507-1F_The Prediction of Coarse Aggregate Performance by Micro-Deval and Soundness Realated Agregates Test

7/28/2019 507-1F_The Prediction of Coarse Aggregate Performance by Micro-Deval and Soundness Realated Agregates Test

1/615

The Prediction of CoarseAggregate Performance

by Micro-Deval and

Soundness Related

Aggregate Tests

RESEARCH REPORT ICAR 507-1F

Sponsored by the

Aggregates Foundation

for Technology, Research and Education

Publications Page Table of Contents


2/615

i

Technical Report Documentation Page

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

1. Report No.ICAR 507-1F

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.

5. Report DateJune 2006

4. Title and Subtitle

The Prediction of Coarse Aggregate Performance by Micro-Deval and OtherAggregate Tests

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)Dr. David W. Fowler, Dr. John J. Allen, Alexander Lange, and Peter Range

8. Performing Organization Report No.Research Report ICAR 507-1F

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)9. Performing Organization Name and AddressInternational Center for Aggregates ResearchThe University of Texas at Austin4030 W Braker Lane, Bldg. 200, Ste 252Austin, Texas 78759-5329

11. Contract or Grant No.Project No. 507

13. Type of Report and Period CoveredSeptember 2003 August 2006

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and AddressAggregates Foundation for Technology, Research, and Education1605 King StreetAlexandria, VA 22314 14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

16. Abstract

This research project concentrated on determining whether or not a correlation existed between laboratory aggregate

tests and observed aggregate field performance. For this purpose, aggregate samples were collected from the majority of the

U.S. states as well as several Canadian provinces and subjected to a variety of strength, soundness, and intrinsic particle

property tests. Additionally, performance data on the aggregates was obtained by contacting multiple DOTs where aggregates

were in use in several categories hot-mix asphalt, portland cement concrete, base course, and open-graded friction course.

Numerical and qualitative analyses were performed to evaluate the success of separating good performers from fair and poor

performers using the micro-Deval test alone as well as the micro-Deval test combined with another test. Special attention was

paid to aggregate mineralogical composition. Furthermore, attempts were made to determine if a correlation exists between

any two tests.

17. Key WordsAggregates, hot-mix asphalt, portland cement concrete, base course,

open-graded friction course, micro-Deval test, aggregate minerlogicalcomposition.

18. Distribution StatementNo restrictions.

19. Security Classif.(of this report)Unclassified

20. Security Classif.(of this page)Unclassified

21. No. of Pages 22. Price


3/615

ii

The Prediction of Coarse Aggregate Performance byMicro-Deval and Other Aggregate Tests

Dr. David W. Fowler

Dr. John J. Allen

Alexander Lange, and

Peter Range

The University of Texas at Austin

Austin, Texas

ICAR Report 507-1F

Application and Significance of the Micro-Deval Test

Sponsored by:

International Center for Aggregates Research

The University of Texas at Austin

Aggregates Foundation for Technology, Research

and Education (AFTRE)

July, 2006


4/615

iii

Abstract

This research project concentrated on determining whether or not a correlation

existed between laboratory aggregate tests and observed aggregate field performance.

For this purpose, aggregate samples were collected from the majority of the U.S. states as

well as several Canadian provinces and subjected to a variety of strength, soundness, and

intrinsic particle property tests. Additionally, performance data on the aggregates was

obtained by contacting multiple DOTs where aggregates were in use in several categories

hot-mix asphalt, portland cement concrete, base course, and open-graded friction

course. Numerical and qualitative analyses were performed to evaluate the success of

separating good performers from fair and poor performers using the micro-Deval test

alone as well as the micro-Deval test combined with another test. Special attention was

paid to aggregate mineralogical composition. Furthermore, attempts were made to

determine if a correlation exists between any two tests.


5/615

v

Table of Contents

List of Tables ........................................................................................................ xii

List of Figures........................................................................................................xv

Chapter 1: Introduction ...........................................................................................1

1.1 Need for Project .....................................................................................1

1.2 Project Objective....................................................................................1

1.3 Scope of Project .....................................................................................2

Chapter 2: Review of Literature .............................................................................3

2.1 Introduction............................................................................................32.2 Field Performance Criteria.....................................................................3

2.3 Micro-Deval...........................................................................................5

2.3.1 Background...................................................................................5

2.3.2 Significance...................................................................................5

2.3.3 Correlations with Other Tests .......................................................8

2.3.4 Precision and Variables...............................................................11

2.3.5 Current Use .................................................................................12

2.4 Los Angeles Abrasion..........................................................................132.4.1 Background.................................................................................13

2.4.2 Significance.................................................................................14

2.4.3 Precision......................................................................................17

2.4.4 Current Use .................................................................................17

2.5 Other Abrasion Tests ...........................................................................18


6/615

vi

2.6 Soundness Tests ...................................................................................20

2.6.1 Background.................................................................................20

2.6.2 Significance.................................................................................21

2.6.4 Current Use .................................................................................25

2.7 Freezing and Thawing..........................................................................25

2.7.1 Background.................................................................................25

2.7.2 Significance.................................................................................27

2.7.3 Current Use .................................................................................29

2.8 Petrographic Evaluation.......................................................................30

2.8.1 Background.................................................................................30

2.8.2 Significance.................................................................................33

2.8.3 Precision......................................................................................34

2.8.4 Current Use .................................................................................34

2.9 Strength and Impact .............................................................................35

2.9.1 Significance.................................................................................35

2.9.2 Current Use .................................................................................37

2.10 Absorption............................................................................................37

2.10.1 Significance...............................................................................37

2.10.2 Current Use ...............................................................................38

2.11 Aggregate Shape and Surface Texture.................................................39

2.11.1 Significance...............................................................................39

2.11.2 Current Use ...............................................................................39

Chapter 3: Aggregate Acquisition and Preparation ..............................................41

3.1 Introduction..........................................................................................41

3.2 Initial Survey........................................................................................41

3.3 Aggregate Test Suite Determination....................................................42

3.4 Field Performance Rating Determination ............................................443.5 Aggregate Acquisition .........................................................................47


7/615

vii

Chapter 4: Field Performance Determination.......................................................51

4.1 Introduction..........................................................................................51

4.2 Rating System......................................................................................51

Chapter 5: Testing.................................................................................................55

5.1 Introduction..........................................................................................55

5.2 Aggregate Sample Preparation ............................................................55

5.2.1 Processing ...................................................................................55

5.2.2 Standardizing Gradations............................................................56

5.2.3 Performing Test Procedures........................................................57

5.3 Petrographic Analysis ..........................................................................59

5.3.1 Test Procedures...........................................................................59

5.3.2 Results.........................................................................................59

5.4 Micro-Deval.........................................................................................59

5.4.1 Test Procedures...........................................................................59

5.4.2 Results.........................................................................................61

5.5 Magnesium Sulfate Soundness ............................................................62

5.5.1 Test Procedures...........................................................................62

5.5.2 Results.........................................................................................64

5.5.3 Lab Data Comparison .................................................................66

5.6 Los Angeles Abrasion..........................................................................67

5.6.1 Test Procedures...........................................................................67

5.6.2 Results.........................................................................................68

5.7 Freezing and Thawing..........................................................................69

5.7.1 Test Procedures...........................................................................69

5.7.2 Results.........................................................................................73

5.8 Aggregate Crushing Value Test...........................................................74

5.8.1 Test Procedures...........................................................................74

5.8.2 Results.........................................................................................75


8/615

viii

5.9 Aggregate Crushing Value (SSD) Test................................................75

5.9.1 Test Procedures...........................................................................75

5.9.2 Results.........................................................................................76

5.10 Absorption Test....................................................................................77

5.10.1 Test Procedures.........................................................................78

5.10.2 Results.......................................................................................79

5.11 Specific Gravity Test ...........................................................................79

5.11.1 Test Procedures.........................................................................79

5.11.2 Results.......................................................................................80

5.12 Flat and Elongated Test .......................................................................80

5.12.1 Test Procedures.........................................................................81

5.12.2 Results.......................................................................................83

5.13 Percent Fractured Particles ..................................................................83

5.13.1 Test Procedures.........................................................................83

5.13.2 Results.......................................................................................83

Chapter 6: Discussion and Analysis .....................................................................85

