Accepted Manuscript

State of the Art: Asphalt for Airport Pavement Surfacing

Greg White

PII: S1996-6814(17)30006-8
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijprt.2017.07.008
Reference: IJPRT 109

To appear in: International Journal of Pavement Research and

Technology

Received Date: 8 January 2017

Revised Date: 12 July 2017
Accepted Date: 25 July 2017

Please cite this article as: G. White, State of the Art: Asphalt for Airport Pavement Surfacing, International Journal
of Pavement Research and Technology (2017), doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijprt.2017.07.008

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
State of the Art: Asphalt for Airport Pavement Surfacing

Abstract

Airport runways and taxiways are commonly comprised of a flexible pavement with an asphalt
surface. Marshall-designed asphalt with sawn grooves is the most frequent airport asphalt surface
material. However, some airports have adopted alternate asphalt mixtures for improved resistance to
shear stress and for increased surface texture, allowing grooving to be avoided. Of the alternate
asphalt mixtures, stone mastic asphalt is the most commonly reported. Resistance to shear stress is
a critical performance requirement for airport surface asphalt. Shear stress resistance minimises the
risk of rutting, shoving and groove closure. However, fracture resistance must not be ignored when
developing even more shear resistance asphalt mixtures. Significant distress in airport asphalt
surfaces, compliant with the traditional prescriptive specification, has increased interest in a
performance-based airport asphalt specification. Commonly reported distresses include groove
closure in slow moving aircraft areas and shearing in heavy aircraft braking zones. Development of
reliable performance-indicative test methods is expected in the future and will enable warranted
performance-based asphalt mixture design for airport surfaces.

Key words
Airport; Pavement; Asphalt; Surface

1 Introduction

Many airport runways, taxiways and aprons are constructed of flexible pavements with asphalt
surfaces. The performance of the surface is critical to the safe operation of aircraft. The design
methods for airport asphalt surfaces, like airport pavement structures, was primary developed in the
1940s and 1950s by the US Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) [1]. Many airports and aviation
authorities retain the basis of the Corps methods in current airport asphalt design, specification and
construction practice. As a result, the majority of airport asphalt surfaces are constructed from a 40-
60 mm thick, 14 mm (nominal maximum aggregate size), densely graded and Marshall-designed
asphalt [2]. Grooves are generally sawn transversely in runway surfaces to promote aircraft skid
resistance [3].

In recent years, aircraft have become substantially heavier and more demanding of airport pavement
surfaces [4]. Moreover, the quality of bitumen, an essential ingredient for adequate airport asphalt
performance, has decreased [5]. It follows that the traditional and empirical airport asphalt
specification has failed to guarantee good airport asphalt surface performance [6]. Rather, in some
cases, compliant and well-constructed airport-quality asphalt has not performed adequately under
aircraft loading [7-11].

To address these issues, coupled with a desire to avoid runway grooving, some engineers have
revisited the mix design, specification and construction of airport asphalt surfaces. Alternate asphalt
mixture types, such as Stone Mastic Asphalt (SMA) and Open Graded Friction Course (OGFC) have
also been adopted by some airports [12]. Further deviation from the traditional approach to airport
surface asphalt specification is expected to overcome challenges.

The paper summarises the state of the art and future opportunities relating to asphalt mixtures for
airport pavement surfacing. This paper does not address base and binder course asphalt mixtures,
with the focus being on asphalt for runway surfacing. Although critical to airport asphalt surface
performance, the bond with the underlying pavement layer is a function of the underlying pavement
and the construction specification. The surface layer itself has little impact on the durability or
strength of the bond achieved [13]. Surface layer bond to the underlying pavement is not considered
in this paper. First, regulatory requirements are summarised and the traditional Marshall specification
is outlined, before the effects of bitumen changes and more demanding aircraft are presented.
Second, common distress modes are described and lead to defining airport asphalt surface
performance requirements. Third, the contribution of the constituent materials to adequate
performance is discussed before alternate asphalt mixture types are considered. Finally, test

1
methods available for measurement of performance properties are presented and the opportunity for
a performance-based specification is considered.

2 Background
Airports, including airport pavements, are internationally regulated to provide a standardised minimum
level of infrastructure at the origin and destination of international flights. Traditionally, Marshall-
designed dense graded asphalt was used to meet the regulatory requirements. However, alternate
asphalt mixture types are also suitable. Changes in bitumen for airport asphalt production and more
demanding aircraft have combined to result in some traditionally designed airport asphalt surfaces
falling below the requirements of the international standards.

2.1 Regulatory requirements

The physical characteristics of runways are specified by the International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO) through a document commonly known as Annex 14 [14]. According to Annex 14, an airport
asphalt surface must be:

Constructed and maintained without deviations or bumps that would adversely affect aircraft
operation. In practice this requires asphalt that is resistant to deformation by shearing, shoving
and rutting so as the remain smooth and free-draining.
Constructed and maintained to provide good friction characteristics when the surface is wet. In
practice this requires either an asphalt surface with naturally not less than 1 mm surface texture or
grooving of the asphalt surface.
Maintained free of loose material on the surface to prevent damage to aircraft. In practice this
requires airport asphalt to be durable and resistant to ravelling and cracking.
Some of these requirements are conflicting. For example, a highly deformation resistant mixture can
be constructed with a coarsely graded asphalt with a low portion of a hard bitumen. However, such
an asphalt mixture is unlikely to be durable. It follows that airport asphalt design and specification
requires a balance of the various competing requirements.

2.2 Marshall designed asphalt

The Marshall mixture design method was developed in 1939 by Bruce Marshall for the Mississippi
Highways Department [1]. During the 1940s and 1950s, it was adapted and adjusted for significant
military aircraft loads. Many countries, including Australia, predominantly retain Marshall-designed
asphalt for airport surfacing. The primary aims of the Marshall design method include [1]:

A densely graded aggregate skeleton with 15% voids in the mineral aggregate.
Filling the voids in the mineral aggregate with bituminous binder to retain 4% air voids.
The Marshall Stability and Marshall Flow values are determined over a range of binder contents
and the optimal binder content selected.
Grading, bitumen content, compacted density, Marshall Flow and Marshall Stability are the primary
design criteria and quality assurance parameters. In practice, Marshall-designed dense graded
airport asphalt mixtures generally contain 5.4-5.8% of bitumen (by mass) and 4-6% of aggregate
passing 75 m sieve (by volume). The result is around 14% (by volume) of airport asphalt being
comprised of mastic (combination of bitumen and very fine aggregate). The high bitumen content
results in the deformation resistance of Marshall-designed asphalt being highly influenced by the
engineering properties of the bitumen [15] as a critical element of the bituminous mastic that glues the
coarse aggregate particles together.

2.3 Changes in bitumen

There is a widely held perception that bitumen quality has reduced over the last thirty years. There is
significant evidence to show that crude oil quality has reduced, oil refining processes have become
more efficient and bitumen is extended by the addition of what would traditionally have been waste or
by-product [5]. Changes in bitumen supply and quality have anecdotally been linked to a number of

2
airport asphalt surface distresses, including early life shearing, premature ageing and early life top-
down cracking [16].

Traditionally, conventional bitumen (unmodified by polymers or acid, usually graded by viscosity or

penetration) was the normal binder for airport asphalt and for many years provided good asphalt
performance. However, stripping issues, horizontal deformation, groove closure and early ageing
prompted many airports and designers to move to premium or modified binders around the year 2000.
Since then, premium (often polymer modified) binders have been adopted for the majority of airport
works. In countries where the Performance Grading (PG) system developed in the USA is used, one
or two grade-bumps are required for airport asphalt accommodating aircraft with significant wheel
loads [17].

In practice, bitumen is being ever more engineered, through the addition of polymers and other
additives, to maintain an acceptable level of asphalt performance. The increase in engineering of
bitumen is required to overcome the reduced reliability of binder response to load, as well as the
increased load being applied by modern aircraft.

2.4 The evolution of aircraft

Since their first introduction in the early 1900s, aircraft have become progressively larger and heavier.
Particularly since WWII, aircraft wheel loads and tyre pressures have increased significantly [18-19].
At the time of its introduction in 1958, the DC 8-50 was the most damaging commercial aircraft in the
world with a tyre pressure of 1.35 MPa and wheel load of 19.0 t, which is quite modest by modern-day
reckoning. Since that time, tyre pressures and wheel loads have increased incrementally. In 2001
Airbus introduced its extended wide body A340-600 commercial passenger jet. This modern and
technologically advanced aircraft remains one of the most demanding on pavements with a tyre
pressure of 1.61 MPa and wheel load of 30.8 tonnes [20].

The A380-800 became the largest passenger aircraft in the world when it was introduced in 2005.
Although heavier than other aircraft, its wheel load is less severe at 26.8 tonnes with a tyre pressure
of 1.40 MPa [20]. The combined twenty-wheel main landing gear allowed for the less critical
pavement loading. The B787-8, introduced in 2009, was a smaller aircraft with 1.60 MPa tyre
pressure and 27 tonne wheel loads [21]. The most recent large aircraft advancement by Boeing was
the B747-800F, introduced in 2010. With new gull-shaped wings, this aircraft joined the A380 as the
only Code F (wingspan exceeding 65 m) commercial jets in the world. Based on a B747-400, the
landing gear remains relatively modest at 1.55 MPa tyre pressure and 26.5 tonnes [21].

In contrast, the newest aircraft from Airbus, the A350, first flew in 2013. Its variants entered service in
2015 (A350-900) and 2016 (A350-800). At 1.66 MPa and 31.8 tonnes [20] the A350-900 is now the
most demanding commercial aircraft in the world, based on tyre pressure and individual wheel load.
The impact on the pavement structure is reduced by a wider wheel spacing. However, asphalt
surfaces are exposed to higher tyre pressures and individual wheel loads than ever before. These
higher tyre pressures and wheel loads combine to impart higher shear stresses in asphalt surface
layers [22].

In practice, aircraft wheel loads and tyre pressures will continue to increase as aircraft manufacturers
strive for ever greater fuel efficiency [2]. The result is higher shear stresses applied to asphalt
surfaces, even when the pavement structure is protected by increased wheel spacing. More stress
resistant asphalt is required to meet the increasing demand of modern aircraft and avoid an increase
in surface distress.

3 Examples of distress

Airport asphalt distress modes are not significantly different from road and highway asphalt
distresses. However, the particular requirements of airport pavements, relating to pavement-
generated loose material, known as Foreign Object Debris (FOD), and aircraft skid resistance, reduce
the tolerance of such distresses. Table 1 summarises common airport asphalt distress modes, how
they impact aircraft pavement performance and what material factors affect their risk. Temperature is
critical to all distress modes due to the temperature dependence of bitumen properties. Load-induced
stress is also important as the primary trigger of many modes of distress.

3
Bottom-up asphalt fatigue cracking is rarely encountered in airport pavements. This reflects the
generally low traffic volumes and the greater thickness and stiffness of airport pavements, when
compared to road pavements [16]. That is not to say that airport pavements are immune from asphalt
fatigue and crocodile cracking. When pavements are overloaded, high vertical deflection occurs
under load. When exposed to such high deflections, pavement surfaces fail rapidly by bottom-up
asphalt fatigue.

Bleeding is also rarely encountered in airport asphalt and is avoided by maintaining a minimum insitu
void content of 3-4% [15]. Aggregate breakdown is rarely a significant issue with minimum aggregate
properties specified, such as abrasion resistance and parent rock soundness limits. The higher-risk
distress modes include rutting, shearing/shoving, top-down cracking, groove closure, stripping and
ravelling, as described in detail below.

Table 1. Summary of airport asphalt distresses

Distress mode Impacts on Affected by Level of risk

Skid resistance Deformation resistance Medium
Rutting
Surface smoothness
Skid resistance Deformation resistance High
Shearing/shoving
Surface smoothness
Loose material generation Fracture resistance Medium
Top down cracking
Water tight surface
Loose material generation Fracture resistance Low
Fatigue cracking
Water tight surface
Groove closure Skid resistance Deformation resistance High
Skid resistance Volumetric composition Low
Bleeding
Deformation resistance Air void content
Deformation resistance Moisture susceptibility Medium
Stripping
Aggregate grading
Loose material generation Aggregate grading Medium
Premature ravelling
Bitumen ageing
Aggregate breakdown Loose material generation Aggregate properties Low

3.1 Rutting

Asphalt surface rutting (Figure 1) must be considered separately from pavement rutting that results
from permanent vertical subgrade deformation and base course densification or instability. Where it
does occur, asphalt rutting is a significant distress mode for airport surface asphalt [23]. However,
even in hot countries such as Australia, as long as the asphalt mixture is designed and constructed
appropriately, asphalt surface rutting has rarely been reported [2]. Some Australasian examples
include Cairns (Australia), Perth (Australia), Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia), Doha (Qatar) and Dubai (UAE)
airports [10]. It is generally expected that the majority of rutting occurs in summer months, when
pavement temperatures in the region can exceed 75C [24].

