ENCI 611 – Marshall Mix Design

Date: December 3, 2021 @ 12PM

Ho, Bryan – bryan.ho@ucalgary.ca - 10157493
Selvam, Siddharth - siddharth.selvam@ucalgary.ca - 30120194

JARIWALA, RAHUL RAKESHKUMAR - rahulrakeshkumar.jar@ucalgary.ca - 30158905

BUTT, ARFAN BABAR - arfan.butt@ucalgary.ca - 30109230

1
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction & Objectives ............................................................................................................................. 3
Procedures...................................................................................................................................................... 3
Sieve Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 3
Specific Gravity ......................................................................................................................................... 3
Asphalt Briquette Bulk Specific Gravity ................................................................................................... 5
Flow Apparatus & Marshall Stability ........................................................................................................ 5
Results............................................................................................................................................................ 6
4.1.1 Sieve Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 6
Specific Gravity ......................................................................................................................................... 7
Fine Aggregate........................................................................................................................................... 7
Coarse Aggregate....................................................................................................................................... 7
Grading of Asphalts According to Penetration-Viscosity Specification ................................................... 7
Grading of Asphalts According to Superpave Specification ..................................................................... 9
High Temperature Grade: ........................................................................................................................ 10
Low Temperature Grade:......................................................................................................................... 10
True PG Grading...................................................................................................................................... 11
Superpave Grading .................................................................................................................................. 11
Alberta Specification ............................................................................................................................... 12
Marshall Mix ........................................................................................................................................... 13
Discussion and Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 17
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 19
Appendix...................................................................................................................................................... 19
Sample Calculation for Fine Aggregates ................................................................................................. 19
Sample Calculation for Coarse Specific Gravity ..................................................................................... 20
Asphalt Binders – DSR/PAV/RTFOT/Pass Fail Temps ......................................................................... 22
Marshall Mix Calculations ...................................................................................................................... 23
References................................................................................................................................................ 24

2
Abstract
Asphalt mix design adopting a performance base approach was used to meet City of Calgary
specifications. Sieve analysis on aggregate material, specific gravity analysis and penetration
viscosity testing was completed. Results found that Asphalt B had a 200/300A grade specification
which meets the A grade requirements set while being a middle selection for accommodating a
broader range of conditions. DSR & BBR testing completed on original binder, RTFOT, and PAV
asphalts were completed with respect to AASHTO M320 to simulate performance-based
characteristics in the field like rutting, aging, temperatures. Superpave grading for the sample that
met the max and low temperature requirements was PG 58 -34 from Asphalt B. Marshall mix
charts found that air voids, VMA, stability, VFA were all met using a 5.6% optimum AC content,
with slightly higher flow values than design. Budget AC content of 5.3% is possible for similar
design values, at the caveat of lower stability with increased deformation.

Introduction & Objectives

The purpose of this report is to design an asphalt mix in accordance with City of Calgary
requirements. The Marshall Mix design method procedure will be followed to ensure an optimum
aggregate-asphalt proportion is determined for appropriate performance standards. Selected mix
must fulfill PG 52-34 and Grade A according to penetration viscosity specification. Asphalt mix
specification is imperative to the durability and constructability of roads. It is important to ensure
critical road infrastructure is capable of withstanding repeated heavy traffic loads as well as
fluctuating temperature conditions.

Procedures
Sieve Analysis
The standard for sieve analysis testing follows ASTM C136-05 (1). This method allows for
determination of particle size distribution for coarse materials, which is a common specification
requirement in the production of various aggregate products. Dry aggregate samples are collected
from the field using samples dried at 110°C and lumps are crushed to fit through sieves. These
sieve filter sizes are ordered in decreasing particle size, with a receiver on the bottom for materials
finer than 4.75mm. Determination of grain size fractions below this size require the use of a
hydrometer test. The dried sample is initially weighed then poured into the sieve, where the stack
is agitated either through manual or mechanical apparatus for a sufficient period. Once complete,
the mass retained on each sieve will be measured. To ensure quality control, the total mass of
material after sieving should be within 0.3% of the original mass of the sample.

Specific Gravity
Determination of fine-grained specific gravity follows ASTM C128-07 (2). Specific gravity relates
to the ratio of the weight of aggregate to weight of water. Measurement of specific gravity for fine
grains will utilize a pycnometer. This instrument is a glass bottle which allows for air bubble
escape and acts as a balance between the fine-grained material to reference fluid (water). Bulk

3
specific gravity in the context of aggregate mixes relates to the calculation used to obtain the
volume occupied by the aggregate portion of the mix. A 1kg sample of aggregate material passing
4.75mm sieve is first oven dried. The sample is covered in water either by immersion or by addition
of 0.06 water content and is then soaked for 15-19 hours. The sample should then be dried to a flat
and non-absorbent surface to allow the sample to reach the saturated surface-dry (SSD) condition.
500g of SSD aggregate is placed into the pycnometer and filled with water 90% of pycnometer
capacity. Agitating the pycnometer is required to eliminate air bubbles. Weight of the oven dry
specimen, weight of pycnometer with water, weight of the SSD specimen, and weight of total
apparatus come from this procedure.
Determination of coarse-grained specific gravity follows ASTM C127-04 (3). Like the fine-
grained method, the sample is initially immersed in water to saturate the sample. This method
involves first weighing the saturated surface dry condition sample. The sample is then weighed
again while it is submerged in water. The sample is further oven dried and then weighed a third
time. 1kg of aggregate material retained on 4.75mm sieve is used for this process.

