HK01 CIVIL ENGINEERING PROGRAM

FACULTY OF CIVL ENGINEERING

UNIVERSITY MALAYSIA SABAH

KA31802 LABORATORY OF GEOTHECHNIC & HIGHWAY

DUE DATE : 22nd MARCH 2018

TITTLE : F5 MARSHALL MIX DESIGN

MEMBERS MATRIC NUMBER: SIGNATURE

NORHAISA BINTI LEHA BK15110200

NORLISA BINTI HASSAN BK15160371

MOHD ISHAQ BIN SELAMAT BK15110180

MUHAMAD HISYAMUDDIN IDRIS BK15110317

MUHD QAYUM BIN ABDUL SOUD BK15160377

1
 DEWI NUR ATIEQAH BINTI BK15110069
BAHARUN ALAM

TABLE CONTENT

PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION 3

2.0 OBJECTIVE OF EXPERIMENT 3

3.0 APPARATUS & MATERIALS 3

4.0 PROCEDURE 4-6

5.0 RESULT 6 - 10

2
6.0 DISCUSSION 11

7.0 CONCLUSION 12

8.0 REFERENCES 12

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This test procedure is used in designing and evaluating bituminous paving mixes and is extensively used in routine test
programmes for the paving jobs. The basic concepts of the Marshall mix design method were originally developed by Bruce Marshall of the
Mississippi Highway Department around 1939 and then refined by the U.S. Army. Currently, the Marshall method is used in some capacity by
about 38 states. The Marshall method seeks to select the asphalt binder content at a desired density that satisfies minimum stability and
range of flow values (White, 1985). In Malaysia the Marshall Mix Design has become the norm in the road industry. Before any bitumen
mixes can be placed and laid on the road, the aggregate and the binder types are generally screened for quality and requirement.
Approximately 15 samples are required to be prepared to determine the required Optimum Bitumen Content (OAC). The prepared
samples are to be analysed for bulk density, air void and stability. By using the Bitumen Institute Method, the Optimum Bitumen
Content are determined from the individual plots of bulk density, voids in total mix and stability vs bitumen content (%).

3
 2.0 OBJECTIVE OF EXPERIMENT:

a) To prepare standard specimens of bitumen for the determination of stability and flow using the Marshall Apparatus.

b) To identify factors influence the mix design.

3.0 APPARATUS & MATERIALS:

Marshall testing machine, Marshall testing rig, Marshall compactor, Asphalt mixer, water bath with constant temperature, mould, balance,
extrusion Jack, oven.

4.0 PROCEDURES

4.1 PART 1: Batching of Aggregate

1. The aggregate was graded according to Class B (Sabah State Road) as in the table below. The required weight for each aggregate size were
calculated.
Table 1
ASTM Percentage of passing by Weight (g)
Sieve size weight (%)
19 mm 100
12.5 mm 80-95

4
 9.5 mm 70-90
4.75 mm 50-70
2.36 mm 35-50
600 μm 18-29
300 μm 13-23
150 μm 8-16
75 μm 4-10

2. The aggregate was sieved and weighted based on Table 1. The aggregate was prepared for 3 samples. The weight of aggregate for one
sample is approximately 1100 g. the aggregate was then placed in a plastic bag.

4.2 PART 2: Mixing And Compaction

3. The aggregate, graded according to the ASTM or BS standard were oven dried at 150 °C for at least 4 hours. All mixing accessories such as
mixer, scoop and Marshall mould were put inside the oven.
4. The binder was heated at the same temperature with aggregate. The thoroughly cleaned mould was heated on a hot plate or in an oven to a
temperature between 140 °C-160 °C.
5. The heated aggregate was placed into the mixer and was then blend dried for 1 to 2 minutes. Then, appropriate amount of binder was added
into the aggregate.
6. The materials were mixed thoroughly until the entire aggregate are coated. While mixing, factors that will influence the sample mixing were
observed.
7. The mixture was placed in tray and was then divided into three samples.

5
 8. The heated mould was placed on the table, and then a piece of filter paper was fit in the bottom of the mould. The hot mix was poured into
the mould and it was made sure that it is evenly distributed in the mould. It was done by tamping the materials (using steel rod) 15 times
around the edges and 5 times in the centre leaving a slightly rounded surface.
9. The compaction mould with mix was placed on the compaction machine and it was compacted for 75 blows both face which is top and
bottom.
10. The sample was then left at least 2 hour before removing from the Marshall mould.

4.3 PART 3: Test on Specimen

11. The specimen was carefully removed from the mould, transferred to a smooth flat surface and allowed to cool to room temperature.
12. From the three samples, one sample was used for the volumetric analysis, one sample for Marshall Stability and flow and one sample for the
resilient modulus test.
13. The specimen height and weight were measured in air and water. The specimen density was determined.
14. The marshall sample was soaked for at least 30-40 minutes in the water bath at 60°C. Then, the sample was tested for Marshall machine to
determine its stability and flow. The specimen was loaded at a constant rate of starin of 50.8mm/minute.
15. The stability value obtained was corrected by the appropriate coefficient in Table 2.
16. For the Resilient Modulud test, the testing temperature was at 5°C.

