Field Focused Superpave Validation PDF

Field-Focused Superpave
Validation
FINAL REPORT
November 2008
By Mansour Solaimanian and

Scott M. Milander
The Thomas D. Larson
Pennsylvania Transportation Institute
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
CONTRACT # 510401
PROJECT # 009
Technical Documentation Page
1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

FHWA-PA-2008-009-510401-009
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

Field-Focused Superpave Validation August 2008
6. Performing Organization Code
7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

Mansour Solaimanian, Scott M. Milander LTI 2009-03
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
The Thomas D. Larson Pennsylvania Transportation Institute
Transportation Research Building
The Pennsylvania State University 11. Contract or Grant No.
University Park, PA 16802-4710 510401, Work Order No. 9
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
Bureau of Planning and Research Final Report 7/10/2006 – 6/30/2008
Commonwealth Keystone Building
400 North Street, 6th Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17120-0064 14. Sponsoring Agency Code
Mid-Atlantic Universities Transportation Center
The Pennsylvania State University
Transportation Research Building
University Park, PA 16801-4710
15. Supplementary Notes

COTR: Mr. Tim Ramirez
16. Abstract
The Superpave design system came into existence in the mid-1990s. Many pavements have been constructed with Superpave
designed hot mix asphalt (HMA). Today, this technology is well established in many states. It has been over a decade since the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania began using this system for designing HMA. There has been general satisfaction with the
pavements constructed with this mix, and anecdotal evidence suggests that Superpave pavements are performing well in
Pennsylvania; however, within the last several years, there has been concern raised in regard to the durability of some Superpave
mixes. Some have reported these problems as a result of insufficient binder content in the mix. This issue has been the driving
force for several states to take measures to increase the binder content in the mix. There has also been a move by some to
increase the minimum required VMA to allow more space within the aggregate structure for asphalt and therefore provide a higher
binder content mix at a specified design air void level. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation is now specifying 1/2
percent higher VMA for all aggregate-size gradations than is specified in AASHTO M323. As the Superpave design criteria are
evolving, it is worth looking back into the performance of the pavements constructed with Superpave mixes. The research findings
presented in this report are the result of such effort, evaluating the long-term performance of Superpave-designed mixes.
17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

SuperPave, asphalt, asphalt binder, rutting, fatigue, thermal cracking, No restrictions. This document is available
pavement performance from the National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, VA 22161
19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price
Unclassified Unclassified 138
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................................... x
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................... xiii
CHAPTER ONE ........................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................1
BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................1
Objectives ........................................................................................................................................2
Research Approach and Scope of Work ..........................................................................................3
CHAPTER TWO .......................................................................................................4
SCOPE OF FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION...............................4
Pavement Condition Survey ............................................................................................................4
Status of Available Data for Projects Considered Under WO-43 .................................................. 4
Inventory of Materials .................................................................................................................... 5
Projects Selected for Performance Evaluation................................................................................ 6
Scope of Performance Evaluation................................................................................................... 7
Detailed Pavement Evaluation Procedure....................................................................................... 8
Transverse Profiles (Rutting).......................................................................................................... 9
Criterion to Determine Rut Depth ................................................................................................ 10
Field Seismic Modulus Testing .................................................................................................... 11
Laboratory Investigation................................................................................................................15
Preparation of Cores ..................................................................................................................... 16
Indirect Tensile Creep and Strength Testing ................................................................................ 16
Resilient Modulus Testing ............................................................................................................ 17
Asphalt-Aggregate Extraction ...................................................................................................... 20
Binder Recovery ........................................................................................................................... 21
CHAPTER THREE..................................................................................................23
ANALYSIS, INTERPRETATION, AND FINDINGS ...........................................23
Section 1: Results of Pavement Condition Evaluation .................................................................23
Evaluation Results for SR 15 Northbound, Lycoming County .................................................... 23
v
Evaluation Results for Highway SR 11, Snyder County .............................................................. 32
Evaluation Results for SR 153-Section 225, Clearfield County....................................................37
Evaluation Results for I-80, EastBound, Centre County ...............................................................44
Evaluation Results for SR 522, SouthBound – Huntingdon County.............................................52
Rutting........................................................................................................................................... 52
Section 2: Results from Laboratory Investigation ........................................................................55
Low Temperature Creep and Strength Testing Results ................................................................ 56
Results from Resilient Modulus Testing ...................................................................................... 77
Results form PSPA Tests .............................................................................................................. 77
Analysis of Rutting Data............................................................................................................... 80
Investigation of Aging in Superpave Binders............................................................................... 83
CHAPTER FOUR....................................................................................................88
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................88
References......................................................................................................................................91
APPENDIX A: Inventory of Data and Materials from PennDOT WO-43 Project ……… A-1
APPENDIX B: Pictures of Cores Obtained Under WO-9 ……………………………….. B-1
APPENDIX C: Scope of Pavement Condition Survey …………………………………… C-1
APPENDIX D: Aggregate Gradations Obtained from WO-9 Cores ……………………… D-1
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Transverse profiling using the digital depth meter........................................................ 10

Figure 2 Approach used in this project to determine rut depth. .................................................. 11
Figure 3 Portable Seismic Pavement Analyzer (PSPA) .............................................................. 13
Figure 4 Sample PSPA data......................................................................................................... 14
Figure 5 Compression testing of the cores in diametral direction to determine indirect
tensile creep and strength...................................................................................................... 17
Figure 6 Load cycle (kN) vs. time(s)........................................................................................... 19
Figure 7 Horizontal deformation (mm) vs. time(s)...................................................................... 19
Figure 8 Vertical deformation (mm) vs. time(s).......................................................................... 20
Figure 9 Transverse profile at Lycoming SR 15- northbound, ID2 section. ............................... 25
Figure 10 Transverse profile at Lycoming SR 15- northbound, Superpave section.................... 26
Figure 11 Transverse profile at Lycoming SR 15- southbound, Superpave overlay section. ..... 26
Figure 12 Transverse profile at Lycoming SR 15- southbound, Superpave full section............. 27
Figure 13 Pictures of Lycoming SR 15 pavement – ID2, northbound. ....................................... 29
Figure 14 Pictures from Lycoming SR 15, Superpave full depth, northbound. .......................... 30
Figure 15 Pictures of Lycoming SR 15 pavement, Superpave over concrete, southbound......... 31
Figure 16 Transverse profile at Snyder SR 11- southbound passing lane. .................................. 33
Figure 17 Transverse profile at Snyder SR 11- southbound travel lane...................................... 33
Figure 18 Transverse profile at Snyder SR 11- southbound travel lane...................................... 34
Figure 19 Pictures of Snyder SR 11 pavement, southbound. ...................................................... 36
Figure 20 Transverse profile at Clearfield SR 153- northbound, PG 64-22 section. .................. 39
Figure 21 Transverse profile at Clearfield SR 153- northbound, PG 64-28 section. .................. 39
Figure 22 Pictures of Clearfield SR 153 pavement, PG 64-22 section........................................ 42
Figure 23 Pictures of Clearfield SR 153 pavement, PG 64-28 section........................................ 43
Figure 24 Transverse profile at Centre I-80, eastbound, MP 167.0 to MP 167.5........................ 46
Figure 25 Transverse profile at Centre I-80, eastbound, MP 167.5 to MP 168........................... 46
Figure 27 Transverse profile at Centre I-80, eastbound, MP 168.5 to MP 169........................... 47
vii
Figure 29 Pictures of Centre I-80 pavement. ............................................................................... 50
Figure 30 Pictures of Centre I-80 pavement. ............................................................................... 51
Figure 31 Transverse profile at Huntingdon SR 522, southbound. ............................................. 53
Figure 32 Pictures of Huntingdon SR 522 pavement. ................................................................. 54
Figure 33 Creep Compliance versus reduced time for ID-2 and Superpave Sections
at Lycoming SR 153. ............................................................................................................ 57
Figure 34 Creep compliance (1/MPa) vs. time(s) for CR 64-22. ............................................... 59
Figure 35 Creep compliance (1/MPa) vs. reduced time(s) for CR 64-22.................................... 59
Figure 36 Log shift factors vs. temp for CR 64-28...................................................................... 60
Figure 37 Creep compliance (1/MPa) vs. time(s) for CR 64-28. ................................................ 60
Figure 38 Creep compliance (1/MPa) vs. reduced time(s) for CR 64-28.................................... 61
Figure 39 Log shift factors vs. temp for CR 64-28...................................................................... 61
Figure 40 Comparison of master curves of both sites on log-log domain. .................................. 62
Figure 41 Comparison of shift factor curves for both sites. ........................................................ 63
Figure 42 Strength test results for CR 64-22. .............................................................................. 64
Figure 43 Strength test results for CR 64-28. .............................................................................. 64
Figure 44 Creep compliance vs. time – Huntingdon. .................................................................. 66
Figure 45 Creep compliance vs. reduced time – Huntingdon...................................................... 66
Figure 46 Log shift factor curve – Huntington. ........................................................................... 67
Figure 47 Indirect tensile strength test results– Huntington SR 522. .......................................... 68
Figure 48 Creep compliance vs. time for cores 10, 11, and 12 between MP 169 and
169.5 (I-80 Centre). .............................................................................................................. 70
Figure 49 Creep compliance vs. reduced time for cores between MP 169 and
169.5 (I-80 Centre). .............................................................................................................. 70
Figure 50 Log shift factor vs. temp for cores 10, 11, and 12....................................................... 71
Figure 51 Creep compliance vs. time for cores 6 and 7 between MP 168 and
168.5 (I-80 Centre). .............................................................................................................. 71
Figure 52 Creep compliance vs. reduced time for cores between MP 168 and 168.5................. 72
Figure 53 Log shift factor vs. temp for cores 6 and 7.................................................................. 73
Figure 54 Comparison of master curves for I-80......................................................................... 73
viii
Figure 55 Comparison of shift factors (I-80)............................................................................... 74
Figure 56 Strength values for cores between MP 169 and 169.5. ............................................... 75
Figure 57 Strength values for cores between MP 168 and 168.5. ............................................... 75
Figure 58 Measure rut depth at different sites. ............................................................................ 81
Figure 59 Rut Depth versus CHRST permanent shear strain of the wearing layer. .................... 83
Figure 60 Binder modulus for Clearfield SR 153-PG 64-28 from PAV simulation
and field cores. ...................................................................................................................... 85
Figure 61 Binder modulus for Clearfield SR 153-PAV simulation: PG 64-28 versus
PG 64-28. .............................................................................................................................. 85
Figure 62 Binder modulus for Clearfield SR 153 field cores: PG 64-28 versus PG 64-28........ 86
Figure 63 Binder modulus for Huntingdon SR 522 PAV simulation versus field cores............. 86
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Projects Selected for Condition Survey under Task 2. ..................................................... 6

Table 2 Projects Selected for Coring. ............................................................................................ 7
Table 3 Pavement Sections Surveyed or Cored Under WO-9....................................................... 8
Table 4 Tests Conducted on the Cores for WO-9 Project. .......................................................... 15
Table 5 Tests Conducted on the Asphalt Binder for WO-9 Project. ........................................... 15
Table 6 Measured Rut Depth for Lycoming SR 15 – Northbound.............................................. 27
Table 7 Measured Rut Depth for Lycoming SR 15 – Southbound.............................................. 28
Table 8 Measured Rut Depth for Snyder SR 11 – Southbound................................................... 34
Table 9 Measured Rut Depth for Snyder SR 11- Southbound. ................................................... 35
Table 10 Measured Rut Depth for Clearfield SR 153-Northbound............................................. 40
Table 11 Measured Rut Depth for Centre I-80, Eastbound. ........................................................ 48
Table 14 Measured Rut Depth for Huntingdon SR 522, Southbound. ........................................ 53
Table 15 Thicknesses and Specific Gravities for Cores Tested Under WO-9............................. 55
Table 16 Comparison of Design and Measured Gmm for the Wearing Course .......................... 56
Table 17 SR 153 Cores Selected for IDT. ................................................................................... 58
Table 18 Log Shift Factors for Both Sections at SR 153............................................................. 63
Table 19 Sigmoidal Coefficients for Both Sections at SR 153.................................................... 63
Table 20 Huntingdon SR 522 Cores Selected for IDT. ............................................................... 65
Table 21 Sigmoidal Coefficients – Huntington. .......................................................................... 67
Table 22 Shift Factors – Huntington............................................................................................ 67
Table 23 Strength Test – Huntington........................................................................................... 68
Table 24 Details of Cores Selected for IDT from Centre I-80. ................................................... 69
Table 25 Strength Values for All Cores in I-80........................................................................... 76
Table 26 Log Shift Factors for All Cores in I-80. ....................................................................... 76
Table 27 Sigmoidal Coefficients for All Cores in I-80. .............................................................. 76
Table 28 Results of Resilient Modulus Test for Centre I-80....................................................... 77
x
Table 29 Results of Resilient Modulus Test for Huntingdon SR 522. ........................................ 77
Table 30 Results of PSPA Testing at Huntingdon SR 522.......................................................... 79
Table 31 Shear Test Results for Cored Projects and Correspondence with Measured
Field Rut Depth..................................................................................................................... 82
Table 32 Comparing Modulus of Binder from PAV Simulation with That of Field Cores. ....... 84
xi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work upon which this report is based is the result of two years of field and laboratory
investigation. Financial support for this project was provided by the Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation (PennDOT) and the Mid-Atlantic Universities Transportation Center (MAUTC).
This support is greatly appreciated.
Ms. Michelle Tarquino and Ms. Lisa Karavage of the PennDOT Bureau of Research and
Planning served as project managers. Their guidance is truly appreciated. Mr. Tim Ramirez of the
PennDOT Bureau of Construction and Materials served as technical liaison with PennDOT. His
counsel and directions were great and highly needed. Also recognized is the invaluable help
provided by Mr. Dean Maurer of the Bureau of Construction and Materials. Mr. Maurer was
instrumental in helping the research team with all of the site visits and identifying the projects to be
investigated.
The authors are also grateful to Ms. Janice Dauber of Penn State, who served as the research
coordinator and oversaw the MAUTC portion of the project. Mr. Michael Casper and Ms. Mara
Poorman provided support with editing and formatting the report and their assistance is appreciated.
Penn State graduate students Qinwu Xu and Laxmikanth Premkumar provided valuable assistance
with the laboratory testing.
Finally, great appreciation is extended to all PennDOT personnel who assisted the research
team with field visits, traffic control, and coring the pavements of the visited sites.
This work was sponsored by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. The contents of this report reflect
the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented
herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of either the Federal
Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, or the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania at the time of publication. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or
regulation.
xii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At the beginning of the implementation of the Superpave system in the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania, a series of projects were selected for detailed study to validate and determine the
effectiveness of this system in designing asphalt concrete mixtures. Consequently, a research project
titled “Superpave Validation Studies” was sponsored by Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
(PennDOT) in 1999. That study, known as Work Order 43, was conducted by the Northeast Center
of Excellence for Pavement Technology (NECEPT) at The Thomas D. Larson Pennsylvania
Transportation Institute (LTI). In a 2003 report, the data, findings, and conclusions from that study
were presented to PennDOT (Anderson et al., 2003). The WO 43 study was focused on the general
characteristics of materials used in Superpave design. That includes both binder and mixture
properties. Overall, the study included extensive laboratory testing of the materials obtained at the
time of construction to capture the engineering properties and to determine if the Superpave
mixtures exhibit adequate levels of resistance to rutting, thermal cracking, and fatigue damage.
Asphalt binder and asphalt concrete from more than 10 Superpave projects were obtained and tested
at NECEPT laboratories during WO 43. The WO 43 study did not include field performance
evaluation and in that respect the laboratory test results could not be correlated to the observed field
performance. As a result, PennDOT initiated a new work order (WO-9) titled “Field Focused
Superpave Validation” to complement findings of WO 43 through field performance measurements.
A number of WO 43 pavements were selected for evaluation. The projects were visited and detailed
data of observed distresses (rutting, cracking, and raveling) were collected. Some of the projects
were cored and the cores were tested at NECEPT laboratories. Major laboratory tests on cores
included specific gravity measurements, indirect tensile resilient modulus, indirect tensile creep and
strength, extraction and binder recovery, and finally, determination of the binder dynamic modulus
using the dynamic shear rheometer.
The pavement sections evaluated for this research were 9 to 10 years old at the time of the
pavement condition survey. They mostly exhibited satisfactory performance. The average rutting
was 5.4 mm and 6.4 mm for right wheel path and left wheel path, respectively, when all surveyed
projects are considered. The lowest measured rutting was about 2 mm (Centre I-80 right lane) and
the highest 11 mm (Lycoming SR 15, Southbound). The laboratory test results from the repeated
shear constant height tests on the wearing course at 52 ºC, conducted during the WO 43 project were
compared with the rut levels observed. No clear trend could be found. However, it could be
xiii
concluded that the laboratory shear strain values under 1 percent result in an acceptable rutting level
in the field.
The two pavement sections with the most dominant cracking were the ID-2 Marshall section
on the northbound lanes of Lycoming SR 15 and the PG 64-22 section of Clearfield SR 153.
Laboratory tests of indirect creep at low temperatures indicated lower compliance of these two
mixes compared to their companion sections at each site.
An investigation was also made into the level of aging observed in the field and how this
aging compares with laboratory-simulated aging. Such comparative analysis was conducted for
those projects from which cores were available. That includes Clearfield SR 153, Huntingdon SR
522, and Centre I-80. The results indicated that for both PG 64-28 and PG 64-22 sections at
Clearfield SR 153, the PAV laboratory simulation provided a significantly higher aging level (stiffer
binder) compared with actual aging observed in the field for a 10-year-old pavement. For the
Huntingdon SR 522 with an original PG 64-28 binder, the field-aged binder is closer to the PAV-
aged binder for this 9-year-old pavement. However, the wheel path core indicated lower stiffness
than the PAV laboratory simulation while the between-wheel-path core indicted higher aging.
Significantly higher air void level of between-wheel-path core could have contributed to the higher
level of aging observed for the binder of this core.
The overall conclusion from this study was that most of the projects included in the detailed
survey demonstrated satisfactory performance considering their age. Rutting levels were acceptable
and there were no considerable levels of cracking except the two cases mentioned above. Surveys of
these pavements indicated that longitudinal joint construction continues to be a serious concern, as
several projects were found with longitudinal joint cracks extending over a significant stretch of the
pavement.
Laboratory rutting tests (constant height repeated shear test at high temperature) on wearing
course did not deliver a good correlation with rutting levels observed, but the data provide a guide as
to the range of laboratory strain levels that could result in acceptable rutting levels. Unfortunately,
sufficient laboratory shear strain data were not available for the binder course of all pavements
surveyed, and it did not become possible to investigate the relationship between the rutting level and
the laboratory test results on the pavement binder layer.
xiv
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
The Superpave design system came into existence in the mid-1990s. Many pavements have
been constructed with Superpave designed hot mix asphalt (HMA). Today, this technology is well
established in many states. It has been over a decade since the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
began using this system for designing HMA.
Since its inception, the system has gone through several specification revisions. The
compaction effort in the Superpave Gyratory Compactor was revised at the early stages, and a
simplified compaction requirement was introduced (Brown and Buchanan, 1999). The restriction on
aggregate grading, referred to as the restricted zone, was eliminated (Kandhal and Cooley, 2001).
There has been general satisfaction with the pavements constructed with this mix, and anecdotal
evidence suggests that Superpave pavements are performing well in Pennsylvania; however, within
the last several years there has been concern raised in regard to the durability of some Superpave
mixes. Some have reported these problems as a result of insufficient binder content in the mix. This
issue has been the driving force for several states to take measures to increase the binder content in
the mix. Some have been designing at a reduced number of gyrations while others have been
designing at an air void level about 1/2 percent lower than what is specified in Table 6 of AASHTO
specification M323-04. Both of these changes result in higher design binder content. There has also
been a move by some to increase the minimum required VMA to allow more space within the
aggregate structure for asphalt and therefore provide a higher binder content mix at a specified
design air void level. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) is now
specifying 1/2 percent higher VMA for all aggregate-size gradations than is specified in AASHTO
M323.
As the Superpave design criteria are evolving, it is worth looking back into the performance
of the pavements constructed with Superpave mixes. The research findings presented in this report
are the result of such effort, i.e., evaluating long-term performance of Superpave-designed mixes.
BACKGROUND
At the beginning of the implementation of Superpave in the Commonwealth, a series of
projects was selected for detailed study to validate and to determine the effectiveness of the
Superpave system in designing asphalt concrete mixtures of superior durability. Consequently, a
1
research project titled “Superpave Validation Studies” was sponsored by the Pennsylvania
Department of Transportation (PennDOT) in 1999. That study, under the University-Based
Cooperative Agreement (Contract No. 359704) Work Order 43, was conducted by the Northeast
Center of Excellence for Pavement Technology (NECEPT) at the Thomas D. Larson Pennsylvania
Transportation Institute (LTI). The data, findings, and conclusions from that study were presented to
PennDOT (Anderson et al., 2003). The WO-43 study focused on the general characteristics of
materials used in Superpave design, which includes both binder and mixture properties. Overall, the
study included extensive laboratory testing of these materials to capture the engineering properties
and to determine whether the Superpave mixtures exhibit adequate levels of resistance to rutting,
thermal cracking, and fatigue damage. Asphalt binder and asphalt concrete from more than 10
Superpave projects were obtained and tested at NECEPT laboratories during the WO-43. The goal
of the WO-43 study was also to determine whether the Superpave mixture performance-related tests
could be used to reliably predict mixture performance in the field. While laboratory testing was
comprehensive in the WO-43 project, it did not include field performance evaluation, and in that
respect, the laboratory test results could not be correlated to the observed field performance. No field
survey was conducted on these projects during the WO-43, and, therefore, no analysis was
conducted in regard to the relationship between the predicted performance from laboratory
characterization and the actual performance of these projects in the field. It was considered essential
for many of the WO-43 projects to be monitored and surveyed after several years in service and for
accurate measurements of rut depth, fatigue cracking, and thermal cracking to be made for these
projects. As a result, PennDOT initiated a new work order (WO-9) titled “Field Focused Superpave
Validation” to complement findings of WO-43 through field performance measurements. This work
was undertaken to evaluate the performance of these projects after they have been in service for
several years and determine their relationship with the material properties established in the
laboratories.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the WO-9 project could be summarized as follows:
• Follow up on the actual field performance of all the projects analyzed in the WO-
43 project where materials were collected and materials characterization testing
was performed.
• Conduct a pavement distress survey and performance measurements (rutting,
cracking, etc.) of selected project pavement sections.
2
• Conduct laboratory material characterization testing on material from pavement
cores drilled from some of the projects.
• Analyze and compare field-collected performance measurements and laboratory
materials characterization results to the predicted performance from the original
laboratory material characterization testing.
RESEARCH APPROACH AND SCOPE OF WORK

