1

MIX DESIGN

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF: GROUP 2:

Dr J. MURALI KRISHNAN RAJIV RANJAN

Department of Civil Engineering

IIT Madras

TA: ATANU BEHERA

 2

1. SEIVE ANALYSIS OF FINE AND COARSE AGGREGATE FROM 3

SOURCE A, B, C.

2. BLENDING CALCULATION AND ADJUSTMENT 6

3. MIXING AND COMPACTION TEMPERATURE FOR BITUMEN 10

4. BATCHING 13

5. MIX PREPARATION AND SAMPLE CASTING 15

6. PREPARATION OF SAMPLE FOR Gmm AND FINDING THE 17

THEORITICAL MAXIMUM SPECIFIC GRAVITY

7. SIZE SPECIFICATION OF SAMPLE (HEIGHT, WEIGHT AND 19

DIAMETER)

8. MARSHALL STABILITY AND FLOW 21

9. VOLUMETRIC CALCULATIONS 23

a) Gse 23

b) Gsb 24

c) Gmb 25

d) Gmm 26

e) Va 27

f) VMA 28

g) VFA 29

h) Pba 30

i) Pbe 30

10. CORRECTED MARSHAL STABILITY 32

11. DETERMINATION OF OBC 34

12. FIELD IMPLEMENTATION 37

13. LESSONS LEARNT 38

 3

1. SIEVE ANALYSIS OF FINE AND COARSE AGGREGATE & FILLER OF SOURCE A, B, C:

AIM: To determine the size of different aggregate from given sources as per ASTM C136/C136 M 14.

APPARATUS:
a. Balance, accuracy up to, 0.1g
b. Sieve of different size/ mechanical sieve machine
c. Oven, capacity 170 ˚C ± 5˚ C
d. Thermometer, sensitivity 0.01˚C

PROCEDURE:

a. Different sieves were selected as per the specifications of MoRTH (BC grade2)
b. Then sieves were arranged in decreasing order with opening from top to bottom.
c. Sieving was done manually (fig 4) in case of coarse aggregate, and with mechanical sieve (fig 3) in
case of fine aggregate and filler.
d. Then, material retained on each sieve was weighed.
e. From the material retained weight, percentage passing was calculated to nearest.
f. Similarly, for all the other given stockpiles (A, B, C) the passing percentage was found (Table 1 and
fig 2).
g. Use sieves having a larger frame size and providing greater sieving area.

SIGNIFICANCE:
This test method is used primarily to determine the grading of materials proposed for use as aggregates
or being used as aggregates. The results are used to determine compliance of the particle size
distribution with applicable specification requirements and to provide necessary data for control of the
production of various aggregate products and mixtures containing aggregates.

Fig.1. Test sample size for different nominal size

 4

OBSERVATIONS:

For the given source A, B, C.

Table 1: Passing percent of different sources

grade II (as per MoRTH) passing percentage for source A, B, C

size of
aggregate lower limit upper limit group 1 group 2 group3

19 100 100 100 100 100

13.2 79 100 3.87 99.8 100

9.5 70 88 0 68.8 100

4.75 53 71 0 31.6 99.36

2.36 42 58 0 0 82.76

1 34 48 0 0 62.05

0.6 26 38 0 0 47.85

0.3 18 28 0 0 34.15

0.15 12 20 0 0 15.5

0.075 4 10 0 0 7.15

%PASSING V/S SIZE OF AGGREGATE

100
90
80
70
60
% PASSING

50
40
30
20
10
0
.075 0.15 0.3 0.6 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.5 13.2 19

lower limit upper limit source A source B source C SIZE OF AGGREGATE

Fig 2. Percent passing of aggregates from different sources

 5

SAMPLE CALUCLATION:

The retained weight on 13.2mm sieve = 0.0475kg

Total weight taken =10.0375kg
Passing weight = Total – Retained
= 10.0375 – 0.0475
= 9.996kg
% Passing = 9.99/10.0375*100
= 99.82%
REFERENCES:

a. ASTM C136/C136M − 14, “Standard test method for sieve analysis of fine and coarse aggregates”,
ASTM international, west Conshohocken, DoI: 10.1520/ C136/C136M-14.
b. MoRTH, specification section 500, “composition of dense graded bituminous macadam”, New
Delhi.

Fig 3. Mechanical sieve Fig 4. Sieve for manual sieving of aggregate

 6

2. BLENDING CALCULATION AND ADJUSTMENT

AIM: To find the optimum blend of aggregates and fillers from three stockpiles as per the MoRTH
GRADE II specifications.

PROCEDURE:

a. As per Gradation of different stockpiles found in sieve analysis was used for blending
b. Gradation proportion for blending was done as an iterative process in Microsoft excel.
c. Different percentages of given stockpiles (A, B, C) were assumed (Table 2) and checked with the
percentage limits of MoRTH (BC grade II)
d. The percentage of stockpiles that satisfied the Fuller’s gradation cure was selected.
e. Fuller’s gradation curve was plotted.

