Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
uminous mixes –
signed to withstand heavy traffic loads under adverse
matic conditions and to provide adequate structural an
ctional character to the pavement
Desirable Properties of Bituminous Mix
Deformation Resistance:
Bituminous Mix - Should not distort (rut) or defor
shove) under traffic loading. Mix deformation
elated to aggregate surface and abrasio
haracteristics, gradation, asphalt binder content an
binder viscosity at high temperatures.
Desirable Properties of Bituminous Mix
d resistance:
placed as a surface course should provide sufficient
ction when in contact with a vehicle's tire. Low skid
istance is generally related to aggregate
aracteristics or high asphalt binder.
Mix Design Procedure
No matter what specific method is used, the basic
mix design procedure remains the same.
All mix design processes involve three basic steps:
Step: 1
Aggregate selection. Different agencies/owners
pecify different methods of aggregate acceptance.
Typically, a series of aggregate physical tests is run
eriodically on each particular aggregate source.
Then, for each mix design, gradation, and size
equirements are specified (MORT&H, Superpave).
Normally, aggregate from more than one quarry
tockpile is required to meet gradation specifications
tep: 2
sphalt binder selection. Different authorities can an
o specify different methods of asphalt bind
aluation.
UPERPAVE PG system/ Viscosity/ penetration is used.
Step: 3
Optimum Bitumen binder content: Mix design method
are generally distinguished by the way in which they
determine the optimum bitumen binder content. This
process can be subdivided into:
Make several trial mixes with different bitumen binde
contents.
Compact these trial mixes in the laboratory. This compaction
meant to be a rough simulation of actual field conditions.
Conduct laboratory tests to determine sample characteristics
Select the bitumen binder content that best satisfies the mi
design objectives
olumetrics of Bituminous Mixes
Height of Fall
arshall Method of Mix Design
arshall Method of Mix Design
arshall Method of Mix Design
te of Compression
1mm/minute Breaking Head
mperature = Inside Radius = 5
Observations
Breaking Load
Deformation at fail
Marshall Method of Mix Design
arshall Method of Mix Design - Steps
% Passing
100
90
80
70
60
% Passing
50
40
30
Target Lower
20
10 Upper Blend
0
0 5 10 15 20
Sieve Size, mm
Preparation of Test Specimens
10
5 Viscosity, Pa s
1
Compaction Range (0.28 +/- 0.03 Pa-s)
.5
.3
.2
Mixing Range (0.17 +/- 0.02 Pa-s)
.1
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
Temperature, C
Marshall Samples
umetrics of Bituminous Mixes
Absorbed
Water Bitumen
Air Void
Bitumen coating
around aggregate
Absorbed bitumen
Aggregate
lumetrics of Bituminous Mixes
Vmb = Bulk
Volume of
Compacted
Vmm = Vo
Volume of
Air Va
Paving Mix
Va = Volum
Air Voids
rameters to be Measured
Specific Gravity of Binder (Gb)
Bulk Sp. Gr. of mineral aggregates (Gsb)
Bulk Sp. Gr. of Compacted Mix (Gmb)
Sp. Gravity of Void-less Volume of Paving Mix (Gmm
rameters to be Computed
Effective sp. Gravity of mineral aggregates, Volume o
Voids in mineral aggregates, Volume of Voids filled
with asphalt, Volume of Air Voids, Volume of asphalt,
Volume of absorbed asphalt
olumetric Analysis of Bituminous Mixes
Specific Gravity of
pacted Mix = Dry mass of
/Volume of water replaced by
saturated surface dry
cimen
Gmm = A/(A+D-E)
. Testing of Samples
2.370
2.365
2.360
2.355
2.350
2.345
2.340
2.335
4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 6.0
Binder content, %
Marshall Stability v/s binder content
1100
1050
1000
Stability, kg
950
900
850
800
4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9
Binder content %
Flow v/s Binder content
5.0
4.8
4.6
4.4
Flow, mm .
4.2
4.0
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.2
3.0
4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 6.0
Binder, %
% Air voids in compacted mix v/s Binder
6.0
5.5
Air voids in mix, %
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9
Binder, %
% Voids Filled by Bitumen (VFB) v/s Binder
85
80
75
VFB
70
65
60
4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 6.0
Binder, %
MoSRTH Specifications
Advantages
Attention on voids, strength, durability
Inexpensive equipment
Easy to use in process control/acceptance
Disadvantages
Impact method of compaction
Does not consider shear strength
Load perpendicular to compaction axis
arshall Method
is method has by and large stood the test of time
cause of limits on air void,VMA, voids filled with
tumen and flow coupled with feed back from field
rformance data
arshall test data can not predict fatigue or permanent
formation behaviour of in -service pavement . This
ethod does not give any guide line for judging the quali
bitumen
Marshall Method