Chapter16 Latest

Volume 2
Chapter 16 Revision 1.0

Acceptance Control
Base Layers
Surfacing
Base
Subbase
Selected
Subgrade
Materials Manual
Western Cape Provincial Administration
Department of Transport and Public Works

Roads Infrastructure Branch
Materials Manual
First Edition
Chapter 16
Acceptance Control
Base Layers

Department of Transport and Public Work
Roads Infrastructure Branch
2006 by the Western Cape Provincial Administration. All right reserved
First Edition published 2006
2008 by the Western Cape Provincial Administration. All right reserved
First Edition revision 1.0 published 2008
Printed in the Republic of South Africa
ISBN 0-620-29823-5
CHAPTER: ISBN 1-920158-17-0
WCPA Department of Transport and Public Works Materials Manual Volume 2 Chapter 16
ACCEPTANCE CONTROL:
BASE LAYERS
Contents Page 16-
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
Material Component Control ...................................................................................................................2
Design Verification ..................................................................................................................................2
Construction Control................................................................................................................................2
SOURCE ........................................................................................................... 3
Introduction..............................................................................................................................................3
Sampling Plan .........................................................................................................................................3
Tests........................................................................................................................................................3
G1, G2 And G3 Base................................................................................................................................... 3
G4 Base....................................................................................................................................................... 3
Time Schedule To Obtain Acceptance....................................................................................................3
Applicable Forms.....................................................................................................................................3
Assessment .............................................................................................................................................4
G1, G2 And G3 Base................................................................................................................................... 4 T
G4 Base....................................................................................................................................................... 4 A
B
TRIAL SECTION ................................................................................................. 5 L
E
Introduction..............................................................................................................................................5 O
Sampling Plan .........................................................................................................................................5 F
Tests........................................................................................................................................................5
G1, G2 And G3 Base................................................................................................................................... 5 C
O
G4 Base...................................................................................................................................................... 6 N
Time Schedule To Obtain Approval ........................................................................................................6 T
Applicable Forms.....................................................................................................................................7 E
N
Setting Target Grading For G1, G2 & G3................................................................................................7 T
Aggregate Maximum Size Of 37,5 mm ........................................................................................................ 7 S
Aggregate Maximum Size of 26,5 mm......................................................................................................... 7
Setting Target Grading For G4................................................................................................................8
Comments ...............................................................................................................................................8
Assessment ...........................................................................................................................................12
Grading...................................................................................................................................................... 12
G1 and G2 Base............................................................................................................................. 12
G3 Base ......................................................................................................................................... 13
G4 Base ......................................................................................................................................... 13
Atterberg Limits.......................................................................................................................................... 14
Compaction................................................................................................................................................ 19
Setting the Target Density ......................................................................................................................... 19
Method A ........................................................................................................................................ 19
Method B ........................................................................................................................................ 20
G1 Base ......................................................................................................................................... 22
G2 Base ......................................................................................................................................... 22
G3 And G4 Base ............................................................................................................................ 22
Approval Of Trial Section (Design Verification)....................................................................................22
Applicable Forms...................................................................................................................................23
CONSTRUCTION LOTS ...................................................................................... 24

Introduction............................................................................................................................................24
Sampling Plan .......................................................................................................................................24
Tests......................................................................................................................................................24
G1, G2 And G3 Base................................................................................................................................. 24
G4 Base..................................................................................................................................................... 24
Time Schedule To Obtain Acceptance..................................................................................................25
Applicable Forms Assessment..............................................................................................................25
16 Acceptance control: base layers 4 June, 2008 page 16-i

Compaction ............................................................................................................................................... 25
Grading...................................................................................................................................................... 30
G1 and G2 Base............................................................................................................................. 30
G3 Base ......................................................................................................................................... 31
G4 Base ......................................................................................................................................... 31
Atterberg Limits ......................................................................................................................................... 32
Shape ........................................................................................................................................................ 32
Bearing Strength Of G4 ............................................................................................................................. 32
General..................................................................................................................................................32
Submission of Acceptance Control Forms............................................................................................33
As - Built Data Sheets ...........................................................................................................................33
SUPPLY ONLY BASE ........................................................................................34

Introduction............................................................................................................................................34
Sampling Plan .......................................................................................................................................34
Tests......................................................................................................................................................34
G1, G2 And G3 Base................................................................................................................................ 34
G4 Base .................................................................................................................................................... 34
Time Schedule To Obtain Acceptance .................................................................................................34
Applicable Forms...................................................................................................................................34
Assessment...........................................................................................................................................34
Comment ...............................................................................................................................................35
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................36
Journals .................................................................................................................................................36
Manuals And Specifications ..................................................................................................................36
T
A FIGURES
B
L Figure 16-1: Layout of the Materials Manual.....................................................................................................1
E
Figure 16-2: Graphs showing the difference between gradings by mass and volume ...................................11
O Figure 16-3: Example form E-DET-BCG-E for design verification of base .....................................................15
F
Figure 16-4: Example of form E-DIS-BCG37-E for Grading Base (G1, G2 and G3) Envelope for Aggregates
C 37,5 mm ......................................................................................................................................16
O Figure 16-5: Example of form E-DIS-BCG26-E for Grading Base (G3) Envelope for Aggregates 26,5 mm..17
N
T Figure 16-6: Example of form E-DIS-BCG53-E for Grading Base (G4) Envelope for Aggregates 53,0 mm..18
E Figure 16-7: Illustration of bulk relative density ...............................................................................................19
N Figure 16-8: Bulk Relative Density vs Modified AASHTO Compaction (Method A) .......................................20
T
S Figure 16-9: Bulk Relative Density vs Modified AASHTO Compaction (Method B) .......................................22
Figure 16-10: Example of form E-DET-SEQ-E for the determination of sequential MDD ..............................28
Figure 16-11: Example of assessment form E-ASS-ACG2-E for G2 base .....................................................29
Figure 16-12: Assessment of mean value for 4,75 mm fraction .....................................................................30
TABLES
Table 16-1: Values of SBD for typical binders.................................................................................................10
Table 16-2: Gradings after compaction for a range of material types and producers.....................................11
Table 16-3: Grading Breakdown Characteristics ............................................................................................12
Table 16-4: Key for correlating rock type with density ....................................................................................21
Table 16-5: Values of ARD, BRD and MDD at different water absorptions ....................................................21
page 16-ii 4 June, 2008 16 Acceptance control: base layers

ACCEPTANCE CONTROL:
BASE LAYERS
INTRODUCTION
This chapter gives the background required to Premature distress was seen in the form of:
adequately apply the acceptance control proc- Early rutting which can be caused by den-
ess for base layers as well as identifying some sification and/or lateral displacement of the
problems and the means to address the prob- layers making up the pavement structure. In a
lems to provide an acceptable product.
study of the cyclic creep of granular layers by
Houbec 2 , it was found that the magnitude and
The chapters part in the overall layout of the
change of the rate of cyclic creep deformations
Materials Manual is shown in Figure 16-1.
are functions of the material quality and the
The Western Cape Province (and former Cape stress level.
Province prior to 1994) has over the years con- Shear deformation in the form of lateral
structed the bulk of its heavily trafficked road displacement.
network using deep, granular, flexible pave- Premature cracking of the surfacing (in-
ments. The growth of heavy axles on the net- cluding asphalt) and pumping as a conse- I
work, further aggravated by overloading, re- quence of inadequate support. N
T
vealed a generally inadequate performance of R
pavement structures. This trend was further Several improvements were introduced taking O
account of acceptable levels of risk and with D
verified by the heavy vehicle simulator (HVS) U
test programme near Koeberg 1 . due regard to life cycle costing and construc- C
tability. T
I
O
N
INPUTS ACTIVITIES
Chapter 8
QUALITY ASSURANCE
7 Construction equipment
control ACCEPTANCE CONTROL
Chapter 9 Chapter 13 Chapter 17

BASIC CONCEPTS SELECTED LAYERS ASPHALT LAYERS

ROADBED SUBBASE LAYERS SEALS

STOCKPILED CHEMICALLY GRAVEL WEARING
MATERIAL TREATED LAYERS COURSE
Chapter 12 Chapter 20
Chapter 16
FILL BASE LAYERS CONCRETE
Figure 16- 1: Layout of the Materials Manual
1. Van Zyl, N.J.W. and Maree, J.H. The Heavy Vehi-

cle Simulator test on road TR77/1 between Cape 2. Houbec, I. Cyclic creep of granular materials.
Town and Saldanha Bay, near Koeberg. Division University of Waterloo, Department of Civil Engi-
of Roads and Transport Technology, Technical Re- neering, Final Report on project W-13. DHO Report
port RP/27/82, CSIR, Pretoria, 1982. no. RR147, Ontario, June 1969
16 Acceptance control: base layers 4 June, 2008 page 16-1

MATERIAL COMPONENT CONSTRUCTION CONTROL

CONTROL The following issues have been addressed:
The following important factors have been ad- The application of a statistical judgment
dressed in specification changes since Novem- plan involving a stratified random sampling
ber 1982: approach. (The introduction of testing lanes
and testing blocks facilitates the assessment of
Aggregate strength, by virtue of its origin
the variability in, for example, grading,
(geological type)
density, etc., which are primarily attributable
Durability to poor construction techniques.)
Atterberg limits, including the limits for Controlled slushing procedures to yield
different fractions where binder is added the required mosaic finish
Setting of a target grading with due re- The monitoring of the moisture content,
gard to factors affecting the attainment of high especially before the application of the prime
in situ shear strength and resilient modulus and the seal
Shape of aggregate
DESIGN VERIFICATION
I A trial section is constructed with the follow-
N ing objectives:
T
R
O To agree to a target grading after
D compaction
U
C
T To verify the adequacy of the crushing
I arrangement
O
N
To establish the percentage of modified
AASHTO maximum dry density required to
achieve the specified bulk density (e.g.,
88 percent for G2) for the particular
combination of particle shape characteristics
and aggregate packing characteristics resulting
from the agreed target grading
To do a compaction study
page 16-2 4 June, 2008 16 Acceptance control: base layers

