Analysis of Asphalt Concrete Permeability Data Using

Representative Pore Size

1 2
P. J. Vardanega, A.M.ASCE ; and T. J. Waters

Abstract: The permeability of asphalt concrete has been the subject of much study by pavement engineers over the last decade. The
work undertaken has tended to focus on high air voids as the primary indicator of permeable asphalt concrete. This paper presents a
simple approach for understanding the parameters that affect permeability. Principles explained by Taylor in 1956 in channel theory work
for soils are used to derive a new parameter—representative pore size. Representative pore size is related to the air voids in the compacted
mix and the D75 of the asphalt mix grading curve. Collected Superpave permeability data from published literature and data collected by
the writers at the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads is shown to be better correlated with representative pore size than
air voids, reducing the scatter considerably. Using the database of collected field and laboratory permeability values an equation is
proposed that pavement engineers can use to estimate the permeability of in-place pavements.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000151
CE Database subject headings: Asphalts; Concrete; Permeability; Voids; Regression analysis; Binders, material; Porosity;
Pavements.
Author keywords: Asphalt concrete; Permeability; Grading; Air voids; Regression analysis; Binder .

Introduction
Permeability of asphalt concrete has received a lot of attention by
pavement engineers over the last decade. Excessive permeability
leads to infiltration into road surfacings which leads to damage
caused by an increase in pore pressures that build up under traffic
loads. Predicting the permeability of asphalt is important so that
appropriate compaction criteria can be set for road construction
projects. Darcy’s original formula which holds for laminar flow
[Eq. (1)] defines the coefficient of permeability
Q = kiA (1)
where Q = rate of fluid (water) flow moving through the
specimen; k = coefficient of permeability; i = hydraulic gradient
(the head loss per unit length); and A = total cross-sectional area.
The coefficient of permeability, k, varies depending on the
material being studied. It is this parameter that is usually quoted
when the permeability of an asphalt specimen is requested. Tan et
al. (2000) preferred the generalized flow equation
Q = k'imA (2)
where Q = rate of fluid (water) flow moving through the
specimen;
k'= experimental coefficient of permeability; i = hydraulic gradi-
1
Graduate Researcher, Dept. of Engineering, Cambridge Univ.,
Trumpington St., Cambridge, CB2 1PZ U.K.; formerly, Graduate Engi-
neer, Dept. of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland, Australia (corre-
sponding author). E-mail: pjv27@cam.ac.uk
2
Senior Physicist, Dept. of Transport and Main Roads, 35 Butterfield
St., Herston, Brisbane, Queensland 4006, Australia.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 13, 2009; approved
on June 25, 2010; published online on July 10, 2010. Discussion period
open until July 1, 2011; separate discussions must be submitted for indi-
vidual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, Vol. 23, No. 2, February 1, 2011. ©ASCE, ISSN 0899-
1561/2011/2-169–176/$25.00.
JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2011 / 169
ent (the head loss per unit length); m = experimental flow index;
and A = total cross-sectional area.
The m value will vary from approx 0.5 for turbulent flow to
1.0 for laminar flow. The values of k and m vary depending upon
the flow rate. This generalized flow equation was first proposed
by Prony in 1804 (refer to Parkin 1971 and Jaeger 1956, p. 397).
The secret of getting appropriate k and m values is to test at the
hydraulic gradients of interest (Tan et al. 2000).
Literature Review
The literature is extensive on the factors that affect asphalt con-
crete permeability with the following being commonly cited cf.
Abdullah et al. (1998): the percentage of bitumen binder in the
asphalt mix; compaction effort; type of aggregate; nominal maxi-
mum aggregate size (NMAS); lift thickness; aggregate mix gra-
dation; and air voids in the mixture. Cooley et al. (2002)
presented data from 23 hot mix asphalt (HMA) construction
projects and showed the effect of density (air voids) on perme-
ability. They also noted that 9.5- and 12.5-mm NMAS mixtures
had similar permeability characteristics, though larger stone sizes
tended to have higher permeability readings. On the issue of lift
thickness it was shown that increasing lift thickness decreased
permeability in the field.
Tarefder et al. (2005) developed a neural network model using
100 field cores from 50 asphalt mixtures. They found that five
main factors affect the permeability of asphalt concrete: air voids;
D10 (grain size through which 10% of the materials pass); D30
(grain size through which 30% of the materials pass); saturation
characterized by the CoreLok infiltration coefficient and the ef-
fective asphalt to dust ratio (Pbe  P0.075). A higher coefficient of
determination was found using the neural network model as op-
posed to standard multiple linear regression methods. Masad et al.
(2004, 2006) developed an empirical equation based on the
Kozeny-Carman equation to describe permeability of asphalt con-
crete. This equation expresses permeability as a function of air
Table 1. Categorization of Permeability Levels for Asphalt Concrete + 33.2P2.36 + 4.5P12.5 − 1.7L} (4)
(Based on Waters 1990, 1993, 1998)
Permeability
(mm/s) Category Description
−5 −4
1 × 10 to 1 × 10 A1 Very low permeability
1 × 10−4 to 1 × 10−3 A2 Low permeability
1 × 10−3 to 1 × 10−2 B Moderate permeability: some water
infiltrating under traffic
1 × 10−2 to 1 × 10−1 C Permeable: substantial water
entering under traffic
1 × 10−1 to 1 D Moderately free draining:
permeates freely under traffic or
raindrop impact. Pumping of fines.
1 to 10 E Free draining

