Performance Specifications for Asphalt Mixtures (2016)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

65 Appendix A Survey Questions and Results Question 1: Which types of asphalt mixtures does your agency currently use for plant-produced asphalt pavements? FIGURE A1 Survey response to Question 1: “Which types of asphalt mixtures does your agency currently use for plant-produced asphalt pavements?” 46 DOTs 44 DOTs 45 DOTs 26 DOTs 17 DOTs 4 DOTs 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA) Asphalt Mixtures with Reclaimed Asphalt Pavements (RAP) Asphalt Mixtures with Recycled Asphalt Shingles (RAS) Asphalt Mixtures with Crumb Rubber from Tires Other Percentage of Respondents Table a1 addiTional Responses To QuesTion 1: “Which Types of asphalT MixTuRes does youR agency cuRRenTly use foR planT-pRoduced asphalT paveMenTs?” Respondent Response Comments Arizona Friction courses Clark County, NV Terminal blend Kentucky RAP and RAS combined Michigan We have a recycled tire permissive specification but not specifically crumb rubber Pennsylvania Asphalt mixtures with both RAP and RAS. Asphalt mixtures with synthetic fibers Question 2: does your agency require different tests or approaches when recycled materials are incorporated into the asphalt mixture? Response Type Response Rate Yes 44% No 52% Other 4% Number of Total Responses 46 Respondent Response Comments Michigan Blending charts for RAP and RAS New York Only when using RAS or high RAP (>20%) in trial projects Table a2 suRvey Response To QuesTion 2: “does youR agency ReQuiRe diffeRenT TesTs oR appRoaches When Recycled MaTeRials aRe incoRpoRaTed inTo The asphalT MixTuRe?”

66 Question 3: please provide some details on the different tests or test approaches required when recycled materials are used in an asphalt mixture. Table a3 suRvey Response To QuesTion 3: “please pRovide soMe deTails on The diffeRenT TesTs oR TesT appRoaches ReQuiRed When Recycled MaTeRials aRe used in an asphalT MixTuRe” Respondent Response Comments Arizona RAP Binder Correction Factor Ignition Furnace Correction Solvent Extraction Ignition Furnace Calibration Arkansas We require a temperature viscosity curve for the blend of reclaimed and virgin binder for all mixes using RAP except on PG 64-22 mixes with less than 15% RAP. British Columbia, Canada For RAP: Typical, MC; AC; Gradation; Percent Fracture; and Specific Gravity of coarse and fine. When requested Deval, Standard for uncompacted void content ASTM C1252; and % of flat and elongated (Superpave mixes); and AC Rheology Testing California For “high” RAP mixtures, we require blending chart of recovered binder and virgin binder during mix designs, fractionating (using 3/8 sieve) RAP pile, and additional QC and QA testing of the RAP pile during production. Delaware DelDOT’s asphalt calculator must be used to determine allowable RAP/RAS percentages. This is a binder replacement program. Georgia We conduct Abson recovery testing on the recycled mixture for asphalt design approval and quality assurance during production. We conduct testing on the recovered binder to make sure it complies with our specified requirements for viscosity of 6,000–16,000 poises. We also conduct material usage audits when crumb rubber is used via the dry method. Indiana RAP A/C Content, gradation, PG Grade, Aggregate Properties: LA Wear, Idaho Degradation, Fracture Face, and Sand Equivalent Kansas Maine High RAP—KDOT determines RAP grading, which is included in contract for blending chart use. Hamburg required on some projects to confirm potential for rutting. We perform tests on the RAP (grad. and % binder) to classify the RAP, which determines the maximum allowable RAP % in the mix, based on P200 and % binder variability. Michigan We require blending charts for higher replacement levels of binder by use of RAP and or RAS. New Jersey For high RAP mixtures (surface course min. % RAP 20% or greater and intermediate/base course 30% min and greater) NJDOT requires APA rut test (4 mm max.) and Overlay Test (100 cycles min.). New York For RAS and high RAP (>20%) trials—during the mix design we require: Dynamic Modulus and Flow Number—AASHTO TP 79 Flexural Beam Fatigue—AASHTO T 321 Overlay Tester—TXDOT TX 248F. North Carolina When percentage is 30% or greater recycled content by weight of mix, additional testing is required (dynamic modulus or PG blending charts). Nova Scotia, Canada Contractor to determine the binder contribution from the RAP source utilized for the project (asphalt binder content test on RAP). Ohio During the design stage, we require RAP binder analysis done with a blending chart (we use viscosities). If the RAP has gravel in it, we require a TSR (AASHTO T283) on mix as well. Oklahoma RAP Pb at design requires chemical extraction to adjust ignition oven correction factor; 75%–85% of ignition results for RAS is the chemical extraction Pb. Oregon Must determine binder content of recycled material and use Oregon DOT procedure to determine specific gravity of recycled material Pennsylvania Asphalt mixtures with high RAP or both RAP and RAS require additional evaluation of the asphalt binder for selection of the virgin binder grade. Asphalt mixtures with crumb rubber require additional and different tests due to high crumb rubber contents and blending of crumb rubber with the asphalt binder at the asphalt mixture plant. Québec, Canada Characterization of the recycled materials (binder content, density, granularity, etc.) South Dakota Extractions PG grading recovered binder evaluating DCT and SCB Vermont PG verification Washington For mixtures >20% RAP or any quantity of RAS we require binder extraction, recovery, and blending. Wisconsin Pilot Project Phase—Above 25% binder replacement requires Hamburg Wheel, Disc Shaped Compaction Test, and Semi-Circular Bend Performance Testing Wyoming Asphalt content and gradation of the RAP Alberta, Canada With RAP >20% we require rheology blending procedures as outlined in Appendix X1 of AASTHO M323. Maryland Depending on the asphalt blend ratio, blending charts may be required to determine if a binder bump is required.