6.1 Introduction..........................................................................................85

6.1.1 Analysis Methodology................................................................85

6.1.2 Rock Type Subgroups.................................................................876.1.3 Climatic Regions Subgroups.......................................................87

6.2 Performance Analysis for Hot-Mix Asphalt Aggregates.....................89

6.2.1 Individual Tests...........................................................................89

6.2.2 Combinations Involving Micro-Deval......................................105

6.2.3 Other Relevant Combinations...................................................118

6.2.4 Results Summary ......................................................................121

6.2.5 Limestone and Dolomite...........................................................122

6.2.5.1 Combinations Involving Micro-Deval..........................1226.2.5.2 Other Relevant Combinations.......................................131

6.2.5.3 Section Results Summary .............................................132


9/615

ix

6.2.6 Siliceous Gravel........................................................................133

6.2.6.1 Combination Involving Micro-Deval ...........................133

6.2.6.2 Other Relevant Combinations.......................................143


6.2.7 Granite.......................................................................................145

6.2.7.1 Combinations Involving Micro-Deval..........................145



6.2.8 Climatic Regions.......................................................................156

6.2.8.1 Region II .......................................................................156

6.2.8.2 Region III......................................................................159

6.2.8.3 Region V .......................................................................163

6.2.8.4 Region VI......................................................................165

6.3 Performance Analysis for Portland Cement Concrete Aggregates....167

6.3.1 Individual Tests.........................................................................167



6.3.4 Results Summary ......................................................................187

6.3.5 Limestone and Dolomite...........................................................188




6.3.6 Siliceous Gravel........................................................................194




6.4 Performance Analysis for Base Course Aggregates ..........................201

6.4.1 Individual Tests.........................................................................201



6.4.4 Results Summary ......................................................................213


10/615


11/615

xi

Appendix A: Performance Questionnaire...........................................................261

Appendix B: Micro-Deval Test Results..............................................................265

Appendix C: Magnesium Sulfate Soundness Test Results .................................269

Appendix D: Los Angeles Abrasion Test Results ..............................................273

Appendix E: Canadian Freeze-Thaw Test Results .............................................277

Appendix F: Aggregate Crushing Value Test Results........................................281

Appendix G: Aggregate Crushing Value (SSD) Test Results ............................285

Appendix H: Absorption and Specific Gravity Test Results ..............................289

Appendix I: Particle Shape Factor Test Results .................................................295

Appendix J: Percent Fractured Particles Test Results ........................................301

Appendix K: Petrographic Analysis ...................................................................305

Appendix L: Performance Data ..........................................................................309

Appendix M: Hot-Mix Asphalt Aggregates Graphs...........................................315

Appendix N: Portland Cement Concrete Aggregates Graphs.............................353

Appendix O: Base Course Aggregates Graphs...................................................401

Appendix P: Open-Graded Friction Course Aggregates Graphs........................439

Appendix Q: Test Correlation Graphs for the Full Data Set ..............................486

Appendix R: Test Correlation Graphs for the Partial Data Set I ........................515

Appendix S: Test Correlation Graphs for the Partial Data Set II .......................545

Appendix T:Test Correlation Tables for Full Data Set, Partial Data Set I, and PartialData Set II 575

Appendix U: Dr. Eyad Masad AIMS Report......................................................586

References............................................................................................................601


12/615

xii

List of Tables

Table 2.2-1: Classification System Used by Rogers and Senior .................................... 4

Table 2.2-2: Performance Evaluation Used by Wu et al. ............................................... 4Table 3.4-1: ICAR 507 Evaluation Criteria for Determining the Performance

Rating of Aggregates ............................................................................... 46Table 3.5-1: Aggregate Qualifications per Application ............................................... 48Table 3.5-2: Division of Aggregates by Geological Rock Type.................................. 50Table 4.2-1: Performance Criteria Developed for Use in This Project ........................ 52Table 5.4.1-1: Gradations for Use in Micro-Deval Testing ............................................ 60Table 5.5.1-1: Sulfate Soundness Sample Gradations..................................................... 62Table 5.5.3-1: MSS Test Data and Procedures Summary............................................... 66Table 6.1.1-1: Analysis Formula Definitions.................................................................. 86Table 6.2.1-1: Micro-Deval Success Rate....................................................................... 90Table 6.2.1-2: MSS Success Rate.................................................................................... 92Table 6.2.1-3: LAA Success Rate ................................................................................... 93Table 6.2.1-4: CFT Success Rate .................................................................................... 94Table 6.2.1-5: ACV Success Rate ................................................................................... 96Table 6.2.1-6: WCV Success Rate .................................................................................. 97Table 6.2.1-7: Absorption Success Rate.......................................................................... 99Table 6.2.1-8: SG (Bulk) Success Rate ......................................................................... 100Table 6.2.1-9: PSF Success Rate................................................................................... 102Table 6.2.1-10: Percnt Crushed (1+) Success Rate ......................................................... 103Table 6.2.1-11: Percent Crushed (2+) Success Rate ....................................................... 105Table 6.2.2-1: LAA and MD Success Rate ................................................................... 107Table 6.2.2-2: MSS and MD Success Rate ................................................................... 108

Table 6.2.2-3: CFT and MD Success Rate .................................................................... 110Table 6.2.2-4: ACV and MD Success Rate................................................................... 112Table 6.2.2-5: WCV and MD Success Rate .................................................................. 113Table 6.2.2-6: ABS and MD Success Rate.................................................................... 114Table 6.2.2-7: SG(Bulk) and MD Success Rate............................................................ 116Table 6.2.2-8: PSF and MD Success Rate..................................................................... 117Table 6.2.3-1: ACV and CFT Success Rate .................................................................. 119Table 6.2.3-2: PSF and MSS Success Rate ................................................................... 120Table 6.2.4-1: HMA Success Rates Summary .............................................................. 121Table 6.2.5.1-1: MD Success Rate ................................................................................... 123Table 6.2.5.1-2: MSS vs. MD Success Rate..................................................................... 124Table 6.2.5.1-3: LAA vs. MD Success Rate .................................................................... 125Table 6.2.5.1-4: CFT vs. MD Success Rate ..................................................................... 126Table 6.2.5.1-5: ACV vs. MD Success Rate .................................................................... 127Table 6.2.5.3-1: HMA Limestone and Dolomite Success Rate Summary....................... 133Table 6.2.6.1-1: MD Success Rate ................................................................................... 134Table 6.2.6.3-1: HMA Siliceous Gravel Success Rate Summary .................................... 145Table 6.2.7.1-1: MD Success Rate ................................................................................... 146


13/615

xiii

Table 6.2.7.3-1: HMA Granite Success Rate Summary................................................... 155Table 6.2.8.1-1: MD Success Rate ................................................................................... 156Table 6.2.8.1-2: HMA Region II Success Rate Summary ............................................... 157Table 6.2.8.1-3: MD Success Rate ................................................................................... 157

