EFFECT OF COMPACTION AND RUTTING CHARACTERISTICS IN

VARIOUS BITUMINOUS MIXES

Hari haran.b*, Prasanna Gowda*

*Under Graduate Students in Civil Engineering, Dayananda Sagar College of Engineering,

S.M. Hills, K.S. Layout, Bangalore-560 078.
(prasu _kumar84@yahoo.co.in, hari.86.b@gmail.com).

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL
The three main factors in HOT MIX ASPHALT pavement construction is
“compaction, compaction, compaction”. Compaction is the process by which the volume of
air in an HMA mixture is reduced by using external forces to reorient the constituent
aggregate particles into a more closely spaced arrangement. This reduction of air volume in a
mixture produces a corresponding increase in HMA unit weight, or density .Quality of
roadways also depends greatly on the pavement. In HMA roadways, the density of the HMA
plays a significant role in the overall ability to support load and provide long term service.
HMA pavement specifications include detail on density as well as percent voids. Under-
compaction results in low density and high void content. An under-compacted pavement will
have low strength, reduced durability, high deformation, and high permeability leading to
problems such as rutting, ravelling, and freeze-thaw damage. Over compaction results in high
density and low void content. This pavement may bleed, rut, crack, or have premature failure.

This paper mainly deals with compaction aspects of bitumen and also rutting aspects
of various binders. Rutting, also known as permanent deformation can be defined as the
accumulation of small amounts of unrecoverable strains as a result of applied loading to a
pavement. Rutting occurs when the pavement under traffic loading consolidates and or there
is a lateral movement of the hot-mix asphalt (HMA).

1.2 NEED OF STUDY

Compaction of Asphalt concrete mixtures in flexible pavements plays a major role in

the performance of these pavements. Mix properties, such as density and air voids are highly
dependent on the degree and the method of compaction. These properties in turn affect
pavement performance indicators, such as rutting and fatigue cracking. The difference
between laboratory compaction methods is not only the result of the evaluation procedure but
is also the consequence of the compaction technique used. The goal of a mix design
procedure is to combine aggregates and a binder in a proportion that is able to satisfy a
desired level of performance. Realistic procedures for evaluating the strength of bituminous
mixtures are therefore quite important. There are several factors that affect the strength of
bituminous mixtures; one of them is the method of forming a realistic test specimen in the
laboratory that represents the structure of the paving mixture when it is placed in the field.
Duplicating the composition of a field mixture in the laboratory presents some problems, but
they are minor compared to producing in the laboratory a specimen of the mixture that truly
represents the mixture as it exists in the field. Hence to overcome this problem of comparing
the field data with the laboratory results we have tried to analyse the field data by compacting
and analysing the rutting characteristics of the pavement structure using Compaction and
Rut Analyser.

1.3 OBJECTIVES
A) To verify how well the specimens do fabricate using laboratory compaction
methods and to try and simulate the properties of the pavement in the field.
B) To correlate the mixture performance as compared by rolling compactor with that
of the performance evaluation procedure and design.
C) To find Optimum Binder Content (OBC).
D) To compare the density of bituminous mix compacting by Rolling Compactor cum
Rut Analyser with the Marshall method of compaction hammer.

1.4 Problem statement

In developing countries like India the dramatic growth in vehicular traffic have
augmented axle loads and increased tire pressure on the pavements resulting in rutting and
cracking. Compaction of asphaltic concrete mixtures in flexible pavements plays a major role
in the performance of these pavements. Mix properties, such as density and air voids are
highly dependent on the degree and the method of compaction. These properties in turn affect
pavement performance indicators, such as rutting and fatigue cracking.
1.5 Scope of Study

The key points aimed to maintain the scope during the study were compaction of
asphalt concrete mixes by Marshall and Rolling Compactor cum Rut Analyzer (Patent
Pending) methods to evaluate HMA properties of the mix and to find some co-relations in
HMA properties between two laboratory compaction methods. Further more, to compare the
effect of different number of blows and different number of passes as compactive efforts for
various modified binder mix designs, as performance of mixes in terms of density and air
voids were observed according to the serial tests.

The compaction methods used to evaluate HMA properties were Marshall and
superpave laboratory compaction methods. Standard mix design procedures were
differentiated on their method of compaction, which is assumed to simulate field compaction.
With the Marshall design methods, specimens are prepared by impact compaction, while in
the superpave design method, specimens are fabricated by rolling compaction. This type of
compaction was developed to produce realistic specimens which compared favourably to in-
service mixtures after traffic compaction. The rolling compaction technique was introduced
to simulate the increasing loads and tire pressures of vehicles operating on the pavement.
Prior to this compaction technique, it was not possible to achieve a realistic field density in
laboratory specimens.