voids and aggregate surface area (calculated from aggregate gra-

dation). The power on percent air voids was shown to range from
4.1 to 6.9 for the mixtures studied; the variation was put down to
differences in the test method. They also used a finite-element
model to study the relationship between flow patterns and gradi-
ents in the voids in asphalt concrete. Arambula et al. (2007) mea-
sured the zero permeability on asphalt concrete specimens. They
then used X-ray imaging to show that this was due to no voids in
asphalt being connected. Air void connectivity will be discussed
subsequently.
A maximum or critical permeability is generally set by state
road authorities and clients of highway projects to limit perme-
ability. The concept of critical permeability has been dealt with
by various writers, e.g., Cooley et al. (2001) assigned critical
perme- ability values of 0.01 mm/s for 9.5 and 12.5 mm NMAS
mixtures,
0.012 mm/s for 19 mm NMAS mixtures, and 0.015 mm/s for 25
mm NMAS mixtures. The classification system used for asphalt
permeability at the Queensland Department of Transport and
Main Roads (DTMR) is provided as Table 1. Engineers at DTMR
generally refer to categories of C as being “permeable.”
Various empirical permeability models from the literature were
discussed in Vardanega et al. (2008). In particular, Westerman’s
model (Westerman 1998) was highlighted as being relevant for
those practitioners who believe that pavement failures are heavily
influenced by insufficient lift thickness of the asphalt surface.
Westerman’s research suggests an empirical relationship where
permeability is related to air voids and lift thickness

k = (1.38 × 10−7)(3.92AV)(0.61T) (3)

where k = coefficient of permeability (cm/s); AV= air voids
(whole number); and T = lift thickness (cm). Haddock and
Prather (2004) used this formulation to estimate the permeability
on In- diana State Road 38. The inclusion of lift thickness is due
to the idea that lower lift thicknesses would yield higher air voids
and hence permeability. Lower lift thicknesses result in the
potential for more interconnected void channels as the odds of
obstruction would be less. Mohammed’s model [Eq. (4)] also
indicates that increasing lift thickness reduces the permeability.
Mohammad et al. (2003) analyzed the permeability results
from 17 projects in Louisiana. A falling head permeameter was
used for the laboratory testing of the field cores. The following
equation was developed using multilinear regression analysis:

