Chapter Three

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.

3.1. Materials Selection

To accomplish more realistic simulation of hot-mix asphalt (HMA) mixtures
in Iraq, the most widely used local paving materials (aggregates and asphalt
binder) were selected for fabricating laboratory specimen. Hydrated lime produced
in Karbala, Alnibaie aggregate and asphalt cement obtained from Aldurah were
used and evaluated for the purpose of this study.
3.1.1 Aggregates
The aggregate used in this work was crushed quartz obtained from Amanat
Baghdad asphalt concrete mix plant located in Taji, north of Baghdad, its source is
Al-Nibaie quarry. This aggregate is widely used in Baghdad city for asphaltic
mixes. The coarse and fine aggregates used in this work were sieved and
recombined in the proper proportions to meet the wearing (W) and Binder (B)
course gradations as required by SCRB specification (SCRB, R/9 2003). Routine
tests were performed on the aggregate to evaluate their physical properties. The
results together with the specification limits as set by the SCRB are summarized in
Table (3.1). Tests results show that the chosen aggregate met the SCRB
specifications; while, gradation curves for the aggregate are shown in Figures (3.1)
and (3.2) and Table (3.2).

30
Chapter Three Material Characterization and Laboratory Tests

Table (3.1) Physical properties for Alnibaie aggregate

Property Alnibaie aggregate

Coarse Fine SCRB
Aggregate Aggregate

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

Table (3.2) selected gradation for wearing and binder course

Wearing coarse Binder coarse

sieve size Selected gradation Specification limit Selected gradation Specification limit
Inch mm (SCRB 2003/R9) (SCRB 2003/R9)
1.5 37.0mm
1 25.0mm 100 100
3/4 19.0mm 100 100 95 90-100
1/2 12.5mm 95 100-90 80 70-90
3/8 9.5mm 83 76-90 69 56-80
No.4 4.75mm 59 44-74 50 35-65
No.8 2.36mm 37 28-58 35 23-49
No.50 0.3 µm 13 5-21 13 5-19
No.200 0.075µm 7 4-10 6 3-9

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

Figure (3.1) Wearing course gradation

(W)

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

Figure (3.2) Wearing course gradation (B)

3.1.2 Asphalt Cement

Asphalt cement (40/50) penetration grade is used in this study; it is produced
in Aldurah refinery. The main reason for using this grade of asphalt cement is that
it is widely used in paving construction projects in Iraq. A series of ASTM tests
were conducted for the identification of the basic physical properties of asphalt
cement. The result shown in Table (3.3) indicates that the asphalt cement used in
this study meets the required (SCRB/R9 2003 Revision) specification.

Table (3.3) Physical Properties of AC 40/50

Tests units 40/50 AC specification SCRB

Specification
Penetration at 25C, 100gm,5 sec (ASTM- 0.1 mm 45 40-50
D5)
o
Softening point R&B (ASTM-D36) C 48 ----
Specific gravity at 25 C (ASTM-D70) ---- 1.04 ----
o
Flash point (ASTM-D92) C 290 Min.232
Ductility ( ASTM -D113) cm 132 Min100
Residue from thin film oven test D-1754
Retained penetration,% of original D-5 0.1mm 59 Min 55

Ductility at 25 C, 5cm/min,( cm) D-113 cm 90 Min 25

32
Chapter Three Material Characterization and Laboratory Tests

3.1.3 Mineral Filler

The filler is a non-plastic material passing sieve No.200 (0.075mm). In this
work, the control mixes were prepared using limestone dust as a mineral filler at a
content of 7 and 6 percent; this content represented the mid-range set by the SCRB
specification for two types of mixes IIIA and Type II for wearing and binder
course respectively. Hydrated lime has been known to be a promising potential
material for pavements due to its unique physical/chemical/mechanical
characteristic. The use of hydrated lime has been recommended by SRCB with a
rate of 1.5% by weight of aggregates, as an anti-stripping additive for HMA
pavements. This study used hydrated lime in two different forms (dry lime Added
to dry aggregates and dry lime added to wet aggregate) prior to asphalt mixing in
five different content (1.0% , 1.5%, 2.0% 2.5% and 3.0%) by weight of aggregate
as a limestone dust replacement . The limestone dust and hydrated lime were
obtained from lime factory in Karbala governorate, south east of Baghdad. Tables
(3.4) and (3.5) illustrate the basic physical and chemical properties of hydrated
lime and limestone dust used for this study.

