AN ACCEPTANCE TEST FOR CHIP SEAL PROJECTS BASED

ON IMAGE ANALYSIS

FINAL PROJECT REPORT

by

M. Emin Kutay
Ugurcan Ozdemir

Michigan State University

Sponsorship
Michigan Department of Transportation

for

Center for Highway Pavement Preservation

(CHPP)

In cooperation with US Department of Transportation-Research and Innovative Technology

Administration (RITA)

May 2016
Disclaimer

The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and
the accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the
sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s University Transportation Centers
Program, in the interest of information exchange. The Center for Highway Pavement
Preservation (CHPP), the U.S. Government and matching sponsor assume no liability for the
contents or use thereof.

ii
 Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

CHPP Report-MSU#2-2016
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
An Acceptance Test for Chip Seal Projects Based on Image Analysis
6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

Center for Highway Pavement Preservation, 11. Contract or Grant No.

Tier 1 University Transportation Center
Michigan State University, 2857 Jolly Road, Okemos, MI 48864
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered

United States of America 14. Sponsoring Agency Code

Department of Transportation
Research and Innovative Technology Administration
15. Supplementary Notes
Report uploaded at http://www.chpp.egr.msu.edu/
16. Abstract

Chip seal is one of the most popular preventive maintenance techniques performed by many DOTs, county road
departments and cities. One of the most important parameters affecting performance of a chip seal is the percent aggregate
embedment depth into the binder. Depending on the percent embedment of aggregates in chip seals, they may be
susceptible to distresses such as aggregate chip loss and bleeding. In this study, a standard test procedure was developed to
directly calculate aggregate embedment depth via digital image processing techniques. Two image-based algorithms were
developed to calculate embedment depth, and another algorithm was developed to compute the percentage of the aggregate
surface coverage area with binder. The statistical analysis results indicated that there is a good correlation between
embedment depth obtained from image-based algorithms and sand patch test results. Analyses of chip seal samples
collected from limited number of ‘good-performing’ field chip seal sections revealed that the aggregate percent
embedment ranged from 50% to 70%, which is the typical desired range to minimize bleeding and chip loss. However,
more research is needed to investigate the ‘poor-performing’ field sections. Various laboratory chip seal samples were also
prepared to investigate the variation of percent embedment in chip seals made with the minimum and maximum binder
and aggregate application rates specified in MDOT’s special provisions. The results revealed that the average percent
embedment ranged from 55% to 70%.

17. Key Words: pavement preservation, chip seal, embedment depth, 18. Distribution Statement
image analysis
No restrictions.
19. Security Classification (of this 20. Security Classification (of this 21. No. of Pages 22. Price
report) page)
Unclassified. Unclassified. NA

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... ix

LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... x

CHAPTER 1 .................................................................................................................................. 1
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Objectives ............................................................................................................................ 3
1.3 Research Plan ..................................................................................................................... 3
1.3.1 Task 1: Sample Preparation and Image Acquisition .................................................. 3
1.3.2 Task 2: Development of Image Processing Algorithms ............................................ 4
1.3.3 Task 3: Laboratory Testing & Validation of Algorithms & Data Analysis ............... 4
1.4 Outline................................................................................................................................. 5

CHAPTER 2 .................................................................................................................................. 6
LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................ 6
2.1 Asphalt Chip Seal Surface Treatment and Embedment Depth ........................................... 6
2.2 Design Procedures .............................................................................................................. 7
2.2.1 Hanson Method .......................................................................................................... 7
2.2.2 Kearby Method .......................................................................................................... 8
2.2.3 McLeod Design Method ............................................................................................ 9
2.2.4 Modified Kearby Method ........................................................................................ 10
2.2.5 Road Note 39 (Sixth Edition) .................................................................................. 11
2.2.6 Austroads Design Method........................................................................................ 11
2.2.7 South African Method, TRH3.................................................................................. 12
2.2.8 Discussion of Chip Sealing Design Methods........................................................... 13
2.3 Seal Surfacing Performance Tests .................................................................................... 14
2.3.1 Embedment Depth Calculation Using NCHRP 680 Procedure ............................... 16
2.3.2 Sweep Test of Bituminous Emulsion Surface Treatment Samples ......................... 19
2.3.3 Other Test Methods.................................................................................................. 20
Vialit Adhesion Test ................................................................................................ 21
Frosted Marble Test ................................................................................................. 22
Australian Aggregate Pull-out Test ......................................................................... 23
Pennsylvania Aggregate Retention Test .................................................................. 23
British Pendulum Test.............................................................................................. 24
Third Scale Model Mobile Loading Simulator ........................................................ 25
Pnuematic Adhesion Tension Test........................................................................... 26
2.3.4 Image Processing Techniques for Performance Evaluation of Chip Seals .............. 27
2.3.5 Numerical Studies on Asphalt Chip Seals ............................................................... 28
2.4 Synthesis of Previous Work and Motivation for the Current Study .................................. 31

vi
CHAPTER 3 ................................................................................................................................ 33
CHIP SEAL SAMPLE ACQUISITION & FABRICATION ................................................. 33
3.1 Field Chip Seal Sample Acquisition ................................................................................. 33
3.1.1 Gradation of Aggregates from the Field .................................................................. 34
3.1.2 Chip Seal Collection from the Field ........................................................................ 37
3.2 Laboratory Chip Seal Sample Fabrication ....................................................................... 38
3.2.1 Gradation of Aggregates and Sieve Analysis .......................................................... 39
3.2.2 Emulsion Binder ...................................................................................................... 40
3.2.3 Procedure for Chip Seal Sample Fabrication ........................................................... 41
Emulsion Binder Application .................................................................................. 41
Aggregate Application ............................................................................................. 42
Compaction .............................................................................................................. 43

CHAPTER 4 ................................................................................................................................ 45
IMAGE ACQUISITION PROCEDURE AND IMAGE PROCESSING ALGORITHMS . 45
4.1 Sample Preparation and Image Acquisition ..................................................................... 45
4.2 Image Adjustments ............................................................................................................ 49
4.3 Algorithms for Percent Embedment Depth Calculation ................................................... 52
4.3.1 Method 1: Peak & Valley Method ........................................................................... 52
4.3.2 Method 2: Area Method ........................................................................................... 53
4.3.3 Method 3: Embedment of Each Aggregate .............................................................. 58
4.4 Algorithm for Aggregate Surface Coverage Area ............................................................ 59
4.5 Validation of the Algorithms ............................................................................................. 61

CHAPTER 5 ................................................................................................................................ 63
LABORATORY TESTING ....................................................................................................... 63
5.1 Sand Patch Test................................................................................................................. 63
5.2 Ames Laser Texture Scanner ............................................................................................ 65
5.3 Sweep Test ......................................................................................................................... 67

CHAPTER 6 ................................................................................................................................ 69
RESULTS: FIELD & LABORATORY SAMPLES ................................................................ 69
6.1 Field Samples .................................................................................................................... 69
6.1.1 Field Samples from M-57 Highway near The Pompei ............................................ 70
6.1.2 Field Samples from M-20 Chip Seal Section .......................................................... 72
6.1.3 Field Samples from M-33 from Alger to Rose City ................................................ 74
6.1.4 Relationship Between the Image-based Algorithms and Other Methods ................ 76
6.2 Laboratory Samples .......................................................................................................... 78
6.2.1 Group 1 Samples ...................................................................................................... 78
6.2.2 Group 2 Samples ...................................................................................................... 79
CHAPTER 7 ................................................................................................................................ 83
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................... 83

APPENDIX .................................................................................................................................. 86

vii
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 102

viii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Parameters for chip seal design methods ..................................................................... 14

Table 2.2: Various other test methods used to evaluate asphalt chip seals................................... 21

Table 3.1: Summary of field chip seal cores................................................................................. 33

Table 3.2: Summary of group 1 samples ...................................................................................... 38

Table 3.3: Summary of group 2 samples ...................................................................................... 39

Table 3.4: Composition/ information on ingredients .................................................................... 40

Table 6.1: Embedment depth results of M-57 field samples ........................................................ 70

Table 6.2: Embedment depth results of M-20 field samples ........................................................ 72

Table 6.3: Embedment depth results of M-33 field samples ........................................................ 74

Table A.1: Embedment depth and surface coverage area for cross sections of field samples of
M-57 near Pompei Chip Seal Section ........................................................................................... 87

Table B.1: Embedment depth and surface coverage area for cross sections field samples of M-20
Chip Seal Section .......................................................................................................................... 89

Table C.1: Embedment depth and surface coverage area for cross sections of field samples of M-
33 from Alger to Rose City........................................................................................................... 92

Table D.1: Embedment depth and surface coverage area for cross sections of group 1 laboratory
samples .......................................................................................................................................... 95

Table D.2: Embedment depth and surface coverage area for cross sections of group 2 laboratory
samples .......................................................................................................................................... 96

ix
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Asphalt chip seal .......................................................................................................... 2

Figure 2.1: Single chip seal diagram (source: Gransberg and James, 2005) .................................. 6

Figure 2.2: States of chip seal embedment (source: New Zealand Roading Division,1968) ........ .8

Figure 2.3: Normal and equivalent chip seal (Spreading method) (source: Schuler et al.,2011) . 17

Figure 2.4: Normal and equivalent seal (Submerging method) (source: Schuler et al.,2011) ..... 18

Figure 2.5: ASTM D7000 sweep test setup .................................................................................. 19

Figure 2.6: Frosted marble test setup (source: Howard et al., 2009) ............................................ 22

Figure 2.7: Sample Fabrication and Mary Ann Sieve Shaker (source: Kandhal and Motter, 1991)
....................................................................................................................................................... 24

Figure 2.8: British Pendulum Test ................................................................................................ 24

Figure 2.9: The Third Scale Model Mobile Load Simulator (MMLS3) ....................................... 26

Figure 2.10: Pneumatic Adhesion Tensile Tester (source: Vickey, 2007) ................................... 27

Figure 2.11: Chip seal finite element modelling (source: Huurman, 2010) ................................. 29

Figure 2.12: Stress distribution for chip seal modeling (source: Henderson, 2006)..................... 30

Figure 3.1: Gradation of the aggregates used in the field M-33 from Alger to Rose City ........... 35

Figure 3.2: (a) Original image obtained from a document camera (b) Aggregate determination 36

Figure 3.3: Procedure for taking cores from the field ................................................................... 37

Figure 3.4: Gradation of the aggregates used in the laboratory .................................................... 40

Figure 3.5: Binder application process: (a) pouring emulsion on the sample, and (b) spreading the
binder by gravity & rotation ......................................................................................................... 41

Figure 3.6: Sketch of the components of the aggregate spreader ................................................. 42

Figure 3.7: Procedure for using aggregate spreader ..................................................................... 43

Figure 3.8: Sweep test compactor and compaction using the MTS: (a) Sweep test compactor and
(b) compaction with MTS ............................................................................................................. 44

x
Figure 4.1:Illustration of sample preperation and image acquisition ........................................... 45

Figure 4.2: Sample cutting procedure ........................................................................................... 46

Figure 4.3: Desired cross section image ....................................................................................... 47

Figure 4.4: Image-based problems from cross sections ................................................................ 48

Figure 4.5: The effect of painting on cross section image ............................................................ 48

Figure 4.6: Rotated and cropped image ........................................................................................ 49

Figure 4.7: Selecting points on the existing pavement ................................................................. 50

Figure 4.8: Procedure for finding existing pavement ................................................................... 51

Figure 4.9: Finding peak and valley points ................................................................................... 52

Figure 4.10: Illustration of steps of Method 1 .............................................................................. 53

Figure 4.11: Different threshold values: (a) It = 0.5, (b) It = 0.35, (c) It = 0.20 ............................ 54

Figure 4.12: Algorithm for identifying aggregates separately ...................................................... 56

Figure 4.13: Illustration of embedment depth calculation by area method .................................. 57

Figure 4.14: Method 3 – Embedment of each aggregate .............................................................. 59

Figure 4.15: Aggregate surface coverage ..................................................................................... 60

Figure 4.16: Finding surface coverage area .................................................................................. 61

Figure 4.17: Idealized image analysis ........................................................................................... 62

Figure 5.1: Embedment depth calculation according to NCHRP 680 .......................................... 65

Figure 5.2: Procedure for computation of mean profile depth (source: ASTM 1845) ................. 66

Figure 5.3: Procedure for Ames laser texture scan ....................................................................... 67

Figure 5.4: Sweep test procedure on chip seal surface ................................................................. 68

Figure 6.1: Double chip seal cross section.................................................................................... 69

Figure 6.2: Comparison of different methods for M-57 Highway Near Pompei.......................... 71

Figure 6.3: Comparison of different methods for M-20 Chip Seal Section.................................. 73

xi
Figure 6.4: Comparison of different methods for M-33 Chip Seal Section.................................. 75

Figure 6.5: Sketches of the asphalt chip seals............................................................................... 76

Figure 6.6: Method-1 relationship with sand patch and laser texture scanning............................ 77

Figure 6.7: Effect of binder application rate ................................................................................. 78

Figure 6.8: Effect of aggregate application rate............................................................................ 79

Figure 6.9: Embedment depth for different binder application rates ............................................ 80

Figure 6.10: Surface coverage area for different binder application rates ................................... 82

Figure 6.11: Comparison of method-3 and sand patch test ........................................................ 100

Figure 6.12: Comparison of method-3 and Ames laser texture scanning ................................... 101

xii
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Chip seal is one of the most popular preventive maintenance technique performed by

many DOTs, county road departments and cities. The procedure involves binder application

(asphalt emulsions, or sometimes cutback asphalt) on the surface a deteriorated pavement,

followed by spreading aggregates such that one-stone-height is achieved. After spreading,

aggregates are compacted. After curing of the emulsion, the loose aggregates are removed by

sweeping via rotary power brooms. The primary role of the asphalt binder in the chip seal

application is to provide a waterproof membrane that protects the pavement surface from sun,

oxidation and moisture infiltration (Wood et al., 2006). Aggregates act as a ‘bridge’ and provide

sufficient skid resistance.

Asphalt chip seal is preferably constructed at lower traffic volumes since structural

capacity of asphalt chip seals is very low compared to typical pavements (HMA or concrete

pavements). Therefore, while existing pavement underlying the asphalt chip seal provides

structural capacity, chip seal seals fine cracks and deteriorations, prevents moisture infiltration

and enhances skid resistance. Therefore, asphalt chip seal is not a good maintenance option for

heavily distressed roads.

Embedment depth is one of the most important parameters related to the quality of chip

seals. Embedment depth is defined as the average height of the binder divided by the average

height of the aggregate as shown in Figure 1.1. Asphalt chip seal applications can achieve their

1
service lives if proper embedment and aggregate orientation are provided. There are several

Aggregate
height

Binder height

Figure 1.1: Asphalt chip seal

opinions about selecting desired embedment depth right after the construction; however, all

design methods have agreed that design criteria of embedment depth should be between 50% and

70% after construction (Gransberg and James, 2005).

McLeod et al. (1969) pointed out the relationship between embedment depth and chip

seal aggregate loss and bleeding. Asphalt chip seals having the embedment depth less than 50%

are more susceptible to aggregate loss due to insufficient bonding between binder and aggregate;

whereas, asphalt chip seals having the aggregate embedment higher than 70% may cause

bleeding problems on the surface of the pavement. Therefore, it is very important to achieve

desired aggregate embedment into the binder.

Determination of the embedment depth is typically achieved by pulling the aggregates

out from the chip seal binder and visually examining the aggregate embedment depth into the

binder. This method is difficult to implement and subjective, especially when angular and

flat/elongated aggregates are used. Another method suggested by NCHRP Report 680 (2011) is

spreading a certain volume of glass beads over the chip seal surface, followed by measurement

of its diameter. The aggregate size and texture height calculated from volume of glass beads are

used to estimate embedment depth.

2
 Current ways for obtaining embedment depth are so subjective and contains assumptions

during calculation; therefore, there is a need for a way to directly calculate aggregate embedment

depth into the binder. Obtaining embedment depth via image processing techniques can be

reliable and objective method, as compared to current methods.

1.2 Objectives

The main objective of the research study is to develop a standard test procedure to

directly calculate aggregate embedment depth into the asphalt binder in a chip seal project via

digital image analysis.

