Ap T188 11

AP-T188/11
AUSTROADS TECHNICAL REPORT

Review of Structural Design Procedures for
Foamed Bitumen Pavements


Review of Structural Design Procedures for Foamed Bitumen Pavements

Published August 2011

Austroads Ltd 2011

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.


ISBN 978-1-921709-89-0

Austroads Project No. TT1358

Austroads Publication No. APT188 /11

Project Manager
Allan Jones (DTMR Qld)

Prepared by
Alvaro Gonzales (ARRB)

Published by Austroads Ltd
Level 9, Robell House
287 Elizabeth Street
Sydney NSW 2000 Australia
Phone: +61 2 9264 7088
Fax: +61 2 9264 1657
Email: austroads@austroads.com.au
www.austroads.com.au

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.


Sydney 2011

About Austroads
Austroads purpose is to:
promote improved Australian and New Zealand transport outcomes
provide expert technical input to national policy development on road and road transport
issues
promote improved practice and capability by road agencies.
promote consistency in road and road agency operations.

Austroads membership comprises the six state and two territory road transport and traffic
authorities, the Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Transport, the Australian Local
Government Association, and NZ Transport Agency. Austroads is governed by a Board consisting
of the chief executive officer (or an alternative senior executive officer) of each of its eleven
member organisations:
Roads and Traffic Authority New South Wales
Roads Corporation Victoria
Department of Transport and Main Roads Queensland
Main Roads Western Australia
Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure South Australia
Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources Tasmania
Department of Lands and Planning Northern Territory
Department of Territory and Municipal Services Australian Capital Territory
Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Transport
Australian Local Government Association
New Zealand Transport Agency.

The success of Austroads is derived from the collaboration of member organisations and others in
the road industry. It aims to be the Australasian leader in providing high quality information, advice
and fostering research in the road transport sector

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
i
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Background .................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Overview of the Report and Design Procedures ...................................................................... 1
2 SOUTH AFRICAN TG2 2002 DESIGN METHOD .................................................................... 3
2.1 Background ............................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Observed Behaviour of Foamed Bitumen Pavements .............................................................. 3
2.2.1 Field Observations from Accelerated Pavement Testing ........................................... 3
2.2.2 Laboratory Observations ........................................................................................... 6
2.3 TG2 2002 Thickness Design Method ....................................................................................... 6
2.3.1 Effective Fatigue Phase ............................................................................................. 6
2.3.2 Equivalent Granular Phase ........................................................................................ 7
2.4 Classification of the Foamed Bitumen Mixes .......................................................................... 10
3 METHODS BASED ON AUSTROADS DESIGN GUIDELINE ............................................... 11
3.1 Background ............................................................................................................................. 11
3.2 Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland ........................................................ 11
3.2.1 Design Equation ...................................................................................................... 11
3.2.2 Other Pavement Design Considerations ................................................................. 12
3.2.3 Minimum Surface Requirements ............................................................................. 13
3.3 City of Canning ....................................................................................................................... 13
3.3.1 Background .............................................................................................................. 13
3.3.2 Development of Fatigue Equation ........................................................................... 14
3.3.3 Other Design Considerations ................................................................................... 15
3.4 NZ Transport Agency Method ................................................................................................. 16
3.4.1 Background .............................................................................................................. 16
3.4.2 Design Inputs and Distress Models ......................................................................... 16
4 KNOWLEDGE-BASED TG2 2009 STRUCTURAL DESIGN METHOD ................................ 18
4.1 Background ............................................................................................................................. 18
4.2 Concepts in the Development of the Pavement Number ........................................................ 18
4.2.1 The Effective Long-term Stiffness (ELTS) ............................................................... 18
4.2.2 Characterisation of Subgrade Materials .................................................................. 19
4.2.3 The Modular Ratio Limit Concept ............................................................................ 19
4.2.4 Assumed Behaviour of Bitumen Stabilised Layers .................................................. 19
4.2.5 Base Confidence Factor .......................................................................................... 19
4.3 Calculation of PN .................................................................................................................... 20
4.4 Design Criteria PN Model ....................................................................................................... 22
4.4.1 Allowed Capacity ..................................................................................................... 22
5 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH LABORATORY ............................................................... 25
5.1 Background ............................................................................................................................. 25
5.2 Design Procedure ................................................................................................................... 25
5.2.1 Road Type Categories ............................................................................................. 25
5.2.2 Foundation Class ..................................................................................................... 26
5.2.3 Classification of Foamed Bitumen Mixes and Design Chart .................................... 26

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
ii
6 COMPARISON OF PAVEMENT DESIGNS ........................................................................... 29
6.1 Summary of Design Methods ................................................................................................. 29
6.2 Case Study ............................................................................................................................. 31
6.2.1 Description of the Example Project .......................................................................... 31
6.2.2 TG2 2002 Design ..................................................................................................... 31
6.2.3 Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland Design ............................. 32
6.2.4 City of Canning Design ............................................................................................ 33
6.2.5 NZ Transport Agency Design .................................................................................. 34
6.2.6 Transportation Research Laboratory (TRL) Design ................................................. 34
6.2.7 Knowledge-based TG2 2009 Design ....................................................................... 35
6.2.8 Summary of Designs and Discussion ...................................................................... 36
7 INTERIM PROCEDURE FOR THE THICKNESS DESIGN OF FOAMED BITUMEN
PAVEMENTS ......................................................................................................................... 38
7.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 38
7.2 Minimum Stiffness Requirements ........................................................................................... 38
7.3 Temperature Adjustment ........................................................................................................ 39
7.4 Rate of Loading Adjustment ................................................................................................... 43
7.5 Fatigue Criteria ....................................................................................................................... 44
7.6 Minimum Surface Requirements ............................................................................................ 44
8 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................. 45
8.1 Review of Design Methods ..................................................................................................... 45
8.2 Comparison of Pavement Designs ......................................................................................... 46
8.3 Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 47
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................ 48
APPENDIX A ADJUSTMENT FACTORS FOR THE TG2 2009 THICKNESS
DESIGN METHOD ...................................................................................... 50
APPENDIX B DETAILS OF THE THICKNESS DESIGN OF FOAMED BITUMEN
PAVEMENTS .............................................................................................. 52
APPENDIX C INTERIM DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR FOAMED BITUMEN
PAVEMENTS .............................................................................................. 60
APPENDIX D DESIGN EXAMPLE USING INTERIM DESIGN PROCEDURE ................. 66


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
iii
TABLES
Table 2.1: Reliability factors based on road categories ............................................................... 9
Table 2.2: Foamed bitumen treated material classification ....................................................... 10
Table 2.3: Foamed bitumen treated material properties ............................................................ 10
Table 3.1: TMR modulus requirements for foamed bitumen materials for high
trafficked roads ......................................................................................................... 12
Table 3.2: Temperature correction factor for TMR method ....................................................... 13
Table 3.3: Adopted modulus values for crushed granular pavements in City of
Canning .................................................................................................................... 15
Table 5.1: Road type category for TRL method ......................................................................... 26
Table 5.2: Foundation classes for TRL method ......................................................................... 26
Table 5.3: Bitumen bound cold recycled material classification for TRL method ....................... 27
Table 5.4: Thickness design of pavements up to 5 x 10
6
ESA .................................................. 28
Table 5.5: Requirements for surfacing thickness for TRL method ............................................. 28
Table 6.1: Summary of design methods .................................................................................... 30
Table 6.2: Elastic characterisation using TMR method ............................................................. 33
Table 6.3: Elastic charactersiation for use in the City of Canning method ................................ 33
Table 6.4: NZ Transport Agency elastic characterisation .......................................................... 34
Table 6.5: Rehabilitation treatment using the TRL method ....................................................... 35
Table 6.6: Solutions using the knowledge-based TG2 2009 method ........................................ 35
Table 7.1: Minimum mix design limits for initial modulus ........................................................... 38
Table 7.2: Minimum mix design limits for dry modulus for foamed bitumen base ..................... 39
Table 7.3: Minimum mix design limits for dry modulus for foamed bitumen subbase................ 39
Table 7.4: Effect of temperature on indirect tensile resilient modulus test ................................ 40

FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Foamed bitumen pavement tested in the HVS sections; multi-depth
deflectometer .............................................................................................................. 4
Figure 2.2: Calculated elastic modulus of foamed bitumen layers versus load
repetitions for P243/1 test, section 411A4 .................................................................. 5
Figure 2.3: In-depth permanent deformation measured with MDD 8 for section
4114A ......................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 2.4: Location of the critical design parameters for the TG2 2002 Guidelines
design method ............................................................................................................ 8
Figure 3.1: Graphical representation of test results .................................................................... 15
Figure 4.1: Steps in the knowledge-based structural design method for pavements ................. 20
Figure 4.2: Example of pavement number determination ........................................................... 21
Figure 4.3: Criteria for determining allowed capacity based on PN ............................................ 23
Figure 4.4: Recommended layer thicknesses versus structural capacity ................................... 24
Figure 5.1: Identification of material families ............................................................................... 25
Figure 5.2: Design curves for bitumen bound cold recycled material, Foundation
Class 1 ...................................................................................................................... 27
Figure 6.1: Pavement rehabilitation case study .......................................................................... 31
Figure 6.2: Solution for different relative densities using the South African TG2 2002
design method .......................................................................................................... 32
Figure 6.3: Summary of pavement thicknesses (millimetres) for all design methods ................. 36

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
iv
Figure 7.1: Relation between subsurface temperature (at 150 mm deep) and back-
calculated foamed bitumen mix (with 2.5% foamed bitumen and 1%
cement) resilient modulus: (a) for 2003 data (b) for 2005 data ................................. 41
Figure 7.2: Variation of modulus at weighted mean annual pavement temperature
(WMAPT) from Leek (2001) laboratory tests and Fu and Harvey (2007)
FWD data .................................................................................................................. 42
Figure 7.3: Variation of ratio of modulus at vehicle speed V to modulus from
standard indirect tensile test (40 ms rise time) with design speed ........................... 43

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
v
SUMMARY
Pavement designers in Australia and New Zealand trying to use alternative treatments such as
foamed bitumen in rehabilitation projects are severely constrained by a lack of data on the
performance of this type of stabilised material.
Structural thickness design methods have been developed for the design of foamed bitumen
pavements, most of them based on assumptions that do not necessarily represent the
performance of foamed bitumen pavements under Australia and New Zealand conditions. This
report presents a review of the following methods:
TG2 2002 guidelines (South Africa)
This method, published in 2002, was developed using testing data from a full-scale accelerated
testing of foamed bitumen pavements and extensive laboratory work. The TG2 2002 Guidelines
method suggests that foamed bitumen pavements behave in two separate phases. The first phase
starts after construction, when the layer is in an intact, undamaged condition and provides fatigue
resistance. This phase is called effective fatigue phase and ends when, due to the applied
loading, the layer reduces its stiffness. The second phase is called equivalent granular state,
because the stiffness of the foamed bitumen layer is similar to that of a good quality granular base.
The assumed distress modes of the first and second phase are fatigue and permanent
deformation, respectively.
Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland (Australia)
TMR adopted the Austroads asphalt fatigue relationship for the foamed bitumen layer. The asphalt
fatigue relationship relates the admissible number of load cycles with the volumetric properties of
the mix, the stiffness of the mix and the tensile strain at the bottom of the foamed bitumen layer.
The method assumes that fatigue is the primary distress mode.
City of Canning (Australia)
The City of Canning developed a fatigue relationship for foamed bitumen layers using data from
flexural beams prepared and compacted in the field and tested in the laboratory. It was found that
the fatigue relationship is independent of the stiffness of the mixes. The method is different to the
TMR method, but results similar pavement life predictions at typical strain levels.
NZ Transport Agency (New Zealand)
The NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) design procedure suggests that fatigue relationships are too
conservative and do not represent the observed behaviour in New Zealand foamed bitumen
pavements. Pavement designers in New Zealand normally consider the foamed bitumen layer as
an unbound granular layer. The method recommends an elastic modulus of 800 MPa (anisotropic,
no sub-layering) for the modelling of the elastic properties of the foamed bitumen layer. The
pavement thickness is calculated by reducing the vertical compressive strain at the top of the
subgrade to the value obtained by the Austroads subgrade strain criteria.
Transportation Research Laboratory (United Kingdom)
The TRL method assumes that foamed bitumen mixes behave similarly to hot mix asphalt mixes,
fatigue being the dominant distress mode of these mixes. The method is based on tables and
charts that classify subgrade, traffic and foamed bitumen type. These assumptions are mainly
based on engineering judgment.

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
vi
Knowledge-based TG2 2009 Second Edition (South Africa)
A different approach known as the knowledge-based method was developed by South African
researchers. The knowledge-based method is described in the second edition of the TG2
guidelines, published in 2009. The second edition of the TG2, TG2 2009, superseded the previous
TG2 2002 design method. The knowledge-based method is based on a pavement number (PN)
that is calculated by multiplying the expected long-term stiffness of each layer and the respective
thickness of the layer, similar in principle to the AASHTO structural number approach to flexible
pavement design. The stiffness of the layers is corrected by other design factors such as the total
pavement thickness above the subgrade, the position of the layer within the pavement structure,
and the stiffness of the underlying layer. The knowledge-based method also incorporates some
practical aspects that do not exist in other mechanistic methods, such as the recommended
surface thickness and the minimum and maximum thickness for the foamed bitumen layer.
In order to compare the six design methods from a more practical, objective point of view, a
hypothetical case study was conducted as the last part of the review, which involved the design of
a foamed bitumen pavement using the six design methods. The case study consisted in the
rehabilitation of an existing unbound granular pavement using an in situ foamed bitumen
stabilisation technique. The pavement design carried out using the six design methods showed
that:
The TG2 2002 Guidelines method was found to be very sensitive to one of the inputs of the
equivalent granular state distress model (i.e. relative density). In addition, it was found that
this distress model provides unexpected outputs that contradict observed behaviour in
recently completed full-scale accelerated testing of foamed bitumen pavements.
The pavement methods that assume behaviour of foamed bitumen mixes to be similar to that
of hot mix asphalt mixes (TMR and TRL) yield similar foamed bitumen layer thicknesses
(between 290 mm to 310 mm), indicating consistency in the outputs.
The City of Canning design procedure yields similar thickness (288 mm) to those given by
the TMR method, since the fatigue relationship developed by the City of Canning is similar to
that used by the TMR.
The less conservative pavement thickness was given by the NZTA design procedure
(220 mm), because fatigue of foamed bitumen is ignored in the pavement design process.
Pavements are designed only to inhibit rutting and shape loss.
The knowledge-based TG2 2009 method provided the most conservative solution, in which a
thick asphalt layer (90 mm) was required in addition to the foamed bitumen layer. However,
this design method is currently under development, and only a limited number of foamed
bitumen sections have been incorporated into the knowledge-based data set.
Finally, an interim pavement design method for foamed bitumen pavements in Australia is
proposed, based on the Austroads asphalt fatigue relationship. The interim thickness design
method is applicable to pavements with foamed bitumen contents representative of Australian
mixes (normally about 3.5%). For the elastic characterisation of the foamed bitumen layer, it is
recommended the indirect tensile resilient modulus with temperature and vehicle speed
adjustments.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Background
Over 90% of the Australian sealed road network consists of sprayed seal granular pavements.
Growing traffic loadings are placing increasing pressure on these pavements, with some
non-standard materials no longer being fit-for-purpose. In many rural areas, the use of high quality
crushed rock is not a cost-effective treatment to improve the structure of these pavements.
Consequently there is increasing use of treatments that enhance the existing non-standard
materials by the addition of cementitious and bituminous binders to allow recycling of our scarce
resources.
The Austroads Guide (Austroads 2009) interim procedures for the thickness design of alternative
structural treatments such as in situ recycling with bituminous or cementitious binders are not as
well founded as those for conventional treatments due to lack of information about the performance
of these alternative treatments. In particular, there is not established procedure in the Austroads
Guide for the design of foamed bitumen pavements, leading pavement designers to more
conservative design approaches such as modelling the foamed bitumen layer as an unbound
granular material instead of a stabilised material. Therefore, improved design procedures are
required that better reflect the structural contribution of stabilisation treatments as this will lead to
more cost-effective rural road rehabilitation treatments.
This report presents a review of the available structural design methods for foamed bitumen
pavements, as a first step in the development of thickness design procedures. Six design
procedures were found in the literature, most of them based on well known pavement design
methods (e.g. South African Mechanistic Design Method, Austroads, United Kingdom
Transportation Research Laboratory) with some variations to accommodate the observed or
assumed behaviour of foamed bitumen pavements into the pavement design. The last part of the
report summarizes the design methods an presents a case study in which the rehabilitation of one
granular pavement was designed using the six design methods.
1.2 Overview of the Report and Design Procedures
The report is divided into seven sections. Section 2 presents the design models published in the
Technical Guidelines (TG2 2002) for the design of foamed bitumen pavements (South Africa). The
method proposes distress models, which were developed using data from a full-scale accelerated
pavement test and laboratory tests performed on foamed bitumen pavements. The method
suggests that foamed bitumen pavements behave in two separate phases, the first being a fatigue
phase and the second an equivalent granular phase.
Section 3 describes three design procedures that use the design concepts and equations
published in the Austroads Pavement Design Guide. These were developed by the Department of
Transport and Main Roads, Queensland (formally Queensland Department of Main Roads), the
City of Canning (Western Australia) and the New Zealand Transport Agency (formerly Transit New
Zealand). The three procedures use the Austroads subgrade strain criterion but differ in the use of
the fatigue relationship for the foamed bitumen layer.
Section 4 presents the knowledge-based method, a new empirical pavement design procedure
recently developed in South Africa, which includes the design of foamed bitumen pavements. The
knowledge-based method, published in 2009, superseded the TG2 2002 South African method.
The basis of the method is a pavement index (called pavement number), which is calculated using
the assumed long-term properties of the pavement layers and the thickness of each layer. The

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
2
pavement number was related with the allowable traffic loading by using an extensive set of data
collected from South African pavements. Section 5 describes the design methodology proposed
by the Transportation Research Laboratory (TRL), which adopted a procedure similar to that for
the design of bitumen stabilised pavements.
Section 6 provides a summary and comparison of the six design methodologies previously
presented in the report, using a hypothetical pavement rehabilitation design case. Results showed
that the NZ Transport Agency design procedure gives the lowest thickness for the foamed bitumen
layer, while the new South African knowledge-based yields the most conservative pavement
thicknesses. The Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland (TMR), City of Canning
and TRL methods give similar pavement thicknesses.
Section 7 presents an interim thickness design procedure for foamed bitumen pavements to be
used in Australia. The procedure adopted the Austroads asphalt fatigue relationship for the
estimation of the fatigue life of the foamed bitumen layer. For the elastic characterisation, it is
recommended the indirect tensile resilient modulus with temperature and vehicle speed
adjustments. Section 8 presents the summary, conclusions and recommendations.

