committee on materials & pavements...b. aashto re:source/ccrl/ntpep - observations from...

Tech Subcommittee 1c

of 5

COMMITTEE ON MATERIALS & PAVEMENTS 2019 Mid Year Meeting (Webinar)

Wednesday February 6, 2019 11:00 – 12:30 PM EST

TECHNICAL SUBCOMMITTEE 1c

Aggregates

I. Introduction and Housekeeping (AASHTO Liaison) II. Call to Order and Opening Remarks

A. Brief summary of activities (Please briefly explain the goals of today’s meeting and what you hope to accomplish. Get everyone up to speed and on the same page.)

III. Roll Call

Last Name (v) = voting First Name Email

(v) Barezinsky Rick [email protected]

(v) Beeson Matt (C) [email protected]

(v) Benson Michael [email protected]

Bergold Desna [email protected]

(v) Bradbury Rick [email protected]

(v) Burch Paul [email protected]

(v) Cronin Mickey [email protected]

Dees Amanda [email protected]

(v) Doran Michael [email protected]

Egan Brian TN

Kerstetter Joseph TN

Festa Tom [email protected]

(v) Heiser Steven [email protected]

(v) Lawrence Bill [email protected]

Nussbaum Scott UT

(v) Metcalfe Oak [email protected]

Puterbaugh Sonya [email protected]

Wagner Mike Re:source

Ramirez Timothy [email protected]

Johnson Brian Re:source

(v) Santi Mike [email protected]

Schumaker Clayton [email protected]


of 5

(v) Short Temple (VC) [email protected]

Zwanka Merrill SC

(v) Shoucair John [email protected]

Speer Daniel [email protected]

Stanford Michael [email protected]

(v) Stolba Andrew [email protected]

(v) Tedford Darin [email protected]

Trepanier Jim [email protected]

WELDERUFAEL AMANUEL [email protected]

Wieden Craig [email protected]

Wilson Craig [email protected]

IV. Approval of Technical Subcommittee Minutes A. Approval of Annual Meeting minutes, August 8, 2018 ATTACHMENT 1 Motion by IL to approve minutes; 2nd by UT – no discussion and minutes pass as written

V. Old Business A. COMP Ballot Items (Including any ASTM Changes/equivalencies)

1. Outstanding items from Annual Meeting? 2. Review of Ballots

a. T 27 – Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates

Item Number 12

Description COMP Ballot for T 27 – Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates. The changes mainly include moving adequacy of sieving and sieve overload determination instructions to a newly-created Annex.

Decisions Affirmative: 42 of 51 Negative: 1 of 51 No Vote: 8 of 51

Comments Illinois Department of Transportation (Andrew J. Stolba) (Non-Voting) - All reference to ASTM C 136-06 should be changed to ASTM C 136-14. Chair Comments: Agree, references have been changed. Missouri Department of Transportation (Brett Steven Trautman) (Voting) - Recommend an affirmative vote with two editorial comments: 1) In Section 8.2, the fourth line contains a references to Annex A2 (regulate material on a sieve) and the eighth line contains a reference to Annex A1 (adequacy of sieving). Recommend the Annex's be referenced in numerical order as you go through the section. Hence, the fourth line would reference Annex A1 and the


of 5

eighth line would reference Annex A2. This change would also involve changing the order of Section A1 and A2 in Annex A. 2) Section number 8.3.1.3 has been deleted but the information was not. Note 5 was deleted but Section No. 8.3.1.3 was added but no information was added. Not sure what the intent is. Chair Comments: Agree with comment 1, Section A1 and A2 have been reversed in section 8.2 and in the Annex. Agree with comment 2, it appears section 8.3.1.3 was included in error. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Timothy Ramirez) (Non-Voting) – 1) The sieve overloading criteria should not be moved from the body of the standard to Annex A2. This criteria is to be evaluated during each test and needs to be readily available and known by the technician who is performing the test. 2) Moving the sieve timing or shaker efficiency criteria is OK to move to an Annex A1 as this should be done prior to performing any tests. 3) In Section A1.1, revise from "should be evaluated" to "shall be evaluated". Using "should" seems to send a mixed message as the Annex A is identified as "mandatory information". Chair Comments: Agree with comment 3, the edit has been made to change “should” to “shall.” Florida Department of Transportation (Timothy J. Ruelke) (Voting) - Note "NCHRP Project 20-07/Task 421“Evaluating the Effectiveness of Mechanical Sieve and Screen Shakers”, will likely reexamine methods used in this test and apply findings to subsection 8.4.

Tennessee Department of Transportation (Brian K. Egan) (Voting) – Negative comment does not reflect moving the time evaluation to the annex. Note 2 states more than 10 minutes of shaking time is excessive and may result in degradation of the sample. However A.1.1 states "Shake the sample over nested sieves for approximately 10 minutes." This could as stated in note 2 result in degradation of the sample. We suggest starting at a lower value such as 5 minutes and follow the rest of the annex procedures until less than 0.5% of mass is achieved. We suggest clarifying A.1.2. Does a technician have to scrap the sample after attaining a mass of greater than 0.5%? If you are not scraping the sample then what is meant by recheck? Is this additional hand sieving to achieve <0.5% mass or does it mean mechanically shaking the sample again?

Chair finds the negative from Tennessee persuasive. Draft edits were prepared to attempt to address negative comments, however, more work is still needed. Draft changes are shown in ATTACHMENT 2.


of 5

Chair had a phone conversation with Tennessee 1/31/19. We still need to resolve:

If 0.5% mass check fails, do you mechanically shake the same sample again? This disagrees with Note 2.

0.5% mass could be confusing to users of this method, and might be perceived as 0.5% passing rather than 0.5% by total mass.

TN responded that this sufficiently addresses their negative as found persuasive. FL wants to clarify what to do when 0.5% can’t be established? If the sample fails do you use a new sample? Add another minute? …there are several questions to be answered to clarify this standard. - FL: Wants to know if this hand-check is supposed to be completed during every single

gradation or only for the annual calibration - OH agrees. They establish a shake time for each kind of material and take shake time into

consideration if there’s ever a disagreement with a contractor or have disputed results - TN thinks the sieving sufficiency depends on the kind of material that you’re using. FL

establishes a different shake time for each material type. - AI: Matt will continue to work internally and with TN to resolve the negative and make

additional edits. B. TS Ballots

Really Old Business – T 11 changes were approved by TS at 2017 Annual Meeting, but never went to ballot, regarding how long mechanical washing device can run. Changes are shown in

ATTACHMENT 3. - The changes were approved. The chair would like the group to have another chance to look

through this ballot item before sending it to COMP ballot. C. Reconfirmation Ballots

Original Reconfirmation Ballot sent out in September was erroneous. Correct Reconfirmation Ballot is currently open, closing 2/8/19.

D. Task Force Reports

TF 11-01: T112 Revision (KS – Rick Barezinsky, NE, AK, AMRL)

Draft edits to T 112 for clay lumps and friable particles sent to chair. See ATTACHMENT 4. - This will go to TS ballot.

TF 15-03: Centrifuge method for LWA (LA, FL, KS, Jeff Speck) 1. Draft standard for specific gravity of Light Weight Aggregate sent to chair. See

ATTACHMENTS 5 AND 6. TF 16-01: T27 Sieving Sufficiency - Sunsetted. A research project through NCHRP is ongoing.

Once the report is published, the task force will reconvene.

- The results of this may impact changes to T27. TF 17-01: Friction Practice (MD –Sejal Barot, TN, LA, FL, WV, FHWA)

1. Much work going on - finalizing specifications for Standard Practice of Sample Preparation and Polishing of Unbound Aggregates and HMA for Dynamic Friction Test. (DFT).

VI. New Business

A. Research Proposals - B. AASHTO Re:source/CCRL/NTPEP - Observations from Assessments, as applicable? – OH mentioned

something that came up in T 104. They were looking for sodium sulfate salt and are looking for a certain level of purity. TN: there was previously a suggested change to remove “reagent grade” to specify 99% purity. OH: There are 2 suppliers that are claiming to have 99+% pure but the prices are astronomically different. Discussion: there may be no difference in the material itself so much as possibly the way that the purity is determined. This standard is coming up for reconfirmation in the 2020 ballot cycle. OH volunteers to be steward of these standards.

C. NCHRP Issues D. Correspondence, calls, meetings


of 5

Correspondence from John Yzenas (Kelly Cook) with ASTM C09 showing changes that passed for

ASTM C40. ATTACHMENT 7

- C40 has been changed. Chair recommends making companion changes to T 21. At some point the Gardiner Scale and the circular number plate got misaligned and have been corrected.