k = 10−4{76.6(AV) − 17.2P0.075 + 163.4P0.3 − 197.5P0.6

170 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2011
voids; P0.075 = percent passing 0.075 mm sieve; P0.3 = percent
pass- ing 0.3-mm sieve; P0.6 = percent passing 0.6-mm sieve;
P2.36
= percent passing 2.36-mm sieve; P12.5 = percent passing 12.5-
mm sieve; and L = height of the specimen (mm). The main aim
of the present paper is to develop a simple equation, with few
param- eters, to predict the permeability of asphalt concrete,
calibrated using a larger database.
Representative Pore Size
Previous studies (e.g., Taylor 1956; Leonards 1962) have shown
that flow through a porous medium is dependant upon both the
volume and size of the voids, where the size of the voids is
influenced by particle size. In some cases, such as when particle
sizes do not change appreciably, volume of voids alone is suffi-
cient to be able to predict permeability. Westerman’s Eq. (3) is
an example of this. In other cases, when the volume of voids do
not change greatly, the size of the voids (or particle size) alone
can be used to predict permeability. An example of this is the
well known Hazen’s equation, developed for clean sands,
which re- lates permeability (m/s) to the 10 percentile particle
size (mm/s) and is shown in Eq. (5)
k = 10−2D10 (5)
In situations where both the volume and size of the voids change
it is important to accommodate both. In this paper, the concept
of representative pore size, closely related to hydraulic radius, is
developed for this purpose.
In channel theory (Taylor 1956), the hydraulic radius is de-
fined as the ratio of cross-sectional area through which the water
where k = coefficient of permeability (mm/s); AV= percent air
JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2011 / 169
is flowing to the wetted perimeter. The simplest case is that of a
circular pipe where the hydraulic radius is equal to a quarter of
the diameter of the pipe. In this paper, the characteristic dimen-
sion, or representative pore size, of the medium will be taken as
four times the hydraulic radius.
In the case of a medium made up of single size particles the
hydraulic radius (RH) is related to void ratio (e) and diameter of
the particles (DS) (Taylor 1956) (a full derivation is shown in the
Appendix)
RH = eDS6 (6)
Since the representative is being taken as four times the hydraulic
radius, the representative pore size (RPS) (RP) is given by
RP = 2eDS3 (7)
When the void ratio is low, it is approximately equal to the po-
rosity (n). In this case Eq. (6) becomes
RP = 2nDS3 (8)
If the medium consists of a range of particle sizes, the DS in
Eq. (8) needs to be replaced by the effective particle size (Deff) In
this paper, the RPS is defined by Eq. (8).
As an example, if the effective particle size is 4.75 mm and the
porosity is 0.05 (5%), the representative2 pore size will be 0.158
mm. The porosity is essentially the percentage of air voids in the
asphalt mix.
An estimate of the effective particle size for asphalt is quite
difficult. For soils, it is common to take D10 as the effective par-
ticle size. However, for asphalt, the finer particles tend to be ag-
gregated together by the bitumen so that the effective particle size
is greater than D10. Waters (1993, 1998) suggested that D50 was a
good estimate for the Deff. Later in this paper, various effective
particle sizes will be trialled in the statistical analysis.
 100 25

y = 1.674x - 12.442
20 2
R = 0.997
75

Accessible Voids (%)

Percent Passing (%)

15
y = 0.611x - 2.097
50 2
R = 0.841
10

25 0 0
5 0 5
0.01
1 15 20
100
Total Voids (%)
Sieve Size
(mm)

Mix 1

Mix 1 Mix 2 Linear (Mix 2) Linear (Mix

Fi voids to (air)
g. permeability.
1. Follow up
Gr studies have been
adi carried out by
ng Queensland Main
s
Roads on two
for
asphalt mixes,
Mi
x1 referred to as Mixes
an 1 and 2. The first
d mix (Mix 1) was
Mi investigated as part
x of a study on “Voids
2 in Asphalt” and
reported by Waters
(1986). In this
earlier report, an
outline of the test
Connected method and a
Voids procedure for
The concept of determining the
accessible voids accessible voids is
in asphalt mixes given. The
was first intro- relationship
duced by Smith between total and
and Gotolski ac- cessible voids is
(1969) and refers also given.
to those voids in The second mix
the mix which was investigated as
are available for part of the ongoing
the passage of field and laboratory
water. They permeability studies
found that “one at Queensland Main
can force all air Roads. The tests
from a sample were carried out on
by cupping one’s asphalt cores and
hand over the involved deter-
sample and by mining the total and
pumping the accessible voids as
hand as a well as the
plunger.” They permeability. In this
found that a study, relationships
relationship are given between
existed between accessible voids and
total and total voids, total
accessible voids. voids and
Smith and permeability, and
Gotolski (1969) accessible voids and
also related these permeability. In
172 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2011
addition, implications for Fig. 2. Relationship the k
=
asphalt design are dis- cussed. between accessible and total powe 0
.
The grading curves of the two voids for Mix 1 and Mix 2 r 0
0
0
mixes tested are displayed functi 6
(
A
graphically in Fig. 1. on c
c
e
s
For both Mixes 1 and 2 the show s
i
b
total and accessible voids were n in l
e