1.3 Research Plan

1.3.1 Task 1: Sample Preparation and Image Acquisition

One of the significant tasks of this study was to develop a practical procedure to prepare

chip seal samples for image acquisition and to investigate the most appropriate imaging approach

before image analysis. For this purpose, the following tasks have been undertaken:

- Chip seal core samples were taken from the field with the help from Michigan DOT

crew.

- Chip seal core samples were fabricated with a new methodology in the laboratory

based on the concept of NCHRP 680 (2011) recommendation.

- Desired chip seal cross sections were obtained for imaging.

- Different imaging and lighting conditions were investigated and the best method was

used to take digital images of the chip seal cross sections.

3
 1.3.2 Task 2: Development of Image Processing Algorithms

The scope of this task included development of image-based algorithms to directly

measure percent embedment depth (ED) of chip seal samples. In addition to percent embedment

depth, other concepts such as percent of aggregate surface coverage (ASC) by the binder, were

studied and image-based algorithms were developed. This task consisted of the following major

parts:

- Two different image processing algorithms were developed to calculate percent

embedment depth (ED).

- One algorithm was developed to obtain percent of aggregate surface coverage (ASC)

by the binder.

- Verification of the algorithms was performed by using idealized images which have

particular embedment depth (ED) and aggregate surface coverage (ASC) by the

binder.

1.3.3 Task 3: Laboratory Testing & Validation of Algorithms & Data Analysis

As part of this task, the algorithms were validated through laboratory tests, Also, the

effect of binder application rate on the chip seal performance was investigated through both

laboratory testing and image-based algorithms. This task included the following components:

- Both sand patch test and laser texture scans were conducted on field cores.

- Sand patch test was performed on laboratory-fabricated samples.

- Image analyses were completed on laboratory-fabricated samples and field cores.

4
 - Statistical analysis of embedment depths obtained from image-based algorithms, sand

patch test, laser texture scan, and the effect of binder application rate on the chip seal

performance were performed.

1.4 Outline

This thesis is arranged as follows: Chapter 2 consists of a literature review of asphalt chip

seal design and analysis, including embedment depth concept, chip seal design procedures and

their relations with embedment depth and performance tests conducted on chip seals both in the

laboratory and in the field. A description of the procedures developed in this study to obtain field

cores and to fabricate chip seal samples in the laboratory are described in Chapter 3. Chapter 4

includes descriptions of the sample preparation techniques for image acquisition and the

algorithms for calculation of percent embedment depth (ED) and aggregate surface coverage

(ASC) by the binder. In Chapter 5, details of the traditional laboratory tests such as the sand

patch test, laser scanning and sweep test are given. Chapter 6 includes the results and discussion

of the analyses of the field and the laboratory samples. Finally, Chapter 7 includes the major

conclusions from this study.

5
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Asphalt Chip Seal Surface Treatment and Embedment Depth

Asphalt chip seal was first constructed as a main pavement for low volume roads in

1920s. With time, chip seal applications evolved to be used for preservation techniques on

deteriorated hot mix asphalt pavements, primarily because of low initial costs (Gransberg and

James, 2005). Main primary purposes of asphalt chip seal surface treatments can be summarized

as follows: (1) to prevent from existing surface from water and air infiltration by sealing small

surface cracks on the surface, (2) to improve surface texture and skid resistance, (3) to reduce

oxidation of existing pavement due to temperature and air, and (4) to provide anti-glare surface

when the pavement is wet. NCHRP synthesis 342 (Gransberg and James, 2005) defined seven

different types of chip seal applications: (i) single chip seal, (ii) double chip seal, (iii) racked-in

seal, (iv) cape seal, (v) inverted seal, (vi) sandwich seal, and (vii) geotextile-reinforced seal.

However, the focus of this master thesis is only the single chip seal, which consists of a single

layer binder application followed by one stone thick aggregate application to provide protective

surface wearing. The single chip seal diagram is illustrated in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1: Single chip seal diagram (source: Gransberg and James, 2005)

6
 Depth of aggregate embedment into the binder plays an important role to determine

whether asphalt chip seal is properly constructed or not. There are two main distresses that occur

in chip seal applications: (i) aggregate chip loss and (ii) bleeding. Aggregate chip loss is simply

debonding of aggregates from the binder due to the effect of sweeping or traffic. Bleeding on the

other hand refers to the condition where almost entire aggregates submerge into the. Embedment

depth is a parameter that is related to both of these distresses.

In addition to binder and aggregate application rate, embedment depth depends on several

parameters including aggregate size and shape, emulsion type, hardness of existing pavement,

rolling patterns and numbers and traffic. (Schuler et al., 2011).

2.2 Design Procedures

Chip seal designs have been based typically on either past experience or certain

engineering concepts. Due to the continuous change of material characteristics, construction

equipment, climate and most importantly the changes of the existing surface condition in

different regions, contractors have generally designed chip seals based on experiences in the field

(Gransberg and James, 2005). However, there are also engineering concepts used to design chip

seals, which are described in the following subsections.

2.2.1 Hanson Method

First attempt to develop a design procedure for asphalt chip seals was made by F.M

Hanson (1935). He stated that voids between the aggregates after spreading over the pavement,

rolling and traffic condition becomes nearly 50%, 30% and 20%, respectively (see Figure 2.2).

He also stated that after opening to traffic, due to aggregate shapes, aggregates tend to be lying

7
on their flattest side and therefore, average least dimension (ALD) is nearly equal to the average

thickness of the aggregates after the construction.

Approximately 50% voids

Chips dropped Average height

at random on of chip
the binder

Approximately 30% voids

Chips after Average height

initial rolling of chip

Binder higher up side of

chip

Approximately 20% voids

Chips after
Average seal
trafficking
thickness equals
(some
average least
breakdown and
dimensions of chip
embedment)
(ALD)

Figure 2.2: States of chip seal embedment (source: New Zealand Road Division, 1968)

Hanson focused on the void percentage in his design method. He did not include

embedment depth criteria; however, he pointed out that void area between aggregates should be

filled with 60% to 75% residual binder which actually means 60% to 75% embedment depth.

2.2.2 Kearby Method

Kearby (1953) was the first engineer to develop asphalt chip seal design method with

respect to determining material application rates. He developed a nomograph, which uses

average size of aggregates, percent embedment depth and voids percentage between aggregates

8
as inputs to obtain asphalt cement rate (in gallons per square yard). One of the drawbacks of

Kearby design method is that void percentage and percentage embedment depth range is limited;

and also aggregate size range varies between 1/8” and 1”. Another drawback according to

Kearby (1953) is that traffic effect and aggregate toughness are not included in the nomograph.

2.2.3 McLeod Design Method

After Hanson’s work (1935) on asphalt chip seal, N. McLeod created a new design

procedure for chip seal based on Hanson’s study. McLeod’s goal was to find aggregate and

binder application rates which should be applied at the construction (McLeod, 1969).

Aggregate size (gradation), shape and specific gravity play a significant role in

calculation of aggregate application rate. However, for binder application rate, there are different

types of parameters needed to be considered, including aggregate gradation and shape, traffic

condition, residual percent of asphalt binder, binder leakage through existing pavement surface

condition and binder absorption by aggregates.

McLeod used Hanson’s theory and accepted that inter-particle voids in loose condition is

about 50%, after rolling and trafficking, it becomes nearly 30% and 20%, respectively. Voids

between aggregates after certain volume of traffic is 20% which means that cover aggregates

take place 80% of seal application.

Embedment depth is not a direct input for both the binder and aggregate application rate

calculation. However, it is actually hidden in the traffic correction during binder application rate

calculation. In other words, traffic factor, which depends upon the anticipated traffic volume, is

adjusted so that percent embedment depth after trafficking gives 70%.

9
 2.2.4 Modified Kearby Method

First attempt for modification of Kearby Method was Epps et al. study (1974). They tried

to change Kearby design monograph so that synthetic aggregates having high porosity can be

used in the design. Then, in a different research activity, Epps et al. (1981) tried to adjust Kearby

design method so that the design was consistent with field performances. Holmgreen et al.

(1985) studied the performance of chip seal sections designed according to Kearby method by

using data collected from previous two studies and they found that calculated asphalt application

rate was not sufficient to hold aggregates.

Aggregate application rate for modified Kearby method is calculated by using the

measurement of a new laboratory test method “Board Test” which is used for finding aggregate

quantity in one-thick stone position over one square yard. This test finds aggregate quantity in

lb/yd2 by dividing the weight of aggregate to the aggregate application area (half square yard is

generally used). The asphalt rate was modified by adding traffic and existing pavement surface

condition. The other modification was shifting the curve in relationship between average mat

depth and percentage of embedment (Epps and Gallaway, 1974).

Percent embedment depth can be obtained by using average mat thickness; in other

words, average aggregate height. At the same time, percent embedment depth can be chosen

manually without suggestion of the method according to average mat depth. In the design, it was

suggested that 30±10% and 70±10% embedment depth should be achieved just after the

construction and after two years of service, respectively.

10
 2.2.5 Road Note 39 (Sixth Edition)

The design procedure Road Note 39 was developed by The United Kingdom’s Transport

Research Laboratory in the United Kingdom (Roberts and Nicholls 2008). This design procedure

was developed by designing different kinds of systems based on different parameters simulating

different conditions and traffics on the pavement (Colwill et al. 1995). The design steps can be

put in order as following: selection of dressing type (such as single chip seal, double chip seal

etc.); selection of binder and aggregate type, determination of binder and aggregate rate.

Traffic level, existing pavement hardness and size of aggregates are primary inputs for

determining binder application rate. Aggregate type and shape, existing surface condition,

climate, geometry of pavement and speed of traffic are secondary inputs used for determining

binder application rate. On the other hand, aggregate application rate determined by BS EN

12272-1, aggregate shape, size and relative density have role.

In Road Note 39 (Sixth Edition), although embedment depth is mentioned while stating

the effect of some parameters such as the road stiffness and climate on the embedment depth,

there is no direct specification of embedment depth.

2.2.6 Austroads Design Method

The Austroads method (Sprayed Seal Design Project Group 2001) considers many factors

during calculation of binder and aggregate application rate. This design procedure is also

selected by the NCHRP 680 report as a recommended design method for chip seal applications

in the U.S.

11
 Austroads method is based on certain assumptions on aggregate, traffic and embedment

consideration (Schuler et al. 2011). Aggregates are assumed to be one stone layer thick with a

flakiness index between 15% and 25%. This design procedure is valid for less than 10% heavy

traffic and about 2 years after construction, percent embedment depth is assumed to range from

50% to 60%.

In this design method, basic binder application rate is calculated by percentage of void

between aggregates filled with asphalt (VFA), void content between aggregates (VMA), traffic

volume and type. In addition to basic binder application rate, design binder application rate is

calculated by adding other modifications depending on texture of existing surface, aggregate

embedment into existing surface (substrate), binder absorption into substrate and aggregate. The

aggregate application rate is determined by considering traffic level, aggregate size and shape

and loose unit weight. In Austroads design method, aggregate rate is only calculated in unit of

square meter per cubic meter (m2/m3) whereas NCHRP 680 also derived aggregate application

rate in unit of pound per square yard (lb/yd2) depending traffic level and loose unit weight.

2.2.7 South African Method, TRH3

South African design method was developed for designing different kind of sealing types

such as single and double chip seal (with either conventional or modified binder), cape seal,

slurry seal and sand seal. South African designs for different seal types are mostly based on

Hanson’s design concept, where asphalt binder fills the voids between aggregates and average

least dimension determines these voids (The South African National Roads Agency 2007). One

of the assumptions this design method made is that, in order to prevent from aggregate loss,

12
approximately 42% of voids between aggregates which is equivalent about 30% of height should

be filled by the binder.

There are two different binder rates described in South African design method; cold and

hot binder application rates. Hot binder application rate is the net binder application rate used in

construction; whereas, the cold binder application rate is the application rate before subtracting

extra part such as water in the emulsions before evaporation. Residual binder application rate is

referred to as the net cold binder rate. Aggregate size in terms of average least dimension, traffic

level, road stiffness measured by ball penetration test and desired texture at the end are necessary

input parameters in order to calculate cold binder application rate. Climate, existing surface

condition determined by sand patch test, road geometry in terms of slope are secondary inputs

for adjusting cold binder application rate. At the end, hot binder application rate used in

construction is calculated by multiplication of net cold binder rate and conversion factor

depending on binder type. The aggregate spread rate is obtained by design chart in which

average least dimension, flakiness index and type of chip seal information are taken as input.

2.2.8 Discussion of Chip Sealing Design Methods

The factors affecting both aggregate and binder application rate for each chip seal design

method is summarized in Table 2.1:

13
 Table 2.1: Parameters for chip seal design methods

Aggregate Dry Unit Weight

Percent Embedment Depth

Aggregate Size and Shape
Voids between aggregates

Existing Pavement Cond.

Residual Binder Content

Absorption of Aggregate

Existing Pavement

Geometry of Road
Traffic Level
FACTORS

Hardness

Climate
DESIGN
METHODS

Hanson 
Kearby   
McLeod        
Modified Kearby     
Road Note 39       
Austroads         
South African, TRH3        

Although embedment depth criteria is not a direct input in design equations at these chip

seal design methods, all design methods mention that embedment depth is one of the most

significant criteria that should be achieved at a certain level. Also, all design methods propose

certain percent embedment depth just after construction and some years of service.

2.3 Seal Surfacing Performance Tests

Chip seal applications experience two main distresses: aggregate chip loss and

bleeding/flushing. Embedment depth is one of the main parameters that affect chip seal’s

susceptibility to bleeding and aggregate chip loss. Therefore, all design methods mentioned

earlier suggests specific percent embedment depths at different time periods after construction.

Another concept that has a direct relationship with embedment depth is texture depth (macro

14
texture) of the chip seal. Texture depth (macro texture) of the sealing treatments is the main

indicator of performance (Abdul-Malak et al. 1993 and Roque et al. 1991) since this parameter is

related to the embedment depth.

Typically, as embedment depth decreases, the probability of losing aggregate chips

increases. However, at a given embedment depth, two different chip seal applications may

exhibit different performance. For instance, embedment depth can be similar for two different

type of binders, with polymer modified binder and plain binder, however aggregate loss of chip

seal prepared with polymer modified binder may be less than the aggregate loss of chip seal

prepared with plain binder. Therefore, aggregate mass loss and embedment depth should be

studied together to assess performance of chip seal.

In this subsection, two different test procedures recommended by NCHRP 680 (2011) is

examined. These methods are “Standard Method of Test for Embedment Depth of Chip Seal

Aggregates in the Lab and the Field” and “Recommended Standard Method of Test for

Laboratory Chip Loss from Emulsified Asphalt Chip Seal Samples” based on ASTM D7000.

The former method is for calculating embedment depth; whereas, the latter method is for finding

percentage aggregate mass loss. In addition to these test methods, a summary of few other

methods for assessing performance of chip seal asphalts in both laboratory and field is provided.

Also, this subsection includes that several image analysis techniques that have been developed to

examine performance in terms of aggregate chip loss and bleeding. Lastly, numerical studies

such as finite element analysis are discussed.

15
 2.3.1 Embedment Depth Calculation Using NCHRP 680 Procedure

NCHRP Report 680 (2011) recommends two procedures that are applicable to both field

and laboratory studies. These two approaches estimate embedment depth via spreading and

submerging procedures. For both of them, the goal is to find texture height, and then the

aggregate embedment is calculated by subtracting available texture height from average

aggregate height.

For spreading procedure, a known volume of glass beads is poured onto chip seal sample

in a way that all voids are filled by glass beads. It is assumed that the cross section is similar to

the idealized cross section shown in Figure 2.3. Average height of the aggregate particles (H) is

equal to texture height of glass beads (T) plus the height of binder (E) (Schuler et al., 2011).

Texture height (T) is calculated as dividing volume of beads and aggregate above the asphalt

surface by plan area of beads and aggregate. Since the average height of the aggregate (H) is

known from the size of the agregate chips, height of the binder (E) is obtained subtracting texture

height (T) from the average particle height. Percent embedment depth is calculated by using the

following formulas:

𝐸 = 𝐻−𝑇 [2.1]

𝐸
𝑃𝐸 (%) = 𝑥 100 [2.2]
𝐻

where E = embedment depth, H = height of aggregate particles and T = texture height of glass

beads, PE = percent embedment depth

16
 Figure 2.3: Normal and equivalent chip seal (Spreading method) (source: Schuler et al.,
2011)

For submerging procedure, chip seal sample surface is completely covered with variable

volume of glass beads at the fixed height above average particle height as illustrated in Figure

2.4.

