ARAHAN TEKNIK (JALAN) 5/85

JABATAN KERJA RAYA

MANUAL ON PAVEMENT DESIGN

CAWANGAN JALAN, IBU PEJABAT J.K.R., KUALA LUMPUR.

ARAHAN TEKNIK (JALAN) 5/85

JABATAN KERJA RAYA

MANUAL ON PAVEMENT DESIGN

CAWANGAN JALAN, IBU PEJABAT J.K.R., KUALA LUMPUR. HARGA: RM2.40

CONTENTS

List of Tables & Figures Introduction 1 2 Scope Pavement Structure 2.1 2.2 3 Designation of each layer Definition and function of each layer

(i) 1 2 2

Thickness Design 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 General Design Period Traffic Estimation Subgrade CBR Design of layer thickness

Sub Base Course 4.1 4.2 General Material Requirements

15

Base Course 5.1 5.2 General Requirements for material and mixtures

17

Binder Course and Wearing Course 6.1 6.2 6.3 General Material Requirements Mixture Requirements

19

References

26

-i-

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 4.1 4.2 5.1 5.2 5.3 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 Guide for Equivalence factor, e Maximum Hourly Capacity under ideal conditions Carriageway Roadway Reduction Factor, R Traffic Reduction Factor, T Structural Layer Coefficients Minimum Layer thickness Standard & Construction Layer Thickness Minimum Thickness of Bituminous Layer Standard Properties of Sub base Standard Gradation Limit for Crushed Aggregates Material Properties for Base Course Gradation for Base Course Mixture Requirements for Base Course Coarse Aggregate for Bituminous Mix Mineral Filler for Bituminous Mix Bitumen Properties Gradation for Asphaltic Concrete Asphaltic Concrete Mix Design

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 1 Fig. 2

Cross Section of a Flexible Pavement Nomograph of Thickness Design

- ii -

INTRODUCTION

This manual consists of the thickness design method, material specification and the mix design for asphaltic pavements. The structural design has been based on the AASHO (American Association of State Highway Officials) Road Test results but the design method is developed using multi-layered elastic theory through the use of the Chevron N-layer computer program. The mix design and material requirements are based on the existing specifications with modifications to incorperate local experience. The reports pertaining to the development of this manual are as listed in references 10 & 11.

-1-

1. SCOPE 1.1. This manual is to be used for the designof flexible pavements for roads under the jurisdiction of JKR. It comprises of details for the thickness design, material specifications and the mix design requirements. 1.2. When using this manual, the designer should take into account other relevant factors such as soilproperties, economy of design and practical considerations with regard to the suitability of materials on site. 1.3. This manual is suitable for the design of major roads i.e. where traffic is medium or heavy.

-2-

2. PAVEMENT STRUCTURE 2.1. Designation of each layer 2.1.1. 2.1.2. A flexible pavement is a layered structure consisting of a subbase course, base course, binder course and wearing course. (Fig. 1) In case there are two or more layers for the binder course, the lowest layer is referred to as the binder course and the other courses as the intermediate course. Fig. 1 Cross Section of a Flexible Pavement
Wearing Course Binder Course Base Course Sub Base Course

} Surface Course

Subgrade 2.2. Definition and Function of Each Layer 2.2.1. Subgrade The Upper most part of the soil, natural or imported, supporting the load transmitted from the overlying layers. 2.2.2. Subbase Course The layer(s) of the specified material built up to the required designed thickness immediately overlying the subgrade. It serves as an aid to disperse the load from the base course before transmitting it to the subgrade. (This layer may be absent in some designs.) 2.2.3. Base Course The layer(s) of specified material built up to the required designed thickness normally overlying the subbase course. This layer plays a prominent role in the support and dispersion of the traffic loads. 2.2.4. Surface Course All the bound layer(s) within the pavement i.e. wearing course, intermediate course and binder course are embodied under this general terminology. This layer(s) forms an impermeable and flexible lining of high elastic modulus. 2.2.5. Binder Course The bound layer(s) overlying the base course. Apart from supporting and dispersing the traffic load, it also resist shear. 2.2.6. Wearing Course The top most layer of the surface course. It is in direct contact with the traffic and consequently, it must resist abrasion and prevent skidding.

