POLITECNICO DI TORINO

Master course in Civil engineering

Engineering department

Construction of roads, railways and airports

Professor: Ezio Santagata

Academic Year 2019/2020

Assignment Reports

Ahmad Chesti (S271911)

 Politecnico di Torino

Construction of Roads, Railways and Airports

A.Y. 2018/19

Soil classification and selection of the more appropriate material for the
construction of embankments

h
P.C.

Figure 1

1. An embankment lies on a natural soil of which results of a sieve analysis (Table 1) and
Atterberg’s limit (Table 2) are known. Using both the Highway Research Board and European
approach, classify the soil.

Diameter [mm] Retained [g] wL [%] 41,2

63 - wP [%] 32,2
31,5 4022,8
16 1272,5 Table 2: Atterberg’s limit
8 1231,5
4 1600,9
2 964,7
1 1252,0
0,5 1929,3
0,4 533,6
0,25 1046,8
0,125 1252,1
0,075 985,1
0,063 266,8
0,002 2364,6
< 0,002 1258,7
Total 19981,4
Table 1: Sieve analysis results

1
3
4
Solution:
In the first part of the assignment it is asked to classify the soil using the Highway
Research Board and European approach and it is given the sieve analysis results and the
atterberg’s limit table.

So ¿Which kind of parameters do we need to use to classify with HRB?:

It is important to know that HRB is a classification where A1 correspond to gravel, very
good and A8 correspond to clay, very bad. It is based on passing sieve material
defined by:
P 2mm Transition Gravel-Sand
P 0,4 mm Transition Coarse Sand-Fine sand
P 0,075 mm Transition Cohesive Soil-Non cohesive
soil

The first step is to find the cumulative passing retained material after the sieve analysis
transforming the partial retained into cumulative retained, after this we must change
the weight reference into percentage reference and then transform from retained
percentage to passing percentage, it is important to plot the granulometric curve.

RETAINED PASSING
RETAINED
DIAMETER RETAINED [g] CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE
CUMULATIVE [g]
PERCENTAGE [%] PERCENTAGE [%]
63 0 0 0,0% 100,0%
31,5 4022,8 4022,8 20,1% 79,9%
16 1272,5 5295,3 26,5% 73,5%
8 1231,5 6526,8 32,7% 67,3%
4 1600,9 8127,7 40,7% 59,3%
2 964,7 9092,4 45,5% 54,5%
1 1252 10344,4 51,8% 48,2%
0,5 1929,3 12273,7 61,4% 38,6%
0,4 533,6 12807,3 64,1% 35,9%
0,25 1046,8 13854,1 69,3% 30,7%
0,125 1252,1 15106,2 75,6% 24,4%
0,075 985,1 16091,3 80,5% 19,5%
0,063 266,8 16358,1 81,9% 18,1%
0,002 2364,6 18722,7 93,7% 6,3%
< 0,002 1258,7 19981,4 100,0% 0,0%
total 19981,4
 GRANULOMETRIC CURVE
Passing cumulative percentage [%] 100,0%
90,0%
80,0%
70,0%
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
30,0%
20,0%
10,0%
0,0%
0,001 0,01 0,1 1 10 100
Diameter [mm]

The next step is to determinate the Plastic index that can be computed as the result of
the difference between liquid limit and the plastic limit:
PI=WL-WP=41.2-32.2=9
Now it is time to look at the HRB classification, knowing that:
P 2mm=45.5%
P 0,4mm=35.9%

P 0,075mm=19.5%
And as it can be seen, the final classification is A-2-5, which is a silty or clayey gravel
sand.
Now to classify using EN 14688-2 it is necessary to calculate the values for each axis.
The first axis corresponds to gravel content, the second axis correspond to sand content,
the third axis correspond to fine content and the fourth correspond to clay content.
Axis %
1 [63-2] =100-54,5 45,5
2 [2-0,063] =54,5-18,1 36,4
3 [<0,063] =18,1 18,1
4 [<0,002] =6,3 6,3

Knowing this values, you must locate them into each axis and draw a line parallel to the
next axis located in the left, for example: for value 45,5% in axis 1 you must draw a line
parallel to axis 2. For the last axis (number 4) you must draw a line parallel to axis 3 and
perpendicular to axis itself. In the triangle part you will find that this soil can be whether
a SaSiGr or SaClGr what will be going determinate the presence of clay is the rectangular
part that says that we have a SaClGr (Sandy clayey gravel).
Based on the gravel, sand and fines content on the 1, 2 and 3 sides of triangle respectively. We point the different
content on the chart, and it comes out to be (SaSiGr or SaClGr). Later with the help of clay content we go down to
side 4 and by that we come to know that this is SaClGr i-e Sandy clayey gravel.
2. Near the construction area, three different soils are available. Knowing their characteristics
(Table 3 and 4), identify the optimum soil to employed in the realization of the embankment (using
both the Highway Research Board and European approach).

Retained [g]
Diameter [mm]
A B C
63 - - -
31,5 165,2 3567,1 -
16 516,7 6752,9 370,6
8 521,0 4736,8 488,3
4 578,6 2973,8 850,5
2 269,2 2073,4 1647,1
1 1536,0 1101,4 2055,6
0,5 990,8 1195,7 844,1
0,4 545,5 412,1 1008,9
0,250 899,0 832,1 3808,9
0,125 875,9 796,8 2964,8
0,075 847,7 503,1 2594,2
0,063 204,1 404,3 888,6
0,002 4706,8 925,8 523,7
< 0,002 1400,0 955,4 256,8
Total 14056,5 27230,7 18302,1
Table 3: Sieve analysis results

A B C
wL [%] 42,2 10,5 -
wP [%] 34,9 5,8 NP
Table 4: Atterberg’s limit

2
Solution:
For the second point it is asked to identify the optimum soil to employ in the
construction of the embankment. To accomplish this aim we must follow the previous
procedure to classify each soil and then establish which is better.

RETAINED PASSING
RETAINED
A CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE
CUMULATIVE [g]
PERCENTAGE [%] PERCENTAGE [%]
0 0 0% 100%
165,2 165,2 1% 99%
516,7 681,9 5% 95%
521 1202,9 9% 91%
578,6 1781,5 13% 87%
269,2 2050,7 15% 85%
1536 3586,7 26% 74%
990,8 4577,5 33% 67%
545,5 5123 36% 64%
899 6022 43% 57%
875,9 6897,9 49% 51%
847,7 7745,6 55% 45%
204,1 7949,7 57% 43%
4706,8 12656,5 90% 10%
1400 14056,5 100% 0%
14056,5
RETAINED PASSING
RETAINED
B CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE
CUMULATIVE [g]
PERCENTAGE [%] PERCENTAGE [%]
0 0 0% 100%
3567,1 3567,1 13% 87%
6752,9 10320 38% 62%
4736,8 15056,8 55% 45%
2973,8 18030,6 66% 34%
2073,4 20104 74% 26%
1101,4 21205,4 78% 22%
1195,7 22401,1 82% 18%
412,1 22813,2 84% 16%
832,1 23645,3 87% 13%
796,8 24442,1 90% 10%
503,1 24945,2 92% 8%
404,3 25349,5 93% 7%
925,8 26275,3 96% 4%
955,4 27230,7 100% 0%
27230,7
 RETAINED PASSING
RETAINED
C CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE
CUMULATIVE [g]
PERCENTAGE [%] PERCENTAGE [%]
0 0 0% 100%
0 0 0% 100%
370,6 370,6 2% 98%
488,3 858,9 5% 95%
850,5 1709,4 9% 91%
1647,1 3356,5 18% 82%
2055,6 5412,1 30% 70%
844,1 6256,2 34% 66%
1008,9 7265,1 40% 60%
3808,9 11074 61% 39%
2964,8 14038,8 77% 23%
2594,2 16633 91% 9%
888,6 17521,6 96% 4%
523,7 18045,3 99% 1%
256,8 18302,1 100% 0%
18302,1

GRANULOMETRIC CURVE A
100%
Passing cumulative
percentage [%]

80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
0,001 0,01 0,1 1 10 100
Diameter [mm]

GRANULOMETRIC CURVE B
100%
Passing cumulative percentage

80%

60%

40%
[%]

20%

0%
0,001 0,01 0,1 1 10 100
Diameter [mm]
 GRANULOMETRIC CURVE C
100%

Passing cumulative percentage

80%

60%

40%
[%]

20%

0%
0,001 0,01 0,1 1 10 100
Diameter [mm]

A PI 7,3
B PI 4,7
C PI NP

From the granulometric curves we can extract the following information:

A B C
P2 85% 26% 82%
P0,4 64% 16% 60%
P0,075 45% 8% 9%

And with this information, using the HRB classification table we can establish that:

SOIL A A5
SOIL B A1a
SOIL C A3

Having that the soil A is a silt-clay material with predominance of silt; the soil B is a stone
fragment material made of gravel and sand and the soil C is fine sand. We classify also
the three types of soils using the EN 14688-2, having the following results which agree
with the previous tests.
The soils B and C are best for the construction because these are gravel and sand and characteristics
are well defined.
But within this my choice is Soil C because this soil as it has more sand content and the Atterberg’s
limit shows soil is a non-plastic soil.
Soil A is never a good option.
 Politecnico di Torino

Construction of Roads, Railways and Airports

A.Y. 2018/19

Settlement prediction

3. An embankment with the geometry shown in Figure 1 has been built on a natural cohesive soil (soil
A of the previous exercise) characterized by the following properties:

• Void index: 1,3;

• Unsaturated soil density: 14,5 kN/m3;
• Saturated soil density: 18 kN/m3;
• Undrained shear resistance cu: 34 kN/m2;
• Consolidation degree: NC;
• Primary consolidation coefficient cv: 3,2 x 10-6 m2/s;
• Construction time: 80 days.

On the soil used for the construction of the embankment, a Proctor study was carried out. In Table
1 obtained results are listed:

Sample
1 2 3 4 5
Wet mass + mould [g] 14345,7 14472,5 14602,4 14622,5 14640,2
Water content [%] 3,4 4,7 5,8 7,1 8,4
Mould weight [g] 10188,2
Mould volume [cm3] 2120,6
Table 1: Proctor test results

Assuming a density of the embankment equal to 95% of the maximum dry density derived by the
Proctor study, evaluate the total settlement and its residual value at the end of the construction of
the embankment.

33,5 m

23 m

3,5 m
Unsaturated 1,0 m
soil

Saturated soil 5,0 m

Rigid and not

permeable layer

1
 γh a2   a'  
2

Si =   r -   r' 
Eu a - a'  H  a  H 

Cc σ' + Δσ'v
Sc (t)=H log v0
1 + e0 σ'v0

q
σz = α + sin(α) cos(α + 2β)
π

q x 1 
σz =  α − sin(2)
π B 2 

Eu/cu
GSC
PI < 30 30 < PI < 50 PI > 50

<3 600 300 125

3-5 400 200 75

>5 150 75 50

C c = 0,009  (wL - 10 )

cv  t
Tv = 2
Hdr

1
 Tv  2
4 
Um = 
π
0,179
  Tv   2,8

1 +  4   
  π 
2
Solution:
In this exercise, it is ask to evaluate the total settlement and the residual value at the
end of construction of the embankment.
First at all it is important to know that each settlement depends on the soil type:
• For gravel, sand: the settlement is immediate because the drainage of water is
immediate.
• For clay, cohesive soils: the total settlement is conformed by two types of
settlements (immediate and consolidation settlement)

The immediate settlement is studied in undrained conditions and does not depend on
time while consolidation settlement is studied in drained or undrained conditions and
depends on time. So, summarizing we have:

𝑆𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = 𝑆𝑖 + 𝑆𝑐(𝑡)

In this case it is necessary to verify that the residual settlement at the end of construction (after
80 working days) should be less than 10 % of the total settlement or less that the limit
value (5 cm).

Knowing that the soil type is a cohesive one (A5, given by the previous exercise), we
have to calculate the three settlements. To accomplish it we will use the Giroud theory,
which give us the following equation

2
𝛾 ∗ℎ 𝑎2 𝑎′
𝑆𝑖 = ∗ ( ) ∗ (𝑟ℎ − ( ) ∗ 𝑟ℎ′ )
𝐸𝑢 𝑎 − 𝑎′ 𝑎

Where 𝛾 𝑖𝑠 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑜 95% 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑒𝑚𝑏𝑎𝑛𝑘𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 (we choose this value
because it is not sure that we can reach this value), h is equal to the height of the
embankment, Eu is equal to undrained condition modulus, a is equal to the half of
embankment bottom and a’ is equal to half of embankment top; rh and rh’ are
parameters calculated with the giroud chart.

Knowing that:
𝐸𝑢 = 600 ∗ 34 = 20400 𝑘𝑃𝑎 ℎ = 3.5 𝑚
33.5
𝑎= = 16.75 𝑚
2
23
𝑎′ = = 11.5 𝑚
2

To find rh and rh’ you must define first the coordinates of the points that you want to
evaluate. In this case we have chosen to evaluate three points, taking as a reference
point the middle of the embankment these points are: x=0; x=11.5; x=16.5.

Point x x/a x/a' H/a H/a'

P 0 0 0 0,3030303 0,43478261
 Q 11,5 0,6969697 1 0,3030303 0,43478261
R 16,5 1 1,43478261 0,3030303 0,43478261

With the previous information we enter into the Giroud chart and we evaluate the
graphic to obtain the values of rh and rh’. It is important to know that in case that the
value of H/a it is not exactly estimate in the curve you must take the next closest value;
for example, un our case we had to take 0,5 for each values because 0,3 and 0,4 were
not computed in the curves.

Point rh rh'
P 0,12 0,12
Q 0 -0,05
R -0,05 -0,02

Once we have these parameters already computed we must determinate the optimum
density of the embankment, to do it we must first graph the “water percentage versus
density” graphic.

1,98
1,97
1,96
1,95
γd (g/cm3)

1,94
1,93
1,92
1,91
1,9
1,89
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
%w

It is recommended to not use a mathematical interpolation because it can be very

different from the real value. As we can see in the previous graphic, the mathematical
value would be 1,96 and the experimental real value is 1,97; so we take this last value
but as we said before you must consider 95% of this values because you can never be
sure that you will reach this value.
Now that all the values have been computed, it is time to compute the immediate
settlement in each point.

Point Si
P 1,2
Q 0,4
R -0,7
The second type of settlement is found by using the boussinesq equation that says:
𝐶𝑐 𝜎 ′ 𝑣𝑜 + ∆𝜎 ′ 𝑣
𝑆𝑐(𝑡) = 𝐻 ∗ ∗ log ( )
1 + 𝑒0 𝜎 ′ 𝑣𝑜

So, the task now is to determinate the pressure in each point that is given by the load of
the initial soil and the superimposed load as shown in the following figure:

The 𝜎′𝑣𝑜 is found by multiplying the specific weight of the soil by the depth at where
we want to know the stress, the ∆𝜎′𝑣 is determinate by the following equation and it
depends on the shape of the embankment because the load would change.

For the rectangular part

𝑞
∆𝜎 ′ 𝑣 = ∗ [𝛼 + sin(𝛼) ∗ cos(𝛼 + 2𝛽)]
𝜋
For the triangular part
𝑞 𝑋 1
∆𝜎 ′ 𝑣 = ∗ [ ∗ 𝛼 − ∗ sin 2𝛽( ] )
𝜋 𝐵 2
Defining the parameter of the equations in the following graph:

Knowing that we will be evaluating three different points, we have to divide the
embankment in three different shapes (two triangles and one rectangular) and
evaluate each load in each point. At the end we will have nine values of α and β shown
below:

TRIANGLE 1 RECTANGLE TRIANGLE 2

Point
α β α β α β
P 0,066 1,357 2,713 -1,357 -1,357 -0,066
Q 0,020 1,463 1,463 0 1,126 0
R 0,014 1,483 0,356 1,126 1,126 -1,126

With these values we calculate the total superimposed stress with which we will
calculate the final settlements, the values of superimposed stresses are next shown:

Δσ'v (kPa) Δσ'v TOTAL

Point
TRIANGLE 1 RECTANGLE TRIANGLE 2 (kPa)
P 0,05889488 68,92705943 0,05889488 69,0448492
Q 0,00483058 34,58768128 24,8152609 59,4077727
R 0,00223613 1,229143236 8,55179056 9,78316992

Once we have these values computed, it is time to determinate the Cc by Terzaghi and
Peck formula where:
𝐶𝑐 = 0.009 ∗ (𝑊𝑙 − 10) = 0.29
We have also to calculate the initial stress, knowing that the soil is unsaturated until 1
m and the will continue completely saturated until reaching the 5 meters’ depth.
𝑘𝑁 (18 − 10)𝑘𝑁
𝜎 ′ 𝑣𝑜 = 14.5 ∗1𝑚+ ∗ 1.5 𝑚 = 26.5 𝑘𝑁/𝑚3
𝑚3 𝑚3
The final consolidation settlements are shown in the following table

Point Sc (m)
P 35,1127843
Q 32,201763
R 8,60287199

We make the mean of these three values to calculate the final settlement made by
consolidation that is 25,3 cm and the total settlement is 25,6 cm.
It time now to compute the residual settlement, it can be done by using the Sivaram &
Siwamee which consider the average consolidation degree in function of a time factor
that depends on the primary consolidation coefficient, the time and the height of
drainage, because we have one way drainage we must follow the next theory:

Where,
𝑡
𝑇𝑣 = 𝐶𝑣 ∗
𝐻2
1
𝑇𝑣 2
(4 ∗
𝑈𝑚 = 𝜋)
𝑇𝑣 2.8 0.179
[1 + (4 ∗ ) ]
𝜋

Tv 0,884736
Um 91%
So now we can evaluate the residual settlement that would be equal to:

𝑆𝑟𝑒𝑠 = 𝑆𝑡𝑜𝑡 − 𝑆𝑖 − 𝑈𝑚 ∗ 𝑆𝑐

𝑆𝑟𝑒𝑠 = 25.6 − 0.3 − 0.908 ∗ 25.3 = 2.3 𝑐𝑚

And if we compare this value with the 10% of the total settlement that would be 2.56
cm we can see that is lower and it can be used.
 Politecnico di Torino

Construction of Roads, Railways and Airports

A.Y. 2018/19

Earthworks planning

4. For the embankment introduced in the Exercise 3, the earthworks planning should be
defined. For the hourly production of each machine the Caterpillar Handbook should be
used.

REQUEST: evaluate the total time for the construction of the embankment

INPUT DATA
The embankment has a length of 1 km and a constant height of 3 m.

23 m
Organic soil Support soil
30 cm +3,0m

PC 2
3
Organic soil 50 cm

SECTION

The soil employed in the embankment construction will be collected at 1.5 km away from the
initial section of the new road. A field road will be used for the transport of the soil. Its vertical
alignment is reported in the following figure.

Slope 4% 0% 1%
Unload
Load

300m 450m 350m 400m Xm

Slope and rolling resistance of the field road

1
WORK STAGE
1. Preparation of the foundation surface.

A. Removal of the organic soil (thickness 50 cm): width 1 m more than the bottom surface
of the embankment for each side;
B. Clearing and compaction of the trench;
C. Field control (according to the Technical Specifications): 1-day long.

2. Construction of the embankment.

A. Transport of the soil required for the formation of each sub-layer of the embankment;
B. Formation of the sub-layer;
C. Compaction of the sub-layer;
D. Field control (according to the Technical Specifications): 1-day long.

Hypothesis: 7 layers of 50 cm of thickness.

3. Slope.

A. Grassing of escarpments by means of organic soil.

MACHINE
Available equipment:
- Activity 1A: n. 1 DOZER type D7R Series 2 (blade 7SU)
- Activity 1B: n. 1 STEEL ROLLER type CS54B
- Activity 2A: n. 1 WHEEL LOADER type 988K (bucket: General Purpose Bucket 347-4980)
and n. “X” TRUCKS type 725C (“X” number of trucks to be evaluated)
- Activity 2B: n. 1 GRADER type 140M
- Activity 2C: see 1B
- Activity 3A: n. 1 DOZER type D7R Series 2 (blade 7SU) and n. 1 n. 1 GRADER type 140M

Additional data:

Work stage n.1:

- Max delay for the activity 1A: 2 days;
- Activity 1B can be run simultaneously with 1A, it can’t start or finish before 1A, max delay 1
day;
- Activity 1C can start at the end of 1B.

Work stage n.2:

- Activity 2A can start at the end of 1C, max delay: 2 days;
- Activity 2B can be run simultaneously with 2A, it can’t start or finish before 2A, max delay 1
day;
- Activity 2C can be run simultaneously with 2B, it can’t start or finish before 2B, max delay 1
day;
2
 - Activity 2D can start at the end of 2C;
- Activity 2A of the subsequent sub-layer will start at the end of the activity 2D of the
previous sub-layer.

Work stage n.3:

- Activity 3A will start at the end of the construction of the embankment;
- Dozer and grader may work simultaneously.

GENERAL INFORMATION
Use always the average value of any range of variations.

Soil characteristics
A. Organic soil is a common earth soil:
▪ Bank density: 1650 kg/m3
▪ Swelling equal to 22%
▪ Number of passing for clearing and compaction of the support layer: 4
B. Soil employed in the construction of the embankment is the same soil used in the
Exercise 2:
▪ Bank density: 1740 kg/m3
▪ Swelling equal to 11%
C. Thickness of each sub-layer: 50 cm

Work characteristics
- General efficiency of the construction site (cl · c): 85% (for wheel loader, dozer and
dumper)
- Hourly efficiency: 50min/60 (for wheel loader, dozer and dumper)
- Working day: 8 hours

Equipment characteristics
Reference: Caterpillar Performance Handbook 46

DOZER type D7R Series 2 (blade 7SU):

- Blade specifications: pp. 19-45
- Travel speed pp. 19-24 (maximum speed) (working speed: digging = 0.75 Vmax;
transport and return 0.85 Vmax)

STEEL ROLLER type CS54B

- Specifications: pp. 13-24
- Efficiency: 0.75
- For the organic soil removal:
▪ Number of passes: 4
▪ Working speed: 50% of maximum speed
▪ Thickness of compaction: 30 cm
- For the compaction of each layer of the embankment: consider 8 passes
3
WHEEL LOADER type 988K (General Purpouse Bucket 347-4980)
- Specifications: pp. 23-192 (consider “Static tipping load – full turn 43°” and “Dump
Clearance”)

TRUCK/DUMPER type 725C)

- Specifications: pp. 1-2 (gross load = GMW, net load = target Payload)
- Rimpull-Speed-Gradeability (for the evaluation of the speed): pag. 1-9
- Filling factor: 0.9
- Assume a width of 3 m

GRADER type 140M

- Specifications: pp. 11-13
- For the embankment: consider 2 passes for spreading (working speed 6 km/h) and 2
passes for finishing (working speed 2 km/h)
- For escarpments: consider 2 passes (working speed 1 km/h)
- Efficiency: 0.75

4
Solution:
For this last part it is asked to define the earthwork planning; we should use the
caterpillar handbook for the hourly production and we have also to evaluate the total
time for the construction of the embankment. It is important to know that the
embankment has a length of 1 km and a constant height of 3 m. The soil employed in
the construction will be collected at 1,5 km from the initial section of the new road. A
field road will be used for the transport of the soil and its vertical alignment is reported
in the figure shown above.
The first thing that has to be done is to identify the actions that must be carried out to
accomplish each task. The first activity is the preparation of the foundation surface,
which has three tasks:
A. Removal of the organic soil: this task includes the cut and the transportation of
the soil and a Dozer is required to carry out the work.
B. Clearing and compaction of the trench: For the compaction it must be used a
roller
C. Field control: The field control is fixed with a 1-day test

Evaluating the performance of the machines we have:

• Activity 1A
𝑄
𝑃𝐻 = ∗ 𝑛
𝑡𝑐
Where
✓ PH is the hourly production
✓ Q is the capacity of the blade
✓ Tc is the time required to make one trip
✓ n is the factor that considers the conditions that can affect the work and
50 𝑚𝑖𝑛
it will be equal to that means that of 60 min we are considering
60 𝑚𝑖𝑛
only 50 min workable; also reduce 85% that would be the sum of climatic
and general efficient.
50
𝑛 = 0.85 ∗ = 0.708
60
The volume Q would be equal to:

𝑄 = 6.86 𝑚3 ∗ 𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 (0.95) = 6.517𝑚3

The fill factor depends on the condition of the soil: Dry (0.8), topsoil (0.9-1), wet (1-1.1),
satured clay (1.1-1.2).

