ASPHALT STABILIZATION. OF SELECTED
3AM} ANS GRAVEL BASE CGURSES

TMsts {or flu Deg-no of M. S.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
John Charies Riiey
1964

masts

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

"ASPHALT STABILIZATION OF SELECTED
SAND AND GRAVEL BASE COURSES"

presented by

John Charles Riley

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Masters degree in Civil Engineering

WWW/—

Malor professor

 

 

Date

0-169

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

ABSTRACT

ASPHALT STABILIZATION 0F SELECTED
SAND AND GRAVEL BASE COURSES

by John Charles Riley

Throughout the United States there are many areas
which are totally void of high quality aggregates suitable
for use in standard highway base courses. One method of
remedying this situation is to render the lower quality
aggregates suitable for use by stabilization with aSphalt
cement.

This thesis is concerned with an analysis of the
effectiveness of the stabilization of certain sand aSphalt
and sand-gravel asphalt mixtures. Samples of the materials
were prepared and tested for Marshall Stability and uncon-
fined compressive strength. Results were then compared
primarily to one set of specifications for aSphalt treated
base courses.

From the results obtained, it is theorized that,
in the stabilization of sand with asphalt, the asphalt

serves to increase intergranular friction as well as to

John Charles Riley

produce cohesive resistance.

The only mixtures that had maximum strengths, or
stabilities, which were found to occur at or slightly
below optimum density, high enough to qualify for a base
course by the standards used, were the sand-gravel mir-
turee using 85/100 penetration asphalt.

By a comparison of test results and specification
limits, the lower specification limit for a suitable base
course material, based on its unconfined compressive
strength, is proposed to be between 80 and 90 pounds per

square inch at a test temperature of 77'F.

ASPHAET STABILIZATION OF SELECTED

SAND AND GRAVEL BASE COURSES

BY

John Charles Riley

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Civil Engineering

1964

 

to all

Dt. Ga

ment 1

Cubitt

PIESQF

the M;

assis

L5

O‘ .C’&’
so //

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to express his deep gratitude
to all those who helped make this thesis possible.

In particular, I would like to thank my advisor,
Dr. Gail C. Blomquist for his able guidance and encourage-
ment in the writing of this thesis.

I would also like to thank my colleague, Mr. Duane
Cubitt for his assistance in conducting the research
presented here.

I am also grateful to the Asphalt Institute and
the Michigan Asphalt Paving Association for their financial

assistance in the form of a scholarship.

ii

 

IGNORE?
LIST OF
LIST OF
LIST OF

Chapter
I.

II .
III .

IV.

VI
31mg

APPQDC

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . .

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . .

LIST OF GRAPES

Chapter
I . INTRODUCTIQ .

II. BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . .
III. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . .
IV. PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . .
V. RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . .
VI. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . .

Appendix
~A. TABULATED RESULTS . . .

B. GRAPHS OF RESULTS . . . . . . . . . .

C. CHICAGO TESTING LABORATORY, INC.
' TECHNICAL REPORTS . . . . . . . . .

D. GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES

E. TABLES OF SPECIFIC GRAVITIES
AND SIEVE SIZES . . . . . . .

111

Page

ii

vi

vii

18
28
53

56

63

74

102

118

122

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Page
F. MATHEMATICAL RELATIONSHIPS USED
IN CALCULATIONS . . . . . . . . . . 125
G. COMPUTER PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . l29
H. SAND-GRAVEL ASPHAET BASE EXPERIMENTAL
PROJECT, ALGER ROAD, GRATIOT
COUNTY, MICHIGAN . . . . . . . . . . 144

iv

LIST OF TABLES
Table Page

TEXT
l. Asphalt Base Construction Methods . . . . l6
2. Selected Marshall Test Results . . . . , , 43

3. Selected unconfined Compression
Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

4. Types of Graded Hot-Mix Asphalt Bases . , 48
5. Tentative Design Criteria For Hot-Mix
Asphalt Bases . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
APPENDIX A
1A. Marshall Test Results . . . . . . . . . . 64
13. lMarshall Sample Parameters . . . . . . . 65
2A. Unconfined Compression Test Results . . . 7O
23. Unconfined Compression Sample
P818I3t€13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
APPENDIX E
1. Specific Gravities of de Constituents , , 123

2. Sieve Size Sequence for Grain Size

Analysis of Aggregate 124

Figure

 

 

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Variables Affecting Stability of
Sand and Sand Asphalt Mixtures . . . . ll

2. Apparatus for Testing Marshall
Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

vi

LIST OF GRAPES

Graph Page

APPENDIX B

1. Marshall Stability Variation with
Asphalt Content (AC 85/100) . . . . . . 77

2. Unconfined Compressive Strength Variation
with Asphalt Content (AC 85/100) . . . . 78

3. Marshall Stability Variation with
Asphalt Content (AC 85/100) . . . . . . 79

4. Unconfined Compressive Strength Variation
with Asphalt Content (AC 120/150). . . . 80

5. IMarshall Flow Variation with Asphalt
Content (AC 85/100) (Sand) . . . . . . . 81

6. Murshall Flow Variation with Asphalt
Content (AC 120/150) (Sand) . . . . . . 82

7. iMarshall Flow Variation with Asphalt
Content (AC 85/100) (Sand-gravel) . . . 83

8. Marshall Flow Variation with Asphalt
Content (AC 120/150) (Sand-gravel) . . . 84

9. Density Variation with Asphalt
Content (AC 85/100) . . . . . . . . . . 85

10. Density Variation with Asphalt
Content (AC 85/100) . . . . . . . . . . 86

11. Density Variation with Asphalt
Content (AC 120/150) . . . . . . . . . . 87

vii

 

12. D
13. I
14. I
15. l
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.

21.

22..

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

LIST OF GRAPES (continued)

Density Variation with Asphalt

Content (AC 120/150) . .

Density Factor Variation with Asphalt

Content (AC 85/100) . .

O O O O O 0

Density Factor Variation with Asphalt

Content (AC 85/100)

Density Factor Variation with ASphalt

Content (AC 120/150) . .

Density Factor Variation with Asphalt

Content (AC 120/150) . .

Effect of Varying Asphalt
Filled with Bitumen (AC

Effect of Varying Asphalt
Filled with Bitumen (AC

Effect of Varying Asphalt
Filled with Bitumen (AC

Effect of Varying Asphalt
Filled with Bitumen (AC

Effect of Varying Asphalt
Cent Difference Between
77’F and 100°F . . . . .

Effect of Varying Asphalt
Cent Difference Between
77°F and 100°F . . . . .

viii

C O O O 0

Content on Voids
85/100) . ,

Content on Voids
85/100) . .

Content on Voids
120/150) . . .

Content on Voids
120/150) . .

Content on Per
Stabilities at

Content on Per
Strengths at

O O O O O O O O

Page

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

23.

24.

25.

Effect
Cent
77°F

Effect
Cent
77°F

LIST OF GRAPES (continued)

of Varying Asphalt Content on Per
Difference Between Stabilities at
and 100.F O O O O O O .0 O O O O O

of Varying Asphalt Content on Per
Difference Between Strengths at
and 100°F . . . . . . . . . .

Correlation Between Marshall Stability
and Unconfined Compressive Strength

Grain
for

Grain
for

APPENDIX D

Size Distribution Curve
sand 0 O O O O I O O 0

Size Distribution Curve
Gravel . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Grain Size Distribution Curve

for

Sand-gravel Mixture

ix

Page

99

100

101

119

120

121

 

appli
coup?
aggrl
qual
ous

empl
desi
meti
Sta}
for

eta

dev
Sub
Phy

C0:

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

The increase in the volume of heavy wheel loads
applied to highways and airport runways in our time
coupled with the diminishing supply of high quality
aggregates has necessitated the stabilization of lower
quality aggregates for use in the construction of numer-
ous highways and airports. Asphaltic materials have been
employed for some of this necessary stabilisation, but
design engineers are hampered by the lack of a proven
method for designing a base course of materials thus
stabilized. In fact, there has been developed no criteria
for evaluating the suitability of some of these sub-
standard materials after they have been stabilized.

It is the purpose of this thesis to attempt
deve10pment of some criteria for utilization of certain
sub-standard base course materials through a program of
physical research and testing with limited field

correlation.

CHAPTER II
BACKGROUND

Bituminous soil stabilization, as far as highway
and airport construction are concerned, is the process of
strengthening a soil or aiding it in retaining its
natural strength by adding certain asphaltic materials to
make it more resistant to deformation and displacement
under the loads applied to it. I

In general, asphalt treated base courses are not
a product of modern day technology for they have been in
use since the early 1900's. In the early years they were
used mainly for city street construction where heavy loads
riding on steel-rimmed wheels or solid rubber tires had to
be supported. However, the advent of the low-pressure
tire, which spread the load over a larger area, decreased

the necessity for asphalt treated bases} Thus, for a

 

Reference 8, p. 5, (references are listed in the
Bibliography).

 

number
lore re
heaviei
decrea:

81100111.”

lized
way co
from t

effect

number of years the use of such bases was limited. In
more recent times, however, the higher pressure tires,
heavier wheel loads, larger volumes of traffic, and
decreased sources of high quality aggregates have
encouraged a revival of the use of asphalt bases.

There are numerous advantages of asphalt stabi-
lized bases which warrant their use in present day high-
way construction. Some of these advantages, which stem
from their combination of flexibility and slab-like
effect, may be listed as follows?

1. good pressure distribution on the subgrade.

2. dampening of shocks.

3. uniform structure without expansion joints.

4. same coefficient of expansion for the base

and the asphalt surface.

5. adjustment to ground movement (settlement and

frost heave.)

6. protection against frost damage from above as

surface water is kept from entering the sub-

grade.

 

2
Ref. 17, p. 127

Other a

7.

traffic requirements can be met by varying

the number of layers.

Other advantages include the following?

1.

9.

Bases can be rolled to meet close evenness
tolerances when spreading machines are used.
Bases can carry traffic as temporary roadways.
Local aggregates can generally be used.

Various surface types can be used.

They lower stresses on the subgrade, thus
reducing total thickness requirements.
Construction delays due to bad weather can be
held to a minimum because these bases can be
laid rapidly and promptly compacted, thus
making them watertight.

They prevent capillary moisture and water vapor
from reaching pavement courses.

Because they are frost resistant, less granular
material is required for shoulders.

They provide ease and uniformity of compaction.

 

3
Ref. 8, p. 14.

 

_. -—-—..._.~ —-_——-
-—.. u.—
—.--—-————

.—_.....—.
w

 

mated ‘
the norm
the prim
duign,

anxious:

to neon

engines:
fld usix
3°“ Prq
mum
“I! in

constru
tour“

“Phalt
“Mat.

"PM 1!

10. Machine laid bases help improve surface
riding qualities.

At the present state of technology, asphalt
treated bases are not without limitations. Other than
the normally accepted material and equipment limitations,
the primary disadvantage is the lack of knowledge of
design, specification, and control on the part of the
engineer. For this reason many engineers are unwilling
to recommend this type of construction.

In spite of this wariness on the part of some
engineers, a large number of projects have been construc-
ted using asphalt bases. One such project was the Alger
Road Prdnect in Gratiot County, Michigan. This project,
constructed for Gratiot County during the summer of 1963,.
was in four sections, one of which was a control section
constructed with normally accepted procedures. The base
course on the other sections was a hot-mixed, hot-laid sand
asphalt base mixed with 85/100 penetration grade asphalt
cement. Other details concerning the subgrade, subbase,

asphalt base courses and the asphalt surface course4 may

 

See also reference 31.

 

 

be see

H.

the be

this p

job, t
laphal
along
sates
mixes
local
used ‘
entlro

advent

be seen in the plan of the project contained in Appendix
H.

' The results from the AASHO Road Test were used as
the basis for the design of the pavement structure for
this project?

Having been associated with this Gratiot County
job, the author was able to secure field samples of the
asphalt treated base materials to test in the laboratory
along with mixes prepared in the laboratory using aggre-
gates obtained from the stockpiles from which the field
mixes were made. These aggregates were sub-standard
local aggregates which could not have been satisfactorily
used without a stabilizing agent. This project was not
entirely unique, but it is serving as another step in the

advancement of asphalt treated base course technology.

5
Ref. 31

 

 

materia'
researci
1930's.
began s
directi
By 1940
and Mr,

Cowpany

flEd as

“Phalt
Mteria

t0 defi

\-

CHAPTER III
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Although soils were stabilized with bituminous
materials as far back as the early 1900's, formal
research in this field did not begin until the late
1930's. At this time the Florida State Road Department
began studies in sand asphalt stabilization under the
direction of Mr. H. C. Weathers, a materials engineer.
By 1940 the study had been taken up by Mr. A. W. Mbhr
and Mr. C. L. McKesson, engineers with American Bitumuls
Company}

In the major portion of this early research emulsi-
fied asphalts and cut-back asphalts were employed as the
asphalt stabilizing agent. Today other bituminous
materials are also employed, but the earlier work served

to define the factors involved in stabilization with all

 

1
Ref. 18, p. 113.

 

uphalt 1

asphalt
tigatior
in the r
asphalt.
aiding :
ture of
asphalt
theory '
to prov
each 3:
loss of
A aligl
the thi
creasi,
some c.

trGalina

Thus

\

asphalt materials.

Probably the most basic principle concerning
asphalt stabilization that was realized from early inves-

tigations, concerned the function of the asphalt material

in the mixture. In a mixture of a cohesive soil and,

asphalt, the asphalt serves to waterproof the soil, thus

aiding it in retaining its natural strength. In a mix-
ture of a non-cohesive sandy soil with asphalt, the
asphalt serves as a binder or cementing agent? The,
theory behind the stabilization of sand with asphalt is
to provide the optimum thickness of asphalt film around

each grain to. produce cohesive resistance with as little
1088 of grain to grain frictional resistance as possible?

A aslight variation of this, according to McKessone is that

‘=llee thin films of asphalt accomplish stability by in-

c: easing the grain to grain frictional resistance. True,

30m cohesion is obtained, but it is believed that the

t‘lteatment depends primarily on the increased friction.

'ITIqu the following types of bituminous soil stabilization

-

2 3
Ref. 26, p. 275. Ref. 44, p. 278.
4Ref. 28, p. 863.

may be 1
Nil 8y.
loou b

by aaph

.1 lotion

that ‘
his b.

the 8‘

 

 

 

may be defined? (1) soil-asphalt; a waterproofed cohesive

soil system, and (2) sandpasphalt; a system in which

loose beach, dune, pit, or river sand is cemented together

by asphalt material.

water-proofing types of bituminous soil stabili-

sation can be further subdivided as outlined by Benson?

1.

2.

3.

Intimate mixes of soil and asphalt, in which,
essentially, each soil particle is surrounded
by a protective film of asphalt.

waterproofed mechanical stabilization in
which capillaries in mixtures of aggregate
and soil are effectively "plugged" by asphalt
particles.

Phase-mixed stabilization in which nodules ‘
or aggregations of plastic soil are encased
in a thick protective film of asphalt.

‘Membrane enveloping, in which large.soil
masses, as an entire fill section or a placed
base, is wrapped up in a protective membrane
to prevent loss or gain of moisture.

Another subdivision that might be added to this list is

that of oiled earth, which is an earth road surface which

has been waterproofed and rendered abrasion resistant by

the application of slow or medium-curing road oils?

5 6 '
Ref. 21, p. 5. Ref. 12, p. 166.

7Ref. 21, p. 5.

 

jact oi
the fac
sand-a:
into p}
1. Tha
dapend
axampl:
granul.
propor'
where t
in lit
the st

nixed

were 1

10

A great deal of the material written on the sub-
ject of asphalt soil stabilization to date has dealt with
the factors which affect the stability of soil asphalt and
sand-asphalt mixtures? These factors have been grouped
into primary factors and contributory factors9 in Figure
l. The degree of importance of some of these factors may
depend somewhat on the type of aggregate used}0 For
example, the stabilities and strengths of non-cohesive
granular materials when mixed with asphalt tend to be
prOportional to the amount of mixing only up-to the point
where an intimate mix is obtained. Further mixing results
in little or no increase in strength}1 On the other hand,
the stabilities and strengths of cohesive materials, when
mixed with asphalt, continue to vary with mixing time].2

Most of the early asphalt treated base courses that

were laid used an asphalt emulsion or cut-back asphalt

 

8
References ll, l3, 16, 20, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28,
29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 43.

9
Ref. 13, p. 121, and Ref. 24, p. 17.
18 ll

of. 14, p. 489. Ref. 13, p. l3l.

