Komba3 2013

ANALYTICAL AND LASER SCANNING TECHNIQUES TO DETERMINE
SHAPE PROPERTIES OF AGGREGATES USED IN PAVEMENTS
JULIUS JOSEPH KOMBA
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the

degree of
MASTER OF ENGINEERING (TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING)
In the
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA
June 2013
i
DISSERTATION SUMMARY
ANALYTICAL AND LASER SCANNING TECHNIQUES TO DETERMINE

SHAPE PROPERTIES OF AGGREGATES USED IN PAVEMENTS
JULIUS JOSEPH KOMBA
Supervisor: Professor W.J.vdM Steyn

Co- Supervisor: Doctor J.K Anochie-Boateng
Department: Civil Engineering
University: University of Pretoria
Degree: Master of Engineering (Transportation Engineering)
SUMMARY:
Pavement layers are constructed using a combination of materials, of which rock aggregates
constitute a larger proportion. Current understanding is that the performance of pavements is
dependent on the aggregate shape properties which include form, angularity and surface texture.
However, direct and accurate measurements of aggregate shape properties remain a challenge.
The current standard test methods used to evaluate aggregate shape properties cannot measure
these properties accurately. Among the reasons contributing to the difficulties in the
determination of aggregate shape properties is irregular shapes of aggregate particles. Therefore,
current research efforts focus on developing accurate, reliable and innovative techniques for
evaluation of aggregate shape properties.
The work presented in this dissertation contributes to the current innovative research at the
Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) in South Africa, to automate the
measurement of aggregate shape properties. The CSIR’s present research is aimed at improving
pavement performance through better materials characterisation, using laser scanning and
advanced modelling techniques. The objective of this study was to investigate improved
techniques for the determination of aggregate shape properties using analytical and laser
scanning techniques.
ii
A three-dimensional (3-D) laser scanning device was used for scanning six types of aggregate
samples commonly used for construction of pavements in South Africa. The laser scan data
were processed to reconstruct 3-D models of the aggregate particles. The models were further
analysed to determine the shape properties of the aggregates. Two analysis approaches were
used in this study. The first approach used the aggregate’s physical properties (surface area,
volume and orthogonal dimensions) measured by using laser scanning technique to compute
three different indices to describe the form of aggregates. The computed indices were the
sphericity computed by using surface area and volume of an aggregate particle, the sphericity
computed by using orthogonal dimensions of an aggregate particle, and the flat and elongated
ratio computed by using longest and smallest dimensions of an aggregate particle. The second
approach employed a spherical harmonic analysis technique to analyse the aggregate laser scan
data to determine aggregate form, angularity and surface texture indices. A MATLABTM code
was developed for analysis of laser scan data, using the spherical harmonic analysis technique.
The analyses contained in this dissertation indicate that the laser-based aggregate shape indices
were able to describe the shape properties of the aggregates studied. Furthermore, good
correlations were observed between the spherical harmonic form indices and the form indices
determined by using the aggregate’s physical properties. This shows that aggregate laser
scanning is a versatile technique for the determination of various indices to describe aggregate
shape properties.
Further validation of the laser-based technique was achieved by correlating the laser-based
aggregate form indices with the results from two current standard tests; the flakiness index and
the flat and elongated particles ratio tests. The laser-based form indices correlated linearly with
both, the flakiness index and the flat and elongated particles ratio test results. The observed
correlations provide an indication of the validity of laser-based aggregate shape indices. It is
concluded that the laser based scanning technique could be employed for direct and accurate
determination of aggregate shape properties.
iii
DECLARATION
I, the undersigned hereby declare that:
I understand what plagiarism is and I am aware of the University’s policy in this regard;
The work contained in this thesis is my own original work;
I did not refer to work of current or previous students, lecture notes, handbooks or any
other study material without proper referencing;
Where other people’s work has been used this has been properly acknowledged and
referenced;
I have not allowed anyone to copy any part of my thesis;
I have not previously in its entirety or in part submitted this thesis at any university for
degree.
Signature of student
Name of student
Julius Joseph Komba
Student number
26431620
Date
June 2013
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I wish to express my appreciation to the following organisations and individuals who made this
dissertation possible:
a) Prof. W.J.vdM Steyn, my supervisor for his guidance and support during the study.
b) Dr. J.K Anochie-Boateng, My co-supervisor and Principal Investigator of the CSIR’s

project on laser scanning and modelling of aggregates for his guidance and support during
the study.
c) The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) through its R&D office for
funding this research through Strategic Research Panel (SRP) project TA 2011-001. The
CSIR’s Parliamentary Grant (PG) for 2012/2013 also supported this study.
d) Dr. James W Maina, Pavement Design and Construction group manager at the CSIR for
many discussions and his encouragement during the study.
e) Dr. Martin Mgangira, for many discussions during the study.
f) Mr. Colin Fisher, for his assistance with MATLABTM software.
g) My colleagues at the CSIR, Transport Infrastructure Engineering (TIE) Competency Area

for their support and useful discussion during the study.
h) CSIR Built Environment Pavement material laboratory staff for their assistance and support
during the study.
i) My parents, brothers and sisters for their encouragement and support during the study.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2 Problem definition ...................................................................................................... 1-2
1.3 Objectives of the study ............................................................................................... 1-3
1.4 Scope of the study ...................................................................................................... 1-3
1.5 Methodology .............................................................................................................. 1-3
1.6 Organisation of the dissertation.................................................................................. 1-4
2 LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 2-1
2.2 Coarse aggregate shape properties ............................................................................. 2-1
2.3 Influence of aggregate shape properties on pavement performance .......................... 2-3
2.4 Current standard tests and specifications for coarse aggregates ................................ 2-4
2.4.1 Evaluation of form ............................................................................................. 2-4
2.4.2 Evaluation of angularity ..................................................................................... 2-7
2.4.3 Evaluation of surface texture .............................................................................. 2-8
2.4.4 Limitations of the current standard tests ............................................................ 2-8
2.5 Advanced measurement of aggregate shape properties.............................................. 2-9
2.5.1 Image-based technique ....................................................................................... 2-9
2.5.2 Laser-based technique ...................................................................................... 2-13
2.6 Characterisation of coarse aggregate shape properties............................................. 2-16
2.6.1 Form indices ..................................................................................................... 2-16
2.6.2 Angularity indices ............................................................................................ 2-18
2.6.3 Surface texture indices ..................................................................................... 2-19
2.6.4 Mathematical-based analysis of aggregate shape properties ............................ 2-21
2.6.5 Fourier analysis ................................................................................................ 2-21
2.6.6 Spherical harmonics analysis ........................................................................... 2-23
2.6.7 Wavelet transform ............................................................................................ 2-24
2.7 Summary .................................................................................................................. 2-26
3 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 3-1
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 3-1
3.2 Material selection and sample preparation ................................................................. 3-1
3.3 Laser scanning of aggregates ..................................................................................... 3-3
3.4 Determination of laser-based aggregate shape properties .......................................... 3-5
3.5 Validation of aggregate shape properties ................................................................... 3-6
3.6 Summary .................................................................................................................... 3-6
4 LABORATORY TESTING AND LASER SCANNING RESULTS ............................... 4-1
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 4-1
vi
4.2 Laboratory test results ................................................................................................ 4-1
4.3 Results of scanned aggregate particles ....................................................................... 4-4
4.4 Grading of the aggregate particles selected for laser scanning ................................ 4-15
4.5 Summary .................................................................................................................. 4-20
5 DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSIONS ....................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 5-1
5.2 Quantification of aggregate form indices by using physical properties ..................... 5-1
5.2.1 Sphericity computed using surface area and volume ......................................... 5-2
5.2.2 Sphericity computed using orthogonal dimensions............................................ 5-4
5.2.3 Flat and elongated ratio ...................................................................................... 5-6
5.2.4 Discussion of the laser-based form indices results ............................................. 5-8
5.3 Quantification of aggregate shape properties by using spherical harmonic analysis . 5-9
5.3.1 Pre-processing of laser scan data........................................................................ 5-9
5.3.2 Determination of spherical harmonic coefficients ........................................... 5-13
5.3.3 Validation of the computation of harmonic coefficients and radii ................... 5-15
5.3.4 Spherical harmonics form indices .................................................................... 5-28
5.3.5 Spherical harmonics angularity indices ............................................................ 5-31
5.3.6 Spherical harmonics surface texture indices .................................................... 5-34
5.4 Correlation of spherical harmonics form indices with other form indices ............... 5-37
5.5 Validation of the laser-based form indices ............................................................... 5-47
5.5.1 Correlation of flakiness index with laser-based form indices .......................... 5-47
5.5.2 Correlation of flat and elongated particles ratio with laser-based form indices ... 5-
51
5.6 Selection of aggregates for pavement construction .................................................. 5-58
5.7 Summary .................................................................................................................. 5-59
6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................ 6-1
6.1 Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 6-1
6.2 Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 6-3
7 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 7-1
8 APPENDIX A: AGGREGATE SCAN RESULTS .......................................................... 8-1
9 APPENDIX B: MATLAB CODE FOR ANALYSIS OF LASER SCAN DATA ............ 9-1
10 APPENDIX C: EFFECT OF DEGREE (l) VALUE ON CONVERGENCE .................. 10-1
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Flakiness index specifications . ................................................................................. 2-5
Table 2.2: Specifications for flat and elongated particles . ........................................................ 2-6
Table 2.3: Specifications for angularity . ................................................................................... 2-7
Table 3.1: Aggregate samples. ................................................................................................... 3-2
Table 4.1: Grading analysis and standard laboratory test results. .............................................. 4-2
Table 4.2: Scan results of 19.0 mm granite aggregate particles. ................................................ 4-8
Table 5.1: Statistical parameters for sphericity computed using surface area and volume. ....... 5-3
Table 5.2: Statistical parameters for sphericity computed using orthogonal dimensions. ......... 5-5
Table 5.3: Statistical parameters for flat and elongated ratio. .................................................... 5-7
Table 5.4: Criteria for identification of the quadrant of the vertex. ......................................... 5-13
Table 5.5: Criteria for computation of angle α. ........................................................................ 5-13
Table 5.6: Spherical Harmonics . ............................................................................................. 5-14
Table 5.7: Effect of varying degree (l). .................................................................................... 5-17
Table 5.8: Form indices for different degree (l) Values. .......................................................... 5-29
Table 5.9: Statistical parameters for spherical harmonic form index. ...................................... 5-30
Table 5.10: Comparison of angularity indices. ........................................................................ 5-33
Table 5.11: Comparison of surface texture indices .................................................................. 5-36
Table 8.3: Scan results of 9.5 mm granite aggregate particles. .................................................. 8-3
Table 8.4: Scan results of 6.7 mm granite aggregate particles. .................................................. 8-4
Table 8.6: Scan results of 19.0 mm tillite aggregate particles.................................................... 8-6
Table 8.7: Scan results of 13.2 mm tillite aggregate particles.................................................... 8-7
Table 8.8: Scan results of 9.5 mm tillite aggregate particles...................................................... 8-8
Table 8.9: Scan results of 6.7 mm tillite aggregate particles...................................................... 8-9
Table 8.10: Scan results of 4.75 mm tillite aggregate particles................................................ 8-10
Table 8.11: Scan results of 19.0 mm quartzite aggregate particles. ......................................... 8-11
Table 8.13: Scan results of 9.5 mm quartzite aggregate particles. ........................................... 8-13
Table 8.14: Scan results of 6.7 mm quartzite aggregate particles. ........................................... 8-14
Table 8.16: Scan results of 19.0 mm hornfels aggregate particles. .......................................... 8-16
Table 8.18: Scan results of 9.5 mm hornfels aggregate particles. ............................................ 8-18
Table 8.19: Scan results of 6.7 mm hornfels aggregate particles. ............................................ 8-19
Table 8.21: Scan results of 19.0 mm alluvial gravel aggregate particles. ................................ 8-21
Table 8.23: Scan results of 9.5 mm alluvial gravel aggregate particles. .................................. 8-23
Table 8.24: Scan results of 6.7 mm alluvial gravel aggregate particles. .................................. 8-24
Table 8.26: Scan results of 19.0 mm RA aggregate particles. ................................................. 8-26
Table 8.28: Scan results of 9.5 mm RA aggregate particles. ................................................... 8-28
Table 8.29: Scan results of 6.7 mm RA aggregate particles. ................................................... 8-29
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Fundamental aggregate shape properties . ............................................................... 2-2
Figure 2.2: Flakiness index test apparatus.................................................................................. 2-5
Figure 2.3: Proportional caliper device. ..................................................................................... 2-6
Figure 2.4 Angular and non-angular aggregate particles. .......................................................... 2-7
Figure 2.5: Chart for visual evaluation of roundness of aggregate . ........................................ 2-10
Figure 2.6: Chart for visual evaluation of sphericity of aggregate . ......................................... 2-11
Figure 2.7: The University of Illinois Aggregate Image Analyser . ......................................... 2-12
Figure 2.8: The Aggregate Imaging System . .......................................................................... 2-13
Figure 2.9: Laser-based Aggregate Scanning System . ............................................................ 2-14
Figure 2.10: A 3-D laser scanning device at the CSIR. ........................................................... 2-15
Figure 2.11: Actual and scanned aggregate particles . ............................................................. 2-15
Figure 2.12: Representation of an aggregate particle for Fourier analysis. .............................. 2-22
Figure 3.1: Aggregate scanning process. ................................................................................... 3-4
Figure 3.2: Procedures for laser based-based determination of aggregate shape properties. ..... 3-5
Figure 4.1: Grading analysis results. .......................................................................................... 4-3
Figure 4.2: Actual and modelled 19.0 mm for granite, tillite and quartzite. .............................. 4-5
Figure 4.3: Actual and modelled 19.0 mm for hornfels, alluvial gravel and RA. ...................... 4-6
Figure 4.4: Surface area and volume of granite. ........................................................................ 4-9
Figure 4.5: Surface area and volume of tillite. ......................................................................... 4-10
Figure 4.6: Surface area and volume of quartzite. ................................................................... 4-11
Figure 4.7: Surface area and volume of hornfels. .................................................................... 4-12
Figure 4.8: Surface area and volume of alluvial gravel. .......................................................... 4-13
Figure 4.9: Surface area and volume of RA. ............................................................................ 4-14
Figure 4.10: Flat and elongated particle passing through a sieve with the intermediate size
greater than the sieve size......................................................................................................... 4-15
Figure 4.11: Grading curves for granite and tillite. .................................................................. 4-17
Figure 4.12: Grading curves for quartzite and hornfels. .......................................................... 4-18
Figure 4.13: Grading curves for alluvial gravel and RA. ......................................................... 4-19
Figure 5.1: Distributions of sphericity computed using surface area and volume. .................... 5-4
Figure 5.2: Distributions of sphericity computed using orthogonal dimensions........................ 5-5
Figure 5.3: Distributions of flat and elongated ratio. ................................................................. 5-7
Figure 5.4: Mesh model of scanned spherical object. .............................................................. 5-10
Figure 5.5: Mesh model of scanned aggregate particle. ........................................................... 5-10
Figure 5.6: Surface point data of scanned aggregate particle. .................................................. 5-11
Figure 5.7: Relationship between Cartesian and polar coordinate systems. ............................ 5-12
Figure 5.8: Average absolute errors for a spherical object. ...................................................... 5-18
Figure 5.9: Average absolute errors for a cubical aggregate. ................................................... 5-19
Figure 5.10: Average absolute errors for an elongated aggregate. ........................................... 5-20
Figure 5.11: Radii determined from the laser scans and radii computed by using the spherical
harmonic technique for a spherical object. ............................................................................... 5-22
harmonic technique for a cubical aggregate. ............................................................................ 5-23
harmonic technique for an elongated aggregate. ...................................................................... 5-24
Figure 5.14: Radii determined from the laser scans versus radii computed by using the spherical
harmonic technique for a spherical object................................................................................ 5-25
harmonic technique for a cubical aggregate. ............................................................................ 5-26
harmonic technique for an elongated aggregate. ...................................................................... 5-27
Figure 5.17: Distribution of spherical harmonic form index. ................................................... 5-30
ix
Figure 5.18: Distribution of spherical harmonic angularity index. .......................................... 5-32
Figure 5.19: Distribution of spherical harmonic surface texture index. ................................... 5-35
Figure 5.20: Spherical harmonic form index versus sphericity computed using volume and
surface area for granite. ............................................................................................................ 5-38
surface area for tillite................................................................................................................ 5-39
surface area for quartzite. ......................................................................................................... 5-39
surface area for hornfels. .......................................................................................................... 5-40
surface area for alluvial gravel. ................................................................................................ 5-40
surface area for RA. ................................................................................................................. 5-41
Figure 5.26: Spherical harmonic form index versus sphericity computed using orthogonal
dimensions for granite. ............................................................................................................. 5-41
dimensions for tillite. ............................................................................................................... 5-42
dimensions for quartzite. .......................................................................................................... 5-42
dimensions for hornfels. ........................................................................................................... 5-43
dimensions for alluvial gravel. ................................................................................................. 5-43
dimensions for RA. .................................................................................................................. 5-44
Figure 5.32: Spherical harmonic form index versus flat and elongated ratio for granite. ........ 5-44
Figure 5.33: Spherical harmonic form index versus flat and elongated ratio for tillite. .......... 5-45
Figure 5.34: Spherical harmonic form index versus flat and elongated ratio for quartzite. ..... 5-45
Figure 5.35: Spherical harmonic form index versus flat and elongated ratio for hornfels. ...... 5-46
Figure 5.36: Spherical harmonic form index versus flat and elongated ratio for alluvial gravel. 5-
46
Figure 5.37: Spherical harmonic form index versus flat and elongated ratio for RA. ............. 5-47
Figure 5.38: Flakiness index versus sphericity computed by using volume and surface area. 5-49
Figure 5.39: Flakiness index versus sphericity computed by using orthogonal dimensions. ... 5-49
Figure 5.40: Flakiness index versus flat and elongated ratio. .................................................. 5-50
Figure 5.41: Flakiness index versus spherical harmonic form index. ...................................... 5-50
Figure 5.42: Flat and elongated particles ratio (proportional caliper set at 5:1) versus sphericity
computed by using volume and surface area............................................................................ 5-52
computed by using orthogonal dimensions. ............................................................................. 5-52
Figure 5.44: Flat and elongated particles ratio determined using the standard method
(proportional caliper set at 5:1) versus the laser-based flat and elongated ratio. ..................... 5-53
(proportional caliper set at 5:1) versus spherical harmonic form index. .................................. 5-53
(proportional caliper set at 3:1) versus laser-based flat and elongated ratio. ........................... 5-55
x
(proportional caliper set at 2:1) versus laser-based flat and elongated ratio. ........................... 5-57
Figure 10.1: Radii determined from laser scans and radii computed using spherical harmonic
technique for 19 mm spherical object (l =5 and 10). ................................................................ 10-1
technique for 19 mm spherical object (l =15 and 20). .............................................................. 10-2
technique for 19 mm spherical object (l =25). .......................................................................... 10-3
technique for 13 mm spherical object (l =5 and 10). ................................................................ 10-4
technique for 13 mm spherical object (l =15 and 20). .............................................................. 10-5
technique for 13 mm spherical object (l =25). .......................................................................... 10-6
technique for 13.2 mm aggregate particle (l =5 and 10). .......................................................... 10-7
technique for 13.2 mm aggregate particle (l =15 and 20). ........................................................ 10-8
technique for 13.2 mm aggregate particle (l =25). ................................................................... 10-9
technique for 9.5 mm aggregate particle (l =5 and 10)........................................................... 10-10
technique for 9.5 mm aggregate particle (l =15 and 20)......................................................... 10-11
technique for 6.7 mm aggregate particle (l =5 and 10)........................................................... 10-13
technique for 6.7 mm aggregate particle (l =15 and 20)......................................................... 10-14
technique for 4.75 mm aggregate particle (l =5 and 10). ........................................................ 10-16
technique for 4.75 mm aggregate particle (l =15 and 20). ...................................................... 10-17
technique for 4.75 mm aggregate particle (l =25). ................................................................. 10-18
xi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ACV - Aggregate Crushing Value

AI - Angularity Index
AIMS - Aggregate Imaging System
ASTM - American Society of Testing and Materials
BRD - Bulk Relative Density
COLTO - Committee of Land Transportation Officials
CSIR - Council for Scientific and Industrial Research
CSRA -Committee of State Road Authorities
DOT - Department of Transport
FER - Flat and Elongated Ratio
FI - Flakiness Index
HMA - Hot Mix Asphalt
LASS - Laser-based Aggregate Scanning System
PG - Parliamentary Grant
PI - Particle Index
PSV - Polishing Stone Value
RA - Recycled Aggregate
R&D - Research and Development
SANS - South African National Standards
SHRP - Strategic Highway Research Program
SRP - Strategic Research Panel
SUPERPAVE - Superior Performing Asphalt Pavements
TMH - Technical Methods for Highways
TRH - Technical Recommendations for Highways
TIE - Transport Infrastructure Engineering
10% FACT - Ten per cent Fine Aggregate Crushing Test
2-D - Two-Dimensional
3-D - Three-Dimensional
USA - Unites States of America
UIAIA - University of Illinois Aggregate Image Analyser
xii
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Rock aggregates constitute a larger proportion (about 95 per cent by mass) of the materials used
for construction of roads and airport pavements. Therefore, the performance of pavements is
highly dependent on aggregates. The key aggregate shape properties that are influential to the
performance of pavements are form, angularity and surface texture (Al-Rousan et al, 2007).
Aggregate form describes the overall three dimensional (longest, intermediate and shortest)
shape of an aggregate particle. Angularity describes the sharpness of corners, whereas surface
texture describes smoothness or roughness of an aggregate particle. Current understanding is
that the pavement performance indicators affected by aggregate shape properties include
permanent deformation, shear resistance, skid resistance, stiffness, fatigue resistance, stability
and workability of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) mixes (Button et al, 1990; Barksdale and Itani,
1994; Yeggoni et al, 1994; Taute et al 2001; Chen et al, 2005; Pan et al, 2005; Pan et al, 2006
and Arasan et al, 2011).
In order to ensure good performance, modern pavement design guidelines specify the required
aggregate shape properties. For instance, the USA Strategic Highway Research Program
(SHRP) through its Superior Performing Asphalt Pavements (SUPERPAVE) design of asphalt
mixes specify the coarse aggregate shape properties in terms of flat and elongated particles
ratio, angularity and surface texture (Asphalt Institute, 1996). South African specifications for
coarse aggregates shape properties are contained in various guidelines and specifications such as
the interim guidelines for design of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) (Taute et al, 2001), TRH 8 and the
Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Works for State Road Authorities (CSRA, 1998)
In South Africa, the coarse aggregate form is currently evaluated manually using the flakiness
index test. The test procedures are contained in Technical Methods for Highways (TMH 1)
Method B3 (TMH 1, 1986). The aggregate form can also be evaluated using flat and elongated
particles ratio. The American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard procedure
ASTM D 4791 is the current standard test method for determination of flat and elongated
aggregate particles (ASTM D 4791, 2010). For evaluation of aggregate angularity, counting the
number of fractured aggregate faces (ASTM D 5821, 2006) is recommended. The aggregate
surface texture is measured indirectly using the particle index (ASTM D 3398, 2006). Although
these standard methods supported the current understanding of the influence of aggregate shape
1-1
properties on pavement performance, they have several limitations including the use of a
manual approach (subjective in nature), time consuming and laborious (TMH 1, 1986; ASTM D
4791, 2010; ASTM D 5821, 2006 and ASTM D 3398, 2006). Also, the current methods
quantify aggregate shape properties indirectly, resulting in a lack of a direct relationship with
fundamental aggregate properties governing pavement performance (Masad and Button, 2000;
Tutumluer et al, 2000; Masad, 2003; Prowell et al, 2005 and Masad et al, 2007).
Current research efforts to address the limitations of the existing standard test methods are
employing advanced technologies such as imaging and laser scanning. The South African
Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) is currently pursuing research project on
pavement materials. The research objective is to improve pavements performance through better
evaluation and modelling of aggregate shape properties. This will be achieved through the use
of laser scanning and advanced modelling techniques. This dissertation contributes towards the
CSIR’s broader research in quantification of aggregate shape properties by a using laser
scanning technique.
1.2 Problem definition
Limitations of the current standard test methods used for determination of coarse aggregate
shape properties including form, angularity and surface texture necessitate the need for
developing advanced techniques. The current standard methods have not been able to quantify
the key aggregate shape properties accurately. Irregularity of aggregate shapes is among the
reasons creating challenges for direct and accurate quantification of aggregate shape properties,
using the current standard methods. Consequently, the pavement performance indicators have
been related to the aggregate shape properties indirectly. Direct and accurate determination of
aggregate shape properties is required in order to better understand the effects of aggregate
shape properties on pavement performance, hence improving pavement design. Advanced
techniques such as three-dimensional (3-D) aggregate laser scanning could be used to obtain
accurate aggregate shape properties, hence addressing the limitations of the current standard
methods.
1-2
1.3 Objectives of the study
The objectives of the study are:
 To investigate the use of improved techniques for the determination of coarse aggregate
shape properties using an advanced laser-based scanning technique, and
 To validate the proposed laser-based aggregate shape properties.
1.4 Scope of the study
The scope of the study is summarised as follows:

 Selection of aggregate samples;
 Scanning of aggregates using the 3-D laser scanning device at CSIR;
 Processing of scan data to reconstruct 3-D models of the aggregates;
 Analyses of the laser scan results to determine aggregate shape properties, and
 Validation of the laser-based aggregate shape properties using the current standard test
methods.
Specifically:
 The study focuses on quantification of coarse aggregate shape properties only, i.e.
aggregates larger than 4.75 mm.
 Linkage of the quantified aggregate shape properties with pavement performance indicators
was not part of this study.
1.5 Methodology
Six types of aggregates used for construction of pavements in South Africa and sourced from
six commercial quarries were selected for the study. The materials selection ensured that
aggregates with varying shape properties were included in the study. Representative samples
were obtained from each aggregate type by means of rifling, and basic aggregate tests were
carried out. The tests included grading analyses, flakiness index, flat and elongated particles
ratio, bulk density, Aggregate Crushing Value (ACV) and 10 per cent Fines Aggregate Crushing
Test (10 % FACT).
From the graded aggregate samples, 30 particles were randomly selected from each of the
coarser sieve sizes (4.75, 6.7, 9.5, 13.2 and 19.0 mm) for laser scanning. 150 particles were
1-3
scanned for each aggregate type or overall a total of 900 aggregate particles were scanned for
the six types of aggregates studied. A 3-D laser scanning device was used for scanning
aggregate particles, and the data were processed to reconstruct 3-D models of aggregate
particles. The 3-D models were further analysed to quantify aggregate shape properties, using
two different analyses approaches identified during a literature review conducted during the
study. Indices to describe aggregate shape properties based on the laser scanning approach were
determined.
Lastly, it was necessary to validate the laser-based aggregate shape indices. The laser-based
form indices were validated by correlating them with flakiness index and flat and elongated
particles ratio test results. The flakiness index and flat and elongated particles ratio are the
current standard tests used to evaluate aggregate form properties. The laser-based angularity and
surface texture indices were validated by comparing the angularity and surface texture of
aggregates visually, with the computed indices.
1.6 Organisation of the dissertation
The dissertation consists of six chapters:
 Chapter 1 provides the background information of the study;

 Chapter 2 provides a review of the currently available knowledge on the main aspects
covered in this dissertation;
 Chapter 3 discusses the research methodology followed including material selection and
sample preparation, laser scanning of the aggregates, determination and validation of the
laser-based shape properties of aggregates;
 Chapter 4 presents the results of laboratory tests and laser scanning without detailed
analysis;
 Chapter 5 presents the analyses and discussions of the results;
 Chapter 6 provides conclusions and recommendations of the study, and
 List of references and appendices A, B and C follow at the end of the dissertation report.
1-4
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
In this Chapter, a literature review of the current available knowledge on the main aspects
covered in the dissertation is provided. The literature covers the following areas:
 Fundamental coarse aggregate shape properties;

 Influence of aggregate shape properties on the performance of pavements;
 Current standard tests on coarse aggregate, specifications and limitations;
 Advanced measurement of aggregate shape properties using image and laser-based scanning
techniques, and
 Characterisation of coarse aggregate shape properties.
2.2 Coarse aggregate shape properties
The shape or morphology of aggregate particles is distinguished by using three independent

fundamental properties (i.e. form, angularity and surface texture). These properties are defined
based on their scales with respect to an aggregate particle size. Aggregate form describes the
overall three dimensional (longest, intermediate and shortest) shape of an aggregate particle. For
example, the form of an aggregate can be spherical, cubical, flat and elongated. Angularity of an
aggregate particle describes the sharpness of corners. Crushed aggregate particles have sharp
corners compared to uncrushed aggregate particles such as river gravels. Aggregate surface
texture describes smoothness or roughness of an aggregate particle.
Previous research studies have used different terminologies to describe the three fundamental
aggregate properties. In some literature, the aggregate form, angularity and surface texture are
referred to as shape, roundness and roughness respectively. This study describes aggregate
shape properties as form, angularity and surface texture. Figure 2.1 illustrates the three
fundamental aggregate shape properties, recently defined by Anochie-Boateng et al (2011c).
2-1
Angularity Form (roundness,
sphericity, flatness,
elongation)
Surface area/
Surface texture Volume
Figure 2.1: Fundamental aggregate shape properties (Anochie-Boateng et al, 2011c).
Coarse aggregates commonly used for construction of pavements may be crushed aggregates,
natural gravel (uncrushed) or Recycled Aggregates (RA). Crushed aggregates are obtained by
crushing the three primary rock types (igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic). Gravel
aggregates are naturally occurring deposits found on land, rivers or seabed. Whereas, RA is
obtained by crushing used asphalt to reclaim the aggregate. Currently, crushed aggregates
constitute a larger proportion of aggregates used for construction of pavements in South Africa.
However, economic and environmental benefits warrant the use of RA for construction
purposes (Rahal, 2007; TRH 21, 2009).
The shape properties of crushed aggregates depend on three main factors. These factors include
the properties of the parent rock, the type of crusher being used and the way in which the
crusher is operated (Prowell et al, 2005; SBM, 2012). Some sedimentary rocks have weaker
strength in one direction (anisotropy) due to mineral cleavage or parallel weak layers. Such
rocks may produce flat and elongated particles when crushed (SBM, 2012). Other rock types
such as quartzite and basalt produce aggregates with fractured surfaces as they fracture in a
concoidal manner (Prowell et al, 2005).
2-2
Crushers commonly used for the production of aggregates are grouped into two categories.
These categories are compression-type and impact crushers (Collis and Fox, 1985). The main
difference between the two is the mechanism in which the crushing load is applied.
Compression-type crushers, which include jaw, gyratory and cone crushers, compress a rock
until it breaks. On the other hand, an impact crusher consists of rotating hammers which transfer
kinetic energy to a rock by striking it until it breaks (Collis and Fox, 1985 and SBM, 2012). The
mechanism in which the crushing load is applied affects the shape properties of the produced
aggregates. Compression-type crushers tend to produce flat and elongated particles and impact
crushers produce cubical aggregates (Prowell et al, 2005).
2.3 Influence of aggregate shape properties on pavement performance
Significant research studies to investigate the influence of aggregate shape properties on the
performance of pavements have been conducted. Pavement performance indicators affected by
aggregate shape properties include permanent deformation, shear resistance, skid resistance,
stiffness, fatigue resistance, stability and workability of HMA mixes (Button et al, 1990;
Barksdale and Itani, 1994; Yeggoni et al, 1994; Taute et al 2001; Chen et al, 2005; Pan et al,
2005; Pan et al, 2006 and Arasan et al, 2011).
Arasan et al (2011) evaluated the mechanical properties of asphalt mixes manufactured by using
aggregates with different shape properties. They found that asphalt mixes containing spherical
aggregates have higher stability, workability and resistance to permanent deformation compared
to HMA mixes containing flat and elongated aggregates. Flat and elongated particles tend to
lock up (resist re-orientation) resulting to difficulties in compaction. Furthermore, the tendency
of flat and elongated particles to break during compaction may result into difficulties in
achieving voids requirements in HMA mixes, due to aggregate degradation which may change
the grading. For the same reasons, the interim guidelines for the design of HMA in South Africa
recommends avoidance of flat and elongated particles in HMA mixes (Taute et al, 2001). The
SUPERPAVE mix design procedures recommend minimum use of flat and elongated particles
in HMA mixes due to their tendency to break down during compaction and under traffic loading
(Asphalt Institute, 2006).
Button et al (1990) investigated the influence of aggregate shape on rutting in asphalt

pavements. They found that crushed aggregates improve rutting resistance when compared to
smooth aggregates. Chen et al (2005) investigated the influence of coarse aggregate shape on
2-3
the strength of asphalt mixes. They found that cubical aggregates provide improved rutting
resistance. On the other hand, flat and elongated aggregate particles result in asphalt mixes with
low shear deformation resistance.
Pan et al (2005) investigated the effect of coarse aggregate morphology on the resilient modulus
of asphalt mixes. In their study, angularity and surface texture indices quantified by using image
analysis were correlated to resilient modulus of asphalt mixes. They found that coarse
aggregates with high angularity and surface texture improve the resilient modulus of asphalt
mixes.
A study on the influence of aggregate shape on pavement base layer behaviour conducted by
Barksdale and Itani (1994) showed that crushed aggregates result in improved resilient modulus
and shear strength. Another study conducted by Pan et al (2006) focused on investigating the
influence of aggregate angularity and surface texture on the resilient behaviour of unbound
granular materials. Their findings indicated that angular and rough textured aggregates improve
interlock and frictional properties.
It is evident that coarse aggregate shape properties have significant effects on the performance
of pavements. Therefore, proper characterisation of aggregate shape properties is essential in
order to improve the performance of pavements.
2.4 Current standard tests and specifications for coarse aggregates

2.4.1 Evaluation of form
The standard test method used to evaluate the form of aggregates for road construction in South
Africa is the flakiness index test. Flakiness index test procedures are contained in Technical
Methods for Highways (TMH 1) Method B3 (TMH 1, 1986). Under the new South African
National Standards (SANS), the method will be replaced by SANS 3001-AG4 (SANS, 2009).
The test procedures start with performing grading analysis on the aggregate sample to be tested.
Each aggregate particle retained on a specific sieve size is then passed through a corresponding
rectangular slot of a flakiness gauge. The particles passing the slots are regarded as flaky,
whereas particles which do not pass are considered being non-flaky. Flakiness index (in
percentage) is calculated by dividing the mass of aggregates passing the slots by the total mass
of the sample. The test provides an indication of the flatness of aggregate particles. Excessive
use of flaky particles in pavement construction is not recommended due to their tendency of
2-4
breaking down during compaction and under traffic loading (DOT Draft TRH8, 1987; Asphalt
Institute, 1996; Taute et al, 2001 and Arasan et al, 2011).
Figure 2.2 shows a photograph of the flakiness index test apparatus. The specifications for
flakiness index in South Africa contained in the Committee of Land Transportation Officials
(COLTO and the Draft TRH8: Design and use of hot-mix asphalt in pavements documents are
presented in Table 2.1 (CSRA, 1998; TRH8, 1987).
Figure 2.2: Flakiness index test apparatus.
Table 2.1: Flakiness index specifications (CSRA, 1998; TRH8, 1987).
COLTO Specification: Maximum flakiness index

Surfacing aggregate Rolling-in-
Nominal size of aggregate Base
chip
(mm) Grade 1 Grade 2 (all grades)
(all grades
19.0 25 30 20 35
13.2 25 30 20 35
9.5 30 35 - -
6.7 30 35 - -
TRH8 Specification: Maximum flakiness index
Surfacing Overlays Base Levelling
30 35 20 20
The form of aggregate particles can also be evaluated by using the flat and elongated particle
test. Similar to the flakiness index test, the flat and elongated particle test provides an indication
of the flatness and elongation of aggregates. The method is recommended in SUPERPAVE for
evaluation of aggregate form (Asphalt Institute, 1996). The test procedures are contained in the
2-5
American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard procedure ASTM D 4791 (ASTM
D 4791, 2010). In this method, a proportional caliper device set at a pre-defined ratio is used to
measure the ratios of longest to the shortest dimensions of an aggregate particle. The
SUPERPAVE mix design procedures recommend a ratio of 5:1 to be used for determination of
the flat and elongated particles ratio. The flat and elongated particles ratio is calculated by
dividing the mass of flat and elongated particles by the total mass of the sample, and is
expressed as a percentage. Table 2.2 shows SUPERPAVE specifications for flat and elongated
particles for HMA mixes (Asphalt Institute, 1996). Figure 2.3 shows a photograph of a
proportional caliper device used for testing flat and elongated particles.
Table 2.2: Specifications for flat and elongated particles (Asphalt Institute, 1996).
Traffic (Million ESALs) Maximum flat and elongated particles (%)
< 0.3 -
<1 -
<3 10
< 10 10
< 30 10
< 100 10
≥ 100 10
Figure 2.3: Proportional caliper device.
2-6
2.4.2 Evaluation of angularity
Currently, the standard test method used to evaluate angularity of aggregates is based on
counting the number of fractured faces of aggregate particles. The test procedures are contained
in the ASTM D 5821 test method (ASTM D 5821, 2006). Using this method, an aggregate
particle is visually inspected to establish the number of fractured faces. The face of an aggregate
particle is considered fractured if the area of fractured face is at least 25 percentage of the
greatest projection of a particle at a given orientation (2-D image) (ASTM D 5821, 2006). Once
fractured and non-fractured aggregate particles have been identified, the percentage of fractured
particles is calculated by dividing the mass of fractured particles by the total mass of the sample.
Table 2.3 shows SUPERPAVE specifications for coarse aggregate angularity. Figure 2.4 shows
an example of aggregates with fractured faces and non-fractured faces.
Table 2.3: Specifications for angularity (Asphalt Institute, 1996).
Traffic (Million Depth from surface

ESALs) Less than 100 mm More than 100 mm
< 0.3 55/- -/-
<1 65/- -/-
<3 75/- 50/-
< 10 85/80 60/-
< 30 95/90 80/75
< 100 100/100 95/90
≥ 100 100/100 100/100
Note: “85/80” Means 85 percentage of the coarse aggregate has one or more fractured faces
and 80 percentage has two or more fractured faces.
Aggregates with fractured faces Aggregates with non-fractured faces

Figure 2.4 Angular and non-angular aggregate particles.
2-7
2.4.3 Evaluation of surface texture
Currently, there is no direct method dedicated for evaluation of surface texture of coarse
aggregate. The ASTM D 3398 (2006) test method is currently used to provide an indication of
both form and surface texture. The test measures voids in aggregate and computes a particle
index parameter that provides combined characterisation of aggregate form and surface texture.
2.4.4 Limitations of the current standard tests
The current standard tests used to evaluate coarse aggregate shape properties have several
limitations. Masad (2003) argued that the flat and elongated particles ratio test (ASTM D 4791)
gives a single index, which is less descriptive and does not reflect the distribution of particle
dimensions in a sample.
In South Africa, the coarse aggregate form is currently evaluated using the flakiness index test.
Anochie-Boateng et al (2011b) pointed out that the slots of the gauge used to conduct the test
may allow aggregate with considerable variations in form to pass. Similar to the ASTM D 4791
test method, the flakiness index test gives a single index which does not provide sufficient
information to distinguish the form of the aggregate particle.
The accuracy and repeatability of the current test method used to evaluate aggregate angularity
(ASTM D 5821) is also questionable. Prowell et al (2005) pointed out that the technician
performing the angularity test may fail to decide whether the area of fractured face of an
aggregate particle is at least 25 percentage of the projection of a particle at a given orientation.
Hence the method is subjective, which may affect the accuracy and repeatability of the test
results.
The current ASTM D 3398 test method does not provide characterisation of aggregate surface
texture in a direct manner. The test relies of relating voids in the aggregate to form and surface
texture. In addition, the test method gives one index to describe both aggregate form and surface
texture. The aggregate form and surface texture are two independent properties. Therefore, they
should ideally be evaluated separately.
Other limitations of the current standard methods include; subjectivity due to the use of a
manual approach, time consuming and laborious, inter-laboratory variability, low repeatability
2-8
and lack of a direct relationship with the fundamental properties governing the performance of
pavements (Masad and Button, 2000; Tutumluer et al, 2000; Masad, 2003; Prowell et al, 2005
and Masad et al, 2007).
These limitations may lead to major consequences. Masad (2003) pointed out that the
limitations of the current standard methods may result in inconsistency in predicting to what
extend the aggregate form, angularity and surface texture affect pavement performance.
2.5 Advanced measurement of aggregate shape properties
Aggregate imaging and laser scanning are among advanced techniques that have been
investigated to address limitations of the current methods used to evaluate aggregate shape
properties. These techniques are considered to be superior to the current methods due to:
efficiency, evaluation speed, ability to be automated hence eliminating human subjectivity and
ability to relate the measured aggregate shape properties to fundamental properties affecting
pavement performance (Masad and Button, 2000; Tutumluer et al, 2000; Masad, 2003; Wang et
al, 2005; Masad et al, 2007 Anochie-Boateng et al, 2012). This section reviews recent
developments in aggregate imaging and laser scanning techniques.
2.5.1 Image-based technique
The concept of using images to characterize aggregate shape properties started in the 1940s.
Krumbein (1941) developed a chart for visual evaluation of 2-D angularity of granular materials
in terms of roundness. Roundness is a parameter that gives an indication of the angularity of an
aggregate particle. The roundness chart developed by Krumbein (1941) is used to assess
(visually) similarity of aggregate particles with images presented in Figure 2.5 and assigned a
roundness value. The roundness value of round shaped aggregate particles approaches 1,
whereas that of non-round particles approach zero.
2-9
Figure 2.5: Chart for visual evaluation of roundness of aggregate (Krumbein, 1941).
Rittenhouse (1943) developed a chart for visual assessment the form of the aggregates in terms
of sphericity. Sphericity is a parameter that describes the overall form of an aggregate particle.
Aggregate particles are visually assessed for similarity with particle presented in Figure 2.6
(Rittenhouse, 1943) and assigned a sphericity number. As the form of aggregate particles
becomes spherical, the sphericity number approaches 1, whereas sphericity of flat and elongated
particles approaches zero.
2-10
Figure 2.6: Chart for visual evaluation of sphericity of aggregate (Rittenhouse, 1943).
The roundness and sphericity evaluation charts developed by Krumbein (1941) and Rittenhouse
(1943) respectively are based on 2-D images of aggregate particles. Although these charts may
be capable to describe variation in aggregate form and angularity, the fact that the approach is
based on 2-D images has some limitations. For example, different 2-D views of the same
aggregate particle projected from a different orientation may result in different roundness or
sphericity numbers.
Recent developments in image-based techniques for quantification of aggregate shape properties

are based on capturing images of aggregate particles by using high resolution cameras. The
captured images are analysed to quantify aggregate shape properties. Internationally, research
efforts to develop and evaluate the image-based technique for quantification of aggregate shape
properties have been growing significantly (Masad and Button, 2000; Tutumluer et al, 2000;
Masad, 2003 and Wang et al, 2005).
2-11
Tutumluer et al (2000) developed the University of Illinois Aggregate Image Analyser (UIAIA)
to provide improved and automated measurement of coarse aggregate shape properties. The
UIAIA shown in Figure 2.7 makes use of three cameras to capture aggregate images from three
orthogonal directions. Use of three cameras in the UIAIA ensures collection of 3-D information
required for accurate determination of the volume of an aggregate particle (Tutumluer et al,
2003). The UIAIA has been used extensively to measure dimensions, volume, surface area and
quantify aggregate shape properties including the flat and elongated ratio, angularity and surface
texture (Tutumluer et al, 2000; Rao et al, 2001, Rao et al, 2002; Rao et al, 2003; Tutumluer et
al, 2003 and Pan, 2006). In the US, the UIAIA has been proposed as a test method for
measuring volume, flat and elongated ratio, angularity and surface texture of coarse aggregates
(Masad et al, 2007).
Figure 2.7: The University of Illinois Aggregate Image Analyser (Tutumluer et al, 2003).
Another imaging system that has been used for measurement of aggregate shape properties is
the Aggregate Imaging System (AIMS), developed by Masad (2003). The AIMS is used to
measure shape properties of coarse and fine aggregates. The system as shown in Figure 2.8
consists of a camera, video microscope, lighting systems, aggregate tray, computer automated
data acquisition system and processing software for analysis of aggregate shape properties
(Masad, 2003 and Masad, 2004). Masad at el (2007) evaluated test methods for characterising
2-12
aggregate shape properties. They proposed the use of AIMS as suitable for quantification of
aggregate form, angularity and surface texture.
Figure 2.8: The Aggregate Imaging System (Masad et al, 2007).
Although aggregate imaging has been used extensively for direct measurement of aggregate
shape properties and has provided a better understanding of distinction between aggregate form,
angularity and surface texture, the technique has some limitations. The main limitation is that
most available image based systems provide information that facilitate characterisation of
aggregate form, angularity and surface texture in 2-D. In reality, an aggregate particle is a 3-D
object. Therefore, characterisation of aggregate shape properties should ideally be based on 3-D
information. The use of more advanced techniques such as the laser scanning could alleviate
some limitations of image-based aggregate analysis.
2.5.2 Laser-based technique
Three-dimensional (3-D) laser-based scanning is another technique that has been used for
measurement of aggregate shape properties. Kim et al (2001) developed the Laser-based
Aggregate Scanning System (LASS) consisting of a linear line scanner, a linear motion slide
and a computer shown in Figure 2.9. LASS captures x, y and z coordinates of an aggregate
2-13
particle. The data captured by using LASS have been used to quantify form, angularity and
surface texture of aggregate particles (Kim et al, 2002).
Figure 2.9: Laser-based Aggregate Scanning System (Kim et al, 2001).
Recently, Pan and Tutumluer (2010) used a 3-D laser scanning device to validate the surface
area of aggregates measured by using the image-based technique. Hayakawa and Oguchi (2005)
used a laser scanning device to evaluated sphericity and roundness of gavel particles.
The CSIR is currently pursuing a research project in the use of 3-D laser scanning and advanced
modelling techniques to characterise aggregate shape properties. A 3-D laser scanning device at
the CSIR’s pavement material laboratory has been evaluated for measurement of aggregate
shape properties (Anochie-Boateng et al, 2010). The device has been successfully used to
measure surface areas of aggregates used in typical South African HMA mixes (Anochie-
Boateng et al, 2011a). Furthermore, new approaches for determination of flakiness index
(Anochie-Boateng et al, 2011b) and flat and elongated particles ratio (Anochie-Boateng et al,
2011c) of aggregates were recently developed based on the aggregate volume instead of the
mass. Figure 2.10 shows a photograph of the 3-D laser scanning device at the CSIR. An
example of actual and scanned aggregate particles is shown in Figure 2.11.
2-14
Figure 2.10: A 3-D laser scanning device at the CSIR.
(a) Actual aggregates (b) Scanned and processed aggregates

Figure 2.11: Actual and scanned aggregate particles (Anochie-Boateng et al, 2011b).
The main advantage of the laser scanning approach is the ability to capture 3-D information of
the aggregate particles, hence allowing for more realistic and accurate quantification of
aggregates shape properties. Generally, research on quantification of aggregates shape
properties based on the laser scanning technique is not advanced as compared to the image-
based approach. However, the laser-based approach has the potential to address some
2-15
limitations of the image-based approach of which most of the limitations are based on 2-D
analysis of images.
2.6 Characterisation of coarse aggregate shape properties
The application of image and laser-based techniques to quantify shape properties of aggregates
is divided into two main processes. The first process involves acquisition/capturing of the
aggregate image or laser scan data. The second process involves analysis of the images or laser
scan data to quantify shape properties of the aggregate. Research efforts aimed at employing
imaging and laser scanning have led to the development of several indices for quantifying
fundamental aggregate shape properties.
2.6.1 Form indices
Several indices to quantify aggregate form properties have been proposed. Most form indices
are computed by using three dimensions of an aggregate particle (longest, intermediate and
shortest dimensions), surface area and volume.
Masad (2003) developed AIMS to measure aggregate shape properties and proposed
computation of sphericity and shape factor to describe aggregate form using Equations 2.1 and
2.2 respectively. The Equations 2.1 and 2.2 use three orthogonal dimensions of an aggregate
particle.
d s .d I
Sphericity  3 2.1
d L2
ds
Shape Factor  2.2
d L .d I
Where:
d L = Longest dimension of an aggregate particle;
d I = Intermediate dimension of an aggregate particle, and
d s = Shortest dimension of an aggregate particle.
From Equation 2.1 it can be seen that, for equal dimensional aggregate particles such as round
aggregates, the sphericity approaches a value of 1.
2-16
Rao et al (2001) used aggregate’s dimensions measured by using an imaging technique to
compute flat and elongated ratio of an aggregate particle by using Equation 2.3.
dL
Flat and elongated ratio  2.3
ds
Where:
d L = Longest dimension of an aggregate particle, and
d S = Shortest dimension of an aggregate particle.
From Equation 2.3 it can be seen that, for equal dimensional aggregate particles such as round
aggregates, the flat and elongated ratio approaches a value of 1. As an aggregate particle
becomes flatter, the flat and elongated ratio increases.
Lin and Miller (2005) used an X-ray technique to measure volume and surface area of aggregate
particles and computed sphericity (ψ) by using Equation 2.4.
3
36V 2
Sphericity ( )  2.4
A
Where:
V = Volume of an aggregate particle, and
A = Surface area of an aggregate particle.
Sphericity defined by using Equation 2.4 approaches 1 as the form of an aggregate becomes
spherical.
Aggregate form can also be defined in terms of roundness (ρ) computed by using Equation 2.5
(Al-Rousan et al, 2007).
p2
Roundness (ρ)  2.5
4πA
Where:
p = Perimeter of the projection of an aggregate particle at a given orientation, and
A = Area of an equivalent circle.
2-17
Masad et al (2001) proposed another form index parameter that is based on incremental change
in the aggregate particle radius, defined by Equation 2.6.
θ 360
Rθ  Δθ  Rθ
Form Index  
θ 0 Rθ
2.6
Where:
R = Radius of an aggregate particle at a given direction;
 = Directional angle, and
 = Incremental different in the angle (4°)
For round shaped aggregates, the form index defined by using Equation 2.6 above becomes zero
since there is no change in radius.
Among the form indices described above, the two sphericity parameters (Equation 2.1 and 2.4)
and flat and elongated ratio (Equation 2.3) can be computed directly using the data obtained
using the 3-D laser scanning device used in this study. Therefore, these indices will further be
investigated in this dissertation.
2.6.2 Angularity indices
Several indices have been proposed to characterise angularity of aggregate particles. Most of the
available angularity indices are based on analysis of 2-D images of aggregate particles.
Masad et al (2001) proposed the radius method for analysis of aggregate angularity. The method
is based on measuring the radius of the projection of an aggregate particle at a given orientation
(2-D images) and that of an equivalent ellipse. Using the radius method, the Angularity Index
(AI) is computed by using Equation 2.7 (Masad et al, 2001).
360 
Rθ  REEθ
AI  
θ 0 REEθ
2.7
Where:
R = Radius of an aggregate particle at an angle  , and
REE = Radius of an equivalent ellipse at an angle  .

 = Incremental different in the angle (4°)
2-18
Rao et al (2002) presented an approach for computation of aggregate angularity from images
measured my using the UIAIA. Using the proposed approach, the angularity (A) of one
projected side of the image of an aggregate particle, is computed by using Equation 2.8.
170
A   e  P ( e) 2.8
e 0
Where:
e = Starting angle value for each 10 degree class interval, and
p (e) = Probability of each angle change in the range e to (e+10).
For the three projected sides of an aggregate particle, the Angularity Index (AI) is computed as
weighted by using Equation 2.9 (Rao et al, 2002).
  Angularity i  Area i 
2.9
AI  i 1
3
 Area
i 1
i
Where:
Angularity i = Angularity of ith side, and
Areai = Area of ith side.
The angularity indices (Equations 2.7 to 2.9) are based on 2-D analysis of image data. These
angularity indices may not be appropriate for analysis of the data, measured by using the laser
scanning device used in this study. This is because the laser scanning technique results in 3-D
models.
2.6.3 Surface texture indices
Pan (2006) presented an approach for computing aggregate surface texture by using erosion and
dilation. The approach is based on calculating the difference in the area of the projections of a
particle at a given orientation after performing a certain number of erosion and dilation cycles.
The surface texture of one projected view of an aggregate particle is computed by using
Equation 2.10.
2-19
A1  A2
sti   100% 2.10
A1
Where:
sti = Surface texture parameter for each of the three views, (i = 1, 2 and 3);
A1 = Area (in pixels) of the particle image before a certain number of erosion and dilation
cycles, and
A2 = Area (in pixels) of the particle image after a certain number of erosion and dilation cycles.
Once the surface texture parameter has been computed for each of the three orthogonal views of
an aggregate particle, the surface texture (ST) is computed as a weighted average by using
Equation 2.11 (Pan, 2006).
st1 ( front )  Area( front )  st2 ( top )  Area( top )  st3 ( side )  Area( side )
ST  2.11
Area( front )  Area( top )  Area( side )
Masad (2004) proposed the use of a wavelet method to analyse aggregate surface texture from
images measured by using the AIMS. The method is based on describing texture content at a
given resolution and decomposition level. Equation 2.12 is used to compute the wavelet texture
parameter that describes the surface texture of an aggregate particle (Masad, 2004).
 D x, y 
3 N
1
Texture Indexn  i,j 2.12
3N i 1 j 1
Where:
n = Decomposition level;
N = Total number of coefficients;
i = 1, 2 or 3 for three directions of texture;
j = Wavelet coefficient, and
Di,j(x,y) = Location of coefficients.
2-20
2.6.4 Mathematical-based analysis of aggregate shape properties
Various mathematical-based techniques have been used to analyse aggregate shape properties.
This section reviews some mathematical-based data analysis techniques which can be used to
quantify form, angularity and surface texture.
2.6.5 Fourier analysis
Fourier series technique has been used for analysis of aggregate shape properties. The technique
has been used in aggregate imaging research to describe aggregate form, angularity and surface
texture.
The profile of an aggregate particle such as the one presented in Figure 2.12 can be represented
mathematically as a Fourier series by using Equation 2.13. Equation 2.13 is a periodic function
describing the radius R (α) of an aggregate profile, from the centre of mass at a corresponding
angle α. The quantification of aggregate shape properties by using Fourier series is based on
solving the coefficients a0, am and bm of the Fourier series in Equation 2.13.

R(  )  a0   ( a m cos m  bm sin m ) 2.13
m 1
Where:
R (α) = Radius from the centre of the mass of aggregate image;
α = Angle measured from x-axis counter clockwise;
a0,am and bm = Coefficients of the Fourier series, and
m = Frequency.
2-21
Y
α
X
Figure 2.12: Representation of an aggregate particle for Fourier analysis.
Mathematically, the coefficients of the Fourier series are normally determined by means of
integration techniques using Equations 2.14 to 2.16.
2
1
a0 
2  R( )
0
2.14
2
1
an 
  R( ) cos(n ) ,
0
n = 1, 2, 3 … 2.15
2
1
bn 
  R( ) sin(n ) ,
0
n = 1, 2, 3 … 2.16
The coefficients of Fourier series may be used to describe form, angularity and surface texture
of aggregate particles. Wang et al (2005) proposed Fourier descriptors of aggregate form,
angularity and surface texture by using coefficients of the Fourier series. Using the proposed
Fourier series analysis technique, the aggregate form, angularity and surface texture are
computed by using Equations 2.17, 2.18 and 2.19 respectively. The three equations are based on
the fact that the form of an aggregate particle can be quantified at low frequency. On the other
hand, angularity and surface texture are quantified at intermediate and high frequencies,
respectively.
2-22
1 m n1 a   bm  
2 2
Form    m      2.17

2 m1  a0   a0  

1 mn 2  a m   bm  
2 2
Angularity   
2 m n11  a0
     2.18
   a0  
1 m  a m 
2 2
  bm 
Texture   
2 mn 2 1  a0
    

2.19
   a0 
The Fourier series analysis discussed thus far is a major advancement towards quantitative
quantifications of aggregate shape properties. In this method, a 2-D profile of an aggregate
particle is analysed. In reality, an aggregate particle is a 3-D object. Therefore, the
quantification of aggregates shape properties should ideally be based on 3-D analysis. Despite
that shortcoming, research on 2-D imaging analysis using Fourier series analysis has shown
promising results (Wang et al, 2005).
2.6.6 Spherical harmonics analysis
Garboczi (2002) proposed a technique for 3-D analysis of aggregate shape using X-ray
tomography and spherical harmonic analysis. The proposed technique defines an aggregate
particle by using a radial distance function as indicated in Equation 2.20. Equation 2.20 is a
function describing surface points of an aggregate in 3-D.
lma x l
R( ,  )   a
l 0 m   l
Yl m ( ,  )
lm
2.20
0     ,0    2
Where:
R(α,β) = Radius from the centre of mass to the surface of an aggregate particle;
β=Angle measured from positive z-axis;
α = Angle measured from positive x-axis;
l = Degree;
m = Order;
alm = Scalar coefficient, and
Y l m ,   = Harmonic functions of degree l and order m.
2-23
The quantification of aggregate form, angularity and surface texture by using the harmonic
analysis technique is based on solving the coefficient alm in Equation 2.20. Garboczi (2002)
proposed the use of an integral shown in Equation 2.21, to evaluate the coefficient alm in
Equation 2.20.
2 
  dd sin(  )r( , )Y

m
alm  l 2.21
0 0
By using coefficient alm in Equation 2.20, Masad et al (2005) proposed three descriptors
computed by using Equations 2.22, 2.23 and 2.24 to quantify aggregate form, angularity and
surface texture respectively.
5 l
Form    alm 2.22
l 0 m   l
25 l
Angularity    alm 2.23
l 6 m   l
lmax l
Form  a
l  25 m   l
lm 2.24
The spherical harmonic analysis technique described above makes use of data acquired by using
X-ray tomography technique. Similar approach could be used for analysis of aggregate laser
scans data. Therefore, this dissertation also investigated analysis of aggregate laser scan data
using spherical harmonic analysis.
2.6.7 Wavelet transform
The 3-D surface points of an aggregate particle can be defined with polar coordinates by using
radial distance (R), horizontal angles α and vertical angle β. Kim et al (2002) used a laser-based
aggregate scanning system and developed a method for quantification of aggregate shape
properties using the wavelet transform technique. In a polar coordinate system, an aggregate
particle can be described by a wavelet transform using Equation 2.25 (Kim et al, 2002).
2-24
   2
f ( ,  )     d
i  j k  l 0
Wi , j ,k ,l ( ,  )
i , j ,k ,l
2.25
i, j, k  z, l  0,2
Where:
f(α,β) = Radius from the Centre of mass;
α = Horizontal angle;
β = Vertical angle;
di,j,k,l = Wavelet coefficient, and
Wi,j,k,l (α,β) = Translation function.
The wavelet coefficient (di,j,k,l) may be evaluated by using the integral shown in Equation 2.26
(Kim et al, 2002).

d i , j ,k ,l   f (  , )W

i , j ,k ,l (  , ) 2.26
After solving the wavelet coefficients (di,j,k,l) in Equation 2.25, the aggregate form, angularity
and surface texture are described by using Equations 2.27, 2.28 and 2.29 respectively (Kim et
al, 2002).
Form 
( d 0 , j ,k ,l )   ( d 1, j ,k ,l )
2.27
Raverage
Angularity 
( d 2 , j ,k ,l )   ( d 3 , j ,k ,l )
2.28
Raverage
Texture 
( d 4 , j ,k ,l )   ( d 5 , j ,k ,l )
2.29
Raverage
Where:
Raverage = Average radius.
2-25
2.7 Summary
This chapter provided a review of the available information on the main aspects covered in the
dissertation. Based on the information covered in this chapter the following conclusions are
drawn:
Fundamental coarse aggregate shape properties

The coarse aggregate shape properties identified to be most influential to pavement performance
were the aggregate form, angularity and surface texture. These properties vary for different
types of aggregates, i.e. natural gravel (uncrushed) or RA. Therefore, the selection of materials
for this study ensured that aggregates with different shape properties are included.
Influence of aggregate shape properties on the performance of pavements

The literature review indicated that the influence of shape properties on the performance of
pavements is widely documented. With the exception of some studies which have linked the
aggregate properties determined by using imaging techniques to pavement performance
indicators, most of the studies used aggregate shape properties which are measured based on the
current standard methods and these have several limitations. Therefore, the development of
techniques that will improve the characterisation of aggregate shape properties is essential. The
primary focus of this study is to develop improved techniques for accurate and effective
determination of coarse aggregate shape properties using a laser scanning technique. The
correlation of the improved coarse aggregate shape properties with pavement performance
indicators is not part of the scope of the study.
Current standard tests on coarse aggregate, specifications and limitations

The current standard methods used for determination of coarse aggregate shape properties were
discussed, along with their limitations. The need for improved techniques to address the
limitations of the current standard methods became evident.
Advanced measurement of aggregate shape properties

Some of the available advanced techniques for measurements of aggregate shape properties
have been described. These techniques are generally divided into two categories namely image
and laser-based. The equipment available at the CSIR’s pavement material laboratory is a 3-D
laser scanning device. Therefore, in this study the laser scanning technique was used.
2-26
Characterisation of coarse aggregate shape properties
A number of techniques for analysis of image and laser scanning data to characterise coarse
aggregate’s shape properties have been described. Some of the described techniques might not
be relevant or suitable for analysis of data obtained by using the 3-D laser scanning device used
in this study. Based on the type of aggregate laser scanning data and ability of the techniques to
describe 3-D coarse aggregate shape properties, several analysis techniques were identified to
be further investigated in this study. Another reason for selection of these techniques is the fact
that the information required as inputs can be obtained using the laser scanning device used in
this study. The identified techniques are:
1. Quantification of form using aggregate physical dimensions:

 The sphericity computed by using the aggregate surface area and volume as defined by
Equation 2.4;
 The sphericity computed by using orthogonal dimensions of the aggregate as defined
by Equation 2.1, and
 The flat and elongated ratio computed using the longest and smallest dimensions of the
aggregate as defined by Equation 2.3.
2. Quantification of coarse aggregate form, angularity and surface texture by using a spherical
harmonic analysis technique.
2-27
3 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
The objective of this chapter is to present the methodology followed during the study. The study
comprised of the following:
 Selection and sampling of aggregates;

 3-D laser scanning of aggregates;
 Determination of aggregate shape properties, and
 Performing the current standard tests used to characterise aggregate shape properties to
validate the laser-based shape properties.
3.2 Material selection and sample preparation
Six different types of aggregates commonly used in South African pavements were selected for
the study. The aggregates included four types of crushed aggregates (granite, tillite, quartzite
and hornfels), one alluvial gravel sample and Recycled Aggregate (RA). The four types of
crushed aggregates were sourced from commercial quarries supplying aggregates for pavement
construction in South Africa. The crushed aggregate sample selection ensured that aggregates
from three primary rock groups (igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic) are included in the
study. Alluvial gravel was sourced from Molopo River near Mafikeng and the RA was sourced
from the National Asphalt Plant in Durban. Sampling of aggregates at stockpiles was done
randomly at different positions as per TMH 5 procedures (TMH 5, 1981). The sample selection
ensured that materials with varying shape properties were included in the study. The alluvial
gravel was used as a control sample. Alluvial gravel had round shaped particles. The computed
shape properties for alluvial gravel particles were expected to differ from other types of
aggregates. RA was also used as a control sample, to assess the shape properties of aggregates
after being subjected to traffic and compaction. Table 3.1 shows types and sources of the
aggregates used in this study.
Representative samples were obtained from each aggregate type by means of rifling and sieve
analyses were performed. Following the sieve analyses, a total of 30 particles were selected
from aggregates retained on coarser sieve sizes (4.75, 6.7, 9.5, 13.2 and 19.0 mm) for laser
scanning. The sieve analyses ensured that different sizes of aggregate particles are selected for
3-1
laser scanning. 150 particles of each source or overall 900 aggregate particles were scanned.
The particle selection was done such that different aggregate shape properties are represented.
For each aggregate type, flat and elongated, angular, round, rough and smooth aggregate
particles were visually identified and randomly selected from a population of aggregates.
Other standard laboratory tests performed on the aggregate samples were:
 Flakiness index (TMH1 Method B3);

