Islamic University of Gaza High Studies Deanery Faculty of ... · Islamic University of Gaza High...
Transcript of Islamic University of Gaza High Studies Deanery Faculty of ... · Islamic University of Gaza High...
Islamic University of Gaza High Studies Deanery Faculty of Engineering
Master in Science Infrastructure Engineering
A Proposal for Asphalt Binder Layer Specification in Palestine
M.Sc. Thesis
Submitted to the Faculty of Engineering
Department of Civil Engineering
Submitted By Mohammed Ghanem
Supervised By Assoc. Prof. Shafik Jendia
March., 2005
i
ABSTRACT
The undertaken research work includes the development of a proposal for binder asphalt
layer specification that is suitable for local aggregate and bitumen in Palestine. The
proposed specifications has been developed after collecting and reviewing eleven
specifications for binder asphalt layer and divided them into three groups. These groups
are the international group, the regional group and the local requirements in Palestine.
This research differs from the previous researches because it introduces a special
specification for the binder asphalt layer which suits the local materials in Palestine. In
addition to the new methodology which was used by the researcher to select the most
suitable specifications. The adopted mechanism was drawing one frame consists of a
minimum and maximum gradations for all the collected specifications and selecting
several asphalt mixes with different gradations. These gradations cover the wide range
between the minimum and maximum of the frame. Also, the mechanical properties for
the eleven specifications were studied and the researcher selected mechanical properties
to be adopted for the proposed specification. Finally, the gradation which achieved the
selected mechanical properties with minimum bitumen content was selected as a
proposed specification.
It is recommended that the developed proposed specification to be used in construction
the asphalt binder layer in Palestine. The proposed specification will solve the problems
and decrease the mistakes which caused by the differences of the specifications from
project to project. This difference pushes the asphalt factories to change the asphalt
factories to change the specification of the asphalt mixes several times a day to cover the
supervision requirements. If the proposed specification used and unified, it will improve
the planning and implementation of roads projects.
ii
ملخص البحث
ھذا البحث یقدم اقتراحا لمواصفة فلسطینیة خاصة بتدرج الخلطة االسفلتیة لطبقة الرصف الرابطة
و لتقدیم ھذا االقتراح تم . من الحصویات و البیتومین المتوفرة في فلسطینباستخدام المواد المحلیة
المجموعة العالمیة و جمع و مراجعة أحد عشر مواصفة تم تقسیمھا إلى ثالث مجموعات و ھي
عن األبحاث و یتمیز ھذا البحث. المجموعة االقلیمیة و مجموعة المتطلبات المحلیة الفلسطینیة
بتبنیھ آلیة و طریقة جدیدة لتقدیم ھذا السابقة بأنھ یقدم اقتراح لمواصفة محلیة خاصة بفلسطین و كذلك
أصغري لجمیع المواصفات و عظمي و مغلف واحد أو تتلخص ھذه الطریقة بأخذ. االقتراح
متطلبات التي تم جمعھا و دراستھا و من ثم عمل مجموعة من الخلطات الخاصة بتدرجات مختلفة ال
و من ثم اختیار التدرج و نسبة . بحیث تغطي المجال الواسع بین الحدین األعظمي و األصغري
صفات تیاره بعد دراسة جمیع ال أیضا تم اخالبیتومین التي تحقق الصفات المیكانیكیة الجیدة و التي
.المیكانیكیة للمواصفات المذكورة
المتوفرة في أما بالنسبة لتطبیق ھذه المواصفة المقترحة فھي صالحة عند استخدام المواد المحلیة
المشاكل و یخفف من األخطاء التي حیث أن مثل ھذا االقتراح في حال تطبیقھ سوف یحل. فلسطین
اإلسفلتھذه االختالفات تدفع مصانع . أخر في المواصفات من مشروع إلى تحدث بسبب االختالفات
إذا استخدمت . اإلشراف عدة مرات في الیوم الواحد لتغطیة متطلبات اإلسفلتیةلتغییر الخلطات
.ستحسن تخطیط و تنفیذ مشاریع الطرقالمواصفة المقترحة و تم توحیدھا فإنھا
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I extend my sincere appreciation to people who made this thesis possible. Special thanks
are to my supervisor Dr. Shafik Jendia, for his guidance, patience and encouragement.
I would like to thank all lecturers in Islamic University who have helped me during my
study of Infrastructure Civil Engineering Master Program. These are Dr. Mohamed Ziara,
Dr. Yehia El Sarraj, Dr. Mohammed Awad, Dr. Sami Abu El Ross, Dr. Khairy Al Jamal,
Dr. Majed El Bayaa, Dr. Ahmed Shwedeh and Dr. Mohamed El Reefi.
Finally, I would like to thank the board of Engineering Association Laboratory for
Testing Materials who have supported and encouraged me to accomplish this work.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………...............i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT……………………………………………………………iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………….…….iv
LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………..…….ix
LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………....xiv
LIST OF ABBREVIATION………………………………………………...………xvi CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION…………….…………………………………1 1.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………….…1
1.2 Research Problem………………………………………………………………...1
1.3 Research Objectives……………………………………………………………...2
1.4 Methodology ……………………………………………………………...……....2
1.4.1 Theoretical Study………………………………………………….….…...….2
1.4.1.1 Literature Review…………………………………………………….....2
1.4.1.2 Specifications and Local Requirements…………………………..……3
1.4.2 The Practical Study…………………………………………………………..3
1.5 Research Outputs………………………………………………………………....3
1.6 Report Organization………………………………………………………….…..3
CHAPTER TWO: MATERIALS OF ASPHALT CONCRETE………..…………5
2.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………….……....5
2.2 Classes and Types of Aggregates………………………………….……………..5
2.3 General Requirement Aggregate for Bituminous Paving Mixture……….....…..6
2.4 Bituminous Materials……………………………………………………….…….8
2.5 Sources of Road Bitumen…………………………………………………………8
2.6 Petroleum Refining………………………………………………………………..8
2.7 Groups of Bituminous Materials…………………………………………………9
2.7.1 Road Bitumen………………………………………………………………….9
2.7.2 Cutback Bitumen………………………………………………………….….10
v
2.7.3 Emulsion…………………………………………………………………..…11
2.7.4 Tar……………………………………………………………………….……12
2.8 Tests of Bitumen…………………………………………………………….……12
CHAPTER THREE: PAVEMENT LAYERS AND MIX DESIGN………............13
3.1 Pavement Layers…………………………………………………….……….…..13
3.2 Mix Design Methods and Marshall Method……….…………………………...16
CHAPTER FOUR: SPECIFICATIONS OF ASPHALT BINDER COURSE…...21 4.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………..….….…21
4.2 Methodology of Selecting the Gradation and Mechanical Properties…….….21
4.3 Selected Specification of Asphalt Binder Course………………………………22
4.3.1 International Group……………………....………………………………….22
4.3.1.1 German Specifications ZTV-Asphalt-STB 94……………………..………24
4.3.1.2 Association of States and Highway Transportation Official Specifications
(AASHTO)………………………………………………………..…………..27
4.3.1.3 British Standards (BS 594)…………………………………..…………….29
4.3.1.4 The Gradations and the Mechanical Properties for International Group
Together.........................................................................................................32
4.3.2 Regional Specifications………………………………………………………35
4.3.2.1 Egyptian Specification…………………………………………………….35
4.3.2.2 Jordanian Specification……………………………………………...……37
4.3.2.3 Iraqi Specification…………………………………………………………39
4.3.2.4 The Gradation 0f the Regional Group Together……………………..…..40
4.3.3 Local Group…………………….……………….……………………………44
4.3.3.1 The Municipality of Gaza (MoG) Requirements………….………………44
4.3.3.2 PECDAR Requirements……………………………………………..….…45
4.3.3.3 UNRWA Requirements…………………………………………………….47
4.3.3.4 Palestine Standards Institution Specifications (PSI)………………..…….48
4.3.3.5 Ministry of Public Work and Housing Requirements……………………..50
vi
4.3.3.6 The Gradations of the Local Group Together……………………………52
4.3.4 The Gradation and Mechanical Properties for the International, Regional
and Local Group Together……………………………………………………57
CHAPTER FIVE: TESTS OF MATERIALS ………………..………….....……..63 5.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………….………..63
5.2 Tests of Aggregates…………………………..……………….………………….63
5.2.1 The Results of Coarse Aggregate M0……………………………………..…64
5.2.2 The Results of Coarse Aggregate M1………………………………………..65
5.2.3The Results of Coarse Aggregate M2…………………………………………66
5.2.4 The Results of Coarse Aggregate M3……………………………..…………67
5.2.5The Results of Fine Aggregate F1 (Filler)…………………………………...68
5.2.6The Results of Fine Aggregate F2 (Sand)……………………………………69
5.3 Tests of Bitumen………………………………………………………………….70
5.3.1 Penetration Test ……………………………………………………………..71
5.3.2 Softening Point of Bitumen ……………..……………………………….….71
5.3.3 Ductility Test …………………………………………………………………..72
5.3.4 Density of Bitumen at 25 C° Test …………………………………………….72
CHAPTER SIX: PREPARATION AND TESTING ASPHALT MIXES………..74
6.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………74
6.2 Methodology of Selecting the Proposed Mix……………………………….…..74
6.3 The Min. Mix……………………………………………………..……………...77
6.3.1 Min. Curve Mix……………………………………………………………....77
6.3.2 The Outputs of Job Mix for Min. Gradation with different Bitumen
Content………………………………………………………………….….…78
6.3.3 Conclusion of Job mix for Min. Gradation………………………………….79
6.4 The Mid1. Mix……………………………………………………..……………..80
6.4.1 Mid1. Curve Mix………………………………...…………………………...80
vii
6.4.2 The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid1. Gradation with different Bitumen
Content ………………………………………………………………………81
6.4.3 Conclusion of Job Mix for Mid1. Gradation……………………………….83
6.5 The Mid2. Mix……………………………………………………..……………..84
6.5.1 Mid2. Curve Mix………………………………...…………………………...84
6.5.2 The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid2. Gradation with different Bitumen
Content ………………………………………………………………………85
6.5.3 Conclusion of Job Mix for Mid2. Gradation…………………….……..…...87
6.6 The Mid3. Mix……………………………………………………..……………..88
6.6.1 Mid3. Curve Mix………………………………...…………………………...88
6.6.2 The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid3. Gradation with different Bitumen
Content ………………………………………………………………………89
6.6.3 Conclusion of Job Mix for Mid3. Gradation…………………………..…....91
6.7 The Max. Mix…………………………………………………...…………….....92
6.7.1 Max. Curve Mix…………………………...…………………………...........92
6.7.2 The Outputs of Job Mix for Max. Gradation with different Bitumen
Content ………………………………………………………………………93
6.7.3 Conclusion of Job Mix for Max. Gradation…………………………..….....95
6.8 Gradation of all Mixes Included Mid4…………………………………….……96
6.9 Mid. 4 Mix……………………………………………………………………..…98
6.9.1 Mid.4 Curve Mix…………………………………………….……………...99
6.9.2 The Outputs of Job mix for Mid4 Gradation with Different Bitumen
Contents…………………………………………………………………...…99
6.9.3 Conclusion of Job mix for Mid4 Gradation………………………………101
6.10 Proposed Specification of asphalt Binder Course in Palestine…………..…101
6.11 General Discussion…………………………………………………..….…..…103
6.12 Comparison between the Proposed Specifications and the Local
Requirements……………………………………………………….…………104
CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUDED REMARKS, CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATIONS………………………………………………….………...106
viii
7.1 Introduction………………………………………………………..…….………106
7.2 Description of the Proposed Specification……………………..………..……..106
7.3 Conclusions………………………………………….………………….….……107
7.4 Recommendations……………………………………………….………..……..108
REFERECES………………………………………………………………….……..109
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Mathematical Trail Method to Merge Aggregate Mixes………….…..114
Appendix B: The Inputs of the Binder Course Job Mixes…………………..………121
Appendix C: Photos Show the Method of the Work in the Laboratory……………..130
ix
LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1: The Maximum Limits of the flakiness Index and Elongation Index………..7
Table 2.2: Properties of Penetration Grade Bitumen……………………………..........10
Table 2.3: Viscosity of Cutback Bitumen…………………………………………..…11
Table 3.1: The Relation between the Thickness of the Layer and the Maximum
Aggregate Size…………………………………………………………………14
Table 3.2: Correction Factor…………………………………………………...............19
Table 4.1: Gradation and Properties of Asphalt Binder Course (German Specification
ZTV-Asphalt-STB94)……………………….…………………….…….….24
Table 4.2: Mechanical Properties and Bitumen Ratio for the ZTV-Asphalt-STB94, 0/22
Gradation……………………………………………………………………26
Table 4.3: Gradation and Properties of Asphalt Binder Course (AASHTO T27)….….27
Table 4.4: Gradation and Properties of Asphalt Binder Course (AASHTO T11)……..28
Table 4.5: Mechanical Properties of Asphalt Binder Course for T27 and T11
(AASHTO T27, T11) …………………………………………………..….29
Table 4.6: Gradation of Asphalt Binder Course Layer Thickness 45 to 80 mm………30
Table 4.7: Gradation of Asphalt Binder Course Layer thickness 60 to 120 mm…...…30
Table 4.8: Mechanical Properties of BS 594 Asphalt Binder Course…………………31
Table 4.9: The Specifications of (ZTV- Asphalt-STB94- 0/22, AASHTO T11 and BS
594 Layer Thickness from 45 to 80 mm)…………………………………..32
Table 4.10: The Gradations of Asphalt Binder Course of International Group………33
Table 4.11: The Gradation of the Frame of International Group…………...…………34
Table 4.12: Gradation of Egyptian Asphalt Binder Course…………………….……..36
Table 4.13: The Mechanical Properties of the Egyptian Asphalt Binder Course….….36
Table 4.14: Gradation of Jordanian Asphalt Binder Course……………….………....37
Table 4.15: Mechanical Properties of Jordanian Asphalt Binder Course……………..38
Table 4.16: Gradation of Iraqi Asphalt Binder Course………………………….……39
Table 4.17: Mechanical Properties of Iraqi Asphalt Binder Course…………………..40
Table 4.18: The Gradation of the Regional Specifications……..……………………..41
Table 4.19: The Gradation of Iraqi, Egyptian, Jordanian specifications and Regional
Frame………………………………………………………………….….42
x
Table 4.20: Gradation for Regional Specifications Frame……………………………43
Table 4.21: Gradation of (MoG) Asphalt Binder Course………………………….….44
Table 4.22: Mechanical Properties of MoG Asphalt Binder Course……….…………45
Table 4.23: Gradation of PECDAR Requirements for the Asphalt Binder Course ..…45
Table 4.24: Mechanical Properties of PECDAR Requirements for Asphalt Binder
Course……………………………………………………………………..46
Table 4.25: Gradation of UNRWA Requirements for the Asphalt Binder Course …...47
Table 4.26: Mechanical Properties of UNRWA Requirements for Asphalt Binder
Course……………………………………………………………….….…48
Table 4.27: Gradation of PSI Specifications for the Asphalt Binder Course ………....49
Table 4.28: Mechanical Properties of PSI Specifications for Asphalt Bind Course…..50
Table 4.29: Gradation of MOPWH Requirements for the Asphalt Binder Course ...…50
Table 4.30: The Mechanical Properties of MOPWH Requirements for Asphalt Binder
Course……………………………………………………..........................51
Table 4.31: The Gradation of the Local Group Requirements………………...………53
Table 4.32: The Gradation of the Local Group Requirements and their Frame……….54
Table 4.33: The Gradation of the Local Requirements Frame………………………..55
Table 4.34: The Percentage of Passing Materials for the Upper and Limit Levels in all
Groups…………………………………………………………………….57
Table 4.35: The Gradation of the International, Regional, Local Frames and the
Frame of all the Specifications………………………………………….58
Table 4.36: The Lower and Upper Percentage of Passing Materials for All
Specifications Together……………………………………….…………..59
Table 4.37: The Mechanical Properties for all Specifications…………………….…..61
Table 5.1: Results of M0 Tests………………………………………………………..64
Table 5.2: Sieve Analysis of M0………………………………………………………64
Table 5.3: Results of M1 Tests……………………………………………………..….65
Table 5.4: Sieve Analysis of M1……………………………………………………....65
Table 5.5: Results of M2 Tests……………………………………………...……...….66
Table 5.6: Sieve Analysis of M2…………………………………………………..…..66
Table 5.7: Results of M3 Tests……………………………………………...……...….67
xi
Table 5.8: Sieve Analysis of M3………………………………………………………67
Table 5.9: Results of F1 Tests……………………………………………………..….68
Table 5.10: Sieve Analysis of F1…………………………………………………..….68
Table 5.11: Results of F2 Tests…………………………………………………..……69
Table 5.12: Sieve Analysis of F2…………………………………….……………..…69
Table 5.13: The Gradation of all Types of Aggregates………………...……….….…70
Table 5.14: Results of Penetration Test……………………………………..….…..…71
Table 5.15: Results of Ductility Test…………………………………………….…...72
Table 5.16: Results of Density Test……………………………………………….….72
Table 5.17: Results of Bitumen Tests………………………………………………...73
Table 6.1: Gradations of the Five Selected Curves…………………………………...75
Table 6.2 The Number of the Specimens for all Mixes……………………………….76
Table 6.3: Aggregate Ratio in Min. Mix………………………………………………77
Table 6.4: The Outputs of Job Mix for Min Gradation with 4% Bitumen Content…...78
Table 6.5: The Outputs of Job Mix for Min Gradation with 4.5% Bitumen Content...78
Table 6.6: The Outputs of Job Mix for Min Gradation with 5% Bitumen Content…..78
Table 6.7: The Outputs of Job Mix for Min Gradation with 5.5% Bitumen Content…79
Table 6.8: The Outputs of Job Mix for Min Gradation with 6% Bitumen Content…..79
Table 6.9: The Conclusion of Job Mix for Min Gradation……………………………80
Table 6.10: Aggregate Ratio in Mid1 Mix…………………………………………….81
Table 6.11: The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid1 Gradation with 4% Bitumen Content...82
Table 6.12: The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid1 Gradation with 4.5% Bitumen
Content…………………………………………………………………..82
Table 6.13: The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid1 Gradation with 5% Bitumen
Content………………………………………………………………….82
Table 6.14: The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid1 Gradation with 5.5% Bitumen
Content………………………………………………………………….. 83
Table 6.15: The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid1 Gradation with 6% Bitumen
Content………………………………………………………….……....83
Table 6.16: The Conclusion of Job Mix for Mid1 Gradation………………………..84
Table 6.17: Aggregate Ratio in Mid2 Mix…………………………………..………85
xii
Table 6.18: The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid2 Gradation with 4% Bitumen
Content……………………………………….…………………………86
Table 6.19: The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid2 Gradation with 4.5% Bitumen
Content……………………………………….…………………………86
Table 6.20: The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid2 Gradation with 5% Bitumen
Content…………………………………………………………………..86
Table 6.21: The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid2 Gradation with 5.5% Bitumen
Content…………………………………………………………………..87
Table 6.22: The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid2 Gradation with 6% Bitumen
Content………………….……………………………………………….87
Table 6.23: The Conclusion of Job Mix for Mid2 Gradation……………..…………..88
Table 6.24: Aggregate Ratio in Mid3 Mix…………………………………...…..……89
Table 6.25: The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid3 Gradation with 4% Bitumen
Content……………………………………………….…………………90
Table 6.26: The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid3Gradation with 4.5% Bitumen
Content…………………………………………………………………..90
Table 6.27: The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid3Gradation with 5% Bitumen
Content…………………………………………………………….….…90
Table 6.28: The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid3Gradation with 5.5% Bitumen
Content……………………………………………………………….….91
Table 6.29: The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid3 Gradation with 6% Bitumen
Content…………………………………………………………….…....91
Table 6.30: The Conclusion of Job Mix for Mid3 Gradation……………………..…..92
Table 6.31: Aggregate Ratio in Mid3 Mix…………………………………………….93
Table 6.32: The Outputs of Job Mix for Max Gradation with 4% Bitumen
Content……………………………………………………………………94
Table 6.33: The Outputs of Job Mix for Max Gradation with 4.5% Bitumen
Content…………………………………………………………………...94
Table 6.34: The Outputs of Job Mix for Max Gradation with 5% Bitumen
Content………………………………………………………………….94
Table 6.35: The Outputs of Job Mix for Max Gradation with 5.5% Bitumen
xiii
Content…………………………………………………………….…….95
Table 6.36: The Outputs of Job Mix for Max Gradation with 6% Bitumen
Content…………………………………………………………….…….95
Table 6.37: The Conclusion of Job Mix for Max Gradation…………………………..96
Table 6.38: Gradation of all Mixes included Mid4……………………………...…….97
Table 6.39: Aggregate Ratio in Mid4 Mix…………………………………………….98
Table 6.40: The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid4 Gradation with 4% Bitumen
Content……………………………………………………………..……99
Table 6.41: The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid4 Gradation with 4.5% Bitumen
Content……………………………………………………………….….99
Table 6.42: The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid4 Gradation with 5% Bitumen
Content…………………………………………………………………100
Table 6.43: The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid4 Gradation with 5.5% Bitumen
Content………………………………..……………………………….100
Table 6.44: The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid4 Gradation with 6% Bitumen
Content…………………………………………………………………100
Table 6.45: The Conclusion of Job Mix for Mid4 Gradation…………………….......101
Table 6.46: The Gradation of the Mix Which Achieve the Technical Properties…....102
Table 6.47: Mechanical Properties for the Proposed Specification…..…………..…..104
Table 6.48: The Gradation of the Proposed Specification and the MoG
Requirements……………………………………………………………104
Table 7.1: the Mechanical Properties of the Proposed Gradation………...………….107
xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1: The Pavement Layers in the Urban Roads……………………………….13
Figure 4.1: The Eleven Selected Specifications for Asphalt Binder Course…………23
Figure 4.2: Gradation of (ZTV-Asphalt- STB 94) Binder Course 0/22…….…..……25
Figure 4.3: Gradation of (ZTV – Asphalt- STB 94) Binder Course 0/16……………25
Figure 4.4: Gradation of (ZTV – Asphalt- STB 94) Binder Course 0/11……………26
Figure 4.5: Gradation of Asphalt Binder Course (AASHTO T27)……………….….27
Figure 4.6: Gradation of Asphalt Binder Course (AASHTO T11)………………..…28
Figure 4.7: Gradation of Asphalt Binder Course (Layer Thickness 45 to 80mm)…...30
Figure 4.8: Gradation of Asphalt Binder Course (Layer thickness 60 to 120mm)…..31
Figure 4.9: The Gradation Asphalt Binder course of ZTV-Asphalt-STB 94- 0/22,
AASHTO T1 and BS 594 Layer thickness (45 to 80mm)……….………33
Figure 4.10: Gradation of Asphalt Binder Course of International Group with
Frame…………………………………………………………………...34
Figure 4.11: The Frame of the International Specifications Group………………….35
Figure 4.12: Gradation of Egyptian Asphalt Binder Course…………………………36
Figure 4.13: Gradation of Jordanian Asphalt Binder Course……………..…………38
Figure 4.14: Gradation of Iraqi Asphalt Binder Course……………………………..39
Figure 4.15: Gradations of the Regional Specifications………………….………….41
Figure 4.16: The Gradation of the Iraqi, Egyptian, Jordanian and the Regional
Frame……………………………………………………………………42
Figure 4.17: The Frame of the Regional Specifications of the Asphalt Binder
Course………………….………………………………………………..43
Figure 4.18: Gradation of MoG Asphalt Binder Course………………….………….44
Figure 4.19: Gradation of PECDAR Requirements for the Asphalt Binder Course...46
Figure 4.20: Gradation of UNRWA Requirements for the Asphalt Binder Course….47
Figure 4.21: Gradation of PSI for the Asphalt Binder Course……………………….49
Figure 4.22: Gradation of MOPWH Requirements for the Asphalt Binder Course....51
Figure 4.23: Gradation of Local Requirements Together……………………………52
Figure 4.24: The Gradation of the Local Requirements with their Frame…..………55
xv
Figure 4.25: The Frame of the Local Requirements………………………..……. …56
Figure 4.26: The International Frame, the Regional Frame and the Local Frame.…..58
Figure 4.27: The International, Regional, Local Frames and the Frame of all the
Specifications………………………………………………….……….59
Figure 4.28: The Frame of All Specifications………………………………………..60
Figure 5.1: Gradation of Course Aggregate M0……………………………………..64
Figure 5.2: Gradation of Course Aggregate M1……………………………………..65
Figure 5. 3: Gradation of Course Aggregate M2…………………………………….66
Figure 5. 4: Gradation of Course Aggregate M3…………………………………….67
Figure 5. 5: Gradation Fine Aggregate F1…………………………………………...68
Figure 5. 6: Gradation of Fine Aggregate F2 (Sand)………………………………...69
Figure 5.7: The Gradations of All Types of Aggregates……………………………..70
Figure 6.1: Gradations of the Five Selected Curves………………………………….76
Figure 6.2: Gradation of Min. and Mix Curves………………………………………77
Figure 6.3: Gradation of Mid1 and Mix Curves……………………………….…..…81
Figure 6.4: Gradation of Mid2 and Mix Curves………………………………….…..85
Figure 6.5: Gradation of Mid3 and Mix Curves………………………………….…..89
Figure 6.6: Gradation of Max. and Mix Curves………………………………….…..93
Figure 6.7: The Gradation for All Mixes Including Mid4…………...………………97
Figure 6.8: The Gradation Mid4 Mix…………………….…….……………………98
Figure 6.9: The Gradation of the Proposed Specification…………………….……102
Figure 6.10: the Gradation of the Proposed Specification………………………….105
xvi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AASHTO American Association State Highway and Transportation Official
ASTM American Society for Testing Materials
BS British Standards
CBR California Bearing Ratio
IUG Islamic University - Gaza
IS International Standard
MC Medium Curing
MoG Municipality of Gaza
MOPWH Ministry of Public Work and Housing
PECDAR Palestinian Economic Council for Development an Reconstruction
PSI Palestinian Standards Institutes
RC Rapid Curing
UNDP United Nations Development Program
UNRWA United Nations Relief and Work Agency
VFB Voids Filled Bitumen
VMA Voids Mineral Aggregates
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
Road transportation is important to economic activity, especially in developing
countries, where it plays an essential role in marketing agricultural products and
providing access to health, education and other services. A good road system gives a
country a competitive edge in moving goods efficiently and economically (Hudson,
1997).
