MARSHALL MIX DESIGN

INSTRUCTED BY: -
DR. H R PASINDU
PROF. W.K. MAMPEARACHCHI

NAME -: KARIYAWASAM DT
INDEX NO -: 160273T
MODULE -: CE4532
DATE OF SUB -: 15/03/2021
Introduction
Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) is made from the combination of aggregate and asphalt biner. The Mix Design of
HMA is done in order to determine what aggregate and asphalt biner to use and determine the optimum
combination of the ingredients. Most common methods used for this are,

• Hveem Mix Design

• Marshall Mix Design
• Superpave Mix Design
Of which the Marshall mix design methods is widely used because it requires relatively light, portable and
inexpensive equipment. The mix design method is employed to make sure that the asphalt mix is economical
and meets the sufficient Durability, Stability, Voids and Workability standards. The guidelines ensure that the
asphalt mix have,

• Sufficient asphalt to ensure a Durability of the pavement

• Sufficient Stability of the mix to satisfy the demands of traffic without distortion or displacement
• Sufficient Voids in the total compacted mix to allow for a slight amount of additional compaction
under traffic loads without flushing, bleeding and loss of stability, yet low enough to keep harmful
air and moisture.
• Sufficient Workability to permit efficient placement of the mix without segregation

Marshall method of designing mixes is used to determine the two important properties of strength and
flexibility. Strength is measured in terms of the ‘Marshall’s Stability’ of the mix which is defined as the
maximum load carried by a compacted specimen at a standard test temperature of 60 0C. This is the temperature
that is the weakest condition for a bituminous pavement in use. The flexibility is measured in terms of the ‘flow
value’ which is measured by the change in diameter of the sample in the direction of load application in the
interval of the start of loading and the time of maximum load.

Apparatus

• Marshall test apparatus consisting Breaking head, Compression leading machine, load measuring
device and flowmeter

• Set of Sieves (Pan, 0.075mm, 0.15mm, 0.3mm, 0.6mm, 2.36mm, 4.75mm, 14mm, 19mm, 25mm)
• Sieve shaker for proper sieving of aggregates
• Specimen Mould Assembly comprising mould cylinders 10 cm diameter by 7.5 cm height, base plate
and extension collars. They are designed to be interchanged with either end of cylindrical mould
• Specimen extractor for extracting the compacted specimen from the mould
 • Compaction hammer having a flat circular tamping face 4.54 kg sliding weight constructed to provide
a free fall of 457.2 mm
• Asphalt Mixer to mix bitumen and dry aggregates at high temperatures
• Oven
• Water bath
• Balance readable to 0.1g
• Gloves
• Thermometer
• Spatula

Procedure
Specimen Preparation and Bulk specific gravity determination

• First the aggregates are dried to a constant weight at 105-110 0C

• Let the heated aggregates cool down and sieve the aggregates and separate to the desired size fractions
• Then the mixing and compacting temperatures were established, which is a mixing temperature of 158
0
C and compacting temperature of 148 0C
• Then the aggregates pertaining to each size fraction was measured enough for three samples, where an
aggregate weight of 1200g according to the weights obtained from the gradation curve
• Then the aggregate sample was heated to a temperature of 158 0C which was the mixing temperature
• Next the aggregate sample was placed on the balance and set to zero, and a bitumen weight of 150g was
added to the mix
• The mix was then transferred to the asphalt mixer which was preheated to the mixing temperature and
mixed for a period of 1-2 minutes
• Then the mould assembly and the face of the compaction hammer was cleaned and was heated at a
temperature between 95 - 1500C. A piece of non-absorbent paper cut to size was placed at the bottom of
the mould and grease is applied to mould to make demoulding easy
• A weight of 1250g of mixer is placed in the mould the mix is spade vigorously around the mould using
a spatula and another non-absorbent paper was placed on top of the mix
• Next the mould assembly is placed on the compaction pedestal and a total of 75 blows from the hammer
was applied
• Then the base plate and collar was removed and reassembled the mould upside down, and another 75
blows was applied
• Then the compacted specimen was allowed to cool down on a smooth flat surface
• The specimen was extracted from the sample extractor and the dry specimen mass (A), Submerged mass
(C) and Saturated surface dry mass (B) was measured
• The Bulk specific gravity of the specimen will be determined according to ASTM D 2726 or ASTM D
1188.
• The same procedure will be done for all 3 samples and the samples made using other bituminous
contents
Marshall Stability and Flow measurement

