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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

41F = net mass, g, of fine aggregate in measure,G sb = bulk dry specific gravity of fine aggregate,4.4 FAA TEST RESULTSTests were run on the six combinations of limestone and natural sands. The experimental dataare presented in Appendix B. Results for each combination were analyzed and are displayed inTable 4.1. Column 3 shows the results for obtained by testing the blended sands. Column 4shows the results obtained by computing the blended FAA based on the FAA of the limestoneand the natural sand and using Equation 2.11. The 100% LS sand had a FAA of 43.5 percent.This is less than the minimum requirement Superpave heavy traffic designs, which requires anuncompacted voids of 45%. Thus, none of the blends meet the requirements for high volumeroads. However, all the blends meet the requirements for other traffic levels.Table 4.1 Results of Fine Aggregate Angularity Tests.Mix TypeSpecific GravityTest ResultsUncompacted Voids(percent)Computed ResultsUncompacted Voids(percent)100% LS 2.618 43.5 -75% LS - 25% NS 2.596 42.5 42.568% LS - 32% NS 2.591 41.6 42.250% LS - 50% NS 2.575 41.2 41.525% LS - 75% NS 2.554 40.2 40.4100% NS 2.534 39.4 -Comparison of the test results from the blended material and the computed results shows onlyminor differences. However, in three of four cases, the computed values were higher than themeasured values.4.5 CONCLUSIONThe FAA test is fairly simple and can be performed rapidly once the specific gravity of the sand isknown. The results obtained were consistent with the expectations. The FAA value for thecrushed limestone sand was 43.5 percent. This is less than the required specification for hightraffic volume Superpave mixes. However, the supplier of these aggregates routinely uses themfor Superpave mixes. As shown in Equation 4.1, the uncompacted void content is sensitive tothe bulk specific gravity. Determining the bulk specific gravity of crushed limestone sand is
problematic, as the saturated surface dry condition of the aggregate is not consistentlyidentified with the standard test method.42
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: 40mouth. This jar rests on a holder
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 108 and 109:
992 8.40 10.80 7.402 7.90 9.90 7.80
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?