EVALUATION OF MARSHALL PROPERTIES OF ASPHALT MIXTURES
WITH AGGREGATE GRADATIONS DESIGNED USING THE BAILEY
METHOD
ROSMAWATI BINTI MAMAT
A project report submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the award of the degree of
Master of Engineering (Civil - Transportation and Highway)
Faculty of Civil Engineering
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
NOVEMBER 2008
iii
Special dedication to my parents Mamat Bin Embok and Minah Binti Mohamad
My brothers, Mohd Nizam, Mohd Nazri and Mohd Nazaruddin
My sisters, Zanariah, Roslina, Nor Zuliana and Nur Hasimah
Mohd Zahiruddin,Hammizi,Siti Hawa and Puziah
Puteri Najwa Adlina and Putera Abdul Azim
Faris Adli, Fitri Azri and Farhan Adha
Mohamad Fahmi Bin Pathil
that always inspire, love and stand besides me.
My supervisor, my beloved friends,
and all faculty members
For all your love, care, support, and believe in me. Thank you so much.
iii
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Praise and thanks to Allah for his blessings which has enabled to me to
complete my master project. Firstly, I would like to express my sincere appreciation
to my supervisor, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mohd Rosli Hainin and my co-supervisor, Tuan
Haji Che Ros Bin Ismail, who generously shared their insights and suggestions,
guidance, for their critics, trust, encouragement, and attention. My special thanks go
to Prof. Ir. Dr. Hasanan Bin Mohd Noor, Dr. Haryati Binti Yaacob and miss Nor
Hidayah Binti Hassan for their critical judgments, advice and comments during the
master project presentation.
Special thanks are also extended to all technicians of Highway and
Transportation Laboratory UTM, Mr. Suhaimi, Mr. Ahmad Adin, Mr. Abdul
Rahman, Mr. Azman and Mr. Sahak for their time, help during the laboratory
experimental work and valuable advice given in the whole duration of this project.
Last but not least, I am grateful my fellow course mates, Nhat, Azreena, Samikhah,
Fid, Azah, Tiong, Esarwi who given their utmost help, co-operation and
encouragement in completing this project successfully.
iv
v
ABSTRACT
This study investigates the properties of asphalt concrete mixtures with
aggregate gradations designed using Bailey method and compared with the JKR
specification. Bailey method is a systematic approach in blending aggregates with
difference gradation (fine aggregate and coarse aggregate) that provides aggregate
interlocking as the backbone of the structure and a balanced continuous gradation to
complete the mixtures. The Bailey gradation parameter separates the aggregate
structure into three gradation namely coarse, medium and fine. This separation were
quantified by the decrease in the volume of coarse aggregate in the structure when
changing from coarse to fine gradation. The aggregates structures designed using
Bailey method were applied in Marshall mix design method to obtain the Marshall
properties based on Malaysian Standard and the gradation parameters were compared
with the requirement from JKR specification. Two hot mix mixtures considered in
this study were Asphalt Concrete Wearing (ACW 14) and Asphalt Concrete Wearing
(ACW 10). The mixtures have nominal maximum aggregate sizes (NMAS) of 12.5
mm and 9.5 mm respectively and each sample was compacted using 75 blows per
face. The compaction characteristics of the mixtures were analyzed using data from
the Marshall Compactor. The value for both VTM and VMA from graph shows
when the size of aggregate is smaller (fine aggregate), the percentage of voids in
mineral aggregate is low, on the other hand the percentages of VMA and VTM is
higher for coarse aggregate.
v
vi
ABSTRAK
Kajian ini dijalankan untuk mengkaji campuran konkrit berbitumen dengan
pengadunan batu baur menggunakan kaedah Bailey dan membandingkan dengan
spesifikasi JKR. Kaedah Bailey adalah secara sistematik campuran batu baur yang
gradasi (batu baur halus dan batu baur kasar) yang menyediakan saling kunci batu
baur sebagai tulang belakang kepada struktur dan gradasi berterusan yang seimbang
bagi melengkapkan campuran. Parameter gradasi bagi kaedah Bailey mengasingkan
struktur batu baur kepada tiga iaitu kasar, sederhana, dan halus. Pengasingan ini
dibezakan melalui penurunan isipadu bagi batu baur kasar di dalam struktur apabila
ia bergerak dari gradasi kasar kepada gradasi halus. Rekabentuk struktur batu baur
menggunakan kaedah Bailey di gunakan dalam kaedah Marshall untuk mendapatkan
ciri-ciri Marshall berdasarkan piawaian Malaysia dan parameter gradasi di
bandingkan dengan spesifikasi JKR.
Dua campuran panas telah digunakan dalam
kajian ini iaitu konkrit berbitumen (ACW 14) dan konkrit berbitumen (ACW 10).
Campuran ini mempunyai saiz nominal maksimum batu baur 12.5 mm dan 9.5 mm
dan setiap sampel dipadatkan dengan 75 hentaman.
Ciri-ciri pemadatan bagi
campuran dianalisa menggunakan data dari pemadat Marshall. Nilai bagi kedua-dua
VTM dan VMA daripada graf menunjukkan apabila saiz batu baur kecil (batu baur
halus), peratus udara dalam mineral batu baur tersebut adalah rendah, manakala
peratus bagi VMA dan VTM adalah tinggi untuk batu baur kasar.
vi
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
1
2
TITLE
PAGE
DECLARATION
ii
DEDICATION
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
iv
ABSTRACT
v
ABSTRAK
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
vii
LIST OF TABLES
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
xii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS/SYMBOLS
xiv
LIST OF APPENDICES
xvi
INTRODUCTION
1
1.1 Background
1
1.2 Problem Statement
2
1.3 Objective of the Study
4
1.4 Scope of the Study
4
1.5 Significance of the Study
4
LITERATURE REVIEW
6
2.1 Introduction
6
2.2 Asphalt Cement Binder Role
7
2.2.1 Aggregate Roles
8
2.2.2 Aggregate Gradation
9
2.3 History of Bailey Method
11
vii
viii
2.4 Mixture Design
12
2.4.1 Marshall Mix Design
2.5 Aggregate Packing
3
13
15
2.5.1
Coarse and Fine Aggregate
17
2.5.2
Bailey Method of Aggregate Blending and Evaluation
19
2.5.3
Combining Aggregate by Weight
20
2.5.4
Chosen Unit Weight of Coarse Aggregate
20
2.5.5
Analysis of the Design Blend
21
2.5.5.1
CA Ratio
21
2.5.5.2
Coarse Portion of Fine Aggregate
23
2.5.5.3
Fine Portion of Fine Aggregate
24
2.5.5.4
Summary of Ratios
24
METHODOLOGY
25
3.1 Introduction
25
3.2 Operational Framework
25
3.3 Materials
29
3.3.1 Aggregates
29
3.3.2 Bituminous Binder
30
3.4 Sieve Analysis
30
3.4.1 Dry Sieve Analysis
3.4.2
31
3.4.1.1
Apparatus
31
3.4.1.2
Procedures
31
Wash Sieve Analysis
32
3.4.2.1
Apparatus
33
3.4.2.2
Procedures
33
3.5 Aggregate Gradation
34
3.6 Determination of Specific Gravity for Aggregate
35
3.6.1 Specific Gravity for Coarse Aggregate
36
3.6.1.1 Apparatus
36
3.6.1.2 Procedures
36
3.6.2 Specific Gravity for Fine Aggregate
3.6.2.1 Apparatus
37
38
viii
ix
3.6.2.2 Procedures
3.7 Aggregate Structure Design
3.7.1
Aggregate Blending
3.8 Marshall Mix Design
3.8.1 Marshall Mix Design Procedures
40
41
42
42
3.8.1.1 Apparatus
43
3.8.1.2 Procedures
44
3.8.2 Theoretical Maximum Density
46
3.8.2.1 Apparatus
47
3.8.2.2 Procedures
47
3.8.3 Flow and Stability Test
48
3.8.3.1 Apparatus
48
3.8.3.2 Procedures
49
3.9 Data Analysis
4
38
50
3.9.1 Bulk Specific Gravity
51
3.9.2 Void Fill with Bitumen
51
3.9.3 Void in Total Mix
51
3.9.4 Void in Mineral Aggregate
52
3.9.5
52
Determination of Optimum Bitumen Content
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
53
4.1 Introduction
53
4.2 Materials Preparation
53
4.2.1 Aggregate
54
4.2.1.1 Gradation Analysis
54
4.2.1.2 Washed Sieve Analysis
57
4.2.1.3 Specific Gravity
57
4.3 Marshall Sample
58
4.3.1 Sample Preparation
58
4.3.2 Determination of Optimum Bitumen Content
58
4.3.3 Theoretical Maximum Density
59
4.3.4 Results of Volumetric Properties
59
4.3.5 Analysis Volumetric Properties Based on R Square
61
ix
x
5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
63
5.1 Conclusions
63
5.2 Recommendations
64
REFERENCES
65
APPENDICES A-H
68
x
xi
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO.
TITLE
PAGE
2.1
Bailey Method Criteria for NMAS ½ inch
12
2.2
Recommended Ranges of Aggregate Ratios (NMPS,mm)
22
3.1
Gradation Limits for Asphaltic Concrete
35
3.2
Total number of samples
42
4.1
Combination Gradation Limit for ACW 10
55
4.2
Combination Gradation Limit for ACW 10
56
4.3
Mass of dust in washed sieve analysis
57
4.4 (a)
Specific Gravity of materials for ACW10
57
4.4 (b)
Specific Gravity of materials for ACW14
58
4.5
Optimum Bitumen Content for ACW10 and ACW14
59
4.6 (a)
Marshall mix design results of the ACW10 mixes
60
4.6 (b)
Marshall mix design results of the ACW14 mixes
60
xi
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO
TITLE
PAGE
2.1
Distresses in Flexible Pavements Rutting
7
2.2
Permanent Deformation in Asphalt Mixtures
8
2.3
Cubical Aggregate
9
2.4
Smooth-Rounded Aggregate
9
2.5
Typical Conventional Aggregate Gradation Curve
10
2.6
Structure of dense graded mix
18
2.7
Regions in the gradation Curve as Defined by the Bailey
Method
19
3.1
Developing the Combined Aggregate Blend
27
3.2
Evaluate the Combined Blends (Aggregate Ratio)
27
3.3
Flow diagram for laboratory analysis process
28
3.4
Sieve Analysis Equipment
30
3.5
Mechanical Sieve Shaker
32
3.6
The aggregate was sieve in the mechanical sieve shaker
33
3.7
Wash Sieve Process
34
3.8
Fine Analysis Equipment
38
3.9
Procedures to determine SG for Fine Aggregate
40
3.10
Automatic Marshall Compacter
44
xii
xiii
3.11
Marshall Procedures
45
3.12
Apparatus for TMD test
46
3.13
Water bath
48
3.14
Machine for flow and stability test
50
4.1
Combination of Gradation Limit for ACW 10
55
4.2
Combination of Gradation Limit for ACW 14
56
4.3
VTM vs Bit. Content for ACW 10 (R Square Result)
61
4.4
VTM vs Bit. Content for ACW 14 (R Square Result)
61
4.5
VMA vs Bit. Content for ACW 10 (R Square Result)
62
4.6
VMA vs Bit. Content for ACW 14 (R Square Result)
62
xiii
xiv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS/SYMBOLS
AASHTO
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials
AC
Asphalt Cement
ACW 10
Asphalt Concrete Wearing with Nominal Maximum Aggregate
Size of 10mm
ACW 14
Asphalt Concrete Wearing with Nominal Maximum Aggregate
Size of 14mm
ASTM
American Society for Testing and Materials
CA
Coarse Aggregate
CA Ratio
Coarse Aggregate Ratio
DG
Dense Graded
FAc Ratio
Fine Aggregate Coarse Ratio
FAf Ratio
Fine Aggregate Fine Ratio
Gsb
Combined bulk specific gravity of total aggregate
Gmb
Bulk specific gravity of compacted mix
Gmm
Theoretical maximum density
HMA
Hot Mix Asphalt
JKR
Jabatan Kerja Raya
MRP
Malaysia Rock Product
NAPA
National Asphalt Pavement Association
NMAS
Nominal Maximum Aggregate Size
OBC
Optimum Bitumen Content
OPC
Ordinary Portland Cement
PCS
Primary Control Sieve
PG
Performance Grade
SCS
Secondary Control Sieve
xiv
xv
TCS
Tertiary Control Sieve
TMD
Theoretical Maximum Density
US
United State
UTM
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
VFA
Voids Filled with Asphalt
VMA
Voids in Mineral Aggregate
VTM
Voids in Total Mix
xv
xvi
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX
TITLE
PAGE
A
Aggregate size distribution and determination of filler
68
B
Wash sieve analysis (ACW 14 and ACW 10)
74
C
Specific gravity for coarse and fine aggregate
(ACW 14 and ACW 10)
77
D
Marshall Test Results (ACW 14 and ACW 10)
82
E
Volumetric Properties (ACW 14 and ACW 10)
88
F
Determination of OBC at 4% Air Voids (NAPA)
92
G
H
Theoretical maximum density (TMD) for ACW 14
and ACW 10
Gradation Limit for ACW 10 and ACW 14
94
100
xvi
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background
Hot mix asphalt (HMA) is the most common material used for paving
applications around the world. It primarily consists of asphalt cement binder and
mineral aggregates. It is defined as a combination of heated and dried mineral
aggregates that are uniformly mixed and coated with a hot asphalt binder. When
bound by asphalt binder, mineral aggregate acts as a stone framework that provides
strength and toughness to the system.
The behavior of HMA depends on the
properties of the individual components and how they react with each other in the
system. HMA is a composite material consisting of aggregate particles with different
sizes, an asphalt binder that is much softer than the aggregate, and air voids
(Alshamsi, 2006)
The mixture design process consists of two main parts, the volumetric design
portion and empirical mechanical testing to verify the design. In addition, the design
method may include other requirements that the mixture must meet in order to satisfy
the overall specification standard. Such requirements may include certain aggregate
qualities like minimum percent of crushed aggregate, maximum amount of rounded
sand materials and specific aggregate gradation requirements (Asphalt Institute,
2001).
2
Controlling the volumetric in HMA is not a new concept and in fact has been
around for over a century. In 1903, Bitulithic Macadam, an early HMA design based
on volumetric, was patented by Frederick J. Warren, founder of Warren Brothers
Company in Boston, Massachusetts. Back then, Mr. Warren designed an experiment
to determine the optimum size and gradation of aggregate particles needed to fill a
container of known volume (Roberts et al., 1996).
1.2
Problem Statement
Generally, in the conventional method the mixtures is accepted or rejected
based on those criteria at an early stage in the design process without any validation
of their expected performance. An example of such criteria is the percentage of
voids in the mineral aggregate (VMA). VMA is the total void space between the
aggregate particles in compacted asphalt concrete, including air voids and asphalt not
absorbed by the aggregates. It were report by several researchers and highway
agencies that there exist difficulties in meeting the minimum voids in VMA
requirements (Kandhal, Foo and Mallick, 1998).
Studies have also shown that the current defined VMA criteria were seen to
be insufficient to correctly differentiate well performing mixtures from poor ones. In
other words, the design process in the Marshall mix system does not properly address
the expected performance of the designed mixtures in terms of major pavement
distresses like permanent deformation and rutting through laboratory performance
testing. So, the new method is looking for improvement on those specifications and
requirements especially designing the aggregate gradations to improve mixture
stability. In the current Marshall mix system, guidance is lacking in the selection of
the design aggregate gradations and understanding the interaction of the aggregate
structure with mixture design and performance (Asphalt Institute, 2001).
Furthermore, the trial and error nature of the actual conventional process of
formulating the gradation curve, and the use of weight instead of volume when
blending aggregates, offer alternatives to evaluate more rational approaches to design
2
3
an aggregate structure based on principles of aggregate packing concepts (Vavrik et
al., 2002)
A key to a successful mixture design is the balance between the volumetric
composition and the properties of the raw materials used (binder and aggregates).
The interaction between these components coupled with the different types and
magnitude of loadings the pavement were subjected to results in highly complex
mixture responses that require more complete understanding of asphalt mixture
behavior.
The key step to achieve that is to understand how the mechanical
performances of asphalt mixtures were affected by different mixture components and
properties (Kandhal, Foo and Mallick, 1998).
From the above discussion, there is clearly a need to address the issues of
concern in the current Marshall mix design system by introducing more rational
which is the new method for aggregate structure known as Bailey method. It is a
systematic step to the current system for better design and evaluation of asphalt
mixtures.
The Bailey method of gradation evaluation focus on the aggregate properties
that affect the way aggregates fit together (or pack) in a confined space or volume.
To analyze the packing factors, the method defines four key principles that break
down the overall combined aggregate blend into four distinct fractions.
Each
fraction is then analyzed for its contribution to the overall mix volumetric (Vavrik et
al., 2001).
By comparing the size of particles that fit into the voids between the largest
aggregate pieces to the size of the largest aggregate pieces found in a fraction, ratios
can be developed that is an indication of how well all the particles in the fraction fit
together. Once a mix designer has been taught the principles of the Bailey method
and how to apply them, and then begin to predict how changes in the factors that
affect packing will change volumetric and compactability of a particular mixture
(Vavrik et al., 2001).
.
3
4
1.3
Objective of the Study
The objective of this study is to evaluate Marshall properties of asphalt
concrete mixtures with aggregate gradations designed using Bailey method.
1.4
Scope of the Study
In order to archive the objective, the two types of mix designs of asphalt
concrete (ACW) were prepared in accordance to the JKR Specification. They were
ACW 10 and ACW 14. The aggregate structure (coarse, medium, and fine) was
design using the Bailey method of aggregate gradation evaluation.
aggregate structure has the highest volume of coarse particles.
The coarse
This volume
decreases as the structure becomes finer. Asphalt cement 80-100 PEN was used in
the designed mixture.
