Special Report 223 Advances in the Design, Production, & Construction of Stone Matrix (Mastic) Asphalt This publication is provided by the Members of the National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA), who are the nation’s leading asphalt producer/contractor firms and those furnishing equipment and services for the construction of quality asphalt pavements. NAPA Members are dedicated to providing the highest quality asphalt paving materials and pavements, and to increasing the knowledge of quality asphalt pavement design, construction, maintenance, and rehabilitation. NAPA also strongly supports the development and dissemination of research, engineering and educational information that meets America’s needs in transportation, recreational, and environ- mental pavements. NAPA Building 5100 Forbes Blvd. Lanham, MD 20706-4407 Tel: 301-731-4748 Fax: 301-731-4621 Toll free 1-888-468-6499 www.AsphaltPavement.org [email protected] Mike Acott President Audrey Copeland, Ph.D., P.E. Vice President for Engineering, Research & Technology This publication is designed to provide information of interest to NAPA Members and is not to be considered a publication of standards or regulations. The views of the authors expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the decision making process of NAPA with regard to advice or opinions on the merits of certain processes, procedures, or equipment. COPYRIGHT NOTICE Publications produced and published by the National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA) are copyrighted by the Association and may not be republished or copied (including mechanical reproductions) without written consent. To obtain this consent contact the Association at the address above. © 2018 National Asphalt Pavement Association Special Report 223 Printed 11/18 Special Report 223 Advances in the Design, Production, and Construction of Stone Matrix (Mastic) Asphalt 1ST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON Stone Matrix Asphalt NATIONAL ASPHALT PAVEMENT ASSOCIATION NAPA Building 5100 Forbes Blvd. Lanham, MD 20706-4407 Tel: 301-731-4748 Fax: 301-731-4621 Toll free 1-888-468-6499 www.AsphaltPavement.org [email protected] IS 141 • NATIONAL ASPHALT PAVEMENT ASSOCIATION Thinlays for Pavement Preservation 1 CONTENTS 1st International Conference on Stone Matrix Asphalt Atlanta, Georgia — November 5–7 Opening Remarks ............................................................................................................................... 2 Mike Acott, National Asphalt Pavement Association Performance and Life-Cycle Cost Benefits of SMA ................................................................... 4 Fan Yin & Randy West, National Center for Asphalt Technology at Auburn University Test Method Analysis for Different Types of Fillers Used in the SMA Mix Through Semi-Circular Bend (SCB) Fracture Energy Test ....................................................................... 24 Pedro Limón-Covarrubias, Guadalajara University; Gonzalo Valdés-Vidal, Universidad de La Frontera; Oscar Javier Reyes-Ortiz, Nueva Granada Military University; Rey Omar Adame-Hernández, LASFALTO; and David Avalos-Cueva, Guadalajara University Forensic Investigation on Premature Rutting in Pavements and Remedial Treatment With Stone Matrix Asphalt .............................................................................................................. 37 Girish Kumar & A. Veeraragavan, Indian Institute of Technology Madras Road Trials Of Low Noise High Performance Asphalt Surfacings ........................................ 61 Iswandaru Widyatmoko & Chibuzor Ojum, AECOM; Arash Khojinian & Robin Hudson-Griffiths, Highways England; David Giles & Chris Southwell, Eurobitume UK; Ian Michael Lancaster, Nynas UK AB; Gary Schofield, Total UK Ltd.; David Markham & Tim Smith, Tarmac; and Malcolm Simms; Mineral Products Association Development of a High-Performance SMA Suited to the Surface Course of National Highways in Japan’s Cold, Snowy Regions ................................................................................ 72 Shunsuke Tanaka & Kimio Maruyama, Civil Engineering Research Institute for Cold Region Effect of Flat and Elongated Aggregate on Stone Matrix Asphalt Performance .............. 83 Donald E. Watson & Grant Julian, National Center for Asphalt Technology at Auburn University Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA) Case Study, Thornton, Illinois: Analysis of 20-Year Stone Matrix Asphalt Material on Williams Street................................................................................ 99 Jay D. Miller & Abdul Z. Dahhan, Chicago Testing Laboratory Inc. Introduction Of Stone Mastic Asphalt To Australian Runways ............................................ 