DAR ES SALAAM INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

SENIOR PROJECT 2

NTA LEVEL 8

TITLE: EFFECT OF STABILIZING ADDITIVES AND MINERAL FILLERS ON THE

PERFORMANCE OF GAP GRADED HOT MIX ASHALT (GGHMA)

PROJECT TYPE: RESEARCH

STUDENT NAME: MATHIAS, Kulwa

ADM NO: 140131452515

ACADEMIC YEAR: 2017/2018

June, 2018
TITLE: EFFECT OF STABILIZING ADDITIVES AND MINERAL FILLERS ON THE
PERFORMANCE OF GAP GRADED HOT MIX ASPHALT (GGHM A)

This project is submitted to the Dar es Salaam Institute of Technology as a partial fulfilment of
Bachelor of Engineering in Civil Engineering

Author

MATHIAS, Kulwa

June, 2018
 DECLARATION

I, MATHIAS, Kulwa declare that, the project entitled “Effect of Stabilizing additives and Mineral
fillers on the Performance of Gap-Graded Hot Mix Asphalt (GGHMA)”.Submitted in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the award of Bachelor of Engineering in Civil Engineering with
specialization in Transportation Engineering during 2017-2018 session at the Dar es Salaam Institute of
Technology (DIT). To the best of my knowledge, the results contained in this project have not been
submitted to any other University/Institute for the award of any degree/diploma. Wherever any
researchers or other authors information used it has been well cited its source for academic safety.

………………………….. Date: ……………………….

MATHIAS, Kulwa
(Student name & signature)

…………………………… Date: ……………………………

Dr. J. Musagasa, PhD
(Supervisor’s name & signature)

i
 ABSTRACT

In an effort to address the rampant failures happening in heavy duty roads, more heavy duty and busiest
roads are nowadays designed using Gap-Graded Hot Mix Asphalt (GGHMA) in which major example
of it is Stone Mastic Asphalt concrete(SMA). Many highway agencies like TANROADS and TARURA
in Tanzania have not clearly set specific stabilizing additives and mineral fillers to be of consideration
during design of the Stone mastic asphalt concrete leaving this task to pavement engineers to decide
what stabilizing additives should be used and why not the other one. For that reason there is a need for
highway agencies and researchers to know what stabilizing additive and mineral filler to be used in
developing an appropriate design to perform effectively. There should be no dilemmarity to the asphalt
designer on what best mineral filler to use in their design. In deciding type of a specific stabilizing
additive one should really know why can I choose cellulose fiber s and not mineral fibers? Why can I
choose lime not fly-ash or marble dust or limestone dust or crush dust or cement as my mineral filler?

In the current situation on the use of stabilizing additives and mineral fillers in a full scale project ar e
allowed only after data has been collected from project where the additives and fillers had been
previously used and its performance seen. It is something shocking in the era of Science and
Technology with full equipped pavement material laboratories to wait for a pilot study for some years
or copy some data which were used somewhere where our weather condition differ from where the data
belongs to.

For that reason there is a need to assess the effect of different stabilizing additives and mineral fillers
to be used in design of GGHMA which require greater care in the choice and use of different stabilizing
additives and mineral fillers.

The significance of this study are remaining superior to pavement engineers and highway agencies that
they will easily understand the best stabilizing additives and mineral filler from Laboratory analysis
developed. Also from the findings asphalt producers should refinery produce asphalt for specific duty
with refinery added stabilizing additives. Last but not least, there shall be reduced number of pilot
projects to be made by highway agencies and researchers which will largely save cost for investing in
pilot studies in which we don’t even know how well it will perfor m.

In this study the chosen stabilizing additives are Plastic (Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC)), Reclaimed
Rubber (Recycled Tires) and cellulose fibers are to be tested with same mineral filler which is ultra -
white hydrated lime hereby known as Active Filler abbreviated by ‘AF’.
Through this study extensive knowledge in hot mi x asphalt design principles, material knowledge
especially aggregates, asphalt binder, stabilizing additives and mineral fillers and general
understanding in civil material laboratory instrumentations is gained by the doer. This was my real
long term desire and need.

ii
 DEDICATION
This project is dedicated to My Mother, Sabina, whose wise instructions and loving guidance in life
have prepared me for the challenges and joys yet to come. My Wife, Helen and my son, Brighton who
stuck by me through the project, writing and completing this project, after ALL they are with me and
they will always be with me forever. My uncle, Seleman, whose pride and honor in family has helped
me become good as I can be.
Finally, my special dedication my specia l prayers go to my late father Mzee Mnyeti Mathias, Nh’aghara
(May your soul rest in peace in Heaven). You was Chief of Defense, the General Commander, the
guardian, priest and doctor of your own son, counselor and I don’t know exactly who you’re in my life.
You were more than a father. I still remember your last word at your last bed. I graved you in my inner
heart. Please you may rest in peace in Heaven.

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First and foremost, praise and sincere thanks goes to the Almighty for being blessed with
highly motivating, supporting and inspiring Parents and Friends to keep up in my life.
I would like also to thank several individuals for their help and contribution in making this project a
success at this point of data collection. I first acknowledge Dr. J. Musagasa, PhD., as my advisor, my
supervisor, my mentor, and my lecturer in Highway Engineering Material module. His guidance,
management, and encouragement allowed me not only to likely completing the B.Eng. process, but to
prosper in my endeavors and enjoy myself along the way. Thank you Dr. Musagasa, you was calm in
the storm and you will always be. Furthermore, this project could not have been at this stage in the time
frame established without the dedication of Eng. Malisa, Senior Pavement Design Engineer at Central
Material Laboratory-TANROADS, who’s instrumentation experience and attention to detail proved
invaluable.
The topic of this project is based on the work of some great engineers. I acknowledge the guidance and
friendship given by Miss Christina (CML). It was through her efforts that I was able to first understand
the mix design principles that are presented in this project. My long term comrade Mr. Mathias Mandalu
Gwisu, a senior material technician at T ANROADS Regional Office Dar es Salaam, you were more
than a friend in assisting and sharing knowledge with me. May God bless you.
Also, I would like to thank Mr. Mtorah of Central Material Laboratory. Through Mtorah, CML donated
all the asphalt, mineral filler and some of my stabilizing additives and aggregate materials necessary
for the GGHMA mix design and provided unlimited access to their own lab, which prov ed extremely
beneficially. Mtorah and Clement also provided considerable insight into the nuances of MoW’s,
AASHTO, ASTM, and THM specifications and mix design criteria.
In closing, I thank the Central Material Laboratory for their helping hand and providing me the
opportunity to help improve the state-of-the-art in asphalt mix design. If it was army am sure I could
be promoted to F-7 NATO military rank. Thank you CML.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION ................................................................................................................................................ i
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................................................... ii
DEDICATION .................................................................................................................................................. iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................................................................ iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................... v
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................ ix
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................... x
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER ONE ................................................................................................................................................. 1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 General Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Problem Statement ............................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Objectives of the study ......................................................................................................................... 2
1.3.1 Main Objective of the Project ............................................................................................................ 2
1.3.2 Specific Objectives of the Study ........................................................................................................ 2
1.4 Significance of the Study ...................................................................................................................... 2
1.5 The Scope of the Study ......................................................................................................................... 3
1.6 Limitations of the study ........................................................................................................................ 3
CHAPTER TWO ................................................................................................................................................ 4
LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Gap Graded Hot Mix Asphalt (GGHMA) ................................................................................................ 4
2.2 Philosophy of GGHMA mix design ......................................................................................................... 5
2.3 Overview of GGHMA Mix Design Procedure......................................................................................... 5
2.4 Coarse Aggregates ................................................................................................................................... 7
2.5 Fine Aggregates ....................................................................................................................................... 7
2.6 Asphalt Binder ......................................................................................................................................... 7
2.7 Mineral Fillers .......................................................................................................................................... 8
2.8 Stabilizing Additives ................................................................................................................................ 8
Step 2: Trial Gradations ................................................................................................................................. 9
Determination of Voids in Coarse Aggregates (VCA)................................................................................. 10
ix
 Selection of Target Asphalt Content ............................................................................................................ 11
2.8 The Bailey Method ................................................................................................................................ 13
2.8 1 Basic Principles ............................................................................................................................... 14
2.8.2 Aggregate Packing ........................................................................................................................... 14
2.8.3 Coarse and Fine Aggregate .............................................................................................................. 15
2.8.4 Combining Aggregates by Volume .................................................................................................. 16
2.8.5 Loose Unit Weight of Coarse Aggregate ......................................................................................... 16
2.8.6 Rodded Unit Weight of Coarse Aggregate....................................................................................... 17
2.8.7 Chosen Unit Weight of Coarse Aggregate ....................................................................................... 17
2.9 stabilizing additives in bituminous mixes .............................................................................................. 18
2.9.1 Fibre as an additive.......................................................................................................................... 19
CHAPTER THREE ......................................................................................................................................... 20
METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................................... 20
3.1 Research design ...................................................................................................................................... 20
3.1.1 Material Selection ............................................................................................................................ 20
3.1.2 Selecting Optimum Gradation ......................................................................................................... 20
3.1.3 Selecting Design Binder Content ..................................................................................................... 21
3.1.4 Evaluating Draindown test............................................................................................................... 21
3.1.5 Test Specimens ................................................................................................................................ 21
3.2 Methods and Materials ........................................................................................................................... 22
3.3 SM14 Specimens molding Procedure flow Chart .................................................................................. 24
CHAPTER FOUR ............................................................................................................................................ 25
PRESENTATION OF RESULTS ................................................................................................................... 25
4.1 AGGREGATES ..................................................................................................................................... 25
4.1.1 Consensus properties tests ............................................................................................................... 25
4.1.1.1 Gradations of Aggregates.............................................................................................................. 25
4.1.1.2 Flakiness Index Test ..................................................................................................................... 25
4.1.1.3 Specific gravity and water absorption ........................................................................................... 27
4.1.1.4 Fine aggregate angularity test ....................................................................................................... 27
4.1.1.5 Clay content (Sand equivalent test) ............................................................................................... 28
4.1.2 Source Properties tests on aggregates .............................................................................................. 28
4.1.2.1 Soundness test ............................................................................................................................... 29
4.1.2.2 Strength test .................................................................................................................................. 30
4.1.2.3 Toughness Test ............................................................................................................................. 30
x
 4.1.3 Blending of the aggregates .............................................................................................................. 31
4.2 Asphalt binder properties tests ............................................................................................................... 31
4.2.1 Bitumen penetration test .................................................................................................................. 32
4.2.2 Softening Point Test ......................................................................................................................... 32
4.2.3 Flash and Fire Point ......................................................................................................................... 32
4.2.4 Density and Relative density of binder ............................................................................................ 33
4.2.5 Brookfield Dynamic Viscosity Test ................................................................................................ 33
4.2.6 Ductility test .................................................................................................................................... 34
CHAPTER FIVE .............................................................................................................................................. 35
Data Analysis and Discussion of results............................................................................................................. 35
5.1 Aggregates Properties.................................................................................................................................. 35
5.1.1 Aggregate Particle Size Distribution.................................................................................................. 35
5.1.2 Aggregate Specific Gravity and Absorption ...................................................................................... 36
5.1.4 Bulk specific gravity (G sb) and apparent specific gravity (G sa) of the aggregates .............................. 39
5.1.5 Fine Aggregate Angularity ................................................................................................................ 39
5.1.6 Clay Content ..................................................................................................................................... 40
5.1.7 Aggregates Flakiness Index (FI) ........................................................................................................ 40
5.2 .1 Ten Percent Fines (TFV) .................................................................................................................. 41
5.2.2 Los Angeles Abrasion Test ............................................................................................................... 42
5.2.3 Sulfate Soundness Test (AASHTO T104 – 97).................................................................................. 43
5.3.2 Blend Specific gravity ....................................................................................................................... 45
5.3.1 Marshall Mix Design of SMA using Cellulose fibres stabilizing additive ........................................... 46
5.3.3 Marshall Mix Design of SMA14 using Reclaimed Rubber (8% of the binder) as stabilizing additive . 48
5.3.4 Marshall Mix Design of SMA14 usin Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) (8% of the binder) as stabilizing ..... 50
5.3.5 Draindown Test analysis ................................................................................................................... 53
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................................. 54
RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 55
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 56
APPENDICE

xi
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Stone Mastic Gradation Specification Bands based on %passing by volume ..................................... 10
Table 3: Flakiness Index Table of results ....................................................................................................... 26
Table 4: Summary results on specific gravities and water absorption for selected aggregates.......................... 26
Table 5: % air void in loosely compacted fine aggregate (in SMA design) ..................................................... 27
Table 6: Table showing Sand equivalent results ............................................................................................. 27
Table 7: The summary results of the Soundness test ....................................................................................... 28
Table 8: TFV results...................................................................................................................................... 29
Table 9: LAA results ..................................................................................................................................... 29
Table 11: Penetration results.......................................................................................................................... 31
Table 12: Softening point of the binder .......................................................................................................... 31
Table 13: Results of Flash point and Fire point .............................................................................................. 32
Table 14: Result of Relative Density and Density of the binder ...................................................................... 32
Table 15: Results of the Brookfield dynamic Viscosity .................................................................................. 33
Table 16: Results of the Ductility test of binder ............................................................................................. 33

xi
i
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Desirable Aggregates and Undesirable Aggregates ............................................................................ 6
Figure 2:Types of Mineral Fillers used in GGHMA............................................................................................. 8
Figure 3: Some Stabilizing additives used in GGHMA design.......................................................................... 9
Figure 4: Method of determining VCA in dry-rodded condition. .................................................................... 11
Figure 5: Loose Unit Weight Condition ......................................................................................................... 16
Figure 6: Rodded Unit Weight Condition....................................................................................................... 17
Figure 7: Selection of Chosen Unit Weight of Coarse Aggregate ................................................................... 18
Figure 8: Research Design flow Chart............................................................................................................ 20
Figure 9: The Flow chart of Marshall Mixing process .................................................................................... 24
Figure 10: Blending and grading of individual aggregates .............................................................................. 30

xi
ii
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AAPA Austrian Asphalt Pavement Association

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and T ransportation Officials
AC Asphalt Concrete

AF Active Filler
APA Asphalt Concrete Analyzer

ASTM American Society of Testing Materials

BC Bituminous Concrete

CA Coarse Aggregates

CML Central Material Laboratory (TANROADS- Tanzania)

FA Fine Aggregates

FI Flakiness Index
HDAP Heavy Duty Asphalt Pavement

HMA Hot Mix Asphalt

GGHMA Gap-Graded Hot Mix Asphalt

LAA Loss Angeles Abrasion test

LUW Loose Unit Weight

NCAT National Centre for Asphalt Technology (USA)

NMAS Nominal Maximum Aggregate Size

PG Performance Grade
PSD Particle Size Distribution

PSV Polished Stone Value

PVC Polyvinyl Chrolide

RUW Rodded Unit Weight

SMA Stone Mastic Asphalt

SSS Sulfate Stone Soundness test

VCA Void in Coarse Aggregate

xi
v
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION
1.1 General Introduction
In an effort to address the rampant failures happening in heavy duty roads, more heavy duty and busiest
roads are nowadays designed using Gap-Graded Hot Mix Asphalt (GGHMA) in which major example
of it is Stone Mastic Asphalt concrete(SMA). Stone Mastic Asphalt (SMA) is material designed
specifically for making top layers on heavy duty roads (www.mainroads.qld.gov.au). The specificity of
stone mastic asphalt concrete composition and structure implies the mandatory presence of hard and
durable aggregates and mineral fillers, voluminous bitumen and small amount of stabilizing additives
for disperse reinforcing of a binder as a main structural components. For example Kibamba climbing
lane top layer was designed with DBM30 in 2014 but now (2017+) has been alternatively ware with
SMA. This show evident that SMA is an alternative choice for heavy duty roads if designed
appropriately. Many highway agencies like TANROADS and TARURA in Tanzania have not clearly
set specific stabilizing additives and mineral fillers to be of consideration during design of the Stone
mastic asphalt concrete leaving this task to pavement engineers to decide what stabilizing additives
should be used and why not the other one. For that reason there is a need for highway agencies and
researchers to know what stabilizing additive and mineral filler to be used in developing an appropriate
design to perform effectively. There should be no dilemmarity to the asphalt designer on what best
mineral filler to use in their design. In deciding type of a specific stabilizing additive one should really
know why can I choose cellulose fibers and not mineral fibers? Why can I choose lime not fly-ash or
marble dust or limestone dust or crush dust or cement as my mineral filler?

In the current situation on the use of stabilizing additives and mineral fillers in a full scale project are
allowed only after data has been collected from project where the additives and fillers had been
previously used and its performance seen. It is something shocking in the era of Science and
Technology with full equipped pavement material laboratories to wait for a pilot study for some years
or copy some data which were used somewhere where our weather condition differ from where the data
belongs to.

For that reason there is a need to assess the effect of different stabilizing additives and mineral filler s
to be used in design of GGHMA which require greater care in the choice and use of different stabilizing
additives and mineral fillers.

The significance of this study are remaining superior to pavement engineers and highway agencies that
they will easily understand the best stabilizing additives and mineral filler from Laboratory analysis
developed. Also from the findings asphalt producers should refinery produce asphalt for specific duty
with refinery added stabilizing additives. Last but not least, there shall be reduced number of pilot
projects to be made by highway agencies and researchers which will largely save cost for investing in
pilot studies in which we don’t even know how well it will perfor m.