This study focus in designing the aggregate gradations and performing
Marshall mixture design to determine the design asphalt content that provides four
percent air void that is currently being used by the Marshall system as an acceptable
design parameter for dense graded mixtures (Lavin, 2003). The evaluation tests were
conducted in order to determine the best performing aggregate skeleton for each
aggregate type and size combination (Thompson, 2006). This evaluation includes
determining compaction properties of the mixtures.
1.5
Significance of the Study
From the results of this study, it can provide a better understanding in the
relationship between aggregate gradation and mixture voids. The Bailey method
procedure help to ensure aggregate interlock and good aggregate packing, giving
resistance to permanent deformation, while maintaining volumetric properties that
provided resistance to environmental stress (Thompson, 2006). Use of the Bailey
4
5
method will ensure coarse aggregate interlock and control of aggregate packing,
allowing the designer to specify desired mixture properties. This will eliminate the
normal trial and error process used in determining the design aggregate gradations
and will help in the transition to contractor mix design. The evaluation tools in the
Bailey method can also be used for quality control during the construction process.
The proper changes to the production process can be made to meet the quality
requirements in the field as a result of the understanding of the effects of aggregate
gradations on the properties of the asphalt mixture (Aurilio, William and Lum,
2005).
It were expected that, the results of this research will provide a better
understanding of the relationship between aggregate gradations and the volumetric
properties, ease of construction, and performance.
5
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1
Introduction
HMA is the most popular bituminous mix. It primarily consists of asphalt
cement binder and mineral aggregates. The binder acts as an adhesive agent that
binds aggregate particles into a cohesive mass. When bound by asphalt cement
binder, mineral aggregate acts as a stone framework that provided strength and
toughness to the system. The behavior of HMA depends on the properties of the
individual components and how they react with each other in the system (Baladi et
al., 1998). Generally, HMA is being used to categorize any asphalt mixture that is
mixed while hot. Both the asphalt binder and aggregate are heated to get a fluidity to
coat the aggregate and to dry the aggregate, respectively. Different construction
project will have different kind of mixture to suit to the site conditions. There are
many methods of designing a HMA mix, which among them are the conventional
method of Hveem and Marshall, and the newest method called Superpave (Garber
and Hoel, 2002).
This chapter discusses the overview of the history of Bailey method, Marshall
mix design and the aggregate gradations design (coarse, medium and fine). The
literature review was done to enhance the understanding in HMA mixture design
using the Bailey method. It also reviews the previous researches related to the
objective of the study.
7
2.2
Asphalt Cement Binder Role
Asphalt cement is one of the two principal constituents of HMA pavement. It
is a dark brown to black cementitious material that is either naturally occurring or is
produced by the distillation of crude oil (Roberts et al., 1996). In the context of
asphalt pavements, three asphalt cement binder characteristics were considered very
important to the performance of the pavement in service. These are: temperature
susceptibility, viscoelasticity, and aging (Roberts et al., 1996; Asphalt Institute,
2001).
The properties of the asphalt cement binder are very dependent on its
temperature. At high temperatures, asphalt cement binder becomes viscous and
displays plastic response when subjected to loads higher than its viscosity at a
particular temperature. This behavior under high temperature can be a contributing
factor to one of the most common asphalt pavement distresses which is rutting as
shown in Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1:
Distresses in Flexible Pavements Rutting (Alshamsi, 2006)
7
8
2.2.1
Aggregate Roles
Aggregates are the second principal material in HMA.
They play an
important role in the performance of asphalt mixtures. For HMA, they make up
about 90 to 95 percent by weight and comprise 75 to 85 percent of the volume
(Roberts et al., 1996; Asphalt Institute, 2001). Therefore, knowledge of aggregate
properties is crucial to designing high quality HMA mixtures.
An aggregate’s mineral composition largely determines its physical
characteristics and how it behaves in an HMA pavement. Therefore, when selecting
an aggregate source, knowledge of the quarry rock’s mineral properties can provide
valuable information about the suitability of the resulting aggregate for HMA
pavements (Cooper and Brown, 1991).
Regardless of the source, aggregate are expected to provide a strong stone
skeleton to resist the repeated traffic load applications. When a mass of aggregate is
subjected to excessively high loads, a shear plane develops resulting in the aggregate
particles sliding or shearing with respect of each others. This behavior produces
what is called permanent deformation in asphalt pavement (Lavin, 2003). Along this
shear plane, the applied shear stress exceeds the shear strength of the asphalt mixture
(Figure 2.2).
Figure 2.2:
Permanent Deformation in Asphalt Mixtures (Alshamsi, 2006)
8
9
It is known that aggregate has relatively little cohesion (Ervin and Dukatz,
1989). The shear strength is mainly dependent on the internal friction provided by
the aggregate. Here, the shape and texture of the aggregate play important role in
providing the required interlock. Cubical, rough textured aggregate (Figure 2.3)
provide more shear resistance than rounded, smooth-textured aggregate (Figure 2.4).
The internal friction provides the ability of aggregate to interlock and create a strong
mass that is able to resist the applied traffic load.
Figure 2.3:
Figure 2.4:
2.2.2
Cubical Aggregate (Alshamsi, 2006)
Smooth-Rounded Aggregate (Alshamsi, 2006)
Aggregate Gradation
The largest portion of the mixture’s resistance to the applied traffic loads is
provided by the aggregate structure. Aggregate is expected to provide a strong stone
skeleton to resist repeated load applications. One of the key aggregate properties that
are related to asphalt mixture performance is gradation. Aggregate gradation is the
distribution of the different particle sizes in a mass of aggregate expressed as percent
of the total weight (Roberts, Mohamad and Wang, 2002). Sieve analysis is the
9
10
process by which aggregate gradation is determined in the laboratory. Aggregate
particles are passed through a series of sieves stacked with progressively smaller
openings from top to bottom, and weighing the material retained on each sieve.
Gradation of an aggregate is traditionally represented in graphical format by a
gradation curve for which the ordinate is the total percent by weight passing a given
sieve on an arithmetic scale, while the particle size plotted to a logarithmic scale as
shown in Figure 2.5 (Roberts et al., 1996). For asphalt mixtures, it is generally
accepted that a well-balanced, continuous gradation will provide the greatest
permanent deformation resistance for any given type and quality of aggregates
(Roberts et al., 1996; NAPA, 2002).
Figure 2.5:
Typical Conventional Aggregate Gradation Curve (Robert et al.,
2006)
Gradation is considered a key factor in the resistance of mixture to permanent
deformation (Ervin, 1989; Hveem, 1946). The most important concept is that
gradation will provide the greatest structural strength (resistance to rutting) for any
given type and quality of aggregate.
10
11
2.3
History of Bailey Method
The Bailey method was originally developed by Mr. Robert Bailey (retired)
of the Illinois Department of Transportation. It is a systematic approach to blending
aggregates that provides aggregate interlock as the backbone of the structure and a
balanced continuous gradation of particles to complete the blend.
Mr. Bailey
developed these methods as a means to combat the rutting of asphalt mixes while
maintaining the proper durability characteristics (Vavrik et al., 2002).
He began to develop a series of analytical procedures to evaluate mixtures
being proposed by contractors in the district where he was the Chief Materials
Engineer. As he began to refine the procedure, he used this new analytical tool to
predict mixture volumetric often to the amazement, and sometimes the frustration, of
the contractor’s quality control personnel and to offer suggestions on how to make
the necessary gradation changes to meet the volumetric requirements (Vavrik et al.,
2002).
The Bailey method for gradation selection considers the packing
characteristics of aggregates. The parameters in the method are related directly to
VMA, air voids, and compaction properties. The principles in Bailey method can be
used from the asphalt mix design through the quality control process, but are not a
mix design method (Vavrik et al., 2002).
The aggregate blends initially selected for this research were based on the
upper and lower limits of the three Bailey method criteria (Vavrik et al., 2002).
Four sieves are evaluated under the Bailey method: the half sieve, the primary
control, the secondary control and tertiary control. Table 2.1, shows the sieves are
evaluated under Bailey method criteria.
11
12
Table 2.1:
Bailey Method Criteria for NMAS ½ inch
Ratio
Lower Limit
Upper Limit
CA Ratio
0.50
0.65
FAc Ratio
0.35
0.50
FAf Ratio
0.35
0.50
The Bailey method uses three ratios of the various sieves above to control the final
gradation. The ratios are as follows (Vavrik et al., 2001):
CA Ratio = (% Passing Half Sieve - % Passing PCS)
(100% - %Passing Half Sieve)
(2.1)
FAc Ratio = % Passing SCS
% Passing PCS
(2.2)
FAf Ratio = % Passing TCS
% Passing SCS
(2.3)
Where:
CA Ratio = Coarse Aggregate Ratio
FAc Ratio = Fine Aggregate Coarse Ratio
FAf Ratio = Fine Aggregate Fine Ratio
PCS = Primary Control Sieve
SCS = Secondary Control Sieve
TCS = Tertiary Control sieve
2.4
Mixture Design
This section provides an overview of the mixture design methods that have
been or being used by the asphalt industry. Generally, most of the mix design
methods rely on experience and performance of mixes of known composition.
Almost all mixture design methods include specimen fabrication and compaction in
the mix design process to determine the mixture composition and volumetric
properties.
12
13
Mixture designs were performed on all the aggregate structures that were
formulated using the Bailey method of aggregate gradation and evaluation. The
Marshall mixture design method were follow. All the mixtures were design for
normal volume traffic.
HMA is defined as a combination of heated and dried
mineral aggregates that are uniformly mixed and coated with a hot asphalt binder.
HMA can describe any asphalt mixture that is mixed while hot (Hanson, Mallick and
Brown, 1994).
2.4.1
Marshall Mix design
The Marshall method has been proven to produce quality HMA from which
long-lasting pavements can be constructed. The basic concepts of the Marshall mix
design method were originally developed by Bruce Marshall of the Mississippi
Highway Department around 1939.
The Marshall mix design system provides
guidance in selecting the appropriate component materials for asphalt concrete
mixtures. However, the selection of the design aggregate gradations is left to the
experience of the mix designer (Asphalt Institute, 2001).
It is important to
understand the influence of the aggregate gradations on the volumetric properties,
construction, and performance of the asphalt mixture to achieve the desired
properties and performance.
The Bailey method provides a systematic approach to blending aggregates to
meet the Marshall volumetric criteria based on the concepts of aggregate interlock
and aggregate packing. In addition, Bailey method provides tools for evaluating the
effect of aggregate gradations on mixture properties, constructability, and
performance. The results of this research will provide a better understanding of the
relationship between aggregate gradations and the volumetric properties, ease of
construction, and performance of typical mixtures (Vavrik et al., 2001).
13
14
For all HMA mixes, the mix design procedure involves a process of selecting
and proportioning ingredients to obtain specific pavement performance properties is
economical.
The gradation mixture must have the following criteria (Asphalt
Institute, 2001):
(i)
Enough asphalt binder to ensure a durable compacted pavement by
thoroughly coating and bonding the aggregate.
(ii)
Enough workability to permit mixture placement and compaction
without aggregate segregation.
(iii)
Enough mixture stability to withstand the repeated loading of traffic
without distortion or displacement.
(iv)
Sufficient voids or air spaces in the compacted mixture to allow a
slight additional amount of added compaction by the repeated loading
of traffic. These air voids will prevent asphalt binder bleeding or a
loss of mixture stability. The volume of air voids should not be so
large to allow excessive oxidation or moisture damage of the mixture.
(v)
The proper selection of aggregates to provide skid resistance in high
speed traffic applications.
Marshall mix design incorporates several major steps. These are selection of
materials, selection of aggregate gradation, selection of asphalt binder, and
evaluation of mix design. As it is with all hot mix asphalt, the design compactions a
level is 75 blows of compaction and were established. In the Marshall mix design
method consists of five steps. The five steps is described as follow:
i)
Prepare a series of initial samples, each at different asphalt binder
content. For ACW 14 instance, two to three samples each might be
made at 4, 4.5, 5.0, 5.5, and 6.0 percent asphalt by dry weight for a
total of 15 samples. For ACW 10 instance, two to three samples each
might be made at 5.0, 5.5, 6.0, 6.5, and 7.0 percent asphalt by dry
weight for a total of 15 samples. There should be at least two samples
above and two below the estimated optimum asphalt content.
(ii)
Compact these trial mixes using the Marshall drop hammer which is
75 blows per face. This hammer is specific to the Marshall mix
design method.
14
15
(iii)
Test the samples in the Marshall testing machine for stability and
flow. This testing machine is specific to the Marshall mix design
method. Passing values of stability and flow depend upon the mix
class being evaluated.
(iv)
Determine the density and other volumetric properties of the samples.
(v)
Select the optimum asphalt binder content. The asphalt binder content
corresponding to 4 % air voids is selected as long as this binder
content passes stability and flow requirements.
The Marshall method specified procedure of heating, mixing and compacting
the mixture of asphalt and aggregates, which is then subjected to a stability-flow test
and a density-voids analysis (Garber and Hoel, 2002).
2.5
Aggregate Packing
The importance of aggregate gradation and the need for understanding the
interlocking mechanism of aggregates have been a topic of interest by several
researchers. One of the earliest attempts to explain and quantify the packing of a
mass of aggregates was carried out by Tons and Goetz, (1968). In their study, the
packing volumes were introduced as the theoretical basis for understanding the bulk
behavior and interlocking mechanisms of aggregates. The angularity and texture of
an aggregate particle was unified by the term packing. The more angular the rock is,
the higher its packing. The particle volume was defined as the volume which a
single rock particle occupies in a mass of mono volume particles. Due to irregular
shape of aggregate particles, aggregates usually touch one another at the peaks of the
surface roughness.
Therefore, the packing includes not only the solid mass and the surface
capillaries but also the volume of the surface voids. In other words, the packing
volume can be visualized as the volume enclosed by a dimensionless membrane
stretching along the peaks of the surface roughness. For a mass of aggregate, this
membrane divides voids into inter particle voids and particle surface voids (Tons
15
16
and Goetz, 1968).
(Ishai and Tons, 1971) demonstrated experimentally that in
bituminous mixtures, surface voids of large particles provide sufficient space not
only for asphalt, but also for smaller particles. They explained conceptually using a
container filled with one size, coarse, smooth particles.
Under constant packing volume of the particles, any additional increase in the
mass volume will be equal to a change on the volume of inter particle voids. Some
of the particles may penetrate through and under the imaginary packing volume
membrane of coarse particles. They defined this interaction between coarse and fine
aggregates as the fines lost by rugosity. They further observed that less active fine
particles will be located between the larger rough particles which will be packed
closer together with thinner asphalt films between them exhibiting higher resistance
to shear, tensile and compressive deformation (Kandhal and Cross, 1993). On the
other hand, smooth textured particles will be simply pushed apart by the more active
fines between them and show low strength.
Aggregate particles cannot be packed together to fill a volume completely.
There will always be space between the aggregate particles. The degree of packing
depends on (Ishai and Tons, 1971):
(i)
Type and amount of compactive energy. Several type of compactive
force can be used, including shearing. Higher density can be achieved
by increasing the compactive effort (i.e, gyrations).
(ii)
Shape of the particles. Flat and elongated particles tend to resist
packing in a dense configuration. Cubical particles tend to arrange in
dense configurations.
(iii)
Surface texture of the particles. Particles with smooth textures will reorient more easily into denser configurations. Particles with rough
surfaces will resist sliding against one another.
(iv)
Size distribution (gradation) of the particles. Single-sized particles
will not pack as densely as a mixture of particle sizes.
(v)
Strength of the particles. Strength of the aggregate particles directly
affects the amount of degradation that occurs in a compactor or under
rollers. Softer aggregates typically degrade more than strong
aggregates and allow denser aggregate packing to be achieved.
16
17
2.5.1
Coarse and Fine Aggregate
The traditional definition of coarse aggregate is any particle that is retained
by the 5 mm sieve. Fine aggregate is defined as any aggregate that passes the 5 mm
sieve (sand, silt, and clay size material).
In the Bailey method, the definition of coarse and fine is more specific in
order to determine the packing and aggregate interlock provided by the combination
of aggregates in various sized mixtures (Thompson, 2006). The Bailey method
definitions are:
(i)
Coarse Aggregate - Large aggregate particles that when placed in a
unit volume, create voids
(ii)
Fine Aggregate - Aggregate particles that can fill the voids, it can
created by the coarse aggregate in the mixture.
From these definitions, more than a single aggregate size is needed to define
coarse or fine. The definition of coarse and fine depends on the nominal maximum
Aggregate size (NMAS) of the mixture. In a dense graded blend of aggregate with a
NMAS of 5 mm, the 5 mm particles come together to make voids. Those voids are
large enough to be filled with 10 mm aggregate particles, making the 10 mm
particles fine aggregate.
In the Bailey method, the sieve which defines coarse and fine aggregate is
known as the primary control sieve (PCS), and the PCS is based on the NMAS of the
aggregate blend (Vavrik et al., 2001). The PCS is defined as the closet sized sieve to
the result of the PCS formula in Equation 2.4.
PCS = NMAS x 0.22
(2.4)
Where:
PCS
= PCS for the overall blend
NMAS = NMAS for the overall blend, which is one sieve larger than the first
sieve that retains more than 10%.
17
18
2.5.2
Bailey Method of Aggregate Blending and Evaluation
One of the methods that are attempting to rationalize the aggregate gradation
procedure is the Bailey method of aggregate gradation evaluation (Vavrik et al.,
2001; TRB Circular, 2002). The Bailey method is a comprehensive gradation
evaluation procedure to provide aggregate interlock as the backbone for the
aggregate skeleton (Vavrik et al., 2001; TRB Circular, 2002). In this method, the
definition of coarse and fine aggregate is not based on the conventional No. 4 sieve
(5 mm). Coarse aggregates are defined as the large aggregate particles that when
placed in a unit volume, create voids.
Fine aggregates are those particles that can
fill the voids created by the coarse aggregates. The sieve that separates the coarse
and fine aggregates is called the PCS. It is dependent on the nominal maximum
particle size of the aggregate blend. The PCS is mathematically defined as 0.22 of
the NMAS based on two and three dimensional analysis of the packing of different
shaped particles (Figure 2.6). Furthermore, the aggregate blend below the PCS is
divided into coarse and fine portions, and each portion is evaluated (Figure 2.7). The
method provides a set of tools that allows the evaluation of aggregate blends
(Alshamsi, 2006).
