THE MARSHALL METHOD f o r the DESIGN and CONTROL of ASPHALT PAVING MIXTURES

Preface This booklet i s published as a supplement t o the e x i s t i n g l i t e r a t u r e on mix design methods f o r asphalt mixtures. I t w i l l be most valuable when used together w i t h the f o l l o w i n g recognized a u t h o r i t a t i v e p u b l i c a t i o n s . (1) Mix Design Methods f o r Asphalt Concrete (and other hot-mix t y p e s ) , Manual Series No. 2, The Asphalt I n s t i t u t e , College Park, Maryland 20740. American Society f o r Testing and M a t e r i a l s (ASTM) standard test procedures on asphalt, aggregates, and asphalt mixtures. American Association of State Highway and Transportation O f f i c i a l s (AASHTO) standard t e s t procedures on asphalt, aggregates, and asphalt mixtures.

(2)

(3)

Copyright, 1987, Humboldt Mfg. Co.

Table of Contents Preface L i s t of Tables L i s t of Figures L i s t of I l l u s t r a t i o n s This booklet was prepared f o r Introduction **** HUMBOLDT MFG. CO. **** The Mix Design Approval Process 7300 West A g a t i t e Norridge, Chicago, I l l i n o i s 60656 (312) 456-6300 Mix Design C r i t e r i a The Selection of Aggregate Gradation by Dr. Richard W. Smith, P.E. USAsphalt Engineering Services Co. P.O. Box 289 L o v e t t s v i l l e , V i r g i n i a 22080 (703) 822-5456 The Marshall Compaction Hammer Optimum Asphalt Content The Marshall Stabilometer Value The Marshall Flow Value A i r Voids Voids i n Mineral Aggregate Voids i n Mineral Aggregate f i l l e d w i t h Asphalt Dust-Asphalt Ratio Specifics of the Marshall Mix Design Process Acquiring the M a t e r i a l s I n i t i a l Tests on Submitted M a t e r i a l s Asphalt Cement Aggregate Aggregate Blending Aggregate Batching Preparing Marshall Samples Maximum Mix Gravity (Rice Test) Testing Marshall Samples Analysis of Test Results Example Mix Design Economics o f Mix Design Evaluation f o r Mix S t r i p p i n g P o t e n t i a l Recycling Q u a l i t y Control , 8 8 9 10 H 11 12
1 2

T i t l e Page 2 2 3 7

12 14 1* 15 15 15 15 16 17 20 22 26 27 28 28 30 31 34 37

Figure 16 L i s t of Tables Page Table Table Table Table 1 2 3 4 Aggregate Stockpile Gradings Mix Compositions - T r i a l Blends Aggregate Specific Gravity Values Aggregate Specific Gravity Values f o r Combined Aggregate Blends Table Table Table Table Table 5 6 7 8 9 Maximum Mix G r a v i t i e s by Rice Test Appearance of Mixes During Core F a b r i c a t i o n Marshall Data Mix Properties @ 4.0 Percent A i r Voids Mix Economics Summary "Acceptable" - Unacceptable Mixtures S t r i p p i n g Evaluation Example - Mix D L i s t of Figures Page Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Marshall Method Viscosity-Temperature Chart Plant Control Viscosity-Temperature Chart R e s t r i c t i v e Aggregate Gradation Band Example Selecting Target Value f o r No. 8 Sieve Gradation Band f o r ASTM D3515 1/2" Dense Mix Marshall Curves - Mix A Marshall Curves - Mix B Marshall Curves - Mix C Marshall Curves - Mix D Finding the Most Economical Mix Estimate of Optimum Asphalt Content f o r Mix E Estimate of Density of Mix E a t Optimum Asphalt Content Summary of Mix Design Condition f o r Optimum D u r a b i l i t y and Economics Figure 14 Figure 15 A i r Voids Versus Marshall Blows S p l i t Tensile Test 2 57 58 59 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 55 40 40 41 42 43 43 44 45 39 39 40 Figure 17 Figure 18

Typical TSR - Water Saturation Relationship Asphalt Blending Chart f o r Penetration Asphalt Blending Chart f o r V i s c o s i t y L i s t of I l l u s t r a t i o n s

60 61 62 Page " * "

Marshall Test Equipment Marshall Test Specimens

Table 10 Table 11

Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13

56

The Marshall Method f o r the Design and Control of Asphalt Paving Mixtures

Equipment recommended f o r Marshall t e s t i n g includes: a. Specimen Mold Assembly; b. Specimen E x t r a c t o r ; c. Compaction Hammer; d. Compaction Pedestal; e. Specimen Mold Holder; f . Compression and Testing Machine; g. Ovens, Hot Plates; h. Mixing Equipment; i . Balances; j . Water Bath; k. Mixing Bowls.

Introduction There are two p r i n c i p a l asphalt mix design methods i n general use throughout the United States today; namely the Marshall Method and the Hveem Method. Both were developed w i t h the o b j e c t i v e of p r o v i d i n g a more s p e c i f i c approach to mix design wherein s p e c i f i c mix c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and p r o p e r t i e s could be measured and then u l t i m a t e l y r e l a t e d to mix performance i n a pavement s t r u c t u r e . Mix design f i r s t o r i g i n a t e d as a recipe or method type of approach so that the e s s e n t i a l s c i e n t i f i c parameters which needed to be measured and the c r i t e r i a t h a t needed to be met f o r a s a t i s f a c t o r y mix had to be determined and evaluated over a considerable period of time. The Marshall Method has been around and i n use f o r over 35 years now, so much i s known about the various p r o p e r t i e s that can be measured on mixes formulated by the Marshall Method, and what the ranges or l i m i t s of those properties need to be i n order to ensure a durable mixture. I n s p i t e of a l l t h i s experience, mix design, u n f o r t u n a t e l y i s s t i l l very much a recipe approach today. As of t h i s time, about 38 state highway agencies use the Marshall Method to various degrees i n the development of asphalt mix designs. There i s a growing t r e n d , however, f o r the state highway agencies to want to transfer t h e i r long-held asphalt mix design r e s p o n s i b i l i t y over to the c o n t r a c t i n g side of the i n d u s t r y . This has been brought about by numerous f a c t o r s , one of which i s the necessity to c o n t r o l asphalt mix properties i n the f i e l d because of the myriad of new plant processes developed i n the l a s t f i f t e e n years, such as drum p l a n t s , storage s i l o s , wet and dry emission c o n t r o l devices, r e c y c l i n g , e t c . Thus i t I s f o r t h i s reason t h a t the Marshall Method i s p r e f e r r e d over the Hveem Method, i n t h a t the former i s more r e a d i l y adaptable to plant process c o n t r o l and f i n a l mix acceptance, as w e l l as being a more than s u i t a b l e method for p r e l i m i n a r y mix design purposes. I t i s also because of t h i s t r a n s f e r of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t h a t the contractor w i l l want to r e l y more on measurements of mix p r o p e r t i e s by the Marshall Method, r a t h e r than on recipe formulations which do not provide the highest degree of assurance of mix q u a l i t y and performance. Along w i t h the s h i f t i n g of mix design r e s p o n s i b i l i t y comes the task of providing education and t r a i n i n g regarding the proper use and techniques involved w i t h the Marshall Method to a large number of people. This task i s more d i f f i c u l t than would a t f i r s t appear l a r g e l y because there i s no u n i v e r s a l l y agreed upon Marshall Method procedure. Indeed, there i s no u n i v e r s a l l y agreed upon Marshall t e s t p r o p e r t i e s or c r i t e r i a . This i s because each highway agency developed i t s own version of Marshall mix design much i n the same manner as they developed t h e i r own mix recipe formulations. Imagine f o r a moment, i f you w i l l , a s c i e n t i f i c method of cake design becoming a v a i l a b l e and then everyone t r y i n g to apply i t to t h e i r own f a v o r i t e cake recipes to ensure a p e r f e c t cake, time a f t e r time. Going one step f u r t h e r , even when the cake formulations are pre-packaged as Betty Crocker, Duncan Hines, e t c . ) , someone s t i l l manages to produce a less than p e r f e c t cake. No one w i l l profess t h a t the Marshall Method i s p e r f e c t , but i t i s probably the best procedure t h a t i s a v a i l a b l e at t h i s time. Undoubtedly, the Marshall Method w i l l become the primary method of mix design and c o n t r o l as i t i s the only u s e f u l technique a v a i l a b l e which has been c o r r e l a t e d w i t h pavement performance that i s s u i t a b l e f o r end r e s u l t mix acceptance by the highway agency and f i e l d c o n t r o l of mixes by the c o n t r a c t o r . What remains to be resolved, are the various mix design and c o n t r o l c r i t e r i a to be applied i n the Marshall Method. These c r i t e r i a and t h e i r s i g n i f i c a n c e w i l l be more f u l l y discussed l a t e r i n t h i s booklet. I t i s not the i n t e n t of t h i s booklet to reinvent the wheel. I t i s recognized t h a t several other p u b l i c a t i o n s are a v a i l a b l e which cover the procedures f o r conducting the Marshall Method as w e l l as procedures f o r mix design i n general, (1,2,3). I n a d d i t i o n , many s t a t e highway agencies p u b l i s h t h e i r own version of a Marshall Mix Design Procedure. These are f o r the most p a r t , p r a c t i c a l l y s i m i l a r to the broader consensus standard procedures and 7

Marshall

Specimens.

practices referenced above, w i t h some minor exceptions. I t i s h i g h l y recommended t h a t these p u b l i c a t i o n s be obtained, read, and studied as they are the best i n f o r m a t i o n c u r r e n t l y a v a i l a b l e . That brings us t o the scope of t h i s p u b l i c a t i o n which I s t o f u r t h e r c l a r i f y some of the Marshall Mix Design Procedures i n use; to address some of the various techniques and m o d i f i c a t i o n s to the Marshall procedures t h a t one may eventually encounter; t o e x p l a i n some of the d i f f e r e n c e s and redundancies that e x i s t i n Marshall design c r i t e r i a ; and t o discuss some imminent changes t h a t may be made t o e x i s t i n g standard Marshall Method procedures. The purpose of t h i s booklet i s designed t o supplement the e x i s t i n g Marshall Method l i t e r a t u r e . The Mix Design Approval Process Perhaps the most prevalent design process i s the one where a contractor submits samples of h i s aggregate stockpiles and asphalt t o a specifying a u t h o r i t y and, a f t e r a period o f time, the contractor receives h i s mix design back c o n s i s t i n g of aggregate percentages and asphalt content. With m a t e r i a l s cost now dominating the cost of mix production, t h i s procedure i s no longer economically v i a b l e . Contractors, i n order t o remain competitive, are being forced t o submit "suggestive" aggregate q u a n t i t i e s along w i t h t h e i r m a t e r i a l s f o r approval. I n other words, the contractors have become aware that there are economic considerations t h a t need t o be looked a t w i t h i n the p o s s i b i l i t i e s of mixes t h a t can be selected, a l l of which meet the mix design c r i t e r i a . They thus t r y t o steer the a u t h o r i t y towards t h e i r most competitive mix, w i t h recommendations f o r aggregate gradation. In order t o be able t o make the most economic mix design suggestions, a contractor needs t o perform a t r i a l Marshall Mix design beforehand. This p r a c t i c e i s t o be encouraged, even i n j u r i s d i c t i o n s where such procedures are not mandatory because only the contractor can take f u l l economic advantage of his p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n w i t h regard t o aggregate supplies and the type of asphalt p l a n t equipment he possesses. This can only r e s u l t i n savings f o r everyone i n the long run. Preliminary mix designs should be performed p r i o r t o job startup w i t h a "process plan" i n mind. A mix design meeting a l l the mix design c r i t e r i a on s t o c k p i l e materials i s no good i f a f t e r the plant process, the mix design c r i t e r i a are not met on plant produced mix. I n c e r t a i n s i t u a t i o n s , i t may be necessary t o i n p u t aggregate m a t e r i a l s i n t o an asphalt plant that are "out of s p e c i f i c a t i o n s " i n order t h a t the aggregate blend coming out of the plant i s " w i t h i n s p e c i f i c a t i o n s " . S p e c i f i c a t i o n requirements placed on both ends of the asphalt p l a n t , or a s p e c i f i c a t i o n requirement placed on the input end of the asphalt plant w i t h l i m i t s placed on mix adjustments a f t e r which a new preliminary design i s r e q u i r e d , eventually end up i n an impossible s i t u a t i o n at one time or another. I n order t o b r i n g about contr a c t o r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of mix design and process c o n t r o l , agencies must r e w r i t e t h e i r present recipe s p e c i f i c a t i o n c r i t e r i a , requirements and tolerances i n t o t r u l y end r e s u l t requirements. The most s a t i s f a c t o r y end r e s u l t mix s p e c i f i c a t i o n requirements are those established on mix p r o p e r t i e s measured on mixes designed and c o n t r o l l e d by the Marshall Method. Mix Design C r i t e r i a C r i t e r i a used i n the Marshall Method o f mix design are a r e f l e c t i o n of the requirements deemed e s s e n t i a l t o o b t a i n a desired l e v e l of pavement p e r f o r mance as can be a f f e c t e d by the e n t i r e process of: pavement thickness design, asphalt and aggregate materials s e l e c t i o n and t e s t i n g , mix production and laydown procedures, and t r a f f i c and environmental conditions i n any s p e c i f i c j u r i s d i c t i o n a l body. As might be expected then, not everyone uses the same l i s t of c r i t e r i a f o r mix design, although i n many instances there are some c r i t e r i a that manage t o show up on everyone's l i s t . To make matters s t i l l more complicated, or diverse, even when there i s consistency or agreement on a p a r t i c u l a r c r i t e r i o n ' s importance, everyone has h i s own thoughts w i t h

respect t o the degree o f importance and t o the values that should be s p e c i f i e d f o r t h a t c r i t e r i o n . Hence d i f f e r e n c e s i n minimum or maximum values are the r u l e , and i n some instances d i f f e r e n c e s i n opinion even e x i s t , concerning whether a c r i t e r i o n should include both a maximum and minimum value, or whether j u s t one or the other i s needed. Sometimes these d i f f e r e n c e s occur and may be somewhat self-compensating due to the methods and procedures used t o measure the t e s t values themselves. One c r i t e r i o n i n conjunction w i t h another may even compensate f o r a t h i r d missing c r i t e r i o n which others f i n d e s s e n t i a l . E s s e n t i a l l y , t h i s means t h a t one should not i n d i s c r i m i n a t e l y t r a n s l a t e the c r i t e r i a or t h e i r associated values from one governmental j u r i s d i c t i o n t o another without f i r s t i n v e s t i g a t i n g a l l the i n t r i c a t e aspects of the asphalt i n d u s t r y w i t h i n those j u r i s d i c t i o n s . Throughout the years since the i n i t i a l development work on the Marshall Method, a d d i t i o n a l c r i t e r i a have been implemented and/or values f o r e x i s t i n g c r i t e r i a have been modified, o f t e n i n an e f f o r t t o correct an observed pavement performance deficiency. As a r e s u l t , i n some highway j u r i s d i c t i o n s , considerable redundancy has been b u i l t i n t o the mix design c r i t e r i a , as c r i t e r i a are t y p i c a l l y added, but hardly ever deleted or replaced. I n some instances, i t i s very d i f f i c u l t t o f i n d m a t e r i a l s w i t h which one can s a t i s f y a l l the requirements t h a t are demanded by some j u r i s d i c t i o n s . New technol o g i c a l developments have also created the need f o r a d d i t i o n a l mix design c r i t e r i a and m o d i f i c a t i o n of values. As a r e s u l t , through the years some c r i t e r i a have taken on more importance, while others seem t o have l o s t t h e i r o r i g i n a l apparent value. One of the most d i f f i c u l t q u a l i t i e s of a mix t o evaluate i n the laboratory i s I t s w o r k a b i l i t y . W o r k a b i l i t y i s perhaps best defined as the ease and speed i n which the paving or laydown crew can place and compact the mixture achieving both s p e c i f i c a t i o n density and a f i n i s h e d mat surface free of deformities and segregation. Extremely coarse graded mixes, such as the open-graded f r i c t i o n course, are p r a c t i c a l l y impossible t o hand work. S i m i l a r l y , gap-graded or "skip" graded mixes are more prone t o segregate during handling and spreading than are the more uniform, dense graded mixes. Therefore, w o r k a b i l i t y i s a q u a l i t a t i v e consideration not as e a s i l y defined q u a n t i t a t i v e l y as are the other mix c r i t e r i a i n use. Experience i s s t i l l the best guide to designing w o r k a b i l i t y i n one's mix designs. One must always remain cognizant of the necessity t o provide t h i s q u a l i t y w i t h every mix design performed. In the f o l l o w i n g pages, we w i l l discuss b r i e f l y some of the mix design c r i t e r i a presently I n use, the values or l i m i t s placed on those c r i t e r i a and t h e i r r e l a t i o n t o producing q u a l i t y asphalt mixes. The Selection of Aggregate Gradation While i t can be argued t h a t aggregate gradation bands f o r job mix blends are not Marshall Design c r i t e r i a , one cannot deny the f a c t that they i n f l u e n c e g r e a t l y the range of Marshall t e s t p r o p e r t i e s achievable w i t h a mixture having a given set of aggregates forced t o have a gradation l y i n g w i t h i n those l i m i t s . The very f i r s t step faced by everyone i n developing a job mix formula or mix design i s having t o select a combination of aggregates having a grading w i t h i n a set of h i s t o r i c a l , but a r b i t r a r y c r i t e r i a restrictions. Gradations bands are holdovers from the days of mix design by recipe approach. They have value today mostly as a guide on where t o s t a r t i n the aggregate s e l e c t i o n process. Unfortunately, these gradation band l i m i t s have been cast i n g r a n i t e i n some j u r i s d i c t i o n s and i n some instances take precedent over more meaningful design c r i t e r i a . The best t h a t one can hope f o r i s t h a t a gradation master band l i m i t a t i o n w i l l not preclude one from meeting mix design c r i t e r i a . For the most p a r t , gradation band l i m i t s are usually wide enough t o enable one t o work out a q u a l i t y , i f not the most economical mix possible w i t h i n them. However i n some j u r i s d i c t i o n s , the master band l i m i t s are f u r t h e r narrowed f o r the job mix formulation by the allowed gradation 9