 Flat and elongated particles ratio (ASTM D 4791);
 Bulk Relative Density (BRD) (TMH1 Method B14);
 Aggregate Crushing Value (ACV) (TMH1 Method B1) , and
 Ten per cent Fines Aggregate Crushing Test (10 % FACT) (TMH1 Method B2).
The flakiness index and flat and elongated particles ratio tests were performed to obtain an
indication of the shape properties of the aggregates studied based on the current standard test
methods. The flakiness index and flat and elongated particles tests results were also correlated
with laser-based aggregate shape indices proposed in this study. The BRD, ACV and 10 %
FACT tests were performed to ensure that, the materials studied comply with specifications for
aggregate used for construction of pavements in South Africa.
Table 3.1: Aggregate samples.
Aggregate type Rock type Quarry name Location
Granite Igneous Afrisam Jukskei Midrand
Tillite Sedimentary Afrisam Verulam Kwazulu Natal
Quartzite Metamorphic Afrisam Ferro Pretoria
Hornfels Metamorphic Afrisam Peninsula Cape Town
Alluvial gravel N/A Molopo River Mafikeng
RA N/A National Asphalt Plant Kwazul Natal
3-2
3.3 Laser scanning of aggregates
A 3-D laser scanning device available at the CSIR was used to scan aggregate particles,
individually. Laser scanning protocol developed at the CSIR was used during aggregate
scanning (Anochie-Boateng and Komba, 2010). The 3-D laser scanning device has been
integrated with Rapidform data acquisition and processing software. The device operates in
rotary and planar scanning modes. Rotary scanning mode is suitable for scanning spherical
objects, whereas planar mode is used for scanning non-spherical objects. Aggregates are
scanned in planar mode as 3-D solid object with six planes. Four side surfaces of an aggregate
particle are scanned first and then the aggregate particle is turned to scan the top and bottom
surfaces (i.e. two surfaces). During the scanning process, the laser scanning device captures
point cloud data of an aggregate particle at a pre-defined resolution. The maximum scanning
resolution of the laser scanner used in this study is 0.1 mm (100 µm). Maximum resolution was
used for all scanning performed in order to obtain high quality scans of aggregate particles.
The data obtained after completing scanning an aggregate particle are point clouds. Rapidform
software was used to process the point cloud data to reconstruct 3-D models of scanned
aggregates. The process involves aligning, combining and merging the four side surfaces and
two surfaces (top and bottom) scanned separately. After processing the data of scanned
aggregate particles, the dimensions (longest, intermediate and shortest), surface area, volume
and coordinates of the centre were obtained directly by using Rapidform software. Direct
validation and evaluation of the accuracy of the 3-D laser scanning device to measure these
aggregate properties has been previous accomplished at the CSIR (Anochie-Boateng et al, 2010
and Anochie-Boateng et al, 2011a). Therefore, validation of the 3-D laser scanning device will
not be repeated in this study. Figure 3.1 illustrates procedures for aggregate scanning and
processing.
Other information that can be obtained after completing processing of the scanned aggregate
particle include the centre of mass, the surface points (vertices) in terms of x, y and z Cartesian
coordinates and triangular surfaces known as poly-faces. The x, y and z Cartesian coordinates
can be exported to other data processing software such as Microsoft ExcelTM and MATLABTM
for further processing. In this dissertation, MATLABTM was used.
The x, y and z Cartesian coordinates of the surface points and the centre of the mass of an
aggregate particle were obtained by using the Rapidform software. The surface points and the
centre of mass coordinates are the basic data for the spherical analysis technique to determine
3-3
the aggregate shape properties. The commercial software (Rapidform) used for aggregate
scanning and pre-processing the laser scans data cannot perform spherical analysis to determine
the aggregate shape indices. A separate MATLABTM code was developed to perform the
spherical harmonic analysis and compute aggregate form, angularity and surface texture indices.
Detailed information on the development and computations implemented in the MATLABTM
code are described in Chapter 5 Sections 5.3.1 to 5.3.2. The developed MATLABTM code is
presented in Appendix B.
Scanning of aggregate
using 3D laser scanning
device at the CSIR
Aggregate particle
4 -Faces point cloud 2-Face point cloud data
Align
Combine
Merge
Final aggregate mesh
model
Figure 3.1: Aggregate scanning process.
3-4
3.4 Determination of laser-based aggregate shape properties
The determination of aggregate shape properties by using the laser scanning technique is the
core focus of this dissertation. Two different approaches were used to analyse aggregate scan
data, to determine their shape properties. The first approach makes use of the aggregate’s
dimensions (longest dimension, intermediate dimension shortest dimension), surface area and
volume to compute indices describing aggregate form.
The second approach is a spherical harmonic analysis of laser scan data to quantify the form,
angularity and surface texture of the aggregates. Detailed procedures for pre-processing of the
laser scan data and application of the spherical harmonic analysis technique are covered in
Chapter 5 of this dissertation. Figure 3.2 shows schematic procedures used for determination of
aggregate shape properties.
3-D laser-based aggregate

Aggregate particle
scanning system
Output
Data acquisition
Point cloud data
Pre-processing
3-D mesh model
Compute
Data processing
Dimensions, surface area, x, y, z surafce coordinates

and volume and centre of mass
Input Input
Form indices eqautions Spherical harmonic

(sphericity, flat and analysis (form, angularity
elongated particle ratio) and surface texture indices)
Analysis of data to quantify

shape properties
Output
Aggregate shape properties
Figure 3.2: Procedures for laser based-based determination of aggregate shape properties.
3-5
3.5 Validation of aggregate shape properties
The validation of the laser-based aggregate shape indices was achieved by:
 Correlation between various laser-based aggregate shape indices;

 Correlation of laser-based aggregate shape indices with flakiness index;
 Correlation of laser-based aggregate shape indices with flat and elongated particles ratio,
and
 Visual comparison of angularity and surface texture of aggregates with laser-based
angularity and surface texture indices.
3.6 Summary
The methodology followed during the study has been discussed. The study consists of material
selection and sample preparation, laser scanning of aggregates, determination of aggregate
shape properties and validation of the laser-based aggregate shape properties.
3-6
4 LABORATORY TESTING AND LASER SCANNING RESULTS
4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents results of laboratory tests and the aggregate laser scanning results without
detailed analysis. The results of standard laboratory tests are presented first. Secondly, the
results obtained from laser scanning of the aggregates studied are presented. The results of
scanned aggregates will be further analysed in Chapter 5 to determine aggregate shape
properties. An indication of what the results were used for is also provided in this chapter.
4.2 Laboratory test results
As indicated previously, the laboratory tests performed on aggregate samples prior to laser
scanning included grading analyses, flakiness index, flat and elongated particles ratio, bulk
relative density, aggregate crushing value and ten per cent Fines Aggregate Crushing value. Test
results for the six types of aggregates studied are presented in Table 4.1.
Grading analyses results gave an indication of the distribution of aggregate particles for each of
the six types of aggregates studied. Grading analyses also formed the basis for the selection of
aggregate particles for laser scanning. The study used aggregate particles retained on different
sieve sizes. From the graded aggregate particles, it was possible to select the required aggregate
particles for laser scanning.
The flakiness index and flat and elongated particles ratio test results are used in Chapter 5
Section 5.5 to validate the laser-based aggregate form indices. The flakiness index and flat and
elongated particles ratio results for the six types of aggregates were correlated with the
computed laser-based form indices.
The purpose of other tests including bulk density, aggregate crushing value and ten per cent
Fines Aggregate Crushing value were to obtain an indication whether the aggregates studied
comply with the specifications for aggregate used for the construction of pavements in South
Africa. Detailed analysis of these results is not part of the scope of this dissertation.
4-1
Table 4.1: Grading analysis and standard laboratory test results.
Alluvial
Material Granite Tillite Quartzite Hornfels RA
gravel
Sieve size (mm) Sieve analysis (Percentage passing)

53.0 100 100
37.5 100 100 100 100 95 100
26.5 98 93 94.2 88 83 100
19.0 84 78 82.0 70 69 91
13.2 69 66 68.5 61 49 50
9.5 57 58 60.9 53 33 38
6.7 49 48 58.2 44 23 21
4.75 44 42 52.4 40 17 12
2.36 34 28 35.3 28 10 7
1.18 26 20 23.9 21 9 5
0.600 19 14 17.1 16 9 4
0.300 13 10 14.6 13 9 3
0.150 9 8 12.7 11 6 2
0.075 6.5 5.7 9.2 8.4 2.3 1.3
Standard laboratory test results

Flakiness Index (%) 21.7 17.1 34.7 27.2 3.1 28.2
Flat and 5:1 10.3 4.9 12.1 13.2 0.0 0.1

elongated
3:1 31.2 31.7 31.6 25.5 2.4 15.4
particles ratio
(%) 2:1 63.7 63.4 66.7 56.2 40.4 59.7
BRD1 2.634 2.670 2.650 2.709 2.649 2.504
ACV (%) 21.6 11.9 16.6 10.7 13.6 9.5
10% FACT (kN) 180 345 265 378 325 415

1
: Bulk Relative Density (BRD) of the aggregates.
4-2
Figure 4.1 shows plots of grading analysis results. The plots of grading analysis indicate that the
four crushed aggregates (granite, tillite, quartzite and hornfels) are continuously graded. This is
primarily due to the fact that a crusher run (full grading as produced from the crusher) sample
was obtained from the quarries. On the other hand, alluvial gravel and RA samples are gap
graded, with over 80 per cent of the aggregate particles retained on the 4.75 mm sieve. This
could be due to the fact the alluvial gravel was collected along a river where there is no
guarantee to obtain all fractions. Similarly, the RA was sampled at the plant stockpile; therefore
its grading is determined by the fractions contained on a specific stockpile. As indicated before,
the focus of this study was on the coarse aggregate (aggregates greater than 4.75 mm). Despite
the differences in the grading of crushed aggregates, alluvial gravel and RA sufficient materials
for testing and laser scanning were available for all types of aggregates studied.
100
90
Granite
80
Tillite
70
Percentage passing (%)
Hornfels
60
Quartzite
50
RA
40
Alluvial
30
Gravel
20
10
0
0.15
1.18
2.36
4.75
13.2
26.5
37.5
0.3
0.6
6.7
9.5
19
53
0.075
Sieve size (mm)
Figure 4.1: Grading analysis results.
4-3
4.3 Results of scanned aggregate particles
The results presented in this section forms basic data used for the analyses presented in
Chapter 5 Sections 5.2 and 5.3, to determine aggregate shape properties. Figure 4.2 shows
photos of 19.0 mm actual aggregates and models of scanned aggregate for granite, tillite and
quartzite. Similar samples for hornfels, alluvial gravel and RA are shown in Figure 4.3. From
the figures, it is clear that the laser scanning technique is capable of producing aggregate
models, which are similar to the actual aggregates. Therefore, it is reliable to analyse the
aggregate models to get an indication of the shape properties of the actual aggregates.
4-4
Actual granite aggregates Modelled granite aggregates
Actual tillite aggregates Modelled tillite aggregates
Actual quartzite aggregates Modelled quartzite aggregates
Figure 4.2: Actual and modelled 19.0 mm for granite, tillite and quartzite.
4-5
Actual hornfels aggregates Modelled hornfels aggregates
Actual alluvial gravel Modelled alluvial gravel
Actual RA Modelled RA
Figure 4.3: Actual and modelled 19.0 mm for hornfels, alluvial gravel and RA.
4-6
Table 4.2 presents the results of dimensions, coordinates of the centre of mass, surface area and
volume of 19.0 mm granite aggregate particles. Appendix A contains the results of the rest of
aggregate particles studied. The dimensions, surface area and volume of aggregate particles are
use in Chapter 5 Section 5.2 to determined aggregate form indices. The coordinates of the centre
of mass are used as input for spherical harmonic analysis of aggregates in Chapter 5 Section 5.3
to determine form, angularity and surface texture indices.
Figures 4.4 to 4.9 show plots of the surface area and volume for the six types of aggregates
studied. The plots show that the surface area and volume of aggregates decrease with decreasing
size of the sieve on which they are retained, which is the expected trend. It is also observed that
the average surface area and volume of different types of aggregates retained on the same sieve
size differ significantly. The plots clearly demonstrate the capability of the laser scanning
technique to measure surface area and volume properties of aggregates.
4-7
Table 4.2: Scan results of 19.0 mm granite aggregate particles.
19.0 mm Sieve
Particle Dimensions (mm) Centre of mass (mm) Surface Volume
No. dL dI dS X Y Z area (mm2) (mm3)
1 39.22 31.87 16.10 -0.42 2.89 13.52 2558.46 7851.52
2 31.35 22.42 19.87 -1.13 2.13 15.66 2146.07 6699.91
3 34.65 27.34 18.50 -0.71 0.84 15.47 2524.83 8805.80
4 35.88 24.43 23.02 -1.48 1.39 16.13 2476.04 8460.95
5 34.01 28.49 19.31 0.62 2.51 14.30 2512.79 8635.04
6 28.02 22.99 21.35 0.38 -0.32 15.95 2035.34 6866.36
7 32.84 22.00 21.17 -1.69 1.49 15.16 1986.29 6128.76
8 26.78 26.33 18.01 -1.36 -0.44 14.85 1880.01 6082.07
9 30.57 21.01 19.76 -2.19 1.04 15.74 1919.39 6102.64
10 24.92 22.39 19.97 -0.90 1.81 15.32 1701.03 5380.24
11 37.00 28.36 15.00 0.66 1.50 13.26 2406.86 7387.02
12 32.56 23.58 14.82 0.37 2.93 13.17 1918.29 5462.13
13 34.41 28.82 18.49 -0.30 2.13 13.93 2231.51 6486.52
14 47.06 29.42 17.29 0.45 0.08 14.59 3298.66 11197.2
15 1
34.51 25.32 17.23 1.43 0.05 14.30 2331.67 7483.74
16 31.80 30.99 14.39 2.93 -1.44 13.79 2087.39 5896.26
17 48.88 25.45 18.03 1.83 0.05 14.12 2975.01 9593.82
18 46.08 31.87 18.42 3.77 -0.93 14.11 3179.23 9820.76
19 60.25 32.62 21.95 -1.35 -2.22 15.20 3888.95 13142.2
20 9
10292.0
52.56 30.31 21.73 -4.05 -1.17 15.71 3149.90
21 9
41.45 27.16 14.34 -0.70 1.74 13.38 2491.10 6882.31
22 37.39 30.87 15.77 -0.35 1.47 13.32 2229.72 5972.80
23 42.18 32.10 13.59 1.64 1.50 13.11 2684.04 6691.75
24 41.44 26.37 12.08 0.43 2.01 12.07 2260.93 5714.88
25 44.97 30.28 9.86 -0.03 1.10 11.07 2641.25 5574.31
26 54.29 30.05 9.45 -1.68 1.82 11.19 2761.07 5458.15
27 44.64 26.68 8.57 -2.00 1.37 10.64 2278.43 4344.42
28 44.55 28.31 9.34 -2.12 2.59 11.04 2505.89 5066.99
29 42.92 30.25 8.80 0.62 1.76 10.69 2053.62 3090.84
30 37.62 33.57 8.99 1.78 2.97 10.36 1799.19 2569.85
dL = Longest dimension, dI = Intermediate dimension and dS = Shortest dimension.
4-8
4500
19 mm
4000 13.2 mm
3500 9.5 mm
6.7 mm
Surface area (mm2)
3000 4.75 mm
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Particle number
14000
19 mm
13.2 mm
12000
9.5 mm
6.7 mm
10000 4.75 mm
Volume (mm3)
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Particle number
Figure 4.4: Surface area and volume of granite.
4-9
4500
19 mm
4000 13.2 mm
9.5 mm
3500
6.7 mm
Surface area (mm2)
3000 4.75 mm
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Particle number
14000
19 mm
13.2 mm
12000 9.5 mm
6.7 mm
10000 4.75 mm
Volume (mm3)
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Particle number
Figure 4.5: Surface area and volume of tillite.
4-10
4500
19 mm
4000 13.2 mm
9.5 mm
3500 6.7 mm
Surface area (mm2)
4.75 mm
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Particle number
14000
19 mm
12000 13.2 mm
9.5 mm
6.7 mm
10000
Volume (mm3)
4.75 mm
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Particle number
Figure 4.6: Surface area and volume of quartzite.
4-11
4500
19 mm
4000 13.2 mm
9.5 mm
3500 6.7 mm
4.75 mm
Surface area (mm2)
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Particle number
14000
19 mm
13.2 mm
12000
9.5 mm
6.7 mm
10000 4.75 mm
Volume (mm3)
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Particle number
Figure 4.7: Surface area and volume of hornfels.
4-12
4500
19 mm
4000 13.2 mm
9.5 mm
3500 6.7 mm
4.75 mm
Surface area (mm2)
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Particle number
14000
19 mm
13.2 mm
12000
9.5 mm
6.7 mm
10000
Volume (mm3)
4.75 mm
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Particle number
Figure 4.8: Surface area and volume of alluvial gravel.
4-13
4500
19 mm
4000 13.2 mm
9.5 mm
3500 6.7 mm
4.75 mm
Surface area (mm2)
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Particle number
14000
19 mm
13.2 mm
12000
9.5 mm
6.7 mm
10000 4.75 mm
Volume (mm3)
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Particle number
Figure 4.9: Surface area and volume of RA.
4-14
4.4 Grading of the aggregate particles selected for laser scanning
As mentioned earlier, the aggregate particles selected for laser scanning are those retained on
coarser sieve sizes (4.75, 6.7, 9.5, 13.2 and 19.0 mm. The grading curves of the aggregate
particles selected for scanning were determined for each aggregate type by using two different
approaches. The first approach is the standard manual method (mechanical sieve shaking in
accordance with TMH 1 Method B4). The second approach is based on the dimensions and
volume of aggregate particles determined by using the laser scanning technique.
An aggregate particle can be retained on a sieve if the longest dimension (d L) and the
intermediate dimension (dI) are greater than the sieve size. In other words, the intermediate
dimension controls the sieve on which an aggregate particle can be retained. However, because
of irregularity of aggregate shape, some particles with intermediate dimension greater than the
sieve size can still pass through the sieve. Flat and elongated particle with intermediate
dimension smaller than the diagonal of the square opening are more likely to pass through the
sieve opening, even if the intermediate dimension is greater that the sieve size.
Figure 4.10 shows a model of a flat and elongated aggregate particle with both the longest
dimension (dL =43 mm) and the intermediate dimension (dI = 28 mm) greater than 19.0 mm.
Based on the longest dimension and the intermediate dimension criteria, the particle shown in
Figure 4.10 should be retained on the 19.0 mm sieve, but it passed through the sieve in the
standard test procedures.
Figure 4.10: Flat and elongated particle passing through a sieve with the intermediate size
greater than the sieve size.
4-15
The determination of the grading curves by using the laser scans results makes use of the ratio
by volume as opposed to the ratio by mass used in the standard manual method (TMH 1 Method
B4). Aggregate particles from the same parent rock can be assumed to have the same specific
gravity. Therefore, the ratio by mass is equivalent to the ratio by volume. The following are the
procedures for determination of the grading curves:
 Obtain the longest and the intermediate dimensions of individual aggregate particles
after completing scanning and pre-processing the scans data by using the Rapidform
software;
 Establish whether the sieve on which each aggregate particle is retained. The longest
and the intermediate dimensions should be greater than the sieve on which the particle
is retained. In addition, check whether the particle passed through the sieve above
which it is retained by ensuring that the intermediate dimension is less than the diagonal
of the square opening of the sieve;
 Compute the volume of the aggregates retained on each sieve (19.0, 13.2, 9.5, 6.7 and
4.75 mm);
 Compute the total volume of the whole aggregate sample;
 Computed the percentage of the aggregate particles retained on the sieve size by
dividing the volume of aggregate on a specific sieve by the total volume of the
aggregate sample, and multiply by 100, and
 Finally, compute the percentage of the aggregate particles passing through each size.
Figures 4.11to 4.13 show grading curves of the aggregates used in the study. With the exception
of quartzite and tillite, the grading curves determined by using the laser scans results closely
follow the grading curves determined by using the standard manual method. Despite the
limitation of the use of the intermediate dimension criteria particularly for flat and elongated
aggregate particles, the intermediate dimension of an aggregate particle appears to control the
sieve size on which the aggregate particles are retained. This is in agreement with the finding of
other studies in aggregate imaging (Rao et al, 2001).
4-16
100
Granite - Manual
80 Granite - Laser
60
40
20
9.5
4.75
13.2
26.5
6.7
19
Sieve size (mm)
100
Tillite - Manual
80 Tillite - Laser
60
40
20
0
4.75
13.2
26.5
6.7
9.5
19
Sieve size (mm)
Figure 4.11: Grading curves for granite and tillite.
4-17
100
Quartzite - Manual
80 Quartzite - Laser
60
40
20
0
4.75
13.2
26.5
6.7
9.5
19
Sieve size (mm)
100
Hornfels - Manual
80 Hornfels - Laser
60
40
20
0
4.75
13.2
26.5
6.7
9.5
19
Sieve size (mm)
Figure 4.12: Grading curves for quartzite and hornfels.
4-18
100
Alluvial gravel - Manual

80 Alluvial gravel - Laser
60
40
20
0
4.75
13.2
26.5
6.7
9.5
19
Sieve size (mm)
100
RA - Manual
80 RA - Laser
60
40
20
0
4.75
13.2
26.5
6.7
9.5
19
Sieve size (mm)
Figure 4.13: Grading curves for alluvial gravel and RA.
4-19
4.5 Summary
Chapter 4 presented the laboratory and laser scanning test results without detailed analysis. The
results forms basic data used for the analyses presented in Chapter 5 Sections 5.2 to 5.5. The
presented results are used as follows:
 The dimensions (longest dimensions, intermediate dimension and shortest dimension)
of aggregate particles presented in Table 4.2 are used in Chapter 5 Section 5.2.1 to
compute sphericity of aggregate particles.
 The surface area and volume results presented in Table 4.2 and Figures 4.4 to 4.9 are
used to compute sphericity values in Chapter 5 Section 5.2.2;
 The dimensions and volume of the aggregate particles were also used to determine
grading curves of the aggregates presented earlier in Chapter 4 Section 4.4;
 The x, y and z coordinates presented in Table 4.2 are used as inputs for spherical
harmonic analysis to compute form, angularity and surface texture indices in Chapter 5
Section 5.3, and
 The flakiness index and flat and elongated particles ratio results presented in Table 4.1
are used for correlations with laser-based form indices in Chapter 5 Section 5.5.
4-20
5 DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSIONS
5.1 Introduction
The objectives of this chapter are to conduct data analysis and discuss of the results obtained
during the study. The analysis of the laser scan data is performed using two different approaches
namely:
 Determination of aggregate form indices by using physical properties, and

 Determination of aggregate form, angularity and surface texture by using spherical
harmonic analysis.
The validation of the laser-based aggregate form indices was performed by correlation with the
flakiness index (TMH1 Method B3) and the flat and elongated particles ratio (ASTM D 4791)
tests. These are the current standard test methods used to characterise form properties of
aggregates. Detailed discussions on the test methods were provided in the literature survey
conducted for this study (Chapter 2 Section 2.4). Validation of angularity and surface texture
indices of the aggregates is based on visual assessment of selected aggregate particles in
comparison with spherical harmonic analysis results.
5.2 Quantification of aggregate form indices by using physical properties
The literature survey conducted during the study revealed that aggregate parameters measured
using the laser scanning technique could be used to compute indices to describe aggregate shape
properties. Aggregate physical parameters measured by the laser scanning device used in this
study include the dimensions (i.e. longest dimension, intermediate dimension and shortest
dimension), surface area and volume. It is important to emphasise that the evaluation of the
capability and accuracy of the laser scanning device to measure these parameters has been
accomplished in previous studies, and was not repeated in this study (Anochie-Boateng et al,
2010; Anochie-Boateng et al, 2011a).
Three different form indices computed by using the aggregate’s physical properties were
selected for further investigation. These selected form indices are:
 Sphericity computed using surface area and volume as defined by Equation 2.4;
5-1
 Sphericity computed using orthogonal dimensions of an aggregate particle as defined by
Equation 2.1, and
 Flat and elongated ratio computed using the longest dimension and the shortest dimension
of an aggregate particle as defined by Equation 2.3.
5.2.1 Sphericity computed using surface area and volume
The surface area and volume of individual aggregate particles were used to compute a sphericity
parameter that describes the form of the aggregate using Equation 2.4. The sphericity computed
by using Equation 2.4 approaches a maximum value of 1 for round shaped aggregate particles.
Therefore, for the types of aggregates used in this study, the alluvial gravel sample was
expected to yield higher sphericity values. Table 5.1 shows the sphericity statistical parameters
(average, standard deviation and standard error) for the six types of the aggregates studied. The
average surface area and volume of each aggregate size are also included in Table 5.1. The
sphericity statistical parameters were computed for each aggregate size, as well as for each
aggregate type. For each aggregate size the statistical parameters were computed by using
results of 30 aggregate particles, whereas for each aggregate type the statistical parameters were
computed by using results of 150 aggregate particles.
The results presented in Table 5.1 indicates that the average sphericity of alluvial gravel was the
highest followed by that of RA. For the crushed aggregate types, the average sphericity of tillite
was relatively higher followed by that of hornfels. The average sphericity of granite and
hornfels was similar. It was also observed that there no consistent trend with regard to changes
in sphericity values of different aggregate sizes for the same aggregate type.
Figure 5.1 shows the distributions of the sphericity computed using surface area and volume.
The sphericity distributions are plotted for 150 particles studied for each aggregate type.
Included in the figure are sphericity values of 15 spherical objects. The spherical objects had
different sizes and were manufactured by using different types of materials (steel, ceramic,
rubber and plastic). As expected all the spherical objects plotted closer to a value of one. For the
six types of materials studied, alluvial gravel has higher sphericity values with a distribution
ranging from 0.700 to 0.948, followed by RA with a distribution ranging from 0.604 to 0.896.
Overall, the sphericity distributions of crushed aggregate particles did not differ significantly.
Tillite has relatively higher sphericity values, followed by hornfels, granite and quartzite.
5-2
It was also observed that the distribution of sphericity values for different aggregate types may
differ significantly; despite their average values being closer to each other. Therefore, a single
average parameter such as flakiness index and flat and elongated particles ratio as used in the
current standard test methods cannot accurately differentiate shape properties of different
aggregate samples. Therefore, the use of an advanced technique such as aggregate laser
scanning used in this study provides more information required to distinguish the form
properties of different aggregate samples.
Table 5.1: Statistical parameters for sphericity computed using surface area and volume.
Average Sphericity for each aggregate size Sphericity for each aggregate type
Sieve Average
Aggregate surface
size volume
type area Standard Standard Standard Standard
(mm) (mm3) Average Average
(mm2) deviation error deviation error
19.0 2430.43 6971.38 0.722 0.108 0.020
13.2 1492.52 3298.78 0.715 0.111 0.020
Granite 9.5 701.78 1032.89 0.709 0.099 0.018 0.725 0.097 0.008
6.7 409.12 474.80 0.721 0.085 0.015
4.75 176.03 146.32 0.759 0.073 0.013
19.0 2506.87 7549.43 0.732 0.066 0.012
13.2 1325.67 2860.89 0.731 0.068 0.012
Tillite 9.5 509.44 688.59 0.743 0.088 0.016 0.741 0.083 0.007
6.7 295.87 316.76 0.752 0.092 0.017
4.75 162.40 128.02 0.747 0.101 0.018
19.0 1754.39 4294.94 0.723 0.084 0.015
13.2 919.68 1659.92 0.719 0.072 0.013
Quartzite 9.5 627.43 899.86 0.708 0.077 0.014 0.725 0.076 0.006
6.7 364.59 405.28 0.730 0.072 0.013
4.75 145.18 106.28 0.746 0.073 0.013
19.0 2078.77 5558.34 0.717 0.098 0.018
13.2 1025.36 1897.67 0.713 0.101 0.018
Hornfels 9.5 562.36 782.20 0.719 0.092 0.017 0.732 0.093 0.008
6.7 305.61 321.84 0.742 0.085 0.016
4.75 175.72 148.78 0.769 0.082 0.015
19.0 1997.25 6570.52 0.848 0.056 0.010
13.2 1294.01 3389.60 0.842 0.048 0.009
Alluvial
9.5 678.40 1319.66 0.852 0.037 0.007 0.848 0.046 0.004
gravel
6.7 338.06 458.44 0.844 0.042 0.008
4.75 148.85 136.08 0.852 0.049 0.009
19.0 1601.22 4241.75 0.788 0.039 0.007
13.2 1190.62 2767.47 0.793 0.061 0.011
RA 9.5 552.42 884.91 0.797 0.068 0.012 0.790 0.059 0.005
6.7 328.60 397.09 0.787 0.055 0.010
4.75 169.43 146.52 0.785 0.070 0.013
Note: For each aggregate type the statistical parameters were computed using results of 150 particles.
5-3
100
Granite
Cummulative percentage of aggregates (%)
90
Tillite
80 Quartzite
Hornfels
70
Gravel
60 RA
Sphere
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
Sphericity computed by using surface area and volume
Figure 5.1: Distributions of sphericity computed using surface area and volume.
5.2.2 Sphericity computed using orthogonal dimensions
The orthogonal dimensions of individual aggregate particles were used to compute another
sphericity parameter that is defined using Equation 2.1. For equal dimensional particles such as
round aggregates, the computed sphericity approaches a maximum value of 1. Consequently,
the alluvial gravel sample is expected to have higher sphericity values. Table 5.2 shows
statistical sphericity parameters (average, standard deviation and standard error) for the six
types of aggregates studied. As expected, the average sphericity of alluvial gravel was the
highest followed by that of RA. For the crushed aggregate types, the average sphericity of tillite
was relatively higher followed by that of hornfels, granite and quartzite.
Figure 5.2 shows plots of the distributions of sphericity computed using orthogonal dimensions.
For sphericity values greater than 0.8, the distributions of sphericity for all types of aggregates
5-4
are similar. For sphericity values smaller than 0.8, alluvial gravel has higher sphericity values
followed by RA, tillite, hornfels, granite and quartzite. The results of 15 spherical objects are
also plotted in Figure 5.2. All the spherical objects have a sphericity value of 1, which was
expected.
Table 5.2: Statistical parameters for sphericity computed using orthogonal dimensions.
Aggregate type Average Standard deviation Standard error

Granite 0.679 0.121 0.010
Tillite 0.701 0.116 0.009
Quartzite 0.665 0.123 0.010
Hornfels 0.680 0.110 0.009
Alluvial gravel 0.734 0.076 0.006
RA 0.707 0.093 0.008
100
90 Granite
Tillite
80
Quartzite
70 Hornfels
Gravel
60
RA
50 Sphere
40
30
20
10
0
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
Sphericity computed by Using orthogonal dimensions
Figure 5.2: Distributions of sphericity computed using orthogonal dimensions.
5-5
Comparing the results presented in Tables 5.2 and 5.3, as well as plots presented in Figures 5.1
and 5.2, there is a significant difference between the sphericity values computed by using the
two different approaches. It should be noted that the definitions of the sphericity are different.
The sphericity results presented in Table 5.2, and Figure 5.1 are based on volume and surface
area of the aggregate particles (Equation 2.4), whereas the sphericity results presented in Table
5.3 and Figure 5.2 are based on the dimensions (longest dimension, intermediate dimension, and
shortest dimension) (Equation 2.1). Possible reason for the differences in the sphericity values
computed by using the two definitions is the accurate characterization of surface areas and
volumes of irregular aggregate particles. This is a main benefit of using 3-D laser scanning
technology. The ability of the laser scanning technology to capture 3-D information of the
irregular aggregate particles allows for more realistic and accurate determination of aggregate
form properties.
5.2.3 Flat and elongated ratio
The longest and shortest dimensions of aggregate particles were used to compute the flat and
elongated ratio using Equation 2.3. The flat and elongated ratio statistical parameters for the six
types of aggregates studied are presented in Table 5.3. For equal dimensional aggregate
particles, the flat and elongated ratio approaches a minimum value of 1. This means the alluvial
gravel sample is expected to have lower flat and elongated ratio values as compared to other
types of aggregates studied. As expected, the average flat and elongated ratio of alluvial gravel
was the lowest, followed by RA. The averages of the flat and elongated ratio values of crushed
aggregates are similar. The average flat and elongated ratio of granite is the lowest, followed by
tillite, hornfels and quartzite.
Figure 5.3 shows plots of the distributions of flat and elongated ratio for all aggregates studied
and 15 spherical objects. All the spherical objects have flat and elongated ratios of 1, which was
expected. Generally, alluvial gravel has lower flat and elongated ratio values followed by RA
and tillite. Hornfels, granite, and quartzite have almost similar distributions of flat and elongated
ratio values.
5-6
Table 5.3: Statistical parameters for flat and elongated ratio.