-3-

3. THICKNESS DESIGN 3.1. General The thickness design of the pavement shall be based on the design CBR (California Bearing Ratio) of the subgrade and the total number of 8.16 tonne standard axle applications for a specific design period. 3.1.1. The design CBR of the subgrade and the total equivalent standard axle are the main factors in the structural design of the pavement. 3.1.2. The design chart (Fig.2) is based on the AASHO Road Test relationship between thickness index and axle load applications at terminal serviceability of 2.5, 18-kip single axle, for subgrade CBR of 3%. The thickness for other subgrade CBR is obtained through the use of Chevron, a multi layer elastic theory computer program. The input for the computer program is based on the following material properties :Surface Elastic Modulus E kg/cm2 Poissons Ratio 30,000 0.45 Base 1,000 0.40 Subbase 800 0.40

Subgrade is assumed semi-infinite, with E of 80 ~ 800 kg/cm2 and of 0.35

3.2. Design Period A design period of ten(10) years shall be used. Also refer 3.2.3 3.2.1. The design period refers to the span of time between the initial passing of user traffic until the fatigue limit of the pavement whereby a strengthening overlay is required. The design period should not be confused with the pavement life for the pavement life can be extended by strengthening overlays. 3.2.2. Currently, a design period of twenty years is stipulated in the Road Note 29. A design period of only ten(10) years is to be specified, however, as an initial study (ref. 10) has indicated that it would be economical in terms of initial capital outlay and also with respect to the total cost.

-4-

D
10

C
10

12

B
1 x 10
4

12

14

A
EQUIVALENT AXLE LOAD, ESA
2

5 1 x 10
5

14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44

16

EQUIVALENT THICKNESS, T A (cm)

CORRECTED EQUIVALENT THICKNESS, T 'A (cm)

18

SUBGRADE C.B.R. (%)

5 1 x 10
6

20

5 1 x 10
7

22

24

10

5 1 x 10

26

15 D C A 1 2 B 3 5

28 30 32 34

36 38 40 42 44

1. CBR = 3% 2. ESA 3. TA for CBR = 3% 4. Design CBR 5. Requried TA

Fig. 2 THICKNESS DESIGN NOMOGRAPH

-5-

3.2.3.

The calculation for the traffic estimation for the ten year design period shall be based from the expected year of completion of construction, onwards. The designer is to project the initial traffic for the year he expects the road to be opened to traffic, and in turn treats the projected year as the base year for the calculation of traffic over the design period. The projection of traffic is given in 3.3.7. In the absence of exact information on the time of opening to traffic, the designer shall project the initial traffic to another five(5) years.

3.3. Traffic Estimation The equivalent 8.16 tonne standard axle load applications shall be obtained through the following procedure: 3.3.1. 3.3.2. Estimate the initial Average Daily Traffic ADT (bothways). Estimate the percentage of commercial vehicles Pc. The commercial vehicles referred to are the medium and heavy goods vehicles with unladen weight exceeding 1.5 tonne. 3.3.3. Estimate the rate of annual traffic growth (r). If there are different rates of annual growth over the design period, then the different rates of annual traffic growth are applied for the calculation of traffic volume for each period. 3.3.4. The initial annual commercial traffic for one direction, Vo, is obtained by:
VO = ADT x 0.5 x 365 x PC 100

Where ADT PC 3.3.5. = Average Daily Traffic

= Percentage of commercial vehicles

The total number of commercial vehicles for one direction (VC) is obtained by:
VO (1 + r )x 1 r

VC

Where VC VO R = Total number of commercial vehicles for x years = Initial yearly commercial traffic = rate of annual traffic growth

-6-

3.3.6.

The total traffic volume at the end of the design period should be checked as per 3.3.13 ~ 3.3.14 to ensure that the maximum capacity has not been exceeded.

3.3.7.

The total daily one way traffic flow of both non-commercial and commercial vehicles at the end of the design period (V X) is calculated as follows:
VX Where = V1 (1 + r )
X

Vx V1 x 3.3.8.