tolerance l i m i t s which w i l l be imposed during mix production. Most j u r i s d i c t i o n s f o r t u n a t e l y permit the f u l l use of the master band l i m i t s f o r design purposes and allow the production gradation to exceed those l i m i t s by the allowable tolerance values. A c t u a l l y , the gradation tolerance values are also holdover practices from the recipe design approach or method type s p e c i f i c a t i o n . Both gradation tolerance values and Master Band l i m i t s have no u s e f u l place i n end r e s u l t s p e c i f i c a t i o n s when mix acceptance i s based on p l a n t produced mix meeting Marshall Design c r i t e r i a . Gradation and asphalt content v a r i a b i l i t y i s undesirable from the standpoint t h a t mix design c r i t e r i a probably w i l l not be s a t i s f i e d but f o r no other reason. An examination or measurement of gradation and asphalt content v a r i a b i l i t y during mix production i s valuable only i n determining or assigning a cause of mix design c r i t e r i a v a r i a b i l i t y and determining the c o r r e c t i v e a c t i o n t o be taken. Mix design i s more l o g i c a l l y based on volumetric considerations and the packing or compaction c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the aggregates used i s most i n f l u e n t i a l i n t h i s respect. The most important f a c t o r s include aggregate shape, t e x t u r e , and gradation. One can a l t e r or c o n t r o l shape and perhaps even t e x t u r e t o some extent by r e q u i r i n g a minimum crushed aggregate count, flakiness index, e t c . A l l those f a c t o r s are s u b j e c t i v e l y r e l a t e d w i t h e x i s t i n g gradation l i m i t a t i o n s . No gradation master band can guarantee a s u i t a b l e volume p r o p o r t i o n i n g of a l l possible aggregate sources. However, when one implements Marshall Design c r i t e r i a as a means of mix acceptance, one can place less importance on these above f a c t o r s as these q u a l i t i e s can be evaluated i n terms of t h e i r Influence on mix c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , which i s r e a l l y what i s important, w i t h Marshall Design c r i t e r i a which w i l l be discussed s h o r t l y . The Marshall Compaction Hammer The r e l a t i o n s h i p between the density of a mix compacted on the Marshall compactor and the u l t i m a t e compaction density which w i l l be achieved under t r a f f i c i s the most important element I n designing asphalt mixtures. Regardless of the combination of Ingredients used to produce a mixture, the u l t i m a t e goal i s t o produce a pavement t h a t i s dense enough t o prevent the adverse e f f e c t s of a i r and water i n t r u s i o n i n t o the mix, yet not so dense as to cause a h y d r o s t a t i c c o n d i t i o n w i t h i n the mixture where the load transfer i s no longer being c a r r i e d by the aggregate m a t r i x , but r a t h e r the asphalt cement phase. To a s s i s t i n achieving a s i m u l a t i o n of the e f f e c t s o f t r a f f i c density on u l t i m a t e mix compaction, the number of compaction blows on the Marshall hammer are t y p i c a l l y s p e c i f i e d from 75 t o 35 blows per s i d e , w i t h 50 blows per side being the most commonly used. One o f the u n c e r t a i n t i e s i n mix design i s a n t i c i p a t i n g the d i f f e r e n c e between simulated end point t r a f f i c density and the l e v e l of compaction which w i l l be achieved during c o n s t r u c t i o n , which i s influenced by many f a c t o r s not p e c u l i a r t o mix design considerations alone. There i s presently no compensating formula a v a i l a b l e , other than engineering judgement t o take i n t o account i n the mix design the type o f base the mixture w i l l be placed and compacted upon and how w e l l the mixture w i l l be compacted which i s also a f f e c t e d by the r e s i l i e n c y of the base, the mat thickness, etc. Unfortunately, mix design c r i t e r i a must t r y to s a t i s f y a l l possible construction c o n d i t i o n s . F a i l u r e t o achieve end point t r a f f i c density q u i c k l y a f t e r c o n s t r u c t i o n or during c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t e n leads t o premature pavement f a i l u r e by s t r i p p i n g and other causes. The l e v e l of expected t r a f f i c loading on a pavement would not have t o be a f a c t o r i n mix design a t a l l i f the c a p a b i l i t y existed t o achieve 75 blow or higher mat density during pavement construction a l l the time. Having selected a compaction l e v e l f o r the Marshall Hammer which i s commensurate w i t h the a n t i c i p a t e d t r a f f i c density ( t o the best of one's a b i l i t y ) , and having selected a s t a r t i n g p o i n t f o r job mix gradation (mostly by a r b i t r a r y requirements), one merely needs t o determine the optimum asphalt content f o r the mixture.

Optimum Asphalt Content By d e f i n i t i o n , the optimum asphalt content I s t h a t value a t which a l l other mix design c r i t e r i a are optimized or s a t i s f i e d . While asphalt content i s not by i t s e l f a mix design c r i t e r i o n , r e s t r i c t i o n s are t y p i c a l l y imposed on various mix types i n the form o f a minimum and maximum asphalt content range. The allowable range which i s expressed i n terms of a weight percentage, must also be large enough t o compensate f o r mixes composed of aggregates having d i f f e r e n t s p e c i f i c g r a v i t i e s . One method of s e l e c t i n g optimum asphalt content i s t o average the asphalt content values a t optimum Marshall s t a b i l i t y , optimum mix density and four X a i r voids. That average value must then s a t i s f y the requirements of a l l the f o l l o w i n g mix design c r i t e r i a : 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) A i r voids Marshall s t a b i l i t y Marshall flow Voids mineral aggregate Voids mineral aggregate f i l l e d ( i f used)

I f any of the requirements are not met a t that average value, or i f by s e l e c t i n g a s l i g h t l y higher or lower asphalt value the c r i t e r i a s t i l l cannot be s a t i s f i e d , then a new aggregate blend must be selected and the design process repeated. The problem that one u s u a l l y faces i s t h a t , f o r many mixes, there i s no optimum s t a b i l i t y or optimum mix density. A more s u i t a b l e method of s e l e c t i n g optimum asphalt content w i l l be discussed shortly. The term optimum asphalt has i t s roots imbedded i n the Proctor Density test f o r s o i l s from which the Marshall hammer evolved. I n the l a t t e r Instance we r e f e r t o an optimum moisture content a t which maximum s o i l density i s achieved f o r a s p e c i f i e d compaction c o n d i t i o n . The main d i f f e r e n c e between compacted asphalt and compacted s o i l I s t h a t asphalt i s strong or stable enough t o carry t r a f f i c whether or not the asphalt mix e x i s t s a t a c o n d i t i o n of maximum density or maximum s t a b i l i t y . The p r a c t i c i n g world presently does not include asphalt mixture s t r e n g t h as part of pavement thickness design. Although the Marshall stabilometer value I s u s e f u l I n mix design, too much emphasis i s and has been placed on maximizing i t s value ( o f t e n a t the detrimental expense of compromising other more important c r i t e r i a ) and on i t s value i n s e l e c t i n g asphalt content. A d d i t i o n a l l y , i n the l a s t ten years there has been a t e n - f o l d increase i n the cost of asphalt cement which mandates that one must examine the economics of mix design w i t h i n the l i m i t s placed on mix c r i t e r i a f o r performance purposes. I t i s t h e r e f o r e of i n t e r e s t to have removed those mix c r i t e r i a and t h e i r values that are e i t h e r redundant, or t h a t do not c o n t r i b u t e to mix performance, but which place r e s t r i c t i v e and unnecessary l i m i t a t i o n s which cause higher than needed cost of mix production. [A] The Marshall Stabilometer Value As discussed b r i e f l y before, t h i s parameter i s used by some persons t o select optimum asphalt content. I n a d d i t i o n t o t h a t , a minimum requirement for stabilometer value must also be met. This minimum can be anywhere from 500 to 4000 pounds depending on the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l a u t h o r i t y . L a t e l y , w i t h the advent of asphalt r e c y c l i n g (wherein higher dust contents have been permitted i n the mix, as w e l l as various asphalt r e j u v e n a t o r s ) , several a u t h o r i t i e s have r e c e n t l y i n i t i a t e d a maximum stabilometer requirement t o prevent mixes that are too b r i t t l e or d e f i c i e n t i n asphalt. This maximum value has ranged from 3000 to 3500 pounds. Mixes having stabilometer values between 500 and 4000 are strong enough f o r any t r a f f i c c o n d i t i o n provided s u f f i c i e n t pavement thickness i s provided. The Marshall stabilometer value i s more important as an evaluation of aggregate i n t e r n a l f r i c t i o n (crushed content, a n g u l a r i t y , surface roughness, and g r a d a t i o n ) . While mixes having stabilometer values between 500 and 1000 pounds are strong enough f o r

10

11

t r a f f i c , they may have a tendency f o r e x h i b i t i n g tenderness, shoving, and abrasion loss ( r a v e l l i n g ) . Between 1000 and 3500 pounds i s a "no meaning range". Above 3500 pounds i s a "red f l a g area" i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the mix i s an a t y p i c a l asphalt mix and the engineer should determine the cause f o r that high s t a b i l i t y value and t o evaluate whether the cause or e f f e c t w i l l be detrimental t o mix performance. Anyone f a m i l i a r w i t h the Marshall stabilometer t e s t (value) does not place much s i g n i f i c a n c e on stabilometer d i f f e r e n c e of 200, even 400 pounds, unless one i s i n the 500 t o 1000 pound range. However, contractors have had mix penalties imposed and mix designs r e j e c t e d by f a l l i n g even 10 pounds less than t h a t required (ex. 1790 pounds vs. a 1800 pounds minimum requirement). The Marshall stabilometer value should be less emphasized as a requirement i n mix design and should not be used t o select mix asphalt content. The Marshall stabilometer minimum value has been increased by many a u t h o r i t i e s i n the past years t o prevent or minimize pavement r u t t i n g . Some of the steps taken to provide f o r higher Marshall s t a b i l i t y values, such as increasing dust content a c t u a l l y have the e f f e c t o f promoting pavement r u t t i n g rather than preventing i t . [B] The Marshall Flow Value Typical flow value requirements include a maximum and minimum value. The maximum value u s u a l l y ranges from 16 t o 20, and the minimum from s i x t o e i g h t . The maximum value i s important p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r surface course mix. Anything above twenty i s l i k e l y to get one i n t r o u b l e q u i c k l y , and f o r heavier t r a f f i c , a maximum of 18 or even 16 i s more i n order. The value of the minimum requirement i s questionable and most people ignore i t . Generally, a mix t h a t has a flow value less than s i x f a i l s some other c r i t e r i a such as voids i n mineral aggregate, e t c . [C] A i r Voids Without question, t h i s i s the most important parameter i n mix design, and i t s value must be established a t a compaction l e v e l which simulates the u l t i m a t e mix density (or a i r void l e v e l ) which w i l l occur under the t r a f f i c to be placed on the mix. Thus the "optimum asphalt" necessary to achieve t h i s value i s d i f f e r e n t f o r d i f f e r e n t compaction blows. Lower asphalt contents f o r I n t e r s t a t e pavementshigher asphalt contents f o r driveway pavements, but both pavements t o be designed f o r the same l e v e l of a i r void value. Perhaps the best over a l l accepted value I s 4.0%, based on a maximum mix density value determined by the vacuum immersion technique (Rice Test) and corrected f o r absorbed water i n the case o f porous aggregates. While there may be j u s t i f i c a t i o n t o want t o lower t h i s value t o 3.0% I t should only be done a f t e r the designer i s convinced t h a t he has had s u f f i c i e n t pavement performance feedback to attempt t h i s . The recent trends toward designing base mixes a t a i r void levels t y p i c a l l y reserved f o r surfacing mix i n the past i s t o the betterment o f pavement performance i n general. Many base mixes have f a i l e d by s t r i p p i n g because o f design a i r voids i n the 8% t o 11% range. [D] Voids I n Mineral Aggregate This i s the second most important parameter i n mix design f o r two reasons. Too l i t t l e VMA means t h a t there i s not enough room (together w i t h the 4& a i r void requirement) i n the aggregate matrix t o put s u f f i c i e n t asphalt cement f o r d u r a b i l i t y . Too much VMA means t h a t one i s unnecessarily p u t t i n g excess expensive asphalt cement I n the aggregate matrix to achieve 4% a i r voids. Typical VMA requirements such as those published by the Asphalt I n s t i t u t e specify a minimum value based on nominal maximum size o f aggregate i n the mix. A maximum VMA value which normally would not be needed due t o the

present cost of asphalt cement, may be j u s t i f i e d when the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l a u t h o r i t y pays f o r asphalt mix and asphalt cement separately. T y p i c a l VMA minimum values range from 15 t o 16% f o r surface mixes depending on nominal aggregate s i z e . There i s a present trend f o r more and more agencies t o want t o include a VMA requirement. Often t h i s c o n f l i c t s w i t h e x i s t i n g l i m i t a t i o n s on aggregate gradation master bands, and minimum asphalt content requirements i n conjunct i o n w i t h the a i r void requirement. The VMA value does what a gradation master band cannot do. I t i s an evaluation of the packing and compaction c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a source o f aggregate. Adoption o f a VMA requirement means these other considerations should no longer be requirements, but perhaps could remain as "guidelines" which i n general produce mixes meeting VMA requirements. Not only i s the minimum VMA requirement f o r the mix important t o insure s u f f i c i e n t asphalt i n the mix, the minimum VMA point on the VMA vs % AC curve i s also believed t o have s i g n i f i c a n c e w i t h regard to p o t e n t i a l pavement r u t t i n g . Points t o the l e f t of the minimum (lower AC values) represent the p o t e n t i a l f o r a d d i t i o n a l VMA c o n s o l i d a t i o n under t h a t compaction e f f o r t which could occur i f water o r moisture gets i n t o the mix. Points t o the r i g h t o f the minimum (higher AC values) represent Increased VMA due t o b l o a t i n g the mix w i t h asphalt, which i s both uneconomical and p o t e n t i a l l y a f l u s h i n g pavement c o n d i t i o n when subjected t o t r a f f i c . I n the l a t t e r case, t h i s i s because compaction under t r a f f i c i s d i f f e r e n t than compaction i n a confined mold. The minimum p o i n t on the VMA curve accomplishes what the maximum point on the maximum density curve i s suppose to do. However, a minimum VMA requirement as described above ensures t h a t there i s enough asphalt i n the mix f o r durab i l i t y , whereas a maximum density value cannot. In the search f o r the most economical combination of aggregates and asphalt content which meet mix performance c r i t e r i a , the use of 0.45 power gradation charts i s very h e l p f u l . The maximum density l i n e (approx.) p l o t s as a s t r a i g h t l i n e on the paper and i s h e l p f u l i n determining how to modify trial mix gradings t o achieve the most desirable VMA value a t 4% a i r voids. I t should be emphasized that the maximum density l i n e i s a g u i d e a u s e f u l t o o l In mix design. Too o f t e n the maximum density l i n e i s a "target grading" which people t r y t o match f o r t h e i r mix design. While i n a few instances, one may have s u f f i c i e n t VMA i n one's mix even i f the grading i s the maximum density l i n e , more times than n o t , VMA values are too low t o ensure a durable mix. As mentioned e a r l i e r , depending on a j u r i s d i c t i o n ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the s i g n i f i c a n c e o r weight of the master gradation band l i m i t a t i o n and also the manner i n which gradation tolerance l i m i t s are applied, one may be forced to design a mix t h a t w i l l not necessarily be durable i n order t o s a t i s f y a j u r i s d i c t i o n ' s requirements f o r aggregate gradation. Aiming t o reproduce the maximum density l i n e f o r job mix gradation i s a misuse o f the 0.45 power gradation paper and i t s purpose. One can only wonder how many poor performing pavements have and are being b u i l t t h i s way. An engineer can have l i t t l e comfort i n p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n designing an inadequate mix even when he can claim t h a t he met a l l the s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . Depending on where one i s , one can encounter VMA's based on bulk aggregate g r a v i t y or based on e f f e c t i v e aggregate g r a v i t y . While the c r i t e r i a f o r VMA can be s h i f t e d i n an attempt t o use the e f f e c t i v e g r a v i t y (thus e l i m i n a t i n g the need t o perform aggregate g r a v i t y t e s t i n g ) , one can never t r u l y account f o r the p o r o s i t y d i f f e r e n c e s between aggregates I n t h i s manner. The net e f f e c t o f doing the l a t t e r I s t o "penalize" aggregate sources (owners) having low p o r o s i t i e s which i s also often an I n d i c a t o r o f higher q u a l i t y aggregate. Using the e f f e c t i v e g r a v i t y f o r VMA i s a short cut procedure. The d u r a b i l i t y of an asphalt mixture i s r e l a t e d t o the unabsorbed asphalt content o f the mixture. Only a minimum VMA parameter based on bulk aggregate g r a v i t y ensures s u f f i c i e n t asphalt cement i n the mix f o r d u r a b i l i t y , regardless of the aggregate p o r o s i t y or absorption. Only a minimum VMA parameter which I s based on volumetric measurements ensures s u f f i c i e n t asphalt cement i n a mixture independent o f the aggregate weight or i t s
13