4
 Figure 1 Asphalt surface rutting [2]

In preparing to construct a new airport at Inchon (Korea) laboratory and field trials of various asphalt
mixtures was undertaken. SMA and dense graded asphalt with elastomeric modified binder rutted the
least of the various mixtures evaluated [25]. Taxiways at San Francisco airport (USA) rutted during
hot weather, under slow moving and sharp turning B747 aircraft [9]. It was concluded that the
bitumen was too soft to provide adequate shear resistance to the aggregate matrix.

A number of airports have also detected asphalt mixtures with high rutting risk through laboratory
testing as part of the mixture design process. Examples include Walvis Bay (Namibia) where the
work was re-designed following wheel tracking evaluation of the proposed mixture [7] and
Johannesburg airport (South Africa) where alternate asphalt mixture designs were developed
following unacceptable wheel track rutting in the laboratory [8].

In summary, asphalt rutting is not a frequently reported mode of distress in airport pavement surfaces.
However, where it does occur, free water retained in the resulting depression adversely affects skid
resistance. Skid resistance is a critical functional property of airport asphalt surfaces and is essential
for safe aircraft operations. Rutting is therefore a low-likelihood but high-consequence risk for airport
asphalt surfaces.

3.2 Shearing/shoving

Horizontal surface shearing and shoving (referred to as shearing) results from accumulated horizontal
deformation or creep [26]. It is most commonly experienced in areas of heavy aircraft braking or
turning [9, 22, 27-29]. Where multiple rigid axles of a single (four wheel dual tandem or six wheel
tridem) landing gear are dragged across the surface during aircraft turning, the damage has been
referred to as sluing [9].

Horizontal shearing is similar to rutting in that it results from permanent deformation of the asphalt
surface due to excessive shear stress. The primary difference between rutting and shearing is the
direction of deformation, which reflects the direction of the critical stress condition. Horizontal
shearing can also occur at lower magnitudes of stress than rutting. This reflects the reduced level of
confinement in the horizontal direction at the pavement surface [22]. The surface distress manifests
differently depending on whether the aircraft is braking, turning or sluing. In severe cases (Figure 2),
shearing distress leads to tearing of the pavement surface which presents a FOD hazard to aircraft.

5
 Figure 2 Severe surface asphalt shearing under aircraft braking

Monismith et al. [9] and Vallerga et al. [30] both reported shearing and tearing resulting from sharply
turning B747 aircraft at San Francisco airport (USA). It was concluded that a more viscous binder
was required to improve the shear strength of the asphalt mixture. Similarly, Mooren et al. [28]
investigated surface tearing resulting from aircraft turning at Amsterdam airport (Netherlands). A lack
of mixture cohesion at elevated temperature, due to softening of the bitumen, was concluded to result
in inadequate shear strength in the mixture.

An Australian airport was reported to experience unusual asphalt surface softness during the summer
months [15]. High temperature susceptibility of the binder was concluded, although a reduction in
softness was observed after three years. A similar case of surface tenderness was reported at
another Australian airport [26]. A change in the modified binder crude oil source resulted in a more
shear susceptible asphalt surface, leading to shearing and tearing in the aircraft braking zone. Like
the previous example, the tenderness reduced after three years [11].

Newark airport, in New Jersey (USA) experienced asphalt shearing in the heavy aircraft braking zone
associated with aircraft landings [27]. It was concluded that inadequate aggregate interlock resulted
in a reduction in shear strength.

In summary, asphalt shearing is concerning for airport asphalt surfaces and there appears to be a
growing frequency of incidents reported. Deviation in the groove alignment is not necessarily
detrimental. However, the risk of surface tearing, allowing water ingress and potential FOD
generation, is significant. The potential to adversely impact safe aircraft operation is high. Surface
asphalt shearing is therefore a high-likelihood and moderate-consequence risk.

3.3 Top down cracking

Top down cracking is distinctly different to tearing of the surface due to shearing. It is also different to
bottom-up fatigue cracking, which is generally not an issue for airport pavements [2]. Top down
cracking results from high shear and tensile stresses at the surface of the pavement, resulting from
stress concentrations around the ribs and side walls of tyres [31]. Australian airports have
experienced significant top down cracking, likely associated with chemical hardening in acid modified
bitumen [32]. In one severe case, FOD was generated from interconnected cracks (Figure 3) and the
asphalt surface required full removal and replacement, just five years after construction [32]. No other
reports of severe top down cracking of airport surface asphalt have been located. However,
increases in aircraft wheel load and tyre pressures combine to increase the shear and tensile stresses

6
at the pavement surface. It follows that the risk of top down cracking in airport pavements can only
increase in the future. At this time, top down cracking is a low-likelihood and moderate-consequence
risk to airport asphalt surfaces, mitigated by avoiding acid-modified bitumen.

Figure 3 Severe top down cracking in an airport asphalt surface

3.4 Groove closure

Groove closure is one of the most commonly reported airport asphalt surface distresses, particularly
in hot countries such as Australia [2]. Groove closure adversely impacts aircraft skid resistance
because the effective volume of the grooves is reduced (Figure 4) affecting the efficiency of water
egress from under the tyre. Groove closure most commonly occurs where aircraft move slowly and in
a direction that is parallel to the alignment of the grooves [33] such as where taxiways intersect with
runways.

Figure 4 Groove closure in an airport asphalt surface

7
Traditionally, grooves were cut transversely to the runway centreline and are generally 6 mm by 6 mm
in dimension and spaced 32 mm apart [17]. However, some airports have recently used trapezoidal
grooves for increased resistance to groove closure, as well as reduced build-up of tyre rubber from
landing aircraft [3]. The presence of the grooves also reduces the support provided to the asphalt
surface between the grooves. If follows that the deformation resistance of the asphalt mastic is
critical to runway groove closure resistance [34].

Groove closure has been reported at numerous airports in Australia, usually occurring within the first
three years after resurfacing and most commonly during extended periods of unusually hot weather
[15]. Significant groove closure was reported at the new Hong Kong airport, despite trafficking being
delayed for 12 months after its construction [33]. Similarly, the runway at the new airport at Delhi
(India) was intended to be grooved following its construction in 2008. In order to confirm the grooves
would not close, a test section of grooving was constructed in the shoulder and trafficked by a heavy
pneumatic tyred roller. The grooves closed, under the lower loads associated with the roller. As a
result, grooving was deferred until a similar test confirmed the ability for the grooves to resistant
closure and in March 2014 the surface remained un-grooved [33].

The two ends (approximately 800 m long each) of the main runway at Brisbane airport (Australia)
were resurfaced in 2013. Grooving was performed over the full length and width of the new asphalt
six weeks following construction. During a week of unusually hot weather in the following summer,
significant groove closure was observed, particularly at the intersection of the dominant departure
taxiway and the runway proper [33]. This was a concerning experience for Australian airport
designers, as the same grade of binder had not been associated with significant groove closure
during the previous ten years of regular use.

In summary, groove closure is frequency reported, particularly at airports in hot climates. Groove
closure adversely impacts aircraft skid resistance and therefore is a critical distress mode. It follows
that groove closure is a high-likelihood and high-consequence distress for airport asphalt. Further,
groove closure resistance is highly influenced by the deformation resistance of the asphalt mastic,
which also contributes to asphalt shearing and rutting. It follows that a mastic that is designed for
high resistance to groove closure will also substantially reduce the risk of asphalt shearing and rutting.

3.5 Asphalt stripping

Moisture damage is often referred to as asphalt stripping. More correctly, moisture damage can be
caused by cohesion failure with the binder film or by adhesion failure at the interface between the
aggregate and the binder film. Only the latter is actual stripping. However, both failure mechanisms
are moisture related and both appear visually similar (Figure 5) [35]. Pavement drainage, asphalt
permeability, dusty aggregate, wet aggregate and weak aggregate all contribute to the risk of asphalt
moisture damage [36]. The most common mitigations against asphalt moisture damage are polymer
modified binder and anti-stripping agents, either in liquid form or as hydrated lime filler [35]. Often
believed to be load related, stripping of airport asphalt has been observed outside of the trafficked
areas, indicating that other factors also contribute to asphalt moisture damage susceptibility [15].

8
 Figure 5 Asphalt stripping evident in a core hole [37]

Asphalt stripping was first reported in the USA in the 1930s and in Australia in the 1970s [2]. Once
moisture damage was identified as an issue, hydrated lime filler was added to asphalt mixtures,
typically at 1-2% by mass, as an anti-stripping agent [38]. This remains common practice although it
can present a challenge and liquid anti-stripping agent, added to the binder prior to asphalt
production, has also proven effective [39]. However, not all anti-stripping agents (hydrated lime or
liquid) suit all mixtures and mixture-specific testing is required [36].

In some cases, stripping has little or no adverse impact on the performance of the asphalt surface for
many years. However, rutting, shoving and deformation can rapidly develop, particularly when hot
weather follows a significant rain event [35]. Further, stripping often occurs in asphalt layers below
the surface layer.

Many airports were constructed in the 1940s and 1950s in support of increased military aviation
activity during and after World War II [40]. The original thin surfaces have since been overlayed
multiple times, resulting in thick asphalt at the pavement surface. In many cases, stripping has been
identified only in the older layers of asphalt. Further, where a permeable asphalt surface is overlayed,
the moisture trapped in the more permeable underlying layer often initiates stripping, despite good
performance prior to the overlay [2]. Prior to the overlay, the more permeable asphalt surface could
breath and load-induced water pressure could escape through the pavement surface. This ability
reduces when resurfaced by overlay with a new and less permeable mixture, leading to stripping.

In summary, the actual frequency of stripping distress is not known as it can exist without adversely
impacting the runway surface for many years. However, where it has resulted in rutting and shearing,
the deterioration often occurs more rapidly than it can be addressed. As a result, stripping is a low-
likelihood and moderate-consequence distress for airport asphalt surfaces. Where impermeable
asphalt mixtures are designed and either anti-stripping agent or hydrated lime are included, stripping
risk is significantly reduced.

3.6 Premature ravelling

Ravelling is the process of gradual coarse aggregate loss from the surface of asphalt. Where rutting,
moisture damage and cracking are not excessive, ravelling is the normal mode of distress triggering
airport asphalt resurfacing [41]. As the binder ages and oxidises, the mastic becomes brittle and
erodes from the surface by wind, vehicle tyres and rain [15]. When mastic erosion progresses, the
coarse aggregate is exposed and is eventually lost from the surface (Figure 6). Resurfacing is
triggered by the loss of coarse aggregate presenting an unacceptable FOD risk to aircraft [2,15].

9
 Figure 6 Asphalt raveling of a runway surface

Binder ageing, mastic erosion and the loss of coarse aggregate is an accepted mechanism of surface
ageing. However, where ravelling occurs prematurely the service life and whole of life cost of the
surface are compromised. It has been reported in Australia that the average airport asphalt surface
life has reduced from 15 or more years down to just 10 years [42]. More rapid binder ageing,
resulting in premature mastic erosion, is likely to be a significant factor.

Binder ageing is complex and not well understood [43]. Ageing is a function of oxidation, which is
impacted by binder film thickness, surface permeability and exposure of the surface to thermal
loading and radiation [44]. Accelerated ageing of binder samples in the laboratory is a common
method of evaluation. A Pressurised Ageing Vessel (PAV) was developed by Christensen &
Andersen [45] and is now the most common method for determining binder susceptibility to rapid
ageing [43].

Reports of ravelling in airport asphalt surfaces are not common. This likely reflects ravelling being an
accepted age-related phenomenon and a gradual acceptance of the reduction in average service life.
However, premature ravelling was reported at Newmark airport in New Jersey (USA) resulting in
unacceptable FOD risk to aircraft [46]. It was concluded that the polymer modified binder had aged
significantly faster than expected, resulting in a prematurely brittle mastic.

In summary, asphalt surface ravelling due to binder oxidation and mastic embrittlement is a normal
and expected process for asphalt surfaces. However, where the rate of deterioration is greater than
expected, the serviceable life of the surface is impacted. Excessive surface-generated FOD presents
a risk to aircraft safety and surface ravelling is a moderate-likelihood and moderate-consequence
distress for airport asphalt surfaces.

4 Airport asphalt requirements

Airport asphalt surface requirements have not been extensively researched or documented but must
minimise the risk of the most important modes of distress described above. EAPA [12] proposed skid
resistance, freedom from FOD and stability under high aircraft wheel loads as the primary
requirements. Emery [34] agreed and specifically noted resistance to groove closure and viscous
deformation. In related work, compactability during construction and durability were also noted [15].
In more recent work, White & Embleton [16] recommended that fatigue life also be considered as
stiffer asphalt mixtures and binders are developed to improve deformation resistance. The
importance of fatigue resistance was also noted by Hachiya et al. [47] along with deformation

10
resistance. Further, Rodway [2] noted asphalt moisture damage resistance and durable bond to the
underlying pavement as important.

