Analysis of Asphalt Concrete Permeability Data Using

Representative Pore Size

P. J. Vardanega, A.M.ASCE1; and T. J. Waters2

Abstract: The permeability of asphalt concrete has been the subject of much study by pavement engineers over the last decade. The work
undertaken has tended to focus on high air voids as the primary indicator of permeable asphalt concrete. This paper presents a simple
approach for understanding the parameters that affect permeability. Principles explained by Taylor in 1956 in channel theory work for soils
are used to derive a new parameter—representative pore size. Representative pore size is related to the air voids in the compacted mix and
the D75 of the asphalt mix grading curve. Collected Superpave permeability data from published literature and data collected by the writers
at the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads is shown to be better correlated with representative pore size than air voids,
reducing the scatter considerably. Using the database of collected field and laboratory permeability values an equation is proposed that
pavement engineers can use to estimate the permeability of in-place pavements.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000151
CE Database subject headings: Asphalts; Concrete; Permeability; Voids; Regression analysis; Binders, material; Porosity;
Pavements.
Author keywords: Asphalt concrete; Permeability; Grading; Air voids; Regression analysis; Binder .

Introduction
Permeability of asphalt concrete has received a lot of attention by
pavement engineers over the last decade. Excessive permeability
leads to infiltration into road surfacings which leads to damage
caused by an increase in pore pressures that build up under traffic
loads. Predicting the permeability of asphalt is important so that
appropriate compaction criteria can be set for road construction
projects. Darcy’s original formula which holds for laminar flow
[Eq. (1)] defines the coefficient of permeability
Q = kiA (1)
where Q = rate of fluid (water) flow moving through the specimen;
k = coefficient of permeability; i = hydraulic gradient (the head loss
per unit length); and A = total cross-sectional area.
The coefficient of permeability, k, varies depending on the
material being studied. It is this parameter that is usually quoted
when the permeability of an asphalt specimen is requested. Tan et
al. (2000) preferred the generalized flow equation
Q = k'imA (2)
where Q = rate of fluid (water) flow moving through the specimen;
k'= experimental coefficient of permeability; i = hydraulic gradi-
1
Graduate Researcher, Dept. of Engineering, Cambridge Univ.,
Trumpington St., Cambridge, CB2 1PZ U.K.; formerly, Graduate Engi-
neer, Dept. of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland, Australia (corre-
sponding author). E-mail: pjv27@cam.ac.uk
2
Senior Physicist, Dept. of Transport and Main Roads, 35 Butterfield
St., Herston, Brisbane, Queensland 4006, Australia.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 13, 2009; approved
on June 25, 2010; published online on July 10, 2010. Discussion period
open until July 1, 2011; separate discussions must be submitted for indi-
vidual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, Vol. 23, No. 2, February 1, 2011. ©ASCE, ISSN 0899-
1561/2011/2-169–176/$25.00.
ent (the head loss per unit length); m = experimental flow index;
and A = total cross-sectional area.
The m value will vary from approx 0.5 for turbulent flow to
1.0 for laminar flow. The values of k and m vary depending upon
the flow rate. This generalized flow equation was first proposed
by Prony in 1804 (refer to Parkin 1971 and Jaeger 1956, p. 397).
The secret of getting appropriate k and m values is to test at the
hydraulic gradients of interest (Tan et al. 2000).
Literature Review
The literature is extensive on the factors that affect asphalt con-
crete permeability with the following being commonly cited cf.
Abdullah et al. (1998): the percentage of bitumen binder in the
asphalt mix; compaction effort; type of aggregate; nominal maxi-
mum aggregate size (NMAS); lift thickness; aggregate mix gra-
dation; and air voids in the mixture. Cooley et al. (2002)
presented data from 23 hot mix asphalt (HMA) construction
projects and showed the effect of density (air voids) on perme-
ability. They also noted that 9.5- and 12.5-mm NMAS mixtures
had similar permeability characteristics, though larger stone sizes
tended to have higher permeability readings. On the issue of lift
thickness it was shown that increasing lift thickness decreased
permeability in the field.
Tarefder et al. (2005) developed a neural network model using
100 field cores from 50 asphalt mixtures. They found that five
main factors affect the permeability of asphalt concrete: air voids;
D10 (grain size through which 10% of the materials pass); D30
(grain size through which 30% of the materials pass); saturation
characterized by the CoreLok infiltration coefficient and the ef-
fective asphalt to dust ratio (Pbe  P0.075). A higher coefficient of
determination was found using the neural network model as op-
posed to standard multiple linear regression methods. Masad et al.
(2004, 2006) developed an empirical equation based on the
Kozeny-Carman equation to describe permeability of asphalt con-
crete. This equation expresses permeability as a function of air

