JOINT TRANSPORTATION

RESEARCH PROGRAM
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AND PURDUE UNIVERSITY

Quality Control and Quality

Assurance of Asphalt Mixtures Using
Laboratory Rutting and Cracking Tests

Jusang Lee, John E. Haddock,

Dario D. Batioja Alvarez, Reyhaneh Rahbar Rastegar

SPR-4114 • Report Number: FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19 • DOI: 10.5703/1288284317087

RECOMMENDED CITATION
Lee, J., Haddock, J. E., Batioja Alvarez, D. D., & Rastegar, R. R. (2019). Quality control and quality assurance of asphalt
mixtures using laboratory rutting and cracking tests (Joint Transportation Research Program Publication No.
FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284317087

AUTHORS
Jusang Lee, PhD, PE
Asphalt Pavement Research Engineer
Office of Research and Developement
Indiana Department of Transportation
(765) 463-1521
[email protected]
Corresponding Author

John E. Haddock, PhD, PE

Professor of Civil Engineering
Lyles School of Civil Engineering
Purdue University
(765) 496-3996
[email protected]
Corresponding Author

Dario D. Batioja Alvarez, Post Doctoral Research Assistant

Reyhaneh Rahbar Rastegar, Research Engineer
Lyles School of Civil Engineering
Purdue University

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project was made possible by the sponsorship of the Joint Transportation Research Program (JTRP) and the
Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT). The authors would like to thank the study advisory committee for
their valuable assistance and technical guidance in the course of performing this study.

JOINT TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PROGRAM

The Joint Transportation Research Program serves as a vehicle for INDOT collaboration with higher education in-
stitutions and industry in Indiana to facilitate innovation that results in continuous improvement in the planning,
design, construction, operation, management and economic efficiency of the Indiana transportation infrastructure.
https://engineering.purdue.edu/JTRP/index_html

Published reports of the Joint Transportation Research Program are available at http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jtrp/.

NOTICE
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the
data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views and policies of the Indiana Depart-
ment of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. The report does not constitute a standard, specifica-
tion or regulation.
 TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
Quality Control and Quality Assurance of Asphalt Mixtures Using Laboratory April 2020
Rutting and Cracking Tests 6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

Jusang Lee, John E. Haddock, Dario D. Batioja Alvarez, and Reyhaneh Rahbar- FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19
Rastegar
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No.
Joint Transportation Research Program (SPR)
Hall for Discovery and Learning Research (DLR), Suite 204
11. Contract or Grant No.
207 S. Martin Jischke Drive
West Lafayette, IN 47907 SPR-4114
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Indiana Department of Transportation Final Report
State Office Building
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
100 North Senate Avenue
Indianapolis, IN 46204
15. Supplementary Notes
Conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
16. Abstract
The main objectives of this project were to review the available balanced-mix design (BMD) methodologies, understand the I-FIT
and Hamburg Wheel Tracking Test (HWTT) test methods using INDOT asphalt mixtures, and to explore the application of these
tests to both a BMD approach and as performance-related Quality Control (QC) and Quality Acceptance (QA) methods. Two QA
mixture specimen types, plant-mixed laboratory-compacted (PMLC) and plant-mixed field-compacted (PMFC) were used in the
determination of cracking and rutting parameters. Distribution functions for the flexibility index (FI) values and rutting parameters
were determined for various mixture types. The effects of specimen geometry and air voids contents on the calculated Flexibility
Index (FI) and rutting parameters were investigated. The fatigue characteristics of selected asphalt mixtures were determined using
the S-VECD test according to different FI levels for different conditions. A typical full-depth pavement section was implemented
in FlexPAVE to explore the cracking characteristics of INDOT asphalt mixtures by investigating the relationship between the FI
values of QA samples with the FlexPAVE pavement performance predictions.
The FI values obtained from PMFC specimens were consistently higher than their corresponding PMLC specimens. This
study also found that FI values were affected significantly by variations in specimen thickness and air voids contents, having
higher FI values with higher air voids contents and thinner specimens. These observations do not agree with the general material-
performance expectations that better cracking resistance is achieved with lower air voids content and thicker layers. Additionally,
PG 70-22 mixtures show the lowest mean FI values followed by the PG 76-22 and 64-22 mixtures. The same order was observed
from the ΔTc (asphalt binder cracking index) of INDOT’s 2017 and 2018 projects.
Finally, it was found that the HWTT showed reasonable sensitivity to the different characteristics (e.g., aggregate sizes,
binder types, and air voids contents) of asphalt mixtures. Mixtures containing modified asphalt binders showed better rut resistance
and higher Rutting Resistance Index (RRI) than those containing unmodified binders.
17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement
pavement performance, BMD, I-FIT, HWTT, cracking resistance, No restrictions. This document is available through the
rutting resistance, fatigue resistance, material quality, FlexPAVE, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA
asphalt pavements, flexibility index, asphalt cracking, rutting, 22161.
balanced mix design
19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price
Unclassified Unclassified 90 including
appendices

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (e.g., aggregate sizes, binder types, and air voids contents) of
asphalt mixtures.
Due to the unique characteristics of the asphalt mixtures
Introduction investigated in this project, different threshold values were
established for cracking and rutting using the FI and rutting
Since the implementation of the Superpave mixture design parameters distributions, respectively. The 10th and 20th percen-
method by the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT), tiles values of these distributions were determined as threshold
permanent deformation problems, such as rutting and other examples and could be used to exclude the mixtures with the
stability challenges, have been effectively addressed in Indiana. relative poorest quality.
Thus, INDOT’s attention and effort have shifted toward
improving asphalt pavement resistance to cracking-related dis- Implementation
tresses, while maintaining suitable rutting resistance.
The research reported herein evaluated the Illinois Flexibility Given the experimental results of the project, the following
Index Test (I-FIT) and the Hamburg Wheel Track Test (HWTT) implementation plan is suggested based on discussions with
as possible quality acceptance cracking and rutting tests, INDOT.
respectively, using two types of specimens: plant-mixed labora-
tory-compacted (PMLC) and plant-mixed field-compacted 1. No implementation of the current I-FIT test for quality
(PMFC). The cracking characteristics of the PMFC mixtures assurance, since the FI results can often conflict with observed
were also compared to fatigue performance predictions from pavement performance. These conflicts include the following:
FlexPave.
a. Asphalt mixtures with higher densities (lower air voids
contents) have a lower FI (poorer cracking resistance)
Findings than lower density mixtures. This finding conflicts with
other INDOT research findings.
Results indicate that flexibility index (FI) values determined b. Asphalt mixtures containing polymer modified binders
from the I-FIT are significantly affected by variations in specimen (e.g., PG70-22 and PG76-22) have lower FI values
thickness and air voids content, with specimens containing higher (poorer cracking resistance) than mixtures with non-
air voids contents and thinner cross-sections resulting in higher FI modified binders (e.g., PG64-22). INDOT widely uses
values (better cracking resistance). This finding does not agree polymer modified binders for surface and intermediate
with general material-performance expectations or actual experi- coarse mixtures to improve cracking resistance on major
ence, which both indicate that better cracking resistance is roadways.
achieved with lower mixture air voids contents, thicker layers, or c. Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA) mixtures have much lower
both. FI values (poorer cracking resistance) than dense-graded
Additionally, asphalt mixtures containing PG 70-22 asphalt mixtures. However, INDOT widely employs SMA
binders have the lowest mean FI values, followed by the PG 76-22. mixtures for interstate pavements and poor cracking
The PG 64-22 mixtures had the highest mean FI values. The same performance has not been observed.
order was observed from DTc (asphalt binder cracking index) of
Indiana’s 2017 and 2018 projects. This observation may indicate 2. INDOT decided not to implement HWTT for quality
that I-FIT might be used to reasonably detect asphalt binders assurance purposes, since asphalt pavement rutting is
cracking characteristics in mixtures, when specimen air voids currently not a major INDOT concern. However, HWTT
contents and thickness are closely controlled. Finally, the HWTT can be used as a material/ pavement investigation tool for
showed reasonable sensitivity to the different characteristics evaluating the mixture’s moisture damage susceptibility.
 CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Research Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.3 Scope of Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. PERFORMANCE TESTS IN QUALITY CONTROL AND QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAMS . 2
2.1 Performance Test Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2 Laboratory Cracking Performance-Related Tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.3 Pavement Performance Predictions Using FlexPAVE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4 Laboratory Rutting Performance Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.5 Laboratory Performance Evaluation State-of-the-Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3. LABORATORY TESTS USING INDIANA MIXTURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1 Test Selection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2 Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3 Materials Sampling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.4 Test Specimen Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.5 Laboratory Testing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.6 Laboratory Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4. PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE-FLEXIBILITY INDEX CORRELATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.1 Pavement Performance Predictions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.2 Relationship Between I-FIT and S-VECD Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.3 Development of Predicted Fatigue Damage Distributions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5. QUALITY ASSESSMENT APPLICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.1 Threshold Values Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5.2 Testing Practicality of Laboratory and Field Compacted Specimens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.3 Application of I-FIT and HWTT Results in QA Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
6.1 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
6.2 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
6.3 Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Information on Evaluated Projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Appendix B. I-FIT from Laboratory-Compacted Specimens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Appendix C. I-FIT Data from Field-Compacted Specimens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Appendix D. Hamburg Wheel Track Test Data for Laboratory-Compacted Specimens. . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Appendix E. Hamburg Wheel Track Test Data for Field-Compacted Specimens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Appendix F. Dynamic Modulus Data for Field-Compacted Specimens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Appendix G. S-VECD Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Appendix H. Bending Beam Rheometer and Delta TC Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

Table 2.1 Performance Test Methods 3

Table 2.2 Performance Test Used to Evaluate Asphalt Mixture Cracking 10

Table 2.3 Performance Test, Thresholds, and Parameters Used in Rutting Evaluations 10

Table 3.1 Number and Type of Asphalt Mixtures 11

Table 5.1 I-FIT Percentiles of Laboratory-Compacted Specimens 40

Table 5.2 I-FIT Percentiles of Field-Compacted Specimens 40

Table 5.3 Maximum Rut Depth Percentiles for Laboratory-Compacted Specimens 40

Table 5.4 Rutting Resistance Index Percentiles for Laboratory-Compacted Specimens 40

Table 5.5 Rutting Resistance Percentiles for Field-Compacted Specimens 40

 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

Figure 2.1 Louisiana SCB Test: (a) set up (b) load-deformation curves 4

Figure 2.2 Texas overlay test setup 4

Figure 2.3 DCT setup 4

Figure 2.4 Ideal-CT test setup 5

Figure 2.5 Cantabro specimens after testing 5

Figure 2.6 Illinois Flexibility Index Test (I-FIT): (a) test setup (b) typical load-displacement curve 6

Figure 2.7 S-VECD small prismatic specimen during testing 7

Figure 2.8 Flow number test setup 8

Figure 2.9 APA test setup 8

Figure 2.10 INDOT HWTT setup 9

Figure 3.1 INDOT quality assurance specimens: (a) batch of quality assurance samples (b) PMLC and corresponding PMFC quality
assurance samples 12

Figure 3.2 Schematic of test specimen preparation 12

Figure 3.3 PMLC and PMFC I-FIT specimens 12

Figure 3.4 E* specimens: (a) cylindrical (b) prismatic 13

Figure 3.5 HWTT specimens: (a) set of PMLC test specimens (b) different sets of PMFC specimens 13

Figure 3.6 Distribution of air voids content of PMLC specimens 14

Figure 3.7 Distribution of air voids content of PMFC specimens 15

Figure 3.8 Distribution of PMLC specimens thickness 15

Figure 3.9 Distribution of PMFC specimens thickness 16

Figure 3.10 9.5-mm mixture PMLC flexibility index distributions 16

Figure 3.11 12.5-mm mixture PMLC flexibility index distributions 17

Figure 3.12 19.0-mm mixture PMLC flexibility index distributions 17

Figure 3.13 PG 64-22 PMLC flexibility index distributions 18

Figure 3.14 PG 70-22 PMLC flexibility index distributions 18

Figure 3.15 PG 76-22 PMLC flexibility index distributions 18

Figure 3.16 9.5-mm mixture PMFC flexibility index distributions 19

Figure 3.17 12.5-mm mixture PMFC flexibility index distributions 19

Figure 3.18 19.0-mm mixture PMFC flexibility index distributions 19

Figure 3.19 PG 64-22 PMFC flexibility index distributions 20

Figure 3.20 PG 70-22 PMFC flexibility index distributions 20

Figure 3.21 PG 76-22 PMFC flexibility index distributions 20

Figure 3.22 Laboratory and field compaction comparison: (a) flexibility index load-displacement (b) field compacted as a
function of laboratory compaction curves for mixture 161618 21

Figure 3.23 Effect of air voids content on flexibility index of field compacted specimens: (a) Mixture 173802, (b) Mixture 175316,
(c) Mixture 175322, (d) Mixture 161113, (e) Mixture 161118, and (f) Mixture 186703 22

Figure 3.24 Tc distributions of 2017 and 2018 INDOT projects 23

Figure 3.25 Relationship between flexibility index and DTC 23

Figure 3.26 Stone matrix asphalt flexibility index 23

Figure 3.27 Comparison of PMFC stone matrix asphalt and 9.5-mm dense-graded mixture, both containing PG 76-22 24
Figure 3.28 Comparison of PMFC stone matrix asphalt and 12.5-mm dense-graded mixtures, all with PG 76-22 24

Figure 3.29 Flexibility index distribution and corresponding rankings for 9.5-mm mixture containing PG 64-22 25

Figure 3.30 Flexibility index distribution and corresponding rankings for 9.5-mm mixture containing PG 70-22 25

Figure 3.31 Flexibility index distribution and corresponding rankings for 12.5-mm mixture containing PG 70-22 26

Figure 3.32 Flexibility index distribution and corresponding rankings for 12.5-mm mixture containing PG 70-22 26

Figure 3.33 Damage characteristic curves for selected mixtures 27

Figure 3.34 Average CF values for mixtures with different binder grades 27

Figure 3.35 Rut depth distributions of 9.5-mm plant-mixed, laboratory-compacted specimens 28

Figure 3.36 Rut depth distributions of 12.5-mm plant-mixed, laboratory-compacted specimens 28

Figure 3.37 Rut depth distributions of 19.0-mm plant-mixed, laboratory-compacted specimens 28

Figure 3.38 Rutting resistance index distributions for 9.5-mm mixture specimens 29

Figure 3.39 Rutting resistance index distributions for 12.5-mm mixture specimens 29

Figure 3.40 Rutting resistance index distributions for 19.0-mm mixture specimens 30

Figure 3.41 Moisture susceptibility distributions for 9.5-mm mixture specimens 30

Figure 3.42 Moisture susceptibility distributions for 12.5-mm mixture specimens 30

Figure 3.43 Moisture susceptibility distributions for 19.0-mm mixture specimens 31

Figure 3.44 Rutting resistance index distributions for 9.5-mm mixture plant-mixed, field-compacted specimens 31

Figure 3.45 Rutting resistance index distributions for 12.5-mm mixture plant-mixed, field-compacted specimens 32

Figure 3.46 Rutting resistance index distributions for 19.0-mm mixture plant-mixed, field-compacted specimens 32

Figure 3.47 Stripping inflection points of plant-mixed, field-compacted specimens: (a) high temperature binder grade (b) mixture size 32

Figure 3.48 Differences between laboratory- and field-compacted Hamburg results: (a) air voids content (b) rut depths 33

Figure 3.49 Rutting resistance index values of laboratory and field-compacted specimens 33

Figure 3.50 Rutting resistance index as a function of air voids content 33

Figure 4.1 Full-depth asphalt pavement section used in FlexPAVE 34

Figure 4.2 FlexPAVE fatigue performance contours for various mixtures tested: (a) 181700-64-9.5, (b) 185265-64-9.5, (c) 175322-64-9.5,
(d) 181300-70-9.5, (e) 184553-70-9.5, (f) 186116-70-9.5, (g) 183412-76-9.5, (h) 181802-76-9.5, and (i) 181700-76-9.5 sections 35

Figure 4.3 Predicted fatigue damage as a function of flexibility index values for single- and three-layer asphalt pavement structures,
9.5-mm mixtures containing PG 64-22 binder 36

Figure 4.4 Predicted fatigue damage as a function of flexibility index values for single- and three-layer asphalt pavement structures,
9.5-mm mixtures containing PG 70-22 binder 36

Figure 4.5 Predicted fatigue damage as a function of flexibility index values for single- and three-layer asphalt pavement structures,
9.5-mm mixtures containing PG 76-22 binder 36

Figure 4.6 Predicted fatigue damage as a function of flexibility index values for single- and three-layer asphalt pavement structures,
12.5-mm mixtures containing PG 70-22 binder 37

Figure 4.7 Predicted fatigue damage as a function of flexibility index values for single- and three-layer asphalt pavement structures,
all mixtures 37

Figure 4.8 Development of predicted pavement performance distributions 38

Figure 5.1 Material quality-based distribution illustration 39

Figure 5.2 Laboratory-compacted specimens after Hamburg test completion: (a) top view (b) side view 41

Figure 5.3 (a) Thin specimens in molds, (b) use of spacers, (c) field-compacted specimens with different thicknesses before testing, and
(d) field-compacted specimens with different thicknesses after testing 42
1. INTRODUCTION Laboratory testing is used to increase the likelihood
of obtaining pavements that can show high levels of
Quality control and quality assurance (QC/QA) performance in the field. Additionally, asphalt mixtures
programs are implemented to guarantee high construc- are designed, and materials accepted based on empirical
tion standards and quality materials. State depart- properties obtained in the laboratory and the field. It
ments of transportation (DOT) use different methods must be recognized that such criteria (VMA, voids-
to control the material quality and to verify that a filled-with-asphalt (VFA), air voids content, density) do
given project will provide high levels of performance. not necessarily provide adequate insight into actual mix-
These methods, if effectively implemented, increase ture field performance, once a mixture has been incor-
the possibilities that materials selection, production, porated into a pavement. This is particularly true when
and construction of a project will conform to agency new materials and higher recycled contents are utilized.
specifications. However, appropriate and implementa-
ble requirements for QC and QA need to be established 1.1 Problem Statement
by the agency and contractors, respectively. For
instance, pay factors relationships are typically based In Indiana, there is evidence that the adoption of
on volumetric properties (i.e., VMA, binder content, air mixture design volumetric specification properties, and
voids content, etc.) that are weighted empirically. QC and QA methods during construction has improved
In practice, as part of the QC process, contractors the likelihood of a given asphalt construction project
determine material characteristics to assess the quality falling within the DOT specifications. However, due to
of the material being incorporated into the project. a variety of factors, including the use of recycled mate-
State DOTs on the other hand, use quality character- rials as asphalt binder replacement and polymer modi-
istics based on acceptance and payment. For instance, fication of binders, these properties may not provide
as part of the acceptance process, the Indiana Depart- insights into short- and long-term performance. There-
ment of Transportation (INDOT) conducts testing for fore, laboratory performance test methods have been
different asphalt mixture properties as measured on suggested as a complement to current QA procedures.
samples obtained from the roadway at random loca- According to recent literature, several states have
tions during pavement construction. Air voids content implemented different test protocols to correlate test
and voids-in-the-mineral-aggregate (VMA) are obtained parameters to field performance. However, those test
from gyratory-compacted specimens, and density is methods have never been systematically evaluated using
measured from core samples taken from the pavement Indiana materials.
soon after construction. Through the years, several qua-
lity measures have been used for acceptance and 1.2 Research Objectives
payment methods. Percent-within-limits (PWL) meth-
ods for instance, have been favored because they are For this project, the original research objectives, as
based on simple statistical principles that quantify not stated in the INDOT approved proposal were the
only the average level of quality but also the level of following:
variability during construction. These relationships
1. Evaluate existing laboratory performance-related rutting
associate volumetric properties with performance mea- and cracking tests using INDOT approved asphalt
sures and can reinforce the correlation between the mixtures.
results of the QA evaluations and the quality of the 2. Validate laboratory predicted asphalt mixture perfor-
mixture in the field. Thus, increasing the capacity for mance with asphalt mixture field performance.
assigning performance-related weights more realistically 3. Develop a draft Indiana Test Method (ITM) for BMD
to pay factors formulas. and propose new, balanced specification criteria as
In the 1980s, rutting was the most critical distress needed.
type in asphalt pavements and INDOT put great effort 4. Verify PavementME inputs and models using asphalt
into solving this challenge, including using less binder, mixture laboratory performance-related results from
stiffer binders, coarser aggregate gradations, and imple- BMD tests and field sections.
menting the Superpave mixture design method. Since During a Study Advisory Committee (SAC) meeting
the implementation of the standard Superpave mixture on June 19, 2017, the SAC modified the project objec-
design method in Indiana, rutting and other stability tives and instructed the researchers to consider only the
problems have, for the most part, been eliminated, as Illinois Flexibility Index Test (I-FIT) and Hamburg
evidenced in the good rutting resistance of Indiana Wheel Track Test (HWTT) for BMD cracking and
asphalt pavements. However, with the use of higher rutting tests, respectively. At a later date it was propo-
asphalt binder replacement levels (higher recycled sed, and the SAC agreed, to explore the applicability of
materials content), asphalt pavement cracking has
the I-FIT and HWTT for use as QC and QA tests and
become more prevalent and is now the dominant dis-
BMD was dropped from the scope of the project. Project
tress type. Thus, INDOT’s attention and efforts have
objectives were therefore modified to the following:
shifted toward improving asphalt pavement resis-
tance to cracking-related distresses, while maintaining 1. Develop a better understanding of the I-FIT and HWTT
appropriate rutting resistance. laboratory tests using INDOT approved asphalt mixtures.

Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19 1

2. Review the I-FIT and HWTT tests for possible use as locations, and sampling type (core, loose mix, etc.),
performance-related QC and QA tests. documentations and recording procedures are also
3. Develop an Indiana methodology for using the I-FIT and provided in the specification. The volumetric properties
HWTT as QC and QA performance-related tests. of asphalt mixture samples are currently the basis to
control the INDOT QA requirements. The volumetric
1.3 Scope of Study properties determined from the QA samples are com-
pared to both to those reported by contractors (QC)
The modified project scope was to consider the I-FIT and the acceptance criteria. Finally, the pay factors
and HWTT as possible laboratory cracking and rut- (PF), based on empirical relationships, are calculated
ting test methods, respectively, for use as perfor- for each lot.
mance-related QC and QA testing. To accomplish this,
applicable I-FIT and HWTT acceptance criteria were
determined for typical INDOT-approved asphalt mix- 2.1 Performance Test Methods
tures. Such criteria were determined based on contrac- Various laboratory test methods are available to eva-
tor produced asphalt mixture quality. Consequently, luate the rutting and cracking performance of asphalt
understanding the I-FIT cracking and HWTT rutting mixtures, as shown in Table 2.1. Depending on local
ranges and distributions of INDOT-approved mixtures conditions (climate, traffic, materials), state DOTs vary
was critical in determining possible acceptance criteria. their testing protocols. For instance, the Flow Number
(FN) test (AASHTO TP79), the HWTT (AASHTO
2. PERFORMANCE TESTS IN QUALITY T324), and the Asphalt Pavement Analyzer (APA)
CONTROL AND QUALITY ASSURANCE (AASHTO TP63) are typically used to evaluate asphalt
PROGRAMS mixture rutting behavior. However, testing temperatures
and failure criteria vary by DOT. Additionally, the
State DOTs oversee the overall QA of asphalt mix- selection of test procedures can depend on equipment
tures, while the contractor is responsible for its QC. The availability and the test method familiarity. Since multi-
latter generally involves different actions and consid- ple modes can be associated with asphalt mixture
erations to assess and adjust the production and con- cracking, a careful selection of the dominant cracking
struction of the pavement. Federal regulations mandate mechanism is necessary to guide the choice of an appro-
the implementation of QA systems, which are activities priate performance-related laboratory test. General
conducted by the owner agency to ensure that the deli- principles for selecting laboratory performance-related
vered pavement or project meets the requisite specifica- tests include the following:
tions. The FHWA defines QA methods as ‘‘planned
and systematic actions necessary to provide confidence N Ability of the test method to discriminate laboratory
that a product or facility will perform satisfactorily in performance.
service’’ (Committee on Management of Quality Assu- N Potential for correlating laboratory performance with
rance, 2002). QA incorporates processes that evaluate field performance.
the quality of the construction or materials and involves N Ability to distinguish different asphalt mixture charac-
teristics (i.e., RAP contents, binder grades, gradations,
continued evaluation of the design and construction
volumetric properties).
activities (Committee on Management of Quality Assu-
rance, 2002). Effective QA programs typically include
N Ability to establish a criteria-type framework with sug-
gested performance limits for future evaluation and
verification process to check that the data collected by prediction.
agency contractors meets the requirements. Con-
tractor’s QC processes consist of personnel, equipment
and procedures that can comply with the owner agency’s 2.2 Laboratory Cracking Performance-Related Tests
requirements. When implementing QC for the con-
struction of asphalt pavement, contractors coordinate State DOTs have shown interest in the implementa-
the sampling and testing and provide results that tion of laboratory performance-related tests to evaluate
can be comparable to those determined by the agency. the cracking susceptibility of asphalt mixtures. Crack-
In recent years, more state DOTs are implementing ing in asphalt pavements can appear in different modes,
laboratory performance testing as part of their QC and including fatigue cracking, reflection cracking and ther-
QA processes to make acceptance decisions. mal cracking. Therefore, laboratory performance-rela-
The general INDOT process of asphalt mixture ted cracking tests should address issues related to the
quality control is described in the INDOT 401 specifi- anticipated pavement distresses. Different researchers
cation. This specification requires the contractor sub- and agencies have investigated the cracking suscept-
mit to INDOT a quality control plan well before the ibility of asphalt pavements. Laboratory tests utilized
initiation of asphalt mixture production and construc- for this purpose include different versions of the semi-
tion. According to INDOT specifications, stratified, circular bend (SCB) test, the Texas overlay (TO) test,
random sampling is performed within each lot and bending beam fatigue (BBF) test, and the simplified
sublot. The sampling procedures, including frequency, viscoelastic continuum damage (S-VECD) test.

2 Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19

TABLE 2.1
Performance Test Methods

Test Method Performance Property Reference/Standard

Flow number Rutting AASHTO TP79

HWTT Rutting and stripping AASHTO T324
Asphalt pavement analyzer Rutting AASHTO TP63

Dynamic modulus Stiffness AASHTO TP79

SCB-LSU Intermediate temperature cracking Draft ASTM

SCB-I-FIT Low temperature cracking AASHTO TP124

SCB AASHTO TP105
DCT ASTM D7313
IDT AASHTO T322
TSRST/UTSST UNR Draft ASTM

Texas overlay test Reflective cracking Texas 248-F

DCT ASTM D7313
SCB LSU Draft ASTM

Beam fatigue Bottom up cracking AASHTO T321

S-VECD AASHTO TP107
SCB-LSU/I-FIT Draft ASTM/AASHTO TP124
Texas overlay test

IDT Top-down cracking UF

S-VECD AASHTO TP107
SCB-LSU/I-FIT Draft ASTM/AASHTO TP124

2.2.1 Louisiana SCB Test The DCT is conducted at a temperature 10uC warmer
than the low temperature asphalt binder performance
The Louisiana SCB test is used to characterize the grade (PG), making necessary a temperature chamber
cracking resistance of asphalt mixtures. This test is capable of conditioning and maintaining the test speci-
conducted at 25uC and at a loading rate of 0.5 mm/min men at a low temperature. The standard test procedure is
in vertical direction as shown in Figure 2.1(a). Samples ASTM D7313 and has crack mouth opening displace-
with three different notch sizes (25.4, 31.8, and 38.0 ment (CMOT) rate of 1.0 mm/min. The test determines
mm) are selected based on the notch depth to the speci- the fracture energy required to fail the specimen.
men radius ratio as shown in Figure 2.1(b). The fracture
resistance of the mixture is represented by the critical 2.2.4 IDEAL Crack Test
value of the J-integral (Jc), which can be calculated by
considering sample thickness, notch depth, and strain The IDEAL crack test (IDEAL-CT) is conducted at
energy to failure (Cooper et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2012; room temperature using cylindrical specimens loaded at
Mohammad et al., 2012). A greater Jc value indicates a the rate of 50 mm/min, as shown in Figure 2.4. The test
better fracture resistance. allows for the evaluation of cylindrical specimens with
various diameters (100 or 150 mm) and thicknesses (38,
2.2.2 Texas Overlay Test 50 mm, etc.). Researchers in Texas have used a 150 mm
diameter and 62 mm height with 7¡0.5 percent air voids
The TO test is generally conducted at 25uC with a for evaluations (Zhou, 2019). The test can evaluate either
horizontal loading rate of one cycle every 10 seconds, as laboratory-molded cylindrical specimens or field cores,
shown in Figure 2.2. The test terminates when the test with no need for instrumentation, gluing, cutting, notch-
specimen reaches a 93% reduction of maximum load, ing, coring, or other preparation (Zhou, 2019). Resea-
or at 1,000 cycles, whichever comes first. The number of rchers have found the test is sensitive to key asphalt
cycles to failure is a parameter used to quantify crack- mixture components and volumetric properties (RAP and
ing resistance. The higher the number of cycles to recycled asphalt shingles (RAS) content, asphalt binder
failure, the better the fracture resistance. type, binder content, and aging conditions) (Zhou, 2019).
Additionally, the IDEAL-CT has correlated well with field
2.2.3 Disc-Shaped Compact Tension Test performance in terms of fatigue and reflective cracking.

Figure 2.3 shows the disc-shaped compact tension test 2.2.5 Cantabro Test
(DCT). This test was developed to assess the low-temp-
erature cracking resistance of asphalt mixtures (Jahangiri The Cantabro test has recently been used to assess the
et al., 2019). During this test, a disc-shape specimen is durability properties of dense-graded asphalt mixtures.
pulled apart until the post-peak load reduces to 0.02 lb. This test consists of a gyratory compacted specimen

Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19 3

Figure 2.1 Louisiana SCB Test: (a) set up (b) load-deformation curves (Mohammad et al., 2012).

Figure 2.3 DCT setup (Butlar Bill, 2017).

determine the fracture resistance of an asphalt mixture

at an intermediate temperature (Al-Qadi et al., 2015;
Figure 2.2 Texas overlay test setup. (Controls Group) Ozer et al., 2016). The provisional standard test method,
AASHTO TP-124, Determining the Fracture Potential of
(115 mm height, 150 mm diameter) tested in the drum of Asphalt Mixtures Using the Semi-Circular Geometry at
the Los Angeles Abrasion machine, without the inclusion Intermediate Temperature, calls for 50-mm thick, 150-
of steel spheres, and subjected to 300 revolutions. The mm diameter, semi-circular specimens to be tested using
samples are conditioned at 25uC prior to testing and the a three-point bending principle, at the constant dis-
specimen mass loss is determined at test conclusion. placement rate of 50 mm/min (AASHTO TP-124, 2018).
Mississippi DOT researchers have implemented the Can- Figure 2.6(a) presents a photograph of the I-FIT test
tabro test to compare durability performance of low arrangement. A 15-mm deep, 1.5-mm wide notch is cut
RAP content dense-graded asphalt mixtures (Doyle et al., along the specimen’s axis of symmetry to force the
2011). They evaluated mixtures having different aggre- failure location. Prior to testing, the test specimen is
conditioned for at least two hours in an environmental
gate types, gradations and binder contents and found the
chamber at 25uC, the standard test temperature.
results to be repeatable. Figure 2.5 shows Cantabro
One of the primary outputs of I-FIT is the fracture
specimens from 2018 INDOT projects, post testing.
energy, Gf, which represents the energy dissipated by
2.2.6 Illinois Flexibility Index Test the crack propagation. This parameter is calculated
as the area under the load-displacement curve divided
I-FIT was developed using the work-of-fracture by the area of the crack that propagates during testing.
principle. The test uses SCB specimen geometry to The fracture energy is a function of both the strength

4 Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19

 the previously mentioned fracture energy, the FI
was formulated to acknowledge the benefits of certain
mixture characteristics under the I-FIT test conditions.
 
Gf
FI~ A ðEq: 2:1Þ
jmj
where,
FI 5 flexibility index,
Gf 5 fracture energy (J/m2),
m 5 post-peak slope (kN/mm), and
A 5 unit conversion and scaling coefficient taken as
0.01.

