CE 772 Pavement Materials

Module 6: Pavement Aggregates

“It is inappropriate to treat the aggregates with any respect

than cement (binder)” – Mehta and Monteiro
Prof. Solomon Debbarma, sdebbarma@iitb.ac.in Phone: 8837237899 (M); 7131 (O)
Some images are taken from the internet and used for educational purposes only
 Today’s Challenge
Many crushers in Mumbai

Construct best rigid road with Which crusher will you select??
100 years design life

Technical parameters Economic and Environmental parameters

• Strength (compressive or flexural) • Economical

• Durability • Less greenhouse gases
• Abrasion resistance
•30/01/23
Dimension stability CE 772 Pavement Materials | IIT Bombay 2
 Aggregates: Significance

❖ In concrete, aggregates occupy about 60-80% of the volume.

❖ For pavements, this can be > 80%.

❖ Main significance:
❖ Cost
❖ Dimensional stability
❖ Strength and stiffness
❖ Abrasion resistance Asphalt or Filler Air Voids
Bitumen
❖ Durability
Coarse
Aggregate

Fine
Aggregate

30/01/23 CE 772 Pavement Materials | IIT Bombay 3

 Classification of Aggregates
Classification

Crushed Natural Artificial

Gravels, natural sand

Igneous Sedimentary Metamorphic • Manufactured

(solidification of molten (accumulations of (rocks that are modified by • By-products
magma: GRANITE & sediments due to glacier pressure & chemical: Sandstone • Recycled
BASALT) & river: SANDSTONE, converts to Quartzite; Limestone
LIMESTONE) to Marble & Granite to Gneiss)
Sub-Classification

Physical Chemical Size Shape Texture Application

Stratified Siliceous (main Boulders (>200 Round Polished Heavyweight

(can be split) content is silica) mm) concrete (density
Cobbles (>75 mm) Sub-round Smooth >2900 kg/m3)
Un-stratified Argillaceous (main
Coarse (>4.75 Lighweight
(cannot be split) content is clay) Angular Sub-smooth
mm) (<1120)
Foliated Calcareous (main Fine (<4.75 mm) Sub-angular Rough Normal (2400)
(split in 1 content is calcium Conventional/
Silt (<0.075 mm)
direction only) carbonate) Flaky & Elongated non-conventional
30/01/23 CE 772 Pavement
Clay (<0.002Materials
mm) | IIT Bombay 4
asphalt
 Aggregate Sampling
❖ How to do the sampling for aggregate characterization?
Refer ASTM D75 or IS:2430
Maximum Minimum • MAXIMUM SIZE. The smallest sieve through which100
Nominal Size Weight of Gross percent of the aggregate sample particles pass.
(mm) Sample (kg) Superpave defines the maximum aggregate size as
“one sieve larger than the nominal maximum size”
9.5 10
• NOMINAL MAXIMUM SIZE. The largest sieve that
12.5 15 retains some of the aggregate particles but generally
19 25 not more than 10 percent by weight. Superpave
25 50 defines nominal maximum aggregate size as “one sieve
size larger than the first sieve to retain more than 10
37.5 75 percent of the material”
50 100 • GROSS SAMPLE: It is sum of incremental samples: 10 if
63 125 followed IS & 3 if adopted ASTM.

Board to avoid
segregation
Top-third Choose any
Collect in 10/3 1 2 diagonal &
increments
collect
Mid gross
sample for
Tube for fine test as per
3 4 IS: 2386
30/01/23 Bottom-third
CE 772 Pavement Materials | IIT Bombay 5
 Aggregate Sampling
❖ How to know the size a COARSE aggregate?
IS sieve Percentage Passing for SINGLE-SIZED Aggregate of Nominal Percentage Passing for GRADED
(mm) Size AGGREGATES of Nominal Size

63 mm 40 mm 20 mm 16 mm 12.5 10 mm 40 mm 20 mm 16 mm 12.5
mm mm
80 100 - 100
63 85-100 100 -
40 0-30 85-100 100 90-100 100
20 0-5 0-20 85-100 100 30-70 90-100 100 100
16 - - - 85-100 100 - - 90-100 -
12.5 - - - - 85-100 100 - - - 90-100
10 0-5 0-5 0-20 0-30 0-45 85-100 10-35 25-55 30-70 40-85
4.75 - - 0-5 0-5 0-10 0-20 0-5 0-10 0-10 0-10
2.36 - - - - - 0-5 - - - -

30/01/23 CE 772 Pavement Materials | IIT Bombay 6

 Aggregate Sampling
❖ How to know the size a FINE aggregate?

IS sieve (mm) Percentage Passing

Zone I Zone II Zone III Zone IV

10 100 100 100 100
4.75 90-100 90-100 90-100 95-100
2.36 60-95 75-100 85-100 95-100
1.18 30-70 55-90 75-100 90-100
0.6 15-34 35-59 60-79 80-100
0.3 5-20 8-30 12-40 15-50
0.15 0-10 0-10 0-10 0-15

• 0.6 mm sieve is critical: NO VARITION is PERMITTED; for others, 5% may be considered;

this tolerance is not permissible for coarser limit of Zone I and finer limit of zone IV.
• For Crushed sand, the permissible limit on 0.15 could be increased to 20%
• The ratio of fine to coarse aggregates generally decreases with increasing zones (I to IV).
• Zone IV should not be used for reinforced concrete until tested in lab for suitability.

30/01/23 CE 772 Pavement Materials | IIT Bombay 7

 Aggregate: Other Classification

Boulders Cobbles Gravel Sand Silt Clay

200 mm 75 mm 4.75 mm 0.075 mm 0.002 mm

COARSE Aggregate FINE Aggregate

Gravel Gravel Partially Manufactured Crushed Sand Natural Sand

(uncrushed) (crushed) crushed (manufactured other
(blending or than from natural;
crushed & using thermal or
uncrushed) other process such as Crushed Crushed Mixed Sand
Stone Sand Gravel Sand (blending natural
separation, washing
sand and crushed
crushing & scrubbing sand)
e.g. RCA)
30/01/23 CE 772 Pavement Materials | IIT Bombay 8
 Tests on Aggregates

❖ 1st Scenario: Sudden impact or shock?