Table 6.2.8.1-4: HMA Region II No Limestone/Dolomite Success Rate Summary ....... 158Table 6.2.8.2-1: MD Success Rate ................................................................................... 159Table 6.2.8.2-2: LAA vs. MD Success Rate .................................................................... 160Table 6.2.8.2-3: ACV vs. MD Success Rate .................................................................... 161Table 6.2.8.2-4: WCV vs. MD Success Rate ................................................................... 162Table 6.2.8.2-5: HMA Region III Success Rate Summary .............................................. 163Table 6.2.8.3-1: MD Success Rate ................................................................................... 163Table 6.2.8.3-2: HMA Region V Success Rate Summary ............................................... 164Table 6.2.8.4-1: MD Success Rate ................................................................................... 165Table 6.2.8.4-2: HMA Region VI Success Rate Summary.............................................. 166Table 6.3.1-1: MD Success Rate ................................................................................... 168Table 6.3.1-2: MSS Success Rate.................................................................................. 169

Table 6.3.1-3: LAA Success Rate ................................................................................. 170Table 6.3.1-4: CFT Success Rate .................................................................................. 171Table 6.3.1-5: ACV Success Rate ................................................................................. 172Table 6.3.1-6: WCV Success Rate ................................................................................ 173Table 6.3.1-7: ABS Success Rate.................................................................................. 174Table 6.3.1-8: SG(Bulk) Success Rate.......................................................................... 175Table 6.3.1-9: PSF Success Rate................................................................................... 176Table 6.3.1-10: Fractured Particles (2 or more sides) vs. Performance .......................... 177Table 6.3.2-1: MSS vs. MD Success Rate..................................................................... 177Table 6.3.2-2: CFT vs. MD Success Rate ..................................................................... 179Table 6.3.2-3: ABS vs. MD Success Rate..................................................................... 182

Table 6.3.4-1: PCC Success Rate Summary ................................................................. 187Table 6.3.5.1-1: MD Success Rate ................................................................................... 188Table 6.3.5.1-2: MSS vs. MD Success Rate..................................................................... 189Table 6.3.5.1-3: CFT vs. MD Success Rate ..................................................................... 190Table 6.3.5.1-4: ABS vs. MD Success Rate..................................................................... 191Table 6.3.5.1-5: SG(Bulk) vs. MD Success Rate ............................................................. 192Table 6.3.5.2-1: ABS vs. CFT Success Rate.................................................................... 193Table 6.3.5.3-1: PCC Limestone and Dolomite Success Rate Summary......................... 194Table 6.3.6.1-1: MD Success Rate ................................................................................... 195Table 6.3.6.1-2: MSS vs. MD Success Rate..................................................................... 195Table 6.3.6.1-3: CFT vs. MD Success Rate ..................................................................... 196Table 6.3.6.1-4: ABS vs. MD Success Rate..................................................................... 197

Table 6.3.6.1-5: SG(Bulk) vs. MD Success Rate ............................................................. 198Table 6.3.6.2-1: ABS vs. CFT Success Rate.................................................................... 199Table 6.3.6.3-1: PCC Siliceous Gravel Success Rate Summary...................................... 200Table 6.4.2-1: MSS and MD Success Rate ................................................................... 203Table 6.4.2-2: LAA and MD Success Rate ................................................................... 204Table 6.4.2-3: CFT and MD Success Rate .................................................................... 205


14/615

xiv

Table 6.4.2-4: ACV and MD Success Rate................................................................... 207Table 6.4.2-5: WCV and MD Success Rate .................................................................. 208Table 6.4.2-6: ABS and MD Success Rate.................................................................... 209Table 6.4.2-7: SG (Bulk) and MD Success Rate........................................................... 210

Table 6.4.2-8: PSF and MD Success Rate..................................................................... 212Table 6.4.4-1: BC Success Rates Summary .................................................................. 213Table 6.5.1-1: MD Success Rate ................................................................................... 215Table 6.5.1-2: MSS Success Rate.................................................................................. 216Table 6.5.1-3: LAA Success Rate ................................................................................. 217Table 6.5.1-4: CFT Success Rate .................................................................................. 218Table 6.5.1-5: ACV Success Rate ................................................................................. 219Table 6.5.1-6: WCV Success Rate ................................................................................ 220Table 6.5.1-7: ABS Success Rate.................................................................................. 220Table 6.5.1-8: SG(Bulk) Success Rate.......................................................................... 221Table 6.5.1-9: PSF Success Rate................................................................................... 222Table 6.5.1-10: Fractured Particles (2 or more sides) vs. Performance .......................... 223

Table 6.5.2-1: LAA vs. MD Success Rate .................................................................... 224Table 6.5.2-2: ACV vs. MD Success Rate .................................................................... 226Table 6.5.2-3: WCV vs. MD Success Rate ................................................................... 227Table 6.5.2-4: ABS vs. MD Success Rate..................................................................... 228Table 6.5.2-5: SG(Bulk) vs. MD Success Rate ............................................................. 229Table 6.5.2-6: PSF vs. MD Success Rate...................................................................... 230Table 6.5.3-1: ACV vs. LAA Success Rate .................................................................. 232Table 6.5.3-2: WCV vs. CFT Success Rate .................................................................. 233Table 6.5.3-3: ABS vs. ACV Success Rate................................................................... 234Table 6.5.4-1: OGFC Success Rate Summary .............................................................. 236


15/615

xv

List of Figures

Figure 2.3.2-1: Example of Plot by Senior and Rogers ...................................................... 7

Figure 2.3.3-1: Correlation Between Magnesium Sulfate Soundness andMicro-Deval as Found by Senior and Rogers.......................................... 10

Figure 2.3.5-1: Correlation Between Wet and Soaked Micro-Deval Loss asFound by Woodside and Woodward........................................................ 13

Figure 2.4.1-1: Correlation Between Aggregate Impact Value and Los AngelesAbrasion as Found by Senior and Rogers................................................ 14

Figure 3.5-1: Participation in Study by State and Province........................................... 49Figure 5.4.2-1: Plot of Micro-Deval Control Sample Results .......................................... 61Figure 5.5.2-1: Plot of Magnesium Sulfate Soundness Control Sample Data.................. 65Figure 5.7.1-1: Plot of Canadian Freeze-Thaw Cooling Rates......................................... 71Figure 5.7.1-2: Brownwood Control Samples .................................................................. 72Figure 5.9.2-1: Comparison of Aggregate Crushing Value Tests Results ...................... 77Figure 5.12.1-1: Apparatus for Measuring the Shape Ratios for Aggregate

Particles.................................................................................................... 82Figure 6.1.3-1: Climatic Regions of the United States (Desolminihae, Hudson,

and Ricci) ................................................................................................. 88Figure 6.2.1-1: Micro-Deval vs. Performance.................................................................. 89Figure 6.2.1-2: Magnesium Sulfate Soundness vs. Performance ..................................... 91Figure 6.2.1-3: L.A. Abrasion vs. Performance................................................................ 92Figure 6.2.1-4: Canadian Freeze-Thaw Soundness vs. Performance ............................... 94Figure 6.2.1-5: Aggregate Crushing Value vs. Performance............................................ 95Figure 6.2.1-6: Aggregate Crushing Value (SSD) vs. Performance................................. 97Figure 6.2.1-7: Absorption vs. Performance..................................................................... 98