1
 In this study the chosen stabilizing additives are Plastic (Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC)), Reclaimed Rubber
(Recycled Tires) and cellulose fibers are to be tested with same mineral filler which is ultra-white
hydrated lime hereby known as Active Filler prefixed by ‘AF’.

1.2 Problem Statement

Currently, the use of stabilizing additives and mineral fillers in a full scale project are allowed only
after data has been collected from project where the additives a nd fillers had been previously used and
its performance seen.

For that reason there is a need to assess the effect of different stabilizing additives and mineral fillers
to be used in design of GGHMA which is just Stone Mastic Asphalt (SMA) which require greater car e
in the choice and use of different stabilizing additives and mineral fillers.

1.3 Objectives of the study

1.3.1 Main Objective of the Project
The main objective of this study is to assess the effect of the stabilizing additives and mineral fill ers on
the performance of the Gap-Graded Hot Mix Asphalt (GGHMA) specifically Stone Mastic Asphalt.

1.3.2 Specific Objectives of the Study

The following are the specific objectives to be undertaken so as to meet the main objectives of the
study:
i. To determine aggregate properties to comply with specification requirements for GGHMA
ii. To determine bitumen properties as per recommended specifications
iii. To develop a Marshall Method trial mixes for GGHMA with differ ent stabilizing additives
iv. Determination of draindown test on both Marshall prepared sample per optimum binder content.
1.4 Significance of the Study
This study is very significant to both government and highway researchers.

i. Pavement Engineers and Highway agencies will easily understand the best stabiliz ing
additives and mineral filler from Laboratory analysis developed.

2
 ii. From the findings Asphalt Producers should refinery produce asphalt for specific duty
with refinery added stabilizing additives.

iii. Reduced number of Pilot Projects to be made by Highway Agencies and researchers.

1.5 The Scope of the Study

This study is aimed at studying the effect of different stabilizing additives and mineral fillers on the
performance of GGHMA specifically SMA based on Laboratory performance tests analysis only such
as draindown test (AASHTO T283) and moisture susceptibility tests it also includes other nor mal
Marshal tests parameters (flow and stability).

1.6 Limitations of the study

The study is limited to test only the effect of stabilizing additives with no variations i n dosage of the
additives to be used in a specimen lot, this is used as per literature review on the stabilizing additives
in SMA. There also no variation or change in the mineral fillers as the research title stated, the cleft is
left for other interested researchers to test the matching additives and mineral fillers including the
dosage in a specimen lot.

3
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERAT URE REVIEW

2.1 Gap Graded Hot Mix Asphalt (GGHMA)

GGHMA is a gap-graded, densely compacted HMA designed to maximize rut resistance and durability.
The principal design consideration in GGHMA is to maximize the contact between particles in the
coarse aggregate fraction of the mixture. This fraction provides stability and shear strength to the
mixture. The coarse aggregate fraction is then essentially glued together by a binder-rich mastic
consisting of a properly selected asphalt binder, mineral filler, and fibers. The fibers are included to
stabilize the mixture during handling and placement. The advantages of GGHMA mixtures over dense -
graded mixtures include (1) increased resistance to permanent deformation, cracking, and aging and
(2) improved durability, wear resistance, low-temperature performance, and surface texture. GGHMA
mixtures generally cost more than dense-graded mixtures due to their higher binder content, high filler
content, stringent aggregate requirements, and the use of polymer -modified binders and fibers.
GGHMA should be considered for surface courses when the traffic level exceeds 10,000,000 ESALs.
Gap-graded HMA (GGHMA) consists of two parts: a coarse aggregate skeleton and a mortar. The
coarse aggregate skeleton consists of crushed coarse aggregate particles; these make up about 70 to
80% of the total aggregate blend. The mortar consists of asphalt binder, fine aggregate, and mineral
filler and fills the voids in the coarse aggregate skeleton. Stone matrix asphalt (SMA), one particular
type of GGHMA, is widely known for its durability and rut resistance. SMA has been used in Europe
for over 30 years. The first U.S. project that used this high-performance HMA was constructed in 1991.
Since then, the use of SMA has steadily increased within the United States. The GGHMA discussed in
this chapter is similar to SMA in many ways, but there are some differences, so to avoid confusion or
arguments over whether or not the mix design presented in this chapter is truly an “SMA,” the ter m
GGHMA is used instead. In Europe, SMA mixtures have primarily been designed by recipes. It was
not until 1994 that a formalized mix design procedure was available in the United States This mix
design procedure was developed by a Technical Working Group established by the FHWA. This
procedure was based on the Marshall mix design method, since this was the method used to design
SMA in Europe.
In 1994, the National Center for Asphalt Technology (NCAT) began a 4 -years study to develop a mix
design system to design SMA using the concepts and methods of the Superpave mix design system.

4
Results from that research project were published in 1998, and, along with more recent experience and
research, they are the basis for the GGHMA mix design system described in this chapter.
2.2 Philosophy of GGHMA mix design
The philosophy of GGHMA mix design is not complicated.
The first principle is that a gap-graded blend of aggregate is needed so that the coarse particles will
have stone-on-stone contact.
The second principle is that the voids within the coarse aggregate skeleton must be filled with fine
aggregate, mineral filler, and asphalt binder. In order to provide increased durability, GGHMA has a
relatively high asphalt binder content.
This leads to the third principle of GGHMA mix design, which is that the aggregate must have a high
VMA value—typically 18 to 20%. This relatively high asphalt binder content can result in an increased
potential for draindown if not properly taken into account. Draindown can be a common problem in
GGHMA; it occurs when the asphalt binder and fine aggregate separate from the coarse aggregate
during storage, transport, or placement.
The fourth and final principle of GGHMA mix design is that small amounts of stabilizing additives,
such as mineral fibers or cellulose fibers, are usually needed to prevent draindown. The sections below
describe in detail how to design GGHMA to achieve the unique properties and excellent perfor mance
for which this mix type is known.

2.3 Overview of GGHMA Mix Design Procedure

The mix design procedure for GGHMA contains five primary steps (Figure 1 -1). First, suitable
materials must be selected to compose the GGHMA. Materials needed include coarse aggregates, fine
aggregates, mineral fillers, asphalt binder and stabilizing additives. The second step is to blend.
The standards and overall procedure given in this chapter closely follow those given in two AASHTO
standards: M 325 and R 46. These in turn are based on research on SMA mix designs performed by
Brown and Cooley as described in NCHRP Report 425. Although developed for SMA mixtures, these
guidelines can be effectively applied to GGHMA. The following sections describe each step in the
design of a GGHMA mixture in detail.
Step 1: Materials Selection
As with most HMA mixes, suitable coarse aggregate, fine aggregate, and asphalt binder must be
selected for GGHMA. However, two additional materials are also typically needed for GGHMA
designs: commercial mineral filler and stabilizing additives. Aggregates u sed for GGHMA should be
angular, cubical, and roughly textured. These properties help ensure that the aggregate particles
5
composing the stone skeleton cannot slide past one another. Angular, cubical, and textured aggregate
particles will lock together, providing a rut-resistant pavement layer. Figure 1, illustrates desirable
aggregates for GGHMA. Asphalt binders used in GGHMA mixtures should perform at high,
intermediate, and low temperatures. A detailed discussion on asphalt binder is also discussed. It should
be stated, however, that most GGHMA mixes have been designed with polymer -modified binders.
Polymer-modified binders are not
required, but are generally used to (1)
reduce the potential for draindown
and (2) improve durability.

Mineral fillers help fill the voids within

the coarse aggregate skeleton. Many types
of materials have been used as mineral
filler, including marble dust, limestone
dust, agricultural lime, and
fly ash. For agencies that Figure 1: Desirable Aggregates and Undesirable Aggregates
require the use of hydrated

lime to reduce the potential of moisture damage, hydrated lime can be considered a portion of the
mineral filler. Because of the large percentage of coarse aggregate in GGHMA blends, natural crushed
aggregate stockpiles do not generally have sufficient materials passing the 0.075 -mm sieve to help fill
the voids of the stone skeleton, hence the need for mineral fillers. Without the use of mineral filler s to
fill the voids, GGHMA mixes would be very per meable.
The primary purpose for stabilizing additives is to reduce the potential for draindown. When added to
stiffen an asphalt binder, polymer modifiers can be considered a stabilizing additive. Likewise, mineral
fillers can also be considered a stabilizing additive, since these small particles help “soak up” the asphalt
binder. However, the most effective stabilizing additive is a fiber. Several types of fiber have been used
in GGHMA with cellulose and mineral fiber being the most common. Generally, cellulose fibers are
added at 0.3% of the total mix mass and mineral fibers are added at 0.4%. The followi ng sections
provide requirements for the various materials used to fabricate GGHMA. These requirements are
provided for guidance to agencies not having experience with these types of mixtures. Some agencies
have used other test methods and criteria with su ccess.

6
2.4 Coarse Aggregates
As described previously, the success of a GGHMA pavement depends heavily on the existence of stone-
on-stone contact. Therefore, in addition to angularity, shape, and texture, the toughness and durability
of the coarse aggregates must be such that they will not degrade during production, construction, and
service. Table 1 presents coarse aggregate requirements for GGHMA mixtures. The Los Angeles
Abrasion and Soundness tests should be required for individual stockpiles while the Flat or Elongated
and Uncompacted Voids tests should be required for the total aggregate blend.
2.5 Fine Aggregates
The role of fine aggregates in GGHMA is to help fill the voids between coarse aggregate particles.
Therefore, the primary requirements for fine aggregates in GGHMA are to ensure a durable and angular
material. Requirements for fine aggregates in GGHMA are provided in Table. The Uncompacted Voids
and Sand Equivalency tests should be required for the total aggregate blend, while the soundness test
should be applied to individual fine aggregate stockpiles.

2.6 Asphalt Binder

Asphalt binders should be performance graded, in accordance with the requirements of AASHTO
M320-04, to satisfy the climate and traffic loading conditions at the site of the GGHMA project.
Guidelines described in Chapter 8 for selecting binder performance grades for dense-graded HMA also
apply to GGHMA, with the exception that the high-temperature performance grade should be no less
than 76 and the binder should be polymer modified. This ensures that GGHMA mixes will exhibit the
exceptional rut resistance that pavement engineers expect from this mix type. Note that, for some
applications, GGHMA mixes might requir e binders with high-temperature performance grades
exceeding PG 76. The required binder grade for a GGHMA mix should be determined following the
procedure given in Chapter 8; if the high-temperature performance grade is a PG 76 or less, then a PG
76 binder should be used. If the resulting high-temperature PG grade is above a PG 76, then the higher
PG grade should be used in the GGHMA mix design.

7
2.7 Mineral Fillers
Mineral fillers used for GGHMA should be finely divided mineral matter such as crushed fines,
agricultural limes, or fly ash. Figure below illustrates some typically used mineral fillers. The mineral
filler should be free from organic impurities.

Figure 2: Typical Mineral Filler used in GGHMA

It is recommended that mineral fillers with modified Rigden voids (sometimes called Dry Compaction
Test) higher than 50% not be used in GGHMA. Rigden voids is in some ways a similar test to that used
to evaluate fine aggregate angularity by measuring uncompacted voids. However, the Rigden voids test
is smaller in scale, and the mineral filler is compacted with a small drop hammer prior to deter mining
the void content. Mineral fillers with very high Rigden voids can sometimes cause excessive stiffening
in SMA mixtures. The equipment and test method for conducting the Dry Compaction Test can be
found in the National Asphalt Pavement Association’s Information Series 127, “Evaluation of
Baghouse Fines for Hot Mix Asphalt.” Other requirements for mineral fillers can be found in AASHTO
M-17, “Mineral Fillers for Bituminous Paving Mixtures.” However, the gradation requirements stated
in AASHTO M-17 should only be used for guidance. The important gradation is that of the designed
GGHMA and not the mineral filler.
2.8 Stabilizing Additives
Stabilizing additives are needed in GGHMA to prevent the draining of mortar from the coarse aggregate
skeleton during storage, transportation, and placement. Stabilizing additives such as cellulose fiber,
mineral fiber, and polymers have been used with success to minimize draindown potential. Other types
of fibers have been used with success; however, the most common types are cellulose and mineral
8
 fibers. When using a polymer as a stabilizer, the amount of polymer added should be that amount
necessary to meet the performance grade of the asphalt binder.

Manganese Salt Stabilizers

PVC Stabilizers

Cellulose Fibers before and after being

processed

Figure 3: Some Stabilizing additives used in GGHMA design

Step 2: Trial Gradations

As with any HMA, specified aggregate gradations should be based on aggregate volume and not
aggregate mass. However, for most conventional HMA mixtures (dense-graded), the specific gravities
of the different aggregate stockpiles are close enough to make a gradation based on mass percentages
similar to that based on volumetric percentages. With GGHMA, the specific gravities of the different
aggregate components are not always similar. This is especially true when commercial fillers are used
in GGHMA. Therefore, the gradation bands presented in Table 1 -1 are based on % passing by volume.
Similar to those for dense-graded mixes, GGHMA gradation bands are described by the nominal
maximum aggregate size (NMAS) of the gradation. The following section provides guidance in th e
form of an example problem on how to blend aggregate components based on volumes to meet t he
gradation bands in Table 1. However, if the bulk specific gravities of the different stockpiles (including
mineral filler) used to compose the aggregate blend vary by 0.02 or less, grada tions based on mass
percentages can be used.

9
 Stone mastic Gradation Specification bands (based on percentage passing by volume)
Table 1: Stone Mastic Gradation Specification Bands based on %passing by volume

Sieve size, 19.0mm 12.5 mm 9.5 mm

NMAS
mm Min Max Min Max Min Max
25.0 100 100
19.0 90 100 100 100
12.5 50 88 90 100 100 100
9.5 25 60 26 88 70 95
4.75 20 28 20 35 30 50
2.36 16 24 16 24 20 30
1.18 - - - - - 21
0.60 - - - - - 18
0.30 - - - - - 15
0.075 8.0 11.0 8.0 11.0 8.0 12.0

Determination of Voids in Coarse Aggregates (VCA)

The method of measuring the existence of stone-on-stone contact is called the voids in coarse aggregate
(VCA) method. The concept is quite simple and practical. The first step is to determine the VCA of the
coarse aggregate fraction only (material larger than breakpoint sieve) in a dry rodded condition (VCA)
(Figure 9). AASHTO T 19, “Bulk Density (“Unit Weight”) and Voids in Aggregate,” is used to compact
the aggregate. Then, using Equation, the VCADRC can be calculated. The VCA is nothing more tha n
the volume between the coarse aggregate particles after compaction in accordance with AASHTO T
19. When asphalt binder is added and the GGHMA is compacted, the VCA will again be calculated
(VCADRC). This calculation for VCAMIX also calculates the volume between the coarse aggregate
particles. As long as the volume between the coarse aggregate particles is less in the compacted
GGHMA (VCA), then the GGHMA is deemed to have stone-on-stone contact and the aggregate
structure is acceptable. This means that the GGHMA mixture has been compacted more than the dry-
rodded condition of the aggregate; therefore, the coarse aggregate particles within the compacted
mixture must be compacted closer than the dry-rodded condition and stone-on-stone contact exists.

10
 Gcaγω− γs
𝑉𝐶𝐴� 𝑅� = Gcaγω
𝑥 100 (1)

Where VCADRC = Void in coarse aggregate in dry rodded condition

kg
γs = Unit weigh of coarse aggregates fraction in dry rodded condition ( )
𝑚3
kg
ϒⱳ = unit weight of water approximately about 998( )
𝑚3

Gca = Bulk specific gravity of coarse aggregates fraction in dry rodded condition

Figure 4: Method of determining VCA in dry-rodded condition .

Selection of Target Asphalt Content

The minimum desired asphalt binder content for GGHMA mixtures i s presented in Table 1-2. This
table illustrates that the minimum asphalt binder content is based on the combined bulk specific gravity
of the aggregates used in the mix. These minimum asphalt binder contents are provided to ensure
enough volume of asphalt binder exists in the GGHMA mix to provide a desirable mortar and, thus, a
durable mixture. It is recommended that the mixture be designed at 0.3% above the minimum values
given in Table 2 to allow for adjustments during plant production without falling below the minimum
requirement. For example, for a GGHMA mixture to be made with an aggregate blend having a
combined bulk specific gravity of 2.75, the minimum asphalt content is 6.0% by mass, and the targ et
asphalt content would be 6.0.

11
The minimum binder content values given in Table 2. have been calculated so that, in most cases, the
resulting mixes will meet the suggested minimum VMA of 17.0% at 4.0% air voids for GGHMA
mixtures.

Table 2: Minimum asphalt binder content requirements for aggregates

with varying bulk specific gravities as drawn from NATC, 1997.

