AGGREGATE TESTING

1. Introduction
The objective of the following experiment was to test samples of known aggregates for the
following properties: bulk unit weight, gradation, specific gravity and absorption, uncompacted
voids in fine aggregates, and the flatness and elongation of aggregate particles.

2. Theoretical Information / Literature

An aggregate in economics is a summary measure describing a market or economy.
The aggregation problem refers to the difficulty of treating an empirical or theoretical aggregate
as if it reacted like a less-aggregated measure, say, about behavior of an individual agent as
described in general microeconomic theory. Examples of aggregates in micro
and macroeconomics relative to less aggregated counterparts

The most notable applications for aggregates in civil engineering are in the fields of
transportation and geotechnical engineering. Some uses of aggregates include being an essential
part of portland cement and asphalt concrete design, as well as for foundations and pavements
(Mamlouk, Zaniewski 2011). Aggregates are a vital part for the formation of roads and also play
a major role in the design of cement, concrete, and asphalt. Besides being a base material,
aggregates can add stability and strength to cement and design mixes (Mamlouk, Zaniewski
2011).

The properties of aggregates are associated with the characteristics of the individual particles and
the combined material (Mamlouk, Zaniewski 2011). A further classification of properties can be
made into three characteristic categories: physical properties, chemical properties, and
mechanical properties (Mamlouk, Zaniewski 2011). Four important properties worth discussing
are size, roughness, toughness, and angularity.

For aggregates, roughness is preferred since it provides friction that will prevent unnecessary
movement of aggregates when a load is applied. The disadvantage of aggregates with roughness
is that they are costlier because of this preference as well as the additional binder needed to coat
a rough aggregate. In terms of toughness, tough aggregates are very beneficial. Toughness is

2.1 Bulk Unit Weight

Several unit weights are used in Soil Mechanics. These are the bulk, saturated, dry, and
submerged unit weights. The bulk unit weight is simply defined as the weight per unit volume
bulk W V = When all the voids are filled with water the bulk unit weight is identical to the
saturated unit weight, sat, and when all the voids are filled with air the bulk unit weight is
identical with the dry unit weight, dry The bulk unit weight measures the percentage voids
between aggregate particles of similar sizes. The bulk unit weight of an aggregate can be
calculated in Eq. (1). (Ybulk= W/V)
M = G - TV (1)

Where,
M = bulk unit weight of the aggregate, kg/m 3

G = weight of the measure and weight of the aggregate, kg

T = weight of the measure, kg
V = volume of the measure, m 3

The percentage of air voids can be calculated by using both the bulk specific gravity and the
specific weight of water, as shown in Eq. (2). A higher percent of air voids calculated with Eq.
(2) would mean that the aggregates are not packing as efficiently as possible, resulting in higher
amounts of binder needed to fill the voids.

%Voids = (SW) - MSW * 100 (2)

Where,
M = bulk unit weight, kg/m 3

S = bulk specific gravity (dry basis)

W = specific weight of water, 998 kg/m 3

2.2 Gradation
Grading is the particle-size distribution of an aggregate as determined by a sieve analysis (ASTM
C 136 or AASHTOT 27). The range of particle sizes in aggregate is illustrated in Fig. 5-4. The
aggregate particle size is determined by using wire-mesh sieves with square openings. The seven
standard ASTM C 33 (AASHTO M 6/M 80) sieves for fine aggregate have openings ranging
from 150 m to 9.5 mm (No. 100 sieve to 3 8 in.). The 13 standard sieves for coarse aggregate
have openings ranging from 1.18 mm to 100 mm (0.046 in. to 4 in.). Tolerances for the
dimensions of openings in sieves are listed in ASTM E 11 (AASHTO M 92). Size numbers
(grading sizes) for coarse aggregates apply to the amounts of aggregate (by mass) in percentages
that pass through an assortment of sieves (Fig. 5-5). For highway construction, ASTM D 448
(AASHTO M 43) lists the same 13 size numbers as in ASTM C 33.

