1

AGGREGATE "Aggregate" is a collective term for the mineral materials such as sand, gravel and crushed stone that are used with a binding medium (such as water, bitumen, portland cement, lime, etc.) to form compound materials (such as asphalt concrete and portland cement concrete). By volume, aggregate generally accounts for 92 to 96 percent of HMA and about 70 to 80 percent of portland cement concrete. Aggregate is also used for base and subbase courses for both flexible and rigid pavements. Aggregates can either be natural or manufactured. Natural aggregates are generally extracted from larger rock formations through an open excavation (quarry). Extracted rock is typically reduced to usable sizes by mechanical crushing. Manufactured aggregate is often the byproduct of other manufacturing industries. This section will briefly discuss aggregate sources and quarrying operations then describe the basic aggregate mineral, chemical and physical properties most important to pavements and the typical tests used to determine these properties. The following source contains more detailed information on aggregate:

National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association (NSSGA). Aggregate Handbook. National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association. Arlington, VA. http://www.nssga.org. WSDOT Aggregate Specifications

This section discusses many different aggregate tests. Rather than list WSDOT specifications for each test in their respective sections., an overall summary of WSDOT aggregate specifications can be viewed through the below link. In general, WSDOT uses AASHTO and ASTM testing methods in addition to specific WSDOT testing methods. All WSDOT testing methods are contained in the WSDOT Materials Manual (M 46-01), which is available for free download in the online technical manual library through WSDOT Engineering Publications (http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/fasc/EngineeringPublications).

Physical Properties Aggregate physical properties are the most readily apparent aggregate properties and they also have the most direct effect on how an aggregate performs as either a pavement material constituent or by itself as a base or subbase material. Commonly measured physical aggregate properties are (Roberts et al., 1996): Gradation and size Toughness and abrasion resistance Particle shape and surface texture Specific gravity Cleanliness and deleterious materials

These are not the only physical properties of aggregates but rather the most commonly measured. Tests used to quantify these properties are largely empirical. The physical properties of an aggregate can change over time. For instance, a newly crushed aggregate may contain more dust and thus be less receptive to binding with an asphalt binder than one that has been crushed and stored in a stockpile for a year.

1 Gradation and Size The particle size distribution, or gradation, of an aggregate is one of the most influential aggregate characteristics in determining how it will perform as a pavement material. In HMA, gradation helps determine almost every important property including stiffness, stability, durability, permeability, workability, fatigue resistance, frictional resistance and resistance to moisture damage (Roberts et al., 1996). In PCC, gradation helps determine durability, porosity, workability, cement and water requirements, strength, and shrinkage. Because of this, gradation is a primary concern in HMA and PCC mix design and thus most agencies specify allowable aggregate gradations for both. 1.1 Maximum Aggregate Size Maximum aggregate size can affect HMA, PCC and base/subbase courses in several ways. In HMA, instability may result from excessively small maximum sizes; and poor workability and/or segregation may result from excessively large maximum sizes (Roberts et al., 1996). In PCC, large maximum sizes may not fit between reinforcing bar openings, but they will generally increase PCC strength because the water-cement ratio can be lowered. ASTM C 125 defines the maximum aggregate size in one of two ways: Maximum size. The smallest sieve through which 100 percent of the aggregate sample particles pass. Superpave defines the maximum aggregate size as "one sieve larger than the nominal maximum size" (Roberts et al., 1996). Nominal maximum size. The largest sieve that retains some of the aggregate particles but generally not more than 10 percent by weight. Superpave defines nominal maximum aggregate size as "one sieve size larger than the first sieve to retain more than 10 percent of the material" (Roberts et al., 1996). Thus, it is important to specify whether "maximum size" or "nominal maximum size" is being referenced. 1.2 Gradation Test The gradation of a particular aggregate is most often determined by a sieve analysis (see Figure 3.3). In a sieve analysis, a sample of dry aggregate of known weight is separated through a series of sieves with progressively smaller openings. Once separated, the weight of particles retained on each sieve is measured and compared to the total sample weight. Particle size distribution is then expressed as a percent retained by weight on each sieve size. Results are usually expressed in tabular or graphical format. PCC gradation graphs are traditionally semi-logarithmic, while HMA graphs often employ the standard 0.45 power gradation graph.

Figure 3.3: Sieve Analysis Figure 3.4 shows typical gradation graphs. Note that sieve sizes are presented from smallest to largest, left to right. The number and size of the sieves used in a sieve analysis depend upon specification requirements.