E. Presentation by Industry/Academia F. Revisions/Work on Standards for Coming Year

- T 27; T 104; T 21 G. Proposed New Standards - none H. Proposed New Task Forces - none

(Include list of volunteers to lead and/or join TF) I. New TS Ballots?

T 11 - Materials Finer Than 75-μm (No. 200) Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing

T 112 – Clay Lumps and Friable Particles

Specific Gravity of Lightweight Aggregate

T 27 – Sieving sufficiency

T 21 – Organic Impurities - Mickey Cronin (OH) volunteers to be steward of T 104. TN will help with this - FL is steward T 96

J. Technical Subcommittee membership

- If anyone would like to be a member of the TS please email Matt and Casey VII. Open Discussion

- None VIII. Adjourn

Technical Subcommittee 1c

Page 1 of 5

COMMITTEE ON MATERIALS & PAVEMENTS

2018 Annual Meeting – Cincinnati, OH Wednesday August 8, 2018

8:00 – 10:00 AM EST

TECHNICAL SUBCOMMITTEE 1c Aggregates

Minutes

Items approved by the TS for Committee and or Technical Subcommittee Ballot: Standard

Designation Page Numbers/Section Titles for Proposed

Changes in Minutes Technical

Subcommittee and/or Committee?

T27 Changes recommended by WAQTC. See Item V, I COMP Ballot Items COMP

New Task Forces Formed: Task Force Name

Summary of Task Names of TF Members

None Other Action Items: Several Reconfirmations

I. Call to Order and Opening Remarks A. Brief summary of activities (to ensure all attendees up to speed)

The chair briefly welcomed members and visitors. The chair and vice chair are both new to their roles.

II. Roll Call

First Name Last Name Company Member Type Present

Donald Streeter New York State Department of Transportation Voting X Jim Trepanier Illinois Department of Transportation Voting X Michael Benson Arkansas Department of Transportation Voting X Mickey Cronin Ohio Department of Transportation Voting X Richard Barezinsky Kansas Department of Transportation Voting X Robert Lauzon Connecticut Department of Transportation Voting X Magdy Beshara Saskatchewan Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure Voting Michael Doran Tennessee Department of Transportation Voting X Becca Lane Ontario Ministry Of Transportation Voting X Sejal Barot Maryland Department of Transportation Voting X Darin Tedford Nevada Department of Transportation Voting X Charles Babish Virginia Department of Transportation Voting X


Page 2 of 5

Mark Felag Rhode Island Department of Transportation Voting X

Michael San Angelo Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Voting X

Mike Santi Idaho Transportation Department Voting X Peter Wu Georgia Department of Transportation Voting X Wasi Khan District of Columbia Department of Transportation Voting X Steven Ingram Alabama Department of Transportation Voting X Rick Bradbury Maine Department of Transportation Voting X Paul Farley West Virginia Department of Transportation Voting X Paul Burch Arizona Department of Transportation Voting X John Staton Michigan Department of Transportation Voting X Mick Syslo Nebraska Department of Transportation Voting X John Shoucair Florida Department of Transportation Voting X Curt Turgeon Minnesota Department of Transportation Voting X

III. Approval of Technical Subcommittee Minutes Meeting date: Midyear Webinar January 30th, 2018 (Attachment #1) Motion to approve by: Florida 2nd Motion to approve by: Idaho The motion passed unopposed.

IV. Old Business A. COMP Ballot Items

i. T 2 was reclassified as a standard practice and published as R 90, with a title change. New title is Sampling Aggregate Products.

ii. T 113 was revised, with significant changes to Sections 6, 7, and 8. Section 5.1.2 and reference to kerosene heavy liquid removed.

iii. TP 81 was adopted as a full standard test and published as T 381. iv. PP 64 was adopted as a full standard practice and published as R 91.

The items were discussed at the mid-year meeting and are going to COMP ballot. B. TS Ballots

i. M 6, M 43, T 11, T 19M/T 19, T 27, T 85, T 326, and T 335 were reconfirmed for 4 years

ii. TP 120, first published in 2016, was reconfirmed for 2 years These items passed and were reconfirmed. C. Task Force Reports

• TF 11-01: T112 Revision (KS – Rick Barezinsky, NE, AK, AMRL) The definition of friable particles had to be determined. A revision was sent to the previous chair. The information will be re-sent to the current chair.

• TF 13-01: AIMS Standards, TP81 & PP64, (FL – John Shoucair, OH, AZ, TRB) Sunsetted.

• TF 15-03: Centrifuge method for LWA (LA, FL, KS, Jeff Speck)


Page 3 of 5

o Draft provisional received from the Task Force for Tech Section Ballot The item will be resent to the current chair.

• TF 16-01: T27 Sieving Sufficiency - Sunsetted. A research project through NCHRP is ongoing. Once the report is published, the task force will reconvene.

• TF 17-01: Friction Tester (MD –Sejal Barot, TN, LA, FL, WV, FHWA) Sejal Barot (Maryland) gave a brief presentation (attached to minutes) on the Development of a Specification for Friction Testing Using a Dynamic Friction Tester (DFT)

o The purpose of the task force is to evaluate the available practices and information regarding the measurement of surface frictional properties of aggregates and asphalt surfaces using the Dynamic Friction Tester (DFT)

o The TF had a kickoff meeting in January 2018 and have been having bi-monthly meetings (March/May/July)

o Relevant publications have been reviewed. o Methods of sample preparation have been identified o Based on the literature review, the TF is drafting a standard specification

method. There could be two separate specifications, one for polishing and one for testing.

o The challenges include standardizing the procedures and equipment, given that there are several types of laboratory equipment currently available.

o Both bound and unbound materials are being reviewed o ASTM does have a specification but it is not active and is in need of

updates o Indiana mentioned that they are currently reviewing different ways to

make uniform slabs for DFT that are less laborious. o It was mentioned that LTRC report 554 includes a review of DFT testing

on Hamburg Wheel Track Specimens

V. New Business A. Research Proposals

1. Quick turnaround RPS- None Received 2. Full NCHRP RPS- None Received

B. AASHTO Technical Service Programs Items i. AASHTO Re:Source- John Malusky will provide a follow-up to the

aggregate washing survey with the results of the most recent Fine Aggregate Proficiency Sample Round A presentation was not available during the meeting but will be available during the minutes. Matt Bluman gave a brief update on John’s behalf. The TS indicated that they would like this data collected on future proficiency sample rounds for continued observations.

Just to summarize, the QAs were seeing labs getting suspended for T11/C117

for low PSP ratings when using Sodium Hex as the wetting agent for Procedure

B of T11. They kept failing XPS samples when using Sodium Hex as the wetting

agent. The QAs recommended that the labs switch to using dish soap. When


Page 4 of 5

the labs’ used dish soap, the ratings improved and the labs were

reinstated. Last fall, we surveyed the COMP to see what agencies were using

as the wetting agent. If I remember correctly, close to 65% were using Dish

Soap, %25 were using Sodium Hex and about 10% said they typically don’t use

any wetting agent or it was some other agent, such as BaCl.

This past AGF PSP, we asked all participants what they were using as the

wetting agent. The ratio of the usage was like what the COMP reported. Upon

receiving the results, I compared the data (average and 1s) between labs that

used dish soap, sodium hex, or a “other or no” wetting agent. The data indicated

that there was no significant difference between using dish soap and sodium hex

but there was significance between using either dish soap or sodium hex

compared to the “other or no” wetting agent.

It isn’t really a shocker since we have Procedures A and B within T11. Although

the statistics showed that the data was not significant between dish soap and

Sodium Hex, the resulting t-value (from Welch t-test for significance) was

approaching the “Critical T Value”. Looking at this from a practical standpoint,

the results may not be “statistically significant” but there appears to be some

variability between dish soap and Sodium Hex.