12
Ref. 13, pp. 132, 134.

0H MEHUHK

ll

 

Edge mo oowwoc can monumezi

 

 

@333?ch £39.80 omspeumfr

 

 

mapooaaoo no common use nomads“

 

 

Vega wfihfi ogeuomaoe

 

 

 

@433 no woman: gmhoco wig—l
.wcaxaa wcause pcopnoo oaspoaoz
flmwxaa a. .mwmw

”wwo. on» no.3 unwaa on on onsomfl.
thee.aw up. u:WM|mmmw:Hocav
Mmuasupua on» a. ooaeuoaotm

Hmwaxae .souop_anop:oo osspnaoz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"83.02”an
one waffle

 

 

 

“RE

 

aoanupuz
.Bawsfim

 

 

 

 

151% osouop scavenged?“ no ecumein—IT

 

Hon no uonfiéfl—W
3%

Huom

a

EBA 54% 83m 9: 93m
ho Egan agar: §4Hm<>

2n 55lo

 

otspxaa
.sonaaapap
Haoo co

.mwwpouaaap.»

U)

 

 

 

 

 

aired in
homer,
bases.

states i
type of
1963?3

sxtensi
has lai
over ho
uperia
11:11, i
cation:
lines,
on the
Portia
'18 de

condu

12

mixed in a traveling plant or road mixed. Mbre recently,
however, there has been a trend toward hot-mixed, hot-laid
bases. In this country only eleven out of forty-eight
states (Alaska and Hawaii not included) had not used this
type of asphalt treated base as of the beginning of

1963}3 Germany, however, has probably been the most
extensive user of this type of base. Since 1955 Germany
has laid over 40 million square meters of road surface
over hot-mix asphalt bases}4 As a result of the
experience they had gained, the Germans were able to pub-
lish, in the spring of 1960, a set of tentative specifi-
cations for hot-mix bases. The three different types of
sixes, which are based on the amount of material retained
on the number 10 sieve, are shown in Table 4. Another
portion of these specifications, which gives thickness and
mixzdesign criteria for hot-mix bases under various traffic

1
conditions, may be seen in Table 5.

 

14
1Ref. 39, pp. 9,10. Ref. 37, p. 173.
1Ref. 37, pp. 173-174.

 

can

duct

Con:

sam

COD!

Asa

were

13

Some laboratory research on hot-mix bases has been

carried on in this country too. Warden and Hudson con“

ducted laboratory studies on Natural Aggregate Bituminous

Concrete (NABC) in conjunction with field experience in

sand-gravel asphalt treated base technology gained in

connection with the Garden State Parkway in New Jersey}6

As a result of these studies the following conclusions

17

were reached:

1.

2.

A wide range of sand gravel may be used insofar
as gradation is concerned. Practical limits for
per cent passing and Job-Mix Formula tolerances
are:

ai

Sieve Per cent Job-Mix Formula

 

 

Size Passing? Tolerance*
No. 4 45 - 75 61
No. 20 20 - 50 41
No. 200 2 - 8 11

 

*Consistent with t0.3i;A. C. tolerance

As the lower courses of the pavement do not reach
as high temperatures as the surface, Mbrshall
stability at l40F is not critical. However, a
stability of 500 lbs. appears to be a practical
minimum value for this type of construction.

Flow should be less than 0.14 inches.

 

1
1Ref. 42, pp. 291-312. Ref. 42, pp. 3115312.

 

 

Bolt

aids
bind

14

3. There has been some indication of a plastic
condition developing in the lower course of the
asphalt bound base, both during construction and
under traffic, when high asphalt contents are
used. To provide adequate protection against
surface rutting it is advisable to maintain
total voids at 5 to 7 per cent for both sand and
sand-gravel mixtures. The acceptable range of
voids filled with asphalt appears to be 60 - 70
per cent for sand-gravel and 65 - 75 per cent
for sand mixtures.

4. The natural fillers occurring as minus No. 200
material in aggregate deposits should be tested
in advance. Natural fillers which have a pro-
nounced effect on penetration and ductility of
the filler-bitumen mortar should be avoided.

5. Field experience indicates that, due to the
softening effect of solvents and solvent vapors
on asphalt bound bases, emulsion rather than
cut-back should be used for tack coats.

6. Economical and satisfactory black base mixtures
can be produced using a wide range of local
materials. Further economies may result if it
can be demonstrated that under actual highway
conditions black base can be substituted for
thicker courses of other types of base construc-
tion.

In regard to conclusion 4 above, another possible
solution to this problem is a construction method employed
in Germany. In that country Portland cement concrete
side strips, 20 to 30 inches wide, encase the surface,

binder, and base course layers of roads designed for

 

heavy l

substi
of oth=
0! at

base i

lateri

' is, in
struct
are of
pectin
Table
aspha'
tar-.
of th
eNplo

15

heavy and very heavy traffic}8

Also, conclusion 6 deserves a comment regarding
substitution of asphalt treated base for thicker courses
of other types of base construction. It has been found,
or at least theorized, that one inch of asphalt treated
base is equivalent to from 1% to‘5 inches of untreated
material}

The construction of asphalt treated base courses
is, in most respects, quite similar to surface course con-
struction. The methods employed in construction, which
are of primary interest, are mixing, spreading, and com-
pacting of the mixture. These have been listed in
Table 120 In general, one or more types of binders--
asphalt emulsions, cut-back asphalts, asphalt cements, and
tar--can be used for stabilization when some combination
of these mixing, spreading and compaction methods is

employed.

For the previously mentioned asphalt base project

 

18 19

Ref. 37, p. 175. Ref. 8, p. 11.
20

Ref. 1, and Ref. 21.

16

 

uoommmoonm

mouwu oaumamocm
aommmu Wawman
Havana camera
moaeoas m.

Henna aeoum

Hommuw ocean

endgame wcq>mm

esoam aouuonaauasa
woumxauaso vwwnouo
maouumn :uoou wcaumm
maouuma omwm
mwmum ovmanusnwuama
meaaauouoH
vewqa_emman

ooeam cw mama:

madam wowao>wra

madam Hmuuceo

 

muuaaom woauoemaoo

mauvmeumm

we.“ 52

 

macmhmx zouapamamzou mm<m Hn<=mm<

.H MAQ<H

 

in Gra
pared
paving
steel
ture,
210°F
found

the t

posed
as we
sent
Fleu1
the '

23 .

ted

17

in Gratiot County, Michigan, the base mixture was pre-
pared in a central mixing plant, spread by an asphalt
paving machine, and compacted with a two-axle tandem
steel wheeled roller. It was found that the mix tempera-
ture, which was originally 260‘F, had to be lowered to
210°F to expedite compaction?1 This situation was also
found in Germany where rolling temperatures, depending on
the type of mix, range from 140‘F to 280W?2

Samples of the aggregate and asphalt cement pro-
posed for use on the Gratiot County, Michigan, project,
as well as field samples of two of the job mixes, were
sent to Chicago Testing Laboratory, Inc. by Mr. Berl
Fleury of Leonard Refineries, Alma, Michigan. Copies of
the technical reports returned, as contained in Appendix

23

C, may be used for a comparison with other results presen-

ted herein.

 

l 3
2Ref. 31. 2Ref. 37, p. 174. 2Ref. 19.

 

#4 _——.a_1-oh-A

reset
labor
nixe<
Iixel
treat
Mich:
Mich:
pavil
1963

tltll
of a;
the 1
two 1

of 0‘

CHAPTER IV
PROCEDURE

The general procedure followed in conducting the
research described herein was one of testing a series of
laboratory mixed samples in addition to various field
mixed samples for comparison and control. The field
mixes employed were the three variations of asphalt
treated base on the Alger Road project in Gratiot County,
lMichigan, and a surface course mix, utilizing State of
Michigan specification 31A aggregate} mixed for some
paving operations at Michigan State university in October,
1963.

The laboratory mixes were prepared from represen-
tative samples of aggregates obtained from the stockpiles
of aggregate which were employed in the plant mixes for
the Alger Road project. These aggregates consisted of
two types: (1) a gap-graded sand with an effective size

of 0.0078 inch, a uniformity coefficient of 2.3, and an

 

1
Ref. 40

'18

 

AASH
grad
unii
cati
only
bet:
the:
sap!

pent

intl

8e:

Cat

tur

19

AASHO classification of A-3(0); and (2) a uniformily
graded gravel with an effective size of 0.0095 inch, a
uniformity coefficient of 10.4, and an AASHO classifi-
cation of A-l-b(0). Both aggregates were pit run with
only that material retained on a 3/4 inch sieve removed
before mixing. The grain size distribution curves for
these aggregates are contained in Appendix D. The
asphalt cements used in the laboratory mixes were 85/100
penetration and 120/150 penetration.

The mixtures prepared for testing can be grouped
into the following four categories: (1) a mixture of
85/100 penetration asphalt and sand, (2) a mixture of
85/100 penetration asphalt and an aggregate mixture con-
sisting of 50 per cent sand and 50 per cent gravel,

(3) a mixture of 120/150 penetration asphalt and sand, and
(4) a mixture of 120/150 penetration asphalt and the sand-
gravel mixture. Within each of these categories the
asphalt content of the mixtures were varied over a range
generally in increments of one-half per cent.

At almost every asphalt content in the above
categories, twelve samples were prepared from the mix-

tures. Six of these samples were tested for Marshall

 

Stab
test

and

and

with
cent
mate
asph
grad
thes
the

P101
mold

mint

aPPE
Desi
Fits

this

20

Stability, three at 77°F and three at lOO‘F, and six were
tested in unconfined compression, again, three at 77’F
and three at lOO'P.

The field samples that were used for comparison
and control, were of four types: (1) 3 per cent asphalt
with sand, (2) 3% per cent asphalt with sand, (3) 4 per
cent asphalt with sandpgravel, and (4) surface course
material which employed Michigan 31A aggregate. The
asphalt employed in these mixes was 85/100 penetration
grade asphalt cement. The asphalt contents listed for
these field mixes are nominal percentages according to
the job-mix formula for the Gratiot County, Michigan,
project. The same number and types of samples were
molded and tested for these mixtures as for the laboratory
mixtures.

The samples molded for testing in the Marshall
apparatus were prepared and tested in accordance with ASTM.
Designation: D 1559-58T2 with the following variations:
First, mixtures were prepared and molded at 210'F since

this was the temperature found best suited for compaction

 

2
Ref 0 5 ’ ppo 1006- 1013 e

21

on the Alger Road project. Second, samples were brought

to testing temperature in air baths rather than in water

baths. Finally, samples were tested at 77'? and lOO‘F

rather than at 140'? because many of the samples would
have shown little, if any, strength at the higher tempera-
ture, and because the lower temperatures are more indica-
tive of temperatures actually reached in highway base

Before testing, the samples were cured at room

In Figure 2 is shown

courses.
temperature for at least two weeks.
the testing apparatus set up ready for a test.

The samples made for testing in unconfined com-
pression were prepared and tested in accordance with ASTM

Designation: D 1074-58 T3 with the following variations:

First, rather than preparing just enough mix for one
‘llnplC, sufficient amounts were prepared at each mixing to
mold six samples, each four inches high and four inches in

- diameter. Second, mixtures were mixed and molded at 210°F.

Finally, samples were tested at lOO'F as well as at 77°F.
The time interval between the end of curing at 140°F and

. the testing of the sample was generally about 24 hours.

¥

3
Ref. 4, pp. 922-926.

 

22

FIGURE 2.

APPARATUS FOR TESTING
MARSHALL SAMPLES

-___._- ,, . i- c...

 

 

 

 

23

Samples tested at lOO'F were oven heated and maintained

at this temperature for approximately 4 hours.
In preparing test specimens from field samples,

the mixtures were heated to 210‘F after which samples

were molded and cured as outlined above. The surface

course material which employed Michigan 31A aggregate,

was heated to 325'F, the temperature at which it was com-

pacted on the job, before molding samples. Two of the

eight Marshall samples prepared from this mix were tested

at 140'F to provide comparisons to be made with values

generally obtained for Marshall Stability.

In order to determine the actual asphalt contents

of the various field mixes, extractions were carried out

on samles of each of the different mixes. The procedure

followed for conducting these extraction tests was in

4
accordance with ASTM Designation: D 1097-58 with the fol-

lowing variations: First, the solvent used was Chloro-

thcme-Nu rather than benzene. Second, the filter ring

Weight increase was not determined and used in the calcu-

lations. Finally, the extract was not saved and analyzed

4
Ref. 3, pp. 904-906.

24

for ash content.

The specific gravities of the compressed asphalt

mixtures were determined in accordance with ASTM Desig-

n'ationSD 1188-56 .

The specific gravities of the asphalt materials
were determined in accordance with ASTM Designation
D 70-52 procedure for asphalt cements and pitches.

The values of specific gravity used for the sand
and gravel aggregates were as reported by Chicago Testing
Laboratory (see Appendix C.) The specific gravity of the
aggregate employed in the surface course mix which
employed Michigan 31A aggregate, was determined in the
laboratory by the method suggested by Lambs?

’ To determine the grain size distribution of the
Sand and of the gravel, a sieve analysis of each was per-
formed. The procedure followed for this was as prescribed
by ASTM Designation? C 136-46. The sieve size sequence is
given in Table 2 of Appendix E along with the size of the

°Penings in each sieve.

5 6

Ref. 7, pp. 1049-1050. Ref. 6, pp. 1044-1046.
7 8

Ref. 25, pp. 15-21. Ref. 2, pp. 536-538.

25

In the course of the investigation of these
aggregates a total of 447 samples were made and tested.
For each sample, after molding, the weight in air and the
weight in water were determined. After curing and being
brought to the proper temperature, the sample was tested
and its strength, and flow in the case of the Marshall
Stability determinations, were recorded.

With these three elements of data for each sample,
and knowing the specific gravities and percentages of the
constituents of the sample, the following quantities were
determined: the volume of the sample; the Marshall
Stability in pounds, or the compressive strength in pounds
per square inch; the bulk specific gravity; the bulk den-
sity; the theoretical maximum specific gravity; the per
cent air voids, or voids in the total mix; the per cent
voids in the mineral aggregate; the per cent voids filled
with bitumen; the per cent difference between strength, or
stability, at 77‘F and at lOO'F; and a density factor
which is the strength or stability of the specimen divided
by its density. For the Marshall Stability determinations,
the flow values were recorded as was, for all tests, the

temperature (f the sample at the time of the test.

26

Generally, three samples were tested identically
to obtain average results. That is, three samples having
the same composition were tested at the same temperature
by the same method of test. The previously listed quanti-
ties for the three samples were then averaged. If, how-
ever, it was felt that any one or more of the samples
gave, for some reason, erroneous results, the results
obtained for that sample were not considered. In this
way average results were obtained for each mixture.

Because of the volume of work involved in calcu-
lating the necessary quantities for so many samples, a
computer program was written to instruct the computer how
to do the calculations. The basic data for each sample,
its weight in water and in air, its strength or stability,
and the specific gravities and percentages of its constit-
uents, were fed into the computer along with the program.
The result was a print-out of all the previously listed
quantities, including desired average quantities, except
the per cant difference in strength or stability at 77'F
and at 100‘? which the computer was not instructed to
calculate. A complete explanation and copy of the com-

puter program used can be found in Appendix G. A listing

27

of the formulas used in calculating the previously listed

quantities is contained in Appendix F.

CHAPTER V
RESULTS

Egberatory Test Results

Some of the basic data employed in obtaining the
results discussed herein are actually results themselves--
results of specific gravity tests. The various values of
specific gravity used in calculating the other results
were determined in the laboratory except for the values
of specific gravity of the sand and gravel aggregates.
These latter values were obtained from Chicago Testing
Laboratory, Inc., Technical Report No. 13125-6 (see
Appemdix C.) All values of specific gravity used are
listed in Table l of Appendix E.

Since the average quantities determined for each
set of samples were the only ones employed, they are the
only ones presented herein. These results have been
t‘bI-‘Ilated in Appendix A. Table 1A of this Appendix lists
thfi following quantities: (1) the sample number; (2) the
8“ulnar series--series A are field mixed samples of 85/100

P‘netration asphalt cement, series B are laboratory mixed

28

29

samples of 85/100 penetration asphalt cement, and series
0 are laboratory mixed samples of 120/150 penetration
asphalt cement; (3) the aggregate type-~S is send, S-G is
the sand-gravel mixture, and 31A is the State of Michigan
specification 31A aggregate; (4) the asphalt content;
(5) the Marshall Stabilities of samples tested at 77‘F
and at 100°F; and (6) the Marshall Flow values at these
temperatures. Table 18 contains: (1) the per cent dif-
ference in.Marshall Stabilities at 77'? and lOO'F, (2) the
densities of specimens tested at 77‘? and at lOO'F,
(3) the density factors of specimens tested at 77°F and
at lOO'F, (4) the per cent voids filled with bitumen, and
(5) the per cent air voids. Tables 2A and 28 contain the
respective values, where applicable, for specimens tested
in unconfined compression. The results tabulated in these
tables have been plotted graphically for clarity and ease
of interpretation. These graphs are contained in Appendix
B.

