Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019 227

Developing a Performance-Based Specification for Stone Mastic Asphalt as an Ungrooved

Runway Surface
Sean Jamieson1 and Greg White2
1
Univ. of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, QLS, Australia. E-mail:
[email protected]
2
Univ. of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, QLS, Australia. E-mail:
[email protected]
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 10/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ABSTRACT
Flexible airport pavements in Australia have traditionally been surfaced with Marshall-
designed dense graded asphalt (DGA). Grooving is undertaken to avoid aircraft skidding
incidents during wet weather conditions, as well as satisfying regulatory surface texture
requirements. Groove closure is a common distress experienced at airports surfaced with DGA in
Australia and has led to the investigation of stone mastic asphalt (SMA) as an alternate runway
surfacing. Due to the gap-graded nature of SMA, and therefore coarse surface texture, grooving
can be avoided. To facilitate the use of SMA on Australian runways, a performance-based
specification was developed in line with the latest advances of airport technology. This paper
describes the development of a performance-based specification for Australian airport SMA,
focusing on constituent materials and mixture design.

INTRODUCTION
Flexible runways in Australia are typically surfaced with grooved Marshall-designed dense
graded asphalt (DGA). DGA for airports has been traditionally specified using a prescriptive or
recipe-based approach, where an asphalt producer must ensure compliance with constituent
materials, target grading, Marshall properties and volumetrics. In recent times, a number of
airport hot mix asphalts (HMAs) that were compliant with the prescriptive requirements have
failed to perform as expected in the field (White 2018). Consequently, a performance-based
specification for airport DGA was developed and released in February 2018 (AAPA 2018) which
included performance testing to determine if an asphalt mixture achieved the minimum
requirements for deformation resistance, fatigue resistance and durability; therefore, reducing the
risk of asphalt distress in the field.
Airport DGA is typically grooved to enable the runway to shed water during wet weather
events, as well as satisfying regulatory requirements set by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority
(CASA) for surface texture (CASA 2017). Groove closure is a common distress at Australian
airport runways and inhibits the drainage ability of the runway surface (White 2018), increasing
the likelihood of hydroplaning – a serious phenomenon that has caused multiple aircraft safety
incidents (ASTB 2008). In addition, when groove closure does occur, the cost of repair is
substantial, as is the impact to the operational capability of the runway. Consequently, Australia
airports seek an alternate asphalt mixture that meets regulatory surface texture requirements
without the need to groove.
Stone mastic asphalt (SMA) is a surface material that has high rut resistance and coarse
texture, potentially negating the need to groove. It has been used successfully in Europe and
China as an ungrooved runway material (Campbell 1999; Prowell et al. 2009) and is used as a
heavy-duty road material in Australia (Rebbechi et al. 2003). Trials of SMA have also been

© ASCE

Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019

 Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019 228

undertaken on non-runway surfaces at Australian airports, with most performing well. However,
for SMA to be used as an ungrooved runway surface, a specification must be developed and
validated in the Australian airport context, and keeping in line with the current advances of
airport technology, the specification should be performance-based.
This paper details the development of a performance-based specification for Australian
airport SMA (ASMA). The scope of this paper focuses on constituent materials and mixture
design. Although asphalt production and construction are key fundamentals of any specification,
these elements are only briefly mentioned, as reliable SMA construction practices have
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 10/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

developed over two decades of Australian road experience.

BACKGROUND

Airport Asphalt
Flexible airport pavements in Australia have traditionally been surfaced with grooved
Marshall-designed DGA. Although the fundamental design, construction and maintenance of
airport HMA is similar in nature to roads, the design traffic of aircraft presents increased
performance requirements. Aircraft are heavier, have higher tyre pressures, are more susceptible
to undulations in pavement surface, are less stable on the ground and can suffer catastrophic
damage to fragile aircraft engines by loose stones (AAA 2017). In Australia, an airport DGA
surface is typically designed from a nominal 14mm maximum aggregate particle size with voids
in the mineral aggregate (VMA) in the range of 13 – 17%, total air voids in the mix of 3.5 –
4.5%, and binder content of 5.4 – 5.8% (AAPA 2018).

