R27-157 IDOT Project Presentation SS (060115)

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

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

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

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%

7
Process before Preparing Samples

1
Outside Bin
Inside Bin

8

3
Washing Process
Fine content with

water after washing

9

5
Dried Aggregate
Dried Fine Content

10

7
Sieved Aggregate
Hammered Fine
content (Passing No.
200)

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

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.
13

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
0.01

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

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
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
0.01

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

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%)

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

21
CBR Results, Letter E

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
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
22
Compaction Results, Letter F

C-CA6-5-F
C-CA6-8-F
C-CA6-12-F
144
139
134
129
124
119
Current study, Letter F. Report ICT- R27- 1

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


23
CBR Results, Letter F

C-CA6-5-F
C-CA6-8-F
C-CA6-12-F
70
60
50
40

20
10
0
3
2
5
4
7
6
9 11 13
8 10 12
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
24
Compaction Results, Letter C

145
140
135
130
125
120
115
6
5
8 10 12 14
9 11 13 15
Current study, Letter C. Report ICT- R27- 1

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


25
CBR Results, Letter C

C-CA6-5-C
C-CA6-8-C
C-CA6-12-C
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
3 5 7 9 11 13 15
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
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
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

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.

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)

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

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 =

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

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.
.
34
DR=0.2 causes
gradation anomaly
DR =

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
0.01

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

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
0.01

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.

38
Gradation Modification Based on

Standard for CBR Test

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
0.01

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)

41
Thank you!

42

R27-157 IDOT Project Presentation SS (060115)

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

R27-157 IDOT Project Presentation SS (060115)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Plasticity Requirement of Aggregate

Used in Base and Sub base (R27-157)

Osouli et al. (2015)

Osouli et al. (2015)

Gradation of CA6 Received

Sieve opening size, mm

Properties of CA6 Aggregate

Dry Specific Gravity

Surface Dry Specific Gravity

Osouli et al. (2015)

Process before Preparing Samples

Osouli et al. (2015)

Process before Preparing Samples

Fine content with

Osouli et al. (2015)

Process before Preparing Samples

Dried Fine Content

Osouli et al. (2015)

Process before Preparing Samples

Osouli et al. (2015)

Matrix of Tests Based on Approved

Letters are used to label

Osouli et al. (2015)

Development of Target Gradation

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

DR=0.2 causes gradation

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

Development of Target Gradation

Osouli et al. (2015)

Modified Version I of Work Plan

Osouli et al. (2015)

Modified Version I of Work Plan

DR was changed from

Target Gradation after DR Change

Osouli et al. (2015)

Material Preparation to Meet Plasticity

Osouli et al. (2015)

Material Preparation to Meet

Osouli et al. (2015)

Development of Fine Material

Passing No. 200

Compaction Results, Letter E

Dry Unit Weight (pcf)

Moisture Content (%)

urrent study, Letter E.

Report ICT- R27- 1

Osouli et al. (2015)

CBR Results, Letter E

Soaked CBR Value (%) 30

Moisture Content (%)

Report ICT- R27- 1

Compaction Results, Letter F

Dry Unit Weight (pcf)

Moisture Content (%)

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

Report ICT- R27- 1

Osouli et al. (2015)

CBR Results, Letter F

Soaked CBR Value (%) 30

Moisture Content (%)

Report ICT- R27- 1

Compaction Results, Letter C

Dry Unit Weight (pcf)