Graphs 1 through 4 show stability or strength
variations with asphalt content. From Graphs l and 2, it
can be observed that the optimum asphalt content for sand

mixed with 85/100 penetration asphalt cement (AC 85/100)

30

is between 3% and 5 per cent and for the sand-gravel
asphalt mixture is between 3 and 4k per cent. From
Graphs 3 and 4, it can be noted that the optimum asphalt .
(AC 120/150) content is between 23 and 3% per cent for
the sand asphalt mixture and between 2% and 4’5 per cent-
for the sand-gravel asphalt mixture.

.Although some higher strengths are reached at
higher asphalt contents on some of these graphs, it must
be kept in mdnd that the materials being considered are
intended for use as a base course. As such the asphalt
content should be limdted to not more than approximately
7 per cent. Higher asphalt contents would be indicative
of a surface course rather than base course material.

Further investigation of Graphs 1 through 4
reveals an expected fact. This is, the samples prepared
with 85/100 penetration asphalt were consistently stronger,
especially at the lower test temperature, than those pre-
pared with 120/150 penetration asphalt. It can also be
noted from Graphs 1 through 4 that there is a proportion-
ately greater change in strength over the testing tempera-
ture interval at high asphalt contents than at low asphalt

contents. Thus, it is evident that at lower asphalt

31

contents the mixture relies more on grain to grain fric-
tional resistance for strength than at higher asphalt con-
tents. From.this it might be reasoned that the mechanism
of stabilization is actually a compromise between the
theory as stated by Wooltorton1 and the theory advanced
by Molesson? In stabilising a sand with asphalt, the
thin films of asphalt surrounding the particles serve to
produce cohesive resistance as well as increase grain to
grain frictional resistance. The percentage of the total
strength supplied by each of the two actions depends upon
the temperature and asphalt content of the mdxture. The
proportion of the total strength supplied by the cohesive
resistance varies directly with asphalt content and in-
versely with temperature.

Graphs 5 through 8 indicate the variation of the
Mhrshall Flow value with asphalt content. These graphs
appear to be rather erratic, a little more so for tests
conducted at 77'F than for those at 100‘F. One reason
for at least some small variations is the difficulty in

reading the flow dial at precisely the right instant when

 

1 2
Ref. 44, p. 278. Ref. 28, p. 863.

 

an
It
fa
at
so
ts
(:14
ten
pas
atu

and

32

conducting the test. Because of the speed of the test, a
reading taken just a little early or late can result in
some degree of variation. Even small variations, when
plotted on a graph with as large a scale as has been used
here, can be magnified and made to appear as large vari-
ations. A possible cause for even larger variations than
attributable to reading difficulties stems from the nature
of the sample itself. At lower temperatures, such as 77'F,
as the sample is compressed, a combination of frictional
resistance and cohesion tend to hold the sample together.
As further strain occurs, numerous frictional resistance
and cohesion points break eventually resulting in failure.
It can be concluded that some samples may reach this
failure point more rapidly than others but at no less
stability. At the higher temperature the asphalt is
softer and acts slightly more as a lubricant. The higher
temperature would result in decreased cohesion. The parti-
cles being slightly better lubricated than at the lower
temperature, and with cohesive bonds weakened, will slide
past each other more readily. Thus, at the higher temper-
ature the mechanism of failure would occur more regularly

and more consistently.

33

Even though the Marshall Flow versus asphalt con-
tent graphs, Graphs 5 through 8, are rather erratic, some
general results can be ascertained from.them. From
Graphs 5 and 7 it can be observed that the sand and sand-
gravel samples made with 85/100 penetration asphalt
yielded maximum flows between 4 and 5 per cent. Graphs 6
and 8 indicate samples made with 120/150 penetration
asphalt yielded maximum flows between 5 and 7 per cent.
Compared to the maximum stabilities, these maximum flows
occur at the high end of the maximum stability range for
the AC 85/100 samples and from k to 45 per cent asphalt
above the range for the AC 120/150 samples.

Graphs 9 through 12 demonstrate the variation of
density with asphalt content. Upon examination of these
‘graphs several facts are discernable. First, the sand-
gravel samples compacted to higher densities than the sand
samples. This reflects the better gradation of the sand-
gravsl mixture than of the sand alone. Second, as the
asphalt content increases, the density of the sample in-
creases also, at least up to a point. This point that is
reached is the optimum density, beyond which further

addition of asphalt would start over-filling the voids,

34

thus reducing the density. Graphs 9 and 10 demonstrate
the optimum densities having been reached. Examination
of Graphs l and 2, which show the stabilities of_these
respective samples, reveals that the maximum stability or
strength is reached at or slightly below optimum density.
Examination of the other density graphs point out that no
optimum densities have been reached. When these graphs
are compared with their respective strength or stability
graphs, it can be seen that some of the samples had not
reached a peak strength, so the above mentioned stability
density relationship may hold for them also. A third
fact discerneble from these graphs is that optimum
strengths or stabilities occur at or slightly below Opti-
mum densities. A fourth fact that can be observed is that
the Marshall Test specimens, Graphs 9 and 11, compacted to
higher densities under fifty blows on each face than the
unconfined compression specimens, Graphs 10 and 12, did
under a static load of 3000 pounds per square inch.

Graphs 13 through 16 indicate the variation of the
density factor with asphalt content. This density factor,
a fabrication of the author, is merely the strength or

the stability divided by the density. It‘s purpose was

 

8g;
Bar.
:10

are

35

to provide a single parameter, involving both the sample's
strength and density, which are interdependent to start
with. This parameter, when plotted against asphalt con-
tent, would show the Optimum asphalt content as affected
by both density and stability or strength. It can be
seen by comparing Graphs 13 through 16 with the stability
and strength graphs, Graphs 1 through 4, that correspon-
ding plots are very nearly the same shape. This might
have been expected since stability and density are con-
sidered closely related.

The next four graphs, Graphs 17 through 20, indi-
cate how variations in asphalt content affect the per cent
of voids filled with bitumen. As might be expected, the
per cent of voids filled varies directly with asphalt con-
tent in a straight-line proportion. 'No other facts may
be noted from these graphs. First, at any particular
asphalt content, the sand-gravel mixtures have a higher
percentage of voids filled than the sand mixtures. This,
again, is a reflection of the better gradation of the
sand-gravel mixture than of the sand alone. Also, the
slopes of the lines representing the sand-gravel mixtures

are consistently greater than those lines representing

36

the sand mixtures. This indicates that there are fewer
voids in the sand-gravel mixture than in the sand mixture.
Again, this is relatable to the differences in gradation
of the two aggregates.

The second fact that can be realized from Graphs
17 through 20 and their respective slopes, is that the
rate of increase in per cent voids filled is independent
of asphalt penetration grade. Also, it is dependent upon
the method of compaction since samples compacted for tes-
-ting in the Marshall apparatus showed only slightly
greater rates of increase of per cent voids filled than
those compacted for testing in unconfined compression.
The magnitude of the per cent voids filled appears to be
independent of the asphalt penetration grade used. The
:method of compaction does, however, influence the per cent
voids filled. The dynamic compaction employed in the
molding of Marshall Test specimens yielded higher percen-
tages of voids filled than did the static compaction em-
ployed in the molding of samples to be tested in uncon-
fined compression, at a given asphalt content. This would
be a logical deduction, though, in light of the differen-

ces in densities previously noted.

 

 

 

8!:
te

th4

37

On the next four graphs, Graphs 21 through 24,'
are plotted the per cent difference in stabilities or
strengths at 77'F and lOO’F against asphalt content.

It can be seen from these curves that the per
cent difference in Marshall Stabilitiee for the sand
samples, Graph 21, reaches a higher level than the curve
for the more dense sand-gravel samples, Graph 23. On the
other hand, the curves of the per cant difference in un-
confined compressive strengths for both the sand and the
sand-gravel mixtures, Graphs 22 and 24 respectively, are
nearly the same. These differences could possibly be
explained in the following manner. The sand-gravel sam-
ples made for Marshall Stability determinations were the
most dense of all the samples. Because of their high den-
sity, their stability resulted primarily from the grain to
grain frictional resistance. The sand samples made for
testing in the Marshall apparatus were less dense than the
sand-gravel ones, so they gained a larger portion of their
strength from cohesive resistance. The samples made for
testing in unconfined compression were also less dense
than what appears to be a critical density value lying

between that of the sand-gravel mixtures made for testing

38

in the Marshall apparatus and that of the sand-gravel
mixtures made for testing in unconfined compression. Be-
cause of their lower densities, these samples also relied
in large measure on the cohesive resistance supplied by
the asphalt for their strength. Thus, a possible
addition to the previously stated theory of the mechanism
of stabilization (see page 33) might be that the percen-
tage of the total strength supplied by the two actions,
friction and cohesion, depends also on the density of the
mixture. Mixtures having densities below some critical
value, in this case the critical value is apparently be-
tween 125 and l30-pounds per cubic foot, rely primarily
on the cohesive resistance supplied by the asphalt. Fur-
ther proof that the asphalt content of the mixture affects
the degree to which the strength or stability results from
each of the two actions can be seen on Graphs 21 through
24 by the shape of the curves. For the less dense mix-
tures, the reliance on the effects of the asphalt in-
creases rapidly with increasing asphalt content up to an
.asphalt content of about 4 or 5 per cent. Past 4 or 5
'per cent addition of asphalt has less effect on the

strength or stability of the mixture. Thus, above 4 or 5

39

per cent asphalt the grain to grain friction comes into
play to a larger extent than below this asphalt content.

Graph 25 represents an attempt to establish some
correlation between the Marshall Stability and unconfined
compressive strength. Due to the comparatively small
number of tests conducted, a definite correlation could
not be established. The graph does, however, Show a
possible correlation by the dashed line through the
points. The points which appear most erroneous in re-
lation to the dashed line, are those representing some
samples molded with AC 85/100 and tested at 77°F. A
possible explanation of this error is that the sand sam-
ples made for testing in the Marshall apparatus cured for
a considerably longer time than most of the other samples.
This might have resulted in slightly higher than normal
Marshall Stabilitiee which when plotted against normal un-
confined compressive strengths, would locate the points
above the correlation line.

The three graphs contained in Appendix D repre-
sent the grain size distribution of the sand, the gravel,
and the sand-gravel mixture, respectively. The dashed

curves which also appear on these graphs, represent ideal

4 O

Egradings based on Weymouth's theory of particle inter-
ference. This theory states, essentially, that an aggre-
Eggate conforming to this gradation could be compacted to
tt1e greatest density of any aggregate having 100 per cent
cxf' its material passing the 3/4 inch sieve? The greater
charisities obtained with the sand-gravel mixtures as com-
pared to the sand mixtures would seem to substantiate
ttlirs theory. Also, in light of this theory, it appears
frconn the three graphs that a mixture of only gravel and
aspflneilt would have provided an even more stable and more
derms<a mix than the sand-gravel combination. Proof of
thias can be seen in Chicago Testing Laboratory Technical
Reynolzt No. 1312516 (See Appendix C.)

It can be noted by comparing other results prev
seuutead in this report to respective results in Tables lA
arui ILB, that the Marshall Stability values obtained by
ChiJZéigO Testing Laboratory were considerably lower than
thCHSea obtained by the author. This difference might have
beeufi caused by the lengthy curing times and air bath

healtzing methods used by the author.

Ref. 34.

41

Field Correlation

 

The results obtained for the samples mixed in the
field, which have been listed in Tables 1, A and B, and
in Tables 2, A and B, have been plotted) whenever pos-
sible, on the apprOpriate previously discussed graphs.
Since these samples were taken from the field, they had
to be re-heated before samples could be molded. Because
asphalt oxidizes when hot films of it are exposed to air?
thus causing it to increase in strength, it would be
expected that the results for these samples will be affec-
ted accordingly. Field samples were cured for a con-
siderable length of time before being molded, thus these
additional affects might also be expected to show up in
the results.

The field samples from the Gratiot County, Michi-
gan, project gave results that were generally as eXpected.
These results were comparable to results obtained from
tests on some of the same mixtures by Chicago Testing

Laboratory (see Technical Reports No. 13947 and No.

14759-60 in Appendix C.) Some of the results were lower

 

4
Ref. 15, p. 54.

1+2

11510 the values obtained from laboratory mixes, but the
majority of the results fell slightly above the labora-
tory mix results. Thus, the laboratory results gave a
good indication of what might be expected of field mixes.
The results of tests run on the surface course
material made with 31A aggregate were considerably higher
than all other results, as they should have been, thus
they could not be plotted on the apprOpriate graphs.
These results have been grouped in tabular form, Tables
2 and 3, with‘the results obtained for the other field
mixtures and the highest stabilities or strengths ob-
tained for the laboratory mixtures. If we compare these
results with standard specifications, we find that the
surface course material is well within the specification
limits for pavements designed to carry medium traffic as
set forth by the Asphalt Institute? Since the stabilities
of the sand-gravel mixes made with 85/100 penetration
asphalt compare rather favorably with the stability of
the surface course materials tested, it would be a safe

assumption that these sand-gravel mixtures would also meet

5
Ref. 9, p. 72A.

43

 

 

 

 

mHADmmm HmMH Ad<zmm<2 nmhomdmm

.N MAQ<H

n _ u i H u ..
a.m _ m.a _ a.m . m.m m.s . a.x . --- . m.oa a.ooa as
q.o U a.m . m.a ” H.oa m.a “.a.a H ~.m w 0.0H a.aa on
H u u U H i
--- ” --- . --- H --- --- “ --- U --- m «no e.osa as
sea U Nan _ case ” «sea exam” mam H --- mama m.ooa um
onau H mama “ mass M HNam None” Nana ” Namm i mans e.aa um
. . . . i .mnH .mufiaanmum
um.s . . . . . “
o.s H m.m _ o.m U o.n mo.a “an.m ” aa.~ aa.o a .ucoucoo ”sesame
u-m . m . u-m . m u-m . m . m aam was“ muewmumma
-owauwma- - -H- - wou\mw- - . - - -.-owHme - - - L momem- soauuuuocma saunam<
mmxaz .maa waxes camHm

44

moms um pmummu moaaamm

D .

moooa um No.¢ one menu um Nm.¢m

 

nm.~

mo.-

nmm.oH

mm.Nm

m.omd

«.mm

31s. :12
mo.aa _ oa.mm
_

_
as.- _ o~.aa
oa.- _ am.m~
.
_
a.ne _ m.~o
_

‘

o.oNH

n.mNH.

HH.~

om.mu

nm.na

o¢.nm
n.mNH
m.m~

 

Hm.m~

Hm.nm .

no.0a .
mN.mm .

.
m.oma.
.
m.¢n .
.
.