Step 3: Selection of Optimum Gradation

After the samples have been compacted and allowed to cool, they are tested to determine the bulk
specific gravity, Gmb (AASHTO T166). Using Gmb, G, and the bulk specific gravity of the coarse
aggregate fraction (Gca mm), the percent air voids (VTM), voids in mineral aggregate (VMA), an d
VCAMIX are calculated. The VTM, VMA, and VCA MIX are calculated as shown below:
1 −𝐺 𝑚�
VTM= 100( 𝐺𝑚𝑚
)………….. (2)
𝐺 𝑚� 𝑥 𝑃𝑠
VMA=100 - ( ) ………… (3)
𝐺� �
𝐺 𝑚� 𝑥 𝑃 � �
VCAMIX = 100 – ( )…….. (4)
𝐺� �

Where;
Ps= percent of aggregate in the mixture
Pca= percent of coarse aggregate in the mixture
Gca= combined bulk specific gravity of the total aggregate
Gsb= bulk specific gravity of the coarse aggregate (coarser than break point sieve)
Once the VTM, VMA, and VCA are determined, each trial blend mixture is compared to the GGHMA
mixture requirements. Table 10-12 presents the requirements for GGHMA designs. The trial blend mix
that meets or exceeds the minimum VMA requirement, has an air void content between 3.5 and 4.5%,
and has a VCAMIX less than VCA is selected as the design gradation. If none meet these requirements,

12
 additional aggregate blends should be evaluated. If one of the trial blends is very close to meeting these
requirements, with the air void content and VMA just outside their acceptable ranges, an adjustment in
the binder content might provide an acceptable mix design, as discussed
Step 4: Refine Design Asphalt Binder Content
Once the design gradation of the mixture is chosen, it may be necessary to raise or lower the asphalt
binder content to obtain the proper amount of air voids in the mixture. In this case, additional samples
are prepared using the selected gradation and varying the asphalt binder content. The optimum asphalt
binder content is chosen to produce 4.0% air voids in the mixture; because of typical error in volumetric
analysis, air void contents within ± 0.5% of this target are acceptable. The optimum asphalt binder
content should meet the minimum asphalt content requirements in Table 1 -2.
The number of samples needed for this portion of the procedure is again twelve, with three compacted
and one uncompacted sample at each of three asphalt binder contents. The mixture properties are again
determined, and the optimum asphalt binder content is selected. The designed GGHMA mixture at
optimum asphalt content selected should have properties meeting the criteria shown in design table. If
those criteria are not met, the mixture must be modified so that all criteria are met.
Step 5: Conduct Performance Testing
Performance testing of GGHMA mixtures consists of three tests: (1) evaluation of moisture
susceptibility; (2) evaluation of draindown sensitivity; and (3) evaluation of rut resistance.

2.8 The Bailey Method

The Bailey Method is a systematic approach to blending aggregates that provides aggregate interlock
as the backbone of the structure and a balanced continuous gradation to complete the mixture. The
method provides a set of tools that allows the evaluation of aggregate blends. These tools provide a
better understanding in the relationship between aggregate gradation and mixture voids. The Bailey
Method gives the practitioner tools to develop and adjust aggregate blends. The new procedures help
to ensure aggregate interlock (if desired) and good aggregate packing, giving resistance to permanent
deformation, while maintaining volumetric properties that provide resistance to environmental
distress. In the Bailey Method aggregate interlock is selected as a design input. Aggregate interlock
provides a rut-resistant mixture. To ensure that the mixture contains adequate asphalt binder, VMA is
changed by changing the packing of the coarse and fine aggregates. In this way asphalt mixtures
developed with the Bailey Method can have a strong skeleton for high stability and adequate VMA
for good durability.

13
2.8 1 Basic Principles
To develop a method for combining aggregates to optimize aggregate interlock and provide the proper
volumetric properties, it is necessary to understand some of the controlling factors that affect the design
and performance of these mixtures. The explanation of coarse and fine aggregates given in the
following section provide a background for understanding the combination of aggregates. The Bailey
Method builds on that understanding and provides more insight into th e combination of aggregates for
use in an asphalt mixture.
The Bailey Method uses two principles that are the basis of the relationship between aggregate
gradation and mixture volumetrics: Aggregate packing, and Definition of coarse and fine aggregate.
With these principles, the primary steps in the Bailey Method are: Combine aggregates by volume,
and analyze the combined blend.

2.8.2 Aggregate Packing

Aggregate particles cannot be packed together to fill a volume completely. There will always be
space between the aggregate particles. The degree of packing depends on:
i. Type and amount of compactive energy. Several types of compactive force can be used,
including static pressure, impact (e.g., Marshall hammer), or shearing (e.g. gyratory shear
compactor or California kneading compactor). Higher density can be achieved by increasing
the compactive effort (i.e., higher static pressure, more blows of the hammer, or more tamps
or gyrations).
ii. Shape of the particles. Flat and elongated particles tend to resi st packing in a dense
configuration. Cubical particles tend to arrange in dense configurations.
iii. Surface texture of the particles. Particles with smooth textures will re-orient more easily into
denser configurations. Particles with rough surfaces will resist sliding against one another.
iv. Size distribution (gradation) of the particles. Single-sized particles will not pack as densely as
a mixture of particle sizes.
Strength of the particles. Strength of the aggregate particles directly affects the amount of degradation
that occurs in a compactor or under rollers. Softer aggregates typically degrade more than strong
aggregates and allow denser aggregate packing to be achieved.
The properties listed above can be used to characterize both coarse and fine aggregates. The individual
characteristics of a given aggregate, along with the amount used in the blend, have a direct impact on
the resulting mix properties. When comparing different sources of comparably sized aggregates, the
designer should consider these individual characteristics in addition to the Bailey Method principles

14
presented. Even though an aggregate may have acceptable characteristics, it may not combine well with
the other proposed aggregates for use in the design. The final combination of coarse and fine aggregates,
and their corresponding individual properties, determines the packing characteristics of the overall
blend for a given type and amount of compaction. Therefore, aggregate source selection is an important
part of the asphalt mix design process.

2.8.3 Coarse and Fine Aggregate

The traditional definition of coarse aggregate is any particle that is retained by the 4.75 -mm sieve. Fine
aggregate is defined as any aggregate that passes the 4.75-mm sieve (sand, silt, and clay size material).
The same sieve is used for 9.5 -mm mixtures as 25.0-mm mixtures. In the Bailey Method, the definition
of coarse and fine is more specific in order to determine the packing and aggregate interlock provided
by the combination of aggregates in various sized mixtures. The Bailey Method definitions are:
i. Coarse Aggregate: Large aggregate particles that when placed in a unit volume create voids.
ii. Fine Aggregate: Aggregate particles that can fill the voids created by the coarse aggregate in
the mixture.
From these definitions, more than a single aggregate size is needed to define coarse or fine. The
definition of coarse and fine depends on the nominal maximum particle size (NMPS) of the mixture.
In a dense-graded blend of aggregate with a NMPS of 37.5 mm, t he 37.5-mm particles come together
to make voids. Those voids are large enough to be filled with 9.5 -mm aggregate particles, making the
9.5-mm particles fine aggregate. Now consider a typical surface mix with a NMPS of 9.5 mm. In this
blend of aggregates, the 9.5-mm particles are considered coarse aggregate. In the Bailey Method, the
sieve which defines coarse and fine aggregate is known as the primary control sieve (PCS), and the
PCS is based on the NMPS of the aggregate blend. The break between coarse and fine aggregate is
shown in Figure A.1. The PCS is defined as the closest sized sieve to the result of the PCS formula in
Equation below: PCS = NMPS x 0.22 where PCS = Primary Control Sieve for the overall blend NMPS
= Nominal Maximum Particle Size for the overall blend, which is one sieve larger than the first sieve
that retains more than 10% (as defined by Superpave terminology). The value of 0.22 used in the control
sieve equation was determined from a two- (2D) and three-dimensional (3-D) analysis of the packing
of different shaped particles. The 2-D analysis of the combination of particles shows that the particle
diameter ratio ranges from 0.155 (all round) to 0.289 (all flat) with an average value of 0.22. The 3 -D
analysis of the combination of particles gives a similar result with the particle diameter ratio ranging

15
 from 0.15 (hexagonal close-packed spheres) to 0.42 (cubical packing of spheres). In addition, research
on particle packing distinctly shows that the packing of particles follows different models when the
characteristic diameter is above or below 0.22 ratio.

While 0.22 may not be exactly correct for every asphalt mixture, the analysis of gradation is not affected
if the value ranges from 0.18 to 0.28. The 0.22 factor is the average condition of many different packing
configurations.
2.8.4 Combining Aggregates by Volume
All aggregate blends contain an amount and size of voids, which are a function of the packing
characteristics of the blend. In combining aggregates we must first deter mine mount and size of the
voids created by the coarse aggregates and fill those voids with the appropriate amount of fine
aggregate. Mix design methods generally are based on volumetric analysis, but for simplicity,
aggregates are combined on a weight basis. Most mix design methods correct the percent passing by
weight to percent passing by volume when significant differences exist among the aggregate stockpiles.
To evaluate the degree of aggregate interlock in a mixture the designer needs to evaluate a mixt ure
based on volume. To evaluate the volumetric combination of aggregates, additional information must
be gathered. For each of the coarse aggregate stockpiles, the loose and rodded unit weights must be
determined, and for each fine aggregate stockpile, the rodded unit weight must be determined. These
measurements provide the volumetric data at the specific void structure required to evaluate interlock
properties.

Figure 5: Loose Unit Weight Condition

2.8.5 Loose Unit Weight of Coarse Aggregate

The loose unit weight of an aggregate is the amount of aggregate that fills a unit volume without any
compactive effort applied. This condition represents the beginning of coarse aggregate interlock (i.e.,
particle-to-particle contact) without any compactive effort applied. The loose unit weight is depicted in
Figure 10. The loose unit weight is determined on each coarse aggregate using the shoveling procedure
outlined in AASHTO T -19: “Unit Weight and Voids in Aggregate”, which leaves the aggregate in a
16
 loose condition in the metal unit weight bucket. The loose unit weight (density in kg/m calculated by
dividing the weight of aggregate by the volume of the metal bucket. Using the aggregate bulk specific
gravity and the loose unit weight, the volume of voids for this condition is also determined. This
condition represents the volume of voids present when the particles are just into contact without any
outside compactive effort being applied.

2.8.6 Rodded Unit Weight of Coarse Aggregate

The rodded unit weight of aggregate is the amount of aggregate that fills a unit volume with compactive
effort applied. The compactive effort increases the particle to particle contact and decreases the volume
of voids in the aggregate. Rodded unit weight is depicted in Figure 11. The rodded unit weight is
determined on each coarse aggregate using the rodding procedure outlined in AASHTO T -19: “Unit
Weight and Voids in Aggregate”, which leaves the aggregate in a compacted condition in the metal
unit weight bucket. The rodded unit weight (density in kg/mdividing the weight of aggregate by the
volume of the metal bucket. Using the 3aggregate bulk specific gravity and the rodded unit weight, the
volume of voids for this condition is also determined. This condition represents the volume of voids
present when the particles are further into contact due to the compactive effort applied.

2.8.7 Chosen Unit Weight of Coarse Aggregate

The designer needs to select the interlock of coarse aggregate desired in their mix design. Therefore,
they choose a unit weight of coarse aggregate, which establishes the volume of coarse aggregate in the
aggregate blend and the degree of aggregate interlock.
In the Bailey Method, coarse-graded is defined as mixtures which have a coar se aggregate skeleton.
Fine-graded mixtures do not have enough coarse aggregate particles (larger than the PCS) to form a
skeleton, and therefore the load is carried predominantly by the fine aggregate. To select a chosen unit
weight the designer needs to decide if the mixture is to be coarse-graded or fine-graded. Considerations
for selecting a chosen unit weight are shown in Figure 7.

Figure 6: Rodded Unit Weight Condition

17
 The loose unit weight is the lower limit of coarse aggregate interlock. Theoretically, it is the dividing
line between fine-graded and coarse-graded mixtures. If the mix designer chooses a unit weight of
coarse aggregate less than the loose unit weight, the coarse aggregate particles are spread apart and are
not in a uniform particle-to-particle contact condition. Therefore, a fine aggregate skeleton is developed
and properties for these blends are primarily related to the fine aggregate characteristics.
The rodded unit weight is generally considered to be t he upper limit of coarse aggregate interlock for
dense-graded mixtures. This value is typically near 110% of the loose unit weight. As the chosen unit
weight approaches the rodded unit weight, the amount of compactive effort required for densification
increases significantly, which can make a mixture difficult to construct in the field. For dense -graded
mixtures, the chosen unit weight is selected as a percentage of the loose unit weight of coarse aggregate.
If it is required to obtain some degree of coar se aggregate interlock (as with coarse-graded mixtures),
the percentage used should range from 95% to 105% of the loose unit weight. For soft aggregates prone
to degradation the chosen unit weight should be nearer to 105% of the loose unit weight.
Values exceeding 105% of the loose unit weight should be avoided due to the increased probability of
aggregate degradation and increased difficulty with field compaction.

Figure 7: Selection of Chosen Unit Weight of Coarse Aggregate

More information relating to the Bailey Method of blending of aggregated are presented in Khalid
Salim Alshamsi paper in 1995.
This method is very important in design of Gap-graded hot mix asphalt to ensure interlock of the
aggregate skeleton so as to obtain high resistant to deformation and durable mix.
2.9 stabilizing additives in bituminous mixes
The additives such as fibers, rubbers, polymers, carbon black, artificial silica or a combination of these
materials are used to stiffen the mastic at high temperature during production and placement and to
obtain even higher binder contents for increased durability (Pierce, 2000). Since Stone Mastic Asphalt
is the focus of the study, the literature pertaining to that has been presented as a separate in the followin g
paragraph.
18
2.9.1 Fibre as an additive
The history of the use of fibers can be traced back to a 4000 year old arch in China constructed with a
clay earth mixed with fibre or the Great Wall built 2000 years ago (Hongu and Philips,1990). However,
the modern developments of fibre reinforcement started in the early 1960s (Mahrez, 2003). Zube (1956)
published the earliest known study on the reinforcement of bituminous mixtures.

19
 CHAPTER THREE

3.1 Research design

To accomplish this study the flow chart below highlights the research design of the study

GGHMA DESIGN

MATERIAL
SELECTION

COMPONENTS OF GGHMA (Stone Mastic Asphalt)

AGGREGATES ASPHALT BINDER MINERAL

(80/100) FILLER
Trial Gradation

STABILIZING
ADDITIVES

MIXING GGHMA
(With other
MIXING GGHMA additives)
(With only Cel.
Fibre)

Laboratory Performance Tests

Flow and Stability

DRAINDOWN SENSITIVITY

Figure 8: Research Design flow Chart

3.1.1 Material Selection

Asphalt binder, aggregate, mineral filler, and stabilizing additives that meet the applicable specificati on
is to be selected.

3.1.2 Selecting Optimum Gradation

Three recommended trial aggregate gradations for each selected stabilizing additives and mineral filler
will be selected and blended. The dry-rodded unit weight for coarse aggregate for each trial gradation
is determined in accordance with T19 or T19M. For each trial gradation, an initial trial asphalt binder
content is selected and advised in AASHTO R46-08 at least two specimen with T312(which is SGC)
20
 in this case Marshal method is will be used. In my case of no previous histo ry available an initial trial
asphalt binder content between 6.0 to 6.5 percent is recommended ( AASHTO R46-02).The gradations
of the three blends are selected to ensure that minimum VMA requirements and stone -on-stone contact
are achieved.

3.1.3 Selecting Design Binder Content

The replicate specimens are to be compacted in accordance with Marshal Method at three binder
contents. The design binder content is selected on the basis of satisfactory conformance with the
requirements.

3.1.4 Evaluating Draindown test

The mixture is evaluated for sensitivity to asphalt binder drowndown test in accordance to AASHTO
T 305. This indicate laboratory performance of the mixture.

3.1.5 Test Specimens

Number of samples: A total number of four samples in each case of alternative stabilizing additives ar e
initially required keeping in mind that same gradation will be u sed for all three additives. Three of four
samples for each stabilizing additives are compacted the remaining loose sample is used to deter mine
the diffuse density.

Preparation of Aggregates: The aggregates is to be dried to a constant temperature at 105 oC to 110 o C

and separated by dry-sieving into the desired size fractions. The THM 1 recommend the following size
fractions in the SM 14 design:

 37.5 mm to 26.5mm
 26.5 mm to 19.0 mm
 19.0 mm to 14.0 mm
 14.0 mm to 10.0 mm
 10.0 mm to 7.0 mm
 7.0 mm to 4.75 mm
 4.75 mm to 2.36 mm
 2.36 mm to 1.18 mm
 1.18 mm to 0.600 mm
 0.600mm to 0.300mm
 0.300mm to 0.150 mm
21
  0.150 mm to 0.075mm
 Passing 0.075 mm
Mixing and Compaction Temperatures: This temperature depends on the properties of the modified
asphalt binder stabilized with other additives.

3.2 Methods and Materials

It should be clearly stated that the design system will be implemented in this is MARSHAL L System
and not superpave as used in the main literature review although Bailey’s method of controlling
aggregate gradation and mainly for achieving aggregate interlock to provide real Stone -to-Stone
skeleton has been incorporated.

Different recommended methods and materials has been taken into account to make this research reach
its targeted goals. Summaries of the methods and materials requirements are as follows

i. Specification for CA,FA and Mineral filler(AASHTO M17) as per ASTM D692, D1073,D242
respectively
ii. Destructive aggregate tests required for normal design of GGHMA

• LAA (ASTM C131(smaller than 1.5 inch)and C535 for blended aggregates or (CML 2.9),
this assess the hardness of road aggregate
• TFV (as per CML 2.7), this strength for aggregates to qualify for design of SMA.