17
 Figure 2.4: Normal and equivalent chip seal (Submerging method) (source: Schuler et al.,
2011)

In the submerging procedure, it is important to subtract the excess volume of glass beads

on the chip seal surface from the total glass beads volume for calculating texture height (T).

Volume of glass beads filled only voids (B) is estimated by subtracting volume of excess glass

beads on the chip seal surface from total volume of glass beads (C). Texture height is then

calculated by dividing volume of glass beads filled only voids (B) by plan area of the beads

using Equation 2.3. After calculation of texture height, percent embedment depth is estimated by

using formulas 2.1 and 2.2.

𝐵 = 𝐶 − [(𝑀 − 𝑆 − 𝐻) 𝑥 𝐴 ] 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑇 = 𝐵⁄𝐴 [2.3]

18
where B = volume of glass beads only in the voids, C = total volume of glass beads, M = total

height including excess volume of glass beads on the surface, S = base thickness, H = average

particle height and A = plan area of the chip seal, T = texture height

Embedment depth estimation by using these methods (recommended by NCHRP Report

680) is easy and straightforward. However, aggregate embedment into the substrate is ignored.

Also, substrate is considered to be perfectly straight and no binder leakage into the existing

pavement is assumed.

2.3.2 Sweep Test of Bituminous Emulsion Surface Treatment Samples

The sweep test (ASTM D7000) is one of the laboratory test methods suggested by the

NCHRP Report 680 (2011) for evaluation of the performance of asphalt chip seals in terms of

aggregate loss. The components of the ASTM D7000 sweep test setup illustrated in Figure 2.5.

Figure 2.5: ASTM D7000 sweep test setup

Test procedure includes fabrication of asphalt chip seal samples, and testing by applying

shear force to the surface of aggregates by using a nylon strip brush affixed to the mixer. Before

and after testing, sample is weighted and percentage mass loss is calculated (ASTM D7000).

19
 There is a controversial issue whether sweep test is a good indicator for assessing

performance of chip seal in terms of development of bond between aggregate and asphalt

bitumen. Wasiuddin et al. (2013) stated that performance evaluation of asphalt chip seal is better

indicated by sweep test if the performance is investigated with respect to aggregate and binder

type, aggregate gradation, moisture content of aggregates and pre-coating. However, Johannes et

al. (2011) claimed that since inconsistent results were obtained after using different binder

application rates, this test should not be used for a design tool. In addition, according to ASTM

D7000, the goal of sweep test is to measure adhesive properties of the emulsion just after the

construction, not to simulate traffic effect. In other words, this test method is designed to assess

the curing characteristics of chip seals.

2.3.3 Other Test Methods

In addition to the two major methods recommended by NCHRP 680 (2011), there are

several other methods exist. These test methods can be performed at laboratory, field or both.

Performance criteria for asphalt chip seals vary according to test methods. Field and laboratory

applicability as well as the properties measured by each test method are summarized in Table

2.2.

20
 Table 2.2: Various other test methods used to evaluate asphalt chip seals

Applicability
Test Methods Property measured
Lab Field
Vialit Adhesion Test x % mass loss
Frosted Marble Test x % mass loss
Australian Aggregate Pull-out Test x Necessary pull-out force
Pennsylvania Aggregate Retention Test x % mass loss
British Pendulum Test x x British Pendulum Number (BPN)
Locked Wheel Skid Test x Skid Number (SN)
Third Scale Model Mobile Loading
x % mass loss
Simulator (MMLS3)

Pull-off adhesion strength achieved

Pneumatic Adhesion Tension Test x
at failure

Vialit Adhesion Test

The Vialit Adhesion Test was first introduced in France to measure the effect of binder

and aggregate type on performance. It consists of three components: metal base with the vertical

rod, steel ball and metal test plates.

Jordan III et al. (2011) studied applicability of the Vialit test on surface seal treatments

with respect to performance. In addition to the usual tray, they came up with a modified tray by

changing the material to hot rolled steel from metal and modifying the surface texture (non-

textured to textured) and changing the tray thickness. The authors concluded that results from the

Vialit test are always questionable and it is not sufficient to make conclusions regarding

performance of seal treatments. However, performance results based on only freezing time and

freeze thaw with using modified tray were distinguishable. Another study from Epps et al. (2001)

also suggested that results from the Vialit test are so inconsistent that they cannot differentiate

between good and poor performance of the seal treatments.

21
 Frosted Marble Test

Frosted marble test (FMT) was first introduced by Benedict (1990). FMT is aimed to

look at binder adhesion by applying torque to marbles fixed with the binder. FMT setup is

illustrated in the Figure 2.6. Test setup consists of torque wrench, hooked foot for applying shear

and tray on which binder is spread and marbles are placed, respectively.

Howard et al. (2009) made a modification to the FMT setup by including temperature

control using an environmental chamber. They also modified the curing procedure. Howard et al.

(2009) stated that, even though the results from the FMT seem to be valuable for evaluating

performance of binder adhesion and curing, it is not enough by itself and other test methods

should be used to make comprehensive evaluation. Also, they concluded that the testing

variability is another issue of the FMT, primarily because of the hooked foot position and marble

positions on the tray of the test.

Figure 2.6: Frosted marble test setup (source: Howard et al. 2009)

22
 Australian Aggregate Pull-out Test

This test method was developed for finding necessary pull-out force to separate

aggregates from the asphalt bitumen material in seal surface treatments. After seal surface

treatment is prepared, embedded aggregates are fixed by a crocodile clip and 20 g/sec pull-out

rate is applied to the stone until it is detached and during this procedure, load measurements are

taken continuously (Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads 2012).

One of the uses of this test method is to determine the duration of traffic control after

construction. In addition, coated average area of the binder on the aggregate can be observed

visually to correlate with the peak tensile stress needed to pull out the aggregate. (Senadheera et

al. 2006).

Pennsylvania Aggregate Retention Test

Pennsylvania aggregate retention test (PART) (illustrated in Figure 2.7) was first

developed by National Center for Asphalt Technology Auburn University (Kandhal and Motter

1991). The test simulates the effect of traffic on the seal surface treatments by using the ‘Mary

Ann Laboratory Sieve Shaker’. Surface seal treatment sample is prepared within the pan and

after compression and curing process, initial aggregate loss is obtained by turning upside down.

Then, the pan is placed in the sieve shaker upside down at an inclination of 45o. After 5 minutes

of shaking, aggregate loss is measured and calculated as a percentage.

23
Figure 2.7: Sample Fabrication and Mary Ann Sieve Shaker (source: Kandhal and Motter
1991)
British Pendulum Test

The British Pendulum Test (BPT) is one of the tools used for measuring surface frictional

properties. The measurement values obtained from the British Pendulum Test are scaled as BPN

(British Pendulum Number), which represents frictional properties by measuring the energy loss

when rubber slider slips over the sample (ASTM E303-93, 2013). The British Pendulum Test is

illustrated in the Figure 2.8.

Figure 2.8: British Pendulum Test

24
 The primary advantage of BPT is its applicability to both field and laboratory testing.

However, Lu et al. (2006) stated that since BPT is capable of applying low speed to the surface

(6 mph), the test only can measure the skid resistance due to microtexture of the surface. Higher

speed is required to obtain the effect of macrotexture. In addition to the speed problem, the

ASTM standard (ASTM E 303-93) does not have any temperature correction. The British

standard (BS 7976-2) includes temperature factors only up to 35oC. Therefore, temperature

factor for BPT is an issue for the places having warmer climate.

Third Scale Model Mobile Loading Simulator

The third scale model mobile loading simulator (MMLS3) is one of accelerated pavement

testing devices for determining performance of different kinds of pavements by simulating traffic

effect in a determined scale. Lee (2003) first introduced the MMLS3 to measure the hot mix

asphalt (HMA) performance with respect to fatigue cracking and rutting.

This test machine consists of 4 bogies, 1 axle per bogie and 1 wheel/tire per axle

(Bhattacharjee et al., 2004). Each wheel has a diameter of 80 mm and is capable of applying max

800 kPa pressure, and between 1.9 kN and 2.7 kN load. Since the MMLS3 has an environment

chamber around itself, desired temperature can be sustained. The MMLS3 test setup is illustrated

in Figure 2.9.

In addition to applicability of MMLS3 to HMA pavements, this test is also applicable to

seal surface treatments. Lee (2007) came up with design modification for Hanson design method

for asphalt seal surface treatments by stating reference voids content after MMLS3 tests for

lightweight and granite aggregate type.

25
 Figure 2.9: The Third Scale Model Mobile Load Simulator (MMLS3)

Pneumatic Adhesion Tension Test

Pneumatic adhesion tension testing instrument (PATTI) (illustrated in Figure 2.10) is

used for evaluating bond strength of an asphalt binder by applying direct tension. Unlike the

direct tensile bond test according to ASTM D7234 “Standard Test Method for Pull-Off Adhesion

Strength of Coatings on Concrete Using Portable Pull-Off Adhesion Testers”, same pulling rate

can be applied to each test sample (Zhou et al. 2014).

26
 Figure 2.10: Pneumatic Adhesion Tensile Tester (source: Vickey 2007)

2.3.4 Image Processing Techniques for Performance Evaluation of Chip Seals

In literature, there are several studies regarding performance measurements by using

image analysis techniques. Kim et al. (2008) used image analysis techniques to quantify texture

differences in chip seals compacted using different rolling patterns. Chip seal cores were taken

before and after the different rolling procedures, then cores were sliced and images were

obtained by using a scanner. Macrotexture profiles were obtained by using MATLAB-based

algorithms and the root mean square roughness of the chip seal profiles were estimated (ASME

2002). Then rolling effectiveness was investigated by looking roughness values derived from the

chip seal profiles. One drawback of this method comes from the imaging technique. Kim et al.

(2008) also stated that some of the aggregates seemed to be flying on the image since they

27
attached to surface at different place. Therefore, the algorithm was not always able to compute

the profile accurately.

An extensive study was conducted by Kodippily (2013) to investigate the flushing

mechanism of chip seals. In this study, the effect of volumetric and distribution of air voids in

chip seal samples was studied via analysis of X-ray Computed Tomography (X-ray CT) images

and flushing models were developed. This study showed that X-ray CT imaging is a viable

option for determining internal structure of chip seal surfaces in a non-destructive way.

However, X-ray CT is not a practical method of obtaining images because of its cost and

expertise necessary for its operation.

Wielinski et al. (2011) selected three different sections on the road and pictures were

taken at these sections over time. With the help of image processing techniques, they

differentiated aggregates and binder from the chip seal texture picture at different time periods,

and then aggregate retention of this specific section was calculated. The main drawback of this

technique is that dust on the binder in the field caused some problems during differentiation of

binder and aggregate during image processing.

In general, literature review regarding image processing techniques on asphalt chip seal is

about getting texture properties, or air void within the chip seal samples. None of the methods

were able to provide percent embedment directly.

2.3.5 Numerical Studies on Asphalt Chip Seals

First attempt for developing a numerical model in order to evaluate the performance of

asphalt chip seal was made by Huurman et al. (2004). This study showed the applicability of

28
finite element methods on seal surface treatments. Due to some deficiencies of modeling and

meshing of aggregate particles and representing base layer in prototype model, an improved

model was established as shown in Figure 2.11 (Huurman 2010). In the prototype model, asphalt

bitumen was placed between aggregates; whereas, mastic like (bitumen-rich) layer was defined

below the aggreagtes due to embedment of aggregate into the existing pavement. In order to

determine aggregate shape and size, a random number generator was used by using a

multiplication factor for each node. Tire load was applied to each stone individually and vertical,

lateral and longitudinal stress values were calculated by considering axle load and pressure, tire

speed and distunguieshed shape functions proposed by Groenendijk (1998). Aggregate was

assumed to be linear elastic, whereas the bitumen was assumed to follow the generalized

Burger’s viscoelastic model.

Figure 2.11: Chip seal finite element modeling (source: Huurman 2010)

Huurman’s FEM study (Huurman 2010) included the evaluation of the performance of

the chip seals by examining punching and aggregate rotation, fatigue cracking, low-temperature

cracking, moisture damage and adhesion failure.

29
 Henderson (2006) used real 2D chip seal slice images to develop a finite element model

(FEM) to study the performance of chip seals. Due to limitations in computational time,

aggregates were taken as rigid (instead of linearly elastic). Bitumen material behavior was

modeled by using Prony series. Quadrilateral and triangular elements were used for aggregates

and binder, respectively. Applied load was determined by study of de Beer (1994), which free

rolling truck tire was simulated in the way that tire surface contacted all surface and rolled in or

out of the page. The results with respect to stress and strain were determined. Two stress plots

from this study is shown in Figure 2.12

Figure 2.12: Stress distribution for chip seal modeling (source: Henderson 2006)

Although these studies give an insight into performance of chip seal surfaces under

different conditions like using different size of cover aggregates and different type of binder, it is

still so far away from giving actual results due to modeling chip seal in a perfect pattern. In other

words, chip seal models in FEM analysis in current studies have been modeled in a perfect

arrangement in terms of aggregate and binder position in the model. In that way, Henderson’s

study (2006) is much better to simulate actual chip seal performance by using slice images of the

cores taken by the field. However, only 2D analysis of performance of chip seal was done.

30
 2.4 Synthesis of Previous Work and Motivation for the Current Study

It can be concluded from the literature review that aggregate embedment depth into the

binder plays a significant role for prevention of distresses (e.g., aggregate loss and bleeding) in

chip seals. Most of the design methods mentioned in this Chapter recommended a desired

percent embedment depth right after the construction and after certain traffic. However, all these

recommendations were based on the observations and field experiences. There is no study that

directly developed relationship between embedment depth and performance of the chip seals.

Methods such as the sand patch test (recommended by NCHRP Report 680) and texture

scanning make certain assumptions while calculating the embedment depth. First, the existing

pavement is assumed to be perfectly flat; therefore, pavement deteriorations on the surface are

ignored. Aggregate embedment into the existing substrate is also neglected; however, aggregates

do embed into the existing substrate in chip seal constructions when the existing pavement is

relatively soft. In addition, binder seepage into existing substrate due to existing cracks on the

surface is also ignored. These three assumptions have significant effects on the percent

embedment depth; therefore, the current study focuses on developing a method of estimating

embedment depth without making these assumptions.

The other test methods to measure the performance of chip seal applications are not

related to the embedment depth. The target of these test methods is generally about adhesion

properties of emulsion binder under different conditions. They do not include embedment depth

concept as a performance criteria or one of the factors affecting the performance.

31
 The work regarding image analysis techniques on chip seals done so far is not related to

the embedment depth. Texture properties of the chip seals and air void existing in the chip seal

were investigated through image processing techniques. Therefore, there is a need for developing

image-based algorithms to directly estimate embedment depth of chip seals.

Numerical study of chip seals is relatively new topic. Modeling of chip seal in best way is

still being investigated. Therefore, the effect of the embedment depth on performance is not

studied in numerical studies on chip seals.

32
 CHAPTER 3

CHIP SEAL SAMPLE ACQUISITION & FABRICATION

Chip seal samples used in this research project were either taken from the field or

fabricated in the laboratory. Thirty (30) chip seal cores were taken from different chip seal

sections of Michigan. In addition to field chip seal cores, forty (40) laboratory chip seal samples

were fabricated.

3.1 Field Chip Seal Sample Acquisition

Chip seal samples initially were obtained by taking cores from the field. Thirty (30) chip

seal cores were collected from 5 different sections in Michigan. The surface types of these chip

seals were different. Chip seal cores collected from the field are summarized in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1: Summary of field chip seal cores

Surface Types

Section Total
Single Chip Fog Sealed Fog Sealed
Double Chip Seal
Seal (Single Chip) (Double Chip)

M-57 Near Clio - 5 - - 5

M-57 Near Pompeii 5 - - - 5

M-20 7 - 1 - 8

M-57 Near Carson City 4 - - - 4

M-33 From Alger to

- - 8 - 8
Rose City

Total 16 5 9 - 30

*Red: cannot be analyzed because of its nature - *Green: completed analyses

33
 Among these 30 samples, twenty-one (21) single chip seal samples could be analyzed,

because image analysis was not possible for the remaining 9 field chip seal (more details are

given in Chapter 4). Chip seal samples from the M-57 Near Pompei, M-20 and M-33 from Alger

to Rose city were sliced and their analyses were completed.

