Islamic University of Gaza High Studies Deanery Faculty of ... · Islamic University of Gaza High...

Islamic University of Gaza High Studies Deanery Faculty of Engineering

Master in Science Infrastructure Engineering

A Proposal for Asphalt Binder Layer Specification in Palestine

M.Sc. Thesis

Submitted to the Faculty of Engineering

Department of Civil Engineering

Submitted By Mohammed Ghanem

Supervised By Assoc. Prof. Shafik Jendia

March., 2005

i

ABSTRACT

The undertaken research work includes the development of a proposal for binder asphalt

layer specification that is suitable for local aggregate and bitumen in Palestine. The

proposed specifications has been developed after collecting and reviewing eleven

specifications for binder asphalt layer and divided them into three groups. These groups

are the international group, the regional group and the local requirements in Palestine.

This research differs from the previous researches because it introduces a special

specification for the binder asphalt layer which suits the local materials in Palestine. In

addition to the new methodology which was used by the researcher to select the most

suitable specifications. The adopted mechanism was drawing one frame consists of a

minimum and maximum gradations for all the collected specifications and selecting

several asphalt mixes with different gradations. These gradations cover the wide range

between the minimum and maximum of the frame. Also, the mechanical properties for

the eleven specifications were studied and the researcher selected mechanical properties

to be adopted for the proposed specification. Finally, the gradation which achieved the

selected mechanical properties with minimum bitumen content was selected as a

proposed specification.

It is recommended that the developed proposed specification to be used in construction

the asphalt binder layer in Palestine. The proposed specification will solve the problems

and decrease the mistakes which caused by the differences of the specifications from

project to project. This difference pushes the asphalt factories to change the asphalt

factories to change the specification of the asphalt mixes several times a day to cover the

supervision requirements. If the proposed specification used and unified, it will improve

the planning and implementation of roads projects.

ii

ملخص البحث

ھذا البحث یقدم اقتراحا لمواصفة فلسطینیة خاصة بتدرج الخلطة االسفلتیة لطبقة الرصف الرابطة

و لتقدیم ھذا االقتراح تم . من الحصویات و البیتومین المتوفرة في فلسطینباستخدام المواد المحلیة

المجموعة العالمیة و جمع و مراجعة أحد عشر مواصفة تم تقسیمھا إلى ثالث مجموعات و ھي

عن األبحاث و یتمیز ھذا البحث. المجموعة االقلیمیة و مجموعة المتطلبات المحلیة الفلسطینیة

بتبنیھ آلیة و طریقة جدیدة لتقدیم ھذا السابقة بأنھ یقدم اقتراح لمواصفة محلیة خاصة بفلسطین و كذلك

أصغري لجمیع المواصفات و عظمي و مغلف واحد أو تتلخص ھذه الطریقة بأخذ. االقتراح

متطلبات التي تم جمعھا و دراستھا و من ثم عمل مجموعة من الخلطات الخاصة بتدرجات مختلفة ال

و من ثم اختیار التدرج و نسبة . بحیث تغطي المجال الواسع بین الحدین األعظمي و األصغري

صفات تیاره بعد دراسة جمیع ال أیضا تم اخالبیتومین التي تحقق الصفات المیكانیكیة الجیدة و التي

.المیكانیكیة للمواصفات المذكورة

المتوفرة في أما بالنسبة لتطبیق ھذه المواصفة المقترحة فھي صالحة عند استخدام المواد المحلیة

المشاكل و یخفف من األخطاء التي حیث أن مثل ھذا االقتراح في حال تطبیقھ سوف یحل. فلسطین

اإلسفلتھذه االختالفات تدفع مصانع . أخر في المواصفات من مشروع إلى تحدث بسبب االختالفات

إذا استخدمت . اإلشراف عدة مرات في الیوم الواحد لتغطیة متطلبات اإلسفلتیةلتغییر الخلطات

.ستحسن تخطیط و تنفیذ مشاریع الطرقالمواصفة المقترحة و تم توحیدھا فإنھا

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I extend my sincere appreciation to people who made this thesis possible. Special thanks

are to my supervisor Dr. Shafik Jendia, for his guidance, patience and encouragement.

I would like to thank all lecturers in Islamic University who have helped me during my

study of Infrastructure Civil Engineering Master Program. These are Dr. Mohamed Ziara,

Dr. Yehia El Sarraj, Dr. Mohammed Awad, Dr. Sami Abu El Ross, Dr. Khairy Al Jamal,

Dr. Majed El Bayaa, Dr. Ahmed Shwedeh and Dr. Mohamed El Reefi.

Finally, I would like to thank the board of Engineering Association Laboratory for

Testing Materials who have supported and encouraged me to accomplish this work.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………...............i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT……………………………………………………………iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………….…….iv

LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………..…….ix

LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………....xiv

LIST OF ABBREVIATION………………………………………………...………xvi CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION…………….…………………………………1 1.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………….…1

1.2 Research Problem………………………………………………………………...1

1.3 Research Objectives……………………………………………………………...2

1.4 Methodology ……………………………………………………………...……....2

1.4.1 Theoretical Study………………………………………………….….…...….2

1.4.1.1 Literature Review…………………………………………………….....2

1.4.1.2 Specifications and Local Requirements…………………………..……3

1.4.2 The Practical Study…………………………………………………………..3

1.5 Research Outputs………………………………………………………………....3

1.6 Report Organization………………………………………………………….…..3

CHAPTER TWO: MATERIALS OF ASPHALT CONCRETE………..…………5

2.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………….……....5

2.2 Classes and Types of Aggregates………………………………….……………..5

2.3 General Requirement Aggregate for Bituminous Paving Mixture……….....…..6

2.4 Bituminous Materials……………………………………………………….…….8

2.5 Sources of Road Bitumen…………………………………………………………8

2.6 Petroleum Refining………………………………………………………………..8

2.7 Groups of Bituminous Materials…………………………………………………9

2.7.1 Road Bitumen………………………………………………………………….9

2.7.2 Cutback Bitumen………………………………………………………….….10

v

2.7.3 Emulsion…………………………………………………………………..…11

2.7.4 Tar……………………………………………………………………….……12

2.8 Tests of Bitumen…………………………………………………………….……12

CHAPTER THREE: PAVEMENT LAYERS AND MIX DESIGN………............13

3.1 Pavement Layers…………………………………………………….……….…..13

3.2 Mix Design Methods and Marshall Method……….…………………………...16

CHAPTER FOUR: SPECIFICATIONS OF ASPHALT BINDER COURSE…...21 4.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………..….….…21

4.2 Methodology of Selecting the Gradation and Mechanical Properties…….….21

4.3 Selected Specification of Asphalt Binder Course………………………………22

4.3.1 International Group……………………....………………………………….22

4.3.1.1 German Specifications ZTV-Asphalt-STB 94……………………..………24

4.3.1.2 Association of States and Highway Transportation Official Specifications

(AASHTO)………………………………………………………..…………..27

4.3.1.3 British Standards (BS 594)…………………………………..…………….29

4.3.1.4 The Gradations and the Mechanical Properties for International Group

Together.........................................................................................................32

4.3.2 Regional Specifications………………………………………………………35

4.3.2.1 Egyptian Specification…………………………………………………….35

4.3.2.2 Jordanian Specification……………………………………………...……37

4.3.2.3 Iraqi Specification…………………………………………………………39

4.3.2.4 The Gradation 0f the Regional Group Together……………………..…..40

4.3.3 Local Group…………………….……………….……………………………44

4.3.3.1 The Municipality of Gaza (MoG) Requirements………….………………44

4.3.3.2 PECDAR Requirements……………………………………………..….…45

4.3.3.3 UNRWA Requirements…………………………………………………….47

4.3.3.4 Palestine Standards Institution Specifications (PSI)………………..…….48

4.3.3.5 Ministry of Public Work and Housing Requirements……………………..50

vi

4.3.3.6 The Gradations of the Local Group Together……………………………52

4.3.4 The Gradation and Mechanical Properties for the International, Regional

and Local Group Together……………………………………………………57

CHAPTER FIVE: TESTS OF MATERIALS ………………..………….....……..63 5.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………….………..63

5.2 Tests of Aggregates…………………………..……………….………………….63

5.2.1 The Results of Coarse Aggregate M0……………………………………..…64

5.2.2 The Results of Coarse Aggregate M1………………………………………..65

5.2.3The Results of Coarse Aggregate M2…………………………………………66

5.2.4 The Results of Coarse Aggregate M3……………………………..…………67

5.2.5The Results of Fine Aggregate F1 (Filler)…………………………………...68

5.2.6The Results of Fine Aggregate F2 (Sand)……………………………………69

5.3 Tests of Bitumen………………………………………………………………….70

5.3.1 Penetration Test ……………………………………………………………..71

5.3.2 Softening Point of Bitumen ……………..……………………………….….71

5.3.3 Ductility Test …………………………………………………………………..72

5.3.4 Density of Bitumen at 25 C° Test …………………………………………….72

CHAPTER SIX: PREPARATION AND TESTING ASPHALT MIXES………..74

6.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………74

6.2 Methodology of Selecting the Proposed Mix……………………………….…..74

6.3 The Min. Mix……………………………………………………..……………...77

6.3.1 Min. Curve Mix……………………………………………………………....77

6.3.2 The Outputs of Job Mix for Min. Gradation with different Bitumen

Content………………………………………………………………….….…78

6.3.3 Conclusion of Job mix for Min. Gradation………………………………….79

6.4 The Mid1. Mix……………………………………………………..……………..80

6.4.1 Mid1. Curve Mix………………………………...…………………………...80

vii

6.4.2 The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid1. Gradation with different Bitumen

Content ………………………………………………………………………81

6.4.3 Conclusion of Job Mix for Mid1. Gradation……………………………….83

6.5 The Mid2. Mix……………………………………………………..……………..84

6.5.1 Mid2. Curve Mix………………………………...…………………………...84


Content ………………………………………………………………………85

6.5.3 Conclusion of Job Mix for Mid2. Gradation…………………….……..…...87

6.6 The Mid3. Mix……………………………………………………..……………..88

6.6.1 Mid3. Curve Mix………………………………...…………………………...88


Content ………………………………………………………………………89

6.6.3 Conclusion of Job Mix for Mid3. Gradation…………………………..…....91

6.7 The Max. Mix…………………………………………………...…………….....92

6.7.1 Max. Curve Mix…………………………...…………………………...........92

6.7.2 The Outputs of Job Mix for Max. Gradation with different Bitumen

Content ………………………………………………………………………93

6.7.3 Conclusion of Job Mix for Max. Gradation…………………………..….....95

6.8 Gradation of all Mixes Included Mid4…………………………………….……96

6.9 Mid. 4 Mix……………………………………………………………………..…98

6.9.1 Mid.4 Curve Mix…………………………………………….……………...99

6.9.2 The Outputs of Job mix for Mid4 Gradation with Different Bitumen

Contents…………………………………………………………………...…99

6.9.3 Conclusion of Job mix for Mid4 Gradation………………………………101

6.10 Proposed Specification of asphalt Binder Course in Palestine…………..…101

6.11 General Discussion…………………………………………………..….…..…103

6.12 Comparison between the Proposed Specifications and the Local

Requirements……………………………………………………….…………104

CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUDED REMARKS, CONCLUSION AND

RECOMMENDATIONS………………………………………………….………...106

viii

7.1 Introduction………………………………………………………..…….………106

7.2 Description of the Proposed Specification……………………..………..……..106

7.3 Conclusions………………………………………….………………….….……107

7.4 Recommendations……………………………………………….………..……..108

REFERECES………………………………………………………………….……..109

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Mathematical Trail Method to Merge Aggregate Mixes………….…..114

Appendix B: The Inputs of the Binder Course Job Mixes…………………..………121

Appendix C: Photos Show the Method of the Work in the Laboratory……………..130

ix

LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1: The Maximum Limits of the flakiness Index and Elongation Index………..7

Table 2.2: Properties of Penetration Grade Bitumen……………………………..........10

Table 2.3: Viscosity of Cutback Bitumen…………………………………………..…11

Table 3.1: The Relation between the Thickness of the Layer and the Maximum

Aggregate Size…………………………………………………………………14

Table 3.2: Correction Factor…………………………………………………...............19

Table 4.1: Gradation and Properties of Asphalt Binder Course (German Specification

ZTV-Asphalt-STB94)……………………….…………………….…….….24

Table 4.2: Mechanical Properties and Bitumen Ratio for the ZTV-Asphalt-STB94, 0/22

Gradation……………………………………………………………………26

Table 4.3: Gradation and Properties of Asphalt Binder Course (AASHTO T27)….….27

Table 4.4: Gradation and Properties of Asphalt Binder Course (AASHTO T11)……..28

Table 4.5: Mechanical Properties of Asphalt Binder Course for T27 and T11

(AASHTO T27, T11) …………………………………………………..….29

Table 4.6: Gradation of Asphalt Binder Course Layer Thickness 45 to 80 mm………30

Table 4.7: Gradation of Asphalt Binder Course Layer thickness 60 to 120 mm…...…30

Table 4.8: Mechanical Properties of BS 594 Asphalt Binder Course…………………31

Table 4.9: The Specifications of (ZTV- Asphalt-STB94- 0/22, AASHTO T11 and BS

594 Layer Thickness from 45 to 80 mm)…………………………………..32

Table 4.10: The Gradations of Asphalt Binder Course of International Group………33

Table 4.11: The Gradation of the Frame of International Group…………...…………34

Table 4.12: Gradation of Egyptian Asphalt Binder Course…………………….……..36

Table 4.13: The Mechanical Properties of the Egyptian Asphalt Binder Course….….36

Table 4.14: Gradation of Jordanian Asphalt Binder Course……………….………....37

Table 4.15: Mechanical Properties of Jordanian Asphalt Binder Course……………..38

Table 4.16: Gradation of Iraqi Asphalt Binder Course………………………….……39

Table 4.17: Mechanical Properties of Iraqi Asphalt Binder Course…………………..40

Table 4.18: The Gradation of the Regional Specifications……..……………………..41

Table 4.19: The Gradation of Iraqi, Egyptian, Jordanian specifications and Regional

Frame………………………………………………………………….….42

x

Table 4.20: Gradation for Regional Specifications Frame……………………………43

Table 4.21: Gradation of (MoG) Asphalt Binder Course………………………….….44

Table 4.22: Mechanical Properties of MoG Asphalt Binder Course……….…………45

Table 4.23: Gradation of PECDAR Requirements for the Asphalt Binder Course ..…45

Table 4.24: Mechanical Properties of PECDAR Requirements for Asphalt Binder

Course……………………………………………………………………..46

Table 4.25: Gradation of UNRWA Requirements for the Asphalt Binder Course …...47

Table 4.26: Mechanical Properties of UNRWA Requirements for Asphalt Binder

Course……………………………………………………………….….…48

Table 4.27: Gradation of PSI Specifications for the Asphalt Binder Course ………....49

Table 4.28: Mechanical Properties of PSI Specifications for Asphalt Bind Course…..50

Table 4.29: Gradation of MOPWH Requirements for the Asphalt Binder Course ...…50

Table 4.30: The Mechanical Properties of MOPWH Requirements for Asphalt Binder

Course……………………………………………………..........................51

Table 4.31: The Gradation of the Local Group Requirements………………...………53

Table 4.32: The Gradation of the Local Group Requirements and their Frame……….54

Table 4.33: The Gradation of the Local Requirements Frame………………………..55

Table 4.34: The Percentage of Passing Materials for the Upper and Limit Levels in all

Groups…………………………………………………………………….57

Table 4.35: The Gradation of the International, Regional, Local Frames and the

Frame of all the Specifications………………………………………….58

Table 4.36: The Lower and Upper Percentage of Passing Materials for All

Specifications Together……………………………………….…………..59

Table 4.37: The Mechanical Properties for all Specifications…………………….…..61

Table 5.1: Results of M0 Tests………………………………………………………..64

Table 5.2: Sieve Analysis of M0………………………………………………………64

Table 5.3: Results of M1 Tests……………………………………………………..….65

Table 5.4: Sieve Analysis of M1……………………………………………………....65

Table 5.5: Results of M2 Tests……………………………………………...……...….66

Table 5.6: Sieve Analysis of M2…………………………………………………..…..66

Table 5.7: Results of M3 Tests……………………………………………...……...….67

xi

Table 5.8: Sieve Analysis of M3………………………………………………………67

Table 5.9: Results of F1 Tests……………………………………………………..….68

Table 5.10: Sieve Analysis of F1…………………………………………………..….68

Table 5.11: Results of F2 Tests…………………………………………………..……69

Table 5.12: Sieve Analysis of F2…………………………………….……………..…69

Table 5.13: The Gradation of all Types of Aggregates………………...……….….…70

Table 5.14: Results of Penetration Test……………………………………..….…..…71

Table 5.15: Results of Ductility Test…………………………………………….…...72

Table 5.16: Results of Density Test……………………………………………….….72

Table 5.17: Results of Bitumen Tests………………………………………………...73

Table 6.1: Gradations of the Five Selected Curves…………………………………...75

Table 6.2 The Number of the Specimens for all Mixes……………………………….76

Table 6.3: Aggregate Ratio in Min. Mix………………………………………………77

Table 6.4: The Outputs of Job Mix for Min Gradation with 4% Bitumen Content…...78

Table 6.5: The Outputs of Job Mix for Min Gradation with 4.5% Bitumen Content...78

Table 6.6: The Outputs of Job Mix for Min Gradation with 5% Bitumen Content…..78

Table 6.7: The Outputs of Job Mix for Min Gradation with 5.5% Bitumen Content…79

Table 6.8: The Outputs of Job Mix for Min Gradation with 6% Bitumen Content…..79

Table 6.9: The Conclusion of Job Mix for Min Gradation……………………………80

Table 6.10: Aggregate Ratio in Mid1 Mix…………………………………………….81

Table 6.11: The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid1 Gradation with 4% Bitumen Content...82

Table 6.12: The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid1 Gradation with 4.5% Bitumen

Content…………………………………………………………………..82

Table 6.13: The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid1 Gradation with 5% Bitumen

Content………………………………………………………………….82


Content………………………………………………………………….. 83


Content………………………………………………………….……....83

Table 6.16: The Conclusion of Job Mix for Mid1 Gradation………………………..84

Table 6.17: Aggregate Ratio in Mid2 Mix…………………………………..………85

xii


Content……………………………………….…………………………86


Content……………………………………….…………………………86


Content…………………………………………………………………..86


Content…………………………………………………………………..87


Content………………….……………………………………………….87

Table 6.23: The Conclusion of Job Mix for Mid2 Gradation……………..…………..88

Table 6.24: Aggregate Ratio in Mid3 Mix…………………………………...…..……89


Content……………………………………………….…………………90

Table 6.26: The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid3Gradation with 4.5% Bitumen

Content…………………………………………………………………..90

Table 6.27: The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid3Gradation with 5% Bitumen

Content…………………………………………………………….….…90

Table 6.28: The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid3Gradation with 5.5% Bitumen

Content……………………………………………………………….….91


Content…………………………………………………………….…....91

Table 6.30: The Conclusion of Job Mix for Mid3 Gradation……………………..…..92


Table 6.32: The Outputs of Job Mix for Max Gradation with 4% Bitumen

Content……………………………………………………………………94

Table 6.33: The Outputs of Job Mix for Max Gradation with 4.5% Bitumen

Content…………………………………………………………………...94


Content………………………………………………………………….94

Table 6.35: The Outputs of Job Mix for Max Gradation with 5.5% Bitumen

xiii

Content…………………………………………………………….…….95


Content…………………………………………………………….…….95

Table 6.37: The Conclusion of Job Mix for Max Gradation…………………………..96

Table 6.38: Gradation of all Mixes included Mid4……………………………...…….97



Content……………………………………………………………..……99


Content……………………………………………………………….….99


Content…………………………………………………………………100


Content………………………………..……………………………….100


Content…………………………………………………………………100

Table 6.45: The Conclusion of Job Mix for Mid4 Gradation…………………….......101

Table 6.46: The Gradation of the Mix Which Achieve the Technical Properties…....102

Table 6.47: Mechanical Properties for the Proposed Specification…..…………..…..104

Table 6.48: The Gradation of the Proposed Specification and the MoG

Requirements……………………………………………………………104

Table 7.1: the Mechanical Properties of the Proposed Gradation………...………….107

xiv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1: The Pavement Layers in the Urban Roads……………………………….13

Figure 4.1: The Eleven Selected Specifications for Asphalt Binder Course…………23

Figure 4.2: Gradation of (ZTV-Asphalt- STB 94) Binder Course 0/22…….…..……25

Figure 4.3: Gradation of (ZTV – Asphalt- STB 94) Binder Course 0/16……………25

Figure 4.4: Gradation of (ZTV – Asphalt- STB 94) Binder Course 0/11……………26

Figure 4.5: Gradation of Asphalt Binder Course (AASHTO T27)……………….….27

Figure 4.6: Gradation of Asphalt Binder Course (AASHTO T11)………………..…28

Figure 4.7: Gradation of Asphalt Binder Course (Layer Thickness 45 to 80mm)…...30

Figure 4.8: Gradation of Asphalt Binder Course (Layer thickness 60 to 120mm)…..31