Pavement with bituminous surface is often referred to as flexible in contrast to rigid
pavement of Portland cement concrete (Oglesby, 1982). The flexible pavement is the
most common pavement in the world because its high resistance for the mechanical
stresses which provided by the aggregate in the mix and flexibility which is needed by
bitumen (IUG, 1999).
There are several types of the transportation like the railway, roads, air navigation, sea
lane and river lane. But the most important is the roads (Hamad, 1988). In Palestine,
before the current Intifada which has been started since September 2000, an estimated
40-50% of existing roads in the West Bank and Gaza Strip– most of which were built
before 1967 and designed to incorporate the West Bank into Israel-required urgent
repairs. While the entire road system needed to be reworked in order to facilitate
socioeconomic development and expansion in and between Palestinian communities.
1.2 Research Problem The specifications are important in all the industrial fields especially in the roads
because they provide the safety and the high quality. There are special road
specifications for each country and the most famous specifications in the world are
the American Association State Highway and Transportation Official (AASHTO)
specifications, Britain specification and German specification. The road specifications
in Palestine are taken from the previous mentioned specifications or from the Arabian
specifications which depend on the international specifications. The lack of road
specifications causes many problems among the people who are working in this field
like the Ministry of Public Work and Housing (MOPWH), Palestinian Standard
Institute, Palestinian Economic Council for Development and Reconstruction
2
(PECDAR), Municipalities, United Nations Relief and Work Agency (UNRWA), The
United Nations Development Program (UNDP), contractors, laboratories and asphalt
factories.
The proposed binder layer specification is very important because it will assure that
the asphalt concrete is designed correctly and suits the Palestinians local materials. If
the involved organizations adopt the proposed specification, the conflict will be
avoided and the problems between the owners, supervisors, the implementing
agencies, the owner of asphalt factories and the laboratories will be decreased.
1.3 Research Objectives
The aim of the research is to propose a specification for binder asphalt layer in
Palestine using local materials. More specifically, the research work is intended to
achieve the following objectives:
1. Studying the properties of the locally available materials as aggregate and
bitumen;
2. Studying some of the international specifications, regional specifications and local
requirements used for binder asphalt layer in Palestine;
3. Proposing mechanical specification and a gradation for the binder asphalt layer by
using the local materials in Palestine.
1.4 Methodology
To achieve the objectives of the research theoretical study and the practical study
were done as follows:
1.4.1 Theoretical Study
The theoretical study consists of the literature review and the revision of the
specifications and local requirements as follows:
1.4.1.1 Literature Review i. Study the asphalt technology (types and component of asphalt layer, asphalt
materials, testing procedures, and asphalt mixing design methods).
ii. Study worldwide and local similar studies.
3
1.4.1.2 Specifications and Local Requirements
i. Study some of the international specifications as American Association State
Highway and Transportation Official AASHTO specifications, British
specifications and German specifications.
ii. Study some of the regional binder layer specification as Egyptian specification,
Jordanian and Iraqi specifications (because they are available).
iii. Study the local requirements as municipalities' requirements, PECDAR,
MOPWH requirements and UNRWA.
iv. Select five gradations or more to conduct the tests on it.
v. Select the mechanical properties which have to be achieved.
1.4.2 The Practical Study
i. Select six types of aggregates from the local aggregates in Palestine and
conduct tests for each type. The tests are sieve analysis, specific gravity,
absorption, moisture content and Los Angles.
ii. Conduct bitumen tests using bitumen available in factories in Gaza Strip. The
tests include penetration test, ductility, softening point and specific gravity.
iii. Make more than 25 trail mixes with different bitumen contents. Prepare 100
specimens. Measure the stability, flow, stiffness, Va% and VMA (%) for each
specimen.
iv. Select the proposed specification for binder asphalt layer which suitable to the
Palestinian local materials.
1.5 Research Output
The research will prepare a booklet includes the suggested specifications and will
distribute it to all organization interested in it.
1.6 Report Organization
The undertaken research consists of seven chapters that cover the proposed subject as
follows:
Chapter One: Introduction: This chapter defines the research problem, gives
background introduction, research methodology and discusses report organization.
4
Chapter Two: Materials of Asphalt Concrete: This chapter describes the classes
and types of aggregates, the sources of roads bitumen and groups of bituminous
materials.
Chapter Three: Pavement Layers and Mix Design: This chapter discusses the
pavement layers, the mix design methods and Marshall Method.
Chapter Four: Specifications of Asphalt Binder Course: This chapter describes the
methodology of selecting the gradation and mechanical properties. It illustrates the
specifications of asphalt binder course in the international group, the regional group
and the local group used in Palestine.
Chapter Five: Tests of Materials: In this chapter, the tests of aggregate and bitumen
are included.
Chapter Six: Preparation and Testing Asphalt Mixes: This chapter defines the
methodology of selecting the proposed mix, the outputs of different mixes with
various bitumen contents and the proposed specification for the binder asphalt layer in
Palestine.
Chapter Seven: Concluded Remarks, Conclusions and Recommendations: This
chapter includes the concluded remarks, main conclusions and recommendations
drawn from the research work.
5
CHAPTER TWO
MATERIALS OF ASPHALT CONCRETE
2.1 Introduction
The spread of the transportation networks is an indicator to the progress of the
countries from the economical, social, educational, tourism and health aspects. So, all
the countries around the world are competing to construct the transportation networks
(Al Halabi, 1995). The engineers have to study and construct the transportation
networks based on modern science (Al Halabi, 1986) and study the materials of these
networks. The materials of asphalt concrete are the aggregates and the bitumen.
Mineral aggregates are sole constituent of soil surfaces and untreated base course. For
treated bases, the desirable properties of these native materials have been enhanced by
adding bitumen, cement, lime or salt. To keep their costs low, specifications for them
are not as stringent as for aggregates for bituminous or Portland-cement-concrete
pavements. They usually combine controls on grain-size distribution and plasticity of
the fines (Oglesby, 1982). In bituminous pavements, aggregates constitute 88 to 96%
by weight or something more than 75% by volume. Certain general requirements
should be met by all mineral aggregates for pavements.
2.2 Classes and Types of Aggregates
Aggregates shall be of uniform quality, crushed to size as necessary, and shall be
composed of sound, tough, durable pebbles or fragments of rock or slag with or
without sand or other inert finely divided mineral aggregate. All material shall be free
from clay balls, vegetable matter, and other deleterious substances, and an excess of
flat or elongated pieces. Slag shall be air-cooled blast-furnace slag of reasonably
uniform density and quality. Excess of fine material shall be removed before crushing
(Oglesby, 1982)
The materials found as constituents of natural mineral aggregates are rocks and
minerals. Minerals are naturally occurring inorganic substances more or less definite
chemical composition and usually of specific crystalline structure. Most rocks are
composed of several minerals but some are composed of only one mineral. Rocks are
classified according to origin into three major divisions: igneous, sedimentary, and
metamorphic. These three major groups are subdivided into types according to
6
mineral and chemical composition, texture, and internal structure. These types are as
follows (ASTM V 4.03, 2002):
i. Igneous rocks from molten matter either at or below the earth’s surface.
ii. Sedimentary rocks form near the earth’s surface by consolidation of the products
of weathering and erosion of existing rocks, or by direct chemical precipitation.
Sedimentary rocks may from pre-existing igneous, metamorphic, or sedimentary
rocks.
iii. Metamorphic rocks from pre-existing igneous, sedimentary, or metamorphic
rocks by the action of heat or pressure or both.
2.3 General Requirements of Aggregate for Asphalt Paving Mixture
Aggregates for asphalt paving mixture are divided into three groups, they are coarse
aggregate, fine aggregate and filler aggregate (MOPWH, 1991). General requirements
of aggregates for asphalt paving mixture are as follows:
1. Coarse aggregate shall be the fraction of crushed aggregate material retained on
4.75 mm (No. 4) sieve (ASTM D692-00, 2002). Fine aggregate shall be the
fraction of crushed aggregate material passing 4.75 mm (No. 4) sieve. Mineral
filler shall be added when the combined grading of coarse and fine aggregates is
deficient in material passing 0.075 mm (No. 200) sieve (ASTM D1073-01, 2002).
2. The material from hot bins passing the number 40 sieve (0.425) when tested in
accordance with AASHTO T90 shall be non-plastic. In addition the material from
cold bins should not have PI larger than 4.
3. Aggregate shall not contain gypsum more than 1% and the coarse fraction of the
aggregate shall not contain more than:
5% chert and flint for aggregate to be used in the wearing or binder course.
4. The percentage by weight of friable particles, clay lumps, and other deleterious
matter shall not exceed 1% as determined by AASHTO T112.
7
5. Aggregate particles shall be clean, hard, durable and sound. Crushing shall result
in a product such that, for particles retained on 4.75 mm (No. 4) sieve, at least
90% by weight shall have 2 or more fractured faces.
6. Aggregate shall be washed if directed, to remove any clay lumps, organic matter,
adherent dust or clay films or other extraneous or deleterious matter that may
prevent or detract from proper adhesion of bitumen to the aggregate particles.
7. Mineral filler shall consist of finely divided mineral matter such as limestone dust
if added separately; hydrated lime; other non-plastic mineral filler, free from clay
and organic impurities; or Portland cement, conforming to AASHTO M17.
8. The loss in weight of aggregate after 500 revolutions, when tested accordance
with AASHTO T 96, shall not exceed 35%
Ratio of wear loss = 25500
100equalorthanless
revlutionafterAbrasion
revlutionafterAbrasion
9. When tested for soundness in accordance with AASHTO, T104 the coarse
aggregate (retained on No. 4 sieve) shall not show signs of disintegration and the
loss by weight after 5 cycles shall not exceed 9% in the case of the sodium
sulphate test and 12% in the case of the magnesium sulphate test.
10. When tested for resistance to stripping in accordance with the AASHTO T-182 at
least 95% coated particles should be achieved.
11. The flakiness index and the elongation index test should be conducted in
accordance with BS 812. Table (2.1) illustrates the maximum limits.
Table (2.1): The Maximum Limits of the Flakiness Index and Elongation Index
Course Wearing Course Binder & Asphalt Base
Flakiness Index F.I 25 30
Elongation Index E.I 25 30
8
2.4 Bituminous Materials
Bituminous materials are widely used in road construction and maintenance. After
gaining experience from their use in obtaining smooth riding surface, bituminous
mixtures are being used as structural layers. These materials are considered to be
flexible from the structural viewpoint. They offer unlimited flexibility to the road
builder due to their temperature susceptibility and their availability in wide ranging
viscosities-from that of a liquid like honey to that of semi-solid like sealing wax.
Bituminous materials used in road construction are basically of two kinds: road
bitumen’s and road tars (Rao, 1996).
2.5 Sources of Road Bitumen
There are several resources of the bitumen as follows (Rao, 1996):
1. Bitumen is a viscous liquid or solid, black or brown in color and has adhesive
properties. It is derived primarily from petroleum crude by a distillation process.
2. Bitumen is also available in a natural form. It may be either natural asphalt or rock
asphalt. Natural asphalt was used in many ways such as waterproofing, building
blocks, flooring etc.
3. Natural asphalts contain many impurities such as water, sand and vegetable
matter.
4. Rock asphalts are those impregnated in limestone and sandstone. These can be
crushed and blended with ordinary aggregate and laid directly. Thus they make
excellent wearing surfaces, which are smooth, skid-resistance and watertight.
Their use is generally restricted to the areas of their occurrence.
2.6 Petroleum Refining
The refining of petroleum crude is a continuous process. The steps of petroleum
refining are as follows (Rao, 1996):
1. The petroleum crude passes from the storage through continues tube where its
temperature is raised to around 200 to 300 C°.
2. The petroleum is injected into the fractionating column, also called bubble tower.
9
3. Because of the sudden pressure reduction, the volatile or low boiling points
fractions vaporize and go up the column and gather on the uppermost trays, which
are then carried off to a condenser.
4. Further down the column, heavier grades of material with increasing boiling
points are taken off in a similar fashion, and the heavy residual material left at the
bottom.
5. Injection of super-heated steam helps better separation of the fraction. In the
first stage as described above, five products are obtained:
i. Light solvents such as gasoline and naptha.
ii. Kerosene distillate and light burner oil.
iii. Diesel oil.
iv. Lubricating oil.
v. Heavy residual material. The heavy residual materials give the road
bitumen, which is the concern of this research.
6. The fraction i to iv is called cuts and consists of many organic materials. Each cut
may be recycled in a similar manner for further separation into individual organic
compounds.
7. It should be noted that the steam and vacuum distillation process of refining
petroleum crude is only a physical process and no chemical changes are involved.
2.7 Groups of Bituminous Materials
The Bituminous materials are divided into groups. They are road bitumen, cutback
bitumen, emulsion and tar (Jendia, 2000).
2.7.1 Road Bitumen
These are used as binder for almost all high-type bituminous pavements. They are
semisolid hydrocarbons remaining after lubricating oils as well as fuel oils have been
removed from petroleum (Oglesby, 1982). The various grades of penetration graded
bitumen asphalt cement shall conform generally with the requirements of AASHTO
10
M 20, or with the specification of Jordan specification Co. Ltd as given in the Table
(2.2).
Table (2.2): Properties of Penetration Grade Bitumen (MOPWH, 1991)
Penetration Grades
40 50 60 70 80 100
Min Max Min Max Min Max
Ductility at 25 C° (cm) 100 - 100 - 100 -
Penetration at 25 C° (0.1 cm) 40 50 60 70 80 100
Softening Point (C° ) 50 58 48 56 45.8 48
Specific Gravity at 25 C° 1.01 1.06 1.01 1.06 1 -
Loss on heating to 163 C° (%wt.) - 1 - 1 - 1
Penetration of residue % of original 75 - 75 - 75 -
Solubility in Trichlorethylene (%wt) 99 - 99 - 99.5 -
Ash content %wt. - 1 - 1 - 1
Flashpoint (Cleveland Open Cup.) (c° ) 250 - 250 - 225 -
2.7.2 Cutback Bitumen
When a fraction or cut is remixed with the heavy residue for purposes of achieving
desired viscosity or consistency for use in different working conditions-cold/hot, or
wet/dry, it is designated as cut back bitumen. They are of three categories as follows:
1. Rapid Curing Cutback Bitumen’s (RC) also called Gasoline Cutback Bitumen.
2. Medium Curing Cutback Bitumen (MC) also called Kerosene Cutback Bitumen.
3. Slow Curing Cutback Bitumen (SC).
In each category there are six types 0-5. As example, RC-0, RC-1, RC-2, RC-3, RC4
and RC5. In each case “0” indicates the lowest viscosity and “5” indicates the highest
viscosity. Also the viscosity of RC-0, MC-0 and SC-0 is the same, so also that RC-1,
MC-1 and SC-1 etc., as shown in table (2.3).
11
Table (2.3): Viscosity of Cutback Bitumen (as per IS: 217-1961) (Rao, 1996).
Viscosity by STV
Grade At Temp C With Orifice Size mm Sec.
RC-0, MC-0, SC-0
RC-1, MC-1, SC-1
RC-2, MC-2, SC-2
RC-3, MC-3, SC-3
RC-4, MC-4, SC-4
RC-5, MC-5, SC-5
25
25
25
25
40
40
4
4
10
10
10
10
25-75
50-150
10-20
25-75
14-45
60-140
2.7.3 Emulsion
For application in cold weather and damp conditions, bituminous emulsions came into
being. An emulsion is basically a two-phase system consisting of two immiscible
liquids. One phase is the dispersed phase when the liquid is broken into globules, and
in the second phase the surrounding liquid is in the continuous phase. Bituminous
emulsions are said to be of the oil-in-water type where the bitumen is in the dispersed
phase. However, the mixture that is prepared in a high-speed pug mill at a temperature
to make bitumen a liquid is not stable and separation takes place immediately into
layers. Stability is achieved with the help of an emulsifier or emulsifying agent. With
a thin emulsifiers are usually of three types as follows:
1. Anionic emulsifier e.g. sodium stearate (soap solution), having anionic (negative)
charge, used for electropositive charged aggregates like limestone and dolomite.
2. Cationic emulsion e.g. quaternary – ammonium salt, having cationic (positive)
charge, used for electronegative charged aggregates like siliceous aggregates.
3. Non-ionic emulsifiers, which do not ionize in aqueous solution, usually not used
in road emulsion.
A bitumen emulsion is usually composed of 40 to 60 per cent bitumen and 0.5 to 1 per
cent emulsifier, the rest being water.
12
2.7.4 Tar
Tar is a liquid obtained when natural organic materials such as wood and coal are
destructively distilled in the absence of air. A part from various other products, this
process yields crude tar, which is refined for us as road tar. It may also blend with
some distillate fractions again to produce the desired road tar. However, the tar is not
often used in road work (Rao, 1996).
2.8 Tests of Bitumen
Laboratory tests which are required for bituminous materials are as follows:
1. Kinetic Viscosity.
2. Penetration.
3. Say bolt viscosity.
4. Flash and fire point.
5. Softening point.
6. Ductility.
13
CHAPTER THREE
PAVEMENT LAYERS AND MIX DESIGN
3.1 Pavement Layers
The main purpose of the pavement is to transfer the loads caused by the traffic from
the surface of the road to the soil layer which can bear the load through the different
layers of the pavement (Salem, 1984). The pavement layers consist of sub grade layer,
road base layer and asphalt covering layer as shown in Figure (3.1) (Jendia, 2000).
The sub grade layer is the surface of the base soil which is considered as the separator
between the base soil and the pavement layers (base layers and covering layers), and it
is called the formation. The road base is divided into several types depending on the
construction materials which used in these layers. The binder course lies between the
wearing course and the road base. The binder course reduces the stresses which affect
the road base and the soil base. The selection of the layer material depends on the
availability of domestic materials or on the requirements of the pavement.
Figure (3.1): The Pavement Layers in the Urban Roads (Jendia, 2000)
General conditions for the road base layers are as follows:
1. Before starting the construction of the road base layers, the stability, bearing
capacity, leveling and the required slope in the sub grade or the lower layer should
be available.
14
2. Through the construction of the road base, the water and sewerage pipes should be
protected from blockage and broken.
3. The road base layer should be protected from the bad effects of the weather when
there is stopping in the construction of the layers which coming above the road
base layers.
There are five types of the roads base. They are sub base (frost resistant layer, gravel
road base, crushed rock road base, asphalt road base and cement road base. These
types are described as follows:
I. Sub Base (Frost Resistance Layer)
1. It is also considered as base layer. It bears part of the stresses which affect the
above layers before affecting the sub grade.
2. Aggregate mixtures which are used: example, gravel sand, sand gravel, crushed
gravel sand with specific gradation and sizes.
3. The percentage of the fine aggregate (less than 0.06 mm) should not exceed 7%.
4. The layer should bear the required bearing capacity according to CBR test or
Ev2 according to Plate Loading Test.
5. The level of the compacted layer should not exceed ± 2 cm of the required level.
6. The selection of the aggregate mixture depends on the thickness of the layer as
shown in table (3.1).
Table (3.1): The Relation between the Thickness of the Layer and the
Maximum Aggregate Size (Jendia, 2000)
The Max. Aggregate Size The Lowest Thickness for the Layer
32 mm 12 cm
45mm 15cm
56mm 18cm
63mm 20cm
II. Gravel and Crushed Rock Road Base
1. Aggregate mixture with specific gradation and size are used.
15
2. The degree of compaction Dpr should not be lower than 103% and if there
were cesspits or manhole Dpr = 100%.
