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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

81Table B-2 Specific Gravity DeterminationA= mass of oven-dry specimen in air, gB= mass of pycnometer filled with water, gC= mass of pycnometer with specimen andwater, gD= mass of saturated surface-dry specimen, g100% Limestone A = 488.3 G sb = 2.618B = 659.3C = 974.3S = 501.5100% N.Sand A = 490.8 G sb = 2.534B = 659.3C = 966.7S = 501.150% Limestone A = 493.6 G sb = 2.55050% N.Sand B = 659.3C = 968.8S = 503.175% Limestone A = 490 G sb = 2.56125% N.Sand B = 659.3C = 968.4S = 500.425% Limestone A = 490.8 G sb = 2.53475% N.Sand B = 659.3C = 967.6S = 502
82Table B-3 Uncompacted Void Content DeterminationWeights per FAA test runand uncompacted voidspercentages Net weight in measure (g) G sb U (%)100% Limestone F1 = 148.3 2.618 43.5F2 = 147.5Favg = 147.9100% N. Sand F1 = 153.4 2.534 39.4F2 = 153.6Favg = 153.550% Limesotne F1 = 151.6 2.575 41.250% N. Sand F2 = 151.1Favg = 151.475% Limestone F1 = 149.2 2.596 42.525% N. Sand F2 = 149.3Favg = 149.325% Limestone F1 = 152.8 2.550 40.175% N. Sand F2 = 152.8Favg = 152.8
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: 80APPENDIX B FINE AGGREGATE ANGULAR
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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?