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2011 / 169

Table 1. Categorization of Permeability Levels for Asphalt Concrete
(Based on Waters 1990, 1993, 1998)
Permeability
(mm/s) Category Description
1× 10−5 to 1× 10−4 A1 Very low permeability
1 × 10−4 to 1 × 10−3 A2 Low permeability
1 × 10−3 to 1 × 10−2 B Moderate permeability: some water
infiltrating under traffic
1 × 10−2 to 1 × 10−1 C Permeable: substantial water
entering under traffic
1 × 10−1 to 1 D Moderately free draining:
permeates freely under traffic or
raindrop impact. Pumping of fines.
1 to 10 E Free draining
voids and aggregate surface area (calculated from aggregate gra-
dation). The power on percent air voids was shown to range from
4.1 to 6.9 for the mixtures studied; the variation was put down to
differences in the test method. They also used a finite-element
model to study the relationship between flow patterns and gradi-
ents in the voids in asphalt concrete. Arambula et al. (2007) mea-
sured the zero permeability on asphalt concrete specimens. They
then used X-ray imaging to show that this was due to no voids in
asphalt being connected. Air void connectivity will be discussed
subsequently.
A maximum or critical permeability is generally set by state
road authorities and clients of highway projects to limit perme-
ability. The concept of critical permeability has been dealt with by
various writers, e.g., Cooley et al. (2001) assigned critical perme-
ability values of 0.01 mm/s for 9.5 and 12.5 mm NMAS mixtures,
0.012 mm/s for 19 mm NMAS mixtures, and 0.015 mm/s for 25
mm NMAS mixtures. The classification system used for asphalt
permeability at the Queensland Department of Transport and
Main Roads (DTMR) is provided as Table 1. Engineers at DTMR
generally refer to categories of C as being “permeable.”
Various empirical permeability models from the literature were
discussed in Vardanega et al. (2008). In particular, Westerman’s
model (Westerman 1998) was highlighted as being relevant for
those practitioners who believe that pavement failures are heavily
influenced by insufficient lift thickness of the asphalt surface.
Westerman’s research suggests an empirical relationship where
permeability is related to air voids and lift thickness
k = (1.38 × 10−7)(3.92AV)(0.61T) (3)
where k = coefficient of permeability (cm/s); AV= air voids
(whole number); and T = lift thickness (cm). Haddock and Prather
(2004) used this formulation to estimate the permeability on In-
diana State Road 38. The inclusion of lift thickness is due to the
idea that lower lift thicknesses would yield higher air voids and
hence permeability. Lower lift thicknesses result in the potential
for more interconnected void channels as the odds of obstruction
would be less. Mohammed’s model [Eq. (4)] also indicates that
increasing lift thickness reduces the permeability.
Mohammad et al. (2003) analyzed the permeability results
from 17 projects in Louisiana. A falling head permeameter was
used for the laboratory testing of the field cores. The following
equation was developed using multilinear regression analysis:
k = 10−4{76.6(AV) − 17.2P0.075 + 163.4P0.3 − 197.5P0.6
+ 33.2P2.36 + 4.5P12.5 − 1.7L} (4)
where k = coefficient of permeability (mm/s); AV= percent air
170 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2011
voids; P0.075 = percent passing 0.075 mm sieve; P0.3 = percent pass-
ing 0.3-mm sieve; P0.6 = percent passing 0.6-mm sieve; P2.36
= percent passing 2.36-mm sieve; P12.5 = percent passing 12.5-mm
sieve; and L = height of the specimen (mm). The main aim of the
present paper is to develop a simple equation, with few param-
eters, to predict the permeability of asphalt concrete, calibrated
using a larger database.
Representative Pore Size
Previous studies (e.g., Taylor 1956; Leonards 1962) have shown
that flow through a porous medium is dependant upon both the
volume and size of the voids, where the size of the voids is
influenced by particle size. In some cases, such as when particle
sizes do not change appreciably, volume of voids alone is suffi-
cient to be able to predict permeability. Westerman’s Eq. (3) is an
example of this. In other cases, when the volume of voids do not
change greatly, the size of the voids (or particle size) alone can be
used to predict permeability. An example of this is the well
known Hazen’s equation, developed for clean sands, which re-
lates permeability (m/s) to the 10 percentile particle size (mm/s)
and is shown in Eq. (5)
k = 10−2D10
2
(5)
In situations where both the volume and size of the voids change
it is important to accommodate both. In this paper, the concept of
representative pore size, closely related to hydraulic radius, is
developed for this purpose.
In channel theory (Taylor 1956), the hydraulic radius is de-
fined as the ratio of cross-sectional area through which the water
is flowing to the wetted perimeter. The simplest case is that of a
circular pipe where the hydraulic radius is equal to a quarter of
the diameter of the pipe. In this paper, the characteristic dimen-
sion, or representative pore size, of the medium will be taken as
four times the hydraulic radius.
In the case of a medium made up of single size particles the
hydraulic radius (RH) is related to void ratio (e) and diameter of
the particles (DS) (Taylor 1956) (a full derivation is shown in the
Appendix)
RH = eDS6 (6)
Since the representative is being taken as four times the hydraulic
radius, the representative pore size (RPS) (RP) is given by
RP = 2eDS3 (7)
When the void ratio is low, it is approximately equal to the po-
rosity (n). In this case Eq. (6) becomes
RP = 2nDS3 (8)
If the medium consists of a range of particle sizes, the DS in
Eq. (8) needs to be replaced by the effective particle size (Deff) In
this paper, the RPS is defined by Eq. (8).
As an example, if the effective particle size is 4.75 mm and the
porosity is 0.05 (5%), the representative pore size will be 0.158
mm. The porosity is essentially the percentage of air voids in the
asphalt mix.
An estimate of the effective particle size for asphalt is quite
difficult. For soils, it is common to take D10 as the effective par-
ticle size. However, for asphalt, the finer particles tend to be ag-
gregated together by the bitumen so that the effective particle size
is greater than D10. Waters (1993, 1998) suggested that D50 was a
good estimate for the Deff. Later in this paper, various effective
particle sizes will be trialled in the statistical analysis.
 100 25