The aggregate and binder properties were not available for most of the sections.

However, it can be assumed that contractors constructed the chip seal sections according to

MDOT specifications for construction. Desired minimum aggregate physical requirements and

emulsion chemical properties as well as application rate ranges are given in MDOT

specifications in division 5 under chip seals section (2012). One of the most important

parameters for aggregates affecting performance is size. According to MDOT specification

(2012), 90 to 100% aggregates and 0 to 10% aggregates should pass through 3/8 inch sieve size

and No.4 sieve size, respectively. Therefore, uniform one size aggregate gradation is targeted.

The sizes of the aggregates were also verified using the image analysis procedure. Also, in

MDOT’s specification, the aggregate application range is from 20 to 24 lb/yd2 (depending on the

existing surface condition), and the binder application range is from 0.39 to 0.46 gal/yd2.

3.1.1 Gradation of Aggregates from the Field

Contractors are responsible to use desired aggregate size for chip seal treatments based

on MDOT chip seal specification (2012) in Michigan. The aggregates were collected only from

the section on M-33 from Alger to Rose city. The size distribution of aggregates is shown in the

Figure 3.1, which is based on the laboratory sieve analysis as well as the image processing

techniques.

34
 100
Image Analysis
Sieve Analysis

80

Percent Total Passing 60

40

20

0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Sieve Openings (mm)

Figure 3.1: Gradation of the aggregates used in the field M-33 from Alger to Rose City

The size distribution for aggregates was determined using image-based algorithm

developed by following the recommendations of Kumara et al. (2012). The 2-D images were

used and areas of the particles were estimated with some assumptions. The gradation was

obtained by using area of an ellipse, which is calculated by using the following formula:

𝑎 𝑏
𝐴 = 𝜋 𝑥 ( )𝑥 ( ) [3.1]
2 2

where A = area of the aggregate, a = the length of long axis, and b = the length of the

intermediate axis.

From the 2-D images, a and b values were directly obtained from image-based algorithms. The

percentage passing through a sieve was calculated by using the formula 3.2:

35
 ∑𝑝𝑖(𝐴𝑖 𝑥𝑏𝑖 )
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑃𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 = 𝑛 𝑥 100% [3.2]
∑𝑖 (𝐴𝑖 𝑥𝑏𝑖 )

where A = area of the aggregate, b = intermediate axis length p = number of aggregate passing

through the grain size, and n = total number of particles

The procedure for computing gradation of aggregates by image-based algorithms is as follows:

- The aggregates are placed on the light table and pictures are taken by a document

camera (see the Figure 3.2(a)).

- Aggregates are obtained separately (see the Figure 3.2(b)) and long and intermediate

axis properties are taken from the algorithm. The resolution is calculated as mm/pixel.

- Area of each aggregate is calculated and percent passing through each grain size is

obtained by using Equation 3.2.

Figure 3.2: (a) Original image obtained from a document camera (b) Aggregate

determination

36
 3.1.2 Chip Seal Collection from the Field

Chip seal samples were collected with the help of MDOT crew. The field sections were

selected by the MDOT crew and the care was made to select newly constructed chip seal

sections. Before taking cores from the chip seal sections, MDOT crew performed both sand

patch test and laser texture scanning to measure texture depth of corresponding section. Then,

chip seal samples were taken by a coring machine. The procedure for collecting chip seal core

samples from the field is illustrated in Figure 3.3.

(a) Sand Patch Test (b) Ames Laser Texture Scan

(c) Coring (d) Filling the Holes

Figure 3.3: Procedure for taking cores from the field

37
 3.2 Laboratory Chip Seal Sample Fabrication

In this section, the physical properties of aggregates, chemical properties of emulsion and

procedure for fabricating chip seal samples in the laboratory are discussed. Total 40 laboratory

samples were fabricated. These 40 samples can be divided into two groups:

- Group 1: This group included 8 chip seal samples. The goal was to investigate the effect of

binder and aggregate application rate on percent embedment depth. For that purpose, 8 chip

seal samples were fabricated by using the lowest and highest binder and aggregate

application rates specified in the MDOT specification for construction (2012). Each set

consisted of 2 replicates, and 4 different sets (8 samples) are summarized in Table 3.2:

Table 3.2: Summary of group 1 samples

Binder App. Rate Aggregate App.
Set No. 2 2
(gal/yd ) Rate (lb/yd )

1 0.39 20

2 0.39 24

3 0.46 20

4 0.46 24

- Group 2: This group consisted of thirty-two (32) chip seal samples. The aim was to

investigate the effect of sweep test on percent embedment and surface coverage area. Sixteen

(16) sets of chip seal samples were prepared, and two replicates were prepared for each set

(32 total chip seal samples were tested). Eight (8) sets were analyzed without performing

sweep test, and remaining eight (8) of them were analyzed after sweep test was performed on

38
 the samples. Both sets of chip seal samples were fabricated with the same binder and

aggregate application rates shown in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3: Summary of group 2 samples

Binder App. Rate Agg. App. Rate

Sample No. 2 2
(gal/yd ) (lb/yd )

1 0.39 20

2 0.40 20

3 0.41 20

4 0.42 20

5 0.43 20

6 0.44 20

7 0.45 20

8 0.46 20

3.2.1 Gradation of Aggregates and Sieve Analysis

The aggregates used for fabricating chip seal samples were selected according to MDOT

Specification for Construction (2012). The size distributions of the aggregates obtained using

laboratory sieve analysis and image based algorithms are shown in the Figure 3.4. As shown,

uniformly graded aggregates were used to fabricate the chip seal samples. Two-dashed line

represents 3/8 inch (9.75mm) and No.4 (4.75 mm) sieve size, from left to right respectively. It

can clearly be seen that the aggregates satisfied the condition of 90 to 100% passing 3/8” sieve

and 0 to 10% passing #4 sieve in accordance with the MDOT Specification for Construction

(2012). In addition to the gradation, relatively round aggregates were used during chip seal

fabrication.

39
 100
Image Analysis
Sieve Analysis

80
Percent Total Passing

60

40

20

0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Sieve Openings (mm)

Figure 3.4: Gradation of the aggregates used in the laboratory

3.2.2 Emulsion Binder

Emulsion binder used for laboratory chip seal was obtained from Ergon Asphalt &

Emulsions, Inc. Emulsion type was CRS-2, which is a cationic rapid setting type emulsified

asphalt. Rapid setting emulsions are very conveniently used for chip seal constructions (NCHRP

Report 680, 2011). Compositions on ingredients of emulsion are summarized in Table 3.4:

Table 3.4: Composition/ information on ingredients

% in the
Chemical Name
Composition

Asphalt 50 - 70

Water 20 – 40

Hydrochloric Acid <1

40
 3.2.3 Procedure for Chip Seal Sample Fabrication

Chip seal fabrication procedure can be divided into 3 steps: (i) binder application, (ii)

aggregate application and (iii) compaction. Before preparing chip seal samples, hot mix asphalt

samples with height of 40 mm were fabricated by gyratory compactor in order to simulate

existing pavement condition.

Emulsion Binder Application

Emulsion binder on the hot mix asphalt surface was applied as follows: (1) required mass

of emulsion binder mass was calculated by using the information of specific gravity for emulsion

and surface area. (2) Emulsion binder was placed in the oven with 80oF for an hour. (3) A tape

was used to make a barrier around the HMA edge to prevent emulsion from spilling over the

HMA sides (Figure 3.5a). (4) Desired emulsion binder mass poured onto the HMA surface and

made the emulsion binder cover all surface by rotating sample (Figure 3.5b).

Figure 3.5: Binder application process: (a) pouring emulsion on the sample, and (b)
spreading the binder by gravity & rotation

41
 Aggregate Application

Aggregate application on HMA specimens was performed by using an aggregate spreader

designed and manufactured in MSU’s Advanced Asphalt Characterization Laboratory (AACL).

The working principle of aggregate spreader based on the study of Howard et al. (2013). A

sketch of the components of the aggregate spreader is shown in Figure 3.6.

Aggregate controller

Specimen divider

Spreader
plate

Specimen box

Figure 3.6: Sketch of the components of the aggregate spreader

Using the spreader, aggregate application on four HMA specimens can be performed at

the same time and uniform aggregate spread can be sustained. Steps of aggregate spreading are

summarized as follows: (1) cylindrical HMA mixtures are placed in the box of the aggregate

spreader, (2) desired mass of aggregate (according to application rate) is placed on the spreader

sheet, (3) aggregate controller, which consists of bolts for making aggregates one-thick size

pattern and uniform, is placed on the top of the aggregate spreader, (4) spreader plate which

holds the aggregates is pulled off to drop the aggregates on the HMA surface. This general

procedure is illustrated in Figure 3.7.

42
 (1&2) (3)

(4)

Figure 3.7: Procedure for using aggregate spreader

Compaction

Compaction of the chip seal was conducted by using both sweep test compactor and a

material testing system (MTS). Also, a rubber sheet was placed on the top of the chip seal

surface to simulate effect of rubber tire roller. In addition to the sweep test compactor, chip seal

asphalt sample was compacted by MTS machine. About 600±18 kPa pressure (2383±70 pound-

force for 6 inch diameter sample) was applied in stress controlled cyclic haversine mode at a

frequency of 0.1 Hz for 25 cycles. The pressure was taken from the AASHTO T312 (2015),

which is the procedure for preparing hot mix asphalt samples by gyratory compactor.

Compaction procedure is illustrated in Figure 3.8.

43
 (a)

(b)

Figure 3.8: Sweep test compactor and compaction using the MTS: (a)
Sweep test compactor and (b) compaction with MTS

44
 CHAPTER 4

IMAGE ACQUISITION PROCEDURE AND IMAGE PROCESSING

ALGORITHMS

In this chapter, sample preparation procedures for image acquisition, and the algorithms

that are capable of calculating embedment depth (ED) and aggregate surface coverage (ASC),

are introduced.

4.1 Sample Preparation and Image Acquisition

As shown in Figure 4.1, the chip seal samples are first sliced vertically to form a clean

vertical face that the different phases (aggregate and chip seal binder) are distinctly visible and

clear. Then, the digital images are captured using a document camera.

Field & Laboratory Samples Imaging of Cross Sections

Slices of Core Samples

Figure 4.1: Illustration of sample preparation and image acquisition

45
 There are two steps applied for cutting chip seal core samples in order to slice them

properly (Figure 4.2). First step was a horizontal cutting procedure to make the core sample

height smaller. The height of shortened chip seal cores ranged from 3 to 4.5 cm. Primary reason

for the ‘shortening’ was to be able to fit the cores into the sweep test setup. Second cutting

operation was vertical slicing.

Cutting Operation (1)

Core Sample Slices

Core Sample

Cutting Operation (2)

Figure 4.2: Sample cutting procedure

After obtaining cross sections from the chip seal cores, cross section pictures were taken by

using a document camera. There are some important sample preparation criteria that are

necessary for algorithms to work properly. These criteria are listed as follows:

- The top of the chip seal surface should be covered with a distinctly colored substance. Blue

playdough was used to cover the top of the chip seal during imaging.

- Good color contrast between the aggregate and binder is necessary.

46
- There should be no light reflection on the binder or the aggregates during imaging. Several

imaging techniques had been tried before getting good imaging results. Practicing for taking

pictures with professional camera at different light conditions was done. However, a

document camera (Brand: Elmo) with indoor white lightening was found to be the best

option for imaging (See Figure 4.3).

Figure 4.3: Desired cross section image

- Another issue for most of the cores from the field was the type of aggregates used. The

aggregates had a lot of holes on their surface, because of being blast furnace slag.

Contractors use iron blast furnace aggregates in chip seal constructions due to their

availability and low cost. However, this kind of aggregate has a lot of holes, which prevents

the image-based algorithms to work properly. Another difficulty with the blast furnace slag

aggregates was their dark color. Since color contrast between aggregate and binder is poor; it

is very difficult to analyze these images without improving the cross section surface for

imaging. Figure 4.4 illustrates an example problematic cross section.

47
 Figure 4.4: Image-based problems from cross sections

- After several trials for improving cross section, painting aggregates using a fine tip white pen

was found to be promising. The aggregates were painted by using fine tip board marker and

the holes on the aggregate surface were filled. This method appeared to be successful after

cross section images were analyzed by using image-based algorithms. The Figure 4.5

illustrates the field chip seal cross section before and after modification. This modification

was performed on all the field cross sections having iron blast furnace aggregates.

(a) Cross section before the painting

(b) Cross section after the painting

Figure 4.5: The effect of painting on cross section image

48
 4.2 Image Adjustments

Before processing chip seal cross-section images, some further adjustments were

necessary. First, since some cross sections were not aligned horizontally in the images, they were

rotated until the substrate surface is horizontal (See Figure 4.6). Then, the images were cropped

such that only desired portion of the image, chip seal area, is visible. This also prevented the

algorithms from being computationally expensive. All these adjustments were made through a

MATLAB graphical user interface (GUI) algorithm, developed as part of this study.

Original Image Rotated Image

Desired Portion of the Image

Figure 4.6: Rotated and cropped image

One of the other important adjustments was to find existing pavement underlying chip

seal (i.e., substrate). For that purpose, certain points were initially set on the existing pavement

manually in the algorithm (as input). These points were placed just below the emulsion of chip

seal and care was taken to select sharp changes of color as shown in Figure 4.7.

49
 Figure 4.7: Selecting points on the existing pavement

The algorithm drew lines between these points and formed a discrete curve (red line

shown in Figure. 4.8a) consisting of multiple straight lines. Another parallel line (blue line

shown in Figure. 4.8a) was automatically drawn 15 pixels above the red curve. Then, colored

image was converted to grayscale image by applying some of the filtering techniques, including

the Gaussian filter and image sharpening (see Figure. 4.8b). These filtering techniques were used

to get rid of noise in the grayscale image. Then, for each x-coordinate, the intensities of the

pixels located between blue line to red line were plotted as a profile (see Figure 4.8c). The

direction of going the way was blue to red. The pixel locations, which had normalized pixel

value smaller than 0.2, were determined. The last pixel value less than 0.2 was found, and was

taken the transition point between existing pavement and chip seal surface emulsion. For

instance, in Figure 4.8c, pixel values are taken from top to bottom at a specific x-coordinate. The

last pixel value less than 0.2 (see plot in Figure 4.8c) is the transition point.

50
Figure 4.8: Procedure for finding existing pavement

51
 4.3 Algorithms for Percent Embedment Depth Calculation

4.3.1 Method 1: Peak & Valley Method

In this method, first, the chip seal surface is determined by using color contrast between

the blue play dough and aggregates (Figure 4.9). Chip seal surface can be thought as a line

(green line in Figure 4.9) and local maxima and minima values are found on this line. Peak

values (red-color points in Figure 4.9) are assumed as maximum aggregate height and valley

values (pink-color points in Figure 4.9) are assumed as maximum binder height. Since all local

maxima and minima values are found on the line, a user-defined threshold value (defined as delta

in the algorithm) is used to limit number of peak and valley points. The steps of the algorithm for

limiting the number of peak and valley points are as follows:

(1) All peak and valley values are found.

(2) The algorithm looks the height difference between two adjacent points (peak and

valley points) (illustrated in fig. 4.9).

(3) If the height difference between these points is smaller than the delta value we

defined, second point from left to right respectively is ignored until the condition is satisfied.

Height
difference

Figure 4.9: Finding peak and valley points

The average y-coordinate of existing pavement (found in a previous step) is taken and

used as existing pavement substrate line (Figure 4.10b). One of the aggregate heights is

calculated by subtracting existing pavement line height from peak height corresponding

52
aggregate. Same procedure is applied for calculating binder height by using valley points (Figure

4.10c). Then, averages for aggregate and binder heights are estimated and the ratio of binder

height to aggregate height times 100 gives percent embedment depth.

ℎ𝑏
𝑃𝑒 (%) = 𝑥100 [4.1]
ℎ𝑠

where Pe = percent embedment depth, hb = average binder height, hs = average aggregate height

(a) Original Image

(b) Finding Peak & Valley Points – Existing Pavement Determination

(c) Embedment Depth Calculation

hs
hb

Figure 4.10: Illustration of steps of Method 1

4.3.2 Method 2: Area Method

The second method developed for calculating embedment depth is area method. In this

method, embedment depth is estimated with the help of using aggregate areas, binder area and

the total chip seal area. The aggregates are found by the algorithm separately to estimate

aggregate area. In order to do so, colored chip seal image is converted into black and white

image by using a user-defined normalized intensity threshold (It) value. Since this threshold

53
value is significant for getting aggregates properly, the algorithm takes the threshold value as an

input. The importance of threshold value is illustrated in Figure 4.11.

Threshold value of 0.50

Threshold value of 0.35

Threshold value of 0.20

`
Figure 4.11: Different threshold values: (a) It = 0.5, (b) It = 0.35, (c) It = 0.20

As shown, too low threshold leads to too much noise especially around aggregate surface

and aggregates are not selected properly (see Figure 4.9c). Also, too high threshold leads to

disappearance of either aggregate itself or part of the aggregates (see Figure 4.9a). Every image

has own threshold value because of the color and light properties of the image. Therefore, It =

0.35 is the best value for this image, as shown in Figure 4.9b.

54
 The algorithm for this method works as follows:

- Total chip seal area is determined after getting existing pavement surface line and chip seal

surface line.

- Total aggregate area is determined after getting all aggregates separately. The algorithm

behind finding each aggregates separately is as follows:

o All pixels under the existing surface is converted to black color in order to remove

irregularities on the existing pavement (see Figure 4.12(a)).

o True color (RGB) image is sharpened. This makes the features of the image such as

edges to look sharper. After the sharpening of the image, the image is transformed to

grayscale image by manipulating red, green and blue color indexes of the image so

that aggregates become lighter color and remaining parts including blue playdough

dark (see Figure 4.12(b)).

o Grayscale image is then modified by applying 2-D median filtering (see Figure

4.12(c)). This modification removes the irregularities (noises) on the image and this

filtered image is converted into black and white image. Then a series of dilation and

contraction operations were performed to fill the holes on the aggregate surface (see

Figure 4.12(d) and Figure 4.12(e)).

o Finally, watershed transformation is performed to separate the aggregates that appear

to sticking to each other (see Figure 4.12(f)).

55
 (a) Removing existing pavement section

(b) Image sharpening and converting image into gray-scale

(c) Application of 2-D median filtering

(d) Converting gray-scale image into black and white image

(e) Filling the holes on the aggregate surface

(f) Watershed transform application to separate aggregates

Figure 4.12: Algorithm for identifying aggregates separately

56
- Binder area is estimated by subtracting total aggregate area from total chip seal area. Then,

binder height is obtained as dividing total binder area to length of image.

𝑨𝑩 = 𝐴𝐶 − ∑( 𝐴𝐴 )𝑖 [4.2]
𝑖

𝑨𝑩
𝒉𝑩 = [4.3]
𝐿
where AB = binder area, AC = chip seal area, AA = aggregate area, hB = average binder height and

L = length of the image (See in Figure 4.13).

- Aggregate image properties such as x and y coordinates are available after getting all

aggregates separately. Average of maximum y-values of each aggregate gives the average

height.

- Embedment depth is calculated by dividing binder height to aggregate height.

ℎ𝑏
𝑷𝒆 (%) = 𝑥100 [4.4]
ℎ𝑠

where Pe = total percent embedment depth, hb = binder height, hs = aggregate height

Figure 4.13: Illustration of embedment depth calculation by area method

57
 4.3.3 Method 3: Embedment of Each Aggregate

In addition to these two algorithms, a new algorithm for estimating embedment depth is

developed. This new algorithm is aimed at finding the percent embedment of each aggregate

separately, followed by a statistical analysis to compute the distribution of percent embedment.

The algorithm steps for this method are as follows:

- In order to determine binder peak points, chip seal surface coordinates determined from

method-1 (peak/valley method) and each aggregate coordinates obtained from method 2

(area method) are used. Intersection between chip seal surface line and aggregate perimeter is

determined as shown in Figure 4.14(a).

- Left and right end points of intersection lines for each aggregate are assumed to be peak

binder heights.

- Binder height for each aggregate is average of two binder peak points from the base (lowest

y-coordinate) of corresponding aggregate (see Figure 4.14(b)).

- Each aggregate height is calculated by subtracting lowest y-coordinate from highest y-

coordinate of corresponding aggregate (see Figure 4.14(b)).

- Embedment depth for each aggregate is calculated by dividing binder height to aggregate

height.

ℎ𝑏1
𝐏𝐞𝟏 (%) = 𝑥 100 [4.5]
ℎ𝑠1

where Pe1 =single aggregate embedment depth, hb1 = binder height for the corresponding

aggregate, hs1 = corresponding aggregate height.

- Total embedment depth is estimated by taking average of all embedment depths.

58
 ∑𝑖 𝑃𝑒(𝑖)
𝐏𝐞 (%) = [4.6]
𝑁

where Pe = total embedment depth, Pe(i) = aggregate embedment depth, N = number of aggregate

for that particular cross section

(a) Intersection line

hb1 hs1 hb2 hs2 hb3 hs3

(b) Embedment depth calculation

Figure 4.14: Method 3 – Embedment of each aggregate

4.4 Algorithm for Aggregate Surface Coverage Area

Another concept that may be considered as one of the performance criteria is aggregate

surface coverage (ASC) by the binder. Adhesion between binder and aggregate prevents

aggregate from being pulled out. Therefore, it is hypothesized that as the percentage of aggregate

surface covered by the binder increases, the probability of aggregate loss decreases.

The algorithm detects binder around each aggregate and calculates percent surface

coverage area for each aggregate. Average of these coverage areas gives general aggregate

surface coverage area.

59
 (𝐴 )
(∑𝑖( 𝐵𝑆 𝑖 𝑥100))
(𝐴𝑃𝑆 )𝑖
𝐴𝑆 = [4.7]
𝑁

where AS = aggregate surface coverage, ABS = binder coverage around the aggregates, APS =

aggregate surface perimeter, and N = total number of aggregates.

Surface percent coverage area is illustrated in Figure 4.15.

Figure 4.15: Aggregate surface coverage

The steps of the algorithm are as follows:

- Each aggregate coordinates as well as perimeter pixels are computed the same way as the

method 2.

- Aggregate surface coverage are examined one by one. For each aggregate, center coordinates

(x and y coordinates) are calculated from perimeter. Starting from one of the perimeter

coordinate, the direction from the center to that perimeter coordinate is obtained. Five (5)

pixel goes outside from that perimeter coordinate through the direction obtained. If algorithm

does not detect any blue color, it accepts that perimeter coordinate as binder and this

procedure is repeated for all perimeter coordinate of corresponding aggregate as shown in

Figure 4.16.

60
 Figure 4.16: Finding surface coverage area

4.5 Validation of the Algorithms

In order to check whether the algorithms work properly, an idealized chip seal image is

prepared as shown in Figure 4.17. After processing this idealized image, both percent

embedment depth (for 3 methods) and surface coverage area are expected to produce 50%.

Embedment depth using method 1 (Peak and Valley method), embedment depth using method 3

(each aggregate) and surface coverage area with binder gave 50%, 50% and very close to 50%,

respectively. However, the area method did not give the 50% embedment depth. The reason why

this method gives different embedment depth is related to how the binder height is determined.

The binder height in this method is found from the total binder area. If the gap between the

aggregates increases, since more binder volume fills the 50% heights, this method would

produce different magnitudes. Therefore, it is recommended not to use this parameter.

61
 (a) Method 1: Peak & Valley Method

(b) Method 2: Area Method

(c) Aggregate Surface Coverage

(d) Method 3: Embedment Depth of Each Aggregate

Figure 4.17: Idealized image analysis

62
 CHAPTER 5

LABORATORY TESTING

This section includes two alternate methods used in the laboratory for calculating

embedment depth and one laboratory test (sweep test) was performed to measure performance of

chip seal samples in terms of aggregate mass loss.

5.1 Sand Patch Test

One of the common methods used both in the field and the laboratory to calculate the

road surface texture is the sand patch test. The result of a sand patch test is not sufficient to

calculate the embedment depth. The mean texture depth obtained from sand patch test and

average aggregate height are used together to calculate the embedment depth.

For this project, sand patch test was performed on both field samples and laboratory

samples. The “spreading method” was used to determine mean texture depth. In this method,

fixed (known) volume of glass beads are used to cover all voids between aggregates. While

performing the sand patch test in the laboratory, following steps were carried out:

- Ottawa sand were spread on the chip seal surface so that all voids between particles were

filled and mass of Ottawa sand was measured by using Equation 5.1. This step was repeated

3 times and mass values were noted.

𝑀𝑂 = 𝑀𝑆𝑂 − 𝑀𝑠 [5.1]

where MO = mass of Ottawa sand, MSO = mass of sample with Ottawa sand, MS = mass of

specimen itself.

63
- Since density of the glass beads was known, volume of the glass beads used for sand patch

test was computed by using mass obtained from previous step.

- With the information of the diameter of Ottawa sand covering the surface and their volume,

mean texture depth was calculated by using the following formula:

4 𝑥 𝑉𝐺𝑆
(𝑴𝑻𝑫) = [5.2]
𝜋 𝑥 (𝐷)2

where MTD = mean texture depth, VGS = volume of glass beads, and D = diameter of the surface

- Mean texture depths obtained from 3 repeated measurements were averaged.

Aggregates typically tend to lie on their flattest side after compaction or due to the effect

of traffic (Mcleod et al. 1969). Therefore, average least dimension of the aggregates was

estimated by using the following formula (Wood et al. 2006):

𝑀
𝐻= [5.3]
1.139285 + (0.011506)𝑥(𝐹𝐼)

where H = average least dimension (inches), M = median particle size (inches), and FI = percent

flakiness index (in percent).

Percent embedment depth is calculated by using the following formula:

𝐻 − 𝑀𝑇𝐷
% 𝐸𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑑𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ = 𝑥 100 [5.4]
𝑀𝑇𝐷
where H = average least dimension (inches), MTD = mean texture depth (inches) (shown in

Figure 5.1).

64
 Figure 5.1: Embedment depth calculation according to NCHRP 680

5.2 Ames Laser Texture Scanner

Another way to estimate chip seal surface texture is the use of a laser texture scanner. In

this project, Ames laser texture device was used to measure the macro texture of the chip seal

surfaces. With this device, it is easy to perform scanning both in the field and at the laboratory.

After scanning, the scanner estimates and displays mean profile depth (MPD), texture profile

index (TPI), estimated texture depth (ETD). Also, the raw scanning data can be extracted as a

*.csv file format. Ames laser texture device can scan an area with a length of 107.95 mm and

width of 72.01 mm.

Ames laser texture cannot directly calculate the mean texture depth. It initially measures

the mean profile depth, and then converts it into estimated texture depth according to ASTM

E1845-15.

𝑬𝑻𝑫 = 0.2 + 0.8 𝑥 𝑀𝑃𝐷 [5.5]

where ETD = estimated texture depth (in mm), MPD = mean texture depth (in mm).

65
 Figure 5.2: Procedure for computation of mean profile depth (source: ASTM E1845)

In order to calculate mean profile depth (MPD), profile is divided into 100 mm length

baselines. Two peak levels are determined for first and second half of the baseline as shown in

Figure 5.2. The difference between peak levels and average height level is estimated and then

averaged. This procedure is repeated for all baselines along the profile and the average is taken

as mean profile depth (MPD), or mean segment depth. Estimated texture depth (ETD) is

prediction of mean texture depth (MTD) by using MPD. Based on the Freitas et al. (2008) study,

the MTD results acquired from sand patch test are consistent with the ETD results estimated

from MPD.

Estimated texture depth was assumed to be equivalent to the mean texture depth (MTD)

in the results and analysis section of this thesis. Estimated texture depth is obtained line-by-line

depending on the selected resolution. Average of these estimated texture depths gives mean

texture depth of the chip seal surface.

66
In this project, samples taken from the field and fabricated in the laboratory were scanned by

using Ames laser texture device and estimated texture depths were utilized as shown in Figure

5.3.

Texture scan at the field

Texture scan at the MDOT building Texture scan results

Figure 5.3: Procedure for Ames laser texture scan

5.3 Sweep Test

Sweep test was performed on chip seal samples fabricated in the laboratory (see Figure

5.4). Sweep test apparatus was the same specified in ASTM D7000 except the mixer type.

Specification suggests Hobart A120 mixer to use; however, Hobart N50 mixer, which is

equivalent of A120 model, was used for sweep test due to the fact that A120 model is no longer

67
available. Sweep test procedure was performed according to the ASTM D7000 “Standard Test

Method for Sweep Test of Bituminous Emulsion Surface Treatment Samples” and steps followed

applied during test can be summarized as follows:

- Chip seal samples were conditioned at 35oC in 30% of relative humidity for an hour.

- Chip seal sample weight measured before sweep test (A).

- Sweep test was performed with setting #1 (0.83 gyrations per second) for 1 minute.

- Chip seal sample weight was measured after the test (B).

Note that hot mix asphalt (HMA) weight below the chip seal was measured before chip seal

fabrication (C). Percent mass loss was calculated by using formula 5.5.

𝐴−𝐵
% 𝑴𝒂𝒔𝒔 𝑳𝒐𝒔𝒔 = 𝑥 100 [5.6]
𝐴−𝐶
where A = chip seal sample weight before the test, B = chip seal sample weight after the test, and

C = HMA weight below the chip seal surface.

Figure 5.4: Sweep test procedure on chip seal surface

68
 CHAPTER 6

RESULTS: FIELD & LABORATORY SAMPLES

6.1 Field Samples

Thirty (30) chip seal samples were collected from different sections of Michigan with the

help of Michigan DOT crew. However, twenty-one (21) of them could be analyzed through

imaging techniques. Cross sections obtained from the remaining chips seal sample cores had the

following issue:

- It was almost impossible to find an existing pavement surface for double chip seal cross

sections. In addition, even though the type of chip seal was stated as double chip seal, it was

not a uniform double chip seal. Lastly, there was too much binder leakage into the substrate.

All these problems can be seen in the Figure 6.1, which is a double chip, seal cross section

obtained from field core samples.

Figure 6.1: Double chip seal cross section

-

Twenty-one (21) chip seal samples taken from the M-57 highway near the Pompei, M-20

highway and M-33 from Alger to Rose city from Michigan were analyzed through image-based

69
analysis. In addition to analysis, sand patch test was conducted on all these field samples and

also laser texture scanning was performed by using Ames laser texture device.

6.1.1 Field Samples from M-57 Highway near The Pompei

Five (5) chip seal samples taken from the M-57 highway near the Pompei from Michigan

were analyzed through image-based analysis methods as well as the sand patch test. Also,

embedment depth was obtained from Ames laser texture scanning for 3 samples. Results are

tabulated in Table 6.1:

Table 6.1: Embedment depth results of M-57 field samples

Embedment Aggregate Embedment

Sand Patch Ames Laser
Sample ID Depth - surface Depth - Each
Test Texture Scan
Peak/valley coverage Aggregate

040215-7 - RWP 53.94 50.07 80.779 60.65

040215-8 - LWP 46.7 51.87 83.65 50.2 68

040215-9 - CL 60.1 52.41 78.166 61.24

040215-10 - RWP 57.5 52.82 81.77 58.1 72.8

040215-11 - LWP 47.6 48.26 84.872 53.4 67.8

Note: RWP = right wheel path, LWP = left wheel path and CL = center line

As shown in the Figure 6.3, Ames laser texture scanning gives higher percent embedment

as compared to sand patch test. The reason can be due to empirical relationship between mean

profile depths, output of the Ames laser texture; and mean texture depth. Also, Kim et al. (2013)

stated that there is limited data used in developing correlation between mean texture depth and

mean profile depth.

70
 Although the results from the Ames laser texture are higher than the sand patch, their

trends are similar for the 3 samples. The relationship between image-based embedment depth

and the embedment depth obtained from sand patch test are also similar. Also, trends for both

methods are also consistent to each other. The method for embedment depth of each aggregate

gives higher than the embedment depth obtained from peak and valley method. Higher results

can be derived from the fully-embedded aggregates which are considered during embedment

depth calculations.

