AP-T302-15 Seal Design Improvement For Low Volume Roads

Technical Report
AP-T302-15
Seal Design Improvement

for Low Volume Roads
Seal Design Improvement for Low Volume Roads

Prepared by
Publisher
Robert Urquhart, Larissa Aguiar and Khar Yean Khoo
Austroads Ltd.
Level 9, 287 Elizabeth Street
Sydney NSW 2000 Australia
Phone: +61 2 8265 3300
austroads@austroads.com.au
www.austroads.com.au
Project Manager
John Esnouf
Abstract
About Austroads
The current version of the Austroads sprayed seal design method

was published in 2006 and has been in use for the last nine years.
During recent times, a number of sprayed sealing practitioners have
indicated that the basic voids factor for single/single seals in the
current Austroads sprayed seal design method is too high for low
volume roads. To address these concerns, a questionnaire was
initially distributed to jurisdictions and local councils to determine the
extent of the concerns. The results obtained during a literature review
of the derivation of Austroads basic voids factor for single/single
seals, and the equivalent factor in the New Zealand seal design
method, were used as a basis to propose changes to the Austroads
basic voids factor.
Austroads purpose is to:
The responses to the questionnaire indicated that the main issue

associated with the Austroads sprayed seal design method was that
the basic voids factor for single/single seals was too high for low
volume roads. The results obtained during the literature review
indicated that the Austroads basic voids factor has developed
empirically over time based on observations by sealing experts and
practitioners, while the current New Zealand equivalent factor is
based on quantitative measurements obtained during an extensive
series of road trials. As the New Zealand equivalent of the basic
voids factor was based on quantitative measurements, the New
Zealand seal design approach was used to propose changes to the
Austroads basic voids factor.
A new version of the Austroads basic voids factor has been proposed
for single/single seals which will require lower basic voids factors to
be used for low volume roads. The new version of the Austroads
basic voids factor was compared with recent Australian seal
data/observations in order to investigate whether its use would result
in issues with sprayed seals. Based on these comparisons, it
appears unlikely that use of the new version of the Austroads basic
voids factor will result in issues with sprayed seals.
Keywords
Sprayed seal, seal design, surface texture, basic voids factor,
national survey
ISBN 978-1-925294-68-2
Austroads Project No. TT1820
Austroads Publication No. AP-T302-15
Publication date September 2015
Pages 59
Austroads 2015
This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the
Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process
without the prior written permission of Austroads.
promote improved Australian and New Zealand transport

outcomes
provide expert technical input to national policy

development on road and road transport issues
promote improved practice and capability by road agencies

promote consistency in road and road agency operations.
Austroads membership comprises the six state and two
territory road transport and traffic authorities, the
Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Regional
Development, the Australian Local Government Association,
and NZ Transport Agency. Austroads is governed by a Board
consisting of the chief executive officer (or an alternative
senior executive officer) of each of its eleven member
organisations:
Roads and Maritime Services New South Wales
Roads Corporation Victoria
Department of Transport and Main Roads Queensland
Main Roads Western Australia
Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure

South Australia
Department of State Growth Tasmania
Department of Transport Northern Territory
Territory and Municipal Services Directorate, Australian

Capital Territory
Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and

Regional Development
Australian Local Government Association
New Zealand Transport Agency.
The success of Austroads is derived from the collaboration of

member organisations and others in the road industry. It aims
to be the Australasian leader in providing high quality
information, advice and fostering research in the road
transport sector.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Steve Patrick of ARRB Group, Jason Ledwidge of
Boral Asphalt and Andrew Batson of the Department of
Transport Northern Territory for performing the sand patch
tests which were conducted during the current year of this
project. Thanks also to John Patrick for providing the raw
experimental data associated with the New Zealand Lower
Hutt trials and helpful discussions during the project.
This report has been prepared for Austroads as part of its work to promote improved Australian and New Zealand transport outcomes by
providing expert technical input on road and road transport issues.
Individual road agencies will determine their response to this report following consideration of their legislative or administrative
arrangements, available funding, as well as local circumstances and priorities.
Austroads believes this publication to be correct at the time of printing and does not accept responsibility for any consequences arising from
the use of information herein. Readers should rely on their own skill and judgement to apply information to particular issues.
Summary
The Austroads sprayed seal design method is used by sprayed sealing practitioners to construct
sprayed seals in many parts of Australia. The current version of the Austroads sprayed seal design
method was published in 2006 and has been in use for the last nine years. During recent years, a
number of sprayed sealing practitioners have expressed concerns that the basic voids factor for
single/single seals in the current Austroads sprayed seal design method is too high for low volume
roads (< 100 v/l/d). In order to address these concerns, a questionnaire was initially distributed to
jurisdictions and local councils to determine the critical issues relating to seal design for low volume
roads. A literature review of the derivation of the Austroads basic voids factor, and the equivalent
factor in the New Zealand seal design method, was also conducted to determine if the Austroads
basic voids factor for single/single seals could be reduced for low volume roads.
The responses to the questionnaire indicated that the main issue associated with seal design for low
volume roads was that the basic voids factor for single/single seals in the current Austroads sprayed
seal design method was too high. Issues with bleeding of seals, and concerns about the effects of
high percentages or seasonal changes in heavy traffic, were also highlighted.
The results obtained from the literature review indicated that the Austroads basic voids factor for
single/single seals has developed empirically over time from the original work conducted by Hanson in
the 1930s and is based on observations over the years by sealing experts and practitioners. As the
Austroads basic voids factor has developed in this way it is difficult to propose changes to the factor
without conducting an extensive series of trials. Changes to the Austroads basic voids factor were
therefore investigated using the New Zealand seal design approach as the equivalent basic voids
factor in the current New Zealand seal design method is based on quantitative measurements of
surface texture changes which occur in seals under traffic. These quantitative measurements were
obtained from extensive trials which were conducted at Lower Hutt, near Wellington, over a period of
10 years.
As an initial step in utilising the New Zealand seal design approach to propose changes to the
Austroads basic voids factor, the results observed in the Lower Hutt trials were compared with those
obtained for a series of initial seals and reseals which were constructed in various parts of Australia.
These comparisons were made to determine if the results obtained in the Lower Hutt trials were
applicable to Australian road conditions. A good correlation between Australian and New Zealand
results was found if Australian seal results could be expressed in terms of the case where the seals
were constructed on a flat surface (as had been done during the Lower Hutt trials). This result implied
that sprayed seals in both countries showed similar changes in surface texture and the amount of
voids in the seal when they were subjected to the same amount of traffic.
A new version of the Austroads basic voids factor for single/single seals has been proposed based on
the New Zealand seal design approach which yields lower basic voids factors for low volume roads.
The proposed new version of the Austroads basic voids factor was compared to recent seal
data/observations obtained from jurisdictions, and equivalent data from Austroads trial sites at Coober
Pedy (South Australia), Cooma (New South Wales) and Gisborne (Victoria), in order to investigate
whether its use would result in issues with sprayed seals. Based on these comparisons, it appears
that use of the new basic voids factor in the Austroads sprayed seal design method will be unlikely to
result in issues with sprayed seals.
Austroads 2015 | page i
Contents
1.
Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 1
2.
National Survey on Low Volume Roads...................................................................................... 4

2.1 Development of the Questionnaire .......................................................................................... 4
2.2 Participant Information (Q14, 31) .......................................................................................... 4
2.3 Low Volume Roads (Q57, 32) ............................................................................................... 5
2.4 Heavy Vehicles (Q811) .......................................................................................................... 5
2.5 Seal Design Methods and Construction (Q1214, 1718) ...................................................... 6
2.6 Basic Voids Factor, Vf (Q1516) ............................................................................................. 6
2.7 Aggregate (Q1923) ................................................................................................................ 6
2.8 Binder (Q2430) ...................................................................................................................... 6
2.9 Other (Q33) .............................................................................................................................. 6
2.10 General Discussion .................................................................................................................. 7
3.
Literature Review of Basic Voids Factors Used in Australia and New Zealand ..................... 8
3.1 Foundation Work Conducted by Hanson................................................................................. 8
3.2 Review of the Development of the Australian/Austroads Basic Voids Factor (Vf) .................. 9
3.2.1
1950s60s .................................................................................................................. 9
3.2.2
1970s80s ................................................................................................................ 10
3.2.3
1990s2000s ............................................................................................................ 11
3.3 Review of the Development of the New Zealand Basic Voids Factor for Single/Single
Seals ...................................................................................................................................... 13
3.3.1
1960s70s ................................................................................................................ 13
3.3.2
1980s90s ................................................................................................................ 15
3.3.3
2000s ........................................................................................................................ 17
3.4 Discussion.............................................................................................................................. 21
4.
Comparisons Between Lower Hutt and Australian Data ......................................................... 23

4.1 Conversion of the Lower Hutt Data to Australian Traffic Terms ............................................ 23
4.2 Comparisons between Lower Hutt and Australian Seal Data ............................................... 24
4.2.1
Initial Seals (South Australia and the Northern Territory) ......................................... 26
4.2.2
Reseals (Austroads Trials at Coober Pedy and Cooma).......................................... 29
4.2.3
Reseals (Austroads Trial at Gisborne) ...................................................................... 32
4.3 Discussion.............................................................................................................................. 38
5.
Modification of the Austroads Basic Voids Factor Using the Lower Hutt Equation ............ 39
6.
Validation of the Proposed New Austroads Basic Voids Factor ............................................ 43
7.
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 49
References ........................................................................................................................................... 50
Appendix A
Low Volume Road Survey ...................................................................................... 52
Appendix B
Effective Basic Voids Factor Values for Austroads Trial Sites .......................... 58
Austroads 2015 | page ii
Tables
Table 2.1:
Table 3.1:
Table 4.1:
Table 4.2:
Table 4.3:
Table 4.4:
Table 4.5:
Table 5.1:
Table 6.1:
Table 6.2:
Table 6.3:
Table B 1:
Table B 2:
Table B 3:
Survey response statistics ................................................................................................ 5

Basic voids factor table from Austroads (1990) .............................................................. 12
Results obtained for the Australian initial seals .............................................................. 27
Results obtained for the Coober Pedy reseals ............................................................... 30
Results obtained for the Cooma reseals ........................................................................ 31
Results obtained for the Gisborne slow lane .................................................................. 33
Results obtained for the Gisborne fast lane ................................................................... 35
Changes in the fraction of total voids to be filled with binder determined for
different traffic volumes .................................................................................................. 41
Seal design parameters and Austroads sprayed seal design results obtained
using jurisdiction 1 seal data .......................................................................................... 44
Seal design parameters and effective basic voids factor values determined for
jurisdictional and Northern Territory seals ...................................................................... 45
Seal design parameters used to calculate effective basic voids factor values for
relevant sections of the Austroads Coober Pedy, Cooma and Gisborne trial sites ....... 46
Section-specific seal design parameters and effective basic voids factor values
determined for different sections of the Coober Pedy trial site ...................................... 58
determined for different sections of the Cooma trial site ................................................ 59
determined for different sections of the Gisborne trial site ............................................. 59
Figures
Figure 1.1:
Figure 1.2:
Figure 3.1:
Figure 3.2:
Figure 3.3:
Figure 4.1:
Figure 4.2:
Figure 4.3:
Figure 4.4:
Figure 4.5:
Figure 4.6:
Figure 5.1:
Figure 5.2:
Figure 6.1:
Figure 6.2:
Figure 6.3:
Basic voids factor (Vf) versus traffic volume for 0 to 500 v/l/d ......................................... 1
Basic voids factor (Vf) versus traffic volume for 500 to 10 000 v/l/d ................................ 2
Spray rate chart from the Manual of sealing and paving practice .................................. 14
Geometric properties of a single/single seal used by Patrick to develop the seal
voids parameter .............................................................................................................. 18
Seal voids parameter versus cumulative traffic obtained from the Lower Hutt trials ..... 19
Seal voids parameter versus cumulative traffic in vehicles/lane obtained during
the Lower Hutt trials ........................................................................................................ 23
Comparison of the relative packing of aggregate particles in the three types of
seals studied ................................................................................................................... 26
Comparison of the results obtained for Australian initial seals with those obtained
in the Lower Hutt trials .................................................................................................... 28
Comparison of the results obtained for the Coober Pedy and Cooma reseals with
those obtained in the Lower Hutt trials ........................................................................... 32
Comparison of the results obtained for the Gisborne slow lane with those obtained
in the Lower Hutt trials .................................................................................................... 37
Comparison of the results obtained for the Gisborne fast lane with those obtained
in the Lower Hutt trials ................................................................................................... 37
Comparison of basic voids factors calculated by using different traffic volumes
in the analysis ................................................................................................................. 41
Comparison between the proposed Austroads basic voids factor and the
New Zealand equivalent ................................................................................................. 42
Example of the linear fitting process used to calculate effective basic voids
factor values ................................................................................................................... 44
Comparison between effective basic voids factors determined using recent Australia
seal data and the new and current versions of the Austroads basic voids factor .......... 48
Expanded view of the data shown in Figure 6.2 ............................................................. 48
Austroads 2015 | page iii
1. Introduction
The Austroads sprayed seal design method is used by sprayed sealing practitioners to construct sprayed
seals in many parts of Australia. The method gives advice on appropriate materials to be used in sprayed
seal construction and provides a means by which binder application rates and aggregate spread rates can
be calculated to produce performing seals. The current version of the Austroads sprayed seal design method
Update of the Austroads sprayed seal design method (Austroads 2006) was published in 2006 and has been
in use for the last nine years. An update of the sprayed seal design method for double/double seals was
published in 2013 (Austroads 2013a). This update replaced Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Austroads (2006)
document.
The Austroads sprayed seal design method allows design binder application rates to be calculated for
single/single seals using a number of input parameters. These include the type of binder used during
construction, the size and properties of the aggregate, the texture and hardness of the underlying surface,
and the expected traffic volume and percentage of heavy vehicles on the seal. During the initial stages of
seal design, the effect of traffic volume on the design binder application rate is considered by use of the
basic voids factor (Vf). The basic voids factor is included in the Austroads sprayed seal design method to
account for changes in aggregate orientation which occur when sprayed seals are trafficked. Figure 1.1
shows a plot of the basic voids factor against traffic volume for traffic volumes of between 0 and 500
vehicles/lane/day (v/l/d). Figure 1.2 shows the same plot for traffic volumes of between 500 and 10 000 v/l/d.
Figure 1.1: Basic voids factor (Vf) versus traffic volume for 0 to 500 v/l/d
Source: Austroads (2006).
Austroads 2015 | page 1
Figure 1.2: Basic voids factor (Vf) versus traffic volume for 500 to 10 000 v/l/d
The basic voids factor to be used in a seal design is determined from the traffic volume on the seal using the
target line shown in Figure 1.1 or Figure 1.2. The basic voids factor value obtained from reading the
appropriate graph is then rounded to the nearest 0.01 L/m2/mm. The upper and lower limits shown in the
figures represent indicative confidence limits for the design voids factor (VF) which is calculated after
applying adjustments for aggregate shape (Va) and traffic effects (Vt) to the basic voids factor (Vf). The
Austroads sprayed seal design method indicates that if the VF value used in seal design is higher than the
upper limits shown in Figure 1.1 and Figure 1.2, the resultant binder level in the sprayed seal may be too
high which could increase the risk of bleeding or flushing. If the VF value used in seal design is lower than
the lower limits shown in the figures, the resultant binder level in the sprayed seal may be too low which
could increase the risk of early loss of aggregate from the seal. The amount of binder to be added to a
sprayed seal due to traffic volume effects alone is determined in the Austroads sprayed seal design method
by multiplying the basic voids factor (Vf) by the average least dimension (ALD) of the aggregate to be used in
seal construction.
During recent years, a number of sprayed seal practitioners have expressed concerns that the basic voids
factor for single/single seals in the current Austroads sprayed seal design method is too high for low volume
roads (< 100 v/l/d) as its use appears to produce sprayed seals on low traffic roads which are more prone to
bleeding. To address these concerns, the Austroads Bituminous Surfacings Working Group (BSWG) formed
a specialist working group in December 2013. The working group initially proposed that a questionnaire be
developed so that the critical issues relating to seal design for low volume roads could be better understood.
The questionnaire was distributed to jurisdictions and local councils in early 2014 and all responses were
received by the end of May 2014. The main aims of the questionnaire were to:
identify the critical issues encountered by practitioners in designing and maintaining sealed low volume
roads
understand the seal design methods which were currently used by practitioners
identify possible opportunities for improvement of the Austroads sprayed seal design method for low
volume roads.
A summary of the main conclusions obtained from the questionnaire are presented in Section 2.
Based on the responses to the questionnaire, it appeared that a number of sprayed sealing practitioners
were concerned that the basic voids factor in the Austroads sprayed seal design method was too high for low
volume roads. In response to these more widespread concerns, the main aim of the majority of work
conducted during the project in 201415 was to review the derivation of the Austroads basic voids factor for
single/single seals, and the derivation of the equivalent factor used in the New Zealand seal design method,
to determine if appropriate changes to the Austroads basic voids factor could be made.
This report includes the results obtained from a literature review which investigated the changes to the basic
voids factor for single/single seals which have occurred in Australia and New Zealand over time. It also
includes investigations into the development of a new version of the Austroads basic voids factor for
single/single seals which would be more likely to be suitable for use in seal designs for low volume roads.
2. National Survey on Low Volume Roads