Granite 2.500 1.099 0.090
Tillite 2.510 1.238 0.101
Quartzite 2.630 1.145 0.094
Hornfels 2.596 1.169 0.095
RA 2.283 0.686 0.056
100
90
80 Granite
Tillite
70
Quartzite
60 Hornfels
Gravel
50 RA
Sphere
40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Flat and elongated ratio
Figure 5.3: Distributions of flat and elongated ratio.
5-7
5.2.4 Discussion of the laser-based form indices results
Based on the statistical analysis results presented earlier in Tables 5.1 to 5.3 and distributions of
laser-based form indices plotted in Figures 5.1 to 5.3, the following can be deduced:
 The laser-based form indices were capable to distinguish the form properties of the six types
of the aggregates studied;
 All the laser-based form indices clearly showed that the distributions of form properties of
the crushed aggregates (granite, tillite, quartzite and hornfels) differ from that of alluvial
gravel and RA;
 A wider distribution of form indices were observed for crushed aggregates compared to
alluvial gravel and RA;
 The laser-based form indices showed that the distributions of form properties of the crushed
aggregate particles do not differ significantly;
 The distribution of sphericity indices computed by using surface area and volume,
distinguished the form properties of the six types of aggregates clearer than other form
indices. This may be due to the fact that the indices were computed using volume and
surface area which represent the overall 3-D form of aggregates. On the other hand, the
sphericity computed by using orthogonal dimensions and flat and elongated ratio indices are
based on dimensions, which do not necessarily represent the overall 3-D form of aggregates.
 Overall, the ranking of the form properties of the six types of the aggregates was similar for
the three laser-based form indices, and
 As expected, the form indices for 15 spherical objects were close to a value of 1, hence
strengthening the validity and the accuracy of the laser scanning technique.
5-8
5.3 Quantification of aggregate shape properties by using spherical harmonic analysis
The spherical harmonic analysis is another technique used to determine form, angularity and
surface texture of the aggregates. The technique was introduced in Section 2.6.6. In this section,
procedures for analysis of laser scan data by using the spherical harmonic analysis technique are
described in detail.
5.3.1 Pre-processing of laser scan data
The aggregate models were exported into surface point asc file format. The exported data are
surface points or vertices in terms of Cartesian coordinates (x, y and z). Critical examination of
the laser scan data revealed that the origin of the Cartesian coordinate system do not correspond
to the centre of mass of the scanned aggregate as shown in Figures 5.4 and 5.5. Figure 5.4 is a
screenshot of Rapidform software showing a mesh model of the scanned spherical object. The
origin of the Cartesian coordinate system and other spherical object properties including the
dimensions of the bounding box, surface area, volume and coordinates of the centre of the mass
are also displayed. Similarly, an example of the mesh model of a scanned aggregate particle and
its properties is shown in Figure 5.5. Figure 5.6 shows a model of the same aggregate particle to
illustrate the surface point data.
The spherical harmonic analysis technique employed in this study requires the origin of the
coordinates of the surface points to correspond with the centre of the mass. Therefore, the
surface point data (x, y and z) were transformed such that the origin of the Cartesian coordinate
system corresponds to the centre of the mass of the scanned aggregate/object. The translation
relation presented in Equation 5.1 was used.
( xT , yT , zT )  (( x  xc ), ( y  yc ), ( z  zc ))
5.1
Where:
(x, y, z) = Coordinates of the vertices;
(xc, yc, zc) = Coordinate of the centre of the mass of the aggregate particle, and
(xT, yT, zT) = Transformed coordinates of the vertices.
5-9
Figure 5.4: Mesh model of scanned spherical object.
Figure 5.5: Mesh model of scanned aggregate particle.
5-10
Figure 5.6: Surface point data of scanned aggregate particle.
The spherical harmonic analysis technique makes use of a polar coordinate system. Using a
polar coordinate system, the surface point data can be defined in terms of radius (R), the
horizontal angle (α) and the vertical angle (β) (Figure 5.7). The radius is measured from the
centre of the mass of an aggregate particle. Following transformation of the surface points such
that the origin of the Cartesian coordinate system corresponds to the mass centre (Equation 5.1),
the surface point data were converted to a polar coordinate system. The radius (R) of each
surface point was computed by using Equation 5.2. The horizontal angle (α) and the vertical
angle (β) were computed using spherical polar coordinate relations show in Equations 5.3 and
5.4 respectively.
R  (( xT )2  ( yT )2  ( zT )2 ) 5.2
yT
  arctan 5.3
xT
z
  arc cos T 5.4
R
Where:
( xT, yT and zT ) = Transformed coordinates of the vertices.
5-11
Z
(xT,yT,zT)=(α,β,R)
R
zT
β X
α
yT
xT
Y
Figure 5.7: Relationship between Cartesian and polar coordinate systems.
In order to compute the horizontal angles (α), it was necessary to identify the quadrant of each
surface point in an eight quadrant system. A standard two-dimensional (2-D) x-y plane with x
and y-axis has four quadrants. Introduction of a z-axis to define the elevation of the data points
in space results in 8 quadrants. Starting from the positive x-axis of a standard 2-D x-y plane and
rotating towards the counter clockwise direction, quadrants 1 to 4 have positive z values.
Similarly, quadrants 5 to 8 have negative z values. The identification of the quadrant to which a
specific surface point belongs is based on the sign of the xT, yT, zT coordinates (Table 5.4).
Following identification of the quadrant on which each surface point is located, the horizontal
angles (α) were computed based on the criteria shown in Table 5.5. The computation of vertical
angle (β) using Equation 5.4 is independent on the quadrant in which the surface point is
located. At this stage the angles α and β, and radius (R) required to represent each surface point
in a polar coordinate system can be computed.
5-12
Table 5.4: Criteria for identification of the quadrant of the vertex.
Quadrant number Coordinate sign

xT Coordinate yT Coordinate zT Coordinate
1 Positive Positive Positive
2 Negative Positive Positive
3 Negative Negative Positive
4 Positive Negative Positive
5 Positive Positive Negative
6 Negative Positive Negative
7 Negative Negative Negative
8 Positive Negative Negative
Table 5.5: Criteria for computation of angle α.
Quadrant number α (Radians)

1 and 5 arc Tan (|y|/|x|)
2 and 6 +arc Tan (|x|/|y|)
3 and 7 + arc Tan (|y|/|x|)
4 and 8 + arc Tan (|x|/|y|)
5.3.2 Determination of spherical harmonic coefficients
The determination of aggregate shape properties by using spherical harmonic analysis is based
on solving the coefficients of the spherical harmonic equation (Equation 2.20). The equation
describes the radii of an aggregate particle, and can be written in terms of summation of the
product of the harmonic coefficients (alm) and harmonic function ( Yl m ) evaluated at each degree
(l) and order (m) as presented in Equation 5.5.
R(  , )  a00Y00 (  , )  a11Y11(  , )  a10Y10 (  , )  a11Y11(  , )  ...  almYl m (  , ) 5.5
In Equation 5.5, the angles α and β, and radius (R) of each surface point of the scanned
aggregate particle can be obtained numerically as described in Section 5.3.2. The harmonic
function ( Yl m ) can also be evaluated numerically by using relations such as Condon-Shortley
Phase (Arfken and Webber, 1995). The equations for computation of the first few spherical
harmonics up to degree (l) equals 2, are presented in Table 5.6. Evaluation of the harmonic
functions for higher degrees could be tedious. In this dissertation, the MATLABTM was used.
5-13
Table 5.6: Spherical Harmonics (Condon-Shortly Phase) (Arfken and Webber, 1995).
Degree (l) Order (m) Function

1
0 0 Y00 (  ,  ) 
4
3
1 -1 Y11 (  ,  )  sin e i
8
3
1 0 Y10 (  ,  )  cos 
4
3
1 1 Y11 (  ,  )   sin e i
8
5
2 -2 Y2 2 (  ,  )  3 sin 2 e  2i
96
5
2 -1 Y21 (  ,  )  3 sin  cos e i
24
5 3 1
2 0 Y20 (  ,  )   cos   
4  2 2
5
2 1 Y21 (  ,  )   3 sin  cos e i
24
5
2 2 Y22 (  ,  )   3 sin 2 e 2i
96
After computing the radii (R) and spherical harmonics for each surface point of an aggregate
particle, the only unknowns in Equation 5.5 are the spherical harmonic coefficients (alm) which
could be obtained by optimization using a least square method or by solving a linear matrix
system. In this study, the coefficients were determined using a linear matrix method. Using
matrix notation, Equation 5.5 can be expressed as indicated in Equation 5.6.
R  alm  Yl m 5.6
Where:
R = Column vector representing radii at each corresponding β and α;
alm = Vector representing the coefficients to be determined, and
Yl m = Spherical harmonics.
5-14
The number of rows in the matrix defined by Equation 5.6 is equal to the number of aggregate
surfaces points to be analysed. Some aggregate particles had a larger number of surface data
points. Therefore, solving the spherical harmonic coefficients (alm) by using traditional methods
could be tedious.
In order to facilitate the analysis of the aggregate shape properties, a MATLABTM code was
developed to perform all the computations described in Sections 5.3.1 and 5.3.2. The developed
MATLABTM code is presented in Appendix B. The main steps implemented in the MATLABTM
code are:
 Transforming surface point data such that the origin corresponds to the mass centre;
 Computing radius (R), angles α and β;
 Computing spherical harmonics;
 Solving spherical harmonic coefficients using the matrix method, and
 Determination of the aggregate form, angularity and surface texture indices.
The spherical harmonic coefficients were determined by solving Equation 5.6. The coefficients
were used to compute the spherical harmonic form indices to describe aggregate form,
angularity and surface texture using Equations 2.22 to 2.24, respectively. In this study, the form,
angularity and surface texture are defined at degree (l) values of 5, 20 and 25 respectively.
Detailed validation of these values is discussed in Section 5.3.3. The indices were normalized
by dividing by the first coefficient (a00) to eliminate the effect of particle size as suggested by
Kutay et al (2011).
5.3.3 Validation of the computation of harmonic coefficients and radii
The form, angularity, and surface texture indices are defined at different degree (l) values. At a
lower degree (l), the spherical harmonic coefficients could be used to estimate the radii (R)
defining the overall shape of an aggregate particle. As the degree (l) is increased, more accurate
radii (R) are obtained hence providing information about the angularity and surface texture of an
aggregate. To illustrate this concept, the scan results of a spherical object, and two aggregate
particles (cubical and elongated) were analysed to determine the spherical harmonic coefficients
by using the developed MATLABTM code. The determined spherical harmonic coefficients were
used to compute the radius of each surface point by using Equation 5.5. The analyses were
5-15
performed by using different l values (l = 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25). The capability of the spherical
harmonic technique to compute the radii was assessed by plotting the following three graphs:
 Errors (difference between radius determined from the laser scans and radius computed by
using the spherical harmonic technique) for each surface point (Figures 5.8 to 5.10);
 Radius determined from the laser scans and radius computed by using the spherical
harmonic technique at each surface point on the same graph for different l values
(Figures 5.11 to 5.13), and
 Radius determined from the laser scans versus radius computed by using the spherical
harmonic technique at each surface point (Figures 5.14 to 5.16).
Table 5.7 shows scanned models of the spherical object and two aggregate particles. The
diameter of the spherical object is 25 mm. The two aggregates were sampled from granite
particles retained on the 19.0 mm sieve. Included in the table are the average absolute errors,
and average percentage errors which are indicated in brackets. The error is defined as the
absolute value of the difference between the radius determined from laser scans and radius
computed using spherical harmonic technique for each surface point. Moving horizontally
across the table (l = 5 to 25), the average absolute error decreases. This indicates that for higher
l values, the radii determined from laser scans and radii computed using spherical harmonic
technique are approximately the same. For each l value smaller average absolute errors were
computed for a spherical object. This indicates that for spherical objects, lower l values are
sufficient to ensure that the radii determined from laser scans and radii computed using
spherical harmonic technique are approximately the same. The highest average absolute errors
were computed for an elongated aggregate compared to a cubical aggregate. This indicates that
convergence is much quicker for cubical aggregate particles. Overall, smallest absolute errors
were computed at l of 25 for spherical object and aggregate particles, indicating that the radii
determined from laser scans and radii computed using spherical harmonic technique are
approximately equal.
5-16
Table 5.7: Effect of varying degree (l).
Average absolute error- Difference between radii

determined from the laser scans and radii computed by
Description Model
using the spherical harmonic technique (mm)
l=5 l=10 l=15 l=20 l=25
Spherical 0.0073 0.0071 0.0068 0.0067 0.0063

object (0.059 %) (0.057 %) (0.055 %) (0.053 %) (0.051 %)
Cubical 0.3940 0.2196 0.1505 0.1137 0.0841

aggregate (3.236 %) (1.793 %) (1.221 %) (0.919 %) (0.675 %)
Elongated 1.3180 0.6984 0.5187 0.2662 0.1553

aggregate (8.267 %) (4.197 %) (3.245 %) (1.479 %) (0.789 %)
Figures 5.8 to 5.10 show plots of absolute errors for each surface point for a spherical object,
cubical and elongated aggregate particles, respectively for different l values. From the figures,
the following observations can be made:
 Smallest absolute errors were observed for the spherical object, followed by the cubical the
aggregate and elongated aggregate, and
 The convergence rate is dependent on the shape of the aggregate/object. For the spherical
object, lower l values could ensure that the radius determined from the laser scans and
radius computed by using the spherical harmonic technique is approximately equal. This
means that both l equal to 5 and 25 could reasonable compute the radii. On the other hand,
as the aggregate particle becomes elongated, higher l values are required to ensure that the
radii determined from the laser scans and radii computed by using the spherical harmonic
technique are approximately equal.
5-17
0.21 0.21
0.18 0.18
Absolute error (mm)

Absolute error (mm)
0.15 0.15 l = 10
l=5
0.12 0.12
0.09 0.09
0.06 0.06
0.03 0.03
0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Surface point number Surface point number
0.21 0.21
0.18 0.18
Absolute error (mm)
Absolute error (mm)

0.15 l = 15
0.15 l = 20
0.12 0.12
0.09 0.09
0.06 0.06
0.03 0.03
0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
0.21
0.18
Absolute error (mm)
0.15
0.12 l = 25
0.09
0.06
0.03
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Surface point number
Figure 5.8: Average absolute errors for a spherical object.
5-18
4 4
3.6 3.6
Absolute error (mm)
Absolute error (mm)

3.2 3.2
2.8 l=5 2.8 l = 10
2.4 2.4
2 2
1.6 1.6
1.2 1.2
0.8 0.8
0.4 0.4
0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
4 4
3.6 3.6
Absolute error (mm)
Absolute error (mm)
3.2 3.2
2.8 2.8
2.4 l = 15 l = 20
2.4
2 2
1.6 1.6
1.2 1.2
0.8 0.8
0.4 0.4
0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
4
Absolute error (mm)
3.6
3.2
2.8 l = 25
2.4
2
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Figure 5.9: Average absolute errors for a cubical aggregate.
5-19
8 8
7
l=5 7
Absolute error (mm)

Absolute error (mm)
6 6 l = 10
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
8 8
7 7
Absolute error (mm)
Absolute error (mm)
l = 15 l = 20
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
8
7
Absolute error (mm)
l = 25
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Figure 5.10: Average absolute errors for an elongated aggregate.
5-20
The second validation approach used was to plot the radii determined from the laser scans and
radii computed by using the spherical harmonic technique for different l values. Figures 5.11 to
5.13 show plots for a spherical object, cubical and elongated aggregates, respectively. For a
spherical object, all the l values showed similar results, where the radii determined from the
laser scans and the radii computed by using the spherical harmonic technique were the same.
The radii of the spherical object obtained at different surface points were found to be relatively
constant (12.2 mm). This is expected and is in agreement with the known radius of the spherical
object, measured by using a vernier caliper. For aggregate particles, as l increases, the radii
determined from laser scans and radii computed using spherical harmonic technique become
similar.
The third validation approach was to plot the radius determined from the laser scans versus
radius computed by using the spherical harmonic technique of all surface points for a spherical
object, cubical and elongated aggregate particles. Figures 5.14 to 5.16 show results for different
l values. As before, the radii of the spherical object were approximately equal. This is expected
because the radius of a spherical object is a constant value. For cubical and elongated
aggregates, the plots were scattered for lower l values. As the l values increases, the radii
determined from the laser scans and radii computed by using the spherical harmonic technique
appeared similar.
5-21
16 16
14 14
12 12
Radius (mm)
Laser-based radius
Radius (mm)
10 10 Laser-based radius
Computed radius 8 Computed radius
8
6 6
4
4 l=10
2
2
0
0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
16 16
14 14
12
Radius (mm)
12
Radius (mm)
10 Laser-based radius
8 Computed radius
8 Computed radius
6
6
4
l=15 4 l=20
2
2
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 0
Surface point number 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
16
14
12
Laser-based radius
10
Computed radius
Radius (mm)
4 l=25
2
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Figure 5.11: Radii determined from the laser scans and radii computed by using the
spherical harmonic technique for a spherical object.
5-22
20 20
18 l=5 18
l=10
16 16
Radius (mm)
Radius (mm)
14 14
12 12
10 10
8 8
6 Laser-based radius 6 Laser-based radius
4 Computed radius 4 Computed radius
2 2
0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
20 20
18 l=15 18 l=20
16 16
14 14
Radius (mm)
Radius (mm)
12 12
10 10
8 8
6 Laser-based radius 6 Laser-based radius
4 Computed radius 4 Computed radius
2 2
0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
20
18 l=25
16
Radius (mm)
14
12
10
8
4 Computed radius
2
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
spherical harmonic technique for a cubical aggregate.
5-23
36 36
32 32
28
l=5 28
l=10
24 24
Radius (mm)
Radius (mm)
20 20
16 16
12 12
8 8
Laser-based radius Laser-based radius
4 4 Computed radius
Computed radius
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
36 36
32 32 l=20
l=15
28 28
24 24
Radius (mm)
Radius (mm)
20 20
16 16
12 12
8 8
Laser-based radius Laser-based radius
4 4 Computed radius
Computed radius
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
36
32
28
l=25
24
Radius (mm)
20
16
12
8
Laser-based radius
4 Computed radius
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
spherical harmonic technique for an elongated aggregate.
5-24
20 20
18 18
Computed radius(mm)
Computed radius (mm)
16 16
14 14
12 l=5 12 l = 10
10 10
8 8
6 6
4 4
2
2
0
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Laser-based radius (mm)
20 20
Computed radius(mm)
18 Computed radius(mm) 18
16 16
14 14
12 l = 15 12 l = 20
10 10
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Laser-based radius (mm) Laser-based radius (mm)
20
18
Computed radius(mm)
16
14
12 l = 25
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Figure 5.14: Radii determined from the laser scans versus radii computed by using the
spherical harmonic technique for a spherical object.
5-25
20 20
18 18
Computed radius (mm)

Computed radius mm)
16 16
14 14
l=5 l = 10
12 12
10 10
8 8
6 6
4 4
2
2
0
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Laser-based radius (mm) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
20 20
18 18
Computed radius(mm)
Computed radius(mm)
16 16
14 14
l = 15 l = 20
12 12
10 10
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Laser-based radius (mm)
20
18
Computed radius(mm)
16
14
l = 25
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
spherical harmonic technique for a cubical aggregate.
5-26
36 36
32 32
Computed radius(mm)
Computed radius(mm)
28 28
l = 10
24 24
l=5
20 20
16 16
12 12
8 8
4 4
0 0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36
Laser-based radius (mm) Laser-based radius (mm)
36 36
32 32
Computed radius(mm)
Computed radius(mm)
28 28
l = 15
24 24 l = 20
20 20
16 16
12 12
8 8
4
4
0
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36
Laser-based radius (mm) 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36
36
32
Computed radius(mm)
28
l = 25
24
20
16
12
8
4
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36
spherical harmonic technique for an elongated aggregate.
5-27
In order to assess the influence of the size of aggregate/object on the rate of convergence, two
additional spherical objects (19 mm and 13 mm diameter) and aggregate particles of different
sizes were analysed. The aggregate were sampled from granite particles retained on the 13.2,
9.5, 6.7 and 4.75 mm sieves. The plots are presented in Appendix C. Only plots the radii
determined from laser scans and radii computed using spherical harmonic technique on the
same graph are shown. It was concluded that the convergence occurs regardless of aggregate
size. It was also found that the convergence rate depends on the size of aggregate/object. For
larger aggregate particles, higher l values are required to ensure that the difference (error)
between the actual and computed radius is small. For small aggregate particles, the radii
determined from laser scans and radii computed using spherical harmonic technique were
observed to be equal at relatively lower l values. For example, an aggregate particle retained on
the 4.75 mm sieve showed convergence at an l value of 20.
The maximum size of the aggregates used in the study was 19.0 mm. For this size, convergence
occur at an l value of 25. Therefore, l equal to 25 was selected in this study for computation of
surface texture indices. Form and angularity indices were computed using l equal to 5 and 20
respectively. Further validation of the capability of l = 5 to distinguish aggregate with different
form is presented in Section 5.3.4.
5.3.4 Spherical harmonics form indices
The MATLABTM code developed for this study was described in Section 5.3.2 and presented in
Appendix B. The code was used to compute spherical harmonic form indices of all the
aggregates studied. The spherical harmonic form indices were computed using a degree (l) value
of 5. In order to establish whether l equal to 5 is sufficient to distinguish aggregate with
different form properties, a spherical object and four different aggregate particles of varying
shapes (round to flat and elongated) were analysed using degree values ranging from 1 to 5. The
spherical object had a diameter of 25 mm, whereas all the aggregates were retained on the
19.0 mm sieve. The results are presented in Table 5.8. The scanned models are included in the
table. It can be seen that moving vertically down in Table 5.8, the form indices increase from 1,
indicating that the method is capable of differentiating aggregates with different forms. For a
degree value of 5, the form index of a rounded aggregate differed significantly from that of flat
aggregate, indicating that at this degree value, the spherical harmonic analysis can be used to
differentiate aggregates with different forms. Therefore, a degree of 5 was used for the analysis
of form indices for all aggregates studied.
5-28
Table 5.8: Form indices for different degree (l) Values.
Description Model l =1 l =2 l =3 l =4 l=5
Spherical object 1.0003 1.0008 1.0014 1.0016 1.0016
Round granite 1.0283 1.1555 1.3379 1.4586 1.5144
Cubical granite 1.0295 1.1351 1.2560 1.3268 1.4028
Elongated granite 1.0968 1.6624 1.9302 2.1936 2.3079
Flat and elongated

1.0987 2.8833 3.5230 3.0995 3.2838
granite
Table 5.9 shows statistical parameters of spherical harmonic form indices for the six types of
aggregates studied. All the parameters were computed by using results of 150 aggregate
particles studied for each aggregate type. As expected, the average sphericity of alluvial gravel
was the lowest followed by that of RA. For the crushed aggregate types, the average sphericity
of tillite was relatively lower followed by that of granite, hornfels and quartzite.
Figure 5.17 shows plots of the distributions of spherical harmonic form indices. It can be seen
that alluvial gravel has lower form indices with a distribution ranging from 1.358 to 2.232,
followed by RA with a distribution ranging from 1.390 to 3.004. The sphericity distributions of
crushed aggregate particles did not differ significantly. However, it is noted that crushed
aggregates (hornfels, granite and quartzite) have a wider range compared to alluvial gravel and
RA.
5-29
Table 5.9: Statistical parameters for spherical harmonic form index.

Granite 2.088 0.56 0.046
Tillite 2.027 0.473 0.039
Quartzite 2.153 0.515 0.042
Hornfels 2.140 0.572 0.047
RA 1.875 0.299 0.024
100
90
80 Granite
Tillite
70
Quartzite
60 Hornfels
Gravel
50
RA
40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Spherical harmonic form index
Figure 5.17: Distribution of spherical harmonic form index.
5-30
5.3.5 Spherical harmonics angularity indices
The developed MATLABMT code was used for the analysis of laser scan data and to compute
spherical harmonic angularity indices of individual aggregate particles. All the angularity
indices were computed using Equation 2.23, with a maximum l value of 20. Ideally, spherical
objects or round shaped aggregates are expected to have angularity index values close to zero.
For the six types of aggregates used in this study, the alluvial gravel sample had the most
rounded particles. It was expected that the angularity indices for alluvial gravel should be the
smallest, compared to other aggregate types.
Figure 5.18 shows plots of the distributions of the angularity indices for the six types of
aggregates studied. The alluvial gravel sample had the smallest angularity indices.
Approximately 90 per cent of the alluvial gravel particles had angularity indices less than a
value of 1. Overall, the RA sample had smaller angularity indices compared to the crushed
aggregates. This may be due to the fact that RA is a used material and the angular corners have
been broken down due to traffic loading and compaction. Approximately 60 per cent of the RA
particles had angularity indices less than a value of 1. For crushed aggregates, the distributions
at lower angularity indices did not differ significantly. However, for angularity values greater
than 2, it was observed that granite is less angular, followed by quartzite, tillite and hornfels.
Another important observation that deserves a comment is the range of angularity indices for
the six types of materials studied. The Alluvial gravel samples had a smaller range (from 0.218
to 2.127), followed by the RA sample (from 0.366 to 22.47). All the crushed aggregates
showed a wider distribution of angularity indices. Approximately 30 per cent of the crushed
aggregates had angularity indices between 3 and 100. It was further observed that higher
angularity indices were obtained for the elongated aggregate particles. The reason for a wider
distribution of the angularity indices for crushed aggregates may be the presence of a larger
amount of elongated aggregate particles.
5-31
100
90
80
Granite
70
Tillite
60 Quartzite
Hornfels
50 Gravel
40 RA
30
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Spherical harmonic angularity index
Figure 5.18: Distribution of spherical harmonic angularity index.
Further validation of the spherical harmonic angularity indices was based on a visual inspection.
A spherical object, two round shaped aggregates and two angular aggregate particles were
visually identified and selected. The angularity indices for the spherical object and the aggregate
particles were determined. The photos of the spherical object and the aggregate particles are
shown in Table 5.10. Included in the table are spherical harmonic angularity indices. As
expected, the angularity index for the spherical object was approaching zero. It is also observed
that the round shaped aggregates have lower angularity indices compared to the angular
aggregate particles, which was expected. The observed trend clearly indicates that the spherical
harmonic analysis technique is able to distinguish aggregate particles with different angularities.
5-32
Table 5.10: Comparison of angularity indices.
Description Actual photo Angularity index
Spherical object 0.0036
0.3905
Round aggregate particles
0.4357
0.6268
Angular aggregate particles
1.0127
5-33
5.3.6 Spherical harmonics surface texture indices
All the spherical harmonic surface texture indices were computed using Equation 2.24, with a
maximum l value of 25. Perfect spherical and smooth aggregates/objects are expected to have
surface texture indices values close to zero. For the six types of aggregates used in this study,
the alluvial gravel sample was generally smoother compared to the rest of the aggregates
studied.
Figure 5.19 shows plots of the distributions of the surface texture indices for the six types of
aggregates studied. As expected, smaller surface texture indices were computed for alluvial
gravel (alluvial gravel sample was smoother). Overall, the surface texture indices computed for
both granite and hornfels were found to be the second smallest, followed by tillite and RA. The
highest surface texture indices were computed for the quartzite aggregate. Over 90 per cent of
the alluvial gravel particles had surface texture indices values of less than 1. On the other hand,
the aggregates with surface texture indices values less than 1 for the rest of the aggregate
studied ranged from 50 per cent for quartzite to 75 per cent for granite.
Similar to form and angularity indices, wider distributions of surface texture indices were
observed for crushed aggregates (approximately from 0.1 to 10), whereas the range for alluvial
gravel continued to be the smallest (approximately from 0.03 to 3). Unlike the distribution of
form and angularity indices (Figures 5.17 and 5.18) on which the RA ranked just after the
alluvial gravel, it is interesting to note that the distribution of surface texture for RA was almost
in between the crushed aggregates. It should be mentioned that some bitumen binder, still
remaining on the RA, might have affected the computed surface texture.
5-34
100
90
80 Granite
Tillite
70
Quartzite
60 Hornfels
Gravel
50
RA
40
30
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Spherical harmonic surface texture index
Figure 5.19: Distribution of spherical harmonic surface texture index.
Similar to the angularity indices, the validation of the surface texture indices relied on a
comparison of the alluvial gravel particles with the rest of the aggregate types studied. Alluvial
gravel particles were smoother compared to the rest of the aggregates studied. It was expected
that their surface texture indices would differ from the rest of the aggregates studied. Table 5.11
shows photos of a smooth spherical object, two smooth round shaped aggregates and rough
aggregate particles. Included in the table are spherical harmonic surface texture indices. The
spherical object has a surface texture index approaching a value of zero, which was expected.
The smooth round shaped aggregates had lower surface texture indices values compared to
round aggregate particles. This confirms the ability of the spherical harmonic analysis technique
to distinguish aggregates with different surface textures.
5-35
Table 5.11: Comparison of surface texture indices
Description Actual photo Surface texture index
Spherical object 0.0019
0.1511
Smooth aggregate particles
0.1365
0.8301
Rough aggregate particles
1.0183
5-36
5.4 Correlation of spherical harmonics form indices with other form indices
In order to get an indication of the capability of each of the laser-based form indices to
distinguish the aggregates with different form properties, the spherical harmonic form indices
were correlated with each of the form indices computed by using the aggregate’s physical
properties. The results indicated that linear models were the best to relate the spherical harmonic
form indices with laser-based form indices computed by using the aggregate’s physical
dimensions. The following correlations were performed:
 Correlation between spherical harmonic form indices with sphericity computed by using
surface area and volume;
 Correlation between spherical harmonic form indices with sphericity computed by using
orthogonal dimensions, and
 Correlation between spherical harmonic form indices with flat and elongated ratios.
Figures 5.20 to 5.37 show correlations of spherical harmonic form indices with form indices
computed by using the aggregate’s physical properties. Good correlation was observed for all
six types of aggregates studied. The spherical harmonic form indices decrease linearly with
increasing sphericity computed by using the surface area and volume (Figures 5.20 to 5.25). The
spherical harmonic form indices also decrease with increasing sphericity computed by using
orthogonal dimensions (Figures 5.26 to 5.31). On the other hand, the spherical harmonic form
indices increase linearly with increasing flat and elongated ratio (Figures 5.32 to 5.37). The
observed trends agree with the theory underlying each of the form indices.
Overall, the correlations of the spherical harmonic form indices with the sphericity computed
using the surface area and volume results from laser scanning results was the strongest,
followed by the flat and elongated ratio. The correlation between the spherical harmonic form
index and the sphericity computed by using three orthogonal dimensions was the weakest for all
types of the aggregates studied. The reasons for the best correlations between the spherical
harmonic form indices and the sphericity computed using the surface area and volume could be
due to the fact that both indices are computed based on information that represents the overall 3-
D form of aggregate particles. The observed good correlations confirm and strengthen the
capability of the aggregate laser scanning technique to determine various form indices
describing the aggregate form properties.
5-37
It is again observed that the alluvial gravel and RA showed the weakest correlations compared
to crushed aggregates (granite, tillite, quartzite and hornfels). This may be due to the fact that
the crushed aggregates showed a wider distribution of form indices compared to alluvial gravel
and RA.
5.2
4.8
4.4
y = -5.199x + 5.866
4 R² = 0.780
3.6
3.2
2.8
2.4
2
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
surface area for granite.
5-38
5.2
4.8
4.4
y = -5.340x + 5.985
4 R² = 0.885
3.6
3.2
2.8
2.4
2
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
surface area for tillite.
5.2
4.8
4.4
4 y = -6.0193x + 6.5186
R² = 0.7852
3.6
3.2
2.8
2.4
2
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
surface area for quartzite.
5-39
5.2
4.8
4.4
y = -5.697x + 6.311
4
R² = 0.861
3.6
3.2
2.8
2.4
2
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
surface area for hornfels.
5.2
4.8
4.4
4 y = -3.271x + 4.486
3.6 R² = 0.687
3.2
2.8
2.4
2
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
surface area for alluvial gravel.
5-40
5.2
4.8
4.4 y = -4.5006x + 5.4326

