Shear creep response of an airport asphalt mastic

Abstract

Two runways were resurfaced with 50–60 mm of typical airport asphalt at the same airport. One runway surface performed well while the other exhibited a lack of resistance to cyclic shear stress under heavy aircraft braking. Both runways had the same hydrated lime filler and coarse aggregate source. The fine aggregate (dust) used to manufacture the two runway surfaces was obtained from two different basalt quarries. The dust associated with the poorly performing asphalt contained a potentially detrimental clay mineral (Hisingerite). It was subsequently determined that the crude oil used to manufacture the feedstock for the acid-modified binder also changed at the transition from one runway to the other. The changes in dust and binder were confounded. A combination of viscosity testing and performance-based multiple stress creep recovery (MSCR) testing determined that the two runway binders responded significantly differently to shear stress and aged differently with sample storage time. The differences were magnified at higher temperatures. Further, mastic samples were manufactured from binder associated with both feedstocks, in combination with dust from both quarries. MSCR testing of mastic indicated that the dust containing significant Hisingerite had no adverse impact on the mastic response to shear stress. The change in binder feedstock was concluded to be the root cause of the lack of resistance to cyclic shear stress observed in one runway surface. This occurred despite all batches of binder meeting the viscosity-based Australian specification for paving grade bitumen. The specification has no mechanism to prevent similar changes in bitumen feedstock affecting airport bitumen performance in the future. Incorporating performance-based testing in the Australian bitumen specification is recommended.