SAMPLE CALCULATION:

Let us assume 20, 40, 40 percentage respectively for stockpiles A, B, C

For the aggregate size 19mm blend% = 0.2*50.5+0.4*100+0.4*100
= 90.1%
For the aggregate, size 13.2mm for percentages 5, 35, 60 respectively for A, B and C stockpiles
Blend %- = 0.05*1.8+0.35*99.8+0.6*100
= 95.02

Similarly, for different percentages and sizes, calculations are done and graph is plotted for the final
blend.
 7

Observation
Table 2: Iterations for finding gradation

grade II passing for source Iterations

size of lower upper 20/40 40/40/ 40/20/ 5/50/ 5/45/ 5/40/ 5/35/
agg limit limit A B C /40 20 40 45 50 55 60

19 100 100 100 100 100 90.1 80.2 80.2 97.5 97.5 97.5 97.5

13.2 79 100 3.87 99.8 100 80.28 60.64 60.68 94.9 95 95.0 95.0

9.5 70 88 0 68.8 100 67.55 47.58 53.84 79.4 80.9 82.5 84.0

4.75 53 71 0 31.6 99.3 52.38 32.51 46.06 60.5 63.9 67.2 70.6

2.36 42 58 0 0 82.7 33.14 16.55 33.10 37.2 41.3 45.5 49.6

1 34 48 0 0 62.0 24.82 12.41 24.82 27.9 31.0 34.1 37.2

0.6 26 38 0 0 47.8 19.14 9.57 19.14 21.5 23.9 26.3 28.7

0.3 18 28 0 0 34.1 13.66 6.83 13.66 15.3 17.0 18.7 20.4

0.15 12 20 0 0 15.5 6.2 3.1 6.2 6.97 7.75 8.52 9.3

0.075 4 10 0 0 7.15 2.86 1.43 2.86 3.21 3.57 3.93 4.29

PERCENT PASSING V/S SIZE OF AGGREGATE FOR GRADE II

100
90
80
70
PERCENT PASSING

60
50
40
30
20
10
SIZE OF AGGREGATE
0
.075 0.15 0.3 0.6 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.5 13.2 19

LOWER LIMIT UPPER LIMIT TRIAL 20/40/40

TRIAL 40/40/20 TRIAL40/20/40 TRIAL 5/50/45
TRIAL 5/45/50 TRIAL 5/40/55 TRIAL 5/35/60

Fig 5. The graph shows the different percentages (assumed) compared to the limits given by MoRTH
 8

NOTE: For all the different percentages, the most suitable (i.e. within the limits) is 5/35/60, but the same
is also not fitting into the Fuller’s gradation curve (Fig 5). Thus, a stockpile D was considered of only
0.15 mm and .075mm size. The final Blend is as follows (table 3).

Table 3: Weight of aggregate taken in each sample

grade II passing for stockpiles 6/31/55/8

size of lower upper percent percent weight of

aggregate limit limit A B C D passing retained aggregate(gm)

19 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 0

13.2 79 100 3.87 99.8 100 100 94.08 5.91 71.0

9.5 70 88 0 68.8 100 100 84.18 9.89 118.8

4.75 53 71 0 31.6 99.36 100 62.64 21.54 258.5

2.36 42 58 0 0 82.76 100 53.52 9.12 109.5

1 34 48 0 0 62.05 100 42.12 11.39 136.7

0.6 26 38 0 0 47.85 100 34.31 7.81 93.7

0.3 18 28 0 0 34.15 100 26.78 7.53 90.4

0.15 12 20 0 0 15.5 60.74 13.39 13.39 160.8

0.075 4 10 0 0 7.15 31.14 6.424 6.96 83.6

PAN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.42 77.1

 9

PERCENT PASSING V/S AGGREGATE SIZE

100
90
80
70
PERCENT PASSING

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
.075 0.15 0.3 0.6 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.5 13.2 19

LOWER limit UPPER limit TRIAL 6/31/55/8 AGGREGATE SIZE

Fig 6. Graph showing final blend along with upper and lower limits

INFERENCE:

The final blend obtained seems to be satisfy the Fuller’s gradation curve. The target grading II
specification was satisfied by blending the four stockpiles in the proportion 6:31:55:8 respectively (Fig
6). The obtained weight of different aggregate size was used for preparation of the mix.
 10

3. MIXING AND COMPACTION TEMPERATURE FOR BITUMEN (ELASTOMER)

AIM: To determine the mixing and compaction temperature for elastomer from viscosity v/s temperature
graph using Brookfield rotational viscometer as per ASTM D2493/ D2493-09.

