PHASE II REPORT - Caltrans

PHASE II REPORT 

Slurry Seal / Micro-Surface Mix Design Procedure 

Contract 65A0151 

FOR 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS) 

MATERIALS/INFRASTRUCTURE SECTION 

PREPARED BY 

FUGRO CONSULTANTS, INC. 

8613 CROSS PARK DRIVE 

AUSTIN, TEXAS 78754 

AND 

MACTEC 

CONSOLIDATED ENGINEERING LABS 

APTECH 

FUGRO PROJECT 1101-3139 

DECEMBER 2010

CALTRANS Fugro Consultants, Inc. 

Contract 65A0151 Project 1101-3139 

Phase II Report December, 2010 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.0 CHAPTER 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................... 1 

2.0 CHAPTER 2 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 4 

2.1 BACKGROUND............................................................................................................. 4 

2.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE POOLED FUND STUDY........................................................... 5 

2.3 PURPOSE OF THE PHASE II REPORT ....................................................................... 5 

2.4 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 6 

3.0 CHAPTER 3 DEVELOPMENT OF A RATIONAL MIX DESIGN FOR SLURRY SYSTEMS ..... 7 

3.1 GENERAL ..................................................................................................................... 7 

3.2 TECHNICAL APPROACH ............................................................................................. 7 

3.3 DESIRABLE FEATURES FOR A NEW MIX DESIGN METHOD.................................... 8 

3.4 SLURRY SEAL VERSUS MICROSURFACING............................................................. 9 

3.5 LABORATORY TESTS FOR INDIVIDUAL COMPONENTS ........................................ 10 

3.5.1 Aggregates........................................................................................................ 10 

3.5.2 Mineral Filler ..................................................................................................... 13 

3.5.3 Emulsified Asphalt and Asphalt Residue ........................................................... 13 

3.5.4 Control Additives............................................................................................... 14 

3.5.5 Water ................................................................................................................ 15 

3.6 LABORATORY TESTS FOR THE SLURRY MIXTURE ............................................... 15 

3.6.1 Tests for Mixing, Spreading and Setting Properties........................................... 17 

3.6.2 The European Mixing Test ................................................................................ 18 

3.6.3 The Automated Cohesion Test (ACT) ............................................................... 20 

3.6.4 The Cohesion-Abrasion Test (CAT) .................................................................. 22 

3.6.5 The Loaded Wheel Test (LWT) ......................................................................... 23 

3.6.6 Long Term Performance Tests.......................................................................... 24 

3.6.7 The Asphalt Pavement Analyzer Test (APA)..................................................... 26 

3.7 PROPOSED S3 SLURRY SYSTEMS MIX DESIGN METHOD.................................... 26 

3.7.1 Step 1: Materials Selection.............................................................................. 28 

3.7.2 Step 2: Create a Mix Matrix and Determine Mix Constructability ..................... 28 

3.7.3 Step 3: Allowable Field Adjustment ................................................................. 28 

3.7.4 Step 4: Determine the Optimum Binder Content.............................................. 29 

3.7.5 Step 5: Evaluate the Cohesion Properties at Various Curing Conditions ......... 29 

3.7.6 Step 6: Evaluate the Long Term Properties of the Mixture............................... 30 

3.7.6.1 Abrasion Resistance .................................................................... 30 

3.7.6.2 Water Resistance......................................................................... 30 

3.7.6.3 Deformation ................................................................................. 30 

4.0 CHAPTER 4 LABORATORY EVALUATION OF PROPOSED TEST METHODS ................... 31 

4.1 EXPERIMENTAL MATRIX........................................................................................... 31 

4.2 LABORATORY TEST METHODS DEVELOPMENT.................................................... 32 

4.2.1 Development of the Automated Mixing Test (AMT) ......................................... 32 

4.2.2 Development of the Automated Cohesion Test (ACT) ..................................... 53 

4.2.3 Development of the Cohesion-Abrasion Test (CAT)........................................ 58 

4.2.4 Effect of Tack Coat.......................................................................................... 66 

4.2.5 High Traffic and Rut Resistant System CAT Results ....................................... 67 

4.3 LABORATORY TEST METHODS EVALUATION ........................................................ 70 

4.3.1 Evaluation of Automated Mixing Test (AMT).................................................... 70 

4.3.2 Evaluation of Cohesion-Abrasion Test (CAT) .................................................. 72 

4.4 REVISED MIX DESIGN METHOD (VERSION 2)......................................................... 74 

5.0 CHAPTER 5 RUGGEDNESS TESTING................................................................................ 78 

5.1 PURPOSE OF THE EXPERIMENTS........................................................................... 78 

i




5.2 STATISTICAL MODEL ................................................................................................ 78 

5.3 PROPOSED EXPERIMENTAL PLAN.......................................................................... 79 

5.3.1 AMT Test .......................................................................................................... 80 

5.3.2 CAT Test........................................................................................................... 81 

5.3.3 ACT Test........................................................................................................... 82 

5.3.4 Randomization Requirements ........................................................................... 82 

5.4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................ 82 

6.0 CHAPTER 6 SLURRY SURFACING SYSTEM (3S) STRAWMAN SPECIFICATION ............. 83 

6.1 DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................ 83 

6.1.1 Asphalt Emulsion .............................................................................................. 83 

6.1.2 Aggregate ......................................................................................................... 84 

6.2 STOCKPILE AND STORAGE...................................................................................... 85 

6.2.1 Water And Additives.......................................................................................... 85 

6.2.2 Mineral Filler. .................................................................................................... 85 

6.3 PAVING MIXTURE...................................................................................................... 85 

6.4 APPLICATION RATE .................................................................................................. 87 

6.5 QUALITY ASSURANCE .............................................................................................. 87 

6.5.1 Orientation Session For Project Personnel........................................................ 87 

6.5.2 Test Strip. ......................................................................................................... 88 

6.5.3 Project Documentation...................................................................................... 88 

6.6 CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS .......................................................................... 88 

6.6.1 Weather Limitations. ......................................................................................... 88 

6.6.2 Mixing Equipment.............................................................................................. 88 

6.6.3 Proportioning Devices. ...................................................................................... 89 

6.6.4 Spreading Equipment........................................................................................ 89 

6.6.4.1 Secondary Strike-Off.................................................................... 89 

6.6.4.2 Rut Box........................................................................................ 89 

6.6.5 Machine Calibration. ......................................................................................... 90 

6.6.6 Workmanship.................................................................................................... 90 

6.6.7 Surface Preparation. ......................................................................................... 90 

6.6.8 Tack Coat. ........................................................................................................ 91 

6.6.9 Cracks. ............................................................................................................. 91 

6.6.9.1 Handwork..................................................................................... 91 

6.6.9.2 Application. .................................................................................. 91 

6.6.9.3 Clean Up...................................................................................... 91 

6.7 METHOD OF MEASUREMENT................................................................................... 92 

6.7.1 Area.................................................................................................................. 92 

6.8 BASIS OF PAYMENT.................................................................................................. 92 

7.0 CHAPTER 7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.................................................................... 93 

7.1 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. 93 

7.2 CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................... 94 

APPENDIX A PROPOSED TEST METHOD FOR THE AUTOMATED MIXING TEST (AMT)............ 95 

APPENDIX B PROPOSED TEST METHOD FOR THE COHESION-ABRASION TEST (CAT).........111 

APPENDIX C RESULTS OF RUGGEDNESS AMT TESTING..........................................................120 

APPENDIX D RESULTS OF cat RUGGEDNESS TESTING.............................................................125 

APPENDIX E LAB RESULTS FOR AGGREGATES and EMULSIONS USED IN EXPERIMENTAL 

MIXES .........................................................................................................................145 

APPENDIX F UPDATED WORK PLAN FOR PHASE III...................................................................241 

ii




LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 3.1: Schematic of Typical Mix Design Process........................................................................... 8 

Figure 3.2: European Mixing Test...................................................................................................... 19 

Figure 3.3: European Mixing Test Schematic..................................................................................... 19 

Figure 3.4: European Mixing Test Cohesion Parameters Versus Time .............................................. 20 

Figure 3.5: Modified TB-139 Cohesion Parameters Versus Time....................................................... 21 

Figure 3.6: Schematic of the Initial Automatic Cohesion Test Method................................................ 22 

Figure 3.7: Modified French Wet Track Abrasion Test ....................................................................... 23 

Figure 3.8: Proposed Curing/Conditioning System ............................................................................ 24 

Figure 3.9: Proposed S3 Mix Design Procedure ................................................................................ 27 

Figure 4.1: Large and Small Anchor Stirrers ...................................................................................... 39 

Figure 4.2: Standard Propeller Stirrer ................................................................................................ 40 

Figure 4.3: Standard Paddle Stirrer ................................................................................................... 41 

Figure 4.4: Standard Turbine Stirrer .................................................................................................. 41 

Figure 4.5: Stainless Steel Bowls....................................................................................................... 42 

Figure 4.6: AMT Configuration of Standard Propeller and Small Stainless Steel Bowl....................... 44 

Figure 4.7: Screen Shot of AMT Using Small Stainless Steel Bowl and Standard Propeller 

Configuration at 50 rpm for M2.......................................................................................... 44 

Figure 4.8: Mix M4 with Large Anchor Stirrer and Large Stainless Steel Bowl ................................... 47 

Figure 4.9: AMT Standard Propeller and Small Stainless Steel Bowl Close Up ................................. 47 

Figure 4.10: Mix M4 Trace with Standard Propeller and Small Stainless Steel Bowl at 50 rpm.......... 48 

Figure 4.11: AMT All Ingredients Combined in the Mixing Bowl ......................................................... 49 

Figure 4.12: AMT Pre-Mixed Ingredients in the Mixing Bowl.............................................................. 49 

Figure 4.13: AMT Trace for Mix M4, Soupy (S)/LV System................................................................ 51 

Figure 4.14: AMT Trace for Mix M1, Stiff (St) System........................................................................ 52 

Figure 4.15: AMT Trace for Mix M2, Moderate (MV) System ............................................................. 52 

Figure 4.16: Automated Cohesion Test – Under Development .......................................................... 54 

Figure 4.17: Cohesion Testing Results from Temple Systems – Granite Mix..................................... 54 

Figure 4.18: Cohesion Testing Results from Temple Systems – Limestone Mix ................................ 55 

Figure 4.19: Testing Results from MACTEC ...................................................................................... 55 

Figure 4.20: Correlation of Test Results from ACT (Automated Torque) and the Conventional Wet 

Cohesion Tester (Manual Torque)..................................................................................... 56 

Figure 4.21: Correction of Test Results from ACT.............................................................................. 57 

Figure 4.22: Cohesion Abrasion Test Apparatus (CAT) ..................................................................... 59 

Figure 4.23: Effect of Support Base Type on Wet Loss Method, Mix M2............................................ 61 

Figure 4.24: Effect of Support Base Type on Dry Loss Method, Mix M2 ............................................ 62 

Figure 4.25: Comparison of Losses as Determined by Wet and Dry Loss Methods ........................... 63 

Figure 4.26: Effect of Water Level on Cure M2 Mixes (Dry Loss Method).......................................... 64 

Figure 4.27: Effect of Water Level on Cure M2 (Wet Loss Method) ................................................... 65 

Figure 4.28: CAT Hand Roller............................................................................................................ 65 

Figure 4.29: Effect of Compaction on M2 Mixes (Wet Loss Method).................................................. 66 

Figure 4.30: Effect of Tack Coat ........................................................................................................ 67 

Figure 4.31: Losses with Microsurfacing Systems ............................................................................. 68 

Figure 4.32: Comparison of Different Systems Using CAT................................................................. 69 

Figure 4.33: Revised Mix Design Method .......................................................................................... 77 

Figure 5.1a: Linear Statistical Model................................................................................................... 79 

Figure 5.1b: Non Linear Statistical Model ........................................................................................... 79 

iii




LIST OF TABLES 

Table 3.1: Comparison of ISSA and S3 Aggregate Requirements .................................................... 11 

Table 3.2: Summary of Laboratory Tests for Aggregates.................................................................. 12 

Table 3.3: Emulsified Asphalt and Asphalt Residue Requirements for S3 Systems .......................... 13 

Table 3.4: Potential Laboratory Tests for Asphalt Residue of S3 Systems........................................ 14 

Table 3.5: Tests for Mixing, Spreading, and Setting Properties of S3 Systems................................. 17 

Table 3.6: Candidate Long Term Performance Tests........................................................................ 25 

Table 3.7: Long Term Performance Tests included in S3 Specifications........................................... 26 

Table 4.1: Experimental Matrix ......................................................................................................... 31 

Table 4.2.1: TB-113 Results for Mix M1 (A1+E1).............................................................................. 32 





Table 4.3: Combinations of Stirrers and Containers for mix M2 ........................................................ 45 

Table 4.4: Mix M4 Stirrers and Mixing Containers Combinations and Results .................................. 46 

Table 4.5: Preliminary Evaluation of Consistency and Mixing Torque ............................................... 53 

Table 4.6: Results of Calibration Tests on 220 Grit Sand Paper ....................................................... 57 

Table 4.7: Test Specimen Bases and Assessment Methods for Mix M2 ........................................... 61 

Table 4.8: CAT Results for Mix M2a and M2b................................................................................... 64 

Table 4.9: Wet Loss Method Results ................................................................................................ 68 

Table 4.10: TB-100 Test Results ...................................................................................................... 69 

Table 5.1: Plackett-Burman Design for the Six Condition Variables.................................................. 81 

Table 5.2: Three Replications of a Half Replication of a 2-Cubed Factorial....................................... 82 

Table 6.1: Asphalt Emulsion Requirements ...................................................................................... 83 

Table 6.2: Aggregate Quality Requirements ..................................................................................... 84 

Table 6.3: Aggregate Grades............................................................................................................ 84 

Table 6.4: Slurry Surfacing Mix Design Requirements...................................................................... 86 

Table 6.5: Allowable Field Adjustment .............................................................................................. 87 

Table 6.6: Application Rates............................................................................................................. 87 

iv

1.0 CHAPTER 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This report summarizes the work conducted by Fugro Consultants, Inc., Applied Pavement 

Technologies, MACTEC Engineering and Consultants and CEL laboratories for a study entitled 

“Slurry Seal/Micro–Surface Mix Design Procedure”. This study was initiated in response to a 

request for proposals (RFP) issued by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in 

the fall of 2002 to conduct a fourteen state pooled fund study. The objective of the study was to 

develop a rational mix design method for Slurry Seal and Microsurfacing. 

Historically, design procedures for these mixtures have been based on empirical procedures 

that have little or no relationship to field performance. The current procedures are the result of 

extensive work done by Mr. Ben Benedict in the 1960’s and 1970’s with materials readily 

available to him in Southwestern Ohio and this work resulted in the mix design procedures 

contained in the International Slurry Surfacing Association (ISSA) Technical Bulletins, 

Performance Guidelines A-105 and A-143 and ASTM International Practices D-3910 and D- 

6372. 

After proposal review and contractual matters were concluded, a kick-off meeting took place in 

July of 2003. The project was designed to have three phases: Phase I consisting of a 

Literature review of current practices worldwide and a survey of industry and agencies using 

these systems; Phase II consisting of an evaluation of existing and potential new test methods, 

the development of a rational design procedure, and ruggedness evaluation of any new test 

methods developed; Phase III was intended to develop guidelines and specifications, a training 

program, and the construction of pilot projects to validate the recommended design procedures 

and guidelines. 

Phase I of the project was completed in March 2004 and a report was submitted to Caltrans 

documenting the literature review and survey information along with a work plan for Phase II. 

Approval to commence work on Phase II was granted in June 2004. 

The premise for the Phase II work was to measure mixing, spreading, and curing characteristics 

for either existing test methods or ones developed during the study. Each of the existing 

methods used to measure these characteristics were determined to be highly dependent on 

operator (technician) training and competency. For this reason the team agreed that, where 

possible, the test methods should be automated to reduce operator bias. 

1

For the Phase II work, the research team selected two commonly used aggregates and two 

emulsified asphalts as “Standards” upon which to characterize the mixes using the current ISSA 

design procedures. Using the information from the literature search and industry survey, the 

project team selected a German automated mixing procedure to replace ISSA TB-113 and the 

French Wet Track Abrasion test to replace ISSA TB-100. The team developed a prototype 

schematic for an automated cohesion test and then working with an equipment vendor, Temple 

Systems Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio, jointly developed a “first article device which was used in 

the study. The materials used for the current ISSA Procedures were then evaluated using the 

three automated devices. 

Chapters 2 and 3 of this report discuss the proposed Slurry Systems Mix Design Method and 

the operating characteristics of the three test methods evaluated. It should be noted that 

several existing ISSA test procedures, TB-109 and TB-113, will continue to be used in the 

recommended mix design. Ruggedness evaluation for the automated mixing test (AMT) and 

the cohesion-abrasion test (CAT) are noted in Chapter 5. Chapter 6 contains a “Strawman” 

specification for slurry surfacing systems. The researchers agreed that the same tests should 

be conducted on the systems regardless if they were to be subjected to early traffic. The test 

parameters are modified to accommodate both types of conditions, and as a result the 

specification is named Slurry Surfacing Systems (SSS or 3S) 

The appendices contain the proposed laboratory test methods for the AMT and CAT, results for 

ruggedness tests on two mixes using the AMT and CAT, and all the laboratory test results 

completed during the study. 

The project was delayed several times during the course of the work because of personnel 

changes and testing and equipment issues. Fugro requested and was granted a one year nocost 

extension to the project which was originally scheduled to end in December 2007. Fugro 

requested another extension in October 2008, which was denied by the Contracts unit of 

Caltrans. This cancellation resulted in approximately $75,000 of unspent contract funds and 

several areas of work not completed. 

We were not able to complete the ruggedness testing on three of the five ‘standard’ mixes, the 

ruggedness testing of the automated cohesion tests (ACT), the proposed test method for the 

ACT, nor any of the Phase III work including validation of the new test methods and the 

construction or test sections. 

2

For purposes of those who may wish to complete the study, Appendix F contains the updated 

work plan for Phase III and the details regarding the construction of pilot projects. 

The results of the research conducted in this study indicate that the automated test procedures 

appear to be less variable than the current test methods and should be further analyzed for 

acceptance by the industry. In addition, performing the tests under several temperature and 

humidity conditions better approximates the conditions that will be encountered in the field when 

constructing these systems. Unfortunately, as noted above we were not able to verify and 

validate the design procedure in the field. It is highly recommended that field sections be 

constructed in order to accomplish this validation. 

3

2.0 CHAPTER 2 INTRODUCTION 

2.1 BACKGROUND 

Slurry seals were developed and used for the first time in Germany in the late 1920’s. (1) At that 

time, the product consisted of a mixture of very fine aggregates, asphalt binder, and water, and 

was mixed by introducing the components into a tank outfitted with an agitator. It proved to be a 

novel approach, a new and promising technique for maintaining road surfaces, and marked the 

beginning of slurry seal development. However, it was not until the 1960’s, with the introduction 

of improved emulsifiers and continuous flow machines, that real interest was shown in the use 

of slurry seal as a maintenance treatment for a wide variety of applications: from residential 

driveways to public roads, highways, airport runways, parking lots, and a multitude of other 

paved surfaces. (2) 

Micro-surfacing was pioneered also in Germany in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. (1) 

European scientists were looking for a way to use conventional slurry in thicker applications that 

could be applied in narrow courses to fill wheel ruts, and not destroy the expensive road striping 

lines on the autobahns. Micro-surfacing was the result of combining highly selected aggregates 

and bitumen, and then incorporating special polymers and emulsifiers that allowed the product 

to remain stable even when applied in multi-stone thicknesses. Micro-surfacing was introduced 

in the United States in 1980 as a cost-effective way to treat the surface wheel-rutting problem 

and a variety of other road surface problems. (1) 

Despite the widespread use of slurry seals and micro-surfacing in the recent years, current tests 

and design methods are primarily empirical and are not related to field performance. The 

current International Slurry Seal Association (ISSA) procedures for Slurry Seal Mix Design A- 

105 and Micro-surfacing A-143 and the corresponding American Society for Testing and 

Materials (ASTM) Standards D-3910 and D-6372 have their origin in the 1980’s before the 

widespread use of micro-surfacing and the use of polymer modified emulsions in slurry seals. (3-6) 

Recognizing the need for more rational design methods for slurry seal and micro-surfacing, the 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) enlisted the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans) to form a pooled fund study with the overall objective of developing a rational mix 

design method for slurry seal and microsurfacing. The improved mix design procedures, 

guidelines, and specifications will address the performance needs of the owners and users, the 

design and application needs of the suppliers, and improve the reproducibility of the test 

methods used for the mix designs. While differences exist between slurry seal and micro- 

4

surfacing applications (i.e., traffic volume, application thickness, and curing mechanisms), the 

similarities of the tests currently used indicate that the two systems must be studied together. 

The States that contributed to the pooled fund study are: California, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, 

Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, 

Texas, and Vermont. 

2.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE POOLED FUND STUDY 

The overall goal of the pooled fund study is to improve the performance of slurry seal and microsurfacing 

systems through the development of a rational mix design procedure, guidelines, and 

specifications. 

Phase I of the project had two major components; the first consisted of a literature review and a 

survey of industry and agencies using slurry and micro-surfacing systems; the second part of 

Phase I dealt with the development of a detailed work plan for Phases II and III. The Phase I 

effort is complete and all findings were summarized in the Phase I Report. 

In Phase II, the project team evaluated existing and potential new test methods, proposed a 

rational mix design procedure, conducted ruggedness tests on recommended equipment and 

procedures, and prepared the subject report that summarizes all the activities undertaken in 

Phase II. 

In Phase III, the project team will develop guidelines and specifications, a training program, and 

provide expertise and oversight in the construction of pilot projects intended to validate the 

recommended design procedures and guidelines. 

2.3 PURPOSE OF THE PHASE II REPORT 

The purpose of this report is to summarize the findings and recommendations of the Phase II 

effort. The report provides the following: 

1.0 The development of a preliminary mix design procedure. 

2.0 The evaluation of new and improved tests for understanding the short term and long 

term properties of slurry systems. 

5

3.0 Findings from the ruggedness testing program. 

4.0 The development and evaluation of field test methods for evaluating the quality of 

slurry systems. 

5.0 Updated plan for Phase III. 

2.4 REFERENCES 

1. International Slurry Surfacing Association, Web Page: www.slurry.org. 

2. Benedict, R.C., New Trends in Slurry Seal Design Methods, Proceedings of the 

23rd Annual Convention of the International Slurry Seal Association, Orlando, FL, 

February 3-7, 1985. 

3. ISSA Technical Bulletin A-105 (Revised) February 2010, recommended 

Performance Guidelines for Emulsified Asphalt Slurry Seal, International Slurry 

Surfacing Association, Annapolis, MD, Web Page: www.slurry.org. 

4. ISSA Technical Bulletin A-143 (Revised) February 2010, Recommended 

Performance Guidelines for Micro-Surfacing, International Slurry Surfacing 

Association, Annapolis, MD, Web Page: www.slurry.org. 

5. ASTM Designation D-3910, Standard Practice for Design, Testing, and 

Construction of Slurry Seal, ASTM Book of Standards 1998, American Society for 

Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA. 

6. ASTM Designation D-6372, Standard Practice for Design, Testing, and 

Construction of Micro-Surfacing, ASTM Book of Standards 1999, American 

Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA. 

7. TTI 1289-1, The Evaluation of Micro-Surfacing Mixture Design Procedures and 

Effects of Material Variation on the Test Responses, Research Report, Texas 

Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, Revised 

April 1995. 

6

3.0 CHAPTER 3 DEVELOPMENT OF A RATIONAL MIX 

DESIGN FOR SLURRY SYSTEMS 

3.1 GENERAL 

This chapter presents the work plan to develop an improved mix design procedure based on 

performance and constructability parameters. The framework for the mix design procedure is 

first presented, followed by a discussion of the proposed tests to be evaluated and discussion of 

the plan for evaluating the ruggedness of the tests. 

Please note that this Chapter does not exactly follow the Phase II outline contained in the 

original proposal. Upon commencement of the actual work, the project team considered the 

proposal outline to be in need of modification. As a result of the literature review and the 

surveys, the project team concurred that it was necessary to cover the essential elements in a 

logical fashion. For example, the proposal work plan identified a separate item for evaluating 

constructability parameters. However, instead of treating all matters related to construction in 

one place, the different aspects of construction are discussed in various sections of the report 

as they relate to that section. 

3.2 TECHNICAL APPROACH 

The ultimate purpose of a mix design procedure is to recommend the right “combination” of 

emulsion, aggregate, water, and additives to produce a mix that will perform under specific 

short-term and long-term conditions. For example, a different mix design may be needed when 

a quick set slurry mix is placed under high temperature-low humidity conditions versus a slow 

setting mix placed in low-temperature high-humidity conditions. Estimated future traffic and 

environmental conditions should also influence the choice of a certain mix design. 

However, rather than specifying the materials to be used and proportions of these in the mix, a 

mix design procedure specifies laboratory tests for the mix components and for the mix itself. 

When the results of the laboratory tests meet certain criteria, the mix design is accepted. 

Therefore, the designer goes through an iterative process, adjusting materials and quantities 

until the desired mix properties are obtained. The process is schematically illustrated in the 

flowchart presented in Figure 3.1. 

7

START 

Test Mix 

Components 

Accept 

Mat’ls 

YES 

Prepare 

Trial Mix 

Test Mix 

Accept 

Mix 

YES 

END 

NO 

NO 

8 

Change 

Materials 

Revise 

Mix Design 

Figure 3.1: Schematic of Typical Mix Design Process 

3.3 DESIRABLE FEATURES FOR A NEW MIX DESIGN METHOD 

The current ISSA and ASTM procedures for the design of slurry seal and micro surfacing have 

their origins in the 1980's, before the wide-spread use of micro-surfacing and the use of polymer 

modified emulsions in slurry seals. As mentioned in the Phase I Report, the current 

recommended laboratory test methods have, in general, poor repeatability, limited ability to 

relate to field performance and do not characterize the material over the range of temperature 

and humidity conditions that may occur in the field. It is well known that humidity and 

temperature may dramatically influence the short term and long term performance of slurry seal 

or microsurfacing. Therefore, an effort was made by the research team to improve the current 

test methods or propose new test methods to address these issues. Ideally, the proposed test 

methods should be: 

• Repeatable 

• Relate to field performance

• Cover the range of temperature/humidity conditions that may occur during placement 

and long term performance in the field 

Overall, the following desirable characteristics of the mix should be covered in the mix design: 

• Mixable: The emulsified asphalt, aggregate, mineral filler, water, and control 

additives can be mixed, coated and applied through the machine in a continuous 

fashion 

• Workable: The applied mixture sets to a rain-safe condition quickly without 

segregation, raveling, displacement, or flushing. In addition, the mix cures within a 

reasonably defined time period to allow return of traffic 

• Performance: The mixture maintains good friction resistance, does not ravel, debond, 

bleed, exhibit moisture damage, or lose cohesiveness over the life of the 

treatment 

Other features taken into account in evaluating new and existing test methods for the proposed 

mix design included: 

• Ease of use 

• Cost (as much as possible simple equipment and or adaptations of existing methods) 

• Ease of implementation by users 

3.4 SLURRY SEAL VERSUS MICROSURFACING 

The research team discussed the possibility of having separate mix design procedures for slurry 

seal and microsurfacing. The differences between slurry seal and microsurfacing can be 

defined in terms of both chemical and performance characteristics. For the purposes of mix 

design, however, differences in the chemistry of the system are not relevant. In terms of field 

performance, the degree to which each system meets the performance requirements for traffic 

and environment (or fails to meet them) is the main differentiator. In terms of constructability, 

issues are similar for both slurry and microsurfacing (e.g., mixing, placing, finishing). 

The mix design must attempt to quantify performance requirements and allow the selection of 

slurry or micro-surfacing systems to meet these requirements. This will not only allow for the 

development of appropriate specifications for a specific application to achieve the desired 

performance, but also should promote innovation with material suppliers to enhance or extend 

material performance. 

9

For all the above considerations, the project team decided to use a single mix design procedure 

for both slurry seal and microsurfacing. Further, the term “slurry surfacing systems” was 

adopted and will be used to refer to both slurry seal and microsurfacing in the new mix design 

procedure. The proposed specification was named “S3” from Slurry Surfacing Systems. 

3.5 LABORATORY TESTS FOR INDIVIDUAL COMPONENTS 

As illustrated in Figure 2.1, in the initial phases of the mix design, the components of the mix are 

tested individually to ensure that each component has the desired quality and properties. The 

basic materials making up a slurry system are: 

• Aggregate 

• Mineral Filler 

• Emulsified Asphalt 

• Control Additives 

• Water 

The selection of materials, the first step of the mix design process, is an optimization process. 

Mixing is a function of the individual material properties and their compatibility with one another. 

Therefore, the performance characteristics of the mix during and after construction are affected 

by the individual material properties which are discussed in more detail in the following 

paragraphs. 

3.5.1 Aggregates 

The aggregate test methods used for slurry seal and micro-surfacing appear to be functional 

and were adopted with minimal changes for the new design procedure. Table 3.1 summarizes 

the requirements of the proposed S3 specification in comparison with the existing ISSA 

specification guidelines for slurry seal and microsurfacing. 

10

Table 3.1: Comparison of ISSA and S3 Aggregate Requirements 

Item Test/Requirement Method 

Aggregate 

Type I 

Type II 

Type III 

11 

ISSA Slurry 

Seal 

ISSA 

Microsurfacing 

Sand Equivalent T176/D2419 45 minimum 65 minimum 

Soundness T104/C88 

15% (Na2SO4) OR 

25% (MgSO4) 

Maximum 

15% (Na2SO4) OR 

25% (MgSO4) 

Maximum 

S3 

65 min for 

all traffic 

applications 

20% (MgSO4) 

Maximum 

Abrasion resistance T96/C131 35% maximum 30% maximum 

30% max for 

high traffic 

applications 

35% max for low 

traffic 

applications 

Percent Crushed N/A 100% 100% 100% 

Micro-Deval T327 N/A N/A Report 

Percent Passing 3/8 (9.5 mm) 100 100 100 

Percent Passing #4 (4.75 mm) 70 - 90 70 - 90 70 - 90 

Percent Passing #8 (2.36 mm) 



T27/C136 and 

T11/C117 

45 - 70 

28 - 50 

19 - 34 

45 - 70 

28 - 50 

19 - 34 

45 - 70 

28 - 50 

19 - 34 


Percent Passing #100 (0.150 mm) 7 - 18 7 - 18 


5 - 15 5 - 15 5 - 15 

Percent Passing 3/8 (9.5 mm) 100 100 100 





T27/C136 and 

T11/C117 

65 - 90 

45 - 70 

30 - 50 

65 - 90 

45 - 70 

30 - 50 

65 - 90 

40 - 70 

25 - 50 


Percent Passing #100 (0.150 mm) 10 - 21 10 - 21 


5 - 15 5 - 15 5 - 15 

Percent Passing 3/8 (9.5 mm) 100 - 100 

Percent Passing #4 (4.75 mm) 100 - 100 




T27/C136 and 

T11/C117 

90 - 100 

65 - 90 

40 - 65 

- 

- 

- 

90 - 100 

65 - 90 

40 - 65 

Percent Passing #50 (0.330 mm) 25 - 42 - 25 - 42 

Percent Passing #100 (0.150 mm) 15 - 30 - 


10 - 20 - 10 - 20 

Note: “C” or D references an ASTM International 

“CT” References a Caltrans Test Method 

“T” References an AASHTO Test Method 

For lower traffic applications, the abrasion loss values are less stringent. 

Type A, B, and C Slurrys are generally used as follows: 

Type I – parking lots, urban streets, and runways 

Type II – urban streets and runways 

Type III – primary and interstate routes 

Type I is the finest gradation and type II is the coarsest.

Type II and III microsurfacings are generally used as follows: 

Type II urban streets, runways, scratch and leveling courses 

Type III primary and interstate routes, wheel ruts, scratch and leveling courses. 

Type II is finer than Type III. 

The proposed specification requires a sand equivalent minimum of 65, a maximum of 20% 

magnesium sulfate soundness and allows for a maximum 30% abrasion loss for higher traffic 

applications. 

The recommended gradations are similar to the ones specified by the ISSA with minor changes 

to the percent passing the No. 4, 16 and 30 sieves for Type II aggregates. This was done to 

produce a denser grading and smoother gradation curve. In addition, the requirement for the 

No. 100 sieve was removed from aggregate Types I, II, and III. 

Two other tests were considered for the characterization of the aggregates in the new mix 

design method: the Methylene Blue test and the Micro-Deval test. Table 3.2 summarizes the 

existing and proposed tests for the evaluation of aggregates to be used in slurry systems. 

Table 3.2: Summary of Laboratory Tests for Aggregates 

Test Name Test Method Comment 

Sieve Analysis 

LA Abrasion 

Sulfate Soundness 

Sand Equivalent 

Durability 

AASHTO T27 

ASTM C136 

CAL 202 

AASHTO T96 

ASTM C131 

CAL 211 

AASHTO T104 

ASTM C88 

CAL 214 

AASHTO T176 

ASTM D2419 

CAL 217 

AASHTO T210 

ASTM D3744 

CAL 229 

Methylene-Blue ISSA TB-145 

Micro-Deval 

ASTM D6928 

The team considered adding requirements on fines grading 

less than 0.075 mm and further evaluating the aggregate 

size proportions. 

12 

Aggregate hardness quality 

Aggregate freeze-thaw resistance 

Aggregate fine particle quality 

Hardness quality of aggregates in a wet condition 

Indicator of both clay content and reactivity 

Abrasion resistance 

The Methylene-Blue value, standardized against the fraction passing the No. 200 sieve, has 

been shown by some to be a good indicator of aggregate acceptability. The effect of filler types 

and the percentage addition can be monitored in this way. The evaluation of the Methylene- 

Blue test was carried out as part of the study. The project team agreed there was enough 

literature to include it in the laboratory tests and the S3 specification. The limited nature of the

aggregates used meant that reactivity was essentially fixed at a range. A further study to 

correlate this with field performance would be necessary with a much wider range of 

aggregates. 

In addition, a more detailed evaluation for the Micro-Deval test methods for aggregate 

characterization was carried out. The test is included in the proposed S3 specification as 

Report Only. This was thought to be useful as wear factors in the aggregate are an important 

failure mechanism. 

3.5.2 Mineral Filler 

Mineral Filler Specifications 

No changes in the current specifications were considered necessary; the mineral fillers should 

meet the requirements of AASHTO M-17 (ASTM D-242) for mineral filler and AASHTO M-85 

(ASTM C-150) for Portland cement. Any reactivity or performance issues are addressed in 

other parts of the test regime for the mix itself. 

3.5.3 Emulsified Asphalt and Asphalt Residue 

In contrast with the ISSA guidelines, the proposed specification requires more elaborate testing 

requirements for emulsified asphalt and the asphalt residue, as illustrated in Table 3.3. 