Bituminous pavement

Aggregates need to be resistant against sudden impact or shock

➢ Aggregate impact value test

30/01/23 CE 772 Pavement Materials | IIT Bombay 9

 Tests on Aggregates
❖ Aggregate impact value test

• Aggregates passing 12.5 mm sieve and retained on 10 mm

sieve is filled in a cylindrical steel cup of internal dia 10.2 mm
and depth 5 cm which is attached to a metal base of impact
testing machine.
• The material is filled in 3 layers where each layer is tamped for
25 number of blows.
• Metal hammer of weight 13.5 to 14 kg is arranged to drop with
a free fall of 38.0 cm by vertical guides and the test specimen is
subjected to 15 number of blows.
• The crushed aggregate is allowed to pass through 2.36 mm IS
sieve.
• And the impact value is measured as percentage of aggregates
passing sieve (W2) to the total weight of the sample (W1).
W1
Aggregate impact value (%) = × 100
W2

Table Recommended values of aggregate impact test

Aggregate impact value Classification

<20% Exceptionally strong
10-20% Strong
20-30% Satisfactory for road surfacing
>35% Weak for road surfacing
30/01/23 CE 772 Pavement Materials | IIT Bombay 10
 Tests on Aggregates

❖ 2nd Scenario: Continuous wear and tear due to abrasive forces?

• Hardness property of aggregates to

decide whether they are suitable for
different pavement construction works

➢ Los-Angeles abrasion test

Aggregates need to be resistant against abrasive forces

30/01/23 CE 772 Pavement Materials | IIT Bombay 11

 Tests on Aggregates
❖ Los-Angeles abrasion test

The principle of Los Angeles abrasion test is to find the percentage wear due
to relative rubbing action between the aggregate and steel balls used as
abrasive charge
• Circular drum of internal dia 700 mm and length 500 mm mounted on
horizontal axis
• Spherical steel balls of 48 mm dia and weight 340-445 g is used as
abrasive charges and placed with aggregates (5-10 kg)
• Cylinder is locked and then rotated at speed of 30-33 rpm for a total of
500-1000 revolutions
• Material is then sieved through 1.7 mm sieve and passed fraction is
expressed as percentage total weight of the sample.
• This value is called Los-Angeles abrasion value.
• Expressed in terms of loss in mass

𝑀original − 𝑀𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙
Loss in mass (%) = ( ) × 100
Moriginal

Table Recommended values of Los-Angeles abrasion test

Los-Angeles abrasion value Classification

<35% Bituminous concrete, cement concrete

>40% WBM for base course
30/01/23 CE 772 Pavement Materials | IIT Bombay 12
 Tests on Aggregates
❖ Micro-Deval Abrasion Test

• The Micro-Deval test (ASTM D 6928) was developed in the 1960s in France for measuring aggregate resistance
to abrasion.
• Coarse aggregate abrasion takes place in this test through the interaction among aggregate particles and
between aggregate particles and steel balls in the presence of water.
• Sieve analysis is conducted after the Micro-Deval test to determine the weight loss in the coarse aggregate
sample as the material passing sieve No. 16 (1.18 mm).
• Figure below (on left) shows the components of the Micro-Deval test, while Figure below (on right) shows
aggregate particles before and after abrasion in the Micro-Deval.

30/01/23 CE 772 Pavement Materials | IIT Bombay 13

 Aggregate Tests

• Specific gravity of a material is defined as the ratio of the weight of a unit volume of the material
to the weight of an equal volume of water at 23°C.
• This parameter is needed to calculate volumetric properties in a mix, and any calculation that
involves determination of mass from volume or vice versa.
• There are three different specific gravities that could be used for determination of volumetric
properties in asphalt mixes.
• The different specific gravities are because of the effect of aggregate pores and absorption.
• The bulk and apparent specific gravities are determined from the same test, whereas the effective
specific gravity is calculated.

Type of aggregate moisture states:

All moisture Surface moisture removed;

removed internal pores partially full Surface moisture removed; Pores full with surface
30/01/23 CE 772 Pavement Materials |internal pores full
IIT Bombay film 14
 Aggregate Tests

❖ Bulk Specific Gravity, dry: This specific gravity is the ratio of the weight of dry
aggregate to the weight of water having a volume equal to the volume of the aggregate,
including both is permeable and impermeable pores.

Bulk Dry Specific Gravity Bulk SSD Specific Gravity

❖ Bulk Specific Gravity – saturated, surface dry (SSD): This specific gravity is the ratio of
the weight of aggregate, including the weight of the water in its permeable voids, to
the weight of an equal volume of water

30/01/23 CE 772 Pavement Materials | IIT Bombay 15

 Aggregate Tests

❖ Apparent Specific Gravity: The apparent specific gravity is the ratio of the weight of dry aggregate
to the weight of water having a volume equal to the solid volume of the aggregate, excluding its
permeable voids.

Apparent Specific Gravity

A B−A
Bulk Specific Gravity, dry = Water Absorption (%) = × 100
B−C A

Bulk Specific Gravity, SSD =
Apparent Specific Gravity =
30/01/23
B Where,
B−C A = Weight of oven-dry sample of aggregate in air
B = Weight of saturated, surface dry-sample in air
A C = Weight of saturated sample in water
A −CEC772 Pavement Materials | IIT Bombay 16
 Aggregate Tests

❖ Specific Gravity of Fine Aggregate: Determined using a Pycnometer

❖ Immersing saturated and surface-dried aggregate sample

in pycnometer filled with water.
❖ Pycnometer is roller, inverted, agitated, and subjected to
suction to eliminate air bubbles.
❖ Total wt. of pycnometer, sample and water is determined.
❖ Fine agg. Is removed, dried to a constant wt., and weighed.
❖ Wt. of pycnometer is determined, and the bulk-specific
gravity, bulk-specific gravity SSD, apparent sp. Gr., and
absorption are then calculated.