4 R² = 0.7911
3.6
3.2
2.8
2.4
2
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
surface area for RA.
5.2
4.8
4.4
4
y = -3.817x + 4.681
3.6 R² = 0.678
3.2
2.8
2.4
2
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Sphericity computed by using orthogonal dimensions
dimensions for granite.
5-41
5.2
4.8
4.4
4 y = -3.331x + 4.357
R² = 0.671
3.6
3.2
2.8
2.4
2
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Sphericity computed by using urthogonal dimensions
dimensions for tillite.
5.2
4.8
4.4
4
3.6 y = -3.174x + 4.263

R² = 0.578
3.2
2.8
2.4
2
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
dimensions for quartzite.
5-42
5.2
4.8
4.4
4 y = -3.982x + 4.850
R² = 0.592
3.6
3.2
2.8
2.4
2
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
dimensions for hornfels.
5.2
4.8
4.4
4
3.6
3.2 y = -1.63x + 2.9096
R² = 0.459
2.8
2.4
2
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
dimensions for alluvial gravel.
5-43
5.2
4.8
4.4
4
3.6 y = -2.6001x + 3.7143
3.2 R² = 0.656
2.8
2.4
2
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
dimensions for RA.
5.2
4.8
4.4
4
3.6
3.2
2.8
2.4
2
y = 0.4519x + 0.9629
1.6
R² = 0.779
1.2
0.8
0.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Figure 5.32: Spherical harmonic form index versus flat and elongated ratio for granite.
5-44
5.2
4.8
4.4
4
3.6
3.2
2.8
2.4
2
1.6 y = 0.347x + 1.161
R² = 0.823
1.2
0.8
0.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Figure 5.33: Spherical harmonic form index versus flat and elongated ratio for tillite.
5.2
4.8
4.4
4
3.6
3.2
2.8
2.4
2
y = 0.366x + 1.191
1.6
R² = 0.662
1.2
0.8
0.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Figure 5.34: Spherical harmonic form index versus flat and elongated ratio for quartzite.
5-45
5.2
4.8
4.4
4
3.6
3.2
2.8
2.4
2
y = 0.420x + 1.049
1.6
R² = 0.738
1.2
0.8
0.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Figure 5.35: Spherical harmonic form index versus flat and elongated ratio for hornfels.
5.2
4.8
4.4
4
3.6
3.2
2.8
2.4
2
y = 0.2991x + 1.1317
1.6
R² = 0.5011
1.2
0.8
0.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Figure 5.36: Spherical harmonic form index versus flat and elongated ratio for alluvial
gravel.
5-46
5.2
4.8
4.4
4
3.6
3.2
2.8
2.4
2
y = 0.3704x + 1.0297
1.6
R² = 0.722
1.2
0.8
0.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Figure 5.37: Spherical harmonic form index versus flat and elongated ratio for RA.
5.5 Validation of the laser-based form indices
To validate the capability of the laser-based form indices, two current standard tests used for
characterisation of the aggregate form properties were conducted on the aggregates studied.
These tests are the flakiness index test (TMH1 Method B3) which is commonly used in South
Africa and flat and elongated particles ratio test (ASTM D 4791) used in the USA. In this
section, the results of the flakiness index and flat and elongated particles ratio tests are
correlated with laser-based aggregate form indices.
5.5.1 Correlation of flakiness index with laser-based form indices
Using the TMH1 Method B3 procedures for determination of flakiness index, a single flakiness
index parameter is normally computed to represent the whole sample. The flakiness index
results for each of the six types of aggregates studied were presented in Chapter 4 (Table 1). The
flakiness index values were correlated with the average laser-based form indices presented in
Tables 5.1 to 5.3, and 5.9.
5-47
Figures 5.38 to 5.41 show correlations of flakiness index with the sphericity computed by using
the aggregate surface area and volume, the sphericity computed by using the aggregate
orthogonal dimensions, flat and elongated ratio and spherical harmonic form index respectively.
The trends of the plots agree with the theory underlying each of the form indices. The highest
correlation was found between the flakiness index with the sphericity computed using the
aggregate orthogonal dimensions (R2 = 0.694), followed by the flat and elongated ratio (R2 =
0.632), spherical harmonic form index (R2 = 0.565) and the sphericity computed by using
aggregate surface area and volume (R2 = 0.515).
The overall trends of the plots in Figures 5.38 to 5.41 show linear relationships between the
flakiness index and baser-based form indices. However, the data points appear to be much
scattered. Possible reasons for the observed scatter could be the following:
 The plots include only the results of six types of aggregates used in this study. Inclusion
of more aggregate samples could improve the correlations.
 The procedures for determination of flakiness index of individual aggregate sample
yield a single flakiness index parameter to describe the form properties of the whole
aggregate sample. In order to relate the flakiness index parameter with the laser-based
form indices, average values to represent each aggregate type had to be calculated. A
single parameter such as the computed average cannot clearly differentiate form
properties of different aggregate types, particular for crushed aggregate, which appears
to have similar form properties. Therefore, there is a need to employ advanced
technique for accurate determination of aggregate form properties in order to
distinguish the form properties of different types of aggregates.
5-48
40
35 Granite
Tillite
30 Quartzite
Flakiness index (%)
Hornfels
25
Alluvial Gravel
20 RA
15
10 y = -160.437x + 143.970
R² = 0.515
5
0
0.7 0.73 0.76 0.79 0.82 0.85 0.88
Sphericity computed by using volume and surface area
Figure 5.38: Flakiness index versus sphericity computed by using volume and surface
area.
40
Granite
35
Tillite
30 Quartzite
Hornfels
Flakiness index (%)
25 Alluvial Gravel
RA
20
15
10 y = -368.505x + 277.796
R² = 0.694
5
0
0.64 0.66 0.68 0.7 0.72 0.74 0.76
Figure 5.39: Flakiness index versus sphericity computed by using orthogonal dimensions.
5-49
40
35
30 Granite
Flakiness index (%)
Tillite
25
Quartzite
20 Hornfels
Alluvial Gravel
15
RA
10
y = 33.943x - 59.764
5 R² = 0.632
0
1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8
Figure 5.40: Flakiness index versus flat and elongated ratio.
40
35
30
Flakiness Index (%)
25
y = 47.930x - 73.838
20 R² = 0.565
Granite
15 Tillite
Quartzite
10 Hornfels
Alluvial Gravel
5
RA
0
1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4
Figure 5.41: Flakiness index versus spherical harmonic form index.
5-50
5.5.2 Correlation of flat and elongated particles ratio with laser-based form indices
The standard test for determination of flat and elongated particles ratio (ASTM D 4791) requires
the proportional caliper device to be set at a pre-defined ratio. It was indicated in Chapter 2 that
SUPERPAVE recommends a ratio of 5:1. In this study, the flat and elongated particles ratio
tests were carried out with the proportional caliper device set at three different ratios i.e. 5:1, 3:1
and 2:1. The results of flat and elongated particles ratio were presented in Chapter 4 (Table 1).
The average laser-based form indices were presented in Tables 5.1 to 5.3 and 5.9.
Figures 5.42 to 5.53 show the correlation of the flat and elongated particles tests carried out
using the current standard test procedures with laser-based form indices. The coefficients of
determination (R2) ranging from 0.673 to 0.950 were obtained. Overall, the correlations with the
flat and elongated particles ratio determined with the proportional caliper device set at a ratio of
3:1 were the best (Figures 5.46 to 5.49), followed by the 5:1 ratio (Figures 5.42 to 5.45) and the
2:1 ratio (Figures 5.50 to 5.53).
Similar to the correlation of the laser-based form indices with the flakiness index, in some
figures the data points appears to be much scattered. Possible reasons for the observed scatter
could be that only averages of a limited number of samples (six types of aggregates) were used
in this study and plotted in Figures 5.50 to 5.53.
Despite the observed correlations, it is noted that the flat and elongated particles ratios of
alluvial gravel and RA determined using the current standard method with the proportional
caliper set at a ratio of 5: 1 are nearly zero (Figures 5.42 to 5.45). This is a clear indication of
the limitation of the current standard methods to distinguish the shape properties of aggregates,
which even visually can be identified to differ. Based on the observed results, further research to
investigate the appropriateness of using the 5:1 ratio recommended in SUPERPAVE may be
needed.
On the other hand, the distribution plots of various laser-based form indices presented earlier,
clearly indicated that the alluvia gravel and the RA samples differ in terms of their shape
properties. Therefore, the suitability of the aggregate laser scanning technique to determine
aggregate shape properties is strengthened.
5-51
14
Flat and elongated particles ratio(%)
12
Granite
10
Tillite
8 Quartzite
Hornfels
6 Alluvial Gravel
RA
4
y = -102.832x + 84.965
2 R² = 0.729
0
0.7 0.73 0.76 0.79 0.82 0.85 0.88
Figure 5.42: Flat and elongated particles ratio (proportional caliper set at 5:1) versus
sphericity computed by using volume and surface area.
14
12
Granite
10
Tillite
8 Quartzite
Hornfels
6 Alluvial Gravel
RA
4
y = -215.495x + 156.372
R² = 0.818
2
0
0.64 0.66 0.68 0.7 0.72 0.74
sphericity computed by using orthogonal dimensions.
5-52
14
12
Granite
10 Tillite
Quartzite
8 Hornfels
Alluvial Gravel
6 RA
4
y = 19.585x - 40.391
2 R² = 0.725
0
1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8
(proportional caliper set at 5:1) versus the laser-based flat and elongated ratio.
14
Granite
12 Tillite
Quartzite
10 Hornfels
Alluvial Gravel
8
RA
6
y = 31.817x - 56.831
R² = 0.858
4
0
1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
(proportional caliper set at 5:1) versus spherical harmonic form index.
5-53
40
Granite
35
Tillite
30 Quartzite
Hornfels
25 Alluvial Gravel
RA
20
15
y = -234.543x + 201.302
10 R² = 0.950
0
0.7 0.73 0.76 0.79 0.82 0.85 0.88
40
35
30
y = -414.824x + 310.937
25 Granite R² = 0.760
Tillite
20
Quartzite
15 Hornfels
Alluvial Gravel
10
RA
5
0
0.64 0.66 0.68 0.7 0.72 0.74 0.76
5-54
40
35 Granite
30 Tillite
Quartzite
25 Hornfels
Alluvial Gravel
20
RA
15
10 y = 43.318x - 81.356
R² = 0.889
5
0
1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8
(proportional caliper set at 3:1) versus laser-based flat and elongated ratio.
40
35 Granite
Tillite
30
Quartzite
25 Hornfels
Alluvial Gravel
20
RA
15
10 y = 63.361x - 103.701
R² = 0.852
5
0
1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
5-55
80
Flat and elongated partcles ratio(%)
70
60
50
Granite
40 Tillite
Quartzite
30
Hornfels
y = -168.267x + 186.285
20 Alluvial Gravel R² = 0.761
RA
10
0
0.7 0.73 0.76 0.79 0.82 0.85 0.88
80
70
60
50 Granite
Tillite
40
Quartzite
30 Hornfels
Alluvial Gravel y = -312.964x + 275.602
20 R² = 0.673
RA
10
0
0.64 0.66 0.68 0.7 0.72 0.74 0.76
5-56
80
70
60
50
40 Granite
Tillite
30 Quartzite
y = 31.739x - 18.094
Hornfels
20 R² = 0.743
Alluvial Gravel
10 RA
0
1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8
(proportional caliper set at 2:1) versus laser-based flat and elongated ratio.
80
70
60
50
Granite
40 Tillite
Quartzite
30
y = 43.957x - 29.533 Hornfels
20 R² = 0.639 Alluvial Gravel
RA
10
0
1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
5-57
5.6 Selection of aggregates for pavement construction
Aggregate shape properties including form, angularity and surface texture influence the
performance of pavements. Aggregate shape properties govern the behaviours of pavements
including the ability to resist permanent deformation, shear resistance, skid resistance, stiffness
properties, fatigue resistance, stability and workability of HMA mixes. Modern pavement
design manuals and guidelines (i.e. SUPERPAVE) emphasise that the selection of aggregates
should take into account whether the aggregates possess properties which improve pavement
performance.
Equal-dimensional aggregate particles are preferred over the flat and elongated aggregates. Flat
and elongated aggregate particles tend to lock up (resist re-orientation) resulting to difficulties
in compaction. Furthermore, the tendency of flat and elongated particles to break during
compaction may result into difficulties in achieving voids requirements in HMA mixes due to
aggregate degradation which may change grading.
Angular aggregate particles are preferred over round-shaped aggregates. Angular aggregate
particles improve mechanical interlock and provide better resistance to permanent deformation
(rutting). Furthermore, the ability of angular aggregates to hold together when loaded increases
the shear strength. On the other hand, round-shaped aggregates tend to slide over each other
resulting into reduced shear strength.
Rough surface textured aggregate particles are preferred over smooth aggregates. Rough
textured aggregates provided improve internal frictional compared to smooth textured
aggregates. Internal friction properties improve shear resistance and ultimately the load carrying
capacity.
Despite of the current knowledge on the influence of aggregate shape properties on the
performance of the pavements, direct quantification of these shape properties using the current
standard methods has been difficult. From the work presented in this study, it is evident that
aggregate with varying shape properties can clearly be distinguished by using the laser scanning
technique. This will enable selection of aggregates with desired properties to ensure
improvements in the performance of pavements.
The laser scanning technique could be useful to ensure that the aggregates used for pavement
construction have the desired shape properties. For example, one could use the laser scanning
5-58
technique at aggregate crushing plant to check periodically whether the crusher is still
producing aggregates with desired shape properties. Wear and tear of the components of
aggregate crushers results in the change or degradation of the shape properties and the quality of
the produced aggregates. Checking the shape properties periodically with laser scanning
technique could also be used as a tool for making a decision when to replace components of the
crusher.
The application of laser scanning technique for determination of the aggregate shape properties
has a benefit of improved accuracy. The laser scanning technique is suitable for research studies
focusing towards improving the current understanding of the influence of aggregate shape
properties on the performance of pavement. Furthermore, aggregate laser scanning can facilitate
better understanding of the influence of the aggregates on the overall performance of pavements
through numerical analysis and modelling of aggregates.
5.7 Summary
This chapter presented the analysis of the laser scans data to determine indices to describe the
aggregate shape properties. Two approaches were employed for analysis of the laser scans data.
The first approach used the aggregate’s physical properties (dimensions, surface area and
volume) to compute sphericity and flat and elongated ratio indices. The second analysis
approach employed spherical harmonic analysis of the laser scans data to compute aggregate
form, angularity and surface texture indices.
Three different form indices were computed by using the aggregate’s physical properties. These
indices were the sphericity computed by using the surface area and volume of an aggregate
particle, the sphericity computed by using the aggregate’s orthogonal dimensions (longest
dimension, intermediate dimension and shortest dimension) and the flat and elongated ratio
computed by using the longest dimensions and the shortest dimension of an aggregate particle.
The results showed that all the three indices were able to distinguish the form properties of the
aggregates studied. The sphericity indices computed by using surface area and volume of an
aggregate particle appeared to distinguish the form properties of the aggregates better. Possible
explanation to this finding could be the ability of the laser scanning technique to measure the
surface area and volume of irregular aggregate particles accurately.
5-59
Further analysis of the laser scans data were performed by using the spherical harmonic analysis
technique. The spherical harmonic analysis technique was used to determine the aggregate form,
angularity and surface texture indices. As part of the contribution of this study, a MATLAB TM
code was developed to facilitate the analysis of the laser scans data by using the spherical
harmonic analysis technique.
The form indices computed by using the aggregate’s physical properties were further correlated
with the form indices computed using spherical harmonic analysis technique. Good correlations
were observed, indicating that both approaches could be used to determine the aggregate form
indices. The time required to determine spherical harmonic form indices longer than the
determination of the form indices based on the aggregate’s physical properties. However, the
spherical harmonic analysis technique has the advantage of being able to determine aggregate
angularity and surface texture indices.
The laser-based form indices were further correlated with the flakiness index and flat and
elongated particles ratio test results. Overall, the laser-based form indices correlated linearly
with both, the flakiness index and flat and elongated particles ratio test results. However, in
some cases the data points on the plots of the laser-based form indices versus the flakiness index
and flat and elongated particles ratio test results appeared to be much scattered.
The study has demonstrated that various indices to describe the shape properties of aggregates
could be determined by using the laser scanning technique. From the work presented in this
study, it is evident that the limitations of the current standard methods could be addresses by
employing advanced technologies such as the scanning technique.
5-60
6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Conclusions
Aggregate shape properties including form, angularity and surface texture play a major role in
the overall performance of pavements. Therefore, better characterisation of these properties is
essential. This dissertation investigated improved techniques for determination of aggregate
shape properties by using an advanced laser scanning technique. The following are the findings
of the study:
 In this study, four different laser-based form indices were determined to describe form
properties of aggregates from six different sources. The indices determined were; (a)
sphericity computed using surface area and volume, (b) sphericity computed using three
orthogonal dimensions, (c) flat and elongated ratio, and (d) spherical harmonic form index.
Generally, all four form indices presented in this dissertation were able to rank the
distribution of form properties of the six types of aggregates studied. The distribution of
sphericity indices computed by using surface area and volume distinguished the form
properties of the six types of aggregates clearer than other form indices. This could be due
to the fact that the sphericity indices computed using volume and surface area represent the
overall 3-D form of aggregates. On the other hand, the sphericity computed by using
orthogonal dimensions and flat and elongated ratio indices are based on a the dimensions,
which do not necessarily represent the overall 3-D form of aggregates;
 The spherical harmonic analysis technique was also used to determine angularity and
surface texture indices for the six types of aggregate studied. A MATLABTM code was
developed for analysis of the laser scans data, using the spherical harmonic analysis
technique to compute aggregate form, angularity and surface texture indices. The developed
MATLABTM code was found to be useful for analysis of the laser scans data to determine
aggregate form, angularity and surface texture indices, and
 The spherical harmonic form indices correlated well with the laser-based form indices
determined by using the aggregate’s physical properties (volume, surface area, and
orthogonal dimensions). The correlations between the spherical harmonic form indices with
the sphericity indices computed by using volume and surface area were the best;
 Direct validation of the laser-based form indices was achieved by correlating with the
results of the flakiness index and the flat and elongated particles ratio test, which are the
6-1
current standard methods used to evaluate form properties of aggregates. The laser-based
form indices correlated linearly with both, the flakiness index and the flat and elongated
particles ratio test results, and
 In chapter 4 Section 4.4, the laser scans data were used to determine the grading curves of
the aggregates used in the study. The results compared well with the results of the current
standard manual standard method (THM1 Method B4).
Based on the information contained in this dissertation, the following conclusions are drawn:
 The 3-D laser scanning technique is capable of measuring data required for the
determination of form indices of coarse aggregates. This conclusion is supported by the
laser scans data presented in chapter 4. This study has demonstrated that the laser scanning
is a versatile technique for the determination of the various indices, based on 3-D data to
describe the shape characteristics of aggregates, as well as the determination of the grading
curves;
 Data obtained by using the 3-D laser scanning technique could be analysed using various
approaches to determine indices describing the aggregate shape properties. This conclusion
is supported by the results of correlations of various form indices performed in Chapter 5
Section 5.4. The coefficients of determination (R2) ranging between 0.459 and 0.861 were
obtained. This is one of the major advantages of the laser scanning technique when
compared with aggregate imaging;
 The sphericity indices computed by using volume and surface area properties appear to be
more suitable in terms of describing the form of the aggregates than other form indices. This
could be the result of the accurate measurement of the surface area and volume of the
aggregates by using the laser scanning technique, and
 The capability of the spherical harmonic analysis technique to quantify all three aggregate
shape properties (i.e. form, angularity, and surface texture) provides additional advantage
over the use of the aggregate’s physical properties.
Another major contribution of the dissertation is provision of a database of basic data to be used
for on-going and future studies. Such studies include correlation of laser-based aggregate shape
properties with pavement performance indicators, which was outside the scope of this
dissertation. This data could also be used to investigate other techniques for quantification of
aggregate shape properties. The laser scans data could also be used for numerical analysis and
modelling of aggregates.
6-2
6.2 Recommendations
Based on the information contained in this dissertation, the following recommendations are
made:
 This dissertation provided basic concepts for analysis of data of scanned aggregate particles.
Limited types of aggregates were studied, including four types of crushed aggregates, RA
and alluvial gravel. Although the analyses presented could differentiate the shape properties
of the types of aggregates studied, further validation using aggregate materials from
different sources is required. Future studies should for instance include RA and alluvial
gravel from different sources, as well as other types of crushed aggregates and slag
materials;
 Four laser-based form indices were used in this study, and their results appeared to be
consistent, hence providing more confidence of the ability of the laser scanning technique
for determination of the form of aggregates. On the other hand, angularity and surface
texture were determined by using a spherical harmonic analysis technique only. Therefore,
future studies should consider employing other analysis techniques such as wavelet analysis
to validate the results obtained, and
 Lastly, further work is needed to correlate the laser-based aggregate shape indices with
pavement performance indicators. Such studies may include:
 Correlations of laser-based form indices with performance parameters of aggregates
used in pavements;
 Use of aggregate shape properties as basis for estimation of voids in compacted
aggregates, and
 Packing characteristic of different aggregate types, in relation to their shape
properties.
6-3
7 REFERENCES
Al-Rousan T., Masad, E., Tutumluer. E. Pan, T. 2007. Evaluation of image analysis techniques
for quantifying aggregate shape characteristics. Construction and Building Materials Vol 21, pp.
978-990.
Anochie-Boateng, J., Komba, J., Mukalenga, N., and Amrita, M. 2010. Evaluation of 3-D laser
device for characterizing shape and surface properties of aggregates used in pavements. 29th
Annual Southern African Transportation Conference, Pretoria, August 2010.
Anochie-Boateng, J and Komba, J. 2010. Laser scanning protocol for determining aggregate
shape and surface properties. TECHNICAL REPORT No: CSIR/BE/IE/IR/2010/0061/B
Anochie-Boateng, J. Komba, J. and Tutumluer, E. 2011a. Three-dimensional laser-based

measurement of mineral aggregate surface area for South African hot-mix asphalt mixtures.
TRB 90th Annual Conference, Washington D.C, USA, January 2011.
Anochie-Boateng, J., Komba, J., O’Connell, J. 2011b. Laser-based approach for determining
flakiness index of aggregates used in pavements. 30th Annual Southern African Transportation
Conference, Pretoria, July 2011.
Anochie-Boateng, J. Komba, J. and Mvelase G. 2011c. Advanced and Automated Laser-based

Technique to Evaluate Aggregates. IRF International Road Congress “Innovation in Road
Infrastructure”. Moscow, Russia. 22-24 November 2011.
Anochie-Boateng, J., Komba, J. and Tutumluer, E. 2012. Aggregate Surface Areas Quantified
Through Laser Measurements for South African Asphalt Mixtures. Journal of Transportation
Engineering, ASCE. Vol. 1(137).
Asphalt Institute. 1996. Superpave Mix Design. Superpave Series No.2 (SP-2). U.S.A.
Arasan, S., Yenera, E., Hattatoglu, F., Hinislioglue, S. and Akbuluta, S. 2011. Correlation
between Shape of Aggregate and Mechanical Properties of Asphalt Concrete. Road Pavement
Material and Design. Vol. 12, No. 2.
7-1
Arfken, B.G and Webber, H.J. Mathematical methods for physicists. 4th Edition, Academic
press, San Diego. 1995.
ASTM D3398-00. 2006 Standard Test Method for Index of Aggregate Particle Shape and
Texture. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM D 5821. 2006. Standard test method for determining the percentage of fractured particles
in coarse aggregate. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM D 4791. 2010. Standard test method for flat particles, elongated particles, or flat and
elongated particles in coarse aggregate. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, West Conshohocken,
PA.
Barksdale, R.D., Pollard, C.O. Siegel, T. and Moeller, S. 1992. Evaluation of the Effect of
Aggregates on Rutting and Fatigue of Asphalt. Reserch Report, DOT Project 8812, GA Tech
E20-835, Georgia Institute of Technology, February 1992.
Barksdale, R. D., and Itani, S. Y.1994. Influence of Aggregate Shape on Base Behavior.
Transportation Research Record 1227. Transportation Research Board, National Research
Council, Washington, D.C. pp. 171-182.
Button, J. W., Perdomo, D., and Lytton, R. L. Influence of Aggregate on Rutting In Asphalt
Concrete Pavements. Transportation Research Record 1259. Transportation Research Board,
National Research Council, Washington D.C. pp. 141-152.
Chen, J.S., Lin, K.Y. and Chang, M.K. 2005. Influence of coarse aggregate shape on the
strength of asphalt concrete mixtures. Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation
Studies. Vol. 6, pp. 1062 - 1075
Collis, L. and Fox, R.A. 1985. Aggregates: Sand, Gravel & Crushed rock aggregates for
construction purposes. Geological Society of London. Engineering Geology Special Publication
No 1.
CSRA. 1998. Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Work for State Road Authorities.
South African Institution of Civil Engineers. South Africa.
7-2
DOT. 1987. Design and Use of Hot-Mix Asphalt in Pavements. Pretoria Department of
Transport. Technical Recommendations for Highways; Draft TRH 8, 1987.
Garboczi, E.J. 2002. Three-dimensional mathematical analysis of particle shape using X-ray
tomography and spherical harmonics: Application to aggregates used in concrete. Concrete and
Cement Research, Vol. 32, No. 10, pp. 1621-1638.
Hayakawa, Y. and Oguchi T (2005). Evaluation of gravel sphericity and roundness based on
surface-area measurement with a laser scanner. Journal of Computer and Geosciences, Vol
31(2005) pp. 735-741.
Kim, H., C.T. Haas, A.F. Rauch, and C. Browne. 2001. A Prototype Laser Scanner for
Characterizing Size and Shape Parameters in Aggregates. Proceedings of the 9th Annual
Symposium, International Center for Aggregates Research, Austin, TX.
Kim, H., C.T. Haas, A.F. Rauch, and C. Browne. 2002. Wavelet based Three-Dimensional
Descriptors of Aggregate Particles. Transportation Research Record 1787. Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC, pp. 109–116.
Krumbein, W. C. 1941. Measurement and geological significance of shape and roundness of

sedimentary particles. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 11(2) pp. 64-72.
Lin, C.L., and Miller, J.D. (2005), 3D Characterization and Analysis of Particle Shape Using X-
Ray Microtomography (XMT). Powder Technology 154, pp. 61-69.
Masad, E. 2003. The Development of a Computer Controlled Image Analysis System for
Measuring Aggregate Shape Properties. National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NCHRP-IDEA Project 77 Final Report. Transportation Research Board, National Research
Council, Washington, D.C.
Masad, E. 2004. Aggregate Imaging System (AIMS): Basics and applications. Pilot
Implementation of the Aggregate Imaging System. Report 5-1707-01-1. Texas Transportation
Institute.
7-3
Masad, E. and Button, J.W. 2000. Unified imaging approach for measuring aggregate angularity
and texture. International Journal of Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering –
Advanced Computer Technologies in Transportation Engineering, 15(4): 273-280.
Masad, E., Al-Rousan, T., Button, J., Little, D. and Tutumluer, E. 2007. Test Methods for
Characterizing Aggregate Shape, Texture, and Angularity. NCHRP REPORT 555. TRB,
Washington, D.C.
Masad, E., Olcott, D., White, T., and Tashman, L. 2001. Correlation of Imaging Shape Indices
of Fine Aggregate with Asphalt Mixture Performance. Transportation Research Record, No.
1757, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. pp. 148-156.
Masad, E., Saadeh, S., Al-Rousan, T., Garboczi, E. and Little, D. 2005. Computation of particle
surface characteistics using optical and X-ray CT images. Computational Materials Science
34(4) 406–424.
Prowell, B.D., Zhang, J. and Brown, E.R. 2005. Aggregate Properties and the Performance of
Surperpave Designed Hot Mix Asphalt. NCHRP Report Number 539. Transportation Research
Board.
Pan, T. 2006. Investigation of Coarse Aggregate Morphology Affecting Hot Mix Behavior
Using Image Analysis. PHD Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Pan, T., and Tutumluer, E. and Carpenter, H. 2005. Effect of Coarse Aggregate Morphology on
the Resilient Modulus of Hot Mix Asphalt. TRB 84th Annual Conference, Washington D.C,
USA, January 2005.
Pan, T., Tutumluer, E. and Anochie-Boateng, J. 2006. Aggregate Morphology Affecting

Resilient Behavior of Unbound Granular Materials. Transportation Research Record, No. 1952,
TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. pp. 12-20.
Pan, T., and Tutumluer, E. 2010. Imaging-based direct measurement of aggregate surface area
and its application in asphalt mixture design. International Journal of Pavement Engineering.
Volume 11, Issue 5, pp. 415-428
7-4
PAVEMENT INTERACTIVE. 2012. Coarse Aggregate Angularity. Pavement Tools
Consortium, (www.pavementinteractive.com), University of Washington, (accessed on 11 June
2012).
Rahal, K. 2007. Mechanical properties of concrete with recycled coarse aggregate. Journal of
Building and Environment. Vol 42 pp. 407–415.
Rao, C., Tutumluer, E., and Kim, I-T. 2002. Quantification of Coarse Aggregate Angularity
based on Image Analysis,” Transportation Research Record, No. 1787, TRB, National Research
Council, Washington, D.C. pp. 117-124.
Rao, C., Pan, T., and Tutumluer, E. 2003. Determination of Coarse Aggregate Surface Texture
Using Image Analysis,” Proceedings of the Pavement Mechanics Symposium at the 16th ASCE
Engineering Mechanics Division Conference, Seattle, Washington, July 16-18, 2003.
Rao, C., Tutumluer, E., and Stefanski, J. A. 2001. Coarse Aggregate Shape and Size Properties
Using a New Image Analyzer. ASTM Journal of Testing and Standard, Vol. 29, No. 5, pp. 79-
89.
Rao, C., Tutumluer, E., and Kim, I-T. 2002. Quantification of Coarse Aggregate Angularity
based on Image Analysis. Transportation Research Record (TRB), National Research Council,
No. 1787, Washington, D.C., pp. 117-124.
Rittenhouse, G. 1943. A visual method of estimating two dimensional sphericity. Journal of

