Comparison of Mix Design Methods for Porous

Asphalt Mixtures
Bradley J. Putman, A.M.ASCE1; and Laura C. Kline2

Abstract: Porous asphalt mixtures have been used for more than 60 years, but it was not until 1974 that the first formalized procedure was
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by ARIZONA,UNIVERSITY OF on 05/14/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

created by the Federal Highway Administration to design mixtures for open-graded friction courses (OGFC). Since that time, there have been
several other mix design procedures developed and adapted, mainly for OGFCs on high-volume roadways. In the past decade, porous asphalt
pavements have been gaining popularity as a storm water best management practice and utilize similar mixtures as those used for OGFCs.
However, for any porous mixtures to perform as intended, they must be designed and constructed properly. Across the United States, there are
currently more than 20 different methods used to design these mixtures. The objective of this research was to compare the different mix design
procedures currently used in the United States. The results indicated that some of the procedures result in a range of design binder contents
instead of a single value. This does not provide much guidance to inexperienced designers, which could result in pavement performance
issues that could deter the future use of porous asphalt mixtures. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000529. © 2012 American Society
of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Asphalt pavements; Asphalts; Mixtures; Stormwater management; Best Management Practice; Streets;
Pavements.
Author keywords: Asphalt pavements; Storm water management; Best management practice; Streets; Porous pavements.

Introduction However, in a porous asphalt pavement, the entire structure is de-

As development and urbanization has increased, natural pervious
surfaces have been replaced with impervious surfaces, such as roofs
and pavements. This reduction in pervious land cover increases the
amount of storm water runoff, which can have negative impacts,
including sediment transport, erosion, and pollutant transport (Bean
et al. 2007). An alternative to traditional impervious pavements is
to use porous pavements through which storm water is allowed to
permeate the pavement surface and then into the underlying soil.
Because of this infiltration, the quantity of storm water runoff is
significantly reduced, and the infiltrate is also filtered by the porous
pavement structure in the process (Brattebo and Booth 2003;
Sansalone and Buchberger 1995).
Porous asphalt pavement mixtures are designed with an open-
graded aggregate to increase the number of permeable air voids,
which allows water to penetrate through the voids, removing it from
the surface of a roadway much faster than traditional dense-graded
pavement. Fig. 1 shows the movement of water within (a) a porous
asphalt pavement, (b) an asphalt pavement with an open-graded fric-
tion course (OGFC) overlay, and (c) a conventional dense-graded as-
phalt pavement. In dense-graded pavements, the surface is designed
to be impermeable so the water must move to the edge of the road by
way of a small cross slope, which is constructed in the pavement.
1 in 1980 and again in 1990 (FHWA 1990; Watson et al. 2002). This
Assistant Professor, Glenn Dept. of Civil Engineering, Clemson Univ.,
109 Lowry Hall, Clemson, SC 29634 (corresponding author). E-mail:
putman@clemson.edu
2
Quality Control Manager, King Asphalt, Inc., Liberty, SC 29657.
E-mail: laurak@kingasphaltinc.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on July 3, 2011; approved on
March 26, 2012; published online on March 29, 2012. Discussion period
open until April 1, 2013; separate discussions must be submitted for indi-
vidual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Materials in Civil En-
gineering, Vol. 24, No. 11, November 1, 2012. © ASCE, ISSN 0899-1561/
2012/11-1359-1367/$25.00.
signed to allow water to infiltrate the surface and then be stored
in the base prior to exfiltration into the subgrade. For a pavement
with an OGFC overlay, water is able to infiltrate into the voids of
the overlay and then drain laterally to the edge of the pavement.
Porous asphalt was created to help increase safety on roadways
but also provides numerous other advantages. The high air void con-
tent creates permeability that decreases the water on the roadway,
thus reducing the splashing and spraying in wet weather. This de-
creases the potential for hydroplaning and increases visibility, both
of which improve the safety of the roadway. The surface texture also
helps increase friction and skid resistance, as well as decrease the
noise attributable to pavement–tire interaction.
Unfortunately, there are also some disadvantages of porous as-
phalt mixtures. The high air content leads to an increased potential
for raveling and accelerated aging, as oxygen has access to a higher
surface area of mixture (Kandhal and Mallick 1998). Special winter
treatments are required for porous pavements to keep the driving
conditions safe. Clogged pores can also become problematic,
especially owing to winter maintenance activities such as sanding
(Yildirim et al. 2006).
The design of porous asphalt (or OGFC) mixtures must be modi-
fied from the traditional mix design to be able to adjust for the high
air void content. The first of these mix designs was published in 1974
by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and then modified
design method was based on the surface capacity and absorption of
aggregate. In 2000, the National Center for Asphalt Technology
(NCAT) published a new-generation OGFC mix design (Mallick
et al. 2000). This new methodology was based on a series of property
and performance tests that needed to meet certain criteria. Regardless
of the design method used, the open gradation and high air void
content leads to less stone-on-stone contact, which reduces the
durability. Most methods counteract this with higher binder contents,
higher binder grades, and/or additives to help improve performance.

