Practices for Fabricating Asphalt Specimens for Performance Testing in Laboratories (2020)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

133 A P P E N D I X B State Transportation Agency Survey Responses The responses to the state highway agency survey questionnaire are presented in this appendix. Current Status of Laboratory Asphalt Performance Testing Question 1: Does your agency prepare and conduct asphalt laboratory performance testing (irrespective of whether testing is conducted on a routine or supplemental basis; i.e., not part of routine usage/specification/mix acceptance)? Does your agency prepare and conduct asphalt laboratory performance testing (irrespective of whether testing is conducted on a routine or supplemental basis; i.e., not part of routine usage/specification/mix acceptance)? Yes (either in-house at agency and/or through consultant or university labs) No AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, DC, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, MA, ME, MN, MO, MS, MT, ND, NH, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT CT, DE, MD, MI, NC, NY, RI, WA

134 Practices for Fabricating Asphalt Specimens for Performance Testing in Laboratories Question 2: “Please select the types of laboratory asphalt performance testing conducted by your agency (in- house and/or by other entities on behalf of your agency).” Test Agencies APA AK, AL, FL, GA, IA, ND, NJ, SC, SD Cantabro FL, MA, MS, NJ, OK, SC, TN, TX CTIndex GA, ME, MO, OH, OK, TN, TX, UT DCT CO, IA, MN, ND, SD DTCF MO E* CO, FL, MO, MS, NH, OK, SC, SD, TX FBF IA, MA, NJ HWT AZ, CA, CO, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, MA, ME, MO, MT, NM, OH, OK, TN, TX, UT, VT IDT TX RLPD CO, FL, MO, MS, SD SCB AZ, GA, IL, IN, MA, MN, MO, ND, OH, OK, SD, UT, VT SSG DTCF ME SSG E* CO, ME SSG RLPD CO TxOT FL, NJ, TX Other 1 AR, CA, DC, FL, GA, IL, KS, ME, NV, OH, TN, UT, VA Other 2 FL, GA, VA Other Test - 1 Other Test - 2 Agency Brief Description Agency Brief Description AR In-House (ARDOT 480-07) FL T-283 DC Superpave Gyratory Compactor (AASHTO T312) GA GDT-66 Tensile Splitting Ratio (TSR) FL Interlayer Bond Strength KS Moisture Induced Sensitivity Test (ASTM D7890) GA GDT-1 Permeability Testing VA TSR IL IL mod AASHTO T283 KS Thermal Stress Restrained Specimen Test (TSRST TP-10) ME Stress Sweep Rutting (AMPT) NJ AASHTO T 283 NV Hveem Stability OH TSR (similar to AASHTO T 283) TN Marshall Flow and Stability UT BBR Beam Sliver Test, AASHTO TP 125 VA Bond Shear Testing

Question 3: “How does your Agency use the results of the laboratory performance test (select all that apply)?” (a) For Mix Design Acceptance Test AK AL AR AZ CA CO DC FL GA IA IL IN KS MA ME MN MO MS MT ND NH NJ NM NV OH OK SC SD TN TX UT VA VT APA X X X X X X Cantabro X X X X X X CTIndex DCT DTCF E* FBF X X HWT X X X X X X X X X X X IDT X RLPD SCB X X SSG DTCF SSG E* SSG RLPD TxOT X X Other-1 X X X X X X X X Other-2 X X X

(b) In Quality Assurance (QA) Process Test AK AL AR AZ CA CO DC FL GA IA IL IN KS MA ME MN MO MS MT ND NH NJ NM NV OH OK SC SD TN TX UT VA VT APA O M,P Cantabro CTIndex DCT O DTCF E* FBF O M M HWT M M M M M M,P,O M M O IDT RLPD SCB M,P,O SSG DTCF SSG E* SSG RLPD TxOT M,P M Other-1 M M,O O M Other-2 O M: For Mix Acceptance; P: For Pay Factor Adjustment; O: Other.

(c) Routine usage for research purposes (such as specification update) Test AK AL AR AZ CA CO DC FL GA IA IL IN KS MA ME MN MO MS MT ND NH NJ NM NV OH OK SC SD TN TX UT VA VT APA X X X Cantabro X X CTIndex X DCT X X DTCF E* X X FBF X HWT X X X X X X X X IDT RLPD X X SCB X X X SSG DTCF X SSG E* X X SSG RLPD X TxOT X X Other-1 X X X X Other-2 X

(d) Nonroutine usage for research or other purposes Test AK AL AR AZ CA CO DC FL GA IA IL IN KS MA ME MN MO MS MT ND NH NJ NM NV OH OK SC SD TN TX UT VA VT APA X X X X Cantabro X X CTIndex X X X X X X X X X X DCT X X DTCF X X E* X X X X X X X X X FBF HWT X X X X X X X X X X X X X X IDT RLPD X X X X SCB X X X X X X X X X X X X SSG DTCF SSG E* X SSG RLPD X TxOT X X X Other-1 X X X X X Other-2 X X X

