Refinement of AASHTO T 209

123 Pages·2011·1.55 MB·English

Project No. 10-87 7/02/10

REFINEMENT OF AASHTO T 209
FINAL REPORT

Prepared for
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
Transportation Research Board
National Research Council

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD
NAS-NRC
PRIVILEGED DOCUMENT
This report, not released for publication, is furnished only for review to
members of or participants in the work of the National Cooperative
Highway Research Program (NCHRP). It is to be regarded as fully
privileged, and dissemination of information included herein must be
approved by the NCHRP.

Haleh Azari, Ph.D.
AASHTO Advanced Pavement Research Program
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Gaithersburg, Maryland

October 2010
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SPONSORSHIP

This work was sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, in
cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration, and was conducted in the National Cooperative
Highway Research Program, which is administered by the Transportation Research Board of the National
Research Council.

DISCLAIMER

This is an uncorrected draft as submitted by the research agency. The opinions and conclusions expressed
or implied in the report are those of the research agency. They are not necessarily those of the
Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, the Federal Highway Administration, the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, or the individual states
participating in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program.

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................................. VI
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................................. XV I
ABSTRACT
……………………………………………………………………………………….XVII
I
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH APPROACH ................................................. 1
1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Problem Statement ............................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Research Objectives............................................................................................................. 2
1.4 Scope of Study .................................................................................................................... 2
CHAPTER 2. SURVEY OF STATE DOT LABORATORIES ......................................................... 4
2.1 Survey Questions ................................................................................................................. 4
2.2 Test Methods ....................................................................................................................... 4
2.2.1 Arizona ................................................................................................................... 4
2.2.2 Florida .................................................................................................................... 5
2.2.3 Idaho ....................................................................................................................... 5
2.2.4 Illinois .................................................................................................................... 5
2.2.5 Indiana .................................................................................................................... 5
2.2.6 Minnesota ............................................................................................................... 5
2.2.7 New Mexico ........................................................................................................... 6
2.2.8 North Dakota .......................................................................................................... 6
2.2.9 Ontario, Canada ...................................................................................................... 6
2.2.10 Washington ............................................................................................................. 6
iii
2.3 Summary of the Survey Responses ...................................................................................... 6
2.3.1 Question 1: What test method is used to determine Gmm? ....................................... 6
2.3.2 Question 2: Is mechanical or manual agitation used? ............................................... 7
2.3.3 Question 3: If using mechanical agitation, what setup is used? ................................. 7
2.3.4 Question 4: If using mechanical agitation, what brand and model of agitator is used?
............................................................................................................................... 7
2.3.5 Question 5: If using mechanical agitation, can the frequency of agitations be
adjusted? ................................................................................................................. 7
2.3.6 Question 6: If the frequency can be adjusted, how many distinct levels are available?
............................................................................................................................... 8
2.3.7 Question 7: If the frequency can be adjusted, what level is normally used? ............. 8
2.3.8 Question 8: What is the basis of this selection? ........................................................ 8
2.4 Selection of the Devices Based on Survey Results................................................................ 8
CHAPTER 3. DESIGN AND EXECUTION OF THE STUDY ........................................................ 9
3.1 Test Apparatus..................................................................................................................... 9
3.2 Materials and Test Specimens ............................................................................................ 11
3.3 Measurement Process ........................................................................................................ 13
3.4 Test Factorial ..................................................................................................................... 14
CHAPTER 4. TEST RESULTS AND ANALYSIS .......................................................................... 16
4.1 Results of Vibration Measurements .................................................................................... 16
4.2 Gmm Measurements at Various Settings of Vibrating Tables ............................................. 20
4.2.1 Humboldt .............................................................................................................. 21
4.2.2 Gilson ................................................................................................................... 32
4.2.3 Syntron ................................................................................................................. 42
4.2.4 Orbital Shaker ....................................................................................................... 50
4.2.5 Selecting Optimum Settings of Devices ................................................................. 60
iv
4.3 Comparison of Devices and Methods ................................................................................. 61
4.4 Relationship between vibration Properties of the Devices and Highest Gmm ...................... 6 8
4.5 Change in Gmm from Changing the Order of Placing Water and Mixture .......................... 70
4.6 Effect of Vacuum Duration on Gmm Measurement ............................................................ 75
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................ 77
5.1 Summary ........................................................................................................................... 77
5.2 Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................... 78
REFERENCES …………………………………………………………………………………………81
APPENDIX A- RESULTS OF THE SURVEY OF STATES’ LABORATORIES ............................ 83
Results of Survey: Question 1 ...................................................................................................... 83
Results of Survey: Question 2 ...................................................................................................... 85
Results of Survey: Question 3 ...................................................................................................... 87
Results of Survey: Question 4 ...................................................................................................... 89
Results of Survey: Question 5 ...................................................................................................... 91
Results of Survey: Question 6 ...................................................................................................... 93
Results of Survey: Question 7 ...................................................................................................... 95
Results of Survey: Question 8 ...................................................................................................... 97
Results of Survey: Question 9 ...................................................................................................... 99
Pictures of the Setups ................................................................................................................. 101

