BITUMINOUS MIX DESIGN

Objective: To select and proportion aggregates and asphalt to yield a mix

with satisfactory durability, stability, workability, flexibility and
safety characteristics.
Durability
• Sufficient asphalt to coat aggregate against weathering
• Sufficient asphalt to make surface water tight
• Aggregate resistant to abrasion

Stability
• Sufficient frictional and interlocking resistance from aggregate
• Sufficient asphalt in voids to provide cohesion

Workability
• Aggregate gradation for compactability
• Sufficient asphalt for placement
• Sufficient asphalt to prevent segregation

Flexibility
• Sufficient air voids to allow further compaction or volume change
• Sufficient asphalt to prevent cracking upon deflection

Safety
• Sufficient air voids to prevent bleeding (flushing, fatting)
• Aggregate with high polishing resistance
• Coarse surface texture

- To determine the combination of asphalt and aggregate give long lasting

performance
- Involved cost effective blend that is
o Sufficient asphalt - to ensure durable pavement
o sufficient strength - satisfy the demands of traffic without distortion
o sufficient voids - allow slight additional compaction & asphalt
expansion
o Not too high voids - limit permeability
o sufficient workability - efficient placement
o proper surface texture - provide skid resistance

1
Factors Affecting Properties of Bituminous Mix:

1. Type & viscosity of binder

2. Type of mineral aggregate
3. Proportion of binder
4. Grading of aggregate

Steps in Bituminous Mix Design

1. Selecting the Aggregates

Aggregates to be of good quality (durable). Hard, hydrophobic, rough-
textured and have a grading satisfying workability permeability,
economy and (for wearing Course) skid resistance requirements.

2. Selecting the Binder

To match the selected aggregates and with properties providing good
workability, durability, stability requirements.

3. Mix Proportioning
To provide an acceptable safety margin against various modes of
‘damage’ for the design traffic level.

2
Bituminous Mixtures Wt-Volume Calculations

WA
VV Air Voids
VA =
0 SAγ W
VA Asphalt WA WMF
VMF =
S MF γ W
VMF Mineral Filler WMF
WFA
Fine Agg VFA =
VFA WFA S FA γ W

VCA Coarse Agg WCA

WCA VCA =
S CA γ W

VT WT

Vol. occupied by agg. in compacted mix = VCA + VFA + VMF

Vol. in mix not occupied by agg. = VT – (VCA + VFA + VMF)

= VA + VV

% air voids = Vv / VT x 100%

% voids filled with asphalt = VA / (VA + VV) x 100%

% asphalt =
WA
x 100% as % weight of total mix
WT
WA
= as % weight of total agg.
WCA + WFA + WMF

WT
Theoretical max mix density (zero void) D=
VT − VV

Bulk density of compacted mix, d =

WT
VT Including VV
3
 D-d WT
Note: % air void = x100%, where d =
D VT

Voids in Mineral Aggregate (VMA)

- Volume of intergranular void space between the aggregate particles of a
compacted paving mixture that include the air voids and the effective
asphalt content, expressed as a % of the total volume of sample

Air Voids (Vv)

- The total volume of small pockets of air between the coated aggregate
particles throughout a compacted paving mixture, expressed as % of
bulk volume of compacted sample

Voids filled with asphalt (VFA)

- The % of the volume of the VMA that is filled with asphalt cement

Effective asphalt content

- The total asphalt content of a paving mixture minus the portion of asphalt
that is lost by absorption into the aggregate particles

It is important that absorption of asphalt by aggregate be considered

in the weight-volume calculation

e.g. For 80 – 100 pen Asphalt

Granite 0.27% absorption by wt. of aggregate
Limestone 2.46%
Sandstone 2.54%

4
Wt-Vol Analysis using Block Diagram

Air Vv

Effective Asphalt
VFA VMA VA
Asphalt

Absorbed Asphalt VAsb

VD VT
Mineral Aggregate Vagg
Ve

Bulk density of mix, d = WT / VT (or Sm)

