Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comprehensive evaluation of wheel-tracking rutting performance assessment tests

  • Published:
International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study aimed to advance the implementation of the most promising wheel-tracking rutting assessment tests in the newly proposed Balanced Mixed Design (BMD) (or Performance-Engineered Mix Design method [PEMD]). In order to achieve this goal, the study examined the validity of two rutting assessment tests (i.e. Hamburg Wheel Tracking test [HWTT], and Asphalt Pavement Analyzer [APA] rut test) and three performance indicators (i.e., HWTT rut depth after 15,000 passes [HWTT15000], HWTT rut depth at 20,000 passes [HWTT20000], and APA rut depth after 8,000 cycles [APA8000]). A total number of 33 asphalt mixes including six Laboratory Mixed-Laboratory Compacted (LMLC), 10 Plant Mixed-Laboratory Compacted (PMLC), and 17 field projects were evaluated in this study. The results demonstrated that HWTT and APA rut test rutting performance indicators were sensitive to the variation in binder content and binder PG. Also, APA8000 results had low/moderate variability, while HWTT15000 and HWTT20000 had moderate variability. In addition, HWTT and APA rut test performance indicators were correlated with the observed field rutting of the evaluated field projects. Several pass/fail performance assessment thresholds were proposed including maximum rut depth of 5 mm, 10 mm, and 12.5 mm for APA8000, HWTT15000, HWTT20000, respectively. Also, the results showed that both HWTT and APA rut test provided similar rutting assessment for the evaluated mixes. The study recommended using HWTT over APA rut test since HWTT can be also used to evaluate the resistance to both rutting and moisture damage. Also, the study recommended using HWTT15000 over HWTT20000 as a performance indicator, since it requires less testing time.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. R.C. West, C. Rodenzo, F. Leiva, F. Yin, Development of a framework for balanced mix design. NCHRP project 20-07/task 406. Auburn, AL, USA, 2018.

  2. Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), Standard specifications for construction and maintenance of highways, streets, and bridges, Austin, Texas, USA, 2014.

  3. Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), Test procedure for Hamburg Wheel-Tracking Test. Tex-242-F. Austin, Texas, USA, 2014.

  4. Illinois department of transportation (IDOT), Standard specifications for road and bridge construction, Springfield, Illinois, USA, 2016.

  5. Oklahoma department of transportation, Special provision for Hamburge rut testing of hot mix asphalt, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA, 2009.

  6. Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT), Standard specifications for road and bridge construction, Taylorsville, UT, USA, 2017.

  7. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), Standard specifications for road, bridge, and municipal construction, Olympia, Washington, USA, 2016.

  8. Colorado Department of Transportation (CODOT), Standard method of test for Hamburg wheel-track testing of compacted bituminous mixtures. CP-L 5112. Denver, Colorado, USA, 2015.

  9. Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LaDOT), Louisiana Standard Specification for Roads and Bridges, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA, 2016.

  10. Montana Department of Transportation (MTDOT), Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, Helena, Montana, USA, 2014.

  11. Montana Department of Transportation (MTDOT), Method of Sampling and Testing Hamburg Wheel-Track Testing of Compacted Bituminous Mixtures, Helena, Montana, USA, 2014.

  12. Californial Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Standard Specifications 2018, Sacramento, California, USA, 2018.

  13. Iowa Department of Transportation, Moisture sensitivity testing of asphalt mixtures. (Iowa DOT, 2017), https://www.iowadot.gov/erl/current/IM/content/319.htm. Accessed 20 April 2019.

  14. Iowa Department of Transportation Section 2303. Flexible Pavement. (Iowa DOT, 2019), https://www.iowadot.gov/erl/current/GS/content/2303.htm#Section230302E. Accessed 20 April 2019.

  15. Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), Hot mix asphalt level II quality control technician certification study guide, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 2005.

  16. Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), Road standards-section 828 — hot mix asphaltic concrete mixtures-attachment, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 2013.

  17. North Carolina Department of transportation (NrDOT), Standard specifications for roads and structures, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA, 2012.

  18. Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), Supplemental specification 856 Bridge Deck Waterproofing Asphalt Surface Course, Columbus, Ohio, USA, 2017.

  19. Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), Supplement 1057 Loaded wheel tester asphalt mix rut testing method, Columbus, Ohio, USA, 2016.

  20. Oregon Department of Trasportation (ODOT), Contractor mix design guidlines for asphalt concrete, Salem, Oregon, USA.

  21. South Dakota Department of transportation (SDDOT), Standard Specifications for Roads and bridges, Pierre, South Dakota, USA, 2015.

  22. Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT), Rutting susceptibility determination of asphalt paving mixtures using the asphalt pavement analyzer, Montgomery, Alabama, USA, 2001.

  23. Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT), Standard Specifications-section 410 — Asphalt Pavements, Montgomery, Alabama, USA, 2013.

  24. Transportation Research Board, Application of asphalt mix specifications, Washington D.C., USA, 2014. doi:https://doi.org/10.17226/22248.

  25. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), Method of test for determining rutting susceptibility using the asphalt pavement analyzer — (asphalt lab) (Virginia Test Method — 110), Richmond, Virginia, USA, 2008.

  26. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), Road and bridge specifications, Richmond, Virginia, USA, 2016.

  27. Alaska department of Transportation (ALDOT), Alaska test methods manual, Juneau, AK, USA, 2018.

  28. Arkansas state highway and transportation department (ArDOT), Standard specifications for highway construction, Little Rock, AR, USA, 2014.

  29. Arkansas state highway and transportation department (ArDOT), Manual of Field Sampling and Testing Procedures, Little Rock, AR, USA, 2019. https://www.arkansashighways.com/materials_division/~FIELDMAN.pdf.

  30. Idaho Transportation Department (ITD), Standard specification for highway construction, Bosie, ID, USA, 2017.

  31. American Association of State Highway and Transportation, Standard Method of Test for Hamburg Wheel-Track Testing of Compacted Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA). AASHTO T324-14, AASHTO, Washington D.C, USA, 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Idaho Transportation Department (ITD), Idaho Transportation System Pavement Performance Report, Boise, ID, 2017.

  33. PathWay Services Incorporated Companies, Pavement profiler information- the PathRunner, (2019). http://www.pathwayservices.com/equipment-1/. Accessed 20 April 2019.

  34. M. Junaid, M. Irfan, S. Ahmed, Y. Ali, Effect of binder grade on performance parameters of asphaltic concrete paving mixtures, Inter. J. Pavement Res. Technol. 11 (5) (2018) 435–444. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijprt.2017.11.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), Standard specifications for road, bridge, and municipal construction, Olympia, Washington, USA, 2018.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study is sponsored by ITD. The authors acknowledge the support provided by the ITD Project Research Committee members and ITD district engineers. Also, the authors acknowledge the help from Mr. Fahmid Tousif and Dr. Ahmed Muftah in specimen preparation and testing.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, The Hashemite University, Zarqa, 13115, Jordan

    Hamza Alkuime

  2. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID, 83844, USA

    Emad Kassem

Authors
  1. Hamza Alkuime
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emad Kassem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hamza Alkuime.

Additional information

Peer review under responsibility of Chinese Society of Pavement Engineering.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alkuime, H., Kassem, E. Comprehensive evaluation of wheel-tracking rutting performance assessment tests. Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. 13, 334–347 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42947-020-0265-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42947-020-0265-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation