AP-T323-17-High Modulus High Fatigue Resistance Asphalt EME2 Technology Transfer Final Report

Technical Report
AP-T323-17
High Modulus High Fatigue Resistance

Asphalt (EME2) Technology Transfer
Final Report
High Modulus High Fatigue Resistance Asphalt (EME2) Technology Transfer: Final Report
Prepared by Publisher
Melissa Dias, Dr Laszlo Petho, Dr Erik Denneman and Andrew Austroads Ltd.
Beercroft Level 9, 287 Elizabeth Street
Sydney NSW 2000 Australia
Project Manager Phone: +61 2 8265 3300
austroads@austroads.com.au
Paul Morassut www.austroads.com.au
Abstract About Austroads

EME2 mixes are produced using a hard paving grade bitumen Austroads is the peak organisation of Australasian road
applied at a high binder content (approximately 6%). Compared to transport and traffic agencies.
conventional asphalt bases with unmodified binders, EME2 asphalt is
characterised by high stiffness, high durability, superior resistance to Austroads purpose is to support our member organisations to
permanent deformation and good fatigue resistance. International deliver an improved Australasian road transport network. To
and Australian experience indicates that significant pavement succeed in this task, we undertake leading-edge road and
thickness reductions can be achieved using EME2. transport research which underpins our input to policy
development and published guidance on the design,
The purpose of this project was to assist industry in the successful construction and management of the road network and its
transfer of French Enrobs Module Elev Class 2 (EME2) associated infrastructure.
technology to Australia. EME2 technology offers the prospect of
reduced asphalt thicknesses for heavy duty pavements, and lower Austroads provides a collective approach that delivers value
construction and maintenance costs. TT1908 was a three-year for money, encourages shared knowledge and drives
Austroads project, and this report summarises the outcomes of the consistency for road users.
final year of the study. Austroads is governed by a Board consisting of senior
As part of the project, an Australian specification framework for executive representatives from each of its 11 member
EME2 mixes was developed and the requirements for manufacturing, organisations:
paving and compliance were also provided. Demonstration trials Roads and Maritime Services New South Wales
were also carried out as part of the validation process. Roads Corporation Victoria
The final EME2 mix design specification limits are provided and Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads
discussed in this report. Main Roads Western Australia
Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure
Keywords South Australia
High Modulus, fatigue resistant, EME, bitumen, asphalt, pavement Department of State Growth Tasmania
Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Logistics
Northern Territory
ISBN 978-1-925451-88-7
Transport Canberra and City Services Directorate,
Austroads Project No. TT1908 Australian Capital Territory
Austroads Publication No. AP-T323-17 Australian Government Department of Infrastructure and
Regional Development
Publication date July 2017
Australian Local Government Association
Pages 48 New Zealand Transport Agency.
Austroads 2017
This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without
the prior written permission of Austroads.
Acknowledgements
The successful EME2 technology transfer to Australia is the result of a close collaboration between various state road agencies, the
Australian Asphalt Pavements Association (AAPA), Boral Asphalt, SAMI Bitumen, Fulton Hogan, Downer, Viva Bitumen, Brisbane City
Council and the Australian Road Research Board (ARRB). Input from AAPA was received in the form of test results supplied by individual
members, the supply of materials free of charge to the ARRB laboratory, and the construction and instrumentation (partly or in whole) of
demonstration trial sections. The authors gratefully acknowledge the support for this Austroads project by the Australian asphalt industry.
Thanks to Robert Urquhart, Shannon Malone, Elizabeth Woodall, Hossein Jafari and Shannon Lourensz of ARRB for their assistance with
the experimental work, laboratory testing and helpful discussions during the project.
This report has been prepared for Austroads as part of its work to promote improved Australian and New Zealand transport outcomes by
providing expert technical input on road and road transport issues.
Individual road agencies will determine their response to this report following consideration of their legislative or administrative
arrangements, available funding, as well as local circumstances and priorities.
Austroads believes this publication to be correct at the time of printing and does not accept responsibility for any consequences arising from
the use of information herein. Readers should rely on their own skill and judgement to apply information to particular issues.
Summary
Enrobs Module Elev Class 2 (EME2) mixes are produced using a hard paving grade bitumen applied at
a high binder content (approximately 6%). Compared to conventional asphalt bases with unmodified binders,
EME2 asphalt is characterised by high stiffness, high durability, superior resistance to permanent
deformation and good fatigue resistance. EME2 technology offers the prospect of reduced asphalt
thicknesses for heavy duty pavements, and lower construction and maintenance costs.
This is the final report for the three year Austroads project TT1908. The purpose of this project was to assist
industry in the successful transfer of French EME2 technology to Australia. Just over 8000 tonnes of EME2
have been laid at 10 sites across Australia to date. This report summarises the outcomes of the final year of
the study which includes:
Final Australian performance based specification limits for EME2 developed based on comparative
testing of French and Australian EME2 mixes. The requirements for manufacturing, paving and
compliance are also provided.
Documenting the Victorian EME2 demonstration trial on the South Gippsland Highway, including:
objectives of the trial
Downer Groups mix design for the demonstration trial, based on performance specifications
developed and refined in the earlier stages of this project
pavement design, construction observations and monitoring, and quality control and testing during
installation
the installation of a weather station and temperature sensors in the new pavement to contribute to
research into the effect of temperature on the performance and design life of thick asphalt pavements
across Australia
a summary of post-construction testing on cores extracted from the finished pavement
results from ongoing functional and structural performance monitoring at the site
discussion on the outcomes of the trial, including a recommendation to adopt minimum paving
temperatures as a function of wind speed across all EME2 projects throughout Australia, to minimise
the risk of poor compaction at the top of layers in cool or windy conditions.
Supplementary post-construction testing of the Queensland demonstration trial at Cullen Avenue West,
Eagle Farm.
this additional testing provided further confidence in selecting specification limits for EME2 asphalt
using Australian test methods.
The demonstration trials and post-construction testing were carried out as part of the validation process of
the specification limits. From the Victorian trial it was found that the EME2 mixes exhibited similar resilient
modulus to SI and SF Type asphalt at lower temperatures, however at high temperatures the resilient moduli
of EME2 is superior. From a construction aspect, it has been recommended that a minimum paving
temperature and wind speed limits be implemented in Victoria. The Queensland trial EME2 showed higher
resilient moduli across all test temperatures compared to DG20HM asphalt and also compared the SSD and
mensuration test methods for air void determination.
Austroads 2017 | page i

Contents
Summary ......................................................................................................................................................... i
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Objectives ......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Scope ............................................................................................................................................... 1
1.4 Structure of the Report ..................................................................................................................... 1
2. Development of EME2 Specification Limits ........................................................................................ 2
2.1 Interim Specification Limits............................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Development of Final EME2 Performance Specifications ............................................................... 2
2.2.1 Workability ........................................................................................................................... 2
2.2.2 Moisture Sensitivity.............................................................................................................. 3
2.2.3 Rut Resistance .................................................................................................................... 3
2.2.4 Flexural Modulus ................................................................................................................. 4
2.2.5 Fatigue ................................................................................................................................. 6
2.2.6 Final Specification Limits ..................................................................................................... 7
3. Victorian Trial ......................................................................................................................................... 8
3.1 Objectives of the Victorian EME2 Trial ............................................................................................. 8
3.1.1 Trial Delivery........................................................................................................................ 8
3.2 Design of the Trial ............................................................................................................................ 9
3.2.1 EME2 Mix Design ................................................................................................................ 9
3.2.2 EME2 Pavement Design ................................................................................................... 10
3.2.3 Construction ...................................................................................................................... 11
3.2.4 Production Control and In Situ Density Testing ................................................................ 12
3.2.5 Temperature Monitoring .................................................................................................... 14
3.2.6 Weather Station Installation .............................................................................................. 15
3.3 Post-construction Testing ............................................................................................................... 18
3.3.1 Extraction of Cores ............................................................................................................ 18
3.3.2 Testing of Extracted Cores ................................................................................................ 18
3.4 Performance Monitoring ................................................................................................................. 22
3.5 Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 24
3.5.1 In Situ Density ................................................................................................................... 24
3.5.2 Resilient Modulus at Standard 25 C Temperature........................................................... 25
3.5.3 Resilient Modulus vs. Temperature ................................................................................... 25
3.5.4 Setting a Minimum Paving Temperature for EME2 ........................................................... 28
4. Queensland Trial .................................................................................................................................. 31
4.1 Supplementary Laboratory Testing ................................................................................................ 31
4.1.1 Resilient Modulus .............................................................................................................. 31
4.1.2 Air Voids Mensuration vs. SSD ...................................................................................... 33
4.1.3 Flexural Stiffness Testing .................................................................................................. 36
Austroads 2017 | page ii

5. Implementation to Date ....................................................................................................................... 38

6. Conclusions and Findings .................................................................................................................. 39
6.1 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 39
6.2 Findings .......................................................................................................................................... 40
References ................................................................................................................................................... 41
Appendix A Construction Site Victorian EME2 Demonstration Trial ................................................... 43
Appendix B In Situ Bulk Density and Air Voids Results ....................................................................... 46
Appendix C Resilient Modulus Test Results .......................................................................................... 47
Appendix D Resilient Modulus Corrected to 5% Air Voids ................................................................... 48
Tables
Table 2.1: Tentative specification limits for EME2 using Australian test methods ...................................... 2
Table 2.2: Comparative wheel tracking results using EN 12697-22 and AGPT/T231 ................................ 3
Table 2.3: Comparative modulus results using 2PB and 4PB methods ..................................................... 4
Table 2.4: Comparative fatigue results using 2PB and 4PB methods ........................................................ 6
Table 2.5: Final specification limits for EME2 ............................................................................................. 7
Table 3.1: Mix design criteria and Victorian EME2 mix design properties .................................................. 9
Table 3.2: Presumptive design input into the Victorian EME2 trial pavement design .............................. 10
Table 3.3: Pavement design calculations for the Victorian EME2 trial ..................................................... 10
Table 3.4: Cross-section of the EME2 Victorian trial ................................................................................ 11
Table 3.5: EME2 Victorian trial construction timeline ................................................................................ 11
Table 3.6: Summary of pavement construction dates ............................................................................... 11
Table 3.7: Calculated target in situ air voids of compacted EME2 mix ..................................................... 12
Table 3.8: Rolling sequence and density ratio and air voids of EME2 ...................................................... 13
Table 3.9: In-mat temperatures of the EME2 layers immediately after the paver passed ........................ 15
Table 3.10: Temperature sensor depths from top of EME2 intermediate course ....................................... 16
Table 3.11: Average thickness of layers of extracted cores ....................................................................... 18
Table 3.12: Maximum densities used for calculation of the air voids .......................................................... 18
Table 3.13: Average in situ density and air voids results ............................................................................ 19
Table 3.14: Average resilient modulus (MPa) corrected to 5% air voids at 15, 25, 32 and 40 C .............. 20
Table 3.15: Air voids for the top and bottom of EME2 cores, location B, upper layer ................................ 21
Table 3.16: Air voids for the top and bottom of EME2 cores, location C, upper layer ................................ 21
Table 3.17: Air voids for the top and bottom of EME2 cores, location C, lower layer ................................. 21
Table 3.18: Functional and structural performance monitoring schedule of the Victorian EME2 trial ........ 22
Table 3.19: Initial average IRI of the trial sections ...................................................................................... 23
Table 3.20: Levels of roughness Austroads (2007) .................................................................................... 23
Table 3.21: Average rut depths of trial sections .......................................................................................... 24
Table 3.22: Difference between normalised modulus from laboratory tests and Austroads (2012)
relationship .............................................................................................................................. 27
Table 3.23: VicRoads hot mix asphalt paving surface temperature requirements ..................................... 29
Table 3.24: Roads and Maritime dense graded asphalt paving requirements for surface
temperature and wind speed ................................................................................................... 30
Table 4.1: Summary of resilient modulus at six locations and range of temperatures ............................. 32
Table 4.2: Summary of air voids of cores by material and method ........................................................ 33
Table 5.1: EME2 implementation in Australia to date ............................................................................... 38
Austroads 2017 | page iii