Through coordination with the PennDOT technical manager for this research project, a
number of WO-43 pavements were selected for evaluation. Selection was based on a number of
factors: availability of laboratory data and worthiness of the project in terms of comparative analysis
among different sections built for the pavement under the same project. In two cases, in spite of
insufficient laboratory data, the decision was made to conduct the pavement evaluation because of
the significance of the project in terms of comparing different designs or binders. The projects were
visited, and detailed data of observed distresses were collected. Some of the projects were cored,
and the cores were tested at NECEPT laboratories. Information from the pavement condition survey
and laboratory testing were analyzed. Findings are provided in this report.
3
CHAPTER TWO
Scope of Field and Laboratory Investigation
Two major goals of this project were to evaluate and assess the condition of selected
pavements constructed during WO-43 research project, and to conduct an investigation into the
relationship between laboratory results and field observations. This chapter provides details of how
these two tasks were completed.
PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY

The first step toward establishing a framework for conducting field survey of projects
considered under WO-43 was to determine the extent of available laboratory data and sampled
materials. Task 1 of this research was directed toward this goal and was the basis for selection of
projects studied under WO-9.
Status of Available Data for Projects Considered Under WO-43

Nineteen projects were identified as the projects considered under WO-43. These projects
had been selected to evaluate the impact of a range of project variables on pavement performance.
Examples of such variables include differences in performance grade (PG) binders, differences in
performance of polymer modified binders, Superpave versus ID-2 Marshall mixes, layer thickness,
slow-moving vehicles, and pavement grade. Not all of these projects were selected for
comprehensive evaluation and material characterization under WO-43. The extent of material
procurement was vastly different for these projects. For some, a considerable amount of binder and
mixture had been collected. For others, no material was procured at the time of construction. The
extent of the laboratory work on the procured materials also varied within a wide range. Data from a
relatively comprehensive set of tests on both the binders and mixtures are available for some
projects. For others, testing has been very limited, and little laboratory data are available.
Table A.1 (Appendix A) presents the list of projects under WO-43. It is clear from this table
that the level of available data from laboratory material characterization varies within a wide range.
For four of the projects (Warren 0062, Schuylkill 0081, Bucks 0131, and Indiana 0022), no data are
available. The original plan called for the data from Schuylkill 0081 to come from a different
source; therefore, no material was received at NECEPT laboratories for this project. There was no
material received for Bucks 0131 and Indiana 0022 either. Of the four projects with no data, Warren
0062 is the only project for which materials of asphalt mixture for wearing and binder mixtures have
4
been received at NECEPT laboratories and are still available. Records also indicate that Warren
materials are available at PennDOT Materials and Test Division laboratories. For the Berks 0061
project, limited laboratory work has been conducted, and only volumetric and repeated shear test
data for the PG 64-22 mixture of this project are available.
For three of the projects (Crawford 0322, Centre 0080, and Huntingdon 522), only some
binder data are available. The Clearfield 0080 project is an important one considering the use of a
control binder along with five modified binders (with Novophalt, Polybilt, Kraton, Styrelf, and
Gilsonite). However, this project was milled and overlaid several years ago.
The Centre I-80 project is of interest because of using different aggregate size gradations for
wearing and binder courses and using different layer thicknesses. Unfortunately no mixture or
binder data is available for the Centre 0080 project, and there is currently no material of this mixture
available at NECEPT laboratories.
There is no mixture data currently available for the Huntingdon 522 project; however, binder
and base mixtures form this project are available at NECEPT laboratories in case of a future need to
conduct characterization tests on the mixtures. For the remaining projects, both the binder and
mixture data are available to various degrees. The most comprehensive laboratory data exists for
Lycoming 0015, York 0083, Franklin 0011, and Indiana 0422, and these were the projects originally
considered with the best chances of evaluation based on the laboratory data. Franklin 0011 is also of
interest because of using various polymer-modified binders.
Inventory of Materials
An investigation was conducted to determine the amount of binder and mixtures of WO-43
projects available at NECEPT laboratories. This was done to assess the possibility of conducting
further laboratory material characterization tests in case of a future need under an extension project.
Tables A.2 (Appendix A) presents the binder materials from WO-43 projects that are currently
available at NECEPT laboratories. The table indicates that the binder is available for several
projects; however, the available material is mostly for the projects for which binder characterization
data are already available. No material could be found for projects that have not been already
included for binder testing. Currently available binders could be used to complete the direct tension
test for those projects for which this property has not been already determined.
The available mixtures from different projects are presented in Table A.3 (Appendix A).
Available mixture from the Snyder 0011 project could possibly be used in limited testing, in case
5
needed under an extension project, to complete the current data set and to provide data from indirect
tensile test (IDT) for evaluation of low temperature cracking. In addition, the repeated shear test
data are not available for the binder course of this project, but the material is available to conduct a
limited number of such tests. For Fayette 0119, there is sufficient material to conduct one or more of
the mixture tests (strain controlled frequency sweep, the repeated shear test, and IDT) for the base as
well as the IDT for the binder course, for which there are no data available at this point. Similarly,
as shown in Table A.3, there is limited mixture available for York 0030. While there is currently
binder data available for this project, no mixture data could be found. Therefore, the available
mixture material for York 0030 could be tested to provide characterization of the mixture for this
project.
A list of cores currently available at NECEPT laboratories, as obtained as part of WO-43
project, is provided in Table A.4. The largest number of available cores belongs to binder layers of
Lycoming SR 15 and York SR 30. The existing inventory of materials (binders and mixtures) at
NECEPT could be integrated with the existing inventory at the laboratories of PennDOT Materials
and Tests Division.
Projects Selected for Performance Evaluation

Task 2 of WO-9 was dedicated to surveying the condition of pavements considered under
WO-43. The results of Task 1 analysis and consultation with the PennDOT technical manager were
used in deciding which of the WO-43 projects should be included in the pavement condition survey.
The projects presented in Table 1 were selected for evaluation under Task 2.
Table 1 Projects Selected for Condition Survey under Task 2.
District S.R.-Sec. - County

2-0 0153 - 225 - Clearfield
2-0 0080 - B22 - Centre
3-0 0015 - B43 - Lycoming
3-0 0015 - B42 - Lycoming
3-0 0011 - 38M - Snyder
8-0 0083 - 832 - York
8-0 0030 – B01 - York
8-0 0011-024 - Franklin
9-0 0070 - 009 - Fulton
9-0 522 - 001- Huntingdon
10-0 0422 - 404 - Indiana
6
Out of the projects presented in Table 1, six were selected for further evaluation and more
detailed analysis through procurement of cores (Table 2). This selection was considered to include
those projects with the largest available mixture and binder data or at least those for which a
comparative study of different sections would be valuable.
Table 2 Projects Selected for Coring.
District S.R.-Sec. - County

2-0 0080 - B22 - Centre
2-0 0153 - 225 - Clearfield
3-0 0011 - 38M - Snyder
3-0 0015 - B43 - Lycoming
3-0 0015 - B42 - Lycoming
9-0 522 - 001- Huntingdon
Scope of Performance Evaluation

Evaluation of pavements was conducted at two stages. The first stage, considered
preliminary evaluation, was carried out to
• identify location of the sections for detailed evaluation.
• provide initial assessment of pavement condition.
• determine whether the pavement is a good candidate for detailed evaluation.
The PennDOT and PTI personnel were both present at the site for the preliminary evaluation.
Based on this evaluation, I-70 in District 9 and SR 422 in District 10 were dropped from the list for
detailed evaluation. The former was found to be too extensive in terms of number of sections to be
included in this research and appeared to be a good candidate for thorough investigation under a
different research project. The latter was dropped since the pavement was found to have been
overlaid. The decision was made to continue with a detailed condition survey of the remaining nine
projects presented in Table 1. As the detailed investigation of projects began, difficulties arose with
scheduling site visits for some of the sites within the time frame of the project, and finally, the
detailed evaluation could only be conducted for six of the nine selected projects. Similarly, coring
was only conducted for three of the six projects selected even though all six were marked for coring
at the time of the detailed evaluation. Table 3 summarizes what was finally accomplished regarding
7
the pavement condition evaluation and coring for selected projects. The date of completing the
activity is also provided in the table.
Table 3 Pavement Sections Surveyed or Cored Under WO-9.
Preliminary Detailed Coring

District S.R.-Sec. - County Evaluation Evaluation
2-0 0153 - 225 - Clearfield 07/11/07 07/11/07
11/14/06 07/18/07 07/18/07
2-0 0080 - B22 - Centre 11/14/06 07/19/07 07/31/07
07/31/07
3-0 0015 - B43 - Lycoming 11/13/06 06/05/07 __
3-0 0015 - B42 - Lycoming 11/13/06 06/06/07 __
3-0 0011 - 38M - Snyder 11/13/06 06/14/07 __
8-0 0083 - 832 - York 04/09/07 __ __
8-0 0030 – B01 - York 04/09/07 __ __
8-0 0011-024 - Franklin 12/05/06 __ __
9-0 0070 - 009 - Fulton 12/05/06 __ __
9-0 522 - 001- Huntingdon 12/05/06 11/08/2007 11/08/2007
01/08/08
10-0 0422 - 404 - Indiana 11/14/06 __ __
Detailed Pavement Evaluation Procedure

Conducting a detailed pavement performance evaluation was a major part of this project.
The main idea was to determine the quality of these Superpave pavements after being in service for
9 to 10 years. The surveyed pavements were built between 1997 and 1998. The total length of the
pavement section surveyed varied for each project depending on the project size, number of sections,
geometric limitations, and time limitations. Overall, the total length of each surveyed section was
between 750 and 1500 feet. The total length surveyed for each project was dependent on the number
of sections surveyed and for the longest one was 5,000 feet. The travel lane (right-hand lane in
direction of traffic) was selected as the survey lane. Clearfield SR 153 and Huntingdon SR 522,
8
were both two lane roads, and therefore, for the former, the northbound lane was surveyed, and for
the latter, the southbound was considered. Another exception was the Snyder SR 11 project, for
which both the passing and travel lanes on the southbound side were surveyed.
At each site location, once traffic control was established, the start and end points of the
survey area were established. The pavement shoulder was then marked at 100-ft intervals to provide
the opportunity for detailed mapping of distresses at small intervals. This was followed by taking
numerous photos of the pavement mat throughout the whole stretch of the road selected for survey.
A transverse profiler was used to determine the rut depth. Transverse profiling of the pavement and
determination of crack length and type were conducted in parallel. A wheel manufactured by
Calculated Industries (DigiRoller Plus 2) was used to measure the crack length. FHWA publication
“Distress Identification Manual for the Long-Term Pavement Performance Program” was used as a
guide for determination of crack type and severity.
Transverse Profiles (Rutting)

Transverse profiles at each site were captured at 200- to 400-ft intervals. At least five
profiles were captured for each project, and three profiles were obtained for each section if the
project contained more than one section.
The rut depth measurement equipment was a simple system consisting of a 14-ft long
aluminum I-beam, a depth gauge, and a laptop computer to capture data (Figure 1). The beam
spanned the pavement section transversely, resting on tripods at both ends. A Mitutyo Digimatic
Absolute Depth Gauge was aligned vertically adjacent to the beam and connected to a laptop
computer. Every time the triggering button on the meter was activated, the measured depth was
transferred to the spreadsheet file developed on the laptop computer. Measurements with this
system were conducted at 50 mm intervals along the beam.
9
Figure 1 Transverse profiling using the digital depth meter.
Criterion to Determine Rut Depth