determined. In the case of Mix Permeability Database Fig. V

o
i
1, the tests were carried out on 5. d
s

laboratory prepared pats while In the present paper, the )2

.
3

for Mix 2 the tests were carried use of both air voids alone 8
6
6

out on cores though tested in the and RPS as indicators of R

2

laboratory. The relationship permeability are

between total and accessible investigated. The power 10
=

voids is shown in Fig. 2. As an relation- ships have been .

7

example, when the total voids determined for both. In 5

9
1
order to determine the 1

Permeability 'k' (mm/s)

are 10%, the accessible voids
for Mix 2 are 4.3%. It could be relationships a large cessible) and
said, in this case, the degree of database of both field and permeability for
connectivity is 43%. Fig. 3 laboratory perme- ability Mix 2. It is clear
shows the relationship between data, similar to that used that at low per-
voids (total and ac- by Masad et al. (2004, meability values
2006) is used. Table 2 the two fitted 1
shows the source of the lines diverge the 100

data and the references in most as there is Voids (%)

Total Voids Accessible
the original publications. more chance of Voids
Voids)
Power (Total
Power (Accessible
In this database of isolated voids at Voids)

collected data, 47 asphalt low

mixtures were used with permeabilities
NMAS of 9.5, 10, 12.5, and less so at
14, 19, and 25 mm high
included. A total of 467 permeabilities.
individual lab and field Also to note is
per- meability the power
measurements are in the change: in the
data set. This large case of
database allows a study of accessible voids
the parameters that affect the power is 2.4
permeability with a variety and for total
of stone sizes, air void voids it is 5.9.
measurement techniques, The above
binder contents, lift work has
thicknesses, and grading shown the
curves present in the data- effect of air
base. To be sure, the void
aforementioned factors connectivity on
will influence the data set the
and will increase scatter. permeability
The purpose is to test the relationship.
valid- ity of the RPS Given the
approach. Fig. 4 shows the power change
grading data for the from total to
studied mixtures. Fig. 5 accessible
shows the plot of measured voids (5.9 to
air voids against 2.4) it is
permeability for the reasonable to
database. The coefficient suggest that
of determi- nation (R2) is the degree of
connectivity
0.41 for the 467 data will vary the
points; which is reasonable power when
considering the large mixtures are
sample size. In other prepared, ex- amples, air
words, 41% of the especially if total voids refers to total
variation can be explained voids are used. air voids.
by the air void level using In the following
JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2011 / 171
Fig. 3. Relationship between and bili 0
voids (accessible and total voids) permeability ty 1
0
me
Table 2. Sources of 1
0
asu
Permeability Data 1
Orig NMAS re 0
inal me 1
0
(mm) Measurement device Test
Reference label specimen nts 1
0
in 1
0
publ 1
0
icati 1
on 0
1
0
Mallick et al. 1
9.5 mm (Fine mix) 9.5 NCAT field permeameter
(2003)
Asphalt concrete pavement
49
permeability 9.5 mm (Coarse mix) 9.5
measurements 12.5 mm (Coarse mix) 12.5
19.0 mm (Coarse mix) 19
25.0 mm (Coarse mix) 25
Project 1 12.5 Field permeameter
Cooley et al. concrete pavement Project 2
(2001) 9.5
130 Project 3 19
permeability Project 4 12.5
measurements
Project 5 25
Project 6 9.5
Project 7 25
Project 8 25
Project 9 12.5
Project 10 12.5
Project 11 19
Vardan
ega et Mix B-fine 14 Gyratory
al. The compacted
(2008) permeability test employed asphalt
was a
53 Mix B- falling head type specimens
permeability centerline (falling head over a Silicone sealant
measurements Mix B- small range of 185– was used to
Mix A from the coarse 165 mm). The test attach the
original study used was Main specimen to the
was not Mix C-
Roads material test Perspex pipe to
considered as fine
method Q304-2002, avoid sidewall
there was some Mix C- Permeability of leakage.
leakage during the centerline Asphalt (Ponding
permeability testing. Mix C- Method), and
coarse Material Testing
Manual.
H
e Fine 10 Marshall
w compacted
i Queensland Main asphalt
t Roads department
t
(
1
9
9
1
)
27 Centerli laboratory specimens
permeability ne permeameter (falling
measuremen Coars head test)
ts e
W. Maupin (personal 01-1086 12.5 VDOT
test method 120 Superpave gyratory compacted
communicati 1 4
on, 2009) 4 permea
172 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2011
specimens ilit B
y l
Maupin (2001) Mix 1, 12.5 mm 12.5 VDOT me
test method 120 Superpave gyratory compacted as
45 M asphalt ur
permeability i specime em
measurement x ns ent
s s
2
,
S
M
-
1