2.0 BINDER TESTS

Laboratory test on binders were conducted at Dayananda Sagar College of
Engineering (DSCE), Bangalore, using BCRMB 60, CPMB 40, OPMB 70, WPMB modified
bitumen. All the four binders were tested for viscosity, determined by using Rotational
Viscometer, in addition to this the flash point, penetration, softening point, ductility and
elastic recovery of binders were determined.

2.1 Rotational Viscosity Test

Viscosity tests were conducted on all the four binder using a rotational viscometer.
The Rotational Viscometer determines the asphalt viscosity by measuring the torque
necessary to maintain a constant rotational speed of a cylindrical spindle submerged in an
asphalt specimen held at a constant temperature, as per the ASTM 4402 standard test method.
Unlike the capillary viscometers used with the viscosity-graded method, the rotational
viscometer can evaluate modified asphalt binders. The viscosity of asphalt binders can be
measured within the range of 0.01 Pa·s (0.1 poise) to 200 Pa-s (2000 poise) [7]. All the four
binders when measured for viscosity qualify the superpave specifications of maximum value
3 Pa-s at 1350 C. The table 1.0 shows the viscosity test results. Figure 1.0 show the rotational
viscometer used to measure the viscosity.

Table 1.0: Showing Viscosity Test Result using Rotational Viscosity.

Test BCRMB- WPMB OPMB 70 CPMB 40 Test

Specifications 60 Criteria

Viscosity @ 0.68 0.59 0.55 0.61 ASTM 4402

1350 C in Pa-s,
Max 3.0 Pa-s

Figure 1.0: Rotational Visco meter

2.2 Conventional Test Results

As we all know that bitumen is a viscio-elastic material, the conventional test does not
really measure the visco-elastic nature of the bitumen. The binders were subjected to
conventional tests like penetration, ductility, softening point, flash and fire point and elastic
recovery; the results are given in the table 2.0. These tests proved to pass all the criteria given
by IS specifications.

Table 2.0: Shows the Test Results of the Binders at various Temperatures

Test Description BCRMB-60 WPMB CPMB 40 OPMB 70

andCriteria

Penetration (mm) at 25 deg c IS: 1203-1 25  38  33  42 

Softening Point in deg C IS:1205- 63  61  61  59 

1978

Ductility (cm) IS: 1208-1978 >75 40 >75 >75 

Elastic Recovery in % (Min 50%) at 3.3 1.8 5.3 5 

15 deg c IRC SP :53-2002

Flash Point in deg C Min 230 deg C 250  205  210  218 
IS: 1209-1978

Fire Point in deg C IS: 1209-1978 310  248  260  274 

Specific gravity IS: 1202-1978 0.967  0.978  0.982  1.005 

3.0 PREPARATION OF DENSE BITUMINOUS MACADAM MIX (DBM)

Tests on aggregate were conducted and physical properties are show in Table 3.0
below. Combined F & E index test for stone dust is not conducted. Aggregate gradation
adopted for the current study was superpave specifications for BC Grade-2. A gradation
curve was plotted, Figure 4.0 shows combined aggregate structure. Compaction for mix
design was done using a Rolling Compactor cum Rut Analyzer (RC&RA). The Optimum
Binder Content (OBC) of three binder’s viz., BCRMB-60, WPMB, OPMB 70 and CPMB 40
were 4.65, 4.6, 4.75 and 4.55% respectively by weight of aggregate this was found from the
Marshall test, this test also gave us the stability value for various binders.

Sl. No. Test Description Test Method Result

1. Combined F&E Index (%) IS:2386 (Pt I-1963) 31.80

2. Specific Gravity IS: 2386 (Pt IV-1963) 20mm 10mm

2.67 2.66

3. Impact Value (%) IS: 2386 (Pt IV-1963) 21.46

4. L.A. Abrasion Value (%) IS: 2386 (Pt IV-1963) 11.44

Figure 3.0: Aggregate test results

Figure 3.0: Gradation Curve for Dense Bituminous

4.0 Laboratory compaction or Marshall Method

The Marshall stability and flow test provides the performance prediction measure for
the Marshall mix design method. The stability portion of the test measures the maximum load
supported by the test specimen at a loading rate of 50.8 mm/minute. Load is applied to the
specimen till failure, and the maximum load is designated as stability. During the loading, an
attached dial gauge measures the specimen's plastic flow (deformation) due to the loading.
The flow value is recorded in 0.25 mm (0.01 inch) increments at the same time when the
maximum load is recorded. The important steps involved in marshal mix design are
summarized next.