Figure 3.4: Example Sieve Analysis Plot on a 0.45 Power Graph For PCC, aggregate is typically classified as either "coarse" or "fine". Coarse aggregate is generally the fraction retained on the 4.75 mm (No. 4) sieve while fine aggregate is the fraction passing the 4.75 mm (No. 4) sieve. Standard Sieve Analysis test methods are:

AASHTO T 27 and ASTM C 136: Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates AASHTO T 11 and ASTM C 117: Materials Finer Than 75Aggregate by Washing AASHTO T 30: Mechanical Analysis of Extracted Aggregate (this is used for aggregate

1.3 Desired Gradation Gradation has a profound effect on material performance. But what is the best gradation? This is a complicated question, the answer to which will vary depending upon the material (HMA or PCC), its desired characteristics, loading, environmental, material, structural and mix property inputs. Therefore, gradation requirements for specific HMA and PCC mixes are discussed in their respective pavement type sections. This section presents some basic guidelines applicable to common densegraded mixes. It might be reasonable to believe that the best gradation is one that produces the maximum density. This would involve a particle arrangement where smaller particles are packed between the larger particles, which reduces the void space between particles. This creates more particle-toparticle contact, which in HMA would increase stability and reduce water infiltration. In PCC, this reduced void space reduces the amount of cement paste required. However, some minimum amount of void space is necessary to:

Provide adequate volume for the binder (asphalt binder or portland cement) to occupy. Promote rapid drainage and resistance to frost action for base and subbase courses.

Therefore, although it may not be the "best" aggregate gradation, a maximum density gradation does provide a common reference. A widely used equation to describe a maximum density gradation was developed by Fuller and Thompson in 1907. Their basic equation is:

where: P = % finer than the sieve d = aggregate size being considered D = maximum aggregate size to be used n = parameter which adjusts curve for fineness or coarseness (for maximum particle density n 0.5 according to Fuller and Thompson) The 0.45 Power Maximum Density Curve In the early 1960s, the FHWA introduced the standard gradation graph used in the HMA industry today. This graph uses n = 0.45 and is convenient for determining the maximum density line and adjusting gradation (Roberts et al., 1996). This graph is slightly different than other gradation graphs because it uses the sieve size raised to the nth power (usually 0.45) as the x-axis units. Thus, n = 0.45 appears as a straight diagonal line (see Figure 3.5). The maximum density line appears as a straight line from zero to the maximum aggregate size for the mixture being considered (the exact location of this line is somewhat debatable, but the locations shown in Figure 3.4 are generally accepted).

Figure 3.5: Maximum Density Curves for 0.45 Power Gradation Graph (each curve is for a different maximum aggregate size) To illustrate how the maximum density curves in Figure 3.5 are determined, Table 2.2 shows the associated calculations for a maximum aggregate size of 19.0 mm. Table 2.2: Calculations for a 0.45 Power Gradation Curve Using 19.0-mm (0.75-inch) Maximum Aggregate Size Particle Size (mm) 19.0 % Passing

12.5

9.5

2.00

0.300

0.075

Gradation Terminology Several common terms are used to classify gradation. These are not precise technical terms but rather terms that refer to gradations that share common characteristics (refer to Figure 3.6): Dense or well-graded. Refers to a gradation that is near the FHWAs 0.45 power curve for maximum density. The most common HMA and PCC mix designs in the U.S. tend to use dense graded aggregate. Typical gradations are near the 0.45 power curve but not right on it. Generally, a true maximum density gradation (exactly on the 0.45 power curve) would result in unacceptably low VMA. Gap graded. Refers to a gradation that contains only a small percentage of aggregate particles in the mid-size range. The curve is flat in the mid-size range. Some PCC mix designs use gap graded aggregate to provide a more economical mix since less sand can be used for a given workability. HMA gap graded mixes can be prone to segregation during placement. Open graded. Refers to a gradation that contains only a small percentage of aggregate particles in the small range. This results in more air voids because there are not enough small particles to fill in the voids between the larger particles. The curve is near vertical in the mid-size range, and flat and near-zero in the small-size range. Uniformly graded. Refers to a gradation that contains most of the particles in a very narrow size range. In essence, all the particles are the same size. The curve is steep and only occupies the narrow size range specified. Restricted zone. Note: the restricted zone will be eliminated by late 2002. The restricted zone refers to a particular area of the FHWAs 0.45 power gradation graph associated with Superpavemix designs. It was originally observed that mixes closely following the 0.45 power maximum density line in the finer gradations sometimes had unacceptably low VMA. Therefore, in an attempt to minimize this problem, Superpave included a restricted zone through which a typical gradation should not pass as a recommended guideline. However, since the restricted zone's original inception, NCHRP Report 464: The Restricted Zone in the Superpave Aggregate Gradation Specification has concluded that "...gradations that violated the restricted zone performed similarly to or better than the mixes having gradations passing outside the restricted zone; therefore, the restricted zone requirement is redundant for mixes meeting all Superpave volumetric parameters...It has been recommended to delete references to the restricted zone as either a requirement or a guideline from the AASHTO specification (AASHTO MP 2) and practice (AASHTO PP 28) for Superpave volumetric mix design." (Kandhal and Cooley, 2001). WSDOT Restricted Zone Note WSDOT experience and analysis has shown that HMA mixes crossing 0.45 power curve in the restricted zone at a severe angle may be susceptible to rutting.

