Comparison of domestic and european testing methods for asphalt mixtures and asphalt concretes

Introduction. Harmonization of the national regulatory framework with the European one is a key task for Ukraine’s road sector. The quality and durability of asphalt concrete layers directly depend on the adequacy of testing methods applicable to the design of asphalt concrete mixtures and quality control. In Ukraine, these methods are regulated by DSTU B V.2.7-319:2016, whereas in the European Union a comprehensive system of EN 12697 standards is in force. Problem Statement. Analysis shows that the methods regulated by DSTU B V.2.7-319:2016 contain a number of conceptual and procedural differences from European approaches. This concerns both laboratory compaction methods, which do not reproduce actual roller conditions, and methods for determining composition and volumetric properties, which include internal methodological inconsistencies and do not account for the characteristics of modern materials. Such discrepancies call into question the comparability of results and the effectiveness of the quality control system. Objective. To conduct a detailed comparative analysis of key testing methods according to DSTU B V.2.7-319:2016 and the corresponding standards of the EN 12697 series, in order to scientifically substantiate the feasibility and directions for modernization of the domestic regulatory framework. Methods. A comparative analysis of regulatory documents was carried out, including a comparison of principles, procedures, equipment, and evaluation criteria for laboratory compaction methods, composition determination, volumetric properties, and water resistance of asphalt concrete. Results. It was established that the domestic compaction method by pressing is destructive to the mineral skeleton, unlike European methods (gyratory, rolling compaction), which better simulate real conditions. A critical methodological error was identified in the national method of determining binder content by ignition — namely, the absence of a calibration procedure for aggregate mass loss. An internal inconsistency was revealed in DSTU B V.2.7-319:2016 during the determination of maximum density (using the concepts of "true" and "apparent" density for calculation and experimental methods, respectively). It was demonstrated that the water resistance determination procedure according to DSTU B V.2.7-319:2016 is less stringent and representative compared to the accelerated conditioning method specified in DSTU EN 12697-12:2018.