4.1 Deformation resistance

Airport asphalt mixtures with high resistance to permanent deformation reduce the risk of shearing,
shoving, rutting and groove closure. Surface layer asphalt rutting results from shear deformation
rather than densification of the mixture [48]. Shoving of the surface is also shear-related and results
from horizontal shear stresses associated with braking and turning aircraft [49]. Groove closure
results from shear and compressive deformation of the asphalt between the grooves. Because of the
smaller scale and reduced support provided by the coarse aggregate skeleton, groove closure
resistance is more dependent on the mastic properties than rutting or shearing.

The impact of asphalt deformation is significant. Groove closure impacts aircraft skid resistance and
both shearing and groove closure have necessitated significant early intervention in recent years. It
follows that improvement in asphalt deformation resistance is required to protect airport asphalt
against the effects of new aircraft with higher tyre pressures and wheel loads. Concerningly, the
traditional Marshall mixture design method does not include reliable deformation prediction tools [6-7].
Mastic resistance to deformation must also be characterised to better understand resistance to
groove closure.

4.2 Fracture resistance

Fracture resistance reduces the risk of cracking, both from the top-down and from the bottom-up.
Generally, excessive cracking is not a common distress mode for airport pavements. The acid
modified bitumen related top-down cracking reported in Australia is an exception [32]. However, if a
high emphasis is placed on increasing deformation resistance, fracture resistance may be
compromised [50]. It follows that airport asphalt must be evaluated for fracture resistance to ensure
both fatigue and top-down cracking issues are not introduced in the future [16, 47]. Further, top-down
cracking is of greater concern than fatigue of airport asphalt due to the high wheel loads and tyres
pressures associated with modern aircraft [4].

4.3 Surface friction and texture

Surface friction and texture are more complex because skid resistance is provided by the aggregate
properties and the asphalt mixture volumetrics, as well as the any treatments, such as grooving. As
the surface ages, the texture generally increases. However, the grooves can also be impacted by
groove closure, rubber contamination from landing aircraft [3,17] and rejuvenation treatments applied
to reduce aggregate loss from the surface [42, 51]. Removal of rubber contamination by mechanical
treatment also impacts skid resistance over the asphalt life by increasing surface texture.

The effects of maintenance activities aside, the asphalt surface must provide an adequate level of
surface friction and this must be maintained over the life of the surface. The surface friction must also
remain above a minimum level when the surface is wet during rain events [52]. The use of fully
crushed coarse aggregate generally provides adequate dry friction characteristics. The wet weather
skid resistance is generally maintained by allowing paths for surface water to escape from under
aircraft tyres [17]. As discussed later, this can be achieved either by highly textured asphalt mixtures
or grooving the surface of a dense graded mixture.

4.4 Durability

Durability reflects the period between asphalt resurfacing requirements. Where there is no significant
shoving, rutting or cracking, airport asphalt resurfacing is scheduled in response to coarse aggregate
loss from the surface, manifesting as surface-generated FOD [2]. Mixture volumetrics, bitumen
embrittlement with age, binder-aggregate adhesion and environmental factors all impact the timing
and rate of coarse aggregate loss. Alternate asphalt mixtures fall outside the empirical relationship
between mixture volumetrics and surface durability. It follows that where alternate asphalt mixtures
are considered, laboratory evaluation of asphalt ravelling potential is required.

11
Moisture damage, or stripping, also impacts asphalt durability. Stripped asphalt is unstable and lacks
shear strength [53]. Deformation results in rutting, shoving and tearing, thereby reducing asphalt
surface life. Resistance to moisture damage is an important requirement of airport asphalt surfaces,
particularly for underlying layers of asphalt which are more disruptive to replace than the surface
layer.

4.5 Summary

Airport asphalt requirements can generally be categorised as resistance to deformation, resistance to

fracture, the skid resistance provided to aircraft and the durability of the surface. Deformation
resistance and skid resistance are high priorities (Table 2). Durability impacts whole of life cost so
must be maximised to the extent that it does not adversely impact the other operational requirements.
Although of less importance than in road pavements, fracture resistance must not be neglected,
particularly, when more deformation resistant asphalt mixtures are developed. Importantly, the overall
composition and constituent material properties both contribute to achieving these performance
requirements.

Table 2. Summary of airport asphalt performance requirements

Physical requirement Protects against Level of importance

Groove closure
Deformation resistance Rutting High
Shearing/shoving
Top down cracking
Fracture resistance Moderate
Fatigue cracking
Skid resistance
Surface friction and texture High
Compliance requirement
Pavement generated FOD
Durability Moderate
Resistance to moisture damage

5 Asphalt constituents and their contribution

Asphalt is a complex material consisting of aggregates, air voids and bitumen, as well as added fillers
and/or additives [54]. Each of these constituents plays an important role in defining the overall
mixture characteristics and achieving the performance requirements detailed above. The combined
fine aggregate, filler and bitumen is referred to as the mastic [55]. The impact of the mastic properties
on mixture performance is universally acknowledged [15, 56-59]. As discussed, above, mastic is
particularly important for airport asphalt because the portion of mastic within the mixture is relatively
high, as well as the reduced support provided by the coarse aggregate skeleton after runway
grooving.

5.1 Aggregate

While the bituminous mastic dominates many mixture properties, the aggregate properties and
skeleton are also important for asphalt performance [60]. In fact, by mass, aggregate comprises
some 95% of asphalt mixtures and has a significant impact on the mechanical properties of a surface
layer [61].

Aggregates are complex particles of minerals and ions [62]. Even seemingly similar sources of
aggregate may possess significantly different characteristics [11]. The characterisation of aggregate
sources is based on a combination of consensus properties (angularity, size and shape) as well as
source properties (abrasion resistance, strength, deleterious material content and chemical
composition) [63]. The relative importance of the consensus and the source properties are different
for the coarse and the fine aggregate fractions.

The separation between coarse and fine aggregate is generally defined as the material passing a
4.75 mm or 2.0 mm sized sieve, depending on the soil classification system being used [64].
Commonly, the very fine aggregate is considered part of the asphalt mastic rather than the aggregate

12
skeleton, and is usually defined as the portion passing the 100, 75 or 63 m sieve, depending on the
jurisdiction [40].

The skeleton of an asphalt mixture is determined by the structure and gradation of the aggregates,
primarily the coarse fractions, as well as the coarse aggregate particle shape. These properties have
a significant impact on the deformation resistance of the asphalt [65]. Further, the importance of air
void distribution [66-67] and grading [68] have also been demonstrated. Regarding the coarse
aggregate particles, shape is commonly characterised by the parameters; form, angularity and texture
[69-70]. However, the scale of each parameter depends on the size of the particle being
characterised [63].

Regarding the overall aggregate skeleton of an asphalt mixture, characterisation is performed either
directly through microstructure assessment or via bulk material properties using macrostructure
measurements [71]. Research has shown asphalt performance to be affected by variations in the
orientation and spatial distribution of coarse aggregate particles [72]. The number and length of
contact points is known to influence asphalt shear strength [73] as does the distribution of the air
voids within the sample [74]. Further, the orientation of the aggregate particles changes significantly
during the first two to three years of trafficking, impacting the modulus, strength and other mixture
characteristics [75].

Fine aggregate is commonly obtained from natural or manufactured sources. Natural sources include
river sands or sand pits. Manufactured sands are usually a by-product of quarry crushing operations
associated with the production of coarse aggregate fractions and graded crushed rock. Manufactured
sands are commonly referred to as dust as they are the captured as airborne mineral particles
generated by crushing equipment.

Fine aggregate shape and packing properties impact asphalt deformation resistance [75]. Further,
the fine aggregate shape contributes more to asphalt performance than large aggregate particle
shape does. The improved deformation resistance associated with angular fine aggregate has been
demonstrated by many researchers [76]. However, highly angular fine aggregate inhibits workability
during construction. In practice, a blend of rounded (usually natural) and angular (usually
manufactured) sands provides a balance between workability during construction and deformation
resistance under traffic.

As discussed above, the natural sand content is often limited in airport asphalt to avoid excessive
round particles resulting in mixture instability [69]. Although natural sands commonly have more
rounded particles than manufactured sands, there is a significant overlap [76]. Measured shape and
texture of particles is a more reliable differentiator of rounded and angular sands than generic
categorisation as manufactured or natural [77].

Clay minerals are commonly present in quarried aggregate sources [38]. Aggregates containing clay
minerals that exhibit significant plasticity are potentially deleterious and are either avoided or treated
with active filler such as hydrated lime [78]. Deleterious clay minerals in coarse aggregate is not
usually detrimental. However, the same clay minerals in fine aggregate sources affect asphalt
performance. This reflects the interaction between fine aggregate and bitumen, as well as the
exposure of the fine aggregate to air and moisture. Established testing for moisture damage
susceptibility of asphalt mixtures and the presence of excessive reactive clays minerals in fine
aggregate are readily available [38].

In summary, aggregate represents a significant portion of the mass of asphalt and the coarse
aggregate forms the skeleton of the mixture. Coarse aggregate shape and particle packing are
important to asphalt deformation resistance. The fine aggregate is equally important and contributes
to the asphalt mastic, which as detailed below, determines the visco-elastic properties of the asphalt.
Although aggregate properties are important, established consensus and source properties provide
reliable indication of the contribution of the aggregate to the overall asphalt performance.

5.2 Chemical fillers and Liquid additives

Fillers are added to asphalt mixtures to improve density and strength [79] through both physical and
chemical interactions with the bitumen [80]. Fillers stiffen bitumen by thickening it and reducing

13
viscous flow potential [81]. Some fillers also reduce temperature susceptibility [82] and promote
improved bitumen-aggregate adhesion [78] which reduces the risk of stripping. Fillers can be
chemically active or inert minerals. Common fillers include limestone dust, hydrated lime, fly ash,
general purpose or blended cement, as well as sandstone and granite dusts [80]. While a range of
fillers are commonly incorporated into asphalt, their specific advantages and risks are not well
understood [55].

Different filler types and sources have very different chemical compositions, as well as different
shapes, densities and voids [83]. Of the various fillers, hydrated lime has been most commonly
specified for airport asphalt since the 1970s [2]. Hydrated lime is an effective asphalt filler as it
promotes anti-stripping properties by reducing moisture sensitivity [38]. Lime also reacts chemically
to harden the bitumen while reducing the rate of post-production oxidation [78]. However, adding
significant volumes of mineral fillers, such as hydrated lime, often introduced other challenges.

Crushing hard rock sources for coarse aggregate produces a high portion of fine particles. This
creates a challenge for the mixture designer to maintain the portion of aggregate passing the 75 m
sieve in the 4-6% range and also achieves the specified grading on the 150 to 600 m sieves [84]. It
follows that for many hard aggregate sources, adding 1-2% of active filler is not viable without
creating mixture instability risk through excess fine material content. Further, in many regional and
remote areas, hydrated lime is prohibitively expensive and logistically challenging. Liquid anti-
stripping agents provide an alternate to hydrated lime for improving resistance to moisture damage
[85].

Introduced in the 1960s, liquid anti-stripping agents are generally nitrogen based and contain amines,
fatty amines or polyamines [53]. Different studies have reported significantly different effectiveness of
liquid ant-stripping agents compared to active fillers such as hydrated lime. For example, Putman &
Amirkhanian [86] found hydrated lime and liquid anti-stripping agent to be equally effective based on
indirect tensile strength retained after moisture conditioning. In contrast, Sebaaly et al. [85] found
hydrated lime to be significantly more effective than liquid anti-stripping agent. However, Pickering et
al. [87] reported one liquid agent to be significantly less effective than hydrated lime, while another
liquid agent was found to be equivalent to hydrated lime. Finally, Nazirizad et al. [88] found liquid
anti-stripping agent to be superior to hydrated lime. The above differences likely reflect the
importance of aggregate properties on the effectiveness of anti-stripping products, including hydrated
lime [89]. It follows that moisture susceptibility, and the benefit of liquid anti-stripping agents or
hydrated lime, must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

In summary, chemical fillers provide a range of benefits to asphalt. However, the most important are
to stiffen the bituminous mastic and to increase resistance to moisture damage. Despite these
benefits, lime and other fillers are expensive and logistically challenging in remote areas. It follows
that there is a trend towards liquid anti-stripping agents in asphalt mixture design. Liquid agents also
avoid the challenge of accommodating the fine mineral filler without impacting the overall grading and
the target 4-6% (by volume) of aggregate passing the 75 m sieve. Variation in the relative
effectiveness of hydrated lime and liquid anti-stripping agents indicates a mixture-specific evaluation
of stripping potential is required. Established moisture damage tests are effective and readily
available.

5.3 Bituminous binder

Conventional (unmodified by polymers or acid) paving grade bitumen is the residue from the second
distillation of crude oil. The unmodified bitumen is then either blown with hot air, modified with
polymers, has oils added or is extended with propane precipitated asphalt and other products [90].
Commonly a combination of these processes is used. The properties of bitumen are responsible for
the time and temperature dependence of visco-elastic asphalt performance [90]. However, these
properties are also essential for the production and paving of asphalt surfaces.

