LABORATORY REFINEMENT OF 4.75 mm SUPERPAVE DESIGNED ASPAHLT MIXTURES Except where referenced is made to the work of others, the work described in this thesis is my own or was done in collaboration with my advisory committee. This thesis does not include proprietary or classified information. David Michael Rausch Certificate of Approval: David Timm Assistant Professor Civil Engineering E. Ray Brown, Chair Professor Civil Engineering Randy West Assistant Director National Center for Asphalt Technology Stephen L McFarland Dean Graduate School LABORATORY REFINEMENT OF 4.75 mm SUPERPAVE DESIGNED ASPAHLT MIXTURES David Michael Rausch A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science Auburn University December 15, 2006 iii LABORATORY REFINEMENT OF 4.75 mm SUPERPAVE DESIGNED ASPAHLT MIXTURES David Michael Rausch Permission is granted to Auburn University to make copies of this thesis at its discretion, upon request of individuals or institutions and at their expense. The author reserves all publication rights Signature of Author Date of Graduation iv VITA David Michael Rausch, son of David and Laura Rausch, was born August 3, 1972, in Santa Clara, California. He graduated with a Bachelors of Science Degree in Geology from Idaho State University in 1997. Upon graduation he moved to Salt Lake City, Utah, were he studied Civil Engineering at the University of Utah. He was also employed with Granite Construction for 7 years while in Utah. In the summer of 2004 he began his studies as a graduate student at Auburn University in pursuit of a Masters of Science degree in Civil Engineering. He is married to Ruth Norma Tovar Rausch, and is Father to David Michael Rausch Jr. and Patrick Arthur Rausch. v THESIS ABSTRACT LABORATORY REFINEMENT OF 4.75 mm SUPERPAVE DESIGNED ASPAHLT MIXTURES David Michael Rausch Master of Science, December, 15, 2006 (B.S., Idaho State University, 1997) 255 Typed Pages Directed by E. Ray Brown In 2004 a pooled fund study was initiated to refine mix design criteria for 4.75mm NMAS Superpave designed mixes and field validate design criteria. Nine states were participants in this study, Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Twenty nine 4.75 mm NMAS mix designs have been performed on material from the nine participating states. Each designed mix was tested for permanent deformation, permeability, tensile strength ratio and durability. Also, four plant produced mixtures were evaluated and served as a baseline for performance. The objective of this research was to refine the current procedures and criteria for 4.75mm NMAS Superpave designed mixtures. vi Based on the results of this study it has been found that 4.75 mm NMAS mixtures can be designed in the laboratory to meet current AASHTO specifications. However based on performance testing, special care should be taken when using these mixtures for higher traffic volume applications. Generally, it was determined that lowering the volume of effective asphalt (Vbe) was the most effective way to control permanent deformation. Since, all the blend gradations were fine graded, the best way to control VMA was to use coarser blends or increase the dust content. The 4.75 mm NMAS mixtures were found to be durable based on fracture energy testing. Permeability is low for these mixtures even at relatively high air void contents. It is recommended that the limit on the percent passing the 0.075 mm sieve be increased to allow for higher dust content, but maintain the current maximum dust to binder ratio of 2.0 to ensure durability. Also, it is recommended that a range of 4.0 to 6.0 design air voids be permitted and VMA and VFA criteria be replaced with maximum and minimum Vbe requirements. vii ACKNOWLEDMENTS The author would like to thank Dr. Randy West and Dr. E. Ray Brown for all of their support in this endeavor. Special thanks are due to Dr. Osamu Takahashi for all of his efforts in the laboratory research for this project. Also the author would like to express his gratitude for all the support he received from the staff and students at the National Center for Asphalt Technology, especially Justin Mingus and Grant Julian for all their hard work. Finally, to his wife Ruth very special thanks are given for all of her patience and hard work. viii Style manual used; Proceedings, Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists Computer software used; Microsoft Word, Microsoft excel, Minitab, Pine Pave ix TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Tables xii List of Figures xiv 1.0 Introduction 1 1.1 Objective 3 1.2 Scope 3 2.0 Background 5 2.1 History of Superpave 5 2.2 Aggregate Properties and Gradations in Superpave 5 2.3 Performance Tests 10 2.3.1 Permanent Deformation 10 2.3.2 Moisture Susceptibility 16 2.3.3 Permeability 16 2.3.4 Fracture Energy Density 18 2.4 Development of Mix Design Criteria for 4.75mm Superpave Mixes 22 2.5 Use of Screenings to Produce HMA mixtures 25 2.6 Low Volume roads 29 2.7 Leveling and Patching 32 2.8 Surface mix and Overlays 33 2.9 4.75 mm Refinement Study Survey and Results 34 x 3.0 Research plan 40 3.1 Test methods 43 3.1.1 Aggregate Tests 43 3.1.2 Mix Design 43 3.1.3 Performance Testing 47 4.0 Results and Analysis 51 4.1 Mix design results 53 4.1.1 Optimum Asphalt Content 53 4.1.2 VMA 59 4.1.3 VFA 63 4.1.4 %Gmm @Nini 66 4.1.5 Dust Ratio and Film Thickness 69 4.1.6 Aggregate Properties (Gradation, SE, FAA) 69 4.2 Performance tests 71 4.2.1 MVT Rut depths 76 4.2.2 Tensile Strength Ratio 84 4.2.3 Fracture Energy 89 4.2.4 Permeability 96 4.3 Comparison with Baseline Mixtures 100 4.4 AASHTO Specifications 103 xi 4.4.1 AASHTO Gradation Limits 104 4.4.2 Sand Equivalent 105 4.4.3 Dust to Asphalt Ratio 106 4.4.4 Fine Aggregate Angularity 107 4.4.5 %Gmm@Nini 107 4.4.6 Volumetric Requirements 108 5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 110 5.1 Conclusions 110 5.2 Recommendations 112 6.0 References 116 Appendix A Laboratory Mix Designs 120 Appendix B Tensile Strength Ration Data 182 Appendix C Material Verification Tester Rut Depths 215 Appendix D Permeability Data 222 Appendix E Fracture Energy Data and Example 229 xii LIST OF TABLES Page TABLE 2.1 Results of Analysis of Variance for Rut Depths 14 TABLE 2.2 Gradations and Properties of Screenings 26 TABLE 2.3 Typical Gradations of Dense Graded Patching Mixtures 33 TABLE 2.4 Summarized Survey for States with 4.75 mm Like Mix 36 TABLE 2.5 Approximate Production of 4.75 mm NMAS Mixtures 37 TABLE 2.6 Further Developments of 4.75 mm NMAS Mixtures 38 TABLE 3.1 Design Matrix 41 TABLE 3.2 4.75 mm Superpave Control Points 44 TABLE 3. Parmetrs 50 TABLE 4.1 Mix Design Volumetric Properties 52 TABLE 4.2 Material and Stockpile Percentages of Laboratory Mixtures 52 TABLE 4.3 Blend Gradations for Laboratory Mixtures 53 TABLE 4.4 Analysis of Variance for Effective Asphalt Content 55 TABLE 4.5 Mix Design Comparisons for Ndes=50 (4-6 percent Air Voids) 56 TABLE 4.6 Mix Design Comparison for 4% Air voids (50-75 Gyrations) 57 TABLE 4.7 Mix Design Comparison for Ndes=75 (4-6 percent Air Voids) 57 TABLE 4.8 Analysis of Variance for VMA 61 TABLE 4.9 AASHTO Specifications for 4.75 mm NMAS Superpave Mixtures 64 xiii TABLE 4.10 Analysis of Variance for VFA 64 TABLE 4.11 Descriptive Statistics for Relative Density @ Nini 67 TABLE 4.12 Analysis of Variance for Gmm@Nini 67 TABLE 4.13 Pearson Coefficients for Gmm@Nin 70 TABLE 4.14 Pearson Coefficients for Sand Equivalence 76 TABLE 4.15 Rut Depth and Mixture Properties for All Mix Designs 78 TABLE 4.16 Fracture Energy Data for Laboratory Mixtures 91 TABLE 4.17 Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Fracture Energy 92 TABLE 4.18 Fracture Energy Density Data for Baseline Mixtures 95 TABLE 4.19 Permeability and Mix Data for Laboratory Mixtures 97 TABLE 4.20 Mixture Properties and Performance Data for Baseline Mixtures 101 TABLE 4.21 AASHTO Mixture Criteria for 4.75 mm NMAS Superpave Asphalt Mixtures 103 TABLE 5.1 Proposed Design Criteria for 4.75 mm NMAS Superpave Design Mixtures 114 xiv LIST OF FIGURES Page FIGURE 2.1 Material Verification Tester 11 FIGURE 2.2 APA Rut Depth versus MVT Rut Depths 13 FIGURE 2.3 General Shapes used by Cooley et al. 14 FIGURE 2.4 Best Fit Curves for In-Place Air Voids versus Permeability of Difernt NMAS 17 FIGURE 2.5 Relationship between Field and Laboratory Permeability 18 FIGURE 2.6 Area under Stress Strain Curve at Point of Fracture 20 FIGURE 2.7 Determination of Point of Fracture 20 FIGURE 2.8 Relationship between Field Performance and Fracture Energy 21 FIGURE 2.9 Interaction between Screenings Type and Design Air Voids on Rut Depth 29 FIGURE 2.10 Map of Respondents to NCAT Survey 35 FIGURE 3.1 Gradations for State Mixtures 45 FIGURE 3.2 Instron Indirect Tension Tester 48 FIGURE 4.1 Optimum Asphalt Content 54 FIGURE 4.2 Effective Asphalt Content 55 FIGURE 4.3 Mean Effective Asphalt Content for 4 and 6 Percent Air Voids (Ndes =50) 58 FIGURE 4.4 Mean Effective Asphalt Content for Ndes= 50 and 75 (4 % Air Voids) 58 xv FIGURE 4.5 Mean Effective Asphalt Content for 4 and 6 Percent Air Voids (Ndes =75) 59 FIGURE 4.6 VMA Results for Each Mix Design 60 FIGURE 4.7 Mean VMA for 4 and 6 Percent Air Voids (Ndes=50) 62 FIGURE 4.8 Mean VMA for 4 and 6 Percent Air Voids (Ndes= 75) 62 FIGURE 4.9 Mean VMA for Ndes=50 and 75 at 4 Percent Design Air Voids 63 FIGURE 4.10 Mean VFA for 4 and 6 Percent Air Voids (Ndes=50) 65 FIGURE 4.11 Mean VFA for Ndes=50 and 75 at 4 Percent Design Air Voids 65 FIGURE 4.12 Mean VFA for 4 and 6 Percent Air Voids (Ndes= 75) 66 FIGURE 4.13 Mean Gmm@Nini for 4 and 6 Percent Air Voids (Ndes=50) 68 FIGURE 4.14 Mean Gmm@Nini for Ndes=50 and 75 at 4 Percent Design Air Voids 69 FIGURE 4.15 Mean Gmm@Nini for 4 and 6 Percent Air Voids (Ndes= 75) 69 FIGURE 4.16 Fines Modulus versus VMA 72 FIGURE 4.17 VMA versus Percent Passing 1.18 mm Sieve for Over and Under 10% Passing the 0.075 mm Sieve 73 FIGURE 4.18 FAA versus VMA for Ndes= 50 and Design Air Voids = 4% 75 FIGURE 4.19 FAA versus Gmm@Nini for Ndes =50 and Design Air Voids =4% 75 FIGURE 4.20 Mean Differences in VMA for Mixtures that Terminated Early and Completed 8000 Cycles on MVT 79 FIGURE 4.21 VMA versus Cycles to Termination 79 FIGURE 4.22 VMA versus Rutting Rate by Design Air Voids 80 FIGURE 4.23 Volume of Effective Asphalt versus Rutting Rate by Design Air Voids 80 FIGURE 4.24 Vbe versus Rutting Rate for all Mixtures 81 xvi FIGURE 4.25 Vbe versus Rutting Rate for all Mixtures Sorted by Percent Natural Sand 82 FIGURE 4.26 Vbe versus Rutting Rate Sorted by FAA 82 FIGURE 4.27 Relationship between MVT Rut Depths at 120 lb, 120 psi to MVT Rut Depths at 100 lb, 100 psi 84 FIGURE 4.28 Tensile Strength Ratios for 29 Mix Designs 85 FIGURE 4.29 Tensile Strength for Conditioned and Unconditioned Samples 86 FIGURE 4.30 VMA versus Tensile Strength Ratio 87 FIGURE 4.31 Effective Asphalt Content versus Tensile Strength Ratio 87 FIGURE 4.32 Relationship with Percent Natural Sand in Blended Aggregate and TSR for 50 Gyration 4.0% Air Void Mix Design 88 FIGURE 4.33 Dry Strength versus Film Thickness 88 FIGURE 4.34 Fracture Energy Ratio for Laboratory Mixtures 90 FIGURE 4.35 Fracture Energy Ratio versus Effective Asphalt Content 92 FIGURE 4.36 Fracture Energy Ratio versus Dust Proportion 92 FIGURE 4.37 Fracture Energy Ratio versus VMA 93 FIGURE 4.38 Fracture Energy Ratio versus VFA 93 FIGURE 4.39 Fracture Energy Ratio versus Film Thickness 94 FIGURE 4.40 Permeability for Laboratory Mixtures 98 FIGURE 4.41 Permeability versus Volume of Effective Asphalt Contents 98 FIGURE 4.42 FAA versus Permeability 99 FIGURE 4.43 Gradations for Baseline Mixtures 102 FIGURE 4.44 Vbe versus Percent Passing the 1.18 mm Sieve Sorted by Dust Content 105 FIGURE 4.45 Rutting Rate versus Dust to Asphalt Ratio 106 xvii FIGURE 4.46 % Gmm@Nini versus Rutting Rate for 6.0 Percent Design Air Voids 108 1 1.0 Introduction Until recently, 9.5 mm was the smallest nominal maximum aggregate size (NMAS) used in the Superpave mix design system. In 2002, the National Center for Asphalt Technology (NCAT) completed a research study to develop Superpave mix design criteria for 4.75mm NMAS mixtures (1). With the help of this research, the Superpave Mixture/ Aggregate Expert Task Group recommended to AASHTO the addition of 4.75mm NMAS mixes to the Superpave mix design system. Since the adoption of Superpave mix design by many states, there has been the belief that coarse graded mixtures (those below the restricted zone) should be used for high volume roadways. To satisfy the requirements of coarse graded asphalt mixtures, large portions of coarse aggregate have been used in these mixtures. As a result, the percent of screenings (manufactured fine aggregate) in these mixtures was reduced. This has lead to an excess of screenings in a number of quarries across the nation. The realization of the growing abundance of fine aggregate material led to research, such as that performed by NCAT (2), into the utilization of screenings as the sole material stockpile in asphalt mixtures. The NCAT research (2) showed that some screenings could be successfully used as the only material stockpile in asphalt mixtures. Many state agencies have expressed an interested in using 4.75mm NMAS Superpave designed mixtures for thin lift applications, leveling courses, to decrease 2 construction time, to provide a use for screening stockpiles, to provide an economical surface mix for low volume roads, and to be used for maintenance. Although the original NCAT study on 4.75 mm mixes (1) provided an initial standard and criteria for 4.75mm NMAS Superpave mixes based on laboratory results, it was recommended that the mix design criteria be refined further in the laboratory and field validated. Laboratory refinement of the procedure was recommended in the following areas: 1) Minimum VMA criteria and dust ratio requirements, 2) Maximum VMA requirements, 3) %G mm @N ini criteria, 4) Aggregate properties, 5) Binder contents and design air void level (e.g., 4%) and 6) Enhanced performance with the use of polymer modified binders. Since the original study (1) was performed with two aggregate sources, it was also recommended that the refinement study incorporate materials from various states to obtain a larger range of aggregate types. In 2005, a pooled fund study was initiated to refine mix design criteria for 4.75mm NMAS Superpave designed mixes and field validate design criteria. Nine states were participants in this study, Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin. Research began at NCAT in the winter of 2005 for the laboratory refinement phase of this project. 3 1.1 Objective The main objective of this study was to refine the current procedures and criteria for 4.75mm NMAS Superpave designed mixtures. Specifically the criteria to be refined were: ? Minimum VMA requirements and a workable range for VFA (Voids Filled with Asphalt) ? %G mm @N ini Requirements ? Aggregate characteristics such as Sand Equivalent and Fine Aggregate Angularity of mixture ? Appropriate design air void content for a given compaction effort ? Dust to binder ratio requirements ? A recommendation on the usage of modified binders to enhance performance of 4.75 NMAS asphalt mixtures 1.2 Scope A literature review was completed to understand the history and practical use of 4.75mm NMAS Superpave designed mixtures. Next, a laboratory test plan was created. This test plan included performing numerous Superpave mix designs for material provided by each state. For each material and mix design, aggregate properties were measured, optimum asphalt content was determined for a given compaction effort and design air void percent, and performance tests were conducted to determine how well the mixtures performed for a given set of properties. The results of these mix designs were compared with the current 4 AASHTO specification for 4.75mm NMAS Superpave mixtures. These comparisons coupled with the results of the performance tests are used to evaluate the appropriateness of the current specifications and to make improvement recommendations. The study in this thesis only reports the findings of the laboratory phase of the pooled fund 4.75mm Superpave refinement project and does not include how these mixes will perform in the field validation phase of study. 5 2.0 Background 2.1 History of Superpave The Superpave mix design method was developed under the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP), which was initiated in the late 1980?s. The primary goal of this research was to develop an improved mix design method. Before Superpave, the Marshall Mix design method was the most widely used procedure in the United States and the world. Asphalt mixtures designed under the Marshall system have performed well for many years. However, it became evident that with increasing traffic and heavier loads an improved mix design system was needed. The SHRP program was started in 1988 and completed in 1993. This program focused primarily on new methods for evaluating asphalt binders, new mix design procedures, and tests for evaluating performance of asphalt mixtures. The Superpave design method has been undergoing constant refinement since its adoption and in-place performance continues to be monitored. 2.2 Aggregate Characteristics and Gradations in Superpave During the development of aggregate specifications in Superpave it was felt that not only was engineering data and theory needed, but the subjective knowledge of experts was imperative. Fourteen experts were selected by SHRP to form a consensus opinion on 6 aggregate specifications in Superpave. The panel of experts was known as the Aggregate Expert Task Group (ETG). To avoid problems that may arise from group dynamics in face to face panel meetings, an alternative committee process know as the Delphi method was used. In this method, negative effects of face to face meetings are removed while retaining the strengths of joint decisions. Participants in the Delphi method never meet; instead questionnaires are used and administered by a coordinator to arrive at a consensus opinion. In SHRP a modified Delphi process was used. The modified process retains some anonymity but, allows a little face to face contact with several rounds of meetings. Results from the modified Delphi Method were used to develop aggregates and mix characteristics to be included in the specifications. As outlined in SHRP-A-408(3) the aggregate characteristics evaluated were; 1. Gradation Controls 2. Coarse Aggregate Angularity 3. Fine Aggregate Angularity 4. Aggregate Toughness 5. Aggregate Soundness 6. Aggregate Deleterious Materials 7. Clay Content 8. Thin and Elongated Particles Mix characteristics to be evaluated; 1. Air Voids 2. Voids in Mineral Aggregate 7 3. Voids Filled with Asphalt 4. Dust to Asphalt Ratio Originally, in Superpave, gradation was controlled using gradation control points and a restricted zone. Research (4) has shown the use of a restricted zone for Superpave designed mixes is unnecessary and it has since been removed from AASHTO Superpave mix design specifications. Also important in gradation control is the Nominal Maximum Aggregate Size (NMAS) which is defined as one sieve size larger than the first sieve to retain more than 10% (5). SHRP chose not to include criteria for selecting NMAS for different pavement layers or applications. It was determined that specifying agencies would select NMAS according to their specific requirements. A discussion of aggregate toughness, soundness, deleterious materials, coarse aggregate angularity, and thin and elongated particles is not presented in this thesis. Toughness, soundness, and deleterious materials are source-specific properties and as such are not specified in the Superpave mix design specifications. These properties are left to individual agencies to specify based on local experience. Particle elongation and coarse aggregate angularity are important indicators of an asphalt mixtures performance. However, since these tests are performed on the coarse fraction (plus 4.75mm) of an aggregate blend, they are not applicable to this study. On the other hand, fine aggregate angularity (FAA) may be one of the more important aggregate factors when designing a 4.75 mm NMAS asphalt mixture. Excessive amounts of rounded material can increase rutting susceptibility and decrease stability. The FAA test (AASHTO T-304) is an indirect method of measuring angularity of minus #8 8 (2.36mm) material by determining the void content in a loosely compacted state. This test method is based on the National Aggregate Association Flow Test Method A. Material with higher void content is assumed to have higher angularity and rougher texture. Recently, NCHRP report 539 (6) has presented and summarized research findings on fine aggregate texture and angularity. Some of the points that pertain to this research are as follows. ? The results of studies relating the uncompacted voids content from AASHTO T- 304 Method A to performance are mixed. Generally, studies indicated a trend between uncompacted voids content and improved rutting performance, but in some cases the trend was weak. Subtle differences in uncompacted voids content can be overwhelmed by the effect of the coarse aggregate or other HMA properties. Several studies supported the 45% uncompacted voids criteria for high traffic, but several also indicated performance was unclear between 43% and 45% (or higher) uncompacted voids. There is clear evidence that good-performing mixes can be designed with uncompacted void contents between 43% and 45%, but evaluations of these mixes using some type of rutting performance test is recommended. ? Higher uncompacted void contents generally resulted in higher VMA and lower densities at N ini ? The variability of AASHTO T304 method A appears to be larger than reported in the test method. Much of this variability appears to be related to variability in the fine aggregate specific gravity measurements used to calculate the uncompacted 9 voids. Ongoing research to improve fine aggregate specific gravity measurements may also benefit AASHTO T304. ? The current Superpave consensus aggregate properties do not address the angularity of the material that passes the No. 4 sieve but retained on the No. 8 sieve. It is doubtful that the current AASHTO T304 apparatus could accommodate material of this size fraction. In AASHTO Superpave specifications, clay content is measured using the sand equivalent test. The sand equivalent test is used to show the relative proportions of dust or clay like material in fine aggregates. Clay like fine particles in asphalt mixtures can weaken the mixture which could lead to performance problems such as rutting and stripping. Since 4.75 mm NMAS asphalt mixtures are composed entirely of fine aggregate, the sand equivalent test may provide an important indication of performance. The lower the sand equivalent value, the higher the percent of clay size material there is in the aggregate blend. Current minimum values of sand equivalent specified in AASHTO are 40% or 45% depending on design equivalent single axle loads (ESALs) and depth from surface. advantages to this test are that it is quick and straightforward to perform, and the equipment is simple and inexpensive. According to NCHRP 539 (6) the test method generally gives good results. However, research has shown that there are concerns that warrant further investigation. Research by Sroup-Gardiner et al. (7) found that the sand equivalent test values were not sensitive to either the general mineralogy or the percentage passing the 0.075mm sieve. Also, there was no significant relationship between sand equivalent and tensile strength ratio (TSR) or VMA. Kandhal et al. (8) also showed that no significant relationship existed between sand equivalent test values and 10 TSR or Hamburg wheel tracking device test results. Generally, if a sand equivalent test is satisfactory, it is unlikely that the clay size particles will lead to performance problems. However, if a sand equivalence test is unsatisfactory the aggregate blend may be rejected or adjusted to meet the sand equivalent minimum. 2.3 Performance Testing 2.3.1 Permanent Deformation For permanent deformation testing the Material Verification Tester (MVT) was used in this study. The MVT is a compact version of the asphalt pavement analyzer (APA). Like the APA, the MVT shown in Figure (2.1) is a wheel tracking device used to rut laboratory compacted samples or 6 inch diameter cores. Unlike the APA, the MVT only has the capability of testing two Superpave gyratory specimens or one beam specimen. The benefits of the MVT are that it is smaller and lighter than the APA, which makes it more convenient for QC/QA applications in smaller laboratories. The MVT was used in this project since the amounts of material were limited and the number of specimens required to perform the MVT test was reduced from six to two. Pressurized Hose Loaded Wheel Mold Figure 2.1 Material Verification Tester NCHRP report 508 (9) documented a research program targeted at the evaluation of the APA to determine its suitability as a general method of predicting rut potential. In this study, 10 mixes of known field performance were tested to compare APA results with actual field performance. The test plan was designed to evaluate several factors thought to influence APA rut depths. These factors are as follows: ? Specimen type: Beam samples versus cylindrical ? Hose diameter: 25mm versus 38mm outside diameter ? Test temperature: High temperature of standard performance grade based on climate; 6 ? C higher than high temperature of standard performance grade. 11 ? Air void content: 4.0?0.5 percent; 7.0?0.5 percent. Based on a comparison of laboratory results and field performance the researchers made several conclusions (9). A few of the significant conclusions are presented here. ? Cylindrical samples compacted to 4 percent air voids and beam samples compacted to 5 percent air voids resulted in APA laboratory test results that were more closely related to field performance than did cylindrical and beam samples compacted to 7 percent air voids. ? Samples tested in the APA at test temperatures corresponding to the high temperature for the standard performance grade for a project location better predicted field rutting performance than did samples tested at 6 0 C higher than the high temperature of the standard performance grade. ? Beam and cylindrical samples predicted field rutting performance about equally well. ? APA-measured rut depths were collectively higher with beam samples than with cylindrical samples. ? It is generally not possible to predict field rut depths from APA rut depths on a specific project using relationships developed on other projects with different geographical locations and traffic. Research comparing MVT rutting to APA rutting is scarce. However, some work by Moore and Prowell (10) at NCAT developed a correlation between the APA and MVT. Asphalt mixtures from the NCAT test track were used to compare the two devices. 12 It was found that the MVT generally had rut depths greater than those generated by the APA. This relationship is shown in Figure 2.2. Cooley et al (1) conducted APA testing on 4.75mm NMAS mixes. A statistical analysis of the APA rut depth data was performed by conducting an analysis of variance (ANOVA) to evaluate the effect of four main factors (aggregate type, gradation shape, dust content and design air voids) and interactions between these four main factors. Table 2.1 shows the results of this analysis. Two aggregate types were used, a granite and a limestone, three gradation curves were used fine, medium and coarse shown in Figure 2.3. Three dust contents were analyzed ( 6%, 9%, and 12%) and each aggregate mixture was designed for 4% and 6% air voids at a N design of 75 gyrations. R 2 = 0.6819 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 MVT Rut Depth, mm A P A Ru t De p t h , m m Possible Outlier Figure 2.2 APA Rut Depths versus MVT Rut depths 13 Table 2.1 Results of Analysis of Variance for Rut Depth, Cooley et al. (1) Figure 2.3 General Gradation Shapes Used by Cooley et al (1) 14 15 All four of the main factors shown in Table 2.1 had a significant affect on APA rut depths. The granite mixes on average had greater rut depths than did limestone mixes. Coarser gradations usually had greater rut depths than fine or medium gradations. Decreasing dust contents led to greater rut depths. On average, mixes designed at 4 % air voids had greater rut depths than mixes designed at 6% air voids. There were several two factor interactions that were significant. The interaction between aggregate type and gradation was shown to be significant. For coarse gradations the difference in surface texture seemed to be the controlling factor. For medium gradations rut depths were similar for both aggregate types. Fine gradations showed a large difference in rut depths between aggregate types due to higher optimum asphalt contents for the granite mixtures. Another two way interaction shown to be significant was between aggregate type and dust contents. For higher dust contents (12%), the increased surface texture of the granite (FAA= 49%) provided lower rut depths than the limestone mixes (FAA=46%). The lowest dust content of 6.0% had extremely high rut depths for the granite mixtures even with higher surface texture because of elevated asphalt contents compared to the limestone mixes. The interaction between aggregate type and design air voids content was significant. Differences in average rut depths between the granite mixtures at 4.0% and 6.0% design air voids (1.7mm) was higher than the average difference between the limestone mixtures at 4% and 6% (0.2mm). This is due to the high optimum asphalt content of 8.0% for the granite fine graded mixtures designed at 4.0% air voids and 6.0% dust which is a 3.0 to 1.0 percent higher optimum asphalt content than any other mixture 16 prepared for this study. If the granite mixtures designed at 4.0% air voids and 6.0% dust are removed from the averages then the differences in rut depth between the design air voids becomes 0.1mm which is similar to that of the limestone mix. Finally, the interaction between gradation and dust content was significant. For coarse and medium gradations, different dust contents changed rut depths very little, for coarse gradations the difference in rut depths was 0.1mm and for medium gradations the difference was 1.5mm. Fine gradations, however had large differences in rut depths (8.5mm) at the different dust contents. 2.3.2 Moisture Susceptibility Although there are several tests available for moisture susceptibility the most commonly used is the modified Lottman test (AASHTO T 283). This method is a combination of the Tunnicliff - Root and Lottman tests. AASHTO T 283 has shown to be reliable and is commonly specified by most DOTs. Tensile strength ratios of 0.7 or 0.8 are the typical values used as criteria indicateing mixtures prone to moisture damage. 2.3.3 Permeability In dense-graded asphalt mixtures permeability is an important property to minimize. Asphalt pavements with high permeabilities are susceptible to moisture damage. The factors that affect permeability are gradation, NMAS, optimum asphalt content, and relative density. In-place density after compaction may be the most important factor influencing permeability. It is generally accepted that in-place air void contents for HMA should be between 3 to 8 percent. Air voids lower than 3 percent will tend to have problems with rutting and shoving in the pavement. Air voids over 8 percent will cause high permeability (5). NMAS has a direct influence on permeability. As NMAS increases, the size of the voids increase, and thus the interconnectivity of air voids increase. This relationship was shown by Mallik et al. (11). Figure (2.4) clearly shows permeability increasing with increasing NMAS and in-place air voids. Figure 2.4 Best fit curves for In-Place Air Voids Versus Permeability for Different NMAS (11) Gradation shape is also an important factor that controls permeability. In general, coarse-graded mixtures have higher permeability than similar fine-graded mixtures. This is probably due to more interconnection of voids in coarse graded mixtures. Fine-graded mixtures tend to have smaller voids which are not as interconnected compared to coarse graded mixtures of the same NMAS. Permeability testing for this research was accomplished using a falling head test (ASTM PS 121). This provisional standard is no longer in use by ASTM; however it is 17 similar to Florida Method (FM5-565). Cooley et al. (12) showed that laboratory permeability, using the Florida method, had almost a 1 to 1 correlation with NCAT field permeability device for permeability?s less than 500E -5 cm/sec, shown in Figure (2.5). For 4.75 mm NMAS asphalt mixtures it may be assumed that permeability values will be representative of values that will occur in the field because of the low permeabilities and high air void content (9 %) tested in the laboratory. Figure 2.5 Relationship between Field and Laboratory Permeability, Cooley et al (12) 2.3.4 Fracture Energy Density One method for evaluating resistance to cracking is the indirect tension test (IDT). There are several tests for fatigue cracking and thermal cracking that can be performed on an indirect tension tester, such as creep compliance and indirect tension (IDT) strength testing. Fracture energy is one parameter that can be evaluated by indirect tensile strength testing. Kim et al.(13) suggest that fracture energy, which is the sum of strain energy and damage energy, may be a proper indicator for the resistance of asphalt concrete to fatigue 18 19 cracking. This claim is based on the observation that resistance of asphalt concrete to fatigue may be quantified by considering both resistance to deformation and resistance to damage. Fracture energy density of a medium such as asphalt concrete is found by integrating the area under the tensile stress-strain curve up to the point of fracture, a diagram of this relationship was created and presented in Figure 2.6. According to Birgisson et al (14), fracture in a specimen is detected by monitoring the deformation differential and marking the location at which the deformation differential starts to deviate from a smooth curve, as illustrated in Figure 2.7. Kim et al. (13) compared several engineering parameters derived from IDT creep and strength tests, to observe fatigue performance data on cores from WesTrack. These parameters included (1) creep compliance at 200 sec, (2) n-value, (3) indirect tensile strength, (4) horizontal center strain at peak stress, and (5) fracture energy. Of these five parameters, fracture energy had the best correlation with the percentage of fatigue cracking. This relationship is seen in Figure 2.8. Kim suggests that based on this research, fracture energy at 20 o C is an excellent indicator of resistance of the mixture to fatigue cracking based on IDT testing of WesTrack cores. Also, he proposed IDT testing at 20 o C as a simple performance test for fatigue cracking. Figure 2.6 Area Under Stress Strain Curve at Point of Fracture Figure 2.7 Determination of Point of Fracture (14) 20 Figure 2.8 Relationship between Field Fatigue Performance and Fracture Energy Roque et al. (15) found that crack growth parameters in laboratory samples did not correlate well with observed field performance of the same asphalt mixtures. Also, it was found that fracture energy density correlated well with field performance. However, it did not correlate well with measured crack growth rates in the laboratory. To explain this contradiction it was noted how the loading and temperature conditions are different in the field compared to the laboratory. Laboratory tests are conducted in such a way that failure is forced to occur under repeated loading after a relatively short period of time. In the field the mixture is exposed to a wide range of stresses, depending upon wheel load magnitudes and position. Also, temperature changes and times between loadings in the field may result in a significant amount of healing that is not allowed to occur in the laboratory. If damage to the asphalt mixture occurs as micro-cracks, healing of the mixture may occur if loading is discontinued and/or temperature increases such that healing is allowed to occur before a macro-crack develops. 