NN.N

HN.ON

¢N.N~
no.-

N.ONH.

m.Ne .

om.ma

nu.m~
om.mH

m.mHH

 

om.o
Hm.wH

mm.m¢

Hm.¢

Nm.os
n.o¢a
h.sn

n

 

mooqa us

m.ooH um

menu um
.um .uOuomm huamcma
N .ueao> uaa
N .vmaaau neao>
.uu\.sna .ssamaua

m

s .auaaaaaua
cw moaouomuwo

 

uosaaucoo - a mamas

45

_ . _

a.a~a .o.~aau a.m~a. ~.eaa n.m~a. a.aaa. c.5HH m.oaa a.ooH
_ _

m.n~a. s.~HH_ ~.a~au n.0aa m.a~a. m.maa m.saa a.osa a.sa
. _ . . .

on ooumou moaoamm
.m.uM\.mnH .muwmcoo

 

 

 

 

ms.nn. mo.a~_ am.mq . e~.- Na.~m . mH.mm . ea.a~ aN.mnN m.ooa um
wa.~m” ~m.am” ax.msau ma.~a ma.amau ma.oaan Ha.om am.qmo n.5a so
. _ . _ _ mm.¢mo N.ca\.mna .aumcmuum
neN_ “Oom- . _
ann.a_ m.~ "a o.a . c.n mm.m ” ms.n . mo.~ «a.o a .ucmucou sausama
. - .
cum . m _ cum . m cum _ m . m <Hm mafia oumwouww<
III—III...Illl.|ll|llll.llll.ll||lIlli
oma\o~H v coa\mm coaxmm ooH\nm coaueuuocmm gaunam<
mmtz .aaa amen: squat

 

 

mhnbmmm Hmmfi onmmmmmzoo szHmZOUZD amHomAmm

.m MAQ<H

6
l4

moms on woumou moamaemo

mecca um Nm.~ can moms um Nm.¢n

m.ooa um so.m can m.aa um No.em

114i

 

 

 

 

 

1 1‘1 J 11 4i
uma.aa ”so.a~"oeo.ma U mn.m~ NH.o~ “ oe.m~ “ NN.m~ Ha.a N .meao> use
omn.am “aa.ma_oaw.m~ _ eo.m~ na.a~ . n~.a~ _ a~.aa .mo.no a .auaaau maao>
_ . .
--- . «.mn_ --- _ m.ao a.¢a . ~.oo _ H.0o H.eo a .aumcuuum
_ _ . . . a“ mocuuommaa
. . . .
HaN.o _~e~.o" Nnm.o _ oaH.o -s.o . “ma.o _ an~.o Hao.a m.ooa um
. . . .
amo.o .aum.o. oma.a . ouo.o oma.a . nm~.H . os~.o mam.e m.aa us
_ _ _ _ .
. _ . . _ . ~.o«\m.um
_ _ _ _ nouoww muwmcmo
F i— i? 1 P» b 1
euaaauaoo - m mamas

47

the stability requirements for a surface course material.
On this basis these mix 3 would be entirely suitable for
their intended use in a base course.

When these results are compared to the proposed

6
German specifications (see Tables 4 and S) we find, by

projecting the values given to a base value that could be
obtained in a test run at 140°F, the results are generally
favorable. By comparing the amount of material retained
on the No. 10 sieve, as shown on the grain size distri—
bution curves of Appendix D, with Table 4 requirements,

it can be noted that the sand asphalt mixture forms a

type A (fine-grained) base and the sand-gravel aSphalt
mixture forms a type B (medium-grained) base. Examination
of Table 5 reveals, assuming medium traffic, that, for the
sand aSphalt and sand-gravel asphalt field mixtures, the
asphalt contents of both mixes are low and their total
voids slightly high, but their stabilities and flow values
show that they might conceivably be strong enough to act
as a base material. The laboratory mixed sand asphalt

(AC 85/100) mixture, however, meets the asphalt content
and total voids requirements and, judging from its

stability and flow values at 77°F and 100°F, it would

 

6
Ref. 37, pp. 173-174.

48

o.m

cam\ooa
ooa\oh
Aoa\onv

ecoum oozmsuo

.ocmm oosmsuo

.vcmm amusumc
.umao maoum
enemas Ho

.wam oonmsuo
no Ho>mwu

me

ow : om

women
omckumuomumoo

O

 

m.m

AoH~\oeav
ooH\oa
ca\om

ocoum teamsuo

.ocmm omsmsuo

.ocMm Henson:
.umso ocoum
mvcoan no

.wuamsomnmouo
.Ho>muw modem

as

oo u om

momma
oocweuwuaswvmz

m

 

o.¢

ooH\ou
Om\om

some tetanus
.umso ocoum

poem oonmouo

cows mocoan no
team Hensumz

0N u o

momma
oocdwwwuocwm

<

 

.us an N .ucmucoo
3 23mm gag

momuw .com uaocom<

was ouwwuwmwm How
monocomaoo Hmcoauwoom

wda ouwwouwwm

mo mucocomaoo own:

as .ocoum mo muwm seawxmz
.ua An N .o>mam OH .oz co

macaque» oumwouwwe omumou

coauecmwuoo

one; gaunnmu we «may

maven SE? VETS: swag mo 35

.e an:

49

.eom ammofi we we easonm nomad pmpwm empowosoo exp mo mpwmcoc exp .mpomofi Hmwopom ca efieH uHo

.comogo on casogm mpfifidfl some: cap moxfia e camp pomp

.mnH oaa hp confine on masonm mvfifianmpm pom pcoeopasaoh
auadnfli one .oponm copeoficEfi cog» mama ma momwwoo gotten one oommhsm map mo unocAofisp any HHe

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. _ . .
. _ oaoafiooom
no _ mm mm . mm assent“: do saaanoo u
. . _ v ..
m a _ m N _ m . m .Hos he s assumes
0H NH _ ea «a . 0H _ om .Ho> an m sesame:
o m . a o . m . a mmmm to ones In:
. _ “was Hugo» meaos
s.mfi-o.m _ s.ma-m.m s.mauo.m . s.mH-o.m A.:w OOH\HV mafia» scam
coo _ oeo owe . owe A.mpHV e ova .maaflanopm
. _ “Hangman:
. _
w.sum.o . o.s-s.q 0.0-0.4 . o.e-o.m A.cav p.momssoo
. . omen mo mmocaowse
_ _
+H.m _ H.m-o.m o.~-m.H _ -~.H A.eav .ummnsoo assess ea.
. o m _ oo 3.5m mo m moat—02....
_ _
spasm who». _ abuse suave; . games caveaep we came
b
_

 

 

mmmam e . .a .
earmma xH; eon mom eHmmeHmo onmmc m>Ha¢azme
.m mqmae

 

50

also meet the required stability and flow value . Further

inspection reveals (see Chicago Testing Laboratory Tech-
nical Report No. 14759-60 in Appendix C) that the sta-

bility of these sand asphalt mixtures at 140'F is not

sufficient to allow their use as a base. Since the sta-

bility at 100‘? listed in Technical Report 14759-60 is
comparable to stabilities at similar asphalt contents
listed in Table 1A, it is expected that similar results

would also have been obtained at 140°F by the author had

the samples been tested at that temperature. The sand

asphalt (AC 120/150) mix appears to be not only too low
in asphalt content but also not of high enough stability

to serve as a base course.

As previously mentioned, the sand-gravel asphalt
(AC 85/100) mixtures, both field and laboratory mixes,

would probably meet stability requirements for a base

course. Further indication of this is given in Chicago

Testing Laboratory Technical Report No. 13947 (see Appen-

dix C) in which a field mixed sand-gravel sample. was tes-

ted at 120']? as well as at 80'F and 100‘F. When compared

with the specifications being dealt with here, the further

indication of the suitability of the sand-gravel asphalt

51

(AC 85/100) mixtures becomes apparent. In addition to the
stability requirements, these mixes also meet the asphalt
. content and flow value requirements. Their total voids
are, however, borderline or slightly above, but they
would probably still prove to be quite adequate as base
course mmterials. These same comments all seem to hold
true for the sand—gravel asphalt (AC 120/150) mixture
except for its stability. The stability of this mixture
is more near the magnitude obtained for the sand asphalt
(AC 85/100) mixtures. The affect of temperature on the
stability of this mdxture varies from the affect of tem-
perature on the sand asphalt (AC 85/100) mixtures. This
difference can be noted by comparing Chicago Testing
Laboratory Technical Reports No. 13947 and No. 14759-60
of Appendix C, which contain results of tests conducted at
various temperatures on a sand-gravel mixture and the sand
mixture, respectively.

There are no specifications for base courses that
utilize the unconfined compressive strength as a basis of
determination, hence it is difficult to assess these
'materials on its basis. However, the results indicate

that the minimum compressive strength which should be

52

permitted for these mixtures, would be between 80 and 90
pounds per square inch at a test temperature of 77°F.

Due to the nature of the aggregates employed,
especially the lack of material passing the No. 200 sieve
which would account for the high percentage of air voids
experienced, most specifications preclude its use. It is
felt that these sub-standard materials can be effectively
stabilized for use in a highway or airport runway base

000188 .

CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSIONS

From the results obtained during the course of the
research described here, the following conclusions may be
drawn:

1. In the stabilization of sand with asphalt,
the thin films of asphalt surrounding the par-
ticles serve to increase intergranular frictional
resistance as well as to produce cohesive resis-
tance. The percentage of the total strength or
stability of the mixture supplied by the cohesive
resistance varies directly with asphalt content,
inversely with temperature, and directly with
density, up to a critical density value beyond
which density effects are much less.

2. When the German specifications of Tables
4 and 5 are used, a suitable mixture for highway
base courses is sand-gravel mixed with 3 to 4 per
cent of 85/100 penetration asphalt. A mixture

which might be classed as borderline between

'53

54

acceptance and rejection, is sand-gravel mixed

with 4 to 4% per cent of 120/150 penetration

asphalt. Mixtures not suitable for base courses,
according to these specifications, are: sand

'mixad with 3 to 5 per cent of 85/100 penetration

asphalt and sand mixed with 3% per cent of 120/150

penetration asphalt.

3. Maximum strengths or stabilities occur at
or slightly below optimum densities.

.9. The minimum specification limit for a
suitable base course material based on unconfined
compressive strength is a strength of from 80 to
90 pounds per square inch at a test temperature
of 77'F.

In the course of conducting this research and
writing this thesis, the author has come to strongly
realize the need for further research in this field. Of
course, there are always variations of aggregates which
need investigation. It is felt, however, that the prime
need at this time is to study the following factors in
relation to materials similar to those used here to deter-

mine thair effects on the testing methods. These factors

are: (l) mixing time, (2) curing time, (3) mixing tem-
perature, (4) testing temperature, and (5) moisture con-
tent at the time of the test or time immersed in a water

bath..

BIBLIOGRAPHY

2.

4.

5.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Road Builders‘ Association. "Stabilization

Of Soil with Asphalt," Technical Bulletin No.

200. American Road Builders‘ Association (1953).

American Society For Testing Materials. "Standard

Method of Test for Sieve Analysis of Fine and
Coarse Aggregates," ASTM Standards. Part IV.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: American Society
For Testing Materials, 1958.

 

. "Standard Method of Test for Bitumen

 

Content of Paving Mixtures by Centrifuge, " ASTM
Standards. Part IV. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania:
American Society For Testing Materials, 1958.

"Tentative Method of Test for compressive

 

Strength of Bituminous Mixtures," ASTM Standards.
Part IV. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: American
Society For Testing Materials, 1958.

"Tentative Method of Test for Resistance to

PIastic Flow of Bituminous Mixtures by Means of the

Marshall Apparatus," ASTM.Standards. Part IV.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: American Society For
Testing Materials, 1958.

. "Standard Method of Test for Specific

 

Gravity of Road Oils, Road Tare, Asphalt Cements,
And Soft Tar Pitches," ASTM Standards. Part IV.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: American Society For
Testing Materials, 1958.

. "Standard Method of Test for Specific

 

Gravity of Compressed Bituminous Mixtures," ASTM
Standards. Part IV. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania:
American Society For Testing Materials, 1958.

57

8.

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

58

Asphalt Institute, The. Asphalt Base-~Key to Better
Pavement Performance. Information Series No.
'ITB. College Park, Maryland: The Asphalt
Institute, June, 1962.

Asphalt Institute, The. The Asphalt Handbook.
Manual Series No. 4. 0611.3. Park, Maryland:
The Asphalt Institute, July, 1962.

Asphalt Institute, The. ‘Mix Des n Methods for Hot-
Mflx Asphalt Paving. Manual Ser as No. 2.
Coilege Park, Maryland: The Asphalt Institute,
April, 1956.'

 

Baskin, Charles M., and McLeod, Norman W. "water-
proofed Mechanical Stabilization," Proceedings,
Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists,
Vol. 12 (December, 1940).

Benson, J. R. "Bituminous Soil Stabilization,"

(Roads and Streets, XCIX (May, 1956).

__., and Becker, C. J. "Exploratory Research

 

In Bituminous Soil Stabilization," Proceedings,
Association of Asphalt Paving TechnoIogists,
Vol. 13 (January, 1942).

Burggraf, Fred. "Field Tests on Shearing Resistance,"
Proceedin s, Highway Research Board, Vol. 19
(1939). .

Dillard, J. H., and Whittle, J. P. "An Examination
0f Mixing Times as Determined by the Ross Count
Method," ,Bitgminous Pavement Permeability and
Field Compaction Studies on Asphaltic Concrete.
Bulletin No. 358. Washington, D.C.: Highway
Research Board, National Research Council, 1962.

Endersby, V. A. "Fundamental Research in Bituminous
Soil Stabilization," Proceedings, Highway
Research Board, Vol. 22 (1942).

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

59

Flues, P. "Flexible Hot-Mixed Asphalt Bases,"
Roads and Streets, CI (September, 1958).

Cilley, D. R. "The Use of Emulsified Asphalt in
Base Stabilization and Surface Course Mixes,"
(Roads and Engineering,Construction, XCVI (May,
1958).

Gratiot County Road Commission. unpublished File
0n the Alger Road Project, 1963.

Harrin, Moreland. "Drying Phase of Soil-Asphalt
Construction," Asphalt Soil Stabilization.
Bulletin No. 204. washington, D.C.: Highway
Research Board, National Research Council, 1958.

 

Highway Research Board. Soil Bituminous Roads.
Current Road Problems No. 12. washington, D.C.:
Highway Research Board, National Research Council,
1946.

Hoiberg, Arnold J., and Brown, Marshall. "Studies
0f Fine-Grained Soils with SC-Oils, by the
Mbdified Bearing Test Procedure," _g;oceedingg,
Association of Asphalt Paving Technoiogists,
Vol. 21 (January, 1952).

 

HoLmes, August, Roediger, J.C., Wirsig, H.D., and
Snyder, R.C. "Factors Involved in Stabilizing

Soils with Asphaltic Materials," Proceedin a,
Highway Research Board, Vol. 23 (1943).

Katti, R. K., Davidson, D. T., and Sheeler, J. B.
"water in Outback Asphalt Stabilization of Soil,"
Sgil Stabilization with AsphaltlgPortland_Qement,
Lime and Chemicafs. Bulletin No. 241. washing-
ton, D. C.: Highway Research Board, National
Research Council, 1960.

 

 

Lambe, T. W. Soil Testing for Engineer . New York:
John Wiley and Sons, 1960.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

60

“31:1“. George E. "Soil Stabilization with Tar,"
.21068ed1ngs, Highway Research Board, Vol. 18,
Part II (1938).

 

Mexesson, C. L. "Research in Soil Stabilization
With Emulsified Asphalt," Proceedings, American
Society for Testing Materiais, Vol. 39 (1939).

 

"Recent Developments in the Design and

 

Construction of Soil-Emulsion Road Mixtures,"
Proceedingg, Highway Research Board, Vol. 20
(1940).

 

Michaela, Alan S., and Puzinauskas, Vytautas.
"Addatives as Aids to Asphalt Stabilization of
Fine-Grained Soils," Chemical and Mechanical
Stabilization. Bulletin No. 129. washington,
D.C.: Highway Research Board, National Research
Council, 1956. '

 

, and . "Improvement of Asphalt

 

Stabilized Fine-Grained Soils with Chemical
Addatives," Asphalt Soil Stabilization. Bulletin
No. 204. Washington, D.C.: Highway Research
Board, National Research Council, 1958.

 

Michigan Asphalt Paving Association, News, II, No. 1
(June, 1963).

Nady, Robert M., and Csanyi, Tadis H. "Use of
Foamed Asphalt in Soil Stabilization,"
Proceedings, Highway Research Board, Vol. 37
(1958).

Paquette, Radnor J., and McGee, James D. "Evaluation
of Strength Properties of Several Soils Treated
With Admixtures," Influence of Stabilizers on
Pro erties of Soils and Soil Aggregate Mixtures.
Bul etin No. 232. Washington, D.C.: Highway
Research Board, National Research Council, 1961.

 

z" 61

34. Powers, T. C. ”A Discussion of C. A. G. Weymouth's
Theory of Particle Interference," Papers of the
Portland Cement Association, Chicago, March, 1936.

35. Rice, J. M., and Goetz, W. H. "Suitability of
Indiana Dune, Lake and Waste Sands for Bituminous
Pavements," Lafayette, Indiana: Engineering
Experiment Station, Purdue University, 1950.

 

 

36. Roediger, J. C., and Klinger, E. W. "Soil Stabili-
zation Using ASphalt Cut-backs as Binders,"
Pgoceedings, Highway Research Board, Vol. 18,
Part II (1938).

 

d

37. Schmidt, D. W. "German Experience in the Construc-
tion of Hot-Mix Asphalt Bases," International
Conference on the Structural Design of Asphalt
Pavements. Ann Arbor, Michigan: The Conference,
1962.

