Pavement

Cover of A Review of Austroads Gyratory Compaction Research
A Review of Austroads Gyratory Compaction Research
  • Publication no: AP-T94-08
  • ISBN: 978-1-921329-47-0
  • Published: 29 February 2008
Work associated with the gyratory compaction procedure, which is part of the performance based Austroads asphalt mix design procedure, was reviewed. Studies included determination of the design cycles for different traffic levels, the effect of compaction on particle packing, refusal density, aggregate degradation during compaction and the use of compaction curves to indicate rutting resistance. The performance and precision of the two Australian compactors, Gyropac and Servopac were compared. Other studies compared design voids from Marshall mixes and the new method, and related laboratory to field compaction.
  • AP-T94/08 A Review of Austroads Gyratory Compaction Research
  • SUMMARY
  • CONTENTS
  • TABLES
  • FIGURES
  • 1. INTRODUCTION
  • 2. THE AUSTROADS ASPHALT MIX DESIGN PROCEDURE
    • 2.1. Reasons for Development
    • 2.2. Summary of the New Austroads Design Procedure
    • 2.3. Adoption of Gyratory Compaction
  • 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF GYRATORY CYCLES FORDIFFERENT TRAFFIC LEVELS
    • 3.1. Background
    • 3.2. Gyropac Mensuration Density
    • 3.2. Gyropac Mensuration Density
    • 3.3. Results
    • 3.4. Discussion and Conclusions
  • 4. THE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT COMPACTION PROCEDURESON PARTICLE PACKING
  • 5. REFUSAL DENSITY
    • 5.1. Background
    • 5.2. Experimental Design
    • 5.3. Materials
    • 5.4. Mix Composition
    • 5.5. Results
    • 5.6. Discussion
  • 6. AGGREGATE DEGRADATION AND SAMPLE COOLINGDURING THE COMPACTION PROCESS
    • 6.1. Aggregate Degradation
    • 6.2. Sample Cooling
  • 7. THE USE OF THE GYRATORY COMPACTION CURVE TOINDICATE THE RUT RESISTANCE OF A MIX
    • 7.1. Background
    • 7.2. Laboratory Densification Curves
    • 7.3. Research Plan
    • 7.4. Experimental
    • 7.5. Results and discussion
  • 8. COMPARISON BETWEEN THE PERFORMANCE OFSERVOPAC AND GYROPAC GYRATORY COMPACTORS
    • 8.1. Background
    • 8.2. Experimental
    • 8.3. Results
    • 8.4. Standard Conditions for 100 mm and 150 mm Samples
    • 8.5. Differences between Gyropac and Servopac Compaction
    • 8.6. Differences in Mould Size
  • 9. INTERLABORATORY EXERCISES TO DETERMINE THEPRECISION OF COMPACTION
    • 9.1. Background
    • 9.2. Victorian Pilot Trial
    • 9.3. National Gyropac Checking Exercise
    • 9.4. National Servopac Checking Exercise
    • 9.5. Precision of Measurement of the Air Void Content of GyratoryCompacted Asphalt Specimens
  • 10. GYRATORY COMPACTION DATA FOR VICROADS ANDROADS AND TRAFFIC AUTHORITY NSW ROUTINELYUSED MIXES
    • 10.1. Victorian Data
    • 10.2. Results
    • 10.3. Comparison with US Superpave Requirements
    • 10.4. Discussion on Values to Use in APRG18 for Heavy Traffic Mixes
    • 10.5. Conclusions and Recommendations
    • 10.6. Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) NSW data
  • 11. RELATING LABORATORY TO SIMULATED FIELDCOMPACTION
    • 11.1. Pilot Study
    • 11.2. Aim of the Main Study Testing Program
    • 11.3. Sample Preparation and Testing
    • 11.4. Results and Discussion
    • 11.5. Effect of Altering Servopac Applied Pressure
  • 12. RECENT US WORK ON SUPERPAVE GYRATORYCOMPACTION
    • 12.1. Background
    • 12.2. Experimental Plan
    • 12.3. Main Findings
    • 12.4. Variability of Data
    • 12.5. Comment on the NCAT Project
  • 13. GENERAL DISCUSSION
    • 13.1. The Aim of Laboratory Compaction
    • 13.2. Available Procedures
    • 13.3. Resolving Technical Issues
    • 13.4. The Way Forward
  • REFERENCES
  • INFORMATION RETRIEVAL