Rutting manifested at the pavement surface is the result of densification of HMA layers and
shoving of the material to the sides due to shear load imposed by load on the wheel path. It is also
partly the result of densification and shear movement of the underlying unbound layers.
The approach presented in Figure 2 was uniformly followed for all projects to determine rut
depth. A straight line was applied tangent to the two peaks observed at the shoulder and at the line
between two lanes. The distance between the mid-point of this tangent and the deepest point in the
wheel path was measured and considered as the rut depth.
10
Typical Transverse Profile
Distance, cm
440 400 360 320 280 240 200 160 120 80 40 0
98
Reading, mm
100
102
Ruth Depth
104
106
108
110
Figure 2 Approach used in this project to determine rut depth.
Field Seismic Modulus Testing

Parallel to obtaining cores, attempts were made to determine in-situ elastic modulus of
asphalt concrete using Portable Seismic Pavement Analyzer (PSPA).
Theoretical Background
If an elastic half-space is disturbed by a vertical impact on the surface, two types of waves
will propagate in the medium: body and surface waves. Body waves propagate radially outward in
the medium and are composed of two different types: compression and shear waves. These waves
are differentiated by the direction of particle motion relative to the direction of wave propagation.
Particle motions associated with shear waves are perpendicular to the direction of wave propagation,
whereas particle motions associated with compression waves are parallel to the direction of wave
propagation. Surface waves resulting from a vertical impact are primarily Rayleigh waves, which
propagate away from impact along a cylindrical wavefront near the surface of the medium.
The Spectral Analysis of Surface Wave (SASW) method can be used for in situ evaluation of
elastic moduli and layer thicknesses of layered systems like soils and pavements (Nazarian and
Stokoe 1984). The method is based on the phenomenon of Rayleigh wave dispersion in layered
11
systems, i.e. the phenomenon that the velocity of propagation is frequency dependent. Because shear
wave velocity and shear modulus are mainly dependent on the effective stress and density, the
SASW method is useful in estimating the changes in material strength and density. In layered media,
the velocity propagation of surface waves depends on the frequency (or wavelength) of the wave
because waves of different wavelengths sample different parts of the layered medium. The algorithm
of the SASW method is to determine the velocity-frequency relationship described by the dispersion
curve, and then, through the process of inversion or backcalculation, to obtain the shear wave
velocity profile. Elastic moduli profiles can then be easily obtained using simple relationships with
the velocity of propagation and measured or approximated values for mass density and Poisson’s
ratio in two steps:
1. The relationship amongst velocity, V, travel time, Δt, and receiver spacing, ΔX, can be
written in the following form:
ΔX
V=
Δt (1)
In this equation, V can be the propagation velocity of any of the three waves (i.e.
compression wave, VP; shear wave, VS; or surface (Rayleigh) wave, VR). Knowing wave
velocity, the modulus can be determined in several ways.
2. Elastic modulus, E, can be determined from shear modulus, G, through the Poisson's
ratio, υ, using:
E = 2(1 + υ )G (2)
Shear modulus can be determined from shear wave velocity, VS, and mass density, ρ,
using:
G = ρVS
2
(3)
Portable Seismic Pavement Analyzer

The Portable Seismic Pavement Analyzer (PSPA), as shown in Figure 3, is a device designed
to determine the modulus of the top pavement layer in real-time. The PSPA consists of two receivers
12
(accelerometers) and source packaged into a hand-portable system which can perform high
frequency seismic tests.
electronics box
source
receivers
Figure 3 Portable Seismic Pavement Analyzer (PSPA)
The analysis method implemented in the PSPA is called the ultrasonic surface waves (USW)
method which is a simplified version of the SASW method. The major distinction between these two
methods is that, in the USW method, the modulus of the top pavement layer can be directly
determined without an inversion algorithm (Nazarian et al. 1993). As surface waves (Rayleigh, R
waves) contain most of the seismic energy, the USW method utilizes the surface wave energy to
determine the variation in modulus with wavelength. Detailed review of NDT applications using
surface wave methods can be found elsewhere (Nazarian et al. 1993, Goel and Das 2006). At
wavelengths less than or equal to the thickness of the uppermost layer, the velocity of propagation is
independent of wavelength. Therefore, if one simply generates high-frequency (short-wavelength)
waves, and if one assumes that the properties of the uppermost layer are uniform, the shear wave
velocity of the upper layer, VS, can be calculated from surface wave velocity, VR:
VS = VR (1.13 − 0.16υ )
(4)
Then, the elastic modulus of the top layer, E, can be determined:
13
E = 2 ρ (1 + υ )[(1.13 − 0.16υ )Vs ]
2
(5)
Field PSPA Testing

To collect data with a PSPA, the technician initiates the testing sequence through the
computer. The high-frequency source is activated four to six times. The outputs of the two receivers
from the last three impacts are saved and averaged (stacked). The other (pre-recording) impacts are
used to adjust the gains of the amplifiers. The gains are set in a manner that optimizes the dynamic
range. Typical voltage outputs of the three accelerometers are shown in Figures 4a. In this plot, the
red line presents the signal from the electronic source, while black and green lines indicate signals
from accelerometers 1 and 2. An actual variation in modulus with wavelength from the time records
(data reduction process) is shown in Figures 4b. For practical reasons, the wavelength is simply
relabelled as depth. In that manner, the operator of the PSPA can get a qualitative feel for the
variation in modulus with depth. The red solid line represents the average seismic modulus of the
pavement layers. It should be noted that the modulus at a depth smaller than 50 mm could not be
determined due to the fixed spacing between the two accelerometers of the PSPA. The dispersion
curve shown in Figures 4b is developed from the phase spectra shown at the bottom of the same
figure. The phase spectrum, which can be considered as an intermediate step between the time
records and the dispersion curve (Nazarian et al. 1993), is determined by conducting Fourier
transform and spectral analysis on the time records from the two accelerometers. This step makes the
determination of the modulus with wavelength much easier.
(a) signal (b) data reduction
Figure 4 Sample PSPA data
14
LABORATORY INVESTIGATION
The laboratory investigation included preparation of the cores and conducting a series of
tests on the prepared cores. Preparation included taking pictures of the cores, assessment of the core
condition, measuring thickness of the different layers on each core, and cutting cores to separate
different layers. Testing included indirect tensile resilient modulus, indirect tensile creep and
strength, specific gravities, extraction, determination of gradation and asphalt content, binder
recovery, and determination of binder stiffness using a dynamic shear rheometer. Tables 4 and 5
present the tests conducted on the cores and the asphalt binder, respectively:
Table 4 Tests Conducted on the Cores for WO-9 Project.

Designation Standard Method of Test for
AASHTO Determining the Creep Compliance and Strength of Hot-Mix Asphalt
T 322-03 (HMA) Using the Indirect Tensile Test Device
ASTM D4123 Standard Test Method for Indirect Tension Test for Resilient Modulus of
Bituminous Mixtures
AASHTO Bulk Specific Gravity of Compacted Hot-Mix Asphalt Using Saturated
T 166-05 Surface-Dry Specimens
AASHTO Theoretical Maximum Specific Gravity and Density of Hot-Mix Asphalt
T 209-05 Paving Mixtures
AASHTO Quantitative Extraction of Asphalt Binder from Hot-Mix Asphalt (HMA
T 164-05
AASHTO Mechanical Analysis of Extracted Aggregates
T 30-05
Table 5 Tests Conducted on the Asphalt Binder for WO-9 Project.

Designation Standard Method of Test for
ASTM Recovery of Asphalt from Solution Using the Rotary Evaporator
D5404-03
AASHTO Determining the Rheological Properties of Asphalt Binder Using A
T 315-05 Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR)
The bulk specific gravity of the cores was determined using AASHTO T166. This was
followed by the indirect tensile testing. Afterward, the cores were broken loose in an oven set at a
temperature of 135°C for a period of 30 to 60 minutes depending on the size of the specimen. This
15
was followed by determination of the maximum theoretical specific gravity (Gmm) of the cores
according to AASHTO T209. Upon completion of the Gmm tests, the cores were processed through
extraction (AASHTO T164) so that the binder could be recovered (ASTM 5404). The recovered
binder from these cores was subject to determination of the complex modulus using the dynamic
shear rheometer (AASHTO T315).
Preparation of Cores
Cores were first photographed, and the thickness of different layers for each core was
measured. The pictures of the cores are provided in Appendix B. The cores were then cut at the
layer interface using a single saw blade to provide separate specimens from each core representing
different pavement layers.
Indirect Tensile Creep and Strength Testing

Testing apparatus:
All IDT tests were carried out using hydraulic loading systems manufactured by MTS®. The
MTS system consists of a 100 kN (22 kip) load frame and actuator interfaced with an MTS® 458.20
Micro Console fitted with an MTS® 458.91 MicroProfiler to program loading modes. An MTS®
409.80 temperature controller is interfaced with an environmental chamber that contains an electric
heater and a mechanism for handling liquid nitrogen for cooling. This temperature controller is
supplemented by a separate mechanism to monitor specimen temperature before testing. This is
accomplished by monitoring the temperature readout measured from a thermocouple embedded in a
dummy specimen that is prepared with the same mixture and satisfies all specifications for the actual
test specimen. Data acquisition is performed using a separate computer fitted with a National
Instruments® 6329 DAQ card. For tests in IDT mode, four XS-B LVDTs with a range of ±0.25 mm
are used to measure the vertical and horizontal deformation. These LVDTs are fitted onto aluminum
mounts sitting on steel targets. The targets are glued on the specimen using a five-minute epoxy.
Testing Protocol:
The testing protocol is in accordance with AASHTO T322. In this test, tensile creep and
tensile strength are determined on the same specimen for thermal cracking analysis. The tensile
creep is determined by applying a static load of fixed magnitude along the diametric axis of a
specimen for 100 seconds at temperatures of 0°C, -10°C, and -20°C (Figure 5). The horizontal and
16
vertical deformations measured across a gauge length of 1.5 inches near the center of the specimen
are used to calculate creep compliance as a function of time. Loads are selected to keep horizontal
strains in the linear viscoelastic range (typically below a horizontal strain of 500 µstrains) during the
creep test. After the fixed load is applied, the tensile strength will be determined by applying a load
to the specimen at the rate of 12.5 mm per minute (vertical ram movement) to failure at -10°C.
Typically, the maximum strength of the specimen occurs at a point prior to failure, and, hence, the
vertical and horizontal LVDTs measurements are used to accurately determine the value of tensile
strength (AASHTO T322). It was found earlier (NCHRP 530), as well as during the course of this
testing, that there could be possible damage to the LVDTs when the specimen fails during the
strength test. Hence, the LVDTs were removed prior to the strength test, and the correct strength was
determined using a correction equation developed by Christensen and Bonaquist (2004).
σIDT/Corr = 0.27 + 0.78*σIDT
Figure 5 Compression testing of the cores in diametral direction to determine indirect tensile
creep and strength.
Resilient Modulus Testing

Prior to conducting the indirect tensile creep tests on cores, indirect tensile resilient modulus
tests were conducted on cores from Huntingdon SR 522 and Centre I-80. The purpose of this
testing was to provide further information on the engineering properties of these two projects since
no original IDT data were available.
The resilient modulus tests were conducted in accordance with ASTM D4123. The values of
resilient modulus can be used to evaluate the relative quality of materials and also as an input for
17
pavement design or pavement evaluation and analysis. Being non-destructive in nature, multiple
tests can be repeated on the same specimen. Furthermore, this test can be used to study the effects of
temperature, loading rates, rest periods, etc. (ASTM D4123). Though different temperatures and
loading rates can be used for the test, in this study, all the tests were conducted at 25˚C with a
loading time of 0.1 seconds and rest period of 0.9 seconds because of time constraints. The number
of load cycles was restricted to maintain the cumulative vertical deformation within 0.0381 mm (100
μstrains). Though this limit was exceeded in some of the tests, they were well within the limits
defined by ASTM standards. The total resilient modulus was calculated in accordance with the
ASTM standards using the last five deformation cycles. A poison’s ratio value of 0.35 was assumed
for the calculation (Barksdale et al., 1997). A sample of the loading cycle, horizontal deformation,
and vertical deformation, as a function of time, are shown in Figures 6 through 8, respectively.
18
Load cycles (kN) vs Time(s)
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
Load (kN)
-0.25
-0.3
-0.35
-0.4
71.5 72 72.5 73 73.5 74 74.5 75 75.5
Time(s)
Figure 6 Load cycle (kN) vs. time(s).
Horizontal Deformation (mm) vs Time(s)
Time(s)
-0.0065
-0.0064
-0.0063
-0.0062
Horizontal deformation
-0.0061
-0.006
-0.0059
-0.0058
-0.0057
70 70.5 71 71.5 72 72.5 73 73.5 74 74.5 75

-0.0056
Figure 7 Horizontal deformation (mm) vs. time(s).
19
Vertical Deformation(mm) vs Time(s)
0.01
0.0098
0.0096
0.0094
Vertical Deformation(mm)
0.0092
0.009
0.0088
0.0086
0.0084
0.0082
0.008
55 55.5 56 56.5 57 57.5 58 58.5 59 59.5 60
Time(s)
Figure 8 Vertical deformation (mm) vs. time(s).
The total resilient modulus is calculated using the formula:
ERI = P (VRT +0.27)/ (tΔHT)
where
ERI = Total resilient modulus of elasticity in MPa
P = Repeated load (kN)
VRT = Total resilient poisons ratio ( assumed as 0.35)
t = Thickness of specimen (mm)
ΔHT = Total recoverable horizontal deformation
Asphalt-Aggregate Extraction
After completion of mechanical testing, the binder from the cores was first extracted using
centrifuge extraction according to AASHTO T 164. Briefly, the extraction uses a centrifuge and
solvent to dissolve and extract the asphalt from a sample. The procedure requires a centrifuge,
solvent, container for catching the solvent, filter ring, and other standard laboratory equipment to
20
perform the test method. To begin, the test sample, filter, and empty ignition dish are weighed, and
the values are recorded. Next, the test sample is placed into the centrifuge bowl and covered with
the solvent. Enough time is allowed for the sample to get dissolved. After the sample has been
dissolved, the filter is placed on the bowl and covered with the lid tightly. A container is placed to
catch the solvent beneath the drain of the centrifuge. The centrifuge is started slowly, and the speed
is gradually increased to the maximum of 3600 rpm until the solvent ceases to flow from the drain.
After the centrifuge has stopped rotating, an additional 200 mL of solvent is added, and the
extraction continues. Additional solvent must be added in 200 mL quantities until the extract is
clear and no darker than a light straw color.
When the extract color flows clear from the drain, the filter ring is removed from the bowl
and is let to air dry. After air drying, the mineral matter is removed from the filter ring as much as
possible and is placed into the centrifuge bowl with the aggregate. Then, the filter ring is placed into
an oven at 163oC and dried to a constant mass, after which its weight is recorded. Next, the collected
extract solvent is agitated, and a 100-mL aliquot is measured and placed into the ignition dish. First,
the ignition dish is dried on a hot plate; then, it is burned at a dull, red heat at 600oC, cooled, and
weighed, and then 5 mL of saturated ammonium carbonate solution is added per gram of the ash.
The mixture is then digested at room temperature for one hour and then placed into an oven at 110oC
to dry and then cooled in a desiccator and weighed to 0.001 grams. Last, the volume of the extracted
solvent solution and also the mass of the extracted mineral matter are recorded.
Binder Recovery
Once extraction was completed, the binder was recovered using a rotary evaporator
according to ASTM D 5404. In brief, the binder is recovered from the solvent solution by using a
rotary evaporator to evaporate, condense, and then recover the solvent in a separate flask. The
binder remains in the distillation flask. First, an oil bath is heated to 140oC, and water is circulated
through the condenser. A 500-mL sample of the solvent solution is added to the distillation flask
and then is attached to the evaporator. Next, a vacuum is applied at 5.3 kPa, and a nitrogen flow of
500 mL/min is added to the system. The distillation flask is then lowered into the hot oil bath and
begins to rotate until most of the solvent solution is evaporated, and then an additional 500-mL
sample of the solvent solution is added, and this procedure is repeated until all of the solvent
solution has evaporated. After the bulk of the solvent has been distilled from the asphalt and no
noticeable condensation is occurring in the condenser, the flask is then immersed to a depth of 1.5
21
in, a vacuum is applied at an increased pressure of 80.0 kPa, and the nitrogen flow is increased to
600 mL/min. This is applied for a total of 15 minutes, after which the asphalt is then poured into
containers for storage.
22
CHAPTER THREE
ANALYSIS, INTERPRETATION, AND FINDINGS
This chapter covers the results of field and laboratory investigation as part of this research
project. The chapter is divided into two major sections. The first section provides a discussion of
pavement evaluation, and the second section covers laboratory tests results and comparison of field
and laboratory data.
SECTION 1: RESULTS OF PAVEMENT CONDITION EVALUATION