C. NCHRP Issues i. None Received

Ed Harrigan gave a brief update: • There is a new synthesis report available • 01-53 Influence of Subgrade Unbound Layers • 20-5019: Using LTPP data to identify the overlap between field

and lab derived properties of unbound materials. D. Correspondence, calls, meetings

None E. Presentation by Industry/Academia

None F. Proposed New Standards

i. None Received G. Proposed New Task Forces

None H. Standards Requiring Reconfirmation

i. M 195‐11 (2015) ii. T 021M/T 21‐15


Page 5 of 5

There are some discrepancies in the color charts that are being produced. ASTM is currently reviewing and making changes. This TS will review once ASTM makes changes.

iii. T 096‐02 (2015) iv. T 210‐15 v. T 330‐07 (2015)

I. COMP Ballot Items (including any ASTM changes/equivalencies/harmonization) i. Review revisions submitted for T 27 by WAQTC (attached)

One of the major changes made is to move some of the sieve overload and other information to an Annex. A motion was made by Florida and a second by Alaska to approve the changes proposed by WAQTC voice vote. The ballot passed voice vote unopposed. A motion was made by Alabama and a second by Ohio to send the item to COMP. The motion passed unopposed.

VI. Open Discussion

VII. Adjourn A motion was made by Florida and a second by Tennessee to adjourn the

meeting. The meeting adjourned at 8:55 AM.

1

Beeson, Matthew

From: Beeson, MatthewSent: Tuesday, January 29, 2019 2:44 PMTo: '[email protected]'Cc: Short, TempleSubject: AASHTO COMP TS 1c, AASHTO T 27 Negative Vote

Brian, I’m following up on your negative vote on the changes to T 27 that were balloted in the Group 3 Ballot TS 1c last month. To jog your memory, here’s what you wrote:

Negative comment does not reflect moving the time evaluation to the annex.

Note 2 states more than 10 minutes of shaking time is excessive and may result in degradation of the sample. However A.1.1 states "Shake the sample over nested sieves for approximately 10 minutes." This could as stated in note 2 result in degradation of the sample. We suggest starting at a lower value such as 5 minutes and follow the rest of the annex procedures until less than 0.5% of mass is achieved. We suggest clarifying A.1.2. Does a technician have to scrap the sample after attaining a mass of greater than 0.5%? If you are not scraping the sample then what is meant by recheck? Is this additional hand sieving to achieve <0.5% mass or does it mean mechanically shaking the sample again?

I agree with clarifying A1.2. (Which is now tentatively A2.2 due to another state’s comments to reverse the sections). The intent is to increase the time and mechanically shake the sample again. Proposed language below:

As far as your comment on starting at 5 minutes, I agree with that as well. I will present both at next week’s mid‐year webinar. If these two items are changed as proposed, I’ll presume this satisfies your negative vote? Thanks, Matt Matthew Beeson, P.E. State Materials Engineer Indiana Department of Transportation Office of Materials Management Phone: (317) 522‐9662

Standard Method of Test for

Materials Finer Than 75-μm (No. 200) Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing

AASHTO Designation: T 11-05 (2013)1 ASTM Designation: C 117-13

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 444 North Capitol Street N.W., Suite 249 Washington, D.C. 20001

TS-1c T 11-1 AASHTO


Materials Finer Than 75-μm (No. 200) Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing

AASHTO Designation: T 11-05 (2013)1 ASTM Designation: C 117-13

1. SCOPE

1.1. This test method covers determination of the amount of material finer than a 75-µm (No. 200) sieve in aggregate by washing. Clay particles and other aggregate particles that are dispersed by the wash water, as well as water-soluble materials, will be removed from the aggregate during the test.

1.2. Two procedures are included, one using only water for the washing operation, and the other including a wetting agent to assist the loosening of the material finer than the 75-µm (No. 200) sieve from the coarser material. Unless otherwise specified, Procedure A (water only) shall be used.

1.3. The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard.

1.4. This standard may involve hazardous materials, operations, and equipment. This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

2. REFERENCED DOCUMENTS

2.1. AASHTO Standards: M 92, Wire-Cloth Sieves for Testing Purposes M 231, Weighing Devices Used in the Testing of Materials T 2, Sampling of Aggregates T 27, Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates T 248, Reducing Samples of Aggregate to Testing Size

2.2. ASTM Standards: C 117, Standard Test Method for Materials Finer than 75-μm (No. 200) Sieve in Mineral

Aggregates by Washing C 670, Standard Practice for Preparing Precision and Bias Statements for Test Methods for

Construction Materials

3. SUMMARY OF METHOD

3.1. A sample of the aggregate is washed in a prescribed manner, using either plain water or water containing a wetting agent, as specified. The decanted wash water, containing suspended and

http://www.astm.org/Standards/C117.htm




TS-1c T 11-2 AASHTO

dissolved material, is passed through a 75-µm (No. 200) sieve. The loss in mass resulting from the wash treatment is calculated as mass percent of the original sample and is reported as the percentage of material finer than a 75-µm (No. 200) sieve by washing.

4. SIGNIFICANCE AND USE

4.1. Material finer than the 75-µm (No. 200) sieve can be separated from larger particles much more efficiently and completely by wet sieving than through the use of dry sieving. Therefore, when accurate determinations of material finer than 75 µm in fine or coarse aggregate are desired, this test method is used on the sample prior to dry sieving in accordance with T 27. The results of this test method are included in the calculation in T 27, and the total amount of material finer than 75 µm by washing, plus that obtained by dry sieving the same sample, is reported with the results of T 27. Usually the additional amount of material finer than 75 µm obtained in the dry-sieving process is a small amount. If it is large, the efficiency of the washing operation should be checked. A large amount of material could also be an indication of the degradation of the aggregate.

4.2. Plain water is adequate to separate the material finer than 75 µm from the coarser material with most aggregates. In some cases, the finer material is adhering to the larger particles, such as some clay coatings and coatings on aggregates that have been extracted from bituminous mixtures. In these cases, the fine material will be separated more readily with a wetting agent in the water.

5. APPARATUS AND MATERIALS

5.1. Balance—The balance shall have sufficient capacity, be readable to 0.1 percent of the sample mass, or better, and conform to the requirements of M 231.

5.2. Sieves—A nest of two sieves, the lower being a 75-µm (No. 200) sieve and the upper being a sieve with openings in the range of 2.36 mm (No. 8) to 1.18 mm (No. 16), both conforming to the requirement of M 92.

5.3. Container—A pan or vessel of a size sufficient to contain the sample covered with water and to permit vigorous agitation without loss of any part of the sample or water.

5.4. Oven—An oven of sufficient size, capable of maintaining a uniform temperature of 110 ± 5°C (230 ± 9°F).

5.5. Wetting Agent—Any dispersing agent, such as liquid dishwashing detergents, that will promote separation of the fine materials.

5.5.5.6. Mechanical Washing Apparatus (Optional)—A mechanical washing apparatus (Note 1). Note 1—The use of a mechanical apparatus to perform the washing operation is not precluded, provided the results are consistent with those obtained using manual operations. The use of some mechanical washing equipment with some samples may cause degradation of the sample A sample should not be washed for more than 10 minutes when using a mechanical washing apparatus. Wash intervals greater than 10 minutes have been shown to cause significant amounts of degradation depending upon aggregate type. (NCHRP Digest 389)

.

6. SAMPLING

6.1. Sample the aggregate in accordance with T 2. If the same test sample is to be tested for sieve analysis according to T 27, comply with the applicable requirements of that method.

6.2. Thoroughly mix the sample of aggregate to be tested and reduce the quantity to an amount suitable for testing using the applicable methods described in T 248. If the same test sample is to be tested

Commented [WAQTC1]: The use is alluded to in the note but it was not listed under apparatus.

Commented [GN2]: Revised option

TS-1c T 11-3 AASHTO

according to T 27, the minimum mass shall be as described in the applicable sections of that method. Otherwise, the mass of the test sample, after drying, shall conform with the following:

Nominal Maximum Size Minimum Mass, g 4.75 mm (No. 4) or smaller 300 9.5 mm (3/8 in.) 1000 19.0 mm (3/4 in.) 2500 37.5 mm (11/2 in.) or larger 5000

The test sample shall be the end result of the reduction. Reduction to an exact predetermined mass shall not be permitted. If the nominal maximum size of the aggregate to be tested is not listed above, the next larger size listed shall be used to determine sample size.

7. SELECTION OF PROCEDURE

7.1. Procedure A shall be used, unless otherwise specified by the specification with which the test results are to be compared, or when directed by the agency for which the work is performed.

8. PROCEDURE A—WASHING WITH PLAIN WATER

8.1. Dry the test sample to constant mass at a temperature of 110 ± 5°C (230 ± 9°F). Determine the mass to the nearest 0.1 percent of the mass of the test sample.