21 22 Based on the idea of asphalt healing as it relates to micro and macro cracking Roque introduced the threshold concept. The threshold is defined as a materials state between micro-damage and macro-crack development. If the threshold is not reached, micro-damage in the specimen may be healable, thus the crack might not propagate. However, once the threshold is exceeded, the crack will grow. It appears that the threshold is not related to the rate of crack propagation, Roque finds that mixtures with low threshold may exhibit relatively low crack growth rates and mixtures with high thresholds, once cracked may exhibit high crack growth rates. It is suggested that fracture energy may be a value used as a threshold. 2.4 Development of Mix Design Criteria for 4.75mm Superpave Mixes In 2002, Cooley et al. (1), published research conducted at The National Center for Asphalt Technology on the topic of specifications for 4.75mm Superpave mixtures. The objective of this study was to develop mix design criteria for 4.75mm NMAS mixture. Criteria targeted in the research were gradation controls and volumetric property requirements. Based on the findings of this study the following recommendations were made for mix design criteria: ? Gradations for 4.75mm NMAS mixes should be controlled on the 1.18mm and 0.075mm sieves. ? On the 1.18mm sieve, the gradation control points are recommended as 30 to 54 percent based on the range of gradations used in the study. 23 ? On the 0.075mm sieve, the control points are recommended as 6 to 12 percent. ? A target designed air void content of 4.0 percent should be used. ? For all traffic levels, minimum VMA criteria should be utilized. ? Although 50 gyrations were not performed in the study it was recommended that mixes designed at 50 gyrations should have no maximum VMA criteria should be utilized. ? For mixes designed at 75 gyrations and above, VFA criteria should be 75 to 78 percent. ? Percent G mm at N ini values currently specified in AASHTO MP2-01 for the different traffic levels are recommended. ? Criteria for dust to effective binder ratio are recommended as 0.9 to 2.2 Cooley provided a draft mix design system for 4.75 mm NMAS Superpave mixtures. It was recommended that mix design procedures be refined in the laboratory. Refinements of the procedure were recommended in the following areas: 1. Minimum VMA criteria and P0.075/Pbe-Ratio Requirements: Laboratory work is needed to evaluate the aging characteristics of 4.75 mm NMAS mixes designed with the draft mix design system. The minimum criteria of 16 percent was selected based upon Maryland and Georgia minimum binder contents and gradation specifications on similar mixes. Included within this work should be an evaluation of the maximum P0.075/Pbe ratio requirement. 24 2. Maximum VMA criteria: High optimum binder contents were identified as the primary cause of excessive laboratory rutting. For this reason, a maximum VMA criteria of 18 percent was recommended. This value needs to be validated in the laboratory by designing numerous mixes with a wide range of aggregate types to further evaluate the relationship between VMA and rut resistance. 3. %Gmm@Nini criteria: Within this study, two high quality aggregates were utilized. None of the 36 mixes designed failed the %Gmm@Nini criteria for a 75 gyration design (90.5 percent). Additional work needs to be conducted that incorporates various percentages of natural, rounded sand to evaluate the applicability of %Gmm@Nini requirements within the mix design system. 4. Aggregate Properties: Both of the aggregates used in this study had FAA values in excess of 45 percent. Additional refinement needs to be conducted to evaluate the desired FAA values for different design levels. Research is also needed to quantify an acceptable aggregate toughness and resistance to abrasion. 5. To avoid excessive binder contents, field work should verify if 4.75 mm NMAS mixes can be designed at a single air void level (e.g., 4 percent) and result in satisfactory performance or if a design air voids range criteria is needed. 6. Use of Polymer Modified Binders: Within a refinement study, some polymer modified binders should be included to evaluate any enhanced performance. 25 2.5 Use of Screenings to Produce HMA mixtures Historically, some agencies have specified coarse-graded Superpave mixtures, because it is thought that coarse graded mixtures are less susceptible to rutting. This has led to a large amount of screenings that are not being utilized. In 2002, Cooley et al. (2) presented research concerning the use of screenings to produce HMA mixtures. The main objective of this study was to determine if rut resistant HMA mixtures could be attained with the aggregate portion of the mixture consisting solely of manufactured aggregate screenings. Secondary objectives were to determine what effect both a modified asphalt binder and a fiber additive might have on rutting. Two fine aggregates were used which consisted of a granite and a limestone. Table 2.2 shows the gradation for these aggregates. The limestone mixture meets current AASHTO gradation specifications for 4.75 mm NMAS mixtures, the granite does not meet current AASHTO gradation specifications since it is over the specified limits passing the 1.180 and 0.075 mm sieves. Two asphalt grades were used; PG 64-22 and PG 76-22. Each mixture was designed at three different air void contents (4.0, 5.0, and, 6.0 percent). There were eight mixture combinations of aggregate type, binder grade and, fiber additive. For each combination a mix design was performed with 100 gyrations to determine the optimum asphalt content at three air void contents. The asphalt pavement analyzer was used as a performance test to evaluate rutting potential within this study. Table 2.2 Gradations and Properties of Screenings (1) Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used in analyzing the results of this research to evaluate the main factors affecting optimum asphalt content, VMA, %Gmm@ Nini, and APA rut depths. In summary, it was found the main factors significantly affecting optimum asphalt content were: aggregate type, use of fibers, and design air voids. The two factors that significantly affected VMA were aggregate type and the presences of fibers. %Gmm @ Nini was affected by aggregate type and design air voids. Several factors that affected APA rut depths were aggregate type, design air voids, and binder grade. Also, there were several significant two and three factor interactions that affected rut resistance. They were (1) aggregate type and design air voids, (2) aggregate type and binder grade, (3) fiber addition and design air voids, (4) design air voids and binder grade, (5) aggregate type, addition of fiber and binder grade, and (6) aggregate type, 26 27 design air voids and binder grade. The following conclusions were obtained from this research: ? Mixes having screenings as the sole aggregate portion can be successfully designed in the laboratory for some screenings but may be difficult for others. ? Screenings type and the existence of cellulose fiber significantly affected optimum binder content. Of these factors, screenings type had the largest impact on optimum binder content, with a 2.7 percent difference in average optimum asphalt content between the two aggregate types. The existence of cellulose fiber on average increased optimum binder content by 0.7 percent. ? Screening type, design air voids, and the existence of cellulose fiber significantly affected voids in mineral aggregate. Screenings type had a larger impact on VMA, granite mixtures produced an average of 8.0 percent more VMA. Mixtures containing fibers had 1.4 percent higher VMA than did mixes without fibers. ? Screenings type significantly affected % Gmm @ Nini results. ? Screenings type and binder type significantly affected laboratory rut depths. Of these, binder type had the largest impact followed by screenings material. Mixes containing a PG 76-22 binder had significantly lower rut depths than mixes containing a PG 64-22. Mixes designed at 4.0 percent air voids had significantly higher rut depths than mixes designed at 5.0 or 6.0 percent air voids. Based upon the conclusions of the study, the following recommendations were provided: ? Mixes utilizing a screening stockpile as the sole aggregate portion and having a gradation that meets the requirements for 4.75 mm Superpave mixes should be designed in accordance with the recommended Superpave mix design system. 28 ? Mixes Utilizing a screenings stockpile as the sole aggregate portion but with gradations not meeting the requirements for 4.75 mm Superpave Mixes should be designed using the following criteria Property Criteria Design Air Void Content, % 4 to 6 Effective Volume of Binder, % 12 min. Voids Filled with Asphalt, % 67-80 The preceding recommendation was based on the performance of the granite screenings mixtures which had a finer gradation than the current gradation limits for 4.75 mm NMAS Superpave mixtures. A finer gradation for the granite stockpile probably contributed to the higher VMAs and optimum asphalt contents compared to mixtures prepared with the limestone stockpile. It can be seen in Figure 2.9 that reducing optimum binder content by increasing design air voids improved the rutting performance of the granite screenings. Fine-graded mixtures composed of a single screening stockpile can be designed to be rut resistant by allowing for a range of design air voids. However, based on the current AASHTO specified minimum of 16 percent VMA and 4.0 percent air voids it was recommended that a minimum of 12 percent volume of effective asphalt be maintained to preserve durability. By lowering the asphalt content by designing at higher air voids and placing a 12 percent minimum Vbe requirement for screening stockpiles that do not meet gradation limits for 4.75 mm Superpave mixes should produce asphalt mixtures are rut and crack resistant. Figure 2.9 Interaction Between Screenings Type and Design Air Voids on Rut Depths (2) 2.6 Low Volume Applications Since the development of the Superpave mix design system, most of the Superpave designed asphalt mixtures placed have been designed for high traffic volume applications. One proposed use of 4.75 mm NMAS mixtures is low traffic volume applications. 4.75 mm NMAS mixtures will generally have a surface with minimal surface voids which creates a surface texture that is impermeable. These properties would be ideal for use in subdivisions and recreational paths where there is high pedestrian and low vehicle traffic. Although the definition of a low volume road may differ between agencies, it may generally be considered as one with less than 1 million design ESALs. 29 Several states have already had successful experiences using 4.75 mm NMAS like mixes for years. Alabama, Maryland, and Georgia have used these mixtures for thin 30 overlays and preventative maintenance with good results. However, Superpave designed mixtures are not commonly used in low traffic applications throughout the United States. This may be due in part to the belief by some county and city agencies that costs involved with using Superpave designed mixtures are prohibitive. Also, there is concern that Superpave designed mixtures will result in lower optimum asphalt contents that will lead to reduced durability. It is important for a long lasting low volume mixture that it be resistant to fatigue and thermal cracking. Since requirements for low volume roads may be quite different than their high volume counterparts, a literature review on Superpave designed mixtures for low volume applications is provided. To determine if Superpave could be utilized successfully for low traffic volume applications, a number of agencies have carried out research to compare traditional Marshall designed mixtures with Superpave design methods (16) (17) (18). The general concern was that a Superpave designed mixture would adversely affect mixture durability with lower optimum asphalt content. Although, different approaches were used by different agencies, researchers tried to determine the design gyration level that would provide asphalt contents and volumetric properties similar to Marshall designed mixtures that have a good performance history. Prowell et al. (16) found that a N des of 68 gyrations provided similar designed binder contents to a 50 blow Marshall with optimum binder content selected at 6.0 percent air voids. Mogawer et al. (17) recommends a N des of 50 gyrations for low volume roads in New England. Habib et al.(18) suggested that N des values used in Superpave mix design are about 20 % higher than what is required. Habib concludes that lowering N des would result in increased asphalt contents for Superpave 31 mixtures. Prowell and Habib both found that VFA Superpave requirements for these types of mixtures may be to restrictive. E.J. Engle (19) conducted a study of 8 projects paved in 1998 to evaluate the performance of Superpave designed asphalt mixtures for low volume roads. The final report was published in October 2004. Of the eight mixtures three were 19 mm NMAS, four were 12.5 mm NMAS, and one was a 9.5 mm NMAS. All mixtures used a performance graded 58-22 binder. The objective of this research was to evaluate what issues affected the use of Superpave designed mixtures on low volume roads. Issues that were evaluated included, economics, performance, and resources with regard to material and equipment. This research found that after six years all the pavements investigated exhibited excellent cracking resistance, except one project that had reflective cracks that began to appear a few weeks after placement. However, the authors did not relate the cracking to the use of Superpave designed mixtures but, attributed it to the expected reflective cracking of a thin overlay on top of a PCC pavement. Rutting on all involved projects was well within the range of acceptable values, under 0.1 inch. The researchers found that it became impossible to get an objective measure of project costs and material resources compared to paving with conventional mixtures. However, it was the opinion of engineers and contractors involved in the projects, that costs involved with the projects did not significantly increase. In a 2004 article published in Asphalt (20), three county engineers were interviewed about their experience with Superpave designed mixtures for low volume county roads. The interviews were from Blue Earth County, Minnesota, Stearns County, Minnesota, and St. Louis County, Missouri. All three county engineers found that 32 Superpave was effective for county roads. However, Stearns County found that costs were prohibitive for use of Superpave designed mixture on low volume roads, but Stearns County planned to continue its use on arterials and higher traffic roads. 2.7 Leveling and Patching Two possible uses for 4.75 mm NMAS Superpave mixture are as a leveling course or as a patching mix. A leveling course is defined as (21), a HMA layer of variable thickness used to eliminate irregularities in the contour of an existing surface prior to superimposed treatment or construction. According to Watson (22) the Georgia State Department of Transportation found that a smaller aggregate size mixture is beneficial for leveling applications where very thin lifts are needed to correct surface defects. Patches are needed to repair weak areas in pavements, pot holes, or utility cuts. Structural patches should be designed and constructed with full depth asphalt concrete to ensure strength equal to or exceeding that of the surrounding pavement structure. Generally, there are three types of asphalt patching mixtures used (23); (a) hot mixed, hot laid, (b) hot mixed, cold laid, or (c) cold mixed, cold laid. Dense graded aggregates are used primarily for hot mixed, hot laid patching mixtures. Typical gradations of dense graded patching mixtures are presented in Table 2.3 (23). It can be seen that the current AASHTO gradation limits for 4.75 mm NMAS Superpave mixtures would fall within the limits of gradation C. The majority of all patching mixtures use 9.5 mm or 12.5 mm mixes (23). However, some agencies do specify a 4.75 mm NMAS mixture for patching. Larger NMAS mixtures seem to be preferred, because they provide 33 better stability, especially in deeper patches. When shallow holes are to be filled, a smaller NMAS mixture is beneficial, especially when the mixture must be feathered at the edges of the hole. Small size asphalt mixtures also tend to be less permeable and less prone to segregation which may be and advantage for patching mixtures. Table 2.3 Typical Gradations of Dense-Graded Patching Mixtures (23) Sieve Size Percent Passing A B C 19.0 mm 100 12.5 mm 90-100 100 9.5 mm 75-90 90-100 100 4.75 mm 47-68 60-80 80-100 2.36 mm 35-52 35-65 65-100 1.18 mm 24-40 - 40-80 0.600 mm 14-30 - 20-65 0.300 mm 9-20 6-25 7-40 0.075 mm 2-9 2-10 2-10 2.8 Thin Overlays and Surface Mixtures 4.75 mm NMAS mixtures may be ideal for thin overlays and surface mixtures. Hansen (24) stated that hot-mix asphalt overlays are probably the most versatile pavement preservation techniques available. They can improve structural capacity, improve ride, enhance skid resistance, reduce noise, and improve drainage. However, in the case of thin overlays, they should only be placed on structurally sound pavements that exhibit surface distresses such as low severity cracking and raveling. According to NCHRP report 531 (25), lift thickness should be at least three to four times the NMAS. For the case of a overlays less than one inch a 4.75mm NMAS asphalt mixture would meet a lift thickness to NMAS ratio of 3 to 4. 34 The main function of a thin overlay of hot-mix asphalt may not be necessarily to provide strength to the pavement structure, but to protect a deteriorating pavement. If a thin overlay of 4.75 mm NMAS dense-graded HMA is used as a surface mixture it may provide a smooth, durable, watertight surface. However, one possible concern for applying this type of mixture as surface mix is producing low surface texture. A low macro texture might lead to poor skid resistance, especially with a wet pavement surface. 2.9 NCAT Survey As part of the initial portion of this study a survey of the current usages and possible future applications of this type of mix were sent out to all US state highway agencies. Of the 50 states 21 responded as shown in Figure 2.10. Table 2.4 summarizes some of the individual responses from the survey. The questions included in the survey were: ? Do you currently have a specification for a mixture type designated as a 4.75 mm NMAS mixture or a mixture that would likely fit in this general size range? ? What are the typical aggregate components in this mixture? ? What are the primary uses of the mixture? ? What is the spread rate typically used for this mix type? ? What method do you use for the mix design of this mix type? ? What is an in-place density requirement for this mix type? ? What are the advantages of this mix type compared to competing products? ? What problems or disadvantages are associated to this mix type? ? What is the approximate usage of this mixture type for your agency? ? Is this quantity expected to change over the next year? ? What potential uses of this type of mixture should be further developed? Figure 2.10 Map of Respondents to NCAT survey 35 36 Table 2.4 Summarized Survey State Do you specify a 4.75mm like mix? Mix Design Method Spread Rates Inplace density requirement ? Production is expected to? Primary Uses Alaska no Arizona yes Arizona Method 50lb/sqy no decrease Surface mix Delaware yes Superpave Varies no increase Leveling course Florida no Georgia yes Superpave 85lb/sqy no N/A Leveling course Hawaii no Idaho no Illinois yes Superpave 3/4" thick 94% increase Leveling course Kansas no Missouri yes Marshall 1"-1.75" no remain steady Surface, leveling, Montana no Nevada no New Jersey no North Dakota no North Carolina yes N/A 1" 85%or90% remain steady N/A South Carolina yes Marshall 125lb/sqy no remain steady Surface mix South Dakota yes Marshall 150 Ton/mile no remain steady Leveling mix Tennessee yes Marshall 35lb/sqy no remain steady Leveling mix Vermont no Washington yes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A West Virginia yes Marshall 70lb/sqy 92% increase Surface mix Generally, three types of aggregates are used in these 4.75 mm mixtures; (1) small size rock or chip (0 to 30%), (2) screenings (0-50% typical), and (3) natural sand (0-30% typical). The most common grade of asphalt used was a performance grade 64-22. Hydrated lime mixed at 1% is commonly used as an additive. Also mentioned were cement and liquid anti-strip additives. There was a large range of spread rates reported, the average was 80 lb/sy with the range being (35 -125 lb/sy). Superpave and Marshall mix design methods are both used to design 4.75 mm NMAS asphalt mixtures, for Superpave mixtures an Ndes of 50 gyrations was typical. For the states that use Marshall designed mixtures, only Missouri disclosed the compaction effort used for their design (35 blows). Most states do not have current in-place density requirements; however three states do have minimum in-place density requirements. North Carolina has minimum in- place density requirements of 90% or 85% for the two types of small aggregate mixtures specified in that state, Illinois specifies 94%, and West Virginia specifies 92%. Common uses for these types of mixtures were: leveling or scratch course, surface mixtures for low volume roads, and thin overlays for pavement maintenance. Better appearance and performance compared to competing products and lower initial costs were cited as the most common advantages of this type of mixture. Other advantages that were listed were; can be placed in lifts less than one inch, relieve abundance of quarry fines, helps retard reflective cracking, and noise reduction. Generally, the disadvantages mentioned were that this type of mixture does not provide enough strength to the pavement structure and it can be susceptible to rutting. When asked how the production quantity was expected to change over the next two years most states believed the quantity would remain steady or increase. Individual responses for production rate are given in Table 2.5. Table 2.5 Approximate Production of 4.75 mm NMAS Mixtures Delaware <1000 tons Georgia: 320,000 tons for FY 2004 Illinois: Not yet adopted as common practice (N/A) Tennessee: 225,000 tons West Virginia: 15,000 ? 20,000 tons Arizona: 250,000 ? 350,000 tons South Carolina: Low tonnage approximately 5% of total tonnage South Dakota: 75,000 tons Missouri: 1.7 million Surface level, and 750 thousand BP-2 North Carolina(SF9.5A): 1,000,000 tons North Carolina(S4.75A): 75,000 tons 37 38 The final question posed in the survey was, what further developments of this type of mixture are needed. The individual responses are shown in Table 2.6. Table 2.6 Further Developments of 4.75 mm NMAS Mixtures Florida: Leveling, thin overlays (maintenance/local agency) New Jersey: They anticipate using a 4.75mm mix for leveling on a concrete pavement overlay on an upcoming project. Right now they are planning on using the 4.75mm mix in AASHTO M323. Vermont: It?s use for low ESAL Superpave ability to resist rutting, and cold weather climate capabilities. Hawaii: Thin overlay for preventive maintenance. Nevada: They attempted to use a similar material in the past to fill substantial cracking. After failed attempts and problems, use was discontinued. North Dakota: Bike trails. Washington: Thin wearing surfaces over structurally sound pavement. Delaware: They are looking at the material for subdivision overlay work. Georgia: For low volume local roads, parking lots, etc. Illinois: Explore ways to add macro texture to allow as a surface course. Tennessee: None. They are in the pooled fund study and hope to have a 4.75mm in place soon. They are currently working hard on SMA and OGFC. South Dakota: Specifications for all types of roads (surface mix) Missouri: Long lasting surfaces mixtures for low volume roadways. Iowa: 4.75 mm mixtures may have an application as scratch course mix, but would not be specified for conventional HMA mixture (surface, intermediate, base) Idaho: Unknown at this time. North Carolina: No response 39 An important finding from this survey was that 4.75 mm NMAS mixtures are being specified and used as surface mixtures, leveling courses and thin overlays. There are some benefits in using this type of mixture for these applications. Most states agreed that 4.75mm NMAS mixes should be developed further to increase the mixtures overall structural capabilities and rutting resistance to increase performance as a mixture to be used for low volume roads and thin overlays. 40 3.0 Research Plan In the spring of 2005 a panel meeting was conducted at NCAT and representatives from the nine participating states were present. The objective of this panel meeting was to ratify a test plan for the 4.75mm Superpave refinement pooled fund study. Items discussed at this meeting included: 1. Expected applications for 4.75mm mixes 2. Mix design issues 3. Construction and performance concerns 4. Development of a mix design matrix 5. Performance test issues (i.e. air void content for performance testing, type of test used for durability testing, and load and tire pressure used for rut testing) From this meeting a comprehensive test plan was created. The mix test matrix is shown in Table 3.1. This matrix shows that a 4.75 mm mix design was planned for all participating states using 50 gyrations and a design air void content of 4.0 percent. Variations of those mix designs were planned by changing the design gyrations and the design air void contents. Additional variations were planned to evaluate changes in other mix factors such as dust content and binder grade. These are referred to as blend adjustment mixtures. The first task was to obtain materials form each state. Participating states were required to submit a proposed 4.75mm blend representing a source and general gradation 41 from their state. Also, included in this study were four plant produced baseline 4.75mm mixtures with known field performance that had been successfully used. The baseline mixtures were obtained from Mississippi, Maryland, Georgia, and Michigan. These baseline mixtures served as bench marks for comparing the results of the laboratory mix designs using the materials from the participating states. When the materials were received from participating states, gradations and specific gravity tests were performed. Alternative trial blends were then developed in addition to the blends submitted by the participating states. Table 3.1 Original Design Matrix Ndesign Gyrations = 50 75 Air Voids = 4% 6% 4% 6% Mixture Material Florida X X X Wisconsin X X Virginia X X Missouri X X Minnesota X X X Alabama X X Tennessee X X Connecticut X X New Hampshire X X X Virginia Adjustment X X Florida Adjustment X X Wisconsin Adjustment X X Tennessee GM X X Georgia Baseline X Mississippi Baseline X Maryland Baseline X Michigan Baseline X Table 3.1 shows the final mix design matrix. Thirteen aggregate blends from the participating states were designed at 4.0 percent air voids using 50 gyrations. Six of the thirteen aggregate blends were also designed at 4.0 percent air voids using 75 gyrations. 42 An additional seven of the thirteen aggregate blends were designed at 6.0 percent air voids using 50 gyrations. Finally, three of the blends were designed at 6.0 percent air voids and 75 gyrations. The 50 and 75 gyration compaction levels were selected because 4.75mm mixes will likely be used for lower volume traffic applications (less than 3 million ESALs). Four and six percent design air voids were used to examine the concern of the mixes being over-asphalted due to high VMA values. A possible solution to mixes with high asphalt contents would be to increase the design air void content to between 4.0 percent and 6.0 percent. However, this may lead to durability and moisture susceptibility problems. For each mix design and baseline mixture, a suite of performance tests was conducted. The performance tests were selected for analysis of permanent deformation, durability, permeability, and moisture sensitivity. For very thin lift applications and light traffic pavements with low speed limits, rutting may not be a major concern. However, tests for permanent deformation were included to evaluate how stable these mixes will be in other applications. Durability testing was conducted to verify volumetric criteria (e.g., VMA and VFA). Permeability tests were conducted to help evaluate possible in-place density requirements in the field. Testing was performed on all the mixtures to evaluate their susceptibility to moisture damage. 43 3.1 Test Methods 3.1.1 Aggregate Tests Aggregate analysis for gradation and specific gravity was performed on all virgin aggregate materials sent to NCAT for this study. Gradations were performed in accordance with AASHTO T 27, Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregate, and AASHTO T 11, Materials Finer Than 75?m (No.200) Sieve in Mineral Aggregate by Washing. Specific Gravities were determined by AASHTO T 84, Specific Gravity and Absorption of Fine Aggregate; and AASHTO T 85, Specific Gravities and Absorption of Coarse Aggregate. For the final blended aggregate determined from the mix design, AASHTO T 304 Uncompaced Void Content of Fine Aggregate and AASHTO T 176 Plastic Fines in Graded Aggregates and Soils by use of the Sand Equivalent Test were performed. 3.1.2 Mix Designs The AASHTO standard practice R 35-3, Superpave Volumetric Design for Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA), was followed during the mix design phase of the study. This standard practice was used to verify specifications for 4.75mm NMAS in AASHTO (M 323-04), Standard Specifications for Superpave Volumetric Mix Design. Three aggregate blend gradations were evaluated for each of the eight participating state?s aggregate stockpiles. One of the three blends used in the aggregate trials was the blend proportion submitted by each state for their materials. The current gradation specification for 4.75 mm mixes shown in Table 3.2, was used to set control 44 points in the blending process. Control points for the 4.75mm sieve (100-90% passing) were strictly observed in the blending process to maintain a true 4.75mm NMAS mix. However, the controls on the #16 (1.18mm) and #200 (0.075mm) sieves were given some flexibility. Since only two to three aggregate stockpiles were provided by most states, it was not always possible to develop reasonable alternative blends by proportioning the stockpile percentages. Therefore some gradations were allowed outside the control points. Figure 3.1 shows all the gradations used in this study plotted on a 0.45 power chart. Most of these mixtures tend to be fine graded. Table 3.2 4.75mm Superpave Control Points Sieve Min. Max. 12.5 100 9.5 95 100 4.75 90 100 2.36 - - 1.18 30 60 0.075 6 12 45 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 sieve size % P ass ing 0.075mm 1.180mm 4.75mm 9.5mm Figure 3.1 Gradations for State Mixtures Once three aggregate blends were determined, an initial asphalt content was estimated for each blend. Two replicate samples prepared for each blend were mixed and conditioned in accordance with AASHTO R 30. Specimens were compacted in a Superpave Gyratory Compactor (Pine Instruments model AFG1A) following procedures in AASHTO T 312. This Superpave Gyratory Compactor was calibrated to provide an external angle of 1.25 degrees. The internal angle, measured with the Pine model AFLS1 Rapid Angle Measurement kit, was 1.215 degrees. Compaction results may vary for compactors that have internal angles different than 1.215 degrees. The bulk specific gravity of each compacted sample was determined by AASHTO T 166. Two samples for each blend were prepared for determination of the theoretical maximum specific gravity 46 of the asphalt mixture using AASHTO T 209. Voids in mineral aggregate (VMA), percent air voids, voids filled with asphalt (VFA), dust to binder ratio, and Gmm @ Nini were calculated for each trial blend. The volumetric properties of each blend were considered in determining which of the three blends was selected for the final mix design. In general, mixtures with the lowest estimated optimum asphalt content at the design air void contents were selected, which is a common practice, as long as VMA, VFA, and dust to binder rations were reasonable. From the trial blend series one blend was selected for each state. A binder series was run for the selected blend. In this part of the mix design process, three pairs of specimens were prepared and mixed at differing asphalt contents. The three asphalt contents were at the estimated optimum, at estimated optimum minus 0.5%, and at estimated optimum plus 0.5%. The volumetric properties of the mixtures were determined as mentioned above for the trial blend series and a better estimate of the optimum asphalt at the desired air void content was determined. Finally, a set of two specimens was prepared with the selected aggregate blend and mixed at optimum asphalt content to verify the mix design. If the asphalt mixture compacted to the design air voids and the volumetric properties were reasonable then the mix design was accepted for the study and samples were then prepared for performance tests. 47 3.1.3 Performance Tests Moisture susceptibility testing was performed following AASHTO T-283, Resistance of Compacted Asphalt Mixtures to Moisture-Induced Damage. At the panel meeting to discuss the testing plan for this study, representatives from the participating states decided that a higher air void percent should be used for some performance tests. AASHTO T-283 states specimens should be compacted to 7.0% +/-1% air voids. The panel decided that the in-place air void content after construction for 4.75mm mixes would likely be in the range of 8 to 10%. For this reason, specimens molded for moisture susceptibility in this study were targeted at 9.0 +/- 0.5% air voids. Permeability testing was conducted following the former ASTM provisional standard 129. The target air void content was 9.0 +/- 0.5% for the reasons mentioned above. The specimens were compacted in a Pine Superpave Gyratory Compactor to a height of 55mm then saw cut in half to obtain two samples about one inch in thickness. Permanent deformation testing was completed using a Mixture Verification Tester (MVT). The MVT is a compact version of the Asphalt Pavement Analyzer. MVT testing followed AASHTO TP63-03 Rutting Susceptibility of Asphalt Pavements Using the Asphalt Pavement Analyzer. All specimens were tested using 100 lb wheel load and 100 psi hose pressure. For this study all specimen tests were conducted at 64 ? C. The specimens from the mix design verification were used in the MVT test. Therefor the air void contents in the MVT test specimens were either close to 4.0 or 6.0 percent air voids Durability was analyzed by means of fracture energy testing. The basic procedure for Strength of Hot-Mix Asphalt (HMA) Using Indirect Tensile Test Device, AASHTO T 322-03, was followed when determining the fracture energy of the test specimens. Testing was performed on an Instron Indirect Tension Tester at 20 ? C, Figure 3.2, with a ram displacement rate of 50 mm per minute. Samples were molded in a Superpave Gyratory Compactor (diameter = 150 mm) and then saw cut on both sides to a height of between 38 mm and 50 mm. Horizontal and vertical linear variable differential transducers (LVDTs) were mounted to both sides of the sample using a gauge length of 38.1 mm. Load was applied to the specimens until a peak load was reached and then began to decrease. A data acquisition system recorded load and LVDT data every 0.01 seconds. These data were then used to generate stress-strain curves. Procedures discussed in Fracture Energy from Indirect Tension Testing, Kim (14), were used in the calculation of fracture energy. Fracture energy was calculated as the area under the stress-strain curve to the point of fracture as illustrated in Figure 2.6. The point of fracture was determined by plotting the difference between the vertical and horizontal LVDTs on each side of the specimen. The point at which the first side reached a maximum on this plot was taken as the time of fracture. This procedure was presented in Figure 2.7. 