National Academies Press: OpenBook

Practices for Assessing and Mitigating the Moisture Susceptibility of Asphalt Pavements (2022)

Chapter: Appendix B - Tabulated Survey Responses

« Previous: Appendix A - Survey Questionnaire
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Tabulated Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Assessing and Mitigating the Moisture Susceptibility of Asphalt Pavements. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26725.
×
Page 65
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Tabulated Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Assessing and Mitigating the Moisture Susceptibility of Asphalt Pavements. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26725.
×
Page 66
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Tabulated Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Assessing and Mitigating the Moisture Susceptibility of Asphalt Pavements. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26725.
×
Page 67
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Tabulated Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Assessing and Mitigating the Moisture Susceptibility of Asphalt Pavements. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26725.
×
Page 68
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Tabulated Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Assessing and Mitigating the Moisture Susceptibility of Asphalt Pavements. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26725.
×
Page 69
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Tabulated Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Assessing and Mitigating the Moisture Susceptibility of Asphalt Pavements. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26725.
×
Page 70
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Tabulated Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Assessing and Mitigating the Moisture Susceptibility of Asphalt Pavements. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26725.
×
Page 71
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Tabulated Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Assessing and Mitigating the Moisture Susceptibility of Asphalt Pavements. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26725.
×
Page 72
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Tabulated Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Assessing and Mitigating the Moisture Susceptibility of Asphalt Pavements. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26725.
×
Page 73
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Tabulated Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Assessing and Mitigating the Moisture Susceptibility of Asphalt Pavements. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26725.
×
Page 74
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Tabulated Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Assessing and Mitigating the Moisture Susceptibility of Asphalt Pavements. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26725.
×
Page 75
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Tabulated Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Assessing and Mitigating the Moisture Susceptibility of Asphalt Pavements. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26725.
×
Page 76
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Tabulated Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Assessing and Mitigating the Moisture Susceptibility of Asphalt Pavements. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26725.
×
Page 77
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Tabulated Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Assessing and Mitigating the Moisture Susceptibility of Asphalt Pavements. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26725.
×
Page 78
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Tabulated Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Assessing and Mitigating the Moisture Susceptibility of Asphalt Pavements. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26725.
×
Page 79
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Tabulated Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Assessing and Mitigating the Moisture Susceptibility of Asphalt Pavements. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26725.
×
Page 80
Page 81
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Tabulated Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Assessing and Mitigating the Moisture Susceptibility of Asphalt Pavements. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26725.
×
Page 81
Page 82
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Tabulated Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Assessing and Mitigating the Moisture Susceptibility of Asphalt Pavements. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26725.
×
Page 82
Page 83
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Tabulated Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Assessing and Mitigating the Moisture Susceptibility of Asphalt Pavements. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26725.
×
Page 83
Page 84
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Tabulated Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Assessing and Mitigating the Moisture Susceptibility of Asphalt Pavements. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26725.
×
Page 84
Page 85
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Tabulated Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Assessing and Mitigating the Moisture Susceptibility of Asphalt Pavements. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26725.
×
Page 85
Page 86
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Tabulated Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Assessing and Mitigating the Moisture Susceptibility of Asphalt Pavements. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26725.
×
Page 86
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Tabulated Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Assessing and Mitigating the Moisture Susceptibility of Asphalt Pavements. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26725.
×
Page 87
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Tabulated Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Assessing and Mitigating the Moisture Susceptibility of Asphalt Pavements. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26725.
×
Page 88
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Tabulated Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Assessing and Mitigating the Moisture Susceptibility of Asphalt Pavements. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26725.
×
Page 89
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Tabulated Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Assessing and Mitigating the Moisture Susceptibility of Asphalt Pavements. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26725.
×
Page 90

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   Tabulated Survey Responses A P P E N D I X B This appendix summarizes the responses to the survey questionnaire shown in Appendix A, as reported by the agencies. A total of 48 states, the District of Columbia, and one Canadian province (Ontario) participated in the survey. 1. Is moisture damage considered a major issue affecting the durability of flexible pavements in your state? Selection/Response/Choice Agencies Yes AR, CO, DC, IL, KY, LA, ME, NE, NJ, NY, OK, OR, TN, TX, VT, WI, WY No AK, AZ, CT, DE, FL, HI, MA, MD, MN, MS, MT, NC, ND, OH, RI Would be a problem but the agency has tests and/or specifications to adequately address the problem. AL, CA, GA, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, MI, MO, NV, ONT (Canada), PA, SC, SD, UT, VA, WA, WV 2. Does your agency require testing asphalt mixtures or component materials for moisture susceptibility during mix design? Selection/Response/Choice Agencies Yes AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, GA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, NJ, NV, OH, OK, ONT (Canada), OR, PA, SC, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY No DE, HI, ND, NE, RI, UT Sometimes/under certain conditions; Please specify. AK, FL, IA, ME, NY, SD

66 Practices for Assessing and Mitigating the Moisture Susceptibility of Asphalt Pavements • NY: It is sometimes requested by the Regional Materials Engineer, based on his assessment of the situation. • SD: When 1.00% hydrated lime or more by weight of mixture is added TSR testing not required. 2a. What test method(s) is (are) required for mix design? Check all that apply. Selection Agencies Modified Lottman Test (AASHTO T 283) CA, CO, CT, DC, IL, IN, LA, MA, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, NJ, NY, OK, ONT, PA, TN, VA, VT, WI, WV, WY Hamburg Wheel-Track Test (AASHTO T 324) CA, GA, IA, ID, IL, LA, MA, ME, MT, OK, UT, VT, WA Boiling Water Test (ASTM D3625) GA, TN Static Immersion Test (AASHTO T 182) AK Immersion-Compression Test (AASHTO T 165) ID State devised or modified test method AL, AR, FL, GA, KS, MS, NV, OH, OR, SC, SD, TX Other, please specify AK, AZ, FL, ID, KY, MD, MO, NV, WA Additional Information from DOTs: AK: If a stripping point is observed, it is determined graphically by finding the point of intersection of the creep slope and strip slope then projecting to a point normal to the plot of the test. The corresponding cycle to the point on the curve is the stripping point. AZ: Arizona Test Method 802 FL: FM 1-T283 Additional Information from DOTs: • FL: Prior to being placed on the APL, liquid anti-strips are comprehensively tested with eight separate mixtures that are comprised of the most common mix types and aggregates used in Florida. All eight mixtures must have a minimum TSR of 80% according to FM 1- T283 for the anti-strip to be placed on the APL. Mixtures containing aggregates that are not included in the APL testing battery are tested during mix design for moisture susceptibility. • IA: The IA DOT requires the contractor to perform a moisture sensitivity evaluation of the proposed asphalt mixture design in accordance with Materials I.M. 319 (https://www.iowadot.gov/erl/current/IM/content/319.htm) for the following mixtures when placed in travelled lanes: 1) Mixtures for Interstate and Primary highways designed for Very High Traffic (VT), and 2) Mixtures for Interstate and Primary highways containing quartzite, granite, or other siliceous (not a limestone or dolomite) aggregate obtained by crushing from ledge rock in at least 40% of the total aggregate (virgin and recycled) or at least 25% of the plus No. 4. The DOT will verify the results with production HMA.

