Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Chapter Three Material Characterization and Laboratory Tests
Chapter Three Material Characterization and Laboratory Tests
Material
Characterization and
Laboratory Tests
Chapter Three Material Characterization and Laboratory Tests
Chapter Three
Material Characterization and Laboratory Tests
The experimental program included in this study was aimed at investigating the
potential benefits of hydrated lime to improve the resistance to moisture damage,
permanent deformation and fatigue failure performance of HMA mixtures. A series
of laboratory tests were performed on 22 mixes (20 mixes prepared using dry and
wet addition method plus 2 control mixes for wearing and binder) of HMA
mixtures considered in this study. Also, the raw materials (utilized to prepare
specimens) aggregates, asphalt cement, and dry hydrated lime were examined prior
to adding asphalt cement.
30
Chapter Three Material Characterization and Laboratory Tests
Bulk Specific gravity (g/cm3) (ASTMC127 and C128) 2.646 2.63 -----
Apparent Specific gravity (g/cm3) (ASTM C127 and C128) 2.656 2.667 -----
Percent water absorption (ASTM C127 and C128) 0.14 0.523 -----
Percent wear (Los-Angeles Abrasion) (ASTM C131) 19.69 30 Max
Fractured pieces, % 98 90 Min
Sand Equivalent( ASTM D 2419) 55 45 Min*.
Superpave (SP-2),
Soundness loss by sodium sulfate solution,% ( C-88) 3.4 12 Max
100
80
% Passing
60
40
Selected Gradation
20
Specification Limits
0
2.36 mm
4.75 mm
9.5 mm
0.075 um
0.3 mm
12.5 mm
19.0 mm
Sieve Size
31
Chapter Three Material Characterization and Laboratory Tests
100
80
% Passing 60
40
Selected Gradation
20
Specification Limits
0
2.36 mm
9.5 mm
4.75mm
0.075 um
0.3 mm
12.5 mm
19.0 mm
25.0 mm
Sieve Size
32
Chapter Three Material Characterization and Laboratory Tests
Table (3.5): Chemical composition and physical properties hydrated lime and limestone
Chemical composition Hydrated lime Limestone dust
% CaO 56.1 68.3
% SiO2 1.38 2.23
% Al2O3 0.72 -
% Fe2O3 0.12 -
% MgO 0.13 0.32
% SO3 0.21 1.2
% L. O. I. 40.65 27.3
Tests are made by the National Center for Geological Survey and Mines
33
Chapter Three Material Characterization and Laboratory Tests
The dry method follows the normal procedure for preparing the general mix
after consideration of the variability in hydrated lime and mineral filler content.
Wet hydrated lime method involves spreading hydrated lime onto the aggregate
that has been wet to approximately 2 to 3% over its SSD.
34
Chapter Three Material Characterization and Laboratory Tests
The mixtures replaced with hydrated lime in the form of wet method were
not marinated for 48hours. This procedure was elaborated based on a study by
McCann and Sebaaly (2003). They evaluated behavior of different lime
application methods such as with and without 48 hours marinating process of lime-
aggregate mixtures and found no statistical difference behind the marination
process. In fact, a 48 hour marination time was used to allow for any pozzolanic
reaction that might occur between the aggregates and lime. The steps for wet
hydrated lime addition method are shown in Figure (3.5 a, b, c, and d).
Figure (3.3). Lime modified mixes designed for this study for both hydrated lime addition methods for wearing
Figure (3.4). Lime modified mixes designed for this study for both hydrated lime addition methods for Binder
35
Chapter Three Material Characterization and Laboratory Tests
Figure (3.5 a) Adding water to the aggregates Figure (3.5.b) Mixing water with the aggregates
Figure (3.5. c) Adding, Mixing hydrated lime to the wet Aggregate Figure (3.5. d) Oven dried Mix
37
Chapter Three Material Characterization and Laboratory Tests
135oC 0.33
165oC 0.08
38
Chapter Three Material Characterization and Laboratory Tests
Wearing 3/4´´ 1/2´´ 3/8´´ No.4 No.8 No.50 No.200 Sieve Size
0
Binder 1´´ 3/4´´ 1/2´´ 3/8´´ No.4 No.8 No.50 No.200
0
Sieve aggregate
Put the combined aggregate mixture in the oven (150oC) Mix asphalt binder with
and set the oven for compaction aggregate blend
Compact a specimen
-Separate 1,500g of the total
Using Marshall Compactor
mix to maximum theoretical Measure bulk specific gravity
Hammer with 75 blows
specific gravity for each sample
(Marshall Mix design method)
39
Chapter Three Material Characterization and Laboratory Tests
The first subset was tested in a dry condition (soaked in water for 2hours at
25 oC). The second subset was tested in wet condition; it was inundated for 24
hours at 60 oC followed by 25 oC for 2 hours in water bath. All specimens were
tested to determine their indirect tensile strengths as demonstrated in Figure (3.10).