48 LVDT Specimen Loading Head Figure 3.2 Instron Indirect Tension Tester All specimens were compacted so the air void content after the top and bottom had been cut would be 9.0 ? 0.5 percent. Horizontal and vertical LVDTs were mounted on both sides of the specimens. After mounting the LVDTs the specimens were then place in an environmental chamber set at 20?C for two hours. After two hours at 20?C the specimens were then tested on the Instron Indirect Tension Tester. The LVDTs recorded to a data acquisition system every 0.01 second. The data that were recorded were: 1. Time 2. Load (Kg) 3. Horizontal and Vertical deformation (mm) Once the load reached a maximum the test was terminated. The fracture energy is the area of the stress strain curve up to the point of fracture. To determine the point of fracture the deformation differential is plotted and the location on this curve which the deformation differential starts to deviate from a smooth curve was considered the point of fracture. This was illustrated in Figure 2.7. Strain was calculated by using equation (1) for center strain found in Kim et al. (13). Poisson?s ratio was assumed at 0.35. Parameters for a gauge length of 38.1 mm were determined and are shown in Table (3.3). () ??? ??? ? 43 21 0 + + = = tU x Equation 1 49 Where, U(t) = Average Horizontal Displacement ? = Poisson?s Ratio ? 1 ? 2 ? 3 and ? 4 = Parameters Table 3.3 Parameters Coefficient ? 1 8.48 ? 2 25.6 ? 3 0.288 ? 4 0.931 After the point of fracture was determined the area under the curve was calculated by multiplying the change in strain for each time increment by the stress at that point and summing those values up to the point of fracture. 50 51 4.0 Results and Analysis Twenty nine mix designs were performed with aggregate from nine participating states. As seen in the test matrix, Table 3.1, the research design variables were Ndesign (50 and 75) and design air voids (4 and 6 percent). Table 4.1 shows the volumetric and aggregate properties of these mix designs. The code used in this text to describe the mix designs is defined as follows; the first two letters are used to define the state of origin, i.e. AL = Alabama. The following numbers are the number of design gyrations and the third number is design air voids, i.e. AL-50-6 = Alabama materials designed at 50 gyrations and 6.0 percent air voids. In the case of blend adjustments extra letters are given to describe the difference, TNGM is used to denote Tennessee gravel mix which is material from Tennessee but a different source aggregate than the TN mix design from Tennessee limestone. To describe blend adjustments mixtures the letters ?adj.? have been attached, i.e. FL adj = Florida blend adjusted. Table 4.2 shows a description of materials used for each state and stockpile percentages for each blend. Table 4.3 provides percent passing used for each mixture. Figure 3.1 is the gradation plot for all 13 aggregate blends. Table 4.1 Mix Design Volumetric Properties State(mix)-Ndes-Va% %A.C. VMA VFA % Gmm @ Nini Dust ratio film thickness (microns) Sand Equivalence FAA AL-50-4 7.4 18.5 78.4 89.0 1.8 6.1 67 46.3 AL-50-6 6.9 18.8 68.1 87.2 2.0 5.4 67 46.3 TN-50-4 7.3 16.9 76.8 87.8 2.0 6.3 69 44.8 TN-75-4 6.8 16.0 74.8 87.2 2.2 5.7 69 44.8 MO-50-4 6.9 18.2 78.2 88.8 1.7 5.9 74 49.0 MO-50-6 6.2 18.4 66.7 86.9 2.0 5.1 74 49.0 VA-50-4 8.8 16.8 75.8 89.0 1.7 6.3 76 45.0 VA-75-4 8.3 15.8 74.9 88.5 1.9 5.8 76 45.0 FL-50-4 11.8 24.2 82.8 88.9 0.8 11.8 88 44.1 FL-75-4 11.0 22.6 81.8 88.4 0.9 10.8 88 44.1 FL-75-6 10.1 22.5 73.7 86.4 1.0 9.6 88 44.1 CT-50-4 8.8 19.9 80.9 86.6 1.2 8.9 79 46.1 CT-50-6 7.2 19.0 68.5 85.1 1.4 7.1 79 46.1 MN-50-4 8.8 21.1 80.4 87.5 1.6 7.4 67 46.2 MN-75-4 8.3 20.1 79.8 86.9 1.7 6.9 67 46.2 MN-75-6 7.4 19.7 70.1 85.3 1.9 5.8 67 46.2 NH-50-4 9.7 23.8 83.6 89.8 0.7 12.8 85 51.0 NH-75-4 9.3 22.9 84.0 89.4 0.7 12.1 85 51.0 NH-75-6 8.6 23.1 75.0 87.4 0.8 10.9 85 51.0 WI-50-4 7.5 18.0 77.4 87.7 1.2 8.9 81 43.7 WI-50-6 6.7 17.8 66.9 86.7 1.4 7.7 81 43.7 TNGM-50-4 9.7 20.9 80.7 88.1 1.0 9.2 70 42.2 TNGM-75-4 9.3 17.5 76.5 87.5 1.3 8.6 70 42.2 VA adj-50-4 9.0 16.8 76.4 88.5 1.7 6.5 76 45.0 VA adj-75-4 8.7 16.5 75.6 88.0 1.7 6.1 76 45.0 FL adj-50-4 10.0 20.6 81.1 88.9 1.7 7.9 79 44.5 FL adj-75-6 9.1 20.6 71.0 86.7 1.9 6.4 79 44.5 WI adj-50-4 6.8 16.1 74.4 87.1 1.9 6.8 81 45.8 WI adj-50-6 6.3 16.5 64.4 85.3 2.1 6.3 81 45.8 Table 4.2 Materials and Stockpile Percentages for Laboratory Mixtures State(mix) Name Type % Name Type % Name Type % Name Type % AL M-10 GN 75% 89s GN 10% Shorter sand NS 15% TN #10 hard LM 63% Natural NS 20% #10 soft LM 17% MO MO14 DM 65% MO15 DM 20% MO13 DM 15% VA #10 GN 75% Sand NS 25% FL Screenings LM 92% Sand NS 8% CT Stone Sand TR 80% Screenings TR 20% MN Minntac TL 87% Minntac fine TL 13% NH WMS TR 69% D-Dust TR 16% RAP --- 15% WI Man.Sand LM 65% Screen 1/4" LM 20% Natural NS 15% TNGM # 10 GV 57% Sand NS 19% #10 soft LM 18% Agg lime LM 6% Fladj Screenings LM 91% Sand NS 3% Fine F 6% WI adj Man.Sand LM 56% Screen 1/4" LM 44% GN= TR= LM= GV= DM= TL= NS= F=Natural Sand Bag house Rock type description Dolomite Trap Rock Gravel Tailings Stockpile 3 Stockpile 4 Granite Limestone Stockpile 1 Stockpile 2 52 Table 4.3 Blend Gradation for Laboratory Mixtures Percent Passing State(mix) 9.5 mm 4.75 mm 2.36 mm 1.18 mm 0.6 mm 0.3 mm 0.15 mm 0.075 mm AL 100.0 92.4 76.6 56.1 40.7 27.0 17.0 11.1 TN 100.0 94.4 69.1 48.7 33.8 19.0 13.8 11.6 MO 99.8 90.2 72.8 54.2 42.5 30.2 17.4 10.6 VA 100.0 98.0 77.7 56.2 37.9 23.2 14.9 10.1 FL 100 95.6 78.8 57.7 41 26 11.7 7.7 CT 99.9 99.4 66.9 39.4 26.9 19.6 13.2 7.9 MN 100 98 86.4 61.1 38.6 23.1 14.8 11.2 NH 99.7 94.6 71.4 48.3 33.0 21.0 11.2 6.0 WI 100 90.8 63.1 41.5 26.7 14.9 9.4 7.1 TNGM 100 95.9 67.4 46.2 32.1 16.7 10.4 8.2 Fladj 100 95.6 79.1 58.1 41.9 29 17.1 13.4 WI adj 100 89.6 58.1 37.3 24.7 16.7 12.3 9.5 4.1 Mix Design Results 4.1.1 Optimum Asphalt Content Optimum asphalt contents for the mixtures prepared in this study were relatively high compared to traditional Superpave designed mixtures. The average asphalt content for all twenty nine mixtures was 8.4 percent, and the average effective asphalt content was 6.6 percent this was expected since VMA for 4.75 mm mixtures are generally high. The average asphalt absorption was 1.8 percent. FL-50-4 had the highest asphalt content and effective asphalt contents at 11.8 and 9.8 respectively. MO-50-6 had the lowest optimum asphalt content at 6.2 percent. WIadj-50-6 had the lowest effective asphalt content at 4.6 percent. New Hampshire aggregate had the lowest asphalt absorption at 0.60 percent, 53 whereas the Virginia aggregate had the highest amount of asphalt absorption between 2.9 and 3.0 percent. 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 AL 50 - 4 AL 50 - 6 T N 50- 4 T N 75- 4 MO 5 0 - 4 MO 5 0 - 6 VA 5 0 - 4 VA 7 5 - 4 FL 5 0 - 4 FL 7 5 - 4 FL 7 5 - 6 CT 50- 4 CT 50- 6 M N 50- 4 M N 75- 4 M N 75- 6 NH 50- 4 NH 75- 4 NH 75- 6 W I 50- 4 W I 50- 6 T N G M 50- 4 T N G M 75- 4 V A adj 50- 4 V A adj 75- 4 F L ad j 50- 4 F L ad j 75- 6 W I adj 50- 4 W I adj 50- 6 Mix Identification O p t i m u m AC% Figure 4.1 Optimum Asphalt Contents Figure 4.1 shows optimum asphalt content for each mix design. It can be seen that increasing from 50 to 75 gyrations or increasing design air voids from 4.0 to 6.0 percent lowers optimum asphalt content. The same trend can be seen in Figure 4.2 for effective asphalt content. The statistical software package MINITAB was employed to conduct an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to determine which design factors had a significant effect on effective asphalt content. Three factors were used in this analysis; Ndesign, design air voids and material source. Results of this analysis are shown in Table 4.4. 54 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 AL - 5 0- 4 A L - 50- 6 T N - 50- 4 T N - 75- 4 MO- 5 0 - 4 MO- 5 0 - 6 VA- 5 0 - 4 VA- 7 5 - 4 FL - 5 0 - 4 FL - 7 5 - 4 FL - 7 5 - 6 CT - 50- 4 CT - 50- 6 M N - 50- 4 M N - 75- 4 M N - 75- 6 NH-50- 4 NH-75- 4 NH-75- 6 W I - 50- 4 W I - 50- 6 T N G M - 50- 4 T N G M - 75- 4 V A adj- 50- 4 V A adj- 75- 4 F L adj- 50- 4 F L adj- 75- 6 W I adj- 50- 4 W I adj- 50- 6 Mix Identification E ffective % AC Figure 4.2 Effective Asphalt Content The ANOVA results for effective asphalt show that there is strong evidence to support the conclusion that Ndesign, design air voids, and materials source all influence asphalt content. Table 4.4 Analysis of Variance for Effective Asphalt Content Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS Fstat P Ndesign 1 1.9892 0.8149 0.8149 29.93 0.000 Air voids(design) 1 2.9622 3.1157 3.1157 114.42 0.000 Material source 15 48.3621 48.3621 3.2241 118.40 0.000 Error 14 0.3812 0.3812 0.0272 Total 31 53.6947 S = 0.165017 R-Sq = 99.29% R-Sq(adj) = 98.43% 55 To analyze the effect of design air voids and Ndesign, mix designs were separated into groups that had matching mix designs for each comparison. The comparisons were as follows: 50 gyrations (4%Va and 6%Va) 4%Va (50 and 75 gyrations) 75 gyrations (4%Va and 6%Va) The mix design groupings are shown in Tables 4.5 to 4.7 and will be used in comparison evaluations in subsequent sections. Figures 4.3 to 4.5 show the mean asphalt contents for each grouping and the mean difference for each comparison. It can be seen in Figures 4.3 and 4.5 that changing from 4.0 to 6.0 percent design air voids decreases the effective asphalt content by 0.9 percent on average. Figure 4.4 shows that changing from 50 to 75 gyrations decrease the effective asphalt content by 0.5 percent. This may indicate that increasing design air voids may be more effective in reducing asphalt content than increasing gyrations. Table 4.5 Mix Designs Comparisons for Ndes = 50 (4-6 Percent Air voids) State Id Air voids (design) Ndesign %A.C. Eff AC% VMA VFA % Gmm @ N ini Dust ratio SE FAA film thickness (microns) AL 4.0 50 7.4 6.30 18.5 78.4 89.0 1.8 67 46.3 6.1 CT 4.0 50 8.8 6.80 19.9 80.9 86.6 1.2 79 40.7 8.9 MO 4.0 50 6.9 6.10 18.2 78.2 88.8 1.7 74 49.0 5.9 WI 4.0 50 7.5 6.00 18.0 77.4 87.7 1.2 81 43.7 8.9 WI2 4.0506.8 5.1 16.1 74.4 87.1 1.9 81 45.8 6.8 ave = 7.5 6.1 18.1 77.9 87.8 1.6 7.3 stdev = 0.8 0.6 1.4 2.3 1.0 0.3 1.5 AL 6.0 50 6.9 5.60 18.8 68.1 87.2 2.0 67 46.3 5.4 CT 6.0 50 7.2 5.50 19.0 68.5 85.1 1.4 79 40.7 7.1 MO 6.0 50 6.2 5.30 18.4 66.7 86.9 2.0 74 49.0 5.1 WI 6.0 50 6.7 5.20 17.8 66.9 86.7 1.4 81 43.7 7.7 WI2 6.0506.3 4.6 16.5 64.4 85.3 2.1 81 45.8 6.3 ave = 6.7 5.2 18.1 66.9 86.2 1.8 6.3 stdev = 0.4 0.4 1.0 1.6 1.0 0.3 1.1 Diff = 0.8 0.8 0.0 10.9 1.6 -0.2 1.0 56 57 Table 4.6 Mix Design Comparison for 4% Air voids (50 -75 Gyrations) Table 4.7 Mix Designs Comparisons for Ndes = 75 (4-6 Percent Air voids) State Id (design) Ndesi gn %A.C. Eff AC% Binder VMA VFA @ Nini Dust ratio SE FAA ess (microns) FL 4.0 75 11.0 8.90 64-22 22.6 81.8 88.4 0.9 88 44.1 10.8 MN 4.0 75 8.3 6.80 64-22 20.1 79.8 86.9 1.7 67 46.2 6.9 N Air voids % Gmm film thickn H 4.0 75 9.3 8.70 64-23 22.9 84.0 89.4 0.7 85 51.0 12.1 ave = 9.5 8.1 21.9 81.9 88.2 1.1 9.9 stdev = 1.4 1.2 1.5 2.1 1.3 0.5 2.7 FL 6.0 75 10.1 8.00 64-22 22.5 73.7 86.4 1.0 88 44.1 9.6 MN 6.0 75 7.4 5.80 64-22 19.7 70.1 85.3 1.9 67 46.2 5.8 NH 6.0 75 8.6 7.90 64-24 23.1 75.0 87.4 0.8 85 51.0 10.9 ave = 8.7 7.2 21.8 72.9 86.4 1.2 8.8 stdev = 1.4 1.2 1.8 2.5 1.1 0.6 2.7 Diff = 0.8 0.9 0.1 8.9 1.9 -0.1 0.0 0.0 1.2 State Id (design) Ndesign %A.C. Eff AC% Binder VMA VFA @ N ini Dust ratio SE FAA film ess (microns) FL 4.0 50 11.8 9.70 64-22 24.2 82.8 88.9 0.8 88 44.1 11.8 MN 4.0 50 8.8 7.20 64-22 21.1 80.4 87.5 1.6 67 46.2 7.4 NH 4.0 50 9.7 9.10 64-22 23.8 83.6 89.8 0.7 85 51.0 12.8 T Air voids % Gmm thickn N 4.0 50 7.3 5.80 64-22 16.9 76.8 87.8 2.0 69 44.8 6.3 TNGM 4.0 50 9.7 6.8 64-22 20.9 80.7 88.1 1.0 70 42.2 9.2 VA 4.0 50 8.8 5.90 64-22 16.8 75.8 89.0 1.7 76 45.0 6.3 VA2 4.0 50 9.0 6.0 70-22 16.8 76.4 88.5 1.7 76 45.0 6.5 ave = 9.3 7.2 20.1 79.5 88.5 1.4 8.6 stdev = 1.4 1.6 3.3 3.2 0.8 0.5 2.7 FL 4.0 75 11.0 8.90 64-22 22.6 81.8 88.4 0.9 88 44.1 10.8 MN 4.0 75 8.3 6.80 64-22 20.1 79.8 86.9 1.7 67 46.2 6.9 NH 4.0 75 9.3 8.70 64-23 22.9 84.0 89.4 0.7 85 51.0 12.1 TN 4.0 75 6.8 5.30 64-22 16.0 74.8 87.2 2.2 69 44.8 5.7 TNGM 4.0 75 9.3 6.4 64-22 17.5 76.5 87.5 1.3 70 42.2 8.6 VA 4.0 75 8.3 5.40 64-22 15.8 74.9 88.5 1.9 76 45.0 5.8 VA2 4.0 75 8.7 5.7 70-22 16.5 75.6 88.0 1.7 76 45.0 6.1 ave = 8.8 6.7 18.8 78.2 88.0 1.5 8.0 stdev = 1.3 1.5 3.1 3.7 0.9 0.5 2.6 Diff = 0.49 0.47 1.3 1.3 0.5 -0.1 0.6 Air voids (design) Me a n o f E f f A C % 6.04.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 5.2 6.1 Ndesign =50 Difference = 0.9 Figure 4.3 Mean Effective Asphalt for 4 and 6 % Air Voids (Ndes = 50 ) Ndesign Me a n o f E f f A C % 7550 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 6.7 7.2 Design Air Voids = 4% Difference = 0.5 Figure 4.4 Mean Effective Asphalt Content for Ndes =50 and 75 (4% Air Voids) 58 Air voids (design) Me a n o f E f f A C % 64 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 7.2 8.1 Ndesign =75 Difference = 0.9 Figure 4.5 Mean Effective Asphalt Content for 4 and 6 % Air Voids (Ndes = 75 ) .1.2 VMA A currently specified in AASHTO for 4.75 mm NMAS Superpave rent 4 The minimum VM designed mixture is 16.0 percent. For all mix designs prepared for this research the average VMA was 19.3 percent. Only one mixture (VA-75-4) failed to meet the cur minimum VMA criterion. The maximum value was 24.2 percent (FL-50-4). Figure 4.6 shows all VMA values determined for the mix designs performed in this research. 59 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0 23.0 24.0 25.0 AL 50 - 4 AL 50 - 6 TN 5 0 -4 TN 7 5 -4 MO 50- 4 MO 50- 6 V A 50-4 V A 75-4 FL 5 0 -4 FL 7 5 -4 FL 7 5 -6 CT 50 - 4 CT 50 - 6 MN 5 0 -4 MN 7 5 -4 MN 7 5 -6 NH 5 0 - 4 NH 7 5 - 4 NH 7 5 - 6 WI 50 - 4 WI 50 - 6 TN GM 50-4 TN GM 75-4 V A adj 5 0 -4 V A adj 7 5 -4 FL a d j 50- 4 FL a d j 75- 6 W I a d j 50- 4 W I a d j 50- 6 Mix Identification VM A Figure 4.6 VMA Results for Each Mix Design It is seen in Figure 4.6 that the largest change in VMA occurs when the compaction level is increased from 50 to 75 gyrations. This is expected since the aggregate will be forced into tighter packing when the compaction energy is increased. As is well known when designing asphalt mixtures, the addition of asphalt binder will decrease VMA until a minimum is reached, any additional asphalt binder past this minimum will begin to push the aggregate structure open increasing VMA. This effect explains why some mixtures had a slight increase or decrease in VMA when increasing the design air voids from 4 to 6 percent which lowers the optimum asphalt content. To analyze the effect of Ndesign, design air voids, and material source on VMA, MINITAB was used to perform ANOVA. The results of this analysis are presented in 60 61 Table 4.8. As with effective asphalt content, one can see that material type has the most significant effect on VMA. Ndesign also had a significant effect on VMA. Design air voids however, did not significantly influence VMA. To illustrate the results of the ANOVA, the groupings presented as comparison groups in Tables 4.5 to 4.7 were used to show the differences in VMA due to changes in design air voids and Ndesign. Figure 4.7 shows that there is no mean difference in VMA for mixtures designed with 50 gyrations at 4.0 and 6.0 percent air voids. For Ndesign of 75 the mean difference in VMA between 4.0 and 6.0 percent design air voids, shown in Figure 4.8, is very slight at 0.1 percent. On the other hand, mixtures designed at 50 and 75 gyrations have a significant mean difference in VMA (1.3%), as illustrated in Figure 4.9. Table 4.8 Analysis of Variance for VMA Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P Source Material 12 170.023 171.551 14.296 44.44 0.000 Air voids (design) 1 0.43 0.017 0.017 0.05 0.821 Ndesign 1 5.673 5.673 5.673 17.64 0.001 Error 14 4.503 4.503 0.322 Total 28 180.63 Air voids (design) Me a n o f V M A 6.04.0 20.0 19.0 18.0 17.0 16.0 15.0 14.0 18.1 18.1 Ndesign=50 Difference = 0.0 Figure 4.7 Mean VMA for 4% and 6 % Air Voids (Ndes = 50) Air voids (design) Me a n o f V M A 6.04.0 22.0 21.0 20.0 19.0 18.0 17.0 16.0 21.8 21.9 Ndesign = 75 Difference = 0.1 Figure 4.8 Mean VMA for 4% and 6 % Air Voids (Ndes = 75 ) 62 Ndesign Me a n o f V M A 7550 21 20.0 19.0 18.0 17.0 16.0 18.8 20.1 4 % Design Air Voids Difference = 1.3 Figure 4.9 Mean VMA for Ndesign =50 and 75 at 4% design Air Voids 4.1.3 VFA There are three VFA ranges currently specified in the AASHTO specifications for 4.75 mm NMAS mixtures as shown in Table 4.9. The average VFA for all mix designs in this study was 75.8 percent. However, only six mix designs in this study meet the tightest VFA criteria which apply to mixes used on projects with over three million ESALs. A maximum VFA observed was 84 percent for NH-75-4 and the minimum VFA was 64.4 percent for WI adj-50-6. Seventeen mix designs meet the VFA range for 0.3 to 3 million ESALs. Sixteen mix designs meet the VFA range for less than 0.3 million ESALs. Eight mixtures had VFA over 80 percent and one was under 65 percent. Generally, mixtures over the maximum are over asphalted and may be susceptible to rutting. 63 64 To analyze the effects of the experimental factors an analysis of variance was performed using MINITAB. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 4.10. Design air voids had the most significant effect on VFA, with material source also being a significant factor. Ndesign was shown to have the least significant influence on VFA. Table 4.9 AASHTO Specifications for 4.75mm NMAS Superpave Mixtures Min.FAA Depth from Surface Design ESALs (Millions) Ndes ? 100 mm ? 100 mm Min.Sand Equivalent Min VMA VFA Nini <0.3 50 - - 40 16 70-80% ?91.5 0.3 to <3.0 75 40 40 40 16 65-78% ?90.5 3.0 to<10 100 45 40 45 16 75-78% ?89.0 Sieve size Min. Max. Air voids = 4.0% 12.5 mm 100 Dust Proportion: 0.9 to 2.0 9.5 mm 95 100 4.75 mm 90 100 1.18 mm 30 60 0.075 mm 6 12 Table 4.10 Analysis of Variance for VFA Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P Source Material 12 282.136 246.366 20.53 18.45 0.000 Air voids(Design) 1 513.422 438.519 438.519 394.04 0.000 Ndesign 1 3.083 3.083 3.083 2.77 0.118 Error 14 15.58 15.58 1.113 Total 28 814.221 S = 1.05493 R-Sq = 98.09% R-Sq(adj) = 96.17% The comparison groups presented in Tables 4.5 to 4.7 were used to illustrate the results of the analysis of variance. Figure 4.10 shows the difference in VFA for mixtures with a Ndesign = 50 at 4.0 and 6.0 percent design air voids. Since both groups had an average VMA of 18.1 percent for both design air voids the difference of 11 percent VFA is expected. Figure 4.11 shows a slight decrease in voids filled due to increasing Ndesign from 50 to 75 gyrations at 4 percent air voids. The mean difference in VMA for this comparison set was 1.3 percent. Figure 4.12 shows the decrease in VFA by increasing design air voids from 4.0 to 6.0 percent for 75 gyrations mixes. Air voids (design) Me a n o f V F A 6.04.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 66.9 77.9 Ndesign = 50 Difference = 11.0 Figure 4.10 Mean VFA for 4% and 6 % Air Voids (Ndes = 50) Ndesign Me a n o f V F A 7550 80 70 60 78.2 79.5 4% design airvoids Difference = 1.3 Figure 4.11 Mean VFA for 4% (Ndes = 50 and 75) 65 Air voids (design) Me a n o f V F A 6.04.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 72.9 81.9 Ndesign = 75 Difference = 9.0 Figure 4.12 Mean VFA for 4% and 6 % Air Voids (Ndes = 75) 4.1.4 %Gmm@Nini Table 4.9 shows the current AASHTO required relative density at Nini. For the two compaction levels evaluated in this study (50 and 75), the corresponding Nini values are 6 and 7 respectively. The descriptive statistics for each Nini level are provided in Table 4.11. All mixtures prepared for this research meet the specification limits for %Gmm@Nini for the lowest two traffic levels displayed in Table 4.9. Two mixtures (NH-50-4 and NH-75-4) did not meet the more restrictive %Gmm@Nini requirement of ? 89% for traffic levels greater than three million ESALs. Mixtures that do not meet %Gmm@Nini requirements tend to be tender which may lead to problems during field compaction. 66 67 Table 4.11 Descriptive Statistics for %Gmm @ Nini Ndesign N Mean StDev Minimum Median Maximum 50 18 87.7 1.3 85.1 87.8 89.8 75 11 87.4 1.1 85.3 87.4 89.4 The analysis of variance table, Table 4.12, shows that all three design factors had a significant effect on %Gmm@Nini. The most significant effect is due to changes in design air voids. This is probably caused by a reduction in optimum asphalt content and the percent relative density required at Ndesign when increasing design air voids from 4.0 to 6.0 percent. Figures 4.13 to 4.15 show the differences in %Gmm@Nini for the comparison groups. Increasing design air voids has a substantial influence on %Gmm@Nini. The average decrease in %Gmm@Nini when increasing design air voids from 4.0 to 6.0 percent was 1.75 percent. Whereas changing Ndesign from 50 to 75 gyrations the average decrease in %Gmm@Nini was only 0.5 percent. Table 4.12 Analysis of Variance for Gmm@Nini Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P Ndesign 1 0.5718 1.2686 1.2686 44.12 0.000 Air voids (design) 1 20.7127 12.9861 12.9861 451.66 0.000 Source Material 12 20.3516 20.3516 1.696 58.99 0.000 Error 14 0.4025 0.4025 0.0288 Total 28 42.0386 S = 0.169563 R-Sq = 99.04% R-Sq(adj) = 98.08% Table 4.13 shows Pearson correlation coefficients of linear relationships for % Gmm@Nini and effective asphalt content, VFA, VMA, film thickness and dust to asphalt ratio. The strongest relationship was between %Gmm@Nini and VFA (R=0.737, p-value 0.000 at a 95% confidence level). Also, shown to be significant is the relationship between % Gmm@Nini and effective asphalt content. Although the R-value is low, it was expected to see a trend of increasing % Gmm@Nini with increasing asphalt content since asphalt binder acts as a lubricant at compaction temperatures that facilitates compaction. Film thickness has a similar relationship with % Gmm@Nini which seems reasonable since film thickness is a function of effective asphalt content and gradation. Air voids (design) Me a n o f % G m m @ N i n i 6.04.0 88.0 87.0 86.0 85.0 84.0 83.0 82.0 81.0 80.0 86.2 87.8 Ndesign =50 Difference = 1.6 Figure 4.13 Mean %Gmm@Nini for 4% and 6% air voids Ndesign = 50 68 Ndesign M e an of % G m m @ N i n i 7550 89.0 88.0 87.0 86.0 85.0 84.0 83.0 82.0 81.0 80.0 88.0 88.5 Design Air Voids = 4% Difference = 0.5 Figure 4.14 Mean %Gmm@Nini for 4% Air Voids at Ndesign = 50 and 75 Air voids (design) M e an of % G m m @ N i n i 6.04.0 89.0 88.0 87.0 86.0 85.0 84.0 83.0 82.0 81.0 80.0 86.4 88.2 Ndesign =75 Difference = 1.8 Figure 4.15 Mean Gmm@Nini for 4% and 6% Air Voids at Ndesign = 75 69 Table 4.13 Pearson Coefficients of Linear Relationships with Gmm@Nini VFA VMA Eff. AC% Film Thickness Dust ratio R 0.737 0.221 0.484 0.381 -0.341 p-value 0.000 0.249 0.008 0.041 0.07 4.1.5 Dust to Asphalt Proportion and Film Thickness The dust to asphalt proportion range currently specified in AASHTO for 4.75 mm NMAS mixtures is 0.9 to 2.0. For the mix designs prepared in this study the average was 1.5. The maximum was 2.2 for TN-75-4, the minimum was 0.7 for NH-50-4 and NH-75-4. Two mixtures were above 2.0 and three were below 0.9. Since dust to asphalt ratio is a function of effective asphalt content it is clear that lowering asphalt content by increasing design air voids and/or Ndesign will increase the dust to asphalt proportion. It has been suggested by some asphalt mix technologists that film thickness could be possible alternative to specifying minimum and maximum values for VMA and VFA. For this reason film thickness has been calculated for each mixture in this study. Film thickness is simply the volume of effective asphalt divided by the estimated surface area of the aggregate shown by equation (1). Surface area factors presented by Roberts et al (6) were used in this research for the calculation of film thickness. The average film thickness was 7.8 microns, the maximum was 12.8 for NH-50-4, and the minimum was 5.1 for MO-50-6. 1000 WSA V TF be ? = Equation (1) Where, TF= Average film thickness, microns 70 71 Vbe = Effective Volume of Asphalt, liters SA = Surface area of aggregate, m 2 per kg of aggregate W = Weight of aggregate, kg 4.1.6 Aggregate Properties Aggregate size distribution in an asphalt mixture is the most important factor in establishing the amount of voids in mineral aggregate (VMA) created in the aggregate structure. As VMA increases the asphalt needed to fill voids is increased. Since VMA is dependent on gradation, an understanding of how gradation parameters influenced the VMA of asphalt mixtures prepared for this study was necessary. Fineness modulus (FM) was calculated for each blend in this study to examine the influence of gradation on VMA. The fineness modulus expresses how fine or coarse an aggregate blend is, the larger the fineness modulus the coarser the gradation. To examine the effect of gradation on VMA only the thirteen mixtures designed at 50 gyrations and 4.0% air voids were used to remove factors which have already been shown to affect VMA. Figure 4.16 shows two plots of fineness modulus versus VMA, one for mixtures with over 10 percent dust and one for mixtures with less than 10 percent dust. Fines Modulus does not take into account the percent passing the 0.075 mm sieve. Since all the mixtures presented in this study are fine-graded it was expected that coarser blends would have lower VMA as seen in Figure 4.16 for both curves. Also, by separating mixtures into two groups (over and under 10% dust) it is evident that dust content is probably the biggest factor affecting VMA. R 2 = 0.3398 R 2 = 0.4447 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0 23.0 24.0 25.0 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.7 Fineness Modulus VM A Under 10% Passing 0.075mm Over 10% Passing 0.075 mm Figure 4.16 Fineness Modulus versus VMA The 1.18 mm sieve was used as a primary control sieve in the gradation curve where the material retained above this sieve is coarse portion of the blend and the material passing is the fine portion. For fine-graded mixtures as the coarse portion increases, and the gradation curve moves closer to the maximum density line, VMA should also decrease. Figure 4.17 is presented to illustrate that as the fine portion of the blend increases VMA increases. Here again, the data are broken up into groups (over and under 10% dust). This shows that VMA can be controlled with higher dust contents and/or by adjusting the coarseness of the aggregate blend. There may be some potential problems for using higher dust contents to control VMA, such as higher dust to asphalt ratios and lower film thicknesses which could lead to durability problems. 72 R 2 = 0.2597 R 2 = 0.5662 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0 23.0 24.0 25.0 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 % Passing 1.18 mm Sieve VMA Under 10 % Passing 0.075 mm Sieve Over 10% Passing 0.075mm Sieve Figure 4.17 VMA versus Percent Passing 1.180 mm Sieve for Over and Under 10 percent Passing the 0.075 mm Sieve The gradation distributions have been presented in Table 4.3 and plotted in Figure 3.1. All gradations used for mix design are considered fine graded. The average percent passing the control sieves (4.75mm, 1.18 mm, and 0.075 mm) was 94.9 50.4 and 9.5, respectively. One mixture was below the 90% minimum percent pass the 4.75 mm sieve (WI ?adj). This was the coarsest gradation of the studied mixtures and it had one of the lowest VMAs in this research. One mix had over the 60% percent passing the 1.18 mm sieve, (MN). Even with a fairly high dust content of 11.2 percent, this blend had a VMA that was well above the 16 percent minimum. The blend adjustment from Florida (FL- adj) was the only mix with a gradation blend that was outside the current specification range for passing the 0.075 mm sieve. Baghouse fines were added to the first Florida mix (FL) to create the FL-adj aggregate blend in an attempt to reduce excessive VMA. Increasing the dust content from 7.7 to 13.4% reduced the VMA from 24.2 percent to 73 74 20.6 percent. This is probably due to the fine grading of the blend, (58.1% passing the 1.18 mm sieve and a fineness modulus of 2.792). For mix designs below 0.3 million ESALs there are no requirement for fine aggregate angularity because mixture requirements are generally not as restrictive for lower ESAL ranges. Between 0.3 to 3 million ESALs the minimum is 40. Over 3 million ESALs, the FAA minimum is 45 for mixtures used within 100 mm of the pavement surface, and 40 for mixes used deeper than 100 mm from the pavement surface. For all the mix designs, the average FAA value was 45.2. The highest FAA was 51 for the New Hampshire mix and the lowest was 42.2 for the Tennessee gravel mix. Every blend met the 40 minimum FAA. Seven of the thirteen blends met the 45 minimum value. Figure 4.18 shows that FAA does not correlate with VMA. This is counterintuitive it seem logical that high FAA values probably increase VMA. For 4.75 mm NMAS mixtures it would seem that since 100% of the blend is fine aggregate. This may be because other factors such as gradation are dominating VMA for this group of mixes. It also seems logical to assume that as FAA increases the relative density at Nini would decrease. Although it is a weak relationship the opposite trend was observed. Figure 4.19 shows that for the blends in this study as FAA increased a trend of increasing relative density developed at Nini. Since all the blends had FAA values above 40, and the average was 45.2, it is not possible to determine how blends with FAA below 40 would affect mixture properties and performance. R 2 = 0.0369 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0 23.0 24.0 25.0 40 45 50 55 FAA VMA Figure 4.18 FAA versus VMA for Ndesign =50 and Design Air Voids =4% R 2 = 0.1287 86.0 86.5 87.0 87.5 88.0 88.5 89.0 89.5 90.0 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 FAA Gmm@ N i ni Figure 4.19 FAA versus Gmm@Nini for Ndesign =50 and Design Air Voids =4% For asphalt mixtures designed for over 3 million ESALs, the minimum sand equivalent value is 45, for less than three million ESALs the minimum is 40. All blends are well above these minimum values. The average was 76, the minimum was 67 for Alabama and Minnesota blends, the maximum was 88 for the FL Florida blend. Since the amount of clay size particles are related to the amount of dust in the blend, sand 75 76 equivalent is related to the amount passing the 0.075mm sieve, dust to asphalt ratio, and film thickness. These relationships are shown in Table 4.14, where Pearson correlation coefficients and p-values are presented for each relationship. Since all the sand equivalent values for blends presented in this study are well above the minimum specified values, its effect on performance may not be clear based on the results of this study. No direct relationship was found between sand equivalence and volumetric properties or performance. Table 4.14 Pearson Coefficients for Sand Equivalent P-200 Dust ratio film thickness R -0.577 -0.57 0.679 p-value 0.039 0.042 0.011 4.2 Performance Tests 4.2.1 MVT Rut Depths The Material Verification Tester was used to perform permanent deformation testing on all 29 mixtures. The specimens used for this particular performance test were prepared at the design air voids and compacted to Ndesign. Rutting was so severe for many of the mixtures that it is difficult to determine the effect of changes in air void, compaction level, and percent binder. All rut depths presented in this report were measured manually. Since the MVT is programmed to shut off if the automatic rut depth measurements exceed 15 mm, many tests were automatically terminated before 8000 cycles. 