• The specimen thickens was measured according to D 3549 method for three specimens made from the
same mix, here four measurements are taken approximately quarter points on the periphery of cores
• Then the samples were immersed in a water bath at 60 0C for 40 minutes
• The specimens will then be removed from the water bath and surface dried
• Then the specimen will be placed in the test apparatus and flow meter will be adjusted to zero
• The load is applied to the specimen until the load reading reverses. The load reading and the flow
reading at this point will be recorded
• The deformation of the test specimen was observed
Density and Void analysis

• First the average of Bulk Specific Gravity for all specimens was calculated and the Bulk Specific
Gravity values were converted into average Unit weight values
• After plotting the graph between Unit weight and Bitumen content the best fit curve was used to get the
values of bulk specific gravity for each bitumen content
• the bulk specific gravity of aggregates and the theoretical maximum specific gravity of paving mixtures
were used to calculate the effective specific gravity of the aggregate, absorbed asphalt in kg of dry
aggregate, percent of air voids and percent of voids in mineral aggregate (VMA)
• Then the stability values for specimens that depart from the standard thickness of 63.5 mm was
measured and converted to an equivalent 63.5 value by means of a conversion factor
• Average of the flow values was calculated and converted stability values for all specimens of a given
asphalt content
The following graphs were drawn
• Stability vs Bitumen content
• Flow vs Bitumen content
• VMA vs Bitumen content
• Unit weight (Gmm) vs Bitumen content
• Present air void vs Bitumen content

The above drawn graphs were used to select the optimum bitumen content.

Test Results
Results obtained from the samples made in the test
Marshall Mix design stability and flow readings
Sample Bitumen Height(mm) Stability Stability(kN) Corrected Flow(mm)
No content (%) correction factor stability
1 4 64.7 0.94 11.332 10.65 16
2 64.55 0.945 10.102 9.55 20
3 64.9 0.93 8.154 7.58 16
4 4.5 63.3 1.01 11.332 11.45 18.8
5 63.55 1.01 11.98 12.1 21.6
6 62.925 1.01 12.506 12.63 24
7 5 62.975 1.01 13.422 13.56 22
8 63.85 0.99 13.538 13.4 24
9 62.525 1.02 17.324 17.67 20
10 5.5 63.05 1.01 16.06 16.22 32
11 62.05 1.04 11.116 11.56 36
12 61.75 1.03 15.718 16.19 32
13 6 63.225 1.01 9.76 9.86 36
14 64.675 0.945 9.074 8.57 37.2
15 63.15 1.01 9.418 9.51 36

Bitumen Content Average Stability (kgf) Avg. Stability (KN) Avg. Flow (mm)
(%)
4.00 944.3182 9.26 17.33
4.50 1229.652 12.06 21.47
5.00 1516.98 14.88 22.00
5.50 1494.596 14.66 33.33
6.00 949.8593 9.45 36.40
 Stability vs Bitumen Content
18

16

14

12
Stability (kN)

10

0
4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5
Bitumen Content (%)

Flow vs Bitumen Content

40

35

30
Avg. Flow (mm)

25

20

15

10

0
4% 5% 5% 6% 6% 7%
Bitumen Content (%)
Volumetric measurement readings for the Marshall trial samples

Sample Bitumen content Submerged Weight Surface saturated

Dry Weight (g)
No (%) (g) Weight (g)
1 1246.5 737.2 1249
2 4 1248 731 1249
3 1245.5 728.4 1247
4 1249 745.5 1251.5
5 4.5 1250.5 739.8 1253
6 1248 743 1251
7 1248 747.39 1250
8 5 1249 749.6 1250
9 1248 749.6 1248.5
10 1250.5 750.7 1251
11 5.5 1239.5 743.6 1240
12 1244 752.4 1244.5
13 1247 747.3 1247
14 6 1236.5 736.1 1237
15 1244.5 743.3 1244.5

The bulk specific gravity of compacted mix = Gmb

𝑊𝐷
𝐺𝑚𝑏 =
𝑊𝑆𝑆𝐷 − 𝑊𝑆𝑈𝐵
WD = Dry weight
WSSD = Saturated surface dry (SSD) weight
WSUB = Submerged weight