Table 3.3: Emulsified Asphalt and Asphalt Residue Requirements for S3 Systems 

Item Test/Requirement Method 

Emulsified 

asphalt 

Emulsion 

residue 

Emulsion type M208/D2397 

Residue after 

distillation 

Viscosity, Saybolt 

Furol @ 77 F (25°C) 

Storage stability, one 

day 

T59/D244 

13 

ISSA 

Slurry 

Seal 

60% 

minimum 

ISSA 

Microsurfacing 

CSS-1h, quick traffic, 

polymer modified 

S3 

CSS-1h, quick traffic, 

polymer modified 

62% minimum 60% minimum 

T59/D244 20 – 100sec 

T59/D245 1% maximum 

Particle charge T59/D246 Positive 

Sieve test T59/D247 0.1% maximum 

Penetration 

@70°F (25°C) 

Softening point T53/D36 

Ductility 

@70°F (25°C) 

Solubility in 

trichlorethylene 

T49/C2397 40 - 90 40 - 90 55 - 90 

T51 

Note: “C” and “D” refer to ASTM International test methods. 

135°F (57°C) 

minimum 

135°F (57°C) 

minimum 

27.5 in (700 mm) 

minimum 

T44 97.5% minimum

“M” Refers to an ASSHTO Standard Method. 

“T” Refers to an AASHTO Test Method 

The amount of asphalt in the emulsion is obtained by one of the residue recovery tests. The 

recovery can be done by distillation, evaporation or forced air evaporation. Ideally, a method of 

residue recovery that does not destroy polymer characteristics is desired. 

Table 3.4 summarizes other tests methods that could be used for asphalt residue 

characterization. However, since it was beyond the scope of this project, it was not possible to 

evaluate these methods in more detail. 

Table 3.4: Potential Laboratory Tests for Asphalt Residue of S3 Systems 

Test Name Test Method Comment 

Penetration 

Ring & Ball 

Softening Point 

Dynamic Shear 

Rheometer (DSR) 

Bending Beam 

Rheometer (BBR) 

Direct Tension 

Test 

Pressure Aging 

Vessel 

AASHTO T49 

ASTM D5 

AASHTO T53 

ASTM D36 

14 

Standard & low temperature parameters; 

Performed at 59°F (15°C) and 77°F (25°C) 

Index of residue flow 

AASHTO TP5 Stiffness parameters, G* and sin(delta) 

AASHTO TP1 Low temperature stiffness 

AASHTO TP3 Low temperature stiffness 

AASHTO PP1 Aging characteristics of binder/residue 

Testing of residual binders is limited by the ability to recover materials characteristics of the infield 

materials. This is because all the binders in use have polymer modification and the binder 

morphology is changed by the extraction procedures. This has been an ongoing issue in 

emulsion specification and is still under study. Base binders used in the emulsion and overall 

mechanical properties of the microsurfacing mixes should be determined as part of the emulsion 

selection. 

3.5.4 Control Additives 

The control additives used in S3 mixes are proprietary systems and the designer can only 

control the proportion of additive in the mix. No tests or requirements are specified at this time 

for control additives. This does not preclude the designers from using a range of additives 

based on an understanding of the chemistry of the system.

3.5.5 Water 

The water used in the design and construction of S3 mixes should be potable. No changes 

from the current specifications are considered necessary. 

3.6 LABORATORY TESTS FOR THE SLURRY MIXTURE 

Laboratory tests, ideally, relate to known performance criteria. For the design of S3 mixes, the 

following issues are of special interest: 

1. Will the materials mix? 

This addresses the issues of constructability, i.e. compatibility, coating, and adhesion: 

Compatibility: The chemical and physical properties of the emulsified asphalt and the 

aggregate influence the ability of the emulsified asphalt to bond to the aggregate and 

create a long-lasting slurry system. A test for “compatibility” is described in ISSA TB-115 

Determination of Slurry Seal Compatibility. 

Coating and Adhesion: Coating and adhesion can be evaluated using ISSA TB-114: 

Wet Stripping Test for Cured Slurry Seal Systems. 

2. Will the mixture spread? 

This covers the issues of rheology, consistency, viscosity, and break of the mixture: 

Consistency: The ability of the mix to maintain consistency; in other words the elements 

of the mix (emulsified asphalt, aggregate, mineral filler, water, and additives) do not 

separate but maintain the same proportions throughout the mix. Consistency is 

measured using ISSA TB-106: Measurement of Slurry Seal Consistency. Consistency is 

important because the lack of it will cause the mix to segregate during mixing and 

spreading which will lead to the application of a non-uniform, poor quality material. 

Break: The moment in time when, following mixing, the slurry system transitions from a 

fluid state to a solid state. After break, the mix can no longer be spread or finished. The 

time available for mixing and spreading can be measured using ISSA TB-113: Mix Time. 

15

Viscosity: A property of the mix that can be measured while the slurry system is in a 

liquid state. Viscosity changes with time during mixing and spreading. When viscosity 

reaches a certain maximum, the mix is too stiff to be workable. The time at which this 

limit viscosity is reached can be used as an estimate of the available “spreading time” for 

the slurry system. Mixing is also a function of viscosity and a “mixing time” can be 

estimated based on the increase in viscosity with time. Note that viscosity can only be 

measured as long as the mix is still in a fluid state. 

3. Will the mixture set? 

This addresses the issue of time to cure to achieve a strength that will allow traffic flow 

without surface damage. Cohesion is an indirect measure of the stiffness of the mix. 

Unlike viscosity however, cohesion can be measured when the mix is in a solid state. 

Cohesion also changes with time immediately after placement. Measuring this change 

in cohesion with time allows the designer to estimate the amount of time needed for the 

mix to cure before allowing traffic loading on the project. 

4. Will the mixture last? 

The long-term properties of slurry surfacing systems are dependent on their mechanical 

properties and the ability to maintain these properties over time and under service 

conditions. In this respect, slurry systems are similar to other thin aggregate/binder 

mixtures such as thin and ultra-thin hot mix overlays. When the material is placed in 

thicker layers up to 4 inches (100 mm), permanent deformation performance (rutting) 

becomes important and should be evaluated in the design process. The main properties 

of interest for long-term performance include: 

• Abrasion resistance (raveling) 

• Water resistance (stripping) 

• Deformation resistance 

• Crack resistance 

16

3.6.1 Tests for Mixing, Spreading and Setting Properties 

Table 3.5 summarizes existing and proposed tests to characterize the slurry surfacing material 

in the mixing and spreading stages. 

Table 3.5: Tests for Mixing, Spreading, and Setting Properties of S3 Systems 

Combined 

Materials/Mix 

Property 

Mixing Time ISSA TB-113 

Current/New Methods Measured Property 

Mix-ability Tests European Cohesion Test 

Workability Tests 

European Cohesion Test 

New: Torque Viscosity 

Consistency ISSA TB-106 

Spreadability Test New: Torque Viscosity 

Curing Time 

Traffic-ability Test 

ISSA TB-139 

HILT Bend Test 

French Test 

European Cohesion Test 

Oven-cured specimens 

New 

New 

Additive Effectiveness Above test methods 

Available fluid mixing time of all components; Varying 

temperatures: 50°F (10°C), 77°F (25°C), 122°F (50°C) 

Initial slope of mixing torque versus time curve; mixability 

index 

Slope of mixing torque versus time curve after initial 

mixing; Relates to construction parameters; Increase flow 

resistance; Varying temperatures: 

50°F (10°C), 77°F (25°C), 122°F (50°C) 

Ability of fluid material to flow properly in an un-augured 

application box; Consistency of mixture in the spreader 

box stage; Motorized cohesion test or simple cup flow 

test; Varying temperatures: 

50°F (10°C), 77°F (25°C), 122°F (50°C) 

Slope of torque curve vs. time defined as exiting from 

mixing box (shear modulus) 

Identification of curing time for earliest traffic ability; 

Varying temperatures: 

50°F (10°C), 77°F (25°C), 122°F (50°C) 

Identify internal cohesion at traffic time; Varying 


Identify the build up in cohesion over time; Varying 


Relate cure time test by comparison of oven-cured 

specimens 

Compaction test to determine how long it will take for mix 

to reach final in-place voids 

Permeability of specimens for determining compaction 

ability 

Determining the effects of different additives and varying 

quantities; Varying temperatures 

50°F (10°C), 77°F (25°C), 122°F (50°C) 

Of the many tests listed in Table 3.5, the project team saw a great potential in the European 

Mixing Test. Also, it became apparent that ISSA TB-139 could be automated/computer 

controlled to minimize operator-induced variability. The two tests are described in more detail in 

the following paragraphs. 

17

3.6.2 The European Mixing Test 

Based on the test evaluation criteria presented in Section 3.2 of the report (Technical 

Approach), ISSA TB-113 was proposed for use as a basis to determine the mixing time. The 

test can be used as a very good indicator of compatibility of the mix components as well as to 

estimate the available mixing time for the slurry system. However, the test is highly variable, 

largely because: 

• stirring (mixing) is carried out by hand and will vary to one operator to another 

• the assessment of the viscosity of the mix is also subjective and will be different from 

one test operator to another 

As an alternative, a more rational, automated test procedure was needed. The project team 

considered the European mixing test, which was later called the Automated Mixing Test or AMT. 

In this test, the slurry system components are mixed in a cup similar to the one used in TB-113. 

However, mixing is carried out with an automated motor. The device measures changes in 

viscosity (torque) with time, during the mixing process, and is shown in Figure 3.2. In Figure 

3.3, a schematic of the device and its components are shown. 

The test can be used to determine a mixability parameter (cohesion limit where coating occurs 

to >95 percent) and a workability parameter (a cohesion value where the mix will still flow). 

These can be defined by observing the consistency and be quantified by the cohesion value 

and shape of the mixing curve. An example of this curve is provided in Figure 3.4. These 

parameters could be measured over a range of shear values, temperatures, and other 

parameters. 

The mixing test uses a torque transducer to measure stiffness of a mix and it is similar to TB- 

106. However, the test method is computerized and standardized and has been under 

development in Europe for a decade. 

18

Microvisc Device 

(Torque) 

Agitator 

Beaker Holder 

Figure 3.2: European Mixing Test 

European Mixing Test 

Torque Device 

Remote 

Rotation Speed 

Agitator 

Figure 3.3: European Mixing Test Schematic 

The intent of the automated test procedure is to remove operator variability and be easy to run 

at the same time. 

19 

Schematic 

Computer Curve 

Features: 

• Agitator with electronic torque measurement 

and constant speed. 

• Computer Measurement 

• Computer Software 

• Temperature Regulation

Mix Torque kg-cm 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

European Mix Test 

Mix 

Spread 

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 

Time of Mixing (Seconds) 

Figure 3.4: European Mixing Test Cohesion Parameters Versus Time 

The test data would be evaluated by observing the mix parameters noted above as compared to 

results from TB-113. In addition, the coating of the aggregate would be evaluated visually as is 

currently done. This test would determine the preliminary range of mix proportions. 

Starting from the European mixing test, the team purchased the equipment and carried out 

series of tests to optimize the test for use in slurry seal design. The development and 

evaluation of this test method is discussed in detail in Chapter 4. 

3.6.3 The Automated Cohesion Test (ACT) 

The next step in the mix design process is to determine the traffic time. This is a constructability 

parameter, or a measure of the cohesion the mix must reach in order to accept traffic. This 

level should be the same for any traffic type, but it may require different times at other 

application conditions (e.g., temperature, time of day, anticipated rainfall). 

The cohesion measurement is thus very important to ensure the mix will perform under traffic. 

This property will be based on TB-139 to determine the mix and set traffic cohesion as well as a 

24-hour cohesion. This may be measured under a range of conditions of humidity, temperature, 

and ambient light to determine the suitability of mixtures for specific application conditions. 

20

Figure 3.5 is a schematic indicating the intended output from the test. The test determines the 

minimum requirement for cohesion based on TB-139 and acceptable mixtures at standard 

conditions. It also determines the cohesion requirements at a nominal traffic time of 60 minutes. 

The 24-hour cohesion can be based on project specific cure conditions. A fully cured value may 

also be established using oven-cured samples. The test provides three specification points for 

cohesion: mixing, spreading, and traffic. Figure 3.6 is a schematic drawing of the equipment. 

As mentioned earlier in this report, the test method is subject to operator variability. To reduce 

this unwanted effect, the project team developed an automated cohesion tester. Further details 

are given in Chapter 4. 

Cohesion Parameter 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Cohesion Build Up Modified TB- 

139 

Traffic Cohesion 

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660 720 

Time (Min) 

Figure 3.5: Modified TB-139 Cohesion Parameters Versus Time 

21 

Overnight Cure

Clamping Pressure 200Kpa 

Interface of foot with sample—this is 

rubber. Part of the process will use 

different surface types on the foot to 

improve grip and reproducibility. 

Motorized gear shifts shaft through 90º. Allows precise 

application of twisting torque to measure resistance to shear 

force. 

Torque measurement taken at base close to interface. This 

will prevent bending in the shaft to influence results. 

Electronic torque (strain gauge) measurement will transmit 

to PC for display. 

22 

PC will display spread sheet to include torque 

time graph and calculation of peak torque. 

PC 

Figure 3.6: Schematic of the Initial Automatic Cohesion Test Method 

The Hilt test was also considered for measuring cohesion, but was rejected for the mix design 

due to reported repeatability issues. 

3.6.4 The Cohesion-Abrasion Test (CAT) 

Another test that was investigated in more detail by the team is a modified version of the Wet 

Track Abrasion Test (WTAT), ISSA TB-100. Although not listed in Table 3.5, the modified 

WTAT can be used on test samples similar to those for the wet cohesion test to evaluate the 

increase in strength of a slurry system in the period after placement and before opening to 

traffic. The CAT test is the modification to the WTAT. They are two separate tests and we are 

recommending the CAT. He named it CAT since it is significantly different from the WTAT. 

As shown in Figure 3.7, the modification consists in the use of a set of wheels instead of the 

standard abrasion head. Abrasion loss and short-term stone retention may be measured in this 

test. The test may be performed under different cure conditions to determine the effect of early 

water intrusion due to rain. Development of this test method is described in detail in Chapter 4. 

Results from this test can be used to establish a limit for stone retention with respect to cure at 

time and conditions. Samples should be cured under the following three laboratory conditions: 

• Laboratory “standard” conditions 77°F (25°C), 50 percent relative humidity). 

• Oven at 140°F (60°C).

• Humidity and temperature bath 50°F (10°C), 90 percent relative humidity; 104°F 

(40°C), 90 percent relative humidity). 

Figure 3.8 shows a simple conditioning system for humidity/night-time curing of samples that 

has been used in an actual field project. The space at the bottom may contain water with ice for 

low temperature-high humidity, or hot water for higher humidity. A cooler or heater and a 

thermostat control the water temperature. 

3.6.5 The Loaded Wheel Test (LWT) 

The LWT may be used to establish the upper limit of bitumen content by determining the 

amount of sand adhesion in accordance with TB-109. Determining the upper bitumen limit is 

important to prevent bleeding of mixes in service and this test should be modified to include 

different conditions. The test will be used as is, but conditioning of samples will be carried out at 

59°F (15°C), 77°F (25°C), and 95°F (35°C) to allow for the effects of high shear or high 

temperature. Deformation in early life is evaluated using cohesion testing. 

Figure 3.7: CAT Test 

23

Samples 

Holes 0.8 inches (~0.20 mm Diameter) 

Air Gap 4-6 inches (100-150 mm) 

Figure 3.8: Proposed Curing/Conditioning System 

3.6.6 Long Term Performance Tests 

Air Gap 0.75 – 1.25 inches (20 -30 mm) 

Water / Ice 0.75 – 1.25 inches (20 -30 mm) 

The long-term properties of S3 mixes are dependent on their mechanical properties and their 

ability to maintain these properties over time and under service conditions. This makes them no 

different from any other thin aggregate/binder mixtures such as thin and ultra-thin hot mix 

overlays. For high traffic or rut filling applications, when the material is placed in thicker layers 

up to 4 inches (100 mm), performance becomes important and must be evaluated in the design 

process. Table 3.6 provides a list of candidate tests that were identified in the original proposal. 

24 

Thermometer 

Sieve or Tray

Table 3.6: Candidate Long Term Performance Tests 

Combined Materials Current/New Methods Defined Property 

Initial Target Residual 

Asphalt Content 

Coatability ASTM D-244 Coating characteristics 

25 

Film thickness determinations based on surface area and sieve 

analysis 

Wet Stripping 

ISSA TB-114 

ASTM D-3625 

Boiling water adhesion 

Durability/Aging/Stripping 

ISSA TB-114 

ASTM D-3625 

Testing compacted mix samples after PAV curing; Stripping test by 

boiling of aged and un-aged specimens 

Stripping Resistance AASHTO T-283 Moisture sensitivity of compacted specimens 

Wet Track Abrasion 

ISSA TB-100 

Modified with French Wheel 

Method 

Minimum asphalt requirements under wet abrasive conditions; One 

hour soak; Varying soaking conditions of time and temperature 

Abrasion Test for cured 

specimens 

ISSA TB-100 

Modified with 

French Wheel Method 

Effect of wear on pavement surface over the life. Aging indication 

on PAV-based or oven-based specimens 

Water Sensitivity 

under wheel load 

Modified Hamburg Test 

Deformation resistance and water resistance utilizing various 

testing conditions on the Hamburg test equipment 

Water Sensitivity Test ISSA TB-100 

Minimum asphalt requirement under wet abrasion conditions; Six 

day soak; Varying soaking conditions of time and temperature 

Voids determination before Optimize asphalt content based on volumetrics; Determine voids- 

Volumetric Criteria and after compaction in-place requirements which would give a mechanical set of 

New method properties at allowable residual binder levels 

Permeability NCAT procedure Determine voids permeability at varying asphalt contents 

Excess Asphalt ISSA TB-109 

Bruge Bending Test- 

Maximum asphalt content requirement by measurement of hot 

sand 

Crack Resistance 

Fatigue Testing 

Modified 

Reflection Cracking JIG 

Fatigue Thin Slice 

Cracking resistance using fatigue testing or flexural testing 

Fuel Resistance ASTM D Fuel resistance determinations; Varying residual asphalt contents 

Determining optimum asphalt content which would give acceptable 

Pick up Modified Hamburg Test pick up per Hamburg test at varying laboratory environmental 

conditions 

Modulus Loss Indirect Tensile Test Modulus test on briquette using an Indirect Tensile test 

Lateral Displacement ISSA TB-147 Measurement of lateral deformation under Loaded Wheel Tester 

Deformation Resistance 

ISSA TB-147 

Hamburg/Creep/Modulus 

Deformation of multi-layered system 

The main properties of interest for long-term performance include: 

• Abrasion resistance (raveling) 

• Water resistance (stripping) 

• Deformation resistance (rutting) 

The test methods that are recommended for inclusion in this study are included in Table 3.7. 

The project team considers that the criteria in Section 3.3 is met by these tests. A summary of 

the long term performance tests are as follows:

• Abrasion: CAT. This test may be conducted on fully (oven cured) samples under 

water and with various conditioning methods including soaking at different 

temperatures and times, and different curing cycles. 

• Water Resistance: The CAT will be carried out for extended times on fully cured 

samples under elevated temperature under water. This will be expressed as a ratio 

of 1-hour soak to 6-day soak and a limit set for acceptable mixes of retained 

abrasion resistance. 

• Deformation Resistance: The existing TB-109, Loaded Wheel Test, will be used to 

evaluate deformation characteristics. 

Table 3.7: Long Term Performance Tests included in S3 Specifications 

Long Term Performance Tests Test Method Defined Property 

Abrasion Resistance CAT 

Water Resistance CAT 

Permanent Deformation ISSA TB-109 

3.6.7 The Asphalt Pavement Analyzer Test (APA) 

26 

Raveling 

Resistance to moisture damage 

Deformation characteristics 

Due to budget limitations, the APA test was not evaluated in this study. However, the team 

recommends that future research be conducted regarding the use of the APA as an alternative 

to the Loaded Wheel Tests (LWT) to evaluate the permanent deformation properties of slurry 

systems used for rut-filling applications. 

3.7 PROPOSED S3 SLURRY SYSTEMS MIX DESIGN METHOD 

The proposed mix design procedure is shown in Figure 3.9. The design procedure addresses 

the shortcomings of the existing procedures by examining mix properties that relate to field 

performance issues. The steps in the proposed mix design procedure are described below.

Figure 3.9: Proposed S3 Mix Design Procedure 

27

3.7.1 Step 1: Materials Selection 

To begin the mix design, the current ISSA recommendations will be used. Step 1 is subdivided 

into the following steps, in the order given: 

• Selection of aggregate: The first step is to choose the aggregate grading based on 

the existing ISSA specifications. In addition, the selected aggregate must meet the 

minimum requirements for mechanical and chemical properties in the specifications 

prepared as a result of this study. 

• Selection of the emulsion and binder: This will be largely a matter of the climatic 

conditions where it will be applied, and available supply. These parameters are 

included in the project’s specifications. 

• Selection of a locally available potable water source. 

• Selection of a mineral filler, Portland cement, or hydrated lime, which meets the 

specification requirements. 

• Selection of a liquid retardant such as Aluminum Sulfate when necessary. 

• Include a set control additive at the addition rate recommended by the emulsion 

supplier if necessary. 

3.7.2 Step 2: Create a Mix Matrix and Determine Mix Constructability 

After the materials have been selected, it will be necessary to determine the proportions of 

aggregate, water, emulsion, and additives to create a mix matrix. This step will involve the use 

of the AMT test to determine the mix and spread indices. With the results of the AMT, the 

conditions at which the materials can be mixed safely and placed in a timely fashion can be 

determined. These tests will be performed at standard laboratory conditions and repeated for 

selected mixes for a range of anticipated application conditions. 

This process should be repeated with different filler types (if necessary) to optimize the mixture 

for constructability and performance criteria. This will lead to a recommended filler type and 

additives levels to be used. 

3.7.3 Step 3: Allowable Field Adjustment 

This step consists of taking the acceptable mixes and conducting cohesion testing using the 

ACT. The cohesion test is performed at 60 minutes and after 24-hours of cure. This testing 

would be repeated for specified application conditions of the project. If the results do not meet 

the standards, then the mixes and materials would be modified as required. In all cases, it is 

28

important to ensure that the mix time and spreadability are acceptable. Spreadability is a 

measure of the ability of the mix to be placed and finished on the pavement surface. 

After the proportions have been selected, the ACT test should be performed and repeated for 

anticipated curing conditions to evaluate the short-term abrasion properties. 

The mix proportions can then be modified if necessary and a check performed to confirm that 

the cohesion at 60 minutes provides an acceptable traffic time and the cohesion at the 24-hour 

cure period is also acceptable. 

The results of step 3 are used to establish a target optimum for the next step in the design, and 

to evaluate the short-term abrasion properties of the selected mix. 

3.7.4 Step 4: Determine the Optimum Binder Content 

This involves preparing selected samples for the specific application conditions and varying the 

emulsion content ±2% from the target optimum. The additive and filler proportions will remain 

as determined from the targets developed in step 3. 

Under this step the WTAT will be performed at 1-hour and 6-day soak periods followed by tests 

using the LWT to determine the excess asphalt at the temperature that corresponds to the 

proposed traffic conditions, i.e., heavy at 95°F (35°C), moderate at 77°F (25°C), and low at 59°F 

(15°C). 

The recommended optimum binder content will be selected by evaluating the abrasion loss in 

the WTAT test and the binder content versus sand adhesion from the Loaded Wheel Tester 

(LWT). 

NOTE: The specification minimums established by this study will be used for abrasion loss and 

the maximum for sand pick up from the LWT. 

3.7.5 Step 5: Evaluate the Cohesion Properties at Various Curing Conditions 

The selected curing conditions should be representative of the project’s estimated humidity and 

temperature conditions at the time of construction. CAT test is then performed at 30 minutes, 1 

hour, and 3 hours. 

29

3.7.6 Step 6: Evaluate the Long Term Properties of the Mixture 

This step consists of evaluating the following: 

• Abrasion: Using the CAT 

• Water Resistance: Using the CAT 

• Deformation (rut-filling mixes only): TB-109 

Finally, any necessary adjustments and recheck of the mixing indices (spreadability, traffic, and 

24 hour cohesion) will be made. 

After selecting the best mix from the short-term test methods noted above, the mix will be tested 

for the following long-term performance properties: 

• Abrasion resistance 

• Water resistance 

• Deformation 

3.7.6.1 Abrasion Resistance 

This property will be measured using the CAT test using fully cured specimens, soaked for 6 

days, under project specific environmental conditions. 

3.7.6.2 Water Resistance 

The CAT abrasion test will be run on the final mix design after being soaked for 6 days at a 

temperature of 77°F (25°C) and comparing the loss to that of a 1-hour soak and express this as 

a ratio. This information will be compared to the results of an existing mixture in order to 

determine the appropriate specification limits. The test will then be checked with a mix of known 

standard properties using other materials with which the team and advisory group have 

experience. 

3.7.6.3 Deformation 

This property will be measured using TB-109 “Excess Asphalt by LWT Sand Adhesion”. 

30

4.0 CHAPTER 4 LABORATORY EVALUATION OF 

PROPOSED TEST METHODS 

4.1 EXPERIMENTAL MATRIX 

Two aggregates and two asphalt emulsions were initially used in the laboratory test program. 

Four slurry systems (mixes) were created using all possible combinations of aggregate and 

emulsion: 

Aggregates: 

A1 George Reed, Inc. Table Mountain, Sonora, CA (ISSA Type III) 

A2 Lopke Gravel Products, Lounsberry Pit, Nichols, NY Products (ISSA Type III) 

Emulsions: 

E1 Sem Materials (Koch), Tulsa, OK, Ralumac 

E2 VSS Emultech, Polymer Modified LMCQS-1h, W. Sacramento, CA 

A third aggregate and emulsion were acquired during the third quarter of 2006. The aggregate 

(A3) is a Sandstone from Delta Materials in Marble Falls, TX, and the emulsion is from Ergon 

Asphalt and Emulsions, Inc., (E3) from their Waco, TX, plant. The aggregate and emulsion 

were used to design the “unknown” mix, denoted M5: 

Aggregate: 

Emulsion: 

A3 Delta Materials, Marble Falls, TX 

E3 Ergon Asphalt & Materials, Waco, TX 

The experimental mixes and combinations are noted in Table 4.1. 

Table 4.1: Experimental Matrix 

System Aggregate + Emulsion Combination 

M1 A1+E1 

M2 A1+E2 

M3 A2+E1 

M4 A2+E2 

M5 A3+E3 

31

4.2 LABORATORY TEST METHODS DEVELOPMENT 

4.2.1 Development of the Automated Mixing Test (AMT) 

In the development and verification of the AMT, the decision was made to begin with the 

existing trial mix procedure included in ISSA TB-113. This would provide the basis for 

comparing the results of an accepted and widely used procedure to the new process. In 

addition to TB-113, a consistency description is included in the new test method. 

Mixing Test (TB-113) 

The mixing test, TB-113, was run on the five systems noted above and a matrix of aggregate 

and emulsion proportions were determined based on past experience with these mix types. 

Results for the mixes M1 through M5 using the current TB-113 procedure with the inclusion of 

the consistency description are contained in the following tables. Additional data for these 

mixes is contained in Appendix E. 

Table 4.2.1: TB-113 Results for Mix M1 (A1+E1) 

Parts by dry weight of aggregate, g 

Formulation agg, g cement water additive* emulsion 

Based on the data contained in Table 4.2.1, the mixture components selected for the AMT for 

Mix M1 are as follows: 

• 100 grams of Aggregate 

32 

Mix time, 

sec 

Blot 

Test, 30 

sec 

Coating 

Visual/boiling 

Consistency 

Description 

1 100 1.0 9.0 0.50 13.0 >120 CW 100/98 St 

2 100 1.0 8.0 0.50 14.0 >120 CW 100/98 LV 

3 100 1.0 8.0 0.50 15.0 >120 CW 100/98 S 

4 100 1.5 8.0 0.50 14.0 >120 CW 100/98 LV 

5 100 1.5 8.0 0.50 14.0 >120 CW 100/98 MV 

6 100 1.0 8.0 0.50 14.0 >120 CW 100/98 MV 

7 100 1.0 8.0 0.50 13.0 >120 CW 100/98 LV 

8 100 1.0 8.0 0.25 14.0 >120 CW 100/98 LV 

9 100 1.5 8.0 0.25 14.0 >180 CW 100/98 LV 

* 5% emulsifier solution 

Consistency Blot Test 

S = Soupy (Brown free liquid, segregating sample) A = Aggregate and clear water 

LV = Low Viscosity (Non segregating easy to mix) BT= Brown transfer 

MV = Moderate Viscosity (Non segregating, moderate resistance to mix) CW= clear water 

St = Stiff (Hard to mix but workable) 

B = Broken (Lumps, non consistent)

• 1 gram of cement 

• 8 grams of water (Based on the weight of dry aggregate) 

• 14 grams of emulsion 

• 0.5 grams of additive 

The resulting mix had the following characteristics: 

• Mix displays a narrow range of consistencies 

• At lower mix viscosities, the consistency is soupy with a tendency for the aggregate 

to segregate and the emulsion to darken in color 

• Proceeded to clear water very quickly 

In addition to the “base mixture” noted above for M1, components were varied to produce 

additional mixtures with the following consistencies for further testing: 

• Soupy 

• Low Viscosity 

• Medium Viscosity 

• Stiff 

The purpose of testing different consistencies is simply to select the best target mixture for 

further evaluation. 

33





Mix M2 were as follows: 

• 100 grams of aggregate 

• 1.5 grams of cement 





• Very stable and displayed a wide range of compositions 

• Very quick set 

• Proceeded to clear water and exhibited cohesive form 


mixtures with the following consistencies for further testing: 

• Soupy 

34 

Mix time, 

sec 

Blot 

Test, 30 

sec 

Coating 


Consistency 

Description 

1 100 0.0 8.0 0.00 11.0 >180 BT 100/95 foam ,LV 

2 100 1.0 8.0 0.00 12.0 >180 CW 100/98 MV 

3 100 1.5 8.0 0.00 12.0 >180 CW 100/98 MV 

4 100 1.5 8.0 0.25 12.0 >180 CW 100/98 MV 

5 100 1.5 8.0 0.25 13.0 >180 CW 100/98 MV 

6 100 1.5 8.0 0.25 14.0 >180 CW 100/98 MV 

7 100 1.5 8.0 0.50 12.0 >180 CW 100/98 MV 

8 100 1.5 8.0 0.50 13.0 >180 CW 100/98 MV 

9 100 1.5 8.0 0.50 14.0 >180 CW 100/98 MV 

10 100 2.0 9.0 0.00 14.0 >180 CW 100/98 MV 

11 100 2.0 8.0 0.50 14.0 >180 CW 100/98 MV 

12 100 2.0 9.0 0.50 15.0 >180 CW 100/98 LV 










• Stiff 








• 10 grams of Water (Based on the weight of dry aggregate) 




• Mix displays a narrow range of consistencies 

• At higher viscosities, the mix is moderate to stiff with a tendency for the mix to have 

a slower break reaction 

• Proceeded to aggregate and clear water for blot evaluations 

35 

Mix time, 

sec 

Blot 

Test, 30 

sec 

Coating 


Consistency 

Description 

1 100.0 1.0 9.0 0.50 13.0 60 - - B 

2 100.0 1.0 9.0 0.25 12.0 90 - - B 

3 100.0 1.0 10.0 0.25 13.0 120 - - B 

4 100.0 1.0 10.0 0.25 14.0 >120 A 90/85 LV 

5 100.0 1.0 10.0 0.50 16.0 >120 A 90/85 MV 

6 100.0 1.0 9.0 0.50 14.0 >120 - 90/85 St 

7 100.0 1.0 9.0 0.50 14.0 100 - 95/85 B 










• Soupy 



• Stiff 












• Very stable and displayed a wide range of compositions. 

• Very quick set. 

36 

Mix time, 

sec 

Blot 

Test, 30 

sec 

Coating 


Consistency 

Description 

1 100 0.0 8.0 0.00 10.5 10 - - B 

2 100 1.0 8.0 0.25 12.0 70 - - B 

3 100 1.0 9.0 0.25 13.0 >180 A 98/95 S 

4 100 1.0 9.0 0.25 14.0 >180 A 98/95 S 

5 100 1.0 9.0 0.50 16.0 >180 CW 95/85 MV 

6 100 1.5 9.0 0.50 14.0 100 - - B 

7 100 1.0 10.0 0.50 14.0 >180 CW 95/85 S 

8 100 0.5 10.0 0.50 15.0 >180 CW 95/85 MV 

9 100 0.5 12.0 0.50 15.0 >180 CW 85/75 LV 

10 100 0.5 15.0 0.75 15.0 >180 CW 75/70 S 

* Aluminum Sulfate 







• Proceeded to clear water and exhibited cohesive form. 

• With this emulsion, A2 was not easy to mix and showed poor coating and poor 

rheology, it also indicated some potential for moisture damage. 



• Soupy 



• Stiff 





the Mix M5 are as follows: 


• 0.5 gram of cement 



• 0 grams of additive 

37 

Mix time, 

sec 

Blot Test, 

30 sec 

Coating 


Consistency 

Description 

1 100 0.0 10.0 0.0 14.0 >120 A 100 LV 

2 100 0.0 10.0 0.0 12.0 >120 A 100 LV-MV 

3 100 0.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 >120 CW 100 MV 

4 100 0.0 8.0 0.0 10.0 >120 CW 100/100 MV 

5 100 0.5 10.0 0.0 14.0 >120 A 100 LV-MV 

6 100 0.5 10.0 0.0 12.0 >120 CW 100 MV 

7 100 0.5 8.0 0.0 10.0 >120 CW 100/100 MV-St 

* Aluminum Sulfate 








• Very stable and displayed a wide range of compositions 

• Proceeded to clear water and exhibited a very cohesive form 

Automated Mixing Test (AMT) 

As described in Chapter 3, the automated mixing test is used to measure the increase in 

viscosity with time, by means of a computer-controlled stirrer. From the observed time- 

viscosity plot, two values of interest are identified: the mix and spreadability indices. The 

measured mixing times from TB-113 were used as the first cut for initial mixing. Mixing to 

coating is the mix index and the spreadability is the time for stiffening just prior to setting (see 

Figure 3.4). 

The cohesion values that are reported are the mix and spread indices. Mix components, using 

different levels of additives and fillers to establish a range of values for control purposes, were 

evaluated. 

This test was repeated for four levels of environmental conditions: 

• High temperature 95°F (35°C) low humidity (

• Stirrer speed 

• Mix consistency and type 

Initial analysis was based on the observation of mixing of the material compared to observations 

in TB-113 such as, problems with aggregate particles catching in the gap between the bowl and 

the stirrer, consistency of the mixture and the produced trace. In other words, how the mixtures 

behaved in the AMT compared to known behavior from the TB-113. 

During the beginning phases of the evaluation of the AMT, it was important that the proper 

configurations of the stirring apparatus (blade and shaft) be determined since several are 

available. The following types were evaluated: 

Stirrer type: 

The following stirrers were tested in combination with bowl size and type. 

• Small Anchor 1.8 inches, (45 mm) diameter 

o Vendor-IKA Works, Wilmington, NC 

o Catalog/Code Number-R1330 #2022300 

• Large Anchor 3.5 inches, (90 mm) diameter) 

o Vendor-Velp Scientifica 

o Catalog/Code Number-A00001311 

These stirrers are noted in Figure 4.1. 

Figure 4.1: Large and Small Anchor Stirrers 

39

Features: Produces a tangential flow with high shearing at the outer parts. The produced flow 

limits the deposition of solids on the sides of vessel. 

Uses: Homogenization at low to medium speed of high solids in liquids of mean to high 

viscosity. 

