EVALUATION OF LABORATORY COMPACTIVE EFFORT ON
ASPHALTIC CONCRETE MIXES
NUR SABAHIAH BINTI ABDUL SUKOR
UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA
PSZ 19:16 (Pind. 1/97)
UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA
BORANG PENGESAHAN STATUS TESIS*
JUDUL :
EVALUATION OF LABORATORY COMPACTIVE EFFORT ON
ASPHALTIC CONCRETE MIXES
SESI PENGAJIAN : 2004/2005
Saya
NUR SABAHIAH BINTI ABDUL SUKOR
mengaku membenarkan tesis Sarjana ini disimpan di Perpustakaan Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
dengan syarat-syarat kegunaan seperti berikut:
1.
2.
Tesis adalah hakmilik Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
Perpustakaan Universiti Teknologi Malaysia dibenarkan membuat salinan untuk tujuan pengajian
sahaja.
3. Perpustakaan dibenarkan membuat salinan tesis ini sebagai bahan pertukaran antara institusi
pengajian tinggi.
4. Sila tandakan ()
SULIT
TERHAD
(Mengandungi maklumat yang berdarjah keselamatan
atau kepentingan Malaysia seperti yang termaktub di
dalam AKTA RAHSIA RASMI 1972)
(Mengandungi maklumat TERHAD yang telah ditentu
kan oleh organisasi/badan di mana penyelidikan di
jalankan).
TIDAK TERHAD
Disahkan oleh
(TANDATANGAN PENULIS)
Alamat Tetap:
Ptd 3372,Km 5, Parit Raja,
Jalan Temenggung Ahmad,
84000,Muar,,
Johor..
Tarikh : 18 Mac 2005
(TANDATANGAN PENYELIA)
DR MOHD ROSLI BIN HAININ
Nama Penyelia
Tarikh : 18 Mac 2005
CATATAN: * Tesis dimaksudkan sebagai tesis bagi ijazah Doktor Falsafah dan Sarjana secara
penyelidikan, atau disertasi bagi pengajian secara kursus dan penyelidikan, atau
Laporan Projek Sarjana Muda (PSM).
“I hereby declare that I have read this thesis and in my opinion this thesis is sufficient
in terms of scope and q uality for the award of the degree of Master of Engineering
(Civil-Highway and Transportation)”
Signature
:
Name of Supervisor : Dr. Mohd. Rosli B in Hainin
Date
: 18 March 2005
EAVALUATION OF LABORATORYCOMPACTIVE EFFORT ON
ASPHALTIC CONCRETE MIXES
NUR SABAHIAH BINTI ABDUL SUKOR
A thesis is submitted in fulfillment of the req uirements for the award of the degree of
Master of Engineering (Civil- Highway and Transportation)
Faculty of Civil Engineering
University Technology of Malaysia
MARCH, 2005
ii
“I declare that this thesis entitled Evaluation of Laboratory Compactive Effort on
Asphaltic Concrete Mixes is the result of my own research ex cept as cited in the
references. The thesis has not been accepted for any degree and is not concurrently
submitted in candidature of any other degree.”
Signature
:
Name
: Nur Sabahiah B inti Abdul Sukor
Date
: 18 March 2005
iii
This is tough,
But,
The quitter never wins,
And,
The winner never quits.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
In the name of ALLAH, the B ountiful and the Merciful. Praise be upon Him, with
His grace ex tends my ex istence to pen down my gratitude to whom I am going to
mention in these following paragraphs.
First and foremost, I wish to thank my caring and guiding supervisor Dr.Mohd Rosli
Bin Hainin to support me in many ways. B esides, to all staffs of Highway and
Transportation Laboratory, UTM: En. Abdul Rahman, En.Suhaimi, En.Azman and
En. Ahmad Adin, for helping me in many tasks along my way to finish this
dissertation. Not forget to En. Che’Ros Bin Ismail with all his advices.
My gratitude also goes to all staffs of Highway and Transportation Laboratory,
KUiTTHO for always supporting me and guiding my works. Especially to my kindhearted colleague Nizam who was always available to help me.
For mom and dad, who are always being my inspiration, I love both of you most.
My fellow friends at Level 4 K13 and my ‘soul mate’ Nana, thank you for cherishing
my life. I would like to take the opportunity to ask forgiveness on any ill manner.
Shortcomings and mistakes are inevitable of us as human being. Only ALLAH may
repay the help given to me by all of you.
Wassalam.
vi
ABSTRAK
Kaedah pemadatan yang betul merupakan faktor utama di dalam kerja-kerja
penurapan jalan di makmal atau di tapak. Mampatan yang tinggi menghasilkan
turapan jalan yang lebih padat. Rekabentuk Campuran Marshall menggariskan 75
hentakan sebagai nilai pemadatan yang digunakan di dalam kerja makmal. Masalah
timbul apabila pemadatan yang terlalu tinggi ini menyebabkan pengurangan terhadap
ketahanan turapan jalan tersebut. Tujuan kajian ini lebih menjurus kepada mengenal
pasti kebolehan 50 hentakan berbanding dengan 75 hentakan yang biasa digunakan di
dalam Rekabentuk Campuran Marshall. Kajian ini melibatkan ujikaji terhadap dua
jenis camapuran asphalt iaitu ACW 20 dan ACW 14. Kedua-dua campuran
dibahagikan kepada 2 jenis hentakan iaitu 50 dan 75 hentakan. Campuran ACW 20
diuji dengan menggunakan prosedur AASHTO T283-89 manakala campuran ACW
14 diuji berdasarkan prosedur ASTM D4123. Hasil ujikaji bagi ACW 20
menunjukkan bahawa 50 hentakan memberikan nilai kekuatan tegangan yang lebih
tinggi berbanding dengan 75 hentakan. Ujikaji bagi ACW 14 pula menunjukkan
bahawa 75 hentakan memberikan nilai modulus kekenyalan yang lebih tinggi
berbanding 50 hentakan. Akan tetapi, modulus kekenyalan bagi campuran yang
menggunakan 50 hentakan masih memenuhi piawaian. Secara keseluruhannya,
campuran yang menggunakan 50 hentakan mempunyai kebolehtahanan yang sama
dengan campuran yang menggunakan 75 hentakan sebagai daya pemadatan.
v
ABSTRACT
Good compaction is the most important factor to consider when constructing
asphalt mix ture either in the laboratory or in the field. The higher compactive effort
presents the higher density to the pavement. The 75 blows as compactive effort in
designing laboratory Marshall mix es sampleis usually selected. Too high compaction
could affect the pavement durability. The aim of this study is to investigate the
performance of 50 blows comparing to 75 blows of compactive effort in Marshall
Mix Design. The ex periment included tw
o types of mix es, ACW14 and ACW20
where 50 and 75 blows were used for each mix . ACW20 samples were tested
according to AASHTO T283-89 “Resistance of Compacted B ituminous Mix ture to
Moisture Induced Damage” and ACW14 sample s were tested using Universal Testing
Machine according to ASTM D4123 “Standard Test Method for Indirect Tension Test
for Resilient Modulus of B ituminous Mix tures.” 50 blows compactive effort for
ACW20 showed the higher tensile strength ra tio when tested for moisture induced
damage. For ACW14, the 50 blows compactiv e effort indicated lower Resilient
Modulus than the 75 blows but still above the estimated performance. In general,
mix es with 50 blows compactive effort indicated the same performance with the 75
blows samples.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
1
2
TOPIC
PAGE
TOPIC
i
DECLARATION
ii
DEDICATION
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
iv
AB STRACT
v
AB STRAK
vi
TAB LE OF CONTENTS
vii
LIST OF TAB LES
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
xi
LIST OF APPENDICES
x iii
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Problem statement
2
1.2
Objectives
4
1.3
Scope of study
4
1.4
Purpose of study
4
1.5
Marshall Mix Design Method
5
LITERATURE REVIEW
6
2.1
Introduction
6
2.2
Effect of Compaction
9
2.3
Asphalt Film Thickness
19.
2.4
Relient Modulus
23
2.5
Field Performance
25
viii
3
METHODOLOGY
26
3.1
Introduction
26
3.2
Laboratory Test Procedure
28
3.3
Aggregate preparation
29
3.4
Marshall Mix Design
30
3.4.1
31
3.5
Mix Design preparation
Marshall Tests
3.5.1
36
B ulk Specific Gravity of Compacted
B ituminuos Mix tures Using Saturated
Surface-Dry Specimens
(AASTHO T16 6 -88)
3.5.2
36
Resistance to Plastic Flow of B ituminuos
Mix tures Using Marshall Apparatus
(AASTHO T245-90)
3.5.3
38
Resistance of Compacted B ituminous
Mix ture to Moisture Induced Damage
(AASHTO T283).
3.5.4
40
Standard Test Method for Indirect
Tension Test for Resilient Modulus of
B ituminous Mix ture (ASTM D 4123) by
using Universal Testing Machine
4
5
44
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS DATA
47
4.1
Introduction
47
4.2
Optimum B itumen Content
47
4.3
Moisture Induced Damage
51
4.4
Repeated Load Indirect Tensile
52
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
54
5.1
Conclusions
54
5.2
Recommendations
56
REFERENCES
58
APPENDICES
60
ix
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE.NO
2.1
TOPIC
Causes and effects of low pavement stability (Asphalt
Institute Manual Series 22)
2.2
11
Typical design for dense-graded mix es designed by the
Marshall Method for 50 blows compactive effort
2.9
8
Typical design for dense-graded mix es designed by the
Marshall Method for 75 blows compactive effort
2.8
8
Causes and effects of poor skid resistance (Asphalt
Institute Manual Series 22)
2.7
8
Causes and effects of poor fatigue resistance (Asphalt
Institute Manual Series 22)
2.6
7
Causes and effects of workability problems (Asphalt
Institute Manual Series 22)
2.5
7
Causes and effects of permeability (Asphalt
Institute Manual Series 22)
2.4
7
Causes and effects of lack of durability (Asphalt
Institute Manual Series 22)
2.3
PAGE
11
The comparison of air voids between 4 inch and 6 inch
cores
18
2.10
The Lottman Test results
21
2.11
Recommendation of air voids according to the traffic
conditions.
2.12
22
Compacted HMA Properties after Short and Long Term
Aging
23
3.1
Gradation Limit for Asphaltic Concrete (ACW 14)
27
3.2
Gradation Limit for Asphlatic Concrete (ACW 20)
27
x
3.3
Design B itumen Content
3.4
Test and Analysis Parameter for Asphaltic Concrete
(JKR/SPJ/1988)
4.1
49
Analysis Parameter for ACW 20 with 75 blows
compaction at OB C 4.6 5%
4.5
49
Analysis Parameter for ACW 20 with 50 blows
compaction at OB C 4.6 %
4.4
48
Analysis Parameter for ACW 14 with 75 blows
compaction at OB C 5.25%
4.3
28
Analysis Parameter for ACW 14 with 50 blows
compaction at OB C 6 .1%
4.2
28
49
Tensile Strength for ACW 20 with different number
of blows
51
4.6
Resilient Modulus calculation results
53
4.7
Resilient Modulus parameter results
53
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE.NO
TOPIC
PAGE
1.1
Dry density and water content relationship
2.1
Design flow chart
10
2.2
Typical Marshall testing results
12
2.3
Compaction of Asphaltic Concrete by traffic
13
2.4
Hardening of bitumen by ox idation
14
2.5
Effects of compaction on permanent deformation for as
compacted specimens, Oakland-Sutherlin project
2.6
15
Effects of compaction on permanent deformation for as
compacted specimens, Castle Rock-Cedar Creek project
2.7
2
15
Effects of compaction on permanent deformation for as
compacted specimens, Castle Rock-Cedar Creek project
16
2.8
Stiffness versus number of compaction blows
17
2.9
Illustration of Asphaltic Film Thickness
19
2.10
Illustration of VMA
20
2.11
Volume/mass relationships for a typical bituminous
concrete
2.12
Asphalt Film Thickness vs. Resilient Modulus after
Short Term Aging
2.13
21
24
Asphalt Film Thickness vs. Resilient Modulus after
Long Term Aging
24
3.1
Laboratory Test Flow
29
3.2
Sieves from 75µm to 37.5mm
30
3.3
Procedure of Marshall Sample Preparation
35
3.4
Steps of B ulk Specific Gravity Test
38
3.5
Compression Testing Machine
38
x ii
3.6
Specimen in a vacuum container
3.7
Specimens placed in the freezer with temperature
42
-18±30C
42
3.8
The specimens submerged in the water bath
43
3.9
The steps of Universal Testing Machine test
46
x iii
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX
A
TITLE
PAGE
Aggregates Gradation and Asphalt Content Percentage
for Design.
60
B
Results of ACW 14 with 50 blows compactive effort
64
C
Results of ACW 14 with 75 blows compactive effort
69
D
Results of ACW 20 with 50 blows compactive effort
74
E
Results of ACW 20 with 75 blows compactive effort
79
F
Aggregates Gradation after OB C
84
G
Results and calculations for AASTHO T283
87
H
Results and calculations for ASTM D4123
92
I
Software results for ASTM D4123
95
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Compaction is one of the most essential factors in designing and constructing
the pavement. B esides, it is already known that the aim of compaction during the
construction is to increase the pavement strength especially to the subgrade. This is
because the whole strength of pavement is depending on the strength of the base
soils. The importances of the compaction of soils are listed below.