Pi=100(diD)0.45 (3)
Where,
Pi = percent passing a sieve of size di
di = the sieve size in question
D = maximum size of the aggregate

The fineness modulus is a measure of the fine aggregate gradation. The fineness modulus can be
calculated using the percent retained for each sieve. It is important to know the fineness modulus
of an aggregate when determining amount of cement paste needed as a higher fineness modulus
needs less paste than a finer aggregate with a lower fineness modulus. (ProBCGuide, 2015) The
fineness modulus can be found using the equation:
 FM = CPR100 (4)
Where,
CPR = cumulative percent retained on each sieve

2.3 Specific Gravity and Absorption

Specific gravity is the unitless ratio of the density of a material to the density of water and is the
most commonly used value for concrete mix design (Camp, 2006). The characteristics of
aggregates, such as mass and volume, may not indicate the quality of the aggregate, but are
extremely important in terms of the design of concrete mix (Mamlouk, Zaniewski, 2011). There
are four ways to express specific gravity, depending on how the voids in the aggregate particles
are being assessed. The three most commonly used types in regard to concrete mix design are
bulk dry, apparent, and bulk saturated surface dry (or bulk SSD) specific gravity.

Bulk dry specific gravity takes into account the volume of the solid, volume of impermeable
voids, which water cannot access, and volume of permeable voids, which water can access
(Mehta, lecture). Since the volume of both impermeable voids and permeable voids are
unknown, an alternative equation was used to determine Bulk dry specific gravity. This
equation, in accordance with ASTM C127, is defined as

G S/BD = AB-C (5)

where
G = Bulk Dry Specific Gravity, unitless
S/BD

A = Dry Weight of Aggregate, g

B = SSD Weight of Aggregate, g
C = Submerged Weight of Aggregate in Water, g

Apparent specific gravity does not take into account the volume of impermeable voids, which
water cannot access, but does take into account the volume of the solid and volume of
impermeable voids, which water cannot access. In accordance with ASTM C127, Apparent
specific gravity is defined as

G = AA-C
S/A (6)
where
G = Bulk Apparent Specific Gravity (unitless)
S/A

A = Dry Weight of Aggregate, g

C = Submerged Weight of Aggregate in Water, g

Bulk SSD specific gravity takes into account all three volumes previously discussed (solid,
impermeable voids, and permeable voids) in addition to the weight of water in the permeable
voids when the aggregate is in saturated surface dry condition. In accordance with ASTM C127,
Bulk SSD specific gravity can be defined as

G S/BSSD = BB-C (7)

where
G = Bulk SSD Specific Gravity (unitless)
S/BSSD

B = SSD Weight of Aggregate, g

 C = Submerged Weight of Aggregate in Water, g

Another important factor in the design of cement concrete is the amount of water an aggregate
can absorb. It can be a telling factor since moisture that is captured in the voids of an aggregate
cannot react with cement. Similarly, absorbed asphalt in asphalt concrete cannot be used as a
binder in the mix. Absorption is the moisture content in the SSD condition and the percentage
can be calculated. Using the same naming convention as described previously for calculating
specific gravity values for this laboratory experiment, absorption percentage can be defined as

Absorption (%) = B-AAx 100

(8)
where
A = Dry Weight, g
B = SSD Weight, g

2.4 Fine Aggregate Angularity

Aggregate angularity is defined by the number of angular faces an aggregate particle has. For a
coarse aggregate to be considered angular two or more crushed faces must be present. Given the
significant size difference between coarse and fine aggregates, angularity for fine aggregates is
determined by the percent of uncompacted void space in a sample of fine aggregates with known
gradation, as seen from equation 9. The volume of the uncompacted sample of fine aggregates
was determined using the volume occupied in the cylindrical measure, as seen in equation 10.
Since angular aggregates tend to stack upon each other when uncompacted, the more void space
present in an uncompacted sample the more angular the particles (Mamlouk, Zaniewski, 2011).