Recent studies indicate that I-FIT can be used to

distinguish differences in asphalt mixture properties
(Al-Qadi et al., 2015; Kaseer et al., 2018; Ozer et al.,
2016). For example, it has been reported the FI has
good discrimination potential when analyzing labora-
tory-produced asphalt mixtures that contain high levels
of recycled materials and long conditioning times (Al-
Qadi et al., 2015; Ozer et al., 2016; Zhou et al., 2017). In
addition, FI values have shown good correlation with
Figure 2.4 Ideal-CT test setup.
laboratory performance rankings developed for asphalt
mixtures (Al-Qadi et al., 2015). Preliminary FI thresh-
old values have been suggested by Ozer et al. (2016),
they consider an asphalt mixture to provide acceptable
cracking resistance if it has an FI value over 10 and to
have generally poor cracking resistance if the FI value is
below six.
Some researchers have expressed concerns about the
I-FIT. Difficulties have been documented with asphalt
mixtures containing elevated levels of recycled materials
(Kaseer et al., 2018), reportedly due to the relatively
high loading rate (50 mm/min) applied during the test.
Moreover, when testing such mixtures, the post-peak
curves and associated FI values could not be deter-
mined due to the limited amount of data collected (Kaseer
Figure 2.5 Cantabro specimens after testing.
et al., 2018). To address these difficulties, researchers
developed an alternative to FI, the Cracking Resis-
tance Index (CRI), which uses the peak load (Pmax)
and ductility of the material, which are related to the instead of the post-peak load slope value, as shown in
peak load and maximum displacement, respectively. Equation 2.2. They reported that CRI values provide
Generally, the higher the fracture energy, the better the greater discrimination to differentiate mixtures with
cracking resistance. However, it has been observed that distinct characteristics. Also, CRI values provide less
mixtures exhibiting the opposite behavior may have variability than FI values because the peak load does
similar fracture energy values (Kaseer et al., 2018). For not show significant variability from test to test, as
example, a brittle material, usually expressed by a high compared to the post-peak slope. Thus, both indices,
peak load and low ductility, may have similar fracture the FI and CRI, appear to be sensitive to different
energy to a material with high ductility and a lower mixture characteristics, such as the binder performance
peak load (Kaseer et al., 2018). grade and recycled material content. However, both
In order to better differentiate between materials, also have difficulty distinguishing asphalt content
additional characteristics from the I-FIT are used to variations (Kaseer et al., 2018).
more accurately assess the cracking resistance of  
asphalt mixtures. The flexibility index (FI) was devel- Gf
CRI ~ ðEq: 2:2Þ
oped based on calculations of the measured fracture jPmax j
energy and the load-displacement curve post-peak slope
(m) values, as shown in Figure 2.6(b). FI is calculated where,
using Equation 2.1. Considering the specific aspects Gf 5 fracture energy (J/m2), and
of the post-peak slope relationships with those of Pmax 5 peak load (kN).

Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19 5

Figure 2.6 Illinois Flexibility Index Test (I-FIT): (a) test setup (b) typical load-displacement curve.

2.2.6.1 Effects of Specimen Geometry and Air Voids content, the correction factor suggested by Barry and
Content. The FI parameter is affected by variations in presented in Equation 2.4 considers a composite norma-
both test specimen thickness and air voids content. lization of both conditions. In contrast, the air voids
With regards to specimen thickness, Rivera-Perez et al. correction factor presented by Kaseer et al. (2018)
(2018) used I-FIT to investigate the relationship bet- (Equation 2.5) assumes a simple linear relationship for
ween the FI and specimen thickness, with thicknesses adjustment.
that varied from 25 to 62.5 mm. They observed a linear
reduction in the FI value with increasing specimen 0:0651
FIAV{Corrected ~FI| ðEq: 2:4Þ
thickness, which can be explained by the effect of AV {AV 2
specimen thickness on the post-peak value. They also h i
observed a variation in fracture energy values that was FIAV{Corrected ~FI| 7=AV ðEq: 2:5Þ
not statistically significant, so no correlation could be
established. The researchers recommended a simple where,
linear correction factor (Equation 2.3) for the FI that is FIAV–Corrected 5 flexibility index adjusted for non-
based on a standard 50-mm specimen diameter. standard air voids content, and
FI50 ~FIt |t=50 ðEq: 2:3Þ AV5 test specimen air voids content (%).

The effects of specimen geometry and air voids

where, content on the I-FIT parameters becomes even more
FI50 5 corrected index value using 50 mm as the significant when field compacted specimens are tested
reference thickness, and analyzed. Laboratory-compacted specimens can be
FIt 5 calculated FI value for specimen with average more carefully prepared to meet established standard
thickness, and test requirements, while field-compacted specimens
t 5 average specimen thickness (mm). have variability that can affect the test results. This is
important because, field construction specimens can
Further investigations evaluated the effect of air often represent conditions quite different from standard
voids content on the I-FIT parameters (Barry, 2016; laboratory-prepared specimens.
Kaseer et al., 2018). Barry (2016) reported a consistent
decrease in peak load with increased air voids content. 2.2.7 S-VECD Uniaxial Tensile Fatigue Test
Similarly, a less significant impact was observed for the
fracture energy values. In fact, both fracture energy and The main output of the S-VECD test is a relationship
peak load decreased with an increase in air voids that describes the material’s integrity in terms of speci-
content. However, the peak load and air voids content men damage. This relationship is a constitutive material
were more strongly correlated than the fracture energy property that is independent of loading frequency
and air voids content. Kaseer et al. (2018) documented and temperature (Mensching et al., 2016). Different
that FI values are heavily dependent on air voids con- researchers have used different parameters from the
tent. Therefore, different correction factors, as presen- S-VECD model to describe the fatigue resistance of
ted in Equations 2.4 and 2.5, have been recommended asphalt pavements. S-VECD evaluations can be done
to adjust the FI and CRI values to standard conditions. using standard (100 mm diameter by 150 mm tall),
Yet, none of the correction factors seem to have fully small cylindrical (38 mm by 110 mm) specimens, or
removed the dependency of air voids content on the prismatic specimens (12.5 mm by 25.4 mm by 110 mm).
calculated performance index values. Because both Figure 2.7 shows a prismatic specimen during S-VECD
slope and fracture energy are influenced by air voids testing.

6 Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19

 Nf 5 the number of cycles before failure (Sabouri &
Kim, 2014).

More recently, Wang and Kim showed a linear rela-

tionship between the summation of (1-C) values to
failure and the number of cycles to failure (Nf) and
defined the slope of this line as the DR criterion. The DR
parameter is defined as the average reduction in pseudo
stiffness during the test up to failure, as shown in
Equation 2.7 (Wang & Kim, 2017).
Ð Nf
ð1{C ÞdN
D ~ 0
R
ðEq: 2:7Þ
Nf

2.3 Pavement Performance Predictions Using FlexPAVE

Although the results of S-VECD fatigue testing in

the laboratory can be used to evaluate the fatigue
behavior of asphalt materials, the fatigue performance
of asphalt materials in the field depends on the pave-
ment structure and climate conditions as well. To relate
the laboratory results to field performance, results from
Figure 2.7 S-VECD small prismatic specimen during testing. S-VECD tests have been implemented in a pavement
performance prediction tool, FlexPAVE, that can
simulate fatigue damage over the design life of the
2.2.7.1 S-VECD Model. The S-VECD model is a pavement (Mensching et al., 2016). FlexPAVE, uses a
simplified model that relies on three important princi- variety of inputs to run simulations and can be opti-
ples: elastic-viscoelastic correspondence, continuum mized to implement different conditions, such as climate,
damage mechanics, and time-temperature superposi- traffic, and material properties.
tion with growing damage (Lee et al., 1998). The model FlexPAVE (formerly known as LVECD software) is
has evolved over the years through the work of several a three-dimensional finite element program that simu-
researchers (Chehab et al., 2003; Daniel et al., 2002; lates and predicts the fatigue life of asphalt pavements
Lee et al., 1998). For example, it has been utilized to by calculating pavement responses and damage evolu-
evaluate the fatigue potential of asphalt mixtures using tion to predict fatigue performance considering the
the Asphalt Mixture Performance Tester (AMPT) different aspects of the analyzed structure. One useful
(Underwood et al., 2010). outcome is the so-called ‘‘damage factor,’’ defined as
The S-VECD model is an energy-based model that N/Nf, when the GR criterion is used, and as (1-Cave)/DR,
relates the materials’ pseudo stiffness (C) to the accu- when the DR criterion is used (Wang et al., 2018).
mulated fatigue damage (S) under cyclic loading. The
pseudo stiffness (C) versus damage (S) can be expressed 2.4 Laboratory Rutting Performance Test
as the so-called damage characteristic curve that indi-
cates how the integrity of the asphalt material decreases Permanent deformation is a failure mode in asphalt
as the damage grows during the test (Underwood et al., pavements due to unrecoverable deformation that often
2010). Based on the results of S-VECD fatigue testing, manifest in the form of wheel path surface depressions
Sabouri and Kim (2014) and Wang and Kim (2017) referred to as rutting. Rutting can occur when asphalt
developed two fatigue failure criteria, referred to as mixture does not have the necessary shear strength to
GR and DR, respectively. resist the repeated effects of traffic loading (FHWA,
The GR criterion developed by Sabouri and Kim 2000) and can be affected by an array of influential
correlates strongly with the number of cycles to failure factors, including traffic, materials, construction qual-
(Nf) (2014). The GR parameter is defined as the rate of ity, and climatic conditions (Gogula et al., 2003). Rut-
change of the averaged released pseudo strain energy ting impacts ride quality and can significantly reduce
throughout a uniaxial fatigue test, as described in the service life of affected pavement sections. Severe
Equation 2.6. cases of rutting can detrimentally impact driver safety
Ð Nf because deep ruts can lead to pooling water that
WR increases the possibility of vehicle hydroplaning (Kim
G ~ 0 2 C
R
ðEq: 2:6Þ
Nf et al., 2018).
In the United States, significant efforts have been
where, expended over the last several decades to mitigate
R
WC 5 released pseudo strain energy, and rutting-related problems in asphalt pavements. Two

Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19 7

such efforts were the implementation of the perfor-
mance grade asphalt binder specification and the
Superpave mixture design approach in which tests are
conducted under conditions that represent those found
in in-service pavements (Kim et al., 2018). Imple-
mentation of the Superpave mixture design method has
increased the use of well-performing asphalt mixtures.
However, the method is not able to quantitatively
predict asphalt mixture field performance (Austerman
et al., 2018).
With the goal of evaluating and improving asphalt
mixture rutting performance, many state DOTs have
implemented various laboratory testing methods as
part of QC and QA systems to evaluate rutting suscep-
tibility of asphalt pavements. The three main tests used
for rutting evaluation of asphalt pavements are the FN,
APA, and HWTT.

2.4.1 Flow Number Test

The FN test is a laboratory performance-related Figure 2.8 Flow number test setup. (Controls Group)
test used to evaluate the rutting resistance of asphalt
mixtures. The standard test procedure is found in
AASHTO TP79, ‘‘Determining the Dynamic Modulus
(E*) and Flow Number for Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA)
Using the Asphalt Mixture Performance Tester (AMPT).’’
In this test, repeated Haversine axial compressive-load
pulses are applied to a 100 mm diameter by 150 mm
tall specimen (Figure 2.8). The permanent axial defor-
mation is measured at the end of the rest period and
converted to permanent strain. The cycle number at
which the strain reaches a minimum value is referred as
the FN. It has been reported that the FN shows good
correlation with rutting performance of mixtures in
several field test sections.

2.4.2 Asphalt Pavement Analyzer

The APA uses a wheel that applies a 45 kg load to a

linear hose pressurized to 689 kPa. The hose rests on
the test specimen while the wheel tracks back and forth
over the hose creating noticeable ruts on the test speci- Figure 2.9 APA test setup.
mens, as shown in Figure 2.9. Testing is done according
to AASHTO T340. Several state DOTs have used the
APA to assess the rutting resistance of asphalt mixtures are inserted into plastic molds to securely hold them in
and have found acceptable prediction potential for place. Figure 2.10 shows two pair of HWTT cylindrical
rutting in the field (Kandhal & Cooley, 2002). How- specimens just prior to test initiation. The HWTT is a
ever, complications have been encountered when com- destructive test that measures the rut depths of com-
paring relationships between APA results across projects pacted asphalt specimens subjected to 20,0000 conti-
having different characteristics (climate, traffic, test nuous loading passes of a 47-mm wide, 705-N steel
equipment). wheel. The recorded rut depth provides a direct indi-
cation of the mixture’s rutting susceptibility and the
2.4.3 Hamburg Wheel-Track Test stripping inflection point (SIP), estimated from the rut
depth data, can be used to assess the mixture’s moisture
The HWTT standard test protocol is AASHTO damage susceptibility; the higher the SIP value, the
T324-17, Hamburg Wheel-Track Testing of Compacted better the resistance to moisture damage.
Asphalt Mixtures. This standard specifies the testing of The test standard allows for the testing of labora-
slab specimens or two adjoining cylindrical specimens tory-prepared slab or gyratory specimens and field
submerged in a water bath. The cylindrical specimens cores. Laboratory-prepared specimens are typically

8 Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19

Figure 2.10 INDOT HWTT setup.

compacted using either a slab compactor or a gyratory level, respectively. The original development of thresh-
compactor to a target air voids content of 7.0 ¡ 0.5 olds 0.5 KJ/m2 and 0.6 KJ/m2 were selected based on
percent. Field-cored specimens are tested at the in-situ the representative range of Jc values expected for mix-
air voids content (Sel et al., 2014). Trimming is recom- tures in Louisiana. In addition, data from several field
mended for field cores that are taller than the speci- projects having good and poor performing asphalt
fied specimen height (60 mm ¡ 2 mm). For specimens mixtures were compared with the laboratory results
shorter than 60 mm, shims or spacer discs made of (Cooper et al., 2014). For rutting, Louisiana DOT uses
uncompressible material are used to level the specimens the HWTT and specifies a maximum rut depth of 10.0
in the plastic molds. mm at 20,000 passes for mixtures with unmodified
Some researchers have found that field compacted binders and no more than 6.0 mm at 20,000 passes for
core specimens tend to fail prior to the application of polymer-modified mixtures (Cooper, et al., 2014).
20,000 wheel passes. Therefore, a rutting resistance TxDOT uses the TO and the HWTT as tests for
index (RRI) that considers both the number of passes cracking and rutting, respectively. A minimum of 300
and rut depths has been used for core specimens, cycles is specified as the limit threshold for dense-
in order to more directly compare asphalt mixtures. graded asphalt mixtures, while Stone Matrix Asphalt
The RRI is calculated using Equation 2.8 (Zhang et al., (SMA) mixtures have a minimum of 200 cycles (Zhou
2017). The equation assumes the final rut depth is less et al., 2012). For rutting evaluation, TxDOT conducts
than 25.4 mm. HWTTs at 50uC and specifies at least 15,000 passes and
10,000 passes of the Hamburg wheel to reach 12.5 mm
RRI~N|ð25:4{RDÞ ðEq: 2:8Þ for PG 70 and PG 76 mixtures, respectively (Zhou
et al., 2012).
where, The Wisconsin DOT (WisDOT) has investigated
N 5 number of passes, and using the LSU-SCB, implementing representative inter-
RD 5 rut depth (mm) at the test completion. mediate temperature and stiffness ranges for their
asphalt binder grades. Therefore, testing temperatures
2.5 Laboratory Performance Evaluation State-of-the- of 16uC and 19uC are recommended for northern and
Practice southern regions within the state. The DCT has also
been evaluated for thermal cracking purposes. In terms
Several state DOTs have implemented or are in the of rutting, WisDOT uses the HWTT testing at 45uC.
process of adopting laboratory tests for rutting and Threshold values are the number of wheel passes needed
more particularly for cracking performance evaluation to obtain a 12.5 mm rut depth, the required number of
of asphalt mixtures. Tables 2.2 and 2.3 contain a sum- wheel passes varying according to the asphalt binder
mary of the cracking and rutting tests along with grade in the mixture (Hanz et al., 2017).
suggested thresholds. Lastly, the Illinois DOT (IDOT) uses the I-FIT as
In Louisiana the Louisiana State University (LSU)- the asphalt mixture cracking test and HWTT as the
developed SCB test is used to evaluate the fracture rutting test. Illinois researchers are currently exploring
resistance potential of asphalt mixtures. Minimum threshold values for I-FIT evaluations using long-term
threshold values of 0.5 KJ/m2 and 0.6 KJ/m2 are used conditioning protocols. HWTT evaluations are con-
for low and moderate traffic levels and high traffic ducted on short-term conditioned specimens.

Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19 9

TABLE 2.2
Performance Test Used to Evaluate Asphalt Mixture Cracking

Sample Air
Agency Test Parameter Threshold Voids, % Specification
2
Louisiana SCB-LSU Jc, KJ/m , 25uC Low or moderate traffic level: $0.5; 7¡0.5 AASHTO TP105
High traffic level: $0.6
Texas Overlay tester Cycle, 25uC Dense mix: $300 7¡1 Tex-248-F
SMA: $200
OGFC (PG76-fine graded): $200
New Jersey Overlay tester Cycle or load, 25uC 93% reduction of maximum load, or test
until 1,200 cycles, whichever comes first
Minnesota DCT Fracture energy Mixture design: 4 or 7 ASTM D7313
$450 J/m2, traffic level 2-3
$500 J/m2, traffic level 4-5
Production:
$400 J/m2, traffic level 2-3
$450 J/m2, traffic level 4-5
Illinois SCB-I-FIT Flexibility index (FI) 8 7¡0.5 AASHTO TP124 provisional

Wisconsin SCB-I-FIT Flexibility index (FI) Proposed intermediate temperature 7¡0.5 Not available
cracking framework.
Light traffic and short-term aging: 6
Light traffic and long-term aging: 2.5
Medium traffic and short-term aging: 12
Medium traffic and long-term aging: 5
High traffic and short-term aging: 18
High traffic and long-term aging: 7.5
Minnesota SCB-I-FIT Flexibility index (FI) Not available 7¡0.5 Not available

TABLE 2.3
Performance Test, Thresholds, and Parameters Used in Rutting Evaluations

Sample Air
Agency Test Parameter Threshold Voids, % Specification

California HWT Pass number PG58 (10,000); PG64 (15,000); PG70 (20,000); 7¡1 AASHTO T324
PG76 or higher (25,000)
Louisiana HWT Pass number PG67 (12,000); PG70 (20,000); OGFC (5,000) 7¡1 AASHTO T324
Texas HWT Pass number PG70 (15,000); PG76 (20,000) 7¡1 AASHTO T324
Permeable: PG76 (10,000), all tested at 50uC
Montana HWT Pass number PG 58 (44uC); PG64 (50uC); PG70 (56uC). 7¡1 AASHTO T324
PMLC (10,000); LMLC (15,000)
Washington HWT Pass number 15,000 7¡1 AASHTO T324
Illinois HWT Pass number Not available 7¡1 AASHTO T324
New Jersey APA Pass number Not available
Virginia APA Pass number Based on design ESALs
Oklahoma APA Pass number Based on design ESALs

Wisconsin HWT Pass number North regions: Light traffic (6,000), Medium traffic 7¡1 AASHTO T324
(9,000), High traffic (12,000)
South regions: Light traffic (7,000), Medium traffic
(11,250), High traffic (15,000)
Min creep rate North regions: Light traffic (-1.50), Medium traffic (-0.75),
(mm/1,000 High traffic (-0.375)
passes) South regions: Light traffic (-1.25), Medium traffic
(-0.625), High traffic (-0.312)

While Tables 2.2 and 2.3 summarize various labo- different states. This is because asphalt mixture per-
ratory performance-related cracking and rutting formance depends on traffic, climate, pavement struc-
tests, note that it may be difficult to establish a single ture, and existing pavement conditions for asphalt
cracking or rutting threshold values across the overlays.

10 Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19

3. LABORATORY TESTS USING INDIANA created from plant-produced loose mixture sampled
MIXTURES during construction from behind the paving machines.
3.1 Test Selection During paving operations, INDOT personnel randomly
sample loose mixture for each construction sublot (i.e.,
For this project, the SAC selected the I-FIT and not to exceed 1,000 tons) (Indiana Contract Standards,
HWTT as possible cracking and rutting test methods, 2006). These loose mixture samples were reheated to the
respectively, to be considered for possible use in QC and compaction temperature and specimens were com-
QA testing. In order to determine if these tests can be pacted using the specified number of design gyrations.
used in QC and QA operations it is necessary to under- Specimen dimensions are 115 mm tall and 150 mm in
stand how I-FIT and HWTT results vary for INDOT- diameter. In addition, the corresponding pavement
approved asphalt mixtures. In addition, the results of layers for each sublot were cored soon after construc-
these laboratory tests should be reasonably correlated tion, providing the PMFC specimens.
with pavement performances. Therefore, I-FIT, HWTT, As part of the INDOT QA process, PMLC and
E*, and S-VECD testing was completed on QA samples PMFC specimens are tested to determine their volu-
taken from INDOT-approved mixture designs. The dyna- metric and density properties. The number of QA speci-
mic modulus and S-VECD test results were to generating mens tested depends on the project size. An asphalt
inputs for FlexPAVE. The QA samples used in the study construction project may yield only a single, or possibly
included plant-mixed, laboratory compacted (PMLC) and dozens of PMLC and PMFC specimens. Figure 3.1(a)
plant-mixed, field compacted (PMFC) samples. shows a batch of PMLC and corresponding PMFC
specimens from various INDOT paving projects.
3.2 Materials Figure 3.1(b) shows PMLC and corresponding PMFC
QA specimens for 9.5- and 19.0-mm mixtures.
Table 3.1 provides a summary of the 70 INDOT-
approved mixtures from 2017, 2018, and 2019 con- 3.4 Test Specimen Preparation
struction projects used in this study. To identify the
volumetric properties and other distinctive character- The PMFC and PMLC QA samples from the various
istics, the job mix formulas (JMF) and corresponding projects were transferred from the INDOT districts to the
INDOT QA data were examined. The mixtures cor- INDOT research facility, where they were sorted based
respond to surface, intermediate, and base courses upon originating location and mixture design. While at
and were mostly designed with a Ndesign of 100. A few the research facility, and prior to testing, the materials
mixtures designed with 50, 75, and 125 gyrations were were kept in a temperature-controlled storage room to pre-
also included. However, due to the small number of vent unreasonable binder aging. Before mechanical testing,
corresponding projects using these three gyrations all compacted specimens underwent testing to determine
levels, the information for these projects is presented their bulk specific gravity according to AASHTO T 166,
in the Appendices, rather than the body of the report. Bulk Specific Gravity of Compacted Asphalt Mixtures
As seen in Table 3.1, three asphalt mixture types were Using Saturated Surface Dry Specimens. The specimens
used, 9.5-, 12.5-, and 19.0-mm in combination with the were allowed to dry prior to testing.
three typical binder grades used in Indiana, PG 64-22,
PG 70-22, and PG 76-22. All the mixtures investigated 3.4.1 Cracking Specimens
included some RAP, not to exceed 25% recycled binder
replacement, as specified by INDOT. Only projects that To produce I-FIT specimens the PMLC specimens
could provide sufficient materials for testing completion were cut in half along the vertical axis, creating two
were considered for the study. More details about the semicircular slices. A saw cut was made to remove the
mixtures are provided in Appendix A. top and bottom 30 to 32 mm of each half, leaving the
middle 50 mm tall portion (see Figure 3.2), as required
3.3 Materials Sampling by the standard test method. This method of sawing
results in test specimens with relatively uniform air
INDOT QA PMLC and PMFC (cores) were collec- voids distribution. The flat face of each 50 mm semi-
ted and used for this study. The PMLC specimens were circular specimen was then marked and a 15 mm long
(10% of diameter), 1.5 mm wide notch was cut. Thus,
TABLE 3.1
Number and Type of Asphalt Mixtures each PMLC pill was cut to create two semicircular
specimens. Similarly, semicircular specimens from the
Mixture PMFC cores were cut and used for testing. Sawing
Total Number of
during specimen preparation did not alter the heights of
PG 9.5-mm 12.5-mm 19.0-mm Mixtures the 9.5-mm asphalt mixture PMFC cores, as these core
specimens were already less than 50 mm in height.
64-22 12 1 14 27 After sawing, the specimens were measured for width
70-22 13 5 12 30 at three separate locations and for diameter to the
76-22 6 6 1 13
nearest hundredth of a millimeter using a set of calipers.
Total 31 12 27 70
The average width was used for calculations. Figure 3.3

Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19 11

Figure 3.1 INDOT quality assurance specimens: (a) batch of quality assurance samples (b) PMLC and corresponding PMFC
quality assurance samples.

shows a pair of PMLC 19.0-mm specimens and their

corresponding PMFC specimens.

3.4.2 Dynamic Modulus and S-VECD Test Specimens

The fatigue analysis conducted in this study required

the determination of stiffness parameters using dynamic
modulus tests. Because QA PMFC specimens are unable
to provide standard size dynamic modulus and S-VECD
specimens, small cylindrical specimens, as suggested by
Kutay et al. (2009) and prismatic specimens as used by
Park et al. (2013, 2014) were used in this study. Smaller
samples tend to produce similar damage characteristic Figure 3.2 Schematic of test specimen preparation.
curves as standard samples (Kutay et al., 2009; Park,
2013).
The cylindrical (38 mm diameter 6 110 mm height)
specimens, as shown in Figure 3.4(a), were fabricated
from PMFC samples with a thickness no less than
45 mm, which generally corresponds to the 12.5-mm
mixtures. Two specimens were extracted horizontally
from each QA field core. After the core extraction, the
ends were saw-cut using a tile saw. The prismatic
specimens thus obtained from the PMFC samples had a
thickness less than 45 mm. Again, a tile saw was used
to cut and extract two 25 mm 6 50 mm 6 110 mm
specimens from each field core (see Figure 3.4(b)).
These small prismatic specimens were used mainly for
testing the 9.5-mm surface mixtures.

3.4.3 Hamburg Wheel Track Test Specimens Figure 3.3 PMLC and PMFC I-FIT specimens.
For each project, four PMLC specimens, corre-
sponding to two sublots, were trimmed to create 60 mm generally taller or very close to 60 mm. The taller speci-
cylindrical test specimens. A wet saw cut was made on mens were trimmed to achieve 60 mm in height. The
each specimen to remove a 12.5 mm chord, as required 9.5- and 12.5-mm asphalt mixture PMFC cores were
by the standard Hamburg test method. Thus, each 115- generally shorter than 60 mm and their heights were not
mm tall PMLC pill was cut to create a single HWTT altered by sawing during specimen preparation. A small
specimen. 12.5 mm chord was also cut from the PMFC specimens.
The fabrication of the HWTT specimens from the Figure 3.5(a) shows a set of PMLC specimens ready for
corresponding PMFC cores required examination of HWTT testing. Figure 3.5(b) shows PMFC specimens
their heights. The 19.0-mm mixture specimens were of various mixture sizes.

12 Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19

Figure 3.4 E* specimens: (a) cylindrical (b) prismatic.

Figure 3.5 HWTT specimens: (a) set of PMLC test specimens (b) different sets of PMFC specimens.

3.5 Laboratory Testing (fracture energy and FI values) of the 70 mixtures.

After testing, Equation 2.1 was used to calculate the FI
The I-FIT, E*, and S-VECD tests were conducted values; the FI values for the PMFC samples were
using the Asphalt Mixture Performance Tester (AMPT). adjusted using Equation 2.3, to account for their non-
Eight specimens for each combination of mixture com- standard thicknesses. At least 8 specimens for PMLC
paction type (PMFC and PMLC) and project were and 8 for PMFC were tested, for a total of 16 I-FIT
evaluated using the I-FIT test, for a total of 1,120 specimens per project.
different I-FIT tests. The fatigue characteristics of the
asphalt mixtures using the S-VECD test were deter-
3.5.2 Dynamic Modulus
mined for selected combinations of surface mixtures
and binder types. Dynamic modulus testing was com- The dynamic modulus and S-VECD testing of small
pleted on the same selected asphalt mixtures. samples currently lacks a standard AASHTO method.
Both PMLC and PMFC specimens were evaluated Therefore, the provisional AASHTO test protocols
for rutting characteristics. Two different sets of HWTT provided by the NCHRP Report 629 were followed to
specimens for each QA specimen type and mixture were determine the stiffness and uniaxial cycling fatigue
evaluated for a total of 560 Hamburg tests. characteristics of the specimens using an AMPT. The
dynamic modulus tests were conducted at 4, 20, and
3.5.1 Illinois Flexibility Index Test 40uC and at loading frequencies of 25, 10, 5, 1, 0.5, and
0.1 Hz. The target average on-specimen strain was 50 to
In accordance with provisional AASHTO TP-124 75 microstrains for both small specimen types. Once the
specifications, the I-FIT was performed at the inter- dynamic evaluations were completed, dynamic modulus
mediate temperature of 25uC. The load was applied to a master curves were determined using the time-tempera-
notched semi-circular specimen at a displacement rate ture superposition principle at a reference temperature
of 50 mm/min. The I-FIT software developed by the of 20uC. Three and four replicates of the small specimen
Illinois Center of Transportation was employed to ana- E* and S-VECD tests were completed for each selected
lyze the data and calculate the fracture properties surface mixture, respectively.

Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19 13

3.5.3 Simplified Viscoelastic Continuum Damage 3.5.4 Hamburg Wheel Track Test

Cyclic direct tension fatigue tests were conducted in All PMLC and PMFC specimens were evaluated
the AMPT. The recommendations from the NCHRP using the INDOT HWTT device at the test temperature
Report 629 specified a constant displacement amplitude of 50uC in accordance with AASHTO T 324-17. From
frequency of 10 Hz. After gluing the specimens to the each combination of mixture type and project, four
corresponding end plates using an end-plate gluing 150-mm diameter specimens were used to create two
apparatus and epoxy, the specimens were left to dry for pair of test specimens for the HWTT; the pairs were
24 hours. The specimens were then conditioned inside tested simultaneously. The tests were continued until
an environmental chamber for at least 4 hours at the both pair of HWTT specimens achieved a rut depth of
desired temperature prior to testing. 12.5 mm or when 20,000 passes had been applied,
Three LVDTs with a 70 mm gage length were whichever came first. Furthermore, each combination
mounted on prismatic and cylindrical specimens to of mixture type and project had two corresponding sets
measure deformation. The recommended testing tem- of HWTT values, one for the PMFC and one for
perature was determined based on the binder PG grade PMLC specimens. These included number of passes, rut
as shown in Equation 3.1. depth at 10,000 passes, final rut depth, and SIP. The
test results are reported as the averaged values for the
Test Temperature four specimens.
 
high PG temperature z low PG temperature
~ {3 3.6 Laboratory Test Results
2
ðEq: 3:1Þ 3.6.1 Illinois Flexibility Index Test Results
A total of at least four S-VECD tests were completed 3.6.1.1 Air Voids Content and Thickness. Figures 3.6
for each selected mixture. These tests were conducted at and 3.7 show the air voids content distributions of the
different strain levels and were tested until failure. PMLC and PMFC specimens, respectively. The PMLC
When tested, specimen cracking can occur inside the specimens have a mean air voids content of 3.2% with a
LVDT gage length (middle crack), or outside the gage range between 1.8% and 5.5%. The mean air voids
length, at the top or bottom of the specimen (end content of the PMFC specimens is just above 7.4% with
failure). Because damage curves are constructed assum- a few specimens having air voids contents as high as
ing specimen cracks is located within the LDVT gage 10.9% and as low as 4.4%. Thus, for this group of
length, multiple tests were conducted until obtaining projects, PMFC specimens have higher average air
at least four middle failure fatigue tests for a given voids content with more variability than the PMLC
mixture. specimens.
Subsequently, a S-VECD analysis spreadsheet was Figures 3.8 and 3.9 show the thickness distribution of
used to develop damage characteristic curves (i.e., C - S the PMLC and PMFC specimens, respectively. Because
curves). To compare the fatigue cracking resistance PMLC specimens were trimmed in the laboratory to
of the different mixtures, the energy-based fatigue match the standard I-FIT specimen thickness (50 mm),
failure criterion, DR, was calculated and used in the their data is much less variable than the PMFC
analysis. specimens. Most of the PMFC specimens were thinner

Figure 3.6 Distribution of air voids content of PMLC specimens.

14 Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19

Figure 3.7 Distribution of air voids content of PMFC specimens.