Superpave
AASHTO Designation M320-09 (4) covers the standard specification for performance-based
asphalt. This specification aims to capture the performance characteristics of a binder such as the
physical-chemical properties, thermo-rheological, and fracture. A specification is defined in
practice to ensure mathematically well-defined tests that can address performance needs are put
into place. The grading designations in this standard relate to the minimum pavement temperature
and maximum (seven-day average) temperatures.

Viscosity or the ability of the asphalt binder to flow is an important performance property to
consider as the binder must be fluid enough to be pumped, transported, and incorporated with the
aggregate mix. The rotational viscometer is used on the original asphalt binder at 135°C. The
instrument revolves around the concept that the amount of torque applied is a function of the
viscosity of the fluid. Following ASTM D4402 (5), the test temperature is at 135°C, 10.3g of
asphalt is used and a viscoelastic measure is taken at 10,11, and 12 minutes.
Penetration testing is a general indicator of the stiffness of the pavement. The test however may
not give a good relationship between performance and stiffness over the entire range of typical
temperatures. Penetration testing can describe consistency at 25°C. The penetration index can be
determined by measuring the depth of penetration of a needle within a cooled sample. In general,
the viscosity of asphalt decreases as the penetration depth increases. The experiment is performed
twice using varying temperatures.

Marshall Compactor
Preparation of Asphalt Concrete specimens using the Marshall Compactor follows ASTM D6926
(6). This method is used to prepare compacted asphalt specimens for use in physical tests to
measure properties as density, stability, flow, air voids, VMA, and VFA. Mixture preparation starts

4
with mixing heated aggregate of specified gradation with the amount of required asphalt material.
This required asphalt content for the trial mixes are within 0.5% ranges of each other. This
experiment will. The weights of the mix components are measured during this process. The
mixture is spaded into the mold assembly around the perimeter and then the center. The required
number of blows from the compaction hammer are applied to the sample within the mold. This
number is based on design and traffic loads. The assembly is then reversed, and the compaction
process is repeated to the specimen. The cylindrical specimen called the asphalt briquette should
be left to cool once removed from the mold to room temperature before tests such as bulk density
or stability/flow are conducted. The sample is 101.6mm diameter wide and 60-65mm high.

Asphalt Briquette Bulk Specific Gravity

Bulk specific gravity and density for these briquettes are specified by ASTM D2726 (7).
Determining the unit weight from this method allows for determination of percent air voids in the
asphalt mixture. In this test, the specimen is submerged in a water bath for 3-5 minutes, then the
mass is determined in water. The sample is removed, and surface is dried which allows for the
saturated surface dry weight to be obtained. The bulk specific gravity can be obtained using the
relationship between dry specimen in air, volume of water, mass of specimen in water, mass of
SSD specimen.

Flow Apparatus & Marshall Stability

The use of a Marshall Apparatus to measure resistance to plastic flow of asphalt mixture loaded
on a lateral surface is defined by AASHTO Designation: T 245-15 (8). Stability testing is a routine
test used to describe the maximum load carried by the compacted asphalt material at 60 degrees.
Flow in this test aims to measure the deformation the pavement would experience under load. To
simulate conditions, the specimen is first immersed in 30-40minutes in water to a temperature of
60 degrees for 2 hours. Placement of the breaking head on the specimen and then the assembly
onto the testing machine is performed. A flow meter is placed over the guide rods, with the
flowmeter sleeve being firmly held against the breaking head while the test load is being applied.
Constant rate of movement is applied to the loading jack until the maximum load is reached. The
flowmeter sleeve can then be removed recording the max load on the machine. From the result of
this test, the stability vs flow curve can be plotted.

5
Results
4.1.1 Sieve Analysis
Table 1: Sieve Analysis of Aggregate Material

AASHTO Weight Percent

Adjusted Weight Cumulative Cumulative Percent
Sieve Size Retained Retained on
Retained (g) Retained % Passing (%)
(mm) (g) each sieve (%)
25 0 0 0.00 0 100
19 0 0 0.00 0 100
12.5 0 0 0.00 0 100
9.5 151 151 7.6 7.6 92.4
4.75 216.2 216.2 10.8 18.4 81.6
2.36 522.7 522.7 26.2 44.6 55.4
1.18 613 613 30.7 75.2 24.8
0.6 145.2 145.2 7.3 82.5 17.5
0.3 113.9 113.9 5.7 88.2 11.8
0.15 90.9 90.9 4.6 92.8 7.2
0.075 44.9 44.9 2.2 95.0 5.0
Pan 13.8 13.8 + 85.9 = 99.7 5.0 100.0 0.0
1911.6 + 85.9=
TOTAL 1911.6 - - -
1997.5

Sample Calculation for Sieve Size 4.75mm:

Total Adjusted Mass with washed filler material = 1911.6 g + 85.9g = 1997.5 g
% Retained on Sieve 4.75mm = (216.2g / 1997.5g) * 100 % = 10.8 %
Cumulative % Retained = 10.8% + 7.6% = 18.4%
Cumulative % Passing = 100% - 18.4% = 81.6%

Table 2: Control Points for Gradation Curve

Control Points
Sieve Size Min Max
(mm)
25 100
19 100
12.5 90 100
9.5
4.75
2.36 28 58
0.075 2 10

6
 Figure 1. Particle size distribution curve with design gradation control points

Specific Gravity
Sample calculations can be found in the Appendix.