 

 

 

38. Slotta, Larry S. "Bituminous Stabilization of
wyoming Heat Altered Shale,” plgfluence of
_§£abilizers on Properties of Soils and Soil
Aggrggate Mixtuggs. Bulletin No. 282. Washington,
D.C.: Highway Research Board, National Research
Council, 1961.

 

 

 

39. Sonderegger, Paul E., and Damkorger, Vern J.
”Black Base Survey," National Bituminous Concret_e
Association. Publication QIP 58. Washington,
D.C. : National Bituminous Concrete Association,
February, 1963.

 

 

40. State of Michigan. Standard Specifications for Roads
and Bridge Construction. Lansing, Michigan:
State of Michigan.

 

 

41. Terzaghi, Karl, and Peck, Ralph. Soil Mechanics in
Engineering Practigg. New York: John Wiley and
Sons, 195&

 

 

62

42. Warden, W. B., and Hudson, S. B. "Hot-Mixed Black
Base Construction Using Mineral Aggregates,"
Proceedings, Association of Asphalt Paving
Technologists, Vol. 30 (1960).

 

43° Winterkorn, Hans F. "Granulometric and Volumetric
Factors in Bituminous Soil Stabilization,"

Proceedin 8, Highway Research Board, Vol. 36
(I957).

44. Wooltorton, F. L. D. The Scientific Basis of Road
Design. London: Edward Arnold, Ltd., 1954.

 

APPENDIX A

TABULATED RESULTS

TABLE 1A.

MARSHALL TEST RESULTS

 

 

 

Sample Sample Agg. Asphalt Stability Flow value
number series type content (lbs.) (0.01 in.)
(7.) 77's [100°]? 77°F |100°F
1 J. 4—
1 A s 2.97 2372 | --- 8.2' -—--
2 A s 3.59 2392 : 889 9.7: 17.1
3a A s-c 4.05 4502 :2056 9.3' '7.9
4 A 31A 6.14 6335 .2683 16.6: 113.9
5"“ A ‘31A 6.14 934 ' --- 11.8 ' .---
....... A--------o---------------A------L-----.------L..-—-
6 B s 2.0 1544 ' --- 7.3 I ..--
7 B s 2.5 1491 ' 603 4.8: 6.2
8 s s 3.0 2255 I 787 9.1. 7.0
9 B s 3.5 2645 ' 841 8.6: 8.3
10 B s 4.0 2887 I 844 10.91 9.9
11d B s 4.5 3521 :1042 10.1: 9.8
12 B s 4.5 3171 | 734 8.8l 11.1
13d B s 4.5 2582 : 601 10.7: 9.9
14 B s 5.0 3421 l 893 12.71 10.0
15 B s 6.0 3224 : 731 12.5 :10.0
16 B s 7.0 2650 I 525 12.1 I10.3
....... .--------.----_-_ _----_-._--_--------.______,___,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE

1B.

MARSHALL SAMPLE PARAMETERS

W44

 

 

 

 

 

 

Diff. in Bulk Den Den. factor Voids Air
stability (lbs./ft.3) (ft.3) filled voids
(1) 77°F |100°F 77°F |100°F (2) (2)
11 -11 11_- ##11
--- 119.8 | --- 19.80' --- 18.96 23.77
62.8 118.4 :122.2 20.21 : 7.27 22.93 22.74
54.3 127.9 I132.6 35.21 '15.51 33 29 16.65
57.7 146.2 :146.5 43.33 :18.31 76.52 4.31
--- 146.8 ' --- 6.36 ' --- 77.84 4.01
...... .---.------1------.-------L-------.--------._-------
--- 115.2 I --- 13.41 I --- 11.75 27.25
59.6 114.8 '114.6 12 98 : 5.27 13 98 27 54
65.1 118.9 :118.1 18.97 I 6.66 18.44 24.57
68.2 120.1 :119.6 22.01 : 7.03 22.09 23.12
70.8 120.3 |120.5 23.99 I 7.00 25.32 22.20
70.4 123.1 :122.8 28.59 : 8.49 30.20 19.97
76.9 123.8 I123.4 25.62 I 5.95 30.74 19.56
76.7 120.8 :120.7 21.37 : 4.98 28.41 21.39
73.9 125.0 I125-5 27.36 I 7.11 35.40 17.85
77.3 125.8 :126.2 25.63 : 5.80 42.14 16.20
81.0 L125.2 I125.0 21 16 I 4.20 1 46.76 15.57
.......... I------1------.-------.---_--- ----_---.---_---_

TABLE 1A (continued)

 

 

 

Sample Sample Agg. Asphalt Stability Flow Va lug
number series type content (lbs.) (0.01 143.)
(7.) 77°F [100°F 77°F l100°F
J_ 1
17 B s-(; 2.5 3876 | 1616 5.7 ' 5.1
13 B S-G 3.0 4513 : 1680 7.3: 5.9
19d 8 S-G 3.0 2880 i 860 8.6 ' 6.5
20d 8 s-c 3.0 3230 I 1105 7.1 : 7.0
21 B S-G 3.5 4085 : 1429 8 1' 6.9
22d B s-c 3.5 2795 I 8,16 9.4: 7 3
23d 8 S-G 3.5 3793 : 1227 7 6.: 7 1
27. B S-G 4.0 4509 I 1356 8 6.| 7 3
25 B s-c 4.5 4264 : 1314 10.3 : 7.3
26 B s-c 5.0 3713 I 1328 10.0I 7.2
2; “““““ 6"""‘6‘""'31.“‘133.‘r".'.3"".:‘.’;".:;
28 c s 3.5 1526EII 532 8.7l 9.8
29 c s 4.0 1408 : 285 10.8: 9.1
30 c s 4.5 1469 I 185 11.71 9 0
31 c s 5.0 1557: 241 11.0: 9.7
32 c s 6.0 1824 I 397 12.4! 9.9
33 c s 6.5 1856 : 393 12.0: 11 7
34a 0 s 7.0 1822 I 409 12.8' 11.7
358 c s 7.5 1972 : 463 12.3: 11.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Diff. in Bulk den. _ Den. factor Voids Air
stability (lbs./ft.3) I (ft.3) filled voids

(2) 77°F| 100°F 77°F I 100°F (r) (7.)

2 1. 3 1 -2 - - -1
58.3 127.4 | 127.0 30.43 ‘ 12.70 19.56 20.49
62.8 128.5: 128.0 35.10 I 13.12 23.89 19.20
AM; 70.1 128.3'128.1 22.45 : 6.71 23.83 19.23
.1/4‘ 65.8 126.3: 126.7 25.56 I 8.71 4 22.66 20.28
/I,- 65.0 128.7 : 128.3 31.71 {11.13 27.62 18.44
C,- 70.8 127.8 I 128.0 21.87 I 6.38 27.12 18.81
67.7 129.2 : 129.2 29.35 : 9.50 28.23 17.97
69.9 129.7 I 127.6 34.75 I10.62 ‘ 31.30 17.69
67.3 131.1 : 130.8 32.50 :10.65 37 14 15.61
64.2 129 9 I131.2 28 52 I10.12 40.13 15.25
"25.6 ----- 119:5-[119-3W11-19T339'm1836"WES-96—
65.1 120.3 I 120.9 12.68 I 4.40 22.46 22 77
79.8 121.1 :121. 11.63 : 2.35 25.83 21.76
87.4 122.2 I 122.8 12.03 I 1.51 29.83 20.28
84.5 123.0 :123 1 12.66 : 1.96 33.17 19 38
78.2 125.8 I125. 14.49 I 3.16 41.83 16.41
78.8 126.5 :125.9 14.67 : 3.12 45.44 15.41
77.6 127.6 I127.7 14.27 I 3.20 50.25 13.84
76.5 127.9 '128.1 15.41 ' 3.61 53.68 12.96

 

67

TABLE 13 (continued)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 1A (continued)

 

Sample Sample Agg. Asphalt Stability Flow va 1Ue
number series type content (lbs.) (0.01 21:1.)
(7.) 77°F I100°F 77°FI 100%“
12 J L
78a - c s 8.0 2233 I 514 11.2 : 11.0
79b 0 s 9.0 2399 : 585 11.3 I 3.0.4
38 """ """6miméié"L"i?6""'i§4§’|’43§"‘"31'1'7’EZ'B'
37 c s-c 2.5 2407 :749 5.6 I 6.5
33 c s-c 3.0 2323 I 964 5,3 I 6,5
39 c s-c 3.5 25.05 : 835f 7,5 : 6,0
40 c S-G 4.0 2579 ' 949 8.4 : 6.4
41 0 so 4.5 2756 : 762 8.4 I 7.3
42 C S-G 5-0 2561 ' 817 11.5 : 9.7
43“ c s-c 6.0 2522 : 702 12.5 I 8.9
2.2.8 c s-c 6.5 2977 :831 10.2 : 8.1
809 C S-G 7.0 2982 I917 10.3 I 8.1
811) c s-c 8.0 3118 :941 14.0 :11.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

8These results were obtained from tests performed
on only two samples at each temperature.

bThese results were obtained from tests performed
on only one sample at each temperature.

cThese samples were tested at 140°F.

-dThese results were not considered because they
appeared to be erroneous.

. _./h-— . .Hh Abw___,_h .1,___,__‘_ _

 

69

TABLE 1B (continued)

 

Diff. in Bulk Den. Den. factor Voids Air
stability (1bs./ft.3) (66.3) filled voids
(7) 77°F I100°F 77°F |100°F (1) (1)

44 .74 4
77.0 129.7 '129.3 17.21 ' 3.97 58.82 11.35
75.6 130.6 :130.0 18.37 I 4.50 65.75 9.56
"69:5"w'126:6T1263m1523T332"d"SEEN--2121'
68.9 128.2: 127.5 18.77 I 5.87 20.00 20.04
58.5 128.1I 127.9 18.14 i 7.53 23.73 19.34
66.7 129.2 I129.7 19.39 I 5.10 28.52 17.79
63.2 130.3 :130.4 19.79 : 7.27 32.99 16.59
72.4 130.9 I130.7 21.05 I 5.83 37.02 15.69
68.1 131.4 :131.4 19.49 : 6.22 41.21 14.68
72.2 131.4 I131.4 19.20 I 5.34 48.63 13.04
72.1 133.9 :134.3 22.24 1 6.18 56.34 10.58
69.2 135.3 I135.9 22.04 I 6.75 61.43 9.33
69.8 137.9 :138.3 22.61 : 6.80 73.21 6.33

 

 

 

 

 

eThese results were obtained from tests performed

on only two samples at this temperature.

fThese results were obtained from tests performed

on only one sample at this temperature.

TABLE 2A.

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST RESULTS

 

 

 

Sample Sample Agg. Asphalt Strength Diff. in
number series type content (psi) strength
(Z) 77°F |100°F (Z)

A 1

453 A s 2.97 86.91 I 29.46 66.1
46 A s 3.45 146.18 I 58.15 60.2
47 A 3-6 3.83 181.79 I 52.92 70.9
48 A 31A 6.14 654 99 I235.27 64 1
27:5 """"" Em"; """ i?6"""36’15’I’lé"3£""'§5'i"'
50 c s 2.5 59 32 I 27 65 53.4
51 c s 3.0 45 73 ' 18 31 60.0
52 c s 3.5 46.79 I 17 73 62.1
53 c s 4.0 45.44 : 15 02 67.0
54 c s 4.5 49 71 I 15 50 68 8
55 c s 5.0 42 20 : 14 41 65 9
56a 0 s 6.0 40 21 I 10 83 73 1
E3""""'&'"';Z;"”'£T6"'"'.3'2§’}'36'3£"'"333'"
58 C 5-6 2.5 70 36 I 35 43' 49 6
59 c S-G 3.0 72 58 : 26 83 63 0
60 0 3-0 3.5 74 34 I 24 87 66.6
61 C 3-0 4 0 67.99 I 22 66 66 7

 

 

 

 

 

71

TABLE 23.

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION SAMPLE PARAMETERS

 

 

Bulk dens ty Density factor Voids‘ Air

(lbs-lft. ) (ft.3/1n.2) filled voids

77°F I 100°F 77°F I 100°F (2) (z)

I .1

116.5 | 117.6 0.746 ' 0.251 17.79 25.22
118.5 : 119.4 1.233 : 0.487 21.25 23.76
124.9 : 125.5 1.456 ' 0.422 27.15 20.12
140.9 I 140.8 4.648 : 1 671 63.08 7 91
{HST-111.1W"3:£}6":"6'111"""EEEZWWMSXEI
112.6 I 112.0 0.527 I 0 247 13.14 29 04
112.9 : 113.3 0.405 : 0.162 15.94 27 99
113.5 I 114.0 0.412 I 0 156 18.73 27 03
113.5 : 113 3 0.400 : 0 133 20.99 26 72
114.5 I 114.7 0.434 I 0 135 24.11 25 39
116.2 : 116.1 0.363 : 0.124 27.59 23 84
117.1 I 116.9 0.343 I 0 093 33.19 22 12
121.3":"122-3"""BTESQ‘T’BEQEIm-"QEYWWEEKS;—
121.2 I 121.7 0.580 I 0.291 16 52 ‘24 06
122.2 : 122.6 0.594 : 0 219 20.11 22 87
123.2 I 123 5 0.603 I 0.202 23.79 21.68
122.8 ' 123.2 0.553 ' 0.184 26.55 21.33

 

 

 

TABLE 2A (continued)

 

Sample Sample Agg. ASphalt Strength Diff. in
number series type content (psi) strength
(7) 77°F |100°F (2)
<9
62 0 8-0 4.5 82.48 : 25.37 69.2
63 . c s-G 5.0 76.04 I 24.58 67.7
648 C 8-0 6 0 78 78 ' 26 24 66 7
...... 4-----------------------t--------l-------r---------
658 B s 3.0 53 51 I 17 84 66 7
66 B s 3.5 62 00 : 22 80 63 2
67 B s 4.0 59 52 I 18 84 68 4
68 B s 4.5 63.85 : 21 39 66 5
69 B s 5 0 72 98 I 22 24 69 5
70 B s 5.5 72 26 : 20 83 71 2
71 B s 6.0 65 66 I 19 61 70 1
9; """"""" 5"“;15 """ 53"""163225:‘51‘39’”"3§"3""
73 B S-G 3.0 108 49 ' 43 39 60 0
74 B s-c 3.5 114.99 : 38 46 66 6
75 B s-c 4.0 143.74 : 36.52 74.6
75 B s-c 4.5 129.22 I 42.48 67.1
77 B s-c 5.0 109.95 : 32.81 70.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

8These results were obtained from tests performed
on only two samples at each temperature.

73

TABLE ZB (continued)

 

Bulk density Density factor Voids Air
(lbs./ft.3) (£c.3/1n.2) filled voids

77°F I 100°F 77°F I 100°F (2) (Z)

4 I '

125.5 | 125.3 0.657 I 0.203 31.55 19.18
124.7 : 124.7 0.610 I 0.197 ‘ 33.95 19.01
126.8 I 128.0 0.621 I 0.205 42.74 16 04
...... 4.----—---¢-—-—-——-4-—-------d--———-———-—h--—-----—
114.3 I 114.8 0.468 I 0.155 16.54 27 08
113.4 : 113.8 0.547 I 0.200 18.61 27 15
113.7 I 113.6 0.524 I 0.166 21.08 26 57
114.8 I 114.8 0.556 : 0.186 24 21 25 25
116.5 I 117.2 0.626 I 0.190 28.06 23 39
118.0 : 118.1 0.612 : 0.176 31.53 22 02
118.3 I 118.5 0.555 I 0.166 34.31 21 24
122:2.-'Ir'iéi'5"I"6'f§48’T6432."""'EETEE'MWES'ES'
124.2 I 123.1 0.874 I 0 352 20.81 22 09
124.3 : 124.9 0 925 : 0 308 24 62 20 89
127.2 I 127.1 1.130 I 0 287 29.89 18 66
126.8 I 127.0 1.019 : 0.334 32.90 18.21
126.1 I 125.7 0.872 I 0.261 35.01 18.26

J .111 L 11 11

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX B

GRAPHS OF RESULTS

75

.GRAPHS

The results tabulated in Appendix A have been plot-
ted on graphs for ease of interpretation. These graphs
appear in the following pages, and a discussion of them is
presented in Chapter V.