State Transportation Agency Survey Responses 139 Question 4: “At your agency, is the fabrication of test specimens for performance testing conducted using standardized AASHTO or ASTM specifications and/or agency-specific protocols (provide one response for each test)? Test Standardized Procedures (AASHTO or ASTM specifications) Standardized Procedure with some agency recommended modifications Other (non-standardized procedure, such as entirely in-house protocol) APA 6 3 0 Cantabro 5 1 2 CTIndex 7 0 3 DCT 4 2 0 DTCF 4 0 0 E* 11 1 0 FBF 1 1 1 HWT 11 9 2 IDT 1 0 1 RLPD 6 0 0 SCB 12 3 0 SSG DTCF 2 0 0 SSG E* 4 0 0 SSG RLPD 2 0 0 TxOT 1 1 2 Other-1 7 1 5 Other-2 2 1 1 Asphalt Pavement Analyzer Test (AASHTO T340) Refer to ATM 419 at http://dot.alaska.gov/stwddes/desmaterials/mat_waqtc/assets/pdf/testman/atm_2018.pdf Cantabro Test http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/cst/TMS/200-F_series/pdfs/bit245.pdf Hamburg Wheel Tracking Test http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/cst/TMS/200-F_series/pdfs/bit242.pdf https://www.codot.gov/business/designsupport/matgeo/manuals/2015-cdot-lab-manual-test- procedures-rev-2019/cpls/cp-ls-5100/%2808%29%20CPL%205112-15/view Superpave Indirect Tensile Strength and Creep Test http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/cst/TMS/200-F_series/pdfs/bit226.pdf Texas Overlay Test http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/cst/TMS/200-F_series/pdfs/bit248.pdf Question 5: “If you have a document describing agency-specific procedures for fabricating specimens for laboratory performance tests, either: (1) upload documents: FILE UPLOAD (please rename files to include agency name) or (2) please paste a link to agency website where documents can be found.”

140 Practices for Fabricating Asphalt Specimens for Performance Testing in Laboratories Other Test 1 https://www.nevadadot.com/doing-business/about-ndot/ndot-divisions/operations/materials- section/materials-test-manual https://extranet.ddot.dc.gov/QAQC.Web/LoginNew.aspxReturnUrl=%2fQAQC.Web%2fMat erialTests%2fManageLogs.aspx%3fCat%3d10&Cat=10 http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/Materials/bu-mat-VTMs.pdf, VTM-128 http://infonet.dot.state.fl.us/materials/administration/resources/library/publications/fstm/Methods/ fm5-599.pdf http://www.arkansashighways.com/materials_division/A--FIELDMAN.pdf Other Test 2 http://infonet.dot.state.fl.us/materials/administration/resources/library/publications/fstm/Methods/ fm1-t283.pdf Question 6: “Is asphalt laboratory performance testing conducted at your agency and/or by consultant/university labs on behalf of the agency?” Response Number of Agencies Conducted only in-house by agency 18 Conducted only through consultant/university labs 1 Conducted both in-house and through consultant/university labs 14 Question 7: “An important component of this synthesis study is to document specimen fabrication practices of non-agency entities (such as consultant or university labs) that conduct performance testing on behalf of agencies. Please share the name of entities that conduct laboratory performance testing for your agency and provide an email address for sending the survey.” American Engineering Testing, Braun Intertec, Center for Transportation Research (CTR) at UT Austin, Clemson University, Interstate Testing, Kansas State University, Knife River Corporation, National Center for Asphalt Technology, Rutgers University, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI), Tri-County Technical College, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, University of Minnesota, University of Nevada Reno, University of New Hampshire, University of New Mexico, University of North Dakota, University of Texas-El Paso Fabrication of Asphalt Performance Test Specimens Question 8: “For laboratory performance tests used by your agency, are specimen dimensions as per standard specifications (such as AASHTO or ASTM)? (Select "No" if non-standard dimensions are used for even a single performance test used by your agency.)” Specimen Dimensions as per Standard Specifications Answer Agency Yes AL, AR, AZ, CO, DC, FL, IA, IL, IN, ME, MN, MO, MS, MT, NH, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OK, SC, SD, TN, UT, VT No AK, CA, GA, MA, TX, VA