3. California ratio should not be lower than 80%.
III. Asphalt Road Base
The asphalt road base is paved with hot asphalt mixture which consists of aggregate
and bitumen. The asphalt mixtures are divided into three types according to the
percentage of the aggregate bigger than 2mm). They are A, B, C explained as
follows:
1. Mix (A): it contains a big percentage of uncrushed natural gravels, they are
rounded and smooth. Also, it contains a few percentage of coarse aggregate. So,
the air void content is relatively high. Due to the big percentage of fine
aggregate which lower than 2mm, the mixture requires a high percentage of the
bitumen. This mixture is used in the weak pavement and in the soil stabilization.
2. Mix (B): it contains a medium percentage of the coarse aggregate which are
often rounded and smooth. So, the fraction between the gravels is relatively
weak. However the stability of the (B) mix is less than c mix.
3. Mix (C): it contains more than 60% of the aggregate (bigger than 2mm), crushed
with sharp edge which increases the stability of the layer. So, C mixture is
suitable for the pavements which are affected by high stresses and heavy traffic.
IV Covering Layers
The last layer is the asphalt covering layer which often consists of two layers. These
two layers form together a system with high resistance for the horizontal, vertical and
shear stresses, especially during the expected high temperature in the summer.
Additionally, the wearing course should resist the oil and water leakage, the surface
abrasion which occurs due to the traffic and the bad weather. The specifications of the
covering layers are the water leakage resistance, the cracking resistance, the rutting
resistance and others like the color lightness, etc.
The binder course lies between the wearing course and the road base. So, it reduces
the stresses which affect the road base and the soil base. The selection of the
aggregate mixture depends on the thickness of the layer.
16
The wearing course is paved with hot asphalt mixture which called Asphalt Concrete
(AC). No need to construct joints in the AC due to its’ flexibility under the weather
and the traffic. The AC prevents the water leakage if it is compacted well and the air
void content was less than 6%. In general, the percentage of the air void content
depends on the mortar (filler + Bitumen) quantity. When the mortar increases, the
abrasion resistance of the layer increases but the skid resistance decreases because the
surface layer is smooth. Also, when the percentage of the mortar increases, the
darkness of the asphalt surface increases which requires more lights during the nights.
3.2 Mix Design Methods and Marshall Method
Various methods of designing the mix proportions of dense bitumen concrete have
been evolved. The most widely used methods are the following (Singh, 2001):
1. The Marshall method.
2. The Hubbard-field method.
3. The HVeem method.
4. The Smith triaxial method
The first three methods are in wide use these days for the design of dense bitumen
concrete surfacing. All theses methods are based upon mechanical forms of tests.
These methods differ from each other but underlying principles involved have many
things common. The common aims of all these three methods are as follows:
1. The mixture should be of adequate strength to support the intended traffic load
without deformation.
2. To ensure durability and hardening of the surface. Compacted pavement should
have adequate air voids.
Marshall Method is possibly the most widely used method. The basic conception was
originated by Mr. Bruce Marshall but pre-fection in the method was achieved through
the efforts of U.S. Corps of engineers and so many other agencies. This method is
applicable to hot-mix pavements using penetration-grade bitumen, and maximum
aggregate size of 2.5 cm or less.
17
Before conducting Marshall’s test, the following preliminaries are required. They are
as follows:
I The aggregate and the bitumen proposed to be used should meet the desired
specifications.
II The aggregates when blended are according to be grading requirements.
III Aggregate must be dried and separated into various sized fraction.
IV The apparent S.G. of all the aggregates used and S.G. of the bitumen must be
known.
There are two principal features of this test of mix design; they are the density-void
analysis and the stability-flow test. Stability is defined as the maximum load carried
by a compacted specimen at a standard test temp of 60 C°. The flow is measured as a
deformation in units of 1/100” or 0.25 mm, occurring in the specimen between no-
load and maximum-load conditions during stability test. Flow can also be measured in
deformation unit cf 0.1mm. The apparatus used for this test consists of a mould 10.16
cm (4”) diameter and 6.35 cm (2½”) height with interchangeable base plate and collar
extension. A compaction Pedestal and compaction hammer are used to compact the
specimen. Compaction hammer consists of a flat or circular tamping face 98 mm in
diameter and equipped with a 4.54 kg (10 lb) weight and 45.7 cm (18”) fall. An
extrusion jack is used for extruding compacted specimen from the mould. Marshall
testing machine, design to apply loads to test specimen through semi-circular testing
head at a constant rate of strain of 5 cm (2”) per minute is used. The machine consists
of a calibrated proving ring for determining the applied test load, a stability testing
head and a flow meter for determining the amount of strain at the maximum load for
the test.
To determine the optimum bitumen content for a particular grading of aggregate by
the Marshall method, a series of test specimens are prepared for a range of different
bitumen contents so that the test-data curves show a well-defined optimum value of
bitumen. Tests should be scheduled on the basis of 0.5% increments of bitumen
contents. At least two test specimens should have bitumen content above the optimum
value and two below optimum value. With each bitumen content, prepare at least
three test specimen. Each specimen requires about 1.2kg of aggregate. Weighted
18
quantity of aggregate and Bitumen are heated to about 160 C°. Bitumen should not be
heated for more than one hour and reheated bitumen should never be used for this test.
Heated aggregate and bitumen are mixed thoroughly and placed in a preheated mould
(95 – 150 C°) and compacted with compaction hammer by giving specified number of
blows. For paving mixes designed for 7kg/cm2 tyre -inflation pressure 50 blows on
top and 50 blows on the bottom of the specimen for compaction is increased to 75.
For light load (less than 7 kg/cm2) traffic designs, 35 blows on each side are adequate.
The height of the compacted specimen should be 63.5 mm. If this is not the height, the
weight of the mix is adjusted as follows to get the correct height of prepared
specimen. Adjusted weight of mix:
= obtainedmminheightSpecimen
usedmixofweight*5.63
The compacted specimen is taken out of the mould and allowed to cool to room
temperature before testing. The specimen is weighted in air and then in water and bulk
density of the specimen determined. The specimen is then immersed in 60 C° water
bath and kept in it for 30 to 40 minutes. In test, if instead of bitumen tar is used, water
bath temperature should be maintained at 380C°.
The specimen is taken out of water bath and its surface dried. Place the specimen in
lower testing head and center it. Lastly upper testing head is fitted in position and
complete assembly is centers. Place the flow meter over the marked guide rod in the
machine and adjust its reading to zero.
Apply testing load to specimen at constant rate of deformation 5 cm per minute. The
maximum-load value is obtained on the proving ring corresponding flow dial reading
is also noted. Marshall’s stability value is the number of kg of maximum-load. The
reading of the flow meter expressed in units of 0.25 mm or 0.1 mm gives the
deformation of the specimen. The entire procedure, both stability and flow tests,
starting with removal of the specimen from water bath, should be completed within a
period of half a minute.
If the height of the specimen is other than 63.5 mm, correction can be made in
stability value by multiplying with the correction factors are given in Table (3.2).
19
Table (3.2): Correction Factor (Singh, 2001)
Volume of Specimen
in cm3
Height of Specimen
(mm)
Correction Factor or
Correlation Ratio
406 – 420
421 – 431
432 – 443
444 – 456
457 – 470
471 –482
483 – 495
496 – 508
509 – 522
523 – 535
536 –546
547 – 559
560 – 573
574 – 585
586 - -598
599 – 610
611 - 625
50.8
52.4
54
55.6
57.1
58.7
60.3
61.9
63.5
65.1
66.7
68.3
69.9
71.5
73
74.6
76.2
1.47
1.39
1.32
1.25
1.19
1.14
1.09
1.04
1
0.96
0.93
0.89
0.89
.83
0.81
0.78
0.76
The specimen is weighted and values of bulk density, stability and flow, are found
out. Percent air void s, V.M.A percent and voids filled by bitumen in percent (V.F.B),
are calculated. The expression is repeated for convenience.
Percent air voids = 100XG
GGo −
Where
Go = Theoretical S.G. of mixture.
G = Bulk density or Mass density of the specimen.
20
GbWb
GaWa
Go+
=100
Aggregate consists of course aggregate, fine aggregate and filler material. Hence
weight of the aggregate Wa is the sum of weights of C.A., F.A. and filler. Wb is the %
weight of bitumen in total mix.
Let w1, w2 and wa are the percent weights of C.A., F.A. and filler respectively in a
total weight of the blend Wa.
321 wwwWa ++=
33
22
11
gw
gw
gw
GbWa
++=
where g1, g2, and g3 are apparent S.G. values for C.A., F.A. and filler, respectively. If
Gb is S.G. of bitumen, equation for G0 now reduces to:-
GbWb
gw
gw
gw
GbWb
GaWa
Go+++
=+
=
33
22
11
100100
V.M.A = Volume of air voids + volume of bitumen
= 100 - GaWaG
Percent voids filled with bitumen
%..
100..
AMV
bitumenofvolumeXBFV =
Average values of percent air voids, VMA, VFB are determined for three specimens
for each mix. Such tests are repeated with different bitumen contents and following
values:
1. Unit weight.
2. Voids in total mix.
3. Marshall Stability.
4. Aggregates voids filled.
5. Flow.
21
CHAPTER FOUR
SPECIFICATIONS OF ASPHALT BINDER COURSE 4.1 Introduction
In this chapter, the specifications and requirements of the binder course will be
discussed. Eleven specifications and requirements were selected and divided into
three groups. These groups are the international group, the regional group and the
local requirements group. The selected specifications were chosen depending on
specific criteria. They were selected because they are the most famous specifications
around the world and in Palestine or because they are used in the neighbor countries
or because they are required locally by the implementing agencies, the ministries and
the institutions in Palestine. The aggregate gradation and the mechanical properties
for the eleven specifications and requirements have been illustrated. The researcher
has drawn one frame for the gradation which included all the eleventh specifications.
And finally, five gradations have been selected for trial mixes.
4.2 Methodology of Selecting the Gradation and Mechanical Properties To determine the gradation of the proposed gradation, the researcher adopted the
following methodology:
1. Eleven specifications and requirements which are common around the world and
Palestine were selected. They are German Specifications ZTV-asphalt-STB 94.,
Association of States and Highway Transportation Official (AASHTO)
Specifications, British Standards BS 594, Egyptian Specifications, Jordanian
Specifications, Iraqi Specifications, Municipality of Gaza (MoG) Requirements,
Palestinian Economic Council for Development and Reconstruction (PECDAR)
Requirements, United Nations Relief and Work Agency (UNRWA)
Requirements, Palestinian Standards Institutions (PSI) Standards and Ministry of
Public Work and Housing Requirements. Some of the previous specifications
have clear identification for the gradation of the binder course. While other
specifications give several gradations without clear identifications for the binder
course gradation. In this case, the researcher adopted the gradation which is fitting
the thickness of the binder course and the maximum aggregate size in Palestine.
22
2. The eleven specifications and requirements were divided into three groups which
were entitled depending on the geographical basic as illustrated in Figure (4.1).
3. One gradation will be selected for each three mentioned groups by drawing the
gradation of specifications of each group together and selecting the frame of these
gradations.
4. The three selected gradations from the previous step will be drawn together and
one frame for the gradation will be selected to include all the international,
regional and local specifications.
5. Many gradations will be selected between the maximum and minimum limits of
the final frame which is developed in step 4.
6. From the eleven reviewed specifications, the mechanical properties for the
proposed mixture will be selected as the average of all mechanical properties. The
average will be selected as a first trial but it could be change depending on the
results of the trails mix.
4.3 Selected Specifications of the Asphalt Binder Course
Eleven specifications and requirements were collected and divided into three groups.
They are the international group, the regional group and the local requirements group.
The mechanical properties and the gradation of each specification and requirement
will be discussed.
4.3.1 International Group
The international group includes the German specification ZTV – asphalt-STB 94,
AASHTO specifications T27 and T11 and the British standards BS 549.
23
Figure (4.1): The Eleven Selected Specifications of Asphalt Binder Course
Group Two: Regional
Group One: International
Iraqi Jordanian Egyptian
German ZTV
AASHTO British BS 594
Group Three: Local Requirements
MOPWH PSI UNRWA MoG PECDAR
24
4.3.1.1 German Specifications ZTV-Asphalt-STB 94
The German specifications have three gradations for the asphalt binder course. They
are 0/22, 0/16 and 0/11 as drawn in Figures (4.2), (4.3) and (4.4). The usage of each
type depends on the thickness of the binder course. The gradation and the bitumen
ratio for each type are illustrated in Table (4.1).
Table (4.1): Gradation and Properties of Asphalt Binder Course (German
Specification ZTV - Asphalt - STB 94 ) (Jendia, 2000)
Asphalt Binder 0/22
0/16 0/11
Gradation (mm) 0/22
0/16 0/11
Less than 0.09mm (% by weight)
3 – 9 3 – 9 3 – 9
Greater than 2mm (% by weight)
65 – 80 60 – 75 50 – 70
Greater than 8mm (% by weight)
- - Greater than 20
Greater than 11.2mm (% by weight)
- Greater than 20
Less than 10
Greater than 16mm (% by weight)
Greater than 20
Less than 10 -
Greater than 22.4mm (% by weight)
Less than 10 - -
Crushed sand / Natural sand Greater than 1/1
Greater than 1/1
Greater than 1/1
Bitumen Type B65 B80 - B65 B80 - B65
Bitumen ratio (% by weight) 3.8 – 5.5 4.0 – 6.0 4.5 – 6.5 Mixture Void Ratio in Marshall Sample (%)
4.0 – 8.0 3.0 – 7.0 3 – 7
Compacted Layer Thickness (cm) 7.0 - 10 4 – 8.5 Leveling &
maintenance Weight (density thickness) kg/m2
170 - 250 95 - 210 -
Compaction degree (%) Greater than 97
97 Greater than 96
25
Figure (4.2): Gradation of (ZTV –Asphalt-STB 94) Binder Course 0/22 (Jendia,
2000)
Figure (4.3): Gradation of (ZTV – Asphalt-STB 94) 0/16 (Jendia, 2000)
0102030405060708090
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100Diameter size mm
Pass
ing
0102030405060708090
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Diameter size mm
Pass
ing
26
Figure (4.4): Gradation of (ZTV –Asphalt-STB 94) 0/11 (Jendia, 2000)
Concluded Remarks:
From the mentioned three types of gradation for the asphalt binder course, the 0/22
gradation is selected because the needed bitumen ratio is less than 0/16 and 0/11
gradation. In addition to the thickness of the binder course in Palestine which is
always more that 4 cm. The mechanical properties and bitumen ratio for 0/22
gradation are shown in Table (4.2).
Table (4.2): Mechanical Properties and Bitumen Ratio for the ZTV-Asphalt-STB
94, 0/22 Gradation (Jendia, 2000)
Property
Value
Void Ratio in Marshall Sample %
4 - 8
Bitumen Ratio %
3.8 – 5.5
Weight (density) kg/m3
2428 - 2500
0102030405060708090
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100Diameter size mm
Pass
ing
27
4.3.1.2 Association of States and Highway Transportation Official Specifications (AASHTO) The AASHTO gives two gradations for the asphalt binder course. They are T27 and
T11. The gradations of the two types are shown in Table (4.3), Table (4.4), Figure
(4.5) and Figure (4.6). The two gradations have the same mechanical specifications as
illustrated in Table (4.5).
Table (4.3): Gradation of Asphalt Binder Course (AASHTO T27)
Percentage by Weight Passing Sieve size (mm) Lower Level Upper Level
25.0 100 100 19.0 70 100 12.5 53 90 9.5 40 80
4.75 30 56 2.36 23 38 1.18 13 27 0.300 5 17 0.150 4 14 0.075 2 8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0Diameter size mm
Pas
sing
Figure (4.5) Gradation of Asphalt Binder Course (AASHTO T27)
28
Table (4.4): Gradation of Asphalt Binder Course (AASHTO T11)
Percentage by Weight Passing Sieve size (mm) Lower Level Upper Level
25 100 100 19.0 70 100 12.5 53 90 9.5 40 80
4.75 30 56 2.36 23 49 1.18 14 43 0.300 5 19 0.150 4 15 0.075 2 8
0102030405060708090
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100Diameter size mm
Pas
sing
Figure (4. 6): Gradation of Asphalt Binder Course (AASHTO T11)
29
Table (4.5): Mechanical Properties of Asphalt Binder Course for T27 and T11 (AASHTO T27, T11)
Property Value
Marshal stability at 60oC (kg) 800
Flow (mm) 2 – 4
Void in Mineral aggregate (VMA) 13 (-1)
Air voids (%) 3 – 5
Stiffness (kg/mm) 400 (Min)
Loss of stability 25 (Max)
Bitumen content (%) 4.5 - 6
Concluded Remarks It is clear that the two gradations T11 and T27 are almost similar in the course part
and the difference starts in the fine part which passes the sieve # 4. The gradation T11
is finer than T27. So, the gradation T11 was selected because its mixture will be
denser than T27 due to the high percentage of the fine aggregates.
4.3.1.3 British Standard (BS 594) The British standards have two gradations for the asphalt binder course which depend
on the thickness of the layer. The first gradation is for the layer thickness from 45 to
85 mm as shown in Table (4.6) and Figure (4.7). The second gradation is for the layer
thickness from 60 – 120 mm as illustrated in Table (4.7) and Figure (4.8). The two
gradations have the same mechanical properties for the asphalt binder course as
shown in Table (4.8).
30
Table (4.6): Gradation of Asphalt Binder Course Layer Thickness 45 to 80mm (BS 594, 1992)
Percentage by Weight Passing Sieve size (mm) Lower Level Upper Level
20 90 100 14 30 65
2.36 30 44 0.60 10 44 0.212 3 25 0.075 2 8
Figure (4.7): Gradation of Asphalt Binder Course ( Layer thickness 45 to 80mm)
(BS 594, 1992) Table (4.7): Gradation of Asphalt Binder Course Layer Thickness 60 -120 mm (BS 594, 1992)
Percentage by Weight Passing Sieve size (mm) Lower Level Upper Level
28 90 100 20 50 80 14 30 65
2.36 30 44 0.60 10 44 0.212 3 25 0.075 2 8
0102030405060708090
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100Diameter size mm
Pass
ing
31
Figure (4.8): Gradation of Asphalt Binder Course (Layer Thickness 60 – 120 mm) (BS 594, 1992)
Table (4.8): Mechanical Properties of BS 594 Asphalt Binder Course (BS 594, 1992) Traffic (in commercial vehicles per lane per day)
Stability of Complete Mix KN
Max Flow Value (mm)
Less than 1500 3 – 8 5
1500 to 6000 4 – 8 5
Over 6000 6 – 10 7
Bitumen content (%) 5.7%
Concluded Remark
It’s noticed that the differences between the two previous types are in the course part
especially in the sieve size ¾”. In the research, the gradation of the layer thickness
from 45 – 80 mm was selected because it is the common thickness of the binder layer
in Palestine.
0102030405060708090
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100Diameter size mm
Pass
ing
32
4.3.1.4 The Gradations of the International Group Together
In the international group, three gradations were selected. They are ZTV- Asphalt-
STB 94 - 0/22 from the German specifications, T11 from AASHTO and BS 594 layer
thickness from 45 to 80 mm from the British specifications. The gradations for the
mentioned three specifications are illustrated in Figure (4.9) and Table (4.9). Table
(4.10) and Figure (4.10) show the gradations of the three international gradations and
the frame of the international group. The lower limit and the upper limit were chosen
to make the international group frame as shown in Figure (4.11) and Table (4.11).
Table (4.9): The Specifications of (Ztv- Asphalt-STB 94 - 0/22, AASHTO T11 and BS 594 Layer Thickness 45 to 80mm).
ZTV- asphalt-STB 94 - (0/22)
AASHTO (T11) BS 594 (Thickness 45-80 mm)
Diameter size (mm) Lower
Level Upper Level
Lower Level
Upper Level
Lower Level
Upper Level
28 100 100 100 100 100 100 25 100 100 100 100 100 100
22.4 90 100 100 100 100 100 19 75 90 70 100 90 100 16 60 80 63 96 30 44
12.5 50 70 53 90 30 65 9.5 43 60 40 80 30 58
4.75 30 45 30 56 30 49 2.36 20 35 23 49 30 44 1.18 15 30 14 43 20 44 0.6 13 28 10 32 10 44 0.3 10 24 5 19 4 35
0.25 8 22 4 17 4 30 0.212 7 20 4 16 3 25 0.15 4 17 4 15 2 17 0.09 3 9 3 10 2 10
0.075 2 8 2 8
33
0102030405060708090
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100Diameter size mm
Pass
ing
min(Ztv-asphalt -STB 94- 0/22)
max(Ztv-asphalt-STB 94- 0/22)
min (AASHTO T11)
max (AASHTO T11)
MIN (BS 594)
max (BS 594)
Figure (4.9): Gradation of Asphalt Binder Course of ZTV- asphalt-STB 94 -0/22,
AASHTO T11 and BS 594 Layer Thickness (45 to 80mm) Table (4.10): The Gradations of Asphalt Binder Course of International Group Frame)
ZTV- Asphalt-STB 94 (0/22)
AASHTO (T11) BS 594 (Thickness 60-120mm)
International Frame Group
Diameter size (mm)
Lower Level Upper Level Lower Level Upper Level Lower LevelUpper Level Lower Level Upper Level28 100 100 100 100 90 100 100 100 25 100 100 100 100 80 93 100 100
22.4 90 100 100 100 70 87 98 100 19 75 90 70 100 50 80 58 100 16 60 80 63 96 42 72 44 92
12.5 50 70 53 90 30 65 38 83 9.5 43 60 40 80 25 58 33 79
4.75 30 45 30 56 27 49 23 63 2.36 20 35 23 49 30 44 17 54 1.18 15 30 14 43 20 45 13 46 0.6 13 28 10 32 10 44 9 39 0.3 10 24 5 19 4 35 4 30
0.25 8 22 4 17 4 30 4 27 0.212 7 20 4 16 3 25 4 24 0.15 4 17 4 15 2 17 2 18 0.09 3 9 3 10 2 10 2 12
0.075 2 8 2 8 2 8
34
Figure (4.10): Gradation of Asphalt Binder Course of International Group with
Frame
Table (4.11): The Gradation of the Frame of International Group
Passing (%) Diameter Size (mm) Lower Level Upper Level
25 100 100 19.0 58 100 12.5 38 83 9.5 33 79
4.75 23 63 2.26 17 54 1.18 13 46 0.6 9 39 0.3 4 30
0.075 2 8
01020
3040506070
8090
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100Diameter size mm
Pass
ing
min ZTV Spc.
max ZTV Spc.
min Reg. Spc.
max Reg Spc.
min Local Req.
max Local Req.
min Int. Frame
max Int.Frame
35
InternationalSpecification
0102030405060708090
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100Diameter size mm
Pass
ing
Figure (4.11): The Frame of the International Specifications Group
Concluded Remark
1. It is clear that the BS 594 and AASHTO T11 have the same starting and ending
points.