A
Apparent Specific Gravity =
B+A−C
D−A
A Water Absorption (%) = × 100
Bulk Specific Gravity = A
B+D−C Where,
A = Wt. of oven-dry specimen in air
D B = Wt. of pycnometer filled with water
Bulk Specific Gravity, SSD =
B+D−C C = Wt. of pycnometer with specimen and water
30/01/23 D =| wt.
CE 772 Pavement Materials of saturated surface-dry specimen
IIT Bombay 17
 Aggregate Tests

❖ Effective Specific Gravity: It is the ratio of the oven dry wt. in air of a unit volume of a permeable
material (excluding voids permeable to asphalt) at a stated temperature to the wt. of an equal
volume of water.

Wt. of dry aggregate

Effective Specific Gravity =
Vol. of dry aggregate + Vol. of voids between asphalt and aggregate

Note:
• Effective specific gravity is calculated from the theoretical maximum specific gravity of asphalt
mix.
• This parameter is needed to determine how much of the total asphalt added is absorbed in the
aggregates, and hence how much remains on the surface of the aggregate as effective asphalt.
• Generally, the water absorption of aggregate is determined and used as an indicator of the asphalt
absorption.

30/01/23 CE 772 Pavement Materials | IIT Bombay 18

 Aggregate Characterization Tests

Specific Gravity Density Toughness Strength

30/01/23
Hardness CE 772 Pavement Materials | IIT BombayShape
Smoothness 19
Durability
 Aggregate Tests
❖ Chemical Properties
• The chemical properties of aggregates influence their adhesion to asphalt.
• Poor adhesion of the asphalt to the aggregate in the presence of moisture leads to stripping and raveling.
• Aggregates that are susceptible to adhesion loss in the presence of moisture are typically called hydrophilic
(exhibiting water affinity) or acidic.
• Aggregates that have good adhesion with asphalt and exhibit good resistance to moisture damage are called
hydrophobic (exhibiting water aversion) or basic.
• The nature of electric charges on the aggregate surface when in contact with water also influences the
adhesion between the aggregate and the asphalt.
• Most siliceous aggregates (e.g., sandstone, granite, quartz, and siliceous gravel) are negatively charged in the
presence of water. Other aggregates, such as limestone, exhibit a positive charge in the presence of water.

30/01/23 CE 772 Pavement Materials | IIT Bombay 20

Classification of aggregates based on their silica or alkaline content.
 Aggregate Tests
❖ Chemical Properties
• Certain forms of silica and siliceous material
react with the alkali released during the
hydration of portland cement, which leads to the
formation of a gel-like material around
aggregate particles.
• This gel-like material expands, leading to
random cracking at the concrete surface.
Fanijo et al. 2021
• The ASTM C 289 procedure, entitled potential
reactivity of aggregates, or chemical method, is
used to quickly determine the potential
reactivity of an aggregate with the alkali in PCCs.

Abderlrahman et al. 2015

30/01/23 CE 772 Pavement Materials | IIT Bombay 21

 Aggregate Sampling

❖ Physical Requirements of Mineral Aggregate for Bituminous Concrete

(MORTH)

Property Test Specification Test Method

Cleanliness (dust) Grain size analysis Max 5% passing IS: 2386 (Part I)
0.075 mm sieve
Particle shape Combined Flakiness and Max 35% IS: 2386 (Part I)
Elongation Indices
Strength Los-Angeles Abrasion Value Max 30% IS: 2386 (Part IV)
Aggregate Impact Value Max 24%
Durability Soundness IS: 2386 (Part V)
1. Na2SO4 – 5 cycles Max 12%
2. Mg2SO4 – 5 cycles Max 18%
Polishing Polished Stone Value Min 55 BS: 812-114
Water Absorption Water Absorption Max 2% IS: 2386 (Part III)
Stripping Coating and Stripping of Minimum retained IS: 6241
Bitumen Aggregate Mix coating 95%

30/01/23 CE 772 Pavement Materials | IIT Bombay 22

 Aggregate Characterization

❖ IRC: 15-2011 and IRC:44-2017 recommends the following requirements for

mineral aggregate for pavement concrete and shall comply with IS:383 except
for grading and any other specific requirement given in IRC: 15.

Property Loss of mass (value) after test Recommendation

Combined Flakiness & ≤40% For any structure
Elongation Value
≤35% For pavements
Aggregate Crushing Value ≤30% For wearing course
>30% Conduct 10% fine test & the minimum
load ≥ 50 kN
Aggregate Impact Value ≤30% Wearing course
≤45% Other than wearing course
Aggregate Abrasion Value ≤30% Wearing course
≤50% Other than wearing course
Soundness 12% for Na2SO4 Coarse aggregate after 5 cycles of
18% for MgSO4 immersing & drying
10% for Na2SO4 Fine aggregate after 5 cycles of
15% for MgSO4 immersing & drying
Water Absorption Not more than 2%
Size 31.5 mm PQC
26.5 mm DLC
30/01/23 CE 772 Pavement Materials | IIT Bombay 23
 Aggregate Production
Do aggregate production have any effect on aggregate properties?

❖ Aggregate Crushing:

Primary Crushing Secondary Crushing Tertiary Quaternary

Normal Procedure

There are four basic ways to reduce a material, namely (i) impact,(ii) attrition,(iii) shear, and
(iv) compression. Most crushers employ a combination of all these crushing methods.

