38
Analysis of Rainfall Effect on Asphalt and Concrete using The Marshall Method
Nico Firmansyah Nugroho, Sapto Budy Wasono, Diah Ayu Restuti Wulandari Civil Engineering Department, Narotama University Surabaya.
On street Arief Rachman Hakim 51, Sukolilo – Surabaya, 60117, Indonesian [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Abstract
Transportation infrastructure in the form of a highway is one element of regional development that is experiencing very rapid development. Road conditions that are of good quality are needed for the safety and comfort of road users. One type of pavement that can reduce the impact of safety and discomfort on the road is asphalt. The problem of road damage is influenced by several factors, namely construction material, traffic, climate and water. One of the dominant causes affecting road damage is the presence of water that floods the road when it rains. One way to overcome road damage that occurs is to improve the performance of the mixture by modifying it by using added materials.
The basic principle of the Marshall method is the examination of stability and flow, as well as the analysis of the density and pores of solids formed. In this case the test material or solid asphalt concrete briquette is formed from the aggregate gradation of the mixture obtained from the gradation test results, according to the mixture specifications. Marshall testing to obtain stability and flow follows SNI 06-2489-1991 or AASHTO T245-90.
Keywords :
Asphalt, Aashto Method, Concrete, Marshall Method, Rainwater.
1. Introduction
Damage to road construction caused by stagnant water on the body of the road can be in the form of release of the grains (ravelling) causing the road performance to decrease and the road life to be shorter. Poor urban drainage systems are the cause of problems with inundation and runoff of water on the road body. When the rainy season arrives, dozens of tens of kilometers of roads in various regencies of cities in Indonesia are submerged by water due to flooding, especially in areas with high rainfall.
Pavement roads in Indonesia generally suffer damage before the planned age. Several factors can affect road damage early (early damage), among others due to the influence of excessive traffic load (over loading), water, and pavement construction that does not meet technical requirements. In the rainy season many roads in Indonesia are flooded and in mountainous regions the humidity tends to occur continuously all the time.
1.1. Literature Review 1.1.1. Rainwater
Rain that falls during the road construction process is very influential on the performance of asphalt concrete in the future. So during transportation, the mixture in the tailgate must be covered with a tarpaulin or other similar material. Implementation of the overlay can only be done in good weather, if it is estimated to be rainy days then the overlay must be stopped immediately, except in a forced condition (the quality of the work must be maintained). Rainwater that falls into the road will enter the subgrade through the shoulder of the road.
This can result in bonding between aggregate and loose asphalt grains, so that material weathering can occur and affect the technical nature of road pavement construction, which in turn will reduce the service life of the road (Ida Bagus Wirahaji, 2019).
1.1.2. Street
The road network system is prepared by referring to regional spatial plans and by paying attention to the connectivity between regions or within urban areas, and rural areas. Based on the road network system, 2 terms are known, namely:
1. Primary road network system 2. Secondary road network system 1.1.3 Concrete
In general cement is a material that has an adhesive that is used as a binder which is mixed together with gravel, sand and water. Portland cement (PC) or better known as cement is a material that has hydraulic
39
properties, cement helps bind fine aggregates and coarse aggregates when mixed with water. In addition, cement is also able to fill cavities between the aggregates. The amount of cement content in concrete affects the compressive strength of concrete. The amount of cement is too little, meaning that the amount of water is also too little resulting in a difficult mix of compacted concrete, so the concrete compressive strength becomes low.
Excess amount of cement means that the amount of water is too excessive so that the concrete becomes many pores, and consequently the compressive strength of the concrete becomes low
Fine aggregate is an aggregate whose granules penetrate the sieve with a 4.8 mm hole. Fine aggregate must have good gradation, meaning that it has a large variety of grains.
Coarse aggregates are aggregates with granules left above sifter No. 8. Coarse aggregate for concrete can be gravel as a result of natural disintegration of rocks or in the form of broken stones obtained from rock breaking. In general, what is meant by coarse aggregates is aggregates with a grain size greater than 5 mm.
Limitation of the aggregate maximum size is very important because with the provisions of the aggregate maximum size it is clearly known that the aggregate maximum size affects the smoothness of the work especially when casting (Abdul Khamid, 2019).
2. Methodology
2.1 The Marshall Method
The method in this research uses the Marshall method, Marshall is a testing method to measure the resistance (stability) to the melt (flow) of the asphalt mixture by using Marshall equipment. Marshall testing is currently following the procedure in the Road Material Inspection Manual (MPBJ) number PC-0202-76 or the American Association of State High Way and Transportation Official (AASHTO) number T-245 or American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) number D 1559 -62T.
