You are on page 1of 68

Pavement Engineering

ECG 524 TOPIC 2.0 Asphaltic Concrete Pavement Design

Topic Outlines
2.1 Hot Mix Asphalt Mixture Design Methodology
2.2 Marshall mixture design method 2.3 Superpave mix design method

2.4 Design of Flexible Pavement


2.5 Overlay design and surface dressing

Learning Outcomes
At the end of the lecture, students should be able to:

Perform design mix according to either Marshall or Superpave Method .(CO2-PO3, CO2-PO4)

To understand the element of thickness design, material requirements, mixture requirements, traffic loading and JKR Design Method.(C02PO4)
3

Topic 2.1
Hot Mix Asphalt Mixture Design Methodology

Introduction
History

of asphalt mix design dated back from 1860s (Crawford) binder used was TAR (1868 and 1873)
proportioning not understood, hence no proper mixing processed mechanized

First

Aggregate

Introduction

Clifford Richardson, an asphalt technologist discovered that material selection is important, especially the role of aggregate fractions His documentations include the important principles of HMA design including voids in mineral aggregate (VMA) and air void content

The first test to determine OBC of HMA mix is the Pat Test Still used till early 1920s visual assessments

Introduction

Hubbard-Field method in the middle of 1920s Marshall and Hveem mix design methods were used between 1940s and mid 1990s In 1939, Bruce Marshall developed the earliest version of Marshall mix design method
Controlling factor is the correspondence between density achieved in field under traffic and that produced in the lab with specified compactive effort, hence only by knowing field conditions can proper adjustments be made in the lab to replicate field conditions

Introduction
Hveem

mix design method Francis

Hveem
Hveem

developed stabilometer in 1959, a procedure to measure cohesive strength of compacted specimen

Developed

simple portable apparatus for designing asphalt mixtures for airfield pavements

Hot Mix Asphalt Design

HMA Specimen

History
Binder Aggregates

Hot Mix Asphalt Concrete (HMA) Mix Designs

Objective: Develop an economical blend of aggregates and asphalt binder that meets design requirements Historical mix design methods Hubbard-Field, Hveem, Marshall (1920 1940) New Superpave Mix Design Method (1995 - present) Srategic Highway Research Programme (SHRP)

Requirements in Common
No matter which design procedure is going to be used the HMA mixture that is placed on the roadway must meet certain requirements. Sufficient asphalt binder to ensure a durable pavement - To ensure durable, compacted pavement by thoroughly coating, bonding and waterproofing the aggregate Sufficient stability under traffic loads - To satisfy the demands of traffic without displacement or distortion (rutting)

Requirements in Common
Sufficient air voids -to prevent excessive environmental damage should be low enough to keep out harmful air and moisture
-to

allow room for initial densification due to traffic should have sufficient voids to allow compaction under traffic loading without bleeding and loss of stability

Sufficient workability -Enough workability to permit placement and proper compaction without segregation

Objectives and Elements of Mix Design


Resistance

to Permanent Deformation

Mix should not distort or displace when subjected to traffic. The resistance to permanent deformation (rutting) becomes critical at elevated temperatures during hot weather when the viscosity of the bitumen is low and traffic load is primarily carried by aggregate structure. Hence, selecting quality aggregate is important with proper gradation.

Fatigue

Resistance

Mix should not crack when subjected to repeated loads over a period of time.

Objectives and Elements of Mix Design


Durability
Mix must contain sufficient bitumen to ensure adequate film thickness around aggregate particles, thus minimizing binder hardening or aging during production and in service.

Resistance

to Moisture Induced Damage

Some HMA mix when subjected to moisture or water lose adhesion between aggregate surface and binder. Aggregate properties are primarily responsible for this phenomenon, although some binder ar more prone to moisture damage (stripping) than others. Antistripping agent should be use if a HMA mix is prone to stripping to minimize problems or making the mix impermeable

Objectives and Elements of Mix Design


Skid

Resistance

This requirement is only applicable to surface mixes which must be designed to provide sufficient resistance to skidding to permit normal turning and braking movements to occur. Aggregate characteristics such as texture, shape, size and resistance to polish are primarily responsible for skid resistance. Mix should not also contain too much binder that may cause mix to flush and create slippery surface.