2. From figure (4.9), it is noticed that the British gradation has few points which are
not included in AASHTO T11 and ZTV- Asphalt-STB 94 - 0/22 gradation. The
international frame included these points.
3. After the merging of the international gradation, it seems that the range between
the lower and upper limit becomes bigger.
4.3.2 Regional Specifications The regional specification includes the Egyptian, Jordanian and Iraqi specifications
because they are close to Palestine.
4.3.2.1 Egyptian Specification
The Egyptian specification has one gradation for the asphalt binder course. The size
of the aggregates has not to exceed than ¾”. Table (4.12) and figure (4.12) show the
gradation of the Egyptian specification. Table (4.13) illustrates the mechanical
properties.
36
Table (4.12): Gradation of Egyptian Asphalt Binder Course (MOH, 1998)
Percentage by Weight Passing Sieve size
(mm) Lower Level Upper Level 19.0 100 100 12.5 75 100 9.500 60 85 4.750 35 55 2.26 20 35 0.600 10 22 0.300 6 16 0.150 4 12 0.075 2 8
0102030405060708090
100
0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0Diameter size mm
Pass
ing
Figure (4.12): Gradation of Egyptian Asphalt Binder Course
Table (4.13): The Mechanical Properties of the Egyptian Asphalt Binder Course (MOH, 1998)
Properties Low Traffic Medium Traffic Heavy Traffic Stability (Kg) 227 272 317 Flow (mm) 2 - 4 2 - 4 2 - 4 Air void in mix (% ) 2 - 8 3 - 8 15 VMA (%) 14 15 15 No. of Marshal blows 35 50 75 Bitumen content (%) 3 - 6
37
Concluded Remark 1. In the Egyptian gradation, the lower limit and the upper limit are very close to
each other. So, the user of this mixture has to be very careful in selecting the
proportion of different sizes of aggregate which form the mix.
2. The mechanical properties depend on the level of the traffic.
4.3.2.2 Jordanian Specification
The gradation of the Jordanian specification of the asphalt binder course is illustrated
in table (4.14) and figure (4.13) and the mechanical properties are shown in table
(4.15).
Table (4.14) Gradation of Jordanian Asphalt Binder Course (MOPWH, 1991)
Percentage by Weight Passing Sieve size (mm) Lower Level Upper Level 25.0 100 100 19.0 70 100 12.5 53 90 9.5 40 80
4.75 30 56 2.36 23 49 1.18 14 43 0.300 5 19 0.150 4 15 0.075 2 8
38
0102030405060708090
100
0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0Diameter size mm
Pass
ing
Figure (4.13) Gradation of Jordanian Asphalt Binder Course (MOPWH, 1991) Table (4.15): Mechanical Properties of Jordanian Asphalt Binder Course (MOPWH, 1991)
Property Heavy Traffic Medium Traffic
Marshal stability at 60oC (kg) 900 800
Flow (mm) 2 – 3.5 2 – 4
Void in Mineral aggregate (VMA) 13 (-1) 13 (-1)
Air voids (%) 4 – 7 3 – 5
Stiffness (kg/mm) 500 (Min) 400 (Min)
Loss of stability 25 (max) 25 (Max)
Bitumen content (%) 4.5 - 6
Concluded Remark The Jordanian are adopting the AASHTO T11 for the asphalt binder course which
was discussed in the international group.
39
4.3.2.3 Iraqi Specification The Iraqi specification has one gradation for the asphalt binder course as illustrated in
table (4.16) and figure (4.14). The mechanical properties are explained in table (4.17).
Table (4.16) Gradation of Iraqi Asphalt Binder Course (Hwaies, 1985)
Percentage by Weight Passing Sieve Size (mm) Lower Level Upper Level
19 88 100 12.5 65 87 9.5 55 80
4.750 37 64 2 23 45 1 17 34
0.60 13 27 0.25 8 20 0.125 6 15 0.075 5 10
0102030405060708090
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100Diameter size mm
Pass
ing
Figure (4.14): Gradation of Iraqi Asphalt Binder Course (Hwaies, 1985)
40
Table (4.17): Mechanical Properties of Iraqi Asphalt Binder Course (Hwaies, 1985)
Properties
Value Marshal stability (kg)
714
Flow (mm)
2 - 4
Voids filled with Bitumen (VFB)
60 - 80
Air voids (%)
3 - 7
Bitumen content (%)
3.8 – 5.8
Concluded Remark
The minimum percentage of the passing aggregates from the sieve # 200 is high in
comparison with the ZTV – Asphalt - STB 94, AASHTO T11, BS 504, Egyptian and
Jordanian specifications. This means that the Iraqi mixture needs filler more than the
ZTV – Asphalt - STB 94, AASHTO T11, BS 504, Egyptian and Jordanian mixtures.
This characteristic distinguishes the Iraqi specification from the other.
4.3.2.4 The Gradation of the Regional Group Together The gradation of the Egyptian, Jordanian and Iraqi of the asphalt binder course were
drawn together as illustrated in Figure (4.15) and Table (4.18). The frame of the
regional group was drawn to include all the points in the three regional specifications
as shown in Figure (4.16) and Table (4.19). The frame of the regional group together
is illustrated in Figure (4.17) and Table (4.20).
41
Table (4.18): The Gradation of the Regional Specifications
Iraqi Spec. Egyptian Spec. Jordanian Spec. Diameter Size
(mm) Lower Level
Upper Level
Lower Level Upper Level
Lower Level
Upper Level
25 100 100 100 100 100 100 19.0 88 100 100 100 70 100 12.5 65 87 75 100 53 90 9.5 55 80 60 85 40 80 4.75 37 64 35 55 30 56 2.26 23 45 20 35 23 49 1.18 17 34 14 27 14 43 0.6 13 27 10 22 9 30 0.3 8 20 6 16 5 19
0.125 6 15 4 12 4 15
0.075 5 10 2 8 2 8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100Diameter size mm
Pass
ing
min (Iraq)max (Iraq)min (Egypt)max (Egypt)min (Jordan)max (Jordan)
Figure (4.15): The Gradation of the Regional Specifications
42
Table (4.19): The Gradation of the Iraqi, Egyptian, Jordanian Specifications and the Regional Frame
Diameter size Iraq 1983 Egyptian Spec. Jordan Spec. Regional Frame mm Lower Level Upper LevelLower Level Upper Level Lower Level Upper LevelLower Level Upper Level25 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
19.0 88 100 100 100 70 100 70 100 12.5 65 87 75 100 53 90 48 94 9.5 55 80 60 85 40 80 42 86 4.75 37 64 35 55 30 56 30 67 2.26 23 45 20 35 23 49 19 52 1.18 17 34 14 27 14 43 14 43 0.6 13 27 10 22 9 30 9 31 0.3 8 20 6 16 5 19 6 22
0.125 6 15 4 12 4 15 3 13 0.075 5 10 2 8 2 8 2 10
Figure (4.16): The Gradation of the Iraqi, Egyptian, Jordanian and the Regional
Frame.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Diameter size mm
Pass
ing
min Iraq spec.max Iraq spec.min Egyptian spec.max Egyptian spec.min Jordan spec.max Jordan spec.min Regional Framemax Regional Frame
43
Table (4.20): Gradation for Regional Specifications Frame
Passing (%) Diameter Size mm Lower Level Upper Level 25 100 100
19.0 70 100 12.5 48 94 9.5 42 86
4.75 30 67 2.26 19 52 1.18 14 43 0.6 9 31 0.3 6 22
0.075 2 10
0102030405060708090
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100Diameter size mm
Pass
ing
Figure (4.17): The Frame of the Regional Specifications of the Asphalt Binder Course
Concluded Remark
It is obvious from Figure (4.15) and Figure (4.16) that the Jordanian gradation has the
biggest range among the three selected regional specifications. The Jordanian lower
limit and upper level includes the Egyptian and Iraqi limits.
44
4.3.3 Local Group
The local group consists of five requirements which are required by the institutions in
Palestine. These requirements are the municipality of Gaza requirements, PECDAR
requirements, UNRWA requirements, PSI standards and MOPWH requirements.
4.3.3.1 The Municipality of Gaza (MoG) Requirements
The gradation of the MoG requirements is shown in table (4.21) and figure (4.18).
The mechanical properties are illustrated in table (4.22).
Table (4.21): Gradation of (MoG) Asphalt Binder Course (MoG, 2003)
Percentage by Weight Passing
Sieve Size
(mm) Lower Level Upper Level 19 100 100
12.5 80 100 9.5 70 87
4.75 50 65 2 35 50
0.42 16 30 0.180 10 20 0.075 4 9
0102030405060708090
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100Diameter size
Pass
ing
Figure (4.18): Gradation of MoG Asphalt Binder Course (MoG, 2003)
45
Table (4.22): Mechanical Properties of MoG Asphalt Binder Course (MoG, 2003)
Property Value
Marshal stability (kg) >900
Flow (mm) 2 – 4
Voids filled with Bitumen (VFB) 75 – 85
Air voids (%) 3 – 5
VMA ( % ) 13.5
Bitumen content (%) At least 5
Concluded Remarks
1. The MoG requirements depend on a narrow range of the gradation as clear in
figure (4.18).
2. The percentage of the fine materials which passes from the sieve # 4 is high in
comparison with the other local requirements.
4.3.3.2 PECDAR Requirements
PECDAR has one gradation for the asphalt binder course as shown in table (4.23) and
figure (4.19). The Mechanical properties are illustrated in table (4.24).
Table (4.23): Gradation of PECDAR Requirements for the Asphalt Binder Course (PECDAR, 2003)
Percentage by Weight Passing Sieve size (mm) Lower Level Upper Level
25 90 100 19 88 93
12.5 62 72 9.5 55 61
4.75 38 44 2 31 37
0.42 13 19 0.180 8 12 0.075 3.8 5.8
46
0
10203040
5060
708090
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100Diameter size mm
Pass
ing
Figure (4.19): Gradation of PECDAR Requirements for the Asphalt Binder Course (PECDAR, 2003)
Table (4.24): Mechanical Properties of PECDAR Requirements for Asphalt Binder Course (PECDAR, 2003)
Property
Value Marshal stability (kg)
>900
Flow (mm)
2 – 4
Voids filled with Bitumen (VFB) %
< 80
Air voids (%)
3 – 6
VMA ( % )
>13.50
Bitumen content
3.7 – 4.2 %
Concluded Remarks
The gradation of PECDAR requirements for the asphalt binder course is very
narrow which make it difficult to achieve this range.
47
4.3.3.3 UNRWA Requirements
UNRWA has one requirement for the asphalt binder course as shown in table (4.25)
and figure (4.20). The mechanical properties for this requirement are illustrated in
table (4.26).
Table (4.25) Gradation of UNRWA Requirements for Asphalt Binder Course (UNRWA, 2003)
Percentage by Weight Passing Sieve size (mm) Lower Level Upper Level
25 100 100 19 70 100
12.5 53 90 9.5 40 80
4.75 30 56 2.36 23 38 1.18 13 27 0.300 5 17 0.150 4 14 0.075 2 8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100Diameter size mm
Pass
ing
Figure (4.20): Gradation of UNRWA Requirements for Asphalt Binder Course
(UNRWA, 2003)
48
Table (4.26): Mechanical Properties of UNRWA Requirements for the Asphalt
Binder Course (UNRWA, 2003)
Property Value
Marshal stability (kg) 900
Flow (mm) 2 – 4
Number of blows 75
Air voids (%) 3 – 5
Voids in Mineral aggregates VMA ( % ) 13 min
Loss of Marshal stability ( % ) 25 max
Stiffness (kg/mm) 400 min
Bitumen content (%) 4 – 6.50
Concluded Remarks
From table (4.25) and Figure (4.20) it is clear that the UNRWA requirement is similar
to AASHTO specifications in the course part. While the fine part which passing
sieves # 4 is different. In the fine part, the curve of gradation becomes narrow
between the upper limit and the lower limit.
4.3.3.4 Palestine Standards Institution Specification (PSI)
The PSI has one gradation for the asphalt binder course as illustrated in table (4.27)
and figure (4.21). The mechanical properties are shown in table (4.28).
49
Table (4.27): Gradation of PSI Specification for the Asphalt Binder Course (PS
171, 1998)
Percentage by Weight Passing Sieve Size
(mm) Lower Level Upper Level
25 100 100 19 84 100 14 72 86 9.5 60 74
4.75 44 58 2.36 32 45 0.6 15 25
0.150 6 12 0.075 4 8
0102030405060708090
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100Diameter size mm
Pass
ing
Figure (4.21): Gradation of PSI for Asphalt Binder Course (PS 171, 1998)
50
Table (4.28): Mechanical Properties of PSI for the Asphalt Binder Course (PS
171, 1998)
Property Value
Marshal stability (kg) 714
Flow (mm) 2 – 4
Air voids (%) 3 – 7
Voids in Mineral aggregates VMA ( % ) 12 min
Loss of Marshal stability ( % ) 25 max
Bitumen content 4.5 – 7.0
Concluded Remarks
1. The specification of the PSI is very narrow as shown in figure (4.21) and it is
difficult to be achieved.
2. The percentage of the bitumen in the PSI is higher than the percentage in the other
local requirements.
4.3.3.5 Ministry of Public Works and Housing Requirements
The gradation of the MOPWH for the asphalt binder course is shown in table (4.29)
and figure (4.22). The mechanical properties are illustrated in table (4.30).
Table (4.29): Gradation of MOPWH Requirements for Asphalt Binder Course
(MOPWH, 1995)
Percentage by Weight Passing Sieve Size (mm) Lower Level Upper Level 25.0 100 100 19.0 70 100 12.5 53 90 9.5 40 80
4.75 30 56 2.380 23 38 0.84 13 27 0.297 5 17 0.18 4 14 0.075 2 8
51
0102030405060708090
100
0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Diameter size mm
Pass
ing
Figure (4.22): The Gradation of MOPWH Requirements for Asphalt Binder Course (MOPWH, 1995)
Table (4.30): The Mechanical Properties of MOPWH Requirements for Asphalt
Binder Course (MOPWH, 1995)
Property
Value Marshal stability (kg)
800 – 900
Flow (mm)
2 – 4
Air voids (%)
3 – 7
Voids in Mineral aggregates VMA ( % )
14
Loss of Marshal stability ( % )
25 max
Number of blows
75
Stiffness (kg/mm)
500
Bitumen content (%)
3.5 - 7
52
Concluded Remarks
The MOPWH requirement is similar to the mechanical and gradation of the UNRWA
requirement for the asphalt binder course. The only small difference is the percentage
of the bitumen.
4.3.3.6 The Gradations of the Local Group Together
In this step, the gradation for all the local requirements (MoG, PECDAR, PSI,
UNRWA and MOPWH) were drawn as illustrated in figure (4.23). Table (4.31)
shows the lower level and upper level of the passing materials for all the local
requirements after unifying the sieves. One frame was selected from the local
requirement as shown in tables (4.32), (4.33) and figure (4.24) and figure (4.25).
Figure (4.23): The Gradation of Local Requirements Together
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100Diameter size mm
Pass
ing
min (Gaza M.)
max (Gaza M.)
min (BECDAR)
max (BECDAR)
min (UNRWA)
max (UNRWA)
min (Palestinian M.)
max (Palestinian M.)
min (MoPWH)
max (MoPWH)
53
Table (4.31): The Gradation of the Local Group Requirements
MoG PECDAR UNRWA Palestinian MOPWH Diameter Size (mm) Lower
Level Upper Level
Lower Level
Upper Level
Lower Level
Upper Level
Lower Level
Upper Level
Lower Level
Upper Level
25 100 100 90 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
19 100 100 88 93 70 100 84 100 70 100
14 100 100 70 90 58 85 72 86 60 95
12.5 80 100 62 72 53 90 67 81 53 90
9.5 70 87 55 61 40 80 60 74 40 80
4.75 50 65 38 44 30 56 44 58 30 56
2.36 35 50 31 37 23 38 32 45 23 38
1.18 25 40 24 30 13 27 23 35 16 30
0.84 21 35 20 25 10 25 18 30 13 27
0.6 19 32 16 22 8 22 15 25 10 24
0.42 16 30 13 19 7 21 12 20 7 20
0.300 13 26 11 16 5 17 9 16 5 17
0.180 10 20 8 12 4 14 6 12 4 14
0.075 4 9 3.8 5.8 2 8 4 8 2 8
54
Table (4.32): The Gradation of the Local Group Requirements and their Frame
MOG PECDAR UNRWA PSI MoPWH Local Requirements
Frame
Diameter
Size (mm)
Lower Level Upper Level Lower Level Upper Level Lower
Level
Upper
Level
Lower
Level
Upper
Level
Lower
Level
Upper
Level
Lower
Level
Upper
Level
25 100 100 90 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
19 100 100 88 93 70 100 84 100 70 100 73 100
14 100 100 70 90 58 85 72 86 60 95 52 100
12.5 80 100 62 72 53 90 67 81 53 90 48 95
9.5 70 87 55 61 40 80 60 74 40 80 40 88
4.75 50 65 38 44 30 56 44 58 30 56 30 66
2.36 35 50 31 37 23 38 32 45 23 38 21 50
1.18 25 40 24 30 13 27 23 35 16 30 14 40
0.84 21 35 20 25 10 25 18 30 13 27 11 34
0.6 19 32 16 22 8 22 15 25 10 24 9 31
0.42 16 30 13 19 7 21 12 20 7 20 7 28
0.300 13 26 11 16 5 17 9 16 5 17 5 26
0.180 10 20 8 12 4 14 6 12 4 14 3 18
0.075 4 9 3.8 5.8 2 8 4 8 2 8 2 9
55
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100Diameter size mm
Pass
ing
min (MoG)
max (MoG)
min (Pecdar)
max (Pecdar)
min (UNRWA)
max (UNRWA)
min (PSI)
max (PSI)
min (MoPWH)
max (MoPWH)
min (L.R.Frame)
max (L.R.Frame)
Figure (4.24): The Gradation of the Local Requirements with their Frame
Table (4.33): The Gradation of the Local Requirement Frame
Passing (%) Diameter Size (mm) Lower Level Upper Level
25 100 100 19.0 73 100 12.5 48 95 9.5 40 88
4.75 30 66 2.36 21 50 1.18 14 40 0.6 9 31 0.3 5 26
0.075 2 9
56
0102030405060708090
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100Diameter size mm
Pass
ing
Figure (4.25): The Frame of the Local Requirement
Concluded Remarks
1. The UNRWA requirements are similar to the MOPWH requirements.
2. Figure (4.24) shows that the upper level of the frame of the local requirements together will
be the MoG upper level. The lower level of the frame of local requirements together will be
the PSI lower level.
3. Table (4.32) illustrates the values of passing materials which were used to draw the upper
and lower level of the frame of local requirements together. It is noticed that these values
are similar to the values of the regional frame.
4. From figure (4.25) it is clear that the distance between the upper and lower level of the
local frame is wide.
57
4.3.4 The Gradation and Mechanical Properties for the International, Regional and Local Groups Together
In this step the three frames of the international group, the regional group and the local
requirements were drawn together as shown in figure (4.26) and table (4.34). Table (4.35) and
figure (4.27) illustrate the values of the upper levels and lower levels of the three frames.
To select the suitable gradation for the Palestinian local materials, it is needed to select values
for the mechanical properties and the bitumen content. The mechanical properties were
selected by using the average of all mentioned specifications and requirements or the worst
case as shown in table (4.36).
Table (4.34): The Percentages of Passing Materials for the Upper and Lower Levels in all Groups.
International Specifications Regional Specifications Local Requirements Passing (%) Passing (%) Passing (%)
Diameter Size
(mm) Lower Level Upper Level
Lower Level
Upper Level
Lower Level
Upper Level
25 100 100 100 100 100 100 19.0 58 100 70 100 73 100 12.5 38 83 48 94 48 95 9.5 33 79 42 86 40 88 4.75 23 63 30 67 30 66 2.26 17 54 19 52 21 50 1.18 13 46 14 43 14 40 0.6 9 39 9 31 9 31 0.3 4 30 6 22 5 26
0.075 2 8 2 10 2 9
58
Figure (4.26): The International Frame, the Regional Frame and the Local Frame.
Table (4.35): The Gradation of the International, Regional, Local Frames and the Frame
of all the Specifications.
Diameter Size
International Specifications
Regional Specifications Local Requirements The Frame of All Specifications
mm Lower Level Upper LevelLower Level Upper Level Lower Level Upper LevelLower Level Upper Level
25 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 19.0 58 100 70 100 73 100 58 100 12.5 38 83 48 94 48 95 38 95 9.5 33 79 42 86 40 88 33 88 4.75 23 63 30 67 30 66 23 67 2.36 17 54 19 52 21 50 17 55 1.18 13 46 14 43 14 40 14 46 0.6 9 39 9 31 9 31 9 39 0.3 4 30 6 22 5 26 4 30
0.075 2 8 2 10 2 9 2 10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100Diameter size mm
Pass
ing
min(Inter.)
max(Inter.)
min (Regional)
max (Regional)
min (Local)
max (Local)
59
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100Diameter size mm
Pass
ing
min (Int.Spec.)
max (Int.Spec.)
min (Reg. Spec)
max (Reg.Spec.)
min (Local Req.)
max (Local Req.)
min (Frame)
max (Frame)
Figure (4.27): The International, Regional, Local Frames and the Frame of all the Specifications.
Table (4.36): The Lower and Upper Percentage of Passing Materials for all Specifications Together
Passing (%) Diameter Size (mm) Lower Level Upper Level
25 100 100 19.0 58 100 12.5 38 95 9.5 33 88
4.75 23 67 2.36 17 55 1.18 14 46 0.6 9 39 0.3 4 30
0.075 2 10
60
All specification
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Diameter size
Pas
sing
min (all)max (all)
Figure (4.28): The Frame of All Specifications
Table (4.37) shows the mechanical properties for the eleven selected specifications and
requirements and the chosen values which will be used in the trial mix. The criteria of selecting
the values of the mechanical properties are because it is the worst case as the stability or the
average or the most recommended value among all the specifications.
The chosen values of the mechanical properties are as follow:
1. The stability is equal 900 kg because is the worst case from the previous specifications.
2. The flow value from 2 to 4 mm because most of specifications and requirements
recommend it.
3. The stiffness is equal 400 because most of specifications and requirements recommend it.
4. Air voids is equal 3 to 6 because minimum value is 3 in all specifications and requirements
and the average of maximum value is 6.
5. VMA (%) equal 13.5 because it is the average value.
6. VFB (%) equal 60 to 80 because the most specifications and requirements recommend it.
61
7. Bitumen content (%) equal 4 to 6 because the most specifications and requirements
recommend it.