SIGNIFICANCE:

a. This test method is used to measure the apparent viscosity of asphalts at handling, mixing, or
application temperatures.
b. Some asphalts may exhibit non-Newtonian behaviour under the conditions of this test method,
or at temperatures within the range of this test method.

APPARATUS:

Brookfield Rotational viscometer DV2T (Fig 8)

Balance, accuracy 0.01 gm

Sample chamber

Thermometer, accuracy 0.1˚C

PROCEDURE:

a. Allow the instrument electronics to warm up for at least five minutes before conducting any calibrations
or analyses.
b. The sample was preheated in sample chamber for the respective temperatures to calculate the viscosity.
c. Spindle SC4-21, was inserted in temperature controlled thermal chamber to half of the depth and heated
for 10 minutes, and then inserted completely.
d. The rpm for instrument was set such that to maintain the constant torque of 30-40% and the viscosity
value was measured for the given temperature.
e. Similarly, the test was conducted for different temperatures and the respective rpm was given to achieve
the given range of torque and viscosity measured.
f. Graph was plotted between viscosity and temperature on log scale as per ASTM D 2493/D2493M-09.
g. The mixing and compaction temperatures were determined for the viscosity range of 0.28(±) 0. 03 pas
and 0.17(±) 0. 02 pa. s respectively.
h. Average viscosity of last 3 min for all temperature is as follows (table 4).
 11

Table 4: viscosity at various temperatures

Temperature(˚C) Viscosity (mpa. s)

120 14678

135 4522

150 1476

165 647.9

180 355.1

0.25 Compaction
Mixing
temperature
0.19 temperature

Fig 7. Graph showing viscosity v/s temperature for modified binder

NOTE: From the obtained graph (fig 7), the mixing and compaction temperatures were observed to be
going beyond the 185˚C, where separation of binder may occur. Thus, the mixing and the compaction
temperatures were taken as 15˚C more than the unmodified binder (VG 30) respectively.

INFERENCE:
The mixing and compaction temperature for elastomer is 180˚C, 165˚C respectively.
 12

REFERENCE:

a. ASTM D4402/D4402M-13 Standard test method for determination viscosity of binder at elevated
temperatures, ASTM international, west Conshohocken.
b. ASTM D2439/D439 M-09 Standard viscosity chart for asphalt, ASTM international, west
Conshohocken
c. IRC SP 53-2010 “Guidelines for use of bitumen in road construction”, New Delhi.

FIG 8. Rotational viscometer

 13

4. BATCHING
AIM: To do the batching for 15 samples and preparation of test specimens for use in Marshall stability
testing with varying percentage of binder content (ELASTOMER).

APPARATUS:

a. Metal pans for heating aggregates and mixing asphalt and aggregate.
b. Oven (up to 170˚C) and hot plates, scoop and containers, Thermometers (Fig 10).

PROCEDURE:

a. As per the proportion (found as per fig7 and table 5), aggregates of all sizes were mixed together
and 15 samples of 1200 grams for marshal stability test and one sample for Gmm was prepared.
b. The prepared sample was kept in oven at 170˚C for 24 hrs.

Table 5: Weight of aggregate taken in each sample

Batching Sieve Size (mm) Weight of one Sample(g)

13.2 71

9.5 118.8

4.75 258.5

2.36 109.5

1.18 136.7

0.6 93.7

0.3 90.4

0.15 1608

0.075 83.6

Pan 77.1

Total weight 1200

 14

Inference:

All the sample were taken as their weight and mix is prepared of total weight 1200 g.

Fig 9. Batching of various sizes of aggregate Fig 10. Oven for heating of aggregate
 15

5. MIX PREPARATION AND SAMPLE CASTING

AIM: To prepare 15 samples of mix design for testing Marshall Stability

APPARATUS:
a. Metal pans and gas stove for heating aggregates and mixing asphalt and aggregate.
b. Oven (up to 170˚ C) and hot plates, scoop and containers, Thermometers.
c. Compaction machine, compaction mould (101.6mm diameter and 75mm height), base plate and
collars.
d. Compaction hammer (4.75kg weight and 457mm fall)

PROCEDURE:

a. Three samples were casted for each binder content with binder content varying from 4.5, 5, 5.5,6
& 6.5 %, thus making 15 samples.
b. The proportion of each aggregate size (in terms of weight) and binder content (g) as per weight
calculated to be used for preparation of each sample was taken as per table 6 shown below.
c. The aggregate gradation was selected according to the final blend proportion we got.
d. After each sample was batched, they were allowed to heat in oven at a temperature of 170°C for
24 hours and finally taken out and mixed with the appropriate binder content at the obtained
mixing temperature of 180°C.
e. After the preparation was well mixed, it was compacted in a standard compaction
equipment/machine (fig 11) at a temperature of 165°C, by giving 75 blows to the specimen.
f. Each specimen was prepared to obtain a compacted specimen of 63.5±0.3 mm thickness.
g. Finally, the specimen was cooled in air until no deformation would result when removing it from
mould (fig 12).
 16