Marshall tool is a pressure device equipped with a proving ring. The proving ring is equipped with a watch which is useful for measuring the stability of the mixture. Besides that, there is a flow meter to measure the plastic flow. The method used in this case is the Marshall method. With this method we can find out the characteristics of the mixture, and from the examination results obtained data regarding: asphalt content, volume weight, stability, flow, VIM, VMA, Marshall quotient.(M. Zainul Arifin, Ludfi Djakfar, 2008)
The equation used in the Marshall method:
1. Density (ton / m3) = Vbu Wbu With:
Wbu = weight of the test object Vbu = the volume of the test specimen Specific Gravity Evaluation:
a. The maximum specific gravity of the asphalt mixture (Gmm), was tested by the AASHTO T209- 1990 method
b. Dry Bulking Specific Gravity from total aggregate (Gsb)
Gsb =
Gnb
Pn b
G P b G
P
Pn P
P
...
2 . 2 1
1
...
2 1
Gsb = Dried Bulk Specific Gravity from total aggregate P1, P2, Pn = Percentage of weight of each aggregate
G1b, G2b,Gnb = Bulk density of each aggregate c. Apparent specific gravity of the total aggregate
Gsap =
Gnap Pn ap
G P ap G
P
Pn P
P
...
2 . 2 1
1
...
2 1
Gsap = the Specific Gravity of the total Aggregate P1, P2,Pn = Percentage of weight of each aggregate G1ap, G2ap,Gnap = Bulk specific gravity of each aggregate 2. Asphalt Absorption
Pba =
GsbxGse Gb Gsb Gse
100
40 Pba = Absorption of asphalt
Gse = effective aggregate specific gravity Gsb = Bulk aggregate density
Gb = Asphalt specific gravity 3. Effective Asphalt Levels
Pbe =
Pba Ps Pb 100
Pbe = Effective asphalt content, percent of total weight of mixture Pb = Total asphalt content, percent of total weight of mixture Ps = Percent of aggregate to total mixture
Pba = Asphalt absorption, percent of aggregate weight 4. Cavities between Aggregate Minerals
VMA =
Gsb
Ps Gmb . 100
VMA = Cavity between aggregates, percent of the total volume of the mixture Gsb = Bulk aggregate density
GmbH = bulk density of a solid mixture (AASHTO T-166) Ps = Percent of aggregate to total weight of mixture 5. Cavity in the mixture
VIM = Gmm
Gmb Gmm
100
VIM = Cavity in the mixture, percent of the total volume of the mixture GmbH = bulk density of a solid mixture (AASHTO T-166)
Gmm = Maximum density of the mixture 6. Asphalt filled cavity
VFB =
VMA
VIM VMA 100
VFB = Asphalt filled cavity, percent against VMA
VMA = Cavity between aggregate minerals, percent of total mixed volume VIM = Cavity in the mixture, percent of the total volume of the mixture 7. Stability (kg)
Press dial (division) readings are multiplied by the test ring calibration number and the load correction number in the stability correlation ratio table.
8. Flow (mm)
Read on the melt gauge (division) dial 2.2 Concrete
In this study the quality of concrete to be achieved was f'c> 15 Mpa (normal concrete). Mix Design calculation is done using analysis data of SNI 7394-2008 with K 175 quality. SNI data for K 175 quality in making 1 m3 concrete quality f'c = 16.9 MPa (K 200), slump (12 ± 2) cm, w / c = 0.61
The cylinder volume is obtained as follows:
Formula = = 0,25. 2.30 = 5303,57 cm3 = 0,0053 m3 Volume for 3 cylinders
Formula = Number of cylinders x Cylinder volume = 3 x 0,0053 = 0,0159 m3
41
3. Result and Discussion
3.1 Marshall Method Test Results
Table 1. Marshall Method Test Results
Aggregate
Bulk Sp.Gr.
Oven Dry (Ov)
Sp.Gr.
Apparent
(App) Aggregate
(%)
Aggregate Combined
Course Agg. 10~20 Course Agg.
Course Agg. 10~5 2.638 2.723 Course Agg. 26 24.4
Medium Agg. 05~10 2.485 2.583 Medium Agg. 33 31.0
Fine Agg. 00~05 3.150 3.150 Fine Agg. 40 37.6
Filter Filler 1.0 0.9
Aspal 6.1
Table 2. Test Object Data
No.
Bitu ment Cont ent (%)
Bulk Sp.G r. Of Total Agg.
(Gr/
Cm3 )
Eff.
Sp.G r. Of Total Agg.
(Gr/
Cm3 )
Maximum Sp.Gr.
Combined Mix
Weight (Gram)
Volu me Of Speci ment (Cm 3)
Bulk Sp.G r.
Com bined Mix (Gr/
Cm3 )
(%) Asphalt Eff. Of Total Mix
Volume Of Total Mix (%)
In Air
In Wate r
Ssd. Eff.