8.2. If the applicable specification requires that the amount passing the 75-µm (No. 200) sieve shall be determined on a portion of the sample passing a sieve smaller than the nominal maximum size of the aggregate, separate the sample on the designated sieve and determine the mass of the material passing the designated sieve to 0.1 percent of the mass of this portion of the test sample. Use this mass as the original dry mass of the test sample in Section 10.1. Note 2—Some specifications for aggregates with a nominal maximum size of 50 mm or greater, for example, provide a limit for material passing the 75-µm (No. 200) sieve determined on that portion of the sample passing the 25.0-mm sieve. Such procedures are necessary because it is impractical to wash samples of the size required when the same test sample is to be used for sieve analysis by T 27.

8.3. After drying and determining the mass, place the test sample in the container and add sufficient water to cover it. No detergent, dispersing agent, or other substance shall be added to the water. Agitate the sample with sufficient vigor to result in complete separation of all particles finer than the 75-µm (No. 200) sieve from the coarser particles, and to bring the fine material into suspension. The use of a large spoon or other similar tool to stir and agitate the aggregate in the wash water has been found satisfactory. Immediately pour the wash water containing the suspended and dissolved solids over the nested sieves, arranged with the coarser sieve on top. Take care to avoid, as much as feasible, the decantation of coarser particles of the sample.

8.4. Add a second charge of water to the sample in the container, agitate, and decant as before. Repeat this operation until the wash water is clear. (Note 3) Note 3—If mechanical washing equipment is used, the charging of water, agitating, and decanting may be a continuous operation. Stop the mechanical washer when wash water is clear. Note 4—A spray nozzle or a piece of rubber tubing attached to a water faucet may be used to rinse any of the material that may have fallen onto the sieves. The velocity of water, which may be increased by pinching the tubing or by use of a nozzle, should not be sufficient to cause any splashing of the sample over the sides of the sieve.

Commented [WAQTC3]: n lieu of adding a time limit that may be too constraining.

Commented [GN4]: Note 1 now covers it

TS-1c T 11-4 AASHTO

8.5. Return all material retained on the nested sieves by flushing to the washed sample. Dry the washed aggregate to constant mass at a temperature of 110 ± 5°C (230 ± 9°F) and determine the mass to the nearest 0.1 percent of the original mass of the sample. Note 5—Following the washing of the sample and flushing any materials retained on the 75-µm (No. 200) sieve back into the container, no water should be decanted from the container except through the 75-µm sieve, to avoid loss of material. Excess water from flushing should be evaporated from the sample in the drying process.

9. PROCEDURE B—WASHING USING A WETTING AGENT

9.1. Prepare the sample in the same manner as for Procedure A.

9.2. After drying and determining the mass, place the test sample in the container. Add sufficient water to cover the sample, and add wetting agent to the water (Note 6). Agitate the sample with sufficient vigor to result in complete separation of all particles finer than the 75-µm (No. 200) sieve from the coarser particles, and to bring the fine material into suspension. The use of a large spoon or other similar tool to stir and agitate the aggregate in the wash water has been found satisfactory. Immediately pour the wash water containing the suspended and dissolved solids over the nested sieves, arranged with the coarser sieve on top. Take care to avoid, as much as feasible, the decantation of coarser particles of the sample. Note 6—There should be enough wetting agent to produce a small amount of suds when the sample is agitated. The quantity will depend on the hardness of the water and the quality of the detergent. Excessive suds may overflow the sieves and carry some material with them.

9.3. Add a second charge of water (without wetting agent) to the sample in the container, agitate, and decant as before. Repeat this operation until the wash water is clear.

9.4. Complete the test as for Procedure A.

10. CALCULATION

10.1. Calculate the amount of material passing a 75-µm (No. 200) sieve by washing as follows:

( ) / 100A B C B= − × (1)

where: A = percentage of material finer than a 75-µm (No. 200) sieve by washing; B = original dry mass of sample, g; and C = dry mass of sample after washing, g.

11. REPORT

11.1. Report the percentage of material finer than the 75-µm (No. 200) sieve by washing to the nearest 0.1 percent, except if the result is 10 percent or more, report the percentage to the nearest whole number.

11.2. Include a statement as to which procedure was used.

TS-1c T 11-5 AASHTO

12. PRECISION AND BIAS

12.1. Precision—The estimates of precision of this test method listed in Table 1 are based on results from the AASHTO Materials Reference Laboratory Proficiency Sample Program, with testing conducted by this test method and ASTM C 117. The significant differences between the methods at the time the data were acquired is that T 11 required, and ASTM C 117 prohibited, the use of a wetting agent. The data are based on the analyses of more than 100 paired test results from 40 to 100 laboratories.

Table 1—Precision

Standard Deviation

(1s),a %

Acceptable Range of Two Results

(d2s),a % Coarse aggregate:b Single-operator precision 0.10 0.28 Multilaboratory precision 0.22 0.62 Fine aggregate:c Single-operator precision 0.15 0.43 Multilaboratory precision 0.29 0.82

a These numbers represent the (1s) and (d2s) limits as described in ASTM C 670. b Precision estimates are based on aggregates having a nominal maximum size of 19.0 mm (3/4 in.) with less

than 1.5 percent finer than the 75-μm (No. 200) sieve. c Precision estimates are based on fine aggregates having 1.0 to 3.0 percent finer than the 75-μm (No. 200) sieve.

12.1.1. The precision values for fine aggregate in Table 1 are based on nominal 500-g test samples. Revision of this test method in 1996 permits the fine aggregate test sample size to 300-g minimum. Analysis of results of testing of 300-g and 500-g test samples from Aggregate Proficiency Test Samples 99 and 100 (Samples 99 and 100 were essentially identical) produced the precision values in Table 2, which indicates only minor differences due to test sample size.

Table 2—Precision Data for 300-g and 500-g Test Samples

Fine Aggregate Proficiency Sample

Within Laboratory

Between Laboratory

Test Result Sample

Size No. Labs Avg 1s d2s 1s d2s

AASHTO T 11/ASTM C 117 (Total material passing the 500 g 270 1.23 0.08 0.24 0.23 0.66 No. 200 sieve by washing, %) 300 g 264 1.20 0.10 0.29 0.24 0.68

Note 7—The values for fine aggregate in Table 1 will be revised to reflect the 300-g test sample size when a sufficient number of Aggregate Proficiency Tests have been conducted using that sample size to provide reliable data.

12.2. Bias—Because there is no accepted reference material suitable for determining the bias for the procedure in this test method, no statement on bias is made.

13. KEYWORDS

13.1. Aggregate; size analysis; wash loss; 75-µm (No. 200) sieve. 1 Except for Sections 5.1 and 6.2, and Note 4, this test method is identical with ASTM C 117-13.


Clay Lumps , Shale, and Friable Particles in Coarse and Fine Aggregate

AASHTO Designation: T 112-172 ASTM Designation: C 142-97


TS-1c T 112-1 AASHTO


Clay Lumps and Friable , Shale, and Friable Particles in Coarse and Fine Aggregate

AASHTO Designation: T 112-172 ASTM Designation: C 142-97

1. SCOPE

1.1. This method covers the approximate determination of clay lumps and friable particles in aggregate. This method is intended for evaluating aggregates that are nominally smaller than 2 inches.

1.1. NOTE: It is intended that this procedure will be conducted concurrently with T 27, when results from both procedures are desired. If that option is elected, additional sieves to those required in 6.3 will need to be incorporated; however, all of the material passing the 4.75 mm (No. 4) sieve at the completion of initial sieving and separation will be recombined prior to continuation of the T 112 procedure.This method covers the determination of clay lumps, shale, and friable particles in natural aggregates. This test method is not intended to be used with lightweight aggregates. Two alternate procedures are provided as follows:

Method A – Coarse aggregate and crushed rock retained on the 4.75-mm (No. 4) sieve Sections 6 and 7

Method B – Fine aggregate passing the 4.75-mm (No. 4) sieve Sections 8 and9.

Calculations for both methods in Section 10

1.2. This standard may involve hazardous materials, operations, and equipment. This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to consult and establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.


2.1. AASHTO Standards: M 6, Fine Aggregate for Hydraulic Cement Concrete M 80, Coarse Aggregate for Hydraulic Cement Concrete M 92, Wire-Cloth Sieves for Testing Purposes M 231, Weighing Devices Used in the Testing of Materials T 2, Standard Method of Test for Sampling of Aggregates T 11, Materials Finer Than 75-μm (No. 200) Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing T 27, Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregate

Formatted: Font: 10 pt

Formatted: Heading 2, Indent: Left: 0"

Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Bold

Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.31", No bullets or numbering


Formatted: Heading 2, Indent: Left: 1.31"



Formatted: List Bullet



R 76, Standard Practice for Reducing Samples of Aggregate to Testing Size


3.1. This test method is of primary significance in determining the acceptability of aggregate with respect to the requirements of M 6 and M 80.