• Standard Propeller 

o Vendor - Velp Scientifica 


This stirrer is noted in Figure 4.2. 

Features: Standard stirring shaft produces an axial flow in the vessel from bottom to top with 

local shearing. 

Uses: Stirring at medium to high speed of high solids, flocculation, mixing of thickening 

agents, sludges, etc. 

• Paddle Stirrer 

o Vendor - Velp Scientifica. 



Figure 4.2: Standard Propeller Stirrer 

40

Features: Produces a tangential flow with a limited turbulence and a gentle mixing. 

Uses: Stirring at low to medium speed when a good heat exchange among the mixed 

products is required. 

• Turbine 

o Vendor - Velp Scientifica. 



Figure 4.3: Standard Paddle Stirrer 

Features: Produces a radial flow with a movement of products from top and from bottom with a 

strong turbulence and shearing. 

Uses: Use at medium to high speed for dissolving products or breaking particles. 

Figure 4.4: Standard Turbine Stirrer 

41

Mixing Containers type and size: 

a. Beakers 

• 1 Liter Glass with flat base 

• 1 Liter Plastic with concave base 

b. Stainless Steel Bowls 

• 7.9 inches, (200 mm) diameter by 6.9 inches, (17.50 mm) high Large stainless steel 

Hobart Bowl from N50 mixer 

• 2.75 inches, (70 mm) diameter by 3.9 inches, (100 mm) high Large stainless steel 

with round bottom 

• 1.5 Quarts SS Bowl, #1044 supplied by Norpro, Everett, WA 

• 2.75 inches (70 mm) tall with a 1.96 inches, (50 mm) radius and round bottom Small 

stainless steel Bowl, # 99637 supplied by Vollrath. 

These bowls are noted in Figure 4.5. 

Other 

Figure 4.5: Stainless Steel Bowls 

Other containers were evaluated including pitcher type and flat- bottomed pans. These quickly 

were abandoned, as they were not acceptable because their particular shape did not allow the 

material to achieve a homogeneous state while mixing. It was noted that containers with semirounded 

bottom edges allowed the material to “fold” better. 

42

Procedure for Combination of Components: 

The components were combined in various ways in an attempt to obtain an optimum system. 

The methodology in the AMT is to determine the amount of each of component materials using 

TB-113, placing them in the mixing bowl, and using the AMT to pre-blend them. 

Stirrer Speed: 

Stirrer speeds were varied to create mixing that did not seclude material on the sides of the 

bowl. TB-113 consistency criteria were used to make this determination. 

A series of speeds were varied to arrive at the most effective to combine the ingredients without 

“splashing” them out of the bowls. The speeds were 50, 60, 200, 500, and 1000 revolutions per 

minute (rpm). The mixing speed recommended for the proposed test method was 50 rpm. 

Mix Consistency and Type: 

Mixes that were classified as Moderate Viscosity (MV), Stiff (St), and Low Viscosity (LV) were 

tested to evaluate mixing torque and combinations of consistencies to ascertain if the mixing 

torque range could be used as a rheological classification. The results indicated clearly that the 

mixing torque was dependant on the rate of cohesion build up and presumably the reaction rate 

between the aggregate and the emulsion type. That is, microsurfacing systems and slurry quick 

set systems could be differentiated by mixing torque and its change with time. 

AMT Results 

A) Preliminary Container/Stirrer/Speed Combination: 

A single mix, mix M2, was selected to determine the best container/stirrer combination as it was 

determined to be the most stable mix from TB-113. In addition, M2 exhibited good consistency 

(MV) and an acceptable mixing time between 3 to 5 minutes. The stirrer type was matched with 

the container size to provide some separation between the sides of the stirrer and the walls of 

the container. The purpose of this was to accommodate the largest stone in the mix. This was 

checked and assessed by observing the mix and its consistency. The mix speed was varied 

and the mix characteristics were noted. The selection of the container, stirrer, and speed was 

based on the results that are contained in Table 4.3. The proposed AMT configuration is shown 

in Figure 4.6. The results showed that the best combination for the AMT setup is as follows: 

• Small stainless steel bowl 

• Standard propeller stirrer 

43

• 50 rpm mixing speed 

This configuration generated a mix that was complete with little to no hang up material on the 

sides of the cup rated as “Good Mixing” (GM). An even mixing trace for the configuration is 

shown in Figure 4.7. The sudden spikes in the graph are due to aggregate caught in the gap 

between the bowl and the stirrer. The torque is noted on the vertical axis and time in the 

horizontal axis. In this case, an increase in torque from 8kg-cm to 10kg-cm was observed. 

Figure 4.6: AMT Configuration of Standard Propeller and Small Stainless Steel Bowl. 

Figure 4.7: Screen Shot of AMT Using Small Stainless Steel Bowl and Standard Propeller 

Configuration at 50 rpm for M2 

44 

Aggregate caught on 

side of the bowl

Table 4.3: Combinations of Stirrers and Containers for mix M2 

Stirrer Cup Type Speed rpm Mixing Result 

Small Anchor 400ml Beaker Glass 50 Poor Mixing (PM) 



Small Anchor 400ml Beaker Glass 500 Broken 

Small Anchor 400ml Beaker Glass 1000 Broken 

Large Anchor 1 L Glass 50 Adequate Mixing (AM) 



Large Anchor 1 L Glass 500 Broken 

Large Anchor 1 L Glass 1000 Broken 

Large Anchor 1 L Plastic 50 Poor Mixing (PM) 



Large Anchor 1 L Plastic 500 Broken 

Large Anchor 1 L Plastic 1000 Broken 

Large Anchor Hobart Bowl 50 Poor Mixing (PM) 



Large Anchor Hobart Bowl 500 Adequate Mixing (AM) 

Large Anchor Hobart Bowl 1000 Broken 

Large Anchor Large SS Bowl 50 Good Mixing (GM) 

Large Anchor Large SS Bowl 60 Good Mixing (GM) 

Large Anchor Large SS Bowl 200 Adequate Mixing (AM) 



Large Anchor Other 50 Poor Mixing (PM) 



Large Anchor Other 500 Broken 


Standard Propeller Small SS Bowl 50 Good Mixing (GM) 



Standard Propeller Small SS Bowl 500 Broken 

Standard Propeller Small SS Bowl 1000 Broken 

Paddle Large SS Bowl 50 Poor Mixing (PM) 

Paddle Large SS Bowl 60 Poor Mixing (PM) 

Paddle Large SS Bowl 200 Poor Mixing (PM)PM 

Paddle Large SS Bowl 500 Broken 

Paddle Large SS Bowl 1000 Broken 

Turbine Small SS Bowl 50 Poor Mixing (PM) 



Turbine Small SS Bowl 500 Broken 

Turbine Small SS Bowl 1000 Broken 






45

The shape of the traces for different configurations of mix container and stirrer did vary. In 

addition, for some configurations, differences in torque were observed. Some configurations 

produced poor mixing and hang up on the sides of the mixing containers. As a result, the mix 

tends to break and the mixer had less material to turn. The endpoint of the mixing was 

characterized by a decrease in torque (torque fall off) due to the mixer effectively turning in the 

liquid left after the mixture broke. These tests were rejected and classified as poor mixing. The 

best results were obtained with the combination of the small stainless steel bowl and the 

standard propeller. Part of this testing was repeated with mix M4 and the results were 

consistent with the previous findings and are noted in Table 4.4. An interesting observation was 

that the mixes that contained the emulsion E2, continued to mix in excess of 10 minutes but 

broke as soon as the mixer was turned off. This is a phenomenon often observed in the field 

and is a function of the film formation process created by aggregate/emulsifier interaction. The 

mechanical action appears to prevent coalescence by disrupting film formation; when the mixer 

was turned off, coalescence proceeded swiftly, and the cohesion increased as a result. In CQS 

type systems, the films form during agitation and cohesion build up is more gradual. As this is a 

function of interaction of two materials it depends on both. As it is a function of reactivity, it is 

also dependent on the conditions of temperature and as water will interfere with coalescence 

and film formation, it is dependant on humidity and total water content. 

The two configurations that produced best mixing results were: the standard propeller with the 

small stainless steel bowl, and the large anchor stirrer with the large stainless steel bowl. 

Table 4.4: Mix M4 Stirrers and Mixing Containers Combinations and Results 

Stirrer Cup Type Speed rpm Mixing Result 





The characteristic mixing trace of the large stainless steel bowl and large anchor configuration is 

shown in Figure 4.8. This trace indicates that the system did not mix well, and as the material 

broke, the segregation was of liquid to the center of the bowl. This trace was not indicative of 

mix M4 actual behavior. 

46

Figure 4.8: Mix M4 with Large Anchor Stirrer and Large Stainless Steel Bowl 

For the standard propeller and small stainless steel bowl configuration, and using a stirrer speed 

of 50 rpm, the mixing was improved. A close-up of the standard propeller and small stainless 

steel bowl is shown in Figure 4.9. A homogeneous state was achieved for the mix. An increase 

in torque with time was also the result of the configuration and is shown in Figure 4.10. 

Figure 4.9: AMT Standard Propeller and Small Stainless Steel Bowl Close Up 

47

Figure 4.10: Mix M4 Trace with Standard Propeller and Small Stainless Steel Bowl at 50 

rpm 

B) Effect of Mixing Procedure: 

The first mixing procedure attempted was combining the dry aggregate, cement, additives, and 

water in the mixing bowl. The emulsion was added last. At this point, the AMT was started. 

This procedure caused a significant increase in “noise” in the AMT traces and almost no 

increase in torque. This noise was a result of the materials initial resistance to mix. The trace 

for this mixing procedure is shown in Figure 4.11. 

The second mixing procedure consisted in “pre-mixing” the ingredients in the bowl; emulsion 

last. The results indicated less initial mixing resistance and an increase in torque with time. 

Figure 4.12 shows the trace of the pre-mixed materials. Based on these observations, the 

mixing procedure steps were determined. 

48

Figure 4.11: AMT All Ingredients Combined in the Mixing Bowl 

Figure 4.12: AMT Pre-Mixed Ingredients in the Mixing Bowl 

49

The recommended mixing procedure for the AMT is the following: 

1. Choose mix components from existing information or TB-113 and determine the 

percentage of each component based on the weight of dry aggregate. 

2. Weigh 300g of dry aggregate into the small stainless steel bowl. 

3. Add cement or other dry additive and mix thoroughly. 

4. Add water and mix thoroughly. 

5. Add liquid additive and mix thoroughly. 

6. Add emulsion and mix quickly for 5 to10 seconds. 

7. Immediately after mixing the emulsion, place the bowl in the AMT machine, clamp, and 

lower stirrer to within 0.40 - 0.78 inches (1-2 mm) from the bottom of the bowl and 

assure that the stirrer is centered. 

8. Turn on AMT unit and mix 5 seconds. 

9. Set test speed to 50 rpm. 

10. Measure trace for 10 minutes. 

11. Record steady state torque as the Mix Index, record time where steady increase of 

torque begins as the Mix Time. 

12. Record time where torque reaches (12 N-cm) as the Spread Time. 

13. Record time when mix is broken by observation. 

C) Effect of System Type: 

To evaluate the effectiveness of the recommended AMT procedure, systems with E1 and E2 

emulsion were measured. Systems with three different consistencies, Soupy (S) or Low 

Viscosity (LV), Stiff (St), and Moderate Viscosity (MV) were evaluated and observations noted. 

Mix M4 was chosen as the system with Soupy consistency. In Figure 4.13, the mixing Torque 

was observed to be (6 to 7 N-cm). It was also noted that the mix M4 did not break until after the 

AMT was stopped. 

For the stiff system, Mix M1, the mixing torque was recorded to be (9 to10 N-cm) and the mix 

time about 3.5 minutes. At this point in time, the torque was noticeably beginning to increase. 

The trace is shown in Figure 4.14. 

50

For the system M2 previously identified as a good mixing system, with Moderate (MV) 

consistency, the mixing torque was (8 to 9 N-cm). The mix time was close to 7 minutes. 

However, mix M2 never reached the maximum spread torque of (12 N-cm) before 14 minutes. 

The system stiffened only after mixing ceased. The trace of mix M2 is shown in Figure 4.15. 

Table 4.5 shows the summary of the ranges in torque for the three different systems with 

Soupy, Stiff, and Moderate consistencies. 

Figure 4.13: AMT Trace for Mix M4, Soupy (S)/LV System 

51

Figure 4.14: AMT Trace for Mix M1, Stiff (St) System 

Figure 4.15: AMT Trace for Mix M2, Moderate (MV) System 

52

Table 4.5: Preliminary Evaluation of Consistency and Mixing Torque 

System Consistency Mixing Torque, N-cm Mixing Time, min Spread Time, min 

M1 Stiff (St) 9 – 10 3.5 4.9 

M2 Moderate (MV) 8 – 9 7 >10 

M3 Soupy (S)/LV 6 – 7 >10 >10 

Conclusions: 

The mix procedure can distinguish between very fast and fast setting systems. The procedure 

can show the differences in mixing and spread time for different systems. It also shows mixing 

torque correlation with the mix characteristics of TB-113. 

4.2.2 Development of the Automated Cohesion Test (ACT) 

The existing ISSA test method for cohesion, TB-139, uses a hand held torque wrench to apply a 

load to a test specimen 0.23 inches (6mm) or 0.39 inches (10mm) in diameter depending on the 

top size of the aggregate. Torque measurements are made at intervals of 30, 60, 90, 150, 210, 

and 270 minutes after casting the specimens. 

The major difficulty with this procedure is that the application of torque is very operator 

dependent. To overcome this problem, the project team contracted with Temple Systems, Inc. 

of Dayton, Ohio to develop an automated device to perform this test. The device is connected 

to a computer and is controlled by software that lowers a pressure foot on the test specimen. 

The operator specifies the amount of rotation of the foot at the time intervals specified. The 

rotation can be set from 45 to 360 degrees. During rotation, the device transmits torque values 

to the computer. When complete, the torque measurements are graphically displayed. 

The “first article” design of the Automated Cohesion Test device has been developed by Temple 

Systems Lab of Dayton, Ohio and it is shown in Figure 4.16. Testing on sandpaper was 

completed to assure that the device functioned properly. The device was then sent to 

MACTEC’s laboratory in Phoenix, Arizona, to complete the testing matrix. 

53

Figure 4.16: Automated Cohesion Test – Under Development 

Limited comparison testing with both the automated and the conventional cohesion testers was 

carried out by Temple Systems and MACTEC. The results are presented in Figures 4.17 and 

4.18. 

Torque (kg-cm) 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

Temple Systems - Granite Mix 

0 50 100 150 

Minutes 

54 

Manual 

Automated 

Figure 4.17: Cohesion Testing Results from Temple Systems – Granite Mix


20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Temple Systems - Limestone Mix 

0 50 100 150 

Minutes 

55 

Manual 

Automated 

Figure 4.18: Cohesion Testing Results from Temple Systems – Limestone Mix 


30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

MACTEC 

0 100 200 300 

Minutes 

Figure 4.19: Testing Results from MACTEC 

Manual 

Automated

As illustrated in Figures 4.17 and 4.18, the ACT results are consistently lower than the 

conventional (manual) wet cohesion results. The possibility of correcting the ACT results by a 

correction factor or model was then investigated. This was done by pooling the data from 

Temple Systems and MACTEC into a single data set and plotting “automated” versus “manual” 

results, as illustrated in Figure 4.19. 

Automated Torque (kg-cm) 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Data 

Linear Regression 

y = 0.5711x 

R 2 = 0.7073 

All Data 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

Manual Torque (kg-cm) 

Figure 4.20: Correlation of Test Results from ACT (Automated Torque) and the 

Conventional Wet Cohesion Tester (Manual Torque) 

As illustrated in Figure 4.20, there is a good correlation between the two tests (R 2 = 0.7). A 

correction factor of 1.75 (=1/0.5711) can be used to bring the Automated values within the 

range of values obtained from the conventional wet cohesion test. A plot of corrected values 

versus the conventional ones is shown in Figure 4.21. 

56

Automated Torque (kg-cm) 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Automated 

Automated Corrected 

Equality Line 

Linear (Automated) 

y = 0.5711x 

R 2 = 0.7073 

All Data 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

Manual Torque (kg-cm) 

Figure 4.21: Correction of Test Results from ACT. 

As illustrated in Figure 4.21, the 1.75 correction factor can be used to bring the ACT results 

within the range of values normally measured with the conventional wet cohesion test. 

Another experiment run at the MACTEC laboratory in Phoenix consisted of calibration tests with 

the two devices on 220 grit sand paper. A number of 10 measurements were taken with each 

device. The average and standard deviation of the test results are given in Table 4.6 

Table 4.6: Results of Calibration Tests on 220 Grit Sand Paper 

Statistic 

Conventional Wet Cohesion 


Automated Cohesion 


Average 19.90 11.22 

Standard Deviation 0.99 1.14 

57

Note that the ratio of the two averages (i.e. 19.9/11.22) equals 1.77, which is very close to the 

correction factor of 1.75 obtained from the tests on slurry systems. 

4.2.3 Development of the Cohesion-Abrasion Test (CAT) 

The Cohesion-Abrasion Test is a modified version of the Wet Track Abrasion Test (WTAT), 

ISSA TB-100. A two-wheel fixture is used instead of the standard abrasion head. As a result of 

this modification, the abrasive action is less severe and the test can be used to evaluate system 

cohesion buildup during curing and before opening to traffic as well as abrasion resistance after 

opening to traffic or on oven cured specimens. The test can be performed on test samples 

similar to those for the wet cohesion test as developed by the French. It is a better replication of 

traffic than the hose. 

It was also hoped that the test could be used to differentiate between slurry quick set, 

microsurfacing, and slow set slurry. For specification purposes, ranges of loss would be more 

appropriate than minimum or maximum losses alone. 

The first modification made to the standard Wet Track Abrasion Test (TB-100) setup was the 

use of a N50 Hobart unit with the wheel attachment; this has a smaller abrasion area so the loss 

levels needed to be reestablished when compared to the existing TB-100 test. Figure 4.22 

shows the CAT with the wheel attachment during testing. 

The following variables were identified and evaluated during the development phase: 

1. Effect of test specimen base support type (Roofing Felt/Steel/Aluminum) 

2. Effect of assessment method for aggregate loss (Wet Loss/Aggregate Loss 

Recovery/Dry Loss) 

3. Effect of tack coat 

4. Effect of soaking samples in relation to cure time 

5. Stripping effects in aggregates at different test conditions 

6. Effect of system on aggregate and emulsion behavior 

7. Compaction by hand surface consolidation (Hand Roller) 

58

Figure 4.22: Cohesion Abrasion Test Apparatus (CAT) 

1. Effect of Test Specimen Base Support 

Three base supports were evaluated: the first one was a 30 lb (13.6 kg) roofing felt, the second 

was a stainless steel plate 8 inches (203 mm) thick, and the third was an aluminum plate 8 

inches (203 mm). The effect that these support bases had on the test results was examined for 

two mixes, M2 and M4. Results and recommendations are discussed together with the 

assessment method for aggregate loss. 

2. Effect of Assessment Method for Aggregate Loss 

The assessment of material loss after abrasion was done as follows: 

• Wet Loss Method – The initial weight of the specimen and support base were 

recorded before abrasion. After the abrasion test, specimen and plate were patted 

dry with paper towels. This resulting weight was the final weight and the difference 

was recorded as the loss. 

• Aggregate Loss Recovery Method - The initial weight of the specimen and support 

base were recorded before abrasion. During and after abrasion, all loose aggregate 

was recovered. The weight of the recovered aggregate was subtracted from the 

initial weight of the specimen and support base to obtain the final weight. 

59

• Dry Loss Method – Two identical specimens were prepared. One specimen and 

support base was abraded and the loose material was removed. The second 

specimen and support base were not subjected to the abrasion test. Both 

specimens were then oven-dried over night. The loss was determined as a 

percentage between the abraded specimen and the un-tested specimen. 

The general results for the support bases and the assessment method were noted as follows: 

The felt support base absorbs water and is difficult to handle and to pat-dry with paper towels. It 

tends to loose more material as it flexes, therefore, it produces a wider scatter of results. The 

aluminum and steel support bases were easy to use and handle. The results using these metal 

bases were observed to be more repeatable. 

The Dry Loss Method and the Wet Loss Method gave the most reproducible results. The 

Aggregate Loss Recovery Method proved very difficult to do and larger variations of the results 

were observed. 

In order to evaluate the effects that the base support and the assessment method have, mix M2 

was used. The formulation of mix M2 was previously studied and consisted of the following 

proportions: 

Mix M2 


• 1.5 grams of cement 


• 0.25 gram of additive 


The test specimens were cured for 30, 60, and 180 minutes before testing. Duplicate tests were 

performed for each of the assessment methods and base supports, except for the aluminum 

base, for which only one test was performed. The results are summarized in Table 4.7. The 

decrease in abrasion loss with time is illustrated in Figures 4.23 and 4.24. 

60

Table 4.7: Test Specimen Bases and Assessment Methods for Mix M2 

Curing Time, (min) Support Base 

Loss (g) 

Wet Loss Method (g) 

61 

Aggregate Loss 

Recovery Method 

(g) 

Loss on dry basis* 

(%) 

30 Felt 290/320 265/280 29/31 

30 Steel 248/225 210/195 24.5/23.5 

30 Aluminum 235 195 23 

60 Felt 162/220 199/175 16.4/17.5 

60 Steel 94/85 85/75 9.5/10.1 

60 Aluminum 87 80 8.9 

180 Felt 25/35 19/28 2.9/3.5 

180 Steel 23/19 23/18 2.4/2.1 

180 Aluminum 25 21 2.5 

350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

Effect of Support Wet Loss and Collection 

30 60 180 

Time of Cure (Min) 77°F (25°C) 70% Humidity 

Wet Loss Felt 

Wet Loss Steel 

Wet Loss Al 

Collect loss Felt 

Collect Loss Steel 

Collect Loss Al 

Figure 4.23: Effect of Support Base Type on Wet Loss Method, Mix M2

Loss (%) 

35 

30 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Effect of Support Dry Method 

30 60 180 

Time of Cure (Min) 77°F (25°C) 70% Humidity. 

Figure 4.24: Effect of Support Base Type on Dry Loss Method, Mix M2 

It was concluded that metal (Steel or Aluminum) support bases are easier to handle and create 

less aggregate loss. The use of a metal support base is therefore recommended. The 

Aluminum base is preferred because it is lighter and more resistant to corrosion. 

The recommended assessment method is the Wet Loss Method. Even though both, the Wet 

Loss Method and the Dry Loss Method had reproducible results, the Wet Loss Method was 

preferred since immediate results can be obtained. A comparison of the loss measured with the 

two methods shown in Figure 4.25. 

62 

Loss % of dry Felt 

Loss % of dry Steel 

Loss % of dry Aluminum

Figure 4.25: Comparison of Losses as Determined by Wet and Dry Loss Methods 

Aggregate and Emulsion Effects 

The Aluminum base support was used and the tests repeated with two mixes, Mix M2a and Mix 

M2b. These mixes were cured at 77°F (25°C) and 70% humidity. The mix proportions were as 

follows: 

Mix M2a 

Mix M2b 

Loss (g) 

400 

350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 







• 0.5 gram of cement 




Wet Loss Vs. Dry Loss method 

30 60 180 

Time of Cure (Min) 77°F (25°C ) 70% humidity. 

63 

Wet loss Felt 

Wet loss Steel 

Wet loss Al 

Dry loss Felt 

Dry Loss Steel 

Dry loss Al

The differences in the samples were the amount of water and cement. Test results are 

summarized in Table 4.8. The decrease in loss with time is shown in Figures 4.26 and 4.27. 

` 

Table 4.8: CAT Results for Mix M2a and M2b 

Mix 

Pre-treat 

Compaction 

Time of cure 

(min) 

Loss wet 

(g) 

Loss Oven dry 

(g) % 

A N 30 265/250 26.1 

N 60 165/170 12.6 

N 180 77/72 6.4 

A Y 30 - - 

Y 60 145/155 - 

Y 180 - - 

B N 30 433.9/455 28.8 

N 60 275/285 19.2 

N 180 239.5/225 15.9 

B Y 30 - 

Dry Loss % 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Y 60 220 - 

Y 180 - 

Effect of Water Level on Cure (Dry Loss) 

30 60 180 


Figure 4.26: Effect of Water Level on Cure M2 Mixes (Dry Loss Method) 

64 

Mix M2a 

Mix M2b

Wet loss ,g 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

Effect Of Water Level on Cure (Wet Loss) 

30 60 180 


Figure 4.27: Effect of Water Level on Cure M2 Mixes (Wet Loss Method) 

Compaction was conducted on selected samples and accomplished by exerting pressure on to 

the sample surface with a roller and mopping up any water with paper towels of high 

absorbency. 

Figure 4.28: CAT Hand Roller 

65 

Mix M2a 

Mix M2b

Both systems were correctly defined by this test as quick set; the aggregate effect was clearly 

distinguished. Compaction did consolidate the surface to some extent but an analysis of the 

data indicates that there is no significant difference between the compacted and non-compacted 

specimens and as a result compaction is not recommended. This is illustrated in Figure 4.29. 

wet Loss g 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

Figure 4.29: Effect of Compaction on M2 Mixes (Wet Loss Method) 

4.2.4 Effect of Tack Coat 

Effect of Compaction Wet Loss at 1 Hour Cure 

M2a Mix M2b 

(60 Min Cure at 70°F (25°C) 70% Humidity) 

Tack coat was applied on the metal base using a brush. The base plate was covered with a 

thin, even coat of emulsion. The tack coat was allowed to dry to the touch. As illustrated in 

Figure 4.30, the tack seemed to reduce losses perhaps by holding the sample firmly and 

preventing shear at the base. 

66 

Not compacted 

Compacted

Figure 4.30: Effect of Tack Coat 

4.2.5 High Traffic and Rut Resistant System CAT Results 

An exercise to evaluate the CAT system and its effects on high traffic systems was conducted. 

The procedure was repeated with the mixes M1 and M3 with optimum mix components 

established from TB-113 and the AMT. The results are illustrated in Table 4.9 and Figure 4.31. 

Mix M1 



• 8 grams of water 



67 

Mix M3 



• 10 grams of water 


• 16 grams of emulsion

Time 

(Min) 

Wet Loss M1 

(g) 

Table 4.9: Wet Loss Method Results 

Wet Loss M3 

(g) 

68 

Dry Loss M1 

(%) 

Dry Loss M3 

(%) 

30 256 236 19 19.4 

60 49 64.4 4.2 5.1 

180 14 10 1.8 1.6 

300 6.3* (1) 2*(

1 hr soak 

Dry Loss % 

Figure 4.32: Comparison of Different Systems Using CAT 

The test appears to distinguish between system types at 77°F (25°C) and 70% humidity. 

The existing wet track abrasion test, TB-100 was measured for all systems and compared to the 

CAT test which is noted in Table 4.10. 

System 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

* 77°F (25°C) 70% humidity 

5 

0 

Comparison of systems 

30 60 180 300 


Table 4.10: TB-100 Test Results 

Loss WTAT 

/1 Hour Soak 

(g/cm 2 ) 

69 

Loss 5 hr cure*dry 

1 hour soak 

(g/cm 2 ) 

M2 0.8 0.5 

M4 1.02 0.9 

M1 0.8 0.4 

M3 1.1 0.4 

Mix M1 

Mix M2 

Mix M3 

Mix M4 

The data indicates that the abrasion loss is similar for the wheels in the CAT tests compared to 

WTAT for the comparable level of cure and soaking, since both show low losses based on

observation. For long term abrasion and determination of the base binder level it is suggested 

that the range of soak periods are the same as are used for CAT test. The WTAT will be 

needed to determine the long term performance properties of the S3 mixes. 

4.3 LABORATORY TEST METHODS EVALUATION 

4.3.1 Evaluation of Automated Mixing Test (AMT) 

The proposed AMT test method covers measurement of constructability of slurry surfacing 

materials once the basic ratios of the components have been established. By automatic and 

constant recording of the complete torque-measurement-curve, the mixing curve indicates each 

variation during the breaking process—the process where the mixture changes from a 

homogenous flowing consistency to a stiff non-flowing consistency. 

The AMT procedure was developed with the intention of providing additional information about 

the breaking process for a particular mix system after initial mix proportions were established by 

using TB-113 and to eliminate operator variability. 

Differences between proposed and current test methods: 

• In TB-113, the curing condition for humidity is not specified. 

• The current hand mixing method allowed the use of various mixing bowls or containers, 

and mixing stirrers. 

• The current hand mixing method required a specified rpm during the manual mixing, but 

that would vary from operator to operator. 

• The original hand mixing method did not specify any details to the direction of rotation or 

depth of the stirrer into the mixture during the mixing process, so that would vary from 

technician to technician. 

• In TB-113, mix proportions were adjusted to meet the minimum mixing times in the 

project specifications. This tended to produce a mix with a higher viscosity than the 

viscosity of the system used during placement in the field. 

Advantages of the proposed test method: 

The AMT method standardizes testing conditions for humidity, mixing bowl, stirrer, mixing 

rotations and mixing rate. In the current TB-113 procedure, these variables greatly influence the 

final result and it varies from technician to technician and laboratory to laboratory. 

In addition, another advantage is that this method evaluates the mix system for the type of 

break the system has by measuring the mixing torque, spread time and maximum torque. 

70

Correlation between the proposed and current methods: 

In the original hand mixing method per TB-113, the mix proportions were adjusted to determine 

mixing times relatively close to the minimum mix time requirements: 3 minutes for slurry seal 

systems and 2 minutes for micro-surfacing systems. When the minimum proportions were used 

for the AMT, as determined by using TB-113, predictably the mixes would be changing much 

more quickly and recorded as such during the AMT evaluation. 

In both test methods (proposed and current), when there were more total liquids in the systems, 

the viscosities were lower. In both test methods, mix systems with higher total liquids will 

deliver very extended mixing times. 

Suitability of the proposed test method: 

The equipment as developed still requires that the operator has a certain level of experience in 

order to set up and run the test in a short period of time. 

As developed, the equipment needs to be modified to accurately control mixing temperatures 

other than 77°F (25°C) and mixing humidity above 50%. 

Another challenge is the operation of the IKA software. This software was originally developed 

for use with multiple mixers, mediums and applications. 

Additional research needed for this test method: 

All the mixes used during the evaluation of the AMT were mixes where the aggregate was larger 

than a Type 2 aggregate. More evaluations should be performed on different aggregate sizes. 

The test method does require that the laboratory technician have experience in preparing the 

mix and setting the mixture into the testing equipment. Somehow making that process 

mechanical would decrease the amount of experience a technician is required to have to 

perform the AMT method and decrease the amount of error when the stirrer is not properly 

placed into the mixture. 

An environmental chamber that won’t affect the motor of the mixer or the shaft of the mixing tool 

needs to be developed for evaluating mix systems for temperatures at 59°F (15°C) or 95° 

(35°C) and at higher humidity conditions. 

Developing a specific software program for slurry system applications as it relates to the AMT 

method would make the test method easier to use from one laboratory to another. 

71

4.3.2 Evaluation of Cohesion-Abrasion Test (CAT) 

The proposed CAT test method covers the measurement of the wearing qualities of slurry seal 

and micro-surfacing mixture systems under wet abrasion conditions and early cohesion 

properties at different levels of cure. 

Currently, test practices for abrasion are not performed on uncured mix specimens. The 

cohesion abrasion test is appropriate for measuring early cohesion build up as the mixture cures 

under various curing conditions. If high losses during initial curing of the mix are observed, 

generally this indicates that the mix will have a poor performance. 

Differences between proposed and current test methods: 

• In the original wet track abrasion test per TB-100, the test is performed on the aggregate 

after it has been scalped over the #4 sieve. 

• In the proposed method, testing is performed on the bulk sample that has 100% passing 

the 3/8 inch (9.65 mm) sieve. 

• In the original wet track abrasion test per TB-100, the test specimens are aged in a 

140°F (60°C) oven before initiating moisture conditioning. 

• In the proposed method, testing is performed on specimens that are cured at specified 

temperatures, representing ambient field conditions at 59°F (15°C), 77°F (25°C), or 95°F 

(35°C). Additionally, this is done at varying ambient field moisture conditions at 50% or 

90% humidity. 

• In the original wet track abrasion test per TB-100, the test specimens are not compacted 

before curing. 

• In the proposed method, one set of test specimens are compacted before curing and 

another set of test specimens are not compacted before curing to note the difference. 

• In the original wet track abrasion test per TB-100, the abrasion head rotates a fixed 

rubber hose along the surface of the sample. 

• In the proposed method, the abrasion head rotates a set of two free-spinning rubber 

wheels along the surface of the sample. 

• In the original wet track abrasion test per TB-100, the test specimen loss is determined 

from the original weight of an oven cured test specimen after it has been abraded, and 

fines rinsed, and the remaining test specimen is oven dried. 

• In the proposed method, the test specimen loss is determined from the final weight of 

the test specimen after it has been abraded, and the fines rinsed, without oven drying. 

72

Advantages of the proposed test method: 

The most noticeable advantage of this method is that the evaluation is performed on a complete 

aggregate gradation. None of the material is scalped as specified in the current method so it 

represents the mixture as it will be used in the field. 

The other advantage of this method is that it tests the mix system as it begins to cure under 

various conditions. This will provide an indication of the behavior of the mix system at different 

ambient conditions in the field. This is a reliable indicator of performance of the mix system 

representing the early curing and cohesion build up of a mix. 

Correlation between the proposed and current methods: 

In the original wet track abrasion test per TB-100, and the proposed test method, the test 

specimen loss decreases as the emulsion content increases. 

Suitability of the proposed method: 

The cohesion abrasion test method includes equipment that is easy to operate and the method 

is simple to follow and perform. 

Currently, test practices for abrasion are not performed on uncured mix specimens. The 

cohesion abrasion test method is appropriate for measuring early cohesion build up as the 

mixture cures under various curing conditions. If we see high losses during initial curing of the 

mix, we can expect to predict a problematic mix. 

Additional research needed: 

The cohesion abrasion test method would benefit from field validation of various mixes in 

predetermined conditions and test sections. 

Potentially, this test method could be used to measure early cohesion build up and predict the 

early performance of the mix shortly after placement. If an on-site laboratory were available, this 

test method may be used to measure early curing in the field to validate the recently placed mix. 

The limitation, at this time, is that there has not been a method mutually accepted by industry 

and agencies that successfully captures a representative sample of the mixture during 

production at the time of placement. 

73

4.4 REVISED MIX DESIGN METHOD (VERSION 2) 

After the evaluation of the proposed mix design method, and due to the available time available 

to complete the project, the following revisions were made to the mix design method: 

• To determine the optimum binder content (step 4), it was the original intent to run the 

LWT at three different temperatures: 95°F (35°C), 77°F (25°C), and 59ºF (15°C). This 

will be modified to run the LWT at 77°F (25°C) only. 

• To determine deformation properties, the proposed mix design method recommended 

using TB-109. The revised method will measure deformation properties using TB-147 

instead. 

The mix design method reflecting the two revisions discussed above will be as follows: 

Step 1: Materials Selection 

To begin the mix design, the current ISSA recommendations will be used. Step 1 is subdivided 

into the following steps, in the order given: 

• Selection of aggregate: The first step is to choose the aggregate grading based on the 

existing ISSA specifications. In addition, the selected aggregate must meet the 

minimum requirements for mechanical and chemical properties in the specifications 

prepared as a result of this study. 