• Soundness Test (ASTM C 88) or CML 2.10 which objective is to assess the weathering
action of aggregate for use in road pavement.
iii. Nondestructive tests to be done aggregate to comply with GGHMA requirements:
 Sand Equivalent test (ref ASTM D2419) It’s important to show the clay content in
aggregates to be used for GGHMA
 Specific gravity for CA and FA (ref ASTM C127 & ASTM C128 resp.)
 Theoretical Max Specific gravity (ref ASTM D2041) help in determination Effective
specific gravity
 Water absorption test(ref AASHTO T84)
 Soundness Test
 Flakiness Index

22
Material selection and sources to be used in this study are aggregates implying both Coarse Aggregates
(Mafinga Source) and Fine Aggregates and Stabilizing additives selected in this study are Plastic
(Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC)), Reclaimed Rubber (Recycled Tires) and cellulose fibre.

The mineral filler be used is hydrated lime. The selected asphalt binder to be used is 60/70 which will
be tested for compliance according (MoW standard specification 1999) through the following tests:

 Bitumen penetration test(ref ASTM D5)

 Specific gravity test of bitumen
 Flash Point and Fire Point tests of bitumen (ASTM D92) safety test
 Brookfield Dynamic Viscosity test of bitumen
 Softening point (ASTM D36)
 Ductility test (ASTM D113)

23
3.3 SM14 Specimens molding Procedure flow Chart

The flow chart below summarizes the specimen molding process in Marshall Method.

BEGIN

#1 Heat aggregates &

asphalt to specified
temperature.

#2 Remove aggregates
& asphalt from ovens.

#3 Place proportioned

#4 Place mix in oven

for 4 hours at 135oC.
#7 Center mold in compactor. Start
compactor. Let set N blows.

#5 Prepare the Marshall

compactor. Place molds in oven
for 60 minutes.

#6 Remove mix & molds

from oven. Place mix into
mold.

Figure 9: The Flow chart of Marshall Mixing process

24
 CHAPTER FOUR

PRESENTATION OF RESULTS

4.1 AGGREGATES
Aggregates tests in this study were divided into two categories, namely Consensus properties and
Source properties.

4.1.1 Consensus properties tests

It was the consensus of the SHRP pavement researchers that certain aggregate characteristics wer e
critical and needed to be achieved in all cases to arrive at well performing HMA. These characteristics
were called “consensus properties” because there was wide agreement in their use and specified values.

Those properties are:

 Gradation of the aggregates
 Flakiness index test
 Specific gravity and water absorption
 Fine aggregate angularity test
 Clay content (Sand equivalent test).

4.1.1.1 Gradations of Aggregates

Al1 hot-mix asphalt pavement specifications require aggregate particles to be within a certain range of
sizes and for each size of particle to be present in a certain proportion. This distribution of various
particle sizes within the aggregate used is called the aggregate gradation or mix gradation. To
determine whether or not an aggregate gradation meets specifications requires an under standing of how
particle size and gradation are measured.
The aggregate from four stockpiles to be blended were graded in accordance with THM 1 SM14 mix
gradation requirement. The summary results from all the four stockpile aggregates are presented in the
APPENDICES 001, 002,003 and 004 representing aggregate fractions 0—3, 3—5, 5—10, and 10—
14 mm respectively.

4.1.1.2 Flakiness Index Test

In design of GGHMA especially Stone Mastic (SM14) there are specific requirements regarding the
flakiness index, FI of the aggregates it recommend to be not more than 30%. The following table
summary out the results obtained from the test. The test was done in accordance to CML test no 2.4
referenced to BS812, section 105.1:1990. The real processed laboratory results are attached in the
25
APPENDIX FI006, and FI006a

26
 Table 2: Flakiness Index Table of results
Aggregate Flakiness Index (%) Check
stockpile
5—10 mm 18.0 ok
10—14mm 19.0 ok

4.1.1.3 Specific gravity and water absorption

Test was carried out in accordance to the CML test no 2.2 as referenced to ASTM C 127 coarse
aggregates and ASTM C128 for fine aggregates. Specific gravity on a saturated surface dry basis G se
are used for pavement materials to be tested for mechanical properties and for cal culations in the mix
design. Water absorption is used for calculations of binder to be absorbed in the asphalt concrete mix
design. Apparent specific gravity Gsa is used to check if aggregate densities varies.

The test results are summarized in the table below whereas the laboratory results of this tests are
attached in the APPENDIX GSA005a and GSA005.

Table 3: Summary results on specific gravities and water absorption for selected aggregates.

Specific Gravity Aggregate Stockpile

0—3mm 3—5mm 5—10mm 10—14mm
Dry-oven bulk specific gravity, G sb 2.578 2.641 2.658 2.616
Saturated surface dry spec gravity G se 2.597 2.676 2.669 2.627
Apparent specific gravity, Gsa 2.630 2.620 2.688 2.644
Water absorption, % 0.77 0.81 0.43 0.41

4.1.1.4 Fine aggregate angularity test

This property ensures a high degree of fine aggregate internal friction and rutting resistance. It is
defined as the percent air voids present in loosely compacted aggregates smaller than 2.36 mm. Higher
void contents mean more fractured faces.
The test procedure used to measure this property is AASHTO T 304 “ Uncompacted Void Content -
Method A.” In the test, a sample of fine aggregate is poured into a small calibrated cylinder by flowing
through a standard funnel. By determining the weight of fine aggregate (W) in the filled cylinder of
known volume (V), void content can be calculated as the difference between the cylinder volume and
fine aggregate volume collected in the cylinder. The fine aggregate bulk specific gravity (G) is used to
compute fine aggregate volume.

27
 The required minimum angularity percent for heavy duty roads is minimum 45%. The results are
presented in the table below and the worksheet laboratory results attached to APPENDIX SET014.
The summary of the results are hereby summarized in the following table:
Table 4: % air void in loosely compacted fine aggregate (in SMA design)

Test no Results Specification Check

(%) AASHTO T304
CC 70.5 Min 45 ok
CK 71.5 Min 45 ok

4.1.1.5 Clay content (Sand equivalent test)

Clay content is the percentage of clay material contained in the aggregate fraction that is finer than a
4.75 mm sieve. It is measured by AASHTO T 176, Plastic Finesin Graded Aggregates and Soils by
Use of the Sand Equivalent Test.
In this test, a sample of fine aggregate was placed in a graduated cylinder with a flocculating solution
and agitated to loosen clayey fines present in and coating the aggregate. The flocculating solution
forces the clayey material into suspension above the granular aggregate. After a period that allows
sedimentation, the cylinder height of suspended clay and sedimented sand is measured. The sand
equivalent value is computed as a ratio of the sand to clay height readings expressed as a percentage.
The result of this test are attached in the APPENDIX SET014.
Table 5: Table showing Sand equivalent results

Test no Results Specification Check

(%) AASHTO T176
C3 83.5 Min 50 ok
C2 83.9 Min 50 ok
C4 84.4 Min 50 ok

4.1.2 Source Properties tests on aggregates

In addition to the consensus aggregate properties, pavement experts believe that certain other aggregate
characteristics are critical. However, critical values of these properties could not be reached by
consensus because needed values were source specific. Consequently, a set of “source properties” wer e
recommended. Specified values are established by local agencies. While these properties are relevant

28
 during the mix design process, they may also used as source acceptance control by the highway
agencies. Those properties are:
 Soundness,
 Strength, and
 Toughness.

4.1.2.1 Soundness test

Soundness is the percent loss of materials from an aggregate blend during the sodium or magnesiu m
sulfate soundness test. The procedure is stated in AASHTO T 104, “Soundness of Aggregate by Use
of Sodium Sulfate or Magnesium Sulfate.” This test estimates the resistance of aggregate to weathering
while in-service. It can be performed on both coarse and fine aggregate. The test is performed by
alternately exposing an aggregate sample to repeated immersions in saturated solutions of sodium or
magnesium sulfate each followed by oven drying. One immersion and drying is considered one
soundness cycle. During the drying phase, salts precipitate in the permeable void space of the
aggregate. Upon re-immersion the salt re-hydrates and exerts internal expansive forces that simulate
the expansive forces of freezing water. The test result is total percent loss over various sieve intervals
for a required number of cycles. Maximum loss values range from approximately 10 to 20 percent for
five cycles. The test method is also indicated in CML 2.1. The following table indicate the soundness
result of the tested aggregates.
Table 6: The summary results of the Soundness test

Aggregate Sieve size Percent Percent loss Weight % loss IDOT

Designation number retained % after test Specifications
FA01 #50 21 1.3 0.2
FA01 #30 43 1.9 0.8
FA01 #16 19 3.4 0.7
FA01 #8 7 7.2 0.5
FA01 #4 1 26.7 0.1
TOTAL 2 Max 20%
CA16 #4 68 13.8 9.4 Max 20%

29
4.1.2.2 Strength test
Ten Percent Fines Value (TFV) has done in accordance to CML 2.7 method regarding the fact that all
aggregates used in road construction should be strong enough to resist crushing under the traffic wheel
loads. If the aggregates are weak, integrity of pavement structure may adversely affected. The strength
of the aggregates are measured in a crushing test. The ten percent fines value (TFV) gives a relative
measure of resistance of an aggregates to crushing under a gradually applied loads in pavement design.
There specific requirements for the TFV tested both dry and wet condition.
The results presented below in the table are also detailed attached in the APPENDIX TFV009a.
Table 7: TFV results

TFV- condition Value kN Check

TFVdr y 322 ok
TFVwet 292 ok
TFVwet/TFVdry 91% ok

4.1.2.3 Toughness Test

Toughness is the percent loss of materials from an aggregate blend during the Los Angeles Abrasion
test. The procedure is stated in AASHTO T 96, “Resistance to Abrasion of Small Size Coarse
Aggregate by Use of the Los Angeles Machine.” Also indicated in CML 2.9 method. This test estimates
the resistance of coar se aggregate to abrasion and mechanical degradation during handling,
construction, and in-service. It is performed by subjecting the coarse aggregate, usually larger than
2.36 mm, to impact and grinding by steel spheres. The test result is percent loss, which is the weight
percentage of coarse material lost during the test as a result of the mechanical degradation. Maximum
loss values typically range from approximately 35 to 45 percent in some state highway agencies but in
Tanzania is specified to be maximum 30%. The table below indicate the results obtained in the LAA
test and its full detailed result are attached in the APPENDIX LAA009.
Table 8: LAA results

Test no Test Grade LAA value % check

1 B 13.6 ok
2 B 12.7 ok
Average 13.2 ok

30
4.1.3 Blending of the aggregates
Aggregates are normally stored in stockpiles as single sized (narrow grading).It is therefore necessary
to mix (blend) different sizes of aggregates from different piles so as to obtain the desired PSD for
specific use as given in the specification. Blending of aggregates is often a trial and error exercise,
although graphical methods may be used to advantage. In this case trial and error method has been used
and the theory of Bailey method employed.
The analysis of aggregate gradations and the combining of aggregates to obtain the desired gradation
are important steps in hot mix design. And the gradation should be made up of the most economical
proper aggregates to be found. The THM 1[ ] specification for SM14 was employed and the results
obtained are as shown in the figure below. The laboratory worksheet are attached in the APP ENDIX
BA001.
BLENDING SM14

100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
% Passing

60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Sieve Size - log scale
Min Spec Max Spec 0--3 mm 3--5mm
5--10mm 10--14mm AF BLENDED

Figure 10: Blending and grading of individual aggregates

4.2 Asphalt binder properties tests

Asphalt binder used in any mix design should comply with specifications. Different tests were carried
out to check for compliance of the selected asphalt binder. All tests carried out were done on the ‘tank
bitumen’ meaning that fresh asphalt which were not preheated or used in any case. The selected asphalt
binder in this study is 60/70 named according to their penetration grade normally known as (Pen -grade).
31
4.2.1 Bitumen penetration test
Reference to CML 3.5 has done in doing this test procedurally so as to measure the consistency of the
selected asphalt binder for GGHMA design. The attached laboratory results in the APPENDIX PT001
show clearly the results from the test. Table below gives the summary value and their compliance to
the specifications.
Table 9: Penetration results
Average penetration in AASHTO check
1/10 mm M20-70
(1996)
66 60-70 ok

4.2.2 Softening Point Test

This test was done in accordance to the CML 3.6 full described in ASTM D36. The test is aimed at
determination of the point at which temperature the asphalt binder start to be fluidity. The laborator y
result was attached in the APPENDIX PT001 done on the same sheet with that of penetration test.
Table below summarizes the results obtained and their check on the specification used.
Table 10: Softening point of the binder

Average Softening AASHTO check

Point in o C M20-70
(1996)
48.45 46-56 ok

4.2.3 Flash and Fire Point

The test was carried out with reference to ASTM D92 and CML test no 3 .3. The test is aimed at
determination of the point at which the material may explode meaning that it show the combustibility
of the material. It is very important test in asphalt binder t o know specific working safety temperature
of your mixing binder. The table below summarizes the obtained results from the laboratory in the
selected asphalt binder in this study. However the real laboratory results is attached in the APPENDIX
GSB004 in the same sheet with that of density and relative density of binder.

32
 Table 11: Results of Flash point and Fire point
Test Temperature AASHTO check
in o C M20-70
(1996)
Flash Point 320 Max 232 0 C ok
Fire Point 358 Max 232 o C ok

4.2.4 Density and Relative density of binder

The purpose of this test is to determine relative density and density of the bituminous binder which ar e
very useful parameters in the mix design calculations. This test was done in accordance to the CML
3.2 method using a small pycronometer test. The real processed results are attached in the APPENDI X
GSB004. The table below show the average test results of two tests done on the same sample by one
operator.

Table 12: Result of Relative Density and Density of the binder

Test no 1 2
Relative density 1.031 1.032
Density g/cm3 1.0279 1.0289
Average density 1.0284 ≈ 1.03
g/cm3

4.2.5 Brookfield Dynamic Viscosity Test

This test was purposefully for measuring the apparent viscosity (dynamic viscosity) of binder at
working temperatures CML test number 3.8 specify temperature as 60 oC, 90 oC and 135 oC. The torque
of a spindle rotating in a sample container with the binder was measured. Given the dimension of the
spindle and the sample container, the shear rate was set and the stress applied to the material wa s
calculated.
Consider the picture and figure below show the digital display and general set up of the Brookfield
apparatus for dynamic viscosity.
The following table summarizes the results as attached in the APPENDIX BVT005.

33
 Table 13: Results of the Brookfield dynamic Viscosity
Brookfield dynamic Viscosity Specification Check
viscosity at (cPoise) results (SABS, 1997),
Viscosity in Pa.s
60 0C 168000+ 120--250 ok
0 10378 ok
90 C
135 0C 429 0.22—0.45 ok

4.2.6 Ductility test

This test was carried out to describe the ductile and tensile behavior of the bituminous binder. The test
was performed at ambient temperature so as to reflect the homogeneity of the binder and its ability to
flow. Reference to ASTM D113-86 and CML method number 3.8. The table below summarizes the
results provided in the APPENDIX DT006.
Table 14: Results of the Ductility test of binder

Test no 1 2 Specification Check

Ductility at 25 0C in mm 1000+ 1000+ >1000 ok
Average=1000+ >1000 ok

34
 CHAPTER FIVE

Data Analysis and Discussion of results

5.1 Aggregates Properties

Because about 85% of the volume of dense-graded HMA is made up of aggregates (NCHRP, report
number 673), HMA pavement performance is greatly influenced by the characteristics of the aggregates.
Aggregates in HMA can be divided into three types according to their size: coarse aggregates, fine
aggregates, and mineral filler. Coarse aggregates are generally defined as those retained on the 2.36 -mm
sieve. Fine aggregates are those that pass through the 2.36-mm sieve and are retained on the 0.075-mm
sieve. Mineral filler is defined as that portion of the aggregate passing the 0.075-mm sieve. Mineral filler
is a very fine material with the consistency of flour and is also referred to as mineral dust or rock dust. In
this study the mineral used was Ultra-White hydrated lime. The following are the discussion made on the
aggregate properties carried out in this study:
5.1.1 Aggregate Particle Size Distribution
Perhaps the most widely specified aggregate property is particle size distribution. Although only
indirectly related to SMA-HMA performance, controlling particle size distribution, also called aggregate
gradation, is critical to developing an effective mix design. The maximum aggregate size in an aggregate
must be matched to the lift thickness used during construction, otherwise the pavement will be difficult to place
and compact properly. The distribution of particle sizes in an aggregate must have just the right density so
that the resulting HMA will contain the optimum amount of asphalt binder and air voids. Because the
shape and texture of aggregate particles vary significantly depending on the aggregate type and the way
it is mined and processed, specification limits for aggregate gradation tend to be very broad. This breadth
helps technicians and engineers.
Calculations for Aggregate Sieve Analyses
The results of an aggregate sieve analysis in HMA technology are usually presented as weight percent
passing. Calculation of percent passing from the results of a sieve analysis is straightforward and is best
explained through an attachment in appendix PSD 01 gives the results of a sieve analysis of a fine
aggregate, along with the calculations of percent retained, cumulative percent retained, and percent
passing. The weight retained, as shown in Column 2, is the weight in grams of the aggregate separated
onto each sieve. The total of these values, (m) g, is slightly less than the original sample weight of (M) g.
The difference is due to material lost, either as dust lost to the air, particles trapped within the mesh of
the sieves, or particles fallen from the sieves without being weighed. The percent error is calculated as