1
2
.
5
M
i
x

3
,
9
.
5

m
m

9
.
5
M
i
x
4
,
1
2
.
5
m
m

1
2
.
5
M
i
x
5
,
1
2
.
5
m
m

1
2
.
5
Kanitpong et al.(2001) Blend 1 12.5 ASTM
D5084-90 Superpave gyratory compacted
19 p ermeab
JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2011 / 171
asphalt
specimens
Parametric Study
Consideration of grading and
hence effective particle size is im-
plicit in the RPS ideas. It is
proposed to use Eq. (9) to estimate
the permeability of asphalt
concrete, using the database. What
is also required is a determination
of the effective particle size that
172 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2011
characterizes the database the
best. In passing, it is noted that the
power on the effective particle
size and air voids was found not
to be too dissimilar for the data
subsets (i.e., no significant im-
provement in fit) and hence a
single power was adopted,
allowing Eq. (9) to be written as
follows:
 100
Blend 1 Blend 2
Blend 5 Blend 6
90 K&N Waukesha
Percentage Passing (%) Mix B - Fine Mix B - Centreline
80 Mix B - Coarse M ix C- Fine
MixC- Centreline M ix C- Coarse
Fine Centreline
70
Coarse 01-1086
01-1089 01-1091
60 01-1093 01-1095
01-1097 01-1101

50 01-1103 01-1105
01-1106 Mix 1, 12.5mm
Mix 2, SM-1 Mix 3, 9.5mm
40
Mix 4, 12.5mm Mix 5, 12.5mm
9.5mm (fine) 9.5mm (coarse)
30 12.5mm (coarse) 19mm (coarse)
25mm (coarse) Project 1 (12.5mm)
Project 2 (9.5mm) Project 3 (19mm)
20
Project 4 (12.5mm) Project 5 (25mm)
Project 6 (9.5mm) Project 7 (25mm)
10 Project 8 (25mm) Project 9 (12.5mm)
Project 10 (12.5mm) Project 11 (19mm)
0 01-1098
0.01 0.1 1 10
F

Sieve Size (cm) i

g
.

4
.

G
r
a
d
i
n
g

d
a
t
a

(
s
t
u
d
i
e
d

m
i
x
e
s
)

k A(
= Rp
JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2011 / 173
ALL DATA
 0.1
)b as the key percentage passing 0.7
0.0
where Rp = representative pore for tests done at Queensland 0.6

size in Trans- port and Main Roads. A

0.5
mm; Rp wider ranging examination of
0.4
=2  3 the 47 grading curves in the
×(AV(%)  100)× Deff; k = database (Fig. 4) was 0.3
0 10 20 30 40
coefficient of permeability in mm/s; undertaken for this study. The 0.2
50 60
100
70 80 90

and A and b = regression following particle sizes were Effective Particle Size
parameters determined by linear in-
Coarse particles govern permeability and effective particle size best characterised by sizes in excess of D50.
Fig. 6. Coefficient of
Vardanega et al. (2008) determination for various Fig. 7. Coefficient
terpolation from the supplied
identified the D40, D50, D60, and effective particle sizes for of determination for
grading data: D10, D25, D40,
D70 the individual data subsets various effective
D50, particle sizes for the
entire database

Air Voids (AV) (%)

1 10 100
D60, D70, D75, D80, and reasonable choice to
10 D90 and these were characterize the database.
k substituted as Deff in Eq. Fig. 8 shows the
= Vardanega et al. (2008)
(8) and the coefficient of regression of representative
Permeability (k) (mm/s)