State Transportation Agency Survey Responses 141 Question 9: “What are the dimensions of the final test specimen for the laboratory performance tests used by your agency? (Typical values are shown; please edit as necessary and fill all that apply.)” NOTE: Respondents were requested to provide dimensions only when dimensions other than those recommended in test standards were used. Thickness Diameter (if applicable) Length (if applicable) Width (if applicable) If there are any additional features about the test specimen (e.g., flat faces or semi-circular shape), please describe them and share the dimensions used Asphalt Pavement Analyzer Test 89 mm 150 mm N.A. N.A. Thickness = 75 +/- 3 mm 75 mm 150 mm N.A. N.A. Cantabro Test 115 mm 150 mm N.A. N.A. 115 mm 150 mm N.A. N.A. Direct Tension Cyclic Fatigue Test (S-VECD) Disk-Shaped Compact Tension (DCT) Test Dynamic (Complex) Modulus Testing N.A. 100 mm 150 mm N.A. Flexural Beam Fatigue Test 2 inch N.A. 15 inch 2.5 inch Flow Number (RLPD) Test Hamburg Wheel Tracking Test 60-62 mm 150 mm N.A. N.A. 60 +/- 1.0 mm 150 mm N.A. N.A. 60 mm 150 mm N.A. N.A. 62 mm 150 mm N.A. N.A. CTIndex Test 60-62 mm 150 mm N.A. N.A. 62 mm 150 mm N.A. N.A. Semi-Circular Bend (SCB) Test (any version) 50 mm 150 mm N.A. N.A. Faces are not saw-cut 60 mm 150 mm N.A. N.A. Small-Scale Geometry Direct Tension Cyclic Fatigue Test (S-VECD) Small-Scale Geometry Dynamic (Complex) Modulus Test Small-Scale Geometry Flow Number (RLPD) Test Superpave Indirect Tensile Strength and Creep Test 2.4 inch 5.9 inch N.A. N.A. Texas Overlay Test 1.5 inch 6 inch N.A. 3.0 inch Other Test 1 75 mm 150 mm N.A. N.A. 95 +/-5 mm 150 mm N.A. N.A. 100 or 150 mm N.A. N.A. Other Test 2 95 mm 150 mm N.A. N.A. T283 63.5mm 100 or 150 mm N.A. N.A.

Question 10: “What type(s) of materials are evaluated using laboratory performance test(s) by your agency (check all that apply)?” (a) Laboratory mixed, laboratory compacted Test AK AL AR AZ CA CO DC FL GA IA IL IN KS MA ME MN MO MS MT ND NH NJ NM NV OH OK SC SD TN TX UT VA VT APA X X X X X X X Cantabro X X X X X X X X CTIndex X X X X X X DCT X DTCF X E* X X X X X X X FBF X X HWT X X X X X X X X X X X X IDT X RLPD X X X SCB X X X X X X X X SSG DTCF X SSG E* X SSG RLPD TxOT X X X Other-1 X X X X X X X X X Other-2 X X X

(b) Plant mixed and field compacted, or field cores Test AK AL AR AZ CA CO DC FL GA IA IL IN KS MA ME MN MO MS MT ND NH NJ NM NV OH OK SC SD TN TX UT VA VT APA X X X X Cantabro CTIndex X X DCT DTCF X X X E* X FBF HWT X X X X X X X IDT RLPD X SCB X X SSG DTCF SSG E* X SSG RLPD X TxOT X X Other-1 X X X X X X X Other-2 X

(c) Reheated plant mixed laboratory compacted or plant mixed laboratory compacted at the plant Test AK AL AR AZ CA CO DC FL GA IA IL IN KS MA ME MN MO MS MT ND NH NJ NM NV OH OK SC SD TN TX UT VA VT APA X X X X Cantabro X X X CTIndex X X DCT X X DTCF X X X X X X X E* X X FBF X X X X X HWT X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X IDT X X X X X X X RLPD X X X X X X X X X SCB X SSG DTCF X X SSG E* X SSG RLPD X TxOT X X X Other-1 X X X X X X X X Other-2 X X X (d) Other: No respondents selected “other.”

State Transportation Agency Survey Responses 145 Question 11: “Please identify laboratory performance test(s) for which there is a laboratory conditioning requirement (for example, short and/or long-term oven aging) as part of specimen fabrication process for your agency (select all that apply).” 8 4 7 2 1 7 1 13 1 3 10 1 1 3 12 2 4 3 3 1 4 2 7 3 4 2 2 1 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 APA Cantabro CTIndex DCT DTCF E* FBF HWT IDT RLPD SCB SSG DTCF SSG E* SSG RLPD TxOT Other Number of Agencies Yes, there is a laboratory conditioning requirement No, there is not a laboratory conditioning requirement