Sedimentary Petrology, 13(2), pp. 79-81.
Saeed, A., Hall, J., and Barker, W. 2001. Performance-related tests of aggregates for use in
unbound pavement layers. NCHRP Report 453, TRB, National Research Council, Washington,
D.C.
SANS 3001-AG4. 2009. Determination of the flakiness index of coarse aggregates. SABS.
SBM. 2012. Effects of crusher operation on coarse aggregates shape. Downloadable from SBM
website:http://www.crusherasia.com/blog/effect-of-crusher-operation-on-coarse
aggregate-shape.html. Accessed on 26 July 2012.
7-5
Taute, A., Verhaeghe, BMJA and Visser, AT. 2001. Interim guidelines for the design of Hot-
Mix Asphalt in South Africa. Prepared as part of the Hot-Mix Asphalt Design Project. Pretoria.
South Africa.
TMH 1. Standard Methods for Road Construction Materials. 1986. DoT, Pretoria, South Africa.
TMH 5. Sampling Methods for Road construction Materials. 1981. CSRA, Pretoria, South
Africa.
TRH 21. Technical Recommendations for Highways. 2009. Hot mix recycled asphalt. SABITA,
South Africa.
Tutumluer, E and Pan, T 2008. Aggregate Morphology Affecting Strength and Permanent
Deformation Behavior of Unbound Aggregate Materials. Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering. Vol. 20, No. 9, pp. 617-627.
Tutumluer, E., Pan, T. and Carpenter S.H. 2003. Investigation of Aggregate Shape Effects on
Hot Mix Performance using image analysis approach. Final Project Report on the
Transportation Pooled Fund Study, TPF-5 (023). Civil Engineering Studies UILU-ENG-2005-
2003, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana.
Tutumluer, E., Rao, C., and Stefanski, J. A. 2000. Video Image Analysis of Aggregates. Final
Project Report, FHWA-IL-UI-278. Civil Engineering Studies UILU-ENG-2000-2015,
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana.
Wang, L. B., Frost, J. D., and Lai, J. S. 1998. Fourier morphological descriptors of aggregate
profiles. Proc., 2nd International Conference on Imaging Technologies, Davos, Switzerland, pp.
76-87.
Wang, L., Lane, D.S., Lu, Y. and Druta, C. 2008. Portable Image Analysis System For
Characterizing Aggregate Morphology. Report No. FHWA/VTRC 08-CR 11. Virginia
Transport Research Council.
7-6
Wang, L., X. Wang, L. Mohammad, and C. Abadie. 2005. Unified Method to Quantify
Aggregate Shape Angularity and Texture Using Fourier Analysis. Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, Vol.17, No. 5, pp. 498-504.
Yeggoni, M., Button J.W. and Zollinger D.G. 1994. Influence of Coarse Aggregates Shape and
Surface Texture on Rutting of Hot Mix Asphalt. Research Report 1244-6, Texas Transportation
Institute, Texas A&M University System, College Station, October 1994.
7-7
8 APPENDIX A: AGGREGATE SCAN RESULTS
19.0 mm Sieve
Particle Dimensions (mm) Centre of mass (mm) Surface area Volume
No. dL dI dS X Y Z (mm2) (mm3)
1 39.22 31.87 16.10 -0.42 2.89 13.52 2558.46 7851.52
2 31.35 22.42 19.87 -1.13 2.13 15.66 2146.07 6699.91
3 34.65 27.34 18.50 -0.71 0.84 15.47 2524.83 8805.80
4 35.88 24.43 23.02 -1.48 1.39 16.13 2476.04 8460.95
5 34.01 28.49 19.31 0.62 2.51 14.30 2512.79 8635.04
6 28.02 22.99 21.35 0.38 -0.32 15.95 2035.34 6866.36
7 32.84 22.00 21.17 -1.69 1.49 15.16 1986.29 6128.76
8 26.78 26.33 18.01 -1.36 -0.44 14.85 1880.01 6082.07
9 30.57 21.01 19.76 -2.19 1.04 15.74 1919.39 6102.64
10 24.92 22.39 19.97 -0.90 1.81 15.32 1701.03 5380.24
11 37.00 28.36 15.00 0.66 1.50 13.26 2406.86 7387.02
12 32.56 23.58 14.82 0.37 2.93 13.17 1918.29 5462.13
13 34.41 28.82 18.49 -0.30 2.13 13.93 2231.51 6486.52
14 47.06 29.42 17.29 0.45 0.08 14.59 3298.66 11197.21
15 34.51 25.32 17.23 1.43 0.05 14.30 2331.67 7483.74
16 31.80 30.99 14.39 2.93 -1.44 13.79 2087.39 5896.26
17 48.88 25.45 18.03 1.83 0.05 14.12 2975.01 9593.82
18 46.08 31.87 18.42 3.77 -0.93 14.11 3179.23 9820.76
19 60.25 32.62 21.95 -1.35 -2.22 15.20 3888.95 13142.29
20 52.56 30.31 21.73 -4.05 -1.17 15.71 3149.90 10292.09
21 41.45 27.16 14.34 -0.70 1.74 13.38 2491.10 6882.31
22 37.39 30.87 15.77 -0.35 1.47 13.32 2229.72 5972.80
23 42.18 32.10 13.59 1.64 1.50 13.11 2684.04 6691.75
24 41.44 26.37 12.08 0.43 2.01 12.07 2260.93 5714.88
25 44.97 30.28 9.86 -0.03 1.10 11.07 2641.25 5574.31
26 54.29 30.05 9.45 -1.68 1.82 11.19 2761.07 5458.15
27 44.64 26.68 8.57 -2.00 1.37 10.64 2278.43 4344.42
28 44.55 28.31 9.34 -2.12 2.59 11.04 2505.89 5066.99
29 42.92 30.25 8.80 0.62 1.76 10.69 2053.62 3090.84
30 37.62 33.57 8.99 1.78 2.97 10.36 1799.19 2569.85
8-1
13.2 mm Sieve
1 24.60 19.01 14.28 -0.86 0.29 13.29 1152.12 2836.57
2 29.56 21.32 17.94 -0.89 -0.71 14.02 1632.45 4329.93
3 23.16 22.27 18.38 0.46 1.14 13.96 1473.53 3965.38
4 23.37 19.10 17.98 3.87 1.80 14.87 1529.92 4151.22
5 23.39 20.95 16.95 1.82 -0.47 13.99 1380.64 3680.29
6 19.77 18.33 14.10 -2.40 -0.98 13.58 1066.58 2372.28
7 25.64 19.51 18.30 1.98 -0.16 15.15 1457.96 4019.48
8 25.02 21.07 17.92 -0.89 -2.74 13.69 1358.74 3016.46
9 22.05 18.05 12.96 -0.44 -0.45 12.41 1038.63 2333.14
10 20.72 20.41 15.04 -0.41 1.27 13.59 1214.91 2917.20
11 31.21 17.40 16.23 -0.75 -3.09 14.38 1508.34 3690.76
12 31.54 21.55 14.11 0.88 -0.76 13.30 1710.53 4472.12
13 31.08 20.65 18.50 1.47 -2.05 14.07 1665.41 4590.55
14 28.00 22.16 16.59 0.93 -2.05 14.33 1571.81 4133.94
15 28.40 22.87 14.36 -1.93 1.33 13.32 1392.40 3225.20
16 28.43 20.46 13.81 0.11 0.33 13.44 1390.17 3546.14
17 34.13 22.14 14.44 0.40 -1.11 12.83 1610.56 3848.36
18 27.36 22.91 8.81 0.98 -2.27 10.98 1181.18 2267.53
19 24.03 20.30 13.84 1.32 1.36 12.26 1232.06 1774.06
20 26.81 18.34 13.55 -2.59 0.80 12.46 1124.02 1397.28
21 32.25 21.89 16.78 3.36 2.94 13.30 1768.23 4789.89
22 48.12 24.52 12.72 2.16 1.90 12.78 2325.73 5892.25
23 39.48 26.88 10.65 0.18 1.26 11.39 1734.72 2884.92
24 40.69 17.43 13.53 0.28 -0.46 13.01 1600.52 3395.42
25 35.41 24.66 8.96 0.65 -1.01 10.60 1576.85 2445.39
26 41.26 22.29 9.65 3.01 2.02 10.76 1873.18 3223.28
27 41.05 27.95 11.04 3.15 0.38 11.08 1986.77 3365.83
28 30.91 26.82 8.38 1.44 0.39 10.57 1398.58 2337.58
29 39.41 25.55 8.03 -2.85 2.75 10.77 1527.55 2346.43
30 39.90 18.79 15.02 0.14 -2.22 14.56 1291.54 1714.43
8-2
9.5 mm Sieve
1 18.40 12.51 11.54 -0.62 -1.04 11.37 631.98 1108.50
2 17.03 12.22 9.85 -1.18 -1.29 11.04 547.66 864.75
3 17.53 14.94 12.03 0.41 0.89 11.35 668.12 1228.40
4 18.48 13.90 11.26 -1.55 -0.64 11.24 660.26 1152.04
5 17.03 14.54 10.28 -0.76 -0.40 10.89 624.39 1078.11
6 13.99 12.70 10.22 -1.42 -0.76 10.74 525.04 797.24
7 14.31 12.97 11.39 -0.51 -1.48 11.28 524.73 844.97
8 13.33 10.42 10.57 -1.36 -1.51 10.22 422.92 568.04
9 13.32 11.94 10.98 -0.34 -0.75 10.72 459.36 701.60
10 11.45 10.91 9.15 -1.01 -1.58 10.35 387.84 546.05
11 21.37 13.34 9.41 -1.54 0.26 10.19 658.22 974.04
12 21.67 14.87 9.29 -1.87 0.17 10.64 778.52 1152.21
13 22.32 11.19 9.81 -0.84 0.30 10.90 668.44 1045.57
14 19.17 10.48 9.16 -1.67 -0.63 10.25 566.84 828.12
15 20.67 14.72 8.60 -2.94 -0.24 10.22 753.40 1112.40
16 17.34 13.31 6.40 -0.12 -0.08 9.57 460.67 554.56
17 21.16 12.20 8.85 -2.37 -1.53 10.03 575.42 792.35
18 20.04 16.60 9.31 -1.05 -0.28 10.20 687.71 1040.16
19 22.82 13.30 8.61 0.00 -1.21 10.03 553.90 731.02
20 15.35 13.04 8.51 -1.31 -0.58 9.80 495.98 685.07
21 27.01 15.21 8.93 0.86 -1.03 10.30 793.87 1174.09
22 40.84 13.63 12.01 0.31 0.19 11.59 1356.92 2515.76
23 33.45 17.28 13.36 -1.91 0.87 12.03 1209.46 2097.23
24 36.51 16.76 10.31 -1.50 0.69 12.35 1386.06 2408.34
25 32.99 13.86 7.27 -2.26 -1.03 9.88 977.56 1173.92
26 32.11 16.43 6.81 -0.53 -1.62 9.84 943.59 1033.47
27 21.65 16.56 6.19 -0.49 0.04 9.07 625.00 635.34
28 26.86 15.99 5.40 -1.30 -0.38 9.28 774.43 806.69
29 21.61 17.07 5.69 0.75 -0.85 9.12 600.11 593.81
30 25.87 16.67 5.31 1.13 -0.28 9.19 735.06 742.82
8-3
6.7 mm Sieve
1 15.34 10.35 10.20 0.55 -0.74 10.20 371.97 439.09
2 13.62 8.16 8.87 -0.31 -0.63 10.07 349.27 438.98
3 16.07 8.66 8.46 -0.46 -0.89 10.21 410.98 582.85
4 14.07 10.98 8.90 -0.75 -1.12 9.95 377.77 473.98
5 13.30 9.66 9.95 -0.53 -0.82 10.82 384.86 562.76
6 13.31 9.91 7.84 -0.85 -0.08 9.66 345.12 443.52
7 15.07 12.38 9.09 -1.71 -0.67 10.23 405.11 539.75
8 13.33 11.33 8.50 -1.02 1.17 9.72 380.02 452.43
9 12.14 9.47 9.27 -0.52 -1.24 10.25 336.84 407.41
10 11.65 10.97 9.25 -0.29 -0.14 10.09 320.95 376.86
11 21.22 11.45 8.36 0.36 -1.50 10.17 550.55 750.12
12 16.63 8.42 9.96 -0.44 -1.35 10.73 454.39 638.46
13 18.59 10.00 9.31 -1.17 -0.79 9.83 445.85 529.04
14 16.49 9.23 8.88 -1.44 -1.79 10.15 403.89 454.89
15 15.17 11.65 7.64 -0.61 -0.61 9.85 413.14 542.75
16 13.38 10.31 6.87 -0.72 -0.74 9.17 329.72 375.56
17 17.60 11.53 6.74 -2.92 -1.33 9.48 463.63 569.40
18 17.70 10.41 8.31 -1.14 0.93 9.97 441.11 547.34
19 14.54 10.02 8.39 -0.18 -1.22 9.62 374.45 442.42
20 13.73 9.51 6.61 -0.66 -0.42 9.21 336.54 391.37
21 17.91 10.08 5.86 -2.11 -0.56 9.37 394.56 442.60
22 20.04 9.50 6.06 -2.07 -0.34 9.25 405.01 417.48
23 17.30 10.73 6.59 0.10 0.07 9.48 408.74 482.34
24 24.30 10.56 5.76 -2.79 -1.70 9.28 531.69 621.67
25 18.08 12.05 5.52 -1.28 -0.62 8.77 421.50 394.23
26 24.45 12.71 4.51 -1.88 0.25 8.75 532.43 532.99
27 16.47 12.15 4.09 -1.84 -0.35 8.55 372.63 325.47
28 22.49 10.49 4.48 -0.50 -0.20 8.83 454.97 419.39
29 24.81 11.06 4.79 -0.63 -1.04 8.80 449.67 364.49
30 20.15 13.82 5.14 -1.12 -0.52 8.30 406.14 284.26
8-4
4.75 mm Sieve
1 9.14 6.57 4.95 -1.25 -0.48 8.28 142.53 114.35
2 9.38 7.36 5.35 -0.67 0.26 8.47 164.37 147.97
3 10.51 6.90 6.25 -2.00 -1.45 8.85 190.02 179.90
4 10.55 6.77 6.30 -0.63 -0.27 8.69 192.55 186.92
5 9.31 8.25 6.39 -0.96 -0.65 8.75 187.34 167.94
6 11.46 6.80 6.44 0.29 -1.34 9.07 207.07 195.04
7 9.75 6.55 5.48 -0.25 -1.37 8.41 151.69 127.50
8 9.21 6.24 5.06 -1.02 -0.54 8.29 137.10 118.66
9 6.99 6.20 5.73 -1.83 -1.78 8.63 134.56 118.41
10 8.62 7.43 5.31 -0.91 -1.02 8.12 146.92 119.62
11 9.79 8.06 4.85 -1.22 -0.72 8.62 179.12 157.97
12 12.17 5.72 5.09 -0.75 -0.65 8.63 188.58 174.66
13 9.63 8.56 4.64 -0.55 -0.32 8.13 167.67 139.06
14 12.12 5.81 6.08 -1.08 -1.85 8.68 194.61 183.27
15 11.91 8.38 5.72 -0.88 -1.59 8.44 201.64 177.88
16 8.13 7.80 4.56 -0.05 -0.44 8.28 154.17 129.05
17 10.73 6.99 4.86 -1.23 -0.67 8.38 169.85 144.20
18 10.28 7.57 5.67 -1.76 -1.10 8.48 180.07 152.54
19 9.98 7.24 5.47 -1.06 -1.48 8.29 165.79 145.58
20 9.72 7.57 4.58 -0.34 -0.64 8.29 148.68 126.88
21 15.98 8.64 5.35 -0.79 -0.79 8.85 284.21 275.58
22 12.43 6.51 4.70 -0.47 -1.00 7.99 175.36 143.38
23 13.51 7.31 4.87 0.52 -0.28 8.17 195.24 158.70
24 13.32 7.72 3.59 0.86 -0.66 8.09 192.49 132.97
25 11.54 7.89 3.88 0.06 -0.61 8.14 209.91 178.31
26 14.58 9.32 3.57 -1.72 -0.75 8.02 220.70 151.73
27 11.67 8.64 3.60 -0.42 -0.66 7.87 173.79 106.63
28 9.79 6.79 2.69 0.02 -0.40 7.74 134.56 74.06
29 12.43 8.68 3.06 -0.58 -0.20 7.57 165.14 89.18
30 9.68 7.62 2.93 0.24 -0.30 7.68 125.12 71.61
8-5
Table 8.6: Scan results of 19.0 mm tillite aggregate particles.
19.0 mm Sieve
1 26.08 25.92 20.34 -0.18 6.11 14.39 2066.79 6236.26
2 37.40 23.83 22.36 -2.65 0.21 16.28 2381.20 7984.79
3 32.35 27.05 26.80 -2.66 0.68 17.28 2602.50 9311.47
4 30.85 31.49 24.29 -2.27 -0.66 16.40 2574.39 8477.45
5 35.05 26.55 19.83 -2.76 0.38 14.66 2369.71 7394.19
6 35.21 24.75 22.59 2.04 1.22 15.92 2375.31 7657.07
7 26.38 22.26 26.19 0.86 -3.08 17.54 1979.07 5901.57
8 30.85 28.47 19.16 1.39 -2.51 14.25 2130.70 6424.22
9 33.76 31.34 22.63 2.99 8.71 15.01 2744.17 9054.77
10 32.17 24.50 19.90 -2.62 3.88 16.79 2506.99 8665.44
11 43.72 26.43 16.73 -3.76 3.67 13.35 2362.08 6989.75
12 40.20 26.80 17.75 -2.24 3.37 13.65 2668.39 8069.15
13 43.83 29.52 19.36 -3.30 -4.02 15.44 2883.58 9359.49
14 41.87 31.24 19.44 -6.22 -4.05 14.11 2671.86 8267.28
15 45.55 23.69 18.95 -2.87 1.31 13.83 2482.45 6267.29
16 38.88 30.85 21.19 -4.89 1.75 15.38 2775.92 9429.88
17 46.80 23.89 19.09 -3.34 -1.28 15.48 2586.79 7885.93
18 39.15 23.16 22.38 -1.65 0.95 14.97 2354.85 7064.03
19 45.21 28.69 23.25 0.67 3.78 16.67 3494.42 13372.66
20 33.51 31.72 21.40 -2.18 3.86 14.88 2635.45 8387.53
21 52.70 27.81 19.14 1.05 4.48 14.77 3523.03 11776.59
22 50.59 30.36 17.45 1.37 0.80 14.14 3239.58 10172.97
23 53.69 19.08 19.24 -3.91 1.70 13.65 3057.57 8760.01
24 33.83 33.00 12.34 -2.89 1.00 12.34 2284.12 6113.86
25 43.34 37.89 10.71 0.66 8.76 11.81 2863.07 6669.61
26 41.72 30.80 12.04 -2.90 2.11 12.13 2528.58 6768.45
27 43.53 28.81 7.42 -1.58 0.12 10.34 2099.35 3941.07
28 34.17 28.53 11.47 -2.82 1.11 11.85 1834.02 4083.05
29 36.23 23.59 11.79 -3.11 0.61 12.25 1595.14 3435.61
30 30.62 30.01 8.30 1.15 0.67 10.55 1534.91 2561.37
8-6
13.2 mm Sieve
1 21.64 18.12 17.94 3.67 0.91 14.42 1365.15 3536.27
2 25.30 18.69 16.31 0.35 0.72 14.23 1356.04 3512.52
3 27.00 19.79 16.66 0.88 2.41 14.22 1339.96 3208.97
4 23.70 20.93 16.91 -2.20 1.05 13.23 1282.18 3079.80
5 28.55 21.33 13.10 2.69 1.85 12.95 1440.52 3376.91
6 24.90 18.51 16.54 -1.08 -0.09 12.85 1158.90 2664.09
7 23.32 16.88 16.63 -0.24 -0.77 13.43 1241.58 3038.62
8 21.92 21.79 15.68 1.56 2.62 13.04 1146.61 2525.22
9 28.64 21.87 14.78 1.68 1.79 12.91 1352.26 3123.83
10 24.26 20.12 14.22 0.98 1.37 12.63 1166.19 2715.52
11 33.17 21.13 14.13 1.61 -0.08 12.96 1352.17 3112.43
12 35.46 20.65 15.95 3.08 3.02 13.68 1706.12 4314.91
13 31.63 25.08 12.99 -2.41 -0.13 12.47 1513.59 3569.02
14 31.65 27.77 11.54 1.52 0.17 11.91 1625.07 3564.98
15 30.64 20.40 10.69 -0.95 -2.05 11.72 1278.22 2753.38
16 28.43 21.37 10.74 -3.67 0.14 12.15 1344.35 3156.08
17 23.85 21.71 10.38 -0.57 2.48 11.36 1101.43 2252.56
18 29.98 23.79 9.00 1.25 0.02 11.17 1360.99 2974.52
19 27.66 16.49 10.93 -1.19 -0.63 14.25 1107.84 2275.41
20 25.18 16.92 11.81 0.43 1.42 11.08 983.10 1731.19
21 40.30 23.48 12.39 -0.57 -1.61 11.62 1931.41 4106.41
22 33.54 22.01 10.59 0.33 1.63 11.56 1513.17 3163.50
23 29.76 17.89 10.96 0.91 -0.96 11.41 1166.03 2310.51
24 33.03 25.33 10.82 -1.41 -3.48 11.69 1576.85 3280.61
25 42.96 28.08 9.96 -2.03 -1.10 10.68 1697.42 3083.75
26 21.04 20.00 6.39 -1.56 0.88 9.66 793.24 1114.79
27 32.09 23.71 9.11 -1.29 -1.41 11.29 1415.79 2838.92
28 29.73 22.60 8.86 -0.03 -1.86 11.21 1135.80 1915.50
29 28.60 25.83 5.37 -2.61 1.07 9.25 1240.92 1651.08
30 24.72 21.66 8.50 -0.18 0.62 10.74 1077.20 1875.45
8-7
9.5 mm Sieve
1 12.89 11.77 11.56 0.98 0.48 11.40 507.82 733.91
2 17.64 12.03 10.42 -1.29 -0.38 10.74 533.28 804.37
3 19.47 13.05 12.31 -0.21 -0.33 11.70 712.55 1258.79
4 14.15 11.09 8.76 1.39 1.56 10.56 411.62 583.20
5 13.98 11.86 8.73 -1.69 0.45 10.46 427.63 676.73
6 13.54 11.77 8.79 -0.16 -0.98 10.59 407.65 540.63
7 14.48 12.47 10.48 -0.53 -0.96 10.92 473.30 680.43
8 11.78 11.12 9.69 -0.47 -1.19 10.79 416.46 599.96
9 12.25 10.50 9.85 -1.08 -0.48 10.64 422.09 617.26
10 11.17 10.85 9.48 -1.17 -1.30 10.58 372.08 502.73
11 19.59 12.92 9.11 -1.27 -0.48 10.84 550.69 802.27
12 15.51 13.08 6.82 0.26 0.73 9.81 452.30 621.58
13 15.74 12.75 7.50 0.78 -0.37 9.78 456.63 633.47
14 17.34 15.36 9.45 0.95 -0.41 10.49 566.93 870.04
15 18.68 13.45 9.29 0.22 -0.26 10.61 510.52 760.04
16 15.15 14.86 7.76 -1.05 -1.82 10.24 497.71 714.77
17 13.60 13.02 7.26 -0.21 -0.01 10.08 415.67 547.77
18 16.90 12.79 7.42 -1.58 -0.54 10.18 452.81 637.66
19 15.49 12.24 7.58 -2.55 -1.26 9.73 406.35 494.90
20 14.81 12.34 8.72 0.29 0.40 10.37 437.40 622.32
21 19.79 12.15 7.02 -1.00 -1.59 10.12 530.25 758.87
22 25.61 13.72 6.65 -2.59 -2.62 9.76 666.34 926.63
23 20.57 18.65 7.28 -0.25 -0.05 9.88 670.86 1008.51
24 19.17 13.05 6.81 -0.80 -0.42 9.32 482.10 597.15
25 16.29 15.08 3.89 -1.04 0.02 8.78 427.86 378.15
26 25.78 15.50 6.15 1.46 -0.92 10.22 730.13 958.84
27 20.00 16.40 5.51 0.04 -1.02 9.18 571.14 625.27
28 25.09 14.45 4.32 -0.23 0.71 8.76 541.22 487.16
29 22.49 15.82 5.64 -1.77 -0.93 9.30 649.06 692.70
30 26.68 16.81 3.61 -0.55 0.20 8.74 582.89 521.69
8-8
6.7 mm Sieve
1 12.52 8.25 6.92 -1.34 -0.18 9.81 254.57 276.70
2 13.03 10.79 8.91 -0.78 -0.68 10.92 393.72 543.15
3 13.78 10.15 8.13 -1.03 -1.51 9.92 381.13 507.98
4 11.77 9.77 8.67 -1.75 -1.66 10.00 313.80 401.46
5 12.10 10.34 7.35 -1.23 -1.82 9.34 272.35 295.63
6 10.56 11.21 7.42 -0.79 -1.07 9.78 301.16 373.46
7 10.05 9.76 7.06 -0.42 -1.20 9.90 283.95 353.98
8 13.98 9.54 7.62 -0.47 -0.49 9.82 325.64 398.30
9 10.26 10.01 7.22 -1.43 -2.00 9.45 248.79 264.25
10 9.42 8.26 6.65 -1.07 -0.74 9.43 209.02 207.70
11 15.84 9.31 6.67 -1.05 -0.50 9.53 336.75 420.06
12 13.63 10.94 7.06 -0.36 -0.33 9.56 349.46 446.03
13 13.17 7.89 8.94 0.05 -0.79 9.93 312.28 390.35
14 13.71 11.15 6.44 -0.52 0.14 9.40 354.87 461.86
15 12.42 8.76 8.37 -1.83 -2.09 9.70 300.00 341.62
16 13.46 11.78 7.19 0.54 0.20 9.23 339.44 401.16
17 12.01 11.28 6.14 0.26 -0.07 8.95 280.17 301.60
18 13.99 10.19 7.37 0.52 0.66 9.75 297.73 349.89
19 12.46 8.78 5.96 -1.56 -1.43 9.16 258.22 270.43
20 11.57 9.00 6.14 -2.24 -0.78 9.17 248.68 279.27
21 12.98 9.20 4.08 -0.43 -1.17 8.41 232.27 185.20
22 11.46 8.73 3.78 -1.75 -1.16 8.52 204.03 166.04
23 13.62 8.86 4.09 -1.12 -0.60 8.67 233.20 206.23
24 13.12 10.87 3.78 -0.87 -0.43 8.44 264.86 249.95
25 13.40 11.24 3.56 -0.85 0.17 8.24 250.14 197.63
26 18.63 12.14 3.10 -0.55 -0.74 8.26 391.93 303.37
27 17.54 12.00 4.07 0.51 0.12 8.41 365.31 267.21
28 19.01 12.88 3.08 -0.79 -1.93 8.37 363.45 288.18
29 13.64 11.56 3.35 -0.11 0.74 8.03 279.64 195.64
30 14.30 9.17 2.64 0.59 -0.14 7.87 229.54 158.35
8-9
4.75 mm Sieve
1 11.22 6.05 6.07 -1.56 -0.95 9.07 200.13 185.07
2 9.29 6.48 6.26 -0.45 -0.33 9.17 198.16 176.28
3 9.22 7.44 5.64 -0.86 -1.03 9.11 156.32 132.70
4 10.56 7.04 7.21 -0.08 -0.12 8.99 187.90 177.36
5 10.15 6.48 6.62 -0.84 -1.79 9.12 160.81 128.75
6 9.38 5.27 5.35 -1.92 -1.95 8.91 150.83 120.69
7 7.94 5.42 6.10 -1.86 -1.19 9.17 148.58 138.64
8 7.10 6.47 4.91 0.28 -1.43 8.23 116.57 85.77
9 7.26 6.15 5.12 -1.49 -1.83 8.60 113.80 83.50
10 7.82 4.85 5.81 -0.89 -1.43 8.81 122.70 94.39
11 11.72 8.75 5.36 -0.10 -0.75 8.78 218.57 209.05
12 10.85 6.26 5.39 -1.90 -1.52 9.12 176.34 153.33
13 10.54 8.29 5.05 -0.61 -0.05 8.71 190.65 175.08
14 10.77 9.18 4.30 -0.14 -0.60 8.46 203.03 185.62
15 10.39 8.18 5.14 0.06 -0.78 8.54 185.54 175.87
16 10.02 6.45 5.13 -2.14 -2.74 8.90 143.41 113.72
17 10.37 6.39 4.88 -0.77 -1.43 9.10 158.32 135.66
18 10.45 7.08 5.23 -0.18 -0.71 8.46 151.60 116.69
19 9.00 7.81 5.29 -1.01 -1.61 8.72 163.11 153.90
20 9.09 5.16 5.68 -1.37 -1.93 8.88 143.11 118.66
21 9.53 8.86 3.24 -0.95 0.19 8.06 171.75 128.30
22 10.95 9.26 3.92 -1.37 -0.64 8.40 171.91 135.16
23 11.74 7.50 4.18 -1.32 -0.57 8.08 184.19 142.49
24 9.58 6.15 3.64 -0.94 -0.97 8.14 134.66 95.10
25 10.97 6.78 3.21 -1.47 -1.29 8.16 156.42 110.35
26 14.26 6.77 3.36 -2.04 -1.15 7.92 159.76 92.52
27 12.91 9.07 2.12 -1.51 -1.22 7.83 180.01 97.45
28 12.72 7.80 1.90 0.70 -0.51 7.73 157.25 47.75
29 10.72 9.01 2.34 -0.89 -0.42 7.62 143.44 62.92
30 8.97 8.28 2.38 -1.24 -0.48 7.57 123.19 67.81
8-10
Table 8.11: Scan results of 19.0 mm quartzite aggregate particles.
19.0 mm Sieve
1 32.43 21.58 18.23 0.18 -1.21 15.52 1952.69 5721.34
2 30.54 21.21 19.63 -1.43 -1.60 15.33 1708.10 4956.89
3 24.45 19.18 16.20 -1.41 0.17 13.60 1369.81 3609.96
4 25.83 23.90 17.00 0.40 0.70 13.40 1573.32 4059.83
5 28.40 25.90 16.83 3.87 1.46 14.75 2052.22 6348.66
6 29.41 24.59 20.80 -1.61 1.87 15.60 2013.06 5919.91
7 28.73 22.19 14.30 0.24 -0.56 13.84 1556.73 3935.11
8 25.84 20.45 15.53 -2.20 -1.23 13.79 1357.63 3369.23
9 27.62 26.59 19.04 0.37 -1.49 14.08 1758.02 4574.39
10 21.62 23.70 18.05 -1.40 2.44 13.67 1413.72 3509.64
11 38.05 25.54 18.26 -3.19 2.30 14.56 2251.80 6751.89
12 30.51 21.66 15.35 -0.32 5.07 13.49 1810.88 4717.01
13 46.20 27.56 16.18 3.82 -1.12 14.57 2207.33 5880.68
14 28.80 26.06 12.92 1.75 1.76 12.69 1772.65 4436.08
15 30.81 20.83 15.81 -3.35 -2.74 12.96 1593.87 4018.88
16 37.70 19.93 14.24 -1.40 -1.81 13.16 1568.37 3879.34
17 31.12 26.26 13.49 -0.68 3.21 11.76 1755.27 3998.05
18 27.94 30.97 13.97 -0.63 2.76 12.42 1671.88 3970.35
19 34.05 18.54 17.49 -2.21 1.10 14.21 1539.50 3990.70
20 32.43 24.86 15.43 -1.98 -1.32 13.62 1750.26 4739.69
21 41.56 21.24 12.15 1.44 -0.29 12.49 1967.35 4915.77
22 45.49 19.93 10.95 2.86 0.73 10.73 1664.52 3107.04
23 31.82 25.77 11.37 2.76 -0.34 12.56 1965.07 5043.12
24 28.86 31.98 6.99 -0.78 0.23 9.94 1375.37 2258.07
25 30.73 26.74 10.48 1.45 -1.09 11.64 1526.33 3154.55
26 51.39 27.06 14.12 -3.23 0.32 11.45 2341.87 4971.60
27 37.45 21.42 8.21 -1.03 0.30 11.02 1628.78 3228.28
28 38.09 25.01 8.34 -0.07 -1.46 10.67 1741.07 3054.96
29 35.99 23.26 5.86 2.05 -2.05 4.50 1366.46 1652.47
30 51.90 24.22 14.24 0.35 -1.59 11.56 2377.65 5074.65
8-11
13.2 mm Sieve
1 22.05 15.16 14.14 -1.66 0.24 13.07 999.93 1962.61
2 27.94 20.76 12.62 1.38 1.37 12.30 1173.03 2551.86
3 22.40 17.29 15.41 -0.71 -0.86 13.18 1102.30 2343.34
4 24.23 18.95 17.09 -2.58 -0.34 12.53 1160.25 2593.45
5 18.66 18.09 13.34 -1.59 0.76 11.82 887.10 1670.51
6 15.30 15.16 12.65 -1.01 -1.47 12.02 720.79 1335.06
7 20.63 18.92 12.34 1.22 0.46 11.78 1005.58 2077.74
8 19.44 18.30 13.34 -1.63 0.96 12.48 962.15 1997.81
9 22.81 20.10 15.03 2.17 1.24 12.28 1107.83 2342.39
10 19.35 15.42 11.20 -1.63 0.02 11.13 796.96 1420.98
11 23.73 15.50 8.63 1.32 -0.08 10.71 703.20 1057.01
12 27.18 20.89 12.55 0.99 0.98 11.47 1184.81 2432.20
13 29.00 15.33 13.35 -0.66 -0.34 12.43 1103.29 2375.55
14 27.68 18.64 11.86 -1.10 -2.53 11.64 1243.34 2760.56
15 27.70 17.82 10.61 0.59 -1.07 11.48 1033.67 2009.41
16 29.06 14.12 11.47 0.64 -0.28 12.44 997.72 1885.08
17 24.80 15.95 13.10 1.10 -0.24 12.36 814.19 1462.07
18 21.59 19.16 11.57 0.35 1.06 11.27 838.06 1486.63
19 23.54 17.57 10.09 -1.98 2.71 11.04 824.10 1348.53
20 20.69 19.28 11.15 0.25 1.94 11.53 848.96 1532.06
21 27.89 18.45 7.59 2.77 0.01 9.71 853.65 1112.93
22 23.59 22.12 12.96 1.21 -8.38 12.39 1091.67 1813.50
23 23.70 18.14 8.12 1.45 0.77 9.96 782.99 1135.55
24 25.36 18.98 7.11 2.82 -0.02 10.03 833.41 1116.67
25 25.46 17.04 6.96 -1.43 -1.37 10.01 911.86 1368.46
26 21.61 18.84 7.53 -2.28 2.27 9.56 745.31 1059.24
27 23.55 16.80 5.91 -0.80 -1.64 9.56 658.15 804.31
28 22.41 20.72 6.60 -0.01 -1.21 9.96 857.91 1333.38
29 28.82 18.34 4.58 -1.01 0.82 9.25 778.50 944.56
30 19.63 16.49 4.63 -4.24 -0.58 8.93 569.77 464.30
8-12
9.5 mm Sieve
1 18.32 16.75 13.14 1.75 -0.76 11.25 688.47 1128.69
2 17.85 12.97 14.93 -1.22 -0.41 12.25 743.30 1378.19
3 17.81 14.11 9.71 -2.39 0.68 10.64 578.98 937.95
4 13.43 11.58 10.36 -0.54 -1.37 11.05 550.42 826.97
5 17.62 13.45 10.26 -0.94 -1.77 10.52 578.62 872.96
6 17.73 14.96 10.05 -0.13 -2.49 10.66 586.45 915.77
7 19.61 11.47 10.37 0.74 -2.49 10.78 623.01 1046.45
8 18.54 13.10 13.03 -3.26 -2.42 12.52 653.20 1160.40
9 16.39 13.90 7.71 -0.45 0.17 9.74 461.53 663.82
10 14.60 12.20 9.28 1.21 -0.67 10.12 570.78 697.20
11 25.99 14.46 11.50 -1.09 -1.22 11.91 843.47 1484.56
12 27.12 10.13 9.93 -2.38 -1.69 11.05 710.00 1123.71
13 23.89 12.83 9.46 0.05 -1.78 10.79 670.80 984.52
14 26.62 12.11 11.54 0.22 -0.53 11.20 889.49 1485.21
15 21.97 14.40 7.52 -2.35 -0.72 10.04 652.63 987.17
16 25.13 13.65 9.65 -1.52 -1.36 11.40 863.92 1488.14
17 19.29 14.24 7.90 0.05 -0.18 10.03 590.08 883.07
18 23.96 11.48 11.50 -1.13 -2.92 11.24 689.84 948.65
19 22.86 11.91 11.37 -2.62 -1.58 11.32 661.39 1058.89
20 21.07 14.22 7.19 -1.54 -1.77 9.92 541.63 743.70
21 27.75 12.05 6.78 0.49 -0.68 9.72 644.20 743.83
22 24.80 13.48 6.03 -1.55 -0.40 9.36 525.88 650.74
23 23.20 9.86 7.23 -1.40 -1.25 9.13 446.78 424.04
24 24.50 15.82 6.45 -1.90 -0.98 9.49 650.83 696.38
25 21.25 14.93 7.93 -1.73 -2.74 9.49 508.76 538.73
26 22.72 12.34 4.66 -2.07 -1.27 9.15 481.18 510.10
27 35.79 16.73 6.76 3.38 -3.38 9.93 992.03 1208.24
28 24.92 13.19 4.89 -0.61 -1.14 9.37 575.64 536.73
29 17.04 12.68 3.82 -0.83 -0.75 8.53 390.72 353.98
30 21.90 14.46 4.77 -0.63 -1.07 8.96 458.93 516.94
8-13
6.7 mm Sieve
1 14.81 9.49 9.27 -1.17 -1.53 11.02 410.39 545.62
2 11.22 10.11 9.24 -1.34 -1.02 10.32 341.36 412.31
3 13.07 8.70 6.66 -1.62 -1.01 10.15 304.13 357.18
4 10.47 7.20 6.86 -1.18 -3.18 10.32 247.23 269.04
5 12.50 7.25 7.87 -1.07 -1.72 10.21 266.07 298.43
6 10.07 10.53 8.22 -2.45 -2.21 10.22 271.40 302.37
7 13.41 11.17 6.89 -1.38 -0.37 9.55 326.62 384.96
8 9.97 9.99 7.13 -1.19 -1.19 9.67 249.34 272.07
9 11.06 9.44 7.26 -0.91 -1.45 9.75 252.63 261.35
10 12.17 9.02 8.41 -1.72 -0.92 9.68 276.63 333.07
11 18.04 9.78 7.10 -1.71 -1.79 10.20 424.92 551.67
12 16.49 8.81 5.88 -1.45 -1.76 9.41 314.56 300.11
13 17.08 8.17 7.46 -1.12 -1.92 10.25 448.24 554.04
14 17.17 11.22 5.93 0.08 -1.31 9.72 436.18 558.40
15 18.11 10.20 6.78 -0.13 -1.57 9.75 423.97 459.62
16 13.76 8.99 5.60 1.59 0.26 9.34 323.00 352.90
17 19.97 10.85 7.89 -1.15 -0.41 10.54 448.37 590.68
18 13.99 9.82 7.49 -1.98 -0.72 9.86 324.72 374.25
19 16.00 11.24 6.25 0.18 -0.12 9.27 371.92 431.40
20 14.44 10.30 7.86 -0.12 0.08 9.25 293.37 292.10
21 21.90 8.82 6.62 -0.96 -0.97 9.67 434.34 461.02
22 25.76 10.27 9.98 -0.41 -0.61 10.08 628.76 824.38
23 18.77 10.70 6.62 -0.80 -2.01 9.44 413.98 430.39
24 13.37 9.90 5.39 0.78 -1.13 9.04 300.31 313.11
25 17.91 7.43 4.86 -0.33 -1.22 9.05 282.95 261.02
26 23.60 10.65 4.58 -3.23 -1.12 8.85 488.24 435.07
27 16.60 11.76 3.66 -0.71 -1.41 8.76 334.93 297.81
28 24.12 9.92 4.23 0.23 -1.43 8.97 474.21 465.08
29 24.09 10.02 4.31 0.29 -1.41 8.97 479.70 467.45
30 18.05 11.30 4.20 -1.00 -0.54 8.88 345.25 301.42
8-14
4.75 mm Sieve
1 9.39 5.37 4.86 -0.32 -1.25 8.60 107.26 86.14
2 11.43 7.05 5.79 -1.92 -1.02 9.53 206.58 176.24
3 7.95 5.71 4.25 -0.50 -1.02 8.51 113.82 84.77
4 8.27 6.61 6.04 0.52 -0.04 9.05 157.48 148.15
