You are on page 1of 42

Plasticity Requirement of Aggregate

Used in Base and Sub base (R27-157)


Abdolreza (Reza) Osouli SIUE
Erol Tutumluer - UIUC
Brent Vaughn - SIUE
Sajjad Salam SIUE

IDOT, Springfield, IL
June ??, 2015

Outline

Introduction
Literature Review
Received CA 6 Aggregate
CA6 gradations
Matrix of Tests
Updates and Issues
Results
Received CA 2 Aggregate
CA2 gradations
Matrix of Tests
Updates and Issues
Osouli et al. (2015)
2

Introduction
Purpose of The Project:
Identifying the proper criteria for plasticity and
gradation of aggregate used in highway
applications

Osouli et al. (2015)


3

Literature Review
Various Specifications
Specification
Name

Allowable
Percent
Passing No.
200

PI
(%)

LL
(%)

Dust
Ratio

Description

Arkansas

3 - 15

<6

< 25

< 2/3

California

0 - 19

Sand
Equivalent and
other tests

Colorado

3 - 20

<6

< 30

Illinois

4 - 13

<6

PI requirement
may be waived
if DR < 0.6

Iowa

<7

Abrasion and
C-Freeze Test

Indiana

5 - 12

<5

< 25

For Dense
Graded

Missouri

0 - 15

<6

Oklahoma
Osouli et al. (2015)0 - 12

<6

< 25

< 2/3

Literature Review
Various Specifications
Specification
Name

Allowable Percent
Passing No. 200

PI
(%)

LL
(%)

Dust
Ratio

Descripti
on

South Dakota

0 - 15

<6

< 25

<8

< 30

Criterion
for
Plasticity
indexfines

Tennessee

Washington

0 - 10

< 0.66

Sand
Equivalen
t and Los
Angeles
test

Wisconsin

5 - 15

<6

< 25

For Dense
Graded

AASHTO

2 - 20

<6

< 25

< 0.66

ASTM

2 - 15

<4

< 25

< 0.6

Osouli et al. (2015)


5

Gradation of CA6 Received


Material Sieve Sieve Sieve

No. 4

No. 16

No. 40
Sieve
No.
200

100
90

Small Quantity of
Passing No. 16
Material

80
70
60
Percent
passing (%)

Upper Limit

50
40

Lower Limit

30

Received Material

20
10
0
100

?
10

0.1

0.01

Sieve opening size, mm


Osouli et al. (2015)
6

Properties of CA6 Aggregate


Received CA6 Information
Article

1004
LA Abrasion Test Result

Original Grams

Final Grams

LOSS %

5000

3693

26.1 %

Specific Gravity
Original Grams

Wet Grams

Submerged Grams

3865

3923

2444

Dry Specific Gravity

2.613

Surface Dry Specific Gravity

2.652

Absorption

1.5 %

Atterberg Limits
LL = 18.7%

PL = 15.7%

PI = 3%

Osouli et al. (2015)


7

Process before Preparing Samples


1

Outside Bin

Inside Bin

Osouli et al. (2015)


8

Process before Preparing Samples


3

Washing Process

Fine content with


water after washing

Osouli et al. (2015)


9

Process before Preparing Samples


5

Dried Aggregate

Dried Fine Content

Osouli et al. (2015)


10

Process before Preparing Samples


7

Sieved Aggregate

Hammered Fine
content (Passing No.
200)

Osouli et al. (2015)


11

Matrix of Tests Based on Approved


Work Plan
CA2

CA6

Crushed
Gravel

Material Type

CAG1

Material Type

CAG2

Gradation

Letters are used to label


different configurations

Crushed
Stone

CAG1

Gradation

CAG2
Gradation

Gradation

5%

12%

8%

No. 200
Sieve

No. 200
Sieve

No. 200
Sieve

PI (%)

PI (%)

LL1

LL2

LL (%)

0.2

0.6

1.0

Dust Ratio

Dust Ratio

Dust Ratio

0.2
Dust Ratio

LL (%)

0.6

1.0

0.2

0.6

1.0

Dust ratio

Dust Ratio

Dust Ratio

Dust Ratio

Dust Ratio

Osouli et al. (2015)


12

Development of Target Gradation

1- The gradation for percent passing of 1, , and No.40


sieve size is determined for all samples with the Fuller
equation assuming n=0.5 ( ) to achieve higher density.