1. To increase the shear strength and therefore being capacity,
2. To increase stiffness and therefore reduce the future settlement,
3. To decrease voids ratio and the permeability.
The Figure 1.1 below shows the effect of compaction to the soil density. If
there is increasing number on compactive efforts, the optimum water content will
decrease. The situation occurs because of the lowering air volume in the soils
content.
2
Figure 1.1 Dry density and water content relationship
The similar concept can be applied in the hot mix asphalt design. In the hot
mix asphalt design the consideration is focusing on the optimum bitumen content in
the laboratory compaction due to the optimum water content during construction
work. The ex planation on the concept is also similar in order to decrease the air void
level to get the better result on pavement density.
The previous studies by B ell at al (1984) had shown that too high compaction
could reduce the pavement durability and cause the fatigue condition. However, to
get the actual causes of this condition, it is necessary to consider many factors and
one of them is asphalt content. The amount of asphalt is dependent upon the amount
of compactive effort. In this project, this situation was observed according to
laboratory studies on hot mix asphalt (HMA) design. The effect of the compactive
efforts on HMA performance was analyzed and recommendations were made.
1.1
Problem statement
In Malaysia, Standard Specification for Road Works,JKR/SPJ/1988, is used
as a guideline to pavement construction according to Marshall laboratory design
procedure. B esides, considering increasing the pavement thickness due to the traffic
loads , the step made to ex tend the pavement life is by using high blows compactive
effort in mix design.
3
Currently, 75 blows is used as the compactive effort in order to get the higher
density of pavement. The density and asphalt pavement film thickness are both
important. The concept of increasing the compaction is actually to reduce the air
voids but the problem occurs when the asphalt thickness is also being reduce.
Prowell (2000) stated that Virginia Department of Transportation had
modified their specifications on pavement design in 1990 to increase the compactive
effort to 75 blows as response to rutting and flushing problem. Anyhow in year 2000,
the Virgina’s Asphalt Cooperative found that the 75 blows mix tures with lower
asphalt content would not be durable.
The effect of the compactive effort was also stated by Pell (1987) as the
max imum asphalt content increase the durability because the thick asphalt film do
not age and harden as rapid as thin ones do.
The lack of asphalt thickness causing the cracking distress to the pavement.
It is because the durability of the pavement is decreasing due to repetation loads and
the fatigue condition start to occurs. Cracking could be more worse with the
penetration of water during the rain and this will lead to pavemant failure.
The situation ia also indicated by Chadbourn et al (2000) that the thin asphalt
film that coating is one of primary causes that leading the premature aging of asphalt
binder. The lack of the film thickness is also allowing the air ox idizing the asphalt
and the pavement will begin to brittle.
4
1.2
Objectives
The main objectives of this study are:
1.
To evaluate the performance of asphaltic concrete mix es with 50
blows and 75 blows compactive effort.
2.
To determine, the feasibility of using 50blows compactive effort in
the heavy traffic loading pavement as compared to the current 75
blows compactive effort.
1.3
Scope of study
This study focused on asphalt concrete mix es that more on hot mix asphalt
design by using Marshall Mix Design Method. The scope of study involved the
laboratory tests according to specified guidelines. The effect of using 50 blows and
75 blows as compactive efforts in the mix designs were chosen to be the main criteria
to analyze. Performance of two types of mix es, ACW14 and ACW20 was observed
according to the serial tests. The test procedures were ex plained in Chapter 3.
1.4
Purpose of study
This study was used to evaluate the compactive efforts between 50 blows and
75 blows in the laboratory design as to give the ex planation according to the
pavement densification that might occur because of over compaction. This study can
be a reference to evaluate other studies according to the compactive effort
performance in the pavement design.
5
1.5
Marshall Mix Design Method
The Marshall Method was developed by B ruce Marshall, bituminous
engineer of Mississippi State Highway Department. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
had improved and used the method as common mix -design criteria after added some
features to test procedure.
The main objective of the Marshall Method is to determine the optimum
bitumen content and the properties of laboratory mix design to meet the construction
req uirement especially according to the optimum density and the air voids content.
The important features to study in the Marshall Method mix design are the
density-voids analysis and the stability flow test of the compacted specimens.
Chapter 2 discussed more about the previous study according to the mix designs.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
Compaction is one of the important factor that has been considered for
designing the asphalt pavement and constructing the road. Many studies had been
conducted to measure the performances of the asphalt pavement compactive effort
but it always led to some q uestion that need to be addressed. This chapter will carry
out the previous studies according to the influences of compactive effort to the
pavement performance.
B esides, the causes and effects that influence the properties of pavement need to
be recognized. The better q uality of pavement could be increase by knowing the
causes that decreasing the pavement performance and the understanding of the
distress effects. Tables below show the causes of pavement distress and the effects
on performance.
7
Table 2.1 Causes and effects of low pavement stability (Asphalt Institute Manual
Series No 22)
Causes
Effects
Ex cess asphalt in mix
Washboarding, rutting and flushing or
bleeding.
Ex cess medium size sand in mix ture
Tenderness during rolling and for period
after construction, difficulty in
compacting.
Rounded aggregate, little or no crushed
Rutting and channeling.
surfaces
Table 2.2 Causes and effects of lack of durability (Asphalt Institute Manual Series
No 22)
Causes
Effects
Low asphalt content
Dryness or raveling
High void content through design or lack
Early hardening of asphalt followed by
of compaction
cracking or disintegration
Water susceptible (hydrophilic) aggregate
Films of asphalt strip from aggregate
in mix tures
leaving an abraded, raveled, or mushy
pavement
Table 2.3 Causes and effects of permeability (Asphalt Institute Manual Series No 22)
Causes
Low asphalt content
Effects
Thin asphalt film will cause early aging
and raveling
High voids content in design mix
Water and air can easily enter pavement
causing ox idation and disintegration
Inadeq uate compaction
Will result in high voids in pavement
leading to water infiltration and low
strength.
8
Table 2.4 Causes and effects of workability problems (Asphalt Institute Manual
Series No 22)
Causes
Effects
Large max imum-sized particle
Rough surface, difficult to place
Ex cessive coarse aggregate
May be hard to compact
Too low a mix temperature
Uncoated aggregate, not durable, rough
surface, hard to compact
Too much medium-sized sand
Mix shoves under roller, remains tender
Low mineral filler content
Tender mix , highly permeable
High mineral filler content
Mix may be dry or gummy, hard to
handle, not durable
Table 2.5 Causes and effects of poor fatigue resistance (Asphalt Institute Manual
Series No 22)
Causes
Effects
Low asphalt content
Fatigue cracking
High density voids
Early aging of asphalt followed by
fatigue cracking
Lack of compaction
Early aging of asphalt followed by
fatigue cracking
Inadeq uate pavement thickness
Ex cessive bending followed by fatigue
cracking
Table 2.6 Causes and effects of poor skid resistance (Asphalt Institute Manual Series
No 22)
Causes
Effects
Ex cess asphalt
B leeding, low skid resistance
Poorly tex tured or graded aggregate
Smooth pavement, potential for
hydroplaning.
Polishing aggregate in mix ture
Low skid resistance
9
The causes and effects that stated above are only the brief information according
to the condition of pavement. However, there are still lots of studies to carry out to
find the prevention and the rehabilitation of the pavement distress.
2.2 Effect of Compaction
Dickinson (1984), gave a description according to build a reliable asphalt
pavement that can be use by the engineers to plan, design and construct the pavement
in his book titled B ituminous Road in Australia. He stated that the laboratory design
is the first process and modified according to traffic loading req uirement. However,
it also considered the factors that could influence the pavement performances such as
temperatures, materials, traffic loading and the pavement design itself.
Figure 2.1 shows the flow chart that had been chose as a design method. It is
shows that the 50 hammer blows was chose as a compactive effort for rural road
while 75 hammer blows used to heavy vehicles road with high tire pressure such as
airfield pavement.
Table 2.7 and 2.8 show the specification of Marshall Mix design that are used by
National Association of Australian State Road Authorities (NAASRA) while Figure
2.2 shows the ex ample result that usually get from Marshall Test. The result stated
that if the degree of compaction is not attained, the asphalt layer will become
hardened and causing the premature cracking. Figure 2.3 shows the compaction
condition across a wearing course after three years of traffic. The dual- carriageway
was carrying 13,000 vehicle/day with 7% of heavy vehicles and the Marshall design
is 10mm nominal size for the mix .Average thickness for each carriageway is 25mm.
10
Figure 2.1 Design flow chart. (Dickinson,1984)
11
Table 2.7 Typical design criteria for dense-graded mix es designed by the Marshall
Method for 75 blows compactive effort. (Dickinson,1984)
Table 2.8 Typical design criteria for dense-graded mix es designed by the Marshall
Method for 50 blows compactive effort. (Dickinson,1984)
12
Figure 2.2 Typical Marshall testing results. (Dickinson,1984)
13
Figure 2.3 Compaction of Asphaltic Concrete by traffic. (Dickinson,1984)
According to Figure 2.3, slow lane had been compacted to only 1% of air voids
above the design value. However, for the fast lane it had been compacted just to
8.5% air voids level from design value. This shows that at the edge of the
carriageway, the traffic compact was less.
The long-term distress is usually caused by the wear aggregates that have been
affected by the hardening of asphalt binder. There are various factors could form the
situation such as the loss of oils by evaporation, chemical attack by atmospheric
ox ygen and steric hardening. The binder hardening that caused by the ox idation is
the main factor in decreasing the pavement durability. The binder harden situation
has connection with the air voids design as shown in Figure 2.4 below.
14
Figure 2.4 Hardening of bitumen by ox idation. (Dickinson,1984)
B ell et al (1984), carried out the study for estimating the modulus and fatigue life
of asphalt mix tures. The study reported that the increasing of air void produces the
decrease in modulus fatigue life and resistance to permanent deformation. The study
held in three project areas which are North Oakland-Sutherlin (NO-S), Castle RockCedar Creek (CR-CC) and Warren-Scappoose (W-S) to estimate the modulus criteria
and fatigue life of the asphalt pavement.
Even though the test used Hveem stabilometer procedure, the effect of the
compactive effort that being used in this test is the point about to consider. For the
permanent deformation test results, it shows that the lower density mix tures are
easier to deform. This is because, the high-density mix tures develop much lower
permanent strains for giving number of load repetitions. Figure 2.5 to 2.7
representing as-compacted specimens for this study.
15
Figure 2.5 Effects of compaction on permanent deformation for as compacted
specimens, Oakland-Sutherlin project. (B ell et al , 1984)
Figure 2.6 Effects of compaction on permanent deformation for as compacted
specimens, Castle Rock-Cedar Creek project. (B ell et al , 1984)
16
Figure 2.7 Effects of compaction on permanent deformation for as compacted
specimens, Warren-Scappose project. (B ell et al , 1984)
According to the Figure 2.5,2.6 and 2.7, it can be seen that the NO-S project
shows the greatest resistance to deformation; even it has higher void contents at each
compactive effort than the other two projects. This phenomenon showed the other
effects such as aggregate interlock and asphalt consistency are also gives the
influenced factors.
B issada (1984) indicated that there was an optimum value for max imum
resistance. That depends on too little asphalt results in low cohesion and too much
asphalt in thick binder films in mix . Herein, the importance of the compaction plays
the role in the mix ture design. It also states that poor durability of asphalt pavement
according to poor design will suffer stripping problems such as raveling.
His study was carried out in Kuwait to evaluate the compaction characteristics of
asphalt concrete mix tures in terms of a coefficient of compactibility or resistance to
17
compaction. The test conducted by using two different asphalt concrete mix tures.
The first mix used a conventional asphalt cement 6 0/70 penetration (Mix A) and the
other mix (Mix B ) used sulfur asphalt concrete with 40/6 0 sulfur to asphalt (S/A)
ratio by weight.
The tests consisted of different filler content, different binder content and
different compaction level. The level of compactive effort used in the Marshall Mix
design method was ex amined. The objective of the study is to contribute the useful
information that might be used to select better asphalt mix designs according to
environmental and traffic conditions.
Figure 2.8 Stiffness versus number of compaction blows. (B issada , 1984)
18
Figure 2.8 shows the effect of compaction blows to the pavement stiffness. Each
type of mix with different binder had divided to different filler content which Mix I
(5% filler), Mix II (9% filler) and Mix III (14% filler).Mix III for both different
binders show a drop for the stiffness values after 50 blows of compaction. The
situation occurs because the critical end value of voids content achieved at the stage
of densification.
Mallick (1990) performed a series of test which including the indirect tensile test,
the resilient modulus test and the confined dynamic test. His objective was to
evaluate the laboratory compactors and binder aging method for HMA. He stated that
the compaction and the compactive effort did influence the density.
He ex amined the 4 inch and 6 inch cores to find out any significant different in
terms of air voids between them. Table 2.9 below shows his data and results of
analysis.
Table 2.9: Comparison of air voids between 4 inch and 6 inch cores. (Mallick , 1990)
19
The result of this test indicted that the greater amount of air voids produces
less dense mix ture. Table 2.9 above presents, after several years, the percentage of
air voids are decreasing because of the accumulated of traffic loads. B esides, he
stated that the data from in-place mix es showed the decreasing of tensile strength
with the reduction of air voids. In the conclusions, he suggested that the tyre or level
of compactive effort, did not influenced the tensile strain but instead influenced the
indirect tensile strength and resilient modulus.