y = 1.674x - 12.442
20 2
R = 0.997
75

Accessible Voids (%)

Percent Passing (%)

15
y = 0.611x - 2.097
50 2
R = 0.841
10

25
5

0 0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 0 5 10 15 20 25

Sieve Size (mm) Total Voids (%)

Mix 1 Mix 2 Mix 1 Mix 2 Linear (Mix 2) Linear (Mix 1)

Fig. 1. Gradings for Mix 1 and Mix 2 Fig. 2. Relationship between accessible and total voids for Mix 1 and
Mix 2

Connected Voids
The concept of accessible voids in asphalt mixes was first intro-
duced by Smith and Gotolski (1969) and refers to those voids in
the mix which are available for the passage of water. They found
that “one can force all air from a sample by cupping one’s hand
over the sample and by pumping the hand as a plunger.” They
found that a relationship existed between total and accessible
voids. Smith and Gotolski (1969) also related these voids to (air)
permeability.
Follow up studies have been carried out by Queensland Main
Roads on two asphalt mixes, referred to as Mixes 1 and 2. The
first mix (Mix 1) was investigated as part of a study on “Voids in
Asphalt” and reported by Waters (1986). In this earlier report, an
outline of the test method and a procedure for determining the
accessible voids is given. The relationship between total and ac-
cessible voids is also given.
The second mix was investigated as part of the ongoing field
and laboratory permeability studies at Queensland Main Roads.
The tests were carried out on asphalt cores and involved deter-
mining the total and accessible voids as well as the permeability.
In this study, relationships are given between accessible voids and
total voids, total voids and permeability, and accessible voids and
permeability. In addition, implications for asphalt design are dis-
cussed. The grading curves of the two mixes tested are displayed
graphically in Fig. 1.
For both Mixes 1 and 2 the total and accessible voids were
determined. In the case of Mix 1, the tests were carried out on
laboratory prepared pats while for Mix 2 the tests were carried out
on cores though tested in the laboratory. The relationship between
Permeability Database
In the present paper, the use of both air voids alone and RPS as
indicators of permeability are investigated. The power relation-
ships have been determined for both. In order to determine the
relationships a large database of both field and laboratory perme-
ability data, similar to that used by Masad et al. (2004, 2006) is
used. Table 2 shows the source of the data and the references in
the original publications. In this database of collected data, 47
asphalt mixtures were used with NMAS of 9.5, 10, 12.5, 14, 19,
and 25 mm included. A total of 467 individual lab and field per-
meability measurements are in the data set. This large database
allows a study of the parameters that affect permeability with a
variety of stone sizes, air void measurement techniques, binder
contents, lift thicknesses, and grading curves present in the data-
base. To be sure, the aforementioned factors will influence the
data set and will increase scatter. The purpose is to test the valid-
ity of the RPS approach. Fig. 4 shows the grading data for the
studied mixtures. Fig. 5 shows the plot of measured air voids
against permeability for the database. The coefficient of determi-
nation (R2) is 0.41 for the 467 data points; which is reasonable
considering the large sample size. In other words, 41% of the
variation can be explained by the air void level using the power