• Selection of the emulsion and binder: This will be largely a matter of the climatic 

conditions where it will be applied, and available supply. These parameters are included 

in the project’s specifications. 

• Selection of a locally available potable water source. 

• Selection of a mineral filler, Portland cement, or hydrated lime, which meets the 

specification requirements. 

• Selection of a liquid retardant such as Aluminum Sulfate when necessary. 

• Include a set control additive at the addition rate recommended by the emulsion supplier 

if necessary. 

Step 2: Create a Mix Matrix and Determine Mix Constructability 

After the materials have been selected, it will be necessary to determine the proportions of 

aggregate, water, emulsion, and additives to create a mix matrix. This step will involve the use 

of the AMT test to determine the mix and spread indices. With the results of the AMT, the 

conditions at which the materials can be mixed safely and placed in a timely fashion can be 

determined. These tests will be performed at standard laboratory conditions and repeated for 

selected mixes for a range of anticipated application conditions. 

74

This process should be repeated with different filler types (if necessary) to optimize the mixture 

for constructability and performance criteria. This will lead to a recommended filler type and 

additives levels to be used. 

Step 3: Determine the Short-term Constructability Properties 

This step consists of taking the acceptable mixes and conducting cohesion testing using the 

ACT. The cohesion test is performed at 60 minutes and after 24-hours of cure. This testing 

would be repeated for specified application conditions of the project. If the results do not meet 

the standards, then the mixes and materials would be modified as required. In all cases, it is 

important to ensure that the mix time and spreadability are acceptable. Spreadability is a 

measure of the ability of the mix to be placed and finished on the pavement surface. 

After the proportions have been selected, the ACT test should be performed and repeated for 

anticipated curing conditions to evaluate the short-term abrasion properties. 

The mix proportions can then be modified if necessary and a check performed to confirm that 

the cohesion at 60 minutes provides an acceptable traffic time and the cohesion at the 24-hour 

cure period is also acceptable. 

The results of step 3 are used to establish a target optimum for the next step in the design, and 

to evaluate the short-term abrasion properties of the selected mix. 

Step 4: Determine the Optimum Binder Content 

This involves preparing selected samples for the specific application conditions and varying the 

emulsion content ±2% from the target optimum. The additive and filler proportions will remain 

as determined from the targets developed in step 3. 

Under this step the WTAT will be performed at 1-hour and 6-day soak periods followed by tests 

using the LWT to determine the excess asphalt at 77°F (25°C). 

The recommended optimum binder content will be selected by evaluating the abrasion loss in 

the WTAT test and the binder content versus sand adhesion from the Loaded Wheel Tester 

(LWT). 

NOTE: The specification minimums established by this study will be used for abrasion loss and 

the maximum for sand pick up from the LWT. 

75

Step 5: Evaluate the Cohesion Properties at Various Curing Conditions 

The selected curing conditions should be representative of the project’s estimated humidity and 

temperature conditions at the time of construction. CAT test is then performed at 30 minutes, 1 

hour, and 3 hours. 

Step 6: Evaluate the Long Term Properties of the Mixture 

This step consists of evaluating the following: 

• Abrasion: Using the CAT. 

• Water Resistance: Using the CAT. 

• Deformation (rut-filling mixes only): TB-109 

Finally, any necessary adjustments and re-check of the mixing indices (spreadability, traffic, and 

24 hour cohesion) will be made. 

After selecting the best mix from the short-term test methods noted above, the mix will be tested 

for the following long-term performance properties: 

• Abrasion resistance 

• Water resistance 

• Deformation 

Abrasion Resistance: 

This property will be measured using the CAT test using fully cured specimens, soaked for 6 

days, under project specific environmental conditions. 

Water Resistance: 

The CAT abrasion test will be run on the final mix design after being soaked for 6 days at a 

temperature of 77°F (25°C) and comparing the loss to that of a 1-hour soak and express this as 

a ratio. This information will be compared to the results of an existing mixture in order to 

determine the appropriate specification limits. The test will then be checked with a mix of known 

standard properties using other materials with which the team and advisory group have 

experience. 

Deformation: 

This property will be measured using TB-147 “Test Methods for Measurement of Stability and 

Resistance to Compaction, Vertical and Lateral Displacement of Multilayered Fine Aggregate 

Cold Mixes”. 

76

Step 1 

Step 2 

Step 3 

Step 4 

Step 5 

Step 6 

Materials Selection 

Optimize and Establish Available Mixing Time 

Check Workability 

Spread Index Various Conditions Preliminary 

ACT 

Passes 

Optimize and Establish Setting and ACT Curing 

Times - Traffic and 24 Hour Cure 

(Short Term Constructibility) 

Establish Minimum Asphalt Requirement 

Establish Maximum Asphalt Requirement 

Cohesion Properties 

at Various Conditions 

Passes 

Long Term Properties 

Passes 

Check Resistance to Deformation 

Rut Mixes only TB-109 

Passes 

Recheck Mixing Time, Setting, 

and Curing Time 

Passes 

Design 

Figure 4.33: Revised Mix Design Method 

77 

Adjust Fluids 

Content 

Filler and Additives 

Fails 

No Solution 

Fails 

Fails 

Fails 

Change 

Components

5.0 CHAPTER 5 RUGGEDNESS TESTING 

5.1 PURPOSE OF THE EXPERIMENTS 

The overall purpose of a Ruggedness Testing Experiment is to evaluate the sensitivity of the 

output of a particular test to allowable variation in the test conditions. (13) For example, consider 

a simple hypothetical test method involving a device that can be used to measure the sodium 

content in a given sample of water. Under the range of typical test conditions, the result of this 

test may be sensitive to the variability of such factors as the temperature of the water, the 

amount of solar radiation, and the level of other chemicals and contaminants in the water. A 

ruggedness test for this device (test method) would involve the design and conduct of an 

experiment to determine the overall effect of the variation of these other factors on the primary 

test result (i.e., the sodium content of the water). If the test result is unaffected by the variation 

of the other factors (within their typical ranges), then the test method is considered rugged. 

Obviously, ruggedness is a desirable attribute for all test methods, including those that will be 

used for slurry/micro-surfacing mix design. For any given test method associated with the mix 

design process, the evaluation of ruggedness can best be done by performing all of the tests in 

one laboratory, so that there is no laboratory effect to consider. The results from the 

ruggedness experiment will then provide a basis for evaluating the effect of test conditions 

under later round-robin testing of the test methods. 

5.2 STATISTICAL MODEL 

For each of the test devices/methods undergoing the ruggedness testing, the statistical model 

that will be used to evaluate the effect of the variability of test conditions will be a simple linear 

model. This means that each of the condition variables (X1, X2, X3, and so on) will be 

evaluated as if they have a linear effect on the dependent variable (i.e., the value of the test 

result). Considering the overall purpose of the analysis, it is reasonable to assume that the 

sensitivity can be characterized and evaluated using first order (linear) effects (see Figure 5.1a). 

Although the relationship may have some curvilinearity, the linear model does capture the 

primary effect in the region between the low and high levels of the condition variable. 

The one case where this assumption can break down is the situation where the condition 

variable has a quadratic effect and the low and high levels of the condition variable are set at 

points where they have a near-equal effect on the test result (see Figure 5.1b). In this case, the 

model would indicate a near zero effect, when the effect is actually significant. Considering the 

78

small likelihood of this happening versus the cost of expanding the experiment design to test for 

it, the project team recommended erring on the side of minimizing the cost of testing. 

Test Result, Y 

Model 

Low 

Actual 

Effect 

Level of Condition Variable, X 

Case where linear model is valid. 

Figure 5.1a: Linear Statistical Model 

5.3 PROPOSED EXPERIMENTAL PLAN 

Figure 5.1b: Non Linear Statistical Model 

Following is a description of the experimental plans and designs for ruggedness testing of the 

three different test methods associated with the new mix design method. For each test method, 

a certain number of tests must be performed in order to determine its ruggedness. The 

individual tests performed for each test method are completed according to a statistically 

designed experiment involving a) a specified number of tests conducted in a random order 

prescribed by the experiment design, and b) two (high and low) levels of the condition variables. 

For each test method, the condition variables are identified as individual independent variables, 

in accordance with the general form of the simple linear model. The levels of each of the 

condition variables for an individual test observation are coded as follows: 

• -1 for low levels 

• +1 for high levels 

High 

79 

Test Result, Y 

Actual 

Effect 

Model 

Low High 

Level of Condition Variable, X 

Case where linear model is not valid.

These levels will be far enough apart for the estimated coefficients to be precise, but close 

enough for the linear model to provide a reasonable fit, two conflicting requirements. 

Following are the planned experiment designs for each test method: 

• AMT Mixing Test 

• CAT Short Term Test 

• ACT Test 

5.3.1 AMT Test 

For this test, the condition variables are: 

• X1 - Filler Proportion 

• X2 - Additive Proportion 

• X3 - Water Content 

• X4 - Emulsion Content 

• X5 - Temperature 

• X6 - Humidity 

With six condition variables, a Plackett-Burman design with three replications will be a good 

choice. If the replications are assumed to be run in 3 blocks, there will be 12 degrees of 

freedom for the estimation of the standard deviation of the measurements and this should 

provide the precision in the estimates of the parameters in the model as well as for their 

standard deviations. 

A Plackett-Burman design for the six condition variables associated with this test method is 

given below. 

80

Table 5.1: Plackett-Burman Design for the Six Condition Variables 

Observation X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 

1 +1 +1 +1 -1 +1 -1 

2 -1 +1 +1 +1 -1 +1 

3 -1 -1 +1 +1 +1 -1 

4 +1 -1 -1 +1 +1 +1 

5 -1 +1 -1 -1 +1 +1 

6 +1 -1 +1 -1 -1 +1 

7 +1 +1 -1 +1 -1 -1 

8 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 

Ruggedness tests results for the AMT are contained in Appendix C. 

5.3.2 CAT Test 


• X1 Cure Time 

• X2 Cure Temperature 

• X3 Humidity of Cure 

• X4 Test Time (Abrasion Time) 

• X5 Test Temperature 

• X6 Duration of Test 

Since compaction was evaluated and considered not necessary, this is not a variable for which 

its value is to be controlled as is the case for the other condition variables whose effects are 

being studied. The experiments will be the same and the same as the Plackett-Burman 

experiment given for the AMT, with three replications of selected combinations. There will not 

be an X7 variable, but the other six variables will be as given. 

81

5.3.3 ACT Test 


• X1 Cure Temperature 

• X2 Cure Time 

• X3 Cure Humidity 

Three replications of a half replication of a 2-cubed factorial will be used for this experiment. 

One such plan is given below with the coded values for the conditions: 

Table 5.2: Three Replications of a Half Replication of a 2-Cubed Factorial 

Observation. X1 X2 X3 

5.3.4 Randomization Requirements 

1 -1 -1 +1 

2 -1 +1 -1 

3 +1 -1 -1 

4 +1 +1 +1 

It is essential that the experiments be carried out in a randomized order so that there will be a 

valid estimation of the true experimental error standard deviation as well as the precise 

estimation of the effects of the condition variables. Randomization made the conduct of the 

equipment less efficient; however, it was necessary to properly address ruggedness. This was 

originally intended to be done by the project team using the procedure specified by the project 

statistician. 

5.4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

As noted earlier in Section 1.0, a second no-cost extension to the project was denied and the 

conclusions and recommendations section of the ruggedness testing was not conducted. More 

research should be considered in order to evaluate the ruggedness of the testing apparatus 

developed for this project. 

82

6.0 CHAPTER 6 SLURRY SURFACING SYSTEM (3S) 

STRAWMAN SPECIFICATION 

6.1 DESCRIPTION 

This work consists of furnishing and placing a slurry surfacing system meeting the requirements 

of this specification. The mixture shall consist of a combination of an emulsified asphalt, mineral 

aggregate, mineral filler, water, and other necessary additives, mixed and placed on the 

pavement surface in accordance with the dimensions shown on the plans. 

Any modified ingredient shall be milled or blended into the asphalt or blended into the emulsifier 

solution prior to the emulsification process. The emulsion supplier shall provide a certificate that 

the emulsion supplied to the project conforms to the requirements of Table 1. 

6.1.1 ASPHALT EMULSION 

The asphalt emulsion used shall conform to the requirements of Table 1. Any modified 

ingredient shall be milled or blended into the asphalt or blended into the emulsifier solution prior 

to emulsification process. The emulsion supplier shall provide a certificate that the emulsion 

supplied to the project conforms to the requirements of Table 6.1. 

Table 6.1: Asphalt Emulsion Requirements 

PROPERTY Test Method Minimum Maximum 

Viscosity, Saybolt Furol @ 77°F (25°C), 

Seconds 

AASHTO T 59 20 100 

Storage Stability test, one day, % AASHTO T 59 - 1 

Particle Charge test AASHTO T 59 Positive 

Sieve Test, % AASHTO T 59 - 0.1 

Tests on Distillation 

Oil distillate, by volume or emulsion, % residue AASHTO T 59 60 - 

Tests on Residue 

Penetration, 77°F (25°C), 100g, 5 sec AASHTO T 49 55 90 

Ductility, 77°F (25°C), 50 mm/min AASHTO T 51 70 - 

Solubility in trichlorethylene, % AASHTO T 44 97.5 

Softening Point, minimum AASHTO T 53 135°F (57.2°C) 

83

6.1.2 AGGREGATE 

Mineral aggregate shall meet the quality requirements in Table 6.2 and meet the grading 

requirements in Table 6.3. The grade of aggregate shall be as specified on the project plans. 

Table 6.2: Aggregate Quality Requirements 

Test Test Method Requirement 

Sand Equivalent, min AASHTO T-176 65 

Los Angeles Abrasion, loss at 500 rev., max* AASHTO T-96 35 

Percentage of Crushed Particles, minimum AASHTO T 100 

Magnesium sulfate soundness, max. loss, %, 4 cycles AASHTO T-104 20 

Micro-Duval, loss, %** 

Note * The abrasion test is to be run on the parent aggregate 

AASHTO Report 

** The Micro-Duval is to be run on the project stockpile aggregate 

Grade US Sieve Size 

I 

II 

III 

Table 6.3: Aggregate Grades 

84 

Passing by 

Weight, % 

Job Mix Formula 

Tolerance Limits, %+ - 

⅜ 9.5 mm 100 5 

#4 4.75 mm 70-90 5 

#8 2.36 mm 45-70 5 

#16 1.16 mm 28-50 5 

#30 600µm 19-34 3 

#50 330 µm 12-25 3 

#200 75 µm 5-15 2 

⅜ 9.5 mm 100 5 

#4 4.75 mm 94-100 5 

#8 2.36 mm 65-90 5 

#16 1.18 mm 40-70 5 

#30 600 µm 25-50 3 

#50 330 µm 18-30 3 

#200 75 µ 5-15 2 

⅜ 9.5 mm 100 

#4 4.75 mm 100 5 

#8 2.36 mm 90-100 5 

#16 1.16 mm 65-90 5 

#30 600µm 40-65 5 

#50 330 µm 25-42 4 

#200 75 µm 10-20 2

6.2 STOCKPILE AND STORAGE. 

If the mineral aggregates are stored or stockpiled, they must be handled in a manner that will 

prevent segregation and contamination. The aggregate will be accepted at the job site stockpile 

or when loading into the units for delivery to the laydown machine. The stockpile shall be 

accepted based on five gradation tests according to AASHTO T-2. If the average of five tests is 

within the gradation tolerances, the materials will be accepted. If the test results indicate that 

the material is outside the gradation limits, the material will be removed from the stockpile site or 

blended with other aggregate from the stockpile to achieve an acceptable product. Materials 

used for blending shall meet the requirements of Table 6.3 and shall be blended in an 

acceptable manner to assure a consistent product. Blending will require a new mix design. 

The aggregate shall be passed over a 3/8 inch (9.5-mm) scalping screen prior to transfer to the 

laydown machine to remove oversize material. 

6.2.1 WATER AND ADDITIVES. 

Water shall be potable and free from harmful soluble salts or other contaminants. 

The slurry surfacing mixture shall be homogeneous during and following mixing and spreading 

and possess sufficient stability to prevent premature breaking in the spreading equipment. 

Additives may be added to the emulsion mix or any of the component materials to provide 

control of the setting characteristics of the mixture. They must be included as part of the mix 

design and be compatible with the other components of the mix. 

6.2.2 MINERAL FILLER. 

Mineral filler may be used in the mixture and shall be introduced into the mineral aggregate and 

shall be an approved brand of non-air entrained Portland cement or hydrated lime that is free 

from lumps. Visual inspection and supplier certification are required. The amount of mineral 

filler to be added shall be part of the mix design process and shall be considered as part of the 

aggregate gradation. If additional consistency is required during the placement of the mixture, a 

+/- one percent change in mineral filler will be permitted without requiring a new mix design. 

6.3 PAVING MIXTURE 

Prior to the beginning of work, the contractor shall submit a proposed mix design for approval to 

the contracting agency. A laboratory capable of performing the tests that are noted in Table 6.4 

85

shall perform the mix design. The proposed slurry surfacing mixture shall conform to the 

requirements of Table 6.4. The percentages of each individual material shall be shown on the 

design form. 

Field adjustments may be necessary once the work is under way but individual materials shall 

be within the limits contained in Table 6.5. 

Set 

Time 

Table 6.4: Slurry Surfacing Mix Design Requirements 

Traffic Temperature Humidity 

Hi Med Low Hi Med Low Hi Normal 

Test or field Condition Units 

95°F 77°F 50°F 

(35°C) (25°C) (10°C) 90% 50% 

PFS-1 (Mixing) 

Mixing Torque - maximum kg-cm 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 

Mixing time - minimum 

Spread index - maximum @ 120 

sec. 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 

sec. kg-cm 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 

Blot test - 30 sec. - 

clear clear 

water water N/A 

clear clear clear clear clear 

water water water water water 

Coating 

PFS-2 (Wet Cohesion) 

- 100% 100% 95% 95% 95% 100% 100% 95% 

30 min. cohesion - minimum kg-cm 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 



12 hr. cohesion - minimum 

PFS-3 (Abrasion Loss) 

kg-cm 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 

30 min. loss - maximum g/m 2 200 200 400 300 300 300 300 300 

1hr. loss - maximum g/m 2 Rapid 

100 100 300 100 200 100 100 200 

3 hr. loss - maximum g/m 2 PFS-1 (Mixing) 

100 100 200 100 100 100 100 100 

Mixing Torque - maximum kg-cm 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 

Mixing time - minimum 

Spread index - maximum @ 120 

sec. 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 

sec. kg-cm 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 

Blot test - 30 sec. - 

clear clear 

water water N/A 

clear clear clear clear clear 

water water water water water 

Coating - 100% 100% 95% 95% 95% 100% 100% 95% 

PFS-2 (Wet Cohesion) 




12 hr. cohesion - minimum 

PFS-3 (Abrasion Loss) 

kg-cm 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 

30 min. loss - maximum g/m 2 200 200 400 300 300 300 300 300 

1hr. loss - maximum g/m 2 Slow 

100 100 300 100 200 100 100 200 

3 hr. loss - maximum g/m 2 100 100 200 100 100 100 100 100 

86

Table 6.5: Allowable Field Adjustment 

Component Adjustment 

Slurry System Residual Binder Content 5.5% - 9.5% by dry mass of aggregate 

Water and Additives As needed 

Mineral Filler 0% - 3% by dry mass of aggregate 

6.4 APPLICATION RATE 

The slurry surfacing shall be of the proper consistency at all times in order to provide the 

application rate required by the plans and specifications to meet the surface conditions. The 

average single application rate, if not specified, shall be in accordance with the requirements of 

Table 6.6. 

Aggregate 

Grade 

A 

B 

C 

Table 6.6: Application Rates 

Facility Application Rate 

Primary and Interstate Routes 15-30 lbs./yd 2 8.1-16.2 kg/m 2 

Wheel Ruts See Section 6. (d). 2 

Urban, Residential Streets, Airfield Runways 

& Taxiways 

Parking Areas, Residential Streets, Airfield 

Runways & Taxiways 

6.5 QUALITY ASSURANCE 

87 

10-20 lbs./yd 2 5.4-18.6 kg/m 2 

8-12 lbs./yd 2 3.6-5.4 kg/m 2 

Prior to the beginning of the project, the contractor shall provide an orientation session for 

project personnel, a test strip, and project documentation. 

6.5.1 ORIENTATION SESSION FOR PROJECT PERSONNEL. 

The contractor shall provide a minimum 45-minute orientation session with the project personnel 

to discuss the construction process, materials control, materials measurement requirements of 

the project, and any unique project conditions that need to be addressed. This session may be 

waived at the direction of the engineer.

6.5.2 TEST STRIP. 

With the coordination of the owner, the contractor shall arrange for a test strip to be constructed 

on or near the project site under as reasonable as possible the anticipated placement conditions 

of time of day, temperature, and humidity. The test strip shall be 300 to 500 feet (91.4 – 152.4 

m) in length and shall be constructed with the job mix proportions, materials, and equipment to 

be used on the project. Adjustments to the mix design shall be permitted provided they do not 

exceed the values stated in Table 6.4. The test strip shall be evaluated by the owner to 

determine if the mix design and placement techniques are acceptable once the mixture has set 

and cured. If modifications to the mix design in excess of the values noted in Table 6.4 are 

necessary, a new mix design shall be prepared and another test strip constructed. The cost of 

the materials and placement of the rejected test strip shall be borne by the contractor including 

any removal costs. 

6.5.3 PROJECT DOCUMENTATION. 

After the project is underway, the contractor shall, on a daily basis, furnish the owner project 

documentation that includes the total amount of material delivered to the project and the total 

amount placed through the mixing machine from the dial gauges. The owner’s agent shall verify 

the dial gauge readings and material weights delivered and this information will be used to 

independently verify the mix proportions. 

6.6 CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS 

6.6.1 WEATHER LIMITATIONS. 

Slurry systems shall not be applied if either the pavement temperature or the air temperature is 

below 50°F (10°C) and falling. No material shall be applied when there is the eminent possibility 

of rain or if the finished product is subject to freezing within 24 hours. The mixture shall not be 

applied when weather conditions prolong opening to traffic beyond a reasonable time. 

6.6.2 MIXING EQUIPMENT. 

The materials shall be mixed in a specifically designed piece of equipment, either truck mounted 

for small applications and residential work, or continuous run machine for larger projects such 

as highways and airports. The machine must be a continuous-flow mixing unit able to 

accurately proportion and deliver the aggregate, emulsified asphalt, mineral filler, additives, and 

88

water to a continuous flow mixing chamber. The machine shall have sufficient storage capacity 

for all the mixture ingredients to maintain an adequate supply to the mixing chamber. 

6.6.3 PROPORTIONING DEVICES. 

Individual volume or weight controls for proportioning each material shall be provided and 

properly identified. These devices are used in material calibration and may be used to 

determine the material output on demand. 

6.6.4 SPREADING EQUIPMENT. 

The mix shall be agitated and spread uniformly in a specially designed box that is equipped with 

twin shafted paddles or spiral augers that are permanently fixed to the box. A front seal shall be 

provided to insure there is no loss of the mixture. The rear seal shall be adjustable and act as 

the final strike-off of the mixture. The spreader box and rear strike-off shall be designed so that 

a uniform mixture is delivered to the rear strike-off. 

The box shall be able to be shifted laterally to compensate for variability in the geometry of the 

pavement. 

6.6.4.1 Secondary Strike-Off. 

Where required on the plans, the spreading equipment shall be equipped with a secondary 

strike-off to provide a satisfactory surface texture. It shall be capable of having the same 

leveling adjustments as the spreader box. 

6.6.4.2 Rut Box. 

When the plans require that wheel ruts, depressions, and utility cuts, and others be filled prior to 

placing the finished wearing course, material shall be placed with a specially designed rut filling 

spreader box when rut depths are greater than 1/2 inch (12.7 mm). For ruts of less than 1/2 

inch (12.7 mm), a full width scratch course using the conventional spreader box is acceptable. 

Rut boxes are typically designed to be 5 feet (1.8 mm) or 6 feet (1.8 mm) wide. Where ruts 

exceed 1 1/2 inches (39 mm), multiple passes with the rut box are necessary. All rut filling 

should be allowed to cure under traffic for at least 24 hours before the final surface course is 

placed. Mixtures for filling ruts, depressions, utility cuts, and others shall meet the requirements 

of Type A as specified in Table 6.3 Aggregate Grades (page 84). 

89

6.6.5 MACHINE CALIBRATION. 

Each unit to be used for the placement of slurry systems shall be calibrated in the presence of 

the owner’s representative. Previous calibration covering the same materials to be used may 

be acceptable provided that no more than 60 days has elapsed. The calibration documentation 

shall include an individual calibration of each material at various settings that can be related to 

the metering devices on the machine. No equipment shall be permitted to work on the project 

without a completed calibration. 

6.6.6 WORKMANSHIP. 

When placing slurry surfacing mixtures, the longitudinal and transverse joints shall be uniform, 

neat in appearance, and not contain material build-up or uncovered areas. Longitudinal joints 

shall be placed on lane lines, edge lines, or shoulder lines and shall have a maximum overlap of 

3 inches (75 mm). Longitudinal joints shall be straight in appearance along the centerline, lane 

lines, shoulder lines, and edge lines. 

The finished surface shall have a uniform texture free from excessive scratch marks, tears, or 

other surface defects. A total of four tear marks are considered to be excessive when they 

exhibit the following criteria: 

• 1/2 inch (12.7 mm) wide or wider 

• 6 inches (150 mm) or more long 

• Within 100 yd 2 (85 m 2 ) of any mark that is: 

o 1 inch (25 mm) wide or wider 

o or 4 inches (100 mm) long. 

The contractor is expected to produce neat and uniform longitudinal and transverse joints. 

Transverse joints shall be constructed as butt-type joints. Joints are acceptable if there is no 

more than a 1/2 inch (13 mm) vertical space for longitudinal joints, and no more than 3/8 inches 

(9.5 mm) for a transverse joint between the pavement surface and a 4 feet (1.2 m) straightedge 

placed perpendicular on the joint. 

6.6.7 SURFACE PREPARATION. 

Immediately before applying the slurry surfacing, the pavement surface shall be cleaned of all 

loose material, vegetation, and other objectionable materials. Any standard cleaning procedure 

is acceptable. If water is used, cracks shall be permitted to dry thoroughly before applying the 

slurry mixture. A suitable method shall be used to cover service entrances (i.e., manhole 

90

covers, valve boxes). No dry aggregate, either spilled from the mixing machine or existing on 

the pavement surface, will be permitted. 

6.6.8 TACK COAT. 

If required on the plans, a tack coat consisting of one part SS or CSS emulsion and three parts 

water shall be applied with a standard distributor. The distributor shall be capable of applying 

the diluted emulsion at the rate of 0.05 to 0.10 gallons/yd 2 (0.16-0.32 liters/m 2 ). The tack shall 

be allowed to cure sufficiently before the application of the slurry surfacing. 

6.6.9 CRACKS. 

Existing cracks on the surface of the pavement shall be treated with an acceptable material well 

in advance of the placement of the slurry surfacing. The surface of the crack filling material 

shall be 1/8 inch (3.175 mm) below the surface of the roadway. 

6.6.9.1 Handwork. 

In areas where the placement equipment cannot work because of space limitations, these areas 

should be surfaced using hand tools to provide a complete and uniform coverage. These areas 

should be cleaned and lightly dampened before placing the mix. The finished texture shall be 

uniform and have a neat appearance as nearly as possible to that produced by the spreader 

box. 

6.6.9.2 Application. 

The surface of the pavement shall be pre-wetted by fogging ahead of the spreader box. The 

rate of application shall be adjusted during the placement based on the temperature, texture of 

the pavement surface, and humidity. 

6.6.9.3 Clean Up. 

All areas including service entrances, gutters, and intersections shall be cleaned of the slurry 

surfacing on a daily basis as well as any debris associated with the placement. 

91

6.7 METHOD OF MEASUREMENT 

6.7.1 AREA 

On small projects, less than 50,000 yd 2 (41,805 m 2 ), the method of measurement and payment 

shall be based on the area covered, which is measured in square feet, square yards, or square 

meters. 

On projects larger than 50,000 yd 2 (41,805 m 2 ), the measurement is based on the quantity of 

aggregate (tons or metric tons) and emulsified asphalt (gallons or liters) that are used. The 

aggregate is measured by the actual weight delivered to the project laydown site or is weighed 

at the stockpile with certified scales. Delivery tickets or printed weights shall be used for 

measurement. The emulsified asphalt will be measured by certified tickets for each load 

delivered to the project. Unused or returned emulsion will be deducted. 

6.8 BASIS OF PAYMENT 

The slurry surfacing shall be paid for by the unit area or the quantities of the aggregate and 

emulsified asphalt used and accepted on the project. The price shall include furnishing, mixing, 

and applying the slurry surfacing; labor, equipment, tools, mix design, test strips, surface 

preparation, and incidentals necessary to complete the project. 

92

7.0 CHAPTER 7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

7.1 SUMMARY 

This study, “Slurry Seal/Micro-Surfacing Mix Design Procedure”, was conducted from July 2003 

to November 2008 by Fugro Consultants Inc., Austin, Texas serving as the prime contractor 

with support from Applied Pavement Technology, Inc., Urbana, IL, MACTEC Engineering and 

Consulting Co., North Highlands, CA and CEL Laboratories, Oakland CA. The project was the 

result of a 14 state pooled fund solicitation managed by the California Department of 

Transportation. 

The purpose of the study was to develop a rational mix design procedure for slurry seal and 

microsurfacing mixtures. After conducting an extensive national and international literature 

review and an industry survey of existing practices, the research team posited a mix design 

process that formed the basis for the remainder of the study. A number of possible test 

methods were identified that would potentially assist the study in identifying the characteristics 

of slurry surfacing mixes that relate to mixing, spreading, and curing. The intention was to use 

procedures, either existing or developed ones that would minimize operator (technician) bias 

and also relate to various placement conditions in the field. 

Two test procedures that had been used in Europe, the “German” mixing test which the team 

renamed the Automated Mixing Test (AMT) and the “French” Wet Track Abrasion Test renamed 

the Cohesion Abrasion Test (CAT) were identified in the literature survey and were selected to 

be studied in comparison to existing International Slurry Surfacing Association test methods TB- 

113 and TB-100. A third procedure, an automated cohesion tester, was developed by an 

equipment manufacturer for the study and was named the ACT. 

The benefit of using the AMT mixing test, once all the equipment details were worked out, was 

the standardization of the mixing process under various temperature and humidity conditions 

that could be expected in the field. The CAT was adopted since the method used standard 

equipment used in TB-100 but used the entire gradation of the mix unlike TB-100 which the plus 

#4 material is scalped off. The ACT eliminates the operator bias associated with the torque 

wrench that is used to apply the load to the specimen. 

In addition to the test procedure development, test protocols were developed for both the AMT 

and CAT and ruggedness testing was conducted for both test methods. 

93

Delays in the progress of the research because of personnel transfers and equipment issues 

caused the research team to request two no-cost time extensions to the contract. The first was 

granted which extended the project for one year through October 2008 and the second one was 

not. The result was that there was approximately $75,000 in contract funds unspent and we 

were not able to complete the ruggedness testing and test protocols for the ACT nor were we 

able to construct test sections to validate the new test methods. The details for the construction 

of the test sections are included as an appendix to the final report should some agency wish to 

pursue this activity. 

7.2 CONCLUSIONS 

It is reasonable to conclude that the study, in spite of the delays and setbacks, was successful 

in attempting to identify test procedures that relate mixtures produced in the laboratory to field 

performance. As stated in the report and summarized above, we unfortunately were not able to 

validate the laboratory procedures to performance. Significant progress was accomplished 

during this study to develop test procedures that reduce operator bias but more work needs to 

be done to possibly improve the ACT test equipment, develop a test protocol, and conduct 

ruggedness experiments. 

Agencies or industry partners should be encouraged to further the work by conducting field 

projects to validate this study and to modify where necessary the test methods proposed. 

As often happens with any experimental research study, unanticipated circumstances arose to 

preclude this study from reaching a concise and implementable conclusion but the work 

conducted and reported on improves the state of the knowledge of slurry surfacing systems. 

94

APPENDIX A PROPOSED TEST METHOD FOR THE 

AUTOMATED MIXING TEST (AMT) 

Constructability of Asphalt Emulsions and Aggregate Mixture Systems 

[Automated Mixing Test (AMT)] 

AASHTO Designation xxxx: Draft Proposed Test Method 

1.0 SCOPE 

1.1 The test method covers measurement of the constructability of slurry surfacing materials 

once basic ratios of components have been established. By automatic and constant recording 

of the complete torque-measurement-curve, the mixing curve indicates each variation during the 

breaking process. The evaluation takes place under controlled conditions and the control 

system provides an automatic report of results. 

1.2 The main parameters that are measured are: 

• Mixing Torque (Mix Index) 

• Mixing Time 

• Spread Time 

• Maximum Torque (Spread Index) 

1.3 The test method is in development. 

1.4 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. 

2.0 REFERENCED DOCUMENTS 

2.1 International Slurry Surfacing Association (ISSA) Technical Bulletin (TB), TB-113, Trial 

Mix Procedure for Slurry Seal Design. 

2.2 Thin Lift in Cold-Applied Micro-Surfacing, Instructions for the Electric Mixing Test, 

(Translated from German). 

2.3 Computer software: Labsoftworld 4.5. 

95

2.4 IDA Werke EUROSTAR Power control-visc manual. 

2.5 Velp Scientific mixing stirrer manual. 

3.0 TERMINOLOGY 

3.1 Definitions: 

3.1.1 Mixing Torque (Mix Index), N-cm: the torque value measured in the initial, relatively flat 

portion of the torque-time plot, where mixing takes place without a significant increase in the 

measured torque. 

3.1.2 Mixing Time, minutes: the amount of time over which mixing takes place without 

significant increase in the measured torque; or the amount of time corresponding to the initial, 

relatively flat portion of the torque-time plot before the torque-time plot begins to increase. 

3.1.3 Spread Time, minutes: the amount of time over which the torque increases from the 

Mixing Torque value to a value of 12 N-cm. 

3.1.4 Maximum Torque (Spread Index), N-cm: the maximum torque measured before the mix 

breaks and becomes brittle. 

3.1.5 Breaking Time, minutes: the total amount of time until the mixture breaks by observation. 

3.1.6 Pre-Wet Water: The amount of water added to the dry aggregate and dry additive, when 

applicable. This moistens the aggregate before adding the liquid additive and asphalt emulsion. 

96

TB-113 mix classified 

as ST= stiff 

4.0 SUMMARY OF METHOD 

Figure A.1: Representation of Definitions 

4.1 The asphalt emulsion, aggregate, set control additives, and water are the components of 

the mix. The mix components, at the prescribed temperature, are weighed into a test container. 

Other components to be added are determined by the mix design or through pre-testing using 

the hand mixing method, ISSA TB-113. The asphalt emulsion and water (with additive) are 

placed in the container after being conditioned at the test temperature. The mixing cup is 

centered under the stirrer and lowered to 0.06 inches (1.5 mm) from the bottom of the cup. 

Then rotation of the stirrer is started manually and maintained at 50 rpm for 5 sec. The test 

measurements are captured by the control system. The mix is stirred until it either breaks or 10 

minutes have elapsed. 