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
3
2 SOUTH AFRICAN TG2 2002 DESIGN METHOD
2.1 Background
One of the most widely accepted methods for the structural design of foamed bitumen pavements
is the South African Interim Technical Guidelines (TG2) (Asphalt Academy 2002). The primary
objectives of the guidelines (referred to as TG2 2002 Guidelines) were to assist road authorities in
the adjudication of alternative designs for pavement rehabilitation projects and to assist
practitioners in the design and construction requirements of foamed bitumen pavements (Jenkins
et al. 2008).
The models for the structural design of foamed bitumen pavements published in the TG2 2002
Guidelines were developed using concepts and material behaviours that were part of the South
African Mechanistic Design Method (SAMDM) (Theyse & Rust 1996). The models were one of the
outcomes of a large research project that involved the full-scale testing of foamed bitumen
pavements and extensive laboratory work.
The TG2 2002 Guidelines provide several important contributions to the structural design of
foamed bitumen pavements were:
a description of the behaviour of foamed bitumen pavements (behaviour in two phases)
relationships between the elastic responses in the foamed bitumen layer (strains, stresses)
with the number of load repetitions (for each of the two phases)
a material classification system for foamed bitumen mixes based on simple laboratory tests
(unconfined compressive strength and indirect tensile strength).
2.2 Observed Behaviour of Foamed Bitumen Pavements
2.2.1 Field Observations from Accelerated Pavement Testing
The development of the design models for foamed bitumen layers published in the TG2 2002
Guidelines was based on data from full-scale accelerated pavement testing (APT) and laboratory
testing. The APT was conducted using a Heavy Vehicle Simulator (HVS), a linear type of APT
facility used in South Africa.
The HVS tests consisted of two foamed bitumen treated test sections of 8.0 m each (named
section 409A4/B4 and section 411A4). The construction of the sections was conducted using deep
in situ recycling of a cement treated
1
ferricrete base with old multi-seal surfacings and part of the
untreated ferricrete subbase. This material was treated with 2% cement and 1.8% foamed bitumen
(80/100 penetration grade)
2
. The rehabilitated pavement consisted of a 25 mm asphalt surfacing,
250 mm of foamed bitumen treated base, 250 mm of untreated ferricrete subbase and the in situ
subgrade (Figure 2.1 a). The performance of this pavement was investigated using 40 kN and
80 kN dual wheel loading. The 40 kN dual wheel load is the same wheel load as an 80 kN
standard axle. The deflections, surface deformation, moisture conditions and pavement vertical
strains were continuously monitored during the application of the loads (Long 2001).

1
The original cement content of the existing treated ferricrete base is not detailed in the South African report used in this
review (Jooste & Long 2007).
2
It is important to note that these binder types and content are very different from those currently used in Australia
(normally 3%-4% foamed bitumen and 1%-2% of lime).

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
4
The elastic and plastic vertical strains of the foamed bitumen layer were measured using a multi
depth deflectometer (MDD), a device that measures strains at different depths of the pavement
(Figure 2.1 b). The elastic vertical strains were used to back-calculate the elastic modulus of the
foamed bitumen at different stages of the test. In addition, the plastic vertical strains were used to
estimate plastic deformation of the foamed bitumen layer.
Foamed bitumen
treated base
(250 mm)
Untreated granular
subbase (250 mm)
Asphalt surface
(25 mm)
In situ soil
Strain
Gauges
c
elastic
,
c
permanent
MDD
Strain
Gauges
c
elastic
,
c
permanent
MDD
(a) (b)

Figure 2.1: Foamed bitumen pavement tested in the HVS sections; multi-depth deflectometer
The rehabilitation was conducted between January to October 2000, and the pavements were
tested during 2001. During the initial loading of the pavements a reduction of the elastic modulus
of the foamed bitumen basecourse was observed. The back-calculated modulus for section 411A4
is presented in Figure 2.2, where the initial modulus of 1000-3500 MPa reduced to 600-1000 MPa
under 40 kN loading. The elastic modulus was calculated using data from three MDD installed in
411A4 section (MDD4, MDD8 and MDD12, depicted in Figure 2.2). This reduction in elastic
modulus was again observed when the load was increased to 80 kN, after the application of
958 714 load cycles of 40 kN (Figure 2.2).
The increase of permanent deformation of the foamed bitumen layer with load repetitions and at
various depth below the surface was also measured with the MDD (Figure 2.3). In section 411A4,
2 mm of deformation were measured after 1x10
6
cycles of the 40 kN load, and after the application
of the 80 kN load this value increased approximately up to 3 mm, 66% of the total surface
deformation (4.5 mm). The measured rutting was unexpectedly low (Long 2001), and hence water
was introduced into the pavement through surface cuts to induce further damage. Although
significant rutting was only experienced after the addition of water, there was still relatively little
permanent surface deformation at the end of the test (5.5 mm in section 409A4 and 5.4 mm in
section 411A4). Very little cracking was observed in sections 409A4/B4 and 411A4 before the
addition of water. The cracking was observed in the asphalt surface only.

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
5
R
e
d
u
c
t
io
n

in

S
tif
f
n
e
s
s
R
e
d
u
c
tio
n
in
S
tiffn
e
s
s
1
0
0
0

3
4
0
0

M
P
a
600 1000 MPa
,
, , ,
, , , , , ,

Source: Long (2001).
Figure 2.2: Calculated elastic modulus of foamed bitumen layers versus load repetitions for P243/1 test, section 411A4

Depth below the
surface:
, , , , , , , ,
, ,

Source: Long (2001).
Figure 2.3: In-depth permanent deformation measured with MDD 8 for section 4114A

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
6

2.2.2 Laboratory Observations
A laboratory testing program, using the same materials tested in the full-scale experiment, was
conducted in conjunction with the accelerated pavement test. Flexural beam tests, compressive
monotonic load triaxial tests (MLT) and compressive repeat load triaxial (RLT) were also used to
develop the structural design models for foamed bitumen mixes. The tests were conducted mixing
the untreated milled material (collected in the field during construction) with different contents of
bitumen and cement in the laboratory. The specimens were prepared with various moisture
contents and compacted at different bulk densities. The shear strength of the mixes (angle of
internal friction and cohesion) was estimated using the peak stress measured in MLT tests. RLT
tests were used to assess the permanent deformation resistance and resilient modulus of the
mixes.
Details of the laboratory study are summarised in Long and Theyse (2002). The results of the
laboratory study showed that cement and foamed bitumen had an important effect on flexibility and
strength of the mixes as follows:
Flexibility: The addition of foamed bitumen, or a decrease in the cement to foamed bitumen
content ratio (cem/bit), increased the flexibility of the flexural beams. The strain-at-break
value from the flexural beam tests showed that the higher the bitumen content (or the lower
the cement to bitumen content ratio) the higher the strain-at-break value.
Compressive and flexural strength: The addition of cement or an increase in the cement to
foamed bitumen content ratio (cem/bit) increases both the compressive and flexural strength
(defined as the peak stress attained during the flexural beam test) of the foamed bitumen
treated materials. An increase in the foamed bitumen content or a decrease in the cement to
bitumen content ratio decreased the compressive and flexural strength of cement treated
materials. An increase in the compressive strength results in an increased permanent
deformation resistance.
2.3 TG2 2002 Thickness Design Method
The development of the mechanistic-empirical structural design procedure was based on the
material behaviour and distress mechanisms observed in full-scale testing of pavements, in
conjunction with the observed strength and deformational behaviour of foamed bitumen mixes
tested in the laboratory.
The observations from the HVS test suggested that foamed bitumen pavements behave in two
separate phases. The first phase starts after construction, when the layer is in an intact,
undamaged condition and provides fatigue resistance. This phase is called effective fatigue
phase and ends when, due to the applied loading, the layer reduces its stiffness. The second
phase is called equivalent granular state, because the stiffness of the foamed bitumen layer is
similar to that of a good quality granular base. The assumed distress modes of the first and
second phase are fatigue and permanent deformation, respectively.
2.3.1 Effective Fatigue Phase
A structural design model for the effective fatigue phase was developed using the elastic stiffness
data measured in the HVS experiment with the MDD. The model determines the number of
repetitions to the equivalent granular state as a function of the strain ratio. The strain ratio is the
ratio of the maximum horizontal tensile strain calculated at the bottom of the foamed bitumen layer
to the strain-at-break from the flexural beam test. The tensile strain in the pavement under an

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
7
80 kN standard axle load is calculated using a software based on multi-layer linear elastic theory
such as mePads (CSIR 2001).
The effective fatigue phase equation has the following form (Equation 1):

0.708
,
10
b
A
F FB
N
c
c
| | (
|
(
|
\ .
=

1
where
N
F,FB
= number of load cycles during the effective fatigue life of the foamed
bitumen layer

A = coefficient related to the category of the road or reliability (risk) of the
design

c = calculated horizontal tensile strain under standard axle load at the bottom
of the layer (see c
h
in Figure 2.4)

c
b
= strain-at-break measured in the flexural beam test.
The terminal distress condition for the first phase is a loss of stiffness (i.e. from bound material to
an equivalent granular state) and a 2 mm permanent deformation of the foamed bitumen layer.
2.3.2 Equivalent Granular Phase
The structural design model for permanent deformation of the foamed bitumen treated material
after fatigue was developed using the MDD measurements and the permanent deformation
measured in RLT laboratory tests. It was found that the permanent deformation increases with the
ratio between the applied stress in the RLT test and the peak stress attained in a MLT test (called
stress ratio), using specimens prepared with identical materials. Therefore it was decided to
develop the permanent deformation equation as a function of the stress ratio.
In the equivalent granular phase, the major and minor principal stresses are determined at four
locations in the pavement (Figure 2.4):
one quarter below the top of the layer and, below and between a 40 kN dual wheel load
one quarter above the bottom of the layer, below and between a 40 kN dual wheel load.
These locations were suggested by Long (2001) as the critical locations in the foamed bitumen
layer, after the analysis of a pavement structure similar to that of the HVS test sections, using a
linear elastic model.

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
8
t / 4
3t / 4
Surfacing
Foamed
bitumen
basecourse
Subbase
t
Subgrade
Wheel
Loads
o
1
o
3
c
h
C
e
n
t
r
e

o
f

L
o
a
d
s
20 kN 20 kN

Figure 2.4: Location of the critical design parameters for the TG2 2002 Guidelines design method
The allowable loading in the equivalent granular phase is (Equation 2 to Equation 4):

( 11.938 0.0726 1.628 0.691 ( / ))
,
1
10
30
A RD PS SR cem bit
PD FB
N
+ + +
=
2
where
N
PD,FB
= number of load repetitions
A = coefficient related to the category of the road or reliability (risk) of the
design

RD = relative density of the foamed bitumen mix, determined using the formula:

100
mix
mix w
DD
RD
ARD D
=

3
where
DD
mix
= dry density of the mix (kg/m
3
)
D
w
= density of water (kg/m
3
)
ARD
mix
= apparent relative density, determined using the individual solid density (SD)
values for the aggregate, cement, bitumen and water.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
9
PS = allowed permanent strain of the foamed bitumen layer expressed as a
percentage. For instance, if the allowed permanent deformation in the
second equivalent granular phase for the foamed bitumen layer is 18 mm,
and the foamed bitumen layer thickness is 180 mm, PS=18/180=0.1=10%.
The terminal distress condition normally used for the second equivalent
granular phase is 18 mm of permanent deformation in the foamed bitumen
layer

(cem/bit) = cement to bitumen ratio of the foamed bitumen mix
SR = stress ratio
3
calculated at one quarter below the top of the layer and one
quarter above the bottom of the foamed bitumen layer, using the following
formula:

1 3
2
3
tan 45 1 2 tan 45
2 2
a a
a
SR
C
o o
| |
o
=
( ( | | | |
+ + +
| | ( (
\ . \ .

4
where
o
1
a
,o
3
a
= major and minor principal stresses, expressed in kPa, calculated from the
response model (Figure 2.4)

| = angle of internal friction (expressed in degrees)
c = cohesion (in kPa) of the foamed bitumen material studied, determined from
monotonic load triaxial (MLT) tests.

For the calculation of N
PD,FB
the most critical (highest) stress ratio is used in Equation 2. The
models (both effective fatigue and equivalent granular) were adapted to account for reliability levels
of the different traffic categories (95%, 90%, 80% and 50%), listed in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1: Reliability factors based on road categories
Road category
Name A B C D
Reliability (%) 95 90 80 50
Description E.g. interurban freeways,
major interurban roads
E.g. interurban collectors,
major rural roads, major
industrial roads
Lightly trafficked rural
roads, strategic roads
Rural access roads
Importance Very important Important Less important Less important
Service level Very high High Moderate Moderate to low
Total equivalent traffic (ESA)
over structural design period
3-100x10
6
over 20 years 0.3-10x10
6
depending on
design strategy
<3 x10
6
depending on
design strategy
<10
6
depending on design
strategy
Source: CSIR (1996).

3
The stress ratio equation has been extensively adopted in the South African Mechanistic Design Method (SAMDM) for
the permanent deformation modelling of unbound granular materials.

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
10
2.4 Classification of the Foamed Bitumen Mixes
The design method presented above requires a large amount of laboratory data to be used with
accuracy (shear strength values, flexural strength). This type of data normally is not readily
available in practice, hence an interim material classification system, based on simple laboratory
tests, was included in the TG2 2002 Guidelines.
The classification system consisted of four categories (FB1, FB2, FB3 and FB4) depending on the
unconfined compressive strength (UCS) and indirect tensile strength (ITS) measured on the
foamed bitumen mix (Table 2.2). The UCS and ITS specimens are sealed after compaction and
de-moulded after 24 hours. Then the specimens are tested after 72 hours of accelerated air-dried
at 40 C, sealed in individual loose plastic bags with a sealed volume at least twice that of the
specimen. The testing temperature is 25 C.
The TG2 2002 Guidelines recommends values of stiffness for the first effective fatigue phase,
Poissons ratio, strain-at-break (c
b
), cohesion and angle of internal friction for each mix category.
The guideline developed material properties for materials FB2 and FB3 only (listed in Table 2.3),
because only these two materials had been extensively tested in the laboratory when the
guidelines were published.
Table 2.2: Foamed bitumen treated material classification
Material classification UCS, after 3 days of
accelerated air-dried (kPa)
ITS, after 3 days of
accelerated air-dried (kPa)
FB1 14002000 300500
FB2 14002000 100300
FB3 7001400 300500
FB4 7001400 100300
Source: Asphalt Academy (2002).

Table 2.3: Foamed bitumen treated material properties
Material classification FB2 FB3
Range Recommended
value
Range Recommended
value
Cem/bit 1.11 0.33
Stiffness in effective fatigue phase (MPa) 12402075 1600 6801625 1100
Poisson ratio 0.35 0.35
Strain-at-break 120225 172 390590 490
Cohesion (kPa) 110425 210 110210 120
Friction angle () 2755 49 3453 45
Source: Asphalt Academy (2002).