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2012 / 1359

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2012.24:1359-1367.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by ARIZONA,UNIVERSITY OF on 05/14/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Water movement through (a) porous asphalt pavement; (b) asphalt pavement with an OGFC overlay; (c) conventional asphalt pavement
Problem Statement and Objectives
Because of all of the potential benefits of porous pavements related
to storm water management, many municipalities have accepted
porous pavements as a storm water best management practice.
Many state departments of transportation (DOTs) also recognize
the safety benefits of porous asphalt for OGFCs. However, it is par-
amount that these pavements perform as intended, and this requires
proper design of the mixture, among other variables. There are
currently several methods recommended to design porous asphalt
mixtures, and some of these procedures are more complex than
others. Most of these design procedures are used to design OGFC
or porous friction courses for high volume roadway overlays, but
there is relatively little guidance for the design of mixtures used for
porous asphalt pavements for storm water management. Until re-
cently, there has not been any comparison of the different design
methods being used. Previous research has involved in-depth analy-
ses of a single design method to determine the performance char-
acteristics of porous asphalt mixtures. Additionally, over the past
two decades, researchers have looked into the trends of porous as-
phalt used as OGFC in the United States. These studies have found
that poor performance in some states has encouraged agencies to
update their mix design methods, while others have stopped using
OGFCs completely, and still other states use their original mix de-
sign procedures. There is limited information comparing the results
of different mix design methods and the potential performance-
related characteristics of these different design outcomes.
The main objective in this research was to compare the various
porous asphalt mix design methods currently used in the United
States. Porous asphalt has many applications from interstate road-
ways to parking lots, and it is important that the mix is properly
designed for the specific application so that the many benefits
of porous asphalt can be realized.
Porous Asphalt Mix Design Procedures
A survey was circulated to state DOTs across the United States to
identify what methods are used to determine the optimum binder
content (OBC) for porous asphalt mixes in each state. The DOTs
were targeted for the survey because most projects that specify
asphalt mixtures (including porous asphalt) specify that DOT
procedures and specifications be followed. From the survey, it
was determined that the mix design procedures used for porous
asphalt in the United States can be divided into three main catego-
ries (Kline 2010): Procedures that determine the OBC using com-
pacted asphalt specimens; procedures that determine OBC using an
1360 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2012
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2012.24:1359-1367.
oil absorption test; and procedures that determine OBC by visual
observation of loose porous asphalt mix.
While the mix design methods fall into three main categories, it
is important to mention that many of the methods within a category
have either different mix design requirements or different proce-
dures and/or calculations to determine the OBC. Table 1 summa-
rizes the mix design requirements of 10 of the methods that were
identified in the survey of state DOT mix design procedures that
fall in the compacted specimens category (Kline 2010). For these
methods, a certain number of cylindrical specimens are compacted
over a range of binder contents. Tests are conducted on these
specimens to determine volumetric properties [air voids, voids in
mineral aggregate (VMA), and voids filled with asphalt (VFA)],
abrasion resistance (Cantabro abrasion test), and/or permeability.
The OBC is determined based on the values specified in the table.
After determining the OBC, some methods require that the mois-
ture susceptibility of the mix be evaluated by means of the tensile
strength ratio (TSR). Additionally, the draindown of the mix is also
tested at the OBC. The 10 methods included in Table 1were used to
determine OBCs in this study for the compacted specimens cat-
egory (ASTM 2008a; Kandhal 2002; GDOT 2009; NMDOT 2009;
NCDOT 2009; MDOT 2005; MODOT 2004; NDOR 1997; TDOT
1995; VDOT 2007).
The methods in the oil absorption category determine the OBC
of a porous asphalt mixture by measuring the absorption capacity of
the aggregate using a specified oil. The procedures are similar in
concept in that the predominant aggregate size is soaked in oil for a
specified period of time after which the aggregate is drained under
particular conditions. The amount of oil absorbed by the aggregate
is then used in a series of calculations to determine the OBC of
the mixture. Some states also measure the absorption capacity
of the fine aggregate portion of the mix using kerosene instead
of oil. The absorption values of the fine and coarse aggregate
are then used to calculate the OBC. The mix design methods from
this category that were used in this study included the procedures
created by the FWHA (1990) and the Georgia DOT (2009). It is
worth noting that the Alabama DOT (1999) and Kentucky Trans-
portation Cabinet (2008) also use the FHWA procedure.
The final group of porous asphalt mix designs fall in the visual
determination category. In general, this procedure involves mixing
porous asphalt mixtures over a range of binder contents and placing
a specific amount of the loose mixture into a clear glass container
that is conditioned in an oven at a certain temperature for a speci-
fied duration. After conditioning, the OBC is determined by look-
ing at the containers from underneath. The designer is looking for
the binder content at which there is neither too much binder that has
 elongated
drained off of the aggregate and deposited on the bottom of the

particles
Flat and

≤10d

≤10d

≤10d

≤10d
≤20e

≤20e
≤5d
(%)
container nor too little binder on the bottom of the container. Many
Aggregate properties methods provide guidance similar to that provided by the Florida
DOT (FDOT) in Fig. 2 (FDOT 2009). The two different procedures
used in this study included those from the Florida DOT and the