= Volume of daily traffic after x years in one direction = initial daily traffic in one direction = design period (year)

Estimate the Equivalence Factor, e In the absence of an axle load survey, Table 3.1 below shall be used as a guide. Table 3.1 Guide for Equivalence Factor

Percentage of selected heavy goods vehicles* Type of road Equivalence Factor 1.2

0 ~ 15% Local Trunk 2.0

16~50% 3.0

51~100% 3.7

* Selected heavy goods vehicles refer to those conveying timber and quarry materials. 3.3.9. The total equivalent Standard Axles (ESA) applications is given by :ESA = VC x e

3.3.10. The traffic information necessary for design shall be obtained from the publication by Unit Perancang Jalan, Kementerian Kerja Raya entitled Traffic Volume Peninsula Malaysia. 3.3.11. For highways with three or more lanes per direction, the values on traffic estimation shall be based on 80% of ADT as referred in 3.3.4. This is to accommodate the distribution of traffic over the whole carriageway. 3.3.12. The maximum hourly traffic volume, as per 3.3.6 is calculated as follows:c = IxRx T

Where c I = the maximum one way hourly capacity = the ideal hourly capacity as in Table 3.2 -7-

R T

= the roadway factor as in Table 3.3 = the traffic reduction factor as in Table 3.4

Table 3.2

Maximum Hourly Capacity under Ideal Conditions Passenger Vehicle Units per hour 2,000 per lane 2,000 total for both ways 4,000 total for both ways

Road Type Multilane Two lanes (both ways) Three lanes (both ways)

Table 3.3

Carriageway Roadway Reduction Factor Shoulder Width 2.00m 1.00 0.88 0.81 0.72 1.50m 0.97 0.86 0.78 0.70 1.25m 0.94 0.83 0.76 0.67 1.00m 0.90 0.79 0.73 0.64

Carriageway Width 7.5m 7.0m 6.0m 5.0m

Table 3.4

Traffic Reduction Factor Type of Terrain Flat Rolling Mountainous Factor* T = 100 / (100+P c) T = 100 / (100+2P c) T = 100 / (100+5P c)

* Nota Bene:

Pc is as per 3.3.2

3.3.13. Assuming that maximum hourly capacity, c as per 3.3.12 reflects 10% of the 24 hour capacity, then the one way daily capacity is as follows:C = 10 x c

Where C c = the 24 hour one way traffic capacity = as per 3.3.12

-8-

3.3.14. If the traffic estimate for the design period exceeds the daily capacity, C, then the number of years, n, required to reach the daily capacity is as follows:
C Vx log (1 + r ) log

Where n C V R = the period required to reach capacity = as per 3.3.13 = as per 3.3.7 = the rate of annual traffic growth

3.4. Subgrade California Bearing Ratio (CBR) 3.4.1. 3.4.2. The CBR of the subgrade shall be taken as that of the layer(s) underlying within 1m below the subgrade surface. In the case of varying CBR within 1m depth of the subgrade, especially when soil stabilization has been undertaken, the main CBR is determined as follows:
CBR = h1 CBR1
1 3

+ h 2 CBR 2 3 + ... + h nCBR n 100

Where CBR1, CBR2, CBRn h1, h2, hn = CBR of soil strate 1, 2, n = thickness of soil strate 1, 2, n in cm whence h1 + h2 + hn = 100cm

3.5. Design 3.5.1. After determining the mean CBR as per 3.4.2 and ESA as per 3.3.9 the equivalent thickness TA, is obtained from fig. 2. 3.5.2. The thickness of the various layers shall be obtained using

TA
Where

a1D1 + a2 D 2 + ... + anD n

a1, a2, an D1, D2, Dn

= the structural coefficients of each layer as shown in Table 3.5 = the thickness of each layer as shown in Table 3.6

-9-

Table 3.5 Component Wearing and Binder Course

Structural Layer Coefficients Type of Layer Asphalt Concrete Type 1: Stability Dense Bituminous Macadam > 400kg Type 2: Stability > 300kg Unconfined Cement Stabilized Compressive strength (7 days) 30~40 kg/cm2 Mechenically Stabilized crushed aggregate Sand, laterite, etc. CBR P 80% CBR P 20% CBR P 30% CBR P 60% 0.32 0.45 Property Coefficient 1.00 0.80 0.55