2.3
Asphalt film thickness
The interaction of compaction and asphalt film thickness is commonly being
studied to enhance q uality of pavement. According to Chadbourn et al (2000), the
thin asphalt thickness could cause the aging of pavement.
Figure 2.9 Illustration of Asphalt Film Thickness (Chadbourn et al , 2000)
Figure 2.9 shows the illustration of asphalt film thickness that measured in unit
microns and the film is tend to strip if the asphalt coating the hydrophilic aggregates.
He and his friends also stated that the asphalt film thickness could be determined by
20
establishing the Voids in Mineral Aggregates (VMA), during the mix design and at
the site.
Figure 2.10 Illustration of VMA. (Chadbourn et al , 2000)
Actually, general component of Hot Mix Asphalt mix ture contains aggregates,
absorbed asphalt, effective asphalt and air as shown in Figure 2.10 above. The author
performed moisture sensitivity test to determine if the low asphalt film thickness has
a connection with the reduction of tensile strength ratio (TSR) value. The results
indicated that the decrease of asphalt film thickness has the potential to produce low
TSR value.
Table 2.10 below shows that he found that B emidji I and II had the lowest dry
tensile strength and decreased in asphalt film thickness. However, the TSR still
performs greater than 70% and the B emidji is used as low volume roadways. The
Willmar I and Metro show that the mix es with slightly low average in asphalt film
also had the decreased in asphalt film thickness.
21
Table 2.10: The Lottman Test results(Chadbourn et al , 2000)
Dickson (1984) also gave an information according to the VMA as shown in
Figure 2.11 below .The volume/mass relationship for typical compacted asphalt
cement is important to assure that VMA are not fully contain with bitumen because
it will cause bleeding to the pavement.
Figure 2.11 Volume/mass relationships for a typical bituminous
concrete (Dickson,1984)
22
Another research about the importance of asphalt film thickness had studied
by the Chicago Testing Laboratory Incorporation. Dick Root in Centerline (2001),
suggested that their research showed that the situation of loss service life of
pavement appears in the traffic that have less compaction such as parking lots,
secondary city streets and lighter volume country roads.
Effective solution that had been implemented in Mississippi and Wisconsin is by
decreasing the compactive efforts in the lab design. The target of the research is to
increase the binder content instead to get better results for the pavement that facing
the light traffic, thick pavements or ex treme weather conditions.
Table 2.11 below shows their recommendation of in-place air voids according to
the traffic applications.
Table 2.11 Recommendation of air voids according to traffic
conditions(Centerline,2001)
23
2.4
Resilient Modulus
Another important test that always being studied to assure that the pavement is
reliable enough is by determining the resilient modulus. The increase of resilient
modulus has connection with the reducing of asphalt film thickness. Previous study
by Khandal P.S and Chakraboty.S (1996 ) reported that the aging condition occurs
between 9 to 10 microns asphalt film thickness.
Table 2.12 Compacted HMA Properties after Short and Long Term Aging
(Khandal P.S and Chakraboty, 1996 )
Table 2.12 above shows the results of the resilient modulus at 250C according to
various film thickness. B oth short and long term aging specimen tests present
decreasing value resilient modulus with the increasing asphalt film thickness.
24
Figure 2.12 Asphalt Film Thickness vs. Resilient Modulus after Short Term Aging
(Khandal P.S and Chakraboty, 1996 )
Figure 2.13 Asphalt Film Thickness vs. Resilient Modulus after Long Term Aging
(Khandal P.S and Chakraboty, 1996 )
25
Figure 2.12 and 2.13 above show the curves of the resilient modulus versus
the asphalt film thickness for short and long term aging. B oth figures show that at
low film thickness which less than 9mm, there was a significant drop in resilient
modulus values. The curves start to level off at film thickness of 90mm.This study
had concluded that the thinker asphalt film could minimize the aging of HMA during
construction as well as during pavement service life.
2.5
Field Performance
The Marshall laboratory test is always used as a guide in-field pavement
design. The void content that had been chose in the laboratory test must be
approached in several years in term of traffics loading. Occasionally, the in field
design void content is chose slightly higher than the laboratory void content to
prevent the pavement distress.
Roberts et al (1996 ) stated that Marshall test stability result is used as a
surrogate measure for field stability. The field stability is hard to interpret as it is
influences by numerous of affect such as temperature, tire contact pressure, traffics
loading and many more properties.
The significance of density is not really important in the laboratory but it
shows the affect of pavement performance after several years of traffic. The
increasing of compactive effort increase the pavement shear resistance and prevent
the permanent deformation from occurs. However, after the density reaches a peak,
it is attend to decrease because of the present of additional asphalt cement that
pushing the aggregates particle further apart. Thicker asphalt film coats the
aggregates causing the reducing of pavement density.
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
3.1
Introduction
7KHPDLQSXUSRVHRIWKHODERUDWRU\ZRUNLVWRILQGWKHGLIIHUHQWLDORUVLPLODULW\
EHWZHHQWZRW\SHVRIFRPSDFWLYHHIIRUWVLQWKH0DUVKDOO0L['HVLJQ0HWKRG,QVWHDGRI
WKDWWKHVHVSHFLPHQVDUHXVHGWRGHWHUPLQHWKHRSWLPXPELWXPHQFRQWHQWWKDWZLOOEH
XVHGWRGHVLJQWKHPL[HVLQWKHRWKHUWHVWV6HYHUDORIWKHWHVWVDFFRPSOLVKHGLQ+LJKZD\
7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ/DERUDWRU\870DQGVRPHRILWKDGEHHQGRQHLQ+LJKZD\
/DERUDWRU\LQ.8L77+2
6DPSOHVDUHSUHSDUHGDQGWHVWHGDFFRUGLQJWKH-.563-DVDJXLGHWRDWWDLQ
WKHODERUDWRU\ZRUNVDQGPDWHULDOVDUHIXOILOOWKH0DOD\VLDQ5RDG:RUNVFLUFXPVWDQFHV
7DEOHDQG7DEOHVKRZWKHDSSURSULDWHHQYHORSHVIRUJUDGDWLRQDJJUHJDWHVWKDW
XVHGLQWKLVSURMHFW
7DEOH*UDGDWLRQ/LPLWIRU$VSKDOWLF&RQFUHWH$&:
0L[7\SH
:HDULQJ&RXUVH
%66LHYH6L]H
3DVVLQJ%\:HLJKW
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
ȝP
ȝP
ȝP
7DEOH*UDGDWLRQ/LPLWIRU$VSKDOWLF&RQFUHWH$&:
0L[7\SH
:HDULQJ&RXUVH
%66LHYH6L]H
3DVVLQJ%\:HLJKW
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
ȝP
ȝP
ȝP
7KHGHVLJQELWXPHQFRQWHQWVWKDWVXJJHVWHGEHLQJXVHLQWKHPL[GHVLJQVDUHLQ
WKHDSSURSULDWHUDQJHDVJLYHQLQ7DEOHEHORZ%HVLGHVWKHWHVWUHVXOWVDQGDQDO\VHV
LQWKLVSURMHFWZLOOEHFRPSDUHGWRWKH-.563-UHTXLUHPHQWVDVJLYHQLQ7DEOH
7DEOH'HVLJQ%LWXPHQ&RQWHQW
$&:
$&:
7DEOH7HVWDQG$QDO\VHV3DUDPHWHUIRU$VSKDOWLF&RQFUHWH-.563-
3DUDPHWHU
:HDULQJ&RXUVH
%LQGHU&RXUVH
6WDELOLW\6
!NJ
!NJ
)ORZ)
!PP
!PP
6WLIIQHVV6)
!NJ
!NJ
$LUYRLGVLQPL[
9RLGVLQDJJUHJDWHVILOOHG
ZLWKELWXPHQ
3.2
Laboratory Test Procedure
7KHODERUDWRU\WHVWVGLYLGHGWRVHYHUDOVWHSVEHJLQVZLWKWKHDJJUHJDWHV
SUHSDUDWLRQ7KHJUDGDWLRQRIWKHDJJUHJDWHVLVXVHGWRGHVLJQWKH0DUVKDOOPL[HV
VDPSOHV)LUVWO\WKHGXVWFRQWHQWLQWKHVDPSOHRIDJJUHJDWHVLVHYDOXDWHG7KHYDOXHRI
WKHGXVWFRQWHQWWKHQZLOOEHGHGXFWHGIURPWKHSHUFHQWDJHVRIWKHDJJUHJDWHVJUDGDWLRQ
7KHVHFRQGVWHSLVSHUIRUPLQJWKH0DUVKDOO7HVWWKDWXVHGWRGHWHUPLQHWKHRSWLPXP
ELWXPHQFRQWHQW2%&IRUHDFKW\SHRIPL[HV7KHYDOXHRIWKH2%&LVLPSRUWDQWIRU
GHVLJQLQJWKHPL[HVWRLQGLFDWHRWKHUPL[SHUIRUPDQFHWHVWV7KHELWXPHQWKDWXVHGLQ
WKHGHVLJQLVSHQHWUDWLRQDQGLWLVVLJQLILFDQWDVDELQGHULQWKHPL[HV)LJXUH
VKRZVWKHODERUDWRU\WHVWIORZ
AGGREGATES PREPARATION
MARSHALL TESTS
D
%XON6SHFLILF*UDYLW\RI&RPSDFWHG%LWXPLQRXV0L[WXUHV8VLQJ
6DWXUDWHG6XUIDFH'U\6SHFLPHQV$$67+27
E
5HVLVWDQFHWR3ODVWLF)ORZRI%LWXPLQRXV0L[WXUHV8VLQJ0DUVKDOO
$SSDUDWXV$$6+727
F
5HVLVWDQFHRI&RPSDFWHG%LWXPLQRXV0L[WXUHWR0RLVWXUH,QGXFHG
'DPDJH$$6+727IRU$&:
G
6WDQGDUG7HVW0HWKRGIRU,QGLUHFW7HQVLRQ7HVWIRU5HVLOLHQW
0RGXOXVRI%LWXPLQRXV0L[WXUH$670'E\XVLQJ8QLYHUVDO
7HVWLQJ0DFKLQHIRU$&:
DATA ANALYSIS
)LJXUH/DERUDWRU\WHVWIORZ
)LJXUH/DERUDWRU\7HVW)ORZ
3.3
Aggregate preparation