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
11
3 METHODS BASED ON AUSTROADS DESIGN GUIDELINE
3.1 Background
Three pavement methodologies based on the design principles in Austroads (2004) were found in
the literature. The distress mechanisms for flexible pavements, assumed by the Austroads Guide
include:
Fatigue of asphalt and cemented materials due to repetition of horizontal tensile strains at
the bottom of such layers.
Permanent deformation of unbound materials and subgrade which is related to vertical
compressive strain on top of subgrade.
The Austroads Guide does not include specific procedures for the thickness design of foamed
bitumen pavements. However, the Austroads procedures have been adapted for foamed bitumen
pavements by three organisations: the Queensland Department of Main Roads, the City of
Canning (Western Australia) and NZ Transport Agency.
The three methods adopted at least one of the failure mechanisms mentioned above; however,
they differ in the specific fatigue model of the foamed bitumen layer, or simply do not use a fatigue
relationship.
It is important to emphasize that foamed bitumen contents currently used in Australia are normally
higher than foamed bitumen contents adopted in some other countries (e.g. South Africa, New
Zealand).
3.2 Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland
3.2.1 Design Equation
Since 1997, pavement recycling using foamed bitumen has become an attractive alternative to
traditional overlays for rehabilitation of existing pavements in Queensland. The experience gained
through pavement construction, laboratory testing, and monitoring of foamed bitumen pavements
has contributed to the development of a design equation for foamed bitumen pavements in this
state.
Although field data in Queensland was limited when the design equation was suggested, there was
enough data to indicate that the primary distress mechanism of foamed bitumen stabilised
pavements was fatigue failure of the stabilised layer (Jones & Ramanujam 2004). Therefore, the
Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland (TMR) adopted the Austroads asphalt
fatigue criterion used for asphalt design for a reliability of 95% to estimate the fatigue performance
of foamed bitumen stabilised material. This relationship was recommended provided the assumed
volumetric percentage of binder does not exceed 8% and the laboratory soaked modulus does not
exceed 2500 MPa. The design modulus (S
mix
) is based on the soaked indirect tensile resilient
modulus results at the nominated design binder content for the rehabilitation project (Equation 5).
Therefore:

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
12

( )
5
36 . 0 '
856 . 0 08 . 1 6918
(
+
=
c
mix
b
S
V
N
5
where
N = allowable number of load repetitions to fatigue of the foamed bitumen layer
V
b
= percentage by volume of bitumen in the foamed bitumen layer (normally
between 6% and 8%)

S
mix
= foamed bitumen mix modulus, measured using the indirect tensile resilient
modulus test (MATTA testing) on soak specimens and corrected by
temperature (Section 3.2.2)

c = horizontal tensile strain at bottom of foamed bitumen layer produced by the
load (microstrain).

3.2.2 Other Pavement Design Considerations
As part of the mix design process, TMR normally conducts indirect tensile resilient modulus tests
(Australian Standard AS2891.13.1) on 150 mm diameter foamed bitumen specimens compacted
using 50 blows Marshall Compaction. The specimens have to meet a minimum resilient modulus
value depending on the design traffic loading. The TMR normal procedure is to test nominally
identical specimens prepared in the laboratory, after:
3 hours of air-dried and curing at 25 C
3 days of accelerated air-dried and curing at 40 C
3 days of accelerated air-dried and curing at 40 C, followed by soaking in water under
vacuum for 10 minutes.
TMR adopts the soaked resilient modulus (S
mix
) for the fatigue equation and also recommends
minimum S
mix
values for soaked-to-dry resilient modulus ratio for a range of design traffic as shown
in Table 3.1. The S
mix
should not exceed 2500 MPa. If S
mix
is not known, the assumed value
should correspond to the minimum soaked modulus (Table 3.1).
Table 3.1: TMR modulus requirements for foamed bitumen materials for high trafficked roads
Average daily ESA in
design year of opening
Minimum dry modulus
(MPa)
Minimum soaked
modulus (MPa)
Maximum soaked
modulus (MPa)
Minimum retained
modulus ratio
< 100 2500 1500 2500 40%
1001000 3000 1800 2500 45%
> 1000 4000 2000 2500 50%
Source: Jones and Ramanujam (2004).

The stiffness of the foamed bitumen mix (S
mix
) is determined in the laboratory at 25 C. Therefore,
this value is corrected by temperature to reflect the actual weighted mean annual pavement
temperature (WMAPT) of the site (Jones & Ramanujam 2008). The temperature correction factor
to be applied to S
mix
is listed in Table 3.2.

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
13
Table 3.2: Temperature correction factor for TMR method
Weighted mean annual pavement
temperature
Temperature correction factor
25 C 1.0
30 C 0.9
35 C 0.8
40 C 0.7

TMR recommends a minimum subgrade support of CBR 5%, based on observations made on
early failures of foamed bitumen pavements constructed on weak subgrades.
The TMR method may include a second post-cracking phase, similar to the TG2 2002 Guideline
method, where:
the average daily ESA in the design lane is less than 1000
not less than 175 mm of dense graded asphalt cover is provided over the foamed bitumen
stabilised material.
In the post-cracking phase, the foamed bitumen stabilised material is considered to be
cross-anisotropic (degree of anisotropy n=2) with a presumptive modulus of 500 MPa, Poissons
ratio of 0.35 and no sublayering.
3.2.3 Minimum Surface Requirements
TMR current practice is to use a sprayed seal surfacing for traffic below 1 x 10
7
ESA and a
minimum of 40 mm thickness of hot mix asphalt for higher traffic loadings. In these higher traffic
areas, the actual thickness of asphalt placed above the foamed bitumen layer is governed by the
predicted fatigue life of the asphalt. The required thickness of asphalt may be much greater than
40 mm, and are often in the order of 180 mm to 200 mm. The types of asphalt used and layering
are in accordance with the Queensland Pavement Design Manual (Queensland Department of
Transport 1990).
3.3 City of Canning
3.3.1 Background
The City of Canning in Western Australia conducted a research project (Leek 2009) to study the
modulus and fatigue performance of in situ foamed bitumen pavement materials measured in the
laboratory. The study was conducted only to stabilisation of pavements containing crushed
gravels, and hence the method is applicable only to this type of source aggregate.
Samples of foamed bitumen mixes were collected at various sites in the Cities of Canning and
Gosnells. The aim of the research was to determine if a design procedure could be developed to
predict the fatigue life of in situ foamed bitumen stabilised pavements, and if the viscoelastic
properties of the bitumen binder were reflected in the stiffness and fatigue performance of foamed
bitumen mixes.

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
14
3.3.2 Development of Fatigue Equation
Slabs were cut from different foamed bitumen pavement sections located in the City of Canning.
The slabs were then cut into beams for flexural beam testing, in order to measure the fatigue
properties of the foamed bitumen samples. It should be noted that the first beams were taken from
pavements in 1999, and have been taken from a number of subsequent foamed bitumen jobs
since then. The results of the testing showed that the performance of individual beams varied
widely. While bitumen content and stiffness would be considered to influence fatigue life, due to
the scatter of test results no significant relationships were observed between modulus and fatigue
life or bitumen content and fatigue life (Leek 2009). Therefore a simplified equation was proposed,
excluding specific reference to bitumen content and stiffness (Equation 6):

6
1558
(
=
c
N
6
where
load (microstrain).

This equation is a best fit relationship to laboratory data, and predicts the mean fatigue life of the
flexural beams Figure 3.1.
In terms of the use of this laboratory relationship to predict the performance of in-service
pavements, Leek (2009) argued that given the size of the aggregate in the fatigue test beams and
associated stress concentrations, the laboratory fatigue relationship would be sufficiently
conservative to use to predict in-service performance without the use of a laboratory-to-field shift
factor.

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
15

1.E+03
1.E+04
1.E+05
1.E+06
1.E+07
1.E+08
1.E+09
1.E+10
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Strain Level (e)
L
o
a
d

R
e
p
i
t
i
t
i
o
n
s
Test Beam Results
Predicted Life by Asphalt Model
MRDQ Predicted Life
Asphalt model
best fit curve
N = (1558.175/e)
5.9369

Source: Leek (2009).
Figure 3.1: Graphical representation of test results
3.3.3 Other Design Considerations
In the absence of detailed site or laboratory testing, the presumptive design moduli in Table 3.3 are
used by the City of Canning when stabilising existing pavements composed of crushed limestone
subbase, crushed granite basecourse and asphalt surfacing. These values were suggested after
the analysis of a large data set of flexural beam modulus, indirect tensile resilient modulus and
Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) measurements. It was found that modulus decreases with
pavement depth and that the flexural modulus is approximately 60% of the resilient modulus.
Table 3.3: Adopted modulus values for crushed granular pavements in City of Canning
Depth below stabilised
surface (mm)
Design modulus
(MPa)
0100 4300
100200 3600
>200 2600

A post-cracking phase may also be incorporated into this design method.

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
16
In the City of Canning the standard practice is to apply a 30 mm thick asphalt layer over the
foamed bitumen stabilised layer. Dense grade and stone mastic asphalt has been placed onto the
foam surface. Local practitioners may recommend a sprayed seal if traffic is less than 10
6
ESA.
3.4 NZ Transport Agency Method
3.4.1 Background
To adapt the Austroads Pavement Design Guide (Austroads 2010) to New Zealand conditions, a
supplement was published by NZ Transport Agency (2007). The supplement includes guidelines
for engineering practitioners in applying Austroads design procedures resulting from research
results and experience gained in New Zealand. It is important to notice that the normal bitumen
content used in New Zealand foamed bitumen pavements ranges from 2.7% to 3%, plus 1.0% to
1.5% of cement or lime by weight. This is lower than the normal bitumen content used in
Australian foamed bitumen pavements (about 3.5%).
During the preparation of the supplement it was initially suggested to adopt the fatigue life of the
foamed bitumen layer using the Austroads asphalt fatigue equation, for a reliability of 95%,
following the procedure adopted in the TMR. However, it was later argued (NZTA 2007) that the
effective fatigue behaviour was not observed in New Zealand foamed bitumen pavements, and
there was not enough evidence to justify the use of the Austroads fatigue equation for foamed
bitumen mixtures. Therefore, the New Zealand supplement suggested that only the second
equivalent granular phase should be accounted for in the design:
While it is possible to analyse the seating-in (fatigue) phase using the Austroads
(Shell) hot mix asphalt performance criterion, it is unclear how appropriate the
criterion is for foamed bitumen stabilised materials. Given this uncertainty, it is
generally appropriate to design the foamed bitumen stabilised layer for the
steady-state condition only.
Finally, the New Zealand supplement gives the following advice to pavement designers:
At this stage, the majority of the expertise in the field of foamed bitumen
stabilisation is held by the contracting industry. Therefore, designers should seek
assistance from the industry regarding both the mix design and the layer thickness
analysis.
Normally, pavement designers in New Zealand design the pavement to inhibit rutting and shape
and do not consider the fatigue characteristics of foamed bitumen.
3.4.2 Design Inputs and Distress Models
The New Zealand supplement suggests the following general material properties for the
mechanical characterization of foamed bitumen layers:
vertical elastic modulus of the order of 800 MPa
anisotropic layer (E
vertical
=2E
horizonal
)
no sub-layering
Poissons ratio =0.3.

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
17
The distress model adopted is the Austroads subgrade strain criterion, expressed in Equation 7:

7
9300
(
=
c
N
7
where
N = allowable number of standard axles before an unacceptable level of
permanent deformation develops

c = maximum vertical (compressive) strain (microstrains) at the top of the
subgrade.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
18
4 KNOWLEDGE-BASED TG2 2009 STRUCTURAL DESIGN
METHOD
4.1 Background
After the release of the interim South African TG2 2002 Guidelines (Section 2), it was
acknowledged that the guideline was not representative of current best practice, and would need
updating. An area of concern with the structural design models was the lack of validation using
field performance data, and apparent differences between long-term field behaviour, behaviour
under accelerated testing and predicted performance from laboratory testing. South African
practitioners felt that the TG2 2002 Guidelines did not illustrate the benefits of foamed bitumen
treatment and that mechanistic-empirical design methods could lead to the inappropriate design of
foamed bitumen pavements.
Jooste and Long (2007) developed a new knowledge-based structural design method for
pavements, which incorporated bituminous stabilised materials. The method is explained in the
second edition of the TG2 guidelines, published in May 2009 (Asphalt Academy 2009). The TG2
second edition, or TG2 2009, superseded the method previously published in the TG2 2002
guidelines. The knowledge-based design method relies on an index, which quantifies the
allowable traffic of a pavement. The index is called a pavement number (PN) and is used to
determine whether a pavement structure is appropriate for a given traffic intensity and confidence
level.
The PN is similar to the structural number (SN) widely used in the AASHTO design method
(AASHTO 1993). The PN is calculated using the layer thicknesses and assigned material classes
(related to long-term stiffnesses). An empirical relationship between the PN and observed
performance of more than 80 pavement structures provides the basis for using the PN to assess
design capacity.
Jooste and Long (2007) suggest that the PN is more suitable than the AASHTO SN in determining
the stiffness of each layer, because it couples the material class with the ratio between the layer
stiffness and the stiffness of the supporting layer (using the modular ratio limit concept). The
other concepts and steps involved in this pavement design method are the effective long-term
stiffness, the characterisation of subgrade materials and the base confidence factor, detailed in the
following section.
4.2 Concepts in the Development of the Pavement Number
4.2.1 The Effective Long-term Stiffness (ELTS)
The ELTS is a model parameter which serves as a relative indicator of the average long term in
situ stiffness of a pavement layer. As such, the ELTS averages out the effects of the long-term
decrease of stiffness owing to traffic related deterioration, as well as seasonal variations in
stiffness. Thus the ELTS does not represent the stiffness of a material at any specific time.
It is also important to note that the ELTS, as defined for use in the PN, is not a stiffness value that
can be determined by means of a laboratory or field test. Rather, it is a model parameter, which
was calibrated for use in the PN-based design method and was developed as part of Jooste and
Longs study. The ELTS values used in the calculation of the PN may therefore differ somewhat
from the stiffness values that are conventionally adopted in the South African Mechanistic Design
Method.

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
19
4.2.2 Characterisation of Subgrade Materials
The first step in the calculation of the PN value is the determination of the subgrade class, which
relates the equivalent material class for subgrade with stiffness. Then, the stiffness has to be
adjusted by climate conditions (wet, moderate or dry) and by the placement of the subgrade within
the pavement structure (the thicker the pavement above the subgrade, the higher the equivalent
stiffness).
4.2.3 The Modular Ratio Limit Concept
The modular ratio is a well known concept in flexible pavement engineering, and is defined as the
ratio of a layers stiffness relative to the stiffness of the layer below it. Thus, if the stiffness of a
base layer is 400 MPa, and the stiffness of the support below it is 200 MPa, then the modular ratio
of the base layer would be 2.0. An analysis of stress-sensitive material behaviour in finite element
models showed that, as a general rule of thumb, the modular ratio for unbound granular materials
is limited to less than 2.5, but in cases of more cohesive materials and weak support, modular
ratios as high as 5.0 may be possible (Jooste & Long 2007).
4.2.4 Assumed Behaviour of Bitumen Stabilised Layers
The behaviour of bitumen stabilised layers is assumed to be similar to that of unbound granular
materials. However, it is also assumed in the method that bitumen stabilised materials are able to
develop significantly higher cohesive strength, and thus, compared to unbound granular materials,
these materials are less dependent on the stiffness of the support layer. The assumption of
unbound material behaviour with a high cohesive strength places the behaviour of bitumen
stabilised layers somewhere between that of a crushed stone and a cement stabilised material.
For the purposes of determining the ELTS value, bitumen stabilised layers are modelled in a
similar manner to crushed rock materials, but a higher modular ratio limit was allowed compared to
crushed rock layers, to account for the higher cohesive strength.
4.2.5 Base Confidence Factor
The authors of the method argue that the required base quality is intimately linked to the intensity
of the traffic loading, regardless of the overall pavement structure. South African experience
shows that there is a limit on the types of base materials that can be considered for a given traffic
situation. In particular, the suitable design options decrease significantly as the design traffic
increases.
This situation is specifically relevant in southern Africa, where thin pavements are the norm (similar
to Australia and New Zealand). As the surfacing has a minor structural contribution, high stresses
are applied to the underlying base. In such situations, the base is the main load-bearing element
in the pavement. Consequently, the method limits the types of base materials that can be used in
certain traffic situations.
In the proposed PN-based method, the appropriateness of the base material is controlled in two
ways: (a) a base confidence factor (BCF) should be assigned to different material types; and (b)
the design guidelines should include a checklist to ensure that practical considerations, such as the
appropriateness of the base material, are taken into account.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
20
4.3 Calculation of PN
The steps involved for the calculation of the PN are presented in Figure 4.1, followed by an
example in Figure 4.2, which illustrates the calculation of the PN number for a pavement that
consisted of a G8 subgrade material
4
, a G7 selected material (180 mm), a G6 subbase
(200 mm), a BSM2 bitumen stabilised layer (175 mm) and an AC asphalt surface (30 mm).
The first step of the calculation is the determination of the subgrade category and estimation of the
initial stiffness value (E
ini
). Then the initial stiffness (E
ini
) has to be adjusted by the climate zone
and the total pavement thickness. The initial stiffness (E
ini
) of the G8 subgrade material is 100 MPa
(Table A 1 in Appendix A). Then E
ini
is adjusted for the climate zone (F
climate
= 0.9, Table A 2 in
Appendix A) and pavement thickness cover above the subgrade (F
cover
= -4 MPa, Table A 3 in
Appendix A), which yields the ELTS of the subgrade layer, using Equation 8:

ELTS = (E
ini
x F
climate
) + F
cover
8
where
E
ini
= initial stiffness (MPa)
F
climate
= climate adjustment factor
F
cover
= adjustment factor that varies with the thickness of the pavement layers
above the subgrade.