Table (3.4) Physical properties of hydrated lime and limestone

Material property Hydrated lime Limestone dust
Specific gravity 2.41 2.78
Specific surface (m2/Kg) * 398 244
-100 Mesh (150 μm) passing 100 100
-200 Mesh (75 μm) passing 90 85
*Tested by Blaine Air Permeability at material laboratory of civil engineering department according to
ASTM-C204

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

3.2 Procedure for introducing hydrated lime into the mix

One of the main objectives of this research is to study the effect of lime
addition method on a mixture’s mechanical properties, noticing that hydrated lime
was added by the weight of aggregate as a mineral filler replacement. For the lime
modified mixes, two methods were performed in terms of introducing lime into the
aggregate. For the first method, called “dry method”, dry hydrated lime by total
aggregate weight is added following the normal procedure for adding mineral filler
into the mixture. The second method, “wet method”, introduces the hydrated lime
to wet aggregate at a moisture content of 2–3% over SSD condition. Five different
content of hydrated lime %(1, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0) was added with both method by
weight of aggregate as the amount of filler reduced; 20 of the 22 mix designs were
modified using hydrated lime aggregates treatment method. Each mix was
designed with the same blend of aggregates to avoid variability due to physical and
mineralogical characteristics of the aggregates. The only variable to differentiate
mixes is the lime percentage remark as X; limestone mineral filler was reduced
after every lime amount increased in the mix as shown in Figures (3.3) and (3.4).

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.

Dry aggregate blends were moisturized with an addition of 3.0% water by

weight of total aggregates. Dry hydrated lime at a different rate (from 1.0% to
3.0%) by the total dry weight of aggregate was then mixed with the wet aggregates
for 10 minutes to produce evenly distributed lime-water films on the aggregate
surfaces. The lime-treated aggregates were then oven dried for four hours to
eliminate all water before the addition of the asphalt binder.

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).

Aggregate+ Mastic (asphalt+7% filler) +X

Aggregate+ Mastic (asphalt+6% filler) +X

1.0% replacement…. (6.0% filler+ 1.0 %hydrated lime) W1H-d, W1H-w

1.5% replacement…. (5.5% filler+ 1.5% hydrated lime) W1.5H-d, W1.5H-w

X= 2.0% replacement…. (5.0% filler+ 2.0 %hydrated lime) W2H-d, W2H-w

2.5% replacement…. (4.5% filler+ 2.5% hydrated lime) W2.5H-d, W2.5H-w

3.0% replacement…. (4.0% filler+ 3.0% hydrated lime) W3H-d, W3H-w

Figure (3.3). Lime modified mixes designed for this study for both hydrated lime addition methods for wearing

Aggregate+ Mastic (asphalt+6% filler) +X

1.0% replacement….Aggregate+ Mastic (asphalt+6% filler) +X

(5.0% filler+ 1.0% hydrated lime) B1H-d, B1H-w

1.5% replacement…. (4.5% filler+ 1.5 %hydrated lime) B1.5H-d, B1.5H-w

2.0% replacement…. (4.0% filler+ 2.0% hydrated lime) B2H-d, B2H-w

2.5% replacement…. (3.5% filler+ 2.5% hydrated lime) B2.5H-d, B2.5H-w

X=

3.0% replacement…. (3.0% filler+ 2.5 %hydrated lime) B3H-d, B3H-w

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

3.3. Mixture Design

The preparation of the samples involves the batching of the aggregate
fractions and placing them along with asphalt in the oven at mixing temperatures to
obtain the desirable HMA mixtures. Marshall Mix Design (ASTM D6926-2010a)
which is the “Standard Practice for Preparation of Bituminous Specimens Using
Marshall Apparatus” was adopted for all mixes preparation. The Asphalt institute’s
mix design methods manual MS-2 was used as a guide to design the mix