12

s p e c i f i c g r a v i t y . Using minimum asphalt contents based on mixture weight i s even less desirable than basing asphalt content minimums on VMA using e f f e c t i v e aggregate g r a v i t y . Using minimum asphalt contents based on mixture weight i n conjunction w i t h a VMA requirement i s redundant and can only lead to p o t e n t i a l c o n f l i c t s between the agency and the c o n t r a c t o r . [EJ Voids i n Mineral Aggregate F i l l e d w i t h Asphalt

Specifics of the Marshall Mix Design Process Acquiring the M a t e r i a l s In e s t a b l i s h i n g a p r e l i m i n a r y Marshall Mix Design, one must obtain representative samples of the asphalt cement and the aggregates t h a t are proposed f o r the p r o j e c t . I f the aggregate samples submitted are representative of the s t o c k p i l e i t makes the l a b o r a t o r y batching operations much easier. I f they are not r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , a p r e l i m i n a r y design can s t i l l be done, provided that the average s t o c k p i l e gradations are known and provided to the laboratory. I n t h i s l a t t e r case, one should then submit a d d i t i o n a l supplies of aggregate I n order to compensate f o r any d e f i c i e n c i e s t h a t may occur i n some size f r a c t i o n s . I t i s absolutely necessary that e i t h e r the average s t o c k p i l e gradation be known or t h a t the aggregate samples are representative of t h a t i n the s t o c k p i l e . Otherwise, a l l mix design r e s u l t s w i l l be meaningless. I n general, one g a l l o n of asphalt and f i f t y pounds of aggregates are the minimum requirements f o r one series of t e s t specimens. I t w i l l save considerable time, i n most instances, i f more than enough materials are acquired at the outset of the t e s t i n g program, p a r t i c u l a r l y I f i t i s believed that several t e s t series might be done i n order to locate the most economical mix which meets a l l mix c r i t e r i a . Aggregate samples should be shipped i n clean, leakproof containers or bags. Preferably, sand or screenings should be sampled when wet to a s s i s t i n g e t t i n g representative samples, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n g e t t i n g the f i n e r sizes; the most important of a l l , which i s the passing 200 mesh m a t e r i a l . I f I t I s a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t an a n t i - s t r i p p i n g a d d i t i v e w i l l be needed, or i f i t i s known t h a t one w i l l be used, a sample of I t should also be provided w i t h any dosage recommendations. I n i t i a l Tests on Submitted M a t e r i a l s Certain information regarding the p r o p e r t i e s of the asphalt cement and aggregate samples must be known or measured as part of the mix design process. Some of these properties are not determined by a number of agencies due to the a d d i t i o n a l time and work i t adds t o the mix design process. I n most instances, the o v e r a l l workload f o r mix design forces an agency i n t o these shortcut procedures. With d i v e s t i t u r e of i t s mix design r e s p o n s i b i l i t y onto the c o n t r a c t i n g side of the i n d u s t r y , the workload w i l l be spread out over many more persons and l a b o r a t o r i e s so that there should be no need to shortcut the design process as i n the past. (A) Asphalt Cement

This parameter, together w i t h a c a r e f u l l y chosen minimum asphalt content value, can have an e f f e c t on mix q u a l i t y near to that which can be provided by using the VMA parameter alone. I n many instances, though, one can meet the VMA f i l l e d parameter, p a r t i c u l a r l y i f one's grading i s on the maximum density l i n e , thus producing an "acceptable" mix, but also one that w i l l have short l i f e . Where VMA i s a c r i t e r i o n , t h i s parameter i s not u s u a l l y used and vice-versa. I n one j u r i s d i c t i o n , however, both VMA and VMA f i l l e d are used which has the e f f e c t of e l i m i n a t i n g a number of aggregate sources which might produce an acceptable mix. There I s no u s e f u l purpose f o r continuing to use t h i s parameter i n mix design. T y p i c a l minimum values range from 65 to 75 and maximum values from 75 to 85%. [F] Dust-Asphalt Ratio

Although not considered important by many j u r i s d i c t i o n s i n the past, t h i s parameter has greater importance today w i t h the advent of baghouse type emission c o n t r o l devices and asphalt pavement r e c y c l i n g . I t i s a known f a c t t h a t one i s needlessly wasting asphalt cement i n an asphalt mix having no passing 200 mesh m a t e r i a l , and one needlessly wastes asphalt cement I n a mix having too much passing 200 mesh m a t e r i a l . That should be reason enough, considering the cost of asphalt cement today, to want to c o n t r o l the dust content of a mix a t a reasonable l e v e l . As f a r as q u a l i t y i s concerned, too much dust i s probably more d e t r i m e n t a l than not enough dust. The problem surrounding the dust content of an asphalt mix u s u a l l y appears i n areas where n a t u r a l aggregates have minimal q u a n t i t i e s of passing 200 mesh m a t e r i a l and i n areas where processed aggregates have an overabundance of f i n e s . I n the f i r s t case, no one wants t o add f i l l e r due to cost considerations. I n the second, the fines are too c o s t l y to waste and present disposal problems. Recently imposed dust abatement procedures at quarrying operations have f u r t h e r aggravated the dust content problem by causing q u a n t i t i e s which are c a r r i e d "piggyback" on coarse aggregate. For mix design purposes one should s t r i v e f o r a dust/ asphalt weight r a t i o of about one ( f o r dusts having s p e c i f i c g r a v i t i e s between 2.60 and 2.70). I t cannot be emphasized enough, that i n designing a mix, one must be cognizant of the asphalt plant operation through which t h i s mix w i l l be produced. What i s desired i s a dust/asphalt r a t i o of about one i n plant produced mix, so one must know i n advance i f the plant has a wet or dry emission c o n t r o l system. Asphalt mix designs performed on s t o c k p i l e aggregates should only be considered p r e l i m i n a r y and are only of value f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g plant s t a r t up conditions and c a l i b r a t i o n s . Asphalt mix produced by a p l a n t having a wet emission system w i l l not have as much dust I n i t because some of the dust w i l l end up i n the water pond. Mixes produced by a plant having a baghouse c o l l e c t o r w i l l have probably more dust I n them because of some aggregate degradation I n the dryer. I n other words, the preliminary mix design performed on s t o c k p i l e aggregates must be fine-tuned by performing a f i n a l Marshall Mix design on plant produced mix. There i s no other way to establ i s h a q u a l i t y mix. The dust content of a mix i s the p r i n c i p a l reason why t h i s i s so, and i t I s because of recent technological developments i n plants (drum vs. batch t y p e ) , asphalt r e c y c l i n g and environmental r e g u l a t i o n s that make i t necessary to do so. I n performing a check on plant produced mix, a l l the Marshall Design c r i t e r i a can be r e v e r i f l e d .

In a d d i t i o n to the general requirement t h a t the asphalt cement should be a paving grade asphalt and t h a t , I n I t s e l f , means t h a t the asphalt cement has to conform to a number of t e s t requirements, one needs to know the absolute v i s c o s i t y at 1A0 F, the kinematic v i s c o s i t y at 275 F, and the s p e c i f i c g r a v i t y at 77 F. These values are normally provided by the asphalt supplier or can be obtained by requesting them. The v i s c o s i t y values are needed to e s t a b l i s h the mixing and compaction temperature f o r specimens prepared by the Marshall Method. The mixing and compaction temperature i s established at asphalt v i s c o s i t i e s of 170+/-20 Cst and 280+/-30 Cst r e s p e c t i v e l y . An example of the procedure necessary to e s t a b l i s h these temperatures I s i l l u s t r a t e d on Figure 1. The kinematic v i s c o s i t y at 275 F can be p l o t t e d d i r e c t l y . The absolute v i s c o s i t y at 140 F must be converted from the u n i t s of poise to centistokes using the equation shown, before i t can be p l o t t e d . A s t r a i g h t l i n e i s drawn between the two p o i n t s and where t h a t l i n e I n t e r s e c t s the v i s c o s i t y l i m i t s f o r mixing and compaction, establishes the temperature ranges f o r mixing and compaction. These temperatures are not to be confused w i t h plant mixing or laydown and compaction temperatures i n the f i e l d . These temperatures ( v i s c o s i t y l e v e l s ) are f o r purposes of standardizing the r e s u l t s of the Marshall Method f o r mix

15

design purposes. The curve on Figure 1 i s t y p i c a l l y r e f e r r e d to as a viscosity-temperature curve. This curve i s also u s e f u l as an a i d i n a d j u s t i n g plant mix temperatures and laydown temperatures i n the f i e l d when asphalt supplies are changed, or asphalt grades are changed. The optimal p l a n t mixing temperature i s f i r s t determined by t r i a l and e r r o r , s t r i v i n g f o r as low a temperature as possible ( f o r energy conservation and to l i m i t the amount of asphalt hardening i n the p l a n t ) yet high enough t o s t i l l get adequate coating of aggregate and moisture removal. The asphalt v i s c o s i t y at which t h a t optimal c o n d i t i o n i s achieved can be determined from the v i s c o s i t y temperature curve of the asphalt being used as shown i n Figure 2. For each new asphalt source or grade then, the temperature at which t h a t v i s c o s i t y i s achieved i s determined from the v i s c o s i t y temperature curve of the new asphalt. Because the optimal mixing v i s c o s i t y f o r any p a r t i c u l a r mixture i s a f f e c t e d by the aggregate grading, the aggregate shape, surface texture and the crushed p a r t i c l e count, one needs t o determine t h i s value f o r each mixture being produced. (B) Aggregate

When aggregate s p e c i f i c g r a v i t i e s are performed, i n a d d i t i o n to being able to compute the bulk (dry basis) s p e c i f i c g r a v i t y of the combined blend, one can also compute the apparent s p e c i f i c g r a v i t y of the combined blend. I t w i l l be explained l a t e r t h a t t h i s provides an a d d i t i o n a l check or v e r i f i c a t i o n of the accuracy of the mix design i t s e l f , as the e f f e c t i v e aggregate g r a v i t y determined i n the Rice t e s t , which i s done on the mix using the combined aggregate blend, must f a l l between the bulk and apparent aggregate g r a v i t i e s of the combined blend. When one does not run aggregate s p e c i f i c g r a v i t i e s , one does not have t h i s a d d i t i o n a l v e r i f i c a t i o n of accuracy. Aggregate Blending I t was discussed e a r l i e r t h a t one of the recipe steps s t i l l required, even under end r e s u l t mix design c r i t e r i a , i s t o manufacture a combined aggregate grading w i t h i n a master band gradation s p e c i f i c a t i o n . I n some instances, t h i s requirement verges on being p u n i t i v e to a contractor who must also meet mix design c r i t e r i a on a blend of aggregates having to conform to that master band. This i s because, i n some instances, i t i s not possible to s a t i s f y both requirements. I f the master band l i m i t a t i o n s evolved over a considerable period of time, and i f they were developed as a r e s u l t of u t i l i z a t i o n of a l l possible aggregate geologic types i n t h a t area, and i f the primary sources of aggregate supply are l a r g e l y established i n that area, then the master band l i m i t a t i o n s should nearly approximate the l i m i t a t i o n s of aggregate gradings of a l l the possible mixes t h a t can be made which have an acceptable l e v e l of q u a l i t y and performance. I n other words, t r y i n g to develop a job mix grading conforming to the midband of those l i m i t s on the average, should be a reasonable grading to s t r i v e f o r . However, one i s never c e r t a i n t h a t that p a r t i c u l a r grading w i l l produce an acceptable mix u n t i l some Marshall samples are a c t u a l l y made and analyzed. I n today's business world, acceptable now also Includes the mix economics, as t h i s has a d i r e c t bearing on a contractor's competitiveness as gradation also influences the optimum asphalt content. One of the undesirable aspects to b l i n d l y s e l e c t i n g an aggregate blend meeting the midpoints of the master band l i m i t a t i o n s i s t h a t the midpoints may be on the maximum density l i n e as I l l u s t r a t e d i n Figure 3. Unless the Marshall Mix c r i t e r i a have been c a r e f u l l y established without some of the afore mentioned procedural s h o r t c u t s , such mixes may not always have s u f f i cient asphalt even at the supposed "optimum asphalt content", f o r adequate mix d u r a b i l i t y . Another undesirable aspect i s that t h i s aggregate blend s t i l l may not be the most economical mix t h a t can be produced w i t h i n the master band l i m i t a t i o n s . One should keep i n mind t h a t s e l e c t i o n of the least expensive aggregate blend f a l l i n g w i t h i n the master band l i m i t s may also not be the least expensive mixture. This i s because the cost of asphalt cement has a much greater influence on mix cost than i n the past when asphalt cement cost less than one t e n t h of what i t does today. A c t u a l l y , a l l t h a t I s r e a l l y required to s p e c i f y a p a r t i c u l a r mix type i s to s t a t e the nominal maximum aggregate size (which i s selected mainly on the basis of mixture l i f t thickness) and whether one desires a coarse or f i n e textured surface (below or above the maximum density l i n e , r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . The % passing the 200 mesh sieve i s e a s i l y c o n t r o l l e d by using a mixture dust/ asphalt r a t i o (maximum v a l u e ) . The minimum asphalt content, independent of asphalt absorption and aggregate s p e c i f i c g r a v i t y d i f f e r e n c e s , i s best c o n t r o l l e d by using a VMA requirement (minimum value) based on nominal maximum aggregate size and bulk (dry basis) aggregate s p e c i f i c g r a v i t y . I n areas where the agency pays f o r asphalt cement as a separate item from the mixture, a VMA requirement (maximum value) i s needed i n order that the low bidder and the lowest p r o j e c t cost are the same. I n the l a t t e r case, t h i s a d d i t i o n a l requirement prevents a c o n t r a c t o r from using a blend of aggregates which are economical to him, but at an added expense f o r the agency.

I n a d d i t i o n to a s c e r t a i n i n g t h a t one's aggregates meet the general requirements f o r d u r a b i l i t y such as abrasion l o s s , soundness, e t c . , one must also know the aggregate grading of each of the various s t o c k p i l e aggregates. I f t h i s i s not submitted w i t h the aggregate samples, i t must be determined on the aggregate samples submitted and, t h e r e f o r e , i t i s important that these samples be representative of the e n t i r e s t o c k p i l e ( s ) . I t i s h i g h l y recommended t h a t these be washed gradations, as i t i s extremely Important that one know the amount of minus 200 mesh m a t e r i a l I n the f i n a l mix blend. Washed analyses should be performed on the coarse aggregates as w e l l as the f i n e aggregates. This i s almost mandatory i f one has to meet a dust-asphalt requirement i n the f i n a l mix blend. Dry sieve analyses are done only f o r the sake of expediency; again a shortcut i n the mix design procedure. Considerable d i f f e r e n c e s can occur between the dry and wet analysis on f i n e aggregates. For aggregate screenings ( f i n e quarried rock) the d i f f e r e n c e can be as large as 15% passing the 200 mesh sieve. For manufactured aggregates ( p r e washed), the d i f f e r e n c e can be minimal. While washed gradation analyses are h i g h l y recommended f o r Marshall design purposes, dry gradation analyses are s a t i s f a c t o r y f o r plant gradation c o n t r o l . P e r i o d i c a l l y a wet gradation analysis should be performed at the plant to v e r i f y the a c t u a l job mix gradation. Aggregate s p e c i f i c g r a v i t i e s should be performed on each source of m a t e r i a l . I n t h a t manner, the s p e c i f i c g r a v i t y of any combination of those materials can be determined by mathematical computation. The main aggregate s p e c i f i c g r a v i t y required i s the bulk (dry basis) f o r the purpose of computing voids mineral aggregate (VMA). As mentioned e a r l i e r , agencies sometimes use the e f f e c t i v e aggregate s p e c i f i c g r a v i t y which i s determined from measurements obtained i n the maximum mix g r a v i t y determination (Rice t e s t ) . Using the e f f e c t i v e s p e c i f i c g r a v i t y i s a shortcut procedure designed to eliminate the aggregate s p e c i f i c g r a v i t y t e s t on the source aggregates. However, the r e s u l t i n g VMA value determined t h i s way i s too large as i t includes the asphalt volume that has been absorbed i n t o the aggregate. Absorbed asphalt i s not considered to a i d i n mixture d u r a b i l i t y . The VMA based on the bulk aggregate s p e c i f i c g r a v i t y excludes the absorbed asphalt and only includes the " f r e e " or " e f f e c t i v e " or unabsorbed asphalt. The discrepancy i n the VMA value between the two methods of c a l c u l a t i o n increases as asphalt absorption Increases. I n general, the higher the aggregate p o r o s i t y , as measured by water absorption, the greater the asphalt absorption. There Is no established r e l a t i o n s h i p between aggregate water absorption and aggregate asphalt absorption. This i s because aggregate pore size and a number of c o n s t r u c t i o n variables have an added i n f l u e n c e .