Figure 4.1: Steps in the knowledge-based structural design method for pavements

4
G8, G7, G6, BSM2, etc. are material codes adopted by the material classification system used in the South African
Mechanistic Design Method.
Estimate subgrade
stiffness (Table A1)
For each pavement layer
(i) determine: E
max
and
modular ratio (Table A4)
Determine ELTS for layer i:
ELTS = min [ E
max
, modular
ratio
(i)
x ELTS
(i-1)
]
Adjust by climate zone
(Table A2)
Adjust by pavement
thickness (Table A3)
PN
(i)
= ELTS
(i)
x thickness
(i)
Adjust PN
(base)
by
BCN (Table A4)
PN= E PN
(i)
Determine allowable
traffic (Figure 4.3)

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
21
In Figure 4.2, this ELTS is 86 MPa (= 100 MPa x 0.9 - 4 MPa). The maximum stiffness (E
max
) and
modular ratio has to be determined for each layer above the subgrade (a list of recommended
values for each material category is presented in Table A 4, Appendix A). Later, the ELTS is
determined for each layer above the subgrade, starting with the bottom layer. The ELTS is
determined as the minimum value between E
max
and the product between the modular ratio and
the ELTS from the layer located below the current layer.
Finally, the PN of each layer is calculated as the product of the layer thickness of each layer (in
metres) and the respective ELTS value in MPa, divided by 10. The PN of the basecourse has to
be adjusted by the base confidence factor (listed in Table A 4, Appendix A). The PN of the
structure is the sum of the individual PN for each layer, as shown in Figure 4.2.
1800 MPa
x
30 mm
AC
BSM2
G6
G7
MR = 1.7
E
max
= 140 MPa
MR = 1.8
E
max
= 180 MPa
MR = 2.0
E
max
= 450 MPa
MR = 5.0
E
max
= 3500 MPa
E
ini
= 100 MPa
F
climate
= 0.9
F
cover
= -4
30 mm
G8
Moderate
175 mm
200 mm
180 mm
1.7x86 = 146
E
max
= 140
ELTS = 86 MPa
ELTS = 140 MPa
1.8x140 = 252
E
max
= 180
ELTS = 180 MPa
5.0 x 360 = 1800
E
max
= 3500 MPa
ELTS = 1800 MPa
PN = 2.5
PN = 3.6
PN = 4.4
PN = 5.4
Table A4
Table A1
Table A2
Table A3
Table A4
Table A4
Table A4
Table A4
140 MPa x
180 mm
180 MPa x
200 mm
0.7 x
360 MPa x
175 mm
PN = 16
2.0x180 = 360
E
max
= 450
ELTS = 360 MPa
AC

Figure 4.2: Example of pavement number determination

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
22
4.4 Design Criteria PN Model
4.4.1 Allowed Capacity
The relationship between PN and the allowed structural capacity (traffic) was developed by Jooste
and Long (2007) using three data sets, which together with the rules of pavement behaviour
presented above, formed the knowledge base. The three data sets are:
TRH4 Design Catalogue Set: this data set is comprised of structures extracted from the
TRH4 design catalogue for Category A and B roads (reliability of 95% and 90%,
respectively). The structures are those recommended for unbound base materials, to be
used in wet and dry climates, and for traffic applications between 1 x 10
6
and 30 x 10
6
ESA.
This data set was used as a foundation on which to calibrate the climate adjustment factors,
as well as the material constants for unbound and cement stabilised layers.
The LTPP Data Set for Bitumen Stabilised Pavements: this data set comprises all the
identified in service pavements that incorporate bitumen stabilised layers, and for which
reliable historic pavement and traffic data could be obtained.
The HVS Data Set for Bitumen Stabilised Pavements: this data set comprises pavements
that incorporate bitumen stabilised materials and which were tested using the heavy vehicle
simulator (HVS).
After an analysis of the trends exhibited by the combined data sets, a structural design criterion in
the form of a step function was developed (Figure 4.3). The criterion is not a traditional design
equation, but rather represents a confidence frontier. This confidence frontier represents the
structural capacity for a given PN and assumed risk (road category), at which distress is unlikely to
occur.
The design method also provides recommendations for minimum and maximum foam bitumen
layer thicknesses of 100 mm and 350 mm respectively. The maximum thickness for the hot mix
asphalt surface is 100 mm.

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
23
Category A
(95% Reliability)
Category B
(90% Reliability)

Source: Jooste and Long (2007).
Figure 4.3: Criteria for determining allowed capacity based on PN
The authors of the method recommend that bituminous stabilised layers should be surfaced with a
sprayed seal if the traffic is less than 1 x 10
6
ESA. For traffic between 1 x 10
6
and 15 x 10
6
they
recommend a hot mix asphalt layer. For traffic exceeding 15 x 10
6
ESA, a hot mix asphalt
thickness of at least 50 mm is recommended. They support this recommendations by observing
the knowledge base (the three sets of data mentioned above) and also arguing that the risk of
early failures caused by the in situ recycling process can be greatly alleviated by placing an asphalt
layer on top of the foamed bitumen layer. The asphalt surfacing requirements are summarised in
Figure 4.4.

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
24
.

Figure 4.4: Recommended layer thicknesses versus structural capacity

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
25
5 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH LABORATORY
5.1 Background
A design guide was developed by the Transportation Research Laboratory (TRL) in the United
Kingdom for the design and use of cold recycled materials for pavements (Merrill et al. 2004). The
guide presents design charts instead of design equations. The charts were developed using
asphalt fatigue relationships developed in previous research reports (Nunn 2004), assuming that
foamed bitumen mixes behave similar to hot asphalt mixes.
The guide covers all material types that could be considered as cold recycled materials and both in
situ and ex situ (recycled in plant) construction processes. The guide defines three families of
materials, presented in Figure 5.1. The apexes of this diagram correspond to fully hydraulic
bound, fully visco-elastic bound and unbound material. Recycled materials using combinations of
binder and curing behaviour can be characterised by areas within this chart. Four material types
that fall into three material families are illustrated, in which foamed bitumen mixes are classified
within the visco-elastic hydraulic binders (Family 3). The four materials are defined as:
quick hydraulic (QH) with hydraulic only binder(s) including cement
slow hydraulic (SH) with hydraulic only binder(s) excluding cement
quick visco-elastic (QVE) with bituminous and hydraulic binder(s) including cement
slow visco-elastic (SVE) with bituminous only or bituminous and hydraulic binder(s) excluding
cement.
Fully visco-
elastically bound
Fully
hydraulically
bound
Unbound
Family 1 - Hydraulic
binders
Family 2 - Visco-
elastic binders
Family 3 - Visco-elastic
/ Hydraulic binders

Source: Merrill et al. (2004).
Figure 5.1: Identification of material families
5.2 Design Procedure
5.2.1 Road Type Categories
The first two steps of the TRL design method are to classify the pavement by the expected traffic
and the foundation class. Traffic is described in terms of a cumulative number of equivalent 80 kN
standard axles. These road categories are defined in terms of million standards axles (MSA) in
Table 5.1. For each road type category, different levels of risk are assigned.

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
26
Table 5.1: Road type category for TRL method
Road type category Traffic design standard (ESA x 10
6
)
0 30 < Traffic < 80
1 10 < Traffic < 30
2 2.5 < Traffic < 10
3 0.5 < Traffic < 2.5
4 < 0.5

5.2.2 Foundation Class
The method proposes foundation stiffness classes, which represents the long term stiffness of the
foundation. The foundation stiffness classes are defined in terms of the equivalent half-space
stiffness of the composite foundations. The four foundation classes are listed in Table 5.2. A
Poissons ratio of 0.35 is proposed for the modelling of all foundation classes.
Table 5.2: Foundation classes for TRL method
Foundation class Assumed foundation support
(MPa)
1 50
2 100
3 200
4 400
Source: Nunn (2004).

5.2.3 Classification of Foamed Bitumen Mixes and Design Chart
Bitumen bound materials are classified according to their stiffness measured in the indirect tensile
resilient modulus test. The guide classifies the mixes into one of three zones labelled B1, B2 and
B3.
The foamed bitumen specimens are compacted in the laboratory and later wrapped in cling-film
plastic. Once wrapped, the specimen is placed in a sealed plastic bag and then put in air or water
at 40 C for 28 days. Once the conditioning is finished the indirect tensile resilient modulus is
measured and the mix is classified using Table 5.3. For instance, the assumed resilient modulus
for the Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland method for foamed bitumen mixes
(2200 MPa) classifies between zone B1 and B2.
Once the foamed bitumen mix is classified, the designer selects the appropriate thickness design
chart for the foundation class; the thickness for the design traffic can be determined for the curve
associated with the material zone. Table 5.3 shows a minimum long-term stiffness for each class
which should be demonstrated in the specification using laboratory conditioning regimes defined in
the guide in the mix design process.

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
27
Table 5.3: Bitumen bound cold recycled material classification for TRL method
Bitumen bound cold recycled
zone
Minimum long-term stiffness
(MPa) measured after 28 days
B1 1900
B2 2500
B3 3100

Figure 5.2 shows an example of the design curves used in the TRL guideline. The designer has to
first decide which material zone is representative of the foamed bitumen mixes to be used in the
field, using laboratory resilient modulus measurements. Once the material zone is defined (Zones
1, 2 or 3), the designer has to use the expected traffic input data (X-axis in Figure 5.2, expressed in
ESA x 10
6
) and read the intersection of the traffic with the material zone, which gives the thickness
of the foamed bitumen layer.
T r a f f i c ( E S A x 1 0
6
)
1 1 0 1 0 0
T
o
t
a
l

t
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s

o
f

b
o
u
n
d

l
a
y
e
r

(
m
m
)
1 0 0
1 5 0
2 0 0
2 5 0
3 0 0
3 5 0
4 0 0
4 5 0
5 0 0
Z o n e B 1
Z o n e B 2
Z o n e B 3
T h e s e d e s i g n s in c lu d e u p t o 1 0 0 m m
a s p h a lt s u r f a c i n g
M a t e r i a l Z o n e s
( T a b l e 9 )

Figure 5.2: Design curves for bitumen bound cold recycled material, Foundation Class 1
For low volume roads, these minimum thickness requirements may give excess structural capacity
and overly low risk of failure. Therefore, an alternative table with recommended thicknesses is
provided for roads with traffic less than 5 x 10
6
ESA (Table 5.4).

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
28
Table 5.4: Thickness design of pavements up to 5 x 10
6
ESA
Type 2 road Type 3 road Type 4 road
Surfacing thickness (mm) 40 100 40 100 40 100
Subgrade design CBR
<2 n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r
24 n/r n/r n/r 310 320 195
57 n/r n/r 330 290 300 1858
814 n/r 300 315 275 285 160
> 15 n/r 270 285 245 255 150

Table 5.5 shows the minimum thickness of surfacing, which relies on the traffic category.
However, for Type 1 and Type 2 roads the thickness of the surfacing placed on top of the bitumen
bound cold recycled material can be reduced to a minimum of 50 mm with a compensating
increase in the thickness of the cold recycled structural course.
Table 5.5: Requirements for surfacing thickness for TRL method
Road type category Traffic design standard
(ESA x 10
6
)
Minimum thickness of
surfacing (mm)
0 30 < Traffic < 80 100
1 10 < Traffic < 30 70
2 2.5 < Traffic < 10 50
3 0.5 < Traffic < 2.5 40
4 < 0.5 40

For Class B1 and B2 materials the compensation of the structural course can be determined using
the equivalence relationship given in Equation 9:

Surfacing RBase
H H A = A 3 . 1
9
where
AH
Surfacing
= change in the thickness of bituminous surfacing
AH
RBase
= change in the thickness of bitumen bound cold recycled base.
For example, a bitumen bound pavement design with a 100 mm surfacing could be reduced to a
50 mm surfacing with a corresponding increase of 65 mm in the thickness of the cold recycled
layer.

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
29
6 COMPARISON OF PAVEMENT DESIGNS
6.1 Summary of Design Methods
Six design methodologies for the design of foamed bitumen pavements have been presented in
the previous sections. A summary and comparison of the methods are presented in Table 6.1.
The table shows that design methods have been developed using very different assumptions, data
and distress modes.
The TMR and TRL assumed that foamed bitumen mixes behave similarly to hot mix asphalt mixes
and therefore fatigue relationships, with some modifications, were adopted for the thickness
design. However, this assumption is based on engineering judgment and there is no data
available to firmly support this approach. The fatigue distress mode proposed by TMR has been
observed in Queensland foamed bitumen projects, but only in early failures, which could not be
totally representative of the normal long-term deterioration on this type of pavement. The City of
Canning developed a fatigue relationship using data from several flexural fatigue tests. Although
this method is very different to the TMR method, they arrive to similar predictions of pavement life
at typical strain levels. The City of Canning is the only method that sublayers the foamed bitumen
layer assuming different elastic modulus at different depths.
In the development of the TG2 2002 Guidelines method the foamed bitumen layer was treated as a
different, new material and therefore more advanced testing was conducted to understand the
fundamental performance of these mixes (i.e. accelerated full-scale testing). However, the distress
equations were developed using a foamed bitumen layer stabilised with a high (2%) cement
content and low bitumen content (1.8%), which is not the common practice in Australia.
Furthermore, several limitations have been found by practitioners in the distress equations
(Jenkins et al. 2008).
Due to the uncertainty of the performance of the foamed bitumen layers, NZ Transport Agency
adopted a slightly different procedure, which ignores the fatigue of the foamed bitumen layer.
However, the method recommends an elastic modulus based on the observation of foamed
bitumen pavements in New Zealand. Pavement thickness design assumes rutting and shape loss
is the main distress mode.
A different approach was adopted by the knowledge-based South African method, which is the
only empirical method found in the literature. This method also incorporates some practical
aspects that are inexistent in the other mechanistic methods, such as the recommended surface
thickness and the minimum and maximum thickness for the foamed bitumen layer.
In order to compare the design methods from a more practical, objective point of view, a
hypothetical case study was conducted, which involves the design of a foamed bitumen pavement
using the six methods presented above. The study consists of the rehabilitation of an existing
unbound granular pavement using the in situ foamed bitumen stabilisation technique, as described
in the following section.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
30
Table 6.1: Summary of design methods
TG2 2002 TMR City of Canning NZ Transport Agency Knowledge Based
TG2 2009
TRL
Country South Africa Australia Australia New Zealand South Africa United Kingdom
Design models used with South African Mechanistic
Design Method
Austroads design method Austroads design method Austroads design method New knowledge design
method
TRL design method
Observed, collected data
from
APT, laboratory Engineering judgment Flexural beam fatigue tests
and indirect tensile resilient
modulus tests
Observed behaviour of NZ
pavements
APT, design catalogues and
LTTP sections
Not specified
Assumed distress mode Fatigue followed by rutting
of the foamed bitumen layer
(observed)
Fatigue of foamed bitumen
layer (observed in early
failure of pavements)
Fatigue of foamed bitumen
layer. Not observed
Permanent deformation of
subgrade. Not observed
General pavement condition Fatigue
Type of model Mechanistic Mechanistic Mechanistic Mechanistic Empirical Mechanistic
Recommended minimum
thickness
Not specified Not specified Not specified Not specified 100 mm 150 mm
Recommended maximum
thickness
Not specified Not specified Not specified Not specified 350 mm Not specified
Minimum surfacing
requirements
Not specified Sprayed seal for ESA<10
7
HMA is recommended for
ESA>10
7
. HMA thickness is
determined using fatigue life
of asphalt with a minimum
of 40 mm
Generally 30 mm of asphalt. Not specified Sprayed seal for ESA<10
6
3050 mm asphalt for
ESA>10
6
(Figure 4.4)
40100 mm asphalt
depending on the traffic
(Table 5.5)
Minimum subgrade
support
Not specified 5% CBR, based on early
pavement failures
Not specified Not specified Not specified Minimum foundation value
of 50 MPa


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
31
6.2 Case Study
6.2.1 Description of the Example Project
An unbound granular pavement (Figure 6.1) needs to be rehabilitated using in situ foamed bitumen
stabilisation (recycling). The pavement consists of a subgrade layer (CBR 5%), an unbound
granular subbase (250 mm) and an unbound granular base (150 mm). The foamed bitumen
treatment needs to strengthen the pavement for a design traffic loading of 5 x 10
6
ESA. The
design should specify the foamed bitumen thickness and the surface requirements (type,
thickness). For methods that provide for project reliability, the design should be carried out using a
95% confidence level. The Weighted Mean Annual Pavement Temperature (WMAPT) of the site is
25 C.