Fine gradation. A gradation that, when plotted on the 0.45 power gradation graph, falls mostly above the 0.45 power maximum density line. The term generally applies to dense graded aggregate. Coarse gradation. A gradation that, when plotted on the 0.45 power gradation graph, falls mostly below the 0.45 power maximum density line. The term generally applies to dense graded aggregate.

Figure 3.6: FHWA Gradation Graph Showing Representative Gradations

Permeability Figure 3.7 shows some typical aggregate gradations and their associated permeabilities. This shows that even a small amount of particles passing the 0.075-mm (#200) sieve results in very low permeability. Therefore, for base and subbase aggregates where permeability is important for drainage and frost resistance, many agencies will specify a maximum percent-by-weight passing for this sieve. WSDOT Frost Resistant Crushed Aggregate WSDOT uses crushed surfacing base course (CSBC) as a frost resistant crushed aggregate because it has a maximum of only 7.5% passing the 0.075 mm (No. 200) sieve.

10

Figure 3.7: Typical Aggregate Gradations and Permeabilities (after Ridgeway, 1982)

Table 3.3 and Figure 3.8 show some typical specification bands for aggregate courses taken from the FHWA 1996 Standard Specifications (FHWA, 1996).

11

Table 3.3: Some Representative Gradation Specifications for Aggregate Courses from the 1996 FHWA Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects (FP-96) Percent Passing Sieve Size Subbase Course (Grading A) 100 97 - 100 40 - 60 (8) 0 - 12 (4) Base Course (Grading B) 100 97 - 100 40 - 60 (8) 9 - 17 (4) 4 - 8 (3) Surface Course (Grading F) 100 97 - 100 41 - 71 (7) 12 - 28 (5) 5 - 16 (4)

63 mm 50 mm 37.5 mm 25.0 mm 19.0 mm 12.5 mm 4.75 mm 0.425 mm 0.075 mm Notes:

2.5-inch 2-inch 1.5-inch 1-inch 0.75-inch 0.5-inch No. 4 No. 40 No. 200

1. Number in parentheses indicates the allowable deviations ( ) from the target value. 2. These are only representative gradations and do not represent a comprehensive list of FHWA specified gradations.

12

Figure 3.8: Some Representative Gradation Specifications for Aggregate Courses from the 1996 FHWA Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects (FP-96) (click on text in the Figure to show plots)

1.4 Fineness Modulus For aggregates used in PCC, another common gradation description for fine aggregate is the fineness modulus. It is described in ASTM C 125 and is a single number used to describe a gradation curve. It is defined as:

where:

F.M. = fineness modulus specified = 0.150 mm (No. 100), 0.30 mm (No. 50), 0.60 mm (No. 30), 1.18 sieves mm (No. 16), 2.36 mm (No. 8), 4.75 mm (No. 4), 9.5 mm (0.375in.), 19.0 mm (0.75-in.), 37.5 mm (1.5-in.), and larger increasing in the size ratio of 2:1.

The larger the fineness modulus, the more coarse the aggregate. A typical fineness modulus for fine aggregate used in PCC is between 2.70 and 3.00.

13

2 Toughness and Abrasion Resistance Aggregates undergo substantial wear and tear throughout their life. In general, they should be hard and tough enough to resist crushing, degradation and disintegration from any associated activities includingmanufacturing, stockpiling, production, placing, compaction (in the case of HMA) and consolidation (in the case of PCC) (Roberts et al., 1996). Furthermore, they must be able to adequately transmit loads from the pavement surface to the underlying layers (and eventually the subgrade). Aggregates not adequately resistant to abrasion and polishing will cause premature structural failure and/or a loss of skid resistance. 2.1 Los Angeles Abrasion Test A common test used to characterize toughness and abrasion resistance is the Los Angeles (L.A.) abrasion test. For the L.A. abrasion test, the portion of an aggregate sample retained on the 1.70 mm (No. 12) sieve is placed in a large rotating drum that contains a shelf plate attached to the outer wall (the Los Angeles machine see Figure 3.9). A specified number of steel spheres are then placed in the machine and the drum is rotated for 500 revolutions at a speed of 30 - 33 revolutions per minute (RPM). The material is then extracted and separated into material passing the 1.70 mm (No. 12) sieve and material retained on the 1.70 mm (No. 12) sieve. The retained material (larger particles) is then weighed and compared to the original sample weight. The difference in weight is reported as a percent of the original weight and called the "percent loss".

Figure 3.9: Los Angeles Abrasion Machine Table 3.4 shows some typical test values from the L.A. abrasion test. Unfortunately, the test does not seem to correspond well with field measurements (especially with slags, cinders and other lightweight aggregates). Some aggregates with high L.A. abrasion loss, such as soft limestone, provide excellent performance. However, no matter the performance characteristics, aggregate with high L.A. abrasion loss values will tend to create dust during production and handling, which may produce environmental and mixture control problems.