To define the time of one trip transportation we know:

Cut Transport

Lc Lt

Return
 𝐿𝑐 𝐿𝑡 𝐿𝑐 + 𝐿𝑡
𝑡𝑐 = + + + 𝑇𝑜 + 𝑇𝑚 + 2𝑇𝑝
𝑉𝑐 𝑉𝑡 𝑉𝑟
Where To is the time to insert the blade into the soil, Tm the time to change the velocity
and Tp is the time to change the direction. We know also that Lc=2*blade
width=2*3.69=7.38 m (That is taken from Caterpillar manual)
To estimate Lt we should consider that each time we would have to go deeper into the
embankment because the first cut is way much closer than the last cut, but it would be
so hard to estimate times with this method so it is recommendable to take the mean of
the longitude. We had decided to put the material 10 m away in case that we can re-use
this material, it is also decided to consider 1 meter each side of the embankment to
prevent soil contamination
33.5 + 1 + 1 − 7.38
𝐿𝑡 = + 10 = 24.06 𝑚
2
For the velocities we have from the caterpillar manual that:
𝑘𝑚
𝑉𝑐 = 1𝑠𝑡 𝑔𝑒𝑎𝑟, 𝐹 = 3.52
ℎ
𝑘𝑚
𝑉𝑡 = 2𝑛𝑑 𝑔𝑒𝑎𝑟, 𝐹 = 6.1
ℎ
𝑘𝑚
𝑉𝑟 = 2𝑛𝑑 𝑔𝑒𝑎𝑟, 𝑅 = 7.85
ℎ
But they are maximum speeds so we should consider that the performance will not be
100%.
𝑘𝑚 𝑘𝑚
𝑉𝑐 = 75% ∗ 3.52 = 2.64
ℎ ℎ
𝑘𝑚 𝑘𝑚
𝑉𝑡 = 85% ∗ 6.1 = 5.185
ℎ ℎ
𝑘𝑚 𝑘𝑚
𝑉𝑟 = 85% ∗ 7.85 = 6.673
ℎ ℎ
It is known also that:
𝑇𝑜 = 1 − 2𝑠 = 1.5𝑠
𝑇𝑚 = 4 − 5𝑠 = 4.5𝑠
𝑇𝑝 = 1𝑠

So, the cycle time would be

7.38 24.06 7.38 + 24.06
𝑇𝑐 = ∗ 3.6 + ∗ 3.6 + ∗ 3.6 + 1.5 + 4.5 + 2 = 51.75 𝑠
2.61 5.185 6.675
6.517 𝑚3 𝑚3
𝑃𝐻, 𝐷𝑜𝑧𝑒𝑟 = ∗ 0.708 = 0.089 ∗ 3600 = 321.3
51.1 𝑠 ℎ
Once having the hourly production, the cut volume must be estimated:
35.5 𝑚 𝑤𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ
50 𝑐𝑚 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠
1 𝑘𝑚 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ
 𝑉𝑏 = 35.5 ∗ 100 ∗ 0.5 = 17.750 𝑚3
𝑉𝑙 = 𝑉𝑏 ∗ (1 + 0.22) = 21655 𝑚3

So, the time to carry out the first activity would be

216.55 67,4ℎ
𝑇1𝐴 = = = 8.4 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑠 ≅ 9𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠
321.3 8

• Activity 1B
The activity 1B is the compaction; it is known the dimensions of the terrain that we want
to compact

We have that the hourly production of the roller is:

𝐿∗𝑉∗𝐻
𝑃𝐻 𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑟 = ∗𝑛
𝑃
Where

𝐿 = 𝑤𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑟𝑢𝑚 (𝑚)

𝑘𝑚
𝑉 = 𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 ( )
ℎ
𝐻 = 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 (𝑚𝑚)
𝑀3
𝑃𝐻 = [ ]
𝐻
𝑃 = 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑠
𝑛 = 𝑖𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑎 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑎𝑙𝑤𝑎𝑦𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝑔𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑜 𝑏𝑒 𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑙𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑛𝑔
The velocity following the Caterpillar manual would be 11,1 km/h but we have to convert
it into the real work speed, which is 50% maximum speed for rollers.

The volume of compaction would be

𝑉𝑐 = 35.5 ∗ 1000 ∗ 0.3 = 10650 𝑚3

So, the hourly production would be
2.134 ∗ 5.55 ∗ 300 ∗ 0.75 𝑚3
𝑃𝐻𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑟 = = 666.2
4 ℎ
And the total time for this activity would be
10650 𝑚3
𝑇1𝐵 = = 16 ℎ = 2 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠
𝑚3
666.2 ℎ

• Activity 2
The time for this activity is fixed and it is equal to 1 day. So the final time for ACTIVITY 1
is 12 days.
The second activity is about the formation and compaction of the embankment and it
is composed by four activities:
A) Transportation: Here we will use one wheel loader and trucks
B) Formation: A grader will be used
C) Compaction: A roller will be used
D) Field test: fixed for 1 day

• Activity 2A
The hourly production of the wheel loader is defined by
𝑄
𝑃𝐻, 𝑤 = ∗𝑛
𝑡𝑐
The Q that is defined by the caterpillar machine is equal to 6.9 m3 and this value
must be multiplied by the fill factor that would be 0,9 giving a final value of 6.21 m3.
It is important to know that first that continue with the procedure we must check
the static tipping load that is the maximum volume that create a momentum and
the ration between the actual load and the tipping load must be lower than 0,5 to
avoid any problem, so we have:
𝛾
𝑊𝑠 (𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑘 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ) = 𝑄 ∗
(1 + 𝑠𝑤 )
1740
= 6.21 ∗ = 9734.8 𝑘𝑔
1 + 0.11

𝑊𝑠
≤ 0.5
𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑

9734.8
= 0.33 ≤ 0.5 𝒄𝒉𝒆𝒄𝒌𝒆𝒅
29740
 It is multiplied by the loose density to know the real weight in loose state, the value
of static load it is given by the caterpillar manual, so the volume is checked, and we
can procedure to work with the volume of soil computed.
To compute the cycle time, it is used the following equation:

𝑇𝑐 = 𝑡𝑐𝑏 + 𝑡𝑓 + 𝑡𝑡
Where:

𝑡𝑐𝑏 = 𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑐 𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒, 𝑢𝑛𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒

𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑐 𝑚𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠, 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑙 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑖𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑏𝑒𝑡𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑛 0.45 − 0.55 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑠
𝑡𝑡 = 0, 𝑖𝑡 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑠 𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑠
𝑡𝑓 = 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑡𝑐𝑏, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑖𝑡 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑠 𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑠

So, Cycle time is equal to Tc=0.5+0.02-0.04-0.04= 0.44min =26.45 s and the correction
factor that consider the workability and weather conditions is equal to 0.708
(0.85*50min/60min).
6.21 𝑚3 599.5𝑚3
𝑃ℎ, 𝑤 = ∗ 0.708 = 0.167 =
26.4 𝑠 ℎ
Now it is time to compute the volume by layer to evaluate the time with the previous
hourly production. It is known that the height of each layer is 50 cm and a total number
of layer of 7 so we can calculate the volume of each layer using these dimensions and
the slope of the embankment, the results are reported below:

Layer B (m) b (m) H (m) Vc,i (m3)

1 33,5 32 0,5 16375
2 32 30,5 0,5 15625
3 30,5 29 0,5 14875
4 29 27,5 0,5 14125
5 27,5 26 0,5 13375
6 26 24,5 0,5 12625
7 24,5 23 0,5 11875
But these values are the compacted ones, so we must evaluate the loose ones and it can
be done by multiplying the compacted volume by the ration between the compacted
density and loose density, having these values we can finally computed the last duration
of each layer and the total duration of the activity.
T2A,i
Layer B (m) b (m) H (m) Vc,i m3 Vl,i m3
(days)
1 33,5 32 0,5 16375 19486,3 5
2 32 30,5 0,5 15625 18593,8 4
3 30,5 29 0,5 14875 17701,3 4
4 29 27,5 0,5 14125 16808,8 4
5 27,5 26 0,5 13375 15916,3 4
6 26 24,5 0,5 12625 15023,8 4
7 24,5 23 0,5 11875 14131,3 3
TOTAL 28

For the transportation we have to check that the truck has been good selected, so we
check if the height of the loader’s arm is bigger than the truck’s height:

Where,

𝐴 𝑖𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑒𝑟 ′𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑚

𝐵 𝑖𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑘
𝐶 𝑖𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑤𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑘
So,

𝐴 = 3894 𝑚𝑚
𝐵 = 2730 𝑚𝑚
𝐶 ∗ tan(30) 2 (3700 − 350 ∗ 2) ∗ tan(30)
𝐵+ = 2730 + = 3600
2
3894 > 3600 𝒄𝒉𝒆𝒄𝒌𝒆𝒅

We must check also if the truck can carry the weight of the soil knowing that the weight
of the truck is 23220 kg and the maximum weight that it can carry including itself is
46820 kg, so the maximum material weight that the truck can carry is 46820kg-
23220kg=23600kg. And if we calculated the weight of the material we know that the
capacity of the truck is 15 m3 multiplied by the loose density and the reduction facto
0.9, the total weight of the material to be transported is 21162.6 kg that is lower than
the maximum value, accordingly we can procedure with the process.
We have now to evaluate the hourly production of the trucks and it is defined by the
same formula of the hourly production of the wheel loader, knowing that the truck
capacity is equal to 15 m3 and we must multiply this value by a reduction factor of 0.9
and it is equal to 13.5 m3.
To compute the cycle time, we know that is equal to the sum of the fixed time and
variable time, it means fixed time (1. Loading and 2. Unloading (1.1 min) and the time
necessary to the proceeding loading/unloading area (0.25 min)) and variable time is
equal to the transportation time.
The loading time is calculated by:
𝑄𝑒, 𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑘 13.5
𝑡𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔,𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑘 = ∗ 𝑡𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔,𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑒𝑟 = ∗ 26.4𝑠 = 57.4𝑠 = 1𝑚𝑖𝑛
𝑄𝑒, 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑒𝑟 6.21
So 𝑡𝐹𝐼𝑋 = 1 + 1.1 + 0.25 = 2.35 𝑚𝑖𝑛 ≅ 3 𝑚𝑖𝑛
For the calculation of the variable time we have to consider the machine’s performance
and the quality of the road on which it travels. It velocity depends on how much load it
carries (full load-forth, empty – back) and on the resistance of the road (RR% + i%).

We estimate the velocity using the nomogram, and the time is computed knowing the
velocity and the longitude. The results are resumed in the following:

line L [km] i[%] RR[%] Rtot[%] V [km/h] t variable

A 0,3 4 5 9 17,5 61,7
FORWARD B 0,45 0 3 3 40 40,5
FULL LOAD C 0,35 -1 3 2 53 23,8
D 0,4 -1 6 5 30 48,0
E 0,5 0 6 6 24 75,0

line L [km] i[%] RR[%] Rtot[%] V [km/h] t variable

A 0,5 0 6 6 38,3 47,0
BACKWARD B 0,4 1 6 7 33 43,6
NO LOAD C 0,35 1 3 4 46 27,4
D 0,45 0 3 3 55 29,5
E 0,3 -4 5 1 56 19,3

So, tvariable=249.5 s+165.7 s=415.2s, which is the sum of all cycles. The total time would
be:

𝑇𝑐 = 𝑡𝑓𝑖𝑥 + 𝑡𝑣𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 = 553.6 𝑠

𝑄𝑒 13.5
𝑃𝐻, 𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑘 = 𝑛= ∗ 0.708 = 62.2𝑚3 /ℎ
𝑡𝑐 553.6
The number of trucks are computed by the ratio between the hourly production of the
loader and the hourly production of the truck.
𝑃𝐻, 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑒𝑟 599.5
𝑁𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑘 = = = 9.6 → 10 𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑘𝑠
𝑃𝐻, 𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑘 62.2
• Activity 2B
The activity 2B is the formation of the embankment, that is going to be done by using
a grader. The time needed to form each layer of soil is calculated with the following
formula:
𝐷
𝑇= ∗𝑛
𝑉∗𝜂
Where,

𝐷 = 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑒𝑚𝑏𝑎𝑛𝑘𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡

𝑉 = 𝑉𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑑
𝑛 = 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑠
𝜂 = 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦
Because in our case there is overlapping we have to correct the formula is:
𝐷 𝑛 𝑠𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑛 𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔
𝑇= ∗( + )
𝜂 𝑉 𝑠𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑉 𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔
The number of passes is found by diving the longitude between the width of the
blade, the results of time are shown below:

LAYER PASSES time (h) days

1 10 17,78 3
2 9 16,00 2
3 9 16,00 2
4 8 14,22 2
5 8 14,22 2
6 8 14,22 2
7 7 12,44 2

So, the final time for the formation of the embankment is 15 days.

• Activity 2C
This activity is regarding to the compaction of the layers, to accomplish it we are
going to use the same roller we have used before with a drum which the width is
2130 mm and the working speed is 11.1 km/h. The hourly production of this machine
is definite with the formula we have considered before
𝐻 𝑚3
𝑃𝐻 𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑟 = 𝐿 ∗ 𝑉 ∗ ∗ 𝜂 = 555.2
𝑃 ℎ
 Where:

𝐿 = 𝑑𝑟𝑢𝑚 𝑤𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ = 2.134𝑚

𝑘𝑚
𝑉 = 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑑 = 50% ∗ 11.1
ℎ
𝜂 = 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 = 75%
𝑃 = 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑠 = 8 (4 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑡ℎ 𝑎𝑛𝑑 4 𝑏𝑎𝑐𝑘)
The time needed to form each layer is computed by:
𝑉𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑
𝑡=
𝑃𝐻𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑟

Volume to
Layer Time (h) Days
compact
1 11875 21,3886888 3
2 12625 22,7395533 3
3 13375 24,0904179 4
4 14125 25,4412824 4
5 14875 26,792147 4
6 15625 28,1430115 4
7 16375 29,4938761 4

So, the final time for this activity is 26 days.