1
5
0

m
m
2
5
0

m
m
Sprayed Seal
Granular
Subbase
Subgrade
Granular
Base
X

m
m
Surface = ?
Granular
Subbase
Subgrade
Foamed
Bitumen
Base
CBR=5%
5 x 10
6
ESA

Figure 6.1: Pavement rehabilitation case study
6.2.2 TG2 2002 Design
For the South African TG2 2002 Guidelines design method the pavement was modelled in the
linear elastic program mePADS (CSIR 2001). The sprayed seal surface was modelled as a 10 mm
thick basecourse material, following the recommendations of the guidelines. It was assumed a
class material FB3 (Table 2.3), since the cement to bitumen ratio (cem/bit) 1 to 3 (1/3) is more
representative of foamed bitumen mixes used in Australia and New Zealand.
The elastic modulus adopted for the first phase was E = 1100 MPa (Table 2.3). For the second
phase there is not an elastic modulus value recommended in the TG2 2002 Guidelines, and an
arbitrary modulus of 600 MPa was adopted. The elastic modulus of the subbase (150 MPa) was
determined using recommendations of the South African Mechanistic Design Method (Theyse et
al. 1996).
A problem was found during the design of the foamed bitumen pavement using the TG2 2002
Guidelines method. It was found that the second equivalent granular phase equation was very
sensitive to relative density (RD), and if a low RD value was assigned to the foamed bitumen layer,
it was impossible to achieve the traffic design. There is not a recommended RD value in the TG2

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
32
2002 Guidelines for foamed bitumen mixes, therefore, the pavement was calculated for three RD
values: 0.70, 0.75 and 0.80 (Figure 6.2).
0.0E+00
2.5E+06
5.0E+06
7.5E+06
1.0E+07
1.3E+07
1.5E+07
0.68 0.70 0.73 0.75 0.78 0.80 0.83
Relative Density
8
0

k
N

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

A
x
l
e
s
H=200 mm
H=250 mm
H=300 mm
Design Traffic

Figure 6.2: Solution for different relative densities using the South African TG2 2002 design method
The allowable load repetitions of an 80 kN standard axles were calculated for foamed bitumen
layer thicknesses of 200 mm, 250 mm and 300 mm. Results showed that the three pavement
thickness could satisfy the traffic design, depending on the relative density is achieved. For
instance, the thickness of the foamed bitumen layer could be 200 mm if a relative density of 0.786
is achieved, or 300 mm if a relative density of 0.754 is achieved. Representative RD values for
foamed bitumen mixes were searched in the laboratory report of the HVS testing (Long & Theyse
2002) but this value varied widely depending on the bitumen and active filler used. Therefore, the
most conservative layer thickness (300 mm) was assumed as the solution of the TG2 2002
Guidelines method
5
. Details of the calculation are presented in Appendix B.
6.2.3 Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland Design
The assumed elastic modulus of the foamed bitumen layer was E = 2200 MPa. No temperature
correction in the stiffness of the foamed bitumen layer is needed since the WMAPT of the site is
25 C (Table 3.2). The elastic modulus of the subbase was determined using Table 6.4 of the
Austroads (2009). The subbase was sub-layered and considered anisotropic. The subgrade was
considered anisotropic (E
v
= 50 MPa, E
h
= 25 MPa). The elastic characterisation is summarised in
Table 6.2. The structural contribution of the sprayed seal surface was not considered.
The tensile strains at the base of the foamed bitumen under an 80kN standard axle load were
calculated using the linear elastic model CIRCLY (2009). The allowable loading repetitions to
fatigue of the foamed bitumen was calculated from these strains using Equation 5 with V
b
= 7%,

5
The limitations of the TG2 South African Design Method have been discussed and published by South African
researchers (Jenkins et al. 2008).

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
33
S
m
= 2200 MPa following the recommendations provided by the Department of Transport and Main
Roads, Queensland (TMR) method.
The thickness of the foamed bitumen layer is 310 mm. Details of the calculation are presented in
Appendix B.
Table 6.2: Elastic characterisation using TMR method
Layer Thickness (mm) Ev (MPa) Eh (MPa) v
Sprayed seal surface - - - -
Foamed bitumen base 310 2200 2200 0.40
Subbase 18 82 41 0.35
18 74 37 0.35
18 67 34 0.35
18 61 31 0.35
18 55 28 0.35
Subgrade Sem-infinite 50 25 0.45

6.2.4 City of Canning Design
The critical strains in the pavement under a standard axle load were calculated using the linear
elastic model CIRCLY (2009). The sprayed seal surface was not modelled in CIRCLY. The elastic
moduli of the foamed bitumen sub-layers were defined following Table 6 (Leek 2009). The elastic
modulus of the subbase was determined using Table 6.4 of Austroads (2009). The subbase was
sub-layered and considered anisotropic. The subgrade was considered anisotropic (E
v
= 50 MPa,
E
h
= 25 MPa). The elastic characterisation is summarised in Table 6.3.
Table 6.3: Elastic charactersiation for use in the City of Canning method
Foamed bitumen layer 1 96 4300 4300 0.40
Granular subbase 22 93 47 0.35
22 82 41 0.35
22 73 37 0.35
22 64 32 0.35
22 57 28 0.35

The allowable loading in terms of fatigue was calculated from the calculated tensile strains using
the City of Canning fatigue relationship (refer to Section 3.3.2).
The calculated thickness for the foamed bitumen layer is 288 mm. Details of the calculation are
presented in Appendix B.

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
34
6.2.5 NZ Transport Agency Design
The foamed bitumen layer was modelled as anisotropic (E
v
= 800, E
h
= 400 MPa) with no
sub-layering. The subbase was sub-layered and considered anisotropic. The subgrade was
anisotropic (E
v
= 50 MPa, E
h
= 25 MPa). The structural contribution of the sprayed seal surface
was not considered.
The elastic characterisation is summarised in Table 7.1.
The critical strains in the pavement under an 80 kN standard axle load were calculated using the
linear elastic model CIRCLY (2009).
As this design method does not consider fatigue of foamed bitumen, the allowable loading in terms
of permanent deformation was estimated from the vertical compressive strain on top of subgrade
and Equation 7.
The thickness of the foamed bitumen layer is 220 mm. Details of the calculation are presented in
Appendix B.
Table 6.4: NZ Transport Agency elastic characterisation
Foamed bitumen base 220 800 400 0.30
Granular subbase 39 135 68 0.35
39 110 55 0.35
39 91 46 0.35
39 74 37 0.35
39 61 31 0.35

6.2.6 Transportation Research Laboratory (TRL) Design
For 5 x 10
6
ESA the rehabilitated road classifies as category 2 (between 0.5 x 10
6
and 10 x 10
6
,
see Table 5.1). The foundation class corresponding to 50 MPa (CBR = 5%) is class 1, however,
the remaining subbase layer below the foamed bitumen layer will contribute to an increase in this
support value. Therefore, the foundation class for the current pavement rehabilitation design
should lie between class 1 and 2.
Because the classification of the foamed bitumen mixes is not known, and because of the
simplicity of this design method, the design of the pavement rehabilitation was carried out for the
three zones of bitumen mixes (B1, B2 and B3, Table 5.3).
Using the design traffic loading, the thickness of the foamed bitumen layer was determined from
the design guide charts (similar to Figure 5.2) for foundation class 1 and 2. The design was
considered as the average of the two thicknesses, since the foundation is between class 1 and 2.
The same procedure was applied for the three zones of bitumen mixes (B1, B2 and B3). Details
of the calculations are presented in Appendix B and the solutions for the tree zones in Table 6.2.
The three treatments required an asphalt surface thickness of 50 mm, which is the minimum
surface thickness recommended for road type 2 categories (Table 5.5).

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
35
Table 6.5: Rehabilitation treatment using the TRL method
Layer Material zone
B1 B2 B3
Asphalt surface (mm) 50 50 50
Foamed bitumen base (mm) 320 300 290
Subbase (mm) 80 100 110

6.2.7 Knowledge-based TG2 2009 Design
For 5 x 10
6
ESA the pavement number (PN) required by the knowledge-based design method is
approximately 23, determined using the 95% reliability curve presented in Figure 4.3. The stiffness
for a CBR 5% subgrade is 60 MPa using CSIR South African relationships (Paterson 1978).
Assuming moderate climate conditions and a cover below 500 mm, the calculated subgrade ELTS
is 44 MPa (= 60 x 0.9 - 10 MPa).
By definition, the PN consists of the sum of the load spreading contributions of four pavement
layers above the subgrade. However, the proposed solution (asphalt layer, foamed bitumen layer
and subbase) has only three layers above the subgrade. In that case, the method recommends
adding an additional fourth layer by subdividing the top of the subgrade into two layers, the upper
layer with a thickness of 100 mm. The material class assigned to this new fourth sub-layer should
be that of the subgrade.
Although a design was sought for both BSM1 and BSM2 materials, the relatively weak support
assumed in the case study was not sufficient to deliver a feasible solution for BSM2. BSM1
required a thick asphalt surface (90 mm) plus a 320 mm foam bitumen layer to attain a PN of 23.
Since BSM2 is a weaker material, the required asphalt surface had to be increased up to 150 mm,
which exceeds the maximum recommended thickness for the hot mix asphalt layer (see
Section 4.4.1). Details of the calculation are presented in Appendix B.
Table 6.6: Solutions using the knowledge-based TG2 2009 method
Layer Material zone
BSM1 BSM2
6

Hot mix asphalt (mm) 90 150
Foamed bitumen base (mm) 320 350
Subbase (mm) 80 50
Subgrade - -

6
This material class gives a hot mix asphalt surface thickness that exceeds the maximum recommended thickness, and
therefore was not considered as a solution in the rehabilitation design.

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
36
6.2.8 Summary of Designs and Discussion
A summary of the results for all design methods is presented in Figure 6.3.
3
0
0
3
1
0
2
8
8 2
2
0
3
2
0
3
0
0
2
9
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
9
0
3
2
0
TG2 QDMR
City of
Canning
TNZ
TRL
(B1)
Knowledge
(BSM1)
TRL
(B2)
TRL
(B3)
CBR 5%
CBR 5%
4
0
0
4
0
0
Asphalt
Foamed
bitumen
Existing
Subbase
Surface Seal

Figure 6.3: Summary of pavement thicknesses (millimetres) for all design methods

The figure shows that most of the thicknesses of the foamed bitumen layers are close to 300 mm.
The TG2 2002 Guidelines design method also gives a 300 mm thickness for the foamed bitumen
layer; however, it was found that this value is highly sensitive to the relative density (RD) of the
foamed bitumen mix. For instance, if the same 300 mm thickness is assumed but if relative
density increases from 0.75 to 0.80, the allowed loading increases from 5 x 10
6
ESA to 12.5 x 10
7

ESA. Conversely, if a RD = 0.70 is achieved, this value decreases to 2.0 x 10
6
ESA. Another
important observation on this design method is made on Equation 2 (permanent deformation of the
foamed bitumen layer). In this equation there is a power relationship between the number of
admissible load repetitions (N
PD,FB
) and the cement to bitumen ratio (cem/bit). The proposed
relationship indicates that an increase in the foamed bitumen content for a constant cement

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
37
content, decreases the number of admissible load repetitions for the foamed bitumen layer. For
instance, a mix with 1% cement with 1% foamed bitumen (cem/bit = 1.0) would have a better
resistance to permanent deformation than a mix with 1% cement and 2% foamed bitumen (cem/bit
= 0.5). This contradicts the observed behaviour in the recently completed full-scale testing of
foamed bitumen pavements conducted by the NZ Transport Agency, in which better performance
was observed in pavements with higher foamed bitumen contents, for a constant cement content
of 1% (Gonzalez et al. in press). The deficiencies found in the TG2 2002 Guidelines method have
also been discussed by South African researchers (Jenkins et al. 2008).
The pavement methods assuming behaviour of foamed bitumen mixes similar to those of hot mix
asphalt mixes (TMR and TRL) yield similar foamed bitumen layer thicknesses (between 290 mm to
310 mm), indicating a consistency in the distress equations for these methods within the studied
strain range. The City of Canning design procedure yields a slightly thinner thickness but within
the same range (288 mm), since the fatigue relationship reported by Leek (2009) is similar to that
used by the TMR (Figure 3.1) but the assumed elastic moduli are higher leading to lower tensile
strains at the bottom of the stabilised layer.
The NZ Transport Agency method produced a significantly lower foamed bitumen thickness
(220 mm), primarily because fatigue of foamed bitumen is not recognised as a distress mode.
Despite the low thickness, the NZ Transport Agency procedure was found conservative when
foamed bitumen pavements were tested under accelerated loading in the full-scale testing of
foamed bitumen pavements conducted by the NZ Transport Agency (Gonzalez et al. in press).
The knowledge-based TG2 2009 method provided the most conservative solutions, since a
foamed bitumen layer thickness of 320 was required, plus an additional thick asphalt layer
(90 mm). The thick asphalt layer was needed to attain the design pavement number (PN), since
the thickness of the foamed bitumen and unbound subbase layers (400 mm) did not yield the
minimum required PN value of 23. However, it is important to notice that this design method is
currently under development, and only a limited number of foamed bitumen sections have been
incorporated into the knowledge-based data set.
Although the design methods provide different solutions, it is recommended as an interim solution
the design of foamed bitumen pavements using the fatigue equation adopted by TMR. Details of
the interim design method are presented in the following section.

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
38
7 INTERIM PROCEDURE FOR THE THICKNESS DESIGN OF
FOAMED BITUMEN PAVEMENTS
7.1 Introduction
As an interim measure, it is recommended that foamed bitumen stabilised layers be designed as a
bound pavement layer using the Austroads (2009) asphalt fatigue relationship for asphalt with
appropriate moduli and volume of bitumen binder. The proposed interim design procedure
assumes the stabilisation treatment results in sufficient residual bitumen to produce a bound layer
with significant tensile strength. Usually a minimum of 3% residual bitumen is required to produce
a bound foamed bitumen pavement. The interim method is applicable to either in situ stabilised
(recycled) pavements or foamed bitumen mixes prepared in plant.
Details of the proposed interim design procedure are given in Appendix C. An example of the
design procedure is presented in Appendix D. The proposed design procedure should be used
with the Austroads Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2 (Austroads 2010).
The elastic characterisation of foamed bitumen mixes is similar to that of asphalt. However,
foamed bitumen mixes should attain minimum stiffness values immediately after construction and
in the medium to long term period, to minimise the risk of rutting (Jones & Ramanujam 2008). This
issue is discussed in Section 7.2.
In addition, procedures need to be developed to adjust the measured indirect tensile moduli for the
effect of temperature and loading rate. The technical basis of these new interim procedures is
described in Section 7.3 and Section 7.4.
7.2 Minimum Stiffness Requirements
Foamed bitumen stabilised pavements have shown to be susceptible to premature rutting early in
their life. This risk is minimised by ensuring the initial modulus of the stabilised material is greater
than the indicative values provided in Table 7.1. The indirect tensile modulus is measured
following AS 2891.13.1-1995 (Standards Australia 1995). According to AS 2891.13.1-1995,
specimens should be prepared using gyratory compaction (AS 2891.2.2). However, preparation of
foamed bitumen mixes using Marshall Compaction is also accepted if this method is used for the
compaction of hot mix asphalt or gyratory compactor is not available.
These values assume the pavement will be opened to traffic within three hours of compaction
being completed. Where the trafficking arrangements differ from this, the minimum laboratory
curing time and modulus values suggested in Table 7.1 may require adjustment to reflect actual
construction practice. The initial modulus is measured after three hours of air-drying at 25 C
( 5 C).
Table 7.1: Minimum mix design limits for initial modulus
Average daily ESA in design
year of opening
Initial modulus (MPa)
< 100 500
100 700