The angularity of fine aggregates is a major contributor to the performance of asphalt and cement
concrete. Fine, angular aggregates are needed in asphalt and cement concrete to provide strength
and stability for structures such as road surfaces. Aggregates that can successfully interlock will
be able to distribute surface loads while remaining relatively motionless; thus avoiding problems
such as rutting (Mamlouk, Zaniewski, 2011).

U%=V-FGV*100 (9)
Where
U = percent uncompacted voids in material
F = net mass of fine aggregate, grams
G = bulk dry specific gravity of fine aggregate
V = volume of cylindrical measure, cm 3

Vc=Mw Liters (10)

Where
Vc = volume of cylindrical measure, liters
Mw = mass of water, grams
= density of water, g/cm 3

2.5 Flat and Elongated

Flat particles are defined as ones where the ratio between the middle and smallest dimension is
greater than 3. Elongated particles are defined as ones where the ratio of the longest and middle
dimension are also greater than three. Flat and elongated particles are defined as ones where the
ratio between the largest and smallest dimension is greater than 5 (Mamlouk, Zaniewski,
2011). Particles that are neither flat or elongated are ones that do not pass any of the above ratio
characteristics.

As the name shows, flat and elongated aggregates are typically long and thin (Mamlouk,
Zaniewski, 2011). This characteristic causes these aggregates to have mostly poor performance,
including shifting in position easier (Mehta, lecture) and fracturing easier than aggregates that
are not flat and elongated. Effects of this include a changing gradation, which negatively affects
the mix and can make it burdensome to work with (ASTM D4791, 2009). For these reasons, it is
ideal to keep the percentage of flat and elongated particles low in order to have an aggregate
blend with an overall better performance. This percentage can be calculated, with the equation
below representing how to calculate the percentage of flat and elongated particles in a sample

P = N T x 100
FE FE FE (11)

where
P = Percentage of Flat and Elongated Particles in Aggregate Sample
FE

N = Number of Flat and Elongated Particles in Aggregate Sample

FE

T = Total Number of Particles in Aggregate Sample

FE

3. Materials
Table 1 below shows the materials used to perform the procedures for the laboratory tests to
determine five aggregate properties. All aggregates used for these tests are from Joseph Fazzio,
Inc. Both coarse and fine aggregates were used.

Table 1: Materials Used During Aggregate Properties Testing.

Property Test Materials Used Manufacturer

Bulk Density (Unit Weight) and Voids in inch coarse aggregate Fazzio
Aggregates

Gradation of Fine Aggregates blend of inch coarse and Fazzio

fine aggregates

Relative Density (Specific Gravity) and inch coarse aggregates Fazzio

Absorption of Coarse Aggregates
 Uncompacted Void Content of Fine fine aggregates Fazzio
Aggregates

Flat and Elongated Particles in Coarse inch coarse aggregates Fazzio

Aggregates

4. Equipment
Table 2 below displays the equipment used to measure raw data of the aggregate samples for the
laboratory tests to measure the five aggregate properties.

Table 2: Equipment Used During Aggregate Properties Testing.

Property Test Equipment Manufacturer and Accuracy
Used Model Number
Bulk Density (Unit Weight) and Scale CBK 70a .001 kg
Voids in Aggregates
Cylindrical Humbolt N/A
Measure
Tamping Rod N/A N/A

Gradation Scale Ohaus Explorer Accurate to

0.1g

No. 4 Sieve W.S. Tyler 4.75mm

No. 8 Sieve Gilson Company Inc. 2.36mm

Table 2: Equipment Used During Aggregate Properties Testing. (Continued)

Property Test Equipment Used Manufacturer and Accuracy
Model Number
No. 16 Sieve Gilson Company Inc. 1.18mm
No. 30 Sieve Gilson Company Inc. 0.60mm

No. 50 Sieve Gilson Company Inc. 0.30mm

No. 100 Sieve Gilson Company Inc. 0.15mm
No. 200 Sieve Gilson Company Inc. 0.075mm
Pan Gilson Company Inc. 0.00mm
 Mechanical Sieve W.S. Tyler Model N/A
Shaker RX-29
Relative Density (Specific Gravity) Balance Nuline Resolution:
and Absorption of Coarse Model #W30N 5 grams
Aggregates
Oven Sheldon N/A
Manufacturing Inc.
VWR Forced Air
Oven
Model #1390FM
Metal Basket N/A N/A