Figure 2.6:
Two Dimensional Aggregate Packing Model (Aurilio, William and
Lum, 2006)
18
19
Figure 2.7:
Regions in the gradation curve as defined by the Bailey method
(Vavrik et al., 2001)
Aggregate ratios, which are based on particle packing principles, and the
relative proportions passing certain critical sieves, are used to analyze the particle
packing of the overall aggregate structure. The coarse aggregate ratio (CA Ratio) is
used to characterize the packing and size distribution of the coarse portion of the
aggregate blend. The coarse portion of the fine aggregate is evaluated using the fine
aggregate ratio of the coarse portion (FAc), and the fine portion of the fine aggregate
is evaluated using the fine aggregate ratio of the fine portion (FAf). All these ratios
are calculated using mathematical equations that relate the amount of aggregate
passing specific critical sieve sizes. In Summary, the Bailey method involves the
following approach (Vavrik et al., 2001):
(i)
Evaluates packing of coarse and fine aggregates individually;
(ii)
Contains a definition for coarse and fine aggregate;
(iii)
Evaluates the ratio of different size particles; and
(iv)
Evaluates the individual aggregates and the combined blend by
aggregate.
19
20
2.5.3
Combining Aggregate by Weight
All aggregate blends contain an amount and size of voids, which are a
function of the packing characteristics of the blend. In combining aggregates we
must first determine the amount and size of the voids created by the coarse
aggregates and fill those voids with the appropriate amount of fine aggregate. Mix
design methods generally are based on volumetric analysis, but for simplicity,
aggregates are combined on a weight basis. Most mix design methods correct the
percent passing by weight.
2.5.4
Chosen Unit Weight of Coarse Aggregate
The designer needs to select the interlock of coarse aggregate desired in their
mix design.
Therefore, they choose a unit weight of coarse aggregate, which
establishes the volume of coarse aggregate in the aggregate blend and the degree of
aggregate interlock. In the Bailey method, coarse graded is defined as mixtures
which have a coarse aggregate skeleton. Fine graded mixtures do not have enough
coarse aggregate particles to form a skeleton, and therefore the load is carried
predominantly by the fine aggregate. To select a chosen unit weight we need to
decide if the mixture is to be coarse graded or fine graded (TRB Circular, 2002). In
summary, the amount of additional consolidation, if any, beyond the selected chosen
unit weight depends on several factors:
(i)
Aggregate strength, shape, and texture.
(ii)
The amount of fine aggregate that exists in each coarse aggregate.
(iii)
Combined blend characteristics.
(iv)
Type of compactive effort applied (Marshall, Gyratory, and etc.).
(v)
Amount of compactive effort applied (75 vs 125 gyrations, 50 vs 75
blows, etc).
20
21
2.5.5
Analysis of the Design Blend
After the combined gradation by weight is determined, the aggregate packing
is analyzed further. The combined blend is broken down into three distinct portions,
and each portion is evaluated individually. The coarse portion of the combined blend
is from the largest particle to the PCS. These particles are considered the coarse
aggregates of the blend. The fine aggregate is broken down and evaluated as two
portions. To determine where to split the fine aggregate, the same 0.22 factor use on
the entire gradation is applied to the PCS to determine a secondary control sieve
(SCS). The SCS then becomes the break between coarse and fine graded. The fine
is further evaluated by determining the tertiary control sieve (TCS), which is
determined by multiplying the SCS by the 0.22 factor (Vavrik et al., 2001).
2.5.5.1 CA Ratio
The CA Ratio is used to evaluate packing of the coarse portion of the
aggregate gradation and to analyze the resulting void structure. Understanding the
packing of coarse aggregate requires the introduction of the half sieve. The half
sieve is defined as one half the NMAS. Particles smaller than the half sieve are
called ‘interceptors’. Interceptors are too large to fit in the voids created by the
larger coarse aggregate particles and hence spread them apart. The balance of these
particles can be used to adjust the mixture’s volumetric properties. By changing the
quantity of interceptors it is possible to change the VMA in the mixture to produce a
balanced coarse aggregate structure. With a balanced aggregate structure the mixture
should be easy to compact in the field and should adequately perform under load
(Vavrik et al., 2001; TRB Circular, 2002). The equation for the calculation of the
coarse aggregate ratio is given in Equation below.
CA Ratio = (% Passing Half Sieve - % Passing PCS)
(100% - %Passing Half Sieve)
21
22
The packing of the coarse aggregate fraction, observed through the CA Ratio,
is a primary factor in the constructability of the mixture. As the CA Ratio decreases,
compaction of the fine aggregate fraction increases because there are fewer
interceptors to limit compaction of the larger coarse aggregate particles. Therefore, a
mixture with a low CA Ratio typically requires a stronger fine aggregate structure to
meet the required volumetric properties (Vavrik et al., 2001). Also, a CA Ratio
below the corresponding range suggested in Table 2.2 could indicate a blend that
may be prone to segregation. It is generally accepted that gap-graded mixes, which
tend to have CA Ratios below these suggested ranges, have a greater tendency to
segregate than mixes that contain a more continuous gradation.
Table 2.2: Recommended Ranges of Aggregate Ratios (NMPS,mm)
CA Ratio
Fac Ratio
FAf Ratio
37.5 mm
0.80 - 0.95
0.35 - 0.50
0.35 - 0.50
25 mm
0.70 - 0.85
0.35 - 0.50
0.35 - 0.50
19 mm
0.60 - 0.75
0.35 - 0.50
0.35 - 0.50
12.5 mm
0.50 - 0.65
0.35 - 0.50
0.35 - 0.50
9.5 mm
0.40 - 0.55
0.35 - 0.50
0.35 - 0.50
4.75 mm
0.30 - 0.45
0.35 - 0.50
0.35 - 0.50
As the CA Ratio increases towards 1.0, VMA will increase. However, as
this value approaches 1.0, the coarse aggregate fraction becomes ‘unbalanced’
because the interceptor size aggregates are attempting to control the coarse aggregate
skeleton. Although this blend may not be as prone to segregation, it contains such a
large quantity of interceptors that the coarse aggregate fraction causes the portion
above the PCS to be less continuous. The resulting mixture can be difficult to
compact in the field and have a tendency to move under the rollers because it does
not want to ‘lock up’. Generally, mixes with high CA Ratios have an S-shaped
gradation curve in this area of the 0.45-power grading chart. As the CA Ratio
exceeds a value of 1.0, the interceptor-sized particles begin to dominate the
formation of the coarse aggregate skeleton.
The coarse portion of the coarse
aggregate is then considered ‘pluggers’ as these aggregates do not control the
aggregate skeleton, but rather float in a matrix of finer coarse aggregate particles
(Vavrik et al., 2002).
22
23
2.5.5.2 Coarse Portion of Fine Aggregate
All of the fine aggregate (below the PCS) can be viewed as a blend by itself
that contains a coarse and a fine portion and can be evaluated in a manner similar to
the overall blend. The coarse portion of the fine aggregate creates voids that will be
filled with the fine portion of the fine aggregate. As with the coarse aggregate, it is
desired to fill these voids with the appropriate volume of the fine portion of the fine
aggregate without overfilling the voids (Vavrik et al., 2001; Vavrik et al., 2002).
The equation that describes the FAc is given in Equation below. As this ratio
increases, the fine aggregate (i.e., below the PCS) packs together tighter. This
increase in packing is due to the increase in volume of the fine portion of fine
aggregate. It is generally desirable to have this ratio less than 0.50, as higher values
generally indicate an excessive amount of the fine portion of the fine aggregate is
included in the mixture (Vavrik et al., 2001; TRB Circular, 2002). A FAc Ratio
higher than 0.50, which is created by an excessive amount of excessively fine, should
be avoided. This type of a blend normally shows a ‘hump’ in the sand portion of the
gradation curve of a 0.45 gradation chart, which is generally accepted as an
indication of a potentially tender mixture.
FAc Ratio = % Passing SCS
% Passing PCS
If the FAc Ratio becomes lower than the range of values, the gradation is not
uniform. These mixtures are generally gap-graded and have a in the 0.45-power
grading chart, which can indicate instability and may lead to compaction problems.
This ratio has a considerable impact on the VMA of a mixture due to the blending of
sands and the creation of voids in the fine aggregate. The VMA in the mixture will
increase with a decrease in this ratio (Vavrik et al., 2001).
2.5.5.3 Fine Portion of Fine Aggregate
The fine portion of the fine aggregate fills the voids created by the coarse
portion of the fine aggregate. This ratio shows how the fine portion of the fine
aggregate packs together. One more sieve is needed to calculate the FAf, the TCS.
23
24
The TCS is defined as the closest sieve to 0.22 times the SCS.
FAf Ratio = % Passing TCS
% Passing SCS
The FAf Ratio is used to evaluate the packing characteristics of the smallest
portion of the aggregate blend. Similar to the FAc Ratio, the value of the FAf Ratio
should be less than 0.50 for typical dense-graded mixtures. VMA in the mixture will
increase with a decrease in this ratio (Vavrik et al., 2001).
2.5.5.4 Summary of Ratios
CA ratio is describes how the coarse aggregate particles pack together and,
consequently how these particles compact the fine aggregate portion of the aggregate
blend that fills the voids created by the coarse aggregate. FAc Ratio describes how
the coarse portion of the fine aggregate packs together and, consequently, how these
particles compact the material that fills the voids it creates. FAf Ratio describes how
the fine portion of the fine aggregate packs together. It also influences the voids that
will remain in the overall fine aggregate portion of the blend because it represents the
particles that fill the smallest voids created (Vavrik et al., 2001; TRB Circular,
2002).
24
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
3.1
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the laboratory performance of
asphalt mixtures with aggregate gradations that were designed using Bailey method.
This chapter provides detailed information on the materials used and their properties.
It also highlights the laboratory procedures for the tests performed. The tests were
carried out according to the required specifications. This study used the Marshall
method as published by National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA) along with
the Public Works Department of Malaysia’s (JKR) specifications for the different
type of mixes. The types of mixes use were ACW10 and ACW14. The gradation
limits of mixes were as specified by JKR.
3.2
Operational Framework
The laboratory work consisted of two series of tests. The tests conducted for
the first series were sieve analysis and determination of specific gravity for aggregate
(coarse and fine). The aggregates obtained from the Malaysian Rock Product Quarry
(MRP) were dried sieve to separate the aggregates into different sizes. Washed sieve
analyses were done to determine the percentage of dust and silt-clay material in order
to check the need for filler material that were referred to ASTM C 117.
The
26
determinations of specific gravity for coarse and fine aggregates were done
according to ASTM C 127 and C 128. Aggregate blending satisfying the JKR
gradation limits were used. Bitumen of 80-100 PEN were used in this study. The
second series involved was the Marshall mix design. 90 samples were prepared in
order to determine the optimum bitumen content (OBC) for each mix design and 12
samples were prepared for Theoretical Maximum Density. The bulk specific gravity
and density of compacted sample were done in accordance to ASTM D 2726. The
stability and flow test were conducted for Marshall sample according to ASTM D
1559.
To achieve the objectives of the study, a test plan has been designed as shown
in Figure 3.1 and 3.2 below. Figure 3.1 shows the summary of combined aggregate
blend and evaluation of combined blends using Bailey method. Figure 3.2 shows the
procedure of the Marshall mixture. Before developing combined aggregate blend,
several aspects need to be considered: these are mix type and NMAS, weight of
coarse aggregate and the desired percentage of -0.075mm in the combined blend.
After aggregate blending, evaluate the combined blend: Coarse Aggregate (CA), (CA
Ratio, FAc Ratio and FAf Ratio. Dense graded mix and 80-100 PEN bitumen were
used in Marshall mixes as recommended by JKR. The mix designs were conducted
according to JKR and AASHTO standards to produce three mixture types (ACW10
and ACW14).
The gradation limits for the mixes were prepared according to
JKR/SPJ/rev2005. This test was carried out to evaluate the performance of asphalt
mixtures. The general procedures for laboratory work are illustrated in Figure 3.3.
26
27
Determine the mix type and NMAS
Choose the weight of coarse Aggregate:
i)
ii)
Blend the individual coarse aggregate by weight
Blend the individual fine aggregate by weight
Choose the desired percentage of -0.075mm in the combined blend
Figure 3.1:
Developing the Combined Aggregate Blend
The 1st Bailey principles
- CA -
The 2nd Bailey principles
- CA Ratio -
The 3rd Bailey principles
- FA c Ratio -
The 4th Bailey principles
- FA f Ratio Figure 3.2:
Evaluate the Combined Blends (Aggregate Ratio)
27
28
Aggregate From MRP Quarry
Dry sieve analysis to distribute the
aggregates into different sizes
Wash sieve analysis to determine
the percentage of dust and silt-clay
Determination of specific gravity for coarse and
fine aggregate
Gradation design for ACW10 and ACW14
(Medium, Coarse and Fine)
Combine aggregate blend (ACW10 and
ACW14) with different gradation size
Aggregate Blend Ratio
Marshall Mix Design:
(Sample Preparation)
Theoretical Maximum Density
Testing:
Marshall Test
(Stability and Flow)
Analysis
And Discussion
Figure 3.3:
Flow diagram for laboratory analysis process
28
29
3.3
Materials
Asphalt mixture is a composite material that is largely made of two main
components; aggregate and asphalt cement. This section describes the properties of
the aggregates and the asphalt cement binders used.
3.3.1
Aggregates
According to JKR/SPJ/rev2005, aggregate for asphaltic concrete shall be a
mixture of coarse and fine aggregates.
The coarse aggregate used were screened crushed hard rock and retained on
5mm sieve opening angular in shape, free from dust, clay, and other organic matter
and deleterious substances. Fine aggregate normally consists of quarry dusts. Fine
aggregate conformed to the requirements, sand equivalent of aggregate fraction
passing the 5mm sieve shall be not less than 45%, fine aggregate angularity shall not
be less than 45%, and the water absorption shall not be more than 2% (ASTM C
136). The specific gravity for coarse and fine aggregate was determined according to
ASTM C 127 and C 128.
Detailed laboratory evaluation procedures of individual stockpiles were
conducted to determine the basic aggregate properties such as specific gravity,
gradation, and other Marshall consensus properties. The laboratory tests conducted
on each aggregate stockpile included:
(i)
washed sieve analysis (ASTM C 117) to determine as-received
gradation.
(ii)
specific gravity and absorption ( ASTM C 127 for coarse aggregate
andASTM C 128 for fine aggregate).
The aggregates used in this study were obtained from Malaysia Rock Product
(MRP) quarry, which locates at Ulu Choh, Johor, Malaysia.
29
30
3.3.2
Bituminous Binder
An 80/100 PEN bitumen was used as binder in this study. The bitumen
contents for all of the samples range between 4–6% for ACW 14 and 5-7% for ACW
10 with 0.5% increment according to JKR/SPJ/rev2005.
3.4
Sieve Analysis
There are two methods for determining aggregate gradation, dry sieve
analysis and washed-sieve analysis.
These methods were used primarily to
determine the grading of aggregates including both coarse and fine fractions ensuring
the aggregate were well blended within the gradation limit as specified in JKR
(2005). It is a process of separating dry aggregate into different sizes through a
series of sieves of progressively smaller openings for determination of particle size
distribution. Figure 3.4 shows the equipment for Sieve Analysis.
Figure 3.4:
Sieve Analysis Equipment
30
31
3.4.1
Dry Sieve Analysis
Dry sieve analyses were performed on aggregates obtained from the quarry,
MRP. These tests were done to separate the aggregate into different sizes. Dry sieve
analysis was conducted in accordance with ASTM C 136 and AASHTO T 305.
3.4.1.1 Apparatus
The apparatus that were used for dry sieve analysis included:
(i)
Sieves with various sizes starting from 20 mm to pan - Sieves were
mounted on substantial frames that were constructed in a manner that
prevent loss of material during sieving. Suitable sieve sizes were
selected to furnish the information required by the specifications
covering the materials to be tested;
(ii)
Mechanical Sieve Shaker was imparted a vertical and/or lateral
motion to the sieve, caused the particles thereon to bounce and turn so
as to present different orientations to the sieving surface;
(iii)
Oven, An oven of appropriate size capable of maintaining a uniform
temperature of 110±5ºC (230±9ºF).
3.4.1.2 Procedures
(i)
The samples were dried to constant weight at a temperature of
110±5ºC (230±9ºF).
(ii)
The sieves were nested in order of decreasing size of opening, from
top to bottom and the samples were placed on the top sieve. The
sieves were stirred up by mechanical apparatus for a sufficient period.
(iii)
The quantity of material was limited on given sieve so that all
particles have opportunity to reach sieve openings a number of times
during the sieving operation.
31
32
(iv)
The sieve processes were continued for a sufficient period.
(v)
In order to prevent the overloading of individual sieve, the portion of
the sample finer than 5mm (No. 4) sieve were distributed among two
or more sets of sieves.
3.4.2
Wash Sieve Analysis
Wash sieve analysis were done to determine the amount of weight of dust and
silt-clay material in the original sample and removes clay or dust on the aggregate by
washing. It is also used to determine the total filler needed for the particular mix.
Wash sieve analysis was in accordance with ASTM C 117 and AASHTO T 27.
Figure 3.5 and 3.6 shows the equipment for dry sieve analysis.
Figure 3.5: Mechanical Sieve Shaker
32
33
Figure 3.6: The aggregate was sieve in the mechanical sieve shaker
3.4.2.1 Apparatus
The apparatus used for washed sieve analysis were:
(i)
Sieve size of 600 and 75μm;
(ii)
Container;
(iii)
An oven capable of maintaining a temperature of 110±5°C.
3.4.2.2 Procedures
The procedures for washed sieve analysis are as follow:
(i)
The aggregate samples were weighed before being placed on the
600μm sieve, with the 75μm sieve at the bottom.