040215 - 7 - RWP
100
040215 - 8 - LWP
040215 - 9 -CL
Percent Embedment / Surface Coverage (%)

040215 - 10 - RWP
040215 - 11 - LWP
80

60

40

20

0
Emb. Depth Surface Cov. Emb. Depth Sand Patch Ames Laser
Peak/Valley Area Each Aggregate Test Texture Scan

Figure 6.2: Comparison of different methods for M-57 Highway Near Pompei

71
 6.1.2 Field Samples from M-20 Chip Seal Section

Eight (8) chip seal samples taken from the M-20 highway chip seal section from

Michigan were analyzed through image-based analysis methods. In addition to image-based

algorithms, embedment depth was obtained from sand patch test and Ames laser texture scanning

for 8 samples. Results are tabulated in Table 6.2:

Table 6.2: Embedment depth results of M-20 field samples

Embedment Aggregate Embedment

Sand Patch Ames Laser
Sample ID Depth - surface Depth - Each
Test Texture Scan
Peak/valley coverage Aggregate

M20 - 1 63.77 62.09 78.03 55.25 71.73

M20 - 2 71.42 62.89 79.54 56.68 71.91

M20 - 3 58.68 59.04 78.48 58.58 73.68

M20 - 4 67.1 61.1 78.84 57.85 78.33

M20 - 5 67.53 67.02 83.09 55.05 68.5

M20 - 6 53.52 54.39 75.03 58.85 71.77

M20 - 7 61.61 60.71 78.38 58.92 71.54

M20 - 8 61.12 55.13 74.12 53.2 71.21

Percent embedment depth and surface coverage are represented with respect to different

methods as shown in the Figure 6.3. Although embedment depth results from sand patch test and

Ames laser texture are different, their trends are quite similar. The reason why the errors are

higher for Ames laser texture scan results is the large differences between embedment depths

based on the estimated texture depth obtained at every line scan defined by the user for one

sample.

72
 Similar to the results between sand patch test and Ames laser texture scan, the results for

embedment depth calculation obtained from peak and valley method and each aggregate method

are different but similar trends. One of the improvements for embedment depth calculation with

each aggregate method is low variability comparing to embedment depth calculation estimated

by the peak and valley method.

100
Embedment Depth - Surface Coverage (%)

80

60

40

20

0
Emb. Depth Surface Cov. Emb. Depth Sand Patch Ames Laser
Peak/Valley Area Each Aggregate Test Texture Scan

M20 - 1 M20 - 3 M20 - 5 M20 - 7

M20 - 2 M20 - 4 M20 - 6 M20 - 8

Figure 6.3: Comparison of different methods for M-20 Chip Seal Section

73
 6.1.3 Field Samples from M-33 from Alger to Rose City

Eight (8) chip seal samples taken from the M-33 from Alger to Rose city chip seal section

were analyzed in terms of percent embedment depth and surface coverage through image-based

algorithms, sand patch test and Ames laser texture scan. Results are tabulated in Table 6.3:

Table 6.3: Embedment depth results of M-33 field samples

Embedment Aggregate Embedment

Sand Patch Ames Laser
Sample ID Depth - surface Depth - Each
Test Texture Scan
Peak/valley coverage Aggregate

M33 - 1 75.26 65.86 82.7 48.98 62.41

M33 - 2 71.29 61.57 81.88 68.51 70.21

M33 - 3 68.75 60.79 77.91 72.26 73.71

M33 - 4 70.34 59.7 79.07 77.52 85.1

M33 - 5 57.87 55.97 72.98 70.96 78.81

M33 - 6 72.69 65.1 82.43 71.61 74.98

M33 - 7 70.51 60.27 79.22 48.98 62.72

M33 - 8 77.31 61.06 81.98 67.97 71.99

Like the results obtained from M-20 chip seal section, from the Figure 6.4, trends for

sand patch and Ames laser texture scan results are quite similar; however, variability (errors) for

laser scanning is higher than the sand patch test. The reason for low variability in sand patch

results is that the estimated mean texture depths between repeated sand patch tests on the same

sample are generally very similar. The relationship between two different methods to calculate

embedment depth is similar to the results obtained from M-20 chip seal section as well. They

both do not indicate similar embedment results but same trends. Percent embedment depth

results obtained from each aggregate are higher than the peak and valley method. Normally, it is

very difficult to say a relationship between embedment depth and surface coverage area, it is

74
seen similarities in trend-wise especially with embedment depth of each aggregate method. It can

be due to the fully embedded aggregates that are considered at both methods.

100
Embedment Depth - Surface Coverage (%)

80

60

40

20

0
Emb. Depth Surface Cov. Emb. Depth Sand Patch Ames Laser
Peak/Valley Area Each Aggregate Test Texture Scan

M33 - 1 M33 - 3 M33 - 5 M33- 7

M33 - 2 M33 - 4 M33 - 6 M33 - 8

Figure 6.4: Comparison of different methods for M-33 Chip Seal Section

One of another result from the analyses for all field chip seal sample is that the

embedment depth results obtained from the sand patch test gives the lowest results compared to

other test methods. The reason for obtaining the lowest results for sand patch test is the

assumption for the aggregates sitting perfectly on the ground. However, there is always binder

under the chip seal aggregates and it increases the embedment depth obtained from the image

based analysis. The effect of the binder under the aggregates on the percent embedment depth

75
can be seen in the Figure 6.5(b). The percent embedment depth (he1) calculated when aggregates

sitting perfectly on the ground is less than the percent embedment depth (he2) while considering

the binder under the aggregates.

(a) Chip seal sketch for sand patch test

𝐡𝐬
𝐡𝐛𝟏
𝐡𝐛𝟐

𝐡𝐛𝟏 𝐡𝐛𝟐
𝐡𝐞𝟏 = < 𝐡𝐞𝟐 =
𝐡𝐬 𝐡𝐬

Binder Aggregate
(b) Actual chip seal sketch

Figure 6.5: Sketches of the asphalt chip seals

6.1.4 Relationship Between the Image-based Algorithms and Other Methods

In addition to comparison of different methods for each field, the relationship between

the embedment depth estimated from the image-based algorithms and the embedment depth

measured from sand patch test and Ames laser texture scan was investigated. The embedment

depth results calculated from method-1 and the embedment depth measured from sand patch test

and Ames laser texture scanning are shown in the Figure 6.6. From the results, it can be

concluded that there is no correlation between both method-1 vs. sand patch and method-1 and

76
laser texture scan except for the M-57 chip seal section. The reason can be the chip seal type for

M-20 and M-33 which are fog chip seal. The glass beads which is used to calculate macrotexture

depth could not fill the voids between aggregates because of fog sealing. Therefore, the

embedment depth results measured from the sand patch and laser scanning can give wrong

results for fog chip seal sections.

80 90
y = - 9 5.6 9 + 2 .1 0 4 x R = 0 .9 9
M e t h o d - 1 ( P e a k & V a ll e y )

M e t h o d -1 ( P e a k & V a ll e y )
y = 5 5 .33 + 0 .10 7 x R = 0 .0 5
75 y = 9 3 .85 - 0.3 2 2 x R = 0 .42
y = 5 9 .88 + 0 .06 0 x R = 0 .0 4
80
70

65
70

60

60
55

50
50
y = - 9 .5 6 8 + 1.1 0 6 x R = 0 .8 9
45 y = 1 1 5 .7 7 - 0 .9 2 7x R = 0 .3 4
y = 8 0 .89 - 0.1 5 7 x R = 0 .29
y = 4 3 .44 + 0 .33 4 x R = 0 .3 1
40 40
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 40 50 60 70 80 90
S a n d P a tc h T e s t A m e s L a s e r T e x tu re S c a n in g
M - 5 7 N ea r P o m p e i M - 3 3 fr o m A lge r to R o s e C ity M -5 7 N ea r P o m p e i M - 3 3 fro m A lge r to R o s e C ity
M - 2 0 C hi p S e a l S e c tio n A ll v a lu e s M -2 0 C hi p S e a l S e c tio n A ll v a lu e s

Figure 6.6: Method-1 relationship with sand patch and laser texture scanning

The rest of the combinations, method-3 vs. sand patch test and method-3 vs. Ames laser

texture scanning, are available in the Appendix E. For the method-3, similar results were

obtained as method-1. Also noted that since there is other factors affecting the embedment depth

such as existing pavement condition (distresses), stiffness of the substrate, asphalt binder

properties (viscosity); these factors can be considered in the correlation.

77
 6.2 Laboratory Samples

As mentioned in the Chapter 4, forty (40) chip seal samples were fabricated in the

laboratory and these 40 samples were separated into two groups.

6.2.1 Group 1 Samples

Eight (8) chip seal samples were categorized in group 1. The aim of testing this group

was to investigate the effect of application rates (both aggregate and binder) on embedment

depth and surface coverage area. Samples were prepared with upper and lower limits of both

binder and aggregate application rates. For each combination, 2 replicates were tested. The plots

in Figure 6.8 indicates that the embedment depth and surface coverage area do not seem to be

affected by the aggregate application rate. Whereas, according to results illustrated in Figure 6.7,

binder application rate has a greater influence on percent embedment and surface coverage area.
E m b e d m e n t o r C o v e r a g e A r e a (% )

E m b e d m e n t o r C o v e r a g e A r e a (% )

2 2
A g g re g a t e A p p . R a t e - 2 0 lb /y d A g g re g a t e A p p . R a t e - 2 4 lb /y d
1 00 1 00
B ind e r A p p . - 0. 39 B ind e r A p p . - 0. 39
B ind e r A p p . - 0. 46 B ind e r A p p . - 0. 46

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
P e rc en t E m b ed m e n t D e p t h S u rfa c e C ov e ra ge A re a P e rc en t E m b ed m e n t D e pt h S u rfa c e C ov e ra ge A re a
M et h o d M et h o d

Figure 6.7: Effect of binder application rate

78
 It is clearly seen from the Figure 6.7 that increases in the binder application rate leads to

increase in the percent embedment depth and aggregate surface coverage. One of the reasons

why aggregate application rate does not affect the results may be that there was already sufficient

number of aggregate chips on the surface even after application of 20 lb/yd2 rate. Excess

aggregates were taken on the surface by brushing before cutting process. Therefore, since they

would have similar aggregate application rates on the chip seal surface after brushing,

embedment depths obtained by image-based algorithms were close to each other.

E m b e d m e n t o r C o v e r a g e A r e a (% )
2
B ind e r A pp . R a te - 0 .39 g al/yd 2 B in d e r A p p . R at e - 0 .4 6 g a l/y d
1 00
E m b e d m e n t o r C o ve r ag e A re a (% )

1 00
A g g. A p p. - 2 0 lb /yd ^2 A g g. A p p. - 2 0 lb /y d ^2
A g g. A p p. - 2 4 lb /yd ^2 A g g. A p p. - 2 4 lb /y d ^2

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
P e rcen t E m b ed m e n t D e pt h S u rfa ce C ove ra ge A re a P e rc en t E m b ed m e n t D e pt h S u rfa c e C ov e ra ge A re a
M eth od M et h o d

Figure 6.8: Effect of aggregate application rate

6.2.2 Group 2 Samples

Thirty two (32) chip seal samples were classified as group 2. Since aggregate application

rate was found not to affect the embedment depth and surface coverage area for laboratory

samples, aggregate application rate was kept constant, (20 lb/yd2), and the binder application

varied range between 0.39 gal/yd2 and 0.46 gal/yd2 with the increment of 0.1 gal/yd2 was used as

79
binder application rates during preparing chip seal samples. Each aggregate-binder application

rate set has 2 replicates and each set was prepared twice. One of them was for analysis without

sweep testing; whereas, the remaining set was for analysis after sweep test had been performed.

The goal of this group was to investigate performance of chip seals with embedment depth and

surface coverage area by using sweep test.

The bar plot illustrated in the Figure 6.9 indicates the embedment depths by peak &

valley method with changing binder application rates. Statistical independent t-test was done

between pairs (non-sweep and sweep) to determine whether the samples are statistically different

or not. The samples that had binder application rate of 0.39 gal/yd2 and 0.42 gal/yd2 were

disregarded due to being statistically same samples without sweep and with sweep test.

100
Embd. Depth - No Sweep Test
Embd. Depth. - Sweep Test
y = 55.043 + 2.1469x R= 0.92002
80
y = 48.666 + 1.8611x R= 0.86451
Embedment Depth (%)

60

40

20

0
0.4 0.41 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.46
Binder App. Rate (gal/yd 2)

Figure 6.9: Embedment depth for different binder application rates

80
 From this graph in the Figure 6.9, the effect of sweep test is visible. The difference in the

embedment depth before and after the sweep test occurs because of two things: the first one is to

take the aggregates off from the surface during brushing. The second reason is pulling the

aggregates upward which decreases embedment depth. However, the difference in both

embedment depth and surface coverage area as well as aggregate mass loss calculated after

sweep test are actually not much and this situation is normal because we do not expect so much

difference after sweep test. The goal of sweep test is to measure adhesive properties of the

emulsion just after the construction, not to simulate traffic effect. Therefore, we can say that the

emulsion that we used had good adhesive properties.

Another conclusion can be drawn from the plot in the Figure 6.9 is that the binder

application range specified by MDOT meets the requirement exactly which is that percent

embedment depth should be between 55 and 70 just after the construction.

Aggregate surface coverage was a new concept that was tried to understand effect on the

performance. From the graph indicated in the Figure 6.10, there is a linear increase in surface

coverage areas for both non-sweep and sweep performed test samples, and also, all surface

coverage areas decreased after sweep test. After the traffic effect is simulated on the samples,

this concept can be a good indicator of performance of chip seals.

81
 100
Surf. Cov. Area - No Sweep
Surf. Cov. Area. - Sweep

80 y = 57.66 + 1.5225x R= 0.63893

Surface Coverage Area (%)

y = 47.996 + 1.2631x R= 0.80781

60

40

20

0
0.39 0.4 0.41 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.46
Binder App. Rate (gal/yd 2)

Figure 6.10: Surface coverage area for different binder application rates

82
 CHAPTER 7

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This research produced a novel methodology to directly measure percent embedment

depth of chip seals using an image analysis procedure. The procedure involves extracting cores

from the field, then obtaining vertical slices using a tile saw. Then, digital images of the vertical

cut cross sections are captured and analyzed using an image analysis algorithm developed as part

of this study. Major conclusions of this study can be summarized as follows:

- Procedure for chip seal sample acquisition by both taking cores from the field and fabricating

in the laboratory seemed to be suitable for image processing techniques. However, since

some of the aggregates shattered into multiple pieces under applied cyclic load during

compaction in the laboratory, some modifications needs to be made in loading procedure of

MTS machine to better simulate compacting.

- Among the image analysis algorithms, method 1 (peak & valley method) was found to be

applicable for finding percent embedment depth of chip seal samples provided that

appropriate peak and valley values are selected. The embedment depths obtained from the

peak & valley method and sand patch method were close to each other because of the fact

that both methods assumed that the existing pavement surface is perfectly straight, and there

is no binder leakage and aggregate embedment into the substrate. However, more field

samples should be collected and analyzed with both image-based algorithms and sand patch

test method to obtain a better correlation. Method 2 (area method) for calculating embedment

depth was found to be unsuitable for the chip seal analysis. Algorithm for calculating surface

83
 coverage area seemed promising. It was able to detect binder coverage area as long as

distinctly colored surface was sustained on the chip seal surface. In addition to these three

algorithms, a new algorithm for estimating embedment depth is being developed. This new

algorithm (method 3) is aimed at finding the percent embedment of each aggregate

separately, then uses statistical analyses to present the distribution of percent embedment.

Since embedment depth for each aggregate is considered and some of these aggregates are

fully embedded into the binder, average embedment depth of these aggregates is higher than

the average percent embedment depth obtained from method 1 (peak and valley method).

One of the improvements for the method 3 is to improve the variability of chip seal samples.

Variability of the embedment depth obtained from method 3 (each aggregate) is less than the

embedment depth obtained from method 1 (peak/valley) for all field chip seal samples.

- The results of analyses for the chip seal samples taken from the field indicated that the

method 1 (peak/valley) and method 3 (each aggregate) has same trends although they do not

have similar results especially for the same type of chip seal samples (M-20 and M-33 chip

seal sections). Therefore, the algorithms indicated consistency among them even if they were

not supported with laboratory test methods indicating directly embedment depth due to being

not available. In addition to image-based analyses, the results from sand patch test and Ames

laser texture indicated that their trends are also similar. It is reasonable result since they both

have same assumptions regarding the existing pavement surface condition.