Figures
Figure 2.1: Comparison of EN 12697-22 and AGPT/T231 wheel-tracking test ........................................... 4

Figure 2.2: Comparison of flexural modulus using French 2PB and Australian 4PB test methods ............. 5
Figure 2.3: Modulus normalised for air void content .................................................................................... 5
Figure 2.4: Comparison of fatigue using French 2 PB and Australian 4PB methods test methods............. 6
Figure 3.1: Master curves of the Queensland and Victorian EME2 trial mixes .......................................... 10
Figure 3.2: Final construction layout .......................................................................................................... 12
Figure 3.3: Compaction curve of EME2 (nominal thickness 75 mm) ......................................................... 13
Figure 3.4: Percentage air voids of the compacted EME2 and Type SF layers ........................................ 14
Figure 3.5: Temperature of EME2 layers measured by Testo data logger ................................................ 15
Figure 3.6: Weather station trenched and boxed ....................................................................................... 17
Figure 3.7: Pavement trench with conduit .................................................................................................. 17
Figure 3.8: Trench from pavement to weather station with conduit being backfilled ................................. 17
Figure 3.9: Saw-cut pavement temperature sensor box ............................................................................ 17
Figure 3.10: Temperature sensors inserted into pavement.......................................................................... 17
Figure 3.11: Filling and securing the sensors with concrete ........................................................................ 17
Figure 3.12: Comparison of the resilient modulus of SI, SF and EME2 mixes corrected to 5% air voids ... 20
Figure 3.13: Comparison of top and bottom of EME2 cores average air voids contents .......................... 22
Figure 3.14: Initial roughness (IRI) of the trial sections ................................................................................ 23
Figure 3.15: Initial rut depth of the trial sections .......................................................................................... 24
Figure 3.16: Resilient modulus versus test temperature .............................................................................. 25
Figure 3.17: Measured modulus versus temperature corrected (calculated) modulus according
to Austroads (2012) Type SI and Type SF ........................................................................... 26
Figure 3.18: Measured modulus versus temperature corrected (calculated) modulus according
to Austroads (2012) EME2 ................................................................................................... 27
Figure 3.19: Full depth core, core #3783, location B CH381 ....................................................................... 28
Figure 3.20: Core #3783T EME2 layer a) side b) top c) bottom .................................................................. 28
Figure 3.21: Side view of core #3788B EME2 layer ..................................................................................... 29
Figure 4.1: Comparison of Queensland trial EME2 and DG20HM resilient moduli ................................... 33
Figure 4.2: Air voids of EME2 cores SSD method vs. mensuration method........................................... 34
Figure 4.3: Air voids of DG20HM cores SSD method vs. mensuration method ..................................... 34
Figure 4.4: Air voids of EME2 and DG20HM cores SSD method vs. mensuration method ................... 35
Figure 4.5: Air voids of EME2 cores at Chainage 120.3 m upper and lower portion of layer ................. 35
Figure 4.6: Comparison of flexural stiffness values for selected mixes ..................................................... 36
Figure 4.7: Master curves of the French EME2 mix compared to various mixes from the trial
at 15 C .................................................................................................................................... 37
Austroads 2017 | page iv

Error! Unknown document property name.
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
Enrob Module lev Class 2 (EME2) technology was developed in France in the early 1990s. It is used in
mainland France and its overseas territories, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Belgium, the Netherlands,
Poland and South Africa on main and urban roads and airports. Unlike conventional asphalt, EME2 is high
modulus asphalt composed of very hard paving grade bitumen with relatively high binder content
(approximately 6% by mass) and displays the following properties:
high stiffness
high durability
excellent permanent deformation resistance
good fatigue resistance.
1.2 Objectives
The purpose of this report is to present the final outcomes of the three-year Austroads EME2 technology
transfer project.
The interim specifications for EME2 mix designs published in High Modulus High Fatigue Resistance Asphalt
(EME2) Technology Transfer (Austroads 2014a) are validated through testing of additional mixes by industry
and a demonstration trial in Victoria.
1.3 Scope
The scope of the final year of this project was to:
set final mix design criteria based on parallel performance testing in France and Australia of six EME2
mixes
report the outcomes of Queensland and Victorian demonstration trials.
The field study and laboratory program was industry-funded. If appropriate, the performance based mix
design guidelines may be included in Guide to Pavement Technology Part 4B: Asphalt (Austroads 2014b).
1.4 Structure of the Report

This introductory section is followed by an overview of the methodology and testing for the development of
final specification limits for EME2. Section 3 provides an extensive overview of the Victorian demonstration
project completed on the South Gippsland Highway, between Monomeith and Caldermeade, Victoria. The
trial set-up, production, construction, in situ and laboratory testing are discussed in this section. The last
section gives a performance update, including supplementary testing of the Queensland EME2 trial at Cullen
Avenue West, Eagle Farm.
Austroads 2017 | page 1

2. Development of EME2 Specification Limits

This section presents the methodology followed in the development of specification limits for EME2 using
Australian test methods.
2.1 Interim Specification Limits

In the earlier report (Austroads 2014a), interim Australian EME2 specification limits were developed. These
limits were set based on parallel testing using French and Australian test methods for three EME2 mixes.
One mix comprised French EME2 materials for which the material properties for European test methods
were known. This mix was tested by the Australian Road Research Board (ARRB) using Australian test
methods. Two other mixes were also tested by Australian asphalt suppliers, having the mix tested both in
their local laboratory using Australian test methods, as well as in a European laboratory using the French test
methods. The interim specification limits are shown in Table 2.1. The limits were set by comparing the
outcomes of the French and Australian performance tests for each mix.
It was agreed within the Asphalt Research Working Group (ARWG) that the Australian specification limits
would be updated and finalised once full results from parallel testing using French and Australian test
methods were available for at least five EME2 mixes.
Table 2.1: Tentative specification limits for EME2 using Australian test methods
Property Test method Unit Limit Value

Workability: Air voids in
AS/NZS 2891.2.2 (including Maximum
specimens compacted by % 6.0
modifications based on EN 12697-31) (mensuration)
gyratory compactor at 100 cycles
Water sensitivity AGPT/T232, including freeze-thaw % Minimum 80
Wheel tracking at 60 C and
AGPT/T231 (with modifications) mm Maximum 6.0(1)
30 000 cycles
Minimum stiffness modulus at
AGPT/T274 MPa Minimum 14 000(1)
15 C and 10Hz
Fatigue resistance
AGPT/T274 Minimum 150(1)
at 20 C, 10Hz and 106 cycles
1 Test specimen should be compacted to air voids content between 36% (mensuration) or 1.54.5% (saturated
surface dry).
2.2 Development of Final EME2 Performance Specifications

In the years since the publication of Austroads (2014a) a substantial number of EME2 mix designs have
been developed in Australia. Test results for eleven mix designs were submitted by AAPA members to the
project team. For five of these mixes a full set of performance data for both French and Australian tests are
available. In this section the newly submitted data are analysed to verify the tentative specification limits and
develop a final set of performance specifications for EME2 in Australia.
2.2.1 Workability
The French workability test can be performed using equipment available in Australia as described in AP-
T283-14. Therefore, the French workability requirement is maintained as is, and no comparative testing was
required.

2.2.2 Moisture Sensitivity
The moisture sensitivity test provides an indication of the stripping potential of the material. It is not a
performance based test. As described in AP-T283-14, it was decided to set the requirement for minimum
tensile strength ratio to 80% for EME2. This is a limit that is widely applied for heavy duty asphalt mixes in
Australia. No further comparative testing of this parameter was required.
2.2.3 Rut Resistance
The interim specifications for wheel tracking performance were based on the results for two mixes.
Comparative results for three additional mixes are now available, as shown in Table 2.2.
All tests were performed on samples compacted to the required 3-6% air void content measured by means of
the mensuration test method.
Table 2.2: Comparative wheel tracking results using EN 12697-22 and AGPT/T231
Testing according to EN 12697-22 Testing according to AGPT/T231,

EME2 mix
(%) 30 000 cycles, 60 C (mm)
French EME2 reference mix 3.5 3.2
EME2 Mix 1 1.5 1.6
EME2 Mix 3 2.3 1.2
EME2 Mix 4 2.0 0.7
EME2 Mix 5 1.9 1.2
The results are plotted in Figure 2.1. By extrapolating the trend line to 7.5% rut depth, the Austroads
absolute rut depth would be exactly 6.0 mm. The data for the additional mixes do not indicate a need to
change the limit of 6.0 mm set in the tentative specification. However, since all EME2 mixes tested to date
yielded rut values well below the 6.0 mm limit and because some state road agencies apply stricter limits for
other high performance asphalt mixes, it was decided by the ARWG to lower the limit to 4.0 mm for EME2
mixes. Also, since the wheel tracking test in Australia is normally run to 5000 cycles, it was decided to
include an additional requirement of less than 2.0 mm rut depth at 5000 cycles.