Question 12: “Please provide information regarding the laboratory conditioning (for example, short and/or long-term oven aging) during specimen fabrication for laboratory performance testing (check all that apply).” Test AK AL AR AZ CO DC FL GA IL KS MA ME MN MO MS MT NH NJ NM NV OH OK SC SD TX UT VA APA LM CS LM LM,CS CS LM LM Cantabro LM LM LM LM DTCF LM DCT LM E* LM LM LM LM LM LM FBF CS RLPD LM LM LM HWT CS LM LM LM LM LM LM LM LM LM,CS LM LM LM CTIndex LM LM LM LM LM LM LM SCB CS LM CS LM LM LM LM LM LM SSG DTCF LM SSG E* LM SSG RLPD IDT LM TxOT LM CS LM Other-1 LM LM LM,CS CS CS LM LM LM LM Other-2 LM LM,CS LM CS: Compacted Sample; LM: Loose Mix

State Transportation Agency Survey Responses 147 “Other” responses and brief description Asphalt Pavement Analyzer (APA) Short-term aging only (2 hours at compaction temperature) Cantabro Short-term aging only (2 hours at compaction temperature) Direct Tension Cyclic Fatigue (S-VECD) Disk-Shaped Compact Tension (DCT) Conditioning compacted specimen at a temperature before testing Dynamic (Complex) Modulus Testing Short-term aging only (2 hours at compaction temperature) Flexural Beam Fatigue Flow Number (RLPD) Short-term aging only (2 hours at compaction temperature) Hamburg Wheel Tracking Short-term aging as defined in R30; 4 hours; for volumetric mix design; short-term aging only (2 hours at compaction temperature); 45 min @ 50°C CTIndex Semi-Circular Bend (SCB) (any version) 4 hours; loose mix for Volumetric Mix Design AND Long-Term Aging 3 days @ 95°C on Compacted Specimens; 2 hours @ 25°C Small-Scale Geometry Direct Tension Cyclic Fatigue (S-VECD) Small-Scale Geometry Dynamic (Complex) Modulus Small-Scale Geometry FLow Number (RLPD) Superpave Indirect Tensile Strength and Creep Texas Overlay Short-term aging only (2 hours at compaction temperature) Other Test 1 AASHTO R 30 Long-Term Aging; short-term (2 hours); loose mix for Volumetric Mix Design AND 1 day in 60°C water bath per AASHTO T283 for three specimens; after compaction, must sit at room temperature for 4 to 24 hours (a little different than T 283) Other Test 2 Short-term aging only (2 hours at compaction temperature)

148 Practices for Fabricating Asphalt Specimens for Performance Testing in Laboratories Question 13: “Please provide details (such as temperature and time) for the loose mixture laboratory conditioning during specimen fabrication process (fill in all information that is applicable).” Number of agencies indicating that loose mix conditioning is done as per AASHTO R 30 short-term aging protocol: Loose mix aging temperature and aging time reported for non-AASHTO R30 protocol: Test Temperature (degrees Celsius) Time (minutes) Asphalt Pavement Analyzer (APA) Cantabro 120 Direct Tension Cyclic Fatigue (S-VECD) Disk-Shaped Compact Tension (DCT) Dynamic (Complex) Modulus Testing Flexural Beam Fatigue Flow Number (RLPD) Hamburg Wheel Tracking 135 240, 120, 120 CTIndex 120 Semi-Circular Bend (SCB) (any version) 135 240 Small-Scale Geometry Direct Tension Cyclic Fatigue (S-VECD) Small-Scale Geometry Dynamic (Complex) Modulus Small-Scale Geometry Flow Number (RLPD) Superpave Indirect Tensile Strength and Creep 120 Texas Overlay 120 Other Test 1 Other Test 2