67 Question 4: What attributes are typically required for initial qualification of the asphalt mixtures, prior to production? FIGURE A2 Survey response to Question 4: “What attributes are typically required for initial qualification of the asphalt mixtures, prior to production?” 44 DOTs 41 DOTs 44 DOTs 45 DOTs 44 DOTs 42 DOTs 38 DOTs 20 DOTs 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Aggregate properties (i.e. coarse and fine angularity, soundness, abrasion resistance, polishing resistance, etc.) Asphalt binder (PG) properties Laboratory air voids Gradation Asphalt content Voids in the mineral aggregate Moisture damage by the tensil strength ratio (TSR), Hamburg wheel track test, etc. Other Percentage of Respondents Table a4 suRvey Response To QuesTion 4: “WhaT aTTRibuTes aRe Typically ReQuiRed foR iniTial QualificaTion of The asphalT MixTuRes, pRioR To pRoducTion?” Respondent Response Comments Arizona IMC Arkansas Moisture sensitivity test and APA rutting test Clark County, Nevada Surface Area (SA) Local Requirement, for arterial, APA Georgia VFA, Dust Ratio, APA. Aggregate Testing is part of the Qualified Products List approval. Kansas TSRST Manitoba, Canada Stability, flow Maine F/Beff; VFB Minnesota Asphalt film thickness Montana VFA, D/P, DSR New Hampshire T 283 Nevada Hveem stability North Carolina Dust/AC ratio, range of allowable VFA Nova Scotia, Canada Film thickness (calculation only) Oregon Asphalt Pavement Analyzer Pennsylvania Aggregate absorptions, combined aggregate Gsb South Carolina APA South Dakota APA test Alberta, Canada All of the above is required as part of a Lab mix design submission, but not for plant produced mix. Florida Do not do tests when a contractor uses approved mix design (after the initial verification) Missouri Ensure the correct PG binder, specified in the contract, is being utilized in the proposed JMF.

68 Question 5: do these attributes (from the previous question) change, or are they combined differently, based on the type of asphalt mixture (e.g., hMa, WMa, mixtures with Rap, Ras, or crumb rubber, etc.)? Table a5 suRvey Response To QuesTion 5: “do These aTTRibuTes (fRoM The pRevious QuesTion) change, oR aRe They coMbined diffeRenTly, based on The Type of asphalT MixTuRe (e.g., hMa, WMa, mixtures with Rap, Ras, or crumb rubber, etc.)?” Response Type Response Rate Yes 20% No 80% Number of Total Responses 46 Question 6: if yes, how are the number or types of required attributes being varied, and for which asphalt mixture types? please provide a brief description or a link to this information on your agency’s website. Table a6 suRvey Response To QuesTion 6: “if yes, hoW is The nuMbeR oR Types of ReQuiRed aTTRibuTes being vaRied, and foR Which asphalT MixTuRe Types? please pRovide a bRief descRipTion oR a link To This infoRMaTion on youR agency’s WebsiTe” Respondent Response Comments California RHMA (gap-graded gradation with wet process asphalt rubber binder) 1. VMA range increased to 18%–23%; 2. There is a minimum binder content of 7.5%; 3. Gradation (from dense to gap grading); 4. Asphalt rubber binder testing (as opposed to PG testing); 5. gyration number and pressure adjusted to accommodate RHMA Clark County, Nevada Binder content, rut requirements, surface area require Georgia Abson recovery testing is conducted for compliance with specifications for all mixtures containing 20% or greater recycled asphalt materials or if recycled shingles are included in a mixture prior to mix design approval Kansas We will be requiring Hamburg and TSRST using high RAP and a rejuvenator on a project in 2015. Missouri The PG binder required changes as the amount of RAP and RAS is increased. Over a certain amount either a softer binder is required or a blend chart is needed, depending on the amount of replacement. This is being applied to all non-Superpave mix designs. RAP is now allowed in SMA mixes; shingles only allowed in Superpave mixes with PG 62-24 oil. New Brunswick, Canada AC binder is a variable. Base Course and Seal Course each have their own void criteria New Jersey Here is a link to HMA specs: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/eng/specs/2007/spec900.shtm#s902. Here is a link to the SI documents for projects: http://state.nj.us/transportation/eng/specs/ The 900 section of the SI has other HMA spec. mixture requirements. New York TSR—AASHTO T283 performed during the mix design on certain mixtures when there is a heightened concern for moisture damage. Examples—certain aggregates, certain WMA technologies, past in-place performance of similar mix designs, etc. Orange County, California When using ARHM, we use a gap-graded aggregate. We also check the gradation of the crumb rubber itself. Pennsylvania Attributes do not change with dense-graded Superpave mixtures, but do change with SMA or gap-graded mixtures or thin HMA overlays.