14

Table 3.4: Typical L.A. Abrasion Loss Values (from Roberts et al., 1996; NHI, 2000) Rock Type Typical L.A. Abrasion Loss (by percent weight) General Values Hard, igneous rocks Soft limestones and sandstones 10 60

Ranges for Specific Rocks Basalt Dolomite Gneiss Granite Limestone Quartzite 10 - 17 18 - 30 33 - 57 27 - 49 19 - 30 20 - 35

Standard L.A. abrasion test methods are: -Size Coarse Aggregate by Abrasion and Impact in the Los Angeles Machine -Size Coarse Aggregate by Abrasion and Impact in the Los Angeles Machine 5.4 Particle Shape and Surface Texture Particle shape and surface texture are important for proper compaction, deformation resistance, HMA workability and PCC workability. However, the ideal shape for HMA and PCC is different because aggregates serve different purposes in each material. In HMA, since aggregates are relied upon to provide stiffness and strength by interlocking with one another, cubic angularshaped particles with a rough surface texture are best. However, in PCC, where aggregates are used as an inexpensive high-strength material to occupy volume, workability is the major issue regarding particle shape. Therefore, in PCC rounded particles are better. Relevant particle shape/texture characteristics are: Particle shape. Rounded particles create less particle-to-particle interlock than angular particles and thus provide better workability and easier compaction. However, in HMA less interlock is generally a disadvantage as rounded aggregate will continue to compact, shove and rut after construction. Thus angular particles are desirable for HMA (despite their poorer workability), while rounded particles are desirable for PCC because of their better workability (although particle smoothness will not appreciably affect strength) (PCA, 1988).

15

Flat or elongated particles. These particles tend to impede compaction or break during compaction and thus, may decrease strength. Smooth-surfaced particles. These particles have a lower surface-to-volume ratio than rough-surfaced particles and thus may be easier to coat with binder. However, in HMA asphalt tends to bond more effectively with rough-surfaced particles, and in PCC roughsurfaced particles provide more area to which the cement paste can bond. Thus, roughsurface particles are desirable for both HMA and PCC. 5.4.1 Tests for Particle Shape and Surface Texture There are several common tests used to identify and quantify aggregate particle shape and surface texture. Among the most popular are:

Particle index Percent fractured face (or coarse aggregate angularity) Fine aggregate angularity

Other tests, using automated machines equipped with video cameras and lasers are under development. Particle Index The particle index test provides a combined shape-texture characterization. This test requires that an aggregate sample be divided up into specific size fraction. Each size fraction is placed into a container in three layers. This is done twice; the first time, each layer is compacted with 10 blows of a tamping rod, and the second time, each layer is compacted with 50 blows of a tamping rod. The particle index is computed from the following equation:

where:

Ia

= particle index

V10 = voids in aggregate compacted at 10 drops per layer V50 = voids in aggregate compacted at 50 drops per layer

The overall sample particle index is computed as a weighted average of the individual size fraction particles indexes based on the size fraction weights. Aggregates composed of rounded, smooth particles may have a low particle index of around 6 or 7, while aggregates composed of angular, rough particles may have a high particle index of between 15 and 20 or more. The standard particle index test is:

Percent Fractured Face (or Coarse Aggregate Angularity) For coarse aggregate, a sample retained on the 4.75 mm (No. 4) sieve is collected and the number of particles with fractured faces is compared to the number of particles without fractured faces. A fractured face is defined as an "angular, rough, or broken surface of an aggregate particle created by crushing, by other artificial means, or by nature" (ASTM, 2000). In order for a face to be

16

considered fractured it must constitute at least 25 percent of the maximum cross-sectional area of the rock particle. The standard percent fractured face test is:

Flat or Elongated Particles Flat and elongated particles can cause HMA problems because they tend to reorient and break under compaction. Therefore, they are typically restricted to some maximum percentage. An elongated particle is most often defined as one that exceeds a 5:1 length-to-width ratio. Testing is done on a representative sample using a caliper device and a two-step process. First, the longest dimension is measured on one end of the caliper (see Figure 3.13). Then, based on the position of the pivot point (numbered holes shown in Figure 3.12), the other end of the caliper (see Figure 3.14) is automatically sized to the predetermined length-to-width ratio (in Figures 3.13 and 3.14 it is set at 2:1). If the aggregate is able to pass between the bar and caliper it fails the test. The standard flat or elongated particle test is:

Figure 3.13: Testing Caliper Measuring the Elongated Dimension 5 Specific Gravity

Figure 3.14: Testing Caliper Measuring the Flat Dimension

Aggregate specific gravity is useful in making weight-volume conversions and in calculating the void content in compacted HMA (Roberts et al., 1996). AASHTO M 132 and ASTM E 12 define specific gravity as: "the ratio of the mass of a unit volume of a material at a stated temperature to the mass of the same volume of gas-free distilled water at a stated temperature." F). Given the structure of a typical aggregate particle, there are several different kinds of specific gravity. This section will first describe the structure of a typical aggregate particle and then discuss each type of specific gravity and its use.