v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1 Description of the units selected for the Refinement of AASHTO T 209 study ................. 10
Table 3-2 Mix designs of the dense-graded laboratory-prepared and plant-produced mixtures ...... 1 2
Table 3-3 Minimum Sample Sizes for the various mixtures in the study ........................................... 13
Table 3-4 Experimental plan for evaluation of the effect of various factors on maximum specific
gravity measurement; factors include (a) change in vibration, (b) equipment, (c) manual
vs. mechanical, (d) order of placing water and mixture (e), and vacuum/agitation
duration .............................................................................................................................. 15
Table 4-1- Gmm values using Humboldt device at settings of specific importance (setting of highest
Gmm, manual agitation, mid-range setting, and maximum setting) and the differences
between air voids resulted from measurements at the various settings ............................ 23
Table 4-2- Computed F values for comparison of Gmm of 9.5-mm dense-graded field mixture at
various vibration settings of Humboldt device; Critical F value=3.500 and DOF= (7, 8)
for 5% level of significance ................................................................................................ 23
Table 4-3- Computed F values for comparison of Gmm of 19.0-mm dense-graded field mixture at
various vibration settings of Humboldt device; Critical F value=2.723 and DOF= (11, 12)
for 5% level of significance ................................................................................................ 24
Table 4-4- Frequency, acceleration, and kinetic energy of the Humboldt device at the Setting 7 for
measuring Gmm of dense-graded field mixtures .............................................................. 24
Table 4-5- Gmm values using Humboldt at settings of specific importance (setting of highest Gmm,
manual agitation, mid-range and maximum settings) and the differences in air voids
resulted from measurements at the various settings ......................................................... 26
Table 4-6- Computed F values for comparison of Gmm of 9.5-mm SMA field mixture at various
vibration settings of Humboldt device; Critical F value=3.500 and DOF= (7, 8) for 5%
level of significance ............................................................................................................. 26
Table 4-7- Computed F values for comparison of Gmm of 12.5-mm SMA field mixture at various
vibration settings of Humboldt device; Critical F value=3.500 and DOF= (7, 8) for 5%
level of significance ............................................................................................................. 27
Table 4-8- Computed F values for comparison of Gmm of 19.0-mm SMA field mixture at various
vibration settings of Humboldt device; Critical F value=3.500 and DOF= (7, 8) for 5%
level of significance ............................................................................................................. 27
Table 4-9- Frequency, acceleration, and kinetic energy of the Humboldt shaking device at Setting 8
for measuring Gmm of SMA mixtures .............................................................................. 27
vi
Table 4-10- Gmm values using Humboldt at settings of specific importance (setting of highest
Gmm, manual agitation, mid-range setting, and maximum setting) and the differences in
air voids resulted from measurements at the various settings .......................................... 30
Table 4-11- Computed F values for comparison of Gmm of 4.75-mm dense-graded laboratory
mixture at various vibration settings of Humboldt device; Critical F value=3.230 and
DOF= (8, 9) for 5% level of significance ............................................................................ 31
Table 4-12- Computed F values for comparison of Gmm of 12.5-mm dense-graded laboratory
mixture at various vibration settings of Humboldt device; Critical F value=3.230 and
DOF= (8, 9) for 5% level of significance ............................................................................ 31
Table 4-13- Computed F values for comparison of Gmm of 25.0-mm dense-graded laboratory
mixture at various vibration settings of Humboldt device; Critical F value=3.230 and
DOF= (8, 9) for 5% level of significance ............................................................................ 31
Table 4-14- Computed F values for comparison of Gmm of 37.5-mm dense-graded laboratory
mixture at various vibration settings of Humboldt device; Critical F value=3.230 and
DOF= (8, 9) for 5% level of significance ............................................................................ 31
Table 4-15- Gmm of the laboratory prepared dense-graded mixtures at the settings of Humboldt
which resulted in the highest Gmm of one or more of the mixtures and the differences
between the air voids resulted from those settings ............................................................ 32
Table 4-16- Gmm values using Gilson device at settings of specific importance (setting of highest
Gmm, manual agitation, mid-range setting, and maximum setting) and the differences in
air voids resulted from measurements at various settings ................................................ 34
Table 4-17- Computed F values for comparison of Gmm of 9.5-mm dense-graded field mixture at
various vibration settings of Gilson device; Critical F value=3.020 and DOF= (9, 10) for
5% level of significance ...................................................................................................... 35
Table 4-18- Computed F values for comparison of Gmm of 19.0-mm dense-graded field mixture at
various vibration settings of Gilson device; Critical F value=3.020 and DOF= (9, 10) for
5% level of significance ...................................................................................................... 35