2.1 Development of the Questionnaire
A questionnaire was developed during early 2014 to identify and understand the critical issues relating to
seal design for low volume roads to inform the direction of future revisions to the current Austroads sprayed
seal design method (Austroads 2006). The questionnaire contained a short explanation of the purpose of the
survey followed by 33 questions broadly divided into 8 categories:
Participant information (Q14, 31): respondents jurisdictions, climate and design responsibilities
Low volume roads (Q57, 32): definition of, and involvement with low volume roads
Heavy vehicles (Q811): effects of heavy vehicle traffic on low volume roads and the effects on the
sprayed seal
Seal design methods and construction (Q1214, 1718): seal design and construction methods and
their performance
Basic voids factor (Q1516): how the Austroads basic voids factor for traffic volumes of between 0 to
500 v/l/d (Figure 1.1) is currently being used
Aggregate (Q1923): typical size of aggregate and aggregate spread rate, as well as typical seal lives
expected for different sized aggregates
Binder (Q2430): binder type and application rate
Other (Q33): further comments.
The survey was circulated to 7 state jurisdictions and 454 local council representatives using Survey
Monkey and all responses were received during May 2014. Respondents were not required to answer all
questions on the survey. The full survey as distributed, including all the questions, is presented in
Appendix A.
The following sections summarise the main information obtained from the survey. A detailed analysis of all
responses is not included in this report as the purpose of the survey was to get a broad sense of the critical
issues related to low volume road seal design.
The terminology used in following sections is defined as follows:
all respondents refers to all survey respondents
respondents refers to participants that responded to the question being discussed.
2.2 Participant Information (Q14, 31)

Local councils formed the majority (83%) of responses received, followed by state jurisdictions (14%)
(Table 2.1). Two responses were also received from sprayed sealing contractors (3%). A range of climates
was represented in the survey, with a climate of a hot dry summer and cold winter being the most
represented (31%). This was followed by a warm summer and cold winter climate (15%), and hot humid
summer climate (15%).
The majority of all respondents worked in rural (64%) and partially rural (12%) regions, rather than urban
areas, which is to be expected as sprayed seals on low volume roads are more common in these areas; 44%
of all respondents undertook seal design. Of the 57% of respondents that did not undertake seal design, the
majority (95%) had the contractor design the seal. Even though this was the case, the local council and state
jurisdiction representatives which responded to the survey would need to monitor the performance of seal
designs, so therefore should be in a position to provide input into the seal design method.
Table 2.1:
Survey response statistics

Number of responses received
State
State jurisdictions
Local councils
Sprayed sealing
contractors
Total
NSW
18
18
VIC
19
23
QLD
10
WA
SA
TAS
10
NT
Grand total
11
64
77
2.3 Low Volume Roads (Q57, 32)

The most common traffic definition of a low volume road was less than 100 v/l/d (47% of respondents) with
22% of respondents indicating it was between 100 and 150 v/l/d, and 18% of respondents indicating it was
between 150 and 200 v/l/d. Most of the responses at the lowest traffic level came from respondents who
worked in rural areas. Most respondents (66%) estimated that 40% or more of their road network was
surfaced with sprayed seals; 78% of respondents said that more than 20% of their sprayed seal network
would be low volume roads. The rural/urban split for low volume roads was at least 70/30 for most
practitioners (56% of respondents).
2.4 Heavy Vehicles (Q811)

Most low volume roads (74% of respondents) were reported as having a high percentage of heavy vehicles;
88% of the low volume roads considered to have a high percentage of heavy vehicles had heavy vehicle
loadings greater than 6%; 18% of these low volume roads had heavy vehicle loadings greater than 30%.
Bleeding was reported as the most prevalent performance issue associated with heavy vehicles on low
volume roads (91% of respondents) although the effects were generally considered not serious.
Cracking, potholes and stripping were all identified by 86% of respondents to be issues associated with
heavy vehicles on low traffic roads. The majority of responses indicated that issues with cracking and
potholes were considered to be moderately serious, while stripping issues were considered to be not serious.
Altering the binder application rate and using polymer modified binders (PMBs) were the most common ways
of catering for high percentages of heavy vehicles on low volume roads.
2.5 Seal Design Methods and Construction (Q1214, 1718)

The Austroads method was the most used seal design method (used by 62% of respondents) followed by
contractors methods (used by 29% of respondents) and state jurisdiction methods (used by 20% of
respondents); 47% of respondents believed that the Austroads sprayed seal design method produced the
best field performance; 22% of all respondents reported issues with the Austroads seal design method. The
most common issue reported with the Austroads design method was that the basic voids factor for
single/single seals was too high for low volume roads (5 responses). This was followed by issues with seal
bleeding (2 responses) and issues associated with high percentages or seasonal changes in heavy vehicle
traffic (2 responses).
Nearly half of respondents (53%) used different design or construction practices for low volume roads than
high volume roads, or timed the construction of low volume roads differently from that of high volume roads
(74% of respondents).
2.6 Basic Voids Factor, Vf (Q1516)

The basic voids factor as given by Figure 1.1 was used by 80% of respondents. In terms of respondents who
conducted seal designs and did not use the basic voids factor, the most common response was that they
altered the basic voids factor based on local knowledge and past experience. The majority of respondents
(58%) did not think that the Austroads basic voids factor should vary with the size of the aggregate (10 mm
or 14 mm).
2.7 Aggregate (Q1923)

Most practitioners have a typical aggregate size and spread rate that they use in their sprayed seals. A
10 mm aggregate was the most commonly used size, but spread rates varied widely from 75225 m2/m3;
83% of respondents found that the aggregate spread rates in Austroads design guides were acceptable, with
10% of respondents finding them too light and 7% finding them too heavy. Most respondents indicated that
the service life of sprayed seals constructed with 7 mm, 10 mm and 14 mm aggregates was between 10 and
12 years. The main responses obtained for seals constructed with 16 mm aggregates indicated that their
service lives were either between 10 and 12 years or > 15 years. Most respondents indicated that the service
lives of double-double seals were > 15 years; 83% of the responses relating to seal lives were based on
experience, while 17% were based on data.
2.8 Binder (Q2430)

Class 170 (C170) bitumen was the most commonly used binder (used by 70% of respondents) followed by
PMBs (used by 34% of respondents). Within their networks, practitioners generally had either a very low
proportion (05%) of sprayed seals containing PMBs (37% of respondents), or a proportion greater than 20%
(41% of respondents). Use of PMBs was considered to have increased over the last 5 years due to their
superior performance and flexibility compared with conventional bitumen. Most practitioners (80% of
respondents) found that their chosen design method produced acceptable binder application rates for low
volume roads; 14% of respondents found their method produced a too heavy binder application rate, while
6% said their method produced a too light binder application rate.
2.9 Other (Q33)

Fifteen per cent of total respondents had further issues with seal design that they would like addressed, with
bleeding, flushing and heavy vehicles the most common themes.
2.10 General Discussion

Overall, 77 completed questionnaires were received: 11 from state jurisdictions, 64 from local councils and 2
from sprayed sealing contractors. Most respondents had a considerable proportion of low volume sprayed
seal roads on their network and thus were able to provide valid insight into current practices. A low volume
road was most commonly defined as having a traffic volume less than 100 v/l/d. Most low volume roads were
also reported to have a high percentage of heavy vehicles which could exacerbate any sprayed seal design
problems. Most respondents used the Austroads sprayed seal design method to design sprayed seals and
most commonly used C170 bitumen as the binder and 10 mm aggregate. PMBs, however, have been
increasingly used in sprayed seals over the past five years due to their superior performance. The main
identified issue with the current Austroads sprayed seal design method was that the basic voids factor for
single/single seals was too high for low volume roads. Issues with seal bleeding and issues relating to high
percentages or seasonal changes in heavy vehicle traffic were also identified by survey respondents.
3. Literature Review of Basic Voids Factors Used

in Australia and New Zealand
3.1 Foundation Work Conducted by Hanson
The sprayed seal design methods used in Australia and New Zealand were originally based on the work
conducted by Hanson (1935) who published the first paper describing a scientific approach to the design of
sprayed seals. Based on a series of laboratory experiments and inspections of New Zealand roads, Hanson
found that sprayed seals should be designed so that the height of the binder should be approximately two
thirds of the height of the aggregate after the aggregate had been fully compacted/re-orientated by traffic.
Hansons main observations relating to sprayed seal design were summarised as follows in the New Zealand
document Manual of sealing and paving practice (National Roads Board 1968):
1. If enough aggregate is placed on a road surface to yield an evenly spread aggregate layer, the
percentage of voids when the aggregate is initially placed is approximately 50%. The percentage of
voids is reduced to 30% by rolling during construction, and is further reduced to 20% after traffic has
fully compacted the aggregate.
2. The amount of binder to be used in a sprayed seal is related to the volume of voids between
aggregates. Sufficient binder should be added to a sprayed seal so that between 65 to 70% of the
voids between aggregates are filled when the aggregate has been fully compacted by traffic.
3. The average depth of an aggregate layer after it has been fully compacted by traffic is approximately
equal to the average least dimension (ALD) of the aggregate.
Using these three observations, Hanson indicated that the design binder application rate to be used in a
sprayed seal would be given by Equation 1:
R = v ALD
where
R
v
ALD
design binder application rate (L/m2)
fraction of voids in the seal after traffic has fully compacted the aggregate
fraction of voids in the seal to be filled with binder
average least dimension of the aggregate (mm)
Note: Hansons equation has been expressed in terms of metric rather than imperial units. Units of mm and L/m2 are
dimensionally equivalent.
Substitution of an value of 0.67 (i.e. the middle of the range of values shown in point 2) and a v value of
0.20 (from point 1) yields Equation 2:
R = 0.67 0.20 ALD = 0.134 ALD
where
R
ALD
=
=

Hansons approach while allowing for compaction by traffic, did not offer any way to account for different
traffic volumes. The basic voids factor (Vf) in the current Austroads sprayed seal design method (Austroads
2006) is included to account for the different compaction effects of traffic.
3.2 Review of the Development of the Australian/Austroads Basic Voids

Factor (Vf)
3.2.1 1950s60s
Hansons approach to determining design binder application rates was used throughout Australia during the
early years even though it did not cater for the different compaction effects of traffic. The earliest published
sprayed seal design method found during the literature review which considered the effect of traffic volume
on sprayed seal design was included in the Victorian Bituminous surfacing of roads handbook (Country
Roads Board 1954). This method determined the design binder application rate to be used in a sprayed seal
using Equation 1 with the value of v set at 0.20 based on Hansons studies. The value of was listed in
tabular form and was dependent on both traffic volume and type of aggregate used in the seal. Values of
ranged from 0.65 to 0.80. Traffic volumes were split into three levels (i.e. < 250, 2501000, and > 1000
vehicles per day for a 12-hour vehicle count). Higher values of were used for low traffic volumes, and lower
values were used for higher traffic volumes.
The earliest Australian national method found during the literature review which included the effect of traffic
on sprayed seal design was included in the first edition of Principles and practice of bituminous surfacings
which was published by the National Association of Australian State Road Authorities (NAASRA) (National
Association of Australian State Road Authorities 1965). This method indicated that the design binder
application rate for a sprayed seal should be such that the binder filled 70% of the theoretical voids in the
seal if the seal was subjected to average traffic conditions and was constructed with normal crushed
aggregate. The theoretical voids in a sprayed seal was taken to be equal to the fraction of voids in the seal
after the aggregate had been fully compacted by traffic. Based on Hansons work, the theoretical voids was
set to the value of 0.20.
This national method also indicated that the design binder application rate could be adjusted to allow for the
effects of different traffic volumes and aggregate types by either adjusting the rate based on experience, or
by changing the percentage of theoretical voids that were filled with binder in the seal. The second method,
like the Country Roads Board method, used Equation 1 to calculate design binder application rates with the
value of v set at 0.20. A guide to the values of to be used in Equation 1 was given in tabular form for five
different traffic volume ranges (i.e. < 100, 100500, 5001000, 10002000 and > 2000 vehicles/day for a
12-hour vehicle count). The values of ranged between 0.60 and 0.85 for good quality crushed aggregates,
and 0.75 to 0.90 for quartz aggregates and gravels. Higher values of were recommended for low traffic
volumes, and lower values were recommended for higher traffic volumes. The values of listed in the
Country Roads Board and NAASRA methods appear to be based on practitioner experience.
The NAASRA method also indicated that allowances should be made to design binder application rates to
account for the nature of the surface to be treated. This included increasing the design binder application
rate for initial seals where the pavement had not been primed and allowing for binder absorption into the
pavement. The NAASRA method also indicated that the design binder application rate for reseals should be
increased to allow for the surface texture of the existing seal and decreased if the surface of the existing seal
appeared fatty. It was noted that numerical recommendations for changes to design binder application rates
could not be made as the amount of binder required for each type of sprayed seal would depend on the type
of aggregate used in the particular treatment.
3.2.2 1970s80s
During the 1970s, Potter and Church (1976) conducted an extensive study into the changes in voids which
occurred in sprayed seals when they were subjected to traffic by conducting a series of laboratory
experiments and monitoring the changes in voids which occurred when a series of South Australian initial
seals were trafficked. Based on laboratory studies, which involved placing aggregates in flat trays and then
noting the volume of water which filled the voids between the aggregates, Potter and Church found that there
were 32% voids in a sprayed seal when the thickness of the seal layer was equal to the ALD of the
aggregate which differed from the 20% value originally determined by Hanson (Section 3.1). They noted that
if sprayed seals were constructed using modern construction practices (where the use of pneumatic-tyred
rollers and harder aggregates minimised aggregate crushing) then the percentage of voids in a sprayed seal
after the aggregate had been fully compacted by traffic would not be expected to fall below the range of
between 35 to 40%. Based on the results of their study, Potter and Church proposed a new sprayed seal
design method for initial seals which included contributions from the traffic volume on the seal, the hardness
of the underlying pavement (which affected the degree of aggregate embedment which occurred) and the
ALD of the aggregate.
Even though the sprayed seal design method of Potter and Church was not adopted nationally, the second
and third editions of the NAASRA document Principles and practice of bituminous surfacings (National
Association of State Road Authorities 1975, National Association of State Road Authorities 1980) noted that
the 20% value determined by Hanson may be influenced by both aggregate breakdown and aggregate
embedment into the underlying pavement. Even though this point was noted, both methods still utilised a
theoretical voids value of 0.20 to determine design binder application rates. The second and third editions of
the NAASRA document used the same method to determine the effects of traffic volume on the design
binder application rate. Both methods expressed Equation 1 in the form of Equation 3:
R=
where
R
%VF
ALD
%VF
ALD
500
percentage of theoretical voids in the seal to be filled with binder
The values of %VF to be used in sprayed seal design were tabulated in the second and third editions of the
NAASRA document in terms of either traffic volume or aggregate type. Aggregate was classified in terms of
either being crushed or rounded, while there were seven different traffic volume categories which included
traffic ranges of < 50, 50150, 150250, 250500, 5001000, 10002000 and > 2000 vehicles/day for a
12-hour vehicle count. The tabulated values of %VF ranged from 60 to 95% with lower values of %VF
recommended for higher traffic volumes. The values of %VF for crushed aggregates were lower than those
recommended for rounded aggregates. The second and third editions of the NAASRA document also
indicated that allowances should be made to the design binder application rate to account for the nature of
the surface to be treated. The advice on allowances given in the second and third editions of the document
was very similar to that given in the first edition (National Association of Australian State Road Authorities
1965).
During the 1980s, state jurisdictions began to diverge from the NAASRA design method by either amending
the method considering local conditions or adopting other sprayed seal design practices. As a result of these
changes, a review was conducted during the late 1980s into sprayed seal design methods used in various
parts of Australia and overseas (National Association of State Road Authorities 1988). Sprayed seal design
methods were classified as either being empirical methods (in which assumed or estimated voids
percentages were used as a basis for seal design) or rational methods (where actual voids percentages
were calculated during seal design considering the properties of the aggregate). During the review it was
acknowledged that the NAASRA design method was an empirical method and that the original Hanson
method was no longer relevant to current construction practices. Further research was proposed during the
review to develop a more rational seal design approach for use in Australia.
The 1989 version of the NAASRA sprayed seal design method (National Association of State Road
Authorities 1989) used the same Hanson-based approach as the 1975 and 1980 NAASRA methods,
however the seven traffic volume categories where expressed in terms of annual average daily traffic (AADT)
levels of < 70, 70200, 201300, 301600, 6011250, 12512500 and > 2500 vehicles per day. The
tabulated values of %VF ranged from 60 to 100% with lower values of %VF used for higher traffic volumes.
The values of %VF for crushed aggregates were, like the 1975 and 1980 methods, lower than those
recommended for rounded aggregates. Like the previous NAASRA methods, the 1989 version of the
NAASRA sprayed seal design method also provided advice on how allowances could be made to the design
binder application rate to account for the nature of the surface to be treated.
3.2.3 1990s2000s
The sections relating to design aggregate application rates and binder application rates in the 1989 version
of the NAASRA sprayed seal design method were replaced by the Austroads Design of sprayed seals
document in 1990 (Austroads 1990). The section of the Austroads document relating to design binder
application rates was still based on the empirical method used in earlier NAASRA seal design methods but
as it was acknowledged that the %VF approach used in previous sprayed seal design methods did not
actually reflect the actual amount of voids in sprayed seals when they were trafficked, the component of the
design binder application rate which related to traffic volume on the seal was expressed in terms of a basic
voids factor (Vf) which was equivalent to the product of and v in Equation 1.
The design binder application rate to be used in a sprayed seal was determined in the 1990 method by
initially determining the basic voids factor appropriate to the volume of traffic on the seal by reference to a
table. Adjustments were then made to the basic voids factor to allow for any traffic-related effects (such as
the presence of a high percentage of heavy vehicles) to yield a parameter referred to as the voids factor
(VF). The voids factor value was then multiplied by the ALD of the aggregate to yield a basic binder
application rate (Bb). The design binder application rate to be used during construction of a sprayed seal
was determined by applying a number of adjustments to the basic binder application rate to account for
effects relating to existing seal surface texture, aggregate absorption and pavement absorption/embedment.
Table 3.1 shows the basic voids factor ranges that were listed in the 1990 method as a function of traffic
volume when traffic volumes are expressed in terms of v/l/d. As in the case of the previous NAASRA sprayed
seal design methods, use of the basic voids factor resulted in lower design binder application rates being
calculated for lower trafficked roads. The 1990 method indicated that the basic voids factor to be used in seal
design should be selected from the ranges shown in Table 3.1 based on the characteristics of the aggregate.
The lower limit values shown in the table were considered to be applicable to good quality crushed
aggregates. The higher limit values were considered to be applicable to rounded or cubical aggregates with
a low flakiness index, or larger sized aggregates.
Table 3.1:
Basic voids factor table from Austroads (1990)