It has long been acknowledged that bitumen properties can change and migrate over time and that
multiple batches or shipments from the same source of crude will have variability [91]. For example,
bitumens manufactured from light crudes are more susceptible to high temperature asphalt shear
creep than those from heavier crudes [92]. Crude source variability may also require changes in the

14
refining process. These processing changes could further alter some properties of the resulting
paving grade bitumen in order to meet the applicable specification requirements.

There is a perception that bitumen properties have changed and performance has declined over the
years [5, 34, 92-96]. There have certainly been changes in crude oil sources [15, 97] and associated
rheological properties [92, 95]. This is likely the result of refineries using new technologies to extract
more high-demand products from crude oil sources of reducing quality and increasing variability. This
has led to reduced confidence in non-performance based specifications and increased use of
rheological bitumen testing [98]. The traditional binder testing regimes were largely empirical in
nature and lack linkage to performance in the field [99]. In response to these concerns, the USA
introduced PG grading, of binders in the 1990s. However, some researchers have questioned the
reliability of PG grading, particularly for highly modified binders [100] such as those commonly used in
airport asphalt production.

The contribution of the binder to asphalt performance is significant [65]. Otherwise identical asphalt
mixtures with different binder types, or even two sources of nominally identical bitumen, can respond
differently due to differences in chemical composition and rheology [96, 101]. This suggests that
compliance with empirical specifications does not guarantee adequate or consistent performance in
the field.

Complicating asphalt binder performance is the process of bitumen ageing. As discussed above,
bitumen hardening results from chemical ageing, steric hardening, oxidation and loss of volatiles [43,
81, 102]. Ageing is often measured via the evolution of viscosity or penetration and the hardening of
bitumen during asphalt production may only be around 30% of the hardening expected over the life of
the asphalt [103]. Oliver [95] found that ageing also significantly affected the rheological composition
of bitumen. Similarly, White [96] reported concerningly different ageing profiles for different sources
of the same grade of acid-modified bitumen.

In summary, bituminous binder is arguably the single most important constituent affecting the
performance of asphalt mixtures. Binder determines the relationship between asphalt modulus and
temperature as well as visco-elastic response of asphalt to load. The change in bitumen resulting
from oxidation over time is largely responsible for the erosion of mastic and the ravelling of asphalt
with age. Importantly, binder is also the most complex and variable of the asphalt constituents and
confidence in the empirical testing for performance prediction has been eroded over time. Test
methods that are more indicative of field performance have been developed. However, a direct and
reliable link between binder properties and asphalt field performance, across a range of binder
materials and types, has not been established.

5.4 Bituminous mastic

As discussed above, asphalt mastic comprises the combined bituminous binder, added filler and very
fine aggregate and Delaporte et al. [56] and Qiu et al. [104] both suggested mastic is the real binder
in asphalt. Tashman et al. [58] supported this by stating that the micro-constituents govern the
behaviour of the overall mixture. It follows that testing mastic provides greater insight into asphalt
performance than testing binder [57]. However, the impact of mastic on asphalt performance is
dependent on the mixture type. Muraya et al. [105] found mastic had greater influence on the
response of dense graded, high binder content mixtures than on stone-to-stone mixes, such as stone
mastic and porous asphalt. Airport asphalts are usually specified to be dense graded with high binder
contents and rely heavily on mastic performance to resist deformation [15]. It follows that mastic
properties are critical for typical airport asphalt mixture performance.

Despite this agreement regarding importance, less is known about mastic response than that of
bitumen [80]. Faheem & Bahia [106] explained that mastics of seemingly similar constituents can
perform significantly different. This can only be explained by physio-chemical interaction between the
binder and mineral elements. Such interactions cannot be assessed by considering the binder and
mineral components separately. Like binder, mastic exhibits plastic, elastic and viscous properties
that are inherently temperature dependent [107]. Creep and recovery testing is therefore suited to
mastic characterisation.

15
The ratio of filler to binder in mastic has been shown to be critical to asphalt performance. As the filler
portion increases, the mastic stiffens [55, 104]. Liao et al. [80] found that the filler portion had a
greater impact on mastic response than filler type did. Little & Petersen [108] demonstrated that filler
type and portion had different effects on different binder sources. Using a range of binder, mastic and
mixture tests, a relationship was established between filler:binder ratio and mixture creep
performance [109].

In summary, mastic is the combination of bituminous binder, very fine aggregate and chemical fillers.
Mastic is the effective binder of an asphalt mixture and is critically important to airport asphalt
performance. Mastic properties also provide insight into aggregate-binder interactions that cannot be
assessed by testing the binder and fine aggregate separately. It follows that future efforts to
characterise the complex visco-elastic properties of asphalt will likely focus more on testing mastic,
primarily with regard to asphalt groove closure susceptibility.

6 Alternate airport asphalt mixtures

Grooving of dense graded Marshall-designed airport asphalt is costly and introduces the risk of
groove closure. As discussed above, groove closure is likely the most difficult mode of airport asphalt
distress to avoid in hot climates due to the high reliance of airport asphalt on the deformation
resistance of the mastic. Moreover, grooves cut through the coarse aggregate particles reduce the
contribution of the coarse aggregate skeleton to deformation resistance. Further, in wet climates, the
delay between surfacing and grooving, when the surface has less skid resistance than after grooving,
presents a skidding risk to aircraft safety. It follows that a range of alternate airport asphalt surfaces
have been considered. These alternate mixtures aim to provide the surface texture and skid
resistance levels recommended by ICAO, without requiring grooving of the surface. Importantly, the
definition of airport asphalt surface performance requirements enables an objective basis for
considering the relative performance of these alternate asphalt mixtures.

6.1 Open Graded Friction Course

OGFC, also referred to as popcorn mix or porous asphalt, utilises a low portion of fine aggregate to
create a surface that is self-draining through interconnected air voids [110]. OGFC is generally
placed in a thin layer and is intended to reduce water spray and increase wet weather skid resistance.
Disadvantages of OGFC include clogging by detritus, reducing the effectiveness over time, as well as
the relatively short life until binder oxidation leads to unacceptable asphalt ravelling. Draining of
binder from the mixture during transportation has also been reported [111]. Improvements, including
polymer modified binder, changes in aggregate grading and fibres have resulted in OGFC being a
common surfacing for high speeds roads around the world [112].

The benefit of OGFC for improved aircraft slid resistance on runways was first recognised in the
1970s [113-114] and the UK used OGFC extensively for runway surfacing for over 40 years [12].
However, dense graded asphalt is still used in parking aprons and slow moving taxiways where
OGFC is less suited. Hydrated lime and polymer modified binder have also been introduced to
improve the OGFC for airport surfaces in the UK.

Experimental surface sections in the touch down zone of the runway at Johannesburg airport (South
Africa) included OGFC [115]. Although the skid resistance remained good over the trial period, stone
loss from the surface resulted in OGFC not being recommended for further consideration. Australia
also experimented with OGFC, as early as 1973, to improve skid resistance prior to grooving
machines being economically available [33]. In some cases, OGFC performed well and lasted up to
18 years. However, at other Australian airports excessive stone loss resulted in the OGFC being
urgently removed and replaced. When grooving machines became routinely available in Australia in
the 1980s, OGFC was discontinued as a runway surface layer, in favour of grooved dense graded
asphalt [33].

6.2 Stone Mastic Asphalt

SMA was developed in Germany in the 1970s for resistance to damage from studded snow tyres.
Associated benefits regarding durability and resistance to shearing were quickly recognised [116].
SMA aggregate is gap graded and the voids are filled with mastic. The result is a stone-on-stone

16
matrix, with a bitumen-rich mastic mortar [117]. The high binder content provides durability while the
stone-on-stone matrix provides a deformation resistant surface [118]. SMA subsequently became a
popular road surface in high traffic applications across Europe, the USA, Asia, South Africa and
Australia [116-117].

SMA has been used as an airport runway surface in parts of Europe for many years. For example,
SMA, along with dense graded asphalt, is a normal runway surface in Denmark, Germany and
Norway [12]. Campbell [117] also reported SMA on European airports in Austria, Switzerland and the
Czech Republic. The main runway at Brussels airport (Belgium) was also surfaced with SMA with
good performance reported. However, complications associated with de-icing agents prompted
engineers to revert to dense graded asphalt for subsequent work [119]. Despite this, the Belgian
military continued with SMA for runway resurfacing [117]. SMA was also used on the runway of
Aviano military airport (Italy) [120]. Further, SMA was selected for the surfacing of the King Shaka
airport runway, near Durban (South Africa) based on higher deformation resistance than other
mixtures and to avoid grooving [120].

Asia followed Europe with China now the world leader in SMA for runway surfacing [119]. SMA,
either 13 mm of 16 mm maximum aggregate size, is a normal surface for Chinese airports with over
35 runways surfaced with SMA starting with Beijing airport in 1996 [121-122]. Reported benefits
include high shear (deformation) resistance, combined with acceptable skid resistance and surface
texture without requiring grooving [122].

Australia has made only limited use of SMA for airport pavements. Cairns airport has SMA on a
number of apron areas and Sydney airport performed a small production and construction trial in 1999
[119]. Variable success during apron and taxiway trials, as well as perceived ravelling risk, has
prevented any significant use of SMA on Australian airport runways [2].

In northern America, SMA has been successfully used for surfacing at least two runways in Mexico in
2004 and 2005 [119]. Indianapolis airport (USA) surfaced a significant taxiway with SMA in 2005
[119]. However, runways in the USA remain primarily surfaced with dense graded asphalt and are
grooved [3] or are rigid (concrete) pavements.

6.3 Beton Bitumeux Aeronautique

Beton Bitumeux Aeronautique (BBA) is a high modulus asphalt mixtures developed in France since
the 1980s [123]. BBA includes four classes of asphalt, closed and gap graded mixtures, each with
maximum aggregate particle size of 10 mm or 14 mm. When a gap graded and 14 mm sized mixture
is selected, the surface texture is generally 1.2-1.3 mm immediately following construction and
grooving of the surface is avoided [124]. Where grooving is required, regardless of the asphalt
surface texture, a dense graded mixture is preferred, either 10 mm or 14 mm in size.

BBA has been used as the standard airport surfacing for French runways for more than 30 years
[125]. BBA is most commonly used in conjunction with a high modulus, base or binder course,
asphalt mixtures known as Enrobes a Module Eleve Class 2 (EME2) [126]. Since 2006, seven
runways in the UK have been surfaced with a BBA product. Of these, three comprised the
ungrooved, gap graded 14 mm version [127]. Visually, ungrooved BBA (Figure 7) appears similar to
the 20 mm coarse graded mixtures adopted in Australia in the 1970s. These coarse mixtures were
discontinued in the 1980s due to significant loose stone generation [2] as discussed below. It is likely
that the improved stone retention of BAA reflects the modified binder, which also results in a higher
asphalt modulus. The first ungrooved BBA runway surface in the UK was at Manchester airport
(England) constructed in 2011. Whether a reduced surface life, like that associated with OGFC, will
result from the open surface texture, will not be determined until around 2020.

17
 Figure 7 Gap graded 14 mm sized BBA runway surface ( Daru Widyatmoko)

6.4 Larger Sized Dense Asphalt

Increasing the maximum particle size in the surface asphalt mixture increases the surface texture.
However, larger sized surfaces also require thicker layers, which are more expensive. The additional
cost of the surface layer thickenings may be offset by a saving associated with not grooving the
surface, if the un-grooved skid resistance is adequate. However, even larger sized mixtures are
unlikely to achieve the 1 mm surface texture recommended by ICAO. Consequently, larger sized
asphalt mixtures are not recommended for improved skid resistance.

Prior to routine grooving of dense graded asphalt some Australian airports utilised 20 mm sized dense
graded mixtures with the aim of increasing the surface texture above that achieved by 14 mm
mixtures. However, the 1 mm surface texture recommended by ICAO was still not achieved [33]. The
new Hong Kong airport was similarly surfaced with a 20 mm mix in the 1990s [2]. The lack of surface
texture was accepted without grooving.

Although field trials were not reported, Japanese researchers investigated 30 mm and 40 mm sized
asphalt surface mixtures for airports [128]. Interestingly, the larger sized mixtures were compared
against 13 mm and 20 mm mixtures, both of which were reported to be conventional for Japanese
airport surfaces. Durability, by stone loss from the surface, was unfortunately not reported.

6.5 Warm Mix Asphalt and Recycled Asphalt Pavement

Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA) and Recycled Asphalt Pavement (RAP) are complementary technologies
that provide environmental and safety benefits. WMA relies on additives or bitumen foaming to allow
asphalt to be produced, paved, compacted and finished 30-40C cooler than comparable hot asphalt
[129]. Among other benefits, this results in less oxidation of the bitumen during production. In
contrast, replacement of some of the virgin aggregate with RAP introduces a portion of bitumen than
has already been oxidised during production and in the field, resulting in a significantly harder binder
[130]. The softer WMA binder and the harder RAP binder counter each other, making the two
technologies complementary [131].

