Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Materials 2022; 31: 186–192
Research Article
Dina A. Rasool*, Miami M. Hilal, and Mohammed Y. Fattah
Typical strength of asphalt mixtures compacted
by gyratory compactor
https://doi.org/10.1515/jmbm-2022-0023
received February 05, 2022; accepted March 24, 2022
Abstract: Design of asphalt mixes and quality testing is
influenced by the laboratory compaction procedure. Laboratory
specimens must be manufactured in a way that suitably resem-
bles field compaction for a performance test to give reliable
mechanical properties. The internal structure of the mixture,
which is referred to in this article as the spread of aggregate and
air voids, provides the basis for the simulation. Gyratory com-
paction uses a kneading effort to produce cylindrical speci-
mens. The goal of the present article is to determine the
required strength for asphalt mix compaction of 40–50 per
surface. This look was achieved with three distinct types of
filler material and two kinds of sand. The asphalt mixture’s
compressibility was tested. By adding the cumulative energy
expended during gyratory specimen compaction to the com-
pression data, the force applied to the sample during gyrations
may be calculated. The relation between the number of gyra-
tions and forces demonstrates pressure resistance. The mea-
sured fore force vs number of gyrations for combinations
containing limestone, cement, and fly ash as fill materials
was presented. The force required to compact the six bitumi-
nous materials was found to be influenced by the filler content.
As the number of gyrations increases, its compaction properties
change until it achieves a steady state. Except for the asphalt–
cement mixture, compaction strength in mixes containing river
sand requires less strength than compaction strength in mixes
containing crushed sand.
Keywords: asphalt, gyratory compactor, HMA, load, strength

* Corresponding author: Dina A. Rasool, Civil Engineering
Department, University of Technology, Baghdad, Iraq,
e-mail: bce.19.25@grad.uotechnology.edu.iq
Miami M. Hilal: Civil Engineering Department, University of
Technology, Baghdad, Iraq, e-mail: 40092@uotechnology.edu.iq
Mohammed Y. Fattah: Civil Engineering Department, University of
Technology, Baghdad, Iraq, e-mail: 40011@uotechnology.edu.iq
Open Access. © 2022 Dina A. Rasool et al., published by De Gruyter.
International License.
1 Introduction
One of the most common procedures used in constructing
highways is the compaction of asphalt mixes. Compaction
reduces mix air gaps, allows aggregates to interlocking
and lowering the thickness of the (hot mix asphalt
(HMA)) matting according to the specification thickness
[1,2]. Aggregate grading, type, shape, roughness, asphalt
content, and grading are all elements that affect mix com-
paction. Gyratory compaction is one technique for deter-
mining mix compactability. The current approach to the
asphalt design mix is to use the gyratory compactor to
create cylindrical HMA samples (superpave gyratory com-
pactor (SGC)). The compaction resistance of a mix can
be in expressed terms of measurement of height, the
number gyrations is used to determine its workability
and compactability. In the lab, difficult-to-compact mix-
tures should behave the same way in the field. For the
contractor to obtain acceptable density, these mixes would
demand greater compaction effort and time. Workability is
determined by the ease with which mixed components
could be blended by construction equipment. Workability
suffers dramatically as the asphalt modifiers begin to ele-
vate their viscosity at lower temperatures. Under stress,
the mix’s stability as well as resistance to densification
are indicators of compactability. Densification occurs when
the air voids decrease substantially towards zero and the
density of the mix reaches its maximum limit. In lay-
down operations, compaction of the pavement is a cri-
tical responsibility. Premature failure can happen if the
job is not done correctly. Stiff mixtures have a hard time
compacting, as a result of breaking and deboning at the
interface. Mixes that have compaction issues in the lab
are more likely to have compaction issues on the job.
The SGC applies force to specimen during compaction to
apply vertical pressure and gyration angle. Height loss
caused by such forces can be used to determine a mix’s
compactability. There are two techniques for employing
gyratory compactors for assessing mixed compactability
that have been documented in the literature. The first
is to analyze the shear stress of the mix undergoing
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
 Typical strength of asphalt mixtures compacted by gyratory compactor  187