Water Tank Gilson Company Inc. N/A

Model #SGA-122
Uncompacted Void Content of Cylindrical Gibson Company Inc. N/A
Fine Aggregates Measure Model #SG-40
and Funnel Stand
Scale Ohaus Explorer Accurate to
0.1g

Flat and Elongated Particles in Four-Station Gilson Company N/A

Coarse Aggregates Proportional Model #HM-38B
Caliper

5. Experimental Procedure
Table 3 below shows the procedures used to test the five aggregate properties. Any deviations
from the provided procedure are listed as well.

Table 3: Procedures Used for Aggregate Properties Testing.

Property Test Procedure Remarks

Bulk Density (Unit Weight) ASTM C29 The rodding method was used for compaction
and Voids in Aggregates

Gradation of Fine Aggregates ASTM C136 Used fine aggregates with gradation
determined by ASTM C136 standards

Relative Density (Specific ASTM C127

Gravity) and Absorption of
Coarse Aggregates
 Uncompacted Void Content AASHTO Method C
of Fine Aggregates T304-96

Flat and Elongated Particles ASTM Method A was used to test and place
in Coarse Aggregates D4791-10 aggregates in one of three groups: Flat
Aggregates, Elongated Aggregates, and Flat &
Elongated Test

6. Experimental Results
Below are the measured results for all laboratory experiments.

6.1 Bulk Unit Weight

Table 4 below shows the the raw data obtained from the Bulk Unit Weight test.

Table 4: Bulk Unit Weight Raw Data.

Property Trial 1 Trial 2

Mass of Container (kg) 2.685 2.685

Mass of Glass Plate (kg) 2.140 2.140

Mass of Container Mass of Plate+Mass of Water (kg) 7.710 7.710

Mass of Water (kg) 2.885 2.885

Water Temperature () 22.0 22.0

Mass of Aggregate + Mass of Container (kg) 7.055 7.170

Mass of Aggregate (kg) 4.370 4.485

6.2 Gradation
Table 5 below shows the the raw data obtained from the Gradation test.

Table 5: Weight of aggregate from each sieve.

Sieve Weight of Sieve Weight of Sieve + Aggregates Weight of Aggregate
Size (g) (g) (g)

No. 4 510 513 3

No. 8 469 485 16

 No.16 422 446 24

No. 30 405 458 53

No. 50 367 481 114

No. 100 341 417 76

No. 200 335 351 16

Pan 363 365 2

6.3 Specific Gravity and Absorption

Table 6 below shows the the raw data obtained from the Relative Density (Specific Gravity) and
Absorption of Coarse Aggregates test.

Table 6: Raw Data from Relative Density (Specific Gravity) and Absorption of Coarse
Aggregates Test.
Property Trial 1 Trial 2

Mass of Pan (g) 716.7 719.4

Mass of Pan with SSD Aggregates in Air (g) 2966.9 3329.0

Mass of Basket in Water (g) 148.3 865.1

Mass of Basket with Aggregates in Water (g) 1578.5 1658.5

Mass of Pan and Dry Aggregates (g) 2953.5 3312.6

6.4 Fine Aggregate Angularity

Table 7 below shows the the raw data obtained from the Fine Aggregate Angularity test.

Table 7: Measured Data from Fine Aggregate Angularity tests.

Property Sample 1 Sample 2

Water Temperature ( C)
o
20.5 20.5

Mass of Glass Plate (g) 49.48 49.49

Mass of Cylindrical Measure (g) 185.41 185.47

Mass of Cylindrical Measure and Glass Plate with Water (g) 335.00 335.01

Mass of Fine Aggregate Used (g) 302.00 301.13

Mass of Cylindrical Measure and Uncompacted Fine Aggregate (g) 336.87 337.96

Bulk Dry Specific Gravity of Fine Aggregate (unitless) 2.700 2.700

6.5 Flat and Elongated

Table 8 below shows the raw data obtained from the Flat and Elongated Particles in Coarse
Aggregates test.