SOURCE
Atterberg Limits
INTRODUCTION Soluble salts (conductivity, pH, water
soluble salts and sulphate contents)
Prior to mining a proposed source, it shall be
adequately explored as outlined in Chapter 5,
Materials Investigation and Reporting, Quar- G4 BASE
ries and Borrow Pits. Refer to Chapter 8, Quality Assurance, Com-
ponent Conformance Control, tables for
The proposed site and rehabilitation plan shall
Natural and processed gravel base (G4) for a
be approved by the Regional Director:
complete list of tests.
Department of Mineral and Energy in
accordance with the procedures outlined in The properties measured in this phase are:
Chapter 5, Materials Investigations and
Reporting, Environmental Impact Assessment Durability and hardness
Report; and Inspection and Approvals, Bearing strength and swell
prior to proceeding with any mining or borrow
activities. Atterberg Limits
Soluble salts (conductivity, pH, water
The component conformance control require- soluble salts and sulphate contents)
ments shall be in accordance with Chapter 8,
Quality Assurance, Granular Base (Un-
treated), Component conformance control, for TIME SCHEDULE TO OBTAIN S
G1, G2 and G4 base. O
ACCEPTANCE U
R
For commercial sources the Supply C
The time schedule to obtain approval for the E
Specifications in Appendix B contain a form to
proposed product will be governed by the time
be completed by the tenderer at tender stage,
to obtain the required samples and the duration
which provides pertinent details of the product
of specific tests. A schedule is included in
offered.
Chapter 3, Commentary on Test Methods,
Time Schedule for Duration of Testing.
SAMPLING PLAN
Guidelines are provided in Chapter 4, Field APPLICABLE FORMS
Sampling Methods, Quarries and Borrow Pits,
and Sampling of Natural Materials. STAGE FORM CODE DESCRIPTION
Sampling S-SOU-GRA-E Field samples of
Material for
TESTS Pavement Layers -
Borrow Pits
G1, G2 AND G3 BASE Testing T-DAT-CBR-E Test Data -
CBR/Density Re-
Refer to Chapter 8, Quality Assurance, Com- lationships
T-DAT-INDI-E Test Data - Indica-
ponent Conformance Control, Base, Granular
tor - Grading, Soil
(Untreated), Stages of control for a complete Mortar (Hydrome-
list of tests. ter) and Atterberg
Constants
The properties measured in this phase are: Evaluation E-DAT-BCG-E Component Con-
formance Control
Aggregate strength and hardness - Base Granular
Durability (resistance to weathering) (G1/G2/G3/G4)

ASSESSMENT G4 BASE
G1, G2 AND G3 BASE The quality assessment procedures may
redirect mining operations, processing
The testing frequency used during material techniques (such as crushing versus grid
processing to control aggregate strength, rolling), or point towards stockpiling in the
crushing and durability relates to the necessity borrow pit to improve uniformity of quality
of identifying variation in quality due to prior to hauling to the road.
various geological phenomena, such as
weathered zones in the area being mined. Where conductivity limits are exceeded, as
Such phenomena may require that mining often found with calcretes, other special
operations be redirected to produce a more measures, such as fast track construction, in
consistent product. This action may prevent conjunction with special seal types, may be
the inclusion of certain zones in the mine, required. For example, a Cape Seal, with or
which could otherwise give rise to a high without polymer modified binder, or double
degree of variability in quality, such as seals with polymer modified binder such as
grading, before and after compaction, and/or bitumen-rubber could be used. These special
Atterberg Limits. measures should be detailed in the project
specifications.
S
O
U
R
C
E

TRIAL SECTION
Verification of the quality of the proposed
material, including any special treatment re-
INTRODUCTION quired to modify, for example, plasticity.
Once the source has been approved, it is
necessary to timeously assess and verify
construction process before proceeding with SAMPLING PLAN
the layer construction. This includes an The sampling process for a trial section are
appropriate crushing arrangement, stockpiling given in Chapter 4, Field Sampling Methods,
procedures, mixing and compaction techniques Untreated Pavement Layers, and/or project
applied to satisfy the criteria outlined in specifications, and covers the following issues:
Chapter 2, Materials Standards, Base -
Granular. Limiting initial production to less than
5000 m3 during which period a trial section
The constraints that have been imposed are shall be constructed
based on extensive research, constructability Location of such a trial section
considerations and were verified with the
Heavy Vehicle Simulator. Unless substantive Size of trial section
historic data is available to verify all relevant The number of test points
parameters, a length of base shall be con-
structed as a trial section: The position of test points for in situ tests T
and for samples to be tested in the laboratory R
at the start of any base construction, or (including length and width of test blocks) to
I
A
on the introduction of base material from ensure a stratified random sampling approach. L
a new source, or S
E
when crusher modification and/or other C
processes need to be introduced to attain the TESTS T
I
required grading, or O
N
when compaction problems are experi- G1, G2 AND G3 BASE
enced. Refer to Chapter 8, Quality Assurance, Base,
The trial section allows for the following: Granular Base (Untreated) and table for De-
sign Verification (trial section) - granular base
Timeous implementation of modifications
(G1, G2 and G3).
to crusher assembly and/or crusher settings for
G1, G2, G3, G4 base and/or to other processes For each test point the following in situ tests
used to remove/reduce oversize material for shall be carried out:
G4 base.
Layer thickness
To establish the variability of the mate-
rial, especially with regard to grading attain- Layer density
able with particular blasting techniques, With respect to layer density
crusher arrangement and source being mined.
The nuclear gauge shall be the reference
Agreement to appropriate supply and/or method and the gauge shall be certified
after compaction target grading based on the and approved as given in Chapter 7,
breakdown characteristics experienced during Construction Equipment Control. Two
compaction. possible strategies may be used for a
Assessment of the suitability of compac- backup in case of nuclear gauge mal-
tion equipment and/or settings of vibratory function, by calibration during the plac-
equipment. ing of the trial section

A second nuclear gauge, also certified Grading and Atterberg limits (indicator
and approved samples)
Sand replacement density tests Percentage fractured faces in the case of
Samples shall be taken at test points for alluvial and colluvial materials
the following laboratory tests: Six MDDs shall be determined and the
mean value calculated. The mean shall be
Bulk relative density (refer COLTO used as the basis for setting the sequential
Standard Specification for Road and MDD values for subsequent sections
Bridge Works4, Clause 8108)
Grading and Atterberg Limits (indicator Gravimetric moisture content at each nu-
sample) clear gauge test point
Flakiness and elongation (percentage In addition, a minimum of three CBR tests are
fractured faces when applicable) also done for each trial section (24 hours
Maximum dry density (MDD). The trial soaked).
section mean MDD is used for determin-
ing the percentage compaction for both
the nuclear gauge and sand replacement TIME SCHEDULE TO OBTAIN
methods. This mean shall be used as the
basis for commencing the sequential
APPROVAL
MDD for subsequent construction lots. The duration of the relevant tests can be as-
Gravimetric moisture content at nuclear sessed using Chapter 3, Commentary on test
T gauge test points methods, Time schedule for duration of test.
R
A Gravimetric moisture determination shall be
I Duplicate samples will be required by the Con-
L the reference method. The gravimetric mois-
trol Laboratory (refer to Chapter 1, Manage-
S
ture contents measured at each nuclear gauge
ment Procedures for Monitoring and Control,
E test point provide the basis for a moisture con-
C Administrative Procedures, Correspondence,
T tent correction for the gauge. The gravimetric
I
Proposed Design And Trial Sections) which
O
sample should have a mass of about 2 kg and
could delay the final approval of the various
N shall be taken over a depth of 100 mm. The
parameters/criteria proposed for construction
samples shall be placed in pre-weighed, air-
control.
tight jars with screw lids. For each nuclear
gauge test point the moisture correction factor Also note the time constraints listed in Table
is determined as laid down in the manufac- 8104/1 of the COLTO Standard Specifications
turers manual of the particular make and for Road and Bridge Works 3 .
model of gauge.
G4 BASE
Refer to Chapter 8, Quality Assurance, Base,
Granular Base (Untreated) and table for De-
sign verification (trial section) - natural and
processed gravel (G4).
For each test point the following in situ tests

shall be carried out:
Layer density
Layer thickness
Samples shall be taken at test points for the

following laboratory tests: 3. Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge
Works. COLTO, 1998.

AGGREGATE MAXIMUM SIZE OF

APPLICABLE FORMS 37,5 MM
The forms listed below are used for all aspects This maximum size is applicable to G1 and G2
of testing and evaluating trial sections. and will normally be specified for G3 base in
order to achieve the highest possible shear
STAGE FORM CODE DESCRIPTION
Sampling S-LAY-TPG1-E Test Points - Trial Section strength.
- Granular Layers (Two
or three lane carriageway) The criteria are as follows:
Testing T-BEN-BRD1-E Dry Bulk and Apparent
Relative Densities and The mass of material passing the
Water Absorption (For 0,075 mm sieve shall be between 7 and 9 per-
Base only) cent
T-BEN-MCG-E Test Data: Moisture -
Gravimetric
T-BEN-NUC-E Test Data: Densities - The mass of material passing the 2,00 mm
Nuclear Method sieve shall not exceed 34 percent
T-DAT-CBR-E Test Data: CBR/Density
Relationships The mass of material passing the
T-DAT-IND1-E Test Data: Indicator - 0,425 mm sieve shall not exceed 22 percent
Grading, Soil Mortar
(Hydrometer) and Atter-
The slope of the grading curve between
berg Constants
Evaluation E-DET-BCG-E Design Verification - the 2,00 mm and 0,425 mm fraction ( termed
Trial Section - Base the coarse sand ratio i.e. -200 mm +
Granular (G1/G2/G3) 0,425 mm fraction expressed as a percentage T
R
of -2,00 mm fraction) shall not be less than 35 I
E-ASS-ACG1-E Acceptance Control: percent nor more than 50 percent of the A
Base-Granular (G1) Max L
size 37,5 mm
-2,00 mm fraction
S
E-ASS-ACG2-E Acceptance Control: E
Base-Granular (G2) Max The mass of material passing the 4,75 mm C
T
size 37,5 mm sieve shall be between 40 and 45 percent to I
E-ASS-ACG3-E Acceptance Control: achieve the highest possible maximum dry O
Base-Granular (G3) Max N
density
sizes 37,5/26,5 mm
E-ASS-ACG4-E Acceptance Control:
Base-Granular (G4) Max The selected target grading values shall
size 53,0/37,5 mm form part of a gradual change from the coarser
(crushed/natural) to the finer fractions
E-DET-SEQ-E Determination - Maxi-
mum - Dry Density -
Granular / Stabilised, AGGREGATE MAXIMUM SIZE OF
Trial Section: Mean MDD
E-DIS-BCG37-E Envelope Graph Paper
26,5 MM
(37,5 mm) for G1, G2 and This maximum size is only applicable to G3.
G3
E-DIS-BCG26-E Envelope Graph Paper
(26,5 mm) of G3 only The mass of material passing the
E-DIS-BCG53-E Envelope Graph Paper 0,075 mm sieve shall be between 7 and 9 per-
(53,0 mm) of G4 only cent.