17

5.5.1 Aggregate Particle Structure A typical aggregate particle consists of some amount of solid material along with a certain amount of air voids. These air voids within the aggregate particle (see Figure 3.15) can become filled with water, binder or both (see Figure 3.16). It takes a finite amount of time for water/binder to penetrate these pores, so specific gravity test procedures generally contain a 15 to 19-hour (for AASHTO procedures) or a 24-hour (for ASTM procedures) soak period for the purpose of allowing penetration into these pores.

Figure 3.15: Dry Aggregate

Figure 3.16: Wet Aggregate

Depending upon how aggregate voids are dealt with, calculated aggregate specific gravities can vary. If they are excluded entirely, then the specific gravity is that of the solid portion of the aggregate only, while if they are included entirely then the specific gravity essentially becomes a weighted average of the specific gravity of the solid aggregate and whatever is in its voids.

5.5.2 Aggregate Specific Gravities Generally, there are three different aggregate specific gravities used in association with pavements: bulk, apparent and effective. 2.5.7 Moisture Content Since aggregates are porous (to some extent) they can absorb moisture. Generally this is not a concern for HMA because the aggregate is dried before HMA production. However, this is a concern for PCC because aggregate is generally not dried and therefore the aggregate moisture content will affect the water content (and thus the water-cement ratio also) of the produced PCC and the water content also affects aggregate proportioning (because it contributes to aggregate weight). In general, there are four aggregate moisture conditions (see Figure 3.17): 1. Oven-dry (OD). All moisture is removed by heating the aggregate in an oven at 105 C (221 to constant weight (this usually constitutes heating it overnight). All pores F) connected to the surface are empty and the aggregate is fully absorbent.

18

2. Airdry (AD). All moisture is removed from the surface, but pores connected to the surface are partially filled with water. The aggregate is somewhat absorbent. 3. Saturated surface dry (SSD). All pores connected to the surface are filled with water, but the surface is dry. The aggregate is neither absorbent nor does it contribute water to the concrete mixture. 4. Wet. All pores connected to the surface are filled with water and there is excess moisture on the surface. The aggregate contributes water to the concrete mixture. Note that pores not connected to the surface are not considered.

Figure 3.17: Aggregate Moisture States (these moisture states only consider the aggregate pores that are connected to the surface) These conditions are used to calculate various aggregate properties. The moisture content of an aggregate is expressed as:

where:

MC = moisture content expressed as a percentage Wstock = weight of aggregate in stockpile condition WSSD = weight of aggregate in SSD condition

If the moisture content is positive, the aggregate has surface moisture and will contribute water to the PCC, while if the moisture content is negative the aggregate is air dry to some degree and will absorb moisture from the PCC. Typical moisture tests are:

19

ASTM C 70: Surface Moisture in Fine Aggregate AASHTO T 85 and ASTM C 127: Specific Gravity and Absorption of Coarse Aggregate AASHTO T 84 and ASTM C 128: Specific Gravity and Absorption of Fine Aggregate AASHTO T 255: Total Evaporable Moisture Content of Aggregate by Drying ASTM C 566: Total Moisture Content of Aggregate by Drying

6 Aggregate as a Base Material Aggregate is often used by itself as an unbound base or subbase course. When used as such, aggregate is typically characterized by the preceding physical properties as well as overall layer stiffness. Layer stiffness is characterized by the same tests used to characterize subgrade stiffness. 7 Summary Aggregates are a principal material in pavement. Additionally, they are often used in either stabilized or unstabilized base/subbase courses. They comprise the majority of pavement volume but only account for a minority of total pavement material costs. Therefore, a knowledge of aggregate properties is crucial to designing a high quality pavement. Aggregates can be either natural or man-made and are most often characterized by their physical properties, including: Gradation and size Toughness and abrasion resistance Durability and soundness Particle shape and surface texture Specific gravity Cleanliness and deleterious materials Moisture content However, aggregate chemical and material properties are also important because: Stripping and alkali-aggregate reactions can be affected by aggregate chemical properties. egate physical properties. In sum, accurate aggregate characterization (physical, chemical and material) will not always ensure high quality aggregate, but it can at least make structural and mix designers aware of a particular aggregates characteristics, which may aid in critical design decisions.