Table 8: Raw Data from Flat and Elongated Particles in Coarse Aggregates Test.
Flat Test (3:1) Elongated Test (3:1) Flat & Elongated Test
Trial (5:1)
#
Pass Fail to Pass Pass Fail to Pass Pass Fail to Pass
Through Through Through Through Through Through

1 0 15 1 14 3 12

2 1 14 0 15 2 13

7. Analysis
An analysis of all calculated results are found in the below sections, broken up by experiment.

7.1 Bulk Unit Weight Analysis

Using the raw data from Table 1 and Equations 1&2 the values for the Bulk Unit Weight and
Percent Voids could be calculated for both trials. The results are shown in the table below.

Table 9: Calculated Results of Bulk Unit Weight and Percent Voids.

 Property Trial 1 Trial 2 Average

Bulk Unit Weight (kg/m ) 3

1511.36 1551.13 1531.25

Percent Voids (%) 44.47 43.017 43.74

7.2 Gradation Analysis

Table 10 below shows the gradation results for cumulative percent passing and cumulative
percent retained.

Table 10: Gradation Cumulative Percent Passing and Cumulative Percent Retained.
Sieve Weight of Cumulative Percent Cumulative Percent
Size Aggregate (g) Passing (%) Retained (%)

No. 4 3 99 1

No. 8 16 94 6

No.16 24 86 14

No. 30 53 68 32

No. 50 114 31 69

No. 100 76 6 94

No. 200 16 0.7 99.3

Pan 2 0 100

Total: 304 FM: 2.16

Using the data in Table 10, the 0.45 power gradation curve can be plotted to determine the size
distribution of the sample used compared to the maximum density line. The power gradation
curve is shown below in Figure 1.
 Figure 1: 0.45 Power Gradation Plot compared to Maximum Density Line

From the chart above, the aggregate sample makes a smooth S shape around the maximum
density line, which is ideal. The portion of the blue line which is below the maximum density
line indicates the coarse aggregates and the part above the black line indicates the fine
aggregates. From the shape of the aggregate gradation, the size distribution of the sample is
dense or well-graded. Since the plot is not directly on the maximum density line, there will be air
voids in the sample. The air voids are represented by the spaces between the blue and black
curves on the plot.
The fineness modulus of the aggregate sample was determined to be 2.16. The fineness modulus
of the aggregate sample is said to be fine sand. When calculating the fineness modulus, neither
the pan nor the No. 200 sieve were included as per ASTM C136.

7.3 Specific Gravity and Absorption

Using the raw data obtained in the laboratory tests shown in Table 6 and Equations 5, 6, 7, and 8
in Theoretical/Literature, the final values could be found for the Relative Density (Specific
Gravity) and Absorption of Coarse Aggregates procedure. These values are presented in Table
11 below.
Table 11: Analysis of Results Relative Density (Specific Gravity) and Absorption of Coarse
Aggregates.
Property Trial 1 Trial 2 Average
Mass of SSD Aggregates (g) 2250.2 2609.6 2429.9
Mass of Aggregates in Water (g) 1430.2 1658.5 1544.4
Mass of Dry Aggregates (g) 2236.8 2593.2 2415.0
Bulk Dry Specific Gravity (unitless) 2.728 2.727 2.727
Apparent Specific Gravity (unitless) 2.773 2.774 2.774
Bulk SSD Specific Gravity (unitless) 2.744 2.744 2.744
Absorption (%) 0.60 0.63 0.62

7.4 Fine Aggregate Angularity Analysis

The percent of uncompacted voids in each sample of fine aggregates was calculated using
equation 10. The volume of the cylindrical measure, used as a variable in equation 10, was
calculated using equation 11. The results are shown below in Table 12.

Table 12: Uncompacted voids in fine aggregates.