35
the difference between the total weight retained and the original sample weight, expressed as a percent of
the original sample weight:
�(𝑀�– �𝑚)�
𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟��% = �𝑥�100% … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . . (5.1)
𝑀
The % retained is calculated by dividing the weight retained for each sieve by the original sample weight
and, again, expressing the result as a weight percentage. For the 2.36-mm-diameter sieve % retained D
mm sieve.
𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑢𝑎𝑙�𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠�𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑�𝑖𝑛�𝑎�𝑠𝑖𝑒𝑣𝑒�𝐷�𝑚𝑚
𝑇ℎ𝑒�%�𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 = ��𝑥�100% … … … … … . (5.2)
𝑂𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙�𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒�𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡�𝑀
The cumulative % retained is calculated by summing all the values for % retained up to the given sieve
size. Also the % passing is calculated as 100%—the cumulative % retained. It should be pointed out
that there are slightly different ways of calculating these values for sieve analyses, and those responsible
for HMA mix design and associated testing should follow the procedures as required by their state
agencies. The results of aggregate sieve analyses was presented graphically, by plotting percent passing
against sieve size in mm. Sieve size is often plotted on a logarithmic scale as per attached appendices
regarding aggregate grading for different stockpiles of aggregates.
5.1.2 Aggregate Specific Gravity and Absorption
When designing HMA, both the mass and volume of the aggregates and asphalt binder going into the
mixture must be known. The mass and volume of a material are related through the values of density or
specific gravity. Density refers to the mass of a material per unit volume. Density values for most
construction materials, including aggregates, are usually reported in units of g/cm3; density values for
HMA and other types of concrete are often reported in units of kg/m3High-density materials feel heavy
for their size.
The term specific gravity is often used interchangeably with density, but has a different meaning. Specific
gravity is defined as the ratio of the mass of a material to the mass of an equal volume of water. It can
also be defined as the ratio of the density of a material to the density of water. Because water has a density
of 1.0 g/cm3 at room temperature, the values of density in units of g/cm are equal to specific gravity
values. However, these terms should be used carefully. It is especially important to make sure that the
units are included when reporting density values. Because specific gravity values are ratios of two
numbers with the same units, specific gravity is dimensionless. The typical density of granite is 2.65
g/cm3 while the typical value for the specific gravity of granite is 2.65.
Aggregate specific gravity is determined using different techniques for coarse and fine aggregate.
Obtaining accurate specific gravity values for aggregates prior to performing an HMA mix design is
36
essential, and engineers and technicians responsible for mix designs must develop proper laboratory
techniques for these procedures. For coarse aggregate, specific gravity is determined using the weight-in-
water method. In this procedure, coarse aggregate is weighed in air, and then in water, in a mesh basket
suspended from a balance. A sketch of a weight-in-water apparatus is shown in figure below. The bulk
specific gravity of a sample of coarse aggregate is calculated using the following equation:
𝐴
𝐵𝑢𝑙𝑘�𝑆𝑝. 𝐺𝑟���� = � ��… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . (5.3)
(𝐵 − 𝐶)
Where
Bulk Sp. Gr. = bulk specific gravity
A = weight of dry aggregate in air, g
B = weight of saturated, surface-dry aggregate in air, g
C = weight of saturated aggregate in water, g

Figure: Weight-in-water apparatus for determining coarse aggregates specific gravity, reproduced
drawing from NCHRP report no. 673

Because fine aggregate would fall through the wire mesh basket used in determining weight in-water, this
approach cannot be used in specific gravity measurements. Instead, the pycnometer method is used. This
technique requires the use of a pycnometer, which is simply a container that can be repeatedly filled with
the same—or nearly the same—volume of water. Usually, a volumetric flask is used for performing fine
aggregate specific gravity measurements. The flask is partially filled with distilled water and then about
500 g of saturated sand is placed in the flask. The flask is rolled and gently shaken to remove all air
bubbles and then more water is added until the flask is filled just to the calibration mark. The flask is
37
weighed, and the contents carefully poured into a metal pan which is then dried in an oven. The bulk
specific gravity of the fine aggregate is then calculated using the following equation:
𝐴
𝐵𝑢𝑙𝑘�𝑆𝑝. 𝐺𝑟 = � �… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . . (5.4)
𝐵+𝑊 −𝐶
Where
Bulk Sp. Gr. = bulk specific gravity
A = weight of oven-dry aggregate in air, g
B = weight of pycnometer filled with water to calibration mark, g
W = weight of saturated, surface-dry aggregate in air, g
C = weight of pycnometer with aggregate and filled with water to calibration mark, g

Figure 1: Pycnometer method of determining fine aggregate specific gravity reproduced from NCHRP
report no 673
5.1.3 Water Absorption
For both coarse aggregate and fine aggregate, absorption is an important property. It is calculated using
the following equation:
𝐴−𝐵
𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟�𝑎𝑏𝑠𝑜𝑟𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛��% = �𝑥�100%�� … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . (5.5)
𝐵
where
Absorption = water absorption in weight, %
A = weight of saturated, surface-dry aggregate in air, g
B = weight of dry (air-dry or oven-dry) aggregate in air, g

38
5.1.4 Bulk specific gravity (G sb) and apparent specific gravity (G sa) of the aggregates
Different specific gravities in mix design practice are useful in making weight-volume conversions and
calculating the void content in compacted HMA.
𝐴
Apparent specific gravity (G sa)=
𝐵+𝐴−𝐶
𝐴
Bulk specific gravity (G sb)=
𝐵+𝐷−𝐶

Where; A=weight of oven-dry sample, B=weight of flask (pyconometer) filled with water, g, C=weight
of flask (pyconometer) filled with specimen and water to the calibration mark, D=saturated dry surface
weight (SSD). The results and calculations involved were reported in the presentation of results chapter
and attached in the APPENDIX SGA005a for both coarse and fine aggregates.
5.1.5 Fine Aggregate Angularity
The angularity of the fine aggregate fraction is as important as the angularity of the coarse aggregate
fraction to the performance of dense-graded HMA. In combination, the coarse and fine aggregates provide
strength to HMA, which helps minimize the potential for permanent deformation. AASHTO T 304,
Method A, Uncompacted Void Content of Fine Aggregate, is used to measure fine aggregate angularity.
A graded sample of fine aggregate (passing the 2.36-mm sieve) is placed within a specially made funnel
which allows the aggregate particles to freely drop into a cylinder of known volume (Figure 4-8). Using
the combined bulk specific gravity of the fine aggregate blend, the percent voids between the aggregate
particles is determined. Results from the fine aggregate angularity test represent this percent of
uncompacted voids in the fine aggregate; higher values of uncompacted voids indicate greater angularity
of the fine aggregate. Requirements for fine aggregate angularity as described in chapter four during
presentation of results. The requirements obtained in this study are nearly identical to those recommended
in the Superpave system.
The fine aggregate angularity % is calculated as follows:
𝑈𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑�𝑉𝑜𝑖𝑑𝑠�%
𝐷𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦�𝑜𝑓�𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑒�𝑎𝑔𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑒�𝑖𝑛�𝑘𝑛𝑜𝑤𝑛�𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒�𝑐𝑦𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟, 𝑃𝑠
= 100% − �𝑥�100%
𝐵𝑢𝑙𝑘�𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐�𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦�𝑜𝑓�𝑎𝑔𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑒�𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑟�𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛�2.36𝑚𝑚
As per attached processed results in the appendix (APPPENDIX SET014) the uncompacted voids was
calculated on the basis of the above formula. The results show an average of 71% from the two sample
tested which was very higher value of uncompacted voids, this indicates greater angularity of fine
aggregate.

39
5.1.6 Clay Content
The presence of dust or clay coatings on aggregates can prevent the asphalt binder from properly coating
the aggregates within an HMA. This can lead to water penetrating the asphalt binder film and, therefore,
stripping of the asphalt binder from the aggregate. The Sand Equivalent test (AASHTO T 176, Plastic
Fines in Graded Aggregates and Soils by Use of the Sand Equivalent Test) is used to evaluate the
cleanliness of aggregates to identify when harmful clay-sized particles exist in an aggregate blend. The
procedure is conducted on the aggregate fraction of the blend that passes the 4.75-mm sieve. If hydrated
lime is used in the mixture, it should not be included in the fine aggregate used during the sand equivalent
test. The aggregate sample is placed within a graduated, transparent cylinder that is filled with a mixture
of water and flocculating agent. The sand equivalent in % is calculated as follows:
𝐶
𝑆𝑎𝑛𝑑�𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡�% = �𝑥�100%
(𝐴−(𝐵+𝐶))

Where;
A = Cylinder total suspended reading in mm
B = Flocculating solution height in mm
C = Sedimented aggregate reading in mm
The combination of aggregate, water, and flocculating agent is then agitated for 45±5 seconds. After
agitation, the combination is allowed to sit at room temperature for 20 minutes. After the 20 minutes, the
heights of the sand particles and the sand plus clay particles are measured. The sand equivalent value is
then calculated as the ratio of the height of the sand to the height of sand plus clay, expressed as a
percentage as expressed in the above expression.
As per results obtained and attached in the APPENDIX SET014, the average value of 84% sand
equivalent was reported, this is very high sand equivalent value. High sand equivalent values are
desirable, since this indicates that the aggregate is relatively free of dust and clay particles. Therefore,
minimum values for sand equivalency are specified.
5.1.7 Aggregates Flakiness Index (FI)
Flakiness Index is one of the tests used to classify aggregates and stones. In Pavement design there are
specific requirements regarding the Flakiness Index of the materials. As explained earlier in chapter three
regarding Methodologies of the study. Flakiness Index is found by separating the flaky particles and
expressing their masses as a percent of the mass of the sample. The test is applicable to material passing
a 63mm sieve and retained on a 6.3mm sieve (ref BS 812:105.1:1989).
The value of flakiness index is calculated from the expression below as per CML test no. 2.4
𝑀3
𝐹𝑙𝑎𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠�𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥, 𝐹𝐼 = �𝑥�100%
40 𝑀2
Where;
M3 = weight of all the particles passing each groups
M2 = mass remaining after discarding any fraction whose mass iss 5% or less of the individual mass
retained M1 .
Specification for aggregates flakiness index for SMA is maximum 30% the results obtained showed an
average of 19.0% FI, which implies that the aggregate fit for road aggregates as per Tanzania Work
Specification Ministry of Work 1999. See the APPENDIX FI006a analysed results for Flakiness Index
test.
5.2 .1 Ten Percent Fines (TFV)
As explained earlier, the strength of the aggregate may be measured in a crushing test. The TFV gives a
relative measure of resistance of an aggregate to crushing under gradually applied load. In pavement
design there are specific requirements for the TFV of the material tested both in a dry and soaked
condition hereby indicated as TFV dry and TFV wet respectively. The graph below indicates the TFV value

DETERMINATIONOF TEN PERCENT FINE VALUE ( TFV )- WET

450
400 y = 26.911x + 22.515
350
Gradual Load (kN)

300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 2 4 6 8
%Fines 10 12 14

obtained as shown in the attachment APPENDIX TFV009b.

From the graph above the TFV wet is calculated by the linear equation:
𝑦 = 26.911𝑥 + 22.515
Where; y from the linear expression is Gradual applied load and x is the corresponding 10% fines. From
this expression the value of TFV wet = 292kN.
TFV dry is as shown in the graph below and the linear expression is as show below the graph.
𝑦 = 30.162𝑥 + 20.455
41
In expression above the load y is equal to the TFV dry=322 kN as x = 10% fines.
Other calculations required was evaluated on the analyzed results as per APPENDIX TFV009a and
TFV009b. The specification report value for TFV value for SMA design as per THM1 is minimum 90%
expressed as ratio of TFV wet to the TFV dry, in this case the calculation is as shown below:
𝑇𝐹𝑉�𝑤𝑒𝑡 292
TFF (wet/dry) = = = 91%
𝑇𝐹𝑉�𝑑𝑟𝑦 322

This ratio show good performance of the selected road aggregate in term of strength as it meet the required
strength as prior mentioned specifications.
Fines calculations
The gradual loads applied F (in kN), to the nearest whole number, required to produce 10% fines for each
test specimen with the percentage of material passing in the range of 7.5% to 12.5% from the following
equation as per CML2.7:
14𝑓
𝐹 =�
𝑚+4
Where; f is the maximum force kN and m = the percentage of material passing 2.36mm sieve at the
respective maximum force.

DETERMINATIONOF TEN PERCENT FINE VALUE ( TFV )- DRY

450
400 y = 30.162x + 20.451
350
300
Load (kN)

250
200
150
100
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
%Fines

5.2.2 Los Angeles Abrasion Test

The toughness is the percent loss of materials from an aggregate blend during the LAA test as stated in
AASHTO T96- T94. The resistance to abrasion of small size coarse aggregate by use of LA Machine is
also indicated in CML 2.9. The maximum loss values typically ranges from approximately 35 to 45
percent in some state highway agencies but in Tanzania is specified to be maximum of 30%.
42
The calculation of Loss Angeles Abrasion test from the study aggregates.
Test 1: Counter set to 500 revolutions
Mass of oven dried CA 16 Retained on #4 Sieve = 5005.0 g
Mass of sample Retained on #8 Sieve after testing = 4324.3 g

5005.0𝑔 − 4324.3𝑔
𝐶𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛�𝑜𝑓�𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡�𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠 = �𝑥�100% = 13.6%
5005.0𝑔
Test 2: Counter set to 500 revolutions
Mass of oven dried CA 16 Retained on #4 Sieve = 4003.8 g
Mass of oven dried CA 16 Retained on 3/8” Sieve = 1001.6 g
Total Mass Retained 5005.4 g
Mass of sample Retained on #8 Sieve after testing = 4369.70 g
5005.4�𝑔−4369.70�𝑔
𝐶𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛�𝑜𝑓�𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡�𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠 = � �𝑥�100% = 12.7%
5005.4�𝑔

From the above calculations the LAA value is reported as the mean of two tests with less variation, the
LAA value is 13.2% which is very low Loss value which implies the high resistance to abrasive force.
5.2.3 Sulfate Soundness Test (AASHTO T104 – 97)
Soundness is the percent loss of materials from an aggregate blend during the sodium or magnesium
sulfate soundness test.
Aggregate Sieve Mass Retained Mass Retained Loss (g)
Before Test After Test

FA 01 #50 111.66 g 110.22 g 1.44

FA 01 #30 118.51 g 116.23 g 2.28
FA 01 #16 119.70 g 115.61 g 4.09
FA 01 #8 116.15 g 107.80 g 8.35
FA 01 #4 110.82 g 81.23 g 29.59
CA 16 #4 118.90 g 102.54 g (Ret. #5) 16.36
Solution Used – Na2 SO4 (Anhydrous Sodium Sulfate)
Temperature = 71oF
Specific Gravity = 1.174 of Na2 SO4 solution
Sample calculation: using FA 01 #50 sieve
i. Grading original sample (% Retained)
43
 Sieve % Passing % Retained
#16 73
#30 30 43
#50 9 21
#100 1 8

ii. Percent Passing After Test

Loss = 1.44 g
Original mass Retained = 111.66 g
Percent Passing = (1.44g/111.66g) x 100 = 1.3%
iii. Weighted Percent Loss
Original Sample Percentage x Percent Loss = 21 x 0.013 = 0.3%
From the results obtained in the table the total weight percentage loss is 9.4%, the IDOT Specifications
the maximum SSS loss is 20%. The mentioned results of 9.4% indicates that the resistance of aggregate
to weathering while in service is very small which the aggregate in test meet the required specifications.
5.3.1 Blending of the aggregates
For various reasons, mostly associated with achieving maximum density and desired void properties,
certain desirable gradation limits are usually required for aggregate HMA. A large number of blending
techniques of determining relative and economical proportions of various aggregates to obtain desired
gradation have been developed since the suggestions of the maximum density curves by Fuller and
Thompson. The suitability of these methods depends on the type of specifications and number of
aggregates involved, the experience of the individual and major emphasis of the blending (closeness to
the desired gradation or economics).
In this, regardless of the number of aggregates or blending techniques selected the trial and error method
from the basic blending formula expressing the combination as follows:
𝑃 = 𝐴𝑎 + 𝐵𝑏 + 𝐶𝑐 + ⋯
Where;
P= the percent of material passing a given sieve for combined aggregate A, B, C , …
A, B, C, … = the percent material passing a given sieve for each aggregate A, B, C, …
Also, : a, b, c, … are proportions (decimal fractions) of aggregates A, B, C, … to be used in the blend
a+b+c+…=1.00

44
In this study the aggregates were fractioned in into five stockpiles including the mineral filler hereby
described as active filler (AF). For the first trial blend the proportions analysis is as shown in the curve
below.
The stockpiles were divided such that 0-3mm, 3-5mm, 5-10mm, 10-14mm and AF (active filler) and the
best trial proportions was found to be 30%, 9%, 15%, 43% and AF is 3%. From these proportions why
do we say Gap-Graded Hot Mix Asphalt? The existence of the large deviations between the value
proportions of the mid-sieves (3-5mm and 5-10mm stockpiles) is the best answer on this question.