77 Table 4.15 gives the rut depths for all 29 blends and the number of cycles the test completed before termination. The average rut depth was 13.3 mm for those samples that completed 8000 cycles. An interesting comparison is to look at the average VMA for those mixtures that completed 8000 cycles to those that did not complete 8000 cycles. This comparison is shown in Figure 4.20. The average VMA for mixtures that completed 8000 cycles was 18.2 percent and 21.5 percent for those that were terminated before 8000. VMA results were ranked and plotted versus cycles to termination in Figure 4.21 for all mixtures. It is seen that over 20 percent VMA, rutting generally becomes so severe that the MVT test prematurely ended. There are some exceptions, one being VA-50-4 which has a relatively low VMA yet, did not complete 8000 cycles, this may be partly due to high percent natural sand (25%). The other exception that stands out is NH -75-6, which has a high VMA (23.1%) yet completed 8000 cycles and had a reasonable rut depth. This is probably explained by the mixtures high FAA value (51). Based on the number of mixtures with over 20 percent VMA that did not complete a full 8000 cycles on the MVT device it is evident that limiting the VMA to under 20 percent in 4.75 NMAS mixtures will be important in designing rut resistant mixtures. To analyze all the MVT data including those mixtures that did not finish 8000 cycles on the MVT, rut depth was divided by the number of cycles for each mix to determine the total rutting rate in mm/cycle. When rutting rate is plotted against VMA shown in Figure 4.22 it can be seen that there are two separate trends for 4.0 and 6.0 percent air voids. The 6.0 percent design air void line plots beneath the 4.0 percent air void line and the lines diverge for higher VMA values. Thus 6.0 percent air void mixtures are more rutting resistant since the asphalt content is lower. Table 4.15 Rut Depth and Mixture Properties for All Mix Designs State(mix) Air voids (design) Ndesign %Nat. Sand Vbe VMA VFA DP FAA film thickness (microns) Rut depth (mm) cycles Rutting Rate mm/cycle WI 4.0 50 0.0 12.0 16.1 74.4 1.9 45.8 6.8 5.3 8000 0.00066 WI 6.0 50 0.0 10.6 16.5 64.4 2.1 45.8 6.3 7.5 8000 0.00093 VA 4.0 50 0.0 12.8 16.8 76.4 1.7 45.0 6.5 9.8 8000 0.00123 VA 4.0 75 0.0 12.5 16.5 75.6 1.7 45.0 6.1 11.1 8000 0.00139 MO 6.0 50 0.0 12.3 18.4 66.7 2.0 49.0 5.1 11.3 8000 0.00141 FL 6.0 75 3.0 14.6 20.6 71.0 1.9 44.5 6.4 11.8 8000 0.00148 MO 4.0 50 0.0 14.2 18.2 78.2 1.7 49.0 5.9 12.1 8000 0.00151 CT 6.0 50 0.0 13.0 19.0 68.5 1.4 46.1 7.1 12.7 8000 0.00159 NH 6.0 75 0.0 17.3 23.1 75.0 0.8 51.0 10.9 13.1 8000 0.00164 WI 4.0 50 15.0 13.9 18.0 77.4 1.2 43.7 8.9 13.1 8000 0.00164 TN 4.0 75 20.0 12.0 16.0 74.8 2.2 44.8 5.7 13.5 8000 0.00169 VA 4.0 75 25.0 11.8 15.8 74.9 1.9 45.0 5.8 13.7 8000 0.00171 WI 6.0 50 15.0 11.9 17.8 66.9 1.4 43.7 7.7 14.0 8000 0.00175 FL 4.0 50 3.0 16.7 20.6 81.1 1.7 44.5 7.9 14.3 8000 0.00178 AL 4.0 50 15.0 14.5 18.5 78.4 1.8 46.3 6.1 15.4 8000 0.00192 AL 6.0 50 15.0 12.8 18.8 68.1 2.0 46.3 5.4 16.5 8000 0.00207 CT 4.0 50 0.0 16.1 19.9 80.9 1.2 46.1 8.9 17.2 8000 0.00215 TN 4.0 50 20.0 13.0 16.9 76.8 2.0 44.8 6.3 17.7 8000 0.00221 MN 6.0 75 0.0 13.8 19.7 70.1 1.9 46.2 5.8 13.9 5074 0.00273 TNGM 4.0 75 19.0 13.4 17.5 76.5 1.3 42.2 8.6 22.7 8000 0.00284 MN 4.0 75 0.0 16.0 20.1 79.8 1.7 46.2 6.9 15.8 5256 0.00301 VA 4.0 50 25.0 12.7 16.8 75.8 1.7 45.0 6.3 19.6 6228 0.00315 MN 4.0 50 0.0 17.0 21.1 80.4 1.6 46.2 7.4 19.1 5724 0.00334 NH 4.0 50 0.0 19.9 23.8 83.6 0.7 51.0 12.8 14.5 3595 0.00403 NH 4.0 75 0.0 19.2 22.9 84.0 0.7 51.0 12.1 17.2 4220 0.00408 FL 6.0 75 8.0 16.6 22.5 73.7 1.0 44.1 9.6 14.6 2425 0.00602 FL 4.0 75 8.0 18.5 22.6 81.8 0.9 44.1 10.8 15.4 2047 0.00752 TNGM 4.0 50 19.0 16.9 20.9 80.7 1.0 42.2 9.2 21.3 2795 0.00761 FL 4.0 50 8.0 20.1 24.2 82.8 0.8 44.1 11.8 19.5 1205 0.01614 Figure 4.23 is a plot of effective asphalt content by volume (Vbe) versus rutting rate and is separated by 4.0 and 6.0 percent air voids. It can be seen in Figure 4.23 that the 6.0 and 4.0 percent air void curves are much closer together than in Figure 4.22 which indicates that rutting for these laboratory mixtures is more dependent on the amount of asphalt not just the total VMA. 78 21.5 18.2 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 Under 8000 Cycles Completed 8000 Cycles VM A Difference = 3.3% (p-value = 0.000 from 2 sample t test Figure 4.20 Mean Difference in VMA for Mixtures that Terminated early and Completed 8000 cycles on MVT y = -89.772x 2 + 2914.1x - 15674 R 2 = 0.5887 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0 23.0 24.0 25.0 VMA % M V T C ycl es Figure 4.21 VMA versus Cycles to Termination 79 y = 5E-05e 0.2088x R 2 = 0.6154 y = 0.0001e 0.1449x R 2 = 0.3551 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 15.0 17.0 19.0 21.0 23.0 25.0 % VMA Ru t t i n g Rat e m m / cyc l e 4% 6% Figure 4.22 VMA versus Rutting Rate Asphalt Content by Design Air Voids y = 0.0001e 0.204x R 2 = 0.5993 y = 0.0003e 0.1419x R 2 = 0.3526 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 %Vbe R u ttin g R a te m m /c y c l e 4% 6% Figure 4.23 Volume of Effective Asphalt versus Rutting Rate by Design Air Voids When volume of effective asphalt is plotted versus rutting rate for all mixtures, Figure 4.24, the relationship is reasonable with an R 2 = 0.57 considering the large range of materials and gradations used in this research. When the data is sorted in groups according to the amount of natural sand in each mixture, as seen in Figure 4.25, it is clear that as the percent natural sand is increased rutting rate also increases and the correlations 80 improve. This is expected since rounded material is known to increase rutting susceptibility of asphalt mixtures. It appears that if the volume of effective asphalt is low the effect of natural sand is minimized. However, if Vbe is over 13 to 14 percent then natural sand can be detrimental to rutting performance. Based on the steep slope of the regression line for the over 15 percent natural sand mixtures, it may be beneficial to limit the amount of natural sand to less than 15 percent in mixtures designed for higher traffic volumes where rutting resistance is important. R 2 = 0.5676 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 Vbe m m / cycl e mm/cycle=(0.9805*10 -4 )e 0.2084Vbe Figure 4.24 Vbe versus Rut Depths for all Mixtures Recall from section 2.0 it was hypothesized that FAA may be an important indicator of a mixtures rutting resistance since the majority of the aggregate in 4.75 mm mixtures pass the 4.75 mm sieve. Figure 4.26 shows Vbe versus rutting rate for mixtures with FAA of over 45 and FAA under 45. It can be seen that for aggregate blends with an FAA of over 45, rutting rate increased with a linear relationship with increasing asphalt content. The curve is much steeper for aggregate blends with a FAA of less than 45. 81 Figures 4.25 and 4.26 indicate that natural sand and aggregate angularity can influence a mixtures rutting susceptibility especially at asphalt contents of over 14 percent by volume. y = 0.0003x - 0.0028 R 2 = 0.7272 y = 5E-05e 0.2706x R 2 = 0.7185 y = 4E-05e 0.3165x R 2 = 0.7492 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 Vbe m m /cyc le 0% 0-15% over 15% Percent Natural Sand Figure 4.25 Vbe versus Rut Depths for all Mixtures Sorted by Percent Natural Sand y = 7E-05e 0.2496x R 2 = 0.6705 y = 0.0003x - 0.0027 R 2 = 0.7378 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 % Vbe m m /c y c le <45 ?45 FAA Figure 4.26 Vbe versus Rut Depth for All Mixtures Sorted by FAA It has been shown for the mixtures prepared in this study that asphalt content, percent natural sand, and aggregate angularity all influence the rutting susceptibility of a 4.75 mm NMAS asphalt mixture. The question becomes what is an acceptable amount of rutting for 4.75 mm NMAS mixtures. Recall that Cooley et al (1) used a limiting APA rut 82 83 depth of 9.5mm from NCHRP 9-17. Although, the APA was not used in testing specimens for this research a similar approach was used for this study. Using the relationship shown in Figure 2.2 where MVT rut depths were plotted against APA rut depths with cores from the NCAT test track, an equivalent MVT limiting rut depth is found to be 15.7 mm. However, the MVT was conducted at a hose pressure of 100 psi and wheel load of 100 lb. This presents another problem in comparing the MVT rut testing data to Cooley?s APA limit since NCHRP 9-17 used 120 psi hose pressure and 120 lb wheel load. Using relationships established by Prowell and Moore (11) at NCAT shown in Figure 4.27, an equivalent critical rut depth for MVT was found to be 13.1 mm. Converting this critical rut depth to rutting rate and using the regression equation between Vbe and rutting rate (13.1 mm /8000 cycles = 0.00164 mm/cycle) shown in Figure 4.24, a maximum Vbe is determined to be 13.5 percent. Based on 13.5 percent Vbe determined from a critical rutting rate of 0.00164 mm/cycle, the maximum VMA or VFA should be specified depending on the design air voids. For 4.0 percent design air voids the maximum VMA would be 17.5 percent and a maximum VFA would be 77 percent. If a mixture were to be designed at 6.0 percent air voids, the maximum VMA would be 19.5 percent and VFA would be 69 percent. y = 0.8972x - 0.8322 R 2 = 0.767 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 MVT Rut Depths at 120 lb / 120 psi, mm M V T R u t D e p t h s a t 1 0 0 lb / 1 0 0 p s i, m m Figure 4.27 Relationship between MVT Rut Depths at 120 lb, 120 psi to MVT Rut Depths at 100 lb, 100 psi (11) 4.2.2 Tensile Strength Ratio For all 29 mixtures designed in the study, Tensile Strength Ratios (TSR) were determined as per AASHTO T-283. During a panel meeting of participating states it was established that performance tests would be conducted at 9.0 percent air voids, since this is a likely in-place air void content after compaction for a 4.75 mm NMAS mixture. Thus, all samples were compacted to 9?0.5% air voids. Figure 4.28 shows a plot of TSR for all 29 mixtures. The average TSR was 0.65 with a standard deviation of 0.19. The highest TSR was 0.99 for FLadj-75-6 and the lowest was 0.23 for VA-50-6. If 0.70 is used as a minimum TSR which is a common 84 criteria for many specifying agencies, only 12 of the 29 mixtures meet this minimum criterion. No aintistripping additives were used in preparing the mix samples. It was noted during the saturation process of the conditioned samples that the vacuum pressure had to be reduced and the time to saturate generally needed to be increased compared to other asphalt mixtures with larger NMAS. It is believed that for 4.75 mm mixtures the void spaces are small and less interconnected. Low vacuum pressures and long saturation times may have caused some damage to specimens by expanding void spaces and pushing apart aggregate. On the other hand the low permeability results and difficulty in obtaining saturation of specimens lends some evidence that 4.75 mm mixtures may be resistant to moisture damage even at air void contents of 9.0 percent. 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 AL- 5 0- 4 AL- 5 0- 6 TN -50 - 4 TN -75 - 4 MO-5 0- 4 MO-5 0- 6 VA - 5 0- 4 VA - 7 5- 4 FL -50 - 4 FL -75 - 4 FL -75 - 6 CY - 5 0- 4 CT- 5 0- 6 MN -5 0- 4 MN -7 5- 4 MN -7 5- 6 NH - 5 0- 4 NH - 7 5- 4 NH - 7 5- 6 WI - 5 0 - 4 WI - 5 0 - 6 T N GM - 50- 4 T N GM - 75- 4 VA a d j- 50 -4 VA a d j- 75 -4 Fladj - 50-4 Fladj - 75-6 W i ad j - 50 - 4 W i ad j - 50 - 6 Mix Identification Ten s ile S t r e ng th R a tio Figure 4.28 Tensile Strength Ratios for 29 Mix Designs 85 Decreasing the asphalt content caused a slight increase in moisture damage susceptibility as indicated by lower tensile strength ratios. In Figure 4.29 dry and wet tensile strengths are plotted for each blend, it can be seen that wet strengths tend to increase with increasing dry strength but not proportionally. This tends to indicate that wet strength may be more a function of the asphalt ?aggregate bond strength than the amount of asphalt in the mixture. Asphalt-aggregate bond strength adhesion is obviously important to moisture susceptibility. This was not addressed in the experimental research plan for this study, so it is difficult to ascertain how the aggregate mineralogy affects the stripping potential of these mixtures. y = 0.5256x + 15.515 R 2 = 0.2841 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 160.00 180.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 160.00 180.00 200.00 220.00 Dry strength psi W e t s t r e ngt h ps i Line of Proportionality Figure 4.29 Wet versus Dry Strength There is a weak relationship (R 2 =0.21, p-value=0.013) between VMA and TSR as shown in Figure 4.30 and a weak relationship (R 2 =0.17, p-value=0.025) between volume of effective asphalt shown in Figure 4.31.Although these relationships are confounded by other variables the general trend of increasing TSR with increasing VMA and effective asphalt content was expected due to thicker asphalt films at higher asphalt contents. 86 Natural sand content is one of the factors that may affect TSR for these mixtures as shown in Figure 4.32. Figure 4.32 is plotted with only the mixtures designed at 50 gyrations and 4.0 percent air voids to illustrate the influence natural sand has on sand asphalt mixtures. R 2 = 0.2085 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0 23.0 24.0 25.0 VMA T e n s ile S t r e n g t h R a t i o Figure 4.30 VMA versus Tensile Strength Ratio R 2 = 0.1722 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 Vbe TS R Figure 4.31 Effective Asphalt Content by Volume versus Tensile Strength Ratio 87 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 0<15% ?15 to <20% >20% Percent Natural Sand in Blended Aggregate Te ns i l e S t r e ngt h R a t i o N=7 N=3 N=3 Figure 4.32 Relationship with Percent Natural Sand in Blended Aggregate and TSR for 50 Gyration 4.0% Air Void Mix Designs It was thought that film thickness may be a good indicator of TSR; however for the blends in this study the relationship was weak (R 2 =0.09, p-value=0.12). Dry strength seems to have a reasonable relationship (R 2 =0.24, p-value=0.008) with film thickness, shown in Figure 4.33. No reasonable regression models could be determined for wet tensile strength of the asphalt mixtures in this study. R 2 = 0.2378 0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 Film Thickness Dry strengt h Figure 4.33 Dry Strength versus Film Thickness 88 89 4.2.3 Fracture Energy Density Ratio All 29 laboratory designed mixtures and three baseline mixtures were tested for fracture energy density. For each mixture two sets of specimens were prepared, the first set of specimens were tested with no aging. The second set was oven aged at 85?C for six days then tested. A ratio of the aged fracture energy density to the un-aged fracture energy density was then calculated. A hypothesis of this study was mixes with lower fracture energy ratios would be more prone to aging and cracking over time. Although the aged fracture energy values may not be below a threshold value where cracking will occur, a low ratio might identify a mixture that in certain field conditions could be more susceptible to cracking over time compared to mixtures with a higher ratio. Table 4.16 shows fracture energy ratios with aged and un-aged values for the twenty nine laboratory designed mixtures. The average ratio is 96.2 percent with an average aged fracture energy density of 5.399 kJ/m 3 and an un-aged average of 5.574 kJ/m 3 . The high average for fracture energy ratio indicates that small aggregate mixtures with high VMA and asphalt contents may be highly resistant to cracking over time. Fracture energy ratios were plotted in Figure 4.34 sorted by state. Generally fracture energy ratio tends to decrease with decreasing asphalt contents which results from an increase in design air voids and/or decrease in number of gyrations. For each source of material the 50 gyration and 4.0 percent air void mixture (50-4) had the highest asphalt content. However, there are several exceptions to decreasing ratio that stand out (TN, MO, and VA), where the ratio increases with decreasing asphalt content. Figure 4.35 shows a weak relationship (R 2 =0.29 p-value= 0.002) between effective asphalt content and fracture energy ratio, but there is a general trend of decreasing ratio with decreasing effective asphalt content and the p-value of 0.002 indicates the trend is significant at ?=0.05. This trend was expected since higher asphalt contents generally provide good cracking resistance. MINITAB was employed to determine Pearson correlation coefficients with fracture energy ratio to aggregate and mixture volumetric properties. The significant relationships are shown in Table 4.17. Table 4.17 shows that there are also significant relationships between fracture energy ratio and VMA, VFA, film thickness and dust content, illustrated in Figures 4.37, 4.38 and 4.39. These relationships indicate that long term cracking resistance for 4.75 mm mixtures are affected to some degree by volumetric or mass proportions. Film thickness is known to influence cracking resistance of asphalt mixtures. There are two properties that effect film thickness, one being Vbe and the other being dust content, so it was expected that both dust and effective asphalt content would affect fracture energy ratio. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 AL - 5 0 - 4 AL 5 0 - 6 TN - 5 0- 4 TN - 7 5- 4 MO - 5 0 - 4 MO - 5 0 - 6 VA- 5 0 - 4 VA- 7 5 - 4 FL - 50- 4 FL - 75- 4 FL - 75- 6 CT - 5 0 - 4 CT - 5 0 - 6 M N - 50- 4 M N - 75- 4 M N - 75- 6 N H - 50- 4 N H - 75- 4 N H - 75- 6 WI - 5 0 - 4 WI - 5 0 - 6 TN G M - 50- 4 TN G M - 75- 4 V A ad j - 50- 4 V A ad j - 75- 4 FL a d j - 50 - 4 FL a d j - 75 - 6 W I ad j - 50- 4 W I ad j - 50- 6 Mix Identification Fr a c t u r e E n e r gy R a t i o Figure 4.34 Fracture Energy Ratios for Laboratory Mixtures 90 91 Table 4.16 Fracture Energy Data for Laboratory Mixtures State(mix) Pbe VMA VFA DP film thickness (microns) F-Eratio % Fe ini Fe cure p-value* Significant AL-50-4 6.30 18.5 78.4 1.8 6.1 102 3.57 3.65 0.93 no AL 50-6 5.60 18.8 68.1 2.0 5.4 79 6.10 4.84 0.32 no TN-50-4 5.80 16.9 76.8 2.0 6.3 60 3.70 2.20 0.07 no TN-75-4 5.30 16.0 74.8 2.2 5.7 80 2.86 2.29 0.19 no MO-50-4 6.10 18.2 78.2 1.7 5.9 59 5.84 3.45 0.03 yes MO-50-6 5.30 18.4 66.7 2.0 5.1 75 4.76 3.51 0.02 yes VA-50-4 5.90 16.8 75.8 1.7 6.3 68 4.54 3.07 0.16 no VA-75-4 5.40 15.8 74.9 1.9 5.8 91 6.37 5.79 0.51 no FL-50-4 9.70 24.2 82.8 0.8 11.8 127 4.50 5.72 0.24 no FL-75-4 8.90 22.6 81.8 0.9 10.8 88 5.07 4.47 0.32 no FL-75-6 8.00 22.5 73.7 1.0 9.6 94 5.67 5.35 0.61 no CT-50-4 6.80 19.9 80.9 1.2 8.9 151 5.60 8.48 0.02 yes CT-50-6 5.50 19.0 68.5 1.4 7.1 104 6.90 7.15 0.89 no MN-50-4 7.20 21.1 80.4 1.6 7.4 115 7.80 8.94 0.26 no MN-75-4 6.80 20.1 79.8 1.7 6.9 110 7.38 8.08 0.26 no MN-75-6 5.80 19.7 70.1 1.9 5.8 94 6.48 6.07 0.62 no NH-50-4 9.10 23.8 83.6 0.7 12.8 137 5.45 7.45 0.02 yes NH-75-4 8.70 22.9 84.0 0.7 12.1 97 5.90 5.72 0.84 no NH-75-6 7.90 23.1 75.0 0.8 10.9 106 7.06 7.48 0.50 no WI-50-4 6.00 18.0 77.4 1.2 8.9 91 5.51 5.04 0.69 no WI-50-6 5.20 17.8 66.9 1.4 7.7 85 6.05 5.17 0.16 no TNGM-50-4 6.8 20.9 80.7 1.0 9.2 129 5.46 6.62 0.029 yes TNGM-75-4 6.4 17.5 76.5 1.3 8.6 97 5.06 4.88 0.882 no VA adj-50-4 6.0 16.8 76.4 1.7 6.5 132 5.75 7.57 0.056 no VA adj-75-4 5.7 16.5 75.6 1.7 6.1 93 5.68 5.31 0.065 no FL adj-50-4 7.9 20.6 81.1 1.7 7.9 104 5.10 5.27 0.749 no FL adj-75-6 7.0 20.6 71.0 1.9 6.4 60 5.89 3.54 0.037 yes WI adj-50-4 5.1 16.1 74.4 1.9 6.8 82 6.80 5.57 0.164 no WI adj-50-6 4.6 16.5 64.4 2.1 6.3 81 4.78 3.85 0.158 no Average 96.2 5.574 5.399 Stdev 23.4 1.1 1.8 COV 24% 20% 33% * p-values determined from two sample t-test mean (Fe ini ?Fe cure) ? 0, ? = 0.05, n = 8 y = 4.7625x + 26.252 R 2 = 0.2937 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 Volume of Effective Asphlat F r a c tu re E n e r g y R a ti o Figure 4.35 Fracture Energy Ratios versus Vbe Table 4.17 Pearson Correlation Coefficients and p-values for Linear Relationships with Fracture Energy Ratio Film Thickness Dp VFA VMA P-200 R 0.532 -0.552 0.506 0.453 -0.418 p-value 0.003 0.002 0.005 0.013 0.024 y = -17.933x 2 + 22.573x + 106.82 R 2 = 0.3233 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Dust Proportion Fr ac t u r e E n er gy R a t i o Figure 4.36 Fracture Energy Ratio versus Dust Proportion 92 y = 4.1682x + 15.795 R 2 = 0.2056 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 15.0 17.0 19.0 21.0 23.0 25.0 VMA F r ac t u r e E n er g y R a t i o Figure 4.37 Fracture Energy Ratio versus VMA R 2 = 0.3102 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 90.0 VFA F r act u r e E n e r g y R a t i o Figure 4.38 Fracture Energy Ratio versus VFA 93 R 2 = 0.3061 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 4 6 8 10 12 14 Film Thickness (microns) Fr a c t u r e E n e r gy R a t i o% Figure 4.39 Fracture Energy Ratio versus Film Thickness Establishing a fracture energy density threshold is needed to discern if cracking could be a concern for these mixtures. Recall, Figure 2.8 where Kim et al. (13) plotted fracture energy density for specimens from WesTrack. The regression indicates that fatigue cracking begins to occur at 3.0 kJ/m 3 . If this number is taken as a threshold where, below cracking is expected to take place in the pavement, then most of the mixtures presented in Table 4.16 would have performed satisfactorily. However, this conclusion would not be valid due to the fact that the aging between the field conditions at WesTrack and the long term oven aging used in the research presented here are not the same. Fracture energy ratio is used here to describe a mixtures ability to retain cracking resistance over time. However, it is unclear what an appropriate value of this ratio should be. For this reason the fracture energy ratios of the baseline mixtures presented in Table 4.18 were used as a bench mark to establish a reasonable limit for fracture energy ratios. Due to a lack of material, fracture energy density testing could not be performed for the baseline mixture from Mississippi. The mixtures from Georgia, Maryland, and Michigan 94 95 are reported to be in service with good performance history. The mean FE ratio for the baseline mixtures is 76 percent and the median is 80 percent. To serve as a benchmark for durability performance, the baseline median was chosen as a conservative estimate of a minimum value to compare with the laboratory prepared mixes. Figure 4.34 shows that only 6 mixtures failed to meet the 80 percent minimum. From the regressions shown in Figures 4.35 a fracture energy ratio of 80 percent corresponds to a Vbe of 11.5 and from Figure 4.36 the 80 percent fracture energy ratio corresponds to a maximum dust to asphalt ratio of 2.0. Recommending only a minimum Vbe may not be sufficient with regard to assuring resistance to cracking, it can be seen in Figures 4.36 and 4.39 that dust to asphalt ratio and film thickness give slightly more significant relationships than Figure 4.35. Since film thickness and dust to asphalt ratio are both related to Vbe and dust content, it is clear that the ability to maintain cracking resistance for the 4.75 mm NMAS asphalt mixtures prepared for this study is dependent on asphalt and dust contents. The current specified dust to asphalt ratio of 2.0 appears to be a reasonable based on Figure 4.36. Table 4.18 Fracture Energy Density Data for Baseline Mixtures State(mix) Air voids (design) Ndesign %A.C. Binder VMA VFA Dust ratio film thickness (microns) F-E ratio % un- aged KJ/M 3 aged KJ/M 3 Mississippi 4.0 50 5.9 76-22 17.7 66.6 2.0 5.4 N/A N/A N/A Maryland 3.5 75 6.5 64-22 16.3 80.9 1.6 7.3 80 5.582 4.442 Georgia 6.0 50 6.0 64-22 16.7 76.4 1.5 6.7 81 4.887 3.949 Michigan 4.0 60 7.5 52-28 17.0 69.4 1.4 7.1 68 7.242 4.937 Mean = 76 5.904 4.443 Stdev= 7.1 1.210 0.494 Median= 80 5.582 4.442 96 4.2.4 Permeability Laboratory permeability, test method ASTM PS 121, was performed on 27 of the 29 mix designs. Mixtures TNGM-50-4 and VAadj-50-4 were not tested for permeability due to insufficient material. Permeability test results are shown in Table 4.19 and in Figure 4.40. Mixtures with permeability less than 125 E -5 cm/sec are generally considered impermeable. As seen in Figure 4.40 twenty one out of the twenty seven mixtures are below this threshold. The maximum was 210.75 E -5 cm/sec for WI-50-4 and the minimum was 7.55 cm/sec E -5 . It was thought that there would be a trend of increasing permeability with decreasing asphalt content; however as seen in Figure 4.41, this was not the case. Again, confounding effects due to the large range of material and gradations may explain why this relationship was not observed. The results for this research provided no clear relationships between mixture permeability and volumetric properties or gradation. There may be several reasons for this. First, according to the test procedure used (ASTM PS 121); a vacuum pressure of 525 mm Hg is applied to the specimen for five minutes to achieve saturation. However, for these mixtures due to low permeability, specimens were saturated at a lower pressure (50-100 mm Hg) to increase vacuum for ten minutes until saturation a of 85 to 95 percent was accomplished. This high level of saturation was used, because it was observed that consistent readings on the permeameter were only achieved at about 90 percent saturation. It is possible that during the saturation process, the test specimens were damaged which increased permeability due to expansion of internal voids. 97 Table 4.19 Permeability and Mixture Data for Laboratory Mixtures State(mix) P-200 Pb VMA VFA DP SE FAA film thickness (microns) k (cm/s)E -5 AL-50-4 11.1 7.4 18.5 78.4 1.8 67 46.3 6.1 49.32 AL 50-6 11.1 6.9 18.8 68.1 2.0 67 46.3 5.4 50.19 TN-50-4 11.6 7.3 16.9 76.8 2.0 69 44.8 6.3 67.36 TN-75-4 11.6 6.8 16.0 74.8 2.2 69 44.8 5.7 75.25 MO-50-4 10.6 6.9 18.2 78.2 1.7 74 49.0 5.9 21.47 MO-50-6 10.6 6.2 18.4 66.7 2.0 74 49.0 5.1 38.14 VA-50-4 10.1 8.8 16.8 75.8 1.7 76 45.0 6.3 44.80 VA-75-4 10.1 8.3 15.8 74.9 1.9 76 45.0 5.8 30.37 FL-50-4 7.7 11.8 24.2 82.8 0.8 88 44.1 11.8 154.20 FL-75-4 7.7 11.0 22.6 81.8 0.9 88 44.1 10.8 126.47 FL-75-6 7.7 10.1 22.5 73.7 1.0 88 44.1 9.6 79.34 CT-50-4 7.9 8.8 19.9 80.9 1.2 79 46.1 8.9 91.35 CT-50-6 7.9 7.2 19.0 68.5 1.4 79 46.1 7.1 111.40 MN-50-4 11.2 8.8 21.1 80.4 1.6 67 46.2 7.4 8.39 MN-75-4 11.2 8.3 20.1 79.8 1.7 67 46.2 6.9 17.32 MN-75-6 11.2 7.4 19.7 70.1 1.9 67 46.2 5.8 7.55 NH-50-4 6.0 9.7 23.8 83.6 0.7 85 51.0 12.8 34.23 NH-75-4 6.0 9.3 22.9 84.0 0.7 85 51.0 12.1 52.38 NH-75-6 6.0 8.6 23.1 75.0 0.8 85 51.0 10.9 14.92 WI-50-4 7.1 7.5 18.0 77.4 1.2 81 43.7 8.9 210.75 WI-50-6 7.1 6.7 17.8 66.9 1.4 81 43.7 7.7 178.78 TNGM-75-4 8.2 9.3 17.5 76.5 1.3 70 42.2 8.6 162.4 VA adj-75-4 10.1 8.7 16.5 75.6 1.7 76 45.0 6.1 33.87 FL adj-50-4 13.4 10.0 20.6 81.1 1.7 79 44.5 7.9 177.21 FL adj-75-6 13.4 9.1 20.6 71.0 1.9 79 44.5 6.4 123.82 WI adj-50-4 9.5 6.8 16.1 74.4 1.9 81 45.8 6.8 30.95 WI adj-50-6 9.5 6.3 16.5 64.4 2.1 81 45.8 6.3 78.13 Average= 76.68 Stdev= 58.94 COV= 77% 0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0 125.0 150.0 175.0 200.0 225.0 250.0 275.0 AL - 5 0 - 4 AL 5 0 - 6 TN - 5 0- 4 TN - 7 5- 4 MO - 5 0 - 4 MO - 5 0 - 6 VA - 5 0 - 4 VA - 7 5 - 4 F L - 50- 4 F L - 75- 4 F L - 75- 6 CT - 5 0 - 4 CT - 5 0 - 6 MN - 5 0 - 4 MN - 7 5 - 4 MN - 7 5 - 6 NH - 5 0 - 4 NH - 7 5 - 4 NH - 7 5 - 6 WI - 5 0 - 4 WI - 5 0 - 6 T N G M - 75- 4 V A ad j - 75 - 4 FL ad j - 50 - 4 FL ad j - 75 - 6 W I ad j - 50 - 4 W I ad j - 50 - 6 Mix Identification k ( c m / sec * E -5 ) Bar and Whisker = One Standard Deviation of Test Average Figure 4.40 Permeability for Laboratory Mixtures R 2 = 0.0026 0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 Vbe P e r m eab i l i t y cm / s e c * E - 5 Figure 4.41 Permeability versus Volume of Effective Asphalt A second concern is the precision of the test procedure. ASTM PS 121 provides no precision statement, so it is difficult to say if differences in permeability between 98 mixtures using the same aggregate and gradation at different asphalt contents are appreciably different. One aggregate property that may influence mixtures permeability is FAA. Figure 4.42 shows decreasing permeability with increasing FAA. Although, it would be logical to assume that aggregate blends with higher FAA would be more permeable. Figure 4.42 shows FAA versus permeability sorted by the percent natural sand in the aggregate blend. It can be seen that aggregate blends with FAA values under 45 contain natural sand. Crushed sand will generally have more flat and elongated particles compared to natural sand. During compaction the crushed particles may align perpendicularly to the applied load closing off flow paths. There may be a difference in the way aggregate particles align during compaction when a rounded material is present in the aggregate blend which creates a more dispersed structure allowing more flow paths through the compacted specimen. y = 1E+07e -0.2622x R 2 = 0.3967 0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 40.0 41.0 42.0 43.0 44.0 45.0 46.0 47.0 48.0 49.0 50.0 51.0 52.0 FAA P e r m e a b i li ty cm /s ec E - 5 Figure 4.42 FAA versus Permeability Sorted by Percent Natural Sand 99 100 It is clear that most of the mixtures prepared for this research are impermeable even at high air voids. It was mentioned in section 2.3.3 that mixtures over 8.0 percent air voids are generally considered permeable. 4.75 mm NMAS mixtures are shown to be impermeable even at 9.0 percent air voids, because smaller aggregate size mixtures tend to have small air voids that are not as interconnected compared to larger NMAS asphalt mixture. 4.3 Baseline Mixtures Four plant produced mixtures were used as a baseline to compare 4.75 mm NMAS mixtures that are currently being produced and have good performance history. Plant produced mixtures from Mississippi, Maryland, Georgia, and Michigan were introduced as baseline mixtures. The mixture properties and averages are given in Table 4.20. The mixture from Georgia is not a 4.75 mm NMAS blend based on the percent passing the 4.75 mm sieve, however it provides a good comparison to similar small aggregate size asphalt mixtures. Generally, compared to the laboratory mixtures, baseline mixes are coarser- graded, have lower optimum asphalt contents, contain lower VMAs, produce lower rut depths, have higher TSR values, and produce lower average fracture energy ratios. Figure 4.43 shows gradations for the baseline mixtures highlighted over the 13 aggregate blends used for the laboratory mix designs, it can be seen that the baseline mixtures are generally coarser graded thus closer to the maximum density line. So, even with a lower percent passing the 0.075 mm sieve the baseline mixtures have lower VMA due to coarser gradations. 101 The baseline mixture from Mississippi had the lowest MVT rut depth for all mixtures in the study. This was expected since this mix contained a polymer modified PG 76-22 binder. The average MVT rut depth for the baseline mixtures was 9.4 mm. This average is below the 13.1mm rut depth that is assumed in this thesis as a critical rut depth for 4.75 mm NMAS mixtures. The baseline mixture from Michigan had a 15.7 mm in the MVT tester. This is probably due to the use of a PG 58-22 binder. Although the mix contained with the softer asphalt grade, the MVT test was conducted at 64?C, as were all mixtures in this study. Table 4.20 Mixture Properties and Performance Data for Baseline Mixtures. State(mix) Air voids (design) Va actual Ndesign Passing 0.075 mm Passing 1.18mm Passing 4.75mm %Nat. sand Mississippi 4.0 5.9 50 10.7 50.0 98.0 10.9 Maryland 3.5 3.1 75 8.1 42.8 95.6 15.0 Georgia 6.0 3.9 50 8.5 43.1 79.5 0.0 Michigan 4.0 5.2 60 7.1 54.6 92.5 0.0 Average= 4.4 4.5 58.8 8.6 47.6 91.4 6.5 Stdev= 1.11 1.26 11.81 1.52 5.72 8.25 7.66 State(mix) %A.C. Eff AC% Binder VMA VFA % Gmm @ Nini Dust ratio Mississippi 5.9 5.3 76-22 17.7 66.6 86 2.0 Maryland 6.5 5.7 64-22 16.3 80.9 89.1 1.6 Georgia 6.0 5.5 64-22 16.7 76.4 90.2 1.5 Michigan 7.5 6.0 58-22 17 69.4 88.5 1.4 Average= 6.5 5.6 16.9 73.3 88.5 1.6 Stdev= 0.73 0.30 0.59 6.52 1.78 0.26 State(mix) SE FAA film thickness (microns) Rut depth (mm) F-E ratio % TSR k (cm/s)E -5 Mississippi N/A N/A 5.4 3.8 N/A 0.85 48.13 Maryland 67 45.7 7.3 9.5 80 0.78 61.40 Georgia N/A N/A 6.7 8.6 81 0.92 107.15 Michigan 87 44.6 7.1 15.7 68 0.78 95.85 Average= 77.0 45.2 6.6 9.4 76.2 0.83 78.1 Stdev= 14.14 0.78 0.85 4.90 7.08 0.07 27.90 State(mix) Dry TS Wet TS Fe Un-aged Fe aged Mississippi 220.1 187.9 N/A N/A Maryland 164.4 129 5.582 4.442 Georgia 137.1 126.3 4.887 3.949 Michigan 209.4 164.1 7.242 4.937 Average= 182.8 151.8 5.904 4.443 Stdev= 38.84 29.58 1.21 0.49 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 sieve size % P a s s i n g Maryland Mississippi Georgia Michigan 0.075m 1.180m 4.75mm 9.5mm Figure 4.43 Gradations for Baseline Mixtures. Tensile strength ratios for the baseline mixtures appear to be reasonable. The average was 0.83, however if 0.80 is used as a minimum which is common for many specifying agencies, the mixtures from Michigan and Maryland are slightly below this minimum. All baseline mixtures contained about 1.0 percent hydrated lime which may explain the higher tensile strength ratios compared to the laboratory mixtures. One performance concern with these mixtures may be cracking resistance. Fracture energy ratios for baseline mixtures are low compared to most of the laboratory mixtures. There may be several reasons for lower ratios. Lower film thicknesses, lower VMAs and lower effective asphalt content probably contribute to the baseline mixtures reduced ability to resist cracking after oven aging compared to the laboratory prepared mix designs. Also, it is not clear if the softer binder used in the Michigan baseline 102 103 mixture contributed to a lower fracture energy ratio, which is noticeably lower at 68 percent compared to 80 and 81 percent for baseline mixtures from Maryland and Georgia. As with the laboratory designed mixtures, permeability was low even at high air voids. The average permeability for baseline mixtures was 78.1 cm/sec E -5 at 9.0 percent air voids, which is practically the same as the average for the laboratory mixtures at 76.7 cm/sec E -5 at 9.0 percent air voids. 4.4 AASHTO Specifications The AASHTO specifications for 4.75 mm NMAS Superpave designed asphalt mixtures are presented in Table 4.21. The main objective for this research is to refine the current procedures and criteria for 4.75mm NMAS Superpave designed mixtures, so a comparison to current AASHTO criterion is presented in this section. Table 4.21 AASHTO Criteria For 4.75mm NMAS Superpave Asphalt Mixtures. Minimum FAA Depth from Surface Design ESALs (Millions) Ndes ? 100 mm ? 100 mm Minimum Sand Equivalent Min. VMA VFA Nini <0.3 50 - - 40 16.0 70-80% ?91.5 0.3 to <3.0 75 40 40 40 16.0 65-78% ?90.5 3.0 to<10 100 45 40 45 16.0 75-78% ?89.0 Sieve size Min. Max. Air voids = 4.0% 12.5 mm 100 Dust Proportion: 0.9 to 2.0 9.5 mm 95 100 4.75 mm 90 100 1.18 mm 30 60 0.075 mm 6 12 104 4.4.1 AASHTO Gradation Limits Most of the laboratory prepared mixtures and baseline mixtures meet current gradation limits specified in AASHTO shown in Table 4.21. There are two mixes however, that are outside current limits. FLadj has 13.4 percent passing the 0.075mm sieve; which exceeds the maximum of 12.0 percent to lower the high VMA seen in the FLmix. Six percent baghouse fines were added to the FL blend to increase fines and lower VMA. For this mixture, adding fines had a beneficial effect. VMA was lowered, TSR values were increased, and dust to asphalt ratio was increased to meet current specifications. This indicates that increasing the maximum limit on 0.075 sieve may allow for 4.75 mm NMAS mix designs to have slightly higher dust contents as a way to control volumetric properties. The MN mix was finer than the current limits specified for the 1.18 mm sieve. The maximum percent passing the 1.18 mm sieve can be currently 60 percent; MN has 61.1 percent passing. This gradation was found to give the lowest optimum asphalt content from the aggregate trial portion of the MN mix design. The final mixtures prepared with the MN aggregate blend did have high VMA (19.7 to 21.1); this is thought to be due to the fineness of the gradation. The 1.18 mm sieve is used to divide a 4.75 mm NMAS mixture into two fractions where the material above this sieve is the coarse fraction and below is the fine fraction of the aggregate blend. Increasing the coarse fraction of the gradation should make a fine- graded mixture move closer to the maximum density line. Figure 4.44 indicates that two ways can be used to decrease effective asphalt content, one way being to increase the dust content the second being to decrease the fine fraction of the gradation. It is recommended that the current gradation limits be adjusted to limit the amount of material passing the 1.18 mm to 55 percent to force gradations closer to the maximum density line, and that the maximum amount of material passing the 0.075 mm sieve be increased to 13.0 percent. R 2 = 0.47 R 2 = 0.38 7.0 9.0 11.0 13.0 15.0 17.0 19.0 21.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 Percent Passing 1.180 mm Sieve Vbe Under 10 Percent Over 10 Percent Percent Pasaing 0.075mm Sieve Figure 4.44 Vbe versus Percent Passing 1.18 mm Sieve Sorted by Dust Content 4.4.2 Criteria for Sand Equivalent All of the aggregate blends in this study were well above the minimum specified limit for Sand Equivalent. The maximum sand equivalent result was 88 for the Florida blends, the minimum was 67 for the Minnesota and Alabama blends. An average SE for all the aggregate blends in this study was 77. Since all aggregate blends were well above the current minimum specified sand equivalence values shown in Table 4.21 there was no evidence to support changing sand equivalent criteria. 105 4.4.3 Criteria for Dust to Asphalt Ratio As discussed in section 4.1.5 there were five mix designs that fell outside of the current specified range for dust to asphalt ratio. It was determined from the relationship shown in Figure 4.36 that the current specified maximum of 2.0 appears to be reasonable. However, the minimum dust to asphalt ratio may be slightly too low. Figure 4.45 shows a plot of the average and median rutting rates for mixtures sorted by ranges of dust to asphalt ratio. It can be seen that higher dust to asphalt ratios tends to increase rutting resistance for these mixtures. In section 4.2.1 a minimum allowable MVT rut depth was determined to be 13.1 mm which is equivalent to a 0.0016 mm/cycle rutting rate at 8000 cycles. It can be seen in Table 4.15 that for mixtures with a rutting rate of less than 0.0016 mm/cycle, the average dust to asphalt ratio was 1.8 with only one mixture under 1.5 dust to asphalt ratio. Based on the high average rutting and variability for mixtures with less than 1.0 dust to asphalt ratio seen in Figure 4.45, it is recommended that the minimum dust to asphalt ratio be change to 1.0 percent and that for the ESAL range of over 3.0 million ESALs a minimum of 1.5 is recommended. 