Figure 6.2.1-8: Specific Gravity (Bulk) vs. Performance............................................... 100Figure 6.2.1-9: Particle Shape Factor vs. Performance .................................................. 101Figure 6.2.1-10: Percent Crushed (1+) vs. Performance .................................................. 103Figure 6.2.1-11: Percent Crushed (2+) vs. Performance .................................................. 104Figure 6.2.2-1: L.A. Abrasion vs. Micro-Deval ............................................................. 106Figure 6.2.2-2: Magnesium Sulfate Soundness vs. Micro-Deval ................................... 108Figure 6.2.2-3: Canadian Freeze-Thaw vs. Micro-Deval ............................................... 109Figure 6.2.2-4: Aggregate Crushing Value vs. Micro-Deval ......................................... 111Figure 6.2.2-5: Aggregate Crushing Value (SSD) vs. Micro-Deval .............................. 112Figure 6.2.2-6: Absorption vs. Micro-Deval .................................................................. 114Figure 6.2.2-7: Specific Gravity (Bulk) vs. Micro-Deval............................................... 115Figure 6.2.2-8: Particle Shape Factor vs. Micro-Deval .................................................. 117Figure 6.2.3-1: Aggregate Crushing Value vs. Canadian Freeze-Thaw......................... 119Figure 6.2.3-2: Particle Shape Factor vs. Canadian Freeze-Thaw.................................. 120Figure 6.2.5.1-1: Micro-Deval vs. Performance................................................................ 123Figure 6.2.5.1-2: Magnesium Sulfate Soundness vs. Micro-Deval................................... 124Figure 6.2.5.1-3: L.A. Abrasion vs. Micro-Deval ............................................................. 125Figure 6.2.5.1-4: Canadian Freeze-Thaw vs. Micro-Deval ............................................... 126


16/615

xvi

Figure 6.2.5.1-5: Aggregate Crushing Value vs. Micro-Deval ......................................... 127Figure 6.2.5.1-6: Aggregate Crushing Value (SSD) vs. Micro-Deval .............................. 128Figure 6.2.5.1-7: Absorption vs. Micro-Deval .................................................................. 129Figure 6.2.5.1-8: Specific Gravity (Bulk) vs. Micro-Deval............................................... 130

Figure 6.2.5.1-9: Particle Shape Factor vs. Micro-Deval.................................................. 131Figure 6.2.5.2-1: Aggregate Crushing Value vs. Canadian Freeze-Thaw......................... 132Figure 6.2.6.1-1: Micro-Deval vs. Performance................................................................ 134Figure 6.2.6.1-2: Magnesium Sulfate Soundness vs. Micro-Deval................................... 135Figure 6.2.6.1-3: L.A. Abrasion vs. Micro-Deval ............................................................. 136Figure 6.2.6.1-4: Canadian Freeze-Thaw vs. Micro-Deval ............................................... 137Figure 6.2.6.1-5: Aggregate Crushing Value vs. Micro-Deval ......................................... 138Figure 6.2.6.1-6: Aggregate Crushing Value (SSD) vs. Micro-Deval .............................. 139Figure 6.2.6.1-7: Absorption vs. Micro-Deval .................................................................. 140Figure 6.2.6.1-8: Specific Gravity (Bulk) vs. Micro-Deval............................................... 141Figure 6.2.6.1-9: Particle Shape Factor vs. Micro-Deval.................................................. 142Figure 6.2.6.2-1: Aggregate Crushing Value vs. Canadian Freeze-Thaw......................... 143

Figure 6.2.7.1-1: Micro-Deval vs. Performance................................................................ 146Figure 6.2.7.1-2: Magnesium Sulfate Soundness vs. Micro-Deval................................... 147Figure 6.2.7.1-3: L.A. Abrasion vs. Micro-Deval ............................................................. 148Figure 6.2.7.1-4: Canadian Freeze-Thaw vs. Micro-Deval ............................................... 149Figure 6.2.7.1-5: Aggregate Crushing Value vs. Micro-Deval ......................................... 150Figure 6.2.7.1-6: Aggregate Crushing Value (SSD) vs. Micro-Deval .............................. 151Figure 6.2.7.1-7: Absorption vs. Micro-Deval .................................................................. 152Figure 6.2.7.1-8: Specific Gravity (Bulk) vs. Micro-Deval............................................... 153Figure 6.2.7.1-9: Particle Shape Factor vs. Micro-Deval.................................................. 154Figure 6.2.7.2-1: Aggregate Crushing Value vs. Canadian Freeze-Thaw......................... 155Figure 6.2.8.1-1: Micro-Deval vs. Performance................................................................ 156

Figure 6.2.8.1-3: Micro-Deval vs. Performance................................................................ 158Figure 6.2.8.2-1: Micro-Deval vs. Performance................................................................ 159Figure 6.2.8.2-2: L.A. Abrasion vs. Micro-Deval ............................................................. 160Figure 6.2.8.2-3: Aggregate Crushing Value vs. Micro-Deval ......................................... 161Figure 6.2.8.2-4: Aggregate Crushing Value (SSD) vs. Micro-Deval .............................. 162Figure 6.2.8.3-1: Micro-Deval vs. Performance................................................................ 164Figure 6.2.8.4-1: Micro-Deval vs. Performance................................................................ 165Figure 6.3.1-1: Micro-Deval vs. Performance................................................................ 167Figure 6.3.1-2: Magnesium Sulfate Soundness vs. Performance ................................... 168Figure 6.3.1-3: L.A. Abrasion vs. Performance.............................................................. 169Figure 6.3.1-4: Canadian Freeze-Thaw vs. Performance ............................................... 171Figure 6.3.1-5: Aggregate Crushing Value vs. Performance.......................................... 172

Figure 6.3.1-6: Aggregate Crushing Value (SSD) vs. Performance............................... 173Figure 6.3.1-7: Absorption vs. Performance................................................................... 174Figure 6.3.1-8: Specific Gravity (Bulk) vs. Performance............................................... 175Figure 6.3.1-9: Particle Shape Factor vs. Performance .................................................. 176Figure 6.3.2-1: Magnesium Sulfate Soundness vs. Micro-Deval ................................... 178Figure 6.3.2-2: L.A. Abrasion vs. Micro-Deval ............................................................. 179


17/615

xvii

Figure 6.3.2-3: Canadian Freeze-Thaw vs. Micro-Deval ............................................... 180Figure 6.3.2-4: Aggregate Crushing Value vs. Micro-Deval ......................................... 181Figure 6.3.2-5: Aggregate Crushing Value (SSD) vs. Micro-Deval .............................. 182Figure 6.3.2-6: Absorption vs. Micro-Deval .................................................................. 183

Figure 6.3.2-7: Specific Gravity (Bulk) vs. Micro-Deval............................................... 184Figure 6.3.2-8: Particle Shape Factor vs. Micro-Deval .................................................. 185Figure 6.3.2-9: Fractured Particles (2 or more sides) vs. Micro-Deval .......................... 186Figure 6.3.3-1: Absorption vs. Canadian Freeze-Thaw.................................................. 187Figure 6.3.5.1-1: Micro-Deval vs. Performance................................................................ 188Figure 6.3.5.1-2: Magnesium Sulfate Soundness vs. Micro-Deval................................... 189Figure 6.3.5.1-3: Canadian Freeze-Thaw vs. Micro-Deval ............................................... 190Figure 6.3.5.1-4: Absorption vs. Micro-Deval .................................................................. 191Figure 6.3.5.1-5: Specific Gravity (Bulk) vs. Micro-Deval............................................... 192Figure 6.3.5.2-1: Absorption vs. Canadian Freeze-Thaw.................................................. 193Figure 6.3.6.1-1: Micro-Deval vs. Performance................................................................ 195Figure 6.3.6.1-2: Magnesium Sulfate Soundness vs. Micro-Deval................................... 196