At the beginning of preparation process, appropriate aggregate fractions

were weighted separately according to the job mix formula so that the desired
batch weight would be achieved after combining them. Then aggregate batch and
asphalt cement container were placed in the oven. To achieve appropriate uniform
36
Chapter Three Material Characterization and Laboratory Tests

mixing and compaction temperature, the required mixing and compaction

temperature were obtained using Brookfield Rotational Viscometer measuring
viscosity at 135°C and 165oC. Viscosity was conducted using a size 27 spindle,
after 30min of temperature equilibrium; the spindle is rotated at 20rpm for 600sec.
Viscosity measurements over the last 300sec of testing are averaged as the
apparent viscosity. The mixing and compacting temperatures are determined from
the temperature-viscosity curve shown in Figures (3.6 and 3.7) and Table (3.6)
.The required temperatures were determined and the mixing and compaction
temperatures were 160Co± and 150 Co± ,respectively.

Figure (3.6) Mixing and compaction curve

Figure (3.7) Brookfield Rotational Viscometer

37
Chapter Three Material Characterization and Laboratory Tests

Table (3.6) Mixing and compaction temperature

Temperature Viscosity (Pa.s)

135oC 0.33
165oC 0.08

Marshall Test specimens were fabricated for a range of asphalt contents%

(4.3 to 5.5) for W and (4.0 to 5.2) for B with an increment of 0.3% in asphalt
content. 15 samples per each mixture included control and lime modified mixes
with both dry and wet hydrated lime addition method for W and B were designed.

Standard test specimens of 63.5 mm (2.5in) height by 100 mm (4in)

diameter used are prepared using a standard procedure for heating, mixing, and
compaction of the asphalt-aggregate blend. The key features of this method of
mixture design are the compaction method, volumetric analysis and the Marshall
Stability and flow test of the compacted specimens. The compaction is achieved by
applying an impact energy using a standard hammer to compact specimens with a
number of 75 blows per each face that are related to the expected high traffic
conditions (>106 ESAL) .

Marshall Specimens were tested by deploying the following standard

procedures: bulk specific gravity of each specimen was calculated according to
ASTM-D2726-04 and the maximum theoretical specific gravity of the void less
mix with ASTM-D2041-11.

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

Wash and dry aggregate

Prepare aggregate blend Heat asphalt binder in an

oven for 2h

Add dry hydrated lime to dry aggregate (dry method)

Or Add 3.0% water into the blend (wet method) Heat aggregate blend in
and oven for 4h at 170oC
higher than mixing
temperature
Add X % hydrated lime into blend (Dry and Wet method)

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)

Determination of optimum asphalt content for control and lime

modified mix using dry and wet for wearing and binder

Compact a specimen Compact a specimen Compact a specimen

Using Marshall Compactor Using Superpave Gyratory Under static load of compressive
Hammer with range 30 to 50 Compactor at 50 Gyration machine
blows (Permanent Deformation) (Flexural beam)
(Indirect tensile Test)

Figure (3.8) Mixture Design Procedure

39
Chapter Three Material Characterization and Laboratory Tests

Figure (3.9) Marshall Device measuring stability and Flow

To assess moisture sensitivity of control and lime modified mixes using

Indirect Tensile Test (ITS), ASTM- D-4867-96 performed testing for each mix:
two subsets, three specimens for each subset compacted with 7.0 ±0.5 air voids%
(blows range between 30 to 50 for W and B based on trial mixes). The reason
behind implemented targeted air voids content was not meant to mimic the actual
field conditioning process but to accelerate the moisture damage in a manner that
can be measured under laboratory conditions.