Theoretical max mix density, D = WT / VD

Bulk density of agg Sagg = Wagg / Vagg

Void in mineral agg = VMA

Effective aggregate density Se = Wagg / Ve

Volume of asphalt = VA

Volume of absorbed asphalt = VAsb

Volume of effective asphalt content = VA – VAsb

Note: (1) All sp. gr. to nearest 0.001

(2) All weights to an accuracy of 0.1g

5
Example of Wt-Vol Analysis using Block Diagram

W V = 100 ml

0 Air VV = 4.060 (4)

(3) 238.7x6.50% Asphalt 100-4.060-84.253

= 15.515 =11.687 (6)

(2) 238.7x(1-6.50%) agg 223.185/2.649

= 223.185 = 84.253 (5)

(1) 100Smix = 238.7 g

Given Smix = 2.387 g/ml and the asphalt used in mix preparation is 6.50% of
total mix in order to achieve an air void content of 4.06%. Compute the
asphalt absorption of the aggregate, and the effective asphalt content. The
specific gravity of asphalt is 1.010. The bulk specific gravity of the aggregate
blend is 2.649.
238.7
D= = 2.488 g/ml
11.687 + 84.243

238.7
d = Smix = 100 = 2.387 g/ml

4.060 +11.687
%VMA = x x 100% = 15.747 g/ml
100

Mass of asphalt absorbed = 15.515 – (11.687 x 1.010) = 3.711 g

Asphalt absorption = 3.711 / 223.185 = 1.66% of agg. Wt.

Eff. asphalt content = (11.687 x 1.010) / 238.7 = 4.95 % of total mix wt.

6
BITUMINOUS SURFACINGS

(Wearing course + Basecourse) UK

(Wearing course + Binder course) US

Functions of Surfacings
(1) Provide good quality riding surface with adequate skid
resistance
(2)Provide water-tight surface
(3)Structural layer

Note: (a) Many flexible pavements are built of one layer of

surfacing, without distinction between wearing and
binder courses.
(b) Wearing course is usually somewhat thinner than binder
course.
(c) Wearing course is somewhat stronger and denser; Smaller
aggregates and slightly more bitumen in wearing course.
(d) Tack coat at interface of wearing course and binder course.
Prime coat between binder and base (roadbase). Seal
coat may be applied to the top of wearing course.

Types of Surfacing Materials

♦ A wide (and confusing to many) range of bituminous surfacing

material is available.
♦ Basically all consist of aggregate particles (crushed rock, slag,
gravel or sand) bound together by tar or bitumen.
♦ Difference lies in
 type, viscosity and proportion of binder used
 maximum size and grading of aggregate
 type of aggregate (e.g. limestone, granite)
 presence or absence of filler (e.g. limestone dust, cement)

7
Dense-graded Asphalt
- Relatively impermeable and suitable for all pavement layers and traffic
conditions
- Can be coarse or fine and normally referred to their nominal maximum
aggregate
- Examples: LTA’s W1, W3, W3B, B1 mix

Open-graded Asphalt
- Called porous asphalt, is designed to be water permeable
- High air voids content: 15% to 25%
- Used to reduce tire splash/spray in wet weather, and to reduce noise

Stone Mastic Asphalt

- Gap graded asphalt is designed to maximise permanent deformation or
rutting resistance
- Stones interlock each other and provide the rut resistance

8
OPTIMAL BINDER CONTENT DETERMINATION
Marshall Mix Design Method
- Formulated by Bruce Marshall, Engineer with Mississippi State Highway
Department
- Intended for lab design and field control for dense mix only
- Empirical in nature, relative field behaviour is lost when reheated or
remoulded
- Advantage:
o Ensure proper analysis of void properties
o Relatively inexpensive for QC
- Disadvantages:
o Does not simulate mixture densification
o Does not measure shear strength
o Does not ensure rutting resistance of mix
Feature of Marshall Mix design Method:
- Material meet physical requirements
- Combined aggregate meet gradation requirements
- Bulk SG of all aggregate and binder for density & voids analysis
- Two principal features: density-voids analysis & stability-flow test
- Standard Marshall specimen: 64 mm (2.5”) ht x 102 mm diameter

Marshall Mix Design Procedure

1. Proportioning of Aggregates

9
 % of coarse % fine % , 75 µm, C
aggregate, A aggregate, B
Wearing 45 46 9
Course

A = % coarse aggregate > 2.36 mm

B = % fine aggregate < 2.36 mm, > 75 µm
C = % material < 75 µm

 Suggested mass of aggregate for each specimen = 1100g

2. Proportioning of Binder Content

 At least 9 binder contents at intervals of 0.5% of total mix.