Base Course

0.23

Subbase

Crushed aggregate

0.25

Cement Stabilized

0.28

Table 3.6

Minimum Layer Thickness Type of Layer Minimum thickness 4 cm 5 cm Bituminous 5 cm 10 cm 10 cm 10 cm 15 cm Wet Mix Cement treated* Granular Cement treated

Wearing Course Binder Course Base Course Subbase Course * Nota Bene

For cement treated base course, the total bituminous layers overlaying it should not be less than 15cm 3.5.3. In determining individual layer thickness, the practical aspects of construction shall be taken into account as per Table 3.7.

- 10 -

Table 3.7

Standard & Construction Layer Thickness Standard thickness 4~5 cm 5 ~ 10 cm Bituminous 5 ~ 20 cm 10 ~ 20 cm 10 ~ 20 cm 10 ~ 30 cm 15 ~ 20 cm Wet Mix Cement treated* Granular Cement treated

Type of Layer Wearing Course Binder Course Base Course Subbase Course 3.5.4.

One layer lift 4 ~ 5 cm 5 ~ 10 cm 5 ~ 15 cm 10 ~ 15 cm 10 ~ 20 cm 10 ~ 20 cm 10 ~ 20 cm

The minimum thickness of bound (bituminous) layer in order not to exceed the critical tensile strain at the base of the bituminous layer, shall be based on Table 3.8 Table 3.8 TA < 17.5 cm 17.5 ~ 22.5 cm 23.0 ~ 29.5 cm >30.0 cm Minimum thickness of Bituminous Layer Total thickness of bituminous layer 5.0 cm 10.0 cm 15.0 cm 17.5 cm

3.5.5.

Worked example The following conditions are given :Class of road Initial daily traffic volume (ADT) Percentage of commercial vehicles Annual growth rate Equivalence factor Subgrade CBR Rolling terrain Initial annual commercial traffic for one way Vo (Ref. 3.3.4)
Vo = 6,600 x 0.15 x 0.5 x 365 = 181,000

JKR R5 6,600 15% 7% 2.0 5%

Accumulative sum of commercial traffic one way for 10 year design period (Ref. 3.3.5 & 3.2.3)
Vc = 181,000 (1 + 0.07 )10 1 0.07 2.50 x 10 6 =

- 11 -

Total Equivalent Standard Axles (Ref. 3.3.9)

Maximum Hourly One Way Traffic Flow (Ref. 3.3.12)

Assuming hourly capacity is ten percent of daily capacity:

The estimated daily traffic V after 10 years is given by:

Hence capacity has not been reached after 10 years. From Fig. 2, the chart shows that for an ESA of 5.0 x 106, the required TA is 26 cm. Design of Layer Thickness (Ref: 3.5.2)
TA = a1 D1 + a2 D2 + ... + a n Dn

Layer a1 a2 a3 1st Trail Nominate

Material Asphalt concrete Mechanically Stabilized Crushed Aggregate Sand

Coefficient 1.00 0.32 0.23

Minimum thickness 9 cm 10 cm 10 cm

D1 = 12.5 cm D2 = 18.0 cm D3 = 20.0 cm

Then TA

= 1.0 x 12.5 + 0.32 x 18 + 0.23 x 20 = 25.36 cm < TA

2nd Trial Nominate D1 = 15.0 cm D2 = 20.0 cm D3 = 20.0 cm

- 12 -

Then TA

= 1.0 x 15 + 0.32 x 20 + 0.23 x 20 = 26 cm

Taking into consideration the minimum thickness requirements, the pavement structure then comprise of the following layer thicknesses Wearing Binder Base Sub-base 5 cm 10 cm 20 cm 20 cm