function shown in Fig. 5.
10

total and accessible voids is shown in Fig. 2. As an example,

when the total voids are 10%, the accessible voids for Mix 2 are 1
Permeability 'k' (mm/s)

4.3%. It could be said, in this case, the degree of connectivity is 2.3866 k = 3E-08(Total Voids)
5.9184

k = 0.0006(Accessible Voids)
43%. Fig. 3 shows the relationship between voids (total and ac- 2
R = 0.7591
2
R = 0.7764

0.1
cessible) and permeability for Mix 2. It is clear that at low per-
meability values the two fitted lines diverge the most as there is
more chance of isolated voids at low permeabilities and less so at 0.01
high permeabilities. Also to note is the power change: in the case
of accessible voids the power is 2.4 and for total voids it is 5.9.
The above work has shown the effect of air void connectivity 0.001
1 10 100
on the permeability relationship. Given the power change from Voids (%)
total to accessible voids (5.9 to 2.4) it is reasonable to suggest that Total Voids Accessible Voids Power (Total Voids) Power (Accessible Voids)

the degree of connectivity will vary the power when mixtures are
prepared, especially if total voids are used. In the following ex- Fig. 3. Relationship between voids (accessible and total voids) and
amples, air voids refers to total air voids. permeability

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2011 / 171

Table 2. Sources of Permeability Data
Original label NMAS
Reference in publication (mm) Measurement device Test specimen
Mallick et al. (2003) 9.5 mm (Fine mix) 9.5 NCAT field permeameter Asphalt concrete pavement
49 permeability measurements 9.5 mm (Coarse mix) 9.5
12.5 mm (Coarse mix) 12.5
19.0 mm (Coarse mix) 19
25.0 mm (Coarse mix) 25
Cooley et al. (2001) Project 1 12.5 Field permeameter Asphalt concrete pavement
130 permeability measurements Project 2 9.5
Project 3 19
Project 4 12.5
Project 5 25
Project 6 9.5
Project 7 25
Project 8 25
Project 9 12.5
Project 10 12.5
Project 11 19
Vardanega et al. (2008) Mix B-fine 14 The permeability test employed was a Gyratory compacted asphalt
53 permeability measurements Mix B-centerline 14 falling head type (falling head over a specimens
Mix A from the original study was Mix B-coarse 14 small range of 185–165 mm). The test Silicone sealant was used to
not considered as there was some used was Main Roads material test attach the specimen to the
leakage during the permeability testing. Mix C-fine 14 method Q304-2002, Permeability of Perspex pipe to avoid sidewall
Mix C-centerline 14 Asphalt (Ponding Method), and Material leakage.
Mix C-coarse 14 Testing Manual.
Hewitt (1991) Fine 10 Queensland Main Roads department Marshall compacted asphalt
27 permeability measurements Centerline 10 laboratory permeameter (falling head test) specimens
Coarse 10
W. Maupin (personal 01-1086 12.5 VDOT test method 120 Superpave gyratory compacted
communication, 2009) 01-1089 12.5 asphalt specimens
144 permeability measurements 01-1091 9.5
01-1093 —
01-1095 12.5
01-1097 12.5
01-1098 9.5
01-1101 12.5
01-1103 12.5
01-1105 12.5
01-1106 12.5
Maupin (2001) Mix 1, 12.5 mm 12.5 VDOT test method 120 Superpave gyratory compacted
45 permeability measurements Mix 2, SM-1 12.5 asphalt specimens
Mix 3, 9.5 mm 9.5
Mix 4, 12.5 mm 12.5
Mix 5, 12.5 mm 12.5
Kanitpong et al.(2001) Blend 1 12.5 ASTM D5084-90 Superpave gyratory compacted
19 permeability measurements Blend 2 12.5 asphalt specimens
Blend 5 12.5
Blend 6 12.5
K and N 12.5
Waukesha 12.5