BLENDING SM14

100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
% Passing

60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Sieve Size - log scale
Min Spec Max Spec 0--3 mm 3--5mm
5--10mm 10--14mm AF BLENDED

5.3.2 Blend Specific gravity

After obtaining the economical blend the combined specific gravities were calculated on the basis of the
general form of the specific gravity. The expression below show the general formula for blended
aggregates specific gravity.
𝑃1+𝑃2+𝑃3+⋯𝑃𝑛
𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐�𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦, 𝐺 = 𝑃1 𝑃2 𝑃3 𝑃𝑛
+ + +⋯𝐺𝑛
𝐺1 𝐺2 𝐺3

Whereas P1, P2, P3, …,Pn are proportions of stockpiles in the blend and G1, G2, G3, …Gn are
individual specific gravity of the respective aggregate stockpile.
30+9+15+43+3
𝐵𝑢𝑙𝑘�𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐�𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦, 𝐺𝑠𝑏 = 30 9 15 43 3 = 2.621
+ + + +
2.578 2.616 2.641 2.658 2.447

45
 30+9+15+43+3
𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡�𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐�𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦, 𝐺𝑠𝑎 = 30 9 15 43 3 = 2.648
+ + + +
2.63 2.644 2.620 2.688 2.447

5.3.1 Marshall Mix Design of SMA using Cellulose fibres stabilizing additive
The following plots analyzes the Marshall design parameters and the optimum binder content obtained
in the design.

Bulk density v/s Binder content Stability v/s Binder content

2.45 22000
21000
20000

Marshall Stability (N)

2.4
Bulk density (g/cm3)

19000
18000
2.35 17000
16000
15000
2.3
14000
13000
2.25 12000
11000
10000
2.2
5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5
Binder content (%) Binder content (%)

VIM v/s Binder content Marshall flow v/s Binder content

4.5
12.0
4.0
Marshall flow (mm)
Void content (%)

10.0 3.5
8.0 3.0
2.5
6.0
2.0
4.0 1.5
2.0 1.0
5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5
Binder content (%) Binder content (%)

The optimum binder content is calculated from

𝑥1+𝑥2+𝑥3 7.40+7.40+7.50
:𝑂𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚�𝑏𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟�𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 = = = 7.43%.
3 3

Using the binder content obtained in the equation above the Marshall flow was found to be 3.1 mm as
shown above and the other graph VFB and VMA corresponding to the obtained optimum binder content
was given in the design graph above.

46
 VFB v/s Binder content VMA v/s Binder content
25
90 24 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5
Voids filled with binder (%)

Voids in Mineral Agg (%)

23
80 22
21
70
20
19
60
18
50 17
16
40 15
5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5
Binder content (%) Binder content (%)

From the above design graphs analyzed the cellulose fibre dossage 0.3% of the mix as an additive results
were its parameters summarized in table given below:

Optimum binder content 7.43%

Void in Mix (VIM) 4.0%

Void Filled with Binder (VFB) 75%

Void in Mineral Aggregate (VMA) 16%

Bulk density, g/cm3 2.400

Marshall flow (mm) 3.1

Stability (N) 21500

47
5.3.3 Marshall Mix Design of SMA14 using Reclaimed Rubber (8% of the binder) as stabilizing
additive
The following plots analyzes the Marshall design parameters and the optimum binder content obtained in
the design.

Bulk density v/s Binder content

Stability v/s Binder content
2.400 18000
17000
16000

Marshall Stability (N)

Bulk density (g/cm3)

2.350 15000
14000
13000
2.300 12000
11000
10000
2.250
9000
8000
2.200 7000
5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5
Binder content (%) Binder content (%)

The optimum binder content is calculated as

VIM v/s Binder content
follows:
10.00
𝑥1 + 𝑥2 + 𝑥3
𝑂𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚�𝑏𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟�𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 =
Void content (%)

8.00 3
7.00 + 7.10 + 7.00
6.00 = = 7.03%
3
4.00
The optimum binder content with Reclaimed
2.00 Rubber was 7.0%.The other design parameters
5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 was estimated based on the optimum binder
Binder content (%)
content

VFB v/s Binder content

Marshall flow v/s Binder content
5.00 90.00
Voids filled with binder (%)

4.50
80.00
Marshall flow (mm)

4.00
3.50 70.00
3.00
60.00
2.50
2.00 50.00
1.50
40.00
1.00 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5
5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5
Binder content (%) Binder content (%)

48
 VMA v/s Binder content
25.00
24.00 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5

Voids in Mineral Agg (%)

23.00
22.00
21.00
20.00
19.00
18.00
17.00
16.00
15.00

Binder content (%)

The SMA14 with Reclaimed Rubber 8% of the binder content mix design parameters summary.

Optimum binder content 7.00%

Void in Mix (VIM) 4.0%

Void Filled with Binder (VFB) 75%

Void in Mineral Aggregate (VMA) 15.5%

Bulk density, g/cm3 2.375

Marshall flow (mm) 3.45

Stability (N) 17000

49
5.3.4 Marshall Mix Design of SMA14 usin Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) (8% of the binder) as stabilizing
additive

The following plots analyzes the Marshall Design parameters and the optimum binder content obtained
in the design.

Bulk density v/s Binder content

Stability v/s Binder content
2.450 15000
14000
Bulk density (g/cm3)

Marshall Stability (N)

13000
2.400 12000
11000
10000
2.350
9000
8000

2.300 7000
5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5
Binder content (%) Binder content (%)

VIM v/s Binder content The optimum binder content is calculated as

10.00
follows:
𝑥1 + 𝑥2 + 𝑥3
Void content (%)

8.00 𝑂𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚�𝑏𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟�𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 =
3
6.00 7.20 + 7.20 + 7.20
= = 7.20%
4.00 3
The optimum binder content with Polyvinyl
2.00
5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 Chloride PVC was 7.2%.The other design
Binder content (%)
parameters was estimated based on the optimum
binder content
Marshall flow v/s Binder content
VFB v/s Binder content
5.00
4.50 90.00
Marshall flow (mm)

Voids filled with binder (%)

4.00
80.00
3.50
3.00 70.00

2.50 60.00
2.00
50.00
1.50
1.00 40.00
5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5
Binder content (%) Binder content (%)

50
 VMA v/s Binder content
20.00
5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5

Voids in Mineral Agg (%)

19.00

18.00

17.00

16.00

15.00

Binder content (%)

From the above analyzed data it can be concluded diffrently in each design parameters as follows:

I. The bulk density of the specimens increased when PVC additive used compared to other
stabilizing additives Cf and Reclaimed rubber as shown in the comparison curve below:
Bulk density v/s Binder content PVC
2.450
Cf
Bulk density (g/cm3)

2.400 Rubber

2.350

2.300

2.250

2.200
5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5
Binder content (%)

II. The Cellulose fibre has shown better performance in case of Marshall stability by achieving higher
stability value trends than the rest which means it has better resistance to rutting and deformations
by the heavy loadings. The PVC has shown lowest marshall stability trends compared to the three
on study stabilizing additives though it has achieved the required design stability of min 6kN.

Stability v/s Binder content PVC

22000
21000 Cf
20000
Rubber
Marshall Stability (N)

19000
18000
17000
16000
15000
14000
13000
12000
11000
10000
9000
8000
7000
5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5
Binder content (%)

51
III. The cellulose fibre seems to have higher void content trends compared to the rest stabilizing
additives studied with the Reclamed rubber lagging behind the in void ontent trends.

VIM v/s Binder content PVC

10.00 Cf

Void content (%)

Rubber
8.00

6.00

4.00

2.00
5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5
Binder content (%)

IV. The reclaimed rubber stabilizing additives has shown large marshall flow compared to others this
is due to the absorptive nature of the rubber and its high elastic nature compared to the PVC and
Cf

Marshall flow v/s Binder content

5.00
4.50
Marshall flow (mm)

4.00
3.50
PVC
3.00
Cf
2.50
Rubber
2.00
1.50
1.00
5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5
Binder content (%)

V. The VFB of the ruberized SMA has shown slightly graeter than PVC stabilized SMA while the
cellulose stabilized SMA having low VFB compared to the rest of studied additives. The curve
below analyzes the difference.

VFB v/s Binder content

90.00
Voids filled with binder (%)

80.00

70.00
PVC
60.00
cf
50.00
Rubber
40.00
5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5
Binder content (%)

52
VI. The VMA smees to be slightly changing in PVC due to high adhessiveness of PVC compared to
the rubber and cellulose fibre which are much affected by rebound property

VMA v/s Binder content

20.00
5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5

Voids in Mineral Agg (%)

19.00

18.00

17.00 PVC
Cf
16.00
Rubber
15.00

Binder content (%)

5.3.5 Draindown Test analysis

As per AASHTO T305 the draindown of SMA should not exceed 0.3%. From the laboratory
results, the results of three stabilizing additives were evaluated in their optimum binder content
and the results shown that the cellulose fibre stabilizers were found to be more effective in
reducing the draindown than polynivyl chloride due to absorptive nature of the cellulose fibre.
The PVC performed worst in reducing draindown as shown in the graph below.

DRAINDOWN % TESTS COMPARISON

4.80
4.50
4.20
3.90
3.60
3.30
% DRAINDOWN

3.00
2.70
2.40
2.10
1.80
1.50
1.20
0.90
0.60
0.30
0.00
CELLULOSE FIBRE RECYCLED TYRES(RUBBER) PLASTIC (PVC)
ADDITIVES

CELLULOSE FIBRE RECYCLED TYRES(RUBBER) PLASTIC (PVC)

53
 CONCLUSION
Based on test results analysed and discussed in the last chapter the following conclusions were made:

 The Marshall results has shown the specimens with cellulose fibre has high optimum binder
content than the rest due to the absorptive nature of the fibres.
 TheMarshall Stability at the optimum binder content of the cellulose fibre has shown greater
stabilizing additives than are of the three. With only 12.8kN and 16.5kN of PVC and rubber the
celulose fibre has stability of 21.5 kN whih is very high stability only achieved with greater care
in controlling aggregate interlocking factors.
 The bulk density of the specimens increased when PVC additive used compared to other
stabilizing additives Cf and Reclaimed rubber.
 The cellulose fibre seems to have higher void content trends compared to the rest stabilizing
additives studied with the Reclamed rubber lagging behind the in void ontent trends.
 The reclaimed rubber stabilizing additives has shown large marshall flow compared to others this
is due to the absorptive nature of the rubber and its high elastic nature compared to the PVC and
Cf
 The VMA smees to be slightly changing in PVC due to high adhessiveness of PVC compared to
the rubber and cellulose fibre which are much affected by rebound property
 From the laboratory results, the results of three stabilizing additives were evaluated in their
optimum binder content and the results shown that the cellulose fibre stabilizers were found to be
more effective in reducing the draindown than polynivyl chloride due to absorptive nature of the
cellulose fibre.

Generall cellulose has shown good quality results in both stability and flow as well as draindown
reduction compred to the rest of the studied stabilizing additives. That’s why most of the local
contractors and highway ageny are daily importing cellulose fibres from German for use in SMA
design.

54
 RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations to the Department of Civil Engineering within Institute:

I. The Bituminous material Laboratory should be in use very early to erase the problem of students
to search their own placement in conducting their projects.
II. The project time schedule should not be in the same schedule as other modules this reduce
students’ concentrations in either case and sometimes in both case. There should a full semester
for project and research only. This will provide wide understanding to the students.
III. Updating technology in Civil engineering is likely lagging behind the normal world technology,
the institute should help the government and save as an asphalt center in which designers and
technologist are molded.
IV. Our department seems to be like a nice and quality borrow pit for the hig hway labour force
in this country, it should update its teaching system it should invest much in highway material
engineering because it is naked true that the national lack highway material engineering experts
as the result we are helped by expert material engineers from South Africa and Ethiopia. Let
start at DIT.
V. The department also should invest in Instrumentation for highway engineering material
equipment, our people must be ‘hand on eye on’ in equipment instru mentation.
VI. In moving to teaching factory the Institute should invest much in action and ALL people
say ‘lets do’ any good substance start from good laboratory of good knowledgeable people
with good hea d.
VII. The department should buy a full set of SUPERPAVE Equipment (CONTROL) as it will help
the students to understand more practically and shape them to be whom they wish to be.

55
 REFERENCES

AASHTO. (1997). “Standard Specification for Plastic Fines in Graded Aggregates and Soils by Use of
the Sand Equivalent Test.” T176-86, Washington D.C.

AASHTO. (1997). “Standard Specification for Soundness of Aggregate by Use of Sodium Sulfate or
Magnesium Sulfate.” T104-97, Washington D.C.

AASHTO. (1994). “Standard Specification for Resistance to Degradation of S mall -size Course
Aggregate by Abrasion and Impact in the Los Angeles Machine.” T96-94, Washington D.C.

AASHTO. (1997). “Standard Specification for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Course Aggregate.” T27 -
97, Washington D.C.

AASHTO. (1991). “Standard Specification for Clay Lumps and Friable Particles in Aggr egate.” T112-
91, Washington D.C.

AASHTO. (1995). “Standard Specification for Sieve Analysis of Mineral Filler for Road and Paving
Materials.” T37-95, Washington D.C.

AASHTO. (1989). “Standard Specification for Resistance of Compacted Bituminous Mixture t o

Moisture Induced Damage.” T283-89, Washington D.C.

AASHTO. (1993). “Standard Specification for Bulk Specific Gravity of Compacted Bituminous
Mixtures Using Saturated Surface-Dry Specimens.” T166-93, Washington D.C.

AASHTO. (1995). “Standard Specification for Specific Gravity and Absorption of Fine Aggregate.”
T84-95, Washington D.C.

AASHTO. (1991). “Standard Specification for Specific Gravity and Absorption of Course Aggregate.”
T85-91, Washington D.C.

AASHTO. (1999). “Standard Method of Test for Deter mining the Asphalt Binder Content of Hot Mix
Asphalt (HMA) by the Ignition Method.” T308-99, Washington D.C.

AASHTO. (1995). “Standard Specification for Specific Gravity of Soils.” T100 -95, Washington D.C.

ASTM. (1994). “Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Mineral Filler for Road and Paving
Materials.” D546, West Conshohocken, Pa.

56
ASTM. (1993). “Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity and Absorption of Course Aggregate.”
C127, West Conshohocken, Pa.

ASTM. (1997). “Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity and Absorption of Fine Aggregate.” C128,
West Conshohocken, Pa.

CML. (2000). “Central Material Laboratory”. Tanzania Ministry of Work.

Illinois Department of Transportation. (1997). “Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge
Construction.” State of Illinois.

Illinois Department of Transportation. (2000). “Illinois Modified Test Procedure: Standard Practice for
Superpave Volumetric Design for Hot-Mix Asphalt (HMA).” State of Illinois.

Kandhal, Prithvi S., Parker Jr., Frazier, and Mallick, Rajib B. (1997). “Aggregate Tests for Hot Mix
Asphalt: State of the Practice.” NCAT Report No. 97-6, Auburn University, Al.

NAPA Research and Education Foundation. (1996). “Hot Mix Asphalt Materials, Mixture Design and
Construction.” 2 nd Edition, Lanham, Maryland.

National Center for Asphalt Technology. (1998). “Professor Training Course in Asphalt Technology.”

SHRP. (1994). “Level One Mix Design: Materials Selection, Compaction, and Conditioning.” National
Research Council, Washington D.C.