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.014 < 1.0 1.0 to <1.5 1.5 to <2.0 ? 2.0 Dust Ratio Range R u tti n g R a te m m / cyc l e Mean Median Figure 4.45 Rutting Rate versus Dust to Asphalt Ratio 106 107 4.4.4 Fine Aggregate Angularity It was mentioned in section 4.1.6 that there was no clear relationship between FAA and the volumetric properties of the mix designs prepared for this study. However, it was found that FAA did influence some of the performance tests conducted for this research. In section 4.2.1 it was shown that an FAA over 45 reduced rutting at higher asphalt contents. Also, it was found in section 4.2.4 that FAA over 45 may lower permeability. Based on these results, a FAA of over 45 may be appropriate for mixtures designed to higher ESAL ranges. 4.4.5 %Gmm@ Nini As mentioned in section 4.1.4 there were only two mix designs that failed to meet the most restrictive criteria for %Gmm@Nini (? 89.0 percent). The two mixtures that failed to meet this criterion also had relatively high rutting rates (0.004 mm/cycle), which may indicate that they would be unstable when subjected to traffic. At this time there is no recommendation on modifying the current %Gmm@Nini maximum. It was shown in Figures 4.13 and 4.15 that Gmm@Nini for 6.0 percent design air void mixtures were on average 1.7 percent lower than mixtures designed at 4.0 percent air voids. However if rutting rate is used as a measure of mixture stability as shown in Figure 4.46 there is no justification to lower the %Gmm@Nini maximum for 6.0 percent design air voids. 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 85.0 85.5 86.0 86.5 87.0 87.5 88.0 %Gmm@Nini R u t t i n g R a t e ( m m / cycl e) 6.0 Percent Air Voids Figure 4.46 Gmm@Nini versus Rutting Rate for 6.0 Percent Design Air Voids 4.4.6 Volumetric Requirements Currently only 4.0 percent air voids is permitted by AASHTO for all NMAS mixtures. Relationships shown in section 4.2 indicate that mixtures designed at 6.0 percent and 4.0 percent air voids can be designed to perform satisfactorily. Relationships shown in section 4.2.1 show that mixtures designed at 6.0 percent air voids can have lower rutting at higher VMA than mixtures designed at 4.0 percent air voids. It was found that rutting was more a function of effective asphalt content than VMA. The mixtures prepared for this study with aggregates from many different sources tended to have high VMA and therefore high asphalt contents. One way shown to reduce asphalt content was to design these mixes at higher air void contents. This allows aggregate blends with a high VMA to be used, yet maintains realistic asphalt contents. For this reason, a range of design air void contents of 4.0 to 6.0 percent should be specified. 108 109 A minimum of VMA of 16 percent is currently specified in AASHTO for 4.75 mm NMAS mixtures. This appears to be reasonable, but specifying a minimum Vbe may be a more sensible approach if a range of design air voids of 4.0 to 6.0 percent is adopted. Based on Figure 4.35, a minimum Vbe of 11.5 was found to be appropriate based on the results of fracture energy testing. Currently based on a minimum VMA of 16.0 percent and design air voids of 4.0 percent the minimum Vbe is 12.0 percent. Most of the mix designs prepared for this study would not meet the current VFA criteria for over 3.0 million ESALs. It is proposed that a maximum Vbe requirement be used to allow for a range of design air voids. This would replace the criteria for maximum VFA. Based on Figure 4.27 a maximum Vbe of 13.5 percent is proposed for over 3.0 million design ESALs to limit the potential for rutting. This would, in effect, lower the current VFA maximum requirement of 78 percent to 77 for mixtures designed at 4.0 design air voids, while permitting lower maximum VFA for higher design air voids. 110 5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 5.1 Conclusions Twenty nine 4.75 mm NMAS Superpave mix designs were prepared in the laboratory with material from nine states. Each mix design was tested for permanent deformation, permeability, Tensile Strength Ratio and fracture energy. Also, four plant produced mixtures were evaluated and served as a baseline for performance. The objective of this research was to refine the current procedures and criteria for 4.75mm NMAS Superpave designed mixtures. Based on the results of this research several conclusions were made: ? Material source properties and gradation largely control optimum asphalt contents. ? It was shown for 4.75 mm mixtures a change in design air voids at a given gyration level does not significantly increase or decrease VMA, since the volume of asphalt is replaced by volume of air. ? Increasing the compaction from 50 to 75 gyrations will significantly decrease VMA by an average of 1.3 percent for a given mixture. ? All aggregate blends in this study would be considered fine-graded. It was found that coarser gradations, those closer to the maximum density line, had lower VMA. ? Increasing the dust content is the simplest way to lower VMA for these mixtures. ? VFA was reduced by an average of 11.0 percent by increasing design air voids from 4.0 to 6.0 percent. With a difference of only 1.3 percent, increasing 111 compaction effort from 50 to 75 gyrations did not significantly change VFA at 4.0 percent design air voids. ? High VMA for many 4.75 mm NMAS asphalt mixtures, resulted in elevated asphalt contents and excessive MVT rut depths (mean =14.6 mm). ? Mixtures with dust to asphalt ratios of less than 1.5 have a higher average rutting rate (mean = 0.00475mm/cycle) than mixtures over a 1.5 dust to asphalt ratio (mean = 0.00189 mm/cycle). ? With a difference in average rutting rate of 0.00235 mm/cycle between mixtures with a Vbe of less than 13.5 percent and over 13.5 percent indicates that mixtures with under 13.5 percent Vbe performed better in rutting than mixtures with over 13.5 percent Vbe for both 6.0 and 4.0 design air void mixtures. ? It was thought that 4.75 mm NMAS mixtures with optimum asphalt contents over 6.0 percent would achieve 70 to 80 percent retained tensile strength. So, the average tensile strength ratio of 0.65 was lower than expected. However, low permeability at typical in-place air void contents may help reduce exposure to moisture in the field. ? There is a general trend of increasing fracture energy ratio with increasing asphalt content. Based on the plots of fracture energy versus film thickness and dust ratio it is concluded that a 4.75 mm NMAS mixtures ability to maintain resistance to cracking is a function of film thickness which is related to both asphalt and dust content. ? The average permeability of 76.7 cm/sec *E -5 at 9.0 percent air voids for the mix designs prepared in this study indicates 4.75 mm NMAS Superpave designed 112 asphalt mixtures are practically impermeable even at higher assumed in-place air voids. ? Mix designs containing natural sand adversely affected performance by decreasing the average TSR by 10 percent, increasing the average rutting rate by 0.001450 mm/cycle, and increasing average permeability by 62 cm/sec *E -5 . ? Mixtures with FAA values over 45 lowered rutting by an average of 0.00248 mm/cycle and lowered permeability by an average of 93 cm/sec *E -5 . 5.2 Recommendations Based on the results of this study and the conclusions presented above several recommendations and guidelines are presented: ? It is recommended that AASHTO specifications be modified to allow a range for design air voids of 4.0 to 6.0 percent for 4.75 mm NMAS asphalt mixtures. Asphalt mixtures designed for surface applications on low traffic roadways a design air voids 4.0 percent maybe more appropriate. For high traffic applications where rutting is a concern increasing design air voids will lower asphalt contents which will decrease rutting potential. ? Criteria for VMA and VFA should be replaced with minimum and maximum Vbe requirements. This is a more sensible approach when a range of design air voids is adopted. ? Based on fracture energy and MVT rutting data a minimum Vbe of 11.5 percent and a maximum Vbe of 13.5 percent is recommended for 4.75 mm NMAS 113 Superpave asphalt mixtures designed for over 3.0 million ESALs. For less than 3.0 million design ESALs a range of 12.0 to 15.0 percent Vbe is recommended. ? The maximum %Gmm@Nini requirement appears appropriate for both 4.0 and 6.0 percent design air voids. At this time it is recommended that current Gmm@Nini criteria be maintained. ? For aggregate blends designed for over 0.3 million ESALs a FAA of 45 is recommended. ? For 4.75 mm NMAS asphalt mixtures designed for under 3.0 million ESALs the minimum dust to asphalt ratio should be increased slightly from current 0.9 to 1.0. Mixtures designed for over 3.0 million ESALs a minimum dust to asphalt ratio of 1.5 is recommended. ? The current maximum dust to asphalt ratio of 2.0 is appropriate based on the results of fracture energy testing. It is recommended that the maximum dust to asphalt ratio of 2.0 be maintained. ? No evidence was found that suggested the current sand equivalence minimum be adjusted. At this time it is recommended that minimum sand equivalent criteria for each design ESAL range be maintained. ? It is recommended that current gradation limits on the 1.180 mm and 0.075 mm sieve be adjusted. Limits placed on percent passing the 1.180 sieve should be 30- 55 percent. Limits placed on percent passing the 0.075 mm sieve should be 6 to 13 percent ? It is recommended that 4.75 mm NMAS Superpave designed mixtures not contain more than 15 percent natural sand with a FAA under 45 percent. 114 Based on the recommendations provided in this report a proposed set of design criteria is given in Table 5.1. Table 5.1 Proposed Design Criteria for 4.75 mm NMAS Superpave Design Mixtures Design ESAL Range (Millions) Ndes Minimum FAA Minimum Sand Equivalent Minimum Vbe Maximum Vbe Gmm@Nini Dust Proportion <0.3 50 40 40 12.0 15.0 ?91.5 1.0 to 2.0 0.3 to ? 3.0 75 45 40 12.0 14.5 ?90.5 1.0 to 2.0 3.0 to ? 10 100 45 45 11.5 13.5 ?89.0 1.5 to 2.0 Gradation Limits Sieve Size Max. Min. 12.5 mm --- 100 Design Air Void Range = 4.0 to 6.0 Percent 9.5 mm 100 95 4.75 mm 100 90 1.18 mm 30 55 0.075 mm 13 6 The laboratory research has shown that small aggregate size mixtures with high VMA tend to maintain resistance to fracture after long term oven aging, generally have low permeability and can be designed to be rut resistant. Based on these findings several possible applications are recommended: ? 4.75 mm NMAS mixtures may be best suited for low traffic volume applications (less than 3 million design ESALs) as a thin overlay where mixture durability is important. ? Small aggregate size and low permeability would produce good mixtures for very thin lift surface applications used as preventative maintenance on existing pavements. ? Surface course on parking lots and residential streets. ? Small aggregate size mixtures would be ideal for thin leveling courses. ? Patching mixtures on low volume roadways. 115 This thesis was based on Phase 1 of the pooled fund study to refine the current AASHTO specifications on 4.75 mm NMAS Superpave mixtures. In the second phase of this research, it is hoped that a number projects will be available to conduct field studies on production and construction issues relevant to 4.75 mm NMAS mixtures. It is recommended that for the field research phase of this study the following issues be addressed: ? In-place densities after compaction ? Appropriate spread rates and lift thicknesses ? Workability of the mixture during construction ? Variability in mixture volumetric and aggregate properties during production and construction ? Friction of in-place mixtures ? Stability of the mixture during compaction. ? Permeability of in-place mixtures ? A typical ultimate density of these mixtures should be determined, however this will require testing on a project that has been in service for more than two to three years 116 6.0 References 1) Cooley, L.A., R.S James, S.M. Buchanan. Development of Mix Design Criteria for 4.75 mm Superpave Mixes. National Center for Asphalt Technology Report No. 2002-4, February 2004. 2) Cooley, L.A., M.H. Hunter, E.R. Brown. Use of Screenings to Produce HMA Mixtures. National Center for Asphalt Technology Report No. 2002-10 October 2002. 3) Level One Mix Design: Materials Selection, Compaction, and Conditioning. SHRP-A-408, Strategic Highway Research Program, National Research Council, Washington, DC, August 1994. 4) Kandhal, P.S., L.A. Cooley, NCHRP Report 464, The Restricted Zone in the Superpave Aggregate Gradation Specification. Transportation Research Board. National Research Council, Washington DC, 2001 5) Roberts, F.L., P.S. Kandhal, E.R. Brown, D.Y. Lee, T.W. Kennedy. Hot Mix Asphalt Materials, Mixture Design and Construction. National Asphalt Pavement Association Research and Education Foundation, 1996. 6) Prowell, D.P., J. Zhang, E.R. Brown. NCHRP Report 539, Aggregate Properties and Performance of Superpave Designed Hot Mix Asphalt. Transportation Research Board. National Research Council, Washington DC, 2005. 117 7) Stroup-Gardiner, M., D. Newcomb, W. Kussman, R. Olsen. Characteristics of Typical Minnesota Aggregates, Transportation Research Record 1583, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington DC, pp 1-10, 1997. 8) Kandhal, P.S., C. Lynn, F. Parker. Test for Plastic Fines in Aggregates Related to Stripping in Asphalt Paving Mixtures, National Center for Asphalt Technology, Report No. 98-3, 1998. 9) Kandhal, P.S., L.A. Cooley. NCHRP Report 508, Accelerated Laboratory Rutting Tests: Evaluation of the Asphalt Pavement Analyzer. Transportation Research Board. National Research Council, Washington DC, 2003 10) Moore, J.R., and B.D. Prowell. Evaluation of the Mix Verification Tester for Determining the Rutting Susceptibility of Hot Mix Asphalt. National Center for Asphalt Technology Report No. 06-xx, 2006. 11) Mallick, R.B., L.A. Cooley, M.R. Teto, R.L. Bradbury, and D. Peabody. An Evaluation of Factors Affecting Permeability of Superpave Designed Pavements. National Center for Asphalt Technology Report 03-02, June 2003. 12) L.A. Cooley Jr., B.D. Prowell, and E.R. Brown. Issues Pertaining to the Permeability Characteristics of Coarse-Graded Superpave Mixes. National Center for Asphalt Technology Report 02-06, July 2002. 13) Kim, Y.R., H. Wen. Fracture Energy from Indirect Tension Testing. Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Vol. 71, pp 779-793, 2002. 118 14) Birgisson, B., C. Soranakom, J.A.L. Napier, R. Roque. Simulation of Fracture Initiation in Hot-Mix Asphalt Mixtures. Transportation Research Board. Transportation Research Record 1849, pp 183-190, 2003. 15) Roque, R., B. Birgisson, Z. Zhang, B. Sangpentngam, and T. Grant. Implementation of SHRP Indirect Tension Tester to Mitigate Cracking in Asphalt Pavements and Overlays. University of Florida, May 2002. Downloaded: www.dot.state.fl.us/research-center/Completed_StateMaterials.htm, 2-2-06. 16) Prowell, B.D., J.E. Haddock. Superpave for Low Volume Roads and Base Mixtures. Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Vol. 71, pp 417-443, 2002. 17) Mogawer, W.S., R. Mallick. Design of Superpave HMA for Low Volume Roads. The New England Transportation Consortium, December, 2004. Downloaded: www.netc.uconn.edu/reports_listing.html#materials, 12-6-2005. 18) Habib, A., M. Hossain, R. Kaldate, and G.A. Flager. Comparison of Superpave and Marshall Mixtures for Low-Volume Roads and Shoulders. Transportation Research Board. Transportation Research Record 1609, pp 45-50, 1998. 19) Engle, E.J. Superpave Mix Designs for Low-Volume Roads. Iowa Highway Research Board, October, 2004. Downloaded: www.operationsresearch.dot.state.ia.us/reports/ihrb_by_number/tr400plus.html, 12-6-2005. 20) Experiences with Superpave on County Roads. Asphalt. Magazine of the Asphalt Institute, Spring 2004. Vol. 19. No. 1: pp 22-24 119 21) Asphalt in Pavement Maintenance. The Asphalt Institute. Manual Series No.16 (MS-16), March 1983. 22) Personal Communication with Donald Watson, National Center for Asphalt Technology. 3-23-06 23) Herrin, M. Bituminous Patching Mixtures. Transportation Research Board, NCHRP Synthesis 64, 1979. 24) Hansen, K. Pavement Preservation with Thin Overlays. Better Roads. Vol. 73 Issue 6, June, 2003: pp 48-50. 25) Brown, E.R., M.R. Hainin, L.A. Cooley, and G. Hurley. NCHRP Report 531. Relationship of Air Voids, Lift Thickness, and Permeability in Hot Mix Asphalt Pavements. Transportation Research Board. National Research Council, Washington DC, 2004 120 Appendix A Laboratory Mix Designs A1.1 Mix Design for Alabama Materials Alabama Trial Blends Stockpile sieve size M-10 89s Shorter Blend M-10 89s Shorter 3/4" 100 100 100 1 60% 10% 30% 1/2" 100 100 100 2 87% 13% 0% 3/8" 100 100 100 3 75% 10% 15% #4 99.7 27.0 99.1 #8 83.5 2.0 91.4 #16 58.9 1.0 78.5 #30 43.5 0.4 53.4 #50 32.0 0.4 19.8 Blend Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA #100 22.0 0.4 3.4 1 50 6.0 9.8 20.5 52.3 #200 14.5 0.4 1.4 2 50 6.0 5.6 16.3 65.5 Gsb 2.578 2.643 2.634 3 50 6.0 7.5 18.3 59.1 Gsa 2.651 2.693 2.669 Absorption% 1.20 0.70 0.50 Blend %Gmm@Nini Dustratio Gmm Gmb Gse 1 84.3 1.8 2.427 2.189 2.661 2 87.4 2.7 2.426 2.289 2.660 3 85.9 2.3 2.424 2.243 2.657 sieve size Blend 1 Blend 2 Blend 3 1" 100 100 100 Blend Est. %ac Est. VMA Est. VFA 3/4" 100 100 100 1 8.3 19.4 79.4 1/2" 100 100 100 2 6.7 16.0 75.0 3/8" 100.0 100.0 100.0 3 7.4 17.6 77.3 #4 92.3 90.2 92.3 #8 77.7 72.9 76.5 #16 59.0 51.4 56.1 Blend 3 was chose for mix design #30 42.2 37.9 40.7 #50 25.2 27.9 27.0 #100 14.3 19.2 17.1 #200 9.2 12.7 11.1 Gsb 2.601 2.586 2.593 Gsa 2.661 2.656 2.658 Absorption% 0.94 1.14 1.05 Aggregate Trial Blend Proportions Trial Blend Results Trial Blends 0. 6 1. 18 2. 36 4. 75 9. 5 12 . 5 0. 075 0. 15 0. 3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Sieve Size (mm) P e r cent P a ssi ng Blend 1 Blend 2 Blend 3 121 Alabama Binder Series Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA 1 50 7.0 5 18.5 73.0 2 50 7.5 3.4 18.2 81.3 3 50 8.0 2.4 18.2 86.7 Series %Gmm@Nini Dustratio Gmm Gmb 1 88.0 1.8 2.393 2.274 2 89.5 1.7 2.374 2.293 3 90.7 1.6 2.361 2.304 Series Est. %ac Est. VMA Est. VFA 1 7.4 18.3 78.1 2 7.3 18.3 78.1 3 7.4 18.4 78.3 Binder Series Results 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 6.87.07.27.47.67.88.08.2 % AC Ai r V o i d s 72.0 74.0 76.0 78.0 80.0 82.0 84.0 86.0 88.0 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 8.0 8.2 % AC VFA 122 18.1 18.2 18.2 18.3 18.3 18.4 18.4 18.5 18.5 18.6 6.87.07.27.47.67.88.08.2 % AC VM A . Verification for AL-50-4 Series Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA 1 50 7.4 4.0 18.5 78.4 Series %Gmm@Nini Dustratio Gmm Gmb 1 89.0 1.7 2.378 2.28 sieve size Blend 3 Spec 3/8" 100.0 100 - 95 #4 92.3 100 - 90 % Binder = 7.4 #8 76.5 Ndes = 50 #16 56.1 30 - 60 Design Va% = 4.0 Spec #30 40.7 SE = 67 >40 #50 27.0 FAA = 46.3 >40 #100 17.1 VMA = 18.5 >16 #200 11.1 6 - 12 VFA = 78.4 70-80 Gsb 2.593 %Gmm@Nini = 89 ?91.5 Gsa 2.658 DP = 1.7 0.9-2.0 Absorption% 1.045 Verification Series Results JMF 123 Verification for AL-50-4 Min 16% Series Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA 1 50 6.7 6.0 18.8 68.1 Series %Gmm@Nini Dustratio Gmm Gmb 1 87.2 1.9 2.401 2.257 sieve size Blend 3 Spec 3/8" 100.0 100 - 95 #4 92.3 100 - 90 % Binder = 6.7 #8 76.5 Ndes = 50 #16 56.1 30 - 60 Design Va% = 6.0 Spec #30 40.7 SE = 67 >40 #50 27.0 FAA = 46.3 >40 #100 17.1 VMA = 18.8 >16 #200 11.1 6 - 12 VFA = 68.1 70-80 Gsb 2.593 %Gmm@Nini = 87.2 ?91.5 Gsa 2.658 DP = 1.9 0.9-2.0 Absorption% 1.045 Gsb 2.593 Gsa 2.658 Absorption% 1.045 Verification Series Results JMF 124 A1.2 Tennessee Limestone Mix Design Tennessee Trial Blends Stockpile sieve size # 10 Hard Natural #10 soft Blend # 10 Hard Natural #10 soft 3/4" 100 100 100 1 63% 20% 17% 1/2" 100 100 100 2 63% 30% 7% 3/8" 100 100 100 3 63% 10% 27% #4 93.3 98.8 93.3 #8 62.9 92.3 64.8 #16 40.7 80.1 41.3 #30 28.1 56.5 28.4 #50 21.0 10.4 21.8 Blend Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA #100 16.8 0.8 17.8 1 50 6.2 6.8 17.4 60.9 #200 14.4 0.2 14.9 2 50 6.2 8.6 19.0 55.0 Gsb 2.544 2.591 2.579 3 50 6.2 7.0 17.2 59.4 Gsa 2.721 2.642 2.727 Absorption% 4.00 0.70 2.10 Blend %Gmm@Nini Dustratio Gmm Gmb Gse 1 85.4 2.4 2.418 2.254 2.659 2 84.4 2.1 2.417 2.21 2.658 3 83.8 2.8 2.428 2.258 2.672 sieve size Blend 1 Blend 2 Blend 3 1" 100 100 100 Blend Est. %ac Est. VMA Est. VFA 3/4" 100 100 100 1 7.3 16.8 76.2 1/2" 100 100 100 2 8.0 18.1 77.9 3/8" 100.0 100.0 100.0 3 7.4 16.6 75.9 #4 94.4 95.0 93.9 #8 69.1 71.9 66.4 #16 48.7 52.6 44.8 Blend 1 was chose for mix design #30 33.8 36.6 31.0 #50 19.0 17.9 20.2 #100 13.8 12.1 15.5 #200 11.6 10.2 13.1 Gsb 2.559 2.560 2.558 Gsa 2.706 2.698 2.714 Absorption% 3.02 2.88 3.16 Aggregate Trial Blend Proportions Trial Blend Results Trial Blends 4.75 mm Nominal Sieve Size 0. 6 1. 18 2. 3 6 4. 75 9. 5 12. 5 0. 07 5 0. 15 0. 3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Sieve Size (mm) P e r cent P assi ng Blend 1 Blend 2 Blend 3 125 Tennessee Binder Series for TN-50-4 Series Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA 1 50 6.8 5.8 17.6 66.9 2 50 7.3 3.9 17 77.2 3 50 7.8 2.4 16.8 85.6 Series %Gmm@Nini Dustratio Gmm Gmb 1 85.9 2.2 2.402 2.262 2 87.8 2 2.384 2.292 3 89.3 1.8 2.367 2.31 Series Est. %ac Est. VMA Est. VFA 1 7.5 17.2 76.8 2 7.2 17.0 76.5 3 7.2 16.9 76.4 Binder Series Results 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 6.66.87.07.27.47.67.88.0 % AC Ai r V o i d s 16.7 16.8 16.9 17.0 17.1 17.2 17.3 17.4 17.5 17.6 17.7 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 8.0 % AC VM A 126 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 90.0 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 8.0 % AC VF A Verification for TN-50-4 Series Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA 1 50 7.3 4.0 16.9 76.8 Series %Gmm@Nini Dustratio Gmm Gmb 1 87.8 2.0 2.387 2.293 sieve size Blend 1 Spec % Binder = 7.3 1" 100 Ndes = 50 3/4" 100 Design Va% = 4.0 1/2" 100 3/8" 100.0 100 - 95 SE = 69 #4 94.4 100 - 90 FAA = 44.8 #8 69.1 #16 48.7 30 - 60 #30 33.8 #50 19.0 #100 13.8 #200 11.6 6 - 12 Gsb 2.559 Gsa 2.706 Absorption% 3.020 Verification Series Results JMF 127 Tennessee Binder Series for TN-75-4 Series Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA 1 75 6.3 5.6 16.3 65.7 2 75 6.8 4.0 16.0 74.8 3 75 7.3 3.0 16.2 81.2 Series %Gmm@Nini Dustratio Gmm Gmb 1 85.7 2.4 2.421 2.286 2 87.2 2.2 2.403 2.306 3 88.0 2.0 2.387 2.315 Series Est. %ac Est. VMA Est. VFA 1 6.9 16.0 75.0 2 6.8 16.0 75.0 3 6.9 16.3 75.4 Binder Series Results 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 % AC Ai r V o i d s 16.0 16.0 16.1 16.1 16.2 16.2 16.3 16.3 16.4 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 % AC VM A 128 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 % AC VF A Verification for TN-75-4 Min 16% Series Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA 1 75 6.8 4.0 16 74.8 Series %Gmm@Nini Dustratio Gmm Gmb 1 87.2 2.2 2.403 2.306 sieve size Blend 3 Spec 1" 100 % Binder = 6.8 3/4" 100 Ndes = 75 1/2" 100 Design Va% = 4.0 3/8" 100.0 100 - 95 #4 94.4 100 - 90 SE = 69 #8 69.1 FAA = 44.8 #16 48.7 30 - 60 #30 33.8 #50 19.0 #100 13.8 #200 11.6 6 - 12 Gsb 2.559 Gsa 2.706 Absorption% 3.020 Verification Series Results JMF 129 A1.3 Missouri Mix Design Missouri Trial Blends Stockpile sieve size Mo13 Mo15 Mo14 D008 Blend Mo13 Mo15 Mo14 D008 3/4" 100 100 100 100 1 10% 15% 75% 1/2" 100 100 100 100 2 15% 20% 65% 3/8" 98.7 100 100 100 3 7% 24% 69% . #4 36.7 100.0 99.6 98.7 4 10% 75% 15% #8 4.8 90.6 83.0 94.5 #16 2.4 70.1 61.2 84.5 #30 2.2 55.9 47.7 61.2 #50 2.0 32.6 36.0 24.5 Blend Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA #100 1.8 7.6 24.0 2.5 1 50 7.0 3.3 17.9 81.7 #200 1.6 1.6 15.5 1.9 2 50 7.0 2.8 17.3 83.7 Gsb 2.709 2.707 2.745 2.620 3 50 7.0 4.4 18.9 76.6 Gsa 2.801 2.792 2.813 2.640 4 50 7.0 2.6 17.2 85.0 Absorption% 1.30 1.10 1.10 0.30 Blend %Gmm @Nini Dustratio Gmm Gmb Gse 1 89.3 1.9 2.497 2.415 2.797 2 89.6 1.7 2.500 2.430 2.801 sieve size Blend 1 Blend 2 Blend 3 Blend 4 3 88.2 1.8 2.494 2.384 2.793 1" 100 100 100 100 4 91.0 1.9 2.487 2.423 2.783 3/4" 100 100 100 100 1/2" 100 100 100 100 Blend Est. %ac Est. VMA Est. VFA 3/8" 99.9 99.8 99.9 99.9 1 6.7 18 77.8 #4 93.4 90.2 95.3 93.2 2 6.5 17.4 77.0 #8 76.3 72.8 79.4 76.9 3 7.2 18.8 78.7 #16 56.7 54.2 59.2 58.8 4 6.4 17.4 77.0 #30 44.4 42.5 46.5 45.2 #50 32.1 30.2 32.8 30.9 Blend 2 was chose for mix design #100 19.3 17.4 18.5 18.6 #200 12.0 10.6 11.2 12.1 Gsb 2.736 2.732 2.733 2.723 Gsa 2.809 2.807 2.807 2.786 Absorption% 1.12 1.13 1.11 1.0 Aggregate Trial Blend Proportions Trial Blend Results Trial Blends 4.75 mm Nominal Sieve Size 0. 6 1. 18 2. 36 4. 75 9. 5 12 . 5 0. 075 0. 15 0. 3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Sieve Size (mm) P e r cent P a ssi ng Blend 1 Blend 2 Blend 3 Blend 4 130 Missouri Binder Series Series Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA 1 50 5.9 6.7 18.2 63.3 2 50 6.4 5.1 17.9 71.3 3 50 6.9 4.2 18.2 77.2 4 50 6.7 4.4 18.0 75.3 Series %Gmm@Nini Dustratio Gmm Gmb 1 86.6 2.1 2.545 2.375 2 87.7 1.9 2.525 2.395 3 88.6 1.8 2.505 2.401 4 88.3 1.8 2.513 2.402 Series Est. %ac Est. VMA Est. VFA 1 7.0 17.7 77.3 2 6.9 17.7 77.4 3 7.0 18.2 78.0 4 6.9 17.9 77.7 Binder Series Results 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 % AC Ai r V o i d s 131 17.9 17.9 18.0 18.0 18.1 18.1 18.2 18.2 18.3 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 % AC VM A 60.0 62.0 64.0 66.0 68.0 70.0 72.0 74.0 76.0 78.0 80.0 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 % AC VF A Missouri Verification for MO-50-4 Series Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA 1 50 6.9 4.0 18.2 78.2 Series %Gmm@Nini Dust ratio Gmm Gmb 1 88.8 1.7 2.500 2.401 sieve size Blend 2 Spec % Binder = 6.9 3/8" 99.8 100 - 95 Ndes = 50 #4 90.2 100 - 90 Design Va% = 4.0 Spec #8 72.8 SE = 74 >40 #16 54.2 30 - 60 FAA = 49 >40 #30 42.5 VMA = 18.2 >16 #50 30.2 VFA = 78.2 70-80 #100 17.4 %Gmm@Nini = 88.8 ?91.5 #200 10.6 6 - 12 DP = 1.7 0.9-2.0 Gsb 2.732 Gsa 2.807 Absorption% 1.130 JMF 132 Verification for Missouri MO-50-6 Min 16% Series Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA 1 50 6.2 6.1 18.4 66.7 Series %Gmm@Nini Dustratio Gmm Gmb 1 86.9 2.0 2.531 2.376 sieve size Blend 2 Spec % Binder = 6.2 3/8" 99.8 100 - 95 Ndes = 50 #4 90.2 100 - 90 Design Va% = 6.0 Spec #8 72.8 SE = 74 >40 #16 54.2 30 - 60 FAA = 49 >40 #30 42.5 VMA = 18.4 >16 #50 30.2 VFA = 66.7 70-80 #100 17.4 %Gmm@Nini = 86.9 ?91.5 #200 10.6 6 - 12 DP = 2.0 0.9-2.0 Gsb 2.732 Gsa 2.807 Absorption% 1.130 Verification Series Results JMF 133 A1.4 Virginia Mix Design Virginia Trial Blends Stockpile sieve size #10 Natural Sand Blend #10 Natural Sand 3/4" 100 100 1 75% 25% 1/2" 100 100 2 68% 32% 3/8" 100 100 3 55% 45% #4 97.7 98.7 #8 74.3 88.8 #16 52.2 68.0 #30 37.4 39.4 #50 26.9 12.2 Blend Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA #100 18.7 3.4 1 50 7.2 9.1 17.9 49.4 #200 12.7 2.1 2 50 7.0 10.3 19.1 45.9 Gsb 2.408 2.583 3 50 6.7 12.4 21.1 41.3 Gsa 2.692 2.655 Absorption% 4.40 1.10 Blend %Gmm@Nini Dustratio Gmm Gmb Gse 1 84.1 2.4 2.382 2.166 2.652 2 83.0 2.2 2.388 2.142 2.651 3 81.4 1.9 2.398 2.101 2.651 sieve size Blend 1 Blend 2 Blend 3 1" 100 100 100 Blend Est. %ac Est. VMA Est. VFA %Gmm@Nini 3/4" 100 100 100 1 9.2 16.9 76.3 96.0 1/2" 100 100 100 2 9.5 17.8 77.5 96.0 3/8" 100.0 100.0 100.0 3 10.1 19.4 79.4 96.0 #4 98.0 98.0 98.2 #8 77.9 78.9 80.8 #16 56.2 57.3 59.3 Blend 1 was chose for mix design #30 37.9 38.0 38.3 #50 23.2 22.2 20.3 #100 14.9 13.8 11.8 #200 10.1 9.3 7.9 Gsb 2.449 2.614 2.484 Gsa 2.683 2.680 2.675 Absorption% 3.58 3.34 2.92 Aggregate Trial Blend Proportions Trial Blend Results Trial Blends 134 4.75 mm Nominal Sieve Size 0. 6 1. 18 2. 36 4. 75 9. 5 12. 5 0. 07 5 0. 1 5 0. 3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Sieve Size (mm) P e r c ent P a ss i n g Blend 1 Blend 2 Blend 3 Binder Series for VA-50-4 Series Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA 1 50 8.7 3.8 16.4 76.9 2 50 9.2 2.9 16.6 82.4 3 50 9.7 2.0 16.9 88.3 Series %Gmm@Nini Dustratio Gmm Gmb 1 89.2 1.7 2.331 2.243 2 90.2 1.6 2.316 2.248 3 91.8 1.5 2.300 2.254 Binder Series Results 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 8.58.78.99.19.39.59.79.9 % AC Ai r V o i d s 16.3 16.4 16.5 16.6 16.7 16.8 16.9 17.0 8.6 8.8 9.0 9.2 9.4 9.6 9.8 % AC VM A 135 76.0 78.0 80.0 82.0 84.0 86.0 88.0 90.0 8.6 8.8 9.0 9.2 9.4 9.6 9.8 % AC VF A Verification for Virginia VA-50-4 Series Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA 1 50 8.8 4.1 16.8 75.8 Series %Gmm@Nini DP Gmm Gmb 1 88.4 1.7 2.329 2.234 sieve size Blend 1 Spec 3/8" 100.0 100 - 95 #4 98.0 100 - 90 % Binder = 8.8 #8 77.9 Ndes = 50 #16 56.2 30 - 60 Design Va% = 4.0 Spec #30 37.9 SE = 76 >40 #50 23.2 FAA = 45 >40 #100 14.9 VMA = 16.8 >16 #200 10.1 6 - 12 VFA = 75.8 70-80 Gsb 2.449 %Gmm@Nini = 88.4 ?91.5 Gsa 2.683 DP = 1.7 0.9-2.0 Absorption% 3.575 Verification Series Results JMF 136 Binder Series for Virginia VA-75-4 Series Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA 1 75 7.8 5.2 15.9 67.4 2 75 8.3 4.0 15.8 74.9 3 75 8.8 3.0 15.9 80.9 Series %Gmm@Nini Dustratio Gmm Gmb 87.6 2.1 2.357 2.235 88.5 1.9 2.341 2.248 89.2 1.7 2.329 2.258 Binder Series Results 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.57.77.98.18.38.58.78.9 % AC Ai r V o i d s 15.7 15.8 15.9 16.0 7.6 7.8 8.0 8.2 8.4 8.6 8.8 9.0 % AC VM A 137 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 7.6 7.8 8.0 8.2 8.4 8.6 8.8 9.0 % AC VF A Verification for Virginia VA-75-4 Series Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA 75 8.3 4.0 15.8 74.9 Series %Gmm@Nini Dustratio Gmm Gmb 88.5 1.9 2.341 2.248 sieve size Blend 3 Spec 3/8" 100.0 100 - 95 #4 98.0 100 - 90 % Binder = 8.3 #8 77.9 Ndes = 75 #16 56.2 30 - 60 Design Va% = 4.0 Spec #30 37.9 SE = 76 >40 #50 23.2 FAA = 45 >40 #100 14.9 VMA = 15.8 >16 #200 10.1 6 - 12 VFA = 4.9 70-80 Gsb 2.449 %Gmm@Nini = 88.5 ?91.5 Gsa 2.683 DP = 1.9 0.9-2.0 Absorption% 3.575 JMF 138 A1.5 Florida Mix Design Trial Blends Stockpile sieve size Screen Sand Blend Screen Sand 3/4" 100 100 1 85% 15% 1/2" 100 100 2 100% 3/8" 100 100 3 92% 8% #4 95.2 100.0 #8 77.0 99.9 #16 54.0 99.7 #30 36.3 95.4 #50 23.4 56.4 Blend Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA #100 11.8 10.5 1 50 7.0 13.6 24.1 43.6 #200 8.1 2.6 2 50 7.0 15.8 24.9 36.4 Gsb 2.458 2.623 3 50 7.0 13.6 23.5 42.3 Gsa 2.664 2.65 Absorption% 3.10 0.40 Blend %Gmm@Nini Dustratio Gmm Gmb Gse 1 80.9 1.4 2.343 2.025 2.592 2 77.7 1.7 2.359 1.986 2.613 3 80.3 1.5 2.350 2.031 2.601 sieve size Blend 1 Blend 2 Blend 3 1" 100 100 100 Blend Est. %ac Est. VMA Est. VFA 3/4" 100 100 100 1 10.8 22.2 82 1/2" 100 100 100 2 11.7 22.5 82.2 3/8" 100.0 100.0 100.0 3 10.8 21.6 81.5 #4 95.9 95.2 95.6 #8 80.4 77.0 78.8 #16 60.9 54.0 57.7 Blend 3 was chose for mix design #30 45.2 36.3 41.0 #50 28.4 23.4 26.0 #100 11.6 11.8 11.7 #200 7.3 8.1 7.7 Gsb 2.481 2.458 2.470 Gsa 2.662 2.664 2.663 Absorption% 2.70 3.10 2.88 Aggregate Trial Blend Proportions Trial Blend Results Trial Blends 4.75 mm Nominal Sieve Size 0. 6 1. 1 8 2. 36 4. 75 9. 5 12 . 5 0. 07 5 0. 15 0. 3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Sieve Size (mm) P e r c en t P a ss i n g Blend 1 Blend 2 Blend 3 139 Binder Series for Florida FL-50-4 Series Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA 1 50 10.3 7.2 23.8 69.9 2 50 10.8 5.9 23.7 75.0 3 50 11.3 4.5 23.5 80.8 Series %Gmm@Nini Dustratio Gmm Gmb 1 85.7 0.9 2.26 2.098 2 86.6 0.9 2.245 2.112 3 87.7 0.8 2.231 2.13 Series Est. %ac Est. VMA Est. VFA 1 11.6 23.2 82.7 2 11.6 23.3 82.9 3 11.5 23.4 82.9 Binder Series Results 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5 12.0 % AC Ai r V o i d s 140 23.5 23.5 23.6 23.6 23.7 23.7 23.8 23.8 23.9 10.2 10.4 10.6 10.8 11.0 11.2 11.4 % AC VM A 68.0 70.0 72.0 74.0 76.0 78.0 80.0 82.0 10.2 10.4 10.6 10.8 11.0 11.2 11.4 % AC VF A 141 Verification for Florida FL-50-4 Series Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA 1 50 11.8 4.1 24.2 82.8 Series %Gmm@Nini Dust ratio Gmm Gmb 1 88.9 0.8 2.216 2.124 sieve size Blend 3 Spec 1" 100.0 3/4" 100.0 1/2" 100.0 3/8" 100.0 100 - 95 % Binder = 11.8 #4 95.6 100 - 90 Ndes = 50 #8 78.8 Design Va% = 4.0 Spec #16 57.7 30 - 60 SE = 67 >40 #30 41.0 FAA = 46.3 >40 #50 26.0 VMA = 24.2 >16 #100 11.7 VFA = 82.8 70-80 #200 7.7 6 - 12 %Gmm@Nini = 87.7 ?91.5 Gsb 2.470 DP = 0.8 0.9-2.0 Gsa 2.663 Absorption% 2.884 JMF Binder Series for Florida at 75 Gyrations Series Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA 1 75 10.0 6.3 22.5 71.9 2 75 10.5 4.6 22.0 79.2 3 75 11.0 5.2 23.5 77.9 Series %Gmm@Nini Dustratio Gmm Gmb 1 86.0 1.0 2.270 2.126 2 87.3 0.9 2.255 2.152 3 87.5 0.9 2.240 2.124 Series Est. %ac Est. VMA Est. VFA 1 10.9 22.1 81.9 2 10.7 21.9 81.7 3 11.5 23.2 82.8 142 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5 12.0 12.5 % AC Ai r V o i d s 21.8 22.0 22.2 22.4 22.6 22.8 23.0 23.2 23.4 23.6 9.8 10.0 10.2 10.4 10.6 10.8 11.0 11.2 % AC VM A 71.0 72.0 73.0 74.0 75.0 76.0 77.0 78.0 79.0 80.0 81.0 9.8 10.0 10.2 10.4 10.6 10.8 11.0 11.2 % AC VF A 143 Verification Series for Florida FL-75-4 Series Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA 1 75 11.0 4.1 22.6 81.8 Series %Gmm@Nini Dustratio Gmm Gmb 1 86.3 0.9 2.243 2.099 sieve size Blend 3 Spec 1" 100.0 3/4" 100.0 1/2" 100.0 3/8" 100.0 100 - 95 % Binder = 11 #4 95.6 100 - 90 Ndes = 75 #8 78.8 Design Va% = 4.0 Spec #16 57.7 30 - 60 SE = 67 >40 #30 41.0 FAA = 46.3 >40 #50 26.0 VMA = 22.6 >16 #100 11.7 VFA = 81.8 70-80 #200 7.7 6 - 12 %Gmm@Nini = 86.3 ?91.5 Gsb 2.470 DP = 0.9 0.9-2.0 Gsa 2.663 Absorption% 2.884 JMF 144 Verification for Florida FL-75-6 Series Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA 1 75 10.1 5.9 22.5 73.7 Series %Gmm@Nini Dustratio Gmm Gmb 1 86.4 1.0 2.262 2.128 sieve size Blend 3 Spec 1" 100.0 3/4" 100.0 1/2" 100.0 3/8" 100.0 100 - 95 % Binder = 10.1 #4 95.6 100 - 90 Ndes = 75 #8 78.8 Design Va% = 6.0 Spec #16 57.7 30 - 60 SE = 67 >40 #30 41.0 FAA = 46.3 >40 #50 26.0 VMA = 22.5 >16 #100 11.7 VFA = 73.7 70-80 #200 7.7 6 - 12 %Gmm@Nini = 86.4 ?91.5 Gsb 2.470 DP = 1 0.9-2.0 Gsa 2.663 Absorption% 2.884 JMF 145 A1.6 Connecticut Mix Design Connecticut Trial Blends Stockpile sieve size WSD W1/4" NB SS SS sr Blend WSD W1/4" NB SS SS sr 3/4" 100 100 100 100 100 1 60% 20% 20% 0% 0% 1/2" 100 100 100 100 100 2 0% 0% 0% 80% 20% 3/8" 100 100 100 99.9 100 3 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% #4 98.9 71.6 98.7 99.6 98.8 4 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% #8 53.4 10.1 47.3 72.1 46.0 #16 31.7 3.5 24.2 43.4 23.2 #30 22.7 1.8 19.6 28.9 19.0 #50 17.7 1.3 17.4 20.3 17.0 Blend Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA #100 13.6 1.1 15.2 12.7 15.1 1 50 7.0 13.6 26.4 48.4 #200 10.2 0.9 11.7 6.9 11.8 2 50 7.0 9 20.5 56.2 Gsb 2.832 2.861 2.789 2.787 2.720 3 50 7.0 11.8 25.6 53.9 Gsa 2.989 2.992 3.059 3.044 2.720 4 50 7.0 10.2 21.8 53.4 Absorption% 1.8 1.60 2.20 1.60 1.9 %Gmm@Nini Dustratio Gmm Gmb Gse 1 77.6 1.5 2.591 2.238 2.925 2 82.5 1.6 2.605 2.371 2.944 sieve size Blend 1 Blend 2 Blend 3 3 78.9 1.6 2.568 2.265 2.893 1" 100 100 100 4 81.5 1.3 2.608 2.342 2.948 3/4" 100 100 100 1/2" 100 100 100 Blend Est. %ac Est. VMA Est. VFA %Gmm@Nini 3/8" 100.0 99.9 100.0 1 10.9 24.5 83.7 87.2 #4 93.4 99.4 98.9 2 9 19.5 79.5 87.4 #8 43.5 66.9 53.4 3 10.1 24.1 83.4 86.8 #16 24.6 39.4 31.7 4 9.5 20.6 80.6 87.7 #30 17.9 26.9 22.7 #50 14.4 19.6 17.7 #100 11.4 13.2 13.6 Blend 2 was chose for mix design #200 8.6 7.9 10.2 Gsb 2.829 2.773 2.832 Gsa 3.004 2.973 2.989 Absorption% 1.84 1.66 1.80 Aggregate Trial Blend Proportions Trial Blend Results Trial Blends 146 4.75 mm Nominal Sieve Size 0. 