(>1= ≥ 1)
Fractured

90=100

90=100
90=95

90=95
faces South Carolina DOT (2010).

100
75

90

70
Experimental Materials and Procedures
loss (%)
abrasion

≤30
≤30
≤45

≤45
≤45
≤50
≤40

≤40
LA

To accomplish the objectives of this study, the OBCs of porous

asphalt mixtures were determined in accordance with the require-
ments of 14 different mix design methods from the three major
Other
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by ARIZONA,UNIVERSITY OF on 05/14/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Xa

categories as discussed in the previous section. This involved

the preparation and testing of compacted specimens, the measure-
ment of the oil absorption of different aggregates, and the visual
Permeability
(m/day)

inspection of porous asphalt mixtures.

≥100

≥100
≥30

Materials
Three different crushed granite aggregate sources and one grada-
≥95b
TSR

≥80
≥80

≥80

≥80
(%)

Xc

tion were used in this research to identify the effects of different

Table 1. Porous Asphalt Mix Design Requirements for Design Methods in the Compacted Specimen Category of Mix Design Methods

aggregate sources on the porous asphalt mixtures. The properties

abrasion

of the aggregates are included in Table 2. From the table, it is evi-

Aged

≤30
≤30

≤40
(%)

dent that aggregates A and B have similar properties and are mined
from the same region. Aggregate C, while still crushed granite, has
The Mississippi design procedure requires the moisture susceptibility to be checked; no requirement is given for the value.

different properties than the other sources and is better suited for
Unaged abrasion

porous asphalt owing to its lower Los Angeles (LA) abrasion loss
The New Mexico TSR value is a static immersion moisture susceptibility test, not an indirect tensile strength ratio.

value. Additionally, the three aggregate sources met or exceeded

≤20
≤20

≤20
≤30
≤20

≤20
≤20
(%)

all of the aggregate requirements in Table 1 with the exception

The volumetric portion of the Georgia procedure selects a binder content based on the minimum VMA value.

of LA abrasion loss for some states. These aggregates were selected

to assess whether the porous asphalt mix design procedures were
sensitive to aggregate from different locations but have similar
Mix properties

properties with the exception of LA abrasion loss. Additionally,

Draindown

these aggregate types are prevalent throughout the southeastern

≤0.3
≤0.3

≤0.3
≤0.3
≤0.3
≤0.3
≤0.3

≤0.3
(%)

United States and could ultimately be used to correlate laboratory

performance with field performance in future studies. The grada-
tion selected for this study is included in Table 3 and was chosen
because it meets the requirements for porous asphalt and/or OGFC
18
1
voids

≥18
≥18

≥18
≥15
≥18

≥16
(%)
Air

for most of the mix design methods evaluated in this study.

The binders used in this study were from the same crude source,
but two different binder grades were used (PG 67-22 and PG
5.75–7.25

76-22). The PG 76-22 binder was an styrene-butadiene-styrene

Asphalt

5.8–6.8
content

≥6.0
(%)

6.5

(SBS) modified binder as used by most state DOTs, and the PG

67-22 binder was used only for the Florida DOT procedure.
Additionally, two additives were included in the porous asphalt
< VCAdrc

mixtures in this study: Hydrated lime and cellulose fibers. Hydrated

VCAmix

lime was added to each mixture at a rate of 1.0% by weight of

X
X

X
X

X
X

aggregate. Hydrated lime is specified in many states to reduce the

susceptibility of the mix to moisture-induced damage (stripping).
gyrations

Cellulose fibers were included as a stabilizer, as required by most

No. of

50
50

50
50
50
50

50

agencies to reduce binder draindown. The fibers were added to the

mix at a rate of 0.3% by total weight of the mixture.
No. of trial

contents
binder

Mix Design Methods

3
3

3
3
4

Compacted Specimens
For this study, 30 specimens were compacted for each of the three
North Carolina DOT
New Mexico DOT

aggregate sources. The porous asphalt mixture was prepared by

Mississippi DOT

Tennessee DOT
Nebraska DOR

mixing the heated aggregate (coated with 1% hydrated lime by

Missouri DOT

Virginia DOT
Georgia DOT
NAPA/NCAT

A 5∶1 ratio.
A 3∶1 ratio.