Bit. Agg.
Air Void (Vim)
From Lab
From Lab
From
Lab G-F ( ) ( )
1 4.6 2.585 2.630 2.455 1200.
3 664.7 1200.3 535.6 2.241
2 1201.
4 666.0 1201.4 535.4 2.244
3 1201.
8 665.5 1201.8 536.3 2.241
2.242 3.646 8.17 82.75 8.67 1 5.1 2.585 2.630 2.437 1202.
3 673.1 1202.3 529.2 2.272
2 1203.
5 674.7 1203.5 528.8 2.276
3 1202.
6 674.4 1202.6 528.2 2.277
2.275 4.151 9.44 83.53 6.65 1 5.6 2.585 2.630 2.430 1198.
5 680.7 1206.6 525.9 2.279
2 1200.
2 681.6 1209.4 527.8 2.274
3 1201.
4 682.1 1210.0 527.9 2.276
2.276 4.656 10.60 83.14 5.92
3.0 - 6.0
42
Table 3. Calculation of Marshall Test Objects 2 (%) Void Stabilty (Kg)
Flow (Mm)
Marshall Quetient (Kg/Mm)
Surface Area (M2/Kg)
Absorbed Bitument
Total Asphalt
Flim Void
Mineral Agg (Vma)
Void Filled Bitument
(Vfb)
Meas Adjust
K+M From
Lab
From Lab
From
Lab [ ( )] ( )
17 771.1 2.8
16 725.7 2.7 17 771.1 3.1
1684 48.54 756.0 2.9 2.59 6.478 0.656 6.471
18 816.5 3.1 16 725.7 3.1 17 771.1 3.4
16.09 58.68 771.1 3.20 2.36 6.478 0.653 7.140
17 771.1 3.4 17 771.1 3.3 18 816.5 3.4
16.52 64.15 786.2 3.37 2.29 6.478 0.649 7.886
Min.800 Min. 3 1.8 – 5.0 Max. 1.7 Table 4. Calculation of Marshall Test Objects 3
No Intume
nt Content
(%)
Bulk Sp.Gr. Of
Total Agg.
(Gr/Cm3) Eff.
Sp.Gr.
Of Total Agg.
(Gr/Cm 3)
Maximum Sp.Gr.
Combined Mix
Weight (Gram)
Volum e Of Specim
ent (Cm3)
Bulk Sp.Gr.
Combin ed Mix (Gr/Cm
3)
(%) Asphalt
Eff. Of Total Mix
Volume Of Total Mix (%)
In Air In
Water Ssd. Eff. Bit Agg. Air Void
(Vim)
From Lab
From Lab
From
Lab G – F ( ) ( ) 1 6.1 2.585 2.630 2.402 1198.
5 678.3 1200.
3 522.0 2.296
2 1200.
2 678.2 1201.
4 523.2 2.294
3 1201.
4 678.3 1201.
8 523.5 2.295
Rata-Rata 2.295 5.161 11.84 83.38 4.47
Specification 3.0 – 6.0
1 6.1 2.585 2.630 2.402 1200.
3 681.8 1204.
8 523.0 2.295
2 1201.
4 682.7 1206.
6 523.9 2.293
3 1201.
8 683.4 1206.
6 523.2 2.297
Rata-Rata 2.295 5.161 11.84 83.38 4.47
Specification 3.0-6.0
Specification 3.0 – 6.0
Retaining Sthrenght Marshall Stability
96.61 After 24 Hours Soaking 60˚c (%)
43
Table 5. Calculation of Marshall Test Objects 4 (%) Void Stability (Kg)
Flow (Mm)
Marsha ll Quotie
nt (Kg/M
m)
Surfa ce Area (M2/
Kg)
Absorbed Bitument Total Asphalt Film ( Mm) Void
Mineral Agg.
(Vma)
Void Filled Bitum ent (Vfb)
Meas Adjust
K+M From Lab
From Lab
From
Lab [ ( )] ( )
20 907.2 3.3
19 861.8 3.8
20 907.2 3.4
16.32 72.59 892.1 3.50 2.50 6.478 0.646 8.557
Min. 800 Min 3
1.8 -
5.0 Max. 1.7
19 861.8 3.5
21 952.5 3.6
17 771.1 3.1
16.32 72.59 861.8 3.40 2.49 6.478 0.646 8.557
Min. 800 Min 3
1.8 -
5.0 Max. 1.7
Table 6. Calculation of Marshall Test Objects 5
No.
Bitume nt Conten
t (%)
Bulk Sp.Gr.
Of Total Agg.
(Gr/C m3)
Eff.
Sp.Gr.
Of Total
Agg.
(Gr/C m3)
Maxim um Sp.Gr.