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:

St = 2 Pu/ πtD (Psi)………………… (3.1)

St = tensile strength, Psi
Pu = maximum load, lb.
t = specimen height immediately before tensile test, inch
D = specimen diameter, inch.
The tensile strength ratio was calculate as follows:
TSR = (Stm/Std) ×100, Where………. (3.2)
TSR = tensile strength ratio, %
Stm = average tensile strength of the moisture conditioned subset, Psi, and
Std = average tensile strength of the dry subset, Psi.

Similarly, all cylindrical specimens were compacted using Superpave

Gyratory Compactor (SGC) (AASHTO 2004), while the beam specimens were
compacted under static compaction load by compressive machine that all were
designed on 4.0 % air voids. Tables (3.6) and (3.7) outline a summary of the
laboratory tests conducted to measure the HMA performances for this study.

Figure (3.10) Measuring Indirect Tensile Test Using Marshall Device

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

Table (3.8) Dimension of laboratory specimens

Dimensions Shape of the Specimens Purpose
Indirect Tensile Strength

25oC at 2h
Unconditoned sample

Diameter = 101.6 mm 60oC at 24h +25oC at 2h

Conditioned Sample
Height = 63.5 mm

Loading rate 50.8

mm/min

Permanent Deformation

Diameter = 101.6 mm Temperature 20oC

Temperature 40oC
Height = 203.2 mm Temperature 60oC

Loading 20 Psi

Duration 0.1s load

period
0.9 rest period

42
Chapter Three Material Characterization and Laboratory Tests
Table (3.7) Dimension of laboratory specimens (continued)

Fatigue Cracking

Length = 381 mm Stress level 222 N

Stress level 311 N
Depth = 75 mm Stress level 400 N
Stress level 489 N
Width = 75 mm
Temperature 20oC

Duration 0.1s load

period
0.4 rest period

3.3.1 Permanent Deformation Specimen

The flowchart shown in Figure (3.8) depicted the procedure design for each
mixture prepared in this study. A total number of 66 cylindrical samples were
fabricated to investigate the effect of hydrated lime on permanent deformation of
asphalt concrete mixture at 20oC, 40oC and 60oC for both W and B.

The cylindrical specimens produced for this study approximately needed

3650 grams for each mixture and had an initial dimension of 101.6mm (4 in)
diameter × 203.2 mm (8 in) height in order to fabricate one specimen according to
mix design formula. The mix design method used volumetric properties at
optimum asphalt content with each hydrated lime percent for both dry and wet
method.

The specimens used in the permanent deformation fundamental test were

conducted with Reainhart Superpave Gyratory Compactor which compact the
asphalt specimens by applying a gyration (AASHTO, 2004). Asphalt mixtures
were compacted with 50 revolutions, at a rate of 30 revolutions per minute, an
angle of 1.25o and with 600 kpa of applied pressure to achieve the desired density
of Marshall; five trials mixes were conducted (35, 40, 45, 50, 55) revolutions
considering required density and maintaining 4% air void as shown in Figure
(3.11). After compaction, the specimen is demolded using hydraulic extruder and

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

Density (gm/cm3) 2.32

2.31
Marshall Density
2.3

2.29

2.28
30 35 40 45 50 55 60
No. of revolutions

Figure (3.11) Number of revolutions vs. Density

Figure (3.12) Reainhart superpave Gyratory Figure (3.13) specimen extraction

Compacted HMA specimen

Figure (3.14) Measuring specimen height Figure (3.15) Permanent deformation specimen

44
Chapter Three Material Characterization and Laboratory Tests

3.3.2 Flexural Beam Specimen

A rectangular beam specimens with dimension 381x75x75 mm (15×3×3 in)
approximately needed 5420 grams of mixture for control and lime modified mixes
was implemented in order to fabricate one specimen according to mix design
formula. A number of four specimens were tested for each lime content; therefore,
88 beam specimens were established in this experiment at range of 4 stress levels
per each mixture.