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
39
Following the initial modulus testing being completed, the test specimens are air-dried in the oven
for 72 hours at 40 C. This temperature regime is aimed at simulating the medium term (3 to 6
months) stiffness properties of the stabilised layer. The modulus is measured following
AS 2891.13.1-1995 (Standards Australia 1995).
To ensure the foamed bitumen stabilised pavements are structurally sound in the medium to longer
term, laboratory test specimens (at the design binder content) should comply with the requirements
listed in Table 7.2 when used as a base, or Table 7.3 when used as a subbase.
Table 7.2: Minimum mix design limits for dry modulus for foamed bitumen base
Minimum dry modulus
(MPa)
Minimum soaked
modulus (MPa)
Minimum retained
modulus ratio
< 100 2500 1500 40%
1001000 3000 1800 45%
> 1000 4000 2000 50%

Table 7.3: Minimum mix design limits for dry modulus for foamed bitumen subbase
Minimum dry modulus
(MPa)
Minimum soaked
modulus (MPa)
Minimum retained
modulus ratio
< 100 2500 1500 40%
1001000 2500 1500 45%
> 1000 2500 1500 50%

7.3 Temperature Adjustment
Where the in-service pavement temperature (WMAPT) differs from the temperature at which the
laboratory indirect tensile resilient modulus is measured (25 C), the measured modulus needs to
be adjusted to the in-service temperature. This section describes how the temperature correction
method was developed.
Leek (2001) conducted several indirect tensile resilient modulus tests at different temperatures
(between 20 C and 35 C), on cored specimens extracted from foamed bitumen pavements in the
City of Canning. The original pavement before rehabilitation normally consisted of:
a thin asphalt surface (or also called reclaimed asphalt pavement, RAP)
a granular base
a granular subbase.
The foamed bitumen content used in the rehabilitation ranged from 3.1% to 4.2%, and quick lime
was used as active filler (between 0.5% and 1.5%). The RAP content was about 10-15% of the
total mass of the foamed bitumen mix.
Details of the measurements are listed in Table 7.4. The indirect tensile resilient modulus tests
were also conducted at different load rise times (between 25 ms and 100 ms), which were used to
develop the load rate adjustment factor discussed in Section 7.4. Although these moduli are very

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
40
high compared to common design moduli, they were utilised to develop the temperature and
loading rate adjustments.
Table 7.4: Effect of temperature on indirect tensile resilient modulus test
Temperature (C) Rise time (ms) Modulus (MPa)
20 25 13 348
25 25 12 122
35 25 9 403
20 30 12 982
25 30 11 826
35 30 9 089
20 50 11 956
25 50 10 997
35 50 8 208
20 75 11 141
25 75 10 340
35 75 7 508
20 100 10 564
25 100 9 873
35 100 7 012

This data were normalised and expressed in exponential form in Equation 10:

Modulus at WMAPT
= exp(-0.025[WMAPT-T]) 10
Modulus at test temperature (T)
where
WMAPT = Weighted Mean Annual Pavement Temperature (C)
T = Temperature of indirect tensile resilient modulus test (C).
In California, Fu and Harvey (2007) performed a temperature sensitivity study on a rehabilitated
pavement using foamed bitumen recycling. The original structure before rehabilitation contained
conventional HMA with a nominal thickness of 150 mm. The existing asphalt concrete layer was
recycled with some existing weathered granite subgrade to produce a foamed bitumen treated
layer 200 mm thick, which was overlaid with 37 mm of asphalt concrete, hence the RAP content of
the mix was approximately 75% of the total mass. The nominal Portland cement and bitumen
contents were 1.0% and 2.5%, respectively. FWD testing was carried after one year (2003) and
three years (2005) of rehabilitation at different pavement temperatures. The stiffness of the
foamed bitumen layer was back-calculated using FWD data. The relationship between subsurface
temperature at 150 mm depth and the back-calculated foamed bitumen mix resilient modulus in
2003 is shown in Figure 7.1 a; the results for 2005 are plotted in Figure 7.1 b. Data from both
years show a trend of decreasing foamed bitumen stiffness with increasing temperature. In the

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
41
2003 data, this trend appears to plateau at temperatures lower than 22 C. In the 2005 data, there
are no data for which the subsurface temperature is below 22 C.

Source: Fu and Harvey (2007).
Figure 7.1: Relation between subsurface temperature (at 150 mm deep) and back-calculated foamed bitumen mix (with
2.5% foamed bitumen and 1% cement) resilient modulus: (a) for 2003 data (b) for 2005 data
Fu and Harvey found an equation to express the temperature sensitivity (Equation 11):

) ( 10 ) (
) (
0
0
T M T M
r
T T
r
=
o

11
where
M
r
(T
0
) = resilient modulus at reference temperature T
0
(MPa)
M
r
(T) = resilient modulus at temperature T (MPa)
o = temperature coefficient (1/C).
The temperature sensitivity coefficient for the 2003 data is 0.03 1/C from regression when the
material temperature is higher than 22 C, and it is assumed that the foamed bitumen mix has
approximately constant stiffness at temperatures below 22 C. The temperature sensitivity
coefficient for the 2005 data is 0.0164 1/C.

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
42
Equation 11 was converted to an exponential relationship consistent with Equation 10 as given in
Equation 12.

Modulus at WMAPT
= exp(-|[WMAPT-T]) 12
where
| = 0.069 after one year of construction, 0.038 after three years of construction
The three set of data are summarised in Figure 7.2, which depicts the variation of modulus with
WMAPT. The temperature adjustment curve for hot mix asphalt (Austroads 2010) is also included
in the figure for comparison.
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Weighted Mean Annual Pavement Temperature (C)
Modulus at WMAPT
Modulus at 25 C
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
i
t
y

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
s

w
i
t
h

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

i
n

t
h
e

r
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
b
i
t
u
m
e
n

c
o
n
t
e
n
t
Using indirect tensile resilient modulus
tests in the City of Canning (pavements
with ~10-15% RAP) and 3.1-4.2% foamed
bitumen content (Leek 2001)
Using FWD data after three years of
construction in California. Pavement
with ~75% RAP and 2.5% bitumen
content (Fu & Harvey 2007)
Hot Mix Asphalt
curve, Austroads
(2010)
Using FWD data after one year of
construction in California.
Pavement with ~75% RAP and
2.5% bitumen content (Fu &
Harvey 2007)

Figure 7.2: Variation of modulus at weighted mean annual pavement temperature (WMAPT) from Leek (2001) laboratory
tests and Fu and Harvey (2007) FWD data
The figure shows that laboratory measurements conducted on the City of Canning pavement cores
are less sensitive to temperature than California measurements. This higher temperature
sensitivity is probably caused by the higher reclaimed asphalt content (RAP) in the California
rehabilitated pavement (approximately 75% of the foamed bitumen mix, by mass). In the City of
Canning pavements, the RAP content was approximately 10-15% of the foamed bitumen mix
(Leek 2001), hence the residual bitumen content and the temperature sensitivity of the mix is

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
43
comparatively lower. Conversely a HMA is more sensitive to temperature as depicted in
Figure 7.2.
Since thin asphalt pavements are more common in Australia, |=0.025 (Equation 12) should be
used in most cases.
7.4 Rate of Loading Adjustment
Where the in-service rate of loading (traffic speed) differs from the rate of loading at which the
laboratory indirect tensile resilient modulus is measured (25 C), the measured modulus needs to
be adjusted to the in-service heavy vehicle traffic speed. This section describes how the rate of
loading adjustment was developed.
Leek (2001) performed indirect tensile resilient modulus tests using different load rates (from
25 ms to 100 ms rise time), in the cored specimens used for the temperature sensitivity study
(Section 7.3). Details of Leek (2001) measurements were listed in Table 7.4.
In the analysis of the results it was assumed that a rise time of 40 ms is equivalent to an in-service
traffic speed of 94.6 km/h, consistent with that for asphalt (Austroads 2010). Using this
equivalency and assuming traffic speed is inversely proportional to rise time, Leeks data was then
used to determine the variation in modulus versus traffic speed. From this relationship, the relative
modulus versus traffic speed relationship was determined as indicated in Figure 7.3 and
Equation 13:
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Design speed (km/h)
E at in-service speed
E at 40 ms rise time

Figure 7.3: Variation of ratio of modulus at vehicle speed V to modulus from standard indirect tensile test (40 ms rise
time) with design speed

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
44

Modulus at speed V
= 0.46V
0.16
13
Modulus at 40 ms rise time loading rate
where
V = heavy vehicle design speed (km/h).
7.5 Fatigue Criteria
In the interim design procedure the foamed bitumen stabilised layer is designed as a bound layer
and the allowable loading in terms of fatigue adapted from the Austroads (2010) asphalt fatigue
relationship with appropriate foamed bitumen moduli and volume of bituminous binder.

( )
5
36 . 0
856 . 0 08 . 1 6918
(
+
=
c
mix
b
S
V
N
14
where
V
b
= percentage by volume of bitumen in the foamed bitumen layer (normally
between 6% and 8%)

S
mix
= foamed bitumen mix modulus, measured using the indirect tensile resilient
modulus test (MATTA testing) on soak specimens and corrected by
temperature (Section 3.2.2)

load (microstrain).

7.6 Minimum Surface Requirements
Based on the literature review and local practice adopted in Australia, for design traffic below 10
7

ESA either a sprayed seal or hot mix asphalt can be used. However, high loadings may result in
embedment of a sprayed seal aggregate and therefore appropriate measures should be
considered. Where design traffic exceeds 10
7
ESA and the performance risk of a sprayed seal is
considered unacceptable, a minimum of 30-40 mm hot mix asphalt layer is recommended.

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
45
8 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Six different design methods for foamed bitumen pavements have been presented in this report.
The methods presented were:
TG2 2002 Guidelines (South Africa)
Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland (TMR, Australia)
City of Canning (Australia)
NZ Transport Agency (New Zealand)
Transportation Research Laboratory (TRL, United Kingdom)
Knowledge-based TG2 2009 Guidelines (South Africa).
8.1 Review of Design Methods
The first five sections of the report reviewed the basis of each pavement design method. Based on
this review, the following conclusions are drawn:
The pavement design methods for foamed bitumen pavements have been developed using a
wide range of assumptions, data and distress modes.
The TG2 2002 Guidelines method was developed using data from a full-scale accelerated
testing of pavement sections, plus extensive laboratory work. However, the distress models
were developed using a foamed bitumen layer stabilised with a high cement content (higher
than the foamed bitumen content), which is not the common practice in Australia and New
Zealand.
The full-scale data used for the development of the TG2 2002 Guidelines method suggests
that foamed bitumen pavements behave in two separate phases. The first phase starts after
construction, when the layer is in an intact, undamaged condition and provides fatigue
resistance. This phase is called effective fatigue phase and ends when, due to the applied
loading, the layer reduces its stiffness. The second phase is called equivalent granular state,
because the stiffness of the foamed bitumen layer is similar to that of a good quality granular
base. The assumed distress modes of the first and second phase are fatigue and permanent
deformation, respectively. The critical response parameter for the effective fatigue phase is
the maximum horizontal strain at the bottom of the foamed bitumen layer while the critical
response for the equivalent granular state are the major and minor principal stresses at
different locations of the layer. The distress equations are used as part of the South African
Mechanistic Design Method.
The TMR adopted the Austroads asphalt fatigue relationship for the foamed bitumen layer.
The asphalt fatigue relationship takes into account the volumetric properties of the mix, the
stiffness measured in the indirect tensile resilient modulus test and the tensile strain at the
bottom of the foamed bitumen layer. The method assumes that fatigue is the primary
distress mode, based on field observations in Queensland. However, the deterioration
observed in the field might be related to early failures and does not necessarily represent the
long-term performance of foamed bitumen pavements. The fatigue relationship is used as
part of the Austroads design method.

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
46
The City of Canning developed a fatigue relationship for foamed bitumen layers using data
from flexural beams prepared and compacted in the field and tested in the laboratory. It was
found that the fatigue relationship is independent of the stiffness of the mixes. The results of
the laboratory testing yielded similar results to that of the TMR fatigue relationship. The City
of Canning fatigue relationship for foamed bitumen is used as part of the Austroads design
method.
The NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) design procedure argues that fatigue relationships are too
conservative and do not represent the behaviour observed in New Zealand foamed bitumen
pavements. Pavement designers in New Zealand consider the foamed bitumen layer as an
unbound granular layer and consider the Austroads subgrade strain criterion only. The
method recommends an elastic modulus of 800 MPa (anisotropic, no sub-layering) for the
modelling of the elastic properties of the foamed bitumen layer. The pavement thickness is
calculated by reducing the vertical compressive strain at the top of the subgrade to the value
obtained by the Austroads subgrade strain criteria.
The TRL method assumes that foamed bitumen mixes behave similarly to hot mix asphalt
mixes, hence fatigue is the assumed distress mode. The method is based on tables and
charts that classify subgrade, traffic and foamed bitumen type. These assumptions are
mainly based on engineering judgment.
A different approach was adopted by the knowledge-based TG2 2009 South African
method, which is the only empirical method found in the review. The method is based on a
pavement number (PN) that is calculated by multiplying the expected long-term stiffness of
each layer with the respective thickness of the layer. The stiffness of the layers is corrected
by other design factors such as the total pavement thickness above the subgrade, the
position of the layer within the pavement structure, and the stiffness of the underlying layer.
The knowledge-based method also incorporates some practical aspects that are inexistent in
other mechanistic methods, such as the recommended surface thickness and the minimum
and maximum thickness for the foamed bitumen layer. The relationship between the PN and
the pavement performance was calibrated using data from South African pavement design
catalogues, full-scale accelerated testing and long-term performance of pavements.
8.2 Comparison of Pavement Designs
In order to compare the design methods from a more practical, objective point of view, a
hypothetical case study was conducted as part of the review, which involved the design of a
foamed bitumen pavement using the six design methods. The case study consisted in the
rehabilitation of an existing unbound granular pavement using in situ foamed bitumen stabilisation
technique. The pavement design was carried out using the six design methods showed that:
The TG2 2002 Guidelines method was found to be very sensitive to one of the inputs of the
equivalent granular state distress model (i.e. relative density). In addition, it was found that
this distress model provides unexpected outputs that contradict observed behaviour in
recently completed full-scale testing of foamed bitumen pavements.
The pavement methods that assume behaviour of foamed bitumen mixes to be similar to that
of hot mix asphalt mixes (TMR and TRL) yield similar foamed bitumen layer thicknesses
(between 290 mm to 310 mm), indicating consistency between assumptions and outputs.
The City of Canning design procedure yields a slightly thinner thickness (288 mm) to those
given by the TMR method, but within the same range, because the fatigue relationship
developed by the City of Canning is similar to that used by the TMR but the assumed
stiffness of the foamed bitumen layer is higher.

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
47
The less conservative pavement thickness was given by the NZ Transport Agency design
procedure (220 mm), because the distress of the foamed bitumen layer was ignored in the
pavement design process. The Austroads subgrade strain criterion was considered for the
pavement design only.
The knowledge-based TG2 2009 method provided the most conservative solution, in which a
thick asphalt layer (90 mm) was required in addition to the foamed bitumen layer. However,
this design method is currently under development, and only a limited number of foamed
bitumen sections have been incorporated into the knowledge-based data set.
Although the design methods provide different pavement thickness, it is recommended as an
interim solution the design of foamed bitumen pavements using the fatigue equation adopted
by TMR.
8.3 Recommendations
Based on the review conducted in this report, it is recommended to adopt the asphalt fatigue
relationship for the design of foamed bitumen pavements.
The foamed bitumen layer should be considered isotropic and sublayering should not be applied in
this layer. The assumed Poissons ratio is 0.40.
Due to the complexities involved in estimating the long term stiffness of the foamed bitumen layer,
the recommended method for determining the design modulus is as follows:
determine the indirect tensile resilient modulus in soaked specimens, following
AS 2891.13.1-1995 (Standards Australia 1995)
adjust the modulus for pavement temperature
adjust the modulus for load rate (vehicle speed).
Based on the literature review and local practice adopted in Australia, for design traffic below 10
7

ESA either a sprayed seal or hot mix asphalt can be used. However, high loadings may result in
embedment of a spray seal aggregate and therefore appropriate measures should be considered.
Where design traffic exceeds 10
7
ESA and the performance risk of a sprayed seal is considered
unacceptable, a minimum of 30-40 mm hot mix asphalt layer is recommended.
The interim thickness design procedure detailed in the document should be used pending further
research.