The projects selected and visited under this research project and the approach taken in
evaluating pavement condition was presented in a preceding chapter. Details of each pavement
section and the range of distress evaluation are covered in Appendix C. In this section, for each
project, explanation is provided on the distresses observed and the overall condition of the
pavement.
Evaluation Results for SR 15 Northbound, Lycoming County
Cracking
ID-2 Section-Northbound: Cracking appeared dominant in this section. The width of the
cracks were mostly in the range of 1 to 5 mm, with a few as wide as 15 mm. Longitudinal cracks
were not significant, and the total length of this type of crack did not exceed 50 ft for the whole
stretch of road surveyed, and this was mostly both in the left and right wheel path. Transverse cracks
were more dominant as the total measured length was approximately 100 ft. No pattern could be
found for this cracking and was mostly sporadic. Remaining cracks on the pavement were mostly
fatigue cracking of low to medium severity and in a few spots were of high severity. The total area
of fatigued pavement was approximately 200 ft2. Longitudinal construction joint cracks between the
two lanes were severe and continuous for a long stretch of the surveyed section. There was also
significant longitudinal crack length observed to the right of the white stripe between the travel lane
and shoulder heading north.
Superpave Section-Northbound: The section overall looked good. Compared to the ID-2
section, very few cracked areas were observed at this section. Total length of all cracks was
approximately 95 ft. These cracks were mostly superficial and sporadic with no specific pattern.
23
There was a continuous stretch of 400 ft of cracking observed in longitudinal direction between the
wheel path for the first 400 ft of the section surveyed. In this cracked area, there were small areas of
minor raveling and segregation. No transverse cracks could be found on this section. After this 400-
ft stretch, the mat appeared in a significantly better condition, with no signs of raveled or segregated
areas. Contrary to the ID-2 section, the longitudinal construction joint cracking was also absent
from this section.
Superpave Section-Southbound: This is a Superpave section over jointed concrete

pavement. Fatigue and transverse cracks were absent from this section. Longitudinal cracking
appeared to be the only type of cracking observed in this section. The total length of this type of
crack was 470 ft in the 750-ft stretch of road that was surveyed. This length includes the
longitudinal crack observed between the travel and passing lanes. The length between wheel path
cracking (close to the center of the lane) was about 70 ft. The longitudinal cracking under the left
wheel path was approximately 230 ft, while the right wheel path cracking was about 54 ft. No
construction joint was observed for this section, implying possible construction of both lanes
together.
Rutting
Rutting for different sections is presented in Figures 9 through 12, and Tables 6 and 7. The
ID-2 section exhibits lower rutting, on the average, compared with the full-depth construction of the
northbound full-depth Superpave section and the southbound overlay Superpave section. This is
consistent with laboratory shear strain results for the wearing course as the ID-2 section had the
lowest permanent shear strain for the wearing layer as well as for the average of the strain for both
the wearing and binder layers, compared with the Superpave sections.
24
Figure 9 Transverse profile at Lycoming SR 15- northbound, ID2 section.
25
Figure 10 Transverse profile at Lycoming SR 15- northbound, Superpave section.
Figure 11 Transverse profile at Lycoming SR 15- southbound, Superpave overlay section.
26
Figure 12 Transverse profile at Lycoming SR 15- southbound, Superpave full section.
Table 6 Measured Rut Depth for Lycoming SR 15 – Northbound.

Rut Depth (mm) Rut Depth (mm)
Distance, ft Left Right Distance, ft Left Right
100 4.5 6.0 500 10.5 3.5
ID2 Superpave
700 5.0 5.0 800 7.5 5.0
Full Full
1300 4.0 1100 8.0 7.0
Depth Depth
1400 6.0 4.5
Const. Const.
Average 4.5 5.5 Average 8.0 5.0
Std. Dev. 0.5 0.71 Std. Dev. 1.62 1.27
C.O.V. 11.1 12.9 C.O.V. 20.3 25.5
27
Table 7 Measured Rut Depth for Lycoming SR 15 – Southbound.
100 8.5 4.5 800 5.0 7.0
200 6.0 3.0 Superpave- 900 7.5 9.0
Superpave
300 7.0 3.5 Full 1000 6.0 13.5
over
500 7.0 2.0 Depth 1100 6.0 15.0
Concrete
600 5.5 5.0 Const.
Std. Dev. 1.15 1.19 Std. Dev. 1.03 3.75
C.O.V. 16.9 33.2 C.O.V. 16.8 33.7
Pictures showing general appearance of the pavement sections are presented in Figures
13 through 15.
28
Figure 13 Pictures of Lycoming SR 15 pavement – ID2, northbound.
29
Figure 14 Pictures from Lycoming SR 15, Superpave full depth, northbound.
30
Figure 15 Pictures of Lycoming SR 15 pavement, Superpave over concrete, southbound.
31
Evaluation Results for Highway SR 11, Snyder County
Overall, this pavement appeared to be in good shape. A few spots of minor raveling and loss
of fines were observed on the surface.
Cracking
The level of cracking on the mat was found to be limited. No transverse cracks were
observed on this pavement. The total length of sporadic cracks was approximately 110 ft within the
1500-ft length surveyed. Most of this cracking was observed within the right wheel path of the
travel lane.
Major cracking was the continuous longitudinal crack at the construction joint between the passing
and travel lanes, as well as between the travel lane and shoulder. This longitudinal joint crack was
observed throughout most of the 1500-ft length surveyed.
The pavement was also surveyed for a length of 300 ft on the southbound lane, north of Mill
Rd. No distresses were observed except the longitudinal cracking at the joints. Most of the passing
lane within the 300 ft surveyed appeared to be in excellent shape.
Rutting
Figures 16 through 18 and Tables 8 and 9 present rutting results for Snyder SR 11. Rutting
in excess of 12 mm was observed at the vicinity of the 11th Street intersection due to slow-moving
traffic. As we moved farther from the intersection, the rutting decreased. Average rutting observed
at distances away from the intersection was approximately 6 to 7 mm. On average, the left and right
wheel paths indicated similar levels of rutting.
32
Figure 16 Transverse profile at Snyder SR 11- southbound passing lane.
Figure 17 Transverse profile at Snyder SR 11- southbound travel lane.
33
Figure 18 Transverse profile at Snyder SR 11- southbound travel lane.
Table 8 Measured Rut Depth for Snyder SR 11 – Southbound.

Travel
50 14.0 13.5 500 5.5 7.5
Lane
100 15.0 12.0 400 6.5 7.5
Travel North Of
274 8.5 10.0 300 7.0 6.0
Lane Mill
308 7.5 8.0 Average 6.3 7.0
North of Road
500 7.0 7.0 Std. Dev. 0.76 0.87
11th Street
700 6.5 9.0 C.O.V. 12.1 12.4
Average 9.8 9.9
Std. Dev. 3.75 2.46
C.O.V. 38.5 24.8
34
Table 9 Measured Rut Depth for Snyder SR 11- Southbound.
Rut Depth (mm)
Distance, ft Left Right
500 7.0 5.0
Passing 400 6.5 4.5
Lane 300 6.0 4.5
Average 6.5 4.7
Std. Dev. 0.41 0.29
C.O.V. 6.3 6.2
Pictures showing general appearance of the pavement sections for Snyder SR 11 are
presented in Figure 19.
35
Figure 19 Pictures of Snyder SR 11 pavement, southbound.
36
EVALUATION RESULTS FOR SR 153-SECTION 225, CLEARFIELD COUNTY
Cracking
PG 64-22 Section: Cracking appeared dominant in this section. The first 600 ft of the
surveyed section exhibited significant cracking. The amount of cracking at the remaining 500 ft was
considerably lower than the first 600 ft. The width of the cracks was mostly in the range of 3 to 5
mm, but some were as wide as 10 to 17 mm. Longitudinal cracks both in the right and left wheel
paths were obvious, with medium severity (crack width > 6mm). Total length of wheel path
cracking was 227 ft in the right wheel path and 236 ft in the left wheel path. Non-wheel path
longitudinal cracking was measured to be approximately 51 ft, with low severity (crack width <
6mm). Transverse cracks were observed with low severity (crack width < 6mm), but no pattern
could be found, and they were sporadic. Total length of transverse cracks was about 157 ft.
Longitudinal joint cracks between the two lanes was severe, and in some cases very severe, and
continuous for a long stretch of the surveyed section. Of the 1100 ft surveyed, the total length of
longitudinal joint cracking was about 980 ft. Total length of cracking measured (excluding
longitudinal joint cracking) was approximately 735 ft. Cracking was also observed at the
shoulder/lane interface area. These cracks were mostly concentrated on the shoulder at a distance of
about 5 ft from the white stripe, but some were right at the edge close to the stripe. These cracks
were mostly of medium severity, with a total length of about 647 ft. Some of the edge cracks,
however, were very severe.
PG 64-28 Section: For the 1000-ft stretch of the road surveyed for the PG 64-28 section, the
pavement appeared in significantly better condition compared with the PG 64-22 section. There
were no cracks observed on the mat. The pavement for the most part looked very uniform. Only
minor raveling close to the left wheel path (between the center of wheel path and longitudinal
construction joint) was observed in some areas. The only cracking observed on the mat was the
longitudinal cracks in the left wheel path. This was limited as the total length of this low severity
cracking was about 46 ft.
Rutting
While multiple transverse profiles could be obtained for PG 64-22 section, only one
37
relatively meaningful graph for rutting could be obtained for the PG 64-28 section (Figures 20 and
21, and Table 10). Overall, it was observed that the left wheel path rutting was larger for the PG 64-
28 section compared to the PG 64-22 section. Average rutting for both sections was approximately
6 to 7 mm.
38
Figure 20 Transverse profile at Clearfield SR 153- northbound, PG 64-22 section.
Figure 21 Transverse profile at Clearfield SR 153- northbound, PG 64-28 section.
39
Table 10 Measured Rut Depth for Clearfield SR 153-Northbound.
0 6.0 6.5 800 9.5 4.0
PG 64-28
200 7.0 4.0 Average 9.5 4.0
400 7.5 9.5 Std. Dev. 0 0
PG 64-22
600 5.5 7.0 C.O.V. 0 0
800 6.0 7.0
Average 6.4 6.8
Std. Dev. 0.82 1.96
C.O.V. 12.8 28.8
Pictures showing general appearance of the pavement sections at Clearfield SR 153 are
presented in Figures 22 and 23.
40
41
Figure 22 Pictures of Clearfield SR 153 pavement, PG 64-22 section.
42
Figure 23 Pictures of Clearfield SR 153 pavement, PG 64-28 section.
43
EVALUATION RESULTS FOR I-80, EASTBOUND, CENTRE COUNTY
Cracking
MP 167-167.5: The pavement mat was free of cracks in the section surveyed. No cracks of
any type were found except longitudinal cracks at the white stripe between the travel lane and the
shoulder. This crack was continuous throughout the 1000-ft section surveyed. The cracks were
mostly located 4 to 7 inches to the right of the white stripe.
There was slight raveling and loss of fines observed on the surface in some areas throughout
the pavement; however, the pavement looked uniform and in a relatively good shape.
MP 167.5-168: Overall, this section was similar to the previous section. No cracks of any
kind were found except the edge crack between the travel lane and shoulder throughout the whole
section. Minor loss of fines from the surface was observed; otherwise, the mat looked very uniform.
MP 168-168.5: Similar to the two previous sections, no cracks were observed except the
edge crack discussed previously. Even though loss of fines and raveling was minor, it was more
prominent compared to previous sections. This is probably because the wearing course in this
section was a 19 mm mix, and in the previous two sections, a 12.5 mm mix was used at the surface.
MP 168.5-169: This section was very similar to the first two sections, with minor raveling
present. The crack between the travel lane and shoulder was observed as before except with less
severity in some areas.
MP 169-169.5: This section appeared the best section, with no cracks. Even the cracking
between the travel lane and shoulder were absent in this section. The mat looked uniform.
Rutting
The range of rutting for all sections varied between 2 and 6 mm (Figures 24 through 28, and
Tables 11 through 13) . For all cases, the level of rutting in the left wheel path was larger than that
in the right wheel path. The difference between different sections was in the aggregate size (12.5
mm versus 19 mm for the wearing course and 19 mm versus 25 mm for the binder course) and the
44
layer thickness (40 mm versus 50 mm for the wearing layer and 50 mm versus 75 mm for the binder
layer). From measurements, it can be concluded that none of the sections is manifesting excessive
rutting.
45
Figure 24 Transverse profile at Centre I-80, eastbound, MP 167.0 to MP 167.5.
Figure 25 Transverse profile at Centre I-80, eastbound, MP 167.5 to MP 168.
46
Figure 27 Transverse profile at Centre I-80, eastbound, MP 168.5 to MP 169.
47
Table 11 Measured Rut Depth for Centre I-80, Eastbound.

200 4.5 200 5.0 2.0
MP
MP 400 4.0 3.5 400 5.0 2.0
167.5 to
167.0 to 600 4.5 3.0 600 5.5 2.0
168.0
167.5 800 5.0 3.5 Average 5.2 2.0
Average 4.5 3.3 Std. Dev. 0.29 0.00
Std. Dev. 0.41 0.29 C.O.V. 5.6 0.0
C.O.V. 9.1 8.7
48
200 6.5 2.0 200 4.5 4.0
MP MP
400 5.5 2.5 400 5.0 5.0
168.0 to 168.5 to
600 6.5 2.5 600 4.0 3.5
168.5 169.0
Std. Dev. 0.58 0.29 Std. Dev. 0.50 0.76
C.O.V. 9.4 12.4 C.O.V. 11.1 18.3

Rut Depth (mm)
200 4.5 4.0
MP
600 5.0 3.5
169.0 To
800 6.0 4.5
169.5
Average 5.2 4.0
Std. Dev. 0.76 0.50
C.O.V. 14.8 12.5
Pictures showing general appearance of different pavement sections at Centre I-80 are
presented in Figures 29 and 30.
49
Figure 29 Pictures of Centre I-80 pavement.
50
Figure 30 Pictures of Centre I-80 pavement.
51
EVALUATION RESULTS FOR SR 522, SOUTHBOUND – HUNTINGDON COUNTY
Cracking
Overall, the pavement appeared to be in good condition. Cracking on the pavement mat was
very limited. The only cracks on the mat were left wheel path longitudinal cracks with a total length
of about 31 ft at three different locations. The crack width did not exceed 3 mm. No transverse or
fatigue crack was observed at any point on the mat. The most dominant cracking was observed at
the white stripe between the shoulder and the travel lane, with a total length of about 56 ft. In a long
section of the road, about 430 ft, the cracking was also observed at a distance of about 20 to 24
inches to the right of the white strip on the shoulder. All of these cracks seemed to be the result of
joint construction. The crack width was in the range of 5 to 15 mm. Longitudinal cracking was also
observed at a length of about 360 ft between the two lanes.
The other type of distress observed on the pavement section was minor to medium severity
raveling, mostly along the center of the lane. These were continuous stretches of raveled areas,
clearly showing loss of fine material at the surface.
Rutting
Average rutting was about 7 mm, with the left wheel path showing slightly larger rut depth
than the right wheel path (Figure 31 and Table 14). Overall, it can also be observed that at distances
closer to the intersection with SR 22, the rutting level is higher and as we move further from the
intersection, a decrease in rutting is observed.
52
Figure 31 Transverse profile at Huntingdon SR 522, southbound.
Table 14 Measured Rut Depth for Huntingdon SR 522, Southbound.