Table (4.37): The Mechanical Properties for All Specifications
Specifications Stability (kg) Flow (mm)
Stiffness Air Voids (%)
VMA (%)
VFB (%)
Bitumen (%)
AASHTO 800 2 – 4 Min 400 3 – 5 13(-1) --- 4.5 – 6
Ztv-bit --- --- --- 3 – 7 --- --- 4 – 6
BS 400 – 800 Max
5
--- --- --- --- 5 – 7
Egyptian 272 2 – 4 --- 3 – 8 15 --- 3 – 6
Jordanian 800 2 –4 400 3 – 5 13(-1) --- 4.5 – 6
Iraqi 714 2 – 4 --- 3 – 7 --- 60 – 80 3.8 –5.8
MoG Min 900 2 – 4 --- 3 – 5 min13.
5
75 – 85 Min 5
PECDAR Min 900 2 – 4 --- 3 –6 min13.
5
Max 80 3.7 – 4.2
UNRWA 900 2 – 4 400 3 – 5 Min 13 --- 4 – 6.5
PSI 714 2 - 4 --- 3 – 7 Min 12 --- 4.5 – 7
MOPWH 900 2 – 4 500 3 – 7 Min 14 --- 3.5 – 7
Chosen 900 2 – 4 400 3 – 6 13.5 60 – 80 4 – 6
62
Concluded Remarks
The frame of the international includes the regional and local frames, which means that
international specifications are the base of the regional and local requirements.
63
CHAPTER FIVE
TESTS OF MATERIALS
5.1 Introduction
In this chapter, tests of local available aggregates and bitumen in Palestine will be illustrated.
Aggregate tests are the sieve analysis, specific gravity, absorption, moisture content and Los
Angles. The tests of bitumen are penetration test, flash and fire point, ductility, softening point
and specific gravity. The required materials of aggregates and bitumen were brought from one
of local asphalt factory “NORCO” after many field visits to the asphalt factories in Gaza Strip
which proved that the source of the materials is uniformed. The samples of the tested materials
represented the actual mix in the field.
5.2 Tests of Aggregates
Six types of aggregates were selected. They are coarse aggregate M0 (Folia 5), coarse
aggregate M1 (Folia 4), coarse aggregate M2 (Adasia), coarse aggregate M3 (Simsimia), fine
aggregate F1 (filler, Itrabiah) and fine aggregate F2 (sand). Five tests were conducted on each
type of these aggregates, they are as follows:
1. Sieve Analysis.
2. Specific Gravity.
3. Absorption.
4. Moisture Content.
5. Los Angles
These materials were tested in the Laboratory Materials Testing of the Islamic University in
Gaza. See Appendix C: Photos Show the Work in the Laboratory. The results of these tests
were as follows:
64
5.2.1 The Results of Coarse Aggregate M0 (5)
Table (5.1): Results of M0 Test Description of Test Result
Moisture content (%) 0.17
Absorption (%) 2.02
Bulk specific gravity 2.59
Resistance to abrasion by Los
Angeles at 500 revolutions%
35.1
Table (5.2): Sieve Analysis of M0 Sieve Size
(mm) Retained
Weight (g) Cumulative Retained (g)
% Cumulative Retained
% Passing
25 0 0 0.0 100.0 19 688 688 12.6 87.4
12.5 4332 5020 92.0 8.0 9.5 220 5240 96.1 3.9 4.75 70 5310 97.3 2.7
2 35 5345 98.0 2.0 1.18 20 5365 98.4 1.6 0.6 15 5380 98.6 1.4
0.425 5 5385 98.7 1.3 0.3 2 5387 98.8 1.2 0.15 5 5392 98.8 1.2
0.075 5 5397 98.9 1.1 Pan 58 5455 100.0 0.0
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100Diameter size mm
Pass
ing
Figure (5.1) Gradation of Coarse Aggregate M0
65
5.2.2 Coarse Aggregate M1 (4) Table (5.3): Results of M1 Test
Description of Test Result
Moisture content (%) 0.18
Absorption (%) 2.29
Bulk specific gravity 2.54
Resistance to abrasion by Los
Angeles at 500 revolutions%
35.1
Table (5.4): Sieve Analysis of M1
Sieve Size (mm)
Retained
Weight (g)
Cumulative
Retained (g) %Cumulative
Retained % Passing
25 0 0 0.0 100.0 19 114 114 2.3 97.7
12.5 4376 4490 92.0 8.0 9.5 240 4730 96.9 3.1 4.75 65 4795 98.3 1.7
2 2 4797 98.3 1.7 1.18 2 4799 98.3 1.7 0.6 2 4801 98.4 1.6
0.425 1 4802 98.4 1.6 0.3 1 4803 98.4 1.6 0.15 1 4804 98.4 1.6
0.075 2 4806 98.5 1.5 Pan 74 4880 100.0 0.0
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100Diameter size mm
Pass
ing
Figure (5.2): Gradation of Coarse Aggregate M1
66
5.2.3 Coarse Aggregate M2 Table (5.5): Results of M2 Test
Description of Test Result
Moisture content (%) 0.12
Absorption (%) 1.48
Bulk specific gravity 2.58
Resistance to abrasion by Los
Angeles at 500 revolutions%
35.1
Table (5.6): Sieve Analysis of M2 Sieve Size
(mm) Retained
Weight (g) Cumulative Retained (g)
% Cumulative Retained
% Passing
25 0 0 0.0 100.0 19 32 32 1.0 99.0
12.5 694 726 22.3 77.7 9.5 1244 1970 60.4 39.6 4.75 1135 3105 95.2 4.8
2 65 3170 97.2 2.8 1.18 5 3175 97.4 2.6 0.6 5 3180 97.5 2.5
0.425 1 3181 97.6 2.4 0.3 1 3182 97.6 2.4 0.15 3 3185 97.7 2.3
0.075 2 3187 97.8 2.2 Pan 74 4880 100 0
0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.0
100.0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100Diameter size mm
Pass
ing
Figure (5.3): Gradation of Coarse Aggregate M2
67
5.2.4 Coarse Aggregate M3 Table (5.7): Results of M3 Test
Description of test Result
Moisture content (%) 0.24
Absorption (%) 2.17
Bulk specific gravity 2.55 Resistance to abrasion by Los
Angeles at 500 revolutions% 35.1
Table (5.8): Sieve Analysis of M3 Sieve Size
(mm) Retained
Weight (g) Cumulative Retained (g)
% Cumulative Retained
% Passing
25 0 0 0.0 100.0 19 0 0 0.0 100.0
12.5 0 0 0.0 100.0 9.5 42 42 1.3 98.7 4.75 2373 2415 74.3 25.7
2 610 3025 93.1 6.9 1.18 65 3090 95.1 4.9 0.6 10 3100 95.4 4.6
0.425 5 3105 95.5 4.5 0.3 5 3110 95.7 4.3 0.15 5 3115 95.8 4.2
0.075 10 3125 96.2 3.8 Pan 125 3250 100.0 0.0
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100Diameter size mm
Pass
ing
Figure (5.4): Gradation of Coarse Aggregate M3
68
5.2.5 Fine Aggregate F1 (Filler) Table (5.9): Results of F1 Test
Description of Test Result
Moisture content (%) 0.86
Absorption (%) 1.26
Bulk specific gravity 2.75
Resistance to abrasion by Los
Angeles at 500 revolutions%
35.1
Table (5.10): Sieve Analysis of F1
Sieve Size (mm)
Retained Weight (g)
Cumulative Retained (g)
% Cumulative Retained
% Passing
25 0 0 0.0 100.0 19 0 0 0.0 100.0
12.5 0 0 0.0 100.0 9.5 24 24 1.5 98.5 4.75 66 90 5.7 94.3
2 322 412 26.0 74.0 1.18 286 698 44.1 55.9 0.6 186 884 55.9 44.1
0.425 74 958 60.6 39.4 0.3 52 1010 63.8 36.2 0.15 124 1134 71.7 28.3
0.075 72 1206 76.2 23.8 Pan 376 1582 100.0 0.0
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100Diameter size mm
Pass
ing
Figure (5.5): Gradation of Fine Aggregate F1
69
5.2.6 Fine Aggregate F2 (Sand) Table (5.11): Results of F2 Test
Description of test Result
Moisture content (%) 0.09
Absorption (%) 6.10
Bulk specific gravity 2.65
Table (5.12): Sieve Analysis of F2
Sieve Size (mm)
Retained Weight (g)
Cumulative Retained (g)
% Cumulative Retained
% Passing
25 0 0 0.0 100.0 19 0 0 0.0 100.0
12.5 0 0 0.0 100.0 9.5 0 0 0.0 100.0 4.75 0 0 0.0 100.0
2 0 0 0.0 100.0 1.18 0 0 0.0 100.0 0.6 6 6 0.4 99.6
0.425 244 250 16.7 83.3 0.3 534 784 52.3 47.7 0.15 674 1458 97.2 2.8
0.075 12 1470 98.0 2.0 Pan 30 1500 100.0 0.0
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100Diameter size mm
Pass
ing
Figure (5.6): Gradation of Fine Aggregate F2
70
Table (5.13): The Gradation of all Types of Aggregates
Sieve Size %Passing %Passing %Passing % Passing % Passing % Passing (mm) Folia 5 Folia 4 Adasia M2 Simmsim
M3 Trabia F1 Sand
25 100 100 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 19 87.4 97.7 99.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
12.5 8 8 77.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 9.5 3.9 3.1 39.6 98.7 98.5 100.0
4.75 2.7 1.7 4.8 25.7 94.3 100.0 2 2 1.7 2.8 6.9 74.0 100.0
1.18 1.6 1.7 2.6 4.9 55.9 100.0 0.6 1.4 1.6 2.5 4.6 44.1 99.6
0.425 1.3 1.6 2.4 4.5 39.4 83.3 0.3 1.2 1.6 2.4 4.3 36.2 47.7
0.15 1.2 1.6 2.3 4.2 28.3 2.8 0.075 1.1 1.5 2.2 3.8 23.8 2.0 Pan 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100Diameter size mm
Pass
ing
Folia 5
Folia 4
Adasia M2
SimmsimM3
Trabia F1
Sand
Figure (5.7): The Gradation of All Types of Aggregates
71
5.3 Tests of Bitumen
The tests which were conducted on the bitumen are as follows:
1. Penetration test.
2. Ductility.
3. Softening point.
4. Specific Gravity
The results of the laboratory tests carried in Islamic University Laboratory on bitumen were as
follows:
5.3.1 Penetration Test (ASTM D5, 2002)
The Penetration test measures the distance a weighted needle sinks into bitumen in five
seconds. A 100 gram needle normally sinks 30 millimeters in soft 300 pen bitumen and 2.5
millimeters in hard 25 pen bitumen. Penetration test used as a measure of consistency
expressed as the distance that a needle vertically penetrates a sample under known conditions
of loading, time and temperature.
Table (5.14): Results of Penetration Test
Readings First Point Second Point Third Point
Initial Reading 81 83 79
Second Reading 150 152 148
Final Reading 69 69 69
The average reading of the penetration = (69+69+69)/3 = 69 (1/10 mm)
5.3.2 Softening Point of Bitumen (ASTM D36, 2002)
According to the ASTM D36 experiment, bitumen is warmed until it can no longer support a
3.5 gram metal ball - this temperature is recorded for the two balls and it is the softening point.
The softening point is useful in the classification of bitumen.
Thermometer reading = 53 ºC.
72
5.3.3 Ductility Test (ASTM D 113, 2002)
The experiment was carried out according the (ASTM D 113), the samples of bitumen were
kept in the water basin at a temperature 25ºC, for a period of 85-95 minutes. Then the samples
are constantly pulled in the basin, until a cut takes place to the sample. The distance is
recorded, the experiments is repeated for three samples.
Table (5.15): Results of Ductility Test
Sample No. 1 2 3
Ductility (cm) 102 103 97
Average ductility (cm) 100
5.3.4 Density of Bitumen at 25ºC Test (ASTM D 70, 2002)
This test method covers the determination of the density of bitumen material by using
pycnometer in accordance to ASTM D 70. The following readings were recorded:
Table (5.16): Results of Density Test
Weight of sample (gm) 18.5
Weight of pycnometer + water at25ºC (gm) 77.42
Weight of pycnometer + water at25ºC+ sample (gm) 77.95
The density is calculated from the following formula:
95.77)5.1842.77(
5.18−+
=Density = 1.0295 g/cm3
Table (5.17) summarizes the results of the bitumen tests.
73
Table (5.17): Results of Bitumen Tests
Tests of Bitumen Results
Penetration 69
Ductility 100
Softening Point 53 ºC
Density 1.0295 g/cm3
74
CHAPTER SIX
PREPARATION AND TESTING OF ASPHALT MIXES
6.1 Introduction
In chapter five the materials of the asphalt mixture (aggregates and Bitumen) were tested and
they were valid to be used according to the special conditions of these materials. In this
chapter, the mixture or the gradation which achieves the best mechanical properties with least
bitumen content will be proposed. To achieve this, several steps were followed as explained in
the methodology.
6.2 Methodology of Selecting the Proposed Mix
To propose the best mix for the asphalt binder course which suits the Palestinian local
materials and achieve the best mechanical properties and the least bitumen content, the
researcher made the following steps:
1. The frame of the gradations of the three groups (international, regional and local) was
adopted as shown in table (4.37) and figure (4.28).
2. Five gradations (curves) were selected within the frame in the previous step. These five
gradations were the minimum limit of the frame (Min.), the maximum limit of the frame
(Max.) and the other three gradations between the minimum and the maximum limits
which are called “mid1, mid2 and mid3” as illustrates in table (6.1) and figure (6.1).
3. Preparation of the aggregates blending: To obtain any gradation of asphalt mix, several
kinds of aggregates should be mixed together. There are many methods to make the mix in
order to fit specific range or gradation. In this research the experimentalism mathematical
method was adopted because it is suitable for mixing two types or more of the aggregates.
The mixes were composed from the aggregates which were selected and tested in chapter
five (M0, M1, M2, M3, F1, and F2) (Jendia, 1997). As a result of the experimentalism
mathematical method, a new curve for every mix was obtained as example figure (6.2)
where there are two curves, one for the original gradation which was selected by the
researcher from the frame of all the specifications and the other which obtained from the
75
experimentalism mathematical method called the mix curve. For more details see Appendix
A: Mathematical Trail Method to Merge Aggregate Mixes.
4. Trail mixes for the five gradations were carried in the laboratory with using several
percentages of bitumen (4%, 4.5%, 5%, 5.5% and 6%) for each gradation. Marshall
Method was adopted. The inputs of the binder course job mixes are illustrated in Appendix
B.
5. The samples were tested and their mechanical properties were determined. The results of
the mechanical properties were compared with the selected mechanical properties in
chapter four, table (4.37).
6. Propose the gradation or the range which achieve the best mechanical properties with least
bitumen content.
Table (6.1): Gradations of the Five Selected Curves
Passing (%) Diameter Size
(mm) Min. Mid. (1) Mid. (2) Mid. (3) Max. 25 100 100 100 100 100
19.0 58 68.5 79 89.5 100
12.5 38 52.25 66.5 80.75 95
9.5 33 46.75 60.5 74.25 88
4.75 23 34 45 56 67
2.26 17 26.5 36 45.5 55
1.18 14 22 30 38 46
0.6 9 16.5 24 31.5 39
0.425 6.5 13.6 20.8 27.9 35
0.3 4 10.5 17 23.5 30
0.15 2.5 6.5 10.5 14.5 18.5
0.075 2 4 6 8 10
76
0102030405060708090
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100Diameter size mm
Pass
ing
min
mid1
mid2
mid3
max
Figure (6.1): Gradations of the Five Selected Curves
Five gradations were selected as first trials. They are min, max, mid1, mid2 and mid3. Each
gradation has five different percentages of bitumen. So, the number of the mix trial was 25
mixes. Four Marshall specimens are needed for each mix, three are essential and the fourth mix
is spare. The total number of specimens was 100 Marshall specimens as illustrated in table
(6.2). May be another gradation needed between the suggested gradations.
Table (6.2): The Number of the Specimens for All Mixes Bit. Ratio
Gradation 4% 4.5% 5.0% 5.5% 6.0%
Min. 4 4 4 4 4
Mid1 4 4 4 4 4
Mid2 4 4 4 4 4
Mid3 4 4 4 4 4
Max 4 4 4 4 4
Sub- total 20 20 20 20 20
Total 100 specimens
77
6.3 The Min. Mix
In this section, the curve, the outputs of job mix with different bitumen contents for the Min.
mix will be illustrated.
6.3.1 Min. Curve Mix
Table (6.3) shows the aggregate ratio which is needed to obtain the min gradation with
different bitumen contents. Figure (6.2) illustrates the gradation of the min. and the mix curve.
Table (6.3): Aggregate Ratio in Min. Mix
Asphalt Mixture
Sand F2 Filler F1 Agg. M3 Agg. M2 Agg. M1 Agg. M0 Bitumen %
3.00 15.00 5.00 10.00 30.00 37.00 4.00 3.00 15.00 5.00 10.00 30.00 37.00 4.50 3.00 15.00 5.00 10.00 30.00 37.00 5.00 3.00 15.00 5.00 10.00 30.00 37.00 5.50 3.00 15.00 5.00 10.00 30.00 37.00 6.00
0102030405060708090
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100Sieve diameter mm
Pass
ing min
mix
Figure (6.2): Gradation of Min. and Mix Curves
78
6.3.2 The Outputs of Job Mix for Min Gradation with Different Bitumen Contents
Tables (6.4), (6.5), (6.6), (6.7), (6.8) show the outputs of the job mix for min gradation with
different bitumen contents.
Table (6.4): The Outputs of Job Mix for Min Gradation with 4% Bitumen Content Bitumen Content 4.00%
Volume
(cm3) St Corr. Factor
corrected stability
Flow (mm)
Stiffness (kg/mm)
ρA (g/cm3)
ρBit (g/cm3)
Va (%)
Vb (%)
VMA (%)
VFB (%)
517.5 1 947.3 3.33 284.5 2.319 2.491 6.92 9.01 15.93 56.6
521.0 1 921.2 2.73 337.4 2.300 2.491 7.66 8.94 16.6 53.9
520.0 1 999.5 3.28 304.7 2.312 2.491 7.21 8.98 16.19 55.5
Average 956 3.11 308.9 2.310 2.491 7.26 8.976 16.24 55.3
Table (6.5): The Outputs of Job Mix for Min Gradation with 4.5% Bitumen Content Bitumen Content 4.5%
Volume
(cm3) St Corr. Factor
corrected stability
Flow (mm)
Stiffness (kg/mm)
ρA (g/cm3)
ρBit (g/cm3)
Va (%)
Vb (%)
VMA (%)
VFB (%)
525.5 0.96 734.1 5 146.8 2.265 2.500 9.38 9.9 19.28 51.4
515.5 1 816.8 5.04 162.1 2.293 2.500 9.57 9.88 19.45 50.8
525.5 0.96 658.9 4.67 141.1 2.261 2.500 9.57 9.88 19.45 50.8
Average 736.6 4.9 150 2.273 2.500 9.08 9.936 19.01 52.3
Table (6.6): The Outputs of Job Mix for Min Gradation with 5% Bitumen Content Bitumen Content 5.0%
Volume
(cm3) St Corr. Factor
corrected stability
Flow (mm)
Stiffness (kg/mm)
ρA (g/cm3)
ρBit (g/cm3)
Va (%)
Vb (%)
VMA (%)
VFB (%)
521.5 1 916 3.1 295.5 2.291 2.434 5.87 11.13 17 65.5
523 0.96 834.2 3.16 264. 2.291 2.434 5.9 11.12 17.03 65.3
529.5 0.96 909.4 3.25 279.8 2.279 2.434 6.4 11.07 17.47 63.4
Average 886.5 3.17 279.8 2.287 2.434 6.06 11.11 17.16 64.72
79
Table (6.7): The Outputs of Job Mix for Min Gradation with 5.5% Bitumen Content
Bitumen Content 5.5%
Volume
(cm3) St Corr. Factor
corrected stability
Flow (mm)
Stiffness (kg/mm)
ρA (g/cm3)
ρBit (g/cm3)
Va (%)
Vb (%)
VMA (%)
VFB (%)
525 .96 709 3.44 206.1 2.291 2.442 6.6 12.19 18.79 64.9
529 .96 759.1 3.67 206.8 2.253 2.442 7.73 12.04 19.77 60.9
532.5 .96 658.9 3.53 186.7 2.265 2.442 7.26 12.1 19.36 62.5
Average 709 3.55 199.9 2.266 2.442 7.2 12.11 19.31 62.7
Table (6.8): The Outputs of Job Mix for Min Gradation with 6% Bitumen Content
Bitumen Content 6.0 %
Volume
(cm3) St Corr. Factor
corrected stability
Flow (mm)
Stiffness (kg/mm)
ρA (g/cm3)
ρBit (g/cm3)
Va (%)
Vb (%)
VMA (%)
VFB (%)
528 0.96 771.6 3.4 226.9 2.262 2.454 7.8 13.18 20.98 62.8
529.5 0.96 921.9 3.75 245.8 2.256 2.454 8.06 13.15 21.2 62
531.5 0.96 759.1 3.48 218.1 2.239 2.454 8.75 13.05 21.8 59.9
Average 817.5 3.54 230.3 2.252 2.454 8.2 13.13 21.33 61.57
6.3.3 Conclusion of Job Mix for Min Gradation
Table (6.9) shows the mechanical properties for the average of three samples of the min.
gradation with different bitumen contents and the comparison of the results with the selected
mechanical properties.
80
Table (6.9): The Conclusion of Job Mix for Min Gradation
Mix Bit. (%)
Stability min 900 kg
Flow 2-4 (mm)
Stiffness min 400 kg/mm
Va (%) 3-6
VMA (%) Min. 13.5
Final Result
Min. 4.00 956.1 Yes 3.11 Yes 308.9 No 7.26 No 16.24 Yes Rejected
Min. 4.50 736.6 No 4.9 No 150 No 9.08 No 19.01 Yes Rejected
Min. 5.00 886.5 No 3.17 Yes 279.8 No 6.06 No 17.16 Yes Rejected
Min. 5.50 709. No 3.55 Yes 199.9 No 7.2 No 19.31 Yes Rejected
Min. 6.00 817.5 No 3.54 Yes 230.3 No 8.2 No 21.33 Yes Rejected
Concluded Remarks 1. In general, all mixes with different bitumen contents in Min. curve are rejected because
they do not achieve the selected mechanical properties.
2. All mixes are very coarse and very viscous.
6.4 Mid1 Mix
The curve, the outputs of job mix with different bitumen contents for the Mid1. mix will be
illustrated.
6.4.1 Mid1 Curve Mix
The table (6.10) shows the aggregate ratio which needed to obtain the mid1 gradation with
different bitumen contents. Figure (6.3) illustrates the gradation of the mid1 and the mix curve.
81
Table (6.10): Aggregate Ratio in Mid1 Mix.