SETTING TARGET GRADING the 2,00 mm and 0,425 mm fractions (the
FOR G1, G2 & G3 coarse sand ratio) shall be not less than 35
percent and not more than 50 percent of the
The target grading after compaction shall nor- -2,00 mm fraction.
mally be kept near to the mean of the specified
envelope. The mass of material passing the 4,75 mm
sieve shall be between 45 and 50 percent.

The selected target grading values shall or during construction, alluvial and colluvial
form part of a gradual change from the coarse deposits (depending on the nature of matrix),
to the finer fractions. are known to display greater breakdown of the
fractions passing the 2,00 and 0,425 mm
sieves, if an impact crusher is not used in the
SETTING TARGET GRADING crusher arrangements.
FOR G4
The mass of material passing the the 2,00 mm and 0,425 mm fraction (the coarse
0,075 mm sieve shall be between 6 and 10 per- sand ratio) has a significant bearing on com-
cent. pactability. If the coarse sand ratio approaches
50 percent, compaction problems can be ex-
The mass of material passing the 4,75 mm pected.
sieve shall be between 40 and 50 percent.
To achieve the highest possible density,
The slope of the grading curve between research covering a wide range of aggregate
the 2,00 mm and 0,425 mm fractions (the types has indicated that the shape of the aggre-
"coarse sand" ratio) shall be not less than 30 gate particles has an important bearing on the
percent and not more than 50 percent. target grading set within the window speci-
fied for the 4,75 mm fraction. For more flaky
The selected target grading values shall
(in excess of 25 percent) and needle shaped
form part of a gradual change from the coarse
aggregate, the upper value set for the 4,75 mm
to finer fractions.
sieve is preferable, particularly in the case of
T
R G1, G2 and G3 base.
A
I
COMMENTS
L All indications are that the introduction of a
The final target settings for processing and/or vertical shaft, impact crusher as a tertiary
S
E supply and construction of G1 to G4 base crusher facilitates compliance with the specifi-
C should be fine-tuned to achieve the above cri-
T
cation, especially with regard to the -4,75 mm
I teria. Some or all of the following controlling fraction. The shape of the aggregate is also
O
N factors and critical aspects should be taken into greatly enhanced. Typically, dolerite flakiness
account: values can be between 20 and 35, and are im-
proved with an impact crusher to between 10
The amount of breakdown of the aggre-
and 20, while the flakiness of an indurated
gate experienced during processing is a func-
sandstone can be reduced from 40 to 16. The
tion of the geological origin of the aggregate.
tertiary crusher is also essential to ensure that
The particle shape of the aggregate is also the required percentage of fractured faces is
determined by the geological origin of the ag- obtained when crushing alluvial and colluvial
gregate and the type of crusher arrangement. sources.
The variability of the material can be due For G4, a two-stage crushing arrangement is
to poor selection in the quarry and inadequate normally required to achieve the specified per-
control of the crusher assembly, uncontrolled centage of fractured faces.
compaction activities (the use of a grid roller
could increase the degree of variability with For enhanced packing of the particles
regard to grading). during compaction to achieve the highest pos-
sible dry density with the least compaction en-
To achieve the best shear resistance and ergy, the grading shall form part of a gradual
minimum deflection of the pavement, the per- change from the coarse to the finer fraction
centage passing the 0,075 mm has a signifi- without any marked gaps or excessive quanti-
cant effect on the performance of the layers. ties of a particular size.
When attempting to improve the Gap-graded mixtures give rise to segregation,

0,075 mm fraction during the crushing process variable permeability, compaction problems
and negatively influence strength properties.

Crusher technology has developed to such a Research by Semmelink 4,5,6,7, has shown the
degree that mobile crushing units (primary, value of Weighted Fractional Density (WFD)
secondary and tertiary elements) and stationary and Shakedown Bulk density (SBD) to effec-
commercial units are capable of supplying a tively quantify the effect of shape and texture
well-graded product satisfying the constraints on the bearing capacity of untreated road mate-
imposed on grading. This will ensure highly rial properties. WFD and SBD are useful in
improved constructability and performance. assessing the relative performance of soil
In the case of G1 material, the addition of fines binders, or combinations of the coarse fraction
to improve the grading shall only be from the and soil binder (-4,75 mm fraction). To deter-
same parent rock and of approved quality (not mine the SBD, the total sample is poured into a
from weathered rock). This should only be transparent, plastic, measuring beaker and the
considered where the contractor, by way of the sample is shaken and tamped until there is no
trial section, has demonstrated his/her compli- further discernable change in volume. The vol-
ance with all the provisions except that either: ume is then determined and the SBD is calcu-
lated from the mass, volume and solid density
The coarse sand ratio is unsatisfactory, of the material. The SBD is the mass of the
or sample divided by the minimum shake-tamped
the percentage passing through the volume expressed as a percentage of space oc-
0,075 mm sieve does not comply with the cupied by the particle solids.
requirements.
The values in Table 16-1 on page 16-10 for
For practical reasons, ten percent is the mini- typical soil binders were obtained7 for SBD
mum fines that can be added on the road. and E-values measured using K-mould at vari-
ous moisture contents (results were interpo- T
For G2 and G3, the same comments as for G1 R
are applicable, with the exception that natural lated for 5 percent and 10 percent moisture I
A
fines not obtained from the parent rock may be contents). L
considered. The added fine material shall not S
exceed the limits set in Chapter 2, Materials Full details shall be submitted regarding the E
exact quality and nature of fine aggregate to C
Standards, Base Granular. T
be added and the nature of the proposed well- I
The addition of natural sand to G2 or G3 proven mixing process before permission to O
N
base is not favoured in view of its detrimental add binder may be considered (also refer to
effect on the shear characteristics, unless the project specifications).
proven to the contrary by appropriate labora- The particular packing arrangement for a mate-
tory tests and research for the designated rial of constant relative density is normally
source of binder. represented by the particle size distribution
(grading) curve based on proportions by mass
passing successive sieves.
4. Semmelink, C.J. An index for describing the com-

pactibility of untreated roadbuilding materials. CSIR,
DPVT 41 (RDAC 88/030/2), Pretoria., April 1990.
5. Semmelink, C.J. The effect of shape and texture of
roadbuilding material particles on their compactibility
and bearing capacity. Department of Transport, Pro-
ject Report 91/185, Pretoria, April 1992.
6. Semmelink, C.J. Compactibility and other engineer-
ing properties of six G2, crushed stone materials us-
ing the CPA specification requirements. Department
of Transport, Project Report 89/148, Pretoria, April
1991.
7. Semmelink, C.J. The fine aggregate characteristics
of crushed stone bases. Department of Transport,
Unpublished Project Report PR92/471, Pretoria, Oc-
tober 1993

A problem arises when a natural binder, other

Table 16-1 Values of SBD for typical binders than from the same parent rock, needs to be
added. If a significant difference exists
SOURCE SBD E(K-MOULD), between the relative density of the parent rock
TOTAL MPa, AT A and the added binder, which are blended
MOISTURE
CONTENT OF together, the resulting grading, based on the
normal method, will be misleading. For
% SD 5% 10% example Kalahari sand binder has a much
lower relative density compared to banded
CAPE TOWN ironstone coarse material. The grading curve
Peninsula 71,02 170 200 based on proportions by mass overestimates
crusher dust the volume content of the coarse particles and
(hornfels) produces a distorted grading. The curve does
68,55 - -
Peak crusher not represent the true packing characteristics of
dust (hornfels) the material as a whole and this will result in
63,40 -1 -1
Philipi sand poor mechanical stability.
(quartzite)
In cases where there is a significant difference
KIMBERLEY in the relative density of two blended materi-
74,18 170 130
Beckers
als, the grading shall be calculated by volume
crusher dust proportions as well as by mass proportions.
67,78 140 150
(andesite) For the example of the Kalahari sand and
Beckers soil banded ironstone, using a mean relative den-
T sity for both material types and the normal de-
R 73,38 200 192
A DE AAR termination of grading, results in an excessive
I volume of the binder to be added. If this grad-
L Crusher dust
(dolerite) ing by mass is converted to grading by volume,
S
E it will show an excessively fine grading, espe-
C Note:
cially on the finer fractions below 4,75 mm,
T 1. No Values as samples collapsed on removal from
I K-mould and could result in coarse particles "floating"
O
N in the fines. An example of this is shown be-
low and plotted in Figure 16-2 on page 16-11.
Sieve % passing % retained by Bulk relative Mass retained on each sieve % retained by % passing
size by mass mass density kg/m3 reproportioned for variation in volume by volume
(mm) relative density
37,5 100 - 100
26,5 88 12 3500 12 x 2500 / 3500 = 8,6 10,3 89,7
19,0 77 11 3500 11 x 2500 / 3500 = 7,9 9,4 80,3
13,2 67 10 3500 10 x 2500 / 3500 = 7,1 8,6 71,7
4,75 42 25 3500 25 x 2500 / 3500 = 17,9 21,4 50,3
2,00 30 12 2500 12 x 2500 / 2500 = 12,0 14,4 36,0
0,425 16 14 2500 14 x 2500 / 2500 = 14,0 16,8 19,2
0,075 7 9 2500 9 x 2500 / 2500 = 9,0 10,8 8,4
<0,075 7 2500 7 x 2500 / 2500 = 7,0 8,4
= 100 = 83,4 = 100