Su et al. [132] recommended WMA for rapid traffickability where runways are resurfaced in limited
work periods. It was also recommended that any increased risk of moisture damage be mitigated by
the addition of anti-stripping agent into the asphalt mixture design. The moisture concern was also
reported by Rushing et al. [133] after comparing hot and warm asphalt mixtures produced in the

18
laboratory and in production plants. In contrast, White [131] found no statistically significant
differences in moisture content for otherwise nominally identical hot and warm mixed asphalt.

In the USA, RAP has been incorporated into airport asphalt surfaces for over fifteen years [134]. A
field inspection of three runways containing RAP found good to excellent performance of seven to ten
year old surfaces. Guercio & McCarthy [135] reported that airport surface asphalt containing both
RAP and WMA presented a saving of up to 27% and recommended incorporation into future FAA
specifications. In Australia, WMA has been used at a number of airports for rapid trafficability in hot
climates and where multiple layers of asphalt were constructed in one work period [131].
Christchurch airport (New Zealand) also trialled WMA on taxiways and runways since 2009 [136]. It is
expected that use of WMA and RAP in airport asphalt will increase as confidence in the performance
of the technology improves.

6.6 Summary

The cost and risk associated with grooving dense graded asphalt for runway surfacing has increased
interest in alternate mixtures types. The aim for these alternate airport asphalt surfaces is to provide
adequate surface texture and skid resistance to avoid grooving. However, a durable surface must
also be maintained to prevent FOD being generated in the form of loose stones ravelling out of the
surface layer. Alternate asphalt types include OGFC, SMA and BBA (gap graded) materials. Of
these, SMA is the most widely reported and has properties that appear to provide adequate surface
texture and skid resistance, without significant ravelling risk. Further, SMA is likely to provide a
comparable or better surface life than grooved dense graded asphalt. Increased use of WMA and
RAP is also expected as environmental sustainability becomes a higher priority. Importantly, as
airport asphalt surfaces move further away from the traditional mixtures with empirical performance
records, test methods that are indicative of airport asphalt performance properties (Table 2) become
more important.

7 Laboratory test methods

As discussed above, there is a need for better performing airport asphalt mixtures. The basis for
comparing and developing alternate airport surface asphalt must include laboratory test methods that
are indicative of the field performance requirements (Table 2). This is particularly important when
considering changing the type(s) of asphalt mixture utilised.

7.1 Deformation resistance

Deformation resistance of asphalt mixtures is characterised in both static and dynamic load modes.
Dynamic loading is usually applied either by a wheel tracking device or by a cyclic loading apparatus.
Static testing is not recommended because the aggregate skeleton often locks-up, which is not
realistic under dynamic vehicle loading, reducing the reliability of the results [48].

There are a number of scaled or controlled load wheel tracking devices. Common machines include
the Asphalt Pavement Analyzer (APA), Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device and the French Rutting
Tester [137-138]. These common scaled-load test devices are useful for routine and practical
applications. Rushing et al. [6] recommended the APA, modified to achieve higher wheel load, for
quality assurance of airport asphalt construction, citing compatibility with cores recovered from the
asphalt layer for quality assurance testing. The UK and Australia predominantly use the Coopers
Wheel Tracker, which is also similar to the APA [139].

The University of Stellenboschs Institute of Transport Technology (South Africa) developed a mobile
load simulator in the 1990s [140]. The current version, known as the Mobile Model Load Simulator
Mark 3 (MMLS3) provides greater capability and flexibility for specialised investigation and research
applications than the more common laboratory wheel tracking devices. The MMLS3 is a one-third-
scale, accelerated loading facility and was first produced in 1997. It comprises four single wheels of
tyre pressure up to 850 kPa and wheel load up to 2.7 kN. The four wheels cyclically traverse nine
100 mm diameter circular samples aligned in a track, at between 1800 and 7200 load applications per
hour. The test bed is temperature controlled (-5 to 60C) and can be in a saturated or dry condition
[140]. Key advantages of the MMLS3 over conventional wheel tracking devices include the ability to

19
scale the load and tyre pressure and to test at a broad range of temperatures, in wet and dry
conditions.

Turning to mechanical testing of asphalt, the Transportation Research Board (TRB) selected and
assessed a number of simple deformation performance tests [141]. The three most appropriate tests
were the repeated load triaxial (returning a dynamic modulus), repeated uniaxial compression
(returning a Flow Number) and static uniaxial compression (returning a Flow Time) [142]. Sousa et al.
[48] recommended the Flow Number test over Flow Time due to the cyclic loading. In contrast,
Rushing & Little [143] found the rut rate from the APA was better correlated to Flow Time than to Flow
Number. It is possible that the particular mixtures assessed by Rushing & Little [143] did not
experience aggregate lock-up, as described by Sousa et al. [48] as a risk associated with static load
testing.

White & Embleton [16] used the Flow Number test to compare different bitumen types in the same
aggregate and mixture design. The strain rate per cycle indicated the resistance to deformation of the
bituminous mastic while the cumulative strain at the commencement of tertiary flow indicated the
resistance to deformation of the aggregate skeleton. This provided a mechanism for separating the
relative contributions of the aggregate skeleton and the mastic to asphalt mixture deformation
resistance.

In summary, mechanical testing and scaled wheel tracking both provide an established basis for the
relative deformation resistance of asphalt mixtures and both approaches are applicable to aircraft
pavement surfaces. Of the mechanical tests, Flow Number is preferred while the smaller wheel
tracking devices are suited to routine or practical applications. For research applications, the greater
capability of the MMLS3 provides significant advantage over smaller wheel tracking devices.
However, the MMLS3 is expensive compared to the simpler devices and it is not widely available.

7.2 Fracture resistance

Asphalt fatigue is traditionally characterised as a relationship between tensile strain magnitude and
number of cycles to failure [144]. This traditional approach is convenient for design and practical
applications, but is not based on fundamental physical effects. Material characterisation for fracture
resistance uses a number of test modes and arrangements [145] (Figure 3). Two-point bending, four-
point bending, uniaxial tension, indirect tension and notch bending are common laboratory test modes
[146- 147].

Figure 8 Crack test mode arrangements [148]

In practice, asphalt fatigue is most commonly characterised by repeated load beam bending and
indirect tensile modes. However, the low frequency of excessive cracking in airport surfaces has
resulted in little interest in the development of airport-specific test methods [2]. A greater interest in

20
airport asphalt fracture is expected in the future in response to top-down cracking associated with
higher wheel loads and tyre pressures [32]. Road asphalt researchers in the USA have developed
complex models based on visco-elastic damage initiation and finite element based crack propagation
for top-down cracking prediction, including the effects of ageing and healing, for road pavements
[149]. This work could be extended to airport asphalt surfaces in the future.

In summary, fracture resistance is not generally an issue for aircraft asphalt surfaces due to the thick
and stiff pavement structures, combined with relatively low traffic frequency. The traditional fatigue
tests, including beam bending and indirect tension modes, provide a reliable basis for ensuring that
more deformation resistant mixtures are no more susceptible to fracture than current airport asphalt
mixtures. Where top-down cracking is a significant risk, more sophisticated evaluation methods are
required, such as those developed for roads.

7.3 Surface friction

In the laboratory, the British Portable Skid Resistance Tester, known as the British Pendulum, has
been the most commonly reported friction measurement device for aggregates in asphalt mixtures
since the 1970s [150]. When tested after accelerated loading, the British Pendulum result is known
as the Polished Stone Value (PSV) and indicates the propensity for a particular aggregate source to
polish under the effects of traffic [151]. Aggregate polishing is less important to airport asphalt due to
a lower frequency of less channelised traffic [40]. Further, the higher vehicle speeds associated with
aircraft landing and take-off means that macro-texture, not measured by the British Pendulum, is
more important to aircraft asphalt skid resistance than micro-texture [52]. It follows that airport
asphalt skid resistance is most commonly evaluated in the field by continuous friction measuring
devices [52].

ICAO publishes minimum recommended levels of skid resistance, measured by various continuous
friction measuring devices, immediately behind a 1 mm thick surface water film [52]. This approach is
internationally accepted for airport asphalt surface friction testing. However, measurement can only
be made after an asphalt surface is constructed over a large area. It follows that such friction surveys
are more suited to friction management throughout the life of the surface than to mixture design or
evaluation.

ICAO also recommends a minimum 1 mm surface texture to provide adequate skid resistance for
aircraft. Traditionally, the surface texture is measured by calculating the area over which a known
volume of material can be spread flush with the surface [52]. Sand (sand patch test) and petroleum
grease (grease patch test) are common materials for the test. However, in recent years, advances in
high speed laser scanning of pavement surfaces has allowed an alternate approach. Abe et al. [152]
demonstrated the use of laser surface scanners to calculate the mean texture depth of asphalt
2
surfaces. A high correlation (R = 0.81 to 0.97) was found for the mean texture depths measured by
2
sand patch test and laser scanner. Sengoz et al. [153] found similarly high correlation (R = 0.97)
across 31 pavement surfaces ranging in mean texture depth from 0.3 mm to 1.4 mm, indicating the
reliability of the laser scanner across a range of surface textures. In contrast, airport, road and
highway dense graded mixtures were evaluated with digital image processing, with much lower
2
correlation to sand patch results (R = 0.43) [154].

Taking one step further, mathematical models relating asphalt mixture properties to the resulting
mean texture depth were developed in the USA [155]. The predicted surface texture was based on
the maximum aggregate size and various factors calculated from the grading of the aggregate and the
voids in the mineral aggregate. All models required calibration and the reliability reduced as the
mixture being considered moved further away from those on which the calibration was based [155]. It
follows that prediction of surface texture from mixture parameters is likely to be reliable for particular
2
mixtures and types only. In similar work, Rajaei et al. [156] first found a high correlation (R = 0.92)
between and patch and laser measured mean texture depth. Using regression analysis and artificial
neural networks, a model for predicting mean texture depth from mixture properties (volumetric
properties, aggregate grading, specific gravity, air void content and binder content) was also
2
developed and showed high correlation (R = 0.79-0.86) [155]. However, the 16 mixtures evaluated
were all similar in type, despite the mean texture depth ranging from 0.5 mm to 2.5 mm.

21
In summary, the link between asphalt aggregate friction, surface texture and aircraft skid resistance is
empirical. Where grooves are provided in the existing surface, it is less important to measure either
skid resistance or asphalt surface friction. However, where alternate asphalt mixtures are used to
avoid grooving, skid resistance measurement or prediction in the laboratory becomes more important.
Maintaining the internationally recommended 1 mm surface texture is the most viable approach until a
fundamental basis for relating surface texture and friction to aircraft skid resistance is developed. A
laboratory laser scanner, calibrated to sand patch tests results, provides reliable indication at mixture
design stage.

7.4 Durability

Durability of airport asphalt includes breakdown due to moisture damage (stripping) as well as coarse
aggregate loss from the surface (ravelling). Both are critical to airport asphalt surface life. With
regard to asphalt stripping, the modified Lottman test is commonly reported [35]. The method
compares the indirect tensile strength of samples with and without conditioning, intended to simulate
extended exposure to moisture in the field. The result, known as the Tensile Strength Ratio (TSR)
indicates the portion of the unconditioned strength retained after accelerated laboratory conditioning.
Other methods are similar, with variations on the conditioning protocols [35]. One alternate approach
is the Texas Boiling Test, in which a sample of asphalt is treated in boiling water and then visually
inspected for damage [157]. Also, the MMLS3 has an immersed sample protocol for evaluating
asphalt mixtures under cyclic loading in saturated conditions [140]. Similarly, the Hamburg wheel
tracking device can be operated with the samples immersed in water [158].

Stripping aside, airport asphalt durability is determined by the loss of coarse aggregate from the
surface. The traditional dense graded Marshall-designed mixture, with high bitumen content,
presents a balance between deformation resistance and a durable surface [15]. However, when
alternate mixtures are considered, measurement of durability is a more important factor.

The Cantabro losses test (UCL) was developed at the University of Catalonia (Spain) to assess
mastic effectiveness and durability. Asphalt mixtures are exposed to an abrasive conditioning and the
reduction in sample mass due to breakdown and erosion is measured [81]. Prez-Jimnez at al. [55]
reported UCL of the asphalt mixture to assess mastic durability, as an indicator of coarse aggregate
loss from the surface.

At the constituent material level, bitumen ageing and oxidation impact the durability of the asphalt
mixture by mastic erosion and coarse aggregate loss with time. Bitumen durability testing, based on
accelerated ageing in the PAV, is well established [43] and provides an indirect measure of the
contribution of the bitumen to coarse aggregate loss. Similarly, evaluation of aggregate source rock
resistance to breakdown is well established in airport asphalt specifications [15].

In summary, the TSR is an established indicator of asphalt durability due to moisture damage. Wheel
tracking tests using either the MMLS3 or the Hamburg wheel tracker, with immersed samples, also
provides an indication of moisture susceptibility of the asphalt mixture. With regard to aggregate loss
and ravelling due to ageing and oxidation, durability testing of bitumen is well established. However,
the UCL provides the advantage of taking into account the interaction between bitumen and fine
aggregate within the bituminous mastic.

