AL-Yarmouk university

Department of Civil Engineering

AL-Hijjawi Faculty
Highway laboratory / CE 444

Experiment#7+8+9 Marshall Design method test

Name Ahmad Jaser swafta
Student # 2016988045
Sec #2
Instructor Dr.Medher Taamneh
Submission Data 10/12/2018
Table of contents:

Subjects #Page
Abstract 3

Introductions 4

Objectives 4

Material & specimens 4

Procedure 5

Data & Results 6

Sample of Calculations 7

Graphs 8-10

Discussion 11-12

Conclusion 13

References 14

Abstract:

2
 Marshall test design objective is to determine the optimum asphalt binder
content, the Marshall method, like other mix design methods, uses several
trial aggregate-asphalt binder blends (typically 5 blends with 3 samples each
for a total of 15 specimens), each with a different asphalt binder content. 
Then, by evaluating each trial blend’s performance, an optimum asphalt
binder content can be selected. 

In order for this concept to work, the trial blends must contain a range of
asphalt contents both above and below the optimum asphalt content. 
Therefore, the first step in sample preparation is to estimate an optimum
asphalt content.  Trial blend asphalt contents are then determined from this
estimate.

The Marshall mix design method can use any suitable method for
estimating optimum asphalt content and usually relies on local
procedures or experience.
On the other hand, after the estimation we must apply the tests on the specimen
such as ( stability, flow) to determine the capacity of the specimen. There are
three design methods, the most common method was the marshal, it had been
used in about 75% of the department of transportation(DOT) through US.

3
Introduction:
Marshal design method is the most common method for design pavement structure, we used
it for find the optimum asphalt binder content and the aggregate gradation.
Two principal features of the Marshal method mix design:
1. Density void analysis.
2. Stability flow test of compacted test specimen, the stability of the specimen is the
maximum load resistance in Kg that the standard test specimen will develop at 60c.
The flow value is the total movement or strain in unit of 0.25mm occurring on the
specimen between no load and maximum load during the stability test.

Objectives:
Obtain the optimum asphalt binder content by estimation the gradation of aggregate and
many tests may be applied on it.
Determine the specific gravity for each compacted specimen.
Calculate the percentage of voids, and percent voids filled with bitumen in each specimen.
Specimen & materials:
 Approximately 1200gm of aggregates and filler is heated to a temperature of 175−190 c.
 Bitumen is heated to a temperature of 121 – 125c with the first trial percentage of
bitumen (say 3.5 or 4% by weight of the mineral aggregates).
 The heated aggregates and bitumen are thoroughly mixed at a temperature of 154 –
160c.
 The mix is placed in a preheated mold and compacted by a rammer with 50 blows on
either side at temperature of 138oC to 149c.
 Breaking head, Marshall specimen (compacted), Load cell, Deformation sensor.
 Cylinder specimen compacted (4in diameter, 2.5in height).

4
Procedure:
1. Sieve analysis of stock aggregates (Stone, Sand, Mineral filler).
2. Select aggregate gradation to be used (project specification).
3. Determine the proportion of each aggregate size required to produce the
design grading.
4. Determine the specific gravity of the aggregate combination and asphalt
cement.
5. Prepare the trail specimens with varying asphalt cement.
6. Determine the specific gravity of each compacted specimen.
7. Perform stability tests on the specimens.
8. Calculate the percentage of voids, and percent voids filled with bitumen in
each specimen.
9. Select the optimum binder content from the data obtained.
10. Evaluate the design with the design requirements.