69 Question 7: is a change required by your agency’s performance specifications, in terms of the sampling frequency of the volumetric mix design attributes, depending on the type of asphalt mixture? Table a7 suRvey Response To QuesTion 7: “is a change ReQuiRed by youR agency’s peRfoRMance specificaTions, in TeRMs of The saMpling fReQuency of The voluMeTRic Mix design aTTRibuTes, depending on The Type of asphalT MixTuRe?” Sample Type vs. Frequency Change Increased Frequency No Change in Frequency Number of Total Responses Warm Mix Asphalt 98% 2% 45 Asphalt Mixtures with Reclaimed Asphalt Pavements (RAP) 98% 2% 44 Asphalt Mixtures with Recycled Asphalt Shingles (RAS) 100% 0% 33 Asphalt Mixtures with Crumb Rubber from Tires 96% 4% 27 Asphalt Mixtures with both RAP and RAS 100% 0% 1 Respondent Response Comments Georgia Increased frequency for WMA Pennsylvania Increased frequency for mixtures with RAP, mixtures with crumb rubber from tires, and mixtures with both RAP and RAS. Question 8: is a change required by your agency’s performance specifications, in terms of the number of samples for confirming the volumetric mix design attributes, depending on the type of asphalt mixture? Table a8 suRvey Response To QuesTion 8: “is a change ReQuiRed by youR agency’s peRfoRMance specificaTions, in TeRMs of The nuMbeR of saMples foR confiRMing The voluMeTRic Mix design aTTRibuTes, depending on The Type of asphalT MixTuRe?” Sample Type vs. Sampling Change No Change in Samples Taken More Samples Taken Number of Total Responses Warm Mix Asphalt 100% 0% 43 Asphalt Mixtures with Reclaimed Asphalt Pavements (RAP) 95% 5% 43 Asphalt Mixtures with Recycled Asphalt Shingles (RAS) 97% 3% 31 Asphalt Mixtures with Crumb Rubber from Tires 96% 4% 26 Asphalt Mixtures with both RAP and RAS 100% 0% 1 Respondent Response Comments California More samples taken for mixtures with RAP and mixtures with RAS Pennsylvania More samples taken for mixtures with RAP, mixtures with crumb rubber from tires, and mixtures with both RAP and RAS

70 Question 9: What is the status in your agency with regards to performance specifications for the design and acceptance of asphalt mixtures? note: definitions for performance-based specifications (e.g., attributes primarily used for mix design acceptance) or performance-related specifications (e.g., predictive models using in situ air voids, asphalt content, binder viscosity, etc.) for asphalt mixture design would both apply for this question. Table a9 suRvey Response To QuesTion 9: “WhaT is The sTaTus in youR agency WiTh RegaRds To peRfoRMance specificaTions foR The design and accepTance of asphalT MixTuRes? noTe: definiTions foR peRfoRMance-based specificaTions (e.g., attributes primarily used for mix design acceptance) oR peRfoRMance-RelaTed specificaTions (e.g., predictive models using in situ air voids, asphalt content, binder viscosity, etc.) foR asphalT MixTuRe design Would boTh apply foR This QuesTion?” Roadway Type and Use of Performance Specifications Currently Using Performance Specifications Planning to Use Performance Specifications No Plans to Use Performance Specifications Number of Total Responses Interstate pavements 49% 18% 33% 45 Pavements on other arterials (state highway system) 44% 22% 33% 45 Pavements on local or county road system 33% 17% 50% 45 Question 10: Why is your agency looking at using performance specifications for asphalt mixtures? FIGURE A3 Survey response to Question 10: “Why is your agency looking at using performance specifications for asphalt mixtures?” 12 DOTs 31 DOTs 27 DOTs 21 DOTs 28 DOTs 23 DOTs 23 DOTs 26 DOTs 12 DOTs 14 DOTs 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Not applicable - not looking into using performance specifications for asphalt To achieve longer service life prior to major maintenance or rehabilitation being required on asphalt pavements To save on maintenance costs over the life of the asphalt pavement To improve performance in terms of asphalt rutting To improve performance in terms of fatigue cracking in asphalt pavements To improve performance in terms of low-temperature cracking in asphalt To improve ride quality of asphalt pavements To level the playing field in terms of industry involvement and encourage better construction product All of the above Other Percentage of Respondents

71 Table a10 suRvey Response To QuesTion 10: “Why is youR agency looking aT using peRfoRMance specificaTions foR asphalT MixTuRes?” Respondent Response Comments Colorado Currently ONLY using performance-related specifications; i.e., AC content, Voids, etc. Hamburg Wheel Tracker and AMPT are test for information only. Louisiana Quantify quality of end product Question 11: is your agency incorporating performance specifications as a basis for mixture acceptance and/or pay factor adjustments? Table a11 suRvey Response To QuesTion 11: “is youR agency incoRpoRaTing peRfoRMance specificaTions as a basis foR MixTuRe accepTance and/oR pay facToR adjusTMenTs?” Response Type Response Rate Yes 49% No 44% Other 7% Number of Total Responses 45 Respondent Response Comments Alberta, Canada Price adjustments based on pavement compaction, aggregate gradation, and asphalt content Indiana Planning on doing this Louisiana Hamburg QC; SCB design; potential pay adjustments Maine Our first goal is to implement performance-based mix design;then possibly use for acceptance during construction. Question 12: how is your agency incorporating performance specifications as a basis for mixture acceptance and/or pay factor adjustments? FIGURE A4 Survey response to Question 12: “How is your agency incorporating performance specifications as a basis for mixture acceptance and/or pay factor adjustments?” 7 DOTs 7 DOTs 1 DOT 18 DOTs 0 DOTs 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Accept/reject system Pay adjustment system Life cycle reductions Combined system of both accept/reject and pay adjustments Other Percentage of Respondents

72 Question 13: Which attributes does your agency consider most important for pavement performance? FIGURE A5 Survey response to Question 13: “Which attributes does your agency consider most important for pavement performance?” 17 DOTs 44 DOTs 36 DOTs 24 DOTs 25 DOTs 20 DOTs 7 DOTs 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Gradation Density or in-place air voids Asphalt content Laboratory air voids Voids in the mineral aggregate (VMA) Other Percentage of Respondents Table a12 suRvey Response To QuesTion 13: “Which aTTRibuTes does youR agency consideR MosT iMpoRTanT foR paveMenT peRfoRMance?” Respondent Response Comments Clark County, Nevada Arterial APA Georgia We consider rutting resistance and VMA important and do have VMA requirements for mix design approval, but do not use VMA for production acceptance. Louisiana In-place density considered primary Maine Smoothness Minnesota Asphalt film thickness New Jersey Ride quality, fatigue resistance, rut resistance Ohio Friction and rutting Oklahoma Mix design fatigue test at some point in future Orange County, California s-value Question 14: Which performance-based tests does your agency consider most important for predicting the pavement performance typical for your roadways? 20 DOTs 21 DOTs 15 DOTs 1 DOT 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Direct measurement of rutting Direct measurement of fatigue Measurement of ride quality (smoothness or IRI) Other Percentage of Respondents FIGURE A6 Survey response to Question 14: “Which performance-based tests does your agency consider most important for predicting the pavement performance typical for your roadways?”