Figure 4.9: The Gradation Asphalt Binder course of ZTV-Asphalt-STB 94- 0/22,

AASHTO T1 and BS 594 Layer thickness (45 to 80mm)……….………33

Figure 4.10: Gradation of Asphalt Binder Course of International Group with

Frame…………………………………………………………………...34

Figure 4.11: The Frame of the International Specifications Group………………….35

Figure 4.12: Gradation of Egyptian Asphalt Binder Course…………………………36

Figure 4.13: Gradation of Jordanian Asphalt Binder Course……………..…………38

Figure 4.14: Gradation of Iraqi Asphalt Binder Course……………………………..39

Figure 4.15: Gradations of the Regional Specifications………………….………….41

Figure 4.16: The Gradation of the Iraqi, Egyptian, Jordanian and the Regional

Frame……………………………………………………………………42

Figure 4.17: The Frame of the Regional Specifications of the Asphalt Binder

Course………………….………………………………………………..43

Figure 4.18: Gradation of MoG Asphalt Binder Course………………….………….44

Figure 4.19: Gradation of PECDAR Requirements for the Asphalt Binder Course...46

Figure 4.20: Gradation of UNRWA Requirements for the Asphalt Binder Course….47

Figure 4.21: Gradation of PSI for the Asphalt Binder Course……………………….49

Figure 4.22: Gradation of MOPWH Requirements for the Asphalt Binder Course....51

Figure 4.23: Gradation of Local Requirements Together……………………………52

Figure 4.24: The Gradation of the Local Requirements with their Frame…..………55

xv

Figure 4.25: The Frame of the Local Requirements………………………..……. …56

Figure 4.26: The International Frame, the Regional Frame and the Local Frame.…..58

Figure 4.27: The International, Regional, Local Frames and the Frame of all the

Specifications………………………………………………….……….59

Figure 4.28: The Frame of All Specifications………………………………………..60

Figure 5.1: Gradation of Course Aggregate M0……………………………………..64

Figure 5.2: Gradation of Course Aggregate M1……………………………………..65

Figure 5. 3: Gradation of Course Aggregate M2…………………………………….66

Figure 5. 4: Gradation of Course Aggregate M3…………………………………….67

Figure 5. 5: Gradation Fine Aggregate F1…………………………………………...68

Figure 5. 6: Gradation of Fine Aggregate F2 (Sand)………………………………...69

Figure 5.7: The Gradations of All Types of Aggregates……………………………..70

Figure 6.1: Gradations of the Five Selected Curves………………………………….76

Figure 6.2: Gradation of Min. and Mix Curves………………………………………77

Figure 6.3: Gradation of Mid1 and Mix Curves……………………………….…..…81

Figure 6.4: Gradation of Mid2 and Mix Curves………………………………….…..85

Figure 6.5: Gradation of Mid3 and Mix Curves………………………………….…..89

Figure 6.6: Gradation of Max. and Mix Curves………………………………….…..93

Figure 6.7: The Gradation for All Mixes Including Mid4…………...………………97

Figure 6.8: The Gradation Mid4 Mix…………………….…….……………………98

Figure 6.9: The Gradation of the Proposed Specification…………………….……102

Figure 6.10: the Gradation of the Proposed Specification………………………….105

xvi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AASHTO American Association State Highway and Transportation Official

ASTM American Society for Testing Materials

BS British Standards

CBR California Bearing Ratio

IUG Islamic University - Gaza

IS International Standard

MC Medium Curing

MoG Municipality of Gaza

MOPWH Ministry of Public Work and Housing

PECDAR Palestinian Economic Council for Development an Reconstruction

PSI Palestinian Standards Institutes

RC Rapid Curing

UNDP United Nations Development Program

UNRWA United Nations Relief and Work Agency

VFB Voids Filled Bitumen

VMA Voids Mineral Aggregates

1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

Road transportation is important to economic activity, especially in developing

countries, where it plays an essential role in marketing agricultural products and

providing access to health, education and other services. A good road system gives a

country a competitive edge in moving goods efficiently and economically (Hudson,

1997).

Pavement with bituminous surface is often referred to as flexible in contrast to rigid

pavement of Portland cement concrete (Oglesby, 1982). The flexible pavement is the

most common pavement in the world because its high resistance for the mechanical

stresses which provided by the aggregate in the mix and flexibility which is needed by

bitumen (IUG, 1999).

There are several types of the transportation like the railway, roads, air navigation, sea

lane and river lane. But the most important is the roads (Hamad, 1988). In Palestine,

before the current Intifada which has been started since September 2000, an estimated

40-50% of existing roads in the West Bank and Gaza Strip– most of which were built

before 1967 and designed to incorporate the West Bank into Israel-required urgent

repairs. While the entire road system needed to be reworked in order to facilitate

socioeconomic development and expansion in and between Palestinian communities.

1.2 Research Problem The specifications are important in all the industrial fields especially in the roads

because they provide the safety and the high quality. There are special road

specifications for each country and the most famous specifications in the world are

the American Association State Highway and Transportation Official (AASHTO)

specifications, Britain specification and German specification. The road specifications

in Palestine are taken from the previous mentioned specifications or from the Arabian

specifications which depend on the international specifications. The lack of road

specifications causes many problems among the people who are working in this field

like the Ministry of Public Work and Housing (MOPWH), Palestinian Standard

Institute, Palestinian Economic Council for Development and Reconstruction

2

(PECDAR), Municipalities, United Nations Relief and Work Agency (UNRWA), The

United Nations Development Program (UNDP), contractors, laboratories and asphalt

factories.

The proposed binder layer specification is very important because it will assure that

the asphalt concrete is designed correctly and suits the Palestinians local materials. If

the involved organizations adopt the proposed specification, the conflict will be

avoided and the problems between the owners, supervisors, the implementing

agencies, the owner of asphalt factories and the laboratories will be decreased.

1.3 Research Objectives

The aim of the research is to propose a specification for binder asphalt layer in

Palestine using local materials. More specifically, the research work is intended to

achieve the following objectives:

1. Studying the properties of the locally available materials as aggregate and

bitumen;

2. Studying some of the international specifications, regional specifications and local

requirements used for binder asphalt layer in Palestine;

3. Proposing mechanical specification and a gradation for the binder asphalt layer by

using the local materials in Palestine.

1.4 Methodology

To achieve the objectives of the research theoretical study and the practical study

were done as follows:

1.4.1 Theoretical Study

The theoretical study consists of the literature review and the revision of the

specifications and local requirements as follows:

1.4.1.1 Literature Review i. Study the asphalt technology (types and component of asphalt layer, asphalt

materials, testing procedures, and asphalt mixing design methods).

ii. Study worldwide and local similar studies.

3

1.4.1.2 Specifications and Local Requirements

i. Study some of the international specifications as American Association State

Highway and Transportation Official AASHTO specifications, British

specifications and German specifications.

ii. Study some of the regional binder layer specification as Egyptian specification,

Jordanian and Iraqi specifications (because they are available).

iii. Study the local requirements as municipalities' requirements, PECDAR,

MOPWH requirements and UNRWA.

iv. Select five gradations or more to conduct the tests on it.

v. Select the mechanical properties which have to be achieved.

1.4.2 The Practical Study

i. Select six types of aggregates from the local aggregates in Palestine and

conduct tests for each type. The tests are sieve analysis, specific gravity,

absorption, moisture content and Los Angles.

ii. Conduct bitumen tests using bitumen available in factories in Gaza Strip. The

tests include penetration test, ductility, softening point and specific gravity.

iii. Make more than 25 trail mixes with different bitumen contents. Prepare 100

specimens. Measure the stability, flow, stiffness, Va% and VMA (%) for each

specimen.

iv. Select the proposed specification for binder asphalt layer which suitable to the

Palestinian local materials.

1.5 Research Output

The research will prepare a booklet includes the suggested specifications and will

distribute it to all organization interested in it.

1.6 Report Organization

The undertaken research consists of seven chapters that cover the proposed subject as

follows:

Chapter One: Introduction: This chapter defines the research problem, gives

background introduction, research methodology and discusses report organization.

4

Chapter Two: Materials of Asphalt Concrete: This chapter describes the classes

and types of aggregates, the sources of roads bitumen and groups of bituminous

materials.

Chapter Three: Pavement Layers and Mix Design: This chapter discusses the

pavement layers, the mix design methods and Marshall Method.

Chapter Four: Specifications of Asphalt Binder Course: This chapter describes the

methodology of selecting the gradation and mechanical properties. It illustrates the

specifications of asphalt binder course in the international group, the regional group

and the local group used in Palestine.

Chapter Five: Tests of Materials: In this chapter, the tests of aggregate and bitumen

are included.

Chapter Six: Preparation and Testing Asphalt Mixes: This chapter defines the

methodology of selecting the proposed mix, the outputs of different mixes with

various bitumen contents and the proposed specification for the binder asphalt layer in

Palestine.

Chapter Seven: Concluded Remarks, Conclusions and Recommendations: This

chapter includes the concluded remarks, main conclusions and recommendations

drawn from the research work.

5

CHAPTER TWO

MATERIALS OF ASPHALT CONCRETE

2.1 Introduction

The spread of the transportation networks is an indicator to the progress of the

countries from the economical, social, educational, tourism and health aspects. So, all

the countries around the world are competing to construct the transportation networks

(Al Halabi, 1995). The engineers have to study and construct the transportation

networks based on modern science (Al Halabi, 1986) and study the materials of these

networks. The materials of asphalt concrete are the aggregates and the bitumen.

Mineral aggregates are sole constituent of soil surfaces and untreated base course. For

treated bases, the desirable properties of these native materials have been enhanced by

adding bitumen, cement, lime or salt. To keep their costs low, specifications for them

are not as stringent as for aggregates for bituminous or Portland-cement-concrete

pavements. They usually combine controls on grain-size distribution and plasticity of

the fines (Oglesby, 1982). In bituminous pavements, aggregates constitute 88 to 96%

by weight or something more than 75% by volume. Certain general requirements

should be met by all mineral aggregates for pavements.

2.2 Classes and Types of Aggregates

Aggregates shall be of uniform quality, crushed to size as necessary, and shall be

composed of sound, tough, durable pebbles or fragments of rock or slag with or

without sand or other inert finely divided mineral aggregate. All material shall be free

from clay balls, vegetable matter, and other deleterious substances, and an excess of

flat or elongated pieces. Slag shall be air-cooled blast-furnace slag of reasonably

uniform density and quality. Excess of fine material shall be removed before crushing

(Oglesby, 1982)

The materials found as constituents of natural mineral aggregates are rocks and

minerals. Minerals are naturally occurring inorganic substances more or less definite

chemical composition and usually of specific crystalline structure. Most rocks are

composed of several minerals but some are composed of only one mineral. Rocks are

classified according to origin into three major divisions: igneous, sedimentary, and

metamorphic. These three major groups are subdivided into types according to

6

mineral and chemical composition, texture, and internal structure. These types are as

follows (ASTM V 4.03, 2002):

i. Igneous rocks from molten matter either at or below the earth’s surface.

ii. Sedimentary rocks form near the earth’s surface by consolidation of the products

of weathering and erosion of existing rocks, or by direct chemical precipitation.

Sedimentary rocks may from pre-existing igneous, metamorphic, or sedimentary

rocks.

iii. Metamorphic rocks from pre-existing igneous, sedimentary, or metamorphic

rocks by the action of heat or pressure or both.

2.3 General Requirements of Aggregate for Asphalt Paving Mixture

Aggregates for asphalt paving mixture are divided into three groups, they are coarse

aggregate, fine aggregate and filler aggregate (MOPWH, 1991). General requirements

of aggregates for asphalt paving mixture are as follows:

1. Coarse aggregate shall be the fraction of crushed aggregate material retained on

4.75 mm (No. 4) sieve (ASTM D692-00, 2002). Fine aggregate shall be the

fraction of crushed aggregate material passing 4.75 mm (No. 4) sieve. Mineral

filler shall be added when the combined grading of coarse and fine aggregates is

deficient in material passing 0.075 mm (No. 200) sieve (ASTM D1073-01, 2002).

2. The material from hot bins passing the number 40 sieve (0.425) when tested in

accordance with AASHTO T90 shall be non-plastic. In addition the material from

cold bins should not have PI larger than 4.

3. Aggregate shall not contain gypsum more than 1% and the coarse fraction of the

aggregate shall not contain more than:

5% chert and flint for aggregate to be used in the wearing or binder course.

4. The percentage by weight of friable particles, clay lumps, and other deleterious

matter shall not exceed 1% as determined by AASHTO T112.

7

5. Aggregate particles shall be clean, hard, durable and sound. Crushing shall result

in a product such that, for particles retained on 4.75 mm (No. 4) sieve, at least

90% by weight shall have 2 or more fractured faces.

6. Aggregate shall be washed if directed, to remove any clay lumps, organic matter,

adherent dust or clay films or other extraneous or deleterious matter that may

prevent or detract from proper adhesion of bitumen to the aggregate particles.

7. Mineral filler shall consist of finely divided mineral matter such as limestone dust

if added separately; hydrated lime; other non-plastic mineral filler, free from clay

and organic impurities; or Portland cement, conforming to AASHTO M17.

8. The loss in weight of aggregate after 500 revolutions, when tested accordance

with AASHTO T 96, shall not exceed 35%

Ratio of wear loss = 25500

100equalorthanless

revlutionafterAbrasion

revlutionafterAbrasion

9. When tested for soundness in accordance with AASHTO, T104 the coarse

aggregate (retained on No. 4 sieve) shall not show signs of disintegration and the

loss by weight after 5 cycles shall not exceed 9% in the case of the sodium

sulphate test and 12% in the case of the magnesium sulphate test.

10. When tested for resistance to stripping in accordance with the AASHTO T-182 at

least 95% coated particles should be achieved.

11. The flakiness index and the elongation index test should be conducted in

accordance with BS 812. Table (2.1) illustrates the maximum limits.

Table (2.1): The Maximum Limits of the Flakiness Index and Elongation Index

Course Wearing Course Binder & Asphalt Base

Flakiness Index F.I 25 30

Elongation Index E.I 25 30

8

2.4 Bituminous Materials

Bituminous materials are widely used in road construction and maintenance. After

gaining experience from their use in obtaining smooth riding surface, bituminous

mixtures are being used as structural layers. These materials are considered to be

flexible from the structural viewpoint. They offer unlimited flexibility to the road

builder due to their temperature susceptibility and their availability in wide ranging

viscosities-from that of a liquid like honey to that of semi-solid like sealing wax.

Bituminous materials used in road construction are basically of two kinds: road

bitumen’s and road tars (Rao, 1996).

2.5 Sources of Road Bitumen

There are several resources of the bitumen as follows (Rao, 1996):

1. Bitumen is a viscous liquid or solid, black or brown in color and has adhesive

properties. It is derived primarily from petroleum crude by a distillation process.

2. Bitumen is also available in a natural form. It may be either natural asphalt or rock

asphalt. Natural asphalt was used in many ways such as waterproofing, building

blocks, flooring etc.

3. Natural asphalts contain many impurities such as water, sand and vegetable

matter.

4. Rock asphalts are those impregnated in limestone and sandstone. These can be

crushed and blended with ordinary aggregate and laid directly. Thus they make

excellent wearing surfaces, which are smooth, skid-resistance and watertight.

Their use is generally restricted to the areas of their occurrence.

2.6 Petroleum Refining

The refining of petroleum crude is a continuous process. The steps of petroleum

refining are as follows (Rao, 1996):

1. The petroleum crude passes from the storage through continues tube where its

temperature is raised to around 200 to 300 C°.

2. The petroleum is injected into the fractionating column, also called bubble tower.

9

3. Because of the sudden pressure reduction, the volatile or low boiling points

fractions vaporize and go up the column and gather on the uppermost trays, which

are then carried off to a condenser.

4. Further down the column, heavier grades of material with increasing boiling

points are taken off in a similar fashion, and the heavy residual material left at the

bottom.

5. Injection of super-heated steam helps better separation of the fraction. In the

first stage as described above, five products are obtained:

i. Light solvents such as gasoline and naptha.

ii. Kerosene distillate and light burner oil.

iii. Diesel oil.

iv. Lubricating oil.

v. Heavy residual material. The heavy residual materials give the road

bitumen, which is the concern of this research.

6. The fraction i to iv is called cuts and consists of many organic materials. Each cut

may be recycled in a similar manner for further separation into individual organic

compounds.

7. It should be noted that the steam and vacuum distillation process of refining

petroleum crude is only a physical process and no chemical changes are involved.

2.7 Groups of Bituminous Materials

The Bituminous materials are divided into groups. They are road bitumen, cutback

bitumen, emulsion and tar (Jendia, 2000).

2.7.1 Road Bitumen

These are used as binder for almost all high-type bituminous pavements. They are

semisolid hydrocarbons remaining after lubricating oils as well as fuel oils have been

removed from petroleum (Oglesby, 1982). The various grades of penetration graded

bitumen asphalt cement shall conform generally with the requirements of AASHTO

10

M 20, or with the specification of Jordan specification Co. Ltd as given in the Table

(2.2).

Table (2.2): Properties of Penetration Grade Bitumen (MOPWH, 1991)

Penetration Grades

40 50 60 70 80 100

Min Max Min Max Min Max

Ductility at 25 C° (cm) 100 - 100 - 100 -

Penetration at 25 C° (0.1 cm) 40 50 60 70 80 100

Softening Point (C° ) 50 58 48 56 45.8 48

Specific Gravity at 25 C° 1.01 1.06 1.01 1.06 1 -

Loss on heating to 163 C° (%wt.) - 1 - 1 - 1

Penetration of residue % of original 75 - 75 - 75 -

Solubility in Trichlorethylene (%wt) 99 - 99 - 99.5 -

Ash content %wt. - 1 - 1 - 1

Flashpoint (Cleveland Open Cup.) (c° ) 250 - 250 - 225 -

2.7.2 Cutback Bitumen

When a fraction or cut is remixed with the heavy residue for purposes of achieving

desired viscosity or consistency for use in different working conditions-cold/hot, or

wet/dry, it is designated as cut back bitumen. They are of three categories as follows:

1. Rapid Curing Cutback Bitumen’s (RC) also called Gasoline Cutback Bitumen.

2. Medium Curing Cutback Bitumen (MC) also called Kerosene Cutback Bitumen.

3. Slow Curing Cutback Bitumen (SC).

In each category there are six types 0-5. As example, RC-0, RC-1, RC-2, RC-3, RC4

and RC5. In each case “0” indicates the lowest viscosity and “5” indicates the highest

viscosity. Also the viscosity of RC-0, MC-0 and SC-0 is the same, so also that RC-1,

MC-1 and SC-1 etc., as shown in table (2.3).

11

Table (2.3): Viscosity of Cutback Bitumen (as per IS: 217-1961) (Rao, 1996).

Viscosity by STV

Grade At Temp C With Orifice Size mm Sec.

RC-0, MC-0, SC-0

RC-1, MC-1, SC-1

RC-2, MC-2, SC-2

RC-3, MC-3, SC-3

RC-4, MC-4, SC-4

RC-5, MC-5, SC-5

25

25

25

25

40

40

4

4

10

10

10

10

25-75

50-150

10-20

25-75

14-45

60-140

2.7.3 Emulsion

For application in cold weather and damp conditions, bituminous emulsions came into

being. An emulsion is basically a two-phase system consisting of two immiscible

liquids. One phase is the dispersed phase when the liquid is broken into globules, and

in the second phase the surrounding liquid is in the continuous phase. Bituminous

emulsions are said to be of the oil-in-water type where the bitumen is in the dispersed

phase. However, the mixture that is prepared in a high-speed pug mill at a temperature

to make bitumen a liquid is not stable and separation takes place immediately into

layers. Stability is achieved with the help of an emulsifier or emulsifying agent. With

a thin emulsifiers are usually of three types as follows:

1. Anionic emulsifier e.g. sodium stearate (soap solution), having anionic (negative)

charge, used for electropositive charged aggregates like limestone and dolomite.

2. Cationic emulsion e.g. quaternary – ammonium salt, having cationic (positive)

charge, used for electronegative charged aggregates like siliceous aggregates.

3. Non-ionic emulsifiers, which do not ionize in aqueous solution, usually not used

in road emulsion.

A bitumen emulsion is usually composed of 40 to 60 per cent bitumen and 0.5 to 1 per

cent emulsifier, the rest being water.

12

2.7.4 Tar

Tar is a liquid obtained when natural organic materials such as wood and coal are

destructively distilled in the absence of air. A part from various other products, this

process yields crude tar, which is refined for us as road tar. It may also blend with

some distillate fractions again to produce the desired road tar. However, the tar is not

often used in road work (Rao, 1996).

2.8 Tests of Bitumen

Laboratory tests which are required for bituminous materials are as follows:

1. Kinetic Viscosity.

2. Penetration.

3. Say bolt viscosity.

4. Flash and fire point.

5. Softening point.

6. Ductility.

13

CHAPTER THREE

PAVEMENT LAYERS AND MIX DESIGN

3.1 Pavement Layers

The main purpose of the pavement is to transfer the loads caused by the traffic from

the surface of the road to the soil layer which can bear the load through the different

layers of the pavement (Salem, 1984). The pavement layers consist of sub grade layer,

road base layer and asphalt covering layer as shown in Figure (3.1) (Jendia, 2000).

The sub grade layer is the surface of the base soil which is considered as the separator

between the base soil and the pavement layers (base layers and covering layers), and it

is called the formation. The road base is divided into several types depending on the

construction materials which used in these layers. The binder course lies between the

wearing course and the road base. The binder course reduces the stresses which affect

the road base and the soil base. The selection of the layer material depends on the

availability of domestic materials or on the requirements of the pavement.

Figure (3.1): The Pavement Layers in the Urban Roads (Jendia, 2000)

General conditions for the road base layers are as follows:

1. Before starting the construction of the road base layers, the stability, bearing

capacity, leveling and the required slope in the sub grade or the lower layer should

be available.

14

2. Through the construction of the road base, the water and sewerage pipes should be

protected from blockage and broken.