Figure 3.8 Distribution of PMLC specimens thickness.

than 40 mm. In general, PMFC specimens that were distinctions between the FI distributions can be
more than 40 mm thick came from the 19.0-mm asphalt observed. The 9.5-mm mixtures (Figure 3.10) have
mixtures used as intermediate layers. Specimens with similar mean FI distribution values for the mixtures
thickness less than 40 mm corresponded to surface containing PG 64-22 (5.07) and PG 76-22 (4.90), but the
layers, in general. latter has a much higher variability. The mean FI
distribution value of the mixture with PG 70-22 is much
lower (2.28), but it has a smaller variability, similar to
3.6.1.2 Flexibility Index Results. FI values were the PG 64-22 mixture. Both of the 12.5-mm mixtures
calculated using Equation 2.1 and the average results
PG 70-22 and PG 76-22 (Figure 3.11) have similar
for each project were used to develop a database of FI
mean FI distribution values (1.5 and 2.5), respectively,
values. The data were used to develop distributions
but the distribution representing the PG 76-22 has a
functions for both PMLC and PMFC specimens in
higher variability. Finally, the 19.0-mm mixtures (PG
terms of mixture type-binder type combinations as
64-22 and PG 70-22) again show similar mean FI
shown in Figures 3.10 through 3.21. All the results
distribution values (1.9 and 1.0), respectively, but again
presented in these figures are from mixtures designed
the variabilities are a bit different, with the PG 64-22
with an Ndesign of 100 gyrations.
having a higher variability. More details about the FI
values for each corresponding project are provided in
3.6.1.3 Distributions of Laboratory Compacted Speci- Appendices B and C.
mens. Figure 3.10 through 3.12 present FI distributions Figures 3.13, 3.14, and 3.15 show the FI data
of the PMLC specimens by mixture type. Clear distributions plotted by PG binder grades. While there

Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19 15

Figure 3.9 Distribution of PMFC specimens thickness.

Figure 3.10 9.5-mm mixture PMLC flexibility index distributions.

are some slight differences among the mixture type PG 76-22 distribution, when compared to the PG 70-22,
mean FI values, no significant differences were found. may be due to the polymer modification in the PG 76-
22. The PG 76-22 could have a softer base binder than
3.6.1.4 Distributions of Field Compacted Specimens. is the PG 70-22. If the polymer network in the PG 76-22
Because the PMFC specimen thicknesses were generally is not activated in the I-FIT test, results will reflect the
different than the standard (see Figure 3.8 and Figure softer, base binder, thus the PG 70-22 lower FI mean
3.9) specimen thickness required by the test method, values.
thickness-corrected FI distributions were calculated for From a variability standpoint, the FI distributions
the PMFC specimens using Equation 2.3. The results appear to be similar for the 9.5- and 12.5-mm mixtures,
were again aggregated in terms of mixture and binder while for the 19.0-mm mixtures, the PG 64-22 binder
types. Figures 3.16, 3.17, and 3.18 present the FI appears to show more variability than does the mixture
distributions for mixture types. The data generally containing PG 70-22.
indicate similar findings to those of the laboratory- Figures 3.19, 3.20, and 3.21 depict the PMFC
compacted specimens. Again, the PG 70-22 distribution distributions in terms of the binder type. In general,
has the lowest FI mean value in almost all cases. It the 9.5-mm mixture distributions show higher FI
should be noted that the higher FI mean value of the mean values than do the 12.5- and 19.0-mm mixtures.

16 Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19

Figure 3.11 12.5-mm mixture PMLC flexibility index distributions.

Figure 3.12 19.0-mm mixture PMLC flexibility index distributions.

This may be attributable to the typically higher asphalt the PMFC mixtures are much larger than for the PMLC
binder contents in asphalt mixtures having smaller mixtures, indicating greater variability in the PMFC
NMAS. data. This outcome is most likely due to the increased
variability associated with field compaction.
3.6.1.5 Laboratory and Field Compaction Compa- The impact of multiple influential factors can explain
rison. Differences in the means and ranges are evident the differences in cracking properties between asphalt
when comparing the PMLC and PMFC FI distribu- specimens compacted in the field and those created in
tions. The FI values obtained from the PMFC speci- the laboratory. For example, the level of compaction
mens are consistently higher than their respective attained in the field is different than that obtained in the
PMLC counterparts. It appears that field compacted laboratory. Whereas laboratory compaction is achieved
specimens produce a higher mean FI value than do labo- in a relatively short time and within a close temperature
ratory compacted specimens. For example, the mean FI range, field compaction typically takes longer, which
of the PMFC 9.5-mm mixture is 31.0, while the mean FI can translate into a wider range of compaction temp-
of the PMLC 9.5-mm mixture is 5.1. This is most likely eratures. The variations in compaction temperatures
due to inherent differences in laboratory and field may contribute to the variability in PMFC specimen air
compaction techniques. In addition, the FI ranges of voids contents and thus the PMFC FI values.

Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19 17

Figure 3.13 PG 64-22 PMLC flexibility index distributions.

Figure 3.14 PG 70-22 PMLC flexibility index distributions.

Figure 3.15 PG 76-22 PMLC flexibility index distributions.

18 Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19

Figure 3.16 9.5-mm mixture PMFC flexibility index distributions.

Figure 3.17 12.5-mm mixture PMFC flexibility index distributions.

Figure 3.18 19.0-mm mixture PMFC flexibility index distributions.

Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19 19

Figure 3.19 PG 64-22 PMFC flexibility index distributions.

Figure 3.20 PG 70-22 PMFC flexibility index distributions.

Figure 3.21 PG 76-22 PMFC flexibility index distributions.

20 Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19

Figure 3.22 Laboratory and field compaction comparison: (a) flexibility index load-displacement (b) field compacted as a
function of laboratory compaction curves for mixture 161618.

Aging condition is also a factor that can contribute to air voids content and stronger correlations (increased
to the cracking characteristic differences of PMLC and R2 values).
PMFC specimens. Laboratory-compacted specimens The I-FIT data analyses suggest that higher air voids
experience somewhat different aging levels compared to contents are preferable for in-service asphalt mixtures
field-compacted specimens. Although the PMFC speci- because higher air voids contents produce higher FI
men cores were taken soon after construction, the loose values, hence better cracking resistance. This observa-
mixtures were reheated in the laboratory prior to test tion contradicts the results of multiple investigations
specimen compaction. This reheating, although care- suggesting that lower air voids contents (higher den-
fully controlled, can introduce additional stiffening in sities) of in-service asphalt mixtures increases both the
the PMLC samples. The higher stiffness translates to fatigue and rutting life of asphalt pavements containing
increased cracking and lower FI values. said mixtures (Harvey & Tsai, 1996; Kassem et al.,
Figure 3.22(a) shows example average load-displace- 2011). Therefore, careful analysis and judgment should
ment curves for the PMLC and PMFC 9.5-mm mixture be exercised when using the I-FIT to evaluate asphalt
specimens. The field-compacted specimens show lower mixture specimens with high air voids contents, high
peak loads and generally greater fracture energy. By variability, or both due to the relationship between test
contrast, the laboratory-compacted specimens show specimen air voids content and I-FIT cracking para-
higher peak loads and lower fracture energy. These meters.
results agree with those obtained by other researchers
(Al-Qadi et al., 2015; Kaseer et al., 2018; Ozer et al., 3.6.1.7 Asphalt Binder Critical Cracking Tempera-
2016) and generally lead to higher FI values in field- ture and Flexibility Index Comparison. Asphalt binder
compacted specimens. This is confirmed in Figure bending beam rheometer (BBR) data from 2017 and
3.22(b), where the PMFC FI values are plotted as a 2018 INDOT construction projects was available for
function of the PMLC FI values. There is a positive this study. These data were analyzed to determine DTC
relationship with an acceptable coefficient of determi- values. The DTC parameter is defined as the numerical
nation (R2 5 0.72), but clearly the PMFC specimens difference between the low continuous (true) grade
have higher FI values than do the PMLC specimens. temperature obtained from the BBR stiffness criteria
and the low continuous grade obtained from the m-
3.6.1.6 Effect of Air Voids Content on Cracking value criteria. The DTC parameter has been widely cor-
Resistance. Because the PMFC specimens have larger related to asphalt pavement performance. In general, as
and more variable air voids contents than do PMLC DTC values become more positive, the better the crack-
specimens of the same mixture type, the effect of air ing resistance of a binder. DTC values were determined
voids content on FI was investigated. In Figure 3.23, for 46 different 2017 and 2018 INDOT projects and
the uncorrected and corrected FI values for six PMFC used to develop distributions similar to those created
mixtures are plotted as a function of the mixture air for the FI values. Figure 3.24 presents the DTC distri-
voids contents. The data clearly show that as air voids butions sorted by their corresponding binder types. The
contents increase, the uncorrected FI values increase. figure clearly shows the PG 64-22 has the best cracking
The positive trend line slopes also manifest this out- resistance (higher value DTC values), followed by the
come. When the thickness correction factor is applied PG 76-22 and PG 70-22. The FI distributions,
to the data, generally the FI values show less sensitivity particularly those of the PMLC 9.5-mm and PMFC

Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19 21

Figure 3.23 Effect of air voids content on flexibility index of field compacted specimens: (a) Mixture 173802, (b) Mixture 175316,
(c) Mixture 175322, (d) Mixture 161113, (e) Mixture 161118, and (f) Mixture 186703.

9.5-mm mixtures (Figures 3.10 and 3.16) show a similar 3.6.1.8 Flexibility Index Values of Selected Stone Mat-
ranking order. rix Aggregate Projects. Stone matrix asphalt (SMA)
Figure 3.25 shows the relationship between FI values is considered a premium asphalt surface mixture
and the corresponding DTC values for both PMLC and designed to provide superior rutting and durability
PMFC 9.5-mm mixtures. Linear relationships are obse- characteristics. INDOT uses a significant amount of
rved for both cases. The relationship between DTC and SMA for high volume pavements. The cracking chara-
FI of the PMLC specimens is stronger than for PMFC cteristics of three 2018 SMA mixtures were evaluated
specimens. Again, this may be due to the variability using I-FIT. SMA PMFC specimens were prepared
associated with field core specimens. Comparison of and tested as previously described. The resulting FI
DTC and FI suggests that FI may reasonably distin- values are shown in Figure 3.26. Each of the three
guish between asphalt binder types in similar asphalt SMA mixtures have FI values below 12, significantly
mixtures. lower than the mean FI value of all the PMFC

22 Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19

Figure 3.24 Tc distributions of 2017 and 2018 INDOT projects.

Figure 3.25 Relationship between flexibility index and DTC.

Figure 3.26 Stone matrix asphalt flexibility index.

Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19 23

Figure 3.27 Comparison of PMFC stone matrix asphalt and 9.5-mm dense-graded mixture, both containing PG 76-22.

Figure 3.28 Comparison of PMFC stone matrix asphalt and 12.5-mm dense-graded mixtures, all with PG 76-22.

mixtures tested in the study. Figures 3.27 and 3.28 3. I-FIT cracking distributions provide a relative indication
show FI distributions of PMFC dense-graded mixtures of asphalt mixture cracking potential; they could be used
along with the mean SMA FI results. Results indicate as a tool to evaluate the quality of asphalt mixtures.
that SMA mixtures, at least those tested, have poorer 4. In general, PG 70-22 mixtures have the lowest mean FI
values, the PG 76-22 slightly larger, and the PG 64-22
cracking resistance (smaller FI values) than the dense-
mixtures the largest mean FI values. A similar ranking
graded mixtures. was determined from asphalt binder DTc distributions.
5. The tested SMA mixtures have poorer estimated crack-
3.6.1.9 Illinois Flexibility Index Test Results Sum- ing resistance (smaller FI values) than the dense-graded
mary. Based on I-FIT laboratory test results, the fol- mixtures.
lowing findings are noted:
1. FI values obtained from PMFC specimens are consis-
tently higher than those of the corresponding PMLC 3.6.2 Simplified Viscoelastic Continuum Damage Results
specimens. The variability in PMFC specimens appears
to be, at the least, a partial cause of this outcome. 3.6.2.1 Selection of Asphalt Mixtures. The fatigue
2. FI values are significantly affected by variations in characteristics of the asphalt mixtures using the S-
specimen thickness and air voids content, showing higher VECD analysis were determined for a group of selected
FI values with increasing air voids contents and decrea- subset of PMFC mixtures. As shown in Figures 3.29,
sing specimen thickness. This is contrary to findings in 3.30, 3.31, and 3.32, the mixtures were chosen accord-
the current literature. ing to different FI levels for different binder grades.

24 Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19

Figure 3.29 Flexibility index distribution and corresponding rankings for 9.5-mm mixture containing PG 64-22.

Figure 3.30 Flexibility index distribution and corresponding rankings for 9.5-mm mixture containing PG 70-22.

The PMFC 9.5-and 12.5-mm mixture distributions within their corresponding distributions. The mixtures
show distinctive FI levels represented by mixtures that ranked according to these levels were evaluated using
generally exhibit a low, mid-range, and high FI value the S-VECD test. Because of the unavailability of a PG

Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19 25

Figure 3.31 Flexibility index distribution and corresponding rankings for 12.5-mm mixture containing PG 70-22.

Figure 3.32 Flexibility index distribution and corresponding rankings for 12.5-mm mixture containing PG 70-22.

76-22, 12.5-mm QA samples, S-VECD testing for these testing, but their fracture resistance determined from
mixtures was limited. I-FIT is very different. Similar trends also can be
observed for the mixture containing PG 64-22 binders.
3.6.2.2 Damage Characterization. Figure 3.33 shows The mixtures containing PG 76-22 binder seem to
the damage characteristic curves for the subset of selec- exhibit the most variability in their damage character-
ted mixtures. As mentioned earlier, the damage chara- istics curves.
cteristic curve shows the variation of pseudo stiffness The pseudo stiffness value at the failure point (CF) is
or the material’s integrity throughout the fatigue test. another parameter used as an indicator of fatigue beha-
The mixtures with curves plotting higher and to the vior. Hou et al. (2010) found that CF values increase as
right are expected to better resist fatigue cracking an asphalt material becomes stiffer (Hou et al., 2010).
because they are able to maintain their integrity Figure 3.34 shows the averaged CF values of the mix-
(pseudo stiffness) better during the test. The figure tures. Generally, the mixtures with PG 70-22 binder fail
indicates the C-S curves (damage characteristic curves) at a higher integrity level than do the mixtures contain-
do not follow a consistent trend based on binder or ing PG 64-22 binder. Also, the mixtures containing PG
mixture types. 76-22 binder have lower average CF values than do
Despite the wide range of FI values for the PG 70-22 those containing PG 70-22. This observation agrees
mixtures (they vary from 11.9 to 32.5), the C-S curves with the FI data presented in Figure 3.16. The PG 70-22
of these mixtures are very close, especially 183300-70- mixtures show lower FI values and higher CF values
9.5 and 186116-70-9.5. This curve proximity indicates when compared to the other two mixtures types,
the mixtures have similar behavior during cyclic fatigue indicating that PG 70-22 mixtures tend to fail earlier

26 Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19

Figure 3.33 Damage characteristic curves for selected mixtures.

Figure 3.34 Average CF values for mixtures with different binder grades.

and at a higher pseudo stiffness values than do the 9.5- and 19.0-mm mixtures. For example, the mixtures
other mixtures. with a lower HTPG have a higher mean rut depth and
wider distribution than mixtures with a higher HTPG,
3.6.3 Hamburg Wheel Track Test Results as shown in Figures 3.35, 3.36, and 3.37. Neat binders
in Indiana are from various sources and generally, as
In order to understand the HWTT final rut depths the HTPG becomes larger than PG 70, a binder will
at 20,000 wheel passes using Indiana mixtures, the contain a higher modifier content. This may have
aggregated distribution functions of high-temperature contributed to the wider rut depth distribution for the
binder grades (HTPG) and mixture sizes were calcu- PG 64-22 mixtures, compared to the PG 70 and 76
lated and plotted. The distribution functions describe binders. The HWTT results in terms of HTPG confirm
the central tendencies and spread, or variability of the that stiffer binder and higher binder modification
different HWTT rutting parameters. improve mixture quality with regards to resistance to
rutting. Another observation is that binder modifier is
3.6.3.1 Rut Depth Distribution (Laboratory-Com- properly activated during the HWTT. However, this
pacted Specimens). Figures 3.35, 3.36, and 3.37 show trend was not observed in the 12.5-mm mixtures, most
the rut depths of the PMLC mixtures are all less than likely due to the limited sample size.
12.5 mm. Clear distinctions among the rut depth When comparing rut depths in terms of mixture
distributions in terms of HTPG can be observed for sizes, the 9.5-mm mixtures show slightly higher mean

Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19 27

Figure 3.35 Rut depth distributions of 9.5-mm plant-mixed, laboratory-compacted specimens.

Figure 3.36 Rut depth distributions of 12.5-mm plant-mixed, laboratory-compacted specimens.

Figure 3.37 Rut depth distributions of 19.0-mm plant-mixed, laboratory-compacted specimens.

28 Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19

rut depth values than do the 12.5- and 19.0-mm mix- 3.6.3.3 Moisture Susceptibility Values (Laboratory-
tures. Specifically, the mean rut depth values of the Compacted Specimens). Figures 3.41, 3.42, and 3.43
HTPG 64 PMLC mixtures are 2.54 and 1.01 mm for the present the moisture susceptibility distributions (i.e., rut
9.5- and 19.0-mm mixtures, respectively. This trend does depth difference between 10,000 and 20,000 passes) of
not hold true when considering different binder grades. the PMLC mixtures. The difference in moisture sus-
ceptibility among the mixture types was minimal except
3.6.3.2 Rutting Resistance Index (Laboratory-Com- for the 9.5-mm mixtures containing PG 64 binder, in
pacted Specimens). For comparison purposes, RRI which the differences ranged as high as 4 mm, indica-
values for the PMLC specimens were calculated using ting that PG 64 mixtures could be more susceptible to
Equation 2.8 and are shown as distributions in Figures moisture damage than mixtures containing PG 70
3.38, 3.39, and 3.40. The RRI distributions present and 76 binders. The 12.5- and 19.0-mm mixtures show
differences in the HTPGs for the same mixtures. moisture susceptibility ranges up to 2 mm.
Specifically, mixtures with a higher HTPG show a
higher RRI mean value than mixtures with a lower 3.6.3.4 Rut Depth Distribution (Field-Compacted
HTPG, as shown in Figures 3.39 and 3.40. Similar to Specimens). Many of the PMFC specimens achieved a
rut depth data shown in Figures 3.35, 3.36, and 3.37, rut depth of 12.5 mm before reaching 20,000 passes.
mixtures with a HTPG of 64 have more variable values, Therefore, presenting rut depth distributions at 20,000
again indicating variability for unmodified or less passes, like those shown in Figures 3.35, 3.36, and 3.37
modified binders. for the PMLC specimens, is not possible.

Figure 3.38 Rutting resistance index distributions for 9.5-mm mixture specimens.

Figure 3.39 Rutting resistance index distributions for 12.5-mm mixture specimens.

Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19 29

Figure 3.40 Rutting resistance index distributions for 19.0-mm mixture specimens.

Figure 3.41 Moisture susceptibility distributions for 9.5-mm mixture specimens.

Figure 3.42 Moisture susceptibility distributions for 12.5-mm mixture specimens.

30 Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19

Figure 3.43 Moisture susceptibility distributions for 19.0-mm mixture specimens.

Figure 3.44 Rutting resistance index distributions for 9.5-mm mixture plant-mixed, field-compacted specimens.

3.6.3.5 Rutting Resistance Index (Field-Compacted 3.6.3.6 Stripping Inflection Point (Field Compacted
Specimens). The RRI values of the 9.5-mm PMFC Specimens). Figure 3.47(a) shows the effects of the
mixture specimens presented in Figure 3.44 indicate the HTPG and mixture size on the SIP values of the PMFC
RRI captures the effect of binder grade. The mean RRI specimens. The figure presents the average SIPs for all the
values of the PG 64 mixtures are lower than those of the mixtures with a similar HTPG or NMAS. The error bars
PG 70 and PG 76 mixtures, indicating higher rutting on the plots indicate one standard deviation intervals.
susceptibility in the PG 64 mixtures. Also, the mean The SIP increases as the HTPG varies from 64 to 76,
RRI values of the PG 76 mixtures are slightly higher indicating better moisture damage resistance for mixtures
than those of the PG 70 mixtures. The RRI distri- with stiffer binder. However, mixture size does not
butions of the 12.5-mm mixtures show similar mean appear to have a clearly definable impact on the SIP, as
values and ranges in Figure 3.45, which indicates the shown in Figure 3.47(b). Finally, the error bars indicate
12.5-mm mixtures containing PG 70 and 76 binders similar SIP variability with mixture size and PG.
have similar rutting susceptibility characteristics. Simi-
lar behavior is observed in RRI distributions of the 3.6.3.7 Laboratory-Compacted versus Field-Com-
19.0-mm mixtures as shown in Figure 3.46. pacted Specimens. In general, PMFC specimens tend
When considering the effect of mixture size, the RRI to have higher rut depth values as compared to the
distributions for the PMFC 9.5- and 19.0-mm mixtures corresponding PMLC specimens. The differences may
have comparable mean values, except for the PMFC PG be due to the higher air voids contents in the PMFC
64 mixture. On the other hand, the RRI distributions of specimens. For example, the overall mean air voids
the PMFC 12.5-mm mixtures have higher mean values content of the PMLC specimens is 4.2%, but the mean
and less spread than do the 9.5- and 19.0-mm mixtures. air voids content of the PMFC specimens is 7.3%, as

Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19 31

Figure 3.45 Rutting resistance index distributions for 12.5-mm mixture plant-mixed, field-compacted specimens.

Figure 3.46 Rutting resistance index distributions for 19.0-mm mixture plant-mixed, field-compacted specimens.

Figure 3.47 Stripping inflection points of plant-mixed, field-compacted specimens: (a) high temperature binder grade (b) mixture
size.

32 Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19

Figure 3.48 Differences between laboratory- and field-compacted Hamburg results: (a) air voids content (b) rut depths.

Figure 3.49 Rutting resistance index values of laboratory

Figure 3.50 Rutting resistance index as a function of air
and field-compacted specimens.
voids content.

shown in Figure 3.48(a). Also, more variability asso- observed for only 17% of the PMLC specimens, 48% of
ciated with the larger standard deviation intervals was the PMFC mixtures displayed an SIP. The average
observed in the PMFC specimens. The dissimilarity numbers of wheel passes at the SIP for specimens that
between the rut depths of the PMLC and PMFC speci- experienced stripping were 8,455 and 14,639 for the
mens also could be attributable to the inherent diffe- PMFC and PMLC specimens, respectively.
rences between laboratory and field compaction. Figure Figure 3.49 compares the RRI values of the labo-
3.48(b) shows rut depth results of two PMFC set of ratory- and field-compacted specimens. The RRI values
specimens and their corresponding PMLC specimens. of all the laboratory-compacted specimens are higher
When comparing the percentages of the PMLC than those of the corresponding field-compacted speci-
and PMFC specimens that experienced a rut depth mens, indicating better rutting resistance for the PMLC
of at least 12.5 mm during HWTT evaluation, only specimens. Again, this is likely due to the air voids con-
one laboratory-compacted mixture experienced the tent variations and inherent differences between labo-
maximum allowable rut depth before the test was com- ratory and field compaction methods. As seen in Figure
pleted. On the other hand, 56% of the field-compacted 3.49, a weak relationship exists between the RRI values
specimens experienced at least a 12.5-mm rut depth of the PMLC and corresponding PMFC specimens.
during the test. In addition, the laboratory-compacted Figure 3.50 shows a clear relationship between air
specimens were not as susceptible to stripping as were voids content and RRI values. As the specimen air
the field-compacted specimens. Whereas a SIP was voids content increases, the RRI values decrease for

Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19 33

both laboratory- and field-compacted specimens. The Figure 4.2(a) through 4.2(i) show the resulting
data indicate that when PMLC specimen air voids predicted damage percentages in the form of contours
contents are within 2% to 4%, RRI values are consis- of the pavement sections obtained using the DR failure
tently high. PMFC RRI values show significant vari- criterion. In the contour plots, the intact and comple-
ability within the 6% to 8% air voids content range and tely failed pavements are represented by blue and red,
experienced significant reduction when the specimen air respectively. All the pavements have failed areas at the
voids contents increased. A distinctive trend line depic- bottom of the asphalt base layer, indicating that
ting the expected behavior of RRI values with changing bottom-up fatigue damage does initiate and within the
air voids contents is also shown in Figure 3.50. 20th year of the pavement’s service life. Sections 181700-
64-9.5, 184553-70-9.5, and 183412-76-9.5 also show areas
4. PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE-FLEXIBILITY with damage initiating at the pavement surface, indicat-
INDEX CORRELATION ing these mixtures may also experience top-down fatigue
cracking by the end of their design life.
4.1 Pavement Performance Predictions Along with the damage contours in Figure 4.2, the
corresponding fatigue damage factors at 20 years also
Typical full-depth asphalt pavement sections were
are shown for each section. Most of the sections show
employed in FlexPAVE to determine fatigue damage
fatigue damage below 14% and only a few sections have
predictions. Figure 4.1 shows a schematic of the
damage higher levels. The two sections, 181700-64-9.5
three-layer pavement section used in the analysis. The
and 181300-70-9.5, shown previously in Figures 3.27
material properties for the modeled surface layers were
and 3.28 to have the lowest FI values, show the highest
obtained from laboratory tests of the different sur-
fatigue damage percentages among all the pavement
face layers’ PMFC specimens (see section 3.6.2). The sections.
material properties of the intermediate and base asphalt
layers were kept constant in all the FlexPAVE simu- 4.2 Relationship Between I-FIT and S-VECD Test
lations and were obtained from PMFC 19.0-mm Parameters
NMAS mixtures that presented mid-range FI values.
The pavement sections have three asphalt layers Considering the potential of the I-FIT and the
(surface, intermediate, and base layers) with thicknesses S-VECD tests to provide true indications of a material’s
of 38.1, 64.0, and 203.2 mm, respectively, over a sub- quality and the performance respectively, one impor-
grade with a resilient modulus value of 62.1 MPa. tant goal of this study was to compare the FI values
Hourly pavement temperature data as a function of from the I-FIT to fatigue performance predictions from
depth corresponding to the Indianapolis environmental FlexPAVE.
station was implemented as part of the FlexPAVE Figures 4.3, 4.5, and 4.6 show the FlexPAVE
analysis. The traffic volume used for the fatigue perfor- predicted fatigue damage after 20 years as a function
mance simulations was 6,000 daily equivalent single of the thickness-corrected FI values for each of the
axle loads (ESAL) with a growth rate of 1%. surface mixtures. The corresponding trend lines and

Figure 4.1 Full-depth asphalt pavement section used in FlexPAVE.

34 Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19

Figure 4.2 FlexPAVE fatigue performance contours for various mixtures tested: (a) 181700-64-9.5, (b) 185265-64-9.5, (c) 175322-
64-9.5, (d) 181300-70-9.5, (e) 184553-70-9.5, (f) 186116-70-9.5, (g) 183412-76-9.5, (h) 181802-76-9.5, and (i) 181700-76-9.5 sections.

coefficients of determination (R2) are also shown. In single-layer pavement analyses were also conducted.
general, when three-layer pavement structures are con- Single-layer pavement structures are not specified
sidered, a clear linear relationship of decreasing fatigue or used by INDOT and were therefore considered only
damage with increasing FI values is to be found, for the purpose of these analyses, to isolate the
as shown in Figures 4.3 through 4.5. The 9.5-mm, effect of the surface mixtures on the damage character-
PG 64-22 mixture shown in Figure 4.3 indicates the istics of the pavement sections. The single-layer surface
greatest reduction in predicted fatigue damage, as pavements were modeled in FlexPAVE, again keep-
indicated by the -0.38 slope. With the exception of the ing all input values constant except for the material
9.5-mm, PG 70-22 mixture shown in Figure 4.4, all properties of the single asphalt layer. In almost all
mixtures show an acceptable coefficient of determination. cases, the results (see Figures 4.3 through 4.6) indicate
Figure 4.6 shows the relationship for the 12.5-mm, PG the fatigue damage increases significantly when single-
70-22 mixture. layer structures are used. Additionally, except for the
To further investigate the effect of the asphalt sur- PG 64-22 mixtures, the relationship between the fatigue
face layer on the development of fatigue damage, damage and FI and becomes stronger when single-layer

Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19 35

Figure 4.3 Predicted fatigue damage as a function of flexibility index values for single- and three-layer asphalt pavement
structures, 9.5-mm mixtures containing PG 64-22 binder.

Figure 4.4 Predicted fatigue damage as a function of flexibility index values for single- and three-layer asphalt pavement
structures, 9.5-mm mixtures containing PG 70-22 binder.

Figure 4.5 Predicted fatigue damage as a function of flexibility index values for single- and three-layer asphalt pavement
structures, 9.5-mm mixtures containing PG 76-22 binder.

36 Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19

Figure 4.6 Predicted fatigue damage as a function of flexibility index values for single- and three-layer asphalt pavement
structures, 12.5-mm mixtures containing PG 70-22 binder.

Figure 4.7 Predicted fatigue damage as a function of flexibility index values for single- and three-layer asphalt pavement
structures, all mixtures.

pavements are considered, as indicated by the higher 4.3 Development of Predicted Fatigue Damage
R2 values. Distributions
The relationships and corresponding coefficients of
determination indicate that FI values provide some The development of reliable pavement performance
explanation of pavement fatigue performance when predictions is often a significant component of pave-
the mixture types are considered individually or in ment performance and material quality analyses. The
isolation. However, when all the data points are correlation of predicted fatigue pavement performance
aggregated and considered as a single dataset, as shown to FI values, shown and discussed in the previous
in Figure 4.7, the relationship between the predic- section (see Figures 4.3 through 4.6), enables the
ted fatigue damage and FI values becomes significan- direct mathematical calculation of predicted fatigue
tly weaker, having a lower R2 value of 0.12 for the performance distributions. However, such results are
three-layer pavement structure. Interestingly, when only valid for the specific conditions from which they
the fatigue performance predictions from the single- were developed, conditions such as air voids content
layer structures are combined, the aggregated rela- range, pavement structure, and mixture type, including
tionship increases its significance, as suggested by the the mixture NMAS and PG binder grade. Figure 4.8
R2 of 0.54. shows the process by which the parent FI distribution

Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19 37

Figure 4.8 Development of predicted pavement performance distributions.

could be used to develop predicted pavement perfor- predicted 14% fatigue damage to pavements that were
mance distributions. For example, if a 9.5-mm mixture measured to have approximately 30% area surface
containing PG 64-22 binder is tested using the I-FIT cracking (Wang et al., 2018). Similar relationships could
and yields an average FI value of 35 (Figure 4.8(b)), the be developed to correlate mixture FI values and the
associated pavement damage would be calculated as percentage of surface cracking at the end of the design life
13.9%. Repeating this process for all 9.5-mm mixture of Indiana pavements.
containing PG 64-22 binder is then done to develop the
distribution of predicted pavement damage percen- 5. QUALITY ASSESSMENT APPLICATIONS
tages, as shown in Figure 4.8(b). The example distribu-
tion shows an expected mean value of 17% for fatigue Effective QA programs can guarantee state highway
cracking and has a variability similar to the parent FI agencies high standards of quality materials and con-
distribution. struction practices (Aschenbrener et al., 1994). Typi-
The predicted pavement performance corresponds cally, INDOT requires determination of the theoretical
to a measure of damage within the evaluated cross- maximum specific gravity, air voids content based on
sectional area. Furthermore, predicted values still need the average bulk specific gravity, and VMA of the
to be correlated to the actual pavement distress (i.e., asphalt mixture as part of the QA process (Indiana
cracking area). Ongoing research efforts are exploring Contract Standards, 2006). Although QA programs
the development of transfer functions to associate fatigue offer numerous advantages, they also are limited,
damage derived from FlexPAVE with actual surface mainly due to the uncertainty associated with deter-
distress (Wang et al., 2018). In a recent study, Wang mining properties that may not have a clear link to
et al. have correlated some predicted FlexPAVE results the overall quality of the materials. To demonstrate
with measured cracking in various full-depth asphalt how the I-FIT and HWTT might be used in a QA
pavement test sections. They found that FlexPAVE assessment, threshold values of cracking and rutting

38 Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19

parameters were determined using the developed distri- mixture designs. Therefore, the distribution, or qual-
butions presented earlier in this report. Additionally, an ity-based method requires knowledge of the distribu-
evaluation of testing practicality and implementation tion of the cracking parameters as it relates to the
of I-FIT and HWTT results in QA processes was quality of the mixtures that contractors produce. Given
conducted. this knowledge, the thresholds narrow the distributions.
Therefore, the application of a material quality-based
5.1 Threshold Values Determination approach is potentially more straightforward than a
cracking performance approach.
A threshold is a minimum or maximum value for As an example of a material quality-based approach,
a given attribute or characteristic that serves as a Figure 5.1 presents the probability density function and
standard for comparison or guidance (Patni, 2009). cumulative distribution function of FI values for a
Two approaches, performance-based cracking and population of asphalt mixtures. The cumulative dis-
material, or distribution quality-based were explored tribution function could be used to establish different
for the selection of threshold values. Critical test ranges of material requirements. Various probability
parameters can be selected based on pavement perfor- percentiles could be used to indicate limits for the QA
mance and used as threshold values. For cracking, the of mixtures. For example, the 30th FI percentile (FI 5
laboratory-measured parameters would be compared 5.8) could be used as a limiting criterion for interstate
and correlated with the amount of surface cracking, facilities and the 20th FI percentile (FI 5 5.1) could be
then threshold parameters that differentiate acceptable used for non-interstate highways. Other percentiles
performance can be determined. As mentioned before, could be used for other highway classes.
other states are considering minimum FI value for
different mixtures using PMLC specimens to ensure 5.1.1 Flexibility Index Percentiles as Threshold Values
acceptable cracking performance (Al-Qadi et al., 2017).
This approach can provide a higher confidence level for As the evaluation of FI values suggests the need
using I-FIT to obtain acceptable pavement quality. to develop appropriate threshold values for different
Additionally, the parameters can be used for predicting conditions (e.g., PG, NMAS), different cumulative
the future performance of pavements. However, this distribution functions and threshold values should be
approach requires major effort and resources, such as established for the corresponding conditions. If a single
long-term monitoring of performance data using I-FIT threshold value for all mixture types is used, then
parameters from mixture designs. Furthermore, isolat- certain mixture types with FI values lower than the
ing material quality from other influential factors (e.g., threshold value may not be accepted. Therefore, for the
pavement systems, traffic levels, environmental factors) unique characteristics of the asphalt mixtures investi-
is not a simple task considering the typical quality of gated in this project, under the quality-based approach,
pavement performance data. different mixture types threshold values were estab-
Practically speaking, cracking performance tests lished. The laboratory- and field-compacted distribu-
during the mixture design phase are additional tests tions were used to determine 10th and 20th percentiles
over and above conventional volumetric mixture design for the corresponding distributions of I-FIT values
requirements. In other words, such tests are used to as summarized in Tables 5.1 and 5.2, respectively.
filter out mixture qualities with poor crack resistance The values listed in these tables are well below the
among the qualities provided by the conventional distribution means. Therefore, they could be used as

Figure 5.1 Material quality-based distribution illustration.

Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19 39

TABLE 5.1 TABLE 5.5
I-FIT Percentiles of Laboratory-Compacted Specimens Rutting Resistance Percentiles for Field-Compacted Specimens

Mixture Type Mixture Type

9.5-mm 12.5-mm 19.0-mm 9.5 12.5 19.0
PG FI P10 FI P20 FI P10 FI P20 FI P10 FI P20 PG RRI P10 RRI P20 RRI P10 RRI P20 RRI P10 RRI P20

64-22 2.6 3.5 — — 0.9 1.7 64-22 28 53 — — 117 156

70-22 0.4 1.0 0.47 0.82 1.5 1.9 70-22 108 149 260 293 59 117
76-22 0.8 2.3 0.74 0.78 — — 76-22 119 166 247 277 — —

TABLE 5.2
field. Once these parameters are identified, rutting
I-FIT Percentiles of Field-Compacted Specimens
threshold values in terms of maximum allowable rut
Mixture Type depth, RRI values or SIP values for passing or failing
mixtures must be selected.
9.5-mm 12.5-mm 19.0-mm
Percentile values in Tables 5.3 through 5.5 show 10th
PG FI P10 FI P20 FI P10 FI P20 FI P10 FI P20 and 20th percentiles of rutting parameters. Tables 5.3
64-22 22.1 25.1 — — 12.2 14.6
and 5.4 show maximum rut depths and RRI values
70-22 12.3 14.9 9 10 15.1 16.6 of laboratory-compacted specimens, respectively. Table
76-22 26.7 29.3 14.9 15.9 — — 5.5 presents RRI threshold values of field-compacted
specimens. It should be noted that RRI values for labo-
TABLE 5.3 ratory-compacted specimens are significantly higher
Maximum Rut Depth Percentiles for Laboratory-Compacted than those for field-compacted specimens.
Specimens

Mixture Type
5.2 Testing Practicality of Laboratory and Field
Compacted Specimens
9.5-mm 12.5-mm 19.0-mm
PG RD P10 RD P20 RD P10 RD P20 RD P10 RD P20 5.2.1 Laboratory-Compacted Specimens
64-22 1.1 1.6 — — 1.2 1.6
This study evaluated the implementation of QA
70-22 1.0 1.4 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.4
76-22 1.4 1.5 1.2 1.4 — — samples for the evaluation of the cracking, rutting, and
moisture susceptibility in terms of testing practicality.
Because PMLC specimens are prepared from gyratory-
TABLE 5.4 compacted pills, their fabrication is relatively simple
Rutting Resistance Index Percentiles for Laboratory-Compacted with regards to meeting standard test dimension require-
Specimens
ments for I-FIT and HWTT. Another advantage of
Mixture Type PMLC specimens is the air voids content range is
narrow. Therefore, the impact of air voids content and
9.5-mm 12.5-mm 19.0-mm
specimen thickness variability on FI and rut depth values
PG RRI P10 RRI P20 RRI P10 RRI P20 RRI P10 RRI P20 may not be a significant factor in analysis. However, the
application of PMLC specimens for I-FIT and HWTTs
64-22 419 432 — — 426 436
70-22 440 448 471 475 456 462
also has limitations. For example, because QA PMLC
76-22 457 462 457 461 — — specimens are fabricated from loose mixtures sampled in
the field, they may experience different aging and condi-
tioning levels compared to PMFC specimens. Also, the
thresholds to exclude poorest quality mixtures from the loose mixture samples are reheated in the laboratory
population of Indiana asphalt mixtures. considering the prior to specimen compaction. This reheating, although
corresponding materials (i.e., PG and NMAS). For controlled, could introduce added mixture stiffness in the
instance, a 9.5-mm mixture containing PG 64-22 with a PMLC specimens (Batioja-Alvarez et al., 2019).
mean laboratory-compacted FI value lower than 2.6 indi- Another disadvantage of specimens compacted at the
cates that its quality is below 90% of the population. laboratory to determine air voids for QA purposes
Field performance data, once they are available, could (PMLC) is their air voids contents of approximately
be used to validate or revise the threshold values in 4%. Therefore, I-FIT analyses need to consider this
such a distribution, or quality-based approach. difference when comparing to FI values produced using
specimens having the standard 7% air voids content. In
5.1.2 Rutting Parameters Percentiles as Threshold Values terms of HWTT, at 4% air voids content, rut depth
values from HWTT evaluations are generally low
The identification of rutting indicators for QA pur- and differences among the different mixture types
poses includes the determination of HWTT parameters (i.e., in terms of PG and NMAS) are slight, as shown
that could be correlated with rutting performance in the in Figures 5.2(a) and 5.2(b). Therefore, a thorough

40 Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19

Figure 5.2 Laboratory-compacted specimens after Hamburg test completion: (a) top view (b) side view.

analysis of rut depth values obtained from QA PMLC specimens from the same project had different thick-
specimens is required to make an accurate assessment nesses (see Figure 5.3(c–d)). While no apparent differ-
of the rutting and moisture susceptibility of different ences were observed in these cases, in order to assess the
PMLC asphalt mixtures. impact of field core thickness in HWTT evaluations,
a more detailed and controlled analysis may be
5.2.2 Field-Compacted Specimens warranted.

The use of PMFC specimens in I-FIT and HWTT 5.3 Application of I-FIT and HWTT Results in QA
testing has two main advantages. First, field-compacted Applications
specimens are cored soon after construction, therefore
providing a realistic indication of construction quality, Apparent limitations of the I-FIT test highlight
an important consideration when analyzing laboratory challenges that exist in establishing relationships bet-
testing performance data. In addition, field cores do not ween asphalt mixture laboratory and field evaluations.
experience the possible extra stiffening due to reheating. The impact of air voids content and specimen thickness
Thus, the impact of possible extra binder aging is not on FI values are significant, showing higher FI values
an issue. However, the variability of QA field-com- with an increase in air voids content and decrease in
pacted specimens may also be considered a disadvan- specimen thickness. Factors to correct these limitations
tage when trying to assess mixture quality. Field cores have been recommended but have not been comple-
present inherited variability in terms of air voids con- tely successful in removing the limitation. The impor-
tent due to variability in the mat density during con- tance of attaining higher density in the asphalt mat
struction. As observed in this study, the air voids is promoted as a means to improve the durability of
content significantly impacted FI and rut depth. This asphalt pavements. Therefore, further investigations
inherent variability from PMFC specimens could affect should focus on understanding the impacts and cor-
their ability to identify true trends in the asphalt mix- relations between influential factors and cracking
ture quality. parameters.
The diameter and thickness of field-compacted In terms of HWWT results, the clear relationship
specimens can also be a concern. As field-compacted between air voids content and RRI shown previously in
specimens came from multiple sources (projects and Figure 3.48 can be implemented to improve quality
locations), field coring equipment may not have the acceptance and quality assurance specifications. For
exact same characteristics and cored specimens could instance, pay factors relationships are typically based
present slight variabilities from the target 150-mm on empirically weighted volumetric properties (i.e.,
diameter. These discrepancies could affect the ability to VMA, binder content, air voids content, etc.). Rela-
accurately evaluate field-cores, particularly in the tionships that associate volumetric properties with
HWTT device. performance measures can reinforce the correlation
As for field core thickness, if field cores are too thin between the results of the QA evaluations and mixture
(i.e., less than 30 mm), I-FIT results can be significantly quality in the field, thus increasing the capacity for
affected, as FI values are sensitive to specimen thick- more realistically assigning performance-related weights
ness. In terms of HWTT, some 9.5-mm mixtures (used to pay factors formulas. It should be noted that the
for surface layers) are considerably thinner than 60 mm. relationship presented in Figure 3.48 includes both
Therefore, concrete spacers must be fabricated to level PMLC and PMFC, therefore this limitation should be
the field-cores with the HWTT mold surface, as shown considered when conducting appropriate mixture quality
in Figure 5.3(a,b). In a few cases, field-compacted assessments.

Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19 41

Figure 5.3 (a) Thin specimens in molds, (b) use of spacers, (c) field-compacted specimens with different thicknesses before testing,
and (d) field-compacted specimens with different thicknesses after testing.

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.2 Findings

6.1 Summary 1. I-FIT cracking test

The main objectives of this research project were to a. FI values obtained from PMFC specimens were
review the available asphalt mixture cracking and consistently higher than those from their correspond-
rutting laboratory test methodologies for possible use ing PMLC specimens. This discrepancy is attributed
in QC and QA test purposes, gain an understanding of to construction quality variability associated with
how the tests work with INDOT-approved mixtures, PMFC specimens.
and to explore the application of these tests in b. FI values are significantly affected by variations in
performance-related QC and QA methods. The I-FIT specimen thickness and air voids content, having
increased FI values as air voids contents increase and
and HWTT were determined to be the tests of most
specimens become thinner. These observations do not
interest. Two QA specimen types, PMLC and PMFC agree with general material-performance expectations
were used in the determination of cracking and rutting that improved cracking resistance results from lower
parameters. Distribution functions for the FI values air voids contents and a thicker mixture layer, or
and rutting parameters (rut depth, SIP, RRI) were both.
calculated in terms of mixture types with different c. In general, PG 70-22 mixtures have the lowest mean
binder grades. The impact of specimen geometry and FI values, followed by PG 76-22 mixtures. The 64-
air voids content on the calculated FI and rutting 22 mixtures resulted in the highest mean FI values.
parameters were also investigated. The fatigue char- The same relative order is observed from DTc for
acteristics of the asphalt mixtures were determined INDOT’s 2017 and 2018 projects. This observation
may indicate that I-FIT can reasonably detect binder
using the S-VECD test for selected surface mixtures
cracking characteristics in asphalt mixtures.
according to different FI levels for different conditions.
d. Acceptable relationships between the FI values (i.e.,
A typical full-depth pavement section was implemented material level indexes) and fatigue damage predictions
in FlexPAVE to explore the cracking characteristics of (i.e., structure level indexes) from FlexPAVE were
Indiana asphalt mixtures by investigating the relation- observed from specimens having constant air voids
ship between the FI values of QA samples with the content and thickness. These relationships become
FlexPAVE pavement performance predictions. stronger when a single-layer pavement structure is

42 Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19

 implemented in FlexPAVE. These findings indicate employs SMA mixtures for interstate pavements and
that FI values, might assist in understanding pave- poor cracking performance has not been observed.
ment fatigue cracking performance.
e. Due to the unique characteristics of the asphalt 2. The HWTT will not be implemented for quality control
mixtures investigated in this project, the 10th and or quality assurance purposes, since asphalt pavement
20th percentiles of FI values were determined and rutting is currently not a major INDOT concern.
could be used as threshold values to exclude the poorly
performing mixtures relative to cracking performance.
REFERENCES
2. HWTT rutting test AASHTO TP-124. (2018). Standard method of test for
determining the fracture potential of asphalt mixtures using
a. Distributions of rut depth and RRI values obtained
the flexibility index test (FIT). American Association of
from PMLC and PMFC specimens present clear
State Highway and Transportation Officials.
distinctions among the mixtures in terms of high-
temperature binder grades. Mixtures with a lower Al-Qadi, I. L., Ozer, H., Lambros, J., El Khatib, A., Singhvi,
HTPG show higher rut depth values and lower RRI P., Khan, T., Rivera-Perez, J., & Doll, B. (2015, December).
mean values, and in general higher variability than Testing protocols to ensure performance of high asphalt
mixtures with a higher HTPG. The PMFC specimens binder replacement mixes using RAP and RAS (Report No.
have significantly higher rut depth values and lower FWHA-ICT-15-017). Illinois Center for Transportation.
RRI values than the corresponding PMLC specimens, https://apps.ict.illinois.edu/projects/getfile.asp?id53713
likely due to air voids content variations. Al-Qadi, I. L., Wu, S., Lippert, D. L., Ozer, H., Barry, M. K.,
b. The distribution of rut depth among the PMLC & Safi, F. R. (2017). Impact of high recycled mixes on
specimens when subjected to 10,000 and 20,000 passes HMA overlay crack development rate. Road Materials and
indicates that PG 64 mixtures are more susceptible to Pavement Design, 18(sup 4), 311–327. https://doi.org/10.
moisture damage than are PG 70 and PG 76 mixtures. 1080/14680629.2017.1389076
Additionally, the calculated Stripping Inflection Point Aschenbrener, T., Terrel, R. L., & Zamora, R. A. (1994,
(SIP) values of the PMLC specimens indicate higher January). Comparison of the Hamburg wheel-tracking device
moisture damage susceptibility for larger mixture sizes and the environmental conditioning system to pavements of
with softer binders. However, no apparent impact of known stripping performance (Report. No. CDOT-DTD-
mixture size on the SIP is observed from PMFC R-94-1). Colorado Department of Transportation. https://
specimens. www.codot.gov/programs/research/pdfs/1994-research-
c. The 10th and 20th percentiles of different rutting reports/hwtstripping.pdf
parameters could be used as threshold values to Austerman, A. J., Mogawer, W. S., & Stuart, K. D. (2018).
exclude the mixtures having the poorest rutting Influence of production considerations on balanced mixture
characteristics. designs. Transportation Research Record: Journal of Trans-
d. RRIs are well correlated with air voids contents. It portation Research Board, 2672(28), 426–437. Transpor-
was observed that RRI values significantly decrease tation Research Board of the National Academies. https://
for mixtures with 5% air voids content and higher. doi.org/10.1177/0361198118786826
This finding may indicate implementing higher initial Barry, M. K. (2016). An analysis of impact factors on the
pavement densities should help improve asphalt Illinois flexibility index test [Master’s Thesis, University of
pavement rutting performance. Illinois at Urbana-Champaign]. https://www.ideals.illinois.
edu/bitstream/handle/2142/95565/BARRY-THESIS-2016.
pdf?sequence51&isAllowed5y
Batioja-Alvarez, D., Lee, J., & Haddock, J. E. (2019).
6.3 Implementation
Understanding the Illinois Flexibility Index Test (I-FIT)
using Indiana asphalt mixtures. Transportation Research
Given the experimental results of the project, INDOT
Record, Journal of Transportation Research Board, 2673(6),
suggests the following implementation plan: 337–346. Transportation Research Board of the National
1. No implementation of the current I-FIT test for QC or Academies. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198119841282
QA since the FI results can often conflict with observed Chehab, G. R., Kim, Y. R., Schapery, R. A., Witczak, M. W.,
pavement performance. These conflicts include: & Bonaquist, R. (2003). Characterization of asphalt
concrete in uniaxial tension using a viscoelastoplastic
a. Asphalt mixtures with higher densities (lower air continuum damage model. Journal of the Association of
voids contents) have a lower FI (poorer cracking Asphalt Paving Technologists, 72, 315–355.
resistance) than lower density mixtures. This finding Cooper, S. B., III., Mohammad, L. N., Kabir, S., & King, W.,
conflicts with other INDOT research findings. Jr. (2014). Balanced asphalt mixture design through
b. Asphalt mixtures containing polymer modified bin- specification modification: Louisiana’s experience. Trans-
ders (e.g., PG70-22 and PG76-22) have lower FI portation Research Record: Journal of Transportation
values (poorer cracking resistance) than mixtures with Research Board, 2447(1), 92–100. https://doi.org/10.3141/
non-modified binders (e.g., PG64-22). INDOT widely 2447-10
uses polymer modified binders for surface and inter- Daniel, J. S., & Kim, Y. R. (2002). Development of a
mediate coarse mixtures to improve cracking resis- simplified fatigue test and analysis procedure using a
tance on major roadways. viscoelastic, continuum damage model. Journal of the
c. Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA) mixtures have much Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, 71, 619–650.
lower FI values (poorer cracking resistance) than do Doyle, J. D., & Howard, I. L. (2011). Evaluation of the
dense-graded mixtures. However, INDOT widely Cantabro durability test for dense graded asphalt. Paper

Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19 43

 presented at Geo-Frontiers Congress 2011. https://doi.org/ Kim, S., Junan, S., & Jeong, M. M. (2018, February). Effects
10.1061/41165(397)467 of aggregate size on the rutting and stripping resistance of
Committee on Management of Quality Assurance (A2F03). recycled asphalt mixtures. Journal of Materials in Civil
(2002, April). Glossary of highway quality assurance terms Engineering, 30(2). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.
(Transportation Research Circular No. E-C037). Trans- 1943-5533.0002139
portation Research Board. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/online Kutay, M. E., Gibson, N., Youtcheff, J., & Dongré, R. (2009).
pubs/circulars/ec037.pdf Use of small samples to predict fatigue lives of field cores:
FHWA. (2000). Superpave fundamentals reference manual Newly developed formulation based on viscoelastic con-
(NHI Course #131053). U.S. Department of Trans- tinuum damage theory. Transportation Research Record:
portation Federal Highway Administration. http://idot. Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2127(1),
illinois.gov/Assets/uploads/files/Transportation-System/ 90–97. https://doi.org/10.3141/2127-11
Manuals-Guides-&-Handbooks/T2/P028.pdf Lee, H.–J., & Kim, Y. R. (1998, January). Viscoelastic
Gogula, A., Hossein, M., Boyer, J., & Romanoschi, S. A. constitutive model for asphalt concrete under cyclic
(2003). Effect of PG binder grade and source on perfor- loading. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 124(1), 32–40.
mance of Superpave mixtures under Hamburg Wheel https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1998)124:1(32)
Tester. In Proceedings of the 2003 Mid-Continent Trans- Mensching, D. J., Rahbar-Rastegar, R., Underwood, B. S., &
portation Research Symposium. https://pdfs.seman Daniel, J. S. (2016). Identifying indicators for fatigue
ticscholar.org/1c08/562d4368aa13df66b02db70d9d1c00be cracking in hot-mix asphalt pavements using viscoelastic
5281.pdf continuum damage principles. Transportation Research
Indiana Contract Standards. (2006). Section 401 quality Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
control/quality assurance hot mix asphalt, HMA, pavement. 2576(1), 28–39. https://doi.org/10.3141/2576-04
https://www.in.gov/dot/div/contracts/standards/book/ Mohammad, L. N., Kim, M., & Elseifi, M. (2012). Chara-
sep06/4-2006.pdf cterization of asphalt mixture’s fracture resistance using
Hanz, A., Dukatz, E., & Reinke, G. (2017). Use of perfor- the semi-circular bending (SCB) test. In A. Scarpas,
N. Kringos, I. Al-Qadi, A. Loizos (Eds.), 7th RILEM
mance-based testing for high RAP mix design and pro-
international conference on cracking in pavements (pp. 1–10).
duction monitoring. Road Materials and Pavement Design,
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4566-7
18(sup 1), 284–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2016.
Ozer, H., Al-Qadi, I. L., Singhvi, P., Khan, T., Rivera-Perez,
1266766
J., & El-Khatib, A. (2016). Fracture characterization of
Harvey, J. T., & Tsai, B.-W. (1996). Effects of asphalt con-
asphalt mixtures with high recycled content using Illinois
tent and air voids content on mix fatigue and stiffness.
semicircular bending test method and flexibility index.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Trans -
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Trans-
portation Research Board, 1543(1), 38–45. https://doi.org/
portation Research Board, 2575(1), 130–137. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0361198196154300105
10.3141/2575-14
Hou, T., Underwood, B. S., & Kim, Y. R. (2010). Fatigue
Park, H. J. (2013). Investigation of primary causes of load
performance prediction of North Carolina mixtures using related cracking in asphalt concrete pavement in North
simplified viscoelastic continuum damage model. Journal of Carolina [Doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State
the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, 79, 35–80. University].
Jahangiri, B., Majidifard, H., Meister, J., & Buttlar, W. G. Park, H. J., Eslaminia, M., & Kim Y. R. (2014). Mechanistic
(2019). Performance evaluation of asphalt mixtures with evaluation of cracking in in-service asphalt pavements.
reclaimed asphalt pavement and recycled asphalt shingles in Materials and Structures, 47(8), 1339–1358. https://doi.org/
Missouri. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the 10.1617/s11527-014-0307-6
Transportation Research Board, 2673(2), 392–403. https:// Patni, A. (2009, May). Glossary of highway quality assurance
doi.org/10.1177/0361198119825638 terms, 4th update (Transportation Research Circular E-
Kandhal, P. S., & Cooley, L., Jr. (2002). Coarse-versus fine- C137). Transportation Research Board of the National
graded Superpave mixtures: Comparative evaluation of Academies. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/
resistance to rutting. Transportation Research Record: ec137.pdf
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1789(1), Rivera-Perez, J., Ozer, H., & Al-Qadi, I. L. (2018). Impact of
216–224. https://doi.org/10.3141/1789-24 specimen configuration and characteristics on Illinois
Kaseer, F., Yin, F., Arámbula-Mercado, E., Martin, A. E., Flexibility Index. Transportation Research Record: Journal
Daniel, J. S., & Salari, S. (2018). Development of an index of Transportation Research Board, 2672(28), 383–393.
to evaluate the cracking potential of asphalt mixtures using https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198118792114
the semi-circular bending test. Construction and Building Sabouri, M., & Kim Y. R. (2014). Development of failure
Materials, 167, 286–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. criterion for asphalt mixtures under different modes of
conbuildmat.2018.02.014 fatigue loading. Research Record: Journal of the Trans-
Kassem, E., Masad E., Lytton, R., & Chowdhury, A. (2011, portation Research Board, 2447(1), 117–125. https://doi.org/
October 17). Influence of air voids on mechanical properties 10.3141/2447-13
of asphalt mixtures. Road Materials and Pavement Design, Sel, I., Yildirim, Y., & Ozhan, H. B. (2014, August). Effect of
12(3), 493–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2011. test temperature on Hamburg wheel-tracking device testing.
9695258 ASCE Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 26(8).
Kim, M., Mohammad, L., & Elseifi, M. A. (2012). Char- https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001036
acterization of fracture properties of asphalt mixtures Underwood, B. S., Kim, Y. R., & Guddati, M. N. (2010).
as measured by semicircular bend test and indirect ten- Improved calculation method of damage parameter in
sion test. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the viscoelastic continuum damage model. International Journal
Transportation Research Board, 2296, 115–124. https://doi. of Pavement Engineering, 11(6), 459–476. https://doi.org/10.
org/10.3141/2296-12 1080/10298430903398088

44 Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19

Wang, Y. D., Keshavarzi, B., & Kim, Y. R. (2018, March 29). Zhou, F., Im, S., Hu, S., Newcomb, D., & Scullion, T. (2017).
Fatigue performance prediction of asphalt pavements with Selection and preliminary evaluation of laboratory cracking
FlexPAVE, the SVECD Model, and DR failure criterion. tests for routine asphalt mix designs. Journal of Association
Transportation Research Record, Journal of Transpor- of Asphalt Paving Technologists, 85(Sup 1), 62–86. https://
tation Research Board, 2672(40), 217–227. https://doi.org/ doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2016.1266741
10.1177/0361198118756873 Zhou, F., Hu, S., & Scullion, T. (2012). Balanced RAP/RAS
Wang, Y., & Kim, Y. R. (2017). Development of a pseudo mix design and performance evaluation system for project-
strain energy-based fatigue failure criterion for asphalt mix- specific service conditions (Report No. FHWA/TX-13/0-
tures. International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 20(10), 6092-3). Texas Department of Transportation. Research
1182–1192. https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2017.1394100 and Technology Implementation Office. https://static.tti.
Zhang, W., Shihui, S., Wu, S., & Mohammad, L. N. (2017, tamu.edu/tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-6092-3.pdf
September). Prediction model for field rut depth of asphalt Zhou, F. (2019, January). Development of an IDEAL cracking
pavement based on Hamburg wheel tracking test pro- test for asphalt mix design, quality control and quality
perties. ASCE Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, assurance (NCHRP-IDEA Program Project Final Report
29(9). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533. 195). Transportation Research Board of the National
0001946 Academies.

Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19 45

APPENDICES

Appendix A. Information on Evaluated Projects

Appendix B. I-Fit from Laboratory-Compacted Specimens

Appendix C. I-Fit Data from Field-Compacted Specimens

Appendix D. Hamburg Wheel Track Test Data for Laboratory-Compacted Specimens

Appendix E. Hamburg Wheel Track Test Data for Field-Compacted Specimens

Appendix F. Dynamic Modulus Data for Field-Compacted Specimens

Appendix G. S-VECD Data

Appendix H. Bending Beam Rheometer and Delta Tc Data

46 Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19

APPENDIX A. INFORMATION ON EVALUATED PROJECTS

Table A.1 Evaluated Projects

No. Binder NMAS,

Project DMF District Pavement Layer PG Content, % ABR, % RAP, % RAS, % mm VMA VFA Gyrations Gmm
1 161113 Crawfordsville Surface 64-22 6.3 21.4 25.0 0 9.5 15.8 74.7 100 2.52
2 161618 Crawfordsville Surface 64-22 6.0 17.0 17.0 0 9.5 15.8 74.7 100 2.55
3 161112D Crawfordsville Intermediate/Base 64-22 5.7 23.4 34.5 0 12.5 15.5 74.2 100 2.53
4 181552-64 Crawfordsville Surface 64-22 6.2 17.7 20.5 0 9.5 100
5 181800 Crawfordsville Base 64-22 4.2 18.1 20.0 0 25.0 13.4 70.1 100 2.50
6 181105-64 Crawfordsville Base 64-22 4.7 17.6 35.0 0 25.0 13.6 70.6 75 2.56
7 181700-64 Crawfordsville Surface 64-22 6.4 15.0 19.5 0 9.5 15.4 74.0 100 2.46
8 181115-70 Crawfordsville Intermediate/Base 70-22 5.1 24.1 29.5 0 19.0 13.5 70.4 100 2.57
9 181602-70 Crawfordsville Intermediate/Base 70-22 4.9 23.9 30.0 0 19.0 14.0 71.4 100 2.58
10 181259 Crawfordsville Intermediate/Base 70-22 4.9 23.8 32.0 0 19.0 13.2 69.7 100 2.50
11 181701-70 Crawfordsville Intermediate/Base 70-22 5.2 20.1 19.0 0 19.0 14.2 71.8 75 2.40
12 181121-70 Crawfordsville Surface 70-22 6.1 24.3 26.0 0 9.5 16.6 69.9 50 2.54
13 181155 Crawfordsville Surface 70-22 6.5 15.2 19.0 0 9.5 15.5 74.2 100 2.49
14 181700-76 Crawfordsville Surface 76-22 6.4 15.0 19.5 0 9.5 15.4 74.0 100 2.46
15 181802-76 Crawfordsville Surface 76-22 6.3 13.7 20.0 0 9.5 16.1 75.2 100 2.46
16 181115-76 Crawfordsville Intermediate/Base 76-22 5.1 24.1 29.5 0 19.0 100
17 182764-70 Fort Wayne Intermediate 70-22 6.7 24.6 25.0 0 9.5 15.8 74.7 100 2.48
18 182284 Fort Wayne Surface 70-22 6.6 11.4 10.0 0 9.5 16.6 75.9 100 2.54
19 182766 Fort Wayne Surface 70-22 6.9 20.0 20.0 0 9.5 15.8 74.7 100 2.45
20 183545 Greenfield Intermediate/Base 64-22 5.2 22.1 24.5 0 19.0 14.0 71.4 100 2.54
21 183653 Greenfield Intermediate/Base 64-22 5.2 21.0 26.2 0 19.0 13.7 70.8 100 2.49
22 183451 Greenfield Intermediate/Base 64-22 5.1 21.5 25.0 0 19.0 13.8 71.0 75 2.50
23 183413-64 Greenfield Intermediate/Base 64-22 5.4 15.4 21.0 0 19.0 14.7 66.0 50 2.49
24 183204-64 Greenfield Intermediate/Base 64-22 4.8 21.6 23.0 0 19.0 13.8 70.8 75 2.50
25 183561 Greenfield Intermediate/Base 64-22 4.8 24.1 31.0 0 19.0 13.3 69.9 100 2.51
26 183511 Greenfield Intermediate/Base 64-22 5.4 17.9 17.0 0 19.0 13.8 71.0 100 2.50
27 183404 Greenfield Surface 64-22 6.0 18.7 20.0 0 9.5 15.3 73.9 100 2.52
28 173802 Greenfield Surface 70-22 6.3 9.8 10.0 0 9.5 15.9 74.8 100 2.54
29 173813 Greenfield Intermediate/Base 70-22 5.5 20.4 19.0 0 19.0 13.7 70.8 100 2.50
30 183300-70-9.5 Greenfield Surface 70-22 6.0 24.5 28.0 0 9.5 15.6 74.4 100 2.46
31 183351 Greenfield Intermediate/Base 70-22 5.4 21.8 28.0 0 19.0 13.9 71.2 75 2.48
32 183525 Greenfield Surface 70-22 6.0 20.6 11.0 0 12.5 14.6 72.6 100 2.47