State Transportation Agency Survey Responses 149 Descriptions of “other process followed” for loose mix conditioning: Asphalt Pavement Analyzer (APA) Temp = midpoint of mix compaction temperature range; for 120 +/-5 mins; short-termaging only (2 hours at compaction temperature) Cantabro Short-term aging only (2 hours at compaction temperature); time is a total of 2 hours. It differs if molding directly from plant/lab (2-h cure if mix was just mixed and still hot). If it is being shipped from a location to another location to be molded at a later date (the thought is that the mix continued to age in the box/bucket until it cooled completely), thus it will only require 1.5 hours of additional cure time upon reheating the material. Temperature based on binding grade. See Table 1 in Tex206-F (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/cst/TMS/200-F_series/pdfs/bit206.pdf), Direct Tension Cyclic Fatigue (S- VECD) Disk-Shaped Compact Tension (DCT) Dynamic (Complex) Modulus Testing Short-term aging only (2 hours at compaction temperature); heat mix to compaction temp. Gyrate to height to achieve 7% air voids. Flexural Beam Fatigue Flow Number (RLPD) Short-term aging only (2 hours at compaction temperature) Hamburg Wheel Tracking Short-term aging only (2 hours at compaction temperature); for Volumetric Mix Design, 2 hours aging at compaction temperature for binder grade; the mixed material shall be short-term age for 2 hours; temperature is based on binder grade CTIndex Research being conducted for aging; 2 hours aging at compaction temperature for binder grade; time is a total of 2 hours. It differs if molding directly from plant/lab (2-h cure if mix was just mixed and still hot). If it is being shipped from a location to another location to be molded at a later date (the thought is that the mix continued to age in the box/bucket until it cooled completely), thus it will only require 1.5 hours of additional cure time upon reheating the material. Temperature based on binder grade. See Table 1 in Tex206-F. http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/cst/TMS/200-F_series/pdfs/bit206.pdf Semi-Circular Bend (SCB) (any version) Research being conducted for aging; 2 hours aging at compaction temperature for binder grade Small-Scale Geometry Direct Tension Cyclic Fatigue (S-VECD) Small-Scale Geometry Dynamic (Complex) Modulus Small-Scale Geometry Flow Number (RLPD) Superpave Indirect Tensile Strength and Creep Time is a total of 2 hours. It differs if molding directly from plant/lab (2-h cure if mix was just mixed and still hot). If it is being shipped from a location to another location to be molded at a later date (the thought is that the mix continued to age in the box/bucket until it cooled completely), it will only require 1.5-hours of additional cure time upon reheating the material. Temperature based on binder grade. See Table 1 in Tex206-F. http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/cst/TMS/200-F_series/pdfs/bit206.pdf Texas Overlay Short-term aging only (2 hours at compaction temperature); time is a total of 2 hours. It differs if molding directly from plant/lab (2-h cure if mix was just mixed and still hot). If it is being shipped from a location to another location to be molded at a later date (the thought is that the mix continued to age in the box/bucket until it cooled completely), thus it will only require 1.5 hours of additional cure time upon reheating the material. Temperature based on binder grade. See Table 1 in Tex206-F. http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/cst/TMS/200-F_series/pdfs/bit206.pdf Other Test 1 15 hours at 140°F; 2 hours aging at compaction temperature for binder grade Other Test 2 Compaction temp; short-term aging only (2 hours at compaction temperature)

Question 14: “Is laboratory conditioning of compacted specimens conducted on bulk (prior to cutting and coring) specimens or on finished test specimens (after cutting and coring) (select one)?” Test AK AL AR AZ CO DC FL GA IL KS MA ME MN MO MS MT NH NJ NM NV OH OK SC SD TX UT VA APA F F F Cantabro CTIndex DCT DTCF E* FBF F HWT B B IDT RLPD SCB B F SSG DTCF SSG E* SSG RLPD TxOT F Other-1 F F B Other-2 F B: Lab conditioning on bulk specimen (prior to cutting and/or coring); F: Lab conditioning on finished test specimen (after cutting and/or coring to get to final test specimen geometry)

State Transportation Agency Survey Responses 151 Question 15: “Please provide details (such as temperature and time) for the compacted specimen conditioning during fabrication process (fill in all information that is applicable).” Number of agencies indicating that compacted specimen conditioning is done as per AASHTO R 30 long-term aging protocol:

152 Practices for Fabricating Asphalt Specimens for Performance Testing in Laboratories Compacted specimen aging temperature and aging time reported for non-AASHTO R30 protocol: Test Temperature (degrees Celsius) Time (hours) Asphalt Pavement Analyzer (APA) 48.89-63.89 3 Asphalt Pavement Analyzer (APA) 64 6 Cantabro Direct Tension Cyclic Fatigue (S-VECD) Disk-Shaped Compact Tension (DCT) Dynamic (Complex) Modulus Testing Flexural Beam Fatigue 15 2 Flow Number (RLPD) Hamburg Wheel Tracking CTIndex Semi-Circular Bend (SCB) (any version) 95 72 Small-Scale Geometry Direct Tension Cyclic Fatigue (S- VECD) Small-Scale Geometry Dynamic (Complex) Modulus Small-Scale Geometry Flow Number (RLPD) Superpave Indirect Tensile Strength and Creep Texas Overlay 25 2 Other Test 1 77 degrees F water saturation with vacuum Other Test 1 Freeze/thaw warm water bath 0, 140, 55 degrees F Other Test 2 24 hours in 60°C water bath for 3 specimens per AASHTO T283 No descriptions of “other process followed” for compacted specimen conditioning were reported.