3. The road base layer should be protected from the bad effects of the weather when

there is stopping in the construction of the layers which coming above the road

base layers.

There are five types of the roads base. They are sub base (frost resistant layer, gravel

road base, crushed rock road base, asphalt road base and cement road base. These

types are described as follows:

I. Sub Base (Frost Resistance Layer)

1. It is also considered as base layer. It bears part of the stresses which affect the

above layers before affecting the sub grade.

2. Aggregate mixtures which are used: example, gravel sand, sand gravel, crushed

gravel sand with specific gradation and sizes.

3. The percentage of the fine aggregate (less than 0.06 mm) should not exceed 7%.

4. The layer should bear the required bearing capacity according to CBR test or

Ev2 according to Plate Loading Test.

5. The level of the compacted layer should not exceed ± 2 cm of the required level.

6. The selection of the aggregate mixture depends on the thickness of the layer as

shown in table (3.1).

Table (3.1): The Relation between the Thickness of the Layer and the

Maximum Aggregate Size (Jendia, 2000)

The Max. Aggregate Size The Lowest Thickness for the Layer

32 mm 12 cm

45mm 15cm

56mm 18cm

63mm 20cm

II. Gravel and Crushed Rock Road Base

1. Aggregate mixture with specific gradation and size are used.

15

2. The degree of compaction Dpr should not be lower than 103% and if there

were cesspits or manhole Dpr = 100%.

3. California ratio should not be lower than 80%.

III. Asphalt Road Base

The asphalt road base is paved with hot asphalt mixture which consists of aggregate

and bitumen. The asphalt mixtures are divided into three types according to the

percentage of the aggregate bigger than 2mm). They are A, B, C explained as

follows:

1. Mix (A): it contains a big percentage of uncrushed natural gravels, they are

rounded and smooth. Also, it contains a few percentage of coarse aggregate. So,

the air void content is relatively high. Due to the big percentage of fine

aggregate which lower than 2mm, the mixture requires a high percentage of the

bitumen. This mixture is used in the weak pavement and in the soil stabilization.

2. Mix (B): it contains a medium percentage of the coarse aggregate which are

often rounded and smooth. So, the fraction between the gravels is relatively

weak. However the stability of the (B) mix is less than c mix.

3. Mix (C): it contains more than 60% of the aggregate (bigger than 2mm), crushed

with sharp edge which increases the stability of the layer. So, C mixture is

suitable for the pavements which are affected by high stresses and heavy traffic.

IV Covering Layers

The last layer is the asphalt covering layer which often consists of two layers. These

two layers form together a system with high resistance for the horizontal, vertical and

shear stresses, especially during the expected high temperature in the summer.

Additionally, the wearing course should resist the oil and water leakage, the surface

abrasion which occurs due to the traffic and the bad weather. The specifications of the

covering layers are the water leakage resistance, the cracking resistance, the rutting

resistance and others like the color lightness, etc.

The binder course lies between the wearing course and the road base. So, it reduces

the stresses which affect the road base and the soil base. The selection of the

aggregate mixture depends on the thickness of the layer.

16

The wearing course is paved with hot asphalt mixture which called Asphalt Concrete

(AC). No need to construct joints in the AC due to its’ flexibility under the weather

and the traffic. The AC prevents the water leakage if it is compacted well and the air

void content was less than 6%. In general, the percentage of the air void content

depends on the mortar (filler + Bitumen) quantity. When the mortar increases, the

abrasion resistance of the layer increases but the skid resistance decreases because the

surface layer is smooth. Also, when the percentage of the mortar increases, the

darkness of the asphalt surface increases which requires more lights during the nights.

3.2 Mix Design Methods and Marshall Method

Various methods of designing the mix proportions of dense bitumen concrete have

been evolved. The most widely used methods are the following (Singh, 2001):

1. The Marshall method.

2. The Hubbard-field method.

3. The HVeem method.

4. The Smith triaxial method

The first three methods are in wide use these days for the design of dense bitumen

concrete surfacing. All theses methods are based upon mechanical forms of tests.

These methods differ from each other but underlying principles involved have many

things common. The common aims of all these three methods are as follows:

1. The mixture should be of adequate strength to support the intended traffic load

without deformation.

2. To ensure durability and hardening of the surface. Compacted pavement should

have adequate air voids.

Marshall Method is possibly the most widely used method. The basic conception was

originated by Mr. Bruce Marshall but pre-fection in the method was achieved through

the efforts of U.S. Corps of engineers and so many other agencies. This method is

applicable to hot-mix pavements using penetration-grade bitumen, and maximum

aggregate size of 2.5 cm or less.

17

Before conducting Marshall’s test, the following preliminaries are required. They are

as follows:

I The aggregate and the bitumen proposed to be used should meet the desired

specifications.

II The aggregates when blended are according to be grading requirements.

III Aggregate must be dried and separated into various sized fraction.

IV The apparent S.G. of all the aggregates used and S.G. of the bitumen must be

known.

There are two principal features of this test of mix design; they are the density-void

analysis and the stability-flow test. Stability is defined as the maximum load carried

by a compacted specimen at a standard test temp of 60 C°. The flow is measured as a

deformation in units of 1/100” or 0.25 mm, occurring in the specimen between no-

load and maximum-load conditions during stability test. Flow can also be measured in

deformation unit cf 0.1mm. The apparatus used for this test consists of a mould 10.16

cm (4”) diameter and 6.35 cm (2½”) height with interchangeable base plate and collar

extension. A compaction Pedestal and compaction hammer are used to compact the

specimen. Compaction hammer consists of a flat or circular tamping face 98 mm in

diameter and equipped with a 4.54 kg (10 lb) weight and 45.7 cm (18”) fall. An

extrusion jack is used for extruding compacted specimen from the mould. Marshall

testing machine, design to apply loads to test specimen through semi-circular testing

head at a constant rate of strain of 5 cm (2”) per minute is used. The machine consists

of a calibrated proving ring for determining the applied test load, a stability testing

head and a flow meter for determining the amount of strain at the maximum load for

the test.

To determine the optimum bitumen content for a particular grading of aggregate by

the Marshall method, a series of test specimens are prepared for a range of different

bitumen contents so that the test-data curves show a well-defined optimum value of

bitumen. Tests should be scheduled on the basis of 0.5% increments of bitumen

contents. At least two test specimens should have bitumen content above the optimum

value and two below optimum value. With each bitumen content, prepare at least

three test specimen. Each specimen requires about 1.2kg of aggregate. Weighted

18

quantity of aggregate and Bitumen are heated to about 160 C°. Bitumen should not be

heated for more than one hour and reheated bitumen should never be used for this test.

Heated aggregate and bitumen are mixed thoroughly and placed in a preheated mould

(95 – 150 C°) and compacted with compaction hammer by giving specified number of

blows. For paving mixes designed for 7kg/cm2 tyre -inflation pressure 50 blows on

top and 50 blows on the bottom of the specimen for compaction is increased to 75.

For light load (less than 7 kg/cm2) traffic designs, 35 blows on each side are adequate.

The height of the compacted specimen should be 63.5 mm. If this is not the height, the

weight of the mix is adjusted as follows to get the correct height of prepared

specimen. Adjusted weight of mix:

= obtainedmminheightSpecimen

usedmixofweight*5.63

The compacted specimen is taken out of the mould and allowed to cool to room

temperature before testing. The specimen is weighted in air and then in water and bulk

density of the specimen determined. The specimen is then immersed in 60 C° water

bath and kept in it for 30 to 40 minutes. In test, if instead of bitumen tar is used, water

bath temperature should be maintained at 380C°.

The specimen is taken out of water bath and its surface dried. Place the specimen in

lower testing head and center it. Lastly upper testing head is fitted in position and

complete assembly is centers. Place the flow meter over the marked guide rod in the

machine and adjust its reading to zero.

Apply testing load to specimen at constant rate of deformation 5 cm per minute. The

maximum-load value is obtained on the proving ring corresponding flow dial reading

is also noted. Marshall’s stability value is the number of kg of maximum-load. The

reading of the flow meter expressed in units of 0.25 mm or 0.1 mm gives the

deformation of the specimen. The entire procedure, both stability and flow tests,

starting with removal of the specimen from water bath, should be completed within a

period of half a minute.

If the height of the specimen is other than 63.5 mm, correction can be made in

stability value by multiplying with the correction factors are given in Table (3.2).

19

Table (3.2): Correction Factor (Singh, 2001)

Volume of Specimen

in cm3

Height of Specimen

(mm)

Correction Factor or

Correlation Ratio

406 – 420

421 – 431

432 – 443

444 – 456

457 – 470

471 –482

483 – 495

496 – 508

509 – 522

523 – 535

536 –546

547 – 559

560 – 573

574 – 585

586 - -598

599 – 610

611 - 625

50.8

52.4

54

55.6

57.1

58.7

60.3

61.9

63.5

65.1

66.7

68.3

69.9

71.5

73

74.6

76.2

1.47

1.39

1.32

1.25

1.19

1.14

1.09

1.04

1

0.96

0.93

0.89

0.89

.83

0.81

0.78

0.76

The specimen is weighted and values of bulk density, stability and flow, are found

out. Percent air void s, V.M.A percent and voids filled by bitumen in percent (V.F.B),

are calculated. The expression is repeated for convenience.

Percent air voids = 100XG

GGo −

Where

Go = Theoretical S.G. of mixture.

G = Bulk density or Mass density of the specimen.

20

GbWb

GaWa

Go+

=100

Aggregate consists of course aggregate, fine aggregate and filler material. Hence

weight of the aggregate Wa is the sum of weights of C.A., F.A. and filler. Wb is the %

weight of bitumen in total mix.

Let w1, w2 and wa are the percent weights of C.A., F.A. and filler respectively in a

total weight of the blend Wa.

321 wwwWa ++=

33

22

11

gw

gw

gw

GbWa

++=

where g1, g2, and g3 are apparent S.G. values for C.A., F.A. and filler, respectively. If

Gb is S.G. of bitumen, equation for G0 now reduces to:-

GbWb

gw

gw

gw

GbWb

GaWa

Go+++

=+

=

33

22

11

100100

V.M.A = Volume of air voids + volume of bitumen

= 100 - GaWaG

Percent voids filled with bitumen

%..

100..

AMV

bitumenofvolumeXBFV =

Average values of percent air voids, VMA, VFB are determined for three specimens

for each mix. Such tests are repeated with different bitumen contents and following

values:

1. Unit weight.

2. Voids in total mix.

3. Marshall Stability.

4. Aggregates voids filled.

5. Flow.

21

CHAPTER FOUR

SPECIFICATIONS OF ASPHALT BINDER COURSE 4.1 Introduction

In this chapter, the specifications and requirements of the binder course will be

discussed. Eleven specifications and requirements were selected and divided into

three groups. These groups are the international group, the regional group and the

local requirements group. The selected specifications were chosen depending on

specific criteria. They were selected because they are the most famous specifications

around the world and in Palestine or because they are used in the neighbor countries

or because they are required locally by the implementing agencies, the ministries and

the institutions in Palestine. The aggregate gradation and the mechanical properties

for the eleven specifications and requirements have been illustrated. The researcher

has drawn one frame for the gradation which included all the eleventh specifications.

And finally, five gradations have been selected for trial mixes.

4.2 Methodology of Selecting the Gradation and Mechanical Properties To determine the gradation of the proposed gradation, the researcher adopted the

following methodology:

1. Eleven specifications and requirements which are common around the world and

Palestine were selected. They are German Specifications ZTV-asphalt-STB 94.,

Association of States and Highway Transportation Official (AASHTO)

Specifications, British Standards BS 594, Egyptian Specifications, Jordanian

Specifications, Iraqi Specifications, Municipality of Gaza (MoG) Requirements,

Palestinian Economic Council for Development and Reconstruction (PECDAR)

Requirements, United Nations Relief and Work Agency (UNRWA)

Requirements, Palestinian Standards Institutions (PSI) Standards and Ministry of

Public Work and Housing Requirements. Some of the previous specifications

have clear identification for the gradation of the binder course. While other

specifications give several gradations without clear identifications for the binder

course gradation. In this case, the researcher adopted the gradation which is fitting

the thickness of the binder course and the maximum aggregate size in Palestine.

22

2. The eleven specifications and requirements were divided into three groups which

were entitled depending on the geographical basic as illustrated in Figure (4.1).

3. One gradation will be selected for each three mentioned groups by drawing the

gradation of specifications of each group together and selecting the frame of these

gradations.

4. The three selected gradations from the previous step will be drawn together and

one frame for the gradation will be selected to include all the international,

regional and local specifications.

5. Many gradations will be selected between the maximum and minimum limits of

the final frame which is developed in step 4.

6. From the eleven reviewed specifications, the mechanical properties for the

proposed mixture will be selected as the average of all mechanical properties. The

average will be selected as a first trial but it could be change depending on the

results of the trails mix.

4.3 Selected Specifications of the Asphalt Binder Course

Eleven specifications and requirements were collected and divided into three groups.

They are the international group, the regional group and the local requirements group.

The mechanical properties and the gradation of each specification and requirement

will be discussed.

4.3.1 International Group

The international group includes the German specification ZTV – asphalt-STB 94,

AASHTO specifications T27 and T11 and the British standards BS 549.

23

Figure (4.1): The Eleven Selected Specifications of Asphalt Binder Course

Group Two: Regional

Group One: International

Iraqi Jordanian Egyptian

German ZTV

AASHTO British BS 594

Group Three: Local Requirements

MOPWH PSI UNRWA MoG PECDAR

24

4.3.1.1 German Specifications ZTV-Asphalt-STB 94

The German specifications have three gradations for the asphalt binder course. They

are 0/22, 0/16 and 0/11 as drawn in Figures (4.2), (4.3) and (4.4). The usage of each

type depends on the thickness of the binder course. The gradation and the bitumen

ratio for each type are illustrated in Table (4.1).

Table (4.1): Gradation and Properties of Asphalt Binder Course (German

Specification ZTV - Asphalt - STB 94 ) (Jendia, 2000)

Asphalt Binder 0/22

0/16 0/11

Gradation (mm) 0/22

0/16 0/11

Less than 0.09mm (% by weight)

3 – 9 3 – 9 3 – 9

Greater than 2mm (% by weight)

65 – 80 60 – 75 50 – 70


- - Greater than 20

Greater than 11.2mm (% by weight)

- Greater than 20

Less than 10


Greater than 20

Less than 10 -

Greater than 22.4mm (% by weight)

Less than 10 - -

Crushed sand / Natural sand Greater than 1/1

Greater than 1/1

Greater than 1/1

Bitumen Type B65 B80 - B65 B80 - B65

Bitumen ratio (% by weight) 3.8 – 5.5 4.0 – 6.0 4.5 – 6.5 Mixture Void Ratio in Marshall Sample (%)

4.0 – 8.0 3.0 – 7.0 3 – 7

Compacted Layer Thickness (cm) 7.0 - 10 4 – 8.5 Leveling &

maintenance Weight (density thickness) kg/m2

170 - 250 95 - 210 -

Compaction degree (%) Greater than 97

97 Greater than 96

25

Figure (4.2): Gradation of (ZTV –Asphalt-STB 94) Binder Course 0/22 (Jendia,

2000)

Figure (4.3): Gradation of (ZTV – Asphalt-STB 94) 0/16 (Jendia, 2000)

0102030405060708090

100

0.01 0.1 1 10 100Diameter size mm

Pass

ing

0102030405060708090

100

0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Diameter size mm

Pass

ing

26

Figure (4.4): Gradation of (ZTV –Asphalt-STB 94) 0/11 (Jendia, 2000)

Concluded Remarks:

From the mentioned three types of gradation for the asphalt binder course, the 0/22

gradation is selected because the needed bitumen ratio is less than 0/16 and 0/11

gradation. In addition to the thickness of the binder course in Palestine which is

always more that 4 cm. The mechanical properties and bitumen ratio for 0/22

gradation are shown in Table (4.2).

Table (4.2): Mechanical Properties and Bitumen Ratio for the ZTV-Asphalt-STB

94, 0/22 Gradation (Jendia, 2000)

Property

Value

Void Ratio in Marshall Sample %

4 - 8

Bitumen Ratio %

3.8 – 5.5

Weight (density) kg/m3

2428 - 2500

0102030405060708090

100


Pass

ing

27

4.3.1.2 Association of States and Highway Transportation Official Specifications (AASHTO) The AASHTO gives two gradations for the asphalt binder course. They are T27 and

T11. The gradations of the two types are shown in Table (4.3), Table (4.4), Figure

(4.5) and Figure (4.6). The two gradations have the same mechanical specifications as

illustrated in Table (4.5).

Table (4.3): Gradation of Asphalt Binder Course (AASHTO T27)

Percentage by Weight Passing Sieve size (mm) Lower Level Upper Level

25.0 100 100 19.0 70 100 12.5 53 90 9.5 40 80

4.75 30 56 2.36 23 38 1.18 13 27 0.300 5 17 0.150 4 14 0.075 2 8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0Diameter size mm

Pas

sing

Figure (4.5) Gradation of Asphalt Binder Course (AASHTO T27)

28

Table (4.4): Gradation of Asphalt Binder Course (AASHTO T11)


25 100 100 19.0 70 100 12.5 53 90 9.5 40 80

4.75 30 56 2.36 23 49 1.18 14 43 0.300 5 19 0.150 4 15 0.075 2 8

0102030405060708090

100


Pas

sing

Figure (4. 6): Gradation of Asphalt Binder Course (AASHTO T11)

29

Table (4.5): Mechanical Properties of Asphalt Binder Course for T27 and T11 (AASHTO T27, T11)

Property Value

Marshal stability at 60oC (kg) 800

Flow (mm) 2 – 4

Void in Mineral aggregate (VMA) 13 (-1)

Air voids (%) 3 – 5

Stiffness (kg/mm) 400 (Min)

Loss of stability 25 (Max)

Bitumen content (%) 4.5 - 6

Concluded Remarks It is clear that the two gradations T11 and T27 are almost similar in the course part

and the difference starts in the fine part which passes the sieve # 4. The gradation T11

is finer than T27. So, the gradation T11 was selected because its mixture will be

denser than T27 due to the high percentage of the fine aggregates.

4.3.1.3 British Standard (BS 594) The British standards have two gradations for the asphalt binder course which depend

on the thickness of the layer. The first gradation is for the layer thickness from 45 to

85 mm as shown in Table (4.6) and Figure (4.7). The second gradation is for the layer

thickness from 60 – 120 mm as illustrated in Table (4.7) and Figure (4.8). The two

gradations have the same mechanical properties for the asphalt binder course as

shown in Table (4.8).

30

Table (4.6): Gradation of Asphalt Binder Course Layer Thickness 45 to 80mm (BS 594, 1992)


20 90 100 14 30 65

2.36 30 44 0.60 10 44 0.212 3 25 0.075 2 8

Figure (4.7): Gradation of Asphalt Binder Course ( Layer thickness 45 to 80mm)

(BS 594, 1992) Table (4.7): Gradation of Asphalt Binder Course Layer Thickness 60 -120 mm (BS 594, 1992)


28 90 100 20 50 80 14 30 65

2.36 30 44 0.60 10 44 0.212 3 25 0.075 2 8

0102030405060708090

100


Pass

ing

31

Figure (4.8): Gradation of Asphalt Binder Course (Layer Thickness 60 – 120 mm) (BS 594, 1992)

Table (4.8): Mechanical Properties of BS 594 Asphalt Binder Course (BS 594, 1992) Traffic (in commercial vehicles per lane per day)

Stability of Complete Mix KN

Max Flow Value (mm)

Less than 1500 3 – 8 5

1500 to 6000 4 – 8 5

Over 6000 6 – 10 7

Bitumen content (%) 5.7%

Concluded Remark

It’s noticed that the differences between the two previous types are in the course part

especially in the sieve size ¾”. In the research, the gradation of the layer thickness

from 45 – 80 mm was selected because it is the common thickness of the binder layer

in Palestine.

0102030405060708090

100


Pass

ing

32

4.3.1.4 The Gradations of the International Group Together

In the international group, three gradations were selected. They are ZTV- Asphalt-

STB 94 - 0/22 from the German specifications, T11 from AASHTO and BS 594 layer

thickness from 45 to 80 mm from the British specifications. The gradations for the

mentioned three specifications are illustrated in Figure (4.9) and Table (4.9). Table

(4.10) and Figure (4.10) show the gradations of the three international gradations and

the frame of the international group. The lower limit and the upper limit were chosen

to make the international group frame as shown in Figure (4.11) and Table (4.11).

Table (4.9): The Specifications of (Ztv- Asphalt-STB 94 - 0/22, AASHTO T11 and BS 594 Layer Thickness 45 to 80mm).

