Paper No. 530 ASPHALT MIX DESIGN - REFUSAL DENSITY APPROACH FOR HEAVILY TRAFFICKED ROADS * Dr. S.K. Rao®, JLK. Das & Pivaxt Roycuownuuny™** ABSTRACT Asphalt paving mixes designed by the Marshall method have been failing prematurely on our roads. One of the reasons for such failures is inadequate initial compaction. Densities achieved under 75-blow Marshall compaction in the laboratory do not simulate the field densities of the mix after it has undergone secondary compaction due to traffic. When the air voids in the mix decrease to below 3 per cent during such densification and as the viscosity of asphalt in the mix decreases sharply in summer, the mix permanently deforms as a rut under the wheel loads Three factors contribute to good performance of an asphalt mix carrying heavy axle loads in hot climates. They are ‘adequate initial compaction so that secondary compaction under traffic is minimized, sufficient asphalt content for durability of the mix and enough air voids in the mix for its stability. All the three factors are influenced by the VMA of the mix. A high VMA would permit the incorporation of higher asphalt content while ensuring enough air voids under increased compaction, Ageregate shape and surface texture influence the VMA 10 some extent but itis largely influenced by the aggregate grading. Dense gradings give rise to low VMAs and open gradings 10 high VMAS, The Paper suggests a modification to the Marshall design procedure we follow for the design of asphalt mixes. The modification involves adjusting the aggregate grading to achieve higher VMA values for creating more space to incorporate higher asphalt contents and checking the mixes for ‘refusal density’ for ensuring its stability under secondary compaction due to traf 1. INTRODUCTION (a) select an aggregate grading fitting the grading band of the MoSRT&H specifications (b) cast a set of Marshall test specimens of asphalt mixes with aggregates graded to the selected grading and with varying asphalt contents (c) test the specimens for the Marshall properties and (d) choose the asphalt content offering, the optimum Marshall properties in accordance with the criteria suggested in MS-2, as the design asphalt content. A design example is given below to show the limitations Most of the important highways of the country are surfaced with asphalt. Bituminous conerete (BC) and dense bituminous macadam (DBM) are the commonly used asphalt courses. Mix designs for BC and DBM are based on the guidelines given in the Asphalt Institute (USA) Manual MS-2 ‘Mix Design Methods for Asphalt Conerete and Other Hot-Mix Types’. Several of the mixes designed by the Marshall test procedure in accordance with MS-2 have failed prematurely on our roads, sometimes within the first few months of construction. The object of this paper is to scrutinize the asphalt mix design procedure as practiced in our projects, point out why it falls short of expected performance and suggest a few modifications that could avert such failures and enhance the performance of the mixes. 2. ASPHALT MIX DESIGN PROCEDURE, ‘The steps involved in the mix design procedure are and deficiencies of this procedure as applied to our roads, 2.1, Asphalt Mix Design Example A gist of mix design results for bituminous concrete intended for a pavement in a high-density corridor of a National Highway is given below. The MoSRT&H grading band and the adopted grading that lies within the band shows in Fig. 1. The Marshall Test properties of the mixes made with varying asphalt contents. The Marshall properties are per cent + Senioe Consultant ** General Manager ++ Managing Director + Written comments on this Skrao@Lasaindia.com LEA Associates South Asia Pvt. Lid., Mathura Road, New Delhi rer are invited and will be received upto 31” August, 2007.54 Dr. Rao, Das & Rovcrowonury on air voids (Va), per cent voids in mineral aggregate = ao (VMA), per cent voids filled with bitumen (VFB), unit wo tl | TT 1d weight, stability and flow. Shown in Fig. 2 to 7.Marshall Lo Design criteria as adopted by the MoSRT&H ze I U | | Specifications are given in Table 1 2 Ul LT a | t £6 7 TT (Sse eae See] 5 tI fi LTT 100 % Petite | ~ 44s 0 ss 60 in Blumen Content (4) Bs Fig. Eu 2370 " 2.360) att T a3 Z 2350) Site ot) 5 ox Fig, 1. Aggregate Grading in the Design Example Z ray 3 2320 Lt Litt i it 80 4000-45 80586 » Bitumen Conte oo 5 g > E so Z 1800 5 4 = 0 z 30 Zt 20 Abed “0 4s so 58 6a 3 1400 ‘Bitumen Content (%) 1300 ** 40 45 5.0 SS 60 itumen Content (4) 150 5.00 . 