• Activity 2D
After finishing the procedure, the time fixed for tests is 1 day per layer, so the total time
is 7 days.

The third activity is the grassing and it must be done with a dozer and a grader, with the
dozer we will spread the organic soil that we have previously removed and with the
grader we will shape the edges of the embankment.
For the transport we need to calculate the hourly production of the dozer, given by:
𝑄𝑒
𝑃𝐻𝐷𝑜𝑧𝑒𝑟 = ∗𝜂
𝑡𝑐
Where

𝑄𝑒 = 𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑏𝑙𝑎𝑑𝑒 𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦

𝑡𝑐 = 𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒
𝜂 = 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦
We know that the effective blade capacity is 6.517 m3 so we need to calculate the cycle
time, in this case the digging work will not be considerate only transportation.
 𝐿𝑡 𝐿𝑡
𝑡𝑐 = + + 𝑇𝑜 + 𝑇𝑚 + 2𝑇𝑝
𝑉𝑡 𝑉𝑟
Where,

𝐿𝑡 = 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ
𝑉𝑡 = 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑑
𝑉𝑟 = 𝑛𝑜𝑛 − 𝑐𝑢𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑛 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑑
10 10
𝑡𝑐 = + 6.673 + 1.5 + 4.5 + 2 = 20.3𝑠
5.185
3.6 3.6
So, the hourly production would be

6.517 𝑚3
𝑃𝐻 𝐷𝑜𝑧𝑒𝑟 = ∗ 0.708 = 818.3
20.3 ℎ
After knowing the hourly production, we have to calculate the total bank volume of both
escarpments.

𝑉𝑏 = 2 ∗ 6.3 ∗ 0.3 ∗ 1000 = 3780 𝑚3

6.3m
3.5m

And this result is given by

𝑉𝑏 = 𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑝 ∗ ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑝 ∗ ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑝 5.25m

The loose volume is

𝑉𝑙 = 𝑉𝑏 ∗ (1 + 𝑓𝑠) = 3780 ∗ (1 + 0.22) = 4611.6 𝑚3

The total time required to do this is equal to
𝑉𝑙 4611.3
𝑇= = = 5.6ℎ
𝑃𝐻 𝐷𝑜𝑧𝑒𝑟 818.3
And it is equal to 1 workable day

The time for shaping made by the roller is determine by the equation we already know
and it is equal to 10.7 hours which is 2 days (to calculate the number of passings we
know that we need 2 strips for spreading because the width of the blade is 3.658m and
the escarpment width is 6.31 m) and again we need 2 strips for their finishing so in total
they are 8 (because of the 2 escarpments).

The programing is shown next:

 Politecnico di Torino – Civil Engineering College
Construction of Roads, Railways and Airports - 01RVMMX
A.Y. 2018/19

EXERCISE PART 2.01

Grading of bituminous binders
26/11/2018

Example #1 Penetration grading

An unknown bitumen was subjected to the following tests:
- Penetration test at 25 °C (consistency at intermediate service temperature)
- Softening point (consistency at elevated service temperature)
- Fraass breaking point (brittleness at low service temperature)
- Rolling Thin Film Oven Test (resistance to hardening related to durability)
In Tables 1 to 3 are the results of laboratory tests for the purpose of checking compliance with
specifications. It is request to:
- Calculate the penetration index (temperature dependence of consistency)
- Calculate the changes in physical characteristics and the percentage of the change in mass
after the hardening procedure
- Grade the unknown bitumen according to UNI/TR 11361 (Table 4)

Table 1 Penetration at 25 °C, 100 g, 5 s (EN 1426) Table 3 Resistance to hardening (EN 12607-1)

Pen@25 1 2 3 RTFOT M0 M1 M2
Test_1 (0.1·mm) 72 78 76 Glass_A (g) 171,117 206,397 206,311
Test_2 (0.1·mm) 76 73 74 Glass_B (g) 172,63 207,748 207,673
Determinations were made on the same sample in less than 2 min.
If the maximum range of the valid determinations is exceeded
(0.4 mm) repeat the test. 1 2 3
Express penetration value in thents of a millimeter rounded to the Pen@25 45 47 47
nearest integer.
(0,1·mm)
TRB (°C) 51,6 52,3
Table 2 Softening point, 5 °C/min, 3.5 g (EN 1427) M0 mass of the empty glass, M1 mass of the glass filled with
TPA bitumen, M2 mass of the glass filled with bitumen after RTFOT.
1 2 The two results of percentage change in mass are considered valid
Test_1 (°C) 47,4 48,1 if they do not differ more than 0.05 %. Express the percentage of
If the difference is greater than 1 °C with TPA < 80 °C (or 2 °C with change in mass to the nearest 0.01 %.
TPA > 80 °C) repeat the test.
Express softening point to the nearest 0.1 °C.

Table 4 Paving grade bitumens mainly used in Italy (UNI/TR 11361)

1
Solution:

The first thing that is required is to calculate the penetration index; the first task is to
evaluate the data that is provided. We know that if the maximum range of the valid
determinations is exceeded (0.4 mm) the test is invalid, and it must be repeated thus
the first test cannot be taken into account given the fact that the difference between
the first penetration and the second one is larger than the previous given value.
We take the second test and we calculate the mean of these three values, and these
values will correspond to the penetration at 25 °c.

Pen@25 1 2 3 MEAN
Test_1 (0,1 mm) 72 78 76 UNACCEPTABLE
Test_2 (0,1 mm) 76 73 74 74,3

From table 2 we have the softening point that correspond to the temperature in which
the sample would reach 800 dmm of penetration.

TPA 1 2 Mean
Test_1 (°C) 47,4 48,1 47,75

Having these two points it is possible now to graph the penetration grading graph,
shown below:

4
3,5
3
Log(pen)

2,5
2 y = 0,0454x + 0,7372
1,5
1
0,5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Temperature (°c)

With this graph we are able to estimate the value of α that is equal to the slope of the
curve, in this case 0,454. The penetration index can be also computed by following the
next formula:

That is equal to -0.820. We can also calculate the fraass temperature that is the result
of the interpolation of the penetration line until 1,5 dmm, in this case the fraass
temperature is -12,37 °c.
Now we must compute the changes in physical characteristics and the percentage of the
change in mass after the hardening procedure, to accomplish the task we will use the
table 3 corresponding to the data of resistance of hardening test data.
To calculate the percentage of change in mass we have to apply the following formula:
𝑚2 − 𝑚1
% 𝑜𝑓 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 = 100 ∗
𝑚1 − 𝑚0
And the results for both container 1 and container 2 are -0,244% and 0,214%
respectively.
To calculate the percentage of retained penetration at 25°c is equal to the ratio between
the penetration after the hardening procedure and the penetration before the
hardening procedure, the result is 62,33%.
The change in ring and ball softening point is equal to the difference between the
temperature after the hardening procedure and the temperature before the hardening
procedure.
In this regard, we grade the unknown bitumen according to UNI/TR 11361 and the final
gradation is shown below:
Example #2 Performance Grade determination
An unknown bitumen was subjected to rheological test and ageing for grading. Test results are
shown in Tables 5 to 8.

Table 5 Tank – DSR PP25 Table 6 RTFO – DSR PP25

G*/senδ > 1 G*/senδ > 2,2
Original RTFOT residue
Temperatura G* δ Temperatura G* δ
(°C) (kPa) (°) (°C) (kPa) (°)
52 2.53 85.1 58 3.26 83.1
58 1.15 86.6 64 1.49 85.1
64 0.549 87.9

Table 7 PAV – DSR PP08 Table 8 PAV – BBR

G*·senδ < 5000 S < 300 and m > 0,300
PAV residue PAV residue
Temperatura G* δ Temperatura S m
(°C) (kPa) (°) (°C) (MPa) (-)
19 5100 46.6 -18 117 0.346
16 8020 43.6 -24 291 0.281

1. Calculate the specific temperatures at which the bitumen meets the specification
requirements. Perform a linear interpolation in the log-lin scale for 𝐺 ∗⁄𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛿, 𝐺 ∗ 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛿, 𝑆(𝑡),
and a linear interpolation in the lin-lin scale for 𝑚. Temperature is always on linear scale.
2. Define the performance grade.

2
Solution:
In this example a bitumen was subjected to rheological test and ageing for grading. The
results are given in the tables shown above (Table 5, Table 6, Table 7 and Table 8).
It is asked to calculate the specific temperatures at which the bitumen meets the
specification requirements and it is also required to define the performance grade. In
table 5 we have the bitumen in original conditions which must follows the relation
between G* and sen(δ) greater than 1.

G*/senδ >1
Original
Temp. (°C) G* (kPa) δ (°) G*/senδ
52 2,53 85,1 2,54 OK
58 1,15 86,6 1,15 OK
64 0,549 87,9 0,55 FALSE

In this way we can notice that the bitumen at 64 °c does not correspond to the one we
are trying to classify. There is another way to check this criterion and it is calculating the
critical temperature by applying the interpolation formula:

It gives a final value of 59.10, that means that at this temperature in original conditions
the bitumen reach a relationship between G* and sin(δ) equal to 1. This result mean
that the temperature 64 °c does not correspond to our bitumen because it is larger than
the reference value (59.10 °c) which coincide to the previous results.
In this regard, it is time to evaluate the second test that corresponds to RTFO-DSR PP25;
the procedure is the same but now the relationship between G* and sin(δ) must be
greater than 2.2.

G*/senδ >2,2
RTFOT residue
Temp. (°C) G* (kPa) δ (°) G*/senδ
58 3,26 83,1 3,28 OK
64 1,49 85,1 1,5 FALSE

The interpolation formula also changes, and its results must agree with the previous
ones.
The critical temperature for this case is equal to 61.06 °c so as said before 64 does not
agree with the actual bitumen because the value is still lower than 64 °c.

For PAV-DSR PP08 the value to evaluate is equal to the multiplication between G* and
sin(δ) and it must be equal to 5000 and this test corresponds to the bitumen after being
under the aging procedure.

G*∙senδ < 5000

PAV residue
Temp. (°C) G* (kPa) δ (°) G*∙ senδ
19 5100 46,6 3705,53 OK
16 8020 43,6 5530,75 FALSE

The interpolation formula is also different, and it is equal to:

Giving a critical temperature equal to 16.76 °c which correspond to the following

classification.
The last step is to evaluate the S and m parameters which are the ones that relate the
bitumen with its sensitive to temperature.

S < 300 and m > 0,300

PAV residue
Temp. (°C) S (MPa) m (-) S < 300 m > 0,300
-18 117 0,346 OK OK
-24 291 0,281 OK FALSE

As we can see in the comparison the -24 °c bitumen does not concord with our bitumen
and if we do the interpolation the critical temperature in which the bitumen has a S=100
and a m=0.3 is equal to -23.27. So, we can make the final classification shown in the
following table.
Which give us a PG 58-18 bitumen.
 Politecnico di Torino – Civil Engineering College
Construction of Roads, Railways and Airports - 01RVMMX
A.Y. 2018/19

EXERCISE PART 2.01+

Bitumen selection
29/11/2018

Example #3 PG selection
By employing the SUPERPAVE methodology, determine the most suitable asphalt binder grade to
produce a bituminous mixture to be employed as a wearing course. The following information are
available:
- site location: Turin (latitude of 45.22°)
- highway type: freeway
- selected reliability (R) is 98%
- Maximum and minimum annual air temperature from 2008 to 2017 (Table 1).
- Design traffic for a period of 20 years: 34 million ESALs

Table 1 - Maximum and minimum annual air temperature

YEAR 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Tmax,a-i (°C) 30,7 29,4 30,6 28,3 30,6 32,9 29,1 27,9 30,4 *
Tmin,a-i (°C) -6,0 -8,8 -11,2 -10,9 -7,4 -15,0 -9,1 -5,8 -6,8 *
* To be derived from maximum and minimum daily air temperature data in “Tdata_2017.xlsx”

Table 2 Grade bumping

ESAL v < 20 20 < v < 70 v > 70
(million) (km/h) (km/h) (km/h)
< 0,3 f - -
0,3 – 3 2 1 -
3 – 10 2 1 -
10 – 30 2 1 f
> 30 2 1 1

LTTP High-Temperature Model

T = −1,56 + 0,72  T − 0,004 LAT2 + 6,26 log(H+ 25) − z(4,4 + 0,52 σ 2 0,5
)
min,p min,a min,a

LTTP Low-Temperature Model

T = 54,32 + 0,78  T − 0,0025 LAT2 − 15,14 log(H+ 25) + z(9 + 0,61σ 2 0,5
)
max,p max,a max,a

Where:
- LAT: latitude of the intervention zone
- H: depth from the surface to which to calculate the temperature (mm)
- z: standard normal deviate, coefficient that depends on the required reliability (for R=98%,
z=2.054)
- max,a and min,a: standard deviations of Tmax,a-i e Tmin,a-i that describes the year to year
variation in the average

Results for any location in the U.S. can be obtained from a computer program, LTPPBind that is
available from FHWA at he following link: https://infopave.fhwa.dot.gov/Page/Index/LTPP_BIND
1
Solution:
In this example it is asked to employ the SUPERPAVE methodology to determine the
most suitable asphalt binder grade to produce a bituminous mixture to be employed as
a wearing course and it is given by the information shown above.