Figure 6.3.6.1-3: Canadian Freeze-Thaw vs. Micro-Deval ............................................... 197Figure 6.3.6.1-4: Absorption vs. Micro-Deval .................................................................. 198Figure 6.3.6.1-5: Specific Gravity (Bulk) vs. Micro-Deval............................................... 199Figure 6.3.6.2-1: Absorption vs. Canadian Freeze-Thaw.................................................. 200Figure 6.4.2-1: Magnesium Sulfate Soundness vs. Micro-Deval ................................... 202Figure 6.4.2-2: L.A. Abrasion vs. Micro-Deval ............................................................. 203Figure 6.4.2-3: Canadian Freeze-Thaw vs. Micro-Deval ............................................... 205Figure 6.4.2-4: Aggregate Crushing Value vs. Micro-Deval ......................................... 206Figure 6.4.2-5: Aggregate Crushing Value (SSD) vs. Micro-Deval .............................. 207Figure 6.4.2-6: Absorption vs. Micro-Deval .................................................................. 209Figure 6.4.2-7: Specific Gravity (Bulk) vs. Micro-Deval............................................... 210

Figure 6.4.2-8: Particle Shape Factor vs. Micro-Deval .................................................. 211Figure 6.5.1-1: Micro-Deval vs. Performance................................................................ 214Figure 6.5.1-2: Magnesium Sulfate Soundness vs. Performance ................................... 215Figure 6.5.1-3: L.A. Abrasion vs. Performance.............................................................. 216Figure 6.5.1-4: Canadian Freeze-Thaw vs. Performance ............................................... 217Figure 6.5.1-5: Aggregate Crushing Value vs. Performance.......................................... 218Figure 6.5.1-6: Aggregate Crushing Value (SSD) vs. Performance............................... 219Figure 6.5.1-7: Absorption vs. Performance................................................................... 220Figure 6.5.1-8: Specific Gravity (Bulk) vs. Performance............................................... 221Figure 6.5.1-9: Particle Shape Factor vs. Performance .................................................. 222Figure 6.5.2-1: Magnesium Sulfate Soundness vs. Micro-Deval ................................... 224Figure 6.5.2-2: L.A. Abrasion vs. Micro-Deval ............................................................. 225

Figure 6.5.2-3: Canadian Freeze-Thaw vs. Micro-Deval ............................................... 226Figure 6.5.2-4: Aggregate Crushing Value vs. Micro-Deval ......................................... 227Figure 6.5.2-5: Aggregate Crushing Value (SSD) vs. Micro-Deval .............................. 228Figure 6.5.2-6: Absorption vs. Micro-Deval .................................................................. 229Figure 6.5.2-7: Specific Gravity (Bulk) vs. Micro-Deval............................................... 230Figure 6.5.2-8: Particle Shape Factor vs. Micro-Deval .................................................. 231


18/615

xviii

Figure 6.5.2-9: Fractured Particles (2 or more sides) vs. Micro-Deval .......................... 232Figure 6.5.3-1: Aggregate Crushing Value vs. L.A. Abrasion ....................................... 233Figure 6.5.3-2: Aggregate Crushing Value (SSD) vs. Canadian Freeze-Thaw.............. 234Figure 6.5.3-3: Absorption vs. Aggregate Crushing Value ............................................ 235

Figure 6.6.2-1: L.A. Abrasion vs. Aggregate Crushing Value ....................................... 240Figure 6.6.2-2: Aggregate Crushing Value (SSD) vs. Aggregate Crushing Value ........ 241Figure 6.6.2-3: Specific Gravity (Bulk) vs. Absorption ................................................. 242Figure 6.6.2-4: Specific Gravity (SSD) vs. Specific Gravity (Bulk).............................. 242Figure 6.6.2-5: Specific Gravity (Apparent) vs. Specific Gravity (Bulk) ...................... 243Figure 6.6.2-6: Specific Gravity (Apparent) vs. Specific Gravity (SSD)....................... 244Figure 6.7.3-1: AIMS Angularity Index vs. Performance .............................................. 252Figure 6.7.3-2: AIMS Texture Index vs. Performance for All Aggregates .................... 253Figure 6.7.3-3: AIMS Texture Index vs. Performance with One Aggregate

Removed ................................................................................................ 253Figure 6.7.3-4: AIMS Angularity Index vs. AIMS Texture Index Before Micro-

Deval ...................................................................................................... 254

Figure 6.7.3-5: AIMS Angularity Index vs. AIMS Texture Index Before Micro-Deval ...................................................................................................... 255


19/615

1

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Need for Project

Today there is an incentive to use more marginal aggregates while still providing

long-lasting quality roads and structures. This is due to the depletion of aggregate

resources, competition for natural researches from urbanization, and resistance to the

opening of new quarries (Senior and Rogers, 1991). Therefore, qualification tests that are

able to accurately and consistently discriminate between satisfactory and unsatisfactory

aggregate are needed. However, researchers have shown that traditional testing methods

are not always suitable alone or even in combination with other tests. As a result,

transportation-related agencies have begun internal, independent projects to determine the

ability of micro-Deval to successfully determine potential aggregate performance.

Several agencies have published reports showing micro-Deval to be an

outstanding indicator of field performance. Others have found results that show micro-

Deval as having poor or mixed correlations with field performance. Early research has

shown that micro-Deval can, in fact, successfully determine aggregate performance, but

differing specification limits are being presented. With the interdependence of

government transportation agencies and aggregate producers nationwide, all parties

would benefit from universal recommendations for micro-Deval limits for specifications.

Therefore, a comprehensive national research project is needed to determine appropriate

micro-Deval limits.

1.2 Project Objective

The objective of ICAR project 507 is to determine the significance and

application of micro-Deval by determining the ability of micro-Deval to predict an


20/615

2

aggregates field performance either alone or in combination with other popular

aggregate qualification tests. The tests studied in conjunction with micro-Deval are

magnesium sulfate soundness, Los Angeles abrasion, Canadian freeze-thaw, aggregate

crushing value, absorption, specific gravity, particle shape factor, and percentage of

fractured particles. The field applications investigated for ICAR project 507 were hot-

mix asphalt, Portland cement concrete, base course, and open-graded friction course. In

addition to analyzing all applicable aggregate sources for each field application, subsets

based on geological rock type are studied for further correlations more specific to the

type of aggregate.

1.3 Scope of Project

In order to gain national acceptance of this research using the resources available

to this project, the investigation of the most commonly used aggregate qualification tests

using a national pool of aggregate was required. Contacts were made with the

departments of transportation across the United States and the provinces throughout

Canada to determine the use of current aggregate tests and to obtain aggregate samples.

Emphasis was placed on obtaining aggregate samples with a wide geological and

mineralogical reach.

Once these aggregates were obtained they were processed and prepared according

to typical industry standards and tested according to the current accepted test

specifications. All of this work was conducted at the Pickle Research Campus of The

University of Texas at Austin. In addition, each geological rock type was determined by

a trained petrographer, and each aggregates field performance was investigated and

determined by ICAR 507. An analysis was then conducted by comparing and

manipulating the tests results to determine correlations between the tests and aggregate

field performance.


21/615

3

Chapter 2: Review of Literature

2.1 Introduction

Before beginning this research a thorough review of the literature was conducted.

Knowledge of current aggregate tests and applicable testing methods and factors

affecting variability of these tests and methods was needed in order to conduct an

efficient research project that would be applicable to the needs of those who provided

funds for this research. Two main aggregate qualities must be evaluated from aggregate

tests: the susceptibility to wear and impact and the susceptibility to weathering, or

durability (Hudec, 1983). To evaluate these qualities aggregate tests must be able to:

provide correlations with field performance; be suitable for aggregates from different

sources; results in reasonable variability of aggregate from a single source; and give

results representative of the whole sample (Shergold, 1948). The following is a review of

the literature pertinent to this study, and discussions focus on the qualities of aggregates

and aggregates tests mentioned above.

2.2 Field Performance Criteria

Two recent research efforts outlined performance qualifications for aggregates in

order to compare aggregate field performance with laboratory tests. Research at the

Ministry of Transportation of Ontario used a method for defining aggregates as good,

fair, and poor (Senior and Rogers, 1991). Their definition of good was 10 years of life

beyond which any aggregate still performing well in service. Significant disintegration

after only one winter separated poor from fair aggregate. Only one instance of poor

or fair performance was needed to be classified as such. The classification system is

outlined in Table 2.2-1.