Workability
Mix must be capable of being placed and compacted with reasonable effort. Workability problems are most frequently discovered during the paving operations.

Topic 2.2
Marshall Mix Design Method

16

MARSHALL MIX DESIGN

Marshall Mix Design

Developed by Bruce Marshall for the Mississippi Highway Department in the late 30s In 1943 for WWII Developed simple portable apparatus for designing asphalt mixtures for airfield pavements Evaluated compaction effort No. of blows, foot design, etc. Decided on 10 lb.. Hammer, 50 blows/side 4% voids after traffic

Initial criteria were established and upgraded for increased tyre pressures and loads

Automatic Marshall Hammer


Mixtures designed in laboratory using a variety of compactive efforts in an attempt to produce densities similar to field One goal of lab compaction study was to adopt a sample preparation procedure that would involve minimum effort and time but would provide a basis for selecting the proper optimum binder content

Development and evolution of the Marshall method concluded that two variables stand out in the design and performance of HMA: Asphalt content Density In the field, it is the highest satisfactory asphalt content at a density achieved under traffic that is significant.

In laboratory, the important feature is selecting a compaction procedure that represents traffic-induced density and then selecting response properties that can be averaged to yield as asphalt content that will produce satisfactory performance.

Marshall Design Method

Advantages Attention on voids, strength, durability Inexpensive equipment Easy to use in process control/acceptance Disadvantages

Impact method of compaction Does not consider shear strength Load perpendicular to compaction axis

Marshall Mix Design Method (ASTM D1559)

Steps: Step A: Aggregate Evaluation Step B: Binder/Bitumen Evaluation Step C: Preparation of Marshall Specimens Step D: Density-Voids Analysis Step E: Marshall Stability and Flow Test Step F: Tabulating & Plotting Test Results Step G: Determine Optimum Binder Content (OBC)

Step A: Aggregate Evaluation


A-1: Determine acceptability of aggregate for use in HMA, construction; tests often performed include LA abrasion, sulfate soundness, sand equivalent, presence of deleterious substances, polishing, crushed face count and flat & elongated particle A-2: If material is acceptable in A-1, then perform other required aggregate tests: gradation, specific gravity and absorption A-3: Perform blending calculations, plot mid range gradation on FHWA 0.45 power gradation chart A-4: Prepare a specimen weigh-out table by multiplying the percent aggregate retained between sieves times an aggregate weight of approximately 1150g, then determine the cummualtive weights starting with the material passing the 0.075 mm sieve

Step A: Basic Aggregate Testing

JKR Gradation Limits

Mix Type
Mix Designation BS Sieve Size 28.0 20.0 14.0 10.0 5.0 3.35 1.18 0.425 0.150 0.075

Wearing Course
AC10

Wearing Course
AC14

Binder Course
AC28

Percentage Passing by Weight

100 90-100 58-72 48-64 22-40 12-26 6-14 4-8

100 90-100 76-86 50-62 40-54 18-34 12-24 6-14 4-8

100 72-90 58-76 48-64 30-46 24-40 14-28 8-20 4-10 3-7

Aggregate Blending

How many percentage from each stockpile to achieve a blend that conform to PWD mid-gradation, example ACW 14?

Blending of Aggregates
Material
% Used
Sieve (mm)

Agg. A
% Passing 100 90 30 7 3 1 0 0 % Batch

Agg. B
Blend Target
% Passing 100 100 100 88 47 32 24 10 % Batch

14 10 5 3.35 1.18 0.425 0.15 0.075

Blending of Aggregates
Material
% Used

Agg. A
50 %
% Batch 50 45 15 3.5 1.5 0.5 0 0

Agg. B
50 %
% Passing 100 100 100 88 47 32 24 % Batch

First Try (remember trial & error)