Tabulated Survey Responses 67   NV: We use Nev. T 341 which is a modified version of T 283 (old definition of saturation percentage). OH: Supplement 1051 that slightly modifies T 283. OR: OR DOT uses a modified T 283. SC: We use SC-T-70; very similar to AASHTO T 283. SD: Modified Lottman using 4" specimens with no freeze-thaw cycle. TX: Tex-242-F, Hamburg Wheel Test; Tex-530-C, Boil Test. VA: We're starting to transition away from TSR testing completely and moving exclusively to Hamburg testing. WA: Indirect Tensile Test 2b. What parameters and criteria are being used for mix design? (Example: Minimum TSR 80%) Agency Selection/Response/Choice AK During static immersion test, aggregate coverage of 70% is required and whatever percentage of anti-strip additive that is minimum needed to achieve this coverage. AL Minimum TSR 80% AR TSR 80% AZ Minimum Index of Retained Strength of 60% CA AASHTO T 283: Min. Wet Strength of 70 and Min. Dry Strength of 100; Hamburg Wheel-Track: 0.5" rut depth CO Minimum TSR 80% CT TSR ≥80% Minimal stripping determined by Engineer (DOT) DC DC DOT requires that all asphalt mixes contain a minimum (of 0.20% of the target % binder) of anti-strip ensuring that moisture damage protection is always present in the mix. DE No Response FL Minimum TSR of 80% GA: Boiling for open-graded mixes only GDT-66 ID: Immersion-Compression (IC) has been used by ITD for many years. We moved to T 324 in October 2019 for all future projects. IL: Hamburg typically used to measure rut depth—not generally used to determine moisture susceptibility. KY: ASTM D 4867 with one freeze thaw cycle. We are in the process of incorporating the Hamburg test as part of our balanced mix design program. Will not be part of a design standard for at least two more paving seasons. MA: T 324 for dense and gap graded mixes & T 283 for OGFC. MD: ASTM D 4867 - TSR test with a minimum of 85% at freeze thaw conditions. MO: Plasticity Index (PI) is required on aggregates utilized in MoDOT's low-type mix designs (i.e., BP-1, BP-2, and BP-3). TSR testing required when the PI is over 3. A minimum TSR value of 70% is specified. Test results are submitted with the mix design to MoDOT.

68 Practices for Assessing and Mitigating the Moisture Susceptibility of Asphalt Pavements KS Minimum TSR 80% KY Verification of contractor’s TSR value. Target 80 +/-20, so 60-100. For mix design, Target 80 +/-20, so 60-100. For mix design, min. 80 LA TSR 80%. Hamburg: No SIP MA Dense/Gap: 50G, No SIP before 10,000 passes & < 12.5mm rut @ 45°C. 75G &100G, No SIP before 15,000 passes & < 12.5mm rut @ 45°C. OGFC:TSRs >80% MD Minimum TSR of 85% ME By binder grade: 20,000 passes to 12.5 mm deformation, 15,000 passes to SIP.Temps: PG64-28 at 45°C, PG64E-28 at 48°C, PG70E-28 at 50°C MI Minimum TSR 80% MN Contractor's minimum is 80% for high traffic volume mixes and minimum is 75% for low traffic volume mixes. Agency requirements are 10% less than contractor requirements. MO Superpave Mix Designs: Minimum TSR 80%. Low-Type Mix Designs: Minimum TSR 70% MS TSR 85% minimum; Boiling Water Test (MT-59) 95% minimum MT TSR must be greater than 70%, Hamburg rut depth must < 13 mm at 15,000 passes when tested at 14 degrees C below High PG temp. NC Mix Type I 19.0 C, S 9.5 B, S 9.5 C and S9.5 D minimum TSR is 85% and Mix Type S 4.75 A and B 25.0 C minimum TST is 80%. ND No Response NE No Response NJ Most mixes minimum TSR 80%. Some specialty mixes are minimum 85% and 90%. NV Minimum TSR of 70%, with additional dry strength limits (PG 76 binders min. 100 psi, all other mixes are predominately PG64 have min. 65 psi for dry). NY We use the minimum TSR of 80% as the criteria. OH For heavy traffic (Superpave) we require a minimum of 0.80 TSR. For other mixes, the minimum is 0.70. If an anti-strip needs to be used, the minimum is 0.80, no matter the traffic. GA Max 12.5 mm rut/ No SIP during required testing cycles. 95% retention coating, i.e., ≤ 5% coating loss. Minimum 80% with ≥ 60 psi average group HI No Response IA Minimum SIP, stripping inflection point, for S traffic 10k for H and V traffic min. SIP 14k. S ≤1M ESAL. H 1-10M ESAL. V >10M ESAL ID IC tests have a minimum retained strength of 85%. Hamburg: 15,000 passes to stripping inflection point. IL TSR on 150 mm gyro specimens. Criteria of 0.85; Minimum tensile strength of 80 psi for mixes with polymer-modified asphalts; 60 psi for mixes with neat asphalts; and 70 psi for mixes with a low-temperature grade of -28 or lower. IN Minimum TSR 80%