7KHDJJUHJDWHVDUHSUHSDUHGDFFRUGLQJWRWKHGHVLJQWKDWKDGEHHQFKRVHE\
IROORZLQJWKHJUDGDWLRQOLPLW7KHSHUFHQWDJHVRIWKHDJJUHJDWHVFDQEHHVHHQDW
$SSHQGL[$7KHDSSDUDWXVWKDWXVHGIRUWKHDJJUHJDWHVSUHSDUDWLRQDUHEDODQFHVLHYHV
DQGRYHQ6HH)LJXUH
)LJXUH6LHYHVIURPȝPWRPP
3.4
Marshall Mix Design
7KHPDLQSXUSRVHRIGHVLJQLVWRHOLPLQDWHWKHRSWLPXPELWXPHQFRQWHQW2%&
RIHDFKPL[HV)RUWKLVODERUDWRU\WHVWVHDFKPL[HVZLOOGLYLGHGWRWZRFRPSDFWLYH
HIIRUWVZKLFKDUHEORZVDQGEORZVDQGWKHWRWDORIWKHVSHFLPHQVWKDWXVHGLQWKLV
WHVWDUHVSHFLPHQV6HH$SSHQGL[%WRILQGWKHGHVLJQSDUWRIWKHPL[HV
3.4.1
Mix design preparation
D7KHDSSDUDWXVWKDWXVHGLQWKHSUHSDUDWLRQRIPL[GHVLJQVDUH
L
6SHFLPHQ0ROG$VVHPEO\
LL
&RPSDFWLRQ+DPPHU
LLL
&RPSDFWLRQ3HGHVWDO
LY
6SHFLPHQ0ROG+ROGHU
Y
%UHDNLQJ+HDG
YL
2YHQ
YLL
0L[LQJ$SSDUDWXV
YLLL
7KHUPRPHWHUDQG
L[
0L[LQJ7RROV
E7HVWVSHFLPHQVDUH
L
W\SHVRIDJJUHJDWHVPL[GHVLJQDWLRQWKDWKDGEHHQGULHGDW&WR
&DQG
LL
+HDWHGDVSKDOWFHPHQW
F3UHSDUDWLRQRI0L[WXUHV
L
$JJUHJDWHVDUHZHLJKWHGDFFRUGLQJWKHDPRXQWRIHDFKVL]HIUDFWLRQ
WKDWUHTXLUHGEHLQJFRPSDFW
LL
7KHQSXWWKHSDQRQWKHKRWSODWHDQGEHLQJKHDWHGWR&
LLL
&KDUJHWKHSDQZLWKWKHKHDWHGDJJUHJDWHVDQGGU\PL[WKRURXJKO\
LY
3UHKHDWHGELWXPLQRXVPDWHULDOVWKDWUHTXLUHGWRWKHPL[WXUHDUH
ZHLJKWHG
Y
3UHYHQWLRQRIORVLQJWKHPL[GXULQJWKHPL[LQJPXVWEHWDNHQZLWK
VXEVHTXHQWKDQGOLQJ7KHWHPSHUDWXUHVKDOOQRWWREHPRUHWKDQWKH
OLPLWV
YL
$IWHUZDUGWKHDJJUHJDWHVDQGWKHELWXPLQRXVDUHUDSLGO\PL[HGXQWLO
WKRURXJKO\FRDWHG
YLL
/DVWO\WKHPL[WXUHLVUHPRYHGIURPWKHSDQDQGUHDG\IRUFRPSDFWLRQ
SURFHVV
G&RPSDFWLRQRIVSHFLPHQV
7KHSURFHGXUHEHJLQVZLWKUHFRUGWKHPL[WXUHWHPSHUDWXUHDQGREVHUYHXQWLO
LWUHDFKWKHGHVLUDEOHFRPSDFWLRQWHPSHUDWXUH7KHSURFHVVZLOOIROORZDVOLVWHG
EHORZ
L
7KHPROGDVVHPEO\DQGWKHIDFHRIFRPSDFWLRQKDPPHUDUHFOHDQHG
DQGEHLQJKHDWHGLQWKHERLOLQJZDWHURUKRWSODWRURYHQDW&WR
&
LL
)LOWHUSDSHUWKDWLVFXWLQWRSLHFHVLVSODFHGLQWKHERWWRPRIWKHPROG
EHIRUHWKHPL[WXUHLVLQWURGXFHG
LLL
7KHPL[WXUHWKDWKDVEHHQSUHSDUHGWKHQSODFHGLQWKHPROGDQG
EHLQJVWLUUHGE\WKHVSDWXODRUWURZHOIRUWLPHVDURXQGWKH
SHULPHWHUDQGWLPHVRYHUWKHLQWHULRU
LY
7KHFROODULVUHPRYHGDQGWKHVXUIDFHZLOOEHVPRRWKHGZLWKWKH
WURZHOWRVOLJKWO\URXQGHGVKDSH
Y
1H[WWKHFRPSDFWLRQWHPSHUDWXUHLVUHFRUGHGRQFHDJDLQ
YL
7KHFROODUWKHQZLOOEHDVVHPEOHGWRWKHFRPSDFWLRQSHGHVWDOLQWKH
PROGKROGHU
YLL
7KHEORZVRUEORZVRIFRPSDFWLRQKDPPHUDUHDSSOLHGZLWKD
IUHHIDOOLQPPIURPWKHPROGEDVHDQGWKHFRPSDFWLRQKDPPHU
LVDVVXUHGWREHSHUSHQGLFXODUWRWKHEDVHRIWKHPROGDVVHPEO\
YLLL
$IWHUFRPSDFWLRQWKHEDVHSODWHLVUHPRYHGDQGWKHVDPHEORZVDUH
FRPSDFWHGWRWKHERWWRPRIWKHVDPSOHWKDWKDVEHHQWXUQHGDURXQG
L[
$IWHUWKDWWKHFROODULVOLIWHGIURPWKHVSHFLPHQFDUHIXOO\
[
1H[WWUDQVIHUWKHVSHFLPHQWRVPRRWKVXUIDFHDWURRPWHPSHUDWXUHIRU
RYHUQLJKW
[L
/DVWO\UHFRUGWKHZHLJKWDQGH[DPLQHWKHVSHFLPHQ
7KHSURFHGXUHRIWKHPL[LQJDQGFRPSDFWLRQDUHVKRZQLQ)LJXUH
D7KHDJJUHJDWHVDUHKHDWHGLQWKHRYHQ
E7KHWHPSHUDWXUHLVUHDGDQGEHLQJFRQWUROOHG
F7KHDJJUHJDWHVDQGWKHELWXPLQRXVDUHPL[HGDQGFRDWHG
G7KHPL[LVSXWWHGLQWRWKHPROGWKHWHPSHUDWXUHLVFRQWUROOHG
H7KHVSHFLPHQLVFRPSDFWHGDFFRUGLQJWRGHVLUHEORZV
I7KHVSHFLPHQVWKDWKDGEHHQSUHSDUHGE\0DUVKDOO0L['HVLJQ
)LJXUH3URFHGXUHRI0DUVKDOO6DPSOH3UHSDUDWLRQ
3.5 Marshall Tests
3.5.1
Bulk Specific Gravity of Compacted Bituminuos Mixtures Using Saturated
Surface-Dry Specimens (AASTHO T166-88)
7KLVWHVWFRYHUVWKHGHWHUPLQDWLRQRIEXONVSHFLILFJUDYLW\RIWKHVDPSOHV7KLV
PHWKRGLVRQO\FDQEHXVHGWRWKHVSHFLPHQVWKDWDEVRUEQRWPRUHWKDQRIZDWHU
E\YROXPH7KHUHVXOWRIEXONVSHFLILFJUDYLW\PD\EHXVHGWRFDOFXODWHWKHXQLW
ZHLJKWRIPL[WXUH
D $SSDUDWXVWKDWXVHGLQWKLVWHVWDUHOLVWHGEHORZ
L
%DODQFHDQG
LL
:DWHUEDWK
E 3URFHGXUH
L
)LUVWWKHVSHFLPHQLVGULHGWRFRQVWDQWPDVV
LL
7KHURRPWHPSHUDWXUHLVPDLQWDLQHGDW&
LLL
7KHGU\PDVVLVUHFRUGHGDV$
LY
(DFKVSHFLPHQLVLPPHUVHGLQWRWKHZDWHUDW“&IRUWR
PLQXWHVDQGWKHLPPHUVHGPDVVUHFRUGHGDV&
Y
5HPRYHVSHFLPHQIURPWKHZDWHUE\EORWWLQJWKHVXUIDFHZLWKWRZHO
DQGGHWHUPLQHWKHVXUIDFHGU\PDVVDV%
YL
7KHSURFHGXUHRIWHVWLQJRSHUDWLRQVPD\EHFKDQJHGZLWKWDNLQJWKH
LPPHUVHGPDVVDV$VXUIDFHGU\PDVVDV%DQGILQDOGU\PDVVDV&
YLL
7KHEXONVSHFLILFJUDYLW\FDQEHFDOFXODWHGE\XVLQJWKHHTXDWLRQ
EHORZ
%XONVSHFLILFJUDYLW\ $
%&
D7KHVSHFLPHQLVZHLJKWWRJHWWKHGU\DLUPDVV
F 7KHVSHFLPHQLVLPPHUVHGWRJHWWKHPDVVLQZDWHU
G7KHVSHFLPHQVDUHZLSHGZLWKWRZHODQGZHLJKWWRJHWWKHVXUIDFHGU\PDVV
)LJXUH6WHSVRI%XON6SHFLILF*UDYLW\7HVW
3.5.2
Resistance to Plastic Flow of Bituminuos Mixtures Using Marshall
Apparatus (AASTHO T245-90)
7KHWHVWFRYHUVWKHPHDVXUHPHQWRIUHVLVWDQFHWRSODVWLFIORZRIWKHDVSKDOW
SDYHPHQWVSHFLPHQVXVLQJWKH0DUVKDOODSSDUDWXVDQGWKH&RPSUHVVLRQ7HVWLQJ
0DFKLQH
)LJXUH&RPSUHVVLRQ7HVWLQJ0DFKLQH
7KHWHVWSURFHGXUHLVOLVWHGDVEHORZ
L
6SHFLPHQVWKDWKDYHEHHQSUHSDUHGZLWKDVSKDOWFHPHQWDUHLPPHUVHGLQ
WKHZDWHUEDWKZLWKWKHWHPSHUDWXUHPDLQWDLQDW“&IRUWR
PLQXWHV
LL
7KHJXLGHURGVDQGWKHWHVWKHDGVDUHFOHDQHGDVWKHSULRULW\WRPDNLQJ
WKHWHVW
LLL
%HVLGHVOXEULFDWHWKHJXLGHURGVVRWKDWWKHXSSHUWHVWVOLGHVIUHHO\RYHU
WKHP
LY
7KHWHVWLQJKHDGWHPSHUDWXUHLVVXJJHVWHGWRPDLQWDLQDW&WR&
Y
6SHFLPHQWKHQLVUHPRYHGIURPWKHZDWHUEDWKDQGEHSODFHGLQWKHORZHU
VHJPHQWRIWKHEUHDNLQJKHDG
YL
$IWHUWKDWWKHXSSHUVHJPHQWRIWKHEUHDNLQJKHDGLVSODFHGRQWKH
VSHFLPHQ7KHFRPSOHWHDVVHPEO\LVDOVRORFDWHGLQSRVLWLRQRQWKH
WHVWLQJPDFKLQH
YLL
7KHIORZPHWHULVSODFHGLQSRVLWLRQRYHURQHRIWKHJXLGHURGV
YLLL
7KHQDGMXVWWKHIORZPHWHUWR]HURZKLOHKROGLQJWKHVOHHYHILUPO\
L[
5HFRUGWKHUHDGLQJEHIRUHWKHVSHFLPHQLVEHLQJORDGHG
[
1H[WWKHORDGDSSOLHGWRWKHVSHFLPHQE\FRQVWDQWPRYHPHQWRIPP
PLQLPXPXQWLOWKHPD[LPXPORDGLVUHDFKHG
[L
/RDGGHFUHDVHGDVLQGLFDWHGE\WKHGLDO
[LL
$IWHUZDUGWKHPD[LPXPORDGXQWLOLWEHJLQVWRGHFUHDVHLVQRWHGRUEHLQJ
FRQYHUWHGIURPWKHPD[LPXPPLFURPHWHUGLDOUHDGLQJ
[LLL
5HFRUGWKHODVWUHDGLQJDWWKHIORZPHWHU7KHODVWYDOXHRIIORZPHWHULV
GHGXFWHGWRWKHHDUOLHVWYDOXHZKLFKWKLVZLOOLQGLFDWHVDVDIORZYDOXHLQ
PPXQLW
[LY
)XUWKHUPRUHWKHWRWDOWLPHIRUWKHRYHUDOOWHVWVKDOOQRWH[FHHGV
3.5.3
Resistance of Compacted Bituminous Mixture to Moisture Induced Damage
(AASHTO T283).
7KLVWHVWLVXVHGWRGHWHUPLQHWKHLQGLUHFWWHQVLOHVWUHQJWKRIWKHPL[HVUHVXOWLQJ
IURPWKHHIIHFWRIVDWXUDWLRQDQGDFFHOHUDWHGZDWHUFRQGLWLRQLQJRIFRPSDFWHG
ELWXPLQRXVPL[WXUHVLQWKHODERUDWRU\)URPWKHREWDLQHGUHVXOWVWKHORQJWHUPVWULSSLQJ
VXVFHSWLELOLW\RIWKHELWXPLQRXVPL[WXUHFDQEHSUHGLFWHG
D $SSDUDWXVIRUWHVWDUHFRQWDLQWKHOLVWEHORZ
L
9DFXXPFRQWDLQHU
LL
%DODQFHDQGZDWHUEDWK
LLL
)UHH]HUPDLQWDLQHGDW“)“&
LY
$VXSSO\RISODVWLFZUDSSLQJ
Y
)RUFHGDLUGUDIWRYHQFDSDEOHRIPDLQWDLQLQJDWHPSHUDWXUHD
WHPSHUDWXUHRI“)“&
YL
/RDGLQJMDFNDQGULQJG\QDPRPHWHUIURP$$6+727
YLL
/RDGLQJVWULSV
E 3URFHGXUH
L
2QHRIWHVWPL[WXUHVXEVHWZLOOEHWHVWHGGU\DQGWKHRWKHUZLOOEH
SUHFRQGLWLRQHGEHIRUHWHVWLQJ
LL
7KHGU\VXEVHWZLOOEHVWRUHGDWURRPWHPSHUDWXUHXQWLOWHVWLQJ7KH
VSHFLPHQVKDOOEHZUDSSHGZLWKSODVWLFRUSODFHGLQDKHDY\GXW\OHDN
SURRISODVWLFEDJ7KHVSHFLPHQVWKHQDUHSODFHGLQD)&
ZDWHUEDWKIRUDPLQLPXPRIKRXUV
LLL
$IWHUUHPRYLQJWKHVSHFLPHQIURPWKHZDWHUEDWKSODFHWKHPL[WXUH
EHWZHHQWKHWZREHDULQJSODWHVLQWKHWHVWLQJPDFKLQH
LY
5HFRUGWKHPD[LPXPFRPSUHVVLYHVWUHQJWKWKDWQRWHGRQWKHWHVWLQJ
PDFKLQHDQGFRQWLQXHVWKHORDGLQJXQWLODYHUWLFDOFUDFNDSSHDUV
5HPRYHWKHVSHFLPHQIURPWKHPDFKLQHDQGSXOODSDUWDWWKHFUDFN
7KHLQWHULRUVXUIDFHZLOOEHFKHFNHGIRUVWULSSLQJDQGWKHREVHUYDWLRQ
KDVWREHUHFRUGHG
Y
)RUWKHFRQGLWLRQHGVXEVHWWKHVSHFLPHQVDUHSODFHGLQWKHYDFXXP
FRQWDLQHUZLWKGLVWLOOHGZDWHUDWURRPWHPSHUDWXUHIRUILYHWRWHQ
PLQXWHV
YL
7KHEXONVSHFLILFJUDYLW\DQGWKHYROXPHRIDEVRUEHGZDWHUDUH
FDOFXODWHGILUVWWRGHWHUPLQHWKHGHJUHHRIVDWXUDWLRQ7KHGHJUHHRI
VDWXUDWLRQLVIURPWR7KHFDOFXODWLRQVDUHXVLQJ$$6+72
7DQG$$6+727SURFHGXUHV
YLL
$IWHUYDFXXPWKHVSHFLPHQVDUHZUDSSHGZLWKSODVWLFILOPDQGEH
SODFHGLQDSODVWLFEDJFRQWDLQLQJPORIZDWHUDQGEHLQJVHDOHG
YLLL
7KHVSHFLPHQVWKHQSODFHGLQWKHIUHH]HUZLWKWHPSHUDWXUH“&
L[
$IWHUKRXUVWKHVSHFLPHQVZLOOEHLPPHUVHGWRWKHZDWHUEDWKIRU
KRXUVDW&7KHSODVWLFEDJDQGWKHSODVWLFILOPDUHUHPRYHG
[
$IWHUKRXUVWKHVSHFLPHQVQHHGHGWREHVXEPHUJHGLQWKHZDWHU
EDWKIRUDQRWKHUKRXUVDW&
[L
7KHVSHFLPHQVWKHQUHDG\WREHWHVWHGVDPHDVWKHXQFRQGLWLRQHG
VXEVHWWHVWSURFHGXUH
)LJXUH6SHFLPHQLQDYDFXXPFRQWDLQHU
)LJXUH6SHFLPHQVSODFHGLQWKHIUHH]HUZLWKWHPSHUDWXUH“&
)LJXUH7KHVSHFLPHQVVXEPHUJHGLQWKHZDWHUEDWK
F &DOFXODWLRQ
7KHFDOFXODWLRQLVWRGHWHUPLQHWKHHIIHFWRIZDWHUDVUDWLRRIWKHRULJLQDO
VWUHQJWKWKDWLVUHWDLQHGDIWHUIUHH]HZDUPZDWHUFRQGLWLRQLQJ
7HQVLOH6WUHQJWK5DWLR765 6
6 :KHUH
6 DYHUDJHWHQVLOHVWUHQJWKRIGU\VXEVHWDQG
6 DYHUDJHWHQVLOHVWUHQJWKRIFRQGLWLRQHGVXEVHW
3.5.4
Standard Test Method for Indirect Tension Test for Resilient Modulus of
Bituminous Mixture (ASTM D 4123) by using Universal Testing Machine.
