Data Acquisition

Test Sample (kg)

Mass of Steel cylinder Mould 1.26
Mass of Steel Cylinder Mould + 1.57
Aggregate
Mass of Aggregate before 25 Blows 0.31
Mass of Crush Aggregate (B) 0.30
Mass of Aggregate passing sieve 0.06
2.36mm (A)
Mass of Aggregate retained sieves 0.24
2.36mm
Aggregate Impact Value (AIV)
5%
B
AIV X 100%
A

Result:

0.30
X 100% = 5%
0.06

4000
Required Load (kN) =
AIV

4000
= = 800kN
5

Discussion:

Regarding to the Aggregate Impact Value Test, We can identify the Aggregate
Impact Value in Percentage (%). The possible error during lab test might effect
the lab test, which is the Aggregate was not tamped evenly which can caused
voids in between the aggregates inside the mould provided.

Based on the recommended value, A good value of AIV Test is below (<10%)
which is exceptionally strong. If the value achieved 10%-30%, that means it s
satisfactory road surfacing and if the result was above (>35%) that means it is
weak for road surfacing.

Conclusion:

From the experiment that we conducted, we managed to obtain the AIV of our
sample. Based on what we have conducted, our Aggregate Impact Value (AIV)
is 5%. Based on Recommended Value, We can conclude that our Aggregate
Sample can be classified as Exceptionally Strong as in our result is below than
10%. Hence, our Aggregates are acceptable and suitable to use for road
surfacing.
Data Acquisition:

Aggregate, 10mm 2.5kg

Aggregate, 14mm 2.5kg
Aggregate retained on Sieve size 1.7mm + empty tray 3.69kg
Empty tray 0.26kg
Aggregate 10mm+14, mm (w1) 5.0kg
Aggregate retained on sieve size 1.7mm (w2) 3.43kg

Results:

W1 W 2
LAV X 100%
W1
5.00 3.43
100%
5.00

= 31.4%
Discussion:

Regarding to the Los Angeles Abrasion Test, We can identify the Los Angeles
Value is in Percentage (%). The possible error during lab test might effect the
lab test, which is drum must be clean before using because it may affect the
weight of the sample. From the procedure we must carry out the experiment
for 500 revolution at a speed of 30 to 33 rpm but we done within 15 minutes
because of the poor condition of the machine. This also may affect the final
result because time and revolution is not in the same rate.

Based on the recommended value from JKR specification for Los Angeles
Course aggregate value is <25% for wearing course. But our result is 31.4% it
is exceed the specification of JKR. So our aggregate cannot be used for road
surfacing.

Conclusion:

From the experiment that we conducted, we managed to obtain the LAV of our
sample. Based on what we have conducted, our Los Angeles Value (LAV) is
31.4%. Based on Recommended Value, We can conclude that our Aggregate
Sample can be classified as Quartzite as in our result is in range 20-35%.
Hence, our Aggregates are not acceptable and not suitable to use for road
surfacing as it less than the requirement of JKR <25%. We can conclude that
the aggregate been used are weak for road surfacing. Lower Los Angeles
Abrasion values indicate aggregate that is tougher and more resistance to
abrasion.