(ii)
The aggregate were thoroughly washed until no particles pass the
75μm sieve (Figure 3.7).
33
34
(iii)
Carefully, the samples were poured into the container and were left to
allow all the aggregate to sink before draining the water out of the
container.
(iv)
The washed samples were dried in an oven at a temperature of
110±5°C for 24 hours.
(v)
The dried weight were recorded, B.
(vi)
The required filler were calculated as follows.
Dust percentage = [(A – B) / A] x 100
Where:
A = Weight of dry sample before wash, g
B = Weight of dry sample after wash, g
Figure 3.7: Wash Sieve Process
3.5
Aggregate Gradation
Aggregate gradation greatly influences the performance of the pavement
layers. As such the aggregate from the quarry stockpiles were sieved to obtain the
combined gradation. Aggregate grading is carried out to determine the proportion of
aggregate required from each stockpile to fit into the given specification.
The
percent passing of the aggregate through the selected sieves is determined by taking
weights retained on individual sieves. The maximum particle size in a mixture is
important to ensure good performance.
If the maximum particle size is too small,
34
35
the mix may be unstable, if it is too large, workability and segregation may be
problem.
The aggregate grading was conducted to determine the percentage of
aggregate required for every size according to JKR/SPJ/rev2005. The curve with
subjected to the sample grade were produced from the graph percent passing percent
sieve size to the power of 0.45 with upper and lower limit. Then the mass retained
were calculated using the percent passing for every sample size. The gradation of the
combined coarse aggregate, fine aggregate and mineral filler for ACW 10 and ACW
14 should conform to the appropriate envelopes as illustrates in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1: Gradation Limits for Asphaltic Concrete
Mix Type
Wearing Course
Wearing Course
Mix Designation
AC 10
AC 14
BS Sieve Size, mm
Percentage Passing (by weight)
20.0
3.6
100
14.0
100
90 – 100
10.0
90 – 100
76 – 86
5.0
58 – 72
50 – 62
3.35
48 – 64
40 – 54
1.18
22 – 40
18 – 34
0.425
12 – 26
12 – 24
0.150
6 – 14
6 – 14
0.075
4–8
4–8
Determination of Specific Gravity for Aggregate
The specific gravity of an aggregate provides a mean of expressing the
weight-volume characteristics of material. Specific gravity for coarse and fine
aggregates was determined separately. Coarse aggregate is the aggregates that are
retained on the 5mm sieve while fine aggregates are those that passing 5mm sieve.
35
36
3.6.1
Specific Gravity for Coarse Aggregate
The specific gravity tests of coarse aggregate were conducted to determine
the value of bulk, SSD and apparent specific gravity. The equipment and procedures
for determining the specific gravity and water absorption of coarse aggregates as
outlined in ASTM C 127.
3.6.1.1 Apparatus
(i)
Balance that is accurate to 0.1g of the sample weight;
(ii)
Sample container - a wire basket of 3.35mm (No. 6);
(iii)
Water tank; and
(iv)
Sieves with of 5mm sieve.
3.6.1.2 Procedures
The procedure for determining specific gravity for coarse aggregate was as
follow:
(i)
The sample of aggregate is mixed and it is reduced to the approximate
quantity needed, 1 kg.
(ii)
All the material passing a 5mm (No. 4) sieve by dry sieving is
rejected and is washed to remove dust or coatings from the surface.
(iii)
The test sample is dried to constant weight at a temperature of
110±5ºC (230±9ºF).
(iv)
The sample is cooled in air at room temperature until the aggregate
has cooled to a temperature that is comfortable to handle.
(v)
Subsequently the aggregate is immersed in water at room temperature
for a period of 15 to 19 hours.
(vi)
The test sample is removed from the water and it is rolled in a large
absorbent cloth until all visible films of water are removed.
(vii)
The larger particles are wiped individually.
36
37
(viii) The weight of test sample in the saturated surface-dry condition is
recorded, B to the nearest 1.0g.
(ix)
After weighing, the saturated-dry surface test sample is place
immediately in the sample container and its weight in water is
determined, C.
(x)
The test sample is dried to constant weight at a temperature of
110±5ºC (230±9ºF).
(xi)
The sample is cooled in air at room temperature until the aggregate
has cooled to a temperature that is comfortable to handle and it is
weighed as A.
(xii)
Bulk specific gravity is calculated as follows:
Gmb = A / (B-C)
Where:
A = Weight of oven-dry test sample in air, g
B = Weight of saturated surfaced-dry test sample in air, g
C = Weight of saturated test sample in water, g
(xiii) Bulk specific gravity is calculated as follows:
Gma = A / (A-C)
3.6.2
Specific Gravity for Fine Aggregate
The specific gravity test for fine aggregate was conducted to determine the
value of bulk, SSD and apparent specific gravity. The equipment (Figure 3.8) and
procedures for determining the specific gravity and water absorption of fine
aggregates were described below according to ASTM C 128.
37
38
3.6.2.1 Apparatus
(i)
Balance having the capacity of 1kg with the accuracy of 0.1g;
(ii)
Pycnometer - A container into which the fine aggregate test sample
can be readily introduced and in which the volume content can be
reproduced within ±0.1cm3. The volume of container filled to mark
was at least 50% greater than the space required to accommodate the
test sample;
(iii)
Mould in the form of a frustrum of a cone with dimensions as follow:
40±3mm inside diameter at the top, 90±3mm inside diameter at the
bottom, and 75±3mm in height; and with the metal having a minimum
thickness of 0.8mm; and
(iv)
Tamper weighing 340±15g and having a flat circular face 25±3mm in
diameter.
Figure 3.8: Fine Analysis Equipment
3.6.2.2 Procedures
The procedure for determining the specific gravity of fine aggregate was as
follow:
(i)
500g weight of fine aggregates was placed in the container and 30g
(6% of the sample) of water was mixed to get a saturated surface dry
condition for 24 hours (Figure 3.9).
38
39
(ii)
Partially the pycnometer was partially filled with water.
(iii)
Immediately the pycnometer was introduced with the approximately
500g of saturated surface dry fine aggregate prepared.
(iv)
The additional water was filled to approximately 90% of capacity.
(v)
The pycnometer was rolled, inverted and agitated to eliminate all the
bubbles.
(vi)
The total weight of the pycnometer, specimen and water were
determined, C to the nearest 0.1g.
(vii)
The fine aggregate was removed from the pycnometer and was dried
to constant weight at a temperature of 110±5ºC (230±9ºF).
(viii) The fine aggregate was cooled in air at room temperature.
(ix)
The weight was record to the nearest 0.1g, A.
(x)
The weight of the pycnometer filled with water, B was recorded.
(xi)
Bulk specific gravity was calculated as defined in AASHTO M 132 as
follows:
Gmb = A / (B+S-C)
Where:
A = Weight of oven-dry specimen in air, g
B = Weight of pycnometer filled with water, g
C = Weight of pycnometer with specimen and water, g
S = Weight of saturated surface-dry specimen, g
(xii)
Apparent specific gravity was calculated as defined in AASHTO M
132 as follows:
Gma = A / (B+A-C)]
39
40
Figure 3.9: Procedures to determine SG for Fine Aggregate
3.7
Aggregate Structure Design
The objectives of this study was to design the aggregate structure using an
analytical aggregate gradation method that will allow a rational blending of different
sizes of aggregate to achieve an optimum aggregate structure for better mixture
performance. The Bailey method for aggregate gradations evaluation was utilized
for this purpose. Three aggregate structures was design for each aggregate type
(coarse, medium, and fine). The structure was design to meet the recommended
ranges of the Bailey method Parameters.
40
41
The aggregate in a dense graded asphalt mixture have the most significant
contribution in the load bearing capacity of an asphalt mixture. The aggregate also
determine the surface texture and skid resistance of the pavement (Kandhal and
Mallick, 2000).
The asphalt binder is used to cement the aggregate particles
together. The gradation of the asphalt mixture is the one major variable that the
designer can alter to give the properties desired.
Aggregate gradation is the
distribution of the aggregate particle sizes expressed as a percent of the total weight.
The gradation of the aggregate expressed as a percent of the total volume has the
most significance, but expressing the gradation as a percent by weight is easier to
calculate and is standard practice throughout the world. The gradation is determine
by sieve analysis and is expressed as a total percent passing each sieve size in
descending order. Total percent passing each sieve is the current recognized method
for describing aggregate gradation (Vavrik et al., 2002). A dense graded asphalt
mixture generally contains a combined gradation of several aggregates, since a single
aggregate generally will not provide all the desired properties for a dense graded
mixture.
The volume in the aggregate packing that allows for asphalt binder and air
voids is known as the VMA of the asphalt mixture. Dense graded HMA is usually a
blend of several aggregates (Cooper and Brown, 1991). In most cases no single
aggregate gradation will give all the properties that are desired of the asphalt mixture
(NAPA, 2002).
Dense graded HMA is a proportion of both coarse and fine
aggregates.
3.7.1
Aggregate Blending
Aggregate blending involved the process of proportioning the aggregates to
obtain the desired gradation that were well within the gradation limits. The gradation
limits for the mixes that were prepared as specified by JKR/SPJ/rev2005. For this
study, the mixes that were prepared are ACW10, ACW14, and ACB28. The mixes
combined coarse aggregates and fine aggregates.
A smooth curve within the
appropriate gradation envelope is desired.
41
42
3.8
Marshall Mix Design
The concept of Marshall method of designing paving mixtures was
formulated by Bruce Marshall. The procedure of Marshall design was standardized
by the American Society for Testing and Materials (Roberts et al., 1996). The main
purpose of design was to eliminate the OBC for each mixes. Marshall Method used
a standard test specimen of 102mm in diameter (4-inch) and 64mm in height
(2.5inch). These were prepared using a specified procedure for heating, mixing and
compacting the asphalt mixes. Marshall design was divided into two stages of
laboratory works which were sample preparation and testing. The procedure for the
Marshall design starts with the preparation of test samples. Six gradations were
prepared for each combination of aggregates and bitumen content for ACW 10 at
5.0%, 5.5%, 6.0%, 6.5%, and 7.0% and for ACW 14 at 4.0%, 4.5%, 5.0%, 5.5% and
6.0%. The samples were prepared using Marshall hammer compactor of 75 blows
per face. Total number of samples were prepared for this study, are described in the
Table 3.2 below.
Table 3.2: Total number of samples
Mix Type
3.8.1
Number of Samples
Marshall (Compacted Sample)
90
TMD (Loose Mix)
12
Total Samples
102
Marshall Mix Design Procedures
The equipment and procedures for preparing the Marshall compacted sample
were outlined in ASTM D 1559.
42
43
3.8.1.1 Apparatus
(i)
Pans, metal, flat bottom for heating aggregate;
(ii)
Pans, metal, round, approximately 4 liters capacity for mixing asphalt
and aggregate;
(iii)
Oven and hot plate, electric for heating aggregate, asphalt and
equipment as required;
(iv)
Scoop for batching aggregates;
(v)
Containers, gill types tins, beakers, pouring pots or sauce pans for
heating asphalt;
(vi)
Thermometers, armored, glass, or dial type with metal stem, 10ºC to
23ºC for determining temperature of aggregates, asphalt and asphalt
mixtures;
(vii)
Balance – To the nearest 0.1g;
(viii) Mixing spoon, large or trowel, small;
(ix)
Spatula;
(x)
Compaction pedestal;
(xi)
Compaction mould, consisting of a base plate, forming mould and
collar extension;
(xii)
Compaction Hammer, consisting of a flat circular tamping face
98.4mm in diameter and equipped with a 4.5kg weight constructed to
obtain a specified 457mm height of drop (Figure 3.10);
(xiii) Mould holder;
(xiv)
Oil grease for extruding compacted specimens from mould;
(xv)
Gloves;
(xvi)
Marking crayons for identifying test specimens; and
(xvii) Filter paper.
43
44
Figure 3.10: Automatic Marshall Compactor
3.8.1.2 Procedures
The procedures were:
(i)
Aggregates were dried in the oven at temperature of 160ºC to 170ºC
for at least 12 hours before blending process.
(ii)
Bitumen was melted at minimum temperatures 170°C (maximum
170°C±5°C) at least for 2 hours.
(iii)
Mould was heated at 160°C to 170°C before use. Filtration paper was
cut as mould size and put at the base of mould before it filled by mix
sample.
(iv)
Then, required amount of bitumen was added into the aggregate and
mixed for 2 to 3 minutes to yield a mix having a uniform distribution
of asphalt throughout at 150°C to 170°C.
(v)
Oil grease was spread on the inner surface of the mould and the filter
paper was put at base of mould.
44
45
(vi)
The blended mixes were put inside the mould and flat using the
spatula by penetrating it 15 times at perimeter mould and 10 times at
the middle of the mixes.
(vii)
When the temperature reaches 150°C, the filter paper was put at the
top of sample and the compaction was performed.
(viii) The compaction was performed at 75 blows for both top and the
bottom surface of the samples. Then samples were cooled or
maintained at room temperature for 24 hours before extrusion. Figure
3.11 below shows the Marshall procedures.
Figure 3.11: Marshall Procedures
45
46
3.8.2
Theoretical Maximum Density
The theoretical maximum density (TMD) was used to determine the void in
total mix (VTM) for the sample. The equipment and procedures for conducting
TMD test were referred in ASTM D 2041-91 (Figure 3.12). There are two methods
to determine the theoretical maximum density either using calculation or from
theoretical maximum density test. In this study, the calculation method was used to
obtain the theoretical maximum density value by using equation as follows:
TMD = A / (A+B+C)
Where:
A = Mass of oven dry sample in air, gram
B = Mass of vacuum container filled with water, gram
C = Mass of vacuum container filled with water and sample (after
vacuum), gram
Figure 3.12: Apparatus for TMD test
46
47
3.8.2.1 Apparatus
(i)
Vacuum Container;
(ii)
Balance;
(iii)
Vacuum pump or water aspirator;
(iv)
Residual pressure manometer;
(v)
Manometer or vacuum gauge;
(vi)
Thermometers;
(vii)
Water bath;
(viii) Bleeder valve; and
(ix)
Protective gloves.
3.8.2.2 Procedures
(i)
A weighed sample of oven dry paving mixture in the loose condition
was placed in a tarred vacuum vessel.
Sufficient water at a
temperature of 25±4°C was added to completely submerge the
sample.
(ii)
Vacuum was applied 15 minutes to gradually reduce the residual
pressure in the vacuum vessel to 30 mm of Hg or less.
(iii)
At the end of the vacuum period, the vacuum was gradually released.
(iv)
The volume of the sample of paving mixture was obtained either by
immersing the vacuum container with sample into a water bath and
weighing or by filling the vacuum container level full of water and
weighing in air.
At the time of weighing the temperature was
measured as well as the mass.
(v)
From the mass and volume measurements the specific gravity or
density at 25°C was calculated. If the temperature employed was
different from 25°C, an appropriate correction is applied.
47
48
3.8.3
Flow and Stability Test
This test method covers the measurement of the resistance to plastic flow of
cylindrical samples of bituminous mix loaded on the lateral surface by means of the
Marshall apparatus. Marshal stability was generally the maximum load carried by a
compacted sample tested at 60°C at a loading rate of 2 inches/minute. The flow was
measured at the same time as the Marshall stability. The flow was equal to the
vertical deformation of the sample. High flow values generally indicate a plastic mix
that was experience permanent deformation under traffic, whereas low flow values
may indicate a mix with higher than normal voids and insufficient asphalt for
durability and one that may experience premature cracking due to mix brittleness
during the life of the pavement. The flow and stability value of each test sample was
determined in accordance with ASTM D 1559.
3.8.3.1 Apparatus
(i)
Marshall testing head consist of upper and lower segments;
(ii)
Flow meter;
(iii)
Thermometer with a range from 20°C to 70°C;
(iv)
Rubber gloves to remove specimens from water bath;
(v)
Compression machine; and
(vi)
Water bath (Figure 3.13).
Figure 3.13: Water bath
48
49
3.8.3.2 Procedures
(i)
Specimen was immersed in the water bath with the temperature
maintain at 60±1°C for 45 minutes.
(ii)
The guide rods and the test heads thoroughly were cleaned prior
conducted the test. Besides, the guide rods were lubricated so that the
upper test slid freely over them. The testing-head temperature was
suggested to maintain at 21°C to 38°C.
(iii)
Specimen then was extracted from the water bath and was dried
before placing it in the lower testing head. After that, the upper
testing head placed on the specimen and the complete assembly then
was located in position on the testing machine (Figure 3.14).
(iv)
The flow meter was placed in position over one of the guide rods and
then the flow meter was adjusted to zero. While the test load was
being applied, the flow meter sleeve needed to be held firmly against
the testing heads upper segment.
(v)
The flow meter reading was recorded before the specimen was being
loaded.
(vi)
The load at a constant rate of testing head movement of 50.8mm per
minute was applied to the specimen until the maximum load reading
was obtained and the load decreased as indicated by the dial.
(vii)
Afterward, the maximum load until it began to decrease was noted or
being converted from the maximum micrometer dial reading.
(viii) The last reading at the flow meter was recorded. The last value of
flow meter was deducted to the earliest value, which indicated as a
flow value in mm unit.
(ix)
The elapsed time started from specimen removal from water bath to
maximum load being determined shall not exceed 30s.
49
50
Figure 3.14: Machine for flow and stability test
3.9
Data Analysis
In the Marshall method each compacted sample was subjected the following
analysis:
(i)
Bulk Specific Gravity;
(ii)
Void in Total Mix (VTM);
(iii)
Void Filled with Bitumen (VFB);
(iv)
Void in Mineral Aggregate (VMA);
(v)
Stability; and
(vi)
Flow.
50
51
3.9.1
Bulk Specific Gravity
After compaction, the sample was removed from the mould and cooled at
room temperature.