7KHWHVWLVXVLQJWKHUHSHDWHGORDGRIWHQVLRQWHVWIRUGHWHUPLQHWKHUHVLOLHQW
PRGXOXVRIWKHVDPSOHV7KHUHVLOLHQWPRGXOXVLVLPSRUWDQWWRHYDOXDWHWKHUHODWLYH
TXDOLW\RIWKHSDYHPHQWPDWHULDOV,QWKLVODERUDWRU\ZRUNWKH8QLYHUVDO7HVWLQJ
0DFKLQH870LVXVHGWRPHDVXUHWKHYDOXHRIUHVLOLHQWPRGXOXV
D 3URFHGXUH
L
7KHVDPSOHOHQJWKDQGGLDPHWHUDUHPHDVXUHGEHIRUHSXWWHGLWWKH
8QLYHUVDO7HVWLQJ0DFKLQH870
LL
,QWKHPDFKLQHWKHWHVWLQJVDPSOHPXVWEHDVVXUHGORFDWHGDWWKH
FHQWUHRIWKHMLJZLWKWKHDVVLVWRIWKHFRPSXWHU
LLL
7KHWHVWWHPSHUDWXUHLVVHWXSWR&7KHWHPSHUDWXUHLV
UHFRPPHQGHGE\$670'
LY
7RVWDUWWKHWHVWWKHSDUDPHWHUVXFKDVHVWLPDWHGSRLVVRQUDWLRDQG
HVWLPDWHGVSHFLPHQUHVLOLHQWPRGXOXVYDOXHLVILOOHG
7KHSURFHGXUHRIWKLVWHVWLVVKRZQLQ)LJXUH
D7KHVDPSOHOHQJWKDQGGLDPHWHUDUHPHDVXUHG
E 7KHMLJLVEHLQJSUHSDUHG
F 7KHVSHFLPHQLVDGMXVWHGLQWRWKHMLJDQGWKHSDUDPHWHULVILOOHGLQWKHVRIWZDUH
G 7KHVSHFLPHQLVUHDG\WREHWHVWHG
)LJXUH7KHVWHSVRI8QLYHUVDO7HVWLQJ0DFKLQHWHVW
E &DOFXODWLRQ
7KHIRUPXODEHORZDUHXVHGLQWKHGDWDFDOFXODWLRQIRUWKLVWHVW
6W )ʌ/'
( )5/+
ȯU +'
:KHUH
6W WHQVLOHVWUHQJWKN3D
( WRWDOUHVLOLHQWPRGXOXVRIHODVWLFLW\03D
/ WKHVSHFLPHQOHQJWKPP
' WKHVSHFLPHQGLDPHWHUPP
) PD[LPXPSHDNDSSOLHGIRUFHUHSHDWHGORDG1
5 DVVXPHGUHVLOLHQW3RLVVRQ¶VUDWLR
+ WRWDOUHFRYHUDEOHKRUL]RQWDOGHIRUPDWLRQPP
ȯU WRWDOUHFRYHUDEOHVWUDLQ
$OOWKHUHVXOWVDQGDQDO\VLVIRUWKHODERUDWRU\ZRUNVZLOOEHGLVFXVVHGLQWKH&KDSWHU
&+$37(5
5(68/76$1'$1$/<6,6'$7$
,QWURGXFWLRQ
7KLVFKDSWHUSURYLGHVWKHUHVXOWVDQGILQGLQJVLQWKHODERUDWRU\WHVWVFRPSDULQJ
WKHEORZVDQGEORZVFRPSDFWLYHHIIRUWVIRU$&:DQG$&:0DUVKDOO0L[
'HVLJQV7KHUHVXOWVLQFOXGHWKHWHQVLOHVWUHQJWKWHQVLOHVWUDLQDWIDLOXUHGHQVLW\DQG
UHVLOLHQWPRGXOXVSDUDPHWHU7KHUHVXOWVWKHQDUHFRPSDUHGWR-.5VSHFLILFDWLRQVDQG
SUHYLRXVVWXGLHVWRDQDO\]HWKHLQIOXHQFHVRIFRPSDFWLYHHIIRUWVWRWKHSDYHPHQW
GXUDELOLW\DQGVWDELOLW\7KHUDZGDWDRIWKHODERUDWRU\WHVWVUHVXOWVDUHVKRZQLQ
$SSHQGLFHV
2SWLPXP%LWXPHQ&RQWHQW
7KHSULPDU\REMHFWLYHRI0DUVKDOOWHVWVLVWRGHWHUPLQHWKHRSWLPXPELWXPHQ
FRQWHQW2%&RIWKHGHVLJQHGPL[HVZKLFKDUH$&:ZLWKEORZVFRPSDFWLRQ
$&:ZLWKEORZVFRPSDFWLRQ$&:ZLWKEORZVFRPSDFWLRQDQG$&:
ZLWKEORZVFRPSDFWLRQ
7KHGDWDIURPWKH0DUVKDOOWHVWVZHUHXVHGWRSORWJUDSKVRIVL[SDUDPHWHUVDJDLQVWWKH
DVSKDOWFRQWHQWSHUFHQWDJH7KHVL[SDUDPHWHUVDUH
L
'HQVLW\
L
6WDELOLW\
LL
)ORZ
LLL
9)%9RLGV)LOOHGZLWK%LQGHU
LY
9709RLGVLQ7RWDO0L[
Y
6WLIIQHVV
3URFHGXUHDVGHVFULEHGE\WKH1DWLRQDO$VSKDOW3DYLQJ$VVRFLDWLRQ1$3$WR
GHWHUPLQHWKHRSWLPXPELWXPHQFRQWHQW2%&ZDVVHOHFWHG7KHDVSKDOWFRQWHQW
SHUFHQWDJHZKLFKFRUUHVSRQGVWRWKHDLUYRLGDW970LVGHWHUPLQHG7KHLVWKH
VSHFLILFDWLRQRIPHGLDQDLUYRLGFRQWHQW7KHRWKHUSDUDPHWHUVDWWKLVDVSKDOWFRQWHQWDUH
GHWHUPLQHGDQGFRPSDUHGWRWKH-.56SHFLILFDWLRQ7KHGDWDLVLQFOXGHGLQWKH
$SSHQGL[%&'DQG(7KHUHVXOWVDUHVKRZQLQWKH7DEOHDQGEHORZ
7DEOH$QDO\VLV3DUDPHWHUIRU$&:ZLWKEORZVFRPSDFWLRQDW2%&
3DUDPHWHUV
5HVXOWV
'HQVLW\
6WDELOLW\
NJ
)ORZ
PP
9)%
970
6WLIIQHVV
NJ
7DEOH$QDO\VLV3DUDPHWHUIRU$&:ZLWKEORZVFRPSDFWLRQDW2%&
3DUDPHWHUV
5HVXOWV
'HQVLW\
6WDELOLW\
NJ
)ORZ
PP
9)%
970
6WLIIQHVV
NJ
7DEOH$QDO\VLV3DUDPHWHUIRU$&:ZLWKEORZVFRPSDFWLRQDW2%&
3DUDPHWHUV
5HVXOWV
'HQVLW\
6WDELOLW\
NJ
)ORZ
PP
9)%
970
6WLIIQHVV
NJ
7DEOH$QDO\VLV3DUDPHWHUIRU$&:ZLWKEORZVFRPSDFWLRQDW2%&
3DUDPHWHUV
5HVXOWV
'HQVLW\
6WDELOLW\
NJ
)ORZ
PP
9)%
970
6WLIIQHVV
NJ
7KHUHVXOWVDUHFRPSDUHGWRWKH-.56SHFLILFDWLRQIRUZHDULQJFRXUVHLQ7DEOH
$OOYDOXHVDUHZLWKLQWKHVSHFLILFDWLRQUDQJH)RUERWKPL[GHVLJQVUHVXOWVIURPWKH
EORZVFRPSDFWLYHHIIRUWSURGXFHVKLJKHUYDOXHVWKDQWKHEORZV7KLVLVH[SHFWHG
EHFDXVHKLJKHUFRPSDFWLYHHIIRUWQRUPDOO\VKRZVWKHKLJKHUGHQVLW\WKDWFRXOGOHDGWR
EHWWHUSHUIRUPDQFH7KHUHVXOWVRIEORZVFRPSDFWLYHHIIRUWDOVRPHWWKHVWDQGDUG
VSHFLILFDWLRQ7KLVVXJJHVWHGWKDWWKHPL[GHVLJQZLWKEORZVVKRXOGDOVRSURYLGHD
JRRGSHUIRUPDQFH
$QDO\VLVLQGLFDWHGWKDWEORZVFRPSDFWLYHHIIRUWIRU$&:VKRZHGEHWWHU
VWDELOLW\WKDQEORZV7KHVLWXDWLRQLVYLVHYHUVDIRU$&:ZKLFKEORZVVKRZWKH
EHWWHUUHVXOWIRUGHQVLW\7KLVGLIIHUHQFHFRXOGEHGRQHWRWKHYDULDELOLW\GXULQJWKH
WHVWLQJ
7KH9)%RIWKHERWKGHVLJQV$&:VKRZWKHVDPHYDOXHZKLFKLV-.5
VSHFLILFDWLRQUDQJHIRU9)%LVWR$KLJKSHUFHQWRI9)%LQGLFDWHVXQVWDEOH
PL[WXUHZKLOHWKHORZ9)%VKRZVWKHORZGXUDELOLW\RIPL[WXUH$&:VKRZVWKDW
EORZVKDVORZHU9)%WKDQEORZV
7KHIORZUHVXOWVFDQEHXVHGWRLQGLFDWHWKHSHUIRUPDQFHRIPL[WXUHLQWHUPRI
EULWWOHQHVVRUVWDELOLW\0L[HUZLWKORZHUIORZLVRIWHQFRQVLGHUHGWREHEULWWOH7KH
ILQGLQJVVKRZWKDWIRUERWK$&:DQG$&:WKHEORZVVKRZWKHORZHUYDOXHRI
IORZWKDQEORZVRIFRPSDFWLYHHIIRUW
)URPWKH0DUVKDOOWHVWVLQPRVWFDVHVPL[HVZLWKKLJKHUFRPSDFWLYHHIIRUWKDG
KLJKHUVWDELOLW\YDOXHVEXWORZHUDVSKDOWFRQWHQWDVFRPSDUHGWRPL[HVZLWKORZHU
FRPSDFWLYHHIIRUW
0RLVWXUH,QGXFHG'DPDJH
$$6+727WHVWSURFHGXUHLVDOVRNQRZQDVWKH0RGLILHG/RWWPDQ7HVW
ZKLFKLVWKHPRVWDSSURSULDWHWHVWPHWKRGWRPHDVXUHWKHPRLVWXUHGDPDJHLQ+0$
PL[HV7KLVWHVWJLYHVWKHYDOXHVRI7HQVLOH6WUHQJWK5DWLR765IRU$&:ZLWK
GLIIHUHQFHFRPSDFWLYHHIIRUW7KHFDOFXODWLRQVRIWKHUHVXOWVFDQEHVHHQDW$SSHQGL[*
7DEOHVKRZVWKHUHVXOWVRIWKHSDUDPHWHUVLQWKLVWHVW
7DEOH7HQVLOH6WUHQJWKIRU$&:ZLWKGLIIHUHQWQXPEHURIEORZV
8QFRQGLWLRQHG
&RQGLWLRQHG
VXEVHW6W
VXEVHW6W
765
N3D
N3D
1XPEHURIEORZV
$PLQLPXPUHFRPPHQGDWLRQ765IRUWKLVWHVWPHWKRGLV7KHUHVXOWVVKRZ
WKDW$&:PL[GHVLJQZLWKEORZVGLGQRWIXOILOOWKHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQ7KHDYHUDJH
GU\WHQVLOHVWUHQJWK6WIRUEORZVVKRZVDORZHUYDOXHWKDQEORZV+RZHYHUWKH
UHVXOWVIRUDYHUDJHZHWWHQVLOHVWUHQJWK6WVKRZVYLFHYHUVD7KHLQGLUHFWWHQVLOHWHVWIRU
ERWK$&:GHVLJQVQHHGWKHPRGLILFDWLRQRIDLUYRLGVSHUFHQWDJHV“WRIXOILOOWKH
$$67+27SURFHGXUH$&:ZLWKEORZVLVPRGLILHGWREORZVWRJHWDLU
YRLGVZKHUHDVWKHEORZVLVPRGLILHGWREORZVWRJHW7KLVPRGLILFDWLRQXVHG
WKHWULDODQGHUURUPHWKRGDQGZDVGLIILFXOWWRJHWWKHDFWXDODLUYRLGV
7KHEORZVFRPSDFWLYHHIIRUWVKRZVKLJKHUYDOXHRI765WKDQWKHEORZV
FRPSDFWLYHHIIRUW,WFDQEHVHHQWKDWIRUEORZVWKHYDOXHRIWHQVLOHVWUHQJWKKDG
GHFUHDVHGDIWHUWKHFRQGLWLRQHGWHVW7KLVDJUHHGZLWKWKHVWXG\WKDWKDGEHHQGRQHE\
&KDGERXUQHWDOWKDWWKHWKLFNHUDVSKDOWILOPWKLFNQHVVSURGXFHVKLJKHU765
YDOXH
5HSHDWHG/RDG,QGLUHFW7HQVLOH
7KH5HVLOLHQW0RGXOXV05WHVWLVDOVRUHFRJQL]HGDV5HSHDWHG/RDG,QGLUHFW
7HQVLOH7HVW7KLVLVWKHFRPPRQPHWKRGRIPHDVXULQJWKHVWLIIQHVVPRGXOXVRI+0$
)RUWKLVSURMHFWWKHWHVWZDVH[DPLQHGXVLQJ8QLYHUVDO7HVWLQJ0DFKLQHIRU$&:
ZLWKEORZVDQGEORZVFRPSDFWLYHHIIRUWDFFRUGLQJWR$670'SURFHGXUH
7KHORDGZDVDSSOLHGIRUVHFRQGVDWWHPSHUDWXUH&WRGHWHUPLQHWKH
GLIIHUHQWLDORIPL[HVSHUIRUPDQFHDW0SDHVWLPDWHGUHVLOLHQWPRGXOXV7KH
3RLVVRQ¶VUDWLRZDVDVVXPHGDQGWKHKDYHUVLQHORDGLQJZDYHVKDSHZDVXVHG)RXU
VSHFLPHQVIRUHDFKGHVLJQZDVSUHSDUHGDQGHDFKVSHFLPHQUHVXOWLVWDNHQIRUWKUHH
WLPHV7KHEHVWUHDGLQJVRIWKHPL[HVZHUHGHWHUPLQHGE\WKHYDOXHVRIVWDQGDUG
GHYLDWLRQ
7KHGDWDRIVSHFLPHQWKDWVKRZHGWKHVPDOOHVWYDOXHRIVWDQGDUGGHYLDWLRQZDV
FKRVHWRFDOFXODWHWKHSDUDPHWHUV7KHµFRPSDFWLRQGVDPSOH¶DQG¶FRPSDFWLRQ$
VDPSOH¶GDWDDUHFKRVHQWREHH[DPLQHLQWKHFDOFXODWLRQ7KHUDZGDWDDQGWKH
FDOFXODWLRQVDUHLQFOXGHGLQWKH$SSHQGL[+DQG,7DEOHDQGEHORZVKRZWKH
GLIIHUHQWLDORIEORZVDQGEORZVFRPSDFWLYHHIIRUWUHVLOLHQWPRGXOXVUHVXOWVLQWKLV
WHVW
7DEOH5HVLOLHQW0RGXOXVFDOFXODWLRQUHVXOWV
1XPEHURIEORZV
7HQVLOHVWUHQJWK6W
N3D
7RWDOUHFRYHUDEOH
VWUDLQȯU
7RWDOUHVLOLHQW
PRGXOXVRI
HODVWLFLW\(
0SD
[
[
7DEOH5HVLOLHQW0RGXOXVSDUDPHWHUVUHVXOWV
3DUDPHWHUV
$&:ZLWKEORZV
$&:ZLWKEORZV
5HVLOLHQW0RGXOXV0SD
5HFRYHUHGKRUL]RQWDOVWUDLQ
3HDNORDG1
5HFRYHUHGKRUL]RQWDO
ȝȯ
GHIRUPDWLRQȝP
7KLVWHVWVKRZVWKHEORZVSHUIRUPHGEHWWHUUHVXOWVWKDQEORZVRI
FRPSDFWLYHHIIRUW7KLVLVH[SHFWHGEHFDXVHWKHKLJKHUWHQVLOHVWUHQJWKQRUPDOO\
SURGXFHVKLJKHUUHVLOLHQWPRGXOXV
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The objectives of this project are to investigate and compare the 50 blows and 75
blows compactive effort mix ture performance in terms of strength and to determine the
feasibility of 50 blows compactive effort to be used instead of the 75 blows in the design
of heavy traffic loading pavement. This chapter presents the conclusions and
recommendations of this ex periment.