A legend for the graphs appearing in this Appendix
appears on the following page. This legend applies to all
the graphs presented unless otherwise noted. The tempera-
tures listed in this legend refer to the temperatures at

which the samples were tested.

 

76

LEGEND
Lab Mixes
B-————-B Sand-gravel, 77°F
EI- - — -GJ Sand-gravel , 100°F
e—————o Sand, 77°F
o—— —-0 Sand, 100°F
Field Mixes
I Sand-gravel, 77°F
8 Sand-gravel, 100°F
0 Sand, 77°F

0 Sand, 100°F

Marshall Stability (lb°.)

4500‘

4000«

35003

3000*

2500‘

2000‘

1500I

lOOO‘

 

500

V

.f'
1L!

1

)

(ii—{L'ZI'JLi 41‘.

RSUnLL STABTLITY Vnfilullbfl

MITH ASP ALT CONT‘NT
(AC Lfi/lUO)

 

(psi)

Unconfined Compressive Strength

ILOI

120‘

100*

80‘

404

20‘

,'7\"‘\ ‘..""" ‘ ‘ II \‘f'v )v‘f‘ \T‘7I‘ "\ ‘,.' 1:.11
LIL.LIUII.{ L up:) '1[ '. 'i)}\.'1sl_J 1.» 1 5.1119144 .(JL I.
_ '7 . V" .\ . r .' _._ T . I ‘l \

\J.’ I} LAW -[1 {L} I I. I. ' I - .L'l 1-".IJI. KAI-1-.

 

"'

115-1.

 

 

ASphalt Content (I)

(lbs.)

Marshall Stability

30003

2500<

2000‘

H
8
9’

5

5001

 

C

F'LERSIL..LI.
Lilli

’-~

‘11".3'5..7)ll.l l‘Y If. .i.T 137:1)?

1’. AL 1‘ 00.1..
(30120/133)

 

 

N4

-_m
fi“-
\ /
‘8’
,rr’
,LF—-o-4T
’/
’l
x ,47
\r
17 W I I 1 T I g
5 6 7 0

\0-4

U)

(P

Unconfined Compressive Strength

80‘

70‘

50*

210‘

30‘

20‘

 

{\l

I

631.".1’1; LI .
iI"-§CO;IFIZ‘TELJ 00:11" 17111315 I‘I’L
\ZAKIFIIIOII $1731 5513;.LT

(.38 120/130)

' 3

I 0“ \‘7
13x11); AKA ._

1:-
IL.

Content

1,.
‘II;'

(,L.‘ )

 

 

;

(0.01 in.)

Marshall Flow

13.

117

91

 

”a

I'I ) . )v _‘
LILKe‘I}: ii ..) 0

11111.}. :.‘;T.L F1. ,. W VARIAT U117
11111 113.11‘.11.'1‘ OOTI'L‘bg.‘
(-.:,: 51;; / I133)

 

O
0
O
0 \
X ‘
’ \
\ ’0
\ ’v”
g o— ----- 0’
9 I
I
I
o I
I O
I
°I
@ d
I
/
/
I
I
° I
$5 6
/
2 3 h S 6 7
ASpMal; Conten: (X)

(0.01 in.)

Flow Value

 

 

‘11...de .' ' .(3 .' ‘11)]
“1'11; ‘..' .‘ :.1 u)? 3‘:
1’ J ‘/ ';'”I\I
\ 1.; i‘l/ l-_/\l/
137
o
O
o
l2~ o
\
I \q
\ lo
\
Q \o
1.17 0 ‘9’
o O
I
I
I
I
10‘ 46
R V
/
\ /
\ /
b~ /
94 ‘Nd
O
0
I
81
T ‘ T I Y_ I I Y ‘ T (V‘ U
3 h 5 6 7 o 9
1n.0 All; I OI‘LC I: (7;)

 

f ( .7 ‘ I. y I
I. I i: .I J 1 In. \\ I i \g
'1 "I l‘ I I": Y‘
[ L 1ul I... ’1. J L;
' I I l \
K‘v «I 7

(0.01 in.)

Marshall Flow
7’

 

 

 

2:5 3:0 3:5 4:0 4:5 5:0
(

A ,. 7 '. -' , - . a. ( ‘
Z)S)X)L‘Lt.ll‘¢ 3k’ll\-(:l)‘hc [‘12)

(0.0l in.)

Flow Value

10 ‘

 

‘r 7 I‘ .11 '\’ V. v1~ I -- -
-.I 1 , \ I (I \I )T .,\ .
1u111a.;1.,114 1. 1109- §2X1\.L.'.ILV.3

1.1'1‘1‘1 .IEI1I’IL1LT (SOLUBLE;

(at) 12.0/ lDD)

 

Nd

V I I I V I

3 II 5

[fiflflthC Contain: CK)

Nd

(lbs./ft.3)

Density

130‘

1281

126*

12h-

122.

120‘

118‘

1161

 

é

(1.) [31,“ ‘I 1')
7.\.') LL o

DENSITY VLRIflTTOK
’ilzflllif CI()?IT‘IZ’Y'?

(AC 5:5 / 100)

A C
s It)

ASp

halt (huwtcnt

‘11 \l
I" .4 .

 

‘

 

d

0‘“

(lbs./ft.3)

C121‘xp i 1\)o

DENSITY V.~".RIATIO'I V5157}
ASPHALT C .T‘I'I‘Eix"r‘

(AC 85/100)

128-

126‘

1.21;1

122-

>1
«4

t

Dens

116«

 

 

 

112

m-
O\d

Content

(lbs./ft.3)

Density

139‘

137‘

135*

131-

129‘

127‘

125*

123‘

121<

 

119

u %

r'"3£51_)11a].; Gun 1; en .__-

6

’L"

Nd

 

C01

'r.r~u7 l'

« ‘-"¢"rr7‘-;r ' “. -r‘\ ~v- .1-
1}L414.UJ..L A fl-l£\-[1\ll. l. -1)“. O J-.L.,
."'1 "; V"_‘ ‘ \‘rrn "~-1

[1&1'141141 (J0114._.A.;:

(Ag 123/150)

127‘

125<

123‘

 

121‘

1194

(lbs./tt.3)

1)

@1181."

117'

D

115-

1134

 

 

111

 

é'é'L'

ASpnalc Content (3)

ow

\f1-

(Ec.3)

Density Factor

3h~

30‘

26~

22<

18‘

10‘

Dr‘ .1. 2 Tawxr “1 r1~1"\r‘. \: ' r\
w ~ 1 ‘
mum/-11 J.'.)U.Lu'-\ ;:1\1

 

,-, T

. ‘T 1
.1 L‘K‘Iz.‘

xy.r\y“1,.‘

V (.1" (,.""'.',"l'm ,\"‘\,
.'. .Ll‘ 4;.11 1.4.1.41. LUM‘LLHVL

(LG QJ/IUU)

 

 

3 Li

Asaplxalc Con tent:

é ' 6 j i
(‘22)

Density Factor

1.2‘

0.61

Ooh*

002‘

D Y ‘r :1 _' i W \ 7
A J J- L _. L L 3...} k \ V
.1.
.L file.

(no QJ/LJU)

A \
W 7
1

1 81.1.]: k; '\.

,_
I

._ - J.
.1'

I_.LJ.,.

 

 

 

t 1 fi

3

a- j .. ’-
1$DJu1t

b

Content

on

(ft.3)

(21:01:

T},
1.

Density

2&-

 

 

 

\01

éh é é 7.8

m-

,, ‘. 'T ,,
{_l'1\.;_'.)|1 ]<6 .

1)}CZIfoE'CTK I? \fJT‘i)i$ \7 K‘ll;‘\?f::‘) I
\ (1 v '{‘;),, T :1 u-‘-;u_‘1 \
V‘JIIL'I .\.L.IL" TL‘I.‘ 1'1- 1'\;-11LI4L

(AC le/Lju)

007‘

006‘

0.5«

(rt.3/;n.2)

0.h*

003‘

Density Factor

0.2-

0.1‘

 

 

 

' 5 or, L

o .‘_:_' '1 r_ 'I ._ ‘_ "/
;1\)")LL&1+L- LUJgC-IL (\h)

m«

(fc.3/:n.2)

J Factor

Densitv

007‘

006‘

005‘

Ooh"

003‘

0.2 q

091‘

 

 

(V‘1“T)I"6
“I';\~_“' 1 .~ Q

L)?jj}f;‘[ [if I? E{;H‘();: \7 Kit
\I f“ ’ ‘1";).. ‘rvlfi w" ‘1
“41.1." -\\..'.l 11:1‘1- 1").1

(Ac lzo/Ljo)

{ATIUT

1n", 1
t13-TL

 

N4

T T fit

3 I

' ‘i: . 1 '- ‘,' l-- .-
.‘LtJ")11bl.~u \JL..3.]L_CQ1L

(Ti )

\na

0“

(7,)

Voids Filled with Bitumen

115‘

30-

20‘

15‘

If ‘, 1,
k71\411 11 J

EFFEC; UH \.-"‘-1;'L'.L:L} L‘XqLJSLF'l‘L
\' . -‘ ,u - -- 1 ' K v—T-_ ‘ . -
01" \701-)J 1.31.; 41414..) V\ «L -. is

J

(r.

 

 

 

10

I I I I

3 h

zksphalt ihr1tent

L'J/l'JU)

O\<
\lq

 

. 3 ‘IFIIIH‘IJ

V.
Y.
..
u
\
f’
‘2
4
I
L
. L
fl,
(1
v!
T.
'
\9.
‘I‘
Y
3
1
. A
'\
w;
L
1 J
TIA
7,
‘3.
y]
n4
. ‘

“\..I/

(A;

 

r5

rh

 

 

36*

31v

32*

A

m
1,
NV

d d a q d
00 6 h 2 0
2 2 2 2 2

cuesuom zoos woaaqt mvflo>

(3:)

Content

\MIIQJ

or:

 

T9

:8

 

 

75*

70‘

654

I1!

,w

6.3

E

1 1 1 4 d

O S O S 0
S h h 3 3

swesunm guns vufiaflm ncflo>

20q

ASPhalt Content

ON YOIJQ

-J.' 1.4L.)

~

L

 

VS

12

 

 

hO‘

35‘

A

0‘

\t

V

O
3

coasoam

4

S
2

Coax

voaaqm mane»

77°F & 100°F

teen Stabilities at

r}-
CL.

)

DifEerence .

"I
I0

I \11|\,‘ ‘ .' 1 ' ‘1‘. 'r‘v ‘."j. , ’ 'v‘ :\ ' “‘.“"‘r

LJL'L'LJLL LI}. \IA);.1I-\LJ £11.21 ALIJLJ. \;{.)l..:-.'.4.'._'.
‘ulY , '11? ‘r‘\ ":"17 ‘31“? “ 7..'T" '\' ‘
Ll-\ £141; \JLJ «l. ”1.1: r Lai\1ld."‘\JL 1’4J -1. .d'JLJ.t

oTrBILIEILu r‘mi‘ 710,1" ABEL) lUU‘OF

90‘

861

821

78<

71w

    

70‘
A 5mm, .33. l'gLJ/lg‘u
0

band, AC SJ/ldb

62~

58

 

 

-
d

Z Difference Between Strengths at 77°F & 100°F

7h-

72-

70‘

68«

66«

56‘

Sh‘

52‘

 

9

;"" I) . ,3":
\l.\-.J. 1L Auk.

‘ , _‘ |.‘ f" "fl 4 I -.‘ ‘. v, r ‘ ‘ , -r . v/fi . _‘ a I) I n 'r rim-I . ‘ ’.— ~ h V ‘ ‘

. ‘ 1 4 _‘ _ ‘ ‘ K .

L1} L,J\JL UL ‘u’olL‘Ll-»“-’ LXUL LLAJIJL \"J »‘~‘J.Ih
f\ \Y ‘I l . v.‘v. .‘_'_‘Y , ‘

v V .1Irt' ’v‘ ‘~ . —' w " . u .‘ 1‘ I" 7) 1' v
LJLVI' 1. L41\ buiuL ULL L.LJL\A.JL‘\JAJ .S)J_A_‘.\,LJ._J.

--r\“~.7~‘." '1 'n I'n 7‘10 '.-«. ‘.' 20 1
QLALJ.C‘LL;O A). II F 133;) .L'J'v L‘

    

A Sand, AC 1.20/1in
a Send, AC 85/100

 

2 5 h S

f V I I V

O“

ASPhCIlt C(I‘ICCUC (70)

erence Between Strengths at 77°F & 100°F

I:
L

Dif

Z

7h-

72‘

70+

68¢
66-
614-1

62‘

56‘
Sh“

52-

 

‘ '23‘ V? “VI n" DW'I'” ‘
\JL bL \IA}L\L -‘Ko‘ 13d; 14"} AL I‘"-..|.-A.A-u~.

_-41»“" )“'ng“:,\Yv n“'. I"‘V
LJLL L LJL\U.\\JAJ EJ54-. \ Li-J.

""‘.) "-‘
LLllt'\ LIA—1A!-

.0.

’_‘r\ "7“" ‘1‘! {w
UL£\LJLc(JLLLL)

    

AI 77°F AND 1g¢°r

13 Sand, AC 120/150
E] Sand, 33 85/IOO

 

1’": S

.-
2.

13in

5’4
m4
O\-1

Joatent (X)

____‘_:.'__ .

1 Difference Between Strengths at 77°F & 100°F

7h~

72*

7oj'

68«

66‘

62*

604

584

56*

5h“

52-

 

v ,..
I LJIK
'fir'x \1a

0.1. A'\14

   

7‘ H ..‘,-.- '1‘ 2'1; "' "‘ . "“
L ‘u' 4)L\J.J_.“-' A-‘ISJL [Ll-JIJL ‘I—A-J
Ir. “ 'y, "‘ 1 ‘-\-)v.‘vl7,\'ln ) . 1v .
Klo-JA\‘. 01.: L. Uk‘A—JA‘V‘J E.)H.'.\ .1
1."1 I (N Iva 7701“ ‘ .‘O ‘I
L‘tl.LLL) .11. I F l3..1) Lunv L

S

B D

‘a
a

   

Kid

3

A r‘
AK“)

‘\

O

Nd, AC 120/150

5/100

 

\f1'4

O\d

"i

l .

Z Difference Between Stabilities at 77°F & 100°F

72+

70$

68‘

664

61v

58«

 

\‘r x;
1; £.l\‘.

\ ‘[‘,. : T (1» .' _ “ .
N . . 1|.
£.L‘ .;‘\14 \l\v' ._ .4 .1

< K
.C.»
P‘ "'
LC L1.
‘1‘

LFFECI OF I.
OH 1‘43)”. Ulilf'r‘ DI
STz‘xBILI'i‘ILS .-'.

‘ _ .
. . \
1.1.\ J J-J a. J - -

-. - o ‘ . , ‘ ' ) . i) ‘
I l 4 1 .
/ / L 1 n \ -J L \. J

 

B

V V Sand-gravel, (at) lib/1.9.}
a bdi.1L1“QILJVC:-L’ up: u‘}/1‘)‘x/\

 

d

V Y I V I V I

3 h 5

Aispha 1L: Content (7.)

O\.
N
03%

77°F & 100°F

P

1 Difference Betnecn Strengths a

7h“

72‘

70‘

684

66-

6b-

624

 

m‘ '7 1V1” 7“"?
Us. V x 1.1. -4 [)LJL -4.
‘*Y} 1 Y I "" fi]‘].f‘vr' 1
i. . .

u:\ ‘JLJ L).LL 1 LI \4.\L

.z'}‘ (1 ‘I -' '7‘70 1‘

L\ .1 1.. J 11- I I 1

..,.r
Anal.)

 

'lf‘u‘xo rn
KIV L

4. ‘A.l:l.‘

 

V Sand-grease 1- ,
a Sand-Uravel, AU 05/103

(.1) lib/ 11.)?)

 

m‘

r I’ I

3 h

Asphalt Content

("2)

m4

(lbs.)

Marshall Stability

5000*

115001

booo‘

3500*

3003‘

2500-

2003*

1500-

1000-

500*

 

CPRRBLATIJH 34'

STABILITY

UCHD“;\ L40 u‘ I‘v’ t:

AC 85/100

".' \
(Slxij U‘.‘

T

".“.".1 3' ‘« -u 1'
rr’\.JLai‘v 1'1; i\e.’£1-'\ 11..
v‘ f“ v‘fi' ‘7
"~J‘-’.\L L...’ 41)

177

( fl “fiy rug:
o1 L{-4A\IL'11L

B Sand—gravel, 77°C
8 Sand-ornvel, lJnof
0 Sand, 77°F 3
8 Stun]. lUU°F
AC 120/150 I
‘V Sand-aravel, 77°F D,’
A Send-gravel, IOJOF E] ,’
<9 Stnni, 77°1r cf
@’ Sand, 100°F ,’
[I
9 I
I
<9 /
I
/
I/
O /
o ”9
V’vyv
v
Iv
o z
/
/
/
/

 

éo Lo

Compressive Strength

$0 80 160 léo
(psi)

1L0

APPENDIX C

CHICAGO TESTING LABORATORY, INC.