DR=0.2 causes gradation


anomaly
DR =

2- No. 40 is calculated based on percent passing No. 200 and


DR.
3- No. 16 passing percentage is assigned to be between the
one for passing No. 4 and No. 40 considering required
amount washing aggregates.
Osouli et al. (2015)
13

Development of Target Gradation


Sieve
No. 4

Sieve
No. 16

Sieve
No. 40

Sieve No.
200

100
90
80
70
60 passing (%)
Percent
50
40
30
20
10
0
100

10

1
0.1
Sieve opening size, mm

0.01

Osouli et al. (2015)


14

Upper
Limit
Lower
Limit
C-CA6-5A
C-CA6-5B
C-CA6-5C
C-CA6-8A
C-CA6-8B
C-CA6-8C

Modified Version I of Work Plan

Crushed
Material
Gravel

Crushed
Material
Stone

Type

CAG1

Type

CAG2

Gradation

CAG1

Gradation

CAG2

Gradation

Gradation

5%
No. 200

12%
No. 200

8%
No. 200

Sieve

Sieve

Sieve

PI (%)

PI (%)

LL1

LL2

LL (%)

0.4
Dust Ratio

0.6
Dust Ratio

0.4

1.0
Dust Ratio

0.6

Dust Ratio

LL (%)

1.0

0.4

Dust ratio

Dust Ratio

0.6

Dust Ratio

Osouli et al. (2015)


15

1.0

Dust Ratio

Dust Ratio

Modified Version I of Work Plan


Dust Ratio Change I
Gradation Table (all values are percent passing)
C-CA6-5- C-CA6-5- C-CA6-8- C-CA6-8- C-CA6-8- C-CA6- C-CA6- C-CA6CA6-U CA6-L
B
C
A
B
C
12-A
12-B
12-C

Size

mm

C-CA6-5-A

1 1/2"

37.5

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

1"

25

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

90

1/2"

12.5

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

90

60

No.4

4.75

43

43

43

43

43

43

43

43

43

56

30

No.16

1.18

34

34

34

34

34

34

34

34

34

40

10

No.40

0.425

12.5

8.3

20

13.3

30

20

12

No.200

0.075

12

12

12

12

DR %

0.4

0.6

0.4

0.6

0.4

0.6

DR was changed from


0.2 to 0.4 to eliminate
the gradation problem
Osouli et al. (2015)
16

Target Gradation after DR Change


(0.2 to 0.4)
Sieve
No. 4

Sieve
No. 16

Sieve
No. 40

Sieve No.
200

100
90
80
70
Percent
60 passing (%)
50
40
30
20
10
0
100

10

1
0.1
Sieve opening size, mm

0.01

Osouli et al. (2015)


17

Upper
Limit
Lower
Limit
C-CA6-5A
C-CA6-5B
C-CA6-5C
C-CA6-8A
C-CA6-8B
C-CA6-8C

Material Preparation to Meet Plasticity


and Liquid Limit Target Values
Various combinations of different types of fine
material were tested.
Following figure demonstrates that how much of
each size is included for each dust ratio.
100
80
Passing No. 40 and
Retaining on No.
200
Passing No. 200

Percent
(%)

60
40
20
0

DR = 1.0

DR = 0.6

DR = 0.4

Osouli et al. (2015)


18

Material Preparation to Meet


Plasticity and Liquid Limit Targets
In order to target specific PI of 5% and 9%, for
each of the dust ratio various fine materials (i.e.
Passing No. 200 sieve) were mixed and tested.
The fine contents were a mix of CA6 fines and
materials that come from other resources:
Red Clay (PI=25%)
Limestone Dust Mineral Filler (non-plastic)
CL soil on SIUE Campus (PI=10%)
Wyoming sodium Bentonite (PI=550 to 650%)

Osouli et al. (2015)


19

Development of Fine Material


Target PI of 5% and 9%
Letter
Name

Liquid
Limit

Target PI
(%)

DR

0.4

Total Weight=100%
Passing No. 40
and Retaining on
No. 200

Passing No. 200

60%

40%
5%
Bentonite

0.6

40%

60%
23% MF

1.0

0%

LL1

0.6

40%

F
Osouli
et al. LL1
(2015)

1.0

40% CA6
Fine
60%

5% Clay

* MF = Mineral
Filler

77%CA6
Fine

100%
60% MF

95% CA6
Fine

0%

95% CA6
Fine
100%

35% MF

20CA6
65%

LL
(%)

PL
(%)

PI
(%)

20.5

14.
7

5.7

18.1

13.
3

18.4

13.
1

18.2

13.
4

20

15

22.2

17

22.4

16.
2

17.9

10.
5

20.3

12

19.8

10.
8

24.2

15

23.8

16.