 At least 3 binder contents on each side of the optimum value.
 Prepare 3 specimens for each binder contents.
 Usual range of binder contents: 4% - 13% by mass of total mix.
 Mass of binder per specimen = w% / (100 – w%) x (mass of agg)

3. Mixing and Compaction of Specimens

• Heat agg to 110 ± 3 oC above the softening point of binder.

• Heat binder to 110 ± 3 oC above its softening point.
• Mix and place in 101.6 mm φ steel mould. Apply 50 blows each side
with a steel hammer 7850 ± 50 g, 457 ± 5 mm free fall, at a rate of 60 ±
5 blows per minute. Final specimen height 63.4 ± 3 mm.

Measure Mix Density of Compacted Specimen

Sm (mix density ) = A / (A – B) (g/ml)

where A = wt of dry specimen in air, g

B = wt of specimen immersed in water at 20 ± 1 oC, g

Compacted Aggregate Density of Specimen

SA = Sm x (100 – w%) / 100

where w% = % binder by total mass of mix

10
4. Marshall Stability Test

• Specimen (lying on its side) is tested at 60 ± 0.5 oC in a split

cylindrical loading head. Load is applied at a rate of 50 ± 3 mm/min
until failure.

• The max load in kN is recorded as the stability value, and the

vertical deformation at max load is the flow value.

5. Selection of Optimal Binder Content

For each of the following five properties, calculate the mean of each
of the sets of 3 specimens of the same binder content,
and plot against binder content:
1. Marshall stability
2. Mix density
3. Compacted agg density
4. Flow value
5. Air void

Note: % air void in a specimen is computed as follows:

WA + WB
Theoretical max. density =
WA WB
+
G A GB

where WA = agg wt
WB = binder wt

% Air Voids = D _ Sm
x 100%
D

Calculate the design binder content as the mean value of the binder
contents determined for max stability, max mix density, and max agg
density.

Check that all spec requirements are met.

11
 Marshall Stability Mix Density (g/ml) Compacted Agg.
(kN) Density (g/ml)

a b c
% Binder by mass % Binder by mass % Binder by mass

Flow Value (mm) % Air Voids

Design Binder Content (%)

= (a + b + c)
3

% Binder by mass % Binder by mass

Limitation of Marshall Test

1. Based upon empirical correlation with actual road surfacing

behaviour
(e.g. choice of aggregate & filler proportions)
2. Direction of test loading different from that of compaction.
3. Does not reflect effect of repetitive loadings.
4. Effect of environmental and aging factors not included.

12
 Bituminous Mix Design Requirements
U.S. Asphalt Institute MS-2 Marshall Mix Design (1997 Edition) Criteria:

Light Traffic Medium Traffic Heavy Traffic

Min Max Min Max Min Max
Compaction, no of blows
each end of specimen 35 50 75

Stability, N 3336 -- 5338 -- 8006 --

Flow, 0.25 mm 8 18 8 16 8 14

% Air Voids 3 5 3 5 3 5

% VMA see table

% VFA 70 80 65 78 65 75

Nominal Max Minimum VMA, %

Particle size Design Air voids, %
mm 3.0 4.0 5.0
1.18 21.5 22.5 23.5
2.36 19.0 20.0 21.0
4.75 16.0 17.0 18.0
9.5 14.0 15.0 16.0
12.5 13.0 14.0 15.0
19 12.0 13.0 14.0
25 11.0 12.0 13.0
37.5 10.0 11.0 12.0
50 9.5 10.5 11.5
63 9.0 10.0 11.0
Nominal Maximum particle size is one size larger than the
first sieve to retain more than 10%

13
British Standard:
BS 594:1985 Criteria:

Commercial Vehicles Marshall Stability Flow

per Lane per Day
< 1500 2 – 8 kN ≤ 5 mm
1500 – 6000 4 – 8 kN ≤ 5 mm
> 6000 6 – 10 kN ≤ 5 mm for 6 – 8 kN
≤ 7 mm for 9 – 10 kN

14
AASHTO SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
(See classification table)

• Design for highway use.