Parametric Study
Consideration of grading and hence effective particle size is im-
plicit in the RPS ideas. It is proposed to use Eq. (9) to estimate
the permeability of asphalt concrete, using the database. What is
also required is a determination of the effective particle size that
characterizes the database the best. In passing, it is noted that the
power on the effective particle size and air voids was found not
to be too dissimilar for the data subsets (i.e., no significant im-
provement in fit) and hence a single power was adopted, allowing
Eq. (9) to be written as follows:

172 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2011

 100
Blend 1 Blend 2
Blend 5 Blend 6
90 K&N Waukesha
Mix B - Fine Mix B - Centreline
80 Mix B - Coarse Mi xC- Fine
Mi xC- Centreline Mi xC- Coarse
Fine Centreline
70
Percentage Passing (%)

Coarse 01-1086
01-1089 01-1091
60 01-1093 01-1095
01-1097 01-1101

50 01-1103 01-1105
01-1106 Mix 1, 12.5mm
Mix 2, SM-1 Mix 3, 9.5mm
40
Mix 4, 12.5mm Mix 5, 12.5mm
9.5mm (fine) 9.5mm (coarse)
30 12.5mm (coarse) 19mm (coarse)
25mm (coarse) Project 1 (12.5mm)
Project 2 (9.5mm) Project 3 (19mm)
20
Project 4 (12.5mm) Project 5 (25mm)
Project 6 (9.5mm) Project 7 (25mm)
10 Project 8 (25mm) Project 9 (12.5mm)
Project 10 (12.5mm) Project 11 (19mm)
0 01-1098
0.01 0.1 1 10
Sieve Size (cm)

Fig. 4. Grading data (studied mixes)

k = A(Rp)b (9) as the key percentage passing for tests done at Queensland Trans-
port and Main Roads. A wider ranging examination of the 47
where Rp = representative pore size in mm; Rp =2  3
grading curves in the database (Fig. 4) was undertaken for this
×(AV(%)  100)× Deff; k = coefficient of permeability in mm/s;
and A and b = regression parameters study. The following particle sizes were determined by linear in-
Vardanega et al. (2008) identified the D40, D50, D60, and D70 terpolation from the supplied grading data: D10, D25, D40, D50,

Air Voids (AV) (%)

1 10 100
10
k = 5E-06AV3.9246
Vardanega et al. (2008)
R2 = 0.4109
1

Hewitt (1991)
0.1
Permeability (k) (mm/s)

Maupin (2009)
0.01

Maupin (2001)
0.001

Mallick et al. (2003)

0.0001

Cooley Jr et al. (2001)

0.00001

Kanitpong et al. (2001)

0.000001

Power (ALL DATA)

0.0000001

Fig. 5. Permeability versus air voids (full database)

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2011 / 173

 D75 D75
1.0 1.0
Cooley Jr. et al (2001) ALL DATA
0.9 0.9

0.8
Co-efficient of Determination (R2)

Mallick et al (2003) 0.8

Co-efficient of Determination (R2)