ZTV- asphalt-STB 94 - (0/22)

AASHTO (T11) BS 594 (Thickness 45-80 mm)

Diameter size (mm) Lower

Level Upper Level

Lower Level

Upper Level

Lower Level

Upper Level

28 100 100 100 100 100 100 25 100 100 100 100 100 100

22.4 90 100 100 100 100 100 19 75 90 70 100 90 100 16 60 80 63 96 30 44

12.5 50 70 53 90 30 65 9.5 43 60 40 80 30 58

4.75 30 45 30 56 30 49 2.36 20 35 23 49 30 44 1.18 15 30 14 43 20 44 0.6 13 28 10 32 10 44 0.3 10 24 5 19 4 35

0.25 8 22 4 17 4 30 0.212 7 20 4 16 3 25 0.15 4 17 4 15 2 17 0.09 3 9 3 10 2 10

0.075 2 8 2 8

33

0102030405060708090

100


Pass

ing

min(Ztv-asphalt -STB 94- 0/22)

max(Ztv-asphalt-STB 94- 0/22)

min (AASHTO T11)

max (AASHTO T11)

MIN (BS 594)

max (BS 594)

Figure (4.9): Gradation of Asphalt Binder Course of ZTV- asphalt-STB 94 -0/22,

AASHTO T11 and BS 594 Layer Thickness (45 to 80mm) Table (4.10): The Gradations of Asphalt Binder Course of International Group Frame)

ZTV- Asphalt-STB 94 (0/22)

AASHTO (T11) BS 594 (Thickness 60-120mm)

International Frame Group

Diameter size (mm)

Lower Level Upper Level Lower Level Upper Level Lower LevelUpper Level Lower Level Upper Level28 100 100 100 100 90 100 100 100 25 100 100 100 100 80 93 100 100

22.4 90 100 100 100 70 87 98 100 19 75 90 70 100 50 80 58 100 16 60 80 63 96 42 72 44 92

12.5 50 70 53 90 30 65 38 83 9.5 43 60 40 80 25 58 33 79

4.75 30 45 30 56 27 49 23 63 2.36 20 35 23 49 30 44 17 54 1.18 15 30 14 43 20 45 13 46 0.6 13 28 10 32 10 44 9 39 0.3 10 24 5 19 4 35 4 30

0.25 8 22 4 17 4 30 4 27 0.212 7 20 4 16 3 25 4 24 0.15 4 17 4 15 2 17 2 18 0.09 3 9 3 10 2 10 2 12

0.075 2 8 2 8 2 8

34

Figure (4.10): Gradation of Asphalt Binder Course of International Group with

Frame

Table (4.11): The Gradation of the Frame of International Group

Passing (%) Diameter Size (mm) Lower Level Upper Level

25 100 100 19.0 58 100 12.5 38 83 9.5 33 79

4.75 23 63 2.26 17 54 1.18 13 46 0.6 9 39 0.3 4 30

0.075 2 8

01020

3040506070

8090

100


Pass

ing

min ZTV Spc.

max ZTV Spc.

min Reg. Spc.

max Reg Spc.

min Local Req.

max Local Req.

min Int. Frame

max Int.Frame

35

InternationalSpecification

0102030405060708090

100


Pass

ing

Figure (4.11): The Frame of the International Specifications Group

Concluded Remark

1. It is clear that the BS 594 and AASHTO T11 have the same starting and ending

points.

2. From figure (4.9), it is noticed that the British gradation has few points which are

not included in AASHTO T11 and ZTV- Asphalt-STB 94 - 0/22 gradation. The

international frame included these points.

3. After the merging of the international gradation, it seems that the range between

the lower and upper limit becomes bigger.

4.3.2 Regional Specifications The regional specification includes the Egyptian, Jordanian and Iraqi specifications

because they are close to Palestine.

4.3.2.1 Egyptian Specification

The Egyptian specification has one gradation for the asphalt binder course. The size

of the aggregates has not to exceed than ¾”. Table (4.12) and figure (4.12) show the

gradation of the Egyptian specification. Table (4.13) illustrates the mechanical

properties.

36

Table (4.12): Gradation of Egyptian Asphalt Binder Course (MOH, 1998)

Percentage by Weight Passing Sieve size

(mm) Lower Level Upper Level 19.0 100 100 12.5 75 100 9.500 60 85 4.750 35 55 2.26 20 35 0.600 10 22 0.300 6 16 0.150 4 12 0.075 2 8

0102030405060708090

100

0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0Diameter size mm

Pass

ing

Figure (4.12): Gradation of Egyptian Asphalt Binder Course

Table (4.13): The Mechanical Properties of the Egyptian Asphalt Binder Course (MOH, 1998)

Properties Low Traffic Medium Traffic Heavy Traffic Stability (Kg) 227 272 317 Flow (mm) 2 - 4 2 - 4 2 - 4 Air void in mix (% ) 2 - 8 3 - 8 15 VMA (%) 14 15 15 No. of Marshal blows 35 50 75 Bitumen content (%) 3 - 6

37

Concluded Remark 1. In the Egyptian gradation, the lower limit and the upper limit are very close to

each other. So, the user of this mixture has to be very careful in selecting the

proportion of different sizes of aggregate which form the mix.

2. The mechanical properties depend on the level of the traffic.

4.3.2.2 Jordanian Specification

The gradation of the Jordanian specification of the asphalt binder course is illustrated

in table (4.14) and figure (4.13) and the mechanical properties are shown in table

(4.15).

Table (4.14) Gradation of Jordanian Asphalt Binder Course (MOPWH, 1991)

Percentage by Weight Passing Sieve size (mm) Lower Level Upper Level 25.0 100 100 19.0 70 100 12.5 53 90 9.5 40 80

4.75 30 56 2.36 23 49 1.18 14 43 0.300 5 19 0.150 4 15 0.075 2 8

38

0102030405060708090

100

0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0Diameter size mm

Pass

ing

Figure (4.13) Gradation of Jordanian Asphalt Binder Course (MOPWH, 1991) Table (4.15): Mechanical Properties of Jordanian Asphalt Binder Course (MOPWH, 1991)

Property Heavy Traffic Medium Traffic

Marshal stability at 60oC (kg) 900 800

Flow (mm) 2 – 3.5 2 – 4

Void in Mineral aggregate (VMA) 13 (-1) 13 (-1)

Air voids (%) 4 – 7 3 – 5

Stiffness (kg/mm) 500 (Min) 400 (Min)

Loss of stability 25 (max) 25 (Max)

Bitumen content (%) 4.5 - 6

Concluded Remark The Jordanian are adopting the AASHTO T11 for the asphalt binder course which

was discussed in the international group.

39

4.3.2.3 Iraqi Specification The Iraqi specification has one gradation for the asphalt binder course as illustrated in

table (4.16) and figure (4.14). The mechanical properties are explained in table (4.17).

Table (4.16) Gradation of Iraqi Asphalt Binder Course (Hwaies, 1985)

Percentage by Weight Passing Sieve Size (mm) Lower Level Upper Level

19 88 100 12.5 65 87 9.5 55 80

4.750 37 64 2 23 45 1 17 34

0.60 13 27 0.25 8 20 0.125 6 15 0.075 5 10

0102030405060708090

100


Pass

ing

Figure (4.14): Gradation of Iraqi Asphalt Binder Course (Hwaies, 1985)

40

Table (4.17): Mechanical Properties of Iraqi Asphalt Binder Course (Hwaies, 1985)

Properties

Value Marshal stability (kg)

714

Flow (mm)

2 - 4

Voids filled with Bitumen (VFB)

60 - 80

Air voids (%)

3 - 7

Bitumen content (%)

3.8 – 5.8

Concluded Remark

The minimum percentage of the passing aggregates from the sieve # 200 is high in

comparison with the ZTV – Asphalt - STB 94, AASHTO T11, BS 504, Egyptian and

Jordanian specifications. This means that the Iraqi mixture needs filler more than the

ZTV – Asphalt - STB 94, AASHTO T11, BS 504, Egyptian and Jordanian mixtures.

This characteristic distinguishes the Iraqi specification from the other.

4.3.2.4 The Gradation of the Regional Group Together The gradation of the Egyptian, Jordanian and Iraqi of the asphalt binder course were

drawn together as illustrated in Figure (4.15) and Table (4.18). The frame of the

regional group was drawn to include all the points in the three regional specifications

as shown in Figure (4.16) and Table (4.19). The frame of the regional group together

is illustrated in Figure (4.17) and Table (4.20).

41

Table (4.18): The Gradation of the Regional Specifications

Iraqi Spec. Egyptian Spec. Jordanian Spec. Diameter Size

(mm) Lower Level

Upper Level

Lower Level Upper Level

Lower Level

Upper Level

25 100 100 100 100 100 100 19.0 88 100 100 100 70 100 12.5 65 87 75 100 53 90 9.5 55 80 60 85 40 80 4.75 37 64 35 55 30 56 2.26 23 45 20 35 23 49 1.18 17 34 14 27 14 43 0.6 13 27 10 22 9 30 0.3 8 20 6 16 5 19

0.125 6 15 4 12 4 15

0.075 5 10 2 8 2 8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Pass

ing

min (Iraq)max (Iraq)min (Egypt)max (Egypt)min (Jordan)max (Jordan)

Figure (4.15): The Gradation of the Regional Specifications

42

Table (4.19): The Gradation of the Iraqi, Egyptian, Jordanian Specifications and the Regional Frame

Diameter size Iraq 1983 Egyptian Spec. Jordan Spec. Regional Frame mm Lower Level Upper LevelLower Level Upper Level Lower Level Upper LevelLower Level Upper Level25 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

19.0 88 100 100 100 70 100 70 100 12.5 65 87 75 100 53 90 48 94 9.5 55 80 60 85 40 80 42 86 4.75 37 64 35 55 30 56 30 67 2.26 23 45 20 35 23 49 19 52 1.18 17 34 14 27 14 43 14 43 0.6 13 27 10 22 9 30 9 31 0.3 8 20 6 16 5 19 6 22

0.125 6 15 4 12 4 15 3 13 0.075 5 10 2 8 2 8 2 10

Figure (4.16): The Gradation of the Iraqi, Egyptian, Jordanian and the Regional

Frame.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Diameter size mm

Pass

ing

min Iraq spec.max Iraq spec.min Egyptian spec.max Egyptian spec.min Jordan spec.max Jordan spec.min Regional Framemax Regional Frame

43

Table (4.20): Gradation for Regional Specifications Frame

Passing (%) Diameter Size mm Lower Level Upper Level 25 100 100

19.0 70 100 12.5 48 94 9.5 42 86

4.75 30 67 2.26 19 52 1.18 14 43 0.6 9 31 0.3 6 22

0.075 2 10

0102030405060708090

100


Pass

ing

Figure (4.17): The Frame of the Regional Specifications of the Asphalt Binder Course

Concluded Remark

It is obvious from Figure (4.15) and Figure (4.16) that the Jordanian gradation has the

biggest range among the three selected regional specifications. The Jordanian lower

limit and upper level includes the Egyptian and Iraqi limits.

44

4.3.3 Local Group

The local group consists of five requirements which are required by the institutions in

Palestine. These requirements are the municipality of Gaza requirements, PECDAR

requirements, UNRWA requirements, PSI standards and MOPWH requirements.

4.3.3.1 The Municipality of Gaza (MoG) Requirements

The gradation of the MoG requirements is shown in table (4.21) and figure (4.18).

The mechanical properties are illustrated in table (4.22).

Table (4.21): Gradation of (MoG) Asphalt Binder Course (MoG, 2003)

Percentage by Weight Passing

Sieve Size

(mm) Lower Level Upper Level 19 100 100

12.5 80 100 9.5 70 87

4.75 50 65 2 35 50

0.42 16 30 0.180 10 20 0.075 4 9

0102030405060708090

100

0.01 0.1 1 10 100Diameter size

Pass

ing

Figure (4.18): Gradation of MoG Asphalt Binder Course (MoG, 2003)

45

Table (4.22): Mechanical Properties of MoG Asphalt Binder Course (MoG, 2003)

Property Value

Marshal stability (kg) >900

Flow (mm) 2 – 4

Voids filled with Bitumen (VFB) 75 – 85


VMA ( % ) 13.5

Bitumen content (%) At least 5

Concluded Remarks

1. The MoG requirements depend on a narrow range of the gradation as clear in

figure (4.18).

2. The percentage of the fine materials which passes from the sieve # 4 is high in

comparison with the other local requirements.

4.3.3.2 PECDAR Requirements

PECDAR has one gradation for the asphalt binder course as shown in table (4.23) and

figure (4.19). The Mechanical properties are illustrated in table (4.24).

Table (4.23): Gradation of PECDAR Requirements for the Asphalt Binder Course (PECDAR, 2003)


25 90 100 19 88 93

12.5 62 72 9.5 55 61

4.75 38 44 2 31 37

0.42 13 19 0.180 8 12 0.075 3.8 5.8

46

0

10203040

5060

708090

100


Pass

ing

Figure (4.19): Gradation of PECDAR Requirements for the Asphalt Binder Course (PECDAR, 2003)

Table (4.24): Mechanical Properties of PECDAR Requirements for Asphalt Binder Course (PECDAR, 2003)

Property


>900

Flow (mm)

2 – 4

Voids filled with Bitumen (VFB) %

< 80

Air voids (%)

3 – 6

VMA ( % )

>13.50

Bitumen content

3.7 – 4.2 %

Concluded Remarks

The gradation of PECDAR requirements for the asphalt binder course is very

narrow which make it difficult to achieve this range.

47

4.3.3.3 UNRWA Requirements

UNRWA has one requirement for the asphalt binder course as shown in table (4.25)

and figure (4.20). The mechanical properties for this requirement are illustrated in

table (4.26).

Table (4.25) Gradation of UNRWA Requirements for Asphalt Binder Course (UNRWA, 2003)


25 100 100 19 70 100

12.5 53 90 9.5 40 80

4.75 30 56 2.36 23 38 1.18 13 27 0.300 5 17 0.150 4 14 0.075 2 8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Pass

ing

Figure (4.20): Gradation of UNRWA Requirements for Asphalt Binder Course

(UNRWA, 2003)

48

Table (4.26): Mechanical Properties of UNRWA Requirements for the Asphalt

Binder Course (UNRWA, 2003)

Property Value

Marshal stability (kg) 900

Flow (mm) 2 – 4

Number of blows 75


Voids in Mineral aggregates VMA ( % ) 13 min

Loss of Marshal stability ( % ) 25 max

Stiffness (kg/mm) 400 min

Bitumen content (%) 4 – 6.50

Concluded Remarks

From table (4.25) and Figure (4.20) it is clear that the UNRWA requirement is similar

to AASHTO specifications in the course part. While the fine part which passing

sieves # 4 is different. In the fine part, the curve of gradation becomes narrow

between the upper limit and the lower limit.

4.3.3.4 Palestine Standards Institution Specification (PSI)

The PSI has one gradation for the asphalt binder course as illustrated in table (4.27)

and figure (4.21). The mechanical properties are shown in table (4.28).

49

Table (4.27): Gradation of PSI Specification for the Asphalt Binder Course (PS

171, 1998)

Percentage by Weight Passing Sieve Size

(mm) Lower Level Upper Level

25 100 100 19 84 100 14 72 86 9.5 60 74

4.75 44 58 2.36 32 45 0.6 15 25

0.150 6 12 0.075 4 8

0102030405060708090

100


Pass

ing

Figure (4.21): Gradation of PSI for Asphalt Binder Course (PS 171, 1998)

50

Table (4.28): Mechanical Properties of PSI for the Asphalt Binder Course (PS

171, 1998)

Property Value

Marshal stability (kg) 714

Flow (mm) 2 – 4


Voids in Mineral aggregates VMA ( % ) 12 min

Loss of Marshal stability ( % ) 25 max

Bitumen content 4.5 – 7.0

Concluded Remarks

1. The specification of the PSI is very narrow as shown in figure (4.21) and it is

difficult to be achieved.

2. The percentage of the bitumen in the PSI is higher than the percentage in the other

local requirements.

4.3.3.5 Ministry of Public Works and Housing Requirements

The gradation of the MOPWH for the asphalt binder course is shown in table (4.29)

and figure (4.22). The mechanical properties are illustrated in table (4.30).

Table (4.29): Gradation of MOPWH Requirements for Asphalt Binder Course

(MOPWH, 1995)

Percentage by Weight Passing Sieve Size (mm) Lower Level Upper Level 25.0 100 100 19.0 70 100 12.5 53 90 9.5 40 80

4.75 30 56 2.380 23 38 0.84 13 27 0.297 5 17 0.18 4 14 0.075 2 8

51

0102030405060708090

100

0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

Diameter size mm

Pass

ing

Figure (4.22): The Gradation of MOPWH Requirements for Asphalt Binder Course (MOPWH, 1995)

Table (4.30): The Mechanical Properties of MOPWH Requirements for Asphalt

Binder Course (MOPWH, 1995)

Property


800 – 900

Flow (mm)

2 – 4

Air voids (%)

3 – 7

Voids in Mineral aggregates VMA ( % )

14

Loss of Marshal stability ( % )

25 max

Number of blows

75

Stiffness (kg/mm)

500

Bitumen content (%)

3.5 - 7

52

Concluded Remarks

The MOPWH requirement is similar to the mechanical and gradation of the UNRWA

requirement for the asphalt binder course. The only small difference is the percentage

of the bitumen.

4.3.3.6 The Gradations of the Local Group Together

In this step, the gradation for all the local requirements (MoG, PECDAR, PSI,

UNRWA and MOPWH) were drawn as illustrated in figure (4.23). Table (4.31)

shows the lower level and upper level of the passing materials for all the local

requirements after unifying the sieves. One frame was selected from the local

requirement as shown in tables (4.32), (4.33) and figure (4.24) and figure (4.25).

Figure (4.23): The Gradation of Local Requirements Together

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Pass

ing

min (Gaza M.)

max (Gaza M.)

min (BECDAR)

max (BECDAR)

min (UNRWA)

max (UNRWA)

min (Palestinian M.)

max (Palestinian M.)

min (MoPWH)

max (MoPWH)

53

Table (4.31): The Gradation of the Local Group Requirements

MoG PECDAR UNRWA Palestinian MOPWH Diameter Size (mm) Lower

Level Upper Level

Lower Level

Upper Level

Lower Level

Upper Level

Lower Level

Upper Level

Lower Level

Upper Level

25 100 100 90 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

19 100 100 88 93 70 100 84 100 70 100

14 100 100 70 90 58 85 72 86 60 95

12.5 80 100 62 72 53 90 67 81 53 90

9.5 70 87 55 61 40 80 60 74 40 80

4.75 50 65 38 44 30 56 44 58 30 56

2.36 35 50 31 37 23 38 32 45 23 38

1.18 25 40 24 30 13 27 23 35 16 30

0.84 21 35 20 25 10 25 18 30 13 27

0.6 19 32 16 22 8 22 15 25 10 24

0.42 16 30 13 19 7 21 12 20 7 20

0.300 13 26 11 16 5 17 9 16 5 17

0.180 10 20 8 12 4 14 6 12 4 14

0.075 4 9 3.8 5.8 2 8 4 8 2 8

54

Table (4.32): The Gradation of the Local Group Requirements and their Frame

MOG PECDAR UNRWA PSI MoPWH Local Requirements

Frame

Diameter

Size (mm)

Lower Level Upper Level Lower Level Upper Level Lower

Level

Upper

Level

Lower

Level

Upper

Level

Lower

Level

Upper

Level

Lower

Level

Upper

Level

25 100 100 90 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

19 100 100 88 93 70 100 84 100 70 100 73 100

14 100 100 70 90 58 85 72 86 60 95 52 100

12.5 80 100 62 72 53 90 67 81 53 90 48 95

9.5 70 87 55 61 40 80 60 74 40 80 40 88

4.75 50 65 38 44 30 56 44 58 30 56 30 66

2.36 35 50 31 37 23 38 32 45 23 38 21 50

1.18 25 40 24 30 13 27 23 35 16 30 14 40

0.84 21 35 20 25 10 25 18 30 13 27 11 34

0.6 19 32 16 22 8 22 15 25 10 24 9 31

0.42 16 30 13 19 7 21 12 20 7 20 7 28

0.300 13 26 11 16 5 17 9 16 5 17 5 26

0.180 10 20 8 12 4 14 6 12 4 14 3 18

0.075 4 9 3.8 5.8 2 8 4 8 2 8 2 9

55

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Pass

ing

min (MoG)

max (MoG)

min (Pecdar)

max (Pecdar)

min (UNRWA)

max (UNRWA)

min (PSI)

max (PSI)

min (MoPWH)

max (MoPWH)

min (L.R.Frame)

max (L.R.Frame)

Figure (4.24): The Gradation of the Local Requirements with their Frame

Table (4.33): The Gradation of the Local Requirement Frame


25 100 100 19.0 73 100 12.5 48 95 9.5 40 88

4.75 30 66 2.36 21 50 1.18 14 40 0.6 9 31 0.3 5 26

0.075 2 9

56

0102030405060708090

100


Pass

ing

Figure (4.25): The Frame of the Local Requirement

Concluded Remarks

1. The UNRWA requirements are similar to the MOPWH requirements.

2. Figure (4.24) shows that the upper level of the frame of the local requirements together will

be the MoG upper level. The lower level of the frame of local requirements together will be

the PSI lower level.

3. Table (4.32) illustrates the values of passing materials which were used to draw the upper

and lower level of the frame of local requirements together. It is noticed that these values

are similar to the values of the regional frame.

4. From figure (4.25) it is clear that the distance between the upper and lower level of the

local frame is wide.

57

4.3.4 The Gradation and Mechanical Properties for the International, Regional and Local Groups Together

In this step the three frames of the international group, the regional group and the local

requirements were drawn together as shown in figure (4.26) and table (4.34). Table (4.35) and

figure (4.27) illustrate the values of the upper levels and lower levels of the three frames.

To select the suitable gradation for the Palestinian local materials, it is needed to select values

for the mechanical properties and the bitumen content. The mechanical properties were

selected by using the average of all mentioned specifications and requirements or the worst

case as shown in table (4.36).

Table (4.34): The Percentages of Passing Materials for the Upper and Lower Levels in all Groups.