• Classifies soils according to their suitability as pavement subgrade.
• Soils having the same general load-carrying capacity and service
characteristics are grouped to form 7 basic groups which are
subdivided into 12 subgroup.
• Lab determination – particle size distribution; LL; PI (PL)

Soil Fractions
Gravel No. 10 – 3” (75 mm)
Coarse sand No. 40 – No. 10 (2.0 mm)
Fine sand No. 200 – No. 40 (0.425 mm)
Silt, clay Passing No. 200 (0.075 mm)

Classification Procedure:

1. Information required - % passing No. 10 (2mm)

No. 40 (0.425mm)
No. 200 (0.075mm)
LL, PI for fraction passing No. 40

2. Use classification table

15
1
Types of Soils in Soil Groups

Two major soil classes:

(A) Granular materials ≤ 35% passing No. 200
(B) Clay/Silty clay > 35% passing No. 200

Granular Materials

Group A-1 well graded stone fragments, gravel (A-1-a),

sand (A-1-b)

Group A-3 fine sand without fines, or with very little non-plastic
slit

Group A-2 other granular materials

A-2-4 gravel/coarse sand, with silt
A-2-5
A-2-6 gravel/coarse sand, with plastic clay
A-2-7

Slit-Clay Materials

Group A-4 silt (slightly or non-plastic) with some and/gravel

Group A-5 similar to A-4, but very high LL

Group A-6 plastic clay with some sand/gravel

(high volume instability)

Group A-7 similar to A-6, but very high LL

(high volume instability)
A-7-5 PI ≤ LL – 30  PL ≥ 30%
(high volume change)
A-7-6 PI > LL – 30  PL < 30%
(extremely high volume change)

1
Group Index

AASHTO soil classification system requires that a group index be shown

in parentheses after group symbol.

e.g. A-2-6 (3), A-7-5 (17)

• Not used to place soil in a specific group

• To evaluate suitability of soil as subgrade within their groups
• G.I. reported in nearest whole number

G.I. = 0.2a + 0.005ac + 0.01bd 0 ≤ G.I.

where a = (F – 35)
c = (LL – 40)
b = (F – 15)
d = (PI – 10)
F = % passing No 200 (0.075mm) sieve, expressed as a
whole number (based on material passing 3" sieve)

For A-2-6 and A-2-7, G.I. is computed using the last term only.

For non-plastic soil where LL cannot be determined, G.I. = 0.

Group Index = f (LL, PI, amount passing No. 200 sieve)

G.I. = 0 indicates good subgrade material
G.I. ≥ 20 indicates very poor subgrade material

(1) Groups A-1, A-3, A-2-4 and A-2-5 G.I. = 0

(2) Groups A-2-6 & A-2-7 G.I. ≤ 4
(3) Group A4 G.I. ≤ 8
(4) Group A5 G.I. ≤ 12
(5) Group A6 G.I. ≤ 16

Rationale of G.I. Formulation

(1) Groups A1, A3, A-2-4 and A-2-5 materials satisfactory as

subgrade when properly drained, compacted.
(2) For non-plastic materials, fines F > 35% is critical
For plastic soils, F > 15% is critical
(3) LL > 40 is critical
2
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
(Developed originally for airfield pavement by Casagrande)
(See classification table/chart)

15 major soil groups based on:

(1) Soil fractions: Cobbles > 3"
Gravel coarse ¾" – 3"
Sand coarse No. 10 – No. 4
medium No. 40 – No. 10
fine No. 200 – No. 40
Fines (silt/clay) < No. 200

(2) Coarse-grained soils (small amount of fines) < 50% fines

- based on grain size distribution

(3) fine-grained soils > 50% fines

- based on plasticity and compressibility
LL > 50% high compressibility
LL < 50% low compressibility

Symbols for Unified System

Classification table gives general characteristics of Unified soil

groups for roads & airfields.