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.

The mix design method used volumetric properties at optimum asphalt

content with each hydrated lime percent using both dry and wet method. To
prepare the beam specimens for this test, loose mixes were poured into preheated
steel mold and pressed in compressive machine under the gradual application of a
static load for 2 minutes according to (ASTM-D1074-96). The compaction
temperature is typically selected 170 C0 to promote homogeneity. The mixture was
generally "rodded" or "spaded" prior to compaction and the mold was made "free
floating" by using a "double plunger" arrangement. Finally, the specimen was
extracted by holding it tight using compressive machine to remove it from the
molds after 24hour as shown Figure (3.18).

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

Figure (3.18) Beam extrication Figure (3.19) Beam specimens

3.3.3 Permanent Deformation under the PRLS

The test was performed at single deviator stress level of 20 Psi (138 kpa). A
repeated Compressive loading for 10,000 repetitions with a loading cycle of 60
cycles per minute in duration and consisting of 0.1 second rectangular wave load
followed by 0.9 second rest period (The 0.1 second load duration was selected in
order to simulate the loading of truck moving at highway with speed of 50 km/hr.)
was applied to determine the permanent deformation characteristics of paving
materials. It was noted that the loading actuator would not be lifted off the
specimen between pulse applications.

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.

Figure (3.20) PRLS Connected to Data Acquisition System and LVDT

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:

Ɛp = permanent strain (micro strain)

𝑃𝑑 = permanent axial deformation
h= specimen height (mm)
Resilient axial strain can be calculated using the following relation;
Δr
Ɛr = ……………………………….. (3.4) Where:
h

Ɛr = axial resilient strain (micro strain)

Δr = axial resilient deformation
= Δr, H – Δr, L
Δr, H = high deformation reading for the LVDT and
Δr, L = low deformation reading for the LVDT where calculated for 50 to 100
repetition

Resilient modulus is the most important variable to mechanistic design

approaches for pavement structures; the resilient modulus can be calculated as:
σ
Mr = ………………………….. (3.5)
Ɛ𝑟

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

3.3.4 Resistance to Fatigue Cracking Under the PRLS

The four point loading test with free rotation beam holding fixture at all
loading and reaction point was usually used to estimate cracking potential in the
flexural beam fatigue test. The purpose of using four points loading was to get
pure bending in the third middle area of the beam. The numbers of cycles (fatigue
life) that caused complete failure of the beam were commonly considered as an
indicator of fatigue cracking potential (Huang, 2004).

The details of the factorial variables in the experimental design of the

flexural beam fatigue test are:

• 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.

Therefore, a number of 88 specimens and tests were made to simulate these

variables for both dry and wet methods. Pneumatic repeated load device and
control stress were used as illustrated in Figure (3.25).

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

σt = extreme fiber stress in N/mm2,

a = distance between the load and the nearest support in mm,
P = total repeated load with P/2 applied at each third point in N,
b = specimen width in mm,
d = specimen depth in mm,
Es = stiffness modulus bas on center deflection in N/mm2,
L = span length between support in mm, and
t = extreme fiber tensile strain in mm/mm.
 = dynamic deflection, mm

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

NF = K1 Ɛt-K2………………………. (3.9) Where:

K1= Fatigue constant value of NF when Ɛt = 1

K2= Inverse slope of the straight line in the logarithmic fatigue relationship
NF = Number of repetition to fracture

3.4 Specimens Nomenclature

The mix designation or nomenclature is the layer and the amount of
hydrated lime that were substitute to filler and addition method. The mix
nomenclature is the first letter that refers to the layer wearing or binder, followed
by the actual amount of hydrated lime and the last letter that refers to the method
of adding hydrated lime to mix as shown in Figure (3.30).

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

Wearing Using wet method

Hydrated lime %

Figure (3.29) Example of specimen nomenclature used in this study

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