The first step is to calculate the T max and T min of 2017 using the provided data
(Tdata_2017). The T max is calculated with 7 days method and Tmin is estimate as the
lowest value. The results are 29.5 °c and -8.84 °c respectively. After having the set of
values complete we have to compute the mean of all the values that give us 29.94 and
-8.84 as Tmax,a and Tmin,a respectively.

YEAR 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Mean
Tmax (°C) 30,7 29,4 30,6 28,3 30,6 32,9 29,1 27,9 30,4 29,5 29,94
Tmin (°C) -6 -8,8 -11,2 -10,9 -7,4 -15 -9,1 -5,8 -6,8 -7,4 -8,84

Once we have this values we can compute the Tmax,p and Tmin,p with the equations of
Tmax and Tmin (it is also required to calculate the standard deviation of each row of data).

LATITUDE (°) 45,22

Reliability 98%
Z 2,054
σmax 1,43
σmin 2,86

Tmin [LTTP]
-11,79
Tmax [LTTP]
54,11
Giving us a result of -11.79 °c as Tmin,p and 54,11 °c as Tmax,p, and following the
superpave methodology we evaluate the previous information in the next table:

Having a final classification of PG 58-16 Bitumen.

 Construction of roads railways and airports | Exercises

Bituminous binders
Example #1 Viscosity test (Rotational viscometer)
Data reported in Table 1 was obtained by performing rotational viscosity test on a 50/70 penetration
grade bitumen at four different temperatures and three shear rates.
1. Calculate the dynamic viscosity , in mPa·s, expressed to three significant figures.
2. For a constant shear rate of 46.5 s-1, plot viscosity versus the inverse of temperature (1/ ) in K,
and apply Arrhenius equation to fit experimental data. Estimate the temperature, in °C, at which
bitumen viscosity is 200 mPa·s.
3. plot viscosity versus shear rate ( )at 150°C and apply power-law model to fit experimental data.
Provide specific comments on obtained results.

Answer:
1. Calculate the dynamic viscosity, in mPa·s, expressed to three significant figures. We can
calculate the dynamic viscosity as follows

Temperature Dynamic viscosity [mPa·s]

135
459.0

453.0

444

49
 Construction of roads railways and airports | Exercises

150
225

224

222

165
124

123

122

175
88

87

86

2. For a constant shear rate of 46.5 s-1, plot viscosity versus the inverse of temperature (1/ )
in K, and apply Arrhenius equation to fit experimental data. Estimate the temperature, in °C, at
which bitumen viscosity is 200 mPa·s.

T[ ] 1/T [1/K]

135 0.00245 443.87

150 0.00236 223.87

165 0.00228 123.87

175 0.00223 87.96

59
 Construction of roads railways and airports | Exercises

Apply Arrhenius equation: A = 6.10-6, B = 7411.3

Estimate the temperature (oC), at which bitumen viscosity is 200 mPa.s:
Y = 200, x = 1/T = 0.0023306 T = 429.07 (oK) T = 156.07 (oC)
4. plot viscosity versus shear rate ( )at 150°C and apply power-law model to fit experimental data.
Provide specific comments on obtained results.

log(sh.r)
2.5

1.5

0.5

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Example #2 Creep test (BBR)

A 70/100 penetration grade bitumen, aged with PAV apparatus, was tested using the BBR. Following
information are available:

constant temperature of -18 °C

constant load (P) of 100 g
beam dimensions (b x h x l) 12.70 mm x 6.35 mm x 127.00 mm

51
 Construction of roads railways and airports | Exercises

span length (L) 102 mm

deflection data monitored versus time (Table 2)

1. Using the elementary bending theory, calculate the time-dependent flexural creep stiffness
(s( )), in MPa, expressed with three significant figures.

The elementary bending theory is expressed by

So we can know

Time [s] Deflection [mm] Load P [mN] Smeas [MPa]

8 0.176 980 454.29

15 0.205 980 390.02

30 0.246 980 325.02

60 0.298 980 268.30

120 0.367 980 217.86

240 0.458 980 174.57

52
 Construction of roads railways and airports | Exercises

500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
t [s]

2. Plot on a bi-logarithm scale, stiffness versus time and fit experimental data with a second-order
polynomial function and report regression coefficients (A, B and C) and correlation coefficient
(R²).

Time [s] Deflection P [mN] S [mPa] log t log S

[mm]

8 0.176 980 454.29 0.90 2.66

15 0.205 980 390.02 1.18 2.59

30 0.246 980 325.02 1.48 2.51

60 0.298 980 268.3 1.78 2.43

120 0.367 980 217.86 2.08 2.34

240 0.458 980 174.57 2.38 2.24

53
 Construction of roads railways and airports | Exercises

From the function, we can know A=2.8423, B=-0.176, C=-0.032, R²=1.

3. Estimate m-value ( ) by the first derivative of the polynomial function.

Time [s] Deflection P [mN] S [mPa] log t log S m

[mm]

8 0.176 980 454.29 0.90 2.66 0.234

15 0.205 980 390.02 1.18 2.59 0.251

30 0.246 980 325.02 1.48 2.51 0.271

60 0.298 980 268.3 1.78 2.43 0.290

120 0.367 980 217.86 2.08 2.34 0.309

240 0.458 980 174.57 2.38 2.24 0.328

4. Verify if this bitumen can be graded as 70/100.

At t = 60 s:

lower than

But, lower than

70/100.

54
 Construction of roads railways and airports | Exercises

Example #3 Dynamic test (DSR)

The two curves shown in Figure 1 represents torque ( ) and deflection angle ( ) monitored during a
time sweep test performed with a DSR equipped with a PP08 measuring system and 2 mm gap.

Estimate:
1. Angular frequency ( ) in rad/s, expressed with two significant figures.
Calculate shear stress and shear strain by applying the following equations:

Period T = 0.62 (s),

Torgue Deflection

rad/s 10.13 10.13

2. Norm of the complex shear modulus (| |), in MPa.

t M[mN] T[N/ ]

7.5 -0.005 -4 -49735.92 -8

7.6 0.0075 -2 74603.88 -4

7.7 0.0125 2 124339.80 4

7.8 0.0075 4 74603.88 8

55
 Construction of roads railways and airports | Exercises

7.9 -0.005 2 -49735.92 4

8 -0.0125 -1.7 -124339.80 -3.4

8.1 -0.0075 -4 -74603.88 -8

; ; PP08 ;
So we can get

3. Phase angle of the complex shear modulus ( ) in deg.

From the graph, we can see

So

Example #4 Master curve (DSR)

Frequency sweep tests ranging from 1 to 100 rad/s were performed on a bitumen at four different
temperatures. The 25 mm parallel plates were used at 40°C, 60 °C and 80 °C, while the 8 mm parallel
plates were employed for tests at 20 °C and 0 °C. Complex shear modulus (| |) and phase angle ( )
obtained from DSR tests at selected temperatures and frequencies are shown in Table 3.

1. Construct the master curve for the dynamic shear modulus for a reference temperature ( ) of
20 °C by manual shifting.

56
 Construction of roads railways and airports | Exercises

Measuring T Frequency Complex

Phase Angle
Modulus

system (°C) (rad/s) (Pa) (°)

PP08 0 100 1.78E+08 23.96

PP08 0 31.6 1.29E+08 27.95

PP08 0 10 8.84E+07 32.37

PP08 0 3.16 5.71E+07 37.25

PP08 0 1 3.46E+07 42.59

PP08 0 0.316 1.96E+07 48.32

PP08 0 0.1 1.04E+07 54.21

PP08 20 100 1.24E+07 54.37

57
 Construction of roads railways and airports | Exercises

PP08 20 31.6 5.95E+06 59.99

PP08 20 10 2.67E+06 65.23

PP08 20 3.16 1.12E+06 69.77

PP08 20 1 4.49E+05 74.53

PP08 20 0.316 1.74E+05 77.82

PP08 20 0.1 6.68E+04 80.2

PP25 40 100 2.99E+05 77.61

PP25 40 31.6 1.08E+05 80.28

PP25 40 10 3.81E+04 82.53

PP25 40 3.16 1.31E+04 84.5

PP25 40 1 4.37E+03 86.18

PP25 40 0.316 1.43E+03 87.48

PP25 40 0.1 4.69E+02 88.34

PP25 60 100 1.46E+04 85.13

PP25 60 31.6 4.85E+03 86.96

PP25 60 10 1.58E+03 88.03

PP25 60 3.16 5.07E+02 88.98

PP25 60 1 1.61E+02 89.61

PP25 60 0.316 5.06E+01 89.97

PP25 60 0.1 1.58E+01 90

PP25 80 100 1190 88.49

PP25 80 31.6 3.80E+02 89.27

PP25 80 10 1.19E+02 90

PP25 80 3.16 3.81E+01 90

PP25 80 1 1.21E+01 90

PP25 80 0.316 3.82E+00 90

PP25 80 0.1 1.23E+00 90

58
 Construction of roads railways and airports | Exercises

Then we can get:

90

80
PP08 0°C
70

60 PP08 20°C

50
PP25 40°C
40

30
PP25 60°C
20

10 PP25 80°C

0
1 100 10000 1000000 100000000
Complex Modulus [Pa]

2. Made a semi-log plot of the obtained shift factors (

)versus temperature and apply
WilliamLandel-Ferry (WLF) equation. The parameters of the curve C1 and C2 can be obtained by
minimizing the sum of the squares differences between experimental shift factors and shift factors
estimated with the WLF equation.

T log(aT/aT0) Diff2
WLF
log(aT/aT0)

0 0.0 3.0 0.001

20 3.0 0.0 0.000

40 -2.2 2.1 0.011

60 -3.7 3.6 0.001

80 -4.8 4.8 0.002

Tref=T0 20

C1 13.5

59
 Construction of roads railways and airports | Exercises

C2 109.4

WLF
4

0
0 20 40 60 80
-2

-4
a(T ) C1 (T T0 )
log =
-6
(
a T 0) C2 +T T 0

Temperature [°C]

3. Plot with log-log scale the master curve for | | and .

60
 Construction of roads railways and airports | Exercises

4. Fit the master curve with the Christensen-Anderson model (CA). Fitting parameters , 0 and
can be obtained by minimizing the sum of the squares difference between measured and
estimated complex shear modulus.

log a(T) C1 (T T0)

a(T0) C2 +T T0

log2 R

G*( )=Gg 1+ 0 R log2

Tref 20 CA-model

C1 13.7 log(Gg) 8.54 9

C2 113.6 log(w0) 2.72 4.00

R 1.07 1.00

61
 Politecnico di Torino – Civil Engineering College
Construction of Roads, Railways and Airports - 01RVMMX
A.Y. 2018/19

EXERCISE PART 2.03

Bituminous mixtures: Mix-design Marshall
6/12/2018

Exercise #1: Aggregate structure

For a blend of three aggregate with gradations and proportions (αi) given in Table 1, it is
request to:

1. Determine the nominal maximum aggregate size (NMAS), draw the control points and
plot the gradation line of the blend on a semi-log representation (Figure 1, A).

Solution:

Maximum nominal size is defined as: One sieve-Size larger tan the first sieve that retains
more tan 10% aggregate.

Now in the input data we have a mixture of three aggregates, which show the percentage
that passes through each of the sieves, and at the end we have its gradations and
proportions (αi). In order to obtain the percentage of the mixture that passes, we need to
multiply each percentage that passes through the sieve by the proportion of aggregates in
the sample, for the three aggregates that make up the mixture and add them. Once
obtained the percentage that passes from the mixture, we can obtain the retained
percentage, which is what interests us to obtain the NMAS. Below is an example and the
results table afterwards.