16

17

Reference (1) goes i n t o considerable d e t a i l on the mathematical techniques f o r determining the percentage of the s t o c k p i l e or source aggregates which meet the master band or s p e c i f i c a t i o n l i m i t s f o r aggregate gradation. I t also discusses the maximum density l i n e (gradation) and the use o f the 0.45 power gradation paper. However, t h i s reference also suggests aiming f o r the midpoints of the master band. As an a l t e r n a t i v e t o t h i s procedure the f o l l o w i n g i s suggested f o r your consideration. (1) Draw the maximum density l i n e f o r the type mix s p e c i f i e d on 0.45 power paper. (2) Mark the upper and lower s p e c i f i c a t i o n l i m i t s on the paper f o r the #8 sieve. Use the #4 sieve f o r mixes w i t h a nominal maximum size o f 3/4 inch. Select a target value f o r the #8 ( o r #4) sieve which i s anywhere from 6 t o 8% above or below the maximum density l i n e (depending on the s p e c i f i c a t i o n l i m i t s or whether a f i n e or coarse mix I s desired). (3) Assume the asphalt content of the mixture t o be designed (4.5 to 6.5%), and select a target value f o r the passing #200 sieve to achieve a dust asphalt r a t i o o f about 1. (4) Using these two target values, determine the aggregate percentages of the s t o c k p i l e materials t h a t w i l l meet these values. (5) Having those percentages, complete the aggregate blending c a l c u l a t i o n s t o ascertain whether a l l the other sieve requirements are met. I f the mix i s intended f o r n o n - s p e c i f i c a t i o n type work, the same procedure should be followed except one need not be concerned about i n d i v i d u a l sieve l i m i t a t i o n s . I t should be mentioned t h a t some agencies have already recognized the f a l l a c y of gradation band l i m i t a t i o n s when Marshall Mix C r i t e r i a are to be used f o r mix design, acceptance, and q u a l i t y c o n t r o l . As a r e s u l t , the gradat i o n bands requirements have been opened up (made broader) t o allow a proper gradation t o be selected which achieves the desired Marshall p r o p e r t i e s . The Minnesota DOT i s a leader i n t h i s regard. Keep i n mind t h a t the maximum density l i n e t h a t I s drawn I s only an approximation as i t w i l l s h i f t somewhat f o r d i f f e r e n t shaped aggregates. Therefore i t i s only used as a guide, or a s t a r t i n g point f o r the f i r s t t r i a l series. I t I s probably more u s e f u l when and I f one needs t o attempt a second t r i a l mix s e r i e s . This i s because moving f u r t h e r away from the l i n e increases VMA and moving towards the l i n e decreases VMA. More w i l l be mentioned about t h i s l a t e r under mixture economics. An example of the above procedure I s provided f o r f u r t h e r c l a r i f i c a t i o n . Given the f o l l o w i n g aggregates and gradations (washed analyses) the problem i s to determine the appropriate aggregate percentages f o r the f i r s t t r i a l mix series, the blend o f which must also conform t o the Indicated s p e c i f i c a t i o n limitations. Example blending problem: Washed Gradation Analyses, % Passing No.8 Gravel 100 92 29 6 3 3 2 2 2.0 Specifications Master Band 100 90-100 50-72 30-55 17-40 5-20 2-12 0-5

t y p i c a l p r a c t i c e used i n s o i l s analyses. Agencies should be encouraged to use the U.S. standard sieve series shown i n the example problem. The s p e c i f i c a t i o n l i m i t s mandate that there be some 3/8" m a t e r i a l I n the combined blend. Regardless of the s p e c i f i c a t i o n l i m i t s though, i f some #8 gravel i s used i n the blend, the nominal maximum aggregate size w i l l be 3/8". Thus the maximum density l i n e and the s p e c i f i c a t i o n ranges f o r the #8 sieve are p l o t t e d as shown on Figure 4. I n s e l e c t i n g a target value f o r the No. 8 sieve, one can select a value ranging from 30 to 55. However, as discussed previously, target values a t or near the maximum density l i n e t y p i c a l l y produce aggregate blends t h a t are too densely graded. I n other words, the asphalt mix w i l l have too low a VMA f o r mix d u r a b i l i t y . Conversely, t a r g e t values f a r from the maximum density l i n e w i l l produce aggregate blends t h a t are too open o r , i n other words, the asphalt mix w i l l require an uneconomical amount of asphalt cement t o f i l l these aggregate voids. I t I s less expensive to f i l l aggregate voids w i t h aggregate than i t i s w i t h asphalt cement. Theref o r e , as a recommended s t a r t i n g p o i n t , select a t a r g e t value f o r the No. 8 sieve somewhere around 47%. Remember, a f t e r the f i r s t t e s t series of mixes, i t may be desirable t o do a second series of mixes at some value e i t h e r closer or f u r t h e r away from the maximum density l i n e . Most times, however, t h i s method w i l l y i e l d a s a t i s f a c t o r y design without having t o do a d d i t i o n a l testing. In s e l e c t i n g a t a r g e t value f o r the No. 200 sieve, a value between f i v e and six would produce a dust-asphalt r a t i o of around 1 . However, since the upper s p e c i f i c a t i o n l i m i t i s f i v e maximum, the t a r g e t w i l l have t o be selected as 5%. Having these target values, the blending problem reduces t o the following: #8 sieve: (% g r a v e l ) 6 + (% sand) 81 + (% screenings) 74 - 47 #200 sieve: (% g r a v e l ) 2.0 + (% sand) 2.1 + (% screenings) 15.0 - 5 The no. 200 sieve i s examined f i r s t . Because the % passing i s e s s e n t i a l l y the same f o r both the gravel and sand, t h i s problem I s e s s e n t i a l l y a two aggregate problem, which i s q u i t e simple t o solve, mathematically, but also even by t r i a l and e r r o r . X Screenings + + + + + 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.23 (15) (15) (15) (15) (15) Calculated Passing No. 8.5 7.2 5.9 4.6 5.0*

Trial 1 2 3 4 5

% Sand & Gravel 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.77 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

200

Sieve 1/2 3/8 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200

Sand 100 98 81 62 30 10 3 2.1

Screenings

100 74 40 29 22 17 15.0

Therefore, use 23% screenings Now the no. 8 sieve reduces t o i t s f o l l o w i n g problem: #8 sieve: (%gravel) 6 + (%sand) 81 + (0.23) 74 - 47 or more s i m p l i f i e d : (%gravel) ( 6 ) + (%sand) (81) - 47 - 17 - 30 where now the % gravel + % sand 100 - 23 77%. Calculated Passing No. 8 19.6 27.1 30.9 29.4 30.1

Trial 1 2 3 4 5

% Gravel 0.57 0.47 0.42 0.44 0.43 (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) + + f + +

% Sand 0.20 0.30 5M46 0.33 0.34 (81) (81) *92ll (81) (81)

Notice that even though the s p e c i f i c a t i o n s don't i n d i c a t e any requirements f o r the #30 sieve, the sieve analyses was done w i t h the #30 sieve i n the series regardless. This i s because the sieve series l i s t e d i s a mathematical progression of sizes and taking any of them out d i s r u p t s the smoothness of the grading curve when p l o t t i n g these values on gradation paper. Some agencies are s t i l l on the o l d #4, #10, #20, #40, #80, #200 series which evolved from
18

19

Therefore, the s o l u t i o n t o the blending problem i s t o use 43% g r a v e l , 34% sand, and 23% screenings. Using these percentages, the combined aggregate gradation f o r the f i r s t mix t r i a l series i s calculated as shown below: No.8 Gravel 100 92 29 6 3 3 2 2 2.0 Trial Blend No.l 100 96.6 68.8 47.1 31.6 18.2 9.3 5.8 5.02 Trial Blend No. 2 Trial Blend Specs. No. 3 Master Bar 100 90-100 50-72 30-55 17-40 5-20 2-12 0-5

Sieve Fraction Passing-Retained 1/2 3/8 #4 #8 - 3/8 - #4 - #8 - pan

Trial Blend No. 1 weight Retained 340g 2780g 2170g 4710g 10,000g

Trial Blend No. 1 %Retained 3.4 27.8 21.7 47.1 100.0

Trial Blend #1 Batch weight f o r 1130g 38.4g 314.lg 245.2g 532.3g 1130.Og

Batch weight Cumulative 38.4 352.5 597.7 1130.0

Sieve 1/2 3/8

Sand 100 98 81 62 30 10 3 2.1

Screen

H
#8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200

100 74 40 29 22 17 15.0

Blend % Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 43 34 23 100 X X X 100 X X X 100

One could then weigh out a q u a n t i t y of aggregate ( f o r example 1130 grams) as i n d i c a t e d above. Before a l l the aggregate batches f o r the e n t i r e t r i a l no. 1 series are weighed out, the required aggregate batch weight ( o r mixture weight) t o y i e l d a Marshall sample of 2.5 inches i n height should be established. This i s done by s t a r t i n g w i t h 1130 grams of the blended aggregate and making a Marshall plug a t the median asphalt content t o be used i n the test series ( i . e . 5.0, 5.5, 6.0, 6.5, 7.0 - therefore use 6.0%). The height of the t r i a l sample i s measured and the aggregate batch weight f o r the test series i s adjusted by the f o l l o w i n g p r o p o r t i o n : T r i a l aggregate Batch weight used X 2.50 i n . Actual height of T r i a l Marshall plug

Adjusted Aggregate Batch weight f o r 2.5 i n .

The percentages f o r the t r i a l blend are shown t o an a d d i t i o n a l decimal place i n order that the reader can t r y to reproduce these r e s u l t s without having to worry about differences i n rounding o f f . Aggregate Batching Now that the f i r s t t r i a l blend has been established, the next step i s t o combine the various aggregates together to reproduce that blend. As mentioned e a r l i e r , i f the aggregate samples submitted were representative of the s t o c k p i l e s , one only needs t o acquire representative portions of the i n d i v i d u a l aggregate samples and then combine them i n the percentages determined above. The combination step i s easy, however i t i s also usually desired to achieve a p a r t i c u l a r batch weight at the same time. I n order t o f a c i l i t a t e t h i s operation, the usual procedure I s t o combine a much larger p o r t i o n than needed, and then to re-screen the combined m a t e r i a l s i n t o separate size f r a c t i o n s f o r the purpose of batching to a s p e c i f i c weight or q u a n t i t y . As an example, t o prepare a 10,000 gram batch of the above blend, one would use the following quantities: No. 8 Gravel Sand Screenings 43% 34% 23% 100% 4,300g 3,400g 2,300g 10,000g

So, i f i n the above example a t r i a l Marshall specimen was made using 1130 grams of aggregate, and the actual height of the Marshall sample was determined t o be 2.65 inches, the aggregate batch weight f o r each sample I n the test series should be adjusted t o :

Adjusted Aggregate Batch weight f o r 2.5 i n .

2.50 X 2.65

1130

1066.Og

Then the aggregate batch weights f o r the t r i a l one series would be as f o l l o w s : Trial Blend No.l Batch weights f o r 1066.Og 36.2 296.3 231.3 502.2 1066.0

Sieve F r a c t i o n Passing-Retained 1/2 3/8 #4 #8 3/8 #4 #8 pan

T r i a l Blend No.l %,retained 3.4 27.8 21.7 47.1 100T0"

Batch weights Cumulative 36.2 332.5 563.8 1066.0

One would then mix these aggregate q u a n t i t i e s i n a large container and then screen them i n combination over the f o l l o w i n g sieve sizes. I f a l l samples were representative the r e s u l t s would be as Indicated.

Extra work i n preparing the aggregate batches i s necessary i f the aggregate samples submitted to the laboratory are not representative of those i n the s t o c k p i l e . I n t h i s case, a mix design can s t i l l be attempted provided the average aggregate gradings of the i n d i v i d u a l aggregates provided are represent a t i v e of the average t y p i c a l l y encountered i n the s t o c k p i l e s . I n t h i s instance, the batching should be done as f o l l o w s :

20

21

Sieve Frac Pass -- Ret 1/2 - 3/8 3/8 - H #4 - #8 #8 - pan Total *

Percent Retained I n d i v i d u a l Aggre gates #8 Gravel Sand Screen 8 63 23 6 100 0 2 17 81 100 0 0 26 74 100

Percent Retained T r i a l mix blend #1 43% 34% 23% #8 Gravel Sand Screen 3.4 27.1 9.9 2.6 43.0 0 0.7 5.8 27.5 34.0 0 0 6.0 17.0 23.0

100% Blend Total 3.4 27.8 21.7 47.1 100.0

d i c t i o n s should c l a r i f y the basis of the asphalt content value as a standard operating procedure to avoid confusion, and worse y e t , a mistake. For a t y p i c a l surface mixture, an e r r o r as large as 0.5% can r e s u l t I n t h i s manner; e i t h e r too much or too l i t t l e asphalt cement, an e r r o r that i n some mixes could r e s u l t i n a f l u s h i n g or a r a v e l l i n g c o n d i t i o n . For c l a r i f i c a t i o n , these values are expressed by the f o l l o w i n g equations:

Asphalt content, % (mix basis)

(weight of asphalt) X 100 (weight of asphalt + weight of aggregate)

I n order to properly prepare a batch I n t h i s instance, each aggregate should be broken down separately because the i n d i c a t e d aggregate component percentages might not be achieved i f the aggregate samples submitted are not representative. Instead of four aggregate weighings per batch, nine weighings are now needed to insure not only the proper gradation but the proper proport i o n of each aggregate component which has, or can have, a d i f f e r e n t shape, t e x t u r e , s p e c i f i c g r a v i t y , asphalt absorption, e t c . , a l l of which w i l l a f f e c t Marshall Mix p r o p e r t i e s . One can see that even a batch plant cannot handle v a r i a t i o n s i n aggregate s t o c k p i l e gradings unless I t had three separate cold feed systems and, i n t h i s instance, nine hot bins. People were only f o o l i n g themselves by b e l i e v i n g t h a t a screen deck and hot bins were necessary f o r mix c o n t r o l . I n r e a l i t y , a drum mixer p l a n t produces no less a q u a l i t y mix than a batch-type p l a n t . I n f a c t , a higher q u a l i t y mixture may be possible by using a drum plant as the plant operator I s eliminated as a source of a d d i t i o n a l v a r i a b i l i t y i n mix production by e l i m i n a t i n g h i s option to vary the hot b i n percentages and/or cold feed p u l l s . Note that I n the examples above, no attempt was made to f u r t h e r screen the passing No. 8 aggregate Into smaller size f r a c t i o n s f o r the purpose of batching. The reason f o r t h i s i s the same reason why a washed gradation analysis i s necessary f o r a proper mix design. The passing 200 mesh m a t e r i a l c l i n g s to the smaller s i z e f r a c t i o n s (#30 to #200 mesh m a t e r i a l ) . Thus breaking the aggregate components i n t o a d d i t i o n a l , smaller s i z e f r a c t i o n s , w i l l cause, upon recombining or batching, more dust m a t e r i a l i n the mixture than intended. Note also t h a t i n the l a t t e r batching example where nine weighings were i n d i c a t e d , t h a t f o r the #8 gravel the sizes 1/2-3/8 and 3/8-#4 could have been combined i n t o one f r a c t i o n : l/2-#4. This i s because there was such a small q u a n t i t y of 1/2-3/8 m a t e r i a l . Likewise f o r the sand, one could have used a 3/8-#8 size f r a c t i o n . Thus the t o t a l f r a c t i o n s needed f o r batching purposes could have been reduced to only seven. I t I s suggested that one w i l l f i n d I t easier to make a l l the aggregate batch weights the same f o r a l l samples i n a test series rather than to attempt to make the t o t a l mixture weights the same at a l l asphalt contents. I n the l a t t e r instance, one would have to prepare d i f f e r e n t aggregate batch weights f o r each separate asphalt content and t h i s j u s t increases the chance of e r r o r s i n weighing or using the wrong batch sample f o r a p a r t i c u l a r asphalt content. Preparing Marshall Samples Most agencies express asphalt content as a percentage of the t o t a l mixture weight, but i n a few instances one can encounter an agency that expresses asphalt content as a percentage of the aggregate weight. The method one uses i s l a r g e l y a matter of preference and each method w i l l r e s u l t i n the same volume and weight of asphalt cement i n the mixture. The problem t h a t can a r i s e , however, i s someone g e t t i n g them mixed up. This can e a s i l y happen, because very few persons c l a r i f y or I n d i c a t e the basis of the c a l c u l a t i o n together w i t h the asphalt content value. Within any agency's j u r i s d i c t i o n , one method i s t y p i c a l l y used and complacency i s the r u l e . Contractors working I n areas outside t h e i r normal sphere of Influence and e s p e c i a l l y t e s t i n g l a b o r a t o r i e s doing mix designs f o r contractors working i n a number of j u r i s -

Asphalt content, % (aggregate basis)

(weight of asphalt) ~ ~ (weight of aggregate)

X 100

The r e l a t i o n s h i p between the two methods can be more e a s i l y seen i n the following tabulation: To convert to Aggregate Basis from mix basis % Asphalt % Asphalt (mix basis) (aggregate basis) 4.00 4.17 4.44 4.25 4.71 4.50 4.99 4.75 5.26 5.00 5.54 5.25 5.82 5.50 5.75 6.10 6.00 6.38 6.67 6.25 6.50 6.95 7.24 6.75 7.00 7.53 7.82 7.25 8.11 7.50 8.40 7.75 8.00 8.70 To convert to mixture Basis from Agg regate basis % Asphalt % Asphalt (aggregate basi 8) (mix basis 4.00 3.85 4.08 4.25 4.50 4.31 4.53 4.75 5.00 4.76 5.25 4.99 5.50 5.21 5.44 5.75 6.00 5.66 5.88 6.25 6.10 6.50 6.32 6.75 6.54 7.00 6.76 7.25 6.98 7.50 7.19 7.75 7.41 8.00

Throughout the remainder of t h i s booklet, a l l asphalt contents w i l l be expressed as a percentage of the mixture weight, which i s the method most commonly used throughout the United States. I n a previous s e c t i o n on aggregate batching, the technique f o r preparing aggregates f o r a s i n g l e Marshall plug was discussed. This procedure i s q u i t e t y p i c a l of a large number of agencies. However, there are some agencies t h a t prepare larger batches and then, by the method of q u a r t e r i n g , they prepare three or more Marshall plugs from the batch. The only disadvantage of t h i s l a t t e r p r a c t i c e i s one's a b i l i t y to quarter out several representative samples and to get them compacted before the mix cools below the required compaction temperature. I n a l a t e r s e c t i o n of t h i s booklet on doing mix designs w i t h reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) m a t e r i a l s , the large batch method w i l l be suggested as the technique to use, mainly because of the d i f f i c u l t y of o b t a i n i n g representative RAP m a t e r i a l s when used i n low batch percentages i n the smaller batch sizes. A person w i t h some p r a c t i c e can produce acceptable r e s u l t s by e i t h e r method.