6
5.0 RESULT

5.1 Part 3: Test on specimen

Group/Spec. Bit. Wt. of Specimen Bulk Density (g/cc) Volume % Total Voids Spec. Resilient
By In Air In SSD Vol. Bulk Max Bit. Agg. Void Agg. Filled Total Height Modulus
Wt. (g) Water (g) (cc) b/e (Theory) (axf)/ (100- Mix 100 – (h%)/k Mix (mm) (MPa)
of (g) d-c Gac a)f / 100- i (g-
Mix Gagg h—i f)%
/g
a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o
G1/1
G1/2
G2/1 4.5 1021 578 1023 445 2.294 2.49 10.12 82.05 7.83 17.95 1.68 0.08 57
G2/2 4.5 1100 2.49 61 3777
G3/1
G3/2
G4/1
G4/2

7
 G1 G2 G3 G4
Mixing Temperature 153.0°C
Compacting Temperature 145.0°C

8
5.2 RESULT ANALYSIS

Unit Weight vs Asphalt Content Graph

620
610

Unit Weight (Mgm3)

600
590
580
570
560
550
540
530
3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Asphalt Content (%)

Diagram 1 : Graph of Unit Weight vs Asphalt Content

9
 Voids Total Mix vs Asphalt Content Graph
0.21

0.18

Voids Total Mix (%)

0.15

0.12

0.09

0.06

0.03

0
3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Asphalt Content (%)

Diagram 2 : Graph of Unit Weight vs Asphalt Content

10
 Voids in Minerals Aggregate vs Asphalt Content
Graph
30

Voids in Minerals Aggragate (%)

28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Asphalt Content (%)

Diagram 3 : Graph of Voids in Minerals Aggregate vs Asphalt Content

Binder content calculation,

4.0 1100
BC(g)   45 g
100  4.0

11
6.0 DISCUSSION

The main purpose of the design process is to determine the optimum bitumen content (OBC) of each asphaltic mixture. From Marshall
Mix Design laboratory test, data and result were found based on percentage sample binder. The aggregate were sieve exactly according the
size were state in pavement manual laboratory. The sieve was doing in properly sieve to prevent the wrong size. From the sieving two sample
were prepaid for each percentages of binder used as Marshall Mix Design.

In Marshall Method were used Marshall Hammer, the Marshall Stability and Resilient Modulus test which is the biggest differentiate
aspects. Both method are easily to get to the high and low temperature. The aggregate were put in oven about 6 – 8 hour to dry it before
start the process of compaction. This is to ensure the aggregate are always in dry. The aggregate and asphalt were mix together at
temperature 140⁰C - 160⁰C. Number of blows was used in this test is 75 blows for both face ( top and bottom ).

The Marshall sample is weighted to get the dry air mass and surface dry mass. The basket was placed with the Marshall sample not
touch below the water level and the sample is wiped with cloth before weighed to ensure get the surface dry mass. The passing values of
stability and flow depend upon the mix class being evaluated.

In this test each group were used their own percentages of binder. From the calculation, the 4.0% of binder, we get the average for
bulk specific gravity is 2.51% , bitumen volume is 3.08%, aggregate volume is 28.16%, Air void mix volume 67.66% , Void in the aggregate is
71.74% and Void filled with asphalt is 68.69%. From the experiment, the resilient modulus test result were obtain is 3741.25 MPa. The result
were tabulated to determine the shape of graph.

12
7.0 CONCLUSION

Most of the objectives for this experiment were successfully achieved. For the first test, we able to prepare the standard specimens of
asphaltic concrete for determination of stability and flow in Marshall apparatus and to determined density, percentage air voids and percent of
aggregate voids filled with binder. Specimens with 4.05, 4.5%, 5.0%, 5.5% asphalt content are prepared successfully.

For the density and void analysis, we also successfully determine the density and void analysis in the mix design specimens. The
graphs of bulk density, VTM, VMA, and VFA versus percentage of binder are plotted. The proportion of void in the mix design can affect the
strength of the pavement thus it should be design in such a way that is fulfilling the requirement of the asphalt mix design.

The third test, we are able to determine the resilient modulus or the stiffness modulus of asphalt mixes using UMATTA machine and the
graph of resilient modulus versus percentage of binder is plotted.

For the Marshall stability and flow test, we able to measure the resistance of flow of cylindrical specimens of an asphaltic paving
mixture loaded on the lateral surface by means of the Marshall Apparatus. Thus the objective of this experiment is achieved.

8.0 REFERENCES

1. Fred L. Mannering, Walter P. Kilareski, Principle of Highway Engineering and Traffic Analysis, 2nd Edition.

2. Paul H. Wright, Karen K.Dixton, Highway Engineering, 7th Edition, United State, (2004).

3. Ratnasamy Muniandy , Radin Umar Radin Sohaidi, Highway Materilas A guide Book for Engineers, University Putra Malaysia. (2001).

13