5.0

5.5

8.2

8.7

Compaction Results, Letter E


Comparison with ICT- R27- 1
Dry Unit Weight vs Moisture Content
C-CA6-5-E

C-CA6-8-E

C-CA6-12-E

142
140
138
136
134

Dry Unit Weight (pcf)

132
130
128
126
124
122

Moisture Content (%)

urrent study, Letter E.


Report ICT- R27- 1
I=9%, LL=19.3%, DR=0.6Plastic Fine, Limestone

Report ICT- R27- 1


Non-Plastic Fine, Limestone

Osouli et al. (2015)


21

CBR Results, Letter E


Comparison with ICT- R27- 1
CBR Index vs Moisture Content
C-CA6-5-E

C-CA6-8-E

C-CA6-12-E
70
60
50
40

Soaked CBR Value (%) 30


20
10
0

3
2

5
4

7
6

9 11 13
8 10 12 14

Moisture Content (%)

Report ICT- R27- 1


Report ICT- R27- 1
Current study, Letter E.
Plastic Fine, Limestone Non-Plastic Fine, Limeston
PI=9%, LL=19.3%, DR=0.6
Osouli et al. (2015)
22

Compaction Results, Letter F


Comparison with ICT- R27- 1
Dry Unit Weight vs Moisture Content
C-CA6-5-F

C-CA6-8-F

C-CA6-12-F
144
139
134

Dry Unit Weight (pcf)

129
124
119

Moisture Content (%)

Current study, Letter F. Report ICT- R27- 1


PI=9%, LL=19.3%, DR=0.6
Plastic Fine, Limestone

Report ICT- R27- 1


Non-Plastic Fine, Limestone

Osouli et al. (2015)


23

CBR Results, Letter F


Comparison with ICT- R27- 1
CBR Index vs Moisture Content
C-CA6-5-F

C-CA6-8-F

C-CA6-12-F
70
60
50
40

Soaked CBR Value (%) 30


20
10
0

3
2

5
4

7
6

9 11 13
8 10 12

Moisture Content (%)

Report ICT- R27- 1


Report ICT- R27- 1
Current study, Letter F.
PI=9%, LL=24.2%, DR=1.0Plastic Fine, Limestone Non-Plastic Fine, Limeston
Osouli et al. (2015)
24

Compaction Results, Letter C


Comparison with ICT- R27- 1
Dry Unit Weight vs Moisture Content
145
140
135

Dry Unit Weight (pcf)

130
125
120
115

6
5

8 10 12 14
9 11 13 15

Moisture Content (%)

Current study, Letter C. Report ICT- R27- 1


PI=9%, LL=19.3%, DR=0.6
Plastic Fine, Limestone

Report ICT- R27- 1


Non-Plastic Fine, Limestone

Osouli et al. (2015)


25

CBR Results, Letter C


Comparison with ICT- R27- 1
CBR Index vs Moisture Content
C-CA6-5-C

C-CA6-8-C

C-CA6-12-C
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
Soaked CBR Value (%) 40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

3 5 7 9 11 13 15
2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Moisture Content (%)

Current study, Letter C.


Report ICT- R27- 1
Report ICT- R27- 1
PI=5%, LL=14.9%, DR=1.0 Plastic Fine, Limestone Non-Plastic Fine, Limeston
Osouli et al. (2015)
26

An overview of Progress in the


Project
About 45% of teste regarding CA6 gradation have
been done.
Progress of the Project

11% 11%
11%

11%

11%
11%

11%
11%

11%

Letter
Letter
Letter
Letter
Letter
Letter
Letter
Letter
Letter

Osouli et al. (2015)


27

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I

Issues
Shortage of No. 16 in the received aggregate
causes two difficulties: 1- time issue 2- lack of the
raw CA6 for last letters which will be done in the
future.
Up to this date lass than half of the CA6 tests
have been done, but more than half of the raw
material have been used.

Osouli et al. (2015)


28

Requests from TRP Regarding CA6


Due to shortage of passing no. 16 in the received
aggregate a lot of CA6 material should be seived
and washed. More material is needed.
Solutions:
1-Receiving CA17 or CA18 (crushed limestone)
2-Receiving FA material. Ideally FA1 or FA2
(crushed limestone)

Osouli et al. (2015)


29

Matrix Plan for CA2 Gradation

30

Gradation of Received CA2


Material
Sieve
No. 4

Sieve
No. 16

Sieve
No. 40

Sieve
No. 200

100

CA 2 consists of very coarse


aggregates. Representative
sample?