57
APPENDICES
 APPENDIX PSDA001

PROJECT TITLE: EFFECT OF STABILIZING ADDITIVES AND MINERAL MATHIAS, Kulwa

FILLERS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF GAP-GRADED HOT MIX ASPHALT
(GGHMA) ADMN NO. 140131452515

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF AGGREGATES ( FOR GGHMA (SMA-14) THM 1)

SAMPLE NO: STD 001 SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: 0/3 mm

LAB USED: CML - TANROADS DATE TESTED: 22/01/2018

DATE SAMPLED: 10/1/2018 STUDENT REG NO: 140131452515

Wt.Before Washing(g) 1320.8 Wt.After Washing(g): 1063.4 g

Total material passing 0.075mm g 19.5

Sieve (mm) Retained % Retained % Passing

20.0 100.0 (0/3mm)
14.0 100.0 100.0
10.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
90.0
7.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
4.75 0.0 0.0 100.0 80.0
2.36 163.8 12.4 87.6
1.18 354.0 26.8 60.8 70.0
0.600 232.5 17.6 43.2
0.300 148.0 11.2 32.0 60.0
% Passing

0.150 112.3 8.5 23.5

0.075 52.8 4.0 19.5 50.0
Pan 257.4 19.5
40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0
0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Sieve Size - log scale

REMARKS:

TESTED BY: STUDENT REGISTRATION NUMBER

MATHIAS, Kulwa B.ENG 15 CE 140131452515

Date/Signature

PROJECT DATA COLLECTION MATHIAS, Kulwa

Central Material Laboratory
 APPENDIX PSDA002

PROJECT TITLE: EFFECT OF STABILIZING ADDITIVES AND MINERAL MATHIAS, Kulwa

FILLERS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF GAP-GRADED HOT MIX ASPHALT
(GGHMA) ADMN NO. 140131452515

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF AGGREGATES ( FOR GGHMA (SMA-14) THM 1)

SAMPLE NO: STD 001 SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: 3/5 mm

LAB USED: CML - TANROADS DATE TESTED: 22/01/2018

DATE SAMPLED: 10/1/2018 STUDENT REG NO: 140131452515

Wt.Before Washing(g) 1215.5 Wt.After Washing(g): 1203.4 g

Total material passing 0.075mm g 1.0

Sieve (mm) Retained % Retained % Passing

20.0 100.0 (3/5mm)
14.0 100.0 100.0
10.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
90.0
7.0 32.8 2.7 97.3
4.75 241.9 19.9 77.4 80.0
2.36 916.5 75.4 2.0
1.18 12.15 1.0 1.0 70.0
0.600 0 0.0 1.0
0.300 0 0.0 1.0 60.0
% Passing

0.150 0 0.0 1.0

0.075 0 0.0 1.0 50.0
Pan 12.1 1.0
40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0
0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Sieve Size - log scale

REMARKS:

TESTED BY: STUDENT REGISTRATION NUMBER

MATHIAS, Kulwa B.ENG 15 CE 140131452515

Date/Signature

PROJECT DATA COLLECTION MATHIAS, Kulwa

Central Material Laboratory
 APPENDIX PSDA003

PROJECT TITLE: EFFECT OF STABILIZING ADDITIVES AND MINERAL MATHIAS, Kulwa

FILLERS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF GAP-GRADED HOT MIX ASPHALT
(GGHMA) ADMN NO. 140131452515

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF AGGREGATES ( FOR GGHMA (SMA-14) THM 1)

SAMPLE NO: STD 001 SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: 5/10 mm

LAB USED: CML - TANROADS DATE TESTED: 22/01/2018

DATE SAMPLED: 10/1/2018 STUDENT REG NO: 140131452515

Wt.Before Washing(g) 1987.0 Wt.After Washing(g): 1969.2 g

Total material passing 0.075mm g 0.0

Sieve (mm) Retained % Retained % Passing

20.0 100 5/10mm)
14.0 100 100
10.0 17.0 0.9 99.1
90
7.0 1015.4 51.1 48.0
4.75 834.54 42.0 6.0 80
2.36 119.22 6.0 0.0
1.18 0 0.0 0.0 70
0.600 0 0.0 0.0
0.300 0 0.0 0.0 60
% Passing

0.150 0 0.0 0.0

0.075 0 0.0 0.0 50
Pan 17.8 0.9
40

30

20

10

0
0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Sieve Size - log scale

REMARKS:

TESTED BY: STUDENT REGISTRATION NUMBER

MATHIAS, Kulwa B.ENG 15 CE 140131452515

Date/Signature

PROJECT DATA COLLECTION MATHIAS, Kulwa

Central Material Laboratory
 APPENDIX PSDA004

PROJECT TITLE: EFFECT OF STABILIZING ADDITIVES AND MINERAL MATHIAS, Kulwa

FILLERS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF GAP-GRADED HOT MIX ASPHALT
(GGHMA) ADMN NO. 140131452515

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF AGGREGATES ( FOR GGHMA (SMA-14) THM 1)

SAMPLE NO: STD 001 SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: 10/14 mm

LAB USED: CML - TANROADS DATE TESTED: 22/01/2018

DATE SAMPLED: 10/1/2018 STUDENT REG NO: 140131452515

Wt.Before Washing(g) 2168.4 Wt.After Washing(g): 1192.7 g

Total material passing 0.075mm g 0.0

Sieve (mm) Retained % Retained % Passing

20.0 0.0 100 (10/14 mm)
14.0 0.0 100 100
10.0 975.8 45.0 55.0
90
7.0 1127.6 52.0 3.0
4.75 43.4 2.0 1.0 80
2.36 21.7 1.0 0.0
1.18 0 0.0 0.0 70
0.600 0 0.0 0.0
0.300 0 0.0 0.0 60
% Passing

0.150 0 0.0 0.0

0.075 0 0.0 0.0 50
Pan 975.7 45.0
40

30

20

10

0
0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Sieve Size - log scale

REMARKS:

TESTED BY: STUDENT REGISTRATION NUMBER

MATHIAS, Kulwa B.ENG 15 CE 140131452515

Date/Signature

PROJECT DATA COLLECTION

MATHIAS, Kulwa
Central Material Laboratory
 APPENDIX FI006

PROJECT TITLE: EFFECT OF STABILIZING ADDITIVES AND MATHIAS, Kulwa

MINERAL FILLERS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF GAP-GRADED HOT
MIX ASPHALT(GGHMA) ADM NO. 140131452515

DETERMINATION OF FLAKINESS INDEX

CML 2.4 & 2.5 BS812 : Section 105.1:1990

Sample description: 5--10 mm Aggregate Lab used: CML- TANROADS

Source of sample: MAFINGA QUARRY Sample No. STD-001

Sample Taken by: MATHIAS, Kulwa Date sampled: 10.01.2018

adm no .140131452515 Date tested: 22.01.2018

Passing Sieve Flakiness

Retained Sieve (mm) Sample (g) Retained (g) Passing (g)
(mm) Index

63 50
50 37.50
37.5 28
28 20
20 14
14 10 193 157.8 35.3 18.28
10 6.3 219.6 180.6 39.0 17.76

TOTALS (g) 412.7 338.4 74.3 18.0 Av FI

REMARKS

TESTED: ADMISSION NUMBER

BY MATHIAS, Kulwa BENG 15 CE 140131452515

MATHIAS, Kulwa
PROJECT DATA COLLECTION
Central Material Laboratory
 APPENDIX FI006a

PROJECT TITLE: EFFECT OF STABILIZING ADDITIVES AND MATHIAS, Kulwa

MINERAL FILLERS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF GAP-GRADED HOT
MIX ASPHALT(GGHMA) ADM NO. 140131452515

DETERMINATION OF FLAKINESS INDEX

CML 2.4 & 2.5 BS812 : Section 105.1:1990

Sample description: 10--14 mm Aggregate Lab used: CML- TANROADS

Source of sample: MAFINGA QUARRY Sample No. STD-001

Sample Taken by: MATHIAS, Kulwa Date sampled: 10.01.2018

adm no .140131452515 Date tested: 22.01.2018

Passing Sieve Flakiness

Retained Sieve (mm) Sample (g) Retained (g) Passing (g)
(mm) Index

63 50
50 37.50
37.5 28
28 20
20 14 487 435.5 51.0
14 10 292 212.9 79.0 27.06
10 6.3 27 4.0 23.0 85.19

TOTALS (g) 805.4 652.4 153.0 19.0 Av FI

REMARKS

TESTED: ADMISSION NUMBER

BY MATHIAS, Kulwa BENG 15 CE 140131452515

MATHIAS, Kulwa
PROJECT DATA COLLECTION
Central Material Laboratory
 APPENDIX TFV009a

PROJECT TITLE : EFFECT OF STABILIZING ADDITIVES AND MINERAL FILLERS MATHIAS, Kulwa
ON THE PERFORMANCE OF GAP- GRADED HOT MIX ASPHALT (GGHMA) ADM NO. 140131452515

DETERMINATION OF TEN PERCENT FINE VALUE ( TFV(

Ref to Test Method : BS 812 : Part 111 : 1990 CML 2.7
Sample description : 10/14mm AGGREGATE LAB USED CML - TANROADS
Source of sample : MAFINGA QUARRY Sample No : STD 001
Sample taken by : STUDENT Rg/No 140131452515 Date sampled 10.01.2018
10.02.2011
Tested on : 24.01.2018
Specimen reference
Applied force F 50 100 150 400 Control test
Mass of tray + test specimen g 3232.0 3207 3286 3242
Mass of tray alone 452 472 472 472 472
Mass of orginal test specimen g(M1) 2760.0 2735 2814 2770
Mass of tray + material passing separating sieve g 505.1 508.5 654.9 789.5
Mass of tray alone g 472.0 472 472 472
Mass of material passing separating sieve g(M2) 33.1 36.5 182.9 317.5
Mass of tray + material retained on separeting sieve 3199 3071 3005 2605
Mass of tray alone g 472 472 472 472
Mass of material retained separating sieve g(M3) 2727 2599 2533 2133
Mass of passing and retained on separating sieve check versus M1 M2 + M3 2760 2735 2814 2770
Percentage Fines ( in % ) 100*M2/M1 1.2 1.3 6.5 11.5
ACV ( for F = 400 KN ) % X X X x
10 % FINE VALUE (from chart)(KN) F 322 x
REMARKS Wet to dry ratio = 90.0 %

DETERMINATIONOF TEN PERCENT FINE VALUE ( TFV )- DRY

450
400 y = 30.162x + 20.455
350
Applied Force kN

300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Fines %
TESTED BY: REGISTRATION NUMBER
MATHIAS, Kulwa 140131452515

Date/Signature

PROJECT DATA COLLECTION

MATHIAS, Kulwa
Central Material Laboratory
 APPENDIX TFV009b

PROJECT TITLE : EFFECT OF STABILIZING ADDITIVES AND MINERAL MATHIAS, Kulwa

FILLERS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF GAP- GRADED HOT MIX ASPHALT
(GGHMA) ADM NO. 140131452515

DETERMINATION OF TEN PERCENT FINE VALUE ( TFV(

Ref to Test Method : BS 812 : Part 111 : 1990 CML 2.7
Sample description : 10/14mm AGGREGATE LAB USED CML - TANROADS
Source of sample : MAFINGA QUARRY Sample No : STD 001
Sample taken by : STUDENT Rg/No 140131452515 Date sampled 10.02.2011
10.01.2018
Tested on : 25.01.2018
Specimen reference
Applied force F 50 100 150 400 Control test
Mass of tray + test specimen g 3182 3263 3172 3194.0
Mass of tray alone g 472 472 472 472
Mass of orginal test specimen g(M1) 2710 2791 2700 2722
Mass of tray + material passing separating sieve g 498 532 632 843
Mass of tray alone g 472 472 472 472
Mass of material passing separating sieve g(M2) 26.0 60.0 160.0 371.0
Mass of tray + material retained on separeting sieve 3098.0 3056.3 2845.3 2502.6
Mass of tray alone g 472 472 472 472
Mass of material retained separating sieve g(M3) 2626.0 2584.3 2373.3 2030.6
Mass of passing and retained on separating sieve check versus M 1 M2 + M3 2652 2644 2533 2402
Percentage Fines ( in % ) 100*M2/M1 1.0 2.1 5.9 13.6
ACV ( for F = 400 KN ) % X X X x
10 % FINE VALUE (from chart)(KN) F 292 x
REMARKS Wet to dry ratio = #REF! %

DETERMINATIONOF TEN PERCENT FINE VALUE ( TFV )- WET

450
y = 26.911x + 22.515
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

TESTED BY: REGISTRATION NUMBER

MATHIAS, Kulwa 140131452515

Date/Signature

PROJECT DATA COLLECTION

MATHIAS, Kulwa
Central Material Laboratory
 APPENDIX SGA005a

PROJECT TITLE: EFFECT OF STABILIZING ADDITIVES AND MINERAL MATHIAS, Kulwa ADM
FILLERS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF GAP- GRADED HOT MIX
ASPHALT(GGHMA) No. 140131452515

Student Name: Specification: ASTM Sample No: STD 001

MATHIAS, Kulwa

LAB USED: CML - TANROADS Test Method: ASTM C127 Sampled Date 10.01.2018

Source: MAFINGA QUARRY CML Test no 2.2 Tested on: 25.01.2018

SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF COARSE AND FINE AGGREGATES

COARSE AGGREGATES CA1 - fraction size mm___ 10--14 ___
Test No: A1 B2 AV.
A - Wt. of saturated surface dry sample in air g 637.8 654.8
B - Wt of oven dry sample in air g 635.2 652.2
C - Wt. of sat. surface dry sample in water g 395.4 405.1
B
Oven Dry Specific Gravity - Bulk g/cm3 A-C 2.620 2.612 2.616
A
Specific Gravity - saturated Surface Dry g/cm3 A-C 2.631 2.622 2.627
Specific Gravity - Apparent g/cm3 B
B-C 2.649 2.639 2.644
A-B
Absorption % *100
B 0.41 0.40 0.41
COARSE AGGREGATES CA2 - Fraction Size mm____5--10____

A - Wt. in air of saturated surface dry sample g

780.8 834.5

B - Wt. in air of oven dry sample g

777.5 830.9

C - Wt. of sat. surface dry sample in water g

491.3 518.5
B
Oven Dry Specific Gravity - Bulk g/cm3
A-C 2.686 2.629 2.658
A
SSD Specific Gravity g/cm3 A-C 2.697 2.641 2.669
B
Apparent Specific Gravity g/cm3
B-C 2.717 2.660 2.688
A- B
ABSORPTION % *100
B
0.42 0.43 0.43

TESTED BY: REGISTRATION NUMBER

MATHIAS, Kulwa 140131452515

Date/Signature

PROJECT DATA COLLECTION

MATHIAS, Kulwa
Central Material Laboratory
 APPENDIX SGA005b

PROJECT TITLE: EFFECT OF STABILIZING ADDITIVES AND MINERAL MATHIAS, Kulwa

FILLERS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF GAP- GRADED HOT MIX
ASPHALT(GGHMA) ADM No. 140131452515

Student Name: Specification: ASTM Sample No: STD 001

MATHIAS, Kulwa

LAB USED: CML - TANROADS Test Method: ASTM C127 Sampled Date 10.01.2018

Source: MAFINGA QUARRY CML Test no 2.2 Tested on: 25.01.2018

SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF FINE AGGREGATES

FINE AGGREGATES FA2 - fraction size mm___ 0--3___
Test No: A1 B2 AV.
A - Wt. of saturated surface dry sample in air g 381.5 391.6
B - Wt of oven dry sample in air g 378.7 388.5
C- Wt.of Pycnometer filled with water g 235.9 239.5
D-Wt. of Pycnometer+water+sample g 496.8 497.2
A
Oven Dry Specific Gravity - Bulk Gsb g/cm3 A+C-D 2.601 2.554 2.578
3 B
Specific Gravity - saturated Surface Dry Gssd g/cm B+C-D 2.620 2.575 2.597
Specific Gravity - Apparent Gsa g/cm3 B

B+C-D 2.652 2.607 2.630

A-B
Absorption % *100
B 0.74 0.80 0.77
FINE AGGREGATES FA1 - Fraction Size mm____3--5____

A - Wt. in air of saturated surface dry sample g

382.4 400.2
B - Wt. in air of oven dry sample g
379.3 397.0
C- Wt.of Pycnometer filled with water g
251.0 251.0
D-Wt. of Pycnometer+water+sample g
491.3 496.7
3
A
Oven Dry Specific Gravity - Bulk Gsb g/cm
A+C-D 2.691 2.590 2.641
3 B
SSD Specific Gravity g/cm B+C-D 2.729 2.624 2.676
3
B
Apparent Specific Gravity g/cm
A+C-D 2.670 2.570 2.620
A- B
ABSORPTION % *100
B
0.81 0.81 0.81

TESTED BY: REGISTRATION NUMBER

MATHIAS, Kulwa 140131452515

Date/Signature PROJECT DATA COLLECTION

MATHIAS, Kulwa
Central Material Laboratory
 APPENDIX SET014

PROJECT TITLE: EFFECT OF STABILIZING ADDITIVES AND MINERAL

MATHIAS, Kulwa
FILLERS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF GAP-GRADED HOT MIX ADM
ASPHALT (GGHMA)
NO.140131452515

AASHTO & ASTM STD 001

TASK PROJECT DATA COLLECTION Standards: Sample No.:
DESIGN GGHMA - SM14
CML- TANROADS Test method: T 176 & T304,D5821 10.01.2018
LAB USED Date sampled:

MAFINGA QUARRY Aggr Size Passing 4.75 mm 27.01.2018

Source: Date tested:
20.05.2008
Date of Construction:

SAND EQUIVALENT(Clay Content) & FINE AGGREGATE ANGULARITY TEST

SAND EQUIVALENT TEST AASHTO T176

Cylinder no. C3 C2 C4

Cylinder Total Suspension reading in mm. A 350.0 360.0 330.0

Flocculating solution height in mm B 30.0 33.0 25.0

Sedmented Aggregates readings in mm C 145.6 149.2 139.6

Sand Equivalent in % (C/(A-(B+C)) 83.5 83.9 84.4

Specification >50 >50 >50

% AIR VOID IN LOOSELY COMPACTED FINE AGGREGATE (in SMA design) AASHTO T304

Known volume measure vessel cm3 600.0 600.0 SPEC

Bulk specific gravity of fine aggreagate finer than 2.36mm g/cm3 2.578 2.578

Known Volume Vessel Label no CC CK

Mass of fine Aggregate in a filled measure of known volume g 457 435

Uncompacted Voids % 70.5 71.9 >45

TESTED BY: REGISTRATION NUMBER

MATHIAS, Kulwa 140131452515

Date/Signature `
PROJECT DATA COLLECTION
MATHIAS, Kulwa
Central Material Laboratory
 APPENDIX BA001

PROJECT TITLE: EFFECT OF STABILIZING

ADDITIVES AND MINERAL FILLERS ON THE MATHIAS, Kulwa ADMN
PERFORMANCE OF GAP-GRADED HOT MIX NO. 140131452515
ASPHALT (GGHMA)

BLENDING OF AGGREGATES ( FOR GGHMA (SMA-14) THM 1)

SAMPLE NO: STD 001 SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Granite aggregates