Traffic volume (v/l/d)
Basic voids factor, Vf (L/m2/mm)
< 35
0.200.24
35100
0.180.21
100150
0.160.19
150300
0.150.17
300625
0.140.16
6251250
0.130.15
> 1250
0.120.14
In the early 1990s there was growing concern among state jurisdictions about the inconsistent performance
of sprayed seals (Booth 1992). As a result of this, a trial was undertaken consisting of 47 sites which were
located in Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, Queensland and New South Wales (Austroads 2001).
At each site, three subsections were constructed where different binder application rates were used. The
binder application rates used in each of the subsections were determined using three different sprayed seal
design methods which included:
the Austroads 1990 sprayed seal design method
a modified version South African Institute of Transport and Road Research method which was used in
New South Wales at the time
the standard method used by the relevant state jurisdiction.
All sites were constructed during the 199192 and 199293 sealing seasons. The performance of the
sprayed seal sections was qualitatively assessed two years after construction by a team of sprayed sealing
experts (Austroads 2001). Laboratory tests were also performed on samples which were obtained from the
trial sections two years after construction so that information about the overall thickness of the sprayed seal
trial sections and the fraction of voids in the seals after they had been trafficked could be calculated
(Gaughan et al. 1997).
Based on the results collected during the trials, two different sprayed seal design methods were proposed.
One method was based on a statistical analysis of the field data obtained in the trials as well as the results
determined using laboratory tests. This method was referred to as method 7a (Austroads 2004). The other
method was based on the previous empirical versions of the sprayed seal design method with adjustments
made with some input from the statistical analysis and practitioners experience-based adjustments and
allowances. This method was referred to as the incremental approach (Austroads 2001).
A new version of the Austroads sprayed seal design method was published in 2001 which used the
empirically-based incremental approach for the design of sprayed seals (Austroads 2001). This method was
chosen over method 7A as it was believed that the use of method 7A would result in a radical shift from the
earlier methods which were used to design sprayed seals. It was also considered that implementation of
method 7A would require a significant amount of effort and that it would be unwise to utilise this method prior
to conducting further validation trials (Austroads 2001).
The Austroads sprayed seal design method which was published in 2001 determined design binder
application rates by utilising a similar overall approach to that of the 1990 method. The basic voids factor to
be used in seal design, however, was represented by graphs of the basic voids factor against traffic volume
rather than being expressed in terms of a table of values. The basic voids factor to be used in the 2001
Austroads seal design method was the same as that shown by the target lines in Figure 1.1 and Figure 1.2.
The Austroads 2001 sprayed seal design method included a number of additional tables and graphs
compared with the 1990 method which quantified the allowances required for seal design which were
described in terms of advice in the previous method. These included a table of numerical adjustments to
account for the effects of aggregate shape and a more extensive table of adjustments to account for
traffic-related effects on the sprayed seal. There was also a new table which listed adjustments required for
different levels of binder absorption by the aggregate and more detailed information about the adjustments
required to account for aggregate embedment into the underlying substrate.
The current Austroads sprayed seal design method (Austroads 2006) was published in 2006 and was
predominantly based on the 2001 sprayed seal design method. The 2006 method included a new section on
the selection of sprayed seal treatments, and specific sections relating to seal design methods for sprayed
seals constructed using polymer modified binders (PMBs) which were not included in the previous method.
Even though the 2006 version of the Austroads sprayed seal design method was more comprehensive than
the 2001 version, the basic voids factor to be used in sprayed seal design for a single/single seal was the
same in both versions.
Based on the information described above, it can be seen that the basic voids factor (Vf) in the current
version of the Austroads sprayed seal method has developed from the original work conducted by Hanson in
the 1930s. Changes to the basic voids factor have occurred over time based on observations by sealing
experts and practitioners and qualitative assessments of a considerable number of sprayed seal trial sites.
The current Austroads sprayed seal design method can best be described as an empirical method as design
binder application rates are not determined considering the actual volume of voids which exist in a sprayed
seal but are based on the experience of sealing practitioners which have contributed over many years.
3.3 Review of the Development of the New Zealand Basic Voids Factor
for Single/Single Seals
3.3.1 1960s70s
The design method proposed by Hanson (1935) as described in Section 3.1 was in common use in New
Zealand until the late 1960s. During the time of its use, it was noted that the Hanson method did not cater for
a number of factors relevant to sprayed seal design. In particular, the method did not account for the effects
of different traffic volumes on the compaction of the aggregate.
As a result, trial sections were constructed in 196566 to determine the effect of traffic volume on the
performance of Hanson-derived binder application rates (Transit New Zealand 1993). At each site, three
different binder application rates were used: the design rate, a lower rate and a higher rate. In August 1969,
experienced practitioners were asked to assess the trial sections and make an estimate of their future life
spans. The data and expert assessment from the 196566 trials were used in conjunction with data from
other in-service sprayed seals and Hansons theory to produce Figure 3.1. Figure 3.1 was first published in
the 1968 Manual of sealing and paving practice (National Roads Board 1968) and republished in the 1971
issue (National Roads Board 1971). The spray rate chart accounted for various factors not catered for by
Hanson, including traffic volumes in v/l/d at the bottom right of Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1: Spray rate chart from the Manual of sealing and paving practice
Note: The term ALD of chip in the figure would be referred to in Austroads terms as the ALD of the aggregate.
The sand circle diameter term in the figure corresponds to the average diameter of the circle obtained during
a sand patch test.
Source: National Roads Board (1971).
The 1971 Manual of sealing and paving practice also gave written advice in addition to the figure with
respect to the effects of traffic volume on design binder application rates. The manual assumed 500 v/l/d as
the standard traffic volume used for seal design. To account for non-standard traffic volumes, the 1971
issue provided the following recommendations:
increase the design binder application rate by 8% of traffic volumes < 250 v/l/d
reduce the design binder application rate by 8% for traffic volumes of 1000 v/l/d
reduce the design binder application rate by 16% for traffic volumes > 1500 v/l/d
doubling of the traffic volume requires a decrease of 3.5% in design binder application rates.
In 1975, a metric addendum to the Manual of sealing and paving practice was issued with no changes to the
method for the design of sprayed seals (National Roads Board 1975). In this addendum, the Hanson
equation (which was used to calculate the basic application rate) appeared as shown in Equation 4:
R b = 0.15 ALD
where
Rb
ALD
=
=
basic binder application rate (L/m2)

While the above equation and chart were produced to give a design binder application rate, it was stressed
in both National Roads Board (1971) and in papers of the time (e.g. Major & Tuohey 1974) that the design
binder application rate was to be used only as a starting point and that field verification and modification
should be applied using good engineering judgment.
3.3.2 1980s90s
In 1984, the RD286: 1984 sand circle design algorithm (as described in Transit New Zealand 1989) provided
an equation to calculate design binder application rates rather than the spray rate chart which was used
previously. This equation has been referred to as the RD286 equation in New Zealand documents. The
design binder application rate was given by Equation 5:
R = (0.138 ALD) + e Tf
where
R
ALD
e
Tf
surface texture correction factor (L/m2)
traffic factor
The values of e and Tf in Equation 5 were obtained by looking up a table of values. The value of e in
Equation 5 was linearly related to the surface texture of the existing seal surface. The value of Tf in
Equation 5 accounted for changes in aggregate orientation due to the volume of traffic on the seal (Transit
New Zealand 1993). Prior to 1986, the traffic adjustment factor was based on the trials and expert
assessments conducted in the 1960s which were discussed in Section 3.2.1.
Changes were made to the traffic adjustment factor in 1986 and 1993 based on practical experience (Transit
New Zealand 2005). At both times, the changes involved increasing the traffic adjustment factor at low traffic
volumes (< 1000 v/l/d) but keeping the factor the same at high traffic volumes (> 1000 v/l/d). In 1986,
changes to the traffic adjustment factor resulted in a 17% increase in the factor for a traffic volume of
100 v/l/d (Towler & Dawson 2008). The 1993 changes resulted in a further 15% increase in the traffic
adjustment factor at a traffic volume of 100 v/l/d (Transit New Zealand 1993).
The 1993 version of the New Zealand sprayed seal design method (Transit New Zealand 1993), continued to
use the RD286 equation (Equation 5) to determine design binder application rates. Values of the parameters
e and Tf to be used in seal design were listed in both tabular and equation form. The surface texture
correction factor, e, was related to the surface texture of the existing seal surface by Equation 6:
e = (0.21 Td ) 0.05
where
e
Td
=
=
surface texture correction factor (L/m2)

existing seal surface texture determined from a sand patch test (mm)
The traffic factor was calculated using Equation 7:
log 10 (Tf ) = 0.438 0.134 log 10 (T)
where
Tf
T
=
=
traffic factor
traffic volume on the seal (v/l/d)
Equation 7 was used to calculate traffic factor values for roads which were trafficked by 15% or less of heavy
commercial vehicles. If the percentage of heavy commercial vehicles was greater than 15%, the traffic
volume on the seal was expressed in terms of equivalent light vehicles, Telv, and the value of Telv was used
as the traffic volume in Equation 7. The concept of equivalent light vehicles was used in the sprayed seal
design method based on its use by South African and some Australian jurisdictions at the time. Values of Telv
were calculated by assuming that one heavy commercial vehicle was equivalent to 10 light vehicles (i.e.
cars). For roads which were trafficked by more than 15% heavy commercial vehicles, values of Telv were
calculated using Equation 8:
Telv = T + (10 T (m 0.15))
where
Telv
T
m
traffic volume on the seal in terms of equivalent light vehicles (elv/l/d)
fraction of heavy commercial vehicles on the seal
The 1993 version of the New Zealand sprayed seal design method indicated that Equation 7 should not be
used to determine the traffic factor for roads which had traffic volumes less than 50 v/l/d. For roads that were
trafficked by less than 50 v/l/d, it was recommended that the traffic factor for 50 v/l/d be used in seal design.
The 1993 sprayed seal design method also indicated that design binder application rates calculated by the
method should not be regarded as being directly applicable to all situations and that engineering judgment
would still be required to make appropriate adjustments to the design binder application rate. General advice
on appropriate adjustments to be made for seals which were constructed on absorptive surfaces and steep
grades was included in the method. Advice was also given on how the design binder application rate could
be adjusted to allow for high stress and urban situations as well as to account for differences in aggregate
shape.
3.3.3 2000s
The current New Zealand sprayed seal design method (Transit New Zealand 2005) was published in 2005 in
response to trials conducted at Lower Hutt (near Wellington) which were performed to gather information on
the rate of change of voids in sprayed seals with both time and traffic (Patrick 2008). During the Lower Hutt
trials, the surface texture of eight different single/single reseals which were constructed between 1985 and
1987 were monitored for periods up to 10 years. The reseals were constructed using New Zealand 180/200
penetration grade bitumen and either New Zealand grade 4 or grade 3 aggregate. These New Zealand
aggregate grades are most similar to Australian 10 mm and 14 mm aggregate grades, respectively. The
traffic volumes at the trial sites ranged between 110 and 12 750 v/l/d and the percentage of heavy vehicles
ranged between 0 and 75%.
For each trial section the binder application rate used during seal construction and the average least
dimension (ALD) of each aggregate used were recorded in addition to the changes in surface texture which
occurred over time. Aggregate ALD values ranged between 7.5 and 8.5 mm during the trials.
Based on the results obtained during the Lower Hutt trials, Patrick (1999) found an extremely good
correlation between a seal voids parameter derived from measurements conducted during the trials and the
total number of vehicles which had traversed the seals since construction for a dataset which included 64
data points. The seal voids parameter was derived considering the total amount of voids present in a
sprayed seal after it had been trafficked. The cumulative traffic volume which had traversed the seals was
expressed in terms of equivalent light vehicles per lane (elv/lane) during Patricks studies in line with
standard New Zealand practice where one heavy vehicle was considered to be equivalent to 10 light
vehicles (Section 3.2.2). The seal voids parameter was defined by Equation 9:
Seal voids parameter =
where
Va + Vb
Vv
=
ALD
ALD
Va
air voids in the seal determined from a surface texture (i.e. sand patch)
measurement on the seal surface (mm)
Vb
volume of binder in the seal determined using the actual binder application rate
(L/m2)
ALD
Vv
total volume of voids in the seal (L/m2)
Patrick (1999) proposed the seal voids parameter considering the geometric properties of a single/single seal
which was constructed on a flat surface. Figure 3.2 shows a diagrammatic representation of the values of
Va, Vb and Vv included in the seal voids parameter. Embedment of the aggregate into the underlying
substrate was not taken into account in the seal voids parameter as it was considered that aggregate
embedment did not occur to an appreciable extent for reseals constructed in New Zealand (Patrick 1999).
The effects of aggregate embedment on design binder application rates are also considered in a different
part of the current New Zealand seal design method than the effects of traffic volume (Transit New Zealand
2005). This is also the case in the Austroads sprayed seal design method (Austroads 2006) where the effect
of traffic volume on the design binder application rate (which is determined using the basic voids factor (Vf))
is considered separately from the binder application rate allowance (Ae) which is included in the seal design
to account for the effects of aggregate embedment. Patrick (1999) included an ALD term in the seal voids
parameter to account for the use of different sized aggregates in sprayed seals.
Figure 3.2: Geometric properties of a single/single seal used by Patrick to develop the seal voids
parameter
As the trials at Lower Hutt were reseals, they could not be considered to be constructed in the idealised flat
surface shown in Figure 3.2. In order to account for this, the values of Vb in Equation 9 were calculated for
the Lower Hutt data by taking the actual binder application rates used during construction and then
subtracting the surface texture of the existing seals (Transit New Zealand 2005). Subtraction of the surface
texture of the existing seals from the actual binder application rates allowed the seal voids parameter to be
calculated for the Lower Hutt data so that it reflected the situation expected if the seals were constructed on
a flat surface.
Figure 3.3 shows a plot of the seal voids parameter versus the logarithm of cumulative traffic which was
obtained from the Lower Hutt trials. The figure also includes a linear fit to the experimental data, the equation
obtained from the fit, and the high correlation coefficient value (R2) of 0.88 which was obtained by Patrick
(1999) when the data was fitted in this way.
Figure 3.3: Seal voids parameter versus cumulative traffic obtained from the Lower Hutt trials
Source: Adapted from Patrick (1999).
Based on the results of the Lower Hutt trials, the following relationship between the seal voids parameter and
traffic volume (in terms of elv/l/d) was proposed by Patrick (2008) (Equation 10):
Va + Vb
Vv
=
= 0.83 0.07 log 10 (Telv t)
ALD
ALD
where
10
Va
air voids in the seal determined from a surface texture (i.e. sand patch)
measurement on the seal surface (mm)
Vb
volume of binder in the seal (L/m2)
time since the seal was constructed (days)
ALD
Vv
Telv
t
traffic volume on the seal (elv/l/d)
This equation, as well as the analogous equation (Equation 16) where traffic volume is expressed in v/l/d
instead of elv/l/d (see Section 4.1) will be referred to as the Lower Hutt equation in this report.
The current New Zealand seal design method (Transit New Zealand 2005) utilises Equation 10 to determine
the equivalent of the basic voids factor (Vf) in the Austroads sprayed seal design method (Austroads 2006).
The volume of binder to be added to a seal which is related to traffic effects (Rt) is initially determined in the
New Zealand seal design method using the relationship (Equation 11):
Rt = Vv
where
Rt
Vv
binder application rate due to traffic effects (L/m2)
11
fraction of the total voids in the seal that are filled with binder
The fraction of total voids in the seal that are filled with binder is set in the New Zealand seal design method
using the information that a sprayed seal will show good performance if 35% of the total volume of voids in
the seal (i.e. Vv) are filled with binder at the beginning of winter (i.e. = 0.35). The 35% factor used in the
New Zealand seal design method was derived from trials which were conducted in Dunedin in 1984 where
seven different seals were constructed using different binder application rates (Houghton & Hallett 1987).
Substitution of Equation 10 into Equation 11 after solving for Vv, and then setting the value of to 0.35,
yields Equation 12:
Rt = 0.35 ALD (0.83 0.07 log 10 (Telv t))
where
Rt
ALD
Telv
t
traffic volume on the seal (elv/l/day)
12
The logarithmic term in Equation 12 is converted into a traffic volume in v/l/d in the New Zealand seal design
method by assuming that the average percentage of heavy vehicles on New Zealand roads is 11%. The time
interval between seal construction and the beginning of winter is taken to be 100 days. This time interval was
chosen as it represents the typical time between the middle of the sealing season and the onset of the first
major winter frost. Substitution of these parameters into Equation 12 yields Equation 13:
Rt = 0.35 ALD (0.83 0.07 log 10 (200 T))
where
Rt
ALD
T
13
Based on the above discussion, the New Zealand equivalent of the basic voids factor (Vf) in the Austroads
sprayed seal design method (Austroads 2006) can therefore be expressed in terms of Equation 14:
Vf (NZ) = 0.291 0.025 log 10 (200 T)
where
Vf (NZ)
T
=
=
14
New Zealand equivalent of the Austroads basic voids factor (L/m2/mm)