22

23

A c t u a l l y , I n plant process c o n t r o l , one has t o quarter mix out of much larger batches, anyway, i n order t o check Marshall c r i t e r i a . I f i t i s good enough f o r that operation, i t c e r t a i n l y should be good enough f o r p r e l i m i nary design purposes. For the purpose of t h i s discussion, however, i t w i l l be assumed that s i n g l e size batches are t o be prepared. I t i s t y p i c a l t h a t a t least three Marshall plugs are prepared a t each asphalt content. More plugs are d e s i r a b l e , but no one, i t seems, has the meager amount of a d d i t i o n a l time necessary t o do t h i s . Perhaps contractor r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of mix design and p l a n t process c o n t r o l , coupled w i t h a few major paving f a i l u r e s r e s u l t i n g i n s u b s t a n t i a l price p e n a l t i e s , w i l l revise some people's view of the importance of m a t e r i a l s t e s t i n g and q u a l i t y c o n t r o l . The number of asphalt contents t o be i n v e s t i g a t e d also varies w i t h the agency. Some require that at least one data p o i n t (asphalt content) be obtained on each side (higher and lower) of the asphalt content eventually determined t o be the optimum. Other agencies w i l l r e q u i r e a minimum of two data points on e i t h e r side of optimum. S t i l l others w i l l require a t least four points minimum, w i t h a t l e a s t one point on e i t h e r side of optimum. I t I s preferable that asphalt content values i n v e s t i g a t e d be centered around some estimate of the optimum and that the incremental values of asphalt content be no l a r g e r than 0.5%. I f one has some p r i o r experience w i t h a p a r t i c u l a r set of m a t e r i a l s , four d i f f e r e n t asphalt contents w i l l usually s u f f i c e , and i s a recommended minimum. The less the experience or the less dependable one believes the optimum asphalt content estimate i s , one or two a d d i t i o n a l asphalt contents should be added t o the s e r i e s , p r i m a r i l y i n the i n t e r e s t of saving o v e r a l l mix design time should the optimum asphalt content not be surrounded w i t h a c t u a l data p o i n t s . One should never extrapolate data, and i t i s because of t h i s t h a t i t i s mandatory t h a t the optimum be determined by interpolation. Having selected the asphalt contents t o be i n the t e s t s e r i e s , and now that the batch weight necessary f o r producing a Marshall plug that i s 2.5 inches i n height i s known (1066.0g), the amount o f asphalt cement t o add t o the aggregate, or the t o t a l mixture weight, i s determined as f o l l o w s : T o t a l mixture weight OR Asphalt cement weight Batch weight of aggregate x % asphalt 100% asphalt (mix basis) (mix basis) Batch weight of aggregate x 100 100% asphalt (mix basis)

Therefore the mixture weights and asphalt cement weights f o r the above example having an aggregate batch weight of 1066.Og are as f o l l o w s : Percent asphalt (mix basis) 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 Asphalt cement weight (g) 56.1 62.0 68.0 74.1 80.2 Aggregate blend weight (g) 1006.0 1006.0 1006.0 1006.0 1006.0 Total mixture weight ( g ) 1122.1 1128.0 1134.0 1140.1 1146.2

The importance of the r o l e of the Marshall compactor i n e s t a b l i s h i n g the proper optimum asphalt content f o r the mixture was discussed e a r l i e r . Before one goes any f u r t h e r i n the mix design process, the Marshall hammer to be used must have been c o r r e l a t e d w i t h the Marshall hammer o f the s p e c i f y i n g a u t h o r i t y w i t h whom t h i s p a r t i c u l a r mix design approval r e s t s . This c o r r e l a t i o n procedure i s best handled by a comparison o f Marshall plug densities on i d e n t i c a l mix samples prepared under i d e n t i c a l mixing and compaction c o n d i t i o n s . The s p e c i f y i n g agency's hammer should be the estab-

l l s h e d standard and a l l other hammers need t o be adjusted t o give the same r e s u l t s as i t . As an a l t e r n a t i v e , one can determine the corresponding number of compaction blows that brings one's hammer i n t o agreement w i t h the standard. A l l aggregate batches should be heated i n an oven a t a temperature high enough t o permit one t o pour the aggregate i n t o the mixing bowl and t o weigh i n the required amount of asphalt cement so t h a t a t the conclusion of these operations one i s mixing w i t h i n the previously determined mixing temperature range. Excessive loss of heat can be prevented by using a sand bath or equivalent source of heat under the mixing bowl. Upon completion o f mixing, the Marshall mold I s f i l l e d and readied f o r compaction which should not commence u n t i l the temperature i s w i t h i n the previously established compaction temperature range. I n accordance w i t h standard procedure, should the mix temperature f a l l below the required compaction temperature before compaction can be s t a r t e d , the mix i s t o be discarded. For purposes of standardizing the procedure f o r preparation o f Marshall samples, which i s necessary f o r r e p r o d u c i b i l i t y not only w i t h i n a l a b o r a t o r y , but also between l a b o r a t o r i e s , t h i s i s a necessary requirement. However, i t i s possible t o produce a mix design i n t h i s manner that meets Marshall design c r i t e r i a i n the l a b o r a t o r y , but the plant produced mixture w i l l not meet those c r i t e r i a . Provided t h a t Marshall design c r i t e r i a are being checked on plant mixes, the i n i t i a l design can always be adjusted by changing the job mix asphalt content, but i t i s probably b e t t e r t o know whether an adjustment w i l l be needed, and how much of an adjustment, before one bids on a job. The problem t h a t a r i s e s I s t h a t the time span f o r mixing and compaction by the l a b o r a t o r y procedure i s much shorter than the a c t u a l mixing and compaction time process t o be followed during c o n s t r u c t i o n . Storage bin time and haul time adds s i g n i f i c a n t l y t o the amount of time that the mixture i s held a t an elevated temperature I n the f i e l d process. I n the case where one has r e l a t i v e l y porous aggregate, one may have a s i g n i f i c a n t amount of a d d i t i o n a l asphalt cement being absorbed i n t o the aggregate which did not occur i n the l a b o r a t o r y prepared mixes. This means that i f one does not compensate f o r t h i s c o n d i t i o n by adding a d d i t i o n a l asphalt cement, the mix produced i n the f i e l d process w i l l be d e f i c i e n t i n asphalt needed f o r d u r a b i l i t y and the a i r voids of the mixture w i l l be higher than desired. This c o n d i t i o n can cause f u r t h e r problems i n achieving s p e c i f i e d compaction density which can lead t o mix f a i l u r e by r a v e l l i n g or s t r i p p i n g . I n conjunction w i t h the "process plan" mentioned e a r l i e r , one should t r e a t the laboratory mixes a f t e r mixing and p r i o r t o compaction i n a manner a n t i c i p a t e d f o r the plant produced mix. I t i s suggested t h a t laboratory mixes prepared e i t h e r i n s i n g l e batches, or a f t e r being quartered out of larger batches, be put i n t o covered containers and returned t o an oven, maintained a t the required compaction temperature, and held there f o r a time period which simulates t o the best of one's a b i l i t y the time between mixing and laydown a n t i c i p a t e d i n the f i e l d operations. This departure from standard mix procedure should be i n d i c a t e d t o the s p e c i f y i n g agency who i s responsible f o r mix design approval. Just as important, the plant and laydown foreman should be apprised of the c o n d i t i o n a l aspects of the mix design so that they do not i n d i s c r i m i n a t e l y modify the f i e l d operations without f i r s t c o n s u l t i n g w i t h the engineer or person responsible f o r q u a l i t y c o n t r o l operations. Marshall specimens should be cooled i n the molds a f t e r compaction u n t i l they can be held i n one's hands, but are s t i l l s l i g h t l y warm, t o f a c i l i t a t e t h e i r removal. The specimen should be extracted using a h y d r a u l i c j a c k i n g device and allowed t o set overnight p r i o r t o t e s t i n g . I n no case should the samples be immersed i n water t o hasten the cooling process. For f i e l d process c o n t r o l purposes, density measurements may be taken the same day a f t e r the samples are completely cooled. I t should be recognized that i f Marshall s t a b i l i t y and flow t e s t s are performed the same day, s t a b i l i t i e s

24

25

w i l l be lower and the flow values higher than i f done the next day. I n no case should samples be l e f t untested f o r more than a holiday weekend duration. Maximum Mix Specific Gravity (Rice Test) At the same time that mixes are being prepared and Marshall plugs are being molded, a t least two a d d i t i o n a l mix batches need to be prepared a t the estimated optimum asphalt content f o r the maximum mix s p e c i f i c g r a v i t y determination (Rice Test). A t l e a s t 1500 to 2000 grams of mix should be used f o r each t e s t . These mixes should also be cured I n an oven f o r the same amount of time as was suggested f o r the mix prepared f o r the Marshall samples. After the curing period, i f used, these mixes should be spread out on a piece of heavy shipping paper or other non-stick surface and, as the mix cools, a l l the agglomerations are broken apart by hand u n t i l one has e s s e n t i a l l y a t o t a l l y uncompacted mixture. A f t e r the sample i s cooled, the Rice Test i s performed. I n the case o f porous aggregates, one must do an a d d i t i o n a l determi n a t i o n t o a s c e r t a i n whether i f , during the vacuum underwater process, any water got absorbed i n t o the aggregate pore system ( i n back of the asphalt c o a t i n g ) . I n order t o determine, t h i s one needs to perform the procedure described i n ASTM D 2041 as a supplemental procedure f o r mixes containing porous aggregates not completely coated. I t i s recommended that unless p r i o r experience i s available on a p a r t i c u l a r set of aggregates to inform one otherwise, that t h i s procedure be done f o r a l l mixtures and the c o r r e c t i o n be made r o u t i n e l y as a part of one's mix design procedures. The reason f o r t h i s i s that one cannot draw a d e f i n i t i v e l i n e on where an aggregate should be considered porous o r not. The purpose o f the vacuum procedure i n the Rice Test i s t o remove a l l of the entrapped a i r i n the mixture that e x i s t s between the asphalt coated p a r t i c l e s . E s s e n t i a l l y one desires t o measure the s p e c i f i c g r a v i t y o f the asphalt mixture i n a "voidless" c o n d i t i o n . The applied vacuum does the job so w e l l that i t sometimes also removes the a i r entrapped I n the aggregate pore system I n back of the asphalt f i l m so that when the vacuum I s f i n a l l y released, some water can get i n back of the asphalt f i l m . Since mixture volume i s determined by displacement o f the sample i n water, t h i s a d d i t i o n a l unwanted absorbed water causes the measured sample volume t o be too small by an amount equal t o the volume o f unwanted absorbed water. This i n t u r n causes too high a maximum mix g r a v i t y which, when used, w i l l cause one to select, too high an asphalt content. I n other words, one may t h i n k that the mixture a i r void c r i t e r i a has been met, but i n r e a l i t y , the mixture a i r void value I s too low and a p o t e n t i a l f o r mix f l u s h i n g and/or mixture i n s t a b i l i t y i s much greater. P a r t l y because o f t h i s concern, i t was recommended e a r l i e r that aggregate s p e c i f i c g r a v i t i e s be determined on each aggregate component. This allows one t o compute the combined aggregate s p e c i f i c g r a v i t i e s on the mixture blend. These calculated values can be compared to the e f f e c t i v e aggregate g r a v i t y which can be computed from the Rice Test, which, i f the Rice Test has given proper r e s u l t s , should y i e l d an e f f e c t i v e aggregate s p e c i f i c g r a v i t y which l i e s between the combined aggregate bulk (dry basis) and the combined aggregate apparent s p e c i f i c g r a v i t i e s . Again i t must be re-emphasized that mixture a i r voids are the most important mix c r i t e r i a that need to be s a t i s f i e d f o r mixture d u r a b i l i t y and pavement performance. After having determined that the Rice Test has produced a v a l i d r e s u l t , the e f f e c t i v e aggregate s p e c i f i c g r a v i t y i s added to compute the maximum mixture s p e c i f i c g r a v i t y f o r a l l the other asphalt contents used I n the t e s t series. Some agencies determine another type o f aggregate s p e c i f i c g r a v i t y called the bulk Impregnated aggregate s p e c i f i c g r a v i t y , which i s s i m i l a r i n concept t o the e f f e c t i v e aggregate s p e c i f i c g r a v i t y discussed above. The primary difference i s i n the method o f measurement and treatment of the

combined aggregate blend i n the determination o f asphalt cement absorption by the aggregate. I n the Rice Test, the aggregate i s coated w i t h asphalt j u s t as the Marshall samples are prepared, and a t the estimated optimum asphalt content. I n the bulk impregnated t e s t , the aggregate i s completely immersed i n a large container f i l l e d w i t h asphalt cement where the volume of the aggregate (and thus the amount o f asphalt absorption) i s determined by water displacement measurements. I n the l a t t e r case, some would argue that the asphalt cement absorption might be greater than what otherwise would occur i f the asphalt was only applied t o the aggregate I n a t h i n f i l m . I f one believes t h a t there may be a difference i n asphalt absorption r e l a t e d t o the q u a n t i t y of a v a i l a b l e asphalt, then one should determine the maximum mix s p e c i f i c g r a v i t y a t other asphalt contents by the Rice Test, as the basic assumption used i n applying the e f f e c t i v e aggregate g r a v i t y t o compute maximum mix g r a v i t i e s a t other asphalt contents i s that asphalt absorption does not vary over the range of asphalt contents used i n the test series. I t i s recommended that one use the Rice Test Method, and only admiration can be extended to someone who makes the a d d i t i o n a l e f f o r t to make a bulk impregnated aggregate s p e c i f i c g r a v i t y determination f o r an a d d i t i o n a l check o r v e r i f i c a t i o n o f the accuracy o f the e f f e c t i v e aggregate s p e c i f i c g r a v i t y value calculated from the r e s u l t s i n the Rice Test method. As an a d d i t i o n a l cautionary note, one should be aware that some agencies use the combined aggregate blend apparent s p e c i f i c g r a v i t y i n l i e u of the e f f e c t i v e o r the bulk impregnated aggregate g r a v i t i e s . I n t h i s instance, one would r e f e r t o the maximum mix g r a v i t y calculated from the apparent value as a " t h e o r e t i c a l " maximum mix g r a v i t y . This term i s used because, rather than using an a c t u a l measurement o f the asphalt cement absorbed by the aggregate, i t i s assumed to be equal t o the amount o f water absorbed i n the aggregate s p e c i f i c g r a v i t y test determination. Asphalt absorption i s always less than the 24 hour water absorption, so t h i s l a t t e r procedure produces a value f o r mixture a i r voids that i s higher than the value which actually exists. Using the bulk ( d r y basis) combined aggregate blend s p e c i f i c g r a v i t y i s equivalent t o assuming t h a t no asphalt cement I s absorbed by the aggregate. There i s always some asphalt cement absorbed, so t h i s procedure produces a value f o r mixture a i r voids that i s lower than the value which a c t u a l l y exists. S t i l l other agencies may use the bulk (SSD basis) combined blend aggregate s p e c i f i c g r a v i t y , e i t h e r based on the 24 hour water absorption c o n d i t i o n o r some contrived "quickie" determination such as a ten minute water soak, e t c . Apparently, because the bulk (SSD basis) value always f a l l s i n value between the bulk (dry basis) and the apparent s p e c i f i c g r a v i t i e s j u s t as do the e f f e c t i v e and bulk Impregnated values, some people f e e l t h i s i s an adequate evaluation of asphalt absorption. Do not believe i t . I f one wants t o estimate the amount of asphalt absorption, then e s t i mate i t , and i n d i c a t e i t on the t e s t report as an estimate so a l l who review the t e s t report recognize i t as such. Testing Marshall Samples I n preparation f o r the t e s t i n g of the Marshall plugs, one should caref u l l y remove any loosely held material around the perimeter o f the samples. This i s t o avoid loss of t h i s m a t e r i a l while handling them during the weighing operation f o r specimen bulk s p e c i f i c g r a v i t y . The specimens should a l l be 2.5 +/- .05 Inches i n h e i g h t . I t i s recommended t h a t the specimen bulk s p e c i f i c g r a v i t y be determined i n accordance w i t h ASTM D 2726. This method requires that the specimen volume be determined on the basis o f a saturated surface dry condition. This ensures that the correct volume I s measured as some water may be absorbed I n t o the specimen while i t i s being weighed under water.