Asphalt Mixture Sand F2 Filler F1 Agg. M3 Agg. M2 Agg. M1 Agg. M0 Bitumen %
4.00 26.00 10.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 4.00 4.00 26.00 10.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 4.50 4.00 26.00 10.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 5.00 4.00 26.00 10.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 5.50 4.00 26.00 10.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 6.00
0102030405060708090
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100Sieve diameter mm
Pass
ing mid1
mix
Figure (6.3): Gradation of Mid1 and Mix Curves
6.4.2 The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid1 Gradation with Different Bitumen Contents
Tables (6.11), (6.12), (6.13), (6.14), (6.15) show the outputs of the job mix for mid1 gradation
with different bitumen contents.
82
Table (6.11): The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid1 Gradation with 4% Bitumen Content Bitumen Content 4.0%
Volume
(cm3) St Corr. Factor
corrected stability
Flow (mm)
Stiffness (kg/mm)
ρA (g/cm3)
ρBit (g/cm3)
Va (%)
Vb (%)
VMA (%)
VFB (%)
518.5 1 738.5 3.75 196.9 2.321 2.487 6.66 9.02 15.67 57.5
517.5 1 686.4 4.08 168.2 2.333 2.487 6.16 9.07 15.23 59.5
518 1 790.7 3.5 225.9 2.318 2.487 6.8 9 15.8 57
Average 738.5 3.78 197 2.324 2.487 6.54 9.03 15.57 58
Table (6.12): The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid1 Gradation with 4.5% Bitumen Content Bitumen Content 4.5%
Volume
(cm3) St Corr. Factor
corrected stability
Flow (mm)
Stiffness (kg/mm)
ρA (g/cm3)
ρBit (g/cm3)
Va (%)
Vb (%)
VMA (%)
VFB (%)
515.5 1 738.5 2.54 290.8 2.325 2.489 6.6 10.16 16.77 60.5
516.5 1 816.8 2.83 288.6 2.318 2.489 6.86 10.13 17 59.6
516.5 1 842.9 2.79 302.1 2.324 2.489 6.63 10.16 16.79 60.5
Average 799.4 2.72 293.8 2.323 2.489 6.7 10.15 16.85 60.25
Table (6.13): The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid1Gradation with 5.0% Bitumen Content Bitumen Content 5.0%
Volume
(cm3) St Corr. Factor
corrected stability
Flow (mm)
Stiffness (kg/mm)
ρA (g/cm3)
ρBit (g/cm3)
Va (%)
Vb (%)
VMA (%)
VFB (%)
511 1 1056.9 3.75 281.8 2.349 2.466 4.74 11.41 16.15 70.6
516 1 895.1 4.42 202.5 2.328 2.466 5.63 11.3 16.93 66.8
514 1 856 4.61 185.7 2.342 2.466 5.02 11.38 16.4 69.4
Average 936 4.26 223.3 2.340 2.466 5.13 11.36 16.5 68.92
83
Table (6.14): The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid1 Gradation with 5.5% Bitumen Content Bitumen Content 5.5%
Volume
(cm3) St Corr. Factor
corrected stability
Flow (mm)
Stiffness (kg/mm)
ρA (g/cm3)
ρBit (g/cm3)
Va (%)
Vb (%)
VMA (%)
VFB (%)
514.5 1 947.3 3.88 244.1 2.331 2.434 4.2 12.46 16.66 74.8
518.5 1 895.1 3.79 236.2 2.323 2.434 4.54 12.41 16.95 73.2
507.5 1.04 903.8 3.08 293.4 2.325 2.434 4.46 12.42 16.88 73.6
Average 915.4 3.58 257.9 2.327 2.434 4.4 12.43 16.83 73.9 Table (6.15): The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid1 Gradation with 6% Bitumen Content
Bitumen Content 6.0%
Volume (cm3)
St Corr. Factor
corrected stability
Flow (mm)
Stiffness (kg/mm)
ρA (g/cm3)
ρBit (g/cm3)
Va (%)
Vb (%)
VMA (%)
VFB (%)
519 1 1077.7 3.33 323.6 323.6 2.430 4.46 13.53 17.99 75.2
510 1 1090.8 3.54 308.1 2.350 2.430 3.30 13.7 16.99 80.6
515 1 1208.2 3.25 371.8 2.356 2.430 3.04 13.73 16.77 81.9
Average 1125.6 3.37 334.5 2.343 2.430 3.6 13.65 17.25 79.24
6.4.3 Conclusion of Job Mix for Mid1 Gradation
Table (6.16) shows the mechanical properties for the average of three samples of the mid1
gradation with different bitumen content and the comparison of the results with the selected
mechanical properties.
84
Table (6.16): The Conclusion of Job Mix for Mid1 Gradation
Mix Bit. (%)
Stability min 900 kg
Flow (2-4) mm
Stiffness min 400 kg/mm
Va (%) (3-6)
VMA (%) Min 13.5
Final Result
Mid-1 4.0 738.5 No 3.78 Yes 197 No 6.54 No 15.57 Yes Rejected
Mid -1 4.5 799.4 No 2.72 Yes 293.8 No 6.7 No 16.85 Yes Rejected
Mid -1 5.0 936. Yes 4.26 No 223.3 No 5.13 Yes 16.5 Yes Rejected
Mid -1 5.5 915.4 Yes 3.58 Yes 257.9 No 4.4 Yes 16.83 Yes Rejected
Mid -1 6.0 1125.6 Yes 3.37 Yes 334.5 No 3.6 Yes 17.25 Yes Rejected
Concluded Remark
The mixes with bitumen content from 4.0%-6.0% in Mid1 curve are rejected because they are
not suitable the selected mechanical properties.
6.5 Mid2 Mix The curve, the outputs of job mix with different bitumen contents for the Mid2. mix will be
illustrated.
6.5.1 Mid2 Curve Mix
The table (6.17) shows the aggregate ratio which needed to obtain the mid2 gradation with
different bitumen contents. Figure (6.4) illustrates the gradation of the mid2 and the mix curve.
85
Table (6.17): Aggregate Ratio in Mid2 Mix
Asphalt Mixture Sand F2 Filler F1 Agg. M3 Agg. M2 Agg. M1 Agg. M0 Bitumen %
10.00 33.00 20.00 9.00 13.00 15.00 4.00 10.00 33.00 20.00 9.00 13.00 15.00 4.50 10.00 33.00 20.00 9.00 13.00 15.00 5.00 10.00 33.00 20.00 9.00 13.00 15.00 5.50 10.00 33.00 20.00 9.00 13.00 15.00 6.00
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100Sieve diameter mm
Pass
ing mid2
mix
Figure (6.4): Gradation of Mid2 and Mix Curves 6.5.2 The Outputs of Job Mix for Min Gradation with Different Bitumen Contents
The tables (6.18), (6.19), (6.20), (6.21), (6.22) show the outputs of the job mix for mid2
gradation with different bitumen contents.
86
Table (6.18): The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid2 Gradation with 4% Bitumen Content Bitumen Content 4.00 %
Volume St Corr.
Factor corrected stability
Flow Stiffness ρA ρBit Va Vb VMA VFB
508 1.04 1831.8 4.29 427 2.351 2.531 7.10 9.14 16.24 56.3
509.5 1 1437.8 3.88 370.6 2.350 2.531 7.14 9.13 16.28 56.1
506.5 1.04 1517 4.05 374.6 2.347 2.531 7.26 9.12 16.38 55.7
Average 1595.5 4.07 390.7 2.350 2.531 7.17 9.13 16.3 56.0
Table (6.19): The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid2 Gradation with 4.5% Bitumen Content Bitumen Content % 4.5
Volume
(cm3) St Corr. Factor
Corrected Stability
Flow (mm)
Stiffness (kg/mm)
ρA (g/cm3)
ρBit (g/cm3)
Va (%)
Vb (%)
VMA (%)
VFB (%)
502.5 1.04 1758.5 4.24 414.7 2.378 2.494 4.64 10.39 15.04 69.1
504 1.04 1693.4 4.28 395.7 2.376 2.494 4.73 10.39 15.11 68.7
505 1.04 1783 4.37 408. 2.370 2.494 4.95 10.36 15.32 67.6
Average 1745 4.3 406.1 2.375 2.494 4.77 10.38 15.15 68.5 Table (6.20): The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid2 Gradation with 5% Bitumen Content
Bitumen Content % 5.00
Volume (cm3)
St Corr. Factor
Corrected Stability
Flow (mm)
Stiffness (kg/mm)
ρA (g/cm3)
ρBit (g/cm3)
Va (%)
Vb (%)
VMA (%)
VFB (%)
502 1.04 1631 4.87 334.9 2.393 2.491 3.91 11.62 15.53 74.8
500.5 1.04 1669 4.69 355.9 2.391 2.491 4.02 11.61 15.63 74.3
505.5 1.04 1614.7 4.79 337.1 2.373 2.491 4.73 11.52 16.26 70.9
Average 1638.2 4.78 342.6 2.386 2.491 4.22 11.95 15.81 73.34
87
Table (6.21): The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid2 Gradation with 5.5% Bitumen Content
Bitumen Content 5.5%
Volume (cm3)
St Corr. Factor
corrected stability
Flow (mm)
Stiffness (kg/mm)
ρA (g/cm3)
ρBit (g/cm3)
Va (%)
Vb (%)
VMA (%)
VFB (%)
504.5 1.04 1373.2 4.52 303.8 2.375 2.491 4.66 12.69 17.35 73.1
541 .93 1390.5 4.79 290.3 2.378 2.491 4.53 12.7 17.23 73.7
502.5 1.04 1375.9 4.51 305.1 2.386 2.491 4.2 12.75 16.95 75.2
Average 1379.9 4.61 299.7 2.380 2.491 4.46 12.71 17.18 74
Table (6.22): The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid2 Gradation with 6% Bitumen Content
Bitumen Content 6.0 %
Volume
(cm3) St Corr. Factor
corrected stability
Flow (mm)
Stiffness (kg/mm)
ρA (g/cm3)
ρBit (g/cm3)
Va (%)
Vb (%)
VMA (%)
VFB (%)
506.5 1.04 1359.5 5.26 258.5 2.377 2.440 2.57 13.85 16.42 84.4
503.5 1.04 1262.0 5.23 241.3 2.387 2.440 2.15 13.91 16.06 86.6
502 1.04 1267.4 5.33 237.8 2.393 2.440 1.9 13.95 15.84 88
Average 1296.3 5.27 245.9 2.386 2.440 2.2 13.91 16.11 86.35 6.5.3 Conclusion of Job Mix for Mid2 Gradation
Table (623) shows the mechanical properties for the average of three samples of the mid2
gradation with different bitumen content and the comparison of the results with the selected
mechanical properties.
88
Table (6.23): The Conclusion of Job Mix for Mid2 Gradation
Mix Bit. (%)
Stability min. 900 kg
Flow 2-4 (mm)
Stiffness min. 400 kg/mm
Va (%) 3-6
VMA (%) Min. 13.5
Final Result
Mid-2 4.0 1595.5 Yes 4.07 No 390.7 No 7.17 No 16.3 Yes Rejected
Mid-2 4.5 1745 Yes 4.3 No 406.1 Yes 4.77 Yes 15.15 Yes Rejected
Mid-2 5.0 1638.2 Yes 4.78 No 342.6 No 4.22 Yes 15.81 Yes Rejected
Mid-2 5.5 1379.9 Yes 4.61 No 299.7 No 4.46 Yes 17.18 Yes Rejected
Mid-2 6.0 1296.3 Yes 5.27 No 245.9 No 2.2 No 16.11 Yes Rejected
Concluded Remark The mixes with bitumen contents from 4.0% to 6.0% in Mid2 curve are rejected because they
do not suit the selected mechanical properties.
6.6 Mid3 Mix
The curve, the outputs of job mix with different bitumen contents for the Mid3. mix will be
illustrated.
6.6.1 Mid3 Curve Mix
The table (6.24) shows the aggregate ratio which needed to obtain the mid3 gradation with
different bitumen contents. Figure (6.5) illustrates the gradation of the mid3 and the mix curve.
89
Table (6.24): Aggregate Ratio in Mid3 Mix
Asphalt Mixture
Sand F2 Filler F1 Agg. M3 Agg. M2 Agg. M1 Agg. M0 Bitumen % 18.00 35.00 17.00 13.00 10.00 7.00 4.00 18.00 35.00 17.00 13.00 10.00 7.00 4.50 18.00 35.00 17.00 13.00 10.00 7.00 5.00 18.00 35.00 17.00 13.00 10.00 7.00 5.50 18.00 35.00 17.00 13.00 10.00 7.00 6.00
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100Sieve diameter mm
Pass
ing mid3
mix
Figure (6.5): Gradation of Mid3 and Mix Curves
6.6.2 The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid3 Gradation with Deferent Bitumen Content
Tables (6.25), (6.26), (6.27), (6.28), (6.29) show the outputs of the job mix for mid3 gradation
with different bitumen contents.
90
Table (6.25): The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid3 Gradation with 4% Bitumen Content Bitumen Content 4.0%
Volume
(cm3) St Corr. Factor
corrected stability
Flow (mm)
Stiffness (kg/mm)
ρA (g/cm3)
ρBit (g/cm3)
Va (%)
Vb (%)
VMA (%)
VFB (%)
511.5 1 2095.3 4.08 513.6 2.332 2.533 7.91 9.06 16.98 53.4
508 1.04 2124.9 4.33 490.7 2.340 2.533 7.63 9.09 16.72 54.4
512.5 1 2512.8 4.25 591.2 2.331 2.533 7.98 9.06 17.03 53.6
Average 2244.3 4.22 531.8 2.334 2.533 7.84 9.07 16.91 53.6
Table (6.26): The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid3 Gradation with 4.5% Bitumen Content Bitumen Content 4.5%
Volume
(cm3) St Corr. Factor
corrected stability
Flow (mm)
Stiffness (kg/mm)
ρA (g/cm3)
ρBit (g/cm3)
Va (%)
Vb (%)
VMA (%)
VFB (%)
503 1.04 1663.6 3.7 449.6 2.360 2.476 4.71 10.31 15.02 68.7
502 1.04 1677.1 3.83 437.9 2.364 2.476 4.56 10.33 14.89 69.4
514.5 1 1521.3 3.54 429.7 2.339 2.476 5.54 10.22 15.77 64.8
Average 1620.7 3.69 439.1 2.354 2.476 4.94 10.29 15.23 67.63
Table (6.27): The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid3 Gradation with 5% Bitumen Content Bitumen Content 5.0%
Volume
(cm3) St Corr. Factor
corrected stability
Flow (mm)
Stiffness (kg/mm)
ρA (g/cm3)
ρBit (g/cm3)
Va (%)
Vb (%)
VMA (%)
VFB (%)
509.5 1 1620.5 3.44 471.1 2.353 2.448 3.88 11.43 15.31 74.7
509.5 1 1698.7 3.31 513.2 2.349 2.448 4.04 11.41 15.45 73.9
506.5 1.04 1745 3.25 536.9 2.359 2.448 3.63 11.46 15.09 75.9
Average 1688.1 3.33 507.1 2.354 2.448 3.85 11.43 15.28 74.81
91
Table (6.28): The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid3 Gradation with 5.5% Bitumen Content
Bitumen Content 5.5%
Volume (cm3)
St Corr. Factor
corrected stability
Flow (mm)
Stiffness (kg/mm)
ρA (g/cm3)
ρBit (g/cm3)
Va (%)
Vb (%)
VMA (%)
VFB (%)
506 1.04 1324.4 3.92 337.8 2.367 2.431 2.65 12.64 15.3 82.7
507.5 1.04 1283.7 3.79 338.7 2.368 2.431 2.58 12.65 15.23 83.1
508 1.04 1324.4 3.92 337.8 2.368 2.431 2.59 12.65 15.24 83
Average 1310.8 3.88 338.1 2.368 2.431 2.61 12.65 15.26 82.9 Table (6.29): The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid3 Gradation with 6% Bitumen Content
Bitumen Content 6.0%
Volume
(cm3) St Corr. Factor
corrected stability
Flow (mm)
Stiffness (kg/mm)
ρA (g/cm3)
ρBit (g/cm3)
Va (%)
Vb (%)
VMA (%)
VFB (%)
515 1 947.3 2.68 353.5 2.355 2.453 3.99 13.73 17.72 77.5
505.5 1.04 971.6 2.68 362.5 2.363 2.453 3.68 13.77 17.45 78.9
508.5 1 1025.6 3.3 310.8 2.359 2.453 3.85 13.75 17.6 78.1
Average 981.5 2.89 342.3 2.359 2.453 3.84 13.75 17.59 78.16
6.6.3 Conclusion of Job Mix for Mid2 Gradation
Table (6.30) shows the mechanical properties for the average of three samples of the mid3
gradation with different bitumen content and the comparison of the results with the selected
mechanical properties.
92
Table (6.30): The Conclusion of Job Mix for Mid3 Gradation Mix Bit.
(%) Stability min. 900kg
Flow 2-4(mm)
Stiffness min. 400 kg/mm
Va (%) 3-6
VMA (%) Min. 13.5
Final Result
Mid-3 4.0 2244.3 Yes 4.22 No 531.8 Yes 7.84 No 16.91 Yes Rejected
Mid-3 4.5 1620.7 Yes 3.69 Yes 439.1 Yes 4.94 Yes 15.23 Yes Suitable
Mid-3 5.0 1688.1 Yes 3.33 Yes 507.1 Yes 3.85 Yes 15.28 Yes Suitable
Mid-3 5.5 1310.8 Yes 3.88 Yes 338.1 No 2.61 No 15.26 Yes Rejected
Mid-3 6.0 981.5 Yes 2.89 Yes 342.3 No 3.84 Yes 17.59 Yes Rejected
Concluded Remark The mixes with bitumen content from 4.5-5.0% in Mid3 curve are suitable because they suit
the selected mechanical properties.
6.7 Max. Mix The curve, the outputs of job mix with different bitumen contents for the Max. mix will be
illustrated.
6.7.1 Max. Curve Mix
The table (6.31) shows the aggregate ratio which needed to obtain the max. gradation with
different bitumen contents. Figure (6.6) illustrates the gradation of the max. and the mix curve.
93
Table (6.31): Aggregate Ratio in Max. Mix
Asphalt Mixture Sand F2 Filler F1 Agg. M3 Agg. M2 Agg. M1 Agg. M0 Bitumen %
22.00 42.00 20.00 11.00 5.00 0.00 4.00 22.00 42.00 20.00 11.00 5.00 0.00 4.50 22.00 42.00 20.00 11.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 22.00 42.00 20.00 11.00 5.00 0.00 5.50 22.00 42.00 20.00 11.00 5.00 0.00 6.00
0102030405060708090
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100Diameter size mm
Pass
ing max
mix
Figure (6.6): Gradation of Max and Mix Curves
6.7.2 The Outputs of Job Mix for Max Gradation with Different Bitumen Contents
Tables (6.32), (6.33), (6.34), (6.35), (6.36) show the outputs of the job mix for max. gradation
with different bitumen contents.
94
Table (6.32): The Outputs of Job Mix for Max Gradation with 4% Bitumen Content
Bitumen Content 4.0%
Volume (cm3)
St Corr. Factor
corrected stability
Flow (mm)
Stiffness (kg/mm)
ρA (g/cm3)
ρBit (g/cm3)
Va (%)
Vb (%)
VMA (%)
VFB (%)
510 1 1390.8 2.89 481.3 2.299 2.535 9.31 8.93 18.24 49.
514.5 1 1769.2 3.31 534.5 2.302 2.535 9.18 8.95 18.13 49.4
511.5 1 1756.1 3.15 557.5 2.296 2.535 9.42 8.92 18.34 48.6
Average 1638.7 3.12 524.4 2.299 2.535 9.3 8.933 18.23 49.0 Table (6.33): The Outputs of Job Mix for Max Gradation with 4.5% Bitumen Content
Bitumen Content 4.5 %
Volume (cm3)
St Corr. Factor
corrected stability
Flow (mm)
Stiffness (kg/mm)
ρA (g/cm3)
ρBit (g/cm3)
Va (%)
Vb (%)
VMA (%)
VFB (%)
523 0.96 1184.9 2.68 442.1 2.305 2.484 7.22 10.08 18.51 54.4
521 1 1046.4 2.63 397.7 2.298 2.484 7.5 9.97 19.39 51.4
517 1 999.5 2.75 363.4 2.298 2.484 7.51 10.01 19 52.7 Average 1076.9 2.69 401.2 2.292 2.484 7.41 10.02 18.97 52.85
Table (6.34): The Outputs of Job Mix for Max Gradation with 5% Bitumen Content
Bitumen Content 5.0%
Volume
(cm3) St Corr. Factor
corrected stability
Flow (mm)
Stiffness (kg/mm)
ρA (g/cm3)
ρBit (g/cm3)
Va (%)
Vb (%)
VMA (%)
VFB (%)
508.5 1 1703.9 3.5 486.8 2.342 2.434 3.79 11.38 15.16 75
505.5 1.04 1989.2 3.45 576.6 2.346 2.434 3.62 11.39 15.02 75.9
507.5 1.04 1758.5 3.22 546.1 2.352 2.434 3.39 11.42 14.82 77.1
Average 1817.2 3.39 536.5 2.347 2.434 3.6 11.4 15 76
95
Table (6.35): The Outputs of Job Mix for Max Gradation with 5.5% Bitumen Content Bitumen Content 5.5%
Volume
(cm3) St Corr. Factor
corrected stability
Flow (mm)
Stiffness (kg/mm)
ρA (g/cm3)
ρBit (g/cm3)
Va (%)
Vb (%)
VMA (%)
VFB (%)
514 1 1299.5 2.82 460.8 2.323 2.445 5 12.41 17.41 71.3
516 1 1056.9 2.58 409.6 2.323 2.445 5.02 12.41 17.42 71.2
516 1 1182.1 3.21 368.3 2.328 2.445 4.82 12.43 17.25 72.1
Average 1179.5 2.87 412.9 2.324 2.445 4.95 12.42 17.36 71.5
Table (6.36): The Outputs of Job Mix for Max Gradation with 6% Bitumen Content Bitumen Content 6.0 %
Volume
(cm3) St Corr. Factor
corrected stability
Flow (mm)
Stiffness (kg/mm)
ρA (g/cm3)
ρBit (g/cm3)
Va (%)
Vb (%)
VMA (%)
VFB (%)
521 1 1208.2 3.47 348.2 2.310 2.417 4.43 13.46 17.89 75.2
508.5 1 1364.8 3.15 433.3 2.362 2.417 2.29 13.77 16.05 85.8
508 1 1195.2 3.46 345.4 2.357 2.417 2.47 13.74 16.21 84.7
Average 1256 3.36 375.6 2.343 2.417 3.06 13.66 16.72 81.91 6.7.3 Conclusion of Job Mix for Max Gradation
Table (6.37) shows the mechanical properties for the average of three samples of the max.
gradation with different bitumen contents and the comparison of the results with the selected
mechanical properties.
96
Table (6.37): The Conclusion of Job Mix for Max Gradation Mix Bit.