Rut Depth (mm)
0 10.0 9.5
200 6.5 8.0
Travel 400 6.5 5.0
Lane 600 7.0 3.5
800 8.0 4.5
Average 7.6 6.1
Std. Dev. 1.47 2.53
C.O.V. 19.4 41.6
Pictures showing general appearance of Huntingdon SR 522 are presented in Figure 32.
53
Figure 32 Pictures of Huntingdon SR 522 pavement.
54
SECTION 2: RESULTS FROM LABORATORY INVESTIGATION
The laboratory investigation was concentrated on determination of thicknesses and air voids
for both binder and wearing layers and determination of low temperature creep and strength for the
wearing layer. Details of the testing procedure were covered in a previous chapter. A summary of
layer thickness and air void for all cores is presented in Table 15.
Table 15 Thicknesses and Specific Gravities for Cores Tested Under WO-9.
Highway County Section Core # Avg. Layer Thickness Bulk Specific Gravity Gmm % Voids
mm Gmb
Wearing Binder Wearing Binder Wearing Wearing
PG 64-28 1 39.2 46.4 2.451 2.477 2.567 4.5
2 43.7 N/A 2.487 N/A 2.567 3.1
4 38.5 N/A 2.501 N/A 2.567 2.6
5 36.9 55.2 2.476 2.437 2.567 3.5
6 33.7 43.7 2.500 2.497 2.567 2.6
7 33.8 60.0 2.451 2.403 2.567 4.5
8 36.3 57.5 2.484 2.433 2.567 3.2
SR 153 Clearfield
PG 64-22 1 35.1 52.9 2.470 2.460 2.567 3.8
2 35.6 N/A 2.455 2.471 2.567 4.4
4 33.7 N/A 2.468 N/A 2.567 3.8
4p 35.5 N/A 2.459 N/A 2.567 4.2
5 41.0 N/A 2.467 2.390 2.567 3.9
6 38.7 52.6 2.493 2.472 2.567 2.9
8 39.6 54.4 2.416 2.426 2.567 5.9
MP 167 + 1350 ft 1 37.2 56.1 2.403 2.452 2.515 4.4
MP 167 + 1350 ft 2 43.7 52.1 2.409 2.452 2.515 4.2
MP 167 + 1350 ft 3 42.7 51.0 2.416 2.470 2.515 3.9
MP 167.5 + 600 ft 4 34.0 51.5 2.417 2.472 2.515 3.9
MP 167.5 + 600 ft 5 38.1 53.9 2.409 2.425 2.515 4.2
MP 168+691 ft 6 47.8 67.7 2.385 2.500 2.515 5.2
I-80 Centre
MP 168 + 700 ft 7 47.2 66.5 2.402 2.502 2.547 5.7
MP 168.5 + 765 ft 9 50.8 71.3 2.400 2.456 2.515 4.6
MP 169 + 700 ft 10 40.0 70.7 2.405 2.484 2.515 4.4
MP 167.5 + 700 ft 11 42.8 76.3 2.372 2.456 2.515 5.7
MP 169 + 700 ft 12 39.4 78.6 2.390 2.457 2.515 5.0
MP 169 + 700 ft 13 42.6 76.1 2.354 2.458 2.515 6.4
1 35.60 49.8 2.441 2.514 2.538 3.8
2 41.70 51.6 2.339 2.389 2.538 7.8
3 37.8 54.8 2.332 2.418 2.538 8.1
SR 522 Huntingdon
4 36.1 56.1 2.289 2.508 2.538 9.8
5 39.70 53.7 2.384 2.533 2.538 6.1
6 37.7 51.1 2.333 2.457 2.538 8.1
55
The results for the maximum theoretical specific gravity (Gmm) from laboratory testing of
cores versus design values are presented in Table 16. The results are comparable except the 19 mm
mix of Centre I-80 where lower Gmm is obtained from cores compared to design values.
Table 16 Comparison of Design and Measured Gmm for the Wearing Course
Highway County Section Gmm
Design Cores
PG 64-22 2.571 2.573
2.561
SR 153 Clearfield
PG 64-28 2.571 2.570
12.5mm Mix 2.517 2.515

I-80 Centre
19mm Mix 2.600 2.546
2.548
2.528 2.530
SR 522 Huntingdon
2.552
2.531
Low Temperature Creep and Strength Testing Results
Analysis of Cracking
Of all the sites visited, the ID2-section of Lycoming SR15 and PG 64-22 section of
Clearfield SR153 showed the highest level of cracking. While for both of these projects, most of the
cracking appeared to be fatigue related, there were areas of transverse cracks at both locations.
Since no IDT results were available for Clearfield, Centre I-80, and Huntingdon 522, cores from
these projects were used to complete such testing.
Lycoming SR 15: Original creep and strength testing for the Lycoming project was available
from indirect tensile tests (IDT) conducted on laboratory-prepared specimens during the WO-43
study. Among those selected for this research, the Lycoming SR 15 was the only project for which
IDT data were available from testing original materials. The master curve from creep compliance
results at -20ºC, -10ºC, and 0ºC is presented in Figure 33. A reference temperature of -10°C is used
to generate this graph. The figure indicates higher compliance of the Superpave mixture compared
56
to the ID-2 mixture. Higher compliance is an indication of better resistance against low temperature
cracking and fatigue cracking. Field observations indicated severe cracking of the ID-2 section
compared to the Superpave section where little cracking was observed. It should be noted that PG
64-22 binder was used in the ID-2 mix, while the Superpave mix contained a PG 64-28 binder.
1.00E-01
Reference -10°C
1.00E-02
Superpave
Control (ID-2)
D(t) 1/Mpa
1.00E-03
1.00E-04
1.00E-05
1.00E-02 1.00E+00 1.00E+02 1.00E+04 1.00E+06 1.00E+08
Reduced time(s)
Figure 33 Creep Compliance versus reduced time for ID-2 and Superpave Sections at
Lycoming SR 153.
Clearfield SR 153: For the Clearfield SR 153, no IDT test results were available for the
original mixes, i.e., from materials at the time of construction. Therefore, during this project, IDT
creep and strength tests were conducted on cores collected at the time of pavement condition survey.
The tests were conducted to provide data needed to evaluate thermal cracking sensitivity of the
mixes. It is important to note that the results discussed here are for the cores from an aged 10-year-
old pavement; however, since both the PG 64-24 and PG 64-28 sections were subject to the same
climatic and traffic conditions, the results are comparable.
For the Clearfield SR 153, the IDT tests were conducted on six of the cores of the wearing
layers. Three cores from the PG 64-22 section and three from the PG 64-28 were used. The core
57
identification number and the pavement condition neighboring the core are shown in Table 17.
These two sections will be referred to as CR 64-28 and CR 64-22.
Table 17 SR 153 Cores Selected for IDT.
Core ID Pavement Section Condition
1 CR 64-28 Good
6 CR 64-28 Cracked
7 CR 64-28 Raveled
2 CR 64-22 Extension of Transverse
Crack
5 CR 64-22 Good
6 CR 64-22 Cracked
The results are shown in Figures 34 through 43. The creep compliance master curve (at -
10ºC) and indirect tensile strength (at -10ºC) calculated for both sections are shown in Figure 38. It
is observed from this figure that, as expected, the PG 64-28 mix has higher compliance (lower
stiffness) than the 64-22 mix. This is consistent with observed level of cracking in the field. The
average tensile strength value is higher for the 64-28 mix (Figures 42 and 43). It should be noted that
the creep compliance master curve developed for each section was obtained as an average of three
replicates (AASHTO T322).
58
Creep compliance vs. Time (Clearfield 64-22)
3.50E-04
3.00E-04
-20C
-10C
0C
2.50E-04
2.00E-04
D(t) 1/Mpa
1.50E-04
1.00E-04
5.00E-05
0.00E+00
1.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.00E+02
Time(s)
Figure 34 Creep compliance (1/MPa) vs. time(s) for CR 64-22.
Creep compliance mastercurve (Clearfield 64-22)

1.00E-03
D(t) 1/Mpa
1.00E-04
1.00E-05
1.00E-04 1.00E-02 1.00E+00 1.00E+02 1.00E+04
Reduced time(s)
Figure 35 Creep compliance (1/MPa) vs. reduced time(s) for CR 64-22.
59
Log shift factors vs Temperature (Clearfield 64-22)
1.5
0.5
0
Log shift factor
-0.5
y = -0.0034x2 - 0.2233x - 1.8908
R2 = 1
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5
Temp (C)
Figure 36 Log shift factors vs. temp for CR 64-28.
Creep compliance vs. Time (Clearfield 64-28)

4.00E-04
3.50E-04
-20C
-10C
3.00E-04
0C
2.50E-04
D(t) 1/Mpa
2.00E-04
1.50E-04
1.00E-04
5.00E-05
0.00E+00
1.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.00E+02
Time(s)
Figure 37 Creep compliance (1/MPa) vs. time(s) for CR 64-28.
60
Creep compliance mastercurve (Clearfield 64-28)
1.00E-03
D(t) 1/Mpa
1.00E-04
1.00E-05
1.00E-04 1.00E-02 1.00E+00 1.00E+02 1.00E+04
Reduced time(s)
Figure 38 Creep compliance (1/MPa) vs. reduced time(s) for CR 64-28.
Log shift factors vs Temperature (Clearfield 64-28)

1.5
0.5
Log shift factor
0
y = -0.0026x2 - 0.1849x - 1.5858
R2 = 1
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5
Temp (C)
Figure 39 Log shift factors vs. temp for CR 64-28.
61
Creep compliance mastercurves -Clearfield
1.00E-03
64-28
64-22
D(t) 1/Mpa
1.00E-04
1.00E-05
1.00E-04 1.00E-02 1.00E+00 1.00E+02 1.00E+04
Reduced time(s)
Figure 40 Comparison of master curves of both sites on log-log domain.
62
Shift factor curves for Clearfield
1.5
0.5
y = -0.0026x2 - 0.1849x - 1.5858
R2 = 1
0
Log shift factor
64-22
-0.5
64-28
-1
y = -0.0034x2 - 0.2233x - 1.8908
R2 = 1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5
Temperature (C)
Figure 41 Comparison of shift factor curves for both sites.
Table 18 Log Shift Factors for Both Sections at SR 153.

64-22 64-28
temp Log shift factors
-20 1.206 1.0598
-10 0 0
0 -1.891 -1.586
Table 19 Sigmoidal Coefficients for Both Sections at SR 153

64-22 64-28
a1 3.768 -2.223
a2 -40.539 -8.917
a3 4.959 4.366
a4 3.486 0.0627
a5 3.184 -1.722
a6 -0.365 -0.598
63
Tensile strength data (Clearfield 64-22)
4.5
3.5
3
Strength (Mpa)
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
core 2 core 5 core 6
Core ID
Figure 42 Strength test results for CR 64-22.
Tensile strength data (Clearfield 64-28)

4.5
3.5
3
Strength (Mpa)
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
core 1 core 6 core 7
Core ID
Figure 43 Strength test results for CR 64-28.
64
Huntingdon SR 522: Indirect tensile creep, strength, and resilient modulus tests were
conducted on three cores from Huntingdon SR 522, as shown in Table 20. Cores 1 and 2 were from
the same transverse section on the right wheel path and between the wheel paths, respectively. Core
5 is on the right wheel path, approximately 400 ft farther south from core 1.
Table 20 Huntingdon SR 522 Cores Selected for IDT.
Core ID Location Pavement

Condition
1 Right Wheel Path Good
2 Between Wheel Path Minor Raveling
5 Right Wheel Path Good
The results of IDT tests are shown in Figures 44 through 47 and in Tables 21 and 22. The creep
compliance master curve (at -10ºC) and indirect tensile strength (at -10ºC) calculated for both
sections are shown in Figures 45 and 47, respectively. As shown in Figure 47, the Huntingdon SR
522 presents an asphalt concrete mix which has slightly a lower indirect tensile strength (and
possibly higher compliance) at low temperatures compared with the mixes used in Clearfield SR
153. Huntingdon SR 522 exhibited little cracking as discussed previously.
65
Creep compliance vs. Time (Huntington Core 1,2 and 5)
1.00E-03
9.00E-04
8.00E-04 -20C
-10C
7.00E-04
0C
6.00E-04
D(t) 1/Mpa
5.00E-04
4.00E-04
3.00E-04
2.00E-04
1.00E-04
0.00E+00
1.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.00E+02
Time(s)
Figure 44 Creep compliance vs. time – Huntingdon.
Creep compliance mastercurve (Huntington Core 1,2 and 5)

1.00E-02
1.00E-03
D(t) 1/Mpa
1.00E-04
1.00E-05
1.00E-04 1.00E-02 1.00E+00 1.00E+02 1.00E+04
Reduced time(s)
Figure 45 Creep compliance vs. reduced time – Huntingdon.
66
Log shift factors vs Temp (Huntington - Core1,2 and 5)
2
1.5
1
2
y = -0.0001x - 0.1789x - 1.7758
R2 = 1
0.5
Log shift factor
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0
Temp (C)
Figure 46 Log shift factor curve – Huntington.
Table 21 Sigmoidal Coefficients – Huntington.

Core (1,2 and 5)
a1 11.907
a2 -70.517
a3 4.368
a4 0.0620
a5 -0.467
a6 -0.333
Table 22 Shift Factors – Huntington.

temp shift log shift
-20 56.224 1.750
-10 1 0
0 0.0168 -1.776
67
Strength Test (Huntington Core 1,2 and 5)
3.5
2.5
Strength (Mpa)
1.5
0.5
0
Core 1 Core 2 Core 5
Core ID
Figure 47 Indirect tensile strength test results– Huntington SR 522.
Table 23 Strength Test – Huntington.

Strength
Core # (MPa)
1 3.115
2 2.856
5 2.680
Centre I-80: The indirect tensile creep and strength tests were also conducted on the cores
from the wearing layers of I-80 in Centre County. Five cores were used for testing. The core
identification number and locations are shown in Table 24. All cores appeared to be in a good shape.
68
Table 24 Details of Cores Selected for IDT from Centre I-80.
Location
Core ID Nominal Maximum
(mile + feet) Aggregate
Size. mm
10 MP 169+700 12.5
11 MP 169+700 12.5
12 MP 169+700 12.5
6 MP 168+691 19.0
7 MP 168+700 19.0
Cores 6 and 7 were from the 50-mm thick wearing course constructed with a 19 mm mix,
and cores 10, 11, and 12 were from the 40-mm thick wearing course constructed with a 12.5 mm
mix. The results of the tests are shown in Figures 48 through 57 and Tables 25 though 27.
Comparison of creep compliance between the 19 mm mix and 12.5 mm mix, as shown in Figure 54,
indicates that the 19 mm mix is a stiffer mix compared with the 12.5 mm mix. However, both are
more compliant than the mixes used in Clearfield SR 153, and this level of compliance is clearly the
reason for observing no cracks in this pavement after ten years of service. The indirect tensile
strength results indicate significant variability among cores. On the average, the 12.5mm mix
exhibits higher tensile strength than the 19mm mix.
69
Creep compliance vs. Time (I-80, Core 10,11 and 12)
3.00E-04
2.50E-04
-20C
-10C
0C
2.00E-04
D(t) 1/Mpa
1.50E-04
1.00E-04
5.00E-05
1.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.00E+02
Time(s)
Figure 48 Creep compliance vs. time for cores 10, 11, and 12 between MP 169 and 169.5 (I-80
Centre).
Creep compliance mastercurve (I-80, Core 10,11 and 12)

1.00E-03
D(t) 1/Mpa
1.00E-04
1.00E-05
1.00E-04 1.00E-02 1.00E+00 1.00E+02 1.00E+04
Reduced time(s)
Figure 49 Creep compliance vs. reduced time for cores between MP 169 and 169.5 (I-80 Centre).
70
Log shift factors vs Temp (I-80 MP 169-169.5)
1.5
0.5
y = -0.0019x2 - 0.1836x - 1.6466
2
R =1
Log shift factor
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0
Temp (C)
Figure 50 Log shift factor vs. temp for cores 10, 11, and 12.
Creep compliance vs. Time (I-80 , core 6 and 7)

2.50E-04
2.30E-04
2.10E-04
-20C
1.90E-04 -10C
1.70E-04 0C
D(t) 1/Mpa
1.50E-04
1.30E-04
1.10E-04
9.00E-05
7.00E-05
5.00E-05
1.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.00E+02
Time(s)
Figure 51 Creep compliance vs. time for cores 6 and 7 between MP 168 and 168.5
(I-80 Centre).
71
Creep compliance mastercurve (I-80, core 6 and 7)
1.00E-03
D(t) 1/Mpa
1.00E-04
1.00E-05
1.00E-03 1.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.00E+02 1.00E+03 1.00E+04
Reduced time(s)
Figure 52 Creep compliance vs. reduced time for cores between MP 168 and 168.5
(I-80 Centre).
72
Log shift factors vs Temp (I-80-MP 168-168.5)
1
0.5
2
y = -0.0048x - 0.2313x - 1.8283
2
R =1
0
Log shift factor
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0
Temp (C)
Figure 53 Log shift factor vs. temp for cores 6 and 7.
Creep compliance mastercurves (I-80)

1.00E-03
Core 6 7
Core 10 11 12
D(t) 1/Mpa
1.00E-04
1.00E-05
1.00E-04 1.00E-03 1.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.00E+02 1.00E+03 1.00E+04
Reduced time(s)
Figure 54 Comparison of master curves for I-80.
73
Shift factor curves for I-80
1.5
1
2
y = -0.0019x - 0.1836x - 1.6466
2
R =1
0.5
Core 6 and 7
log shift factor
0
Core 10,11 and 12
-0.5
2
y = -0.0048x - 0.2313x - 1.8283
2
R =1
-1
-1.5
-2
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0
Temperature (C)
Figure 55 Comparison of shift factors (I-80).
74
Strength Test (I-80-MP 169-169.5)
3.3
3.2
3.1
Strength (Mpa)
2.9
2.8
2.7
Core 10 Core 11 Core 12
Core ID
Figure 56 Strength values for cores between MP 169 and 169.5.
Strength test (I-80-MP 168-168.5)
2.9
2.8
Strength(Mpa)
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.3
Core 6 Core 7
Core ID
Figure 57 Strength values for cores between MP 168 and 168.5.
75
Table 25 Strength Values for All Cores in I-80.
Strength
Core # (MPa)
10 2.930
11 2.961
12 3.257
6 2.578
7 2.727
Table 26 Log Shift Factors for All Cores in I-80.