30/01/23 CE 772 Pavement Materials | IIT Bombay 24

 Aggregate Production

Jaw Crusher
Cone Crusher

Primary Crusher: Jaw Crusher

Secondary crusher can be one of the following:

cone, gyratory, vertical shaft impactor (VSI), or
horizontal shaft impactor (HSI)

Impact Crusher
30/01/23 CE 772 Pavement Materials | IIT Bombay 25
 Aggregate Production

Crusher Types

Type Hardness of feed Reduction Ratio Main Use

Vertical shaft Medium hard to very hard 6/1 to 8/1 Sand & gravel, recycling
impactors (shoe
and anvil)

Vertical shaft Soft to very hard 2/1 to 5/1 Quarried materials, sand & gravel
impactors
(autogenous)

Mineral sizers Hard to soft 2/1 to 5/1 Heavy mining

Jaw crushers Soft to very hard 3/1 to 5/1 Heavy mining, quarried materials,
sand & gravel, recycling

Horizontal shaft Soft to medium hard 10/1 to 25/1 Quarried materials, sand & gravel,
impactors recycling

Gyratory crushers Soft to very hard 4/1 to 7/1 Heavy mining, quarried materials
Crusher buckets Soft to very hard 3/1 to 5/1 Heavy mining, quarried materials,
sand & gravel, recycling

Cone crushers Medium hard to very hard 3/1 to 5/1 Quarried materials, sand & gravel
Compound crushers Medium hard to very hard 3/1 to 5/1 Mine, building material
30/01/23 CE 772 Pavement Materials | IIT Bombay 26
 Aggregate Production
Objective
Huber et al (1998) studied the effects of two
different crushing mechanisms namely cone
and VSI, on shape characteristics of
limestone aggregates
Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT)
analyzed three different types of aggregates
produced from cone and HSI crushers
Hafeez et al (2016) compared shape
parameters and performance of asphalt
mixes containing aggregates produced from
a jaw crusher alone (single stage process)
and a jaw crusher followed by a cone
crusher (two stage process)
Dharamveer et al (2017) compared to two
series crushing operations: (1) a series of
jaw (J)- cone(C)-vertical shaft impactors (V)
called JCV, and (2) a series of jaw (J) and
horizontal shaft impactors (H), called JH.
30/01/23 CE 772 Pavement Materials | IIT Bombay
Findings
They found that aggregates from the VSI crusher showed a
lower percentage of 3:1 (ratio of particle’s longest dimension
to shortest dimension) particles compared to aggregates
from the cone crusher.
The results indicted no significant variation in shape
characteristics however, aggregates produced from the HSI
crusher had a higher void in mineral aggregate (VMA)
compared to cone crushed aggregates.
They reported that aggregates produced from the two-stage
crushing process (jaw followed by cone) had higher cubical
aggregates and a better resilient modulus compared to those
from the single stage crushing operation
The results showed that aggregates obtained from the JH
crusher may have better interlocking and stability than
aggregates from the JCV crusher.
27
 Fundamentals of Aggregate
How to decide Maximum Nominal Size Aggregate?

Unbound Courses 1/3 to 1/5 for better

load transfer

Larger Size > less surface area > low paste require > low cement
Larger Size > more chances of segregation and bleeding
Concrete Larger Size > more bleeding water on circumference and poor ITZ with more
micro cracks
High strength Mixes, aggregates size ≤ 19 mm
Thumb Rule
agg size ≤1/5 of narrowest dimension of form
size ≤ 1/3 of maximum clear spacing between reinforcing bars
30/01/23 CE 772 Pavement Materials | IIT Bombay 28
 Blending of Aggregates
Why blending is required? To make graded aggregates

IS sieve Percentage Passing for SINGLE-SIZED Aggregate of Nominal Percentage Passing for GRADED
(mm) Size AGGREGATES of Nominal Size

63 mm 40 mm 20 mm 16 mm 12.5 10 mm 40 mm 20 mm 16 mm 12.5
mm mm
80 100 - 100
63 85-100 100 -
40 0-30 85-100 100 90-100 100
20 0-5 0-20 85-100 100 30-70 90-100 100 100
16 - - - 85-100 100 - - 90-100 -
12.5 - - - - 85-100 100 - - - 90-100
10 0-5 0-5 0-20 0-30 0-45 85-100 10-35 25-55 30-70 40-85
4.75 - - 0-5 0-5 0-10 0-20 0-5 0-10 0-10 0-10
2.36 - - - - - 0-5 - - - -

30/01/23 CE 772 Pavement Materials | IIT Bombay 29

 Blending of Aggregates
Why blending is required? To mix coarse & fine aggregates

PCC slab 200-400 mm

PVC sheet
(125 µ) DLC/CTB as base layer 100-150 mm
GSB as drainage layer 150-300 mm
Subgrade 300-500 mm
Embankment 500 mm

DLC PQC GSB (Grading IV) GSB (Grading I)

Sieve Size, % Passing Sieve Size, % Passing Sieve Size, % Passing Sieve Size, % Passing
mm mm mm mm
26.5 100 37.5 100 75 100 75 100
19 75-95 31.5 90-100 53 80-100 53 100
9.5 50-70 26.5 85-95 26.5 55-90 26.5 50-80
4.75 30-55 19 68-88 9.5 35-65 9.5 -
2.36 17-42 9.5 45-65 4.75 25-55 4.75 15-35
0.6 8-22 4.75 30-55 2.36 20-40 2.36 -
0.3 7-17 0.6 8-30 0.85 - 0.85 -
0.15 2-12 0.15 0-10 0.425 10-15 0.425 -
0.07530/01/23 0-5 0.075 CE 772 Pavement
0-5 Materials 0.075
| IIT Bombay <5
0.075 30
<5
 Fundamentals
How to Select the aggregate gradation
Has significant effect on the cement paste requirement

Simple experiment:
1. 26.5 mm: MORE VOIDS
2. Add a finer 9.5 mm: Less Voids
3. Mix 4.75 mm: Mini Voids