22/615

4

Table 2.2-1: Classification System Used by Rogers and Senior

Evaluation Description

GoodUsed for many years with no reported failures,popouts, or other signs of poor durability

FairUsed at least once where popouts or somereduced service life had resulted, but pavementor structure life extended for over 10 years

PoorUsed once with noticeable disintegration ofpavement after one winter, severely restrictingpavement life

Another classification system was used in research conducted at the National

Center for Asphalt Technology (Wu et al., 1998). Their system was similar to that of

Rogers et al. except that the failure mechanisms were specifically mentioned to be

problems during construction, popouts, raveling, and potholes. Another significant

difference is that eight years of good performance was needed for an aggregate to be

classified as good. In addition, two years of good service were required for an aggregate

to be classified as fair. Their classification system is shown in Table 2.2-2.

Table 2.2-2: Performance Evaluation Used by Wu et al.

Evaluation Description

GoodUsed for many years with no significant degradationproblem during construction and no significant popouts,raveling, or potholes during service life

Fair

Used at least once where some degradation occurredduring construction and/or some popouts, raveling, andpotholes developed, but pavement life extended for over

8 years.

PoorUsed at least once where raveling, popouts, orcombinations developed during the first 2 years,severely restricting pavement


23/615

5

Another performance system was used by the Utah State Department of

Highways (Miles, 1972). Trained geologists ranked each of 18 aggregates using a scale

according to expected field performance in riprap. This would not be acceptable for this

research as a more standardized and dependable method is required.

2.3 Micro-Deval

2.3.1 Background

The Deval test was developed in France in the 1870s to evaluate aggregate to be

used for roads, and it was initially adopted by ASTM in 1908 (Amirkhanian et al., 1991).

However, the test was abandoned years ago by most for all purposes except railroad

ballast because it had poor correlations with field performance (Rogers et al., 1995). The

micro-Deval test was adapted from the Deval test in the 1960s in France (Hanna et al.,

2003) and was first introduced to North America by use in Quebec. Throughout the

1990s the Ministry of Transportation conducted extensive research to refine and

characterize the test. Research on micro-Deval began in the United States in the late

1990s and continues today.

2.3.2 Significance

Extensive research by the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO) in Canada

has shown that the micro-Deval test is an excellent indicator of field performance.

Micro-Deval has been reported to perform much better than the attrition test and was an

excellent indicator of field performance for fine aggregate (Rogers et al., 1991). In 1998

researchers stated that loss limits for micro-Deval (Latham and Rogers, 1998) for various

asphalt, base, and concrete applications that would be far more effective than using

current L.A. Abrasion limits. Other researchers found in 2003 that for qualifying 104

northern Ontario aggregates micro-Deval had a 64% success rate, and a combination of


24/615

6

micro-Deval and visual inspection yielded a 94% success rate (Cooper et al., 2003). In a

report prepared for the Public Works and General Services of Canada, micro-Deval was

reported to be far more effective at separating the good from the bad than the Los

Angeles abrasion and impact test (Richard and Scarlett, 1997). This superiority of the

micro-Deval was explained to be due to the fact that it is a wet abrasion test; poorer

quality rock types tend to slake or have reduced strength when wet, and in the field

aggregates are rarely dry (Rogers and Senior, 1994).

Work also done by MTO has shown that combinations of other aggregate tests

with micro-Deval can predict aggregate performance. A paper in 1991 by Senior and

Rogers explained attempts to graph the test results of two different aggregate tests on

different axes to inspect the relation to field performance (Senior and Rogers, 1991). An

example of one of their graphs for concrete aggregate is shown in Figure 2.3.2-1. The

results of their research found that, for granular base aggregates, micro-Deval and

petrographic examination gave the best indication of field performance. They also found

that for Portland cement concrete micro-Deval and the Canadian unconfined freeze-thaw

test were the best indicators of field performance.


25/615

7

Figure 2.3.2-1: Example of Plot by Senior and Rogers

As a result of the successful use of micro-Deval in Ontario and the need for a

better aggregate qualifying test, several other North American transportation agencies

have investigated the use of micro-Deval with mixed results. Most have reported good

correlations between micro-Deval and field performance. In 1998 Kandhal and Parker

(Kandhal and Parker, 1998) of National Center for Asphalt Technology (NCAT) reported

that tests with 16 aggregates of varying field performances from across the U.S. showed

that the micro-Deval and magnesium sulfate soundness tests were the two best indicators

of aggregate performance for hot-mix asphalt. Losses of 18% for both tests appeared to

separate good and fair aggregates from poor aggregates.

Two reports in 2003 of investigations by different transportation agencies showed

that micro-Deval was a good indicator of field performance. The Colorado Department


26/615

8

of Transportation in an unpublished internal report (2003) stated that micro-Deval is

clearly a better indicator of field performance. Nineteen aggregates from across

Colorado were collected and rated good, fair, or poor by regional engineers. The

department found that at a micro-Deval loss of 18 all poor aggregates were identified,

and a micro-Deval loss of 15 would also identify two fair aggregates. In addition, the

Oklahoma Department of Transportation (Hobson et al., 2003) reported on an internal

research effort to determine the ability of micro-Deval to determine field performance.

Eighteen sources of aggregate from across Oklahoma with known field performances in

hot-mix asphalt were tested. The aggregates were rated as good, fair, or poor. The

performance history rating correlated exactly with micro-Deval loss.

Despite the several research efforts which show that the micro-Deval is a good

indicator of field performance, two agencies have found otherwise. In 2001 the Oregon

Department of Transportation studied the ability of micro-Deval to identify seven

aggregates which had known performance histories. Some of the aggregates studied had

failed with excessive degradation due to studded tire use. The researchers concluded in

that study that micro-Deval was not a better indicator of field performance (Hunt, 2001).

In an extensive project conducted at NCAT, Cooley et al. investigated 72 aggregates

from eight states across the Southeast. The results showed that although correlations

existed for some mineralogical types in some states, no correlations existed between

micro-Deval and field performance when considering the results of all the aggregates as a

whole (Cooley and James, 2003).

2.3.3 Correlations with Other Tests

Several attempts have been made to correlate micro-Deval with other aggregate

tests. Most commonly, several attempts have been made to use micro-Deval as a

replacement for the sulfate soundness tests, and most have been successful. Researchers


27/615

9

at MTO reported that correlations between the magnesium sulfate soundness test and the

micro-Deval test were very good with a correlation coefficient of R = 0.85 for 106 coarse

aggregates (Senior and Rogers, 1991). This correlation can be seen in Figure 2.3.3-1.

Additional research at MTO showed that micro-Deval correlated very well with

magnesium sulfate for fine aggregate with much less variability both in and between labs

(Rogers et al., 1991). In another study from Canada researchers reported that micro-

Deval has a very good correlation with the magnesium sulfate soundness test (Richard

and Scarlett, 1997).

In 1999 NCAT reported that for 16 coarse aggregates of varying performance,

correlations between micro-Deval and all abrasion tests were poor, but correlations could

be found between micro-Deval and soundness tests including an excellent correlation

with magnesium sulfate (R = 0.848) (Wu et al., 1999). In a report from Texas Tech

University, researchers showed that an excellent correlation (R = 0.8365) existed when

comparing magnesium sulfate with the product of micro-Deval and absorption results

(Jayawickrama et al., 2001). Despite these reports showing that micro-Deval does

correlate with the SS test, one report stated otherwise. Research at NCAT found that

when examining the test results of 72 aggregates from eight states in the Southeast, no

correlations could be found between micro-Deval and sodium sulfate soundness (Cooley

and James, 2003).