26 27

With regard to the Marshall s t a b i l i t y and flow measurement, i t i s recommended t h a t the Marshall plugs be placed i n a water bath large enough to hold the e n t i r e test series at one time, yet having s u f f i c i e n t water volume to b r i n g the samples to the required temperature of 140 F i n the s p e c i f i e d time period. The samples should be placed i n the bath i n a staggered manner, time wise, to ensure that a l l samples are immersed f o r the same amount of time. Upon removal from the bath, the specimen should be b l o t t e d or r o l l e d on a towel to remove excess water p r i o r to t e s t i n g . This excess water can cause a lower s t a b i l i t y value due t o I t s l u b r i c a t i n g e f f e c t on the t e s t i n g heads. Analysis of Test Results The l a s t step i n the design process, then, i s to perform a l l the computat i o n s necessary to analyze the mixture f o r conformance to the desired Marshall c r i t e r i a . The process of s e l e c t i n g the asphalt content that best s a t i s f i e s a l l the c r i t e r i a i s f a c i l i t a t e d by p l o t t i n g the Marshall properties on graphs. In time, as one gains experience i n p l o t t i n g the Marshall r e s u l t s , I t w i l l be seen t h a t s e l e c t i n g a proper scale f o r the c r i t e r i o n being p l o t t e d , versus asphalt content, i s important i n making sense or being able to d i s t i n g u i s h a trend l i n e or curve from the data. I f the scale i s too small, or I t I s too l a r g e , one's I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the data can be more d i f f i c u l t . I n the f o l l o w i n g mix design example, one w i l l be able to acquire a f e e l f o r t h i s important aspect of mixture analyses and optimum asphalt content s e l e c t i o n . A f t e r the curves are established f o r each c r i t e r i o n , the i n d i v i d u a l points are disregarded i n s e l e c t i n g optimum asphalt content. Example Mix Design In the f o l l o w i n g paragraphs, the r e s u l t s of four t r i a l mix designs w i l l be discussed. While one would not normally do t h i s many t r i a l batches to obtain a mix design from a given set of m a t e r i a l s , these r e a l examples are provided to i l l u s t r a t e the e f f e c t of aggregate gradation on Marshall mix properties and to demonstrate a technique f o r o b t a i n i n g the most economical mix. The three s t o c k p i l e materials used are given i n Table 1. These are the r e s u l t s of a washed gradation analysis performed on a l l three aggregates. The job mix master band was s p e c i f i e d to be an ASTM D 3515 1/2 inch dense mix. The gradation requirements f o r t h i s type of mixture are shown on Table 2. These upper and lower gradation band l i m i t s are i l l u s t r a t e d on Figure 5 along w i t h the maximum density l i n e . As discussed p r e v i o u s l y , a mix design t h a t w i l l meet a l l Marshall design c r i t e r i a usually has a grading such t h a t the passing No. 8 sieve value l i e s s l i g h t l y o f f of the maximum density l i n e . I n t h i s Instance, one could select an I n i t i a l target value e i t h e r above or below the maximum density l i n e . I n these examples, values f o r No. 8 sieve were selected above the l i n e because, f o r these aggregate m a t e r i a l s , the sand component was the least expensive. I n other words, there i s l i k e l y a "most economical mix" on both sides of the maximum density l i n e , but the one above w i l l l i k e l y be of lower cost than the one below. The mix above the l i n e w i l l also be f i n e textured whereas the mix below w i l l be coarse textured i n appearance. The reader should note the d i s t i n c t i o n between t h i s analysis as contrasted to one where one seeks the "most economical mix" by minimizing t o t a l aggregate cost i n a mix. I t w i l l be demonstrated here t h a t one of the most expensive aggregate blends (above the maximum density l i n e ) produces the lowest cost mixture. The combined aggregate blend gradations are shown on Table 2. shown was selected w i t h the f o l l o w i n g purpose i n mind. Each blend

Mixture A B C D

Target value #8 sieve 57 47 57 54

Target value #200 sieve 0 6 6 6

Mixtures A and C have 57% passing the No. 8 sieve which i s at the upper end of the gradation band l i m i t . Both of these mixtures should have a high VMA value and thus a high asphalt demand. Mixture C d i f f e r s from Mixture A i n that i t has a dust content which y i e l d s a mixture dust/asphalt r a t i o of about one. Mixture A was d e l i b e r a t e l y l e f t out of s p e c i f i c a t i o n on the #200 sieve f o r t h i s demonstration. Mixture A should r e q u i r e considerably more asphalt than Mixture C because of the low dust content. Mixtures B and D are d i f f e r e n t from Mixture C only I n the amount passing No. 8 sieve. Mixture B was selected to be r i g h t on the maximum density l i n e and thus i t should have the lowest mixture VMA value and thus the lowest asphalt demand of a l l the mixtures. However, t h i s mixture may be too dense to meet the minimum VMA value needed f o r d u r a b i l i t y , but then one does not t r u l y know t h a t u n t i l one makes the Marshall a n a l y s i s . Mixture D was selected to have a passing No. 8 sieve value as per the recommendation given e a r l i e r i n t h i s booklet, and that was to select a target value somewhere from s i x to 8% d i s t a n t from the maximum density l i n e . I t i s suggested that Mixture D w i l l be closest to the mix t h a t i s desired more times than not by t h i s procedure. Specific g r a v i t i e s were performed on each of the aggregate components and are shown on Table 3. The values f o r the gravel were done by the method f o r coarse aggregate, and the values f o r the sand and screenings were done by the method f o r f i n e aggregate. The bulk (SSD basis) values are shown f o r informat i o n only and do not apply to asphalt mix design. The combined aggregate s p e c i f i c g r a v i t i e s f o r each mixture are shown on Table 4. The values f o r the e f f e c t i v e aggregate g r a v i t y , which are c a l c u l a t e d from the maximum mix g r a v i t y t e s t (Rice Method), are also shown. Since these values are between the combined bulk and combined apparent aggregate blend values, one can have reasonable confidence i n these values and thus the maximum mix g r a v i t y t e s t , which also Included the c o r r e c t i o n f o r absorbed water, and subsequent c a l c u l a tions f o r maximum mix g r a v i t y at other asphalt contents are probably c o r r e c t . The maximum mix g r a v i t y r e s u l t s are summarized on Table 5. Aggregate batches were formulated and Marshall samples were prepared at the Indicated asphalt contents on Table 5. For the purpose of t h i s demonstration, the asphalt content increment was 0.75% which, f o r general mix design p r a c t i c e , i s too l a r g e . A maximum of 0.50% i s recommended. During the prepar a t i o n of Marshall samples, a good l a b o r a t o r y technician makes appropriate notes concerning the appearance of the mixes during f a b r i c a t i o n , such as on Table 6, and the Marshall plugs during t e s t i n g . Often a bad test r e s u l t can be explained by an observation made during t e s t i n g , which i s valuable as added j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r d e l e t i n g any specimen r e s u l t s from the mix design a n a l y s i s . The r e s u l t s of the Marshall t e s t i n g and computations f o r each mixture are shown on Table 7. These values are i l l u s t r a t e d on Figures 6,7,8, and 9. The suggested method of s e l e c t i n g mix asphalt content i s to use that value corresponding to 4.0% a i r voids. Then, that value i s used to determine the values for a l l the remaining Marshall p r o p e r t i e s . One uses the curves on Figure 6 through 9 to do t h i s . The r e s u l t s of t h i s method are shown on Table 8. I t can be seen t h a t mixes A, C, and D a l l meet the Asphalt I n s t i t u t e Marshall Mix C r i t e r i a , and any one of them I s "acceptable". Mixture B, as was discussed e a r l i e r , did t u r n out to have an aggregate grading t h a t was too dense.

28

29

Economics of Mix Design I n order to select which of the three mixtures one would want to use, mixture costs were calculated and are shown on Table 9. Based on t o t a l mix cost per ton, mixture D i s the l e a s t expensive of the three. Therefore mixture D i s the more acceptable of the three, economically. However, there are a d d i t i o n a l economic gains possible by s t i l l f u r t h e r mix design a d j u s t ments. The key to mixture economics (as w e l l as mixture d u r a b i l i t y ) i s the VMA value. One desires s u f f i c i e n t asphalt cement I n the mix f o r d u r a b i l i t y , but not an excess amount due to i t s cost. Therefore, i t i s advantageous t o minimize the VMA value to the greatest extent possible, but yet s t i l l meet the minimum c r i t e r i a . For t h i s mixture type, the minimum i s 15%. To do t h i s , i t i s necessary to get closer to the maximum density l i n e (see Figure 5 ) , f o r the passing No. 8 value than I s Mixture D, but not as close as Mixture B. Obviously, the most economical, acceptable mixture l i e s somewhere i n between. A t r i a l and e r r o r approach I s c e r t a i n l y acceptable, but I n order t o v e r i f y the best design w i t h only one more t r i a l , the f o l l o w i n g approach I s suggested. The VMA values are f i r s t p l o t t e d against the sand content of the three mixture blends as shown i n Figure 10. This can be done because the screenings content of the three mixture blends i s a constant at 35%. I n t h i s manner, one can p r o j e c t that the required sand content necessary to achieve a VMA value of 15% i s equal t o 27%. Therefore the gravel content has t o be 38%. The next mix t h a t should be blended and Marshall t e s t i n g performed on i s Mixture E, which as i t turns out, has a passing No. 8 sieve value of 50.3% and a passing No. 200 sieve value 6.0%. This author does not have t h i s data a v a i l a b l e , but f o r purposes of discussion, the asphalt content of Mixture E was estimated to be 5.1% from Figure 11. Thus, by t h i s a n a l y s i s , projected costs f o r Mixture E could be determined as i l l u s t r a t e d on Table 9. A p o t e n t i a l savings of $0.50 per ton of mix i s most c e r t a i n l y worth the cost and e f f o r t to do another mix design t e s t s e r i e s . The mixture costs based on y i e l d are also l i s t e d on Table 9 f o r when mix i s to be sold on t h a t basis. The estimated value f o r Mixture E was determined by using an estimated density value from Figure 12. The importance of the VMA c r i t e r i o n as i t r e l a t e s to mix d u r a b i l i t y and economics cannot be over-emphasized. The optimum mix design c o n d i t i o n f o r both q u a l i t i e s i s summarized on Figure 13. As the saying goes, a p i c t u r e i s worth a thousand words. There may be some people who w i l l claim t h a t the above described procedure, to o b t a i n maximum mixture economics, i s only an attempt to maximize p r o f i t s at the expense of mixture d u r a b i l i t y and performance. That i s not so, because I f t h a t were the case, t h i s author could suggest what f o l l o w s as an example of how to maximize p r o f i t s . Those agencies who do not r e q u i r e a minimum VMA value, but rather use the VMA f i l l e d requirement, should take p a r t i c u l a r note of t h i s example. I t was shown above that Mixture B had i n s u f f i c i e n t VMA at 4.0% a i r voids. The asphalt content a t that l e v e l of a i r voids was 4.6%. Even at other asphalt contents, the Asphalt I n s t i t u t e c r i t e r i a could not be met. However at 4.9% asphalt, Mixture B w i l l meet the t y p i c a l mix c r i t e r i a l i s t e d by AASHTO and other agencies as shown on Table 10. As a f u r t h e r example that aggregate gradation s p e c i f i c a t i o n s are meaningless w i t h regard to mix d u r a b i l i t y and q u a l i t y , a limestone aggregate was acquired and blended to have exactly, the same grading as the gravel aggregate. The only d i f f e r e n c e between them was i n the aggregate shape, t e x t u r e , e t c . which a f f e c t s (or can a f f e c t ) the VMA value. Therefore, Mixture B modified, as shown on Table 10, has exactly the same grading shown f o r Mixture B on Table 2. The r e s u l t s shown are r e a l values and not contrived f o r t h i s discussion. Mixture B modified i s e x a c t l y $1.00 less i n cost than Mixture E, which i s the Mixture that should be used (pending f i n a l v e r i f i c a t i o n of the mix based on a c t u a l Marshall t e s t i n g ) . The 4.5% asphalt content might l i k e l y meet most agency's requirements f o r minimum asphalt content. Believe I t or not, the asphalt content can be made to be
30

even lower, yet s t i l l meet a l l the mixture c r i t e r i a shown on Table 10, by Increasing the dust content to about 8%. In summary, s t r i v i n g f o r a l l the mixture economy a v a i l a b l e , but yet not at the expense of mixture d u r a b i l i t y and pavement performance, provides f o r a healthy competitive i n d u s t r y where the customer receives the best product at lowest cost. Anyone who s t r i v e s f o r maximizing p r o f i t a t the expense of t h i s goal i s a detriment to the long range p r o f i t a b i l i t y of the i n d u s t r y as a whole. An informed consumer i s the industry's best defense f o r maintaining a q u a l i t y product and a reputable image. Evaluation f o r Mix S t r i p p i n g P o t e n t i a l A mix design cannot be considered complete u n t i l i t has been i n v e s t i g a t e d f o r i t s resistance to the d e t r i m e n t a l e f f e c t s of water ( s t r i p p i n g ) . By s t r i p ping, i t i s meant that water causes a s i g n i f i c a n t loss of mix s t r e n g t h through a weakening of the bond between the asphalt and aggregate. Sometimes t h i s loss of strength can be catastrophic i n nature i n that the asphalt I s completely washed away and only the bare aggregate remains. When t h i s occurs i n a pavement s t r u c t u r e , i t can lead to the complete demise of the pavement under t r a f f i c due to loss of load c a r r y i n g capacity. The e f f e c t of water on a mixture can be more subtle I n t h a t a lowering of the s t r e n g t h can occur without t o t a l f a i l u r e . I t i s believed t h a t t h i s type of loss of strength can c o n t r i b u t e to pavement r u t t i n g i n the wheel paths. Without question, the best defense against s t r i p p i n g and other milder forms of water damage i s not only a proper mix design to begin w i t h , but also proper compaction of the mixture during c o n s t r u c t i o n . I f water cannot get i n t o a mix, there i s much less a chance of mixture f a i l u r e . Therefore, when one i n v e s t i g a t e s whether s t r i p p i n g w i l l be a problem, one needs t o do t h i s under the presumption of "what i f proper compaction i s not attained?". Thus the evaluation i s done under what could be the worst case s i t u a t i o n , which i s not necessarily the s i t u a t i o n t h a t w i l l occur. As i t might be imagined, one only hears about the one pavement that f a i l e d because of s t r i p p i n g , not the other 99 t h a t d i d not. Thus any s t r i p p i n g evaluation can be questioned as to I t s r e l a t i o n to t h a t which a c t u a l l y occurs I n the pavement s t r u c t u r e . Perhaps t h a t i s the reason f o r the general d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h a v a i l a b l e s t r i p p i n g test methods to t h i s present day. There are a number of f a c t o r s involved w i t h s t r i p p i n g . One should be cognizant of the f a c t that the aggregate i s the primary f a c t o r w i t h the asphalt cement a lessor f a c t o r , but t h a t the e f f e c t of one combined w i t h the other can be d i f f e r e n t f o r d i f f e r e n t combinations of m a t e r i a l s . I n other words, there i s an asphalt aggregate i n t e r a c t i o n . This means simply t h a t each and every asphalt mix design needs t o be evaluated f o r s t r i p p i n g p o t e n t i a l w i t h the a c t u a l materials to be used on the job. I t should also be kept I n mind that the f i n e aggregate source i n a mix can be as much a c o n t r i b u t o r to s t r i p p i n g as the coarse aggregate. T y p i c a l l y , the problem of water damage or s t r i p p i n g i n a pavement occurs over a period of time, perhaps as short as t h i r t y days, but even as long as several years. Any l a b o r a t o r y evaluation that t r i e s t o simulate the e f f e c t of time by increasing the s e v e r i t y of the t e s t conditions i s already at a disadvantage because people are quick to p o i n t out t h a t such conditions do not occur i n the f i e l d . Two cases i n point include the treatment of mixes i n 140 F water and vacuum s a t u r a t i o n treatments to Increase the water s a t u r a t i o n l e v e l w i t h i n the mix pore system. Without a doubt, s t r i p p i n g occurs i n the presence of water, and unless water I s able to penetrate an asphalt mixture i n one way or another, s t r i p p i n g or loss of s t r e n g t h w i l l not occur. At t h i s p o i n t i n time, there i s no s a t i s f a c t o r y , standardized t e s t procedure f o r evaluation of s t r i p p i n g p o t e n t i a l to which t h i s author can r e f e r . Therefore, the f o l l o w i n g generalized procedure i s suggested u n t i l such time as a standardized procedure becomes a v a i l a b l e . A f t e r the process of s e l e c t i n g an aggregate gradation and asphalt content i s accomplished as described i n the preceding chapters, one merely needs to 31