The current New Zealand seal design method, in an analogous way to the Austroads method, additionally
includes allowances for existing seal surface texture, aggregate embedment, binder absorption into the
existing pavement, steep grades and aggregate shape. It also includes an allowance relating to whether the
seal is in an urban environment or on a low trafficked road. The design binder application rate is calculated
using the New Zealand seal design method (Transit New Zealand 2005) using Equation 15:
R = [(ALD + Td )(0.0291 0.0025 log 10 (200 T))] + As + Ss + Gs + Cs + Us
where
R
ALD
Td
T
As
Ss
Gs
Cs
Us
existing seal surface texture determined from a sand patch test (mm)
allowance for binder absorption into an existing pavement (L/m2)
allowance for a steep grade (L/m2)
allowance for an urban or low traffic environment (L/m2)
allowance for aggregate embedment due to a soft pavement (L/m2)
allowance for aggregate (chip) shape (L/m2)
15
3.4 Discussion
Based on the information obtained during the literature review, it appears that the basic voids factor (Vf) in
the Austroads sprayed seal design method (Austroads 2006) has developed over time based on
observations by sealing experts and practitioners, and qualitative assessments of a considerable number of
trial sites. As the basic voids factor has developed in this way, it is difficult to propose modifications to the
basic voids factor for low volume roads without conducting a further series of extensive trials and expert
assessments (which would be costly to conduct and would take some years to perform).
The effects of traffic volume on design binder application rates in the New Zealand seal design method were
also based on expert assessments of trial sites and practical experience prior to the latest version of the
method being published in 2005. The equivalent of the basic voids factor in the current New Zealand
method, in contrast to the other methods described in the literature review, was developed based on
measurements of surface texture changes in seals which were obtained during extensive trials at Lower Hutt.
As the equivalent of the basic voids factor in the current New Zealand seal design method is based on
quantitative measurements, it allows the opportunity to propose modifications to the Austroads basic voids
factor for single/single seals without conducting extensive trials if it can be shown that the Lower Hutt
equation is applicable to Australian as well as New Zealand conditions.
Based on the results obtained during the literature review, investigations were conducted into whether the
Lower Hutt equation was applicable to Australian road conditions (Section 4). Proposed modifications to the
Austroads basic voids factor for single/single seals were then made based on a comparison between the
surface texture changes observed in the Lower Hutt trials with those which occurred on Australian roads
(Section 5).
4. Comparisons Between Lower Hutt and

Australian Data
4.1 Conversion of the Lower Hutt Data to Australian Traffic Terms
Investigations into whether the Lower Hutt equation was applicable to Australian road conditions initially
required the traffic term (Telv) in the Lower Hutt equation (Equation 10) to be expressed in terms of v/l/d
rather than elv/l/d as traffic volumes in Australia are not quoted in terms of equivalent light vehicles (elv). This
was performed by obtaining the raw experimental results obtained in the Lower Hutt trials from John Patrick
(J. Patrick, personal communication October 2014) which included traffic volumes in v/l/d.
Figure 4.1 shows a plot of the seal voids parameter data obtained by Patrick (1999) (i.e. (Va+Vb)/ALD)
versus the logarithm of the cumulative traffic for the Lower Hutt trials when cumulative traffic was expressed
in vehicles/lane instead of elv/lane. The figure also includes a linear fit to the experimental data, the equation
obtained for the fit, and the correlation coefficient (R2) value obtained from the fit. The R2 value obtained from
fitting the data shown in Figure 4.1 (0.86) was not markedly different from the value of 0.88 obtained by
Patrick (1999) when cumulative traffic was expressed in terms of elv/lane. This indicates that both linear fits
showed a good correlation with the experimental data.
Figure 4.1: Seal voids parameter versus cumulative traffic in vehicles/lane obtained during the
Lower Hutt trials
Source: J. Patrick, personal communication October 2014.
Based on the data shown in Figure 4.1, it appears that the Lower Hutt equation can be expressed in terms of
a traffic volume in v/l/d by Equation 16:
Va + Vb
Vv
=
= 0.847 0.073 log 10 (T t)
ALD
ALD
where
16
Va
air voids in the seal determined from a surface texture measurement on the seal
surface (mm)
Vb
volume of binder in the seal (L/m2)
ALD
Vv
T
t
4.2 Comparisons between Lower Hutt and Australian Seal Data

Investigations into whether the modified version of the Lower Hutt equation (Equation 16) was applicable to
Australian road conditions were performed by comparing the results obtained for a number of initial seals
and reseals which were constructed in Australia with the results observed in the Lower Hutt trials when
cumulative traffic volumes were expressed in vehicles/lane (Figure 4.1). All seals included in the study were
single/single seals. The initial seals included a number of 16 mm seals which were constructed in South
Australia in the 1970s and studied by Potter and Church (1976), and two 14 mm seals which were
constructed on different sites in the Northern Territory in 2011 and 2013. Reseals in the study included
relevant sections of Austroads trial sites which were constructed in Coober Pedy (South Australia), Cooma
(New South Wales) and Gisborne (Victoria) during the past decade. The sprayed sealing trials conducted at
Coober Pedy and Cooma involved the application of 14 mm reseals over an existing 7 mm seal. The sprayed
sealing trial conducted at Gisborne involved the application of a 10 mm reseal over an existing 14 mm seal.
Sand patch tests which were conducted on the sprayed seals constructed in the Northern Territory and
Austroads trial sites were performed in the outer wheelpath of each lane, except where otherwise noted,
using Austroads test method AGPT/T250 (Austroads Test Method AGPT/T250: 2008). Sand patch test
results obtained by Potter and Church (1976) were performed using an in-house sand patch test method
which is detailed in their paper. Actual binder application rates used during seal construction were obtained
either from the literature or from the contractors sprayer runsheets. Aggregate ALD values were obtained
either from the literature or from aggregate test reports.
An initial comparison between the results obtained in the Lower Hutt trials with those obtained for Australian
seals indicated that the use of Vb values which were calculated by subtracting the surface texture of the
existing seal from the binder application rate used during construction did not always result in values of the
seal voids parameter which were close to those observed during the Lower Hutt trials. It was noted in
Section 3.3.3 that Patrick calculated Vb values for the Lower Hutt data by subtracting the surface texture of
the existing seal from the actual binder application rates used during reseal construction so that the seal
voids parameter reflected the situation where the seal was constructed on a flat surface.
In the case of the Australian data obtained from initial seals, no subtraction of the initial surface texture of the
underlying pavement should be necessary in order to calculate Vb values as these seals can be considered
to be constructed on a flat surface. In the case of the 14 mm reseals constructed at Coober Pedy and
Cooma (which were constructed on an existing 7 mm seal), subtraction of the surface texture of the existing
seal appears reasonable in terms of the calculation of Vb values as the aggregates used in the reseals are
significantly larger than those of the original seals. As the resealing aggregate is much larger than the
existing seal aggregate, the resealing aggregate would not be expected to be able to fill the voids between
the existing seal aggregates. In the case of 10 mm reseals which were constructed on an existing 14 mm
seal at Gisborne, the use of smaller size aggregate in the reseal would be expected to fill some, but not all,
of the voids between the aggregates in the existing seal. Thus subtracting the initial surface texture of the
existing seal from the binder application rate used during reseal construction would be likely to result in seal
voids parameter values which were lower than those expected if the seals had been constructed on a flat
surface.
Figure 4.2 provides a diagrammatic illustration of why the values of Vb were calculated for the Australian
seal data using different methods. The figure is broken into three parts which correspond to (a) the initial
seals, (b) the Coober Pedy and Cooma reseals and (c) the reseals at Gisborne. The size of the aggregate
particles in each part of the figure has been scaled to be indicative of the relative size of each type of
aggregate. The binder component of the initial seals and reseals has not been included in Figure 4.2 so that
the differences in aggregate orientation between the three cases can be more easily observed.
Figure 4.2 shows that for the case of the initial seals, the aggregates in the seal would be orientated as
though they were present on a flat surface. As the surface texture of the underlying substrate can be
considered to be effectively zero, the value of Vb for these types of seals will be equal to the actual binder
application rate used during construction. In the case of the reseals constructed at Coober Pedy and Cooma,
inspection of the figure clearly shows that the aggregates in the reseal are too large to fit into the air voids
between the aggregates in the existing seal. In order to calculate seal voids parameter values which would
be representative of a flat surface, Vb values need to exclude the surface texture of the existing seal as the
binder used in the reseal would be expected to fill these additional voids.
In the case of the reseals constructed at Gisborne, the figure shows that the reseal aggregate would be
expected to fill some, but not all, of the voids between the aggregates in the existing seal. Vb values which
were calculated by subtracting the surface texture of the existing seal would therefore be expected to yield
seal voids parameter values that were lower than that expected for a flat surface as the binder applied in the
reseal would only refill part of the existing seal surface texture. Similarly, if Vb values were calculated using
only the actual binder application rate used during the reseals, the values of the seal voids parameter would
be higher than those anticipated for a flat surface as the binder used in the reseal would additionally fill some
of the voids which present due to the texture of the existing seal. In the case of the reseals constructed at
Gisborne, seal voids parameter values that were representative of a flat surface would be expected to lie
between those determined when Vb values were calculated by the two methods.
Figure 4.2: Comparison of the relative packing of aggregate particles in the three types of seals
studied
4.2.1 Initial Seals (South Australia and the Northern Territory)

Table 4.1 lists the seal information associated with each of the initial seals which were included in the study
as well as the raw results which were used to calculate values of the seal voids parameter for each of the
sites. As noted in Section 4.2, seal voids parameter values were calculated for each of the initial seals by
taking the value of Vb in Equation 9 to be equal to the actual binder application rate used during seal
construction. The sites included in studies by Potter and Church (1976) have been labelled as South
Australian (SA) sites in Table 4.1 and Figure 4.3.
Table 4.1:
Results obtained for the Australian initial seals
Seal age
Seal
surface
texture
(mm)
Actual
binder
application
rate (L/m2)
Aggregate
ALD (mm)
Seal voids
parameter(1)
1400
7 years
1.4
1.65
7.4
0.412
AdelaidePort Wakefield, SA
2000
4 years
1.2
1.60
7.9
0.354
WalkerieKingston (a), SA
1200
7 years
1.8
1.30
8.4
0.369
WalkerieKingston (b), SA
1200
7 years
1.2
1.30
8.0
0.313
LochielSnowtown, SA
1200
1.5 years
1.3
1.55
7.9
0.361
SnowtownRedhill (a), SA
1350
3 years
1.1
1.35
7.9
0.310
SnowtownRedhill (b), SA
1350
2 years
1.4
1.60
7.9
0.380
Penwortham overpass, SA
1200
1.5 years
1.3
1.60
7.4
0.392
1450
1 day
3.4
1.60
8.5
0.588
1450
3 months
1.5
1.60
8.5
0.365
2600
1 day
2.7
1.60
8.5
0.506
2600
3 months
0.6
1.60
8.5
0.259
120
1 day
2.5
1.80
8.0
0.538
120
3 months
1.7
1.80
8.0
0.438
100
1 day
3.3
1.70
8.3
0.602
100
3 months
2.6
1.70
8.3
0.518
330
1 day
2.4
1.60
7.6
0.526
330
3 months
1.8
1.60
7.6
0.447
300
1 day
3.5
1.60
8.3
0.614
300
3 months
2.5
1.60
8.3
0.494
Jungawa Road, NT eastbound
40
236 days
3.1
1.80
8.4
0.586
Jungawa Road, NT westbound
40
236 days
3.2
1.80
8.4
0.598
Fog Bay Road, NT eastbound
144
998 days
2.2
1.96
8.7
0.480
Traffic
volume
(v/l/d)
Aldinga Bypass, SA
Site
Lincoln Gap, SA
Barmera bypass, SA
MeningleNarrung, SA
Mt PleasantKeyneton, SA
ClareSpalding, SA
SnowtownBrinkworth, SA
The value of Vb in the seal voids parameter was calculated by taking the values of Vb to be equal to the actual binder
application rate used during construction (see text for details).
Note: The site details and raw results obtained for the South Australian initial seals were adapted from Potter and Church
(1976).
Considering the time at which the seals were constructed in South Australia it is likely they were sprayed with
Class R90 bitumen which was the specified type of bitumen used in sprayed sealing applications at the time
(Standards Australia AS A10-1967). As Class R90 bitumen was specified to have a penetration at 25 C
result of between 80 and 100 penetration units, it can be considered to be slightly softer than the currently
specified Class 170 (C170) bitumen (Standards Australia AS 20082013).
The two sites included in the study from the Northern Territory were located on Jungawa Road in the
Douglas-Daly Region and on Fog Bay Road, Dundee Beach. Both of these sites were sprayed using an
S10E grade polymer modified binder (PMB). Jungawa Road was constructed on 7 November 2013 and had
an equivalent heavy vehicle (EHV) loading of 25%. Fog Bay Road was constructed on 6 October 2011 and
had an EHV loading of 17%. The results were obtained for Jungawa Road and Fog Bay Road at chainages
of 5.125 and 52.986 km, respectively. Sand patch tests were conducted in both the westbound and
eastbound lanes of Jungawa Road, and the eastbound lane of Fog Bay Road, during the current year of the
project.
Figure 4.3 shows a comparison between the results obtained for the initial seals which were included in the
study with the results observed in the Lower Hutt trials when cumulative traffic volumes were expressed in
terms of vehicles/lane. The individual data points obtained in the Lower Hutt trials have been included in all
graphs shown in Section 4.2 so that the results obtained in Australian and New Zealand studies can be
easily compared. These graphs also include a linear fit to the Lower Hutt data and the equation obtained
from the linear fit.
Figure 4.3: Comparison of the results obtained for Australian initial seals with those obtained in the
Lower Hutt trials
Figure 4.3 shows that the values of the seal voids parameter obtained from the South Australian initial seals
showed a reasonable degree of scatter when plotted against the logarithm of cumulative traffic. Patrick,
Cenek and Owen (2000) investigated the reproducibility of texture depth results obtained from sand patch
tests during two separate trials and found that the reproducibility of texture depths in the first trial was 24% of
the mean value while it was 41% of the mean value in the second trial. As the results of sand patch tests are
expected to show some degree of variation, the scatter in the seal voids parameter values likely represents
the typical variability in surface texture measurements which are used to calculate Va values in the seal
voids parameter.
If the typical variations in sand patch test results are considered, the results obtained for the South Australian
and Northern Territory initial seals appear to correlate quite well with the results obtained in the Lower Hutt
trials. There appears to be quite a good degree of overlap between the higher data points obtained for South
Australian initial seals and the individual data points obtained in the Lower Hutt trials for log10(cumulative
traffic) volumes less than about 4.5, and a good degree of overlap between these two sets of data for log10
(cumulative traffic) volumes greater than about 5.8. The three data points obtained for the Northern Territory
initial seals also appear to be very similar to some of the individual results which were obtained during the
Lower Hutt trials.
4.2.2 Reseals (Austroads Trials at Coober Pedy and Cooma)