4.2 The breaking of the mixture is also visually observed. The surface of the mixture in the 

bowl will appear very rough and coarse. At this point the mixture fragments into parts and free 

liquid may be observed. 

97 

Mix Index: 

9.4Ncm 

Mixing time = 

2.5 Min 

Spread 

Time =2.5 

Min

4.3 If the mix does not break, the test is terminated at 10 minutes mixing and observations 

made as to greater than or less than the specification level. 

5.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND USE 

5.1 This test method will measure compatibility and setting parameters of asphalt emulsions 

and mineral aggregates. 

5.2 This procedure is suggested for establishing design criteria of the mix system. In 

addition, it provides a means of quality control during the production of asphalt emulsion, 

mineral aggregates, and additives. 

5.3 This method facilitates research and development of new combinations of raw materials. 

5.4 This method documents the temperature influences on the consistency of the mixed 

materials. 

5.5 This method measures the affect of compositional changes on mixing. 

6.0 APPARATUS 

6.1 The AMT System set-up is illustrated in Figure A.2. 

6.2 IKA Werke EUROSTAR power control-visc, R-1826 Plate Stand, R-182 Boss Head, RH- 

3 Strap Clamp 

6.3 Velp Scientific stirring shaft with propeller: 3 stainless steel blades, 2.4 inches (61 mm), 

shaft 15.75 x 0.25 inches (400 X 6.4 mm) 

6.4 Mixing bowl: stainless steel, 10 oz, 2.75 inches (70 mm) tall, 2 inches (50.8 mm) radius 

with a rounded flat bottom (Vollrath #99637) 

6.5 Balance accurate to 0.1 g 

98

6.6 PC capable of running labworldsoft 4.5 software by IKA Werke (Windows 2000 or 

higher), with Excel® software program. 

6.7 Thermometer calibrated between 32°F (0°C) and 122°F (50°C) 

6.8 Spatulas 

6.9 Constant temperature cabinet or room 

7.0 SAMPLE PREPARATION 

Figure A.2: Testing Apparatus 

7.1 Aggregates: Sample representative portions of aggregates used for slurry seal mix or 

micro-surfacing mix. Use material of the type, grade, and source proposed for the project . 

Aggregates shall be dried at 140°F (60°C) to a constant mass and cooled to the prescribed test 

temperatures prior to performing the test. 

7.2 Bitumen emulsions maintained at the test temperature and representative of the material 

to be used in the project. 

7.3 Set control additives both solid and liquid that shall be used in the project. 

7.4 Distilled drinking water with a pH between 6.0 and 7.0 shall be used. 

99

8.0 PROCEDURE 

8.1 Maintain the aggregate, emulsion, water, and additives at the test temperature 

77°F (25°C). 

8.2 Set up the IKA Werke EUROSTAR ready for test with the control system ready 

on the correct measurement configuration. See the Appendix for establishing the signal 

flow. 

8.3 The amounts of materials shall be quantified by a mix design, from TB-113 or in 

a matrix to determine specific mix effects. 

8.4 Add 300g of aggregate into the mixing bowl. 

8.5 Add the required amount of solid additives, when applicable, and mix well by 

hand. 

8.6 Add pre-wet water, followed by the liquid additive, when applicable, and mix well 

by hand. Pre-wet water refers to the amount of water added to dry aggregate to ensure 

that it is moist prior to mix it with emulsion or liquid additive. 

8.7 Add the emulsion and quickly blend with the aggregate within 5-10 seconds. 

8.8 Within 5 seconds, quickly place the bowl and mix contents in the EUROSTAR, 

such that the bottom of the propeller is 0.04-0.08 inches (1-2 mm) above the inside 

bottom of the bowl. 

8.9 Start the mixer manually and mix for 5 seconds 

8.10 Start test and monitor torque. 

8.11 Switch off test at 10 minutes or when torque rises to a maximum and then falls 

off, which ever comes first. 

100

9.0 REPORT 

Report the following: 

9.1 Mixing Torque, N-cm 

9.2 Mixing Time, minutes 

9.3 Spread Time, minutes 

9.4 Maximum Torque, N-cm 

9.5 Breaking Time, minutes 

9.6 If the mixture mixes beyond 10 minutes without increasing in torque or breaking, note 

results as greater than 10. 

9.7 Blot Test results. 

10.0 PRECISION AND BIAS 

Additional studies are required. The equipment is still open for further development. 

11.0 BLOT TEST 

11.1 General Information 

The Blot Test is the second step for evaluating the mix proportions determined and tested using 

the hand mixing method, ISSA TB-113. The Blot Test results indicate several conditions of the 

mix that represent break. 

11.2 Terminology 

11.2.1 Definitions: 

101

11.2.1.1 BT: brown color transfer to white absorbent paper towel 

11.2.1.2 A: aggregate and clear water transfer to white absorbent paper towel 

11.2.1.3 CW: clear water transfer to white absorbent paper towel 

12.0 PROCEDURE 

12.1 Perform the test at temperatures used in TB-113. 

12.2 Weigh 100 g of aggregate into a suitable mixing bowl. 

12.3 Add the desired amount of dry mineral filler or additive and hand mix dry 

with spatula at 60 rpm in a circular motion for 10 seconds or until distribution of the dry 

ingredients are uniform. 

12.4 Add the desired amount of pre-mix water and hand mix at 60 rpm in a 

circular motion for 10 seconds or until distribution of the water is complete and uniform. 

12.5 Add the desired amount of liquid set additive and hand mix at 60 rpm in a 

circular motion for 10 seconds or until distribution of the liquid additive is complete and 

uniform. 

12.6 Add the desired amount of emulsion and hand mix at 60 rpm in a circular 

motion for 120 seconds. 

12.7 Remove approximately one-quarter of the mixture onto roofing felt. Spread 

the mix evenly to a depth of 3.9 to 5.9 inches (99 -150 mm). Begin timing. 

12.8 At the end of 30 seconds, blot the mix surface with a white absorbent paper 

towel. Note the color transfer onto the paper towel. 

102

12.9 Repeat the procedure for various mix proportions used for evaluating the 

mix system being tested. 

12.2 Report 

12.2.1 Mix proportions tested. 

12.2.2 Record the Blot Test results as BT: brown color transfer, A: aggregate and 

clear water transfer, or CW: clear water transfer. 

13.0 Labworldsoft ® Signal Flow Diagram Construction for the 

Automated Mixing Test 

13.1 General Information 

The Labworldsoft® Computer software is laboratory automation software used in conjunction 

with the Microvisc (or equivalent) stirrer to measure torque, speed, and time and calculate 

viscosity per the proposed draft test method, “Constructability of Asphalt Emulsions and 

Aggregate Mixture Systems.” 

The laboratory software application controls all of the laboratory equipment with an RS-232 

serial interface or analog interface to perform measuring, controlling, and regulating operations. 

It is operated with the mouse and/or keyboard in the same manner as all Windows® 

applications. 

13.2 Installation 

To install, follow the procedures provided with the installation CD. If it is to be started whenever 

Windows® is launched, copy or drag the “Labworldsoft®” application icon into the “auto start” 

window. 

13.3 Starting the Program 

1. Switch on Computer 

2. Start Windows ®(if not automatic) 

3. Connect laboratory instrument to PC 

4. Double-Click on application symbol (Labworldsoft® 4.5) 

103

Note: Closing all other programs running in the background will allow the Labworldsoft® 

program to run at optimum speeds during operation. 

13.4 Generating a Signal Flow Diagram for IKA®-Werke Eurostar Power 

Control-Visc 

After starting the program, a blank screen will appear with a menu bar at the top. For purposes 

of this procedure, the term signal flow diagram is also known as measurement sequence and 

configuration file. 

The first step is choosing functional units for use. Functional units are represented with icons 

and color coded according to their purpose, listed below. 

Blue – Lab instruments (Hardware) 

Yellow – Averaging and/or arithmetic operations 

Red – Manual or auto control of instruments or files 

Green – Displaying results - graphical, numerical, and saving 

1. Click on “Laboratory Instruments” in the menu bar. A drop down menu will appear. On the 

drop down menu, go to “IKA Werke.” Another drop down menu will appear. On it, go down 

to “Eurostar Power control-visc” and left click on it. An icon representing this instrument will 

appear on the page. 

2. Click on “Module” in the menu bar. A drop down menu will appear. On this drop down 

menu, go to “Signal Processing.” Again, another menu appears. Choose “Mean Value” by 

left clicking on it. An icon representing mean value will appear on the page. 

This process will continue until all functional units are chosen. The following chart is an 

abbreviation of the steps above. 

Menu Bar (click on item) 1 st Drop Down Menu 2 nd drop down menu 

Lab Instruments 

Module 

Module 

Module 

Module 

Module 

IKA Werke 

Signal Processing 

Controlling 

Visualization 

Visualization 

Files 

104 

IKA Eurostar Power Control Visc 

Mean Value 

Rated Value 

y/t graph 

Digital Instruments 

Write

Now that all the functional unit icons are selected, position them on the “page” using the 

diagram in Figure A.3 by clicking on the icon and dragging it to its location. 

Figure A.3: Position of Functional Unit Icons. 

If a need arises to remove a functional unit, use the right mouse button; double-click on the icon 

to be removed. 

In the second step, parameters of the functional groups are set in their respective parameter 

window. This includes the port number for the RS-232 interface and input/output paths for 

controlling variables or results. After choosing parameters, they appear as numbers on the 

related symbol. 

To change and/or set parameters of each functional unit, double-click on its respective icon. 

This will bring up the parameter window, when open; you make change/set parameters 

according to the following. Left click on “OK” when changes have been completed for each 

functional unit. 

− Rated value – change description to “RPM”; go to the RPM window and Restore Up; set 

rate to “50” and minimize RPM window, if desired 

105

− Eurostar mixer – the parameter window will open 

o Click on the drop down menu in the “Port” section. Make sure correct port is 

chosen, COM1. 

o In the “Control” box, check on “rated speed”. 

o In the “Measured values” box, check on “Torque trend”. 

− Mean Value – select “Sliding arithmetic mean”, Enter “1” for No. of values to be 

averaged 

− Digital Display – change the Description to “Torque”; go to drop down menu for unit and 

select “Ncm”. 

− y/t Graph – this plots torque (y) over time. Go to the drop down menu in the Settings 

area and select “Ncm” under units. Change the Y-max scale to 20.0. Go to the y/t 

graph window and Restore Up. Select drop down menu “Display mode”, select “Color 

and Lines”, click on “Drawing surface”, click on “Color” box and select the white colored 

tile, and click on “OK”. Additionally, click on “Axes”, select “Time Scale” and set at 10 

minutes. 

− Save Data – the parameter window will open. Can choose multiple channels for saving 

multiple pieces of data. For now, make sure one channel is specified. Check the box to 

“also save data in ASCII file.” To save data in a specific location, use the “Path” box. 

Clicking on that opens the “Save” window and a location/path can be chosen. 

See Figure A.4, which should show a final representation of the changes made above. 

106

Figure A.4: Final Representation of Set Parameters. 

In the third step, the signal flow begins to take shape by connecting the input/output paths using 

anchor points described earlier. 

1. Left click on the output/number field of the left-handed functional unit. The mouse 

pointer will change to a hand with a writing instrument. 

2. Press the left mouse button down and drag the arrow to the input path/number field to be 

connected. 

3. Release the mouse button and the connection is created. 

Connect each functional unit as in Figure A.5. 

107

Figure A.5: Display of Functional Units Connection. 

If a need arises to remove the connections created, with the right mouse button, double click on 

the number field of the connection input path to be deleted. 

13.5 Displaying Control and Result Windows 

Actual control of the sequence takes place in special windows. Depending on the functional 

control unit (push button, ramping), its control feature will be present. After beginning the 

measurement sequence, results are displayed in special windows. Depending on the functional 

result unit, numerical, graphical, and and/or results recording are visible when the window is 

visible. These windows are not visible initially. A minimized icon version is at the lower edge of 

screen. 

To Restore/maximize control/result windows: 

− Click on the full screen icon in the right had corner of the minimized icon. 

To reduce/minimize control/result windows: 

− Click on the minimize icon in the upper right hand corner of the enlarged window. 

108

13.6 Test Sample 

Refer to the proposed AASHTO test method for instructions regarding equipment and test 

specimen preparations prior to testing. 

13.7 Controlling Measurement Sequence 

Before starting the test, have the windows restored as in Figure A.6. 

Figure A.6: Display of Restored Windows 

For the proposed test method, starting and stopping of the measurement sequence will be 

controlled manually: 

• Select the drop down menu “Measure” 

• Place premixed mixture and bowl in testing apparatus 

• Set stirrer into the mixture at required distance from the bottom of the bowl 

• Turn on power control-visc 

• Click on “Start”; a window will pop up prompting to overwrite the file, click on “Yes” 

immediately to begin recording the torque. 

109

To stop the test, select the drop down menu “Measure” and click on “Stop”. A window will pop 

up prompting to end current measurement. Click “Yes”. 

13.8 Saving Measurement Sequence 

To save the signal flow diagram created, standard windows functions are used. Hold down 

“CTRL” + “Alt”, press “Print Screen” and paste the y/t graph into a Microsoft Work document. 

Add the mix details: mix description, test temperature, aggregate (g), mineral filler (%), water 

(%), set additives (%), emulsion (%), mix index, mixing time, spread time, maximum torque, and 

total time for break. 

Save file with an appropriate file name. 

To differentiate from other files managed by this software, signal flow configuration files have 

the extension*.con. 

13.9 Other Options 

Other options, such as printing, opening, creating new file, etc., are available in the menu bar 

and icon bar, using standard window functions. 

110

APPENDIX B PROPOSED TEST METHOD FOR THE 

COHESION-ABRASION TEST (CAT) 

DRAFT Proposed Method of Test for Measurement of Cohesion Build Up and 

Wearing Qualities of Asphalt Emulsions and Aggregate Mixture Systems 

[Cohesion Abrasion Test (CAT)] 

AASHTO Designation xxx: DRAFT Proposed Test Method 

1.0 SCOPE 

1.1 The test method covers measurement of the wearing qualities of slurry seal and 

micro-surfacing mixture systems under wet abrasion conditions at different levels of cure. The 

method is also suitable for measuring early cohesion of slurry and microsurfacing mixes under 

different cure conditions. 

1.2 The test method is applicable to mixes after the formulation of the slurry seal or 

micro-surfacing and, its set additives and water contents have been adjusted to prepare 

homogenous flowing consistency. 

1.3 The method may be used to assess the stripping potential of aggregates in early 

life. 

1.4 The test method is in development. 

1.5 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. 

2.0 REFERENCED DOCUMENTS 

2.1 ASTM D-3910-80a, Practice for Design, Testing, and Construction of Slurry Seal. 

2.2 ASTM D-6372, Practice for Design, Testing and Construction of Micro-Surfacing. 

111

2.3 ISSA TB-100, Test Method for Wet Track Abrasion of Slurry Surfaces. 

2.4 SCREG Surface Cohesion Test for Slurry Systems, C. Deneuvillers, ISSA 37th 

Annual Meeting, Mexico, 1999. 

2.5 ISSA TB-113 

2.6 AMT Mixing Test 

3.0 SUMMARY OF METHOD 

3.1 Asphalt emulsion, aggregate, setting additives, and water are the components of 

the mix. 

3.2 The proportions of the components will be derived after optimizing the binder 

content from previous testing as recommended in the mix design. The mix is cured for specific 

times under prescribed temperature and humidity conditions. After curing, the specimen is 

weighed and then placed in a circular pan on the planetary type mechanical mixer. Water is 

placed over the sample; in some cases the sample may be soaked in water before hand. The 

specimen surface comes in contact with the abrading dual wheel head. The wheels move 

across the surface in a planetary movement and abrasion occurs for 60 seconds. After the end 

of abrasion, the specimen debris is rinsed off. The remaining test specimen is dried with an 

absorbent paper and the final weight is recorded. The difference of the original and final 

weights is the measured loss of the test specimen. 

3.3 A loss mass below 100 g is representative of a high cohesion slurry seal or microsurfacing 

mix. A loss of mass of 100-300 g represents an average cohesion. When the loss of 

mass is close to 400 g, it is expected that the slurry seal or micro-surfacing mix will not resist 

traffic early in the curing stages of the system. 

4.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND USE 

4.1 The test method will measure early stage abrasion resistance and abrasion 

resistance of cured mixtures. 

112

4.2 The test method can quantify the influence of some formulation parameters on 

setting time and cohesion build up (such as variations of the mix components or the 

environmental temperature and/or humidity conditions while laying). 

5.0 APPARATUS 

5.1 The CAT system set-up is illustrated in Figure B.1 

5.2 Planetary type mechanical mixer, such as Hobart N-50 equipped with a dual wheel 

abrasion head, quick-clamp mounting plate, and flat bottom metal pan. See Figure 5.1. 

5.2.1 Ridged Wheels: 4 inches (100 mm) diameter with 0.8 inches (20.3 mm) contact 

width. 

5. 2.2 Wheel hardness of 75 and 95 (durometer reading) foot. 

5. 2.3 Abrasion head should weigh between 1100 g and 1150 g. 

5. 2.4 Aluminum abrasion pan, approximately 2.16 inches (55 mm) high with an inside 

diameter approximately 11 inches (279.4 mm). 

Figure B.1: Testing Apparatus 

5.3 Stainless steel or aluminum casting plates: 0.8 inches (2 mm) thick, 10.8 inches 

(274.3 mm) diameter. 

113

5.4 Suitable specimen casting mold with .55 inches (14 mm) depth and 9.8 - 9.9 inches 

(250-252 mm) inside diameter. A raised lip mold is preferred but a flat surface polymethyl 

methacrylate or equivalent mold is satisfactory. 

5.5 Mold strike-off apparatus, such as a wooden dowel, with minimum dimensions: 0.78 

- 17.7 inches (20 mm diameter by 450 mm long). 

5.6 Scales, with capacity of 2000.0 g, accurate to +/- 0.1 g. 

5.7 Wooden prop block or device to support the pan and mounting plate assembly 

during the test. 

5.8 Suitable rust-resistant mixing containers and spoons. Additionally, plate removal 

device with tapered flat tip (for example, a paint can lid opening tool), as pictured in Figure B.2, 

is needed for carefully placing and removing specimen plates into and from the abrasion pan. 

Figure B.2: Plate Removal Device 

5.9 Constant temperature water bath controlled at specified temperatures. 

5.10 Absorbent paper towels, single fold, CS Scott or equivalent. 

114

5.11 Environmental chambers which can maintain specified curing temperatures and 

humidity conditions. 

5.12 Forced air draft ovens for curing long term evaluation specimens at 140°F +/- 3°F 

(60°C +/- 3°C.). 

6.0 MATERIALS 

6.1 Aggregates: Sample representative portions of aggregates used for slurry seal mix 

or micro-surfacing mix. Use material of the type, grade, and source proposed for the project. 

Use the aggregates that pass the 3.8 inches (96.5 mm) sieve. Aggregates shall be dried at 

140°F (60°C) to a constant mass and cooled to the prescribed test temperatures prior to 

performing the test. 

6.2 Asphalt emulsion shall be representative of the material to be used in the project. 

6.3 Set control additives, both solid and liquid, shall be representative of the materials 

to be used in the project. 

6.4 Distilled potable water with a pH between 6.0 and 7.0 shall be used. 

7.0 EVALUATION PARAMETERS 

7.1 Curing duration of specimens: 30 minutes, 1 hour, and 3 hours. 

7.2 Curing temperatures of specimens: 59°F (15°C), 77°F (25°C), and 95°F (35°C). 

7.3 Curing humidity of specimens: 50% and 90%. 

8.0 PREPARATION OF TEST SPECIMEN 

8.1 Aggregate, asphalt emulsion, set control additives and mixing water shall be 

maintained at 77°F (25°C). 

115

8.2 The amounts of material components will be quantified as described by the mix 

design or through determinations from pre-testing using the Automated Mixing Test method. 

8.3 Split or quarter a sufficient amount of the dried aggregate to obtain in one quarter 

1300g to 1400 g, depending on the aggregate specific gravity and maximum nominal size. 

8.4 Brush about 5g of tack coat emulsion (use the same emulsion as is used in the 

mixture) onto the casting plate so it is evenly covered. See Figure B.3. Allow to dry completely. 

Figure B.3: Applying Tack Coat 

8.5 Center the specimen casting mold over the casting plate with tack coat as in Figure 

B.4. 

Figure B.4: Centered Casting Mold 

116

8.6 Weigh 1300 g of aggregate into the mixing bowl. Typically, 1300 g of aggregate 

should be enough aggregate to slightly over-fill the specimen mold during casting. Using a 

spoon mix in prescribed amount of dry set additive to the aggregate and mix for 1 minute or until 

uniformly distributed. Add the pre-wet amount of water and mix again for 1 minute or until 

uniformly distributed. Add the liquid set additive(s) to the mix and mix for 1 minute or until 

uniformly distributed. Finally, add the predetermined asphalt emulsion and mix for 1 minute or 

until uniformly distributed. Immediately pour into the centered specimen casting mold. 

8.7 Strike off the slurry mixture level with the top of the mold with a minimum of 

manipulation. Use a sawing motion with the wooden dowel and even out the surface as seen in 

Figure 8.3. Discard excess material. Remove the mold and cure under prescribed conditions of 

duration, temperature, and humidity. 

Figure B.5: Surface Preparation 

8.8 After the prescribed curing conditions, record the weight of the specimen 

immediately before placing into the abrasion pan. If there is excess water along the edges of 

the specimen and surface of the casting plate, carefully remove by dabbing with an absorbent 

paper towel before recording the initial weight. 

9.0 TEST PROCEDURE 

9.1 Place the cured specimen into the abrasion pan. Clamp the specimen plate to the 

inside of the abrasion pan; tighten the quick clamps to press against the specimen plate that is 

in the abrasion pan on the mounting plate. 

117

9.2 Completely cover the specimen with water at the specified temperature so that 

there is approximately 0.11-0.15 inches (2.8 – 3.8 mm) of water over the surface of the test 

specimen. Soak for 1 minute. 

9.3 Lift the mounting plate until the surface of the specimen comes in contact with the 

abrading wheels. 

9.4 Switch to the low speed of the Hobart machine. Abrade for 60 seconds. 

9.5 Lower the mounting plate and remove the specimen plate with the aid of a plate 

removal device. Carefully rinse the loose debris with 1000 ml to 1500 ml of water. Carefully dry 

the specimen and casting plate with an absorbent paper towel. Record the final weight. 

10.0 REPORT 

Report the following information: 

10.1 Aggregate: percent used, type of aggregate, source and the date received for 

testing. 

10.2 Asphalt emulsion: percent used, type of emulsion, source, and the date received 

for testing. 

10.3 Set additive(s): percent used, type, source, and the date received for testing. 

10.4 Percent of pre-wet water used to initially wet the aggregate, if needed. 

10.5 Curing conditions: duration, temperature, humidity, and soaking time. 

10.6 Testing conditions: machine used, running time. 

10.7 Abrasion Loss as the result of the initial weight before abrasion minus the final 

weight after abrasion. The loss is reported in grams. 

118

10.8 Observation of failure and stripping of aggregate in test, when applicable. 

11.0 PRECISION AND BIAS 

Additional studies are required. The equipment is still open for further development. 

119

APPENDIX C RESULTS OF RUGGEDNESS AMT TESTING 

Mix 5 was used for performing the AMT ruggedness tests. The target optimized proportions for 

M5 were 10% emulsion, 8% water, 0% liquid additive, and 0.5% type 2 cement. There were six 

conditions which were adjusted for evaluation. The room temperature used was either 73.4°F 

(23°C) or 80.6°F (27°C). The humidity condition used was either 40% or 60%. The emulsion 

content used was either 8% or 12%. The liquid additive used was either 0% or 0.1%. The 

mineral filler proportion used was either 0% or 1%. 

The AMT data for the trials are contained in Table C.1 and the traces fro the trials are illustrated 

in Figures C.1 through C.4.. 

AMT Ruggedness - Mix: M5 

Parameter 

Trial # 

Cement, % 

Liquid Add, %: Al Sulfate 

Water, % 

Table C.1: AMT Ruggedness Trial Data 

Emulsion, % 

Humidity, % 

Aggregate, g 

°F °C 

1 10 1 0.1 10 8 80.6 27 40 300 3 30 0.3 24 10.0 1:15 2:00 3:00 

2 3 0 0.1 10 12 73.4 23 60 300 0 30 0.3 36 9.0 2:30 n/a 5+ 

3 6 0 0 10 12 80.6 27 40 300 0 30 0 36 9.5 1:15 n/a 5+ 

4 12 1 0 6 12 80.6 27 60 300 3 18 0 36 9.5 1:15 2:00 3:00 

5 5 0 0.1 6 8 80.6 27 60 300 0 18 0.3 24 9.0 0:15 0:30 1:00 

6 7 1 0 10 8 73.4 23 60 300 3 30 0 24 9.5 2:30 3:45 4:30 

7 9 1 0.1 6 12 73.4 23 40 300 3 18 0.3 36 11.3 1:15 2:30 3:00 

8 1 0 0 6 8 73.4 23 40 300 0 18 0 24 11.0 0:15 0:40 1:15 

Unit % % % % % % 

design 0.5 0 8 10 25 25 50 

Parameter 

1. Fill 

2. Additive 

3. Water 

4. Emulsion 

Temperature 

5. Temperature 

6. Humidity 

°F °C 

1 0.05 0.1 2 -2 80.6 27 40 

2 -0.05 0.1 2 2 73.4 23 60 

3 -0.05 -0.1 2 2 80.6 27 40 

4 0.5 -0.1 -2 2 80.6 27 60 

5 -0.5 0.1 -2 -2 80.6 27 60 

6 0.5 -0.1 2 -2 73.4 23 60 

7 0.5 0.1 -2 2 73.4 23 40 

8 -0.5 -0.1 -2 -2 73.4 23 40 

Unit % % % % % C % 

120 

Cement, % 

Water, % 

Liquid Add, %:______ 

Emulsion, % 

Mix Index: steady state 

torque 

Mix Time: time where steady 

increase of torque begins 

Spread Time: time where 

torque reaches 12 N-cm 

Time when mix has broken

Figure C.1: Ruggedness Trials 

Trial 1 

Trial 2 

Trial 3 

121


Trial 4 

Trial 5 

Trial 6 

122


Trial 7 

Trial 8 

Trial 9 

123


Trial 10 

Trial 11 

Trial 12 

124

APPENDIX D RESULTS OF CAT RUGGEDNESS TESTING 

CAT: Cohesion Abrasion Test (French WTAT): short term 

Parameter Values Test No. 

High (H) Low (L) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

1. Cure Time (60min) 5 -5 H L L H L H H L min 55/65 

2. Cure Temp. 77°F (25°C) 2 -2 H H L L H L H L C 23/27 

3. Humidity (50%) 10 -10 H H H L L H L L % 40/60 

4. Test Time (1min) 5 -5 L H H H L L H L s 55/65 

5. Test Temp. 77°F (25°C) 5 -5 H L H H H L L L C 20/30 

6. Test Duration (1min) 5 -5 L H L H H H L L s 55/65 

125

CEL#: 10-17749 LAB #: Date Tested: Apr-07 M4: Ruggedness Evaluation # 1 

CAT: COHESION ABRASION TEST (FRENCH WTAT): SHORT TERM 

MIX 4 

Project Name: Slurry/Micro Mix Design Tested By: LH 1)apply tack coat to disc and break emulsion 

Aggregate: Type 3 Emulsion: MSE LMCQS-1h 2)record weight of specimen after cure, before soaking 

Source: LOPKE Source: VSS Emultech 3)cover test specimen with water 

Emulsion mid-range target: 11.0 4)abrade for time below 

Pre-wet water mid-range target: 16.0 5)rinse debris with 1000ml of water 

Additive mid-range target: 1.0 Additive: cement type 2 6)carefully pat dry with towel 

Additive mid-range target: 0.00 Additive: Aluminum sulfate 7)record weight after test 

Additive mid-range target: Additive: 


Curing Conditions: 

Cohes.Abrasion w/wheels Control Eval#1 

% material weights,g Temperature,°C 25 27 °C 

-- aggregate 1350.0 agg Temperature,°F 77 80.6 °F 

1.0 cement / lime 13.5 cement 

126 

Other: ___________ Humidity, % 50 60 

NONE 

16.0 water 216.0 water 

0.0 Aluminum sulfate 0.0 Aluminum sulfate Soaking period before testing see below 

11.0 emulsion (target) 148.5 emulsion 

Other: ___________ Compaction w/ roller immediately before testing 

A Cure Cure Cure Test time Test Test B C=A-B 

Original Time Temp 

Humidity in pan bfore Temp Duraction Final Loss 

Wt, g minutes °F °C abras, sec sec Wt, g Wt, g 

1864.2 65 80.6 27.0 60 55 30 55 1533.3 330.9 

1875.7 65 81 27.2 60 55 30 55 1617.1 258.6 

1866.6 65 80.2 26.8 60 55 31 55 1563.8 302.8



MIX 4 



Source: LOPKE Source: ERGON 3)cover test specimen with water 












127 


NONE 









1884.2 55 80.2 26.8 61 65 20 65 1520.1 364.1 

1869.1 55 80.4 26.9 60 65 20 65 1589.1 280 

1870 55 80.6 27.0 59 65 20 65 1537.8 332.2



MIX 4 















128 


NONE 









1879.2 55 73.4 23.0 60 65 30 55 1554.6 324.6 

1880.5 55 73.4 23.0 60 65 30 55 1610 270.5 

1863.8 55 73.6 23.1 60 65 30 55 1581.7 282.1



MIX 4 















129 


NONE 









1845.1 65 73.2 22.9 39 65 29 65 1600.3 244.8 

1868.8 65 73.6 23.1 42 65 30 65 1598.8 270 

1865.4 65 73.4 23.0 39 64 30 65 1579 286.4



MIX 4 















130 


NONE 









1852.2 55 80.4 26.9 44 55 30 65 1604.5 247.7 

1863.4 55 80.8 27.1 44 55 30 65 1648.1 215.3 

1870 55 80.8 27.1 44 55 31 65 1494.1 375.9



MIX 4 















131 


NONE 









1913 65 72.7 22.6 58 55 20 65 1564.7 348.3 

1882.1 65 73.8 23.2 58 55 21 65 1531 351.1 

1897.9 65 73.8 23.2 59 55 21 65 1553.2 344.7



MIX 4 















132 


NONE 









1840.5 65 80 26.7 40 65 20 55 1550.4 290.1 

1892.3 65 80.4 26.9 40 65 20 55 1627.6 264.7 

1865.7 65 80.4 26.9 38 65 20 55 1525 340.7



MIX 4 















133 


NONE 









1880.3 55 73.4 23.0 40 55 20 55 1593.2 287.1 

1888.1 55 72.9 22.7 39 55 20 55 1531.7 356.4 

1884.9 55 73.2 22.9 38 55 21 55 1546.4 338.5


MIX 4 

2.CAT-Cohesion Abrasion Test: French WTAT, short-term : Mix 4 

1 2 3 4 5 

6 

Parameter 

Cure 

Time 

Cure Temp Humidity 

Test 

Time 

Test Temp. 

Test 

Duration 

Test No. 1 5 °F 2°C 60 -5 86 °F 30 °C -5 original final lossfinal loss 

65 80.6 27.0 60 55 sec 86 30 55 1864.2 1533.3 330.9 331 

65 81.0 27.2 60 55 sec 86 30 55 1875.7 1617.1 258.6 259 

65 80.2 26.8 60 55 sec 88 31 55 1866.6 1563.8 302.8 303 

Test No. 2 -5 °F 2°C 60 5 68 20 5 original final lossfinal loss 

55 80.2 26.8 61 65 68 20 65 1884.2 1520.1 364.1 364 

55 80.4 26.9 60 65 68 20 65 1869.1 1589.1 280.0 280 

55 80.6 27.0 59 65 68 20 65 1870.0 1537.8 332.2 332 

Test No. 3 -5 °F -2°C 60 5 86 30 -5 original final lossfinal loss 

55 73.4 23.0 60 65 86 30 55 1879.2 1554.6 324.6 325 

55 73.4 23.0 60 65 86 30 55 1880.5 1610.0 270.5 271 

55 73.6 23.1 60 65 86 30 55 1863.8 1581.7 282.1 282 

Test No. 4 5 °F -2°C 40 5 86 30 5 original final lossfinal loss 

65 73.2 22.9 39 65 84.2 29 65 1845.1 1600.3 244.8 245 

65 73.6 23.1 42 65 86 30 65 1868.8 1598.8 270.0 270 

65 73.4 23.0 39 64 86 30 65 1865.4 1579.0 286.4 286 

Test No. 5 -5 °F 2°C 40 -5 86 30 5 original final lossfinal loss 

55 80.4 26.9 44 55 86 30 65 1852.2 1604.5 247.7 248 

55 80.8 27.1 44 55 86 30 65 1863.4 1648.1 215.3 215 

55 80.8 27.1 44 55 88 31 65 1870.0 1494.1 375.9 376 

Test No. 6 5 °F -2°C 60 -5 68 20 5 original final lossfinal loss 

65 72.7 22.6 58 55 68 20 65 1913.0 1564.7 348.3 348 

65 73.8 23.2 58 55 70 21 65 1882.1 1531.0 351.1 351 

65 73.8 23.2 59 55 70 21 65 1897.9 1553.2 344.7 345 

Test No. 7 5 °F 2°C 40 5 68 20 -5 original final lossfinal loss 

65 80.0 26.7 40 65 68 20 55 1840.5 1550.4 290.1 290 

65 80.4 26.9 40 65 68 20 55 1892.3 1627.6 264.7 265 

65 80.4 26.9 38 65 68 20 55 1865.7 1525.0 340.7 341 

Test No. 8 -5 °F -2°C 40 -5 68 20 -5 original final lossfinal loss 

55 73.4 23.0 40 55 68 20 55 1880.3 1593.2 287.1 287 

55 72.9 22.7 39 55 68 20 55 1888.1 1531.7 356.4 356 

55 73.2 22.9 38 55 70 21 55 1884.9 1546.4 338.5 339 

test method 60 min 77 25°C 50% 60 sec 77 25°C 60 sec 

curing 

time 

curing 

temp 

curing 

humidity 

soakin 

g 

time 

134 

abrasion 

water 

abrasion 

time


MIX 5 

CAT: Cohesion Abrasion Test (French WTAT): short term 

Values Test No. 