The Marshall device applies a compressive load to a cylindrical specimen through
two diametrically opposed rigid strips consisting of 10 x 10 mm (0.39 x 0.39 in.)
rectangular steel bars for 102 mm (4 in.) diameter specimens to induce tensile
stress along the diametral vertical axis of the test specimen. A series of splitting
tensile strength tests were conducted at a constant strain rate of two inches per
minute vertically until vertical cracks appeared and the sample failed.
40
Chapter Three Material Characterization and Laboratory Tests
A peak compressive load was recorded and used to calculate tensile strength
of the sample using the following equation:
41
Chapter Three Material Characterization and Laboratory Tests
Table (3.7) Number of specimens conducted in this study for wearing and binder
Tests Control 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0%
mix HL HL HL HL HL HL HL HL HL HL
Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Wet Wet Wet Wet Wet
Marshall Mix 60oC ±30min
30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
Design Loading rate
50.8 mm/min
25oC at 2h
Unconditoned
Indirect sample 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
tensile streanght Loading rate 50.8
mm/min in
dimetrial position
60oC at 24h +25oC
at 2h Conditioned
Sample Loading 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
rate
50.8 mm/min in
dimetrial position
Permananet Temperature 20oC 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Deformation Temperature 40oC 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Under 20Psi Temperature 60oC 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Fatigue Stress level 222 N 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cracking at Stress level 311 N 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
20oC Stress level 400 N 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Stress level 489 N 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
25oC at 2h
Unconditoned sample
Permanent Deformation
Loading 20 Psi
42
Chapter Three Material Characterization and Laboratory Tests
Table (3.7) Dimension of laboratory specimens (continued)
Fatigue Cracking
43
Chapter Three Material Characterization and Laboratory Tests
let to cool off for at least two hours before being prepared for testing as shown in
Figures (3.12) to (3.15).
2.34
2.33
2.31
Marshall Density
2.3
2.29
2.28
30 35 40 45 50 55 60
No. of revolutions
Figure (3.14) Measuring specimen height Figure (3.15) Permanent deformation specimen
44
Chapter Three Material Characterization and Laboratory Tests
A three steel iron molds that were able to carry heavy load up to 160,000
Kg as shown in Figure (3.16) with 25.4 mm (1in) thickness were manufactured to
employ the sample fabrication by means of static compaction using a "double
plunger" arrangement by applying static load using compressive machine device
located at laboratory of material at civil engineering department as shown in Figure
(3.17).
Four trial mixes were compacted with load (49900, 54431, 58967 and 63502
kg) to accomplish the desired density required for each specimen; the 63502 kg
which gave density above Marshall Density of 2.3 gm. /cm3 was selected.
45
Chapter Three Material Characterization and Laboratory Tests
Figure (3.16) Steel Iron Molds with Figure (3.17) Compressive machine
Dimension 39.1×7.6×10.5 mm
46
Chapter Three Material Characterization and Laboratory Tests
Permanent axial deformation was recorded throughout the test using Linear
Variable Differential Transducer (LVDT) mounted to the targets to measure the
deformation in the upper face of the sample via data acquisition system (Wykeham
Farrance Engineering Limited) see Figure (3.20). It is capable of measuring the
data to 5.08mm provided with 9- channel. The output data were recorded using
Digital camera and then calibrated to get the final reading.
The PRLS was used to characterize the rutting behavior of the various
mixtures in the form of the performance model assess rutting in the HMA layer by
relating the permanent strain (Ɛp) to the resilient axial strain (Ɛr) and the number of
loading cycles (N).