Question 16: “Is there a target air void level requirement for laboratory performance test specimens used by your agency? (Select one for each test.)” TEST AK AL AR AZ CA CO DC FL GA IL IN KS MA ME MN MO MS MT NH NJ NM NV OH OK SC SD TN TX UT VA VT APA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Cantabro N Y N N Y Y Y Y CTIndex Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y DCT Y Y Y DTCF Y Y E* Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y FBF Y Y HWT Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y IDT Y RLPD Y Y Y Y Y Y SCB Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y SSG DTCF Y SSG E* N N Y SSG RLPD N N TxOT Y Y Y Y Other-1 Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Other-2 Y Y Y Y Y: Yes; N: No

154 Practices for Fabricating Asphalt Specimens for Performance Testing in Laboratories Question 17: “Please provide information regarding the target air void level requirement during fabrication of laboratory performance test specimens used by your agency or on behalf of your agency. (If requirements are in the AASHTO/ASTM specification, please select in first column and leave rest blank. Fill in all information that applies and leave blank if no requirements are in place.)” Number of agencies responding that target air void requirements are as per AASHTO/ASTM specifications.

State Transportation Agency Survey Responses 155 Target air void level requirements not detailed in test specification or deviated from test specification: Requirements Not Detailed in Test Specification or Deviated from Test Specification: Target Air Void Required on Bulk Compacted Sample Prior to Test Specimen Fabrication (e.g., prior to cutting or coring) Requirements Not Detailed in Test Specification or Deviated from Test Specification: Target Air Void Required on Finalized Test Specimen (e.g., after all necessary cutting or coring) Target Air Void Level (%) Allowed Variation (+/- %) Target Air Void Level (%) Allowed Variation (+/- %) Asphalt Pavement Analyzer Test 6 1 5-7% SMA6-8% all other 7% 0.5 Varies based on mix 4 1 4% air void at Nodes 4 Cantabro Test 13.0+ for OGFC only 7 1 Only done on OGFC, target 20% Direct Tension Cyclic Fatigue Test (S-VECD) 7 0.5 Disk-Shaped Compact Tension (DCT) Test 7 1 Dynamic (Complex) Modulus Testing 7 0.5 7 0.5 7 0.5 7 0.5 4 0.5 Flexural Beam Fatigue Test 1.5 for waterproof bridge mix Flow Number (RLPD) Test 7 0.5 7 0.5 Hamburg Wheel Tracking Test 6 1 7 0.5 7 1 1.5 for waterproof bridge mix 7 0.5 7 1 7 0.5 7 CTIndex Test 7 1 7 0.5 7 0.5 We're looking at 4.0% +/- 0.5% or even in situ from cores after compaction. Semi-Circular Bend (SCB) Test (any version) 7 0.5 7 0.5 7 1 Small-Scale Geometry Direct Tension Cyclic Fatigue Test Small-Scale Geometry Dynamic (Complex) Modulus Test Small-Scale Geometry Flow Number (RLPD) Test Superpave Indirect Tensile Strength and Creep Test Texas Overlay Test Varies based on mix Other Test 1 5 1 Air voids are not that critical with this test. 7 1 4 1.5 7 1 Other Test 2 7 0.5 5-7% SMA6-8% all other

156 Practices for Fabricating Asphalt Specimens for Performance Testing in Laboratories Question 18: “Identify equipment that is used in your laboratory to fabricate test specimens for laboratory performance tests (check all that apply).” Test M ix S pl itt er (e .g ., qu ar te rm as te r) Su pe rp av e G yr at or y C om pa ct or O ve n( s) R ot ar y Sa w (s ) C or in g D ril l C or e D ry in g D ev ic e G lu in g Te m pl at es (e .g ., te m pl at e fo r m ar ki ng lo ca tio n of g ag e po in ts or to a tta ch g ag e po in ts) G lu in g Jig s ( e. g. ,s pe ci m en ho ld in g de vi ce s t o gl ue lo ad in g pl at en s t o te st sp ec im en ) Te m pe ra tu re C on di tio ni ng C ha m be r( s) V ac uu m B ag S ea lin g D ev ic es (s uc h as Co re Lo k) Asphalt Pavement Analyzer Test 2 7 6 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 Cantabro Test 1 6 7 0 0 2 0 0 2 3 Direct Tension Cyclic Fatigue Test (S- VECD) 1 2 2 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 Disk-Shaped Compact Tension (DCT) Test 0 2 1 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 Dynamic (Complex) Modulus Testing 2 10 9 8 7 4 5 7 8 1 Flexural Beam Fatigue Test 0 1 2 2 0 0 1 1 2 0 Flow Number (RLPD) Test 1 5 5 5 5 1 1 2 5 0 Hamburg Wheel Tracking Test 11 19 18 18 2 4 0 0 4 3 CTIndex Test 5 9 9 3 0 3 0 0 4 3 Semi-Circular Bend (SCB) Test (any version) 7 11 11 11 0 3 0 0 8 2 Small-Scale Geometry Direct Tension Cyclic Fatigue Test (S-VECD) 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 Small-Scale Geometry Dynamic (Complex) Modulus Test 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 3 1 Small-Scale Geometry Flow Number (RLPD) Test 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 1 2 0 Superpave Indirect Tensile Strength and Creep Test 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Texas Overlay Test 0 4 4 4 1 1 1 4 3 0 Other Test 1 8 9 11 5 6 4 1 2 7 3 Other Test 2 2 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 3 1