Fine Aggregate
Table 3: Fine Aggregate Specific Gravity Calculations

Results
Bulk Specific Gravity 2.62
Bulk Specific Gravity (Saturated Surface Dry basis) 2.65
Apparent Specific Gravity 2.70
Absorption (%) 1.22

Coarse Aggregate
Table 4: Coarse Aggregate Specific Gravity Calculations

Results
Bulk Specific Gravity 2.62
Bulk Specific Gravity (Saturated Surface Dry Basis) 2.65
Apparent Specific Gravity 2.71
Absorption (%) 1.25

Grading of Asphalts According to Penetration-Viscosity Specification

Asphalts A through C have been characterized according to penetration and viscosity
specifications based on the data presented in Table 5. The experimental data for penetration at 25

7
degrees and viscosity at 135 degrees was obtained. Penetration grades were classified using
Alberta Transportation Specification (9). Table 6 shows the penetration grades at 25 degrees in
terms of kinematic viscosity. Figure 2 is the visual representation of this penetration grade design.
By plotting the experimental penetration and viscosity values onto the specification, a penetration
grade can be assigned. Samples B & C were within the specification; However, A did not fit
within the design envelope. Thus, A will be classified as 80/100 as the penetration grade is between
those numbers, and is a standard penetration used.
Table 5: Penetration and Viscosity Graded Asphalts
Manufacturer Husky Husky Husky

Asphalt A B C

Production process Straight run Straight run Straight run

Penetration at 25°C
93 234 358
(100g,5 s) (dmm)

Viscosity at 135°C
389.9 213 166.5
[cSt] = 1mm^2/s

Penetration Grade 80/100 A 200/300 A 300/400 A

Table 6: Alberta Penetration grade specifications

8
 Figure 2: Penetration-Viscosity specification plot

Grading of Asphalts According to Superpave Specification

Refer to Appendix for determination of Pass/Fail Temperatures.

Table 7. Superpave binder specification of three straight run asphalts.

Sample Id. Base asphalts

Lab Number Asphalt A Asphalt B Asphalt C

Original Binder Properties

Penetration @ 25°C, 100g, 5s [dmm] 93 234 358

Viscosity @ 135°C [mPa.s] 389.9 213 166.5

Flash Point [°C] - - -

Dynamic Shear [G*/sin d] [min 1.0 kPa] [kPa] 1.42 0.75 1.44 3.11 1.59 0.75

Temp [°C] 64.0 70.0 58.0 52.0 46.0 52.0

Pass / Fail Temp [°C] 67.76 59.581 50.214

Properties after RTFOT

RTFOT Mass Loss [%] -0.45 -0.65 -0.91

Dynamic Shear [G*/sin d] [min 2.20 kPa] [kPa] 3.03 1.59 0.53 1.11 3.94 1.77

Temp [°C] 64.0 70.0 52.0 58.0 46.0 52.0

Pass / Fail Temp [°C] 67.458 69.276 50.811

Properties after PAV

PAV Aging Temperature [°C] 100 90 90

Dynamic Shear [G* sin d] [max 5000 kPa] [kPa] 6311 4251 3962 5206 4737 6954

DSR Temp (3-degree increment) [°C] 16.0 19.0 10.0 7.0 7.0 4.0

Pass / Fail Temp [°C] 17.909 7.497 6.644

Creep stiffness [S-max. 300 MPa] @ 60s 290 278 266

m-value [min. 0.300] @ 60 s 0.315 0.341 0.324

BBR Temperature, [°C] -20.0 -25.0 -28.0

Performance Grade

Superpave PG Grade PG 64-28 PG 58-34 PG 46-34

Superpave PG Grade, Alberta Grade PG 64-28 PG 58-34 PG 46-37

True Superpave Grade PG 67.458-30 PG 59.581-35 PG 50.214-38

9
 Table 8: Selected Content of Asphalt Binder for Marshall Mix Design
Contents of asphalt by weight of dry 5.3
aggregate 5.6
5.9
6.2

High Temperature Grade:

The Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR) test was used to determine the high temperature grade of
asphalt binders. The dynamic shear parameter has minimum values requirements that must be met
for the original binder and RTFOT asphalts. These requirements are listed below in Table 9 &
Table 10 with corresponding pass-fail temperatures to satisfy them. Calculations for the high
temperature grade using DSR experiment values are noted in the Appendix. The temperature
where the parameter is satisfied will determine the starting value for the PG super pave grade when
the temperature is increased by increments of 6 degrees. RTFOT and original binder samples are
used for the high temperature grade determination.