1
determination (R2) pore size, calcu- lated using
5 calculatedHewitt
for each.
(1991) Fig. 6 the D75 versus permeability.
0.1 E shows the graphical The R2 = 0.74 which is very
- results of this process. It good considering the large
0 Maupin (2009)
is seen that for the seven sample size (n = 467) and
0.01 6
subsets of data, there is other influencing parameters.
A
generallyMaupin
an increase
(2001) of The equation adopted for
V
0.001 3 fit at larger effective permeability is shown as Eq.
. particle sizes. This is not
Mallick et al. (2003)
(10)
0.0001 9 unexpected as small
2 voids are filled with k=
4 binder atCooley
the lowJr et al.
end(2001)
of 0.46(Rp)3.7
0
0.00001
6 the grading curve. In the R2 =
case of Kanitpong
Cooleyet al. et (2001)
al. 0.74
0.000001 (2001), Mallick et al.
R (2003), Kanitpong et al. where
2 Power (ALL DATA)
(2001), and Maupin
0.0000001 Rp = 23 ×
(2001), there is an
= upswing of R2 around D70 (AV(%)100)
– D90. There is a × D75
0 reduction of R2 for the k = coefficient of
. data of Vardanega et al. permeability in mm/s.
4 (2008) and Maupin (W. Rewritten in expanded form
1 Maupin, personal com- the regression model adopted
0 munication, 2009) at D80 for estimation of asphalt per-
9
and D90. It was decided meability is
that D75 was a good
Fig. 5. Permeability versus air voids (full

database) approximation for Deff as

D D75 it would yield a good R2
1
7
Cooley Jr. et al (2001) 1 for each of the data
. .
0 0 subsets. The changes in
0
0
coefficient of
.
9
. determination for the
0 Mallick et al (2003) entire database are shown
Co-efficient of Determination (R )

0
2

Co-efficient of Determination (R )

.
as Fig. 7. Examination of
2

.
8
0.7
0.0 Fig. 7 shows that for the
0.6 Kanitpong et al (2001) whole database it is clear
0.5 that no significant
0.4
improvement in fit occurs
once Deff is taken as
0.3
Vardanega et al (2008)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
greater than D 50 .A very
0.2 100 good R2 is present for
0.1
Effective Particle Size (Dx)
D75, making it a
174 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY
2011 Hewitt (1990)
 Maupin (2001)

about the ef- fective

Maupin (2009)
thicknesses of the asphalt
being considered and hence the
the fitted line relative to hydraulic gradient and the
the scatter about the assumption of one-dimensional
mean y line. Using just flow. Remember that Darcy’s
air voids as a predictor Law only holds only for
of permeability (Fig. 5), laminar flow.
the RD is 76.8%. Using The regression relationship
representative pore size, developed only used D75 and
the RD is 52.0%. There- air voids to compute the
fore, the scatter about permeability, via the
the fitted line is reduced representative pore size. The
fact that only two parameters
by 32%, as a result of
were needed and an R2 of
using Rp instead of AV
0.74 for 467 data points
(%).
obtained is extremely pleasing,
given the many minor factors
that will affect the results, such
Summary and Conclusions as measure- ment of voids and
permeability, will differ
The use of a large slightly between sources. The
database to determine following conclusions can be
the effective particle size drawn:
of asphalt is not without 1. Grading of the asphalt
its drawbacks. mix is a major influence
Permeability can vary on perme- ability;
with method of testing, 2. Air voids in the asphalt
in particular the mix have a major
variation of the influence on per-
hydraulic gradient. For meability;
the field data, 3. The power on the air voids versus
assumptions are made permeability relationship
is affected by the degree of
connectivity of the pore struc-
46 AV 3.
ture;
k 2
(
m3
×
100 10
(%) ×
70

[ (
1
1
4. The representative pore
size, based on channel
0 D (m theory, is shown to be a
m 75 ) significantly better
 predictor of asphalt
s
) m) ] perme-
=
A useful term for comparing ability than air voids alone;
relationships is the relative
deviation 5. The Deff for asphalt was
(RD). The RD is given by (Waters computed to be greater
and Vardanega 2009) than the D50, with D75
being selected as a good
RD = representation for the da-
100(1− tabase being studied; and
R2)0.5 6. Eq. (11) can generally
This coined statistical parameter is predict the permeability to
useful for quantifying the reduction within an order of
of scatter between two dependent magnitude for the seven
variables, both pre- dicting the data subsets examined
same quantity. The RD is (467 data points in total).
essentially the scatter about