During the test, the permanent axial deformation (P𝑑) were recorded at
(1,2,10,100,500,1000,2000,3000,4000,5000,6000,7000,8000,9000,10000
repetitions) or until the specimen fail. The permanent strain (Ɛp) is calculated
according to the following equation:
𝑃𝑑×106
Ɛp = …………………………………… (3.3)
ℎ
47
Chapter Three Material Characterization and Laboratory Tests
Where:
Where:
Mr= Resilient modulus (psi)
σ = repeated axial stress (psi)
εr= axial resilient strain (in/in)
Table (3.8) summarizes the details of the factorial variables used in the
experimental design of the Permanent deformation test; also Figures (3.21 to 3.24)
show specimen setup during and after test.
48
Chapter Three Material Characterization and Laboratory Tests
Table (3.9) selected Permanent deformation parameter
Parameter Selected value
Temperature 20oC
40oC
60oC
Applied stress 20 Psi
Resilient strain At 50 to 100th
Maximum loading repetitions 10,000
Conditioning time 2 hours
Load cycle time 0.1 second haversine load
1Hz
0.9 second rest period
Figure (3.21) Recorded digital reading Figure (3.22) Permanent deformation at 40oC
Figure (3.23) Permanent deformation at 60oC Figure (3.24) permanent deformation specimens after
complete the test
49
Chapter Three Material Characterization and Laboratory Tests
• Stress Levels: Four levels of stress, 222, 311, 400, 489 N, were selected as
targets, control stress, time loading 0.1second and rest period 0.4 second (Huang,
2004). A range of stress selected so that the specimens would fail within a range
from 100 to 100,000 repetitions.
• Test Temperature: One level of the test temperature 20 ± 1°C was used
because the fatigue cracking occurs at an intermediate temperature of around 20°C.
In order to use third point loading for flexural test, the specimen was left in
chamber for six hours at (20oC) to allow uniform distribution of temperature within
the specimen; a digital camera was used for recording the deflection at mid span of
the beam until failure.
An aluminum steel road supporting the LVDT was fixed at the upper point
of the beam to sense the difference in deflection as shown in Figure (3.26). The
vertical deflection during the test of the beam at the mid span was measured with
LVDT, which in turn was connected to data acquisition system where the
50
Chapter Three Material Characterization and Laboratory Tests
deflection at various time intervals was stored and analyzed for finding strain at
any number of cycles desired for every test.
The repetitive flexural stress is applied (0.1 load duration and 0.4 rest
period) on the specimen and the flexural deformation at the central third of the
specimen is measured under each load repetitions. The general equations for
analysis of a simply supported beam are as follows (Huang, 2004):
3𝑃a
σ= ………………….…. (3.6)
𝑏𝑑 2
Pa(3L2 −4a2 )
Es = ….….……. (3.7)
4bd3
12d
𝑡 = 𝐸 = 3L2 −4a2
…...……. (3.8) Where:
𝑆
In controlled stress fatigue tests, it has already been stated that crack
initiation is followed by a very short crack propagation stage culminating
imminently in total failure; in contrast to a much longer crack propagation stage in
the controlled strain mode, a definition was introduced Hopman et al. (1989).
Thus, fatigue life relationship results in log strain applied (Ɛt) versus log NF
relationship plotted. This results in a relationship for fatigue tests of the form
(Monismith et al., 1971):
51
Chapter Three Material Characterization and Laboratory Tests
Figure (3.25) Four point loading Beam Figure (3.26) Aluminum steel rod attached to
Specimen Setup Test LVDT at mid beam surface
Figure (3.27) Failure of beam specimen Figure (3.28) beam specimen after test
52
Chapter Three Material Characterization and Laboratory Tests
W2.5H-w
3.5 Summary
After studying the test of Marshall Mix design method for both layers W and
B using dry and wet hydrated lime method, optimum asphalt content (OAC) was
selected for each lime content. These OAC would be used in preparing further
mixes with different lime content as a partial substitute to the limestone dust .The
prepared mix would be subjected to further tests, such a moisture induced damage,
permanent deformation test and fatigue cracking.
The performance of HMA mixtures under the static load using moisture
dimetral test and repeated load of cylinder and rectangular beams specimen under
the PRLS at different rates of stress and temperatures were detailed. Also the
physical and chemical properties of material used were established to test
according to series test supported by ASTM standard methods and identical to
Iraqi (SRCB/R9 2003 Revision).
53