Table 9: Original Binder Temperature Grading

* For the Original Binder: G*/sin(delta) > 1.00 kPa

Asphalt A Asphalt B Asphalt C

Minimum Dynamic Shear

1.0 1.0 1.0
(G*/sind), [KPa]

Pass/Fail Temperature, [°C] 67.76 59.581 50.214

Table 10: RTFOT Temperature Grading with minimum requirement

*For RTFOT: G*/sin(delta) > 2.20 kPa

Asphalt A Asphalt B Asphalt C

Dynamic Shear (G*/sind), [KPa] 2.2 2.2 2.2

Pass-fail/Temperature, [°C] 67.458 69.276 50.811

Low Temperature Grade:

The parameters of creep stiffness and m value based on the results of Bending Beam Rheometer
(BBR) test must be met at test temperature to determine the low temperature grade of asphalt
binders. The minimum temperature value is obtained by using time temperature superposition
principle to determine the grade from the BBR test results. The BBR temperatures can be used in
the table PG grading as the value of m is >0.3 with the stiffness values all being <300 MPa.

10
 Table 11: PAV Binder Results
* Test requirements for PAV Aged Binder: Creep Stiffness < 300 MPa & m value > 0.3

Asphalt A Asphalt B Asphalt C

Creep Stiffness (S) (MPa) @ 60 s 290 278 266

m value @60s 0.315 0.341 0.324

Temperature, [°C] -20.0 -25.0 -28.0

Time Temp Superposition [°C] -30.0 -35.0 -38.0

True PG Grading
The true super pave grade is determined by first incorporating the pass/fail temperatures for the
temperatures for the DSR test on RTFOT & original binder. The value of pass-fail temp which
satisfies the conditions (Dynamic shear > 1kPa or 2.2kPa) of dynamic shear for both binders is
called the high temperature grade. This allows for us to get the first two numbers for the True
Super PG grade which represent the average 7-day max for the grading. The lower value is chosen
between the two failure temperatures.
Sample Asphalt A Example: 67.458 (Original Binder) < 67.76 (RTFOT):

Thus, Asphalt A is PG 67.458 – YY

The BBR superposition temperatures are used to obtain the lower temperature grade and second
portion of the PG grade. The BBR test is suitable as conditions of creep stiffness being <300 MPa
& m value being greater than 0.3 are satisfied.

BBR Superposition for Asphalt A: 20 degrees – 10 degrees = -30 degrees

=> Asphalt A True Grade = PG 67.458 - 30

Superpave Grading
The super pave grading can be found similarly by the DSR test and repeating test with varying
temps until the dynamic shear parameters are met for RTFOT & original binder. However, the
lower test temperature that satisfies will be the starting value rather than the pass/fail temperature.

Sample Asphalt A Original Binder Example: G*/sind > 1 kPa

@ 70 degrees: G*/sind = 0.75, Does not satisfy

@ 64 Degrees: G*/sind = 1.42, Satisfies parameter

Sample Asphalt A RTFOT G*/sind > 2.2 kPa

@ 70 degrees: G*/sind = 1.59, Does not satisfy

11
 @64 degrees; G*/sind = 3.03, Satisfies parameters
Therefore, Asphalt A: PG 64 – YY

To obtain the second PG grade, AASHTO M320 Table 1 is used which utilizes DSR testing on the
PAV binder and results from the BBR test. The test is conducted to meet the requirements of m
and creep stiffness S. Using the BBR test temperature, the low temperature grade in accordance
with the AASHTO table meeting the requirements is the second PG value. Alternatively, the
incremental super pave PG spec of 6 degrees can also be used to determine the minimum
temperature value by comparing it to the true super pave grade.

Sample Asphalt A Lower Temp #:

Utilize AASHTO M32 Table 1

Top Column PG 64, -20 degrees from BBR test row, Select minimum design temperature > 28
degrees

Alternatively, from the True Super pave value: PG 67.458 - 30

Super Pave Min Service: -40 -34 – 28 – 22 – 16, must choose -28.

Therefore, Asphalt A: PG 64-28

Alberta Specification
With the Super Pave grade values determined, these grades can be translated in relation to the
Alberta grade by searching up the standards and searching for similar values PG values. Another
method would be that relative to super pave grading, the increments between Alberta specification
grading are 3 degrees rather than 6 degrees. The results for all grades for all asphalts are
summarized in Table 12.
Superpave Spec Max Service = 64 – 58 – 52 – 46 – 40
Alberta Min Service Spec = -40 – 37 – 34 – 31 – 28

12
 Table 12: Asphalts Graded According to Superpave Specifications

Manufacturer Husky Husky Husky

Asphalt
Asphalt Number A B C
description

Production process Straight Run Straight Run Straight Run

Superpave PG Grade PG 64-28 PG 58-34 PG 46-34

Superpave PG Grade, Alberta Grade PG 64-28 PG 58-34 PG 46-37

True Superpave Grade PG 67.458-30 PG 59.581-35 PG 50.214-38

Desired Specification 52-34 52-34 52-34

Marshall Mix

Maximum Theoretical Density of Marshal Mixes

The maximum specific gravities of Marshall mixes are obtained for different asphalt contents by
utilizing the dry weights and submerged weight of the sample. Results for the MTD of the loose
paving mixes are below in Tables 13,14,15, and 16.
Table 13: MTD for Asphalt Content of 5.3
Asphalt Grade: Asphalt Content: 5.3