𝑃𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑑 (%) = (𝐺1 ∗ 𝛼𝑖𝐺1 ) + (𝐺2 ∗ 𝛼𝑖𝐺2 ) + (𝑆 ∗ 𝛼𝑖𝑆 )

𝑅𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑑 (%) = 100% − 𝑃𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔(%)

For example for the sieve 0.075(mm):

𝑃𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑑 (%) = (1.55% ∗ 40%) + (2% ∗ 21.5%) + (5.06% ∗ 38.5%) = 3.0%

𝑅𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑑 (%) = 100% − 3% = 97%

For which we have

Sieve (mm) G1 (%) G2 (%) S (%) Passing (%) Retained (%)

25 100% 100% 100% 100,0% 0,0%
19 88% 100% 100% 95,2% 4,8%
 12,5 50,7% 100% 100% 80,3% 19,7%
9,5 15% 94,5% 99,7% 64,7% 35,3%
4,75 2,7% 5,3% 92,9% 38,0% 62,0%
2,36 2,4% 3,3% 68,1% 27,9% 72,1%
1,18 2,2% 2,9% 47,8% 19,9% 80,1%
0,6 2,1% 2,7% 30,6% 13,2% 86,8%
0,3 2% 2,5% 15,3% 7,2% 92,8%
0,15 1,7% 2,1% 6,5% 3,6% 96,4%
0,075 1,55% 2% 5,06% 3,0% 97,0%
αi 40% 21,5% 38,5%

Due to the definition of NMAS we have that the nominal maximum aggregate size
is the one belonging to the 19 mm sieve with a retained percentage of 4.8%.

Knowing the NMAS of the mixture of aggregates that the statement tells us, we are going
to perform the control points, for this we must use Figure 2 SuperPave aggregate gradation
control points, therefore we are going to relate the sieves by which the tests were made.

According to the table, we must take into account the maximum and minimum and
compare it with the percentage that passes the mixture in each of the specific sieves. Below
is shown an example and then is the results table
𝑆𝑖𝑒𝑣𝑒 𝑆𝑖𝑧𝑒: 2.36𝑚𝑚 → 𝑃𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔% = 27.9% → 𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 23 ≤ 27.9 ≤ 49 = 𝑚𝑎𝑥 ∴ 𝐶𝐻𝐸𝐶𝐾
For all the sample we have

Sieve (mm) Min (%) Passing (%) Max (%) Control points
25 100 100 - Checked
19 90 95,2 100 Checked
12,5 - 80,3 90 Checked
2,36 23 27,9 49 Checked
0,075 2 3,0 8 Checked
As seen in the table, all the points passed the control.
Finally, the gradation line for the given sample is plotted

Gradation line
100%
90%
80%
70%
Passing (%)

60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0,01 0,1 1 10 100
Sieve (mm)

2. Draw the maximum density line, locate the control points and plot the gradation line of the
blend on the 0.45 power chart (Figure 1, B).

Solution:

In order to determine the gradation line of the blend on the 0.45 power the following
formula must be used
𝑑𝑛
𝑃=( )
𝐷
Where:

𝑃= % finer than the sieve

𝑑= Aggregate size being considered
𝐷= Máximum aggregate size to be used
𝑛= Parameter which adjust curve for fineness or coarseness (0.45 for bituminous mixtures)

Below is shown an example and then is the results table

𝐷 = 25𝑚𝑚
𝑛 = 0.45
𝑆𝑖𝑒𝑣𝑒 𝑆𝑖𝑧𝑒 𝑑 = 0.15𝑚𝑚
0.15𝑚𝑚 0.45
𝑃=( ) = 10%
25𝑚𝑚
 Sieve (mm) Initial Passing (%) P (%)
25 100 100
19 95,20 88,38
12,5 80,28 73,20
9,5 64,70 64,70
4,75 37,99 47,36
2,36 27,89 34,57
1,18 19,91 25,31
0,6 13,20 18,67
0,3 7,23 13,67
0,15 3,63 10,00
0,075 3,00 7,32

Below is the graph of the percentages that pass, both the initial and the modified 0.45
power, in addition to the control points

Particle size distribution

120,0%

100,0%
Passing (%)

80,0%

60,0%

40,0%

20,0%

0,0%
0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50
Sieve opening (0,45 power)

Grading (Initial Passing) Maximum Density line

Control points Polinómica (Grading (Initial Passing))
Lineal (Maximum Density line)

Exercise #2: Volumetric analysis

For an asphalt mixture the following properties were given:

- Bulk density of the asphalt mixture (MV) of 2.386 g/cm3
- Theoretical maximum density of the asphalt mixture (MMVT) of 2.493 g/cm3
- Bulk density of the aggregate blend (MVGB) of 2.685 g/cm3
- Binder density (MVB) of 1.020 g/cm3
- PB=5.3%
Solution: Using these values, determine
The air voids content (v)
𝑔
2.386 ⁄𝑐𝑚3
𝑀𝑉 ) = 4.29%
𝑣 = 100 (1 − ) = 100 (1 − 𝑔
𝑀𝑀𝑉𝑇 2.493 ⁄ 3
𝑐𝑚
Voids in mineral aggregate (VMA)
𝑔
2.386 ⁄𝑐𝑚3
𝑀𝑉 = 15.85%
𝑉𝑀𝐴 = 1 − (1 − 𝑃𝐵 )∗ = 1 − (1 − 5.3%) ∗ 𝑔
𝑀𝑉𝐺𝐵 2.685 ⁄ 3
𝑐𝑚
Voids filled with bitumen (VFB)
𝑣 4.29%
𝑉𝐹𝐵 = 1 − =1− = 72.91%
𝑉𝑀𝐴 15.85%
Effective bitumen content (PBE)
𝑔
𝑀𝑉𝐵 1.020 ⁄𝑐𝑚 3
𝑃𝐵𝐸 = ∗ (𝑉𝑀𝐴 − 𝑣) = 𝑔 ∗ (15.85% − 4.29%) = 4.94%
𝑀𝑉 2.386 ⁄𝑐𝑚 3

Bitumen absorption (PBA)

𝑃𝐵𝐴 = 𝑃𝐵 − 𝑃𝐵𝐸 = 5.3% − 4.94% = 0.36%

Exercise #3 Phase diagram

Using values from Exercise #2, for a reference volume of 1 cm3, find all the volumetric
properties and mass quantities as indicated in the phase diagram in Figure 3.
Mass Section
𝑔
𝑀𝑡 = 𝑉𝑡 ∗ 𝑀𝑉 = 1𝑐𝑚 ∗ 2.386
3
⁄𝑐𝑚 3 = 2.386 𝑔

𝑀𝑎 = 0 𝑔
𝑀𝑏 = 𝑀𝑡 ∗ 𝑃𝐵 = 2.386 𝑔 ∗ 5.3% = 0.126 𝑔
𝑀𝑏𝑒 = 𝑀𝑡 ∗ 𝑃𝐵𝐸 = 2.386 𝑔 ∗ 4.94% = 0.118 𝑔
𝑀𝑏𝑎 = 𝑀𝑡 ∗ 𝑃𝐵𝐴 = 2.386 𝑔 ∗ 0.36% = 0.009 𝑔
𝑀𝑠 = (1 − 𝑃𝐵 ) ∗ 𝑀𝑡 = (1 − 5.3%) ∗ 2.386 𝑔 = 2.260 𝑔
Volume Section

𝑉𝑎 = 𝑉𝑡 ∗ 𝑣 = 1𝑐𝑚3 ∗ 4.29% = 0.043 𝑐𝑚3

𝑉 = 𝑀 /𝑀𝑉 = 0.126 𝑔 ∗ 1.020 = 0.124 𝑐𝑚3
𝑏 𝑏 𝐵 ⁄𝑐𝑚3
𝑔
𝑉 = 𝑀 /𝑀𝑉 = 0.118 𝑔 ∗ 1.020 = 0.116 𝑐𝑚3
𝑏𝑒 𝑏𝑒 𝐵 ⁄𝑐𝑚3
𝑔
𝑉𝑏𝑎 = 𝑀𝑏𝑎 /𝑀𝑉𝐵 = 0.009 𝑔 ∗ 1.020 ⁄ = 0.008 𝑐𝑚3
𝑐𝑚 3
𝑉𝑚𝑚 = 𝑉𝑡 − 𝑉𝑎 = 1𝑐𝑚3 − 0.043 𝑐𝑚3 = 0.957 𝑐𝑚3
𝑉𝑔𝑒 = 𝑉𝑚𝑚 − 𝑉𝑏 = 0.957 𝑐𝑚3 − 0.124 𝑐𝑚3 = 0.833 𝑐𝑚3
 Politecnico di Torino – Civil Engineering College
Construction of Roads, Railways and Airports - 01RVMMX
A.Y. 2018/19

EXERCISE PART 2.04

Bituminous mixtures: Mix-design
10/12/2018

Example #1 Marshall mix design

By applying the Marshall method, perform the mix design of a bituminous mixture to be
employed as a wearing course 5 cm thick for a design traffic of 5 million ESALs.
Volumetric and mechanical tests were performed on 5 different mixtures with the same
aggregate skeleton but different binder content. The first trial bitumen content by weight
of aggregates (%B’) must be defined using specific-surface method (Duriez), the other four
different binder contents were considered as %B’ ± 0.5 % and %B’ ± 1 %.

Solution:

2. Define the aggregate gradation by combining available aggregates.

To define the aggregate gradation, it is necessary to have the values or a curve of reference
gradations, in order to obtain the gradation of the aggregates that make up the mixture. In
the case of this workshop, the gradation limits specified in the workshop will be used to
obtain the reference gradations, in such a way that the reference gradations will be the
average of the maximum gradation and the minimum gradation, the limits.

SIEVE (mm) MAX gradation (%) MIN gradation (%) Mean gradation (%)
30 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
20 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
12 90,0% 100,0% 95,0%
8 70,0% 90,0% 80,0%
4 40,0% 55,0% 47,5%
2 25,0% 38,0% 31,5%
0,4 11,0% 20,0% 15,5%
0,18 8,0% 15,0% 11,5%
0,075 6,0% 10,0% 8,0%

Then with the skeleton of initial aggregates (Pi), with the sieves for which the aggregates
were submitted (di) and with the specific gradation of each aggregate (αi), which is still
unknown, the following system of equations must be used:
from the equation, the proportion of aggregates for the entire mixture is obtained in
proportion to the specific sieves.

This combination of aggregates, gravels, sand and filler must be related in a difference of
squares with the values of reference gradation, using the following equation

The combination seeks to minimize the difference, so that when we use the solver tool of
the computational program, gradations can be obtained for each sample of aggregates.

Using the help of the solver computational tool, the following conditions are looked for:

2
∑[𝑃𝑖𝑅𝑒𝑓 − 𝑃𝑖𝑆𝑖𝑒𝑣𝑒(𝑑𝑖) ] = 𝑀𝑖𝑛 = 0

∑ 𝛼𝑖 = 100%

Once you execute the solver tool, we obtain:

Gravel Sand Filler

SIEVE (mm)
G1 (%) G2 (%) G3 (%) G4 (%) S1 (%) S2 (%) F (%)
30 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
20 78,1% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
12 19,0% 89,2% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
8 10,5% 47,5% 55,1% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
4 2,8% 6,9% 9,8% 40,8% 100,0% 88,1% 100,0%
2 1,3% 0,4% 3,6% 8,8% 77,0% 57,1% 100,0%
 0,4 0,9% 0,2% 0,6% 1,6% 26,8% 17,9% 100,0%
0,18 0,5% 0,2% 0,2% 0,2% 16,3% 11,3% 99,7%
0,075 0,2% 0,1% 0,1% 0,1% 2,2% 9,0% 95,5%
αi 0,00% 38,98% 0,00% 26,32% 27,20% 0,00% 7,50%

αi, is the aggregate gradation by combining available aggregates. As can be seen in the
table, only the aggregates G2, G4, S1 and F are the ones that really contribute to the mixture
of mixed design.

in summary you get

Aggregate Gradiation (αi)

G2 38,98%
G4 26,32%
S1 27,20%
Filler 7,50%

3. Estimation of the first trial binder content

The binder content is estimated by means of the specific-surface área method (Duriez,
1959):

1 2
∑= (0.17𝐺 + 0.33𝑔 + 2.3𝐴 + 12𝑎 + 135𝑓) [𝑚 ⁄𝑘𝑔 ]
100

Where:
G: percent of gradation larger than 10 mm
g: percent of gradation between: 5 & 10mm
A: percent of gradation between: 0,3 & 5mm
a: percent of gradation between: 0,075 & 0,3mm
f: percent of gradation between: 0,075mm

to know the respective percentages of gradation, it is necessary to have the percentage of

aggregate retained in the mixture, therefore, it must have the gradation of the mixture
previously found and then find the retained percentage accumulated. Below is an example
and then the results table:

Sieve 12 mm

𝑃𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑑 (%) = (𝐺2 ∗ 𝛼𝑖𝐺2 ) + (𝐺4 ∗ 𝛼𝑖𝐺4 ) + (𝑆1 ∗ 𝛼𝑖𝑆1 ) + (𝐹 ∗ 𝛼𝑖𝐹 )