A-1
33 183805-T Greenfield Surface 70-22 6.2 7.7 8.0 0 12.5 15.0 73.3 100 2.49
34 183804-G Greenfield Surface 70-22 6.0 8.0 8.0 0 12.5 14.9 73.2 100 2.48
No. Pavement Binder ABR, RAP, RAS, NMAS,
Project DMF District Layer PG Content, % % % % mm VMA VFA Gyrations Gmm
35 183204-70 Greenfield Intermediate/Base 70-22 4.8 21.6 23.0 0 19.0 13.8 70.8 75 2.50
36 183573 Greenfield Surface 70-22 6.4 23.0 14.0 3 12.5 14.8 73.0 100 2.47
37 183513 Greenfield Surface 70-22 6.3 9.8 10.0 0 9.5 15.9 74.8 100 2.54
38 183457 Greenfield OG 70-22 3.3 23.0 12.0 3 19.0 20 2.55
39 183701D Greenfield Surface 70-22 6.3 20.4 23.0 0 12.5 15.2 73.7 100 2.48
40 183413-70 Greenfield Intermediate/Base 70-22 5.4 15.4 21.0 0 19.0 14.7 66.0 50 2.49
41 183453 Greenfield Intermediate/Base 70-22 5.0 20.6 24.0 0 19.0 13.7 70.8 100 2.50
42 183776 Greenfield Surface 76-22 5.9 16.5 18.0 0 12.5 15.2 73.7 100 2.45
43 183519 Greenfield Surface 76-22 6.3 20.7 11.0 0 12.5 14.1 71.6 125 2.44
44 183412T-76 Greenfield Surface 76-22 5.7 22.7 24.0 0 9.5 16.2 69.1 50 2.52
45 183412-70 Greenfield Surface 76-22 5.7 22.7 24.0 0 9.5 16.2 69.1 50 2.52
46 183205 Greenfield Surface 76-22 6.0 22.5 19.0 0 12.5 14.9 72.9 100 2.45
47 183456 Greenfield Surface 76-22 6.0 7.0 4.2 0 12.5
48 174457D LaPorte Surface 64-22 6.8 8.0 10.0 0 9.5 100
49 184560 LaPorte Base/Intermediate 64-22 5.3 13.5 17.0 0 19.0 14.2 71.8 100 2.56
50 184052 LaPorte Intermediate/Base 64-22 4.8 23.5 23.0 0 19.0 14.0 71.4 100 2.53
51 181004 LaPorte Surface 70-22 6.5 15.2 19.0 0 9.5 15.5 74.2 100 2.49
52 184355 LaPorte Surface 70-22 6.8 19.1 22.0 0 9.5 15.5 74.2 100 2.46
53 184057 LaPorte Surface 70-22 6.5 20.0 22.0 0 9.5 16.5 75.8 100 2.46
54 184553 LaPorte Surface 70-22 6.0 10.3 15.0 0 9.5 16.5 75.8 100 2.47
55 184357 LaPorte Surface 76-22 6.0 23.6 24.0 0 9.5 15.3 73.9 100 2.51
56 184258 LaPorte Surface 76-22 6.0 16.9 23.0 0 12.5 100
57 184557 LaPorte Surface 76-22 6.0 14.0 20.0 0 12.5 15.1 73.5 100 2.50
58 175316 Seymour Surface 64-22 5.9 12.2 15.0 0 9.5 15.0 73.3 100 2.47
59 175322 Seymour Surface 64-22 6.3 15.2 20.0 0 9.5 16.0 75.0 100 2.47
60 175313 Seymour Intermediate/Base 64-22 4.7 14.0 15.0 0 19.0 14.0 71.4 100 2.51
61 185249 Seymour Surface 64-22 5.7 17.5 20.0 0 9.5 15.4 74.0 50 2.46
62 185241 Seymour Base/Intermediate 64-22 4.6 20.9 28.0 0 19.0 13.6 70.6 75 2.50
63 185265 Seymour Surface 64-22 6.0 13.3 19.7 0 9.5 15.4 74.0 100 2.46
64 185206 Seymour Surface 64-22 6.7 17.3 20.0 0 9.5 15.4 74.0 100 2.45
65 185242 Seymour Intermediate/Base 64-22 4.6 15.7 18.0 0 19.0 13.6 70.6 100 2.50
66 185267 Seymour Surface 76-22 5.6 8.6 8.0 0 9.5 15.7 74.5 125 2.65
67 186703 Vincennes Surface 64-22 6.4 11.3 12.0 0 9.5 15.8 74.7 100 2.44
68 186115-64 Vincennes Intermediate/Base 64-22 5.0 17.6 20.0 0 19.0 13.8 71.0 100 2.49
69 186404-64 Vincennes Intermediate/Base 64-22 4.7 25.0 25.0 0 19.0 14.0 71.4 75 2.47
70 186116 Vincennes Surface 70-22 7.0 7.7 0.0 3 9.5 16.0 74.8 100 2.46

A-2
71 186404-70 Vincennes Base/Intermediate 70-22 4.6 25.0 29.7 0 19.0 14.0 71.4 75 2.47
72 186115-70 Vincennes Intermediate/Base 70-22 5.0 17.6 20.0 0 19.0 13.8 71.0 100 2.49

A-3
APPENDIX B. I-FIT FROM LABORATORY-COMPACTED SPECIMENS

Table B.1 I-FIT Data for PMLC Specimens

Specimen Ligament Thickness Air Voids Peak

Thickness, Length, Strength, Corrected Corrected Load,
DMF Pavement Layer PG Sample Air Voids, % mm mm FE Psi Slope FI FI FI Kn CRI

186116 Surface 70-22 PA 3.45 47.05 55.49 2344 94.9 -5.2 4.5 4.3 8.3 4.3 540

186116 Surface 70-22 PB 4.17 46.85 59.09 3021 110.0 -5.9 5.1 4.8 7.8 5.3 574

186116 Surface 70-22 PD 3.48 48.80 64.16 4145 118.4 -6.6 6.3 6.1 11.9 6.3 657

186116 Surface 70-22 PE 2.65 43.83 56.90 3848 114.6 -5.1 7.5 6.6 16.6 5.0 773

186116 Surface 70-22 PG 2.59 44.65 58.27 4081 120.5 -5.4 7.5 6.7 17.3 5.4 751

186116 Surface 70-22 PH 3.78 44.44 55.96 1637 105.2 -3.5 4.7 4.2 7.5 4.6 358

183805-T Surface 70-22 8-1B 2.26 50.88 59.61 2968 126.8 -10.0 3.0 3.0 9.0 6.6 447

183805-T Surface 70-22 8-1C 2.39 54.08 61.60 3818 125.1 -10.6 3.6 3.9 10.9 7.1 534

183805-T Surface 70-22 8-1D 1.96 51.68 60.57 3009 116.4 -10.6 2.9 2.9 10.0 6.3 480

183805-T Surface 70-22 PB 1.01 52.04 60.85 2945 107.6 -8.8 3.4 3.5 22.8 5.9 503

183805-T Surface 70-22 PD 1.37 51.77 58.46 3159 107.4 -8.4 3.7 3.9 18.7 5.6 561

183804-G Surface 70-22 PA 2.85 50.76 58.63 2964 123.5 -11.0 2.7 2.7 6.4 6.4 466

183804-G Surface 70-22 PE 3.60 51.31 57.60 2319 115.2 -17.9 1.3 1.3 2.5 5.9 392

183804-G Surface 70-22 PF 3.01 50.97 57.03 2549 112.3 -11.0 2.3 2.4 5.3 5.7 448

183804-G Surface 70-22 PH 2.18 49.33 56.99 2364 114.1 -15.1 1.6 1.5 4.7 5.6 423

175316 Surface 64-22 1-5B 3.02 50.32 59.62 2831 116.1 -9.3 3.1 3.1 6.9 6.1 465

175316 Surface 64-22 1-5C 3.86 49.93 58.77 2533 107.2 -8.5 3.0 3.0 5.2 5.4 465

175316 Surface 64-22 1-5D 3.84 50.91 57.78 2612 101.0 -6.5 4.0 4.1 7.2 5.2 506

175316 Surface 64-22 2-2A 2.50 50.91 59.04 2121 100.5 -9.2 2.3 2.3 6.2 5.3 397

175316 Surface 64-22 2-2B 2.84 49.63 58.93 2018 104.9 -9.4 2.1 2.1 5.0 5.4 372

175316 Surface 64-22 2-3A 2.44 49.79 62.40 2958 112.1 -12.6 2.4 2.3 6.4 5.8 508

181105-64 Base 64-22 2-1B 5.26 50.49 57.12 3075 79.9 -3.1 10.0 10.1 13.2 4.0 766

181105-64 Base 64-22 2-1D 5.63 50.92 60.12 2365 58.4 -1.6 15.0 15.2 18.7 3.1 768

181105-64 Base 64-22 2-2A 2.90 50.56 57.43 3419 97.2 -4.6 7.4 7.5 17.2 4.9 697

B-1
181105-64 Base 64-22 2-2B 2.38 49.86 58.76 3840 111.9 -4.2 9.1 9.1 25.5 5.7 677

181105-64 Base 64-22 2-2C 3.22 50.66 59.65 3541 102.0 -4.5 7.9 8.0 16.7 5.3 665

183776 Surface 76-22 3-1A 4.84 51.08 60.30 3069 97.6 -4.7 6.6 6.7 9.5 5.0 611

183776 Surface 76-22 3-1B 4.17 50.87 59.07 3060 108.3 -6.9 4.4 4.5 7.3 5.6 544

183776 Surface 76-22 3-1D 3.74 50.56 57.16 3301 109.7 -9.8 3.4 3.4 6.1 5.5 598

183776 Surface 76-22 3-3A 2.82 50.57 61.34 3455 119.4 -10.4 3.3 3.4 8.0 6.4 543

183776 Surface 76-22 3-3B 4.07 50.37 56.83 2846 91.3 -4.1 7.0 7.0 11.8 4.6 624

183776 Surface 76-22 3-3C 4.43 51.83 63.45 4153 121.8 -6.3 6.6 6.9 10.6 6.8 608

183351 Intermediate/Base 70-22 1-3b 3.94 50.97 56.93 2239 107.5 -10.5 2.1 2.2 3.7 5.4 412

183351 Intermediate/Base 70-22 1-3c 3.38 49.71 59.90 2977 115.5 -10.8 2.8 2.7 5.5 5.9 502

183351 Intermediate/Base 70-22 1-3d 4.14 49.46 58.42 2361 106.4 -8.5 2.8 2.8 4.5 5.3 443

183351 Intermediate/Base 70-22 1-4a 7.86 50.12 60.11 3118 116.5 -8.3 3.7 3.7 3.4 6.0 516

183351 Intermediate/Base 70-22 1-4c 7.06 51.58 56.98 2543 97.0 -6.3 4.0 4.1 4.1 5.0 512

183351 Intermediate/Base 70-22 1-4d 7.35 50.30 60.47 2432 106.9 -7.4 3.3 3.3 5.6 4.1 600

181802-76 Surface 76-22 4-1b 3.43 51.40 56.82 1285 110.5 -18.7 0.7 0.7 1.4 5.6 228

181802-76 Surface 76-22 4-1C 3.54 51.09 63.20 2056 141.1 -32.0 0.6 0.7 1.2 7.8 265

181802-76 Surface 76-22 4-1D 2.85 50.65 58.52 1817 122.4 -32.8 0.6 0.6 1.3 6.3 289

181802-76 Surface 76-22 4-2A 2.04 51.47 59.94 2664 127.4 -18.9 1.4 1.5 4.7 6.8 393

181802-76 Surface 76-22 4-2B 2.36 51.15 60.96 2180 119.9 -29.8 0.7 0.7 2.1 6.4 339

181800 Base 64-22 1-1A 0.56 50.68 57.43 2109 112.6 -14.1 1.4 1.4 16.7 5.7 370

181800 Base 64-22 1-1C 0.67 50.52 58.90 2173 118.5 -12.4 1.8 1.8 17.3 6.1 356

181800 Base 64-22 1-1D 0.82 50.30 56.65 2169 110.0 -15.0 1.5 1.5 11.7 5.5 397

181800 Base 64-22 1-2B 1.71 50.91 56.08 2158 106.9 -12.7 1.7 1.7 6.7 5.3 405

181800 Base 64-22 1-2C 1.17 51.48 59.88 2770 118.2 -10.2 2.7 2.8 15.6 6.3 441

181700-76 Surface 76-22 1-2B 3.87 50.28 57.79 3040 105.4 -6.0 5.1 5.1 8.9 5.3 571

181700-76 Surface 76-22 1-2C 3.64 51.33 60.45 3809 117.0 -5.4 7.1 7.3 13.5 6.2 610

181700-76 Surface 76-22 1-2D 4.26 50.97 59.17 3217 97.0 -5.1 6.3 6.4 10.2 5.1 636

181700-76 Surface 76-22 1-3A 3.08 50.53 58.04 3589 120.3 -7.3 4.9 4.9 10.8 6.1 586

181700-76 Surface 76-22 1-3B 3.27 50.34 60.67 3849 118.6 -5.6 6.8 6.9 14.1 6.2 618

181700-76 Surface 76-22 1-3C 3.80 50.86 61.68 3558 116.5 -6.8 5.2 5.3 9.4 6.3 567

B-2
181552-64 Surface 64-22 2-2A 1.67 51.40 58.36 2733 113.2 -7.4 3.7 3.8 15.0 5.9 464

181552-64 Surface 64-22 2-2B 1.05 49.93 59.44 2738 121.7 -11.8 2.3 2.3 14.5 6.2 439

181552-64 Surface 64-22 2-2C 1.46 51.10 56.94 2440 112.1 -10.5 2.3 2.4 10.7 5.7 430

181552-64 Surface 64-22 2-2D 1.45 50.48 59.77 3084 127.4 -10.4 3.0 3.0 13.7 6.6 465

181552-64 Surface 64-22 2-3B 3.19 51.01 58.72 3333 120.9 -7.9 4.2 4.3 9.1 6.3 532

181552-64 Surface 64-22 2-3D 2.15 51.26 62.26 3281 141.2 -13.5 2.4 2.5 7.7 7.7 425

181115-70 Intermediate/Base 70-22 3-1A 4.84 51.08 60.30 3069 97.6 -4.7 6.6 6.7 9.5 5.0 611

181115-70 Intermediate/Base 70-22 3-1B 4.17 50.87 59.07 3060 108.3 -6.9 4.4 4.5 7.3 5.6 544

181115-70 Intermediate/Base 70-22 3-1D 3.74 50.56 57.16 3301 109.7 -9.8 3.4 3.4 6.1 5.5 598

181115-70 Intermediate/Base 70-22 3-3A 2.82 50.57 61.34 3455 119.4 -10.4 3.3 3.4 8.0 6.4 543

181115-70 Intermediate/Base 70-22 3-3B 4.07 50.37 56.83 2846 91.3 -4.1 7.0 7.0 11.8 4.6 624

181115-70 Intermediate/Base 70-22 3-3C 4.43 51.83 63.45 4153 121.8 -6.3 6.6 6.9 10.6 6.8 608

181115-76 Intermediate/Base 76-22 PA 2.11 50.48 56.67 3202 110.9 -6.1 5.2 5.3 16.7 5.5 579

181115-76 Intermediate/Base 76-22 PB 4.56 49.30 59.35 3689 108.8 -5.0 7.4 7.3 10.9 5.5 671

181115-76 Intermediate/Base 76-22 PC 2.16 51.94 53.73 3576 107.5 -6.2 13.8 14.3 44.2 5.3 676

183653 Intermediate/Base 64-22 2-3A 1.68 50.88 60.94 3883 109.3 -5.5 7.1 7.2 28.4 5.8 667

183653 Intermediate/Base 64-22 2-3C 1.44 49.37 58.63 3395 110.2 -4.8 7.1 7.0 32.1 5.5 615

183653 Intermediate/Base 64-22 2-3D 1.56 51.86 62.60 3027 99.5 -4.8 6.3 6.5 27.8 4.7 640

183653 Intermediate/Base 64-22 3-1B 5.33 51.81 60.22 3594 85.3 -3.2 11.2 11.6 15.0 4.6 784

183653 Intermediate/Base 64-22 3-1C 4.58 51.22 58.96 3671 83.2 -2.5 14.6 14.9 22.3 4.3 844

183653 Intermediate/Base 64-22 3-1D 6.46 50.20 62.21 3943 87.2 -2.5 15.8 15.8 17.1 4.7 846

185265 Surface 64-22 PB 2.27 49.75 56.63 2871 112.7 -7.1 4.1 4.0 11.9 5.5 518

185265 Surface 64-22 PC 1.94 51.35 61.96 2964 117.1 -10.2 2.9 3.0 10.2 6.4 464

185265 Surface 64-22 PD 2.36 50.42 60.17 3403 130.6 -11.4 3.0 3.0 8.4 6.4 534

185265 Surface 64-22 PF 2.19 48.45 61.21 3129 118.5 -9.3 3.4 3.3 10.0 6.1 513

185265 Surface 64-22 PG 3.54 51.45 59.80 3312 128.7 -12.0 2.8 2.8 5.4 6.8 485

185265 Surface 64-22 PH 2.53 49.64 58.55 3034 116.5 -7.3 4.2 4.1 10.9 5.9 517

185265 Surface 64-22 PI 2.43 50.49 60.63 3489 126.4 -9.0 3.9 3.9 10.8 6.7 524

161113 Surface 64-22 2-3A 3.19 50.54 57.90 2318 126.1 -13.0 1.8 1.8 3.8 6.6 349

161113 Surface 64-22 2-3F 2.40 52.07 57.93 2357 129.4 -15.0 1.6 1.6 4.5 7.0 335

B-3
161113 Surface 64-22 1-5A 3.12 49.99 54.91 3187 124.4 -9.9 3.2 3.2 7.0 6.0 532

161113 Surface 64-22 4-1A. 2.90 50.28 56.22 2461 126.9 -19.3 1.3 1.3 3.0 6.7 370

161113 Surface 64-22 4-1B. 2.12 50.07 59.48 3114 140.5 -18.8 1.7 1.7 5.2 7.3 424

161113 Surface 64-22 4-1C1 2.34 51.02 59.10 2514 140.3 -36.0 0.7 0.7 2.0 7.5 337

161113 Surface 64-22 4-1D1 1.80 50.45 57.58 2631 136.6 -33.2 0.8 0.8 2.9 7.2 366

161618 Surface 64-22 1-1C 3.97 49.70 64.06 4305 130.6 -7.1 6.1 6.0 10.3 6.8 636

161618 Surface 64-22 2-2A 4.81 49.82 57.70 3190 111.8 -6.8 4.7 4.7 6.6 5.8 549

161618 Surface 64-22 2-2C 3.18 40.98 56.79 3318 122.7 -6.0 5.5 4.5 9.5 5.2 633

161618 Surface 64-22 2-2D 3.98 39.76 55.72 3360 122.7 -7.5 4.5 3.6 6.1 5.1 660

161618 Surface 64-22 2-2E 3.78 49.73 59.60 3645 117.3 -7.1 4.9 4.8 8.7 6.1 599

161618 Surface 64-22 2-2F 4.25 51.51 58.81 3727 122.0 -7.6 4.9 5.0 8.0 6.6 569

173802 Surface 70-22 A 3.96 41.31 57.64 2375 127.9 -13.9 1.7 1.4 2.4 5.3 449

173802 Surface 70-22 B 3.95 41.31 58.26 2517 118.2 -12.4 2.0 1.7 2.9 4.9 510

173802 Surface 70-22 C 3.42 37.86 58.03 2135 126.5 -14.0 1.5 1.2 2.3 4.8 443

173802 Surface 70-22 D 3.81 31.14 58.62 2039 121.3 -9.4 2.2 1.3 2.4 3.8 532

173802 Surface 70-22 E 3.27 31.39 59.73 2744 142.7 -12.5 2.2 1.4 2.8 4.6 595

173802 Surface 70-22 H 4.14 50.41 57.93 1995 116.4 -14.9 1.3 1.4 2.2 5.9 338

173802 Surface 70-22 J 3.41 49.18 59.07 2081 116.9 -16.1 1.3 1.3 2.5 5.9 354

173813 Intermediate/Base 70-22 4-1A 5.05 49.81 59.56 2321 93.6 -5.3 4.4 4.4 5.9 4.8 484

173813 Intermediate/Base 70-22 4-1B 4.00 49.32 56.97 2327 102.9 -7.9 2.9 2.9 4.9 5.0 462

173813 Intermediate/Base 70-22 4-1D 3.87 48.94 59.35 2594 104.3 -9.2 2.8 2.8 4.9 5.2 496

173813 Intermediate/Base 70-22 813A 3.97 44.29 59.48 2426 116.5 -9.3 2.6 2.3 3.9 5.4 451

173813 Intermediate/Base 70-22 813C 3.98 48.92 59.64 2672 120.6 -14.0 1.9 1.9 3.2 6.2 434

173813 Intermediate/Base 70-22 1-1B 2.26 50.02 59.16 2710 119.7 -14.0 1.9 2.0 5.8 6.1 443

173813 Intermediate/Base 70-22 1-1C 1.99 49.79 58.48 1909 103.4 -13.8 1.4 1.4 4.6 5.2 366

175313 Intermediate/Base 64-22 313A 3.00 46.11 58.33 1651 120.0 -29.2 0.6 0.6 1.2 5.8 286

175313 Intermediate/Base 64-22 313B 3.76 50.35 57.43 1642 116.0 -22.8 0.7 0.7 1.3 6.1 270

175313 Intermediate/Base 64-22 313E 2.91 48.62 59.75 1897 120.1 -17.4 1.1 1.1 2.4 6.1 312

175313 Intermediate/Base 64-22 313F 3.96 52.42 59.50 1784 99.4 -10.1 1.8 1.9 3.2 5.4 328

175313 Intermediate/Base 64-22 4-1A 3.67 49.99 59.08 1998 102.8 -10.3 1.9 1.9 3.6 5.2 381

B-4
175313 Intermediate/Base 64-22 4-1B 2.97 49.70 59.40 1970 111.1 -9.8 2.0 2.0 4.5 5.7 348

175313 Intermediate/Base 64-22 4-1C 3.29 50.16 57.85 1961 111.6 -11.3 1.7 1.7 3.6 5.6 349

175313 Intermediate/Base 64-22 4-1D 3.00 49.80 58.96 2042 111.3 -16.4 1.3 1.2 2.8 5.7 361

175313 Intermediate/Base 64-22 4-1F 3.81 37.63 61.33 2331 119.7 -14.8 1.6 1.2 2.1 4.7 492

175322 Surface 64-22 5-1A 4.00 48.96 58.10 3329 100.4 -5.0 6.6 6.5 11.1 5.0 672

175322 Surface 64-22 5-1B 3.67 51.07 58.21 3034 101.8 -5.5 5.5 5.7 10.5 5.2 578

175322 Surface 64-22 5-1C 1.05 52.57 59.62 2460 126.0 -18.7 1.3 1.4 8.6 6.8 361

175322 Surface 64-22 5-1D 1.37 51.66 57.95 1925 107.1 -8.7 2.2 2.3 11.0 5.6 346

175322 Surface 64-22 4-5A 4.34 50.49 57.58 2719 102.4 -6.9 4.0 4.0 6.3 5.2 526

175322 Surface 64-22 4-5E 4.95 50.70 60.57 1792 71.9 -5.2 3.5 3.5 4.9 3.8 472

175322 Surface 64-22 4-5F 6.37 51.16 56.07 2387 85.0 -4.5 5.3 5.5 6.0 4.3 560

175322 Surface 64-22 A 4.01 51.81 57.09 2688 98.9 -5.2 5.2 5.3 9.0 5.1 528

174457D Surface 64-22 8-4A 2.69 50.38 57.30 3698 92.3 -3.7 10.1 10.1 25.2 4.8 763

174457D Surface 64-22 8-4B 2.21 49.88 58.58 3765 107.9 -4.2 9.0 9.0 27.1 5.6 671

174457D Surface 64-22 8-6A 3.61 51.44 60.08 4282 82.8 -2.5 17.4 17.9 33.5 4.4 965

174457D Surface 64-22 8-6e 2.19 51.26 59.00 4091 85.8 -2.4 17.0 17.5 53.1 4.6 892

174457D Surface 64-22 8-6f 2.84 50.08 58.61 4348 86.1 -2.7 16.3 16.3 38.5 4.5 967

161112D Intermediate/Base 64-22 2-2A 2.64 49.92 61.22 3593 131.3 -8.0 4.5 4.5 11.3 6.8 526

161112D Intermediate/Base 64-22 2-2B 2.56 48.95 58.02 3031 126.9 -9.2 3.3 3.2 8.4 6.5 468

161112D Intermediate/Base 64-22 2-2C 2.49 37.89 56.11 2610 125.3 -12.2 2.1 1.6 4.4 5.0 527

161112D Intermediate/Base 64-22 2-2E 2.77 50.72 60.03 2974 131.0 -17.3 1.7 1.7 4.2 6.9 429

161112D Intermediate/Base 64-22 2-2G 4.05 36.34 58.23 2727 137.1 -26.7 1.1 0.8 1.3 5.2 525

161112D Intermediate/Base 64-22 2-2H 4.11 36.51 60.98 3200 126.0 -8.6 3.7 2.7 4.5 4.8 667

183300 Surface 70-22 1-2 PA 5.42 52.95 59.03 2113 116.8 -13.7 1.6 1.6 2.1 5.8 364

183300 Surface 70-22 1-2 PB 5.92 51.90 57.04 2030 122.2 -30.3 0.7 0.7 0.8 6.2 327

183300 Surface 70-22 1-2 PC 4.55 52.03 55.75 1841 115.6 -18.0 0.5 0.6 0.8 5.6 329

185267 Surface 76-22 2-2A 3.84 50.81 58.21 3228 117.7 -6.8 4.7 4.8 8.5 6.0 535

185267 Surface 76-22 2-2C 2.87 51.43 57.70 3761 123.1 -7.7 4.9 5.0 11.7 6.3 593

185267 Surface 76-22 2-3A 2.82 50.89 58.52 3597 119.7 -6.1 5.9 6.0 14.3 6.2 583

185267 Surface 76-22 2-3B 3.01 51.76 55.93 3653 117.0 -5.7 6.5 6.7 14.9 5.9 617

B-5
185267 Surface 76-22 2-3C 3.45 50.63 58.77 4378 123.2 -4.9 9.0 9.1 17.7 6.3 690

185267 Surface 76-22 2-3D 3.89 50.84 56.55 3400 112.1 -6.0 5.6 5.7 10.0 5.6 605

185249 Surface 64-22 1-4B 2.10 51.13 59.85 3462 108.5 -6.7 5.2 5.3 16.7 5.7 605

185249 Surface 64-22 1-4C 2.76 50.49 55.77 2838 98.3 -5.3 5.3 5.4 13.0 4.8 586

185249 Surface 64-22 1-4D 2.07 50.81 59.21 3001 97.9 -4.9 6.1 6.2 20.0 5.1 589

185249 Surface 64-22 1-5A 2.66 51.99 60.15 3207 114.4 -6.5 4.9 5.1 12.9 6.2 520

185249 Surface 64-22 1-5B 2.66 50.52 61.07 3379 110.7 -6.2 5.5 5.5 13.9 5.9 576

185249 Surface 64-22 1-5C 2.28 52.59 54.79 2772 100.8 -5.5 5.1 5.3 15.6 5.1 543

183525 Surface 70-22 1-1B 4.15 51.58 58.17 1146 105.2 -28.5 0.4 0.4 0.7 5.5 209

183525 Surface 70-22 1-1C 4.11 51.27 57.17 1292 98.6 -17.5 0.7 0.8 1.3 5.0 257

183525 Surface 70-22 1-1D 4.84 50.34 58.49 1367 100.1 -26.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 5.1 268

183525 Surface 70-22 1-2B 5.25 50.45 55.74 1475 92.8 -10.3 1.4 1.4 1.9 4.6 323

183525 Surface 70-22 1-2C 5.30 49.99 58.92 1615 98.5 -12.3 1.3 1.3 1.7 5.0 322

183525 Surface 70-22 1-2D 4.91 51.45 58.13 1520 103.7 -13.8 1.1 1.1 1.6 5.4 283

183545 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-1A 5.12 50.73 58.80 1432 103.6 -15.6 0.9 0.9 1.3 5.4 268

183545 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-1C 5.07 50.87 59.91 1771 100.8 -20.7 0.9 0.9 1.2 5.3 335

183545 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-1D 4.20 51.48 58.00 1579 113.4 -22.6 0.7 0.7 1.2 5.9 269

183545 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-2A 3.54 50.67 57.67 1255 119.1 -42.6 0.3 0.3 0.6 6.0 207

183545 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-2B 3.70 50.09 59.77 1074 133.4 -8.8 1.2 1.2 2.2 6.9 156

183545 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-2C 3.21 50.68 55.54 2108 128.9 -43.9 0.5 0.5 1.0 6.4 332

181602-70 Intermediate/Base 70-22 2-1B 1.44 50.39 57.50 3044 118.4 -9.7 3.1 3.2 14.5 6.0 510

181602-70 Intermediate/Base 70-22 2-1C 3.00 51.63 56.79 2755 99.9 -6.7 4.1 4.2 9.5 5.1 539

181602-70 Intermediate/Base 70-22 2-1D 2.93 50.57 59.58 2724 110.8 -7.8 3.5 3.6 8.1 5.8 473

181602-70 Intermediate/Base 70-22 2-2A 4.28 51.05 57.25 2655 114.7 -9.5 2.8 2.9 4.6 5.8 455

181602-70 Intermediate/Base 70-22 2-2B 5.38 51.93 59.98 2967 107.6 -6.7 4.5 4.6 5.9 5.8 514

181602-70 Intermediate/Base 70-22 2-2D 3.84 51.83 58.65 2267 108.5 -9.4 2.4 2.5 4.4 5.7 397

183519 Surface 76-22 1-1A 2.59 50.91 57.43 2051 116.6 -15.1 1.4 1.4 3.6 5.9 346

183519 Surface 76-22 1-1D 2.83 50.69 57.79 2350 114.0 -13.4 1.8 1.8 4.2 5.8 405

183519 Surface 76-22 1-2A 2.57 50.93 59.10 2538 133.9 -26.2 1.0 1.0 2.6 7.0 364

183519 Surface 76-22 1-2B 2.55 51.15 57.29 2316 124.1 -33.2 0.7 0.7 1.9 6.3 366

B-6
183519 Surface 76-22 1-2D 2.44 50.49 58.02 2056 127.2 -25.6 0.8 0.8 2.2 6.5 318

181700-64 Surface 64-22 7-4 E 2.55 46.55 59.76 3600 99.4 -3.3 11.0 10.3 26.9 4.6 784

181700-64 Surface 64-22 7-4 F 1.99 51.13 57.85 3480 94.0 -3.7 9.4 9.6 32.0 4.8 720

181700-64 Surface 64-22 7-4 H 2.81 48.61 57.22 2557 84.6 -3.4 7.6 7.4 17.6 4.1 625

181700-64 Surface 64-22 8-1 E 2.68 49.75 61.36 3709 105.9 -5.2 7.2 7.1 17.7 5.6 668

181700-64 Surface 64-22 8-1 F 1.73 53.94 58.89 3580 102.4 -5.4 6.7 7.2 27.6 5.2 688

181700-64 Surface 64-22 8-1 G 2.86 49.06 57.59 3194 102.1 -4.5 7.1 6.9 16.2 5.0 637

181259 Intermediate/Base 70-22 1-1A 3.78 54.55 61.62 1349 119.7 -10.0 0.7 0.7 1.3 6.9 196

181259 Intermediate/Base 70-22 1-1B 4.26 51.97 60.78 1792 120.8 -12.5 1.0 1.0 1.7 6.5 276

185241 Base/Intermediate 64-22 PA 3.66 49.05 59.44 3182 122.2 -11.4 2.8 2.7 5.1 6.2 517

185241 Base/Intermediate 64-22 PC 1.58 50.53 57.18 2327 103.3 -7.0 3.3 3.3 14.0 5.2 449

185241 Base/Intermediate 64-22 PE 2.73 50.79 59.09 2352 85.5 -4.8 4.9 4.9 12.1 4.4 530

185241 Base/Intermediate 64-22 PF 1.75 51.25 59.66 2376 103.9 -9.6 2.5 2.5 9.6 5.5 433

185241 Base/Intermediate 64-22 PG 1.80 51.56 62.52 2914 99.8 -6.5 4.5 4.6 17.0 5.5 530

185241 Base/Intermediate 64-22 PH 2.00 51.20 59.80 3063 112.1 -7.2 4.2 4.3 14.4 5.9 517

184560 Base/Intermediate 64-22 2-4A 2.49 60.54 54.90 3053 109.9 -6.9 4.5 5.4 14.5 6.4 476

184560 Base/Intermediate 64-22 2-4C 2.33 53.32 62.12 3748 123.0 -9.2 4.1 4.3 12.4 7.0 538

184560 Base/Intermediate 64-22 2-4D 2.24 53.06 58.37 4010 115.7 -5.9 6.8 7.2 21.3 6.5 614

184560 Base/Intermediate 64-22 2-4E 1.68 55.53 57.40 2828 106.7 -6.4 4.4 4.9 19.3 5.9 478

184560 Base/Intermediate 64-22 2-4F 1.63 52.13 61.18 3146 115.2 -6.1 5.1 5.3 21.6 6.3 499

184560 Base/Intermediate 64-22 2-4G 1.96 53.48 58.07 3231 117.1 -6.1 5.3 5.6 19.0 5.7 563

184052 Intermediate/Base 64-22 PA 4.41 53.00 59.04 1747 128.8 -37.0 0.5 0.5 0.8 7.0 251

184052 Intermediate/Base 64-22 PB 4.91 49.80 59.05 1842 137.1 -37.2 0.5 0.5 0.7 6.2 299

184052 Intermediate/Base 64-22 PC 4.66 49.52 59.80 1268 119.7 -32.0 0.4 0.4 0.6 6.1 207

184052 Intermediate/Base 64-22 PD 4.61 49.85 60.83 1376 122.5 -48.0 0.3 0.3 0.4 6.4 216

181701-70 Intermediate/Base 70-22 7-3PA 4.03 48.85 57.63 1722 120.8 -67.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 5.9 291