28/615

10

Figure 2.3.3-1: Correlation Between Magnesium Sulfate Soundness andMicro-Deval as Found by Senior and Rogers

Micro-Deval has also been compared with several aggregate abrasion tests with

little success. Several researchers have compared micro-Deval with the Los Angeles

abrasion and impact test, and all have found that no correlation exists. Both NCAT

studies (Cooley and James, 2003; Kandhal and Parker, 1998) reported that micro-Deval

has no good correlations with any abrasion tests including the Los Angeles test. In

additional research, it was found that for 40 different aggregates of a variety of

mineralogical types there was no correlation could be found between the micro-Deval

and the British aggregate abrasion value (Latham et al., 1998). They also found that there

was a significant difference between running the micro-Deval wet and dry.


29/615

11

2.3.4 Precision and Variables

The precision of the micro-Deval test has universally been reported as being

excellent. The Ontario Ministry of Transportation has shown that the micro-Deval test is

relatively insensitive to sample grading and has a low within-laboratory variation.

Moreover, its inter-laboratory variation was tested with samples of 58 different sands

tested in several different labs by several different technicians. The results had a

coefficient of variation of only 3.2% (Rogers et al., 1991). It has also been shown that

the variability of the micro-Deval test is low (Wu et al., 1999). While investigating the

Quebec version of the micro-Deval test which specifies a sample size of 500 grams,

research has shown that the repeatability of micro-Deval test is be improved by using

three times more material (Latham and Rogers, 1998). Therefore, current methods

specify 1500 grams.

Research has shown that several factors could play a role in determining micro-

Deval loss and precision. Canadian research showed that soaking for longer than an hour

had negligible effects, but varying the soaking time under an hour does affect results

(Latham and Rogers, 1998). However, another study reported that soaking had no effect

on micro-Deval loss (Latham et al., 1998). When comparing the micro-Deval test results

of 40 different aggregates of a variety of mineralogical types, results showed that a very

good correlation with a coefficient of R2

= 0.994 was found between soaking the samples

and not soaking but testing with water. This can be seen in Figure 2.3.5-1.

Three studies of degradation tests have shown that aggregate size, shape, and

texture affects loss, and one study on the micro-Deval has shown the effect of the sample

size on loss. It has been reported that aggregate shape played an important factor in a wet

L.A. Abrasion test as crushed gravel consistently yielded higher loss than uncrushed

gravel (Ekse and Morris, 1959), In addition, it has been shown in a study of the


30/615

12

Washington Degradation test that aggregate size, type, and weathered state influenced

wet degradation loss (Goonewardane, 1977). Two researchers have shown that abrasion

loss in the gyratory testing machine is dependent upon kind of aggregate, aggregate

gradation, and particle shape (Moavenzdeh and Goetz, 1963). In a study investigating the

affect of sample size on micro-Deval loss, MTO has shown that the percent loss of micro-

Deval was independent of sample size until the sample reached 2000 grams (Latham and

Rogers, 1998).

2.3.5 Current Use

Despite spreading popularity and being recommended by National Cooperative

Highway Research Program (NCHRP) as the best aggregate test for abrasion (Hanna et

al., 2003), personal communications with U.S. DOTs for this project has shown that the

use of micro-Deval in North America is not widespread. Of 35 state transportation

agencies responding to a survey distributed for this project, only seven use micro-Deval

and only four more are currently considering future use. Of the remaining 24, only ten

have tried micro-Deval. In addition, only three Canadian provinces use micro-Deval:

Ontario, Nova Scotia, and Quebec (Richard and Scarlett, 1997). Those state DOTs not

using micro-Deval cite a variety of different reasons: no advantage over current tests; no

current problems with aggregate qualification; and no time or money to investigate

micro-Deval and set limits.


31/615

13

Figure 2.3.5-1: Correlation Between Wet and Soaked Micro-Deval Loss asFound by Woodside and Woodward

2.4 Los Angeles Abrasion

2.4.1 Background

The Deval abrasion test was developed in France in the 1870s and was initially

adopted by ASTM in 1908 (Amirkhanian et al., 1991). Due to a lack of correlation with

field performance, the Los Angeles abrasion test was created around 1925 (Hveem and

Smith, 1964). The LA test was later adopted by ASTM in 1937 because it was felt that

L.A. had better relationship to field performance (Amirkhanian et al., 1991). Despite

overwhelming research that shows that LA is a poor indicator of field performance, the

test has been used almost universally since. Two reports have shown that L.A. has good

correlations with the British impact value test and thus should be considered an impact

test (Hudec, 1983; Senior and Rogers, 1991). The correlation as shown by Senior and


32/615

14

Rogers can be seen in Figure 2.4.1-1. As a result, the name of the test was later changed

to the Los Angeles abrasion and impact test.

Figure 2.4.1-1: Correlation Between Aggregate Impact Value and Los AngelesAbrasion as Found by Senior and Rogers

2.4.2 Significance

The research results concerning the significance of the Los Angeles test are quite

varied. Almost no agreement can be conclusively made concerning the ability of the

L.A. test to indicate strength; however, several have shown that the L.A. test correlates

very well with impact tests and is not an indicator of abrasion resistance. Several have

also shown that in any application, the L.A. test is not a good indicator of field

performance.


33/615

15

A strong correlation has been reported between the crushing value test and the

L.A. Abrasion test (Shergold, 1948). Additional research followed by investigating a

correlation between L.A. loss and the strength of concrete for gravel aggregates with a

loss of 42 to 57% (Jumper et al., 1956). They found that for gravel samples a 1%

reduction in L.A. loss corresponded to a 1% loss in concrete strength. However, an

attempt was made to find a correlation between L.A. and the unconfined compressive

strength of the rock, and no correlation could be found except at high values of L.A. loss

(Shakoor and Brown, 1996). In addition, other researchers pointed out that often times

aggregates with high L.A. losses are very suitable for high-performance concrete

(Laplante et al., 1991).

Researchers have, however, successfully shown that the Los Angeles abrasion test

correlates well with impact tests. Hudec reported that L.A. has good correlations with the

British impact value test, and therefore it should be considered an impact test (Hudec,

1983). Additional Canadian work found that correlations between L.A. Abrasion and the

aggregate impact value test were very good (Rogers, 2004; Senior and Rogers, 1991).

Two more researchers attempted to find correlations between the L.A. Abrasion test, the

French Deval test, the German impact, British impact, and modified Marshal test (Kohler

and Nagel, 1972). He found that although the strains of the aggregates are very different

with these test methods, they characterize the same or at least similar properties of the

aggregates. Good correlations were found.

Two researchers have shown that the L.A. test is not able to predict abrasion

resistance. In 1958 Smith reported that the L.A. test had no correlation with concrete

abrasion resistance as measured by the Davis steel ball, the dressing wheel abrasion

apparatus, and the Ruemelin shotblast apparatus (Smith, 1958). The Ontario Ministry of


34/615

16

Transportation reported that the L.A. Abrasion test was not a good indicator of aggregate

abrasion resistance as measured by the aggregate abrasion value test (Rogers, 1980).

Although early work shows correlations between the L.A. Abrasion test and field

performance in pavements, a large amount of more recent work has refuted this claim.

One researcher reported that there was a definite relation between the loss in the L.A. test

and the service record of materials used in concrete and asphalt (Woolf, 1937). In

addition, Richard and Scarlett reported that, of all the Canadian provinces responding to a

survey, almost all of them reported that aggregates passing L.A. loss limits performed

well in pavement applications (Richard and Scarlett, 1997). However, Richard and

Scarlett also cited Rogers laboratory research with 106 coarse aggregate samples that

had shown that L.A. has no relation to field performance for aggregates with loss limits

under 50. More researchers have shown that L.A. loss does not necessarily show the

ability of the aggregate to relate to the compressive strength of concrete (Amirkhanian et

al., 1992).