Prescriptive versus Performance

Traditionally airfield HMA has been specified using a prescriptive or recipe-based approach
(White 2017c). The prescriptive requirements focus on gradation limits, Marshall properties and
volumetric properties based on the Marshall method - a method that was developed to design and
control asphalt mixtures by the United States Department of Defense from World War II to the
late 1950s (White 1985). For a prescriptive approach, the asphalt producer is responsible for
ensuring the mixture design is compliant with a provided specification. That is, constituent
material properties, Marshall Stability, Marshall Flow, volumetrics, and aggregate grading are all
verified during the mixture design stage. If the asphalt producer designs and constructs a surface
that is compliant with all specified requirements, the intention is that they are not responsible for
the performance of the asphalt mixture (White 2017a).
Marshall properties provide an empirical link to historical pavements that have performed
well under aircraft traffic (Rushing et al. 2012); however, since the Marshall method’s
development, aircraft have evolved to become heavier with significantly higher tyre pressures
(AAA, 2017). Coupled with anecdotal evidence that bituminous binder reliability has reduced in
Australia (White 2016), several airport HMAs that were compliant with the prescriptive
requirements have failed to perform as expected in the field (White 2018). Consequently, there is
an appetite in industry to transition to a performance-based specification for Australian airport
HMA.
For a purely performance-based approach, a client would provide an asphalt producer with
the expected aircraft traffic, underlying base layer composition and condition, any local
environmental conditions and expected life of the pavement. The asphalt producer would be able
to select the constituent materials, mixture type and design method to satisfy the client’s

© ASCE

Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019

 Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019 229

functional requirement. The asphalt producer would also accept liability for any surface defects
during the design life of the surface, and would inspect, maintain and replace when required.
Losses associated with operational disruptions will be substantial compared to the costs of repair
works; therefore, an increased trust between airport owner and asphalt producer would be
essential. Additionally, significant development of surface performance measurement tools is
still required, and consequently, a purely performance-based approach is too large of a change to
implement suddenly (White 2017c). Therefore, more appropriate for the current Australian
airport industry is the adoption of a performance-compliance specification.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 10/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

A performance-compliance specification contains a combination of performance-indicative

and prescriptive properties that are required to achieve surface performance expectations (White
2017c). It provides the asphalt producer the flexibility to select the binder used in the design, as
binder type is not specified. Performance-indicative laboratory testing is also included to give
confidence in the mixture’s deformation resistance, fatigue resistance and durability. Where
performance requirements are not measurable in the laboratory, for example, raw aggregate
durability, the current prescriptive requirements are maintained. The first iteration of the
Australian airport DGA performance specification was based on a performance-compliance
approach (White 2017a).

Performance requirements
Performance requirements for airport HMA relate directly to asphalt distress modes that
minimise the life of a HMA surface and increase the risk to safe aircraft operation. Deformation
resistance, fracture resistance, durability, and surface friction and texture are key performance
requirements for the life of an airfield HMA as in Table 1. For the development of a
performance-based specification, these four physical requirements must be tested and validated
during the mixture design.

Table 1. Airport HMA performance requirements (White 2018).

Physical requirement Protects against Level of importance
Deformation resistance Groove closure Rutting High
Shearing / shoving
Fracture Resistance Top down cracking Fatigue Moderate
cracking
Surface friction and texture Skid resistance Compliance High
requirement
Durability Pavement generated FOD Moderate
Resistance to moisture
damage

Australian airport DGA performance-based specification

In February of 2018 the first iteration of the Australian airport runway DGA performance-
based specification was released. The performance specification was developed based on four
general principles (White 2017a):
 Constituent materials.
 Mixture design.
 Asphalt production.

© ASCE

Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019

 Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019 230

 Asphalt construction.
In addition to these principles, guidance for several commercial issues were included in the
preamble to the specification, including tendering, superintendence and contractual provisions.
Of high relevance to this paper, however, are the constituent material and mixture design
requirements.
With the exclusion of binder type, the specification retained the traditional prescriptive
requirements for constituent materials. The quality of the constituent ingredients affects HMA
durability and cannot always be measured by current asphalt mixture performance tests. For
example, HMA performance tests may not indicate an individual aggregate’s ability to withstand
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 10/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

weathering, and therefore tests such as sodium sulphate soundness are better indicators for
potential aggregate durability. Binder type is not defined in the specification, giving the asphalt
producers flexibility to either use a common Australian modified binder or a proprietary airport
binder that has been modified for improved performance under aircraft traffic.
Although traditional volumetrics and target aggregate grading was retained in the
performance specification, Marshall properties were removed from mixture design (though still
included for quality control during the asphalt construction phases). Rather, the mixture design
focused on performance-indicative asphalt tests as detailed in Table 2. A notable absence from
the performance-indicative tests is that of surface friction and texture. Surface friction can only
be tested post construction using continuous friction measuring equipment (CFME), such as a
Griptester, and is therefore not included in the mixture design. Texture was not included as DGA
for Australian airport runways is typically grooved, as discussed below.