Parameter 

High (H) Low (L) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

1. Cure Time (60 min) 5 -5 H L L H L H H L min 55/65 

2. Cure Temp 77°F (25°C) 2 -2 H H L L H L H L C 23/27 

3. Humidity (50%) 10 -10 H H H L L H L L % 40/60 

4. Test Time (1 min) 5 -5 L H H H L L H L s 55/65 

5. Test Temp 77°F (25°C) 5 -5 H L H H H L L L C 20/30 

6. Test Duration (1 min) 5 -5 L H L H H H L L s 55/65 

135

CEL#: 10-17749 LAB #: Date Tested: Mar-08 M5: Ruggedness Evaluation # 1 


MIX 5 


Aggregate: Type 3 Emulsion: MSE MICRO 2)record weight of specimen after cure, before soaking 

Source: TEXAS Source: ERGON 3)cover test specimen with water 












136 


NONE 





A Cure Start Initial Initial End Final Final Soaking Abrasion Temp B C=A-B 

Original Time Clock Temp 

Humidity Clock Temp Humidity Period time of SOAK Final Loss 

Wt, g minutes Time °F °C Time before test water Wt, g Wt, g 

1632.7 65 7:50 81.3 27.4 60 8:55 27 59 55 sec 55 sec 30 1391.2 241.5 

1633.6 65 8:00 80.2 26.8 59 9:05 27 59 55 sec 55 sec 30 1368.1 265.5 

1634.9 65 8:10 80.4 26.9 59 9:15 27 59 55 sec 55 sec 30 1361.6 273.3 

Temp of test water: 30 °C 

86 °F





MIX 5 














137 

NONE 









1572.8 55 12:10 80.8 27.1 60 13:05 27 59 65 sec 65 sec 20 1397 175.8 

1613.1 55 12:25 79.8 26.6 60 13:20 27 80 65 sec 65 sec 20 1375.2 237.9 

1596.5 55 12:45 80.2 26.8 60 13:40 27 59 65 sec 65 sec 20 1340.9 255.6 


68 °F





MIX 5 

Source: TEXAS Source: ERGON' 3)cover test specimen with water 













138 

NONE 









1600.8 55 9:30 72.9 22.7 59 10:25 23 59 65 sec 55 sec 30 1251.3 349.5 

1619.9 55 9:45 72.9 22.7 60 10:40 23 59 65 sec 55 sec 30 1304.1 315.8 

1580.8 55 10:00 73.6 23.1 59 10:55 23 59 65 sec 55 sec 30 1268.8 312.0 


86 °F





MIX 5 














139 

NONE 









1633.2 65 10:20 73.2 22.9 40 11:25 23 40 65 sec 65 sec 30 1259.2 374.0 

1632.3 65 10:35 73.4 23.0 40 11:40 23 40 65 sec 65 sec 30 1277.8 354.5 

1635.1 65 10:55 73.8 23.2 40 12:00 23 40 65 sec 65 sec 30 1250 385.1 


86 °F





MIX 5 














140 

NONE 









1604.7 55 9:50 79.8 26.6 41 10:45 27 40 55 sec 65 sec 30 1359.7 245.0 

1610.6 55 10:05 80.2 26.8 40 11:00 27 40 55 sec 65 sec 30 1371.1 239.5 

1539.8 55 10:50 79.8 26.6 41 11:45 27 40 55 sec 65 sec 30 1297.9 241.9 


86 °F





MIX 5 














141 

NONE 









1574.8 65 10:10 72.7 22.6 60 11:15 23 60 55 sec 65 sec 20 1214.9 359.9 

1528.8 65 10:25 73.2 22.9 60 11:30 23 60 55 sec 65 sec 20 1201.5 327.3 

1564.1 65 10:40 73.6 23.1 60 11:45 23 60 55 sec 65 sec 21 1228.8 335.3 


68 °F





MIX 5 














142 

NONE 









1583.5 65 11:15 81.3 27.4 40 12:20 27 40 65 sec 55 sec 20 1386.5 197.0 

1564.3 65 11:30 80.6 27.0 40 12:35 27 40 65 sec 55 sec 20 1367.6 196.7 

1624.7 65 11:45 80.8 27.1 40 12:50 27 40 65 sec 55 sec 20 1439.5 185.2 


68 °F





MIX 5 














143 

NONE 









1601.1 55 8:10 73.4 23.0 40 9:05 23 40 55 sec 55 sec 20 1330 271.1 

1604.2 55 8:30 72.9 22.7 41 9:25 23 40 55 sec 55 sec 20 1289.8 314.4 

1609.6 55 8:45 72.7 22.6 40 9:40 23 40 55 sec 55 sec 20 1344.6 265.0 


68 °F

2.CAT-Cohesion Abrasion Test: French WTAT, short-term : Mix 5 

1 2 3 4 5 

6 

Parameter 

Cure 

Time 

Cure Temp Humidity 

Test 

Time 

Test Temp. 

Test 

Duration 

Test No. 1 5 °F 2°C 60 -5 86 °F 30°C -5 original final loss final loss 

65 min 81.4 27.4 60 55 sec 86 30 55 1632.7 1391.2 241.5 242 

65 min 80.2 26.8 59 55 sec 86 30 55 1633.6 1368.1 265.5 266 

65 min 80.4 26.9 59 55 sec 86 30 55 1634.9 1361.6 273.3 273 

Test No. 2 -5 °F 2°C 60 5 68 20 5 original final loss final loss 

55 80.8 27.1 60 65 68 20 65 1572.8 1397.0 175.8 176 

55 79.8 26.6 60 65 68 20 65 1613.1 1375.2 237.9 238 

55 80.2 26.8 60 65 68 20 65 1596.5 1340.9 255.6 256 

Test No. 3 -5 °F -2°C 60 5 86 30 -5 original final loss final loss 

55 72.9 22.7 59 65 86 30 55 1600.8 1251.3 349.5 350 

55 72.8 22.7 60 65 86 30 55 1619.9 1304.1 315.8 316 

55 73.5 23.1 59 65 86 30 55 1580.8 1268.8 312.0 312 

Test No. 4 5 °F -2°C 40 5 86 30 5 original final loss final loss 

65 73.2 22.9 40 65 86 30 65 1633.2 1259.2 374.0 374 

65 73.4 23.0 40 65 86 30 65 1632.3 1277.8 354.5 355 

65 73.7 23.2 40 64 86 30 65 1635.1 1250.0 385.1 385 

Test No. 5 -5 °F 2°C 40 -5 86 30 5 original final loss final loss 

55 79.9 26.6 41 55 86 30 65 1604.7 1359.7 245.0 245 

55 80.3 26.8 40 55 86 30 65 1610.6 1371.1 239.5 240 

55 79.8 26.6 41 55 86 30 65 1539.8 1297.9 241.9 242 

Test No. 6 5 °F -2°C 60 -5 68 20 5 original final loss final loss 

65 72.6 22.6 60 55 68 20 65 1574.8 1214.9 359.9 360 

65 73.3 22.9 60 55 68 20 65 1528.8 1201.5 327.3 327 

65 73.5 23.1 60 55 70 21 65 1564.1 1228.8 335.3 335 

Test No. 7 5 °F 2°C 40 5 68 20 -5 original final loss final loss 

65 81.4 27.4 40 65 68 20 55 1583.5 1386.5 197.0 197 

65 80.6 27.0 40 65 68 20 55 1564.3 1367.6 196.7 197 

65 80.7 27.1 40 65 68 20 55 1624.7 1439.5 185.2 185 

Test No. 8 -5 °F -2°C 40 -5 68 20 -5 original final loss final loss 

55 73.4 23.0 40 55 68 20 55 1601.1 1330.0 271.1 271 

55 72.8 22.7 41 55 68 20 55 1604.2 1289.8 314.4 314 

55 72.6 22.6 40 55 68 20 55 1609.6 1344.6 265.0 265 

test method 60 min 77 25°C 50% 60 sec 77 25°C 60 sec 

curing 

time 

curing 

temp 

curing 

humidity 

soakin 

g time 

144 

abrasion 

water 

abrasion 

time

APPENDIX E LAB RESULTS FOR AGGREGATES AND 

EMULSIONS USED IN EXPERIMENTAL MIXES 

Section Page 

1. Gradation Analysis for Aggregate A1. 145 



4. Sodium Sulphate soundness for aggregates A1, A2, A3. 175 

5. Durability of Fine Aggregate for A3. 178 

6. Abrasion loss by AASHTO T-96 for aggregates A1, A2, and A3. 179 

7. Sand equipment for aggregates A1, A2. 180 

8. Abrasion loss by ASTM D-6928 for Aggregates A1, A2, A3. 183 

9. Emulsion Test results for emulsions E1, E2, E3. 184 

10. AMT Results for all mixes. 190 

11. CAT results for all mixes. 193 

12. ACT results for all mixes. 224 

145

GRADATION ANALYSIS FOR AGGREGATE A1 

Source: George Reed, Table Mountain (A1) 

Aggregate: ISSA Type 3 

Sampled ID: 1-01 

SIEVE ANALYSIS per AASHTO T27 

1021.7 Dry Weight of Sample before #200 Wash, g 

Cumulative Results Type 3 ISSA Specifications 

Weight, g Sieve Size Sieve Size % Passing Min Max 

0.0 3/8" 9.5 100.0 100 100 

130.8 #4 4.75 87.2 70 90 

363.7 #8 2.36 64.4 45 70 

604.8 #16 1.18 40.8 28 50 

745.8 #30 0.06 27.0 19 34 

847.0 #50 0.03 17.1 12 25 

896.0 #100 0.015 12.3 7 18 

946.1 #200 0.0075 7.4 5 15 

10 

1 

0.1 

Sieve Size, mm 

146 

0.01 

100.0 

90.0 

80.0 

70.0 

60.0 

50.0 

40.0 

30.0 

20.0 

10.0 

0.0 

0.001 

Percent Passing 

% Passing 

Min 

Max









0.0 3/8" 9.5 100.0 100 100 

90.9 #4 4.75 82.7 70 90 

206.4 #8 2.36 60.7 45 70 

329.1 #16 1.18 37.4 28 50 

401.0 #30 0.06 23.7 19 34 

441.2 #50 0.03 16.1 12 25 

456.4 #100 0.015 13.2 7 18 

484.5 #200 0.0075 7.9 5 15 

10 

1 

0.1 


147 

0.01 

100.0 

90.0 

80.0 

70.0 

60.0 

50.0 

40.0 

30.0 

20.0 

10.0 

0.0 

0.001 


% Passing 

Min 

Max









0.0 3/8" 9.5 100.0 100 100 

65.3 #4 4.75 89.8 70 90 

180.0 #8 2.36 71.9 45 70 

339.7 #16 1.18 47.0 28 50 

444.4 #30 0.06 30.6 19 34 

510.9 #50 0.03 20.3 12 25 

554.1 #100 0.015 13.5 7 18 

582.6 #200 0.0075 9.1 5 15 

10 

1 

0.1 


148 

0.01 

100.0 

90.0 

80.0 

70.0 

60.0 

50.0 

40.0 

30.0 

20.0 

10.0 

0.0 

0.001 


% Passing 

Min 

Max









0.0 3/8" 9.5 100.0 100 100 

92.4 #4 4.75 90.8 70 90 

298.9 #8 2.36 70.2 45 70 

556.7 #16 1.18 44.6 28 50 

712.2 #30 0.06 29.1 19 34 

808.7 #50 0.03 19.5 12 25 

872.7 #100 0.015 13.1 7 18 

914.6 #200 0.0075 8.9 5 15 

10 

1 

0.1 


149 

0.01 

100.0 

90.0 

80.0 

70.0 

60.0 

50.0 

40.0 

30.0 

20.0 

10.0 

0.0 

0.001 


% Passing 

Min 

Max









0.0 3/8" 9.5 100.0 100 100 

105.8 #4 4.75 90.0 70 90 

329.9 #8 2.36 68.9 45 70 

587.2 #16 1.18 44.6 28 50 

745.5 #30 0.06 29.7 19 34 

846.9 #50 0.03 20.1 12 25 

918.6 #100 0.015 13.3 7 18 

966.5 #200 0.0075 8.8 5 15 

10 

1 

0.1 


150 

0.01 

100.0 

90.0 

80.0 

70.0 

60.0 

50.0 

40.0 

30.0 

20.0 

10.0 

0.0 

0.001 


% Passing 

Min 

Max









0.0 3/8" 9.5 100.0 100 100 

147.9 #4 4.75 86.4 70 90 

405.7 #8 2.36 62.7 45 70 

672.2 #16 1.18 38.2 28 50 

824.5 #30 0.06 24.2 19 34 

919.1 #50 0.03 15.5 12 25 

980.0 #100 0.015 9.9 7 18 

1018.1 #200 0.0075 6.4 5 15 

10 

1 

0.1 


151 

0.01 

100.0 

90.0 

80.0 

70.0 

60.0 

50.0 

40.0 

30.0 

20.0 

10.0 

0.0 

0.001 


% Passing 

Min 

Max









0.0 3/8" 9.5 100.0 100 100 

213.5 #4 4.75 81.2 70 90 

542.5 #8 2.36 52.3 45 70 

766.5 #16 1.18 32.6 28 50 

897.5 #30 0.06 21.0 19 34 

979.7 #50 0.03 13.8 12 25 

1033.9 #100 0.015 9.0 7 18 

1068.1 #200 0.0075 6.0 5 15 

10 

1 

0.1 


152 

0.01 

100.0 

90.0 

80.0 

70.0 

60.0 

50.0 

40.0 

30.0 

20.0 

10.0 

0.0 

0.001 


% Passing 

Min 

Max









0.0 3/8" 9.5 100.0 100 100 

130.8 #4 4.75 87.3 70 90 

372.9 #8 2.36 63.9 45 70 

609.7 #16 1.18 40.9 28 50 

752.5 #30 0.06 27.1 19 34 

853.5 #50 0.03 17.3 12 25 

912.0 #100 0.015 11.7 7 18 

956.1 #200 0.0075 7.4 5 15 

10 

1 

0.1 


153 

0.01 

100.0 

90.0 

80.0 

70.0 

60.0 

50.0 

40.0 

30.0 

20.0 

10.0 

0.0 

0.001 


% Passing 

Min 

Max









0.0 3/8" 9.5 100.0 100 100 

135.7 #4 4.75 86.5 70 90 

387.5 #8 2.36 61.4 45 70 

624.6 #16 1.18 37.7 28 50 

763.0 #30 0.06 23.9 19 34 

847.6 #50 0.03 15.5 12 25 

902.5 #100 0.015 10.0 7 18 

940.1 #200 0.0075 6.3 5 15 

10 

1 

0.1 


154 

0.01 

100.0 

90.0 

80.0 

70.0 

60.0 

50.0 

40.0 

30.0 

20.0 

10.0 

0.0 

0.001 


% Passing 

Min 

Max








0.0 3/8" 9.5 100.0 100 100 

58.6 #4 4.75 88.8 70 90 

184.4 #8 2.36 64.8 45 70 

310.1 #16 1.18 40.8 28 50 

384.0 #30 0.06 26.7 19 34 

433.1 #50 0.03 17.3 12 25 

466.2 #100 0.015 11.0 7 18 

487.7 #200 0.0075 6.9 5 15 

10 

1 


0.1 


155 

0.01 

0.001 

100.0 

90.0 

80.0 

70.0 

60.0 

50.0 

40.0 

30.0 

20.0 

10.0 

0.0 

% Passing 

Min 

Max 

Percent Passing

Source: Lopke (A2) 



GRADATION ANALYSES FOR AGGREGATE A2 





0.0 3/8" 9.5 100.0 100 100 

129.7 #4 4.75 87.2 70 90 

325.1 #8 2.36 67.9 45 70 

584.4 #16 1.18 42.3 28 50 

721.2 #30 0.06 28.8 19 34 

790.1 #50 0.03 22.0 12 25 

833.6 #100 0.015 17.7 7 18 

874.1 #200 0.0075 13.7 5 15 

10 

1 

0.1 


156 

0.01 

100.0 

90.0 

80.0 

70.0 

60.0 

50.0 

40.0 

30.0 

20.0 

10.0 

0.0 

0.001 


% Passing 

Min 

Max






682 Dry Weight of Sample before #200 Wash, g 



0.0 3/8" 9.5 100.0 100 100 

136.1 #4 4.75 80.0 70 90 

253.6 #8 2.36 62.8 45 70 

396.7 #16 1.18 41.8 28 50 

506.0 #30 0.06 25.8 19 34 

540.2 #50 0.03 20.8 12 25 

569.5 #100 0.015 16.5 7 18 

593.4 #200 0.0075 13.0 5 15 

10 

1 

0.1 


157 

0.01 

100.0 

90.0 

80.0 

70.0 

60.0 

50.0 

40.0 

30.0 

20.0 

10.0 

0.0 

0.001 


% Passing 

Min 

Max









0.0 3/8" 9.5 100.0 100 100 

139.0 #4 4.75 86.1 70 90 

337.1 #8 2.36 66.3 45 70 

581.2 #16 1.18 41.9 28 50 

724.2 #30 0.06 27.6 19 34 

800.2 #50 0.03 20.0 12 25 

848.3 #100 0.015 15.2 7 18 

878.3 #200 0.0075 12.2 5 15 

10 

1 

0.1 


158 

0.01 

100.0 

90.0 

80.0 

70.0 

60.0 

50.0 

40.0 

30.0 

20.0 

10.0 

0.0 

0.001 


% Passing 

Min 

Max









0.0 3/8" 9.5 100.0 100 100 

145.2 #4 4.75 86.0 70 90 

457.6 #8 2.36 55.8 45 70 

671.1 #16 1.18 35.2 28 50 

778.9 #30 0.06 24.8 19 34 

838.0 #50 0.03 19.1 12 25 

876.8 #100 0.015 15.4 7 18 

908.6 #200 0.0075 12.3 5 15 

10 

1 

0.1 


159 

0.01 

100.0 

90.0 

80.0 

70.0 

60.0 

50.0 

40.0 

30.0 

20.0 

10.0 

0.0 

0.001 


% Passing 

Min 

Max









0.0 3/8" 9.5 100.0 100 100 

126.6 #4 4.75 87.6 70 90 

446.5 #8 2.36 56.4 45 70 

661.1 #16 1.18 35.5 28 50 

769.1 #30 0.06 24.9 19 34 

828.2 #50 0.03 19.1 12 25 

866.3 #100 0.015 15.4 7 18 

898.2 #200 0.0075 12.3 5 15 

10 

1 

0.1 


160 

0.01 

100.0 

90.0 

80.0 

70.0 

60.0 

50.0 

40.0 

30.0 

20.0 

10.0 

0.0 

0.001 


% Passing 

Min 

Max









0.0 3/8" 9.5 100.0 100 100 

95.5 #4 4.75 84.3 70 90 

267.2 #8 2.36 56.1 45 70 

396.9 #16 1.18 34.7 28 50 

460.3 #30 0.06 24.3 19 34 

494.6 #50 0.03 18.7 12 25 

516.7 #100 0.015 15.0 7 18 

535.5 #200 0.0075 12.0 5 15 

10 

1 

0.1 


161 

0.01 

100.0 

90.0 

80.0 

70.0 

60.0 

50.0 

40.0 

30.0 

20.0 

10.0 

0.0 

0.001 


% Passing 

Min 

Max









0.0 3/8" 9.5 100.0 100 100 

22.4 #4 4.75 95.6 70 90 

129.4 #8 2.36 74.8 45 70 

270.2 #16 1.18 47.4 28 50 

341.9 #30 0.06 33.4 19 34 

380.4 #50 0.03 25.9 12 25 

404.5 #100 0.015 21.2 7 18 

425.2 #200 0.0075 17.2 5 15 

10 

1 

0.1 


162 

0.01 

100.0 

90.0 

80.0 

70.0 

60.0 

50.0 

40.0 

30.0 

20.0 

10.0 

0.0 

0.001 


% Passing 

Min 

Max









0.0 3/8" 9.5 100.0 100 100 

99.8 #4 4.75 84.5 70 90 

309.5 #8 2.36 51.9 45 70 

438.5 #16 1.18 31.8 28 50 

500.6 #30 0.06 22.2 19 34 

533.3 #50 0.03 17.1 12 25 

553.7 #100 0.015 13.9 7 18 

571.2 #200 0.0075 11.2 5 15 

10 

1 

0.1 


163 

0.01 

100.0 

90.0 

80.0 

70.0 

60.0 

50.0 

40.0 

30.0 

20.0 

10.0 

0.0 

0.001 


% Passing 

Min 

Max









0.0 3/8" 9.5 100.0 100 100 

76.7 #4 4.75 85.3 70 90 

219.0 #8 2.36 58.1 45 70 

333.3 #16 1.18 36.3 28 50 

386.5 #30 0.06 26.1 19 34 

413.9 #50 0.03 20.8 12 25 

432.2 #100 0.015 17.3 7 18 

449.7 #200 0.0075 14.0 5 15 

10 

1 

0.1 


164 

0.01 

100.0 

90.0 

80.0 

70.0 

60.0 

50.0 

40.0 

30.0 

20.0 

10.0 

0.0 

0.001 


% Passing 

Min 

Max









0.0 3/8" 9.5 100.0 100 100 

195.8 #4 4.75 80.6 70 90 

400.3 #8 2.36 60.3 45 70 

612.7 #16 1.18 39.2 28 50 

774.2 #30 0.06 23.2 19 34 

832.8 #50 0.03 17.4 12 25 

890.0 #100 0.015 11.7 7 18 

906.5 #200 0.0075 10.1 5 15 

10 

1 

0.1 


165 

0.01 

100.0 

90.0 

80.0 

70.0 

60.0 

50.0 

40.0 

30.0 

20.0 

10.0 

0.0 

0.001 


% Passing 

Min 

Max


Source: Texas (A3) 

Aggregate: Grade 2 Texas (between Type 2 & Type 3 ISSA specs) 


SIEVE ANALYSIS per AASHTO 

T27 


Cumulative Results Grade 2, Texas specs 


0.0 3/8" 9.5 100.0 99 100 

104.6 #4 4.75 90.0 86 94 

458.1 #8 2.36 56.2 45 65 

687.2 #16 1.18 34.3 25 46 

811.6 #30 0.06 22.4 15 35 

901.6 #50 0.03 13.8 10 25 

963.3 #100 0.015 7.9 7 18 

992.6 #200 0.0075 5.1 5 15 

1 

1 

0. 

0 Sieve 1 Size, 

mm 

166 

0.0 

1 

100. 

0 

90. 

0 

80. 

0 

70. 

0 

60. 

0 

50. 

0 

40. 

0 

30. 

0 

20. 

0 

10. 

0 

0. 

0.000 

1 

Percent 

Passing 

% 

Passing 

Mi 

n 

Ma 

x









0.0 3/8" 9.5 100.0 99 100 

88.8 #4 4.75 83.0 86 94 

209.6 #8 2.36 60.0 45 65 

327.6 #16 1.18 37.4 25 46 

398.2 #30 0.06 23.9 15 35 

444.6 #50 0.03 15.1 10 25 

477.3 #100 0.015 8.8 7 18 

494.9 #200 0.0075 5.5 5 15 

10 

1 

0.1 


167 

0.01 

100.0 

90.0 

80.0 

70.0 

60.0 

50.0 

40.0 

30.0 

20.0 

10.0 

0.0 

0.001 


% Passing 

Min 

Max








0.0 3/8" 9.5 100.0 99 100 

35.7 #4 4.75 92.9 86 94 

231.2 #8 2.36 53.8 45 65 

345.3 #16 1.18 30.9 25 46 

402.9 #30 0.06 19.4 15 35 

432.6 #50 0.03 13.5 10 25 

446.7 #100 0.015 10.7 7 18 

458.9 #200 0.0075 8.2 5 15 

10 

1 


0.1 


168 

0.01 

0.001 

100.0 

90.0 

80.0 

70.0 

60.0 

50.0 

40.0 

30.0 

20.0 

10.0 

0.0 


% Passing 

Min 

Max









0.0 3/8" 9.5 100.0 99 100 

34.0 #4 4.75 93.2 86 94 

218.4 #8 2.36 56.3 45 65 

330.4 #16 1.18 33.9 25 46 

391.4 #30 0.06 21.7 15 35 

425.1 #50 0.03 15.0 10 25 

441.3 #100 0.015 11.7 7 18 

454.8 #200 0.0075 9.0 5 15 

10 

1 

0.1 


169 

0.01 

100.0 

90.0 

80.0 

70.0 

60.0 

50.0 

40.0 

30.0 

20.0 

10.0 

0.0 

0.001 


% Passing 

Min 

Max








0.0 3/8" 9.5 100.0 99 100 

51.1 #4 4.75 91.0 86 94 

245.2 #8 2.36 56.8 45 65 

363.9 #16 1.18 35.9 25 46 

425.8 #30 0.06 25.0 15 35 

481.4 #50 0.03 15.2 10 25 

513.8 #100 0.015 9.5 7 18 

531.9 #200 0.0075 6.3 5 15 

10 

1 


0.1 


170 

0.01 

0.001 

100.0 

90.0 

80.0 

70.0 

60.0 

50.0 

40.0 

30.0 

20.0 

10.0 

0.0 


% Passing 

Min 

Max









0.0 3/8" 9.5 100.0 99 100 

49.0 #4 4.75 90.2 86 94 

229.5 #8 2.36 54.1 45 65 

338.0 #16 1.18 32.4 25 46 

386.0 #30 0.06 22.8 15 35 

418.5 #50 0.03 16.3 10 25 

447.5 #100 0.015 10.5 7 18 

467.5 #200 0.0075 6.5 5 15 

10 

1 

0.1 


171 

0.01 

100.0 

90.0 

80.0 

70.0 

60.0 

50.0 

40.0 

30.0 

20.0 

10.0 

0.0 

0.001 


% Passing 

Min 

Max









0.0 3/8" 9.5 100.0 99 100 

45.9 #4 4.75 91.0 86 94 

226.5 #8 2.36 55.6 45 65 

332.1 #16 1.18 34.9 25 46 

376.5 #30 0.06 26.2 15 35 

422.9 #50 0.03 17.1 10 25 

446.8 #100 0.015 12.4 7 18 

468.8 #200 0.0075 8.1 5 15 

10 

1 

0.1 


172 

0.01 

100.0 

90.0 

80.0 

70.0 

60.0 

50.0 

40.0 

30.0 

20.0 

10.0 

0.0 

0.001 


% Passing 

Min 

Max









0.0 3/8" 9.5 100.0 99 100 

113.3 #4 4.75 88.9 86 94 

482.0 #8 2.36 52.8 45 65 

692.3 #16 1.18 32.2 25 46 

796.5 #30 0.06 22.0 15 35 

862.9 #50 0.03 15.5 10 25 

888.4 #100 0.015 13.0 7 18 

941.5 #200 0.0075 7.8 5 15 

10 

1 

0.1 


173 

0.01 

100.0 

90.0 

80.0 

70.0 

60.0 

50.0 

40.0 

30.0 

20.0 

10.0 

0.0 

0.001 


% Passing 

Min 

Max









0.0 3/8" 9.5 #DIV/0! 99 100 

0.0 #4 4.75 #DIV/0! 86 94 

0.0 #8 2.36 #DIV/0! 45 65 

0.0 #16 1.18 #DIV/0! 25 46 

0.0 #30 0.06 #DIV/0! 15 35 

0.0 #50 0.03 #DIV/0! 10 25 

0.0 #100 0.015 #DIV/0! 7 18 

0.0 #200 0.0075 #DIV/0! 5 15 

10 

1 

0.1 


174 

0.01 

100.0 

90.0 

80.0 

70.0 

60.0 

50.0 

40.0 

30.0 

20.0 

10.0 

0.0 

0.001 


% Passing 

Min 

Max









0.0 3/8" 9.5 #DIV/0! 99 100 

0.0 #4 4.75 #DIV/0! 86 94 

0.0 #8 2.36 #DIV/0! 45 65 

0.0 #16 1.18 #DIV/0! 25 46 

0.0 #30 0.06 #DIV/0! 15 35 

0.0 #50 0.03 #DIV/0! 10 25 

0.0 #100 0.015 #DIV/0! 7 18 

0.0 #200 0.0075 #DIV/0! 5 15 

10 

1 

0.1 


175 

0.01 

100.0 

90.0 

80.0 

70.0 

60.0 

50.0 

40.0 

30.0 

20.0 

10.0 

0.0 

0.001 


% Passing 

Min 

Max

SODIUM SULFATE SOUNDNESS FOR AGGREGATES A1, A2, AND A3 

Sodium Sulfate Soundness per AASHTO for Fine Aggregate Samples 

Sodium 

New 

CEL Number: 10-17749 

Solution: 

Aggregate: A1 (Table Mountain) 

Solution: 

` 

Initial Bulk Test Sample Size, g: 

1021.7 Weighted 

% Passing Percentage 

FINE FRACTION To make Weight of designated Loss 

Sieve Ind'l Wt Cum Wt Cum % Cum % Ind'l % grading equal Fraction sieve after for Fine 

Size Retained Retained Retained Passing Retained check to 100% before test, g test Fraction 

0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

3/8" 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 

#4 130.8 130.8 12.8 87.2 12.8 12.8 13.8 300.0 6.2 0.9 

#8 232.9 363.7 35.6 64.4 23 22.8 24.6 100.0 4.9 1.2 

#16 241.1 604.8 59.2 40.8 24 23.6 25.5 100.0 5.2 1.3 

#30 141.0 745.8 73.0 27.0 14 13.8 14.9 100.1 4.3 0.6 

#50 101.2 847.0 82.9 17.1 10 9.9 10.7 100.0 4.5 0.5 

#100 49.0 896.0 87.7 12.3 5 4.8 5.2 0 0.0 

#200 50.1 946.1 92.6 7.4 5 4.9 5.3 0 0.0 

176 

pan+wash 75.6 0.0 7.4 sum 100.0 sum= 5 

(TOTAL final result reported to 

nearest whole number) 

Check: 1021.7 93 100.0



Sodium 

Used 


Solution: 

Aggregate: A2 (Lopke) 

Solution: 

` 







0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

3/8" 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 

#4 129.7 129.7 12.8 87.2 12.8 12.8 14.8 298.6 13.7 2.0 

#8 195.4 325.1 32.1 67.9 19 19.3 22.4 100.0 9.2 2.1 

#16 259.3 584.4 57.7 42.3 26 25.6 29.7 100.0 8.8 2.6 

#30 136.8 721.2 71.2 28.8 14 13.5 15.7 100.0 8.8 1.4 

#50 68.9 790.1 78.0 22.0 7 6.8 7.9 100.0 8.0 0.6 

#100 43.5 833.6 82.3 17.7 4 4.3 5.0 0 0.0 

#200 40.5 874.1 86.3 13.7 4 4.0 4.6 0 0.0 

177 




Check: 1012.9 86 100.0



Sodium 

Used 


Solution: 

Aggregate: A3 (Texas) 

Solution: 

` 







0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

3/8" 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 

#4 104.6 104.6 10.0 90.0 10.0 10.0 10.5 300.1 2.6 0.3 

#8 353.5 458.1 43.8 56.2 34 33.8 35.6 100.0 3.7 1.3 

#16 229.1 687.2 65.7 34.3 22 21.9 23.1 100.0 5.6 1.3 

#30 124.4 811.6 77.6 22.4 12 11.9 12.5 100.0 5.2 0.7 

#50 90.0 901.6 86.2 13.8 9 8.6 9.1 100.0 3.1 0.3 

#100 61.7 963.3 92.1 7.9 6 5.9 6.2 0 0.0 

#200 29.3 992.6 94.9 5.1 3 2.8 3.0 0 0.0 

178 




Check: 1045.9 95 100.0


Sample: 

Soaking Time, Start: 

Soaking Time, End: 

Sedimentation, Start: 

Sedimentation, End: 

Clay Reading, C: 

Sand Reading, S: 

Df (S/C)*100: 

Df to Round Up: 

Durability to Report: 

DURABILITY OF FINE AGGREGATE FOR A3 

Durability of Fine Aggregate per Cal 229 

10 

0 

20 

0 

5.2 

3.9 

75.0 

75 

75 

179 

Aggregate ID: 

3-01 Trial: 

minutes 

10 +/- 1 min 

at 20 min 

A3 (Texas) 

1

ABRASION LOSS BY AASHTO T-96 FOR AGGREGATES A1, A2, AND A3 

Abrasion Loss by LA Rattler Machine per AASHTO T-96 

CEL Number: 10-17749 Aggregate ID: A1 (Table Mountain) 

Sieve Size Used: #4 x #8 

Grading Used: D 

Grading Wt to Use, g: 5000 +/- 10 

Initial Sample Wt, g: 5000.5 

Number of Spheres Used: 6 

Mass of Charges to Use, g: 2500 +/- 15 

Mass of Charges Used, g: 2508.5 

Wt of Sample After 500 Revs, g: 4103.8 Retained on #12 

Percent Loss After 500 Revs: 18 


CEL Number: 10-17749 Aggregate ID: A2 (Lopke) 

Sieve Size Used: #4 x #8 

Grading Used: D 

Grading Wt to Use, g: 5000 +/- 10 

Initial Sample Wt, g: 5000.2 

Number of Spheres Used: 6 

Mass of Charges to Use, g: 2500 +/- 15 

Mass of Charges Used, g: 2512.2 

Wt of Sample After 500 Revs, g: 3845.9 Retained on #12 



CEL Number: 10-17749 Aggregate ID: A3 (Texas) 

Sieve Size Used: 

Grading Used: 

Grading Wt to Use, g: 

Initial Sample Wt, g: 

Number of Spheres Used: 

Mass of Charges to Use, g: 

Mass of Charges Used, g: 

#4 x #8 

D 

5000 +/- 10 

Wt of Sample After 500 Revs, g: 

5001.8 

6 

2500 +/- 15 

2508.5 

3732.3 Retained on #12 


180

SAND EQUIVALENT FOR AGGREGATES A1, AND A2 

Sand Equivalent Value of Soils and Fine Aggregate per AASHTO T176 

CEL Number: 

Aggregate: 

10-17749 

A1 (Table Mountain) 

Sample# 1-01 Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 

Soaking time: Start 0 3 6 minutes 

Soaking time: End 10 13 16 10 +/- 1 min 

Sedimentation: Start 1147 1435 1649 

Sedimentation: End 3147 3435 3649 @ 20 min 

Clay reading, C 4.9 4.8 4.9 

Sand reading, S 4 3.9 3.9 

SE (S/C)*100 81.6 81.3 79.6 

SE to Round Up 82 81 80 

Average SE to Report 81 







Sand reading, S 4.1 3.8 4.1 

SE (S/C)*100 83.7 80.9 80.4 



181



CEL Number: 

Aggregate: 


Soaking time: start 0 3 6 minutes 

Soaking time: end 10 13 16 10 +/- 1 min 

Sedimentation: start 1210 1421 1630 

Sedimentation: end 3210 3421 3630 @ 20 min 



SE (S/C)*100 63.2 62.7 61.2 

SE to round up 64 63 62 

Average SE to report 63 








SE (S/C)*100 63.8 66.2 64.3 










SE (S/C)*100 63.2 63.8 63.4 



182 

10-17749 

A2 (Lopke)




Aggregate: A1 (Table Mountain) 








SE (S/C)*100 72.1 70.3 71.9 



Sample# Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 



Sedimentation: Start 

Sedimentation: End @ 20 min 

Clay reading, C 

Sand reading, S 

SE (S/C)*100 

SE to Round Up 

Average SE to Report 

183

ABRASION LOSS BY ASTM D6928 FOR AGGREGATES A1, A2, AND A3 

CEL# 10-17749 

Aggregate: TABLE MOUNTAIN 

Abrasion Loss by Micro-Deval per ASTM D6928 

Sieve Size Cumulative Wt of Sample, g 

3/8" 0.0 

1/4" 750.0 

#4 1501.6 a 

Steel ball Wt, g: 4999.8 

Time Running, min: 95 

Wt of sample after 

test, g: 1414.3 b 

% of Loss: 5.8 

CEL# 10-17749 

Aggregate: A2-Lopke 

0 


3/8" 0.0 

1/4" 277.0 

#4 1500.6 a 




test, g: 1227.5 b 

% of Loss: 18.2 

CEL# 10-17749 

Aggregate: A3-Texas 

0 


3/8" 0.0 

1/4" 180.3 

#4 1500.3 a 




test, g: 1255 b 

% of Loss: 16.4 

184

CEL# 10-17749 

Source: Sem Materials 

Material: Ralumac 

CTM 331: Residue by Evaporation T59: Residue by Distillation 

Tested By:lh Tested By:cg 

EMULSION TEST RESULTS FOR EMULSIONS E1 

tare identification 1 2 3 A'=Initial sample wt, g: 199.9 or 200.0 or 200.1 200 

B: tare wt (beaker+rod), g 62.6 61.8 64.6 B'=Tare wt,g (still, lid, clamp, therm's, gasket) 3460.9 

emulsion weight, g 40.1 40 40.1 C=Average start time: 10:00 end time: 11:18 total time: 1:18 

A: final total dry weight, g 87.7 87.5 90.5 Residue,% D'=Total final wt,g (tare & distilled sample) 3594.7 

Res, % 62.8 64.3 64.8 63.9 E'=Final sample wt, g=(D'-B') 133.8 

emulsion weight = 39.9g or 40.0g or 40.1g C'=Residue, %= (E'/A')100 C'= 66.9 

residue, % = 2.5[A-B] start time @ 118°C: 6:15 1. distillation time: 60 +/- 15 min 

@30m, increase temp to 138°C: 6:45 

after 1.5h, stir and return to oven: 8:15 

complete after add'l 1.0h: 9:15 

185 

T49: Penetration of Bituminous Materials 

T53: Ring & Ball Softening Point 

Tested By:LH Test temp, °C: 25 Tested By: LH Liquid Bath Used: Boiled Distilled Water 

Time, s: 5 Left side Right Side 

Cup#1 Load, g: 100 °C: 57.5 °C: 58 

Trial #1: 49 

Trial #2: 50 Softening Point to Report, °C: 57.8 

Trial #3: 50 

AVERAGE: 50 1. Heat sample no more than 110°C above expected softening point within 2 hr max. 