MP 169-169.5 MP 168-168.5
Core (10,11,12) Core (6,7)
Temp.,
ºC log shift
-20 1.276 0.979
-10 0 0
0 -1.646 -1.802
Table 27 Sigmoidal Coefficients for All Cores in I-80.

MP 169-169.5 MP 168-168.5
Core (10,11,12) Core(6,7)
a1 5.367 -0.374
a2 -48.631 -26.798
a3 5.097 6.968
a4 0.439 2.343
a5 1.999 2.443
a6 -0.472 -0.476
76
Results from Resilient Modulus Testing
It was mentioned previously that the resilient modulus testing was conducted on cores from
Huntingdon SR 522 and Centre I-80. These tests were performed on the same cores that were used
for IDT strength and creep discussed previously.
The resilient modulus values for the cores tested for Centre I-80 and Huntingdon SR 522 are
shown in Tables 28 and 29, respectively.
Table 28 Results of Resilient Modulus Test for Centre I-80.

Core Resilient modulus
# (MPa)
10 12089
11 10237
12 13990
6 9554
7 13590
The two cores tested from the 19 mm mix of Centre I-80 (cores 6 and 7) showed significant
variability. On the average, the modulus values from 19 mm mix and the 12.5 mm mix are
comparable. The resilient modulus values for Huntingdon SR 522 were significantly lower than
those of Centre I-80. The recovered binders from these two sites exhibit very different values for
complex modulus, with the Centre I-80 binder being considerably stiffer than the binder of SR 522,
as shown in Table 32. Significant difference in binder stiffness has certainly affected the difference
observed in resilient modulus of the mixes.
Table 29 Results of Resilient Modulus Test for Huntingdon SR 522.

Core # Resilient Modulus (MPa)
1 4327
2 4792
5 3870
Results form PSPA Tests

Due to resource limitations, Huntingdon SR 522 was the only site where PSPA testing was
conducted. Such testing was not part of the original testing plan but was conducted to obtain
77
additional data regarding pavement modulus at this site. All seismic tests were performed on
11/08/2007.
Seismic data were collected at different locations along the pavement: left wheel path
(LWP), right wheel path (RWP), and centreline (C) of travel lane. Coring areas were also included
during PSPA testing. For each testing location, PSPA tests were conducted in both longitudinal and
transverse orientation. The longitudinal orientation is parallel to the traffic direction, while the
transverse orientation is perpendicular. Finally, at least three measurements were obtained at
additional locations at distances about 300 to 500 feet from the survey start point. Pavement surface
temperature was recorded for each PSPA measurement. Summarized PSPA data are tabulated in
Tables 30. The average seismic modulus of binder layer was found to be approximately 9000 MPa
In general, a good structural uniformity was observed throughout the pavement section. In other
words, seismic modulus does not vary significantly from one testing location to another. It should be
noted that, in most cases, testing at centreline yields lower seismic moduli than wheel paths (LWP
and RWP). One possible explanation of this observation is the material densification in wheel paths
due to traffic.
78
Table 30 Results of PSPA Testing at Huntingdon SR 522
Modulus Pav. Temp Modulus Pav. Temp
o o
Location Location Orientation MPa C Location Location Orientation MPa C
Core 1 RWP Longitudinal 8678 25 300 ft C Transverse 8079 27
Core 1 RWP Transverse 8817 26 300 ft LWP Longitudinal 8686 27
Core 2 BWP Longitudinal 11389 26 300 ft LWP Transverse 7954 27
Core 2 BWP Transverse 10801 26 334 ft RWP Longitudinal 9953 27
Core 3 LWP Longitudinal 8450 26 334 ft RWP Transverse 8439 27
Core 3 LWP Transverse 7955 26 334 ft Center Longitudinal 8475 27
Core 4 Center Longitudinal 8140 25 334 ft Center Transverse 8253 27
Core 4 Center Transverse 7536 25 454 ft RWP Longitudinal 10311 27
Core 5 RWP Longitudinal 9220 24 454 ft RWP Transverse 8573 27
Core 5 RWP Transverse 8907 25 454 ft Center Longitudinal 7340 27
Core 6 LWP Longitudinal 6872 27 454 ft Center Transverse 7805 27
Core 6 LWP Longitudinal 6867 27 454 ft Center Transverse 7834 27
Core 6 LWP Longitudinal - 27 454 ft Center Transverse 7801 27
Core 6 LWP Transverse 8148 27 454 ft LWP Longitudinal 11994 27
300 ft RWP Longitudinal 11223 27 454 ft LWP Transverse 11358 27
300 ft RWP Transverse 10503 27 500 ft - Longitudinal 7114 27
300 ft Center Longitudinal 7898 27 500 ft - Transverse 7496 27
RWP: Right Wheel Path Average Modulus, Mpa 8962
LWP: Left Wheel Path Std. Dev., Mpa 1355
79
Analysis of Rutting Data
The tables on rutting presented previously contain the peak magnitude of rut depth for both
left and right wheel paths. The lowest reported rutting is about 2 mm (Centre I-80 right lane) and
the highest 11 mm (Lycoming SR 15, southbound). The average rutting for right wheel path was 5.4
mm and 6.4 mm for right wheel path and left wheel path, respectively, when all surveyed sites are
considered. In addition, in most cases, the rutting in the left wheel path exceeds that of the right
wheel path; however, for one-third of the cases, the opposite is true.
The rutting data indicates that almost all projects are performing satisfactorily in this regard.
We have adopted the following ranges to categorize pavement performance in terms of rutting:
• 0 < rut < 5 mm: Excellent Performance

• 5 < rut < 10 mm: Acceptable Performance
• 10 < rut < 15 mm: Marginal Performance
• rut > 15 mm: Poor Performance
Considering this definition, performance of most sites is in the excellent or acceptable range
(Figure 58). The only two sections with marginal performances would be the travel lane of the
Snyder SR 11 (at the proximity of the 11th Street) and the travel lane of the full-depth construction
Superpave mix on the southbound lane of Lycoming SR15. For Snyder, the obvious reason is slow-
moving traffic close to the intersection causing excessive rutting. The data for this site indicate that
as we move farther from the intersection, rutting is reduced. Among the sites presented in Figure 58,
the full-depth construction Superpave mix of the Lycoming SR15 did indicate the highest level of
shear strain in the Superpave shear tester.
80
20
15
Rut Depth, mm
10
0
Snyder SR 11 Travel Lane North of 11th St.
Lycoming SR 15 South Bound Superpave Over Concrete
Lycoming SR 15 North Bound South of Tioga Border Sign
Lycoming SR 15 North Bound North of Tioga Border Sign

Snyder SR 11 Travel Lane North of Mill Rd.
Centre I-80 MP 167.0 to 167.5

Snyder SR 11 Passing Lane
Huntingdon SR 522 Travel Lane

Centre I-80 MP 168.5 to 169.0
Lycoming SR 15 North Bound ID2
Lycoming SR 15 South Bound Superpave-Full Depth
Centre I-80 MP 167.5 to 168.0
Centre I-80 MP 168.0 to 168.5
Centre MP 169.0 to 169.5
Clearfield SR 153 PG 64-28

Clearfield SR 153 PG 64-22
Lycoming SR 15 North Bound Superpave
Proposed Guide:
0<rut<5 mm: EXCELLENT
5<rut<10 mm: ACCEPTABLE
10<rut<15 mm: MARGINAL
rut>15 mm: POOR
Figure 58 Measure rut depth at different sites.
Table 31 is presented in an attempt to compare the results of the laboratory shear tests to the
Superpave shear tester (SST) and the observed field rutting. The laboratory tests were the constant
height repeated shear tests (CHRST) conducted at 52ºC during the WO-43 project. Figure 59
presents the relationship between shear strain at an equivalent number of cycles versus rut depth.
No clear trend is observed, indicating the impact of other factors that are not included in the
analysis. Such factors include the rate of loading (higher truck speed on SR 15 versus SR 153), the
grade effect (higher slope at SR 153 compared to SR 153), and temperature differences. At best, we
could conclude that the laboratory shear strain values under 1 percent result in acceptable rutting
level in the field.
81
Table 31 Shear Test Results for Cored Projects and Correspondence with Measured Field Rut Depth.
Slope of Permanent
No. of shear Permanent shear Shear Strain Maximum
strain cycles Shear Strain Specimen deformation after Average Field
ESALS equivalent to after 5000 Air Voids, vs. Cycles equivalent Measured Rut,
PENNDOT Project (Thousands) ESALS Pavement Course PG Grade cycles % Curve cycles mm
Lycoming 3,058 4808 SuperPave Wearing Course, 12.5 mm, RPS, SRL-H 64-22 1.13 3 0.18 1.13
0015 - B43 Bituminous Concrete Base Course 64-22 0.51 3 0.2 0.5
ID-2 Bituminous Concrete Binder Course 64-22 0.96 7 0 0.95
ID-2 Bituminous Concrete Wearing Course 64-22 0.43 3 0.26 0.42 5.5
Lycoming 4,054 6820 SuperPave Wearing Course, 12.5 mm, RPS, SRL-H 64-28 0.96 3 0.23 1.02 8.0
0015 - B42 032200 SuperPave Wearing Course, 12.5 mm, RPS, SRL-H 64-22 1.04 3 0.14 1.08
SuperPave Wearing Course, 12.5 mm, RPS, SRL-E 64-22 0.72 3 0.17 0.76
Snyder 7,304 14152
SuperPave Wearing Course, 19 mm, RPS, SRL-E* 64-22 0.69 3 0.12 0.78 6.5
0011 - 38M SuperPave Wearing Course, 19 mm, RPS, SRL-E ** 76-22 0.56 3 0.14 0.65 7.0
Clearfield 1,000 1202 SuperPave Wearing Course, 12.5 mm, RPS, SRL-G 64-28 0.41 3 0.17 0.32 9.5
0153-225 64-28 0.46 3 0.23 0.33
SuperPave Binder Course, 64-22 0.63 3 0.14 0.52
25 mm 64-22 2.01 7 0.34 1.24
82
10
8
Measured Rut Depth, mm
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Shear Strain from Constant Height Repeated Shear Test, %
Figure 59 Rut Depth versus CHRST permanent shear strain of the wearing layer.
Investigation of Aging in Superpave Binders

The goal of this research project was validation of the Superpave system through field
investigation. As part of accomplishing this objective, an investigation was made into the level of
aging observed in the field and how this aging compares with laboratory-simulated aging with the
pressure aging vessel (PAV). Such comparative analysis was conducted for those projects from
which cores were available. That includes Clearfield SR 153 and Huntingdon SR 522. For the
Centre I-80 project, complex modulus was determined for the recovered binder from field cores but
no comparison could be made with PAV data since no such data was available.
The binders recovered from field cores were tested with the dynamic shear rheometer (DSR) at
high and intermediate temperatures. The modulus results for both recovered binder and PAV-aged
binder are presented in Table 32 and Figures 60 through 63.
83
Table 32 Comparing Modulus of Binder from PAV Simulation with That of Field Cores.
Binder Modulus Binder Modulus
Test Aging Ratio
County Highway Specimen ID o From Lab PAV From Field Cores
Temp. C (Field/PAV)
Simulation, kPa Test, kPa
25 8,762.8 4,431.9 0.51
PG 64-22
28 5,637.6 2,820.2 0.50
Core # 2
31 3,551.8 1,642.9 0.46
Clearfield SR-153
22 6,437.5 3,308.3 0.51
PG 64-28
25 4,068.4 2,018.9 0.50
Core # 1
28 2,568.1 1,350.4 0.53
22 4,970.0 3,624.0 0.73

25 2,272.2
Core # 1
28 2,060.0 1,380.2 0.67
31 858.2
Huntingdon SR-522
22 4,970.0 5,695.2 1.15
25 3,857.7
Core # 2
28 2,060.0 2,561.7 1.24
31 1,678.0
22 8,018.4
Core # 6, 25 5,366.4
19 mm Mix 28 3,116.2
31 1,766.8
Centre(1) I-80
22 11,441.0
Core # 7, 25 9,618.3
19mm Mix 28 7,506.0
31 4,384.6
(1) Data from Testing of Original Binder for Centre I-80 is not available and therefore not presented.
84
Clearfield, SR 153, PG 64-28 Section
7,000
6,000
Binder Modulus, kpa

5,000
Field
4,000
PAV
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
25ºC 28ºC 31ºC
Figure 60 Binder modulus for Clearfield SR 153-PG 64-28 from PAV simulation and field
cores.
Clearfield, SR 153, PG 64-28 vs PG 64-22, PAV Simulation

10,000
9,000
8,000
PG 64-28
PG 64-22
Binder Modulus, kpa
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
25ºC 28ºC 31ºC
Figure 61 Binder modulus for Clearfield SR 153-PAV simulation: PG 64-28 versus PG 64-28.
85
Clearfield, SR 153, PG 64-28 vs PG 64-22, Field Cores
5,000
4,500
PG 64-28
4,000
PG 64-22
Binder Modulus, kpa 3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
25ºC 28ºC 31ºC
Figure 62 Binder modulus for Clearfield SR 153 field cores: PG 64-28 versus PG 64-28.
Huntingdon SR 522
Field Core #2
Field Core #1
6,000
5,000
Binder Modulus, kpa
PAV
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
22ºC 28ºC
Figure 63 Binder modulus for Huntingdon SR 522 PAV simulation versus field cores.
The results indicate that for both PG 64-28 and PG 64-22 sections at Clearfield SR 153, the
PAV simulation provided a significantly higher aging level (stiffer binder) compared with actual
aging observed in the field for a 10-year-old pavement. The field aging is approximately 50 percent
of PAV simulation aging for both sections, indicating the same aging rate for both binders. The PG
64-22 binder was stiffer than the PG 64-28 binder to begin with, and this original difference in
stiffness is manifested in the modulus results obtained for PAV-simulated aging and the field aging.
86
For the Huntingdon SR 522 with an original PG 64-28 binder, the field-aged binder is closer
to the PAV-aged binder for this 9-year-old pavement. The binder recovered from the wheel path
core (core #1) shows approximately 30 percent lower stiffness than the PAV-aged binder (i.e., lower
aging level). The binder from between the wheel path core (core #2) has about 20 percent higher
modulus than the PAV-aged binder (i.e., higher aging level). The air voids for these cores are 3.5
percent and 8.3 percent, respectively. The significantly higher air void level of core #2 (between the
wheel path core) could have contributed to the higher level of aging observed for the binder of this
core. A third core was also extracted, but during the binder recovery, the retaining clip broke on the
evaporator and the sample spilled out, causing loss of the binder.
87
CHAPTER FOUR
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The results presented in this report demonstrate the outcome of a two-year study by the
Northeast Center of Excellent Technology (NECEPT) at The Thomas D. Larson Pennsylvania
Transportation Institute on field performance of Superpave hot-mix asphalt concrete. Sponsored by
the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, this study was initiated to complement the efforts
and findings from an earlier study known as “Superpave Validation Studies” (Work Order 43) and to
address PennDOT concerns regarding performance of these Superpave mixes. Six 9- and 10-year-
old pavements were evaluated to assess their condition. These included some of the pavements
considered under Work Order 43. Time constraints and difficulties in scheduling prevented
evaluation of three other pavements that were originally planned to be included in the study.
A detailed pavement condition evaluation was conducted and a series of laboratory tests were
performed on cores obtained from three of these pavements. Pavement condition evaluation
consisted of determination of magnitude and type of cracking as well as transverse profiling to
determine the rutting magnitude. Major laboratory tests on cores included specific gravity
measurements, indirect tensile resilient modulus, indirect tensile creep and strength, extraction and
binder recovery, and finally, determination of the binder dynamic modulus.
The results were evaluated to address two questions: (1) What is the quality of these
pavements after 10 years of service? and (2) How do the laboratory results relate with observed
performance of these pavements?
The answer to the first question is that most of the pavements appeared to be in relatively
good condition. Rutting level was within acceptable range and cracking was minimal. No
significant bleeding or raveling was observed. Exceptions to decent performance of such mixes
were the PG 64-22 pavement section at Clearfield SR 153 and the ID-2 section on the northbound of
Lycoming SR 15. These two pavement sections had the most dominant cracking.
The average rutting was 5.4 mm and 6.4 mm for right wheel path and left wheel path,
respectively, when all projects were considered. The lowest measured rutting was about 2 mm
(Centre I-80 right lane) and the highest 11 mm (Lycoming SR 15, southbound).
Beyond observed distresses as discussed above, the major concern was the longitudinal joint
between the lanes which, in most cases, was cracked for a very long stretch of the road, sometimes
88
very severely.
To answer the second question, laboratory tests were performed on cores. In addition, to the
extent that the Work Order 43 laboratory data were available for the projects evaluated under Work
Order 9, those results were used to determine the relationship between laboratory results and field
performance.
Laboratory rutting tests (constant height repeated shear test at 52 ºC) on wearing course did
not deliver a good correlation with rutting levels observed, but the data provide a guide as to the
range of laboratory strain levels that could result in acceptable rutting levels. Unfortunately,
sufficient laboratory shear strain data were not available for the binder course of all pavements
surveyed, and it did not become possible to investigate the relationship between the rutting level and
the laboratory test results for the binder layer. Based on the results from shear tests on wearing
course mixes, it could be concluded that the laboratory shear strain values under 1 percent, when
tested for 5,000 cycles at 52 ºC, result in an acceptable rutting level in the field.
For the two pavement sections with the most cracking (PG 64-22 of Clearfield SR 153 and
ID-2 section of Lycoming SR 15), laboratory tests of indirect creep at low temperatures indicated
lower compliance of these two mixes compared to their companion sections. For the SR 153 project,
low temperature creep tests were conducted on cores, whereas for SR 15 no cores were obtained and
results from the original Work Order 43 low temperature creep tests were used for comparison.
An investigation was also made into the level of aging observed in the field and how this
aging compares with laboratory-simulated aging. Such comparative analysis was conducted for
those projects from which cores were available. That includes Clearfield SR 153 and Huntingdon
SR 522. For the Centre I-80 project, complex modulus was determined for the recovered binder
from field cores but no comparison could be made with PAV data, since no such data were available.
The results indicated that for both PG 64-28 and PG 64-22 sections at Clearfield SR 153, the PAV
simulation provided a significantly higher aging level (stiffer binder) compared with actual aging
observed in the field for a 10-year-old pavement. For the Huntingdon SR 522 with an original PG
64-28 binder, the field-aged binder is closer to the PAV-aged binder for this 9-year-old pavement.
However, the wheel path core indicated lower stiffness than the PAV simulation, while the between-
wheel-path core indicted higher aging. Significantly higher air void level of between-wheel-path
core could have contributed to the higher level of aging observed for the binder of this core.
This study provided invaluable information regarding long-term performance of Superpave
89
mixes. Detailed field distress information and laboratory tests on cores provided a unique
opportunity to compare test results with observed performance.
90
REFERENCES
Brown, E. R., and M. S. Buchanan, “Superpave Gyratory Compaction Guidelines,” NCHRP