100
90
CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE PASSING
80
70
60
Grading by volume
50
40
30
Grading by
20 mass
10
0
0,075
37,5
13,2
26,5
0,425 2,00 4,75
19,0
MESH SIZE, mm
Figure 16-2: Graphs showing the difference between gradings by mass and volume
For G4 the blending of material from two Table 16-2 (obtained for G2 base) gives results
T
sources is not uncommon for improving of the average and 90 percentile standard de- R
grading, decrease of plasticity and increase in viations of gradings after compaction for a I
A
bearing strength. range of material types and producers (380 L
In order to satisfy the above requirements, the sample lots, with a lot size being represented S
mean grading of the final accepted trial section by four to five stratified randomly selected E
C
may not necessarily represent the approved tar- samples). T
get grading for the constructed sections. I
When a supply only grading is to be set the O
N
This grading should be further assessed by following shall apply:
comparing the variability obtained for the ap-
propriate sieves to the data reflected in Table The supply target gradings shall be based
16-2 on page 16-11. on test results obtained from a trial section be-
fore and after placement. This is to assess the
Table 16-2: Gradings after compaction for additional breakdown experienced during
a range of material types and producers compaction operations attributable to produc-
tion procedures and any change in product
% PASSING AVERAGE 90 PERCENTILE
SIEVE SIZE STANDARD STANDARD quality.
(mm) DEVIATION DEVIATION
The supply target grading shall be ad-
26,5 2,2 2,77 justed to allow for the breakdown of the aggre-
gate during mixing and construction so that
19,0 3,0 3,68 the required grading is obtained after con-
13,3 3,3 4,06
struction. As an alternative to a trial section,
the supplier and purchaser may agree on a sup-
4,75 2,7 3,34 ply target grading based on historical data.
2,00 2,1 2,34 The grading breakdown information in

Table 16-3, on page 16-12 is given as a guide
0,425 1,3 2,59 to the possible breakdown of dolerite and
quartzite.
0,075 0,8 0,99

Prior to the acceptance of a supply contract, methods, necessitating the use of statistical
the recommended supply target grading shall evaluation techniques.
be submitted (together with results, research
data and motivation) to the Materials Engineer The procedure to assess the grading obtained
for approval with a copy to the Head: Materi- from the trial section and to arrive at the ap-
als Testing, Technical Services, Cape Town. proved target grading for subsequent construc-
tion lots, is as follows:
Table 16-3:
Grading Breakdown Characteristics Record the value of percentage passing
each sieve obtained for each sample on Form
SQUARE MESH % CHANGE E-DET-BCG-E (for G1, G2, G3 and G4) and
(mm)
compare with specified requirements, taking
26,5 -3 into account the critical aspects as previously
mentioned.
19,0 -2
For an example of Design Verification for
13,3 -2 Base using E-DET-BCG-E see Figure 16-3 on
page 16-15.
4,75 2
Plot on Form E-DIS-BCG37-E (Base En-
2,00 2
velope for aggregate with maximum size
0,425 1 37,5 mm), the mean value obtained for each
sieve as well as twice the standard deviation on
T 0,075 1 either side of the plotted mean value. See Fig-
R
A ure 16-4 on page 16-16 for example of form.
I <0,075 3
L
The plotted envelope (mean plus two standard
S DOLERITE QUARTZITE deviations on either side of the mean value)
E
C gives a pictorial indication of the probable dis-
T ACV, % 17 23
I tribution of grading results. These should be
O critically assessed with respect to the base en-
N TRETON, % 14 24
velope, and target requirements and the speci-
fications.
ASSESSMENT For projects where the volume of material to
be supplied is less than 5 000 m3 (loose vol-
GRADING ume), the assessment of grading shall be as
for G3 base.
G1 AND G2 BASE
The grading of the material of constructed lots Example
shall comply with the requirements of a statis-
For a particular fraction, such as the 4,75 mm
tical judgement plan, utilising the actual vari-
sieve, the mean value obtained for the trial
ability of the work as determined from samples
section may be at the lower extreme of the
obtained in a stratified sampling procedure
criteria. At the same time the standard
from a section worked in one process and for
deviation may be on the large side compared to
which essentially the same materials were
the norm, as given in Table 16-2. This will
used. The judgement plan shall be in accor-
result in the one boundary (mean minus two
dance with Chapter 9, Acceptance Control:
standard deviations) plotting well outside the
Basic Concepts, and COLTO Standard Speci-
criteria on the low side.
fications for Road and Bridge Works Section
8200: Quality Control Scheme 1. It may, therefore, be advisable to set the target
for that particular fraction one or two percent-
Variations in test results can result as a conse-
age points higher. In the opposite case at the
quence of sampling, test and construction
higher extreme with a large standard deviation, G3 BASE

set a target one or two percentage points lower. Although the statistical assessment is not ap-
This will alert the producer, who, with im- plicable to the grading of construction lots, the
proved control, could produce a more uniform above procedure for setting the approved target
remains applicable.
product within the acceptance limits. High
standard deviations, however, need regular The Form E-DET-BCG-E (for G1, G2, G3 and
attention. G4 base) is used to record the test values. The
It should be clearly understood that the mean mean value obtained for the trial section, plus
twice the standard deviation for each fraction
grading obtained in the trial section is not the
on either side of the mean value, are plotted on
target grading. As seen in the above example
the target grading is set to encourage the sup- Form E-DIS-BCG37-E or E-DIS-BCG26-E for
plier to amend this processing so that a grading aggregate with maximum size 37,5 and
closer to the desired curve is obtained. 26,5 mm, respectively.
The mean grading of the material after com-

The approved target, value plus or minus the
paction for each lot shall conform to the ap-
tolerance specified (see Appendix C: Table C-
proved target grading within the tolerance
12) for each sieve, sets a "gate".
specified in Appendix C, that is, the gate set-
The mean value of all test results for each frac- ting, as determined from samples obtained in a
tion per constructed lot, obtained in a stratified stratified random sampling procedure.
random sampling procedure, is checked against
this gate setting. In addition, the gate setting is (For an example of Base Envelope for aggre- T
closed in proportion to the variability (i.e. the gate with maximum Size 26,5 mm, see Figure R
I
16-5 on page 16-17). A
higher the variability, the smaller the gate), L
based on the calculated standard deviation for
G4 BASE S
each fraction per lot. E
C
The assessment of the construction lot grading T
The standard deviation, multiplied by the ap- I
is not done according to the statistical judge- O
propriate factor based on the number (n) of ment plan. After compaction the individual N
tests and allowable percentage defectives, is fractions making up the grading shall conform
indicative of the extent to which the tolerance to the requirements for G4 base as given in
initially allowed, is reduced, i.e. the gate set- Chapter 2. In addition the mean grading for
ting is further reduced. uncrushed G4 shall be restricted to a window
setting of between 6 and 10 percent for the
The better the process control of the crushing
operations in the first instance, the lower the mean value obtained for the 0,075 mm sieve,
variability and hence the less reduction of the and between 40 and 50 percent for the 4,75
gate setting. mm sieve. These settings should take into ac-
count the previous critical aspects such as
In the case where the grading of the trial breakdown.
section is adjusted to a more realistic target
grading and a second trial section is not The mean value obtained for the trial section,
ordered by the Materials Engineer, the six plus twice the standard deviation for each frac-
MDD values obtained for the trial section may tion on either side of the mean value, are plot-
not be applicable for the setting of the ted on Form E-DIS-BCG26-E, E-DIS-BCG37-
minimum percentage compaction. In this case E or E-DIS-BCG53-E for aggregate with
the initial set of six MDD values may be maximum size 26,5 mm, 37,5 mm and
determined from the first construction lot. 53,0 mm, respectively. See Figure 16-6 on
page 16-18.
The envelope thus obtained is compared with

the G4 envelope controlling values. This will

assist in setting a target for the controlling

fractions while using engineering judgement. ATTERBERG LIMITS
Grid rolling is often employed to obtain Relaxation of the Plasticity Index should not
compliance with the criteria. The end result is be entertained for base other than G4 calcrete.
affected by the processing method, which
should generally comply with the following Except for durability, grading (notably too
steps: coarse on the 13,2 and 4,75 mm fractions),
shape of the aggregate and drainage problems,
Step 1: The material shall be placed or bladed high PI values account for most premature
to the one side of the road to provide working base failures or lack of performance of roads
space for breaking down the oversize material. built before 1982.
Step 2: A portion of the material shall be If a high plasticity problem develops, mixing
spread in a thin layer to expose the oversize in 1,5 percent lime is normally considered the
material, to a width, which the grid roller is appropriate treatment to reduce plasticity. The
able to cover in a single pass on a compacted admixing of a non-plastic, fine natural binder
surface. (not permitted for G1) is not the preferred
solution, especially where the PI on the
Step 3: The grid roller shall have a minimum 0,075 mm fines exceed the maximum of 12.
mass of 13,5 ton and shall do four complete
roller passes over the material at a speed of at Modification with lime is preferably
least 12 km/h. implemented 24 hours ahead of the normal
T mixing, spreading, shaping and compaction
R procedures. The material should be in a moist
A Step 4: Any remaining oversized material shall
I be removed by hand and/or construction plant. condition to allow for modification of the
L
active clay to a non-active substance prior to
S Step 5: The processed material shall be placed compaction. This prevents major cementation,
E
C in a windrow on the opposite side of the road. which would result in the formation of
T
I unwanted shrinkage cracks in the layer.
O Step 6: Repeat steps 2 to 5, and place the
N
second windrow next to the first. The admixing of the dry lime to the moist
material can also be implemented at the source,
Step 7: The two windrows formed in steps 2 to or preferably as a fine lime slurry.
6 shall be mixed by blading them into a single
windrow on the side of the road.
Step 8: Repeat steps 2 to 7 until all the

oversize material has been broken down or
removed.
In the case of steep gradients, soft sections of

the road or lower layer with a soft surface, this
operation can be carried out on the hard floor
of the borrow pit. This procedure will ensure
more uniformity.
Research has shown that materials with a

Treton Impact Value less than 20 cannot
successfully be broken down by a grid roller.