Lesser voids: Less

cement paste required
26.5 mm 26.5 + 9.5 mm 26.5 + 9.5 + 4.75 mm

• 60% aggregate mixture with 40% well

graded sand results in least void
content
Quantity
30/01/23 of water required
CE 772to fill theMaterials
Pavement beaker | IIT Bombay
• Different for different sizes
31
 Aggregate Gradation

30/01/23 CE 772 Pavement Materials | IIT Bombay 32

 Aggregate Blending

Coarse and Fine Aggregates Filler

Material A B C Specification Mid-Point

used Limits Gradation
Sieve Size, % Passing
mm
26.5 100 100 100 100 100
19 90 100 100 90-100 95
9.5 40 100 100 60-75 67.5
4.75 6.5 98.1 100 40-55 47.5
0.6 3 20.7 93.2 20-35 27.5
0.3 1.2 12.2 58.7 12-22 17
30/01/23
0.075 0.5 3.3 CE 77227.4
Pavement Materials | IIT Bombay 5-10 7.5 33
 Blending of Aggregates

Method 1: TRIAL AND ERROR METHOD

• The proportion of the considered materials is varied until the required gradation is
achieved
P = aA+ bB+ cC…..

P = the percentage of material passing (or retained on) a given sieve for
the combined aggregates A, B, C, ... i.e. critical sieve

A, B,C = percentages of material passing (or retained on) the given sieve for
aggregates A, B, C, ... ; and

a, b, c = proportions (decimal fractions) of aggregates A, B, C, ... used in

the combination and where a + b + c + ... = 1.00 (assumed values)

P = aA+ bB

a+b=1 a = 1 -b

Putting in eqn P = (1-b)A + bB

b = (P-𝐴)/(𝐵−𝐴) a = (P-B)/(A−B)
30/01/23 CE 772 Pavement Materials | IIT Bombay 34
 Blending of Aggregates

Method 1: TRIAL AND ERROR METHOD

Sieve % Passing
Size,
mm Examining the gradation
Mat. A Mat. B Specifi Mid-
cation value
Material passing 2.36 mm (critical sieve)
will be mostly provided by Material B
19 100 100 100 100
12.5 90 100 80-100 90 Required %age passing 2.36 = 42.5 (P)
9.5 59 100 70-90 80
Proportion of Material B (b) to achieve
4.75 16 96 50-70 60 this gradation
2.36 3.2 82 35-50 42.5
0.600 1.1 51 18-29 24 b = (P-𝐴)/(𝐵−𝐴)
0.300 0 36 13-23 17 b = (42.5-3.2)/(82−3.2)
0.150 0 21 8-16 12
0.075 0 9.2 4-10 7 b = 0.5

Mix A & B CE
Materials a= 1-0.5 = 0.5
30/01/23 772 PavementNow
Materials | IIT Bombay 35
 Blending of Aggregates

Method 1: TRIAL AND ERROR METHOD

Sieve % Passing
Size,
mm Examining the gradation
Mat. A Mat. B Total Specific Mid-
X 0.5 X 0.5 (achiev ation value
% passing 0.075 is close to
ed) lower limit
19 50 50 100 100 100
To move towards centre, we
12.5 45 50 95 80-100 90 have to slightly increase the
finer material (B)
9.5 29.5 50 79.5 70-90 80
4.75 8.5 48 56 50-70 60
b = 0.52 and a = 0.48
2.36 1.6 41 42.6 35-50 42.5
0.600 0.6 25 25.6 18-29 24
0.300 0 18 18 13-23 17
0.150 0 10.5 10.5 8-16 12
0.075 0 4.6 4.6 4-10 7
30/01/23 CE 772 Pavement Materials | IIT Bombay 36
 Blending of Aggregates

Method 1: TRIAL AND ERROR METHOD

Sieve % Passing
Size,
mm Examining the achieved
gradation
Mat. A Mat. B Total Specific Mid-
X 0.48 X 0.52 (achiev ation value
ed) Still, it is on lower limit
19 48 52 100 100 100
Keep on doing more hit &
12.5 43.2 52 95.5 80-100 90 trials without affecting the
other sieve sizes
9.5 28.3 52 80.3 70-90 80
4.75 7.7 49.9 57.6 50-70 60
Try to achieve the mid-value
2.36 1.5 42.6 44.1 35-50 42.5
0.600 0.5 26.5 27 18-29 24
0.300 0 18.7 18.7 13-23 17
0.150 0 10.9 10.9 8-16 12
0.075 0 4.8 4.8 4-10 7
30/01/23 CE 772 Pavement Materials | IIT Bombay 37
 Blending of Aggregates

Method 1: TRIAL AND ERROR METHOD (3 materials)

Assume A=0.50; B = 0.25; C=0.25

Sieve % Passing
Size, 100
mm Achieved
80 Lower Limit
A B C Achieved Mid-
Gradation value Upper Limit

% passing
60
26.5 100 100 100 100 100
19 90 100 100 95 90-100 40

9.5 40 100 100 70 60-75

20
4.75 6.5 98.1 100 52.78 40-55
0.6 3 20.7 93.2 29.98 20-35 0
0.3 1.2 12.2 58.7 18.33 12-22 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Sieve size, mm
0.075 0.5 3.3 27.4 7.93 5-10

30/01/23 CE 772 Pavement Materials | IIT Bombay 38

 Blending of Aggregates

Method 2: Triangulation Chart Method

Development of the triangular chart method is credited to the Indiana State Highway Commission It is based on
the fact that the sum of the distances of any point within an equilateral triangle from the three sides is constant
and equals the length of one side.