State Transportation Agency Survey Responses 157 “Other” responses and brief descriptions: Test Other(s) (briefly describe) Asphalt Pavement Analyzer Test Cantabro Test Vacuum bag required for OGFC Marshall hammer Direct Tension Cyclic Fatigue Test (S-VECD) Disk-Shaped Compact Tension (DCT) Test Dynamic (Complex) Modulus Testing Flexural Beam Fatigue Test Beam compactor Flow Number (RLPD) Test Hamburg Wheel Tracking Test Riffle splitter NOT quartermaster CTIndex Test Semi-Circular Bend (SCB) Test (any version) Riffle splitter NOT quartermaster Small-Scale Geometry Direct Tension Cyclic Fatigue Test (S-VECD) Small-Scale Geometry Dynamic (Complex) Modulus Test Small-Scale Geometry Flow Number (RLPD) Test Superpave Indirect Tensile Strength and Creep Test Texas Overlay Test Other Test 1 Hveem compactor Marshall hammer Other Test 2

158 Practices for Fabricating Asphalt Specimens for Performance Testing in Laboratories Operational Constraints and Rejection Rates of Test Specimens Question 19: “What is the allowable maximum storage time before, during, and after specimen fabrication for the performance tests that are instituted in your agency? Please use comments column to provide any additional relevant information (fill all that apply, leave blank if no requirements are in place).” Test Allowable Maximum Storage Times Before, During, and After Specimen Fabrication for the Performance Tests Between Loose Mix Sampling and Laboratory Compaction Between Preparation of Compacted (bulk) Specimen and Finalized Test Specimen Between Finalized Test Specimen Fabrication and Mechanical Testing Between Repeated Mechanical Testing (if multiple tests are conducted on same specimens) Asphalt Pavement Analyzer Test 1 1 Cantabro Test Direct Tension Cyclic Fatigue Test (S-VECD) Disk-Shaped Compact Tension (DCT) Test Dynamic (Complex) Modulus Testing 3 Flexural Beam Fatigue Test Flow Number (RLPD) Test Hamburg Wheel Tracking Test ASAP, 1 ASAP, within 24 hours if possible > 1, ASAP, 1, 3 ASAP, same day or 2 OR less CTIndex Test 1 1, 3 Semi-Circular Bend (SCB) Test (any version) ASAP, 1 ASAP, within 24 hours if possible 1, ASAP ASAP, same day or 2 OR less Small-Scale Geometry Direct Tension Cyclic Fatigue Test 14 Small-Scale Geometry Dynamic (Complex) Modulus Test 14 Small-Scale Geometry Flow Number (RLPD) Test Superpave Indirect Tensile Strength and Creep Test 3 Texas Overlay Test Other Test 1 1, ASAP, 1, 0.167 1, ASAP, within 24 hours if possible 1, ASAP, 14 ASAP, same day or 2 OR less Other Test 2

State Transportation Agency Survey Responses 159 Question 20: “How are performance test specimens prepared for storage at your agency? (Select all that apply.)” “Other” responses and brief description Between Loose Mix Sampling and Laboratory Compaction Between Preparation of Compacted (bulk) Specimen and Finalized Test Specimen Between Finalized Test Specimen Fabrication and Mechanical Testing Between Repeated Mechanical Testing (if multiple tests are conducted on same specimens) N/A NA Overnight at room temperature N/A Stored in original job- site sample box Stored moisture-free at room temperature Tested right away N.A. In a cloth bag when necessary Generally do not store specimens N/A Generally do not store specimens N/A. N.A. STOA Generally do not store specimens Typically shipped to us in paper sacks or cardboard boxes Specimens are stored indoors in an air-conditioned room and are stabilized to prevent any creep or specimen distortion. STOA = Short Term Oven Aging

160 Practices for Fabricating Asphalt Specimens for Performance Testing in Laboratories Question 21: “Please indicate the most frequent causes of operational disruptions that you have encountered during the test specimen fabrication process (check all that apply).”