73
Gb= Specific gravity of bitumen = 1.015 + = 1.030 (Index – 160273T)
5000

Theoretical maximum specific gravity test readings for the sample with 5.0% bitumen content
Mass of the Sample (A) = 2502.0 g
Mass of the Water filled Vacuum Bowl+ Cover Plate (B) = 7648.0 g
Mass of the Sample + Cover plate + Water filled Vacuum Bowl (C) = 9192.5 g
A 2502
Gmm = = = 2.613
A+B−C 2502+7648−9192.5
100
𝐺𝑚𝑚 = 𝑃𝑖 𝑃
+ 𝑏
𝐺𝑆𝐸 𝐺𝑏

1
2.613 = 1−0.05 0.05 → GSE = 2.843 = Effective specific gravity of aggregate
+
GSE 1.030

𝑃𝑖 = Aggregate % by total weight of the mixture

𝑃𝑏 = Bitumen % by total weight of the mixture
Gmb
Air voids(%) = [1 − ] × 100
Gmm
Gradation

Hot bin 1 Hot bin 2 Hot bin 3 Hot bin 4 Filler bin
Sieve Size Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight
(mm) Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained
(g) (g) (g) (g) (g)
25 0 0 0 0 0
19 0 0 0 961 0
14 0 0 839.4 9083 0
4.75 6.7 1832.6 5103.3 473 0
2.36 192.4 147.9 8.4 7 0
0.6 260.3 10.8 5.2 4 0
0.3 78.8 3.6 2.3 3 1.1
0.15 25.8 2.5 2.9 6 6.2
0.075 30.1 4.4 3.8 4 57.1
Pan 12.3 4.8 2.1 4 26.5
Total 606.4 2006.6 5967.4 10545 90.9

Hot bin 1 Hot bin 2 Hot bin 3 Hot bin 4 Filler bin
Sieve Size Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight
(mm) retained % retained % retained % retained retained %
%
25 0 0 0 0 0
19 0 0 0 9.11 0
14 0 0 14.07 86.14 0
4.75 1.1 91.33 85.52 4.49 0
2.36 31.73 7.37 0.14 0.07 0
0.6 42.93 0.54 0.09 0.04 0
0.3 12.99 0.18 0.04 0.03 1.21
0.15 4.25 0.12 0.05 0.06 6.82
0.075 4.96 0.22 0.06 0.04 62.82
Pan 2.04 0.24 0.03 0.02 29.15

Gradation Calculation

• Assume 1.5% retained on 19mm sieve

(100-90.89)*d = 1.5
d = 16.47%

• Assume 17.5% retained on 14mm sieve

(100-4.75)*0.1647 + (100-85.93)*c = 17.5
c = 12.88%

• Assume 57.5% retained on 2.36mm sieve

(100-67.17)*a + *100-1.3)*b + (100-0.27)*0.1288 + (100-0.19)*0.1647 = 57.5
32.83a + 98.7b = 28.17 ➔ A

• Assume 76% retained on 0.6mm sieve

(100-24.24)*a + (100-0.76)*b + (100-0.18)*0.1288 + (100-0.15)*0.1647 = 76
75.76a + 99.24b=46.698 ➔ B

From A and B
a = 42.87% b = 14.33%
And e = 13.45%
 Hot bin Percentage in mix (%)
1 42.87
2 14.33
3 12.88
4 16.47
Filler 13.45

Calculation Table
Sieve Hot Bin Hot Bin 2 Hot Bin Hot Bin Filler Middle Adjusted
1 (a) (b) 3 (c) 4 (d) (e) value (X) Gradation

0.075 2.04 0.24 0.03 0.02 29.15 6 4.84

0.15 7 0.46 0.09 0.06 91.97 11 15.46
0.3 11.25 0.58 0.14 0.12 98.79 15.5 18.23
0.6 24.24 0.76 0.18 0.15 100 24 24.00
2.36 67.17 1.3 0.27 0.19 100 42.5 42.50
4.75 98.9 8.67 0.41 0.26 100 55 57.19
14 100 100 85.93 4.75 100 82.5 82.50
19 100 100 100 90.89 100 97.5 98.50
25 100 100 100 100 100 100 100.00

Gsb Calculation

Gradation of Weight
Sieve Gsb W/Gsb
Sample Retained
Pan 4.84 4.84 2.676 1.807418558
0.075 15.46 10.62 2.781 3.819416273
0.15 18.23 2.77 2.791 0.993517522
0.3 24.00 5.77 2.778 2.075953656
0.6 42.50 18.50 2.767 6.68605274
2.36 57.19 14.69 2.707 5.425852715
4.75 82.50 25.31 2.748 9.213271974
14 98.50 16.00 2.778 5.758456243
19 100.00 1.50 2.778 0.540104257
100.00 36.32004394