- 13 -

4. SUB-BASE COURSE 4.1. General Sand gravel and laterite are amongst the various types of subbase course material. When these materials do not have the required quality, cement stabilization of these material or crushed aggregate is to used. From an economic point of view, locally available materials such as sand, gravel, laterite, etc. should be utilized for subbase course material. 4.2. Material Requirements The quality of material shall conform to the following standards and shall not include a deleterious amount of organic materials, soft particles, clay lumps, etc. 4.2.1. Locally available materials, such as sand, gravel, soft rocks, laterite etc should be utilized for subbase course materials, from an economic point of view. When these materials do not meet the required standard, stabilization with cement should be considered. When a suitable and economic natural material is not available, crushed aggregates (crusher run) are commonly used. 4.2.2. The quality of materials shall conform to the following standards and not include a deleterious amount of organic materials, soft particles, clay lumps, etc. Table 4.1 Standard Properties of Subbase Crushed Aggregate Not less than 30 Not greater than 6 Not greater than 50 Sand, Laterite, etc. Not less than 20 Not greater than 6 Not less than 60

Quality CBR (%) Plasticity Index (P.I.) Los Angeles Abrasion loss (%) Cement Stabilized CBR (%)

Test Method BS 1377:75 BS 1377:75 ATSM C 131 BS 1377:75

Table 4.2 Sieve size (mm) Percentage by weight passing 100

Standard Gradation Limit for Crushed Aggregates*

50

40 90 ~ 100

25 65 ~ 100

10 40 ~ 80

5 25 ~ 65

2.4 15 ~ 50

0.42 9~ 30

0.075 0~ 10

- 14 -

Note* :

Sieve analysis should be done according to BS 1377:75 For sand, laterite etc. nominal size shall not greater than 1/3 of the compacted layer thickness.

4.2.3.

Natural materials vary from place to place through out the country. Generally, natural sand and laterite give strength of CBR 20% or more. However, the strength of some materials may be lower in certain regions. These materials can be stabilized with cement. A CBR of not less than 30% for crushed aggregate.

4.2.4.

A cement content of 2% to 4% by weight is recommended for stabilization with cement. Higher cement content will usually produce a stiff mix which consequently would fail due to stress concentration.

4.2.5.

For maximum utilization of suitable local materials, no gradation is specified. Gradation is required only for crushed aggregates to avoid seggregation and to obtain better workability for construction. For construction purposes, the nominal size of local material is specified.

4.2.6.

As and layer of 10cm thick is required to be placed on top of the subnase course, extending from edge to edge of the formation width.

- 15 -

5. BASE COURSE 5.1. General Base course shall be selected materials such as crushed stones and sand, or a combination of these materials. It may be stabilized with cement, bitumen or lime. In the AASHO road test results, it was found that stabilized base courses especially bituminous stabilized base gave the best performance with respect to strength and durability. Therefore bituminous treated base course are recommended to be used whenever suitable. Three types of base courses are specified here. They are crushed aggregates, cement stabilized and bitumen stabilized base courses.

5.2. Requirements for materials and mixtures The quality of both materials and mixtures shall conform to the following requirements:Table 5.1 Material Properties of Base course Test Method BS 1377:75 BS 1377:75 ASTM C131 Crushed Aggregates Not less than 80 Not greater than 4 Not greater than 40 Cement Stabilized Not greater than 8 Not greater than 40 Bitumen Type 1 Not greater than 6 Not greater than 40 Not greater than 4 Stabilized Type II Not greater than 8 Not greater than 40 Not greater than 4

Quality CBR (%) Plasticity Index L.A. Abrasion Loss (%) Water Absorption (%)

M.S. 30

- 16 -

Table 5.2

Gradation for Base Course Percentage by weight passing Crushed aggregates 100 70 100 40 65 30 55 20 45 10 25 2 - 10 Cement stabilization Nominal size of material used shall not be greater than 1/3 of compacted layer thickness Bitumen stabilized Type I 100 70 100 40 65 30 55 20 45 10 25 2 - 10 Type II Nominal size of material used shall not be greater than 1/3 of compacted layer thickness

Sieve size (mm) 40 25 10 5 2.4 0.42 0.075

Note: Sieve analysis shall be done according to BS 1377:75

Table 5.3

Mixture requirements for Base Course Bitumen stabilized Type I Type II

Requirement Unconfined Compressive strength (7 days) kg/cm2 Stability (kg) Flow (1/100cm) Air voids (%) Marshall residual stability immersed (%) (60oC, 24 hrs)

Cement Stabilized

30 to 40

Not less than 400 15 - 45 3 - 10

Not less than 300 15 45 3 12

Not less than 75

Not less than 75

5.2.1.