T
R
I
A
L
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
Figure 16-3: Example form E-DET-BCG-E for design verification of base

T
R
I
A
L
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
Figure 16-4: Example of form E-DIS-BCG37-E for Grading Base (G1, G2 and G3) Envelope for Aggre-
gates 37,5 mm

T
R
I
A
L
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
Figure 16-5: Example of form E-DIS-BCG26-E for Grading Base (G3) Envelope for Aggregates
26,5 mm

T
R
I
A
L
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
Figure 16-6: Example of form E-DIS-BCG53-E for Grading Base (G4) Envelope for Aggregates
53,0 mm

COMPACTION
Water permeable
The purpose of compaction is to arrange the porous zone
particles in such a way to achieve the highest Aggregate
possible density of the layer with a minimum volume (Bulk RD)
of voids, while using the least compaction en-
Air void
ergy.
By achieving higher densities, the shear

strength and elastic modulus are improved
leading to lower consolidation and rutting un-
der traffic and the pavement deflects less. Figure 16-7: Illustration of bulk relative density
The trial section offers an opportunity to do a This water-permeable, porous zone reflects the
compaction study to assess the effectiveness of zone of uncertainty in the measurement of
various compaction equipment. apparent relative density, which becomes more
susceptible to variation with increasing
Typically G2 granular base placed in a
porosity. The apparent relative density (ARD)
150 mm compacted layer requires one roller
method ultimately requires aggregate to
pass with a vibratory steel wheel roller (high
aggregate contact to penetrate the porous zone
amplitude, low frequency mode), followed by
in order to attain the required level of
four to six passes with a 12 ton roller (low am-
densification.
plitude, high frequency mode), followed by T
eight passes with a 12 ton pneumatic type R
The following should be heeded when assess- I
roller and finally three passes with a 12 ton A
ing or specifying density requirements: L
steel wheel roller (non-vibratory mode).
S
With tight controls on the setting of target E
The typical standard deviations for compaction grading and subsequent grading assessment, it C
range between 1 and 2 percent (refer to Chap- T
is possible to assess compaction purely on per- I
ter 9: Acceptance Control: Basic Concepts, centage of bulk relative density attained.
O
N
for more details).
Should tight grading controls not prevail,
The minimum compaction shall be as specified it is possible to obtain the required bulk rela-
in the Project specifications and shall be tive density by using excess fines. This results
approved by the Materials Engineer. Refer also in the coarse aggregate floating in the fines.
to Chapter 2, Standards. This test is
performed within 24 hours after completion of
the compaction process. The nuclear gauge SETTING THE TARGET DENSITY
density determination shall be the reference
Two methods are available in setting the target
method. Where two nuclear gauges are being
density in terms of minimum Modified
used for a particular project, the gauge yielding
AASHTO compaction. These are discussed
the lower density results shall be used as the
below:
reference.
The percentage bulk relative density (BRD) METHOD A

requirement of, for example, 88 percent, The minimum percentage Modified AASHTO
implies a maximum in situ air voids content of compaction (read off the graph), at the value
12 percent, where the air voids are located in specified in Chapter 2 (e.g., 88 percent of bulk
the aggregate to aggregate contact zone (total relative density), depends on the mean MDD
volume less aggregate volume), but excluding value (kg/m3) obtained for the material in the
the water-permeable, porous zone - see trial section, expressed as a percentage of the
Figure 16-7 on page 16-19. mean BRD (kg/m3) of the material in the trial

section. Figure 16-8 on page 16-20 illustrates Another aspect which could result in different
the procedure. graphs is unrealistic BRD values. Graph A-B
could be the result of an unrealistically low
The MDD value is very dependent on the BRD: Graph A-C could be as a result of an
grading, shape and texture of the aggregate unrealistically high BRD.
particles. On the other hand, the difference between the
B
graphs could relate to three different trial sec-
89,73 A tions using the same source and tester, but
VERY where different crusher arrangements and/or
BULK GOOD LE
N AB C adjustments were made to achieve the required
RELATIVE O
DENSITY, % 88 S
R EA grading and shape.
86,33 Graph A-C with lower MDD values would be
POOR an extremely coarse grading with poor
aggregate shape. Graph A-A could represent a
A reasonable grading, possibly with a fairly well-
100 102 104
MODIFIED AASHTO COMPACTION, %
shaped aggregate. Graph A-B could represent
the ideal grading in conjunction with an ideal
shape (generally cubical with very low
Figure 16-8: Bulk Relative Density vs Modi-
flakiness and elongation).
fied AASHTO Compaction: Different Testers
METHOD B
The graphs A-A, A-B and A-C are determined Since the grading of the material, the particle
by three different testers, A, B and C respec- shape (flakiness index, elongation and crushed
T
R tively. Graph A-A may represent a grading sat- faces), and the texture have a much greater
I isfying all the basic constraints, with the mean
A influence on the determination of the MDD
L BRD and the mean MDD having been realisti- than on the determination of the BRD, Method
S cally determined. B is recommended to determine the target
E
C Graphs A-B and A-C could represent the same Modified AASHTO density.
T
I trial section, but tester B has obtained a higher See Table 16-4 and Table 16-5 on page 16-21,
O mean MDD, but the same BRD value as for
N which can be used to evaluate test results ob-
tester A. tained for a particular rock type and gradings
The significant differences between these generally complying with the specified re-
operators will not have a major significance in quirements.
setting a target value of density provided the Determine the mean MDD value for the
same tester is retained for the full duration of trial section (minimum of six test results based
the project and the testing error remains the on samples obtained in a stratified random
same. Note that the mean of the six MDD manner).
values obtained in the trial section are used as Determine the mean BRD (kg/m3) and
the basis for the sequential mean of the project. water absorption (%) and compare with Table
The targets set by the different testers for 88 16-4 and Table 16-5 to assess whether the
percent bulk relative density are: value obtained is realistic for the particular
type of rock.
Tester A: 102 percent Modified AASHTO
The required target value, Cmin, for
density
minimum Modified AASHTO compaction is
Tester B: 100 percent Modified AASHTO
calculated as follows:
density
88 x DBR
Tester C: 104 percent Modified AASHTO Cmin =
density MDD
Where
Although this example is purely demonstrative,
differences in the mean MDD values can easily DBR = BRD density
occur between three testers. MDD = Maximum Dry Density

Example
A hornfels with 0,5% water absorption had a The mean MDD value obtained for the trial
mean BRD of 2 700 kg/m3. From Table 16-5 a section was 2 331 kg/m3 or 86,3 percent BRD.
BRD of 2 700 kg/m3 would give an ARD of
just under 2 750 kg/m3. In Table 16-4 this falls Using the formula the following is obtained:
in the suggested range (2 725 to 2 750) for a
hornfels and thus the result is acceptable.
Table 16-4: Key for correlating rock type with density

ROCK TYPE Dolerite Dolomite Granite Hornfels Quartzite Sandstone Ventersdorp
lava
APPARENT 2950 2850 2650 2725 2625 2600 2775
RELATIVE DENSITY to to to to to to to
RANGE kg/m3 3000 2900 2700 2750 2675 2650 2825
Table 16-5: Values of ARD, BRD and MDD at different water absorptions
APPARENT BULK RELATIVE DENSITY, kg/m3 MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY 88% BRD
RELATIVE WATER ABSORPTION, % WATER ABSORPTION, %
DENSITY, kg/m3 0,25 0,50 0,75 1,0 0,25 0,50 0,75 1,0
3000 2975 2955 2935 2915 2620 2600 2580 2560 T
R
2975 2955 2930 2910 2890 2600 2580 2560 2540 I
A
2950 2930 2905 2885 2865 2575 2560 2540 2520 L
2925 2905 2885 2860 2840 2555 2540 2520 2500 S
E
2900 2880 2860 2840 2820 2535 2515 2495 2480 C
T
2875 2855 2835 2815 2795 2510 2495 2475 2455 I
O
2850 2830 2810 2790 2770 2490 2470 2455 2435 N
2825 2805 2785 2765 2745 2470 2450 2435 2415

2800 2780 2760 2740 2725 2445 2430 2410 2395
2775 2755 2735 2720 2700 2435 2410 2390 2375
2750 2730 2710 2695 2675 2405 2385 2370 2355
2725 2705 2690 2670 2650 2380 2365 2350 2335
2700 2680 2665 2645 2630 2360 2345 2330 2310
2675 2655 2640 2620 2605 2340 2325 2305 2290
2650 2630 2615 2600 2580 2315 2300 2285 2270
2625 2605 2590 2575 2560 2295 2280 2265 2250
2600 2580 2565 2550 2535 2275 2260 2245 2230
2575 2560 2540 2525 2510 2250 2235 2220 2210
2550 2530 2520 2500 2485 2230 2215 2200 2185
2525 2510 2495 2480 2460 2210 2195 2180 2165
2500 2485 2470 2455 2440 2185 2175 2160 2145

2700
density for the specified 88% of bulk relative
Cmin = 88 = 101,9% density (see Chapter 2, Materials Standards,
2331
Base (Granular).
Therefore, the minimum should be set at 102,0
percent Modified AASHTO density (rounded G1 BASE
up to the nearest 0,5 percent (see Figure 16-9 The minimum compaction shall be as specified
on page 16-22). in Chapter 2.
G2 BASE
t1
BULK 90
t2
The minimum compaction shall be as specified
RELATIVE
DENSITY, 88 in Chapter 2.
%
86
G3 AND G4 BASE
The minimum compaction shall be as specified
A
in Chapter 2.
100 101,5 104
MODIFIED AASHTO COMPACTION, %
t1 = nuclear gauge readings
t2 = sand replacement
APPROVAL OF TRIAL
SECTION
Figure 16-9: Bulk Relative Density vs Modified
T AASHTO Compaction: Different Test Methods (DESIGN VERIFICATION)
R
I For the approval of the proposed target settings
A The compaction of the layer at each test point,
L the forms listed below must be submitted to the
expressed as a percentage of the mean MDD Materials Engineer at the earliest stage, well
S
E and mean BRD, plotted in Figure 16-8 along before the construction sections commence
C line AT, will be dependent on the test method
T with an accompanying letter stating the moti-
I used to determine density, e.g., a nuclear gauge vation of the proposed target settings.
O
N
reading may plot at t1 while for sand replace-
ment method the corresponding reading may A copy of the letter and also of the forms shall
plot at t2. be submitted to the Head: Pavement Technol-
ogy, Materials Testing Laboratory, Cape Town
The difference obtained between the reference (refer to Chapter 1, Proposed Design and
nuclear gauge and the second nuclear gauge, or Trial Section).
reference gauge and sand replacement value,
must be added to the minimum target percent- Duplicate samples taken at each test point for
age of Modified AASHTO compaction. It indicator testing (grading, shape, Atterberg
should be noted that a large difference between Limits, BRD, etc.) and for MDD determina-
the nuclear gauge and the sand replacement tions should also be submitted.
method is greater for coarser and harder mate- The Indicator sample (small bag containing
rials (e.g., dolerite). This can be ascribed to a approximately 15 kg) must be a total sample
larger degree of disturbance in the test hole (including all fractions) while the MDD sam-
during excavation for the sand replacement ple (large bag containing approximately 35 kg)
method resulting in an underestimate of the must be prepared according to the test method
volume and hence a higher percentage com- to -19 mm size (see Chapter 1).
paction.
Example
For a G2 trial section the minimum compac-
tion for the reference nuclear gauge was found
to be 101,5 percent of Modified AASHTO