73 Respondent Response Comments Arkansas Sometimes the APA is run Clark County, Nevada Arterial and collector = APA Colorado Test data from AMPT (resilient modulus, flow number, etc.) Connecticut Raveling and segregation Georgia Moisture susceptibility testing Kansas Low temperature cracking Louisiana Hamburg; SCB Minnesota Thermal cracking Montana Hamburg, in place voids Nebraska Cracking Nevada IRI Orange County, California Stability value Pennsylvania With concern that mixtures do not contain sufficient asphalt for durability, we are looking at rutting tests to add additional asphalt above optimum without increasing rutting significantly. Also, some form of cracking test would also be beneficial for previous issue and with issue of asphalt mixtures with high reclaimed binder ratios. Washington, D.C. Rutting and cracking Table a13 addiTional coMMenTs pRovided in Response To QuesTion 14: “Which peRfoRMance- based TesTs does youR agency consideR MosT iMpoRTanT foR pRedicTing The paveMenT peRfoRMance Typical foR youR RoadWays?” Question 15: how has your agency used results from performance testing in establishing pay factors for asphalt pavements? note: performance testing relates laboratory mixture design to actual field performance by characterizing the main hMa performance parameters and how the parameters change throughout the service life of the pavement. 2 DOTs 12 DOTs 2 DOTs 6 DOTs 23 DOTs 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Used for pavement projects only on interstates Used for pavement projects on all roadway classes (i.e., state highway system, county roads, etc.) Planning to use for pavement projects only on interstates Planning to use for pavement projects on all roadway classes (i.e., state highway system, county roads, etc.) Not planning to use performance test results as input to pay factor assignment Percentage of Respondents FIGURE A7 Survey response to Question 15: “How has your agency used results from performance testing in establishing pay factors for asphalt pavements? Note: Performance testing relates laboratory mixture design to actual field performance by characterizing the main HMA performance parameters and how the parameters change throughout the service life of the pavement.”

74 Question 16: What specific asphalt mixture performance properties were used or considered for the integration of mixture acceptance and pay factor assignment? 7 DOTs 5 DOTs 5 DOTs 12 DOTs 5 DOTs 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Fatigue resistance Stiffness modulus (i.e., dynamic modulus) Thermal cracking resistance Durability and moisture resistance Other Percentage of Respondents FIGURE A8 Survey response to Question 16: “What specific asphalt mixture performance properties were used or considered for the integration of mixture acceptance and pay factor assignment?” Question 17: please describe your agency’s efforts related to the development of performance specifications for asphalt mixtures. Fatigue Resistance Thermal Cracking Resistance Durability Moisture Resistance Stiffness Modulus Number of Total Responses Demonstration project 5 2 3 5 3 6 Pooled fund study 1 3 1 1 2 4 Adapted from sister agency specifications 1 1 3 3 0 4 Based on FHWA research 5 5 3 6 2 10 Based on NCHRP research 5 5 5 10 3 12 Based on your agency's in-house or sponsored research 11 10 9 18 6 20 Respondent Response Comments Kansas AASHTO TSRST test for thermal cracking resistance Ontario Fatigue resistance, thermal cracking resistance, durability, and moisture resistance all based on lessons learned from warranty contracts and review and evaluation of historical pavement performance. South Carolina OGFC durability concerns warranty? 3–5 years for durability. Table a14 suRvey Response To QuesTion 17: “please descRibe youR agency’s effoRTs RelaTed To The developMenT of peRfoRMance specificaTions foR asphalT MixTuRes”

75 Question 18: for which types of asphalt mixtures does your agency use the following performance parameters? Fatigue Resistance Thermal Cracking Resistance Durability Moisture Resistance Stiffness Modulus Number of Total Responses Standard structural lift 3 4 6 22 1 23 Standard overlay lift 2 3 8 20 0 22 High performance thin overlays 1 1 6 13 1 16 Binder rich intermediate course 2 0 0 4 1 5 Bridge deck surface course 2 0 1 5 1 5 Bottom rich base course 3 0 0 6 2 7 Respondent Response Comments Alabama Fatigue resistance for standard structural SMA mixes Alaska Any asphalt mixture in pavement design for fatigue resistance Colorado Not currently used Kansas AASHTO TSRST test for thermal cracking resistance New Jersey Moisture resistance for Asphalt Rubber Gap Graded Course Table a15 suRvey Response To QuesTion 18: “foR Which Types of asphalT MixTuRes does youR agency use The folloWing peRfoRMance paRaMeTeRs?” Question 19: under which circumstances would your agency elect to or propose to use performance-based asphalt mix design specifications? 27 DOTs 19 DOTs 26 DOTs 22 DOTs 11 DOTs 10 DOTs 14 DOTs 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% When conducting long-life pavement design When information about the existing pavement conditions under flexible overlays over a concrete pavement are… In a demonstration study When using alternate project delivery methods (i.e., Design-Build, Design-Build hybrid, warranty) All of the above Exclusive/None of the above Other Percentage of Respondents FIGURE A9 Survey response to Question 19: “Under which circumstances would your agency elect to or propose to use performance-based asphalt mix design specifications?”