% Stability 900 kg
Flow 2-4 mm
Stiffness min. 400 kg/mm
Va (%) 3-6
VMA (%) Min. 13.5
Final Result
Max 4.0 1638.7 Yes 3.12 Yes 524.4 Yes 9.3 No 18.23 Yes Rejected
Max 4.5 1076.9 Yes 2.69 Yes 401.2 Yes 7.41 No 18.97 Yes Suitable
Max 5.0 1817.2 Yes 3.39 Yes 536.5 Yes 3.6 Yes
15 Yes Suitable
Max 5.5 1179.5 Yes 2.87 Yes 412.9 Yes 4.95 yes 17.36 Yes Suitable
Max 6.0 1256 Yes 3.36 Yes 375.6 No 3.06 yes 16.72 Yes Rejected
Concluded Remark The Maximum mixes with bitumen contents from 4.5 - 5.5% e are suitable because they are
suitable for the selected mechanical properties. And from the previous conclusions it is
concluded that Mid3 mix with bitumen content from 4.5 – 5.0 % was suitable. A new gradation
(Mid4) will be added between Mid2 and Mid3 in order to check if it could widen the range of
the suitable mix as illustrated in Table (6.38), Tables (6.39), Figure (6.7) and Figure (6.8).
6.8 Gradation of All Mixes Included Mid4
New gradation (Mid4) is added to check the possibility of widen the range of the suitable mix
as illustrated in Table (6.38), Table (6.39), Figure (6.7) and Figure (6.8).
97
Table (6.38): Gradation of all Mixes Included Mid4
Passing (%) Diameter Size mm
Min (Mix) Mid1 (Mix)
Mid2 (Mix)
Mid3 (Mix)
Mid4 (Mix)
Max (Mix)
25 100.0 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.0 19.0 58 68.5 79 87 89.5 100 12.5 38 52.3 66.5 74 80.8 95 9.5 33 46.8 60.5 66 74.3 88 4.75 23 34 45 51 56 67 2.26 17 26.5 36 40 45.5 55 1.18 14 22 30 34 38 46 0.6 9 16.5 24 28 31.5 39
0.425 6.5 13.6 20.8 24 27.9 35 0.3 4 10.5 17 20 23.5 30 0.15 2.5 6.5 10.5 12 14.5 18.5
0.075 2 4 6 7 8 10
All specification
0102030405060708090
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100Diameter size mm
Pass
ing
%
Min
Mid1
Mid2
Mid4
Mid3
Max
Figure (6.7): The Gradation for All Mixes Including Mid4
98
6.9 Mid4 Mix
The curve, the outputs of job mix with different bitumen contents for the Mid4. mix will be
illustrated.
6.9.1 Mid. 4 Curve Mix Table (6.39) shows the aggregate ratio which needed to obtain the mid4 gradation with
different bitumen contents. Figure (6.8) illustrates the gradation of the max. and the mix curve.
Table (6.39): Aggregate Ratio in Mid4 Mix
Asphalt Mixture
Sand F2 Filler F1 Agg. M3 Agg. M2 Agg. M1 Agg. M0 Bitumen %
14.00 32.00 18.00 15.00 12.00 9.00 4.00 14.00 32.00 18.00 15.00 12.00 9.00 4.50 14.00 32.00 18.00 15.00 12.00 9.00 5.00 14.00 32.00 18.00 15.00 12.00 9.00 5.50 14.00 32.00 18.00 15.00 12.00 9.00 6.00
0102030405060708090
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100Sieve diameter mm
Pass
ing Mid4
Mix
Figure (6.8): Gradation of Mid4 Mix
99
6.9.2 The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid4 Gradation with Different Bitumen Content
Tables (6.40), (6.41), (6.42), (6.43), (6.44) show the outputs of the job mix for mid4 gradation
with different bitumen contents.
Table (6.40): The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid4 Gradation with 4% Bitumen Contents
Table (6.41): The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid4 Gradation with 4.5% Bitumen Content
Bitumen Content 4.5 %
Volume
(cm3) St Corr. Factor
corrected stability
Flow (mm)
Stiffness (kg/mm)
ρA (g/cm3)
ρBit (g/cm3)
Va (%)
Vb (%)
VMA (%)
VFB (%)
503.5 1.04 1690.7 3.7 456.9 2.379 2.479 4.02 10.4 14.42 72.1
503 1.04 1677.1 3.95 424.6 2.384 2.479 3.84 10.42 14.26 73.1
505 1.04 1785.7 3.79 471.2 2.380 2.479 3.98 10.4 14.38 72.3
Average 1717.8 3.81 450.9 2.381 2.479 3.95 10.41 14.35 72.52
Bitumen Content 4%
Volume (cm3)
St Corr.
Factor
Corrected stability
Flow (mm)
Stiffness (kg/mm)
ρA (g/cm3)
ρBit (g/cm3)
Va (%)
Vb (%)
VMA (%) VFB (%)
505 1.04 1582.2 4.18 378.5 2.376 2.489 4.53 9.23 13.76 67.1
506 1.04 1519.7 3.7 410.7 2.377 2.489 4.48 9.24 13.71 67.4
504 1.04 1500.7 4.2 357.3 2.377 2.489 4.5 9.24 13.73 67.3
Average 1534.2 4.03 382.2 2.377 2.489 4.5 9.24 13.73 67.2
100
Table (6.42): The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid4 Gradation with 5% Bitumen Content
Bitumen Content 5.0 %
Volume
(cm3) St Corr. Factor
corrected stability
Flow (mm)
Stiffness (kg/mm)
ρA (g/cm3)
ρBit (g/cm3)
Va (%)
Vb (%)
VMA (%)
VFB (%)
508 1.04 1609.3 3.28 490.6 2.352 2.485 5.33 11.42 16.75 68.2
512.5 1 1638.7 3.55 461.6 2.338 2.485 5.92 11.35 17.27 65.7
513 1 1717 3.17 541.6 2.335 2.485 6.01 11.34 17.36 65.4
Average 1655 3.33 498 2.342 2.485 5.75 11.37 17.13 66.43
Table (6.43): The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid4 Gradation with 5.5% Bitumen Content
Bitumen Content 5.5 %
Volume
(cm3) St Corr. Factor
corrected stability
Flow (mm)
Stiffness (kg/mm)
ρA (g/cm3)
ρBit (g/cm3)
Va (%)
Vb (%)
VMA (%)
VFB (%)
504 1.04 1460 4.3 339.5 3.379 2.475 3.89 12.71 16.6 76.6
504 1.04 1527 4 382. 3.382 2.475 3.77 12.73 16.49 77.1
504 1.04 1397 4.3 325 3.387 2.475 3.57 12.75 16.32 78.1
Average 1461.9 4.2 348.8 2.383 2.475 3.74 12.73 16.47 77.3
Table (6.44): The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid4 Gradation with 6% Bitumen Content
Bitumen Content 6.0%
Volume
(cm3) St Corr. Factor
corrected stability
Flow (mm)
Stiffness (kg/mm)
ρA (g/cm3)
ρBit (g/cm3)
Va (%)
Vb (%)
VMA (%)
VFB (%)
505.5 1.04 1365.1 4.55 300 2.380 2.448 2.78 13.87 16.65 83.3
505 1.04 1337.9 4.6 290.9 2.380 2.448 2.77 13.87 16.64 83.4
503.5 1.04 1316.2 4.2 313.4 2.383 2.448 2.64 13.89 16.53 84.
Average 1339.7 4.45 301.4 2.381 2.448 2.73 13.88 16.61 83.6
101
6.9.3 Conclusion of Job Mix for Mid4 Gradation
Table (6.45) shows the mechanical properties for the average of three samples of the mid4
gradation with different bitumen content and the comparison of the results with the selected
mechanical properties.
Table (6.45): The Conclusion of Job Mix for Mid4 Gradation
Concluded Remark
The mixes with bitumen contents 4.5-5.0% in Mid 4 curve are suitable because they achieved
the selected mechanical properties.
6.10 Proposed Specification of Asphalt Binder Course in Palestine
The gradation of the mix which achieved the mechanical properties is illustrated in Table
(6.46) and Figure (6.9)
Mix Bit. (%)
Stability (kg) Flow (mm) Stiffness (kg/mm)
Va (%) VMA (%) Final Result
Max 4.0 1534.2 Yes 4.03 No 382.2 No 4.5 Yes 13.73 Yes Rejection
Max 4.5 1717.8 Yes 3.81 Yes 450.9 Yes 3.95 Yes 14.35 Yes Suitable
Max 5.0 1655.0 Yes 3.33 Yes 498. Yes 5.75 Yes 17.13 Yes Suitable
Max 5.5 1461.9 Yes 4.2 No 348.8 No 3.74 yes 16.47 Yes Rejected
Max 6.0 1339.7 Yes 4.45 No 301.4 No 2.73 No 16.61 Yes Rejected
102
Table (6.46): The Gradation of the Mix which Achieve the Mechanical Properties
Diameter Passing (%) mm Mid4 Max 25 100 100 19 87 100
12.5 74 95 9.5 66 88 4.75 51 67 2.26 40 55 1.18 34 46 0.6 28 39
0.425 24 35 0.3 20 30 0.15 12 18.5
0.075 7 10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100Sieve diameter mm
Pass
ing Max
Mid4
Figure (6.9): The Gradation of the Proposed Specification
103
6.11 General Discussion
1. The Min curve is rejected because it did not achieve the selected mechanical properties
with all the bitumen content. It was very coarse. This makes the mix unworkable due to the
low percentage of fine materials which makes the absorption of the bitumen very difficult.
In addition to the high percentage of the air voids. The compaction of this mix is very
difficult and needs big efforts and power.
2. The Mid1 curve is rejected because the asphalt mixes with all the bitumen contents did not
achieve the selected mechanical properties. Also, it was coarse and unworkable. In general,
the flow was high and the stability was low which leads to low stiffness.
3. The Mid2 curve is rejected because all the mixes with the different bitumen contents did
not meet the selected mechanical properties. This gradation is relatively coarse and the
value of the flow is big which makes the stiffness low.
4. The Mid3 curve is accepted with bitumen content from 4.5 – 5% because it achieved the
selected mechanical properties. The mix was workable and gave a good surface after the
compaction.
5. The Max curve is accepted with 4.5%, 5.0%, and 5.5% bitumen content. These mixes are a
little bit fine and give a good surface after the compaction.
6. Mid4 curve which was suggested between Mid2 and Mid3 is acceptable with 4.5% and 5%
bitumen content. This curve gave a homogeneous mix and the surface was good after the
compaction.
7. The best asphalt mix for the asphalt binder course is which has Mid4 curve as a minimum
gradation and Max curve as a maximum gradation with 4.5%-5% bitumen content. The
sieve analysis and the gradation of the proposed specification for the asphalt binder course
104
in Palestine are illustrated in figure (6.9) and Table (6.46) with the mechanical properties as
shown in Table (6.47).
Table (6.47): Mechanical Properties for the Proposed Specification
Property Value
Stability (kg) Min 900
Flow (mm) 4 - 2
Stiffness Min 400
Air Voids (%) 3 – 6
VMA (%) Min 13.5
VFB (%) 60 - 80
Bitumen (%) 4.5-5.0
6.12 Comparison between the Proposed Specifications and the Local Requirements
There are several requirements for the asphalt binder course in Palestine. The researcher chose
the Municipality of Gaza requirement to compare it with the proposed specification because it
is the most popular requirement. Table (4.48) and Figure (6.10) show the comparison of the
gradation.
Table (6.48): The Gradation of the Proposed Specification and the MoG Requirements.
MoG Requirements Proposed Gradation Diameter mm Lower Level Upper Level Mid4 Max 25 100 100 100 100 19 100 100 87 100
12.5 80 100 74 95 9.5 70 87 66 88 4.75 50 65 51 67 2.26 37 52 40 55 1.18 29 43 34 46 0.6 20 34 28 39
0.425 17 31 24 35 0.3 13 27 20 30 0.15 8 18 12 18.5
0.075 4 9 7 10
105
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100Sieve diameter mm
Pass
ing
min MoG
max MoG
min Proposed
max Proposed
Figure (6.10): The Gradation of the Proposed Specification
From Figure (6.10), it is clear that:
1. The percentage of passing aggregate in the fine portion in the proposed specification is
bigger than the MoG Requirements.
2. In the coarse portion, the percentage of passing aggregate in the MoG requirements is
bigger than the proposed specification.
3. The proposed specification is finer than the MoG requirement which leads to fine
surface, homogenous mix, less air voids and more density.
4. The maximum gradation of the proposed one is more flexible than the MoG which
make the preparation of the mix easier.
106
CHAPTER SEVEN
CONCLUDED REMARKS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 Introduction
The Palestinians are eager to build their institutions, develop the infrastructure, create an
efficient health care, means build a nation. Transportation sector is important and there are
many players in the transportation sector. The Palestinians need to develop their own
specification for the roads which suits the local materials of the aggregate and bitumen. The
developed specification provided the roads stakeholders with a unified and suitable
specification for the asphalt binder course in Palestine.
7.2 Description of the Proposed Specification
The proposed specification for the asphalt binder course has been developed to help the
implementing agencies, the engineers, the asphalt factories, the engineering consultant offices
and the contractors to overcome the obstacles which caused by the lack of a Palestinian
specification for the asphalt binder course. The developed specification includes the following:
1. The Minimum and Maximum percentage of passing aggregate with bitumen content from
4.5% to 5% as illustrated in Table (6.47) and Figure (6.9).
2. The selected mechanical properties were selected after studying the eleven specifications.
The mix should be workable, able to be compacted, flexible and has a high resistance. The
achieved mechanical properties by the proposed gradation were as shown in Table (7.1).
107
Table (7.1): The Mechanical Properties for the Selected Gradation
Property Value
Stability (kg) Min 900
Flow (mm) 2 – 4
Stiffness (kg/mm) Min 400
Air Voids (%) 3 – 6
VMA % Min 13.5
VFB (%) 60 – 80
Bitumen Content (%) 4.5 - 5
7.3 Conclusions
1. Reviewed specifications have significant limitations when applied to road
construction in Palestine.
2. The developed specification takes into consideration the local materials in Palestine
(aggregates and bitumen).
3. The developed approach will solve the problem and decrease the mistakes which
caused by the differences of the specifications from project to project. This
difference pushes the asphalt factories to change the specification of the asphalt
mixes several times a day to cover the supervision requirements.
4. The adaptation of the developed specification will give it opportunity to be
improved.
108
7.4 Recommendations
1. It is recommended to unify the specification of the asphalt binder course.
2. Further researches are recommended to investigate the mechanical properties and their
impact on the asphalt mix. A research for every mechanical property is recommended.
3. It is recommended to conduct researches to measure the impact of the bitumen types on the
asphalt mix.
4. Further research is recommended to develop specification for the covering layer in
Palestine.
5. It is recommended to apply the developed specifications by all the roads stakeholders.
6. There is a lot needs to be done to improve the overall infrastructure situation in the
Palestinian Territories. The developed specifications for the asphalt binder course will help
in improving the planning and the implementation of the asphalt roads which are a major
component of the infrastructure.
109
REFERENCES
AASHTO M17, American Association State Highway and Transportation Official
Standards Specifications of Fine and Coarse Aggregate.
AASHTO M20, American Association State Highway and Transportation Official
Standards Specifications of Fine and Coarse Aggregate.
AASHTO T112, American Association State Highway and Transportation Official
Standards Specifications of Fine and Coarse Aggregate.
AASHTO T104, American Association State Highway and Transportation Official
Standards Specifications of Fine and Coarse Aggregate.
AASHTO T182, American Association State Highway and Transportation Official
Standards Specifications of Fine and Coarse Aggregate.
AASHTO T27, American Association State Highway and Transportation Official
Standards Specifications of Fine and Coarse Aggregate.
AASHTO T11, American Association State Highway and Transportation Official
Standards Specifications of Fine and Coarse Aggregate
AASHTO T90, American Association State Highway and Transportation Official
Standards Specifications of Fine and Coarse Aggregate
Al Halabi, (1995). The Transportation Engineering - Engineering Design. The first part.
Engineering Faculty, Aleppo University, Syria.
Al Halabi, (1986). The Roads. The second part. Engineering Faculty, Aleppo University,
Syria.
110
ASTM D692-00, (2002). Annual Book. D692-00 Standards Specification for Coarse aggregate
of Bituminous Paving Mixtures.
ASTM D1073-01, (2002). Annual Book. D1073-01 Standards Specification for Fine
aggregate
of Bituminous Paving Mixtures.
ASTM D5 , (2002). Annual Book. D5-97 Test Method of Penetration of Bituminous Materials.
ASTM D113, (2002). Annual Book. D113-99 Test Method of Ductility of Bituminous
Materials.
ASTM, (2002). Annual Book. D1188 Test Method of Bulk Specific Gravity and Density
Compacted Bituminous Mixtures.
ASTM, (2002). Annual Book. D2041-00 Test Method of Theoretical Maximum Specific
Gravity and Density Bituminous Paving Mixtures.
ASTM D70, (2002). Annual Book. D70-97 Test Method for Specific Gravity and Density of
Semi-solid Bituminous Materials.
ASTM, (2002). Annual Book. D3203-94 (2000). Test Method for Percent Air Voids in
Compacted Dense and Open Bituminous Paving Materials.
ASTM, (2002). Annual Book. D5581-96 (2000). Test Method for Resistance to Plastic
Flow of Bituminous Mixtures Using Marshall Apparatus.
ASTM D36, (2002). Annual Book. D36 Softening Point of Bitumen.
ASTM, (2002). Annual Book. C136-96a Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates.
111
ASTM, (2002). Annual Book. D-75-87 Sampling of Aggregates.
ASTM, (2002). Annual Book. C-117-95 Materials Finer than 75 µm Sieve in Mineral
Aggregates by Washing.
ASTM, (2002). Annual Book. C-29/C29-97- Bulk Density and Voids in Aggregate.
ASTM, (2002). Annual Book. D – 546 -94 Sieve Analysis of mineral Filler for Road and
Paving
Materials.
ASTM V 4.03, (2002). Annual Book. V 4.03 Standards Specification for Coarse aggregate of
Bituminous Paving Mixtures.
BS 594, (1992). British Standards. Hot Rolled Asphalt for Roads and Other Paved
Areas. Part1. Specification for constituent Materials and Asphalt Mixtures.
Second Edition.
BS 812, (1992). British Standards. Hot Rolled Asphalt for Roads and Other Paved
Areas. Part1. Specification for constituent Materials and Asphalt Mixtures.
Second Edition.
MOH, (1998). Egyptian Specifications Road Materials and Testing Volume(VI)
Hamad, (1988). The Roads Engineering. Damascus University, Syria.
Hudson, (1997). Infrastructure Management. MacGraw Hill.
Hwaies, N. & Rasool H., (1985). Paving Asphalt Engineering Book. Iraq.
112
IUG, (1999). Islamic University - Gaza. Mechanical Characteristics Research for AC.
Jendia, (2000). The Roads Engineering – The Structural Design. Islamic University,
Gaza, Palestine.
MOPWH, (1991). Ministry of Public Works and Housing. Specifications for Highway
and Bridge Construction. Volume (II). Jordan.
MoG, (2003). “General Specifications, Special Specifications and Technical Specifications” .
Projects Preparation Department, Municipality of Gaza, Palestine.
MOPWH, (1995). The Palestinian Ministry of Public Work and Housing.
Design the Asphalt Mixes. Prepared by the laboratory department of MOPWH.
Under supervision of the steering committee of the industrial development and
construction materials in Palestine.
Oglesby, (1982). Oglesby H., C., & Hicks G., R. Highway Engineering. Fourth Edition,
Jone Wiley & sons, Inc. New York.
PECDAR, (2003). “Technical Specifications for Projects”. Palestinian Economic Council for
Development and Reconstruction, Palestine.
PS 171 , (1998). “Hot Asphalt Mixture Composition, Production, Transport, Laying and
Compaction. Palestinian Standards Institutes, Palestine.
Rao, (1996). Transportation and Highway Engineering. Tata MacGraw – Hill Publishing
Company Limited, New Delhi.
Salem, (1984). Engineering Roads. Arabian Beirut University. Publication of Dar Alratib.
113
Singh, (2001). Singh G., & Singh J. Highway Engineering. N.C. Jain, Delhi-110 006.