weight of aggregate) with the cellulose fibers (0.3% by weight of

mixture) and the binder (PG 76-22) using a bucket mixer. The mix-
Agency
ASTM

ing temperature was the same for all specimens (167
3°C). After
mixing, the loose mix was placed in a pan and conditioned in an
b

d
a

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2012 / 1361

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2012.24:1359-1367.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by ARIZONA,UNIVERSITY OF on 05/14/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Visual determination mix design image references for (a) too little binder; (b) just right amount of binder; (c) too much binder
(FDOT 2009)

Table 2. Properties of Aggregates Used to Produce Porous Asphalt to that of dense-graded mixtures for which the standard was
Mixtures in This Study originally developed. Preliminary testing revealed that the smaller
Property Aggregate A Aggregate B Aggregate C diameter standpipe did not allow for enough time for accurate
measurements of flow rate and the smaller diameter outlet appeared
Aggregate type Granite Granite Granite
to limit the flow of water through the permeameter when testing
Bulk specific gravity 2.66 2.64 2.62 specimens having high permeability values.
Bulkspecific gravity (SSD) 2.67 2.65 2.63
Apparent specific gravity 2.69 2.68 2.65 Oil Absorption
Absorption (%) 0.6 0.4 0.5 In these procedures, 100 g of the predominant aggregate size was
LA abrasion (%) 51 49 28 soaked in Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) No. 10 oil for
5 min. It was then drained for 2 min at room temperature and an
additional 15 min in a 60°C oven. The mass of the dry aggregate
Table 3. Aggregate Gradation Used to Produce Porous Asphalt Mixtures and the oil-soaked aggregate were recorded. After acquiring the
in This Study necessary data, the OBC was calculated using Eqs. (1)–(3) for
the FHWA method (FHWA 1990) while Eqs. (1) and (4) were used
Sieve % passing
to calculate the OBC for the Georgia DOT method (GDOT 2009).
19.0 mm (3=4 in) 100 It should be noted that the surface constant (K c1 ) in Eq. (3) was
12.5 mm (1=2 in) 94 calculated using Eq. (2) and the K c2 in Eq. (4) was determined from
9.5 mm (3=8 in) 63
Figure 114-1 in GDT-114 (GDOT 2009).
4.75 mm (No. 4) 17
2.36 mm (No. 8) 6 Gsa B − A
0.075 mm (No. 200) 1 Percent oil retained ðPORÞ ¼ × × 100 (1)
2.65 A
where Gsa = apparent specific gravityof the coarse aggregate;
oven at the compaction temperature (154
3°C) for 2 h A = mass of dry aggregate; and B = mass of oil-soaked aggregate.
before compacting using 50 gyrations of the gyratory compactor.
There were six specimens at each of five different binder contents, Surface constant ðK c1 Þ ¼ 0.1 þ 0.4ðPORÞ (2)
which ranged from 5 to 7% (by weight of mixture) in 0.5% incre-
ments. This covered the binder content range for most procedures; 2.65
OBC ¼ ð4 þ 2K c1 Þ × (3)
however, the Virginia DOT recommends a range of 5.75 to 7.25% Gsa
(VDOT 2007). Each specimen was tested to measure bulk specific
gravity and porosity (ASTM 2011a, D7063), permeability (modified
OBC ¼ 3.5 þ 2K c1 (4)
ASTM 2001, PS129), and unaged and aged abrasion loss (ASTM
2008b, D7064). Additionally, uncompacted specimens were pre-
pared to measure the maximum specific gravity (ASTM 2011b,
D2041), which was used to calculate the air voids, VMA, and Visual Determination
VFA for each specimen. Table 1 provides an overall summary The visual determination of OBC design procedures all have the
of the requirements of the 10 procedures in this category that were same general steps as described previously: An uncompacted speci-
used in this research. The TSR was not completed for this research men is placed in a clear glass container and conditioned for a period
as it is a check for stripping potential, not to determine the OBC. of time at a specified temperature. The two methods used in this
For the permeability testing, there were slight modifications study were those from the Florida DOT (FM 5-588) and South
made to the ASTM PS129 procedure. The first change was using Carolina DOT (SC-T-91). The major differences include binder
a 63.5-mm interior diameter standpipe instead of the specified grades and time and temperature of conditioning. For the Florida
31.8-mm interior diameter pipe to account for the high expected DOT procedure, loose mixture consisting of aggregate, fiber, and
permeability values. The outlet was also modified to a 50-mm in- binder (PG 67-22) is produced at different binder contents and
side diameter that was located below the bottom of the specimen. placed in a clear glass pie plate (225-mm diameter) and conditioned
These modifications were made to accommodate the extremely in an oven at 160°C for 1 h before inspection. For the South
high rates of permeability of the porous asphalt mixtures compared Carolina DOT procedure, loose mixture consisting of aggregate,

1362 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2012

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2012.24:1359-1367.

 fiber, and binder (PG 76-22) is prepared at different binder contents
and placed in a clear glass rectangular dish having a minimum
area of 645 cm2 and conditioned in an oven at the binder mixing
temperature for 2 h prior to inspection. The SCDOT also requires a
draindown test to be completed with a maximum value of 0.3%.