5
 Data and result:
%of #of Sample Gmb Gmm Stability(Ibs) Flow(mm)
Bitumens
5 1 2.253135 2.453877 2400 11
5 2 2.243644 2630 11
5 3 2.257946 2560 12
5.5 1 2.264415 2.44403 2520 11
5.5 2 2.270801 2690 12
5.5 3 2.248414 2650 13
6 1 2.275715 2.425041 2620 13
6 2 2.283643 2710 13
6 3 2.291643 2980 12
6.5 1 2.288443 2.402209 2800 12
6.5 2 2.286899 2730 13
6.5 3 2.294837 2900 14
7 1 2.286852 2.38023 2820 14
7 2 2.283674 2730 14
7 3 2.304482 2790 15
7.5 1 2.277264 2.3572 2650 16
7.5 2 2.285213 2380 16
7.5 3 2.288424 2590 14

:Taking the average of the 3 sample

of # of % Gmb Gmm Stabilit Flow VFA VMA VTM
sample bitumen y )mm(
)Ibs(
1 5 2.251575 2.453877 2530 11.33333 52.50639 17.35849 8.244173
2 5.5 2.26121 2.44403 2620 12 57.00549 17.39819 7.480267
3 6 2.283667 2.425041 2770 12.66667 65.64936 16.97135 5.829768
4 6.5 2.29006 2.402209 2810 13 72.74571 17.12981 4.668608
5 7 2.291669 2.38023 2780 14.33333 78.68908 17.45908 3.720691
6 7.5 2.283634 2.3572 2540 15.33333 82.78697 18.13106 3.120905

:Table of aggregates, proportions, and weights

Aggregate type Percentage% Gsb NMAS(mm) Gb
Corse 52.5 2.584 25 1.02
Fine 39.6 2.621
Filler 8.1 2.602
Sample of calculations:

6
Assume A = Weight in air dry B= Weight in SSD C= Weight in water
For compaction specimen:
A 1167.8
Gmb= = =2.253 For sample #1
B−C 1169−650.7
For Loose specimen:
A 1167.8
Gmm= = =2.454 For sample #1
A−C 1167.8−691.9
We repeat it for every sample at different asphalt binder%.
Then take the average between 3 samples at a specific asphalt binder, for example:
At the first 3 samples at 5% asphalt binder:
Gmb 1+Gmb 2+Gmb 3
Gmb(avg)= =2.251575
3
Gmm1+Gmm2+Gmm3
Gmm(avg)= =2.453877
3
100
=2.59477
Gsb(Agg, filler)= P P P
+ +
Gsb( coarse) Gsb( Fine ) Gsb( Filler )
And for the stability & Flow the same previous step:

Stability(avg)=2530 (Ibs)
Flow(avg)= 11.33333
Gmb 2.2516
VTM=100*(1- )=100*(1- ¿= 52.50639%
Gmm 2.4539

100
Gmb∗( )
VMA=100-( 100+ AB %
¿∗100=¿ 17.35849%
Gsb

VMA−VTM
VFA=100*( ¿ = 52.50639%
VMA

7
Grapghs:

unit weight
2.3

2.29

2.28

2.27
Gmm

2.26

2.25

2.24

2.23
4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 7.50 8.00

Asphalt binder%

Stability
2850
2800
2750
2700
Stability(Ibs)

2650
2600
2550
2500
2450
2400
2350
4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 7.50 8.00

Asphalt binder%

8
 Flow
18
16
14
12
10
Flow

8
6
4
2
0
4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 7.50 8.00

Asphalt binde%

VTM
9
8
7
6
Air voids%

5
4
3
2
1
0
4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 7.50 8.00

Asphalt binder%

9
 VMA
18.5

18

17.5
VMA%

17

16.5

16
4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 7.50 8.00

Asphalt binder%

VFA
90
80
70
60
50
VFA%

40
30
20
10
0
4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 7.50 8.00

Asphalt binder%

10
Discussion:
Marshal stability test is the performance prediction measure conducted on the bituminous mix.

The procedure consists of determination of properties of mix, Marshal stability and flow analysis and
finally determination of optimum bitumen content. The concept of phase diagram is used for the
calculations.

Determine the optimum binder content for the mix design by taking average value of the following
three bitumen contents found form the graphs obtained in the previous step.