7.5 Summary

Laboratory testing of asphalt mixtures is critical to identifying potential issues prior to construction of
airport surfaces. This reflects the high disruption cost associated with unplanned runway closures. It
is likely that airport asphalt characterisation will become more focussed on test methods that are more
indicative of performance in the field (Table 3). As a result, the traditional and empirical test methods
will become less important for mixture design. However, the specialised testing equipment required
for performance characterisation is often not available in regional and remote locations. It follows that
once the mixture design is completed, the traditional volumetric and Marshall testing will likely remain
the basis of asphalt production quality control and compliance verification. Further, the key
evolutionary constituent material properties, such as bitumen ageing and aggregate weathering, will
remain important because laboratory asphalt mixture characterisation is unlikely to identify significant
deficiencies. Importantly, the trend towards alternate mixtures and performance testing of asphalt

22
surfaces is well suited to the performance-based specification and procurement of airport pavement
surfacing.

Table 3. Summary of airport asphalt test methods

Physical requirement Traditional Test Methods Future Test Methods

Wheel tracking
Marshall Stability
Deform ation resistance Flow Number/Flow Time
Marshall Flow
Mastic MSCR
Two/Four point bending beam
Fracture resistance Not traditionally tested
Repeated load indirect tension
Sand patch testing
Surface friction and texture Laser scanning
Continuous Friction testing devices
TSR (stripping)
Prescriptive grading (ravelling)
Durability Cantabro losses (ravelling)
Aggregate source properties (breakdown)
Bitumen PAV ageing (ravelling)

8 Towards performance-based asphalt

As discussed above, there are a number of examples of compliant airport asphalt, constructed
appropriately and with a high level of scrutiny, not performing as expected in the field. As a result,
there has been a reduction in confidence that the traditional, prescriptive, Marshall-based
specification reliably delivers the level of performance required by modern aircraft, as summarised in
Table 2. In response to these concerns, a number of airports have attempted to transfer the
responsibility for asphalt surface performance to suppliers and contractors.

Where a prescriptive mixture design method is specified, also requiring performance outcomes in the
field is not appropriate. Rather, a relaxation of the prescriptive specification is required, with a focus
on asphalt characteristics that are more indicative of field performance. This approach allows
suppliers and contractors to innovate for overall efficiency and risk reduction, as well as providing
airport owners with field-performance guarantees, via contractual warranty provisions. Importantly,
the stochastic nature of constituent ingredients, tolerances in asphalt mixture production and
variability in construction must all be considered in developing a performance based specification
[159].

In the USA, a number of Departments of Transport have developed nine year warranty provisions for
asphalt surfacing works [160]. The aim was to extend pavement life by making the contractor
responsible for the performance of the asphalt. However, other agencies have avoided a
performance warranty approach citing concerns regarding reduced competition and increased project
delivery cost [161]. In contrast to this concern, Krebs [162] found that warranted highways were 30%
smoother and 14% less expensive than un-warranted works of comparable age. Importantly, the
reduction in cost was only associated with projects that were appropriately selected as being suited to
warranted delivery. Where circumstances were not conducive to warranty provisions, the costs were
higher than for un-warranted works [162].

More recently, the Netherlands has delivered the majority of highway projects using either design and
construct or design, construct and maintain contracts. Initially a five to ten year warranty was required
but this has recently been increased to twenty or twenty-five years, with the addition of long term
maintenance responsibility [163]. The warranty extension reportedly reduced cost, as well as
improving pavement quality, both attributed to the introduction of innovation.

More focused on the asphalt mixture, increased traffic loading and volumes prompted the Superpave
project in the USA. A number of tests, intended to be indicative of asphalt mixture field performance
were developed, including fatigue, cold temperature fracture, dynamic modulus and creep/flow [164].
These tests potentially replace the traditional Marshall and Hveem mixture design parameters and
provide a pathway to performance-based asphalt mixture specification [164]. Despite these efforts,
only 11 of the 50 State Departments of Transport of the USA have implemented moisture damage
evaluation at the mixture design stage [165]. It was also reported that only four States required wheel
tracking as part of the asphalt mixture design. All other States of the USA remained reliant on

23
volumetric properties for asphalt mixture design and quality control. For example, performance-based
asphalt mixture design properties were developed in Louisiana (USA). Key parameters included
deformation resistance by laboratory wheel tracking, intermediate temperature cracking (fatigue) and
low temperature fracture [165]. However, it was recommended that these parameters be added to
the existing volumetric-based specification, rather than replace it.

Overall, there has been a reduction in confidence in the traditional prescriptive approach to airport
asphalt specification. It follows that there is an increasing desire to transition to performance-based
specification of airport asphalt surfaces. It is expected that a performance-based asphalt specification
will enable innovation for risk reduction and is essential to the introduction of warranted performance
guarantees. Replacement of the prescriptive requirements by laboratory test methods more indicative
of the key performance requirements for airport asphalt surfaces is expected to become common in
the future.

9 Summary and Conclusions

A number of airport asphalt surfaces have failed to perform as expected in the field. This has resulted
in a reduction in confidence in the traditional and prescriptive Marshall-designed dense graded
asphalt mixture. The failures likely reflect the combined impact of bitumen quality and more
demanding aircraft.

It follows that alternate asphalt mixture types, such as SMA, which is more resistant to deformation
and allows grooving to be avoided, are of increasing interest to the airport pavement industry.
Performance-based specification of asphalt mixtures is also desired. Importantly, improved asphalt
surface performance must be driven by both deformation resistance and fracture resistance.
However, surface texture and skid resistance must not be compromised and surfaces must be
durable with regard to ravelling and moisture damage. Test methods indicative of airport asphalt
performance requirements have been developed. However, some remain inaccessible to
practitioners.

Warranted performance guarantees of alternate asphalt mixtures are expected to allow innovation for
risk reduction, as well as reducing cost and providing better performing airport asphalt surfaces.
Performance-based mixture design, with contractually robust performance guarantees, is expected to
become a normal approach to airport asphalt procurement in the future.

References

[1] T.D. White, Marshall procedures for design and quality control of asphalt mixture, Asphalt
Pavement Technology, 54 (1985) 265-285.
th
[2] B. Rodway, Flexible aircraft pavement surfacing Australian practice, 8 International
Conference on Maintenance and Rehabilitation of Pavements, Singapore, 27-29 July 2016.

[3] P. Zuzelo, The benefits of runway grooving, Airfield Engineering and Maintenance Summit,
Furama Riverfront, Singapore, 25-28 March 2014.

[4] G. White Limitations and potential improvement of the aircraft pavement strength rating system,
International Journal of Pavement Engineering, (2016) article-in-press, doi:
10.1080/10298436.2016.1155122.

[5] G. White, Changes in Australian paving-grade bitumen: are they real and what should Australia
th
do about it?, 27 ARRB Conference, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 16-18 November 2016.

[6] J.F. Rushing, D.N. Little & N. Garg, Asphalt pavement analyser used to assess rutting
susceptibility of hot-mix asphalt designed for high tire pressure aircraft, Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2296 (2012) 97-105.

24
[7] E. Horak, S. Emery & I. Mihaljevic, Balancing asphalt rut resistance with durability and safety
requirements on runway rehabilitations, Airfield Pavements Seminar, XXIVth World Road
Congress, Mexico City, Mexico, 28-29 September, 2011.

[8] P. Molenaar, F. Hugo, J. Buekes & G. Catin, Rehabilitation of RWY 03L-21R at Johannesburg
international airport: selection of asphalt mixes using MMLS3 testing, 8th Conference on Asphalt
Pavement for Southern Africa, Sun City, South Africa, 12-16 September 2004.

[9] C.L. Monismith, B.A. Vallerga, J.T. Harvey, F. Long & A. Jew, Asphalt mix studies San
th
Francisco International Airport, 26 Air Transportation Conference, San Francisco, California,
USA, 19-21 June 2000, 113-124.

[10] B. Rodway, Asphalt deformation due to high tyre pressure, FAA Airport Pavement Working
Group Annual Meeting, Atlantic City, New Jersey, USA, 21-23 July 2009.

[11] G. White, Asphalt tenderness in an Australian runway overlay, Transportation Geotechnics, 6

(2016) 66-74.

[12] Airfield use of Asphalt, European Asphalt Pavement Association, May.

http://www.eapa.org/usr_img/position_paper/airfield.pdf. (accessed 25.11.13).

[13] G. White, State of the art: interface shear resistance of asphalt surface layers, International
Journal of Pavement Engineering, (2015) article-in-press, doi: 10.1080/10298436.2015.
1126270.

[14] Aerodrome Design and Operations. Annex 14, Volume 1, to the Conventions on International
Civil Aviation, International Civil Aviation Organization, Montreal, Canada, February 2013.

[15] S. Emery, Asphalt on Australian airports, Proceedings AAPA Pavements Industry Conference,
Surfers Paradise, Queensland, Australia, 18-21 September 2005.
th
[16] G. White & K. Embleton, Next Generation Binder for Airport Asphalt, 16 AAPA International
Flexible Pavement Conference, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia, 13-16 September 2015.

[17] J. Gagnon, Runway grooving the past, present and future, 8th International Conference on
Maintenance and Rehabilitation of Pavements, Singapore, 27-29 July 2016.

[18] C. Fabre, J. Balay, P. Lerat & A. Mazars, Full-scale aircraft tire pressure test, Proceedings
Eight International Conference on the Bearing Capacity of Roads, Railways and Airfields,
Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, USA, 29 June - 2 July 2009, 1405-1413.

[19] M.J. Roginski, Effects of aircraft tire pressures on flexible pavements, Advanced
Characterisation of Pavement and Soil Engineering Materials, Athens, Greece, 20-22 June
2007, 1473-1481.

[20] Airbus Aircraft Characteristics. http://www.airbus.com/support/ maintenance-engineering/

technical-data/aircraft-characteristics/, 2014 (accessed 27.01.14).

[21] Boeing Commercial Airport Planning Manuals. http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/

airports/plan_manuals.page. (accessed 27.01.14).

[22] G. White Shear Stresses in an Asphalt Surface under Various Aircraft Braking Conditions,
International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology, 9 (2016) 89-101.

[23] J.F. Rushing, D.N. Little & N. Garg, Selecting a rutting performance test for airport asphalt
mixture design, Road Materials and Pavement Design, 15 (S1) (2014) 172-194.

25
[24] E.J. Dickinson, Pavement Temperature Regimes in Australia: their effect on the Performance of
Bituminous Constructions and their Relationship with Average Climate Indicators, Special
Report 23, Australian Road Research Board, August 1981.

[25] H.-J. Lee, J.S. Daniel & Y.R. Kim, Laboratory performance evaluation of modified asphalt
mixtures for Inchon airport pavements, International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 1(2)
(2000) 151-169.

[26] G. White, Cyclic shear deformation of asphalt at Melbourne airport, FAA World Wide Airport
Technology Transfer, Galloway, New Jersey, USA, 5-7 August 2014.

[27] C.J. Bognacki, A. Frisvold, & T. Bennert, Investigation into asphalt pavement slippage failures
on Runway 04R-22L Newark International Airport, Proceedings 2007 FAA Worldwide Airport
Technology Transfer Conference, Galloway, New Jersey, USA, 16-18 April 2007.

[28] F. Mooren, M. Stet & P. Hopman, Tire induced surface cracking due to extreme wheel loads,
FAA Worldwide Airport Technology Transfer Conference, Galloway, New Jersey, USA, 5-7
August 2014.

[29] H. Wang, M. Li & N. Garg, Investigation of shear failure in airport asphalt pavements under
aircraft ground manoeuvring, Road Materials and Pavement Design, (2016) article-in-press,
doi: 10.1080/14680629.2016.1211030.

[30] B.A. Vallerga, A. Jew & W.A. Nokes, Case study of an innovative high stability asphalt mix for
th
heavy aircraft wheel loads, 26 Air Transportation Conference, San Francisco, California, USA,
19-21 June 2000, 334-345.

[31] A.C. Collop & R. Roque, Report on the prediction of surface-initiated longitudinal wheel path
cracking in asphalt pavements, Road Materials and Pavement Design, 5(4) (2004) 409-434.
th
[32] G. White, Potential causes of top-down cracking of Australian runway surfaces, 27 ARRB
Conference, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 16-18 November 2016.

[33] G. White & B. Rodway, Distress and Maintenance of Grooved Runway Surfaces, Airfield
Engineering and Maintenance Summit, Equip Global, Furama Riverfront, Singapore, 25-28
March 2014.

[34] S. Emery, Bituminous surfacings for pavement on Australian airports, Proceedings Australian
Airports Association Convention, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, 14-17 November 2005.

[35] G.D. Airey, & Y-K Choi, State of the art report on moisture sensitivity test methods for
bituminous materials, Road Materials and Pavement Design, 3(4), (2002) 355-372.

[36] P.S. Kandhal, Field and laboratory investigation of stripping in asphalt pavements: state of the
art report, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
1454 (1994) 35-46.