Results and Discussion

After preparation of the compacted test specimens at varying binder

contents, tests were conducted to measure the density and volumet-
ric properties, permeability, and abrasion resistance. As indicated in
previous sections, these properties are used to determine the OBC
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by ARIZONA,UNIVERSITY OF on 05/14/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

of porous asphalt mixtures using the procedures in the compacted

specimen category of mix design methods. These results are pre-
sented in Figs. 3–9. Fig. 4. Relationship between air void content and binder content for
Fig. 3 shows the relationship of the binder content on the density compacted specimens
of the mixture. The density of the mixture increases with binder
content because the binder fills the voids between the aggregate,
which removes air from the mixture and thus increases the density.
This relationship is typical of conventional asphalt mixtures, but in
conventional asphalt mixtures the density would reach a maximum
point and then decrease with additional binder. The reduction in air
content with increasing binder content is illustrated in Fig. 4. This
relationship is also typical of conventional asphalt mixtures.
In addition to determining the air content of each specimen, the
porosity was also measured. The porosity is a measurement of the
water accessible air voids, while the air void content presented in
Fig. 4 is the total voids in the specimen (accessible or not). The
porosity results are summarized in Fig. 5 and indicate that, like
the air voids, the porosity decreases with increasing binder content.
Additionally, the porosity is lower than the air content of the mix.
This is important to note especially for porous asphalt mixtures
because the inaccessible air voids do not contribute to the function-
ality of the porous mixture; only the accessible (or interconnected)
Fig. 5. Relationship between porosity and binder content for com-
voids allow water to drain through the pavement. These findings
pacted specimens
are in agreement with those of Alvarez et al. (2008).
Fig. 6 shows the relationship between the VMA of the com-
pacted mixture and the binder content. There is no clear trend
for the three sets of mixtures. For conventional asphalt mixtures,
the VMA typically decreases with binder content. At a certain point
the VMA would reach a minimum value and then begin to increase
with binder content. This trend is not present for the porous asphalt
mixtures in this study, which is likely attributable to the high
void contents compared to conventional asphalt mixtures that are

Fig. 6. Relationship between VMA and binder content for compacted

specimens

typically in the range of 3–7%. It is hypothesized that if the range of

binder contents was increased to values reaching the void content
(upper limit around 20%), then the VMA trend may resemble that
of conventional asphalt mixtures. However, it should be noted that
Fig. 3. Relationship between mix density and binder content for
binder contents in the range of 20% are not practical, and it is not
compacted specimens
advised to approach such high binder contents. This statement is

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2012 / 1363

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2012.24:1359-1367.