Figure 2.1: Comparison of EN 12697-22 and AGPT/T231 wheel-tracking test

8.0
7.0
6.0
AGPT/T231 rut depth (mm)
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
EN 12697-22 proportional rut (%)
2.2.4 Flexural Modulus
The minimum flexural modulus requirement of 14 000 MPa at 10 C and 15 Hz in the interim specification
was set based on comparative results for testing of two mixes in France and Australia. Testing in France is
performed using a two-point bending (2PB) test configuration in accordance with EN 12697-26 Annex A.
Testing in Australia is performed in four-point bending configuration (4PB), in accordance with AGPT/T274.
Data from comparative testing on three more mixes are now available, as summarised in Table 2.3. Since
modulus varies significantly with air voids content, this variable is taken into consideration in the comparison
of results.
Table 2.3: Comparative modulus results using 2PB and 4PB methods
EME2 mix Average air voids content (%) E (MPa)

French EME2 mix tested in France 2 PB 3.3 15 479
French EME2 mix tested in Australia 4 PB 4.0 15 621
EME2 Mix 1 tested in France 2 PB 3.0 13 077
EME2 Mix 1 tested in Australia 4 PB 4.1 13 558

The comparative results for the five mixes are plotted in Figure 2.2. The results seem to indicate a trend with
higher modulus results from the Australian 4PB testing than the French 2PB testing. On average the
modulus results from the 4PB testing are 5% higher than from the 2PB tests. However, the average air void
content of the samples tested in 4PB was lower. To investigate the influence of air void content on the
modulus comparison, the modulus results were normalised for air void content using the relationship in
Austroads Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2 (Austroads 2012). Austroads (2014a) showed that this
relationship between air void content and modulus can provide valid results for EME2. Figure 2.3 shows the
comparison between 4PB and 2PB results after normalising modulus to a 4% air void content. The difference
between the 4PB and 2PB results is reduced, but still present. The figure indicates that for the small dataset
available, 14 000 MPa in the 4PB test is approximately equivalent to 13 000 MPa in the 2PB test. However, it
is proposed that due to the small sample size, and the relatively small difference between the 4PB and 2PB
values, the tentative modulus requirement of 14 000 MPa at 15 C, 10 Hz (4PB) is maintained.
Figure 2.2: Comparison of flexural modulus using French 2PB and Australian 4PB test methods
20 000
19 000
18 000
AGPT/T274 (4PB) modulus (MPa)
17 000
16 000
15 000
14 000
13 000
12 000
11 000
10 000
10 000 12 000 14 000 16 000 18 000 20 000
EN 12697-26 (2PB) modulus (MPa)
Figure 2.3: Modulus normalised for air void content

20 000
19 000
18 000
AGPT/T274 (4PB) modulus (MPa)
17 000
16 000
15 000
14 000
13 000
12 000
11 000
10 000
10 000 12 000 14 000 16 000 18 000 20 000
EN 12697-26 (2PB) modulus (MPa)

2.2.5 Fatigue
The interim specification limit for fatigue was set to 150 at 1 million (10 6) load repetitions in 4 PB testing
at 20 C, 10 Hz, performed in accordance with AGPT/T274. The interim specification limit was set based on
comparative testing of two mixes. The results for the comparative testing of a total of five mixes that are now
available are shown in Table 2.4.
Table 2.4: Comparative fatigue results using 2PB and 4PB methods
Difference between
Air voids (%)
EME2 mix 6 (microstrain) 4 PB and 2 PB 6
(mensuration)
(microstrain)
French EME2 mix - tested in France 2 PB 3.3 142
7
French EME2 mix - tested in Australia 4 PB 4.5 135
Australian EME2 Mix 1 - tested in France 2 PB 4.8 143
27
Australian EME2 Mix 1 - tested in Australia 4 PB 4.7 170
41
Australian EME2 Mix 2 - tested in Australia 4 PB (1) 5.0 173
15
23
18
The results are plotted in Figure 2.4. The results do not show any clear trend, but the 6 strain level in the 4PB
test is generally higher than in the 2PB test. The average difference between the 4Pb and 2PB results in
Table 2.4 is approximately 20 . This indicates that the data for six mixes supports the 6 criterion of 150
set in the interim specification. This requirement is 20 higher than the French requirement of 130 in 2PB.
Figure 2.4: Comparison of fatigue using French 2 PB and Australian 4PB methods test methods
200
190
180
AGPT/T274 (4PB) (6)
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
100 120 140 160 180 200
EN 12697-26 (2PB) (6)

2.2.6 Final Specification Limits
The final Australian performance specification limits for EME2 developed based on comparative testing of
five mixes in Australia and France are shown in Table 2.5.
Table 2.5: Final specification limits for EME2
Property Test method Unit Limit Value

Air voids in specimens compacted by gyratory compactor at Maximum
AS/NZS 2891.2.2(1) % 6.0(2)
100 cycles (mensuration)
Water sensitivity AGPT/T232(3) % Minimum 80
At 60 C and 30 000 cycles (60 000 passes) AGPT/T231(4,5) mm Maximum 4.0
Wheel tracking
At 60 C and 5 000 cycles (10 000 passes) AGPT/T231(4,5) mm Maximum 2.0
Minimum stiffness modulus at 50 3 at 15 C and 10 Hz AGPT/T274(4) MPa Minimum 14 000
Fatigue resistance at 20 C, 10 Hz and 106 cycles AGPT/T274(4) Minimum 150
Resilient modulus at 25 C, 0.04 s rise time(6) AS/NZS 2891.13.1 MPa N/A report
1 Test parameters for AS/NZS 2891.2.2 shall be as follows: Vertical loading stress of 600 18 kPa, gyratory angle
(internal) of 0.82 0.02 and a rate of gyration of 30 0.5 revolutions per minute. Specimens shall have a diameter of
150 mm and a target compacted thickness of 135 mm. Laboratory compaction temperature for preparing test
specimens shall be determined in accordance with AS/NZS 2891.2.2, Appendix A.
2 Bulk density of gyratory compacted specimens shall be determined by mensuration in accordance with AS/NZS
2891.9.3. This property shall be determined from the average of three (minimum) test specimens.
3 The freeze/thaw moisture conditioning of specimens detailed in Section 5.2 of AGPT/T232 is mandatory.
4 Specimens shall be compacted to an air void content of 1.54.5% when the bulk density is determined in accordance
with AS/NZS 2891.9.2.
5 This property shall be determined from the average of two (minimum) test specimens.
6 For information purposes only.

3. Victorian Trial
3.1 Objectives of the Victorian EME2 Trial

The purpose of the EME2 trial in Victoria was to demonstrate and validate the ability to successfully produce
and construct EME2 in Australian conditions. The demonstration trial was constructed in June 2015 on the
South Gippsland Highway, between Monomeith and Caldermeade, Victoria. This was the second EME2 trial
carried out in Australia; the first trial was conducted on 15 February 2014 at Cullen Avenue West, Eagle
Farm, Queensland. The results from the Queensland trial can be found in Austroads (2014a). Since the
completion of the Queensland trial, Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) and ARRB
have developed technical note High Modulus Asphalt (EME2) Pavement Design (Queensland Department of
Transport and Main Roads (TMR) 2015) to facilitate the implementation of EME2 on Queenslands roads.
The objectives of the Victorian project were as follows:

assess the feasibility of construction and production of EME2 using asphalt plants and road construction
equipment available in Australia
provide input into the mix design specification
provide input into pavement design requirements.
3.1.1 Trial Delivery
The raw materials (including aggregates and binder) were sourced within Australia. The binder was supplied
by Viva Energy and transported from Queensland to Victoria. Downer Group (Downer) developed,
manufactured and placed the EME2 mix.
One of the main objectives of EME2 is to reduce the thickness of full depth asphalt, while still providing
superior pavement performance. However, for this trial, the pavement thickness was not altered, i.e. the
EME2 thickness and the structural intermediate and structural fatigue layers (i.e. Type SI asphalt and SF
asphalt as per VicRoads Code of Practice RC 500.01 (VicRoads 2016)) thicknesses were the same. The
rationale for this decision was to be able to maintain the cement treated base (CTB) at a constant level due
to the difficult traffic management arrangements on this high-volume road. This set-up still allows direct
comparison of the conventional Type SF and Type SI asphalt layers to the EME2. The EME2 trial section,
having the same layer thickness as the control sections, should provide increased structural capacity. The
benefits of the increased performance can be shown by the higher number of design equivalent standard
axle (DESA) repetitions that the EME2 asphalt is expected to carry.
Stakeholders that contributed to the production, construction and overall execution of the Victorian
demonstration trial were:
VicRoads
Downer
Services South East (SSE)
AAPA
Environdata
ARRB.

3.2 Design of the Trial
3.2.1 EME2 Mix Design
Downer developed the EME2 mix design for the Victorian demonstration trial using the Australian test
methods and specification framework. This particular mix design was not assessed in France using French
test methods. The EME2 mix design is fully performance based, where conformance of the mix is assessed
against performance test results. The volumetric properties of the mix are still important for the designer;
however, they do not form the basis of the mix design development process.
The background of the Australian specification framework can be found in AP-T283-14 (Austroads 2014a).
The specification requirements and the mix performance test results for the Victorian trial are summarised in
Table 3.1.
Table 3.1: Mix design criteria and Victorian EME2 mix design properties
Property Test method Unit Limit Specification EME2 VIC trial

Air voids in specimens compacted AS/NZS 2891.2.2 (1) % Maximum 6 (2) 5.1
by gyratory compactor at 100 cycles
Water sensitivity AGPT/T232 (3) % Minimum 80 96
Wheel tracking at 60C and 30 000 AGPT/231 (6) mm Maximum 6.0 1.0
cycles (60 000 passes) (4, 5)
Minimum flexural stiffness at 50 3 AGPT/T274 MPa Minimum 14 000 14 300
, 15 C and 10 Hz (4, 6, 7)
Fatigue resistance at 20 C, 10 Hz AGPT/T274 Minimum 150 202 (8)
and 1 million cycles (4, 6)
Richness modulus (9) N/A Minimum 3.4 3.7
1 Test parameters for AS/NZS 2891.2.2 shall be as follows: Vertical loading stress of 600 18 kPa, gyratory angle
(internal) of 0.82 0.02o and a rate of gyration of 30 0.5 revolutions per minute. Specimens should have a diameter
of 150 mm and a thickness between 100 mm and 150 mm. Laboratory compaction temperature for preparing test
specimens should be determined in accordance with AS/NZS 2891.2.2, Appendix A.
2 Bulk density of gyratory compacted specimens shall be determined by mensuration in accordance with
AS/NZS 2891.9.3. This property shall be determined from the average of three (minimum) test specimens.
3 The free/thaw moisture conditioning of specimens detailed in Section 5.2 of AGPT/T232 is mandatory.
4 Specimens shall be compacted to an air void content of 1.5%4.5% when the bulk density is determined in
accordance with AS/NZS 2891.9.2 or Q306B.
5 This property shall be determined from the average of two (minimum) test specimens.
6 Sinusoidal loading (instead of haversine loading) shall be used.
7 Flexural stiffness shall be determined as the average stiffness between the 45th and the 100th load repetition.
8 Calculated based on testing of two strain levels (150 and 200 microstrain).
9 Refer to Austroads (2014a) for calculation.
Source: Austroads (2014a) and information provided by Downer.
In collaboration with the asphalt supplier, ARRB conducted a temperature-frequency sweep on beams
prepared according to the final mix design at 0.10.5135101520 Hz and 5152530 C
temperatures. The master curve of the mix is shown in Figure 3.1 where the QLD EME2 mix is also plotted
for comparison. Based on this figure the Victorian EME2 shows slightly higher flexural stiffness across a wide
range of temperatures and frequencies compared to the QLD EME2 mix. Also, the shape of the master
curves indicates that despite the two mixes being manufactured using binders from different suppliers, they
show similar characteristics.

Figure 3.1: Master curves of the Queensland and Victorian EME2 trial mixes
1.0E+04
Flexural stiffness (MPa)
QLD trial - EME2
VIC trial - EME2
1.0E+03
1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04
Reduced frequency (rad/s)
3.2.2 EME2 Pavement Design
The EME2 trial section, having the same layer thickness as the control sections, should provide an increased
structural capacity. The pavement design calculations were performed by VicRoads based on the input
values summarised in Table 3.2. These presumptive modulus values were derived from Technical Note (TN)
142 (TMR 2015). The modulus values were corrected to 24 C, which is the weighted mean annual
pavement temperature (WMAPT) in Melbourne. The pavement design calculations are shown in Table 3.3
and the benefits of the increased performance can be seen by the higher number of DESA repetitions.
Table 3.2: Presumptive design input into the Victorian EME2 trial pavement design
Speed (km/h) 10 30 50 80
Presumptive design modulus
3800 5700 6800 8000
for EME2 (MPa) @ 24 C
Binder volume for EME2 (%) 13.5
Source: Based on TN 142 (TMR 2015).
Table 3.3: Pavement design calculations for the Victorian EME2 trial
Base layer Strain Deign Equivalent Increase in structural capacity

Design
configuration (microstrain) Standard Axles (DESA) ESA Percentage
Control SI + SF layers 139 1.69E+07 N/A N/A
Trial site 1 EME2 + SF layers 132 2.19E+07 4.99E+06 29%
Trial site 2 EME2 + EME2 layers 95 3.75E+07 2.06E+07 122%
Source: Information provided by VicRoads.