State Transportation Agency Survey Responses 161 “Other” responses: Issues with the testing equipment Machine issues NA The machine itself has been the major issue for any delays we see. These situations only occur very infrequently. We’re relatively new to compacting specimens to 7.0% with our newer technicians. Equipment breakdown has been the largest issue over the last few years. None of the above Still run testing with not meeting AV for TSR. Question 22: “In your experience, what has been the rejection rate of test specimens (i.e., specimens that are not used for testing) due to the fabrication process (e.g., longer shelf storage than allowed, out-of-tolerance dimensions, wrong air void content, etc.) (Select one and fill in the blank).” Typical specimen rejection rates reported: Typical specimen rejection rate: (%) 15 15 < 10% 25 Less than 10% < 0.01% 5 < 5% < 5% Depends on the technician's experience. 10-percent rejection rate for a good technician. 0 10 less than 5% 5 to 10% 20

162 Practices for Fabricating Asphalt Specimens for Performance Testing in Laboratories Question 23: “Is your agency satisfied with your performance test specimen rejection rate? (Select one and fill in the blank.) If no, what rejection rate (%) would you consider as acceptable/satisfactory?” Responses to “If no, what rejection rate (%) would you consider as acceptable/satisfactory?”: Less than 5% 5% The majority of testing is on HWTD which the rejection rate is good. For the SCB, we have more rejections due to dimensions but this might be due to the small number of samples that we have been testing so far. Lower than 10% NA

State Transportation Agency Survey Responses 163 Identification of Other Contacts and Suggestions for Future Research Question 24: “Is your Agency currently sponsoring (or planning to sponsor) any research related to asphalt performance testing that specifically addresses the fabrication of laboratory specimens in-house in the future?” Yes (please describe) Balanced mix design research project Cracking performance testing SCB Test, IDT, IDEAL-CT Pilot projects evaluating current production mixes in New York State using Texas Overlay, APA, Flow Number, and Dynamic Modulus. Some work is being done through research contract. Some work is being done by research branch of agency. Only research that mildly fits into this category would be looking at long- term aging in the laboratory on the final HMA mixture for cracking performance tests. Currently looking at balance Mix Design research project.

164 Practices for Fabricating Asphalt Specimens for Performance Testing in Laboratories Question 25: “Have you observed any gaps in knowledge that have made it challenging for your Agency to start (or continue) successfully fabricating performance test specimens in-house?” Yes (please describe) Minor test preparation instructions Our lab staff are most experienced with fabricating slabs for testing in the Hamburg. We are currently trying to gain experience in fabricating SGC specimens, specifically to height and void content. General inexperience is making specimens and targeting air voids. Just took lots of practice on extra samples. There is not a lot of direction about allowable time frames (see the "N.A." answers from previous questions). Also when to age samples long-term or not and at what temperature(s) to age. Meeting AV target at different labs SCB tolerances were difficult to meet. Agency not performing SCB testing at this time. Saw cutting of SCB samples within tolerances is challenging. We are attempting to close the gap through Balanced Mix Design training. Our Mix Design Engineer recently completed a training course on the topic and will lead our Performance Testing Program. Our staff needs training in test procedures and need expert’s help in setting up baseline criteria for rutting and cracking tests. Our state currently lacks experience in gyratory compact since we are a Marshall state. We have a lot of newer technicians. We also are starting to get more involved with performance testing that's relatively new to our lab.

State Transportation Agency Survey Responses 165 Question 26: “The synthesis will also include case examples illustrating agency practices on asphalt performance test specimen fabrication. The development of the case example(s) may require an additional follow-up interview. Agencies will be provided the opportunity to review the case example write-up for accuracy. Would your agency be interested in participating in a case example?” Question 27: “If you have any additional information or thoughts you would like to share regarding this topic, please share them here.” Performance testing is critical in assuring a quality asphalt pavement and maximizing its useful life. Performance testing for production (QC/QA) needs to be simple and quick. Agency is just relatively new to fabrication of specimens. Hopefully get better soon when we get a performance mix test in our specifications (at least a few years out). None None Just so you are aware, the majority (greater than 90%) of our performance testing is with the HWTD. Agency has owned an APA in the past for a number of years but did not implement. We have an AMPT and can conduct Dynamic Modulus, Flow Number, and Texas Overlay testing. But we very infrequently run these tests. We have experimented with the Cantabro Test in the past but are not interested in continuing to use it. Our research contractor has run beam fatigue tests for us in the past but we have not had the need for that for several years. I know the specimens seem the same to you but the I-FIT (TP124), TP105, and the Louisiana Method are all different tests and should not be grouped together. This survey took considerably longer than 15 minutes to complete. Also, on about half of the questions, the screen "timed-out" and I had to go back and re-log into the survey. I hope these responses are helpful. Thank you I wrote up a white paper on the I-FIT/SCB and its shortcomings. Can provide if interested. Difficulty fabricating specimens for in-house SCB testing.