Table 1: Physical characteristics of coarse aggregate

Test ASTM designation Specification Results

Bulk specific gravity C-127 — 2.624

Apparent specific gravity C-127 — 2.680
Water absorption (%) C-127 — 0.48
Percent wear (Los Angeles abrasion) C-535 Max. 30% 20.5
Soundness loss by sodium sulfate solution (%) C-88 Max. 12% 4.1%
Flat and elongation
(1) Flat D-4791 Max 10% 1%
(2) Elongation 4%

compaction using traditional static equilibrium mod-
eling as investigated by many researchers, e.g., [3–7].
Using this method, shear strength was used to study the
stability of mixes underneath load as resistance to dis-
tress, including permanent deformation. Second strategy
is to build compaction indices using SGC data [8–14].
According to common understanding, a good mix should
be easy to compact during the construction phase and
endure deformation adequately during the transportation
loading cycle. As a result, at both these stages, compaction
quality must be evaluated. Studying the compaction curve
revealed the compaction properties of regular sample
molding. Fattah et al. [15] employed the SGC to construct
force indices to evaluate the workability and compact-
ability of mixtures during the normal mixture design
phase and before laydown operations.
2 Work in progress
Asphalt binder (40–50) penetration grade, the aggregate
of various gradations, and three kinds of mineral fillers:
limestone, fly ash, and Portland cement were used. The
asphalt binders were sourced from the Al Daurah oilfield
in Baghdad. The crushed quartz utilized in the laboratory
study came from the Al-Nibaie quarry in Iraq, which is
located north of Baghdad. Routine tests, including sieving,
shape, specific gravity, flat and elongated, toughness (Los
Angeles abrasion), and soundness, were used to assess the
physical qualities. These tests follow the following speci-
fications: ASTM C127 (ASTM 2015a), ASTM C131 (ASTM
2014a), ASTM C88 (ASTM 2018), ASTM D4791 (ASTM2010),
ASTM C128 (ASTM2015b), ASTMD2419 (ASTM 2014b), and
ASTM C142 (ASTM 2017). Six combinations of these mate-
rials were produced and piled in the presence of a load
cell, with the force required to compact each mix being
calculated. The gradation, bitumen grade, and content
of the mixes, as well as aggregate size, temperatures,
and compaction type, all influence the mix’s compac-
tion. These considerations will be taken into account
while determining compaction indices in this investi-
gation. Physical parameters of coarse aggregates are
shown in Tables 1–3. Cement, limestone dust, and fly
ash have different physical characteristics, as shown
in Tables 4–6, respectively.

Table 2: Physical characteristics of fine aggregate crushed sand

Test ASTM designation Specification Results

Bulk specific gravity C-128 — 2.639

Apparent specific gravity C-128 — 2.699
Water absorption (%) C-128 — 0.720
Sand equivalent (%) D-2419 Min 45% 72%

Table 3: Physical characteristics of fine aggregate river sand

Test ASTM designation Specification Results

Bulk specific gravity C-128 — 2.660

Apparent specific gravity C-128 — 2.782
Water absorption (%) C-128 — 0.720
188  Dina A. Rasool et al.

Table 4: Physical characteristics of Portland cement Table 6: Physical characteristics of fly ash

Properties Result Properties Result

No. 200 sieve (percentage passing) (0.075 mm) 97% No. 200 sieve (percentage passing) (0.075 mm) 96%
Specific gravity 3.12 Specific gravity 2.5

Table 5: Physical characteristics of limestone dust

3 Choosing the best asphalt
Properties Result
content
No. 200 sieve (percentage passing) (0.075 mm) 96%
Specific gravity 2.92 The ideal asphalt binder content could be determined by
Plasticity index N.P
assessing the performance of each sample blend. As a

12

Unit weight (gm/cm3)

10 2.3
Stability (kN)