0.7
0.7
Kanitpong et al (2001)
0.6
0.6
0.5 Vardanega et al (2008)
0.5
0.4 Coarse particles govern permeability and
Hewitt (1990) 0.4 effective particle size best characterised
0.3 by sizes in excess of D50.
0.3
Maupin (2001)
0.2
0.2
0.1
Maupin (2009)
0.1
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0
Effective Particle Size (Dx) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Effective Particle Size

Fig. 6. Coefficient of determination for various effective particle

sizes for the individual data subsets Fig. 7. Coefficient of determination for various effective particle
sizes for the entire database

D60, D70, D75, D80, and D90 and these were substituted as Deff in
Eq. (8) and the coefficient of determination (R2) calculated for
each. Fig. 6 shows the graphical results of this process. It is seen
that for the seven subsets of data, there is generally an increase of the fitted line relative to the scatter about the mean y line. Using
fit at larger effective particle sizes. This is not unexpected as just air voids as a predictor of permeability (Fig. 5), the RD is
small voids are filled with binder at the low end of the grading 76.8%. Using representative pore size, the RD is 52.0%. There-
curve. In the case of Cooley et al. (2001), Mallick et al. (2003), fore, the scatter about the fitted line is reduced by 32%, as a result
Kanitpong et al. (2001), and Maupin (2001), there is an upswing of using Rp instead of AV (%).
of R2 around D70 – D90. There is a reduction of R2 for the data of
Vardanega et al. (2008) and Maupin (W. Maupin, personal com-
munication, 2009) at D80 and D90. It was decided that D75 was a Summary and Conclusions
good approximation for Deff as it would yield a good R2 for each
of the data subsets. The changes in coefficient of determination The use of a large database to determine the effective particle size
for the entire database are shown as Fig. 7. Examination of Fig. 7 of asphalt is not without its drawbacks. Permeability can vary
shows that for the whole database it is clear that no significant with method of testing, in particular the variation of the hydraulic
improvement in fit occurs once Deff is taken as greater than D 50 .A gradient. For the field data, assumptions are made about the ef-
very good R2 is present for D75, making it a reasonable choice to fective thicknesses of the asphalt being considered and hence the
characterize the database. hydraulic gradient and the assumption of one-dimensional flow.
Fig. 8 shows the regression of representative pore size, calcu- Remember that Darcy’s Law only holds only for laminar flow.
lated using the D75 versus permeability. The R2 = 0.74 which is
The regression relationship developed only used D75 and air
very good considering the large sample size (n = 467) and other
voids to compute the permeability, via the representative pore
influencing parameters. The equation adopted for permeability is
size. The fact that only two parameters were needed and an R2 of
shown as Eq. (10)
0.74 for 467 data points obtained is extremely pleasing, given the
k = 0.46(Rp)3.70 R2 = 0.74 (10) many minor factors that will affect the results, such as measure-
ment of voids and permeability, will differ slightly between
where sources. The following conclusions can be drawn:
1. Grading of the asphalt mix is a major influence on perme-
Rp = 23 × (AV(%)100) × D75 ability;
k = coefficient of permeability in mm/s. Rewritten in expanded 2. Air voids in the asphalt mix have a major influence on per-
form the regression model adopted for estimation of asphalt per- meability;
meability is 3. The power on the air voids versus permeability relationship
is affected by the degree of connectivity of the pore struc-

k(mms) =
46
100 3
[ 2
×
AV(%)
100 × D 75(mm) ] 3.70
(11) 4.
ture;
The representative pore size, based on channel theory, is
shown to be a significantly better predictor of asphalt perme-
A useful term for comparing relationships is the relative deviation ability than air voids alone;
(RD). The RD is given by (Waters and Vardanega 2009) 5. The Deff for asphalt was computed to be greater than the D50,
with D75 being selected as a good representation for the da-
RD = 100(1− R2)0.5 (12)
tabase being studied; and
This coined statistical parameter is useful for quantifying the 6. Eq. (11) can generally predict the permeability to within an
reduction of scatter between two dependent variables, both pre- order of magnitude for the seven data subsets examined (467
dicting the same quantity. The RD is essentially the scatter about data points in total).