Table 6: Weight of bitumen taken in each sample

Binder Content Aggregate

Bitumen weight (g) Total Weight of mix (g)
(%) Quantity (g)

4.5 1200 54 1254

5 1200 60 1260

5.5 1200 66 1266

6 1200 72 1272

6.5 1200 78 1278

Fig 11. Compaction machine Fig 12. Casted sample

 17

6. PREPARATION OF SAMPLE FOR Gmm AND FINDING THEORETICAL MAXIMUM

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

AIM: To determine the theoretical maximum specific gravity of loose bituminous mixtures (BC-GRADE
Ⅱ)

SIGNIFICANCE:

The theoretical maximum specific gravity of bituminous mixtures are fundamental properties whose
values are influenced by the composition of the mixture in terms of types and amounts of aggregates and
bituminous materials. They are used to calculate percent air voids in compacted bituminous mixtures,
hence provide target values for compaction of paving mixtures.

APPARATUS:

a. Vacuum evacuating machine (CORELOK), pressure up to 4Kpa.

b. Balance, 0.01g accuracy, Thermometer with maximum 0.5°C error.
c. Oven, big tray, bags.

PROCEDURE:
a. If the paving mixture has been prepared in a laboratory using oven-dry aggregates, proceed to 9.2.
Any other sample needs to be dried to a constant mass (mass repeats within 0.1 % for consecutive
15 min determinations) at a temperature of 110 ± 5°C [230 ± 10°F].
b. Once the sample is dry and while it is still warm, separate the particles of the sample of paving
mixture by hand, taking care to avoid fracturing the aggregate, so that the particles of the fine
aggregate portion are not larger than about 6 mm [1/4 in.]
c. Cool the sample to room temperature. If separated particles adhere to each other once the sample
has been cooled to room temperature, gently separate the particles of the fine aggregate portion so
that they are not larger than about 6 mm [1/4 in.].
d. The loose mixture was poured in a big tray, allowed to cool, and slowly rubbed to loosen the
mixture to avoid mixture from clogging. The loose mixture was placed as it is for one day at room
temperature.
e. The green bag and one white bag was taken, take empty weight.
f. The bags were placed in Corelok machine (fig 13) to remove the air from the voids.
g. The weight of the sample was taken after removing air from the voids. The weight of the sample
fully submerged in the water was taken after allowing water to enter the bag to remove any air
voids in it.
 18

CALCULATION:

The maximum theoretical specific gravity of loose bituminous mix is calculated by software using,

1. Empty weight of green bag = 51.06 gm.

2. Empty weight of white bag = 22.72 gm.
3. White bag + sample = 1279.63 gm.
4. White bag + green bag +Sample = 1330.66 gm.
5. Weight of sample in bag Submerged in water = 760.95 gm.
6. The Gmm was calculated by using MAXGRAVITY (TM) software by InstroTek.

Gmm = 2.575

RESULT:

The maximum theoretical specific gravity of loose bituminous mix is 2.575.

INFERENCE:

The maximum theoretical specific gravity obtained for loose mix is matching with the calculated value.

REFERENCE:

a. ASTM D2041/2041M-11,’Standard Test Method for Theoretical Maximum Specific Gravity and
Density of Bituminous Paving Mixtures’, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, US.

Fig 13. Corelok machine

 19

7. SIZE SPECIFICATION (HEIGHT, WEIGHT AND DIAMETER) OF ALL SAMPLES

AIM: To measure the size specification and weight of prepared samples.

APPARATUS:
a. Balance, accuracy 0.01 g
b. Vernier calliper (least count 0.02 mm)
c. Water tub for measuring apparent weight.
d. Wiping cloth.

PROCEDURE:
a. Size of specimen- the diameter and height of specimen was measured at three locations for every sample
(table 7).
b. The weight of sample was taken in air in dry condition, weight A.
c. Now the sample was completely immersed in water and again weight was taken, weight B.
d. The sample was taken out of water and surface dried. Again, weight was taken, weight C.
 20

OBSERVATION

Table 7: Height and Weight of each sample

HEIGHT(mm) DIAMETER(mm)
%Binder DRY SSD
Sample content weight(A) weight(C) 1 2 3 1 2 3