76 Respondent Response Comments Colorado Performance-based specifications not currently used New Brunswick, Canada Not being considered Missouri When the appropriate tests are selected along with the required limits for achieving satisfactory field performance. Tests need to be straightforward, easy to perform, and affordable for contractors to purchase and perform. Also, need industry acceptance. Ohio RAS and/or high RAP mixes. Table a16 suRvey Response To QuesTion 19: “undeR Which ciRcuMsTances Would youR agency elecT To oR pRopose To use peRfoRMance-based asphalT Mix design specificaTions?” Question 20: What tests do you use for performance-based mixture designs? AASHTO or ASTM Standard Agency Test Method Other Test Method Number of Total Responses Repeated Simple Shear Test (RSST) 3 0 0 3 Flexural Beam Fatigue Test 3 0 0 3 Hamburg Wheel Track Device (HWTD) Test 8 4 0 12 Asphalt Pavement Analyzer (APA) 7 7 0 14 Dynamic Modulus Test in the Asphalt Mixture Performance Tester (AMPT) 5 0 0 5 Flow Number Test Using AMPT 5 0 0 5 Flow Time Test Using AMPT 2 0 0 2 Semicircular Bending (SCB) Test 3 1 0 3 Bending Beam Rheometer (BBR) Test 7 0 0 7 Disc-shaped Compact Tension (DCT) Fracture Energy Test 3 0 0 3 Texas Overlay Tester 0 1 2 3 Respondent Response Comments Georgia Agency test method for Moisture Susceptibility Testing Kansas AASHTO or ASTM standard for TSRST Minnesota Agency test method for DCT (working towards future implementation) Nebraska We are currently doing research with Nebraska materials and looking at Flow Time and Flow Number Ohio Agency test method for The Polisher Québec Agency test method for dynamic modulus test Agency test method for French Rutting Test (in comparison with APA) Virginia AASHTO or ASTM Standard for TSR Agency test method for Bond Test Table a17 suRvey Response To QuesTion 20: “WhaT TesTs do you use foR peRfoRMance-based MixTuRe designs?”

77 Question 21: if you are using performance-based mix design properties for qualification of the mix design or Qc and acceptance, which performance properties and tests are used? Fague resistance Sffness modulus (e.g. [E*], flow number, etc.) Thermal cracking resistance Durability properes Moisture resistance Other Total Repeated simple shear test (RSST) 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% Flexural beam fague test 4 100% 1 25% 0 0% 1 25% 0 0% 0 0% 4 100% Hamburg wheel track test 1 8.3% 3 25% 0 0% 6 50% 9 75% 3 25% 12 100% Asphalt pavement analyzer (APA) 1 9.1% 2 18.2% 0 0% 5 45% 0 0% 5 45.5% 11 100% Dynamic modulus test in the Asphalt Mixture Performance Tester (AMPT) 0 0% 3 75% 0 0% 1 25% 0 0% 1 25% 4 100% Flow Number test using AMPT 0 0% 1 25% 0 0% 1 25% 0 0% 2 50% 4 100% Flow Time test using AMPT 0 0% 1 50% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 50% 2 100% Semicircular bending (SCB) test 2 100% 0 0% 1 50% 1 50% 0 0% 0 0% 2 100% Bending beam rheometer (BBR) test 1 20% 1 20% 5 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 5 100% Disc-shaped compact tension (DCT) fracture energy test 1 50% 0 0% 2 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 100% Texas Overlay Test 3 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 100% Dynamic modulus test 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 100% E* from AMTP for high end designs in future, T283 common. 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% Future fague method from a research project to be determined. 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% TSRST 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% French ru—ing test 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 100% The Polisher 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% We perform APA for internal data only 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% AASHTO t283 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 1 100% TSR 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 1 100% We perform T283 for moisture sensitivity 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 1 100% Bond Test 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 1 100% not using any, so N/A 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 1 100% Table a18 suRvey Response To QuesTion 21: “if you aRe using peRfoRMance-based Mix design pRopeRTies foR QualificaTion of The Mix design oR Qc and accepTance, Which peRfoRMance pRopeRTies and TesTs aRe used?”

78 Question 22: does your agency use independent assurance (ia) for performance-based tests of asphalt mixtures? Response Type Response Rate Yes 16% No 66% Other 18% Number of Total Responses 44 Respondent Response Comments Colorado Tests are for information only Connecticut IA on performance-related tests Florida Georgia We do comparison testing though no longer called IA. We now do a system based IA Louisiana Researching, in future Nova Scotia, Canada When implemented, the testing would be the responsibility of the contract or to provide the information specified. Performance-based tests are used for research purpose only Table a19 suRvey Response To QuesTion 22: “does youR agency use independenT assuRance (ia) foR peRfoRMance-based TesTs of asphalT MixTuRes?” Question 23: how are you implementing asphalt performance mix designs in your agency specifications? 12 DOTs 3 DOTs 6 DOTs 9 DOTs 3 DOTs 18 DOTs 1 DOT 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Using shadow performance mix design testing for data collection and using standard volumetric properties for mix design qualifiecation, project QC and acceptance Using performance-based mix design properties and tests for pavement designs (e.g., for Design-Build or Public- Private Partnership type contracts) Using performance-based mix design properties and tests to qualify the mix; then using volumetric properties for project QC and production acceptance) Using performance-based mix design properties in combination with volumetric properties for mixture design qualification, QC and acceptance Using performance-based mixture design properties for qualification, project QC and acceptance testing Exclusive/None of the above Other Percentage of Respondents FIGURE A10 Survey response to Question 23: “How are you implementing asphalt performance mix designs in your agency specifications?” Respondent Response Comments Louisiana Collecting SCB results in design for future acceptance testing Table a20 suRvey Response To QuesTion 23: “hoW aRe you iMpleMenTing asphalT peRfoRMance Mix designs in youR agency specificaTions?”