174 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2011

 Representative Pore Size (R p) (mm)

0.01 0.1 1 10
10
3.695
k = 0.460Rp
2
Vardanega et al. (2008)
R = 0.740
1

Hewitt (1991)
0.1
Permeability (k) (mm/s)
Maupin (2009)
0.01

Maupin (2001)
0.001

Mallick et al. (2003)

0.0001

Cooley Jr et al. (2001)

0.00001

Kanitpong et al. (2001)

0.000001

Power (ALL DATA)

0.0000001

Fig. 8. Permeability versus RPS (full database)

Acknowledgments VC = eNVs (15)

where e = void ratio; N = number of particles; and VS = volume of
The writers would like to thank the Queensland Department of
spherical particle. The corresponding surface area of the flow
Transport and Main Roads for providing the financial support for
channel is given by
this paper. The views expressed in this paper are that of the writ-
ers and do not necessarily reflect the position of other entities. AC = NAS (AS = surface area of a spherical particle) (16)
Thanks are also due to Mr. G.W. Maupin of the Virginia Depart-
ment of Transportation (VDOT) who provided the first writer his The hydraulic radius is given by
permeability data for analysis. Thanks are also due to Dr. S.K.
RH = eVSAS (17)
Haigh of the University of Cambridge for his helpful review of
the work. The volume of a sphere is equal to u D  6 and the area of a
3

sphere is equal to uD2, it follows that

RH = eDS6 (18)
Appendix: Derivation of RPS
The void ratio is related to the porosity (n) by
In channel theory, the term hydraulic radius is used as a measure e = n  (1− n) (19)
of the size of the flow channels (Taylor 1956). The hydraulic
radius is defined as the ratio of the volume to surface area of flow It follows that the hydraulic radius is given by
channel. That is, the hydraulic radius is given by
RH = nD S 6(1− n) (20)
RH = VCAC (13) For small porosity values, Eq. (15) is approximately given by

RH = nDS6 (21)
where RH = hydraulic radius; VC = volume of flow channel; and
AC = surface area of channel. Taking the simple case of a pipe, the By analogy to the case of water flow through a pipe, it is
hydraulic radius is given by proposed that the RPS is equal to four times the hydraulic radius.
It follows that, for small porosity values, the RPS is given by:
RH = ALPL (14)
RP = 2nDS3 (22)
where A = cross-sectional area of pipe; P = perimeter of pipe; and
L = length of pipe. Since the cross-sectional area of the pipe is
equal to uD2  4 and the perimeter of the pipe is uD, it follows References
that the hydraulic radius of a pipe is equal to one quarter of the
diameter of the pipe (D  4). For a porous medium, the RPS will Abdullah, W., Obaidat, M., and Nazem, M. (1998). “Influence of aggre-
be defined in a similar way to the diameter of the channel. In the gate type and gradation on voids of asphalt concrete pavements.”
case of a porous medium made up of single size spherical par- J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10(2), 76–85.
ticles, the volume of the flow channel is given by Arambula, E., Masad, E., and Martin, A. E. (2007). “Influence of air void