Research Results Digest 23, 1999.
Kandhal, P. S., and L. A. Cooley, Jr., “The Restricted Zone in the Superpave Aggregate Gradation
Specification,” National Cooperative Highway Research Program, NCHRP report 464, Washington,
DC, 2001.
464
Anderson, D.A., M. Solaimanian, D. Christensen, M. Marasteanu, and D. Hunter, “Superpave
Validation Studies,” Pennsylvania Transportation Institute, Report PTI 2003-14, January 2003.
Goel, A and A. Das, “A Brief Review on Different Surface Wave Methods and Their Applicability for
Non- Destructive Evaluation of Pavements.” Proceedings of Highway Geophysics – NDE, St.
Louis, MO, 2006.
Nazarian, S. and K. H. Stokoe, “Nondestructive Testing of Pavements Using Surface Waves.”

Transportation Research Record 993, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. 1984.
Nazarian, S, Baker, MR, and Crain, K., “Fabrication and Testing of a Seismic Pavement Analyzer,”
SHRP Report H-375. National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1993.
Nazarian, S, Baker, M, and Crain, K., “Assessing Quality of Concrete with Wave Propagation
Techniques,” Materials Journal, Vol. 94, No. 4. American Concrete Institute, MI. 1997.
Christensen, D.W., and R. F. Bonaquist, “Evaluation of Indirect Tensile Test (IDT) Procedures for
Low-Temperature Performance of Hot Mix Asphalt,” NCHRP Report 530, Transportation Research
Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 2004.
Barksdale, R.B., J. Alba, R. Kim, P. Khosla, and M.S. Rahman, “Laboratory Determination of
Resilient Modulus for Flexible Pavement Design,” NCHRP Web Document 14, 1997.
91
APPENDIX
Inventory of Data and Materials

from PennDOT WO-43 Project
Table A.1 Available Binder and Mixture Data from PennDOT WO-43 Project.
Mixture Binder
Tests Tests
PG Binder Grade
DSR - RTFOT
Vol. Analysis
Depth (mm)
Freq. Sweep
DSR - Tank
BBR - PAV
Rep. Shear
DT - PAV
District
S.R.-Sec. Co.
IDT
County Specified Pavement Courses
1-0 0322-08M
(1) Superpave Wearing Course, 12.5 mm, RPS, SRL-H 38 58-28 √ √ √ √
Crawford
Superpave Binder Course, 25 mm leveling >50 58-28 √ √ √ √
1-0 0062-12M 64-22
(2) Superpave Wearing Course, 12.5 mm, SRL-E 38
Warren
64-22
Superpave Binder Course, 25 mm leveling
2-0 0153 - 225 Superpave Wearing Course, 12.5 mm, SRL-G (scratch layer) 38 64-22
(3) √
Clearfield
Superpave Wearing Course, 12.5 mm, RPS, SRL-G (southern segment) 38 64-22
√
Superpave Wearing Course, 12.5 mm, RPS, SRL-G (northern segment) 38 64-28
√ √ √
Superpave Binder Course, 25 mm (for all) 50 64-22
√ √ √ √ √ √ √
2-0 0080-B22 Wearing, Binder, and Base 64-28
(4) Centre √ √ √ √
2-0 0080- Base Asphalt (AC-20)
(5) √ √ √ √
Clearfield Base Asphalt + Novophalt
√ √ √ √
Base + Polybilt
√ √ √ √
Base + Kraton
√ √ √ √
Base + Styrelf
√ √ √ √
Base + Gilsonite
√ √ √ √
3-0 0015 - B43 Superpave Wearing Course, 12.5 mm, RPS, SRL-H (South Bound, Overlay) 38 64-22
(6) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Lycoming
Superpave Binder Course, 25 mm, RPS (South Bound, Overlay) 75 64-22
√ √ √ √ √ √ √
Superpave Binder Course, 19 mm, Leveling (South Bound, Overlay) 64-22
√ √ √ √ √ √ √
Bituminous Concrete Base Course (North Bound, Full Depth) 64-22
√ √ √ √ √ √
ID-2 Bituminous Concrete Binder Course (North Bound, Full Depth) 64-22
√ √ √ √ √ √
ID-2 Bituminous Concrete Wearing Course (North Bound, Full Depth) 64-22
√ √ √ √ √ √ √
A-2
Table A.1 Available Binder and Mixture Data from PennDOT WO-43 Project. (continued).
Mixture Binder
Tests Tests
PG Binder Grade
DSR - RTFOT
Vol. Analysis
Depth (mm)
Freq. Sweep
DSR - Tank
BBR - PAV
Rep. Shear
DT - PAV
District
S.R.-Sec. Co.
IDT
3-0 0015 - B42 Superpave Wearing Course, 12.5 mm, RPS, SRL-H (North Bound, Full Depth) 64-28
(7)
√ √ √ √
Lycoming
032200 Superpave Wearing Course, 12.5 mm, RPS, SRL-H (North Bound, Full Depth) 70-28
Superpave Wearing Course, 12.5 mm, RPS, SRL-H (North Bound, Full Depth) 64-22
√ √ √ √ √ √ √
Superpave Binder Course, 25 mm, RPS(North Bound, Full Depth) 58-28
√ √ √ √
Superpave Binder Course, 19 mm, Leveling 64-22
√ √
Superpave Base Course, 37.5 mm, RPS(North Bound, Full Depth) 150 58-28
√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Superpave Base Course, 37.5 mm, RPS(North Bound, Full Depth) 250 58-28
√ √
Superpave Wearing Course, 12.5 mm, RPS, SRL-E 64-22
√ √ √
Superpave Binder Course, 25 mm 64-22
√ √ √
3-0 0011 - 38M Superpave Wearing Course, 19 mm, RPS, SRL-E * 100 64-22
(8)
√ √ √ √ √ √
Snyder
Superpave Wearing Course, 19 mm, RPS, SRL-E ** 100 76-22M
√ √ √
Superpave Binder Course, 25 mm, RPS 150 64-22
√
Superpave Wearing Course, 12.5 mm, RPS, SRL-E * 64-22
√ √ √ √ √ √
Superpave Wearing Course, 12.5 mm, RPS, SRL-E ** 76-22
√ √
Superpave Intermediate Course, 19 mm, RPS, SRL-L * 64-22
√
Superpave Intermed Course, 19 mm, RPS, SRL-L ** 76-22
√
5-0 0081 - 050 Gyratory Wearing Course, 19 mm, RPS, SRL-E 50 70-28
(9) Schuykill (Tyrsolv)
Gyratory Wearing Course, 19 mm, RPS, SRL-E 50 70-28M
A-3
Mixture Binder
Tests Tests
PG Binder Grade
DSR - RTFOT
Vol. Analysis
Depth (mm)
Freq. Sweep
DSR - Tank
BBR - PAV
Rep. Shear
DT - PAV
District
S.R.-Sec. Co.
IDT
5-0 0061-10M 38 70-22
(10) Berks Superpave Wearing Course, 12.5 mm, RPS, SRL-E
64-22
Superpave Wearing Course, 12.5 mm, SRL-L, Levelling
<50 64-22
√ √
Superpave Wearing Course, 12.5 mm, SRL-L
>50 64-22
√ √
Superpave Wearing Course, 19 mm, SRL-L
50 64-22
Superpave Binder Course, 25 mm, RPS
63 64-22
Superpave Binder Course, 25 mm, PG 70-22, RPS
64-22
Superpave Wearing Course, 12.5 mm, SRL-M*
64-22
Superpave Wearing Course, 19 mm, SRL-M**
6-0 0132-M00 38 70-22
(11) Bucks Superpave Wearing Course, 19 mm, RPS, SRL-E
63 64-22
Superpave Binder Course, 25 mm, RPS
6-0 0132-M01 38 64-22
(12) Bucks Superpave Wearing Course, 19 mm, RPS, SRL-E
63 64-22
Superpave BinderCourse, 25 mm, RPS
8-0 0083 - 832 Superpave Wearing Course, 19 mm, RPS, SRL-E 50 76-22
(13)
√ √ √ √ √ √
York
√ √ √ √ √ √
Superpave Binder Course, 25 mm, Leveling 64-22
√ √ √ √ √ √
Superpave Base Course, 37.5 mm 175 64-22
√ √ √ √ √ √ √
Superpave Base Course, 37.5 mm 64-22
√ √ √ √ √ √ √
A-4
Mixture Binder
Tests Tests
PG Binder Grade
DSR - RTFOT
Vol. Analysis
Depth (mm)
Freq. Sweep
DSR - Tank
BBR - PAV
Rep. Shear
DT - PAV
District
S.R.-Sec. Co.
IDT
8-0 0011-024 Superpave Wearing Course, 12.5 mm, Section 1, SB/SBS 76-22
(14)
√ √ √ √ √ √
Franklin
Superpave Wearing Course, 12.5 mm, Section 2, Elvaloy 76-22
√ √ √ √ √ √
Superpave Wearing Course, 12.5 mm, Section 3, Fibers 64-22
√ √ √ √ √ √
Superpave Wearing Course, 12.5 mm, Section 4, Oxidized 76-22
√ √ √ √
Superpave Wearing Course, 12.5 mm, Section 5, Neat 64-22
8-0 0030-B01 Superpave Wearing Course, 19 mm, SRL-E 76-22

(15)
√ √ √ √
York
Superpave Binder Course, 25 mm 64-22
√ √ √ √
Superpave Base Course, 37.5 mm 64-22
√ √ √ √
9-0 0070 - 009 Superpave Wearing Course, 12.5 mm, RPS, SRL-H 38 64-22
(16)
√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Fulton
Superpave Wearing Course, 12.5 mm, RPS, SRL-H 38 70-28
√
(Tyrsolv)
(Tyrsolv)
√ √
Stone Matrix Asphalt Wearing Course, SRL-H 50
Superpave Wearing Course, 12.5 mm, SRL-L

√ √ √ √
9-0 6522 - 001 Superpave Wearing Course, 12.5 mm, SRL-H 38 64-28
(17)
√ √ √
Huntingdon
Superpave Wearing Course, 12.5 mm, SRL-M 38 64-28
√ √ √
√ √ √
Superpave Wearing Course, 12.5 mm, SRL-H, Special 38 70-22
√ √ √
Superpave Binder Course, 25 mm 50 58-28
√ √ √
√ √ √
Superpave Binder Course, 25 mm, Special 50 58-22

√ √ √
√ √ √
Superpave Wearing Course, 12.5 mm, SRL-H 180 64-22
A-5
Mixture Binder
Tests Tests
PG Binder Grade
DSR - RTFOT
Vol. Analysis
Depth (mm)
Freq. Sweep
DSR - Tank
BBR - PAV
Rep. Shear
DT - PAV
District
S.R.-Sec. Co.
IDT
10-0 0422 - 404 Superpave Wearing Course, 19 mm, RPS, SRL-H 40 58-28
(18)
√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Indiana
Superpave Wearing Course, 19 mm, RPS, SRL-H (West Bound) 40 64-22
√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Superpave, 37.5 mm 58-28
√ √ √ √ √ √
10-0 0022-PL1 Superpave Wearing Course, 12.5 mm 64-22
(19) Indiana
NOTE Superpave Binder Course, 25 mm 64-22
Information Superpave Base Course, 37.5 mm 64-22

different
from Superpave Wearing Course, 12.5 mm. RPS, SRL-H 38 64-22
different
tables Superpave Wearing Course, 12.5 mm. RPS, SRL-H 38 70-28
(Tyrsolv)
Superpave Wearing Course, 12.5 mm. RPS, SRL-H 50 70-28
(Tyrsolv)
Superpave Binder Course, 12.5 mm. RPS, SRL-H 50 64-22
SMA Wearing Course, SRL-H 50
Superpave Wearing Course, 12.5 mm. SRL-L
12-0 0119 - 13R Superpave Wearing Course, 19 mm, RPS, SRL-E 50 70-28
(20)
√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Fayette
√ √ √
Superpave Binder Course, 25 mm, Leveling >50 64-22
Superpave Wearing Course, 9.5 mm, SRL-E, Leveling 64-22
Superpave Wearing Course, 9.5 mm 64-22
Superpave Binder Course 25.0 mm 64-22

√
A-6
Table A.2 WO-43 Asphalt Binders Currently Available at NECEPT Laboratories.
Raw Material 2
Processed Material Available
Binder Sample Binder Grade County 1
Available Unaged RTFO PAV
P001 PG 64-22 Lycoming No Yes Yes No
P002 PG 64-22 Lycoming No Yes Yes Yes
P007 PG 64-22 Lycoming No Yes Yes No
P008 PG 58-28 Crawford Yes Yes Yes No
P009 PG 58-28 Crawford No No Yes Yes
P010 PG 64-22 Snyder No Yes Yes No
P011 PG 58-28 Indiana Yes Yes Yes No
P012 PG 64-22 Indiana Yes Yes Yes Yes
P013 PG 58-28 Lycoming Yes Yes Yes Yes
P014 PG 70-28 Fayette Yes Yes Yes No
P015 PG 64-22 Fulton Yes Yes Yes Yes
P016 PG 64-22 Fulton Yes Yes Yes Yes
P017 PG 64-22 Clearfield Yes Yes Yes Yes
P018 PG 64-22 Clearfield Yes Yes Yes Yes
P019 PG 64-28 Clearfield Yes Yes No Yes
P021 PG 58-28 Lycoming Yes Yes Yes Yes
P024 PG 76-22 York Yes Yes No No
P025 PG 64-22 York Yes Yes Yes Yes
P026 PG 58-28 Huntingdon Yes Yes No No
B9254 PG 64-28 Centre Yes Yes Yes No
B0108 PG 76-22 Franklin Yes Yes Yes No
Notes:
1. Raw material is in quart cans and is either available (YES), or not available (NO).
2. Processed material is in 1 ounce tins with enough material to perform a master curve and performance grading.
A-7
Table A.3 WO-43 Asphalt Mixtures Currently Available at NECEPT Laboratories.
Snyder County Fulton County

SR11 (38M) SR0070-009
19mm Poly Mod SRL-L 7.6 kg 25mm 39.3 kg
PG70-22 PG64-22
SR11 (38M) Lycoming County
19mm PMB SRL-L Intermediate 16 kg SR15-B42
PG76-22 37.5mm BCBC 147.6 kg
SR11 (38M) PG58-28
25mm Binder 40.8 kg Berks County
PG64-22 SR61-10M
Fayette County 12.5mm Superpave 7.6 kg

SR0119-13R PG64-22
9.5mm Superpave Wearing 28.7 kg SR61-10M
PG64-22 19mm Superpave 13.2 kg
SR0119-13R PG64-22
19mm Superpave Wearing 76.4 kg Warren County
PG70-28 SR0062-12m/610
SR0119-13R 12.5mm Superpave Wearing 22 kg
25mm Superpave Binder 63 kg PG?
PG64-22 SR0062-12m/610
SR0119-13R 25mm Binder/Leveling 13.3 kg
37.5mm Superpave BCBC 76.6 kg PG?
PG? SR0062-12m/610
York County 25mm leveling 4 kg