Tabulated Survey Responses 69   PA Minimum TSR = 80%. Minimum average unconditioned tensile strength for asphalt mixtures with virgin asphalt binder grades of PG64-22/PG64S-22 and PG76-22/PG64E-22 = 80 psi. Minimum average unconditioned tensile strengths for asphalt mixtures with virgin asphalt binder grades of PG58-28/PG58S-28 = 65 psi. Minimum average conditioned tensile strengths for all asphalt mixtures = 50 psi. RI No Response SC TSR: 85.0, Wet TS: 65 psi min. SD Minimum TSR 80% TN TSR min. 80 and Condition Tensile Strength > 80, unmodified; 100, modified; 50, OGFC TX Hamburg: PG64- >10,000 passes, PG70- >15,000 passes, PG76- >20,000 passes. Boil test: establish baseline performance to compare to production samples UT For the majority of our asphalt mix designs, a Hamburg Wheel Tracker test: For mix designs at 75 gyrations and higher, 10mm max @ 20,000 passes, For mix designs less than 75 gyrations, 10mm max @ 10,000 passes. Temperature for the test varies based on PG Binder Grade. VA As part of VDOT’s mix design approval process, the contractor must submit passing TSR results (min. of 80%) run on plant produced material. Results must be submitted prior to completion of the first 4,000 ton lot or JMF may be suspended VT Minimum TSR: 80%; No SIP criteria fully in place for Hamburg yet. Results are submitted for informational purposes only at this time. WA No stripping inflection point and max rut depth 10 mm; ESALs (millions) <0.3 -10,000 passes; 0.3 to 3 - 12,500 passes; >3 - 15,000 passes; IDT - 175 Max WI TSR min. 75% if no antistrip is used, 80% for anti-strip designs WV Minimum 80% TSR WY TSR 75% 2c. Has your state modified any parameters of a standardized test method for mix design? (Examples: test temperature, mixture conditioning). Selection Agencies No AR, AZ, CT, DC, GA, IA, ID, LA, MA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MT, NJ, NY, OK, ONT, SC, SD, WY Unsure ME, WV No response DE, HI, ND, NE, RI OK TSR Minimum 80% ONT Minimum TSR of 80%, but for some premium mixes we require the use of hydrated lime or liquid anti-stripping additive, regardless of the TSR result. OR TSR 80%

70 Practices for Assessing and Mitigating the Moisture Susceptibility of Asphalt Pavements AK No Response AL On T 283 we do not perform the freeze-thaw aspect of the test. CA https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot- media/programs/engineering/documents/californiatestmethods-ctm/ctm-389- a11y.pdf CO Temperature and Load rates differ. https://www.codot.gov/business/designsupport/materials-and- geotechnical/manuals/2015-cdot-lab-manual-test-procedures-rev- 2019/cpls/cp-ls-5100/CPL%205109-17/view FL https://fdotwww.blob.core.windows.net/sitefinity/docs/default- source/materials/materials/administration/resources/library/publications/fstm/ methods/fm1-t283.pdf?sfvrsn=ba5b8adb_0 IL IDOT does not use a freeze/thaw cycle for AASHTO T 283. We found that often a single freeze/thaw cycle raises the strengths band TSRs. Using freeze/thaw is more effective after multiple cycles, but adds considerable time to the procedure. We have done this over the years for some in-house studies. IN "In accordance with T 283 except that the loose mixture curing shall be replaced by mixture conditioning for 4 hours" (to ensure absorption is complete). KS http://www.ksdot.org/Assets/wwwksdotorg/bureaus/burConsMain/Connections/ConstManual/2018/KT-56.pdf KY Using Kentucky Method (KM) verifying contractor’s TSR value +/- 20 of reported TSR on contractor’s mix design. MS Modified ASTM D3625 - MT-59 Calls for bring sample down to room temp before running test. Sample is 200 grams and is boiled for 10 minutes. NC We do not require freeze-thaw for TSRs. Here is a link to our QMS Manual. Look in Sections 4 and 7. https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/Materials/MaterialsResources/2020 QMS Asphalt Manual.pdf NV https://www.nevadadot.com/doing-business/about-ndot/ndot-divisions/operations/materials-section/materials-test-manual OH The saturation for Superpave mixes is 80-90% instead of 70-80% per T 283. OR https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Construction/Doc_ManualofFieldTestProcedu res/2019/04_AASHTO_online.pdf, Reference pages 192 - 195 from the link above PA For AASHTO T 283 and if Field Mixed, Laboratory Compacted specimens are used, the field mixture is to be conditioned for 2 h +/- 10 min at the compaction temperature +/- 3°C (5°F). Agency If “yes”, please explain

Tabulated Survey Responses 71   TN One freeze-thaw cycle instead of multiple per NAPA Design Guide for OGFCs. TX Most likely. TxDOT does not use AASHTO or ASTM for hot mix testing. All of our testing is per our Texas methods: https://www.txdot.gov/business/resources/testing.html?CFC__target=http%3 A%2F%2Fwww.dot.state.tx.us%2Fapps- cg%2Ftest_procedures%2Ftms_series.htm%3Fseries%3D200-F UT I will send links. VA 16-hour conditioning period under AASHTO T 283 is waived. VT See Subsection 406.03B(c) in our 2018 spec book at the link below. https://outside.vermont.gov/agency/VTRANS/external/docs/construction/02C onstrServ/PreContract/2018SpecBook/Unofficial%20Specifications%20Book %2020200128.pdf WA Yes 7. Determining Air Void Content, 7.3. Determine the air void content of the specimens in accordance with T 269. The recommended target air void content is 7.0 ± 1.0 percent for laboratory-compacted SGC cylindrical specimens and 7.0 ± 1.0 percent for laboratory- compacted slab specimens. Field specimens may be tested at the air void content at which they are obtained. 8. Procedure, 8.6.1. Select a test temperature of 50° C. WI Yes Footnotes to Table 460-2. [6] WisDOT eliminates freeze-thaw conditioning cycles from the TSR test procedure. [7] Run TSR at asphalt content corresponding to 3.0% air void regressed design, or 4.5% air void design for SMA, using distilled water for testing. https://wisconsindot.gov/rdwy/stndspec/ss-04-60.pdf 2d. Approximately what percentage of mixes fail testing criteria during mix design approval? Agency Responses AK Mixes with unmodified binder sometimes show moisture susceptibility. AL Not really sure if the mix fails the testing the Contractor usually adds either lime or liquid anti-strip and retests before sending in to the DOT. So the DOT when performing a one-point check rarely sees a failing test. AR 0% AZ None CA My best guess: less than 5% CO Unknown - Mix Designs are performed by contractor, DOT only sees Mix Designs that meet our criteria CT 0 - 5% DC 5% FL Not sure. Testing at mix design is rare since the APL process was revised a few years ago. GA <1% IA Less than 10 of submitted mixes fail. We do not monitor mix designs until submitted.

