MARSHALL METHOD OF MIX DESIGN

The basic concepts of the Marshall mix design method were originally developed by
Bruce Marshall of the Mississippi Highway Department in 1939. The U.S. Corps of
Engineers, through extensive research and correlation studies, improved and added
certain features to Marshall’s test procedure, and ultimately developed mix design
criteria. The Marshall method seeks to select the asphalt binder content at a desired
density that satisfies minimum stability and range of flow values.
During World War II, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE) began evaluating
various HMA mix design methods for use in airfield pavement design. Motivation for
this search came from the ever-increasing wheel loads and tire pressures produced by
larger and larger military aircraft. Early work at the U.S. Army Waterways Experiment
Station (WES) in 1943 had the objective of developing:
"...a simple apparatus suitable for use with the present California Bearing Ratio
(CBR) equipment to design and control asphalt paving mixtures..."
The most promising method eventually proved to be the Marshall Stability Method
developed by Bruce G. Marshall at the Mississippi Highway Department in 1939. WES
took the original Marshall Stability Test and added a deformation measurement (using a
flow meter) that was reasoned to assist in detecting excessively high asphalt
contents. This appended test was eventually recommended for adoption by the U.S.
Army because:
1. It was designed to stress the entire sample rather than just a portion of it.
2. It facilitated rapid testing with minimal effort.
3. It was compact, light and portable.
4. It produced densities reasonably close to field densities.
WES continued to refine the Marshall method through the 1950s with various tests on
materials, traffic loading and weather variables. Today the Marshall method, despite its
shortcomings, is probably the most widely used mix design method in the world. It has
probably become so widely used because (1) it was adopted and used by the U.S.
military all over the world during and after World War II and (2) it is simple, compact
and inexpensive.
The Marshall test procedure has been standardized by the American Society for Testing
and Materials. Procedures are given by ASTM D 1559 “Resistance to Plastic Flow of
Bituminous Mixtures Using Marshall Apparatus”. AASHTO T245 “Resistance to
Plastic Flow of Bituminous Mixtures Using Marshall Apparatus” agrees with ASTM D
1559 except for provisions for mechanically operated hammer. AASHTO T245
suggests that instead of a hand operated hammer and associated equipment, a
mechanically operated hammer may be used provided it has been calibrated to give
results comparable to the hand operated hammer. The Marshall method presented here
is applicable only to HMA paving mixtures with maximum sizes of 25 mm (1 in.) or
less. The method is intended for laboratory design of HMA.

The Marshall mix design method consists of 6 basic steps:

1. Aggregate selection.
2. Asphalt binder selection.
3. Sample preparation (including compaction).
4. Stability determination using the Marshall stability and flow test.
5. Density and voids calculations.
6. Optimum asphalt binder content selection.

-1-
1. Aggregate Evaluation:
A typical aggregate evaluation for use with either the Hveem or Marshall mix design
methods includes three basic steps:
1) Determination aggregate physical properties: This consists of running various tests
to determine properties such as:
 Toughness and abrasion
 Durability and soundness
 Cleanliness and deleterious materials
 Particle shape and surface texture
2) Determination of other aggregate descriptive physical properties: If the aggregate is
acceptable according to step #1, additional tests are run to fully characterize the
aggregate. These tests determine:
 Gradation and size
 Specific gravity and absorption
3) Blending calculations to achieve the mix design aggregate gradation: Often,
aggregates from more than one source or stockpile are used to obtain the final
aggregate gradation used in a mix design. Trial blends of these different gradations
are usually calculated until an acceptable final mix design gradation is
achieved. Typical considerations for a trial blend include:
 All gradation specifications must be met. Typical specifications will require the
percent retained by weight on particular sieve sizes to be within a certain band.
 The gradation should not be too close to the FHWA's 0.45 power maximum
density curve. If it is, then the VMA is likely to be too low. Gradation should
deviate from the FHWA's 0.45 power maximum density curve, especially on the
2.36 mm sieve.

2. Asphalt Binder Evaluation:

The Marshall test does not have a common generic asphalt binder selection and
evaluation procedure. Each specifying entity uses their own method with modifications
to determine the appropriate binder and, if any, modifiers. Binder evaluation can be
based on local experience, previous performance or a set procedure. Perhaps the most
common set procedure now in use is based on the Superpave PG binder
system. However, before this system there was no recognized standard for binder
evaluation and selection. Once the binder is selected, several preliminary tests are run to
determine the asphalt binder's temperature-viscosity relationship.

3. Sample Preparation:
The Marshall method, like other mix design methods, uses several trial aggregate-
asphalt binder blends (typically 6 blends with 3 samples each for a total of 18
specimens), each with a different asphalt binder content. Then, by evaluating each trial
blend’s performance, optimum asphalt binder content can be selected. In order for this
concept to work, the trial blends must contain a range of asphalt contents both above
and below the optimum asphalt content. Therefore, the first step in sample preparation
is to estimate optimum asphalt content. Trial blend asphalt contents are then determined
from this estimate.
Sample Asphalt Binder Contents: Based on the results of the optimum asphalt binder
content estimate, samples are typically prepared at 0.5 percent by weight of mix
increments, with at least two samples above the estimated asphalt binder content and
two below.

-2-
Compaction with the Marshall Hammer: Each sample is then heated to the anticipated
compaction temperature and compacted with a Marshall hammer, a device that applies
pressure to a sample through a tamper foot (see Figure below). Some hammers are
automatic and some are hand operated. Key parameters of the compactor are:
 Sample size = 102 mm (4-inch) diameter cylinder 64 mm (2.5 inches) in height
(corrections can be made for different sample heights)
 Tamper foot = Flat and circular with a diameter of 98.4 mm (3.875 inches)
corresponding to an area of 76 cm2 (11.8 in2).
 Compaction pressure = Specified as a 457.2 mm (18 inches) free fall drop
distance of a hammer assembly with a 4536 g (10 lb.) sliding weight.
 Number of blows = Typically 35, 50 or 75 on each side depending upon
anticipated traffic loading.
 Simulation method = The tamper foot strikes the sample on the top and covers
almost the entire sample top area. After a specified number of blows, the sample
is turned over and the procedure repeated.

Marshall Drop Hammers

4. The Marshall Stability and Flow Test:

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 (2
inches/minute) and at 60C test temperature. Basically, the load is increased until it
reaches a maximum then when the load just begins to decrease, the loading is stopped
and the maximum load is recorded.
During the loading, an attached dial gauge measures the specimen's plastic flow as a
result of the loading (see Figure below). The flow value is recorded in 0.25 mm (0.01
inch) increments at the same time the maximum load is recorded.

-3-
 Marshall Testing Apparatus
Typical Marshall Design Criteria
Light traffic Medium traffic Heavy traffic
Mix criteria (< 10 ESALs ) (104 – 106 ESALs )
4
(> 106 ESALs )
Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max.
Compaction
(number of blows on 35 50 75
each end of the sample)
Stability (min.) 2224 N 3336 N 6672 N
Flow (0.25 mm) 8 20 8 18 8 16
Percent Air Voids 3 5 3 5 3 5

5. Density and Voids Analysis:

All mix design methods use density and voids to determine basic HMA physical
characteristics. Two different measures of densities are typically taken:
 Bulk specific gravity (Gmb).
 Theoretical maximum specific gravity (TMD, Gmm).
These densities are then used to calculate the volumetric parameters of the
HMA. Measured void expressions are usually:
 Air voids (Va), sometimes expressed as voids in the total mix (VTM)
 Voids in the mineral aggregate (VMA)
 Voids filled with asphalt (VFA)
Generally, these values must meet the specifications.

6. Selection of Optimum Asphalt Binder Content:

The optimum asphalt binder content is finally selected based on the combined results of
Marshall stability and flow, density analysis and void analysis (see Figure
below). Optimum asphalt binder content can be arrived at in the following procedure:
1) Plot the following graphs:
 Asphalt binder content vs. density. Density will generally increase with
increasing asphalt content, reach a maximum, then decrease. Peak density
usually occurs at a higher asphalt binder content than peak stability.
 Asphalt binder content vs. Marshall stability. This should follow one of two
trends:
 Stability increases with increasing asphalt binder content, reaches a peak,
then decreases.

-4-
  Stability decreases with increasing asphalt binder content and does not show
a peak. This curve is common for some recycled HMA mixtures.
 Asphalt binder content vs. flow.
 Asphalt binder content vs. air voids. Percent air voids should decrease with
increasing asphalt binder content.
 Asphalt binder content vs. VMA. Percent VMA should decrease with increasing
asphalt binder content, reach a minimum, then increase.
 Asphalt binder content vs. VFA. Percent VFA increases with increasing asphalt
binder content.
2) Determine the asphalt binder content that corresponds to the specifications median
air void content (typically this is 4%). This is the optimum asphalt binder content.
3) Determine properties at this optimum asphalt binder content by referring to the
plots. Compare each of these values against specification values and if all are within
specification, then the preceding optimum asphalt binder content is
satisfactory. Otherwise, if any of these properties is outside the specification range
the mixture should be redesigned.

Selection of Optimum Asphalt Binder Content

-5-
SUPERPAVE METHOD OF MIX DESIGN
SUPERPAVE stands for SUperior PERforming Asphalt PAVEments. It consists of
three basic components:
 Asphalt binder specification (Performance Grading)
 Superpave mix design method (based on volumetric properties of the mix)
 Mix analysis tests and performance prediction models
Each one of these components required new specifications and performance standards
as well as new testing methods and devices. Designed to replace the Marshall and
Hveem methods of mix design. Volumetric analysis common to both Marshall and
Hveem methods provides the basis for the Superpave method of mix design. Includes
asphalt binder and aggregate selection into the mix design process, and also considers
traffic and climate. Compaction devices used in Marshall and Hveem methods have
been replaced by a gyratory compactor and the compaction effort in mix design is
related to the expected traffic.

The Superpave method of mix design consists of seven basic steps:

1) Aggregate selection
2) Asphalt binder selection
3) Sample preparation
4) Performance tests
5) Density and voids calculations
6) Optimum asphalt binder content selection
7) Moisture susceptibility evaluation

-6-