Since the base course is placed directly beneath the binder course, it is therefore essential to use good quality materials. Generally, crushed aggreagtes (wet-mix macadam) are used. However, when suitable good quality materials are available but are of inadequate strength at natural condition, they should be stabilized.

5.2.2.

The L.A. abrasion loss test is used to determine the soundness of course aggregates. The test is specified in AASHTO T 97-97 (1982). For the grading of

- 17 -

test samples, Grading A from Table 1 of AASHTO T 96-67 (1982) shall be used since the nominal size of aggregate used is 40mm. 5.2.3. For bituminous stabilized base course, Type I refers to plant mix using selected material of good quality. Type II refers to the utilization of suitable local material. This is to allow more flexibility in the selection of base course materials. 5.2.4. Unconfined compressive strength value greater than 40 is not recommended, since higher values of unconfined compressive strength may cause stress concentration. Cement content of between 3% to 6% is recommended. 5.2.5. Marshall residual stability requirement for bituminous stabilized base course has been introduced to test the durability of the mixture and the stripping action of aggregates used.

- 18 -

6. BINDER COURSE AND WEARING COURSE 6.1. General Hot mixed bituminous mixtures shall be used for binder course and wearing course. The compositions of these mixtures shall be designed based on the Standard Marshall Test procedure. Care must be taken in the selection of materials, gradation and bitumen content so as to obtain a mix with the desirable stability, durability, and sufficient skid resistance (in case of wearing course) as well as good workability. Bituminous mixtures consist of a well graded mixture of course aggregates, fine aggregates and filler, bound together with bitumen. Their stability derives both from the interlocking of the well-graded aggregates and from the cohesion provided by the bitumen binder. They are suitable for surfacing heavily trafficked roads in hot climate and for use where an impermeable surfacing is required. 6.2. Material Requirements 6.2.1. Coarse Aggregates Coarse aggregates shall be material substantially retained on 2.4mm sieve opening and shall be crushed rock or crushed gravel and free from foreign materials. Course aggregate shall conform to the following requirements. Table 6.1 Course Aggregate for Bituminous Mix Test Method ASTM C131 69 M.S. 30 M.S. 30 Requirements Not more than 60 Not more than 2 Not more than 30

Quality Los Angeles Abrasion loss (%) Water Absorption (%) Flakiness Index (%)

6.2.2.

Fine Aggregates Fine aggregates shall be material passing a 2.4mm sieve opening. It shall be clean natural sand or screenings or mixture thereof. Screenings shall be produced by crushing stone and gravel conforming to the quality requirements for coarse aggregate described in the previous section 6.2.1. Fine aggregate shall be clean, hard, durable and free from clay, mud and other foreign materials. The minus 0.425mm sieve fraction shall be nonplastic when tested in accordance with BS 1377:1975.

6.2.3.

Mineral Filler Mineral Filler shall be portland cement and shall conform to the following grading requirements:

- 19 -

Table 6.2

Mineral Filler for Bituminous Mix Percentage by weight passing 100 90 100 70 100

Sieve openings 600 m 150 m 75 m

6.2.4.

Bitumen Bitumen shall be straight-run bitumen (petroleum bitumen) and shall conform to the following requirements: Table 6.3 Bitumen Properties ASTM Test Method D5 D6 Penetration Grades 60 - 80 60 - 80 Not more than 0.2 80 - 100 80 100 Not more than 0.5

Characteristics Penetration at 25oC (1/100cm) Loss on heating (%) Drop in penetration after heating (%) Retained penetration after thin-film over test (%) Solubility in carbon disulphide or thrichloroethylene (%) Flash point (Cleveland open cup) ( C) Ductility at 25oC (cm) Softening point ( C)
o o

D6/D5

Not more than 20

Not more than 20

D1754/D5

Not less than 52

Not less than 47

D2024

Not less than 99

Not less than 99

D92

Not less than 250

Not less than 225

D113 D36

Not less than 100 Not less than 48 & Not more than 56

Not less than 100 Not less than 45 & Not more than 52

6.2.5.

