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.
B-1 Summary States Test Method Compared with AASHTO T 308 State: Arizona Test Method â ARIZ 427a Differences compared to AASHTO T 308 ⢠Separate test method for mixes containing RAP (ARIZ 428) ⢠Test sample must be within ±150 g of calibration sample mass ⢠Sample size uses a range based on NMAS ⢠If calibration factor exceeds 1.0% at 1,000°F, repeat test at 900°F. If calibration factor exceeds 1.0% at 900°F, repeat at 800°F. If calibration factor exceeds 1.0% at 800°F, use calibration factor measured at 800°F ⢠Uses a coarse and fine sieve factor in determining final gradation results State: Colorado Test Method â Colorado Procedure â Laboratory 5120-15 Differences compared to AASHTO T 308 ⢠Sample size uses a range based on NMAS ⢠Contains multiple calculations when using RAP ⢠Contains separate single-operator and multi-laboratory precision values for virgin (0.15/0.30) and RAP mixes (0.20/0.40) State: Florida Test Method â FM-5-563 Differences compared to AASHTO T 308 ⢠Sample size based on mixture type ⢠Aggregate correction factors for the #8 and #200 sieves are required if the asphalt correction factor is greater than 0.50% ⢠Testing precision based on field or laboratory prepared samples State: Indiana Test Method â ITM 586-11T Differences compared to AASHTO T 308 ⢠If dolomite is used in the mix, 800°F (427°C) may be used for the calibration test State: Kansas Test Method â KT-57 Differences compared to AASHTO T 308 ⢠Test samples shall not be more than 400 g greater than maximum recommended mass ⢠Calibration factor cannot be less than 0. If measured to be less than 0, it is recorded as 0 ⢠Residual gradation analysis compared to blank sample is for information only ⢠Performs test at 500°C ⢠Sample is allowed to cool to room temperature before testing ⢠Calculates AC content % differently based on Superpave or Marshall State: Montana Test Method â MT 319-14 Differences compared to AASHTO T 308 ⢠Test samples shall not be more than 400 g greater than maximum recommended mass State: Nevada Test Method â Nev. T761G Differences compared to AASHTO T 308 ⢠New calibration factor required when AC content % change is ±0.4 A p p e n d i x B Summary of State Test Methods Compared with AASHTO T 308
B-2 ⢠New calibration factor required when aggregate bin % change is ±4.0 ⢠Calibration factor verified weekly State: Oklahoma Test Method â OHD L-26 (Method A) Differences compared to AASHTO T 308 ⢠Minimum sample size slightly different, and based on maxi- mum aggregate size (not NMAS) ⢠Mandates a new asphalt correction factor every 50,000 tons per mix State: Texas Test Method â TEX-236-F Differences compared to AASHTO T 308 ⢠Sample size uses a range based on mixture type ⢠Calculates asphalt correction factor based on six test samples; two at design optimum AC content and two at ±0.5% design optimum AC content ⢠Test samples can be reheated at 250°F for 30 min, but not for longer than 1 h ⢠Test samples shall not be more than 400 g greater than maxi- mum recommended mass ⢠Contains recommended sample masses for measuring RAP and RAS asphalt content ⢠Use of a fan to aid in sample cooling after removing from ignition furnace prohibited State: Virginia Test Method â Virginia Test Method 102 Differences compared to AASHTO T 308 ⢠Test ends when mass loss does not exceed 0.02% for 2 consecutive minutes ⢠Test samples can be reheated at 125°C for 25 min ⢠Mixes with unusually high calibration factors can be tested at 900°F, as approved by the engineer, but method does not specify the threshold value ⢠Contains procedure for slurry seal and micro-surfacing ⢠Contains procedure for RAP asphalt content determination ⢠Single-operator and multi-laboratory precision values 0.11% and 0.17%, respectively ⢠No gradation correction factor State: Wisconsin Test Method â WisDOT Modified AASHTO T 308 Differences compared to AASHTO T 308 ⢠Lists specified number of testing increments for minimum specimen size (e.g., 3,000 g = three 1,000 g test samples) ⢠Samples tested at 482°C ⢠Contains a production/reflux method for calculating cor- rection factor using field samples Province: Ontario Test Method â MTO LS-292 Differences compared to AASHTO T 308 ⢠Test method is modified version of ASTM D6307 Province: Saskatchewan Test Method â STP 204-27 Differences compared to AASHTO T 308 ⢠Test procedure only used for 9.5 or 12.5 mm NMAS mix types ⢠Samples tested at 540 ± 5°C ⢠Calibration factor measured from average of three samples mixed at design asphalt content