20

MARSHALL TEST
The basic concepts of the Marshall mix design method were originally developed by Bruce Marshall of the Mississippi Highway Department around 1939 and then refined by the U.S. Army. Currently, the Marshall method is used in some capacity by about 38 states. The Marshall method seeks to select the asphalt binder content at a desired density that satisfies minimum stability and range of flow values (White, 1985). This section consists of a brief history of the Marshall mix design method followed by a general outline of the actual method. This outline emphasizes general concepts and rationale over specific procedures 1 History (from White, 1985) During World War II, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE) began evaluating various HMA mix design methods for use in airfield pavement design. Motivation for this search came from the everincreasing wheel loads and tire pressures produced by larger and larger military aircraft. Early work at the U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station (WES) in 1943 had the objective of developing: "...a simple apparatus suitable for use with the present California Bearing Ratio (CBR) equipment to design and control asphalt paving mixtures..." The most promising method eventually proved to be the Marshall Stability Method developed by Bruce G. Marshall at the Mississippi Highway Department in 1939. WES took the original Marshall Stability Test and added a deformation measurement (using a flow meter) that was reasoned to assist in detecting excessively high asphalt contents. This appended test was eventually recommended for adoption by the U.S. Army because: 1. It was designed to stress the entire sample rather than just a portion of it. 2. It facilitated rapid testing with minimal effort. 3. It was compact, light and portable. 4. It produced densities reasonably close to field densities. WES continued to refine the Marshall method through the 1950s with various tests on materials, traffic loading and weather variables. Today the Marshall method, despite its shortcomings, is probably the most widely used mix design method in the world. It has probably become so widely used because (1) it was adopted and used by the U.S. military all over the world during and after WWII and (2) it is simple, compact and inexpensive. 2 Procedure The Marshall mix design method consists of 6 basic steps: 1. Aggregate selection. 2. Asphalt binder selection. 3. Sample preparation (including compaction). 4. Stability determination using the Marshall stability and flow test.

21

5. Density and voids calculations. 6. Optimum asphalt binder content selection.

2.1 Aggregate Evaluation Although neither Marshall nor WES specifically developed an aggregate evaluation and selection procedure, one is included here because it is integral to any mix design. A typical aggregate evaluation for use with either the Hveem or Marshall mix design methods includes three basic steps (Roberts et al., 1996): 1. Determine aggregate physical properties. This consists of running various tests to determine properties such as:
o o o o

Toughness and abrasion Durability and soundness Cleanliness and deleterious materials Particle shape and surface texture

2. Determine other aggregate descriptive physical properties. If the aggregate is acceptable according to step #1, additional tests are run to fully characterize the aggregate. These tests determine:
o o

Gradation and size Specific gravity and absorption

3. Perform blending calculations to achieve the mix design aggregate gradation. Often, aggregates from more than one source or stockpile are used to obtain the final aggregate gradation used in a mix design. Trial blends of these different gradations are usually calculated until an acceptable final mix design gradation is achieved. Typical considerations for a trial blend include:
o

All gradation specifications must be met. Typical specifications will require the percent retained by weight on particular sieve sizes to be within a certain band. The gradation should not be too close to the FHWA's 0.45 power maximum density curve. If it is, then the VMA is likely to be too low. Gradation should deviate from the FHWA's 0.45 power maximum density curve, especially on the 2.36 mm (No. 8) sieve.

2.2 Asphalt Binder Evaluation The Marshall test does not have a common generic asphalt binder selection and evaluation procedure. Each specifying entity uses their own method with modifications to determine the appropriate binder and, if any, modifiers. Binder evaluation can be based on local experience, previous performance or a set procedure. Perhaps the most common set procedure now in use is based on the Superpave PG binder system. However, before this system there was no nationally recognized standard for binder evaluation and selection. Once the binder is selected, several preliminary tests are run to determine the asphalt binder's temperature-viscosity relationship.

22

2.3 Sample Preparation The Marshall method, like other mix design methods, uses several trial aggregate-asphalt binder blends (typically 5 blends with 3 samples each for a total of 15 specimens), each with a different asphalt binder content. Then, by evaluating each trial blend's performance, an optimum asphalt binder content can be selected. In order for this concept to work, the trial blends must contain a range of asphalt contents both above and below the optimum asphalt content. Therefore, the first step in sample preparation is to estimate an optimum asphalt content. Trial blend asphalt contents are then determined from this estimate. 2.3.1 Optimum Asphalt Binder Content Estimate The Marshall mix design method can use any suitable method for estimating optimum asphalt content and usually relies on local procedures or experience. 2.3.2 Sample Asphalt Binder Contents Based on the results of the optimum asphalt binder content estimate, samples are typically prepared at 0.5 percent by weight of mix increments, with at least two samples above the estimated asphalt binder content and two below. 2.3.3 Compaction with the Marshall Hammer Each sample is then heated to the anticipated compaction temperature and compacted with a Marshall hammer, a device that applies pressure to a sample through a tamper foot (see Figure 5.8). Some hammers are automatic and some are hand operated. Key parameters of the compactor are:

Sample size = 102 mm (4-inch) diameter cylinder 64 mm (2.5 inches) in height (corrections can be made for different sample heights) Tamper foot = Flat and circular with a diameter of 98.4 mm (3.875 inches) corresponding to an area of 76 cm2 (11.8 in2). Compaction pressure = Specified as a 457.2 mm (18 inches) free fall drop distance of a hammer assembly with a 4536 g (10 lb.) sliding weight. Number of blows = Typically 35, 50 or 75 on each side depending upon anticipated traffic loading. Simulation method = The tamper foot strikes the sample on the top and covers almost the entire sample top area. After a specified number of blows, the sample is turned over and the procedure repeated.