Table 2. Australian airport asphalt performance requirements (AAPA 2018).

Physical Test Property Standard Requirement
requirement
Wheel Tracking Test AG:PT/T231 Not more than 2.0 mm
(10,000 cycles at
Deformation 65°C)
resistance Air voids at refusal AS/NZS Not less than 2.0%
density 2891.2.2
Fatigue life(at 20°C AG:PT/T274 Not less than 500,000
Fracture and 200 µm) cycles to 50% of initial
resistance flexural stiffness
Surface friction - - -
and texture
Indirect Tensile AG:PT/T232 Not less than 80%
Durability Strength Ratio
(TSR)

Skid resistance and grooving

As detailed in Table 1, skid resistance is a key functional requirement of airport runways.
Landing speed of aircraft are typically in the range of 260 - 280km/h in all conditions (AAA
2017). Aircraft operators cannot reduce their landing speed to account for differences in surface
conditions. They instead rely on adequate pavement surface to tyre interaction to provide the
required friction for stopping within the available distance. Skid resistance is influenced by two
key factors: micro-texture and macro-texture. At speeds greater than 50km/h macro-texture plays

© ASCE

Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019

 Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019 231

a greater part (Austroads 2014) and is therefore a higher consideration for airport owners.
Macro-texture affects the friction component of hysteresis, by creating a deformation of the tire
rubber through interaction with the pavement surface (Prowell et al. 2009). Additionally, macro-
texture determines the reduction in friction available to an aircraft tyre as a consequence of the
film of water on the pavement surface during wet weather events (AAA 2017).
The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) recommends a minimum 1mm surface
texture for airport runways (ICAO 2016). To account for ICAO’s skid resistance
recommendation, Australia’s CASA requires airports to (CASA 2017):
 maintain at least 1mm surface texture, or
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 10/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

 provide adequate wet friction levels when measured with CFME, or

 have its surface grooved.
New DGA will not achieve the 1mm requirement and will typically have a surface texture of
0.4 – 0.6mm (White 2017b). Therefore, to fulfil the regulatory texture requirement, and to ensure
surface water can escape, airport DGA is typically grooved in Australia.

Figure 1. Representative mixture drawing of (a) DGA and (b) SMA.

The introduction of grooving to an airfield pavement is costly and introduces the risk of
groove related distresses. Groove closure is one the most commonly reported airport DGA
surface distresses in hot climates, and effects the ability of the pavement to remove surface water
due to the reduction in volume of the grooves (White 2018). Groove closure is commonly
observed in locations where aircraft traffic slowly and parallel to the grooves, and after very hot
weather periods. Repairing of grooves by re-sawing is not possible, and the only solution is to
plane off the closed grooves, overlay with new DGA, and then regroove the surface (White and
Rodway 2014). Not only is this process costly, but also effects the operational capability of an
airport for the period of repair works. Consequently, some Australian airports seek an alternate
asphalt mixture that meets surface texture requirements without the need to groove. Of the
alternates available, SMA is the most suitable as detailed below.

Stone mastic asphalt as an alternate surface

The original SMA was developed in Germany in an attempt to reduce the distresses in
wearing courses caused by the use of studded snow tyres (Blazejowski 2011). Conceptually,
SMA consists of three parts: a coarse aggregate skeleton, a mastic, and air voids. The coarse
aggregate skeleton, which is composed of aggregate larger than the break point sieve (4.75mm
for 11 - 14mm size mixtures), (Brown et al. 1997) provides high deformation resistance to
rutting due to stone-to-stone interaction. The mastic consists of fine aggregates, filler and a high
volume of binder (approximately 6-7% by mass). The higher binder content leads to a very
durable asphalt mixture. The large binder content also introduces the risk of binder drain-off
during production, transport and laydown. To account for this, SMA mixtures include stabilisers,
or drainage inhibitors, commonly in the form of cellulose fibres.
Of significance in SMA mixtures is its surface texture depth. Due to its gap graded nature,