181701-70 Intermediate/Base 70-22 7-3PB 3.74 51.07 58.45 1672 127.2 -65.2 0.3 0.3 0.5 6.6 254

181701-70 Intermediate/Base 70-22 7-3PC 3.55 51.02 57.38 1823 116.5 -30.5 0.6 0.6 1.2 5.9 307

181701-70 Intermediate/Base 70-22 7-3PD 3.85 51.54 60.05 2068 122.5 -52.8 0.4 0.4 0.7 6.5 316

181004 Surface 70-22 6-1PA 3.56 48.54 58.90 2138 116.0 -33.8 0.6 0.6 1.2 5.7 373

B-7
181004 Surface 70-22 6-1PB 3.66 49.34 56.43 2558 120.5 -35.9 0.7 0.7 1.3 5.9 434

181004 Surface 70-22 6-2PA 3.75 48.31 54.23 1503 116.9 -28.5 0.5 0.5 0.9 5.4 279

181004 Surface 70-22 6-2PB 3.78 48.60 63.24 1727 126.9 -31.3 0.6 0.5 1.0 6.7 260

181004 Surface 70-22 6-2PC 2.97 48.85 59.19 2784 134.2 -33.2 0.8 0.8 1.9 6.7 415

181004 Surface 70-22 6-2PD 3.69 48.11 50.91 1205 93.0 -15.3 0.8 0.8 1.4 4.1 296

183412T-76 Surface 76-22 2-4PA 3.05 46.83 58.02 2842 105.5 -6.6 4.3 4.0 8.8 5.0 571

183412T-76 Surface 76-22 2-4PB 2.97 46.85 56.34 2722 108.7 -8.9 3.1 2.9 6.5 5.1 535

183412T-76 Surface 76-22 2-4PC 3.16 46.41 58.33 2842 105.5 -6.6 4.3 4.0 8.5 6.0 473

183412T-76 Surface 76-22 2-4PD 2.73 45.72 56.05 3286 122.2 -7.1 4.6 4.2 10.3 5.5 600

183413-64 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-6A 5.51 50.65 59.81 2549 90.3 -4.6 5.6 5.6 7.0 4.7 545

183413-64 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-6C 3.43 51.78 58.72 2689 104.5 -7.9 3.4 3.5 6.9 5.5 489

183413-64 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-7A 4.82 53.68 59.68 2137 92.1 -9.8 2.2 2.3 3.3 5.1 420

183413-64 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-7B 4.80 51.67 56.34 2135 90.7 -6.9 3.1 3.2 4.6 4.6 463

183204-64 Intermediate/Base 64-22 PA 3.39 52.54 59.35 2108 110.9 -13.1 1.6 1.7 3.4 6.0 353

183204-64 Intermediate/Base 64-22 PB 3.35 52.63 54.99 2011 112.4 -14.8 1.4 1.4 2.9 5.7 352

183204-64 Intermediate/Base 64-22 PC 3.44 52.95 58.32 2073 107.7 -16.0 0.9 1.0 1.9 5.8 360

183204-64 Intermediate/Base 64-22 PD 3.05 52.87 58.44 1560 114.7 -16.5 0.9 0.9 2.0 6.1 254

183204-70 Intermediate/Base 70-22 PA 2.10 51.61 59.47 2025 129.4 -35.7 0.6 0.6 1.9 6.9 295

183204-70 Intermediate/Base 70-22 PB 1.91 51.63 60.00 1646 125.8 -26.1 0.6 0.7 2.3 6.7 245

183204-70 Intermediate/Base 70-22 PC 1.86 52.03 59.14 1712 116.4 -33.9 0.5 0.5 1.9 6.2 276

183204-70 Intermediate/Base 70-22 PD 1.84 52.02 61.52 1841 125.5 -33.6 0.6 0.6 2.1 6.9 267

182764-70 Intermediate 70-22 PA 3.24 50.06 60.95 1082 121.8 -35.5 0.3 0.3 0.6 6.4 170

182764-70 Intermediate 70-22 PB 2.89 49.71 60.85 912 100.7 -19.7 0.5 0.5 1.1 5.2 174

182764-70 Intermediate 70-22 PD 3.31 49.22 59.10 1139 119.3 -25.4 0.5 0.4 0.9 6.0 190

182764-70 Intermediate 70-22 PE 4.21 50.80 60.21 908 112.8 -36.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 5.9 153

182764-70 Intermediate 70-22 PG 4.03 50.45 60.92 946 112.4 -25.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 5.9 159

182764-70 Intermediate 70-22 PH 3.24 50.03 60.29 1041 103.3 -43.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 5.4 194

181121-70-SuperPave5 Surface 70-22 PA 3.99 49.25 59.94 3632 133.1 -11.0 3.3 3.2 5.5 6.8 536

181121-70-SuperPave5 Surface 70-22 PB 4.30 49.42 58.15 2953 128.3 -27.9 1.1 1.0 1.7 6.4 462

181121-70-SuperPave5 Surface 70-22 PC 3.59 49.18 61.54 4521 164.0 -21.5 2.1 2.1 3.9 8.5 531

B-8
181121-70-SuperPave5 Surface 70-22 PD 2.93 49.60 61.98 3980 139.5 -9.2 4.3 4.3 9.8 7.3 542

181121-70-SuperPave5 Surface 70-22 PE 4.61 50.56 58.39 3404 115.4 -6.1 5.6 5.7 8.4 5.9 577

181121-70-SuperPave5 Surface 70-22 PG 3.73 49.90 60.89 3295 129.3 -18.1 1.8 1.8 3.3 6.8 488

184357 Surface 76-22 2-3PF 2.19 48.02 60.35 808 164.7 -0.7 11.2 10.8 32.8 8.3 98

184357 Surface 76-22 2-3PG 2.69 47.35 59.31 842 156.9 -0.6 15.0 14.2 35.4 7.9 107

184357 Surface 76-22 2-3PH 2.58 47.66 59.18 843 163.9 -1.2 7.0 6.7 17.3 8.2 102

184357 Surface 76-22 2-5PC 2.74 50.12 59.06 862 154.1 -1.1 7.6 7.6 18.7 7.7 111

184357 Surface 76-22 2-5PD 2.14 48.15 59.60 874 140.4 -47.2 0.2 0.2 0.6 7.0 124

183511 Intermediate/Base 64-22 PB 1.28 46.67 60.97 825 149.3 -4.8 1.7 1.6 8.2 7.5 110

183511 Intermediate/Base 64-22 PC 3.32 53.57 59.95 1015 169.7 -1.3 7.6 8.1 16.5 8.5 119

183511 Intermediate/Base 64-22 PD 2.59 53.01 57.21 647 138.3 -1.5 4.4 4.7 12.1 6.9 93

183511 Intermediate/Base 64-22 PE 1.39 55.68 62.38 1176 170.2 -6.7 1.8 2.0 9.3 8.5 138

183511 Intermediate/Base 64-22 PG 3.30 53.67 59.46 885 150.1 -1.8 5.0 5.3 10.8 7.5 118

183511 Intermediate/Base 64-22 PH 2.43 52.62 56.81 1180 127.7 -24.9 0.5 0.5 1.4 6.4 184

181155 Surface 70-22 PA 3.56 52.70 55.06 959 134.8 -5.2 1.9 2.0 3.7 6.8 142

181155 Surface 70-22 PB 2.72 53.20 55.19 1565 118.9 -15.4 1.0 1.1 2.6 6.0 262

181155 Surface 70-22 PC 3.16 53.30 58.52 1047 158.2 -2.8 3.8 4.0 8.6 7.9 132

181155 Surface 70-22 PD 2.00 53.06 65.14 1719 171.9 -56.9 0.3 0.3 1.1 8.6 199

181155 Surface 70-22 PG 2.78 53.48 58.30 857 152.3 -3.7 2.4 2.5 6.1 7.6 112

183513 Surface 70-22 1-2A 1.75 50.53 58.64 2603 103.6 -8.1 3.2 3.3 12.3 5.2 501

183513 Surface 70-22 1-2C 0.93 50.11 61.35 3259 119.9 -9.6 3.4 3.4 24.0 6.0 541

183513 Surface 70-22 1-2D 1.17 51.46 59.70 3041 121.1 -14.9 2.1 2.1 11.9 6.1 500

183513 Surface 70-22 1-5B 5.50 49.71 60.20 3147 135.2 -24.9 1.3 1.3 1.6 6.8 464

183513 Surface 70-22 1-5D 3.87 51.00 59.93 2206 149.5 -24.8 0.9 0.9 1.6 7.5 294

183205 Surface 76-22 PA 2.02 50.84 60.65 2661 138.4 -21.0 1.3 1.3 4.2 6.9 383

183205 Surface 76-22 PB 3.25 51.70 58.09 2883 118.9 -10.6 2.7 2.8 5.8 6.0 483

183205 Surface 76-22 PD 2.02 53.94 60.26 3285 153.6 -30.9 1.1 1.1 3.8 7.7 426

183205 Surface 76-22 PE 2.56 50.74 59.73 2708 132.2 -19.7 1.4 1.4 3.6 6.6 408

183205 Surface 76-22 PG 3.36 51.58 58.00 2152 110.2 -10.0 2.2 2.2 4.5 5.5 389

183205 Surface 76-22 PH 3.01 50.39 58.33 2350 94.9 -9.8 2.4 2.4 5.4 4.8 494

B-9
183412-70 Surface 76-22 PA 5.16 49.00 56.22 2395 76.1 -3.7 6.5 6.3 8.4 3.8 627

183412-70 Surface 76-22 PD 4.01 48.20 62.40 4153 117.4 -6.3 6.6 6.3 10.7 5.9 705

183412-70 Surface 76-22 PE 4.59 49.32 62.67 3445 107.6 -6.3 5.5 5.4 8.0 5.4 638

183412-70 Surface 76-22 PF 4.03 49.77 57.11 3020 99.2 -5.0 6.1 6.0 10.1 5.0 607

183412-70 Surface 76-22 PG 5.38 47.93 60.55 3265 101.1 -6.1 5.3 5.1 6.5 5.1 643

183412-70 Surface 76-22 PH 3.78 49.57 62.84 3566 118.0 -6.0 6.0 5.9 10.6 5.9 602

183451 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-2PA 2.10 49.72 56.77 1011 114.9 -6.0 1.7 1.7 5.3 5.8 175

183451 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-2PB 1.97 49.02 57.77 1090 121.0 -8.4 1.3 1.3 4.3 6.1 179

183451 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-2PC 2.02 48.94 57.00 947 104.6 -11.5 0.8 0.8 2.6 5.3 180

183451 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-2PD 2.10 48.10 59.20 1215 129.2 -1.9 6.5 6.3 19.8 6.5 187

183456 Surface 76-22 1-1A 2.78 52.13 59.28 1777 120.8 -28.9 0.6 0.6 1.6 6.1 293

183456 Surface 76-22 1-1B 2.12 54.37 58.30 1754 139.7 -34.4 0.5 0.6 1.7 7.0 250

183456 Surface 76-22 1-1C 2.18 52.51 56.89 1242 117.2 -12.7 1.0 1.0 3.1 5.9 211

183456 Surface 76-22 1-1D 3.13 51.01 51.78 1640 125.6 -2.5 6.5 6.6 14.3 6.3 260

183456 Surface 76-22 1-1E 1.76 49.93 57.56 2145 133.0 -27.8 0.8 0.8 2.9 6.7 321

183456 Surface 76-22 1-1F 1.66 49.61 56.54 1734 120.8 -20.1 0.9 0.9 3.4 6.1 286

183456 Surface 76-22 1-1H 1.66 52.32 61.36 2141 164.8 -69.3 0.3 0.3 1.3 8.3 259

183457 OG 70-22 1-1PA 2.74 50.94 58.42 2131 125.2 -43.8 0.5 0.5 1.2 6.3 339

183457 OG 70-22 1-1PB 2.98 51.91 59.72 2390 125.0 -21.1 1.1 1.2 2.7 6.3 381

183457 OG 70-22 1-1PD 3.10 48.83 57.35 1657 114.1 -20.6 0.8 0.8 1.7 5.7 289

183573 Surface 70-22 1-2A 1.95 52.62 56.34 1985 123.8 -31.8 0.6 0.7 2.2 6.1 327

183573 Surface 70-22 1-2B 2.11 50.77 60.95 2243 140.9 -37.2 0.6 0.6 1.9 6.9 325

183573 Surface 70-22 1-2D 2.18 51.76 57.86 2208 122.6 -24.4 0.9 0.9 2.8 6.2 359

183573 Surface 70-22 1-2E 1.98 51.10 58.61 1877 135.1 -18.2 1.0 1.1 3.5 6.6 284

183573 Surface 70-22 1-2F 2.21 53.91 58.25 2269 138.5 -42.1 0.5 0.6 1.8 6.8 335

183573 Surface 70-22 1-2G 2.54 52.23 61.10 2464 136.5 -19.9 1.2 1.3 3.4 6.7 369

184057 Surface 70-22 PA 3.06 51.09 58.11 1895 138.7 -36.5 0.5 0.5 1.2 7.0 272

184057 Surface 70-22 PB 2.65 54.42 61.11 1553 160.5 -36.1 0.4 0.5 1.2 8.1 193

184057 Surface 70-22 PD 2.99 51.71 60.05 1723 138.6 -58.0 0.3 0.3 0.7 7.0 248

184057 Surface 70-22 PG 2.74 53.29 58.01 1360 134.3 -66.1 0.2 0.2 0.5 6.7 202

B-10
184057 Surface 70-22 PH 3.29 54.29 55.33 2273 138.8 -60.4 0.4 0.4 0.8 7.0 326

184258 #N/A #N/A PA 2.67 52.72 58.02 2506 142.3 -38.5 0.7 0.7 1.7 7.1 351

184258 #N/A #N/A PB 2.66 52.55 55.20 1324 98.7 -22.7 0.6 0.6 1.5 5.0 267

184258 #N/A #N/A PD 3.10 53.47 51.40 942 85.2 -36.5 0.3 0.3 0.6 4.3 220

184258 #N/A #N/A PE 2.77 52.59 56.18 1859 117.3 -25.5 0.7 0.8 1.9 5.9 316

184258 #N/A #N/A PF 2.75 52.81 56.77 2448 136.6 -41.7 0.6 0.6 1.5 6.9 357

184258 #N/A #N/A PG 2.76 52.41 56.00 2571 118.1 -14.8 1.7 1.8 4.4 5.9 434

184258 #N/A #N/A PH 2.81 52.44 56.01 2385 138.5 -35.1 0.7 0.7 1.7 7.0 343

184553 Surface 70-22 7-4PA 0.78 52.09 55.53 3609 134.8 -12.9 2.8 2.9 24.5 6.8 534

184553 Surface 70-22 7-4PB 1.16 51.56 54.61 2751 110.2 -6.9 4.0 4.1 23.3 5.5 497

184553 Surface 70-22 7-4PC 0.83 52.09 54.91 2888 133.8 -12.3 2.4 2.4 19.4 6.7 430
7-
4PC_RE
184553 Surface 70-22 AL 1.44 52.07 55.29 3138 109.3 -7.8 4.0 4.2 19.3 5.5 572

184557 Surface 76-22 1-4PPB 1.21 52.28 60.53 1453 138.2 -28.4 0.5 0.5 2.9 6.9 210

184557 Surface 76-22 1-4PC 0.64 51.78 59.17 1157 120.4 -36.7 0.3 0.3 3.4 6.0 192

184557 Surface 76-22 1-4PD 0.84 51.75 60.90 1284 133.9 -50.6 0.3 0.3 2.0 6.7 191

184557 Surface 76-22 1-4PE 0.77 52.19 60.79 1581 139.6 -22.4 0.7 0.7 6.3 7.0 226

184557 Surface 76-22 1-4PF 0.86 52.30 60.70 1551 154.8 -8.5 1.8 1.9 14.6 7.8 200

184557 Surface 76-22 1-4PG 0.65 51.43 60.79 1663 132.4 -20.6 0.8 0.8 8.4 6.6 250

184557 Surface 76-22 1-4PG 0.49 51.57 61.38 1307 139.5 -30.5 0.4 0.4 5.9 7.0 187

185242 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-1AB 4.14 51.70 55.60 2221 96.3 -7.7 2.9 3.0 4.9 4.8 459

185242 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-1AC 3.11 52.00 59.00 3247 118.4 -7.7 4.2 4.4 9.5 5.9 546

185242 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-2AA 3.19 50.53 60.10 3099 102.4 -4.8 6.4 6.5 13.7 5.1 603

185242 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-2AB 3.13 50.17 58.80 2598 94.8 -4.5 5.8 5.8 12.5 4.8 546

186115-64 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-4A 2.25 52.12 59.18 3670 134.3 -23.3 1.6 1.6 4.8 6.7 544

186115-64 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-4AB 3.20 52.23 58.06 4385 118.3 -7.9 5.6 5.8 12.2 5.9 738

186115-64 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-4BC 2.66 52.00 59.48 2333 140.7 -60.4 0.4 0.4 1.0 7.1 330

186115-64 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-4BD 2.44 52.00 61.17 2260 123.4 -57.2 0.4 0.4 1.1 6.2 365

186115-70 Intermediate/Base 70-22 1-1AA 5.80 50.70 61.60 2726 137.8 -13.4 2.0 2.1 2.5 6.9 394

186115-70 Intermediate/Base 70-22 1-1BA 5.71 51.47 60.70 3626 146.4 -13.0 2.8 2.9 3.5 7.3 494

B-11
186115-70 Intermediate/Base 70-22 1-1BB 6.51 50.57 60.80 3083 132.9 -9.7 3.2 3.2 3.4 6.7 462

186378 2-1AA 3.50 53.63 58.20 4061 77.6 -1.6 25.1 26.9 51.8 3.9 1042

186378 2-1AAP 5.97 41.43 60.40 3662 112.1 -6.1 6.0 4.9 5.7 5.6 651

186378 2-1AB 3.15 53.73 60.40 4084 70.4 -1.6 26.0 28.0 59.6 3.5 1156

186378 2-1ABP 6.19 39.53 61.40 4387 128.8 -5.3 8.3 6.5 7.3 6.5 679

186404-64 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-2BA 3.71 49.23 61.50 2474 113.5 -15.5 1.6 1.6 2.9 5.7 434

186404-64 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-2BB 3.00 48.40 62.30 2694 122.5 -23.9 1.1 1.1 2.4 6.2 438

186404-64 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-2BC 3.54 48.70 56.70 1612 85.7 -8.4 1.9 1.9 3.5 4.3 375

186404-64 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-2BD 3.67 48.33 57.80 2185 96.7 -7.0 3.1 3.0 5.5 4.9 450

184355 Surface 70-22 PA 3.05 53.34 56.04 1255 114.5 -44.2 0.3 0.3 0.7 5.7 218

184355 Surface 70-22 PD 2.70 52.72 59.52 1649 136.0 -72.8 0.2 0.2 0.6 6.8 242

184355 Surface 70-22 PE 2.88 51.98 60.10 2047 141.1 -37.0 0.6 0.6 1.3 7.1 289

184355 Surface 70-22 PF 2.58 52.04 60.06 1508 116.0 -18.4 0.8 0.9 2.2 5.8 259

184355 Surface 70-22 PG 2.83 52.68 60.74 1916 142.4 -21.5 0.9 0.9 2.2 7.1 268

184355 Surface 70-22 PH 3.41 52.57 59.64 1234 118.5 -19.8 0.6 0.7 1.3 5.9 207

185206 Surface 64-22 1-2C 2.83 53.22 60.69 3114 130.2 -10.1 3.1 3.3 7.8 6.5 476

185206 Surface 64-22 1-2D 2.46 53.08 60.75 3622 137.4 -12.4 2.9 3.1 8.4 6.9 525

185206 Surface 64-22 2-4A 7.41 49.0 60.6 3784 127.0 -8.8 4.3 4.2 4.0 6.4 593

185206 Surface 64-22 2-4C 8.88 43.1 60.4 3470 133.5 -10.7 3.2 2.8 2.2 6.7 518

185206 Surface 64-22 2-4D 9.60 42.6 60.5 3063 124.0 -10.8 2.8 2.4 1.8 6.2 492

183404 Surface 64-22 1-1E 4.69 48.7 56.1 3835 105.0 -5.0 7.7 7.5 10.9 5.0 765

183404 Surface 64-22 1-1F 4.95 48.7 55.3 3188 98.5 -4.4 11.4 11.1 15.3 4.6 698

183404 Surface 64-22 1-1H 3.89 49.2 56.7 3635 103.2 -3.2 11.4 11.2 19.5 5.0 724

183404 Surface 64-22 1-4B 1.65 49.1 57.2 3129 107.3 -5.4 5.8 5.7 22.7 5.2 597

183404 Surface 64-22 1-4C 2.18 48.8 54.4 2845 105.6 -5.9 4.8 4.7 14.3 4.9 578

183404 Surface 64-22 1-4D 1.76 48.9 58.6 3782 122.4 -5.8 6.6 6.4 24.1 6.1 622

182284 Surface 70-22 8-5F 7.67 40.5 149.7 2800 118.9 -11.2 2.5 2.0 1.9 6.2 450

182284 Surface 70-22 8-5H 8.36 43.2 149.9 2541 118.5 -9.2 2.8 2.4 2.0 5.7 448

182284 Surface 70-22 9-1A 5.49 37.7 150.1 2805 120.2 -12.2 2.3 1.7 2.2 6.4 437

182284 Surface 70-22 9-1C 6.63 29.6 150.3 1990 105.7 -10.3 1.9 1.1 1.2 5.3 378

B-12
182766 Surface 70-22 PC 3.80 52.7 57.8 3701 110.2 -7.2 5.2 5.4 9.7 5.8 635

182766 Surface 70-22 PD 2.39 52.5 57.9 3704 113.6 -4.5 7.7 8.0 22.4 6.0 618

182766 Surface 70-22 PE 3.62 52.8 55.0 2952 106.2 -6.7 4.4 4.7 8.7 5.4 545

182766 Surface 70-22 PF 3.64 53.1 57.9 3901 118.1 -6.8 5.8 6.1 11.4 6.3 618

182766 Surface 70-22 PG 2.21 52.6 55.6 4106 118.0 -5.2 7.9 8.3 24.8 6.3 651

182766 Surface 70-22 PH 3.80 52.8 54.9 3208 109.7 -7.2 4.5 4.7 8.4 5.6 575

183453 Intermediate/Base 70-22 PA 2.60 41.4 59.0 2014 127.1 -14.0 1.4 1.2 3.1 5.4 375

183453 Intermediate/Base 70-22 PB 3.30 41.4 57.9 2204 109.7 -17.0 1.3 1.1 2.2 4.6 483

183453 Intermediate/Base 70-22 PC 3.42 50.4 58.7 2133 105.9 -43.3 0.5 0.5 1.0 5.4 393

183453 Intermediate/Base 70-22 PD 2.77 50.4 60.4 1991 122.9 -46.4 0.4 0.4 1.0 6.4 309

183453 Intermediate/Base 70-22 PE 1.32 52.8 60.5 1810 107.5 -15.9 1.1 1.2 6.0 5.9 306

183453 Intermediate/Base 70-22 PF 2.23 52.9 57.2 2411 113.2 -14.8 1.6 1.7 5.1 6.0 404

183453 Intermediate/Base 70-22 PG 1.64 52.7 58.4 2438 116.8 -15.2 1.6 1.7 6.8 6.2 392

183453 Intermediate/Base 70-22 PH 1.95 52.7 58.6 2452 111.0 -14.0 1.8 1.8 6.3 5.9 413

183701 Surface 70-22 7-3PA 3.37 48.9 57.6 1722 120.8 -67.2 0.3 0.3 0.5 5.9 291

183701 Surface 70-22 7-3PB 3.08 51.1 58.5 1672 127.2 -65.2 0.3 0.3 0.6 6.6 254

183701 Surface 70-22 7-3PC 2.89 51.0 57.4 1823 116.5 -30.5 0.6 0.6 1.4 5.9 307

183701 Surface 70-22 7-3PD 3.20 51.5 60.1 2068 122.5 -52.8 0.4 0.4 0.8 6.5 316

183561 Intermediate/Base 64-22 PA 3.27 52.4 59.5 2198 124.7 -14.8 1.5 1.6 3.2 6.1 360

183561 Intermediate/Base 64-22 PB 4.34 52.3 54.5 1901 99.0 -8.8 2.2 2.3 3.6 4.8 392

183561 Intermediate/Base 64-22 PC 4.28 50.2 60.7 2588 103.7 -9.0 2.9 2.9 4.6 5.1 510

183561 Intermediate/Base 64-22 PE 2.38 51.2 58.7 2088 121.0 -49.6 0.4 0.4 1.2 6.1 344

183561 Intermediate/Base 64-22 PF 1.80 41.3 59.3 2191 134.2 -18.6 1.2 1.0 3.6 6.7 3265

183561 Intermediate/Base 64-22 PG 2.23 51.6 57.6 2127 120.6 -20.0 1.1 1.1 3.3 6.1 351

183561 Intermediate/Base 64-22 PH 2.12 52.5 59.2 2137 125.8 -17.3 1.2 1.3 4.1 6.3 338

B-13
APPENDIX C. I-FIT DATA FROM FIELD-COMPACTED SPECIMENS

Table C.1 I-FIT Data for PMFC Specimens

Air Specimen Ligament, Peak

Voids, Thickness, Length, Strength, Corrected AV Load,
DMF Layer PG Sample % mm mm FE psi Slope FI FI Corrected Kn CRI
186116 Surface 70-22 CA 7.3 37.3 55.1 3633 77 -1.2 29.8 22.2 21.5 2.8 1305
186116 Surface 70-22 CC 7.4 37.4 59.0 4660 86 -1.5 30.7 23.0 21.9 3.3 1421
186116 Surface 70-22 CD 5.0 37.6 59.2 4533 101 -2.1 21.2 15.9 21.8 3.9 1170
186116 Surface 70-22 CF 9.9 46.0 50.5 4791 49 -1.0 50.4 46.4 33.9 2.0 2354
183805-T Surface 70-22 8-1CB 6.6 56.5 61.1 5440 88 -3.0 18.3 20.7 21.9 5.2 1048
183805-T Surface 70-22 8-1CC 7.7 45.1 61.0 3751 64 -2.1 18.0 16.3 15.0 3.0 1242
183805-T Surface 70-22 8-1CD 7.8 50.5 60.0 3145 56 -1.4 22.5 22.7 20.5 2.9 1076
183805-T Surface 70-22 CA 8.0 51.4 66.7 4460 73 -2.9 15.3 15.7 13.9 4.1 1081
183805-T Surface 70-22 CB 7.7 38.1 55.6 3063 64 -1.6 19.8 15.1 13.8 2.4 1294
183805-T Surface 70-22 CD 7.2 38.0 62.6 4856 74 -1.6 30.4 23.1 22.6 3.0 1619
183804-G Surface 70-22 CA 7.0 48.1 58.3 3153 77 -2.0 15.7 15.1 15.1 3.7 843
183804-G Surface 70-22 CB 8.2 50.3 57.9 3303 75 -2.4 13.8 13.9 12.0 3.8 868
183804-G Surface 70-22 CD 8.6 50.9 57.8 3022 70 -2.3 13.1 13.3 11.0 3.6 839
183804-G Surface 70-22 CE 7.9 42.8 57.8 4014 81 -2.3 17.3 14.8 13.3 3.5 1158
183804-G Surface 70-22 CF 8.3 42.9 57.7 4308 79 -2.4 18.1 15.5 13.3 3.4 1268
183804-G Surface 70-22 CG 8.6 39.8 57.2 3444 76 -2.1 16.4 13.1 10.9 3.0 1135
175316 Surface 64-22 2-2CB 7.7 36.1 58.9 2704 51 -0.7 36.5 26.4 24.1 1.9 1420
175316 Surface 64-22 Core 1-3-1 8.1 34.0 57.3 2983 62 -1.4 22.1 15.0 13.1 2.0 1488
175316 Surface 64-22 Core 1-3-2 8.3 39.7 57.5 4108 63 -0.9 43.7 34.7 29.6 2.5 1641
175316 Surface 64-22 Core 1-3-3 8.4 39.0 58.9 3477 59 -0.8 44.6 34.8 29.5 2.3 1483
175316 Surface 64-22 Core 1-3-4 7.8 36.6 59.6 3946 67 -1.2 34.0 24.9 22.6 2.6 1514
186703 Surface 64-22 Core 2-4A4 6.1 35.0 58.7 5245 78 -1.4 37.7 26.4 29.9 2.9 1837
186703 Surface 64-22 Core 2-4B1 5.7 29.6 56.7 4442 65 -1.5 29.4 17.4 21.0 2.0 2222
186703 Surface 64-22 Core 3-1-2 5.7 43.6 59.2 2896 50 -1.4 21.0 18.3 22.2 2.3 1281
186703 Surface 64-22 Core 3-1-3 5.7 39.2 62.8 3592 73 -1.4 26.2 20.5 24.7 3.0 1211
183776 Surface 76-22 3-1A 6.6 50.2 58.6 5755 68 -1.5 38.9 39.0 41.3 3.5 1651
183776 Surface 76-22 3-1B 6.5 49.7 60.8 4896 70 -1.7 29.5 29.3 31.5 3.6 1345
183776 Surface 76-22 3-1C 8.3 55.2 59.0 6391 70 -1.5 43.4 47.9 40.8 4.0 1612
183776 Surface 76-22 3-1D 8.3 52.6 57.9 5307 62 -1.1 46.6 49.0 41.8 3.4 1539
183776 Surface 76-22 3-3A 6.3 49.7 59.2 5595 88 -2.0 28.6 28.4 31.3 4.5 1249
183776 Surface 76-22 3-3D 6.1 51.0 58.3 5736 80 -1.6 36.1 36.8 41.8 4.1 1388
183351 Intermediate/Base 70-22 1-3c 6.1 40.8 58.7 3635 81 -2.0 18.5 15.1 17.1 3.3 1086