4. APPARATUS

4.1. Balance—The balance shall have sufficient capacity, be readable to 0.1 percent of the sample mass, or better, and conform to the requirements of M 231.

4.2. Containers—Rust-resistant containers of a size and shape that will permit the spreading of the sample on the bottom in a thin single layer.

4.3. Sieves—Sieves conforming to M 92.

4.4. Oven—An oven providing free circulation of air and capable of maintaining a temperature of 110 ± 5ºC (230 ± 9ºF).

5. DEFINITIONS 5.1 Clay Lumps – Any material which can be broken with the fingers into finely divided particles

when dry, or, after initial rinsing of the material, is found to be Friable, and can be extruded between the fingers when squeezed and feels greasy to the touch, or is found to be in this condition after the two hour soaking period as specified for coarse aggregate in Section 7.1.

5.2 Shale – Laminated material which can be broken with the fingers when dry, or after the initial rinsing of the material, is found to be separating or slaking off into layers, or is found to be in this condition after the two hour soaking period shall be defined as shale. This material is generally Friable when wet and when squeezed may extrude between the fingers. Some pieces of shale, however, cannot be identified until completion of the 24+2 hour soaking period. These cannot usually be squeezed or extruded between the fingers, but can be broken easily. These are generally dark gray in color and have a slick or greasy surface.

5.3 Friable Particles – Friable particles shall be identified as such, if after soaking for 24+2 hours

they can be broken with the fingers. This material can readily be identified as not being clay lumps or shale due to its structure, which is generally sandy or chalk-like and loosely bonded.

METHOD A – Coarse Aggregate

6.5. SAMPLE

5.1. Sample the aggregate in accordance with T 2. The mass of the field sample shall be the mass shown in T 2 or four times the mass required in Sections 5.3 and 5.4, whichever is greater.

6.1. Air dry sample.

5.2. TThoroughly mix the sample and reduce it to an amount suitable for testing using the applicable procedures described in R 76. The sample for testing shall meet the minimum









Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 10 pt



mass required by Table 1 when dry and shall be the end result of the reduction. Reduction to an exact predetermined mass shall not be permitted.

5.3. Fine Aggregate - For a fine aggregate sample, only the material coarser than 2.00 mm (No. 10) sieve shall be tested. The size of the test sample of aggregate, after drying, shall be 300 g minimum.

5.4. Coarse Aggregate or Coarse and Fine Aggregates Mixtures - The approximate sample mass shall be determined by choosing the largest sieve to retain greater than 5% of the combined gradation from the results of T 27. The mass of the test sample of aggregate shall conform with the requirements of Table 1.

Table 1 Retained Sieve Size Approx. Mass of Starting

Test Sample (g) 37.5 mm 11/2 in. 10000 (± 50) 19.0 mm 3/4 in. 5000 (± 50) 12.5 mm 1/2 in. 2000 (± 50) 9.5 mm 3/8 in. 1000 (± 50) 4.75 mm No. 4 750 (± 25) 1.19 mm No. 16 300 (± 10)

5.5. esWash the sample according to T 11 to remove fines. Avoid excess agitation during washing. NOTE: Excess agitation may lead to an incorrect result of the test method due to potentially breaking down clay lumps and friable particles that would be identified in T 112.

5.6. Dry the sample to constant mass at a temperature of 60 ± 5ºC (140 ± 9ºF).t samples of coarse aggregate shall be a representative portion of material sufficient to yield a minimum of 2000 grams of material after sieving over the 4.75-mm (No. 4) sieve. The material passing the 4.75-mm (No. 4) sieve shall be discarded.

6.2.

7.6. PROCEDURE

6.1. DSeparate the test sample into different sizes using the following sieves: 37.5 mm (11/2 in.), 12.5 mm (1/2 in.), 4.75 mm (No. 4) and 2.00 mm (No. 10).

7.1. etermine the mass of the test sample to the accuracy specified in Section 4.1, rinse sample to remove surface dust, and spread it in a thin layer on the bottom of the container. Any materials identified as clay lumps, shale or Friable particles shall be removed from the test sample and retained in separate portions.

7.2. The Each separated portion may then be reduced again, according to the procedures described in R 76. After reduction, each portion shall weigh not less than indicated in Table 2. If the grading of the original sample provides less than the amount indicated in Table 2 for any separated portion, no reduction is allowed for that portion.sample shall be covered with potable water and allowed to soak for a period of 2 hours. At the completion of the 2-hour soaking period, free water shall be poured off the sample and the sample shall be handpicked for clay lumps and shale, removed and retained in their separate portions.







Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.31"


Formatted Table












Formatted: Normal

Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Bold

Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 1.31"



Formatted: Normal

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"






6.2.

7.3. After the 2-hour hand picking the sample shall be covered with potable water and allowed to soak for an additional 22 ± 2 hours. At the completion of the final soaking period, free water is poured off the sample and the sample is again handpicked for shale and Friable particles. Roll and squeeze particles individually between the thumb and forefinger to attempt to break the particle into smaller sizes. Do not use the fingernails to break up particles, or press particles against a hard surface or each other. Classify any particles that can be broken with the fingers as clay lumps or Friable particles. After all discernible clay lumps and friable particles have been broken, separate the undersized material from the remainder of the sample.

Table 2

Size of Particles Making Up Test Sample Portion

Weight of Reduced Test Portion (min. to max.) (g)

Over 37.5 mm Over 11/2 in. 3000 to 3100 25.0 to 12.5 mm 11/2 to 1/2 in. 1500 to 1600 12.5 to 4.75 mm 1/2 to No. 4 750 to 800 Under 4.75 mm Under No. 4 300 to 325

6.3. Dry After separating, weigh each individual test sample portion of material to be used in testing and record to the nearest 0.1 g.

6.3.1. Determine the sum of all test sample portions to be tested and record as “M” to the nearest 0.1 g.

6.4. Using individual containers for each separated portion, spread each in a single layer on the bottom of the container. Then cover it with potable water at least ¼” above the material and soak it for a period of 24 ± 4 hours. NOTE: If testing large aggregate (>1”), multiple pans may be used to adequately cover the large sample size with water to achieve a single layer.

6.4.1. For larger particles that are either soft and/or easily deformed when applying light pressure between two fingers, pick and remove these into a separate pan and retain.

6.4.2. Once all large particles are removed, roll and squeeze each individual particle between the thumb and forefinger to attempt to break the particle into smaller sizes. Do not press particles against each other or a hard surface and additionally, refrain from using the fingernails to break apart particles.

6.5. For all portions, once the clay lumps and friable particle have been broken down, separate the undersized or softened material from the remainder of the sample by wet sieving over the sieve prescribed in Table 3.

Table 3

Size of Particles Making Up Test Sample Portion

Sieve Required for Removal of Undersized Material

Over 37.5 mm Over 11/2 in. 9.5 mm (3/8 in.) 37.5 to 25.0 mm 11/2 to 1 in. 9.5 mm (3/8 in.) 25.0 to 12.5 mm 1 to 1/2 in. 4.75 mm (No. 4) 12.5 to 4.75 mm 1/2 in. to No. 4 2.36 mm (No. 8) Under 4.75 mm Under No. 4 841-μm (No. 20)

Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted Table ...Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...


6.5.1. Perform the wet sieving by passing potable water over the sample through the sieve while manually agitating the sieve until all undersize material has been removed.

6.6. Remove the retained particles carefully from the sieve and recombine into a separate container.

6.6.1. Combine with any large particles set aside in step 6.4.1 and dry to substantially constant mass at a temperature of 110 ± 5°C (230 ± 9°F).

7.4.6.6.2. Allow to cool, and determine the mass. Record mass to nearest 0.1 g as “R”. the test sample and separate portions of clay lumps, shale and friable particles to a substantially constant mass at a temperature of 110 ± 5ºC (230 ± 9ºF). Allow the samples to cool, and determine the mass of the test sample and the separate portions of the clay lumps, shale, and Friable particles to the accuracy specified in Section 4.1.

Method B – Fine Aggregate

8. SAMPLE

8.1. Air dry sample.

8.2. Test samples of fine aggregate shall be a representative portion of material sufficient to yield a minimum of 1000 grams of material passing the 4.75-mm (No. 4) sieve and retained on the 2.00-mm (No. 10) sieve. The material passing the 2.00-mm (No. 10) sieve shall be discarded.