8
2.29
6
4 2.28
2
0 2.27
3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
Asphalt content % Asphalt content %

a b
7 4
6 3.5
3
Air voide %

5
Flow (mm)

4 2.5
2
3
1.5
2 1
1 0.5
0 0
3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Asphalt content % Asphalt content %

c d
100
17
16 80
15
VMA %

VFA %

60
14
13 40
12
20
11
10 0
3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
Asphalt content % Asphalt content %

e f

Figure 1: Results of Marshall test. (a) stability vs. asphalt content, (b) unit weight vs. asphalt content, (c) air voids vs. asphalt content,
(d) flow vs. asphalt content, (e) VMA (void mineral aggregate) vs. asphalt content, (f) VFA (void filler aggregate) vs. asphalt content.
 Typical strength of asphalt mixtures compacted by gyratory compactor
Figure 2: Designation of the load cell mold [15].
result, the test blends must have a range of asphalt con-
tent across each optimum asphalt value. As a result,
determining the optimal asphalt composition is the first
step of sample preparation. The asphalt content of the
trial blend is then calculated based on this estimate.
The samples are compressed using a Marshall hammer
to apply the apparatus number of blows to every face
based on the projected traffic load. After the samples
have cooled, remove them from the mold. The thickness
and bulk specific gravity of the specimens were measured
after they had reached room temperature. For mixtures
containing (mid-value of prescribed limits) 7% Portland
cement (by weight of the total aggregate) and five dif-
ferent bitumen contents of 40–50 grade from 4 to 6%
(by weight of the total mix) with increased periods (0.5)
percent, a series of test results for Marshall stability, flow,
and density-void analysis are carried out. For each mix
variable, three specimens are made and tested. Figure 1
shows the results of Marshall test determined using the
best asphalt content. It is discovered that it makes up 5%
of the total mixture.
4 Modification of gyratory
compactor
During compaction, the gyratory compactor actuators
provide forces to the specimen in the case of applying
vertical pressure and gyration angle. The mix’s response
to these factors can be tracked and used to assess mix
stability [15]. To attain this goal, two basic approaches
have been used in the past. The first method depends on
examining compaction curve properties, such as slope,
 189
Figure 3: Sensor network that operates wirelessly.
and linking them to mix stability as suggested by Mallick
[8] and Bahia et al. [10]. The essential point to note about
this method is the fact that it focuses on the compaction
curve’s average slope. However, Fattah et al. [16] point
out that the compaction curve is divided into two halves.
The first part has a high rate of change in air voids, which
is linked to densification during roller building at high
temperatures, but the second half has a lower rate of
change in air voids and the aggregate structure is sub-
jected to severe shear stresses. Performance of the HMA
in service has been linked to the second part’s compac-
tion characteristics at ambient temperatures [16,17]. The
second way for employing a gyratory compactor is to
develop experimental instruments and methodologies
for determining shear stress throughout compaction and
relate it to stability. During gyratory test machine compac-
tion, McRea presented an equation for calculating the
shear stress in HMA [3,18]. The formulation of the HMA’s
equilibrium analysis and compacted mold was used to
develop this equation. The same equation was employed
to demonstrate that the estimated shear stress is sensitive
to the variations in binder type [12]. Mohammed et al. [19]
calculated the shear stress and compacted energy in asphalt
mixtures using a Finland gyratory compactor and installed
a device on the Superpave gyratory compactor to calculate
Figure 4: During gyration, measuring units are prepared in the SGC
mold [15].
190  Dina A. Rasool et al.