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by ARIZONA,UNIVERSITY OF on 05/14/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 7. Relationship between VFA and binder content for compacted
specimens
Fig. 8. Relationship between permeability and binder content for
compacted specimens
only made to potentially explain the differences in the trends of
the porous asphalt mixtures compared to conventional mixtures.
The same hypothesis can apply to the mixture density trend shown
in Fig. 3.
In Fig. 7, the relationship between VFA (percent of the VMA
filled with binder) and binder content shows that the VFA increases
rather linearly with the binder content. While this trend is similar to
that for conventional asphalt mixtures, the VFA values are much
lower. This difference is attributable to the higher void contents
of porous mixtures compared to conventional.
Permeability is perhaps the most important parameter relating to
the functionality of a porous asphalt pavement surface. Without ad-
equate permeability, the pavement will not allow water to infiltrate
the pavement surface. Fig. 8 illustrates the relationship between
permeability and binder content for the mixtures evaluated in this
study. It can be seen that the lower the binder content, the higher the
permeability. This trend is attributable to accessible voids (poros-
ity) of the mix filling with binder as the binder content increases.
However, there is a more immediate loss of permeability with in-
creasing binder content, which becomes more gradual at the upper
end of the binder contents evaluated in this study. This indicates
that all of the mixtures will still have some permeability even at
higher binder contents (approaching 9–10%). From this it is evident
that the aggregate structure contributes more to the permeability of
the mixture than the binder content. It should also be noted that the
1364 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2012
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2012.24:1359-1367.
required permeability for a particular application is going to be site
specific. In some applications, there may be a need to have higher
pavement infiltration rates due to larger runoff areas, or rainfall
frequency; while in other applications, lower permeability rates
may be adequate because of minimal rainfall, or smaller local
watersheds. This fact can even be seen in Table 2 where the
Mississippi DOT requires that the permeability of a porous asphalt
mixture be at least 30 m=day and the North Carolina DOT requires
a permeability of at least 100 m=day.
The final mixture property that was evaluated in this study was
the abrasion loss as measured by the Cantabro abrasion test. This
test is intended to measure the susceptibility of a mixture to loss
attributable to surface abrasion, or raveling. The abrasion loss of
unaged and aged specimens is summarized in Fig. 9. The results
indicate that the loss attributable to abrasion decreases with increas-
ing binder content. This is attributable to the increase in cohesion
within the mixture as the thickness of the binder film coating the
aggregates increases. Additionally, one of the aggregate sources in
this study (aggregate C) showed generally higher abrasion loss
values compared to aggregates A and B. It should be noted, how-
ever, that the results of the Cantabro testing had a high degree
of variability, making distinct comparisons between treatments
difficult. The average coefficient of variation for these results
was approximately 23% and was as high as 85%. This variability
and lack of sensitivity has also been identified in other studies
(Alvarez et al. 2010).
When comparing the results of the unaged and aged specimens,
the aging procedure did not cause a significant increase in the loss
attributable to abrasion. In fact, for some mixtures, the loss values
were lower than the unaged specimens. This is generally not
expected because the aging procedure causes the binder film coat-
ing on the aggregates to oxidize and become more brittle, which
reduces both the cohesion within the mixture and the adhesion
to the aggregate particles. This oxidation results in an increased
occurrence of raveling during the life of a pavement, which should
be identified in the lab with higher abrasion loss values in the
Cantabro test.
For porous asphalt mixtures, as with many materials, there are
trade-offs to be considered. For porous asphalt, the trade-off is
between functionality (or permeability) and durability (or abrasion
loss). As shown in this study, as the durability of the mixture in-
creases as measured with the Cantabro test, there is a reduction in
the permeability. The reason for this, as previously explained, is
that the durability of a porous asphalt mixture is dependent upon
the thickness of the binder film surrounding the aggregate particles,
which promotes cohesion within the mixture. However, as the
binder content of the mixture increases, the binder occupies air
voids, thus reducing the permeability of the mixture. Because of
this relationship, it is important to consider the conditions of the
application of the porous asphalt mixture when selecting the binder
content for the mixture.
Optimum Binder Contents
After determining the properties of the compacted specimens and
performing the procedures involved with the oil absorption and
visual determination methods, the OBCs were determined for each
mix design method. These results are summarized in Table 4 for
each aggregate used in the study.
On the basis of the OBCs summarized in Table 4, it is evident
that there are inconsistencies between different mix design proce-
dures. This is especially true for the procedures that base the OBC
on the properties of compacted specimens. In many cases, the com-
pacted specimens procedures result in a range of binder contents for
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by ARIZONA,UNIVERSITY OF on 05/14/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9. Relationship between abrasion loss and binder content for compacted specimens in (a) unaged condition; (b) after aging