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2011 / 175

 Representative Pore Size (Rp) (mm)

0.01 0.1 1 10
10
k = 0.460R 3.695
p
Vardanega et al. (2008)
R2 = 0.740
1

Permeability (k) (mm/s)

Hewitt (1991)
0.1

Maupin (2009)
0.01

Maupin (2001)
0.001

Mallick et al. (2003)

0.0001

Cooley Jr et al. (2001)

0.00001

Kanitpong et al. (2001)

0.000001

0.0000001 Power (ALL DATA)

Fig. 8. Permeability versus RPS (full database)

Acknowledgments VC = eNVs (15)

The writers would like to thank the Queensland Department of where e = void ratio; N = number of particles; and VS = volume of
Transport and Main Roads for providing the financial support for spherical particle. The corresponding surface area of the flow
this paper. The views expressed in this paper are that of the writ- channel is given by
ers and do not necessarily reflect the position of other entities.
Thanks are also due to Mr. G.W. Maupin of the Virginia Depart- AC = NAS (AS = surface area of a spherical particle) (16)
ment of Transportation (VDOT) who provided the first writer his The hydraulic radius is given by
permeability data for analysis. Thanks are also due to Dr. S.K.
RH = eVSAS (17)
Haigh of the University of Cambridge for his helpful review of
the work. The volume of a sphere is equal to u D3  6 and the area of a
sphere is equal to uD2, it follows that

RH = eDS6 (18)
Appendix: Derivation of RPS
The void ratio is related to the porosity (n) by
In channel theory, the term hydraulic radius is used as a measure e = n  (1− n) (19)
of the size of the flow channels (Taylor 1956). The hydraulic
radius is defined as the ratio of the volume to surface area of flow It follows that the hydraulic radius is given by
channel. That is, the hydraulic radius is given by
RH = nD S  6(1− n) (20)
RH = VCAC (13) For small porosity values, Eq. (15) is approximately given by

where RH = hydraulic radius; VC = volume of flow channel; and RH = nDS6 (21)