Sample Mass Density Volume Mass Bulk Dry Percent
Water Water Container Aggregate(g) Specific Uncompacted
(g) (g/cm )
3
(L) Gravity Voids

1 100.11 0.9982 100.29 151.46 2.7 44.06

2 100.05 0.9982 100.23 152.49 2.7 43.65

Average 100.08 .9982 100.26 151.97 2.7 43.85

7.5 Flat and Elongated Analysis

Using the raw data obtained in the laboratory tests shown in Table 8 and Equation 11 in
Theoretical/Literature, the final values could be found for the Flat and Elongated Particles in
Coarse Aggregates procedure. These values are presented in Table 13 below.

Table 13: Analysis of Results from Flat and Elongated Particles in Coarse Aggregates Test.
Flat Test (3:1) Elongated Test (3:1) Flat & Elongated Test (5:1)
Trial
# Flat Not Elongated Not Flat & Not Flat or
(%) Flat (%) Elongated Elongated (%) Elongated (%)
(%) (%)

1 0 100 7 93 20 80

2 7 93 0 100 13 87

8. Discussion
An assessment of all measured and calculated data is essential to determine the success and
accuracy of laboratory procedures. If data is found to be inaccurate and not within particular
standards, a thorough analysis should be completed to determine the cause of such errors. The
limits for single operator data was analyzed first and was compared to limits provided by either
ASTM or AASHTO. Multi-lab comparisons were assessed afterward when results were
compared with another group from the same lab section.

8.1 Bulk Unit Weight Single Operator Discussion

Table 14 below shows the single operator results for bulk unit weight and percent voids. The
difference between trial 1 and trial 2 was 39.77 kg/m which is within the ASTM limit of 40
3

kg/m . The difference in percent voids between the two trials was 1.46% but ASTM does not
3

have a limit so it cannot be determined if it passed or failed the requirement.

Table 14: Single Operator Variability for Results from Bulk Unit Weight Experiment
Property Trial 1 Trial 2 Difference ASTM Single ASTM
Operator Limit Requirement

Bulk Unit Weight 1511.36 1551.13 39.77 40 Passed

(kg/m ) 3

Percent Voids 44.47 43.01 1.46 N/A N/A

(%)

8.2 Gradation Single Operator Discussion

For this experiment, there was no single operator analysis for Gradation. Our final gradation is
seen in Figure 1 in Gradation Analysis above. Multilaboratory analysis will be discussed for
gradation in section 8.7 below.

8.3 Specific Gravity and Absorption Single Operator Discussion

The table below compares the results from the lab experiment to the ASTM limit for the Specific
Gravity and Absorption experiment.

Table 15: Single Operator Variability for Results from Specific Gravity and Absorption
Experiment.
Property Trial Trial Difference ASTM Single ASTM
1 2 Operator Limit Requirement
Bulk Dry Specific 2.728 2.727 0.001 0.025 Passed
Gravity (unitless)
Apparent Specific 2.773 2.774 0.001 0.020 Passed
Gravity (unitless)
Bulk SSD Specific 2.744 2.744 0.000 0.020 Passed
Gravity
Absorption (%) 0.60 0.63 0.03 N/A N/A

As seen in the Table 15 above, the ASTM Single Operator limits were not exceeded for any of
the three specific gravities tested in this experiment.

8.4 Fine Aggregate Angularity Single Operator Discussion

As seen from Table 16 below, the single user variability for the uncompacted void space in fine
aggregates did not meet the AASHTO requirement. The high single user variability present in
the two test samples may be a result of the difference of fine aggregate samples. Although both
test samples used fine aggregates from the same source and sieve gradation, variations in the fine
aggregate samples, such as the presence of larger particles, would have affected the percent of
uncompacted voids. The presence of larger particles in one sample would have made the overall
void space in said sample larger and thus the percent of uncompacted voids higher.