Tensile strength evaluate the performance of that mixture at a reasonably high water s a t u r a t i o n c o n d i t i o n buy at an a i r void content which would represent the poorest, yet acceptable, l e v e l of compaction t h a t could occur i n the f i e l d . The suggested l e v e l of a i r voids a t which t h i s I n v e s t i g a t i o n should be performed i s at least 7 t o 8%. Thus, i n order t o produce Marshall plugs a t t h i s l e v e l of a i r voids, i t i s necessary t o develop a r e l a t i o n s h i p between the number of Marshall blows/side versus the average l e v e l of a i r voids achieved. Already i t i s known t h a t 50 blows ( f o r example) y i e l d s 4.0% a i r voids a t optimum asphalt content. So a l l t h a t i s needed i s t o prepare Marshall plugs a t optimum asphalt using compaction blows from, f o r example, 10 t o 50. I n t h i s manner an a i r void compaction curve (no. of blows/side) would be developed as shown i n Figure 14 where the number o f blows/side t o y i e l d about 7.5% a i r voids could be i n t e r p o l a t e d . I n the example shown, i t would require 13 blows/side t o achieve t h i s l e v e l of a i r voids. As a minimum, then, a t least s i x (6) Marshall plugs need t o be prepared a t 13 blows per side using the job mix blend and optimum asphalt determined e a r l i e r . The same aggregate batch weights may be used, as i t i s not necessary to achieve a p a r t i c u l a r specimen height ( t h i c k n e s s ) . The samples are then placed i n t o two subgroups of three specimens each such t h a t the average a i r voids of each subgroup of of three specimens i s equal. Following t h i s , each subgroup of samples i s subjected t o d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of water treatment or s a t u r a t i o n . The f i r s t group I s a c t u a l l y not water treated a t a l l , but l e f t a t room temperature, i n a i r , while the other subgroup i s t r e a t e d . The second group i s saturated w i t h water u n t i l a l e v e l of 65+10% s a t u r a t i o n i s achieved. This i s best accomplished using a water s a t u r a t i o n procedure such as i s used i n the Rice t e s t , but not a t the f u l l vacuum or f o r as long a vacuum time. Usually somewhere around twenty inches of mercury (gauge) f o r f i v e minutes duration w i l l s u f f i c e . I f a s a t u r a t i o n l e v e l i n excess of 75% i s achieved, the samples must be discarded, so therefore i t i s advisable t o gradually work towards the required s a t u r a t i o n of 55-75% i n increments of vacuum a p p l i c a t i o n , and check the achieved l e v e l of s a t u r a t i o n each time by measuring the saturated surface dry weights of the specimens. A f t e r the second subgroup has been given one i n i t i a l s a t u r a t i o n l e v e l between 55-75%, the subgroup i s placed i n a 140 F water bath f o r 24 hours. At the end of the 24 hour water soak, both subgroups are placed i n a 77 F water bath f o r one hour t o b r i n g them t o the required t e s t temperature. Just p r i o r to t e s t i n g , one can o b t a i n another SSD weight on the 24 hour water treated subgroup t o determine the f i n a l l e v e l of water s a t u r a t i o n . This f i n a l l e v e l Is usually around 80% or higher due t o a d d i t i o n a l water-pick up during the soaking period. There i s no maximum placed on t h i s f i n a l s a t u r a t i o n l e v e l , except that i t should not be greater than 100%. The subgroups are removed from the water bath and tested i n the Marshall s t a b i l i t y apparatus, except that instead of the normal Marshall t e s t i n g head, a s p l i t t e n s i l e test i s performed. To do t h i s , one merely needs toplace a s t e e l bar 1/2 inch wide and a t least as long as the thickness of the specimens on the top and bottom of the specimen as shown i n Figure 15. The s t r e n g t h t e s t i s run a t 77 F. At the conclusion of the t e s t , the samples may be broken apart along the t e n s i l e f r a c t u r e zone and the I n t e r i o r of the sample can then be v i s u a l l y examined f o r s t r i p p i n g . The average t e n s i l e s t r e n g t h of the subgroups are then computed and compared. This i s done by computing a t e n s i l e strength retained (TSR) r a t i o which i s simply the average of the water treated subgroup divided by the average of the non-water treated subgroup times 100. where P Pi t D

2P PI tD load, l b s . 3.1416 specimen thickness ( h e i g h t ) inches specimen diameter - 4.0 inches

Then t e n s i l e s t r e n g t h retained (TSR) TSR Avg. t e n s i l e strength water treated samples X 100 Avg. t e n s i l e s t r e n g t h nonwater treated samples

The decision as t o whether an a n t i - s t r i p p i n g agent i s required i s based on the f o l l o w i n g i n t e r i m c r i t e r i a which are the best that can be put f o r t h u n t i l f u r t h e r research becomes a v a i l a b l e . INTERIM GUIDELINES FOR INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS FOR DETERMINING THE NEED FOR AND EFFECTIVENESS OF ANTI-STRIPPING ADDITIVES IN ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVING MIXTURES Hot-Mix Samples Untreated With A d d i t i v e 1. I f the TSR value exceeds 80%, no a d d i t i v e i s generally required and the mix i s acceptable. I f the TSR value exceeds 60%, but I s less than 80%, judgement i s required as t o whether the mix i s acceptable as i s . Consideration would be given t o the s p e c i f i c job t o be done. Cold weather paving a p p l i c a t i o n s , p a r t i c u l a r l y t h i n l i f t s or s i t u a t i o n s where the pavement w i l l be subjected t o heavy t r a f f i c or p e r s i s t e n t l y wetted c o n d i t i o n s , would r e q u i r e the use o f an a d d i t i v e . I n any event, i f an a d d i t i v e i s t o be used, the mix should be re-evaluated w i t h the s p e c i f i c a d d i t i v e selected f o r i t s e f f e c t i v e n e s s . An a l t e r n a t e course of a c t i o n would be t o re-evaluate the same job mix blend, but w i t h a d i f f e r e n t asphalt cement source or a d i f f e r e n t aggregate source(s) t o determine i f the TSR can be made greater than 80%. I f the TSR i s less than 60%, the mix i s unacceptable as i s and a c t i o n i s required. I t i s d o u b t f u l that changing the asphalt cement source w i l l be advantageous i n t h i s instance. The only b e n e f i c i a l a c t i o n would be t o change aggregate source or use an a d d i t i v e . Whatever action i s taken, the mix must be re-evaluated w i t h the actual m a t e r i a l s that are t o be used i n the mix.

2.

3.

32 33

Hot-Mix Samples Treated With A d d i t i v e 1. I f the TSR value exceeds 80%, the mix i s reasonable r e s i s t a n t to the detrimental e f f e c t s of water and i s acceptable. I f the TSR value exceeds 60% but i s less than 80%, re-evaluate the mix w i t h e i t h e r (1) a d i f f e r e n t a d d i t i v e , ( 2 ) the same a d d i t i v e at a d i f f e r e n t dosage, (3) a d i f f e r e n t asphalt cement source, or ( 4 ) a d i f f e r e n t method of additive i n t r o d u c t i o n i n t o the mix ( i . e . , lime s l u r r y vs. dry l i m e , e t c . ) . This mix i s considered unacceptable because there are enough coste f f e c t i v e a l t e r n a t e a d d i t i v e s a v a i l a b l e to obtain an acceptable TSR value. I f the TSR value i s less than 60%, the a d d i t i v e used i s t o t a l l y I n e f f e c t i v e and a new a d d i t i v e should be selected and re-evaluated. The mix and the a d d i t i v e are considered unacceptable.

2.

3.

the mix, which i s based on some considerations u s u a l l y established i n the job contract or i n the basis of the job b i d p r i c e . I n any event, the RAP content of the mix must be reasonable w i t h regard to the mix requirements t h a t must be met. I n p a r t i c u l a r , the dust content of the RAP aggregate and the hardness of the reclaimed asphalt cement l i m i t the RAP content to a lower percentage I n the mix than t h a t l i m i t which the asphalt plant could process while s t i l l meeting environmental standards on p a r t i c u l a t e emissions and opacity l i m i t s . Therefore, as an example, I f the RAP has an asphalt content of 5.0%, and one desires t o use 30% RAP i n the design mixture, one should attempt t o prepare a t r i a l mix blend of aggregates where the RAP aggregate percentage of the t o t a l aggregate blend i s equal to 28.5% (30-.5(30)-28.5). This i s based on a t o t a l aggregate blend where a l l the percentages equal 100. In the aggregate batching process, one must then weigh out s u f f i c i e n t RAP to achieve t h i s 28.5% RAP aggregate i n the mix blend. This means t h a t the RAP weight has to be increased by an amount equal to the asphalt and moisture content. As an example, to prepare a 5000 gram batch of aggregate containing 28.5% RAP aggregate (30% RAP @ 5.0% AC) w i t h a moisture content of 3% (based on dry weight of m i x ) , the f o l l o w i n g c a l c u l a t i o n s are performed. .285(5000)/.985 1446.7/.95 1522.8/.97 1446.7g RAP 1522.8g RAP 1569.9g RAP Aggregate (Dry) (as sampled)

As an example of the above procedure, Mixture D, which was discussed e a r l i e r , was i n v e s t i g a t e d f o r i t s p o t e n t i a l to s t r i p . The r e s u l t s of t h i s analysis i s shown on Table 11. With a retained t e n s i l e s t r e n g t h of 51.2%, t h i s mixture requires an a d d i t i v e of some s o r t . Therefore an a d d i t i v e would be selected and the procedure of preparing s i x a d d i t i o n a l samples would be repeated. I n the I n t e r e s t of saving t e s t i n g time, three a d d i t i o n a l , a d d i t i v e treated specimens, could have been prepared and tested i n conjunction w i t h the other specimens shown on Table 11, i n the event t h a t the mix would r e q u i r e an a d d i t i v e , which as I t turns out i t d i d . The above procedure can also be used to develop a t e n s i l e s t r e n g t h retained - water s a t u r a t i o n r e l a t i o n s h i p such as shown on Figure 16. I t can be seen, q u i t e r e a d i l y from t h i s f i g u r e , that even a mix having a p o t e n t i a l f o r s t r i p ping w i l l perform adequately at low l e v e l s of s a t u r a t i o n . This i s probably the reason why, i n some instances, the same mix w i l l have been observed to s t r i p on one p r o j e c t , but not on another. This procedure i s only v a l i d f o r properly designed asphalt mixes. Mixes w i t h very low VMA prepares i n a f a i l these c r i t e r i a f o r s t r i p p i n g r e s i s t a n c e , where i n the f a i l u r e I s not s t r i p p i n g at a l l but rather I s due to poor mix cohesion. Rather than spend money f o r a d d i t i v e s t h a t are not needed, one should use t h a t money to put more asphalt i n t o the mixture. Recycling No discussion on mix design can be complete today without mention of r e c y c l i n g . More and more mixes being produced around the country contain some percentage of reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP). I n order to design an asphalt mixture containing RAP, one merely needs t o t r e a t the RAP as an e x t r a ingredient w i t h only a few a d d i t i o n a l m o d i f i c a t i o n s i n the mix design process. The u l t i m a t e goal of meeting the required mix design c r i t e r i a remains the same. The f i r s t step i n evaluating the RAP m a t e r i a l i s t o perform an e x t r a c t i o n f o r asphalt content and aggregate gradation. I n t h i s step i t i s absolutely e s s e n t i a l that the asphalt content measured be corrected f o r moisture content i n the RAP, and t h a t a dust c o r r e c t i o n be performed on the e x t r a c t . Normally, a washed gradation need not be done on the extracted aggregate unless i t appears that the aggregate a f t e r s i e v i n g appears dusty. The aggregate gradation determined from the e x t r a c t i o n procedure i s used i n the previously described process f o r aggregate blending. The only d i f f e r e n c e here i s t h a t one probably has some desired value of RAP content to be used I n
34

Therefore, 1569.9g of RAP would be weighed out along w i t h (50001446.7)-3553.3g of v i r g i n aggregates. I n order t o prepare a mixture at 6.0% t o t a l asphalt content, the weight of added asphalt to accomplish t h i s i s determined as f o l l o w s : Total weight of AC f o r 6%

5000 (.06) (0.94)

319.lg

Weight of asphalt i n RAP - 1522.8(.05) - 76.lg weight of added asphalt - 319.lg - 76.1 - 243.Og Summation RAP RAP RAP aggregate asphalt Mix

>

V i r g i n aggregate V i r g i n asphalt Total aggregate Total asphalt T o t a l Mix

1446.7g 76.lg 1522.8g ( d r y ) - 1569.9g (wet) 3553.3g 243.Og 5000.Og 319.lg 5319.lg 6.00% 4.57% 76.2%

T o t a l asphalt content Added asphalt content Ratio of added/total asphalt

The batch weight of 1569.9g of RAP should be obtained by the method of q u a r t e r i n g . Admittedly, t h i s i s a d i f f i c u l t procedure to perform to acquire exactly 1569.9 grams. One should attempt to get as close as possible, and then to adjust by c a r e f u l l y hand s e l e c t i n g RAP to e i t h e r Increase or decrease the quartered weight obtained, whichever case i s required. I n order to determine the required asphalt grade necessary to rejuvenate the aged asphalt I n the RAP, one needs to determine the hardness of the aged asphalt. The e x t r a c t from the e x t r a c t i o n process i s d i s t i l l e d by the Abson Method of Recovery (ASTM D1856).

35

The recovered aged asphalt from t h i s recovery procedure can then be tested f o r penetration and v i s c o s i t y . As an example, suppose the recovered asphalt properties were as f o l l o w s . Penetration, 77 F, 0.1mm V i s c o s i t y , 1A0 F, poise 25 - 55,000

In order to pre-determine the required grade (softness) of new asphalt, one needs t o estimate the optimum asphalt content of the recycled mixture. Suppose one estimates i t to be 6.0% as i n the blending and batching example above. The r a t i o of new or added AC to the t o t a l asphalt i n the mixture, then, Is 76.2%. The required grade based on penetration or v i s c o s i t y i s determined as i l l u s t r a t e d i n Figure 17 and 18. For these examples, i t was decided that an 85-100 penetration grade f i n a l blended asphalt was desired, and an AC-20 (1600-2400 poise) v i s c o s i t y grade asphalt was desired r e s p e c t i v e l y . Therefore as determined from the blending c h a r t s , one would use e i t h e r a 120-150 penetration grade asphalt or an AC-10 v i s c o s i t y grade asphalt (800-1200 poise) f o r the new asphalt. One of the assumptions taken i n recycled mix design i s t h a t the new and aged asphalts w i l l completely mix together and be spread homogeneously throughout the e n t i r e mix. This may i n f a c t not occur completely, and there I s no means t o ascertain that t h i s has i n f a c t happened. Therefore, i t i s h i g h l y recommended that the RAP content of recycled mixtures be kept low enough, or be lowered to a p o i n t , where the asphalt grade being used as the new asphalt i s no more than two grades s o f t e r than the asphalt grade desired i n the f i n a l recycled mixture as a combined blend. I n other words, i n the above example, the new asphalt i s only one grade s o f t e r than the f i n a l blend grade desired. Therefore the RAP content of the recycled mix could be higher ( f o r these recommendations) to the point where a 200-300 penetration grade, or an AC-5 v i s c o s i t y grade (400-600 p o i s e ) , asphalt would be required. As an i l l u s t r a t i o n , t h i s would correspond to a maximum RAP content of about 50% f o r each of these examples blending problems, f o r a f i n a l recycled mix containing 6.0% t o t a l asphalt content, w i t h a RAP m a t e r i a l having a 5.0% asphalt content. The reason f o r t h i s recommendation i s to guard against the p o s s i b i l i t y that complete blending does not take place, which i f t h a t d i d happen, one could get a mix t h a t would shove and displace under t r a f f i c . Excessive wheel path r u t t i n g would be the r e s u l t . The l a s t s p e c i a l consideration that must be addressed f o r recycled mixes i s the method f o r determination of the bulk s p e c i f i c g r a v i t y of the RAP aggregate. I t i s d i f f i c u l t to perform an aggregate g r a v i t y on extracted aggregate because of an o i l y f i l m l e f t on the aggregate. I t can be done, but f i r s t screen the aggregate Into a coarse and f i n e p o r t i o n (plus and minus no. 4 s i e v e ) , and then one must wash the aggregate w i t h a mild soap. The remainder of the procedure f o r f i n e and coarse s p e c i f i c g r a v i t y would be the same. Knowing the percent passing the #4 sieve from the gradation analysis conducted as p a r t of the e x t r a c t i o n procedure, one can compute the combined aggregate bulk g r a v i t y of the RAP aggregate. As an a l t e r n a t e procedure, one can perform a Rice t e s t on the RAP. Thus knowing the maximum s p e c i f i c g r a v i t y of the RAP and the asphalt content of the RAP from the e x t r a c t i o n procedure, one can compute the e f f e c t i v e aggregate s p e c i f i c g r a v i t y of the RAP aggregate. A value f o r the RAP asphalt s p e c i f i c g r a v i t y can be assumed r e l a t i v e l y close enough (such as 1.035) f o r t h i s purpose, or i t can be measured on the recovered aged asphalt, i f deemed necessary. As an approximation, one can then use the e f f e c t i v e s p e c i f i c g r a v i t y of the RAP aggregate as an estimate of the bulk s p e c i f i c g r a v i t y of the RAP aggregate i n the c a l c u l a t i o n f o r combined bulk aggregate s p e c i f i c g r a v i t y of the t o t a l aggregate blend. This assumption w i l l produce a r e s u l t that i s reasonably accurate provided the RAP content of the f i n a l design mixture i s i n the range of 30% or l e s s . The VMA value, so determined by t h i s procedure, w i l l t h e r e f o r e be s l i g h t l y higher than i s a c t u a l l y the case. One can make allowances f o r t h i s by designing the recycled mix to have a VMA value s l i g h t l y above the required minimum f o r that aggregate blend nominal s i z e .
36