3
1
Relationship between AASHTO and Unified Soil Groups

AASHTO Unified Soil

Soil Group Group
A-1-a GW, GP, GM
A-1-b SW, SM
A-2-4 GM, SM
A-2-5 GM, SM
A-2-6 GC, SC
A-2-7 GC, SC
A-3 SP
A-4 ML, OL
A-5 MH
A-6 CL
A-7-5 CL, OL
A-7-6 CH, OH

1
SUBGRADE STRENGTH EVALUATION METHODS

(A) California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test (ASTM D1883)

The California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test is a simple strength test that
compares the bearing capacity of a material with that of a well-graded
crushed stone (thus, a high quality crushed stone material should have a
CBR @ 100%).

The basic CBR test involves applying load to a small penetration piston
at a rate of 1.3 mm (0.05") per minute and recording the total load at
penetrations ranging from 0.64 mm (0.025 in.) up to 7.62 mm (0.300 in.).
Figure 1 is a sketch of a typical CBR sample.

(Load at 2.5mm penetration)

CBR1 = x 100%
13.24 kN
(Load at 5.0mm penetration)
CBR 2 = x 100%
19.96 kN

Design CBR = max (CBR1, CBR2)

2
(B) Plate Bearing Test

ASTM D 1195 (Repetitive Load Test)

ASTM D 1196 (Static Load Test)

1. Bearing plates with φ ranging from 152mm (6") to 762mm (30") in

increments not more than 152mm (6") are stacked on the subgrade.

(Note: For design of pavement thickness use minimum 4 plates.

For evaluation of subgrade, may use 1 plate of appropriate φ.)

Steel Beam

Pressure Gauge
Deflection
Gauge

D
(min. plate thickness > 25.4mm)

2. Apply a seating load to produce a deflection of 0.254mm to 0.508mm and

release. Reapply one-half the seating load and set deflection gauges to
zero.
3. Apply a load giving ∆ ≈ 1 mm and maintain unit ∂∆/∂t ≤ 0.0254 mm/min for
3 min. Release load and observe until ∂∆/∂t < 0.0254 mm/min for 3
min. Repeat loading and unloading for a total of 10 cycles.
4. Repeat step 3 for a load giving ∆ ≈ 5 mm
5. Repeat step 3 for a load giving ∆ ≈ 10 mm

3
Thickness Design Criteria: Load

Highways Runways
Plate D 12" (300 mm) 30" (760 mm)
∆ 0.2" (5 mm) 0.5" (13 mm)
Load 10 10
repetitions
2.5mm 5mm
Deflection ∆

Modulus of Subgrade Reaction

K= P MPa/m or psi/in where p = plate pressure

∆
∆ = design deflection

Some typical K values:

Well graded gravel, gravel sand 135-189 MPa/m (500-700 psi/in)
Poorly graded gravel, gravel sand 81-135 MPa/m (300-500 psi/in)
Clayey gravel 67-135 MPa/m (250-500 psi/in)
Well graded sands 67-162 MPa/m (250-600 psi/in)
Poorly graded sands 54-81 MPa/m (200-300 psi/in)
Clayey sand 47-81 MPa/m (175-300 psi/in)
Inorganic silts 40-81 MPa/m (150-300 psi/in)
Low-medium plasticity clay 27-54 MPa/m (100-200 psi/in)
Micaceous or diatomaceous silts 13.5-40 MPa/m (50-150 psi/in)
High plasticity clay 13.5-27 MPa/m (50-100 psi/in)

4
(C) Resilient Modulus (Mr) Test

The Resilient Modulus (MR) is a subgrade material stiffness test. A

material's resilient modulus is actually an estimate of its modulus of
elasticity (E).

This is a triaxial test the results of which describe the resilient

character of a soil specimen when a repeated axial deviator stress of
fixed magnitude, frequency and load duration representative of in-
place stress state is applied.

AASHTO T274 describes a subgrade soil Mr test that simulates

conditions in pavements subjected to moving wheel loads.

1993 AASHTO Guide offers the following relationship between k-

values from a plate bearing test and resilient modulus (MR):