% Sieve (mm) Passing 14 10 5 3.35 1.18 0.425 0.150 0.075 100 90 30 7 3 1 0 0

Blend Target
100 80 - 100 65 - 100 40 - 80 20 - 65 7 - 40 3 - 20 2 - 10

100 * 0.5 = 50 90 * 0.5 = 45 30 * 0.5 = 15 7 * 0.5 = 3.5 3 * 0.5 = 1.5 1 * 0.5 = 0.5 0 * 0.5 = 0 * 0.5 = 0

10 0

Blending of Aggregates
Material
% Used Sieve (mm)

Agg. A
50 %

Agg. B
50 %

Blend Target
% Batch 100 95 65 47.5 25 16.5 12 5 100 80 - 100 65 - 100 40 - 80 20 - 65 7 - 40 3 - 20 2 - 10

% Passing
100 90 30 7 3 1 0 0

% Batch 50 45 15 3.5 1.5 0.5 0 0

% Passing

14 10 5 3.35 1.18 0.425 0.150 0.075

100 50 100 50 Lets Try 100 50 and get 88 44 a little closer 47 23.5 to the middle of 32 16 the target values. 24 12 10 5

Blending of Aggregates
Material
% Used
Sieve (mm)

Agg. A
30 % % Passing 100 90 30 7 3 1 0 % Batch 30 27 9 2.1 0.9 0.3 0

Agg. B
70 % % Passing 100 100 100 88 47 32 24 % Batch 70 70 70 61.6 32.9 22.4 16.8 100 97 79 63.7 33.8 22.7 16.8 100 80 - 100 65 - 100 40 - 80 20 - 65 7 - 40 3 - 20

Blend Target

14 10 5 3.35 1.18 0.425 0.150

0.075

10

2 - 10

Aggregate Blending to Meet Specifications


Given the gradation of aggregates A, B and C, determine the required percent of each to result in a blend meeting the required specification requirements
Aggregate
Sieve Size A B C Specifications

Median of Specifications

1 inch inch No.4 (4.75 mm or 3/8 inch) No.8 (2.36 mm) No.30 (0.6 mm)

100 63 19 8 5

100 100 100 93 55

100 100 100 100 100

94-100 70-85 40-55 30-42 20-30

97 78 48 36 25

Desired material larger than 4.75mm sieve is 52% must come from Agg. A

No.100 (0.150 mm)


No.200 (0.075 mm)

3
2

36
3

97
88

12-22
5-11

17
8

Desired material larger than 0.6 mm siev is 75% mus come from Agg. A and

percent of A =

52 = 64 % 81

percent of B = 75 0.64(95) = 14 %

Aggregate Sieve Size 1 inch inch No.4 (4.75 mm or 3/8 inch) A 100 63 19 B 100 100 100 C 100 100 100 Specification s 94-100 70-85 40-55

Median of Specifications 97 78 48

Desired material larger than 4.75mm sieve is 52% must come from Agg. A

No.8 (2.36 mm)


No.30 (0.6 mm) No.100 (0.150 mm) No.200 (0.075 mm)

8
5 3 2

93
55 36 3

100
100 97 88

30-42
20-30 12-22 5-11

36
25 17 8

52 percent of A = = 64 % 81

Desired material larger than 0.6 mm siev is 75% mus come from Agg. A and

percent of B = 75 0.64(95) = 14 %

Based on these calculations, first estimate is : Aggregate A : 64 %

Aggregate B : 14 %
Aggregate C : 22 %

Aggregate A B

% Used 64 14

Sieve Size 1 inch 64 14 inch 40.3 8.8 No.4 12.2 2.6 No.8 5.1 1.1 No.30 3.2 0.7 No.100 1.9 0.4 No.200 1.3 0.3