Large mix batches, enough f o r three or more Marshall plugs, i s recommended as standard procedure f o r mixes containing RAP due to the d i f f i c u l t y In batching out smaller portions of RAP. I t I s also recommended that the RAP be heated separately from the v i r g i n aggregates, and at a much lower temperature such as 140 F, to prevent excessive a d d i t i o n a l asphalt cement hardening I n the RAP. The v i r g i n aggregates should be heated high enough to ensure that the two m a t e r i a l s , when combined f o r mixing, w i l l be w i t h i n the required mixing temperature. The remaining mix design procedures are as f o r standard or v i r g i n mixes. Quality Control The Marshall Mix Design Process i s also a q u a l i t y c o n t r o l process when samples are prepared and analyzed on plant produced mix. I t I s beyond the scope of t h i s booklet to discuss the s t a t i s t i c a l procedures necessary to develop q u a l i t y c o n t r o l charts and t h e i r c o n t r o l l i m i t s . I t i s important, however, to know t h a t f o r any mix c r i t e r i o n f o r which one desires a q u a l i t y c o n t r o l c h a r t , one needs to p l o t a curve f o r both the average c r i t e r i o n value and i t s v a r i a b i l i t y value (standard d e v i a t i o n ) . This i s because of the f o l l o w i n g possible c o n d i t i o n s : (1) . Average (2) . Average (3) . Average (4) . Average under c o n t r o l out of c o n t r o l out of c o n t r o l under c o n t r o l Variability Variability Variability Variability out of c o n t r o l out of c o n t r o l under c o n t r o l under c o n t r o l

Only c o n d i t i o n (4) i s s a t i s f a c t o r y . The c r i t e r i a on which one should be keeping q u a l i t y c o n t r o l charts are suggested as f o l l o w s : (1) . Marshall a i r voids (2) . Marshall VMA (3) . Asphalt content (4) . Passing No. 8 sieve, (perhaps also the No. 4 sieve) (5) . Passing No. 200 sieve ( o r Dust/AC Ratio) (6) . Maximum Mix S p e c i f i c Gravity (Rice t e s t ) I t i s also Important t h a t one u t i l i z e these c o n t r o l charts properly. One should not react to v a r i a t i o n s i n s i n g l e t e s t r e s u l t s or even a s i n g l e average p o i n t . One should react to the trends established by a series of these averages or moving averages. Reacting to i n d i v i d u a l values, by c o n t i n u a l l y making process adjustments, w i l l only increase the process v a r i a b i l i t y i n the long run. When t e s t r e s u l t s are suspect, or I t appears that the process I s going out of c o n t r o l , the number of t e s t s should be increased accordingly. Conversely, the number of tests can be decreased when the process i s running under c o n t r o l . The production of asphalt mix i s best achieved through a continuous process which should be permitted to run while adjustments are made to d i r e c t or steer the process w i t h i n the s p e c i f i c a t i o n l i m i t s . Thus plant shut-downs should be avoided i f a t a l l possible. In a d d i t i o n to performing process t e s t i n g , one should also acquire samples of the process materials f o r storage. I n the event t h a t a question concerning mix q u a l i t y or m a t e r i a l s q u a l i t y should a r i s e i n the f u t u r e , f o l l o w up i n v e s t i g a t i v e e f f o r t s are aided s u b s t a n t i a l l y when samples representing production from t h a t period of time are a v a i l a b l e . The f o l l o w i n g i s a suggested l i s t of materials which should be kept f o r perhaps a year or two beyond the p r o j e c t completion. (1) . (2) . (3) . (4) . Asphalt cement - 1 quart per day Asphalt Mix - 25 l b . box sample per day Aggregates - 25 l b . each source per week Additives - 1 p i n t l i q u i d or gal can lime per job

The need f o r a q u a l i t y c o n t r o l program and a q u a l i t y c o n t r o l engineer should be obvious and w i l l be p r a c t i c a l l y e s s e n t i a l i n the f u t u r e as the i n d u s t r y heads towards end r e s u l t acceptance of the product. A person should be retained by each asphalt producer f o r t h i s s p e c i f i c purpose. I t must also be t h a t person's p r i n c i p a l job r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , f o r t h i s I s not an a c t i v i t y that i s secondary t o the operation o f an asphalt mix production f a c i l i t y , and t h i s j o b cannot be done i n someone's spare time. I t i s a f u l l - t i m e j o b . The q u a l i t y c o n t r o l engineer, as d i s t i n g u i s h e d from the laboratory technician who performs the necessary t e s t i n g , should be I n t o t a l charge o f the asphalt plant operations, or should be consulted c o n t i n u a l l y by the person who i s i n charge.

TABLES Table 1AGGREGATE STOCKPILE GRADINGS * X Passing Sieve 3/4 1/2 3/8 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 * Washed Analysis Table 2MIX COMPOSITIONS-Trial Blends Gradation Specs ASTM D 3515 1/2 dense Gravel 100.0 75.2 36.8 3.2 2.4 1.8 1.2 0.6 0.4 0.3 Sand Screenings

100, 99. 83 62, 37, 11, 1.4 0.3

100.0 99.6 76.7 52.4 37.5 27.8 21.1 16.6

Mix A Gravel,% Sand,X Screenings,% mix X Passing Sieve 3/4 1/2 3/8 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 100.0 91.8 79.1 67.9 56.8 42.3 25.4 8.1 1.1 0.3 33 67 0

Mix B 43 22 35

Mix C 30 35 35

Mix D 33 32 35

100.0 89.3 72.8 58.2 46.3 32.8 21.8 12.6 7.9 6.0

100.0 92.6 81.0 70.8 56.8 40.7 26.5 14.0 8.0 6.0

100.0 91.8 79.1 67.9 54.4 38.8 25.5 13.7 8.0 6.0

100 90-100 44-74 28-58

5-21

38

39

Table 3AGGREGATE SPECIFIC GRAVITY VALUES Gravel Bulk (dry basis) Bulk (SSD basis) Apparent Water absorption,Z 2.633 2.676 2.750 1.61 Sand 2.636 2.666 2.717 1.13 Screenings 2.677 2.704 2.752 1.01

Table 6APPEARANCE OF MIXES DURING MARSHALL SPECIMEN FABRICATION ZAC 3.75 4.50 5.25 6.00 6.75 7.50 Mix A Mix B SL DRY O K OK SL RICH FAT Mix C Mix D

DRY OK O K RICH RICH

O K OK SL RICH FAT

OK OK SL RICH RICH

Table 4-AGGREGATE SPECIFIC GRAVITY VALUES FOR COMBINED AGGREGATE BLENDS Mix A Gravel, X Sand,X Screenings,% 33 67 0 Mix B 43 22 35 2.649 2.672 2.743 1.29 Mix C 30 35 35 2.649 2.666 2.739 1.23 Mix D 33 32 35 2.650 2.666 2.740 1.25

Bulk ( d r y basis) 2.635 Effective* 2.669 Apparent 2.728 Water absorption, X 1.29 Determined

from Rice t e s t on prepared mix.

Table 5MAXIMUM MIX GRAVITIES BY RICE TEST SP. GR. AC - 1.032 Mix A E f f e c t i v e aggregate Gravity Percent asphalt Mix basis 3.75 4.50 5.25* 6.00 6.75 7.50 Mix B Mix C Mix D

2.669

2.672 2.522 2.494 2.466 2.439 2.413

2.666

2.666

2.491 2.464 2.437 2.411 2.385

2.489 2.461 2.435 2.409

2.489 2.461 2.435 2.409

* A l l t e s t s run a t 5.25% AC-including the c o r r e c t i o n f o r absorbed water.

40

41

Table 7

MARSHALL DATA %VMA agg. bulk dry basis

MIX ID

ZAC mix basis 4.50 5.25 6.00 6.75 7.50

Core bulk Sp.Gr.*

Max. Sp.Gr.**

ZAC abs mix basis

ZEff AC mix basis 4.02 4.78 5.53 6.28 7.04 3.42 4.18 4.93 5.68 6.43 4.26 5.01 5.76 6.52

%VMAF

ZAir voids

Unit wt. (pcf)

Stab. lbs.*

Flow .01"*

2.222 2.228 2.248 2.276 2.295

2.491 2.464 2.437 2.411 2.385

0.48 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.46

19.5 19.9 19.8 19.5 19.4 14.3 14.0 14.3 15.5 16.5 16.5 16.7 16.6 17.2

44.5 51.7 60.6 71.2 80.4

10.8 9.6 7.8 5.6 3.8 6.4 4.4 2.9 2.3 1.7

138.6 139.0 140.3 142.0 143.2

1040 900 950 1180 850

5 6 6 6 9 6 9 11 15 18

B M

3.75 4.50 5.25 6.00 6.75

2.360 2.385 2.395 2.382 2.372

2.522 2.494 2.466 2.439 2.413 2.489 2.461 2.435 2.409 2.489 2.461 2.435 2.409

0.33 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.23

55.2 68.6 79.7 85.2 89.7

147.3 148.8 149.4 148.6 148.0

2720 2410 2100 1950 1550 2220 2040 1990 1700

4.50 5.25 6.00 6.75 4.50 5.25 6.00 6.75 *

2.315 2.330 2.349 2.352

57.6 68.3 78.9 86.0

7.0 5.3 3.5 2.4 7.0 4.6 3.3 1.8

144.5 145.4 146.6 146.8

8 8 9 14

2.316 2.347 2.355 2.366

0.22 0.22 0.22 0.21

4.28 5.03 5.78 6.54

16.5 16.1 16.5 16.7

57.6 71.4 80.0 89.2

144.5 146.5 147.0 147.6

1990 1950 1700 1550

8 9 10 13

- Average o f three specimens a t each asphalt content

** - Based on an average o f two Rice t e s t s run a 5.25Z asphalt content

* **
I i i

X
o I a h* f t

ft O O T3 3 ft

X 00

o
O ft f t 3 00 "3

< / >w
N.O a rr X> H-< 8 a rt

a
O

0 * 0 01 3 fftJ B to C H o w n ) H

o >

( A U G - 0 3 ri 3 p,

n o. < m - n

H H"

I I H C O 3 Hft ps M H O ! C D

3< / >

* * B A
1

C D 3 o to r t

<S>

o o cr> 3 ft

fl C/l < > O w H r t 2 H.-3 n O P > 1 f t n rti H . * < B rt> O M O C 3 . H r * 9 p. O ft O. 3

n i 3 o > a. < - n >

J* M X

3* P 3

to

B B
X X

f t t-h

a n

to

to Hl <
0

VO 0 3 * 0 * >

Ut O

m 1 c * 1 o
C D H 3 C D

rt

H*

VO v U>

**

o o

to

> t >
o > * o o> * U l . . * O O a * O 00

<r> o> U l

ON

ON O

v o vo . . ) - . . O M o *

o> U l

rO *
O
</>

Ul u

Ul u i

O H > H Ul 1 3 " ^ O P- 03 T3 M r t f t 3* CT | I H r-t r t M H- O H " ft X to

d 3 00 tr> f It H

1 CO < > O H f t S H - T J O ft

N H > I* P) B S
< to a
O 10 ft ft

o o 2 r o to
3

p N o

fD > (0 3 N H O M K O C H. X p . M H- B 3 O r t H Q . >00 n > 00 s

cr

W (fl O f O 1 H H 3 P > B H - m CL < m

H > Hi < B

to

00 rt O 3

o. - rt

* o
Q. C O

to
03 O toft < T > t' Ui

X H

ro . Ul CO O O O ON v

VO CO ON CO

to O O O O Ui

00 U l U l u> I O I I H O CO U l oo ui

Ed HO r t ro H f ) o n H o (OOPH* i-h pa

1 Q. p . t /i 13

a to

Table 11-Stripping E v a l u a t i o n Example-Mix D, p e r c e n t a s p h a l t = 5 . 4 050 blows

Core

Ident

1. D i a m e t e r ( u s e 4.0") 2. Thickness (inches) 3. Dry w e i g h t (A,grams) 4. SSD w e i g h t (B,grams) 5. U n d e r w a t e r weight ( C , g r a m s ) 6. Specimen volume ( B - C ) 7. B u l k g r a v i t y (A/B-C) 8. Max.mix g r a v i t y ( e f f e c t i v e - 2 . 6 6 6 ) 9. P e r c e n t a i r v o i d s = 1 0 0 - 1 0 0 ( 7 / 8 ) 10. Volume o f a i r v o i d s = ( 9 x 6 / 1 0 0 ) A f t e r 5mins.-20" Hg vacuum s a t u r a t i o n i n 77 F w a t e r

4.0 2 5/8 1195.6 1196.1 669.9 526.2 2.272 2.456 7.5 39.5

4.0 2 5/8 1190.2 1190.4 665.4 525.0 2.267 2.456 7.7 40.4

4.0 2 5/8 1198.1 1198.6 670.8 527.8 2.270 2.456 7.6 40.1

4.0 2 5/8 1188.3 1188.9 665.2 523.7 2.269 2.456 7.6 39.8

4.0 2 5/8 1194.6 1194.9 665.8 529.1 2.258 2.456 8.1 42.9

4.0 2 5/8 1190.8 1191.3 669.3 522.0 2.281 2.456 7.1 37.1

11. SSD w e i g h t ( B " ) 12. Water p i c k u p (B'-A) 13. S a t u r a t i o n ( 1 2 / 1 0 x 1 0 0 ) , % ( 5 5 - 7 5 ) A f t e r 24 h o u r s i n 140 F + 1 hour i n 77 F w a t e r

1213.4 25.1 63.1

1221.4 26.8 62.5

1215.4 24.6 66.3

14. SSD w e i g h t ( B " ) 15. Water p i c k u p (B"-A) 16. S a t u r a t i o n (15/10 x 1 0 0 ) , % f i n a l Average 17. L o a d , l b s . 18. T e n s i l e s t r e n g t h ( p s i ) = 0.637 ( 1 7 / 1 x 2 ) Average 19. T e n s i l e Strength retained avg wet t s x 100 avg d r y t s (TRS) =

x x x 1625 98.5

x x x 1530 92.8 95.5 51.2 % 1570 95.2

1219.0 30.7 77.1 800 48.5

1227.4 32.8 76.5 78.2 750 45.5 48.9

1220.9 30.1 81.1 870 52.7

46

Fig. 3 - UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS 0.45 POWER GRADATION CHART Sieve Sizes Raised t o 0.45 Power

00

Sieve Sizes * This symbol i d e n t i f i e s s i m p l i f i e d p r a c t i c e and compatible sieve sizes

Fig. 4 - UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS 0.45 POWER GRADATION CHART Sieve Sizes Raised t o 0.45 Power

Sieve Sizes * This symbol i d e n t i f i e s s i m p l i f i e d p r a c t i c e and compatible sieve sizes

o * > 60

x j n T*3I - spjoA auaojaj

paiTTd sproA a^BSaaSSv inaojaa

sproA a:jF8aj88v 3uaojaa

sqx

- X^TjTqBqs

TTqaH

* I 00T /I - AOTI

Fig. 5 100

UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS 0.45 P O W E R GRADATION CHART Sieve Sizes Raised t o 0.45 Power 100

I 1/4 i n .

3/8 i n . 1-1/4 i n .

1-1/2

in.

Sieve Sizes ASTM D3515 1/2" Mix & TAI SS-1

4

This symbol i d e n t i f i e s s i m p l i f i e d practice and compatible sieve sizes

F i g . 12 - ESTIMATE OF DENSITY OF MIX E AT OPTIMUM PERCENT ASPHALT @ c o n s t a n t % s c r e e n i n g s - 35% 149

F i g . 13 SUMMARY OF MIX DESIGN CONDITION FOR OPTIMUM DURABILITY AND ECONOMICS

148

C O C D U

cd
60 C D U 60 60

147

<

C D

146
C

^.Estimated sand content 27% f o r optimum AC - 5.1% @ 15.0% VMA & 4.0% a i r v o i d s 145 15 20 25 Sand, %
.. . i i

30

35

40

Asphalt Content, %

56

57

F i g . 14 - A I R VOIDS V s MARSHALL BLOWS Fig. 15 - S P L I T T E N S I L E TEST

Marshall loading rate (2 i n c h e s per minute)

59

F i g . 16 - TYPICAL TSR-SATURATION RELATIONSHIP

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

F i n a l Water S a t u r a t i o n , Z

Reclaimed Asphalt Penetration; 100 gms., 5 sees. S 7 7 F, o f Component

New Asphalt Penetration; 1 0 0 gms., 5 sees. 9 77 F, o f Component

Reclaimed Asphalt V i s c o s i t y , 60C (140F) Poises

H t~* ro *>ON00O M O *> O 0> O O

^
*->
O

Q
O

New Asphalt V i s c o s i t y , 60C (140F) Poises

'^Vi.-vv-^.'.