SR0030-B01 PG?
37.5mm 22 kg SR0062-12m/608
PG64-22 25mm Leveling 22.4 kg
SR0030-B01 PG?
19mm Wearing 67.2 kg Huntingdon County
PG76-22 SR6522-001
SR0030-B01 25mm 31 kg
25mm 29.6 kg PG64-22
PG64-22 SR6522-001
SR0083-832 25mm 33.7 kg
37.5mm Superpave BCBC 21.6 kg PG58-28
PG64-22 SR6522-001
37.5mm 32.7 kg
PG58-28
A-8
Table A.4 WO-43 Cores Currently Available at NECEPT Laboratories.
County Route Section Layer # of Cores
Wearing 9
Fayette SR19 13R Binder 12
BCBC 10
Wearing 0
Fulton SR70 B43 Binder 2
BCBC 0
Wearing 2
Lycoming SR153 B42 Binder 26
BCBC 5
Wearing 4
Lycoming SR153 B43 Binder 17
BCBC 5
Wearing 2
Warren SR62 Binder 4
BCBC 0
Wearing 10
York SR83 832 Binder 13
BCBC 4
Wearing 14
York SR30 B01 Binder 20
BCBC 11
A-9
APPENDIX
Pictures of Cores Obtained Under WO-9

Clearfield SR153- #4 (PG 64-22) Clearfield SR153- #2 (PG 64-28)
Centre I-80 #2 Centre I-80 - #6
Centre I-80 #9 Centre I-80 - #12
B-2
Huntingdon SR522- #4 Huntingdon SR522- #6
Table B-1 Location of Cores for Which Pictures Are Shown in This Appendix
Highway County Core # Location Description
SR 153 Clearfield 4 1030 ft north of PG 64-22 Section
segment marker Extension of longitudinal crack
650. along WP
SR 153 Clearfield 2 1050 ft north of PG 64-28 Section

segment marker Good pavement, WP
690.
I-80 Centre 2 1350 ft east of W: 12.5mm Mix, 40mm thick B:
MP 167 19mm Mix, 50 mm thick
I-80 Centre 6 690 ft east of MP W: 19mm Mix, 50mm thick B:
168 25mm Mix, 75 mm thick
I-80 Centre 9 766 ft east of MP W: 12.5mm Mix, 50mm thick B:
168.5 19mm Mix, 75 mm thick
I-80 Centre 12 680 ft east of MP W: 12.5mm Mix, 40mm thick B:
169 19mm Mix, 75 mm thick
SR 522 Huntingdon 4 Area with minor raveling
SR 522 Huntingdon 6 501 feet from Right on crack
intersection of
SR 22 and SR
522
B-3
APPENDIX
Scope of Pavement Condition Survey

Pavement Condition Evaluation
Highway: SR 0015– Section B42/B43, Northbound Lane Width: 11 feet

County: Lycoming Construction Year: 1997
District: 3 Survey Dates: 6/5/2007
Pavement Section Profile, Full Depth Construction – Northbound
ID-2, 1.5-inch layer, PG 64-22, NMAS: 9.5 mm

Wearing Course
Superpave, 1.5-inch layer, PG 64-28, NMAS: 12.5 mm
Binder Course 3-inch layer, PG 64-22, NMAS: 25 mm
Leveling PG 64-22, NMAS: 19 mm
Base Course Superpave PG 58-28, NMAS: 37.5 mm
Northbound
Passing Lane
22 feet
Travel Lane
Zero
Mark
ID-2 Section:
Zero mark (starting point of survey) is located 200 ft south of segment marker 1760. Pavement
evaluation was conducted on travel lane for a stretch of 1400 feet northbound.
Superpave Section:
Zero mark (starting point of survey) is located at segment marker 1770. Pavement evaluation was
conducted on travel lane for a stretch of 1500 ft northbound.
C-2
Highway: SR 0015– Section B42/43, Southbound Lane Width: 11 feet

County: Lycoming Construction Year: 1997
Pavement Section Profile, Overlay Construction – Southbound
Wearing Course Superpave, 1.5-inch layer, PG 64-28, NMAS: 12.5 mm
Binder Course 2-inch layer, PG 64-22, NMAS: 25 mm
Old Jointed Concrete Pavement
Passing Lane
22 feet
South Bound
Travel Lane
Zero
Mark
Zero mark (starting point of survey) is located 750 ft north of segment marker 1701. Pavement
evaluation was conducted on travel lane for a stretch of 750 ft southbound. This 750-ft section
consisted of Superpave mixes overlaying old concrete pavement. Beyond this section, moving south, a
full depth Superpave construction exists, which is not part of this project.
C-3
Highway: SR 11 Lane Width: 12 feet

County: Snyder Construction Year: 1998
Pavement Section Profile
Superpave, 1.5-inch layer, PG 76-22, NMAS: 12.5 mm, travel lane

Wearing Course
Superpave, 2-inch layer, PG 64-22, NMAS: 12.5 mm, passing lane
Binder Course Superpave, 2-inch layer, PG 64-22, NMAS: 19 mm
Concrete in three inner lanes and subbase at two outer lanes (widened
section)

11th Avenue
SR11: Southbound
Passing Lane
Travel Lane
100 ft. Shoulder
Zero
Mark
Pavement evaluation started 100 ft before 11th Avenue and extended for 1500 ft southbound.
C-4
Highway: SR 153 – Section 225 Lane Width: 12 feet

County: Clearfield Construction Year: 1997
District: 2 Survey Dates: 7/11/07 &
7/18/07
Pavement Section Profile
1.5- inch layer, PG 64-22, NMAS: 12.5 mm, Sta. 798+33 to 917+00
Wearing Layer
1.5-inch, PG 76-28, NMAS: 12.5 mm, Sta. 917+00 to 1065+33
Binder Layer 2- inch layer, PG 64-22, 25 mm NMAS
ID-2 Leveling Course
Old pavement: 8-inch aggregate base with several buildups of wearing course overlays
Widened sections: subbase 2A and bituminous base course
Southbound
22 feet
Northbound
Zero
Mark
PG 64-22 Section:
Zero mark (starting point of survey) is located 850 ft north of segment marker 650. Pavement evaluation
was conducted for a stretch of 1100 ft northbound.
PG 64-28 Section:
Zero mark (starting point of survey) is located 850 ft north of segment marker 690. Pavement evaluation
was conducted for a stretch of 900 ft northbound.
C-5
Highway: I-80 , MP 167-167.5 Lane Width: 12 feet

County: Centre Construction Year: 1999
Pavement Section Profile – Overlay Construction – Control Section
Binder Course Superpave 2-inch layer, PG 64-22, NMAS: 19
Leveling Course Superpave, PG 64-22, 9.5 mm
Old Concrete Pavement - Patched
I-80: Eastbound
Passing Lane
Travel Lane
Shoulder
Zero
Mark
Zero Mark (starting point of survey) is located 950 ft east of MP 167. Pavement evaluation was
conducted on travel lane for a stretch of 1000 ft eastbound.
C-6
Highway: I-80 , MP 167.5-168 Lane Width: 12 feet

Pavement Section Profile – Overlay Construction – High ESAL Design
Binder Course Superpave 2-inch layer, PG 64-22, NMAS: 19 mm
I-80: Eastbound
Passing Lane
Travel Lane
Shoulder
Zero
Mark
Zero Mark (starting point of survey) is located 450 ft east of MP 167.5. Pavement evaluation was
C-7

Pavement Section Profile – Overlay Construction – 25-mm Binder Course-Thick Layers
Wearing Course Superpave, 2- inch layer, PG 64-22, NMAS: 12.5 mm
Binder Course Superpave 3- inch layer, PG 64-22, NMAS: 25 mm
I-80: Eastbound
Passing Lane
Travel Lane
Shoulder
Zero
Mark
C-8
Highway: I-80 , MP 168.5-169 Lane Width: 12 feet

Pavement Section Profile – Overlay Construction – 19-mm Binder Course – Thick Layers
Wearing Course Superpave, 2 inches, PG 64-22, 12.5 mm NMAS
Binder Course Superpave 3 inches, PG 64-22, 19 mm NMAS
I-80: Eastbound
Passing Lane
Travel Lane
Shoulder
Zero
Mark
Zero Mark (starting point of survey) is located 400 ft east of MP 168.5. Pavement evaluation was
C-9

Pavement Section Profile – Overlay Construction-19-mm Binder Course – Thick Binder Layer
Wearing Course Superpave, 1.5- inch, PG 64-22, NMAS: 12.5 mm
Binder Course Superpave 3- inch, PG 64-22, NMAS: 19 mm
I-80: Eastbound
Passing Lane
Travel Lane
Shoulder
Zero
Mark
C-10
Highway: SR 522–001 Lane Width: 11 feet

County: Huntingdon Construction Year: 1998
Pavement Section Profile, Overlay Construction – Southbound
Wearing Course Superapave, 1.5-inch layer, PG 64-28, NMAS: 12.5 mm
Binder Course Superpave, 2- inch layer, PG 58-28, NMAS: 25 mm
Base Course Superpave, 7- inch layer, PG 58-28, 37.5 mm
Northbound
22 feet
Southbound
Zero
Mark
Zero mark (starting point of survey) is located 92 ft south of SR22/SR522 intersection. Pavement
evaluation was conducted for a stretch of 800 ft southbound.
C-11
APPENDIX
Aggregate Gradations Obtained from WO-9 Cores

Clearfield SR 153
Wearing Course - PG 64-22 Section
Gradation for Core # 2

Sieves
US SI,mm
Units Units Core # 2
1.5 37.5 100.0
1 25 100.0
3/4 19 100.0
1/2 12.5 96.3
3/8 9.5 91.3
#4 4.75 62.7
#8 2.36 43.8
#16 1.18 27.7
#30 0.6 18.3
#50 0.3 13.2
#100 0.15 10.8
#200 0.075 9.0
pan 0 0.0
100.0
90.0
80.0
Percent Passing
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Sieve Size (mm) Raised to 0.45 Power
D-2
Clearfield SR 153

Sieves
US SI,mm
1.5 37.5 100.0
1 25 100.0
3/4 19 100.0
1/2 12.5 94.2
3/8 9.5 86.6
#4 4.75 58.9
#8 2.36 40.5
#16 1.18 25.9
#30 0.6 18.1
#50 0.3 13.8
#100 0.15 11.5
#200 0.075 9.7
pan 0 0.0
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
Percent Passing
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
D-3
Clearfield SR 153

Sieves
US SI,mm
1.5 37.5 100.0
1 25 100.0
3/4 19 100.0
1/2 12.5 93.8
3/8 9.5 86.0
#4 4.75 59.1
#8 2.36 41.1
#16 1.18 26.9
#30 0.6 19.4
#50 0.3 15.2
#100 0.15 13.0
#200 0.075 11.0
pan 0 0.0
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
Percent Passing
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
D-4
Clearfield SR 153

Sieves
US SI,mm
1.5 37.5 100.0
1 25 100.0
3/4 19 100.0
1/2 12.5 95.0
3/8 9.5 88.2
#4 4.75 61.4
#8 2.36 43.8
#16 1.18 28.1
#30 0.6 18.9
#50 0.3 13.8
#100 0.15 11.2
#200 0.075 9.1
pan 0 0.0
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
Percent Passing
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
D-5
Huntingdon SR 522
Wearing Course - PG 64-28
Sieves
US SI,mm
1.5 37.5 100.0
1 25 100.0
3/4 19 100.0
1/2 12.5 93.5
3/8 9.5 87.2
#4 4.75 59.7
#8 2.36 38.0
#16 1.18 23.8
#30 0.6 15.6
#50 0.3 11.0
#100 0.15 8.8
#200 0.075 7.3
pan 0 0.0
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
Percent Passing
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
D-6
Huntingdon SR 522

Sieves
US SI,mm
1.5 37.5 100.0
1 25 100.0
3/4 19 99.1
1/2 12.5 92.4
3/8 9.5 87.4
#4 4.75 57.5
#8 2.36 36.9
#16 1.18 23.4
#30 0.6 15.4
#50 0.3 10.9
#100 0.15 8.7
#200 0.075 7.2
pan 0 0.0
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
Percent Passing
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
D-7
Huntingdon SR 522

Sieves
US SI,mm
1.5 37.5 100.0
1 25 100.0
3/4 19 100.0
1/2 12.5 94.9
3/8 9.5 88.4
#4 4.75 59.3
#8 2.36 37.0
#16 1.18 22.8
#30 0.6 15.0
#50 0.3 10.6
#100 0.15 8.5
#200 0.075 7.0
pan 0 0.0
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
Percent Passing
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
D-8
Centre I-80
Wearing Course – 19 mm Mix

Sieves
US SI,mm
1.5 37.5 100.0
1 25 100.0
3/4 19 100.0
1/2 12.5 90.7
3/8 9.5 81.6
#4 4.75 45.8
#8 2.36 30.3
#16 1.18 19.8
#30 0.6 14.3
#50 0.3 10.7
#100 0.15 8.6
#200 0.075 6.7
pan 0 0.0
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
Percent Passing
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
D-9
Centre I-80
Wearing Course – 19 mm Mix

Sieves
US SI,mm
1.5 37.5 100.0
1 25 100.0
3/4 19 100.0
1/2 12.5 89.8
3/8 9.5 80.6
#4 4.75 46.1
#8 2.36 30.3
#16 1.18 19.7
#30 0.6 14.2
#50 0.3 10.5
#100 0.15 8.4
#200 0.075 6.5
pan 0 0.0
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
Percent Passing
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
D-10
Centre I-80
Wearing Course – 12.5 mm Mix

Sieves
US SI,mm
1.5 37.5 100.0
1 25 100.0
3/4 19 100.0
1/2 12.5 96.2
3/8 9.5 91.5
#4 4.75 49.8
#8 2.36 32.2
#16 1.18 21.7
#30 0.6 15.7
#50 0.3 11.6
#100 0.15 9.0
#200 0.075 6.8
pan 0 0.0
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
Percent Passing
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
D-11

Field Focused Superpave Validation PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Field Focused Superpave Validation PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Field-Focused Superpave

By Mansour Solaimanian and

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

15. Supplementary Notes

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

Unclassified Unclassified 138

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

Figure 1 Transverse profiling using the digital depth meter........................................................ 10

Table 1 Projects Selected for Condition Survey under Task 2. ..................................................... 6

At the beginning of the implementation of the Superpave system in the Commonwealth of

RESEARCH APPROACH AND SCOPE OF WORK

PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY

Status of Available Data for Projects Considered Under WO-43

Projects Selected for Performance Evaluation

Table 1 Projects Selected for Condition Survey under Task 2.

District S.R.-Sec. - County

Table 2 Projects Selected for Coring.

District S.R.-Sec. - County

Scope of Performance Evaluation

Table 3 Pavement Sections Surveyed or Cored Under WO-9.

Preliminary Detailed Coring

Detailed Pavement Evaluation Procedure

Transverse Profiles (Rutting)

Criterion to Determine Rut Depth

Figure 2 Approach used in this project to determine rut depth.

Field Seismic Modulus Testing

Portable Seismic Pavement Analyzer

Figure 3 Portable Seismic Pavement Analyzer (PSPA)

Then, the elastic modulus of the top layer, E, can be determined:

Field PSPA Testing

(a) signal (b) data reduction

Figure 4 Sample PSPA data

Table 4 Tests Conducted on the Cores for WO-9 Project.

Table 5 Tests Conducted on the Asphalt Binder for WO-9 Project.

Indirect Tensile Creep and Strength Testing

σIDT/Corr = 0.27 + 0.78*σIDT

Resilient Modulus Testing

Figure 6 Load cycle (kN) vs. time(s).

Horizontal Deformation (mm) vs Time(s)

70 70.5 71 71.5 72 72.5 73 73.5 74 74.5 75

Figure 7 Horizontal deformation (mm) vs. time(s).

Figure 8 Vertical deformation (mm) vs. time(s).

The total resilient modulus is calculated using the formula:

ERI = P (VRT +0.27)/ (tΔHT)

SECTION 1: RESULTS OF PAVEMENT CONDITION EVALUATION

Evaluation Results for SR 15 Northbound, Lycoming County

Superpave Section-Southbound: This is a Superpave section over jointed concrete

Figure 11 Transverse profile at Lycoming SR 15- southbound, Superpave overlay section.

Table 6 Measured Rut Depth for Lycoming SR 15 – Northbound.

Figure 17 Transverse profile at Snyder SR 11- southbound travel lane.

Table 8 Measured Rut Depth for Snyder SR 11 – Southbound.

Figure 21 Transverse profile at Clearfield SR 153- northbound, PG 64-28 section.

Figure 25 Transverse profile at Centre I-80, eastbound, MP 167.5 to MP 168.

Figure 27 Transverse profile at Centre I-80, eastbound, MP 168.5 to MP 169.

Table 11 Measured Rut Depth for Centre I-80, Eastbound.

Table 13 Measured Rut Depth for Centre I-80, Eastbound.

Table 14 Measured Rut Depth for Huntingdon SR 522, Southbound.

PG 64-28 2.571 2.570

12.5mm Mix 2.517 2.515

Low Temperature Creep and Strength Testing Results