5 8.56 6.66 3.39 -0.18 -0.27 8.20 123.36 88.28
6 9.80 7.03 3.96 -0.78 -1.40 8.56 140.08 105.45
7 11.41 6.59 5.47 -1.05 -1.06 8.88 168.11 149.05
8 9.69 6.57 5.31 -1.85 -0.60 8.56 126.58 79.09
9 10.24 6.41 4.80 0.06 -1.04 8.70 141.22 110.40
10 6.91 5.17 5.36 0.12 -1.62 8.94 105.96 75.72
11 10.55 6.31 4.90 -1.65 -2.17 8.73 166.88 143.05
12 10.33 6.47 4.40 -0.40 -1.55 8.44 142.72 106.01
13 10.95 6.33 4.06 0.23 -1.50 8.32 151.98 119.15
14 9.89 6.30 4.37 -0.95 -1.26 8.45 139.72 106.42
15 10.83 6.08 3.98 -1.04 -1.53 8.45 148.87 112.78
16 9.87 7.23 4.46 0.04 -0.88 8.32 156.71 124.20
17 8.86 7.26 4.22 -1.03 -0.47 8.53 139.17 108.19
18 9.94 7.67 4.42 -0.72 -0.33 8.51 149.27 120.42
19 6.78 5.14 5.65 0.10 -1.64 8.92 106.97 76.71
20 10.67 6.67 4.37 -0.10 -0.83 8.43 156.15 119.63
21 11.06 5.19 3.57 -0.64 -1.56 8.28 122.19 76.04
22 12.27 5.68 4.96 -0.89 -1.58 8.38 146.17 99.10
23 10.56 6.24 3.79 0.28 -1.08 8.45 122.89 83.65
24 13.69 8.43 3.96 -1.37 -1.84 8.67 190.82 121.82
25 10.83 7.82 3.30 -1.88 -1.57 8.11 156.54 112.34
26 11.81 8.56 3.28 -0.95 -0.89 8.30 208.43 150.89
27 10.70 8.01 2.47 -0.70 -1.40 8.02 155.96 90.68
28 10.62 8.90 2.84 -0.04 -0.44 7.76 142.24 80.13
29 12.80 6.77 2.37 -1.02 -1.69 7.85 133.85 72.35
30 10.82 7.10 2.33 -0.64 -1.01 7.79 127.46 61.56
8-15
Table 8.16: Scan results of 19.0 mm hornfels aggregate particles.
19.0 mm Sieve
1 34.42 26.47 20.16 -1.68 -1.78 15.95 2361.07 7366.15
2 36.61 25.71 25.63 -0.31 3.28 16.75 2961.45 10911.61
3 27.53 25.59 20.77 -1.67 3.20 15.35 2160.33 6907.56
4 32.80 24.34 21.27 -0.67 2.82 15.70 2399.31 8533.14
5 28.46 26.70 22.58 -0.97 1.06 16.96 2452.79 8377.62
6 32.29 21.69 21.99 -1.89 2.58 15.74 2205.67 7163.70
7 32.63 22.50 21.53 -0.67 3.75 16.55 2216.69 7167.36
8 32.61 25.72 18.26 -2.11 1.09 14.65 1934.98 5739.01
9 27.89 20.42 19.19 -0.96 -0.33 15.66 1852.47 5799.32
10 32.57 22.89 20.59 -1.93 0.18 15.08 1842.78 5355.91
11 41.67 26.48 14.69 2.06 0.23 13.42 2376.51 7053.64
12 31.44 25.38 15.65 -0.21 0.85 13.08 1752.01 4413.38
13 34.12 23.19 16.37 -0.54 0.79 14.33 1876.43 5699.14
14 31.65 30.22 16.85 -2.78 1.34 14.30 2108.41 5877.84
15 36.52 27.57 14.93 -0.88 2.56 13.26 2320.20 7178.03
16 31.96 29.14 12.15 -2.51 0.45 12.84 2047.09 5418.16
17 37.96 25.85 15.19 -2.53 -0.51 12.49 2201.05 5738.70
18 28.31 24.90 16.05 -1.74 0.95 13.57 1768.27 4964.47
19 37.51 20.63 14.91 -6.31 -0.52 13.68 2029.75 5459.47
20 34.63 25.11 21.20 0.51 0.35 13.56 1923.11 4901.15
21 41.75 28.80 9.51 -3.51 4.38 10.63 2156.32 4583.07
22 31.91 24.86 11.19 2.12 4.02 12.07 1585.82 3100.99
23 33.92 30.03 8.52 -1.14 2.93 10.27 1837.37 3204.35
24 35.24 27.69 9.27 0.66 1.42 11.36 1674.09 3139.90
25 36.67 29.95 9.75 -1.22 2.24 11.53 2134.17 4502.05
26 39.50 35.46 11.53 2.12 1.87 10.79 2594.84 5003.91
27 40.52 26.75 8.87 -0.07 1.54 11.04 2064.45 4184.10
28 34.43 25.99 6.75 4.32 1.70 10.04 1764.17 2987.29
29 36.24 33.04 8.82 -3.85 0.22 11.39 1969.05 3673.69
30 34.42 26.47 20.16 -1.68 -1.78 15.95 2361.07 7366.15
8-16
13.2 mm Sieve
1 19.07 18.58 13.84 -0.57 -1.41 13.36 1088.03 2365.69
2 24.36 16.65 12.02 -0.79 0.09 11.56 954.37 1957.09
3 23.50 19.07 14.39 -1.64 0.26 12.39 1153.49 2590.40
4 19.41 18.67 11.23 -1.06 -1.61 11.60 899.00 1874.70
5 25.92 18.26 12.56 0.47 -2.21 11.62 1009.62 1876.39
6 17.84 15.19 11.60 -1.08 0.72 11.80 758.00 1466.90
7 20.99 16.93 13.17 0.30 1.01 12.58 937.27 2145.12
8 17.56 18.18 14.82 0.83 0.31 13.05 953.25 2184.51
9 22.76 18.77 15.43 0.74 -0.36 12.98 1244.96 2938.70
10 25.30 20.46 15.46 2.04 -1.17 13.28 1334.37 3346.82
11 29.49 23.42 15.50 0.07 0.74 12.54 1526.18 3578.30
12 26.15 24.10 12.21 0.71 0.57 11.94 1245.62 2621.02
13 21.76 17.24 12.90 -0.01 -0.54 12.19 1056.96 2168.67
14 23.42 21.51 10.41 0.22 1.24 10.37 1064.78 1937.46
15 24.59 19.00 11.79 1.48 1.14 11.89 1010.81 2212.84
16 26.26 18.61 12.58 -2.06 0.01 12.02 1017.62 2165.97
17 22.88 18.92 8.80 0.43 0.39 10.43 805.31 1368.54
18 25.77 23.43 8.47 0.59 1.24 10.61 1072.59 1969.15
19 27.45 17.35 8.14 -0.91 -0.32 10.48 892.40 1546.66
20 23.06 18.76 6.69 0.74 0.49 10.28 800.45 1205.66
21 30.64 19.71 9.95 -1.66 0.64 11.04 1231.88 2092.88
22 26.44 18.97 9.65 -0.07 0.15 10.67 823.19 1198.89
23 32.93 19.39 7.65 1.33 -2.03 9.84 1104.49 1568.47
24 30.29 22.60 8.84 -1.08 0.66 9.62 1096.96 1414.02
25 19.62 18.53 7.87 -0.29 0.90 9.94 773.00 1017.77
26 29.45 18.25 6.00 1.59 -0.26 9.86 900.43 1257.03
27 26.69 19.42 8.97 -1.73 -0.63 9.93 866.15 1142.29
28 31.28 23.37 6.40 0.29 1.07 9.16 1257.97 1605.86
29 26.10 20.13 4.98 -0.31 1.21 8.92 822.54 810.63
30 31.77 23.33 6.53 0.63 1.25 9.23 1059.05 1301.74
8-17
9.5 mm Sieve
1 19.73 15.04 10.73 -1.95 -0.76 11.46 664.82 1144.79
2 16.93 13.44 10.36 -0.83 0.19 10.75 522.78 832.22
3 15.73 14.28 9.12 -1.12 0.83 10.73 515.80 720.42
4 15.41 11.81 8.55 -0.81 -2.17 10.52 431.21 643.52
5 17.08 12.12 10.03 -0.82 -0.57 10.67 503.65 744.51
6 16.79 14.43 10.48 -1.31 0.73 10.45 557.22 811.36
7 20.33 11.62 9.68 -0.90 -0.79 10.58 532.19 828.08
8 15.52 12.03 9.84 -0.84 0.18 10.71 478.65 631.57
9 19.18 12.21 11.29 -0.65 -0.11 10.79 636.11 940.06
10 14.36 11.73 8.61 -1.84 -0.42 10.20 425.99 605.70
11 23.60 10.74 9.30 -1.90 0.28 11.16 676.57 1118.66
12 19.66 12.27 7.21 -3.42 -2.15 9.71 532.79 719.80
13 19.25 14.92 9.22 -0.74 -0.76 10.65 627.92 1006.51
14 23.21 12.10 9.24 -0.71 -0.41 10.35 652.96 972.89
15 19.28 14.70 8.69 -3.33 -2.78 11.04 563.97 763.01
16 19.81 14.34 8.24 0.03 0.70 10.08 569.43 826.84
17 17.11 12.76 7.96 0.97 0.77 10.51 572.24 897.72
18 18.71 11.71 10.04 -0.66 -2.25 10.32 570.32 805.25
19 18.27 12.63 11.45 -1.12 -1.03 10.59 562.64 857.45
20 18.51 13.10 10.53 -2.18 -0.98 11.35 579.06 896.71
21 22.57 14.01 8.92 -1.38 0.29 10.41 720.66 1118.04
22 24.31 16.37 7.61 -2.38 -1.05 10.44 796.54 1324.35
23 22.98 13.38 6.57 -0.59 -1.05 9.82 562.86 689.63
24 24.22 11.08 6.81 -0.95 -1.81 10.08 590.30 802.59
25 17.62 15.78 6.40 1.24 -0.07 9.63 544.55 683.40
26 23.39 15.53 4.83 1.77 -0.33 8.97 623.85 561.70
27 21.30 12.61 4.43 -0.57 -2.16 8.78 492.26 447.15
28 23.72 13.25 5.15 2.09 -0.01 8.82 571.73 520.77
29 18.43 15.05 5.24 2.49 -0.78 8.65 446.92 326.37
30 14.45 13.69 3.09 -0.35 0.59 8.16 344.81 224.87
8-18
6.7 mm Sieve
1 10.67 8.40 5.93 -1.40 -1.53 9.43 223.79 214.33
2 12.14 8.02 7.92 0.14 -0.44 10.64 339.62 420.20
3 14.50 10.36 7.84 -1.28 -1.41 9.81 340.07 404.23
4 16.63 10.71 8.58 -0.22 -0.88 10.01 387.11 501.14
5 11.78 9.21 8.68 -2.01 -1.06 10.64 335.37 462.22
6 12.52 9.83 7.01 -3.04 -1.40 10.24 327.55 415.30
7 10.31 9.35 5.55 -1.43 -1.04 8.96 231.18 226.77
8 11.15 6.84 7.84 -1.50 -1.74 9.83 244.53 227.63
9 11.66 8.78 7.90 -1.28 -0.64 9.67 263.12 317.70
10 10.61 10.04 6.64 -0.71 -0.48 9.02 219.50 199.76
11 14.83 9.03 7.29 -0.74 -0.26 10.37 396.26 544.08
12 11.53 6.01 6.66 -0.50 -0.75 9.90 243.82 270.40
13 13.37 11.26 6.61 -2.26 -0.32 9.79 360.11 435.22
14 16.62 7.95 6.27 0.32 -0.86 9.66 328.71 376.16
15 10.84 9.84 6.11 -1.67 -0.88 9.22 251.18 253.95
16 13.21 8.81 6.16 -1.30 -0.36 9.28 250.15 245.39
17 13.40 10.64 6.25 -1.27 -0.87 9.46 295.73 365.63
18 13.96 10.04 5.41 -1.78 -0.30 9.06 285.29 289.65
19 14.86 10.48 5.16 -0.97 -0.39 9.34 296.62 315.74
20 12.96 8.71 5.89 -1.42 -0.25 9.10 238.03 247.67
21 13.72 11.81 5.16 -1.93 0.33 8.92 307.01 299.26
22 13.30 7.86 4.23 -0.39 -0.08 8.86 241.53 224.27
23 16.32 12.16 5.15 0.11 0.31 9.05 370.67 390.67
24 16.27 11.23 3.90 0.44 0.26 8.86 358.44 343.60
25 12.13 12.76 5.14 -1.48 0.07 8.92 286.79 291.28
26 23.35 11.98 3.84 1.30 0.26 8.63 423.44 294.27
27 21.97 11.77 3.82 0.34 -1.92 8.77 407.93 353.26
28 19.52 8.86 4.71 -0.21 -1.69 8.82 310.94 265.30
29 20.42 11.18 3.42 -1.09 -0.98 8.58 356.05 292.67
30 11.72 11.90 2.80 -0.84 -1.30 8.29 247.79 167.33
8-19
4.75 mm Sieve
1 10.25 7.30 6.19 -0.45 -0.79 9.04 192.10 171.78
2 8.57 6.69 6.38 -0.53 -0.04 8.94 176.96 159.42
3 10.50 5.52 5.94 -0.25 -0.58 9.06 158.66 127.54
4 10.41 6.06 5.91 0.94 -0.97 8.74 158.75 138.26
5 6.59 6.65 3.81 -0.91 -1.26 8.52 120.55 87.14
6 10.51 8.23 6.22 -0.71 -0.15 9.20 205.40 201.07
7 10.04 6.75 6.55 -0.84 -0.77 9.41 199.00 207.07
8 9.14 7.18 6.05 -1.02 -0.89 8.89 171.58 155.99
9 8.81 6.12 6.67 -1.07 -1.25 9.33 166.17 166.10
10 9.04 7.00 6.23 -0.82 -0.28 8.85 153.75 137.15
11 12.40 7.41 4.79 -0.42 -1.18 8.63 189.48 176.38
12 10.18 8.39 4.84 -1.26 -1.07 8.71 176.52 157.27
13 8.45 8.62 4.78 -1.10 -1.27 8.96 167.51 148.59
14 10.37 5.05 4.86 -0.49 -1.73 8.87 139.06 112.20
15 11.10 6.98 5.28 -0.43 -0.56 8.81 190.22 189.40
16 10.01 7.55 5.26 -0.83 -1.51 8.95 189.75 168.80
17 8.72 8.94 4.68 -1.24 -0.11 8.80 166.19 156.55
18 10.02 7.51 5.94 -1.54 -0.87 9.00 185.44 164.04
19 10.98 6.75 5.19 -1.35 -2.29 9.35 189.10 193.33
20 9.02 6.81 5.04 -1.35 -1.56 8.85 144.37 123.22
21 14.61 6.63 4.53 -0.80 -1.52 8.68 209.62 156.33
22 15.05 7.74 6.17 -1.42 -2.39 8.98 243.10 203.22
23 13.67 5.40 6.94 1.92 0.61 9.14 227.83 203.66
24 10.82 6.49 3.92 -1.48 -1.52 8.49 165.40 148.58
25 10.18 6.88 3.58 -1.69 -0.77 8.22 137.51 100.59
26 13.67 6.64 2.60 -0.94 -0.56 7.94 150.30 78.63
27 14.46 7.78 3.53 -0.72 -1.12 7.97 191.18 113.70
28 14.08 7.26 2.57 -0.62 -1.15 8.10 176.65 100.71
29 12.55 8.96 2.89 -1.74 -1.41 8.28 188.17 126.09
30 11.62 6.77 2.98 -0.23 -1.07 8.01 141.17 90.67
8-20
Table 8.21: Scan results of 19.0 mm alluvial gravel aggregate particles.
19.0 mm Sieve
1 30.05 21.23 18.33 -3.57 0.22 14.71 1792.90 5762.12
2 24.75 20.38 15.99 -3.47 -1.60 13.86 1401.91 4303.82
3 24.91 22.72 16.49 -0.47 3.10 13.46 1491.92 4424.92
4 26.06 21.22 17.23 -3.06 -0.81 14.81 1592.13 5065.99
5 25.50 22.11 17.93 -1.71 -0.72 14.12 1511.83 4587.57
6 32.02 23.17 17.40 -0.13 2.38 14.43 1784.77 5869.67
7 31.18 21.06 17.41 0.27 1.38 14.78 1791.06 6101.96
8 31.35 21.63 18.49 0.04 -1.58 15.13 1734.83 5589.79
9 27.15 25.97 17.94 -1.66 2.24 13.86 1854.05 6218.35
10 36.50 22.35 23.14 -0.24 -1.00 16.93 2324.63 8599.04
11 38.79 24.30 18.01 1.11 -1.32 14.46 2284.17 7461.34
12 33.19 23.48 16.45 -0.08 -2.06 13.38 1705.39 4907.92
13 33.58 23.69 13.77 -0.71 1.13 13.46 1786.92 5566.68
14 37.57 20.24 18.09 -2.96 -0.06 15.13 2255.06 7347.14
15 35.38 30.10 15.93 -3.09 -0.12 14.54 2248.11 7725.78
16 43.41 25.32 16.28 -1.08 -1.17 14.19 2760.39 9592.80
17 37.92 27.03 17.45 -2.01 1.03 14.57 2315.84 8385.31
18 42.39 20.73 22.64 -4.60 -0.26 15.39 2628.97 9560.51
19 27.91 24.19 13.90 -2.55 -0.15 12.89 1595.77 4102.85
20 29.64 27.60 14.17 -2.06 2.36 12.46 1854.30 4939.92
21 38.49 23.97 13.03 -1.19 -1.05 12.45 2027.73 5407.49
22 43.99 29.59 12.40 -2.34 1.00 13.43 2799.42 8158.51
23 47.45 25.70 15.56 -0.15 0.19 13.96 2708.76 9298.90
24 25.72 23.85 21.18 0.41 -0.19 15.13 1736.79 5202.96
25 30.81 24.07 20.31 -1.61 0.30 16.14 2113.67 7848.61
26 27.25 26.07 18.72 0.15 -2.22 15.05 1816.56 5939.50
27 26.85 22.19 22.90 -0.76 1.47 17.06 1968.98 6847.33
28 30.46 23.48 21.60 1.76 -1.37 16.44 2011.05 7432.10
29 33.24 24.10 28.07 -0.11 -0.03 18.39 2558.63 10259.89
30 26.02 19.25 19.46 0.80 1.72 15.09 1460.95 4606.71
8-21
13.2 mm Sieve
1 22.76 20.58 13.93 0.83 -0.15 13.08 1208.20 3331.69
2 22.91 19.92 13.39 -2.73 -0.94 12.46 1118.91 2896.83
3 27.82 22.89 16.75 -0.97 -0.17 13.19 1436.23 3763.03
4 19.86 18.47 16.19 -0.01 -0.56 14.61 1239.26 3551.53
5 24.49 17.47 17.62 -2.87 -0.91 14.60 1388.28 3844.76
6 23.36 20.31 18.00 -0.64 -0.91 13.99 1336.93 3666.09
7 26.69 19.73 15.48 -3.13 -1.13 13.37 1312.83 3655.13
8 19.20 23.02 13.74 -0.63 2.22 13.05 1266.70 3151.15
9 23.75 21.19 11.70 0.36 0.29 12.20 1178.54 3015.57
10 22.21 18.64 13.80 -0.21 -0.50 13.75 1045.24 2730.17
11 22.75 16.90 12.19 -0.51 -1.60 12.91 1028.23 2603.59
12 35.19 23.12 12.64 -2.40 -0.58 12.89 1613.88 3966.55
13 32.13 19.37 14.09 0.51 2.22 13.44 1430.64 3865.19
14 32.46 22.25 15.30 -3.76 -0.99 14.03 1772.94 5578.06
15 29.14 15.97 11.86 -0.33 -0.28 12.39 1201.44 3110.48
16 29.01 15.62 12.46 0.59 -0.57 12.35 1170.67 2877.06
17 27.89 20.59 16.24 0.90 -1.74 13.53 1407.41 3923.59
18 29.03 18.46 14.08 1.90 -2.28 13.47 1458.27 4354.31
19 25.31 19.95 13.15 0.68 -1.69 12.32 1139.86 2873.77
20 27.31 20.27 14.29 -1.95 -4.32 13.10 1288.93 3564.34
21 25.53 18.45 12.74 -2.09 -0.71 12.28 1106.73 2705.10
22 19.86 18.44 11.98 0.17 0.00 12.13 962.75 2369.97
23 26.46 23.33 14.20 -5.31 -0.14 12.99 1422.57 3662.14
24 25.88 19.30 11.92 -2.35 2.01 11.41 1203.69 2560.33
25 27.94 22.73 10.76 1.45 -0.55 11.23 1315.12 2766.93
26 34.86 21.08 14.18 0.53 -1.35 13.74 1628.05 4720.09
27 25.75 20.21 11.70 -1.01 -1.09 12.06 1313.70 3305.97
28 28.27 19.24 13.03 -1.96 -1.95 12.89 1218.53 3062.04
29 30.84 23.13 10.30 -4.34 0.94 11.74 1395.95 3133.14
30 25.59 16.77 15.47 -2.39 -0.38 13.27 1209.88 3079.42
8-22
9.5 mm Sieve
1 19.87 12.07 8.78 -0.89 0.53 11.07 619.56 1124.68
2 18.73 12.39 10.62 -1.85 -1.39 11.56 620.03 1087.97
3 20.63 12.55 13.69 -1.94 -1.36 12.88 771.39 1717.85
4 21.59 14.41 12.33 -1.84 -0.97 11.92 801.13 1789.47
5 19.58 11.28 11.55 -1.26 -0.96 11.53 642.97 1177.21
6 19.57 15.40 9.83 -0.90 -1.13 11.55 684.34 1412.37
7 14.35 12.43 8.89 -0.59 -1.20 10.60 474.00 787.87
8 17.30 14.08 10.34 0.86 0.76 10.69 569.32 945.20
9 21.63 14.61 11.61 -0.54 0.96 11.51 820.37 1553.80
10 17.03 11.97 11.44 -0.90 -1.44 11.02 504.57 860.68
11 18.65 12.41 7.89 -0.48 0.34 9.83 514.03 724.14
12 16.67 13.52 10.86 -0.54 -0.47 11.42 622.00 1254.15
13 16.12 15.23 9.84 -1.20 -0.52 10.87 633.63 1143.72
14 19.46 13.29 11.15 -1.42 -2.25 11.88 622.20 1294.64
15 19.30 14.45 10.13 -1.22 -0.40 11.40 700.43 1501.57
16 19.10 15.33 11.45 -0.73 -0.24 11.87 777.27 1663.88
17 18.31 15.09 10.89 -0.80 -0.75 11.42 689.13 1395.49
18 20.96 13.07 10.94 -1.06 -1.09 11.50 721.56 1410.96
19 21.26 15.21 12.36 -1.92 -1.31 12.21 845.07 1892.50
20 18.68 16.79 13.77 -0.29 -0.75 11.98 812.94 1779.38
21 19.31 15.80 9.32 -0.47 -0.52 10.98 731.78 1401.17
22 19.96 17.56 7.74 -1.15 0.28 10.85 719.64 1361.14
23 22.71 15.09 8.70 -2.13 -1.10 10.63 760.53 1388.59
24 18.27 11.13 8.85 0.99 -1.06 10.77 581.90 1050.37
25 17.96 15.89 8.47 -2.20 -1.07 10.36 652.61 1136.78
26 17.19 14.08 7.35 -0.98 -0.03 10.31 575.65 1014.52
27 20.33 15.83 10.13 -0.04 -1.11 11.04 775.79 1598.88
28 19.09 16.53 8.63 -1.13 -0.95 10.79 732.82 1482.52
29 18.12 13.83 8.57 -0.91 -0.18 10.71 582.88 1038.06
30 22.73 15.16 9.78 -1.18 -1.20 11.07 792.41 1600.32
8-23
6.7 mm Sieve
1 10.37 9.27 7.00 0.53 -0.60 9.48 252.12 329.45
2 10.21 8.48 6.48 -1.64 -1.74 9.27 243.82 289.34
3 11.87 9.86 7.63 -1.41 -1.40 10.14 276.38 299.26
4 12.10 9.17 7.30 -0.60 -1.14 9.94 292.78 396.38
5 12.91 10.04 7.42 -1.65 -0.50 10.27 341.32 516.55
6 12.95 10.07 7.73 -0.17 -0.23 10.18 320.86 456.07
7 13.50 8.82 7.94 -1.19 -1.47 10.02 319.98 425.72
8 12.16 9.16 7.84 -1.82 -0.85 10.07 301.71 414.47
9 12.76 9.52 6.70 -0.62 -1.42 9.91 290.49 402.32
10 13.64 10.05 8.09 -1.72 -0.41 10.22 408.89 632.38
11 14.25 11.07 6.65 -0.52 -1.08 9.59 361.91 451.57
12 14.09 8.87 6.86 -1.46 -1.14 9.83 275.70 301.19
13 13.78 9.70 6.40 1.37 -0.34 9.40 279.98 316.00
14 13.35 9.44 8.22 -1.14 -0.99 10.03 357.43 478.79
15 15.41 8.99 7.56 -1.19 -1.65 9.85 368.46 525.86
16 13.82 9.89 7.97 -1.00 -1.18 10.05 324.25 453.48
17 12.68 10.90 6.53 -2.10 -1.07 9.72 305.59 392.73
18 14.33 8.80 6.31 -0.20 -0.90 9.45 276.51 308.28
19 15.97 10.51 8.49 -0.59 -0.86 10.48 406.74 585.07
20 13.94 9.37 7.49 -0.63 -1.41 9.37 306.04 380.59
21 15.53 11.33 6.22 -0.54 -0.26 9.63 364.98 488.98
22 14.13 10.60 8.36 -0.12 -1.54 11.04 415.00 655.77
23 14.95 11.34 8.15 -0.54 -1.65 10.09 373.86 517.62
24 13.37 10.33 7.09 -1.22 -2.73 9.75 354.39 503.68
25 16.67 9.01 5.81 -1.59 -1.19 9.30 311.02 367.68
26 15.79 7.95 7.35 -0.01 -1.02 9.67 330.48 419.57
27 13.96 11.28 5.36 -0.84 -0.26 9.15 313.76 354.54
28 15.99 11.48 8.05 -0.68 -1.57 10.36 436.80 678.82
29 19.47 11.08 7.08 -1.41 -1.41 10.15 484.97 773.68
30 17.01 12.66 6.62 -0.55 -0.94 9.76 445.60 637.28
8-24
4.75 mm Sieve
1 8.80 7.46 6.72 -0.39 -0.96 9.14 190.18 207.77
2 8.97 6.50 6.49 -0.61 -1.76 9.47 169.51 185.09
3 10.87 7.43 6.36 -1.66 -1.38 9.40 200.71 233.24
4 8.72 6.98 5.88 -0.16 -0.59 8.75 154.60 149.66
5 8.99 7.15 5.09 -1.02 -1.38 8.94 161.80 151.66
6 7.79 6.29 5.03 -1.26 -0.79 8.60 127.35 115.80
7 10.06 7.70 5.14 -0.44 -0.73 8.77 188.63 200.36
8 8.81 7.84 4.36 -0.70 -0.71 8.50 159.25 153.41
9 9.23 8.36 4.87 -0.04 -1.11 8.75 166.58 157.74
10 9.93 6.48 5.84 -1.12 -1.75 9.10 170.36 163.23
11 7.36 5.88 5.54 -0.41 -0.38 8.69 119.15 112.81
12 7.68 6.51 5.33 -1.27 0.02 8.57 125.72 107.10
13 7.98 6.50 4.73 -1.41 -0.91 8.49 124.23 111.62
14 8.12 6.66 4.66 -0.61 -1.47 8.63 128.36 109.48
15 8.14 6.41 4.58 -1.40 -2.08 8.59 125.33 106.91
16 8.95 6.64 5.02 -0.04 -0.97 8.83 138.33 130.19
17 8.08 6.69 3.69 -1.37 -1.42 8.39 124.50 101.86
18 9.53 7.73 4.13 -1.66 -1.37 8.21 136.17 103.31
19 8.50 7.23 3.82 -1.90 -1.18 8.30 132.66 115.13
20 8.80 7.14 3.96 -0.46 -0.88 8.26 119.79 89.36
21 8.76 6.99 3.54 -0.99 -1.27 8.39 126.57 99.58
22 10.38 6.83 4.91 -1.23 -1.32 8.90 161.73 163.48
23 9.62 6.25 4.47 -1.67 -1.57 8.88 151.41 135.56
24 9.11 7.47 4.02 -1.86 -0.35 8.96 154.23 128.42
25 10.31 5.54 5.85 0.05 -0.38 8.97 158.42 137.12
26 9.12 5.97 3.92 -1.38 -1.34 8.41 126.23 95.73
27 9.95 6.05 4.24 -1.01 -0.01 8.71 146.65 127.56
28 12.19 8.49 4.99 -1.31 -1.53 8.85 219.08 203.67
29 10.94 7.12 3.54 -1.66 -1.27 8.21 145.10 102.76
30 8.92 6.01 3.23 -1.12 -0.17 8.35 112.87 82.96
8-25
Table 8.26: Scan results of 19.0 mm RA aggregate particles.
19.0 mm Sieve
1 26.58 25.45 16.27 1.52 0.31 13.23 1549.12 4276.44
2 26.51 24.07 19.31 0.48 -1.45 14.78 1704.97 5060.75
3 30.84 26.50 18.14 -0.90 -1.42 14.15 1844.33 5293.09
4 28.10 24.78 16.54 2.87 0.14 13.32 1638.73 4602.88
5 27.68 24.59 16.84 -0.88 -1.90 14.90 1614.55 4814.32
6 30.83 21.15 21.20 0.77 -0.74 15.00 1764.66 4989.07
7 32.37 22.34 18.57 1.12 -0.32 14.41 1711.81 5220.09
8 21.84 23.50 17.61 1.38 -0.23 14.32 1550.01 4517.38
9 23.81 23.58 18.03 3.52 -2.63 13.74 1586.39 4142.20
10 27.26 25.12 13.96 1.21 0.29 13.63 1580.54 4095.18
11 34.35 25.19 14.85 0.27 -2.76 13.10 1823.05 5255.90
12 30.21 24.59 11.92 2.46 0.08 12.17 1579.75 4027.84
13 35.58 24.74 18.31 -1.21 -1.45 14.37 2017.22 5926.61
14 31.26 23.10 14.18 2.26 0.61 12.75 1533.32 3917.87
15 31.07 20.59 17.85 -2.96 -0.03 13.63 1610.27 4509.27
16 30.18 22.90 12.70 0.71 0.10 12.67 1510.90 3937.34
17 28.58 25.29 14.99 -0.08 0.29 14.01 1558.20 4345.67
18 30.91 23.94 13.65 0.87 -0.14 12.84 1514.89 3917.03
19 26.25 24.64 13.79 0.71 0.11 12.85 1401.96 3569.07
20 28.13 21.26 12.76 4.42 -1.36 11.78 1289.12 3032.38
21 25.30 23.79 11.64 1.89 -0.03 12.16 1438.90 3669.98
22 29.62 28.38 14.57 0.65 -4.52 13.04 1607.14 4014.31
23 29.16 25.68 11.32 -0.28 0.80 12.04 1582.85 4177.85
24 28.86 25.35 14.79 0.01 -0.18 12.28 1446.82 3402.50
25 27.50 22.25 10.83 0.51 -1.39 11.54 1328.62 2786.67
26 39.56 23.86 13.94 -2.10 -3.74 12.28 1870.75 4779.89
27 28.69 22.36 10.72 -0.23 -0.55 11.63 1524.86 3697.06
28 40.03 23.78 11.27 -0.84 -0.64 11.59 1760.03 4142.53
29 28.89 25.08 9.12 3.58 1.63 11.19 1309.13 2701.30
30 36.52 23.71 11.84 0.91 -1.75 12.19 1783.66 4430.11
8-26
13.2 mm Sieve
1 21.10 20.31 14.74 1.71 -0.19 12.79 1145.80 2784.87
2 25.20 19.84 18.30 -1.02 -0.70 14.75 1419.67 4141.67
3 25.76 20.63 13.00 1.06 -0.01 12.49 1277.32 3377.71
4 26.21 21.25 15.25 1.30 -0.30 13.48 1331.87 3581.55
5 28.13 18.06 16.18 2.24 -1.48 13.08 1282.33 3263.95
6 25.55 19.31 15.32 -2.01 -0.42 13.38 1280.44 3420.48
7 25.92 20.04 19.56 -0.09 -1.15 14.29 1341.24 3777.69
8 21.12 19.30 11.85 0.65 -0.51 12.24 1054.03 2456.68
9 24.26 21.35 16.58 -1.28 0.29 14.16 1330.16 3563.29
10 22.75 21.27 16.78 0.29 -1.73 14.20 1215.42 3278.78
11 27.96 20.62 11.71 -0.89 -1.99 12.23 1387.85 3520.86
12 30.25 18.14 12.70 0.30 -0.62 11.93 1184.43 2625.96
13 25.55 21.27 11.74 -0.83 0.35 12.62 1192.78 2816.79
14 23.56 19.40 11.92 -0.90 0.51 12.15 1112.12 2547.71
15 21.94 19.15 10.71 -0.56 -0.09 11.92 1041.68 2298.36
16 23.87 17.85 13.51 2.80 -1.84 12.65 1037.95 2416.10
17 26.55 24.06 11.71 2.39 0.17 11.81 1272.05 2939.32
18 25.48 23.41 13.01 0.28 1.77 12.24 1273.90 2865.14
19 22.82 19.85 11.58 -0.85 0.46 12.00 993.07 2163.28
20 22.14 21.38 11.05 2.30 -0.86 12.29 1079.82 2459.75
21 25.11 23.27 10.18 0.16 1.07 11.59 1243.91 2627.57
22 23.76 19.27 10.02 1.72 -1.84 11.26 950.71 1881.26
23 32.28 23.07 10.11 1.73 -1.59 11.61 1453.89 3343.08
24 25.43 20.59 12.67 -0.90 -1.15 12.48 1215.02 2592.67
25 27.25 19.72 8.88 -0.91 -1.00 11.05 1011.17 2003.22
26 29.39 22.07 11.14 -0.50 0.83 11.36 1317.23 2841.06
27 24.16 19.02 8.70 0.72 -0.19 10.30 971.82 1695.36
28 25.26 20.49 8.00 0.52 -2.89 10.56 1036.43 1740.76
29 30.32 20.84 9.10 -1.98 -1.04 10.78 1319.19 2538.01
30 24.63 20.85 7.42 0.53 1.94 10.13 945.32 1461.21
8-27
9.5 mm Sieve
1 15.98 14.39 11.89 -2.30 -0.26 12.98 609.22 1089.53
2 18.96 13.16 11.51 0.56 -0.05 11.49 618.40 1130.27
3 16.95 12.89 11.18 -0.07 -0.20 11.43 591.72 1109.40
4 15.28 12.61 10.00 -0.99 -1.97 11.16 440.40 658.78
5 15.85 14.51 10.43 1.15 -1.32 10.79 541.83 905.28
6 15.61 13.68 8.80 0.27 -0.05 10.50 484.78 806.24
7 15.97 12.34 10.81 0.20 -2.02 11.15 479.29 824.62
8 14.02 12.35 10.64 -0.47 -0.34 11.37 453.62 703.88
9 11.90 10.38 8.09 -0.68 -0.43 10.27 348.75 482.83
10 13.52 11.54 9.80 -1.09 0.19 11.29 451.75 744.09
11 27.05 14.49 11.52 -0.38 -1.50 11.78 915.55 1826.63
12 21.67 14.67 10.41 -1.44 -0.57 11.22 737.11 1463.74
13 16.49 13.08 10.13 -1.08 -0.15 10.83 549.29 905.23
14 20.30 14.84 10.10 1.25 -1.49 11.58 696.73 1420.15
15 19.05 12.60 8.98 0.29 -0.83 10.73 530.68 832.44
16 14.52 14.44 12.55 -1.27 -0.54 11.80 611.49 1106.39
17 20.39 14.38 7.58 -0.08 -1.18 10.47 606.55 917.44
18 20.13 15.82 7.57 -1.56 -0.42 10.33 590.38 898.28
19 18.93 15.74 6.60 -0.41 -0.88 9.86 615.50 895.56
20 15.49 14.81 7.99 -0.59 0.88 10.34 516.19 809.26
21 17.52 13.88 7.96 -1.17 -1.45 10.71 542.55 875.87
22 14.90 14.75 8.20 0.40 -0.56 10.50 518.51 812.26
23 19.45 12.71 5.69 0.27 -0.48 9.68 510.23 671.80
24 20.49 11.43 7.76 -0.92 -1.03 10.41 533.27 825.79
25 20.65 14.55 5.65 -0.54 -0.84 9.57 521.61 662.94
26 20.30 16.56 6.67 -0.46 0.24 9.84 635.45 902.44
27 18.53 17.74 5.37 -0.68 0.24 9.44 603.47 775.90
28 17.24 12.88 5.48 0.12 -0.60 9.77 428.25 533.56
29 17.36 13.61 5.46 0.30 0.33 9.32 435.19 477.28
30 20.00 13.74 5.15 -0.32 -0.45 9.27 454.81 479.42
8-28
6.7 mm Sieve
1 15.48 9.23 8.65 -1.50 -1.90 10.49 334.33 433.73
2 13.83 10.59 7.85 0.83 -0.44 10.12 330.39 452.03
3 13.96 10.29 8.30 -0.33 -1.40 10.20 335.96 434.73
4 13.11 8.55 6.24 -1.61 -2.23 9.39 255.20 269.77
5 12.26 9.92 8.93 -1.06 -1.75 10.51 363.62 515.31
6 13.32 9.78 7.40 -1.47 -1.65 9.98 309.52 409.90
7 12.81 11.37 6.00 -0.93 1.14 9.67 288.73 357.93
8 12.57 10.23 6.57 0.92 0.40 9.74 271.08 343.82
9 13.23 9.64 7.05 -1.26 -1.07 9.93 304.44 415.26
10 12.65 8.21 7.53 0.61 0.42 9.69 259.34 316.63
11 21.91 11.28 7.93 -1.07 0.44 10.62 533.39 801.67
12 19.51 9.70 7.95 -1.43 -1.07 10.69 473.64 705.66
13 19.39 12.07 6.83 -1.25 -0.99 9.68 408.85 507.30
14 17.12 10.97 7.54 -1.49 -1.39 9.92 392.07 528.96
15 15.80 11.65 6.39 -0.58 -0.33 9.45 401.43 464.23
16 16.18 10.09 5.39 -1.38 -1.23 9.42 361.33 431.78
17 15.53 9.93 7.42 -1.65 -1.40 9.95 340.04 413.88
18 12.47 9.71 4.46 -0.76 0.09 8.92 253.54 250.89
19 15.24 12.94 5.26 -0.64 -0.07 9.57 345.83 378.87
20 13.19 9.94 5.15 -0.79 -1.63 9.21 271.40 303.73
21 17.92 8.47 7.30 -0.83 -0.23 9.55 360.10 397.97
22 15.41 12.15 6.40 -2.35 -1.01 9.79 372.97 475.01
23 13.39 11.37 7.36 -2.80 -2.00 9.54 290.55 305.04
24 15.58 8.78 6.47 -0.89 -2.24 9.58 303.00 324.56
25 15.24 8.89 6.35 0.70 -0.46 9.49 285.48 306.81
26 14.78 12.22 4.91 -0.23 -1.52 9.34 313.82 283.01
27 13.60 12.04 4.52 0.18 -0.85 9.03 304.46 311.95
28 14.06 8.84 4.80 -0.63 -1.43 8.98 271.55 265.20
29 14.27 10.49 4.20 -1.50 -2.15 9.13 294.00 298.52
30 15.48 9.23 8.65 -1.50 -1.90 10.49 334.33 433.73
8-29
4.75 mm Sieve
1 10.32 6.78 6.88 -0.32 -0.89 9.41 171.56 149.47
2 10.06 6.92 6.38 -0.05 -0.65 9.50 198.52 202.32
3 7.48 6.98 5.38 -1.21 -1.01 8.87 138.37 123.77
4 9.91 7.98 5.96 0.40 -1.74 9.48 183.13 196.65
5 9.49 7.32 5.84 0.63 -0.61 9.23 158.65 151.45
6 9.63 8.04 5.78 -0.90 -0.97 9.33 178.42 189.99
7 8.70 6.19 3.81 -0.68 -0.76 8.35 116.24 86.09
8 8.35 7.29 3.75 0.27 -0.23 8.58 138.02 114.88
9 8.09 6.61 4.64 -0.48 -0.51 8.73 116.70 98.80
10 7.55 6.27 3.73 0.29 -0.23 8.37 106.49 78.50
11 11.27 7.15 5.08 0.72 -0.68 9.22 184.75 179.44
12 11.76 7.53 5.29 -0.87 0.10 8.97 191.53 179.21
13 11.44 7.50 4.90 -1.35 -0.98 8.95 203.34 201.70
14 10.90 8.33 4.45 -0.71 -0.34 8.69 171.57 153.98
15 11.54 8.60 5.65 -1.74 -0.82 9.21 195.44 186.40
16 13.72 6.30 4.96 0.22 -0.19 8.89 195.51 168.57
17 13.22 8.34 6.94 0.83 -1.07 9.43 232.53 244.30
18 13.71 7.20 4.55 -0.78 -1.10 8.61 196.35 168.66
19 11.14 5.82 4.10 0.09 -1.14 8.57 155.65 124.60
20 12.63 5.46 4.81 -0.83 -1.38 8.82 176.10 146.47
21 16.90 8.58 4.26 -1.31 -1.68 8.87 259.35 210.16
22 11.16 6.90 4.21 0.33 -0.94 8.64 161.68 128.05
23 10.38 8.73 4.34 -0.59 0.10 8.69 180.31 155.76
24 11.53 7.47 3.21 -0.50 -0.05 8.33 156.67 115.77
25 10.38 7.96 2.85 -0.59 -0.23 8.24 150.25 102.45
26 11.08 8.39 4.32 0.64 0.08 8.72 177.12 145.60
27 12.56 8.37 4.51 -0.76 -0.19 8.64 182.53 150.61
28 11.09 6.87 3.87 -0.77 -0.11 8.32 137.53 91.70
29 11.42 8.64 2.80 -1.46 -0.64 8.34 149.10 92.42
30 10.68 7.20 2.15 -0.71 -0.59 8.02 119.65 57.83
8-30
9 APPENDIX B: MATLAB CODE FOR ANALYSIS OF LASER SCAN DATA
% Laser Data Processing