1. Binder content corresponding to maximum stability.

2. Binder content corresponding to maximum bulk specific gravity (Gmb).
3. Binder content corresponding to the median of designed limits of percent air voids (Vv) in the
total mix (i.e. 4%).

The overall objective of the mix design is to determine an optimum blend of different
components that will satisfy the requirements of the given specifications. This mixture should
:have
Adequate amount of asphalt to ensure a durable pavement -1
Adequate mix stability to prevent unacceptable distortion and displacement when traffic -2
.load is applied
Adequate voids in the total compacted mixture to permit a small amount of compaction -3
when traffic load is applied without bleeding and loss of stability
.Adequate workability to facilitate placement of the mix without segregation -4

The optimum binder content obtained from the charts based on marshal criteria is ,and as this
.value increases flow and voids filled with asphalt will increase and void ratio will decrease

( Max density )+ ( Max stability ) +(4 % air voids) 6.9+ 6.75+6.8

AC= = =6.82 %
3 3
This the value of the optimum asphalt binder value from the graphs institute procedure.
But the (NAPA) procedure:
4 % air voids
AC= =6.8 %
1
 VFA at 6.82% at the graph give me 76% between the range (65-78), its successful.
 VTM at 6.82% at the graph give me 5% between the range (3-5), its successful.
 Flow at 6.82% at the graph give me 14 between the range (8-16), its successful.
 Stability at 6.82% at the graph give me 2810Ibs>Min value=1200, its successful.

11
  VMA at 6.82% at the graph give me 17.3%>Min value at 4% air voids=12, its successful.
The range of the air voids% from (3-5)% must be controlled why??
2 Cases we have:
1. By increasing the air voids>5%, that’s sustain the permeability of the pavement also will
be high, which allow water and air to circulate through the pavement and result in
premature hardening of the asphalt.
Hight voids should be reduced to acceptable limits, even though the stability is
satisfactory, this can be achieved by increasing the amount of mineral dust filler in the
mix.
2. By decreasing the air voids<3%, the mix can cause reorientation of particles and
additional compaction of the pavement by traffic loading.
This in turn may lead to instability or flushing of the pavement.
Mixes with low voids should be altered by adding more aggregates.
For calculating the (Gmb) & (Gmm):
 For (Gmb), its represent the maximum bulk specific gravity of the compacted specimen,
we calculated it by the weight of the air dry divided by its weight in SSD subtract weight
in the water.
 For (Gmm), its represent the maximum theoretical specific gravity of the loose
specimen, we calculated it by the weight of the air dry divided by its weight in air dry
subtract weight in the water.
For the loose specimen we just make reduced the air voids by vacuum device for 10 min.
There are some errors for this test:
 The temperature of the specimen must be 60c when we put it in the breaking head.
 The breaking head doesn’t take us an alert for the finishing deformation of the
specimen, so that it can break.
 The human resources.
 The specimen isn’t compacted at the 2 faces of the cylinder.
 Doesn’t consider shear strength.

12
Conclusion:
Marshal stability test is the performance prediction measure conducted on the bituminous nix. The
procedure consists of determination of properties of mix, Marshal stability and flow analysis and finally
determination of optimum bitumen content. The concept of phase diagram is used for the calculations.

If the mix design for the optimum binder content does not satisfy all the requirements of
specifications It is necessary to adjust the original blend of aggregates. The trial mixes can be
:adjusted by using the following guidelines
.If low voids: The voids can be increased by adding more coarse aggregates .1
.If high voids: Increase the amount of mineral filler in the mix .2
If low stability: This condition suggests low quality of aggregates. The quality of aggregates .3
should be improved. (use different aggregate or use cement coated aggregate)

13
References:
 Pavement interactive by ASTM standard.
 ASTM E2975-15: Standard for Marshal design method test.
 Pavement slides by ASTM standard.
 ASTM specifications for pavement design.

14
15