5.1
Conclusions
Several tests that had been conducted produce a series of results that need to be
concluded. This section concludes the findings and analysis from the previous chapter.
The first stage of the laboratory test is to find the optimum bitumen content
(OB C) of each mix design. Findings show that the higher compactive effort gives lower
percentage of optimum bitumen content and vise versa. Marshall tests determine the
OB C of ACW14 with 75 blows compactive effort was 5.25% while OB C for 50 blows
55
compactive effort was 6 .1%. ACW20 shows a slightly different where the OB C for 75
blows was 4.6 0% and 50 blows is 4.6 5%.
For ACW20 the stability of mix design with 50 blows of compactive effort gives
higher stability. This maybe due to the crushing in the aggregates particles during the
compaction. However, Roberts F.L et al (1996 ) stated in Hot Mix Asphalt Materials,
Mix ture Design and Construction, that the increasing of asphalt cement will increase the
stability. This statement is supported by the previous studies as cited in the Chapter 2
and suggested that the 50 blows compactive effort could gives better stability in case of
increasing the asphalt cement content.
ACW20 shows a better performance than ACW14 for the 50 blows because of
using the bigger size of aggregate gradation. The bigger size of aggregate provides the
higher stability than the finer aggregates.
For moisture induced damage test (AASHTO T283) for ACW20, the specimens
needed to be modified to 7±1% air voids. 50 blows specimens are modified to 25 blows
to reach 8% air voids while the 75 blows are modified to 25 blows to reach 7% air voids.
This situation gives an effect to the asphalt film thickness and the tensile strength. The
finding shows TSR value for 50 blows is higher than 75 blows. The 50 blows also shows
better result of tensile strength in wet conditioned.
This is because after samples had been conditioned, the tensile strength of the
samples reduced. The test caused the ox idation and water penetration to the samples.
The 75 blows samples which had thin asphalt film thickness were easier to break than 50
blows. Robert et al (1996 ) had discussed that the samples with thinner asphalt film are
56
more easily to damage than the sample with thicker asphalt film. This test proves that
the high asphalt film thickness increased the durability of the pavement.
For repeated load indirect tensile test (ASTM D4132) for ACW14, the 75 blows
shows higher value of total resilient modulus of elasticity. The 75blows also gives the
higher values of recovered horizontal strain, peak load and recovered horizontal
deformation as compared to 50 blows samples. This is ex pected because increasing the
compactive effort will normally increase the strength.
As a conclusion, in terms of resistance to moisture damage, mix tures with 50
blows design is more preferable due to more asphalt content. Even though the 75 blows
mix tures had higher stability, the 50 blows samples still met the specification
req uirements.
5.2
Recommendations
B ased on the conclusions above, several recommendations for future research are
present in this chapter.
i.
It is only laboratory tests. It is suggested to have-field test to better
understand the performance of the mix tures.
ii.
The high density of pavement produces the fatigue condition that leads to
the pavement to crack. It is suggested to carry out this study to the nex t
step of ex periment which focusing on the beam fatigue test.
57
iii.
It is also suggested to test other mix designs performance such as ACB 20
and ACB 28 for this research. This is because this two mix es are
commonly used in JKR standard specification for road works.
iv.
The aggregates gradation gives influences to the stability of both
performance of compactive effort. It is suggested to test the performance
of 50 blows with other percentages of aggregates gradation.
v.
The study also can be furthered ex amined by using other laboratory
compactive effort such as Gyratory Compactor as this is another
laboratory method that commonly used.
vi.
For repeated load indirect tensile test (ASTM D4123) by using the
Universal Testing Machine, it is suggested to change the parameters such
as temperature and estimated resilient modulus in the further study to
indicate the effect of 50 blows compactive effort.
REFERENCES
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (1990).
Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Method of Sampling
and Testing. 5th edition. Washington D.C: American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials.
American Society for Testing and Materials (1989). Road and Paving Materials
Traveled Surface Characteristics. Volume 04.03. Philadelphia: American Society
For Testing and Materials
Asphalt Institute (1983). Principles Of Construction Of Hot-Mix Asphalt Pavements.
USA: Lex ington, Kentucky, MS-22.
B issada, A.F. (1984).Resistance to Compaction of Asphalt Mix tures and Its
Relationship to Stiffness. In :Wagner F.T. ed., Placement and Compaction of
Asphalt Mixtures ASTM STP 829.American Society for Testing and Materials.
North Carlifonia : Department of Trasnportation. 131-145
B ell, C.A.,Hicks, R.G.and Wilson, J.E. (1984). Effect of Percent Compaction on
Asphalt Mix ture Life. In :Wagner F.T. ed., Placement and Compaction of Asphalt
Mixtures ASTM STP 829.American Society for Testing and Materials. North
Carlifonia : Department of Trasnportation. 107-103
B rown, E.R and Foo, K.Y (1989). Evaluation of Variability in Resilient Modulus Test
Results (ASTM D4123). N-CAT Report No 91-6 . Auburn University: National
Centre of Asphlat Technology.
Centerline (1999). Mix Design and In-Place Air Voids. Volume IV. Issues 2. West
Virginia: Flex ible Pavements Council of West Virginia.
Chadbourn, B .A., Skok Jr., E.L., Chow, B .L., Spindler, S. and Newcomb, D.E.
(2000). The Effect of Voids in Mineral Aggregate (VMA) on Hot-Mix Asphalt
Pavement. Final Report. Minnesota Department of Transportation.
Dickinson, E.J (1984). Bituminous Road in Australia. Australia Road Research B oard.
Huang, Y. H. (1993). Pavement Analysis and Design. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Hunter, E. R. and Ksaibati, K.(2002). Evaluating Moisture Susceptibility of
Asphalt Mixes. Laramie : Department Civil and Architecture Engineering,
University of Wyoming.
Jabatan Kerja Raya (1988). Standard Specification for Road Works. Kuala Lumpur,
(JKR/SPJ/1988). JKR 20401-0017-88.
K.B de Vos and Feeley, A.J.(2001).UTM-5P/14P Universal Testing Machine.
Hardware Referance. Ref:utm5-14p.doc.
Khandal, P.S. and Chakraboty, S. (1996 ).Evaluation of Voids in the Mineral
Aggregate for HMA Paving Mixtures. N-CAT Report No 91-6 . Auburn
University: National Centre of Asphlat Technology.
Khairul Nizam bin Mohd Yunus (2004). Penggunaan Kaca Buangan Sebagai Agregat
Halus Dalam Turapan Asfalt. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia: Master Thesis.
Mallick, R.B . (1997). An Evaluation of Laboratory Compactors and Binder Aging
Methods for Hot-Mix Asphalt (HMA). Auburn University: Ph.D Thesis.
National Research Council (1991). Asphalt Mixture: Design, Testing and Evaluation.
Transportation Research Record No 1317. Washington D.C: National Research
Council.
Pell, P.S. (1987). Sixth International Conference of The Standard Design of Asphalt
Pavement. USA: University of Michigan.