The Austroads trial sites at Coober Pedy and Cooma were constructed in order to validate the performance
of the current generation of PMBs in terms of their resistance to cracking (determined by measurement of
crack growth over time) and general seal performance (determined by monitoring the changes in visual
appearance and surface texture of the different trial sections over time). Detailed information about the
location of the trial sites and each of the individual trial sections can be found in previous Austroads reports
(Austroads 2013b, Austroads 2013c, Austroads 2014).
The Austroads trial site at Coober Pedy was constructed on a two-lane section of the Stuart Highway and
included trial sections sprayed with C170 bitumen, five different grades of PMBs included in the Australian
PMB specification (Austroads Test Method AGPT/T190: 2014) and two proprietary PMB products (Shell S5E
and SAMI S20E SS) (Austroads 2013b). Each of the binders was sprayed using two different binder
application rates. The traffic volume at the Coober Pedy site was 165 v/l/d with 39% EHV. The aggregate
used in reseal construction had an ALD of 7.6 mm. The trial seals were laid on 1 and 2 November 2011.
The Austroads trial site at Cooma consisted predominantly of a two-lane section of the Monaro Highway
which included trial sections sprayed with C170 bitumen, five different grades of PMBs included in the
Australian PMB specification, and three proprietary polymer modified emulsion products (Fulton Hogan
Surfix 70X, SAMI Samiflex E40 HR and SAMI Polyseal HR) (Austroads 2013b). Each of these sections was
sprayed using a single binder application rate which varied between the binders. The Cooma trial site also
included a small section which consisted of northbound overtaking and slow lanes where an S15E grade
PMB was sprayed using different binder application rates. The sections of the Cooma trial site where
polymer modified emulsions were sprayed were not included in the study as the actual binder application
rates used during construction of these sections were not determined (Austroads 2013b). The traffic volume
at the Cooma site was 2000 v/l/d with 11% EHV. The aggregate used in reseal construction had an ALD of
7.4 mm. The trial seals were constructed on 31 January and 1 February 2012.
Prior to the construction of the reseals at Coober Pedy and Cooma, surface texture measurements were
conducted on the existing 7 mm seals at different trial section locations (Austroads 2013b). During the
current year of this project, surface texture measurements were conducted on a number of the different trial
sections in order to obtain information about the changes in surface texture which had occurred over time.
These measurements were conducted in the same lanes as used for the original surface texture
measurements, and at locations as close as possible to where the original surface texture measurements
were performed (typically within 1 m). The age of the Coober Pedy reseals when the second set of surface
texture measurements were conducted was 1072 days and the age of the Cooma reseals was 982 days (the
dates of construction of the Coober Pedy and Cooma reseals were taken in these cases to be 1 November
2011 and 31 January 2012, respectively).
Table 4.2 shows the surface texture results obtained for the existing seal, as well as those determined
1072 days after the reseals were constructed, for sections of the Coober Pedy trial site where surface texture
measurements were available at both stages of seal life. The type of binder used in each of the sections, as
well the actual binder application rate used during construction, and the value of the seal voids parameter
obtained for each of the trial sections is also included in the table. The Coober Pedy and Cooma trial section
designations used in this report (e.g. section A, A1, A2, etc.) correspond to those used in previous Austroads
reports (Austroads 2013b, Austroads 2013c, Austroads 2014). It was noted in Section 4.2 that seal voids
parameter values were determined for the Coober Pedy and Cooma reseals by using Vb values which were
calculated by subtracting the surface texture of the existing seals from the actual binder application rates
used during reseal construction. This method was followed so that seal voids parameter values represented
those expected for a flat surface.
Table 4.2:
Results obtained for the Coober Pedy reseals
Binder type
Existing
seal surface
texture
(mm)(1)
Reseal
surface
texture
(mm)
Actual
binder
application
rate (L/m2)(1)
Seal voids
parameter(2)
Coober Pedy section A1, southbound
C170 bitumen
0.5
2.6
1.83
0.517
Coober Pedy section A2, southbound
C170 bitumen
0.7
3.0
1.62
0.516
Coober Pedy section B1, southbound
S10E
0.5
2.9
1.79
0.551
Coober Pedy section B2, southbound
S10E
0.8
3.0
1.61
0.501
Coober Pedy section C1, northbound
S20E
0.8
2.9
1.86
0.521
Coober Pedy section C2, northbound
S20E
0.9
2.4
1.67
0.417
Coober Pedy section D1, northbound
S35E
1.5
2.8
1.80
0.408
Coober Pedy section D2, northbound
S35E
0.8
3.0
1.62
0.503
Coober Pedy section E1, northbound
Shell S5E
1.0
3.0
1.78
0.497
Coober Pedy section F1, northbound
S45R
1.2
2.9
1.96
0.482
Coober Pedy section F2, southbound
S45R
0.7
3.2
1.80
0.566
Coober Pedy section G2, northbound
S15E
0.8
2.6
1.71
0.462
Coober Pedy section H2, northbound
SAMI S20E
SS
1.3
3.1
1.71
0.462
Trial section
1. Austroads (2013a).
2. The value of Vb in the seal voids parameter was calculated by subtracting the surface texture of the existing seal
from the actual binder application rate used during construction (see text for details).
Table 4.3 shows the analogous results to those shown in Table 4.2 for sections of the Cooma trial site where
surface texture measurements were available at both stages of seal life.
Table 4.3:
Results obtained for the Cooma reseals
Binder type
Existing seal
surface
texture
(mm)(1)
Reseal
surface
texture (mm)
Actual
binder
application
rate (L/m2)(1)
Seal voids
parameter(2)
Cooma section A, northbound
S10E
1.8
2.8
1.67
0.361
Cooma section B, northbound
S35E
1.8
3.2
1.59
0.404
Cooma section C, northbound
S15E
1.3
3.0
2.09
0.512
Cooma section D, northbound
S15RF
1.7
2.7
1.78
0.376
Cooma section E, northbound
S20E
1.6
2.3
1.71
0.326
Cooma section G, northbound
C170 bitumen
1.7
2.5
1.56
0.319
S15E
1.8
2.9
1.71
0.380
Trial section
Cooma section Hii, northbound,

slow lane
1. Austroads (2013a).
In the case of the Cooma trial sections resealed with C170 bitumen, as well as S10E and S20E grade PMBs,
some stripping of aggregate has occurred since the reseals were constructed (Austroads 2014). As stripping
in the C170 bitumen and S20E sections has not occurred to a significant extent in the outer wheelpath where
surface texture measurements were obtained, this stripping is unlikely to affect the reseal surface texture
results shown in Table 4.3. The Cooma S10E trial section, however, has shown a significant amount of
aggregate loss from the wheelpaths in the time since it was constructed (Austroads 2014). In order to
account for this, the reseal surface texture measurement on the S20E binder section was conducted on the
section of the reseal which showed the lowest amount of aggregate loss in the outer wheelpath.
Figure 4.4 shows a comparison between the seal voids parameter values obtained for the reseals at Coober
Pedy and Cooma with the results observed in the Lower Hutt trials when cumulative traffic volumes were
expressed in terms of vehicles/lane. The cumulative traffic volumes for the two-lane sections of the Coober
Pedy and Cooma trial sites were calculated by multiplying the traffic volumes at these sites (i.e. 165 v/l/d and
2000 v/l/d, respectively) by the number of days since the reseals were constructed (i.e. 1072 and 982 days,
respectively). The traffic loading on the Cooma northbound slow lane section was determined by assuming
that 70% of the traffic would utilise the slow lane and 30% of the traffic would utilise the overtaking lane (as
per Austroads 2006). The cumulative traffic volume in this section was determined by multiplying the
expected traffic volume in this lane (1400 v/l/d) by the number of days since the reseal was constructed (982
days). The data point corresponding to this section appears slightly to the left of the other Cooma trial data
points in Figure 4.4.
Figure 4.4: Comparison of the results obtained for the Coober Pedy and Cooma reseals with those
obtained in the Lower Hutt trials
Figure 4.4 shows that the seal voids parameter values obtained for both the Coober Pedy and Cooma trial
sites showed a similar degree of scatter to that observed for the South Australian initial seals in Figure 4.3.
Even though there was some scatter in the data points, the majority of the data points obtained for the
Coober Pedy and Cooma reseals were located on similar positions on the graph as the individual results
obtained during the Lower Hutt trials. Considering the degree of variation expected in surface texture
measurements (Section 4.2.1), there overall appears to be a good correlation between the seal voids
parameter values obtained from the Coober Pedy and Cooma trial sites, and those obtained in the Lower
Hutt trials.
4.2.3 Reseals (Austroads Trial at Gisborne)

The Austroads trial site at Gisborne was constructed on 17 January 2007 predominantly to investigate the
effects of the use of different viscosity bitumens on seal life/performance (Austroads 2009, Austroads 2014).
The site consisted of three trial sections which were resealed with Class 170 (C170), Class 240 (C240) and
Class 320 (C320) bitumens. As a proprietary PMB product (BP OLEXOBIT SP) had been selected by the
contractor as the reseal binder for the site before it was reserved for the trial, a section with this binder was
also included. The Gisborne trial site was located on a two-lane section of a dual carriageway on the Calder
Highway. Each trial section included northbound slow and fast lanes. Detailed information about the location
of the trial sections can be found in previous Austroads reports (Austroads 2009, Austroads 2014).
The Gisborne trial site had an annual average daily traffic (AADT) level of 13 000 vehicles/day with 13% EHV
if both northbound and southbound carriageways were considered. The traffic volumes on the northbound
slow and fast lanes were calculated by assuming that 80% of the traffic would utilise the northbound slow
lane, and 20% of the traffic would utilise the northbound fast lane (as per Austroads 2006). This yielded
traffic volumes of 5200 and 1300 v/l/d, respectively for the northbound slow and fast lanes. A re-analysis of
the aggregate test results obtained during the trial indicated that the aggregate used in reseal construction
had an ALD of 7.4 mm.
The performance of the different Gisborne trial sections has been monitored over time by conducting visual
inspections and monitoring changes in surface texture which have occurred over time (Austroads 2014).
Surface texture measurements were performed on each of the trial sections prior to the reseals being laid, at
regular intervals during the first year after construction, and approximately 6.8 and 7.9 years after
construction. The most recent series of surface texture measurements were performed during the current
year of the project. Surface texture measurements were performed in the northbound slow lane in the outer
wheelpath while those conducted in the northbound fast lane were performed in the inner wheelpath.
It was noted in Section 4.2 that as the trial conducted at Gisborne involved the application of a 10 mm reseal
over an existing 14 mm seal, some (but not all) of the voids between the aggregates in the existing seal
would be expected to be filled with the smaller sized reseal aggregate. In order to compare the seal voids
parameter values obtained in the Gisborne trial with those obtained during the Lower Hutt trials (which were
determined so that they were representative of a flat surface), seal voids parameter values for the Gisborne
trial data were calculated using two methods.
The first method (method 1) involved taking the values of Vb in Equation 9 to be equal to the actual binder
application rate used during construction. This case would be appropriate if the reseals at Gisborne had
been constructed on a flat surface. The second method (method 2) involved calculating Vb values by
subtracting the surface texture of the existing seals from the actual binder application rates used during
reseal construction. This method would be appropriate if the smaller reseal aggregate filled none of the voids
in the existing seal. It was noted in Section 4.2 that it was expected that seal voids parameter values that
were representative of a flat surface would be expected to be lie between those determined by the two
methods.
Table 4.4 shows the surface texture results obtained for the Gisborne slow lane trial sections as a function of
the age of the reseals as well as the changes in the seal voids parameter when it was calculated using the
two methods described above. The surface texture results obtained for the existing seal and the actual
binder application rate used during construction of each of the trial sections are also included in the table.
The Gisborne trial section designations shown in this report (e.g. section 1, 2, etc.) correspond to those used
in previous Austroads reports (Austroads 2009, Austroads 2014).
Table 4.4:
Results obtained for the Gisborne slow lane
Trial section and

binder type
Gisborne section 1,
C240 bitumen
Gisborne section 2,
C320 bitumen
Seal age
(days)
Existing
seal surface
texture
(mm)(1)
Reseal
surface
texture
(mm)(2)
Actual
binder
application
rate (L/m2)(1)
Seal voids
parameter
method 1(3)
Seal voids
parameter
method 2(4)
3.3
0.608
0.486
29
2.4
0.486
0.365
111
2.6
0.514
0.392
0.446
0.324
258
0.9
2.1
1.20
373
2.2
0.459
0.338
2485
1.3
0.338
0.216
2876
1.5
0.365
0.243
3.2
0.595
0.473
29
2.4
0.486
0.365
111
2.6
0.514
0.392
0.459
0.338
258
0.9
2.2
1.20
373
2.1
0.446
0.324
2485
1.1
0.311
0.189
2876
1.8
0.405
0.284
Trial section and

binder type
Gisborne section 3,
OLEXOBIT SP
Gisborne section 4,
C170 bitumen
Seal age
(days)
Existing
seal surface
texture
(mm)(1)
Reseal
surface
texture
(mm)(2)
Actual
binder
application
rate (L/m2)(1)
Seal voids
parameter
method 1(3)
Seal voids
parameter
method 2(4)
3.2
0.595
0.473
29
2.6
0.514
0.392
111
2.7
0.527
0.405
0.473
0.351
258
0.9
2.3
1.20
373
2.2
0.459
0.338
2485
1.3
0.338
0.216
2876
2.0
0.432
0.311
2.6
0.514
0.392
29
2.3
0.473
0.351
111
2.8
0.541
0.419
0.459
0.338
258
0.9
2.2
1.20
373
2.2
0.459
0.338
2485
1.4
0.351
0.230
2876
2.0
0.432
0.311
Austroads (2009).
All data except for that obtained at a seal age of 2876 days was sourced from Austroads (2014).
The value of Vb in the seal voids parameter was calculated by taking the values of Vb to be equal to the actual binder
The value of Vb in the seal voids parameter was calculated by subtracting the surface texture of the existing seal
The seal voids parameter values calculated using method 1 were found to be all 0.122 higher than those
calculated using method 2. The surface texture of the existing seal in the Gisborne slow lane was 0.9 mm in
all cases.
Table 4.5 shows the analogous results to those shown in Table 4.4 for the Gisborne fast lane trial sections.
The seal voids parameter values obtained for the Gisborne fast lane trial sections were between 0.284 and
0.311 higher if they were calculated using method 1 than if they were calculated using method 2. The
surface texture of existing seal in the Gisborne fast lane was higher than that observed in the Gisborne slow
lane and ranged between 2.1 and 2.3 mm.
Figure 4.5 shows a comparison between the seal voids parameter values calculated using both methods for
the Gisborne slow lane trial sections and the results obtained in the Lower Hutt trials when cumulative traffic
volumes were expressed in terms of vehicles/lane. The seal voids parameter values obtained using both
methods appear to show a quite good degree of overlap with the individual data points obtained during the
Lower Hutt trials even though the results obtained by method 1 are in some instances slightly higher than the
Lower Hutt data, while those determined by method 2 in some instances are slightly lower. As the surface
texture of the existing seal in the Gisborne slow lane was relatively low (0.9 mm), the contributions due to
resealing aggregates filling the voids in the original seal would be expected to be quite low. This appears to
be reflected in the similarity of the seal voids parameter values obtained by both methods and their overall
similarity to the Lower Hutt data.
It was noted above that seal voids parameter values which were representative of a flat surface would be
expected to lie between those of the two methods in the case of the Gisborne trial data. The Lower Hutt
results shown in Figure 4.5 appear to lie between the results obtained when the two different methods were
used to calculate seal voids parameter values. If the seal voids parameter values obtained for the Gisborne
slow lane sections could be corrected so that they were representative of a flat surface, an even better
agreement between results obtained for the Gisborne slow lane sections and the Lower Hutt data would be
expected.
Figure 4.6 shows the analogous results to those shown in Figure 4.5 for the Gisborne fast lane trial sections.
In this case there is a significant difference between the seal voids parameter values calculated using the
two methods. This marked difference is probably due to the higher surface texture of the existing seal in the
Gisborne fast lane sections (2.1 to 2.3 mm) which would increase the contributions due to resealing
aggregates filling the voids in the original seal. The seal voids parameter values calculated using method 1 in
Figure 4.6 were in most cases higher than the individual data points obtained during the Lower Hutt trials,
while all values calculated using method 2 were lower than the Lower Hutt data points.
Even though the results obtained for the Gisborne fast lane sections were different from those obtained
during the Lower Hutt trials, the Lower Hutt trial data appeared to lie between seal voids parameter values
obtained by the two methods. As the seal voids parameter values expected if the reseals were constructed
on a flat surface would be expected to lie between those calculated using methods 1 and 2, the results
obtained for the Gisborne fast lane trial sections do not appear to be inconsistent which those observed
during the Lower Hutt trials. If the seal voids parameter values obtained for the Gisborne fast lane sections
could be corrected so that they were representative of a flat surface, a better agreement between the results
and the Lower Hutt data than that shown in Figure 4.6 would be expected.
Table 4.5:
Results obtained for the Gisborne fast lane
Trial section and