C-1
183351 Intermediate/Base 70-22 1-3d 6.1 38.8 57.5 4492 84 -1.8 25.4 19.7 22.3 3.3 1382
183351 Intermediate/Base 70-22 1-4a 7.9 57.1 59.1 3427 79 -2.2 15.5 17.7 15.9 4.6 746
183351 Intermediate/Base 70-22 1-4c 7.1 52.1 57.9 3782 85 -2.5 15.1 15.7 15.6 4.5 848
183351 Intermediate/Base 70-22 1-4d 7.3 47.8 60.2 3925 82 -2.5 16.0 15.3 14.6 4.1 968
181800 Base 64-22 Core 1-2A 6.3 51.7 61.1 2638 94 -5.5 4.8 5.0 5.4 5.1 517
181800 Base 64-22 Core 1-2C 8.6 62.1 60.0 2156 54 -3.0 7.1 8.9 7.4 3.5 619
181700-76 Surface 76-22 1-2A 8.6 35.3 56.4 4804 72 -1.0 47.1 33.3 27.5 2.5 1927
181700-76 Surface 76-22 1-2D 8.1 36.3 58.4 5321 83 -1.3 42.2 30.7 27.0 3.1 1735
181700-76 Surface 76-22 1-3C 6.9 36.2 57.9 2855 68 -1.2 23.0 16.6 16.8 2.5 1162
181700-76 Surface 76-22 1-3D 6.9 38.2 58.6 3066 79 -0.9 34.8 26.6 27.0 3.1 996
181552-64 Surface 64-22 2-2A 5.2 37.4 55.5 3945 71 -1.0 39.9 29.8 39.6 2.6 1523
181552-64 Surface 64-22 2-2B 5.0 38.1 59.5 4237 70 -1.7 25.2 19.2 26.2 2.8 1538
181552-64 Surface 64-22 2-3B 7.8 32.0 56.5 3232 62 -0.8 39.4 25.2 22.9 2.0 1652
181552-64 Surface 64-22 2-3C 5.7 42.4 57.1 4101 70 -0.9 46.1 39.1 47.1 3.0 1379
181115-70 Intermediate/Base 70-22 3-1A 6.6 50.2 58.6 5755 68 -1.5 38.9 39.0 41.3 3.5 1651
181115-70 Intermediate/Base 70-22 3-1B 6.5 49.7 60.8 4896 70 -1.7 29.5 29.3 31.5 3.6 1345
181115-70 Intermediate/Base 70-22 3-1C 8.3 55.2 59.0 6391 70 -1.5 43.4 47.9 40.8 4.0 1612
181115-70 Intermediate/Base 70-22 3-1D 8.3 52.6 57.9 5307 62 -1.1 46.6 49.0 41.8 3.4 1539
181115-70 Intermediate/Base 70-22 3-3A 6.3 49.7 59.2 5595 88 -2.0 28.6 28.4 31.3 4.5 1249
181115-70 Intermediate/Base 70-22 3-3D 6.1 51.0 58.3 5736 80 -1.6 36.1 36.8 41.8 4.1 1388
181115-76 Intermediate/Base 76-22 CA 3.9 48.6 60.0 4038 98 -2.9 13.8 5.1 8.9 4.9 819
181115-76 Intermediate/Base 76-22 CB 7.1 52.6 60.9 4800 94 -2.4 20.0 21.0 20.7 5.2 926
181115-76 Intermediate/Base 76-22 CC 5.6 47.6 61.4 4034 85 -3.3 12.4 11.8 14.6 4.7 860
183653 Intermediate/Base 64-22 2-3A 7.4 30.9 61.7 4964 63 -1.0 47.7 29.5 27.9 2.0 2427
183653 Intermediate/Base 64-22 2-3D 7.7 39.5 57.3 4798 53 -0.9 52.2 41.2 37.8 2.1 2279
183653 Intermediate/Base 64-22 3-1A 8.1 35.3 63.8 5126 52 -0.9 58.3 41.2 36.1 2.0 2585
183653 Intermediate/Base 64-22 3-1B 7.1 39.1 63.8 5519 61 -1.1 48.8 38.2 37.6 2.6 2131
183653 Intermediate/Base 64-22 3-1C 6.7 30.5 59.2 6337 69 -1.4 44.1 26.9 28.0 2.1 2950
183653 Intermediate/Base 64-22 3-1D 6.5 34.3 61.8 5415 59 -1.4 37.6 25.8 27.6 2.2 2442
185265 Surface 64-22 CA 6.3 33.3 60.3 4815 96 -2.1 23.0 15.3 16.9 3.2 1493
185265 Surface 64-22 CC 5.7 34.9 60.4 5232 86 -2.1 24.8 17.3 21.0 3.1 1674
185265 Surface 64-22 CF 5.9 34.4 60.9 7779 98 -2.4 32.1 22.1 26.1 3.1 2550
185265 Surface 64-22 CG 5.6 35.3 59.8 4220 79 -1.3 33.5 23.7 29.4 2.9 1463
185265 Surface 64-22 CH 7.5 34.1 60.8 3511 72 -1.4 25.1 17.1 16.1 2.5 1431
161113 Surface 64-22 Core 2-3-1 7.6 39.8 57.7 4131 90 -2.4 17.4 13.8 12.7 3.7 1103
161113 Surface 64-22 Core 2-3-2 8.0 39.2 58.0 4558 95 -2.5 18.2 14.3 12.6 3.9 1171
161113 Surface 64-22 Core 2-3-3 5.0 36.5 59.6 5970 116 -4.0 14.9 10.8 14.9 4.4 1349
161113 Surface 64-22 Core 2-3-4 5.7 37.5 57.9 4323 99 -2.5 17.6 13.2 16.0 3.9 1113
161113 Surface 64-22 Core 1-5-1 7.5 30.2 60.8 3500 83 -1.2 30.2 18.2 17.1 2.6 1329

C-2
161113 Surface 64-22 Core 1-5-2 7.4 28.2 57.2 4381 82 -1.2 37.8 21.3 20.3 2.3 1893
161113 Surface 64-22 Core 1-5-3 8.6 34.2 60.8 5693 96 -2.3 24.8 17.0 14.0 3.4 1652
161113 Surface 64-22 Core 4-1-1* 9.2 35.1 58.5 4287 83 -1.4 31.3 21.9 17.2 3.0 1411
161113 Surface 64-22 Core 4-1-2* 10.1 35.8 57.0 4483 80 -1.4 32.0 22.9 16.5 3.0 1503
161618 Surface 64-22 Core 2-2-2 6.2 42.7 57.3 4628 99 -2.4 19.6 16.7 18.8 4.4 1049
161618 Surface 64-22 Core 3-3-1 8.4 35.5 55.3 3870 89 -1.2 32.3 22.9 19.5 3.3 1179
161618 Surface 64-22 Core 3-3-2 8.3 35.9 56.0 3981 88 -1.7 24.0 17.2 14.8 3.3 1206
161618 Surface 64-22 Core 3-3-3 7.2 31.0 56.4 5710 93 -1.5 37.1 23.0 22.4 3.0 1906
173802 Surface 70-22 4-2C1 12.3 26.4 53.7 2151 59 -1.2 17.6 9.3 5.6 2.1 1041
173802 Surface 70-22 1-5A 8.1 28.2 58.5 3370 74 -1.2 27.4 15.5 13.5 2.1 1588
173802 Surface 70-22 1-5B 8.5 29.8 54.3 2694 66 -1.5 18.6 11.1 9.2 1.9 1435
173802 Surface 70-22 1-5C 8.4 33.1 54.1 3443 73 -1.8 18.8 12.4 10.6 2.3 1495
173802 Surface 70-22 2-5E 10.8 35.1 56.5 2415 58 -1.0 24.4 17.1 11.6 2.0 1211
173802 Surface 70-22 CA1 8.9 35.9 56.9 3457 70 -1.4 25.2 18.1 14.5 2.5 1386
173802 Surface 70-22 CA2 9.3 36.6 58.2 2283 69 -1.9 12.0 8.8 6.8 2.6 892
173813 Intermediate/Base 70-22 813C1 8.7 48.1 57.3 2869 84 -3.2 8.9 8.5 7.0 4.2 684
173813 Intermediate/Base 70-22 813C2 8.3 48.8 58.6 2687 79 -3.2 8.5 8.3 7.1 4.0 670
173813 Intermediate/Base 70-22 813C3 8.5 54.1 60.2 3058 93 -4.0 7.6 8.2 6.9 5.3 581
173813 Intermediate/Base 70-22 Core 1-2-2 5.2 48.8 52.6 2669 86 -3.1 8.7 8.6 11.4 3.9 683
173813 Intermediate/Base 70-22 Core 1-3-1 7.5 52.5 55.4 3115 78 -2.9 10.9 11.4 10.7 4.0 786
173813 Intermediate/Base 70-22 Core 1-3-2 6.9 52.1 56.7 2597 74 -3.4 7.6 7.8 7.9 3.8 681
173813 Intermediate/Base 70-22 Core 1-3-4 6.9 50.8 56.1 3383 85 -3.9 8.6 8.7 8.9 4.2 797
173813 Intermediate/Base 70-22 Core 3-5-2 8.1 55.3 56.6 2587 74 -3.0 8.7 9.3 8.1 4.1 638
173813 Intermediate/Base 70-22 Core 3-5-4 8.9 51.1 55.4 2612 74 -2.6 10.0 10.2 8.2 3.7 715
175313 Intermediate/Base 64-22 Core 1-2-3 5.8 51.2 55.0 3436 71 -1.7 20.6 21.1 25.2 3.4 1004
175313 Intermediate/Base 64-22 Core 1-2-4 5.7 53.4 59.3 3467 66 -2.0 17.2 18.3 22.2 3.7 938
175313 Intermediate/Base 64-22 Core 3-1-1 8.9 45.5 57.3 3093 62 -1.1 28.6 26.1 20.9 2.7 1130
175313 Intermediate/Base 64-22 Core 3-1-4 8.7 49.6 59.9 2698 58 -1.1 25.2 25.0 20.4 3.0 909
175313 Intermediate/Base 64-22 Core 4-2-1 8.5 54.6 55.9 2733 58 -1.3 20.7 22.6 18.9 3.1 888
175313 Intermediate/Base 64-22 Core 4-2-2 8.2 56.3 59.8 3448 61 -1.3 26.7 30.1 26.0 3.6 968
175313 Intermediate/Base 64-22 Core 4-2-3 6.5 61.6 59.5 3126 67 -2.6 12.2 15.0 16.1 4.2 743
175322 Surface 64-22 core4-5B1 13.1 36.7 59.3 4279 45 -0.7 65.8 48.4 27.7 1.7 1871
175322 Surface 64-22 core4-5B2 12.3 35.0 59.4 4499 53 -0.8 56.2 37.1 22.5 1.9 1569
175322 Surface 64-22 core4-5A1 7.5 34.9 61.2 3674 61 -1.2 30.9 21.3 20.0 2.2 1143
175322 Surface 64-22 core4-5A2 7.7 35.2 56.9 3388 57 -0.9 36.8 25.6 23.5 2.0 1187
175322 Surface 64-22 CA1 13.6 34.4 60.4 3457 42 -0.5 73.6 51.1 28.4 1.5 2296
175322 Surface 64-22 CA2 13.8 34.4 63.0 4329 46 -0.6 71.0 49.0 26.8 1.7 2554
175322 Surface 64-22 CB1 8.9 36.3 59.5 5168 59 -0.9 57.4 41.4 33.4 2.2 1707
181802-76 Surface 76-22 4-1c 8.5 34.3 59.1 6088 85 -1.9 31.6 21.7 18.1 3.0 2043

C-3
181802-76 Surface 76-22 4-1d 7.7 32.3 59.5 5149 79 -1.4 38.1 24.6 22.5 2.6 1969
181802-76 Surface 76-22 4-2a 6.6 32.0 57.9 4561 68 -1.3 36.2 23.2 24.4 2.2 2071
181802-76 Surface 76-22 4-2b 6.9 30.6 57.4 4240 92 -1.8 23.8 14.6 14.9 2.8 1510
181802-76 Surface 76-22 4-2c 8.2 35.5 60.7 4874 84 -1.4 34.3 24.3 21.1 3.1 1564
181802-76 Surface 76-22 4-2d 8.9 34.1 56.7 4310 87 -1.7 24.8 16.9 13.6 2.9 1466
174457D Surface 64-22 Core 8-4-1 9.3 34.9 59.3 4057 80 -0.5 57.7 40.3 31.2 2.9 1400
174457D Surface 64-22 Core 8-4-3 8.5 35.3 56.5 3792 93 -0.4 51.9 36.6 30.7 3.4 1114
174457D Surface 64-22 core 8-6-2 7.7 33.6 53.8 3231 52 -0.5 61.0 41.0 37.5 1.8 1773
174457D Surface 64-22 core 8-6-3 8.3 32.6 58.2 3821 57 -0.6 60.7 39.5 33.9 1.9 1986
174457D Surface 64-22 core 8-6-4 8.4 34.6 53.6 4623 58 -0.8 58.5 40.5 34.3 2.1 2195
183300 Surface 70-22 3-2 CA 9.3 46.4 58.4 3058 77 -2.0 15.0 13.9 10.7 3.4 899
183300 Surface 70-22 3-2 CB 9.2 46.1 56.3 2962 75 -2.4 12.6 11.6 9.0 3.3 898
183300 Surface 70-22 3-2 CC 12.0 44.5 59.9 2617 67 -2.4 10.8 9.6 5.9 3.0 867
183300 Surface 70-22 3-2 CD 11.9 44.8 58.2 3815 94 -2.7 14.0 12.5 7.8 4.1 930
181602-70 Intermediate/Base 70-22 1-3A 9.9 56.5 59.4 4283 57 -1.0 43.1 48.7 35.4 3.3 1301
181602-70 Intermediate/Base 70-22 1-3B 10.5 54.1 59.3 3125 53 -1.4 23.2 25.1 17.4 3.0 1057
181602-70 Intermediate/Base 70-22 1-3C 6.6 44.2 59.9 4612 65 -1.4 32.0 28.3 30.0 2.9 1564
181602-70 Intermediate/Base 70-22 1-3D 7.0 46.4 59.5 4788 66 -1.3 38.3 35.6 35.4 3.1 1529
181602-70 Intermediate/Base 70-22 1-4C 6.0 51.4 61.1 5288 81 -1.9 27.7 28.4 32.9 4.4 1207
181602-70 Intermediate/Base 70-22 1-4D 6.3 50.1 58.6 4623 77 -1.4 33.3 33.3 36.7 3.9 1181
183519 Surface 76-22 1-2A 5.6 51.7 58.4 4332 96 -3.1 13.9 14.3 17.6 5.0 862
183519 Surface 76-22 1-2B 5.8 51.8 60.0 4158 104 -3.2 12.9 13.3 15.8 5.6 747
183519 Surface 76-22 1-2C 8.6 48.8 59.5 3513 87 -2.8 12.4 12.1 10.0 4.4 807
183519 Surface 76-22 1-2D 8.8 48.9 60.2 3333 80 -3.1 10.9 10.6 8.6 4.1 822
183519 Surface 76-22 1-3A 8.5 47.7 60.4 3475 95 -3.8 9.1 8.7 7.3 4.7 735
183519 Surface 76-22 1-3D 7.1 47.2 57.7 3438 96 -4.2 8.2 7.7 7.6 4.6 756
181700-64 Surface 64-22 7-4 A 3.4 37.7 54.2 4442 81 -1.8 24.4 18.4 36.8 2.9 1526
181700-64 Surface 64-22 7-4 B 3.7 37.4 57.7 5170 92 -1.4 36.4 27.2 49.6 3.5 1499
181700-64 Surface 64-22 7-4 D 5.5 45.6 57.9 2869 61 -1.7 16.9 15.4 19.4 2.8 1032
181700-64 Surface 64-22 8-1 A 7.1 39.3 55.7 3334 66 -1.2 28.0 22.0 21.8 2.5 1313
181700-64 Surface 64-22 8-1 C 4.4 39.3 54.1 5179 87 -1.1 46.2 36.3 55.6 3.3 1589
181700-64 Surface 64-22 8-1 D 4.9 37.1 58.5 4374 88 -2.3 19.2 14.2 19.8 3.3 1326
181259 Intermediate/Base 70-22 1-1B 7.4 56.5 61.6 3389 86 -3.7 9.1 10.2 9.8 5.1 661
181259 Intermediate/Base 70-22 1-1C 7.4 56.2 59.3 3656 97 -4.5 8.2 9.2 8.8 5.6 655
181259 Intermediate/Base 70-22 1-1D 6.4 55.0 61.0 4390 99 -4.9 9.1 10.0 10.9 5.7 768
185241 Base/Intermediate 64-22 CA 7.7 50.4 62.6 3997 64 -1.6 24.5 24.7 22.6 3.4 1164
185241 Base/Intermediate 64-22 CD 5.6 47.8 61.6 4657 81 -2.1 22.1 21.1 25.9 4.1 1143
185241 Base/Intermediate 64-22 CE 5.8 47.5 58.8 4380 78 -1.7 25.5 24.2 28.6 3.8 1168
185241 Base/Intermediate 64-22 CF 3.6 47.8 62.0 4323 77 -1.8 24.6 23.5 44.2 3.9 1106

C-4
185241 Base/Intermediate 64-22 CG 7.9 52.4 60.4 4098 71 -1.9 21.7 22.7 20.4 3.9 1062
185241 Base/Intermediate 64-22 CH 7.1 42.5 60.1 3252 72 -1.5 22.4 19.1 18.8 3.2 1030
184560 Base/Intermediate 64-22 2-4A 3.9 55.3 57.9 3764 85 -1.8 20.9 23.1 40.1 4.8 787
184560 Base/Intermediate 64-22 2-4C 6.4 58.0 56.8 7612 93 -5.4 14.0 16.3 17.8 5.3 1431
184560 Base/Intermediate 64-22 2-4D 6.5 54.3 54.3 9982 150 -4.8 20.7 22.5 24.0 7.8 1286
184560 Base/Intermediate 64-22 2-4E 6.2 55.7 58.3 5072 68 -2.4 21.6 24.0 26.7 3.8 1332
184560 Base/Intermediate 64-22 2-4H 5.0 49.5 56.3 5288 80 -2.8 19.0 18.8 25.7 3.9 1363
184052 Intermediate/Base 64-22 CA 4.7 42.8 58.0 2854 -6.3 5.6 5.1 7.4 4.6 623
184052 Intermediate/Base 64-22 CB 4.3 43.1 59.9 3256 114 -5.5 6.0 5.1 8.1 5.1 643
184052 Intermediate/Base 64-22 CD 5.6 48.7 58.2 4108 116 -4.0 10.4 10.1 12.6 5.7 719
184052 Intermediate/Base 64-22 CF 7.8 38.6 56.6 3133 109 -4.5 7.0 5.4 4.9 4.2 755
183525 Surface 70-22 1-5A 5.9 46.9 56.9 3273 100 -5.1 6.4 6.0 7.1 4.7 703
183525 Surface 70-22 1-5B 6.1 46.8 57.9 2824 93 -4.6 6.2 5.8 6.5 4.4 644
183525 Surface 70-22 1-5C 6.5 49.7 60.0 2803 90 -4.0 7.0 6.9 7.4 4.6 609
183525 Surface 70-22 1-5D 6.8 50.4 57.4 2353 83 -4.1 5.8 5.9 6.0 4.2 562
181701-70 Intermediate/Base 70-22 7-3PA 8.3 48.7 59.1 3502 94 -3.6 9.8 9.5 8.2 4.5 784
181701-70 Intermediate/Base 70-22 7-3PB 8.3 48.7 56.5 2979 80 -2.6 11.4 11.1 9.5 3.8 779
181701-70 Intermediate/Base 70-22 7-3PD 8.2 35.5 59.7 4013 89 -2.3 17.5 12.5 10.7 3.3 1234
181004 Surface 70-22 6-1CA 7.0 39.3 57.3 6926 101 -2.0 34.2 26.9 26.8 4.0 1745
181004 Surface 70-22 6-1CC 6.8 26.0 56.4 3920 84 -1.0 41.3 21.5 22.1 2.2 1811
181004 Surface 70-22 6-2CB 5.9 32.6 58.1 5089 94 -1.3 40.4 26.3 31.0 3.1 1654
181004 Surface 70-22 6-2CC 7.5 47.3 56.3 5053 86 -1.3 38.3 36.2 34.1 4.0 1261
181004 Surface 70-22 6-2CD 7.4 47.1 59.0 5853 90 -1.6 37.0 34.9 33.2 4.3 1349
183412T-76 Surface 76-22 2-4CA 6.4 30.7 56.9 2614 71 -1.4 18.7 11.5 12.5 2.2 1207
183412T-76 Surface 76-22 2-4CC 5.1 30.4 59.1 3364 77 -1.5 23.1 14.0 19.0 2.4 1415
183412T-76 Surface 76-22 2-4CD 6.0 30.5 55.2 4022 61 -1.4 24.9 15.2 17.5 1.8 2262
183413-64 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-6B 5.6 50.2 55.9 3315 88 -2.9 11.5 11.6 14.3 4.3 769
183413-64 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-6C 4.6 57.4 56.2 3807 86 -2.8 13.5 15.5 23.1 4.8 787
183413-64 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-7A 6.4 59.8 60.9 3300 71 -2.9 11.3 13.5 14.6 4.5 740
183413-64 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-7B 5.0 56.0 58.5 3403 77 -2.0 16.9 18.9 26.0 4.4 775
183413-64 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-7C 4.7 56.4 57.5 3070 80 -2.9 10.7 12.1 17.4 4.5 680
183413-64 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-7D 5.4 60.0 59.5 4307 82 -2.2 19.2 23.1 29.3 5.0 855
183204-64 Intermediate/Base 64-22 CB 5.5 52.5 56.7 3394 104 -4.3 7.9 8.3 10.5 5.4 627
183204-64 Intermediate/Base 64-22 CC 4.2 53.0 58.1 4047 103 -4.2 9.7 10.2 16.5 5.5 738
183204-64 Intermediate/Base 64-22 CD 5.7 53.0 57.2 2926 99 -5.6 5.2 5.5 6.7 5.2 563
183204-64 Intermediate/Base 64-22 CE 6.5 49.5 58.0 2383 79 -4.2 5.6 5.6 6.0 3.9 606
183204-64 Intermediate/Base 64-22 CG 6.2 48.0 57.7 2788 100 -4.9 5.6 5.4 6.0 4.8 580
183204-64 Intermediate/Base 64-22 CH 6.6 49.7 55.3 3019 95 -4.1 7.4 7.3 7.8 4.6 658
183204-70 Intermediate/Base 70-22 CB 6.7 53.1 61.1 3511 97 -6.1 5.7 6.1 6.3 5.4 651

C-5
183204-70 Intermediate/Base 70-22 CC 5.1 53.1 62.7 3533 89 -4.1 8.7 9.3 12.4 5.1 697
183204-70 Intermediate/Base 70-22 CD 6.5 53.8 58.4 2931 85 -3.0 9.7 10.5 11.2 4.6 635
183204-70 Intermediate/Base 70-22 CE 6.4 53.3 57.7 2562 79 -3.6 7.1 7.6 8.2 4.2 605
183204-70 Intermediate/Base 70-22 CF 5.2 38.5 58.0 2514 89 -3.3 7.6 5.8 7.7 3.5 726
183204-70 Intermediate/Base 70-22 CG 4.5 53.0 62.6 3445 94 -3.8 9.1 9.7 14.6 5.3 644
182764-70 Intermediate 70-22 CA 7.8 40.0 56.4 2755 108 -5.4 5.1 4.0 3.6 4.2 649
182764-70 Intermediate 70-22 CB 7.6 40.6 58.1 3203 110 -5.4 6.0 4.9 4.5 4.5 711
182764-70 Intermediate 70-22 CC 7.5 35.3 56.4 3582 115 -4.3 8.4 5.9 5.6 4.0 893
182764-70 Intermediate 70-22 CE 4.9 35.4 60.7 4156 139 -6.8 6.2 4.4 6.1 5.2 806
182764-70 Intermediate 70-22 CF 4.9 34.8 55.5 3421 126 -4.8 7.1 4.9 6.9 4.3 801
181121-70-SuperPave5 Surface 70-22 CB 7.6 30.1 54.7 4708 108 -2.0 23.8 14.3 13.3 3.1 1501
181121-70-SuperPave5 Surface 70-22 CD 9.1 34.6 56.5 3211 82 -1.6 19.6 13.6 10.6 2.8 1146
181121-70-SuperPave5 Surface 70-22 CE 5.6 35.9 59.6 6603 111 -1.6 40.3 28.9 35.6 4.1 1607
181121-70-SuperPave5 Surface 70-22 CF 5.2 36.2 61.2 6854 110 -1.6 43.1 31.2 41.5 4.2 1632
181121-70-SuperPave5 Surface 70-22 CG 6.6 30.9 61.9 4863 108 -1.9 25.3 15.7 16.5 3.5 1378
181121-70-SuperPave5 Surface 70-22 CH 6.3 30.5 61.2 6294 114 -1.8 36.0 21.9 24.2 3.6 1728
183511 Intermediate/Base 64-22 RA 6.1 51.3 59.6 5292 105 -2.4 21.8 22.3 25.2 5.3 1005
183511 Intermediate/Base 64-22 RB 8.5 55.7 61.4 5140 87 -1.9 27.5 30.6 25.6 4.3 1183
183511 Intermediate/Base 64-22 RC 9.2 53.7 56.6 3850 79 -2.0 19.5 20.9 16.3 3.9 976
183511 Intermediate/Base 64-22 RD 6.8 48.1 56.5 3918 89 -2.5 15.6 14.9 15.4 4.5 873
181155 Surface 70-22 RA 9.9 48.6 59.9 5517 85 -1.9 29.7 28.8 21.0 4.3 1289
181155 Surface 70-22 RB 10.4 47.0 57.4 4355 65 -0.8 55.1 51.8 36.2 3.3 1339
181155 Surface 70-22 RD 8.1 45.0 56.5 4854 75 -2.4 20.7 18.6 16.2 3.8 1294
183513 Surface 70-22 1-2CA 7.4 36.7 59.1 2207 56 -1.6 14.2 10.4 9.9 2.8 781
183513 Surface 70-22 1-2CC 7.2 42.1 60.8 2773 64 -2.1 13.3 11.2 11.0 3.2 859
183513 Surface 70-22 1-2CD 7.6 42.2 60.7 2274 59 -1.4 15.8 13.3 12.3 3.0 767
183513 Surface 70-22 1-5CA 10.6 45.9 57.6 3089 83 -2.4 12.8 11.8 8.1 4.2 739
183513 Surface 70-22 1-5CC 10.0 45.8 59.9 3731 96 -3.7 10.1 9.2 6.7 4.8 776
183513 Surface 70-22 1-5CD 10.9 49.5 59.1 3784 90 -3.3 11.3 11.2 7.5 4.5 842
183205 Surface 76-22 CC 6.1 37.5 57.7 3027 77 -3.1 9.8 7.4 8.3 3.9 780
183205 Surface 76-22 CD 6.1 39.3 59.4 4223 79 -2.5 16.7 13.1 14.8 4.0 1059
183205 Surface 76-22 CE 6.6 40.1 57.3 2796 69 -1.7 16.9 13.6 14.3 3.5 805
183205 Surface 76-22 CF 6.5 41.5 59.1 3506 81 -2.8 12.8 10.6 11.3 4.1 862
183205 Surface 76-22 CG 6.3 41.4 59.7 3536 89 -4.0 8.8 7.3 8.0 4.5 790
183205 Surface 76-22 CH 7.4 39.6 59.8 3188 76 -2.9 11.0 8.7 8.2 3.8 840
183412-70 Surface 76-22 CA_1-3 7.5 51.5 60.4 5077 80 -1.8 28.4 29.2 27.5 4.0 1263
183412-70 Surface 76-22 CD_1-3 5.2 40.0 61.5 4036 69 -1.7 24.3 19.5 25.7 3.4 1171
183412-70 Surface 76-22 CE_1-1 7.2 29.5 61.9 3335 45 -1.0 33.7 19.8 19.4 2.3 1474
183412-70 Surface 76-22 CF 5.2 36.2 61.4 3751 64 -1.5 24.4 17.6 23.3 3.2 1167

C-6
183412-70 Surface 76-22 CG_1-1 7.2 29.4 61.0 2706 40 -0.8 32.2 18.9 18.4 2.0 1357
183412-70 Surface 76-22 CH 5.2 29.3 61.3 4168 68 -1.6 26.2 15.4 20.4 3.4 1226
183451 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-2CA 8.8 54.7 58.7 3035 87 -2.4 12.9 14.1 11.4 4.4 692
183451 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-2CB 7.8 59.0 59.4 3608 113 -4.9 7.3 8.6 7.8 5.7 637
183451 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-2CC 7.7 58.9 60.9 3263 116 -6.6 5.0 5.8 5.3 5.8 561
183451 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-2CD 9.2 53.6 62.1 4042 108 -4.1 9.8 10.5 8.1 5.4 743
183456 Surface 76-22 CA 6.8 28.9 62.1 2211 75 -4.7 4.8 2.8 2.8 3.8 587
183456 Surface 76-22 CB 7.2 28.8 60.3 1763 67 -4.9 3.6 2.1 2.0 3.4 521
183456 Surface 76-22 CD 7.9 31.2 60.6 2390 46 -1.5 15.8 9.9 8.8 2.3 1028
183456 Surface 76-22 CE 6.7 38.9 62.2 2845 105 -4.9 5.9 4.6 4.7 5.3 539
183456 Surface 76-22 CG 7.8 48.0 62.1 3469 110 -5.9 5.9 5.7 5.1 5.5 631
183456 Surface 76-22 CH 8.1 48.0 61.1 3368 110 -5.0 6.7 6.5 5.6 5.5 612
183457 OG 70-22 1-1CA 10.7 64.5 58.2 3784 105 -3.6 10.6 13.7 9.3 5.2 721
183457 OG 70-22 1-1CB 10.9 63.8 61.0 2605 88 -4.3 6.1 7.8 5.3 4.4 589
183457 OG 70-22 1-1CC 9.1 52.4 55.8 1731 85 -2.0 8.7 9.1 7.1 4.3 404
183457 OG 70-22 1-1CD 9.6 52.5 60.3 2718 77 -2.7 10.0 10.5 7.8 3.9 704
183573 Surface 70-22 1-2CA 9.3 48.2 61.4 3325 83 -2.8 12.1 11.6 8.9 4.0 823
183573 Surface 70-22 1-2CB 9.2 48.0 61.9 3691 91 -3.2 11.6 11.2 8.7 4.4 833
183573 Surface 70-22 1-2CC 9.4 42.7 59.9 3371 89 -3.9 8.6 7.4 5.6 4.4 773
183573 Surface 70-22 1-2CD 8.7 42.5 60.3 2538 79 -3.1 8.3 7.0 5.8 3.9 653
183573 Surface 70-22 1-2CE 7.7 37.3 61.3 2461 74 -3.7 6.6 4.9 4.5 3.6 676
183573 Surface 70-22 1-2CF 7.4 37.3 60.7 2885 78 -3.9 7.4 5.5 5.3 3.8 753
184057 Surface 70-22 CA 5.4 39.5 59.7 3495 94 -3.3 10.6 8.4 10.7 4.7 742
184057 Surface 70-22 CB 5.6 39.0 59.8 3440 93 -3.4 10.1 7.9 9.7 4.7 734
184057 Surface 70-22 CE 7.3 36.6 57.5 4406 71 -2.9 15.0 11.0 10.6 3.5 1244
184057 Surface 70-22 CF 8.9 39.0 59.2 2867 77 -2.8 10.3 8.0 6.4 3.9 740
184057 Surface 70-22 CG 8.4 37.3 61.0 2343 75 -3.9 6.0 4.4 3.8 3.7 626
184057 Surface 70-22 CH 8.6 39.4 58.9 2481 77 -3.9 6.4 5.1 4.2 3.9 640
184258 Surface 76-22 CA 5.8 43.3 56.5 2838 85 -3.9 7.3 6.3 7.5 4.2 668
184258 Surface 76-22 CB 7.2 45.8 55.7 2016 87 -2.8 7.1 6.5 6.4 4.4 462
184258 Surface 76-22 CC 7.2 46.3 55.7 3420 86 -2.3 15.2 14.1 13.7 4.3 788
184258 Surface 76-22 CD 5.7 43.7 56.6 3479 96 -3.4 10.3 9.0 11.0 4.8 723
184258 Surface 76-22 CE 5.7 43.5 55.3 3322 86 -2.5 13.1 11.4 13.8 4.3 773
184258 Surface 76-22 CG 6.4 42.5 55.9 3200 77 -2.6 12.4 10.5 11.3 3.9 829
184258 Surface 76-22 CH 6.6 45.2 55.2 3424 86 -2.5 13.8 12.4 13.2 4.3 790
184553 Surface 70-22 7-2CE 7.7 39.2 52.4 3150 42 -1.0 32.1 25.2 23.2 2.1 1506
184553 Surface 70-22 7-2CF 6.0 32.2 56.1 2703 46 -1.0 27.9 18.0 20.8 2.3 1176
184553 Surface 70-22 7-2CG 7.4 37.9 55.6 2591 48 -1.0 23.1 17.5 16.6 2.4 1076
184553 Surface 70-22 7-4CA 5.5 36.1 55.6 3241 50 -1.4 23.2 16.7 20.8 2.5 1288