4.1 Specimen preparation

Approximately 1200gm of aggregates and filler is heated to a temperature of 175-190
deg C. Bitumen is heated to a temperature of 121-125 deg C with the first trial percentage of
bitumen (say 3.5 or 4% by weight of the mineral aggregates). The heated aggregates and
bitumen are thoroughly mixed at a temperature of 154-160 deg C. The mix is placed in a
preheated mould and compacted by a rammer with 50 blows on either side at temperature of
138 deg C to 149 deg C. The weight of mixed aggregates taken for the preparation of the
specimen may be suitably altered to obtain a compacted thickness of 63.5+/-3 mm. Vary the
bitumen content in the next trial by +0:5% and repeat the above procedure. Number of trials
is predetermined. Schematic diagram is show in the figure 4.1.

4.2 Determine Marshall Stability and flow

Marshall Stability of a test specimen is the maximum load required to produce failure
when the specimen is preheated to a prescribed temperature placed in a special test head and
the load is applied at a constant strain (5 cm per minute). While the stability test is in progress
dial gauge is used to measure the vertical deformation of the specimen. The deformation at
the failure point expressed in units of 0.25 mm is called the Marshall flow value of the
specimen.

4.10 Schematic diagram showing Marshall set up

4.3 Rutting Test

Specimens were casted using CRMB-60, WPMB, OPMB 70 and CPMB 40 grade at
there OBC’s and was subjected to rutting test using an indigenously manufactured by authors
called Rolling Compactor cum Rut Analyzer (Patent Pending). The unique features of this
compactor are it can apply a constant pressure of 600 kpa and if required the pressure can be
applied up to 3000 kpa. Similarly the rolling speed in the compactor can be varied. It has a
temperature control unit which maintains the pre selected compaction and test temperature.
With this the equipment is also capable of noting the densification data of the mix while
compaction of mix. Using these measurements the specimen’s compaction characteristics can
be developed. The compactor is also capable of producing the vibrations in range of 0.5 to
1.5 Htz during compaction. The compactor is an hydraulically operated with twin non return
valve system and has a Programmable Logical Circuit (PLC) which is in-turn connected to
vertical and horizontal transducers and capable of recording minuet change as 1mm.

The Figure 4.2 shows picture of Rolling Compactor cum Rut Analyzer. The rutting test was
conducted on the specimens casted at its OBC and was conditioned at 60+10 C, a tyre
pressure of 6.2 Kg/cm2 was maintained constantly through out the test.

Figure 4.2 Rolling Compactor cum Rut Analyzer

5.0 Evaluation of Marshal hammer test and Rolling cum rut Analyser

At first Marshal test was conducted and stability values were found for each of the
binders after finding the stability values OBC’s were found. Using these OBC’S slabs were
casted using Rolling Cum Rut Analyser for a total compaction thickness of 63.5cm. After
casting these slabs cores were taken from these slabs, again these cores were tested for there
stability values. And a comparison was conducted with the Marshall stability values, the
results are shown in the charts (5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4) below:

CHART 5.1 Stability Comparison Chart CHART5.2 Stability Comparison Chart

Of CRMB 40 of WPMB

 
CHART 5.3 Stability Comparison Chart of o‐pmb 70 
  
CHART 5.4 Stability Comparison Chart of crmb 40 

6.0 Evaluation of Rutting test

Rutting test was conducted on the specimens casted at its OBC and was conditioned at
25, 45 and 60 degrees; a tyre pressure of 6.2 Kg/cm2 was maintained constantly through out
the test. As we know that pavement surface temperature is more than the atmospheric
temperature it was quit reasonable to consider the rutting characteristics at a higher
temperature that is 60 deg. The table (6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4) below shows the rutting results from
which it is evident that CPMB40 & CRMB 60 performed better than the other two binders. It
was observed that all the modified binders showed same deformation trend in the graph up to
2500 passes later, only CPMB40 & CRMB 60 showed some significant improvement in
deformations up to 4000 passes, later the failure was rapid. Figure 6 showing rutting
operation