109 Greg White & Sean Jamieson, University of the Sunshine Coast SR 233 1 Advances in SMA 1st INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STONE MATRIX ASPHALT: OPENING REMARKS November 5, 2018 — Atlanta Georgia MIKE ACOTT National Asphalt Pavement Association 5100 Forbes Blvd., Lanham, MD 20706 Tel: +1-301-731-4748 SMA — otherwise known as Split Mastic Asphalt/Stone Mastic Asphalt/Stone Matrix Asphalt — was developed in Germany in the late 1960s. The original impetus was to develop a mix with better resistance to studded tires. Simply stated, SMA is a gap-graded mix designed to achieve direct stone on stone contact. The mix includes a binder rich mortar of the desired quantity and consistency/characteristics. Later in the program, we will hear more details on the development and use of SMA in Germany, as well as experiences in other countries. I will provide a short perspective on its development in the U.S. NAPA introduced the concept of SMA into the U.S. in the mid-’80s. Our interest in SMA was precipitated by the presentation of a paper by Mr. Otto Kast at the Eurobitume symposium at the Hague on SMA experience in Germany in 1985. Meanwhile, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) were in the final planning stages of the Strategic Highway Research Program, which ultimately led to the introduction of Superpave and performance-graded PG Binders. The prevailing distress in the 1980s was rutting. The approach had been to move to 75 blow Marshall, increase aggregate top size, coarsen the mixtures, and reduce asphalt content. The inevitable trade-offs were a reduced fatigue life and an increased permeability. Deployment of SMA in the U.S. gained momentum following the FHWA/AASHTO/NAPA European asphalt study tour in 1990. With very few exceptions, the U.S. was wedded to dense-graded asphalt concrete, so the interest in a gap graded mixture was a departure from practices at that time. In 2002, SMA was discussed at the “SMA in the USA” workshop in Maryland. This workshop was co-sponsored by the Asphalt Pavement Alliance (APA), Maryland State Highway Administration, Virginia Department of Transportation, FHWA, and the International Society for Asphalt Pavements. More than 400 attended from 11 countries and 35 states. At that conference, several DOTs had become lead states in the use of this technology. There was considerable activity and energy focused on evaluating the product and its implementation, including field trials and completion of numerous research initiatives. It seemed in 2002 that SMA was off and running. The expectation expressed at that time by FHWA, state DOTs, the National Center for Asphalt Technology at Auburn University (NCAT), the State Asphalt Pavement Associations, and NAPA was that SMA would become the preferred premium surface for heavy duty, high-traffic volume pavements such as interstates. SR 233 2 Advances in SMA For example, Larry Michael, who was with the Maryland State Highway Administration, said: “It is without a doubt the most tenacious mix I have seen. It is almost impossible to make it rut, and will outlast any other mix.” Larry was not alone in his support of this technology. Former NCAT Director Ray Brown advised it is now reasonable to expect SMA to perform satisfactorily over a 20 to 40 percent longer service life than dense-graded asphalt concrete type mixes. John Bukowski, formerly with FHWA, stated, “It has become the preferred premium pavement surface-it lasts a long time without maintenance.” Richard Schreck, former Executive Vice President of the Virginia Asphalt Association, commented, “I believe SMA raises the bar for the industry. It is truly the 20-year mix that can be combined with perpetual pavement design to produce an outstanding system.” And yours truly opined that “SMA is a product that incorporates the many outstanding developments in asphalt technology.” It appeared that the promise of SMA — a longer lasting, durable high-performance surface – was exactly what the customer wanted because SMA was specifically designed to address rut resistance and durability — a truly “balanced” mixture. Over 25 years have passed since that 1990 study and, apart from a handful of states that have successfully implemented SMA, SMA has not become the widespread, national surface mix of choice for high-traffic volume applications. So what may have stalled the nationwide use of SMA? Did we lose interest in SMA, or did the high cost of liquid asphalt cement and polymers in 2008/2009 and shrinking highway budgets relegate SMA to being just an expensive tool in the toolbox? Maybe the national advocates such as Larry, Ray, and Richard moved on to other topics. Some would argue that we changed the formulation/ingredients and we did not always get the performance benefits. Also, could the aggregate