APPLICABLE FORMS
The following forms are used to accompany
the Engineers Representative report for accep-
tance and approval of the trial section.
STAGE FORM CODE APPLICATION
Evaluation E-DET-SEQ-E Only for MDD
samples taken at
test points for refer-
ence nuclear gauge
E-DET-BCG-E Only for G1, G2 ,
G3 or G4 base
E-ASS-ACG4-E Only for G4 base
E-ASS-ACG1-E Acceptance
Control: Base-
Granular (G1) Max
size 37,5 mm
Control: Base
Granular (G2) Max
size 37,5 mm
T
E-ASS-ACG3-E Acceptance R
I
Control: Base A
Granular (G3) Max L
size 37,5/26,5 mm
S
E
E-DIS-BCG37-E Only for 37,5 mm C
for G1, G2 and G3 T
I
E-DIS-BCG26-E Only for 26,5 mm O
for G3 N
E-DIS-BCG53-E Only for 53,0 mm

for G4
The outcome of the test results obtained by the

Head: Materials Support Services will verify
the proposed target settings for acceptance,
need for adjustment, or requirement for an
additional trial section.

CONSTRUCTION LOTS
requirements are applicable to G1, G2 and G3
base.
INTRODUCTION
The quality of the base is judged on For each test point the following in situ tests
construction lots. The construction lots shall shall be carried out:
satisfy the criteria outlined in Chapter 2,
Density determination
Materials Standards, Base - Granular. Lots
shall also satisfy the appropriate project Layer thickness
specifications, which may include more recent
research findings and project specific Samples shall be taken at test points for the
requirements based on special investigations following laboratory tests:
carried out during the planning and detail
design phase of the project. Any deviations Grading and Atterberg (Indicator sam-
from the Materials Standards as indicated in ples)
Chapter 2 of the Materials Manual should be
well researched with special cognisance being Maximum dry density (MDD). Two sam-
taken of the impact of such deviations on life ples per construction lot shall be taken at least
cycle costing. 100 m apart for the determination of maximum
C dry density. Initially, only one sample is tested
O
N The lot must be visually homogeneous with for the sequential mean.
S
T regard to grading, density and moisture con-
R tent. Any isolated non-homogeneous areas Percentage flakiness index (and elonga-
U
C (e.g., wet patches) must be excluded from the tion if specified) shall be determined for two
T samples per construction lot.
I
lot and shall be assessed as a separate lot.
O
N Percentage fractured faces for colluvial
L
O
SAMPLING PLAN and alluvial sources shall be determined for
T two samples per construction lot.
S The requirements are given in Chapter 4,
Field Sampling Methods, Sampling Plan, Un- Moisture content (full depth) before prim-
treated Pavement Layers and project specifi- ing.
cations, and covers the following issues for
various construction lengths and widths (full
width, half width, or an additional lane):
G4 BASE
The requirements are given in Chapter 8,
The number test points Quality Assurance, Base, Granular Base (Un-
treated) and table for Constructed layer con-
The position of test points (including trol - granular base (G4).
length and width of test blocks to ensure a
stratified random sampling approach). The same in situ and laboratory tests as for G1,
G2 and G3 base shall be done and the bearing
strength test shall also be done for each con-
TESTS struction lot.
G1, G2 AND G3 BASE

The requirements are given in Chapter 8,
Quality Assurance, Base, Granular Base (Un-
treated) and the table for Constructed layer
control - granular base (G2). The same testing

TIME SCHEDULE TO OBTAIN APPLICABLE FORMS

ACCEPTANCE ASSESSMENT
The duration of the relevant tests can be as-
sessed using Chapter 3, Commentary on test COMPACTION
methods, Time Schedule for Duration of Test. On completion of the layer the assessment of
the compaction of the layer shall comply with
STAGE FORM CODE APPLICATION the requirements of a statistical judgement
Sampling S-LAY-TPG2-E Test Points- plan. The plan uses the actual variability of the
Construction lots work reflected by the measurements of in situ
Granular layers density at test points according to a stratified
(Two or three lane random sampling plan (see Chapter 4, Field
carriageways)
Sampling Methods, Untreated Pavement
Testing T-BEN-BRD1-E Dry Bulk and Ap- Layers, Construction).
parent Relative
Densities and Water Since the time interval between final
Absorption (For
Base Only)
compaction and the sampling affects the
results, it is important to determine the in situ
T-BEN-MCG-E Test Data: Moisture density and obtain field samples for indicator
Gravimetric
tests within twenty-four hours of final
T-BEN-NUC-E Test Data: Densities compaction. However, at least twelve hours C
Nuclear Method should elapse before these actions take place. O
N
T-DAT-CBR-E Test Data: S
CBR/Density Rela- Two MDD samples shall be taken from the T
R
tionship construction lot in the same manner as for the U
C
T-DAT-IND1-B Test Data: Indicator samples obtained from the trial section. For T
Grading, Soil example, if the six MDD samples for the trial I
O
Mortar (Hydrome- section were obtained after mixing but before N
ter) and Atterberg compaction, this will also be applicable to the
Limits L
construction lot. O
T
Evaluation E-ASS-ACG1-E Acceptance S
Control: Base- The validity of the first MDD value from the
Granular (G1) Max
construction test lot is checked in step (d) of
size 37,5 mm
Form E-DET-SEQ-E (See Figure 16-10 on
E-ASS-ACG2-E Acceptance page 16-28 for a worked example of form
Control: Base-
E-DET-SEQ-E). The difference between the
Granular (G2) Max
size 37,5 mm first MDD value of the first construction test
lot and the mean MDD of the trial section is
tested against the T-value obtained for the trial
Control: Base-
Granular (G3) Max section. In the case of subsequent construction
sizes 37,5/26,5 mm test lots the difference between the first MDD
value of that specific test lot and the previous
Control: Base- sequential mean MDD value obtained for the
Granular (G4) Max previous lot, is tested against the T-value
size 53,0/37,5 mm obtained for the previous test lot. If it is
(crushed/natural) acceptable, then the second MDD sample is
E-DET-SEQ-E Determination discarded. If the value is not acceptable, then
Maximum Dry the second MDD sample shall be tested. If the
Density value of the second MDD sample is
Granular/Stabilised,
acceptable, the value of the first MDD sample
Trial Section: Mean
MDD is deleted. The second MDD value is used for
the determination of the sequential mean

MDD. If the second MDD is also not of values (a minimum of six values for each
acceptable, then a new trial section must be set) to determine if they belong to the same
constructed. However, this shall be discussed population. Form E-ASS-COM2-E is used for
with the Materials Engineer before proceeding. the comparison between two sets of values.
In the case where the sequential mean BRD is If there is a difference between the two sets,
used as a basis for calculating the degree of the statistical data from the second set of val-
compaction, the two samples of the construc- ues shall be taken as final. However, if there is
tion lot must also be obtained in the same man- no difference between the two sets, then the
ner as for the samples obtained in the trial values must be combined.
section. Normally a test portion is obtained
from an indicator sample for the determination In this case the ka and kr values shall be used
of the BRD of the material. for the second submission for (na + nb) number
of test values for an value of 15 percent for
To determine the quality (degree) of the com- single limits (na is the number of test values for
paction achieved the following forms are used: the first set and nb is the number of test values
E-ASS-ACG1-E for G1; E-ASS-ACG2-E for for the second set).
G2; E-ASS-ACG3-E for G3 and E-ASS-
ACG4-E for G4. In the case of non-compliance, the section
shall be rejected and the contractor or
See Figure 16-11 on page 16-29 for a worked construction unit shall propose an
example of Form E-ASS-ACG2-E (See note appropriate remedial action. This remedial
C action shall be approved by the Materials
O under Remarks).
N Engineer. Consistently doubtful outcomes
S
T Outliers shall be dealt with as in Chapter 9, shall not be tolerated.
R Acceptance Control: Basic Concepts and the
U
C Project specifications. For critical values of C Conditional acceptance may be applied at the
T
I for granular materials see Appendix C, Table sole discretion of the Materials Engineer
O
N
of Critical values of C for outlier test for unless otherwise specifically allowed for in the
granular material. project specifications.
L
O
T Appendix C, Table of Values of ka and kr - Note
S
single limits - first submission shall be used The possible causes and contributory factors
to obtain the values for ka an kr for a value of leading to the negative outcome of the assess-
15 percent for n number of test values for the ment shall be properly investigated before any
lot. discussion is made as to remedial actions.
In the case of an outlier, the ka and kr values Normally this would point towards a need for
for 15 percent value will be for n-1 number closer control on moisture, improved process
of test values. The outlier should be further in- control regarding compaction equipment, as-
vestigated to identify any possible problems. suming grading to be acceptable. Should this
situation persist, a detailed investigation shall
If no definite problem can be identified, only
be implemented if not already highlighted by
then may the result be discarded.
the component conformance control of the ma-
In the case of non-compliance with the terial tested every 7 500 m3. Three consecu-
specification, retesting of any test point is not tively uncertain outcomes shall lead to
permissible. If the decision is in question due rejection of the lots and the construction of a
to the creditability of the test values, the new trial section.
whole construction lot shall be re-tested with
a new set of random test points.
If a test lot is re-tested, the second set of values

shall be compared statistically with the first set

The following options may be considered: Conditional acceptance may lead to reduce
payment. Project specifications will normally
1. Apply under strict control additional water- deal with this issue. A guideline for reduced
rolls (slushing). This, however, may only im- payment is as follows:
prove the density of the top 50 to 60 mm of the
base by no more than one percent. x Lr
f r = 0,67 + 0,3 n
2. Rework the base. This shall be guided by La Lr
the grading results after compaction and the
break down characteristics of the material.
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
L
O
T
S