79 Question 24: as part of your agency’s Qa plan for the use of asphalt performance-based mix designs, who is responsible for performance testing? 5 DOTs 13 DOTs 4 DOTs 10 DOTs 22 DOTs 1 DOT 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Contractor us ing a commercial laboratory Agency using a state laboratory Agency using a commercial (or testing consultant) laboratory Both contractor for QC and agency for verification Exclusive/None of the above Other Percentage of Respondents FIGURE A11 Survey response to Question 24: “As part of your agency’s QA plan for the use of asphalt performance-based mix designs, who is responsible for performance testing?” Respondent Response Comments Orange County, California County laboratory Pennsylvania Above selection is currently being done on a very limited number of mix designs that are of particular concern during mix design review. Table a21 suRvey Response To QuesTion 24: “as paRT of youR agency’s Qa plan foR The use of asphalT peRfoRMance-based Mix designs, Who is Responsible foR peRfoRMance TesTing?” Question 25: does your agency currently have the equipment required for performance-based mix design testing? Response Type Response Rate Yes 40% No 22% Pending (ordered equipment, not yet received) 2% Not applicable 9% Other 27% Number of Total Responses 45 Respondent Response Comments Alabama Only APA, TSR, and BBR Georgia We have some of the testing equipment detailed in this survey. Kansas KDOT-TSRST/KSU-Hamburger Missouri MoDOT has an APA for rut testing, but currently we do not have any equipmentfor determining the cracking potential of asphalt mixtures such as SCB and DCT. Montana For limited tests we now require. Considering acquiring additional equipment to expand use of performance-based testing. New York NYSDOT has an improperly working AMPT (Interlaken) Ohio Fatigue through research Oklahoma AMPT and fatigue equipment delivered at end of research Oregon Some test Pennsylvania Yes, we have an APA, Jr (APA and Hamburg) and we have an AMPT South Carolina AMPT—research ongoing Table a22 suRvey Response To QuesTion 25: “does youR agency cuRRenTly have The eQuipMenT ReQuiRed foR peRfoRMance-based Mix design TesTing?”

80 Question 26: has the testing time (and the level of effort required for analyzing test results) been a deciding factor in whether to implement performance-based specifications on a project? Response Type Response Rate Yes 36% No 30% Not applicable 30% Other 5% Number of Total Responses 44 Respondent Response Comments Nebraska Geographical locations for timeliness of reporting results New Hampshire Have not evaluated at this time Table a23 suRvey Response To QuesTion 26: “has The TesTing TiMe (and The level of effoRT ReQuiRed foR analyzing TesT ResulTs) been a deciding facToR in WheTheR To iMpleMenT peRfoRMance-based specificaTions on a pRojecT?” Question 27: please provide some details on the reasons why test turnaround time has been a deciding factor. Table a24 suRvey Response To QuesTion 27: “please pRovide soMe deTails on The Reasons Why TesT TuRnaRound TiMe has been a deciding facToR” Respondent Response Comments Alabama We approved mix designs quite frequently. We would be greatly affected by increasing testing/review time. California Contractor may have to perform multiple mix design/testing before arriving to an approved mix. Florida One of factors. We need to approve the mix designs on time. For production level, it is a day-to-day job. Kentucky Specimen fabrication and testing time take too long for AMPT testing. Louisiana Performance test should be easy to conduct, in a timely manner, and easy to interpret and report. To minimize risk and enable plant adjustments when changes are recognized. Maine The additional test time for AMPT specimen fabrication and testing is a barrier. Minnesota Lead time between the bid and project startup; must be adequate if mix design changes are required. Missouri According to the MoDOT specifications, if the laboratory that designed the asphalt mixtures participates in the AASHTO proficiency sample program for the required tests and has achieved a score of 3 or better, we have 7 days to review the mix design. MoDOT’s philosophy is to review and approve mix designs as quickly as possible so we do not delay the contractor in completing the project. Also, have concerns about the level of effort going to be required for performance-based mix design evaluations. Montana Limited resources (FTE), production flow Nebraska Not just the remote locations in Nebraska, but we are talking an entire new testing and acceptance protocol. New Jersey Rutgers Asphalt Pavement Lab (RAPL) has performed all of NJDOT’s mixture performance testing up to this point in time. RAPL is a very busy research lab and turnaround time is sometimes an issue. To fully implement performance-based QA for all mixes it would take a substantial increase in state resources. The state has been struggling with budgetary issues and an increase for additional funding in-house to accomplish this is a difficult sell in the current climate. Pennsylvania Sometimes due to short time between asphalt mixture producer submitting mix designs for review and when it is actually needed for project construction. Greater than 10,000 asphalt mixture designs submitted by our asphalt mixture producers statewide (different aggregate combinations, different ESAL ranges, different aggregate skid resistance level—PennDOT has five aggregate skid levels). Tennessee Specimen preparation times for AMPT and fatigue-based tests are too long for production-level testing. Utah Project work requires we meet time deadlines