TECHNICAL REPORT

103

CHICAGO TESTING LABORATORY, INC.
TECHNICAL REPORT
No. 08960

To: Leonard Refineries, Inc.; Alma, Michigan
Attention: Mr. Berl Fleury Date: May 28, 1962

Subject: Marshall Stability Tests on Sand-Asphalt
Mixture for Base

Leonard Refineries was desirous of obtaining
Marshall Stability Test data on sand-asphalt mix for
base construction using samples of sand and AC lOO/lZO
supplied by them. The sieve analysis and specific
gravity of the sand is shown in Table l and the asphalt
had a penetration at 77°F of 107 with a specific gravity

at 77'!“ of 1.025.

Laboratory mixtures were prepared using the send
as received with varying asphalt contents. Marshall Test
specimens were made and tested in accordance with ASTM
D 1559-60T at e compaction temperature of 250‘? and 50
blows of the hammer on each face. After it was observed
that the Marshall Test data at 140°F were low, additional
test specimens were prepared and Marshall values at 100°F

were determined.

The Marshall Test data are shown in Table 2.

CONTENTS :

Marshall Test values at 140°F are low, but much
higher when tested at lOO‘F. The voids are quite high
with correspondingly low Voids Filled which is to be
expected with sand of this grading. Higher asphalt con-
tent to reduce the void content would have produced an
unstable mixture. The use of mineral filler would reduce
the air void content and probably improve the other pro-

parties of the mixture.

104

The Stability and Flow values at 100°F are quite
good. Since it is doubtful that a base course would
reach this temperature, it appears that this sand mixed
with about 51 AC 100/120 would probably be satisfactory
for base course construction providing it can be properly
laid and compacted without undue disturbance of the sub
base by the trucks and paving machine. .

Respectfully submitted,

CHICAGO TESTING LABORATORY, INC.

105

TABLE 1

STEVE ANALYSIS OF SAND

 

 

Sieve Percent Passing
Size Cumulative
5/8" 100.0

1/2" 98.9

3/8" 97.6

No. 4 92.5

No. 10 85.5

No. 40 52.9

No. 80 12.4

No. 200 3.4

Specific Gravity 2.63

106

 

 

m.HH o.HH m.m
noma Nana mafia
q.me c.o¢ H.an
o.n~ ~.n~ n.¢~
n.¢a .H.na ¢.na
N¢.N ee.~ oe.~
5o.~ ho.~ wo.~
e.ooa
m.n o.n n.e
m N H

h.m . .~.au Ho.gw .mnH .soae

 

92 To

mna nnu new .mna .muaaapaum
m.~e n.5m m.¢m N .euaaam auao>
m.nu méu 0.3. N .5;
m.¢a m.oH ~.oa s .acao> nae
a: $.N aim .5 .mm :3: 62+
oo.~ nc.~ mo.~ m.- an
mua>euo ofimwoumm

mooea .11, um munch Hangman:

n.n o.m n.¢ N .ucoucoo naenmm<

m N a .02 eununax

 

.N mam<a

mMMSHXH: ho mhnbmmm Hume

107

CHICAGO TESTING LABORATORY, INC.
TECHNICAL REPORT
No. 13125-6
To: Leohard Refineries, Inc.; Alma, Michigan
Attention: Mr. Berl Fleury' Date: April 25, 1963

Subject: Bituminous Mixtures Containing Fine Sand and
Gravel For Subbase and Base Construction

Leonard Refineries submitted samples of fine sand
and gravel to evaluate for use in bituminous subbase and
base pavement construction. It was decided during dis-
cussions with Mr. Fleury that Marshall Tests should be made
on a series of mixtures composed of fine send, another
series made with gravel and a third series composed of
equal parts of sand and gravel. It was also decided that
the Marshall Tests would be made at 77°F for the fine sand
‘mixtures and at 100'F for the gravel and sand-gravel mix-
t'ures° Leonard also submitted a sample of AC 85/100
asphalt (penetration at 77°F was 90, and specific gravity
at 77°F was 1.028) for use in these mixtures.

LABORATORY TESTS:

There were a few pieces of oversize aggregate in the
.gravel and fine sand, and therefore, the gravel was scalped
over a 3/4" screen and the fine send over a No. 4 screen
jprior to testing. The sieve analyses and specific gravi-
ties of the scalped fine sand and gravel are shown in
Table 1 .

In order to obtain some idea of the characteris-
tics of bituminous mixtures made with these aggregates,
small batches of mixtures were prepared by hand, using
13.01 and 3.51 of asphalt for the sand and gravel mixtures,
respectively. These were subjected to CTL Shear Tests.

108

The specimens for the Shear Tests were prepared
at 325'? in 2" diameter moldso Sufficient mixture was
used to produce specimens 1.5" high, and the compaction
was accomplished by a double plunger method at 5000 psi.
The specimens were weighed in and out of water for deter-
mining specific gravity. The Shear strength along the
circumference at 77'F was then determined by a split ring
method in the Shear Test apparatus.

The mixtures for Marshall Tests were prepared in
a mechanical mixer in accordance with ASTM D 1559-60T
‘with compaction at 250'? with 50 blows of the hammer on
each face. The specimens were then tested in the usual
Marshall manner with the exception that the stability and
flow for the sand mixtures were made at 77°F, and the
gravel and gravel-sand mixtures were determined at lOO'F.

The test results for these mixtures are shown in
Table 11 ~

COMMENTS:

There is not much information available in the
literature concerning this type of construction for sub-
base and base courses. There is also apparently no Mar-
shall Test criteria for designing mixtures for this service.
However, the results of the.Marsha11 Tests show rather good
stability and flow values at the test temperatures used.

Based upon the Marshall Test results, it appears
that the fine sand mixed with 3.01 to 3.5% asphalt or a
50/50 blend of sand and gravel mixed with about 3.5% to 41
should be satisfactory for a subbase course and would cer-
tainly be more stable and carry a heavier load than either
the sand or gravel without bitumen. The results of the
Mbrehall Tests also indicate that a mixture of the gravel
with about 41 asphalt should be worth while for an experi-
mental base course.

Based upon the appearance, handling qualities and~
test results of these mixtures in the laboratory, it
would be our estimate that the bituminous mixture should
be comparable in a ration of a minimum of 1.5 or 2.0 per

109

thickness of plain sand or gravel.

It was interesting to note that the CTL Shear
Test results on the two mixtures tested were in good
agreement with those of the Marshall Test.

Respectfully submitted,

CHICAGO TESTING LABORATORY, INC.

110

TABLE 1

TEST RESULTS ON AGGREGATE SAMPLES

A A # __..__‘#_

 

Sieve Analysis Percent Passing Cumulative
‘figgggl Fine Sand
3/4" 100.0
5/8" 98.6
1/2" 97.2
3/8" ‘ 95.0
No. 4 87.0
N00 10 73.1 100.0
No. 40 44.1 88.4
No. 80 4.2 10.8
No. 200 1.1 4.6

Specific Gravity 2.70 2.64

 

111

Moo

owe

Nomm
NoOm
hoHN
®voN
mmoH

Oman
mbobq
mbobv

0.0

mmm

m.mN
n.0N
moHN
Hm.~
wo.H

o6

mbm

o.-
o.o~
m.mm
mm.w
mm.a

0m.m

mmowv
m~.mv

«n

how

quH

o.mm
comm
v.5H
mmom
ooom

0.9
o.c¢

.u

b.mv

«com
moom

-w mqm<e

m.w
owv
m.HN
comm
momm
mqom
qw.H
o.<

coco

.w

o.m
mmm
m.wn
«.mm
m.r~
cm.~
mm.H
mom
m.om

mmmaaNH: maozHXDHHm zo menbmmm Bmmb Agammm<z

.«om
.m be a. sauna
noao> tea
afipudcdm
”Sosa sauna ago

m 00H a.

a be as
=Ho.o ..oae

.— 8a 2.

m be as
..one .eSAHanupm
m .ooHHxa mean»
u .ax>
e .muaop see
.tu .am .uux .ooge
a as a. .tc .am

unvnofi fining

00fl\mm oa
debate
teem ocfim

an .:Oavwnomaoo

.on we:

111

Nomm
Noon
boHN
ovom
mmoH

Onoq

mbobv
mb.bq

oow

mbm

o.~m
comm
©.NN
mmom
mmofi

0m.m

mm.w<
m~.wv

0|

how

mama

o.mm
comm
v.5fl
mmom
meow

Gov
o.o@

.w

b.mv

«com
moom

m.m

_m

.w mamas

m.m

omq

wofim
o.mm
mama
wv.w
qw.H
ooq

0°00

.m

cow

mmm
m.mH

.qomm

N.b~
0m.m
mm.H

mom
mowm

m

one

mpw

Coma
covm
v.¢m
NmoN
mb.H

oom

o.bo

mmmaaHH: mDozHZDHHm 2D mambmmm HMMG qn<mmm<z

.aoa
.m be an sauna
undo» tea
upsettcdm
”pace pagan gee

m 00H a.

a be as
=Ho.o .uofie

m 00H an

m be an
«.apa .auaaanupm
a .coaaam scape
u .az>
e .ueaos tee
.au .am .xa: .ooga
a be a. .sc .am

.nunoa Hangatuz

00fi\mm oa
Hobeao
unem scam

an .moavamoaaoo

.0: ma:

112

CHICAGO TESTING LABORATORY, INC.
TECHNICAL REPORT
No. 13947

To: Leonard Refineries, Inc.; Alma, Michigan

Attention: Mr. Berl Fleury Date: June 24, 1963

Subject: Tests on Bituminous Base Mixture from the
Gratiot County Experimental Project

Leonard Refineries submitted a sample of
bituminous stabilized gravel used for a base course on
the experimental project at Gratiot County.

Mr. Fleury requested that an analysis be made
of the mixture as well as Marshall and Sheer Tests at
various temperatures. Test methods used were the same
as those described in an earlier report on this project
(CTL Report No. 13125-6 of April 25, 1963.)

There was not sufficient amount of sample to
make more than five Marshall test specimens and five
Shear test specimens. Therefore, the extraction and
recovery test were made on Marshall specimens which had
been tested. In considering the recovery test data, it
should be noted that the mixtures were reheated, and there-
fore, the asphalt was subjected to additional hardening.

The test results are shown on the accompanying
table.

Respectfully submitted,

CHICAGO TESTING LABORATORY, INC.

113

TEST RESULTS OF BITUMINOUS MIXTURE
EXPERIMENTAL BITUMINOUS BASE PROJECT

Extraction Test:

1 Passing

3/4" 100.0

5/8" 98.4

1/2" 94.7

3/8" 91.2

No. 4 82.1

No. 10 72.4

No. 40 44.8

No. 80 6.0

No. 200 2.7
Bitumen, 2 4.2
Moisture, 2 Trace

Recovered Bitumen:

Penetration at 77°F 100/5 45
Ductility at 77°F, 5/60, cm 115
Ash, 1 0.7

Marshall Tests - Compacted at 250°F
50 Blows on each face

Specific Gravity at 77°F 2.10

Theo. Maximum Specific Gravity 2.55

Air Voids, 2 17.6

‘VMA, 1 26.2

Voids filled with Bit., 1 32.8
Tests at 80°F:

Stability, lbs. 3890

Flow, 0.01" 10
Tests at 100°F:

Stability, lbs. 2710

Flow, 0.01" 9.
Taste at 120°F:

Stability, lbs. 1430

Flow, 0.01" 11

1 14

Shear Tests at 100°F:
Specific Gravity at 77°F
Theo. Maximum Specific Gravity
Air Voids, Z
Shear Strength, psi

115

CHICAGO TESTING LABORATORY, INC.
TECHNICAL REPORT
No. 14759-60
To: Leonard Refineries, Inc.; Alma, Michigan
Attention: Mr. Berl Fleury Date: August 6, 1963

Subject: Test Results on Bituminous Sand Base Course
from Gratiot County Experimental Project

Leonard Refineries submitted a sample of
bituminous stabilized sand which was used for a base
course on the experimental project in Gratiot County.
Previous tests were made on the stabilized gravel base
course from this project and the results are shown in
CTL Report No. 13947.

Mr. Fleury requested that the same tests be made
on this mixture as were carried out on the stabilized
gravel. The tests were all made in the same manner. The
extraction and recovery tests shown were made on the Mar-
shall specimens after testing.

The test results are shown in the accompanying
table.

Respectfully submitted,

CHICAGO TESTING LABORATORY, INC.

116

TEST RESULTS OF BITUMINOUS SAND BASE COURSE

GRATIOT COUNTY, MICHIGAN

Extraction Test:
1 Passing
5/8" 100.0
1/2" 99.7
3/8" 98.4
No. 4 95.2
No. 10 90.5
No. 40 58
No. 80 5
No. 200 l.
Bitumen, 1 3
Moisture Tra

Recovered Bitumen:
Penetration at 77°F, 100/5 68
Ductility at 77°F, 5/60, cm 150
Ash, 2 1.8

Marshall Tests - Compacted at 250°F, 50 Blows
Specific Gravity at 77’P 2.00
Theo. Max. Sp. Cr. 2.53
Air Voids, 1 20.9
'VMA, 2 27.0
Voids filled with Bitumen, 1 22.6

Tests at 80°F:
Stability, lbs 2645
Flow, 0.01" 10

Tests at lOO‘F:
Stability, lbs. 1040
Flow, 0.01" 10

Tests at 120°P:
Stability, lbs. 290
Flow, 0.01" 7

117

Tests at 140°F:
Stability, lbs.
Flow, 0.01"

CTL Shear Tests at 100°F:
Specific Gravity at 77°F
Theo. Max. Sp. Gr.

Air Voids, Z
Shear Strength, psi

APPENDIX D

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES

A.EEV wswcwmo m>mwm

OF.“ B LP

Ancmmv

m>mbo ZOHHBMHmHmHQ

.H IQTZU

b

MNHm ZH<MU

 

rOH

row

.0m

.04

vom

.ow

vow

 

.oQH

3 red 1930;

FUTSGUJ nunr

A.EEV wcwcwmo m>on
09H

h h h D I D h h h h
11

Aam>muov
m>zso ZOHHDmeHmHQ mNHm ZH<xU

. N 3%..qu

 

 

50H

9”193Pd SUBS lad 19301

121

A.EEV mzwcwmo m>wam .
OH 09H Hoo

-.--1_ a » ?.rp.ph p p pp»
1

IOH

ION

10m

.04

Am

A5

AK

.om

 

Amusuxflz Hm>muwumcmmv

 

3:50 onSmHEmS ES 520 .02

.m :mmmu

Surssnd JUBD 13d 10301

APPENDIX E

TABLES OF SPECIFIC GRAVITIES

AND SIEVE SIZES

123

TABLE 1.

SPECIFIC GRAVITIES OF MIX CONSTITUENTS

F
-—-—‘ .4

Sand 2.64
Gravel 2.70
AC 85/100 .l.028
AC 120/150 1.026

31A top aggregate 2.70

 

124

TABLE 2.

SIEVE SIZE SEQUENCE FOR GRAIN
SIZE ANALYSIS OF AGGREGATE

 

 

Sieve Opening size (in.) Opening size (mm)
5/8 " .625 15.9

1/2" .500 12.7

3/8" .375 9.52

No. 4 .187 4.76

No. 10 .0787 2.00

No. 40 .0165 0.42

No. 80 .0070 0.177

No. 200 .0029 0.074

 

APPENDIX F

MATHEMATICAL RELATIONSHIPS

USED IN CALCULATIONS

126

MATHEMATICAL RELATIONSHIPS USED IN CALCULATIONS

Starting with a few basic data, several para-
meters were calculated for each sample. The following
is a list of the mathematical relationships used for
these calculations preceeded by an explanation of the
symbols used therein.

