.0 mm (3/4") thick and will use a
polymer modified asphalt binder. Note, this mix is not used for low speeds
and where cross roads are present. Also note that this mix is added to
the thickness of the structural section since it is not considered a
structural layer.
300 mm
Step 3: The remaining 162.5 mm (6.5") of the structural section will use
two lifts of a 25.0 mm dense, fine- or coarse-graded mix as an HMA
base course.
State 1
Step 1: First a surface layer using a 9.5 or 12.5 mm dense, fine-graded mix
is selected. The thickness for the 9.5 mm and 12.5 mm mixes would be
25 mm (1") and 37.5 mm (1.5"), respectively
100 mm
State 2
Step 1: First a 9.5 or 12.5 mm dense, fine-graded HMA is selected for
the surface course. This mix will be placed 37.5 mm (1.5") thick.
100 mm
State 1
First, mill 25 to 37.5 mm (1" to 1-1/2") to remove ruts and surface layer.
Second, choose a 9.5 mm SMA as the surface course for resistance to rutting.
The mix will be placed 37.5 mm (1.5") thick. The mix includes modified asphalt
200 mm
The remaining 200 mm (8") of pavement will consist of multiple layers of 19.0
or 25.0 mm dense coarse-graded mixes.
State 2
First, mill 25 to 37.5 mm (1" to 1-1/2") to remove rutting and top layer.
For the surface course, choose a 12.5 mm dense-graded HMA or SMA if heavy
trucks are present. The mix will be 37.5 mm (1.5") thick. Mixes will use a polymer
200 mm
Finally, the remaining 200 mm (8") of pavement will be placed using a 19mm
dense graded HMA placed in four 50 mm (2") thick lifts to allow traffic to keep
using roadway during construction [maximum allowable drop-off 50 mm (2")].
State 1
First mill about 25 mm (1") to remove ruts and stripping surface layer.
State 2
First mill 37.5 mm (1-1/2") to remove ruts and stripped top layer
bindersThe asphalt binder is either an asphalt cement (AC) or a modified AC, which acts as a binding agent to glue aggregate
particles into a cohesive mass. There are several grades of ACs (binders) that are available commercially. Performance-based speci-
fications are most commonly used to classify asphalt binders into different grades in the United States.
PG gradePerformance Graded (PG) binders are becoming the standard for many areas of the country. The PG binder is
the Superpave binder specification, which is performance-based. Binders are selected on the basis of climate and traffic in
which they are to be used. The PG binders are defined by a term such as PG 58-28. The first number, 58 is the high
temperature grade. This signifies that the binder has adequate physical properties up to at least 58 C. This temperature
corresponds with the high pavement temperature in the climate in which the binder is expected to serve. Similarly, the
second number (-28) is the low temperature grade and signifies that the binder has adequate physical properties in pave-
ments down to at least -28 C. The PG asphalt binder specification differs from other asphalt specifications in that the tests
used measure physical properties that can be directly related to field performance. (Specification Reference - AASHTO
publication MP1, Specification for Performance Graded Binder)
antistrip additiveAdded to mixture or binder to improve the resistance of HMA to moisture damage.
References
1 AASHTO, Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, 1993.
2 Asphalt Institute MS-1, Thickness DesignAsphalt Pavements for Highways and Street.
3 Asphalt Institute MS-17, Asphalt Overlays for Highway and Street Rehabilitation.
4 National Asphalt Pavement Association, IS-117, Guidelines for Use of HMA Overlay to Rehabilitate PCC Pavements.
5 Asphalt Institute, MS-2, Mix Design Methods for Asphalt Concrete and Other Hot Mix Types.
6 Asphalt Institute, SP-2, Superpave Mix Design.
7 Georgia Tech, FHWA Report No. FHWA-GA-95-9217, Optimum Design of Stone Matrix Asphalt, R. Barksdale,
J. Han, S. Miller, and S. Thompson.
8 NCHRP Synthesis 284, Performance Survey on Open-Graded Friction Course Mixes, Gerald Huber, National Academy
Press, 2000.