One of the requirements of the wearing course mixture is sufficient skid resistance. Therefore aggregates such as limestone, which have been proved to have a tendency to be polished under traffic wear should be avoided for the - 20 -

wearing course especially for high-speed roads. Suitable types of aggregate shall be used for the wearing course. 6.2.6. Some aggregate like granite when coated with bitumen binder produces stripping problems when in contact with water. A stripping test in accordance to ASTM D1664-80 shall be done on such aggregates. 6.2.7. The resistance of aggregates to abrasion is tested by the Los Angeles Abrasion Loss Test in accordance to AASHTO T 96-97 (1982). For the grading of test samples, Grading B from Table 1 of AASHTO T 69-97(1982) shallbe used since the nominal size of aggregates used is less than 25mm. 6.2.8. Hydrated lime or portland cement may be effective to improve the adhesion between bitumen binder and aggregates, thus reducing the stripping problems. 6.2.9. Limestone quarry dust which does not meet the gradation requirements of mineral filler shall not be considered as mineral filler. 6.2.10. The bitumen of penetration grade 60 80 is recommended to be used for heavy traffic roads as classified under JKR Standard of 05-06. A harder grade bitumen of 60 80 is recommended in order to achieve higher stability of mixture and to lessen the possibility of bitumen bleeding or flushing at high temperatures. The bitumen of penetration grade 60 70 and 80 100 as described in MS 124 can also be used. 6.3. Mixture Requirements 6.3.1. Gradation Gradation of mixtures shall meet the following requirements: Table 6.4 Sieve size (mm) 25.0 20.0 12.5 10.0 5.0 2.4 0.600 0.300 0.150 0.075 Gradation for Asphaltic Concrete Percentage by weight passing Binder course 100 78 100 60 84 52 76 38 62 28 48 14 30 9 22 5 14 3-7 Wearing course 100 78 100 68 90 52 72 38 85 20 36 12 25 7 16 4-8

- 21 -

6.3.2.

Mix Design Requirements The mixture shall be designed in accordance to the Standard Marshall Test Method. It shall conform to the following requirements: Table 6.5 Asphaltic Concrete Mix Design Binder course Not less than 500 20 40 37 65 75 Not less than 75 Wearing Course Not less than 500 20 40 35 75 82 Not less than 75

Quality Stability (kg) Flow (1/100 cm) Voids in the total mix (%) Voids filled with bitumen (%) Residual Stability (immersed) (%) Note:

Number of blows on each side of a Marshall specimen is 50 for binder course and either 50 or 75 for wearing course depending on traffic conditions.

6.3.3.

A dense gradation for the wearing course is selected in order to produce a more durable and stable mix.

6.3.4.

As rainfall intensity is high, a less permeable layer of binder course is selected at nominal aggregate size of 25mm.

6.3.5.

The number of blows on each side of the specimen for the wearing course is either 75 or 50 depending on traffic conditions. It is recommended to use 75 blows for heavily traffic roads to JKR 05-06 Standard. 50 blows is used for medium or light traffic roads i.e. JKR 01-04 Standard.

6.3.6.

Standard bitumen contents are 5.0% - 6.0% by weight of the mix for the binder course and 6.0% - 7.0% for the wearing course.

6.3.7.

The amount of filler present by weight of the mix shall be in the range of 2% - 3%.

6.3.8.

Where mix is susceptible to the influence of water, the residual stability is to be computed by the following formula and it should not be less than 75%.
Marshall stability after 48 hours of Residual Stability (%) = 60o C water immersion (kg) x 100 Standard Marshall Stability (kg)

- 22 -

This test helps to check the stripping problem of aggregates. If stripping problems occur, a change of gradation to include more filler, or the use of an anti-stripping agent should be considered. 6.3.9. Temperature viscosity relationship of bitumen is necessary to determine the mixing and compacting temperatures during the preparation of Marshall stability test specimens. The viscosity test for bitumen shall be done in accordance with ASTM E 102 (Saybolt Furol Test for Asphalt Cement at High Temperature). The temperature to which the bitumen must be heated to produce a viscosity of 85 K 10 sec Saybolt Furol and 140 K 15 sec Saybolt Furol shall be established as the mixing temperature and compacting temperature respectively. 6.3.10. Density of Marshall Stability test specimen shall be determined prior to the stability test conducted. Density is determined using one of the following equations in accordance with the texture of the specimen. When the surface texture of the specimen is dense and absorption is negligible
d= A xW A-C (g/cm 3 )