Bulk specific density was determined using the following
equation:
Specific Gravity = A / (B-C)
Where:
A = Weight of dry sample in air
B = Weight of saturated surface dry sample
C = Weight sample in water
3.9.2
Void Filled with Bitumen
Voids fill with bitumen (VFB) is the percentage of void volume filled with
bitumen. The equation in determining the VFB is as follows:
VFB = [1 – (Gmm*PA / Gmb)] x 100
Where:
3.9.3
Gmm
= Theoretical Maximum Density
PA
= Aggregate Percentage
Gmb
= Aggregate Bulk Specific Gravity
Void in Total Mix
Void in total mix(VTM) for hot mix asphalt mixture was defined as void
volume between the aggregates coated by bitumen. The equation in determining the
VTM is as follows:
VTM = [1 - (Gmb / Gmm)] x 100
Where:
Gmb
= Bulk Specific Gravity
Gmm
= Theoretical Maximum Density
51
52
3.9.4
Void in Mineral Aggregate
Void in Mineral Aggregate (VMA) may be defined as the volume of
intergranular void space between the aggregate particles of a compacted paving
mixture that include air voids and the effective bitumen content (volume of bitumen
not absorbed into the aggregate). It was expressed as a percent of the total volume of
the specimen. This value can be obtained using the following formula:
VMA = 100 – [Gmb x Ps / Gsb]
Where:
3.9.5
Gmb
= Bulk specific gravity of compacted mixture
Gsb
= Combined bulk specific gravity of the total aggregate
Ps
= Percent of aggregate in the mixture
Determination of Optimum Bitumen Content
The average values of bulk specific gravity, stability, flow, VFB, and VMA
obtained were plotted separately against the bitumen content and smooth curve were
drawn through the plotted values. The mean optimum bitumen content for ACW10
and ACW14 was determined by averaging four optimum bitumen contents as
specified in JKR/SPJ/2007.
Determination of OBC for ACW mixes:
(i)
Peak of curve taken from stability graph;
(ii)
Flow equals to 3mm from the flow graph;
(iii)
Peak of curve taken from the bulk specific gravity graph; and
(iv)
VTM equals to 4% from the VTM graph.
The individual test values for stability, flow, stiffness, VTM and VFB at the
optimum bitumen content then were determined from the plotted smooth curves and
compare with the desired design criteria. If any of the values do not comply with the
specification, the mix design procedures were repeated until all the design
parameters were satisfied.
52
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1
Introduction
This chapter includes the analysis of all the results and discussion of the
result obtains from the analysis. The several tests were obtained to determine the
Marshall properties for ACW14 (coarse, medium and fine) and ACW10 (coarse,
medium and fine). That includes mixture design data and gradation analysis, results
from the laboratory tests presented and discussed in the previous chapter, and the
effect of the different mixture parameters on those test results.
4.2
Materials Preparation
Mixtures designed were performed on all the aggregate gradations that were
formulated using the Bailey method of aggregate gradation and evaluation. The
ACW 14 and ACW 10 were divided to three gradations (coarse, medium and fine)
were choosing in this study to get the Marshall properties with aggregate gradations
design using the Bailey method. Penetrations 80/100 were used as bituminous binder
in this study. The bitumen contents for all of the samples were ranged between 4–
6% for ACW 14 and 5-7% for ACW 10 with 0.5% increment according to
JKR/SPJ/rev2005. The dense graded were choosing in this study to analyzed the
different gradation (coarse, medium and fine) which follow the JKR specifications.
54
All the properties of the materials used were measured for further analysis purposes.
Laboratory test were conducted to determine the Marshall properties of the mixes
according to the specifications referred to JKR, ASTM and ASSTHO. Data from the
test were analyzed and results were compared with Malaysian Standard (JKR
specification).
4.2.1
Aggregate
The aggregate used in this study based on the gradation from ACW 14 and
ACW 10 which referred to JKR specification. The aggregates were supplied by
MRP Quarry which located at Ulu Choh, Johor. A sample aggregate for each
stockpile were blend together to determine the proportion specification for ACW 14
and ACW 10. As a result, the gradations of blended aggregate obtained (medium,
coarse and fine) were use into design mix in order to determine the volumetric and
Marshall properties of the mixes.
4.2.1.1 Gradation Analysis
As mentioned earlier, the aggregate gradations designed using the Bailey
methods were further evaluated by the power law gradation evaluation method. The
methods look at distinct regions in the gradation curve and describe them using one
that are related to the size distribution of the aggregates in those particular regions.
The correlation between the parameters describing the fine portion of the aggregate
gradation curve is, however, relatively weak. This is not unexpected since the FAC
from the Bailey method describes the middle portion of the curve only while the
parameters from the power law method considers the whole portion of the gradation
curve from the divider sieve to the No.200 sieve (Vavrik et al., 2002). In other
words, the fine parameters from the two methods describe different regions of the
gradation curve and, thus are not expected to correlate well with each others.
Table4.1, 4.2 and Figure 4.1, 4.2 shows the combination of gradation.
54
55
Table 4.1: Combination Gradation Limit for ACW 10
Sieve
Sieve Size
Lower
Upper
% Passing
% Passing
% Passing
Size
^0.45
Limit
Limit
Medium
Coarse
Fine
14
3.279
100
100
100
100
100
10
2.818
90
100
95
97
91
5
2.063
58
72
65
60
68
3.35
1.723
48
64
56
49
60
1.18
1.077
22
40
31
24
36
0.425
0.680
12
26
19
15
23
0.15
0.426
6
14
10
9
12
0.075
0.312
4
8
6
6
6
ACW10
120
% Passing
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
0.45^Sieve Size
Lower Limit
% Passing Medium
% Passing Fine
Upper Limit
% Passing Coarse
Figure 4.1: Combination of Gradation Limit for ACW 10
55
56
Table 4.2: Gradation Limit for ACW 14
Sieve
Sieve Size
Lower
Upper
% Passing
% Passing
% Passing
Size
^0.45
Limit
Limit
Medium
Coarse
Fine
20
3.850
100
100
100
100
100
14
3.279
90
100
95
98
92
10
2.818
76
86
81
85
79
5
2.063
50
62
56
51
54
3.35
1.723
40
54
47
40
48
1.18
1.077
18
34
26
20
31
0.425
0.680
12
24
18
13
20
0.15
0.426
6
14
10
9
12
0.075
0.312
4
8
6
6
6
ACW 14
% P a s s in g
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
0.45^Sieve Size
Lower Limit
% Passing Medium
% Passing Fine
Upper Limit
% Passing Coarse
Figure 4.2: Combination of Gradation Limit for ACW 14
56
57
4.2.1.2 Washed Sieve Analysis
Washed sieve analyses were conducted to determine the filler content
(material passing 75 µm) that needed in the mixture and the amount of filler which
stick to the coarse aggregate according to ASTM C 117. Filler used in this research
were dust and hydrated lime. The amounts of filler content needed in each mixes in
this research are shown in Table 4.3. All the detail calculations in determining the
filler content were attached in Appendix B.
Table 4.3: Mass of dust in washed sieve analysis
Sample
Mass of Dust -1200 g
Mass of Dust-TMD (1500 g)
ACW10 Coarse
14.5
20.1
ACW10 Medium
17.9
22.4
ACW10 Fine
17.8
24.2
ACW14 Coarse
15.8
21.4
ACW14 Medium
18.05
22.5
ACW14 Fine
19.6
27.65
4.2.1.3 Specific Gravity
Specific gravity and absorption of aggregates were determine and analyzed
according to ASTM C 127 for coarse aggregates and ASTM C 128 for fine
aggregates. Detail calculations of the specific gravity were attached in the Appendix
C.
The average specific gravity for each materials used in this research are
summarized in Table 4.4(a) and Table 4.4(b).
Table 4.4(a): Specific Gravity of materials for ACW10
Material
Aggregate Coarse
Specific Gravity
2.578
Aggregate Fine
2.574
57
58
Table 4.4(b): Specific Gravity of materials for ACW14
4.3
Material
Aggregate Coarse
Specific Gravity
2.576
Aggregate Fine
2.733
Marshall Sample
The equipments and procedures for preparing the Marshall were referred to
ASTM D 1559. Two types of mixtures were prepared which are ACW14 and
ACW10, and both of mixtures divided by 3 gradations (fine, medium and coarse)
4.3.1
Sample Preparation
Three types of mixtures were prepared by different gradation which is fine,
medium and coarse. Three samples were prepared for each bitumen contents which
have ranged between 5 – 7% for ACW10 and 4-6% for ACW14, all of this sample in
order to obtain the OBC as shown in Appendix D.
4.3.2
Determination of Optimum Bitumen Content
Marshall mixtures design method is to obtain the OBC from various asphalt
content. OBC were determined using NAPA procedure where the design OBC were
determine as the bitumen content required achieving 4% air void (VTM). OBC from
Marshall mixture design method for ACW10 Medium was found to be 5.5%, Coarse
at 5.1%, Fine at 5.1% and OBC for ACW14 for Medium at 4.4%, Coarse at 4.8%
and Fine at 4.3%. The results of OBC of different gradation are summarized in
Table 4.5. From the results, the value of OBC for ACW10 is higher than ACW14. It
is because aggregate size for ACW 10 is smaller than ACW 14. When the OBC is
58
59
increase, the durability also increases. In term of stability and stiffness, the medium
gradation (control mix) shows better result compare to coarse and fine, it is because
the stability value increases with increasing asphalt content. VMA decrease to a
minimum value and then it increase with increasing asphalt content. This results
indicate that for the ACW10 mixes, it increase the durability because the content of
bitumen for ACW10 is 5-7. All the graphs for determination of optimum bitumen
content at 4% air void were shown in Appendix E.
Table 4.5: Optimum Bitumen Content for ACW10 and ACW14
Optimum bitumen Content (OBC)
Types
Medium (M)
Coarse (C)
Fine (F)
5.5
4.4
5.1
4.8
5.1
4.3
ACW 10
ACW 14
4.3.3
Theoretical Maximum Density
Theoretical Maximum Density test were conducted using the Rice Method
at 5% and 6% bitumen content for ACW 14 and ACW 10 each mixes. The TMD
tests were conducted twice to verify the results. Size of the sample were determined
according to ASTM D 2041 based on the size of largest particle of aggregate in the
mixes. The sample weights used in this study were 1500gram. The full results for
TMD were shown in Appendix F.
4.3.4
Results of Volumetric Properties
Volumetric properties of HMA consist of VMA, VTM and VFB. Based on
the result obtained, relationship between volumetric properties (Stability, Stiffness,
Flow, VTM and VFB) and Bitumen Content were evaluated. Then from the VTM
graph the optimum bitumen content that most improve the HMA mixes were
determined.
Results indicate all the volumetric properties values obtained for
59
60
modified mixes were almost the same as conventional mix. The values of volumetric
properties slightly increased and decreased inconsistently based on size of aggregate
gradation but still within the specification range. The rest of the parameters were
subjected to the OBC respectively and in compliance with JKR Specification. The
results of volumetric properties of OBC are summarizing in Table 4.6(a) and 4.6(b).
Table 4.6 (a): Marshall mix design results of the ACW10 mixes
Volumetric properties
OBC (%)
Stability, S (kg)
Flow, F (mm)
Stiffness (kg/mm)
VTM (%)
VFB (%)
VMA (%)
Specification
Medium
Coarse
Fine
5.5
5.1
5.1
13650
12500
13400
> 8000
1.4
2.1
2.1
2.0 – 4.0 mm
9700
5800
6000
> 2000 N/mm
4
4%
4%
3.0% - 5.0%
72
76%
75%
70% - 80%
16.7
15.2
15.1
-
(JKR/SPJ/2007)
Table 4.6 (b): Marshall mix design results of the ACW14 mixes
Volumetric properties
OBC (%)
Stability, S (kg)
Flow, F (mm)
Stiffness (kg/mm)
VTM (%)
VFB (%)
VMA (%)
Specification
Medium
Coarse
Fine
4.4
4.8
4.3
15250
11700
14400
> 8000
1.3
1.8
1.8
2.0 – 4.0 mm
11500
5700
8100
> 2000 N/mm
4%
4%
4%
3.0% - 5.0%
72%
73%
71%
70% - 80%
14.5
15.2
13.7
-
(JKR/SPJ/2007)
Adhering to the recommended Bailey ratios produced satisfactory results in
terms of volumetric for coarse mixtures. Fine and Medium mixtures however had
lower VMA than the current JKR Specification. The results are approved by Bailey
definitions which are for large aggregate particles that when placed in a unit volumes
create voids.
60
61
Analysis Volumetric Properties Based on R Square
Coarse aggregate, which is predominantly a function of the coarse aggregate
blend by volume, seems to have the strongest correlations with mixture volumetric.
As the Coarse aggregate ratio increases, the smaller size particles in the coarse
portion of the aggregate structure become dominant, creating an inverse effect on the
main volumetric parameters VMA.
As shown in Figure 4.3 strong correlation
between VMA and Bitumen Content (R2 for Coarse = 0.9948) in which VMA is
increase by having high bitumen content. For Figure 4.4 is the correlation between
VMA and Bitumen Content for Coarse (R2 =0.9948).
VTM vs Bitumen Content
7
6
VTM (%)
5
R2 = 0.9948
4
VTM (M)
R2 = 0.9738
3
VTM ( C)
VTM (F)
2
1
R 2 = 0.9418
0
4
5
6
7
8
Bit. Content (%)
Figure 4.3: VTM vs Bit. Content for ACW 10 (R Square Result)
VTM vs Bitumen Content
7
VTM (% )
6
R2 = 0.991
5
R2 = 0.9948
4
VTM (M)
VTM ( C )
3
VTM (F)
2
1
R2 = 0.9941
0
3
4
5
6
7
Bit. Content (%)
Figure 4.4: VTM vs Bit. Content for ACW 14 (R Square Result)
61
62
As shown in Figure 4.5, strong correlation between VMA and Bitumen
Content (R2 for Coarse = 0.983) in which VMA is increase by having high bitumen
content. For Figure 4.6 also same which is the correlation between VMA and
Bitumen Content for Coarse (R2 = 0.8602) and Medium (R2 =0.8729) in which VMA
increase by having high bitumen content.
VMA vs Bitumen Content
18
17.5
VMA (%)
17
R2 = 0.7771
16.5
16
VMA (M)
VMA ( C )
R2 = 0.983
15.5
VMA (F)
15
R 2 = 0.9037
14.5
14
4
5
6
7
8
Bit. Content (%)
Figure 4.5: VMA vs Bit. Content for ACW 10 (R Square Result)
VMA vs Bitumen Content
16
R2 = 0.8602
V M A (% )
15.5
15
VMA (M)
14.5
VMA ( C )
R2 = 0.8729
VMA (F)
14
13.5
R2 = 0.7358
13
3
4
5
6
7
Bit. Content (%)
Figure 4.6: VMA vs Bit. Content for ACW 14 (R Square Result)
62
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1
Conclusions
Based on this study, this report documents the findings of an extensive study
on design and characterization of asphalt mixtures for use as road pavement material.
Several aspects of asphalt mixtures were addressed using laboratory test equipment
and technical literature from different information sources. From this limited study,
result shows that the OBC for ACW10 is higher more than AWC14, it is because
aggregate size for ACW10 is smaller than ACW14.
The analysis shows that the results for this study still follow the JKR
Specification but still need further study. The findings of this study are summarized
as follows:
(i)
A simplified design approach was recommended in which asphalt
mixtures are designed based on an analytical aggregate gradation
method and fundamental performance tests that describe the behavior
of asphalt mixtures based on sound engineering principles.
(ii)
The Bailey method provides a rational approach of aggregate blending
and evaluation.
(iii)
Adhering to the currently recommended Bailey ratios, results in terms
of volumetric shows that the coarse graded mixtures is more in line
with the generally accepted levels of JKR specification. Fine and
64
medium mixtures however, had lower VMA than the current Marshall
recommendations.
(iv)
CA ratio, a gradation parameter from the Bailey method which is
predominantly a function of the coarse aggregate blend by volume,
seems to have the strongest correlations with mixtures volumetric.
The strongest correlation was the VMA. Mixtures volumetric seems
to be less sensitive to the change in the other gradation parameter for
fine aggregate ratio.
5.2
Recommendations
It is recommended that further studies be conducted on a variety of gradation
type such as for gap graded and open graded and also on a variety of bitumen type
such as PG76, PG70 and etc. This study provides a foundation for more elaborate
work on developing mixture design methodologies that can reliably produce asphalt
mixtures with performance characteristics that matches the demand of the
transportation industry. This method will provide the opportunity to monitor the
performance of the designed asphalt mixtures over time as a part of a full pavement
structure with different structural properties and thickness design.
64
65
REFERENCES
Alshamsi, K. (2006). Development of a Mix Design Methodology for Asphalt
Mixtures with Analytically Formulated Aggregate Structures. Journal of
Association of Asphalt Paving Technology.
Alshamsi, K., Mohammad, L. N., Wu, Z., Cooper, S., and Abadie, C., (2006).
Compactability and Performance of Superpave Mixtures With Aggregate
Structures Designed Using the Bailey Method. Journal of Association of Asphalt
Paving Technology.
Aurilio, V., William, J. P. and Lum, P. (2005). “The Bailey Method Achieving
Volumetric and HMA Compactability”, Course Materials and Handouts.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (2000).
Determination of Draindown Characteristics in Uncompacted Asphalt Mixtures.
Washington D. C. AASHTO T 305.
Asphalt Institute (2001). HMA Construction: Marshall Method. Manual Series No.
22 (MS-22). Lexington, KY
American Society for Testing and Materials (1992). Standard Test Method for
Materials Finer than 75-μm (No. 200) Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing.
Philadelphia, ASTM C 117.
American Society for Testing and Materials (1992). Standard Test Method for
Specific Gravity and Absorption of Coarse Aggregate. Philadelphia, ASTM C
127.
American Society for Testing and Materials (1992). Standard Test Method for
Specific Gravity and Absorption of Fine Aggregate. Philadelphia, ASTM C 128.
American Society for Testing and Materials (1992). Standard Test Method for Bulk
Specific Gravity and Density of Compacted Bituminous Mixtures Using Saturated
Surface-Dry Specimens. Philadelphia, ASTM D 2726.
