Comparison of 9.5 mm SuperPave and Marshall Wearing I Mixes in ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

992 8.40 10.80 7.402 7.90 9.90 7.80C L RDate Tested: 7/26/01 8/2/01 8/2/01 AVG SDAverages: 7.58 10.78 8.33 8.89 1.674
100Table D-2 Rut Depths for Each APA Specimen (Continued)Mix:SP MED 100% LSSamplePill Reading 1 2 31 9.30 12.90 11.201 11.00 12.00 12.052 8.90 7.50 10.102 8.20 8.90 9.90R L RDate Tested: 8/2/01 8/2/01 8/3/01 AVG SDAverages: 9.35 10.33 10.81 10.16 0.745Mix:SP HVY 13% NSSamplePill Reading 1 2 31 8.85 10.85 11.751 8.00 10.30 10.402 9.80 9.75 12.452 10.90 10.40 10.70R L LDate Tested: 7/27/01 7/27/01 8/3/01 AVG SDAverages: 9.39 10.33 11.33 10.35 0.969Mix:SP MED 13% NSSamplePill Reading 1 2 31 11.30 8.50 11.00
Page 1 and 2:
COMPARISON OF 9.5 MM SUPERPAVE ANDM
Page 3 and 4:
iNOTICEThe contents of this report
Page 5 and 6:
iiiasphalt concrete wearing courses
Page 7 and 8:
vMixing Procedure 78Appendix B Fine
Page 9 and 10:
viiTable C-7 Marshall Medium 13% NS
Page 13 and 14:
4Table 1.1 Mix Design Types in Expe
Page 15 and 16:
6CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW2.1 INT
Page 17 and 18:
82. determine aggregate stockpile b
Page 19 and 20:
10SieveAllowable PercentPassing Sie
Page 21 and 22:
12Stability is recorded as the maxi
Page 23 and 24:
14The WVDOH procedure for determini
Page 25 and 26:
16sieve. This is somewhat different
Page 27 and 28:
18G sb = bulk specific gravity of a
Page 29 and 30:
20theoretical gravity at the initia
Page 31 and 32:
22D/B est = adjusted dust to binder
Page 33 and 34:
24P b,est - 0.5%,P b,est ,P b,est +
Page 35 and 36:
Percent Passing261009080Superpave U
Page 37 and 38:
28Table 2.6 WVDOH Marshall and Supe
Page 39 and 40:
30Table 2.9 Habib Marshall Analysis
Page 41 and 42:
32theoretically correct in that the
Page 43 and 44:
34the machine. This variability was
Page 45 and 46:
36CHAPTER 3 EQUIPMENT3.1 INTRODUCTI
Page 47 and 48:
38Hose PressureWheel Load100 psi100
Page 49 and 50:
40mouth. This jar rests on a holder
Page 51 and 52:
problematic, as the saturated surfa
Page 53 and 54:
44Mechanical Laboratory Sieve. Afte
Page 55 and 56:
Percent Passing4610090100% Limeston
Page 57 and 58: 48Maximum specific gravity is a req
Page 59 and 60: 50gradation. This allowed for direc
Page 61 and 62: Percent Passing521009080Light 100%
Page 63 and 64: 54percentage of aggregate from the
Page 65 and 66: 56Table 5.4 Summary of Volumetric a
Page 67 and 68: 58Table 5.5 Calculated and Adjusted
Page 69 and 70: 60Table 5.6 Results of APA TestsAir
Page 71 and 72: 62exhibit lower rut depths than any
Page 73 and 74: design had significantly more rutti
Page 75 and 76: 66SP L 100LS SP L 64NS -10.335 2.77
Page 77 and 78: 68percent air voids and percent lim
Page 79 and 80: Air Voids (%)Uncompacted Voids (%)7
Page 81 and 82: 72than the Marshall mixes. Table 6.
Page 83 and 84: Voids in the Mineral Aggregate. As
Page 85 and 86: 76REFERENCESAmerican Association of
Page 87 and 88: 78APPENDIX A BUCKET MIXER INSTRUCTI
Page 89 and 90: 80APPENDIX B FINE AGGREGATE ANGULAR
Page 91 and 92: 82Table B-3 Uncompacted Void Conten
Page 93 and 94: 84AGGREGATE DESIGN DATATable C-1 St
Page 95 and 96: 86Table C-3 Computed Blend Gradatio
Page 97 and 98: 88Table C-7 Marshall Medium 13% NS
Page 99 and 100: 90%G mm%AC VMA VTM VFA @ N ini @N d
Page 101 and 102: 92Table C-14 Superpave Light 64% NS
Page 103: 946 2979.3 1696.7 2988.1 2.307 7.09
Page 106 and 107: 971 2912.7 1620.8 2917.9 2.246 7.65
Page 110 and 111: 1011 9.50 6.90 11.502 9.79 7.15 10.
Page 112 and 113: 1032 8.55 5.20 5.95L R RDate Tested
show all

Comparison of 9.5 mm SuperPave and Marshall Wearing I Mixes in ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?