3.2.3 Construction
The pavement structures for the trial sections are shown in Table 3.4. It should be noted that the table refers
to design layer thicknesses and actual construction thicknesses may differ slightly. There were two trial
sections and one control section.
Table 3.4: Cross-section of the EME2 Victorian trial
Layer Control Trial section 1 Trial section 2

(1) (1)
Wearing course 35 mm SMA 35 mm SMA 35 mm SMA (1)
Upper asphalt base layer 80 mm SI asphalt 80 mm EME2 asphalt 80 mm EME2 asphalt
Lower asphalt base layer 75 mm SF asphalt 75 mm SF asphalt 75 mm EME2 asphalt
Subbase 150 mm 150 mm 150 mm
In situ stabilisation with 3% In situ stabilisation with 3% In situ stabilisation with 3%
cement cement cement
1 Stone mastic asphalt (SMA).
Table 3.5 presents a timeline of the construction of the Victorian EME2 trial. A summary of the paving dates
and outline of the construction site is also shown in Table 3.6 and Figure 3.2. The trial pavements were
placed in the slow lane of the northbound carriageway (towards Melbourne).The fast lane was constructed
according to the control section and it was not monitored as part of this project. Appendix A provides an
overview of the trial site layout.
Table 3.5: EME2 Victorian trial construction timeline
Date Task
Thursday 28 May Pulverise existing subbase
Friday 29 May Mix, compact and trim cement treated subbase in situ
Saturday 30 May ARRB Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) testing on cement treated subbase
Monday 1 June Downer placed SF from ch. 980 m340 m and EME2 from ch. 340 m180 m
Downer undertook nuclear gauge testing on EME2 layer
Material sampling at Downers asphalt plant
Tuesday 2 June Services South East saw cut, trenched boxed out and poured concrete base for weather
station, footing for weather station and trench for associated conduits
Wednesday 3 June Downer placed SI from ch. 980 m472 m and ch. 218 m110 m, EME2 from ch. 472 m
218 m
Installation of temperature probes and weather station
Nuclear gauge testing of EME2 layer
Thursday 4 June Downer cored asphalt base layers
Thursday 11 June ARRB FWD testing on top of second base layer
Thursday 16 July Downer placed SMA wearing course
Tuesday 11 August NSV (Network Survey Vehicle) testing on wearing course
Wednesday 14 October ARRB FWD testing on top of SMA layer
Table 3.6: Summary of pavement construction dates
Location Layer Date placed Asphalt type

Upper 3/06/2015 SI
A, CH610
Lower 1/06/2015 SF
Upper 3/06/2015 EME2
B, CH381
Lower 1/06/2015 SF
Upper 3/06/2015 EME2
C, CH251
Lower 1/06/2015 EME2

Figure 3.2: Final construction layout

to Melbourne to Phillip Island
SMA (16/7/2015)
SI (3/6/2015) EME2 (3/6/2015) SI (3/6/2015)
EME2 (1/6/2015) SF (1/6/2015)
180 218 340 472 980

chainage (m)
251 381 610
Location C Location B Location A
5 cores (d=100 mm, 2 layers) 5 cores (d=100 mm, 2 layers) 5 cores (d=100 mm, 2 layers)
280
Weather station
300 460
Testo (1/6/2015 - lower layer) Testo (3/6/2015 - upper layer)
Note: The offset for cores and temperature sensors is 1.8 m from the fast lane/slow lane joint.
It should be noted that originally three sections were planned between chainage 630 m to chainage 200 m;
these are EME2/EME2, EME2/Type SF and Type SI/Type SF. Since more EME2 was manufactured on the
first day than what was required, the EME2 lower layer was extended to chainage 180 m. On the second day
of construction the crew ran out of EME2 mix, and therefore Type SI mix was placed from chainage 218 m to
180 m, which created an EME2/Type SI combination. Cores were not extracted from the unplanned
EME2/Type SI section; however, it will still be monitored for structural capacity (FWD) and ride quality (IRI,
rutting) in the longer term.
3.2.4 Production Control and In Situ Density Testing
The aggregate particle size distribution and binder contents were tested by the asphalt supplier and they
were all within the production tolerances recommended by AP-T283-14.
The mix was designed with a bulk density of 2.545 t/m3 and 5.1% air voids at 100 gyratory cycles
(Table 3.1). The acceptance level for the in situ air voids content was set to 6.0% before the trial, in line with
the French specification requirements. It should be noted that VicRoads utilises the density ratio the
quotient of the in situ bulk density and laboratory reference bulk density for in situ compaction acceptance.
The targeted density ratio (Rc) was therefore set at 99%, which equals to a maximum of 6% air voids as per
Table 3.7. The standard VicRoads (2014) requirement of 96% density ratio was not acceptable as it would
have returned in situ air voids contents above 8%.
Table 3.7: Calculated target in situ air voids of compacted EME2 mix
Laboratory reference Bulk density according Maximum density Calculated air voids
Rc ratio
bulk density (t/m3) to Rc ratio (t/m3) (t/m3) (%)
2.545 100 2.545 2.680 5.1
2.545 99 2.520 2.680 6.0
2.545 98 2.494 2.680 6.9
2.545 97 2.469 2.680 7.9
2.545 96 2.443 2.680 8.8
2.545 95 2.418 2.680 9.8

The following rollers were used during the trial:

breakdown rolling 7 tonnes steel wheeled roller
compaction 8 tonnes multi-tyred roller
back-rolling 7 tonnes steel wheeled roller.
The densification of the mat was measured during construction by Downer at two locations within the EME2
section using a nuclear density gauge after each roller pass. The density results and rolling patterns are
shown in Table 3.8. The results are also summarised in Figure 3.3, which indicates that the EME2 mix
compacted well. Roller pass zero refers to the density ratio after the paver screed and one roller pass refers
to two roller movements (forward and back).
Table 3.8: Rolling sequence and density ratio and air voids of EME2
Rc ratio based on nuclear gauge (t/m3) In situ air voids (%)

Rolling sequence 1/06/2015 3/06/2015 1/06/2015 3/06/2015
(location A) (location B) (location A) (location B)
Behind paver 84.6 83.0 19.7 21.2
1st vibration
91.7 91.2 12.9 13.4
(steel wheel, breakdown rolling)
2nd vibration
95.6 95.2 9.2 9.6
(steel wheel, breakdown rolling)
Multi-tyred and back rolling (static) 98.8 98.9 6.2 6.1
Source: Information provided by Downer.
Figure 3.3: Compaction curve of EME2 (nominal thickness 75 mm)
25
Compaction curve EME2

Location A
20
Calculated air voids (%)
Compaction curve EME2

Location B
15
10
0
0 1 2 3
Roller passes
Source: Based on data from Downer.

The density of the compacted mat was tested on 1/6/2015 for the Type SF and EME2 layers on a random
basis by using a nuclear density gauge. The calculated density ratios for the compacted layers are
summarised in Figure 3.4. An asphalt density bias (offset) value of 0.07 t/m3 was used for the EME2 and
0.05 t/m3 for the Type SF layer. It should be noted that the tests were performed as part of the production
control to check the uniformity of compaction and the values in Figure 3.4 are indicative and not for
acceptance purposes.
Figure 3.4: Percentage air voids of the compacted EME2 and Type SF layers
9
7
Calculated air voids (%)
EME2 SF
1
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Chainage (m)
Source: Based on data from Downer.
3.2.5 Temperature Monitoring
The temperature of the EME2 was monitored by ARRB during the paving process in three ways as follows:
Probe thermometer: a Testo probe thermometer was inserted into the EME2 mat from the uncompacted
side every 20 m as it was being placed and the maximum temperature reached recorded (Table 3.9).
Testo data logger: one thermocouple was placed at the EME2/CTB and the EME2/EME2 interface and
another thermocouple in the middle of the EME2 layer as the EME2 was paved. The sensors recorded
the temperature of the EME2 mat until compaction was completed (unless the sensor cut out before this
point). For the lower layer EME2 at location C, one thermocouple was placed at the EME2/CTB interface
and a second in the middle of the EME2 layer. For the upper layer EME2 at location B, one thermocouple
was placed at the EME2/EME2 interface, and one in the middle of the EME2 layer. The data collected for
both layers are plotted in Figure 3.5.
Infrared images: an infrared camera was used to record the surface temperature of the EME2 at various
stages of the placement and compaction process.

Table 3.9: In-mat temperatures of the EME2 layers immediately after the paver passed
EME2, location C, chainage 300 m 1/6/2015 EME2, location B, chainage 460 m 3/6/2015
Chainage (m) Temperature of the mat (C) Chainage (m) Temperature of the mat (C)
340 168.8 460 160.7
320 184.2 420 182.1
300 175.5 400 182.6
280 185.0 375 172.3
260 181.6 360 166.1
240 162.8 340 170.7
220 173.7 320 174.9
200 167.0 300 169.0
180 185.4 280 177.0
- - 260 177.3
- - 240 178.9
- - 220 166.8
Figure 3.5: Temperature of EME2 layers measured by Testo data logger
3.2.6 Weather Station Installation
A solar-powered weather station was constructed at chainage 280 m of the demonstration site. The weather
station is a customised version of the Environdata Weather Maestro and can monitor air temperature, wind
speed, solar radiation, humidity and rainfall. In order to gain a better understanding of the relationship
between pavement temperature and performance, a series of temperature sensors were installed in the
pavement at various depths. The sensors consist of a small electronic unit with a 100 mm long probe that is
inserted into the pavement. These sensors were connected to the weather station which continuously
monitors the pavement temperature. The weather station records the data at 10 minute intervals.

The installation procedure for the weather station and pavement temperature sensors was as follows
(Figure 3.6 to Figure 3.11):
An approximately 300 mm deep trench was excavated from the location of the weather station in the
nature strip to where the pavement temperature sensors were to be placed in the pavement (first EME2
layer paved only at this stage).
A deeper box was dug into the nature strip and boxed out at the location of the weather station at
chainage 280 m.
32 mm conduits were placed in the trench from the weather station box to where the temperature sensors
were to be placed.
The trench was then backfilled and the weather station box filled and secured with concrete.
The second EME2 layer was paved.
A box approximately 400 mm deep was saw cut into the EME2 courses to where the temperature sensors
were to be placed.
Holes were drilled at various depths (Table 3.10) into the sidewall of the temperature sensor box where
the sensors were installed.
The temperature sensors were installed into the sidewall of the EME2 course and sealed in place using a
thermo-conductive gel.
Cables were then run through the conduits connecting the sensors to the weather station.
The temperature sensors were checked for signal function.
The pavement temperature sensor box was filled and secured with concrete.
The wearing course was placed over the sensor box.
Table 3.10: Temperature sensor depths from top of EME2 intermediate course
Sensor depths (mm)

Sensor Targeted - from the top of the Actual - from the top of the Actual - from the top of the
second base layer second base layer SMA wearing course
1 15 20 55
2 35 40 75
3 75 85 120
4 155 150 185
5 195 200 235
6 295 290 325

Figure 3.6: Weather station trenched and boxed Figure 3.7: Pavement trench with conduit
Figure 3.8: Trench from pavement to weather station Figure 3.9: Saw-cut pavement temperature sensor
with conduit being backfilled box
Figure 3.10: Temperature sensors inserted into Figure 3.11: Filling and securing the sensors with
pavement concrete
Further detail about the installation process and weather station capabilities can be found in Austroads
(2014a).