LAB USED: CML - TANROADS DATE TESTED: 22/01/2018

DATE SAMPLED: 10/1/2018 STUDENT REG NO: 140131452515

% Passing by weight Specification Mean

Sieve (mm) 0--3 3--5 5--10 10--14 AF Min Max Spec Blended
20.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 FILLER AND STABILIZING
14.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ADDITIVE
10.0 100.0 100.0 99.1 55.0 100.0 67.0 90.0 78.5 80.5 Blend
7.0 100.0 97.3 48.4 3.0 100.0 41.0 65.0 53.0 50.3 No Type %in mix
4.75 100.0 77.4 6.0 1.0 100.0 30.0 50.0 40.0 41.3 1 hydrated lime 3%
2.36 87.6 2.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 21.0 32.0 26.5 29.5 cellulose fibre 0.3%
1.18 60.8 1.0 0.0 0.0 96.0 17.0 27.0 22.0 21.2
0.600 43.2 1.0 0.0 0.0 90.0 14.0 24.0 19.0 15.8
0.300 32.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 84.0 11.0 23.0 17.0 12.2
0.150 23.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 81.0 9.0 17.0 13.0 9.6
0.075 19.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 78.0 7.0 12.0 9.5 8.3
Mix propr 30% 9% 15% 43% 3%

BLENDING SM14

100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
% Passing

50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Sieve Size - log scale
Min Spec Max Spec 0--3 mm 3--5mm
REMARKS:
5--10mm 10--14mm AF BLENDED

PROJECT DATA COLLECTION

MATHIAS, Kulwa
Central Material Laboratory
 APPENDIX GSB004

PROJECT: EFFECT OF STABILIZING ADDITIVES AND MATHIAS, Kulwa

MINERAL FILLERS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF GAP-
GRADED HOT MIX ASPHALT(GGHMA) ADM NO 140131452515

Sample No STD 001

Sample Description 60/70 Date sampled 31-01-2018
Source of Sample Tank Asphalt Date tested 31-01-2018
Sample Taken by MATHIAS, Kulwa Tested by MATHIAS, Kulwa

LABORATORY USED: CML - TANROADS

Density and Relative density of Bitumen

CML 3.2

Sample
Procedure
1 2
Mass of empty bottle, gm 38.302 40.204

Mass of empty bottle +full of water, gm 64.276 67.347

Mass of empty bottle +sample, gm 58.037 61.056

Mass of empty bottle+sample+water, gm 64.531 67.632

Relative density of bitumen calculation Rd 1.0131 1.0139

Density of bitumen calculation, Rd x 0.997g/cm3 1.010 1.011

Relative Density of bitumen 1.013

Density of bitumen in g/cm 3 1.010

TESTED BY REG NUMBER

MATHIAS, Kulwa 140131452515

DATE/ SIGNITURE

MATHIAS, Kulwa
Project Data Collection
Central Material laboratory
 APPENDIX DT006

PROJECT: EFFECT OF STABILIZING ADDITIVES AND MATHIAS, Kulwa

MINERAL FILLERS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF GAP-
GRADED HOT MIX ASPHALT(GGHMA) ADM NO 140131452515

Sample No STD 001

Sample Description 60/70 Date sampled 1/2/2018
Source of Sample Tank Asphalt Date tested 1/2/2018
Sample Taken by MATHIAS, Kulwa Tested by MATHIAS, Kulwa

LABORATORY USED: CML - TANROADS

Ductility Test
ASTM D 113/ CML 3.7

Sample No
Procedure
1 2 3
Initial Reading, mm 55 53

Final Reading, mm 2460 2564

Normal Rupture(YES/NO) YES YES

2405 2511
Ductility in mm
Average Ductility in mm 2458

* N.B Test Tempreature, shall be 250c

Remark:

Ductility in mm concluded as 1000+

TESTED BY REG NUMBER

MATHIAS, Kulwa 140131452515

DATE/ SIGNITURE

MATHIAS, Kulwa
Project Data Collection
Central Material laboratory
 APPENDIX GSB004

PROJECT: EFFECT OF STABILIZING ADDITIVES AND MATHIAS, Kulwa

MINERAL FILLERS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF GAP-
GRADED HOT MIX ASPHALT(GGHMA) ADM NO 140131452515

Sample No STD 001

Sample Description 60/70 Date sampled 31-01-2018
Source of Sample Tank Asphalt Date tested 31-01-2018
Sample Taken by MATHIAS, Kulwa Tested by MATHIAS, Kulwa

LABORATORY USED: CML - TANROADS

Flash and Fire Point

ASTM D 92

Sample No
Procedure
1 2 3
o
Flash Point C 320 322
o
Fire Point C 358 363

o
Flash Point C Min flash
o o
point value between sample 1 Flash Point C is 320 and Fire point is 358 C
and 2

Remark:

TESTED BY REG NUMBER

MATHIAS, Kulwa 140131452515

DATE/ SIGNITURE

MATHIAS, Kulwa
Project Data Collection
Central Material laboratory
 APPENDIX PT001

PROJECT: EFFECT OF STABILIZING ADDITIVES AND MATHIAS, Kulwa

MINERAL FILLERS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF GAP-
GRADED HOT MIX ASPHALT(GGHMA) ADM NO 140131452515

Sample No STD 001

Sample Description 60/70 Date sampled 31-01-2018
Source of Sample Tank Asphalt Date tested 31-01-2018
Sample Taken by MATHIAS, Kulwa Tested by MATHIAS, Kulwa

LABORATORY USED: CML - TANROADS

Penetration of Bitumen
ASTM D 5 / AASHTO T49

Number of Test
Procedure
1 2 3 1 2 3
Initial Reading 0 0 0

Final Reading 66 67 65
Penetration value (0.10 mm) 66 67 65

Average Penetration value 66

* N.B Test Tempreature, load and time shall be 250c, 100 gr. & 5sec. respectively.

Remark:

TESTED BY REG NUMBER

MATHIAS, Kulwa 140131452515

DATE/ SIGNITURE

MATHIAS, Kulwa
Project Data Collection
Central Material laboratory
 APPENDIX PT001

PROJECT: EFFECT OF STABILIZING ADDITIVES AND MATHIAS, Kulwa

MINERAL FILLERS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF GAP-
GRADED HOT MIX ASPHALT(GGHMA) ADM NO 140131452515

Sample No STD 001

Sample Description 60/70 Date sampled 31-01-2018
Source of Sample Tank Asphalt Date tested 31-01-2018
Sample Taken by MATHIAS, Kulwa Tested by MATHIAS, Kulwa

LABORATORY USED: CML - TANROADS

Softening Point
ASTM D 36

Number of Test
Procedure
Sample 1 Sample 2
Ring & Ball 1 2 1 2

Softening Point 47.8 48.5 48.2 49.3

48.75
48.15

o
Softening Point in C 48.45

Remark:

TESTED BY REG NUMBER

MATHIAS, Kulwa 140131452515

DATE/ SIGNITURE

MATHIAS, Kulwa
Project Data Collection
Central Material laboratory
 APPENDIX BVT005

PROJECT: EFFECT OF STABILIZING ADDITIVES AND MATHIAS, Kulwa

MINERAL FILLERS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF GAP-
GRADED HOT MIX ASPHALT(GGHMA) ADM NO 140131452515

Sample No STD 001

Sample Description 60/70 Date sampled 1/2/2018
Source of Sample Tank Asphalt Date tested 1/2/2018
Sample Taken by MATHIAS, Kulwa Tested by MATHIAS, Kulwa

LABORATORY USED: CML - TANROADS

Brookfield Dynamic Viscosity

ASTM D D4402-91/ CML 3.8

Testing Temp oC 60 Spindle number 27 Spindle Speed rpm 2.5

TIME 1 MINUTE 2 MINUTE 3 MINUTE AVERAGE

cPoise 179000 164701 163001 168900.7

Testing Temp oC 90 Spindle number 27 Spindle Speed rpm 10

TIME 1 MINUTE 2 MINUTE 3 MINUTE AVERAGE

cPoise 10708 10678

9745 10377

Testing Temp oC 135 Spindle number 27 Spindle Speed rpm 100

TIME 1 MINUTE 2 MINUTE 3 MINUTE AVERAGE

cPoise 617 434 230 427

TESTED BY REG NUMBER

MATHIAS, Kulwa 140131452515

DATE/ SIGNITURE

MATHIAS, Kulwa
Project Data Collection
Central Material laboratory
 APPENDIX II-001
TANZANIA NATIONAL ROADS AGENCY
SUMMARY SHEET

SMA14 - Marshall mix design

CENTRAL MATERIALS LABORATORY

Project Title:Effect of Stabilizing Additives and Mineral Filler on

the Performance of Gap Graded Hot mix Asphalt (GGHMA)
Filler Materials: Hydrated Line Mix type: SMA14

STUDENT NAME: KULWA MATHIAS Date: 05/03/2018 Date: 05/03/2018

CLASS: BENG 15 CE YoS 2017/2018 Additive Used: Cellulose Fibre Mineral Filler: White hydrated
ADM No. 140131452515 0.3 of the Mix Lime 3.0% of Aggregates
Bulk density v/s Binder content
2.45 Stability v/s Binder content
22000
21000
2.4 20000
Bulk density (g/cm 3)

Marshall Stability (N)

19000
18000
2.35 17000
16000
2.3 15000
14000
13000
2.25
12000
11000
2.2 10000
5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5
Binder content (%) Binder content (%)

VIM v/s Binder content Marshall flow v/s Binder content

4.5
12.0
4.0
Marshall flow (mm)
Void content (%)

10.0 3.5
8.0 3.0
2.5
6.0
2.0
4.0
1.5
2.0 1.0
5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5
Binder content (%) Binder content (%)

VFB v/s Binder content VMA v/s Binder content

25
90
24 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5
Voids filled with binder (%)

Voids in Mineral Agg (%)

23
80
22
70 21
20
60 19
18
50 17
16
40 15
5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5
Binder content (%) Binder content (%)

MATHIAS, Kulwa
SMA - Mix Design with Cellulose Fibre
Central Material Laboratory
 APPENDIX II-003
TANZANIA NATIONAL ROADS AGENCY
SUMMARY SHEET

SMA14 - Marshall mix design

CENTRAL MATERIALS LABORATORY

Project Title:Effect of Stabilizing Additives and Mineral Filler on

the Performance of Gap Graded Hot mix Asphalt (GGHMA)
Filler Materials: Hydrated Line Mix type: SMA14

STUDENT NAME: KULWA MATHIAS Date: 10/03/2018 Date: 10/03/2018

CLASS: BENG 15 CE YoS 2017/2018 Additive Used: Polyvinyl Mineral Filler: White hydrated
ADM No. 140131452515 Chloride PVC 8% of the binder Lime 3.0% of Aggregates
Bulk density v/s Binder content
2.450 Stability v/s Binder content
15000
14000
Bulk density (g/cm 3)

Marshall Stability (N)

13000
2.400
12000
11000

2.350 10000
9000
8000
2.300 7000
5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5
Binder content (%) Binder content (%)

VIM v/s Binder content Marshall flow v/s Binder content

5.00
10.00 4.50
Marshall flow (mm)
Void content (%)

4.00
8.00
3.50
6.00 3.00
2.50
4.00 2.00
1.50
2.00 1.00
5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5
Binder content (%) Binder content (%)

VFB v/s Binder content VMA v/s Binder content

20.00
90.00 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5
Voids filled with binder (%)

Voids in Mineral Agg (%)

19.00
80.00

70.00 18.00

60.00 17.00

50.00 16.00

40.00 15.00
5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5
Binder content (%) Binder content (%)

MATHIAS, Kulwa
SMA - Mix Design with Pollvinyl Chloride PVC
Central Material Laboratory
 APPENDIX II-002
TANZANIA NATIONAL ROADS AGENCY
SUMMARY SHEET

SMA14 - Marshall mix design

CENTRAL MATERIALS LABORATORY

Project Title:Effect of Stabilizing Additives and Mineral Filler on

the Performance of Gap Graded Hot mix Asphalt (GGHMA)
Filler Materials: Hydrated Line Mix type: SMA14

STUDENT NAME: KULWA MATHIAS Date: 08/03/2018 Date: 08/03/2018

CLASS: BENG 15 CE YoS 2017/2018 Additive Used: Reclaimed Mineral Filler: White hydrated
ADM No. 140131452515 Rubber 8% of the binder Lime 3.0% of Aggregates
Bulk density v/s Binder content
2.400 Stability v/s Binder content
18000
17000
Bulk density (g/cm 3)

16000

Marshall Stability (N)

2.350
15000
14000
2.300 13000
12000
11000
2.250 10000
9000
8000
2.200 7000
5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5
Binder content (%) Binder content (%)

VIM v/s Binder content Marshall flow v/s Binder content

5.00
10.00 4.50
Marshall flow (mm)
Void content (%)

4.00
8.00
3.50
6.00 3.00
2.50
4.00 2.00
1.50
2.00 1.00
5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5
Binder content (%) Binder content (%)

VFB v/s Binder content VMA v/s Binder content

25.00
90.00
24.00 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5
Voids filled with binder (%)

Voids in Mineral Agg (%)

23.00
80.00
22.00
70.00 21.00
20.00
60.00 19.00
18.00
50.00 17.00
16.00
40.00 15.00
5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5
Binder content (%) Binder content (%)

MATHIAS, Kulwa
SMA - Mix Design with Reclaimed Rubber
Central Material Laboratory
 APPENDIX II-004
TANZANIA NATIONAL ROADS AGENCY
SUMMARY SHEET

SMA14 - Marshall mix design Comparison of parameters CENTRAL MATERIALS LABORATORY

Project Title:Effect of Stabilizing Additives and Mineral Filler on

the Performance of Gap Graded Hot mix Asphalt (GGHMA)
Filler Materials: Hydrated Lime Mix type: SMA14

STUDENT NAME: KULWA MATHIAS Date: 14/03/2018 Date: 14/03/2018

CLASS: BENG 15 CE YoS 2017/2018 Additives: C-fibre, PVC and Mineral Filler: White hydrated
ADM No. 140131452515 Rubber at 0.3 of the mix Lime 3.0% of Aggregates
Bulk density v/s Binder content PVC
Stability v/s Binder content PVC
2.450 22000
Cf 21000 Cf
20000
Bulk density (g/cm 3)

2.400 Rubber Rubber

Marshall Stability (N)

19000
18000
17000
2.350 16000
15000
14000
2.300 13000
12000
11000
2.250 10000
9000
8000
2.200 7000
5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5
Binder content (%) Binder content (%)

VIM v/s Binder content PVC Marshall flow v/s Binder content
5.00
10.00 Cf
4.50
Marshall flow (mm)
Void content (%)

Rubber 4.00
8.00
3.50
PVC
6.00 3.00
Cf
2.50
Rubber
4.00 2.00
1.50
2.00 1.00
5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5
Binder content (%) Binder content (%)

VFB v/s Binder content VMA v/s Binder content

20.00
90.00 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5
Voids filled with binder (%)

Voids in Mineral Agg (%)

19.00
80.00

70.00 18.00
PVC
60.00 17.00 PVC
cf
50.00 16.00
Cf
Rubber
Rubber
40.00 15.00
5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5
Binder content (%) Binder content (%)

MATHIAS, Kulwa
SMA - Mix Design Parameters variations
Central Material Laboratory
 APPENDIX FI006

PROJECT TITLE: EFFECT OF STABILIZING ADDITIVES AND MINERAL MATHIAS, Kulwa

FILLERS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF GAP-GRADED HOT MIX ASPHALT(GGHMA) ADM NO. 140131452515

DETERMINATION OF DRAINDOWN EFFECT IN LOOSE SMA

AASHTO T305

Sample description: LOOSE SMA AT OBC Lab used: CML- TANROADS

Source of sample: SMA14 - MIXED Sample No. STD-002/2
Sample Taken by: MATHIAS, Kulwa Date sampled: 17.04.2018
adm no .140131452515 Date tested: 17.04.2018

DIFFERENT STABILIZING ADDITIVES USED

RECYCLED PLASTIC
CELLULOSE FIBRE
TYRES(RUBBER) (PVC)
BINDER % 7.43 7.0 7.2

A 504.2 491 543.6

B 432.1 391 405.4
C 432.7 403.2 429.3

(C-B)/Ax 100% 0.12 2.51 4.40

NOTE A= mass of loose DRAINDOWN

SMA in grams% TESTS ICOMPARISON
4.80
4.50
B=Initial mass of a pan in grams
4.20 C= final mass of the pan after draindown effect time( 3 hours) at 175 degree of centigrade
3.90
3.60 BINDER % = Optimum Binder Content obtained from mix design
3.30
% DRAINDOWN

3.00
2.70
2.40
2.10
1.80 TESTED: ADMISSION NUMBER
1.50
BY MATHIAS, Kulwa BENG 15 CE 140131452515
1.20
0.90
0.60
0.30
0.00
CELLULOSE FIBRE RECYCLED TYRES(RUBBER) PLASTIC (PVC)
ADDITIVES

CELLULOSE FIBRE RECYCLED TYRES(RUBBER) PLASTIC (PVC)

MATHIAS, Kulwa
PROJECT DATA COLLECTION
Central Material Laboratory
APPENDIX WORKING PICTURES AND INSTRUMENTS