12000
10000

Force (N)
8000
6000
4000
limestone & crushed sand
2000 limestone River sand
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
No. of gyrations

Figure 5: The measured force on the sample obtained from the modified gyratory apparatus using limestone as filler.

the forces at the specimens are when the bottom is com-
pacted [4]. Dessouky et al. [6] demonstrated that, while
various gyratory compactors were employed to measure
shear stress in the past, they all relied on different variants
of McRae’s equation. A gyratory compactor from Superpave
with such a gyratory load cell mold was used to test the
mechanical properties of the material. The components
listed in the following sections make up the device. On
top of the sample, the load cell allows for the modification
of forces to be measured during gyration. Resistance effort
(w) as a function of gyration count was calculated using
mix’s response to applied forces in the SGC, as illustrated
in Figure 2.
The load cell can be used in compression applica-
tions with limited space. The loading button is somewhat
convex for accurate weight distribution. Threaded mounting
holes on the bottom surface allow it to be attached to its
base. The load cell is constructed of 17-4 PH steel mate-
rial that has been sealed against temperature for prac-
tical application. Figure 3 depicts the part of load cell
portion of the load cell and its components.
Figure 4 depicts the WSGx-1 presented in a compact
enclosure (75.6 × 59 mm × 29 mm), it uses two AA batteries,
and can be installed directly on a sensor. It is powered by
USB bus, so there will be no extra charge components
required to manage remote devices from a PC.

10000
8000
Force (N)

6000
4000
2000 cement & Crushed sand
cement & River sand
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
No. of gyrarations

Figure 6: The measured force on the sample obtained from the modified gyratory apparatus using cement as filler.

10000
8000
Force (N)

6000
4000
2000 fly ash & Crashed sand
fly ash & River sand
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
No. of gyrations