C
Blend Desired Specification A B C

22
100

22
100 97 94-100

13.8
62.9 78 70-85 44.7 21 8

4.2
19 48 40-55 13.5 21 8

1.7
7.9 36 30-42 5.7 19.5 8

1.1
5 25 20-30 3.6 11.6 8

0.7
3 17 12-22 2.1 7.6 7.8

0.4
2 8 5-11 1.4 0.6 7

FIRST TRIAL
71 21 8 71 21 8

Blend
A B C Blend

100
66 28 6 100

100

73.7

42.5

23.2

23.2

17.5

9.0

SECOND TRIAL

Source : HMA Asphalt Materials, Mixture Design & Construction, NAPA

Step B: Basic Asphalt Testing


B-1: Determine appropriate binder grade for type and geographic location of mixture being designed B-2: Verify specification properties are acceptable B-3: Determine binder specific gravity and plot viscosity data on a temperature-viscosity plot B-4: Determine the ranges of mixing and compaction temperatures from the temperature-viscosity plot:
Mixing temperature should be selected to provide viscosity of 170 20 centistokes Compaction temperature should be selected to provide a viscosity of 280 30 centistokes

Step B: Basic Asphalt Testing


Asphalt Properties Required by JKR Malaysia Standard Tests 60-80 Penetration @ 25oC Loss on heating (%) Drop in penetration after heating (%) Retained penetration after thin-film oven test (%) Solubility in Carbon Disulphide or Trichloroethylene (%) Flash and fire point test (oC) Ductility test at 25oC Ring and Ball Softening Point test 60-80 <0.2 <20 >52 >99 Penetration Grades 80-100 80-100 <0.5 <20 >47 >99

>250 >100 >48, <56

>225 >100 >45,<52

Mixing/Compaction Temperatures
Viscosity, Pa s 10 5

1 .5 .3 .2 .1 Compaction Range Mixing Range 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 Temperature, C
To establish mixing and compaction temperatures it is necessary to develop a temperature viscosity chart. Determining the viscosity at two different temperatures - generally 135 C and 165 C. These two viscosities are then plotted on the graph above and a straight line is drawn between the two points. The desired viscosity range for mixing is between 0.15 and 0.19 Pa-s and 0.25 and 0.31 Pa-s for compaction. Appropriate mixing and compaction temperatures are selected as the temperature where these viscosity requirements are met. This information can be obtained from the suppliers. If using modified binders - it is recommended that you should contact the supplier to determine the mixing and compaction temperatures.

Step C: Preparation of Marshall Specimens


C-1: Dry and sieve aggregates into sizes (preferably individual sizes) and store in clean sealable containers. Separate enough material to make 18 specimens of approximately 1150 g each. C-2: Weigh out aggregate for 18 specimens placing each in a separate container and heat to mixing temperature determined in Step B-4. However, the total aggregate weight should be determined as discussed in C-3. C-3: It is generally desirable to prepare a trial specimen prior to preparing all aggregate batches. Measure the height of the trial specimen (h1) and check against height requirement for Marshall specimens (63.5 mm). If the specimen is outside this range, adjust quantity of aggregate included in a specimen using the following formula: Q = 63.5/h1 x 1150 g

Step C: Preparation of Marshall Specimens


C-4: Heat sufficient binder to prepare a total of 18 specimens. Three compacted specimens each should be prepared at five different binder content. Binder contents should be selected at 0.5% increments with at least two asphalt contents above optimum and at least two below optimum. See appropriate specifications for a guide on approximate optimum binder content or the estimate of optimum can be based on experience. Three loose mixture specimens should be made near the optimum binder content to measure Rice specific gravity or theoretical max density (TMD). Table 4.3.4 : Design Bitumen Contents (JKR/SPJ/2008-S4) AC 10 wearing course 5.0-7.0% AC 14 wearing course 4.0-6.0% AC 28 binder course 3.5-5.5%

Step C: Preparation of Marshall Specimens


C-5: Review appropriate specifications to determine number of blows/side and type of compaction equipment required for compaction of Marshall specimen C-6: Remove the hot aggregate, place it on a scale and add the proper weight of binder to obtain the desired binder content C-7: Mix binder and aggregate until all the aggregate is coated. It is helpful to work on a heated table. Mixing can be by hand, but a mechanical mixer is preferred

Step C: Preparation of Marshall Specimens


C-8: Check temperature of freshly mixed material; if it is above the compaction temperature, allow it to cool to compaction temperature; if it is below compaction temperature, discard the material and make a new mix. (The mix can be placed back in the oven to be reheated which is considered as curing time to better simulate what happens to the HMA mix in the field. This curing time is especially important for aggregates with high absorption since the asphalt absorbed into the aggregate increases with time). C-9: Place a paper disc into an assembled, preheated Marshall mould and pour in loose HMA. Check the temperature. Spade the mixture with a heated spatula or trowel 15 times around the perimeter and 10 times over the interior.