International Specifications Regional Specifications Local Requirements Passing (%) Passing (%) Passing (%)

Diameter Size

(mm) Lower Level Upper Level

Lower Level

Upper Level

Lower Level

Upper Level

25 100 100 100 100 100 100 19.0 58 100 70 100 73 100 12.5 38 83 48 94 48 95 9.5 33 79 42 86 40 88 4.75 23 63 30 67 30 66 2.26 17 54 19 52 21 50 1.18 13 46 14 43 14 40 0.6 9 39 9 31 9 31 0.3 4 30 6 22 5 26

0.075 2 8 2 10 2 9

58

Figure (4.26): The International Frame, the Regional Frame and the Local Frame.

Table (4.35): The Gradation of the International, Regional, Local Frames and the Frame

of all the Specifications.

Diameter Size

International Specifications

Regional Specifications Local Requirements The Frame of All Specifications

mm Lower Level Upper LevelLower Level Upper Level Lower Level Upper LevelLower Level Upper Level

25 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 19.0 58 100 70 100 73 100 58 100 12.5 38 83 48 94 48 95 38 95 9.5 33 79 42 86 40 88 33 88 4.75 23 63 30 67 30 66 23 67 2.36 17 54 19 52 21 50 17 55 1.18 13 46 14 43 14 40 14 46 0.6 9 39 9 31 9 31 9 39 0.3 4 30 6 22 5 26 4 30

0.075 2 8 2 10 2 9 2 10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Pass

ing

min(Inter.)

max(Inter.)

min (Regional)

max (Regional)

min (Local)

max (Local)

59

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Pass

ing

min (Int.Spec.)

max (Int.Spec.)

min (Reg. Spec)

max (Reg.Spec.)

min (Local Req.)

max (Local Req.)

min (Frame)

max (Frame)

Figure (4.27): The International, Regional, Local Frames and the Frame of all the Specifications.

Table (4.36): The Lower and Upper Percentage of Passing Materials for all Specifications Together


25 100 100 19.0 58 100 12.5 38 95 9.5 33 88

4.75 23 67 2.36 17 55 1.18 14 46 0.6 9 39 0.3 4 30

0.075 2 10

60

All specification

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Diameter size

Pas

sing

min (all)max (all)

Figure (4.28): The Frame of All Specifications

Table (4.37) shows the mechanical properties for the eleven selected specifications and

requirements and the chosen values which will be used in the trial mix. The criteria of selecting

the values of the mechanical properties are because it is the worst case as the stability or the

average or the most recommended value among all the specifications.

The chosen values of the mechanical properties are as follow:

1. The stability is equal 900 kg because is the worst case from the previous specifications.

2. The flow value from 2 to 4 mm because most of specifications and requirements

recommend it.

3. The stiffness is equal 400 because most of specifications and requirements recommend it.

4. Air voids is equal 3 to 6 because minimum value is 3 in all specifications and requirements

and the average of maximum value is 6.

5. VMA (%) equal 13.5 because it is the average value.

6. VFB (%) equal 60 to 80 because the most specifications and requirements recommend it.

61

7. Bitumen content (%) equal 4 to 6 because the most specifications and requirements

recommend it.

Table (4.37): The Mechanical Properties for All Specifications

Specifications Stability (kg) Flow (mm)

Stiffness Air Voids (%)

VMA (%)

VFB (%)

Bitumen (%)

AASHTO 800 2 – 4 Min 400 3 – 5 13(-1) --- 4.5 – 6

Ztv-bit --- --- --- 3 – 7 --- --- 4 – 6

BS 400 – 800 Max

5

--- --- --- --- 5 – 7

Egyptian 272 2 – 4 --- 3 – 8 15 --- 3 – 6

Jordanian 800 2 –4 400 3 – 5 13(-1) --- 4.5 – 6

Iraqi 714 2 – 4 --- 3 – 7 --- 60 – 80 3.8 –5.8

MoG Min 900 2 – 4 --- 3 – 5 min13.

5

75 – 85 Min 5

PECDAR Min 900 2 – 4 --- 3 –6 min13.

5

Max 80 3.7 – 4.2

UNRWA 900 2 – 4 400 3 – 5 Min 13 --- 4 – 6.5

PSI 714 2 - 4 --- 3 – 7 Min 12 --- 4.5 – 7

MOPWH 900 2 – 4 500 3 – 7 Min 14 --- 3.5 – 7

Chosen 900 2 – 4 400 3 – 6 13.5 60 – 80 4 – 6

62

Concluded Remarks

The frame of the international includes the regional and local frames, which means that

international specifications are the base of the regional and local requirements.

63

CHAPTER FIVE

TESTS OF MATERIALS

5.1 Introduction

In this chapter, tests of local available aggregates and bitumen in Palestine will be illustrated.

Aggregate tests are the sieve analysis, specific gravity, absorption, moisture content and Los

Angles. The tests of bitumen are penetration test, flash and fire point, ductility, softening point

and specific gravity. The required materials of aggregates and bitumen were brought from one

of local asphalt factory “NORCO” after many field visits to the asphalt factories in Gaza Strip

which proved that the source of the materials is uniformed. The samples of the tested materials

represented the actual mix in the field.

5.2 Tests of Aggregates

Six types of aggregates were selected. They are coarse aggregate M0 (Folia 5), coarse

aggregate M1 (Folia 4), coarse aggregate M2 (Adasia), coarse aggregate M3 (Simsimia), fine

aggregate F1 (filler, Itrabiah) and fine aggregate F2 (sand). Five tests were conducted on each

type of these aggregates, they are as follows:

1. Sieve Analysis.

2. Specific Gravity.

3. Absorption.

4. Moisture Content.

5. Los Angles

These materials were tested in the Laboratory Materials Testing of the Islamic University in

Gaza. See Appendix C: Photos Show the Work in the Laboratory. The results of these tests

were as follows:

64

5.2.1 The Results of Coarse Aggregate M0 (5)

Table (5.1): Results of M0 Test Description of Test Result

Moisture content (%) 0.17

Absorption (%) 2.02

Bulk specific gravity 2.59

Resistance to abrasion by Los

Angeles at 500 revolutions%

35.1

Table (5.2): Sieve Analysis of M0 Sieve Size

(mm) Retained

Weight (g) Cumulative Retained (g)

% Cumulative Retained

% Passing

25 0 0 0.0 100.0 19 688 688 12.6 87.4

12.5 4332 5020 92.0 8.0 9.5 220 5240 96.1 3.9 4.75 70 5310 97.3 2.7

2 35 5345 98.0 2.0 1.18 20 5365 98.4 1.6 0.6 15 5380 98.6 1.4

0.425 5 5385 98.7 1.3 0.3 2 5387 98.8 1.2 0.15 5 5392 98.8 1.2

0.075 5 5397 98.9 1.1 Pan 58 5455 100.0 0.0

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0


Pass

ing

Figure (5.1) Gradation of Coarse Aggregate M0

65

5.2.2 Coarse Aggregate M1 (4) Table (5.3): Results of M1 Test

Description of Test Result


Absorption (%) 2.29




35.1

Table (5.4): Sieve Analysis of M1

Sieve Size (mm)

Retained

Weight (g)

Cumulative

Retained (g) %Cumulative

Retained % Passing

25 0 0 0.0 100.0 19 114 114 2.3 97.7

12.5 4376 4490 92.0 8.0 9.5 240 4730 96.9 3.1 4.75 65 4795 98.3 1.7

2 2 4797 98.3 1.7 1.18 2 4799 98.3 1.7 0.6 2 4801 98.4 1.6

0.425 1 4802 98.4 1.6 0.3 1 4803 98.4 1.6 0.15 1 4804 98.4 1.6

0.075 2 4806 98.5 1.5 Pan 74 4880 100.0 0.0

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0


Pass

ing

Figure (5.2): Gradation of Coarse Aggregate M1

66

5.2.3 Coarse Aggregate M2 Table (5.5): Results of M2 Test



Absorption (%) 1.48




35.1


(mm) Retained



% Passing

25 0 0 0.0 100.0 19 32 32 1.0 99.0

12.5 694 726 22.3 77.7 9.5 1244 1970 60.4 39.6 4.75 1135 3105 95.2 4.8

2 65 3170 97.2 2.8 1.18 5 3175 97.4 2.6 0.6 5 3180 97.5 2.5

0.425 1 3181 97.6 2.4 0.3 1 3182 97.6 2.4 0.15 3 3185 97.7 2.3

0.075 2 3187 97.8 2.2 Pan 74 4880 100 0

0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.0

100.0


Pass

ing


67

5.2.4 Coarse Aggregate M3 Table (5.7): Results of M3 Test

Description of test Result


Absorption (%) 2.17

Bulk specific gravity 2.55 Resistance to abrasion by Los

Angeles at 500 revolutions% 35.1


(mm) Retained



% Passing

25 0 0 0.0 100.0 19 0 0 0.0 100.0

12.5 0 0 0.0 100.0 9.5 42 42 1.3 98.7 4.75 2373 2415 74.3 25.7

2 610 3025 93.1 6.9 1.18 65 3090 95.1 4.9 0.6 10 3100 95.4 4.6

0.425 5 3105 95.5 4.5 0.3 5 3110 95.7 4.3 0.15 5 3115 95.8 4.2

0.075 10 3125 96.2 3.8 Pan 125 3250 100.0 0.0

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0


Pass

ing


68

5.2.5 Fine Aggregate F1 (Filler) Table (5.9): Results of F1 Test



Absorption (%) 1.26




35.1

Table (5.10): Sieve Analysis of F1

Sieve Size (mm)

Retained Weight (g)

Cumulative Retained (g)


% Passing

25 0 0 0.0 100.0 19 0 0 0.0 100.0

12.5 0 0 0.0 100.0 9.5 24 24 1.5 98.5 4.75 66 90 5.7 94.3

2 322 412 26.0 74.0 1.18 286 698 44.1 55.9 0.6 186 884 55.9 44.1

0.425 74 958 60.6 39.4 0.3 52 1010 63.8 36.2 0.15 124 1134 71.7 28.3

0.075 72 1206 76.2 23.8 Pan 376 1582 100.0 0.0

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0


Pass

ing

Figure (5.5): Gradation of Fine Aggregate F1

69

5.2.6 Fine Aggregate F2 (Sand) Table (5.11): Results of F2 Test

Description of test Result


Absorption (%) 6.10


Table (5.12): Sieve Analysis of F2

Sieve Size (mm)

Retained Weight (g)

Cumulative Retained (g)


% Passing

25 0 0 0.0 100.0 19 0 0 0.0 100.0

12.5 0 0 0.0 100.0 9.5 0 0 0.0 100.0 4.75 0 0 0.0 100.0

2 0 0 0.0 100.0 1.18 0 0 0.0 100.0 0.6 6 6 0.4 99.6

0.425 244 250 16.7 83.3 0.3 534 784 52.3 47.7 0.15 674 1458 97.2 2.8

0.075 12 1470 98.0 2.0 Pan 30 1500 100.0 0.0

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0


Pass

ing

Figure (5.6): Gradation of Fine Aggregate F2

70

Table (5.13): The Gradation of all Types of Aggregates

Sieve Size %Passing %Passing %Passing % Passing % Passing % Passing (mm) Folia 5 Folia 4 Adasia M2 Simmsim

M3 Trabia F1 Sand

25 100 100 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 19 87.4 97.7 99.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

12.5 8 8 77.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 9.5 3.9 3.1 39.6 98.7 98.5 100.0

4.75 2.7 1.7 4.8 25.7 94.3 100.0 2 2 1.7 2.8 6.9 74.0 100.0

1.18 1.6 1.7 2.6 4.9 55.9 100.0 0.6 1.4 1.6 2.5 4.6 44.1 99.6

0.425 1.3 1.6 2.4 4.5 39.4 83.3 0.3 1.2 1.6 2.4 4.3 36.2 47.7

0.15 1.2 1.6 2.3 4.2 28.3 2.8 0.075 1.1 1.5 2.2 3.8 23.8 2.0 Pan 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Pass

ing

Folia 5

Folia 4

Adasia M2

SimmsimM3

Trabia F1

Sand

Figure (5.7): The Gradation of All Types of Aggregates

71

5.3 Tests of Bitumen

The tests which were conducted on the bitumen are as follows:

1. Penetration test.

2. Ductility.

3. Softening point.

4. Specific Gravity

The results of the laboratory tests carried in Islamic University Laboratory on bitumen were as

follows:

5.3.1 Penetration Test (ASTM D5, 2002)

The Penetration test measures the distance a weighted needle sinks into bitumen in five

seconds. A 100 gram needle normally sinks 30 millimeters in soft 300 pen bitumen and 2.5

millimeters in hard 25 pen bitumen. Penetration test used as a measure of consistency

expressed as the distance that a needle vertically penetrates a sample under known conditions

of loading, time and temperature.

Table (5.14): Results of Penetration Test

Readings First Point Second Point Third Point

Initial Reading 81 83 79

Second Reading 150 152 148

Final Reading 69 69 69

The average reading of the penetration = (69+69+69)/3 = 69 (1/10 mm)

5.3.2 Softening Point of Bitumen (ASTM D36, 2002)

According to the ASTM D36 experiment, bitumen is warmed until it can no longer support a

3.5 gram metal ball - this temperature is recorded for the two balls and it is the softening point.

The softening point is useful in the classification of bitumen.

Thermometer reading = 53 ºC.

72

5.3.3 Ductility Test (ASTM D 113, 2002)

The experiment was carried out according the (ASTM D 113), the samples of bitumen were

kept in the water basin at a temperature 25ºC, for a period of 85-95 minutes. Then the samples

are constantly pulled in the basin, until a cut takes place to the sample. The distance is

recorded, the experiments is repeated for three samples.

Table (5.15): Results of Ductility Test

Sample No. 1 2 3

Ductility (cm) 102 103 97

Average ductility (cm) 100

5.3.4 Density of Bitumen at 25ºC Test (ASTM D 70, 2002)

This test method covers the determination of the density of bitumen material by using

pycnometer in accordance to ASTM D 70. The following readings were recorded:

Table (5.16): Results of Density Test

Weight of sample (gm) 18.5

Weight of pycnometer + water at25ºC (gm) 77.42

Weight of pycnometer + water at25ºC+ sample (gm) 77.95

The density is calculated from the following formula:

95.77)5.1842.77(

5.18−+

=Density = 1.0295 g/cm3

Table (5.17) summarizes the results of the bitumen tests.

73

Table (5.17): Results of Bitumen Tests

Tests of Bitumen Results

Penetration 69

Ductility 100

Softening Point 53 ºC

Density 1.0295 g/cm3

74

CHAPTER SIX

PREPARATION AND TESTING OF ASPHALT MIXES

6.1 Introduction

In chapter five the materials of the asphalt mixture (aggregates and Bitumen) were tested and

they were valid to be used according to the special conditions of these materials. In this

chapter, the mixture or the gradation which achieves the best mechanical properties with least

bitumen content will be proposed. To achieve this, several steps were followed as explained in

the methodology.

6.2 Methodology of Selecting the Proposed Mix

To propose the best mix for the asphalt binder course which suits the Palestinian local

materials and achieve the best mechanical properties and the least bitumen content, the

researcher made the following steps:

1. The frame of the gradations of the three groups (international, regional and local) was

adopted as shown in table (4.37) and figure (4.28).

2. Five gradations (curves) were selected within the frame in the previous step. These five

gradations were the minimum limit of the frame (Min.), the maximum limit of the frame

(Max.) and the other three gradations between the minimum and the maximum limits

which are called “mid1, mid2 and mid3” as illustrates in table (6.1) and figure (6.1).

3. Preparation of the aggregates blending: To obtain any gradation of asphalt mix, several

kinds of aggregates should be mixed together. There are many methods to make the mix in

order to fit specific range or gradation. In this research the experimentalism mathematical

method was adopted because it is suitable for mixing two types or more of the aggregates.

The mixes were composed from the aggregates which were selected and tested in chapter

five (M0, M1, M2, M3, F1, and F2) (Jendia, 1997). As a result of the experimentalism

mathematical method, a new curve for every mix was obtained as example figure (6.2)

where there are two curves, one for the original gradation which was selected by the

researcher from the frame of all the specifications and the other which obtained from the

75

experimentalism mathematical method called the mix curve. For more details see Appendix

A: Mathematical Trail Method to Merge Aggregate Mixes.

4. Trail mixes for the five gradations were carried in the laboratory with using several

percentages of bitumen (4%, 4.5%, 5%, 5.5% and 6%) for each gradation. Marshall

Method was adopted. The inputs of the binder course job mixes are illustrated in Appendix

B.

5. The samples were tested and their mechanical properties were determined. The results of

the mechanical properties were compared with the selected mechanical properties in

chapter four, table (4.37).

6. Propose the gradation or the range which achieve the best mechanical properties with least

bitumen content.

Table (6.1): Gradations of the Five Selected Curves

Passing (%) Diameter Size

(mm) Min. Mid. (1) Mid. (2) Mid. (3) Max. 25 100 100 100 100 100

19.0 58 68.5 79 89.5 100

12.5 38 52.25 66.5 80.75 95

9.5 33 46.75 60.5 74.25 88

4.75 23 34 45 56 67

2.26 17 26.5 36 45.5 55

1.18 14 22 30 38 46

0.6 9 16.5 24 31.5 39

0.425 6.5 13.6 20.8 27.9 35

0.3 4 10.5 17 23.5 30

0.15 2.5 6.5 10.5 14.5 18.5

0.075 2 4 6 8 10

76

0102030405060708090

100


Pass

ing

min

mid1

mid2

mid3

max

Figure (6.1): Gradations of the Five Selected Curves

Five gradations were selected as first trials. They are min, max, mid1, mid2 and mid3. Each

gradation has five different percentages of bitumen. So, the number of the mix trial was 25

mixes. Four Marshall specimens are needed for each mix, three are essential and the fourth mix

is spare. The total number of specimens was 100 Marshall specimens as illustrated in table

(6.2). May be another gradation needed between the suggested gradations.

Table (6.2): The Number of the Specimens for All Mixes Bit. Ratio

Gradation 4% 4.5% 5.0% 5.5% 6.0%

Min. 4 4 4 4 4

Mid1 4 4 4 4 4

Mid2 4 4 4 4 4

Mid3 4 4 4 4 4

Max 4 4 4 4 4

Sub- total 20 20 20 20 20

Total 100 specimens

77

6.3 The Min. Mix

In this section, the curve, the outputs of job mix with different bitumen contents for the Min.

mix will be illustrated.

6.3.1 Min. Curve Mix

Table (6.3) shows the aggregate ratio which is needed to obtain the min gradation with

different bitumen contents. Figure (6.2) illustrates the gradation of the min. and the mix curve.

Table (6.3): Aggregate Ratio in Min. Mix

Asphalt Mixture

Sand F2 Filler F1 Agg. M3 Agg. M2 Agg. M1 Agg. M0 Bitumen %

3.00 15.00 5.00 10.00 30.00 37.00 4.00 3.00 15.00 5.00 10.00 30.00 37.00 4.50 3.00 15.00 5.00 10.00 30.00 37.00 5.00 3.00 15.00 5.00 10.00 30.00 37.00 5.50 3.00 15.00 5.00 10.00 30.00 37.00 6.00

0102030405060708090

100

0.01 0.1 1 10 100Sieve diameter mm

Pass

ing min

mix

Figure (6.2): Gradation of Min. and Mix Curves

78

6.3.2 The Outputs of Job Mix for Min Gradation with Different Bitumen Contents

Tables (6.4), (6.5), (6.6), (6.7), (6.8) show the outputs of the job mix for min gradation with

different bitumen contents.

Table (6.4): The Outputs of Job Mix for Min Gradation with 4% Bitumen Content Bitumen Content 4.00%

Volume

(cm3) St Corr. Factor

corrected stability

Flow (mm)

Stiffness (kg/mm)

ρA (g/cm3)

ρBit (g/cm3)

Va (%)

Vb (%)

VMA (%)

VFB (%)

517.5 1 947.3 3.33 284.5 2.319 2.491 6.92 9.01 15.93 56.6

521.0 1 921.2 2.73 337.4 2.300 2.491 7.66 8.94 16.6 53.9

520.0 1 999.5 3.28 304.7 2.312 2.491 7.21 8.98 16.19 55.5

Average 956 3.11 308.9 2.310 2.491 7.26 8.976 16.24 55.3

Table (6.5): The Outputs of Job Mix for Min Gradation with 4.5% Bitumen Content Bitumen Content 4.5%

Volume


corrected stability

Flow (mm)

Stiffness (kg/mm)

ρA (g/cm3)

ρBit (g/cm3)

Va (%)

Vb (%)

VMA (%)

VFB (%)

525.5 0.96 734.1 5 146.8 2.265 2.500 9.38 9.9 19.28 51.4

515.5 1 816.8 5.04 162.1 2.293 2.500 9.57 9.88 19.45 50.8

525.5 0.96 658.9 4.67 141.1 2.261 2.500 9.57 9.88 19.45 50.8

Average 736.6 4.9 150 2.273 2.500 9.08 9.936 19.01 52.3

Table (6.6): The Outputs of Job Mix for Min Gradation with 5% Bitumen Content Bitumen Content 5.0%

Volume


corrected stability

Flow (mm)

Stiffness (kg/mm)

ρA (g/cm3)

ρBit (g/cm3)

Va (%)

Vb (%)

VMA (%)

VFB (%)

521.5 1 916 3.1 295.5 2.291 2.434 5.87 11.13 17 65.5

523 0.96 834.2 3.16 264. 2.291 2.434 5.9 11.12 17.03 65.3

529.5 0.96 909.4 3.25 279.8 2.279 2.434 6.4 11.07 17.47 63.4

Average 886.5 3.17 279.8 2.287 2.434 6.06 11.11 17.16 64.72

79

Table (6.7): The Outputs of Job Mix for Min Gradation with 5.5% Bitumen Content

Bitumen Content 5.5%

Volume


corrected stability

Flow (mm)

Stiffness (kg/mm)

ρA (g/cm3)

ρBit (g/cm3)

Va (%)

Vb (%)

VMA (%)

VFB (%)

525 .96 709 3.44 206.1 2.291 2.442 6.6 12.19 18.79 64.9

529 .96 759.1 3.67 206.8 2.253 2.442 7.73 12.04 19.77 60.9

532.5 .96 658.9 3.53 186.7 2.265 2.442 7.26 12.1 19.36 62.5

Average 709 3.55 199.9 2.266 2.442 7.2 12.11 19.31 62.7

Table (6.8): The Outputs of Job Mix for Min Gradation with 6% Bitumen Content

Bitumen Content 6.0 %

Volume


corrected stability

Flow (mm)

Stiffness (kg/mm)

ρA (g/cm3)

ρBit (g/cm3)

Va (%)

Vb (%)

VMA (%)

VFB (%)

528 0.96 771.6 3.4 226.9 2.262 2.454 7.8 13.18 20.98 62.8

529.5 0.96 921.9 3.75 245.8 2.256 2.454 8.06 13.15 21.2 62

531.5 0.96 759.1 3.48 218.1 2.239 2.454 8.75 13.05 21.8 59.9

Average 817.5 3.54 230.3 2.252 2.454 8.2 13.13 21.33 61.57

6.3.3 Conclusion of Job Mix for Min Gradation

Table (6.9) shows the mechanical properties for the average of three samples of the min.

gradation with different bitumen contents and the comparison of the results with the selected

mechanical properties.