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2011 / 175

 distribution on the moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixes.” J. Mater.
Civ. Eng., 19(8), 655–664.
Cooley, L. A., Jr., Brown, E. R., and Maghsoodloo, S. (2001). “Develop-
ment of critical field permeability and pavement density values for
coarse graded superpave pavements.” Rep. No. 01-03, National Centre
for Asphalt Technology, Auburn Univ., Auburn, Ala.
Cooley, L. A., Jr., Prowell, B. D., Brown, E. R., Hall, K., Button, J., and
Davis, R. (2002). “Issues pertaining to the permeability characteristics
of coarse graded superpave mixes.” Asph. Paving Technol., 71, 1–29.
Haddock, J. E., and Prather, M. (2004). “Investigation of permeability on
Indiana SR-38.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 18(3), 136–141.
Hewitt, C. (1991). “A study of asphalt permeability.” Bachelor of Engi-
neering thesis, Univ. of Central Queensland, Rockhampton, Australia.
Jaeger, C. (1956). Engineering fluid mechanics, Blackie & Son, London.
Kanitpong, K., Benson, C. H., and Bahia, H. U. (2001). “Hydraulic con-
ductivity (permeability) of laboratory-compacted asphalt mixtures.”
Transportation Research Record. 1767, Transportation Research
Board, Washington, D.C., 50–58.
Leonards, G. A. (1962). Foundation engineering, McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Mallick, R. B., Cooley, L. A., Jr., Teto, M. R., Bradbury, R. L., and
Peabody, D. (2003). “An evaluation of factors affecting permeability
of superpave designed pavements.” Rep. No. 03-02, National Centre
for Asphalt Technology, Auburn Univ., Auburn, Ala.
Masad, E., Al-Omari, A., and Lytton, R. (2006). “Simple method for
predicting laboratory and field permeability of hot-mix asphalt.”
Transport Research Record. 1970, Transportation Research Board,
Washington D.C., 55–63.
Masad, E., Birgisson, B., Al-Omari, A., and Cooley, A. (2004). “Analyti-
cal derivation of permeability and numerical simulation of fluid flow
in hot-mix asphalt.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 16(5), 487–496.
Maupin, W., Jr. (2001). “Asphalt permeability testing-sample preparation
& testing variability.” Transportation Research Record. 1767, Trans-
portation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 40–47.
Mohammad, L., Herath, A., and Huang, B. (2003). Evaluation of per-
meability of superpave asphalt mixtures, Transportation Research
Board, Washington D.C., (http://www.ltrc.lsu.edu/TRB_82/TRB2003-
002464.pdf) (July 4, 2006).
Parkin, A. K. (1971). “Field solutions for turbulent seepage flow.” J. Soil
176 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2011
Mech. Found. Div., 97(SM1), 209–218.
Smith, R. W., and Gotolski, W. H. (1969). “A study of physical factors
affecting the durability of asphaltic pavements.” PB 189 832, Penn-
sylvania State Univ., University Park, Pa.
Tan, S. A., Fwa, T. F., and Guwe, Y. K. (2000). “New apparatus for
measuring the drainage properties of unbound granular aggregates.”
Proc., 5th Int. Symp. on Unbound Aggregates in Road Construction,
A. R. Dawson, ed., Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 63–67.
Tarefder, R. A., White, L., and Zaman, M. (2005). “Neural Network
model for asphalt concrete permeability.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 17(1),
19–27.
Taylor, D. W. (1956). Soil mechanics, Wiley, New York.
Vardanega, P. J., Nataatmadja, A., Waters, T., and Ramanujam, J. (2008).
“A study of asphalt permeability: Empirical permeability models.”
Proc., 23rd ARRB Conf.—Research Partnering with Practitioners
(CD-ROM), Australian Road Research Board, Adelaide, South Aus-
tralia.
Waters, T. J. (1986). “Voids in asphaltic concrete.” Queensland Main
Roads Internal Rep. No. TT99, Queensland Dept. of Transport and
Main Roads, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Waters, T. J. (1990). “A study of the infiltration properties of road surface
materials.” M.App.Sc. thesis, Queensland Univ. of Technology, Bris-
bane, Queensland, Australia.
Waters, T. J. (1993). “Categorisation of asphalt on the basis of permeabil-
ity and normalised air voids.” Queensland Main Roads Internal Rep.
No. TT170, Queensland Dept. of Transport and Main Roads, Brisbane,
Queensland, Australia.
Waters, T. J. (1998). “A study of water infiltration through asphalt road
surface materials.” Proc., Int. Symp. on Subdrainage in Roadway
Pavements and Subgrades, Granada, Spain, 311–317.
Waters, T. J., and Vardanega, P. J. (2009). “Re-examination of the coef-
ficient of determination (R2) using road materials engineering case
studies.” Road & Transport Research: J. Australian and New Zealand
Research and Practice, 18(3), 3–11.
Westerman, J. R. (1998). “AHTD’s experience with superpave pavement
permeability.” Proc., Arkansas Superpave Symp., Little Rock, Ark.,
(http://www.utexas.edu/research/superpave/articles/jrw10a.html)
(Dec. 4, 2007).
Copyright of Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering is the property of American Society of Civil Engineers
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.