Step C: Preparation of Marshall Specimens


C-10: Remove the collar and mound materials inside the mould so that the middle is slightly higher than the edges. Attach the mould and base plate to the pedestal. Place the preheated hammer into the mould, and apply the appropriate number of blows to the top side of the specimen C-11: Remove the mould from the base plate. Place a paper disc on top of the specimen and rotate the mould 180o so that the top surface is on bottom. Replace the mould collar and attach the mould and base plate to the pedestal. Place the hammer in the mould and apply the same number of blows to the opposite side of the specimen C-12: Remove the paper filters from the top and bottom of the specimens. Cool the specimens and extrude from the mould using a hydraulic jack. Place identification marks on each specimen and allow specimens to sit at room temperature overnight before further testing

Step C: Preparation of Marshall Specimens


C-13: Determine the bulk specific gravity for each specimen by weighing in air. Submerge the samples in water and allow to saturate prior to getting submerged weigh in SSD condition. Remove the sample and weigh in air in saturated surface dry condition. This test is conducted in accordance with AASHTO T166 C-14: Measure the Rice specific gravity on the loose HMA mix samples in accordance with AASHTO T209 (ASTM D2041). This specific gravity is required for voids analysis. If the mix contains absorptive aggregate it is recommended to place the loose mix in an oven (maintained at the mix temp) for 4 hours so that the asphalt binder is completely absorbed by the aggregate prior to testing. Keep the mix in a covered container while in the oven. If the test is run in triplicate on the mix containing near optimum binder content, average the three results, calculate the effective specific gravity of the aggregate, and then calculate the Rice specific gravity or TMD for the remaining mixes with different binder content. If one TMD test is conducted on each mix containing a different binder content, then calculate the effective specific gravity of aggregate in each case. Calculate the average effective specific gravity and then calculate the TMD values using the average for all five mixes.

Mixing

Place pre-heated aggregate in bowl & add hot bitumen Place bowl on mixer & mix until aggregate is well-coated (1 minute mixing time) Place funnel on top of mould & place mix in mould. Take care not to allow the mix to segregate Place another paper on top of mix. Tamp along circumference & centre. Wait for specimen to cool down to compaction temperature. Begin compaction.

Compaction

Marshall

Hammer (impact) @50 or 75 blows each face

Step D: Density and Voids Analysis


D-1: For each specimen, use the bulk specific Gravity (Gmb) from Step C-13 and Rice Specific gravity (Gmm) from C-14 to calculate the percent voids or VTM

Gmb VTM 1 G 100 mm


D-2: Calculate the density of each Marshall specimen as follows: Density (g/ml) = Bulk Specific Gravity (Gmb) x w

Step D: Density and Voids Analysis


D-3: Calculate the VMA for each Marshall specimen using the bulk specific gravity of the aggregate (Gsb) from Step A-2, the bulk SG of the compacted mix (Gmb) from Step C-13, and the binder content by weight of total mix (Pb)

Gmb (1 Pb ) VMA 100 1 Gsb


D-4: Calculate the VFA (voids filled with asphalt) for each Marshall specimen using the VTM and VMA as follows :

VMA VTM VFA 100 VMA

Step E: Marshall Stability and Flow Test


E-1: Heat the water bath to 60oC and place specimens to be tested in the bath for at least 30 but not more than 40 minutes. Place specimens in the bath in a staggered manner to ensure that all specimens have been heated for the same length of time before testing. Use waterbath large enough to hold all specimens prepared for the mixture design E-2: After heating for the required amount fo time, remove a specimen from the bath, pat with towel to remove excess water, and quickly place in the Marshall testing head E-3: Bring the loading ram into contact with the testing head. Zero the pens if using a load-deformation recorder or zero flow gauge, and place the gauge on the rod of the testing head. Apply the load