© ASCE

Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019

 Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019 232

mixtures larger than 10mm maximum aggregate size usually exhibit texture depths greater than
1mm (EAPA 1998; Joubert et al. 2004; Prowell et al. 2009), potentially satisfying CASA
regulatory surface texture requirements. Figure 1 details a representation of an SMA mixture
compared to a traditional airport DGA mixture.
Internationally, SMA has been used as a runway surface in Europe and China, with surface
trials also being undertaken in South Africa and the United States (Campbell 1999; Prowell et al.
2009). Norway has used SMA as a runway surface with over 15 runways resurfaced with the
material since 1992 (Campbell 1999). Recently, Norway’s Oslo international airport had its
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 10/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

western runway overlaid with size 11mm SMA in 2015 (Jacobsen 2015). Germany also uses a
size 11mm SMA for runways; both the Hamburg Airport and Spangdahlem United States Air
Force Base have used the material in 2001 and 2007 respectively (Prowell et al. 2009). However,
China is the leader of SMA use on airfields with over 40 runway surfaces using either a size
13mm or 16mm mixture (CACC 2016; Xin 2015).
The use of SMA in Australia has been limited to roads and only two airfield locations -
Cairns and Sydney international airports. Of these airport locations, neither have employed the
material on runway surfaces. The Sydney trial was undertaken on a taxiway in 1999 but was
unsuccessful, with over 20% of the pavement demonstrating a very coarse, uneven and poor
surface finish (Campbell 1999). Cairns airport has resurfaced multiple aprons and taxiways since
1999 with all pavements performing well. Of note is Domestic bay 19, shown in Figure 2. This
pavement was resurfaced with SMA in 1999 alongside a DGA mixture during the same works,
allowing for a direct comparison of performance over time. The SMA section has demonstrated a
higher resistance to fracture, evident by minimal cracking and crack repairs when compared to
the DGA section.

Figure 2. Cairns Airport Aerial View - SMA Bay 19 compared to DGA. (Jamieson and
White 2018)
Cairns airport also constructed an SMA patch (4m wide x 130m long) in 2008 at a runway
and taxiway intersection, to combat distresses caused by reflective cracking from the base course
material. Before the SMA patch, DGA patch repairs were installed approximately once every
two years. Since the 2008 SMA patch, maintenance has been substantially reduced with only one
patch required to repair a small area of reflective cracking in 2018.
The successful use of SMA as a runway surface internationally, and the common use of the
material domestically on roads and at Cairns international airport has demonstrated that the
material is likely to be suitable as an ungrooved runway surface. However, for the material to be
employed in the Australian airport context, a specification is required, and keeping in line with

© ASCE

Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019

 Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019 233

the latest advances of Australian airport HMA technology, the specification must be
performance-based.

PERFORMANCE-BASED SPECIFICATION
Developing a specification
Introducing SMA to Australian airports and developing a performance-based specification
requires a three-phase translation and validation of overseas airport practice, as well as
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 10/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Australian road pavement practice. The three-phase approach includes (White and Jamieson
2018):
 Review of international and local SMA specifications to develop preliminary
performance specifications
 Laboratory performance validation of preliminary specifications
 Field performance validation of preliminary specification.
The first phase, which is the topic of this paper, was a review of international SMA
specifications for airfields, and local Australian specifications for roads to develop preliminary
prescriptive and performance requirements. Constituent materials, laboratory compaction,
volumetrics, and binder drain-off characteristics were analysed. From this review, preliminary
prescriptive requirements for constituent materials and required volumetrics were formulated.
Included in the specification were laboratory performance requirements that were translated from
the Australian airport DGA performance-based specification. It was determined that the most
likely specifications to be suitable as an ungrooved runway surface were the German SMA 11S,
and Chinese SMA13. The German SMA11S was selected due to it being the original SMA
design (EAPA 1998), and therefore its longevity in industry application. The Chinese SMA13
specification was chosen due to its utilisation on over 40 airports with positive performance
reported (CACC 2016). Interestingly, the Chinese SMA13 specification is almost identical to the
Australian Queensland Transport and Main Roads (TMR) SMA14 specification, initially
bolstering the confidence for its successful application in the Australian context.

Constituent materials
Constituent materials for SMA include coarse aggregate, fine aggregate, bitumen, added
filler and stabilisers. White (2017c) determined that aggregate and filler properties must be
prescribed in a performance-compliance specification for airport HMA. As with the Australian
airport DGA performance specification, aggregate and filler qualities are prescription-based. The
values created for the ASMA performance specification for constituent material properties were
mainly based on the German SMA11S requirements (Blazejowski 2011). Where specific
Australian standards had more controlling properties, these values were used in lieu. Also
included in the constituent material requirements are the Australian standard (AS) test methods.