1 4.5 1191.03 1191.44 64.08 64.08 64.06 101.48 101.58 101.58

2 4.5 1227.34 1227.53 64.02 64.04 64.02 100.38 101.4 101.4

3 4.5 1240.26 1240.34 64.04 64.05 64.04 101.6 101.36 101.38

4 5 1242.05 1242.25 63.24 63.3 63.24 101.68 101.58 101.6

5 5 1243.15 1243.3 62.66 62.7 62.66 101.6 101.66 101.62

6 5 1236.37 1236.57 63.44 63.38 63.28 101.6 101.62 101.6

7 5.5 1325.83 1326.08 66.88 66.8 66.84 101.58 101.6 101.58

8 5.5 1254.03 1254.33 63.14 63.12 63.14 101.6 101.6 101.62

9 5.5 1245.89 1246.06 62.7 62.72 62.7 101.56 101.6 101.6

10 6 1218.48 1218.78 63.52 62.56 62.56 101.6 101.6 101.58

11 6 1247.97 1248.14 63.24 63.24 63.28 101.56 101.58 101.58

12 6 1253.81 1254.02 63.56 63.68 63.48 101.54 101.56 101.58

13 6.5 1250.84 1251.17 63.64 63.58 63.66 101.6 101.6 101.58

14 6.5 1238.23 1238.54 63.16 63.22 63.26 101.56 101.56 101.56

15 6.5 1250.24 1250.59 63.24 63.22 63.24 101.6 101.62 101.62

 21

8. MARSHALL STABILITY AND FLOW

AIM: To determine the Marshall stability and flow of bituminous mixture and find optimum binder content
to be added as per ASTM-D6927-15.
APPARATUS:
a. Load Measuring device, Minimum sensitivity of 50N
b. Water bath, minimum 30mm above the top of specimen
c. Oven, capable of maintaining a temperature of 60°C
d. Thermometer, with sensitivity 1°C
e. Marshall Stability machine.

SIGNIFICANCE:

a. Marshall Stability and Flow values with density, air voids in the total mix, voids in the mineral aggregate
or voids filled with asphalt are used for evaluation of optimum binder content in asphalt mixtures.

b. Marshall Flow is a measure of deformation (elastic plus plastic) of the asphalt mix determined during
the stability test.

PROCEDURE:

a. The specimen after the Bulk Specific gravity calculations, was immersed it in water bath at 60(±)1
for 30-40 mins before the test
b. The dimensions of each sample were calculated before Gmb was determined.
c. The inside head of compression loading machine was cleaned thoroughly and the guide road was
lubricated.
d. Now the specimen was taken out of the water bath and placed on lower testing head and centered,
then the upper testing machine was fitted
e. Load was applied to the specimen at constant rate of 51mm/min until failure occurred.
f. The load at which the specimen failed was noted as Marshall Stability value.
g. The corresponding flow value also recorded from the automated machine (table 8)

Fig 14. Marshal stability equipment

 22

OBSERVATION:

Table 8: stability and flow number of all samples

MARSHAL TEST

Sample % binder LOAD(KN) FLOW(mm) FLOW * 0.25

1 4.5 19.97 2.86 0.715

2 4.5 24.9 2.64 0.66

3 4.5 24.91 2.08 0.52

4 5 24.91 1.18 0.295

5 5 24.66 1.42 0.355

6 5 24.82 1.53 0.3825

7 5.5 24.97 1.31 0.3275

8 5.5 24.98 1.94 0.485

9 5.5 24.91 1.84 0.46

10 6 24.91 2.51 0.6275

11 6 24.98 2.19 0.5475

12 6 24.95 2.29 0.5725

13 6.5 24.93 3.25 0.8125

14 6.5 23.01 4.09 1.0225

15 6.5 24.27 4.48 1.12

REFERENCE:

a. ASTM D6927-06, “Standard test method for Marshall Stability and Flow of Bituminous mixtures”,
ASTM international, west Conshohocken.
b. ASTM D6926-10, “Standard practice for preparation of Bitumen specimen using Marshall
Apparatus”, ASTM international, west Conshohocken.
 23

9. VOLUMETRIC CALCULATIONS

AIM: To calculate Gmb, Gsb, Gse, Gmm, Va, VMA, VFB, Pbe, Pba of the samples made.

SIGNIFICANCE:
a. The volumetric properties of a compacted paving mixture are important criteria by which the quality
of an asphalt mixture is evaluated.
b. The volumetric properties are determined using the mass and/ or volume measurements of a mixture
and its constituent components (binder, aggregate, air). Volumetric have historically provided a good
indication of the mixture’s probable performance during its service life.
c. The term “volumetric,” as applied in the asphalt industry, actually uses measurements of an asphalt
mixture by both mass (M) and volume (V) to determine various percentages (P). Volumetric
properties are often specified design elements of the total mix, the aggregate only or the binder only.
d. The relationship between mass and volume is determined by the material’s specific gravity (G).
Specific gravity is a dimensionless number defined as the ratio of the density of a material to the
density of water (assumed to be 1.000 g/cm3 at temperatures used in asphalt testing).

A. Gse — EFFECTIVE SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF THE AGGREGATE

The effective specific gravity is the ratio of the oven dry mass of a unit volume of aggregate (including
both the solid volume of the aggregate and the water permeable voids not filled with absorbed asphalt to
the mass of the same volume of water.