Gsb = 100/36.32 = 2.753

Calculation Table
Dry Submerged SSD Air
Bitumen Average Average Average
Sample No Pb Weight weight Weight Gmb Gmm voids Pi VMA
% Gmb Air Voids VMA
(Wd) (Wsub) (Wssd) (Va)
1 4 0.04 1246.5 737.2 1249 2.436 2.656 8.28 96 15.05

2 4 0.04 1248 731 1249 2.409 2.416 2.656 9.3 9.05 96 16.00 15.76

3 4 0.04 1245.5 728.4 1247 2.402 2.656 9.56 96 16.24

4 4.5 0.045 1249 745.5 1251.5 2.468 2.634 6.3 95.5 14.39

5 4.5 0.045 1250.5 739.8 1253 2.437 2.454 2.634 7.48 6.83 95.5 15.46 14.87

6 4.5 0.045 1248 743 1251 2.457 2.634 6.72 95.5 14.77

7 5 0.05 1248 747.39 1250 2.483 2.613 4.98 95 14.32

8 5 0.05 1249 749.6 1250 2.496 2.494 2.613 4.48 4.57 95 13.87 13.95

9 5 0.05 1248 749.6 1248.5 2.502 2.613 4.25 95 13.66

10 5.5 0.055 1250.5 750.7 1251 2.5 2.592 3.55 94.5 14.18

11 5.5 0.055 1239.5 743.6 1240 2.497 2.508 2.592 3.67 3.23 94.5 14.29 13.90

12 5.5 0.055 1244 752.4 1244.5 2.528 2.592 2.47 94.5 13.22

13 6 0.06 1247 747.3 1247 2.495 2.571 2.96 94 14.81

14 6 0.06 1236.5 736.1 1237 2.469 2.482 2.571 3.97 3.45 94 15.70 15.24

15 6 0.06 1244.5 743.3 1244.5 2.483 2.571 3.42 94 15.22

 Gmb vs Bitumen Content
2.520

2.500

2.480
Gmb

2.460

2.440

2.420

2.400
4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5
Bitumen Content (%)

Air Voids vs Bitumen Content

10
9
8
7
Air Voids (%)

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5
Bitumen Content (%)

VMA vs Bitumen Content

16

15.5

15

14.5
VMA (%)

14

13.5

13

12.5

12
4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5
Bitumen Content (%)
Determination of optimum binder content
From calculation table, at 4% air void content, Asphalt binder Content (a1) = 5.21%
From Stability vs Bitumen Content graph, max stability at binder content (a2) = 5.25%
From Gmb vs Asphalt Binder content graph (a3) = 5.5%
𝑎1 +𝑎2+ 𝑎3
Optimum binder content = 3
= 5.32%

The standard values for Asphalt cement mixture surface course as for Table 20230.2 – Marshall Test
Standard Values are,
Mix Criteria Standard Value
Marshall Stability (min) 900 kgf ( 8.83kN)
Flow Value (1/100 cm) 20 - 40
Percentage of Voids 2-5
VMA More than 13%

Flow vs Bitumen Content

40

35

30
Avg. Flow (mm)

25

20

15

10

0
4.0% 4.5% 5.0% 5.5% 6.0% 6.5%
Bitumen Content (%)

At 5.32% bitumen content, Flow (30mm) > 20mm & VMA (13.7) > 13%, hence satisfy the standards required
Discussion
The Marshall method is very popular because of its relative simplicity, economical equipment and proven
record. The Marshall method seeks to select the asphalt content at a desired density that satisfies minimum
stability and range of flow values.
Another mix design method which is The Superpave mix design method was designed to replace the Hveem and
Marshall methods. The volumetric analysis common to the Hveem and Marshall methods provides the basis for
the Superpave Mix Design method. The Superpave system ties asphalt binder and aggregate selection into the
mix design process and consider traffic and climate as well.
Difference between Marshall mix design method and Superpave mix design method

• Marshall method is simple, compact, and inexpensive. Marshall test for stability and flow was designed
to stress the entire sample rather than just a portion of it. It facilitates rapid testing with minimal effort.
It is also compact, light, portable and produces densities reasonably closer to field densities. Whereas
Superpave method was created to make the best use of asphalt paving technology and to present a
system that would optimize asphalt mixture resistance to permanent deformation, fatigue cracking and
low temperature cracking. The system was developed and calibrated for a wide range of applications.
• Marshall mix design primarily address the determination of asphalt binder content, while Superpave
addresses all element of mix design.