80

Table (6.9): The Conclusion of Job Mix for Min Gradation

Mix Bit. (%)

Stability min 900 kg

Flow 2-4 (mm)

Stiffness min 400 kg/mm

Va (%) 3-6

VMA (%) Min. 13.5

Final Result

Min. 4.00 956.1 Yes 3.11 Yes 308.9 No 7.26 No 16.24 Yes Rejected

Min. 4.50 736.6 No 4.9 No 150 No 9.08 No 19.01 Yes Rejected

Min. 5.00 886.5 No 3.17 Yes 279.8 No 6.06 No 17.16 Yes Rejected

Min. 5.50 709. No 3.55 Yes 199.9 No 7.2 No 19.31 Yes Rejected

Min. 6.00 817.5 No 3.54 Yes 230.3 No 8.2 No 21.33 Yes Rejected

Concluded Remarks 1. In general, all mixes with different bitumen contents in Min. curve are rejected because

they do not achieve the selected mechanical properties.

2. All mixes are very coarse and very viscous.

6.4 Mid1 Mix

The curve, the outputs of job mix with different bitumen contents for the Mid1. mix will be

illustrated.

6.4.1 Mid1 Curve Mix

The table (6.10) shows the aggregate ratio which needed to obtain the mid1 gradation with

different bitumen contents. Figure (6.3) illustrates the gradation of the mid1 and the mix curve.

81

Table (6.10): Aggregate Ratio in Mid1 Mix.

Asphalt Mixture Sand F2 Filler F1 Agg. M3 Agg. M2 Agg. M1 Agg. M0 Bitumen %

4.00 26.00 10.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 4.00 4.00 26.00 10.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 4.50 4.00 26.00 10.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 5.00 4.00 26.00 10.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 5.50 4.00 26.00 10.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 6.00

0102030405060708090

100


Pass

ing mid1

mix

Figure (6.3): Gradation of Mid1 and Mix Curves

6.4.2 The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid1 Gradation with Different Bitumen Contents

Tables (6.11), (6.12), (6.13), (6.14), (6.15) show the outputs of the job mix for mid1 gradation

with different bitumen contents.

82

Table (6.11): The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid1 Gradation with 4% Bitumen Content Bitumen Content 4.0%

Volume


corrected stability

Flow (mm)

Stiffness (kg/mm)

ρA (g/cm3)

ρBit (g/cm3)

Va (%)

Vb (%)

VMA (%)

VFB (%)

518.5 1 738.5 3.75 196.9 2.321 2.487 6.66 9.02 15.67 57.5

517.5 1 686.4 4.08 168.2 2.333 2.487 6.16 9.07 15.23 59.5

518 1 790.7 3.5 225.9 2.318 2.487 6.8 9 15.8 57

Average 738.5 3.78 197 2.324 2.487 6.54 9.03 15.57 58

Table (6.12): The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid1 Gradation with 4.5% Bitumen Content Bitumen Content 4.5%

Volume


corrected stability

Flow (mm)

Stiffness (kg/mm)

ρA (g/cm3)

ρBit (g/cm3)

Va (%)

Vb (%)

VMA (%)

VFB (%)

515.5 1 738.5 2.54 290.8 2.325 2.489 6.6 10.16 16.77 60.5

516.5 1 816.8 2.83 288.6 2.318 2.489 6.86 10.13 17 59.6

516.5 1 842.9 2.79 302.1 2.324 2.489 6.63 10.16 16.79 60.5

Average 799.4 2.72 293.8 2.323 2.489 6.7 10.15 16.85 60.25

Table (6.13): The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid1Gradation with 5.0% Bitumen Content Bitumen Content 5.0%

Volume


corrected stability

Flow (mm)

Stiffness (kg/mm)

ρA (g/cm3)

ρBit (g/cm3)

Va (%)

Vb (%)

VMA (%)

VFB (%)

511 1 1056.9 3.75 281.8 2.349 2.466 4.74 11.41 16.15 70.6

516 1 895.1 4.42 202.5 2.328 2.466 5.63 11.3 16.93 66.8

514 1 856 4.61 185.7 2.342 2.466 5.02 11.38 16.4 69.4

Average 936 4.26 223.3 2.340 2.466 5.13 11.36 16.5 68.92

83


Volume


corrected stability

Flow (mm)

Stiffness (kg/mm)

ρA (g/cm3)

ρBit (g/cm3)

Va (%)

Vb (%)

VMA (%)

VFB (%)

514.5 1 947.3 3.88 244.1 2.331 2.434 4.2 12.46 16.66 74.8

518.5 1 895.1 3.79 236.2 2.323 2.434 4.54 12.41 16.95 73.2

507.5 1.04 903.8 3.08 293.4 2.325 2.434 4.46 12.42 16.88 73.6

Average 915.4 3.58 257.9 2.327 2.434 4.4 12.43 16.83 73.9 Table (6.15): The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid1 Gradation with 6% Bitumen Content


Volume (cm3)

St Corr. Factor

corrected stability

Flow (mm)

Stiffness (kg/mm)

ρA (g/cm3)

ρBit (g/cm3)

Va (%)

Vb (%)

VMA (%)

VFB (%)

519 1 1077.7 3.33 323.6 323.6 2.430 4.46 13.53 17.99 75.2

510 1 1090.8 3.54 308.1 2.350 2.430 3.30 13.7 16.99 80.6

515 1 1208.2 3.25 371.8 2.356 2.430 3.04 13.73 16.77 81.9

Average 1125.6 3.37 334.5 2.343 2.430 3.6 13.65 17.25 79.24

6.4.3 Conclusion of Job Mix for Mid1 Gradation

Table (6.16) shows the mechanical properties for the average of three samples of the mid1

gradation with different bitumen content and the comparison of the results with the selected


84

Table (6.16): The Conclusion of Job Mix for Mid1 Gradation

Mix Bit. (%)

Stability min 900 kg

Flow (2-4) mm

Stiffness min 400 kg/mm

Va (%) (3-6)

VMA (%) Min 13.5

Final Result

Mid-1 4.0 738.5 No 3.78 Yes 197 No 6.54 No 15.57 Yes Rejected

Mid -1 4.5 799.4 No 2.72 Yes 293.8 No 6.7 No 16.85 Yes Rejected

Mid -1 5.0 936. Yes 4.26 No 223.3 No 5.13 Yes 16.5 Yes Rejected

Mid -1 5.5 915.4 Yes 3.58 Yes 257.9 No 4.4 Yes 16.83 Yes Rejected

Mid -1 6.0 1125.6 Yes 3.37 Yes 334.5 No 3.6 Yes 17.25 Yes Rejected

Concluded Remark

The mixes with bitumen content from 4.0%-6.0% in Mid1 curve are rejected because they are

not suitable the selected mechanical properties.

6.5 Mid2 Mix The curve, the outputs of job mix with different bitumen contents for the Mid2. mix will be

illustrated.




85

Table (6.17): Aggregate Ratio in Mid2 Mix


10.00 33.00 20.00 9.00 13.00 15.00 4.00 10.00 33.00 20.00 9.00 13.00 15.00 4.50 10.00 33.00 20.00 9.00 13.00 15.00 5.00 10.00 33.00 20.00 9.00 13.00 15.00 5.50 10.00 33.00 20.00 9.00 13.00 15.00 6.00

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Pass

ing mid2

mix

Figure (6.4): Gradation of Mid2 and Mix Curves 6.5.2 The Outputs of Job Mix for Min Gradation with Different Bitumen Contents

The tables (6.18), (6.19), (6.20), (6.21), (6.22) show the outputs of the job mix for mid2

gradation with different bitumen contents.

86

Table (6.18): The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid2 Gradation with 4% Bitumen Content Bitumen Content 4.00 %

Volume St Corr.

Factor corrected stability

Flow Stiffness ρA ρBit Va Vb VMA VFB

508 1.04 1831.8 4.29 427 2.351 2.531 7.10 9.14 16.24 56.3

509.5 1 1437.8 3.88 370.6 2.350 2.531 7.14 9.13 16.28 56.1

506.5 1.04 1517 4.05 374.6 2.347 2.531 7.26 9.12 16.38 55.7

Average 1595.5 4.07 390.7 2.350 2.531 7.17 9.13 16.3 56.0

Table (6.19): The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid2 Gradation with 4.5% Bitumen Content Bitumen Content % 4.5

Volume


Corrected Stability

Flow (mm)

Stiffness (kg/mm)

ρA (g/cm3)

ρBit (g/cm3)

Va (%)

Vb (%)

VMA (%)

VFB (%)

502.5 1.04 1758.5 4.24 414.7 2.378 2.494 4.64 10.39 15.04 69.1

504 1.04 1693.4 4.28 395.7 2.376 2.494 4.73 10.39 15.11 68.7

505 1.04 1783 4.37 408. 2.370 2.494 4.95 10.36 15.32 67.6

Average 1745 4.3 406.1 2.375 2.494 4.77 10.38 15.15 68.5 Table (6.20): The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid2 Gradation with 5% Bitumen Content

Bitumen Content % 5.00

Volume (cm3)

St Corr. Factor

Corrected Stability

Flow (mm)

Stiffness (kg/mm)

ρA (g/cm3)

ρBit (g/cm3)

Va (%)

Vb (%)

VMA (%)

VFB (%)

502 1.04 1631 4.87 334.9 2.393 2.491 3.91 11.62 15.53 74.8

500.5 1.04 1669 4.69 355.9 2.391 2.491 4.02 11.61 15.63 74.3

505.5 1.04 1614.7 4.79 337.1 2.373 2.491 4.73 11.52 16.26 70.9

Average 1638.2 4.78 342.6 2.386 2.491 4.22 11.95 15.81 73.34

87

Table (6.21): The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid2 Gradation with 5.5% Bitumen Content


Volume (cm3)

St Corr. Factor

corrected stability

Flow (mm)

Stiffness (kg/mm)

ρA (g/cm3)

ρBit (g/cm3)

Va (%)

Vb (%)

VMA (%)

VFB (%)

504.5 1.04 1373.2 4.52 303.8 2.375 2.491 4.66 12.69 17.35 73.1

541 .93 1390.5 4.79 290.3 2.378 2.491 4.53 12.7 17.23 73.7

502.5 1.04 1375.9 4.51 305.1 2.386 2.491 4.2 12.75 16.95 75.2

Average 1379.9 4.61 299.7 2.380 2.491 4.46 12.71 17.18 74

Table (6.22): The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid2 Gradation with 6% Bitumen Content


Volume


corrected stability

Flow (mm)

Stiffness (kg/mm)

ρA (g/cm3)

ρBit (g/cm3)

Va (%)

Vb (%)

VMA (%)

VFB (%)

506.5 1.04 1359.5 5.26 258.5 2.377 2.440 2.57 13.85 16.42 84.4

503.5 1.04 1262.0 5.23 241.3 2.387 2.440 2.15 13.91 16.06 86.6

502 1.04 1267.4 5.33 237.8 2.393 2.440 1.9 13.95 15.84 88

Average 1296.3 5.27 245.9 2.386 2.440 2.2 13.91 16.11 86.35 6.5.3 Conclusion of Job Mix for Mid2 Gradation

Table (623) shows the mechanical properties for the average of three samples of the mid2



88


Mix Bit. (%)

Stability min. 900 kg

Flow 2-4 (mm)

Stiffness min. 400 kg/mm

Va (%) 3-6

VMA (%) Min. 13.5

Final Result

Mid-2 4.0 1595.5 Yes 4.07 No 390.7 No 7.17 No 16.3 Yes Rejected

Mid-2 4.5 1745 Yes 4.3 No 406.1 Yes 4.77 Yes 15.15 Yes Rejected

Mid-2 5.0 1638.2 Yes 4.78 No 342.6 No 4.22 Yes 15.81 Yes Rejected

Mid-2 5.5 1379.9 Yes 4.61 No 299.7 No 4.46 Yes 17.18 Yes Rejected

Mid-2 6.0 1296.3 Yes 5.27 No 245.9 No 2.2 No 16.11 Yes Rejected

Concluded Remark The mixes with bitumen contents from 4.0% to 6.0% in Mid2 curve are rejected because they

do not suit the selected mechanical properties.

6.6 Mid3 Mix


illustrated.




89


Asphalt Mixture

Sand F2 Filler F1 Agg. M3 Agg. M2 Agg. M1 Agg. M0 Bitumen % 18.00 35.00 17.00 13.00 10.00 7.00 4.00 18.00 35.00 17.00 13.00 10.00 7.00 4.50 18.00 35.00 17.00 13.00 10.00 7.00 5.00 18.00 35.00 17.00 13.00 10.00 7.00 5.50 18.00 35.00 17.00 13.00 10.00 7.00 6.00

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Pass

ing mid3

mix

Figure (6.5): Gradation of Mid3 and Mix Curves

6.6.2 The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid3 Gradation with Deferent Bitumen Content



90


Volume


corrected stability

Flow (mm)

Stiffness (kg/mm)

ρA (g/cm3)

ρBit (g/cm3)

Va (%)

Vb (%)

VMA (%)

VFB (%)

511.5 1 2095.3 4.08 513.6 2.332 2.533 7.91 9.06 16.98 53.4

508 1.04 2124.9 4.33 490.7 2.340 2.533 7.63 9.09 16.72 54.4

512.5 1 2512.8 4.25 591.2 2.331 2.533 7.98 9.06 17.03 53.6

Average 2244.3 4.22 531.8 2.334 2.533 7.84 9.07 16.91 53.6


Volume


corrected stability

Flow (mm)

Stiffness (kg/mm)

ρA (g/cm3)

ρBit (g/cm3)

Va (%)

Vb (%)

VMA (%)

VFB (%)

503 1.04 1663.6 3.7 449.6 2.360 2.476 4.71 10.31 15.02 68.7

502 1.04 1677.1 3.83 437.9 2.364 2.476 4.56 10.33 14.89 69.4

514.5 1 1521.3 3.54 429.7 2.339 2.476 5.54 10.22 15.77 64.8

Average 1620.7 3.69 439.1 2.354 2.476 4.94 10.29 15.23 67.63


Volume


corrected stability

Flow (mm)

Stiffness (kg/mm)

ρA (g/cm3)

ρBit (g/cm3)

Va (%)

Vb (%)

VMA (%)

VFB (%)

509.5 1 1620.5 3.44 471.1 2.353 2.448 3.88 11.43 15.31 74.7

509.5 1 1698.7 3.31 513.2 2.349 2.448 4.04 11.41 15.45 73.9

506.5 1.04 1745 3.25 536.9 2.359 2.448 3.63 11.46 15.09 75.9

Average 1688.1 3.33 507.1 2.354 2.448 3.85 11.43 15.28 74.81

91



Volume (cm3)

St Corr. Factor

corrected stability

Flow (mm)

Stiffness (kg/mm)

ρA (g/cm3)

ρBit (g/cm3)

Va (%)

Vb (%)

VMA (%)

VFB (%)

506 1.04 1324.4 3.92 337.8 2.367 2.431 2.65 12.64 15.3 82.7

507.5 1.04 1283.7 3.79 338.7 2.368 2.431 2.58 12.65 15.23 83.1

508 1.04 1324.4 3.92 337.8 2.368 2.431 2.59 12.65 15.24 83

Average 1310.8 3.88 338.1 2.368 2.431 2.61 12.65 15.26 82.9 Table (6.29): The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid3 Gradation with 6% Bitumen Content


Volume


corrected stability

Flow (mm)

Stiffness (kg/mm)

ρA (g/cm3)

ρBit (g/cm3)

Va (%)

Vb (%)

VMA (%)

VFB (%)

515 1 947.3 2.68 353.5 2.355 2.453 3.99 13.73 17.72 77.5

505.5 1.04 971.6 2.68 362.5 2.363 2.453 3.68 13.77 17.45 78.9

508.5 1 1025.6 3.3 310.8 2.359 2.453 3.85 13.75 17.6 78.1

Average 981.5 2.89 342.3 2.359 2.453 3.84 13.75 17.59 78.16





92

Table (6.30): The Conclusion of Job Mix for Mid3 Gradation Mix Bit.

(%) Stability min. 900kg

Flow 2-4(mm)


Va (%) 3-6

VMA (%) Min. 13.5

Final Result

Mid-3 4.0 2244.3 Yes 4.22 No 531.8 Yes 7.84 No 16.91 Yes Rejected

Mid-3 4.5 1620.7 Yes 3.69 Yes 439.1 Yes 4.94 Yes 15.23 Yes Suitable

Mid-3 5.0 1688.1 Yes 3.33 Yes 507.1 Yes 3.85 Yes 15.28 Yes Suitable

Mid-3 5.5 1310.8 Yes 3.88 Yes 338.1 No 2.61 No 15.26 Yes Rejected

Mid-3 6.0 981.5 Yes 2.89 Yes 342.3 No 3.84 Yes 17.59 Yes Rejected

Concluded Remark The mixes with bitumen content from 4.5-5.0% in Mid3 curve are suitable because they suit

the selected mechanical properties.

6.7 Max. Mix The curve, the outputs of job mix with different bitumen contents for the Max. mix will be

illustrated.

6.7.1 Max. Curve Mix

The table (6.31) shows the aggregate ratio which needed to obtain the max. gradation with

different bitumen contents. Figure (6.6) illustrates the gradation of the max. and the mix curve.

93

Table (6.31): Aggregate Ratio in Max. Mix


22.00 42.00 20.00 11.00 5.00 0.00 4.00 22.00 42.00 20.00 11.00 5.00 0.00 4.50 22.00 42.00 20.00 11.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 22.00 42.00 20.00 11.00 5.00 0.00 5.50 22.00 42.00 20.00 11.00 5.00 0.00 6.00

0102030405060708090

100


Pass

ing max

mix

Figure (6.6): Gradation of Max and Mix Curves

6.7.2 The Outputs of Job Mix for Max Gradation with Different Bitumen Contents

Tables (6.32), (6.33), (6.34), (6.35), (6.36) show the outputs of the job mix for max. gradation


94

Table (6.32): The Outputs of Job Mix for Max Gradation with 4% Bitumen Content


Volume (cm3)

St Corr. Factor

corrected stability

Flow (mm)

Stiffness (kg/mm)

ρA (g/cm3)

ρBit (g/cm3)

Va (%)

Vb (%)

VMA (%)

VFB (%)

510 1 1390.8 2.89 481.3 2.299 2.535 9.31 8.93 18.24 49.

514.5 1 1769.2 3.31 534.5 2.302 2.535 9.18 8.95 18.13 49.4

511.5 1 1756.1 3.15 557.5 2.296 2.535 9.42 8.92 18.34 48.6

Average 1638.7 3.12 524.4 2.299 2.535 9.3 8.933 18.23 49.0 Table (6.33): The Outputs of Job Mix for Max Gradation with 4.5% Bitumen Content


Volume (cm3)

St Corr. Factor

corrected stability

Flow (mm)

Stiffness (kg/mm)

ρA (g/cm3)

ρBit (g/cm3)

Va (%)

Vb (%)

VMA (%)

VFB (%)

523 0.96 1184.9 2.68 442.1 2.305 2.484 7.22 10.08 18.51 54.4

521 1 1046.4 2.63 397.7 2.298 2.484 7.5 9.97 19.39 51.4

517 1 999.5 2.75 363.4 2.298 2.484 7.51 10.01 19 52.7 Average 1076.9 2.69 401.2 2.292 2.484 7.41 10.02 18.97 52.85

Table (6.34): The Outputs of Job Mix for Max Gradation with 5% Bitumen Content


Volume


corrected stability

Flow (mm)

Stiffness (kg/mm)

ρA (g/cm3)

ρBit (g/cm3)

Va (%)

Vb (%)

VMA (%)

VFB (%)

508.5 1 1703.9 3.5 486.8 2.342 2.434 3.79 11.38 15.16 75

505.5 1.04 1989.2 3.45 576.6 2.346 2.434 3.62 11.39 15.02 75.9

507.5 1.04 1758.5 3.22 546.1 2.352 2.434 3.39 11.42 14.82 77.1

Average 1817.2 3.39 536.5 2.347 2.434 3.6 11.4 15 76

95

Table (6.35): The Outputs of Job Mix for Max Gradation with 5.5% Bitumen Content Bitumen Content 5.5%

Volume


corrected stability

Flow (mm)

Stiffness (kg/mm)

ρA (g/cm3)

ρBit (g/cm3)

Va (%)

Vb (%)

VMA (%)

VFB (%)

514 1 1299.5 2.82 460.8 2.323 2.445 5 12.41 17.41 71.3

516 1 1056.9 2.58 409.6 2.323 2.445 5.02 12.41 17.42 71.2

516 1 1182.1 3.21 368.3 2.328 2.445 4.82 12.43 17.25 72.1

Average 1179.5 2.87 412.9 2.324 2.445 4.95 12.42 17.36 71.5

Table (6.36): The Outputs of Job Mix for Max Gradation with 6% Bitumen Content Bitumen Content 6.0 %

Volume


corrected stability

Flow (mm)

Stiffness (kg/mm)

ρA (g/cm3)

ρBit (g/cm3)

Va (%)

Vb (%)

VMA (%)

VFB (%)

521 1 1208.2 3.47 348.2 2.310 2.417 4.43 13.46 17.89 75.2

508.5 1 1364.8 3.15 433.3 2.362 2.417 2.29 13.77 16.05 85.8

508 1 1195.2 3.46 345.4 2.357 2.417 2.47 13.74 16.21 84.7

Average 1256 3.36 375.6 2.343 2.417 3.06 13.66 16.72 81.91 6.7.3 Conclusion of Job Mix for Max Gradation

Table (6.37) shows the mechanical properties for the average of three samples of the max.

gradation with different bitumen contents and the comparison of the results with the selected


96

Table (6.37): The Conclusion of Job Mix for Max Gradation Mix Bit.