[37] Pavement Interactive, Pavement Management: Stripping, 16 August 2007,

http://www.pavementinteractive.org/article/stripping/ (accessed 18 September 2016).

[38] D.N. Little & J.A. Epps, The Benefits of Hydrated Lime in Hot Mix Asphalt, National Lime
Association, 2001.

[39] F. Xiao, W. Zhao, T. Gandhi & S.N Amirkhanian, Influence of Antistripping Additives on
Moisture Susceptibility of Warm Mix Asphalt Mixtures, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering,
22(10) (2010) 1047-1055.

[40] G. White, 2016, Challenges for Australian flexible airport pavements, Australian
Geomechanics, 51(3) (2016) 39-46.

26
[41] C. Gorkem & B. Sengoz, Predicting stripping and moisture induced damage of asphalt
concrete prepared with polymer modified bitumen and hydrated lime, Construction and
Building Materials, 23 (2009) 2227-2236.

[42] G. White & M. Thompson, Australian airport asphalt surface treatments, 6th Eurasphalt &
Eurobitume Congress, Prague, Czech Republic, 1-3 June 2016.

[43] G.D. Airey, State of the art report on ageing test methods for bituminous pavement materials,
International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 4(3) (2003) 165-176.

[44] D.K. Paul, O. Sirin & E. Kassem, Laboratory investigation of asphalt mixture aging, 6th
Eurasphalt & Eurobitume Congress, Prague, Czech Republic, 1-3 June 2016.

[45] D.W. Christensen & D.A. Anderson, Interpretation of dynamic mechanical test data for paving
grade asphalt cements, Journal of the Association of Asphalt Pavement Technologists, 61
(1992) 67-119.

[46] G. King, G. Rowe & G. Reinke, Newark airport runway: a forensic study revisited,
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2372 (2013)
9-16.

[47] Y. Hachiya, O. Takahashi, H. Ooki & M. Kanno, Applicability of concept of perpetual pavement
th
to airport pavements, 8 International Conference on Maintenance and Rehabilitation of
Pavements, Singapore, 27-29 July 2016.

[48] J.B. Sousa, M. Solaimanian & S.L. Weissman, Development and Use of the Repeated Shear
Test (Constant Height): An optional Superpave Mix Design Tool, Report SHRP-A-698,
Strategic Highway Research Program, National Research Council, August 1994.

[49] G. White, S. Tighe, S. Emery & J. Yeaman, Developing a framework for diagnosis of shear
distress in asphalt surfaces, International Journal of Pavement Engineering, (2016) article-in-
press, doi: 10.1080/10298436.2016.1141413.

[50] H.J. Park, & Y.R. Kim, Primary causes of cracking in asphalt pavement in North Carolina: field
study, International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 16(8) (2015) 684-698.

[51] S. Emery, A. Norheim& I. Mihaljevic, Slippery asphalt runways after rejuvenation, Airfield
Pavements Seminar: XXIVth World Road Congress, Mexico City, Mexico, 28-29 September
2011.

[52] T.J. Yager, Runway Friction Assessment and Maintenance for Airports, Airfield Engineering
and Maintenance Summit, Equip Global, Furama Riverfront, Singapore, 25-28 March 2014.

[53] C.W. Curtis, A Literature Review of Liquid Antistripping and tests for Measuring Stripping,
Report SHRP-A/UIR-90-016, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, USA, 1990.

[54] H.M. Zelelew & A.T. Papagiannakis, Interpreting asphalt concrete creep behavior through non-
Newtonian mastic rheology, Road Materials and Pavement Design, 13(2) (2012) 266-278.

[55] F.P. Prez-Jimnez, R. Mir Recasens & A. Martnez, Effect of the nature and filler content on
the behavior of the bituminous mastics, Road Materials and Pavement Design, 9 (2008) 417-
431.

[56] B. Delaporte, H. Di Benedetto, P. Chaverot & G. Gauthier, Filler and binder influence on the
linear viscoelastic behavior of mastics, Proceedings Advanced Characterisation of Pavement
and Soil Engineering Materials, Athens, Greece, 20-22 June 2007, Taylor and Francis, 3-13.

27
[57] M. Elnasri, G. Airey & N. Thom, Experimental investigation of bitumen mastics under shear
creep and creep-recovery testing, Proceedings T&DI Airfield and Highway Pavement Speciality
Conference, Los Angeles, California, USA, 9-12 June 2013, 921-932.

[58] L. Tashman, E. Masad, D. Littl & H. Zbib, A microstructure-based viscoplastic model for asphalt
concrete, International Journal of Plasticity, 21 (2005) 1659-1685.

[59] G. White, Shear creep response of an airport asphalt mastic, International Journal of Pavement
Engineering, (2015) article-in-press, doi: 10.1080/10298436.2015.1095914.

[60] N.A. Hassan, G.D. Airey, R. Khan & A.C. Collop, Nondestructive characterisation of the effect
of asphalt mixture compaction on aggregate orientation and segregation using x-ray computed
tomography, International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology, 5(2) (2012) 84-92.

[61] J.-S. Chen, S.Y. Wong & K.Y Lin, Quantification of movement of flat and elongated particles in
hot mix asphalt subject to wheel load test, Materials and Structures, 38(277) (2005) 395-402.

[62] M.E. Labib, A.W. Hefer & D.N. Little, Surface-chemistry at the bitumen-aggregate interface,
Advanced Characterisation of Pavement and Soil Engineering Materials, Athens, Greece, 20-
22 June 2007, 1589-1599.

[63] I.S. Bessa, V.T.F. Castelo Branco, & J.B. Soares, JB, Evaluation of different digital image
processing software for aggregates and hot mix asphalt characterizations, Construction and
Building Materials, 37 (2012) 370-378.

[64] R.D. Holtz & W.D. Kovacs, An introduction to Geotechnical Engineering, Prentice-Hall, New
Jersey, USA, 1981.

[65] A. Motamed & H.U. Bahia, Influence of test geometry, temperature, stress level and loading
duration on binder properties measured using DSR, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering,
23 (2011) 1422-1432.

[66] M.E. Kutay, E. Arambula, N. Gibson & J. Youtcheff, Three-dimensional image processing
methods to identify and characterise aggregates in compacted asphalt mixtures, International
Journal of Pavement Engineering, 11(6) (2010) 511-528.

[67] E. Masad, B. Muhunthan, N. Shashidhar & T. Harman, Internal structure characterisation of

asphalt concrete using image analysis, Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 13(2) (1999)
88-95.

[68] F.A. Farcas, Evaluation of asphalt field cores with simple performance tester and x-ray
computer tomography, Licentiate Thesis submitted to the Royal Institute of Technology,
Stockholm, Sweden, 2012.

[69] E. Masad & J.W. Button, Unified imaging approach for measuring aggregate angularity and
texture, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 15 (2000) 273-280.

[70] L. Tashman, L. Wang & S. Thyagarajan, Microstructure characterization for modeling HMA
behaviour using imaging technology, Road Materials and Pavement Design, 8 (2007) 207-238.

[71] J.-S. Chen, M.K Chang & K. Y. Lin, Influence of coarse aggregate shape on the strength of
asphalt concrete mixtures, Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 6
(2005) 1062-1075.

[72] A.R. Coenen, E.M. Kutay, N.M. Sefidmazgi & H.U. Bahia, Aggregate structure characterisation
of asphalt mixtures using two-dimensional image analysis, Road Materials and Pavement
Design, 13(3) (2012) 433-454.

28
[73] E. Masad, B. Mahunthan, N. Shashidhar & T. Harman, T, Quantifying laboratory compaction
effects on the internal structure of asphalt concrete, Transport Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, 1691 (1999) 179-185.

[74] E. Masad, B. Muhunthan, N. Shashidhar & T. Harman, Aggregate orientation and segregation
in asphalt concrete, application of Geotechnical Principles in Pavement Engineering,
Geotechnical Special Publication 85 (1998) 69-81.

[75] G. White, The effect of aircraft traffic on the structure and response of asphalt, Transportation
Geotechnics, 2 (2015) 56-64.

[76] P.S. Kandhal, J.B. Motter & M.A Khatri, Evaluation of Particle Shape and Texture:
Manufactured versus Natural Sands, NCAT Report 91-03, National Centre for Asphalt
Technology, Auburn, Alabama, USA, January 1991.

[77] P.S. Kandhal, M.A. Khatri & J.B. Motter, Evaluation of Particle Shape and Texture of Mineral
Aggregates and their blends, NCAT Report 92-4, National Centre for Asphalt Technology,
Auburn, Alabama, USA, May 1992.

[78] D. Lesueur, J. Petit & H.-J. Ritter, The mechanics of hydrated lime modification of asphalt
mixtures: a state of the art review, Road Materials and Pavement Design, 14(1) (2013) 1-16.

[79] H. Wang, I.L. Al-Qadi, A.F. Faheem, H.U. Bahia, S.-H. Yang & G.H. Reinke, Effect of mineral
filler characteristics on asphalt mastic and mixture rutting potential, Transport Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2208 (2011) 33-39.

[80] M.-C. Liao, G. Airey & J.-S. Chen, Mechanical properties of filler-asphalt mastics, International
Journal of Pavement Research and Technology, 6(5) (2013) 576-581.

[81] H. Bianchetto, R. Mir, F. Prez-Jimnez, A.H. Martnez, Effect of calcareous fillers on

bituminous mix aging, Transport Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, 1998 (2007) 140-148.

[82] S.E. Zoorob, J.P. Castro-Gomes, L.A. Pereira Oliveira & J. OConnell, Investigating the multiple
stress creep recovery bitumen characterisation test, Construction and Building Materials, 30
(2012) 734-745.

[83] P. Bryant, Filler: is it fixing your binder, Proceedings AAPA Pavements Industry Conference,
Surfers Paradise, Queensland, Australia, 18-21 September 2005.

[84] G.W. White, Systematic Diagnosis of Factors Leading to Cyclic Shear Creep of Airport Asphalt
Surfaces, A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Science, Health, Education and
Engineering, University of the Sunshine Coast, for the Award of Doctor of Philosophy, August
2015.

[85] P.E. Sebaaly, D. Little, E.Y. Hajj & A. Bhasin, Impact of anti-strip agents on properties of Idaho
hot-mix asphalt mixture, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, 1998 (2007) 65-74.

[86] B.J. Putman & S.N. Amirkhanian, Laboratory Evaluation of Anti-stripping Additives for Hot Mix
Asphalt, Report number FHWA-SC-06-07, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, USA,
November 2006.

[87] K. Pickering, P.E. Sebaaly, M. Stroup-Gardiner & J.A. Epps, Evaluation of new generation of
antistripping agents, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, 1342 (1992) 26-34.

[88] M. Nazirizad, A. Kavussi & A. Adbi, Evaluation of effects of anti-stripping agent on the
performance of asphalt mixtures, Construction and Building Materials, 84 (2015) 348-353.

29
[89] T.W. Kennedy & W.V. Ping, Evaluation of effectiveness of anti-stripping additives in protecting
asphalt mixtures from moisture damage, Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving
Technologists, 60 (1991) 230-263.

[90] The Shell Bitumen Handbook, 6th edn, ICE Publishing, Italy, 2015.

[91] H. Abraham, Asphalts and Allied Products: Their occurrence, Modes of Production, uses in the
Arts and Methods of Testing: Volume Three: Manufactured Products, 6th edn, D Van Nostrand
Company, New York City, USA, 1962.

[92] G. Holleran, I. Holleran, J. Vercoe, A. DAngelo, S. Bearsley, A. Stevens & J. Towler, Bitumen
th
in New Zealand performance based asphalt binder specification, NZTA/NZIHT 15 Annual
Conference, Queenstown, New Zealand, 2-4 November 2014.

[93] F.W. Button, & J.A. Epps, JA, Identifying tender asphalt mixtures in the laboratory, Transport
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1034 (1985) 20-26.

[94] G. Holleran & I. Holleran, Bitumen chemistry using cheaper sources an improved method of
measurement by TLC-FID and the characterisation of bitumen by rheology and compositional
th
means, 24 ARRB Conference, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 12-15 October 2010.

[95] J.W.H. Oliver, Changes in chemical composition of Australian bitumens, Road Materials and
Pavement Design, 10(3) (2009) 569-586.

[96] G. White, Inter-batch and Inter-feedstock variability of an acid modified bitumen, Road
Materials and Pavement Design, 17(3) (2016) 658-677.
th
[97] G. Holleran & I. Holleran, Bitumen processing, rheology, composition and performance, 25
ARRB Conference, Perth, Western Australia, Australia, 23-26 September 2012.

[98] G. Baumgardner, G & J.A. DAngelo, Evaluation of new dynamic shear rheometer testing
geometry for performance testing of crumb rubber-modified binder, Transport Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2293 (2012) 73-79.

[99] J.A. DAngelo, Current status of Superpave binder specification, Roads Materials and
Pavement Design, 10(1) (2009) 13-24.

[100] G. White, Grading highly modified binders by multiple stress creep recovery, Road Materials
and Pavement Design, (2016) article-in-press, doi 10.1080/14680629.2016.1212730.