American Society for Testing and Materials (1992). Standard Test Method for
65
66
Theoretical Maximum Specific Gravity and Density of Bituminous Paving
Mixtures. Philadelphia, ASTM D 2041.
American Society for Testing and Materials (1992).Method for Sieve analysis for
Fine and Coarse Aggregate.. Philadelphia, ASTM C 136.
Baladi, G. Y., Lyles R. W. and Harichandran, R. S., (1998), “Asphalt Mix Design:
An Innovative Approach”. The 67th Annual Meeting of the Transportation
Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D. C., January 11-14.
Cooper, K. E. and Brown, S. F., (1991). “Development of a Practical Method for the
Design of Hot Mix Asphalt”. The Annual Meeting of the Transportation
Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Dukatz, E. L., (1989) “ Aggregate Properties Related to Pavement Performance”.
The Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Vol 58.
Garber, N. J., and Hoel, L. A. (2002). Traffic and highway Engineering. (3rd ed.)
United States of America: Brooks/Cole.
Hanson, D. I., Mallick, R.B. and Brown, E. R., (1994) . Five-Year Evaluation of
HMA Properties at the AAMAS Test Projects., Transportation Research Record,
No. 1454, pp. 143-143.
Hveem, F. N., (1946)” The Centrifuge Kerosene Equivalent as Used in Establishing
the Oil Content for Dense Graded Bituminous Mixtures” A report prepared for
the State of California, Department of Public Works, Division of Highways.
Ishai, I., and Tons, E., (1971), Aggregate Factors in Bituminous Mixture Designs.
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Report 335140-1-F.
Jabatan
Kerja
Raya,
(2005).
Standard
Specifications
for
Road
Works,
JKR/SPJ/rev2005. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Kandhal, P. S., and Mallick, R. B., (2000), “ Effect of Mix Gradation on Rutting
Potential of Dense Graded Asphalt Mixtures”, 80th annual meeting of the
Transportation research Board, Washington, D. C.
Kandhal, P. S and Cross, S. A., (1993). “Effect of Aggregate Gradation on Measured
Asphalt Content”, NCAT Report No. 93-1.
Kandhal, P. S., Foo, K. Y., and Mallick, R. B., (1998). Critical Review of the Voids
in Mineral Aggregate Requirements in Superpave. In Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1609, TRB, National
Research Council, pp. 21–27.
66
67
Lavin, P. G., (2003). Asphalt Pavements: A Practical Guide to Design, Production,
and Maintenance for Engineers and Architects: London: Spon Pess
National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA).”A Guide for Hot Mix Asphalt
Pavement”. Information Series 131, 2002.
Roberts, F. L., Mohammad, L. N., and Wang, L. B., (2002). “History of Hot Mix
Asphalt Mixture Design in the United States”. 150th Anniversary Paper,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering,
Vol. 14, No. 4.
Roberts, F. L., Kandhal, P. S., Brown, E. R., Lee, D. Y., and Kennedy, T. W., (1996).
Hot Mix Asphalt Materials, Mixture Design and Construction. (2nd ed.) NAPA
Research and education Foundation: Lanham, Maryland.
Thompson, G., (2006). Investigation of the Bailey Method for the Design and
Analysis of Dense Graded Hot Mix Asphalt Concrete Using Oregon Aggregate:
Final Report, SPR 304-311.
Tons, E., and Goetz, W. H., (1968), “Packing Volume Concepts for Aggregates,”
Highway Research Record 236, pp. 79 – 96.
Transportation Research Board Circular No. E-C044. “Bailey Method for Gradation
Selection in Hot-Mix Asphalt Mixture Design”. Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC, October 2002.
Vavrik, W. R., and Carpenter, S. H.,(1998). Calculating Air Voids at Specified
Number of Gyrations in Superpave Gyratory Compactor. In Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1630,
TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC, pp. 117–125.
Vavrik, W. R., Pine, W. J., Huber, G. A., Carpenter, S. H., and Bailey, R., (2001).
The Bailey Method of Gradation Evaluation: The Influence of Aggregate
Gradation and Packing Characteristics on Voids in the Mineral Aggregate.
Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Vol. 70, pp. 132–
175.
Vavrik, W. R., Huber, G. A., Pine, W. J., Carpenter, S. H., and Bailey, R., (2002).
Bailey Method for Gradation Selection in HMA Mixture Design. Transportation
Research Circular E-C044. Bailey Method for Gradation Selection in Hot-Mix
Asphalt Mixture Design, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.,p 1.
67
APPENDIX A
AGGREGATE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND DETERMINATION OF FILLER
ACW 14
MEDIUM
Sieve
Size
^0.45
(mm)
20.0
14.0
10.0
5
3.35
1.180
0.425
0.150
0.075
3.850
3.279
2.818
2.063
1.723
1.077
0.680
0.426
0.312
Gradation
Limit
%
Passing
%
Retained
Lower Upper
100
100
90
100
76
86
50
62
40
54
18
34
12
24
6
14
4
8
100
95
81
56
47
26
18
10
6
5
14
25
9
21
8
8
4
Passing (g)
1200
1140
972
672
564
312
216
120
72
Pan (gram)
Before
After
=
=
Before
After
=
=
Washed-sieve Analysis
1) Mass of blended aggregates (gram):
Aggregate Dust (gram):
2) Mass of blended aggregates (gram):
Mass
Aggregate Dust (gram):
Average Aggregate Dust (gram):
Average Filler Content (gram) = Pan - Average Aggregate Dust
Antistripping Agent (OPC) = 24 gram (2% * 1200)
Weight of pan used (gram) = Average filler content – OPC
Total Aggregate Weight (gram) = Filler + Total Agg. Retained
Marshall
Mass
Mass Retained
Retained
on Each Sieve
(g)
(g)
0
0
60
60
228
168
528
300
636
108
888
252
984
96
1080
96
1128
48
72
Gram
1128.8
1110.6
18.2
1130.6
1112.7
17.9
18.05
53.95
24
29.95
1181.95
Mass
Passing
(g)
1500
1425
1215
840
705
390
270
150
90
Before
After
=
=
Before
After
=
=
TMD(1500)
Mass
Mass Retained
Retained
on each Sieve
(g)
(g)
0
0
75
75
285
210
660
375
795
135
1110
315
1230
120
1350
120
1410
60
90
1410
1387.3
22.7
1410
1387.7
22.3
22.5
67.5
30
37.5
1477.5
68
AGGREGATE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND DETERMINATION OF FILLER
ACW 10MEDIUM
Sieve
Size
^0.45
(mm)
14.0
10.0
5
3.35
1.180
0.425
0.150
0.075
3.279
2.818
2.063
1.723
1.077
0.680
0.426
0.312
Gradation
Limit
Lower
100
90
58
48
22
12
6
4
Upper
100
100
72
64
40
26
14
8
Washed-sieve Analysis
1) Mass of blended aggregates (gram):
Aggregate Dust (gram):
2) Mass of blended aggregates (gram):
%
Passing
%
Retained
100
95
65
56
31
19
10
6
5
14
25
9
21
8
8
4
Mass
Passing (g)
1200
1140
780
672
372
228
120
72
Pan (gram)
Before
After
=
=
Before
After
=
=
Aggregate Dust (gram):
Average Aggregate Dust (gram):
Average Filler Content (gram) = Pan - Average Aggregate Dust
Antistripping Agent (OPC) = 24 gram (2% * 1200)
Weight of pan used (gram) = Average filler content – OPC
Total Aggregate Weight (gram) = Filler + Total Agg. Retained
Marshall
Mass
Retained
(g)
0
60
420
528
828
972
1080
1128
72
1129.3
1111
18.3
1128.2
1110.7
17.5
17.9
54.1
24
30.1
1182.1
TMD(1500)
Mass
Mass Retained
Mass Retained
Mass
on Each Sieve (g)
0
60
360
108
300
144
108
48
gram
Passing (g)
1500
1425
975
840
465
285
150
90
Pan(gram)
Retained (g)
0
75
525
660
1035
1215
1350
1410
90
Before
After
=
=
Before
After
=
=
1410
1387.1
22.9
1410
1388.2
21.8
22.4
67.7
30
37.7
1477.7
on each Sieve (g)
0
75
450
135
375
180
135
60
gram
69
AGGREGATE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND DETERMINATION OF FILLER
ACW 14COARSE
Sieve
Size
^0.45
(mm)
20.0
14.0
10.0
5
3.35
1.180
0.425
0.150
0.075
3.850
3.279
2.818
2.063
1.723
1.077
0.680
0.426
0.312
Gradation
Limit
Lower
100
90
76
50
40
18
12
6
4
Upper
100
100
86
62
54
34
24
14
8
Washed-sieve Analysis
1) Mass of blended aggregates (gram):
Aggregate Dust (gram):
2) Mass of blended aggregates (gram):
%
Passing
%
Retained
100
98
85
51
40
20
13
9
6
2
13
34
11
20
7
4
3
Mass
Passing
(g)
1200
1176
1020
612
480
240
156
108
72
Pan (gram)
Before
After
=
=
Before
After
=
=
Aggregate Dust (gram):
Average Aggregate Dust (gram):
Average Filler Content (gram) = Pan - Average Aggregate Dust
Antistripping Agent (OPC) = 24 gram (2% * 1200)
Weight of pan used (gram) = Average filler content - OPC
Total Aggregate Weight (gram) = Filler + Total Agg. Retained
Marshall
Mass
Mass Retained
Mass
Passing
(g)
1500
1470
1275
765
600
300
195
135
90
Retained (g)
0
24
180
588
720
960
1044
1092
1128
72
on Each Sieve (g)
0
24
156
408
132
240
84
48
36
gram
1129.3
1113.4
15.9
1128.6
1112.9
15.7
15.8
56.2
24
32.2
1184.2
Before
After
=
=
Before
After
=
=
TMD(1500)
Mass
Mass Retained
Retained (g)
0
30
225
735
900
1200
1305
1365
1410
90
on each Sieve (g)
0
30
195
510
165
300
105
60
45
1410.7
1390.3
20.4
1410.2
1387.8
22.4
21.4
68.6
30
38.6
1478.6
70
AGGREGATE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND DETERMINATION OF FILLER
ACW 10COARSE
Sieve
Size
^0.45
(mm)
14.0
10.0
5
3.35
1.180
0.425
0.150
0.075
3.279
2.818
2.063
1.723
1.077
0.680
0.426
0.312
Gradation
Limit
Lower
100
90
58
48
22
12
6
4
Upper
100
100
72
64
40
26
14
8
Washed-sieve Analysis
1) Mass of blended aggregates
(gram):
Aggregate Dust (gram):
2) Mass of blended aggregates
(gram):
%
Passing
%
Retained
100
97
60
49
24
15
9
6
0
3
37
11
25
9
6
3
Mass
Passing
(g)
1200
1164
720
588
288
180
108
72
Pan (gram)
Marshall
Mass
Mass Retained
Retained
on Each Sieve
(g)
(g)
0
0
36
36
480
444
612
132
912
300
1020
108
1092
72
1128
36
72
gram
Mass
Passing
(g)
1500
1455
900
735
360
225
135
90
Pan(gram)
TMD(1500)
Mass
Mass Retained
Retained
(g)
on each Sieve (g)
0
0
45
45
600
555
765
165
1140
375
1275
135
1365
90
1410
45
90
gram
Before
After
=
=
1128
1112.5
15.5
Before
After
=
=
1410
1390.2
19.8
Before
After
=
=
1128.2
1114.7
13.5
14.5
57.5
Before
After
=
=
1410
1389.2
20.8
20.3
69.7
Aggregate Dust (gram):
Average Aggregate Dust (gram):
Average Filler Content (gram) = Pan - Average Aggregate Dust
Antistripping Agent (OPC) = 24 gram (2% *
1200)
Weight of pan used (gram) = Average filler content - OPC
Total Aggregate Weight (gram) = Filler + Total Agg. Retained
24
33.5
1185.5
30
39.7
1479.7
71
AGGREGATE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND DETERMINATION OF FILLER
ACW 14FINE
Sieve
Size
^0.45
(mm)
20.0
14.0
10.0
5
3.35
1.180
0.425
0.150
0.075
3.850
3.279
2.818
2.063
1.723
1.077
0.680
0.426
0.312
Gradation
Limit
%
%
Passing Retained
Lower Upper
100
100
90
100
76
86
50
62
40
54
18
34
12
24
6
14
4
8
Washed-sieve Analysis
1) Mass of blended aggregates (gram):
Aggregate Dust (gram):
2) Mass of blended aggregates (gram):
100
92
79
54
48
31
20
12
6
8
13
25
6
17
11
8
6
Mass
Passing
(g)
1200
1104
948
648
576
372
240
144
72
Pan (gram)
Before
After
=
=
Before
After
=
=
Aggregate Dust (gram):
Average Aggregate Dust (gram):
Average Filler Content (gram) = Pan - Average Aggregate Dust
Antistripping Agent (OPC) = 24 gram (2% * 1200)
Weight of pan used (gram) = Average filler content – OPC
Total Aggregate Weight (gram) = Filler + Total Agg. Retained
Marshall
Mass
Mass Retained
Retained
on Each Sieve
(g)
(g)
0
0
96
96
252
156
552
300
624
72
828
204
960
132
1056
96
1128
72
72
gram
1128
1108.1
19.9
1128
1108.7
19.3
19.6
52.4
24
28.4
1180.4
Mass
Passing
(g)
1500
1380
1185
810
720
465
300
180
90
Before
After
=
=
Before
After
=
=
TMD(1500)
Mass
Mass Retained
Retained
(g)
on each Sieve (g)
0
0
120
120
315
195
690
375
780
90
1035
255
1200
165
1320
120
1410
90
90
1410
1381.0
29.0
1410
1383.7
26.3
27.7
62.4
30
32.4
1472.4
72
AGGREGATE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND DETERMINATION OF FILLER
ACW 10FINE
Sieve
Size
^0.45
(mm)
14.0
10.0
5
3.35
1.180
0.425
0.150
0.075
3.279
2.818
2.063
1.723
1.077
0.680
0.426
0.312
Gradation
Limit
%
%
Passing Retained
Lower Upper
100
100
90
100
58
72
48
64
22
40
12
26
6
14
4
8
Washed-sieve Analysis
1) Mass of blended aggregates (gram):
Aggregate Dust (gram):
2) Mass of blended aggregates (gram):
100
91
68
60
36
23
12
6
0
9
23
8
24
13
11
6
Mass
Passing
(g)
1200
1092
816
720
432
276
144
72
Pan (gram)
Before
After
=
=
Before
After
=
=
Aggregate Dust (gram):
Average Aggregate Dust (gram):
Average Filler Content (gram) = Pan - Average Aggregate Dust
Antistripping Agent (OPC) = 24 gram (2% * 1200)
Weight of pan used (gram) = Average filler content – OPC
Total Aggregate Weight (gram) = Filler + Total Agg. Retained
Marshall
Mass
Mass Retained
Retained
on Each Sieve
(g)
(g)
0
0
108
108
384
276
480
96
768
288
924
156
1056
132
1128
72
72
gram
1128
1110.3
17.7
1128
1110.1
17.9
17.8
54.2
24
30.2
1182.2
Mass
Passing
(g)
1500
1365
1020
900
540
345
180
90
Pan(gram)
Before
After
=
=
Before
After
=
=
TMD(1500)
Mass
Mass Retained
Retained
(g)
on each Sieve (g)
0
0
135
135
480
345
600
120
960
360
1155
195
1320
165
1410
90
90
gram
1410
1385.5
24.5
1410
1386.1
23.9
24.2
65.8
30
35.8
1475.8
73
APPENDIX B
WASH SIEVE ANALYSIS (ACW 14-MEDIUM MIX)
Mix
Marshall
TMD
Sample
1
2
1
2
Mass before washing, (g)
1128.8
1130.6
1410
1410
Mass after washing, (g)
1110.6
1112.7
1387.3
1387.7
Mass of Dust, (g)
18.2
17.9
22.7
22.3
Average, (g)
18.05
22.5
WASH SIEVE ANALYSIS (ACW 10-MEDIUM MIX)
Mix
Marshall
TMD
Sample
1
2
1
2
Mass before washing, (g)
1129.3
1128.2
1410
1410
Mass after washing, (g)
1111
1110.7
1387.1
1388.2
Mass of Dust, (g)
18.3
17.5
22.9
21.8
Average, (g)
17.9
22.4
74
WASH SIEVE ANALYSIS (ACW 14-COARSE MIX)
Mix
Marshall
TMD
Sample
1
2
1
2
Mass before washing, (g)
1129.3
1128.6
1410.7
1410.2
Mass after washing, (g)
1113.4
1112.9
1390.3
1387.8
Mass of Dust, (g)
15.9
15.7
20.4
22.4
Average, (g)
15.8
21.4
WASH SIEVE ANALYSIS (ACW 10-COARSE MIX)
Mix
Marshall
TMD
Sample
1
2
1
2
Mass before washing, (g)
1128
1128.2
1410
1410
Mass after washing, (g)
1112.5
1114.7
1390.2
1389.2
Mass of Dust, (g)
15.5
13.5
19.8
20.8
Average, (g)
14.5
20.3
75
WASH SIEVE ANALYSIS (ACW 14-FINE MIX)
Mix
Marshall
TMD
Sample
1
2
1
2
Mass before washing, (g)
1128
1128
1410
1410
Mass after washing, (g)
1108.1
1108.7
1381.0
1383.7
Mass of Dust, (g)
19.9
19.3
29.0
26.3
Average, (g)
19.6
27.65
WASH SIEVE ANALYSIS (ACW 10-FINE MIX)
Mix
Marshall
TMD
Sample
1
2
1
2
Mass before washing, (g)
1128
1128
1410
1410
Mass after washing, (g)
1110.3
1110.1
1385.5
1386.1
Mass of Dust, (g)
17.7
17.9
24.5
23.9
Average, (g)
17.8
24.2
76
APPENDIX C
SPECIFIC GRAVITY FOR COARSE AGGREGATE (MRP – ACW 14)
Coarse Aggregate
In Water
Saturated Surface Dry (SSD)
Ovendry
Ovendry
SG Bulk, Gsb
=
SSD − InWater
SSD
SG SSD, Gssd
=
SSD − InWater
Ovendry
Sg Apparent, Gsa
=
Ovendry − InWater
SSD − Ovendry
Absorbtion, %
=
Ovendry
Sample 1
616
1000.9
992.2
Sample 2
615.4
1000.1
990.6
Average
2.578
2.575
2.576
2.600
2.600
2.600
2.637
2.640
2.639
0.877
0.959
0.918
AGGREGATE GRADATION FOR COARSE AGGREGATE (MRP – ACW 14)
Coarse
(gram)
1000
Sieve Size
(mm)
%
Retained
Mass
Retained (g)
14
5
113.6
10
14
318.2
5
25
568.2
77
SPECIFIC GRAVITY FOR COARSE AGGREGATE (MRP – ACW 10)
Coarse Aggregate
In Water
Saturated Surface Dry (SSD)
Ovendry
Ovendry
SG Bulk, Gsb
=
SSD − InWater
SSD
SG SSD, Gssd
=
SSD − InWater
Ovendry
Sg Apparent, Gsa
=
Ovendry − InWater
SSD − Ovendry
Absorbtion, %
=
Ovendry
Sample 1
617.2
1001.7
992.2
Sample 2
616.1
1001.6
993
Average
2.580
2.576
2.578
2.605
2.598
2.602
2.646
2.635
2.640
0.957
0.866
0.912
AGGREGATE GRADATION FOR COARSE AGGREGATE (MRP – ACW 10)
Coarse
(gram)
1000
Sieve Size
(mm)
%
Retained
Mass
Retained (g)
10
5
142.9
5
30
857.1
78
SPECIFIC GRAVITY FOR FINE AGGREGATE (MRP – ACW 14)
Fine Aggregate-500g
Picnometer
Picnometer + Water (600ml)
Picnometer + Water (600ml) + Sample
Saturated Surface Dry (SSD)
Ovendry
B
C
S
A
Sample 1
280.4
854.9
1181.2
500.3
493.3
Sample 2
280.4
863.4
1177.7
500.4
489.8
Sample 1
Sample 2
Average
SG Bulk, Gsb
=
A
B+S–C
2.835
0.032
2.632
2.739
2.733
SG Bulk, Gssd
=
S
B+S–C
2.875
0.027
2.689
2.763
2.782
SG Apparent, Gsa
=
=
2.954
0.027
1.419
0.310
2.791
2.814
2.164
2.872
Absorption, %
A
A+B–C
S–A
A
SG BlendedBulk
=
100
% Coarse
2.662
+
SGbulk Coarse
SG BlendedApparent
=
% Fine
SGbulk Fine
100
% Coarse
SGapp Coarse
1.792
2.765
+
% Fine
SGapp Fine
79
SPECIFIC GRAVITY FOR FINE AGGREGATE (MRP – ACW 10)
Fine Aggregate-500g
Picnometer
Picnometer + Water (600ml)
Picnometer + Water (600ml) + Sample
Saturated Surface Dry (SSD)
Ovendry
SG Bulk, Gsb
=
A
B+S–C
SG Bulk, Gssd
=
S
B+S–C
SG Apparent, Gsa
=
Absorption, %
=
A
A+B–C
S–A
A
SG BlendedBulk
=
B
C
S
A
Sample 1
2.357
0.032
2.391
0.027
2.441
0.027
1.461
0.310
100
% Coarse
=
+
SGapp Coarse
Sample 2
2.792
2.739
2.831
2.763
2.907
2.814
1.420
Average
2.574
2.611
2.674
1.440
% Fine
SGbulk Fine
100
% Coarse
Sample 2
280.4
858.3
1181.7
500.0
493
2.576
SGbulk Coarse
SG BlendedApparent
Sample 1
280.4
875.9
1166.8
500
492.8
2.662
+
% Fine
SGapp Fine
80
AGGREGATE GRADATION FOR FINE AGGREGATE (MRP-ACW 14)
Fine
(gram)
700
Sieve Size
(mm)
3.35
%
Retained
9
Mass
Retained (g)
180
1.18
21
420
0.425
8
160
0.15
8
160
0.075
4
80
AGGREGATE GRADATION FOR FINE AGGREGATE (MRP-ACW 10)
Fine
(gram)
700
Sieve Size
(mm)
3.35
%
Retained
9
Mass
Retained (g)
153
1.18
25
424
0.425
12
203
0.15
9
153
0.075
4
68
81
APPENDIX D: MARSHALL TEST RESULT (ACW 10-MEDIUM)
% BIT
%
BIT.