% Get file from disk
clear
close all
cd ('D:\laser scan data\');
ANUM = input('Enter FILE NAME (no ext) ','s');
LNUM = input('Enter the L value to process ','s');
LL = str2num(LNUM);
File1 = strcat(ANUM,'.asc');
FixX = input('Enter Fixed point for X ','s');

FixY = input('Enter Fixed point for Y ','s');
FixZ = input('Enter Fixed point for Z ','s');
FixX = str2num(FixX);
FixY = str2num(FixY);
FixZ = str2num(FixZ);
DATA1 = load (File1); % ascii file
fil = 1;
[M N] = size(DATA1);
% First ZZ data
DataA(:,:) = decimate(DATA1(:,:),fil);
clear DATA1;
DataX(:,:) = DataA(1:M,1)-FixX;
DataY(:,:) = DataA(1:M,2)-FixY;
DataZ(:,:) = DataA(1:M,3)-FixZ;
clear DataA;
DataB = zeros(M,N);
DataB(1:M,1) = (DataX);
DataB(1:M,2) = (DataY);
DataB(1:M,3) = (DataZ);
RadiusA = (((DataX(:,:).^2) + (DataY(:,:).^2) + (DataZ(:,:).^2)).^0.5);
% This routine selects a Quadrant (1 - 4 is where Z is Positive and 5 - 8 is where Z is negative)
Quadr(:,:) = zeros(M,1);
for i = 1:1:M
if DataX(i,1) > 0 && DataY(i,1) > 0 && DataZ(i,1) > 0
Quadr(i,1) = 1;
elseif DataX(i,1) < 0 && DataY(i,1) > 0 && DataZ(i,1) > 0
Quadr(i,1) = 2;
elseif DataX(i,1) < 0 && DataY(i,1) < 0 && DataZ(i,1) > 0
Quadr(i,1) = 3;
elseif DataX(i,1) > 0 && DataY(i,1) < 0 && DataZ(i,1) > 0
Quadr(i,1) = 4;
elseif DataX(i,1) > 0 && DataY(i,1) > 0 && DataZ(i,1) < 0
9-1
Quadr(i,1) = 5;
elseif DataX(i,1) < 0 && DataY(i,1) > 0 && DataZ(i,1) < 0
Quadr(i,1) = 6;
elseif DataX(i,1) < 0 && DataY(i,1) < 0 && DataZ(i,1) < 0
Quadr(i,1) = 7;
elseif DataX(i,1) > 0 && DataY(i,1) < 0 && DataZ(i,1) < 0
Quadr(i,1) = 8;
end
end
% Calculating angle Alpha (Angles are in RADIANS)

AngleAlpha (:,:) = zeros(M,1);
for i = 1:1:M
if Quadr(i,1) == 1;
AngleAlpha(i,1) = atan(abs(DataY(i,1)/DataX(i,1)));
elseif Quadr(i,1) == 2;
AngleAlpha(i,1) = ((pi/2)+atan(abs(DataX(i,1)/DataY(i,1))));
AngleAlpha(i,1) = (pi+atan(abs(DataY(i,1)/DataX(i,1))));
AngleAlpha(i,1) = ((3/2*pi)+atan(abs(DataX(i,1)/DataY(i,1))));
AngleAlpha(i,1) = atan(abs(DataY(i,1)/DataX(i,1)));
AngleAlpha(i,1) = ((pi/2)+atan(abs(DataX(i,1)/DataY(i,1))));
AngleAlpha(i,1) = (pi+atan(abs(DataY(i,1)/DataX(i,1))));
AngleAlpha(i,1) = ((3/2*pi)+atan(abs(DataX(i,1)/DataY(i,1))));
end
end
% Calculating angle Beta (Angles are in RADIANS)

AngleBeta (:,:) = zeros(M,1);
for i = 1:1:M
AngleBeta(i,1) = (acos(DataZ(i,1)/RadiusA(i,1)));
end
% values of l m and xx
l = LL;
xx = (l+1)^2;
% Setting up file sizes
Ylm (:,:) = zeros(M,xx);
anbd (:,:) = zeros(xx,3);
% value of 1 is 0
l = 0;
m = 0;
x = 1; % x is a counter for columns in the file Ylm (column 1 is l =0 ans m = 0)
for i = 1:1:M
Plm = legendre(l,cos(AngleBeta(i,1)));
if l~=0
Plm = squeeze(Plm(abs(m)+1,:,:));
9-2
end
Y1 = ((2*l+1)/(4*pi));
Y2 = factorial(l-abs(m))/factorial(l+abs(m));
Y3 = sqrt(Y1*Y2);
if m >= 0
Ylm(i,x) = Y3*Plm*exp((-1)^(1/2)*m*AngleAlpha(i,1));
elseif m<0
Ylm(i,x) = (-1)^abs(m)*Y3*Plm*exp((-1)^(1/2)*m*AngleAlpha(i,1));
end
end
% Main loop
for l = 1:1:LL;
if l == 1 m = -l; x = l*l+1; mx = x+l+l; end
for x = x:1:mx;
for i = 1:1:M
Plm = legendre(l,cos(AngleBeta(i,1)));
if l~=0
Plm = squeeze(Plm(abs(m)+1,:,:));
end
Y1 = ((2*l+1)/(4*pi));
Y2 = factorial(l-abs(m))/factorial(l+abs(m));
Y3 = sqrt(Y1*Y2);
if m >= 0
Ylm(i,x) = Y3*Plm*exp((-1)^(1/2)*m*AngleAlpha(i,1));
elseif m<0
Ylm(i,x) = (-1)^abs(m)*Y3*Plm*exp((-1)^(1/2)*m*AngleAlpha(i,1));
9-3
end
end
anbd(x,:) = ([l, m, x]);
m = m + 1;
end
end
A = RadiusA(:,:);
B = Ylm(:,:);
BB=real(B);
C=mldivide(BB,A);
D=C(1);
% Calculating Form, Angularity and Texture Indices
if LL == 5
E = sum(abs(C(1:36)));
Form = abs(E/D)
elseif LL == 20
E = sum(abs(C(37:441)));
Angularity = abs(E/D)
elseif LL == 25
E = sum(abs(C(442:676)));
Texture = abs(E/D)
end
9-4
10 APPENDIX C: EFFECT OF DEGREE (l) VALUE ON CONVERGENCE
16
14
l=5
12
10
Radius (mm)
Laser-based radius
8
Computed radius
6
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
16
14
l=10
12
10
Radius (mm)
Laser-based radius
8
Computed radius
6
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Figure 10.1: Radii determined from laser scans and radii computed using spherical
harmonic technique for 19 mm spherical object (l =5 and 10).
10-1
16
14
l=15
12
10
Radius (mm)
Computed radius
6
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
16
14
l=20
12
10
Radius (mm)
Computed radius
6
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
10-2
16
14
l=25
12
10
Radius (mm)
Computed radius
6
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
harmonic technique for 19 mm spherical object (l =25).
10-3
16
14
l=5
12
10
Radius (mm)
Laser-based radius
8 Computed radius
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
16
14
l=10
12
10
Radius (mm)
Laser-based radius
8 Computed radius
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
10-4
16
14
l=15
12
10
Radius (mm)
Laser-based radius
8
Computed radius
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
16
14
l=20
12
10
Radius (mm)
Laser-based radius
8
Computed radius
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
10-5
16
14
l=25
12
10
Radius (mm)
Laser-based radius
8
Computed radius
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
harmonic technique for 13 mm spherical object (l =25).
10-6
20
Laser-based radius
18
Computed radius
16
14
12
Radius (mm)
10
4
l=5
2
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200
20
Laser-based radius
18
Computed radius
16
14
12
Radius (mm)
10
4
l=10
2
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200
harmonic technique for 13.2 mm aggregate particle (l =5 and 10).
10-7
20
Computed radius
16
14
12
Radius (mm)
10
4
l=15
2
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200
20
Laser-based radius
18
Computed radius
16
14
12
Radius (mm)
10
4
l=20
2
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200
10-8
20
Laser-based radius
18
Computed radius
16
14
12
Radius (mm)
10
4
l=25
2
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200
harmonic technique for 13.2 mm aggregate particle (l =25).
10-9
12
Computed radius
10
9
8
Radius (mm)
7
6
5
4
3
l=5
2
1
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200
12
Computed radius
10
9
8
Radius (mm)
7
6
5
4
3
l=10
2
1
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200
10-10
12
Computed radius
10
9
8
Radius (mm)
7
6
5
4
3
2
l=15
1
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200
12
Computed radius
10
9
8
Radius (mm)
7
6
5
4
3
l=20
2
1
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200
10-11
12
Computed radius
10
9
8
Radius (mm)
7
6
5
4
3
2
l=15
1
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200
12
Computed radius
10
9
8
Radius (mm)
7
6
5
4
3
l=25
2
1
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200
10-12
12
Computed radius
10
9
8
Radius (mm)
7
6
5
4
3
l=5
2
1
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
12
10 Computed radius
9
8
Radius (mm)
7
6
5
4
3
l=10
2
1
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
10-13
12
10 Computed radius
9
8
Radius (mm)
7
6
5
4
3
l=15
2
1
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
12
10 Computed radius
9
8
Radius (mm)
7
6
5
4
3
l=20
2
1
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
10-14
12
10 Computed radius
9
8
Radius (mm)
7
6
5
4
3
l=25
2
1
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
10-15
10
Laser-based radius
9
Computed radius
8
7
l=5
6
Radius (mm)
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
10
Laser-based radius
9
Computed radius
8
7
l=10
6
Radius (mm)
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
10-16
10
Laser-based radius
9
Computed radius
8
7
l=15
6
Radius (mm)
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
10
Laser-based radius
9
Computed radius
8
7
l=20
6
Radius (mm)
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
10-17
10
Laser-based radius
9
Computed radius
8
7
l=25
6
Absolute error (mm)
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
10-18

Komba3 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Komba3 2013

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Komba3 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANALYTICAL AND LASER SCANNING TECHNIQUES TO DETERMINE

SHAPE PROPERTIES OF AGGREGATES USED IN PAVEMENTS

JULIUS JOSEPH KOMBA

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the

MASTER OF ENGINEERING (TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING)

ANALYTICAL AND LASER SCANNING TECHNIQUES TO DETERMINE

JULIUS JOSEPH KOMBA

Supervisor: Professor W.J.vdM Steyn

I, the undersigned hereby declare that:

The work contained in this thesis is my own original work;

I have not allowed anyone to copy any part of my thesis;

b) Dr. J.K Anochie-Boateng, My co-supervisor and Principal Investigator of the CSIR’s

e) Dr. Martin Mgangira, for many discussions during the study.

f) Mr. Colin Fisher, for his assistance with MATLABTM software.

g) My colleagues at the CSIR, Transport Infrastructure Engineering (TIE) Competency Area

ACV - Aggregate Crushing Value

1.2 Problem definition

The objectives of the study are:

1.4 Scope of the study

The scope of the study is summarised as follows:

1.6 Organisation of the dissertation

The dissertation consists of six chapters:

 Chapter 1 provides the background information of the study;

 Fundamental coarse aggregate shape properties;

2.2 Coarse aggregate shape properties

The shape or morphology of aggregate particles is distinguished by using three independent

Figure 2.1: Fundamental aggregate shape properties (Anochie-Boateng et al, 2011c).

2.3 Influence of aggregate shape properties on pavement performance

Button et al (1990) investigated the influence of aggregate shape on rutting in asphalt

2.4 Current standard tests and specifications for coarse aggregates

Figure 2.2: Flakiness index test apparatus.

Table 2.1: Flakiness index specifications (CSRA, 1998; TRH8, 1987).

COLTO Specification: Maximum flakiness index

Traffic (Million ESALs) Maximum flat and elongated particles (%)

Figure 2.3: Proportional caliper device.

Table 2.3: Specifications for angularity (Asphalt Institute, 1996).

Traffic (Million Depth from surface

Aggregates with fractured faces Aggregates with non-fractured faces

2.4.4 Limitations of the current standard tests

2.5 Advanced measurement of aggregate shape properties

2.5.1 Image-based technique

Recent developments in image-based techniques for quantification of aggregate shape properties

Figure 2.8: The Aggregate Imaging System (Masad et al, 2007).

2.5.2 Laser-based technique

Figure 2.9: Laser-based Aggregate Scanning System (Kim et al, 2001).

(a) Actual aggregates (b) Scanned and processed aggregates

2.6 Characterisation of coarse aggregate shape properties

2.6.1 Form indices

2.6.2 Angularity indices

REE = Radius of an equivalent ellipse at an angle  .

Areai = Area of ith side.

2.6.3 Surface texture indices

2.6.5 Fourier analysis

Figure 2.12: Representation of an aggregate particle for Fourier analysis.

Form    m      2.17

2.6.6 Spherical harmonics analysis

  dd sin(  )r( , )Y

2.6.7 Wavelet transform

Fundamental coarse aggregate shape properties