9. PROCEDURE

9.1. Determine the mass of the test sample to the accuracy specified in Section 4.1 and spread it in a thin layer on the bottom of the container. Any materials identified as clay lumps or friable particles shall be removed from the test sample and retained in separate portions.

9.2. Dry the test sample, clay lumps and friable particles to a substantially constant mass at a temperature of 110 ± 5ºC (230 ± 9ºF). Allow the samples to cool, and determine the mass of the test sample and the separate portions of the clay lumps and friable particles to the accuracy specified in Section 4.1.

10.7. CALCULATION

10.1.7.1. Calculate the percent of clay lumps , shale, and friable particles in fine aggregate or individual sizes of coarse or fine aggregate as follows:

P = [R/M] x 100 (1) where: P = percent of clay lumps and, shale, or F friable particles; M = mass of test sample, (this includes fine, coarse, or the combined fine and coarse

aggregate samples)total mass of test sample, clay lumps, shale, and Friable particles retained on the 4.75-mm (No. 4) sieve for coarse aggregates (as described in Section 7.4)

Formatted: Normal





Formatted: Heading 3




Commented [j1]: Vague procedure: Not going to rinse the fine aggregate or even wet it to pick out deleterious material?

Commented [j2]: Again, wording here is confusing. Seems like clay lumps and friables are separated from each other, not just from the original sample?

Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 1", Hanging: 0.5"


or the total mass of test sample, clay lumps, and Friable particles retained on the 2.00-mm (No. 10) sieve for fine aggregates (as described in Section 9.2).

R = mass of particles retained including the fine aggregate sample if tested.mass of clay lumps, shale, or Friable particles.

11.8. PRECISION AND BIASREPORT

8.1. Record the percent of clay lumps and friable particles to the nearest 0.1%.

8.2. Report the percent of clay lumps and friable particles to the nearest 1%.There currently is no precision and bias established for this test procedure.


9.1. There currently is no precision and bias established for this test procedure. 11.1.


Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Not Italic

Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Not Italic

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Normal

Proposed Standard Method of Test for

DETERMINING THE RELATIVE DENSITY (SPECIFIC GRAVITY) AND ABSORPTION OF LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE

AASHTO Designation: TP XX-XX Proposed test method under review before submitting to AASHTO Subcommittee on Materials


TP XX-2 AASHTO

Proposed test method under review before submitting to AASHTO Subcommittee on Materials – JulyMonth 31Day, 2016XX Proposed Standard Method of Test for

DETERMINING THE TACK COAT RELATIVE DENSITY (SPECIFIC GRAVITY) AND ABSORPTION OF LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE

AASHTO Designation: TP XX-XX

1. SCOPE

1.1. This test method covers the determination of the relative density (specific gravity) of lightweight aggregate in the field or laboratoryThis test method covers the determination of the tack coat quality as measured by the tensile strength of tack coat materials on the free surface of asphalt concrete in the field or laboratory.

1.2. This standard may involve hazardous materials, operations, and equipment. This standard does not purport to address all safety concernsproblems associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this procedure to establish appropriate safety and health practices and to determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.


2.1. AASHTO Standards: M 231, Standard Specification for Weighing Devices Used in the Testing of Materials T 2, Standard Method of Test for Sampling of Aggregates T 84, Standard Method of Test for Specific Gravity and Absorption of Fine Aggregate T 164, Standard Method of Test for Quantitative Extraction of Asphalt Binder from Hot Mix

Asphalt (HMA)Standard Method of Test for Specific Gravity and Absorption of Fine Aggregate

T 248, Reducing Samples of Aggregate to Testing Size , Standard Method of Test for Specific Gravity and Absorption of Fine Aggregate

3. TERMINOLOGY

3.1. AbsorptionSpray Application – The increase in the mass of aggregate due to water in the pores of the aggregate material, but not including water adhering to the outside surface of the particles, expressed as a percentage of the dry mass.

3.2. Specific gravity – The ratio of mass of a volume of a material at a stated temperature to the mass of the same volume of distilled water at the same temperature. A measure of the tack coat uniformity of coverage of a tack coat application on a pavement surface is referred to as tack coat

Formatted: Body Text

PP XX-3 AASHTO

quality. suitaThis tack coat quality is bility as described by the tensile strength of the tack coat material.

4. SUMMARY OF METHOD

4.1. A sample of aggregate is immersed in water for 24 ± 4h to allow filling of the permeable poresessentially fill the pores. Excess water It is then thedecantedn removed from the water, and the a centrifuge is used to remove water is dried from the surface of the particles. The mass of the sample is measured and recorded. Next using a centrifuge, and the mass determined. Subsequently, the sample (or a portion of it) iof aggregate is placed in a graduated container and the volume of the sample is determined by utilizing a pycnometerby the gravimetric method. Finally, the sample is oven-dried and the mass is determined again. Using the mass values thus obtained and formulas in this test method, it is possible to calculate relative density (specific gravity) and absorption of the aggregate are calculated.


5.1. Lightweight aggregate is used as an additional source of water in iThis test method is suitable for field or laboratory tests to determine the quality of tack coat adhesionquality of a tacked surface as measured by the tensile strength. KThe knowledge of tack coat adhesion quality serves as a tool in characterizing the tack coat materialnternally-cured concrete mixtures resulting in reduced early-age cracking potential.

5.2. The tensile strength produced using this test method is influenced by the temperature at which the tacked surface iwas tested and the application rate of the tack coat material.

5.3.5.2. The specific gravity and absorption values calculated in this test method are used in the design of internally-cured concrete mixturestensile strength values measured by this test method, with the equipment and procedures stated herein, do not necessarily agree or correlate directly with other techniques of tack coat adhesion quality measurements. This test method is also suitable for research and development purposes, where direct comparisons between tack coat materials on a pavement surface are to be made within the same test program.

6. APPARATUS

6.1. Centrifuge – Extraction apparatus conforming to AASHTO T 164, method ALouisiana Tack Coat Quality Tester – The device shall be equipped with a closed-loop servo motor actuator for precision control of the rate of displacement during testing. It shall be capable of measuring loads of up to 446 N (100 lbf) with an accuracy of ±1%. The displacement of the actuator shall be measured using a position transducer that has a total travel of 100 mm (3.937 in.) The diameter of the loading plate shall be 100 mm (3.937 in.). The device is illustrated in Figure 1.

6.2. Filter ringComputer and Software – The software shall be designed such that it displays the time, normal load, and displacement of the actuator continuously during testing while graphically illustrating the relationship of the normal load and time. It shall allow the user to input the required compressive load, the time to hold the compressive load, and the displacement rate required. The actual holding time of the compressive load shall be displayed during testing as well as the actual displacement rate. In addition, the software shall allow the user to move the actuator manually Felt or paper, to fit the rim of the bowl, conforming to AASHTO T 164..

6.3. PycnometerInfrared Reflective Heating Source – A two-quart flask as specified in AASHTO T 84 It shall be equipped with a 250 watt, 120 volt bulb. It shall be designed such that it can be positioned six inches from the surface to be tested without making contact made with the tacked

Formatted: Font: Italic

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman



PP XX-4 AASHTO

surface. The pycnometer should have a capacity at least 50 percent more than the volume needed to accommodate the test sample.

6.4. OvenThermometer – The drying apparatus capable of drying the test specimen atthermometer shall be suitable to measure the temperature of a tacked surface without directly contacting the test area. It is recommended that an infrared thermometer be utilized 110 ± 5°C.

6.5. WeighBalancets – A scale as specified in AASHTO M 231, class G2.The weights used shall be equal or greater than the expected maximum normal load. Note that the normal load applied by the machine cannot exceed 446 N (100 lbf).

6.6. MiscellaneousTemperature Ccontrol Ddevices – Spatulas and brushes, as neededThe devices mechanism of the temperature control device shall be to adjust the surface temperature to the required test temperature. It is recommended that a fan be used to cool the tacked surface and a heat gun be used to heat the tacked surface.









PP XX-5 AASHTO

PP XX-6 AASHTO

Figure 1. Illustration of the LTCQT deviceCentrifuge apparatus.

7. HAZARDS

7.1. Standard laboratory safety precautions must be observed when preparing and handltesting the testasphalt concrete specimens.