Where:
Gse = effective specific gravity of aggregate
Ps = percentage of aggregate by total mix weight
Pb = percentage of binder by total mix weight, at which the Gmm test was performed
Gmm = maximum specific gravity of paving mixture
Gb = specific gravity of binder
 24

Calculation:

Gse = (100-5)/ [(100/2.575) - (5/1.022)]

= 2.7701

B. Gsb – BULK SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF AGGREGATES

Where:
Gsb= Bulk dry specific gravity of the total aggregate
P1, P2, Pn = Percentages by weight of aggregates, 1,2, n;
G1, G2, Gn = Bulk specific gravities of aggregates 1, 2, n.

Calculation:

Gsb = 100/ [(37.35/2.753) + (62.65/2.719)]

= 2.713
 25

C. BULK SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF COMPACTED PAVING MIXTURE SAMPLE, Gmb

Gmb = A/ (B-C)

Where,

A = Dry weight of casted sample

B = SSD weight of casted sample

C = Apparent weight of casted sample

Table 9: Gmb of all samples

%Binder SSD Apparent

Sample content Dry weight(A) weight(B) weight(C) Gmb

1 4.5 1191.03 1191.44 688.88 2.370

2 4.5 1227.34 1227.53 715.67 2.398

3 4.5 1240.26 1240.34 726.15 2.412

4 5 1242.05 1242.25 733.33 2.441

5 5 1243.15 1243.3 736.15 2.451

6 5 1236.37 1236.57 731.03 2.446

7 5.5 1325.83 1326.08 788.38 2.466

8 5.5 1254.03 1254.33 745.85 2.466

9 5.5 1245.89 1246.06 741.2 2.468

10 6 1218.48 1218.78 720.42 2.445

11 6 1247.97 1248.14 742.06 2.466

12 6 1253.81 1254.02 744.02 2.458

13 6.5 1250.84 1251.17 741.37 2.454

14 6.5 1238.23 1238.54 735.52 2.462

15 6.5 1250.24 1250.59 745.5 2.475

 26

D. MAXIMUM SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF PAVING MIXTURE SAMPLE, Gmm

Where,

Gmm = Maximum specific gravity of casted sample

Pmm = percent by weight of total loose mixture = 100

Ps = aggregate content, percent by total weight of mixture

Pb = asphalt content, percent by total weight of mixture

Gse = effective specific gravity of aggregate (2.8)

Gb = specific gravity of asphalt (1.022)

Table 10: Gmm of all samples

Sample %Binder content Gmm

1 4.5 2.572

2 4.5 2.573

3 4.5 2.574

4 5.5 2.575

5 5.5 2.576

6 5.5 2.575

7 6 2.576

8 6 2.577

9 6 2.577

10 6.5 2.574

11 6.5 2.575

12 6.5 2.575
 27

E. PERCENTAGE AIR VOIDS IN COMPACTED MIXTURE, Va

Va

Va = percentage air voids in compacted mixture

Gmm = maximum specific gravity,

Gmb = bulk specific gravity of casted sample

Table 11: Percentage air void of all samples

%Binder Apparent
Sample content Dry weight(A) SSD weight(B) weight(C) Gmb % air void