SPEC.
SPEC.
NO.
NO.
a
b
WEIGHT (gram)
SSD
c
BULK
SPEC. GRAV.
IN
IN
VOL.
MAX.
AIR
WATER
cc.
BULK
THEOR.
BIT
AGG.
VOIDS
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
% Bit.
by wt.
VOLUME - % TOTAL
d
bxg
(100-b)g
c-e
f
SGbit
SGag
VOIDS (%)
FILLED
TOTAL
AGG.
(BIT)
MIX
k
l
m
n
100-i-j
100-j
100(i/l)
100-(100g/h)
STABILITY (kg)
FLOW
MEAS.
CORR.
(mm)
p
q
r
o
Corr.
STIFFNESS
s
q
Factor
Pxo
r
of mix.
5.0
1204.0
1202.8
671.2
532.8
2.258
0.96
14213
13645
1.09
1228.9
1227.2
685.8
543.1
2.260
0.93
14267
13268
1.42
1223.9
1222.5
683.7
540.2
2.263
0.93
14267
13268
1.78
13394
1.43
2.260
AVG
5.5
17.2
63.9
6.2
690.2
541.0
2.273
0.93
15512
14426
1.56
1226.1
688.0
539.4
2.273
0.93
15763
14659
1.21
1226.4
1222.1
686.4
540.0
2.263
0.93
15763
14659
1.48
14582
1.42
2.393
12.1
82.8
5.1
17.2
70.3
5.2
1231.7
1230.9
705.0
526.7
2.337
0.96
14819
14226
0.97
1229.5
1228.6
696.7
532.8
2.306
0.96
14505
13925
1.66
1234.0
1233.3
701.7
532.3
2.317
0.96
15085
14481
1.41
14211
1.35
1237.5
1236.7
704.0
533.5
2.318
0.96
14471
13892
1.41
1252.1
1251.7
721.0
531.1
2.357
0.96
14520
13939
1.41
1236.3
1235.8
704.9
531.4
2.326
0.96
15462
14843
1.22
14225
1.35
1241.9
1241.7
710.1
531.8
2.335
0.96
14766
14176
1.35
1247.3
1246.9
715.1
532.2
2.343
0.96
15109
14504
1.40
1244.6
1244.0
712.7
531.9
2.339
0.96
15379
14764
1.39
14481
1.38
2.320
2.333
AVG
AVG
6.2
1229.7
AVG
7.0
82.8
1227.4
2.270
6.5
11.0
1231.2
AVG
6.0
2.410
2.339
2.376
2.360
2.343
13.5
14.7
15.9
84.1
84.2
83.9
2.4
1.1
0.2
15.9
15.8
16.1
85.2
93.1
98.8
2.4
1.1
0.2
9366.3
10292.9
10552.6
10562.9
10493.7
82
MARSHALL TEST RESULT (ACW 14-MEDIUM))
% BIT
%
BIT.
SPEC.
SPEC.
NO.
NO.
a
b
WEIGHT (gram)
SSD
c
BULK
SPEC. GRAV.
VOLUME - % TOTAL
IN
IN
VOL.
AIR
WATER
cc.
BULK
THEOR.
BIT
AGG.
VOIDS
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
% Bit.
by wt.
VOIDS (%)
MAX.
d
bxg
(100-b)g
c-e
f
SGbit
SGag
530.4
529.3
531.2
2.295
2.311
2.301
2.302
2.322
2.323
2.334
2.326
2.359
2.352
2.350
2.353
2.365
2.371
2.378
2.371
2.333
2.371
2.375
2.360
STABILITY (kg)
FILLED
TOTAL
AGG.
(BIT)
MIX
k
l
m
n
100-i-j
100-j
100(i/l)
100-(100g/h)
o
FLOW
MEAS.
CORR.
(mm)
p
q
r
Corr.
STIFFNESS
s
Q
Factor
Pxo
R
of mix.
4.0
1219.5
1224.9
1224.2
1217.3
1223.3
1222.3
689.1
695.6
693.0
AVG
4.5
1230.9
1232.6
1230.6
1229.4
1231.7
1229.7
701.5
702.3
703.8
529.4
530.3
526.8
5.0
1237.8
1243.6
1238.1
1237.0
1242.2
1237.4
713.4
715.4
711.5
524.4
528.2
526.6
5.5
1247.1
1238.1
1246.2
1246.3
1237.8
1245.7
720.1
716.1
722.3
527.0
522.0
523.9
AVG
AVG
AVG
6.0
AVG
1248.0
1246.2
1248.2
1247.4
1245.9
1247.5
713.4
720.7
723.0
534.6
525.5
525.2
0.96
0.96
0.96
2.450
2.432
2.415
2.398
8.9
10.2
11.4
12.7
85.0
85.5
86.0
86.2
6.0
4.4
2.5
1.1
15.0
14.5
14.0
13.8
59.8
70.0
81.8
91.9
6.0
0.96
0.96
0.96
15693
16676
16032
0.96
0.96
0.96
15334
15139
15661
0.96
1.00
0.96
14021
14878
14369
4.3
2.5
1.1
0.96
0.96
0.96
2.381
13.7
85.3
0.9
14.7
93.8
14858
15465
15979
0.9
11535
13513
13802
14264
14846
15340
14817
15065
16009
15390
15488
14721
14533
15035
14763
13460
14878
13794
14044
11074
12972
13250
12432
2.24
1.38
1.59
1.74
1.35
1.06
1.31
1.24
1.14
1.55
1.49
1.39
1.85
1.61
1.38
1.61
2.30
1.85
1.41
1.85
8531.8
12490.4
10595.4
8705.1
6707.9
83
MARSHALL TEST RESULT (ACW 14-COARSE)
%
BIT
% BIT.
SPEC.
SPEC.
NO.
NO.
a
b
WEIGHT (gram)
SSD
c
BULK
SPEC. GRAV.
VOLUME - % TOTAL
IN
IN
VOL.
AIR
WATER
cc.
BULK
THEOR.
BIT
AGG.
VOIDS
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
% Bit.
by wt.
VOIDS (%)
MAX.
d
bxg
(100-b)g
c-e
f
SGbit
SGag
540.9
537.2
541.4
2.273
2.289
2.277
2.280
2.303
2.300
2.297
2.300
2.308
2.319
2.329
2.319
2.338
2.350
2.338
2.342
2.343
2.346
2.348
2.345
STABILITY (kg)
FILLED
TOTAL
AGG.
(BIT)
MIX
k
l
m
n
100-i-j
100-j
100(i/l)
100-(100g/h)
o
FLOW
MEAS.
CORR.
(mm)
p
q
r
Corr.
STIFFNESS
s
Q
Factor
pxo
R
of mix.
4.0
1237.5
1234.0
1240.4
1229.3
1229.6
1232.8
696.6
696.8
699.0
AVG
4.5
1237.8
1239.8
1235.4
1235.5
1235.7
1232.5
701.4
702.6
698.8
536.4
537.2
536.6
5.0
1240.3
1241.7
1241.6
1239.2
1240.6
1240.5
703.5
706.7
709.0
536.8
535.0
532.6
5.5
1244.5
1245.9
1247.5
1244.1
1245.5
1247.1
712.3
715.9
714.1
532.2
530.0
533.4
AVG
AVG
AVG
6.0
AVG
1248.2
1250.6
1247.4
1247.5
1250.2
1247.0
715.7
717.7
716.2
532.5
532.9
531.2
0.89
0.89
0.89
2.449
2.432
2.415
2.398
8.9
10.0
11.3
12.5
84.2
84.5
84.8
85.2
6.9
5.4
4.0
2.3
15.8
15.5
15.2
14.8
56.0
64.9
73.9
84.2
6.9
0.89
0.89
0.89
13102
13459
13020
0.89
0.96
0.96
12475
12016
12570
0.96
0.96
0.96
12407
12674
11898
5.4
4.0
2.3
0.96
0.96
0.96
2.381
13.7
84.8
1.5
15.2
90.1
12095
13566
13153
1.5
11967
11498
11958
10764
12074
11706
11515
11661
11978
11587
11742
11103
11535
12067
11568
11911
12167
11422
11833
11488
11039
11479
11335
1.77
1.65
1.66
1.69
1.87
1.84
1.92
1.88
2.15
2.30
2.10
2.18
2.20
2.33
2.58
2.37
2.79
2.95
3.10
2.95
6800.0
6256.9
5298.4
4992.9
3846.9
84
MARSHALL TEST RESULT (ACW 10-COARSE)
% BIT
%
BIT.
SPEC.
SPEC.
NO.
NO.
a
b
WEIGHT (gram)
SSD
c
BULK
SPEC. GRAV.
VOLUME - % TOTAL
IN
IN
VOL.
AIR
WATER
cc.
BULK
THEOR.
BIT
AGG.
VOIDS
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
% Bit.
by wt.
VOIDS (%)
MAX.
d
bxg
(100-b)g
c-e
f
SGbit
SGag
540.6
537.9
536.7
2.328
2.343
2.312
2.328
2.350
2.329
2.335
2.338
2.344
2.353
2.353
2.350
2.351
2.328
2.359
2.346
2.330
2.356
2.347
2.344
STABILITY (kg)
FILLED
TOTAL
AGG.
(BIT)
MIX
k
l
m
n
100-i-j
100-j
100(i/l)
100-(100g/h)
o
FLOW
MEAS.
CORR.
(mm)
p
q
r
Corr.
STIFFNESS
s
Q
Factor
pxo
R
of mix.
5.0
1260.4
1261.1
1242.0
1258.6
1260.5
1241.1
719.8
723.2
705.3
AVG
5.5
1273.9
1248.4
1249.5
1273.4
1247.7
1249.0
732.1
712.7
714.5
541.8
535.7
535.0
6.0
1252.5
1252.6
1246.2
1252.1
1252.2
1245.8
718.4
720.4
716.7
534.1
532.2
529.5
6.5
1263.5
1261.5
1262.9
1258.8
1258.4
1258.3
728.1
721.0
729.5
535.4
540.5
533.4
AVG
AVG
AVG
7.0
AVG
1281.9
1290.6
1282.1
1281.0
1290.2
1281.4
732.1
743.0
736.1
549.8
547.6
546.0
0.89
0.89
0.89
2.422
2.405
2.388
2.371
11.3
12.5
13.7
14.8
84.8
84.7
84.7
84.1
3.9
2.8
1.6
1.1
15.2
15.3
15.3
15.9
74.4
81.7
89.5
93.2
3.9
0.89
0.89
0.96
14653
13213
13386
0.96
0.96
0.96
13134
12795
12852
0.96
1.00
1.00
12315
11829
12330
2.8
1.6
1.0
0.89
0.89
0.89
2.355
15.9
83.6
0.5
16.4
97.1
14065
13702
13958
0.5
11734
12228
11462
12518
12194
12423
12378
13041
11760
12850
12550
12609
12283
12338
12410
11822
11829
12330
11994
10443
10883
10201
10509
1.87
2.30
2.04
2.07
1.92
2.48
2.33
2.24
2.40
2.73
2.87
2.67
2.68
2.55
2.65
2.63
3.26
3.19
3.40
3.28
5979.9
5594.5
4653.8
4566.1
3200.8
85
MARSHALL TEST RESULT (ACW 14-FINE)
% BIT
%
BIT.
SPEC.
SPEC.
NO.
NO.
A
b
WEIGHT (gram)
SSD
c
BULK
SPEC. GRAV.
VOLUME - % TOTAL
IN
IN
VOL.
AIR
WATER
cc.
BULK
THEOR.
BIT
AGG.
VOIDS
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
% Bit.
by wt.
VOIDS (%)
MAX.
d
bxg
(100-b)g
c-e
f
SGbit
SGag
522.1
527.6
525.0
2.337
2.337
2.337
2.337
2.348
2.354
2.350
2.351
2.371
2.367
2.369
2.369
2.382
2.380
2.381
2.381
2.376
2.380
2.379
2.378
STABILITY (kg)
FILLED
TOTAL
AGG.
(BIT)
MIX
k
l
m
n
100-i-j
100-j
100(i/l)
100-(100g/h)
o
FLOW
MEAS.
CORR.
(mm)
p
q
r
Corr.
STIFFNESS
s
Q
Factor
pxo
R
of mix.
4.0
1223,2
1234.2
1228.5
1220.1
1233.2
1226.7
701.1
706.6
703.5
AVG
4.5
1230.1
1233.8
1234.4
1228.3
1232.3
1232.5
707.0
710.3
710.0
523.1
523.5
524.4
5.0
1238.4
1238.3
1238.7
1237.5
1236.8
1237.9
716.4
715.8
716.1
522.0
522.5
522.6
5.5
1246.3
1242.4
1244.3
1245.6
1241.8
1243.7
723.3
720.7
721.9
523.0
521.7
522.4
AVG
AVG
AVG
6.0
AVG
1247.8
1245.9
1246.9
1247.0
1245.5
1246.6
723.0
722.5
722.8
524.8
523.4
524.1
1.00
0.96
0.96
2.453
2.436
2.418
2.401
9.1
10.3
11.5
12.7
86.2
86.2
86.5
86.4
4.7
3.5
2.0
0.8
13.8
13.8
13.5
13.6
65.7
74.7
84.9
93.7
4.7
0.96
0.96
0.96
15512
15763
15763
1.00
1.00
1.00
14819
14505
15085
0.96
1.00
1.00
14471
14520
15462
3.5
2.0
0.8
0.96
0.96
0.96
2.384
13.9
85.9
0.3
14.1
98.1
14213
14267
14267
0.2
14766
15109
15379
14213
13696
13696
13869
14891
15132
15132
15052
14819
14505
15085
14803
13892
14520
15462
14624
14176
14504
14764
14481
1.84
1.76
1.68
1.76
1.93
1.53
1.62
1.69
1.81
2.12
2.02
1.98
2.08
2.23
2.12
2.69
2.62
3.09
2.59
2.77
7879.9
8888.9
7463.7
5436.6
5234.2
86
MARSHALL TEST RESULT (ACW 10-FINE)
% BIT
%
BIT.