8. PREPARATION OF THE TEST SPECIMENS

8.1. Obtain approximately 1000 g of the lightweight aggregate using the AASHTO T 248Testing area shall be cleaned prior to the tack coat application. procedure and oven-dry it at 110 ± 5°C to a constant mass. Constant mass is obtained when the weight of the test specimen does not change by more than 0.1 percent of its original weight after a 15-minute interval. After constant mass is obtained, cool the specimen to room temperature. SubmergeSubmergethe specimen in water for 72 ± 4 hours. For field testing, omit oven drying and soaking .

8.1. Place the aggregate sample in the centrifuge bowl.

Weight

Actuator

Loading Plate

Driving Motor Frame

Load Cell

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, Font color:Auto

Commented [SJ1]: Soaking before placing in the centrifuge bowl allows multiple samples to be tested quickly. 72 hour soak is used to be in agreement with ASTM C1761 and ASTM C128. For field testing (as at Ada), the material is already pre-soaked, so this step is eliminated.

PP XX-7 AASHTO

8.2. Tack coat material shall be applied using the appropriate method. For laboratory sample, apply tack coat at the specified application rate using a paintbrush In the laboratory, the proper amount of tack coat is determined based on the application rate. The specimen is placed on a laboratory scale and the appropriate amount of tack coat is then applied to the top surface using a one-inch natural bristle brush. . Field sections typically uses a distributor truck for spray application of tack coat material.

Submerge the aggregate in the centrifuge bowl with water for 24 ± 4 hours.

8.3. Decant excess water with care to avoid the loss of fines. For field testing aA 150 mm (5.906 inch) by 150 mm (5.906 inch) area of eEmulsified tacked surfaces shall be desiccated prior to testing. It is recommended that this shall be accomplished by placing the Infrared Reflective Heating source six inches above the tacked surface for a minimum of one hour. Note that this time may be extended for bulk application rates greater than 0.05 gal/yd².

8.3. 8.4 Measure 600 ± 10g of lightweight aggregate into the centrifuge bowl. For field testing, record the mass as MW.

8.4. Number of Ttest aAreas – Place the filter ring on the bowl, clamp on the cover, and start the centrifugea single test shall consist of at least three test areas. Laboratory testing requires three SGC prepared samples. Adjust the rotation speed, if needed, to 2000 ± 20 rpm. Maintain the rotational speed for 3 minutes ± 15 seconds and then turn the centrifuge off.

8.4. After the centrifuge has come to a stop, remove the latched outer cover. Remove the inner cover nut and filter paper. Scrape the sides of the bowl and use a brush to remove aggregate from the filter paper

8.5. The Ttest areas shall be numbered and the locations shall be documented.. The test specimen is now in the wetted surface-dry condition.

9. PROCEDURE

9.1. Weigh the wetted surface-dry aggregate test sample and record this mass to the nearest 0.1 g (A). Partially fill the pycnometer with water and introduce the weighed pre-wetted aggregate into the pycnometer. Add water to fill to Testing areas (specimen) shall be conditioned to the correct testing temperature using a heat blower or fanthe IRH device. It is recommended that the softening point (AASHTO T53) of the tack coat material be used as the testing temperature.e shall be the softening point of the tack coat material.approximately 90 percent of capacity of the pycnometer.

9.2. Roll and agitate the pycnometer to remove air bubblesDevice positioning – Place the LTCQT directly above the tacked surface to be tested. Lift up the front end of the device to verify that the loading plate is positioned directly above the tacked surface that will be tested. It takes approximately 15-20 minutes to eliminate air bubbles.

9.3. Adjust the water temperature to 23 ± 1.7°C (73.4 ± 3°F) and bring the level of the water to the calibration mark of the pycnometer. Determine the mass of the pycnometer, specimen, and water and record it to the nearest 0.1 g (B).The correct weight (40 lbf) shall be placed on top of the LTCQT device.

9.4. Decant excess water with care to avoid loss of fines. Transfer the test specimen to an appropriate vessel for oven-drying. Rinse the flask until all material has been transferred. The cThe compressive load (89 N (20 lbf)), time to hold the compressive load (3 minutes), and the displacement rate (0.2 mm/sec (0.008 in./sec)) shall be entered into the computer by the user. The compressive load shall not exceed the weight placed on top of the LTCQT device.


Formatted: Font color: Auto


Formatted: Normal

Formatted: Subscript

Commented [SJ2]: This is used for adjusting the mixing water for correct for surface moisture.


Commented [SJ3]: Renumber paragraphs as required



Commented [SJ4]: Although longer times won’t change the results, we should include a range.

Formatted: Font color: Black




Commented [S5]: Verify and add


PP XX-8 AASHTO

9.5. Dry the test specimen in an oven at 110 ± 5°C to a constant massZero the load reading prior to the initiation of the test. Immediately following the initiation of the test, the load shall be offset such that the software displays a load of 0 N (lbf) prior to the contact between the loading plate and the tacked surface. It is also recommended that the plate be positioned as close as possible to the tacked surface prior to testing so as to minimize the change in temperature. Constant mass is obtained when the weight of the test specimen does not change by more than 0.1 percent of its original weight after a 15-minute interval. Cool the specimen to room temperature and record the mass to the nearest 0.1 g (C).The initial position of the loading plate shall be determined to allow sufficient time for the observation of the initial load and application of the offset.

9.6. Fill the empty pycnometer with water to its calibrated markThe compressive load shall be mechanically applied to the tacked surface for the specified amount of time (3 minutes). Once the allotted time has ended, the loading plate shall automatically be raised move away from the tacked surface at the prescribed displacement rate. The software shall by design record the normal load, vertical displacement, and time throughout the test. Record the ultimate tensile load (, Pult), of the tack coat material. A graph of a typical test results is shown in Ffigure 2. Weigh and record this mass to the nearest 0.1 g (D).

10. CALCULATIONS

10.1. Calculate the wetted surface dry specific gravity of the lightweight aggregate tack coat adhesion quality, TCQ, as follows:

𝐺𝐺𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 =𝐴𝐴

𝐴𝐴+𝐷𝐷−𝐵𝐵 where: GWSD = Wetted surface-dry specific gravity A = Mass of the wetted surface-dry test specimen, g B = Mass of the pycnometer containing the specimen and water, g D = Mass of the pycnometer filled with water, g

10.2. Calculate the 24-hour absorption of the lightweight aggregate as follows:

𝐴𝐴2472 =𝐴𝐴−𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 × 100

where: A2472 = the 2472-h absorption, expressed as a percentage of the oven-dry mass, percent 10.1. C = Mass of the oven-dry aggregate, g:

𝑇𝑇𝐶𝐶𝑇𝑇 =𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝜋𝜋𝐷𝐷2

4

where: TCQ = tack coat quality, Pa (PSIpsi) Pult = ultimate tensile load, N (lbf) D = diameter of the loading plate, m (inch) 10.3 For field testing, calculate the surface moisture of the lightweight aggregate as follows:




Commented [S6]: add


Commented [S7]: Add Figure





Formatted: Normal

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Not Italic


Formatted: Normal


Formatted: Normal

Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.13", No bullets or numbering

Formatted: Normal




Formatted: Centered

PP XX-9 AASHTO

𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 =𝑀𝑀𝑊𝑊−𝐴𝐴

𝐴𝐴 × 100 Where WS = the surface moisture in the lightweight aggregate, expressed as a percentage of the wetted surface dry mass.

11. REPORT

11.1. Maximum size of the lightweight aggregateTest location.

11.2. Note the appearance of the tacked surface before and after testing including any contaminants, milling striations, stripping, tack coat streaks, etcSource of the lightweight aggregate.

11.3. Test results:

11.3.1. Test date.Softening point temperature, °C (°F)

11.3.2. Wetted specific gravity of the lightweight aggregate, to the nearest 0.001..

11.3.1. Loading plate dimensions – including the diameter, and the cross-section area2472-hour absorption of the lightweight aggregate, to the nearest 0.1 percent.

Ultimate tensile load applied, nearest 4.4 N (1 lbf)

11.3.2. .

11.3.3. Tensile strength, nearest 68.9 Pa (0.01 psiPSI).Pa.

11.3.4. Corresponding vertical deformation, nearest 0.025 mm (0.001 inch).

11.3.3. Average and standard deviation of tensile strength for the set of tested areas. 11.3.5. 11.3.4 For field testing, report the surface moisture of the lightweight aggregate to the nearest 0.1 percent.


12.1. The precision and bias statements for this method have not been determined.

13. KEYWORDS

lightweight aggregate, internal curing, specific gravity, absorption, centrifugeTack Coat Adhesion Quality, Tensile Strength, Asphalt Overlay, Tack Coat, Slippage Failure.

13.1.