6 1. 1 8 2. 3 6 4. 75 9. 5 12 . 5 0. 0 7 5 0. 1 5 0. 3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Sieve Size (mm) Pe r c e n t Pa s s i n g Blend 1 Blend 2 Blend 3 Connecticut Binder Series Series Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA 1 50 8.5 4.3 19.7 78.1 2 50 9.0 3.0 19.6 85.0 3 50 9.5 1.8 19.8 91.0 Series %Gmm@Nini Dustratio Gmm Gmb 1 86.1 1.2 2.543 2.433 2 87.4 1.1 2.523 2.448 3 88.5 1.0 2.503 2.459 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 % AC Ai r V o i d s 19.6 19.6 19.7 19.7 19.8 19.8 19.9 8.4 8.6 8.8 9.0 9.2 9.4 9.6 % AC VM A 147 76.0 78.0 80.0 82.0 84.0 86.0 88.0 90.0 92.0 8.4 8.6 8.8 9.0 9.2 9.4 9.6 % AC VF A Verification for Connecticut CT-50-4 Series Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA 1 50 8.8 3.8 19.9 80.9 Series %Gmm@Nini DP Gmm Gmb 1 86.8 1.2 2.531 2.435 sieve size Blend 2 Spec 3/8" 100.0 100 - 95 #4 99.4 100 - 90 % Binder = 8.8 #8 66.9 Ndes = 50 #16 39.4 30 - 60 Design Va% = 4.0 Spec #30 26.9 SE = 79 >40 #50 19.6 FAA = 40.7 >40 #100 13.2 VMA = 19.9 >16 #200 7.9 6 - 12 VFA = 80.9 70-80 Gsb 2.773 %Gmm@Nini = 86.8 ?91.5 Gsa 2.973 DP = 1.2 0.9-2.0 Absorption% 1.660 JMF 148 Verification for Connecticut CT-50-6 Series Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA 1 50 7.2 6.0 19.0 68.5 Series %Gmm@Nini Dustratio Gmm Gmb 1 85.1 1.4 2.574 2.42 sieve size Blend 3 Spec 3/8" 100.0 100 - 95 #4 99.4 100 - 90 % Binder = 7.2 #8 66.9 Ndes = 50 #16 39.4 30 - 60 Design Va% = 6.0 Spec #30 26.9 SE = 79 >40 #50 19.6 FAA = 40.7 >40 #100 13.2 VMA = 19.0 >16 #200 7.9 6 - 12 VFA = 68.5 70-80 Gsb 2.773 %Gmm@Nini = 85.1 ?91.5 Gsa 2.973 DP = 1.4 0.9-2.0 Absorption% 1.660 JMF 149 A1.7 Minnesota Mix Design Minnesota Trial Blends Stockpile sieve size Evtac Evtac fine Blend Evtac Evtac fine 3/4" 100 100 1 87% 13% 1/2" 100 100 2 94% 6% 3/8" 100 100 3 90% 10% #4 97.7 100.0 #8 84.4 100.0 #16 55.3 100.0 #30 29.6 99.0 #50 12.3 95.0 Blend Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA #100 4.2 86.0 1 50 7.5 8.2 21.6 62.1 #200 2.2 71.6 2 50 7.5 13.7 26.7 48.8 Gsb 2.837 2.649 3 50 7.5 9.6 23.1 58.2 Gsa 2.991 2.803 Absorption% 1.80 1.80 Blend %Gmm@Nini Dustratio Gmm Gmb Gse 1 84.2 1.9 2.596 2.384 2.961 2 79.4 1.1 2.593 2.239 2.957 3 82.5 1.5 2.593 2.343 2.957 sieve size Blend 1 Blend 2 Blend 3 1" 100 100 100 Blend Est. %ac Est. VMA Est. VFA %Gmm@Nini 3/4" 100 100 100 1 9.2 20.7 80.7 88.4 1/2" 100 100 100 2 11.4 24.8 83.8 89.0 3/8" 100.0 100.0 100.0 3 9.8 21.9 81.8 88.1 #4 98.0 97.8 97.9 #8 86.4 85.3 86.0 #16 61.1 58.0 59.8 Blend 1 was chose for mix design #30 38.6 33.8 36.5 #50 23.1 17.3 20.6 #100 14.8 9.1 12.4 #200 11.2 6.4 9.1 Gsb 2.811 2.825 2.817 Gsa 2.965 2.979 2.971 Absorption% 1.80 1.80 1.80 Aggregate Trial Blend Proportions Trial Blend Results Trial Blends 150 4.75 mm Nominal Sieve Size 0. 6 1. 18 2. 36 4. 75 9. 5 12 .5 0. 07 5 0. 15 0. 3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Sieve Size (mm) Pe rc e n t Pa s s i n g Blend 1 Blend 2 Blend 3 Binder Series for Minnesota MN-50-4 Series Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA 1 50 8.7 4.3 21.0 79.7 2 50 9.2 2.7 20.8 86.9 3 50 9.7 1.8 21.2 91.3 Series %Gmm@Nini Dustratio Gmm Gmb 1 87.2 1.6 2.540 2.432 2 88.7 1.5 2.520 2.451 3 90.4 1.4 2.500 2.545 151 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 8.6 8.8 9.0 9.2 9.4 9.6 9.8 % AC Ai r V o i d s 20.8 20.8 20.9 20.9 21.0 21.0 21.1 21.1 21.2 21.2 21.3 8.6 8.8 9.0 9.2 9.4 9.6 9.8 % AC VM A 152 78.0 80.0 82.0 84.0 86.0 88.0 90.0 92.0 94.0 8.6 8.8 9.0 9.2 9.4 9.6 9.8 % AC VF A Verification for Minnesota MN-50-4 Series Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA 50 8.8 4.1 21.1 80.4 Series %Gmm@Nini DP Gmm Gmb 87.5 1.6 2.536 2.431 sieve size Blend 1 Spec 3/8" 100.0 100 - 95 #4 98.0 100 - 90 % Binder = 8.8 #8 86.4 Ndes = 50 #16 61.1 30 - 60 Design Va% = 4.0 Spec #30 38.6 SE = 67 <40 #50 23.1 FAA = 46.2 <40 #100 14.8 VMA = 21.1 >16 #200 11.2 6 - 12 VFA = 80.4 70-80 Gsb 2.811 %Gmm@Nini = 87.5 ?91.5 Gsa 2.965 DP = 1.6 0.9-2.0 Absorption% 1.800 JMF 153 Binder Series for Minnesota at 75 Gyrations Series Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA 1 75 7.7 5.1 19.7 74.0 2 75 8.2 4.2 20.1 78.8 3 75 8.7 2.7 19.9 86.6 Series %Gmm@Nini Dustratio Gmm Gmb 1 86.1 1.8 2.577 2.445 2 86.8 1.7 2.556 2.447 3 88.4 1.6 2.535 2.468 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 % AC Ai r V o i d s 19.5 19.6 19.7 19.8 19.9 20.0 20.1 20.2 20.3 20.4 20.5 7.6 7.8 8.0 8.2 8.4 8.6 8.8 % AC VM A 154 72.0 74.0 76.0 78.0 80.0 82.0 84.0 86.0 88.0 7.6 7.8 8.0 8.2 8.4 8.6 8.8 % AC VF A Verification for Minnesota MN-75-4 Series Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA 75 8.3 4.1 20.1 79.8 Series %Gmm@Nini Dustratio Gmm Gmb 86.9 1.7 2.552 2.448 sieve size Blend 1 Spec 3/8" 100.0 100 - 95 #4 98.0 100 - 90 % Binder = 8.3 #8 86.4 Ndes = 75 #16 61.1 30 - 60 Design Va% = 4.0 Spec #30 38.6 SE = 67 >40 #50 23.1 FAA = 46.2 >40 #100 14.8 VMA = 20.1 >16 #200 11.2 6 - 12 VFA = 79.8 70-80 Gsb 2.811 %Gmm@Nini = 86.9 ?91.5 Gsa 2.965 DP = 1.7 0.9-2.0 Absorption% 1.800 JMF 155 Verification for Minnesota MN-75-6 Series Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA 75 7.4 5.9 19.7 70.1 Series %Gmm@Nini Dustratio Gmm Gmb 85.3 1.9 2.590 2.437 sieve size Blend 1 Spec 3/8" 100.0 100 - 95 #4 98.0 100 - 90 % Binder = 7.4 #8 86.4 Ndes = 75 #16 61.1 30 - 60 Design Va% = 6.0 Spec #30 38.6 SE = 67 >40 #50 23.1 FAA = 46.2 >40 #100 14.8 VMA = 19.7 >16 #200 11.2 6 - 12 VFA = 70.1 70-80 Gsb 2.811 %Gmm@Nini = 85.3 ?91.5 Gsa 2.965 DP = 1.9 0.9-2.0 Absorption% 1.800 JMF 156 A1.8 New Hampshire Mix Design Trial Blends Stockpile sieve size WMS D dust Rap Blend WMS D dust Rap 3/4" 100 100 10 1 75% 10% 15% 1/2" 100 100 100 2 71% 19% 10% 3/8" 100 100 97.8 3 69% 16% 15% #4 99.4 99.4 67.4 #8 74.6 79.0 48.7 #16 48.6 57.6 37.1 #30 31.7 43.3 28.0 #50 18.7 31.8 19.8 Blend Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA #100 8.4 21.2 13.5 1 50 7.0 11.5 24.7 53.6 #200 3.7 13.0 9.0 2 50 7.0 11.9 24.9 52.2 Gsb 2.672 2.696 2.695 3 50 8.8 4.0 22.2 81.8 Gsa 2.746 2.762 2.762 Absorption% 1.00 0.90 0.95 Blend %Gmm@Nini Dustratio Gmm Gmb Gse 1 82.7 0.9 2.450 2.169 2.734 2 82.4 1.0 2.455 2.163 2.740 3 90.2 1.5 2.397 2.300 2.749 sieve size Blend 1 Blend 2 Blend 3 1" 100 100 100 Blend Est. %ac Est. VMA Est. VFA 3/4" 100 100 100 1 10.0 23.2 82.7 1/2" 100 100 100 2 10.2 23.3 82.9 3/8" 99.7 99.8 99.7 3 8.8 22.1 81.9 #4 94.6 96.2 94.6 #8 71.2 72.8 71.4 #16 47.8 49.2 48.3 Blend 3 was chose for mix design #30 32.3 33.5 33.0 #50 20.2 21.3 21.0 #100 10.4 11.3 11.2 #200 5.4 6.0 6.0 Gsb 2.678 2.679 2.679 Gsa 2.750 2.751 2.751 Absorption% 0.98 0.98 0.98 Aggregate Trial Blend Proportions Trial Blend Results Trial Blends 157 4.75 mm Nominal Sieve Size 0. 6 1. 1 8 2. 3 6 4. 75 9. 5 12 . 5 0. 075 0. 1 5 0. 3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Sieve Size (mm) P e r c en t P a ssi n g Blend 1 Blend 2 Blend 3 Binder Series for New Hampshire NH-50-4 Series Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA 1 50 8.3 6.3 23.1 72.8 2 50 8.8 4.7 22.8 79.5 3 50 9.3 3.4 22.8 84.9 Series %Gmm@Nini Dustratio Gmm Gmb 1 87.7 1.2 2.405 2.254 2 89.1 1.1 2.387 2.275 3 90.6 1.0 2.369 2.287 158 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.2 8.4 8.6 8.8 9.0 9.2 9.4 % AC Ai r V o i d s 22.7 22.8 22.8 22.9 22.9 23.0 23.0 23.1 23.1 23.2 8.2 8.4 8.6 8.8 9.0 9.2 9.4 % AC VM A 72.0 74.0 76.0 78.0 80.0 82.0 84.0 86.0 8.2 8.4 8.6 8.8 9.0 9.2 9.4 % AC VF A 159 Verification for New Hampshire NH-50-4 Series Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA 1 50 9.7 3.9 23.8 83.6 Series %Gmm@Nini Dustratio Gmm Gmb 1 2.4 0.7 2.352 2.260 sieve size Blend 3 Spec 1" 100.0 3/4" 100.0 1/2" 100.0 3/8" 99.7 100 - 95 % Binder = 9.7 #4 94.6 100 - 90 Ndes = 50 #8 71.4 Design Va% = 4.0 Spec #16 48.3 30 - 60 SE = 85 >40 #30 33.0 FAA = 51 >40 #50 21.0 VMA = 23.8 >16 #100 11.2 VFA = 83.6 70-80 #200 6.0 6 - 12 %Gmm@Nini = 2.4 ?91.5 Gsb 2.679 DP = 0.7 0.9-2.0 Gsa 2.751 Absorption% 0.977 JMF Verification for New Hampshire NH-75-4 160 Series Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA 1 75 9.3 3.7 22.9 84.0 Series %Gmm@Nini Dustratio Gmm Gmb 1 89.4 0.7 2.365 2.279 sieve size Blend 3 Spec 1" 100.0 3/4" 100.0 1/2" 100.0 3/8" 99.7 100 - 95 % Binder = 9.3 #4 94.6 100 - 90 Ndes = 75 #8 71.4 Design Va% = 4.0 Spec #16 48.3 30 - 60 SE = 85 >40 #30 33.0 FAA = 51 >40 #50 21.0 VMA = 22.9 >16 #100 11.2 VFA = 84 70-80 #200 6.0 6 - 12 %Gmm@Nini = 89.4 ?91.5 Gsb 2.679 DP = 0.7 0.9-2.0 Gsa 2.751 Absorption% 0.977 JMF Verification for New Hampshire NH-75-6 Series Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA 1 75 8.6 5.8 23.1 75.0 Series %Gmm@Nini Dustratio Gmm Gmb 1 87.4 0.8 2.392 2.254 sieve size Blend 3 Spec 1" 100.0 3/4" 100.0 1/2" 100.0 3/8" 99.7 100 - 95 % Binder = 8.6 #4 94.6 100 - 90 Ndes = 75 #8 71.4 Design Va% = 6.0 Spec #16 48.3 30 - 60 SE = 85 >40 #30 33.0 FAA = 51 >40 #50 21.0 VMA = 23.1 >16 #100 11.2 VFA = 75 70-80 #200 6.0 6 - 12 %Gmm@Nini = 87.4 ?91.5 Gsb 2.679 DP = 0.8 0.9-2.0 Gsa 2.751 Absorption% 0.977 JMF 161 A1.9 Wisconsin Mix Design Wisconsin Trial Blends Stockpile sieve size 1/4" Manf. Nat.Sand Blend 1/4" Manf. Nat.Sand 3/4" 100 100 100 1 20% 65% 15% 1/2" 100 100 100 2 30% 50% 20% 3/8" 100 100 99.8 3 44% 56% #4 84.6 93.5 87.2 #8 49.0 65.3 72.6 #16 33.9 40.0 57.8 #30 25.9 23.7 41.0 #50 21.3 13.0 14.9 Blend Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA #100 18.1 7.7 5.1 1 50 7.0 3.5 16.2 78.7 #200 14.7 5.5 3.8 2 50 7.0 3.3 16.0 79.6 Gsb 2.694 2.703 2.614 3 50 7.0 3.6 16.3 78.0 Gsa 2.852 2.828 2.744 Absorption% 2.10 1.60 1.80 Blend %Gmm@Nini Dustratio Gmm Gmb Gse 1 88.4 1.3 2.507 2.42 2.81 2 88.9 1.5 2.504 2.422 2.806 3 87.5 1.8 2.519 2.429 2.827 sieve size Blend 1 Blend 2 Blend 3 1" 100 100 100 Blend Est. %ac Est. VMA Est. VFA %Gmm@Nini 3/4" 100 100 100 1 6.8 16.3 75.4 87.9 1/2" 100 100 100 2 6.7 16.1 75.1 88.2 3/8" 100.0 100.0 100.0 3 6.8 16.4 75.5 87.1 #4 90.8 89.6 89.6 #8 63.1 61.9 58.1 #16 41.5 41.7 37.3 Blend 1 was chose for mix design #30 26.7 27.8 24.7 #50 14.9 15.9 16.7 #100 9.4 10.3 12.3 #200 7.1 7.9 9.5 Gsb 2.687 2.683 2.699 Gsa 2.820 2.818 2.839 Absorption% 1.73 1.79 1.82 Aggregate Trial Blend Proportions Trial Blend Results Trial Blends 4.75 mm Nominal Sieve Size 0. 6 1. 1 8 2. 36 4. 75 9. 5 12 . 5 0. 07 5 0. 15 0. 3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Sieve Size (mm) P e r c en t P a ss i n g Blend 1 Blend 2 Blend 3 162 Binder Series for Wisconsin Series Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA 1 50 6.3 7.8 18.6 58.3 2 50 6.8 6.1 18.2 66.4 3 50 7.3 5 18.3 72.8 Series %Gmm@Nini Dustratio Gmm Gmb 1 84.3 1.5 2.530 2.333 2 85.6 1.3 2.511 2.357 3 86.5 1.2 2.491 2.367 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 % AC Ai r V o i d s 18.2 18.2 18.3 18.3 18.4 18.4 18.5 18.5 18.6 18.6 18.7 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 % AC VM A 163 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 % AC VF A Verification for Wisconsin WI-50-4 Series Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA 50 7.5 4.1 18 77.4 Series %Gmm@Nini DP Gmm Gmb 87.7 1.2 2.484 2.383 sieve size Blend 1 Spec 3/8" 100.0 100 - 95 #4 90.8 100 - 90 % Binder = 7.5 #8 63.1 Ndes = 50 #16 41.5 30 - 60 Design Va% = 4.0 Spec #30 26.7 SE = 81 >40 #50 14.9 FAA = 43.7 >40 #100 9.4 VMA = 18 >16 #200 7.1 6 - 12 VFA = 77.5 70-80 Gsb 2.687 %Gmm@Nini = 87.7 ?91.5 Gsa 2.820 DP = 1.2 0.9-2.0 Absorption% 1.730 JMF 164 Verification for Wisconsin WI-50-6 Series Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA 50 6.7 5.9 17.8 66.9 Series %Gmm@Nini DP Gmm Gmb 86.7 1.4 2.515 2.367 sieve size Blend 1 Spec 3/8" 100.0 100 - 95 #4 90.8 100 - 90 % Binder = 6.7 #8 63.1 Ndes = 50 #16 41.5 30 - 60 Design Va% = 6.0 Spec #30 26.7 SE = 81 <40 #50 14.9 FAA = 43.7 <40 #100 9.4 VMA = 17.8 >16 #200 7.1 6 - 12 VFA = 66.9 70-80 Gsb 2.687 %Gmm@Nini = 86.7 ?91.5 Gsa 2.820 DP = 1.4 0.9-2.0 Absorption% 1.730 JMF 165 A1.10 Wisconsin Blend Adjustment Trial Blends for Wisconsin Blend Adjustment Stockpile sieve size 1/4" Manf. Nat.Sand Blend 1/4" Manf. Nat.Sand 3/4" 100 100 100 1 44% 56% 1/2" 100 100 100 2 70% 30% 3/8" 100 100 99.8 3 #4 84.6 93.5 87.2 #8 49.0 65.3 72.6 #16 33.9 40.0 57.8 #30 25.9 23.7 41.0 #50 21.3 13.0 14.9 Blend Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA #100 18.1 7.7 5.1 1 50 7.0 2.7 15.6 82.5 #200 14.7 5.5 3.8 2 50 7.0 1.8 14.4 87.7 Gsb 2.694 2.703 2.614 Gsa 2.852 2.828 2.744 Absorption% 2.10 1.60 1.80 Blend %Gmm@Nini Dustratio Gmm Gmb Gse 1 88.1 1.8 2.519 2.450 2.827 2 90.3 2.3 2.526 2.481 2.836 sieve size Blend 1 Blend 2 1" 100 100 3/4" 100 100 1/2" 100 100 Blend 1 was chose for mix design 3/8" 100.0 100.0 #4 89.6 87.3 #8 58.1 53.9 #16 37.3 35.7 #30 24.7 25.2 #50 16.7 18.8 #100 12.3 15.0 #200 9.5 11.9 Gsb 2.699 2.697 Gsa 2.839 2.845 Absorption% 1.82 1.95 Aggregate Trial Blend Proportions Trial Blend Results Trial Blends Binder Series for Wisconsin Blend Adjustment Series Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA 1 50 6.0 6.9 16.7 59.0 2 50 6.5 5.1 16.3 68.6 3 50 7.0 3.1 15.6 80.3 Series %Gmm@Nini Dustratio Gmm Gmb 1 84.5 2.2 2.567 2.391 2 85.9 2 2.547 2.417 3 88.1 1.8 2.527 2.449 Binder Series Results 166 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 5.86.06.26.46.66.87.07.2 % AC Ai r V o i d s 15.0 15.5 16.0 16.5 17.0 17.5 18.0 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 % AC VM A 167 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 % AC VF A Verification for Wisconsin Blend Adjustment WI adj-50-4 Series Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA 50 6.8 4.1 16.1 74.4 Series %Gmm@Nini Dustratio Gmm Gmb 87.1 1.9 2.535 2.431 sieve size Blend 1 Spec 3/8" 100.0 100 - 95 #4 89.6 100 - 90 % Binder = 6.8 #8 58.1 Ndes = 50 #16 37.3 30 - 60 Design Va% = 4.0 Spec #30 24.7 SE = 81 >40 #50 16.7 FAA = 45.8 >40 #100 12.3 VMA = 16.1 >16 #200 9.5 6 - 12 VFA = 74.4 70-80 Gsb 2.699 %Gmm@Nini = 87.1 ?91.5 Gsa 2.839 DP = 1.9 0.9-2.0 Absorption% 1.820 JMF 168 Verification for Wisconsin Blend Adjustment WI adj-50-6 Series Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA 50 6.3 5.9 16.5 64.4 Series %Gmm@Nini Dustratio Gmm Gmb 85.3 2.1 2.555 2.405 sieve size Blend 1 Spec 3/8" 100.0 100 - 95 #4 89.6 100 - 90 % Binder = 6.3 #8 58.1 Ndes = 50 #16 37.3 30 - 60 Design Va% = 6.0 Spec #30 24.7 SE = 81 >40 #50 16.7 FAA = 45.8 >40 #100 12.3 VMA = 16.5 >16 #200 9.5 6 - 12 VFA = 64.4 70-80 Gsb 2.699 %Gmm@Nini = 85.3 ?91.5 Gsa 2.839 DP = 2.1 0.9-2.0 Absorption% 1.820 JMF 169 A1.11 Florida Blend Adjustment Mix Design Florida Blend Adjustment Aggregate Trials Stockpile sieve size Screen Sand Bag house Blend Screen Sand B.House 3/4" 100 100 100 1 90% 8% 2% 1/2" 100 100 100 2 92% 4% 4% 3/8" 100 100 100 3 91% 3% 6% #4 95.2 100.0 100.0 #8 77.0 99.9 100.0 #16 54.0 99.7 100.0 #30 36.3 95.4 100.0 #50 23.4 56.4 100.0 Blend Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA #100 11.8 10.5 100.0 1 50 10.5 3.8 21.9 82.6 #200 8.1 2.6 100.0 2 50 10.5 3.7 21.4 82.8 Gsb 2.458 2.623 2.532 3 50 10.5 2.1 20.3 89.5 Gsa 2.664 2.65 2.532 Absorption% 3.10 0.40 0.00 Blend %Gmm@Nini Dustratio Gmm Gmb Gse 1 89.4 1.1 2.241 2.155 2.6 2 88.9 1.4 2.247 2.164 2.609 3 90.7 1.6 2.240 2.192 2.598 sieve size Blend 1 Blend 2 Blend 3 1" 100 100 100 Blend Est. %ac Est. VMA Est. VFA 3/4" 100 100 100 1 10.4 21.9 81.7 1/2" 100 100 100 2 10.4 21.4 81.3 3/8" 100.0 100.0 100.0 3 9.8 20.5 80.5 #4 95.7 95.6 95.6 #8 79.3 78.8 79.1 #16 58.6 57.7 58.1 Blend 3 was chose for mix design #30 42.3 41.2 41.9 #50 27.6 27.8 29.0 #100 13.5 15.3 17.1 #200 9.5 11.6 13.4 Gsb 2.470 2.467 2.467 Gsa 2.663 2.658 2.655 Absorption% 2.88 2.87 2.83 Aggregate Trial Blend Proportions Trial Blend Results Trial Blends Binder Series for Florida Blend Adjustment FL adj-50-4 Series Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA 1 50 9.3 5.8 21.1 72.8 2 50 9.8 4.4 21.0 78.9 3 50 10.3 2.8 20.6 86.6 Series %Gmm@Nini Dustratio Gmm Gmb 1 87.7 1.8 2.276 2.145 2 88.1 1.7 2.261 2.161 3 90.4 1.6 2.246 2.184 Binder Series Results 170 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 9.2 9.4 9.6 9.8 10.0 10.2 10.4 % AC Ai r V o i d s 20.5 20.6 20.7 20.8 20.9 21.0 21.1 21.2 9.2 9.4 9.6 9.8 10.0 10.2 10.4 % AC VM A 70.0 72.0 74.0 76.0 78.0 80.0 82.0 84.0 86.0 88.0 9.2 9.4 9.6 9.8 10.0 10.2 10.4 % AC VF A 171 Verification for Florida Blend Adjustment FLadj-50-4 Series Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA 1 50 10.0 4.0 21.1 80.8 Series %Gmm@Nini Dustratio Gmm Gmb 1 88.9 1.7 2.255 2.164 sieve size Blend 3 Spec 1" 100.0 3/4" 100.0 1/2" 100.0 3/8" 100.0 100 - 95 #4 95.6 100 - 90 % Binder = 10.0 #8 79.1 Ndes = 50 #16 58.1 30 - 60 Design Va% = 4.0 Spec #30 41.9 SE = 79 >40 #50 29.0 FAA = 44.5 >40 #100 17.1 VMA = 21.1 >16 #200 13.4 6 - 12 VFA = 80.8 70-80 Gsb 2.467 %Gmm@Nini = 88.9 ?91.5 Gsa 2.655 DP = 1.7 0.9-2.0 Absorption% 2.830 JMF Binder Series for Florida Blend Adjustments FLadj-75-6 Binder Series Results Series Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA 1 75 9.0 6.3 20.7 69.5 2 75 9.5 4.5 20.1 77.6 3 75 9.6 4.1 20.0 79.6 Series %Gmm@Nini Dustratio Gmm Gmb 1 86.4 1.9 2.295 2.15 2 87.8 1.8 2.28 2.177 3 88.4 1.8 2.277 2.184 172 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.99.09.19.29.39.49.59.69.7 % AC Ai r V o i d s 19.9 20.0 20.1 20.2 20.3 20.4 20.5 20.6 20.7 20.8 8.9 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 % AC VM A 68.0 70.0 72.0 74.0 76.0 78.0 80.0 82.0 8.9 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 % AC VF A 173 Verification for Florida Blend Adjustment FLadj-75-6 Series Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA 1 75 9.1 6.0 20.6 71.0 Series %Gmm@Nini Dustratio Gmm Gmb 1 86.7 1.9 2.292 2.155 sieve size Blend 3 Spec 1" 100.0 3/4" 100.0 1/2" 100.0 3/8" 100.0 100 - 95 #4 95.6 100 - 90 % Binder = 9.1 #8 79.1 Ndes = 75 #16 58.1 30 - 60 Design Va% = 6.0 Spec #30 41.9 SE = 79 >40 #50 29.0 FAA = 44.5 >40 #100 17.1 VMA = 20.6 >16 #200 13.4 6 - 12 VFA = 71.0 70-80 Gsb 2.467 %Gmm@Nini = 86.7 ?91.5 Gsa 2.655 DP = 1.9 0.9-2.0 Absorption% 2.830 JMF 174 A1.12 Virginia Blend Adjustment Mix Design Bend Adjustment was performed with Citco PG 70-22 Binder Binder Series for Virginia Blend Adjustment VAadj-50-4 Series Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA 1 50 8.3 5.5 17.1 67.5 2 50 8.8 4.4 17.1 74.3 3 50 9.3 3.2 17.1 81.1 Series %Gmm@Nini Dustratio Gmm Gmb 1 87.3 1.9 2.345 2.215 2 88.3 1.7 2.329 2.227 3 89.4 1.6 2.313 2.238 Binder Series Results 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 8.5 8.7 8.9 9.1 9.3 9.5 % AC Ai r V o i d s 16.0 16.2 16.4 16.6 16.8 17.0 17.2 17.4 17.6 17.8 18.0 8.2 8.4 8.6 8.8 9.0 9.2 9.4 % AC VM A 175 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 8.2 8.4 8.6 8.8 9.0 9.2 9.4 % AC VF A Verification for Virginia Blend Adjustment VAadj-50-4 Series Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA 1 50 9.0 4.0 16.8 76.4 Series %Gmm@Nini DP Gmm Gmb 1 88.5 1.7 2.331 2.238 sieve size Blend 1 Spec 3/8" 100.0 100 - 95 #4 98.0 100 - 90 % Binder = 9.0 #8 77.9 Ndes = 50 #16 56.2 30 - 60 Design Va% = 4.0 Spec #30 37.9 SE = 76 <40 #50 23.2 FAA = 45 <40 #100 14.9 VMA = 16.8 >16 #200 10.1 6 - 12 VFA = 76.4 70-80 Gsb 2.449 %Gmm@Nini = 88.5 ?91.5 Gsa 2.683 DP = 1.7 0.9-2.0 Absorption% 3.575 JMF 176 Verification for Virginia Blend Adjustment VAadj-75-4 Series Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA 75 8.7 4.0 16.5 75.6 Series %Gmm@Nini DP Gmm Gmb 88.0 1.7 2.333 2.239 sieve size Blend 1 Spec 3/8" 100.0 100 - 95 #4 98.0 100 - 90 % Binder = 8.7 #8 77.9 Ndes = 75 #16 56.2 30 - 60 Design Va% = 4.0 Spec #30 37.9 SE = 76 >40 #50 23.2 FAA = 45 >40 #100 14.9 VMA = 16.5 >16 #200 10.1 6 - 12 VFA = 75.6 70-80 Gsb 2.449 %Gmm@Nini = 88 ?91.5 Gsa 2.683 DP = 1.7 0.9-2.0 Absorption% 3.575 JMF \ 177 A1.13 Tennessee Gravel Mix Design Trial Blends Stockpile sieve size #10 soft Nat sand agg lime T10 Blend #10 soft Nat sand agg lime T10 3/4" 100 100 100 100 1 18% 19% 6% 57% 1/2" 100 100 99.7 100 2 100% 3/8" 100 100 99.7 100 3 25% 25% 50% #4 96.9 99.3 99.4 94.1 #8 61.1 92.7 97.6 57.7 #16 36.0 83.5 81.3 33.3 #30 26.9 62.6 62.1 20.4 #50 21.1 13.4 44.6 13.4 Blend Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA #100 17.2 0.6 31.2 9.3 1 50 7.5 8.9 20.9 57.7 #200 14.6 0.4 24.0 7.1 2 50 7.5 18.3 28.6 36.1 Gsb 2.527 2.618 2.460 2.388 3 50 7.5 9.6 26.4 63.5 Gsa 2.723 2.667 2.790 2.675 Absorption% 2.90 0.70 3.70 6.30 Blend %Gmm@Nini Dustratio Gmm Gmb Gse 1 84.0 1.4 2.305 2.101 2.563 2 74.6 1.2 2.256 1.844 2.497 3 83.6 1.2 2.316 2.093 2.577 sieve size Blend 1 Blend 2 Blend 3 1" 100 100 100 Blend Est. %ac Est. VMA Est. VFA %Gmm@Nini 3/4" 100 100 100 1 9.4 20 80 88.9 1/2" 100 100 100 2 13.2 25.7 84.4 88.8 3/8" 100.0 100.0 99.9 3 9.8 25.2 84.1 89.2 #4 95.9 94.1 96.7 #8 67.4 57.7 76.4 #16 46.2 33.3 57.9 Blend 1 was chose for mix design #30 32.1 20.4 41.4 #50 16.7 13.4 21.2 #100 10.4 9.3 12.6 #200 8.2 7.1 9.7 Gsb 2.458 2.388 2.460 Gsa 2.689 2.675 2.701 Absorption% 3.44 6.30 3.35 Aggregate Trial Blend Proportions Trial Blend Results Trial Blends 4.75 mm Nominal Sieve Size 0. 6 1. 18 2. 36 4. 75 9. 5 12. 5 0. 075 0. 15 0. 3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Sieve Size (mm) Pe r c e n t Pa s s i n g Blend 1 Blend 2 Blend 3 178 Binder Series for Tennessee Gravel Mix Series Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA 1 50 8.9 6.5 21.5 69.6 2 50 9.4 4.7 21.8 78.3 3 50 9.9 3.4 21.6 84.3 Series %Gmm@Nini Dustratio Gmm Gmb 1 86.1 1.1 2.266 2.118 2 87.5 1.0 2.252 2.145 3 88.7 0.9 2.237 2.161 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 % AC Ai r V o i d s 21.5 21.5 21.6 21.6 21.7 21.7 21.8 21.8 21.9 8.8 9.0 9.2 9.4 9.6 9.8 10.0 % AC VM A 179 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 90.0 8.8 9.0 9.2 9.4 9.6 9.8 10.0 % AC VF A Verification for Tennessee Gravel Mix TNGM-50-4 Series Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA 50 9.7 4.0 20.9 80.7 Series %Gmm@Nini DP Gmm Gmb 88.1 1 2.243 2.153 sieve size Blend 1 Spec 3/8" 100.0 100 - 95 #4 95.9 100 - 90 % Binder = 9.7 #8 67.4 Ndes = 50 #16 46.2 30 - 60 Design Va% = 4.0 Spec #30 32.1 SE = 70 >40 #50 16.7 FAA = 42.2 >40 #100 10.4 VMA = 20.9 >16 #200 8.2 6 - 12 VFA = 80.7 70-80 Gsb 2.458 %Gmm@Nini = 88.1 ?91.5 Gsa 2.689 DP = 1.2 0.9-2.0 Absorption% 3.44 JMF 180 Verification For Tennessee Gravel Mix TNGM-75-4 Series Ndes %AC Va VMA VFA 75 9.3 4.1 17.5 76.5 Series %Gmm@Nini DP Gmm Gmb 87.5 1.3 2.255 2.163 sieve size Blend 1 Spec 3/8" 100.0 100 - 95 #4 95.9 100 - 90 % Binder = 9.3 #8 67.4 Ndes = 75 #16 46.2 30 - 60 Design Va% = 4.0 Spec #30 32.1 SE = 70 >40 #50 16.7 FAA = 42.2 >40 #100 10.4 VMA = 17.5 >16 #200 8.2 6 - 12 VFA = 76.5 70-80 Gsb 2.458 %Gmm@Nini = 87.5 ?91.5 Gsa 2.689 DP = 1.3 0.9-2.0 Absorption% 3.44 JMF 181 182 Appendix B Tensile Strength Ratio Data Project: Date: Tested By: Calculated By: Sample Identification: Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 0.57 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 84.40 N / A N / A N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 145.696 141.638 147.110 N/A 2.177 2.168 139.883 146.710 2.378 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 6200 6400 N/A 101.4 84.2 118.7 N/A 185.3 3500 2900 4100 5900 N/A N/A 170.9 179.8 72.1 72.0 75.9 105.0 102.0 111.6 3703.4 3700.3 3717.1 57.9 3682.8 2.378 8.8 147.312 2.378 2.378 2.378 2.378 3604.6 2.169 2.174 2.168 2.167 3605.5 1953.2 1949.0 3609.8 3602.9 1950.9 1948.1 1948.4 1944.0 3611.7 3608.6 3611.9 3.711 3598.4 3598.3 3605.5 3598.6 3.713 3.715 3603.9 No.3 3.715 3.707 3.718 (M) SSD Weight, gm Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 5.916 5.917 5.916 5.921 5.911 5.919 (J) SSD Weight, gm (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*?)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*?)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [C/(D - E)] No.6No.5No.4No.8 8.6 8.8 8.9 8.5 8.8 101.4 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] 178.7 4.75mm Project-Alabama Apl. 29 2005 Osamu Takahashi AL-50-4 No.2 Sample Number (A) Diameter, in 183 Project: Date: Tested By: Calculated By: Sample Identification: Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 0.34 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 122.1 117.3 120.5 N / A N / A N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 154.0 151.6 158.3 N/A 2.175 2.186 157.5 149.6 2.401 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 4500 5000 N/A 47.6 46.1 43.2 N/A 144.5 1650 1600 1500 4400 N/A N/A 126.5 128.8 79.3 77.4 76.1 3764.3 3763.8 3761.7 2.401 9.2 158.1 2.401 2.401 2.401 2.401 3640.3 2.180 2.183 2.174 2.174 3644.9 1974.2 1982.4 3644.8 3649.8 1973.8 1979.5 1970.9 1967.3 3645.7 3650.6 3650.1 3.739 3642.2 3646.5 3641.2 3637.3 3.752 3.722 3646.9 No.5 3.727 3.728 3.728 (M) SSD Weight, gm Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 5.923 5.924 5.931 5.923 5.926 5.918 (J) SSD Weight, gm (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*?)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*?)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [C/(D - E)] No.7No.4No.2No.6 9.1 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.0 45.6 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] 133.3 4.75mm Project-Alabama May 04 2005 Osamu Takahashi AL-50-6 No.3 Sample Number (A) Diameter, in 184 Project: 4.75mm Project - Tennessee, Limestone Date: Aug. 23-26 2005 Tested By: Osamu Takahashi Calculated By: TN-50-4 Sample Identification: Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples Sample Number No.9 No.10 No.11 No.5 No.7 No.8 5.921 5.917 5.935 5.918 5.919 5.939 3.659 (B) Height, in 3.667 3.6713.659 3.673 3.660 (C) Weight in Air, gm 3530.3 3531.8 3527.6 3527.3 3528.03532.4 (D) SSD Weight, gm 3555.1 3568.8 3553.2 3554.7 3553.9 3562.7 (E) Submerged Weight, gm 1933.3 1934.2 1931.7 1930.2 1932.7 1929.2 (F) Bulk Specific Gravity 2.179 2.177 2.161 2.176 2.171 [C/(D - E)] 2.160 2.387 (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity 2.387 2.387 2.387 2.387 2.387 (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] 9.5 8.9 9.0 8.7 9.58.8 [H*(D - E)/100] (I) Volume of Air Voids 146.79142.83 155.00 143.66 141.35 155.49 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (J) SSD Weight, gm 3626.6 (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc N / A 94.80 (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] [J - C] 61.2 Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) (M) SSD Weight, gm 3631.1 3643.6 3629.8 185 Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned S T / Avg Dry ST]: 0.42 N / A [M - C] (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc 100.8 111.8 102.2 (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] 70.6 72.1 71.1 Tensile Strength (S ) CalculationsT 4600 (P) Failure Load, lbs 42002050 1850 1950 5050 135.2 , psi [2P/(A*B* ? )] 148.1 122.6N/A N/A N/A(Q) Dry ST N/A N/A60.3 54.0 57.3 N/A (S) Average ST , psi [2P/(A*B* ? )] (R) Conditioned S , psiT 135.3 57.2 (A) Diameter, in Project: Date: Tested By: Calculated By: Sample Identification: 164.2 4.75mm Project - Tennessee, Limestone Sep. 13-15 2005 Osamu Takahashi TN-75-4 No.2 Sample Number (A) Diameter, in 9.0 9.0 9.4 9.1 8.9 98.0 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] No.7No.4No.3No.8 (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [C/(D - E)] (J) SSD Weight, gm (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*?)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*?)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (M) SSD Weight, gm Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 5.929 5.934 5.937 5.940 5.936 5.936 No.5 3.722 3.717 3.725 3638.6 3646.2 3.719 3593.2 3619.5 3624.7 3613.7 3.725 3.723 3616.9 3626.1 1982.2 1989.1 3630.2 3642.6 1979.3 1988.1 1986.9 1972.5 3643.9 3632.0 2.177 2.188 2.188 2.178 3715.1 3732.5 3737.4 2.403 9.4 155.67 2.403 2.403 2.403 2.403 78.3 76.2 75.8 164.2 3250 3300 3650 5550 N/A N/A 159.9 168.4 93.8 95.2 105.1 N/A N/A 2.184 2.188 151.24 148.11 2.403 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 5850 5700 N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 155.60 148.26 148.59 Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 0.60 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 121.90 113.00 112.70 N / A N / A N/A 186 Project: Date: Tested By: Calculated By: Sample Identification: 160.6 4.75mm Project - Missouri Sep. 13-15 2005 Osamu Takahashi MO-50-4 F Sample Number (A) Diameter, in 8.7 9.1 9.2 8.7 9.4 89.6 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] EDCH (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [C/(D - E)] (J) SSD Weight, gm (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*?)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*?)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (M) SSD Weight, gm Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 5.926 5.916 5.930 5.932 5.915 5.933 G 3.705 3.691 3.700 3759.3 3761.3 3.705 3748.6 3744.3 3750.2 3748.5 3.692 3.709 3752.9 3749.6 2115.7 2106.5 3757.9 3750.8 2105.2 2110.7 2112.1 2105.5 3762.4 3757.3 2.268 2.283 2.272 2.269 3870.9 3858.0 3863.4 2.500 9.3 152.40 2.500 2.500 2.500 2.500 79.8 79.9 75.4 150.4 3150 3000 3100 5500 N/A N/A 159.3 172.0 91.3 87.5 89.9 N/A N/A 2.283 2.266 142.44 154.96 2.500 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 5900 5200 N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 153.26 142.38 150.22 Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 0.56 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 122.30 113.70 113.20 N / A N / A N/A 187 Project: Date: Tested By: Calculated By: Sample Identification: Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 0.52 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 103.30 106.60 103.40 N / A N / A N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 143.991 144.421 140.670 N/A 2.310 2.308 143.618 145.469 2.531 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 6800 6700 N/A 104.9 112.4 97.9 N/A 195.3 3600 3850 3350 7340 N/A N/A 214.5 198.8 71.7 73.8 73.5 3902.1 3903.3 3902.0 2.531 8.8 142.921 2.531 2.531 2.531 2.531 3810.5 2.309 2.309 2.314 2.311 3802.4 2161.9 2157.8 3802.6 3800.6 2157.7 2156.1 2161.5 2164.3 3803.0 3808.6 3805.6 3.686 3798.8 3796.7 3798.6 3804.8 3.684 3.695 3804.3 3 3.696 3.690 3.685 (M) SSD Weight, gm Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 5.910 5.910 5.910 5.910 5.910 5.910 (J) SSD Weight, gm (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*null)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*null)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [C/(D - E)] 8647 8.8 8.6 8.7 8.7 8.8 105.1 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] 202.9 4.75mm 9/21/2005 MR MO-50-6 2 Sample Number (A) Diameter, in 188 Project: Date: Tested By: Calculated By: Sample Identification: (A) Diameter, in VA-50-4 No.1 Sample Number No.8No.6No.5No.4 4.75mm Project - Virginia Sep. 21-23 2005 Osamu Takahashi 8.9 30.5 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] 130.9 9.1 8.9 9.1 8.9 (J) SSD Weight, gm (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [C/(D - E)] (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*null)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*null)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (M) SSD Weight, gm Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 5.919 5.925 5.924 5.931 5.925 5.921 No.3 3.701 3.700 3.696 3504.5 3492.3 3.697 3497.9 3499.1 3499.9 3497.8 3.698 3.687 3500.4 3487.7 1854.1 1848.0 3514.4 3503.3 1864.2 1851.0 1854.8 1850.0 3504.0 3503.0 2.120 2.118 2.122 2.116 3603.4 3602.0 2.329 9.0 151.15 2.329 2.329 2.329 2.329 3606.0 3607.4 71.1 68.6 71.3 73.4 106.9 107.5 134.1 900 1250 1000 4300 N/A N/A 124.8 133.7 26.2 36.3 29.1 N/A N/A 2.121 2.121 147.44 146.79 2.329 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 4600 4600 N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 148.31 149.90 146.45 Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 0.23 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 105.50 102.90 N / A N / A N/A 189 Project: Date: Tested By: Calculated By: Sample Identification: 129.6 4.75mm Project - Virginia Sep. 28-30 2005 Osamu Takahashi VA-75-4 No.4 Sample Number (A) Diameter, in 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.7 56.8 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] (J) SSD Weight, gm (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] No.6No.3No.2No.7 (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [C/(D - E)] [2P/(A*B*null)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*null)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (M) SSD Weight, gm Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 5.939 5.936 5.936 5.939 5.935 5.936 No.5 3.683 3.682 3.682 3526.2 3527.2 3.681 3520.1 3519.4 3516.5 3518.9 3.685 3.684 3518.7 3522.4 1877.5 1878.6 3525.4 3526.9 1876.5 1879.0 1877.2 1881.1 3523.9 3528.5 2.135 2.136 2.135 2.136 3624.2 2.341 8.8 144.24 2.341 2.341 2.341 2.341 3627.4 3630.4 3627.9 71.7 73.9 76.8 77.1 107.3 111.0 111.4 133.9 2125 1850 1875 4650 N/A N/A 135.4 119.3 61.8 53.9 54.6 N/A N/A 2.134 2.137 145.62 143.94 2.341 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 4100 4600 N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 145.23 144.53 144.56 Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 0.44 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 104.10 N / A N / A N/A 190 Project: Date: Tested By: Calculated By: Sample Identification: 119.5 4.75mm 10/19/2005 GJ FL-74-4 4 Sample Number (A) Diameter, in 9.1 9.0 9.5 9.0 8.9 92.9 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] 7538 (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [C/(D - E)] (J) SSD Weight, gm (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*null)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*null)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (M) SSD Weight, gm Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 5.906 5.906 5.906 5.906 5.906 5.906 6 3.637 3.634 3.636 3302.1 3303.4 3.655 3295.6 3301.8 3295.7 3297.2 3.631 3.631 3296.5 3299.0 1685.2 1686.6 3304.4 3307.6 1686.1 1685.5 1685.6 1684.5 3302.5 3311.6 2.036 2.036 2.038 2.026 3407.2 3411.6 3408.9 2.240 9.1 155.136 2.240 2.240 2.240 2.240 75.9 74.1 77.7 112.8 3200 3500 2700 4000 N/A N/A 118.0 127.7 94.8 103.8 80.0 N/A N/A 2.039 2.040 145.248 144.032 2.240 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 4300 3800 N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 147.050 148.082 145.605 Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 0.78 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 111.60 109.80 113.20 N / A N / A N/A 191 Project: Date: Tested By: Calculated By: Sample Identification: 160.8 4.75mm 10/26/2005 FL-75-6 4 Sample Number (A) Diameter, in 8.9 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.9 109.9 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] 8736 (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [C/(D - E)] (J) SSD Weight, gm (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*null)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*null)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (M) SSD Weight, gm Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 3.630 3.630 3.630 3.630 3.630 3.630 5 5.906 5.906 5.906 3350.5 3350.8 5.906 3346.0 3348.3 3345.0 3343.1 5.906 5.906 3344.0 3345.1 1725.3 1728.3 3350.1 3353.7 1725.2 1728.3 1725.3 1726.1 3349.5 3349.4 2.059 2.060 2.059 2.059 3450.4 3454.7 3456.9 2.262 9.0 145.360 2.262 2.262 2.262 2.262 71.7 73.3 76.9 157.4 3450 3800 3850 5200 N/A N/A 154.4 170.7 102.4 112.8 114.3 N/A N/A 2.058 2.062 146.862 143.676 2.262 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 5750 5300 N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 145.678 145.161 145.420 Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 0.68 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 104.40 106.40 111.90 N / A N / A N/A 192 Project: Date: Tested By: Calculated By: Sample Identification: 117.8 4.75mm 10/19/2005 GJ CT-50-4 3 Sample Number (A) Diameter, in 8.6 8.9 8.6 8.8 8.8 103.4 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] 