Table 4-19- Frequency, acceleration, and kinetic energy of the Gilson shaking device at Setting 6
for measuring Gmm of dense-graded field mixtures......................................................... 35
Table 4-20- Gmm values of SMA mixtures using Gilson at settings of specific importance (setting of
highest Gmm, manual agitation, mid-range setting, and maximum setting) and the
differences in air voids resulted from the measurements .................................................. 37
Table 4-21- Computed F values for comparison of Gmm of 9.5-mm SMA field mixture at various
vibration settings of Gilson device; F value=3.020 and DOF= (9, 10) for 5% level of
significance ......................................................................................................................... 37
vii
Table 4-22- Computed F values for comparison of Gmm of 12.5-mm SMA field mixture at various
vibration settings of Gilson device; F value=3.020 and DOF= (9, 10) for 5% level of
significance ......................................................................................................................... 38
Table 4-23- Computed F values for comparison of Gmm of 19.0-mm dense-graded field mixture at
various vibration settings of Gilson device; F value=3.020 and DOF= (9, 10) for 5% level
of significance ..................................................................................................................... 38
Table 4-24- Frequency, acceleration, and kinetic energy of the Gilson shaking device at the Setting
7 for measuring Gmm of SMA mixtures ........................................................................... 38
Table 4-25- Gmm values of dense-graded laboratory mixtures using Gilson at settings of specific
importance (setting of highest Gmm, manual agitation, mid-range setting, and maximum
setting) and the differences in air voids resulted from the measurements ....................... 40
Table 4-26- Computed F values for comparison of Gmm of 4.75-mm dense-graded laboratory
mixture at various vibration settings of Gilson device; F value=3.020 and DOF= (9, 10)
for 5% level of significance ................................................................................................ 40
Table 4-27- Computed F values for comparison of Gmm of 12.5-mm dense-graded laboratory
mixture at various vibration settings of Gilson device; F value=3.020 and DOF= (9, 10)
for 5% level of significance ................................................................................................ 41
Table 4-28- Computed F values for comparison of Gmm of 37.5-mm dense-graded laboratory
mixture at various vibration settings of Gilson device; F value=3.020 and DOF= (9, 10)
for 5% level of significance ................................................................................................ 41
Table 4-29- Gmm of the laboratory prepared dense-graded mixtures at settings of Gilson device
which resulted in the highest Gmm and the differences between the air voids resulted
from those settings and from Setting 5 .............................................................................. 41
Table 4-30- Frequency, acceleration, and kinetic energy of the Gilson shaking device at Setting 5 for
measuring Gmm of dense-graded laboratory mixtures .................................................... 42
Table 4-31- Gmm values using Syntron device at settings of specific importance (setting of highest
Gmm and mid-range setting) and differences in air voids resulted from the
measurements ..................................................................................................................... 43
Table 4-32- Computed F values for comparison of Gmm of 9.5-mm dense-graded field mixture at
various vibration settings of Syntron device; Critical F value=2.854 and DOF= (10, 11)
for 5% level of significance ................................................................................................ 44
Table 4-33- Computed F values for comparison of Gmm of 19.0-mm dense-graded field mixture at
various vibration settings of Syntron device; Critical F value=2.854 and DOF= (10, 11)
for 5% level of significance ................................................................................................ 44
Table 4-34- Frequency, acceleration, and kinetic energy of the Syntron shaking device at the Setting
7 for measuring Gmm of dense-graded field mixtures ...................................................... 44
viii
Table 4-35- Gmm values using Syntron device at settings of specific importance (setting of highest
Gmm and mid-range setting) and the differences in air voids resulted from those
settings ................................................................................................................................ 46
Table 4-36- Computed F values for comparison of Gmm of 9.5-mm SMA mixture at various
vibration settings of Syntron device; Critical F value=2.854 and DOF= (10, 11) for 5%
level of significance ............................................................................................................. 46
Table 4-37- Computed F values for comparison of Gmm of 12.5-mm SMA mixture at various
vibration settings of Syntron device; Critical F value=2.854 and DOF= (10, 11) for 5%
level of significance ............................................................................................................. 47
Table 4-38- Computed F values for comparison of Gmm of 19.0-mm SMA field mixture at various
vibration settings of Syntron device; Critical F value=2.854 and DOF= (10, 11) for 5%
level of significance ............................................................................................................. 47
Table 4-39- Gmm of the SMA field mixtures at the settings of Syntron device which resulted in the