3.3 Post-construction Testing
3.3.1 Extraction of Cores
Following construction of the intermediate courses on 4/6/2015, five 100 mm diameter full depth cores were
taken from each of the three trial sections. All 15 cores were extracted using the wet coring method and
transported directly to the ARRB laboratory for testing.
3.3.2 Testing of Extracted Cores
The 15 cores were measured and the average thickness of each set of five cores from the three locations is
shown in Table 3.11.
Table 3.11: Average thickness of layers of extracted cores
Location Nominal thickness Actual thickness

Layer Asphalt type
(mm) (mm)
Upper SI 80 79.8
A CH610
Lower SF 75 85.3 (1)
Upper EME2 80 79.4
B CH381
Lower SF 75 68.7
Upper EME2 80 82.5
C CH251
Lower EME2 75 74.8
1 Core broken, therefore average of four cores used.
The two-layer cores (as extracted from the pavement) were then cut into their individual layers (total of 30
cores). The density of the 30 cores was determined using AS/NZS 2891.9.2 and air voids were calculated
according to AS/NZS 2891.8. The maximum densities, provided by the asphalt supplier from the mix
designs, were used for the calculations (Table 3.12). The average results for each set of cores are shown in
Table 3.13. The results for the individual cores are shown in Appendix B.
Table 3.12: Maximum densities used for calculation of the air voids
Asphalt type Maximum density (t/m3)

Type SI 2.596
Type SF 2.582
EME2 2.691

Table 3.13: Average in situ density and air voids results
Position in the Asphalt Bulk density Water absorption Air voids

Location Measure
pavement type (t/m3) (%) (%)
Average 2.474 0.7 4.7
Upper layer SI
Std. dev. 0.007 0.1 0.2
A CH610
Average 2.471 0.4 4.3
Lower layer SF
Std. dev. 0.010 0.1 0.4
Average 2.573 0.6 4.4
Upper layer EME2
Std. dev. 0.032 0.3 1.2
B CH381
Average 2.503 0.2 3.0
Lower layer SF
Std. dev. 0.009 0.1 0.3
Average 2.596 0.2 3.5
Upper layer EME2
Std. dev. 0.015 0.1 0.6
C CH251
Average 2.580 0.2 4.1
Lower layer EME2
Std. dev. 0.008 0.1 0.3
The resilient modulus of the cores was determined according to AS/NZS 2891.13.1 at the standard test
temperature of 25 C, as well as at 15 C, 32 C and 40 C and the results are shown in Appendix C. In order
to ensure consistency during the test, the cores were marked and tested using the same configuration at all
of the test temperatures.
As the resilient modulus is air voids dependent, the measured resilient moduli were corrected for air voids in
order to have the same basis for comparison. Austroads (2012) provides the relationship between modulus
and air voids for determination of the design modulus of asphalt from laboratory indirect tensile stiffness
modulus testing using conventional binders. The moduli for each core were corrected using Equation1
(Austroads 2012).
(21 (%) ) 1
=
(21 (%) )
where
= in-service air voids (%)
= test air voids (%).
The average resilient modulus results corrected for air voids are shown in Table 3.14. On this basis the
influence of the air voids content is removed from the comparison. The corrected resilient modulus results for
the individual cores are shown in Appendix D.
Figure 3.12 shows a comparison of the resilient modulus at different temperatures, corrected to 5% air voids
content, based on the data in Table 3.14. The stiffness of all mix type layers at all locations at low
temperatures (i.e. 15 C) is significantly variable. As the temperature increases to medium temperatures (i.e.
25 C) the stiffness of the EME2 mix and the Type SI and Type SF are similar. The EME2 layers have a
lower stiffness than that of the Type SI layer at location A at low and medium temperatures. However, at
higher temperatures (i.e. 32 and 40 C) the EME2 mix shows higher stiffness, despite the higher binder
content of the mix.

Table 3.14: Average resilient modulus (MPa) corrected to 5% air voids at 15, 25, 32 and 40 C
Temperature (C)
Location Measure
15 25 32 40
Average 11 756 5 739 2 666 936
Location A SI
Std. dev. 593 250 156 159
Average 10 570 5 431 2 423 788
Location A SF
Std. dev. 871 144 92 44
Average 10 117 5 201 2 845 1 260
Location B EME2
Std. dev. 1 110 86 246 175
Average 9 547 4 889 2 100 858
Location B SF
Std. dev. 1 021 458 316 135
Average 10 495 5 130 2 564 1 219
Location C EME2 (upper)
Std. dev. 1 157 287 154 50
Average 11 263 5 431 2 976 1 305
Location C EME2 (lower)
Std. dev. 1 075 128 123 115
Figure 3.12: Comparison of the resilient modulus of SI, SF and EME2 mixes corrected to 5% air voids
12 000
Location A - SI Average
Resilient ,odulus corrected to 5% air voids (MPa)
10 000
Location A - SF
Location B - EME2
Location B - SF
8 000
Location C - EME2 (upper)
Location C - EME2 (lower)
6 000
4 000
2 000
0 000
15 20 25 30 35 40
Temperature (C)
The air voids content of EME2 cores was further tested after resilient modulus testing. The cores were cut in
half and the density of the top and bottom halves was tested according to AS/NZS 2891.9.2; and the air
voids were calculated according to AS/NZS 2891.8. The air voids of the top and bottom layers of the EME2
cores are shown in Table 3.15, Table 3.16 and Table 3.17.
Figure 3.13 shows a comparison of the average air voids between the top and bottom of each set of cores.
This set of tests was undertaken to collect information on the impact of differential cooling at the top or the
bottom of the EME2 layer.

Table 3.15: Air voids for the top and bottom of EME2 cores, location B, upper layer
Air voids (%)

Location Core# Difference (%)
Top of the layer Bottom of the layer
B1 3779T 3.2 8.7 5.5
B2 3780T 2.0 5.0 3.0
B3 3781T 2.0 5.1 3.1
B4 3782T 2.6 5.4 2.8
B5 3783T 3.8 7.0 3.2
Average 2.7 6.2 3.5
Std. dev. 0.7 1.4 0.7
Table 3.16: Air voids for the top and bottom of EME2 cores, location C, upper layer
Air voids (%)

C1 3784T 2.7 3.0 0.3
C2 3785T 3.3 4.3 1.0
C3 3786T 3.4 4.2 0.8
C4 3787T 2.6 3.8 1.2
C5 3788T 3.7 5.4 1.7
Average 3.1 4.1 1.0
Std. dev. 0.4 0.8 0.4
Table 3.17: Air voids for the top and bottom of EME2 cores, location C, lower layer
Air voids (%)

C1 3784B 5.3 3.9 1.4
C2 3785B 4.5 3.6 0.9
C3 3786B 5.4 3.5 1.9
C4 3787B 4.5 3.6 0.9
C5 3788B 4.6 3.3 1.3
Average 4.9 3.6 1.3
Std. dev. 0.4 0.2 0.2

Figure 3.13: Comparison of top and bottom of EME2 cores average air voids contents
3.4 Performance Monitoring

Functional and structural performance monitoring was conducted at various stages of the project. The
monitoring schedule, as agreed by the reference group, is summarised in Table 3.18.
Table 3.18: Functional and structural performance monitoring schedule of the Victorian EME2 trial
After After 6 months 12 months 24 months

On top
Activity construction construction of after after after
of CTB
of EME layers wearing course construction construction construction
NSV survey N/A N/A 1 1 1 1
FWD 1 1 1 1 1 1
Back-calculation 1 1 1 1 1 1
Visual inspection 1 1 1 1 1 1
FWD testing was conducted by ARRB on top of the subgrade, the upper base asphalt layer and the wearing
course. The results of these tests are not included in this report.
A network survey vehicle (NSV) survey was completed at the trial site on 11 August 2015, after the wearing
course (SMA) was laid. The outer wheel path (OWP) and inner wheel path (IWP) IRI and rut depths were
recorded.
The IRI (average of two wheel paths) for each trial section and the total site is shown in Table 3.19. The IRI
according to chainage is also plotted in Figure 3.14. The IRI of the two trial sections that contain EME2 are
higher than the control, however the variance between the sections is considered to be insignificant given
the standard deviations.
Table 3.20 shows desirable roughness values according to Austroads (2007). From this the typical maximum
desirable roughness for new construction or rehabilitation (length 500 m) for highways and main roads is 1.9
m/km. Even though the length of the trial section is less than 500 m, these values can be used indicatively
and the average IRIs are below this maximum threshold.

Table 3.19: Initial average IRI of the trial sections
Section Average IRI (m/km) Standard deviation (m/km)

Control 1.50 0.64
Trial section 1 1.68 0.46
Trial section 2 1.81 0.37
Total trial site 1.75 0.75
Figure 3.14: Initial roughness (IRI) of the trial sections
Table 3.20: Levels of roughness Austroads (2007)
Typical maximum desirable Indicative investigation levels for roughness

Location roughness for new construction or (IRI m/km)
rehabilitation (length 500 m)
Isolated areas Length > 500 m
Freeways and other
1.6 4.2 3.5
high-class facilities
Highways and main
1.9 5.3* 4.2
roads (100 km/h)
Highways and main
1.9 6.1 5.3
roads (< 80 km/h)
Other local sealed roads No limits defined No limits defined No limits defined
* Lower values may be appropriate where total traffic or heavy vehicle volumes are high.
Roughness levels depend on local conditions and traffic calming measures.
The average rut depths for both wheel paths for each trial section are shown in Table 3.21. The rut depth
with respect to chainage is plotted in Figure 3.15. The rut measurements have been calculated using a
simulated 2 m long straight edge (2MSE). There is a minor difference in the rutting between the OWP and
IWP. The outlier for the OWP near chainage 470 cannot be explained. Generally, the rut depths exhibited
are considered to be normal for a newly paved road.

Table 3.21: Average rut depths of trial sections
Rut depths (mm)

Section
Average OWP Std. dev. OWP Average IWP Std. dev. IWP
Control 2.09 0.60 1.31 0.25
Trial section 1 1.99 0.81 1.71 0.57
Trial section 2 2.06 0.54 1.51 0.37
Total trial site 2.03 0.63 1.46 0.44
Figure 3.15: Initial rut depth of the trial sections
3.5 Discussion
3.5.1 In Situ Density
The density ratio of the EME2 was measured by Downer on site using a nuclear density gauge and the in
situ air voids for all the layers were measured by ARRB in the laboratory on cores extracted from the
pavement.
The layer thickness, as shown in Table 3.11, indicates that the target thickness was achieved for all three
EME2 layers and the SI layer. For the SF layers there is a difference between the two sections which were
placed at the same time with a target thickness of 75 mm. At location A, the SF layer was placed at an
average thickness of 85.3 mm and at location B with an average thickness of 68.7 mm. Laboratory air voids
content results (Table 3.13) indicate that at location B the SF layer has lower air voids than at location A.
In order to achieve the target in situ air voids of 6.0% or less, the required density ratio was 99% (Table 3.7)
for the EME2 mix. Table 3.8 indicates that the density ratio achieved was close to the target value. According
to Table 3.13 the EME2 mix was compacted to 4.4%, 3.5% and 4.1% air voids at the three locations/layers,
which is well below the 6.0% threshold level. The standard deviation of the air voids for the upper EME2
layer at location B is very high compared to the lower and upper EME2 layers at location C due to two
unexplainable outliers.