Step 1: Divide the materials and specification into three separate classes (coarse>4.75; fine 4.75-0.075; filler
<0.075. The total of these (%passing) shall be equal to 100%
Eg: % > 4.75 in A = 100-19 = 81%;
% 4.75-0.075 = 19–2 = 17%;
% < 0.075 = 2%; Total=81+17+2=100

Sieve % Passing
Size, Sieve % material provided by each material
mm Size,
mm
A B C Specificati Mid-
A B C Specifica
ons value tion

26.5 100 100 100 94-100 97 >4.75 81 0 0 52

(100-19) (100-100) (100-100) (100-
12.5 63 100 100 70-85 78 48)
4.75 19 100 100 40-55 48 4.75- 17 97 12 40
0.075 (19-2) (100-3) (100-98) (48-8)
2.36 8 93 100 30-42 36
<0.075 2 3 88 8
0.425 5 55 100 20-30 26
Total 100 100 100 100
0.180 3 36 98 12-22 17
0.075 30/01/23
2 3 88 CE 772 Pavement
5-11 8 Materials | IIT Bombay 39
 Blending of Aggregates

Method 2: Triangulation Chart Method

Step 2: Draw an equilateral triangle (60° angle); mark divisions (0-100 @ 10); treat each sides as > 4.75, 4.75-0
075 and <0.075)

Step 3: Draw points A, B, and C on the triangle. For e.g., A=93.5(26.5-4.75), 6(4.75-0.075), and 0.5(<0.075)

Step 4 Draw specifications also following same method and name it as D.

Step 5 Now the graphical construction for obtaining the proportions A, B and C is made, by producing the line CD
to meet the line AB at E

Size fraction A B C Specifica

tion
26.5 to 4.75 93.5 1.90 0.00 52.50

4.75 to 0.075 6.00 94.8 72.6 40

<0.075 0.5 3.3 27.4 7.5

Total 100 100 100 100

The proportions of % of A = (𝐸𝐵∗𝐷𝐶)/(𝐴𝐵∗𝐸𝐶)*100 = 0.58

coarse aggregate, sand
and fines are given by: % of B = (𝐴𝐸∗𝐷𝐶)/(𝐴𝐵∗𝐸𝐶)*100 = 0.19
% of C = (𝐸𝐷/𝐸𝐶)*100 = 0.23

30/01/23 CE 772 Pavement Materials | IIT Bombay 40

 Blending of Aggregates

Method 3: Rothfuch’s Balanced Area Method

❑ The method developed by Rothfuchs is widely used outside the United States and has been considered in
many countries as one of the most useful graphical procedures It is reasonably quick and simple and can be
applied to mixtures of any number of aggregates.

Step 1: Plot the median or midpoint of the specifications using linear ordinates for the percentage passing but
choose a scale of sieve size such that the grading plots as a straight line (Normally it should be a line
connecting 100 and 0 passing) This can be done readily by drawing a diagonal line and marking on it the sizes
corresponding to the various percentages passing.

Step 2: The gradings of aggregates A, B, and Care plotted on this scale (curves A, B, and C).

30/01/23 CE 772 Pavement Materials | IIT Bombay 41

 Blending of Aggregates

Method 3: Rothfuch’s Balanced Area Method

Step 3: Draw Balancing lines for each curve ( B, C) ensuring minimum area. This is done by selecting a straight
line for each curve such that the areas enclosed between it and the curve are a minimum and are balanced
about the straight line.

Step 4: The opposite ends of these straight lines are then joined together i.e., zero point passing of material A is
pointed with 100 percent passing B) Similarly the opposite ends of the balancing lines of B and C are joined.

Step 5 The points where these lines meet the

desired gradation line represent the
proportions in which type materials A, B and C
are to be mixed These values may be read
from the Y axis by projecting the Points of
intersection, as shown in the figure below.

30/01/23 CE 772 Pavement Materials | IIT Bombay 42

 Blending of Aggregates

Method 4: Analytical/Mathematical Method

❑ Linear equation method:

The linear equation method can be used to blend two or more aggregates. It is based on linear
equations of the form

a × PAi + b × PBi + c × PCi + d × PDi + ... = PX,

where a, b, c, d ... are percentage proportions of individual aggregates A, B, C, D and so on, used
in the composition; PAi, PBi, PCi, PDi, ... are the percentage of material passing through a given
sieve (i) for the individual aggregate A, B, C, D and so on; and PX is the percentage of combined
aggregates passing through a given sieve (initially, this percentage is equal to the mid value
determined from the range of limiting values given in the specification).
The linear equation system may be constructed to have as many equations as the number of
sieves used.

Additionally, the system includes the basic equation

a + b + c + d + ... = 1 (or 100).

Determination of the percentages a, b, c, d and so on, is carried out by solving the system of
linear equations. The disadvantage of this method is that more than one solution or com-
bination
30/01/23
can be found. To find the optimum or desired solution, successive approximations
CE 772 Pavement Materials | IIT Bombay 43
are needed, having determined an acceptable solution.
 Blending of Aggregates

Method 4: Analytical/Mathematical Method

❖ Linear equation method: Example

Blend an aggregate mixture consisting of three aggregates A, B and C, such that the gradation
of the final mix is within the specified limits. The percentage passing the particular size for
each aggregate as well as the specified limits is shown in Table below.

Sieve size Aggregate Specification Mid-value

(mm) limits
A B C
Percentage passing (cumulative), by weight
19 100 100 100 100 100
12.5 90.0 100 100 90-100 95
4.75 40.0 100 100 60-75 67.5
2.36 6.5 98.1 100 40-55 47.5
0.600 3.0 20.7 93.2 20-35 27.5
0.300 1.2 12.2 58.7 12-22 17.0
0.075 0.5 3.3 27.4 5-10 7.5

30/01/23 CE 772 Pavement Materials | IIT Bombay 44

 Blending of Aggregates

Solution: Linear equation method

It is known that a + b + c = 1 (Eqn. 1)

Using successively the general equation (Equation 1), the following equations can be derived:

For the 12.5 mm sieve: 90 × a + 100 × b + 100 × c = 95 (Eqn. 2)

For the 4.75 mm sieve: 40 × a + 100 × b + 100 × c = 67.5 (Eqn. 3)
For the 2.36 mm sieve: 6.5 × a + 98.1 × b + 100 × c = 47.5 (Eqn. 4)
For the 0.60 mm sieve: 3.0 × a + 20.7 × b + 93.2 × c = 27.5 (Eqn. 5)
For the 0.30 mm sieve: 1.2 × a + 12.2 × b + 58.7 × c = 17.0 (Eqn. 6)
For the 0.075 mm sieve: 0.5 × a + 3.3 × b + 27.4 × c = 7.5 (Eqn. 7)

The solution to the above system of equations can be done in various ways. One is to subtract
Equation 3 from Equation 2, which gives

50 × a = 27.5; hence, a = 0.55.