TRIAL NO. 1 2

PAIL NO. 1 2

WT.OF OVEN DRY MIX IN PAIL (g) 2152.1 2281.2

WT.OF PAIL IN AIR (g) 596.3 632.1

WT.OF MIX IN AIR (g) 1555.8 1649.1

WT.OF PAIL+ASPHALT+AGGREGATE IN WATER (g) 1440.3 1526.7

WT.OF PAIL IN WATER (g) 520 551.2

WT.OF MIX IN WATER (g) 920.3 975.5

MAXIMUM SPECIFIC GRAVITY 2.448 2.448

AVERAGE 2.448

13
 Table 14: MTD for Asphalt Content of 5.6

Asphalt Grade Asphalt Content: 5.6

TRIAL NO. 1 2

PAIL NO. 1 2

WT.OF OVEN DRY MIX IN PAIL 2178.7 2168.3

WT.OF PAIL IN AIR 596.3 602.9

WT.OF MIX IN AIR 1582.4 1565.4

WT.OF PAIL+ASPHALT+AGGREGATE IN WATER 1452.2 1449

WT.OF PAIL IN WATER 520 525.9

WT.OF MIX IN WATER 932.2 923.1

MAXIMUM SPECIFIC GRAVITY 2.434 2.437

AVERAGE 2.435

Table 15: MTD for Asphalt Content of 5.9

Asphalt Grade: Asphalt Content: 5.9

TRIAL NO. 1 2

PAIL NO. 1 2

WT.OF OVEN DRY MIX IN PAIL 2168.3 2180.1

WT.OF PAIL IN AIR 596.4 602.9

WT.OF MIX IN AIR 1571.9 1577.2

WT.OF PAIL+ASPHALT+AGGREGATE IN WATER 1442.8 1452.6

WT.OF PAIL IN WATER 520 525.9

WT.OF MIX IN WATER 922.8 926.7

MAXIMUM SPECIFIC GRAVITY 2.422 2.425

Table 16: MTD for Asphalt Content of 6.2

Asphalt Grade Asphalt Content: 6.2

TRIAL NO. 1 2

PAIL NO. 1 2

WT.OF OVEN DRY MIX IN PAIL 2251 2185.4

WT.OF PAIL IN AIR 621 602.9

WT.OF MIX IN AIR 1630 1582.5

WT.OF PAIL+ASPHALT+AGGREGATE IN WATER 1496.3 1452.7

WT.OF PAIL IN WATER 541.7 525.9

WT.OF MIX IN WATER 954.6 926.8

MAXIMUM SPECIFIC GRAVITY 2.413 2.413

AVERAGE 2.413

14
Using the compacted Marshall sample mix allows for determination of parameters relating to the
mass/volume phase relationships. Parameter such as air voids VA, voids in mineral aggregate VMA,
voids filled with asphalt VFA are calculated. In terms of specific gravity, the following are obtained:
compacted bulk specific gravity Gmb, theoretical max specific gravity Gmm, and aggregate bulk
specific gravity Gsb. The Pb values are the percent of aggregate defined in the lab experiment. Use
of AASHTO T 245-15 for the marshal stability of asphalt mixtures requires a stability correction
to be applied based on the specimen correction factor. Tables 16 show a summary of the Marshall
mix specimen properties, with the associated calculations in the Appendix.

Table 17: Marshall Mix Specimen

Table 18: Marshall Mix Specimen Continued

When examining the Marshall mix design charts, the minimum requirements set out by AT & U
Asphalt Mix Type Table will be used in Table 19 (10). The reference table utilizes the top size
nominal MM for the sample, which is in this case 12.5.

15
Marshall Mix design charts can then be plotted with respect to asphalt contents (Pb). The results
can be seen in Figure 3 below in relation to design limits and the determination of optimum
binder content.

Figure 3: Marshall Design Charts and Optimum AC Content

16
Discussion and Analysis
Sieve analysis of the aggregate yielded a well graded material as the particle distribution graph in
Figure 1 covers a wide range of grain sizes. Most of the distribution passed through the 1.2 to 10
mm grain sizes. The selected aggregate mix does meet the standard control points set by design
criteria. However, at larger grain sizes, the distribution curve does come much closer to the max
control point values. Ideally, decreasing the proportion around the 2.36mm control point grain size
would be suitable. In terms of quality control, the amount of material loss that occurred during the
experiment from material sieving was less than 0.3% of the original sample. The specific gravity
calculated yielded values of ~2.62 for both the fine and coarse aggregate portions. These values
are reasonable for aggregate materials, with typical numbers being from 2.2 to 2.5 (11). Apparent
specific gravity in both cases were higher than the bulk and SSD counterparts, due to the
calculation not considering the whole volume, but only the solid volume. Absorption values were
1.22 and 1.25 for fine and coarse aggregates respectively.
Asphalt penetrating ratings were found to be 80/100A for sample A, 200/300 A for Sample B, and
300/400 A for Sample C. The results of the viscosity/penetration graph found that Asphalts B &
C were within the design envelope of the Alberta penetration viscosity specification. These
samples are Grade A, and likely possess characteristics such as ease of handling at higher
temperatures while maintaining hardness at lower temperatures, while limiting brittleness at very
low temperatures. Depending on how cold the area is, the softest grade with highest value would
be suitable for a colder climate. Asphalt B may be a good middle ground option to accommodate
areas that have clear fluctuations in seasonal temperatures.