72 Practices for Assessing and Mitigating the Moisture Susceptibility of Asphalt Pavements IL I would guess at less than 10 to 15% of mixes before adjustment or additives. IN None. If fail TSR, anti-stripping agent is required. KS 0% KY For moisture susceptibility - about 1% LA 5 MA Less than 5% MD 0% ME 20% MI 0% MN 1% MO Under 5% MS <1% MT TSR = 0% (must pass before even being considered for verification). Hamburg = varies; last year, none, but it's been as high as 10 or 15%. NC 1 to 2%. NJ Generally speaking, mixes often fail for performance-test-related issues. We do not get many TSR failures. NV 5-10%, but they are typically accompanied by other (volumetric or stability) failures as well. OH 0% submitted by contractors (makes sense). We just started verifying in 2019 and had 20 of 119 fail so about 17%. Also, haven't seen anti-strips used until this year since at least 2006. OK 10% ONT We do not know as the mix design is completed by the contractor and they should submit a mix design with a TSR over 80%. OR 0% SC Very few. Our granite is less acceptable to moisture damage. SD Very few, most add 1% hydrated lime TN 10% UT 10% VA Less than 1% VT 0 (TSR testing); N/A (Hamburg testing) WA Approximately 10-15% fail with only 2% of those being directly related to the mix design failing the Hamburg tests. WI 1 WV 1%? WY 0%

Tabulated Survey Responses 73   2e. If Hamburg is used, how is stripping inflection point determined? Agency Responses CA Inflection point is not specified GA The software calculates it, but have used graph also. IA Use the most current version of the Iowa DOT Hamburg Software (http://www.iowadot.gov/Construction_Materials/hma/Hamburg_Software.xls m) to determine the SIP. The software is developed for machines manufactured by Precision Metal Works and Troxler, where deformation is measured at 11 locations along the track. Measurement locations 3 through 9 will be used for analysis for samples tested on the Iowa DOT Central Materials machine. For each measurement location, the deformation curve is characterized by a 6th degree polynomial determined through least-squares multiple regression. If the curve has an R2 greater than or equal to 90.0%, the creep and stripping slopes are calculated. If not, the sensor is considered invalid and is not used in the analysis. The SIP, creep slope, and stripping slope are calculated for each valid sensor for each wheel. The final SIP and slopes are the average of both wheels provided both sides of the device contain the same mix. If the ratio between the average stripping slope and the average creep slope is less than 2.0, the SIP is invalid and the mix is considered passing. Details: The creep slope represents the rate of rutting in the linear region of the deformation curve prior to the onset of tertiary flow. The stripping slope is the rate of rutting in the linear region of the post tertiary deformation curve to the end of the test. The stripping inflection point (SIP) is the point of intersection of these two slopes. Stripping Slope: The stripping slope is calculated prior to the creep slope. First, the maximum rutting slope (absolute value) nearest the end of the test is found. This is accomplished by using Solver to find the pass number nearest the end of the test (strip pass) at which the first derivative of the deformation curve is smallest (rutting is a negative value). The slope of the curve is then evaluated at this pass number to give the stripping slope. The stripping slope intercept is then found using point slope form. Note: the first derivative is synonymous with slope. Creep Slope: To calculate the creep slope, the pass at which the absolute value of the rutting slope is the smallest prior to the strip pass is first found. This is accomplished first using Solver to find the pass (creep pass) at which the second derivative is zero (prior to the strip pass). The first derivative of the deformation curve is then evaluated at the creep pass, resulting in the creep slope. SIP: The intersection of the creep slope and the stripping slope is found mathematically setting the equations for both lines equal and solving for the pass number.

74 Practices for Assessing and Mitigating the Moisture Susceptibility of Asphalt Pavements ID Per AASHTO T 324 IL We do not measure stripping inflection point. We think that the S.I.P. indicates when the mix starts to abruptly fail for any number of reasons, of which stripping can be one. We generally do not usually see stripped aggregates on mix specimens that do fail in the Hamburg, even if they have a dramatic stripping inflection point. LA Presence of tertiary flow. Slopes between secondary and tertiary flow region. MA InstroTek SmarTracker software calculates SIP. ME By MaineDOT Excel-based worksheet using polynomial to determine the stripping slope and creep slope. Can provide details in written policy for SIP. MT We are evaluating that currently, but waiting for the COMP to rule on a standard method. If we were pressed to come up with a number we'd use the manufacturer's equations. OK Used as an indicator only, not for acceptance. Use Fan Yin method NCAT. UT Visually. Very rare. VT N/A at this time. WA Per AASHTO T 324 3. Does your agency require testing asphalt mixtures or component materials for moisture susceptibility during production/acceptance? Selection Agencies No AK, AZ, DC, DE, FL, GA, HI, IL, IN, MD, MI, MS, MT, ND, OH, RI, UT, WV, WY Yes AL, CA, CO, CT, ID, KS, LA, MO, NC, NE, NV, OK, OR, SC, TN, TX, WA

Tabulated Survey Responses 75   So m et im es /u nd er c er ta in c on di tio ns ; P le as e ex pl ai n. AR: It is determined during first 3 days of production or during the first 3 days of production after and interruption of 120 calendar days or more. IA: the IA DOT requires QA testing on production Mixtures for Interstate and Primary highways designed for Very High Traffic (VT), and Mixtures for Interstate and Primary highways containing quartzite, granite, or other siliceous (not a limestone or dolomite) aggregate obtained by crushing from ledge rock in at least 40% of the total aggregate (virgin and recycled) or at least 25% of the plus No. 4. KY: If lab TSRs fail then KYTC would allow the contractor to do field TSRs. MA: Testing production mix starting in 2020 for information only. ME: High-value projects at this point (interstate, full reconstruction, etc.) MN: Only as required by the Engineer. NJ: When moisture induced damage is suspected during production our Regional Materials group to submit TSR samples during production for testing. The moisture damage is usually suspected based on the type of aggregate used. This does not happen often. ONT: On warm mix, we require samples collected and tested by the QA lab for TSR test. Beginning in 2020 we will collect production samples from select jobs for Hamburg test for information. PA: If producer proposes to change the asphalt binder supplier during production and has not performed AASHTO T 283 during mix design with that particular asphalt binder supplier, the producer is required to perform ASTM D3625 using the asphalt binder from new supplier. If ASTM D3625 results show greater than 95% coated particles, then producer can use asphalt binder from new supplier during production with requirement to perform follow-up AASHTO T 283 testing when time permits. If ASTM D3625 results show less than 95% coated particles, then producer must perform AASHTO T 283 testing using the asphalt binder from new supplier and meet all minimum mix design moisture-susceptibility requirements before permitted to use asphalt binder from new supplier in production. SD: Check some field TSRs on known stripping aggregates UT: When issues are suspect or the mix design results are marginal, or for determining the disposition of non-specification material. VA: In the first 4,000-ton lot for mix design approval, as described above. VT: Project Special Provision. WI: every 50,000 tons for surface-type mixes that had less than 85% TSR values in design.