SYMBOLS

P1, P2, P3

61' 52' G3

St(77)
sc(100)
D10

D60

per cent of the asphalt, sand, and
gravel, respectively, in the mix

specific gravity of the asphalt, sand,
and gravel, respectively, in the mix

sample weight in air in grams
sample weight in water in grams

total volume of the sample in cubic
centimeters

volume of the total aggregate in cubic
centimeters

per cent aggregate in the mix

specific gravity of the aggregate in the
mix

stability or strength at 77°F in pounds
or pounds per square inch

stability or strength at 100°F in pounds
or pounds per square inch

'maximum diameter of the smallest 10 per
cent of the aggregate

maximum diameter of the smallest 60 per.
cent of the aggregate

127

jMathematical Relationships
1. Bulk Specific Gravity1 - Db

 

 

 

 

Db-“a
wg-ww
Db-“a
Vb
2. Theoretical maximum specific gravity2 - Dm
Dm ' 100
P1 P2 P3
€6.63
3. Air voids in the compacted mix or total voids3 -
Vv,in 2

vv = 100 x Dm ' Db
Dm
4. Specific gravity of the aggregate4 - G

 

 

as
Gag = 100

P2 23

35 ”3

5. Volume of aggregate as per cent of the total volume.

of the sample5 - Z vag’ in Z
1 Va 3 Pa x “a
8 -15Ji—-—-
' ag x vb
Z Veg = Peg x Db
Gag

 

1Ref. 10, p. 161. 2Ref. 10, p. 163. 3Ref. 10, p. 165

4Ref. 10, p. 158. 5Ref. 10, p. 165. Ref. 10, p.

 

10.

11.

128

Voids in the mineral aggregate6 - VMA, in 1
‘VMA = 100 - Z Vag

Voids filled with bitumen7

- VFB, in Z

VFB = VMA '{Vv
VMA

 

Density factor - DF, in cubic feet or cubic feet
per square inch
DF = stability or strength
density

 

Difference in stabilities or strengths at 77°F and
100°F - 1 difference, in 2

1 diff 3 StL7Zl - StLIOQ)

 

St(77)
Uniformity Coefficient of the aggregate8 - VC
3 D
VC 60
D10

Effective size of the aggregate9 - E3, in milli-
eaters
ES 3 010

 

6Ref. 10, p. 167. 7Ref. 10, p. 157

9

8Ref. 41, p. 21. Ref. 41, p. 21

APPENDIX G

COMPUTER PROGRAM

130

COMPUTER PROGRAM

The computer program, a c0py of which appears
herein starting on page 133 was written in FORTRAN com-
puter language for use in the Control Data Corporation
3600 computer at Michigan State University. This program
was written to expedite the computation of several para-
meters for each of the many samples tested. All except
the last three formulas listed in Appendix F were utilized
in this program. In addition, average values of certain
quantities calculated for similarly tested samples were
calculated.

The program used was identical to that shown
starting on page139 except for the numbers which appear
at the left margin opposite each statement of the program.
These numbers have been added for clarity and ease of
reference. An explanation of the most important symbols
used in the program appears on pages 137 and 138-

Statements 1 through 27 of the program serve to
get information into the computer, tell it in what manner
to print thd results, tell it to print certain column
headings and the manner in which to print them, and re-

serve space in the computer's memory for a number of

131

quantities. Statement 28 tells the computer how to cal-
culate the theoretical maximum specific gravity for each
group of six samples molded from one batch of material.
Statement 29 then tells the computer to execute state-
ments 30 through 55 using the information entered for the
six samples in order beginning with the first sample.
Statements 30 and 31 merely correct the weights in water
of a particular set of six samples whose weights had to
be entered into the computer 100 grams too low. This was
necessary because of the way the data cards were to be
read by the computer. Statements 32 through 35 instruct
the computer to calculate, respectively, the total volume
of the sample, its bulk specific gravity, its density and
the air voids it contains. Statements 36 through 41 tell
the computer what value of specific gravity to use for
the aggregate. Statements 42 through 45 instruct the com-
puter to calculate, respectively, the volume of aggregate
as a percentage of the total volume, the voids in the
mineral aggregate, the voids filled with bitumen and the
density factor of the sample. Statements 46 through 52
instruct the computer to check the sample volume against

a particular volume interval, and tells the computer what

132

to print if the volume of the sample is small, within the
interval, or large. Statements 53 and 54 then tell the
computer to print whether the sample is small, of correct
volume or large, the volume of the sample, its strength
or stability, its density factor, its bulk specific
gravity, its density, its theoretical maximum Specific
gravity, its air void, voids in the mineral aggregate and
the voids filled with bitumen.

After the above calculations have been made and
the results printed for each of the six samples, the com-
puter proceeds to calculate average values of density,
voids filled with bitumen, density factor and strength.
Separate averages are calculated for samples tested at
77°F and for those tested at 100°F. These Operations are
performed by the computer as specified by statements 56
through 73. Statements 76 and 77 then tell the computer
to print the temperature of the test and average values
of the sample strength or stability, density factor, den-
sity, and voids filled. Statement 76 also tells the com-
puter to print the per cent asphalt, per cent sand and
the specific gravity of the asphalt for each group of six

samples.

133

After the computer has printed these average
values, it returns to statement 25 which instrUcts-1t to
start performing all the calculations mentioned above for
the next group of six samples.

This routine of calculations and printing of
results was executed for each of the 81 groups of six
samples. When a group contained less than six samples,
the pr0per data was entered into the computer for each
of the existing samples, and for those samples which did
not exist in the group of six, the data was entered as
zero. For example, if only four samples were molded and
tested from a particular batch, the proper data was
entered for the four samples. For the other two non-
existing samples necessary to make a total of six samples,
the data was entered as zero.

When the computer reaches statement 78 after per-
forming the calculations for the eighty-first group of
six samples, it continues on to statements 79 through 81
Which cause it to stOp.

In order to get the basic data into the computer,
it was necessary to use two groups of data cards. In the

first group each card contained the following data for one

134

sample: an identification number, the sample weight in
air in grams, the sample weight in water in grams, and
the strength or stability in pounds per square inch or
pounds, respectively. A typical data card of this group
might appear as follows: 374164168185011783. The first
three digits are the identification number. In this
case the sample is the third one in the seventy-fourth
group of six samples. The next five digits represent
the weight of the sample in air--164l.6 grams. The fol-
lowing four digits represent the weight of the sample in
water--818.5 grams. The last six digits represent the
stability or, in this case, the strength of the sample--
0117.83 pounds per square inch.

In the second group of data cards, each card con- ~
tained the following data for a group of six samples: an
identification number, the asphalt content of the group
> in per cent, the per cent sand, the per cent gravel and
the specific gravities of the asphalt, sand and gravel,
respectively. A typical data card of this group might
appear as follows: 74350482548251028264270.. The first
two digits represent the identification number. In this

case the data contained on the card is for the seventy-

 

135

fourth group of six samples. The next three digits
represent the asphalt content--3.50 per cent. The next
eight digits represent the per cent sand and per cent
gravel, respectively-~48.25 and 48.25 per cent. Had the
samples consisted of sand and no gravel, the per cent
gravel would have been entered as 0000. The last ten
digits represent the specific gravities of the asphalt,
sand and gravel, respectively-~l.028, 2.64 and 2.70.
Again, if there had been no gravel in the mixture, the
specific gravity of the gravel could have been omitted
since the computer would read those three empty spaces
as zero.

Because of the way the computer is instructed to
read the data cards, it is necessary that the data be put
on the card, starting in the first column, exactly as
shown in the above examples when this computer program
is going to be used. The decimal points are omitted be-
cause the statements which tell the computer how to read
the data cards also tell it where the decimal points are
to be located.

'Once a computer program, such as the one presen-

ted here, has been written, a great many man hours of work

136

can be saved by its use. This fact becomes evident when
one realizes that the work performed by the computer for
the author would have required approximately 5 man hours

of work. The computer performed the work in 34 seconds.

.137

EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS USED

WA - sample weight in air, grams
WW - sample weight in water, grams

STR - sample strength or stability, pounds per
square inch or pounds, respectively

DM - theoretical maximum specific gravity
‘PA - asphalt content, per cent

PS - sand content, per cent

PG - gravel content, per cent
SGA - specific gravity of the asphalt
SGS - specific gravity of the sand
SGG - specific gravity of the gravel

VA - volume of the sample, cubic centimeters
DB - bulk specific gravity

DEN - density, pounds per cubic foot

VV - air voids, per cent

GAV - specific gravity of the aggregate

VAG - volume of the aggregate as a per cent of
the total volume, per cent

VMA - voids in the mineral aggregate, per cent
VFILL - voids filled with bitumen, per cent

IDENFAC - density factor, cubic feet or cubic feet,
per square inch

AVDS

AVDH

AVVS

AVVH

AVDFS

AVDFH

STRENS

STRENH

138

average density of samples tested at 77°F,
pounds per cubic foot

average density of samples tested at lOO’F,
pounds per cubic foot

average voids filled with bitumen of samples,
tested at 77°F, per cent

average voids filled with bitumen of samples,
tested at 100°F, per cent

average density factor of samples tested at
77°F, cubic feet or cubic feet per square inch

average density factor of samples tested at
100°F, cubic feet or cubic feet per square inch

average strength or stability at 77'P, pounds
per square inch or pounds, respectively

average strength or stability at lOO‘F, pounds
per square inch or pounds, respectively

10.
11.
12.

13.

14.
15.
16.

17.

139

COMPUTER PROGRAM
* 051330 Riley, J C 2MIN,1,C.O.P.
PROGRAM ASPHALT
2 FORMAT (1H0, 37110 C RILEY ASPHALT BASE
COMPUTATIONS)
3 FORMAT (3A1)

4 FORMAT (3X, F5.1, F4.1, F6.2)

5 FORMAT (1H0, 5x, 89HTEMP AVSTREN

2 2AVDENFAC AVDEN AVVFILL PA
2P3 ° SGA)

6 FORMAT (2x, 109HTEST VOLUM STREN
3DENFAC SPGR DENSITY TMSG
3AIRv VMA VFILL)

7 FORMAT (l/3x, 12)

8 FORMAT (2x, F3.2, F4.2, F4.2, F4.3, F3.2, F3.2)
9 FORMAT (11x, A1, F6.l, 6X, F8.2, 7x, F8.4, 4x,
4F6.3, 7x, F6.l, 5x, F6.3, 4x, F6.2, 4x, F6.2,

44x, F6.2)

10 FORMAT (6X, F4.0, 7x, F8.2, 6X, F8.4, 7x, F6.1,
75x, F6.2, 7x, F5.2, 5x, F6.2, 4x, F6.3)
PRINT 2

PRINT 5

18.
19.

20.

21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.

28.

29.‘

30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.

140

PRINT 6

DIMENSION WA(6,81), WW(6,81), STR(6,81), DM

5(81), VA(6,81), DB(6,81), DEN(6,81), VV(6,81),

5VFILL(6,81), DENFAC(6,81)

READ 3, A, B, 0

DO 11 J = 1,81

DO 11 1 = 1,6
11 READ 4, WA(I,J), WW(I,J), STR(I,J)

DO 26 K = 1,81

PRINT 7, K

READ 8, PA, PS, PG, SGA, SGS, SGG

DM(K) ' 100. / (PA/SGA + PS/SGS + PG/SGG)

DO 17 L = 1,6

IF (K - 48) 28, 27, 28
27 WW(L,48) = 100. + WW(L,48)
28 VA(L,K) = WA(L,K) - WW(L,K)

DB(L,K) = WA(L,K) / VA(L,K)

DEN(L,K) = DB(L,K) * 62.3

VV(L,K) = 100. * ((DM(K) - DB(L,K)) / DM(K))

IF (PS - PG) 29, 30, 31

29 GAV = 2.70

141

38. GO TO 32

39. 30 GAV a 2.67

40. GO TO 32

41. 31 GAV . 2.64

42. 32 VAC - ((PS + PC) / GAV) * DB(L,K)

43. VMA = 100. - VAC

44. VFILL(L,K) = 100. * ((VMA -VV(L,K)) / VMA)

45. DENFAC(L,K) = STR(L,K) / DEN(L,K)

46. IF (VA(L,K) - 843.87) 12, 15, 13

47. 12 IF (VA(L,K) - 802.70) 14, 15, 15

48. 13 z = A

49. GO TO 16

50. 14 z - B

51. GO TO 16

52. 15 z = C

53. 16 PRINT 9, z, VA(L,K), STR(L,K), DENFAC(L,K),

54. 6DB(L,K), DEN(L,K), DM(K), VV(L,K), VMA,
6FVILL(L,K)

55. 17 CONTINUE

56. x = 1.

57. Y = 1.

58. IF (WA(6,K)) 18, 18, 21

59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

142

18 IF (WA(5,K)) 19, 19, 22
19 IF (WA(4,K)) 20, 20, 23
20 IF (WA(3,K)) 25, 25, 24

21X8X+1.

22 Y Y + l.
23 X 8 X + l.
24Y-Y+l.

25 AVDS - (DEN(1,K) + DEN(3,K) + DEN(5,K)) / Y

AVDH = (DEN(2,K) + DEN(4,K) + DEN(6,K)) / x
Avvs = (VFILL(1,K) + VFILL(3,K) + VFILL(5,I())
/ Y .

AVVH = (VFILL(2,K) + VFILL(4,I() + VFILL(6,K))
/ X

AVDFS ‘ (DENFAC(1,K) + DENFAC(3,K) + DENFAC(S,
K)>/Y
AVDFH ' (DENFAC(2,K)-+ DENFAC(4,K) + DENFAC(6,
KD/x

STRENS = (STR(1,K) + STR(3,K) + STR(5,K)) / Y

STRENH = (STR(2,K) + STR(4,K) + STR(6,K)) / x
D = 77.
E = 100.

76.

77.
78.
79.
80.

81.

143

PRINT 10, D, STRENS, AVDFS, AVDS, AVVS, PA,
PS, SGA

PRINT 10, E, STRENH, AVDFH, AVDH, AVVH
CONTINUE

STOP

END

END

APPENDIX H

SAND-GRAVEL ASPHALT BASE EXPERIMENTAL
PROJECT, ALGER ROAD, GRATIOT

COUNTY, MICHIGAN

 

Rflhn.

 

 

Sflfljl—CTLIVHJ. H.3151L7 ‘LISE
EKPER11.17731771".”1L TEN ) EC T

.1111EF1 E?CU\T‘ .

GRATIOT COUNTY, K1CU1CAH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.6
Horizontal Scale: 1" a 500' % 1 >— North C
Vertical Scale: 1” a 5" 2
<1)
Exist. 24' Bit. :3
I 2852‘ m
Alger Road-"Existing 22' Gravel 1"
\\\\ ~~ r
\
\\\\\ ’f\/
(3) (2) (1)
2000' A; 2000' .2 2000' ._4‘ :3.
7' i I 7* Vi ‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6.0: ASp. '3' Bit. Surface Course 4.09

 

 

6.0: Aap. 'E' 1.5" Bituminous Surface 4.09

6.0: 'N' 2" Bit. Surface Course 4.09

6.0: Asp. 'A' 2" Bit. Surface Course 4.09

 

 

 

 

3" Sand Asnhalt Fix '0'

4.0% ASp.
3" Sand—gravel Asphalt Mix
'0‘ 1 course 3 5% is
4.0% A3 . e / 1 p. , ‘
5“ Sand-travel Agphait Mix 5.5" Sand ASphaIt Mix 6' Gravel Base 4.01
'03 2 courses 5'0% ASP: . 'B' 2 courses

 

3" Existing Gravel 3" Existing Gravel A 3"

 

 

 

Existing Gravel 3" Existing Gravel

 

 

 

Order of Construction — 'A' through '3'

20' Bituminous Surface 4.09

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
  

Natural Sandy Loam Sub-soil

20' Bituminous Surface 4.09

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10' _j
’1 2" crown;7 10'
A/Péééé/QCCVPC[/9960CCdVQGC/QC/735/)C//Q(/)/ 2" crown-;Z
[“7 21' Sand-gravel Asphalt Base /9//95//C//O//7797‘\4\‘
r—' 22' Existinggfiravel “*1 22' C 9" Gravel Base ‘\\“r~\\\\\\\)
——7 Clay Loam Sub-soil '02'/ft’ 81°P°""*" —_— "7 Clay Loam Sub-soil .O2'/ft. Sl“D¢-—-——+~ ‘*~

Typical Cross Section
(not to scale)
For Sections (2), (3), and (4)

Typical Cross Section
(not to scale)
For Section (1)

 

 

 

 

w

n

SJi-‘n

_ .
has“ '.‘~ 9',

 

- M1 1 "
‘ F v‘
. K. ‘b‘