According to project scope requirements set by the City of Calgary, selected paving asphalt must
fulfill PG52-34 & Grade A according to Alberta Penetration-Viscosity specification. This means
52 degrees is the average 7-day max pavement temperature and 34 is the minimum pavement
temperature. Performance based asphalt grading requires several methods of testing to ensure
conditions are simulated. The dynamic shear rheometer measures rheological properties such as
complex shear modulus and phase angle. These are important to consider in the elastic behavior
of asphalt which are controls in resisting permanent deformation or fatigue cracking. Utilizing
RFTOT residues and PAV binders aim to simulate conditions in the field such as: post pavement
construction, high temperature effects and pressure conditions, as well as asphalt aging over the
life span. Asphalt A (64-28) and B (58-34) meet the max temp requirements set by the Calgary
spec, however C does not with PG 46-34. This means it would not be suitable to handle the max
temperatures in the summer. Material C may be become to soft to handle the traffic loads and
repeated stresses which leads to deformation leading to repairs. Asphalt Binder A does encounter
issues of having a low temperature limit of -28, as opposed to the -34 required in the design.
Asphalt B would be the optimal choice to satisfy the grading requirements set out by the project
with PG 58-34. The value of asphalt binder B with respect to true grading is PG 59.581-35.
Maximum theoretical density of the loose paving mix with asphalt was calculated for 4 different
asphalt contents. For the asphalt contents of 5.3, 5.6, 5.9, 6.2 the specific gravities respectively

17
were 2.448, 2.435, 2.423, and 2.143. The general relationship between asphalt content and specific
gravity is a decrease in the relative weight of the asphalt mixture when more content is added.
Specific gravities in relation to each other followed the following relationship: Gsb (max aggregate
particle) > Gmm (max theoretical for loose mix) > Gmb (sample bulk). The density with asphalt
content increases between 5.3 and 5.9%. In terms of the density marshall mix chart, at the 5.9 %
AC content mark, the density decreases, perhaps due to the excess AC causing space between
voids.
The Marshall mix chart of air voids vs asphalt content found that the voids decreased when
increasing the asphalt content, with a flattening slope when approaching the 6.2% asphalt content.
Generally, when the air void contents are lower, the permeability for the mixture decreases as well.
Recommended asphalt contents are selected at the median are void value of 4%. The air void
contents should remain in between 3 – 5 %, thus possible asphalt contents are between 5.3 – 5.9.
Test values for other properties are then examined to ensure compliance with respective criteria.
The voids in mineral aggregate (VMA) represents the space available to accommodate asphalt and
volume of air voids combined (12). In design, minimum VMA values are set to allow for asphalt
to adequately cover the aggregate. VMA plot showed a decrease from between 5.3 and 5.9%
asphalt, with a sharp increase at the AC 6.2% value. This sharp just may be attributed to the
increase thickness of the binder increasing voids in the mineral aggregate at the higher 6.2 AC
contents. All the samples shown in the chart meet the minimum 13-15% value for VMA.
V FA values had a linear increase from 5.3 and 5.9 AC contents, with a flattening off at the 6.2%
value. This value represents how much of the aggregate mass is occupied with the effective asphalt
cement material. Asphalt provides the durability required for the load bearing capabilities needed
for road. The VFA has a strong correlation with the density of a sample. The VFA values should
be in between 65 – 75. Only samples between 5.3 – 5.6% asphalt were able to meet this criterion.
The Marshall stability values were at its highest on the 5.6% asphalt content. This test simulates
the maximum load that the compacted pavement structure can withstand. This asphalt content of
5.6% means that with this amount of asphalt, the binding forces of the asphalt along with
interlocking forces with the aggregate are maximized. After the 5.6% content, the stability begins
to decrease and approaches the lower limit of minimum stability at the 6.2% number. In terms of
marshal flow, only the ~5.9 asphalt content range can meet the flow requirements. This flow test
simulates the deformation of the pavement under load. The range of asphalt contents tested do not
particularly have a large spread of values deviating away from the maximum flow design limit.
Determination of optimum asphalt content will adopt the median method of selecting the 4.0% air
void value which corresponds to 5.6% AC. This value passes the air void, Vma,stability,vfa values,
marginally passing the VFA, and marginally failing the flow test value. This optimum value has a
strong advantage that it reaches the maximum stability values at this 5.6% which would make it
suitable for heavy traffic areas. Although this value does marginally fail the flow test criteria, the
higher stability would limit deformations in the mixture.