76 Practices for Assessing and Mitigating the Moisture Susceptibility of Asphalt Pavements 3a. What test methods are required for acceptance? (Check all that apply) Selection Agencies Modified Lottman Test (AASHTO T 283) CA, CO, CT, MN, MO, NC, NE, NJ, OK, SC, TN, VA, WI Hamburg Wheel-Track Test (AASHTO T 324) CA, IA, ID, LA, MA, ME, UT, VT, WA Boiling Water Test (ASTM D3625) PA, TN Static Immersion Test (AASHTO T 182) [None] Immersion-Compression Test (AASHTO T 165) ID State devised or modified test method AL, AR, KS, NV, OR, SD, TX Other, please specify KY, ONT, SC Additional Information from DOTs: • KY: Min. TSR of 80; ASTM same as T 283 • NV: Same Nev. T341 • ONT: As stated above, beginning in 2020, samples will be taken for Hamburg test (AASHTO T 324) for information only • OR: Modification to T 283 • SC: SC-T-70 • SD: modified TSR test using 4" Marshall specimens and no freeze thaw cycle • TX: Tex-242-F, Hamburg Wheel Test; Tex-530-C, Boil Test 3b. What parameters and criteria are used for acceptance? (Examples: minimum TSR 75%) Agency Responses AL Minimum TSR 80% AR TSR 70% CA AASHTO T 283: Min. Wet Strength 70 psi and Min. Dry Strength 100 psi; HWT: 0.5 inch rut depth CO Minimum TSR 70% CT TSR ≥80% Minimal stripping determined by engineer IA Minimum SIP, stripping inflection point, for S traffic 10k for H and V traffic min.SIP 14k. S ≤1M ESAL. H 1-10M ESAL. V ≥10M ESAL. ID IC: minimum 85% retained strength KS Minimum TSR 80% KY Min. TSR of 80

Tabulated Survey Responses 77   LA No SIP MA TBD ME By binder grade: 20,000 passes to 12.5 mm deformation, 15,000 passes to SIP. Temps: PG64-28 at 45°C, PG64E-28 at 48°C, PG70E-28 at 50°C MN Contractor's minimum is 80% for high traffic volume mixes and minimum is 75% for low traffic volume mixes. Agency requirements are 10% less than contractor requirements. MO Superpave: minimum TSR 75% NC Minimum TSR 80% and 85%. See 2b answer. NE 80% and the visual rating NJ Most mixes minimum TSR 80%. Some specialty mixes are minimum 85% and 90%. NV Minimum TSR of 70%, with additional dry strength limits (PG 76 binders min.100 psi, all other mixes are predominately PG64 have min. 65 psi for dry). OK TSR Minimum 75% ONT None yet. We are developing acceptance criteria for Hamburg test. OR TSR = 70% PA As described under question #3, producer is required to perform ASTM D3625 using the asphalt binder from new supplier. If ASTM D3625 results show greater than 95% coated particles, then producer can use asphalt binder from new supplier during production with requirement to perform follow-up AASHTO T 283 testing when time permits. If ASTM D3625 results show less than 95% coated particles, then producer must perform AASHTO T 283 testing using the asphalt binder from new supplier and meet all minimum mix design moisture-susceptibility requirements before permitted to use asphalt binder from new supplier in production. SC TSR: 80% SD TSR minimum of 80% TN TSR min. 80 and Condition Tensile Strength > 80, unmodified; 100, modified; 50, OGFC TX Hamburg: PG64- >; 10,000 passes, PG70- >; 15,000 passes, PG76- >; 20,000 passes. Boil Test: look for visible stripping or changes in performance vs. original design. UT For the majority of our asphalt mix designs, a Hamburg Wheel Tracker test: For mix designs at 75 gyrations and higher: 10mm max @ 20,000 passes. For mix designs less than 75 gyrations, 10mm max @ 10,000 passes. Temperature for the test varies based on PG Binder Grade. VA Minimum TSR value of 80% VT Stripping Inflection Point (SIP) of 15,000 passes in Hamburg

78 Practices for Assessing and Mitigating the Moisture Susceptibility of Asphalt Pavements WA No stripping inflection point and max rut depth 10 mm ESALs (millions) < 0.3 - 10,000 passes 0.3 to 3 - 12,500 passes >3 - 15,000 passes WI TSR min. 75% if no antistrip is used, 80% for anti-strip designs 3c. Has your state modified any parameters of a standardized test method for acceptance? (Examples: test temperature, mixture conditioning) Selection Agencies No AR, CT, IA, ID, MA, MN, MO, NE, NJ, OK, PA, SC, SD, TN Unsure ME No response AK, AZ, DC, DE, FL, GA, HI, IL, IN, LA, MD, MI, MS, MT, ND, NY, OH, RI, WV, WY Agency If “yes”, please explain AL Same as in the mix design, the freeze thaw portion of the test is not performed. CA https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot- media/programs/engineering/documents/californiatestmethods-ctm/ctm-389- a11y.pdf CO Same as above - Temperature and load rates differ. https://www.codot.gov/business/designsupport/materials-and- geotechnical/manuals/2015-cdot-lab-manual-test-procedures-rev- 2019/cpls/cp-ls-5100/CPL%205109-17/view KS Same link as IN Q#2c NC https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/Materials/MaterialsResources/2020 QMS Asphalt Manual.pdf; See Sections 4 and 7. NV Same criteria and testing as the design requirements. https://www.nevadadot.com/doing-business/about-ndot/ndot- divisions/operations/materials-section/materials-test-manual ONT Although AASHTO T 324 does not specify testing temperature but most agencies test at 50 degrees C. We also test at 50ºC except mixes with PGXX- 40 that we test at 44ºC. OR Modification to T 283 see previous provided link for changes. TX Same response as earlier. UT Same as for design. VA 16-hour conditioning under T 283 is waived.