Table 4. Optimum Binder Contents Determined by Each Mix Design procedures yielded OBC ranges that did not encompass the OBCs
Procedure determined from the other two categories. In fact, in all but four of
Optimum binder content (%) those cases, the range from the compacted specimens was below
that of the oil absorption or visual determination. As previously
Category Procedure Aggregate A Aggregate B Aggregate C
discussed, this could potentially lead to performance issues related
Compacted ASTM 5.2–5.7 5.0 6.0 to raveling.
specimens NAPA 5.2–5.8 5.0 5.9–6.7
GDOT 7.0 5.0 7.0
NMDOT 6.5 6.5 6.5 Conclusions
NCDOT 5.2–5.7 5.0 6.0
MDOT 5.0–7.0 5.0–6.3 5.4–7.0 The objective of this research was to evaluate and compare the dif-
a a
MODOT 6.0–6.7
a ferent mix design procedures currently in use for porous asphalt
NDOR 5.8–6.2 6.3–6.8
TDOT 5.2–7.0 5.0–7.0 6.0–7.0 mixtures in the United States and to provide any guidance related
VDOT 5.2–6.6 5.0–5.8 6.0–7.0 to the advantages and disadvantages of different types of design
procedures. A survey of porous asphalt mix design procedures used
Oil absorption FHWA 5.8 6.1 6.0
in the United States revealed that there are many different mix
GDOT 5.4 5.7 5.5
design recommendations, but all of the procedures can be grouped
Visual SCDOT 6.2 6.0 6.5 into three categories: (1) those that base the OBC on the properties
determination FDOT 5.8 5.8 6.0 of compacted specimens; (2) those that calculate the OBC on the
a basis of the absorption capacity of the aggregate; and (3) those that
Did not meet the criteria in the range of binder contents evaluated.
determine the OBC on the basis of visual inspection of loose mix.
The OBCs determined from the 14 procedures evaluated
which the mix satisfies the criteria outlined in Table 1. In some showed variability between the different procedures for the same
cases, the range is approximately 0.5%, which will not likely result aggregate source. The largest variability came within the com-
in significant problems during either construction or performance. pacted specimens mix design category. For many of the procedures
However, there are some cases where the OBC range is 1% or in the compacted specimens category, the outcome was a range for
more. This could result in significant draindown issues or raveling the OBC. In some cases this range was as wide as the range of
issues, depending on which end of the range the designer selects binder contents evaluated in the procedure (5–7%). This does
for the job mix formula. Additionally, for aggregate B, four of the not provide any guidance to the designer as to what the OBC should
compacted specimens procedures resulted in an OBC of 5%, which be for a particular mixture. Additionally, in some cases the OBC
is very low for a porous asphalt mixture made with polymer was determined to be the lowest binder content evaluated in the
modified binder and fibers. Porous asphalt mixtures produced at range, which is likely too low to ensure long-term durability in
this low binder content could potentially result in accelerated aging the field as evidenced by the relatively high abrasion loss values
and raveling in the field. Furthermore, there were three cases where for mixtures containing lower binder contents. A contributing fac-
none of the binder content met the established criteria in Table 1. tor to these mix design methods resulting in a range of acceptable
The other two contents of mix design methods (oil absorption binder contents could be the variability in some of the test methods,
and visual determination) resulted in a single binder content for specifically, the Cantabro test.
each method as compared with a range. For the oil absorption An advantage of these types of methods is that they do evaluate
methods, the FHWA procedure resulted in a binder content that the performance properties (permeability and durability) of the
was approximately 0.5% higher than the GDOT procedure. Finally, mixtures at the different binder contents, which can provide valu-
the visual determination methods used resulted in binder contents able information to the informed designer.
that were generally higher than the oil absorption procedures, but The procedures in the other two categories (oil absorption and
not more than 0.5% higher. visual determination) resulted in a single value for OBC for each
By comparing the three different mix design categories, it can be procedure, which is an advantage depending on the experience of
seen that in almost half of the cases, the compacted specimens the designer. The OBC values from the oil absorption procedures

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2012 / 1365

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2012.24:1359-1367.