% Stability 900 kg

Flow 2-4 mm


Va (%) 3-6

VMA (%) Min. 13.5

Final Result

Max 4.0 1638.7 Yes 3.12 Yes 524.4 Yes 9.3 No 18.23 Yes Rejected

Max 4.5 1076.9 Yes 2.69 Yes 401.2 Yes 7.41 No 18.97 Yes Suitable

Max 5.0 1817.2 Yes 3.39 Yes 536.5 Yes 3.6 Yes

15 Yes Suitable

Max 5.5 1179.5 Yes 2.87 Yes 412.9 Yes 4.95 yes 17.36 Yes Suitable

Max 6.0 1256 Yes 3.36 Yes 375.6 No 3.06 yes 16.72 Yes Rejected

Concluded Remark The Maximum mixes with bitumen contents from 4.5 - 5.5% e are suitable because they are

suitable for the selected mechanical properties. And from the previous conclusions it is

concluded that Mid3 mix with bitumen content from 4.5 – 5.0 % was suitable. A new gradation

(Mid4) will be added between Mid2 and Mid3 in order to check if it could widen the range of

the suitable mix as illustrated in Table (6.38), Tables (6.39), Figure (6.7) and Figure (6.8).

6.8 Gradation of All Mixes Included Mid4

New gradation (Mid4) is added to check the possibility of widen the range of the suitable mix

as illustrated in Table (6.38), Table (6.39), Figure (6.7) and Figure (6.8).

97

Table (6.38): Gradation of all Mixes Included Mid4

Passing (%) Diameter Size mm

Min (Mix) Mid1 (Mix)

Mid2 (Mix)

Mid3 (Mix)

Mid4 (Mix)

Max (Mix)

25 100.0 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.0 19.0 58 68.5 79 87 89.5 100 12.5 38 52.3 66.5 74 80.8 95 9.5 33 46.8 60.5 66 74.3 88 4.75 23 34 45 51 56 67 2.26 17 26.5 36 40 45.5 55 1.18 14 22 30 34 38 46 0.6 9 16.5 24 28 31.5 39

0.425 6.5 13.6 20.8 24 27.9 35 0.3 4 10.5 17 20 23.5 30 0.15 2.5 6.5 10.5 12 14.5 18.5

0.075 2 4 6 7 8 10

All specification

0102030405060708090

100


Pass

ing

%

Min

Mid1

Mid2

Mid4

Mid3

Max

Figure (6.7): The Gradation for All Mixes Including Mid4

98

6.9 Mid4 Mix


illustrated.

6.9.1 Mid. 4 Curve Mix Table (6.39) shows the aggregate ratio which needed to obtain the mid4 gradation with

different bitumen contents. Figure (6.8) illustrates the gradation of the max. and the mix curve.


Asphalt Mixture

Sand F2 Filler F1 Agg. M3 Agg. M2 Agg. M1 Agg. M0 Bitumen %

14.00 32.00 18.00 15.00 12.00 9.00 4.00 14.00 32.00 18.00 15.00 12.00 9.00 4.50 14.00 32.00 18.00 15.00 12.00 9.00 5.00 14.00 32.00 18.00 15.00 12.00 9.00 5.50 14.00 32.00 18.00 15.00 12.00 9.00 6.00

0102030405060708090

100


Pass

ing Mid4

Mix

Figure (6.8): Gradation of Mid4 Mix

99

6.9.2 The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid4 Gradation with Different Bitumen Content



Table (6.40): The Outputs of Job Mix for Mid4 Gradation with 4% Bitumen Contents



Volume


corrected stability

Flow (mm)

Stiffness (kg/mm)

ρA (g/cm3)

ρBit (g/cm3)

Va (%)

Vb (%)

VMA (%)

VFB (%)

503.5 1.04 1690.7 3.7 456.9 2.379 2.479 4.02 10.4 14.42 72.1

503 1.04 1677.1 3.95 424.6 2.384 2.479 3.84 10.42 14.26 73.1

505 1.04 1785.7 3.79 471.2 2.380 2.479 3.98 10.4 14.38 72.3

Average 1717.8 3.81 450.9 2.381 2.479 3.95 10.41 14.35 72.52

Bitumen Content 4%

Volume (cm3)

St Corr.

Factor

Corrected stability

Flow (mm)

Stiffness (kg/mm)

ρA (g/cm3)

ρBit (g/cm3)

Va (%)

Vb (%)

VMA (%) VFB (%)

505 1.04 1582.2 4.18 378.5 2.376 2.489 4.53 9.23 13.76 67.1

506 1.04 1519.7 3.7 410.7 2.377 2.489 4.48 9.24 13.71 67.4

504 1.04 1500.7 4.2 357.3 2.377 2.489 4.5 9.24 13.73 67.3

Average 1534.2 4.03 382.2 2.377 2.489 4.5 9.24 13.73 67.2

100



Volume


corrected stability

Flow (mm)

Stiffness (kg/mm)

ρA (g/cm3)

ρBit (g/cm3)

Va (%)

Vb (%)

VMA (%)

VFB (%)

508 1.04 1609.3 3.28 490.6 2.352 2.485 5.33 11.42 16.75 68.2

512.5 1 1638.7 3.55 461.6 2.338 2.485 5.92 11.35 17.27 65.7

513 1 1717 3.17 541.6 2.335 2.485 6.01 11.34 17.36 65.4

Average 1655 3.33 498 2.342 2.485 5.75 11.37 17.13 66.43



Volume


corrected stability

Flow (mm)

Stiffness (kg/mm)

ρA (g/cm3)

ρBit (g/cm3)

Va (%)

Vb (%)

VMA (%)

VFB (%)

504 1.04 1460 4.3 339.5 3.379 2.475 3.89 12.71 16.6 76.6

504 1.04 1527 4 382. 3.382 2.475 3.77 12.73 16.49 77.1

504 1.04 1397 4.3 325 3.387 2.475 3.57 12.75 16.32 78.1

Average 1461.9 4.2 348.8 2.383 2.475 3.74 12.73 16.47 77.3



Volume


corrected stability

Flow (mm)

Stiffness (kg/mm)

ρA (g/cm3)

ρBit (g/cm3)

Va (%)

Vb (%)

VMA (%)

VFB (%)

505.5 1.04 1365.1 4.55 300 2.380 2.448 2.78 13.87 16.65 83.3

505 1.04 1337.9 4.6 290.9 2.380 2.448 2.77 13.87 16.64 83.4

503.5 1.04 1316.2 4.2 313.4 2.383 2.448 2.64 13.89 16.53 84.

Average 1339.7 4.45 301.4 2.381 2.448 2.73 13.88 16.61 83.6

101






Concluded Remark

The mixes with bitumen contents 4.5-5.0% in Mid 4 curve are suitable because they achieved

the selected mechanical properties.

6.10 Proposed Specification of Asphalt Binder Course in Palestine

The gradation of the mix which achieved the mechanical properties is illustrated in Table

(6.46) and Figure (6.9)

Mix Bit. (%)

Stability (kg) Flow (mm) Stiffness (kg/mm)

Va (%) VMA (%) Final Result

Max 4.0 1534.2 Yes 4.03 No 382.2 No 4.5 Yes 13.73 Yes Rejection

Max 4.5 1717.8 Yes 3.81 Yes 450.9 Yes 3.95 Yes 14.35 Yes Suitable

Max 5.0 1655.0 Yes 3.33 Yes 498. Yes 5.75 Yes 17.13 Yes Suitable

Max 5.5 1461.9 Yes 4.2 No 348.8 No 3.74 yes 16.47 Yes Rejected

Max 6.0 1339.7 Yes 4.45 No 301.4 No 2.73 No 16.61 Yes Rejected

102

Table (6.46): The Gradation of the Mix which Achieve the Mechanical Properties

Diameter Passing (%) mm Mid4 Max 25 100 100 19 87 100

12.5 74 95 9.5 66 88 4.75 51 67 2.26 40 55 1.18 34 46 0.6 28 39

0.425 24 35 0.3 20 30 0.15 12 18.5

0.075 7 10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Pass

ing Max

Mid4

Figure (6.9): The Gradation of the Proposed Specification

103

6.11 General Discussion

1. The Min curve is rejected because it did not achieve the selected mechanical properties

with all the bitumen content. It was very coarse. This makes the mix unworkable due to the

low percentage of fine materials which makes the absorption of the bitumen very difficult.

In addition to the high percentage of the air voids. The compaction of this mix is very

difficult and needs big efforts and power.

2. The Mid1 curve is rejected because the asphalt mixes with all the bitumen contents did not

achieve the selected mechanical properties. Also, it was coarse and unworkable. In general,

the flow was high and the stability was low which leads to low stiffness.

3. The Mid2 curve is rejected because all the mixes with the different bitumen contents did

not meet the selected mechanical properties. This gradation is relatively coarse and the

value of the flow is big which makes the stiffness low.

4. The Mid3 curve is accepted with bitumen content from 4.5 – 5% because it achieved the

selected mechanical properties. The mix was workable and gave a good surface after the

compaction.

5. The Max curve is accepted with 4.5%, 5.0%, and 5.5% bitumen content. These mixes are a

little bit fine and give a good surface after the compaction.

6. Mid4 curve which was suggested between Mid2 and Mid3 is acceptable with 4.5% and 5%

bitumen content. This curve gave a homogeneous mix and the surface was good after the

compaction.

7. The best asphalt mix for the asphalt binder course is which has Mid4 curve as a minimum

gradation and Max curve as a maximum gradation with 4.5%-5% bitumen content. The

sieve analysis and the gradation of the proposed specification for the asphalt binder course

104

in Palestine are illustrated in figure (6.9) and Table (6.46) with the mechanical properties as

shown in Table (6.47).

Table (6.47): Mechanical Properties for the Proposed Specification

Property Value

Stability (kg) Min 900

Flow (mm) 4 - 2

Stiffness Min 400

Air Voids (%) 3 – 6

VMA (%) Min 13.5

VFB (%) 60 - 80

Bitumen (%) 4.5-5.0

6.12 Comparison between the Proposed Specifications and the Local Requirements

There are several requirements for the asphalt binder course in Palestine. The researcher chose

the Municipality of Gaza requirement to compare it with the proposed specification because it

is the most popular requirement. Table (4.48) and Figure (6.10) show the comparison of the

gradation.

Table (6.48): The Gradation of the Proposed Specification and the MoG Requirements.

MoG Requirements Proposed Gradation Diameter mm Lower Level Upper Level Mid4 Max 25 100 100 100 100 19 100 100 87 100

12.5 80 100 74 95 9.5 70 87 66 88 4.75 50 65 51 67 2.26 37 52 40 55 1.18 29 43 34 46 0.6 20 34 28 39

0.425 17 31 24 35 0.3 13 27 20 30 0.15 8 18 12 18.5

0.075 4 9 7 10

105

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Pass

ing

min MoG

max MoG

min Proposed

max Proposed

Figure (6.10): The Gradation of the Proposed Specification

From Figure (6.10), it is clear that:

1. The percentage of passing aggregate in the fine portion in the proposed specification is

bigger than the MoG Requirements.

2. In the coarse portion, the percentage of passing aggregate in the MoG requirements is

bigger than the proposed specification.

3. The proposed specification is finer than the MoG requirement which leads to fine

surface, homogenous mix, less air voids and more density.

4. The maximum gradation of the proposed one is more flexible than the MoG which

make the preparation of the mix easier.

106

CHAPTER SEVEN

CONCLUDED REMARKS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Introduction

The Palestinians are eager to build their institutions, develop the infrastructure, create an

efficient health care, means build a nation. Transportation sector is important and there are

many players in the transportation sector. The Palestinians need to develop their own

specification for the roads which suits the local materials of the aggregate and bitumen. The

developed specification provided the roads stakeholders with a unified and suitable

specification for the asphalt binder course in Palestine.

7.2 Description of the Proposed Specification

The proposed specification for the asphalt binder course has been developed to help the

implementing agencies, the engineers, the asphalt factories, the engineering consultant offices

and the contractors to overcome the obstacles which caused by the lack of a Palestinian

specification for the asphalt binder course. The developed specification includes the following:

1. The Minimum and Maximum percentage of passing aggregate with bitumen content from

4.5% to 5% as illustrated in Table (6.47) and Figure (6.9).

2. The selected mechanical properties were selected after studying the eleven specifications.

The mix should be workable, able to be compacted, flexible and has a high resistance. The

achieved mechanical properties by the proposed gradation were as shown in Table (7.1).

107

Table (7.1): The Mechanical Properties for the Selected Gradation

Property Value

Stability (kg) Min 900

Flow (mm) 2 – 4

Stiffness (kg/mm) Min 400

Air Voids (%) 3 – 6

VMA % Min 13.5

VFB (%) 60 – 80

Bitumen Content (%) 4.5 - 5

7.3 Conclusions

1. Reviewed specifications have significant limitations when applied to road

construction in Palestine.

2. The developed specification takes into consideration the local materials in Palestine

(aggregates and bitumen).

3. The developed approach will solve the problem and decrease the mistakes which

caused by the differences of the specifications from project to project. This

difference pushes the asphalt factories to change the specification of the asphalt

mixes several times a day to cover the supervision requirements.

4. The adaptation of the developed specification will give it opportunity to be

improved.

108

7.4 Recommendations

1. It is recommended to unify the specification of the asphalt binder course.

2. Further researches are recommended to investigate the mechanical properties and their

impact on the asphalt mix. A research for every mechanical property is recommended.

3. It is recommended to conduct researches to measure the impact of the bitumen types on the

asphalt mix.

4. Further research is recommended to develop specification for the covering layer in

Palestine.

5. It is recommended to apply the developed specifications by all the roads stakeholders.

6. There is a lot needs to be done to improve the overall infrastructure situation in the

Palestinian Territories. The developed specifications for the asphalt binder course will help

in improving the planning and the implementation of the asphalt roads which are a major

component of the infrastructure.

109

REFERENCES

AASHTO M17, American Association State Highway and Transportation Official

Standards Specifications of Fine and Coarse Aggregate.

AASHTO M20, American Association State Highway and Transportation Official


AASHTO T112, American Association State Highway and Transportation Official









Standards Specifications of Fine and Coarse Aggregate


Standards Specifications of Fine and Coarse Aggregate

Al Halabi, (1995). The Transportation Engineering - Engineering Design. The first part.

Engineering Faculty, Aleppo University, Syria.

Al Halabi, (1986). The Roads. The second part. Engineering Faculty, Aleppo University,

Syria.

110

ASTM D692-00, (2002). Annual Book. D692-00 Standards Specification for Coarse aggregate

of Bituminous Paving Mixtures.

ASTM D1073-01, (2002). Annual Book. D1073-01 Standards Specification for Fine

aggregate

of Bituminous Paving Mixtures.

ASTM D5 , (2002). Annual Book. D5-97 Test Method of Penetration of Bituminous Materials.

ASTM D113, (2002). Annual Book. D113-99 Test Method of Ductility of Bituminous

Materials.

ASTM, (2002). Annual Book. D1188 Test Method of Bulk Specific Gravity and Density

Compacted Bituminous Mixtures.

ASTM, (2002). Annual Book. D2041-00 Test Method of Theoretical Maximum Specific

Gravity and Density Bituminous Paving Mixtures.

ASTM D70, (2002). Annual Book. D70-97 Test Method for Specific Gravity and Density of

Semi-solid Bituminous Materials.

ASTM, (2002). Annual Book. D3203-94 (2000). Test Method for Percent Air Voids in

Compacted Dense and Open Bituminous Paving Materials.

ASTM, (2002). Annual Book. D5581-96 (2000). Test Method for Resistance to Plastic

Flow of Bituminous Mixtures Using Marshall Apparatus.

ASTM D36, (2002). Annual Book. D36 Softening Point of Bitumen.

ASTM, (2002). Annual Book. C136-96a Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates.

111

ASTM, (2002). Annual Book. D-75-87 Sampling of Aggregates.

ASTM, (2002). Annual Book. C-117-95 Materials Finer than 75 µm Sieve in Mineral

Aggregates by Washing.

ASTM, (2002). Annual Book. C-29/C29-97- Bulk Density and Voids in Aggregate.

ASTM, (2002). Annual Book. D – 546 -94 Sieve Analysis of mineral Filler for Road and

Paving

Materials.

ASTM V 4.03, (2002). Annual Book. V 4.03 Standards Specification for Coarse aggregate of

Bituminous Paving Mixtures.

BS 594, (1992). British Standards. Hot Rolled Asphalt for Roads and Other Paved

Areas. Part1. Specification for constituent Materials and Asphalt Mixtures.

Second Edition.

BS 812, (1992). British Standards. Hot Rolled Asphalt for Roads and Other Paved

Areas. Part1. Specification for constituent Materials and Asphalt Mixtures.

Second Edition.

MOH, (1998). Egyptian Specifications Road Materials and Testing Volume(VI)

Hamad, (1988). The Roads Engineering. Damascus University, Syria.

Hudson, (1997). Infrastructure Management. MacGraw Hill.

Hwaies, N. & Rasool H., (1985). Paving Asphalt Engineering Book. Iraq.

112

IUG, (1999). Islamic University - Gaza. Mechanical Characteristics Research for AC.

Jendia, (2000). The Roads Engineering – The Structural Design. Islamic University,

Gaza, Palestine.

MOPWH, (1991). Ministry of Public Works and Housing. Specifications for Highway

and Bridge Construction. Volume (II). Jordan.

MoG, (2003). “General Specifications, Special Specifications and Technical Specifications” .

Projects Preparation Department, Municipality of Gaza, Palestine.

MOPWH, (1995). The Palestinian Ministry of Public Work and Housing.

Design the Asphalt Mixes. Prepared by the laboratory department of MOPWH.

Under supervision of the steering committee of the industrial development and

construction materials in Palestine.

Oglesby, (1982). Oglesby H., C., & Hicks G., R. Highway Engineering. Fourth Edition,

Jone Wiley & sons, Inc. New York.

PECDAR, (2003). “Technical Specifications for Projects”. Palestinian Economic Council for

Development and Reconstruction, Palestine.

PS 171 , (1998). “Hot Asphalt Mixture Composition, Production, Transport, Laying and

Compaction. Palestinian Standards Institutes, Palestine.

Rao, (1996). Transportation and Highway Engineering. Tata MacGraw – Hill Publishing

Company Limited, New Delhi.

Salem, (1984). Engineering Roads. Arabian Beirut University. Publication of Dar Alratib.

113

Singh, (2001). Singh G., & Singh J. Highway Engineering. N.C. Jain, Delhi-110 006.