highest Gmm of one or more of the mixtures and the differences between the air voids
resulted from the measurements ........................................................................................ 47
Table 4-40- Frequency, acceleration, and kinetic energy of the Syntron device at Setting 8 for
measuring Gmm of SMA mixtures .................................................................................... 48
Table 4-41- Gmm using Syntron device at settings of specific importance (setting of highest Gmm
and mid-range setting) and differences in air voids from the highest Gmm and Gmm
resulted from mid-range setting of Syntron device ........................................................... 49
Table 4-42- Computed F values for comparison of Gmm of 4.75-mm dense-graded laboratory
mixture at various vibration settings of Gilson device; Critical F value=2.854 and DOF=
(10, 11) for 5% level of significance ................................................................................... 50
Table 4-43- Computed F values for comparison of Gmm of 12.5-mm dense-graded field mixture at
various vibration settings of Gilson device; Critical F value=2.854 and DOF= (10, 11) for
5% level of significance ...................................................................................................... 50
Table 4-44- Gmm of the laboratory prepared dense-graded mixtures using Syntron device at a
setting lower than the setting of highest Gmm and the differences between the air voids
of the two settings ............................................................................................................... 50
Table 4-45- Gmm values using Orbital shaker at settings of specific importance (setting of highest
Gmm, manual agitation, 270 rpm) and the differences in air voids resulted from
measurements at the various settings ................................................................................ 52
Table 4-46- Computed F values for comparison of Gmm of 9.5-mm dense-graded field mixture at
various vibration settings of Orbital Shaker; Critical F value=2.854 and DOF= (10, 11)
for 5% level of significance ................................................................................................ 53
ix
Table 4-47- Computed F values for comparison of Gmm of 19.0-mm dense-graded field mixture at
various vibration settings of Orbital Shaker; Critical F value=2.854 and DOF= (10, 11)
for 5% level of significance ................................................................................................ 53
Table 4-48- Gmm values using Orbital shaker at the settings of specific importance (manual
agitation, 270 rpm, settings of highest Gmm) and the difference in air voids resulted
from various Gmm measurements .................................................................................... 55
Table 4-49- Computed F values for comparison of Gmm of 9.5-mm SMA field mixture at various
vibration settings of Orbital device; Critical F value=2.854 and DOF= (10, 11) for 5%
level of significance ............................................................................................................. 55
Table 4-50- Computed F values for comparison of Gmm of 12.5-mm SMA field mixture at various
vibration settings of Orbital device; Critical F value=2.854 and DOF= (10, 11) for 5%
level of significance ............................................................................................................. 56
Table 4-51- Computed F values for comparison of Gmm of 19.0-mm SMA field mixture at various
vibration settings of Orbital device; Critical F value=2.854 and DOF= (10, 11) for 5%
level of significance ............................................................................................................. 56
Table 4-52- Gmm of the SMA field mixtures using Orbital shaker at the settings of highest Gmm
and the differences between the air voids resulted from those settings ............................ 57
Table 4-53- Gmm values using Orbital shaker at settings of specific importance (setting of highest
Gmm, manual agitation, 240 rpm, 270 rpm) and the difference in air voids resulted from
various Gmm measurements ............................................................................................. 58
Table 4-54- Computed F values for comparison of Gmm of 4.75-mm dense-graded laboratory
mixture at various vibration settings of Orbital device; Critical F value=2.854 and DOF=
(10, 11) for 5% level of significance ................................................................................... 59
Table 4-55- Computed F values for comparison of Gmm of 12.5-mm dense-graded laboratory
mixture at various vibration settings of Orbital device; Critical F value=2.854 and DOF=
(10, 11) for 5% level of significance ................................................................................... 59
Table 4-56- Computed F values for comparison of Gmm of 25.0-mm dense-graded laboratory
mixture at various vibration settings of Orbital device; Critical F value=2.854 and DOF=
(10, 11) for 5% level of significance ................................................................................... 59
Table 4-57 Summary of the Settings of the highest Gmm of the vibrating devices with variable
settings ................................................................................................................................ 61
Table 4-58- The suggested settings and the vibration properties at the suggested settings of the four
vibrating devices with variable settings ............................................................................. 61
Table 4-59- Computed F values for comparison of the highest Gmm of 9.5-mm dense-graded field
mixture by various devices/methods; Critical F value=3.500 for 5% Level of significance
and DOF of (7, 8) ................................................................................................................ 62
x