Marshall Stability and Flow

Step E: Marshall Stability and Flow Tests


test for Marshall Stability & flow at 60OC The applied load must be corrected when thickness of specimen is other than (2 in.) or 63.5mm by using the proper multiplying factor from Table below

Stability correlation ratio (ASTM D1559)

Lab Mix Marshall Form

Step F: Tabulating and Plotting Test Results


F-1: Tabulate the results from testing, correct the stability values for specimen height (ASTM D1559), and calculate the average of each set of 3 specimens F-2: Prepare the following plots: Asphalt Content versus density (or unit weight) Asphalt content versus Marshall stability Asphalt content versus air voids (or VTM) Asphalt content versus VMA Asphalt content versus VFA

Step F: Tabulating and Plotting Test Results


F-3: Review the plots for the following trends: Stability versus asphalt content can follow two trends: (a)Stability increases with increasing asphalt content, reaches a peak and then decreases (b)Stability decreases with increasing asphalt content and does not show a peak. This curve is common for some recycled HMA mixtures Flow should increase with increasing asphalt content Density increases with increasing asphalt content, reaches a peak, and then decreases. Peak density usually occurs at a higher asphalt content than peak stability Percent air voids should decrease with increasing asphalt content Percent VMA decreases with increasing asphalt content, reaches a minimum and then increases Percent VFA increases with increasing asphalt content

Step G: Optimum Binder Content Determination (JKR)


OBC is the mean of bitumen contents that give an optimum value of density, stability and 4% air voids

Peak curve taken from stability graph Flow equals to 3mm from the flow graph Peak curve taken from bulk specific graph VFB equals to 75% for wearing course and 70% for binder course from the VFB graph VIM equals to 4% for wearing course and 5% for binder course from the VIM graph The individual test values at the mean OBC shall then be read from the plotted smooth curves and shall comply with the design parameters given in Table 4.3.5 The individual test values at the mean OBC shall then be read from the plotted smooth curves and shall comply with the design parameters given in Table 4.3.5

Step G: Optimum Binder Content Determination NAPA Procedure


1.

Determine the binder content which corresponds to the specifications median air void content (4 % typically). This is the optimum binder content.
Determine the following properties at this optimum binder content by referring to the plots:
Marshall Stability Flow VMA and VFA

2.

3.

Compare each of these values against the specification values and if all are within the specification, then the preceding optimum binder content is satisfactory. If any of these properties is outside the specification range, the mixture should be redesigned

Step G: Optimum Binder Content Determination Asphalt Institute Method


1.

Determine :
(a) Binder content a maximum stability (b) Binder content at maximum density (c) Binder content at mid point of specified air void range (4% typically)

2.

Average the three asphalt contents selected above. For the binder content, go to the plotted curves and determine the following properties:
Stability Flow Air voids VMA

3.

4.

Compare values from Step 3 with criteria for acceptability given in specifications

Table 4.3.5 : Test and Analysis Parameters (JKR/SPJ/2008-S4)


Parameter
Stability, S

Wearing Course
>8000 N

Binder Course
>8000 N

Flow, F
Stiffness, S/F Air voids in mix (VIM) Voids in aggregate filled with bitumen (VFB)

2.0-4.0 mm

2.0-4.0 mm

>2000 N/mm >2000 N/mm 3.0-5.0 % 70-80% 3.0-7.0 % 65-75%

Lab Mix OBC Determination


2.370

1400 1300

Density (g/cu.cm)

2.360

Stability (kg)

2.350 2.340 2.330 2.320 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0

1200 1100 1000 900 800 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0

a
Bit. Content (%)

b
Bit. Content (%)

8.0 7.0

85.0 80.0

VTM (%)

6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0

VFB (%)

75.0 70.0 65.0 60.0 55.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0

c
Bit. Content (%)

d
Bit. Content (%)

Lab Mix OBC Determination


6.00
400

Flow (mm)

5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0

Stiffness (kg/mm)

5.50

350 300 250 200 150 100 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0

Bit. Content (%)

Bit. Content (%)