- The results of analyses for the laboratory group-1 chip seal samples revealed that aggregate

application rate limits of MDOT chip seal specification did not affect the percent

embedment; whereas, the binder application rates of 0.39 gal/yd2 and 0.46 gal/yd2 played a

significant role on embedment depth obtained from the image-based algorithm. For the

84
 group-2 samples, it was observed that sweep test according to ASTM D7000 is not able to

simulate the traffic effect on the chip seal surface. This was because the ASTM D7000 is

designed to measure adhesion of the chip seal to the binder just after the construction, as

stated in ASTM D7000. In addition to aggregate mass loss, although embedment depth and

coverage surface area in percentage decreased after sweep test performed, the decay for all

samples were relatively small to make a firm conclusion. Therefore, a new performance test

simulating traffic effect on chip seal surfaces is required to assess embedment depth and

surface coverage area concept with the performance.

- For further work, the chip seal samples indicating poor and good performance will be taken

from the field and will be analyzed through image based algorithms to observe embedment

depth variation under different distress types. In addition to field sample acquisition, chip

seal samples will be fabricated with different types of aggregate in terms of size and shape in

the laboratory so that the effect of aggregate properties can be observed on the embedment

depth. The effect of binder application rates and different types of binder will also be

investigated the relationship between performance of chip seals and embedment depth.

Lastly, the aggregate embedment depth distribution obtained from method 3 (each aggregate

embedment depth) over the sample can be studied and then statistical analyses to present the

distribution of percent embedment can be used to investigate performance of the chip seal.

85
APPENDIX

86
Table A.1: Embedment depth and surface coverage area for cross sections of field samples
of M-57 near Pompei Chip Seal Section
Average % Embedment
Sample - file Average % Average % Embedment
Depth (Peak and
ID name Coverage Depth (Each Aggregate)
Valley)
1A 38.06 44.6 80.86
1B 51.98 47.37 77.92
2A 42.81 49.87 85.97
2B 39.96 56.75 82.73
040215-8 3A 49.69 52.61 83.52
3B 55.63 61.17 78.78
4A 49.11 50.73 75.67
Avg. 46.75 51.87 80.78
Std Dev. 6.55 5.62 3.57
1A 51.49 48.41 76.31
1B 54.91 65.31 88.5
2A 58.7 59.02 84.54
2B 48.67 54.48 86.79
3A 55.91 56.23 84.13
040215- 3B 56.11 48.56 83.22
10 4A 53.41 52.64 75.9
4B 64.99 55.13 85.19
5A 65.1 57.67 88.26
5B 58.27 45.03 82.06
Avg. 57.49 52.82 83.65
Std Dev. 5.97 4.51 4.01
1A 44.8 55.76 71.62
1B 44.33 43.94 72.51
2A 56.15 52.66 84.37
2B 49.98 50.88 78.7
3A 51.15 55.8 78.44
040215- 3B 42.54 47.95 77.4
11 4A 45.95 40.78 77.04
4B 38.46 42.35 80.63
5A 48.52 53.85 78.08
5B 56.45 46.21 76.87
Avg. 47.58 48.26 78.17
Std Dev. 5.91 5.63 1.29

87
 Table A.1 (cont’d)

Average % Embedment
Sample - file Average % Average % Embedment
Depth (Peak and
ID name Coverage Depth (Each Aggregate)
Valley)
1A 53.44 55.36 86.04
1B 24.38 51.93 82.07
2A 40.56 47.96 80.57
2B 38.62 38.3 70.68
040215-7 3A 55.83 56.41 86.57
3B 57.5 45.42 82.12
4A 63.81 60.15 84.34
Avg. 53.94 50.07 81.77
Std Dev. 10.78 10.03 5.36
1A 57.6 53.92 88.56
1B 63.94 47.47 76.54
2A 56.88 56.04 87.29
2B 45.33 49.73 85.27
3A 64.48 59.35 84.16
040215-9
3B 73.7 52.46 86.19
4A 60.67 43.69 81.26
4B 57.87 56.62 89.71
Avg. 60.06 52.41 84.87
Std Dev. 8.10 5.20 4.27

88
Table B.1: Embedment depth and surface coverage area for cross sections of field samples
of M-20 Chip Seal Section

Average % Embedment Average Average %

Sample
Slice ID Depth (Peak and % Embedment Depth
ID
Valley) Coverage (Each Aggregate)
1A 73.05 72.63 80.64
1B 62.08 59.83 73.65
2A 68.04 58.81 81.66
2B 67.71 67.66 83.03
M20 - 3A 55.06 58.85 77.97
CORE 1 3B 61.39 54.99 75.83
4A 67.06 62.72 78.43
4B 55.80 61.24 73.03
Avg. 63.77 62.09 78.03
Std Dev. 6.31 5.61 3.67
1A 71.70 77.61 86.39
1B 71.65 69.03 81.93
2A 70.85 64.00 77.55
2B 68.25 66.57 82.79
3A 76.73 57.45 75.67
M20 - 3B 71.21 62.28 82.16
CORE 2 4A 69.67 49.44 71.17
4B 78.45 63.35 81.86
5A 63.34 60.31 79.03
5B 72.30 58.90 76.87
Avg. 71.42 62.89 79.54
Std Dev. 4.18 7.47 4.37
1A 67.66 69.16 85.74
1B 51.96 52.00 72.27
2A 51.95 57.09 76.23
2B 64.53 57.56 79.14
M20 - 3A 61.88 56.14 83.06
CORE 3 3B 59.71 52.57 65.43
4A 57.72 64.39 86.23
4B 54.03 63.40 79.76
Avg. 58.68 59.04 78.48
Std Dev. 5.85 6.05 7.07

89
 Table B.1 (cont’d)
Average % Embedment Average Average %
Sample
Slice ID Depth (Peak and % Embedment Depth
ID
Valley) Coverage (Each Aggregate)
1A 71.04 64.33 77.72
1B 76.61 63.32 84.00
2A 59.87 62.88 81.44
2B 64.50 59.84 77.73
M20 - 3A 54.73 59.01 72.83
CORE 4 3B 67.10 57.31 79.74
4A 68.17 62.43 77.99
4B 74.75 59.67 79.30
Avg. 67.10 61.10 78.84
Std Dev. 7.35 2.47 3.25
1A 75.60 67.50 77.00
1B 60.38 57.73 79.72
2A 64.73 61.31 84.89
2B 66.84 68.52 82.32
M20 - 3A 56.19 62.17 84.11
CORE 5 3B 64.90 69.22 84.08
4A 77.35 76.32 87.92
4B 74.24 73.42 84.68
Avg. 67.53 67.02 83.09
Std Dev. 7.57 6.29 3.38
1A 39.98 52.47 75.56
1B 46.19 59.20 78.57
2A 59.89 57.48 72.67
2B 59.72 53.70 79.12
M20 - 3A 57.05 47.06 70.27
CORE 6 3B 51.96 54.03 74.24
4A 56.88 54.95 77.36
4B 56.50 56.27 72.43
Avg. 53.52 54.39 75.03
Std Dev. 7.08 3.67 3.18

90
 Table B.1 (cont’d)
Average % Embedment Average Average %
Sample
Slice ID Depth (Peak and % Embedment Depth
ID
Valley) Coverage (Each Aggregate)
1A 70.62 62.11 79.85
1B 61.25 66.40 79.89
2A 50.65 57.80 79.42
2B 68.29 59.72 80.99
M20 - 3A 57.32 56.26 80.91
CORE 7 3B 64.53 57.03 76.71
4A 63.12 58.48 73.17
4B 57.10 67.84 76.11
Avg. 61.61 60.71 78.38
Std Dev. 6.50 4.36 2.77
1A 60.40 47.41 71.48
1B 65.28 51.27 71.34
2A 70.11 56.99 80.26
2B 64.31 55.30 69.65
M20 - 3A 62.72 53.34 76.84
CORE 8 3B 59.62 64.26 73.71
4A 53.57 50.87 74.92
4B 52.93 61.56 74.77
Avg. 61.12 55.13 74.12
Std Dev. 5.83 5.66 3.40

91
Table C.1: Embedment depth and surface coverage area for cross sections of field samples
of M-33 from Alger to Rose City

Average % Average %
Sample Average %
Slice ID Embedment Depth Embedment Depth
ID Coverage
(Peak and Valley) (Each Aggregate)
1A 66.51 60.01 78.24
1B 69.77 56.40 78.88
2A 74.55 60.92 75.05
2B 63.84 67.62 80.81
M33 - 3A 74.72 68.83 80.11
CORE 1 3B 70.19 59.38 75.20
4A 63.05 61.16 78.40
4B 67.40 52.00 76.57
Avg. 68.75 60.79 77.91
Std Dev. 4.41 5.48 2.13
1A 71.54 59.69 71.61
1B 68.77 69.08 86.73
2A 74.17 60.79 85.00
2B 69.21 63.11 83.30
M33 - 3A 76.32 59.38 82.89
CORE 2 3B 66.15 59.93 79.67
4A 71.09 55.93 83.23
4B 73.10 64.61 82.63
Avg. 71.29 61.57 81.88
Std Dev. 3.25 3.99 4.61
1A 65.80 57.68 74.14
1B 75.42 63.86 82.77
2A 75.31 67.29 84.99
2B 69.98 55.39 77.56
M33 - 3A 62.84 56.26 76.48
CORE 3 3B 70.94 62.43 79.99
4A 69.75 58.77 79.05
4B 74.02 60.44 78.78
Avg. 70.51 60.27 79.22
Std Dev. 4.50 4.07 3.44

92
 Table C.1 (cont’d)
Average % Average %
Sample Average %
Slice ID Embedment Depth Embedment Depth
ID Coverage
(Peak and Valley) (Each Aggregate)
1A 78.77 65.53 82.07
1B 75.92 66.84 81.03
2A 74.57 68.62 86.55
2B 76.06 63.3 86.72
M33 -
3A 73.64 62.32 80.32
CORE 4
3B 76.42 69.52 82.99
4A 71.47 64.91 79.22
Avg. 75.26 65.86 82.70
Std Dev. 2.32 2.65 2.94
1A 75.27 56.69 76.57
1B 83.41 63.16 83.72
2A 77.55 63.33 81.01
2B 74.6 60.37 81.22
M33 - 3A 76.52 63.72 83.26
CORE 5 3B 78.95 60.8 84.89
4A 76.29 60.65 85.28
4B 75.86 59.74 79.92
Avg. 77.31 61.06 81.98
Std Dev. 2.81 2.34 2.90
1A 74.95 63.25 81.88
1B 69.22 63.59 81.46
2A 73.53 65.13 83.28
2B 78.17 65.85 81.56
M33 - 3A 69.76 62.55 83.55
CORE 6 3B 72.56 62.54 82.88
4A 74.23 73.07 82.39
4B 69.11 64.83 82.41
Avg. 72.69 65.10 82.43
Std Dev. 3.20 3.44 0.83

93
 Table C.1 (cont’d)
Average % Embedment Average %
Sample Average %
Slice ID Depth (Peak and Embedment Depth
ID Coverage
Valley) (Each Aggregate)
1A 54.66 61.71 80.8
1B 62.71 53.24 71.8
2A 55.66 51.01 64.57
2B 50.36 52.43 69.31
3A 63.44 58.99 77.15
M33 -
CORE 7 3B 57.5 56.92 76.11
4A 63.24 56.47 71.44
4B 55.35 57.01 72.63
Avg. 57.87 55.97 72.98
Std
4.80 3.56 5.02
Dev.
1A 73.22 58.28 76.21
1B 69.58 59.13 75.94
2A 71.96 63.1 79.04
2B 70.66 62.5 80.2
3A 74.43 58.64 84.59
M33 -
CORE 8 3B 68.63 59.82 79.89
4A 61.4 57.08 78.09
4B 72.86 59.08 78.599
Avg. 70.34 59.70 79.07
Std
4.10 2.07 2.71
Dev.

94
 Table D.1: Embedment depth and surface coverage area for cross sections of group 1
laboratory samples
Average %
Average % Average Average
Sample Side Sample Side Embedment (Peak
Embedment (Peak % %
ID ID ID ID and Valley
and Valley Method) Coverage Coverage
Method)
1A 63.22 64.76 1A 53.60 75.74
1B 49.79 74.66 1B 66.66 72.17
2A 47.08 53.19 2A 52.94 68.55
2B 50.18 69.58 2B 57.34 66.27
LS-1 LS-5
3A 49.05 72.47 3A 57.12 73.36
3B 35.03 62.20 3B 53.96 57.75
4A 46.56 60.31 4A 59.06 66.77
4B 48.47 55.95 4B 61.50 66.51
1A 63.16 74.47 1A 64.73 58.34
1B 44.52 72.13 1B 56.13 62.94
2A 49.39 56.11 2A 70.41 70.52
2B 60.09 72.32 2B 54.71 70.01
LS-2 LS-6
3A 55.60 62.60 3A 77.06 78.21
3B 50.96 74.58 3B 68.78 77.70
4A 46.71 62.75 4A 64.25 79.28
4B 62.40 51.04 4B 74.08 73.44
1A 51.60 62.73 1A 67.53 67.55
1B 49.86 52.33 1B 55.02 61.53
2A 38.74 51.13 2A 63.23 74.00
2B 50.63 63.43 2B 64.92 67.11
LS-3 LS-7
3A 28.08 57.15 3A 76.76 67.37
3B 55.81 71.09 3B 72.73 75.13
4A 20.94 62.27 4A 60.47 83.48
4B 57.42 43.10 4B 65.04 72.00
1A 42.19 72.18 1A 59.88 70.83
1B 50.61 46.39 1B 59.68 75.89
2A 77.29 76.85 2A 59.29 63.38
2B 69.02 69.11 2B 58.86 81.00
LS-4 LS-8
3A 72.17 73.53 3A 75.15 72.29
3B 61.67 76.89 3B 68.17 57.77
4A 64.82 79.20 4A 48.95 66.99
4B 72.00 69.79 4B 67.82 68.49

95
 Table D.2: Embedment depth and surface coverage area for cross sections of group 2
laboratory samples
Average % Average %
Sample Side Embedment (Peak Average % Sample Side Embedment (Peak Average %
ID ID and Valley Coverage ID ID and Valley Coverage
Method) Method)
1A 45.07 48.59 1A 53.27 50.24
1B 41.67 54.58 1B 54.49 52.50
2A 44.68 37.48 2A 50.20 40.12
2B 48.24 57.77 2B 57.55 50.32
LS-9 LS-14
3A 33.27 52.11 3A 59.63 67.68
3B 47.47 54.72 3B 55.88 52.84
4A 50.85 66.97 4A 60.65 62.62
4B 57.75 62.13 4B 69.54 76.86
1A 38.59 42.00 1A 62.90 45.53
1B 48.33 50.56 1B 41.00 53.44
2A 53.36 44.84 2A 61.29 62.09
2B 54.88 67.83 2B 61.54 72.11
LS-10 LS-15
3A 62.61 61.57 3A 52.91 69.71
3B 70.34 60.22 3B 58.72 60.25
4A 56.74 56.01 4A 60.73 45.25
4B 59.40 50.44 4B 51.80 64.89
1A 49.37 54.32 1A 47.98 74.32
1B 59.47 63.17 1B 59.77 62.66
2A 59.24 79.30 2A 63.19 62.93
2B 52.36 50.00 2B 64.82 63.46
LS-11 LS-16
3A 45.64 53.78 3A 62.16 62.00
3B 62.01 68.21 3B 74.55 64.55
4A 74.94 66.77 4A 68.09 69.56
4B 63.07 49.18 4B 59.83 50.32
1A 49.49 43.86 1A 67.99 68.83
1B 57.61 42.42 1B 61.98 64.00
2A 48.53 58.54 2A 64.57 78.68
2B 47.18 43.23 2B 56.21 67.84
LS-12 LS-17
3A 52.82 55.74 3A 73.57 80.61
3B 67.34 57.03 3B 66.91 68.42
4A 54.44 42.77 4A 78.09 79.91
4B 55.23 43.10 4B 77.43 75.98