[101] P.M. Harnsberger, M.J. Farrar, S.-C. Huang & R.E. Robertson,Comparative field performance
using multiple crude oil sources, Proceedings Transport Research Board Annual Meeting,
Washington, USA, 23-27 January 2011.

[102] J. Wu, E. Lepercq & G.D. Airey, Aging bitumen in bulk versus the aging of bitumen in an
asphalt mixture, Advanced Characterisation of Pavement and Soil Engineering Materials,
Athens, Greece, 20-22 June 2007 1631-1640.

[103] C. Crawford, Tender Mixes, Report QIP 108, National Asphalt Pavement Association,
Maryland, USA, 1986.

[104] H. Qiu, X. Tan, S. Shu & H. Zhang, Influence of filler-bitumen ratio on performance of modified
asphalt mortar by additive, Journal of Modern Transportation, 21(1) (2013) 40-46.

[105] P.M. Muraya, A.A.A. Molenaar & M.F.C van de Ven, Contribution of asphalt mix components to
permanent deformation resistance, Eight International Conference on the Bearing Capacity of
Roads, Railways and Airfields, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, USA, 29 June - 2 July 2009, 259-
268.

30
[106] A.F. Faheem & H.U. Bahia, Modelling of asphalt mastic in terms of filler-bitumen interaction,
Road Materials and Pavement Design, 11 (2010) 281-303.

[107] A. Drescher, N. Kringos & T. Scarpas, On the behaviour of a parallel elasto-visco-plastic model
for asphaltic materials, Mechanics of Materials, 42 (2010) 109-117.

[108] D.N. Little & J.C. Petersen, Unique effects of hydrated lime filler on the performance-related
properties of asphalt cement: physical and chemical interactions revisited, Journal of Materials
in Civil Engineering, 17(2) (2005) 207-218.

[109] L. Ping, W. Lieping, L. Wei & X. Baolin, The research on the index of high temperature
performance of asphalt mixture in airfield, Advanced Materials Research, 723 (2013) 1076-
1083.

[110] Performance Survey on Open-Graded Friction Course Materials, Synthesis of Highway

Practice 284, Transportation Research Board, Washington, District of Columbia, USA, 2000.

[111] A.I. Cooley, E.R. Brown & D.E. Watson, Evaluation of OGFC containing Cellulose Fibers,
NCAT Report 00-05, National Centre for Asphalt Technology, December 2000.

[112] W. Song, X. Shu, B. Huang & M. Woods, Factors affecting shear strength between open-
graded friction course and underlying layer, Construction and Building Materials, 101 (2015)
527-535.

[113] M.P. Jones, Friction overlay improves runway skid resistance, Civil Engineering, 43(3) (1973)
45-48.

[114] T.D. White, Field Performance of Porous Friction Surface Course, Report Number FAA-RD-74-
38, Department of Transportation, Washington, District of Columbia, USA, April 1976.

[115] P.B. Joubert, L. GounderL & S. van Wyk, Experimental asphalt sections in the runway touch
th
down zone on Johannesburg international airport, 8 Conference on Asphalt Pavements for
Southern Africa, Sun City, South Africa, 12-16 September 2004.

[116] M.E. Nunn, Evaluation of Stone Mastic Asphalt (SMA): A high stability wearing course material,
TRL Report PR 65, Transport Research Laboratory, Wokingham, England, UK, 1994.

[117] C. Campbell, The Use of Stone Mastic Asphalt on Aircraft Pavements, Submitted in fulfillment
of the requirements for SEN713 Research/Professional Practice Projects, School of
Engineering and Technology, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia, December 1999.

[118] Y.F. Qiu & K.M. Lum, Design and performance of stone mastic asphalt, Journal of
Transportation Engineering, 132(12) (2006) 956-963.

[119] Evaluation of Stone Mastic Asphalt (SMA) for Airfield Pavements, AAPTP 04-04, National
Centre for Asphalt Technology, February 2009.

[120] W. Hofsink & M.C. Barnard, SMA wearing courses on runways and taxiway recent
th
experience in South Africa, 13 International flexible pavement conference, Surfers Paradise,
Queensland, Australia, 11-14 October 2009.

[121] S.U. Xin, SMA and heated pavement in China, Federal Aviation Administration Pavement
Working Group Meeting, Atlantic City, New Jersey, USA, 15-17 April 2013.

[122] S.U. Xin, Research and practice on asphalt overlay in China, ICAO Regional Workshop on
Airport PavementsDesign & Evaluation, Macao, China, 4-6 March 2015.

[123] EME Technology Transfer for Australia: An Explorative Study, AP-T249-13, Austroads Project
Number TT1353, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, October 2013.

31
[124] B. Hakim, D. Widyatmoko, C. Ferguson & J. Richardson, UK airfield pavement design using
French asphalts, Transportation, 167(1) (2014) 27-35.

[125] I. Widyatmoko, B. Hakim & C. Fergusson, Pavement sustainability and performance

improvement: case studies, XXIVth PIARC Congress Airfield Pavement Seminar, Mexico
City, Mexico, 27-30 September 2011.

[126] I. Widyatmoko, B. Hakim, C. Fergusson, J. Richardson & S. Cant, Sustainable airport

nd
pavement using French asphaltic materials (BBA and EME2), 2 European Airport Pavement
Workshop, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 13-14 May 2009.

[127] I. Widyatmoko, J. Richardson & C. Ferguson, Long-term monitoring of high performance airfield
pavement surfacing. International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology, 6(5) (2013)
582-587.

[128] O. Takahashi, Y, Hachiya & Y. Tsubokawa, Applicability of the large stone asphalt concretes
for surface course of heavy-duty airport pavements, FAA Airport Technology Transfer
Conference, Galloway, New Jersey, USA, May 2002.

[129] Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA) Review, AP-T91/07, Austroads Project Number TT1220, Sydney,
New South Wales, Australia, November 2007.

[130] E.Y. Hajj, P.E. Sebaaly & P. Kandiah, Use of Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) in Airfields
HMA Pavements, AAPTP Project Number 05-06, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, USA,
July 2008.

[131] G. White, Warm mix asphalt for Australian airports, International Journal of Pavement
Engineering and Asphalt Technology, 16(1) (2015) 11-29.

[132] K. Su, R. Maekawa & Y. Hachiya, Laboratory evaluation of WMA mixture for use in airport
pavement rehabilitation, Construction and Building Materials, 23 (2009) 2709-2714.

[133] J.F. Rushing, M. Mejias-Santiago & J.D Doyle, Assessment of warm-mix asphalt for heavy
traffic airfields, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, 2371 (2013) 41-48.

[134] E.Y. Hajj, P.E. Sebaaly & P. Kandiah, Evaluation of the use of reclaimed asphalt pavement in
airfield HMA Pavements, Journal of Transportation Engineering, 136(3) (2010) 181-189.

[135] M.C. Guercio & L.M. McCarthy, Quantifying the performance of warm-mix asphalt and
reclaimed asphalt pavement in flexible airfield pavements, Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2471 (2015) 33-39.

[136] B.J. Hayward & B. Pidwerbesky, CoolPave with LEA: low energy asphalt, the future of asphalt
paving, Proceedings 10th NZTA & NZIHT Annual Conference, Rotorua, New Zealand,
November 2009.

[137] Pavement Interactives, Laboratory Wheel Tracking Devices, 1 July 2011.

http://www.pavementinteractive.org/article /laboratory-wheel-tracking-devices/, (accessed
21.11.14).

[138] R.C. Williams & B.D. Prowell, Comparison of laboratory wheel-tracking test results with
WesTrack performance, Transport Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, 1681 (1999) 121-130.

[139] S. Emery & I. Mihaljevic, Accelerated load testing of asphalt mix design for heavy duty
rd
pavements in hot climates, Proceedings 23 ARRB Conference, Adelaide, South Australia,
Australia, 22-23 July 2008.

32
[140] F. Hugo, I. Bowler, J. Liebenberg & D. Rossman, Evaluation of performance of asphalt paving
th
mixes under harsh conditions using the MMLS3, 10 Conference on Asphalt Pavements for
Southern Africa, Natal, South Africa, 11-14 September 2011.

[141] K.E. Kaloush, Simple Performance Test for Permanent Deformation of Asphalt Mixtures, A
Dissertation presented in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of
Philosophy, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA, May 2001.

[142] Simple Performance Tests: Summary of Recommended Methods and Database, National
Cooperative Highway Research Program, Report 547, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC, USA, 2005.

[143] J.F. Rushing & D.N. Little, Static creep and repeated load as rutting performance tests for
airport HMA mix design, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 26(9) (2014) 1-8.

[144] M.A. Castell, A.R. Ingraffea & L.H. Irwin, Fatigue crack growth in pavements, Journal of
Transportation Engineering, 126(4) (2000) 283-290.

[145] A. Mollenhauer & M. Wistuba, Evaluation of hot-mix asphalt susceptibility to temperature-

induced top-down fatigue cracking by means of uniaxial cyclic tensile stress test, Road
Materials and Pavement Design, 13(1) (2012) 171-190.

[146] A.A.A. Molenaar, Prediction of fatigue cracking in asphalt pavements: do we follow the right
approach?, Transport Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2001
(2007) 155-162.

[147] M.P. Wagoner, W.G. Buttlar & G.H. Paulino, Development of a single-edge notched beam test
for asphalt concrete mixtures, Journal of Testing and Evaluation, 33(6) (2005) 1-9.

[148] N. Thom, Asphalt cracking: a Nottingham perspective, Engenharia Civil, 26 (2007) 75-84.

[149] Top-Down Cracking of Hot-Mix Asphalt Layers: Models for Initiation and Propagation, National
Cooperative Highway Research Program, Report 1-42A, Web-Only Document 162,
Transportation Research Board, Washington DC, USA, February 2010.

[150] C.-G. Wallman & H. Astrom, Friction Measurement Methods and the Correlation between Road
Friction and Traffic Safety, VIT meddelande 911A-2001, Swedish National Road and Transport
Research Institute, 2001.

[151] I.M. Asi, Evaluating skid resistance of different asphalt concrete mixes, Building and
Environment, 42 (2007) 325-329.

[152] H. Abe, A. Tamai, J.J. Henry, & J. Wambold, Measurement of pavement macrotexture with
circular texture meter, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, 1764 (2001) 201-209.

[153] B. Sengoz, A. Topal & S. Tanyel, Comparison of pavement surface texture determination by
sand patch test and 3D laser scanning, Civil Engineering, 56(1) (2012) 73-78.

[154] V.M.C. Araujo, I.S. Bessa & V.T.F. Castelo Bracno, Measuring skid resistance of hot mix
asphalt using the aggregate image measurement system, Construction and Building Materials,
98, (2015) 476-481.

[155] Evaluation of Circular Texture Meter for Measuring Surface Texture of Pavements, NCAT
Report 04-05, National Centre for Asphalt Technology, September 2004.

[156] M. Rajaei, N.M. Sefidmazgi & H. Bahia, Establishment of a relationship between pavement
surface friction and mixture design properties, Transport Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, 2457 (2014) 114-120.

33
[157] T.W. Kennedy, F.L. Roberts & J.N. Anagnos, Texas Boiling Test for Evaluating Moisture
Susceptibility of Asphalt Mixtures, Technical Report FHWA/TX-85/63, University of Texas,
Austin, Texas, USA, January 1984.

[158] Accelerated Laboratory Rutting Tests: Evaluation of the Asphalt Pavement Analyzer, NCHRP
Report 508, Transportation Research Board, Washington, District of Columbia, USA, 2003.

[159] M.G. Jeong & M. El-Basyouny, Statistical applications and stochastic analysis for performance-
related specification of asphalt quality assurance, Transportation Research Record: Journal of
the Transportation Research Board, 2151 (2010) 84-92.

[160] B.K. Diefenderfer & J.W. Bryant, Development of a pavement warranty contract and
performance specification for hot-mix asphalt resurfacing project, 2006 Airfield and Highway
Pavements Specialty Conference, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 1-3 May 2006.

[161] Q. Cui, M.E. Bayraktar, M. Hastak & I. Minkarah, Use of warranties on highway projects,
Journal of Management in Engineering, 20(3) (2004) 118-124.

[162] S.W. Krebs, B. Duckert, S. Schwandt, J. Volker & T. Brokaw, Asphalt Pavement Warranties: A
five year progress report, Wisconsin Department of Transportation, June 2001.

[163] M. Moenielel & E. de Vries, New opportunities in performance based contracts, 6th Eurasphalt
& Eurobitume Congress, Prague, Czech Republic, 1-3 June 2016.

[164] O. Ero-Phillips, Recent advances in performance based characterisation of asphalt mixtures

th
a review, 8 International Conference on Maintenance and Rehabilitation of Pavements,
Singapore, 27-29 July 2016.

[165] M. Kim, L.N. Mohammad, H. Challa & M.A. Elseifi, A simplified performance-based
specification for asphalt pavements, Road Material and Pavement Design, 16(S2) (2015) 168-
196.

34