1 4.5 1191.03 1191.44 688.88 2.370 7.86

2 4.5 1227.34 1227.53 715.67 2.398 6.77

3 4.5 1240.26 1240.34 726.15 2.412 6.22

4 5 1242.05 1242.25 733.33 2.441 5.11

5 5 1243.15 1243.3 736.15 2.451 4.70

6 5 1236.37 1236.57 731.03 2.446 4.91

7 5.5 1325.83 1326.08 788.38 2.466 4.13

8 5.5 1254.03 1254.33 745.85 2.466 4.11

9 5.5 1245.89 1246.06 741.2 2.468 4.05

10 6 1218.48 1218.78 720.42 2.445 4.94

11 6 1247.97 1248.14 742.06 2.466 4.12

12 6 1253.81 1254.02 744.02 2.458 4.42

13 6.5 1250.84 1251.17 741.37 2.454 4.61

14 6.5 1238.23 1238.54 735.52 2.462 4.29

15 6.5 1250.24 1250.59 745.5 2.475 3.76

 28

F. PERCENT VMA IN COMPACTED PAVING MIXTURE

VMA = voids in mineral aggregates, percent of bulk volume

Gsb = bulk specific gravity of total aggregate

Ps = aggregate content, percent by total weight of mixture

Gmb = bulk specific gravity of compacted mixture

Table 12: VMA of all samples

%Binder Dry SSD Apparent

Sample content weight(A) weight(B) weight(C) Gmb Ps VMA

1 4.5 1191.03 1191.44 688.88 2.370 95.5 16.58

2 4.5 1227.34 1227.53 715.67 2.398 95.5 15.60

3 4.5 1240.26 1240.34 726.15 2.412 95.5 15.09

4 5 1242.05 1242.25 733.33 2.441 95 14.54

5 5 1243.15 1243.3 736.15 2.451 95 14.17

6 5 1236.37 1236.57 731.03 2.446 95 14.36

7 5.5 1325.83 1326.08 788.38 2.466 94.5 14.11

8 5.5 1254.03 1254.33 745.85 2.466 94.5 14.10

9 5.5 1245.89 1246.06 741.2 2.468 94.5 14.04

10 6 1218.48 1218.78 720.42 2.445 94 15.29

11 6 1247.97 1248.14 742.06 2.466 94 14.56

12 6 1253.81 1254.02 744.02 2.458 94 14.82

13 6.5 1250.84 1251.17 741.37 2.454 93.5 15.44

14 6.5 1238.23 1238.54 735.52 2.462 93.5 15.16

15 6.5 1250.24 1250.59 745.5 2.475 93.5 14.69

 29

G. PERCENT VFA IN COMPACTED MIXTURE

VFA = voids filled with asphalt, percent of VMA

Va = air voids in compacted mixture, percent of total volume

VMA = voids in mineral aggregate, percent of bulk volume

Table 13: VFA of all samples

sample %binder content AIR VOIDS(V) VMA VFA

1 4.5 7.86 16.58 52.60

2 4.5 6.77 15.60 56.56

3 4.5 6.22 15.09 58.79

4 5 5.11 14.54 64.84

5 5 4.70 14.17 66.85

6 5 4.91 14.36 65.78

7 5.5 4.13 14.11 70.72

8 5.5 4.11 14.10 70.82

9 5.5 4.05 14.04 71.13

10 6 4.94 15.29 67.68

11 6 4.12 14.56 71.67

12 6 4.42 14.82 70.20

13 6.5 4.61 15.44 70.17

14 6.5 4.29 15.16 71.68

15 6.5 3.76 14.69 74.40

 30

h. Pba- PERCENTAGE OF ASPHALT ABSORBED

Where:

Pba = absorbed asphalt, percent by weight of aggregate.

Gse = effective specific gravity of aggregate.

Gsb = bulk specific gravity of aggregate.

Gb = specific gravity of asphalt.

Gse = 2.77

Gsb = 2.713

Gb = 1.022

Pba = 0.775 %

i. Pbe- EFFECTIVE ASPHALT CONTENT OF A PAVING MIXTURE

Where:

Pbe = effective asphalt content, percent by total weight of mixture.

Pb = asphalt, percent by total weight of mixture.

Pba = absorbed asphalt, percent by weight of aggregate.

Ps = aggregate, percent by total weight of mixture.

 31

Table 14: Pbe of all samples

sample % BITUMEN Ps Pbe

1 4.5 95.5 3.75

2 4.5 95.5 3.75

3 4.5 95.5 3.76

4 5 95 4.26

5 5 95 4.26

6 5 95 4.26

7 5.5 94.5 4.77

8 5.5 94.5 4.77

9 5.5 94.5 4.77

10 6 94 5.27

11 6 94 5.27

12 6 94 5.27

13 6.5 93.5 5.77

14 6.5 93.5 5.77

15 6.5 93.5 5.77

 32

10. CORRECTED MARSHAL STABILITY

It is possible while making the specimen the thickness slightly varies from the standard specification of 63.5

mm. Therefore, measured stability values need to be corrected to those, which would have been obtained if

The specimens had been exactly 63.5 mm. This is done by multiplying each measured stability value by an

appropriated correlation factors (table 15) as given in Table below.

Table 15: correction factor (as per MoRTH table 26.1)

OF THICKNESS OF CORRECTION FACTOR

VOLUME
SPECIMEN(mm)
SPECIMEN(CM3)
57.1 1.19
457-470
68.7 1.14
471-482
60.3 1.09
483-495
61.9 1.04
496-508
63.5 1.00
509-522
65.1 0.96
523-535
66.7 0.93
536-546
68.3 0.89
547-559
69.9 0.86
560-573
 33