450 F400 1 - =o = 350 g z 3.00 7 3 g 2.50 TH > = 2.00 T | 1.50 ~ 10 ite | I “0 as so ss oo Sag ae Oa! oy Bitumen Content (%) | ce Ye amsluar colnet) Fig. 3 Fig.Aspuatt Mix Desion - Rerusat Density Approach For Heavity Trarricked Roaps 55 Tamir 1. MARSHALL Mix DesiGn CRireRta ACCORDING 10 MoSRT&H TONS. Mix Criterion Heavy Traffic Min Max Compaction elfort (no, of blows on each face of specimen) B wb ‘Stability (KN at 60°C) 9 Flow (mm) 2 4 % air voids 3 6 ‘% voids in mineral agg (VMA) _ given in separate table* % voids filled with bitumen (VEB)] 65 75 © VMA for DBM & BC mixes varies between 10 per cent and 16 per cent depending on the nominal max size of aggregate and the design air void content 2.2. Choosing Design Asphalt Content Initially, the asphalt content corresponding to the median of percent air voids limits as shown inTable 1. is selected from Fig.2 to examine whether all other Marshall properties according to the design guidelines in Table. 1 are fulfilled. If this is so, this asphalt content is taken as the initial design asphalt content. If the criteria are not ‘met, the mix is re-examined for its suitability at other asphalt contents or it may have to be redesigned by selecting a different aggregate grading. Inthe given example, the initial design asphalt content is 4.8 per cent (corresponding to 4.5 per cent air voids). ‘This is then compared with the minimum asphalt content stipulated in the MoSRT&H Specifications (for bituminous concrete). If it is more, it is taken as the design asphalt content. If it is less, it has to be examined whether all the Marshall test criteria are fulfilled at the MoSRT&H minimum asphalt content. If this is so, the MoSRT&H minimum is selected as the design asphalt content, If not, the mix has to be redesigned, changing the aggregate grading. It may be mentioned, however, that the Marshall method of MS-2 does not stipulate any minimum asphalt content as the design requirement. In the design example, since the initial design asphalt content (4.8 per cent) is less than the MoSRT&H minimum (5 per cent) and since all the Marshall test criteria are fulfilled atthe latter the design asphalt content would be selected as 5 per cent. 3. WHY DO OUR ASPHALT MIXES UNDER-PERFORM? If the mix design formulated in the design example is submitted for approval it would be accepted for implementation since it satisfies the requirements of our specifications. But mixes having the same Marshall characteristics as in the example have been found to have undergone premature permanent deformation under our traffic loadings, particularly during the summer months for the following reason. In the Marshall procedure of MS-2, the laboratory compaction is intended to simulate the in-place density after the mix has endured several years of traffic! At the time of developing the method, heavy traffic was regarded something close to 1 MSA (one million standard, axles) and a laboratory compaction of 75 blows on the two faces of a Marshall specimen was discerned to achieve the corresponding density level. In the high density traffic corridors of the country, loadings of that magnitude occur within a few months of opening to traffic and the in-place densities increase beyond the laboratory densities with further movement of traffic. As the density increases, air voids in the mix decrease. As the air voids decrease below a certain limit (around 3 per cent) the asphalt film enveloping the aggregate particles tends to push them apart, reducing the aggregate particle contact. ‘This action becomes more and more predominant as the pavement temperatures rise in summer and decrease the viscosity of asphalt. Because of the falling viscosity of asphalt and the diminished aggregate particle contact, the mix loses its shear resistance and deforms as a rut under the vehicle wheel with an accompanying heave on the side. It may be realized that the shear resistance of an asphalt mix is contributed jointly by the viscosity of asphalt and aggregate internal friction. Photo.1 shows this kind of rutting observed on a newly constructed road. within two months of its construction. Photo.2 shows the cores of bituminous concrete wearing course taken at three locations on a cross section of this deformed road. The three locations are (a) in the rut, (b) on the Photo 1. Asphalt Mix Rutting on a newly laid Pavement