FIGURE 6: SHOWING RUTTING OPERATION

CHART 6.1: SHOWING RUTTING TEST RESULTS IN CRMB 60

CHART 6.2: SHOWING RUTTING TEST RESULTS IN O-PMB 70

 CHART 6.3: SHOWING RUTTING TEST RESULTS IN WPMB

CHART 6.4: SHOWING RUTTING TEST RESULTS IN C-PMB 40

7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
Over the past decade major changes have occurred in loading conditions under which
pavement have to perform. Axle loads and tire pressure have been increased dramatically
with the size of vehicles (expansion in trucking industry) and also load repetition has
intensified with growing number of vehicles. Changes in material due to new laboratory mix
designs and a growth in the use asphalt binders have been occurring, but the most important
factor which affects the pavement performance most is laboratory compaction technique used
during mix design. The main objective of this research was the laboratory comparison of
Marshall Compaction to the Rolling compaction and to determine the effect of laboratory
compaction on the hot mix asphalt properties like density and air voids. The subsidiary
objective was to investigate the correlation between Marshall and Rolling compaction
methods.
After observing the test results it was evident that there was considerable increase in
the stability value when the specimen was subjected to rolling compaction. The specimen
prepared using Marshall compaction of 75 blows was unable to provide an in sight to the
field results when compared with the Rolling compactor, as it is seen in the chart above (5.1,
5.2, 5.3 & 5.4). Though not much of a change in densities in both the methods there was
considerable difference in the stability values.
All modified binders showed better rutting resistance. B- CRMB-60 performs better
than other modified binders this is due to carbon black; styrene butadiene rubber with
bitumen has improved Rheological properties for high temperatures. Hence when used in
DBM can give a better and stiff pavement layer which can perform well in the field. WPMB,
CPMB & OPMB can be used effectively in moderate temperature zones and B-CRMB-60
can be used effectively high temperature zones. This was validated by the rutting test results
when tested using RC&RA, where CRMB-60 at 60+ 10 C temperature sustained 4000 passes
before it fails.

By using modified binders in DBM layers apart from enhancing the performance of
mix the environmental problem of disposing the rubber, plastic waste can be solved to some
extent.
Acknowledgements

The work reported herein was conducted as a research studies at Dayananda Sagar
College of Engineering, Bangalore under the guidance of B.V. Kiran Kumar Assistant
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, DSCE. The authors acknowledge the valuable
guidance and support extended by our guide Prof. B.V. Kiran Kumar. The authors would also
like to acknowledge M/s Tinna Overseas Limited, New Delhi and M/s KK Waste Plastic
Management Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore for supplying modified binders to the research centre.

Reference

[1] Ajay Sibal, Animesh Das and Pandey B.B, (2000) “Flexural Fatigue Characteristics of
Asphalt Concrete with Crumb Rubber”, International Journal for Pavement Engineering
(IJPE), Volume 1(2), pp 119 – 132.

[2] Anderson R.M and Bahia H.U (1997), “Evaluation and selection of Aggregate
Gradations foe Asphalt Mixture Using Superpave”, Transportation Research Record1583,
TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Pp 106-111.

[3] Ayers Jr. M and Witczak M.W (1995), “Resilient Modulus Properties of Asphalt Rubber
Mixes from Field Demonstration projects in Maryland”, Transportation Research
Record1499, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Pp 96-107.

[4] Gilmore .D.W, Lottman R.P and Scheroman J.A (1984), “Use of Indirect Tension
Measurement to Examine the Effect of Additives on Asphalt Concrete Durability”,
Proceedings of Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists Volume 53, pp. 43-79.

[5] Mc Gennis R.B, Buchanan S and Brown E.R (1998), “An Evaluation of Superpave
Gyratory Compaction of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA)”, Transportation Research Record1583,
TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Pp 98-105.

[6] Kennedy T.W. (1977) “Characterization of Asphalt Pavement materials Using the Indirect
Tensile Test”, Proceedings of Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Volume 46.pp.
132-150.

[7] “Performance Graded Asphalt Binder Specification and Testing Superpave Series No. 1
(SP-1)” Third Edition, Revised (2003) Asphalt Institute, USA.

[8] “Superpave Mix Design Superpave Series No. 2 (SP-2)” Third Edition (2001) Asphalt
Institute, USA.

[9] Uddin W and Nanagiri Y (2002), “Performance of Polymer-Modified Asphalt field

Trials in Mississippi Based on Mechanistic Analysis and Field Evaluation”, IJP-International
Journal of Pavements, pp 13-24.
[10] Christensen, W. D., and Bonaquist, R., “Use of Strength Tests for Evaluating the Rut
Resistance of Asphalt Concrete”, Asphalt Paving Technology, Association of Asphalt Paving
Technologists-Proceedings of the Technical Sessions, Vol – 71, 2002, pp 692-711.

[11] Anderson, R.M., “Using Superpave Gyratory Compaction Properties to Estimate the
Rutting Potential of Asphalt Mixtures”, Asphalt Paving Technology, Association of Asphalt
Paving Technologists-Proceedings of the Technical Sessions, Vol – 71, 2002c, pp 725-738.

[12] Anderson, R.M., Turner, A. P., Peterson, L. R., and Mallick, B. R., “Relationship of
Superpave Gyratory Compaction Properties to HMA Rutting Behavior”, NCHRP Report
478, Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C, 2002a, pp 1-16.