Tabulated Survey Responses 79   VT Link to be provided. WA AASHTO T 324: 7. Determining Air Void Content 7.3. Determine the air void content of the specimens in accordance with T 269. The recommended target air void content is 7.0 ± 1.0 percent for laboratory-compacted SGC cylindrical specimens and 7.0 ± 1.0 percent for laboratory-compacted slab specimens. Field specimens may be tested at the air void content at which they are obtained. 8. Procedure 8.6.1. Select a test temperature of 50°C. WI Footnotes to Table 460-2 [6] WisDOT eliminates freeze-thaw conditioning cycles from the TSR test procedure. [7] Run TSR at asphalt content corresponding to 3.0% air void regressed design, or 4.5% air void design for SMA, using distilled water for testing. https://wisconsindot.gov/rdwy/stndspec/ss-04-60.pdf Additional Information from DOTs: • MA: Looking to incorporate 2 hours conditioning at 135°C before fabricating production Hamburg specimens. 3d. If Hamburg is used, how is stripping inflection point determined? Agency Responses CA Inflection Point is not a spec requirement IA Same as above ID Per AASHTO T 324 LA Same as design MA InstroTek SmarTracker software ME Same as design UT Visually, but this is rare. VT See Project Special Provision emailed. WA Per AASHTO T 324

80 Practices for Assessing and Mitigating the Moisture Susceptibility of Asphalt Pavements Yes, for all mixtures. AR, CO, DC, FL, GA, ID, LA, MS, MT, NC, NE, NV, PA, SC, TN, UT, VA, WY Yes, for certain mixtures or materials (aggregates). AK, DE, KY, MD, ME, OK, OR, RI, SD, VT Yes, based on results of testing. AL, CA, CT, IA, IL, IN, KS, MA, MI, MN, MO, NY, OH, ONT, TX, WA, WI No AZ, HI, ND, NJ, WV 4a. What types of anti-strip additives are allowed by your agency? Choices Agencies Hydrated lime added to moist aggregate AL, CA, CO, ID, IL, MA, ME, OH, ONT, OR, PA, TX, UT, VA, WI, WY Hydrated lime added to aggregate in pugmill AL, CO, FL, ID, IL, KS, MA, NC, NV, OH, WY, ONT, OR, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WI Hydrated lime injected into the drum AL, CO, FL, GA, IA, ID, IL, LA, MA, MO, MS, MT, OH, OK, SC, TX, WI Hydrated lime slurry AL, CA, CO, FL, ID, IL, MA, MD, ONT, TX, UT, WI, WY Liquid ASA added at terminal AK, AL, AR, DC, DE, FL, GA, IA, ID, IN, KS, KY, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, NC, NE, NY, OK, ONT, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, VA, VT, WA, WI, WY Liquid ASA added in plant asphalt storage tank AK, AL, DC, GA, ID, IN, KS, LA, MA, MD, MI, MO, NC, NY, ONT, PA, TN, TX, VA, VT, WI Liquid ASA added through in-line blending at mix plant AL, AR, CA, ID, IL, IN, KY, LA, MA, MD, MI, MO, NC, NY, OH, PA, TN, TX, VA, VT, WI Other (please specify) CT, IA, MI, NV, UT, VA Additional Information from DOTs: • CT: Open to contractors; ConnDOT does not specify. • IA: Polymer-based liquid aggregate treatments. • MI: One contractor has used a better binder grade to pass the TSR (example: required grade 58-28, contractor used 58-34). • NV: Min. marination of 48 hours prior to plant mix production. • UT: We also allow lime treating the stockpiles or marination with 1.5% hydrated lime. Our contractors don't use this method. • VA: Must be mixed thoroughly on the cold-feed belt. 4. Does your agency require the use of any anti-strip additives such as lime or liquid? Selection/Response/Choice Agencies

Tabulated Survey Responses 81   4b. What mixtures or materials require the use of anti-strip additive? Agency Responses AK All Asphalt Treated Base (ATB) mixes. All top-layer hot-mix asphalt (HMA). AL Depends based on testing. AR All mixes CA HMA that cannot meet moisture-sensitivity requirements. CO All HMA mixes require 1% hydrated lime, by weight. CT Any mix that does not meet AASHTO T 283 ≥80% min. stripping determined by Engineer DC Requirement of a minimum of 0.20% added to all mixes DE Permeable Asphalt Treated Base FL All mixtures GA When a mixture cannot (meet) specified requirements, liquid antistrip is sometimes required in conjunction with hydrated lime. IA 1) Mixtures for Interstate and Primary highways designed for Very High Traffic (VT), and 2) Mixtures for Interstate and Primary highways containing quartzite, granite, or other siliceous (not a limestone or dolomite) aggregate obtained by crushing from ledge rock in at least 40% of the total aggregate (virgin and recycled) or at least 25% of the plus No. 4. ID All mixes require 1/2% anti-strip by weight of binder. IL Based on testing or as the districts determine. IN Any that fail TSR, or have anti-strip dosage rates on the DMF KS Any mix without anti-strip additive when TSR <80% and any mix containing more than 25% RAP plus natural sand KY Lots of contractors are beginning to use antistrip additive in all of the mixes.Like it for workability and compaction aid. LA All MA Mixes that fail SIP during mix design approval MD Any mixture which has TSR <85% ME Most surface courses MI Ultra-thin, Asphalt Stabilized Crack Relief Layer MN Only those mixes which fail TSR at design or during production. MO MoDOT specifies a minimum TSR value that the asphalt mixture needs to achieve. The contractor selects the anti-strip additive they wish to use, if needed. MoDOT does not require the use of an anti-strip additive.

82 Practices for Assessing and Mitigating the Moisture Susceptibility of Asphalt Pavements MS All mixes require 1% hydrated lime. MT All NC All NCDOT mixes NE All mixes except for shoulder mix NV All virgin aggregates for plant mix, but not RAP stockpiles. NY HMA and WMA mixtures that did not meet the previously referenced test criteria. OH Only required if TSR doesn't pass without it. All Superpave mixes require TSR testing and for other mixes if coarse gravel is used, more than 25% natural sand, or more than 20% RAP that contains gravel. OK In two divisions, AS in all mixes. In one division lime only if needed. ONT For premium surface mixtures with strippable aggregates, we require hydrated lime or equivalent approved additives. For northern Ontario, all mixes require antistripping additive (either hydrated lime or liquid). OR High-risk corridors on Interstate Hwy. require lime / lower-risk corridors require lime or latex. If a material fails testing that does not specify lime or latex, liquid antistrips may be used. PA All asphalt mixtures require an anti-strip additive dosed at the additive manufacturer's minimum dosage rate (typically liquid amine-based anti-strips are used at a minimum 0.25% by mass of asphalt binder dosage rate). If the asphalt mixture includes both a coarse aggregate and fine aggregate classified as a type of sandstone, siltstone, slag, quartz, shale, or gravel, producer must include an anti-strip additive at 2X the additive manufacturer's recommended minimum dosage rate (typically liquid amine-based anti-strips are used at a minimum 0.50% by mass of asphalt binder dosage rate). RI OGFC. Used for permeable pavements only. Very infrequently. SC We allow LASA on mixtures on every mix except OGFC and SMA and our Surface A that are typically placed on our Interstates. SD All QC/QA materials with a TSR less than 80% TN All HMA is required by spec to have 0.3 to 0.5% ASA dose by wt. of AC. TX Not required. If stripping, products will be used to mitigate. UT All asphalt mixtures. VA All asphalt concrete mixtures VT Granite or quartzite aggregates WA HMA mixes that fail Hamburg WY 100%