AC = surface area of channel. Taking the simple case of a pipe, the
hydraulic radius is given by
RH = ALPL
where A = cross-sectional area of pipe; P = perimeter of pipe; and
L = length of pipe. Since the cross-sectional area of the pipe is
equal to uD2  4 and the perimeter of the pipe is uD, it follows
that the hydraulic radius of a pipe is equal to one quarter of the
diameter of the pipe (D  4). For a porous medium, the RPS will
be defined in a similar way to the diameter of the channel. In the
case of a porous medium made up of single size spherical par-
ticles, the volume of the flow channel is given by
distribution on the moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixes.” J. Mater. Civ.
Eng., 19(8), 655–664.
By analogy to the case of water flow through a pipe, it is
proposed that the RPS is equal to four times the hydraulic radius.
It follows that, for small porosity values, the RPS is given by:
(14)
RP = 2nDS3 (22)
References
Abdullah, W., Obaidat, M., and Nazem, M. (1998). “Influence of aggre-
gate type and gradation on voids of asphalt concrete pavements.”
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10(2), 76–85.
Arambula, E., Masad, E., and Martin, A. E. (2007). “Influence of air void
Cooley, L. A., Jr., Brown, E. R., and Maghsoodloo, S. (2001). “Develop- ment
of critical field permeability and pavement density values for coarse graded
 superpave pavements.” Rep. No. 01-03, National Centre for Asphalt
Technology, Auburn Univ., Auburn, Ala.
Cooley, L. A., Jr., Prowell, B. D., Brown, E. R., Hall, K., Button, J., and Davis,
R. (2002). “Issues pertaining to the permeability characteristics of coarse
graded superpave mixes.” Asph. Paving Technol., 71, 1–29.
Haddock, J. E., and Prather, M. (2004). “Investigation of permeability on
Indiana SR-38.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 18(3), 136–141.
Hewitt, C. (1991). “A study of asphalt permeability.” Bachelor of Engi- neering
thesis, Univ. of Central Queensland, Rockhampton, Australia. Jaeger, C. (1956).
Engineering fluid mechanics, Blackie & Son, London. Kanitpong, K., Benson,
C. H., and Bahia, H. U. (2001). “Hydraulic con- ductivity (permeability) of
laboratory-compacted asphalt mixtures.” Transportation Research Record.
1767, Transportation Research
Board, Washington, D.C., 50–58.
Leonards, G. A. (1962). Foundation engineering, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Mallick, R. B., Cooley, L. A., Jr., Teto, M. R., Bradbury, R. L., and
Peabody, D. (2003). “An evaluation of factors affecting permeability of
superpave designed pavements.” Rep. No. 03-02, National Centre for
Asphalt Technology, Auburn Univ., Auburn, Ala.
Masad, E., Al-Omari, A., and Lytton, R. (2006). “Simple method for predicting
laboratory and field permeability of hot-mix asphalt.” Transport Research
Record. 1970, Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., 55–63.
Masad, E., Birgisson, B., Al-Omari, A., and Cooley, A. (2004). “Analyti- cal
derivation of permeability and numerical simulation of fluid flow in hot-
mix asphalt.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 16(5), 487–496.
Maupin, W., Jr. (2001). “Asphalt permeability testing-sample preparation &
testing variability.” Transportation Research Record. 1767, Trans-
portation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 40–47.
Mohammad, L., Herath, A., and Huang, B. (2003). Evaluation of per-
meability of superpave asphalt mixtures, Transportation Research Board,
Washington D.C., (http://www.ltrc.lsu.edu/TRB_82/TRB2003-
002464.pdf) (July 4, 2006).
Parkin, A. K. (1971). “Field solutions for turbulent seepage flow.” J. Soil
Mech. Found. Div., 97(SM1), 209–218.
Smith, R. W., and Gotolski, W. H. (1969). “A study of physical factors
affecting the durability of asphaltic pavements.” PB 189 832, Penn-
sylvania State Univ., University Park, Pa.
Tan, S. A., Fwa, T. F., and Guwe, Y. K. (2000). “New apparatus for measuring
the drainage properties of unbound granular aggregates.” Proc., 5th Int.
Symp. on Unbound Aggregates in Road Construction,
A. R. Dawson, ed., Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 63–67.
Tarefder, R. A., White, L., and Zaman, M. (2005). “Neural Network model for
asphalt concrete permeability.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 17(1), 19–27.
Taylor, D. W. (1956). Soil mechanics, Wiley, New York.
Vardanega, P. J., Nataatmadja, A., Waters, T., and Ramanujam, J. (2008). “A
study of asphalt permeability: Empirical permeability models.” Proc., 23rd
ARRB Conf.—Research Partnering with Practitioners (CD-ROM),
Australian Road Research Board, Adelaide, South Aus- tralia.
Waters, T. J. (1986). “Voids in asphaltic concrete.” Queensland Main Roads
Internal Rep. No. TT99, Queensland Dept. of Transport and Main Roads,
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Waters, T. J. (1990). “A study of the infiltration properties of road surface
materials.” M.App.Sc. thesis, Queensland Univ. of Technology, Bris- bane,
Queensland, Australia.
Waters, T. J. (1993). “Categorisation of asphalt on the basis of permeabil- ity
and normalised air voids.” Queensland Main Roads Internal Rep. No.
TT170, Queensland Dept. of Transport and Main Roads, Brisbane,
Queensland, Australia.
Waters, T. J. (1998). “A study of water infiltration through asphalt road surface
materials.” Proc., Int. Symp. on Subdrainage in Roadway Pavements and
Subgrades, Granada, Spain, 311–317.
Waters, T. J., and Vardanega, P. J. (2009). “Re-examination of the coef-
ficient of determination (R2) using road materials engineering case studies.”
Road & Transport Research: J. Australian and New Zealand Research and
Practice, 18(3), 3–11.
Westerman, J. R. (1998). “AHTD’s experience with superpave pavement
permeability.” Proc., Arkansas Superpave Symp., Little Rock, Ark.,
(http://www.utexas.edu/research/superpave/articles/jrw10a.html) (Dec. 4,
2007).
Copyright of Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering is the property of American Society of Civil Engineers
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.