SPEC.
SPEC.
NO.
NO.
A
b
WEIGHT (gram)
SSD
c
BULK
SPEC. GRAV.
VOLUME - % TOTAL
IN
IN
VOL.
AIR
WATER
cc.
BULK
THEOR.
BIT
AGG.
VOIDS
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
% Bit.
by wt.
VOIDS (%)
MAX.
d
bxg
(100-b)g
c-e
f
SGbit
SGag
533.5
530.8
533.0
2.310
2.321
2.318
2.316
2.346
2.344
2.345
2.345
2.353
2.349
2.349
2.350
2.354
2.329
2.323
2.336
2.344
2.339
2.340
2.341
STABILITY (kg)
FILLED
TOTAL
AGG.
(BIT)
MIX
k
l
m
n
100-i-j
100-j
100(i/l)
100-(100g/h)
o
FLOW
MEAS.
CORR.
(mm)
p
q
r
Corr.
STIFFNESS
s
Q
Factor
pxo
R
of mix.
5.0
1243.4
1232.5
1242.8
1242.8
1231.2
1242.0
709.9
701.7
709.8
AVG
5.5
1246.2
1249.0
1244.2
1245.7
1248.1
1243.3
715.2
716.5
714.0
531.0
532.5
530.2
6.0
1222.6
1252.4
1249.5
1221.9
1251.8
1249.1
703.2
719.4
717.7
519.4
533.0
531.8
6.5
1252.0
1258.9
1261.4
1255.8
1250.8
1250.5
718.6
721.9
723.1
533.4
537.0
538.3
AVG
AVG
AVG
7.0
AVG
1256.4
1257.6
1258.1
1252.4
1258.3
1260.8
722.0
719.6
719.2
534.4
538.0
538.9
0.96
0.96
0.96
2.411
2.394
2.377
2.361
11.2
12.5
13.7
14.7
84.8
85.4
85.2
84.2
3.9
2.1
1.2
1.1
15.2
14.6
14.8
15.8
74.1
85.9
92.2
93.2
3.9
0.96
0.96
0.96
14007
14304
14434
1.00
0.96
0.96
12996
13289
12827
0.96
0.89
0.89
11186
11436
11306
2.1
1.1
1.1
0.96
0.96
0.96
2.344
15.9
83.9
0.2
16.1
98.9
12143
15289
13842
0.1
12451
12894
12456
11658
14677
13289
13208
13447
13732
13857
13679
12996
12757
12314
12689
10739
10178
10062
10326
11953
12378
11958
12096
2.19
1.77
2.25
2.07
2.17
2.06
2.85
2.36
2.58
2.60
2.59
2.59
4.09
3.92
3.66
3.89
3.28
3.18
3.21
3.22
6380.6
5796.1
4899.3
2654.6
3752.8
87
APPENDIX E: VOLUMETRIC PROPERTIES OF ACW 14
Flow vs Bitumen Content
Density vs Bitumen Content
3
2.400
Density
2.360
Density (M)
2.340
Densit ( C)
2.320
Density(F)
2.300
Flow (mm)
2.380
2.5
Flow (M)
2
Flow( C )
Flow (F)
1.5
2.280
1
2.260
3
4
5
6
3
7
4
Stability vs Bitumen Content
14000
Stability (M)
13000
Stability ( C )
12000
Stability (F)
11000
10000
5
Bit. Content (%)
6
7
Stiffness (N)
Stability (N)
15000
4
6
7
Stiffness vs Bitumen Content
16000
3
5
Bitumen Content (%)
Bitumen Content (%)
13000
12000
11000
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
Stiffness (M)
Stiffness ( C )
Stiffness (F)
3
4
5
6
7
Bit Content (%)
88
VMA vs Bitumen Content
7
16
6
15.5
5
VMA (% )
VTM (M)
4
VTM ( C )
3
VTM (F)
2
15
VMA (M)
14.5
VMA ( C )
VMA (F)
14
13.5
1
0
13
3
4
5
6
3
7
4
5
6
7
Bit. Content (%)
Bit. Content (%)
VFB vs Bitumen Content
100
90
VFB (%)
VTM (% )
VTM vs Bitumen Content
VFB (M)
80
VFB ( C )
70
VFB (F)
60
50
3
4
5
6
7
Bit. Content (%)
89
VOLUMETRIC PROPERTIES OF ACW 10
Flow vs Bitumen Content
4
2.420
2.400
2.380
2.360
2.340
2.320
2.300
2.280
2.260
2.240
3.5
Density(M)
Density (C )
Density(F)
Flow (mm)
Density
Density vs Bitumen Content
3
Flow (M)
2.5
Flow( C )
Flow (F)
2
1.5
1
4
5
6
7
4
8
5
Stability vs Bitumen Content
Stability (M)
13000
Stability ( C )
12000
Stability (F)
11000
10000
Bit. Content (%)
7
8
Stiffness (N)
Stability (N)
14000
6
8
Stiffness vs Bitumen Content
15000
5
7
Bitumen Content (%)
Bitumen Content (%)
4
6
11000
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
Stiffness (M)
Stiffness ( C )
Stiffness (F)
4
5
6
7
8
Bit. Content (%)
90
VMA vs Bitumen Content
18
6
17.5
5
17
16.5
VTM (M)
4
VTM ( C)
3
VTM (F)
2
VMA (%)
7
VMA (M)
16
VMA ( C )
15.5
VMA (F)
15
14.5
1
14
0
4
5
6
7
4
8
5
6
7
8
Bit. Content (%)
Bit. Content (%)
VFB vs Bitumen Content
VFB (%)
VTM (%)
VTM vs Bitumen Content
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
VFB (M)
VFB ( C )
VFB (F)
4
5
6
7
8
Bit. Content (%)
91
APPENDIX F: DETERMINATION OF OBC AT 4% AIR VOID (NAPA) FOR ACW 10
VTM vs Bitumen Content(ACW10-FINE)
VTM vs Bitumen Content(ACW10-COARSE)
6
5
5
VTM
Power (VTM)
2
VTM
4
3
VTM
3
Power (VTM)
2
1
1
0
0
4
5
6
7
4
8
5
6
7
8
Bitumen Content (%)
Bitumen Content (%)
VTM vs Bitumen Content(ACW10-MEDIUM)
7
6
5
VTM
VTM
4
4
VTM
3
Power (VTM)
2
1
0
4
5
6
7
8
Bitumen Content (%)
92
DETERMINATION OF OBC AT 4% AIR VOID (NAPA) FOR ACW 14
VTM vs Bitumen Content(ACW14-FINE)
5
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
VTM
Pow er (VTM)
VTM
4
3
VTM
2
Pow er (VTM)
1
0
3
4
5
6
7
3
4
Bitum en Content (%)
5
6
7
Bitumen Content (%)
VTM vs Bitumen Content(ACW14-MEDIUM)
VTM
VTM
VTM vs Bitumen Content(ACW14-COARSE)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
VTM
Pow er (VTM)
3
4
5
6
7
Bitum en Content (%)
93
APPENDIX G
THEORETICAL MAXIMUM DENSITY FOR ACW 14-MEDIUM
MAXIMUM SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF BITUMINOUS PAVING MIXTURES
MEDIUM
Weight of Bowl in Air (gm)
Weight of Bowl in Water (gm)
Weight of Bowl and Sample in Air (gm)
Weight of Sample (gm)
Weight of Bowl and Sample in Water (gm)
Asphalt Content of Mix (%)
A
B
C
D = (C - A)
E
G
Sample 1
2207.4
1390
3753
1545.6
2296.4
5
Sample 2
2207.4
1389.9
3756.7
1549.3
2296.9
5
=
=
=
=
=
=
SG of Asphalt, Gb
=
H
1.03
1.03
(F) Max SG of Mix, Gmm
=
D
2.418
2.412
2.603
2.595
2.450
2.432
2.415
2.398
2.381
OBC=5%
Average
D+B-E
Effective SG of Aggregate, Gse
=
100 - G
2.599
(100/F) - (G/H)
Gmm at specified of % AC's
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
=
100
(%AC/Gb) + [(100 %AC)/Gse]
94
THEORETICAL MAXIMUM DENSITY FOR ACW10-MEDIUM
MAXIMUM SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF BITUMINOUS PAVING MIXTURES
MEDIUM
Weight of Bowl in Air (gm)
Weight of Bowl in Water (gm)
Weight of Bowl and Sample in Air (gm)
Weight of Sample (gm)
Weight of Bowl and Sample in Water
(gm)
Asphalt Content of Mix (%)
=
=
=
=
A
B
C
D = (C - A)
Sample 1
2207.4
1390
3770.2
1562.8
=
=
E
G
2291.1
6
2298.3
6
SG of Asphalt, Gb
=
H
1.03
1.03
(F) Max SG of Mix, Gmm
=
D
D+B-E
2.362
2.390
Effective SG of Aggregate, Gse
=
100 - G
(100/F) - (G/H)
2.574
2.610
Gmm at specified of % AC's
=
100
(%AC/Gb) + [(100 %AC)/Gse]
2.410
2.393
2.376
2.360
2.343
OBC=6%
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
Sample 2
2207.4
1390.7
3767.8
1560.4
Average
2.592
95
THEORETICAL MAXIMUM DENSITY FOR ACW14-COARSE
MAXIMUM SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF BITUMINOUS PAVING MIXTURES
MEDIUM
Weight of Bowl in Air (gm)
Weight of Bowl in Water (gm)
Weight of Bowl and Sample in Air (gm)
Weight of Sample (gm)
Weight of Bowl and Sample in Water (gm)
A
B
C
D = (C - A)
E
Sample 1
2207.4
1390
3755.9
1548.5
2300
Sample 2
2207.4
1390
3755.7
1548.3
2294.3
=
=
=
=
=
Asphalt Content of Mix (%)
=
G
5
5
SG of Asphalt, Gb
=
H
1.03
1.03
(F) Max SG of Mix, Gmm
=
D
2.425
2.404
2.611
2.586
2.449
2.432
2.415
2.398
2.381
OBC=5%
Average
D+B-E
Effective SG of Aggregate, Gse
=
100 - G
2.599
(100/F) - (G/H)
Gmm at specified of % AC's
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
=
100
(%AC/Gb) + [(100 - %AC)/Gse]
96
THEORETICAL MAXIMUM DENSITY FOR ACW10-COARSE
MAXIMUM SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF BITUMINOUS PAVING MIXTURES
MEDIUM
Weight of Bowl in Air (gm)
Weight of Bowl in Water (gm)
Weight of Bowl and Sample in Air (gm)
Weight of Sample (gm)
Weight of Bowl and Sample in Water (gm)
Asphalt Content of Mix (%)
A
B
C
D = (C - A)
E
G
Sample 1
2207.4
1390.3
3817.8
1610.4
2326.2
6
Sample 2
2207.4
1390.5
3819.3
1611.9
2327.6
6
=
=
=
=
=
=
SG of Asphalt, Gb
=
H
1.03
1.03
(F) Max SG of Mix, Gmm
=
D
D+B-E
2.388
2.389
Effective SG of Aggregate, Gse
=
100 - G
(100/F) - (G/H)
2.607
2.608
Gmm at specified of % AC's
=
100
2.422
2.405
2.388
2.371
2.355
OBC=6%
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
(%AC/Gb) + [(100 - %AC)/Gse]
Average
2.608
97
THEORETICAL MAXIMUM DENSITY FOR ACW14-FINE
MAXIMUM SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF BITUMINOUS PAVING MIXTURES
MEDIUM
Sample 1
Sample 2
Weight of Bowl in Air (gm)
=
A
2207.4
2207.4
Weight of Bowl in Water (gm)
=
B
1390
1390
Weight of Bowl and Sample in Air (gm)
=
C
3717.4
3717.8
Weight of Sample (gm)
=
D = (C - A)
1510
1510.4
Weight of Bowl and Sample in Water (gm)
=
E
2275.3
2276.1
Asphalt Content of Mix (%)
=
G
5
5
SG of Asphalt, Gb
=
H
1.03
1.03
(F) Max SG of Mix, Gmm
=
D
2.417
2.419
2.602
2.604
2.453
OBC=5%
Average
D+B-E
Effective SG of Aggregate, Gse
=
100 - G
2.603
(100/F) - (G/H)
Gmm at specified of % AC's
4
=
100
(%AC/Gb) + [(100 - %AC)/Gse]
4.5
2.436
5
2.418
5.5
2.401
6
2.384
98
THEORETICAL MAXIMUM DENSITY FOR ACW14-FINE
MAXIMUM SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF BITUMINOUS PAVING MIXTURES
MEDIUM
Sample 1
Sample 2
Weight of Bowl in Air (gm)
=
A
2207.4
2207.4
Weight of Bowl in Water (gm)
=
B
1390.4
1390.2
Weight of Bowl and Sample in Air (gm)
=
C
3772
3773.4
Weight of Sample (gm)
=
D = (C - A)
1564.6
1566
Weight of Bowl and Sample in Water (gm)
=
E
2296.4
2297.8
Asphalt Content of Mix (%)
=
G
6
6
SG of Asphalt, Gb
=
H
1.03
1.03
(F) Max SG of Mix, Gmm
=
D
2.376
2.378
2.592
2.595
2.411
OBC=6%
Average
D+B-E
Effective SG of Aggregate, Gse
=
100 - G
2.594
(100/F) - (G/H)
Gmm at specified of % AC's
5
=
100
(%AC/Gb) + [(100 - %AC)/Gse]
5.5
2.394
6
2.377
6.5
2.361
7
2.344
99
APPENDIX H
GRADATION LIMIT FOR ACW 10 AND ACW 14
Table 4.1(a): Gradation Limit for ACW 10 (Medium)
Sieve Size (mm)
Gradation Limit
Percentage Passing
Percent Retained
14
100
100
0
10
90 – 100
95
5
5
58 – 72
65
30
3.35
48 – 64
56
9
1.18
22 – 40
31
25
0.425
12 - 26
19
12
0.15
6 – 14
10
9
0.075
4-8
6
4
ACW10 (MEDIUM)
120
% Passing
100
80
Lower Limit
60
Upper Limit
40
% Passing Medium
20
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
^0.45 Sieve Size
Figure 4.1(a): Gradation Limit for ACW 10 (Medium)
100
Table 4.1(b): Gradation Limit for ACW 10 (Coarse)
Sieve Size (mm)
Gradation Limit
Percentage Passing
Percent Retained
14
100
100
0
10
90 – 100
97
3
5
58 – 72
60
37
3.35
48 – 64
49
11
1.18
22 – 40
24
25
0.425
12 - 26
15
9
0.15
6 – 14
9
6
0.075
4-8
6
3
ACW 10 (COARSE)
120
% Passing
100
80
Lower Limit
Upper Limit
60
% Passing
40
20
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
^0.45 Sieve Size
Figure 4.1(b): Gradation Limit for ACW 10 (Coarse)
101
Table 4.1(c): Gradation Limit for ACW 10 (Fine)
Sieve Size (mm)
Gradation Limit
Percentage Passing
Percent Retained
14
100
100
0
10
90 – 100
91
9
5
58 – 72
68
23
3.35
48 – 64
60
8
1.18
22 – 40
36
24
0.425
12 - 26
23
13
0.15
6 – 14
12
11
0.075
4-8
6
6
ACW 10 (FINE)
120
% Passing
100
80
Lower Limit
60
Upper Limit
40
% Passing
20
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
^0.45 Sieve Size
Figure 4.1(c): Gradation Limit for ACW 10 (Fine)
102
Table 4.1(d): Gradation Limit for ACW 14 (Medium)
Sieve Size (mm)
Gradation Limit
Percentage Passing
Percent Retained
20
100
100
0
14
90 – 100
95
5
10
76 – 86
81
14
5
50 – 62
56
25
3.35
40 – 54
47
9
1.18
18 – 34
26
21
0.425
12 – 24
18
8
0.15
6 – 14
10
8
0.075
4-8
6
4
ACW14 (MEDIUM)
120
% Passing
100
80
Lower Limit
60
Upper Limit
40
% Passing Medium
20
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
^0.45 Sieve Size
Figure 4.1(d): Gradation Limit for ACW 14 (Medium)
103
Table 4.1(e): Gradation Limit for ACW 14 (Coarse)
Sieve Size (mm)
Gradation Limit
Percentage Passing
Percent Retained
20
100
100
0
14
90 – 100
98
2
10
76 – 86
85
13
5
50 – 62
51
34
3.35
40 – 54
40
11
1.18
18 – 34
20
20
0.425
12 – 24
13
7
0.15
6 – 14
9
4
0.075
4-8
6
3
ACW 14 (COARSE)
120
% Passing
100
80
Lower Limit
60
Upper Limit
40
% Passing
20
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
^0.45 Sieve Size
Figure 4.1(e): Gradation Limit for ACW 14 (Coarse)
104
Table 4.1(f): Gradation Limit for ACW 14 (Fine)
Sieve Size (mm)
Gradation Limit
Percentage Passing
Percent Retained
20
100
100
0
14
90 – 100
92
8
10
76 – 86
79
13
5
50 – 62
54
25
3.35
40 – 54
48
6
1.18
18 – 34
31
17
0.425
12 – 24
20
11
0.15
6 – 14
12
8
0.075
4-8
6
6
ACW 14 (FINE)
120
% Passing
100
80
Lower Limit
60
Upper Limit
40
% Pass ing
20
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
^0.45 Sieve Size
Figure 4.1(f): Gradation Limit for ACW 14 (Fine)
105