8765 (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [C/(D - E)] (J) SSD Weight, gm (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*null)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*null)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (M) SSD Weight, gm Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 5.906 5.906 5.906 5.906 5.906 5.906 4 3.634 3.629 3.632 3716.0 3710.5 3.631 3712.0 3709.7 3709.1 3709.8 3.633 3.623 3710.1 3705.1 2108.3 2105.9 3719.0 3715.2 2110.9 2112.1 2106.3 2111.5 3715.7 3715.6 2.308 2.314 2.305 2.313 3823.0 3819.0 3824.7 2.531 8.8 138.355 2.531 2.531 2.531 2.531 78.5 79.6 80.3 119.0 3700 3400 3350 3900 N/A N/A 115.8 118.7 109.7 101.0 99.4 N/A N/A 2.308 2.309 141.837 140.712 2.531 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 4000 4000 N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 141.486 137.395 143.932 Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 0.88 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 111.00 109.30 115.60 N / A N / A N/A 193 Project: Date: Tested By: Calculated By: Sample Identification: 190.0 4.75mm 10/26/2005 CT 7.2%AC for 50gyr 6%Va 2 Sample Number (A) Diameter, in 8.7 8.7 9.0 8.7 143.4 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] 436 (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [C/(D - E)] (J) SSD Weight, gm (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*null)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*null)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (M) SSD Weight, gm Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 3.640 3.630 3.630 3.630 3.630 5 5.906 5.906 5.906 3810.8 5.906 3775.4 3800.1 3797.5 3796.1 5.906 3796.6 2194.4 3792.1 3810.3 2171.6 2193.6 2193.2 2190.9 3809.7 3811.0 2.330 2.351 2.349 2.343 3885.5 3905.1 3909.6 2.574 9.5 145.314 2.574 2.574 2.574 2.574 71.6 74.8 79.4 4500 5200 4800 6500 N/A N/A 193.0 187.1 133.3 154.4 142.5 N/A N/A 2.349 141.419 2.574 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 6300 N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 153.756 140.360 141.170 Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 0.75 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 110.10 105.00 112.10 N / A N / A N/A 194 Project: Date: Tested By: Calculated By: Sample Identification: 141.6 4.75mm 11/2/2005 GJ MN-50-4 5 Sample Number (A) Diameter, in 8.8 9.0 9.1 8.9 9.0 121.1 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] 8437 (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [C/(D - E)] (J) SSD Weight, gm (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*null)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*null)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (M) SSD Weight, gm Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 5.901 5.901 5.901 5.901 5.901 5.901 6 3.606 3.606 3.610 3737.0 3735.2 3.610 3732.3 3733.5 3731.5 3733.0 3.610 3.601 3733.8 3730.1 2120.9 2119.3 3736.2 3737.2 2120.0 2122.7 2119.0 2118.1 3735.3 3736.7 2.309 2.312 2.309 2.306 3834.1 3835.8 3839.7 2.536 8.9 146.597 2.536 2.536 2.536 2.536 70.5 71.9 74.7 131.8 4400 3850 3900 5000 N/A N/A 149.4 143.4 131.6 115.2 116.5 N/A N/A 2.310 2.308 143.781 145.040 2.536 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 4800 4400 N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 144.473 142.300 144.888 Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 0.86 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 101.80 102.30 108.20 N / A N / A N/A 195 Project: Date: Tested By: Calculated By: Sample Identification: 157.9 4.75mm 11/2/2005 GJ MN-75-4 4 Sample Number (A) Diameter, in 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.1 126.1 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] 5328 (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [C/(D - E)] (J) SSD Weight, gm (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*null)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*null)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (M) SSD Weight, gm Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 5.901 5.901 5.901 5.901 5.901 5.901 6 3.611 3.611 3.600 3766.1 3768.7 3.616 3761.7 3764.0 3768.2 3755.4 3.607 3.609 3761.2 3763.5 2144.2 2149.7 3767.8 3767.2 2145.0 2148.5 2150.5 2146.4 3771.7 3764.1 2.318 2.325 2.324 2.321 3878.5 3871.4 3874.7 2.556 9.3 148.451 2.556 2.556 2.556 2.556 77.3 73.5 72.5 156.9 4750 4000 3900 5300 N/A N/A 158.1 158.5 141.9 119.5 116.9 N/A N/A 2.319 2.325 150.382 146.582 2.556 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 5300 5250 N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 151.086 146.087 146.943 Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 0.80 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 116.80 107.40 106.50 N / A N / A N/A 196 Project: Date: Tested By: Calculated By: Sample Identification: Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 0.69 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 100.50 100.90 N / A N / A N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 143.125 143.469 N/A 2.343 153.649 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 5500 N/A 120.2 123.2 N/A 4000 4100 6300 N/A N/A 189.3 165.0 70.2 70.3 3865.0 3867.1 2.590 9.0 141.235 2.590 2.590 2.590 3765.9 2.358 2.357 2.360 2167.2 3768.7 3769.4 2172.1 2171.8 2173.7 3776.1 3.585 3764.5 3766.2 3758.0 3.591 3769.1 6 3.585 3.585 (M) SSD Weight, gm Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 5.910 5.910 5.910 5.910 (J) SSD Weight, gm (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*null)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*null)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [C/(D - E)] 82 9.0 8.9 9.5 121.7 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] 177.1 4.75mm 11/16/2005 MR MN-75-6 4 Sample Number (A) Diameter, in 197 Project: Date: Tested By: Calculated By: Sample Identification: Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 0.50 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 104.20 106.90 101.80 N / A N / A N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 143.63 145.84 140.92 N/A 2.144 2.153 141.97 136.20 2.352 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 4050 3100 N/A 52.2 57.3 52.3 N/A 92.6 1750 1925 1750 3800 N/A N/A 112.8 120.9 72.5 73.3 72.2 3549.8 3553.2 3559.9 2.352 8.9 153.48 2.352 2.352 2.352 2.352 2.142 2.139 2.146 2.129 1844.4 1868.5 3458.0 3454.4 1849.4 1843.3 1852.1 1837.8 3463.3 3456.8 3479.4 3.604 3445.6 3446.3 3458.1 3446.9 3.591 3.583 3444.8 3468.5 3.597 3.598 3.582 3451.0 Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 5.939 5.945 5.947 5.953 5.940 5.947 No.7 (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*null)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*null)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (M) SSD Weight, gm (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [C/(D - E)] 8.5 53.9 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] 108.7 9.1 8.7 9.5 8.8 (J) SSD Weight, gm 4.75mm Project - New Hampshire Nov. 15-18 2005 Osamu Takahashi (A) Diameter, in NH-50-4 No.3 Sample Number No.9No.5No.4No.10 198 Project: Date: Tested By: Calculated By: Sample Identification: Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 0.79 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 101.30 110.90 98.50 N / A N / A N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 144.57 154.61 141.57 N/A 2.140 2.164 155.47 135.13 2.365 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 4500 3200 N/A 85.6 89.7 81.4 N/A 96.6 2900 3050 2700 3250 N/A N/A 96.0 132.2 73.1 74.4 105.7 105.3 3602.9 3531.3 70.1 71.7 69.6 3598.5 3607.3 3524.5 2.365 8.9 144.14 2.365 2.365 2.365 2.365 2.154 2.141 2.154 2.155 1875.6 1861.7 3509.3 3509.3 1886.0 1876.3 1840.2 1892.5 3430.4 3519.6 3452.9 3.633 3497.2 3496.4 3426.0 3507.2 3.636 3.555 3500.5 3443.6 3.625 3.633 3.554 3511.2 Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 5.947 5.959 5.940 5.933 5.961 5.934 No.5 (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*null)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*null)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (M) SSD Weight, gm (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [C/(D - E)] 8.5 85.6 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] 108.2 9.5 8.9 8.9 9.5 (J) SSD Weight, gm 4.75mm Project - New Hampshire Nov. 30-Dec. 1 2005 Osamu Takahashi (A) Diameter, in NH-75-4 No.4 Sample Number No.9No.6No.3No.10 199 Project: Date: Tested By: Calculated By: Sample Identification: Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 0.53 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 103.90 103.60 105.40 N / A N / A N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 144.12 143.02 142.12 N/A 2.179 2.176 143.71 145.79 2.392 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 3600 3500 N/A 55.1 49.2 62.7 N/A 104.3 1850 1650 2100 3500 N/A N/A 104.4 107.4 72.1 72.4 74.2 3620.1 3620.5 3622.3 2.392 8.9 140.60 2.392 2.392 2.392 2.392 2.178 2.180 2.181 2.183 1907.3 1905.5 3521.7 3521.7 1907.6 1908.4 1910.6 1915.5 3523.0 3527.5 3520.1 3.594 3516.2 3516.9 3516.9 3519.6 3.591 3.593 3515.5 3513.4 3.594 3.591 3.591 3520.7 Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 5.946 5.942 5.941 5.938 5.944 5.948 No.6 (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*null)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*null)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (M) SSD Weight, gm (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [C/(D - E)] 9.0 55.7 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] 105.3 8.9 8.8 8.7 8.9 (J) SSD Weight, gm 4.75mm Project - New Hampshire Dec. 14-16 2005 Osamu Takahashi (A) Diameter, in NH-75-6 No.5 Sample Number No.4No.3No.2No.7 200 Project: Date: Tested By: Calculated By: Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 0.62 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 120.50 94.00 108.30 N / A N / A N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 150.081 133.178 140.762 N/A 2.270 2.267 134.846 136.240 2.484 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 4300 4800 N/A 82.9 79.4 91.9 N/A 147.2 2700 2600 3000 4300 N/A N/A 131.6 131.6 80.3 70.6 76.9 3660.0 3649.9 3647.1 2.484 9.5 149.439 2.484 2.484 2.484 2.484 3556.5 2.247 2.273 2.261 2.248 3539.6 1992.9 1992.5 3558.0 3567.6 1983.0 2002.9 1993.4 1981.9 3558.8 3555.0 3553.7 3.522 3539.5 3555.9 3538.8 3540.1 3.523 3.516 3545.3 2 3.511 3.531 3.517 (M) SSD Weight, gm Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 5.906 5.906 5.906 5.906 5.906 5.906 (J) SSD Weight, gm (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*null)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*null)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [C/(D - E)] 3765 8.5 9.0 9.5 8.6 8.7 84.7 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] 136.8 4.75mm 2/9/2006 JM WI-50-4 4 Sample Number (A) Diameter, in 201 Project: Date: Tested By: Calculated By: Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 0.76 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 101.60 102.30 101.40 N / A N / A N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 140.366 137.111 133.475 N/A 2.300 134.110 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 5000 N/A 106.8 113.1 113.1 N/A 3500 3700 3700 4600 N/A N/A 140.3 152.8 72.4 74.6 76.0 3725.8 3720.1 3720.8 2.515 8.9 145.587 2.515 2.515 2.515 2.515 3632.1 2.292 2.296 2.302 2.284 2063.2 3638.5 3638.6 2057.1 2063.0 2063.4 2048.7 3636.0 3635.6 3.535 3624.2 3617.8 3619.4 3616.1 3.528 3617.3 5 3.531 3.525 3.526 (M) SSD Weight, gm Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 5.906 5.906 5.906 5.906 5.906 (J) SSD Weight, gm (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*null)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*null)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [C/(D - E)] 638 8.7 8.5 9.2 8.5 111.0 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] 146.5 4.75mm 2/9/2006 JM WI-50-6 4 Sample Number (A) Diameter, in 202 Project: Date: Tested By: Calculated By: Sample Identification: Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 0.69 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 103.40 107.90 N / A N / A N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 148.429 151.636 N/A 2.030 152.605 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 5200 N/A 95.6 125.4 N/A 3200 4200 5500 N/A N/A 164.3 155.3 69.7 71.2 3366.9 3382.6 2.243 9.3 148.369 2.243 2.243 2.243 3283.9 2.035 2.032 2.036 1669.7 3279.5 3292.3 1676.1 1680.7 1679.0 3277.9 3.609 3263.5 3274.7 3267.0 3.609 3264.9 8 3.609 3.609 (M) SSD Weight, gm Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 5.906 5.906 5.906 5.906 (J) SSD Weight, gm (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*null)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*null)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [C/(D - E)] 32 9.4 9.2 9.5 110.5 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] 159.8 4.75mm 11/29/2005 GJ TNGM-50-4 5 Sample Number (A) Diameter, in 203 Project: Date: Tested By: Calculated By: Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 0.48 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 121.10 116.70 118.20 N / A N / A N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 156.734 155.479 152.352 N/A 2.028 2.031 156.638 154.052 2.255 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 3250 3425 N/A 48.6 50.2 48.6 N/A 104.1 1600 1650 1600 3350 N/A N/A 101.9 98.8 77.3 75.1 77.6 3267.2 3263.6 3271.7 2.255 10.1 149.941 2.255 2.255 2.255 2.255 3170.3 2.027 2.029 2.033 2.037 3153.5 1622.0 1624.8 3171.9 3173.5 1620.0 1622.5 1620.5 1622.0 3171.3 3175.8 3177.3 3.543 3146.1 3146.9 3153.5 3153.3 3.543 3.543 3150.6 4 3.543 3.543 3.543 (M) SSD Weight, gm Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 5.910 5.910 5.910 5.910 5.910 5.910 (J) SSD Weight, gm (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*null)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*null)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [C/(D - E)] 8765 10.0 9.8 9.7 10.1 9.9 49.2 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] 101.6 4.75mm 4/12/2006 JM TNGM-75-4 3 Sample Number (A) Diameter, in 204 Project: Date: Tested By: Calculated By: Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 0.41 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 104.60 115.50 N / A N / A N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 137.991 148.550 N/A 2.111 146.988 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 3700 N/A 43.7 53.6 N/A 1400 1700 4000 N/A N/A 123.1 113.8 75.8 77.8 3355.9 3395.8 2.331 9.0 144.710 2.331 2.331 2.331 3279.6 2.121 2.108 2.113 1735.6 3256.8 3285.6 1724.0 1729.8 1730.9 3294.3 3.501 3251.3 3280.3 3272.7 3.501 3290.7 2 3.449 3.416 (M) SSD Weight, gm Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 5.910 5.910 5.910 5.910 (J) SSD Weight, gm (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*null)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*null)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [C/(D - E)] 43 9.5 9.3 9.4 48.7 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] 118.5 4.75mm 4/19/2006 Mr VA adj-50-4 1 Sample Number (A) Diameter, in 205 Project: Date: Tested By: Calculated By: Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 0.46 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 111.00 97.20 105.70 N / A N / A N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 151.686 135.570 147.587 N/A 2.105 2.111 151.215 147.186 2.333 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 5100 4700 N/A 68.6 84.4 56.3 N/A 146.8 2200 2700 1800 4700 N/A N/A 146.9 159.2 73.2 71.7 71.6 3364.4 3389.6 3345.8 2.333 9.8 145.856 2.333 2.333 2.333 2.333 3281.0 2.104 2.129 2.109 2.114 3259.7 1712.9 1717.6 3259.0 3294.9 1712.8 1748.1 1707.2 1730.0 3243.6 3260.0 3262.0 3.447 3253.4 3292.4 3240.1 3278.2 3.450 3.448 3256.6 3 3.454 3.447 3.444 (M) SSD Weight, gm Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 5.910 5.910 5.910 5.910 5.910 5.910 (J) SSD Weight, gm (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*null)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*null)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [C/(D - E)] 6524 8.8 9.6 9.4 9.8 9.5 69.8 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] 151.0 4.75 mm 4/20/2006 JM VA adj-75-4 1 Sample Number (A) Diameter, in 206 Project: Date: Tested By: Calculated By: Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 0.97 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 106.40 111.20 108.00 N / A N / A N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 141.089 145.044 141.132 N/A 2.056 2.049 139.578 145.499 2.255 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 4000 4000 N/A 112.5 115.6 112.9 N/A 121.8 3700 3800 3700 3600 N/A N/A 108.7 121.9 75.4 76.7 76.5 3364.9 3368.9 3365.5 2.255 8.9 142.650 2.255 2.255 2.255 2.255 3285.0 2.054 2.049 2.054 2.053 3257.8 1682.8 1681.3 3267.1 3265.2 1681.0 1675.5 1683.0 1694.9 3268.7 3267.7 3271.5 5.906 3258.5 3257.7 3257.5 3264.0 5.906 5.906 3259.2 8 5.906 5.906 5.906 (M) SSD Weight, gm Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 3.544 3.544 3.533 3.571 3.538 3.539 (J) SSD Weight, gm (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*null)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*null)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [C/(D - E)] 6312 9.1 8.9 9.0 8.8 9.1 113.7 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] 117.5 4.75mm jm FL adj-50-4 7 Sample Number (A) Diameter, in 207 Project: Date: Tested By: Calculated By: 103.0 4.75 mm 4/23/2006 JM FL adj-75-6 1 Sample Number (A) Diameter, in 9.0 8.7 9.0 8.9 8.7 101.8 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] 6435 (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [C/(D - E)] (J) SSD Weight, gm (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*null)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*null)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (M) SSD Weight, gm Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 5.910 5.910 5.910 5.910 5.910 5.910 2 3.529 3.522 3.526 3277.7 3278.6 3.523 3272.4 3271.6 3277.9 3276.4 3.514 3.523 3274.0 3273.4 1709.3 1714.3 3278.3 3274.7 1711.0 1706.7 1716.5 1707.7 3283.2 3279.0 2.088 2.086 2.092 2.085 3372.3 3371.7 3373.2 2.292 8.9 141.806 2.292 2.292 2.292 2.292 71.6 71.2 69.8 107.0 3300 3400 3300 3200 N/A N/A 97.8 104.2 100.7 104.0 100.8 N/A N/A 2.087 2.093 139.953 136.115 2.292 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 3400 3500 N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 139.551 140.600 136.552 Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 0.99 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 99.90 100.10 95.30 N / A N / A N/A 208 Project: Date: Tested By: Calculated By: Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 0.76 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 113.20 101.20 N / A N / A N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 148.465 131.013 N/A 2.306 139.054 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 3300 N/A 85.4 80.4 N/A 2800 2600 3800 N/A N/A 116.0 102.1 76.2 77.2 3710.2 3659.8 2.535 9.5 144.542 2.535 2.535 2.535 3615.0 2.295 2.319 2.301 2025.0 3613.0 3567.0 2045.6 2032.2 2050.3 3566.5 3.530 3597.0 3558.6 3600.1 3.481 3555.2 3A 3.531 3.483 (M) SSD Weight, gm Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 5.910 5.910 5.910 5.910 (J) SSD Weight, gm (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*null)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*null)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [C/(D - E)] 4A4B 8.5 9.2 9.0 82.9 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] 109.0 4.75 mm 4/19/2006 MR WI adj-50-4 2B Sample Number (A) Diameter, in 209 Project: Date: Tested By: Calculated By: 101.7 4.75 mm 4/13/2006 JM WI adj-50-6 4 Sample Number (A) Diameter, in 9.3 9.3 9.5 9.4 75.0 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] 326 (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [C/(D - E)] (J) SSD Weight, gm (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*null)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*null)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (M) SSD Weight, gm Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 5.910 5.910 5.910 5.910 5.910 5 3.493 3.492 3.502 3574.1 3.498 3568.9 3567.2 3567.7 3553.6 3.495 3567.2 2032.6 3579.6 3580.6 2040.7 2040.6 2039.1 2026.5 3578.1 3563.4 2.319 2.316 2.318 2.312 3666.5 3668.1 3667.8 2.555 9.2 146.059 2.555 2.555 2.555 2.555 68.7 70.1 70.2 2400 2500 2400 3400 N/A N/A 104.7 98.6 74.0 77.1 73.8 N/A N/A 2.314 145.336 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 3200 N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 142.070 143.836 142.640 Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 0.74 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 97.60 100.90 100.10 N / A N / A N/A 210 Project: Date: Tested By: Calculated By: Sample Identification: Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 0.92 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 105.1 112.5 104.4 N / A N / A N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 148.5 149.8 148.1 N/A 2.238 2.237 147.6 147.9 2.457 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 4875 4700 N/A 122.5 125.4 131.1 N/A 135.5 4250 4350 4550 4700 N/A N/A 135.5 140.5 70.8 75.1 70.5 3806.5 3813.6 3809.5 2.457 9.0 148.5 2.457 2.457 2.457 2.457 3717.0 2.236 2.235 2.237 2.237 3702.5 2060.7 2062.2 3708.6 3710.5 2053.6 2054.4 2054.4 2062.0 3710.5 3715.0 3717.0 3.740 3701.4 3701.1 3705.1 3701.5 3.740 3.740 3701.9 T-11 3.740 3.740 3.740 (M) SSD Weight, gm Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 5.906 5.906 5.906 5.906 5.906 5.906 (J) SSD Weight, gm (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*?)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*?)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [C/(D - E)] T-5T-4T-3T-12 9.0 8.9 9.0 8.9 8.9 126.3 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] 137.1 Georgia 4.75mm mr Georgia T-10 Sample Number (A) Diameter, in 211 Project: Date: Tested By: Calculated By: Sample Identification: 209.4 4.75mm 11/8/2005 GJ Michigan Baseline 5 Sample Number (A) Diameter, in 9.1 8.9 9.3 9.0 8.9 164.1 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] 6438 (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [C/(D - E)] (J) SSD Weight, gm (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*null)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*null)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (M) SSD Weight, gm Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 5.906 5.906 5.906 5.906 5.906 5.906 7 3.614 3.613 3.612 3748.6 3748.5 3.626 3745.4 3744.4 3742.8 3741.6 3.626 3.608 3744.2 3743.9 2132.2 2133.3 3749.2 3749.1 2130.3 2131.4 2132.2 2132.7 3747.3 3752.9 2.314 2.315 2.317 2.309 3851.0 3852.7 3849.7 2.545 9.1 150.023 2.545 2.545 2.545 2.545 71.7 74.0 74.0 212.1 5500 5300 5700 7000 N/A N/A 208.1 208.1 164.0 158.1 170.1 N/A N/A 2.316 2.318 145.202 144.119 2.545 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 7000 7100 N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 147.230 146.423 144.452 Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 0.78 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 105.60 108.30 106.90 N / A N / A N/A 212 Project: Date: Tested By: Calculated By: Sample Identification: Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 0.85 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 87.1 99.5 110.2 N / A N / A N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 153.0 142.4 152.1 N/A 2.183 2.198 152.1 140.9 2.404 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 7300 8000 N/A 173.5 194.1 196.2 N/A 232.2 6000 6700 6800 7500 N/A N/A 216.9 211.2 72.9 72.4 72.4 111.5 103.1 110.2 3729.0 3723.5 3729.8 56.9 69.9 72.4 3704.6 3719.9 3729.8 2.404 9.2 151.6 2.404 2.404 2.404 2.404 3649.1 2.182 2.196 2.183 2.184 3620.0 1990.2 2000.7 3649.7 3640.8 1991.9 1992.4 1991.8 1992.9 3649.6 3646.0 3647.4 3.719 3617.5 3620.4 3619.6 3617.0 3.715 3.710 3614.9 No.5 3.721 3.716 3.727 (M) SSD Weight, gm Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 5.918 5.915 5.919 5.920 5.924 5.912 (J) SSD Weight, gm (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*null)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*null)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [C/(D - E)] No.11No.10No.8No.6 8.6 9.2 9.2 9.2 8.6 187.9 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] 220.1 4.75mm Project Mississippi May 11 2005 Osamu Takahashi Mississippi No.3 Sample Number (A) Diameter, in 213 Project: Date: Tested By: Calculated By: Sample Identification: Tensile Strength Ratio [Avg Conditioned ST / Avg Dry ST]: 0.78 Initial Vacuum Saturation Conditioning Second Vacuum Saturation Conditioning (If required) 113.3 116.4 105.1 N / A N / A N/A [H*(D - E)/100] 153.0 154.6 143.6 N/A 2.220 2.205 144.3 155.4 2.433 Tensile Strength (ST) Calculations 5500 5900 N/A 123.3 134.5 129.2 N/A 170.9 4250 4650 4450 5600 N/A N/A 162.3 160.0 74.1 75.3 73.2 3762.1 3773.3 3761.1 2.433 9.3 151.4 2.433 2.433 2.433 2.433 3668.6 2.208 2.206 2.221 2.210 3656.1 2019.5 2014.7 3666.7 3673.5 2014.0 2015.9 2022.7 2014.9 3669.0 3666.3 3672.8 3.709 3648.8 3656.9 3656.0 3655.0 3.700 3.714 3655.7 No.D 3.709 3.714 3.708 (M) SSD Weight, gm Conditioned Samples Unconditioned Samples 5.916 5.925 5.912 5.922 5.915 5.919 (J) SSD Weight, gm (K) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (L) % Saturation [100*(K/I)] (S) Average ST, psi [J - C] [M - C] [2P/(A*B*?)] (P) Failure Load, lbs (Q) Dry ST, psi [2P/(A*B*?)] (R) Conditioned ST, psi (G) Theoretical Maximum Gravity (H) % Air Voids [100*(1-F/G)] (I) Volume of Air Voids (B) Height, in (C) Weight in Air, gm (D) SSD Weight, gm (E) Submerged Weight, gm (F) Bulk Specific Gravity [C/(D - E)] No.JNo.GNo.FNo.E 9.3 8.7 9.2 8.8 9.4 129.0 (N) Vol. Of Absorbed Water, cc (O) % Saturation [100*(N/I)] 164.4 4.75mm Project - Maryland Mix May 19-22 2005 Osamu Takahashi Maryland No.C Sample Number (A) Diameter, in 214 215 Appendix C Material Verification Tester Rut Depths Pill #1 Pill #1 Sample ID Sample ID Location 1 2 average Location 1 2 average Initial Reading 4.94 5.00 4.97 Initial Reading 2.35 2.69 2.52 Final Reading 20.12 19.04 19.58 Final Reading 18.36 19.6 18.98 Rut Depth 15.18 14.04 14.61 Rut Depth 16.01 16.91 16.46 Cycles Cycles Pill #2 Pill #2 Sample ID Sample ID Location 1 2 average Location 1 2 average Initial Reading 3.87 3.57 3.72 Initial Reading 3.34 3.22 3.28 Final Reading 19.4 20.26 19.83 Final Reading 20.73 19.07 19.9 Rut Depth 15.53 16.69 16.11 Rut Depth 17.39 15.85 16.62 Cycles Cycles Average Average Pill #1 Pill #1 Sample ID Sample ID Location 1 2 average Location 1 2 average Initial Reading 5.94 5.89 5.915 Initial Reading 9.21 9.30 9.255 Final Reading 25.69 27.66 26.675 Final Reading 22.73 22.85 22.79 Rut Depth 19.75 21.77 20.76 Rut Depth 13.52 13.55 13.535 Cycles Cycles Pill #2 Pill #2 Sample ID Sample ID Location 1 2 average Location 1 2 average Initial Reading 7.04 6.78 6.91 Initial Reading 8.88 8.69 8.785 Final Reading 21.14 22.09 21.615 Final Reading 21.67 22.94 22.305 Rut Depth 14.1 15.31 14.705 Rut Depth 12.79 14.25 13.52 Cycles Cycles Average Average Pill #1 Pill #1 Sample ID Sample ID Location 1 2 average Location 1 2 average Initial Reading 6.74 6.53 6.635 Initial Reading 6.6 6.69 6.645 Final Reading 19.88 19.5 19.69 Final Reading 18.87 18.72 18.795 Rut Depth 13.14 12.97 13.055 Rut Depth 12.27 12.03 12.15 Cycles Cycles Pill #2 Pill #2 Sample ID Sample ID Location 1 2 average Location 1 2 average Initial Reading 7.96 7.53 7.745 Initial Reading 8.57 8.38 8.475 Final Reading 18.26 19.68 18.97 Final Reading 18.36 19.49 18.925 Rut Depth 10.3 12.15 11.225 Rut Depth 9.79 11.11 10.45 Cycles Cycles Average Average TN-50-4-C 8000 15.4 AL-50-6-B 8000 AL50-6-D 8000 16.5 AL-50-4-A 8000 AL-50-6-B 8000 TN-50-4-A 8000 17.7 TN-75-4-A 8000 TN-75-4-B 8000 13.5 MO-50-4-A 8000 MO-50-4-B 8000 12.1 MO-50-6-A 8000 MO-50-6-B 8000 11.3 216 Pill #1 Pill #1 Sample ID Sample ID Location 1 2 average Location 1 2 average Initial Reading 6.75 6.86 6.805 Initial Reading 6.19 6.44 6.315 Final Reading 28.2 27.95 28.075 Final Reading 21.07 19.81 20.44 Rut Depth 21.45 21.09 21.27 Rut Depth 14.88 13.37 14.125 Cycles Cycles Pill #2 Pill #2 VA-75-4-B Sample ID Sample ID Location 1 2 average Location 1 2 average Initial Reading 7.66 7.13 7.395 Initial Reading 7.88 7.76 7.82 Final Reading 25.75 24.85 25.3 Final Reading 20.78 21.43 21.105 Rut Depth 18.09 17.72 17.905 Rut Depth 12.9 13.67 13.285 Cycles Cycles Average Average Pill #1 Pill #1 Sample ID Sample ID Location 1 2 average Location 1 2 average Initial Reading 4.71 4.86 4.785 Initial Reading 6.5 6.91 6.705 Final Reading 23.65 24.05 23.85 Final Reading 22.76 21.87 22.315 Rut Depth 18.94 19.19 19.065 Rut Depth 16.26 14.96 15.61 Cycles Cycles Pill #2 Pill #2 Sample ID Sample ID Location 1 2 average Location 1 2 average Initial Reading 6.08 5.6 5.84 Initial Reading 6.36 6.08 6.22 Final Reading 25.09 26.27 25.68 Final Reading 21.18 21.59 21.385 Rut Depth 19.01 20.67 19.84 Rut Depth 14.82 15.51 15.165 Cycles Cycles Average Average Pill #1 Pill #1 Sample ID Sample ID Location 1 2 average Location 1 2 average Initial Reading 5.09 5.73 5.41 Initial Reading #DIV/0! Final Reading 23.36 20.68 22.02 Final Reading #DIV/0! Rut Depth 18.27 14.95 16.61 Rut Depth 0 0 #DIV/0! Cycles Cycles Pill #2 Pill #2 Sample ID Sample ID Location 1 2 average Location 1 2 average Initial Reading 5.7 7.26 6.48 Initial Reading #DIV/0! Final Reading 18.93 19.21 19.07 Final Reading #DIV/0! Rut Depth 13.23 11.95 12.59 Rut Depth 0 0 #DIV/0! Cycles Cycles Average Average 19.6 VA-75-4-A 8000 8000 13.7 VA-50-4-A 6228 VA-50-4-B 6228 19.5 FL-75-4-A 2047 FL-75-4-B 2047 15.4 FL-50-4-A 1205 FL-50-4-B 1205 14.6 8000 8000 #DIV/0! FL-75-6-A 2425 FL-75-6-B 2425 217 Pill #1 Pill #1 Sample ID Sample ID Location 1 2 average Location 1 2 average Initial Reading 8.83 9.73 9.28 Initial Reading 7.49 7.88 7.685 Final Reading 27.81 27.36 27.585 Final Reading 21.87 22.04 21.955 Rut Depth 18.98 17.63 18.305 Rut Depth 14.38 14.16 14.27 Cycles Cycles Pill #2 Pill #2 CT-50-6-B Sample ID Sample ID Location 1 2 average Location 1 2 average Initial Reading 12.42 11.98 12.2 Initial Reading 10.56 10.36 10.46 Final Reading 28.79 27.66 28.225 Final Reading 21.27 21.9 21.585 Rut Depth 16.37 15.68 16.025 Rut Depth 10.71 11.54 11.125 Cycles Cycles Average Average Pill #1 Pill #1 Sample ID Sample ID Location 1 2 average Location 1 2 average Initial Reading 9.6 10.04 9.82 Initial Reading 12.03 12.22 12.125 Final Reading 29.52 29.85 29.685 Final Reading 26.73 28.38 27.555 Rut Depth 19.92 19.81 19.865 Rut Depth 14.7 16.16 15.43 Cycles Cycles Pill #2 Pill #2 Sample ID Sample ID Location 1 2 average Location 1 2 average Initial Reading 12.35 12.18 12.265 Initial Reading 12.72 11.95 12.335 Final Reading 29.93 31.3 30.615 Final Reading 28.91 28.15 28.53 Rut Depth 17.58 19.12 18.35 Rut Depth 16.19 16.2 16.195 Cycles Cycles Average Average Pill #1 Pill #1 Sample ID Sample ID Location 1 2 average Location 1 2 average Initial Reading 13.3 13.76 13.53 Initial Reading 8.52 8.64 8.58 Final Reading 26.36 24.87 25.615 Final Reading 23.48 24.35 23.915 Rut Depth 13.06 11.11 12.085 Rut Depth 14.96 15.71 15.335 Cycles Cycles Pill #2 Pill #2 Sample ID Sample ID Location 1 2 average Location 1 2 average Initial Reading 13.69 13.68 13.685 Initial Reading 9.35 9.22 9.285 Final Reading 29.09 29.49 29.29 Final Reading 22.85 23 22.925 Rut Depth 15.4 15.81 15.605 Rut Depth 13.5 13.78 13.64 Cycles Cycles Average Average CT-50-4-A CT-50-6-A 8000 8000 CT-50-4B 8000 8000 17.2 12.7 MN-50-4-A MN-75-4 5724 5256 MN-50-4-B MN-75-4-B 5724 5256 19.1 15.8 MN-75-6-A NH-50-4 5074 3595 MN-75-6-B NH-50-4b 5074 3595 13.8 14.5 218 Pill #1 Pill #1 Sample ID Sample ID Location 1 2 average Location 1 2 average Initial Reading 10.35 10.75 10.55 Initial Reading 8.15 8.44 8.295 Final Reading 28.43 28.94 28.685 Final Reading 22.03 20.99 21.51 Rut Depth 18.08 18.19 18.135 Rut Depth 13.88 12.55 13.215 Cycles Cycles Pill #2 Pill #2 Sample ID Sample ID Location 1 2 average Location 1 2 average Initial Reading 10.23 9.97 10.1 Initial Reading 7.51 7.39 7.45 Final Reading 25.55 26.85 26.2 Final Reading 20.74 20.06 20.4 Rut Depth 15.32 16.88 16.1 Rut Depth 13.23 12.67 12.95 Cycles Cycles Average Average Pill #1 Pill #1 Sample ID Sample ID Location 1 2 average Location 1 2 average Initial Reading 8.66 9.43 9.045 Initial Reading 2.9 3.35 3.125 Final Reading 23.43 23.39 23.41 Final Reading 18.19 17.57 17.88 Rut Depth 14.77 13.96 14.365 Rut Depth 15.29 14.22 14.755 Cycles Cycles Pill #2 Pill #2 Sample ID Sample ID Location 1 2 average Location 1 2 average Initial Reading 10.88 10.82 10.85 Initial Reading 2.71 2.53 2.62 Final Reading 25.36 23.6 24.48 Final Reading 15.74 15.84 15.79 Rut Depth 14.48 12.78 13.63 Rut Depth 13.03 13.31 13.17 Cycles Cycles Average Average Pill #1 Pill #1 Sample ID Sample ID Location 1 2 average Location 1 2 average Initial Reading 5.59 5.90 5.745 Initial Reading 10.35 10.75 10.55 Final Reading 26.6 26.65 26.625 Final Reading 28.43 28.94 28.685 Rut Depth 21.01 20.75 20.88 Rut Depth 18.08 18.19 18.135 Cycles Cycles Pill #2 Pill #2 Sample ID Sample ID Location 1 2 average Location 1 2 average Initial Reading 4.87 4.64 4.755 Initial Reading 10.23 9.97 10.1 Final Reading 26.01 26.87 26.44 Final Reading 25.55 26.85 26.2 Rut Depth 21.14 22.23 21.685 Rut Depth 15.32 16.88 16.1 Cycles Cycles Average Average 2795 8000 21.3 17.1 2795 8000 TNGM-50-4-B TNGM-75-4 14.0 14.0 TNGM-50-4-A TNGM-75-4 WI-50-4-B WI-50-6-B 8000 8000 WI-50-4-A WI-50-6-A 8000 8000 NH-75-4-A NH-75-6-A 4220 8000 NH-75-4-B NH-75-6-B 4220 8000 17.1 13.1 219 Pill #1 Pill #1 Sample ID Sample ID Location 1 2 average Location 1 2 average Initial Reading 9.8 9.92 9.86 Initial Reading 8.71 8.99 8.85 Final Reading 24.29 23.51 23.9 Final Reading 18.77 18.02 18.395 Rut Depth 14.49 13.59 14.04 Rut Depth 10.06 9.03 9.545 Cycles Cycles Pill #2 Pill #2 Sample ID Sample ID Location 1 2 average Location 1 2 average Initial Reading 10.75 10.63 10.69 Initial Reading 9.2 8.64 8.92 Final Reading 25.43 24.9 25.165 Final Reading 23.1 22.97 23.035 Rut Depth 14.68 14.27 14.475 Rut Depth 13.9 14.33 14.115 Cycles Cycles Average Average Pill #1 Pill #1 Sample ID Sample ID Location 1 2 average Location 1 2 average Initial Reading 14.02 14.41 14.215 Initial Reading 12.79 13.25 13.02 Final Reading 19.37 18.99 19.18 Final Reading 20.11 21.14 20.625 Rut Depth 5.35 4.58 4.965 Rut Depth 7.32 7.89 7.605 Cycles Cycles Pill #2 Pill #2 Sample ID Sample ID Location 1 2 average Location 1 2 average Initial Reading 14.4 13.94 14.17 Initial Reading 13.84 13.88 13.86 Final Reading 19.93 19.51 19.72 Final Reading 20.96 21.43 21.195 Rut Depth 5.53 5.57 5.55 Rut Depth 7.12 7.55 7.335 Cycles Cycles Average Average Pill #1 Pill #1 Sample ID Sample ID Location 1 2 average Location 1 2 average Initial Reading 10.28 10.16 10.22 Initial Reading 8.62 8.92 8.77 Final Reading 19.41 20.18 19.795 Final Reading 19.8 20.08 19.94 Rut Depth 9.13 10.02 9.575 Rut Depth 11.18 11.16 11.17 Cycles Cycles Pill #2 Pill #2 Sample ID Sample ID Location 1 2 average Location 1 2 average Initial Reading 10.92 10.56 10.74 Initial Reading 7.51 7.39 7.45 Final Reading 20.62 20.9 20.76 Final Reading 17.77 19.16 18.465 Rut Depth 9.7 10.34 10.02 Rut Depth 10.26 11.77 11.015 Cycles Cycles Average Average9.8 11.1 VA adj-50-4-B VA adj-75-4-B 8000 8000 VA adj-50-4-A VA adj-75-4-A 8000 8000 8000 8000 5.3 7.5 8000 8000 WI adj-50-4-B WI adj-50-6-B 14.3 11.8 WI adj-50-4-A WI adj-50-6-A FL adj-50-4-B FL adj-75-6-B 8000 8000 FL adj-50-4-A FL adj-75-6 8000 8000 220 Pill #1 Pill #1 Sample ID Sample ID Location 1 2 average Location 1 2 average Initial Reading 11.2 11.28 11.24 Initial Reading 7.42 7.30 7.36 Final Reading 20.6 19.03 19.815 Final Reading 10.76 10.4 10.58 Rut Depth 9.4 