UNRWA, (2003). Road & Infrastructure Specifications. United Nations Relief and Work
Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, Palestine.
http://www.astm.org/ Last Visit Oct. 2004)
http://www.transportation.org/aashto/organization.nsf, Last Visit (Sept. 2004)
114
Appendix A
Mathematical Trail Method to Merge Aggregate Mixes
115
Appendix A: Mathematical Trail Method to Merge Aggregate Mixes
1. Binder Course (Min. Mix)
Aggregate
Grain size (mm)
النسب المقترحة
Mixture < 0.075 0.075/0.15 0.15/0.30 0.30/0.425 0.425/0.6 0.6/1.18 1.18/2 2/4.75 4.75/9.5 9.5/12.5 12.5/19 19/25 للحصویات المتوفرة
Filler 23.77 4.55 7.84 3.29 4.68 11.76 18.08 20.35 4.17 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.15 3.57 0.68 1.18 0.49 0.70 1.76 2.71 3.05 0.63 0.23 0.00 0.00
Natural Sand 2.00 0.80 44.93 35.60 16.27 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.02 1.35 1.07 0.49 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Semmsemya 3.85 0.31 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.31 2.00 18.77 73.02 1.29 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.19 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.10 0.94 3.65 0.06 0.00 0.00
Adasya 2.24 0.06 0.09 0.03 0.03 0.15 0.15 1.99 34.82 38.16 21.29 0.98 0.10 0.22 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.20 3.48 3.82 2.13 0.10
Folya 4 1.52 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04 1.33 4.92 89.67 2.34 0.30 0.46 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.40 1.48 26.90 0.70
Folya 5 1.06 0.09 0.09 0.04 0.09 0.27 0.37 0.64 1.28 4.03 79.41 12.61 0.37 0.39 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.10 0.14 0.24 0.47 1.49 29.38 4.67
Summation 4.9 0.8 2.6 1.6 1.2 1.9 3.0 4.4 8.6 7.1 58.4 5.5 100.0 Gradation
curve 4.9 5.7 8.2 9.8 11.1 13.0 16.0 20.4 29.0 36.1 94.5 100.0 Required
curve 6.00 10.50 17.00 20.80 24.00 30.00 36.00 45.00 60.50 66.50 79.00 100.00
116
2. Binder Course (Mid1 Mix)
Aggregate
Grain size (mm)
النسب المقترحة
Mixture < 0.075 0.075/0.15 0.15/0.30 0.30/0.425 0.425/0.6 0.6/1.18 1.18/2 2/4.75 4.75/9.5 9.5/12.5 12.5/19 19/25 للحصویات المتوفرة
Filler 23.77 4.55 7.84 3.29 4.68 11.76 18.08 20.35 4.17 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.26 6.18 1.18 2.04 0.86 1.22 3.06 4.70 5.29 1.08 0.40 0.00 0.00
Natural Sand 2.00 0.80 44.93 35.60 16.27 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.03 1.80 1.42 0.65 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Semmsemya 3.85 0.31 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.31 2.00 18.77 73.02 1.29 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.39 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.20 1.88 7.30 0.13 0.00 0.00
Adasya 2.24 0.06 0.09 0.03 0.03 0.15 0.15 1.99 34.82 38.16 21.29 0.98 0.10 0.22 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.20 3.48 3.82 2.13 0.10
Folya 4 1.52 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04 1.33 4.92 89.67 2.34 0.20 0.30 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.27 0.98 17.93 0.47
Folya 5 1.06 0.09 0.09 0.04 0.09 0.27 0.37 0.64 1.28 4.03 79.41 12.61 0.30 0.32 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.08 0.11 0.19 0.38 1.21 23.82 3.78
Summation 7.5 1.3 3.9 2.3 1.9 3.2 5.0 7.6 12.5 6.5 43.9 4.3 100.0 Gradation
curve 7.5 8.8 12.7 15.0 16.9 20.1 25.1 32.7 45.2 51.8 95.6 100.0 Required
curve 4.00 6.50 10.50 13.60 16.50 22.00 26.50 34.00 46.75 52.25 68.50 100.00
117
3. Binder Course (Mid2 Mix)
Aggregate
Grain size (mm)
النسب المقترحة
Mixture < 0.075 0.075/0.15 0.15/0.30 0.30/0.425 0.425/0.6 0.6/1.18 1.18/2 2/4.75 4.75/9.5 9.5/12.5 12.5/19 19/25 للحصویات المتوفرة
Filler 23.77 4.55 7.84 3.29 4.68 11.76 18.08 20.35 4.17 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.33 7.84 1.50 2.59 1.09 1.54 3.88 5.97 6.72 1.38 0.50 0.00 0.00
Natural Sand 2.00 0.80 44.93 35.60 16.27 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.08 4.49 3.56 1.63 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Semmsemya 3.85 0.31 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.31 2.00 18.77 73.02 1.29 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.77 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.40 3.75 14.60 0.26 0.00 0.00
Adasya 2.24 0.06 0.09 0.03 0.03 0.15 0.15 1.99 34.82 38.16 21.29 0.98 0.09 0.20 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.18 3.13 3.43 1.92 0.09
Folya 4 1.52 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04 1.33 4.92 89.67 2.34 0.13 0.20 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.17 0.64 11.66 0.30
Folya 5 1.06 0.09 0.09 0.04 0.09 0.27 0.37 0.64 1.28 4.03 79.41 12.61 0.15 0.16 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.19 0.60 11.91 1.89
Summation 9.4 1.7 7.1 4.7 3.2 4.0 6.4 10.7 19.5 5.4 25.5 2.3 100.0 Gradation
curve 9.4 11.0 18.2 22.9 26.1 30.1 36.6 47.3 66.8 72.2 97.7 100.0 Required
curve 6.00 10.50 17.00 20.80 24.00 30.00 36.00 45.00 60.50 66.50 79.00 100.00
118
4. Binder Course (Mid3 Mix)
Aggregate
Grain size (mm)
النسب المقترحة
Mixture < 0.075 0.075/0.15 0.15/0.30 0.30/0.425 0.425/0.6 0.6/1.18 1.18/2 2/4.75 4.75/9.5 9.5/12.5 12.5/19 19/25 للحصویات المتوفرة
Filler 23.77 4.55 7.84 3.29 4.68 11.76 18.08 20.35 4.17 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.35 8.32 1.59 2.74 1.15 1.64 4.12 6.33 7.12 1.46 0.53 0.00 0.00
Natural Sand 2.00 0.80 44.93 35.60 16.27 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.36 0.14 8.09 6.41 2.93 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Semmsemya 3.85 0.31 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.31 2.00 18.77 73.02 1.29 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.65 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.34 3.19 12.41 0.22 0.00 0.00
Adasya 2.24 0.06 0.09 0.03 0.03 0.15 0.15 1.99 34.82 38.16 21.29 0.98 0.13 0.29 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.26 4.53 4.96 2.77 0.13
Folya 4 1.52 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04 1.33 4.92 89.67 2.34 0.10 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.49 8.97 0.23
Folya 5 1.06 0.09 0.09 0.04 0.09 0.27 0.37 0.64 1.28 4.03 79.41 12.61 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.09 0.28 5.56 0.88
Summation 9.9 1.8 10.9 7.6 4.6 4.3 6.7 10.6 18.6 6.5 17.3 1.2 100.0 Gradation
curve 9.9 11.7 22.5 30.1 34.7 39.0 45.7 56.4 75.0 81.5 98.8 100.0 Required
curve 8.00 14.50 23.50 27.90 31.50 38.00 45.50 56.00 74.25 80.75 89.50 100.00
119
5. Binder Course (Max. Mix)
Aggregate
Grain size (mm)
النسب المقترحة
Mixture < 0.075 0.075/0.15 0.15/0.30 0.30/0.425 0.425/0.6 0.6/1.18 1.18/2 2/4.75 4.75/9.5 9.5/12.5 12.5/19 19/25 للحصویات المتوفرة
Filler 23.77 4.55 7.84 3.29 4.68 11.76 18.08 20.35 4.17 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.42 9.98 1.91 3.29 1.38 1.97 4.94 7.59 8.55 1.75 0.64 0.00 0.00
Natural Sand 2.00 0.80 44.93 35.60 16.27 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.44 0.18 9.88 7.83 3.58 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Semmsemya 3.85 0.31 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.31 2.00 18.77 73.02 1.29 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.77 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.40 3.75 14.60 0.26 0.00 0.00
Adasya 2.24 0.06 0.09 0.03 0.03 0.15 0.15 1.99 34.82 38.16 21.29 0.98 0.11 0.25 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.22 3.83 4.20 2.34 0.11
Folya 4 1.52 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04 1.33 4.92 89.67 2.34 0.05 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.25 4.48 0.12
Folya 5 1.06 0.09 0.09 0.04 0.09 0.27 0.37 0.64 1.28 4.03 79.41 12.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Summation 11.5 2.2 13.2 9.2 5.6 5.1 8.0 12.5 20.3 5.3 6.8 0.2 100.0 Gradation
curve 11.5 13.7 26.9 36.1 41.7 46.8 54.8 67.4 87.6 93.0 99.8 100.0 Required
curve 10.00 18.50 30.00 35.00 39.00 46.00 55.00 67.00 88.00 95.00 100.00 100.00
120
6. Binder Course (Mid4 Mix)
Aggregate
Grain size (mm)
النسب المقترحة
Mixture < 0.075 0.075/0.15 0.15/0.30 0.30/0.425 0.425/0.6 0.6/1.18 1.18/2 2/4.75 4.75/9.5 9.5/12.5 12.5/19 19/25 للحصویات المتوفرة
Filler 23.77 4.55 7.84 3.29 4.68 11.76 18.08 20.35 4.17 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.32 7.61 1.46 2.51 1.05 1.50 3.76 5.79 6.51 1.33 0.49 0.00 0.00
Natural Sand 2.00 0.80 44.93 35.60 16.27 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.28 0.11 6.29 4.98 2.28 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Semmsemya 3.85 0.31 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.31 2.00 18.77 73.02 1.29 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.69 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.36 3.38 13.14 0.23 0.00 0.00
Adasya 2.24 0.06 0.09 0.03 0.03 0.15 0.15 1.99 34.82 38.16 21.29 0.98 0.15 0.34 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.30 5.22 5.72 3.19 0.15
Folya 4 1.52 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04 1.33 4.92 89.67 2.34 0.12 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.59 10.76 0.28
Folya 5 1.06 0.09 0.09 0.04 0.09 0.27 0.37 0.64 1.28 4.03 79.41 12.61 0.09 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.12 0.36 7.15 1.13
Summation 9.2 1.6 8.9 6.1 3.8 3.9 6.2 10.3 20.0 7.4 21.1 1.6 100.0 Gradation
curve 9.2 10.8 19.7 25.8 29.6 33.5 39.7 50.0 69.9 77.3 98.4 100.0 Required
curve 7.00 12.00 20.00 24.00 28.00 34.00 40.00 51.00 66.00 74.00 87.00 100.00
121
Appendix B
The Inputs of the Binder Course Job Mixes
122
Appendix B: The Inputs of the Binder Course Job Mixes
Inputs of Min Gradation Job Mix with Different Bitumen Contents Determination of Mix
Density Sample No. 7
Wt in air (g)
Wt in Water
(g)
Wt SSD (g)
Stability Reading
Flow Reading
Wt of pych.+ water
1520.00
1 1200.00 697.5 1215 360.00 3.33 Wt of sample 494.5
2 1198.5 693.5 1214.5 350.00 2.73
Wt of sample+
Pych. +water 1816
Bitumen Content 4.00%
Spe
cim
en N
o.
3 1202.0 699.0 1219.0 380.00 3.28 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.491
determination of mix
density Sample No. 10
Wt in air (g)
Wt in Water
(g)
Wt SSD (g)
Stability Reading
Flow Reading
Wt of pych.+ water
1520.00
1 1190.5 683.5 1209 290 5 Wt of sample 442.5
2 1182 683 1198.5 310 5.04
Wt of sample+
Pych. +water 1785.5
Bit Content 4.50%
Spe
cim
en N
o.
3 1188 682.5 1208 260 4.67 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.5
determination of mix
density Sample No. 6
Wt in air (g)
Wt in Water
(g)
Wt SSD (g)
Stability Reading
Flow Reading
Wt of pych.+ water
1520.00
1 1195 683.5 1205 348 3.1 Wt of sample 482.
2 1198 687 1210 330 3.16
Wt of sample+
Pych. +water 1804
Bit Content
5 S
peci
men
No.
3 1206.5 688 1217.5 360 3.25 ρbit 2.434
determination of mix
density Sample No. 8
Wt in air (g)
Wt in Water
(g)
Wt SSD (g)
Stability Reading
Flow Reading
Wt of pych.+ water
1520.00
1 1197.5 694 1219 280 3.44 Wt of sample 486
2 1192 682 1211 300 3.67
Wt of sample+
Pych. +water 1807
Bit Content
5.5% S
peci
men
No.
3 1206 681 1213.5 260 3.53 ρbit (g/cm3) 2442
123
determination of mix
density Sample No. 9
Wt in air (g)
Wt in Water
(g)
Wt SSD (g)
Stability Reading
Flow Reading
Wt of pych.+ water
1520.00
1 1194.5 685 1213 305 3.4 Wt of sample 462.5
2 1194.5 678.5 1208 365 3.75
Wt of sample+
Pych. +water 1794
Bit Content 6.00%
Spe
cim
en N
o.
3 1190 678.5 1210 300 3.48 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.454
Inputs of Mid1 Gradation Job Mix with Different Bitumen Contents
determination of mix
density Sample No.
21
Wt in air (g)
Wt in Water
(g)
Wt SSD (g)
Stability Reading
Flow Reading
Wt of pych.+ water
1520
1 1203.5 694.5 1213 280 3.75 Wt of sample 511
2 1207.5 702.5 1220 260 4.08
Wt of sample+
Pych. +water 1825.5
Bitumen Content 4.00%
Spe
cim
en N
o.
3 1200.5 697 1215 300 3.5 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.487
determination of mix
density Sample No. 22
Wt in air (g)
Wt in Water
(g)
Wt SSD (g)
Stability Reading
Flow Reading
Wt of pych.+ water
1520
1 1198.5 689.5 1205 280 2.54 Wt of sample 465.5
2 1197.5 689.5 1206 310 4.42
Wt of sample+
Pych. +water 1798.5
Bit Content 4.5%
Spe
cim
en N
o.
3 1200.5 689 1205.5 320 4.61 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.489
determination of mix
density Sample No. 23 Wt in
air (g)
Wt in Water
(g)
Wt SSD (g)
Stability Reading
Flow Reading
Wt of pych.+ water
1520
1 1200.5 695 1206 402 3.75 Wt of sample 476
2 1201 691 1207 340 4.42
Wt of sample+
Pych. +water 1803
Bit Content 5.00%
Spe
cim
en N
o.
3 1204 695.5 1209.5 325 4.61 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.466
124
determination of mix
density Sample No. 24
Wt in air (g)
Wt in Water
(g)
Wt SSD (g)
Stability Reading
Flow Reading
Wt of pych.+ water
1520
1 1199.5 693 1207.5 360 3.88 Wt of sample 449
2 1204.5 693 1211.5 340 3.79
Wt of sample+
Pych. +water 1784.5
Bit Content 5.5
Spe
cim
en N
o.
3 1180 693 1200.5 330 3.08 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.434
determination of mix
density Sample
No. 25
Wt in air (g)
Wt in Water
(g)
Wt SSD (g)
Stability Reading
Flow Reading
Wt of pych.+ water
1520
1 1205 692.5 1211.5 410 3.33 Wt of sample 460.5
2 1198.5 691.5 1201.5 415 3.54
Wt of sample+
Pych. +water 1791
Bit Content 6.00%
Spe
cim
en N
o.
3 1213.5 701.5 1216.5 460 3.25 ρbit (g/cm3)
2.430 Inputs of Mid2 Gradation Job Mix with Different Bitumen Contents
determination of mix
density Sample No. 15
Wt in air (g)
Wt in Water
(g)
Wt SSD (g)
Stability Reading
Flow Reading
Wt of pych.+ water
1520.00
Bit Content 1 1194.5 689 1197 672 4.29 Wt of sample 588.5
4.00% 2 1197.5 693.5 1203 548 3.88
Wt of sample+
Pych. +water 1876
Spe
cim
en N
o.
3 1189 687.5 1194 556 4.05 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.531
determination of mix
density Sample No. 13
Wt in air (g)
Wt in Water
(g)
Wt SSD (g)
Stability Reading
Flow Reading
Wt of pych.+ water
1520.00
Bit Content 1 1195 694.5 1197 645 4.24 Wt of sample 507.5
4.50% 2 1197.5 698 1202 621 4.28
Wt of sample+
Pych. +water 1824
Spe
cim
en N
o.
3 1197 695 1200 654 4.37 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.494
125
determination of mix
density Sample
No. 14
Wt in air (g)
Wt in Water
(g)
Wt SSD (g)
Stability Reading
Flow Reading
Wt of pych.+ water
1520.00
Bit Content 1 1201.5 700.5 1202.5 598 4.87 Wt of sample 472
5.00% 2 1196.5 697 1197 612 4.69
Wt of sample+
Pych. +water 1802
Spe
cim
en N
o.
3 1199.5 696. 1201.5 592 4.79 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.491
determination of mix
density Sample
No. 12
Wt in air (g)
Wt in Water
(g)
Wt SSD (g)
Stability Reading
Flow Reading
Wt of pych.+ water
1520.00
Bit Content 1 1198 695.5 1200 503 4.52 Wt of sample 472
5.5% 2 1286.5 747 1288 570 4.79
Wt of sample+
Pych. +water 1802.5
Spe
cim
en N
o.
3 1199 697.5 1200 504 4.51 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.491
determination of mix
density Sample No. 11
Wt in air (g)
Wt in Water
(g)
Wt SSD (g)
Stability Reading
Flow Reading
Wt of pych.+ water
1520.00
Bit Content 1 1204 699 1205.5 498 5.26 Wt of sample 455.
6.00% 2 1202 700 1203.5 462 5.23
Wt of sample+
Pych. +water 1788.5
Spe
cim
en N
o.
3 1201 700.5 1202.5 464 5.33 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.440 Inputs of Mid3 Gradation Job Mix with Different Bitumen Contents
determination of mix
density Sample No. 4
Wt in air (g)
Wt in Water
(g)
Wt SSD (g)
Stability Reading
Flow Reading
Wt of pych.+ water
1520.00
1 1193 683 1194.5 800 4.08 Wt of sample 501.5
2 1188 682.5 1190.5 780 4.33
Wt of sample+
Pych. +water 1823.5
Bit Content
4.0% S
peci
men
No.
3 1194.5 683.5 1196 960 4.25 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.533
126
determination of mix
density Sample
No. 3
Wt in air (g)
Wt in Water
(g)
Wt SSD (g)
Stability Reading
Flow Reading
Wt of pych.+ water
1520.00
1 1187 685.5 1188.5 610 3.7 Wt of sample 473
2 1186.5 686 1188 615 3.83 Wt of sample+ Pych. +water 1802
Bit Content
4.5% S
peci
men
No.
3 1203.5 691 1205.5 580 3.54 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.476
determination of mix density Sample
No. 5
Wt in air (g)
Wt in Water
(g)
Wt SSD (g)
Stability Reading
Flow Reading Wt of pych.+
water 1520.00
1 1199 690.5 1200 618 3.44 Wt of sample 497
2 1197 689 1198.5 648 3.31
Wt of sample+
Pych. +water 1814
Bit Content
5.0% S
peci
men
No.
3 1195 690 1196.5 640 3.25 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.448
determination of mix density Sample
No. 2
Wt in air (g)
Wt in Water
(g)
Wt SSD (g)
Stability Reading
Flow Reading Wt of pych.+
water 1520.00
1 1197.5 693 1199 485 3.92 Wt of sample 476.5
2 1202 696 1203.5 470 3.79
Wt of sample+
Pych. +water 1800.5
Bit Content
5.5% S
peci
men
No.
3 1203 696.5 1204.5 485 3.92 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.431
determination of mix density Sample
No. 1
Wt in air (g)
Wt in Water
(g)
Wt SSD (g)
Stability Reading
Flow Reading Wt of pych.+
water 1520.00
1 1213. 699.5 1214.5 360 2.68 Wt of sample 460
2 1194.5 690.5 1196 355 2.68
Wt of sample+
Pych. +water 1820.5
Bit Content
6.0% S
peci
men
No.
3 1199.5 692 1200.5 390 3.3 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.453
127
Inputs of Max Gradation Job Mix with Different Bitumen Content
determination of mix density
Sample No. 20
Wt in air (g)
Wt in Water
(g)
Wt SSD (g)
Stability Reading
Flow Reading Wt of pych.+
water 1520.00
1 1172.5 663. 1173 530 2.89 Wt of sample 471.5
2 1184.5 670.5 1185 675 3.31
Wt of sample+
Pych. +water 1805.5
Bit Content
4.0% S
peci
men
No.
3 1174.5 665. 1176.5 670 3.15 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.535
determination of mix density Sample
No. 17
Wt in air (g)
Wt in Water
(g)
Wt SSD (g)
Stability Reading
Flow Reading Wt of pych.+
water 1520.00
1 1205.5 684.5 1207.5 470 2.68 Wt of sample 472
2 1188 668.5 1189.5 398 2.63
Wt of sample+
Pych. +water 1804.5
Bit Content
4.5% S
peci
men
No.
3 1184.5 670 1187 380 2.75 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.517
determination of mix
density Sample
No. 19
Wt in air (g)
Wt in Water
(g)
Wt SSD (g)
Stability Reading
Flow Reading
Wt of pych.+ water
1520.00
1 1191 683 1191.5 650 3.5 Wt of sample 482
2 1186 681 1186.5 730 3.45
Wt of sample+
Pych. +water 1804
Bit Content
5.0% S
peci
men
No.
3 1193.5 687 1194.5 645 3.22 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.434
determination of mix
density Sample
No. 16
Wt in air (g)
Wt in Water
(g)
Wt SSD (g)
Stability Reading
Flow Reading
Wt of pych.+ water
1520.00
1 1194 681 1195 495 2.82 Wt of sample 469.5
2 1198 683.5 1199.5 402 2.58
Wt of sample+
Pych. +water 1797.5
Bit Content
5.5% Spe
cim
en N
o.
3 1201 686 1202 450 3.21 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.445
128
determination of mix
density Sample
No. 18
Wt in air (g)
Wt in Water
(g)
Wt SSD (g)
Stability Reading
Flow Reading
Wt of pych.+ water
1520.00
1 1203.5 683 1204 460 3.47 Wt of sample 481.
2 1201 693.5 1202 520 3.15
Wt of sample+
Pych. +water 1802.0
Bit Content
6.0% S
peci
men
No.
3 1197 690 1198 455 3.46 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.417
Inputs of Max Gradation Job Mix with Different Bitumen Contents
determination of mix
density Sample No. 15
Wt in air (g)
Wt in Water
(g)
Wt SSD (g)
Stability Reading
Flow Reading
Wt of pych.+ water
1520.00
1 1200 697 1202 580 4.18 Wt of sample 560
2 1203 699 1205 557 3.7
Wt of sample+
Pych. +water 1855
Bit Content
4.0%
Spe
cim
en N
o.
3 1198 696.5 1200.5 550 4.2 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.489
determination of mix
density Sample No. 13
Wt in air (g)
Wt in Water
(g)
Wt SSD (g)
Stability Reading
Flow Reading
Wt of pych.+ water
1520.00
1 1198 696 1199.5 620 3.7 Wt of sample 528
2 1199 698 1201 615 3.95
Wt of sample+
Pych. +water 1835
Bit Content
4.5% S
peci
men
No.
3 1202 699 1204 655 3.79 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.479
determination of mix
density Sample
No. 14
Wt in air (g)
Wt in Water
(g)
Wt SSD (g)
Stability Reading
Flow Reading
Wt of pych.+ water
1520.00
1 1195 688 1196 590 3.28 Wt of sample 4.87
2 1198 686 1198.5 625 3.55
Wt of sample+
Pych. +water 1811
Bit Content
5.0% S
peci
men
No.
3 1198 686 1199 655 3.17 ρbit (g/cm3) 4.485
129
determination of mix density
Sample No. 12
Wt in air (g)
Wt in Water
(g)
Wt SSD (g)
Stability Reading
Flow Reading Wt of pych.+
water 1520.00
1199 696 1200 535 4.3 Wt of sample 500
1200.5 697 1201 560 4.0
Wt of sample+
Pych. +water 1818
Bit Content
5.5% S
peci
men
No.
1203 700 1204 512 4.3 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.475
determination of mix
density Sample No. 11
Wt in air (g)
Wt in Water
(g)
Wt SSD (g)
Stability Reading
Flow Reading
Wt of pych.+ water
1520.00
1 1203 698 1203.5 500 4.55 Wt of sample 470
2 1202 698 1203 490 4.6
Wt of sample+
Pych. +water 1798
Bit Content
6.0% S
peci
men
No.
3 1200 697 1200.5 482 4.2 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.448
130
Appendix C
Photos Show the Method of the Work in the Laboratory
131
Figure (1): Drying of Aggregates After Washing .
Figure (2): Weighting of Aggregate for Sieve Analysis Test.
132
Figure (3): Pycnometer Test
Figure (4): Specific Gravity of Aggregates
133
Figure (5): Place of Bitumen in Containers.
Figure (6): Place of Bitumen and Aggregate in Oven
134
Figure (7): Mix of a Sample in the Mold
Figure (8): Mix of Sample in the Mold
135
Figure (9); Dividing of the Mixture in Containers
Figure (10): Dividing of the Mixture in Containers
136
Figure (11): Compact of Samples
Figure (12): Removing Marshall Samples from Molds
137
Figure (13): Marshal Test