Coarse Aggregate
Coarse aggregates for the ASMA specification are those that are retained on the 4.75mm
break point sieve and are defined as ‘active’ because they provide the deformation resistance
through stone-on-stone contact. Coarse aggregate shape is of particular importance to SMA
mixtures, as it allows for the appropriate packing to achieve this contact (Blazejowski 2011).
Compared to the Australian airport DGA specification a more stringent flakiness index (≤ 20%

© ASCE

Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019

 Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019 234

compared to ≤ 25%) is required. Also, due to the reliance of the stone-on-stone interaction for
deformation resistance, source properties such as abrasion resistance, strength and deleterious
material content are significant, consequently, premium aggregates must be used. Table 3 details
the coarse aggregate requirements for the ASMA performance-based specification.

Table 3. ASMA coarse aggregate requirements.

Dimension Properties Test Requirement
Flakiness Index AS 1141.15 ≤ 20%
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 10/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Shape Crushed particles AS 1141.18 100% crushed

aggregate
Wet strength AS 1141.22 ≥ 150kN
Wet / Dry strength variation AS1141.22 ≤ 30%
Strength &
Soundness (using sodium AS 1141.24 ≤ 3%
Durability
sulphate)
Los Angeles Value AS 1141.23 ≤ 20%
Material finer than AS1141.12 ≤ 2.0% for 7mm and
0.075mm in Agg larger
Contaminants Secondary Mineral Content AS 1141.26 ≤ 20% (basic rock
types only)
Friable particles AS 1141.32 ≤ 0.2%
Particle Density AS 1141.6.1 ≥ 2300kg/m3
Other Water absorption AS 1141.6.1 ≤ 2%

Fine Aggregate
Fine aggregates are the stone particles that pass through the 4.75mm break point sieve and
are considered ‘passive’. As with coarse aggregate requirements, fine aggregate needs to be of
high quality in terms of strength and durability. If not sourced from the same rock as the coarse
aggregate, fine aggregate characteristics must meet all the requirements detailed in Table 3. In
addition, fine aggregate must be non-plastic and have suitable angularity.
Angularity has a positive influence on deformation resistance (Blazejowski 2011). Several
specifications for SMA either have minimum angularity requirements, and/or minimise or
preclude the use of natural sand which tends to have more rounded particles which can lead to an
unstable mixture. Although some airports have used natural sand for SMA, for example Beijing
international (Prowell et al. 2009); for the purposes of the ASMA performance-based
specification, and in line with German heavy duty SMA practice, the use of natural sand is
precluded to ensure particles with high angularity are employed.

Filler
Fillers used for HMAs are generally sourced from natural materials such as rock dust and
baghouse fines, or from commercially available materials such as hydrated lime, fly ash and
ground limestone (Austroads 2014). European countries typically use ground limestone due its
affinity with binder (Blazejowski 2011), as evident with the German SMA11S specification with
>70% by mass of CaCO3. For Australian roads and airports, hydrated lime is commonly used to
limit the risk of stripping. Hydrated lime also has a high Rigden voids value, typically greater

© ASCE

Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019

 Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019 235

than 60% (Lesueur et al. 2012), that stiffens the mastic and can increase the resistance to
deformation. However, one must be cautious not to stiffen the mastic too much as to prevent
‘fixing’ the whole binder and creating an asphalt mixture susceptible to cracking and water
damage (Blazejowski 2011; Austroads 2013). The ASMA specification requires ground
limestone to be used as the added filler. However, it also allows for a blended filler with
hydrated lime content to be reported if required to prevent stripping. To prevent excessive mastic
stiffness, a limit is placed on the Rigden voids of the combined filler of 28 – 45%, aligning with
German SMA practice (Austroads 2013).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 10/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Stabilisers
Binder drain-off requirements for international and local specifications are either
prescriptive-based (stabiliser additives by mass) or performance-based (binder drain-off by
mass). Typically, a performance-based limit of 0.3% binder drain-off by mass of the whole mix
is detailed. The German SMA11S specifies stabilising additives by mass of 0.3 – 1.5%; however,
best practice is to limit the binder drain off by mass to ≤ 0.15% (Druschner and Schafer 2005).
For a performance-based approach to asphalt mixture design, a drain-off test is more appropriate
than a prescriptive minimum stabilising additive content. In Australia, stabilisers are typically in
the form of cellulose fibres that are added to the mix, although other materials such as glass,
polyester and mineral fibres can be used and still satisfy performance requirements (Wan et al.
2014). Defining only a minimum binder drain-off requirement gives the mixture designer the
freedom to choose the stabiliser and negates the need to specify stabiliser properties. Therefore,
the ASMA performance specification requires stabilisers to limit binder drain-off to a maximum
value of 0.15%.