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
48
REFERENCES
AASHTO 1993, Guide for design of pavement structures, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, USA.
Asphalt Academy 2002, The design and use of foamed bitumen treated materials: interim technical
guidelines, technical guide no.TG2, Asphalt Academy, Pretoria, South Africa.
Austroads 2009, Guide to pavement technology part 5: pavement evaluation and treatment design,
AGPT05/08, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2010, Guide to pavement technology: part 2: pavement structural design, AGPT02/10, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Baltzer,S, Ertman-Larson, H, Lukanen, E & Stubstad, R 1994, Prediction of AC mat temperature for routine
load/deflection measurements, International conference on the bearing capacity of roads and airfields,
4
th
Minneapolis, Minnesota, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA pp 401-12.
Browne, A 2008, Foamed bitumen stabilisation in New Zealand: a performance review and lessons learnt,
Recycling and stabilisation conference, Auckland, New Zealand, New Zealand Institute of Highway
Technology (NZIHT), Wellington, NZ.
Committee of Land Transport Officials (COLTO) 1996, Technical recommendations for highways: structural
design of interurban and rural road pavements, technical recommendations for highways TRH4,
Department of Transport, Pretoria, South Africa.
CSIR 2001, Pavement analysis and design software, CSIR Transportek, Pretoria, South Africa.
Frobel, T & Hallet, T 2008, Foamed bitumen stabilisation in New Zealand: projects, dos and donts,
performance, Recycling and stabilisation conference, 2008, Auckland, New Zealand, New Zealand
Institute of Highway Technology (NZIHT), Wellington, NZ, 31 pp.
Fu, P & Harvey, J 2007, Temperature sensitivity of foamed asphalt mix stiffness: field and lab study,
International Journal of Pavement Engineering, vol. 8, no. 2, pp 137-45.
Gonzalez, A, Cubrinovski, M, Pidwerbesky, B & Alabaster, D 2009, Full-scale experiment on foam bitumen
pavements in CAPTIF accelerated testing facility, Transportation Research Record, no. 2094, pp. 21-
9.
Jameson, GW & Hopman, PC 2000, Development of relationships between laboratory loading rate and traffic
speed, APRG document 00/16, Austroads Pavement Research Group, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Jenkins, K 2000, Mix design considerations for cold and half-warm bituminous mixes with emphasis on
foamed bitumen, PhD dissertation, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa.
Jenkins, K, Collings, D & Jooste, F 2008, TG2: The design and use of foamed bitumen treated materials:
shortcomings and imminent revisions, Recycling and stabilisation conference, Auckland, New
Zealand, New Zealand Institute of Highway Technology, Wellington, NZ, 16 pp.
Jones, J & Ramanujam, JM 2004, Rehabilitation of unbound granular pavements using foamed bitumen
stabilisation, International symposium on unbound granular aggregates in roads, 6
th
, Nottingham,
United Kingdom, Balkema, Leiden, Netherlands, pp. 301-10.

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
49
Jones, J & Ramanujam, J 2008, Design of foamed bitumen stabilised pavements, Queensland Department
of Main Roads, Brisbane, Qld.
Jooste, F & Long, F 2007, A knowledge-based structural design method for pavements incorporating
bitumen stabilized materials, Gauteng Department of Public Transport, Roads and Works & SABITA,
Pretoria, South Africa.
Leek, C 2001, In situ foamed bitumen stabilisation: the City of Canning experience, ARRB Transport
Research conference, 20th, 2001, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, ARRB Transport Research, Vermont
South, Vic.
Leek, C 2009, Review of the performance of in-situ foamed bitumen stabilised pavements, City of Canning,
Victoria, Australia.
Leek, C 2010, Review of the performance of insitu foamed bitumen stabilised pavements in the City of
Canning, Australian road engineering and maintenance conference, 5th, 2010, Melbourne, Victoria,
Australia, Hallmark Editions, Melbourne, Vic.
Long, F 2001, The development of structural design models for foamed bitumen treated layers, CSIR
Transportek, Pretoria, South Africa.
Long, F & Theyse, H 2002, Laboratory testing for the HVS sections road P243/1, Gauteng Department of
Public Transport and Public Works, Pretoria, South Africa, viewed 2 May 2011, http://www.gautrans-
hvs.co.za/popup/CR-2001_32.pdf.
Long, F & Ventura, D 2004, Laboratory testing for the HVS test sections on the N7 (TR11/1). Gauteng
Department of Public Transport and Public Works, Pretoria, South Africa, viewed 2 May 2011,
http://www.gautrans-hvs.co.za/popup/CR_2003_56/CR_2003_56,N7%20lab%20report,%20FINAL.pdf.
Merrill, D, Nunn, M & Carswell, I 2004, A guide to the use and specification of cold recycled materials for the
maintenance of road pavements, report no. 611, Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, UK.
Mincad Systems 2009, Circly manual, MINCAD Systems, Richmond South, Vic.
Nunn, D 2004, Development of a more versatile approach to flexible and flexible composite pavement
design, report no. 615, Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, UK.
Paterson, WDL 1978, Background supplement to draft TRH4 (1978), technical report RP/6/78, National
Institute for Transport and Road Research, Pretoria, South Africa.
Queensland Department of Main Roads 2009, Pavement design manual. Supplement to Part 2 Pavement
Structural Design of the Austroads Guide to Pavement Technology, Brisbane, Qld.
Standards Australia 1995, Methods of sampling and testing asphalt, method 12.1: determination of the
resilient modulus of asphalt: indirect tensile method, AS 2891.13.1:1995, SA, North Sydney, NSW.
Theyse, H, de Beer, M & Rust, F 1996, Overview of the South African mechanistic pavement design analysis
method, CSIR Transportek, Pretoria, South Africa.
New Zealand Transport Agency 2007, New Zealand supplement to the Austroads pavement design guide,
NZTA, Wellington, NZ.
Uzan, J 1985, Characterization of granular material, Transportation Research Record, no. 1022, 1985, pp.
52-9.

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
50
APPENDIX A ADJUSTMENT FACTORS FOR THE
TG2 2009 THICKNESS DESIGN METHOD
Table A 1: Stiffness determination for subgrade
Design equivalent material
class for subgrade
Stiffness value (MPa)
G6 or better 180
G7 140
G8 100
G9 90
G10 70
Table A 2: Climate adjustment factors
Climate Stiffness value (MPa)
Wet 0.6
Moderate 0.9
Dry 1.0
Table A 3: Adjustment of subgrade stiffness
Cover thickness (mm) Correction (in MPa)
> 800 + 10 MPa
< 500 -10 MPa
Else = -10 + [(Cover 500)/300 ] * 20


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
51
Table A 4: Modular ratio limit and maximum allowed stiffness for pavement layers
General material description Design equivalent
material class
Modular ratio limit Maximum allowed
stiffness (MPa)
Base confidence
factor
Hot mix asphalt (HMA) surfacing and base
material
AG, AC, AS, AO 5.0 3500 1.0
Surface seals S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S5 2.0 800 N/A
High strength bitumen stabilised material,
normally using crushed stone or reclaimed
asphalt pavement (RAP) source material
BSM1 3.0 600 1.0
Medium strength bitumen stabilised
material, normally using crushed stone or
RAP source material
BSM2 2.0 450 0.7
Crushed stone material G1 2.0 700 1.1
G2 1.9 500 0.8
G3 1.8 400 0.7
Natural gravel G4 1.8 375 0.2
G5 1.8 320 0.1
G6 1.8 180 -2.0
Gravel-soil blend G7 1.7 140 -2.5
G8 1.6 100 -3.0
G9 1.4 90 -4.0
G10 1.2 70 -5.0
Cement stabilised crushed stone C1 and C2 9 1500 0.8
Cement stabilised natural gravel C3 4 550 0.6
C4 3 400 0.4

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
52
APPENDIX B DETAILS OF THE THICKNESS DESIGN OF
B.1 TG2 2002 Pavement Design Method
A. Initial pavement

Thickness (mm) Ev (MPa) v

Surface - - -

Base 150 350 0.35

Subbase 250 250 0.35

Subgrade - 50 0.35

B. Rehabilitated pavement

Phase 1 Thickness (mm) Ev (MPa) v

Surface 10 1 100 0.35
Base 250 1 100 0.35 Note 1
Subbase 150 150 0.35
Subgrade - 50 0.35
Phase 2 Thickness (mm) Ev (MPa) v

Surface 10 600 0.35

Base 250 600 0.35

Subbase 150 150 0.35

Subgrade - - 0.35

C. Loads

ESA 5 000 000

Radius (mm) 92.1

Stress (MPa) 0.75

X1 (mm) -165

Y1 (mm) 0

X2 (mm) 165

Y2 (mm) 0

X3 (mm) 1 635

Y3 (mm) 0

X4 (mm) 1 965

Y4 (mm) 0

D. Reliability

R 95%


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
53
E. Calculation (H=200 mm) (H=250 mm) (H=300 mm)
E Phase 1 (MPa) 1 100 1 100 1 100 Note 2
eb (e) 490 490 490
e (e) 275 213 171
N_Phase1 874 285 1 074 575 1 235 727
E Phase 2 (MPa) 600 600 600
Cohesion (kPa) 120 120 120
Friction angle (degree) 45 45 45
RD 0.80 0.80 0.80 Note 3
PS 18.00 18.00 18.00
sm1 290 224 182

sm3 0 0 0

SR 0.50 0.39 0.31

Cem/bitumen 0.33 0.33 0.33

N_Phase2 5 605 121 8 590 697 11 272 956

E_Total 6 479 406 9 665 272 12 508 683

F. Notes

1 An FB3 material class is assumed, because this material class was defined using a mix with 3% FB and 1% cement, which is more
representative of Australian pavement mixes than FB2 (1.8% FB and 2% cement).
2 Value provided in TG2 2002 Guidelines, Table B3.
3 This value was arbitrarily adopted.

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
54
B.2 TMR Design Method
A. Initial pavement
Thickness mm) Ev (MPa) Eh (MPa) v f
Surface - - - - -
Base 150 350 175 0.35 259.3
Subbase 250 250 125 0.35 185.2
Subgrade - 50 25 0.45 37.0

Thickness (mm) Ev (MPa) Eh (MPa) v
Surface - - - -
Base 310 2 200 - 0.40
Subbase 18 82 41 0.35 Note 1
18 74 37 0.35
18 67 34 0.35
18 61 31 0.35
18 55 28 0.35
Subgrade - 50 25 0.45

C. Loads
ESA 5 000 000
Radius (mm) 92.1
Stress (MPa) 0.75
X1 (mm) -165
Y1 (mm) 0
X2 (mm) 165
Y2 (mm) 0
X3 (mm) 1 635
Y3 (mm) 0
X4 (mm) 1 965
Y4 (mm) 0

D. Reliability
R 95%
Multiplier for FB 1.0
Multiplier for Subgrade 1.6

E. Notes
1 This value was corrected applying Evertical_max (top of the layer) from Table 6.4 in the Austroads Guide (Austroads 2010). However, the
final thin subbase (approximately 90 mm) yields an Evertical_max smaller than Evertical_max = 150 MPa because the thickness is not
enough to attain this value.

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
55
B.3 City of Canning Design Method
A. Initial pavement
Thickness (mm) Ev (MPa) Eh (MPa) v f
Surface - - - - -
Base 150 350 175 0.35 259.3
Subbase 250 250 125 0.35 185.2
Subgrade - 50 25 0.45 37.0

Thickness (mm) Ev (MPa) Eh (MPa) v
Surface - - - -
FB Layer 1 96 4 300 - 0.40
FB Layer 2 96 3 600 - 0.40
FB Layer 3 96 2 600 - 0.40
Subbase 22 93 47 0.35 Note 1
22 82 41 0.35
22 73 36 0.35
22 64 32 0.35
22 57 28 0.35
Subgrade - 50 25 0.45

C. Loads
ESA 5 000 000
Radius (mm) 92.1
Stress (MPa) 0.75
X1 (mm) -165
Y1 (mm) 0
X2 (mm) 165
Y2 (mm) 0
X3 (mm) 1 635
Y3 (mm) 0
X4 (mm) 1 965
Y4 (mm) 0

D. Reliability
R 95%
Multiplier for subgrade 1.6

E. Notes
1 This value was corrected applying Evertical_max (top of the layer) from Table 6.4 in the Austroads Guide (Austroads 2010). However, the
final thin subbase (approximately 112 mm) yields an Evertical_max smaller than Evertical_max = 150 MPa because the thickness is not
enough to attain this value.

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
56
B.4 NZ Transport Agency Design Method
A. Initial pavement
Thickness (mm) Ev (MPa) Eh (MPa) v f
Surface - - - - -
Base 150 350 175 0.35 259.3
Subbase 250 250 125 0.35 185.2
Subgrade - 50 25 0.35 37.0

Phase 2 Thickness (mm) Ev (MPa) Eh (MPa) v f
Surface - - - 0.35 -
Base 220 800 400 0.30 615.4 Note 1
Subbase 39 135 68 0.35 100.4
39 110 55 0.35 82.3
39 91 46 0.35 67.4
39 74 37 0.35 55.2
39 61 31 0.35 45.3 Note 2
Subgrade - 50 25 0.45 34.5

C. Loads
ESA 5 000 000
Radius 92.1
Stress 0.75
X1 -165
Y1 0
X2 165
Y2 0
X3 1 635
Y3 0
X4 1 965
Y4 0

D. Reliability
R 95%
Multiplier for subgrade 1.6

E. Notes
1 Value assumed using NZ Supplement to the Austroads Pavement Design Guide (NZTA 2007).
2 This value was corrected applying Evertical_max (top of the layer) from Table 6.4 in the Austroads Guide (Austroads 2010). However, the final thin subbase
(approximately 180 mm) yields an Evertical_max smaller than Evertical_max = 150 MPa because the thickness is not enough to attain this value.

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
57
B.5 TRL Design Method
A. Traffic assessment

Road type category 2
Foundation class 1 to 2
Requirements for surfacing thickness 50 mm

B. Foundation Class 1
Zone B1 340 mm
Zone B2 320 mm
Zone B3 300 mm

C. Foundation Class 2
Zone B1 305 mm
Zone B2 285 mm
Zone B3 275 mm

D. Adopted design Average Class 1 & 2 Adopted (mm) Subbase (mm) Surface (mm)
Zone B1 323 320 80 50
Zone B2 303 300 100 50
Zone B3 288 290 110 50


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
58
B.6 Knowledge-based TG2 2009 Design Method
B.6.1 Design Assuming Foamed Bitumen Material Class BSM1
A. Initial pavement

Thickness
(mm) Ev (MPa)

Surface - -

Base 150 350

Subbase 250 250

Subgrade - 50

B. Parameters required
Subgrade class G10
Required
PN
23

Initial stiffness 60

Climate Moderate

Climate adjustment 0.9

Cover depth 490

Cover adjustment -10

Subgrade ELTS
44

C. Design assuming BSM1
Layer Thickness
(mm)
Material
class
Modular
ratio
Max
emod
(MPa)
ELTS
(MPa)
Thickness
adj.
BCF Layer
PN

Surfacing 90 AC 5.0 3500 1425 1.0 N/A 12.8
FB Base 1 320 BSM1 3.0 600 285 1.0 1 9.2 Note 1
Subbase 80 G6 1.8 180 95 1.0 N/A 0.8
Subgrade 1 100 1.2 60 52 Note 2
Subgrade 2 N/A G10 44 Pavement Number = 23

Notes:
1 The adopted Base Confidence Factor (BCF) was 1.0.
2 The PN, by definition, has to be calculated using 4 layers. Therefore, the subgrade was divided into 2 sub-layers.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
59
B.6.2 Design Assuming Foamed Bitumen Material Class BSM2
A. Initial pavement

Thickness
(mm) Ev (MPa)

Surface - -

Base 150 350

Subbase 250 250

Subgrade - 50

B. Parameters required
Subgrade class G10
Required
PN
23

Initial stiffness 60

Climate Moderate

Climate adjustment 0.9

Cover depth 550

Cover adjustment -6.6

Subgrade ELTS 47.4

C. Design assuming BSM2
Layer Thickness
(mm)
Material
class
Modular
ratio
Max
emod
(MPa)
ELTS
(MPa)
Thickness
adj.
BCF Layer
PN

Surfacing 150 AC 5.0 3500 1023.84 1.0 N/A 15.36

FB Base 1 350 BSM2 2.0 450 204.768 1.0 1.0 7.17 Note 1
Subbase 50 G6 1.8 180 102.384 1.0 N/A 0.51
Subgrade 1 100 G10 1.2 60 56.88 Note 2
Subgrade 2 N/A G10 47.4 Total PN= 23

Notes:
1 The adopted Base Confidence Factor (BCF) was 1.0 due to the thick surface asphalt layer.
2 The PN, by definition, has to be calculated using 4 layers. Therefore, the subgrade was divided into 2 sub-layers.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
60
APPENDIX C INTERIM DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR
C.1 Introduction
Foamed bitumen is a hot bituminous binder that has been temporarily converted from a liquid state
to a foamed state by addition of a small amount of water (2%-3% of the bitumen mass). In the
foamed state bitumen can be mixed with aggregates at ambient temperatures and in situ moisture
contents. The bitumen foam coats the fine fraction of the treated aggregate, creating a mastic that
binds the larger particles of the aggregate skeleton. In Australia the foamed bitumen content
added to the aggregates normally ranges from 3.0% to 4.0% and lime is normally added (between
1% and 2%) to improve strength of the mix and dispersion of bitumen through the aggregate. The
strength/stiffness of foamed bitumen mixes is derived from:
friction between the aggregate particles
viscosity of the bituminous binder under operating conditions
cohesion within the mass resulting from the binder itself, and the adhesion between the
bituminous and hydraulic binders and the aggregate.
Foamed bitumen stabilised layers are suitable for the following pavement types (Jones &
Ramanujam 2008):
foamed bitumen stabilised base with thin asphalt or sprayed seal surfacing
foamed bitumen stabilised subbase with thick asphalt layer (>100 mm).
The two load associated distress modes that have been identified for foamed bitumen stabilised
materials are (Jones & Ramanujam 2008):
rutting of the stabilised layer
fatigue cracking of the stabilised layer.
The rutting of the stabilised layer can generally be avoided by confirming the stabilised materials
meet minimum stiffness characteristics (Jones & Ramanujam 2008).
As with asphalt and cemented materials layers, the failure criterion that relates to the stabilised
layer for thickness design purposes is fatigue through horizontal tensile forces at the bottom of the
layer. However, currently there is no fatigue relationship for foamed bitumen pavements in the
Guide to Pavement Technology Part 5 (Austroads 2009).
As an interim measure, it is recommended that foamed bitumen stabilised layers be designed as a
bound pavement layer with allowable loading in terms of fatigue calculated using the Austroads
asphalt fatigue relationship. It is assumed that the stabilisation treatment includes sufficient
quantity of residual bitumen to produce a bound layer with significant tensile strength. A minimum
of 3% residual bitumen is required to produce a bound foamed bitumen pavement.
C.1.1 Characterisation for Pavement Design
Foamed bitumen mixes are generally stress dependent. However, Jenkins (2000) identified cases
where this behaviour becomes less evident:
the inclusion of cement in the foamed mix
foamed bitumen contents approaching 4%.

