Marshall and Superpave Mix

Design Procedures

Pedro Romero, Ph.D., P.E.

The University of Utah
Why Mix Design?
 Determine a cost-effective blend and
gradation of aggregates and asphalt
that yields a mix having:
 Sufficient asphalt to ensure durability
 Sufficient stability to prevent rutting
 Sufficient voids to prevent flushing
 Maximum voids to limit permeability
 Sufficient workability to allow placement
History (Marshall)
 Bruce Marshall (Mississippi DOT) late 30’s
 WES began to study it in 1943 for WWII
 Evaluated compaction effort
 No. of blows, foot design, etc.
 Decided on 10 lb. Hammer, 50 blows/side
 4% voids after traffic
 Initial criteria were established and
upgraded for increased tire pressures and
loads
Marshall Mix Design
 Select and test aggregate
 Select and test asphalt binder
 Establish mixing and
compaction temperatures
 Develop trial blends
 Heat and mix asphalt binder
and aggregates
 Compact specimen (100 mm
diameter)
Mixing/Compaction Temps
Viscosity, Pa s
10
5

1
.5
.3 Compaction Range
.2 Mixing Range
.1
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
Temperature, C
 Marshall Design Criteria
Light Traffic Medium Traffic Heavy Traffic
ESAL < 104 10 4 < ESAL< 106 ESAL > 106

Compaction 35 50 75

Stability N (lb.) 3336 (750) 5338 (1200) 8006 (1800)

Flow, 0.25 mm (0.1 in) 8 to 18 8 to 16 8 to 14

Air Voids, % 3 to 5 3 to 5 3 to 5

Voids in Mineral Agg.

(VMA) Varies with aggregate size
Marshall Mix Design Tests
 Bulk specific gravity of compacted
sample
 Maximum specific gravity of loose
mix
 Stability and flow
 60oC water bath (30 to 40 minutes)
 50 mm/min loading rate
 Maximum load = stability
 Vertical deformation = flow
Marshall Stability and Flow
Marshall Design

Air Voids, % Stability Unit Wt.

4%

Asphalt Binder Asphalt Binder Asphalt Binder

Content, % Content, % Content, %

Target optimum asphalt binder content = average

 Marshall Design (Cont’d)
Flow VMA, %

Upper limit OK
OK
Minimum
Lower Limit

Asphalt Binder Asphalt Binder

Content, % Content, %

Use target optimum asphalt binder

content to check if these criteria are met
Marshall Design Method

 Advantages
 Attention on voids, strength, durability
 Inexpensive equipment
 Easy to use in process
control/acceptance
 Disadvantages
 Impact method of compaction
 Does not consider shear strength
 Load perpendicular to compaction axis
History (Superpave)
 Resulted from
Strategic Highway
Research Program
 1987-1993
 Combined strengths of
previous methods with
European concepts
Old versus New?
 Based entirely on
VOLUMETRICS
Superpave Compactor

 Simulate field
densification
 traffic
 climate
 Accommodate large
aggregates
 Measure
compactability
 Conducive to QC
 Superpave Gyratory
Compactor
 Basis ?
ram pressure
600 kPa
 Corps of Engineers
 Texas Gyratory
 French operational characteristics
 150 mm diameter mold
1.25 degrees
up to 37.5 mm NMAS



Height measurement
?
 Gyrations based on traffic
30 gyrations
per minute
AASHTO T 312 Gyratory Compaction
 Ndesign Table

Compaction Level

Traffic Level Ninitial Ndesign Nmaximum

Gyrations %Gmm
< 0.3 6 < 91.5 50 75
0.3 to < 3.0 7 < 90.5 75 115
3.0 to < 30.0 8 < 89.0 100 160
> 30.0 9 < 89.0 125 205
Steps of Superpave Mix Design

1. Materials Selection

3. Design Binder Content

2. Design Aggregate Structure

Step 1: Materials Selection

 Choose correct
asphalt binder
 Choose aggregates
that meet quality
requirements for
the mix
Asphalt Binder Specification

The grading system is based on Climate

PG 64 - 28

Min pavement
Performance temperature
Grade
Average 7-day max
pavement temperature
 Aggregate Consensus Properties

Coarse Aggregate Fine Aggregate

Angularity Angularity

Traffic Level
< 100 mm > 100 mm < 100 mm > 100 mm
< 0.3 75 / --- 50 / --- 40 40
0.3 to < 3.0 85 / 80 60 / --- 45 40
3.0 to < 30.0 95 / 90 80 / 75 45 40
> 30.0 100 / 100 100 / 100 45 45
Step 2: Aggregate Structure
 Establish trial aggregate blends
 Estimate optimum asphalt
binder content
 Manufacture and compact trial
blends
 Evaluate the trial blends
 Select the most promising
blend
Aggregate Gradation
Next steps
 Sample preparation
 Select mixing and compaction
temperatures
 Preheat aggregates and asphalt
 Mix components
 Compact specimens
 Extrude and determine volumetrics
Short Term Aging

 Allows time for aggregate to absorb

asphalt binder
 Helps minimize variability in volumetric
calculations
 Most volumetric terms change depending on
the amount (volume) of absorbed asphalt
binder
Compaction
 Three Points on SGC
Curve
% Gmm
Nmax
Ndes

Nini

10 100 1000
Log Gyrations
 3.Design Binder Content

% Gmm
increasing
binder
96

10 100 1000
Log Gyrations
 Design Asphalt Binder Content

VMA
VFA

%Gmm
% asphalt binder
% asphalt binder at Ndes

Va DP
% asphalt binder

% asphalt binder
% asphalt binder
Superpave Mixture
Requirements

 Mixture Volumetrics
 Air Voids (V )
a

 Mixture Density Characteristics

 Voids in the Mineral Aggregate (VMA)

 Voids Filled with Asphalt (VFA)

 Dust Proportion
 NO STRENGHT TEST
 Requirements in Common
 Sufficient asphalt binder to ensure a
durable pavement
 Sufficient stability under traffic loads
 Sufficient air voids
 Upper limit to prevent excessive
environmental damage
 Lower limit to allow room for initial
densification due to traffic
 Sufficient workability
Questions?

compaction

Asphalt content

stability
Panel Discussion
 Darin Furnell, SLC Corporation
 William Larson, Utah DOT
 Jeff Chollar, Staker Parsons