Table 4. ASMA volumetrics to 50 blow Marshall Compaction.

Property Test Method SMA-G11S SMA-C13
VMA (% by volume) AS/NZS 2891.8 Report ≥ 17
Binder Content (% by mass) AS/NZS 289.1.3 ≥ 6.6 Report
Air Voids (% by volume) AS/NZS 2891.8 2.5 – 3.0 3.0 – 5.0
VCAMix / VCADRC TMR Q318, or TRMS T646 Report Report

Binder
As with the Australian airport DGA performance-based specification, a critical element of a
performance-based airport HMA specification is allowing the mixture designer to select the
binder (White 2017a). Although there is an emphasis for SMA to obtain rutting resistance
through stone-on-stone contact of the mix, it has been shown in multiple research studies that the
use of a modified binder significantly increases this performance characteristic (Blazejowski
2011). Therefore, the mixture designer could choose any of the existing generic grades of
Australian polymer modified binder, or a proprietary product developed for improved airport
asphalt surface performance.

Mixture design
The Australian airport DGA performance-specification was the first major step in moving
away from prescriptive volumetrics and Marshall testing for Australian airport flexible

© ASCE

Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019

 Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019 236

pavements. In the specification, Marshall testing was replaced by performance-indicative tests;

however, traditional volumetrics were retained to avoid impacting the empirical balance between
surface durability and aircraft skid resistance (White 2017c). Because a reliable laboratory test
for surface durability, in particular ravelling potential, is yet to be developed in Australia, the
first iteration of the ASMA performance-based specification also includes prescriptive
volumetrics.

Aggregate gradation and volumetrics

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 10/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The ASMA volumetrics and target grading are detailed in Table 4 and Table 5 respectively.
Both the German SMA11S based specification and Chinese SMA13 based specification are
included. Once laboratory and field validation are undertaken for the mixtures, a single
requirement for gradation and volumetrics will be selected based on performance results. In
addition to the common volumetrics specified for DGA mixtures, is the inclusion of the mix
volume ratio. This ratio is the voids in the coarse aggregate (VCA) of the mixture, divided by the
VCA in a dry rodded condition. If this value is less than one, it indicates that the mastic has not
over-filled the voids between the coarse aggregate. If the mastic does overfill the voids, it could
potentially provide a physical barrier for stone-on-stone contact of the active particles to be
achieved, which could lead to an unstable mix (Vos et al. 2006). This would also likely be
evident from failed deformation resistance performance testing.

Table 5. ASMA target grading.

Percent passing by mass (%)
AS Sieve Size (mm)
SMA-G11S SMA-C13
19 100 100
13.2 94 – 100 90 – 100
9.5 70 – 82 45 – 65
6.7 42 – 55 -
4.75 33 – 43 22 – 34
2.36 22 – 32 18 – 27
1.18 18 – 27 14 – 22
0.6 16 – 24 12 – 19
0.3 13 – 20 10 – 16
0.15 11 – 17 9 – 14
0.075 8 – 12 8 – 12

Performance requirements
The performance requirements for wheel tracking, indirect TSR and fatigue life were directly
translated from the Australian airport DGA performance requirement as in Table 6. Air voids at
refusal density testing was not included due to the likelihood of stone crushing from excessive
compaction (Prowell et al. 2009). A surface texture test was introduced to determine the
mixture’s potential to satisfy the regulatory 1mm surface texture requirement.
Surface texture testing is undertaken using a volumetric sand patch test. For texture depths of
1mm and greater, the diameter of the sand patch created is a maximum of 252mm (Austroads

© ASCE

Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019

 Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019 237

2008). Therefore, any laboratory samples to undertake this test must be of at least 252mm in
diameter and represent the compaction of what is expected in field conditions. Slabs created for
wheel tracking tests are 300mm x 300mm and therefore achieve the minimum required diameter.
As air voids for these slabs is approximately 5%, it was considered that they also have a surface
finish consistent with that achieved in the field, and therefore could make the appropriate sample
for sand patch testing.

