Virginia’s Experience with 9.5-mm Nominal-Maximum-Aggregate-Size Stone Matrix Asphalt

Abstract

Construction data from two Virginia stone matrix asphalt (SMA) field projects that used 9.5-mm nominal-maximum-aggregate-size (NMAS; Superpave^® definition) gradations are presented. Analyses were conducted to evaluate breakpoint sieve size, rut resistance, design compaction effort, and permeability. Rut resistance and permeability results for 9.5-mm NMAS mixes were compared with those for more conventional Virginia 19.0- and 25.0-mm NMAS SMA mixes produced by the same contractor and with the same aggregate source. A sieve size of 2.36 mm was confirmed as being the appropriate breakpoint for 9.5-mm NMAS SMA. For this gradation, 9.5-mm NMAS SMA with both performance-graded binder (PG) 70-22 and PG 76-22 was as rut resistant as previous Virginia SMA mixtures, as tested with the Asphalt Pavement Analyzer. The data for these sections indicate that 9.5-mm NMAS SMA should be designed with 75 gyrations instead of the currently recommended 100 gyrations. SMA with a 9.5-mm NMAS was also shown to be less permeable at the same air void level as the more commonly used 19.0- and 25.0-mm NMAS SMA.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Guidelines for Materials, Production, and Placement of Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA). Information Series 118. National Asphalt Pavement Association, Lanham, Md., 1994.

Model Material and Construction Guidelines. SMA Technical Working Group. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1994.

Report on the 1990 European Asphalt Study Tour. AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 1991.

Special Provision for Gap-Graded Pavement. Maryland State Highway Administration, 1996.

Schreck

R. J.

Maryland/Virginia German SMA Study Tour, personal notes, 1995.

Splittmastixasphalt. German National Technical Regulations and Directives, ZTV-bit StB 84, Esso Bitumen, 1988.

Recommendations for Composition, Production and Laydown of Splittmastix. German Highway and Transportation Research Association (FGSV), 1990.

Schroder

, and Kluge

H.-J.

Experience with Splittmastix. Cellulose-Fullstoff-Fabrik, 1992.

Special Provision Section 400—Hot Mix Asphaltic Concrete Construction. Georgia Department of Transportation, Forest Park, 2001.

10.

Serfass

J.-P.

, and Samanos

Stone Mastic Asphalt for Very Thin Wearing Courses. Presented at 71st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1992.

11.

Bellin

P. A. F.

State of the Art: Use of Stone Mastic Asphalt in Germany. Presented at 71st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1992.

12.

Brown

E. R.

, and Cooley

L. A.

Jr. NCHRP Report 425: Designing Stone Matrix Asphalt Mixtures for Rut-Resistant Pavements. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1999.

13.

Cooley

L. A.

Jr. , and Brown

E. R.

Potential of Using Stone Matrix Asphalt for Thin Overlays. Presented at 80th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2001.

14.

Prowell

B. D.

Development of Rutting Criteria for the Asphalt Pavement Analyzer. Proc., 1999 International Conference on Accelerated Pavement Testing. University of Nevada, Reno, 1999.

15.

Watson

D. E.

, Johnson

, and Jared

The Superpave Gradation Restricted Zone and Performance Testing with the Georgia Loaded Wheel Tester. In Transportation Research Record 1583, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 106–111.