Table 16: Single Operator Variability for Results from Fine Aggregate Angularity Experiment.
Test Sample Uncompacted Void Allowable AASHTO AASHTO
Percent (%) Percent Difference (%) Requirement

1 44.06 - -

2 43.65 - -

Percent 0.41 0.37 Failed

Difference:

8.5 Flat and Elongated Single Operator Discussion

In the Flat and Elongated Particles in Coarse Aggregates experiment, aggregates were examined
to determine if they were flat, elongated, flat and elongated, or neither flat or elongated. Table
17 below compares the results from the lab experiment to ASTM Limits

Table 17: Single Operator Variability for Results of Flat and Elongated Experiment
Property Trial Trial Average ASTM Single ASTM
1 2 Operator Requirement
Limit

Cumulative Percent of 27 20 24 53.6 Passed

Aggregates that are Flat,
Elongated, and Flat &
Elongated (%)
As seen in the table above, the ASTM Single Operator limit was not exceeded for the cumulative
percent of aggregates that are flat, elongated, and flat and elongated in the test sample.

8.6 Bulk Unit Weight Multilaboratory Discussion

Table 18 below shows the results of the multi-lab comparison for bulk unit weight and percent
voids. The average bulk unit weight of our group was 1531.25 kg/m while the other groups was
3

1621.70 kg/m . The difference between the two is 90.45 kg/m which exceeds the ASTM limit of
3 3

85 kg/m . The reason for this discrepancy could be that the other group rodded the aggregate
3

harder resulting in tighter packing and a greater volume of aggregate and thus a greater bulk unit
weight. Another possibility is that our group did not fill the container all the way with aggregate
resulting in a lower bulk unit weight or the other group over filled the container with aggregate
resulting in a higher bulk unit weight. The percent voids for the two groups had a difference of
3.89% but ASTM does not have a limit so it cannot be determined if it passed or failed the
requirement.

Table 18: Multilaboratory Comparison for Results from Bulk Unit Weight Experiment
Property Our Group Other Group Difference ASTM ASTM
Average Average Multi-Lab Requirement
Limit

Bulk Unit 1531.25 1621.70 90.45 85 Failed

Weight (kg/m ) 3

Percent Voids 43.74 39.85 3.89 N/A N/A

(%)

8.7 Gradation Multilaboratory Discussion

The original weight of the sample before sieving was 306g. After the sample was sent through
the sieves and agitated, the resulting weight was 304g which is 0.6% off the original sample. As
per ASTM C136, the final weight of aggregate should be no less that 0.3% different than original
sample. The experimental error occured when the sieves were being taken apart for
measurement. A couple of sieves were difficult to separate and some of the aggregates were lost.
It was also noted that sieves were not completely free of aggregates from previous experiments
which couldve affected measurements.
The fineness modulus of the aggregate sample was determined to be 2.16. The fineness modulus
of the aggregate sample is said to be on the border of coarse and fine sand. This is to be expected
since the gradation is well-graded.

Table 19: Multilaboratory Precision for Cumulative Percent Passing Each Sieve.
 Sieve Single Lab Multi-Lab Difference ASTM ASTM
Size Percent Percent Allowable Requirement
Passing (%) Passing (%) Difference

No. 4 99 99.3 0.3 0.6 Yes

No. 8 93.8 94.6 0.8 2.2 Yes

No. 16 85.9 86.3 0.4 4.0 Yes

No. 30 68.9 66.6 2.3 3.1 Yes

No. 50 30.9 27.1 3.8 2.1 No

No. 5.9 5.0 0.9 1.8 Yes

100

No. 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.9 Yes

200

To ensure precision, cumulative percent passing was compared to group 8s calculations for a
multi-laboratory analysis. Following the basis of ASTM C136 standards, all sieve sizes met the
requirements for acceptable range of two results with the exception of No. 50. As noted above,
some of the mass was lost in the process which would explain the difference between the two
calculations.

8.8 Specific Gravity and Absorption Multilaboratory Discussion

Table 20 below compares the results obtained from our group to another group for the Specific
Gravity and Absorption experiment.