A report in 1959 documented the failures of certain basalt coarse aggregates in

pavements in the state of Washington due to the creation of plastic fines after they had

passed aggregate qualification tests (Ekse and Morris, 1959). They concluded that the

L.A. Abrasion test and the Deval test were not able to discriminate between good and

poor aggregate. In 1984 researchers found that L.A. Abrasion values did not show any

correlation with performance of aggregates used in surface mixtures and asserted that

aggregates should not be rejected on the basis of the Los Angeles abrasion test alone

(Gandhi and Lytton, 1984). Researchers in Canada found that L.A. was a poor indicator

of performance for base material (Rogers et al., 1995). Other researchers in Canada have

reported that L.A. cannot predict field performance (Senior and Rogers, 1991). Some


35/615

17

feel that the L.A. test is good for determining the mechanical breakdown due to handling,

but not much else (Meininger, 2004; Rogers et al., 2003).

In 1993 an attempt was made to determine if aggregate absorption could be

estimated utilizing the test results of the Los Angeles abrasion test (Esa et al., 1993).

Although no correlations could be found, two conclusions were drawn: aggregates with

higher L.A. results would likely have a higher tendency for water absorption; and the

relationship of L.A. loss to absorption depends on the aggregate type and is site specific.

Research in 1986 attempted to find correlations between L.A. loss, unconfined

compressive strength, absorption, and dry density (Mirza, 1986). No correlations were

found except a minor correlation between L.A. and unconfined compressive strength at

low values of L.A. loss.

2.4.3 Precision

In research in the state of California, 12 different laboratories conducted tests on

aggregate samples to determine the precision of each. Studying aggregates with a L.A.

Abrasion loss of 13 to 18, the researchers found that variability was low with a single-

operator variance of 1.1 and a multi-laboratory variance of 3.53. The largest source of

error cited for the Los Angeles abrasion test was different laboratory equipment from lab

to lab (Benson and Ames, 1975).

2.4.4 Current Use

The Los Angeles abrasion test is the most universally used aggregate qualification

test throughout the world (Meininger, 1994). Almost all of the respondents to a national

survey indicated that the L.A. Abrasion loss should be a specification requirement and

that they were satisfied with the value that their agency had adopted (Amirkhanian et al.,

1991). Another survey showed that all but three states use the L.A. test for aggregate


36/615

18

qualification, and only two states have a degradation requirement besides the L.A. test

(Wu et al., 1998). A report in 1998 for COST 337 and the Laboratoire Central des Ponts

et Chausses in Nantes, France documented European use of aggregate tests (Hornych,

1998). The Los Angeles abrasion test was the most widely used abrasion test in Europe

with 14 countries. Despite this widespread use of and significant previous research

concerning the Los Angeles abrasion test, 26% of all US agencies were unaware of where

their loss limits originated (Amirkhanian et al., 1992). In addition, confidence in the L.A.

results alone was 36%, and confidence when the Los Angeles abrasion test was used in

combination with wet abrasion tests or soundness tests was 84%. Some now believe that

L.A. principally determines susceptibility to breakdown during handling (Meininger,

2004).

2.5 Other Abrasion Tests

Several abrasion tests have been developed over the years to better simulate the

degradation that will occur in the field. After the invention of the Los Angeles abrasion

test, the majority of the tests developed involved some form of wet abrasion. This is

most likely due to the fact that most became aware that aggregates are not dry in the field

and behave differently when wet, and that the current dry abrasion methods were

insufficient.

After failure of coarse aggregates in Virginia that had passed all qualification

tests, the Virginia Department of Highways attempted to create a new test that is

strikingly similar to the micro-Deval (Melville, 1948). The test consisted of placing the

aggregate in a rotating porcelain jar with 3000 grams of flint pebbles and 1000 grams of

distilled water. They authors found that aggregate with poor field performance

consistently had losses higher than 65%.


37/615

19

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reported attempting to create a wet L.A. test

(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1957). Water was added to the drum, and the test was

run as normal; however, the results were not significantly different than that of the dry

L.A. test. For 26 of 38 aggregates, the wet abrasion results were slightly higher, e.g. 1 to

11%. However, for nine aggregates the dry abrasion loss was 9% higher. A very good

correlation could be made between the two by using what was almost a 45 degree line.

Other researchers have also proposed several changes to the L.A. test by creating a wet

L.A. test (Larson et al., 1971). They proposed running the sample dry for 250

revolutions, and then running the sample wet for 250 revolutions. The loss would then be

determined by sieving over #16 test sieve instead of the required #12.

In 1959 researchers presented the development a wet attrition test that was also

strikingly similar to the micro-Deval (Minor, 1959). The test consisted of rotating 1000

grams of aggregate in a 1-gal plastic jar with 200 cm3 of water. The loss was calculated

by pouring the wash water in the sand equivalent cylinder and measuring the settlement

after 20 minutes. This test came to be known the Washington Degradation Test, and the

authors felt that it produced similar degradation to that found in the field, especially when

considering the amount of plastic fines created during handling and use. Preliminary

work presented by the authors showed that the better quality aggregates seem to have

values above 60. Three years later the Washington degradation test was reported to have

a good correlation with performance (Larson et al., 1971).

Work in California in 1975 attempted to find a replacement for the sodium sulfate

soundness test, and several new test methods were created (Spellman et al., 1975). The

first method created was a process which bounced aggregate off a metal surface in an

attempt to separate harder from softer particles. The test was quickly deemed

unacceptable since hard but brittle aggregate would break when impacting the metal


38/615

20

sheet. Heavy media separation, which uses specific gravity to separate aggregate of

differing densities (therefore assuming different qualities), was also evaluated. This test

was also found to be inadequate except for specific aggregate types. Another test, called

the detrition test, was created that involved placing aggregate alone with water in a 5-gal

paint bucket and shaking it on a paint shaker. This test was determined to show the most

promise with initial results.

Finally, after aggregate failures in Washington, an attempt was made to create a

new test by running the aggregate for four hours in the L.A. machine without the steel

charge (Ekse and Morris, 1959). The researchers believed that this test would be

effective in predicting the tendency of certain aggregate to create plastic fines in service.

They did find that operating the test produced larger amounts of plastic fines, but no

correlations with field performance were mentioned.

2.6 Soundness Tests

2.6.1 Background

The sulfate soundness test was created in 1828 by M. Brard attempting to

simulate the freezing of water by using the crystallization of sulfate salts (Rogers et al.,

1989). In the years since, two forms of the sulfate soundness test have emerged: the

sodium sulfate soundness test and the magnesium sulfate soundness test. Beginning in

the 1920s, extensive research was conducted to determine the effect of changing

variables of the test and the correlation between test results and field performance.

Several have debated the ability of the test to predict field performance, but much

research has identified and corrected several parameters of the test which lead to great

variability.


39/615


40/615

22

Although the sulfate tests were once the only tool for modeling the pressures of freezing

and thawing, the fact that the crystal growth of salts in the pores of aggregates does not

adequately simulate environmental conditions is now known (Kandhal and Parker, 1998).

Research has shown that the sodium sulfate soundness does not relate to the dilation of

slow-cooled concrete specimens made with ten gravels, six limestones, and four

sandstones chosen from throughout Pennsylvania (Harman et al., 1970). Despite citing

four references which show correlations with field performance, one researcher reported

that sulfate soundness tests did not necessarily reflect field performance because stringent

limits have been pla

Documents

507-1F_The Prediction of Coarse Aggregate Performance by Micro-Deval and Soundness Realated Agregates Test