3.5.2 Resilient Modulus at Standard 25 C Temperature
Table 3.14 shows the average resilient modulus of the cores corrected for air voids. By comparing the
average resilient modulus at 25 C of the two upper EME2 layers (location B and C) that were both placed
on 3/06/2015, it can be seen that the EME2 moduli are very similar for the same day of production between
the two locations. The difference between the modulus values is less than 100 MPa; however, the standard
deviation at location C is higher (287 MPa) than at location B (86 MPa). It should be noted that considering
the repeatability of the test procedure, such a difference is considered insignificant.
The standard deviations of the resilient modulus for each set of test results indicate that there is variability
between the resilient modulus between one set of cores at a single temperature. At 25 C, the modulus of the
Type SI and Type SF compared to the EME2 is not significantly different; however, at higher temperatures the
modulus of the EME2 is higher than the modulus of the other two conventional asphalt mixes.
3.5.3 Resilient Modulus vs. Temperature
Resilient modulus across a range of test temperatures
Table 3.14 and Appendix C show the resilient modulus of the cores tested at 15, 25, 32 and 40 C. There is
a greater variance in the modulus between the different materials at lower temperatures, and this can be
attributed to the difference in binder properties and binder contents. Despite the very hard binder used in the
EME2 mix, the material is not considered extremely stiff compared to the conventional asphalt mixes. This
property is attributed to the higher binder content of the EME2 mix, which provides greater flexibility for the
layer at lower temperatures, minimising the development of thermal induced cracking. The measured
resilient modulus for the different layers is plotted in Figure 3.16.
Figure 3.16: Resilient modulus versus test temperature
12 000
Measured SI - A
Measured resilient modulus (MPa)
10 000
Measured SF - A
Measured EME2 - B
Measured SF - B
8 000
Measuered EME2 - C(1)
Measured EME - C(2)
6 000
4 000
2 000
0 000
15 20 25 30 35 40
Temperature C

Austroads temperature correction validation
Austroads (2012) provides a temperature correction relationship for modulus. This correction factor is used
to determine the design modulus of asphalt at different temperatures from laboratory indirect tensile strength
modulus testing using conventional binders. In order to validate the relationship for an EME2 binder, the
average moduli for each set of cores were normalised for temperature as per Equation 2 (Equation 9 of
Austroads (2012)) and are compared to the predicted relationship in Figure 3.17 for Type SI and Type SF
and in Figure 3.18 for EME2. Table 3.22 gives the percentage variation of the measured values to the
Austroads calculated value.
2
= exp(0.08[WMAPT T])
()
where
= modulus at the in-service temperature
= modulus at test temperature.
Figure 3.17: Measured modulus versus temperature corrected (calculated) modulus according to Austroads
(2012) Type SI and Type SF
14 000
Measured SI - A
12 000
Calculated SI - A
Measured SF - A
10 000
Resilient modulus (MPa)
Calculated SF - A
8 000
Measured SF - B
Calculated SF - B
6 000
4 000
2 000
0 000
15 20 25 30 35 40
Temperature (C)

Figure 3.18: Measured modulus versus temperature corrected (calculated) modulus according to Austroads
(2012) EME2
14 000
Measured EME2 - B
12 000 Calculated EME2 - B
Measured EME2 - C(1)
10 000 Calculated EME2 - C(1)

Resilient modulus (MPa)
Measured EME2 - C(2)

8 000
Calculated EME2 - C(2)
6 000
4 000
2 000
0 000
15 20 25 30 35 40
Temperature (C)
Table 3.22: Difference between normalised modulus from laboratory tests and Austroads (2012) relationship
Temperature (C)
Location/layer 15 25 32 40
Difference between measured and temperature corrected modulus (%)
A/SI 8.8 0.0 22.8 84.2
A/SF 14.5 0.0 27.7 106.7
B/SF 14.2 0.0 32.6 70.7
B/EME2 14.7 0.0 3.9 23.0
C(upper)/EME2 8.8 0.0 14.0 26.2
C(lower)/EME2 7.6 0.0 4.0 25.0
According to Figure 3.17, Figure 3.18 and Table 3.22, the difference between the measured and the
Austroads predicted modulus is increasing with increasing test temperature; however, the difference is
greater for Type SI and Type SF asphalt and it was found to be relatively low for EME2 at temperatures
between 15 C and 32 C.
Overall the Austroads relationship is valid for Type SI and Type SF asphalt across a range of temperatures
normally considered for Australian climatic conditions (15 C to 32 C). However at higher temperatures (i.e.
at 40 C) the difference in the relationship is considerably higher and may not necessarily be valid. Further
testing may therefore be required to confirm whether this is the case. For EME2, the relationship is
considered valid at all temperatures up to 40 C. It should be noted that Type SI, Type SF and EME2 asphalt
are manufactured using conventional binders (i.e. plain binder, not modified binder), therefore it was
expected that the calculation in Equation 2 would be valid for these mixes.

3.5.4 Setting a Minimum Paving Temperature for EME2
Figure 3.19 shows a full core (core #3783) taken from location B (CH381). The top half of the core is EME2
and the bottom half is Type SF asphalt. Where the two layers meet in the centre of the core is easily visually
identified.
Figure 3.19: Full depth core, core #3783, location B CH381
It is also clear from Figure 3.20a (core #3783T) to Figure 3.20c (core #3783B) of the EME2 layer that the
bottom of the EME2 layer has a more open structure with higher air voids than the top of the layer. This trend
was also observed for both the upper EME2 layers at location B and C.
Figure 3.20: Core #3783T EME2 layer a) side b) top c) bottom
a) b) c)
However, the lower EME2 layer at location C (core #3788B) displayed an opposite trend, with the top half of
the core having a more open structure and higher air voids compared to the bottom half, as can be visually
seen in Figure 3.21.

Figure 3.21: Side view of core #3788B EME2 layer
The difference in air voids between the top and bottom of the individual cores is shown in Table 3.15,
Table 3.16 and Table 3.17. Significant differences in air voids can be seen between the top and bottom of
the individual layers. This may be attributed to the different surface temperatures, mix temperatures, the wind
speed and the different material types at the interfaces (i.e. CTB and asphalt). Overall the in situ air voids
contents are well below the maximum value of 6.0%. However, the differences in air voids within a single
layer shows there is a risk of obtaining high air voids in the compacted mix, which can then lead to
performance issues.
Australian road agencies require minimum paving temperatures for asphalt operation; however, the French
specifications currently do not have minimum paving temperature or wind speed requirements for the
placement of EME2. The VicRoads minimum surface temperature for the area to be paved is shown
Table 3.23. It should be noted that VicRoads does not have any maximum wind speed requirements.
Table 3.23: VicRoads hot mix asphalt paving surface temperature requirements
Course Minimum pavement surface temperatures (C)

Intermediate and base courses 5
Intermediate and base courses PMB or Class 600 binder 10
Wearing course 10
Wearing course PMB 15
In NSW, where the weather conditions are similar to Victoria, Roads and Maritime Services (Roads and
Maritime) requires minimum pavement temperatures as a function of the wind speed. The specification does
not allow commencement or continuation of asphalt placing, unless the pavement surface temperature
complies with the requirements summarised in Table 3.24. Given the air void variance within layers exhibited
in this demonstration, similar requirements should be considered for the paving of EME2 mixes throughout
Australia.

Table 3.24: Roads and Maritime dense graded asphalt paving requirements for surface temperature and wind
speed
Bitumen for pavements Polymer modified binder

Wind speed (km/h) Pavement temperature (C) Wind speed (km/h) Pavement temperature (C)
0 10 0 15
5 15 5 20
10 20 10 25
15 25 15 30
20 30 N/A N/A
Source: Based on Roads and Maritime (2013).

4. Queensland Trial
In February 2014, a demonstration trial was completed at Cullen Avenue West, Eagle Farm in Queensland.
The EME2 mix for this demonstration trial was designed and tested in France, and utilised Australian
aggregates and binder. The trial was a joint undertaking between Boral Asphalt, SAMI/Colas, the TMR,
Brisbane City Council, the AAPA and ARRB.
The design, preparation, instrumentation, construction monitoring and post-construction testing for the trial
have been documented in High Modulus High Fatigue Resistance Asphalt (EME2) Technology Transfer
(Austroads 2014a). Additionally, further experience during the trial is documented in a National Assets
Centre of Excellence (NACOE) report P9 Cost-effective Design of Thick Asphalt Pavements: High Modulus
Asphalt Implementation (Petho 2014).
As part of the post-construction laboratory testing phase of the project, additional resilient modulus testing
was completed on a series of 60 cores, which were taken from the pavement immediately after construction.
These cores represent six locations, namely:
two locations with 100 mm EME2
one location with 150 mm EME2
one location with 100 mm EME2 across the joint of two paving runs
two locations with 150 mm DG20HM, paved in 50 mm and 100 mm layer thicknesses.
4.1 Supplementary Laboratory Testing
4.1.1 Resilient Modulus
The larger 150 mm EME2 and DG20HM cores were cut into two specimens for the purposes of resilient
modulus testing. The samples were tested for resilient modulus at 15, 25, 32, and 40 C. As ten cores were
taken at each location, each resilient modulus value in Table 4.1 represents the average result across ten
samples, with the standard deviation also presented. The resilient modulus results are also shown in
Figure 4.1.

Table 4.1: Summary of resilient modulus at six locations and range of temperatures
Avg. tested Resilient modulus (MPa) at

Sample layer temperature (C)
Lane Layer Chainage Property
number thickness
(mm) 15 25 32 40
Westbound Average 13 223 6 878 3 733 2 010

2955 EME2 Run 2 73.8 101
lane Std. dev. 1 372 386 264 257
Westbound Average 14 226 7 273 3 965 1 826

2956 EME2 Run 2 72.9 220
lane Std. dev. 1 114 787 542 331
Eastbound Average 13 792 7 741 4 184 2 023

EME2 Run 4 50.9 (lower) 120.3
lane Std. dev. 808 506 594 138
2957
EME2 Run 4 73.1 (upper) 120.3
lane Std. dev. 1 076 708 484 269
Westbound / Average 10 340 5 738 3 161 1 540
2958 eastbound EME2 Run 2/3 71.6 39
lane Std. dev. 1 761 707 372 153

2959 DG20HM Run 4 52.8 (lower) 161
lane Std. dev. 1 059 489 377 524

2960 DG20HM Run 4 73.3 (upper) 161
lane Std. dev. 1 178 582 301 190

2962 DG20HM Run 4 52.5 (lower) 201
lane Std. dev. 1 014 216 312 132

2961 DG20HM Run 4 70.5 (upper) 201
lane Std. dev. 1 988 630 532 320
The average resilient modulus of each set of cores at the range of temperatures tested shows a tight
grouping of results for both the EME2 cores and the DG20HM cores taken at different locations. Figure 4.1
also shows that EME2 moduli are consistently higher than the DG20HM moduli at each temperature. The
exception is the EME2 cores taken at the joint between paving runs, which had a lower modulus due to a
higher void content of 6.8% as expected.

