4.7 Article

Performance evaluation of SUPERPAYE and Marshall asphalt mix designs to suite Jordan climatic and traffic conditions

Journal

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
Volume 21, Issue 8, Pages 1732-1740

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006.05.036

Keywords

SUPERPAVE; Marshall asphalt mix design; temperature zoning; performance grading; fatigue; rutting; creep

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Due to the empirical nature and the drawbacks of the Marshall mix design procedure, the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) has developed a Superior Performance asphalt Pavements (SUPERPAVE) mix design procedure. In this research a comprehensive evaluation of the locally available aggregate usually used in the asphalt concrete mixtures was carried out to ensure that these materials conform to the new mix design procedures developed by SUPERPAVE. A performance grading map was generated to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. In this map the country was divided into different zones according to the highest and lowest temperature ranges that the asphalt might be subjected to. Using local materials, loading and environmental conditions, a comparative study of the performance of two mixes designed using SUPERPAVE and Marshall mix design procedures was carried out in this research. Samples from both mixes were prepared at the design asphalt contents and aggregate gradations and were subjected to a comprehensive mechanical evaluation testing. These tests included Marshall Stability, Loss of Marshall Stability, Indirect Tensile Strength, Loss of Indirect Tensile Strength, Resilient Modulus, Fatigue Life, Rutting, and Creep. In all the performed tests SUPERPAVE mixes proved their superiority over Marshall mixes. Therefore, serious plans should be set up in Jordan to shift from the presently used Marshall mix design procedure to SUPERPAVE mixture specifications. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available