𝑃𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑑 (%) = (89.20 ∗ 38.98) + (100 ∗ 26.32) + ⋯ = 95.79%

 𝑅𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 = 100% − 𝑃𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑑 (%)

𝑅𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 = 100% − 95.79% = 4.21%

For all the mixture you have:

SIEVE (mm) G2 (%) G4 (%) S1 (%) F (%) Passing (%) Retained Acum (%)
30 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,0% 0,0%
20 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,0% 0,0%
12 89,20% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 95,8% 4,2%
8 47,50% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 79,5% 20,5%
4 6,90% 40,80% 100,00% 100,00% 48,1% 51,9%
2 0,40% 8,80% 77,00% 100,00% 30,9% 69,1%
0,4 0,20% 1,60% 26,80% 100,00% 15,3% 84,7%
0,18 0,20% 0,20% 16,30% 99,70% 12,0% 88,0%
0,075 0,10% 0,10% 2,20% 95,50% 7,8% 92,2%
αi 38,98% 26,32% 27,20% 7,50%

Now you can properly obtain the specific gradation percentages required to know the
content of the mixture by Duriez's method

𝐺 = 4.21% − 0.00% = 4.21%

𝑔 = 20.5% − 4.21% = 16.26%

𝐴 = 84.7% − 20.5% = 64.25%

𝑎 = 92.2% − 84.7% = 7.46%

𝑓 = 100% − 92.2% = 7.80%

Then they have to be replace in the formula

1
∑= (0.
100 17 ∗ 4.21 + 0.33 ∗ 16.26 + 2.3 ∗ 64.25 + 12 ∗ 7.46 + 135 ∗ 7.80)
1 2 2
∑= (1300) [𝑚 ⁄𝑘𝑔 ] = 13 [𝑚 ⁄𝑘𝑔 ]
100

The bitumen content (percent by mass of aggregates), based on richness modulus (K ≈ 3.5)
and specific-surface area (∑), is given by:
̅ 1⁄5
%𝐵 = 𝐾 ∗ ∑
 1
%𝐵 = 3.5 ∗ 13 ⁄5 = 5.86%

4. Preparation of trial HMA blends at different binder content (5)

With the optimum bitumen percentage found, the preparation of the HMA blends at
different binder content (5) can be performed, which is specified by the following linear
graph. The values of the different contents of bitumen are specified below

4.85% 5.35% 5.85% 6.35% 6.85%

From the previous illustration it can be obtained that the blend with the lowest bitumen
content refers to %B'-1% with a percentage of bitumen content of 4.85%, in the same way
the blend with the highest bitumen content is the one referring to %B'+1% with a
percentage of bitumen of 6.85%, 2% higher than the lowest content.

5. preparation of Marshall specimens (4) and determination of volumetric properties

Now we need to prepare the four mixtures for the Marshall test, for that we need the values
of the table (3) given in the workshop, and from Bulk density of the asphalt mixture (MV)
and the Theoretical maximum density of the asphalt mixture (MMVT), it is necessary to
carry out the determination of the volumetric properties.

Air Voids Content

𝑀𝑉
𝑣 = 100 (1 − )
𝑀𝑀𝑉𝑇

For each of the different bitumen contents, different asphalt densities are available, these
must be averaged to obtain a single MMVT value for each bitumen content, then the
formula is applied to obtain the content of air voids, subsequently the average of all air
voids is extracted per sample of bitumen content. Bellow, the results table is displayed

MMVT MV v v mean
%Bitume 3 3
[g/cm ] [g/cm ] [%] [%]
2,501 2,352 6,16%
2,512 2,362 5,77%
%B’-1% 5,95%
2,356 6,00%
2,359 5,88%
2,491 2,386 4,29%
%B’-0,5% 4,31%
2,495 2,381 4,49%
 2,388 4,21%
2,387 4,25%
2,469 2,379 3,72%
2,473 2,385 3,48%
%B’ 3,62%
2,379 3,72%
2,383 3,56%
2,445 2,374 3,02%
2,451 2,371 3,15%
%B’+0,5% 3,00%
2,377 2,90%
2,376 2,94%
2,435 2,368 2,81%
2,438 2,371 2,69%
%B’+1% 2,73%
2,373 2,61%
2,368 2,81%

6. Determination of mechanical properties

Now we are going to determine the mechanical properties, these have the aim of
acceptance or rejected a sample, for this we will use the same 4 previous Marshall samples,
but now we have the mechanical properties of each sample, which are given in the table (4)
of the workshop.

The mechanical properties are obtained through Marshall stability and flow test, these
properties are: Stability (S), Flow (s) and average thickness (h). with the values of these
mechanical properties, it is needed to make an adjustment to the measured stability by
means of a correction factor c equal to

𝑐 = 5,2 ∙ 𝑒 −0,02598∙ℎ

Then the corrected stability (S) is obtained, which is simply multiplying the initial stability
(S) by the correction factor c. then an average per sample of bitumen should be derived
from the corrected stability (S) and the initial flow (s) independently. Then you get the
difference of stability (S) and flow (s) according to the following equation

𝑆𝐶𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 − 𝑆𝐶𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑
𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 (𝑆) 𝑣𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (%) =
𝑆𝐶𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑
𝑠 − 𝑠𝐶𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑
𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤 (𝑠) 𝑣𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (%) =
𝑠𝐶𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑

The test results are considered reliable if S and s differs les tan 15% and 20% respectively
from the avarage value of the four replications. If these conditions are not satisfied, the
speciment is rejected. Below are the results of the check test
 S S s S s
h S s
%Bitume c correct. mean mean variation variation Aceptance
[mm] [kN] [mm] [kN] [kN] [mm] [%] [%]
63,58 10,68 2,55 0,997 10,65 3,08% 2,00% Yes
65,08 10,22 2,65 0,959 9,80 -5,13% 6,00% Yes
%B’-1% 10,33 2,50
63,50 9,32 1,88 0,999 9,31 -9,86% -24,80% No
63,33 11,52 2,92 1,003 11,56 11,91% 16,80% Yes
65,23 15,30 3,50 0,955 14,61 13,85% 6,71% Yes
63,88 13,20 3,31 0,989 13,06 1,73% 0,91% Yes
%B’-0,5% 12,83 3,28
63,25 11,21 3,10 1,005 11,27 -12,18% -5,49% Yes
64,83 12,85 3,21 0,965 12,40 -3,39% -2,13% Yes
65,10 14,92 3,85 0,958 14,30 7,88% -2,84% Yes
65,00 14,25 4,30 0,961 13,69 3,30% 8,52% Yes
%B’ 13,25 3,96
66,13 13,30 3,65 0,933 12,41 -6,37% -7,89% Yes
63,90 12,76 4,05 0,989 12,61 -4,82% 2,21% Yes
66,28 12,10 4,10 0,929 11,24 -1,52% -7,87% Yes
67,43 12,40 4,60 0,902 11,18 -2,05% 3,37% Yes
%B’+0,5% 11,42 4,45
64,93 12,25 4,43 0,962 11,79 3,26% -0,45% Yes
65,98 12,23 4,67 0,937 11,45 0,31% 4,94% Yes
61,35 7,02 4,98 1,056 7,42 -20,14% -0,80% No
61,30 9,15 4,80 1,058 9,68 4,23% -4,38% Yes
%B’+1% 9,29 5,02
62,45 10,44 5,05 1,027 10,72 15,42% 0,60% No
64,35 9,55 5,25 0,977 9,33 0,50% 4,58% Yes

Now only the samples that passed the check test are taken and the mechanical and
volumetric properties are obtained, for which the Marshall quotient formula is used.

𝑆 𝑘𝑁
𝑄= [ ]
𝑠 𝑚𝑚

For which the following results are obtained, Both, mechanis and volumetric properties
%Bitume S adjust mean [kN] s adjust mean [mm] Q mean [kN/mm] v mean [%]
%B’-1%
10,67 2,71 3,94 5,95%
4,85%
%B’-0,5%
12,83 3,28 3,91 4,31%
5,35%
%B’
13,25 3,96 3,34 3,62%
5,85%
%B’+0,5%
11,42 4,45 2,57 3,00%
6,35%
%B’+1%
9,50 5,03 1,89 2,73%
6,85%
7. Determination of the optimun binder content

Now, you need to find which is the most economical solution, therefore you are going to
determine the optimun binder content, is defined as the amount of bitumen that satisfy all
the limiting specifications.

In order to use suitable the limits table for the Marshall method, it is necessary to have the
Marshall stability, the Marshall stiffness and the residual air contents, in a few words we
need to have the mechanical and volumetric properties of the binder samples

Therefore the limits are:

Limits
S [kN] v [%] Q [kN/mm]
>11 0,03 0,06 3 4,5

In this way, each one of the four Marshall samples with different binder content must be
checked, in order to accept or reject them depending on whether they comply with the
previously specified limits or not.

Check List
% Bitume S [kN] v [%] Q [kN/mm]
S [kN] v [%] Q [kN/mm]
%B’-1% 4,85% 10,67 5,95% 3,94 Not passed Passed. Passed.
%B’-0,5% 5,35% 12,83 4,31% 3,91 Passed. Passed. Passed.
%B’ 5,85% 13,25 3,62% 3,34 Passed. Passed. Passed.
%B’+0,5% 6,35% 11,42 3,00% 2,57 Passed. Passed. Not passed
%B’+1% 6,85% 9,50 2,73% 1,89 Not passed Not passed Not passed

As can be seen in the check-up table, the sample %B-0.5% and the sample %B with a
bitumen content of 5.35% and 5.85% respectively, comply with the limits requirements of
the Marshall method of stability, rigidity and air voids content , but as it should be chosen
the most economical, then it is taken as optimun binder content 5.35% referring to %B-
0.5%.
In the same way the limits can be controlled or checked graphically, for which we have:

Stability
14
Stability
13
Limit
Stability (kN)
12
11
10
9
8
4,0% 4,5% 5,0% 5,5% 6,0% 6,5% 7,0% 7,5%
Asphalt content (%)

Quotient
5,0
4,5
Quotient (kN/mm)

4,0 Quotient
3,5 Limit
3,0
2,5
2,0
1,5
4,0% 4,5% 5,0% 5,5% 6,0% 6,5% 7,0% 7,5%
Asphalt content (%)

Air voids content

6,5%
6,0%
5,5%
5,0%
Voids (%)

Voids Limit
4,5%
4,0%
3,5%
3,0%
2,5%
2,0%
4,0% 4,5% 5,0% 5,5% 6,0% 6,5% 7,0% 7,5%
Asphalt content (%)
Example #2 Volumetric mix design

By applying the volumetric method described in CIRS Technical Specifications (art.4 - table
4.7) perform the mix design of a bituminous mixture to be employed as a wearing course.

To perform an optimum asphalt mix that meets the criteria of the CIRS Technical
Specifications method, it is necessary to follow each of the steps that will be carried out
below.

Step 1. is to select a type of binder that is optimal and economical, and that compliance the
specifications and limits of the Marshall method. In step 2. you must select the most
suitable aggregate gradation. In step 3. you should estimate the first trial binder content,
as step 4. prepare trial blends at different binder content (% B-0.5%, % B, % B + 0.5% and
%B + 1%), these first Four steps were taken in the previous exercise, therefore, you should
check the values and bring them as input.

5. Next step is for each trial blend, prepare gyratory specimens and determine volumetric
properties.

During compaction the height (hx) is measured and recorded at each revolution (x), allowing
the determination of the geometric density of the sample MV (geo).

𝑀𝑚
𝑀𝑉(𝑔𝑒𝑜) = 𝐷(𝑔𝑒𝑜) =
𝑉𝑚𝑥
Where:
𝑀𝑚: Weight of specimen
𝑉𝑚𝑥: Volume of the cylindrical mold

Speciment diameter = 150 mm

Due to the Surface irregularities, the real volume of the speciment is smaller tan the
geometric one (Perfect Cylindrical shape). It is therefore necessary to correct MV (geo)
through the correction factor C

𝑀𝑉(𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑)𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑁𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑐=
𝑀𝑉(𝑔𝑒𝑜) 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑁𝑚𝑎𝑥

Therefore, its obtain the correct densitie of the specimen is

𝑀𝑉𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 = 𝐷𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 = 𝑐 ∙ 𝑀𝑉(𝑔𝑒𝑜)

And, the degree of compaction Will be

𝑀𝑉(𝐶𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑)
%𝐶𝑥 = %𝑀𝑀𝑉𝑇@𝑁𝑥 = . 100
𝑀𝑀𝑉𝑇
Finally you get the volumetric properties, for each percentage of bitumen, we can
determine the air voids content at diferent level of compaction.