Figure 4.1: Comparison of Queensland trial EME2 and DG20HM resilient moduli
20 000
Sample 2955 - EME2 - WB lane - 101 m
Sample 2956 - EME2 - WB lane - 220 m
Sample 2957 - EME2 - EB lane - 120.3 m
Sample 2957 - EME2 - EB lane - 120.3 m
15 000 Sample 2958 - EME2 - WB/EB joint - 39 m
Sample 2959 - DG20HM - EB lane - 161 m
Resilient Modulus (MPa)

10 000
5 000
0 000
15 20 25 30 35 40
Temperature (C)
4.1.2 Air Voids Mensuration vs. SSD
The in situ air void content of the EME2 and DG20HM asphalt layers was determined by means of both the
saturated surface dry (SSD) and mensuration test methods. The results are summarised in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2: Summary of air voids of cores by material and method
Air voids (%)

Location Property
SSD Mensuration
Average 0.7 1.6
EME2 traffic lanes
Standard deviation 0.4 0.7
Average 6.8 8.4
EME2 joint
Average 6.0 7.5
DG20HM traffic lanes
The test results are also shown in Figure 4.2, Figure 4.3 and Figure 4.4. These figures show a good
correlation between the two test methods, with a typical offset of approximately 1.5% for both asphalt mixes.
This assessment highlights the importance of defining which method of bulk density determination should be
used in laboratory testing of asphalt cores.

Figure 4.2: Air voids of EME2 cores SSD method vs. mensuration method
12.0
y = 1.1189x + 0.7821
R = 0.9775
10.0
Mensuration air voids (%)
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
Air voids offset of EME2 cores, SSD mensuration

0.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
SSD air voids (%)
Figure 4.3: Air voids of DG20HM cores SSD method vs. mensuration method
14.0
y = 1.4944x - 1.4403
R = 0.8111
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
Air voids offset of DG20HM cores, SSD mensuration

2.0
2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0
SSD air voids (%)

Figure 4.4: Air voids of EME2 and DG20HM cores SSD method vs. mensuration method
14.0
12.0
DG20HM
10.0
EME2
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
Air voids offset of EME2 and DG20HM cores, SSD mensuration

0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0
SSD air voids (%)
Along one small portion of the trial site, the EME2 asphalt was paved in a thick layer, with a target thickness
of 150 mm. The achieved thickness measured at 135140 mm. When comparing the air void content of the
thick layer, it was notable that the upper portion of the layer was compacted to a greater degree, with an
average mensuration air voids of 1.0% compared to 2.6% for the lower portion of the layer (Figure 4.5).
Figure 4.5: Air voids of EME2 cores at Chainage 120.3 m upper and lower portion of layer
4.0
3.5
EME - EB lane - 120.3 m upper
3.0 EME - EB lane - 120.3 m lower

2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Air voids offset of EME2 upper and lower part of a 150 mm thick layer
SSD mensuration
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
SSD air voids (%)

4.1.3 Flexural Stiffness Testing
In order to further develop and study the properties of the EME2 mix design for Australia, a sample of EME2
binder from the Queensland trial was mixed with EME2 aggregates imported from France. The mix
constituents were therefore identical to the French mix design, with only the binder substituted by the binder
collected at the Queensland trial. Flexural stiffness testing was undertaken on these samples at the ARRB
laboratory in Vermont South. These stiffness values could then be compared to the actual mix from the
Queensland trial to determine the extent of any variation. The EME2 paved at the Queensland trial (sample
#3130 in Figure 4.6), returned a flexural stiffness value of 13 558 MPa at 4.1% mensuration air voids, while
the mix prepared with the French aggregates and Queensland binder returned a flexural stiffness value of
14 436 MPa (represented in Figure 4.6 by sample #3183).
The difference is not especially large, and may be partly attributable to the different performance of the
Australian and French binders used.
In the previous report (Austroads 2014a), a series of master curves were developed for the French reference
EME2 mix at air voids content ranging from 0.9% SSD up to 5.4% SSD. Figure 4.7 includes the sample at
3.6% SSD air voids tested at 15 C according to the French method.
Figure 4.6: Comparison of flexural stiffness values for selected mixes

18 000
Average
16 000 Standard deviation
14 000
Flexural stiffness (MPa) - 15 C, 10 Hz
12 000
10 000
8 000
6 000
4 000
2 000
0 000
DG20HM (4.7%
mensuration)
mensuration)
mensuration)
mensuration)
mensuration)
mensuration)
QLD trial, EME
prepared sample
#2857 (0.9%
#2884 (2.9%
#2863 (3.6%
#2885 (4.0%
#2887 (5.4%
#3183 (3.7%
QLD EME2, lab

SSD - 1.2%
SSD - 4.0%
SSD - 5.0%
SSD - 5.7%
SSD - 6.9%
(3.3% SSD)
mensuration)
#3130 (4.1%
QLD trial,
SSD)
Additionally, as part of the trial monitoring process, loose asphalt mix was sampled during the production of
the EME2 mix and the samples were transported to SAMIs central laboratory in Sydney, NSW and the
ARRB laboratory. This material was tested for flexural stiffness and can be compared to the French EME2
mix master curves at 15C. Figure 4.7 includes the EME2 trial laboratory mix, the EME2 and DG20HM trial
plant mix, as well as the French EME2 design combined with the Queensland trial EME2 binder. The results
suggest that while at high frequencies, none of the mixes returned values for flexural stiffness that were
equal to the French reference mix (refer Sample #2863 in Figure 4.7). The performance at lower frequencies
was comparable or greater for all of the EME2 mixes designed under the Australian specification. This
information provides confidence for selecting the specification limit using Australian test methods.

Figure 4.7: Master curves of the French EME2 mix compared to various mixes from the trial at 15 C
1.0E+04
Flexural stiffness (MPa)
MC-EME2 #2863 (3.6% SSD)
MC-QLD EME2 trial (lab mix) #3130 (3.4% SSD)
MC-QLD trial (plant mix) - EME2 (3.3% SSD)
MC-QLD trial (plant mix) - DG20HM (4.7% SSD)
MC-EME2 (French design combined with QLD EME2 binder) #3183 (2.4% SSD)
1.0E+03
1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04
Reduced frequency (rad/s)

5. Implementation to Date
Just over 8000 tonnes of EME2 have been laid at 10 sites across Australia to date (Table 5.1). This number
is expected to increase once the final specification limits have been published and road agencies gain
experience in the use of EME2.
Table 5.1: EME2 implementation in Australia to date
Year Location State Road type Tonnes (approximate)

2014 Brisbane Qld Asphalt plant access road 350
2014 Sunshine Coast Qld Quarry access road 350
2015 Melbourne Vic. South Gippsland Hwy 350
2015 Perth WA Asphalt plant 30
2015 Brisbane Qld Industrial collector road 1200
2016 Sydney NSW Industrial collector road 400
2016 Sydney NSW Industrial collector road 400
Total 8060

6. Conclusions and Findings
6.1 Conclusions
Parallel testing of French and Australian EME2 mixes was conducted in order to set final EME2 specification
limits. Six mixes were tested according to French and Australian test methods. The final limits are shown in
Table 2.5.
A Victorian demonstration trial was successfully completed on the South Gippsland Highway, between
Monomeith and Caldermeade. The aim of the trial was to demonstrate and validate the ability to produce and
construct EME2 in Victoria. This report presents details of the Victorian EME2 trial construction and
subsequent laboratory testing and analysing of the results.
Throughout construction the paving and compaction temperature of the EME2 asphalt was monitored using
a number of mediums and a nuclear gauge was also used to test the in situ density of the EME2 layers on
site. Cores were extracted from the trial sections and the individual layers were tested in the ARRB
laboratory. The post-construction testing included in situ air voids and resilient modulus testing at a range of
temperatures.
The variability of the air voids and resilient modulus of the cores were analysed with respect to the paving
conditions on the relevant day of construction (the EME2 itself was paved over two separate days).
The air voids results showed that there was slight variation between the EME2 mixes over the two days of
construction. This was most likely due to the temperature of the mix and the weather conditions when
paving. Despite the slight variances, the average air voids were below the target 6.0% air voids and even
below the design air voids of 5.1%. It was noted that the location B upper layer EME2 showed large
variances in air voids within the same set of cores. As the resilient modulus is air voids dependent, this
variance was also reflected in the resilient modulus results.
The resilient modulus of the cores extracted during the trial in Victoria was tested at 15 C, 25 C, 32 C and
40 C. The EME2 mix performed as expected, with a higher modulus compared to Type SI and SF mixes at
higher temperatures. However, the resilient modulus of the EME2 mix was similar to the conventional Type
SI and SF mixes at the standard test temperatures of 25 C. The modulus at different temperatures was also
normalised using the relationship in AGPT2. Based on a comparison of the measured and calculated values
it was concluded that the temperature relationship for resilient modulus included in AGPT2 is still valid.
The EME2 cores were cut in half and further tested for air voids. This showed that there was a significant
difference in the air voids between the top and bottom of the cores, which can be attributed to varying air and
surface temperatures and/or high wind speeds when paving.
Initial functional and structural performance testing by NSV survey and FWD was conducted. The range of
roughness and rutting values of the newly paved asphalt were as expected for asphalt pavements in Victoria.
Short and long-term functional and structural performance of the trial sections will be conducted regularly
after construction. This includes measurement of rutting, IRI and FWD testing.
The Victorian trial was the second of two demonstration trials in Australia, with the first at Cullen Avenue
West, Eagle Farm in Queensland. The details of the Queensland trial can be found in Austroads (2014a).
Supplementary laboratory testing was completed on cores (EME2 and DG20HM) collected from this trial.
The resilient modulus of these cores from the Australian EME2 was higher than that of conventional
DG20HM asphalt.
In conclusion, EME2 was successfully manufactured and constructed through this validation project. To date,
EME2 has been successfully placed in 10 locations across Australia.