90
80
70

Upper
Limit

Not Enough No. 16


Passing Quantity.
A Lot of Material
or Washing
Needed

Percent
60 passing (%)
50
40
30

Lower
Limit

20

Received
Material

10
0
100

10

0.1

0.01

Sieve opening size, mm


Osouli et al. (2015)
31

Properties of CA2 Aggregate


Received CA2 Gradation
Article

1004
LA Abrasion Test Result

Original Grams

Final Grams

LOSS %

5000

2747

45.1

Specific Gravity
Original Grams

Wet Grams

Submerged Grams

8619

8772

5402

Dry Specific Gravity

2.558

Surface Dry Specific Gravity

2.603

Absorption

1.8 %

Atterberg Limits
LL =

PL =

PI =

Osouli et al. (2015)


32

Matrix of Tests Based on Approved


Work Plan
The matrix test plan is the same for both CA2 &
CA6 gradations
Development of gradation was done following
same procedure and some adjustments were
needed

Osouli et al. (2015)


33

Development of Target gradation

1- The gradation for percent passing of 2.5, 2, 1, , and


No.40
sieve size is determined for all samples with the Fuller

equation assuming n=0.4 () to achieve higher density

2- No. 40 is calculated based on percent passing No. 200 and


DR.
3- No. 16 passing percentage is assigned to be between the
one for passing No. 4 and No. 40 considering required amount
washing aggregates.
.
Osouli et al. (2015)
34

DR=0.2 causes
gradation anomaly
DR =

Development of Target Gradation


Sieve
No. 4

Sieve
No. 16

Sieve
No. 40

Sieve
No. 200

100
90
80
70
Percent
passing (%)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100

10

1
0.1
Sieve opening size, mm

0.01

Osouli et al. (2015)


35

C-CA2-5A
C-CA2-5B
C-CA2-5C
C-CA2-8A
C-CA2-8B
C-CA2-8C
C-CA212-A
C-CA212-B

Proposed Dust Ratio Change from


0.2 to 0.4

DR was changed to
avoid the gradation
problem for 5 and 8
percent passing

Still there is a problem


for 12% passing . It will
not be fixed unless
DR=0.6

Osouli et al. (2015)


36

Target Gradation after Dust Ratio


Change (0.2 to 0.4)
Sieve
No. 4

Sieve
No. 16

Sieve
No. 40

Sieve
No. 200

100
90
80
70
Percent
60 passing (%)
50
40
30
20
10
0
100

10

1
0.1
Sieve opening size, mm

0.01

Osouli et al. (2015)


37

Upper
Limit
Lower
Limit
C-CA2-5A
C-CA2-5B
C-CA2-5C
C-CA2-8A
C-CA2-8B
C-CA2-8C

Preparation of Samples
The California Bearing Ratio, AASHTO Standard,
5.1.1 :
If all material passes a 19.0-mm (3/4-in.) sieve,
the entire gradation shall be used for preparing
specimens for compaction without modification. If
there is material retained on the 19.0-mm sieve,
the material retained on the 19.0-mm sieve shall
be removed and replaced by an equal amount of
material passing the 19.0-mm sieve and retained
on the 4.75-mm (No. 4) sieve obtained by
separation from portions of the sample not
otherwise used for testing.

Osouli et al. (2015)


38

Gradation Modification Based on


Standard for CBR Test

Osouli et al. (2015)


39

Target Gradation after Modification


Sieve
No. 4

Sieve
No. 16

Sieve
No. 40

Sieve
No. 200

100
90
80
70
Percent
60 passing (%)
50
40
30
20
10
0
100

10

1
0.1
Sieve opening size, mm

0.01

Osouli et al. (2015)


40

Upper
Limit
Lower
Limit
C-CA2-5A
C-CA2-5B
C-CA2-5C
C-CA2-8A
C-CA2-8B
C-CA2-8C

Requests from TRP Regarding CA2


Due to shortage of passing no. 16 in the received
aggregate and the fact that sizes larger than
have to be replaced by particle sizes between
sieve and Sieve No.4, a lot of material is needed.
Solutions:
1-Receiving CA17 or CA18 (crushed limestone)
2-Receiving FA material. Ideally FA1 or FA2
(crushed limestone)

Osouli et al. (2015)


41

Thank you!

Osouli et al. (2015)


42