binder type
Gisborne section 1,
C240 bitumen
Gisborne section 2,
C320 bitumen
Seal age
(days)
Existing
seal surface
texture
(mm)(1)
Reseal
surface
texture
(mm)(2)
Actual
binder
application
rate (L/m2)(1)
Seal voids
parameter
method 1(3)
Seal voids
parameter
method 2(4)
3.3
0.649
0.351
29
2.8
0.581
0.284
111
3.3
0.649
0.351
0.649
0.351
258
2.2
3.3
1.50
373
3.0
0.608
0.311
2485
1.9
0.459
0.162
2876
1.9
0.459
0.162
3.3
0.635
0.324
29
2.7
0.554
0.243
111
3.2
0.622
0.311
0.608
0.297
258
2.3
3.1
1.40
373
2.9
0.581
0.270
2485
2.5
0.527
0.216
2876
2.6
0.541
0.230
Trial section and

binder type
Gisborne section 3,
OLEXOBIT SP
Gisborne section 4,
C170 bitumen
Seal age
(days)
Existing
seal surface
texture
(mm)(1)
Reseal
surface
texture
(mm)(2)
Actual
binder
application
rate (L/m2)(1)
Seal voids
parameter
method 1(3)
Seal voids
parameter
method 2(4)
3.3
0.635
0.324
29
2.5
0.527
0.216
111
3.3
0.635
0.324
0.595
0.284
258
2.3
3.0
1.40
373
2.9
0.581
0.270
2485
2.0
0.459
0.149
2876
2.5
0.527
0.216
3.5
0.662
0.378
29
2.7
0.554
0.270
111
3.6
0.676
0.392
0.595
0.311
258
2.1
3.0
1.40
373
2.8
0.568
0.284
2485
1.7
0.419
0.135
2876
2.2
0.486
0.203
1. Austroads (2009).
2. All data except for that obtained at a seal age of 2876 days was sourced from Austroads (2014).
3. The value of Vb in the seal voids parameter was calculated by taking the values of Vb to be equal to the actual binder
Figure 4.5: Comparison of the results obtained for the Gisborne slow lane with those obtained in the
Lower Hutt trials
Figure 4.6: Comparison of the results obtained for the Gisborne fast lane with those obtained in the
Lower Hutt trials
Based on a comparison of the data obtained for the Gisborne reseals, the results obtained for the Gisborne
slow lane trial sections appeared to be less influenced by resealing aggregates filling the voids in the existing
seal. Due to this there appeared to be fairly good agreement between the seal voids parameter values
calculated using both methods and the data obtained in the Lower Hutt trials. The results obtained for the
Gisborne fast lane sections appeared to be more influenced by sealing aggregates filling the voids in the
existing seal due to the higher surface texture of the original seal. As the Lower Hutt data was found to lie
between the seal voids parameter values obtained by both methods, the results obtained for the Gisborne
fast lane sections were not inconsistent with those observed during the Lower Hutt trials.
4.3 Discussion
Based on the results obtained in this study there appears to be a quite good agreement between the results
obtained for Australian initial seals and reseals and the results obtained in the Lower Hutt trials if seal voids
parameter values can be calculated so that they reflect the situation where the seals are constructed on a flat
surface. The results obtained for a series of initial seals which were constructed in South Australia and the
Northern Territory appeared to correlate quite well with those obtained during the Lower Hutt trials if Vb
values were set to be equal to the actual binder application rate during construction. This was also the case
for a series of reseals which were constructed at Coober Pedy and Cooma if Vb values were calculated so
they also included a contribution from the surface texture of the existing seals.
Comparisons between the seal data obtained from reseals constructed at Gisborne and the results obtained
during the Lower Hutt trials were complicated by the effects of reseal aggregates filling the voids in the
existing seals. In the case of seals constructed in the slow lane of the Gisborne trial site, the effects of
aggregate interlock between the existing seal aggregate and resealing aggregate did not appear to be
particularly marked when the initial texture was lower (< 1 mm). Due to this, there still appeared to be fairly
good agreement between seal voids parameter values calculated using two different methods and those
obtained in the Lower Hutt trials. The effects of aggregate interlock between the existing seal aggregate and
the resealing aggregate were much more significant for reseals constructed in the fast lane of the Gisborne
trial site where the existing texture was coarser. Even though the results obtained for the Gisborne fast lane
trial sections could not be directly compared due to complications associated with aggregate interlock, the
results obtained for these trial sections were analysed using two methods. As the seal voids parameter
values that were obtained using the two methods were on either side of the Lower Hutt dataset, the results
obtained for the Gisborne fast lane trial sections appeared to be consistent with those observed during the
Lower Hutt trials.
The good correlation observed between Australian seal data and the results observed in the Lower Hutt trials
suggests sprayed seals in both countries show similar changes in voids and surface texture when they are
subjected to traffic. It is worthy of note that the seals included in the study and the Lower Hutt study were
constructed using a number of different classes of bitumen and a variety of different PMBs. Even though this
was the case, there did not appear to be a marked effect of binder type on the seal voids parameter values
observed. This observation suggests that changes in the surface texture of sprayed seals over time are not
markedly influenced by the type of binder used in seal construction. Based on the good correlations
observed between the results obtained for Australian seals and the Lower Hutt data for the cases where seal
voids parameter values could be calculated for the case of a flat surface, it appears that the Lower Hutt
equation is applicable to Australian road conditions when traffic volumes are expressed in terms of v/l/d.
5. Modification of the Austroads Basic Voids

Factor Using the Lower Hutt Equation
Based on the results obtained when Australian seal data and the Lower Hutt data were compared
(Section 4.2), the Lower Hutt equation was used in conjunction with the approach in the current New Zealand
seal design method (Transit New Zealand 2005) to determine if changes to the Austroads basic voids factor
for single/single seals could be made. A new version of the Austroads basic voids factor was developed
based on the New Zealand relationship between the amount of binder to be added to a sprayed seal and the
total volume of voids in the seal. Use of this relationship, and the Lower Hutt equation when expressed in
terms of v/l/d (Equation 16), allowed an equation to be developed which related the basic voids factor to the
traffic volume on a sprayed seal. Additional adjustments were also made to the equation so it would be
expected to be more applicable to Australian conditions.
It was noted in Section 3.3.3 that the current New Zealand seal design method relates the volume of binder
to be added to a seal that is related to traffic effects (Rt) to the total volume of voids in the seal using the
relationship (Equation 17):
Rt = Vv
where
Rt
Vv
17
fraction of total voids in the seal that are filled with binder
Substitution of the Lower Hutt equation when expressed in terms of traffic in v/l/d (Equation 16) into
Equation 17 after solving for Vv yields Equation 18:
Rt = ALD (0.847 0.073 log 10 (T t) )
where
Rt
ALD
T
t
18
The equivalent factor to the Austroads basic voids factor in the New Zealand seal design method can be
obtained by dividing the binder application rate due to traffic effects (Rt) by the ALD of the aggregate. If this
mathematical manipulation is performed, the basic voids factor can be expressed in terms of Equation 19:
Vf = (0.847 0.073 log 10 (T t))
where
Vf
T
t
basic voids factor (L/m2/mm)
19
Equation 19 contains two unknown parameters (i.e. and t) which are not known for Australian conditions.
The current New Zealand seal design method sets the values of and t in Equation 19 to 0.35 and
100 days, respectively, (Section 3.3.3) as one of the main concerns with the performance of sprayed seals in
New Zealand is the minimisation of aggregate loss due to the onset of winter frosts (Patrick 2008, Transit
New Zealand 2005). The New Zealand parameter was set based on trials conducted in Dunedin in 1984
where seven different seals were constructed prior to winter using different binder application rates which
showed different levels of stripping over winter (Houghton & Hallett 1987). The 100-day period in the New
Zealand seal design was chosen as it represents the typical time between the middle of the sealing season
and the onset of the first major winter frost.
As the weather conditions in most parts of Australia are generally warmer and often drier than New Zealand,
the values of and t used in New Zealand may not be suitable for typical Australian climatic conditions. Due
to this, values of and t which would be expected to be suitable for Australian climatic conditions were
investigated. The value of t in Equation 19 was taken to be two years (i.e. 730 days) as the Austroads
sprayed seal design method (Austroads 2006) states that the current Austroads basic voids factor (Vf) was
developed based on the performance of sprayed seals which was observed two years after construction.
If the value of t in Equation 19 is taken to be 730 days, then the only unknown parameter in the equation is
the value of . An appropriate value of was chosen by initially selecting a range of traffic volumes and then
determining the basic voids factor (Vf) given by the current Austroads sprayed seal design method for each
traffic volume (T). Each set of data (i.e. Vf and T) was then substituted into Equation 19 (with the value of t
set to 730 days) so that values of could be determined for each level of traffic.
Table 5.1 shows the values of the current Austroads basic voids factor as well as the values of obtained
when these values were substituted into Equation 19 for a variety of different traffic volumes. The results
shown in the table indicate that the values of decreased by about 0.07 when the traffic volume used in the
analysis was increased from 200 to 10 000 v/l/d.
Once the values of were determined for different traffic volumes, the basic voids factor curves obtained
using each value of and Equation 19 were compared with the basic voids factor curve given in the current
Austroads seal design method (Austroads 2006). Figure 5.1 shows a comparison between the current
Austroads basic voids factor as a function of traffic volume and the basic voids factor curves calculated using
traffic volumes of 200, 1000 and 10 000 v/l/d. These traffic levels have been shown in the figure as they were
indicative of the trends which occurred when different traffic volumes were used in the analysis.
Table 5.1: Changes in the fraction of total voids to be filled with binder determined for different
traffic volumes
Traffic volume
(v/l/d)
Current Austroads basic voids

factor, Vf (L/m2/mm)(1)
Fraction of total voids in the seal

filled with binder ()
200
0.195
0.415
500
0.174
0.395
1 000
0.160
0.382
3 000
0.140
0.364
5 000
0.131
0.356
7 000
0.126
0.353
10 000
0.120
0.347
Austroads (2006).
Figure 5.1: Comparison of basic voids factors calculated by using different traffic volumes in the
analysis
The basic voids factor curves calculated using high traffic volumes (e.g. 10 000 v/l/d) were very similar to the
current curve at high traffic volumes but much lower than the current curve at low traffic volumes. Use of a
traffic volume of 10 000 v/l/d during the calculations resulted in a reduction of greater than 0.05 L/m2/mm in
the basic voids factor at 100 v/l/d and no change to the basic voids factor at 10 000 v/l/d. This reduction in
the basic voids factor at 100 v/l/d was considered to be too large by sprayed sealing experts.
If basic voids factor curves were calculated using low traffic volumes (e.g. 200 v/l/d), the curves were quite
similar to the current curve at low traffic volumes but were significantly higher than the current curve at high
traffic volumes. Use of a traffic volume of 200 v/l/d did not cause a marked change in the values of the basic
voids factor for traffic volumes less than 200 v/l/d but resulted in an increase of more 0.02 L/m2/mm for traffic
volumes greater than 3000 v/l/d.
If a traffic volume of 1000 v/l/d was used in the analysis it appeared to produce a basic voids factor curve
which was closest to the current curve. Use of this traffic level in the analysis reduced the basic voids factor
at 100 v/l/d by 0.025 L/m2/mm, and increased the basic voids factor by 0.011 L/m2/mm at 10 000 v/l/d,
compared with the results obtained using the current curve. As a traffic volume of 1000 v/l/d produced a
curve which was most similar to the current voids factor curve, an value of 0.382 (Table 5.1) appeared the
most appropriate value to use for Australian climatic conditions. This value is only slightly higher than that
used in the New Zealand seal design method (0.35).
Substitution of the values of and t which appear most appropriate for Australian climatic conditions into
Equation 19 yielded a proposed new version of the Austroads basic voids factor for single/single seals
(Equation 20):
Vf = 0.324 0.0279 log10 (730 T)
where
Vf
T
=
=
20
basic voids factor (L/m2/mm)

An additional advantage of using the new version of the Austroads basic voids factor is that it will require
lower basic voids factors to be used for low traffic roads (< 100 v/l/d). It was noted in Section 1 that this study
was conducted in response to concerns that the current basic voids factor for single/single seals was too
high for low volume roads. This concern was also raised as being the main identified issue with the current
Austroads sprayed seal design method in the national survey (Section 2).
In order to conduct a preliminary assessment of the new version of the Austroads basic voids factor, the
basic voids factor curve predicted by Equation 20 was compared with the New Zealand seal design
equivalent of the Austroads basic voids factor (Equation 14). Figure 5.2 shows that the new version of the
Austroads basic voids factor is extremely similar to the New Zealand analogue which has been successfully
used to design sprayed seals over the past 10 years. As the New Zealand basic voids factor has performed
well during the construction of sprayed seals over the past decade, this increases the likelihood that the new
version of the basic voids factor will perform well in Australia.
Figure 5.2: Comparison between the proposed Austroads basic voids factor and the New Zealand
equivalent
6. Validation of the Proposed New Austroads

Basic Voids Factor
At the November 2014 Bituminous Surfacings Working Group (BSWG) meeting, possible changes to the
Austroads basic voids factor for single/single seals were discussed. As a result of these discussions, it was
noted that any changes to the Austroads basic voids factor should be verified using recent Australian seal
data. In response to these discussions, jurisdictions were requested to provide seal design data for sites that
had either performed well, or were known to have stripped or flushed, during service. As a result of this
request, seal design data and performance information was obtained from three jurisdictions relating to four
single/single reseals which were constructed during 201314. Two of these seals had shown satisfactory
performance, while the other two seals had shown a significant amount of aggregate stripping since
construction.
As the information obtained from jurisdictions only allowed comparisons to be made based on the data
obtained from four sprayed seals, information obtained during the Austroads trials at Coober Pedy, Cooma
and Gisborne, as well seal design data relating to the initial seals which were constructed in the Northern
Territory (Section 4.2.1), were also collated so that verification of the new version of the Austroads basic
voids factor could be conducted using a larger data set. Most of the sections of the Austroads trial sites, and
the initial seals which were constructed in the Northern Territory, have displayed satisfactory performance.
Four sections of the Cooma trial site have shown significant amounts of aggregate stripping during the time
since construction (Austroads 2014).
Verification of the new Austroads basic voids factor was initially conducted by collating the seal design
parameters for each sprayed seal or sprayed seal trial section. The design binder application rate (Bd) was
then determined for each case using the Austroads sprayed seal design method (Austroads 2006). The
effective basic voids factor used in each seal was then determined by back-calculating the basic voids
factor used in each seal from the actual binder application rate used during construction using Austroads
(2006). Effective basic voids factor values were calculated without the rounding steps listed in Austroads
(2006) so that they could be directly compared with the smooth curve predicted by Equation 20. The new
version of the Austroads basic voids factor was then compared with the effective basic voids factor values
calculated for each seal when seal traffic volume and performance were also considered.
Table 6.1 and Figure 6.1 provide an example of how values of the effective basic voids factor were
calculated for each seal. This example uses the seal design data obtained from jurisdiction 1 where
significant aggregate stripping occurred after the seal was constructed. The upper part of Table 6.1 lists the
relevant seal design data, while the second column in the lower part of the table shows the results of seal
design calculations which were determined using the current method. This seal was constructed using an
actual binder application rate of 1.73 L/m2 which was significantly lower than the design binder application
rate of 2.1 L/m2 which was determined using the current method.
After design binder application rates were calculated for each seal by the current method, the basic voids
factor used in the calculations was then varied so that design binder application rate results could be
calculated as a function of the basic voids factor. An example of these calculations is shown in the lower
right-hand section of Table 6.1 for basic voids factors which varied between 0.12 and 0.17 L/m2/mm. The
basic voids factor values used in the calculations were then plotted against design binder application rate
results and the data was fitted to a linear function (Figure 6.1). In all cases studied, the value of the
correlation coefficient (R2) obtained from the linear fits was equal to one.
Table 6.1: Seal design parameters and Austroads sprayed seal design results obtained using
jurisdiction 1 seal data
Parameter
Seal design parameters
Aggregate size (mm)
14
341
Equivalent heavy vehicles (EHV) (%)
16
Site condition
flat
Aggregate ALD (mm)
9.7
Aggregate flakiness index (%)
Binder type
C170 bitumen
Existing seal type (mm)
10
Existing seal surface texture (mm)
1.1
Austroads
seal
design
Sprayed seal design