23

Figure 5.8: Marshall Drop Hammers The standard Marshall method sample preparation procedure is contained in:

AASHTO T 245: Resistance to Plastic Flow of Bituminous Mixtures Using the Marshall Apparatus

2.4 The Marshall Stability and Flow Test The Marshall stability and flow test provides the performance prediction measure for the Marshall mix design method. The stability portion of the test measures the maximum load supported by the test specimen at a loading rate of 50.8 mm/minute (2 inches/minute). Basically, the load is increased until it reaches a maximum then when the load just begins to decrease, the loading is stopped and the maximum load is recorded. During the loading, an attached dial gauge measures the specimen's plastic flow as a result of the loading (see Figure 5.9). The flow value is recorded in 0.25 mm (0.01 inch) increments at the same time the maximum load is recorded.

Figure 5.9: Marshall Testing Apparatus Typical Marshall design stability and flow criteria are shown in Table 5.3.

24

Table 5.3: Typical Marshall Design Criteria (from Asphalt Institute, 1979) Light Traffic (< 104 ESALs) Min. Compaction (number of blows on each end of the sample) Stability (minimum) Flow (0.25 mm (0.01 inch)) Percent Air Voids 8 3 35 2224 N (500 lbs.) 20 5 8 3 Max. Medium Traffic (104 - 106 ESALs) Min. 50 3336 N (750 lbs.) 18 5 Max. Heavy Traffic (> 106 ESALs) Min. 75 6672 N (1500 lbs.) 8 3 16 5 Max.

Mix Criteria

One standard Marshall mix design procedure is:

AASHTO T 245: Resistance to Plastic Flow of Bituminous Mixtures Using Marshall Apparatus

2.5 Density and Voids Analysis All mix design methods use density and voids to determine basic HMA physical characteristics. Two different measures of densities are typically taken: 1. Bulk specific gravity (Gmb). 2. Theoretical maximum specific gravity (TMD, Gmm). These densities are then used to calculate the volumetric parameters of the HMA. Measured void expressions are usually:

Air voids (Va), sometimes expressed as voids in the total mix (VTM) Voids in the mineral aggregate (VMA) - see Table 5.4. Voids filled with asphalt (VFA)

Generally, these values must meet local or State criteria.

25

Table 5.4: Typical Marshall Minimum VMA (from Asphalt Institute, 1979) Nominal Particle Size (mm) 63 50 37.5 25.0 19.0 12.5 9.5 4.75 2.36 1.18 Maximum Minimum VMA (percent) (U.S.) 2.5 inch 2.0 inch 1.5 inch 1.0 inch 0.75 inch 0.5 inch 0.375 inch No. 4 sieve No. 8 sieve No. 16 sieve 11 11.5 12 13 14 15 16 18 21 23.5

2.6 Selection of Optimum Asphalt Binder Content The optimum asphalt binder content is finally selected based on the combined results of Marshall stability and flow, density analysis and void analysis (see Figure 5.10). Optimum asphalt binder content can be arrived at in the following procedure (Roberts et al., 1996): 1. Plot the following graphs:
o

Asphalt binder content vs. density. Density will generally increase with increasing asphalt content, reach a maximum, then decrease. Peak density usually occurs at a higher asphalt binder content than peak stability. Asphalt binder content vs. Marshall stability. This should follow one of two trends:

Stability increases with increasing asphalt binder content, reaches a peak, then decreases. Stability decreases with increasing asphalt binder content and does not show a peak. This curve is common for some recycled HMA mixtures.

o o

Asphalt binder content vs. flow. Asphalt binder content vs. air voids. Percent air voids should decrease with increasing asphalt binder content. Asphalt binder content vs. VMA. Percent VMA should decrease with increasing asphalt binder content, reach a minimum, then increase. Asphalt binder content vs. VFA. Percent VFA increases with increasing asphalt binder content.

26

2. Determine the asphalt binder content that corresponds to the specifications median air void content (typically this is 4 percent). This is the optimum asphalt binder content. 3. Determine properties at this optimum asphalt binder content by referring to the plots. Compare each of these values against specification values and if all are within specification, then the preceding optimum asphalt binder content is satisfactory. Otherwise, if any of these properties is outside the specification range the mixture should be redesigned.

27

Figure 5.10: Selection of Optimum Asphalt Binder Content Example (from Roberts et al., 1996) 3 Summary

28

The Marshall mix design method was developed to address specific mix design issues confronting the USCOE during World War II. Therefore, it was developed to be simple, light, quick, and reasonably accurate for the wheel loading of the time. Since then it has been modified and supplemented to address new concerns but the basic testing apparatus and selection criteria remain the same. The biggest differentiating aspects of the Marshall method are the Marshall hammer and the Marshall stability and flow apparatus. Both are probably overly simplistic for high-end or high-load pavements but they are simple, light, portable and inexpensive.