Figure 7: The measured force on the sample obtained from the modified gyratory apparatus using fly ash as filler.
 Typical strength of asphalt mixtures compacted by gyratory compactor
5 Discussion of findings
Compression tests were performed in the laboratory to
use a Superpave gyratory compactor. Specific compres-
sive strength values were computed. At a temperature of
165°C, compressive measurements of asphalt mixes and
asphalt mixtures were made. Figures 5–7 show the mea-
sured fore force vs the number of gyrations for combina-
tions containing limestone, cement, and fly ash, respectively.
The strength required for compaction varies depending on
variables, such as the mixture of asphalt with limestone
and river sand, which requires a strength increase of 5.95
percent, while for the mixture of asphalt with limestone and
crushed sand, it requires a strength increase of 71.5 percent,
and the cement-river mixture, which requires a strength
increase of 71.5 percent. Sand river requires an increase of
8.69%, while cement mixture with crushed sand requires
an increase of 19.35%, and a mixture of fly ash and river
sand requires an increase in force to raise the strength. The
plate covering the specimen rotates at a predetermined gyra-
tion angle as well as frequency and provides kneading
pressure, which is represented by forces generated by
the pressure and plates angle. After each gyration, the
specimen is compacted, and the height difference is
recorded. Volume changes and compaction rates can be
calculated using the height change (volume change rate).
The combinations using crushed sand and limestone
as a filler have the highest strength, indicating that the
mix is stiff, as shown in Figures 5–7. The role of aggregate
orientation in granular material shear strength and stiff-
ness has been extensively researched. As a result, as the
gyrations occur, the measured force varies.
6 Conclusion
The goal of the article was to determine the required
strength for compaction of asphalt mixtures with 40–50
per surface layer. Three different types of mineral filler, as
well as two different types of sand, were evaluated. A link
between gyratory and measured forces was used to research
the compressibility of an asphalt mix. Following conclu-
sions were drawn:
1. When the six asphalt mixtures are compacted, it is
discovered that the strength necessary to compact them
differs depending on the filler material. The mixes using
crushed sand and limestone as a filler have the highest
strength, indicating that the mixes are stiffer.
2. As the number of gyrations rises, the compaction strength
increases until it stabilizes.
 191
3. Except for asphalt–cement combinations, the strength
of compaction in mixtures using river sand requires
less strength than mixtures containing crushed sand.
Funding information: The authors state no funding
involved.
Author contributions: All authors have accepted respon-
sibility for the entire content of this manuscript and
approved its submission.
Conflict of interest: Authors state no conflict of interest.
References
[1] Dessouky S, Diaz M. Evaluation of asphalt mixes workability
and compactability using laboratory and accelerated field
testing. In Proceedings of the TMS Middle
East – Mediterranean Materials Congress on Energy and
Infrastructure Systems (MEMA 2015). Cham: Springer; 2015.
p. 77–86.
[2] McRea JL. Gyratory compaction method for determining den-
sity requirements for subgrade and base of flexible pave-
ments. Miscellaneous paper, Waterways Experiment Station
(U.S.); 1962. p. 4–494.
[3] Guler M, Bahia HU, Bosscher PJ, Plesha ME. Device for mea-
suring shear resistance of hot-mix asphalt in gyratory com-
pactor. Transport Res Rec. 2000;1723(1):116–24.
[4] Anderson RM. Relationship of Superpave gyratory compaction
properties to HMA rutting behavior. Transport Res Board.
2002. Report No. 478.
[5] Dessouky S, Masad E, Bayomy F. Prediction of hot mix asphalt
stability using the Superpave gyratory compactor. J Mater Civ
Eng. 2004 Dec;16(6):578–87.
[6] Abu Abdo AM, Bayomy F, Nielsen R, Weaver T, Jung SJ, Santi M.
Development and evaluation of hot mix asphalt stability index.
Int J Pavement Eng. 2010 Dec 1;11(6):529–39.
[7] Cominsky R, Leahy RB, Harrigan ET. Level one mix design:
materials selection, compaction, and conditioning. Report No.
SHRP-A-408. Strategic Highway Research Program National
Research Council, NW, Washington, DC United States;
1994 Aug.
[8] Mallick RB. Use of Superpave gyratory compactor to charac-
terize hot-mix asphalt. Transport Res Rec.
1999;1681(1):86–96.
[9] Rand DA. Comparative analysis of Superpave gyratory com-
pactors and TxDOT gyratory compactors [dissertation].
Austin, Texas: University of Texas at Austin; 1999.
[10] Bahia HU, Friemel TP, Peterson PA, Russell JS, Poehnelt B.
Optimization of constructibility and resistance to traffic: a new
design approach for HMA using the Superpave compactor.
J Assoc Asph Paving Technol. 1999;67:189–232.
[11] Butcher M. Determining gyratory compaction characteristics
using servopac gyratory compactor. Transport Res Rec.
1998;1630(1):89–97.
192  Dina A. Rasool et al.
[12] Moutier F. Gyratory compactor (GC or PCG) justification of its
use in the French mix design. USA: Superpave Asph Mixture
Expert Task Group; 1997.
[13] Ruth BE, Shen X, Wang LH. Gyratory evaluation of aggregate
blends to determine their effect on shear resistance and sensitivity
to asphalt content. In Effects of aggregates and mineral fillers on
asphalt mixture performance. USA: ASTM International; 1992 Jan.
[14] Fattah MY, Hilal MM, Flyeh HB. Assessment of mechanical
stability performance of asphalt mixture using Superpave
gyratory compactor. J Transport Eng Part B Pavem. 2019 Jun
1;145(2):04019004.
[15] Mahmoud AF, Bahia H. Using gyratory compactor to measure
mechanical stability of asphalt mixtures. Wisconsin Highway
Research Program; 2004
[16] Fattah MY, Hilal MM, Flyeh HB. Evaluation of the mechanical
stability of asphalt mixture using the gyratory compactor. Int J
Pavem Res Technol. 2019 Sep;12(5):508–18.
[17] McRae JL. Gyratory testing machine technical manual.
Vicksburg, MS: Engineering Developments Company, Inc.;
1965. p. 2.
[18] DeSombre R, Newcomb DE, Chadbourn B, Voller V.
Parameters to define the laboratory compaction temperature
range of hot-mix asphalt. J Assoc Asph Paving Technol.
1998;67:125–52.
[19] Mohammed SG, Fattah MY, Abd Al-Jabbar MB. Comparison
between compaction of subbase material by proctor tests and
Superpave gyratory compactor. Glob J Eng Sci Res Manag.
2019;6(6):1.