Table 20: Multilaboratory Comparison for Results from Specific Gravity and Absorption
Experiment.
 Property Our Group Other Difference Multi-Lab ASTM
Average Group ASTM Requirement
Average Limit

Bulk Dry Specific 2.727 2.725 0.002 0.038 Passed

Gravity (unitless)
Apparent Specific 2.774 2.775 0.001 0.032 Passed
Gravity (unitless)
Bulk SSD Specific 2.744 2.740 0.004 0.032 Passed
Gravity
Absorption (%) 0.62 0.62 0.00 N/A N/A

As seen in the Table 20 above, the ASTM Multilaboratory limit was not exceeded for any of the
three specific gravities tested in this experiment between our group and the other group in our lab
session.

8.9 Fine Aggregate Angularity Multilaboratory Discussion

Table 21, shown below, represents the multilaboritory data for uncompacted void percent in fine
aggregates. As seen in Table 21, the percent difference between our data and an additional
groups data met the AASHTO requirement.

Table 21: Multilaboratory Variability Comparison for Results from the Fine Aggregate
Angularity Experiment.
Test Uncompacted Multilaboratoy Multilaboratoy Allowable AASHTO
Sample Void Percent Uncompacted Percent AASHTO Requirement
(%) Void Percent Difference (%) Percent
(%) Difference
(%)

1 44.06 44.70 - - -

2 43.65 44.40 - - -

Average: 43.85 44.55 0.695 0.93 Passed

8.10 Flat and Elongated Multilaboratory Discussion

Table 22 below compares the results between our groups results and another group in our lab
session for the Flat and Elongated Experiment.

Table 22: Multilaboratory Comparison for Results Flat and Elongated Experiment
 Property Group Other Difference Multi- ASTM
Average Group Lab Requirement
Average ASTM
Limit

Cumulative Percent of 24 17 7 130.3 Passed

Aggregates that are Flat,
Elongated, and Flat &
Elongated (%)

As seen in the table above, the ASTM Multilaboratory limit was not exceeded for the cumulative
percent of aggregates that are flat, elongated, and flat and elongated in the test sample our group
tested and the test sample another group in our lab session tested.

9. Conclusions
The following are the results from the laboratory experiments conducted: an average bulk unit
weight of 1531.25 kg/m and average compacted percent of 43.74 %. The gradation, as seen in
3

figure 1, was a well graded mix with a fineness modulus of 2.16. The average bulk dry specific
gravity was 2.727, the average specific gravity was 2.774, the average bulk saturated surface-dry
specific gravity was 2.744, and the average absorption was 0.62%. The average uncompacted
void percent for fine aggregates was 43.85%. The average cumulative percent of flat, elongated,
and flat and elongated particles was 24%.
10.References
Stark, David, The Use of Recycled-Concrete Aggregate from Concrete Exhibiting Alkali-Silica
Reactivity, Research and Development Bulletin RD114, Portland Cement Association, 1996.

Stark, David, and Klieger, Paul, Effect of Maximum Size of Coarse Aggregate on D-Cracking in
Concrete Pavements, Research and Development Bulletin RD023, Portland Cement Association,
http://www.portcement.org/pdf_files /RD023.pdf, 1974.

Stark, David, Eliminating or Minimizing Alkali-Silica Reactivity, SHRP-C-343, Strategic

Highway Research Program, Washington, D. C., 1993. Also PCA Publication LT178, 266 pages

Swenson, E. G., and Gillott, J. E., Alkali Reactivity of Dolomitic Limestone Aggregate,
Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol. 19, No. 59, Cement and Concrete Association, London,
June 1967, pages 95 to 104.

Tang, Mingshu; Deng, Min; Lon, Xianghui; and Han, Sufeng, Studies on Alkali-Carbonate
Reaction, ACI Materials Journal, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan,
January-February 1994, pages 26 to 29

Touma, W. E.; Fowler, D. W.; and Carrasquillo, R. L., Alkali-Silica Reaction in Portland Cement Concrete:
Testing Methods and Mitigation Alternatives, Research Report ICAR 301-1F, University of Texas, Austin,
2001, 520 pages.