Commented [SJ8]: You might want to change the symbols and use A for the mass of the soaked aggregate, B for the wetted surface dry aggregate, etc. Maybe then the surface moisture would be S.


Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0"


Commented [SJ9]: The surface moisture is calculated this way, because it s used to correct the batch weight of the presoaked aggregate. If we use the oven dry weight, we will over-correct.



Formatted: Tab stops: 1", List tab




Formatted: Indent: Left: 1", No bullets or numbering




Formatted: Tab stops: 1", List tab

Formatted: Body Text, Tab stops: Not at 1"



Commented [SJ10]: ASTM is developing a single-lab, single operator and multiple operator precision statement for the centrifuge method for determining absorption. The ASTM C1761 precision statement on the specific gravity portion of the method is as follows: 10.7 Precision and Bias: 10.7.1 An interlaboratory study of this test method has not been completed. The pooled single operator standard deviations based on one laboratory were found to be 0.3 % for the 72-h absorption and 0.010 for the relative density (OD). NOTE 10—Samples of lightweight fine aggregate from four sources were used in the single-laboratory study. The 72-h absorption ranged from 9 to 28 % and the relative density (OD) ranged from 1.06 to 1.74. The standard deviations did not depend on the mean values and pooled standard deviations were calculated. 10.7.2 The bias of this test method cannot be determined because lightweight aggregate having accepted reference values is not available.


PP XX-10 AASHTO

Figure 2. Typical test results

13.1.

Formatted: Heading 2, Left

Formatted: Font: Arial


Formatted: Font: Arial

1

Jeffrey Speck

From: Amar Raghavendra <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 4:44 PMTo: Jeffrey SpeckSubject: RE: Centrifuge Method for AASHTOAttachments: Draft LWA 7-14-16.docx

Hi Jeff, Please find attached a copy of the AASHTO spec that I’m working on. I wanted to highlight a few things:

(1) I’ve followed the AASHTO T 84 format: “Preparing the Test Specimen” section describes the process of bringing the specimen to the WSD condition and the “Test Procedure” section describes the pycnometer method to measure specific gravity.

(2) A 1000 g test specimen is used in the procedure: This corresponds roughly to 6 half‐cup measures used in the INDOT procedure, assuming a specific gravity of 1.4 for the aggregate. Please see table below.

(3) A “wetted surface‐dry” specific gravity and a 24‐hour absorption is calculated and reported. We’re in the process of using this procedure on the Ada LWA in our lab. I’ll make changes/corrections as needed and send you the final specification next week.

Miller, Barrett, Weiss INDOT ACI 211.2

600 g 6 cups (1/2‐cup capacity) 1/2 to 2/3 of 2‐quart

(1000 g at 1.41 SG) (1400 to 1900 g at 1.41 SG)

Could you review the attached document and give me some feedback? And please use the “no markup” option if you don’t want to see the track changes. Thanks, Amar Amar Raghavendra, PE Concrete Research Engineer Louisiana Transportation Research Center 4101 Gourrier Avenue, Baton Rouge, LA 70808 TEL: 225.767.9730 | email: [email protected]

From: Jeffrey Speck [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 10:28 AM To: Amar Raghavendra <[email protected]> Subject: Centrifuge Method for AASHTO Hi Amar: Just checking to see if there’s any progress on getting this into AASHTO format. Please let me know what I can do to help get it done before the meeting in Greenville. Have a great holiday weekend!

Jeff Speck

Email: [email protected] Mobile: (678) 777-6278 http://TrinityLightweight.com

2

Notice: This email message, including any attachments, contains information belonging to Trinity Industries, Inc. and/or its business units. It has been sent solely for the use of the intended recipients and may contain non-public information and/or may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted, and legally privileged. If you are not an intended recipient, please advise the sender of the error and permanently delete all copies of this email, including any copies that may reside in your deleted box. The unauthorized review, use, disclosure, distribution, or copying of this email or its contents is strictly prohibited.

COMP TS Planning Ahead—Full Standards

Designation No. Title ASTM Equiv. Planning Needed TS 1c

M 6‐13 (2018)Fine Aggregate for Hydraulic Cement ConcreteM 006‐13 (2018) No

M 29‐12 (2016)Fine Aggregate for Bituminous Paving Mixtures D1073‐11M 029‐12 (2016) Begin Review

M 43‐05 (2018)Sizes of Aggregate for Road and Bridge Construction D448‐12M 043‐05 (2018) No

M 45‐16Aggregate for Masonry Mortar C144‐11M 045‐16 Begin Review

M 80‐13 (2017)Coarse Aggregate for Hydraulic Cement ConcreteM 080‐13 (2017) No

M 195‐11 (2019)Lightweight Aggregates for Structural Concrete C330‐09M 195‐11 (2019) No

R 76‐16Reducing Samples of Aggregate to Testing Size C 702/C 702M‐11R 076‐16 Begin Review

R 90‐18Sampling Aggregate ProductsR 090‐18 No

R 91‐18Determining Aggregate Source Shape Values from Digital Image Analysis Shape Properties

R 091‐18 No

T 11‐05 (2018)Materials Finer Than 75‐μm (No. 200) Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing C117‐13T 011‐05 (2018) No

T 19M/T 19‐14 (2018)Bulk Density ("Unit Weight") and Voids in Aggregate C29/C29M‐09T 019M/T 019‐14 (2018)

No

T 21M/T 21‐15 (2019)Organic Impurities in Fine Aggregates for Concrete C40/C40M‐11T 021M/T 21‐15 (2019) No

T 27‐19Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates C136‐06T 027‐19 No

T 71‐08 (2017)Effect of Organic Impurities in Fine Aggregate on Strength of Mortar C87/C87M‐10T 071‐08 (2017) No

T 84‐13 (2017)Specific Gravity and Absorption of Fine Aggregate C128‐12T 084‐13 (2017) No

T 85‐14 (2018)Specific Gravity and Absorption of Coarse Aggregate C127‐12T 085‐14 (2018) No

T 96‐02 (2019)Resistance to Degradation of Small‐Size Coarse Aggregate by Abrasion and Impact in the Los Angeles Machine

C131‐01T 096‐02 (2019) No

T 103‐08 (2017)Soundness of Aggregates by Freezing and ThawingT 103‐08 (2017) No

T 104‐99 (2016)Soundness of Aggregate by Use of Sodium Sulfate or Magnesium SulfateT 104‐99 (2016) Begin Review

T 112‐00 (2017)Clay Lumps and Friable Particles in Aggregate C142/C142M‐10T 112‐00 (2017) No

T 113‐18Lightweight Particles in Aggregate C123/C123M‐12T 113‐18 No

T 210‐15 (2019)Aggregate Durability Index D3744/D3744M‐11a

T 210‐15 (2019) No

T 211‐90 (2017)Determination of Cement Content in Cement‐Treated Aggregate by the Method of Titration

T 211‐90 (2017) No

Wednesday, January 23, 2019 Prepared for COMP by AASHTO Publications Production

COMP TS Planning Ahead—Full Standards

Designation No. Title ASTM Equiv. Planning Needed TS 1c

T 255‐00 (2017)Total Evaporable Moisture Content of Aggregate by Drying C566‐13T 255‐00 (2017) No

T 303‐00 (2017)Accelerated Detection of Potentially Deleterious Expansion of Mortar Bars Due to Alkali–Silica Reaction

T 303‐00 (2017) No

T 304‐17Uncompacted Void Content of Fine AggregateT 304‐17 Begin Review

T 326‐05 (2018)Uncompacted Void Content of Coarse Aggregate (As Influenced by Particle Shape, Surface Texture, and Grading)

T 326‐05 (2018) No

T 327‐12 (2016)Resistance of Coarse Aggregate to Degradation by Abrasion in the Micro‐Deval Apparatus

D6928‐10T 327‐12 (2016) Begin Review

T 330‐07 (2019)The Qualitative Detection of Harmful Clays of the Smectite Group in Aggregates Using Methylene Blue

T 330‐07 (2019) No

T 335‐09 (2018)Determining the Percentage of Fracture in Coarse AggregateT 335‐09 (2018) No

T 354‐17Specific Gravity and Absorption of Aggregate by Volumetric Immersion MethodT 354‐17 No

T 381‐18Determining Aggregate Shape Properties by Means of Digital Image AnalysisT 381‐18 No

Wednesday, January 23, 2019 Prepared for COMP by AASHTO Publications Production

committee on materials & pavements...b. aashto re:source/ccrl/ntpep - observations from...

Documents