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
L
O
T
S
Figure 16-10: Example of form E-DET-SEQ-E for the determination of sequential MDD

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
L
O
T
S
Figure 16-11: Example of assessment form E-ASS-ACG2-E for G2 base

Where less than 5 000 m3 of base material

GRADING (loose volume) is required for a project, these
mean values are compared to the specification
G1 AND G2 BASE limit as for G3.
Form E-ASS-ACG1-E for G1 or E-ASS-
ACG2-E for G2 shall be used to record the Outliers shall be dealt with as in Chapter 9,
values obtained for grading. Acceptance Control: Basic Concepts, and
the Project Specification. Refer also to Ap-
The given tolerances are used to establish the pendix C, Table of Critical values of C for
double specification limit for grading which is outlier test for granular material.
a lower limit, Ls , and an upper limit L's (could
Appendix C, Table C3 "Values of kad and krd
also be termed an initial "gate setting"). double limits - first submission shall be used
a to obtain the values for krd and kad for the
Refer to Figure 16-12 on page 16-29 for an il-
values of as specified for the specific sieves
lustration of the process.
for n number of test values in the set of values.
In the case of an outlier, the kad and krd for n-1
values shall be obtained.
Figure 16-12: Assessment of mean value for 4,75 mm fraction
C STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3

O
N S P E C IF IC A T IO N % P A S S IN G T R IA L C O N S T R U C T IO N
VALU E VALU E
S R E Q U IR E D BY MASS S E C T IO N S E C T IO N
T
R 53
U
C
T
I
O
N
L
O T o le r a n c e
T = Ls
S 46
1,523
Full envelope
45
M e a n o f 4 4 ,5 La
e n v e lo p e
4 4 ,4 7 7
4
Z o n e fo r fu ll
Window for
4,75 mm
a c c e p ta n c e
TARGET e .g . 4 2
M e a n w it h in
a c c e p ta n c e z o n e
4
40 La
3 9 ,5 2 3
1 ,5 2 3
38
T o le r a n c e M e a n o u ts id e a c c e p t-
= Ls a n c e z o n e ( U N C E R T A IN
36 or R E JE C T)
Notes
1. Tolerance allowed = acceptance limit for G3
2. Historic 90 percentile standard deviations are 3,34
3. Not more than 10 percent of population of values () are allowed to lie outside the specification limits (Ls and Ls')
4. Six test results kad = 0,456
5. Product Sn kad = 1,523
6. Product Sn krd = 0,103

The mean value (after removing an outlier) ob- mm fractions and for alluvial and colluvial ma-
tained for each fraction is compared with the terials at the 2,00 and 0,425 mm fractions.
acceptance limits.
G3 BASE
If the mean value of the set is less than
the target value, the lower acceptance limit Form E-ASS-ACG3-E shall be used to record
( Ls ) is determined and compared with the the values obtained for grading.
mean.
A statistical approach is not required for grad-
If the mean value of the set is more than ing. The mean grading of each lot (minimum
the target value, the upper acceptance limit of 6 test points per lot) shall conform to the
( Ls ) is determined and compared with the approved target grading with the tolerances
specified in Appendix C.
mean.
Outlier values shall be dealt with as in Chap-
The lower and upper acceptance limits
ter 9, Acceptance Control: Basic Concepts.
( Ls and L's ) are the limiting values for the
mean within which the set of values of a lot This acceptance control procedure will also be
will be accepted and this could also be termed implemented where less than 5 000 m3 of loose
the final gate setting. volume of G1 and G2 base is required for a
project or for isolated short sections during re-
Refer to Trial Section, Setting Target Grading habilitation.
for G1, G2 and G3 on page 16-8. C
O
As a statistical approach is not applicable to N
The standard deviations of the grading, it is required that the mean value for S
T
constructed lot can be compared with the each fraction will fall inside the lower Ls and R
standard deviations of the statistical data U
upper L's specification limits, that is, within C
provided in Figure 16-3 on page 16-15 to T
the gate setting. I
assess the quality of processing and placing O
control being exercised. N
The approved target value plus or minus the
L
The coarse sand ratio requirement used tolerance specified for each fraction will be the O
T
in the setting of the target grading may be re- so called "gate setting". This can be achieved S
laxed when assessing the construction lots, by good quality control.
provided the mean grading values fall within
the acceptance limits (final gate setting) for G4 BASE
the 2,00 and 0,425 mm fractions. For the construction lots a window setting is
applicable for the mean value of the 4,75 and
Conditional acceptance may be applied at
0,075 mm sieves respectively, while the indi-
the sole discretion of the Materials Engineer
vidual values for the other sieves shall fall
unless otherwise specially allowed for in the
within the specified limits (see Chapter 2,
project specifications. Reduced payment may
Materials Standards).
be the outcome of conditional acceptance.
The coarse sand ratio and grading modulus
During the production stage a specific trend
however, are assessed on the mean values ob-
may manifest which may justify a slight ad-
tained.
justment to the target grading, but any re-
adjustment shall be kept to the absolute mini- Where the more sophisticated controls offered
mum and shall only be approved at the sole by crushing and screening have not been
discretion of the Materials Engineer. ordered, the trial section should assist in
making the correct engineering decision when
Normally an inadequate crushing assembly
mean gradings are slightly off target. This
will cause problems at the 4,75 mm and 13,2
shall only be implemented with the approval of
the Materials Engineer.

ATTERBERG LIMITS GENERAL

Refer to comments under trial section G4, At-
terberg Limits on page 16-14. An unforeseen Any tests carried out during the approval stage
PI problem may be related to the incorrect de- for the source may be repeated for any con-
velopment of the source, inclusion of overbur- struction lot. Durability tests shall be carried
den at the quarry face, or inclusion of the out at the specific production intervals to ver-
seams of material which may have a higher PI. ify the source. Such test samples can be drawn
from the stockpile, dumped heaps, or com-
As the statistical assessment is not applicable pleted layer.
to PI, only the mean and standard deviation to
the nearest first decimal for both is determined Visual acceptance of the exposed mosaic of the
and recorded on the As Built Data Sheets. surface of the completed base is also required.
The following method specification, along
In the case where the mean Linear Shrinkage with the grading controls, should yield an ac-
is less than 0,5 percent, the PI for the mate- ceptable end product:
rial should be recorded as NP. With the mean
Linear Shrinkage between 0,5 and 1,0 per- After the base has been compacted to the
cent, the PI should be recorded as SP. required density at optimum moisture content
(OMC) and has been allowed to dry out to less
For a mean Linear Shrinkage more than 1,0 than 50 percent of the OMC, the final surface
percent, the mean PI and standard deviation of the base shall be watered and subjected to
C should be recorded. additional rolling (called slushing or water-
O
N rolling) in order to obtain a firm, even, well-
S SHAPE knit surface. Even under favourable warm and
T
R
U For alluvial and colluvial materials, the per- windy conditions, at least two days will be re-
C centage fractured faces for each sieve fraction quired after compaction of the final base layer
T
I shall be assessed per construction lot. for it to dry out sufficiently and set prior to
O the final water rolling operation.
N
Problems may arise where a source shows a
L Watering, rolling and sweeping with stiff
O trend towards yielding mostly -40 mm
T rounded, smooth gravel (pebbles). brooms shall continue until all excess fines on
S
the surface of the base have been distributed
BEARING STRENGTH OF G4 over the surface of the base without creating a
skin of fine material.
By comparing the single CBR value obtained
per lot with previous lots, a trend may be es- Any areas deficient in fines as indicated
tablished. by the engineer shall be corrected by the addi-
tion of fine aggregate from the same source of
Should large variations occur, the optimum supply as the crushed aggregate, and by
moisture content obtained per lot may be in- brooming the fine aggregate into the surface
dicative of the large variations in grading, voids of the layer until a firm base with a
which could point to the need for stockpiling, closely knit surface is obtained.
or indicate inadequate stockpiling techniques.
A high PI of the -0,075 mm fraction has also All excess fines which cannot be redis-
been found to detrimentally influence the bear- tributed shall be removed by brooming while
ing strength and requires chemical modifica- still wet from the water-rolling. The base shall
tion only (typically 1,5 percent of lime by then be allowed to dry out once again to less
mass) to attain the specified bearing strength. than 50 percent of the OMC so as to present an
exposed mosaic of regular stone faces, free
The coarse sand ratio is also a good indicator from fine aggregate and foreign matter.
of potential CBR, and the addition of a soil
binder may improve the CBR and satisfy the
specification.