Volume Terms and Relationships Basic HMA weight-volume relationships are important to understand for both mix design and construction purposes. Fundamentally, mix design is meant to determine the volume of asphalt binder and aggregates necessary to produce a mixture with the desired properties (Roberts et al., 1996). However, since weight measurements are typically much easier, they are typically taken then converted to volume by using specific gravities. The following is a brief discussion of the more important volume properties of HMA. In general, weight and volume terms are abbreviated as, Gxy, where: x: b = binder s = stone (i.e., aggregate) m = mixture y: b = bulk e = effective a = apparent m = maximum For example, Gmm = gravity, mixture, maximum = the maximum gravity of the mixture. Other common abbreviations are:

29

VT = Total volume of the compacted specimen Va = Volume of air voids Vb = Volume of asphalt binder Vbe = Volume of effective asphalt binder Vba = Volume of absorbed asphalt binder Vagg = Volume of aggregate Veff = Effective volume of aggregate = (VT VAC)

WT = Total weight of the compacted specimen WD = Dry weight WSSD = Saturated surface dry (SSD) weight Wsub = Weight submerged in water Wb = Weight of the asphalt binder Wbe = Weight of effective asphalt binder Wba = Weight of absorbed asphalt binder

Wagg = Weight of aggregate Gsa = Apparent specific gravity of the aggregate Gb = Asphalt binder specific gravity Pb = Asphalt content by weight of mix (percent) Ps = Aggregate content by weight of mix (percent) Pa = Percent air voids

Gsb = Bulk specific gravity of the aggregate

Gse = Effective specific gravity of the aggregate Gmb = Bulk specific gravity of the compacted mixture Gmm = Maximum theoretical specific gravity of the mixture

W = Unit weight of water

Specific Gravities Bulk Specific Gravity of the Compacted Asphalt Mixture (Gmb). The ratio of the mass in air of a unit volume of a permeable material (including both permeable and impermeable voids normal to the material) at a stated temperature to the mass in air (of equal density) of an equal volume of gasfree distilled water at a stated temperature. This value is used to determine weight per unit volume of the compacted mixture. It is very important to measure Gmb as accurately as possible. Since it is

30

used to convert weight measurements to volumes, any small errors in Gmb will be reflected in significant volume errors, which may go undetected. The standard bulk specific gravity test is:

Surface-Dry Specimens

Theoretical Maximum Specific Gravity of Bituminous Paving Mixtures (Gmm). The ratio of the mass of a given volume of voidless (Va = 0) HMA at a stated temperature (usually 25 to a mass of an C) equal volume of gas-free distilled water at the same temperature. It is also called Rice Specific Gravity (after James Rice who developed the test procedure). Multiplying Gmm by the unit weight of water gives Theoretical Maximum Density (TMD). The standard TMD test is: Gravity and Density of Bituminous Paving Mixtures

Voids (expressed as percentages) Air Voids (Va). The total volume of the small pockets of air between the coated aggregate particles throughout a compacted paving mixture, expressed as a percent of the bulk volume of the compacted paving mixture. The amount of air voids in a mixture is extremely important and closely related to stability and durability. For typical dense-graded mixes with 12.5 mm (0.5 inch) nominal maximum aggregate sizes air voids below about 3 percent result in an unstable mixture while air voids above about 8 percent result in a water-permeable mixture.

Voids in the Mineral Aggregate (VMA). The volume of intergranular void space between the aggregate particles of a compacted paving mixture that includes the air voids and the effective asphalt content, expressed as a percent of the total volume of the specimen. When VMA is too low, there is not enough room in the mixture to add sufficient asphalt binder to adequately coat the individual aggregate particles. Also, mixes with a low VMA are more sensitive to small changes in asphalt binder content. Excessive VMA will cause an unacceptably low mixture stability (Roberts et al., 1996). Generally, a minimum VMA is specified and a maximum VMA may or may not be specified.

31

Voids Filled with Asphalt (VFA). The portion of the voids in the mineral aggregate that contain asphalt binder. This represents the volume of the effective asphalt content. It can also be described as the percent of the volume of the VMA that is filled with asphalt cement. VFA is inversely related to air voids: as air voids decrease, the VFA increases.

Other Definitions Effective Asphalt Content (Pbe). The total asphalt binder content of the HMA less the portion of asphalt binder that is lost by absorption into the aggregate.

Volume of Absorbed Asphalt (Vba). The volume of asphalt binder in the HMA that has been absorbed into the pore structure of the aggregate. It is the volume of the asphalt binder in the HMA that is not accounted for by the effective asphalt content.

Referrence http://classes.engr.oregonstate.edu/cce/winter2012/ce492/Modules/05_mix_design/054_body.htm; 21 Ocktober 2012; Sunday 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. National Asphalt Pavement Association Education Foundation. Lanham, MD. National Asphalt Pavement Association. (1982). Development of Marshall Procedures for Designing Asphalt Paving Mixtures, Information Series 84. National Asphalt Pavement Association. Lanham, MD. Asphalt Institute. (1997). Mix Design Methods for Asphalt, 6th ed., MS-02. Asphalt Institute. Lexington, KY. http://classes.engr.oregonstate.edu/cce/winter2012/ce492/Modules/03_materials/032_body.htm#toughness_abrasion_resistance; 21 Ocktober 2012; Sunday