Prowell, B .D.(2000). Design, Construction and Early Performance of Hot-Mix
Asphalt Stabilizer and Modified Test Sections. Virginia Transportation Research
Council. VTRC 00-IR2.
Roberts, F.L., Khandal, P.S., B rown, E. R., Lee, D.Y. and Kennedy, T.W.(1996 ). Hot
Mix Asphalt Materials, Mixture Design and Construction. 2nd Edition. Lanham
Maryland: NAPA Education Foundation.
60
APPENDIX A
Aggregates Gradation and Asphalt Content Percentage
for Design
ACW 14 Aggregates Gradation
sieve size
% design
5.0%
5.5.%
6.0%
6.5%
7.0%
14
10
5
3.35
1.18
0.425
0.15
0.075
pan
9
9
16
16
15
14
11
4
6
102.7
102.7
182.7
182.7
171.2
159.8
125.6
45.7
68.5
102.6
102.6
182.4
182.4
171.0
159.6
125.4
45.6
68.4
101.6
101.6
180.7
180.7
169.4
158.1
124.2
45.4
67.8
101.1
101.1
179.7
179.7
168.4
157.2
123.5
44.9
67.4
100.5
100.5
178.6
178.6
167.5
156.3
122.8
44.7
67.0
22.8
26.4
22.8
26.3
22.6
25.9
22.5
25.6
22.3
25.4
Pan percentages
2% OPC
*4% filler
*after deduction with 19.3 g dust content
% Passing vs S ieve S ize (mm)
120
S ieve S ize (mm)
28.000
0
20.000
Mix design
14.000
20
10.000
Upper limit
5.000
40
3.350
Lower limit
1.180
60
0.425
Median
0.150
80
0.075
% Passing
100
ACW 20 Aggregates Gradation.
sieve size
20
14
10
5
3.35
1.18
0.425
0.15
0.075
pan
% design
2
12
12
19
13
18
7
7
4
6
Pan Percentages
2% OPC
*4% filler
4.5%
22.9
137.5
137.5
217.7
149.0
206.3
80.2
80.2
45.8
68.8
5.0%
22.8
136.8
136.8
216.6
148.2
205.2
79.8
79.8
45.6
68.4
5.5%
22.7
136.1
136.1
215.5
147.4
204.1
79.4
79.4
45.4
68.0
6.0%
22.6
135.4
135.4
214.3
146.6
203.0
79.0
79.0
45.1
67.7
6.5%
22.4
134.6
134.6
213.2
145.9
202.0
78.5
78.5
44.9
67.3
22.9
26.5
22.8
26.3
22.7
26.1
22.6
25.8
22.4
25.6
*after deduction with 19.3 g dust content
% Passing vs S ieve S ize (mm)
120
Legend:
100
Lower limit
Upper limit
60
Median
40
Mix design
S ieve S ize (mm)
28.000
20.000
14.000
10.000
5.000
3.350
1.180
0.425
0
0.150
20
0.075
% Passing
80
4.5%
54.0
1146.0
ACW20
Dust content (g) =
19.3
Weight of aggregates(g) =
1128 - 19.3 =
Weight of aggregates + bitumen (g)
=
Bitumen content(%)
Weight of bitumen (g)
Weight of aggregates (g)
1108.7
1200
5.0%
58.4
1141.7
1108.7
1200
Bitumen content(%)
Weight of bitumen (g)
Weight of aggregates (g)
ACW14
Dust content (g) =
19.3
Weight of aggregates(g) = 1128 - 19.3 =
Weight of aggregates + bitumen (g)
=
0.05 = Wasp/(Wasp +1108.7)
Wasp = 58.35 g
Example
% AC = Wasp/(Wasp+Wagg)
Asphalt Content Percentage For Design
5.0%
60.0
1140.0
5.5%
60.0
1140.0
5.5%
66.0
1134.0
6.0%
70.8
1129.2
6.0%
72.0
1128.0
6.5%
77.1
1122.9
6.5%
78.0
1122.0
7.0%
83.5
1116.6
64
APPENDIX B
Results of ACW 14 with 50 blows compactive effort
ACW14 with 50blows compactive effort
Density vs% bitumen content
R2 = 0,8817
2,325
2,32
density(kg/mm3)
2,315
2,31
2,305
2,3
2,295
2,29
2,285
5
5,1 5,2 5,3 5,4 5,5 5,6 5,7 5,8 5,9
6
6,1 6,2 6,3 6,4 6,5 6,6 6,7 6,8 6,9
7
7,1
7
7,1
% bitumen content
Stability vs % bitumen content
R2 = 0,4311
1700
1600
stability(kg)
1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
900
800
5
5,1 5,2 5,3 5,4 5,5 5,6 5,7 5,8 5,9
6 6,1 6,2 6,3 6,4 6,5 6,6 6,7 6,8 6,9
% bitumen content
Flow vs % bitumen content
R2 = 0.9226
7
6
flow(mm)
5
4
3
2
1
0
5
5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9
6
6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9
7
7.1
% bitumen content
VFB vs % bitumen cintent
R2 = 0.9804
85
80
%VFB
75
70
65
60
5
5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9
6
6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9
% bitumen content
7
7.1
VTM vs % bitumen content
R2 = 0.9457
6
5
%VTM
4
3
2
1
0
5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 6 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 7 7.1
% bitumen content
Stiffness vs % bitumen content
R2 = 0.7964
700
650
600
stiffness(kg)
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
5
5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9
6
6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9
bitumen content
7
7.1
% B it
by wt.
of MIX
5.00
% B it
by wt.
of Agg.
AVERAGE
AVERAGE
AVERAGE
AVERAGE
7.00
6.50
6.00
5.50
b
a
AVERAGE
% B IT
SPEC
NO.
1.01
% B IT
SPEC
NO.
SG. B IT:
SG. AGG. B LEND:
TYPE OF MIX:
1178.6 0
1159.30
1180.00
116 4.50
1158.10
1177.50
1182.40
1153.40
116 5.40
116 9.80
1155.80
1182.80
1042.20
1053.50
116 2.00
c
1175.80
1157.70
1177.20
116 2.70
1154.6 0
1175.50
1181.40
1152.50
116 3.10
116 9.50
1155.20
1182.10
1040.70
1052.30
116 1.10
d
WEIGHT - gm
Saturated
IN
surface dry
AIR
2.645
6 6 2.20
6 6 0.70
6 6 3.80
6 6 2.90
6 55.90
6 6 3.6 0
6 75.30
6 57.80
6 53.20
6 6 7.40
6 57.90
6 73.50
588.90
599.40
6 6 3.90
e
IN
WATER
516 .40
498.6 0
516 .20
501.6 0
502.20
513.90
507.10
495.6 0
512.20
502.40
497.90
509.30
453.30
454.10
498.10
c-e
f
B ULK
VOL
cc.
2.296
2.317
2.331
2.315
2.328
2.320
2.321
2.323
2.330
2.325
2.271
2.309
2.318
2.299
2.287
2.301
2.277
2.322
2.281
2.293
d
f
g
2.38
2.39
2.41
2.43
2.45
h
SPEC GRAV
MAX
B ULK
THEOR.
ACW14 with 50blows compactive effort
15.89
14.81
13.71
12.65
11.46
bx g
SGbit
i
B IT
80.63
81.36
82.05
83.00
83.14
(100-b)g
SGag
j
AGG.
3.48
3.83
4.24
4.35
5.40
100-i-j
k
VOIDS
VOLUME - % TOTAL
MARSHALL TEST RESULT
19.37
18.64
17.95
17.00
16.86
100-j
l
AGG.
82.04
79.45
76.39
74.39
67.96
100(i/l)
m
n
TOTAL
MIX
3.48
3.83
4.24
4.35
5.40
100-(100g/h)
VOIDS - %
FILLED
(B IT)
1.04
1.04
1.00
1.20
1.20
1.04
1.04
1.08
1.04
1.00
1.04
1.00
1.04
1.04
1.00
CORR
FACTOR
o
1321.17
116 9.98
1311.86
814.1
96 7.6 2
953.6 6
1432.82
1537.49
953.6 6
1442.12
16 6 3.09
16 70.07
1456 .88
1321.12
146 3.05
p
MEAS
1515
1374
146 3
1451
1442
1730
16 70
1614
1490
16 6 0
992
1381
977
116 1
992
1043
1374
1217
1312
1301
px o
q
CORR
STAB ILITY - kg
4.25
2.46
2.59
3.10
2.52
3.98
1.01
2.50
4.6 9
1.55
3.29
3.18
1.56
6 .10
2.06
3.24
5.04
5.21
7.28
5.84
r
mm
FLOW
223
322
435
645
468
q
r
s
STIFFNESS
69
APPENDIX C
Results of ACW 14 with 75 blows compactive effort
% B it
by wt.
of MIX
5.00
% B it
by wt.
of Agg.
AVERAGE
AVERAGE
AVERAGE
AVERAGE
7.00
6.50
6.00
5.50
b
a
AVERAGE
% B IT
SPEC
NO.
1.01
% B IT
SPEC
NO.
SG. B IT:
SG. AGG. B LEND:
TYPE OF MIX:
1054.6 0
1037.00
1047.10
1026 .10
1058.20
106 7.50
1051.90
106 1.50
106 3.40
1049.30
1022.00
1054.40
1057.10
1045.40
1034.20
c
1054.30
1036 .80
1046 .6 0
1025.90
1057.70
106 6 .90
1051.20
106 1.10
106 3.10
1048.80
1021.30
1054.40
1056 .50
1045.00
1033.40
d
WEIGHT - gm
Saturated
IN
surface dry
AIR
2.645
6 04.30
592.6 0
6 00.40
587.30
6 07.30
6 11.80
6 06 .10
6 05.80
6 13.10
6 04.6 0
588.20
6 07.6 0
6 10.50
6 03.20
574.00
e
IN
WATER
450.30
444.40
446 .70
438.80
450.90
455.70
445.80
455.70
450.30
444.70
433.80
446 .80
446 .6 0
442.20
46 0.20
c-e
f
B ULK
VOL
cc.
ACW14 with 75blows compactive effort
2.36 6
2.36 3
2.246
2.325
2.358
2.354
2.36 0
2.358
2.358
2.329
2.36 1
2.349
2.338
2.346
2.341
2.342
2.341
2.333
2.343
2.339
d
f
g
2.38
2.39
2.41
2.43
2.45
h
SPEC GRAV
MAX
B ULK
THEOR.
16.21
15.07
13.96
12.84
11.51
bx g
SGbit
i
B IT
82.24
82.78
83.49
84.23
83.50
(100-b)g
SGag
j
AGG.
1.54
2.15
2.56
2.93
4.99
100-i-j
k
VOIDS
VOLUME - % TOTAL
MARSHALL TEST RESULT
17.76
17.22
16.51
15.77
16.50
100-j
l
AGG.
91.31
87.50
84.50
81.41
69.75
100(i/l)
m
VOIDS - %
FILLED
(B IT)
1.54
2.15
2.56
2.93
4.99
100-(100g/h)
n
TOTAL
MIX
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.24
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.24
1.20
1.16
1.24
1.24
CORR
FACTOR
o
733
1186
937
702
802
954
833
786
1372
1175
1326
1158
1089
1205
937
p
MEAS
126 3
1494
116 2
1306
1410
16 44
1390
1481
1000
943
16 46
1196
870
96 2
1145
993
880
1042
998
973
px o
q
CORR
STAB ILITY - kg
2.13
1.8
2.35
2.09
1.83
2.73
1.58
2.05
2.33
2.07
2.42
2.27
2.78
2.77
2.55
2.70
2.36
3.9
4.15
3.47
r
mm
FLOW
280
368
526
724
624
q
r
s
STIFFNESS
74
APPENDIX D
Results of ACW 20 with 50 blows compactive effort
ACW20 with 50blows compactive effort
Density vs % bitumen content
R2 = 0.6849
2.38
2.375
density (kg/mm3)
2.37
2.365
2.36
2.355
2.35
2.345
2.34
2.335
2.33
4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 6 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6
% bitumen content
Stability vs % bitumen content
2000
1900
1800
stability(kg)
1700
1600
1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 6 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6
% bitumen content
Flow vs % bitumen content
R2 = 0.9784
6.50
6.00
flow(mm)
5.50
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 6 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6
% bitumen content
VFB vs % bitumen content
R2 = 0.9528
90
%VFB
85
80
75
70
65
4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9
5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9
% bitumen content
6 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6
VTM vs % bitumen content
R2 = 0.9057
5
4.5
4
%VTM
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9
6 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6
% bitumen content
Stiffness vs % bitumen content
R2 = 0.9618
500
stiffness(kg)
400
300
200
100
0
4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9
% bitumen content
6 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6
% B it
by wt.
of MIX
4.50
% B it
by wt.
of Agg.
AVERAGE
AVERAGE
AVERAGE
AVERAGE
6.50
6.00
5.50
5.00
b
a
AVERAGE
% B IT
SPEC
NO.
1.01
% B IT
SPEC
NO.