𝑀𝑉
%𝑣 @𝑁𝑥 = 100 (1 − ) = 1 − %𝐶𝑥 = 1 − %𝑀𝑀𝑉𝑇@𝑁𝑥
𝑀𝑀𝑉𝑇

Now we obtain these properties for the binder content % B-0.5% = 5.35%

%B’ - 0,5%
Rotations hx(1) hx(2)
(mm) (mm)
Nini 128,3 128,8
Ndes 118,5 118,2
Nmax 117,1 116,7
MMVT (g/cm3) 2,583
MV(meas)@Nmax (g/cm3) 2,435 2,443
Mm (g) 4908 4944

hx(1) MV
c MV corr. %MMVT %v
[mm] (geo)
%B’-0,5% 128,3 2,165 2,222 86,0% 14,0%
5,35% 118,5 2,344 1,027 2,406 93,2% 6,8%
117,1 2,372 2,435 94,3% 5,7%

hx(2) MV
c MV corr. %MMVT %v
[mm] (geo)
%B’-0,5% 128,8 2,172 2,213 85,7% 14,3%
5,35% 118,2 2,367 1,019 2,412 93,4% 6,6%
116,7 2,397 2,443 94,6% 5,4%

Now, we can graph the results that allow us to obtain the equation that describes the
Theoretical maximum density of the asphalt mixture (% MMVT) base on Number of
rotations. And the following is the graph for the sample % B-0.5%. = 5.35%
 (%B -0,5) hx1 (%B -0,5) hx2
96% 100%
94%
y = 0,0671x + 0,794 y = 0,0725x + 0,7852
%MMVT

%MMVT
92% 95%
R² = 0,9953 R² = 0,9953
90%
88% 90%
86%
84% 85%
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5
Nx (Log) Nx (Log)

Now this step must be carried out for the other three samples with different binder content

Trial blend at binder content at %B = 5.85%

%B’
Rotations hx(1) hx(2)
(mm) (mm)
Nini 128,1 128,9
Ndes 116,5 117,8
Nmax 114,2 115,6
MMVT (g/cm3) 2,552
3
MV(meas)@Nmax (g/cm ) 2,481 2,475
Mm (g) 4958 4951

hx(1) MV
c MV corr. %MMVT %v
[mm] (geo)
%B’ 128,1 2,190 2,212 86,7% 13,3%
5,85% 116,5 2,408 1,010 2,432 95,3% 4,7%
114,2 2,457 2,481 97,2% 2,8%

hx(2) MV
c MV corr. %MMVT %v
[mm] (geo)
%B’ 128,9 2,174 2,220 87,0% 13,0%
5,85% 117,8 2,378 1,021 2,429 95,2% 4,8%
115,6 2,424 2,475 97,0% 3,0%

Now, we can graph the results that allow us to obtain the equation that describes the
Theoretical maximum density of the asphalt mixture (% MMVT) base on Number of
rotations. And the following is the graph for the sample % B = 5.85%
 (%B) hx1 (%B) hx2
100% 100%
y = 0,0847x + 0,7823
%MMVT

%MMVT
95% 95%
R ² = 0,9995 y = 0,0803x + 0,7897
90% 90% R² = 0,9995

85% 85%
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5
Nx (Log) Nx (Log)

Trial blend at binder content at %B+0.5% = 6.35%

%B’ + 0,5%
Rotations hx(1) hx(2)
(mm) (mm)
Nini 126,5 126,6
Ndes 115,1 115,1
Nmax 113,9 114,1
MMVT (g/cm3) 2,528
MV(meas)@Nmax (g/cm3) 2,469 2,465
Mm (g) 4930 4935

hx(1) MV
c MV corr. %MMVT %v
[mm] (geo)
%B’+0,5% 126,5 2,205 2,223 87,9% 12,1%
6,35% 115,1 2,424 1,008 2,443 96,6% 3,4%
113,9 2,449 2,469 97,7% 2,3%

hx(2) MV
c MV corr. %MMVT %v
[mm] (geo)
%B’+0,5% 126,6 2,206 2,222 87,9% 12,1%
6,35% 115,1 2,426 1,007 2,444 96,7% 3,3%
114,1 2,448 2,465 97,5% 2,5%

Now, we can graph the results that allow us to obtain the equation that describes the
Theoretical maximum density of the asphalt mixture (% MMVT) base on Number of
rotations. And the following is the graph for the sample %B+0.5% = 6.35%
 (%B +0,5) hx1 (%B +0,5) hx2
100% 100%
y = 0,0802x + 0,8003
%MMVT

%MMVT
95% 95%
R ² = 0,9904 y = 0,0798x + 0,8003
90% 90% R² = 0,987

85% 85%
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5
Nx (Log) Nx (Log)

Trial blend at binder content at %B+1% = 6.85%

%B’ + 1,0%
Rotations hx(1) hx(2)
(mm) (mm)
Nini 128,9 129,4
Ndes 117,6 117,8
Nmax 116,2 116,5
MMVT (g/cm3) 2,498
MV(meas)@Nmax (g/cm3) 2,455 2,453
Mm (g) 5001 5020

hx(1) MV
c MV corr. %MMVT %v
[mm] (geo)
%B’+1% 128,9 2,195 2,213 88,6% 11,4%
6,85% 117,6 2,406 1,008 2,426 97,1% 2,9%
116,2 2,435 2,455 98,3% 1,7%

hx(2) MV
c MV corr. %MMVT %v
[mm] (geo)
%B’+1% 129,4 2,195 2,208 88,4% 11,6%
6,85% 117,8 2,411 1,006 2,426 97,1% 2,9%
116,5 2,438 2,453 98,2% 1,8%

Now, we can graph the results that allow us to obtain the equation that describes the
Theoretical maximum density of the asphalt mixture (% MMVT) base on Number of
rotations. And the following is the graph for the sample %B+1%=6.85%
 (%B +1) hx1 (%B +1) hx2
100% 100%
y = 0,0794x + 0,8075
%MMVT

%MMVT
95% 95%
R ² = 0,9932
y = 0,0805x + 0,8046
90% 90% R² = 0,9915

85% 85%
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5
Nx (Log) Nx (Log)

6. Evaluation of volumetric properties at 𝑁𝑑𝑒𝑠 (𝑁𝑖𝑛𝑖 & 𝑁𝑚𝑎𝑥 )

For the evaluation of the volumetric properties, we will take the air void contents found
above for each sample with different bitumen content, and the number of rotations, and it
is determined as the average of the compacted samples (hx1 and hx2)

% voids content
%B’ - 0,5% %B’ %B’ + 0,5% %B’ + 1,0%
hx(1) hx(2) mean hx(1) hx(2) mean hx(1) hx(2) mean hx(1) hx(2) mean
Nini 14,0% 14,3% 14,1% 13,3% 13,0% 13,2% 12,1% 12,1% 12,1% 11,4% 11,6% 11,5%
Ndes 6,8% 6,6% 6,7% 4,7% 4,8% 4,8% 3,4% 3,3% 3,3% 2,9% 2,9% 2,9%
Nmax 5,7% 5,4% 5,6% 2,8% 3,0% 2,9% 2,3% 2,5% 2,4% 1,7% 1,8% 1,8%

7. Determine the optimun binder content using criteria from the appropiate method (CIRS
guidelines)

In order to determine the optimum binder content, first a limit check according to table 4.7
must be performed for the volumetric method. Next, the table that provides the
parameters and limits according to the CIRS method is presented
Summary of the limits and the air voids content for the fourth different simples

Limits
N inital N design N maximum
10,0% 14,0% 4,0% 6,0% 2,0%
10,0% 14,0% 4,0% 6,0% 2,0%

% voids content
%B N initial N design N maximum
5,35% 14,1% 6,7% 5,6%
5,85% 13,2% 4,8% 2,9%
6,35% 12,1% 3,3% 2,4%
6,85% 11,5% 2,9% 1,8%

Then, to obtain the optimum binder content, it is determined graphically, for which we
have:

N initial
15,0%

14,0%
% voids content

13,0% %
voids
12,0%

11,0%

10,0%

9,0%
5,00% 5,50% 6,00% 6,50% 7,00% 7,50%
% Binder
 N design
7,0%

6,0%

% voids content
%
5,0% voids

4,0%

3,0%

2,0%
5,00% 5,50% 6,00% 6,50% 7,00% 7,50%
% Binder

N maximum
6,0%

5,0%
% voids content

4,0% %
voids
3,0%

2,0%

1,0%

0,0%
5,00% 5,50% 6,00% 6,50% 7,00% 7,50%
% Binder

From the Excel computational tool the linear equation of the line for the 𝑁𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 graph is
obtained, additionally, the optimun air void content is 5%, so this value must be replaced in
the equation and in this way the optimum binder content is obtained

%𝑉𝑜𝑖𝑑𝑠 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 = −3.9339 ∗ %𝑂𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑛 𝐵𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 + 0.2776

Therefore, to obtain the optimun binder content:

%𝑉𝑜𝑖𝑑𝑠 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 − 0.2776

%𝑂𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑛 𝑏𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 =
−3.9339
5% − 0.2776
%𝑂𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑛 𝑏𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 = = 5.79%
−3.9339
8. Verification of the mixture with the optimun binder content

Finally, a mixture with the optimun binder content is made to verify that volumetric and
mechanical properties meets specification requirements.

To verify the properties, you must perform the previous steps but with the optimal bitumen
percentage, (See procedure 5), therefore, the next step is for the optumun binder content,
prepare gyratory specimens and determine volumetric properties

%B optimum
Rotations hx(1) hx(2)
(mm) (mm)
Nini 126,7 127,1
Ndes 116,8 117,3
Nmax 114,9 115,1
3
MMVT (g/cm ) 2,556
MV(meas)@Nmax (g/cm3) 2,472 2,475
Mm (g) 4955 4947

hx(1)
MV (geo) c MV corr. %MMVT %v
[mm]
%B
optimum 126,7 2,213 2,242 87,7% 12,3%
5,786% 116,8 2,401 1,013 2,432 95,1% 4,9%
114,9 2,440 2,472 96,7% 3,3%

hx(2)
MV (geo) c MV corr. %MMVT %v
%B [mm]
optimum 127,1 2,203 2,241 87,7% 12,3%
5,786% 117,3 2,387 1,018 2,429 95,0% 5,0%
115,1 2,432 2,475 96,8% 3,2%

Subsequently, we obtain the air voids content check using the following limits

Limits
N inital N design N maximum
10,0% 14,0% 4,0% 6,0% 2,0%
10,0% 14,0% 4,0% 6,0% 2,0%

Then we check for the optimun binder content sample

 % voids content
hx(1) hx(2) mean
Nini 12,3% 12,3% 12,3% Passed.
Ndes 4,9% 5,0% 4,9% Passed.
Nmax 3,3% 3,2% 3,2% Passed.

As we all met the requirement of volumetric properties, we must check the mechanical
properties. To check the mechanical properties, the table 4.7 of the volumetric method
must be quoted in order to obtain the limits

Limits
ITS (Mpa) Loss in ITS
>0,6 25,0%

Now we must obtain these results from the data provided in the workshop, to be able to
make the comparison and finish the checkup. For each test specimen calculate the indirect
tensile strength (ITS), the indirect tensile coefficient (ITC), and determine the average value
of the determinations. Finally calculate the indirect tensile strength ratio (ITSR)

2𝑃
𝐼𝑇𝑆(𝑀𝑃𝑎) =
𝜋𝐷𝐻

Where ITS is expressed in MPa, P is the peak load in N, D is the diameter of the specimen in
mm, and H is the Height of the specimen, in mm

𝐼𝑇𝑆𝑤
𝐼𝑇𝑆𝑅(%) =
𝐼𝑇𝑆𝑑
Where ITSR is expressed in %, ITSw is the avarage ITS of the wet specimen group, in kPa,
and ITSd is the average ITS of the dry specimen group, in kPa.

Specimen 1 2 3 4 5 6
Conditioning 15 days in water 15 days in air (control)
Height, H (mm) 99,5 99,3 99,4 99,3 99,2 99,3
Peak load, P (N) 16720 16484 17441 20803 20065 20354
ITS (MPa) 0,713 0,705 0,745 0,889 0,858 0,870
ITS w,d (MPa) 0,721 0,873
ITSR (%) 82,61%

Now we must compare this data with the table of limits that was determined from the table
4.7 of the volumetric method

ITS (Mpa)
0,713 0,705 0,745 0,889 0,858 0,870
Passed. Passed. Passed. Passed. Passed. Passed.

Now
𝐿𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝐼𝑇𝑆 = 1 − 𝐼𝑇𝑆𝑅% = 1 − 82.61% = 17.39%

𝑇ℎ𝑢𝑠, 17.39% < 25% = 𝐿𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡 ∴ 𝐶𝐻𝐸𝐶𝐾

As can be seen in the last two tables and additionally in the volumetric properties, the
optimum content of binder is = 5.79%, meets all the mechanical and volumetric properties,
therefore it will be the most suitable binder content for implementation.