18
 Arguably, the best budget asphalt binder would be at 5.3%. This in turn minimizes the asphalt
content required, while meeting the same properties as the value at 5.6%. Although the risk of the
lower budget asphalt content being lower stability value, as well as higher flow deformations. In
turn, this will reduce the lifespan of the pavement material requiring replacement or maintenance
costs. Reducing pavement distresses, cracking, deformations and resistance to thermo oxidative
degradations are imperative to reducing the lifecycle of the pavements. These in turn reduce the
costs of maintenance to the City of Calgary and leads to more sustainable environmental
consideration.

Conclusion
Performance based asphalt grading was performed using Marshall mix design criteria.
Specifications regarding viscosity penetration grading were met using 200/300A asphalts to ensure
apportioned hardness/consistency is maintained. Super pave performance grading of PG 58-34
was selected from the asphalt binder using AASHTO M310. Both the max 7-day temperatures and
low limit temperature requirements were met. Marshall mix design charts found that the optimum
asphalt content of 5.6% was suitable, only failing the flow criteria marginally. This 5.6% optimum
content was where the aggregate binder was able to withstand the most load. This value reduces
pavement distress which is favorable for achieving performance and economic goals. A budget
AC content was selected to be at 5.3%, still passing the same design parameters as the optimum at
the disadvantage of lower stability and increased plastic deformations.

Appendix

Sample Calculation for Fine Aggregates

Fine Aggregate Specific Gravity Test Results

Weight (g)
Trial 1 Trial 2
Weight of oven-dry specimen in air (A) 771.8 710.6
Weight of pycnometer filled with water (B) 1302.6 1293.9
Weight of the saturated surface-dry specimen (S) 780.4 720.0
Weight of the pycnometer with specimen & water (C) 1788.5 1742.0

Bulk specific gravity:

Trial 1 = A / (B+S-C) = 771.8 / (1302.6+780.4-1788.5)

= 2.621

Trial 2 = A / (B+S-C) = 710.6 / (1293.9+720.0-1742.0)

19
 = 2.613
Average Bulk specific gravity = 2.62

Bulk specific gravity (Saturated surface dry basis):

Trial 1 = S / (B+S-C) = 780.4 / (1302.6+780.4-1788.5)

= 2.650
Trial 2 = S / (B+S-C) = 720.0 / (1293.9+720.0-1742.0)

= 2.648
Average Bulk specific gravity (Saturated surface dry basis) = 2.65

Apparent specific gravity:

Trial 1 = A / (B+A-C) = 771.8 / (1302.6+771.8-1788.5)

= 2.700
Trial 2 = A / (B+A-C) = 710.6 / (1293.9+710.6-1742.0)

= 2.707
Average Apparent specific gravity = 2.70

Absorption:
Trial 1 = [(S-A)/A] *100 = [(780.4-771.8)/771.8] *100

= 1.11%
Trail 2 = [(S-A)/A] *100 = [(720.0 -710.6)/710.8] *100

= 1.32%
Average Absorption = 1.22%

Sample Calculation for Coarse Specific Gravity

Coarse aggregate specific gravity test results, Trial 1

20
 Coarse aggregate specific gravity test results, Trial 2

Bulk specific gravity,

Trail 1 = A / (B-C) = 2001.8 / (2027.5-1265)

= 2.625
Trail 2 = A / (B-C) = 2004.6 / (2028.9-1261.7)

= 2.613
Average Bulk specific gravity = 2.619

Bulk specific gravity (Saturated surface dry basis),

Trail 1 = B / (B-C) = 2027.5 / (2027.5-1265)

= 2.659
Trail 2 = B / (B-C) = 2028.9 / (2028.9-1261.7)

= 2.645
Average Bulk specific gravity (Saturated surface dry basis) = 2.652

Apparent specific gravity,

Trail 1 = A / (A-C) = 2001.8 / (2001.8-1265)

= 2.717

Trail 2 = A / (A-C) = 2004.6 / (2004.6-1261.7)

= 2.698

Average Apparent specific gravity = 2.708

21
Absorption,
Trail 1 = [(B-A)/A] * 100 = [(2027.5-2001.8)/2001.8] * 100 = 1.28%

Trail 2 = [(B-A)/A] * 100 = [(2028.9-2004.6)/2004.6] * 100 = 1.21%

Average Absorption = 1.25%

Asphalt Binders – DSR/PAV/RTFOT/Pass Fail Temps

Original Binder Properties
Dynamic Shear [min 1.0 kPa] kPa

Asphalt A

Failure Temperature is when Dynamic shear is @ 1kpa. Use a ratio of temp/dynamic shear using the two
test values.