Then replacing the value of a found into Equation 1, the equation becomes

b + c = 1 − 0.55 or b = 0.45 − c.

By replacing the values a and b into Equation 4, the equation becomes

6.5 × 0.55 + 98.1 × (0.45 − c) + 100 × c = 47.5; hence, c = −0.12. 45

 Blending of Aggregates

Solution: Linear equation method

The resulting negative value means that the curve of the combined mix does not pass through the
midpoint determined from the limiting values specified for the 2.36 mm sieve. However, by changing
slightly the value 47.5 say to 48, a positive value can be obtained. This is

6.5 × 0.55 + 98.1 × (0.45 − c) + 100 × c = 48; hence, c = 0.15.

Using the basic equation (Equation 1), the value of b can be determined:

0.55 + b + 0.15 = 1; hence, b = 0.30.

Hence, the aggregate mixture could consist of 55% of aggregate A, 30% of aggregate B and 15% of
aggregate C. This result is not necessarily the optimum or the desired one. To decide whether this
proportion is the one that will be used, it is advised to determine the gradation of the mix and plot it
against limiting values.

This is done by constructing Table and plotting the result as in Figure on next slide.

The gradation of the final mix (curve X) deviates from the curve determined from the mid values of
the limits specified (specification curve). If this mid curve was the desirable one, adjustment of the
result and curve X is needed. This is carried out by altering the percentages derived so as to bring
curve X as close as possible to the mid curve.

By successive adjustments, the best result was found to be when the proportion was 55% for
46
aggregate A, 22% for aggregate B and 23% for aggregate C. This gives curve Y
 Blending of Aggregates

Solution: Linear equation method

Sieve size Aggregate Aggregate mix
(mm) (A + B + C)
A B C
Percentage passing (cumulative), by weight
19 100 x 0.55 = 55 100 x 0.30 = 30 100 x 0.15 = 15 100
12.5 90.0 x 0.55 = 49.5 100 x 0.30 = 30 100 x 0.15 = 15 94.5
4.75 40.0 x 0.55 = 22 100 x 0.30 = 30 100 x 0.15 = 15 67.0
2.36 6.5 x 0.55 = 3.6 98.1 x 0.30 = 29.4 100 x 0.15 = 15 48.0
0.600 3.0 x 0.55 = 1.6 20.7 x 0.30 = 6.2 93.2 x 0.15 = 14 21.8
0.300 1.2 x 0.55 = 0.7 12.2 x 0.30 = 3.7 58.7 x 0.15 = 8.8 13.2
0.075 0.5 x 0.55 = 0.3 3.3 x 0.30 = 1.0 27.4 x 0.15 = 4.1 5.4

as shown in Figure. This is the final result of the procedure

followed for blending the three aggregates, known as the
job-mix formula.
However, in some cases, it may not be possible to get a
proportion with all percentages being positive. This means
that using all three sizes of aggregate, it is impossible to
combine a mixture to have a gradation within the specified
limits. In this case, examination to combine only two of the
aggregates must be carried out. It may be possible to
obtain a gradation within the specified limits; otherwise,
with the given aggregates, it is impossible to blend a mix
30/01/23 CE 772 Pavement Materials | IITspecified
within the Bombay limits. 47
 Blending of Aggregates

How does these specifications (required gradation) are decided?

What to do when gradations are not suggested for some unconventional materials
e.g., recycled aggregates?

How to ensure that gradation achieved will yield good strength & consistency without
conducting laboratory trials?

30/01/23 CE 772 Pavement Materials | IIT Bombay 48

 Blending of Aggregates

How does these specifications (required gradation) are decided?

• Based on experience of engineers. However, different models are used to select the achieve
the maximum gradation. One of the most used and widely accepted aggregate distribution can
be described by Fuller's curve
Fuller Thomson model
In 1907 Fuller and Thomson proposed the gradation
curves for maximum density, which is well known as
Fuller’s “ideal” curve. It is described by a simple equation
𝒏
𝒅
𝑷 𝒅 = 𝟏𝟎𝟎
𝒅𝒎𝒂𝒙

P(d) = cumulative (volume) percent finer than,

This (first) attempts to provide the
n = 0.45-0.7; the value of n generally used is 0.45 (0.45 “best” particle distribution for
Power Maximum Density). It is greater than 0.3 spheres of different diameters
depending upon the shape of aggregates were based on trials with balls and
geometrical calculations. These
d = sieve size experiments resulted in
recommendations on sizes and the
Dmax = maximum size of aggregate to be used (of the proportioning of balls or optimal
gradation)
30/01/23 CE 772 Pavement Materials | IIT Bombaydistribution curves. 49
 Blending of Aggregates

Let's say you got a recycled aggregate/ you have to mix two aggregates
together to achieve maximum density and you don’t have any specification!!!