81 Question 28: has cost been a deciding factor in whether to implement performance-based specifications on a project? Table a25 suRvey Response To QuesTion 28: “has cosT been a deciding facToR in WheTheR To iMpleMenT peRfoRMance-based specificaTions on a pRojecT?” Response Type Response Rate Yes 36% No 31% Not applicable 24% Other 9% Number of Total Responses 45 Respondent Response Comments Florida Could be Nebraska Somewhat, but more implementation issues Question 29: What are some of the reasons that cost has become a deciding factor for your agency for implementing performance- based specifications? 16 DOTs 12 DOTs 15 DOTs 15 DOTs 3 DOTs 0% 10% 2 0% 30% 4 0% 50% 6 0% 70% 8 0% 90% 100% Cost of test equipment Cost of hiring consultant testing lab to conduct performance testing Cost of in-house staff (or allocation of staff time) to run performance tests Cost of increased construction completion time due to awaiting performance test results Other Percentage of Respondents FIGURE A12 Survey response to Question 29: “What are some of the reasons that cost has become a deciding factor for your agency for implementing performance-based specifications?” Question 30: has your agency assessed the relative costs and benefits of using performance-based mix design specifications, as compared to the approaches your agency currently uses for the acceptance of mix designs? 0 DOTs 1 DOT 14 DOTs 16 DOTs 3 DOTs 11 DOTs 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Yes, our agency has already collected information on the costs and benefits Yes, our agency is currently assessing the costs and benefits Our agency is planning to assess the costs and benefits in the future No, our agency has no plans to assess the costs and benefits Other Not applicable Percentage of Respondents FIGURE A13 Survey response to Question 30: “Has your agency assessed the relative costs and benefits of using performance-based mix design specifications, as compared to the approaches your agency currently uses for the acceptance of mix designs?”

82 Respondent Response Comments Manitoba, Canada We conducted an environmental scan on Canada (cost only) method-based vs. performance specs. Nebraska We have some ideas of the costs of the equipment, but the time to train, certify, and look at true performance-related acceptance parameters takes each agency quite a while to measure say a laboratory flexing test for cracking and then compare to actual field performance. Ohio No, keeping options open Pennsylvania I believe any performance-based mix design specifications will need to consider cost and availability of the performance-based testing since this will likely fall on the asphalt mixture producers. Table a26 suRvey Response To QuesTion 30: “has youR agency assessed The RelaTive cosTs and benefiTs of using peRfoRMance-based Mix design specificaTions, as coMpaRed To The appRoaches youR agency cuRRenTly uses foR The accepTance of Mix designs?” Question 31: Which types of asphalt mixtures have been included in the assessments of the relative cost and benefits of moving to a performance-based mix design approach? 10 DOTs 9 DOTs 10 DOTs 4 DOTs 2 DOTs 1 DOT 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Hot mix asphalt (HMA) Warm mix asphalt (WMA) Asphalt mixtures with reclaimed asphalt pavements (RAP) Asphalt mixtures with recycled asphalt shingles (RAS) Asphalt mixtures with crumb rubber from tires Other Percentage of Respondents FIGURE A14 Survey response to Question 31: “Which types of asphalt mixtures have been included in the assessments of the relative cost and benefits of moving to a performance-based mix design approach?” Question 32: please provide a link to any published costs and benefits documents that support the implementation of performance- based specifications by your organization. Respondent Response Comments Louisiana Mostly concerned with capitalization of equipment Table a27 suRvey Response To QuesTion 32: “please pRovide a link To any published cosTs and benefiTs docuMenTs ThaT suppoRT The iMpleMenTaTion of peRfoRMance-based specificaTions by youR oRganizaTion”

83 Question 33: is your agency conducting or sponsoring, or planning to conduct or sponsor, any research related to demonstrating or implementing other potential performance tests in specifications for asphalt mixtures? Response Type Response Rate Yes 39% No 61% Number of Total Responses 44 Table a28 suRvey Response To QuesTion 33: “is youR agency conducTing oR sponsoRing, oR planning To conducT oR sponsoR, any ReseaRch RelaTed To deMonsTRaTing oR iMpleMenTing oTheR poTenTial peRfoRMance TesTs in specificaTions foR asphalT MixTuRes?” Question 34: Which types of research on testing for performance-based properties have your agency conducted or sponsored? 10 DOTs 10 DOTs 8 DOTs 10 DOTs 10 DOTs 1 DOT 0 DOTs 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Fatigue properties Stiffness modulus (i.e., dynamic modulus, flow number, flow time, etc.) Durability properties Thermal cracking Moisture susceptibility Other research underway Not applicable Percentage of Respondents FIGURE A15 Survey response to Question 34: “Which types of research on testing for performance-based properties have your agency conducted or sponsored?” Table a29 suRvey Response To QuesTion 34: “Which Types of ReseaRch on TesTing foR peRfoRMance-based pRopeRTies have youR agency conducTed oR sponsoRed?” Respondent Response Comments Nebraska SCB testing is being used in several of our research projects. Nova Scotia, Canada Past performance of rehabilitation treatments based on visual distresses.