When the surface texture of the specimen is smooth but absorption is not negligible. The method of test shall be based on ASTM D 1075 (Test for Effect of water on Cohesion on Compacted Bituminous Mixture)
d= A xW B -C (g/cm 3 )

Where A B C W = weight of specimen in air (g) = surface dry weight of specimen in air (g) = weight of specimen in water (g) = Density of water (l/gm/cm3)

6.3.11. Standard Marshall Test Method In this method, the Marshall properties, which are density, air voids, voids filled with bitumen, stability and flow, are plotted against bitumen content. The ranges of bitumen contents that satisfy each of the properties are computed, and subsequently the range of bitumen contents that satisfy all the requirements is computed. The mid-range of this bitumen content is the optimum bitumen content for the mix. However, it is important to note that this optimum bitumen content should be less than or equal to the bitumen content at maximum density.

- 23 -

6.3.12. In case there is no bitumen content that satisfy all the requirements, adjustments to the aggregates gradations, mineral filler content should be considered.

- 24 -

REFERENCES 1. AASHTO MATERIALS Part I Specifications 1982 2. AASHTO Guide Specifications for Highway Construction 3. AASHTO Interim Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, 1982 4. AASHTO Construction Manual for Highway Construction, 1982 5. AASHTO AASHTO Interim Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, 1982 6. AASHTO MATERIALS Part II Tests 1982 7. B.S. 1621 Specification for Bitumen Macadam with crushed rock of slag aggregate 8. B.S. 3690 Specifications for Bitumen for road purposes 9. B.S. 812 Sampling and Testing of mineral aggregates sands and fillers 10. Cawangan Jalan (Reka), Ibu Pejabat JKR, Kuala Lumpur Background to the development of JKR Flexible Design Manual, 2/84 YRJ, 1982 11. Cawangan Jalan (Reka), Ibu Pejabat JKR, Kuala Lumpur Axle Load Survey at Jalan Vantooren, Port Klang, Selangor, 1/83 YRJ 1983 12. Department of Transport, HMSO Specification for Road and Bridge Works, 1976. 13. G.P. Jackson and D. Brien Asphalt Concrete, 1962 14. Highway Research Board, Special Report 61E The AASHO Road Test, Report 5, Pavement Research, NRC Washington D.C. 1962.

15. Japan Highway Public Corporation Design Manual of Asphalt Pavement for Expressway in Japan. 16. Japan Road Association Manual for Design and Construction of Asphalt Pavement 1980 17. M.S. 124: 1973 Specifications for penetrating grade of bitumen in pavement construction 18. M.S. 124: 1973 Specifications for Road Pavement & Airfield Runway by Marshall Test Method 19. M.S. 30: 1971 Methods for Sampling and Testing of Mineral Aggregates, Sands and fillers 20. Nihon Doro Kodan Standard Specifications for National Expressway, April, 1964 21. Norio Ogawa Design of asphalt Pavement for Expressway in Japan 22. Shell International Petroleum Co. Ltd., London Shell Pavement Design Manual 23. The Asphalt Institute Thickness Design Asphalt Pavements for Highways and Streets, M.S. 1981 24. The Asphalt Institute Mix Design Methods for Asphalt Concrete and other hot mix types, 1979 25. Wallace and Martin Asphalt Pavement Engineering, 1976

KANDUNGAN KERTAS INI TELAH DILULUSKAN OLEH BENGKEL PIAWAIAN DAN GARIS PANDUAN YANG TELAH DIADAKAN DI IBU PEJABAT J.K.R. KUALA LUMPUR PADA 16 17, MEI, 1984

Dicetak oleh: Pusat Percetakan, Ibu Pejabat JKR, Kuala Lumpur.