Report to the nearest whole unit the average of 3 penetrations 2. Pour sample into heated rings. Total time from this point not to exceed 240 min. 

whose values do not differ by more than the following: 3. Cool, at ambient, for 30min. Trim excess w/heated spatula. 

Pen range: 0-49 50-149 4. Assemble apparatus (w/steel balls at bottom); fill w/water to 105mm depth; return to refrig 

Max difference between 2 4 or ice bath for 15 min 

highest & lowest penetration result 5. Apply heat at 5°C/min. After first 3min, max. variation is +/-0.5°C 

6. If the difference between the two temperatures exceeds 1°C (2°F), repeat the test. 

7. When using a 15C or 15F thermometer (low temp range), then report to nearest 0.2°C (0.5°F)

CEL# 10-17749 


Material: Ralumac verification testing 




tare identification 1 2 3 A'=Initial sample wt, g: 199.9 or 200.0 or 200.1 not tested 

B: tare wt (beaker+rod), g 65.5 65 64.2 B'=Tare wt,g (still, lid, clamp, therm's, gasket) 0 

emulsion weight, g 40 40 40.1 C=Average start time: end time: total time: 

A: final total dry weight, g 90.3 90.4 89.8 Residue,% D'=Total final wt,g (tare & distilled sample) 0 


emulsion weight = 39.9g or 40.0g or 40.1g C'=Residue, %= (E'/A')100 C'= #VALUE! 





186 





Cup#1 Load, g: 100 °C: 57.5 °C: 58.1 

Trial #1: 52 


Trial #3: 49 









CEL# 10-17749 


Material: Ralumac verification testing 





B: tare wt (beaker+rod), g 64.9 64 64.7 B'=Tare wt,g (still, lid, clamp, therm's, gasket) 0 

emulsion weight, g 40 40 40 C=Average start time: end time: total time: 








187 





Cup#1 Load, g: 100 °C: 61 °C: 61.5 

Trial #1: 46 


Trial #3: 47 









CEL# 10-17749 

Source: VSS Emultech 

Material: PMCQS-1h 




tare identification 1 2 3 A'=Initial sample wt, g: 199.9 or 200.0 or 200.1 200.1 


emulsion weight, g 40 40 40.1 C=Average start time: 9:45 end time: 10:55 total time: 1:10 

A: final total dry weight, g 89.9 90.4 90.5 Residue,% D'=Total final wt,g (tare & distilled sample) 3587.3 







188 





Cup#1 Load, g: 100 °C: 55 °C: 55.1 

Trial #1: 73 


Trial #3: 74 









CEL# 10-17749 

Source: VSS Emultech 

Material: PMCQS-1h 





B: tare wt (beaker+rod), g 64.3 64.7 65.3 B'=Tare wt,g (still, lid, clamp, therm's, gasket) 0 

emulsion weight, g 40.1 40 40 C=Average start time: end time: total time: 








189 





Cup#1 Load, g: 100 °C: 54.9 °C: 54 

Trial #1: 85 


Trial #3: 85 









CEL# 10-17749 

Source: Ergon 

Material: Micro emulsion 




tare identification 1 2 3 A'=Initial sample wt, g: 199.9 or 200.0 or 200.1 200.1 


emulsion weight, g 40 40 40 C=Average start time: 10:10 end time: 11:30 total time: 1:20 








190 





Cup#1 Load, g: 100 °C: 58.5 °C: 58 

Trial #1: 64 


Trial #3: 62 





Max difference between2 4 or ice bath for 15 min 





Mix: M1 Agg: Table Mtn Emul: Ralumac 

Trial # 

Temp°C 

Cement, % 

Water, % 

AMT RESULTS FOR ALL MIXES 


Emulsion, % 

Aggregate, g 

Cement, % 

1 25 0.5 8 0 10 300 1.5 24 0 30 n/a n/a n/a >15 sec 

2 25 0 10 1 11 300 0 30 3 33 8.8 2:30 3:00 3:30 

3 25 0 12 1 11 300 0 36 3 33 8.8 3:45 6:15 7:30 

4 25 0 12 1 12 300 0 36 3 36 8.8 3:45 6:15 7:30 

5 25 0 12 1 12 300 0 36 3 36 8.8 5:00 7:30 8:45 

6 25 0 12 1 13 300 0 36 3 39 7.8 6:15 8:45 10:00 

7 25 0 12 1 14 300 0 36 3 42 7.5 6:15 8:45 10:00 

8 25 0 0 0 0 300 0 0 0 0 

Humidity= 50% 


Mix: M2 Agg: Table Mtn Emul: LMCQS-1h 

Trial # 

Temp°C 

Cement, % 

Water, % 


Emulsion, % 

Aggregate, g 

Cement, % 

1 25 0 14 1 11 300 0 42 3 33 9.5 2:30 8:15 9:00 

2 25 0 14 1 14 300 0 42 3 42 n/a n/a n/a n/a 

3 25 0 14 1 14 300 0 42 3 42 9.5 8:45 n/a 10:00 * 

4 25 0 12 1 15 300 0 36 3 45 8.8 10:00 n/a 10:00 ** 

5 25 0 13 0.5 12 300 0 39 1.5 36 9.5 5:00 8:45 10:00 *** 

6 25 0 12 0.5 12 300 0 36 1.5 36 9.5 3:45 7:30 8:45 **** 

7 25 0 12 1 11 300 0 36 3 33 9.5 3:45 7:30 8:00 

8 25 0 10 1 11 300 0 30 3 33 9.5 3:15 7:30 8:00 

Humidity= 50% 

191 

Water, % 

Water, % 



Emulsion, % 

Emulsion, % 


torque 


torque 

* aborted; LV; rocks interfering with stirrer 

** didn't break; stopped at 10 min 

*** stopped at 10 min 


increas of torque begins 







Time when mix has broken 



Mix: M3 Agg: Lopke Emul: Ralumac 

Trial # 

Temp°C 

Cement, % 

Water, % 



Emulsion, % 

Aggregate, g 

Cement, % 

1 25 0 12 0 10 300 0 36 0 30 8.5 2:30 7:30 8:45 

2 25 0.5 12 0 10 300 1.5 36 0 30 9 1:15 6:15 7:30 

3 25 1 14 1 10 300 3 42 3 30 9 1:15 7:00 7:30 

4 25 0 12 0 12 300 0 36 0 36 8.5 3:45 7:30 8:45 

5 25 0.5 12 0 12 300 1.5 36 0 36 8 2:30 6:15 7:30 

6 25 1 14 1 12 300 3 42 3 36 8 2:30 7:30 8:45 

7 25 0 0 0 0 300 0 0 0 0 

8 25 0 0 0 0 300 0 0 0 0 

Humidity= 50% 


Mix: M4 Agg: Lopke Emul: LMCQS-1h 

Trial # 

Temp°C 

Cement, % 

Water, % 


Emulsion, % 

Aggregate, g 

Cement, % 

192 

Water, % 

Water, % 



Emulsion, % 

Emulsion, % 


torque 


torque 









1 25 1 16 0 11 300 3 48 0 33 7-8 8:15 >10 >10 

2 25 1 14 0 11 300 3 42 0 33 8-9 6:15 >10 >10 

3 25 1 12 0 11 300 3 36 0 33 9-10 5:00 >10 >10 

4 25 1 10 0 11 300 3 30 0 33 2-3 6:15 >10 >10* 

4r 25 1 10 0 11 300 3 30 0 33 10-11 5:00 6:00 6:00 

5 25 1 9 0.5 11 300 3 27 1.5 33 10 2:30 3:00 3:00 

300 0 0 0 0 

300 0 0 0 0 

Humidity= 50% * low torque b/c stirrer wasn't set low enough 

Time when mix has broken 



Mix: M5 Agg: Texas Emul: Ergon 

Trial # 

Temp°C 

Cement, % 

Water, % 



Emulsion, % 

Aggregate, g 

Cement, % 

1 25 0 9 0 12 300 0 27 0 36 7.2 2:30 5:00 7:30 

2 25 0.5 9 0 12 300 1.5 27 0 36 7.5 2:15 4:30 7:30 

3 25 0 9 0 10 300 0 27 0 30 8.5 2:30 4:30 6:15 

4 25 0.5 9 0 10 300 1.5 27 0 30 8.5 2:30 4:00 6:15 

5 25 0 10 0 10 300 0 30 0 30 9 2:30 5:00 7:30 

6 25 0.5 10 0 10 300 1.5 30 0 30 9 2:15 4:30 7:30 

7 25 0 11 0 8 300 0 33 0 24 8.5 2:15 5:00 7:30 

8 25 0.5 11 0 8 300 1.5 33 0 24 8.5 1:45 3:45 6:15 

Humidity= 50% 

193 

Water, % 


Emulsion, % 


torque 






CEL#: 10-17749 1)apply tack coat to disc and break emulsion 

Project Name: Slurry/Micro Mix Design 2)record weight of specimen after cure, before soaking 

Aggregate: Type 3 Emulsion: MSE Ralumac 3)cover test specimen with water 

Source: Table Mountain Source: Sem Materials 4)abrade for 60 sec 

Emulsion mid-range target: 11.0 5)rinse debris with 1000ml of water M1 

Pre-wet water mid-range target: 12.0 6)carefully pat dry with towel 

Additive mid-range target: 0.0 Additive: cement type 2 7)record weight after test 

Additive mid-range target: 1.00 Additive: alum.sulf. 


CAT RESULTS FOR ALL MIXES 

Comments: binding between emulsion and rock looks poor 



Cohes.Abrasion w/wheels 

% material weights,g Temperature,°C 15 25 35 

-- aggregate 1350.0 agg Temperature,°F 59 77 95 




1.0 alum.sulf. 13.5 alum.sulf. Soaking period before testing 1 minute 1 hour 


Other: ___________ Compaction w/ roller immediately before testing yes no 

194 

A Cure Start End Rolled @ Soaking Temp Temp B C=A-B 

Original Time Clock Temp Temp Clock Humidity end of cure Period of SOAK of SOAK Final Loss 

Wt, g minutes Time °F °C Time yes / no before test water water Wt, g Wt, g 

1718.2 0:30 12:45 60 16 13:15 51 NO 1 min 61 16 1058.7 659.5 

1716.8 0:30 13:00 60 16 13:30 51 YES 1 min 61 16 1114.5 602.3 

1706.4 1:00 9:00 60 16 10:00 48 NO 1 min 61 16 1154.7 551.7 

1732.6 1:00 8:30 60 16 9:30 50 YES 1 min 61 16 1291.6 441.0 

1723.6 3:00 8:15 60 16 11:15 48 NO 1 min 60 16 1377.1 346.5 

1728.1 3:00 8:00 60 16 11:00 51 YES 1 min 60 16 1184.7 543.4 

1728.3 5:00 6:30 59 15 11:30 48 NO 1 hour 60 16 1344.6 383.7 

1763.0 5:00 6:00 60 16 11:00 48 YES 1 hour 60 16 1549 214.0



Project Name: Emulsion: MSE Ralumac 3)cover test specimen with water 




















195 




1777.2 0:30 12:00 60 16 12:30 90 NO 1 min 60 16 922.1 855.1 

1752.3 0:30 12:15 61 16 12:45 89 YES 1 min 60 16 929.1 823.2 

1762.8 1:00 9:45 60 16 10:45 88 NO 1 min 60 16 988.9 773.9 

1785.0 1:00 9:35 60 16 10:35 88 YES 1 min 60 16 999.3 785.7 

1742.9 3:00 8:15 59 15 11:15 88 NO 1 min 60 16 1113.9 629.0 

1739.1 3:00 8:00 59 15 11:00 89 YES 1 min 59 15 1121.4 617.7 

1756.8 5:00 5:45 60 16 10:45 90 NO 1 hour 60 16 1264.6 492.2 

1759.2 5:00 5:30 60 16 10:30 90 YES 1 hour 60 16 1278.1 481.1























196 




1722.5 0:30 12:00 78 26 12:30 49 NO 1 min 78 26 1401.5 321.0 

1743.3 0:30 12:15 78 26 12:45 49 YES 1 min 78 26 1439.5 303.8 

1759.1 1:00 9:30 76 24 10:30 50 NO 1 min 77 25 1453.4 305.7 

1749.5 1:00 9:15 76 24 10:15 50 YES 1 min 77 25 1466.1 283.4 

1768.2 3:00 8:30 77 25 11:30 50 NO 1 min 77 25 1649.8 118.4 

1740.0 3:00 8:00 77 25 11:00 50 YES 1 min 77 25 1664.7 75.3 

1772.1 5:00 6:15 78 26 11:15 50 NO 1 hour 77 25 1758.2 13.9 

1769.1 5:00 5:45 78 26 10:45 50 YES 1 hour 77 25 1758.9 10.2























197 




1724.3 0:30 12:00 76 24 12:30 90 NO 1 min 75 24 777.1 947.2 

1751.9 0:30 12:15 75 24 12:45 90 YES 1 min 75 24 816.2 935.7 

1711.6 1:00 9:45 77 25 11:45 89 NO 1 min 77 25 595.2 1116.4 

1772.9 1:00 9:25 76 24 11:25 89 YES 1 min 73 23 857.1 915.8 

1763.1 3:00 8:30 76 24 11:30 89 NO 1 min 76 24 913.6 849.5 

1724.1 3:00 8:00 77 25 11:00 89 YES 1 min 74 23 1082 642.1 

1770.4 5:00 6:15 78 26 11:15 88 NO 1 hour 74 23 895.4 875.0 

1789.5 5:00 5:45 78 26 10:45 89 YES 1 hour 75 24 1266.3 523.2























198 




1774.1 0:30 13:00 94 34 13:30 50 NO 1 min 94 34 1689.5 84.6 

1777.8 0:30 12:50 95 35 13:20 49 YES 1 min 91 33 1680 97.8 

1785.5 1:00 9:00 94 34 10:00 50 NO 1 min 91 33 1726.4 59.1 

1815.9 1:00 8:30 94 34 9:30 49 YES 1 min 90 32 1776.9 39.0 

1738.0 3:00 8:00 90 32 11:00 50 NO 1 min 94 34 1714.6 23.4 

1750.3 3:00 7:30 94 34 10:30 50 YES 1 min 94 34 1717.1 33.2 

1688.5 5:00 7:00 94 34 12:00 49 NO 1 hour 91 33 1686.5 2.0 

1744.0 5:00 6:30 92 33 11:30 49 YES 1 hour 91 33 1741.6 2.4























199 




1748.7 0:30 12:00 96 36 12:30 89 NO 1 min 96 36 1520.8 227.9 

1729.9 0:30 12:15 96 36 12:45 89 YES 1 min 96 36 1512.1 217.8 

1740.7 1:00 9:45 95 35 10:45 89 NO 1 min 95 35 1620.7 120.0 

1766.2 1:00 9:35 95 35 10:35 89 YES 1 min 95 35 1653.8 112.4 

1768.9 3:00 8:30 95 35 11:30 88 NO 1 min 95 35 1711.6 57.3 

1754.6 3:00 8:00 95 35 11:00 89 YES 1 min 95 35 1690.5 64.1 

1750.3 5:00 6:15 94 34 11:15 89 NO 1 hour 95 35 1721.5 28.8 

1747.3 5:00 5:45 94 34 10:45 89 YES 1 hour 94 34 1721.8 25.5



Aggregate: Type 3 Emulsion: MSE LMCQS-1h 3)cover test specimen with water 

Source: Table Mtn Source: VSS Emultech 4)abrade for 60 sec 


Pre-wet water mid-range target: 14.0 6)carefully pat dry with towel 1 





Comments: 












200 




1777.6 0:30 11:45 61 16 12:15 49 Y 1 min 60 16 924.9 852.7 

1755.4 0:30 11:30 60 16 12:00 49 NO 1 min 60 16 1082.8 672.6 

1787.8 1:00 9:45 59 15 10:45 49 Y 1 min 60 16 1283.8 504.0 

1749.4 1:00 9:30 59 15 10:30 49 NO 1 min 60 16 1295.9 453.5 

1789.1 3:00 9:20 59 15 12:20 49 Y 1 min 60 16 1392.6 396.5 

1801.0 3:00 9:00 59 15 12:00 50 NO 1 min 60 16 1477 324.0 

1783.6 5:00 7:00 59 15 12:00 50 Y 1 hour 60 16 1571 212.6 

1822.4 5:00 7:15 59 15 12:15 50 NO 1 hour 60 16 1480.4 342.0











Comments: 












201 




1637.8 0:30 11:35 59 15 12:05 89 Y 1 min 58 14 800.6 837.2 

1640.6 0:30 11:25 59 15 11:55 89 NO 1 min 59 15 679.6 961.0 

1577.6 1:00 8:20 59 15 9:20 901 Y 1 min 59 15 679.4 898.2 

1634.2 1:00 8:00 58 14 9:00 90 NO 1 min 59 15 844.7 789.5 

1701.5 3:00 7:00 60 16 10:00 91 Y 1 min 58 14 1450.5 251.0 

1673.2 3:00 6:45 60 16 9:45 91 NO 1 min 59 15 1231.9 441.3 

1753.2 5:00 6:15 59 15 11:15 90 Y 1 hour 58 14 1494.2 259.0 

1710.4 5:00 6:00 59 15 11:00 90 NO 1 hour 59 15 1530.2 180.2












Comments: 











202 




1730.3 0:30 11:35 78 26 12:05 52 Y 1 min 77 25 1176.9 553.4 

1745.0 0:30 11:25 78 26 11:55 52 NO 1 min 77 25 1158.4 586.6 

1752.7 1:00 8:25 77 25 9:25 52 Y 1 min 77 25 1240.8 511.9 

1762.1 1:00 8:00 77 25 9:00 52 NO 1 min 77 25 1164.6 597.5 

1760.8 3:00 7:00 77 25 10:00 51 Y 1 min 77 25 1225.2 535.6 

1755.3 3:00 6:45 77 25 9:45 52 NO 1 min 77 25 1167.5 587.8 

1759.3 5:00 6:15 77 25 11:15 54 Y 1 hour 77 25 1469.3 290.0 

1748.4 5:00 6:00 77 25 11:00 54 NO 1 hour 77 25 1397.8 350.6












Comments: 











203 




1743.6 0:30 11:55 78 26 12:25 92 Y 1 min 79 26 1090 653.6 

1752.8 0:30 12:10 78 26 12:40 92 NO 1 min 79 26 1114.7 638.1 

1849.3 1:00 9:30 77 25 10:30 92 Y 1 min 79 26 1299.6 549.7 

1868.1 1:00 8:20 77 25 9:20 92 NO 1 min 79 26 1432.6 435.5 

1862.9 3:00 7:50 77 25 10:50 92 Y 1 min 79 26 1571.5 291.4 

1877.5 3:00 7:15 77 25 10:15 92 NO 1 min 79 26 1562.3 315.2 

1857.1 5:00 6:00 77 25 11:00 92 Y 1 hour 79 26 1718.8 138.3 

1899.4 5:00 5:40 77 25 10:40 92 NO 1 hour 79 26 1762.6 136.8











Comments: tests 1-4 done on 10/05; tests 5-8 done on 10/04 












204 




1790.4 0:30 10:35 96 36 11:05 48 Y 1 min 91 33 1332 458.4 

1792.2 0:30 10:20 96 36 10:50 48 NO 1 min 92 33 1396.6 395.6 

1756.0 1:00 9:45 95 35 10:45 49 Y 1 min 93 34 1360 396.0 

1760.1 1:00 9:30 95 35 10:30 49 NO 1 min 92 33 1379.3 380.8 

1781.4 3:00 7:15 93 34 10:15 49 Y 1 min 93 34 1544.9 236.5 

1769.5 3:00 7:00 93 34 10:00 49 NO 1 min 93 34 1539.6 229.9 

1788.5 5:00 6:00 92 33 11:00 49 Y 1 hour 93 34 1592.1 196.4 

1748.6 5:00 5:45 92 33 10:45 49 NO 1 hour 93 34 1530.5 218.1











Comments: 












205 




1749.9 0:30 12:00 91 33 12:30 88 Y 1 min 88 31 934.1 815.8 

1776.9 0:30 12:15 91 33 12:45 88 NO 1 min 88 31 1177.2 599.7 

1786.1 1:00 9:15 92 33 10:15 88 Y 1 min 87 31 1180 606.1 

1797.3 1:00 9:00 92 33 10:00 88 NO 1 min 87 31 1174.1 623.2 

1734.1 3:00 7:35 93 34 10:35 89 Y 1 min 88 31 1121.5 612.6 

1716.3 3:00 7:20 93 34 10:20 89 NO 1 min 88 31 1172.3 544.0 

1773.9 5:00 6:15 93 34 11:15 89 Y 1 hour 88 31 1539.6 234.3 

1739.4 5:00 6:00 93 34 11:00 89 NO 1 hour 88 31 1388.3 351.1




Source: Lopke Source: Sem Materials 4)abrade for 60 sec 







Comments: 












206 




1798.0 0:30 12:10 62 17 12:40 49 Y 1 min 61 16 1451.9 346.1 

1784.4 0:30 12:05 61 16 12:35 49 NO 1 min 60 16 1451.2 333.2 

1715.9 1:00 11:30 60 16 12:30 49 Y 1 min 60 16 1425.9 290.0 

1760.9 1:00 11:10 60 16 12:10 49 NO 1 min 60 16 1442.2 318.7 

1755.0 3:00 7:30 60 16 10:30 49 Y 1 min 60 16 1419.1 335.9 

1794.1 3:00 7:00 60 16 10:00 49 NO 1 min 60 16 1478.4 315.7 

1691.7 5:00 6:15 60 16 11:15 49 Y 1 hour 60 16 1434.1 257.6 

1736.2 5:00 6:00 60 16 11:00 49 NO 1 hour 60 16 1454.1 282.1











Comments: 












207 




1826.7 0:30 12:25 58 14 12:55 88 Y 1 min 57 14 1367.3 459.4 

1826.5 0:30 12:10 58 14 12:40 88 NO 1 min 57 14 1346.5 480.0 

1816.5 1:00 9:15 58 14 10:15 88 Y 1 min 56 13 1389.7 426.8 

1813.9 1:00 9:00 58 14 10:00 87 NO 1 min 57 14 1378.4 435.5 

1740.6 3:00 8:00 58 14 11:00 88 Y 1 min 57 14 1369.4 371.2 

1774.6 3:00 7:40 59 15 10:40 87 NO 1 min 57 14 1380 394.6 

1760.6 5:00 7:20 59 15 12:20 88 Y 1 hour 57 14 1477.1 283.5 

1760.7 5:00 7:00 59 15 12:00 88 NO 1 hour 57 14 1482.8 277.9












Comments: 











208 




1762.4 0:30 12:55 78 26 13:25 49 Y 1 min 78 26 1523.9 238.5 

1738.1 0:30 12:40 78 26 13:10 49 NO 1 min 78 26 1481 257.1 

1683.4 1:00 9:15 77 25 10:15 49 Y 1 min 78 26 1434.2 249.2 

1762.8 1:00 9:00 77 25 10:00 50 NO 1 min 77 25 1426.5 336.3 

1785.4 3:00 8:00 78 26 11:00 50 Y 1 min 77 25 1556.4 229.0 

1736.7 3:00 7:40 77 25 10:40 50 NO 1 min 77 25 1474.1 262.6 

1755.5 5:00 7:20 77 25 12:20 50 Y 1 hour 78 26 1538.6 216.9 

1743.9 5:00 7:00 77 25 12:00 51 NO 1 hour 78 26 1517.9 226.0












Comments: 











209 




1874.3 0:30 8:00 79 26 8:30 92 Y 1 min 74 23 1604.1 270.2 

1889.6 0:30 7:40 77 25 8:10 91 NO 1 min 74 23 1640.5 249.1 

1853.2 1:00 7:15 78 26 8:15 92 Y 1 min 75 24 1629.6 223.6 

1830.2 1:00 7:00 77 25 8:00 91 NO 1 min 75 24 1549.1 281.1 

1766.6 3:00 9:10 78 26 12:10 92 Y 1 min 76 24 1512.9 253.7 

1756.2 3:00 9:00 79 26 12:00 92 NO 1 min 76 24 1515.8 240.4 

1712.1 5:00 6:30 78 26 11:30 91 Y 1 hour 76 24 1409.5 302.6 

1790.4 5:00 6:15 79 26 11:15 91 NO 1 hour 76 24 1554.3 236.1











Comments: 












210 




1742.5 0:30 11:15 91 33 11:45 50 Y 1 min 93 34 1569 173.5 

1736.4 0:30 11:00 91 33 11:30 51 NO 1 min 92 33 1611.9 124.5 

1759.6 1:00 8:15 91 33 9:15 49 Y 1 min 92 33 1599.4 160.2 

1737.7 1:00 7:45 92 33 8:45 49 NO 1 min 92 33 1613.5 124.2 

1730.1 3:00 7:00 92 33 10:00 49 Y 1 min 92 33 1646.2 83.9 

1743.8 3:00 6:45 92 33 9:45 49 NO 1 min 93 34 1686.2 57.6 

1723.5 5:00 5:45 91 33 10:45 50 Y 1 hour 92 33 1666.9 56.6 

1694.2 5:00 5:30 92 33 10:30 50 NO 1 hour 92 33 1634.5 59.7











Comments: 












211 




1766.7 0:30 12:10 94 34 12:40 91 Y 1 min 92 33 1575.1 191.6 

1766.3 0:30 12:05 92 33 12:35 90 NO 1 min 93 34 1560.7 205.6 

1756.5 1:00 11:30 92 33 12:30 90 Y 1 min 91 33 1569.3 187.2 

1743.7 1:00 11:10 93 34 12:10 91 NO 1 min 90 32 1578.3 165.4 

1749.6 3:00 7:30 92 33 10:30 90 Y 1 min 90 32 1658.5 91.1 

1774.6 3:00 7:00 92 33 10:00 90 NO 1 min 90 32 1697.2 77.4 

1760.5 5:00 6:15 91 33 11:15 91 Y 1 hour 89 32 1699 61.5 

1762.6 5:00 6:00 91 33 11:00 91 NO 1 hour 90 32 1709.9 52.7




Source: Lopke Source: VSS Emultech 4)abrade for 60 sec 







Comments: 












212 




1841.0 0:30 15:05 60 16 15:35 49 Y 1 min 61 16 1266 575.0 

1794.9 0:30 14:55 58 14 15:25 51 NO 1 min 61 16 1421.1 373.8 

1806.2 1:00 13:50 60 16 14:50 48 Y 1 min 62 17 1419.5 386.7 

1789.7 1:00 13:20 59 15 14:20 48 NO 1 min 61 16 1438.2 351.5 

1796.8 3:00 10:00 59 15 13:00 49 Y 1 min 60 16 1394.9 401.9 

1799.4 3:00 10:45 60 16 13:45 50 NO 1 min 60 16 1419.5 379.9 

1826.3 5:00 5:30 61 16 10:30 50 Y 1 hour 60 16 1452.6 373.7 

1830.3 5:00 5:45 61 16 10:45 50 NO 1 hour 60 16 1401.6 428.7











Comments: 












213 




1758.2 0:30 11:20 59 15 11:50 88 Y 1 min 62 17 1075.5 682.7 

1761.8 0:30 11:10 59 15 11:40 88 NO 1 min 62 17 1107.4 654.4 

1764.6 1:00 7:55 57 14 8:55 88 Y 1 min 61 16 1262.7 501.9 

1750.0 1:00 7:40 57 14 8:40 87 NO 1 min 62 17 1230.7 519.3 

1760.2 3:00 7:30 57 14 10:30 88 Y 1 min 62 17 1304.4 455.8 

1755.6 3:00 7:05 57 14 10:05 87 NO 1 min 61 16 1320.6 435.0 

1785.1 5:00 6:30 57 14 11:30 89 Y 1 hour 61 16 1358 427.1 

1761.5 5:00 6:15 57 14 11:15 89 NO 1 hour 60 16 1323.3 438.2












Comments: 











214 




1740.2 0:30 12:10 78 26 12:40 48 Y 1 min 79 26 1423.5 316.7 

1763.8 0:30 12:05 78 26 12:35 48 NO 1 min 79 26 1465.4 298.4 

1766.4 1:00 11:30 78 26 12:30 48 Y 1 min 79 26 1464.9 301.5 

1784.1 1:00 11:10 78 26 12:10 48 NO 1 min 79 26 1437 347.1 

1760.6 3:00 7:30 77 25 10:30 49 Y 1 min 79 26 1576.2 184.4 

1750.8 3:00 7:00 77 25 10:00 49 NO 1 min 79 26 1466.2 284.6 

1748.6 5:00 6:15 77 25 11:15 50 Y 1 hour 78 26 1532.4 216.2 

1766.0 5:00 6:00 77 25 11:00 50 NO 1 hour 78 26 1508.6 257.4












Comments: 











215 




1831.2 0:30 12:10 77 25 12:40 88 Y 1 min 75 24 1365.1 466.1 

1796.8 0:30 11:45 77 25 12:15 88 NO 1 min 75 24 1325 471.8 

1843.1 1:00 9:15 78 26 10:15 89 Y 1 min 75 24 1442.5 400.6 

1833.1 1:00 9:00 77 25 10:00 89 NO 1 min 75 24 1418.5 414.6 

1841.8 3:00 7:45 77 25 10:45 90 Y 1 min 74 23 1526 315.8 

1822.4 3:00 7:25 77 25 10:25 88 NO 1 min 74 23 1525.5 296.9 

1845.7 5:00 6:30 77 25 11:30 88 Y 1 hour 74 23 1598 247.7 

1811.4 5:00 6:15 76 24 11:15 89 NO 1 hour 74 23 1587.7 223.7











Comments: 












216 




1768.1 0:30 12:55 95 35 13:25 50 Y 1 min 94 34 1514.2 253.9 

1764.4 0:30 12:40 95 35 13:10 50 NO 1 min 93 34 1536.9 227.5 

1755.9 1:00 9:15 93 34 10:15 51 Y 1 min 93 34 1553.3 202.6 

1740.9 1:00 9:00 92 33 10:00 51 NO 1 min 93 34 1522.5 218.4 

1755.8 3:00 8:00 92 33 11:00 52 Y 1 min 93 34 1593.4 162.4 

1784.2 3:00 7:40 92 33 10:40 52 NO 1 min 93 34 1604.9 179.3 

1761.7 5:00 7:20 92 33 12:20 52 Y 1 hour 93 34 1623.6 138.1 

1743.0 5:00 7:00 92 33 12:00 52 NO 1 hour 93 34 1597.9 145.1











Comments: 












217 




1749.2 0:30 11:10 93 34 11:40 91 Y 1 min 96 36 1443.5 305.7 

1757.9 0:30 11:00 93 34 11:30 91 NO 1 min 96 36 1476.7 281.2 

1784.0 1:00 7:45 92 33 8:45 89 Y 1 min 94 34 1533.6 250.4 

1756.3 1:00 7:30 92 33 8:30 89 NO 1 min 94 34 1487.8 268.5 

1766.6 3:00 7:20 92 33 10:20 89 Y 1 min 94 34 1547.8 218.8 

1754.8 3:00 7:00 92 33 10:00 89 NO 1 min 93 34 1542.1 212.7 

1765.2 5:00 6:30 92 33 11:30 91 Y 1 hour 93 34 1579.9 185.3 

1760.6 5:00 6:15 92 33 11:15 91 NO 1 hour 93 34 1593.3 167.3



Aggregate: Type 2 / 3 Emulsion: MSE Micro 3)cover test specimen with water 

Source: Texas Delta Source: Ergon 4)abrade for 60 sec 







Comments: 












218 




1755.2 0:30 12:30 61 16 13:00 51 Y 1 min 61 16 973 782.2 

1764.8 0:30 12:45 61 16 13:15 51 NO 1 min 61 16 1003.4 761.4 

1747.3 1:00 8:25 60 16 9:25 52 Y 1 min 61 16 1035.3 712.0 

1787.8 1:00 8:00 60 16 9:00 52 NO 1 min 61 16 1091.5 696.3 

1745.8 3:00 7:00 58 14 10:00 52 Y 1 min 59 15 1513.1 232.7 

1722.3 3:00 6:45 58 14 9:45 52 NO 1 min 59 15 1446.9 275.4 

1766.6 5:00 6:15 58 14 11:15 52 Y 1 hour 59 15 1582.5 184.1 

1748.9 5:00 6:00 58 14 11:00 52 NO 1 hour 59 15 1553 195.9











Comments: 












219 




1717.4 0:30 12:45 59 15 13:15 92 Y 1 min 59 15 925.5 791.9 

1667.8 0:30 12:35 59 15 13:05 91 NO 1 min 59 15 980.2 687.6 

1756.0 1:00 8:15 58 14 9:15 91 Y 1 min 58 14 1374.5 381.5 

1693.5 1:00 8:00 58 14 9:00 92 NO 1 min 59 15 1261.8 431.7 

1767.1 3:00 7:05 58 14 10:05 89 Y 1 min 58 14 1499.7 267.4 

1699.3 3:00 6:50 58 14 9:50 89 NO 1 min 59 15 1431.3 268.0 

1688.1 5:00 6:20 60 16 11:20 92 Y 1 hour 59 15 1517.7 170.4 

1760.8 5:00 6:00 58 14 11:00 89 NO 1 hour 59 15 1591 169.8












Comments: 