84 Question 35: please provide some information on the research underway at your agency related to performance testing for asphalt performance-based specifications. Table a30 suRvey Response To QuesTion 35: “please pRovide soMe infoRMaTion on The ReseaRch undeRWay aT youR agency RelaTed To peRfoRMance TesTing foR asphalT peRfoRMance-based specificaTions” Respondent Response Comments Colorado Currently performing AMPT Testing for E*, flow number, etc. Recently began testing for fracture energy using DCT specimens—all performance testing at this time is for information only, and used for pavement design decisions. Georgia GDOT has participated in the AMPT-pooled fund study. GDOT has sponsored moisture susceptibility of asphaltic concrete mixtures and best anti-stripping agents research Kansas Project by project: attempting to assess predictability of lab testing vs. field performance Maine We are conducting performance testing as part of SHRP2 R07 project. Maryland MEPD-G/AMPT pooled fund study Minnesota Pooled fund study. 2013 DCT pilot project. Missouri Currently looking at the semicircular bending test (SCB) and the disc-shaped compact tensile test (DST) for evaluating mixes using RAP and RAS. Have seen an increase in cracking in our pavements using recycled materials. Wanting to determine which test correlates to field performance, that is easy to conduct, and is economical to buy and operate. Nebraska All of our research can be supplied to you upon request via jodi.gibson@nebraska.gov North Carolina Two ongoing research projects with NC State University (Dr. Richard Kim and Dr. Akhtar Tayebali) Nova Scotia, Canada Currently in discussion as to what properties to focus on and what tests are available. Oklahoma ODOT FFY 2015 SP&R Item Number 2243 “Recommended Fatigue Test for ODOT” Québec, Canada Many research and tests for dynamic modulus South Dakota MEPDG research project on material test characteristics Utah BBR Beam Slivers for low temperature cracking potential of an asphalt mix. Research between UDOT and the University of Utah in process. SCB test to balance the mix design or get more asphalt binder into the mix. Also to predict cracking potential at intermediate temperatures. Research started between UDOT and a consultant. Wisconsin Four pilot projects constructed/will be constructed in 2014 and 2015 West Virginia We are beginning some work using the SENB and DENT binder test to correlate with the AMPT and Hamburg tests.

85 Question 36: Which types of efforts related to asphalt performance specifications have your agency pursued? 4 DOTs 9 DOTs 5 DOTs 4 DOTs 3 DOTs 25 DOTs 0% 10% 20% 30 % 40% 50% 60% 70% Simplified Viscoelastic Continuum Damage (S-VECD) model Predictive models based on fatigue, rutting, or other distress types Quality-related standard specifications (QRSS) Pavement design optimization based on life cycle cost analysis Other efforts underway Not applicable Percentage of Respondents FIGURE A16 Survey response to Question 36: “Which types of efforts related to asphalt performance specifications have your agency pursued?” Table a31 suRvey Response To QuesTion 36: “Which Types of effoRTs RelaTed To asphalT peRfoRMance specificaTions have youR agency puRsued?” Respondent Response Comments Florida Whatever approach is effective in terms of cost, benefit, and accuracy. Oklahoma We have looked at the S-VECD and others for our fatigue research project. Question 37: please provide some information on the efforts underway at your agency related to performance-based specifications for asphalt. Table a32 suRvey Response To QuesTion 37: “please pRovide soMe infoRMaTion on The effoRTs undeRWay aT youR agency RelaTed To peRfoRMance-based specificaTions foR asphalT” Respondent Response Comments Florida We have been looking for many cracking tests throughout the states, but most of them are complicated, time-consuming, and results could be varied a lot especially for the cracking test. Georgia GDOT is currently reviewing research proposals involving the S-VECD. We have APA requirements in our current specifications, but are reviewing research proposals for Georgia specific criteria for Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device. Our Pavement Design Unit uses life-cycle cost analysis as part of pavement type selection. Maine We are conducting performance testing as part of SHRP2 R07 project. We are also working with industry to implement performance-based mix designs. Oklahoma Specifications for a fatigue test method, if one is not standardized already, would be suggested at the end of our fatigue research. Pennsylvania Looking at optimizing the asphalt content of asphalt mixtures through either minimum asphalt contents based on mixture and aggregate volumetrics and also looking at rut resistance testing of asphalt mixtures with above optimum asphalt contents to try and increase durability of asphalt mixtures without significantly increasing rutting of asphalt wearing coarse layers. Québec, Canada Complex modulus determination of asphalt mixes at the Ministere des Transports du Québec—2010 Virginia Currently the only parameters that could be considered performance-based are requirements for TSR and APA for mix design acceptance and bond strength testing for non-tracking tack coat materials. VDOT would like to move to using more performance-based testing but still has a long way to go before that is achieved.

86 Question 38: What are some of the issues that make it challenging for your agency to shift to the use of performance specifications for the design and acceptance of asphalt mixtures? FIGURE A17 Survey response to Question 38: “What are some of the issues that make it challenging for your agency to shift to the use of performance specifications for the design and acceptance of asphalt mixtures?” 25 DOTs 15 DOTs 18 DOTs 14 DOTs 21 DOTs 29 DOTs 17 DOTs 12 DOTs 5 DOTs 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Cost of equipment and/or testing by Consultant laboratories Delays in project schedule completion Lack of familiarity or confidence in the paving industry Insufficient funds for including the additional test frequencies required Lack of training for agency and industry Gaps in knowledge or insufficient informaton on how to successfully implement the use of performance… Lack of evidence that the cost is worth the benefit of implementing a performance-based system Other Not applicable Percentage of Respondents Respondent Response Comments Florida How reliable the performance test is, especially for cracking Kansas Solid info on how to proceed Kentucky Lack of personnel Louisiana Tech transfer to agency and industry to understand the benefits of adding requirements Missouri Lack of industry agreement on which tests to utilize for acceptance New Jersey Industry resistance Ohio Staff Oklahoma Design is our primary focus for now Tennessee Lack of confidence in the available test methods or test turnaround times too long West Virginia Strong political paving industry, we need their buy in… Wyoming Wyoming has many low volume roads where benefit of using performance-based specs would not be worth the cost. Table a33 suRvey Response To QuesTion 38: “WhaT aRe soMe of The issues ThaT Make iT challenging foR youR agency To shifT To The use of peRfoRMance specificaTions foR The design and accepTance of asphalT MixTuRes?” Question 39: please share a copy of your agency’s performance specifications for asphalt pavements and/or mixture types by providing the weblinks in the following comment boxes. Information shown in Appendix D