Basic voids factor, Vf (L/m2/mm)
Adjustment aggregate shape, Va
Adjustment traffic effects, Vt
(L/m2/mm)
(L/m2/mm)
Design voids factor, VF (L/m2/mm)

Basic binder application rate, Bb (L/m2)
Seal design with different basic voids factors
0.18
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.15
0.16
0.17
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.18
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.15
0.16
0.17
1.75
1.164
1.261
1.358
1.455
1.552
1.649
Adjustment existing surface texture, As
(L/m2)
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
Adjustment aggregate embedment, Ae
(L/m2)
2.1
1.464
1.561
1.658
1.755
1.852
1.949
Adjustment binder absorption, Aba
(L/m2)
Design binder application rate, Bd (L/m2)
Figure 6.1: Example of the linear fitting process used to calculate effective basic voids factor values
Once linear fits had been obtained from the data available from each seal, values of the effective basic voids
factor were determined by substituting the actual binder application rate used during construction for the
design binder application rate in each fitted linear equation. For the case of the seal data which was obtained
from jurisdiction 1, the effective basic voids factor used in the seal was calculated to be 0.147 (i.e. (0.103 x
1.73) 0.031).
Table 6.2 shows the seal design parameters and dates of construction for the four sprayed seals for which
information was supplied by jurisdictions, as well as the equivalent information for the two Northern Territory
initial seals. The table also includes the design binder application rates calculated for each seal by the
current Austroads method, the actual binder application rates used during construction, and the values of the
effective basic voids factor which were calculated for each seal.
Table 6.2: Seal design parameters and effective basic voids factor values determined for
jurisdictional and Northern Territory seals
Parameter
Jurisdiction
1
Jurisdiction
2
Jurisdiction
3 seal 1
Jurisdiction
3 seal 2
Jungawa
Road, NT,
eastbound
and
westbound
Seal type
14 mm
reseal
14 mm
reseal
10 mm
reseal
10 mm
reseal
14 mm
initial seal
14 mm
initial seal
19/11/2014
30/10/2013
19/11/2014
19/11/2014
7/11/2013
6/10/2011
Stripped
Stripped
OK
OK
OK
OK
Seal age when inspected

(years)
1.0
1.0
0.25
0.25
1.5
3.5
341
1800
34
22
40
144
Equivalent heavy vehicles (%)
16
13
21
41
25
17
Site condition
flat
flat
flat
flat
flat
flat
Aggregate ALD (mm)
9.7
9.2
5.9
5.9
8.4
8.7
11
20
20
11
12
C170
bitumen
S15RF
S35E
S35E
S10E
S10E
Seal PMB treatment type
SAM(1)
AR(1)
AR(1)
HSS(1)
SAM(1)
10
10
14
10
Existing seal surface texture

(mm)
1.1
1.3(2)
2.0
1.8
Design binder application rate

calculated using the current
Austroads method (L/m2)
2.1
2.5
1.9
1.9
2.0
2.1
Actual binder application rate

(L/m2)
1.73
1.79
1.80
1.70
1.80
1.96
Effective basic voids factor

used in the seal (L/m2/mm)
0.147
0.102
0.226
0.236
0.214
0.188
Construction date
Seal condition when inspected

Binder type
Fog Bay
Road, NT,
eastbound
SAM = strain alleviating membrane, AR = aggregate retention, HSS = high stress seal.
The existing seal surface texture was not known for this seal. A surface texture of 1.3 mm was determined using the
surface texture allowance of 0.35 used in the original seal design.
Table 6.3 shows the common seal design parameters which were used to calculate design binder application
rates and effective basic voids factor values for relevant sections of the Austroads Coober Pedy, Cooma and
Gisborne trial sites. Only sections of the trial sites where existing seal surface texture measurements had
been performed were included in the analysis so that surface texture variations between different trial
sections would be minimised. The sections of the Cooma trial site where polymer modified emulsions were
sprayed were not included in the analysis as the actual binder application rates used during construction of
these sections were not determined (Austroads 2013b). In the case of the Cooma slow lane sections, it was
assumed during the calculations that all heavy vehicles travelled in the slow lane, rather than the fast lane.
Similarly, it was assumed that no heavy vehicles travelled in the Gisborne trial fast lane.
Table 6.3: Seal design parameters used to calculate effective basic voids factor values for relevant
sections of the Austroads Coober Pedy, Cooma and Gisborne trial sites
Parameter
Coober Pedy
Cooma
Gisborne
Seal type
14 mm reseal
14 mm reseal
10 mm reseal
1/11/2011 and 2/11/2011
31/1/2012 and 1/2/2012
17/1/2007
Seal condition when inspected
OK
4 sections showed
stripping, the other
sections were OK
OK
Seal age when inspected (years)
2.3
2.0
6.8
165
2000 (two lane sections)
5200 (slow lane)
1400 (slow lane sections)
1300 (fast lane)
Equivalent heavy vehicles (EHV)

(%)
39
11 (two lane sections)
16 (slow lane)
Site condition
Flat
Flat except for sections

D, E and Hi and Hii
which were uphill
Flat
Aggregate ALD (mm)
7.6
7.4
7.4
18
16
Unknown(2)
C170 bitumen and PMBs
C170 bitumen and PMBs
C170, C240 and C320

bitumens and one PMB
SAM except for C170

bitumen trial sections
SAM except for C170

bitumen trial sections
14
Construction date
Binder type
Seal PMB treatment type
15 (slow lane
sections)(1)
0 (fast lane)(1)
Design binder application rates and effective voids factor values were calculated assuming that all heavy vehicles
travelled in the Cooma slow lane sections and no heavy vehicles travelled in the Gisborne fast lane.
As the flakiness index of the aggregate used in the Gisborne trial was not known, design binder application rates and
effective voids factor values were calculated assuming a voids factor adjustment (Va) of zero.
All Austroads trial sections, except for the Cooma northbound A, E, G and Hii sections showed satisfactory
performance when they were last inspected. As noted above, these Cooma trial sections have shown
significant amounts of aggregate stripping in the time since the seals were constructed. The stripped
sections of the Cooma trial site were resealed with S10E, S20E, C170 bitumen and S15E grade binders,
respectively.
As the determination of design binder application rates and effective basic voids factor values for the
sections of the Austroads trial sites involved the analysis of 48 different trial sections, the section-specific
seal design parameters and the individual results obtained for each section have not been included in the
main body of this report. The section-specific seal design parameters, binder application rates used during
construction, and the calculated values of the design binder application rate and the effective basic voids
factor obtained for each trial section are included in Appendix B.
Figure 6.2 shows a comparison between the effective basic voids factor values obtained for each seal or seal
trial section and the new and current versions of the Austroads basic voids factor. The effective basic voids
factor values have been plotted considering the traffic volume on each seal. The green data points in the
figure correspond to seals which have performed satisfactorily during service, while the red data points
correspond to seals where significant amounts of aggregate stripping have occurred since construction.
Some of the data points at traffic volumes of 165, 1300, 2000 and 5200 v/l/d have been shifted slightly on the
x-axis in the figure so that the individual data points can be easily observed. Figure 6.3 shows an expanded
view of the data shown in Figure 6.2 for traffic volumes between 0 and 2500 v/l/d.
The results shown in Figure 6.2 and Figure 6.3 appear to indicate that most of the performing seals were
constructed using basic voids factor values which were similar to either the current Austroads basic voids
factor or the new proposed basic voids factor. The green data points at a traffic volume of 2000 v/l/d
correspond to Cooma northbound trial sections B, C, and D, while the red data points at the same traffic
volume correspond to Cooma northbound trial sections A, E and G. The basic voids factor is included in the
Austroads sprayed seal design method (Austroads 2006) so that appropriate amount of binder is used in a
sprayed seal to account for the effects of traffic. If a too low basic voids factor is used in seal design then the
aggregate in the seal would be expected to strip after the seal was constructed. If a too high basic voids
factor is used in seal design it would be expected to result in flushing of the seal. As the basic voids factor
values obtained for Cooma northbound trial sections A, E and G were found to lie between those obtained
for northbound trial sections B, C and D (which did not strip after construction) it is likely that the stripping
which occurred in sections A, E and G was due to other effects rather than the basic voids factor values
which were used to construct these sections of sprayed seal. It was noted during the last inspection of the
Cooma trial site that the cutter levels used during construction of some of the Cooma trial sections may have
been too low (Austroads 2014). If the cutter level used during seal construction is too low, stripping of
aggregate can occur as the binder is not able to effectively wet the aggregate and form an adhesive bond
(Austroads 2012).
If the results obtained for Cooma northbound trial sections A, E and G are not considered, then the green
data points in Figure 6.2 and Figure 6.3 appear to form a band of results around both the new and current
basic voids factor curves. This implies that sprayed seals constructed using basic voids factors in this band
of values would be expected to produce satisfactorily performing sprayed seals. The three red data points
corresponding to stripped seals with traffic volumes of 1800 v/l/d or less are all considerably lower than the
green data points in Figure 6.2 and Figure 6.3. Based on the discussion above, it is likely that these three
seals stripped because they were constructed using basic voids factor values which were too low.
Based on the comparison between the proposed new Austroads basic voids factor and recent Australian
seal data it does not appear likely that use of the new Austroads basic voids factor will result in issues with
sprayed seals (e.g. stripping). It should be noted, however, that as the band of results obtained for
performing seals also appeared to include the current Austroads basic voids factor curve, the results of these
comparisons did not appear to highlight any issues with the current Austroads basic voids factor curve.
Figure 6.2: Comparison between effective basic voids factors determined using recent Australia seal
data and the new and current versions of the Austroads basic voids factor
Figure 6.3: Expanded view of the data shown in Figure 6.2
7. Conclusions
1. A questionnaire was distributed to state jurisdictions and local councils during 2014 to understand the
critical issues relating to low volume roads. Most respondents indicated that low volume roads had traffic
volumes of < 100 v/l/d and were constructed using C170 bitumen and 10 mm aggregate. The main issue
identified by questionnaire respondents was that the basic voids factor for single/single seals in the
current Austroads sprayed seal design method was too high for low volume roads. Issues with bleeding of
seals, and concerns about the effects of high percentages or seasonal changes in heavy traffic, were also
highlighted.
2. The results of a literature review into the derivation of basic voids factors used in Australia and New
Zealand for single/single seals indicated that the Austroads basic voids factor has empirically developed
over time and is based on qualitative observations by sealing experts and practitioners. The equivalent of
the basic voids factor in the current New Zealand sprayed seal design method was developed based on
quantitative measurements of surface texture changes in seals which were obtained during extensive
trials at Lower Hutt. As the New Zealand version of the basic voids factor is based on quantitative
measurements it allowed changes to the Austroads basic voids factor to be investigated without the need
for a series of extensive field trials.
3. A comparison between the results obtained for a series of initial seals and reseals which were
constructed in Australia and the results obtained during the Lower Hutt trials was conducted to determine
whether the Lower Hutt equation (which is used to derive the New Zealand version of the basic voids
factor) was applicable to Australian road conditions when traffic volumes were expressed in terms of v/l/d.
A good correlation was found between Australian and New Zealand results if sprayed seal data could be
manipulated so that it represented the case where the seals were constructed on a flat surface. In the
case of Australian reseals which were constructed at Gisborne, the effects of aggregate interlock between
the existing seal and reseal aggregate did not allow the sprayed seal data to be manipulated so that it
represented the case where the seals were constructed on a flat surface. Even though this was the case,
the results obtained from the reseals constructed at Gisborne were not inconsistent with those obtained
during the Lower Hutt trials.
4. A new version of the Austroads basic voids factor has been proposed for single/single seals which has
been developed using the New Zealand seal design approach and the Lower Hutt equation. The
proposed new version of the Austroads basic voids factor is very similar to its New Zealand equivalent
and yields lower basic voids factors for low volume roads (< 100 v/l/d).
5. The proposed new version of the Austroads basic voids factor was compared to recent seal
data/observations obtained from jurisdictions, and equivalent data from Austroads trial sites, to
investigate whether its use would result in issues with sprayed seals. Based on this comparison it
appears that the use of the new basic voids factor will be unlikely to result in issues with sprayed seals. A
comparison between the same seal data set and the current Austroads basic voids factor did not highlight
any issues with the current Austroads basic voids factor.
References
Austroads 1990, Design of sprayed seals, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2001, Austroads provisional sprayed seal design method revision 2000, AP-T09-01, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2004, Sprayed seal design: 2003/2004 summary, AP-R258-04, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2006, Update of the Austroads sprayed seal design method, AP-T68-06, Austroads, Sydney,
NSW.
Austroads 2009, Gisborne sprayed seal binder trial, AP-T126-09, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2012, Aggregate wetting experiments and effects on recommended polymer modified binder
cutter levels, AP-T208-12, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2013a, Update of double/double design for Austroads sprayed seal design method, AP-T236-13,
Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2013b, Polymer modified binder sprayed seal trials: construction report, AP-T242-13, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2013c, PMB sprayed seal trials: 12 month summary report, AP-T253-13, Austroads, Sydney,
NSW.
Austroads 2014, Inspections of sprayed seal trials, AP-T277-14, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Booth, T 1992, Austroads sprayed seal design research project overview, Surfacings workshop: part 1:
discussion papers, ARRB conference, 16th, 1992, Perth, Western Australia, Australian Road Research
Board, Vermont South, Victoria, 6 pp.
Country Roads Board 1954, Bituminous surfacing of roads handbook: part B: technical (overseers), CRB,
Kew, Vic.
Gaughan, R, Baburamani, PS, Holtrop, WP, Oliver, JWH, Leach, RD, Booth, EHS & Cossens, I 1997,
Austroads sprayed seal design method, AAPA international flexible pavements conference, 10th, 1997,
Perth, Western Australia, Australian Asphalt Pavement Association, Hawthorn, Vic, 9 pp.
Hanson, FM 1935, Bituminous surface treatment of rural highways, Ferguson & Osburn, Wellington, New
Zealand.
Houghton, LD & Hallett, JE 1987, An analysis of single coat seal designs, New Zealand roading
symposium, 1987, Wellington, New Zealand, New Zealand National Roads Board, Wellington, NZ, vol. 2,
pp. 249-63.
Major, NG & Tuohey, GJ 1974, New Zealand practice for surface treatments and friction courses, Asphalt
pavements for Southern Africa, 2nd,1974, Durban, Republic of South Africa, Natal University, Durban,
South Africa, 15 pp.
National Association of Australian State Road Authorities 1965, Principles and practice of bituminous
surfacings: volume 1: sprayed work, NAASRA, Sydney, NSW.
surfacings: volume 1: sprayed work, 2nd edn, NAASRA, Sydney, NSW.
surfacings: volume 1: sprayed work, 3rd edn, NAASRA, Sydney, NSW.
National Association of Australian State Road Authorities 1988, Review of sprayed seal design, technical
report no. ntr-5, NAASRA, Sydney, NSW.
National Association of Australian State Road Authorities 1989, Bituminous surfacing: sprayed work,
technical report no. ntr-7, NAASRA, Sydney, NSW.
National Roads Board 1968, Manual of sealing and paving practice, Roading Division, Ministry of Works for
the Road Research Unit, National Roads Board, Wellington, New Zealand.
National Roads Board 1971, Manual of sealing and paving practice, issue 2 of part 1, Roading Division,
Ministry of Works for the Road Research Unit, National Roads Board, Wellington, New Zealand.
National Roads Board 1975, Manual of sealing and paving practice: part 1: surface sealing metric
addendum, Roading Division, Ministry of Works for the Road Research Unit, National Roads Board,
Wellington, New Zealand.
Patrick, JE 1999, Background to the development of the Transit New Zealand performance based chipseal
specification P/17 texture requirements, report 99-526242.04, Opus Central Laboratories, Lower Hutt,
New Zealand.
Patrick, JE 2008, The evolution of the New Zealand chipseal design methodology, International sprayed
sealing conference, 1st, 2008, Adelaide, South Australia, ARRB Group, Vermont South, Vic, 13 pp.
Patrick, JE, Cenek, PD & Owen, MT 2000, Comparison of methods to measure macrotexture, World of
asphalt pavements, International conference, 1st, 2000 & AAPA international flexible pavements
conference, 11th, 2000, Sydney, New South Wales, Australian Asphalt Pavement Association, Kew, Vic, 8
pp.
Potter, JL & Church, M 1976, The design of sprayed single seals, Australian Road Research Board
conference, 8th, 1976, Perth, Western Australia, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 18-24, 36-8.
Towler, J & Dawson, J 2008, History of chipsealing in New Zealand: Hanson to P/17, International sprayed
sealing conference, 1st, 2008, Adelaide, South Australia, ARRB Group, Vermont South, Vic, 25 pp.
Transit New Zealand 1989, Notes for specification for resealing, report SP/NP4:89, Transit New Zealand,
Wellington, NZ.
Transit New Zealand 1993, Bituminous sealing manual, 2nd edn, Transit New Zealand, Wellington, NZ.
Transit New Zealand 2005, Chipsealing in New Zealand, Transit New Zealand, Wellington, NZ.
Austroads Test Methods
AGPT/T190: 2014, Specification framework for polymer modified binders.
AGPT/T250: 2008, Modified surface texture depth (Pestle method).
Standards Australia
AS A10-1967, Residual bitumen and fluxed native asphalt for roadmaking purposes (withdrawn).
AS 20082013, Bitumen for pavements.
Low Volume Road Survey