Table 6. ASMA performance requirements.

Test Property Standard Requirement
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 10/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Wheel Tracking Test AG:PT/T231 Not more than 2.0 mm

(10,000 passes at 65°C)
Indirect TSR AG:PT/T232 Not less than 80%
Fatigue life (20°C and AG:PT/T274 Not more than 50%
200 µƐ) reduction of initial flexural
stiffness
Surface Texture AG:PT/T250 Not less than 1.0 mm

ASPHALT CONSTRUCTION AND PRODUCTION

Construction and production of SMA for airports will have very similar specification
requirements to current airport DGA. For example, even though Marshall testing will not be
employed directly for mixture design, it will still be undertaken in parallel with mixture design to
be used as a quality assurance test during asphalt production. Marshall testing of SMA will
indicate lower deformation resistance when compared to Marshall values of DGA (Druschner
and Schafer 2005); however, many standards still reference Marshall Flow and Stability for
SMA mixtures, implying the Marshall properties are still repeatable and can be used as an easy,
cost-effective, quality assurance test (Jamieson and White 2018).
There will be some minor differences in SMA construction, for example, the use of
pneumatic rollers may be disallowed as there is a risk of mastic sticking to the tires during
compaction (Blazejowski 2011). In situ air voids will be less than what is expected of DGA with
a maximum of 6.0% (compared to 8.0% for DGA). Of importance in the airport context is
surface texture testing during construction. As ASMA will be used as an ungrooved runway
surface, obtaining a 1mm surface texture throughout the pavement is essential. Therefore,
multiple volumetric surface texture tests must be taken at regular intervals during each paving
operation.

FUTURE WORK
To introduce SMA to Australian airports, further work is required to validate the proposed
performance-based specification; in the form of both laboratory and field testing. Laboratory
testing will use a variety of typical Australian aggregate sources. Firstly, to confirm that the
mixtures are possible with Australian material, and then to confirm if they successfully achieve
the performance requirements as detailed in Table 6. As there are two potential volumetric
requirements proposed, the higher performing specification from laboratory tests will then
undergo field validation. The main purpose of the field validation is not necessarily to confirm
the construction processes associated with SMA, but rather to confirm that field surface texture
is greater than 1mm and field friction characteristics satisfy the minimum requirements set by

© ASCE

Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019

 Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019 238

CASA. Additionally, field validation will provide an opportunity for long term evaluation of
SMA under aircraft loads. Finally, a laboratory durability test should be developed to objectively
assess the ravelling potential of different mixtures in the future.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Australian airports are typically surfaced with grooved Marshall-designed DGA. Groove
closure is a common issue for runway surfaces and airports seek an alternate material that does
not require grooving; of alternates available, SMA is the most promising. To introduce SMA into
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 10/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Australian airports, a specification must be developed, and keeping in-line with current
Australian airport technology, this specification should be performance-based. This paper has
proposed values for a performance-based specification for ASMA, focusing on prescriptive
requirements for constituent materials and volumetrics, and laboratory performance requirements
for resistance to deformation, resistance to fatigue, durability, and surface texture. This
specification must now undergo laboratory validation, and field validation to ensure its
suitability as an ungrooved runway surface.