220 




1796.7 0:30 12:10 79 26 12:40 49 Y 1 min 74 23 1468.1 328.6 

1761.7 0:30 12:00 79 26 12:30 49 NO 1 min 74 23 1481 280.7 

1711.1 1:00 10:10 77 25 11:10 50 Y 1 min 74 23 1573.6 137.5 

1762.9 1:00 9:50 77 25 10:50 50 NO 1 min 74 23 1610.5 152.4 

1785.4 3:00 8:00 77 25 11:00 50 Y 1 min 74 23 1708.3 77.1 

1781.4 3:00 7:45 77 25 10:45 50 NO 1 min 74 23 1716.1 65.3 

1761.4 5:00 6:05 76 24 11:05 52 Y 1 hour 74 23 1681.8 79.6 

1773.5 5:00 6:20 77 25 11:20 52 NO 1 hour 74 23 1710.5 63.0












Comments: 











221 




1723.9 0:30 12:30 78 26 13:00 89 Y 1 min 76 24 1382.3 341.6 

1733.5 0:30 12:45 78 26 13:15 90 NO 1 min 76 24 1382.7 350.8 

1701.8 1:00 10:00 77 25 11:00 90 Y 1 min 76 24 1447.8 254.0 

1679.4 1:00 9:50 77 25 10:50 90 NO 1 min 76 24 1376.5 302.9 

1729.4 3:00 8:10 77 25 11:10 90 Y 1 min 76 24 1579 150.4 

1715.8 3:00 7:45 77 25 10:45 90 NO 1 min 75 24 1560.1 155.7 

1744.9 5:00 6:05 77 25 11:05 90 Y 1 hour 76 24 1646.9 98.0 

1730.3 5:00 6:20 77 25 11:20 90 NO 1 hour 76 24 1619.7 110.6











Comments: 












222 




1732.6 0:30 13:00 96 36 13:30 49 Y 1 min 95 35 1681.9 50.7 

1748.5 0:30 13:15 95 35 13:45 49 NO 1 min 95 35 1689 59.5 

1736.8 1:00 9:45 95 35 10:45 50 Y 1 min 95 35 1692.4 44.4 

1761.6 1:00 9:30 95 35 10:30 50 NO 1 min 95 35 1714.7 46.9 

1766.9 3:00 7:20 95 35 10:20 50 Y 1 min 95 35 1762 4.9 

1754.9 3:00 7:00 95 35 10:00 50 NO 1 min 95 35 1749.7 5.2 

1737.1 5:00 6:00 95 35 11:00 50 Y 1 hour 95 35 1735.7 1.4 

1752.4 5:00 6:15 95 35 11:15 50 NO 1 hour 95 35 1751.3 1.1











Comments: 












223 




1748.8 0:30 12:30 94 34 13:00 89 Y 1 min 95 35 1670.9 77.9 

1736.5 0:30 12:45 94 34 13:15 90 NO 1 min 95 35 1650.9 85.6 

1717.8 1:00 8:25 94 34 9:25 90 Y 1 min 94 34 1667.8 50.0 

1760.2 1:00 8:00 94 34 9:00 90 NO 1 min 94 34 1715.5 44.7 

1762.8 3:00 7:00 94 34 10:00 90 Y 1 min 94 34 1751.5 11.3 

1744.4 3:00 6:45 94 34 9:45 90 NO 1 min 94 34 1735.3 9.1 

1738.4 5:00 6:15 93 34 11:15 90 Y 1 hour 94 34 1738 0.4 

1751.4 5:00 6:00 93 34 11:00 90 NO 1 hour 94 34 1750.3 1.1

Aggregates: 

Emulsions: 

Mixes: 


A1 Table Mountain (ISSA Type III) 

A2 Lopke Gravel Products (ISSA Type III) 

A3 Unknown: Texas Texas 

E1 Koch Ralumac 

Polymer Modified LMCQS-1h, VSS 

E2 Emultech 

E3 Unknown: Ergon 

M1 A1+E1 

M2 A1+E2 

M3 A2+E1 

M4 A2+E2 

M5 A3+E3, Unknown 

224

ACT RESULTS FOR ALL MIXES 

TEST RESULTS Mix M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 

Auto/Man AUTOMATIC AUTOMATIC AUTOMATIC AUTOMATIC AUTOMATIC 

Temp. Replicates 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 

Humidity ('F) ('C) Curing(min) TEMPLE 2047-01 TEMPLE 2047-01 TEMPLE 2047-01 TEMPLE 2047-01 TEMPLE 2047-01 

50% 50 10 15 1.8 N 2.1 N 1.3 N 1.6 N 3.5 N 4.5 N 2.8 N 2.5 N 4.0 N 6.1 N 

50% 50 10 30 2.1 N 2.3 N 1.9 N 2.0 N 4.9 N 5.0 N 3.6 N 2.8 N 5.0 N 4.7 N 

50% 50 10 60 3.1 N 3.9 N 1.6 N 1.9 N 4.7 N 5.8 N 3.4 N 3.8 N 4.3 N 4.2 N 

50% 50 10 90 2.7 N 3.2 N 2.1 N 1.6 N 7.2 N 8.5 N 3.3 N 3.0 N 3.0 N 4.9 N 

50% 50 10 120 3.1 N 3.4 N 2.4 N 1.9 N 8.5 N 8.8 N 4.6 N 2.8 N 4.1 N 4.2 N 

50% 50 10 180 4.9 N 4.9 N 2.3 N 2.1 N 8.9 NS 8.9 NS 4.5 N 6.9 N 5.6 N 5.2 N 

50% 50 10 240 5.9 N 6.5 N 4.2 N 3.0 N 9.9 SS 9.5 S 11.9 SS 12.0 S 6.8 N 6.0 N 

50% 77 25 15 2.5 N 3.3 N 1.9 N 1.3 N 8.8 N 8.0 N 3.1 N 2.7 N 4.7 N 5.5 N 

50% 77 25 30 4.5 N 3.8 N 1.6 N 2.1 N 11.5 N 11.0 N 4.6 N 5.2 N 7.0 N 6.1 N 

50% 77 25 60 7.2 N 4.3 N 2.4 N 2.2 N 9.4 S 9.9 NS 5.2 N 4.8 N 4.9 N 6.3 N 

50% 77 25 90 8.6 NS 9.8 NS 3.9 N 3.8 N 13.1 S 11.1 S 6.0 N 5.9 N 7.6 N 7.7 N 

50% 77 25 120 8.6 S 9.4 S 3.9 N 3.4 N 12.6 SS 11.0 SS 7.3 N 9.7 N 8.4 NS 9.8 NS 

50% 77 25 180 11.9 SS 10.3 SS 5.5 N 4.9 N 17.7 SS 13.1 SS 8.1 S 10.0 S 6.6 S 11.2 S 

50% 77 25 240 10.9 SS 11.8 SS 6.9 S 6.3 S 9.9 SS 15.8 SS 11.8 SS 9.5 SS 9.7 SS 12.8 SS 

50% 95 35 15 2.2 N 2.0 N 3.0 N 3.1 N 8.2 N 7.6 N 3.1 N 3.1 N 6.3 NS 6.9 NS 

50% 95 35 30 3.4 N 4.0 N 5.2 N 3.7 N 9.2 N 8.8 N 4.7 N 3.2 N 7.6 NS 9.6 NS 

50% 95 35 60 3.9 N 4.3 N 5.3 N 5.2 N 10.2 NS 9.8 N 4.1 N 5.0 N 8.9 NS 8.0 NS 

50% 95 35 90 6.6 N 6.2 N 8.1 NS 6.2 NS 12.0 S 13.3 S 5.6 N 3.8 N 9.6 NS 15.3 NS 

50% 95 35 120 6.8 NS 9.0 NS 10.2 NS 8.0 NS 11.1 SS 10.1 SS 8.2 NS 8.8 NS 10.9 NS 10.1 S 

50% 95 35 180 13.9 S 14.2 S 15.0 S 13.6 S 11.1 SS 9.7 SS 11.4 S 11.8 S 10.2 S 8.4 S 

50% 95 35 240 14.4 SS 13.5 SS 12.7 SS 13.7 SS 16.5 SS 13.8 SS 12.7 SS 12.4 SS 13.5 SS 11.3 SS 

90% 50 10 15 1.8 N 3.7 N 2.2 N 1.1 N 3.7 N 2.1 N 2.1 N 3.1 N 6.6 N 5.1 N 

90% 50 10 30 2.8 N 2.1 N 1.8 N 1.8 N 3.6 N 3.1 N 2.7 N 2.2 N 5.2 N 4.6 N 

90% 50 10 60 2.7 N 2.4 N 1.6 N 2.0 N 7.4 N 5.4 N 3.3 N 3.2 N 5.7 N 6.5 N 

90% 50 10 90 3.9 N 4.2 N 1.3 N 1.8 N 8.0 N 8.0 N 3.4 N 2.1 N 4.6 N 5.1 N 

90% 50 10 120 2.7 N 4.1 N 1.3 N 2.0 N 8.3 NS 8.3 N 2.8 N 2.9 N 3.6 N 6.2 N 

90% 50 10 180 4.2 N 3.7 N 1.5 N 2.6 N 10.2 NS 10.9 NS 2.9 N 4.7 N 4.6 N 4.2 N 

90% 50 10 240 6.9 N 6.8 N 2.9 N 1.6 N 8.6 SS 7.6 SS 3.6 N 4.6 N 5.7 N 5.1 N 

90% 77 25 15 1.8 N 2.0 N 2.1 N 2.4 N 6.7 N 6.6 N 4.2 N 3.8 N 5.4 N 7.9 N 

90% 77 25 30 2.8 N 2.2 N 1.7 N 1.5 N 7.6 N 7.6 N 3.7 N 3.6 N 7.0 N 6.7 N 

90% 77 25 60 2.3 N 2.2 N 2.8 N 2.3 N 8.2 NS 8.7 NS 3.4 N 5.5 N 6.9 N 8.4 N 

90% 77 25 90 2.2 N 2.0 N 2.1 N 2.7 N 11.7 S 10.8 S 5.8 N 5.8 N 7.8 N 8.7 N 

90% 77 25 120 2.2 N 2.1 N 2.9 N 4.1 N 10.6 S 9.9 SS 5.3 N 6.2 N 8.2 N 6.8 N 

90% 77 25 180 3.2 N 1.8 N 6.5 N 9.6 N 10.6 S 9.2 S 8.8 N 6.8 N 9.6 N 8.1 N 

90% 77 25 240 3.5 N 3.4 N 10.6 NS 11.9 NS 10.5 SS 9.6 SS 11.5 N 7.9 N 7.9 NS 9.8 NS 

90% 95 35 15 3.0 N 3.2 N 1.6 N 2.1 N 5.5 N 6.0 N 3.9 N 3.3 N 6.9 N 7.3 N 

90% 95 35 30 2.0 N 2.7 N 2.5 N 1.9 N 5.3 N 7.1 N 4.1 N 3.5 N 7.3 N 6.7 N 

90% 95 35 60 2.8 N 2.7 N 3.0 N 2.2 N 8.2 S 6.5 S 5.0 N 5.7 N 7.0 N 8.2 N 

90% 95 35 90 4.2 N 5.6 N 3.8 N 3.9 N 5.6 SS 6.0 SS 4.6 N 4.6 N 8.0 N 7.2 N 

90% 95 35 120 5.4 N 7.1 N 5.1 N 5.8 N 15.7 SS 14.4 SS 4.8 N 5.6 N 8.5 N 8.0 N 

90% 95 35 180 10.4 NS 13.1 NS 6.1 N 5.7 N 11.9 SS 9.9 SS 4.4 N 6.0 N 9.2 N 7.8 N 

90% 95 35 240 16.9 S 15.9 S 8.0 N 9.0 N 12.8 SS 15.8 SS 8.6 N 11.4 N 10.0 NS 11.7 NS 

225


TEST RESULTS Mix M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 

Auto/Man MANUAL MANUAL 

MANUAL 

MANUAL 

MANUAL 

Temp. Replicates 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 

Humidity ('F) ('C) Curing(min) ALPHA Labs 3910 ALPHA Labs 3910 ALPHA Labs 3910 ALPHA Labs 3910 ALPHA Labs 3910 

50% 50 10 15 

50% 50 10 30 

50% 50 10 60 

50% 50 10 90 

50% 50 10 120 

50% 50 10 180 

50% 50 10 240 

50% 77 25 15 15.0 N 14.0 N 10.0 N 11.0 N 

50% 77 25 30 16.0 N 15.0 NS 12.0 N 13.0 N 

50% 77 25 60 19.0 S 17.0 S 13.0 N 14.0 N 

50% 77 25 90 20.0 S 21.0 S 17.0 N 17.0 N 

50% 77 25 120 21.0 SS 21.0 SS 18.0 N 18.0 N 

50% 77 25 180 22.0 SS 23.0 SS 22.0 S 23.0 S 

50% 77 25 240 24.0 SS 24.0 SS 28.0 SS 26.0 SS 

50% 95 35 15 15.0 NS 16.0 NS 

50% 95 35 30 19.0 NS 20.0 NS 

50% 95 35 60 20.0 NS 21.0 NS 

50% 95 35 90 20.0 NS 21.0 NS 

50% 95 35 120 23.0 S 22.0 S 

50% 95 35 180 23.0 SS 23.0 SS 

50% 95 35 240 25.0 SS 26.0 SS 

90% 50 10 15 

90% 50 10 30 

90% 50 10 60 

90% 50 10 90 

90% 50 10 120 

90% 50 10 180 

90% 50 10 240 

90% 77 25 15 7.0 N 9.0 N 

90% 77 25 30 9.0 N 9.0 N 

90% 77 25 60 11.0 N 9.0 N 

90% 77 25 90 12.0 N 10.0 N 

90% 77 25 120 12.0 N 12.0 N 

90% 77 25 180 14.0 NS 15.0 NS 

90% 77 25 240 16.0 NS 17.0 NS 

90% 95 35 15 

90% 95 35 30 

90% 95 35 60 

90% 95 35 90 

90% 95 35 120 

90% 95 35 180 

90% 95 35 240 

226


Parameter Units Values Test No. 

High (H) Low (L) 1 2 3 4 

1. Cure Temp C 2 -2 L L H H 

2. Cure Time min 3 -3 L H L H 

3. Cure Humidity % 10 -10 H L L H 

227


228


229


230


231


232


233


234


235


236


237


238


239


240

APPENDIX F UPDATED WORK PLAN FOR PHASE III 

1.0 PHASE III OBJECTIVE 

The objectives of Phase III is to actually use mix designs in accordance with the procedures 

outlined in this report on projects identified by the states supporting this study. Attempts will be 

made to place these mixes in a variety of environmental and traffic conditions. 

2.0 GUIDELINES AND SPECIFICATIONS 

It was first estimated that by the end of Phase II, the work plan would be considered to be 

essentially final. Due to the cancellation of the project, additional research is anticipated before 

final guidelines and specifications can be produced. Much of the Reference Manual, 1.5-day 

training course and the “tailgate” training are near completion. This chapter describes what has 

been done and what remains to be done on the phase. 

3.0 PURPOSE OF PHASE III STUDY 

The purpose of Phase III is to validate that mixes designed in the laboratory, using the new and 

revised procedures as outlined in Phase II, can actually be built in the field. This chapter 

presents the proposed Work Plan to complete the following tasks, as outlined in the original 

proposal: 

• Develop guidelines and specifications for the proper use of slurry and microsurfacing. 

• Develop a workshop training program that includes a pre-construction module to 

educate and inform agency, contractor, and material supplier personnel of the new 

design procedures and constructability issues. 

• Construct and monitor pilot projects for the validation effort. 

• Revise the procedures or the training program based on test section field 

performance. 

• Prepare a Final Report documenting all the activities throughout the project. 

4.0 TASK 1: DEVELOPMENT OF GUIDELINES/SPECIFICATIONS 

During this phase of the work, the project team will develop guidelines that can be used by both 

contractor and agency personnel that will aid them in the proper selection of projects and the 

appropriate use of these treatments. For example, the guidelines for proper project selection 

will address issues such as type and condition of the existing pavement. These treatments are 

241

not effective if placed on pavements in poor to bad condition. Additionally, the project team will 

address the differences between the S3 systems and provide guidance where each will meet 

expected performance expectations. For example, if quick return to traffic and friction are 

important functional characteristics desired by the agency, the use of a high traffic mixture may 

be preferred over a low traffic one. 

The guidelines will also address constructability issues that need to be considered during the 

placement of these techniques. This will include mixing, wetting, and adhesion at the placement 

site as well as techniques to preclude segregation of the mix and homogenous spreading of the 

mix over the pavement surface. 

Guidance will be provided to both agency and contractor personnel regarding the things to 

evaluate for proper curing characteristics of the emulsion. It is also important that identification 

be made of those characteristics that are of utmost importance in assuring the long-term 

performance of the mix. This will be dependent on the quality and reproducibility of the mix 

design and the condition of the existing pavement. 

The team will develop the necessary specifications for S3 mixes. Work on this effort has 

already begun. Working with existing specifications from agencies that have a great deal of 

experience with these systems as a starting point, we will include the new test methods and 

other appropriate sections in the specifications that we prepare. 

5.0 TASK 2: DEVELOPMENT OF THE TRAINING PROGRAM 

Under this task, the Fugro team will develop a comprehensive training program as the principal 

aid in the implementation of the new slurry/micro-surfacing mix design procedure. The program 

will include two primary training elements: 

• A 1.5-day course designed to educate State highway agency personnel (at several 

levels), contractor personnel, and material suppliers on the technology and overall 

application of the new mix design procedure. 

• A 1-hour presentation module that can be used to appraise inspectors and contractor 

personnel of the required new/improved construction procedures that have come 

about as a result of the new mix design procedure. We refer to this effort as a 

“tailgate” training package. 

These two components will be treated as separate, but complementary, sets of training 

materials. A more detailed discussion of the development plans for each is provided below. 

242

5.1 Slurry/Micro-Surfacing Mix Design Training Course 

The training course to be developed under this effort will be designed to provide basic training 

on the development and application of the new mix design procedure. The training materials, 

as discussed in greater detail below, will include a Reference Manual, a set of training course 

visual aids (in electronic format), and an Instructor’s Guide. The course will be designed for 

presentation over a 1.5-day period and will include two workshops. In developing the 

workshops, the goal will be to incorporate “hands-on” exercises that not only advance the 

learning, but help generate some enthusiasm and interaction among the participants, as well. 

The materials for this course will be developed to be compatible with National Highway 

Institute’s (NHI’s) Guidelines for Training Materials because the NHI has set the standard for 

training materials. 

5.2.1 Reference Manual 

This manual will be a detailed, stand-alone document that covers all the key aspects of the new 

mix design procedure. It will be referenced throughout the course to help familiarize the 

participants with the contents and improve its use as a technical resource. Table F-1 provides 

an outline of the manual as it is currently envisioned. 

Technical leadership for this effort will be supplied by Jim Moulthrop. The key staff that will 

participate in its development include Glynn Holleran, Dragos Andrei, Steven Seeds, and David 

Peshkin. 

243

Table F.1: Draft Outline for Reference Manual 

Section Title/Description 

1 Introduction 

• Background 

• Slurry/Micro-Surfacing Overview 

• Objectives and Scope of Manual 

2 Project Selection Criteria 

3 Pre-Construction Requirements 

4 Specifications 

5 Mix Design Criteria 

• Binder Requirements 

• Aggregate Requirements 

• Blending Requirements 

6 Test Methods and Procedures 

• Framework 

• Mechanisms 

• Significance of Test Variables 

• Protocols 

7 Construction Considerations and Limitations 

• Project Geometry 

• Weather Limitations 

8 Construction Operations 

• Surface Preparation 

• Equipment and Calibration Requirements 

• Mix Design Verification 

• Stockpile Management 

• Troubleshooting 

• Inspection and Workmanship Requirements 

9 QC/QA Requirements 

• Pre-Construction and Construction Testing Requirements 

• Frequency and Type of Test 

10 Troubleshooting 

- References 

- Appendices 

• Test Methods 

• Specifications 

5.2.2 Visual aids 

Visual aids are required to present the training course material in a clear, consistent, and 

organized fashion. They will be prepared in electronic format using Microsoft PowerPoint®. 

This is a standard tool for NHI training courses and is very effective for both preparation and 

presentation of visual aids. Where appropriate, animation will be included in certain slide 

images to either emphasize certain points or provide an additional aid in understanding the 

message. Video clips of certain processes will also be included where they can provide the 

most benefit. 

244

The organization of the course will closely follow that of the Reference Manual. Each section of 

the report will be translated into a training module with a presentation length ranging from 20 to 

90 minutes, depending on the topic (see preliminary agenda in Table F-2). In addition, two 

workshops will be prepared. A hands-on workshop involving the use of the different types of 

laboratory equipment will developed for conduct on the afternoon of the first day of training. The 

second workshop will be prepared in a game format (such as Jeopardy) to test learning and 

emphasize key points relative to the slurry/micro-surfacing construction process. It will be 

conducted during the morning of the second day of training. 

Table F.2: Preliminary Agenda for 1.5 Day Training Course 

Day Module Title 

1 AM 1 Course Overview 

2 Introduction to Slurry/Micro-Surfacing 

3 Project Selection Criteria 

4 Preconstruction Requirements 

5 Mix Design Criteria 

PM 6 Test Methods and Procedures 

7 Laboratory/Mix Design Workshop 

2 AM 8 Construction Considerations and Limitations 

5.2.3 Instructor’s Guide 

9 Construction Operations 

10 QC/QA Requirements 

11 Construction Workshop 

12 Summary and Closing Remarks 

The Instructor’s Guide will be developed to provide detailed assistance to the instructor for the 

successful presentation of the training course. It will contain the following information: 

• General Introduction (title page, table of contents, general course information, 

learning objectives, description of target audience, assumed course prerequisites, 

class schedule, key technical references, and sources of additional information). 

• General Training Course Set-Up and Wrap-Up Procedures (preparatory activities, 

host agency interactions, room set-up, and pre- and post-workshop housekeeping 

items). 

• Annotated Outline by Session (including learning objectives, key discussion points, 

answers to typical questions, time allotments, areas to reduce if time becomes an 

issue, copies of visual aids with annotations, and associated workshops or other 

learning evaluation/application methods). 

245

David Peshkin will take the lead in developing the visual aids and the Instructor’s Guide. 

Development assistance will be provided by Steve Seeds and Dragos Andrei. Jim Moulthrop 

will serve in both an advisory and review capacity. 

5.3. PRE-JOB TRAINING MODULE 

It is anticipated that this project will result in several significant modifications to the slurry/microsurfacing 

construction processes as well as mix design procedures. Consequently, the purpose 

of this effort is to develop a pre-job training module, which will include a section on project 

safety, so that the “must know” information can be shared with agency and contractor 

personnel. This information will be extracted from the Reference Manual and a stand-alone 

document prepared for presentation and discussion during a meeting (similar to a preconstruction 

meeting) that will be held prior to the beginning of a slurry surfacing or microsurfacing 

project. In addition, an easy to use, pocketsize guidebook will be prepared so that 

both agency and contractor personnel can take it into the field. 

Jim Moulthrop will oversee and participate heavily in this effort. He will be assisted by Dragos 

Andrei and David Peshkin. 

5.4 TASK 3: CONSTRUCTION OF PILOT PROJECTS FOR FIELD 

VALIDATION OF DESIGN PROCEDURES 

The purpose of this work plan is to develop guidelines for the construction and evaluation of test 

sections for the validation of slurry seal and micro-surfacing mix design procedures. These 

guidelines indicate the type of equipment used and evaluation of the construction of test 

sections. A factorial for the determination of the site locations including test section layout has 

also been developed. Finally, a monitoring plan has been developed to determine 

constructability, and both short-term and long-term performance of the test sections. 

The LTPP program developed a study to determine the long-term performance of various 

maintenance treatments. (1) Seven States participated in the construction of these test sections. 

The layout of these sections along with their site selection provided valuable information for the 

economical evaluation of the test sections. A similar plan is proposed for the validation of the 

slurry and micro-surfacing mix design procedure. 

Fortunately, there has been widespread support for this study, which includes agencies from the 

States noted in Chapter 1. It is hoped that additional States may add their support before the 

conclusion of this study. These States provide a diverse set of climatic conditions ideally suited 

246

for this study. Their support in sponsoring and constructing test sections for slurry surfacing and 

micro-surfacing will greatly benefit this study. 

5.4.1 Identification of Test Sections 

5.4.1.1 Site Selection 

Many factors affect the performance of slurry seal and micro-surfacing projects. These include 

climate, traffic, and condition of the existing pavement prior to the application, workmanship, 

and the mix design. A matrix factorial considering each of these variables has been developed 

and is noted in Table F-3. Consideration was given to the cost of constructing these test 

sections during the development of this factorial. It is important to consider each of the factors 

affecting performance to provide the team with the proper information to perform a validation of 

the procedures. 

Table F.3: Site Selection Matrix Factorial 

Climatic Region 

Traffic Surface Type Wet-Freeze Wet-No Freeze Dry-Freeze Dry-No Freeze 

High 

>25,000 ADT 

HMAC *(1,2) *(1,2) *(1,2) *(1,2) 

10,0004

Ride quality has been shown to impact the rate of deterioration of pavements. It is 

recommended that the surface of the pavement be smooth and provide an excellent ride level to 

reduce the effects this may have on individual sections within a test site. As a target, the 

existing surface should have a prorated IRI of less than 100 inches per mile (2540 mm per 

1609.3 m) as measured by a calibrated profiler. 

A site will be required in each of the four climatic regions. The current project States provide 

this diversity of climate regions. The four climatic regions used by the LTPP program were Wet- 

Freeze, Wet-No-Freeze, Dry-Freeze, and Dry-No-Freeze. These regions were determined by 

the amount of average annual precipitation and duration of freezing temperatures during an 

average year. The type of climate has a significant impact on the selection of the mix. In warm 

and dry climates, the rate of evaporation is greater and slow setting emulsions are desired. The 

opposite is true of wet and cold climates. The rate of curing can be altered by the amount of 

water, cement, emulsion, and set control chemicals. The four climatic regions will provide an 

opportunity to apply different mix designs using the new recommended procedures. 

The effects of traffic also have an impact on the rate of deterioration. Traffic loadings may be 

determined in many different ways; unfortunately, there is no consistent national traffic loading 

reporting scheme. Many States do not utilize a consistent traffic loading procedure. The most 

prevalent way to express traffic loadings is the Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL), which is 

based on Average Daily Traffic, Percent Trucks, Truck Factors, and other conditions. Another 

way is to express traffic applications as Average Daily Traffic (ADT) with a certain percentage of 

trucks. Other States use a Traffic Index based on ESAL values. Slurry seals and microsurfacing 

are preventive maintenance treatments and are not used as enhancements to the 

structural capacity of the pavement. Because ESAL values are used primarily for the structural 

design of pavements and utilize an ADT and percent trucks, the expression of ADT and percent 

trucks is recommended to express traffic applications. 

Table F-3 presents the recommended matrix factorial for site selection. The amount of traffic for 

the factorial has been divided into two levels: high and moderate. The high traffic level ranges 

from 25,000 ADT and above (>10 Million ESALs). The moderate traffic level ranges from 

10,000 ADT to 25,000 ADT (approximately 4-10 Million ESALs over 20 years with 10 percent 

trucks). 

The variation of the type of subgrade soil and base materials (and their properties) between 

different sites will have an effect on the structural performance of the roadway. The costs 

associated with sampling and testing these materials at each site location is considered 

248

prohibitive. This would also burden the participating State Departments of Transportation with 

additional responsibilities. Therefore, this sort of sampling and testing will not be undertaken. 

The primary focus of this study will be on the constructability of the recommended mix-designs 

and their performance compared to existing mix design procedures or various maintenance 

treatments. It is not recommended that subgrade soil and base types be included in the site 

selection. These treatments will be placed within the same site location and the structure 

should be approximately the same. If changes in pavement type or structural design are 

identified, the site should be adjusted to eliminate the presence of multiple pavement structures. 

The structural capacity of the pavement is important in determining the life span of the 

pavement. It is recommended that only those sites with sufficient remaining life (five years) be 

used for this study. This should prevent the need for maintenance and rehabilitation activities 

prior to completing the study. 

5.4.2 Test Section Layout 

The section layout will depend on the number of test sections desired for the study. As a 

minimum, the sections should include a control section without treatment and a slurry seal or 

micro-surfacing test section. This will provide validation of the constructability of the 

recommended mix design as well as the effect of the treatment on extending the existing 

pavement’s life. However, this type of experiment does not allow a comparison of the 

improvement of the recommended mix design to existing mix designs or other treatments. 

Multiple treatment sections (e.g., slurry seal and micro-surfacing systems with different binders) 

along with the control are recommended to obtain the amount of information necessary for a 

complete evaluation and validation. 

Multiple test sections using micro-surfacing may be placed using different types of polymers 

(e.g., natural rubber, synthetic rubber latex [SBR], or various combinations). It is recommended 

that a section using the ISSA design procedure be placed along with one of the recommended 

design procedures to determine the long-term performance of each type of mix design. The 

number of treated sections will depend on the results of the Phase II study and the desire of 

States to include supplemental sections to evaluate additional materials/treatments. Each 

treatment will be placed according to the construction guidelines described in this work plan. 

The recommended length of the test sections will be determined by the project team with 

approval from the panel and will be a minimum of 500 feet (152 m) and a maximum of 1000 feet 

(305 m). The length of each test section will remain constant for each site in this study. 

5.4.3 Construction Guidelines 

The construction guidelines to be developed are intended to insure proper placement of the 

material. Direct discussions between the teams, the contractor, and the participating State 

249

agency will be held prior to construction and will be part of the training program outlined in 

Section 4.3. This interaction is critically important for developing the participants’ necessary 

understanding of the objectives of the experiment and the need for cooperation in adhering, as 

much as possible, to the requirements outlined in this report. 

Many of the problems encountered with slurry seal and micro-surfacing can be attributed to 

improper placement of the material. These problems include the field conditions at the time of 

placement (i.e., wet surface, debris present, and temperature). The LTPP program was able to 

use of the same crew and equipment in the SPS-3 studies: HMAC Maintenance Treatments. It 

would be preferable for the same crew, equipment, and materials (aggregate and emulsion) to 

be used to apply all treatments in this project in order to reduce the impact of variation between 

treatment locations. However, due to the extreme effort of mobilizing the same crew and 

equipment to each State, this is cost prohibitive. 

To account for the variables represented by differing crews and equipment, documentation on 

the type of equipment and source of materials is recommended to record the potential impacts 

these may have on the performance of the treatment. The project team has provided a plan, 

discussed below. Forms to obtain data on the lay down procedures are provided in Appendix 

G. 

5.4.3.1 Pre-Construction 

All cracks that are greater than 0.25 inches wide (6 mm) should be sealed prior to application of 

the treatment. It is not anticipated that patching will be required because of the pre-qualifying 

condition of the test sites. If patching is required, it must be performed prior to the distress 

survey. The site conditions prior to construction will be recorded and will include the following: 

• Pavement Distress using the LTPP DIM(2) 

• Type of Surface Material and Construction History (age) 

• ADT and Percent Trucks 

• Climate 

• QA Procedures Developed in Task 1 

• Calibration of Equipment 

Prior to construction, the pavement must be in a dry condition and free of debris. 

250

5.4.3.2 Construction 

The following construction guidelines must be followed: 

• The treatment mix design can be placed only after the contractor has satisfactorily 

demonstrated proper placement procedures on non-test section locations. 

• All transverse construction joints must be placed outside the test sections (e.g., 

within the transitions between test sections). 

The distance between the transition areas must be sufficient to allow changes in materials 

during construction. The distance is required to accommodate changes in material type in a 

manner that will reduce the influence on the properties of the finished pavement. Each test 

section will have a minimum of 100 feet (30.5 m) before and after the monitored length to 

provide sufficient production to develop consistency after changes in materials. 

The mixture for the treatment will be documented using the forms in Appendix G, which include 

the type and quantities (rates) for each of the following: 

• Polymer-modified emulsified asphalt cement 

• Well-graded crushed mineral aggregate 

• Mineral filler (normally portland cement or lime) 

• Water 

• Other mixing aid additives (normally emulsifying agents) 

The project team shall provide the mix design information to the contractor and agency prior to 

the beginning of the project. 

The equipment used for the application of the treatment shall also be documented using the 

forms in Appendix G, which will contain the following information: 

• Type of paving equipment (continuous, truck-mounted) 

• Type of spreader box 

The breaking and curing rates of the treatment will be collected and entered on the Equipment 

Form provided in Appendix G. 

251

An agency that desires to participate, but finds it necessary to deviate from some of the 

guidelines described in the report, should review these deviations with the research team. The 

team will assess the implications of these deviations on the study objectives. If the implications 

of the non-compliance appear minimal, the deviations will be accepted; if the implications 

appear to represent a major impact, the team will suggest alternatives for consideration by the 

participating agency. 

5.4.3.3 Post-Construction 

It is recommended that the test sections be allowed to cure properly prior to the application of 

traffic loadings to prevent premature damage. Evaluations of the test sections will be conducted 

immediately after construction, prior to opening the site to traffic one month after construction, 

and one year after construction. It is important that the sections be marked with tape, paint, or 

placards to identify the test sections. It is also recommended that the exact section locations be 

obtained using Geographical Positioning Systems (GPS), route, milepost, or other reference 

information. A section identification code will be developed to identify individual sections in the 

study. The evaluations of these test sections will be described in detail in the following sections. 

5.5 PAVEMENT EVALUATION 

Each pavement evaluation before, immediately after, and one year after construction, will 

consist of a detailed survey of the existing pavement distress using the LTPP DIM. The post 

construction surveys will also include comments of any abrasion, delamination, drag marks by 

the spreader box, wash boarding, and measurements of surface texture and noise. Segregation 

and flushing are identified in the LTPP DIM. 

A survey form has been provided in Appendix G that summarizes the distress information 

obtained from the field. The amount of rutting will be measured with a 6 feet (1.8 m) straight 

edge every 50 feet (15.2 m) within the test section. If a high-speed profiler is used having five 

or more sensors to obtain ride quality information, the rutting will be obtained from this 

information. The texture will be determined using sand patch or other accepted test procedures. 

After the test section is open to traffic, the noise level will be determined from a safe distance 

from the pavement edge (edge of shoulder) if the agency has this type of equipment available. 

If subgrade and base properties are still desired by the agencies, then a sampling and testing 

plan will be developed to accommodate the collection of these data. Structural testing using a 

Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) may also be considered to determine the variability of the 

pavement structure throughout each of the test sites to determine the remaining service life or to 

identify if there are underlying structural problems. An evaluation of the costs associated with 

252

this additional data collection effort should be considered by the agency before adopting this 

effort because it is beyond the scope of this project. 

5.5.1 Revision of Procedures and Training Programs 

Based on the feedback from participants in the training modules and the contractor and agency 

personnel involved with the construction and evaluation of the pilot projects, adjustments will be 

made (where necessary) to the guidelines, specifications, and training programs to make them 

clearer and more “user friendly.” 

5.6 REFERENCES 

1. SPS-3 Construction Report, SHRP Contract H-101, Brent Rauhut Engineering, SHRP 

Southern Region Coordination Office, Strategic Highway Research Program, Federal 

Highway Administration, Washington, DC, January 1991. 

2. Distress Identification Manual for the Long-Term Pavement Performance Program, 

FHWA-RD-03-031, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, June 2003. 

253

PHASE II REPORT - Caltrans

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?