When using entirely non-plastic bases, it In addition to the appropriate acceptance con-
may be necessary to remove the final portions trol forms, the following forms must also be
of excess fines from the surface after the base submitted:
has been allowed to dry out to a degree, which
can be determined only by trial and error. Form Code Application
S-LAY-TPG2-E Only for the first two con-

The completed layer shall be firm and struction lots
stable with a closely knit surface aggregate
exposed in mosaic and free from areas of T-DAT-CBR-E Only for G4 base
segregated material, laminations or
corrugations. T-DAT-GRA-E With each lot
During surface preparation of the base, E-DET-SEQ-E Only for lots not previously
care shall be taken not to roll the surface out of submitted
shape.
The data of the lot shall only be recorded on
The crushed stone base shall be primed as the As Built Data Sheets after scrutiny and
soon as the moisture content of this layer is with the final decision of the Materials Engi-
below 50 percent of optimum moisture content neer on
to protect the base until the surface seal or as- lots fully complying to specification, or
phalt is applied. Immediately before priming
the base shall be lightly brushed with a rotary
lots not fully complying with the specifi-
C
cation but accepted by the Materials Engi- O
broom to remove any dust and loose material. N
neer without removal or reworking of the
S
section. T
R
SUBMISSION OF ACCEPTANCE U
C
CONTROL FORMS AS - BUILT DATA T
I
O
For the final approval of completed work, the The data of completed work, which has been N
acceptance control forms (E-ASS-ACG1 for accepted, or replaced and retested, or other re- L
medial measures applied and accepted, shall be O
G1; E-ASS-ACG2-E for G2; E-ASS-ACG3-E T
for G3 and E-ASS-ACG4-E for G4) shall be recorded electronically on the As Built Accep- S
forwarded under cover of a letter to the Head: tance Control Utility Software (ABACUS).
Pavement Technology Materials Laboratory,
A project database, containing the specific pro-
Cape Town, at least weekly, or at more fre-
ject specification needs to be set up in advance
quent intervals as required.
with the Head: Pavement Technology, Materi-
Only a copy of the covering letter shall be sent als Testing Laboratory, Cape Town.
to the Materials Engineer. The letter shall state
The submission of copies of the acceptance
by means of a list whether the construction lots
control reports (A4 size) with the data of at
comply with the specifications or not. (See
least the first three lots must be submitted at
Chapter 1, Quality Control of Completed
the beginning for scrutiny.
Work).
As part of the final submission of the As-Built
Data, both electronic and in book form, a list
of all construction lots not fully complying
with the specifications, but accepted by the
Materials Engineer, shall be included.

SUPPLY ONLY BASE

For each test point grading and Atterberg Lim-
INTRODUCTION its tests shall be carried out. Bearing strength
and swell for uncrushed material shall be as-
It is important that the supplier, client and sessed according to Chapter 11, Acceptance
contractor responsible for the final processing Control: Stockpiled Material.
on the road, agree to a supply grading, (after
source approval) acceptance control Samples are required at less frequent intervals
procedures, rate of supply and dumping for the following laboratory tests:
arrangements (and stockpiling where required).
Durability
Conductivity
SAMPLING PLAN
Where borderline or variable test results are
Refer to Chapter 4, Sampling Methods, Sam- obtained the frequency of testing shall be in-
pling Plan, Processed Materials, which covers creased.
sampling from the conveyer belt, stockpile, or
material dumped on road.
TIME SCHEDULE TO OBTAIN
S TESTS ACCEPTANCE
U
P
P The time schedule to obtain acceptance for the
L G1, G2 AND G3 BASE delivered product is governed by supply
Y
project specification requirements given in
O Refer to Chapter 8, Quality Assurance, Com- Appendix B and/or Chapter 3, Commentary
N
ponent Conformance Control, Base, Granular on Test Methods, Time schedule for duration
B (Untreated), Stages of Control, for a complete
A of testing.
S list of tests. Refer also to Appendix B, Speci-
E
fication For The Supply Of Base Material
(G1), and Specification for the Supply Of APPLICABLE FORMS
Base Material (G2).
STAGE FORM CODE DESCRIPTION
Sampling S-SOU-GRA-E Field samples of
For each test point grading and Atterberg Material for Pave-
Limits tests shall be carried out. ment Layers - Bor-
row Pits
Samples shall be taken at test points for the Testing T-DAT-IND1-E Test Data - Indica-
following laboratory tests: tor - Grading, Soil
Mortar (Hydrome-
Aggregate strength ter) and Atterberg
Limits
Durability Evaluation E-ASS-SUP1-E Acceptance Control
Conductivity -Base-Supply G1
E-ASS-SUP2-E Acceptance Control
- Base - Supply G2
G4 BASE E-ASS-SUP4-E Acceptance Control
- Base -Supply G4
Refer to Chapter 8, Quality Assurance,
Component Conformance Control, tables for
Natural and processed gravel base (G4) for a ASSESSMENT
complete list of tests. Refer also to Appendix The same procedures as for Construction
B, Specification For The Supply Of Base Lots on page 16-24, excluding Compaction,
Material (G4). shall apply to the agreed target grading, suita-

bly adjusted to allow for the breakdown char-

acteristics described under Trial Section, Pro-
cedures, Target Grading G1, G2, G3 on page
16-7 with more specific comments on break-
down on page 16-11.
COMMENT
Where changes are made to the production
process, source, or compaction procedures
after a trial section has been accepted, a new
trial section may be required to re-assess
breakdown characteristics.
Commercial sources may collect data on the

breakdown characteristics of a specific source.
The data shall only be considered if it was ob-
tained on material placed and compacted in an
acceptable manner. The data could be most
valuable to the construction fraternity.
Stockpiling procedures are critical where it is

required to use these supply arrangements. S
U
Appendix B provides relevant detail to limit P
P
segregation and variability. L
Y
O
N
B
A
S
E

REFERENCES
JOURNALS
Holubec, I. Cyclic creep of granular materials. University of Waterloo, Department of Civil Engineering,
Final Report on project W-13. DHO Report no. RR147, Ontario, June 1969
Horak, E., De Villiers, E.M. and Wright, D. Improved performance of a deep granular base pavement with
improved material and control specifications. Annual Transportation Convention, Session C106. Paper
5A-5, Pretoria, August 1989, 28 pages.
Paige-Green, P. The hardness of gravel aggregate as an indicator of performance in unpaved roads. De-
partment of Transport, Project Report PR93/560/1, Pretoria, March 1994.
Semmelink, C.J. An index for describing the compactibility of untreated roadbuilding materials. CSIR,
DPVT 141 (RDAC 88/030/2), Pretoria, April 1990.
Semmelink, C.J. The effect of shape and texture of roadbuilding material particles on their compactibility
and bearing capacity. Department of Transport, Project Report 91/185, Pretoria., April 1992.
Semmelink, C.J. The fine aggregate characteristics of crushed stone bases. Department of Transport,
Unpublished Project Report PR92/471, Pretoria, October 1993.
Semmelink, C.J. Compactibility and other engineering properties of six G2, crushed stone materials using
the CPA specification requirements. Department of Transport, Project Report 89/148, Pretoria, April 1991.
Van Zyl, N.J.W. and Maree, J.H. The Heavy Vehicle Simulator test on road TR77/1 between Cape Town
and Saldanha Bay, near Koeberg. Division of Roads and Transport Technology, Technical Report
R RP/27/82, CSIR, Pretoria, 1982.
E
F
E
R
E
MANUALS AND SPECIFICATIONS
N
C Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Works. COLTO, 1998.
E
S

Chapter16 Latest

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Chapter16 Latest

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Volume 2

Chapter 16 Revision 1.0

Western Cape Provincial Administration

Department of Transport and Public Works

Western Cape Provincial Administration

CONSTRUCTION LOTS ...................................................................................... 24

16 Acceptance control: base layers 4 June, 2008 page 16-i

SUPPLY ONLY BASE ........................................................................................34

page 16-ii 4 June, 2008 16 Acceptance control: base layers

Chapter 9 Chapter 13 Chapter 17

Chapter 10 Chapter 14 Chapter 18

Chapter 11 Chapter 15 Chapter 19

Figure 16- 1: Layout of the Materials Manual

1. Van Zyl, N.J.W. and Maree, J.H. The Heavy Vehi-

16 Acceptance control: base layers 4 June, 2008 page 16-1

MATERIAL COMPONENT CONSTRUCTION CONTROL

page 16-2 4 June, 2008 16 Acceptance control: base layers

16 Acceptance control: base layers 4 June, 2008 page 16-3

page 16-4 4 June, 2008 16 Acceptance control: base layers

16 Acceptance control: base layers 4 June, 2008 page 16-5

For each test point the following in situ tests

Samples shall be taken at test points for the

page 16-6 4 June, 2008 16 Acceptance control: base layers

AGGREGATE MAXIMUM SIZE OF

The slope of the grading curve between

16 Acceptance control: base layers 4 June, 2008 page 16-7

When attempting to improve the Gap-graded mixtures give rise to segregation,

page 16-8 4 June, 2008 16 Acceptance control: base layers

4. Semmelink, C.J. An index for describing the com-

16 Acceptance control: base layers 4 June, 2008 page 16-9

A problem arises when a natural binder, other

37,5 100 - 100

26,5 88 12 3500 12 x 2500 / 3500 = 8,6 10,3 89,7

19,0 77 11 3500 11 x 2500 / 3500 = 7,9 9,4 80,3

13,2 67 10 3500 10 x 2500 / 3500 = 7,1 8,6 71,7

4,75 42 25 3500 25 x 2500 / 3500 = 17,9 21,4 50,3

2,00 30 12 2500 12 x 2500 / 2500 = 12,0 14,4 36,0

0,425 16 14 2500 14 x 2500 / 2500 = 14,0 16,8 19,2

0,075 7 9 2500 9 x 2500 / 2500 = 9,0 10,8 8,4

<0,075 7 2500 7 x 2500 / 2500 = 7,0 8,4

= 100 = 83,4 = 100

page 16-10 4 June, 2008 16 Acceptance control: base layers

2,00 2,1 2,34 The grading breakdown information in

16 Acceptance control: base layers 4 June, 2008 page 16-11

higher extreme with a large standard deviation, G3 BASE

The mean grading of the material after com-

The envelope thus obtained is compared with

16 Acceptance control: base layers 4 June, 2008 page 16-13

assist in setting a target for the controlling

Step 8: Repeat steps 2 to 7 until all the

In the case of steep gradients, soft sections of

Research has shown that materials with a

page 16-14 4 June, 2008 16 Acceptance control: base layers

Figure 16-3: Example form E-DET-BCG-E for design verification of base

16 Acceptance control: base layers 4 June, 2008 page 16-15

page 16-16 4 June, 2008 16 Acceptance control: base layers

16 Acceptance control: base layers 4 June, 2008 page 16-17

page 16-18 4 June, 2008 16 Acceptance control: base layers

By achieving higher densities, the shear

The percentage bulk relative density (BRD) METHOD A

16 Acceptance control: base layers 4 June, 2008 page 16-19

page 16-20 4 June, 2008 16 Acceptance control: base layers

Table 16-4: Key for correlating rock type with density

2825 2805 2785 2765 2745 2470 2450 2435 2415