REFERENCES
AAA (2017). Airport Practice Note 12 - Airfield Pavement Essentials, Australian Airports
Association, Australia.
AAPA (2018). "Performance-based Airport Asphalt Model Specification - Version 1.0."
Australian Asphalt Pavement Association - National Technology & Leadership Committee.
ASTB (2008). "Runway excursions - Part 1: A worldwide review of commercial jet aircraft
runway excursions." Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Canberra, ACT.
Austroads (2008). "AG:PT/T250 Modified surface texture depth (Pestle method)." Austroads,
Sydney, Australia.
Austroads (2013). Mastic Performance Assessment in Stone Mastic Asphalt, Austroads, Sydney,
Australia.
Austroads (2014). Austroads Guide to Pavement Technology Part 4B: Asphalt, Austroads,
Sydney, Australia.
Blazejowski, K. (2011). Stone Mastic Asphalt Theory and Practice, CRC Press, Florida.
Brown, E. R., Haddock, J. E., Mallick, R. B., and Lynn, T. A. (1997). "Development of a
mixture design procedure for stone matrix asphalt."Alabama, United States.
CACC (2016). "Practice on Asphalt Overlay in China." Proc., ICAO 4th Aerodromes Operations
and Planning Working Group, China Airport Construction Group Corporation.
Campbell, C. (1999). "The use of stone mastic asphalt on aircraft pavements." Submitted in
fulfillment of the requirements for SEN713 Research/Professional Practice Projects. School
of Engineerng and Technology, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria.
CASA (2017). "Manual of Standards Part 139 - Aerodromes." Australian Civil Aviation Safety
Authority.
Druschner, L., and Schafer, V. (2005). "Stone Mastic Asphalt." German Asphalt Association,
Deutscher Asphaltverband, Germany.
EAPA (1998). Heavy duty surfaces. The arguments for SMA., European Asphalt Pavement
Association, Breukelen, The Netherlands.
ICAO (2016). "International Standards and Recommended Practices. Aerodromes. Annex 14
Volume 1." International Civil Aviation Organization.
Jacobsen, Y. (2015). "Norwegian record at Oslo Airport." NYNAS News, NYNAS.

© ASCE

Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019

 Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019 239

Jamieson, S. and White, G. (2018). "Review of stone mastic asphalt as a high-performance

ungrooved runway surfacing." Road Materials and Pavement Design,
DOI:10.1080/14680629.2018.1545688.
Joubert, P. B., Gounder, L., and van Wyk, S. (2004). "Experimental asphalt sections in the
runway touch down zone on Johannesburg International Airport." Proc., 8th Conference on
Asphalt Pavements for Southern Africa. Sun City, South Africa.
Lesueur, D., Petit, J., and Ritter, H.J. (2012). "Increasing the durability of asphalt mixtures by
hydrated lime addition: What mechanisms?" Proc., 5th Eurobitume & Eurasphalt Congress,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 10/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Paper 256. Istanbul.

Prowell, B. D., Watson, D. E., Hurley, G. C., and Brown, E. R. (2009). "Evaluation of Stone
Matrix Asphalt (SMA) for airfield pavements."Auburn, Alabama.
Rebbechi, J., Mangan, D., Nicolls M, and J, B. (2003). "Stone Mastic Asphalt - A Decade of
Australian Experience." 21st ARRB Transport Research Conference. Cairns, Queensland,
Australia.
Rushing, J. F., Little, D. N., and Garg, N. (2012). "Asphalt pavement analyzer used to assess
rutting susceptibility of hot-mix asphalt designed for high tire pressure aircraft."
Transportation Research Record (2296), 97-105.
Vos, R., Mangan, D., and Pashula, C. (2006). "Australian application of international
developments in Stone Mastic Asphalt (SMA)." 22nd ARRB Conference - Research into
Practice. Canberra, Australia.
Wan, C. G., Wang, Q. T., Ma, B. F., and Zhang, Y. (2014). "Influence of fiber type on road
performance of stone mastic asphalt." Advanced Materials Research, 188-193.
White, G. (2016). "Changes in Australian paving-grade bitumen: are they real and what should
Australia do about it?" Proc., 27th ARRB Conference.
White, G. (2017a). "Developing a Performance Specification for Airport Asphalt." 17th AAPA
International Flexible Pavements Conference. Melbourne, Australia.
White, G. (2017b). "Managing skid resistance and friction on asphalt runway surfaces." World
Conference on Pavement and Asset Management. Milan, Italy.
White, G. (2017c). "Towards a Performance-Based Airport Asphalt Specification." International
Conference on Highway Pavements and Airfield Technology Pennsylvania.
White, G. (2018). "State of the art: Asphalt for airport pavement surfacing." International
Journal of Pavement Research and Technology, 11(1), 77-98.
White, G., and Rodway, B. (2014). "Distress and Maintenance of Grooved Runway Surfaces."
Airfield Engineering and Maintenance Summit. Singapore.
White, G., and Jamieson, S. (2018). "Introduction of Stone Matrix Asphalt to Australian
Runways." 1st International Conference on Stone Matrix Asphalt. Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
White, T. D. (1985). "Marshall procedures for design and quality control of asphalt mixtures."
Asphalt Pavement Technology, 54, 265-285.
Xin, S. (2015). "Research and practice on asphalt overlay in China." Proc., ICAO Regional
Workhop on Airport Pavements-Design & Evaluation. Macao, China.

© ASCE

Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019