96
 Table D.2 (cont’d)

1A 61.54 69.57 1A 67.50 76.07

1B 39.24 74.94 1B 62.86 79.75
2A 55.70 75.40 2A 73.98 72.26
2B 53.67 70.17 2B 71.91 71.74
LS-18 LS-22
3A 67.09 66.10 3A 73.78 66.59
3B 53.73 70.60 3B 64.67 74.42
4A 59.51 73.28 4A 73.41 65.76
4B 58.35 73.61 4B 65.66 64.10
1A 37.47 64.29 1A 68.53 64.06
1B 61.29 76.18 1B 68.19 66.98
2A 59.34 78.44 2A 73.65 81.56
2B 60.61 66.78 2B 74.05 80.69
LS-19 LS-23
3A 60.45 62.96 3A 61.33 67.12
3B 43.49 68.52 3B 79.75 77.74
4A 68.05 66.04 4A 65.77 76.11
4B 69.73 65.00 4B 77.91 74.00
1A 49.72 65.10 1A 68.47 69.84
1B 65.62 61.40 1B 63.03 60.54
2A 70.13 68.45 2A 65.10 65.26
2B 44.95 64.36 2B 71.77 79.24
LS-20 LS-24
3A 62.61 77.85 3A 60.08 72.00
3B 62.76 75.26 3B 76.96 81.09
4A 62.18 66.54 4A 38.75 62.56
4B 65.31 74.76 4B 61.82 84.10
1A 63.52 61.67 1A 72.12 80.89
1B 62.81 56.76 1B 70.23 84.60
2A 70.73 57.37 2A 74.10 69.53
2B 70.06 75.91 2B 66.65 73.81
LS-21 LS-25
3A 55.96 65.03 3A 74.73 75.73
3B 51.60 56.59 3B 77.37 81.25
4A 51.60 71.29 4A 62.40 81.16
4B 46.99 33.89 4B 65.55 63.20

97
 Table D.2 (cont’d)

1A 52.80 47.33 1A 65.53 75.77

1B 39.72 46.57 1B 49.52 57.30
2A 54.84 59.62 2A 67.36 71.59
2B 54.09 49.09 2B 44.65 53.71
LS-26 LS-30
3A 47.44 45.72 3A 46.98 55.56
3B 39.45 44.70 3B 50.72 46.87
4A 58.75 42.15 4A 62.97 65.49
4B 40.65 57.86 4B 59.97 45.27
1A 4.58 51.53 1A 58.55 54.98
1B 58.68 65.16 1B 46.13 61.99
2A 61.08 50.31 2A 65.73 63.53
2B 43.95 52.37 2B 51.47 58.65
LS-27 LS-31
3A 50.69 41.62 3A 53.28 60.31
3B 41.30 51.61 3B 57.88 51.03
4A 51.59 50.84 4A 64.24 64.47
4B 50.48 61.08 4B 57.12 58.76
1A 60.61 55.04 1A 62.58 55.27
1B 56.18 45.84 1B 47.58 47.12
2A 42.90 35.81 2A 62.54 55.86
2B 58.55 60.56 2B 58.80 49.29
LS-28 LS-32
3A 56.55 54.74 3A 59.67 56.22
3B 4.45 49.22 3B 52.87 43.64
4A 61.13 63.29 4A 58.16 54.77
4B 63.54 54.41 4B 46.12 44.08
1A 73.89 71.00 1A 40.67 27.69
1B 72.54 60.94 1B 22.78 31.17
2A 52.32 43.10 2A 47.24 47.73
2B 64.20 57.37 2B 49.66 62.87
LS-29 LS-33
3A 55.59 48.21 3A 68.14 63.29
3B 42.95 48.88 3B 54.19 55.23
4A 54.54 42.30 4A 46.47 51.16
4B 50.74 34.71 4B 57.11 62.09

98
 Table D.2 (cont’d)

1A 59.47 55.22 1A 51.13 51.98

1B 58.46 56.86 1B 56.59 54.45
2A 52.10 44.63 2A 55.94 52.29
2B 43.47 54.20 2B 35.51 42.17
LS-34 LS-38
3A 56.37 43.54 3A 62.68 44.62
3B 47.17 55..26 3B 58.16 28.51
4A 62.40 41.17 4A 56.08 48.58
4B 31.84 31.61 4B 60.14 53.18
1A 58.82 49.98 1A 60.55 49.12
1B 41.12 52.17 1B 53.58 58.21
2A 57.39 60.27 2A 58.71 65.18
2B 61.30 49.97 2B 69.16 71.14
LS-35 LS-39
3A 61.40 54.65 3A 64.38 65.38
3B 53.85 47.03 3B 55.40 66.74
4A 47.83 48.93 4A 64.50 57.86
4B 51.70 47.97 4B 59.69 56.94
1A 48.71 53.84 1A 62.80 66.44
1B 61.49 53.99 1B 58.75 59.03
2A 62.50 54.04 2A 66.23 62.40
2B 49.66 49.88 2B 65.06 58.73
LS-36 LS-40
3A 43.35 49.03 3A 66.05 59.77
3B 43.30 46.85 3B 61.77 60.53
4A 56.33 52.74 4A 65.52 67.08
4B 45.95 52.10 4B 54.87 67.14
1A 51.28 51.90 1A 74.76 81.92
1B 51.74 49.87 1B 67.95 72.51
2A 53.15 58.38 2A 59.81 56.84
2B 57.79 54.58 2B 70.00 60.65
LS-37 LS-41
3A 39.13 50.55 3A 59.81 47.77
3B 51.48 42.07 3B 61.79 61.94
4A 71.94 52.20 4A 59.73 58.01
4B 58.55 54.61 4B 72.44 56.52

99
 100
M-57 Near Pompei
M-20 Chip Seal Section
M-33 from Alger to Rose City
90 All values

80
Method-3

70

60
y = 108.38 - 0.46775x R= 0.85934
y = 75.862 + 0.040961x R= 0.031546

50 y = 85.356 - 0.084812x R= 0.27932

y = 84.297 - 0.076946x R= 0.20147

40
40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Sand Patch Test

Figure 6.11: Comparison of method-3 and sand patch test

100
 90
M-57 Near Pompei
M-20 Chip Seal Section
M-33 from Alger to Rose City
85 All values

80
Method-3

75

70

y = 119.25 - 0.51514x R= 0.93378

y = 89.675 - 0.15879x R= 0.16216
65
y = 93.496 - 0.18932x R= 0.44116
y = 97.744 - 0.25099x R= 0.40433
60
60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Ames Laser Texture Scaning

Figure 6.12: Comparison of method-3 and Ames laser texture scanning

101
REFERENCES

102
 REFERENCES

AASHTO T 312-15 Preparing Hot-Mix Asphalt (HMA) Specimens by Means of the Superpave
Gyratory Compactor, 2011, American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, Washington, D.C.

Abdul-Malak, M.U., Fowler, D.W. and Meyer, A. H. (1993) “Major Factors Explaining
Performance Variability of Seal Coat Pavement Rehabilitation Overlays”, Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1388, pp 140-149.

Ames Engineering, 2014. Ames Engineering Laser Texture Scanner User Manual Model 9300

American Society of Mechanical Engineers. (ASME) (2002) An American National Standard

Surface Texture (Surface Roughness, Waviness, and Lay).

ASTM E 1845-15. (2015). Standard Practice for Calculating Pavement Macrotexture Mean
Profile Depth, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.

ASTM E 303-93. (2013). Standard Test Method for Measuring Surface Frictional Properties
Using the British Pendulum Tester, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.

ASTM D 7000. (2011). Standard Test Method for Sweep Test of Bituminous Emulsion Surface
Treatment Samples, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.

ASTM D 7234-12. (2012). Standard Test Method for Pull-odd Adhesion Strength of Coatings
on Concrete Using Portable Pull-off Adhesion Testers, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA.

Bazlamit, S. M., and Reza F. (2005). “Changes in Asphalt Pavement Friction Components and
Adjustment of Skid Number for Temperature”, Journal of Transportation Engineering,
ASCE, Vol. 131, No.6, 470-476

Benedict, C. R. (1990). Laboratory measurement of chip retention strength by the frosted marble
modified ISSA cohesion tester. In Joint AEMA/ISSA Conference, Atlanta, GA.

Beer, M. D. (1996). Measurement of Tyre/Pavement Interface Stresses Under Moving Wheel

Loads. International Journal of Heavy Vehicle Systems, 3(1-4), 97-115.

Bhattacharjee, S., Gould, J.S., Mallick, R.B. and Hugo, F. (2004). “Use of MMLS3 Scaled
Accelerated Loading For Fatigue Characterization of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) In The
Laboratory”, 2nd International Conference on Accelerated Pavement Testing,
Minneapolis, Minnesota

British Standard Institute BS 7976-2, 2002. Pendulum testers, London, UK.

103
BS EN 12272-1. (2002). Surface dressing. Test methods. Rate of spread and accuracy of spread
of binder and chippings

Choubane, B., Holzschuher, C.R., and Gokhale, S. (2004). “Precision of Locked-Wheel Testers
for Measurement of Roadway Surface Friction Characteristics”, Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No.1869, pp. 145-151

Colwill, D.M., John, M. and J. Clifford, N. (1995). “U.K Design Procedure for Surface
Dressing”, Transportation Research Record, 1507. Washington DC: Transportation
Research Board, pp. 13–22.

Epps, J.A., Chaffin, C.W., and Hill, A.J. (1980) Research Report 214-25: “Field Evaluation of a
Seal Coat Design Method”, Research Report 83-2F,Texas Transportation Institute, Austin

Epps, J.A., and Gallaway, B.M. (1974) Research Report 83-1: “Synthetic Aggregate Seal Coats-
Current Texas Highway Department Practices”, Texas Transportation Institute, Austin

Epps, A. L., Glover, C. J., & Barcena, R. (2001). A performance-graded binder specification for
surface treatments (No. FHWA/TX-02/1710-1,)

Freitas, E. F., Pereira, P. A., Antunes, M. L., & Domingos, P. (2008). Analysis of test methods
for texture depth evaluation applied in Portugal. Seminário Avaliação das Características
de Superfície dos pavimentos.

Gransberg, D. and James, D.M.B. (2005) Chip Seal Best Practices, NCHRP Synthesis 342,
National Cooperative Highway Research Program, National Research Council,
Washington, DC.

Groenendijk, J. (1998) Accelerated Testing and Surface Cracking of Asphaltic Concrete

Pavements (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved From Delft University of Technology
Institutional Repository

Hanson, F.M. (1934) Bituminuos Surface Treatment of Rural Highways, Proceedings of the New
Zealand Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 189-220

Henderson, R., Herrington, P. and Patrick, J. (2006). “Finite-element Modelling of a Chip Seal
Road Surfacing: A Preliminary Study”, A Journal of Australian and New Zealand
Research and Practice, Road & Transport Research, Vol. 15, No.3, pp. 3-18

Holmgreen, R. J., Epps. J.A., Hughes, C.H. and Gallaway, B.M. (1985) Research Report 297-1F:
“Field Evaluation of The Texas Seal Coat Design Method”, Texas Transportation
Institute, Austin, 174p.

Howard, I. L., Hemsley Jr, M., Baumgardner, G. L., & Jordan III, W. S. (2009). Chip and scrub
seal binder evaluation by frosted marble aggregate retention test. In Transportation
Research Board 88th Annual Meeting (No. 09-1662).

104
Howard, I.L., Alvarado, A., and Floyd, W.C. (2013) Performance Oriented Guidance for
Mississippi Chip Seals-Volume II, Final Report FHWA/MS-DOT-RD-13-211-Volume
II, Mississippi Department of Transportation, Mississipi.

Huurman, M., Milne, T. I., ven de Ven, M.F.C and Scarpas, A. (2004) Development of a
structural FEM for road surfacing seals, ICCES, Curfu, Greece

Huurman, M. (2010). “Developments in 3D surfacing seals FE modelling”, International Journal

of Pavement Engineering, Vol.11, No.1, pp. 1-12

Johannes, P.T., Mahmoud, E. and Bahia, H. (2011). “Sensivity of ASTM D7000 Sweep Test to
Emulsion Application Rate and Aggregate Retention”, Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2235, pp. 95-102, Washington D.C.

Jordan III, W.S. and Howard, I.L. (2011). “Applicability of Modified Vialit Adhesion Test for
Seal Treatment Specifications”, Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Vol. 5,
No.3 (Serial No. 40)

Kandhal, P.S. and Motter, J.B. (1991) Criteria For Accepting Precoated Aggregates for Seal
Coats and Surface Treatments, Transportation Research Board, No. 1300, pp. 80-89,
Washington D.C.

Kearby, J.P. (1953) Tests and Theories on Penetration Surfaces, Highway Research Board
Proceedings, Vol.32, pp. 232-237

Kim, H. B., Lee, S. W., Hyun, T. J., & Lee, K. H. (2013). Measurement of Texture Depth of
Pavement Using Potable Laser Profiler. Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for
Transportation Studies, 10(0), 1576-1589.

Kim, Y. R and Lee, J. (2008) Research Report FHWA/NC/2006-63: “Quantifying the Benefits of
Improved Rolling of Chip Seals”, North Caroline Department of Transportation, Raleigh,
NC

Kodippily, S. (2013). Modelling the Flushing Mechanism of Thin Flexible Surface Pavements
(Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved From The University of Auckland Libraries and
Learning Services

Kumara, G. H. A. J. J., Hayano, K., & Ogiwara, K. (2012). Image analysis techniques on
evaluation of particle size distribution of gravel. Int. J. Geomate, 3(1), 290-297.

Lee, S. (2003) Long-Term Performance Assessment of Asphalt Concrete Pavements Using The
Third Scale Model Mobile Loading Simulator And Fiber Reinforced Asphalt Concrete
(Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved From North Carolina State University Libraries

Lee, J.S. and Kim, Y.R. (2008). “Understanding the Effects of Aggregate and Emulsion
Application Rates on Performance of Asphalt Surface Treatments”, Transportation

105
 Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2044, pp. 71-78,
Washington D.C.

Lu, Q., and Steven, B. (2006). Technical Memorandum UCPRC-TM-2006-10: ”Friction Testing
of Pavement Preservation Treatments: Literature Review”, California Department of
Transportation

McLeod, N.W., Chaffin, C.W., Holberg, A.E., Parker, C.F., Obrcian, V., Edwards, J.M., Campen
and Kari, W.J. (1969) “A General Method of Design for Seal Coats and Surface”, Journal
of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Vol. 38, pp.537-628

Michigan Department of Transportation (2012). “2012 Standard Specifications for Construction”

New Zealand Roading Division, (1968) Manual of Sealing and Paving Practice. National Roads
Board, New Zealand.

Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (2012). Materials Testing Manual, The
State of Queensland, Department of Transport and Main Roads.

Roberts, C. and Nicholls J.C. (2008) Design Guide for Road Surface Dressing, Road Note RN39
Sixth Edition, Transport Research Laboratory

Roque, R., Anderson, D. and Thompson, M. (1991). “Effect of Material, Design, and
Construction Variables on Seal Coat Performance”, Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1300, pp. 108-115, Washington D.C.

Senadheera, S., Tock, R.Wm., Hossain, S., Yazgan, B. and Das, S. (2006) Research Report
FHWA/TX-06/0-4362-1: ”A Testing and Evaluation Protocol to Assess Seal Coat
Binder-Aggregate Compatibility”, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin

Schuler, S., Lord, A., Epps, A., and Hoyt, D. (2011) Manual for Emulsion-Based Chip Seals for
Pavement Preservation, NCHRP Report 680, National Cooperative Highway Research
Program, National Research Council, Washington DC.

Sprayed Seal Design Project Group (2001) Austroads Provisional Sprayed Seal Design Method
Revision 2000, Austroads Project No. N.T.&E.9902, Austroads Incorporated Level 9

The South African National Roads Agency, (2007). Technical Recommendations for Highways.
Technical Recommendations of Highways, Pretoria, South Africa.

Wasiuddin, N.M., Marshall, A., Saltibus, N.E., Saber, A., Abadie, C. and Mohammad, L.N.
(2013) “Use of Sweep Test for Emulsion and Hot Asphalt Chip Seals: Laboratory and
Field Evaluation”, Journal of Testing and Evaluation, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 1-10

Wielinski, J.C., Brandenburg, J. and Wissel, H. (2011) The Monroe Michigan Chip Seal Case
Study: An Evaluation of Multiple Chip Seals’ Cold Weather Field Performance.
Transportation Research Board 90th Annual Meeting, CD-ROM.

106
Wood, J., Thomas, Janisch, D.W., and Gaillard, F.S. (2006) Final Report: “Minnessota Seal Coat
Handbook 2006”, Minnesota Department of Transportation, December 1998, Revised
2007

Zhou, F., Li, H., Chen, P. and Scullion T. (2014) Research Report FHWA/TX-14/0-6674-1:
”Laboratory Evaluation of Asphalt Binder Rutting, Fracture, and Adhesion tests”, Texas
Department of Transportation, Austin

107