ABS ((Temp2 – Temp 1)/ (Shear 2 – Shear 1)) = (70-64)/(0.75-1.42) = 8.955 degrees/kPa
8.955degrees/kPa * (0.42 kPa) = 3.738 degrees from 1.42 to 1.0kpa

Thus 64 + 3.738 = 67.76

Pass/Fail Temp = 64 + [ (1-1.42) * (70-64) / (0.75-1.42)] = 67.76

Asphalt B

Pass/Fail Temp = 58 + [ (1-1.44) * (52-58) / (3.11-1.44)] = 59.581

Asphalt C
Pass/Fail Temp = 46 + [(1-1.59) * (52-46) / (0.75-1.59)] = 50.214

Properties After RTFOT

Dynamic Shear [min 2.20 kPa] kPa

Asphalt A

Pass/Fail Temp = 64 +[ (2.2-3.03) * (70-64) / (1.59-3.03)] = 67.458

Asphalt B

Pass/Fail Temp = 52 + [(2.2-0.53) * (58-52) / (1.11-0.53)]= 69.276

Asphalt C

Pass/Fail Temp = 46 + [(2.2-3.94) * (52-46) / (1.77-3.94)] = 50.811

22
Properties After PAV

Dynamic Shear [max 5000 kPa] kPa

Asphalt A

Pass/Fail Temp = 16 + [(5000-6311) * (19-16) / (4251-6311)] = 17.909

Asphalt B

Pass/Fail Temp = 10+ [(5000-3962) * (7-10) / (5206-3962) ]= 7.497

Asphalt C

Pass/Fail Temp = 7+ [(5000-4737) * (4-7) / (6954-4737) ]= 6.644

Marshall Mix Calculations

Calculation of Max Theoretical Density

Asphalt content: 5.3

For Trial #1, Maximum Specific gravity (Gmm)

WT OF MIX IN AIR / ( WT OF MIX IN AIR - WT OF MIX IN WATER)

Maximum Specific gravity = 1555.8 / (1555.8-920.3) = 2.448

For Specimen 5.3-1

Volume = (SSD – Weight in water) /1000 = (1198.9 – 685) = 513.9 cm3

Density = (Dry Weight *1000)/ Volume = (1195.2 * 1000) / 513.9 = 2325.744 g / cm3

Bulk compacted Gmb = Dry Weight / Volume = (1195.2 / 513.9) = 2.326 g/cm3

Gmm = Max theoretical from loose paving mix = 2.448

Gsb = Coarse grain specific gravity from SSD weighing at start of report = 2.619

Pb = asphalt content = 5.3

Air voids Va = 100 [(Gmm – Gmb)/Gmm] = 100 * [(2.448 – 2.326) / 2.448] = 4.994%

VMA = 100 – [[Gmm * (100 -Pb)] / Gsb] = 100 – [[2.326 * (100 – 5.3)] / 2.619] = 15.904 %

VFA = ((VMA – Va)/ VMA) *100 = ((15.904 – 4.994) / 15.904) *100 = 68.598 %

Corrected stability = Height correction factor * Stability = 0.95 * 10659 = 10126.05 N

23
References
1. American Society for Testing and Materials. (2007). Standard test method for sieve
analysis of fine and coarse aggregates.
2. ASTM International. (2007). Standard test method for density, relative density (specific
gravity), and absorption of fine aggregate.
3. ASTM International. (2007). Standard test method for density, relative density (specific
gravity), and absorption of coarse aggregate.
4. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
(2020). Standard specification for performance-graded Asphalt Binder.
5. ASTM D4402 / D4402M - 15 standard test method for ... (n.d.). Retrieved December 1,
2021, from https://www.astm.org/Standards/D4402.
6. Standard practice for preparation of asphalt mixture specimens using Marshall
Apparatus. ASTM International - Standards Worldwide. (n.d.). Retrieved December 1,
2021, from http://www.astm.org/Standards/D6926.htm.
7. Standard test method for bulk specific gravity and density of non-absorptive compacted
asphalt mixtures. ASTM International - Standards Worldwide. (n.d.). Retrieved
December 1, 2021, from http://www.astm.org/Standards/D2726.htm.
8. AASHTO T 245 - Standard Method of Test for Resistance to Plastic Flow of Asphalt
Mixtures Using Marshall Apparatus | Engineering360. (n.d.). Retrieved December 1,
2021, from https://standards.globalspec.com/std/13399824/AASHTO%20T%20245.
9. Specification 5.7 supply of Asphalt - Alberta.ca. (n.d.). Retrieved December 1, 2021,
from http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType245/Production/5-007-02.pdf.
10. Section 3 specification 3.50 asphalt concrete pavement ... (n.d.). Retrieved December 1,
2021, from https://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType245/Production/3-050-
01.pdf
11. Pavement interactive. Pavement Interactive. (n.d.). Retrieved December 1, 2021, from
https://pavementinteractive.org/reference-desk/testing/asphalt-tests/bulk-specific-gravity/.
12. Volumetric in asphalt mixtures. (n.d.). Retrieved December 1, 2021, from
https://www.co-asphalt.com/assets/docs/vma-justification.pdf.
13. Module F - asphalt materials and paving mixtures - HMEC ... (n.d.). Retrieved
December 1, 2021, from https://fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/materials/hmec/modulef.cfm.
14. Calculations for the Marshall Mix ... - ksdot.org. (n.d.). Retrieved December 1, 2021,
http://www.ksdot.org/Assets/wwwksdotorg/bureaus/burConsMain/Connections/ConstMa
nual/2012/5.10.4%20Marshall%20mix%20design%20calc.pdf.

24