6.2 Findings
The findings of this report, including the specification limits defined from the trial mixes (Table 2.5), may be
suitable for incorporation in the Guide to Pavement Technology Part 4B: Asphalt (Austroads 2014b) and
subsequent technical specifications for application of EME2 throughout Australia.
Based on the findings from the temperature monitoring at the Victorian demonstration trial and core air voids,
it is suggested that a minimum paving temperature, with respect to wind speed, be adopted for EME2.
A comparison between the SSD method and mensuration method for measuring air voids was also
completed on EME2 and DG20HM cores collected from the Queensland trial. An offset was found between
the two methods, highlighting the importance of defining which method of air voids determination should be
used in laboratory testing of asphalt cores

References
Austroads 2007, Guide to asset management part 5B: roughness, AGAM05B-07, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2012, Guide to pavement technology part 2: pavement structural design, AGPT02-12 Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2014a, High modulus high fatigue resistance asphalt (EME2) technology transfer, AP-T283-14,
Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2014b, Guide to pavement technology part 4B: asphalt, AGPT04B-14, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Petho, L 2014, P9 cost-effective design of thick asphalt pavements: high modulus asphalt implementation,
annual summary report, National Asset Centre of Excellence, ARRB Group & TMR, Brisbane, Qld,
viewed 5 April 2017, <http://nacoe.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/007161_P9-Cost-Effective-
Design-Thick-Asphalt_Y1.pdf>.
Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads 2015, High modulus asphalt (EME2) pavement
design, technical note 142, TMR, Brisbane, Qld.
Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads 2016, Materials testing manual: part 7: asphalt: test
method Q306B: compacted density of dense graded asphalt presaturation, TMR, Brisbane, Qld.
Roads and Maritime Services 2013, Heavy duty dense graded asphalt, QA specification R116, RMS,
Sydney, NSW.
VicRoads 2014, Hot mix asphalt, section 407, VicRoads, Kew, Vic.
VicRoads 2016, Registration of Bituminous Mix Designs, Code of Practice RC 500.01, VicRoads, Kew, Vic.
Standards
EN 12697-22:2003, Bituminous mixtures: test methods for hot mix asphalt: part 22: wheel tracking.
EN 12697-26:2012, Bituminous mixtures: test methods for hot mix asphalt: part 26: stiffness.
EN 12697-31:2007, Bituminous mixtures: test methods for hot mix asphalt: part 31: specimen preparation by
gyratory compactor.
AS/NZS 2891.13.1:2013, Methods of sampling and testing asphalt: determination of the resilient modulus of
asphalt: indirect tensile method.
AS/NZS 2891.2.2:2014, Methods of sampling and testing asphalt: sample preparation: compaction of asphalt
test specimens using a gyratory compactor.
AS/NZS 2891.8:2014, Methods of sampling and testing asphalt: voids and volumetric properties of
compacted asphalt mixes.
AS/NZS 2891.9.2:2014, Methods of sampling and testing asphalt: determination of bulk density of
compacted asphalt: presaturation method.
AS/NZS 2891.9.3:2014, Methods of sampling and testing asphalt: determination of bulk density of
compacted asphalt: mensuration method.

Austroads Test Methods
AGPT/T231:2006, Deformation resistance of asphalt mixtures by the wheel tracking test.
AGPT/T232:2007, Stripping potential of asphalt: tensile strength ratio.
AGPT/T274: 2016, Characterisation of flexural stiffness and fatigue performance of bituminous mixes.

Appendix A Construction Site Victorian EME2 Demonstration Trial



Appendix B In Situ Bulk Density and Air Voids

Results
Bulk density (t/m3) Air voids (%) Water absorption (%)

Location Core#
SI SF SI SF SI SF
A1 3774 2.474 2.480 4.7 4.0 0.8 0.2
A2 3775 2.468 2.461 4.9 4.7 0.7 0.5
A3 3776 2.485 2.465 4.3 4.5 0.5 0.4
A4 3777 2.475 2.483 4.7 3.8 0.8 0.3
A5 3778 2.468 2.464 4.9 4.6 0.8 0.5
Average 2.474 2.471 4.7 4.3 0.7 0.4
Standard deviation 0.007 0.010 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.1

Location Core#
EME2 SF EME2 SF EME2 SF
A1 3774 2.535 2.502 5.8 3.1 0.9 0.1
A2 3775 2.600 2.504 3.4 3.0 0.3 0.3
A3 3776 2.602 2.499 3.3 3.2 0.5 0.2
A4 3777 2.584 2.518 4.0 2.5 0.4 0.2
A5 3778 2.542 2.494 5.5 3.4 0.9 0.2
Average 2.573 2.503 4.4 3.0 0.6 0.2

Location Core# EME2 EME2 EME2 EME2 EME2 EME2
(upper) (lower) (upper) (lower) (upper) (lower)
A1 3774 2.614 2.569 2.9 4.5 0.1 0.2
A2 3775 2.591 2.587 3.7 3.9 0.2 0.1
A3 3776 2.592 2.574 3.7 4.3 0.2 0.3
A4 3777 2.609 2.585 3.0 3.9 0.1 0.2
A5 3778 2.576 2.586 4.3 3.9 0.3 0.2
Average 2.596 2.580 3.5 4.1 0.2 0.2

Appendix C Resilient Modulus Test Results
Resilient modulus Resilient modulus Resilient modulus Resilient modulus

Location Core# (MPa) 15 C (MPa) 25 C (MPa) 32 C (MPa) 40 C
SI SF SI SF SI SF SI SF
A1 3774 12 302 12 214 5 508 5 688 2 676 2 691 906 808
A2 3775 11 866 10 720 6 054 5 611 2 932 2 517 1 115 738
A3 3776 13 064 9 540 6 047 5 671 2 608 2 537 721 849
A4 3777 11 199 11 164 6 048 5 616 2 622 2 474 975 881
A5 3778 11 576 11 454 5 627 5 697 2 758 2 404 1 051 829
Average 12 001 11 018 5 857 5 657 2 719 2 525 954 821
Standard deviation 718 989 267 40 133 106 152 54

EME2 SF EME2 SF EME2 SF EME2 SF
B1 3779 10 807 10 470 5 030 5 360 2 355 1 953 1 088 761
B2 3780 11 822 10 265 5 681 4 747 3 423 2 348 1 618 972
B3 3781 11 686 12 543 5 879 5 988 3 278 2 538 1 432 1 061
B4 3782 9 170 10 918 5 408 6 099 2 918 2 933 1 451 1 180
B5 3783 9 070 9 455 5 029 5 292 2 856 2 047 1 002 856
Average 10 511 10 730 5 405 5 497 2 966 2 364 1 318 966
Standard deviation 1 329 1 144 382 554 417 395 261 165

(MPa) 15 C (MPa) 25 C (MPa) 32 C (MPa) 40 C
Location Core#
EME2 EME2 EME2 EME2 EME2 EME2 EME2 EME2
(upper) (lower) (upper) (lower) (upper) (lower) (upper) (lower)
C1 3784 11 931 13 127 5 404 5 518 2 743 3 124 1 365 1 448
C2 3785 13 574 12 603 5 783 5 910 2 771 2 986 1 362 1 346
C3 3786 10 877 11 635 5 700 5 705 3 013 3 208 1 284 1 458
C4 3787 10 979 11 270 5 508 5 872 2 726 3 274 1 316 1 413
C5 3788 10 114 10 609 5 652 5 583 2 771 3 072 1 341 1 198
Average 11 495 11 849 5 609 5 718 2 805 3 133 1 334 1 373

Appendix D Resilient Modulus Corrected to 5%

Air Voids

SI SF SI SF SI SF SI SF
A1 3774 12 056 11 481 5 398 5 347 2 622 2 530 888 760
A2 3775 11 747 10 506 5 993 5 499 2 903 2 467 1 104 723
A3 3776 12 541 9 254 5 805 5 501 2 504 2 461 692 824
A4 3777 10 975 10 383 5 927 5 223 2 570 2 301 956 819
A5 3778 11 460 11 225 5 571 5 583 2 730 2 356 1 040 812
Average 11 756 10 570 5 739 5 431 2 666 2 423 936 788
Standard deviation 592 870 249 144 156 92 159 44

EME2 SF EME2 SF EME2 SF EME2 SF
B1 3779 11 347 9 318 5 282 4 770 2 473 1 738 1 142 677
B2 3780 10 758 9 136 5 170 4 225 3 115 2 090 1 472 865
B3 3781 10 517 11 289 5 291 5 389 2 950 2 284 1 289 955
B4 3782 8 620 9 389 5 084 5 245 2 743 2 522 1 364 1 015
B5 3783 9 342 8 604 5 180 4 816 2 942 1 863 1 032 779
Average 10 117 9 547 5 201 4 889 2 845 2 099 1 260 858

(MPa) 15 C (MPa) 25 C (MPa) 32 C (MPa) 40 C
Location Core#
EME2 EME2 EME2 EME2 EME2 EME2 EME2 EME2
(upper) (lower) (upper) (lower) (upper) (lower) (upper) (lower)
C1 3784 10 499 12 733 4 756 5 352 2 414 3 030 1 201 1 405
C2 3785 12 488 11 847 5 320 5 555 2 549 2 807 1 253 1 265
C3 3786 10 007 11 170 5 244 5 477 2 772 3 080 1 181 1 400
C4 3787 9 771 10 594 4 902 5 520 2 426 3 078 1 171 1 328
C5 3788 9 709 9 972 5 426 5 248 2 660 2 888 1 287 1 126
Average 10 495 11 263 5 130 5 430 2 564 2 977 1 219 1 305


AP-T323-17-High Modulus High Fatigue Resistance Asphalt EME2 Technology Transfer Final Report

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

AP-T323-17-High Modulus High Fatigue Resistance Asphalt EME2 Technology Transfer Final Report

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Technical Report

High Modulus High Fatigue Resistance

Abstract About Austroads

Austroads 2017 | page i

Austroads 2017 | page ii

5. Implementation to Date ....................................................................................................................... 38

Austroads 2017 | page iii

Figure 2.1: Comparison of EN 12697-22 and AGPT/T231 wheel-tracking test ........................................... 4

Austroads 2017 | page iv

1.4 Structure of the Report

Austroads 2017 | page 1

2. Development of EME2 Specification Limits

2.1 Interim Specification Limits

Property Test method Unit Limit Value

2.2 Development of Final EME2 Performance Specifications

Austroads 2017 | page 2

2.2.2 Moisture Sensitivity

2.2.3 Rut Resistance

Testing according to EN 12697-22 Testing according to AGPT/T231,

Austroads 2017 | page 3

Figure 2.1: Comparison of EN 12697-22 and AGPT/T231 wheel-tracking test

2.2.4 Flexural Modulus

EME2 mix Average air voids content (%) E (MPa)

Austroads 2017 | page 4

Figure 2.3: Modulus normalised for air void content

Austroads 2017 | page 5

Austroads 2017 | page 6

2.2.6 Final Specification Limits

Table 2.5: Final specification limits for EME2

Property Test method Unit Limit Value

Austroads 2017 | page 7

3.1 Objectives of the Victorian EME2 Trial

The objectives of the Victorian project were as follows:

3.1.1 Trial Delivery

Austroads 2017 | page 8

3.2 Design of the Trial

3.2.1 EME2 Mix Design

Property Test method Unit Limit Specification EME2 VIC trial

Source: Austroads (2014a) and information provided by Downer.

Austroads 2017 | page 9

QLD trial - EME2

VIC trial - EME2

Reduced frequency (rad/s)

3.2.2 EME2 Pavement Design

Source: Based on TN 142 (TMR 2015).

Base layer Strain Deign Equivalent Increase in structural capacity

Source: Information provided by VicRoads.

Austroads 2017 | page 10

Table 3.4: Cross-section of the EME2 Victorian trial

Layer Control Trial section 1 Trial section 2

1 Stone mastic asphalt (SMA).

Table 3.5: EME2 Victorian trial construction timeline

Table 3.6: Summary of pavement construction dates

Location Layer Date placed Asphalt type

Austroads 2017 | page 11

Figure 3.2: Final construction layout

180 218 340 472 980

3.2.4 Production Control and In Situ Density Testing

Austroads 2017 | page 12

The following rollers were used during the trial:

Rc ratio based on nuclear gauge (t/m3) In situ air voids (%)

Source: Information provided by Downer.

Figure 3.3: Compaction curve of EME2 (nominal thickness 75 mm)

Compaction curve EME2