 showed higher variability than the visual determination values, but
not nearly the variability as the compacted specimen procedures.
The visual determination procedures, although subjective in nature,
provided the most consistency in OBC between procedures.
However, these procedures do not require the designer to evaluate
the mixture performance properties at the determined OBC, which
presents a downside to these types of design methods. However,
when tested at the OBCs, these mixtures demonstrated adequate
permeability required for many porous pavement applications as
well as abrasion resistance necessary for long-term durability.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by ARIZONA,UNIVERSITY OF on 05/14/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Recommendations
On the basis of the results of this study, it is recommended that
designers employ a visual determination procedure after proper
training to determine the OBC of porous asphalt mixtures. These
types of procedures are more repeatable than methods centered
around the use of test procedures that have a relatively high level
of variability, such as the Cantabro test used in the compacted spec-
imens category. It should be noted, however, that the designers need
to understand what they are looking for because of the subjectivity
of these procedures. This guidance, in the form of visual aids, is
typically provided in the specific procedures outlined by DOTs that
specify this type of mix design method.
In addition to determining the OBC, it is recommended that the
mixture properties are verified at the OBC. This should involve an
evaluation of the susceptibility of the mixture to moisture-induced
damage (or freeze-thaw resistance where necessary) and permeabil-
ity. There are several methods to evaluate the moisture susceptibility
of a mixture, including boil tests and TSR of compacted specimens
(similar to AASHTO 2011, T283). When evaluating the permeability
of a particular porous asphalt mix, the designer should understand
the permeability needs for the specific application for which the mix
will be used. For example, if the porous asphalt pavement will
receive runoff from adjacent impervious land cover (pavement, roof-
tops, etc.), the permeability will need to be high enough to accom-
modate the infiltration requirements. However, if the porous asphalt
pavement will receive only rainfall and no additional runoff, then the
permeability requirements for that particular mix can be reduced.
While it would be advantageous to evaluate the raveling suscep-
tibility of the porous asphalt mixture at the OBC, studies need to be
completed to identify the best methods to evaluate raveling of these
types of mixtures. Currently, the Cantabro abrasion test is used
by some for this purpose, but it does not always give sufficient
guidance about durability as shown in this study and others
(Alvarez et al. 2010).
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the South Carolina Department
of Transportation for sponsoring this research. The input of all of
the survey respondents from state departments of transportation
was also greatly appreciated.
References
AASHTO. (2011). Standard specifications for transportation materials
and methods of sampling and testing, Washington, DC.
Alabama Dept. of Transportation (ALDOT). (1999). “Open-graded
asphalt concrete friction course design method.” ALDOT-259,
Montgomery, AL.
1366 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2012
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2012.24:1359-1367.
Alvarez, A. E., Martin, A. Epps, Estakhri, C., and Izzo, R. (2008). “Deter-
mination of volumetric properties for permeable friction course
mixtures.” J. Test. Eval., 37(1), 1–10.
Alvarez, A. E., Martin, A. Epps, Estakhri, C., and Izzo, R. (2010). “Evalu-
ation of durability tests for permeable friction course mixtures.” Int. J.
Pavement Eng., 11(1), 49–60.
ASTM. (2001). “Standard provisional test method for measurement of
permeability of bituminous paving mixtures using a flexible wall
permeameter.” PS129, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2008a). Annual book of ASTM standards Vol. 4.03, West
Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2008b). “Standard practice for open-graded friction course
(OGFC) mix design.” D7064, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2011a). “Standard test method for effective porosity and effective
air voids of compacted bituminous paving mixture samples.” D7063,
West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2011b). “Standard test method for theoretical maximum specific
gravity and density of bituminous paving mixtures.” D2041, West
Conshohocken, PA.
Bean, E. Z., Hunt, W. F., and Bidelspach, D. A. (2007). “Field survey
of permeable pavement surface infiltration rates.” J. Irrig. Drain Eng.,
133(3), 249–255.
Brattebo, B. O., and Booth, D. B. (2003). “Long-term stormwater quantity
and quality performance of permeable pavement systems.” Water
Resour., 37, 4369–4376.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (1990). “Open graded friction
courses.” T 5040.31, Washington, DC.
Florida Dept. of Transportation (FDOT). (2009). “Florida method of test
for determining the optimum asphalt binder content of an open-graded
friction course using the pie plate method.” FM 5-588, Gainesville, FL.
Georgia Dept. of Transportation (GDOT). (2009). “Determining optimum
asphalt content for open-graded bituminous paving mixtures.” Atlanta.
Kandhal, P. (2002). “Design, construction, and maintenance of open-
graded asphalt friction courses.” Information Series 115, National
Asphalt Pavement Association, Lanham, MD.
Kandhal, P., and Mallick, R. (1998). “Open-graded friction course: State of
the practice.” Rep. No. E-C005, Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies, Washington, DC.
Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KTC). (2008). “Method for designing
open-graded friction course mixtures.” KM 64-424, Frankfort, KY.
Kline, L. C. (2010). “Comparison of open graded friction course mix de-
sign methods currently used in the United States.” M.S. thesis, Clemson
Univ., Clemson, SC.
Mallick, R., Kandhal, P., Cooley, L. A. Jr., and Watson, D. (2000). “Design,
construction, and performance of new-generation open-graded friction
courses.” NCAT Rep. No. 00-01, National Center for Asphalt Technol-
ogy, Auburn, AL.
Mississippi Dept. of Transportation (MDOT). (2005). “Mix design of open
graded friction course hotmix asphalt.” MT-83, Jackson, MS.
Missouri Dept. of Transportation (MODOT). (2004). “Missouri standard
specification book for highway construction.” Jefferson City, MO.
Nebraska Dept. of Roads (NDOR). (1997). “Standard specifications for
highway construction.” Lincoln, NE.
New Mexico Dept. of Transportation (NMDOT). (2009). “New Mexico
Dept. of Transportation special provisions.” Santa Fe, NM.
North Carolina Dept. of Transportation (NCDOT). (2009). “North Carolina
test method for determining optimum asphalt content for open-graded
bituminous paving mixtures.” A-101, Raleigh, NC.
Sansalone, J. J., and Buchberger, S. G. (1995).“An infiltration device for
a bestmanagement practices for immobilizing heavy metals in urban
highway runoff.” Water Sci. Tech., 32(1), 119–125.
South Carolina Dept. of Transportation (SCDOT). (2010). “Standard
method of test for method of determining the optimum binder content
in an uncompactedbituminous mixture.” SCDOT Designation SC-T-91,
Columbia, SC.
Tennessee Dept. of Transportation (TDOT). (1995). “Tennessee Dept. of
Transportation specifications and procedures.” Nashville, TN.
Virginia Dept. of Transportation (VDOT). (2007). “Virginia Dept. of Trans-
portation road and bridge specifications.” Richmond, VA.
 Watson, D., Moore, K., Williams, K., and Cooley, L. (2002). “Refinement
of new-generation open-graded friction course mix design.” Annual
Meeting of the Transportation Research Board (CD-ROM), Transpor-
tation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by ARIZONA,UNIVERSITY OF on 05/14/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Yildirim, Y., Dossey, T., Fults, K., and Trevino, M. (2006). “Winter main-
tenance issues associated with new generation open-graded friction
courses.” Rep. No. FHWA/TX-07/0-4834-1, Center for Transportation
Research, Austin, TX.

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2012 / 1367

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2012.24:1359-1367.