OBC =(a + b + c + d)/4 = e Check parameters @ OBC

Lab Mix Value @ OBC


2.370
1400 1300

Density (g/cu.cm)

2.360

Stability (kg)

1200 1100 1000 900 800

2.350 2.340 2.330 2.320 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0

e
Bit. Content (%)

e
4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0

Bit. Content (%)

8.0 7.0

85.0 80.0

VTM (%)

6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0

VFB (%)

75.0 70.0 65.0 60.0 55.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0

e
Bit. Content (%)

e
Bit. Content (%)

Lab Mix Value @ OBC


6.00 5.50

400

Flow (mm)

5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0

Stiffness (kg/mm)

350 300 250 200 150 100 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0

e
Bit. Content (%)

e
Bit. Content (%)

Compare parameters with JKR/SPJ/2008-S4 Specifications Pass? @ OBC = e If FAIL, then redesign

Why are the Marshall criteria important?


Voids in the Mineral Aggregate (VMA)

VMA is the total volume of voids within the mass of the compacted aggregate.

This total amount of voids significantly affects the performance of mixture


If the VMA is too small, the mix may suffer durability problems, and if the VMA is too large, the mix may show stability problems and be uneconomical to produce

VMA components divided into two : volume of voids filled with binder and volume of voids remaining after compaction available for thermal expansion of the binder during hot weather
The binder volume and aggregate gradation determines the thickness of binder film around each aggregate particle Without adequate film thickness, binder will oxidized faster, water easily penetrate and tensile strength of mixture is adversely affected

The VMA of a mix must be sufficiently high to ensure there is room for binder plus required air voids

Why are the Marshall criteria important?


Voids in Total Mix (VTM) Suggested to range between 3 5 percent

However, air void content is for lab compacted samples and should not be confused with field compacted samples Void content must be approached during construction through the application of compactive effort and not by adding binder to fill up the voids

High shear resistance must be developed in the HMA layers if adequate performance is to be achieved
This high resistance must be present to prevent additional compaction under traffic which could result in rutting in the wheel paths or flushing and bleeding of the binder at the surface Low air void contents minimize the aging of the binder films within the aggregate mass and also minimize the possibility that water can get into the mix, penetrate the thin binder film The in-place air void content should initially be slightly higher than 3 to 5 percent to allow for some additional compaction

Why are the Marshall criteria important?


Density

The magnitude of the density achieved during compaction in the laboratory is not so important. What is important is how close the density achieved in the laboratory is to the density achieved in the field after several years of traffic Density can be achieved by increasing compaction, increased binder content, increased filler content or any method that reduces voids

Void content must be approached during construction through the application of compactive effort and not by adding binder to fill up the voids
Density varies with binder content. Density increases as binder content increases because the hot binder lubricates the particles allowing the compactive effort to force them closer together. The density reaches a peak and then begins to decrease because additional binder produces thicker films around the individual aggregates, thereby pushing the aggregate particles further apart and resulting in lower density

Why are the Marshall criteria important?


Stability

Marshall stability is defined as the maximum load carried by a compacted specimen tested at 60oC Generally a measure of the mass viscosity of the aggregate-binder mixture and is affected significantly by the angle of internal friction of the aggregate and the viscosity of the binder at 60oC One of the easiest way to increase stability of aggregate mixture is to change to higher viscosity grade of binder, also by selecting a more angular aggregate Anything that increases the viscosity of binder increases Marshall stability Marshall stability and field stability are not necessarily related. Stability in the field is affected by the ambient temperature, types of loading, tyre contact pressure and numerous mixture properties. Primary use of stability is to aid selection of OBC and also useful in measuring the consistency of a plant produced HMA

Why are the Marshall criteria important?

Flow

Flow is measured at the same time as the Marshall stability


Flow is equal to vertical deformation of the sample (measured from start of loading to the point at which stability begins to decrease)

High flow values generally indicate a plastic mix that will experience permanent deformation under traffic, whereas low flow value may indicate a mix with higher than normal voids and insufficient asphalt for durability and one that may experience premature cracking due to mixture brittleness during the life of the pavement

Questions?