UNRWA, (2003). Road & Infrastructure Specifications. United Nations Relief and Work

Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, Palestine.

http://www.astm.org/ Last Visit Oct. 2004)

http://www.transportation.org/aashto/organization.nsf, Last Visit (Sept. 2004)

http://www.astm.org/

http://www.transportation.org/aashto/organization.nsf

114

Appendix A

Mathematical Trail Method to Merge Aggregate Mixes

115

Appendix A: Mathematical Trail Method to Merge Aggregate Mixes

1. Binder Course (Min. Mix)

Aggregate

Grain size (mm)

النسب المقترحة

Mixture < 0.075 0.075/0.15 0.15/0.30 0.30/0.425 0.425/0.6 0.6/1.18 1.18/2 2/4.75 4.75/9.5 9.5/12.5 12.5/19 19/25 للحصویات المتوفرة

Filler 23.77 4.55 7.84 3.29 4.68 11.76 18.08 20.35 4.17 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.15 3.57 0.68 1.18 0.49 0.70 1.76 2.71 3.05 0.63 0.23 0.00 0.00

Natural Sand 2.00 0.80 44.93 35.60 16.27 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.02 1.35 1.07 0.49 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Semmsemya 3.85 0.31 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.31 2.00 18.77 73.02 1.29 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.19 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.10 0.94 3.65 0.06 0.00 0.00

Adasya 2.24 0.06 0.09 0.03 0.03 0.15 0.15 1.99 34.82 38.16 21.29 0.98 0.10 0.22 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.20 3.48 3.82 2.13 0.10

Folya 4 1.52 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04 1.33 4.92 89.67 2.34 0.30 0.46 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.40 1.48 26.90 0.70

Folya 5 1.06 0.09 0.09 0.04 0.09 0.27 0.37 0.64 1.28 4.03 79.41 12.61 0.37 0.39 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.10 0.14 0.24 0.47 1.49 29.38 4.67

Summation 4.9 0.8 2.6 1.6 1.2 1.9 3.0 4.4 8.6 7.1 58.4 5.5 100.0 Gradation

curve 4.9 5.7 8.2 9.8 11.1 13.0 16.0 20.4 29.0 36.1 94.5 100.0 Required

curve 6.00 10.50 17.00 20.80 24.00 30.00 36.00 45.00 60.50 66.50 79.00 100.00

116

2. Binder Course (Mid1 Mix)

Aggregate

Grain size (mm)



Filler 23.77 4.55 7.84 3.29 4.68 11.76 18.08 20.35 4.17 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.26 6.18 1.18 2.04 0.86 1.22 3.06 4.70 5.29 1.08 0.40 0.00 0.00

Natural Sand 2.00 0.80 44.93 35.60 16.27 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.03 1.80 1.42 0.65 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Semmsemya 3.85 0.31 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.31 2.00 18.77 73.02 1.29 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.39 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.20 1.88 7.30 0.13 0.00 0.00

Adasya 2.24 0.06 0.09 0.03 0.03 0.15 0.15 1.99 34.82 38.16 21.29 0.98 0.10 0.22 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.20 3.48 3.82 2.13 0.10

Folya 4 1.52 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04 1.33 4.92 89.67 2.34 0.20 0.30 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.27 0.98 17.93 0.47

Folya 5 1.06 0.09 0.09 0.04 0.09 0.27 0.37 0.64 1.28 4.03 79.41 12.61 0.30 0.32 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.08 0.11 0.19 0.38 1.21 23.82 3.78


curve 7.5 8.8 12.7 15.0 16.9 20.1 25.1 32.7 45.2 51.8 95.6 100.0 Required

curve 4.00 6.50 10.50 13.60 16.50 22.00 26.50 34.00 46.75 52.25 68.50 100.00

117


Aggregate

Grain size (mm)



Filler 23.77 4.55 7.84 3.29 4.68 11.76 18.08 20.35 4.17 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.33 7.84 1.50 2.59 1.09 1.54 3.88 5.97 6.72 1.38 0.50 0.00 0.00

Natural Sand 2.00 0.80 44.93 35.60 16.27 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.08 4.49 3.56 1.63 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Semmsemya 3.85 0.31 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.31 2.00 18.77 73.02 1.29 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.77 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.40 3.75 14.60 0.26 0.00 0.00

Adasya 2.24 0.06 0.09 0.03 0.03 0.15 0.15 1.99 34.82 38.16 21.29 0.98 0.09 0.20 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.18 3.13 3.43 1.92 0.09

Folya 4 1.52 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04 1.33 4.92 89.67 2.34 0.13 0.20 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.17 0.64 11.66 0.30

Folya 5 1.06 0.09 0.09 0.04 0.09 0.27 0.37 0.64 1.28 4.03 79.41 12.61 0.15 0.16 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.19 0.60 11.91 1.89


curve 9.4 11.0 18.2 22.9 26.1 30.1 36.6 47.3 66.8 72.2 97.7 100.0 Required

curve 6.00 10.50 17.00 20.80 24.00 30.00 36.00 45.00 60.50 66.50 79.00 100.00

118


Aggregate

Grain size (mm)



Filler 23.77 4.55 7.84 3.29 4.68 11.76 18.08 20.35 4.17 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.35 8.32 1.59 2.74 1.15 1.64 4.12 6.33 7.12 1.46 0.53 0.00 0.00

Natural Sand 2.00 0.80 44.93 35.60 16.27 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.36 0.14 8.09 6.41 2.93 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Semmsemya 3.85 0.31 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.31 2.00 18.77 73.02 1.29 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.65 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.34 3.19 12.41 0.22 0.00 0.00

Adasya 2.24 0.06 0.09 0.03 0.03 0.15 0.15 1.99 34.82 38.16 21.29 0.98 0.13 0.29 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.26 4.53 4.96 2.77 0.13

Folya 4 1.52 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04 1.33 4.92 89.67 2.34 0.10 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.49 8.97 0.23

Folya 5 1.06 0.09 0.09 0.04 0.09 0.27 0.37 0.64 1.28 4.03 79.41 12.61 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.09 0.28 5.56 0.88


curve 9.9 11.7 22.5 30.1 34.7 39.0 45.7 56.4 75.0 81.5 98.8 100.0 Required

curve 8.00 14.50 23.50 27.90 31.50 38.00 45.50 56.00 74.25 80.75 89.50 100.00

119

5. Binder Course (Max. Mix)

Aggregate

Grain size (mm)



Filler 23.77 4.55 7.84 3.29 4.68 11.76 18.08 20.35 4.17 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.42 9.98 1.91 3.29 1.38 1.97 4.94 7.59 8.55 1.75 0.64 0.00 0.00

Natural Sand 2.00 0.80 44.93 35.60 16.27 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.44 0.18 9.88 7.83 3.58 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Semmsemya 3.85 0.31 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.31 2.00 18.77 73.02 1.29 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.77 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.40 3.75 14.60 0.26 0.00 0.00

Adasya 2.24 0.06 0.09 0.03 0.03 0.15 0.15 1.99 34.82 38.16 21.29 0.98 0.11 0.25 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.22 3.83 4.20 2.34 0.11

Folya 4 1.52 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04 1.33 4.92 89.67 2.34 0.05 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.25 4.48 0.12

Folya 5 1.06 0.09 0.09 0.04 0.09 0.27 0.37 0.64 1.28 4.03 79.41 12.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


curve 11.5 13.7 26.9 36.1 41.7 46.8 54.8 67.4 87.6 93.0 99.8 100.0 Required

curve 10.00 18.50 30.00 35.00 39.00 46.00 55.00 67.00 88.00 95.00 100.00 100.00

120


Aggregate

Grain size (mm)



Filler 23.77 4.55 7.84 3.29 4.68 11.76 18.08 20.35 4.17 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.32 7.61 1.46 2.51 1.05 1.50 3.76 5.79 6.51 1.33 0.49 0.00 0.00

Natural Sand 2.00 0.80 44.93 35.60 16.27 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.28 0.11 6.29 4.98 2.28 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Semmsemya 3.85 0.31 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.31 2.00 18.77 73.02 1.29 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.69 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.36 3.38 13.14 0.23 0.00 0.00

Adasya 2.24 0.06 0.09 0.03 0.03 0.15 0.15 1.99 34.82 38.16 21.29 0.98 0.15 0.34 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.30 5.22 5.72 3.19 0.15

Folya 4 1.52 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04 1.33 4.92 89.67 2.34 0.12 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.59 10.76 0.28

Folya 5 1.06 0.09 0.09 0.04 0.09 0.27 0.37 0.64 1.28 4.03 79.41 12.61 0.09 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.12 0.36 7.15 1.13


curve 9.2 10.8 19.7 25.8 29.6 33.5 39.7 50.0 69.9 77.3 98.4 100.0 Required

curve 7.00 12.00 20.00 24.00 28.00 34.00 40.00 51.00 66.00 74.00 87.00 100.00

121

Appendix B

The Inputs of the Binder Course Job Mixes

122

Appendix B: The Inputs of the Binder Course Job Mixes

Inputs of Min Gradation Job Mix with Different Bitumen Contents Determination of Mix

Density Sample No. 7

Wt in air (g)

Wt in Water

(g)

Wt SSD (g)

Stability Reading

Flow Reading

Wt of pych.+ water

1520.00

1 1200.00 697.5 1215 360.00 3.33 Wt of sample 494.5

2 1198.5 693.5 1214.5 350.00 2.73

Wt of sample+

Pych. +water 1816


Spe

cim

en N

o.

3 1202.0 699.0 1219.0 380.00 3.28 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.491

determination of mix

density Sample No. 10

Wt in air (g)

Wt in Water

(g)

Wt SSD (g)

Stability Reading

Flow Reading

Wt of pych.+ water

1520.00

1 1190.5 683.5 1209 290 5 Wt of sample 442.5

2 1182 683 1198.5 310 5.04

Wt of sample+

Pych. +water 1785.5

Bit Content 4.50%

Spe

cim

en N

o.

3 1188 682.5 1208 260 4.67 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.5



Wt in air (g)

Wt in Water

(g)

Wt SSD (g)

Stability Reading

Flow Reading

Wt of pych.+ water

1520.00

1 1195 683.5 1205 348 3.1 Wt of sample 482.

2 1198 687 1210 330 3.16

Wt of sample+

Pych. +water 1804

Bit Content

5 S

peci

men

No.

3 1206.5 688 1217.5 360 3.25 ρbit 2.434



Wt in air (g)

Wt in Water

(g)

Wt SSD (g)

Stability Reading

Flow Reading

Wt of pych.+ water

1520.00

1 1197.5 694 1219 280 3.44 Wt of sample 486

2 1192 682 1211 300 3.67

Wt of sample+

Pych. +water 1807

Bit Content

5.5% S

peci

men

No.

3 1206 681 1213.5 260 3.53 ρbit (g/cm3) 2442

123



Wt in air (g)

Wt in Water

(g)

Wt SSD (g)

Stability Reading

Flow Reading

Wt of pych.+ water

1520.00

1 1194.5 685 1213 305 3.4 Wt of sample 462.5

2 1194.5 678.5 1208 365 3.75

Wt of sample+

Pych. +water 1794

Bit Content 6.00%

Spe

cim

en N

o.

3 1190 678.5 1210 300 3.48 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.454

Inputs of Mid1 Gradation Job Mix with Different Bitumen Contents


density Sample No.

21

Wt in air (g)

Wt in Water

(g)

Wt SSD (g)

Stability Reading

Flow Reading

Wt of pych.+ water

1520

1 1203.5 694.5 1213 280 3.75 Wt of sample 511

2 1207.5 702.5 1220 260 4.08

Wt of sample+

Pych. +water 1825.5


Spe

cim

en N

o.

3 1200.5 697 1215 300 3.5 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.487



Wt in air (g)

Wt in Water

(g)

Wt SSD (g)

Stability Reading

Flow Reading

Wt of pych.+ water

1520

1 1198.5 689.5 1205 280 2.54 Wt of sample 465.5

2 1197.5 689.5 1206 310 4.42

Wt of sample+

Pych. +water 1798.5

Bit Content 4.5%

Spe

cim

en N

o.

3 1200.5 689 1205.5 320 4.61 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.489


density Sample No. 23 Wt in

air (g)

Wt in Water

(g)

Wt SSD (g)

Stability Reading

Flow Reading

Wt of pych.+ water

1520

1 1200.5 695 1206 402 3.75 Wt of sample 476

2 1201 691 1207 340 4.42

Wt of sample+

Pych. +water 1803

Bit Content 5.00%

Spe

cim

en N

o.

3 1204 695.5 1209.5 325 4.61 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.466

124



Wt in air (g)

Wt in Water

(g)

Wt SSD (g)

Stability Reading

Flow Reading

Wt of pych.+ water

1520

1 1199.5 693 1207.5 360 3.88 Wt of sample 449

2 1204.5 693 1211.5 340 3.79

Wt of sample+

Pych. +water 1784.5

Bit Content 5.5

Spe

cim

en N

o.

3 1180 693 1200.5 330 3.08 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.434


density Sample

No. 25

Wt in air (g)

Wt in Water

(g)

Wt SSD (g)

Stability Reading

Flow Reading

Wt of pych.+ water

1520

1 1205 692.5 1211.5 410 3.33 Wt of sample 460.5

2 1198.5 691.5 1201.5 415 3.54

Wt of sample+

Pych. +water 1791

Bit Content 6.00%

Spe

cim

en N

o.

3 1213.5 701.5 1216.5 460 3.25 ρbit (g/cm3)

2.430 Inputs of Mid2 Gradation Job Mix with Different Bitumen Contents



Wt in air (g)

Wt in Water

(g)

Wt SSD (g)

Stability Reading

Flow Reading

Wt of pych.+ water

1520.00

Bit Content 1 1194.5 689 1197 672 4.29 Wt of sample 588.5

4.00% 2 1197.5 693.5 1203 548 3.88

Wt of sample+

Pych. +water 1876

Spe

cim

en N

o.

3 1189 687.5 1194 556 4.05 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.531



Wt in air (g)

Wt in Water

(g)

Wt SSD (g)

Stability Reading

Flow Reading

Wt of pych.+ water

1520.00

Bit Content 1 1195 694.5 1197 645 4.24 Wt of sample 507.5

4.50% 2 1197.5 698 1202 621 4.28

Wt of sample+

Pych. +water 1824

Spe

cim

en N

o.

3 1197 695 1200 654 4.37 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.494

125


density Sample

No. 14

Wt in air (g)

Wt in Water

(g)

Wt SSD (g)

Stability Reading

Flow Reading

Wt of pych.+ water

1520.00

Bit Content 1 1201.5 700.5 1202.5 598 4.87 Wt of sample 472

5.00% 2 1196.5 697 1197 612 4.69

Wt of sample+

Pych. +water 1802

Spe

cim

en N

o.

3 1199.5 696. 1201.5 592 4.79 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.491


density Sample

No. 12

Wt in air (g)

Wt in Water

(g)

Wt SSD (g)

Stability Reading

Flow Reading

Wt of pych.+ water

1520.00

Bit Content 1 1198 695.5 1200 503 4.52 Wt of sample 472

5.5% 2 1286.5 747 1288 570 4.79

Wt of sample+

Pych. +water 1802.5

Spe

cim

en N

o.

3 1199 697.5 1200 504 4.51 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.491



Wt in air (g)

Wt in Water

(g)

Wt SSD (g)

Stability Reading

Flow Reading

Wt of pych.+ water

1520.00

Bit Content 1 1204 699 1205.5 498 5.26 Wt of sample 455.

6.00% 2 1202 700 1203.5 462 5.23

Wt of sample+

Pych. +water 1788.5

Spe

cim

en N

o.

3 1201 700.5 1202.5 464 5.33 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.440 Inputs of Mid3 Gradation Job Mix with Different Bitumen Contents



Wt in air (g)

Wt in Water

(g)

Wt SSD (g)

Stability Reading

Flow Reading

Wt of pych.+ water

1520.00

1 1193 683 1194.5 800 4.08 Wt of sample 501.5

2 1188 682.5 1190.5 780 4.33

Wt of sample+

Pych. +water 1823.5

Bit Content

4.0% S

peci

men

No.

3 1194.5 683.5 1196 960 4.25 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.533

126


density Sample

No. 3

Wt in air (g)

Wt in Water

(g)

Wt SSD (g)

Stability Reading

Flow Reading

Wt of pych.+ water

1520.00

1 1187 685.5 1188.5 610 3.7 Wt of sample 473

2 1186.5 686 1188 615 3.83 Wt of sample+ Pych. +water 1802

Bit Content

4.5% S

peci

men

No.

3 1203.5 691 1205.5 580 3.54 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.476

determination of mix density Sample

No. 5

Wt in air (g)

Wt in Water

(g)

Wt SSD (g)

Stability Reading

Flow Reading Wt of pych.+

water 1520.00

1 1199 690.5 1200 618 3.44 Wt of sample 497

2 1197 689 1198.5 648 3.31

Wt of sample+

Pych. +water 1814

Bit Content

5.0% S

peci

men

No.

3 1195 690 1196.5 640 3.25 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.448


No. 2

Wt in air (g)

Wt in Water

(g)

Wt SSD (g)

Stability Reading


water 1520.00

1 1197.5 693 1199 485 3.92 Wt of sample 476.5

2 1202 696 1203.5 470 3.79

Wt of sample+

Pych. +water 1800.5

Bit Content

5.5% S

peci

men

No.

3 1203 696.5 1204.5 485 3.92 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.431


No. 1

Wt in air (g)

Wt in Water

(g)

Wt SSD (g)

Stability Reading


water 1520.00

1 1213. 699.5 1214.5 360 2.68 Wt of sample 460

2 1194.5 690.5 1196 355 2.68

Wt of sample+

Pych. +water 1820.5

Bit Content

6.0% S

peci

men

No.

3 1199.5 692 1200.5 390 3.3 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.453

127

Inputs of Max Gradation Job Mix with Different Bitumen Content

determination of mix density

Sample No. 20

Wt in air (g)

Wt in Water

(g)

Wt SSD (g)

Stability Reading


water 1520.00

1 1172.5 663. 1173 530 2.89 Wt of sample 471.5

2 1184.5 670.5 1185 675 3.31

Wt of sample+

Pych. +water 1805.5

Bit Content

4.0% S

peci

men

No.

3 1174.5 665. 1176.5 670 3.15 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.535


No. 17

Wt in air (g)

Wt in Water

(g)

Wt SSD (g)

Stability Reading


water 1520.00

1 1205.5 684.5 1207.5 470 2.68 Wt of sample 472

2 1188 668.5 1189.5 398 2.63

Wt of sample+

Pych. +water 1804.5

Bit Content

4.5% S

peci

men

No.

3 1184.5 670 1187 380 2.75 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.517


density Sample

No. 19

Wt in air (g)

Wt in Water

(g)

Wt SSD (g)

Stability Reading

Flow Reading

Wt of pych.+ water

1520.00

1 1191 683 1191.5 650 3.5 Wt of sample 482

2 1186 681 1186.5 730 3.45

Wt of sample+

Pych. +water 1804

Bit Content

5.0% S

peci

men

No.

3 1193.5 687 1194.5 645 3.22 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.434


density Sample

No. 16

Wt in air (g)

Wt in Water

(g)

Wt SSD (g)

Stability Reading

Flow Reading

Wt of pych.+ water

1520.00

1 1194 681 1195 495 2.82 Wt of sample 469.5

2 1198 683.5 1199.5 402 2.58

Wt of sample+

Pych. +water 1797.5

Bit Content

5.5% Spe

cim

en N

o.

3 1201 686 1202 450 3.21 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.445

128


density Sample

No. 18

Wt in air (g)

Wt in Water

(g)

Wt SSD (g)

Stability Reading

Flow Reading

Wt of pych.+ water

1520.00

1 1203.5 683 1204 460 3.47 Wt of sample 481.

2 1201 693.5 1202 520 3.15

Wt of sample+

Pych. +water 1802.0

Bit Content

6.0% S

peci

men

No.

3 1197 690 1198 455 3.46 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.417

Inputs of Max Gradation Job Mix with Different Bitumen Contents



Wt in air (g)

Wt in Water

(g)

Wt SSD (g)

Stability Reading

Flow Reading

Wt of pych.+ water

1520.00

1 1200 697 1202 580 4.18 Wt of sample 560

2 1203 699 1205 557 3.7

Wt of sample+

Pych. +water 1855

Bit Content

4.0%

Spe

cim

en N

o.

3 1198 696.5 1200.5 550 4.2 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.489



Wt in air (g)

Wt in Water

(g)

Wt SSD (g)

Stability Reading

Flow Reading

Wt of pych.+ water

1520.00

1 1198 696 1199.5 620 3.7 Wt of sample 528

2 1199 698 1201 615 3.95

Wt of sample+

Pych. +water 1835

Bit Content

4.5% S

peci

men

No.

3 1202 699 1204 655 3.79 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.479


density Sample

No. 14

Wt in air (g)

Wt in Water

(g)

Wt SSD (g)

Stability Reading

Flow Reading

Wt of pych.+ water

1520.00

1 1195 688 1196 590 3.28 Wt of sample 4.87

2 1198 686 1198.5 625 3.55

Wt of sample+

Pych. +water 1811

Bit Content

5.0% S

peci

men

No.

3 1198 686 1199 655 3.17 ρbit (g/cm3) 4.485

129

determination of mix density

Sample No. 12

Wt in air (g)

Wt in Water

(g)

Wt SSD (g)

Stability Reading


water 1520.00

1199 696 1200 535 4.3 Wt of sample 500

1200.5 697 1201 560 4.0

Wt of sample+

Pych. +water 1818

Bit Content

5.5% S

peci

men

No.

1203 700 1204 512 4.3 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.475



Wt in air (g)

Wt in Water

(g)

Wt SSD (g)

Stability Reading

Flow Reading

Wt of pych.+ water

1520.00

1 1203 698 1203.5 500 4.55 Wt of sample 470

2 1202 698 1203 490 4.6

Wt of sample+

Pych. +water 1798

Bit Content

6.0% S

peci

men

No.

3 1200 697 1200.5 482 4.2 ρbit (g/cm3) 2.448

130

Appendix C

Photos Show the Method of the Work in the Laboratory

131

Figure (1): Drying of Aggregates After Washing .

Figure (2): Weighting of Aggregate for Sieve Analysis Test.

132

Figure (3): Pycnometer Test

Figure (4): Specific Gravity of Aggregates

133

Figure (5): Place of Bitumen in Containers.

Figure (6): Place of Bitumen and Aggregate in Oven

134

Figure (7): Mix of a Sample in the Mold

Figure (8): Mix of Sample in the Mold

135

Figure (9); Dividing of the Mixture in Containers

Figure (10): Dividing of the Mixture in Containers

136

Figure (11): Compact of Samples

Figure (12): Removing Marshall Samples from Molds

137

Figure (13): Marshal Test

Islamic University of Gaza High Studies Deanery Faculty of ... · Islamic University of Gaza High...

Documents

Transcript of Islamic University of Gaza High Studies Deanery Faculty of ... · Islamic University of Gaza High...