SG. B IT:
SG. AGG. B LEND:
TYPE OF MIX:
116 0.40
1158.20
116 0.30
1178.40
1176 .80
1178.80
1172.40
1187.80
116 4.10
116 7.6 0
1179.50
116 5.00
1095.00
1174.30
1202.70
c
1158.70
1157.20
1157.70
1176 .50
1174.50
1176 .50
1171.00
1186 .50
116 3.20
116 6 .90
1179.10
116 4.20
1093.90
1173.80
1202.00
d
WEIGHT - gm
Saturated
IN
surface dry
AIR
2.645
6 6 3.50
6 6 5.20
6 6 4.40
6 78.00
6 75.50
6 77.6 0
6 74.40
6 86 .40
6 70.80
6 74.30
6 82.80
6 76 .40
6 28.50
6 75.80
6 94.10
e
IN
WATER
496 .90
493.00
495.90
500.40
501.30
501.20
498.00
501.40
493.30
493.30
496 .70
488.6 0
46 6 .50
498.50
508.6 0
c-e
f
B ULK
VOL
cc.
2.345
2.355
2.36 3
2.354
2.36 5
2.374
2.383
2.374
2.351
2.36 6
2.358
2.359
2.351
2.343
2.347
2.347
2.332
2.347
2.335
2.338
d
f
g
2.39
2.41
2.43
2.45
2.47
h
SPEC GRAV
MAX
B ULK
THEOR.
ACW20 with 50blows compactive effort
15.05
13.94
12.84
11.75
10.49
bx g
SGbit
i
B IT
82.64
83.41
84.27
85.27
85.00
(100-b)g
SGag
j
AGG.
2.31
2.64
2.89
2.98
4.51
100-i-j
k
VOIDS
VOLUME - % TOTAL
MARSHALL TEST RESULT
17.36
16.59
15.73
14.73
15.00
100-j
l
AGG.
86.69
84.07
81.64
79.77
69.95
100(i/l)
m
n
TOTAL
MIX
2.31
2.64
2.89
2.98
4.51
100-(100g/h)
VOIDS - %
FILLED
(B IT)
1.16
1.04
1.04
1.08
1.04
1.08
1.04
1.04
1.08
1.04
1.00
1.08
1.04
1.08
1.04
CORR
FACTOR
o
1144.39
1246 .74
1286 .28
136 0.71
1277.91
1249.06
1490.97
186 0.80
16 91.00
1751.48
1800.32
1925.93
1458.4
2139.92
1791.02
p
MEAS
1517
2311
186 3
1897
1822
1800
2080
1901
1551
1935
1826
1771
1470
1329
1349
1383
1327
1297
1338
1321
px o
q
CORR
STAB ILITY - kg
4.55
4.6 7
4.78
4.67
4.99
5.01
4.76
4.92
6 .82
5.22
4.6 4
5.56
4.51
6 .97
5.94
5.81
5.6 8
4.55
8.16
6.13
r
mm
FLOW
215
238
318
386
406
q
r
s
STIFFNESS
79
APPENDIX E
Results of ACW 20 with 75 blows compactive effort
ACW20 with 75blows compactive effort
Density vs % bitumen content
R2 = 0.8051
2.38
2.37
density(kg/mm3)
2.36
2.35
2.34
2.33
2.32
2.31
2.3
4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9
5
5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9
6
6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6
% bitumen content
Stability vs % bitumen content
R2 = 0.4692
1600
1550
stability(kg)
1500
1450
1400
1350
1300
1250
1200
4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9
5
5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9
% bitumen content
6
6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6
Flow vs % bitumen content
R2 = 0.4857
5.5
5
flow(mm)
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9
5
5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9
6
6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6
% bitumen content
VFB vs % bitumen content
R 2 = 0.8192
85
%VFB
80
75
70
65
60
4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9
5
5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9
% bitumen content
6
6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6
VTM vs % bitumen content
R2 = 0.5771
5
4.5
4
%VTM
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9
5
5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9
6
6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6
%bitumen content
Stiffness vs % bitumen content
R2 = 0.5903
600
550
stiffness(kg)
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9
5
5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9
% bitumen content
6
6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6
% B it
by wt.
of MIX
4.50
% B it
by wt.
of Agg.
AVERAGE
AVERAGE
AVERAGE
AVERAGE
6.50
6.00
5.50
5.00
b
a
AVERAGE
% B IT
SPEC
NO.
1.01
% B IT
SPEC
NO.
SG. B IT:
SG. AGG. B LEND:
TYPE OF MIX:
1174.50
1154.70
1172.80
116 8.50
1179.50
116 7.30
1183.80
1155.6 0
1173.10
1154.70
1153.30
1158.00
1174.20
1154.6 0
116 2.50
c
1155.50
116 5.30
116 6 .80
1181.70
1153.50
1172.10
116 6 .40
1177.80
116 3.40
1144.30
1145.30
1147.50
1172.90
1153.90
116 1.80
d
WEIGHT - gm
Saturated
IN
surface dry
AIR
2.645
6 6 2.80
6 6 7.6 0
6 6 7.30
6 76 .40
6 6 4.00
6 72.90
6 70.6 0
6 76 .80
6 6 6 .6 0
6 77.50
6 6 9.20
6 72.80
6 74.10
6 6 3.00
6 74.80
e
IN
WATER
d
f
g
2.39
2.41
2.43
2.45
2.47
h
SPEC GRAV
MAX
B ULK
THEOR.
2.345
2.347
2.382
2.358
477.20
2.398
484.10
2.36 6
485.20
2.36 5
2.376
513.20
2.273
478.80
2.46 0
506 .50
2.297
2.343
492.10
2.401
515.50
2.238
494.40
2.371
2.337
511.70
2.258
487.10
2.392
505.50
2.308
2.320
500.10
491.6 0
487.70
c-e
f
B ULK
VOL
cc.
ACW20 with 75blows compactive effort
14.93
13.88
12.76
11.76
10.51
bx g
SGbit
i
B IT
82.00
83.04
83.72
85.35
85.15
(100-b)g
SGag
j
AGG.
3.08
3.08
3.52
2.89
4.35
100-i-j
k
VOIDS
VOLUME - % TOTAL
MARSHALL TEST RESULT
18.00
16.96
16.28
14.65
14.85
100-j
l
AGG.
82.91
81.84
78.37
80.29
70.74
100(i/l)
m
n
TOTAL
MIX
3.08
3.08
3.52
2.89
4.35
100-(100g/h)
VOIDS - %
FILLED
(B IT)
1.08
1.08
1.08
1.04
1.08
1.04
1.08
1.00
1.08
1.00
1.12
1.04
1.00
1.08
1.04
CORR
FACTOR
o
1174.6 3
1151.37
1214.17
1221.15
1146 .72
1395.6 0
1407.23
1256 .04
1058.33
1572.38
1442.12
1404.9
126 3.02
1232.78
1509.57
p
MEAS
126 3
1331
1570
1388
1572
16 15
146 1
1550
1520
1256
1143
1306
1270
1238
1451
1320
126 9
1243
1311
1274
px o
q
CORR
STAB ILITY - kg
4.53
1.77
2.42
2.91
3.09
1.57
3.52
2.73
3.09
3.13
3.52
3.25
4.84
5.12
5.71
5.22
4.14
4.22
2.87
3.74
r
mm
FLOW
340
253
402
568
478
q
r
s
STIFFNESS
84
APPENDIX F
Aggregates Gradation After OB C
DESIGN FOR TEST ACW14 FOR 50 COMPACTIONS
OBC = 6.1% (73.2 g)
SIEVE SIZE
14
10
5
3.35
1.18
0.425
0.15
0.075
FILLER
OPC
DESIGN AGGREGATE(g)
101.4
101.4
180.3
180.3
169.0
157.8
123.9
45.1
25.8
22.5
DESIGN FOR TEST ACW14 FOR 75 COMPACTIONS
OBC =5.25% (63.0 g)
SIEVE SIZE
14
10
5
3.35
1.18
0.425
0.15
0.075
FILLER
OPC
DESIGN AGGREGATE(g)
102.3
102.3
181.9
181.9
170.6
159.2
125.1
45.5
26.2
22.7
DESIGN FOR TEST ACW20 FOR 50 COMPACTIONS
OBC = 4.65% (55.8 g)
SIEVE SIZE
20
14
10
5
3.35
1.18
0.425
0.15
0.075
FILLER
OPC
DESIGN AGGREGATE(g)
22.9
137.3
137.3
217.4
148.7
206.0
80.1
80.1
45.8
26.5
22.9
DESIGN FOR TEST ACW20 FOR 75 COMPACTIONS
OBC = 4.6% (55.2 g)
SIEVE SIZE
20
14
10
5
3.35
1.18
0.425
0.15
0.075
FILLER
OPC
DESIGN AGGREGATE(g)
22.9
137.4
137.4
217.5
148.8
206.1
80.1
80.1
45.8
26.5
22.9
87
APPENDIX G
Results and calculations for AASTHO T283
7ensile 6trength Formula
6t = 2 F ʌ/D
Where
6t = tensile strength (NPa)
/ = the specimen length (mm)
D = the specimen Giameter (mm)
F = applieG force (1)
81C21D,7,21(D 68B6(7 F25 ACW20 W,7+ 0 C20PAC7,216 (6t1)
a) (6ample A)
6t1 =
2 ( 83.27 1)
ʌ [ 7mm [ 102mm
= 7.7 NPa
b) (6ample B)
6t1 =
2 ( 82.7 1)
ʌ [ 8mm [ 102mm
= 7.8 NPa
c) (6ample C)
6t1 =
2 ( 83.04 1)
ʌ [ 7mm [ 102mm
= 7.74 NPa
AYerage 6t1 for 0 bloZs = 7.9 NPa.
7ensile 6trength Formula
6t = 2 F ʌ/D
Where
6t = tensile strength (NPa)
/ = the specimen length (mm)
D = the specimen Giameter (mm)
F = applieG force (1)
C21D,7,21(D 68B6(7 F25 ACW20 W,7+ 0 C20PAC7,216 (6t2)
a) (6ample A¶)
6t2 =
2( .91)
ʌ [ mm [ 102mm
= .2 NPa
b) (6ample B¶)
6t2 =
2( 7.921)
ʌ [ 4mm [ 102mm
= . NPa
c) (6ample C¶)
6t2 =
2( .991)
ʌ [ mm [ 102mm
= .39 NPa
AYerage 6t2 for 0 bloZs = .43 NPa.
7ensile 6trength 5atio (765) for 0 bloZs compactiYe effort
765 = 6t2
6t1
=
.43 NPa
7.9 NPa
=
0.71
7ensile 6trength Formula
6t = 2 F ʌ/D
Where
6t = tensile strength (NPa)
/ = the specimen length (mm)
D = the specimen Giameter (mm)
F = applieG force (1)
81C21D,7,21(D 68B6(7 F25 ACW20 W,7+ 7 C20PAC7,216 (671)
a) (6ample A)
6t1 =
=
2 ( 9.831)
ʌ [ 7mm [ 102mm
8.93NPa
b) (6ample B)
6t1 =
=
2 ( 9.371)
ʌ [ 7mm [ 102mm
8.88NPa
c) (6ample C)
6t1 =
=
2 ( 9.371)
ʌ [ 7mm [ 102mm
8.88NPa
AYerage 6t1 for 7 bloZs = 8.90 NPa.
7ensile 6trength Formula
6t = 2 F ʌ/D
Where
6t = tensile strength (NPa)
/ = the specimen length (mm)
D = the specimen Giameter (mm)
F = applieG force (1)
C21D,7,21(D 68B6(7 F25 ACW20 W,7+ 7 C20PAC7,216 (672)
a) (6ample A¶)
6t2 =
=
2( 3.271)
ʌ [ mm [ 102mm
.11 NPa
b) (6ample B¶)
6t2 =
=
2( 3.4981)
ʌ [ mm [ 102mm
.0 NPa
c) (6ample C¶)
6t2 =
=
2( 3.271)
ʌ [ mm [ 102mm
.04 NPa
AYerage 6t2 for 7 bloZs = .07 NPa.
7ensile 6trength 5atio (765) for 7 bloZs compactiYe effort
765 = 6t2
6t1
=
.07 NPa
8.90 NPa
=
0.7
92
APPENDIX H
Results and calculations for ASTM D4123
5esilient 0oGulus Data Calculations.
6t = 2 F ʌ/D
( = F(5+0.27)/+
ȯr = +D
Where
6t = tensile strength (NPa)
( = total resilient moGulus of elasticit\ (0Pa)
/ = the specimen length (mm)
D = the specimen Giameter (mm)
F = ma[imum peaN applieG force (repeateG loaG) (1)
5 = assumeG resilient Poisson¶s ratio
+ = total recoYerable hori]ontal Geformation (mm)
ȯr= total recoYerable strain
a) ACW20 Zith 0 compactions.
6t
(
ȯr
=
2(430.8 1)
ʌ [ 100 [ 4
=
0.043 NPa
=
430.8 ( 0.4 + 0.27)
4 (0.0214)
=
210.7 0pa
=
0.0214
100
=
2.14 [ 10 -4
b) ACW20 Zith 7 compactions
6t
(
ȯr
=
2( 44.7 1)
ʌ [ 100 [ 4
=
0.04 NPa
=
44.7 ( 0.4 + 0.27)
4 (0.02443)
=
27.27 0pa
=
0.02443
100
=
2.443 [ 10 -4
95
APPENDIX I
Software results for ASTM D4123