7.75 8.575 Rut Depth 3.34 3.1 3.22 Cycles Cycles Pill #2 Pill #2 Sample ID Sample ID Location 1 2 average Location 1 2 average Initial Reading 10.45 10.05 10.25 Initial Reading 6.49 6.35 6.42 Final Reading 18.4 19.3 18.85 Final Reading 10.62 10.86 10.74 Rut Depth 7.95 9.25 8.6 Rut Depth 4.13 4.51 4.32 Cycles Cycles Average Average Pill #1 Pill #1 Sample ID Sample ID Location 1 2 average Location 1 2 average Initial Reading 6.7 6.96 6.83 Initial Reading 5.62 6.06 5.84 Final Reading 15.43 14.84 15.135 Final Reading 21.98 21.06 21.52 Rut Depth 8.73 7.88 8.305 Rut Depth 16.36 15 15.68 Cycles Cycles Pill #2 Pill #2 Sample ID Sample ID Location 1 2 average Location 1 2 average Initial Reading 5.77 5.62 5.695 Initial Reading 6.23 6.03 6.13 Final Reading 16.85 15.77 16.31 Final Reading 21.04 22.64 21.84 Rut Depth 11.08 10.15 10.615 Rut Depth 14.81 16.61 15.71 Cycles Cycles Average Average9.5 15.7 MD-B MI-B 8000 8000 MD-A MI-A 8000 8000 8000 8000 8.6 3.8 8000 8000 GA-B MS-B GA-A MS-A 221 222 Appendix D Permeability Data Distance to zero mark on tube: 2.54 31.75 Pedistal Plate to Outlet (mm): 135 Rt Permeabiliby cm/s*10^-5 AL-50-4 26.03 150.80 178.68 65.00 50.00 128 0.0003 0.0003 22.0 0.953 33.31 26.03 150.80 178.68 65.00 50.00 130 0.0003 0.0003 22.0 0.953 32.80 26.03 150.80 178.68 65.00 50.00 132 0.0003 0.0003 22.0 0.953 32.30 26.03 150.80 178.68 65.00 50.00 135 0.0003 0.0003 22.0 0.953 31.58 AL-50-4 25.35 150.36 177.64 65.00 50.00 65 0.0007 0.0006 22.0 0.953 64.34 25.35 150.36 177.64 65.00 50.00 65 0.0007 0.0006 22.0 0.953 64.34 25.35 150.36 177.64 65.00 50.00 65 0.0007 0.0006 22.0 0.953 64.34 25.35 150.36 177.64 65.00 50.00 66 0.0007 0.0006 22.0 0.953 63.36 AL-50-4 27.16 150.50 177.97 65.00 50.00 87 0.0005 0.0005 22.0 0.953 51.22 27.16 150.50 177.97 65.00 50.00 86 0.0005 0.0005 22.0 0.953 51.82 27.16 150.50 177.97 65.00 50.00 87 0.0005 0.0005 22.0 0.953 51.22 27.16 150.50 177.97 65.00 50.00 87 0.0005 0.0005 22.0 0.953 51.22 Average= 49.32 Rt Permeabiliby cm/s*10^-5 AL-50-6 25.51 150.13 177.09 65.00 50.00 71 0.0006 0.0006 22.0 0.953 59.44 25.51 150.13 177.09 65.00 50.00 71 0.0006 0.0006 22.0 0.953 59.44 25.51 150.13 177.09 65.00 50.00 72 0.0006 0.0006 22.0 0.953 58.61 25.51 150.13 177.09 65.00 50.00 72 0.0006 0.0006 22.0 0.953 58.61 AL-50-6 26.63 150.22 177.30 65.00 50.00 103 0.0004 0.0004 22.0 0.953 42.62 26.63 150.22 177.30 65.00 50.00 104 0.0004 0.0004 22.0 0.953 42.21 26.63 150.22 177.30 65.00 50.00 106 0.0004 0.0004 22.0 0.953 41.42 26.63 150.22 177.30 65.00 50.00 112 0.0004 0.0004 22.0 0.953 39.20 Average= 50.19 Rt Permeabiliby cm/s*10^-5 TN-50-4 25.50 150.16 177.16 65.00 50.00 44 0.0010 0.0009 24.0 0.910 91.51 25.50 150.16 177.16 65.00 50.00 44 0.0010 0.0009 24.0 0.910 91.51 25.50 150.16 177.16 65.00 50.00 43 0.0010 0.0009 24.0 0.910 93.64 25.50 150.16 177.16 65.00 50.00 43 0.0010 0.0009 24.0 0.910 93.64 TN-50-4 26.16 150.41 177.75 65.00 50.00 75 0.0006 0.0005 24.0 0.910 54.82 26.16 150.41 177.75 65.00 50.00 78 0.0006 0.0005 24.0 0.910 52.71 26.16 150.41 177.75 65.00 50.00 83 0.0005 0.0005 24.0 0.910 49.54 26.16 150.41 177.75 65.00 50.00 86 0.0005 0.0005 24.0 0.910 47.81 TN-50-5 26.08 150.23 177.33 65.00 50.00 64 0.0007 0.0006 24.0 0.910 64.21 26.08 150.23 177.33 65.00 50.00 63 0.0007 0.0007 24.0 0.910 65.23 26.08 150.23 177.33 65.00 50.00 64 0.0007 0.0006 24.0 0.910 64.21 26.08 150.23 177.33 65.00 50.00 64 0.0007 0.0006 24.0 0.910 64.21 TN-50-5 24.19 150.28 177.45 65.00 50.00 61 0.0007 0.0006 24.0 0.910 62.68 24.19 150.28 177.45 65.00 50.00 62 0.0007 0.0006 24.0 0.910 61.67 24.19 150.28 177.45 65.00 50.00 63 0.0007 0.0006 24.0 0.910 60.69 24.19 150.28 177.45 65.00 50.00 64 0.0007 0.0006 24.0 0.910 59.74 Average= 67.36 Rt Permeabiliby cm/s*10^-5 TN-75-4 26.64 150.35 177.61 65.00 50.00 39 0.0012 0.0010 26.0 0.869 102.51 26.64 150.35 177.61 65.00 50.00 39 0.0012 0.0010 26.0 0.869 102.51 26.64 150.35 177.61 65.00 50.00 39 0.0012 0.0010 26.0 0.869 102.51 26.64 150.35 177.61 65.00 50.00 39 0.0012 0.0010 26.0 0.869 102.51 TN-75-4 24.50 150.29 177.47 65.00 50.00 76 0.0006 0.0005 26.0 0.869 48.62 24.50 150.29 177.47 65.00 50.00 77 0.0006 0.0005 26.0 0.869 47.99 24.50 150.29 177.47 65.00 50.00 77 0.0006 0.0005 26.0 0.869 47.99 24.50 150.29 177.47 65.00 50.00 78 0.0005 0.0005 26.0 0.869 47.37 Average= 75.25 Water Temp (?C)Time (s) k (cm/s) k@20 C Start ht. (cm) end ht. (cm)Sample ID Ht. (mm) Ave.Dia. (mm) Sample A (cm 2 ) Inside Diameter of Pipe (mm): Sample A (cm 2 ) Ave.Dia. (mm)Sample ID Ht. (mm) Start ht. (cm) end ht. (cm) Time (s) k (cm/s) k@20 C Water Temp (?C) Sample ID Ht. (mm) Ave.Dia. (mm) Sample A (cm 2 ) Start ht. (cm) end ht. (cm) Time (s) k (cm/s) k@20 C Water Temp (?C) Sample ID Ht. (mm) Ave.Dia. (mm) Sample A (cm 2 ) Start ht. (cm) end ht. (cm) Time (s) k (cm/s) k@20 C Water Temp (?C) 223 Rt Permeabiliby cm/s*10^-5 MO-50-4 25.14 150.07 176.95 65.00 50.00 200 0.0002 0.0002 22.5 0.942 20.59 25.14 150.07 176.95 65.00 50.00 197 0.0002 0.0002 22.5 0.942 20.90 25.14 150.07 176.95 65.00 50.00 195 0.0002 0.0002 22.5 0.942 21.11 25.14 150.07 176.95 65.00 50.00 192 0.0002 0.0002 22.5 0.942 21.44 MO-50-4 26.86 150.20 177.26 65.00 50.00 198 0.0002 0.0002 22.5 0.942 22.10 26.86 150.20 177.26 65.00 50.00 201 0.0002 0.0002 22.5 0.942 21.77 26.86 150.20 177.26 65.00 50.00 200 0.0002 0.0002 22.5 0.942 21.88 26.86 150.20 177.26 65.00 50.00 199 0.0002 0.0002 22.5 0.942 21.99 Average= 21.47 Rt Permeabiliby cm/s*10^-5 MO-50-6 24.23 150.05 176.90 65.00 50.00 85 0.0005 0.0005 23.0 0.931 46.23 24.23 150.05 176.90 65.00 50.00 84 0.0005 0.0005 23.0 0.931 46.78 24.23 150.05 176.90 65.00 50.00 85 0.0005 0.0005 23.0 0.931 46.23 24.23 150.05 176.90 65.00 50.00 86 0.0005 0.0005 23.0 0.931 45.70 MO-50-6 25.49 150.18 177.21 65.00 50.00 136 0.0003 0.0003 23.0 0.931 30.27 25.49 150.18 177.21 65.00 50.00 137 0.0003 0.0003 23.0 0.931 30.05 25.49 150.18 177.21 65.00 50.00 138 0.0003 0.0003 23.0 0.931 29.83 25.49 150.18 177.21 65.00 50.00 137 0.0003 0.0003 23.0 0.931 30.05 Average= 38.14 Rt Permeabiliby cm/s*10^-5 VA-50-4 25.05 150.26 177.40 65.00 50.00 90 0.0005 0.0005 22.5 0.942 45.47 25.05 150.26 177.40 65.00 50.00 90 0.0005 0.0005 22.5 0.942 45.47 25.05 150.26 177.40 65.00 50.00 90 0.0005 0.0005 22.5 0.942 45.47 25.05 150.26 177.40 65.00 50.00 89 0.0005 0.0005 22.5 0.942 45.99 VA-50-4 26.70 150.51 177.99 65.00 50.00 99 0.0005 0.0004 22.5 0.942 43.77 26.70 150.51 177.99 65.00 50.00 99 0.0005 0.0004 22.5 0.942 43.77 26.70 150.51 177.99 65.00 50.00 98 0.0005 0.0004 22.5 0.942 44.22 26.70 150.51 177.99 65.00 50.00 98 0.0005 0.0004 22.5 0.942 44.22 Average= 44.80 Rt Permeabiliby cm/s*10^-5 VA75-8 25.12 150.76 178.58 65.00 50.00 187 0.0002 0.0002 23.0 0.931 21.54 2nd Vacuum 25.12 150.76 178.58 65.00 50.00 193 0.0002 0.0002 23.0 0.931 20.87 25.12 150.26 177.40 65.00 50.00 195 0.0002 0.0002 23.0 0.931 20.80 25.12 150.26 177.40 65.00 50.00 196 0.0002 0.0002 23.0 0.931 20.69 VA75-9 25.76 150.05 176.90 65.00 50.00 105 0.0004 0.0004 23.0 0.931 39.67 25.76 150.05 176.90 65.00 50.00 104 0.0004 0.0004 23.0 0.931 40.05 25.76 150.05 176.90 65.00 50.00 105 0.0004 0.0004 23.0 0.931 39.67 25.76 150.05 176.90 65.00 50.00 105 0.0004 0.0004 23.0 0.931 39.67 Average= 30.37 Rt Permeabiliby cm/s*10^-5 FL-50-4 26.69 151.30 179.86 65.00 50.00 28 0.0016 0.0016 20.0 1.000 162.54 26.69 151.30 179.86 65.00 50.00 29 0.0016 0.0016 20.0 1.000 156.93 26.69 151.30 179.86 65.00 50.00 29 0.0016 0.0016 20.0 1.000 156.93 26.69 151.30 179.86 65.00 50.00 31 0.0015 0.0015 20.0 1.000 146.81 FL-50-4 26.29 150.90 178.91 65.00 50.00 29 0.0016 0.0016 20.0 1.000 155.52 26.29 150.90 178.91 65.00 50.00 29 0.0016 0.0016 20.0 1.000 155.52 26.29 150.90 178.91 65.00 50.00 30 0.0015 0.0015 20.0 1.000 150.34 26.29 150.90 178.91 65.00 50.00 30 0.0015 0.0015 20.0 1.000 150.34 Average= 154.37 Sample ID Ht. (mm) Ave.Dia. (mm) Sample A (cm 2 ) Start ht. (cm) end ht. (cm) Time (s) k (cm/s) k@20 C Water Temp (?C) Sample ID Ht. (mm) Ave.Dia. (mm) Sample A (cm 2 ) Start ht. (cm) end ht. (cm) Time (s) k (cm/s) k@20 C Water Temp (?C) Sample ID Ht. (mm) Ave.Dia. (mm) Sample A (cm 2 ) Start ht. (cm) end ht. (cm) Time (s) k (cm/s) k@20 C Water Temp (?C) Sample ID Ht. (mm) Ave.Dia. (mm) Sample A (cm 2 ) Start ht. (cm) end ht. (cm) Time (s) k (cm/s) k@20 C Water Temp (?C) Sample ID Ht. (mm) Ave.Dia. (mm) Sample A (cm 2 ) Start ht. (cm) end ht. (cm) Time (s) k (cm/s) k@20 C Water Temp (?C) 224 Rt Permeabiliby cm/s*10^-5 FL-75-4 26.27 151.11 179.41 65.00 50.00 41 0.0011 0.0010 23.0 0.931 102.05 26.27 151.11 179.41 65.00 50.00 41 0.0011 0.0010 23.0 0.931 102.05 26.27 151.11 179.41 65.00 50.00 42 0.0011 0.0010 23.0 0.931 99.62 26.27 151.11 179.41 65.00 50.00 41 0.0011 0.0010 23.0 0.931 102.05 FL-75-4 25.35 150.27 177.42 65.00 50.00 27 0.0016 0.0015 23.0 0.931 151.49 25.35 150.27 177.42 65.00 50.00 27 0.0016 0.0015 23.0 0.931 151.49 25.35 150.27 177.42 65.00 50.00 27 0.0016 0.0015 23.0 0.931 151.49 25.35 150.27 177.42 65.00 50.00 27 0.0016 0.0015 23.0 0.931 151.49 Average= 126.47 Rt Permeabiliby cm/s*10^-5 FL-75-6 26.39 150.87 178.84 65.00 50.00 36 0.0013 0.0012 23.0 0.931 117.10 26.39 150.87 178.84 65.00 50.00 36 0.0013 0.0012 23.0 0.931 117.10 26.39 150.87 178.84 65.00 50.00 36 0.0013 0.0012 23.0 0.931 117.10 26.39 150.87 178.84 65.00 50.00 37 0.0012 0.0011 23.0 0.931 113.94 FL-75-6 26.95 150.31 177.52 65.00 50.00 101 0.0005 0.0004 23.0 0.931 42.90 26.95 150.31 177.52 65.00 50.00 102 0.0005 0.0004 23.0 0.931 42.48 26.95 150.31 177.52 65.00 50.00 103 0.0005 0.0004 23.0 0.931 42.06 26.95 150.31 177.52 65.00 50.00 103 0.0005 0.0004 23.0 0.931 42.06 Average= 79.34 Rt Permeabiliby cm/s*10^-5 MN 75-6 23.80 150.00 176.79 65.00 50.00 369 0.0001 0.0001 20.5 0.988 11.12 23.80 150.00 176.79 65.00 50.00 526 0.0001 0.0001 20.5 0.988 7.80 23.80 150.00 176.79 65.00 50.00 667 0.0001 0.0001 20.5 0.988 6.15 23.80 150.00 176.79 65.00 50.00 801 0.0001 0.0001 20.5 0.988 5.12 Average= 7.55 MN 75-4 22.89 150.00 176.79 65.00 50.00 176 0.0002 0.0002 20.5 0.988 22.46 22.89 150.00 176.79 65.00 50.00 215 0.0002 0.0002 20.5 0.988 18.39 22.89 150.00 176.79 65.00 50.00 255 0.0002 0.0002 20.5 0.988 15.50 22.89 150.00 176.79 65.00 50.00 306 0.0001 0.0001 20.5 0.988 12.92 Average= 17.32 Rt Permeabiliby cm/s*10^-5 MN-50-4 22.23 150.00 176.79 65.00 50.00 276 0.0001 0.0001 20.0 1.0 14.10 22.23 150.00 176.79 65.00 50.00 383 0.0001 0.0001 20.0 1.0 10.16 22.23 150.00 176.79 65.00 50.00 506 0.0001 0.0001 20.0 1.0 7.69 22.23 150.00 176.79 65.00 50.00 613 0.0001 0.0001 20.0 1.0 6.35 MN-50-4 25.10 150.00 176.79 65.00 50.00 334 0.0001 0.0001 20.0 1.0 13.08 25.10 150.00 176.79 65.00 50.00 554 0.0001 0.0001 20.0 1.0 7.88 25.10 150.00 176.79 65.00 50.00 905 0.0000 0.0000 20.0 1.0 4.83 25.10 150.00 176.79 65.00 50.00 1421 0.0000 0.0000 20.0 1.0 3.07 Average= 8.39 Rt Permeabiliby cm/s*10^-5 NH-50-4 24.67 150.66 178.34 65.00 50.00 88 0.0005 0.0005 20.0 1.000 48.40 24.67 150.66 178.34 65.00 50.00 93 0.0005 0.0005 20.0 1.000 45.80 24.67 150.66 178.34 65.00 50.00 96 0.0004 0.0004 20.0 1.000 44.37 24.67 150.66 178.34 65.00 50.00 100 0.0004 0.0004 20.0 1.000 42.59 NH-50-4 25.24 150.52 178.01 65.00 50.00 172 0.0003 0.0003 20.0 1.000 25.35 25.39 150.83 178.75 65.00 50.00 184 0.0002 0.0002 20.0 1.000 23.74 25.39 150.83 178.75 65.00 50.00 194 0.0002 0.0002 20.0 1.000 22.51 25.39 150.83 178.75 65.00 50.00 207 0.0002 0.0002 20.0 1.000 21.10 Average= 34.23 Sample ID Ht. (mm) Ave.Dia. (mm) Sample A (cm 2 ) Start ht. (cm) end ht. (cm) Time (s) k (cm/s) k@20 C Water Temp (?C) Sample ID Ht. (mm) Ave.Dia. (mm) Sample A (cm 2 ) Start ht. (cm) end ht. (cm) Time (s) k (cm/s) k@20 C Water Temp (?C) Sample ID Ht. (mm) Ave.Dia. (mm) Sample A (cm 2 ) Start ht. (cm) end ht. (cm) Time (s) k (cm/s) k@20 C Water Temp (?C) Sample ID Ht. (mm) Ave.Dia. (mm) Sample A (cm 2 ) Start ht. (cm) end ht. (cm) Time (s) k (cm/s) k@20 C Water Temp (?C) Sample ID Ht. (mm) Ave.Dia. (mm) Sample A (cm 2 ) Start ht. (cm) end ht. (cm) Time (s) k (cm/s) k@20 C Water Temp (?C) 225 Rt Permeabiliby cm/s*10^-5 NH-75-4 26.30 150.38 177.68 65.00 50.00 85 0.0005 0.0005 21.0 0.976 52.16 26.30 150.38 177.68 65.00 50.00 85 0.0005 0.0005 21.0 0.976 52.16 26.30 150.38 177.68 65.00 50.00 87 0.0005 0.0005 21.0 0.976 50.97 26.30 150.38 177.68 65.00 50.00 88 0.0005 0.0005 21.0 0.976 50.39 NH-75-4 25.39 150.83 178.75 65.00 50.00 78 0.0006 0.0005 21.0 0.976 54.65 25.39 150.83 178.75 65.00 50.00 78 0.0006 0.0005 21.0 0.976 54.65 25.39 150.83 178.75 65.00 50.00 80 0.0005 0.0005 21.0 0.976 53.28 25.39 150.83 178.75 65.00 50.00 84 0.0005 0.0005 21.0 0.976 50.75 Average= 52.38 Rt Permeabiliby cm/s*10^-5 NH-75-6 26.20 150.88 178.87 65.00 50.00 311 0.0001 0.0001 23.0 0.931 13.46 26.20 150.88 178.87 65.00 50.00 355 0.0001 0.0001 23.0 0.931 11.79 26.20 150.88 178.87 65.00 50.00 397 0.0001 0.0001 23.0 0.931 10.55 26.20 150.88 178.87 65.00 50.00 429 0.0001 0.0001 23.0 0.931 9.76 NH-75-6 24.95 151.25 179.74 65.00 50.00 174 0.0002 0.0002 23.0 0.931 22.86 24.95 151.25 179.74 65.00 50.00 217 0.0002 0.0002 23.0 0.931 18.33 24.95 151.25 179.74 65.00 50.00 233 0.0002 0.0002 23.0 0.931 17.07 24.95 151.25 179.74 65.00 50.00 256 0.0002 0.0002 23.0 0.931 15.53 Average= 14.92 Rt Permeabiliby cm/s*10^-5 WI-50-4 26.15 150.26 177.40 65.00 50.00 17 0.0027 0.0025 22.5 0.942 250.77 26.15 150.26 177.40 65.00 50.00 17 0.0027 0.0025 22.5 0.942 250.77 26.15 150.26 177.40 65.00 50.00 17 0.0027 0.0025 22.5 0.942 250.77 26.15 150.26 177.40 65.00 50.00 17 0.0027 0.0025 22.5 0.942 250.77 WI-50-4 25.99 150.51 177.99 65.00 50.00 24 0.0019 0.0018 22.5 0.942 176.01 25.99 150.51 177.99 65.00 50.00 25 0.0018 0.0017 22.5 0.942 168.97 25.99 150.51 177.99 65.00 50.00 25 0.0018 0.0017 22.5 0.942 168.97 25.99 150.51 177.99 65.00 50.00 25 0.0018 0.0017 22.5 0.942 168.97 Average= 210.75 Rt Permeabiliby cm/s*10^-5 WI-50-6 25.97 150.26 177.40 65.00 50.00 20 0.0022 0.0020 26.0 0.869 195.36 25.97 150.26 177.40 65.00 50.00 20 0.0022 0.0020 26.0 0.869 195.36 25.97 150.26 177.40 65.00 50.00 20 0.0022 0.0020 26.0 0.869 195.38 25.97 150.26 177.40 65.00 50.00 20 0.0022 0.0020 26.0 0.869 195.36 WI-50-6 25.96 150.51 177.99 65.00 50.00 24 0.0019 0.0016 26.0 0.869 162.20 25.96 150.51 177.99 65.00 50.00 24 0.0019 0.0016 26.0 0.869 162.20 25.96 150.51 177.99 65.00 50.00 24 0.0019 0.0016 26.0 0.869 162.20 25.96 150.51 177.99 65.00 50.00 24 0.0019 0.0016 26.0 0.869 162.20 Average= 178.78 Rt Permeabiliby cm/s*10^-5 TNGM-75-4 24.51 150.00 176.79 65.00 55.00 14 0.00 0.00 22.0 0.953 203.06 24.51 150.00 176.79 65.00 50.00 23 0.00 0.00 22.0 0.953 183.99 TNGM-75-4 25.06 150.00 176.79 65.00 55.00 20 0.00 0.00 22.0 0.953 152.38 25.06 150.00 176.79 65.00 55.00 20 0.00 0.00 22.0 0.953 152.38 25.06 150.00 176.79 65.00 55.00 20 0.00 0.00 22.0 0.953 152.38 25.06 150.00 176.79 65.00 55.00 20 0.00 0.00 22.0 0.953 152.38 TNGM-75-4 25.06 150.00 176.79 65.00 50.00 32 0.00 0.00 22.0 0.953 135.05 25.06 150.00 176.79 65.00 50.00 32 0.00 0.00 22.0 0.953 135.05 25.06 150.00 176.79 65.00 50.00 31 0.00 0.00 22.0 0.953 139.41 25.06 150.00 176.79 65.00 50.00 32 0.00 0.00 22.0 0.953 135.05 Average= 160.7 Sample ID Ht. (mm) Ave.Dia. (mm) Sample A (cm 2 ) Start ht. (cm) end ht. (cm) Time (s) k (cm/s) k@20 C Water Temp (?C) Sample ID Ht. (mm) Ave.Dia. (mm) Sample A (cm 2 ) Start ht. (cm) end ht. (cm) Time (s) k (cm/s) k@20 C Water Temp (?C) Sample ID Ht. (mm) Ave.Dia. (mm) Sample A (cm 2 ) Start ht. (cm) end ht. (cm) Time (s) k (cm/s) k@20 C Water Temp (?C) Sample ID Ht. (mm) Ave.Dia. (mm) Sample A (cm 2 ) Start ht. (cm) end ht. (cm) Time (s) k (cm/s) k@20 C Water Temp (?C) Sample ID Ht. (mm) Ave.Dia. (mm) Sample A (cm2) Start ht. (cm) end ht. (cm) Time (s) k (cm/s) k@20 C Water Temp (?C) 226 Rt Permeabiliby cm/s*10^-5 FL adj-50-4 26.69 151.30 179.86 65.00 50.00 30 0.0015 0.0015 20.0 1.000 151.70 26.69 151.30 179.86 65.00 50.00 31 0.0015 0.0015 20.0 1.000 146.81 26.69 151.30 179.86 65.00 50.00 32 0.0014 0.0014 20.0 1.000 142.22 26.69 151.30 179.86 65.00 50.00 33 0.0014 0.0014 20.0 1.000 137.91 FL adj-50-4 26.29 150.90 178.91 65.00 50.00 24 0.0019 0.0019 20.0 1.000 187.92 26.29 150.90 178.91 65.00 50.00 25 0.0018 0.0018 20.0 1.000 180.41 26.29 150.90 178.91 65.00 50.00 26 0.0017 0.0017 20.0 1.000 173.47 26.29 150.90 178.91 65.00 50.00 27 0.0017 0.0017 20.0 1.000 167.04 Average= 177.21 Rt Permeabiliby cm/s*10^-5 FL adj-75-6 26.30 151.30 179.86 65.00 50.00 36 0.0012 0.0012 20.0 1 124.66 26.30 151.30 179.86 65.00 50.00 36 0.0012 0.0012 20.0 1 124.66 26.30 151.30 179.86 65.00 50.00 36 0.0012 0.0012 20.0 1 124.66 26.30 151.30 179.86 65.00 50.00 37 0.0012 0.0012 20.0 1 121.30 Average= 123.82 Rt Permeabiliby cm/s*10^-5 WI adj-50-4 26.24 150.26 177.40 65.00 55.00 119 0.0003 0.0002 26.0 0.869 23.58 26.24 150.26 177.40 65.00 55.00 123 0.0003 0.0002 26.0 0.869 22.82 26.24 150.26 177.40 65.00 55.00 123 0.0003 0.0002 26.0 0.869 22.82 26.24 150.26 177.40 65.00 55.00 122 0.0003 0.0002 26.0 0.869 23.00 WI adj-50-4 27.65 150.51 177.99 65.00 55.00 72 0.0005 0.0004 26.0 0.869 40.83 27.65 150.51 177.99 65.00 55.00 77 0.0004 0.0004 26.0 0.869 38.18 27.65 150.51 177.99 65.00 55.00 76 0.0004 0.0004 26.0 0.869 38.68 27.65 150.51 177.99 65.00 55.00 78 0.0004 0.0004 26.0 0.869 37.69 Average= 31.0 Rt Permeabiliby cm/s*10^-5 WI adj-50-6 25.18 150.26 177.40 65.00 55.00 34 0.0009 0.0008 26.0 0.869 79.37 25.18 150.26 177.40 65.00 55.00 34 0.0009 0.0008 26.0 0.869 79.37 25.18 150.26 177.40 65.00 55.00 34 0.0009 0.0008 26.0 0.869 79.37 25.18 150.26 177.40 65.00 55.00 34 0.0009 0.0008 26.0 0.869 79.37 WI adj-50-6 24.06 150.51 177.99 65.00 55.00 33 0.0009 0.0008 26.0 0.869 78.04 24.06 150.51 177.99 65.00 55.00 33 0.0009 0.0008 26.0 0.869 78.04 24.06 150.51 177.99 65.00 55.00 34 0.0009 0.0008 26.0 0.869 75.74 24.06 150.51 177.99 65.00 55.00 34 0.0009 0.0008 26.0 0.869 75.74 Average= 78.1 Rt Permeabiliby cm/s*10^-5 GA-1 25.50 150.14 177.12 65.00 50.00 37 0.0012 0.0011 22.0 0.953 114.00 25.50 150.14 177.12 65.00 50.00 36 0.0012 0.0012 22.0 0.953 117.16 25.50 150.14 177.12 65.00 50.00 37 0.0012 0.0011 22.0 0.953 114.00 25.50 150.14 177.12 65.00 50.00 38 0.0012 0.0011 22.0 0.953 111.00 GA-2 27.70 150.45 177.85 65.00 50.00 44 0.0011 0.0010 22.0 0.953 103.26 27.70 150.45 177.85 65.00 50.00 45 0.0011 0.0010 22.0 0.953 100.96 27.70 150.45 177.85 65.00 50.00 45 0.0011 0.0010 22.0 0.953 100.96 27.70 150.45 177.85 65.00 50.00 46 0.0010 0.0010 22.0 0.953 98.77 Average= 107.5 Sample ID Ht. (mm) Ave.Dia. (mm) Sample A (cm 2 ) Start ht. (cm) end ht. (cm) Time (s) k (cm/s) k@20 C Water Temp (?C) Sample ID Ht. (mm) Ave.Dia. (mm) Sample A (cm 2 ) Start ht. (cm) end ht. (cm) Time (s) k (cm/s) k@20 C Water Temp (?C) Sample ID Ht. (mm) Ave.Dia. (mm) Sample A (cm 2 ) Start ht. (cm) end ht. (cm) Time (s) k (cm/s) k@20 C Water Temp (?C) Sample ID Ht. (mm) Ave.Dia. (mm) Sample A (cm 2 ) Start ht. (cm) end ht. (cm) Time (s) k (cm/s) k@20 C Water Temp (?C) Sample ID Ht. (mm) Ave.Dia. (mm) Sample A (cm 2 ) Start ht. (cm) end ht. (cm) Time (s) k (cm/s) k@20 C Water Temp (?C) 227 Rt Permeabiliby cm/s*10^-5 MD-2 26.33 150.83 178.75 65.00 50.00 55 0.0008 0.0008 23.0 0.931 76.53 26.33 150.83 178.75 65.00 50.00 60 0.0008 0.0007 23.0 0.931 70.15 26.33 150.83 178.75 65.00 50.00 66 0.0007 0.0006 23.0 0.931 63.77 26.33 150.83 178.75 65.00 50.00 71 0.0006 0.0006 23.0 0.931 59.28 MD-4 26.35 150.74 178.53 65.00 50.00 67 0.0007 0.0006 23.0 0.931 62.94 26.35 150.74 178.53 65.00 50.00 75 0.0006 0.0006 23.0 0.931 56.23 26.35 150.74 178.53 65.00 50.00 80 0.0006 0.0005 23.0 0.931 52.71 26.35 150.74 178.53 65.00 50.00 85 0.0005 0.0005 23.0 0.931 49.61 Average= 61.4 Rt Permeabiliby cm/s*10^-5 MI 26.60 150.26 177.40 65.00 50.00 44 0.0010 0.0010 20.0 1 104.53 26.60 150.26 177.40 65.00 50.00 44 0.0010 0.0010 20.0 1 104.53 26.60 150.26 177.40 65.00 50.00 43 0.0011 0.0011 20.0 1 106.96 26.60 150.26 177.40 65.00 50.00 43 0.0011 0.0011 20.0 1 106.96 MI 25.90 150.51 177.99 65.00 50.00 52 0.0009 0.0009 20.0 1 85.96 25.90 150.51 177.99 65.00 50.00 52 0.0009 0.0009 20.0 1 85.96 25.90 150.51 177.99 65.00 50.00 52 0.0009 0.0009 20.0 1 85.96 25.90 150.51 177.99 65.00 50.00 52 0.0009 0.0009 20.0 1 85.96 Average= 95.9 Rt Permeabiliby cm/s*10^-5 MS-3 26.61 150.33 177.56 65.00 50.00 116 0.0004 0.0004 22.0 0.953 37.77 26.61 150.33 177.56 65.00 50.00 118 0.0004 0.0004 22.0 0.953 37.13 26.61 150.33 177.56 65.00 50.00 122 0.0004 0.0004 22.0 0.953 35.91 26.61 150.33 177.56 65.00 50.00 124 0.0004 0.0004 22.0 0.953 35.33 MS-4 26.74 150.51 177.99 65.00 50.00 73 0.0006 0.0006 22.0 0.953 60.14 26.74 150.51 177.99 65.00 50.00 73 0.0006 0.0006 22.0 0.953 60.14 26.74 150.51 177.99 65.00 50.00 74 0.0006 0.0006 22.0 0.953 59.33 26.74 150.51 177.99 65.00 50.00 74 0.0006 0.0006 22.0 0.953 59.33 Average= 48.1 Rt Permeabiliby cm/s*10^-5 CT-50-4 25.18 150.26 177.40 65.00 50.00 37 0.0012 0.0012 20.0 1 118.00 25.18 150.26 177.40 65.00 50.00 36 0.0012 0.0012 20.0 1 121.28 25.18 150.26 177.40 65.00 50.00 37 0.0012 0.0012 20.0 1 118.00 25.18 150.26 177.40 65.00 50.00 37 0.0012 0.0012 20.0 1 118.00 CT-50-4 24.06 150.51 177.99 65.00 50.00 64 0.0007 0.0007 20.0 1 65.11 24.06 150.51 177.99 65.00 50.00 65 0.0006 0.0006 20.0 1 64.11 24.06 150.51 177.99 65.00 50.00 66 0.0006 0.0006 20.0 1 63.14 24.06 150.51 177.99 65.00 50.00 66 0.0006 0.0006 20.0 1 63.14 Average= 91.3 Rt Permeabiliby cm/s*10^-5 CT-50-6 25.05 150.26 177.40 65.00 50.00 48 0.0009 0.0009 20.0 1.000 90.51 25.05 150.26 177.40 65.00 50.00 50 0.0009 0.0009 20.0 1.000 86.89 25.05 150.26 177.40 65.00 50.00 52 0.0008 0.0008 20.0 1.000 83.55 25.05 150.26 177.40 65.00 50.00 54 0.0008 0.0008 20.0 1.000 80.46 CT-50-6 26.70 150.51 177.99 65.00 50.00 32 0.0014 0.0014 20.0 1.000 143.77 26.70 150.51 177.99 65.00 50.00 33 0.0014 0.0014 20.0 1.000 139.41 26.70 150.51 177.99 65.00 50.00 34 0.0014 0.0014 20.0 1.000 135.31 26.70 150.51 177.99 65.00 50.00 35 0.0013 0.0013 20.0 1.000 131.44 Average= 111.4 Time (s) k (cm/s) k@20 C Water Temp (?C) Water Temp (?C) Sample ID Ht. (mm) Ave.Dia. (mm) Sample A (cm 2 ) Start ht. (cm) end ht. (cm) Time (s) k (cm/s) k@20 C Start ht. (cm) end ht. (cm)Sample ID Ht. (mm) Ave.Dia. (mm) Sample A (cm 2 ) Sample ID Ht. (mm) Ave.Dia. (mm) Sample A (cm 2 ) Start ht. (cm) end ht. (cm) Water Temp (?C)Time (s) k (cm/s) k@20 C Time (s) k (cm/s) k@20 C Water Temp (?C)Sample ID Ht. (mm) Ave.Dia. (mm) Sample A (cm 2 ) Start ht. (cm) end ht. (cm) Sample ID Ht. (mm) Ave.Dia. (mm) Sample A (cm 2 ) Start ht. (cm) end ht. (cm) Time (s) k (cm/s) k@20 C Water Temp (?C) 228 229 Appendix E Fracture Energy Data Sample ID Mix Id Ndes design Va% AC% Cure time FE (Kpa) Air voids al1bd1 Al 50 4.0 7.4 0 2.391 9.2 al2ad1 Al 50 4.0 7.4 0 3.519 8.7 alad1 Al 50 4.0 7.4 0 4.787 8.7 average 3.566 8.9 stdev 1.199 0.3 al2bd6 Al 50 4.0 7.4 6 4.497 8.8 al3bd6 Al 50 4.0 7.4 6 2.587 9.1 al4ad6 Al 50 4.0 7.4 6 3.865 8.7 average 3.650 8.9 stdev 0.973 0.2 Difference = (0.08) Kpa p-value= 0.929 Ratio = 102% Sample ID Mix Id Ndes design Va% AC% Cure time FE (Kpa) Air voids al7ad1 Al 50 6.0 6.9 0 7.660 8.8 al8ad1 Al 50 6.0 6.9 0 3.915 9.4 al6ad1 Al 50 6.0 6.9 0 5.036 8.9 al3bd1 Al 50 6.0 6.9 0 7.774 8.5 average 6.096 8.9 stdev 1.927 0.4 al3ad6 AL 50 6.0 6.9 6 5.130 9.3 al2ad6 AL 50 6.0 6.9 6 3.087 8.8 al4ad6 AL 50 6.0 6.9 6 5.155 8.9 al5ad6 AL 50 6.0 6.9 6 5.996 8.7 average 4.842 8.9 stdev 1.237 0.3 Difference = 1.25 Kpa p-value= 0.315 Ratio = 79% Sample ID Mix Id Ndes design Va% AC% Cure time FE (Kpa) Air voids mo698ad1 Mo 50 4.0 6.9 0 6.750 9.0 mo695ad1 Mo 50 4.0 6.9 0 4.216 9.5 mo696ad1 Mo 50 4.0 6.9 0 7.705 9.3 mo698bd1 Mo 50 4.0 6.9 0 4.706 8.7 average 5.844 9.1 stdev 1.656 0.4 mo692bd6 Mo 50 4.0 6.9 6 3.415 8.9 mo693ad6 Mo 50 4.0 6.9 6 3.558 9.3 mo694ad6 Mo 50 4.0 6.9 6 3.441 9.3 mo697ad6 Mo 50 4.0 6.9 6 3.400 9.2 average 3.454 9.2 stdev 0.072 0.2 Difference = 2.39 Kpa p-value= 0.028 Ratio = 59% 230 Sample ID Mix Id Ndes design Va% AC% Cure time FE (Kpa) Air voids tn736ad1 Tn 50 4.0 7.3 0 3.273 8.7 tn732ad1 Tn 50 4.0 7.3 0 2.436 8.8 tn733ad1 Tn 50 4.0 7.3 0 3.873 9.0 tn738ad1 Tn 50 4.0 7.3 0 5.230 8.7 average 3.703 8.8 stdev 1.176 0.1 tn731ad6 Tn 50 4.0 7.3 6 1.396 8.8 tn734ad6 Tn 50 4.0 7.3 6 2.042 8.7 tn735ad6 Tn 50 4.0 7.3 6 2.815 8.8 tn737ad6 Tn 50 4.0 7.3 6 2.563 8.9 average 2.204 8.8 stdev 0.628 0.1 Difference = 1.50 Kpa p-value= 0.066 Ratio = 60% Sample ID Mix Id Ndes design Va% AC% Cure time FE (Kpa) Air voids tn689a1 Tn 75 4.0 6.8 0 2.04 8.5 tn6810a1 Tn 75 4.0 6.8 0 2.79 8.6 tn6811a1 Tn 75 4.0 6.8 0 3.09 8.5 tn6812a1 Tn 75 4.0 6.8 0 3.54 8.5 average 2.86 8.5 stdev 0.63 0.0 tn681ad6 Tn 75 4.0 6.8 6 2.33 8.7 tn682ad6 Tn 75 4.0 6.8 6 2.07 8.6 tn683ad6 Tn 75 4.0 6.8 6 2.46 8.5 average 2.29 8.6 stdev 0.20 0.1 Difference = 0.58 Kpa p-value= 0.193 Ratio = 80% Sample ID Mix Id Ndes design Va% AC% Cure time FE (Kpa) Air voids NH972D1 NH 50 4.0 9.7 0 5.201 9.5 NH973D1 NH 50 4.0 9.7 0 5.476 9.4 NH977D1 NH 50 4.0 9.7 0 4.278 9.2 NH979D1 NH 50 4.0 9.7 0 6.846 9.5 average 5.450 9.4 stdev 1.062 0.1 NH976D6 NH 50 4.0 9.7 6 7.560 9.4 NH975D6 NH 50 4.0 9.7 6 6.792 9.4 NH974D6 NH 50 4.0 9.7 6 8.540 9.4 NH978D6 NH 50 4.0 9.7 6 6.912 9.4 average 7.451 9.4 stdev 0.801 0.0 Difference = (2.00) Kpa p-value= 0.024 Ratio = 137% 231 Sample ID Mix Id Ndes design Va% AC% Cure time FE (Kpa) Air voids VA8822D1 VA 50 4.0 8.8 0 4.584 9.5 VA8832D1 VA 50 4.0 8.8 0 3.810 9.2 VA8852D1 VA 50 4.0 8.8 0 5.890 9.5 VA8881D1 VA 50 4.0 8.8 0 3.872 9.5 average 4.539 9.4 stdev 0.967 0.1 VA884D6 VA 50 4.0 8.8 6 1.686 9.5 VA887D6 VA 50 4.0 8.8 6 1.752 9.4 VA8812D6 VA 50 4.0 8.8 6 4.520 9.2 VA8842D6 VA 50 4.0 8.8 6 4.326 9.4 average 3.071 9.4 stdev 1.563 0.1 Difference = 1.47 Kpa p-value= 0.161 Ratio = 67.7% Sample ID Mix Id Ndes design Va% AC% Cure time FE (Kpa) Air voids MI4D1 MI 60 4.0 6.0 0 7.216 9.1 MI6D1 MI 60 4.0 6.0 0 8.567 9.1 MI7D1 MI 60 4.0 6.0 0 6.033 9.1 MI8D1 MI 60 4.0 6.0 0 7.151 9.3 average 7.242 9.2 stdev 1.037 0.1 MI1D6 MI 60 4.0 6.0 6 4.286 9.1 MI2D6 MI 60 4.0 6.0 6 5.607 9.3 MI3D1 MI 60 4.0 6.0 6 3.659 9.1 MI5D1 MI 60 4.0 6.0 6 6.183 9.0 average 4.934 9.1 stdev 1.163 0.1 Difference = 2.31 Kpa p-value= 0.025 Ratio = 68.1% Sample ID Mix Id Ndes design Va% AC% Cure time FE (Kpa) Air voids MN888D1 MN 50 4.0 8.8 0 9.142 8.6 MN884D1 MN 50 4.0 8.8 0 6.592 8.6 MN886D1 MN 50 4.0 8.8 0 7.741 8.7 MN889D1 MN 50 4.0 8.8 0 7.736 8.8 average 7.803 8.7 stdev 1.044 0.1 MN881D6 MN 50 4.0 8.8 6 9.711 8.7 MN882D6 MN 50 4.0 8.8 6 10.623 8.9 MN883D6 MN 50 4.0 8.8 6 7.753 8.6 MN885D6 MN 50 4.0 8.8 6 7.656 8.7 average 8.936 8.7 stdev 1.470 0.1 Difference = (1.13) Kpa p-value= 0.256 Ratio = 114.5% 232 Sample ID Mix Id Ndes design Va% AC% Cure time FE (Kpa) Air voids MN836D1 MN 75 4.0 8.3 0 7.016 8.8 MN837D1 MN 75 4.0 8.3 0 8.709 8.7 MN838D1 MN 75 4.0 8.3 0 6.309 8.7 MN839D1 MN 75 4.0 8.3 0 7.474 8.6 average 7.377 8.7 stdev 1.009 0.1 MN832D6 MN 75 4.0 8.3 6 7.924 8.5 MN833D6 MN 75 4.0 8.3 6 8.862 8.8 MN834D6 MN 75 4.0 8.3 6 7.872 8.8 MN835D6 MN 75 4.0 8.3 6 7.678 8.6 average 8.084 8.7 stdev 0.529 0.1 Difference = (0.71) Kpa p-value= 0.261 Ratio = 109.6% Sample ID Mix Id Ndes design Va% AC% Cure time FE (Kpa) Air voids MO622AD1 Mo 50 6.0 6.9 0 3.958 8.5 MO623AD1 Mo 50 6.0 6.9 0 5.060 8.6 MO6223D1 Mo 50 6.0 6.9 0 5.115 9.1 MO6273D1 Mo 50 6.0 6.9 0 4.910 9.3 average 4.761 8.9 stdev 0.542 0.4 MO6233D6 Mo 50 6.0 6.9 6 3.295 8.9 MO6243D6 Mo 50 6.0 6.9 6 4.352 9.3 MO6253D6 Mo 50 6.0 6.9 6 3.148 9.1 MO6263D6 Mo 50 6.0 6.9 6 3.226 9.1 average 3.505 9.1 stdev 0.568 0.2 Difference = 1.26 Kpa p-value= 0.024 Ratio = 74% Sample ID Mix Id Ndes design Va% AC% Cure time FE (Kpa) Air voids VA831D1 VA 75 4.0 8.3 0 6.295 9.3 VA832D1 VA 75 4.0 8.3 0 6.224 9.4 VA833D1 VA 75 4.0 8.3 0 4.878 9.4 VA836D1 VA 75 4.0 8.3 0 8.066 9.2 8.3 average 6.366 9.3 stdev 1.308 0.1 VA834D6 VA 75 4.0 8.3 6 5.865 9.4 VA835D6 VA 75 4.0 8.3 6 6.553 9.4 VA837D6 VA 75 4.0 8.3 6 6.392 9.2 VA838D6 VA 75 4.0 8.3 6 4.338 9.3 average 5.787 9.3 stdev 1.010 0.1 Difference = 0.58 Kpa p-value= 0.51 Ratio = 91% 233 Sample ID Mix Id Ndes design Va% AC% Cure time FE (Kpa) Air voids WI672D1 WI 50 6.0 6.7 0 5.982 9.4 WI675D1 WI 50 6.0 6.7 0 7.389 9.0 WI676D1 WI 50 6.0 6.7 0 6.154 9.1 WI679D1 WI 50 6.0 6.7 0 4.683 8.6 average 6.052 9.0 stdev 1.107 0.3 WI673D6 WI 50 6.0 6.7 6 5.067 9.2 WI674D6 WI 50 6.0 6.7 6 5.034 9.1 WI677D6 WI 50 6.0 6.7 6 5.242 8.9 WI678D6 WI 50 6.0 6.7 6 5.322 9.0 average 5.166 9.1 stdev 0.138 0.1 Difference = 0.89 Kpa p-value= 0.163 Ratio = 85% Sample ID Mix Id Ndes design Va% AC% Cure time FE (Kpa) Air voids WI752D1 WI 50 4.0 7.5 0 6.225 8.7 WI755D1 WI 50 4.0 7.5 0 5.787 9.2 WI757D1 WI 50 4.0 7.5 0 5.318 9.0 WI758D1 WI 50 4.0 7.5 0 4.700 8.9 average 5.508 9.0 stdev 0.653 0.2 WI753D6 WI 50 4.0 7.5 6 4.020 9.2 W1754D6 WI 50 4.0 7.5 6 2.836 9.2 WI756D6 WI 50 4.0 7.5 6 7.339 8.9 WI759D6 WI 50 4.0 7.5 6 5.959 9.1 average 5.039 9.1 stdev 2.002 0.1 Difference = 0.47 Kpa p-value= 0.686 Ratio = 91% Sample ID Mix Id Ndes design Va% AC% Cure time FE (Kpa) Air voids NH865D1 NH 75 6.0 8.6 0 5.946 9.3 NH866D1 NH 75 6.0 8.6 0 8.140 9.5 NH867D1 NH 75 6.0 8.6 0 7.574 9.3 NH868D1 NH 75 6.0 8.6 0 6.584 9.2 average 7.061 9.3 stdev 0.983 0.1 NH861D6 NH 75 6.0 8.6 6 7.857 9.3 NH862D6 NH 75 6.0 8.6 6 6.550 9.2 NH863D6 NH 75 6.0 8.6 6 7.758 9.5 NH864D6 NH 75 6.0 8.6 6 7.736 9.4 average 7.475 9.4 stdev 0.619 0.1 Difference = (0.41) Kpa p-value= 0.502 Ratio = 106% 234 Sample ID Mix Id Ndes design Va% AC% Cure time FE (Kpa) Air voids NH931D1 NH 75 4.0 0 4.018 9.1 NH934D1 NH 75 4.0 0 6.086 9.3 NH937D1 NH 75 4.0 0 5.682 9.0 NH939D1 NH 75 4.0 0 7.831 9.2 average 5.904 9.2 stdev 1.566 0.1 NH933D6 NH 75 4.0 6 5.354 9.3 NH935D6 NH 75 4.0 6 4.687 9.5 NH936D6 NH 75 4.0 6 6.308 9.0 NH938D6 NH 75 4.0 6 6.513 9.1 average 5.716 9.2 stdev 0.852 0.2 Difference = 0.19 Kpa p-value= 0.839 Ratio = 97% Sample ID Mix Id Ndes design Va% AC% Cure time FE (Kpa) Air voids MN745D1 MN 75 6.0 7.4 0 5.692 8.6 MN753D1 MN 75 6.0 7.4 0 6.116 8.5 MN748D1 MN 75 6.0 7.4 0 8.113 8.7 MN749D1 MN 75 6.0 7.4 0 6.000 8.7 average 6.480 8.6 stdev 1.103 0.1 MN746D6 MN 75 6.0 7.4 6 4.628 8.5 MN744D6 MN 75 6.0 7.4 6 6.653 8.5 MN747D6 MN 75 6.0 7.4 6 7.096 8.9 MN742D6 MN 75 6.0 7.4 6 5.911 8.6 average 6.072 8.6 stdev 1.080 0.2 Difference = 0.41 Kpa p-value= 0.616 Ratio = 94% Sample ID Mix Id Ndes design Va% AC% Cure time FE (Kpa) Air voids TNGM976D1 TNGM 50 4.0 9.7 0 5.832 9.2 TNGM979D1 TNGM 50 4.0 9.7 0 5.795 9.7 TNGM978D1 TNGM 50 4.0 9.7 0 4.740 9.2 0 average 5.456 9.4 stdev 0.620 0.3 TNGM973D6 TNGM 50 4.0 9.7 6 6.685 9.7 TNGM975D6 TNGM 50 4.0 9.7 6 6.775 9.5 TNGM974D6 TNGM 50 4.0 9.7 6 6.040 8.9 TNGM972D6 TNGM 50 4.0 9.7 6 6.983 9.2 average 6.621 9.3 stdev 0.407 0.4 Difference = (1.17) Kpa p-value= 0.029 Ratio = 121% 235 Sample ID Mix Id Ndes design Va% AC% Cure time FE (Kpa) Air voids CT881D1 CT 50 4.0 8.8 0 5.906 8.5 CT882D1 CT 50 4.0 8.8 0 5.302 8.8 0 0 average 5.604 8.7 stdev 0.427 0.2 CT883D6 CT 50 4.0 8.8 6 8.797 8.6 CT884D6 CT 50 4.0 8.8 6 8.169 8.5 6 6 average 8.483 8.6 stdev 0.444 0.1 Difference = (2.88) Kpa p-value= 0.022 Ratio = 151% Sample ID Mix Id Ndes design Va% AC% Cure time FE (Kpa) Air voids CT721D1 CT 50 6.0 7.2 0 7.857 8.5 CT722D1 CT 50 6.0 7.2 0 5.935 8.5 0 0 average 6.896 8.5 stdev 1.359 0.0 CT723D6 CT 50 6.0 7.2 6 8.423 8.5 CT724D6 CT 50 6.0 7.2 6 5.874 8.8 6 6 average 7.149 8.7 stdev 1.802 0.2 Difference = (0.25) Kpa p-value= 0.889 Ratio = 104% Sample ID Mix Id Ndes design Va% AC% Cure time FE (Kpa) Air voids FL115D1 FL 75 4.0 11.0 0 4.938 8.7 FL111D1 FL 75 4.0 11.0 0 5.152 8.5 FL112D1 FL 75 4.0 11.0 0 5.120 8.9 0 average 5.070 8.7 stdev 0.115 0.2 FL114D6 FL 75 4.0 11.0 6 5.323 8.5 FL116D6 FL 75 4.0 11.0 6 3.529 8.8 FL113D6 FL 75 4.0 11.0 6 4.571 8.7 6 average 4.474 8.7 stdev 0.901 0.2 Difference = 0.60 Kpa p-value= 0.319 Ratio = 88% 236 Sample ID Mix Id Ndes design Va% AC% Cure time FE (Kpa) Air voids FL1185D1 FL 50 4.0 11.8 0 3.380 8.6 FL1183D1 FL 50 4.0 11.8 0 4.878 8.5 FL1184D1 FL 50 4.0 11.8 0 5.229 8.5 0 average 4.496 8.5 stdev 0.982 0.1 FL1186D6 FL 50 4.0 11.8 6 6.046 9.2 FL1181D6 FL 50 4.0 11.8 6 6.738 8.7 FL1182D6 FL 50 4.0 11.8 6 4.385 8.7 6 average 5.723 8.9 stdev 1.209 0.3 Difference = (1.23) Kpa p-value= 0.244 Ratio = 127% Sample ID Mix Id Ndes design Va% AC% Cure time FE (Kpa) Air voids FL1012D1 FL 75 6.0 10.1 0 5.095 9.5 FL1013D1 FL 75 6.0 10.1 0 6.666 9.5 FL1011D1 FL 75 6.0 10.1 0 5.251 9.1 0 average 5.671 9.4 stdev 0.866 0.2 FL1016D6 FL 75 6.0 10.1 6 5.687 9.5 FL1014D6 FL 75 6.0 10.1 6 5.637 9.0 FL1015D6 FL 75 6.0 10.1 6 4.723 9.5 6 average 5.349 9.3 stdev 0.543 0.3 Difference = 0.32 Kpa p-value= 0.614 Ratio = 94% Sample ID Mix Id Ndes design Va% AC% Cure time FE (Kpa) Air voids VA873BD1 VAadj 75 4.0 8.7 0 6.679 9.1 VA871AD1 VAadj 75 4.0 8.7 0 6.011 9.3 VA871BD1 VAadj 75 4.0 8.7 0 5.733 9.3 VA872AD1 VAadj 75 4.0 8.7 0 4.329 8.6 average 5.688 9.1 stdev 0.989 0.3 VA875AD6 VAadj 75 4.0 8.7 6 5.683 9.0 VA874AD6 VAadj 75 4.0 8.7 6 4.948 9.2 6 6 average 5.316 9.1 stdev 0.520 0.1 Difference = 0.37 Kpa p-value= 0.656 Ratio = 93% 237 Sample ID Mix Id Ndes design Va% AC% Cure time FE (Kpa) Air voids VA93AD1 VAadj 50 4.0 9.1 0 6.375 9.1 VA91AD1 VAadj 50 4.0 9.1 0 5.938 9.1 VA92BD1 VAadj 50 4.0 9.1 0 4.943 8.9 4.0 0 average 5.752 9.0 stdev 0.734 0.1 VA95BD6 VAadj 50 4.0 9.1 6 7.768 9.2 VA94BD6 VAadj 50 4.0 9.1 6 7.692 8.8 VA95AD6 VAadj 50 4.0 9.1 6 7.278 9.4 6 average 7.579 9.1 stdev 0.264 0.3 Difference = (1.83) Kpa p-value= 0.056 Ratio = 132% Sample ID Mix Id Ndes design Va% AC% Cure time FE (Kpa) Air voids MD4BD1 MD 75 3.5 6.5 0 4.273 9.3 MD5BD1 MD 75 3.5 6.5 0 5.673 9.1 MD5D1 MD 75 3.5 6.5 0 6.092 8.5 MD2BD1 MD 75 3.5 6.5 0 6.290 9.5 average 5.582 9.1 stdev 0.910 0.4 MD3BD6 MD 75 3.5 6.5 6 4.660 9.1 MD1BD6 MD 75 3.5 6.5 6 5.118 9.5 MD3D6 MD 75 3.5 6.5 6 4.362 8.5 MD4D6 MD 75 3.5 6.5 6 3.628 8.6 average 4.442 8.9 stdev 0.625 0.5 Difference = 1.14 Kpa p-value= 0.084 Ratio = 80% Sample ID Mix Id Ndes design Va% AC% Cure time FE (Kpa) Air voids FL108D1 Fladj 50 4.0 10.0 0 4.880 8.9 FL109D1 Fladj 50 4.0 10.0 0 4.888 9.5 FL106D1 Fladj 50 4.0 10.0 0 5.020 9.2 FL107D1 Fladj 50 4.0 10.0 0 5.600 9.5 average 5.097 9.3 stdev 0.341 0.3 FL103D6 Fladj 50 4.0 10.0 6 4.460 9.4 FL104D6 Fladj 50 4.0 10.0 6 6.331 9.1 FL105D6 Fladj 50 4.0 10.0 6 4.368 9.4 FL102D6 Fladj 50 4.0 10.0 6 5.943 9.2 average 5.276 9.3 stdev 1.008 0.2 Difference = (0.18) Kpa p-value= 0.749 Ratio = 104% 238 Sample ID Mix Id Ndes design Va% AC% Cure time FE (Kpa) Air voids WI634D1 WI 50 6.0 6.3 0 4.052 8.8 WI633D1 WI 50 6.0 6.3 0 5.652 8.5 WI635D1 WI 50 6.0 6.3 0 4.658 8.6 0 average 4.787 8.6 stdev 0.808 0.2 WI636D6 WI 50 6.0 6.3 6 2.951 8.6 WI638D6 WI 50 6.0 6.3 6 4.156 8.8 WI637D6 WI 50 6.0 6.3 6 3.788 8.7 WI639D6 WI 50 6.0 6.3 6 4.538 8.5 average 3.858 8.7 stdev 0.678 0.1 Difference = 0.93 Kpa p-value= 0.158 Ratio = 81% Sample ID Mix Id Ndes design Va% AC% Cure time FE (Kpa) Air voids WI687D1 WI 50 4.0 6.8 0 6.756 9.9 WI683D1 WI 50 4.0 6.8 0 5.553 9.5 WI686D1 WI 50 4.0 6.8 0 8.104 9.0 0 average 6.804 9.5 stdev 1.276 0.5 WI689D6 WI 50 4.0 6.8 6 4.669 9.9 WI684D6 WI 50 4.0 6.8 6 6.012 9.3 WI685D6 WI 50 4.0 6.8 6 6.317 9.0 WI688D6 WI 50 4.0 6.8 6 5.288 9.2 average 5.572 9.4 stdev 0.740 0.4 Difference = 1.23 Kpa p-value= 0.164 Ratio = 82% Sample ID Mix Id Ndes design Va% AC% Cure time FE (Kpa) Air voids FL915D1 FL adj 75 6.0 9.1 0 6.000 FL916D1 FL adj 75 6.0 9.1 0 6.146 FL917D1 FL adj 75 6.0 9.1 0 5.537 0 average 5.894 #DIV/0! stdev 0.318 #DIV/0! FL913D1 FL adj 75 6.0 9.1 6 5.442 FL914D1 FL adj 75 6.0 9.1 6 3.188 FL911D6 FL adj 75 6.0 9.1 6 3.421 FL912D6 FL adj 75 6.0 9.1 6 2.127 average 3.545 #DIV/0! stdev 1.385 #DIV/0! Difference = 2.35 Kpa p-value= 0.037 Ratio = 60% 239 Sample ID Mix Id Ndes design Va% AC% Cure time FE (Kpa) Air voids TNGM933D1 TNGM 75 4.0 9.3 0 5.640 8.5 TNGM932D1 TNGM 75 4.0 9.3 0 4.487 8.5 0 0 average 5.064 8.5 stdev 0.815 0.0 TNGM934D6 TNGM 75 4.0 9.3 6 5.761 8.7 TNGM931D6 TNGM 75 4.0 9.3 6 4.015 9.0 6 6 average 4.888 8.9 stdev 1.235 0.2 Difference = 0.18 Kpa p-value= 0.882 Ratio = 97% Sample ID Mix Id Ndes design Va% AC% Cure time FE (Kpa) Air voids GA6D1 GA 50 6.0 6.0 0 4.835 GA4D1 GA 50 6.0 6.0 0 4.346 GA5D1 GA 50 6.0 6.0 0 5.481 0 average 4.887 #DIV/0! stdev 0.569 #DIV/0! GA1D6 GA 50 6.0 6.0 6 3.911 GA3D6 GA 50 6.0 6.0 6 3.331 GA2D6 GA 50 6.0 6.0 6 4.606 6 average 3.949 #DIV/0! stdev 0.638 #DIV/0! Difference = 0.94 Kpa p-value= Ratio = 81% 240