SEAL DESIGN IMPROVEMENT FOR LOW TRAFFIC: QUESTIONNAIRE
Please provide as much information as possible to the best of your knowledge in filling out this
questionnaire. Please skip questions which are not relevant. We would be grateful if you could provide
comments, complete this questionnaire and return it to Khar Yean Khoo by 12 May 2014.
INTRODUCTION
A. Problem: Basic Voids Factor on Low Volume Roads
There are reports of inaccuracy in the Austroads Seal Design method for low volume traffic, where the
binder application rates are too high. This is likely because the basic voids factor estimation for the low
volume end is not accurate (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Basic voids factor (Vf) traffic volume 0 to 500 vehicles/lane/day
B. History
It is understood that the background for Figures 2.2 and 2.3 in Austroads report APT68-06 Update of the
Austroads sprayed seal design method dates back purely to practical experience, i.e. it is empirical
based rather than mechanistic. It reflected the experience of some very senior members in the
publications working group at the time.
This experience was first recorded in the brochure: Austroads (1990) Design of sprayed seals (also
known historically in Australia as the puce document, because of its colour). In Table 2 of this document,
the basic voids factor Vf, was a recording of practical experience but in tabular form. Taking this, and
using their experienced judgement the working group devised a pencil-and-paper curve which was then
mimicked electronically to produce the curves in AP-T68-06. More recently a power fit curve has been
back plotted to produce an equation, but this will not be published because it may create the illusion of
precision that is not really there.
INTRODUCTION
C. Aim
The principal aims of the questionnaire are to:
identify critical issues encountered by practitioners in designing and maintaining sealed low
volume roads
identify modifications to the Austroads seal design m et h od that practitioners are using to
produce successful seals in practice
identify possible opportunities for improvement in seal design.
Comments from the questionnaire will aid in addressing the above aims and contribute to refining the basic
voids factor from an empirical to a mechanistic basis by validating the voids factor with field data for low
volume roads at a later stage.
USER INFORMATION (To Remain Confidential)
1. Contact details
Name:
Company:
City/Town:
ZIP/Postal code:
Email address:
Phone number:
2. State
NSW
NT
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA
3. Which region do you work in?

Rural
Urban
Both
Other comment
4. Do you undertake seal designs?

Yes
No
If No, please advise us of the party who does the design (e.g. contractor, council, etc.).
OVERVIEW
5. What is your definition of a low volume road in vehicles/lane/day (v/l/d)?
< 100 v/l/d
100150 v/l/d
150200 v/l/d
Other (please specify)
6. Estimated percentage of road network with sprayed seal surfacing

< 20%
2140%
4160%
6180%
81100%
7. What percentage of these (ref Question 6) would be called low volume roads?
< 20%
2140%
4160%
6180%
81100%
LOW VOLUME ROADS WITH HEAVY VEHICLES

8. Do you have roads with low volumes but with a high percentage of Heavy Vehicles (Class 48)
or Large Heavy Vehicles (Class 912) (Refer to Figure 2)?
Yes
No
Figure 2: Austroads vehicle classification system (Heavy vehicles: Class 48; Large Heavy
Vehicles: Class 912)
LOW VOLUME ROADS WITH HEAVY VEHICLES

9. If Yes, what is the average (or estimated) percentage of heavy vehicles on these roads?
05%
610%
1115%
1620%
2130%
> 30%
10. What are the seal performance issues on these roads (ref Question 8) and how serious are
they?
Not serious
Moderately serious
Severely serious
Bleeding
Cracking
Stripping
11. Are there modifications you make to the seal design and/or selection process to cater for these
low volume roads with heavy vehicles (ref Question 8)?
Alter the binder
application rates based
on experience
Use a minimum traffic

volume
Use PMBs
SEAL DESIGN METHOD AND PRACTICES

12. What method and/or criteria are you using to design seals for low volume roads?
Austroads design method (e.g. AP-T68-06 or AP-T236-13)
Contractors method (please provide details where possible)
Council/shire standard drawings
Council/shire standard specification
State road authority
Repeat what worked last time
Other method (please specify) and/or further comment.
13. Which design method delivers the best performance?
Austroads design method (e.g. AP-T68-06 or AP-T236-13)
Contractors method (please provide details where possible)
Council/shire standard drawings
Council/shire standard specification
State road authority
Repeat what worked last time
Other method (please specify) and/or further comment.
14. Are there any other issues you have with the Austroads seal design method?
BASIC VOIDS FACTOR

15. When using the Austroads method do you select the basic voids factor using the curve shown
in Figure 1 at the start of this survey (Basic voids factor (Vf) traffic volume 0 to 500
vehicles/lane/day)?
Yes
No
If no, how do you select the

basic voids factor?
BASIC VOIDS FACTOR

16. Do you think the basic voids factor indicated by Figure 1 should vary depending on the whether
a single coat 10 mm seal or a 14 mm seal is used?
Yes
No
If yes, how would you vary the

voids factor? (please provide
details wherever possible)
SEAL CONSTRUCTION
17. Do you have any seal design or construction practices for low volume roads that are different
to high volume roads? (e.g. changing aggregate spread rates)?
18. Are there any environmental factors that impact upon the timing of sealing low volume roads
compared with high volume roads (e.g. time of year, rainfall, temperature, etc.)? (please provide
details wherever possible)
AGGREGATE
19. Are there typical aggregate sizes and aggregate spread rates that you use for low volume
roads?
Yes
No
20. If yes, what are they?

Typical aggregate spread rate (m2/m3)
Typical aggregate size (mm)
21. How do you find the aggregate spread rates in the Austroads design?
Too light
Acceptable
Too heavy
22. What is your estimate of service life (years between reseals other than a seal over a primerseal)
for the following aggregate sizes?
<3
years
46
years
79
years
1012
years
1215
years
> 15
years
NA
7 mm
10 mm
14 mm
16 mm or larger
10/5 mm or 10/7 mm
(2 coat applications)
14/7 mm, 20/7 mm, or
20/10 mm
(2 coat applications)
23. The above values in Question 22 are mainly:
Based on data
Estimates based on
experience
Any other comments.
BINDER
24. What is the common binder used for low volume roads?
C170 bitumen
Emulsion
C320 bitumen
Polymer modified emulsion (PME)
Crumbed rubber
Polymer modified binder (PMB)
Please specify the type of PMB and/or emulsion used or provide other comments if required.
BINDER
25. What is the percentage of seals with a modified binder (PMB or crumbed rubber)?
05%
610%
1115%
1620%
> 20%
26. How has the use of sealing binders changed in the last 5 years?
% has increased over
the last 5 years
% has decreased over

the last 5 years
% has not changed over

the past 5 years
PMBs
Unmodified bitumen
27. Why has the percentage of PMB seals changed? Why has the percentage of unmodified seals
changed?
28. If there a typical/nominal binder application rate (at 15 C) used for low volume roads? If yes,
what is it and what aggregate size does it apply to?
29. Do you find your chosen seal design method (ref Question 12; e.g. Austroads method,
contractors method, repeat what worked last time, etc.) produces a bitumen application rate for
low volume roads that is:
Too light
Acceptable
Too heavy
30. Is the typical/nominal binder application rate (ref Question 28) applicable to just low traffic
volume roads?
Yes
No
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS AND OTHERS

31. Can you provide a brief description of your climate.
Hot humid summer
Warm humid summer
Hot dry summer, mild winter
Hot dry summer, cold winter
Warm summer, cold winter
Mild/warm summer, cold winter
Other comments (please specify).
32. What is the rural and urban region split for sealed low volume roads? (approximate % in each
region)
Rural percentage:
Urban percentage:
33. Any other factors(s), critical issues relating to seal selection and design that you would like to
be addressed?
Effective Basic Voids Factor Values

for Austroads Trial Sites
Table B 1: Section-specific seal design parameters and effective basic voids factor values
determined for different sections of the Coober Pedy trial site
Existing seal
surface
texture (mm)
Design binder
application rate
calculated using
the current
Austroads
method (L/m2)
Actual
binder
application
rate (L/m2)
Effective
basic voids
factor used in
the seal
(L/m2/mm)
0.7
1.6
1.83
0.235
0.5
1.5
1.83
0.248
0.8
1.6
1.62
0.207
Coober Pedy section A2, SB
0.7
1.6
1.62
0.207
Coober Pedy section B1, NB
0.6
1.7
1.79
0.205
0.5
1.7
1.79
0.205
0.8
1.8
1.61
0.175
Coober Pedy section B2, SB
0.8
1.8
1.61
0.175
Coober Pedy section C1, NB
0.8
2.0
1.86
0.188
Coober Pedy section C1, SB
0.8
2.0
1.86
0.188
0.9
2.0
1.67
0.169
Coober Pedy section C2, SB
0.6
1.9
1.67
0.179
Coober Pedy section D1, NB
1.5
2.0
1.80
0.173
0.6
1.7
1.80
0.206
0.8
1.8
1.62
0.176
Coober Pedy section D2, SB
0.6
1.7
1.62
0.187
Coober Pedy section E1, NB
1.0
1.7
1.78
0.205
0.6
1.5
1.78
0.231
Trial section(1)
Binder
type
Seal
condition
when
inspected
Coober Pedy section A1, NB

Coober Pedy section A1, SB
Coober Pedy section A2, NB
Coober Pedy section B1, SB

Coober Pedy section B2, NB
Coober Pedy section C2, NB
Coober Pedy section D1, SB

Coober Pedy section D2, NB
Coober Pedy section E1, SB

Coober Pedy section E2, NB
C170
bitumen
S10E
S20E
S35E
Shell
S5E
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
0.8
1.6
1.62
0.198
Coober Pedy section E2, SB
0.7
1.6
1.62
0.198
Coober Pedy section F1, NB
1.2
2.2
1.96
0.176
0.6
2.0
1.96
0.195
Coober Pedy section F1, SB

Coober Pedy section F2, NB
S45R
OK
1.1
2.2
1.80
0.161
Coober Pedy section F2, SB
0.7
2.1
1.80
0.170
Coober Pedy section G1, NB
0.9
2.0
1.90
0.192
0.6
1.9
1.90
0.202
0.8
2.0
1.71
0.173
1.0
2.1
1.71
0.163
0.8
2.0
1.91
0.193
0.7
2.0
1.91
0.193
1.3
2.1
1.71
0.163
0.7
2.0
1.71
0.173
Coober Pedy section G1, SB

Coober Pedy section G2, NB
S15E
OK
Coober Pedy section G2, SB

Coober Pedy section H1, NB
Coober Pedy section H1, SB
Coober Pedy section H2, NB
Coober Pedy section H2, SB
1
SAMI
S20E SS
SAMI
S20E SS
OK
OK
NB = northbound, SB = southbound.
determined for different sections of the Cooma trial site
Existing
seal surface
texture (mm)
Design binder
application rate
calculated using
the current
Austroads
method (L/m2)
Actual
binder
application
rate (L/m2)
Effective
basic voids
factor used in
the seal
(L/m2/mm)
Trial section(1)
Binder
type
Seal
condition
when
inspected
Cooma section A, NB
S10E
Stripped
1.8
1.7
1.67
0.143
Cooma section B, NB
S35E
OK
1.8
1.7
1.59
0.134
Cooma section C, NB
S15E
OK
1.3
1.7
2.09
0.185
Cooma section D, NB
S15RF
OK
1.7
1.9
1.78
0.143
Cooma section E, NB
S20E
Stripped
1.6
1.8
1.71
0.146
Cooma section G, NB
C170
bitumen
Stripped
1.7
1.5
1.56
0.157
Cooma section Hi, NB slow lane
S15E
Stripped
1.8
1.8
1.41
0.115
Cooma section Hii, NB slow lane
S15E
OK
1.8
1.8
1.71
0.146
NB = northbound.
determined for different sections of the Gisborne trial site
Trial section
Gisborne section 1, slow lane

Gisborne section 1, fast lane
Binder type
Seal
condition
when
inspected
C240
bitumen
OK
C320
bitumen
OK
OLEXOBIT
SP
OK
C170
bitumen
OK
Existing
seal
surface
texture
(mm)
Design binder
application rate
calculated using
the current
Austroads
method (L/m2)
Actual
binder
application
rate (L/m2)
Effective
basic voids
factor used in
the seal
(L/m2/mm)
0.9
1.1
1.2
0.145
2.2
1.5
1.5
0.149
0.9
1.1
1.2
0.145
2.3
1.5
1.4
0.135
0.9
1.1
1.2
0.145
2.3
1.5
1.4
0.135
0.9
1.1
1.2
0.145
2.1
1.5
1.4
0.135

AP-T302-15 Seal Design Improvement For Low Volume Roads

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AP-T302-15 Seal Design Improvement For Low Volume Roads

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technical Report

Seal Design Improvement

Seal Design Improvement for Low Volume Roads

Robert Urquhart, Larissa Aguiar and Khar Yean Khoo

The current version of the Austroads sprayed seal design method

Austroads purpose is to:

The responses to the questionnaire indicated that the main issue

promote improved Australian and New Zealand transport

provide expert technical input to national policy

promote improved practice and capability by road agencies

Roads and Maritime Services New South Wales

Roads Corporation Victoria

Department of Transport and Main Roads Queensland

Main Roads Western Australia

Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure

Department of State Growth Tasmania

Department of Transport Northern Territory

Territory and Municipal Services Directorate, Australian

Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and

Australian Local Government Association

New Zealand Transport Agency.

The success of Austroads is derived from the collaboration of

Seal Design Improvement for Low Volume Roads

Austroads 2015 | page i

Seal Design Improvement for Low Volume Roads

National Survey on Low Volume Roads...................................................................................... 4

Comparisons Between Lower Hutt and Australian Data ......................................................... 23

Initial Seals (South Australia and the Northern Territory) ......................................... 26

Reseals (Austroads Trials at Coober Pedy and Cooma).......................................... 29

Reseals (Austroads Trial at Gisborne) ...................................................................... 32

Validation of the Proposed New Austroads Basic Voids Factor ............................................ 43

Low Volume Road Survey ...................................................................................... 52

Austroads 2015 | page ii

Seal Design Improvement for Low Volume Roads

Survey response statistics ................................................................................................ 5

Austroads 2015 | page iii

Seal Design Improvement for Low Volume Roads

Source: Austroads (2006).

Austroads 2015 | page 1

Seal Design Improvement for Low Volume Roads

Source: Austroads (2006).

Austroads 2015 | page 2

Seal Design Improvement for Low Volume Roads

Austroads 2015 | page 3

Seal Design Improvement for Low Volume Roads

2. National Survey on Low Volume Roads

Binder (Q2430): binder type and application rate

Other (Q33): further comments.

all respondents refers to all survey respondents

respondents refers to participants that responded to the question being discussed.

2.2 Participant Information (Q14, 31)

Austroads 2015 | page 4

Seal Design Improvement for Low Volume Roads

Survey response statistics

2.3 Low Volume Roads (Q57, 32)

2.4 Heavy Vehicles (Q811)

Austroads 2015 | page 5

Seal Design Improvement for Low Volume Roads

2.5 Seal Design Methods and Construction (Q1214, 1718)

2.6 Basic Voids Factor, Vf (Q1516)

2.7 Aggregate (Q1923)

2.8 Binder (Q2430)

2.9 Other (Q33)