Combi ned Mix
Weight (Gram)
Volum e Of Specim
ent (Cm3)
Bulk Sp.Gr.
Combi ned Mix (Gr/C m3)
(%) Asphal
t Eff.
Of Total
Mix
Volume Of Total Mix (%)
In Air In
Water Ssd. Eff.
Bit. Agg.
Air Void (Vim)
From Lab
From Lab
From
Lab G – F
( ) ( ) 1 6.6 2.585 2.630 2.386 1201.3 689.1 1209.4 520.3 2.309
2 1200.5 699.1 1209.7 510.6 2.351
3 1202.1 699.8 1210.7 510.9 2.353
Rata – Rata 2.338 5.666 13.25 84.47 2.01
Specification 3.0 -
6.0 1 7.1 2.585 2.630 2.369 1200.5 684.2 1200.5 516.3 2.325
2 1201.3 683.9 1201.3 517.4 2.322
3 1200.9 684.6 1200.9 516.3 2.326
Rata – Rata 2.324 6.171 14.34 83.54 1.88
Specification 3.0 -
6.0 Table 7. Calculation of Marshall Test Objects 6
(%) Void Stability (Kg)
Flow (Mm)
Marshall Quotient (Kg/Mm)
Surface Area (M2/Kg)
Absorbed Bitument
Total Asphalt
Film (
Mm) Void
Mineral Agg. (Vma)
Void Filled Bitument
(Vfb)
Meas Adjust
K + M
From Lab From Lab From
Lab [ ( )] ( )
44
17 771.1 3.2
16 725.7 3.3
16 725.7 3.5
15.25 86.85 740.9 3.33 2.18 6.478 0.643 9.111
Min. 800 1.8 – 5.0 Max. 1.7
17 771.1 3.0 16 725.7 3.0 15 680.4 2.9
16.22 88.42 725.7 3.0 2.40 6.478 0.639 9.868
Min. 800 1.8 – 5.0 Max. 1.7
3.2 Concrete Test Results
Table 8. First Concrete Compressive Strength (7 days)
Umur (Hari) Berat (Kg) Berat Isi Slump (Cm)
Beban Maks Kn
Tekan Hancur (Kg/Cm2)
Korelasi Thd Usia 28 Hari
14 8142 2.412 11 295 140.5 200.7
14 8140 2.412 10 295 140.5 200.7
14 8144 2.413 10 295 141.6 202.3
RATA –
RATA 10 295 141 201.2
Table 9. Results of the second compressive strength (14 days)
Umur (Hari) Berat (Kg) Berat Isi Slump (Cm)
Beban Maks Kn
Tekan Hancur (Kg/Cm2)
Korelasi Thd Usia 28 Hari
7 8138 2.411 11 310 140.5 200.7
7 8135 2.410 10 290 131.4 187.8
7 8131 2.409 10 305 138.2 197.5
RATA-
RATA 10 302 136.7 195.3
45 3.3. Discussion
The comparison between asphalt and concrete using the Marshall method was apparently not possible because concrete does not have properties such as asphalt, which is the point or degree of melting, but it can be seen from the results of the above research that conclusions can be drawn:
Advantages of concrete:
1. Stronger and more durable
2. The maintenance period is quite long Concrete shortages:
1. Quickly wears out or discharged motor vehicle wheels 2. The surface is less elastic
3. It takes a long time for the drying process to pass through the vehicle Asphalt advantages:
1. Has a elastic surface
2. Does not require a long time during the work process
3. Does not quickly make the wheels of the vehicle wear or run out Asphalt deficiency:
1. Short maintenance period (easily damaged and perforated)
4. Conclussion
Based on the results of research and discussion on the comparison of asphalt and concrete to rainwater using the Marshall method, it can be concluded that asphalt has too many cavities or gaps to accelerate water to seep into the ground so as to accelerate asphalt damage when receiving loads from passing vehicles, whereas concrete has cavities that so it makes the water seep into the ground slowly and can reduce damage when receiving loads from passing vehicles.
References
Abdul Khamid, M. A. I. (2019). Pengaruh Genangan Air Hujan Terhadap Kinerja Campuran Aspal Concere - Wearing Course (Ac - Wc). Jurnal Ilmiah Indonesia, 4(7).
Ida Bagus Wirahaji, A. M. C. W. (2019). Pengaruh Air Hujan terhadap Karakteristik Marshall Campuran Aspal Panas pada Lapis Permukaan Jalan. 13(2).
M. Zainul Arifin, Ludfi Djakfar, G. M. (2008). Pengaruh Kandungan Air Hujan Terhadap Nilai Karakteristik Marshall Dan Indeks Kekuatan Sisa (Iks) Campuran Lapisan Aspal Beton (Laston). 2(1).