Tabulated Survey Responses 83   5. Does your agency use other measures - including alternate tests, limitations in your specifications, or other requirements - to mitigate moisture damage (examples: enhanced density requirements, field permeability testing, prohibiting use of certain aggregate types, Superpave5, or others)? Selection Agencies No AR, AZ, CA, DE, ID, MA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NJ,NV, OH, OK, OR, RI, SC, TX, UT, WA, WY No response CT, IA, ME, WV Agency If “Yes”, please specify AK A minimum requirement for anti-strip additive (0.30% for HMA) on all mixes without regard to sufficiency of any other modifiers (polymers) and their effective use. It has been found that any modification results in 100% coverage of aggregate. AL Alabama DOT no longer allows the use of chert aggregates in any of their asphalt concrete mixes. CO Aggregate Degradation by Abrasion in the Micro-Deval (Test Method based on AASHTO T 327). Not to Exceed 18, during design and not to exceed 20 during production DC We require that producers load the plant with as dry as possible cold-feed aggregates. FL Hydrated lime is required for granite OGFC. GA COAC (Corrected Optimum Asphalt Contents) HI If aggregate absorption (T84, T85) is over 5%, the aggregate does not qualify for HMA for the State of Hawaii. IL We have done some field permeability testing, but primarily as a measure of density. IN Superpave 5 is implemented. For joints, we require joint adhesive and then it is sealed on top with SS-1h (12" band). KS Enhanced density on select 3% target air voids projects (~350,000 tons for 2019), 40-hr delta Tc requirement on virgin binders may help also. KY Prohibiting the use of certain aggregate types. LA PWL target density around 94%. NE Incentive on in-place-compacted density NY We have specific density requirements already in place and feel they adequately protect our interests. ONT We have drafted a permeability specification but have not used it in any contract yet. We have de-listed quartzite from the list of approved aggregates for premium surface mixes.

84 Practices for Assessing and Mitigating the Moisture Susceptibility of Asphalt Pavements PA Minimum density requirements for dense-graded Superpave asphalt mixtures are specified by lot and percent within limits (PWL). The upper and lower limits for PWL are 92.0 to 98.5 for all wearing courses, 91.0 to 98.0 for all binder courses, and 90.0 to 100.0 for all base courses. SD Balanced-mix designs used, lower design gyrations, PWL for in-place density TN Maximum limit on natural sand VA Design AC for Base Mixes selected at 2.5% air-voids and 50 gyrations – which enhances in place density (avg 94% Gmm); Lab Permeability required for SM-9.5 and SM-12.5 during mix design; Price incentives offered for higher percentage of %Gmm in the field; All Superpave mixes now designed at 50 gyrations, polymer-modified mixes designed at 3.5% air voids rather than the Superpave standard of 4%. VT Agency exclusive boiling test. WI Regressed air voids to 3% by adding additional binder 6. What are the predominant aggregate types used in flexible pavements in your state? (Check all that apply.) Choices Agencies Carbonates (e.g., limestone, dolomite) AL, AR, AZ, DE, FL, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, NE, NJ, NV, NY, OH, OK, ONT, PA, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY Sandstone (e.g., quartzite, greywacke) AL, AR, AZ, IA, ID, IL, IN, KY, LA, MD, ME, MI, MN, ND, NJ, NV, NY, OK, PA, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WY Igneous rocks (e.g., granites, basalt) AK, AL, AR, AZ, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, NC, NJ, NV, NY, OK, ONT, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WY Siliceous sands and gravel AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, CT, IA, ID, IL, KS, LA, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, ND, NE, NV, NY, OH, OK, PA, SD, TN, TX, UT, WI, WY Chert IA, MS, OK Metamorphic rocks (e.g., gneiss, schist) AL, MI, NC, NJ, NV, PA, SC, VA, VT, WA Blast furnace slag IA, IL, IN, MI, OH Steel slag AL, AR, IL, IN, MI, OH Other, please specify

Tabulated Survey Responses 85   7. Is your agency implementing or researching the use of new or emerging technologies to identity moisture-susceptible materials or mixtures? Selection Agencies No AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, KY, MD, MI, MN,MS, MT, ND, NJ, NV, NY, PA , RI, SD, UT, VT, WV Yes KS: Surface free-energy analysis (universal sorption device, Wilhelmy plate, atomic force microscopy, calorimetry, etc.), MiST ME: MiST OK: Surface free-energy analysis (universal sorption device, Wilhelmy plate, atomic force microscopy, calorimetry, etc.), MiST, Dynamic modulus differences between moisture-conditioned and non-conditioned specimens OR: Researching moving from T 283 to T 324. Not new tech, but new to OR. SC: Question 6 - No on tests. We have organosilane LASA materials now being permitted at 0.15% in lieu of 0.70% for other LASA materials. TN: Working towards incorporating Hamburg Loaded Wheel Testing to mix design requirements in a BMD approach in near future. TX: testing individual material properties such as Methylene blue. Also considering adding a stripping inflection criterion to the Hamburg results WA: IDEAL CT using ASTM D8225 WI: MiST Considering FL: TBD. Hoping to get funding for a proposed research project. GA: MiST LA: Surface free-energy analysis (universal sorption device, Wilhelmy plate, atomic force microscopy, calorimetry, etc.), MiST, Dynamic modulus differences between moisture-conditioned and non-conditioned specimens. MA: MiST MO: Hamburg - Deflection Point NC: MiST, Colorimeter, in conjunction with Mix Design TSRs and Boil Test NE: Surface free-energy analysis (universal sorption device, Wilhelmy plate, atomic force microscopy, calorimetry, etc.) OH: MiST, Hamburg SIP. We have a research project coming up that plans to look at tree canopy impacts. Hoping to include these other technologies to see if they predict better than the TSR. Maybe look at adding a minimum PSI/kPa for unconditioned TSR and probably a visual stripping rating (similar to IL DOT) since AASHTO nor ASTM have guidance on this. ONT: MiST