𝒏
𝒅
𝑷 𝒅 = 𝟏𝟎𝟎
𝒅𝒎𝒂𝒙

Particle Size, % passing

mm
19 (19/19)0.45 = 100%
12.5 (12.5/19)0.45 = 83.3%
9.5 (9.5/19)0.45 = 73.2%
2.00 36.3%
0.300 15.4%
0.075 8.2%

30/01/23 CE 772 Pavement Materials | IIT Bombay 50

 Blending of Aggregates

How to ensure that gradation achieved will yield good strength as well as
workability without conducting laboratory trials?
Workability: Workability of concrete is the property of freshly mixed
concrete which determines the ease and homogeneity with which it can
be mixed, placed, consolidated, and finished, as defined by ACI Standard
116R-90x
But for pavements we require unique approach: Should be highly
viscous but under applied stress (slip-form paving) should flow and
again stand by its own post removal of stress. This property is known as
thixotropy and is controlled by paste volume and aggregate gradation

Gradation required for slip-form paving

• Should not contain high amounts on any given sieve size; it negatively
impacts the ability of a mixture to be consolidated under vibration
• the material on the 2.36 mm - 0.600 mm sieve plays an important
role in the cohesion of the concrete or the ability for it to hold an
edge. Mixtures lacking these sieve sizes are at greater risk of edge
slumping and possibly segregation
• While mixtures containing excessive material on the 2.36 mm - 0.075
mm can lead to stickiness, harsh surface finishing, and problems with
poor consolidation
• mixtures with low amounts retained on the 0.600 -0.075 mm can
create segregation.
Slip-form paving • Many specifications limit the material on the 0.075 mm sieve and
smaller, as it has a direct impact on the water required in a mixture
30/01/23 CE 772 Pavement Materials | IIT Bombay 51
due to fine particles being made of clay-like particles
 Blending of Aggregates

Approaches to check a grading

• Power 45 Curve

𝑛
𝑑
𝑃 𝑑 = 100
𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑥

❖ In this approach, the gradation is plotted

on the cumulative percent passing chart
with the sieve sizes raised to the power
of 0.45.
❖ Theoretically, a system lying on a
straight line from the smallest to largest
particles will achieve a maximum
density.
❖ Experience has shown that it is not
always possible to stay on or above the
line for particles smaller than 0.600 mm.
Others have reported that systems too
close to the line produce mixtures that
are not workable.
30/01/23 CE 772 Pavement Materials | IIT Bombay 52
 Blending of Aggregates
Approaches to check a grading

Individual % retained chart (8-18 Chart)

❖ This chart is commonly called the “8-18

chart” due to a minimum of 8% and a
maximum of 18% required as gradation
limits for sieves between 25 mm and
0.600 mm.
❖ This graph is useful as it allows the
gradation to be plotted and the
excessive or deficient amount of
material to be easily observed.
❖ Recent research supported by field
performance on the Individual Percent
Retained Chart has led to the creation of
the Tarantula Curve.

❖ Three adjacent deficient sizes indicate a problem that should be corrected

30/01/23 CE 772 Pavement Materials | IIT Bombay 53

 Blending of Aggregates
Approaches to check a grading
Tarantula Curve
❖ A new set of limits for the Individual Percent
Retained chart were developed by comparing
the workability and aggregate gradation of more
than 500 different mixtures with 8 different
aggregate sources .
❖ Box Test was used to simulate the field
compaction of paving mixes. This test
investigates the concrete’s response to vibration
while still being able to hold an edge after the
vibration is stopped and the side forms are
removed.
❖ The results also provide recommendations of the
coarse sand amount needed for cohesion (the
amount retained on the 2.36, 1.18, and 0.600
shall be greater than 15%) and fine sand for
workability (between 24% and 34% retained on
the 0.600 – 0.075). Also, a limit for the ASTM D
4791 flatness of the coarse aggregate has been
proposed
❖ Test sections slipformed in Texas with mixtures
containing aggregate gradations falling within
the Tarantula curve showed excellent response
to vibration with very low cementitious
30/01/23 CE 772 Pavement Materials | IIT Bombay 54
materials content.
 Blending of Aggregates
Approaches to check a grading
Shilstone Chart or Coarseness Factor Chart
❖ The Coarseness Factor Chart developed by Jim
Shilstone, Sr. is an empirical approach to aggregate
proportioning based on his experience in producing
lean concrete mixtures with acceptable workability
and reduced segregation.
❖ Any combined gradation could be divided into coarse,
fine and intermediate based on two parameters:
Workability Factor and Coarseness Factor.
❖ Coarseness Factor represents the ratio of coarse to
intermediate aggregate
❖ Workability Factor represents the ratio of sand and
cement to coarse and intermediate aggregate

Coarseness Factor(CF)= Q/R*100 Zones I – Coarse graded, tends to segregate.

Q= Cumulative % retained on 9.5mm sieve Zones II – Well graded
R= Cumulative % retained on 2.36mm sieve Zones III – Finer Mixes
Zones IV – Over Sanded (Sticky)
Zones V – Rocky (Mass Concrete)
Workability Factor(WF)= W+ (2.5(C-335)/43)
(Adjusted)
Zones II (sub-division)
W= % passing 2.36mm sieve
1- Excellent, 2- Excellent paving and slipform,
C= cementitious material content (kg/m3) 3- high quality slab, 4- good, 5 – varies with
30/01/23 CE 772 Pavement Materials | IIT Bombay 55
construction needs
 Blending of Aggregates
Approaches to check a grading
Shilstone Chart or Coarseness Factor Chart

Coarseness Factor(CF)= Q/R*100

Q= Cumulative % retained on 9.5mm sieve
R= Cumulative % retained on 2.36mm sieve

Workability Factor(WF)= W+ (2.5(C-335)/43)

(Adjusted)
W= % passing 2.36mm sieve
C= cementitious material content (kg/m3)

DLC PQC (31.5 mm size)

Sieve Size, mm % Passing Sieve Size, mm % Passing
26.5 100 37.5 100
19 75-95 31.5 90-100
9.5 50-70 26.5 85-95
Lets check our specifications
4.75 30-55 19 68-88
2.36 17-42 9.5 45-65
0.6 8-22 4.75 30-55
0.3 7-17 0.6 8-30
0.15 2-12 0.15 0-10
0.075
30/01/23 0-5 CE 772 Pavement Materials | IIT Bombay0.075 0-5 56
 Thank you!

See you on Thursday (02/2/23)

30/01/23 CE 772 Pavement Materials | IIT Bombay 57