C-7
184557 Surface 76-22 1-4CA 7.0 36.9 58.3 2682 72 -2.6 10.2 7.5 7.5 3.6 742
184557 Surface 76-22 1-4CB 5.9 39.6 56.1 2134 87 -5.4 4.0 3.2 3.7 4.4 490
184557 Surface 76-22 1-4CC 6.5 37.2 55.8 2516 73 -3.4 7.5 5.6 6.0 3.7 685
184557 Surface 76-22 1-4CD 5.1 45.0 60.2 3200 98 -5.3 6.1 5.5 7.4 4.9 651
184557 Surface 76-22 1-4CE 4.4 44.8 57.4 3508 103 -4.8 7.3 6.5 10.0 5.2 680
184557 Surface 76-22 1-4CF 7.4 36.0 59.4 1853 69 -3.7 5.1 3.6 3.5 3.5 534
184557 Surface 76-22 1-4CG 5.7 39.8 59.9 3083 91 -4.5 6.9 5.5 6.6 4.6 672
184557 Surface 76-22 1-4CH 7.1 36.9 56.8 1800 75 -5.0 3.6 2.7 2.7 3.8 478
185242 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-1BA 7.8 59.2 63.2 4777 84 -1.9 25.1 29.7 26.9 4.2 1133
185242 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-1BB 5.8 53.6 58.5 3360 84 -2.1 16.0 17.2 20.3 4.2 802
185242 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-1BC 7.7 56.6 58.7 3407 69 -1.6 21.7 24.6 22.5 3.5 979
185242 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-2BC 6.7 51.0 62.1 3296 83 -3.1 10.7 10.9 11.3 4.1 796
186115-64 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-3AA 7.7 51.3 61.0 4315 79 -2.6 16.3 16.8 15.3 4.0 1090
186115-64 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-4A 7.9 46.8 60.0 3128 75 -2.9 11.0 10.3 9.2 3.8 833
186115-64 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-4B 7.4 51.5 62.3 3918 86 -2.9 13.5 13.9 13.3 4.3 908
186115-64 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-4C 6.9 52.2 58.3 2977 86 -3.3 9.0 9.4 9.6 4.3 691
186115-64 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-4D 7.7 31.6 59.3 2845 70 -3.1 9.2 5.8 5.4 3.5 805
186115-70 Intermediate/Base 70-22 1-1AA 9.4 52.6 57.4 3987 83 -1.7 24.0 25.3 19.3 4.2 960
186115-70 Intermediate/Base 70-22 1-1AB 9.2 52.7 58.8 8476 95 -3.0 28.5 30.1 23.5 4.7 1787
186115-70 Intermediate/Base 70-22 1-1BB 9.4 46.7 62.5 4987 94 -2.4 20.8 19.4 14.8 4.7 1053
186378 0 0 2-1AC 2.9 51.5 60.4 2769 115 -7.1 3.9 4.0 9.5 5.8 480
186378 0 0 2-1AD 3.4 51.7 57.5 2499 105 -6.7 3.8 3.9 7.6 5.3 474
186378 0 0 2-1BA 8.4 39.1 61.2 2881 61 -1.0 28.3 22.1 18.8 3.1 943
186378 0 0 2-1BB 7.9 38.2 63.0 2882 65 -0.8 35.6 27.2 24.4 3.3 882
186404-64 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-2AA 4.5 48.3 61.1 3813 79 -3.1 12.2 11.8 17.8 4.0 959
186404-64 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-2AB 4.0 51.0 58.6 2465 73 -3.0 8.2 8.4 14.3 3.7 669
186404-64 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-2AC 4.0 49.8 60.1 2563 73 -3.2 8.1 8.1 13.8 3.7 700
186404-64 Intermediate/Base 64-22 1-2AD 4.7 47.9 59.8 2724 80 -3.7 7.4 7.1 10.3 4.0 676
186404-70 Base/Intermediate 70-22 6-1A 8.3 46.2 58.1 3007 42 -0.7 43.0 39.7 34.0 2.1 1418
186404-70 Base/Intermediate 70-22 6-1C 7.5 46.0 61.1 3489 49 -0.8 42.0 38.7 36.1 2.5 1423
186404-70 Base/Intermediate 70-22 6-2G 6.3 49.7 57.5 3805 56 -0.7 56.0 55.6 61.6 2.8 1360
186404-70 Base/Intermediate 70-22 6-2H 6.2 48.8 61.5 4663 63 -1.1 42.0 41.0 46.1 3.1 1484
186404-70 Base/Intermediate 70-22 6-3D 8.2 51.1 60.2 4234 62 -1.3 32.1 32.8 28.4 3.1 1371
186404-70 Base/Intermediate 70-22 6-4F 10.1 51.8 58.4 4435 46 -0.9 48.7 50.5 36.2 2.3 1916
185267 Surface 76-22 4-3A 7.6 41.9 57.9 3412 72 -1.6 20.8 17.4 16.1 3.0 1125
185267 Surface 76-22 4-3C 6.8 42.7 58.8 4000 92 -2.6 15.6 13.3 13.7 4.0 1002
185267 Surface 76-22 4-3D 7.4 38.8 63.1 3257 58 -1.0 31.3 24.3 23.1 2.4 1336
185267 Surface 76-22 4-3F 6.9 39.0 58.3 3609 64 -1.2 30.3 23.6 23.9 2.5 1434
184355 Surface 70-22 CA 4.9 39.2 59.1 3163 95 -4.0 7.8 6.1 8.5 4.7 666

C-8
184355 Surface 70-22 CC 6.1 39.2 61.3 3997 89 -3.0 13.3 10.4 11.8 4.5 893
184355 Surface 70-22 CD 6.1 40.0 60.9 4667 102 -2.8 16.4 13.2 15.1 5.1 914
184355 Surface 70-22 CE 6.4 37.0 63.7 4235 104 -5.6 7.6 5.6 6.1 5.2 810
184355 Surface 70-22 CF 5.9 39.6 62.3 4196 104 -4.3 9.9 7.8 9.2 5.2 804
184355 Surface 70-22 CG 6.4 40.4 60.8 4641 111 -4.4 10.6 8.6 9.3 5.6 830
185206 Surface 64-22 2-4CA 8.6 35.9 56.8 2647 64 -2.3 11.3 8.1 6.8 3.2 825
185206 Surface 64-22 2-4CB 8.5 35.8 59.5 2669 55 -1.5 18.0 12.9 10.8 2.8 970
185206 Surface 64-22 2-4CC 9.2 48.6 58.3 3829 80 -1.7 23.2 22.6 17.6 4.0 949
185206 Surface 64-22 2-4CD 9.3 48.7 62.1 3749 89 -1.7 9.7 9.4 7.3 4.4 844
183404 Surface 64-22 1-1F 6.9 45.7 56.5 3560 72 -1.7 21.6 19.7 19.9 3.3 1094
183404 Surface 64-22 1-1G 9.0 39.9 57.8 2932 59 -1.4 20.7 16.5 13.1 2.3 1248
183404 Surface 64-22 1-1H 9.2 37.9 55.7 4332 70 -1.7 25.5 19.3 15.1 2.6 1676
183404 Surface 64-22 1-2A 8.7 40.5 58.2 4692 66 -1.1 43.9 35.5 29.2 2.7 1748
183404 Surface 64-22 1-2C 11.4 36.5 56.8 2566 47 -0.5 47.5 34.7 22.3 1.2 2131
183404 Surface 64-22 1-2D 11.1 36.5 55.5 5122 61 -1.1 46.6 34.0 22.5 2.2 2360
182284 Surface 70-22 8-5E 8.2 40.0 59.4 3555 64 -1.1 33.2 26.6 23.1 2.6 1356
182284 Surface 70-22 8-5F 8.0 40.5 58.4 4597 76 -1.4 34.1 27.6 24.5 3.1 1483
182284 Surface 70-22 8-5G 9.2 44.1 57.2 3998 65 -1.0 39.2 34.6 26.9 2.9 1403
182284 Surface 70-22 8-5H 8.7 43.2 59.5 3909 64 -1.4 29.2 25.2 20.7 2.8 1372
182284 Surface 70-22 9-1A 5.8 37.7 58.6 4758 93 -1.8 25.9 19.5 23.3 3.5 1370
182284 Surface 70-22 9-1C 6.9 29.6 57.4 4484 80 -1.5 30.5 18.1 18.2 3.4 1331
182766 Surface 70-22 CC 3.4 49.0 57.5 6940 87 -1.9 37.5 36.7 72.9 4.3 1624
182766 Surface 70-22 CD 6.7 38.5 52.0 4635 67 -1.1 43.3 33.3 34.9 2.4 1935
182766 Surface 70-22 CE 3.9 49.8 56.5 5675 91 -1.9 29.9 29.8 52.3 4.4 1276
182766 Surface 70-22 CF 4.2 43.1 53.8 4711 78 -1.4 34.6 29.8 48.6 3.2 1484
182766 Surface 70-22 CG 3.2 49.4 51.5 4839 65 -1.1 42.8 42.3 88.4 3.0 1629
183453 Intermediate/Base 70-22 CA 8.0 53.1 55.9 2145 73 -3.7 5.8 6.1 5.4 3.8 567
183453 Intermediate/Base 70-22 CB 7.7 53.9 60.4 2317 77 -3.5 6.6 7.1 6.5 4.3 541
183453 Intermediate/Base 70-22 CC 6.6 53.2 58.5 2284 89 -5.7 4.0 4.3 4.5 6.8 337
183453 Intermediate/Base 70-22 CD 6.5 53.7 59.1 2412 87 -5.5 4.4 4.7 5.1 4.8 503
183453 Intermediate/Base 70-22 CE 6.7 46.2 57.0 3748 113 -6.8 5.6 5.1 5.3 6.3 594
183453 Intermediate/Base 70-22 CF 7.9 50.2 57.2 2040 95 -6.4 3.2 3.2 2.9 4.8 429
183701 Surface 70-22 7-3PA 7.7 48.7 59.1 3502 94 -3.6 9.8 9.5 8.8 4.5 784
183701 Surface 70-22 7-3PB 7.6 48.7 56.5 2979 80 -2.6 11.4 11.1 10.2 3.8 779
183701 Surface 70-22 7-3PC 7.4 35.6 58.4 3369 73 -1.3 26.1 18.6 17.6 2.6 1277
183701 Surface 70-22 7-3PD 7.6 35.5 59.7 4013 89 -2.3 17.5 12.5 11.5 3.3 1234
183561 Intermediate/Base 64-22 CA 10.9 49.1 59.8 3470 77 -2.4 14.4 14.1 9.4 3.8 917
183561 Intermediate/Base 64-22 CB 10.9 48.1 59.9 2769 63 -1.1 25.4 24.4 16.4 3.1 905
183561 Intermediate/Base 64-22 CC 10.9 51.4 58.3 2800 64 -2.2 13.0 13.3 8.9 3.2 869

C-9
183561 Intermediate/Base 64-22 CD 11.3 51.7 59.2 3138 63 -0.7 42.4 43.8 28.4 3.1 1024
183561 Intermediate/Base 64-22 CE 7.0 45.9 53.5 2361 51 -1.7 14.3 13.1 13.1 2.5 945
183561 Intermediate/Base 64-22 CF 7.5 53.3 58.6 3882 94 -2.5 15.7 16.7 15.7 4.6 841
183561 Intermediate/Base 64-22 CG 7.3 53.7 56.4 3215 90 -2.5 12.7 13.6 13.1 4.4 726
183561 Intermediate/Base 64-22 CH 7.3 45.7 57.4 1775 43 -1.1 16.6 15.1 14.5 2.1 848

C-10
APPENDIX D. HAMBURG WHEEL TRACK TEST DATA FOR LABORATORY-COMPACTED SPECIMENS

Figure D.1 HWTT data for PMLC specimens.

D-1
APPENDIX E. HAMBURG WHEEL TRACK TEST DATA FOR FIELD-COMPACTED SPECIMENS

Figure E.1 HWTT data for PMFC specimens.

E-1
APPENDIX F. DYNAMIC MODULUS DATA FOR FIELD-COMPACTED SPECIMENS

Table F.1 Dynamic Modulus Data for Selected PMFC Mixtures

Reduced Frequency
Mixtures 0.0001 0.0005 0.001 0.005 0.01 0.05 0.1 0.5 1 5 10 50 100 500 1000 5000 10000 50000
173813-70-19 46.4 64.1 75.5 116.7 143.5 238.3 297.9 493.9 606.1 930.9 1094.0 1503.3 1683.2 2081.8 2238.6 2556.1 2671.5 2891.8
173813-70-19 46.4 64.1 75.5 116.7 143.5 238.3 297.9 493.9 606.1 930.9 1094.0 1503.3 1683.2 2081.8 2238.6 2556.1 2671.5 2891.8
175313-64-19 21.4 34.9 44.0 78.2 101.2 184.2 236.8 410.1 509.2 796.5 941.7 1311.3 1477.1 1855.4 2009.3 2333.1 2455.8 2699.7
175322-64-9.5 8.7 15.1 19.4 35.9 47.1 87.9 114.3 204.1 257.8 423.6 513.5 762.9 885.3 1192.9 1330.9 1650.4 1783.7 2073.5
181115-70-19 11.9 16.9 20.2 33.0 42.0 77.6 102.7 198.2 261.4 475.3 599.3 956.7 1133.8 1568.8 1755.5 2160.0 2315.7 2625.3
181115-76-19 13.7 19.2 23.0 38.0 48.9 93.1 125.1 249.1 331.3 606.6 762.3 1192.1 1394.8 1864.9 2054.9 2443.5 2584.5 2850.8
181552-64-9.5 11.2 19.4 24.9 45.7 59.6 110.1 142.4 250.5 314.0 505.9 607.8 883.5 1015.7 1339.9 1481.9 1803.6 1934.8 2214.6
181602-70-19.0 16.0 25.2 31.3 54.3 69.7 126.3 163.0 288.1 362.7 590.4 711.8 1038.5 1193.2 1564.8 1723.5 2071.9 2209.3 2491.9
181700-64-9.5 15.1 23.5 29.2 50.5 64.9 118.6 153.7 275.4 348.9 575.5 697.1 1026.1 1182.2 1556.8 1716.3 2064.6 2201.1 2479.8
181700-76-9.5 14.9 22.2 27.4 48.9 64.9 130.9 178.4 357.4 471.0 825.2 1011.1 1483.6 1689.5 2133.8 2301.9 2627.5 2740.1 2944.5
181802-76-9.5 14.3 28.2 37.7 73.1 96.2 175.3 222.8 370.0 450.3 674.8 786.1 1069.6 1198.7 1502.9 1632.2 1918.8 2034.2 2278.9
183300-70-9.5 11.9 22.4 29.6 57.1 75.6 141.5 182.7 316.3 392.1 612.3 724.9 1018.9 1155.3 1480.6 1619.7 1928.6 2052.7 2314.3
183776-76-12.5 16.5 26.1 32.8 58.8 76.9 145.9 192.0 352.0 448.0 737.5 888.1 1278.2 1454.6 1856.4 2018.6 2354.8 2479.8 2723.5
183804-70-12.5 3.4 8.2 11.9 28.4 40.7 89.7 123.0 239.0 308.6 519.6 631.1 928.9 1069.6 1408.7 1554.9 1881.3 2012.7 2290.1
183805-70-12.5 15.7 23.4 28.6 48.5 62.3 115.2 151.0 279.6 359.4 611.5 748.5 1119.5 1294.1 1705.4 1876.3 2238.7 2376.0 2647.0
184052-64-19.0 23.6 39.1 50.1 93.9 124.8 241.8 318.0 570.3 712.6 1108.2 1297.2 1744.3 1929.3 2316.9 2461.3 2740.9 2838.2 3017.8
184560-64-19.0 23.6 39.1 50.1 93.9 124.8 241.8 318.0 570.3 712.6 1108.2 1297.2 1744.3 1929.3 2316.9 2461.3 2740.9 2838.2 3017.8
185241-64-19.0 25.0 40.1 50.5 91.2 119.4 225.2 294.0 523.0 653.7 1023.9 1204.6 1642.0 1827.3 2224.1 2375.1 2672.8 2778.3 2975.8
185242-64-19.0 8.5 16.2 21.9 45.3 62.2 127.9 171.9 324.3 415.0 686.0 826.5 1191.6 1358.3 1744.4 1903.7 2242.9 2372.9 2634.2
185265-64-9.5 2.9 6.9 10.3 25.6 37.8 88.9 125.1 256.7 337.6 585.7 716.9 1063.2 1223.6 1599.9 1757.1 2095.7 2227.0 2493.9
186116-70-9.5 14.3 28.1 37.7 73.1 96.2 175.3 222.8 370.0 450.3 674.8 786.1 1069.6 1198.8 1503.1 1632.4 1919.2 2034.7 2279.7

F-1
APPENDIX G. S-VECD DATA

Table G.1 S-VECD Data for Selected Evaluated Mixtures

Mixture Sample Nf GR log(Nf) log(GR) Cum. (1-C) DR Avg. DR

173813-70-19 Sample 1 38320 21.60134 4.583426 1.334481 20254.32335 0.528557

173813-70-19 Sample 2 34410 36.80575 4.536685 1.565916 20531.41391 0.59667

0.558
173813-70-19 Sample 3 22620 30.07987 4.354493 1.478276 11744.80249 0.519222

173813-70-19 Sample 4 3700 469.5814 3.568202 2.671711 2175.695514 0.588026

175313-64-19 Sample 1 30750 16.95245 4.487845 1.229232 16517.91918 0.537168

175313-64-19 Sample 2 19530 122.5436 4.290702 2.088291 13514.93685 0.692009

0.555
175313-64-19 Sample 3 4820 268.8604 3.683047 2.429527 2750.23643 0.570588

175313-64-19 Sample 4 2190 209.6247 3.340444 2.321442 916.3884515 0.418442

175322-64-9.5 Sample 1 25510 17.0531 4.40671 1.231803 12972.92459 0.508543

175322-64-9.5 Sample 2 18250 34.3524 4.261263 1.535957 9548.097011 0.523183

0.542
175322-64-9.5 Sample 3 13910 38.88763 4.143327 1.589811 6981.313871 0.501892

175322-64-9.5 Sample 4 10080 138.4807 4.003461 2.141389 6385.69474 0.633501

181115-70-19 Sample 1 18860 67.00477 4.275542 1.826106 12838.89878 0.680748

181115-70-19 Sample 2 34770 23.19929 4.541205 1.365475 22103.90125 0.635718 0.683

181115-70-19 Sample 3 16140 153.3663 4.207904 2.18573 11811.85564 0.731837

181115-76-19 Sample 1 21880 23.65958 4.340047 1.374007 12421.60947 0.567715

181115-76-19 Sample 2 44560 27.24673 4.648945 1.435314 28366.76998 0.636597

0.649
181115-76-19 Sample 3 9130 181.1559 3.960471 2.258053 5911.897454 0.647524

181115-76-19 Sample 4 880 11772.46 2.944483 4.070867 654.6701931 0.743943

181552-64-9.5 Sample 1 6690 188.8179 3.825426 2.276043 4212.896355 0.62973

181552-64-9.5 Sample 2 1710 814.7524 3.232996 2.911026 1051.265758 0.614775

0.643
181552-64-9.5 Sample 3 4780 497.2958 3.679428 2.696615 3372.217932 0.705485

181552-64-9.5 Sample 4 4510 304.5921 3.654177 2.483719 2812.918064 0.623707

181602-70-19 Sample 1 5060 134.8108 3.704151 2.129725 2836.826678 0.560638

0.632
181602-70-19 Sample 2 5470 268.6598 3.737987 2.429203 3607.599452 0.659525

G-1
181602-70-19 Sample 3 1880 889.2515 3.274158 2.949025 1195.604313 0.63596

181602-70-19 Sample 4 1580 1318.613 3.198657 3.120117 1063.90254 0.673356

181700-64-9.5 Sample 1 32280 25.84229 4.508934 1.412331 16536.21076 0.512274

181700-64-9.5 Sample 2 21000 139.9129 4.322219 2.145858 14093.113 0.671101

0.569
181700-64-9.5 Sample 3 1640 672.8391 3.214844 2.827911 860.4484815 0.524664

181700-64-9.5 Sample 4 4990 500.0284 3.698101 2.698995 2839.656956 0.56907

181700-76-9.5 Sample 1 26310 107.3312 4.420121 2.030726 17375.80198 0.660426 0.726

181700-76-9.5 Sample 2 15060 476.7328 4.177825 2.678275 11152.13095 0.740513

181700-76-9.5 Sample 3 7020 1226.503 3.846337 3.088669 5164.840479 0.735732

181700-76-9.5 Sample 4 7240 1777.321 3.859739 3.249766 5553.211784 0.767018

181802-76-9.5 Sample 1 9930 46.46886 3.996949 1.667162 4441.97427 0.447329

181802-76-9.5 Sample 2 5390 121.2061 3.731589 2.083525 2337.257411 0.433628

0.502
181802-76-9.5 Sample 3 2650 366.8873 3.423246 2.564533 1489.977235 0.562256

181802-76-9.5 Sample 4 660 1913.723 2.819544 3.281879 373.9745404 0.566628

183300-70-9.5 Sample 1 5780 107.1345 3.761928 2.029929 3152.349161 0.545389

183300-70-9.5 Sample 2 24490 28.31444 4.388989 1.452008 15243.72853 0.622447

0.558
183300-70-9.5 Sample 3 4210 320.4638 3.624282 2.505779 2476.78103 0.588309

183300-70-9.5 Sample 4 1500 483.7523 3.176091 2.684623 712.7586998 0.475172

183776-76-12.5 Sample 1 47990 45.53952 4.681151 1.658388 33877.59984 0.70593

183776-76-12.5 Sample 2 7750 403.0953 3.889302 2.605408 5257.024379 0.678326

0.673
183776-76-12.5 Sample 3 2470 2738.619 3.392697 3.437532 1721.1399 0.696818

183776-76-12.5 Sample 4 44900 38.30628 4.652246 1.58327 27506.62551 0.61262

183804G-70-12.5 Sample 1 39210 17.03314 4.593397 1.231295 24297.45791 0.619675

183804G-70-12.5 Sample 2 6100 142.4592 3.78533 2.15369 3566.052244 0.584599

0.624
183804G-70-12.5 Sample 3 6530 197.5552 3.814913 2.295689 4306.970765 0.659567

183804G-70-12.5 Sample 4 1260 1722.592 3.100371 3.236183 795.0990642 0.631031

183805t-70-12.5 Sample 1 65900 24.49068 4.818885 1.389001 46181.19416 0.700777

183805t-70-12.5 Sample 2 19400 162.1634 4.287802 2.209953 14362.671 0.740344

0.735
183805t-70-12.5 Sample 3 9540 410.9966 3.979548 2.613838 7095.531802 0.743766

183805t-70-12.5 Sample 4 7220 732.2689 3.858537 2.864671 5449.820649 0.754823

G-2
184052-64-19.0 Sample 1 7130 286.9074 3.85309 2.457742 3422.512521 0.480016

184052-64-19.0 Sample 2 1440 2402.211 3.158362 3.380611 755.0113177 0.524313

0.528
184052-64-19.0 Sample 3 3040 1521.473 3.482874 3.182264 1770.862775 0.582521

184052-64-19.0 Sample 4 1050 3672.668 3.021189 3.564982 551.7718215 0.525497

184560-64-19 Sample 1 3090 1427.878 3.489958 3.154691 1840.82457 0.595736

184560-64-19 Sample 2 27930 7.091809 4.446071 0.850757 7518.11269 0.269177

0.503
184560-64-19 Sample 3 13880 107.5174 4.142389 2.031479 7111.165208 0.512332

184560-64-19 Sample 4 3200 1886.541 3.50515 3.275666 2030.58508 0.634558

185241-64-19 Sample 1 4020 761.4272 3.604226 2.881628 2193.345535 0.545608

185241-64-19 Sample 2 4020 789.1529 3.604226 2.897161 2213.702227 0.550672

0.566
185241-64-19 Sample 3 3020 2189.716 3.480007 3.340388 1987.165794 0.658002

185241-64-19 Sample 4 1090 2548.394 3.037426 3.406267 557.5086962 0.511476

185242-64-19 Sample 1 16730 86.94598 4.223496 1.939249 8971.90703 0.536277

185242-64-19 Sample 2 6260 136.4387 3.796574 2.134938 3143.839228 0.502211 0.523

185242-64-19 Sample 3 3820 341.3472 3.582063 2.533196 2032.022609 0.531943

185265-64-19 Sample 1 4740 360.9203 3.675778 2.557411 2957.711506 0.62399

185265-64-19 Sample 2 7540 261.1031 3.877371 2.416812 4863.621954 0.645043 0.622

185265-64-19 Sample 3 4180 520.3645 3.621176 2.716308 2641.263568 0.631881

186116-70-9.5 Sample 1 60880 2.739231 4.784475 0.437629 26680.44922 0.438247

186116-70-9.5 Sample 2 15140 44.53551 4.180126 1.648706 8011.982249 0.529193 0.509

186116-70-9.5 Sample 3 6840 215.4785 3.835056 2.333404 3837.3945 0.561023

G-3
Figure G.1 C-S curves for evaluated mixtures.

G-4
APPENDIX H. BENDING BEAM RHEOMETER AND DELTA TC DATA

Table H.1 Delta Tc Data for Selected 2017 and 2018 INDOT Construction Projects
S < 300 MPa S > 300 Mpa
Date Completed PG Grade Lab Number Supplier Contractor District T1 (°C) S1 (MPa) m1 T2 (°C) S2 (MPa) m2 Tc, S Tc, m ΔTc
8/1/2016 58-28 16-00188 BP Walsh & Kelly LaPorte -18 232 0.302 -24 518 0.237 -29.9 -28.2 -1.7
5/31/2016 64-22 16-00051 Seneca Milestone Crawfordsville -12 221 0.319 -18 435 0.25 -24.7 -23.7 -1.1
7/8/2016 64-22 16-00123 Seneca Milestone Crawfordsville -12 230.5 0.31 -18 503 0.251 -24.0 -23.0 -1.0
8/12/2016 64-22 16-00236 Interstate Rieth-Riley Crawfordsville -12 250 0.309 -18 471 0.246 -23.7 -22.9 -0.9
8/12/2016 64-22 16-00238 Interstate Rieth-Riley Crawfordsville -12 257 0.306 -18 539 0.235 -23.3 -22.5 -0.7
6/3/2016 64-22 16-00073 BP Walsh & Kelly LaPorte -12 169 0.321 -18 359 0.255 -26.6 -23.9 -2.7
6/28/2016 64-22 16-00078 Interstate Rieth-Riley LaPorte -12 249 0.311 -18 493 0.247 -23.6 -23.0 -0.6
7/13/2016 64-22 16-00134 Seneca Babcock LaPorte -12 212 0.311 -18 471 0.249 -24.6 -23.1 -1.5
7/28/2016 64-22 16-00187 BP Walsh & Kelly LaPorte -12 167.5 0.32 -18 362 0.266 -26.5 -24.2 -2.3
8/17/2016 64-22 16-00273 Interstate Rieth-Riley LaPorte -12 234 0.305 -18 440 0.255 -24.4 -22.6 -1.8
9/13/2016 64-22 16-00378 Interstate Rieth-Riley LaPorte -12 258 0.312 -18 542 0.248 -23.2 -23.1 -0.1
6/3/2016 70-22 16-00067 Seneca Milestone Crawfordsville -12 257.5 0.31 -18 461 0.23 -23.6 -22.8 -0.8
7/26/2016 70-22 16-00169 Asphalt Materials Rieth-Riley Crawfordsville -12 209 0.301 -18 393 0.245 -25.4 -22.1 -3.3
8/16/2016 70-22 16-00263 Bit Mat Rieth-Riley Crawfordsville -12 224 0.325 -18 450 0.255 -24.5 -24.1 -0.4
11/17/2016 70-22 16-00366 Seneca Milestone Crawfordsville -12 283 0.301 -18 541 0.236 -22.5 -22.1 -0.4
11/21/2016 70-22 16-00400 Seneca Milestone Crawfordsville -12 273 0.302 -18 447 0.248 -23.1 -22.2 -0.9
1/5/2017 70-22 16-00612 Asphalt Materials Milestone Crawfordsville -12 176 0.321 -18 367 0.269 -26.4 -24.4 -1.9
1/19/2017 70-22 16-00613 BP Milestone Crawfordsville -12 207 0.301 -18 424 0.254 -25.1 -22.1 -3.0
6/9/2016 70-22 16-00074 BP Walsh & Kelly LaPorte -12 158 0.322 -18 327 0.27 -27.3 -24.5 -2.8
6/9/2016 70-22 16-00075 Interstate Rieth-Riley LaPorte -12 158.5 0.311 -18 311 0.259 -27.7 -23.3 -4.4
6/15/2016 70-22 16-00076 BP Babcock LaPorte -12 156 0.324 -18 303 0.276 -27.9 -25.0 -2.9
7/6/2016 70-22 16-00106 Interstate Rieth-Riley LaPorte -12 193 0.302 -18 388 0.253 -25.8 -22.2 -3.5
7/19/2016 70-22 16-00133 BP E&B LaPorte -12 171 0.317 -18 363 0.272 -26.5 -24.3 -2.2
7/28/2016 70-22 16-00189 Heritage Central Paving LaPorte -12 194 0.304 -18 388 0.262 -25.8 -22.6 -3.2
9/13/2016 70-22 16-00363 Interstate Walsh & Kelly LaPorte -12 194 0.311 -18 387 0.26 -25.8 -23.3 -2.5
9/13/2016 70-22 16-00364 Interstate Rieth-Riley LaPorte -12 219 0.301 -18 463 0.25 -24.5 -22.1 -2.4
12/21/2016 70-22 16-00527 Interstate Walsh & Kelly LaPorte -12 164 0.301 -18 315 0.259 -27.6 -22.1 -5.4
1/26/2017 70-22 16-00633 BP Walsh & Kelly LaPorte -12 161 0.317 -18 351 0.267 -26.8 -24.0 -2.8
1/30/2017 70-22 16-00658 Interstate Rieth-Riley LaPorte -12 196 0.306 -18 371 0.248 -26.0 -22.6 -3.4
5/31/2016 76-22 16-00052 Asphalt Materials Wabash Valley Crawfordsville -12 162.5 0.319 -18 343 0.26 -26.9 -23.9 -3.0
6/28/2016 76-22 16-00122 Asphalt Materials Milestone Crawfordsville -12 165.5 0.313 -18 332 0.259 -27.1 -23.4 -3.7
7/11/2016 76-22 16-00124 Marathon Milestone Crawfordsville -12 158 0.307 -18 339 0.258 -27.0 -22.9 -4.2
8/9/2016 76-22 16-00233 Bit Mat Rieth-Riley Crawfordsville -12 211 0.316 -18 458 0.264 -24.7 -23.8 -0.9

H-1
11/15/2016 76-22 16-00365 Marathon Milestone Crawfordsville -12 141 0.319 -18 327 0.27 -27.4 -24.3 -3.1
11/16/2016 76-22 16-00393 Marathon Wabash Valley Crawfordsville -12 148 0.333 -18 312 0.275 -27.7 -25.4 -2.3
12/29/2016 76-22 16-00573 Bit Mat Rieth-Riley Crawfordsville -12 187 0.314 -18 396 0.268 -25.8 -23.8 -2.0
7/14/2016 76-22 16-00135 Bit Mat Rieth-Riley LaPorte -12 241 0.304 -18 483 0.256 -23.9 -22.5 -1.4
7/20/2016 76-22 16-00136 Seneca Walsh & Kelly LaPorte -12 180 0.319 -18 389 0.26 -26.0 -23.9 -2.0
7/20/2016 76-22 16-00137 Bit Mat Rieth-Riley LaPorte -12 226 0.311 -18 483 0.253 -24.2 -23.1 -1.1
7/26/2016 76-22 16-00139 Bit Mat Rieth-Riley LaPorte -12 230 0.319 -18 467 0.254 -24.3 -23.8 -0.5
8/9/2016 76-22 16-00191 Seneca Rieth-Riley LaPorte -12 196 0.328 -18 421 0.266 -25.3 -24.7 -0.6
8/15/2016 76-22 16-00254 Bit Mat Walsh & Kelly LaPorte -12 215 0.306 -18 451 0.263 -24.7 -22.8 -1.9
8/24/2016 76-22 16-00302 Seneca Walsh & Kelly LaPorte -12 166 0.308 -18 337 0.264 -27.0 -23.1 -3.9
12/2/2016 76-22 16-00443 Seneca Rieth-Riley LaPorte -12 153 0.324 -18 332 0.276 -27.2 -25.0 -2.2
1/26/2016 76-22 16-00634 Bit Mat Rieth-Riley LaPorte -12 197 0.306 -18 392 0.268 -25.7 -22.9 -2.7
1/26/2016 76-22 16-00635 Bit Mat Rieth-Riley LaPorte -12 198 0.309 -18 381 0.258 -25.8 -23.1 -2.8

H-2
About the Joint Transportation Research Program (JTRP)
On March 11, 1937, the Indiana Legislature passed an act which authorized the Indiana State
Highway Commission to cooperate with and assist Purdue University in developing the best
methods of improving and maintaining the highways of the state and the respective counties
thereof. That collaborative effort was called the Joint Highway Research Project (JHRP). In 1997
the collaborative venture was renamed as the Joint Transportation Research Program (JTRP)
to reflect the state and national efforts to integrate the management and operation of various
transportation modes.

The first studies of JHRP were concerned with Test Road No. 1 — evaluation of the weathering
characteristics of stabilized materials. After World War II, the JHRP program grew substantially
and was regularly producing technical reports. Over 1,600 technical reports are now available,
published as part of the JHRP and subsequently JTRP collaborative venture between Purdue
University and what is now the Indiana Department of Transportation.

Free online access to all reports is provided through a unique collaboration between JTRP and
Purdue Libraries. These are available at http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jtrp.

Further information about JTRP and its current research program is available at
http://www.purdue.edu/jtrp.

About This Report

An open access version of this publication is available online. See the URL in the citation below.

Lee, J., Haddock, J. E., Batioja Alvarez, D. D., & Rastegar, R. R. (2019). Quality control and quality
assurance of asphalt mixtures using laboratory rutting and cracking tests (Joint Transportation
Research Program Publication No. FHWA/IN/JTRP-2019/19). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue Univer-
sity. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284317087