86 Practices for Assessing and Mitigating the Moisture Susceptibility of Asphalt Pavements VA: MiST, Considering balanced mix design candidate tests to evaluate conditioned and non-conditioned performance WY: Dynamic modulus differences between moisture-conditioned and non-conditioned specimens 7b. Please identify the test method by including a link or emailing a copy to Dr. Rebecca S. McDaniel. Agency Responses KS Research in progress MO AASHTO T 324 NC I will email you a PDF of a research project for TSRs NE We are just in the discussion stages in this area OH See Hamburg AASHTO procedure OK All AASHTO TN AASHTO T 324 TX http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/cst/TMS/200-F_series/pdfs/bit252.pdf WA ASTM D8225 WI Still researching 8. Has your state conducted or sponsored any research related to moisture susceptibility (currently or in the past)? Choices Agencies No AK, AZ, CO, DC, DE, HI, IN, MD, MI, MN, MO, MS, ND, NJ, RI Not sure AL, CA, CT, IA, LA, MT, NY, WV, WY Considering the need AR, KY, VT 7a. Which technologies are you using or considering? (Check all that apply.) Technology Agencies Surface free-energy analysis KS, LA, NE, OK MiST GA, KS, LA, MA, ME, NC, OH, OK, ONT, VA, WI Rotary wheel tester Dynamic modulus changes LA, OK, WY Zero entries Other FL, MO, NC, OH, ONT, SC, TN, TX, VA, WA

Tabulated Survey Responses 87   Study R27-078, Effects of Various Asphalt Binder Additives/Modifiers on Moisture Susceptible Asphaltic Mixture (2014) KS: Yes, KS-14-1, KSU/KU-07-5 MA: Yes, https://www.newenglandtransportationconsortium.org/wp- content/uploads/NETC-15-3-Final-Report-1.pdf ME: Yes NC: Yes, See answer to 7b. NE: Yes, UNL Research, on their website NV: Yes, Numerous studies over the years, largely in collaboration with our Superpave center: https://scholarworks.unr.edu/discover?filtertype=subject&filter_relatio nal_operator=equals&filter=WRSC OH: Yes, There are at least two. One was in 2000s (don't have link) and the other is on tree canopy Part 1 but report isn't finalized and really just touched moisture susceptibility. OK: Yes, In Process ONT: Yes, A presentation given by Dr. Sina Varamini at 2019 TRB Meeting titled "Comprehensive Evaluation of Warm Mix Asphalt Moisture Susceptibility" OR: Yes, https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Programs/Pages/Research- Publications.aspx; A number of reports at above link PA: Yes, https://www.penndot.gov/ProjectAndPrograms/Planning/Research- And- Implementation/Documents/Development%20of%20Guidelines%20to %20Minimize%20Moisture%20Damage%20with%20Aggregates%20i n%20Hot-Mix%20Asphalt.pdf SC: Yes, SPR 726 SD: Yes, Research section of SDDOT must be contacted to get papers TN: Yes, Project is in beginning phase, no current results to share. TX: Yes, don't have a particular link, but Texas has looked at some of this in the past. We have also conducted extensive testing on materials throughout the state for tests such as sand equivalent and methylene blue. Yes FL: Yes, https://ftp.fdot.gov/file/d/FTP/FDOT%20LTS/CO/research/Completed _Proj/Summary_SMO/FDOT_BC354_11_rpt.pdf GA: Yes ID: Yes, The original moisture damage work done by Dr. Robert Lottman in the late 1960s and early 1970s, resulting in AASHTO T 283, was performed by the University of Idaho for Idaho Transportation Department. IL: Yes, ict.illinois.edu/research/publications/

88 Practices for Assessing and Mitigating the Moisture Susceptibility of Asphalt Pavements WI: Yes, 0092-05-12, Test Method to Determine Aggregate/Asphalt Adhesion Properties and Potential Moisture Damage, https://wisconsindot.gov/documents2/research/05- 12moisturedamage-f1.pdf 9. Do you see a need for additional research into any of the following? (Please click all that apply.) Choices Agencies Improved lab tests to ID moisture- susceptible materials and mixtures AK, AL, AZ, CA, CO, CT, FL, IA, ID, KS, KY, MO, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, SD, TN, VA, VT, WA, WI, WY Improved analysis of Hamburg stripping inflection point CA, CO, DE, FL, IA, ID, KS, MO, MS, MT, OH, OK, OR, PA, TN, TX, UT, VT, WA, WI, WY Improved anti-strip additive AZ, FL, ID, KS, MI, MT, OK, OR, TN, TX, WA Correlation b/w lab testing and field performance related to moisture damage AK, AL, CA, FL, ID, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MO, MS, NC, NE, NJ, NV, OH, OK, ONT, OK, OR, PA, SD, UT, VA, WA, WY Construction or quality assurance procedures to prevent moisture damage AL, AR, CA, DC, FL, GA, HI, ID, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ND, NV, OH, OK, OR, SD, TN, VT, WA, WY Other IA, OH, VA Additional Information from DOTs: • IA: Verification if Hamburg modification solves any issues. Current cost for modification is roughly $30k. Does this investment improve the quality of the results? • OH: A method to confirm that liquid anti-strips that are also WMA additives don't trick the TSR by reducing the unconditioned samples PSI/kPa. A way to use field cores after they've been aged (more than a few months) to either confirm that stripping is occurring or may occur quicker than desired. • VA: Need an expedited test that can find issues with reduced testing time for production results, TSRs currently take approx. 4 days for results. UT: Yes, A plan for the reevaluation of liquid antistrip performance vs. lime is under way. UT: Yes, Our last research on this was in 1994, Utah Experience with Hydrated Lime in Hot Mix Asphalt. It is not published on our website. I could make a copy for you if you like. VA: Yes, http://vtrc.virginiadot.org/PubDetails.aspx?PubNo=78-R7, http://vtrc.virginiadot.org/PUBDetails.aspx?Id=297539 WA: Yes

Abbreviations and acronyms used without de nitions in TRB publications: A4A Airlines for America AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015) FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration GHSA Governors Highway Safety Association HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012) NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TDC Transit Development Corporation TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S. DOT United States Department of Transportation

Transportation Research Board 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED ISBN 978-0-309-68725-6 9 7 8 0 3 0 9 6 8 7 2 5 6 9 0 0 0 0

Practices for Assessing and Mitigating the Moisture Susceptibility of Asphalt Pavements Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Incompatibility between aggregate type and asphalt binder, presence of standing water or water under pressure in the pavement layers, and improper construction practices are some of the many factors that influence moisture susceptibility of flexible pavements.

The TRB National Cooperative Highway Research Program's NCHRP Synthesis 595: Practices for Assessing and Mitigating the Moisture Susceptibility of Asphalt Pavements documents practices used by state departments of transportation to prevent or to minimize moisture damage in hot-mix asphalt pavements.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!