Return to the VTRC Home Page
Click here to print the printer friendly version of this page.
 
Page Title: VTRC Report Detail

The contents of this report reflect the views of the author(s), who is responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Virginia Department of Transportation, the Commonwealth Transportation Board, or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Any inclusion of manufacturer names, trade names, or trademarks is for identification purposes only and is not to be considered an endorsement.

Title:

Determination of the In-place Hot-mix Asphalt Layer Modulus for Rehabilitation Projects Using a Mechanistic-empirical Procedure
Authors:
Loulizi, Amara.
Flintsch, Gerardo W.
Kevin K. McGhee
Kevin K. McGhee
Year: 2006
VTRC No.: 07-CR1
Abstract: This project evaluated the procedures proposed by the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG) to characterize existing hot-mix asphalt (HMA) layers for rehabilitation purposes. Thirty-three cores were extracted from nine sites in Virginia to measure their dynamic moduli in the lab. Falling-weight deflectometer (FWD) testing was performed at the sites because the backcalculated moduli are needed for the Level 1 procedure. The resilient modulus was also measured in the lab because it is needed for the Level 2 procedure. A visual pavement rating was performed based on pavement condition because it is needed for the Level 3 procedure. The selected cores were tested for their bulk densities (Gmb) using the AASHTO T166 procedure and then for their dynamic modulus in accordance with the AASHTO TP62-03 standard test method. Then the cores were broken down and tested for their maximum theoretical specific gravity (Gmm) using the AASHTO T-209 procedure. Finally an ignition test was performed to find the percentage of binder and to reclaim the aggregate for gradation analysis. Volumetric properties were then calculated and used as input for the Witczak dynamic modulus prediction equations to find what the MEPDG calls the undamaged master curve of the HMA layer. The FWD data, resilient modulus data, and pavement rating were used to find the damaged master curve of the HMA layer as suggested for input Levels 1, 2, and 3, respectively. It was found that the resilient modulus data needed for a Level 2 type of analysis do not represent the entire HMA layer thickness, and therefore it was recommended that this analysis should not be performed by VDOT when implementing the design guide. The use of Level 1 data is recommended because FWD testing appears to be the only procedure investigated that can measure the overall condition of the entire HMA layer.