Table 16: Corrected stability value

% avg FLOW corrected

sample BITUMEN height avg dia volume LOAD(KN) FLOW(mm) * 0.25 load

1 4.5 64.07 101.55 518.65 19.97 2.86 0.715 19.99

2 4.5 64.03 101.06 513.32 24.9 2.64 0.66 24.94

3 4.5 64.04 101.45 517.39 24.91 2.08 0.52 24.93

4 5 63.26 101.62 512.81 24.91 1.18 0.29 24.98

5 5 62.67 101.63 508.12 24.66 1.42 0.35 25.64

6 5 63.37 101.61 513.54 24.82 1.53 0.38 24.95

7 5.5 66.84 101.59 541.48 24.97 1.31 0.32 23.22

8 5.5 63.13 101.61 511.65 24.98 1.94 0.48 25.01

9 5.5 62.71 101.59 507.99 24.91 1.84 0.46 25.65

10 6 62.88 101.59 509.46 24.91 2.51 0.62 25.03

11 6 63.25 101.57 512.29 24.98 2.19 0.54 25.05

12 6 63.57 101.56 514.74 24.95 2.29 0.57 25.02

13 6.5 63.63 101.59 515.51 24.93 3.25 0.81 25.04

14 6.5 63.21 101.56 511.83 23.01 4.09 1.02 23.12

15 6.5 63.23 101.61 512.53 24.27 4.48 1.12 24.42

 34

11. DETERMINATION OF OPTIMUM BINDER CONTENT

% BITUMEN V/S Gmb

2.5

2.48

2.46

2.44
Gmb

2.42

2.4

2.38

2.36
4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
% BITUMEN

9.00

8.00

7.00
AIR VOID (Va)

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00
4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
% BITUMEN
AIR VOID V/S % BITUMEN
 35

VMA V/S % BITUMEN

17

16.5

16

15.5
VMA

15

14.5

14

13.5
4.25 4.75 5.25 5.75 6.25 6.75
% BITUMEN

FLOW V/S % BITUMEN

1.2

0.8
FLOW(mm)

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
4.25 4.75 5.25 5.75 6.25 6.75
% BITUMEN
 36

STABILITY V/S % BITUMEN

26

25

24
STABILITY(KN)

23

22

21

20

19
4.25 4.75 5.25 5.75 6.25 6.75
% BITUMEN

CORRECTED STABILITY V/S % BITUMEN

26

25
CORRECTED STABILITY VALUE

24

23

22

21

20

19
4.3 4.8 5.3 5.8 6.3 6.8
% BITUMEN
 37

RESULT:

From the graph of percent air void versus percent bitumen graph the optimum binder content
corresponding to 4% air void was found to be 5.7%. This binder content can be used for design.

INFERENCE:

a. As per the MoRTH orange book, the minimum binder content to be present for modified binder is 5.4 %.
Thus, the obtained binder content is satisfactory as per standards.

OPTIMUM BINDER CONTENT

A. For 5.7% binder content

i. Gmb = 2.47
ii. VMA = 14.3
iii. FLOW = 0.4 mm
iv. STABILITY = 25.1 KN
v. CORRECTED STABILITY = 25.08

12. FIELD IMPLEMENTATION

At 4 % air void corresponding Gmb = 2.47

At 4 % air void corresponding Gse = 2.77
At 4 % air void Gmm = 100/ [{(100-5.7)/2.77} + (5.7/1.022)]
= 2.523
At 4% air void calculated Gmb
4= [1-(Gmb/2.523)] * 100
Gmb = 2.422

AT 8% air void Gmb = 2.321

 38

a. LABORATORY DENSITY
𝐼𝑁 𝑃𝐿𝐴𝐶𝐸 𝐷𝐸𝑁𝑆𝐼𝑇𝑌 𝑋 100
PERCENTAGE OF LAB DENSITY = 𝐿𝐴𝐵𝑂𝑅𝐴𝑇𝑂𝑅𝑌 𝐷𝐸𝑁𝑆𝐼𝑇𝑌

= (2.321 X 100)/2.422
~ 96%

b. MAX THEORETICAL DENSITY

𝐼𝑁 𝑃𝐿𝐴𝐶𝐸 𝐷𝐸𝑁𝑆𝐼𝑇𝑌 𝑋 100

PERCENTAGE OF LAB DENSITY = 𝑀𝐴𝑋𝐼𝑀𝑈𝑀 𝑇𝐻𝐸𝑂𝑅𝐸𝑇𝐼𝐶𝐴𝐿 𝐷𝐸𝑁𝑆𝐼𝑇𝑌

= (2.321 X 100)/2.523
~ 92%
INFERENCE
a. Since an in-place airvoid content of 8% is desired, the in- place density should be 96% of the
reference laboratory density and is satisfied the standards.
b. Since the maximum theoretical density represents a voidless mixture, when an in- place air void
content of 8% is desired, the in-place density should be 92% of the reference maximum theoretical
density and thus it is satisfied the standards.

13. LESSONS LEARNT

a. Specified rate of compaction could not be achieved due to manual compaction,
b. Even a small variation in aggregate quantities of each size varies the physical properties of mix in
a large way.
c. Different trial should be performed to maintain the torque before testing the binder.
d. While calculating the viscosity of modified binder it was difficult to maintain the rpm, thus the
toque was maintained between 30 – 40 %.
e. The compaction blows must be counted manually even if it is done automatic.
f. The sample should be used immediately after taken out from water bath in marshal stability
testing
g. Oiling of road of marshal stability machine should be done otherwise sample particle might be
stick on road.
h. The Gmm sample must be thoroughly loosened when it is hot/warm state with hand for
approximately 30 min.