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
61
Since in Australia the common practice is the addition of active filler and 3-4% foamed bitumen
contents, the stress dependency will be neglected for design purposes. In addition, the
viscoelastic effect of asphalt is not considered in the characterisation of foamed bitumen mixes.
Therefore, the foamed bitumen mix will be approximated as an isotropic, linear elastic solid, the
stiffness of which depends on temperature and loading rate (traffic speed).
C.2 Factors Affecting Stiffness of Foamed Bitumen Mixes
The design modulus of foamed bitumen treated materials is influenced by many factors:
properties of the untreated material
bitumen type and content
active filler type and content
foaming characteristics of the bitumen
curing conditions (temperature, time)
temperature during mixing
in-service temperature
moisture content
rate of loading
age.
Due to the complexities involved in estimating the effect of all these factors on the long term
stiffness of a foamed bitumen stabilised layer, the recommended method for determining the
design modulus is as follows:
determine the indirect tensile resilient modulus in soaked specimens
7
, following
AS 2891.13.1-1995 (Standards Australia 1995)
adjust the modulus for pavement temperature
adjust the modulus for load rate.
C.2.1 Temperature
An important factor in determining the modulus of asphalt is temperature. Its effect, based on data
obtained by indirect tensile resilient modulus testing (Leek 2001) and FWD testing on foamed
bitumen pavements in California (Fu & Harvey 2007) is presented in Equation A1:

Modulus at WMAPT
= exp(-|[WMAPT-T]) A1
where
| = 0.025 for pavements with 10-15% of reclaimed asphalt pavement (most
common for Australian pavements) and bitumen contents of 3-4%. If RAP
content is higher a higher value of | may be appropriate

7
The testing on soaked specimens should be conducted at 25 C after 3 days of accelerated air-drying at 40 C,
followed by soaking in water under vacuum for 10 minutes.

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
62

Commonly, the effect of temperature variations is taken into account by estimating the layer moduli
at the Weighted Mean Annual Pavement Temperature (WMAPT). WMAPT values for Australian
and New Zealand cities are presented in Appendix B of the Austroads Guide to Pavement
Technology Part 2 (Austroads 2010), together with the method for calculating the WMAPT.
The previous equation is plotted in Figure C 1, which depicts the variation of modulus with WMAPT
for different types of foamed bitumen mixes.
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Weighted Mean Annual Pavement Temperature (C)
Modulus at WMAPT
Modulus at 25 C

Figure C 1: Variation of modulus at weighted mean annual pavement temperature (WMAPT) to modulus from standard
indirect tensile test with weighted mean annual pavement temperature
C.2.2 Rate of Loading (Traffic Speed)
Because of the viscoelastic nature of the bituminous binder, the stiffness of foamed bitumen is also
dependent on the rate at which it is loaded the slower the rate, the lower the modulus. This
effect is less significant than in hot mix asphalt mixes, but should be considered when foamed
bitumen is used in pavement areas such as intersection approaches, bus stops and parking areas.
When determining the modulus for a given traffic speed, the loading time used will depend on the
type of testing device and the shape of the load pulse as well as the depth below the pavement
surface at which the modulus is being sought.

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
63
The effect of rate of loading is indicated in Figure C 2.
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Design speed (km/h)
E at in-service speed
E at 40 ms rise time

Figure C 2: Variation of ratio of modulus at vehicle speed V to modulus from standard indirect tensile test
(40 ms rise time) with design speed
C.3 Determination of Design Foamed Bitumen Modulus and
Poissons Ratio
C.3.1 Definition of Design Modulus
For pavement design purposes, the appropriate value of foamed bitumen modulus is an estimate
of the value obtained from the resilient modulus measured using the standard indirect tensile test
(ITT) adjusted to the in-service temperature (WMAPT) and for the rate of loading in the road-bed.
If this is unavailable, then the design moduli may be estimated by selecting a representative value
of modulus from available published data. However, considerable care is needed in selecting a
value which will represent the proposed foamed bitumen mix in its field situation.
C.3.2 Poissons Ratio
Determination of a value for Poissons ratio from laboratory testing is difficult. Repeat load triaxial
testing (Jenkins 2000) has shown that Poissons ratio is stress dependent for mixes without active
filler. For design purposes a Poissons ratio of 0.40 is assumed for foamed bitumen mixes.
C.3.3 Determination of Design Modulus from Measured Modulus
The indirect tensile test (Standards Australia 1995 (AS 2891.13.1-1995)) is the most commonly
used laboratory test in Australia for the determination of foamed bitumen mix modulus, because
the testing equipment is relatively inexpensive and the test easy to conduct.

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
64
In this test, a pulsed load is applied to the diametral plane of a cylindrical specimen, while
recording the extension of the perpendicular diametral plane. The rate of load application is
pre-set by the user. Peak load is controlled to produce a nominal strain of 50 microstrain on the
perpendicular diametral plane.
Standard Reference Test Conditions are 40 ms rise time (time for the applied load to increase from
10% to 90% of its peak value) and 25 C temperature, with a pulse repetition period of 3 seconds.
While the stress and strain conditions developed within the specimen are complex and somewhat
unrelated to those developed under traffic loading, pulsing of the load provides good simulation of
loading produced by a succession of wheel loads.
Specimens should be prepared at the design moisture and binder content. Due to the simplicity
and transportability of the compaction equipment, Marshall compaction (50 blows) is
recommended for the preparation of laboratory indirect tensile resilient modulus samples.
Samples should be prepared in 150 mm diameter moulds, regardless of material grading (Jones &
Ramanujam 2008). The specimens are tested after 72 hours of accelerated air-drying at 40 C,
followed by soaking in water under 95 kPa vacuum for 10 minutes.
The results of resilient modulus tests can vary appreciably even between specimens of essentially
the same composition tested on the same apparatus. Further variability is introduced due to the
inherent unstable nature of the bitumen foam, variations in mix constituents and the limits of
reproducibility of the test. Due to this variability, designers are advised not to assign a high level of
accuracy or precision to a design modulus determined from the mean of a single set of triplicate
specimens. Consideration needs to be given to the number of resilient modulus results required to
achieve a representative and statistically significant design modulus.
The steps involved in the determination of design modulus from laboratory tensile test modulus are
as follows:
1 Determine (from project information) a representative value for heavy vehicle traffic speed
(V km/h).
2 Select the WMAPT for the project location (from Appendix B of the Austroads Guide to
Pavement Technology Part 2 (Austroads 2010)).
3 Conduct the indirect tensile test on a laboratory compacted specimen at the optimum foamed
bitumen and moisture content using a rise time of 40 ms and a test temperature of 25 C.
4 Using the following relationship, calculate the ratio of the modulus at the in-service
temperature (WMAPT) to the modulus at the laboratory test temperature (25 C).

Modulus at WMAPT
= exp(-0.025[WMAPT-T])
This relationship is shown in Figure C 1.
5 Using the following relationship, calculate the ratio of the modulus at the rate of loading in-
service to the modulus at the laboratory loading rate (40 ms rise time):

Modulus at speed V
= 0.46V
0.16

Modulus at test loading rate
The relationship is shown in Figure C 2.

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
65
6 Correct the measured modulus for temperature and speed by multiplying the measured
modulus by the temperature and load rate modulus ratios.
C.4 Fatigue Criteria
As an interim measure, it is recommended that the following fatigue relationship for foamed
bitumen stabilised layers be used (adapted from that asphalt fatigue relationship recommended by
Austroads (2009)), with appropriate design moduli and volume of bituminous binder:

5
0.36
mix
b
S
1.08) V 6918(0.856
N
(
+
=

A2
where
N = allowable number of repetitions of the load
c = tensile strain produced by the load (microstrain)
V
b
= percentage by volume of bitumen in the foamed bitumen stabilised material
(%)

S
mix
= foamed bitumen stabilised material modulus (MPa).
C.5 Calculation of Allowable Loads
For the calculation of allowable traffic loading in the foamed bitumen layer refer to the mechanistic
procedure described in Section 8.2 of the Austroads Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2
(Austroads 2010).
An example of the design procedure is presented in Appendix D.
C.6 Surfacing Requirements
For design traffic below 10
7
ESA either a sprayed seal or hot mix asphalt can be used. However,
high loadings may result in embedment of a sprayed seal aggregate and therefore appropriate
measures should be considered. Where design traffic exceeds 10
7
ESA and the performance risk
of a sprayed seal is considered unacceptable, a minimum of 3040 mm hot mix asphalt layer is
recommended.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
66
APPENDIX D DESIGN EXAMPLE USING INTERIM DESIGN
PROCEDURE
An unbound granular pavement (Figure D 1) needs to be rehabilitated using foamed bitumen
stabilisation and a sprayed seal surface. The pavement consists of a subgrade layer (CBR 5%),
an unbound granular subbase (250 mm) and an unbound granular base (150 mm).
The foamed bitumen treatment needs to strengthen the pavement for a design traffic loading of
5 x 10
6
ESA. The Weighted Mean Annual Pavement Temperature (WMAPT) is 26.5 C and the
traffic speed is 90 km/h. The desired project reliability is 95%.
The average indirect tensile resilient modulus is 2438 MPa, measured in 150 mm diameter
specimens after 72 hours of accelerated air-drying at 40 C. The specimens were tested after
soaking in water (95 kPa vacuum for 10 minutes) following AS 2891.13.1-1995.
1
5
0

m
m
2
5
0

m
m
Sprayed Seal
Granular
subbase
Subgrade
Granular
base
X

m
m
Granular
subbase
Subgrade
Foamed
bitumen
base
CBR=5%
5 x 10
6
ESA

Figure D 1: Pavement rehabilitation case study
Following the steps in Table 8.1, Table 8.2 and Table 8.3 of the Austroads Guide to Pavement
Technology Part 2 (Austroads 2010):
Step 1
Try pavement composition of:
Material type Thickness (mm)
Sprayed seal surface -
Foamed bitumen base 310
Unbound granular material 90
Subgrade, CBR = 5% Semi-infinite


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
67
Step 2
Subgrade CBR = 5%
E
v
= 50 MPa
E
h
= 25 MPa
v
h
= v
v
= 0.45
f = E
v
/ (1 + v
v
) = 50/1.45 = 34.5.
Step 3
Top granular subbase.
E
v top of base
= E
v subgrade
x 2
(total granular thickness/125)
= 82 MPa
E
h
= 41 MPa.
Step 4
Other granular subbase sublayers.
Divide the total granular layer thickness into five equi-thick sub-layers (Section 8.2), each 100/5 =
20 mm thick.
Therefore, elastic parameters of the first granular sub-layer on top of the subgrade are:
E
v1
= R x E
v
subgrade = 1.104 x 50 = 55.2 MPa
E
v2
= R x E
v
subgrade = 1.104 x 55.2 = 60.9 MPa
E
v3
= R x E
v
subgrade = 1.104 x 60.9 = 67.3 MPa
E
v4
= R x E
v
subgrade = 1.104 x 67.3 = 74.3 MPa
E
v5
= R x E
v
subgrade = 1.104 x 74.3 = 82.0 MPa.
Step 5
Not relevant.
Step 6
No sublayering.
Poissons Ratio = 0.40.
Resilient modulus measured in the laboratory = 2464 MPa.
Heavy vehicle traffic speed = 90 km/h.
In-service temperature: 26.5 C.

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
68

Modulus at WMAPT
= exp(-0.025[26.5-25])

Temperature ratio = 0.96

Modulus at speed V
=
0.46 x 90
0.16

Modulus at test loading rate

The load rate ratio = 0.95.
Modulus correction = 2464 MPa x 0.95 x 0.94 = 2200 MPa.
Elastic properties of all materials, including granular sublayers, are listed in the following table:
Material type Thickness
(mm)
Elastic modulus (MPa) Poissons ratio
f
value
Ev Eh vv vh
Sprayed seal - - - - - -
Foamed bitumen 310 2200 2200 0.40 0.40 1571
Granular 18 82.0 41.0 0.35 0.35 61
Granular 18 74.3 37.2 0.35 0.35 55
Granular 18 67.3 33.7 0.35 0.35 50
Granular 18 60.9 30.5 0.35 0.35 45
Granular 18 55.2 27.6 0.35 0.35 41
Subgrade Semi-infinite 50 25 0.45 0.45 34

Step 7
Permanent deformation allowable loading, N = [9300 /c]
7
.
Step 8
Not relevant.
Step 9
Foamed bitumen fatigue:
( )
5
36 . 0
2200
7 856 . 0 08 . 1 6918
(
+
=
c
N
Assumed volume of bitumen (V
b
) = 7%.
Step 10
Design traffic is 5 x 10
6
ESA.

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
69
Step 11
Standard axle load represented as:
Tyre-pavement contact stress = 750 kPa
Load radius = 92.1 mm
Four circular areas separated centre-to-centre 330 mm, 1470 mm and 330 mm.
Step 12
Critical locations to calculate strains are:
top of subgrade
bottom of foamed bitumen layer.
The above strains are calculated directly beneath one of the loaded wheels and midway between
the loaded wheels.
Step 13
Critical strains from CIRCLY output:
foamed bitumen: maximum tensile strain is 137 c beneath a loaded wheel
subgrade: maximum vertical compressive strain is 318 c between the loaded wheels.
Step 14
Calculation of overall allowable traffic loading:
Foamed bitumen stabilised material
( )
5 10 59 . 5
137 2200
7 856 . 0 08 . 1 6918
6
5
36 . 0
SAR N =
(
+
=
Convert from Standard Axle Repetitions of allowable loading to ESA of allowable loading
using SAR5/ESA = 1.1:
N = 5.59 x 10
6
/ 1.1 = 5.08 x 10
6
.
Subgrade
7 10 82 . 1
318
9300
10
7
SAR N =
(
=
Convert from Standard Axle Repetitions of allowable loading to ESA of allowable loading
using SAR5/ESA = 1.6:
N = 1.82 x 10
10
/ 1.6 = 1.14 x 10
10
.
Step 15
From step 14, the following allowable loadings in ESA were calculated:
permanent deformation = 1.14 x 10
10

foamed bitumen stabilised material fatigue = 5.08 x 10
6
.

A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 1
70
Step 16
As allowable loading for each distress mode exceeds the design traffic, the trial pavement
composition is acceptable.
Step 17
A sprayed seal surfacing may be used as the expected traffic is 5 x 10
6
ESA (less than 1 x 10
7

ESA).

INFORMATION RETRIEVAL
Austroads, 2011, Review of Structural Design Procedures for Foamed
Bitumen Pavements, Sydney, A4, pp.76. AP-T188-11
Keywords: pavement design, foamed bitumen, stabilisation, rehabilitation,
recycling
Abstract: Pavement designers in Australia and New Zealand trying to use
alternative treatments such as foamed bitumen in rehabilitation projects are
severely constrained by a lack of data on the performance of this type of
stabilised material. Structural thickness design methods have been developed
for the design of foamed bitumen pavements, most of them based on
assumptions that do not necessarily represent the performance of foamed
bitumen pavements under Australia and New Zealand conditions. This report
presents a review of these methods, as the first step of a large research project
that aims to develop appropriate thickness design procedures for foamed
bitumen pavements.

Ap T188 11

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Ap T188 11

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

AP-T188/11

AUSTROADS TECHNICAL REPORT

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi