determining the degree of aggregate degradation after ... · determining the degree of aggregate...

Report No. CDOT-DTD-96-11

DETERMINING the DEGREE of AGGREGATE

DEGRADATION After Using the NCAT ASPHALT

CONTENT TESTER.

Randolph Reyes

Colorado Department of Transportation 4201 East Arkansas Avenue Denver, Colorado 80222

Final Report August 1997

Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

The contents of this report reflect the views of the author who is responsible

for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do

not necessarily reflect the official views of the Colorado Department ·of

Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not

constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

The author would like to express his gratitude to the COOT Research Panel

which provided many excellent comments and suggestions for this study; it

included Donna Harmelink (COOT Research), Robert LaForce (COOT Flexible

Pavement), Tim Aschenbrener (COOT Staff Materials), Ken Wood (COOT

Region 4 Materials), Cindy Price (Region 1 Materials), R.J. Hinojosa (Region 6

Materials), Chuck McGarvey (Region 2 Materials), Charlie MacKean (COOT

Staff Materials) and Paul Macklin (COOT Geotechnical Section).

II

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE FORM APPROVED

OMB NO, 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,

gathering wd maintaining the data needed , and completing and reviewing the collection of information, Send eomments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson

Davis HW:wav. Suite 1204, Arlinltton VA 22202-4302 and to the Office of ManaJtement and Budllet Paoerwork Reduction Pro'eet (0704-0188), Washinllton. DC 20503.

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave Blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

August 1997 Final Report

4. TITLE MiD SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS

Determining the Degree of Aggregate Degradation After Using the NCAT Asphalt Content Tester

6. AUTHORS(S)

Randolph Reyes

7. PERFORMING ORGA:'lIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

Colorado Department of Transportation REPORT NUMBER

4201 E. Arkansas Ave. CDOT -DTD-R-96-11

Denver, Colorado 80222

9. SPONSORINGIMONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(S) 10. SPONSORINGIMONITORING

Colorado Department of Transportation AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

4201 E. Arkansas Ave.

Denver, Colorado 80222

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Prepared in Cooperation with the U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal

Highway Administration

12a. DIS1RIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

No Restrictions: This report is available to the public through the N~tion::ll Technical Information Service. ['. ·4'.:~lrl VA 22161

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

The purpose of the research conducted was to determine if aggregate degradation takes place and to measure the possible degree of degradation after bituminous mixtures are heated inside the NCAT Asphalt

Content Tester. A study was conducted which compared the orginal aggregate blend (Control specimens) to the residual aggregate blend (Experimental specimens) obtained after several bituminous mixtures were heated inside the NCAT Asphalt Content Tester. The Control specimens and the Experimental specimens used to produce the bituminous mixtures were the result of an aggregate sample which was split three times. Two methods of analysis were used to review the gradation results. It was determined after reviewing both methods of analysis, that the gradations of the bituminous mixtures used in the study were not statistically different after being heated inside the NCAT Asphalt Content Tester. The aggregate gradation correction factors that were required in this study were relatively low (less than one percent) and were needed only in a few instances. However, this might not be true in all instances. 14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES

ignition oven, aggregate degradation, gradation, degradation, ignition furnace 128

16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified Unclassified .. Unclassified III

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................ 1

1.1 Background .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2.0 PURPOSE .............................................. 3

3.0 APPARATUS ........................................... 4

3.1 NCAT Asphalt Content Tester . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4

3.2 Basket Assemblies ............•....................... 4

3.3 Asphalt Mixer and Mixer Bowl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •. 5

3.4 External Scale ........................................ 5

3.5 No. - 200 Wash Sieve Screen . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5

3.6 Set of Nine 203.2 mm (S inch) Diameter Sieves. . . . . . . . . . • . . .. 5

3.7 Set of Three 304.Smm (12 inch) Diameter Sieves ............. 5

3.S Riffle Sample Splitter . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •. 6

3.9 Miscellaneous Equipment .•.••.....•.••............•.••. 6

4.0 PROCEDURE ........................................... 7

4.1 Sources of Aggregate ..........•..........•..........•. 7

4.2 Aggregate Set Up ..................................... 9

4.3 Separating and Splitting Aggregate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9

IV

4.4 Combining with Hydrated Lime and Water .................. 9

4.5 Treatment of Control Specimens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10

4.6 Rational for Mixing the Experimental Specimens with AC ..... 10

4.6.1 Treatment of Experimental Specimens .............. 11

4.7 Gradations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

4.8 Methods of Analysis ............................... . .. 12

4.B.1 First Method of Analysis (Comparison of the Mean of

the Experimental and Control Specimens) . . . . . . . . . .. 12

4.B.2 Second Method of Analysis (One-to-One Comparison

between Experimental and Control Specimens) ...... 13

5.0 GRADATION RESULTS AND DiSCUSSiON............... 15

5.1 Analysis Method One (Aggregate Gradation Results)

5.1.1 Mean Differences Between the Control and

Experimental Specimens Illustrated for the

15

Franciscotti Aggregate Source ................... 16

5.1.2 Confidence Interval Figure Displaying the Upper and

Lower Limits for the Franciscotti Aggregate Source 18

5.1.3 Frequency Distribution Illustrating the Mean

Differences for the 9.5 mm (3/B) Sieve Size .......... 20

5.1.4 Frequency Distribution for the 54 Sieve Tests ........ 22

5.1.5 Experimental Specimens that Appeared Coarser after

Using the NCA T Asphalt Content Tester ............ 25

v

5.1.6 Summary of Results Using Analysis Method One. . . . .. 25

5.2 Analysis Method Two- Aggregate Gradation Results ......... 27

5.2.1 AASHTO T 27 Precision (Single Operator) ........... 27

5.2.2 (Experimental - Control) Data Minus AASHTO T 27

(Single Standard Deviation Data) ................. .

5.2.3 Control Data Minus AASHTO T 27 (Single Standard

Deviation Data) ............................... .

5.2.4 (Single Standard Deviation Data, Figure 8) ......... .

5.2.5 Summary of Results Using Analysis Method Two .... .

5.3 Application of Correction Factors .•...•...•.............

5.3.1 Testing for the Possibility of Aggregate Degradation ...

5.4 Aggregate Absorption Values

6.0 CONCLUSION ........................................ .

6.1 Analysis Method One ................................•

6.1.1 Mean Differences Between The Experimental and

34

36

38

40

41

41

43

45

45

Control Specimen Gradations .................... 45

6.1.2 Experimental Specimens that Appeared to be Coarser

after Using the NCA T Asphalt Content Tester . . . . . . .. 45

6.1.3 Possible Reasons for the Variation in Gradation

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

6.1.4 Student's t-test ................................ 46

6.1.5 Summary of Analysis Method One ................. 46

VI

6.2 Analysis Method Two (One to One Comparison) . . . . . . . . . . . .. 47

6.2.1 (Experimental - Control) Data Minus AASHTO T 27

Gradation Data (Single Standard Deviation) . . . . . . . . .. 47

6.2.2 Control Data Minus AASHTO T 27 Gradation Data

(Single Standard Deviation) ...................... 47

6.2.3 Figure 8 (Single Standard Deviation) ............... 48

6.3 Absorption Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 48

6.4 Summary of Analysis Methods One and Two ............... 49

7 .0 RECOMMENDATION .......... . .. . .................... . 50

8.0 FUTURE RESEARCH ............. . . . ................... 51

9.0 REFERENCES .................. . ...................... 52

VII

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Aggregate Source, Absorption, Mineralogy, Specific Gravity and

Location ............................................... 8

Table 2. Number of Gradations Performed per Sieve Size ............. 12

Table 3. Data used to generate Figure 4. ..•....................... 24

Table 4. Precision Statement from AASHTO T 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29

Table 5. Percent of Aggregate Passing One Sieve and Retained on the

Next Finer Sieve for Each Aggregate Source .................. 31

VIII

List of Figures

Figure 1. Mean Differences Illustrated For Each of the Nine Sieve Sizes

Representing The Franciscotti Aggregate Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17

Figure 2. Confidence Intervals Representing the Upper and Lower Limits

For The Franciscotti Aggregate Source ............. . ........ 19

Figure 3. Frequency Distribution Displaying The Mean Differences

Representing The 1.18 mm (# 16) Sieve ....... . .............. 21

Figure 4. Frequency Disbibution Of Tbe Mean Differences For 54 Sieve

Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Figure 5. Summary of the Gradation Results (Mean Differences,

Analysis Method One) . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Figure 6. (Experimental - Control Data) Minus AASHTO T 27 (Single

Standard Deviation Data) ..•.............•...•............ 35

Figure 7. Control Data Minus AASHTO T 27 (Single Standard Deviation

Data) .................. II • .. .. • • • • .. .. .. .. • • • • .. .. .. .. • • • • • • • • • • .. 37

Figure 8. Difference Between Figure 6 and Figure 7 (Single Standard

Deviation) .. .. ........................ .. ........................................................ .. 39

Figure 9. Absorption Values for Each Aggregate Source . . . . . . . . • . . . .. 44

IX

APPENDIX A:

List of Appendices

ANALYSIS METHOD ONE

1. Mean Difference Figures for Aggregate Sources

2. Data Used to Calculate Mean Differences

APPENDIX B:

1. Confidence Interval Figures for Each Aggregate Source

2. Data Used To Calculate the 95% Confidence Interval Figures

3. Data From the Students t-Test

4. Gradation Results From Each Aggregate Source

APPENDIX C:

1. Frequency Figures for Each Sieve Size

2. Data Used to Calculate Frequency Figures

APPENDIX D: DATA

APPENDIX E: CPL-5120

ANALYSIS METHOD lWO

x

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is phasing out

chlorinated solvents used in the United States. These solvents have been

used in the past to remove the asphalt cement (AC) from bituminous mixtures

allowing aggregate gradations to be performed. The NCAT Asphalt Content

Tester (an ignition oven) has been introduced as an alternative to the solvent

extraction method. It works by removing (physically burning away) the AC

from the bituminous mixture.

Several companies manufacture ignition ovens, including

BarnsteadlThermolyne, Troxler, and Gilson Corporation. The

Barnstead/Thermolyne equipment is known as the National Center for Asphalt

Technology (NCAT) Asphalt Content Tester and was used to generate the data

in this paper. The ignition oven and the NCAT Asphalt Content Tester refer to

the same equipment in this document.

1.1 Background

In June of 1995, the Colorado Department of Transportation purchased and

received six NCAT Asphalt Content Testers manufactured by

Bamstead/Thermolyne Corporation. The Central Laboratory located in

1

Denver, Colorado retained two of the ovens and distributed the remaining four

ovens to different Regions throughout Colorado. One oven in the Central

Laboratory was set up (electrically wired and vented) for use. The NCAT

Asphalt Content Tester was then evaluated concerning its effect on aggregate

gradations from different bituminous mixtures.

2

2.0 PURPOSE

The purpose of this experiment was to detennine if aggregate degradation

occurs in a bituminous mixture when heated inside the NCAT Asphalt Content

Tester. In addition, if aggregate degradation does occur, to quantify the

extent of the degradation.

3

3.0 APPARATUS

3.1 NCAT Asphalt Content Tester--The NCAT Asphalt Content Tester is a

forced-air ignition furnace, with internal balance, capable of maintaining a

temperature of 538 0 C (1000 0 F). The NCAT Asphalt Content Tester consists

of an electronic housing unit, an oven chamber and an exhaust chamber. The

electronic housing unit is located underneath the oven chamber and is

separated by an air space. This area of the unit houses the electronic

controls as well as the internal scale used to monitor weight loss. The oven

chamber is located in the middle of the unit. The oven chamber is heated

electrically using ceramic heating elements. A hearth tray located inside the

oven chamber is supported by ceramic tubes which extend down to the

internal scale. The accuracy of the internal scale balance is verified by

placing calibrated weights on the hearth tray at room temperature. The

exhaust chamber is located above the oven chamber. An exhaust fan and

filters are used to control the smoke and fumes while testing.

3.2 Basket Assemblies--Two stainless steel 2.36mm (No.8) mesh perforated

basket assemblies were nested on top of each other with a drip pan located

on the bottom of the assembly. This configuration allowed the bituminous

mixture increased surface area exposure and facilitated more complete

burning of the AC.

4

3.3 Asphalt Mixer and Mixer Bowl··A HOBART mechanical mixer (Model N50)

with an approximate capacity of 5 liters and capable of mixing approximately

1250 grams of aggregate.

3.4 External Sea/e.·An AND 20 kg capacity scale accurate to 0.1 gram was

used in this experiment.

3.5 No. - 200 Wash Sieve Screen·-A 304.B mm (12 inch) diameter 0.075 mm

(No. 200) sieve was used to wash the minus 0.075mm (No. 200) material from

the Experimental and Control specimens before performing the subsequent

gradation analysis on the remaining aggregate.

3.6 Set of Nine 203.2 mm (8 inch) Diameter Sieves·-A set of sieves having a

203.2 mm (B inch) diameter, with sieve openings conforming to ASTM E-11.

The sieve sizes used were: 12.5 mm, (1/2 inch); 9.5 mm, (31B inch); 4.75 mm,

(No.4); 2.3 mm, (No.B); 1.1B mm, (No.16); 0.625 mm, (No.30); 0.3 mm, (No.50);

0.15 mm, (No.100): and 0.075 mm, (No.200). A ROTAP mechanical sieve

shaker (Model RX-29) was used to separate the aggregate into different

particle sizes.

3.7 Set of Three 304.Bmm (12 ineh) Diameter Sieves--A set of three 304.B mm

(12 inch) diameter sieves with screen sizes of + 9.5 mm (+ 31B inch), + 4.75 mm

5

(+ No.4) and - 4.75 mm (- No.4) were used to separate the aggregate into

three different particle sizes prior to using the riffle sample splitter.

3.8 Riffle Sample Splitter--A sample splitter with 12, 37.5 mm (1 1/2 inch) equal

width chutes was used to split the aggregate. Four chute catch pans were

used.

3.9 Miscellaneous Equipment--A pan having dimensions of approximately (L x

W x H) 38 x 38 x 5 cm was used for containing the residual aggregate after

ignition. A steel wire brush was used to remove residual aggregate from the

steel basket assembly after AC burn off.

6

4.0 PROCEDURE

4. 1 Sources of Aggregate

Six aggregate sources were selected from various geographical areas which

represented some of the varying aggregate types found within Colorado.

7

Table 1. Aggregate Source, Absorption, Mineralogy, Specific Gravity and

Location

AGGREGATE CRSEIFINE MINERALOGY CRSEIFINE LOCATION

SOURCE AGGR AGGR

WATER SPG

% ABSORB (AASHTO)

(AASHTO)

Franciscotti 0.9, N/A Sandstone 2.66, 2.59 Walsen-

Shale burg

Ralston 0.72, 1.03 Quartz 2.77, 2.75 Denver

Diorite

Val co/Rocky 0.9, 0.8 Decomposed 2.62, 2.61 Colo.

Mtn.lCas Granite Springs

Irwin Windsor- 0.8, 0.4 Feldspar 2.61, 2.66 Fort

Stute Collins

Monk 0.8, N/A Granite 2.64, N/A Limon

Pagosa Trout 2.1, 1.7 N/A 2.54, 2.51 Pagosa

Lakes Springs

8

4.2 Aggregate Set Up

Six different (10000 gram) aggregate sources of grading CX, 12.5 mm (1/2

inch) nominal maximum, were set up together using six different aggregate

blend formulas.

4.3 Separating and Splitting Aggregate

In a attempt to reduce segregation, the 10K gram samples were separated into

three different sieve sizes, + 9.5 mm (+ 3\8), + 4.75 mm (+ No.4) and - 2.36 mm

(- No.4) using three 304.8 mm (12 inch) diameter sieves. The three different

sizes of aggregate were split individually three times using a riffle sample

splitter. The aggregate from each of the three sieve sizes were combined

which resulted in eight specimens of approximately 1250 grams each. This

method was used to increase the probability for an even split when the larger

aggregate sizes were dropped through the riffle sample splitter. To further

reduce the margin of error between specimens, the four Control and four

Experimental specimens were collected from alternate sides of the sample

splitter.

4.4 Combining with Hydrated Lime and Water

9

All eight (approximately 1250 gram) aggregate specimens from each of the six

aggregate sources were mixed with one percent hydrated lime and

approximately four percent water, oven dried inside a 121°± 5 C (250° F) oven

for 6 ± 1 hours and then cooled to room temperature. Removing the moisture

was important since aggregates that have high absorption values may retain

moisture which may cause the aggregate to "pop" (break apart changing the

gradation) inside the NCAT Asphalt Content Tester.

4.5 Treatment of Control Specimens

The Control specimens were stored on a shelf at room ambient temperature

and humidity until gradations could be performed as described in Section 4.7

4.6 Rational for Mixing the Experimental Specimens with AC

Mixing the aggregate specimens with asphalt cement was thought to be an

important factor since these specimens would be exposed to higher

temperatures (greater than 538° C (1000° F» inside the ignition oven

(compared to aggregate only specimens) as the asphalt cement bums.

Aggregate mixed with asphalt typically burns in the oven at 600° C (1112° F)

to 700° C (1292° F). These higher temperatures may increase the probability

that the aggregate degrades. In addition, the aggregate which will be

10

evaluated for gradation during the life of construction projects will also be

mixed with asphalt cement when determining asphalt cement content.

4.6.1 Treatment of Experimental Specimens

The four Experimental specimens were re-heated again inside a 148 +/- 50 C

(3000 F) oven for 3 ± 1 hours and mixed with approximately five percent AC,

(Conoco AC-10).

The bituminous mixture specimens were placed inside the NCAT Asphalt

Content Tester (at a set point temperature of 5380 C (10000 F» immediately

after the mixing process and tested per CPL-5120, see Appendix E. The AC in

the bituminous mixture was ignited and burned away leaving the residual

aggregate. The residual aggregate was cooled for approximately one-half

hour inside the basket assembly and then collected in a steel pan. The

Experimental specimens were stored on a shelf (less than 24 hours) until

gradations could be performed per Section 4.7

4.7 Gradations

Gradations following AASHTO T 27 (Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse

Aggregates) and T 11 (Amount of Material Finer Than 0.075 mm Sieve in

Aggregate) were performed on each of the eight specimens from each of the

11

six aggregate sources. A ROTAP mechanical sieve shaker was used as

described in Section 3.1, to separate the aggregate into different size

fractions.

Table 2. Number of Gradations Perfonned per Sieve Size

Sieve Size No. of No. of Exp. No. of Total No. of Control Specimens Aggregate Grad. Per Specimens Per Sources Sieve Size Per Aggregate Aggregate Source Source

Each of the 4 4 6 48 nine sieve sizes

4.8 Methods of Analysis

There were two methods used to analyze the gradation results after using the

ignition oven.

4.8.1 First Method of Analysis (Comparison of the Mean of the Experimental

and Control Specimens)

12

The first method of analysis compared the mean of the gradations between

the four Experimental and four Control specimens. The "mean difference" for

the percent passing each sieve size for each aggregate source was calculated

by subtracting the average (mean of the four Control specimens) of the

original design gradation from the average (mean of the four Experimental

specimens) of the residual aggregate specimens after using the NCAT Asphalt

Content Tester.

In addition, Confidence Interval and Frequency graphs were generated. The

Student's t-Test for a paired two sample comparison was also used to

determine if the gradation results from the Control and Experimental

specimens were statistically from the same population set. A 95 % confidence

level was used. The t-test data was also used to generate the Confidence

Interval figures (1).

4.8.2 Second Method of Analysis (One-to-One Comparison between

Experimental and Control Specimens)

The second method compared the gradation results between the Experimental

and Control specimens on a one-to-one basis. All possible combinations of

the Experimental and Control specimens were paired per sieve size and their

percent differences were calculated. The sample standard deviations were

13

calculated for each of the nine sieve sizes. The standard deviations

calculated from each of the sieve sizes were compared to the single standard

deviations found in the precision statement of AASHTO T 27.

14

5.0 GRADATION RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

5.1 Analysis Method One (Aggregate Gradation Results)

In Sections 5.1.1 - 5.1.6 and 6.1.1 - 6.1.4 the "mean difference" refers to the

average of the percent passing the four Experimental specimens minus the

average of the percent passing the four Control specimens calculated for each

of the sieve sizes.

15

5.1.1 Mean Differences Between the Control and Experimental Specimens

Illustrated for the Franciscotti Aggregate Source

Figure 1. represents the mean differences calculated for each sieve size for

the Franciscotti aggregate source. The analysis, data and figures for all of the

aggregate sources can be found in Appendix A.

16

Figure 1. Mean Differences Illustrated For Each of the Nine Sieve Sizes

Representing The Franciscotti Aggregate Source

MEAN DIFFERENCE (PERCENT PASSING) EXPERIMENTAL - CONTROL

2.00 % -.-----,-----,------,--.-----.-----,-----,------,-----,

1 .50 % +----+---l------l---t----t----+---l------l------i

1 .00 010 +----t--_+_ EXP. FINER

E 0.500/0 Q) +---\-

e O.OOv/t>r-~~ Q) ~-~--+---+---+---+---~--~--~--~

a. -0.50% +----+---!-------If-------+----+----+---!-------lf-------\

-1.00% +----+-_-+------+-~EXP. +-----+------+----+----l COARSER ~-t---I-------l

-1 .50 % +----t---+------l---l....-----.----.------/---+------l-----1

-2.000/0 +----t---l------l---t----t------t---+------li-------i

1/2 3/8 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200

I FRANCISCOTTI Screen size IA-l

17

After the mean differences for the percent passing each sieve size were

calculated for the six aggregate sources, 45 out of the 54 sieves had more

material passing each sieve, (the Experimental specimens were finer than the

Control specimens).

The mean differences for the percent passing each sieve size were greater

than 1.0 percent, but less than 1.75 percent for only three out of the 54 sieves

tests (nine sieve sizes times six aggregate sources). The 9.5 mm (3/8 inch)

sieve sizes from the Monk and Ralston aggregate source, and the 4.5 mm

(No.4) sieve size from the Franciscotti aggregate source were the only sieves

in which there were mean differences that were greater than 1.0 percent. The

remaining 51 sieve test mean differences were all less than 1.0 percent.

5.1.2 Confidence Interval Figure Displaying the Upper and Lower Limits for the

Franciscotti Aggregate Source

Figure 2. is a graphical representation illustrating the upper and lower

confidence intervals for the Franciscotti aggregate source. The remaining

illustrations representing the other aggregate sources may be found in

Appendix B. The data used to calculate the confidence interval limits were

generated by applying the Student's t-test for paired samples. The data used

to generate the figures may also be found in Appendix B.

18

Figure 2. Confidence Intervals Representing the Upper and Lower Limits For

Tbe Franciscotti Aggregate Source

MEAN DIFFERENCE Experimental - Control

80/0 ~~----~--~----~'----~'-----'~~~E~rr=o~r~B~~~s~------'

~ ~~ +----+-----+------+------1+-----+--1---+--)-----1 95 % Confidence

~ 50/0 _:::;: Exp. finer ~ Upper & ~ 40/0 '~?-"', 1It./ Lower limits .... /e / ' ''clIi ... _ 1 .19IF C. 30/ / -- -L f'" I

_ /0 / - :1i -- _~ /

c 20/0 ./ -7- . "'"':...-_ m 1% ..-:~/ ....... Ii /l" IL __ / ·W

E 00/0 +=~"~--~::t==+_=::+~~~~~~+t;;.~~~~-~~_~..._~ ---

c _10/0 +_~L~--+_--_+----+_--~~----_ill~~~~~-~-~~~~--+_~ ._ /e ..... _ .......,. v _ -:.111.-

20/ ~~- " . .lIIk- "Jlk--- ~ .--CI) - /0 +_-+-------".,..'------""'I"""--.,.--==~ ....... ""'r-O::=="-==iII.-..---+-----+----+--l g -30/0 +--+-----~---+----+---~--~.......,.~~~----~---+----+-~ e -40/0 +---+----+--+----+---t--~ Mean differences = ~ -50/0 r-~----r-~~~=-~=-~~~,---_,----_.----~--~ .- -60/0 +----+-----+----I E C -70/0 1 xp. coarser:

-80/0 ~-+-----+----+i----~,----~i-----r----r----+----+-~ 1/2 3/8 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200

I Franciscotti Screen size (ASTM)

Ir--' E'--r-ro-r-B-a-r-G-r-a-ph----.,

19

5.1.3 Frequency Distribution Illustrating the Mean Differences for the 9.5 mm

(3/8) Sieve Size

Figure 3 represents the range between the mean differences for each of the

six aggregate sources for the 9.5 mm (3/8) sieve size. The remainder of the

figures representing the other sieve sizes used in this study may be found in

Appendix C. The figures demonstrate that the range between the lowest and

highest mean differences were normally less than 1.0 percent. Occurrences

which deviated further away from the concentrated group of the mean

differences may have been due to the splitting or mechanical mixing process,

or the aggregate may have degraded during ignition process.

20

Figure 3. Frequency Distribution Displaying Tbe Mean Differences

Representing Tbe 1.18 mm (# 16) Sieve

2

1.18 MM (# 16) SIEVE FREQ. DISTR. (MEAN DIFF.S)

6/6 MEAN DIFFERENCES WERE WITHIN THIS RANGE

til W (.J Z W ~

G1 (.J o u. o =It

l----

-

~

~ -- -- f--- -- -- -- I-- 1- --

\ 1\

\

- -- -- f-- -- - -1--~ - -- --t--

,

t I--

I--

I--o -0.45% -0.35% -0.25% -0.15% -0.05% 0.05% 0.15% 0.25% 0.35% 0.45% 0.55% 0.65% 0.75%

MEAN DIFFERENCE (PERCENT PASSING)

21

5.1.4 Frequency Distribution for the 54 Sieve Tests

Figure 4 represents the frequency distribution of the mean differences for the

54 sieve tests. The mean calculated for the "mean differences" as defined in

Section 4.8 for all of the 54 sieve tests was 0.32 percent.

22

Figure 4. Frequency Distribution Of The Mean Differences For 54 Sieve Tests

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION 54 SIEVE SCREENS

I Experimental Mean - Control Mean = Mean Diff.s

20 .-----,---y--------r-----.-------,--w----r------.-----,----.------,

tn W Mean (of all the Mean r---

ffi 15 +----+-----+---+-------I--/+I\-i\~~ Diff.s) = 0.32%

~ 1 0 EXPERIMENTAL - -/'e/.;>----I---I\\--+------I EXPERIMENTAL I-------i

o COARSER FINER

o / \ L.---.--/'",-r---..----J

~ 5 +---+---~--~--~--~~-+--~~~--~----~ o / l ., / c( )t\ =1:1: . >~ lJl~~ "'i:;'1i ~/' ""-~=-a~. /' "" <1J~ - - ,.All O +-~~~--~,~'j>~~--~--~--~~-+---+---+~~--~~~ - .. I ..

-1.00% -0.50% 0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50%

PERCENT DIFF. (All Screens)

II Std. Dev.= 0.47% II

23

Table 3. Data used to generate Figure 4.

NCAT OVEN GRADATION STUDY

FREQUENCY GRAPH 12-19-85 DATA SCAlE SCREEN VALUES SCREEN X-AXIS TIMES OCCURED

SIZE mean dltT. metric PERCENT. RANGE fr!:9tJenCy

112 -Q.17% 12.5 -Q.80% 0 112 -Q.78% 12.5 -Q.65% 2 112 -Q.03% 12.5 -Q.50% 0 112 0.03% 12.5 -Q.35% 1 112 0.08% 12.5 -Q.2O% 2 112 0.24% 12.5 -Q.05% 2 318 0.88% 9.5 0.10% 10 318 1.44% 9.5 0.25% 16 318 -Q.3O% 9.5 0.40% 3 318 0.53% 9.5 0.55% 2 318 1.68% 9.5 0.70% 4 318 0.11% 9.5 0.85% 6 ... 1.17% 4.75 1.00% " ... 0.81% 4.75 1.15% 0 tI4 0.80% -4.75 1.30% 1 ... 0.07% 4.75 1.45% 1 ... 0.10% ".75 1.60% 0 ... 0.23% 4.75 ft 0.54% 2.3 ft 0.19% 2.3 fi 0.80% 2.3 ft 0.38% 2.3 ft -Q.77% 2.3 ft '0.86% 2.3

#16 0.07% 1.18 #16 0.15% 1.18 #16 0.05% 1.18 #16 0.36% 1.18 #16 -QA1% 1.18 #16 0.67% 1.18 ~O 0.05% 0.625 #30 0.18% 0.625 ~O -Q.21% 0.625 #30 0.71% 0.625 #30 -Q.10% 0.625 mo 0.64% 0.625 #50 0.16% 0.3 #50 0.22% 0.3 tI50 0.13% 0.3 #50 0.92% 0.3 tI50 -QJ)O% 0.3 #50 0.65% 0.3 #100 0.20% 0.15 #100 0.16% 0.15 #100 0.16% 0.15 #100 0.87% 0.15 #100 0.13% 0.15 #100 0.58% 0.15 tI200 0.22% 0.075 #200 0.12% 0.075 #200 0.04% 0.075 #200 0.76% 0.075 #200 0.81% 0.075 #200 0.39% 0.075 24

STCS 0.47% MEAN 0.32%

5.1.5 Experimental Specimens that Appeared Coarser after Using the NCA T

Asphalt Content Tester

In some cases, when the mean differences were calculated for each sieve size

after using the NCAT Asphalt Content Tester, the Experimental specimens

appeared to be coarser. The 12.5 mm (1/2 inch) sieve from the Ralston

aggregate source and the 12.5 mm (1/2 inch) and the 9.5 mm (3/8) sieve size

from the Valco/Rocky Mountain aggregate source are examples of this. See

Section 6.1.2 for an explanation of cases like these.

5.1.6 Summary of Results Using Analysis Method One

The results showing the ranges of the mean differences for the six different

aggregate sources are shown in Figure 5.

25

Figure 5. Summary of the Gradation Results (Mean Differences, Analysis

Method One)

GRADATION RESULTS MEAN DIFFERENCES

< 0.50 PERCENT 6 ~--.--.---.--~--~--.--.---.--~

> 0.50 < 1.00 PERCENT 6 ~--.--.---.--~--.---.--,---.--~ CIJ w 5 -+---+----t---+---f---+---+----t---+-----i (.)

SIEVE SIZES

> 1.0 < 1.50 PERCENT 6 .---.--,---.---.--.---.--.---.--~

ffl 5 -+---+----t----+---+----+---+------i----+----i (.) Z ~4+---t-----+---+---+--+---+----1---+----1

:::> 8 3 -+---+----t----+---+----+---+------i----+-----i

o ~2 +---t-----+---+---+--+---+__--1---+--~ o

1.18MM O.3MM

Z ~ 4 +---+__--1--__+_ :::J (J 3 -+---+----t----+ (J o ~ 2 -+---+-o 01 z

o

6

ffis

> 1.5 < 2.00 PERCENT

(J z ~4 => 83 o ~2 o 01 z

o :~ 4.75MM 1.18 MM

SIEVE SIZES SIEVE SIZES O.3MM

L.:::::========--_____ 9 SIEVE SIZES X 6 AGGR. SOURCES = 54 SIEVE COMP ARSIONS

26

D.075 MM

Reviewing Figure 5 reveals that the ranges of the mean differences for the 54

sieve tests were generally less than 1.0 percent. Thirty three were less than

0.5 percent, eighteen were less than 1.0 percent, two were less than 1.5

percent and one was less than 2.0 percent.

Ninety four percent of the calculated mean differences for the percent passing

each sieve screen were less than 1.0 percent. Only six percent of the mean

differences were greater than 1.0 percent.

5.2 Analysis Method Two- Aggregate Gradation Results

The standard deviations were calculated using the percent differences from

each of the 16 possible paired combinations between the four Experimental

and four Control specimens for each individual sieve size. The single

standard deviations from the precision statement in AASHTO T 27 were then

subtracted from their respective sieve size standard deviations calculated

from the 16 possible paired combinations.

5.2.1 AASHTO T 27 Precision (Single Operator)

The precision statement for an aggregate sample which was split one time is

given in AASHTO procedure T 27. The precision (for a single operator) in

27

determining the gradation per aggregate size is given in Table 4.

The estimates of precision for the method listed in AASHTO T 27 are based on

results from the AASHTO Materials Reference Laboratory Reference Sample

Program, with testing conducted by this method and ASTM C 136. The data is

based on the analyses of more than 100 paired test results from 40 to 100

laboratories. The values in the table are given for different ranges of

percentage of aggregate passing one sieve and retained on the next finer

sieve. The Table uses ASTM C 670 Practice for Preparing Precision

Statements for Test Methods For Construction Materials (3). The data for the

aggregate gradations tested in this study for the percent of aggregate passing

one sieve and retained on the next finer sieve is shown on Table 5.

28

34

' : .. ..

:: " ~ .

...... .. . .....

Table 4. Precision Statement from AASHTO T 27

METHODS OF SAMPLING AND TESTING

Coarse Aggregates: C

Single-Operator Precision

Multilaboratory Precision

Fine Aggregates: Single..()perator Precision

'. i Multilaboratory '~ision .

TABLE 1 Precision

Percent of Size Fraction Between

Consecutive Sieves

o to 3 3 to 10

10 to 20 20 to SO o to 3 3 to 10

10 to 20 20 to 30 30 to 40 40 to SO

o to 3 3 to 10

10 to 2Q 20 to 30 30 to 40 40 to SO o to 3 3 to 10

10 to 20 20 to 30 30 to 40 4O:to SO

Coefficient of Variation

(IS percent), Percenf

30"

Standard Deviation

(IS), Percenr'

1.40

0.95 1.38

1.06 1.66 . 2.01 2.44 3.18

0.14 0.43 0.60 . 0.64 0.71

0.21 0.S7 0.9S 1.24 1.41

.# .' ~

Acceptable Range of Test Results

(D2S percentt Percent (D2S),A

of Average Percent

SSD 4.00 2.7 3.9

3.0 4.7 S.7 6.9 9.0

0.4 1.2 1.7 1.8 2.0

0.6 ,:.1.6 .,:.

2.7 3.S 4.0

I

A These numbers repl'C$Cnt, 'fC$pcCtlvely, die (IS) aaif(02s) 'as CJCsCri~ iii' ASTM C 670. ' , /I Tbesenumbcrs'repl'C$Cnt, rapccdoiely, the (IS percent)"UId (D2S 'percent) ·limits as described in ASTM

. C670. . , . .. . .' . . : .' .. . . . . " ' .'cnae pieCiSionesti~ lie based on~ aggregates with iiomilia!'~mumsizc of 19.0mmca,.in.). · .

. ,: P These values IU'C from precision Indices f"Jnt inc:ludecl-in T 27. Other Indices were developed In 1982 :. from morerec:ent AAStrrO ~s Reference l.IlIorafory'sample data; which did not provide sufficient .lnfOI1\l8tion to revise the values IS noted. . ' . '

29

T 27

Table 4 from the AASHTO T 27 procedure, allows a single standard deviation

for the gradation blends used in this experiment with a range between 0.95

and 1.4 percent for coarse material and a range between 0.14 and 0.64 percent

for fine material using a single operator. The values depend on the

percentage passing one sieve and retained on the next finer sieve.

30

Table 5. Percent of Aggregate Passing One Sieve and Retained on the Next

Finer Sieve for Each Aggregate Source

.PMNQJ.ICOm EXPERIMENTAL

SIEVE SIZE

1/2 3/8 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200

1WINQS~R.I(RWlN· · EXPERIMENTAL

SIEVE SIZE

SIEVE SIZE 1/2 3/8 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200

AGGREGATE PERCENT PASSING PERCENT PASSING ONE SIEVE DESCRIPTION EACH SIEVE SIZE AND RETAINED ON THE

NEXT FINER SIEVE

COARSE 99.66% COARSE 70.52% 29.14%

FINE 45.84% 24.69% FINE 33.61% 12.23% FINE 24.79% 8.82% FINE 17.36% 7.43% FINE 11.32% 6.04% FINE 7.30% 4.02% FINE 4.60% 2.69%


COARSE COARSE

FINE FINE FINE FINE FINE FINE FINE

99.81% 80.17% 59.51% 43.91% 32.09% 22.67% 14.63% 9.16% 5.88%

31

NEXT FINER SIEVE

19.64% 20.66% 15.60% 11.82% 9.42% 8.05% 5.47% 3.28%

B AASHTO

T27 AFTER 1 SPLIT AGGREGATE

ONLY 100 PAIRED

TEST RESULTS

PRECISION (1S),%

1.38 0.64 0.60 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.14

B AASHTO


ONLY 100 PAIRED

TEST RESULTS

PRECISION (1S),%

0.95 0.64 0.60 0.60 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43

·. ~Io.o':Tori · EXPERIMENTAL

SIEVE SIZE

SIEVE SIZE 112 318 #4 #8

#16 #30 #50 #100 #200

. . J.o'NI .. · EXPERIMENTAL

SIEVE SIZE

SIEVE SIZE 112 318 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200


NEXT FINER SIEVE

COARSE 98.17% COARSE 81.19% 16.99%



NEXT FINER SIEVE

COARSE 99.29% COARSE 81.99% 17.30%


32

B AASHTO


ONLY 100 PAIRED

TEST RESULTS

PRECISION (1S),%

COMBINATIONS

PRECISION

(D2S),%

0.95 0.6

0.64 0.6

0.43 0.43 0.43 0.14

B AASHTO


ONLY 100 PAIRED

TEST RESULTS

PRECISION (1S),%

0.95 0.60 0.64 0.60 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43

VAL.e.O·: ." EXPERIMENTAL

SIEVE SIZE

SIEVE SIZE 112 3!8 #4 #8

#16 #30 #50

#100 #200

,e8.i0§A "" EXPERIMENTAL

SIEVE SIZE

SIEVE SIZE 1/2 3/8 #4 #8

#16 #30 #50 #100 #200


NEXT FINER SIEVE

COARSE 99.79% COARSE 74.15% 25.64%



NEXT FINER SIEVE

COARSE 100.00% COARSE 75.54% 24.46%

FINE 51.29% 24.25% FINE 36.74% 14.55% FINE 26.02% 10.72% FINE 18.76% 7.26% FINE 13.00% 5.76% FINE 8.80% 4.20% FINE 6.13%

33 2.67%

B AASHTO


ONLY 100 PAIRED

TEST RESULTS

PRECISION (1S),%

1.38 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.43 0.60 0.43 0.14

B AASHTO


ONLY 100 PAIRED

TEST RESULTS

PRECISION (1S),%

1.38 0.64 0.60 0.60 0.43 0.43 0.46 0.14

5.2.2 (Experimental - Control) Data Minus AASHTO T 27 (Single Standard

Deviation Data)

Figure 6 represents the differences between the standard deviations for the

aggregate specimens that were split three times, mixed with asphalt cement,

and then heated inside the NCAT Asphalt Content Tester minus the single

split precision of a paired aggregate sample. The differences in the standard

deviations are due to the splitting, mechanical mixing, and heating of the

aggregate inside the NCAT Asphalt Content Tester. There appears to be

between 0.9 percent to 1.75 percent difference for the 9.5 mm (3/8), 4.75 mm

(#4), 2.36 mm (#8), 1.18 mm (#16), and 0.60 mm (#30) sieves. There is less of a

difference for the smaller sieve sizes of between 0.0 and 0.75 percent

difference for the 0.30 mm (#50), 0.15 mm (#100) and the 0.075 mm (#200)

sieve sizes.

34

Figure 6. (Experimental - Control Data) Minus AASHTO T 27 (Single Standard

Deviation Data)

(15),% DIFF. IN PRECISION BETWEEN (EXP.-CNTL) DATA & AASHTO T27

3 I I

16POSSmLE

2.5 COMBINATIONS FOR 4

2 IZ W 1.5 t) a: w a.

1

0.5

o

-0.5

1 Figure 6

~k:. / EXP. &4CNTL

/ ~ SPECIMENS -- ----- - ---- ----- -/---- f...----- -~-

.~ ) ~ ><!~ -; '\ /1' 6 ~ I-'

c

K \, / ~~ \.~

-/': -A v ~ V '\ "'~ ~ / --- -----~ ~-1-- ------ ------ ----~ --~-i ~--~ It----- --

/ \,,\j~~

/ \ b~~7 •• ~ "-., ........." ..Ji!",

~21 E:!"

112 318 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200

SIEVE SIZE

1---- FRANClscorn ~ WlNDSORllRWlN ---¥-- RALSTON

--*- MONK -m-- VALCO ------A- PAGOSA

35

5.2.3 Control Data Minus AASHTO T 27 (Single Standard Deviation Data)

In a attempt to measure the error induced when the aggregate was split three

times the standard deviations of the percent differences were also calculated

from the six possible paired combinations using the four Control specimens

only.

The single standard deviations from the precision statement in AASHTO T 27

were also subtracted from the standard deviations of each respective sieve

size from the six possible paired combinations. The results are illustrated in

Figure 7. Figure 7 represents the (Control specimens) aggregate that were

split three times but not mixed with asphalt cement or heated inside the NCAT

Asphalt Content Tester.

36

Figure 7. Control Data Minus AASHTO T 27 (Single Standard Deviation Data)

(1S),% DIFF. IN PRECISION BETWEEN CONTROL RE8UL T8 & AA8HTO T27 3

I'...

2.5 ~

"'" / "~ 6 POSSIBLE

2 I--

\ / '<l \ COMBINATIONS \ ), ~ ~.-::i ~~ FOR 4 CONTROL

Z 1.5 W

0 0:: 1 W c..

0.5

XI A ~ ~ ~'\ '\ SPECIMENS \

,Y 1\ // V \~ ')~ I¥ y., "fi ~) 1<~

-- ----- --((---1-\- --1--- --------~ -~~- ------ --- --

II I \ / ) ! \~, .~

I~ Ir . \V ~\' ~ ...

0 ({ ~ ~ •

~

-0.5 1/2 3/8 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200

SIEVE SIZE

I Figure 7 ~ FRANCISCOTTI ----'H- WlNDSORllRWlN ---'0"- RALSTON

-*- MONK --ffi- VALCO ~ PAGOSA

37

5.2.4 (Single Standard Deviation Data, Figure 8)

In an attempt to reveal the effects that the ignition oven may have had on the

aggregate, the differences between the standard deviations for Figure 6 and

Figure 7 were determined.

The differences between the single standard deviations for Figure 6 and

Figure 7 are illustrated in Figure 8.

38

Figure 8. Difference Between Figure 6 and Figure 7 (Single Standard

Deviation)

DIFF. BETWEEN FIG. 6 AND 7 (18), %

3

2.5

2

I- 1.5 Z W 1 () c::: 0.5 W a.. 0

-- ----~ ----- "'---~~ '" 1\ ~

\/x "---, V \/

J:R--7"\

/ 111 ~ L ~

~. "~

~ ') Ii--------: ::::>< ----~ ll-.

/ .-. --... 7. ~ ...... "---

~ -- -.....", -0.5 -- -----1: ~-- "7'-\- --- --~-- ----- ----~ ~-----

-1 ~ \ / _\

\ / \ -1.5 \

--

1/2 3/8 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200

SIEVE SIZE I Figure 8 I L-------' _ e _ FRANCISCOTTI ~ WINDSOR/IRWIN ~ RALSTON

---*- MONK -m-- VALCO -:6.- PAGOSA

39

5.2.5 Summary of Results Using Analysis Method Two

The area which contains the majority of the points plotted for the percent

difference in precision were reduced from a upper and lower range of +0.75 to

+1.8 percent for Figure 6 to a upper and lower range of -0.6 to +0.6 percent for

Figure 8. The percent differences in standard deviations were significantly

reduced when the error due to splitting was alleviated.

40

5.3 Application of Correction Factors

Correction factors may be required to compensate for possible aggregate

degradation inside the ignition oven.

Note: The data obtained from this experiment represents only the aggregate

that was tested, individual aggregates should be tested separately for their

susceptibility to degradation when placed inside the NCAT Asphalt Content

Tester. Anyone using the ignition oven to determine aggregate gradation

from a bituminous mixture should be aware of the possibility that aggregate

sources other than the ones used in this study may degrade more under the

high temperatures present inside the NCA T Asphalt Content Tester.

5.3.1 Testing for the Possibility of Aggregate Degradation

Aggregate degradation may be tested for by splitting a sample of a known

gradation one time, producing paired specimens. The sample shall meet the

minimum test weight requirements specified by AASHTO 27 (Section 6.4 -

Sampling). One of the paired aggregate specimens shall be mixed with the

appropriate amount of water and hydrated lime and dried in an exhaust oven

at the proper mixing temperature along with the asphalt sample. The

aggregate specimen and the asphalt sample shall be removed from the

41

exhaust oven and mixed with the asphalt using a mechanical mixer. The

bituminous mixture is than heated inside the ignition oven and tested. The

other paired specimen shall be treated as the Control specimen as specified in

Section 4.0 of this paper.

This procedure shall be repeated three times using three separate known

aggregate gradation samples from the same source. The percent differences

from each sieve size for the paired specimens shall be calculated for each of

the three samples. The standard deviation shall be calculated using the

results of the percent differences between the Control and Experimental

specimens.

If the standard deviation calculated for the three samples exceeds the single

standard deviation (15),% limits as stated in AASHTO T 27, a correction factor

will be required. The correction factor will be equal to the calculated standard

deviation minus single standard deviation stated in AASHTO T 27. A

correction factor will be required on any sieve size in which the calculated

standard deviation for that sieve exceeds the (15),% single standard deviation

limits set fourth in the precision statement of AASHTO T 27. See Appendix 0

for the correction factors that were required using Analysis Method Two. See

FUTURE RESEARCH Section 9.0 for additional information regarding this

subject.

42

5.4 Aggregate Absorption Values

The porosity of an aggregate is generally indicated by the amount of water it

absorbs when soaked in water. A porous aggregate will also absorb asphalt

which will tend to make a bituminous mixture dry or less cohesive. The

aggregate sources with higher absorption values did not demonstrate more

degradation than aggregate sources with lower absorption values. Absorption

values for the aggregate sources evaluated are shown in Table 1. The

absorption values for each aggregate source are illustrated as follows on the

following page.

43

Figure 9. Absorption Values for Each Aggregate Source

ABSORPTION 2.4~----------------------------~--------------------------~

2-1-----------

p Z ~ 1.6

W r----------------e:. 51.2

i= ID 0::: g 0.8 +--------f ID c(

0.4 +-----

0-+----CRSEABS

FRANCISCOTTI

t ~ q IRWIN

RALSTON

MONK

44

FINEABS

VALCO

PAGOSA TROUT LAKES

6.0 CONCLUSION

6.1 Analysis Method One

6.1.1 Mean Differences Between The Experimental and Control Specimen

Gradations

The residual aggregate from the Experimental specimens were found to be

finer than the Control specimens after performing a gradation analysis (45 out

of the 54 sieve tests. This would indicate that there was some degradation

caused by the NCAT Asphalt Content Tester or through the mechanical mixing

process. However, the mean differences for the percent passing each sieve

size between the Experimental and Control specimens were relatively low

(less than 1.5 percent for nearly all the sieve sizes analyzed from each

aggregate source).

6.1.2 Experimental Specimens that Appeared to be Coarser after Using the

NCAT Asphalt Content Tester

In a few instances (see Section 5.1.5) the Experimental specimens appeared to

be more coarse (less material passed through the sieves) after using the

NCAT Asphalt Content Tester, this was a probably a result of the splitting or

mechanical mixing process and not due to the ignition oven.

45

6.1.3 Possible Reasons for the Variation in Gradation Results

Possible reasons for the variances in gradation include several factors such

as high temperature degradation, mechanical mixing and the splitting process.

6.1.4 Student's t-test

The data from each from the different sieve sizes for each of the aggregate

sources clearly demonstrates the t-test statistic (t) is less than the t critical

two tail. This means that one can be 95% confident that the two data sets

came from the same population set. (See Appendix B).

6.1.5 Summary of Analysis Method One

Since the mean differences between the Experimental and the Control

specimens for the percent passing each sieve size were less than 1.5 percent

for nearly all the sieve sizes analyzed (coarse and fine aggregate) it may be

deduced that heating the six bituminous mixture sources using the NCAT

Asphalt Content Tester had only a small affect on the gradation. The

gradations between the Experimental and the Control specimens were not

statistically different.

46

6.2 Analysis Method Two (One to One Comparison)

6.2.1 (Experimental - ControQ Data Minus AASHTO T 27 Gradation Data (Single

Standard Deviation)

The differences in the single standard deviations for all of the sieve sizes

ranged between 0.0 to 2.5 percent. The differences were due to either the

splitting, mechanical mixing or aggregate breakdown inside the NCAT Asphalt

Content Tester or a combination of all these effects.

6.2.2 Control Data Minus AASHTO T 27 Gradation Data (Single Standard

Deviation)

The standard deviations for each sieve size were calculated after the percent

differences were determined by combining different paired specimens using

only the Control specimens. The standard deviations from each sieve size

was subtracted from each of the AASHTO T 27 standard deviations

respectively. The result of this subtraction represent the affect on the

standard deviations for each sieve size after the aggregate was split three

times. Nearly all of the significant differences between the standard

deviations for the Control specimens and the AASHTO T 27 data were

alleviated. (See Section 6.2.3) Therefore, it may be deduced that any

47

difference between the single standard deviations given in AASHTO T 27 and

the standard deviations calculated for the Control data was due to the error

induced when the aggregate sample was split three consecutive times using a

riffle splitter.

6.2.3 Figure 8 (Single Standard Deviation)

As shown in Figure 8, the percent differences between the standard

deviations straddled the zero percent line. This would indicate that the

percent differences measured were due largely to the differences caused

when the aggregate sample was split three times, and not due to the

mechanical mixing or heating of the aggregate inside the NCAT Asphalt

Content Tester. This would also indicate that the aggregate did not degrade

excessively after using the ignition oven. When the differences between the

standard deviations for Figure 6 and 7 were compared to the standard

deviations given in AASHTO T 27 only a small number of sieve sizes required

a correction factor. Most of the correction factors were less than 1.0 percent.

The correction factors that were required may be found in Appendix D.

6.3 Absorption Values

The absorption values of the aggregates that were tested did not appear to

48

have affected the results of the gradations after using the NCAT Asphalt

Content Tester after the moisture was removed per Section 4.4. The

gradations of the aggregates with high absorption values were not noticeably

different from the aggregate with low absorption values.

6.4 Summary of Analysis Methods One and Two

It may be deduced from analysis methods One and Two that the NCAT

Asphalt Oven may have caused a slight amount of aggregate degradation.

However, only a small number of the sieves required any correction factor,

almost all correction factors were less than 1.0 percent. The test method

listed in Section 5.3.1 may be used to determine the degree of aggregate

degradation.

49

7.0 RECOMMENDATION

* The NCAT Asphalt Content Tester may be used for determining gradations

of bituminous mixtures.

* Use of the NeAT Asphalt Content Tester can replace the use of chlorinated

solvents for determination of AC content and aggregate gradation.

* Correction factors will be required for aggregate that is found to degrade

inside the NCAT Asphalt Content Tester. See Section 5.3. Exceeding the

precision limits set fourth in AASHTO T 27 shall be used as a reference in

determining the requirement for gradation correction factors. Some types of

aggregate (e.g. aggregate which contains oil shale on the Colorado West

slope) may degrade excessively and unpredictably inside the ignition oven.

For these types of aggregate the ignition oven may not be effective in

determining gradation.

50

8.0 FUTURE RESEARCH

Aggregate degradation research may also be conducted by using only one

aggregate specimen, without adding asphalt cement. This could be done by

comparing the gradation of the specimen before using the ignition oven to the

gradation after heating the same aggregate specimen inside the ignition oven

for specified amount of time. This would provide a more instantaneous and

time efficient method, if a technician in the field is questioned or suspects

aggregate degradation (due to the particular mineralogy) is taking place when

the specimen is heated inside the ignition oven.

Note: This method would not account for the elevated temperatures that

would be present inside the oven chamber when asphalt cement is mixed with

the aggregate. These temperatures would typically exceed the oven chamber

set point of 538 0 C (1000 0 F).

51

9.0 REFERENCES

(1) Snedecor, W.G., and W.G. Cochran, Comparison of Two Samples, Chapter

6, Statistical Methods Eighth Edition. Iowa State Press, Ames Iowa 50010 1989,

pp 84-86.

(2) 1995 Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of

Sampling and Testing, Seventeenth Edition, AASHTO T 27 Section 10.0

precision, pp 30-31.

(3) 1996 ANNUAL BOOK OF ASTM STANDARDS, Concrete and Aggregates

Volume 04.02, C 670 - 91 a Standard Practice for Preparing Precision and Bias

Statements for Test Methods for Construction Materials pp 4849.

52

APPENDIX A

* Mean Difference Figures for Aggregate Sources

* Data Used to Calculate Mean Differences


2. a a % ,.-----r---r----r--_.-------r---y---y----r----,

1 .50 % +-----+---+---+-------1f----f---+---+----+--I

1 . 000/0 +----+--~ EXP. FINER

C 0.50% Q.) +----+-e O.OOv/_I-o:;;;;;;;;;;~ Q.) ~-+-~-+-~-~--~-~-+--~

a.. -0.50 % +---+---+--+----+--.,.-4---I-----+---+-------l

-1 .00 % -+-----+---1----+--1 EXP. +---+-----+---+--l CO ARSER I-------+-----+--~

-1 .50 % +--t--t---+--L-...,r------r----l----t-----+-----l

-2. 000/0 -+---+---+---+---t--~-+--_+_---+--____1 1/2 3/8 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200

I FRANCISCOTTI I Screen size L-. ______ ---'. IA-l

A-l


2 . 00% .-------.-----.-------;.-----------.------.---------.------.-----.-----------,

1 .50 % -+---+---+---------11----+--+-----+--+---------11--------1

1.00% +----+-, '--+----+--t-----i EXP. FINER

~ 0.50 % +----+-c Q)

~ o. 00.."rP-tQ)

a... -0.50% -+----+--+------1 EXP.

-1.00% +---!-----I-----+---------l COARSER

-1 .50 % -+---+---+---------1I----+--+-----+--+---I---------f

-2.00 % -1----+---+------11----+--+-----+--+---1--------1

1/2 3/8 #4 #8#16 #30 #50 #100 #200

L T NPIT I RA S 0 Screen size

A - 2

2.00%

1.50

1.00

0

0/0

0/0

..- 0.50 % c Q) e 0.00 Q)

a.. -0.50

-1.00

-1.50

01 IU

0/0

0/0

% 0 -2.00 Yo


EXP. FINER

• """"""'" ..-~ WIll

EXP. COARSER

1/2 3/8 #4 . #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200

IV ALCOIRKY MTN PIT I Screen size ~

A-3


2.00 % ,-----,-----.-----------,------.----,-----,-----.-----------,---,

1.50% +---+--t----t------H EXP. FINER I----+-------i

1 .00 % +----+---+----------t---+--+----+---+----------t------i

+-' 0.50%-+-----+-c:: Q) e 0.00%+---""" Q)

a.. -0.50 % -+------+--""T----'---...J....-------'------'-------r+-----+----+-------i

~~~EXP. COARSER -1. 00% +---l--===t===F==F======F=~-__+___----l-__I

-1 .50 % -+------+----+----------i'------+---+-----+----+----------i------i

-2.00% -+----+---+-----I--4---+----+---+-----I------i

1/2 3/8 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 1'-IR-WIN--WIN--D-S-O-R- p- r-T--'I Screen size I A - 4

A-4


2.00010 -,-----------,------,-----.---------.----,---------,------.-----.-------..

1 .50% +------+-

1 .00 % +------+-EXP. FINER

..... 0.50 % +------+-c: (J) e 0.000/0 +--~ (J)

a.. -0.50% +----+---f---+_

-1 . 00% ~-=--=-~-=--=-~-=--=-~---r=E=X=P=-. ---=C=-=O:--:A----=R=-=S=E=R~f-------I-~ -1 . 50% +---------1f-----+----+-L---.-----.---------.---,--.l..---+-------I

-2.00 % +---------1~--+---+---f--I------+---+---+-------I 1/2 3/8 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200

MONK PIT '--1 ------ Screen size

A-5


2.00 % .------.---,--------,-----.-----,--------,----,----,r---------,

1.50% -+-----+---+-----+---+---~EXP. FINER

1 .00 % +----+---+------t----t--+----+---+------t------i

..- 0.50% +---+---+---t-c: Cl)

~ 0.00% Cl)

a.. -0. 500/0 --t-----t--r--~===f====±::=::±:==t;--____r_-I +----+----If------t---i EXP. COARSER I----I------i

-1 .00 % +---+---+------t----4.-----.-----,--------,-------.l-r-----j-------------j

-1.500/0 +-----+----+-------l----+--+-----+----+------tl---j

-2.000/0 +-----+----+-------l----+--+-----+----+------tl---j

1/2 3/8 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200

I PAGOSA PIT Screen size

A-6

DATE: 8-13-96

SUMMARY OF t- TEST PAIRED TWO-SAMPLE FOR MEANS AND GRADATION RESULTS

GRADATION COMPARISON OF AGGREGATE MIXED WITH ASPHALT AND PLACED IN NCAT ASPHALT CONTENT OVEN ( EXPERIMENTAL) VS. THE SAME AGGREGATE LEFT IN Irs ORIGINAL STATE (CONTROL).

SIX AGGREGATE SOURCES ANAL VZED

STUDENTS T - TEST EMPLOYED

PROBABILITY OF A LARGER VALUE P(T<=t) two-tail: > .05

FRANCISSCOm PIT:

EXPERIMENTAL

SIEVE SIZE 1/2 3/8 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 696X-1 99.49% 71.45% 46.37% 32.88% 24.16% 17.23% 11.32% 7.27% 4.53% 696X-2 99.41% 69.52% 45.01% 33.65% 24.84% 17.34% 11.30% 7.35% 4.73% 696X-3 99.73% 70.47% 46.14% 33.72% 24.46% 16.77% 10.82% 6.98% 4.38% 696X-4 100.00% 70.66% 45.83% 34.17% 25.69% 18.11% 11.83% 7.59% 4.76%

MEAN 99.66% 70.52% 45.84% 33.61% 24.79% 17.36% 11.32% 7.30% 4.60% sm DEV 0.26% 0.79% 0.59% 0.53% 0.66% 0.55% 0.41% 0.25% 0.18%

CONTROL 1/2 3/8 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200

696X-5 99.59% 67.61% 42.44% 30.68% 22.43% 15.40% 9.78% 6.16% 3.78% 596X-6 100.00% 70.25% 44.52% 33.86% 26.36% 19.04% 12.45% 7.88% 4.80% 696X-7 100.00% 69.59% 44.26% 31.81% 23.13% 16.02% 10.40% 6.75% 4.25% 696X-8 99.72% 71.11% 47.45% 35.91% 26.94% 18.78% 12.00% 7.58% 4.69%

MEAN 99.8% 69.6% 44.7% 33.1% 24.7% 17.3% 11.2% 7.1% 4.4% STD DEV 0.2% 1.5% 2.1% 2.3% 2.3% 1.9% 1.3% 0.8% 0.5%

MEAN DIFF -0.2% 0.9% 1.2% 0.5% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% s sub 0 bar 0.18% 1.05% 1.17% 0.93% 0.85% 0.78% 0.56% 0.34% 0.18% Mean DIFF + 3.18 0.40% 4.21% 4.88% 3.50% 2.77% 2.53% 1.94% 1.28% 0.79% Mean DIFF - 3.18: -0.75% -1.7% -1.7% -1.7% -2.0% -1.9% -1.2% -0.6% -0.2% t -0.9457 0.8431 1.0010 0.5779 0.0881 0.0675 0.2831 0.6005 1.2101 t critical two- tail 3.1824 3.1824 3.1824 3.1824 3.1824 3.1824 3.1824 3.1824 3.1824

RALSTON PIT: EXPERIMENTAL

SIEVE SIZE 1/2 318 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 NCAT-1 97.60% 79.72% 65.03% 41.77% 27.93% 18.37% 10.02% 5.62% 3.01%

A-7

NCAT-2 98.76% 81.80% 66.62% 41.02% 26.01% 16.29% 8.48% 4.65% 2.44% NCAT-3 98.11% 80.78% 65.69% 40.10% 24.91% 15.42% 8.09% 4.55% 2.56% NCAT-4 98.23% 82.45% 68.90% 43.55% 27.88% 17.59% 9.35% 5.24% 2.93%

MEAN 98.17% 81.19% 66.56% 41.61% 26.68% 16.92% 8.99% 5.01% 2.74% sTD DEV 0.5% 1.2% 1.7% 1.5% 1.5% 1.3% 0.9% 0.5% 0.3%

CONTROL

SIEVE SIZE 1/2 3/8 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 non-NCAT-5 99.08% 77.93% 64.19% 39.97% 25.14% 15.68% 8.22% 4.54% 2.43% non-NCAT-6 98.96% 79.61% 66.04% 42.76% 27.84% 17.75% 9.30% 5.04% 2.59% non-NCAT-7 99.08% 79.69% 66.05% 39.76% 24.77% 15.39% 8.08% 4.60% 2.63% non-NCAT-8 98.69% 81.77% 66.71% 43.18% 28.40% 18.15% 9.48% 5.22% 2.83%

MEAN 98.95% 79.75% 65.75% 41.42% 26.54% 16.74% 8.77% 4.85% 2.62% sTD DEV 0.2% 1.6% 1.1% 1.8% 1.8% 1.4% 0.7% 0.3% 0.2%

MEAN DIFF -0.8% 1.4% 0.8% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% s sub 0 bar 0.3% 0.3% 0.5% 0.7% 1.0% 1.0% 0.6% 0.3% 0.2% Mean DlFF + 3.18 0.12% 2.52% 2.50% 2.51% 3.25% 3.24% 2.00% 1.19% 0.64% Mean DIFF - 3.18: -1.68% 0.36% -0.87% -2.13% -2.95% -2.89% -1.57% -0.86% -0.41% t -2.7599 4.2590 1.5376 0.2640 0.1508 0.1820 0.3872 0.5009 0.7109 t critical two- tail 3.1824 3.1824 3.1824 3.1824 3.1824 3.1824 3.1824 3.1824 3.1824

VALCO/ROCKY MOUNTAIN/CAS PIT:

CONTROL 1/2 3/8 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200

NON NCAT-5 100.00% 75.67% 61.68% 45.32% 35.54% 26.49% 12.05% 5.00% 2.78% NON NCAT-6 99.51% 73.90% 59.11% 43.30% 33.20% 24.21% 10.84% 4.49% 2.54% NON NCAT-7 99.76% 75.41% 61.56% 45.86% 36.79% 27.68% 12.58% 5.29% 3.03% NON NCAT-8 100.00% 72.81% 60.13% 44.37% 35.00% 25.71% 11.43% 4.61% 2.56%

MEAN 99.82% 74.45% 60.62% 44.71% 35.13% 26.02% 11.73% 4.85% 2.73% sTD DEV 0.2% 1.3% 1.2% 1.1% 1.5% 1.5% 0.8% 0.4% 0.2%

EXPERIMENTAL

NCAT-1 100.00% 71.69% 60.00% 43.43% 33.15% 24.23% 11.29% 4.86% 2.75% NCAT-2 99.62% 72.94% 60.56% 45.85% 36.40% 27.19% 12.62% 5.26% NCAT-3 99.55% 75.29% 60.34% 44.62% 34.36% 25.03% 11.39% 4.81% 2.75% NCAT-4 100.00% 76.69% - 64.77% 48.14% 36.83% 26.80% 12.13% 5.10% 2.80%

MEAN 99.79% 74.15% 61.42% 45.51% 35.18% 25.81% 11.86% 5.01% 2.77% sTD DEV 0.2% 2.3% 2.2% 2.0% 1.7% 1.4% 0.6% 0.2% 0.0%

MEAN DIFF -0.0258% " •• "".A."* 0.7965% 0.7997% 0.0527% -0.2101% 0.1306% 0.1604% 0.0356% s sub 0 bar 0.07% 1.62% 1.46% 1.39% 1.45% 1.35% 0.68% 0.29% 0.08% Mean DIFF + 3.18 0.19% 4.86% 5.43% 5.23% 4.67% 4.10% 2.30% 1.07% 0.30%

Mean DIFF - 3.18: -0.24% -5.46% -3.84% -3.63% -4.57% -4.52% -2.04% -0.75% -0.23%

t -0.3823 -0.1842 0.5468 0.5747 0.0363 -0.1551 0.1918 0.5621 0.4266 t critical two- tail 3.1824 3.1824 3.1824 3.1824 3.1824 3.1824 3.1824 3.1824 3.1824

-, A-a

Irwin WinsorlStute Pit:

CONTROL 1/2 3/8 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200

NON NCAT-5 100.00% 80.67% 59.97% 43.01% 31.60% 22.14% 13.88% 8.29% 4.99% NON NCAT-6 99.70% 81.64% 60.27% 44.14% 31.81% 22.03% 13.90% 8.57% 5.49% NON NCAT-7 100.00% 75.87% 56.65% 42.17% 30.19% 20.18% 12.33% 7.46% 4.67% NON NCAT-8 99.40% 80.37% 60.86% 44.82% 33.32% 23.51% 14.71% 8.82% 5.34%

Mean 99.78% 79.64% 59.43% 43.54% 31.73% 21.96% 13.71% 8.29% 5.12% STD DEV 0.3% 2.6% 1.9% 1.2% 1.3% 1.4% 1.0% 0.6% 0.4%

EXPERIMENTAL

NCAT-1 99.78% 79.98% 58.65% 44.50% 33.76% 24.42% 15.79% 9.73% 6.10% NCAT-2 99.45% 82.21% 60.11% 42.64% 30.06% 20.80% 13.37% 8.47% 5.59% NCAT-3 100.00% 78.89% 58.50% 42.87% 31.01% 21.76% 14.02% 8.76% 5.59% NCAT-4 100.00% 79.60% 60.78% 45.63% 33.53% 23.71% 15.34% 9.66% 6.25%

Mean 99.81% 80.17% 59.51% 43.91% 32.09% 22.67% 14.63% 9.16% 5.88% STD DEV 0.3% 1.4% 1.1% 1.4% 1.8% 1.7% 1.1% 0.6% 0.3%

MEAN DIFF 0.0298% 0.5331 % 0.0742% 0.3760% 0.35n% 0.7092% 0.9207% 0.8704% 0.75n% s sub D bar 0.20% 0.9% 0.7% 0.6% 0.8% 0.8% 0.6% 0.3% 0.2% Mean DIFF + 3.18 0.66% 3.34% 2.17% 2.44% 2.94% 3.18% 2.70% 1.98% 1.47% Mean DIFF - 3.18: -0.60% -2.28% -2.02% -1.69% -2.23% -1.76% -0.86% -0.24% 0.05% t 0.1509 0.6041 0.1129 0.5791 0.4401 0.9133 1.646 2.5009 3.4088 t critical two- tail 3.1824 3.1824 3.1824 3.1824 3.1824 3.1824 3.1824 3.1824 3.1824

MONK PIT:

EXPERIMENTAL

SIEVE SIZE 1/2 3/8 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 NCAT-1 99.47% 82.21% 62.56% 38.03% 25.14% 17.44% 11.11% 6.52% 3.17% NCAT-2 98.53% 83.61% 65.02% 42.68% 30.80% 22.54% 14.76% 9.57% 7.91% NCAT-3 99.16% 81.68% 64.78% 43.70% 31.90% 23.41% 14.84% 7.91% 3.14% NCAT-4 100.00% 80.47% 64.06% 42.26% 29.88% 21.37% 13.44% 7.38% 3.15%

MEAN 99.29% 81.99% 64.10% 41.67% 29.43% 21.19% 13.53% 7.85% 4.34% sTD DEV 0.6% 1.3% 1.1% 2.5% 3.0% 2.6% 1.7% 1.3% 2.4%

CONTROL

SIEVE SIZE 1/2 3/8 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 NON NCAT-5 99.50% 80.09% 62.74% 41.40% 28.90% 20.54% 13.15% 7.66% 3.72% NON NCAT-6 99.24% 78.83% 63.42% 43.15% 31.60% 23.12% 14.n% 8.27% 3.63%

A-9

NON NCAT-7 98.59% 82.73% 66.32% 42.41% 28.37% 19.66% 12.50% 7.28% 3.55% NON NCAT-8 99.50% 79.58% 63.54% 42.81% 30.48% 21.81% 13.73% 7.66% 3.23%

MEAN 99.21% 80.31% 64.01% 42.44% 29.84% 21.28% 13.54% 7.72% 3.53% STD DEV 0.4% 1.7% 1.6% 0.8% 1.5% 1.5% 1.0% 0.4% 0.2%

MEAN DIFF 0.08% 1.68% 0.10% -0.77% -0.41% -0.10% -0.00% 0.13% 0.81% s sub 0 bar 0.30% 1.22% 0.66% 0.96% 1.50% 1.42% 0.90% 0.53% 1.16% Mean D1FF + 3.18 1.03% 5.57% 2.19% 2.29% 4.36% 4.42% 2.86% 1.83% 4.49% Mean DIFF - 3.18: -0.86% -2.20% -2.00% -3.84% -5.17% -4.62% -2.87% -1.57% -2.88% t 0.2835 1.3797 0.1465 -0.8018 -0.2719 -0.0694 -0.0025 0.2444 0.6962 peT <=t) two-tail 3.1824 3.1824 3.1824 3.1824 3.1824 3.1824 3.1824 3.1824 3.1824

PAGOSA TROUT LAKES CONTROL

1/2 3/8 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 Non NCAT-1 99.74% 73.50% 46.45% 33.26% 22.75% 16.09% 11.09% 7.57% 5.33% Non NCAT-2 99.80% 76.99% 54.75% 41.27% 29.60% 21.25% 14.52% 9.64% 6.63% Non NCAT-3 99.46% 72.27% 47.95% 32.01% 22.27% 15.76% 10.59% 6.97% 4.74% Non NCAT-7 99.79% 79.37% 56.00% 38.61% 27.73% 20.00% 13.62% 8.91% 6.34% Non NCAT-8 100.00% 75.03% 50.12% 34.20% 24.37% 17.49% 11.94% 7.99% 5.64%

MEAN 99.76% 75.43% 51.05% 35.87% 25.34% 18.12% 12.35% 8.22% 5.74% STDDEV 0.2% 2.8% 4.2% 3.9% 3.2% 2.4% 1.7% 1.1% 0.8%

EXPERIMENTAL

NCAT-4 100.00% 76.34% 52.40% 35.85% 25.35% 18.28% 12.53% 8.36% 5.83% NCAT-5 100.00% 74.63% 50.46% 37.59% 27.07% 19.71% 13.81% 9.44% 6.61% NCAT-6 100.00% 75.65% 51.00% 36.76% 25.63% 18.29% 12.65% 8.59% 5.94%

MEAN 100.00% 0.75538 0.51287 0.367354 0.260173 0.1876162 0.129988 0.087975 0.061266 STD DEV 0.0% 0.9% 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.8% 0.7% 0.6% 0.4%

MEAN DIFF 0.2404% 0.1059% 0.2332% 0.8630% 0.6749% 0.6446% 0.6469% 0.5799% 0.3885%

S sub d bar = Sample std.! sqrt (n)

S sub d bar = mean diff./ t

t = mean diff./ S sub d bar

95 % Confidence limits = Mean diff. +/- 3.1824· S sub d bar

n = 4, # of differences

A-10

APPENDIX B

* Confidence Interval Figures For Each Aggregate Source

* Data Used to Calculate the 95 % Confidence Intervals

* Data From the Students t-Test

* Gradation Results From Each Aggregate Source

80/0 _ 7% C 6% ~ 50/0 ~ 4% E; 3% c 20/0 m 10/0 E 0% c -10/0 .; -2% g -3% e -40/0 ~-5% .- -6% c -70/0

-8%

./. /

/' /' ~ ;;r /

/' /'

III /

/" ..t ..


I I I Error Bars

Exp. finer r-- 95 % Confidence f-- Upper & lA2 ~ Lower limits J

.>, ... --' i<!: ' !;; ::J7 ~ ~. ,&1;>] -- ...... ..L / , .... """ ¥ , --./ -- ~ '1:',

II- , ~~ ·~7

~b-...... ......

' )Ii ~ I ,- .!"" ---...... "- .J.. -...-==- ~ '-............ "- IW . -'"lI1I ... ..... - "- ,.. ...--~ ~ . k-" -

"" ... " "'" -" " "- -

I E ~ Mean differences --

I xp. coarser -II

I I I I I I I I I

1/2 3/8 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 Screen size (ASTM)

I RALSTON I"--E-rr-o-r -B-ar-a-r-a-p-h-----,

8- 1

8% 70/0

; 60/0 c CD 50/0 ~ 40/0 CD Co 3% ~ 2% = 1% E 00/0 c -10/0 .-CD -20/0 CJ c -30/0 ~ -4% ~ -5% .- 6°1 C - 10

-70/0 -80/0


1 -1 I I L ~

J ~ ~

Exp. finer A

-"'" -. .-~ L ~~ ::!l-~

~ 1 -1

Error Bars r

95 % Confidence Upper & Lower limits r-

r-~ ---/ ...... '1'7 .

" -T, §t:. .L ---.:r> rr

.1 ~--- ~¥-/

.1 / -~ ~1 -0:::::::::::::: /

• ..L ..."jl\ -r ~ I"'!>, ~ ~!Y k.--

':.:, ~ ,-- - -"- - :.JIlL- '\. ~~

k - ~~ '\:It k:.-

'\. ~ ~

I '\. Exp. COarSerj r--Mean differences r--r--

-1 I -1 J j I -'- I I I

1/2 3/8 #4

I IRWINIWINSOR I

#8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 Screen size (ASTM)

~------------~~ I Error Bar Graph

8-2

8% 70/0

~ 6% c CI) 5% ~ 4% CI) Q. 30/0 -c 20/0 m 1% E 00/0 .= -1%

CI) -20/0 (,) c -3% ~ -4%

-,/

I ,/

I

~Jt 7 ~

"'" i""" ,

7 I


Exp. finer 'I;i tz";y

7 ~ I ,

-: ? ~fl:~ " ) il>"

" /' "-

'. ",'

" /' ,,,t- ··V -11-

7 - "'" "" ""'~ ---- '--"- 'VI'

.~t. -A

" . " "- "-

" "'" )~ I": '" - '-, '" '" "- '" -....

I I

Error Bars 95 % Confidence Upper & Lower limits

, .L

\ -" \

\ .--l!1Jl \ -"'~

\ ~ .a , .-41

----./ '-

- "-/~ r' -.., 1=

~ -5% is -60/0

-70/0 -REXp. coarser!

"4Ik." "-

Mean differences f--

f--

f--

-80/0 T I I I I I I

1/2 3/8 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200

I MONK Screen size (ASTM)

~--------------~

I Error Bar Graph

8-3

80/0 _ 7% ~ 6% ~ 5% t 40/0 B 30/0 c 20/0 m 1% E OO/C c -10/0 'a; -2% g -3%

,

e -4% ~ -50/0 . - -6% c -7%

-8%

" / .-I

I i

"}) fY

, \

\

\ \ _\

\


Exp. finer "'" '"

Error Bars --

95% ---Confidence ":"~..",. --- '(~ I ---l~~:z.

A ______ -;' --~ ~ Upper & I -

"- -"- . Lower limits r---

I--

/ ...... -~.:'7

/ " ----- ~ ~ / ,

--- -"\. / ,..iii(""

"\. / ..--"\. / ..--/

fl "" I"\, / /

"\. r~, / / k- - :;i .. --

"'" IIT/

\ ./ '= ..... -- "\. , \ ./ A ..... " AI ~ V' .

: Exp. coarser ~ Mean differences r--e ..... t--

r--1 I ~

I I I I I I I I I

1/2 3/8 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 Screen size (ASTM)

1'--E-rr-o-r-B-a-r-G-r-ap-h-----, I VALCOIRKY I

8-4

Plllle: D ·1 FRANCISCOrn

flZSIa'E PI

loTest P.nd T-.s.tnpIe for Means t-Test PIIinId Two.SampIe for Means

Mean v..--0bseMItI0ns "--ean./atIon PaaIed v.n.r~ ...... ~ til I P(T~-.taII t CrIIIc4II -.!all P(T OC) twD-CII t~"'"

Mean v.uc. ~ '"--CarNIIiIIan Paaledv...-HwPoG1 b , ..... DIII'eNnce til t P(TCCJ -.tall tCrlllc4ll ...... 1'(T000MoQI tCrlllc4ll ......

Mean v.uc. ot.eIliIIIIIoIlS '"--aCanldan PocMdv.tlnce I~""'DIII' __ til t I'(TCCJ-oI tQtlc8l ...... I'(TOC) Mo-td t CrIIIc4II tMHII

II

loTest I"abd T--sampIe for Means

MeM v.IMce 0bMcwII0ns .....-Correlation PaaIed v.mnce HypaChestzed Mean 0IIf-.c:e dI t P(T c:zq ane-lal t CriIic:.I onHII P(T<=I)~ t CrilicalIIMHaiI

'"I t-Test: Paired Two-Sample for Means

u.n V.nance 0bseMdI0ns Pearson Correlatior. Pooled Variance HypoIhesIzed Mean Dilference dI t P(T <=1) ane-laJl t CriIic:.I onHiil P(T <=C) lwo-lail t QtIIcaIlwIHaH

V.w,te1 VMIabIe 2 0.8965716155323J7 CI.898279OOC59318

7.013618002147519E-G6 4.2S0073567D7682E.Q6 4 4

-O.16255117l1281695 5.631M57846CME-G6

a 3

-O.84568411GC538 0.2070384(7871417

2.35336343C3976 0.414076895742834 3.182446305Ot062

Vatfa6l.1 V.".",. J 0.705212855172953 0.696401229010712

6.307375518611894E-OS 0.000221684C36618976 4 4

.CJ.6O&CC6&5082G3 O.0CI0142371108519C121tt

o 3

0.8430567C5G71167 " .2305528'4C60898

2.35S3GC3C387S 0.46110568 U217115 3.1124C630501062

0.458362137783CUI o.c4668143058799 3..52G206S1336SQ2S.G5 0 000C3060127318459

• 4 ~71I5OC180!M36

o OOOZ32931&691S1'1OC o 3

1Il00538 C8674C75 0.19538980827056

2.35S'63C3C1II76 0.3907ll616548712 3. 1124C630501062

V.".,. 1 VMfUIe J 0.33605751306C896 0 S3068OOOO615908

2.8573177!522128645 0.000532481043717379

" 4 o.a70732286698803

0.000280527110619m o 3

0.5779862605326S 0.301901347739717

23533634343976 0.60380269S479434 3.18244630501062

ViltUbie 1 V"rUble 2 0.247896848247481 0.2471049438820667

4.356551182272443E-05 0.00051306479650().C53 4 4

0.89845'619703346 0.DDD278315192363843

o 3

0.088De56C30' 37'38 O.46767958ml309

2 3533634343976 0.935359175442618 3.1824463050'062

Mean v.narObservations Pearson Com!Iation Pooled Vatiance I-frpaIhesIzed Mean Dilfonnoe dI t P(T <=I) onHaiI t QtIIcaI onHaiI P(T<=I) tMHd t QtIIcaI tMHd

...... VMInce 0b5erwIIans ...... eo.r.IDon Pooled v..-.I~MeanDilf_ dI t P(T~--'d t QIIIcII ___

P(T~eMHII t QIIIcII eMHII

'"00 t-Test PIINd Two&mI*for .....

Mean v.tMcI 0bseIwIIaI1S ~~ Pooled VIIIMoe ~"""DIf_ dI t P(T c:zq --call tOlal--call P(TCQtMHd t QIIIcII tMHd

t-Test Paln!d Two-SampIe forUe.ns

Mean V.nance Observations Pearson Correlation Pooled Variance HypoIhesized Mean OiIferenoe dI t P(T <-"1) -.tl~ t Critical onHaH P(T <'=t) two-taiI t Critical two-tail

8-5

VMiIbte 1 VMW>J. 2 0.,736'325 0.17308811 3.0802E-05 0.00D34895

4 4 0.66341098 0.0CI018987

o 3

0.067C8688 0.C7S22009 2353363C3 0.95OCCD'9 3.182CC631

VatfaItI. f Vatfable 2 0.11317147 O. t 1158303 1.7116E-05 0.0CI0'6D7

4 4 O.C9C79551 6.1909E-05

o 3

G.28311106 Cl.39775177 235136343 o.l95503S3 3.182CC631

V"""'1 V..".",. J G.D7295878 0.0109209

.6..3456606 .. U29E.Q5

4 " CI.5C3C8712 U737645

o 3

CI.6OOSOC19 Cl.2!I52529

235136343 CI..5905058

3.182CC631

VariobIe f VMW>Ie 2 0.0C6D2038 0.04383227 3.3'47E-06 2.1637E-05

4 " 0.7OO!I3696 1.2476E-05

o 3

1.21006399 0.15645147 2.353363C3 0.31290293 3.18244631

r.g.: D-2

t-Test: Panel TW!>-SampIe for Means

a-.aliolls ~ Corretatian Pooled va.tance HypothesIzed Mean OiIrerence dI .

I P(TcoQon&W t QIIcaI on&W P(T c-Q two-CaB t QIIcaI two-tai

11ZSIEVE

Varlable 1 varWle I 0.98174771 0.98954466

2.2541:-00 3.~ 4 4

43474716 1.294E-05

o 3

-2.759911 0.03507877 2.35336343 0.07015754 118244631

3IBSIEVE t-Test: PaIred Two-SampIe for Means ..... v.IIInoe a.. ...... "--' COm!IaIIan Pooled v.tIInce ~ ...... OiIrerence III t P(Tc-Q~ t QIIcaI CIIIIHIII P(Tc-Q twoQI t QIbI two-aI

YafIInce ObceIwtb. "--' 0arI-.a0n PoaIed V8IIInae ~""'0iIreIence III t P(Tc-QonHd t QIIcIII onHaII P(Tc-Q twHII t 0IIcII twMII

•• SIEVE t-Telt PaIred Two-SampIe b' Means

v.tIanae ObceI\o1IIIb. "--CorrelatIon Pooled Vartance HypaChesized MIr4I\ Dilference III I P(T cct) ane-tait I QIicIII one-IaH P(T c=t) two-taa I Qtica/ t>MHaiI

Varlable 1 Variable I 0.81187931 0.797<C7499 0.00014316 0.00020C654

<c 4 0.91S39077 0.00019485

o 3

4.25910261 0.01186793 2.35336343 0.C1Z373587 118244631

0.00028672 0.00011771 4 4

Q.79S9884 0.00Q20Z22

o 3

1.53762578 o.l1C187201 2.35336343 Cl.22174403 3.18244631

V.".,. 1 VM1aIW Z 0.41110038 0.41417416 0.0002147<C 0.00032<428

<c 4 0.61819305 0.00026951

o 3

0.26402279 0.40«3023 2.353363C 0.80886046 3.18244631

RALSTON (·Test: Paired T~b''' ...

Valiance 0b&eIvati0ns Pearson Correlation Pooled Variance HypothesIzed Mean 0iIreten0e dI (

PeT <=t) one-(M

I CrIicaI one-caI PeT <oct) two-CaI I Critical two-CaI

• 16 SIEVE

Vart.bIe 1 Vatfable Z

0.000219484107466921 0.000341605894113272 4 <c

0.331600138833067 0.00028054500079011

o 3

0.15075737952589 0 ... 44866700356124

2.3533634343976 0.889733<100712248 3. 18244630S01062

.30 SIEVE I·Test TwoSample~ EquIIv.tMce

. VaIfa6Ie 1 Variable Z II.." Variance 0bseMdians Pooled YaIiance HypaIhestlecS MeM DIfeIwa dI I P(T <oct) -.ui I QIicIII one-caI P(T <at) two-tIII I Qtica/ two-W

I-Test: PaIred T~far"'"

0b5eMItiaI. "--00rlWtiDn Pooled V8rIance

.~ MeanOlrennce III I P(TcoQ-.taI IQIicIII-.taI P(T <at) two-lIII I QIicIII two-lIII

I·Test: Paired T~far .....

II.." Variance 0bseMdians Pearson ConeIatiDn Pooled Variance Hypothesized Mean 0iIr-.. Iff I PeT <=I) ane-GiI I Critical ane-U~ P(T <=I) two-lail 1 Critical two-la~

I· Test: Paired Two-SampIe far Means

G.1681.6751435183 G.16743%100188705 0.000172927756316044 0.000198S33563873232

4 4 0.000185730560124635

o 6

0.182018402418259 0.430781054561881

1.94318028004358 0.1161562109123762

2.44691185086496

4 D.0170905978089687

U774936974BQfJE.a; o 3

0.387266354760011 D.362199404648422

2 3533634343916 0.724398809296844 118244630501062

flOOSIEVE

Vatfa6Ie 1 VatfabIe 2

2.543810500C0916&05 1.1158010520335E-05 4 4

4104866731527322 1 .82980577~

o 3

0.509S6005993992S 0.322738791213532

2.3533634343976 0.645477582427065

3.18244SJ0501062

.200 SIEVE

f·r •• f: P.IrN Two:S!n!pI! fbr 11_ Vart.ble f Varlable 2 Mean VarW/e f Vadable 2 Mean 0.0273632S965OCl255 0.0261979987726052 Variance 7. 7899446355805E-06 2.71984951585E-06 ObseMstians <c 4 Pearson Correlalion .().02557034075969 Pooled Variance 5.2548970757151E-06 Hypothesized Mean Dift'erence 0 ~ 3 I 0.710979718642712 P{T <=II one-lail 0.26<C1946798034O<1 1 Critical ane-Ulil 2.3533634343976 P(T <=I) two-laH 0.528389359606808 I Critical two-la~ 3.18244630501062

8-6

Pag.:D.3

1IZSlEVE t-Test: Panel Tv.o-SampIe far Means

liNn V.tance 0bceMIfIans Parson Corr$'Jon PaaIed VIII'ance ~ Mean OiIfetence .. t P(T c-C) onHIII t QtIIcII/ onHaI P(Tco:Q twoGI t QIIIcIII two.aI

ObAIWIIIaI. PeMon CamIIIIIIon PuaIed VMInce I~ ..... 0IIffftnce .. I P(TCIIQ~ I QIIIcIII anHIII P(TCIIQ Na-CaII t QIIc8IIMiM11

.4SIEVE I-T_P.nd~b-M __

v.IInoe ObAIwIb. PeMon~ PualedV ..... tt;paItIeIIzIed ..... DiIference dl I P(TCIIQ ane-4III IQIIIcIII~ P(TCIIQ twIHaI t QIIIcIII....w

.. SIEVE I-Ted: Pahd~b-Means

VIIdance 0bseMII0ns ~ c::::aneIatian PuaIed V.rIInce ~ Mean 0iIference dl t P(T coot) one.QlI tCritical~ P(T <=Cl two-taI I QIlcaIlIMHaII

IRWlNJWINSOR/STUTE PIT

v.".",. f V.".",. 2

15 .82'E~ 8. '48E~ 4 4

-0.039627 7 .48SE-06

o 3

0.'5082415 0.44411061 2.3533634 0.1IU6123 3.111244153

.c 0.7520273 0.000C317

o 3

0.8041332 0.2141.,3 2.35331534 0.5883828 3.112<14153

0.0001241 0.0003588 .c 4

0.7347129 0.0002415

o 3

0.1129463 0.«586035 2.3533DC 0."72071 3.1824463

VMWaI. f v.w. 2 OA3.ffH 0435HZ5 0.00011M15 0.0001395

4 4 0.510758

0.0001695 o 3

0 .S791.c73 0.301556

2.3533634 0.6031119 3.1824463

t·Test: PaIred Two-SampIe ror Means;

Mean Variance ObservatIons Pearson Correlation Pooled Variance ~ Mean 0iIfe!enCe .. t per <=t) one-QJI

t QIlcaI onHaiI P(T cot) two-taII t Critical two-taII

t-Test: PaIred Two&mpIe far Means

Mean Vallance 0bceMIIkIns ~QImIaIIon Pooled Vallance ~ IoIewI 0Irerence eft t P(T coot) CXIIHaI t QtIicIII one-CaI P(T coot) lwIHIII I Crllic:llllIMHIII

I·Te PaIred T~ b- Me.w

...., Variance 0bseMIII0ns Pearson CiomIIIIIDn Pooled vllliance! ~ Mean 0Irerence dl t P(Tc=Q one-CaI I CrIIic:III one-taI P(Tc=Q lIMHIII I CrlicallIMHIII

t·Test: PaIred T--sampIe far Means

Vatfanoe 0bseMIti0ns Pearson Correlation Pooled Variance ~ Mean 0iIference dr t P(T <=Cl one-taII t 0fticaI one-tail per <=t) two-tai1 t Critical two-tau

t-Test: Paired Two-Sample for Means

Mean Variance ObseIvations Pearson Correlation Pooled Variance HypoIhesiZed Mean Clifference dr t per <=I) one-tail t QiIicaI one-laU P(T <=t) two-tail t Critical two-taH

8-7

I1SSIEVE

Variable 1 V.dable 2 0.3201848 0.3173074 0.0003397 0.0001634

4 4 0.5068478 0.0002515

o 3

0.4401451 0.3448067 2.3533634 0.6896135 3.1824463

.f3OSIEVE

V.".bIe 1 V.""",. 2

0.0002817 0.0001871 4 4

0.4958221 0.0002344

o 3

0.8132575 0.2142233 2.3533634 0.41284465 3.1824463

.50SIEVE

VarfabI. f V.tabI. 2

0.0001272 8.805E-OS 4 4

0.449435 0.0001131

o 3

1.6445927 0.0993011 2.3533634 0.1986023 3.182.c463

4 0.3582937 3.769E-OS

o 3

2.5008765 0.0438185 2.3533634 0.0876389 3.1824463

#200 SIEVE

4

Vadable 1 Variable 2 0.0588157 0.0512384 1.166E-05 1.343E'{)5

4 4 0.2128736 1.255E-OS

o 3

3.4088882 0.0210925 2.3533634 0.0421851 3.1824463

OJ I

(Xl

ijjj-Ollll' I· jill-Oll 'lf I lIII ~fl I (Ill If I I

~ J r J

ilil-·,lllfl i lilii~·llllff is! 1111 'I f III1I f~ I I • I , f I !

r if! I I

~;ii~ PG i~f ~iiPP i§ if 1~lilwoll.~I~ 18111MOiD.ig

Pil iP11 .I~M .• IM

f f ~!iPI i~ iii iPiii ~; iii I~II~MO~I.I=~ ill~~wo!i.QB~

.lli · .111

Ifll-'lll,ff I 11111-'111111 I 11111-°111

111 I llill-olfilif i ~ 1111-"!111,1 i ~

r l r J r J r J f J

I Iff f

III11 Ii IiI Ii II ~i I!I 11"1 . I~ Iii 11"11 II III I" i~ II IiI il.~."o~I.11 Illgi.oil.§1 Billl .. II.11 i lil .. il.11 IIIII .. ~ .. II jil i§1 &IP1 i;1 i;l~ ~~.. 11M I M =1" ~Hi" S~ i§ II ~ .~~ .. ~i .. ~ .. ie ..II

3: o z

"

-0IIserWIans "--'CaI1*Ian PoaIecI v.Nnce 1~""'DIIr __ .. 1 P(TCOQ ...... la.c.I-.w P(Tooq ........ la.c.I ........

..... -Obwwtans "--'CornIdCIn PoaIIdv.tlnce ttpIlii1bd ..... DIIf«wa .. • P(Tooq .... .a.c.I_ P(Tooq ....... .a.c.I ........

-. -0bwwIanI '--s0cmldan I'oaIIdv.tlnce HpIwIImd ..... arr... t P(Tooq .... ta.c.l_ P(Tooq ....... ta.c.l .......

..... -0bwwIanI '--sCclrnldon PoaIecIv.t.nce ItwPofI I IIDICI ..... DIIf«wa .. t P(Tooq-.w la.c.1-.101 P(Tooq ....... tQllcll ........

-. -Obwwtans ~CcIrnIdon PoaIecIIIMMc:e ~_DiII'-.c:e .. I P(T «Ij -.fill lC111 ......... P(Tooq ........ lC111..t ........

v-... a.ww .... "--'0cmIdan -~_D'lI' __ .. 1 P(Tooq-w IQIIc:oI-.IoI P(Tooq ...... IQIIc:oI ......

VALCOIROCKY MOUNTAIHfCAS PIT

112 SIEVE

C 0.43747113 US7E-Il6

o 3

.0.3823241 0.363847& 2.3533634 O.m6955 3.1124463

V"-f V..-,

4

0.74"" '.7444tIN OJlOO5089 0.0001801

4 4 .0.5163521 D.OOO3445

a 3

.o.'&GI71 0.c327196 2.35lJ6l4 CI..I8'l58n 11124C63

G.IIOO5CI5I 0::0001613 4 4 ~ G.OOO32M

o 3

0.6488147 0.1112771 2.15J3I34 G.l22S5CI a.tI24CG

..SEVE

~,~,

.","fll52 .MT, ... ~ D.D001267

4 4 .o.53B73

0.00D2&S3 a 3

0.574711. 0.Jll28769 2.3533634 0.li057S37 11124463

• IS SIEVE

'.3!H""7 '~SUUd 0.0002998 0.0002221

4 4 .o.SI48216 0.0002609

o 3

0.0363915 0.ca&6281 2.3533634 0S732563 3.1824463

.3CSlEVE

4 .0.7&47108 0 .0002056

o 3

.0.15151552 0.4432752 2.3533634 DM65504 3.1824463

.. eon -a.ww ...... ~ComIIdan PoaIecI VII1ance I~_cnr_ .. 1 P(Tc-t)ICIII..t_ P(T<atI-10lIaI_

I!iOSIEVE

0.11851S118 0.1172$32 :un;e.os 5.612E.o5

4 C .0.1363357 U2~

o 3

0.1.,764 0A30D863 2..3533634 U601727 3.1824463 .,oalEVE

"Test I'oIrecI ~ lor ........ ~,., ... "....,.....,.,. ,""""VIf&iIie==-=,-..... D.0!i00136 0'-_ «Z3E-06 1.J396.05

0bwWI0ns 4 4 .........ComIIdan -4.15113147 PoaIIdv-... IJIOI6.06 I~""'ca- 0 .. 3 1 Cl.5621~ P(Tooq _ CI..3OIlS531

tOtlcll_ 2..3533634 P(TCOQ- U133061 10tIcII_ :a. 1824463

-. -0bwWI0ns ......... ~ PoaIId-'" I~_cnor-. .. 1 P(TCOQIOIICII_ P(Tooqla.c.I_

8-9

"I 2110 SEVE

UZ1I1II2 z..aae.m

4 47852009 2.72260S

o 3

CI.QII&037

CI.J4IIZ147 2..3533634 CI.III8GlI4 a.tl24C&3

MONl(MD(

~TlOH COUI'NIISON USING THE HCATOIIEN rMI.E 8 R£PRESEKTS tHE GMDoU1OtC Of THEIIGGREGo\TEWI11f NOA5I'tW.r ~

rAa.EA RB'R.ESENTS THE ~11OHOfTHEIIGGREGo\TEN'TERASPtW.rWl.S ADOED NfO 8URHT OfF a.ISIOE rHEHCArOllEN

TAIU.£ A

tA AGGAEGo\TE. uueADOEi:»

-.a. x Loll. NCAr I~ Iloklc-,

-.. ~ .... r.-cpuolng MdI.s--.m "'-m.

1112 , tcICl.CIK III 1.1 II.<C7% M ,... 12.2,'" IN 227A tIZJIC% .. 2JIIl.I K.03Y. .te; MI.2 25.1ft ~ IU 17A4Y. .sa JU 11.1'''' .'00 13..1 U2% Goa .. I.I7Y. - J 4IOCI...t s:u T .. U57A

~x .... IeAT IMWIS

"1% t 112 M .. II eM aa 1150 nao GDO 42IOCI ..,...,. t-.t

"12 1 lIZ M .. II .,e; GO tI5Q, .,00 GOO .4I2OQ -200 ... .,.

1112 1 lIZ 318

.IM MI .1' 1130 .so .100 Il2OO .4IZQO -200_

1OCI.II05 10.8 _ttY. 225.1 II.AY. 2tu K7n m:z oCl..1O% 152.41 Jt.IOYo 1C11U' DA'Y, t1G.7 t~ IU 7.1"" 6U Uft

J 37.1

251.5 2'1.3 :ao.c; 159.5 109.1 lC2.1

7& 54.5

41.2 36.3

lC1O.OOY. 1CIO.OOY. IQ.CN IC..CIIiY. 4Z.2I'A. 2UI% 2t..37Y. 13. .... ", T..1II", 3..'5%

ToW; 1:za7.1i

~

18

X

eotred~

TAIILE 8

NOfCtICI GcMafIoft AMIph Loll. IIQHIC.a 11-4W5 ... w.JgC .... P--c..-.

MdI .............. I tl2 , tcIO.CIO" tl2 U IUOY. M 24t.1 III.IIft .. 216.1 IUft II -4I',AOK ." t5U 2I..IOK 130 toU 2III.I4Y. tI5Q 12.1 u."" .,00 ac 7..", GOO

...., a.m ~ u 4110_ 41

r_ 1241.4

NOHtICI Gc..wso. AMIpI. a... MONC4 IWWIS ... ~NIII'IIad,,-, .................

1 lIZ , toOJICI'I' lIZ U IUft M 2IZ.2 ,.... .. .. a..ca II 2IIQ.I G."" .,. «IA I'*"' 130 10U 21t2Wo tI5Q tcl7.I tUlY. tr100 11.1 &2n' GOO '" ~ ~ 4.2 4110_ CU

T_ 12IIU

NOHtICI ~AMfre'" a... ~ '1-4W5 ..... w.rctC .... P--c ......

-.m .............. 1112 , ~ tl2 ,1.3 IUIIY. M 1KI I2.lW .. 201.5 A12I' II 283.7 41204'''' .1$ t72.4 2IU7Y. 1130 tCJ1 1tMY. «10 Ie t2.5OY. .100 "'-I 7.2111: Il2OO 45.8 l.551l: -Il2OO U -zoo- 40.3

ToIBI: 122I.l

NONNa GRd.Uon ARalpI. laD. ~ 1I.(J1~

sa.- Wdt,1(hI ~pusIno eac:h ... MdI ..... ~

, lIZ 1 IOCI..OO% 112 &.7 ISIJ501I: 318 2&5.1 711.5811: .. 213.4 615411: II 275J1 42.8111: .'6 ,"'-, 30.48% 1130 115.3 21..1111: «10 1CJ1J5 11.7:111: .'00 8QJI 1.56% Il2OO 6U 3.23% -Ir2OO 4.1i -200_ :1&.4

ToW; U3O.I

8- 10

Ralston MIX

~TIOHOOUPMISON USIN(] THE NCAT O\IEN TAIIlEA RfJ'RESEH1'S11E OIWlAlIOH OF THE AOCJREGo\TE WITH NO ASPHAlT ADOED

TAIIlE B RS'RESEHT$11E OIWlAlIOH OF THE AGGREGATE N'T'ER ASPHAlT WAS ADDED AND BURH1' OfF ISlE THE NCAT O\IEN

TABlE TABU A B

11. la ~TE. lMEADOED NC.t.T

G...sacJorX lillI' -...cAT X Gradation AnaIpI. UbI Ral-1 10.a.a5 ~ 1G-26-85

.... We/ctII "" "-*'I puoIng SleW We/ctII"" PenoorCpesa.g e.dI ..... e.dI ... _ e.dI ..... e.dI __

1 f.'Z 1112 1 ~ -..os.....- 1 IC1C1J1O% 112 11.1 • .an 112 ao.l 17..80% M -77 ..... :w DCA 71.12% .. 1141 IUn. 114 1t4A I5..CI3% .. .. ~ 118 211.1 41.TN 1116 111.7 a1C% 1116 nu 27 ..... ~ 12111.3 1U:n 1130 1211 1U7'K aI 84.t I.2a II5CI 10U 10~ 11100 .. 1 UC% 11100 IU 1..112% .zIO 2U 2.Cft lI2IIO 12.1 101'110 42IDO 2 .coo u ..:Il10_ 2U --- a.z TGIIt 1271.1 TOIIII: 1255.1

-..:AT NCAT GNoIdorX lillI ~ G.....aot\ AMIpIo lillI ~2

1~ l~f.«I -- WIWC ........... .... w.wc"" .... pessq e.dIlIM ......... .... ..... e.dI .....

1112 1112 1 1CICl.CI05 -..os.....- 1 1CICIJIO% 11.2 1U ..... 112 1$ II..JII'IIo M Z5I.7 1Uft M 21115 BI~ tJ4 teO ~ 114 flU 1&.112% .. .... CZJIft .. IOU 4~ .,. 117'- 27~ .,. flU 2l.OI" 1130 1a.I tl.185 130 Itl .. 11.211% .so 1t2.1 &1ft - MA aAa'IIo 1n00 Il1.O LOC% .,00 4U ~ aao au 2.li'iio lI2IIO 2&.7 2.44110 4200 ~ .C2IIQ U ..zoo_ ~u --- 27A

ToW: 132ILa TOIIII: GII.7

-..c:AT NeAT ~X lillI -......:r Gnda1Ion~ lillI fW.3 1~ 11~1.-s -- WIWC"" .......... SleW WIWC ...... pessq

e.dI ............... .... ..... e.dI ..... 1112 1112 1 1CICIJIO% -..os.,.... 1 IC1C1J1O% uz 11.3 IIUIII'IIo 112 24.2 "11" M 2111..3 lI.IIIWo :w 2222 10.7li'ii0 IJ4 1&e:l a;.ow 114 1113.4 I5..Ii9% lIS 32of.3 39.~ 118 328 40.10'lI0 116 1I4JI 24.TN 1116 18U 24.11'110 1130 115.7 15..31% 1130 121.6 15.42'110 1150 10.2 IJIn II5CI IN a.o8% .,00 43 4.150'lIo .,00 45.4 4.55'110 Il2OO 24.2 2.63% lI2IIO 25.5 2.56'110 .-zoe 1.3 .coo u ..zoo_ 31.2 --- 30.9

TaIBI: 1233.1 T_ 1281.7 non~T

G ..... oodorX I.IIbIl Ral __

1f~1-85 Slew! 'I/St;IC rei PeraInI pam.g _" ___ IiZ~

1112 NCAT 1 100.00% CCXTed .,....00 Grad.tIon Analpla lob. RaI-4 112 16.2 98.69% ff~l-85

318 210 at.TN - WeI.,. "" f'ercer(passlng IJ4 186.8 66.71%

___ MChlleYesite

118 2IIU 43.18% 1112 1116 183.3 211.40'lI0 1 100.00% 1130 127.1 1&.15% 112 21.4 li8.23'iio 1150 107.6 9.48% JIB 110.3 82.45% jUlIo 52.8 5.22% 114 163.5 6UO% Il2OO 211.7 2.83% IRI 305.9 0.55% ~ 1.4 1118 189.1 27.48% -200_ 33.3 1130 124.2 17.59'110

II5CI 99.4 9.35% Total: 1240.5 11100 49.6 5.24'"

Il2OO 27.4 2.93% .coo 1.7 -200_ 33.7 B-1l Tallot 1206.6

PAGOSA TROUT lAKES _1'IOH OOIIIPAIIISON IISNJ nE ICAT OI/DI TMU:A ~nEGRAI».11OHOfnE_TEwmtNOASI'IW.T ADOBI

TMU. IlEPUS8<TSnE_lICNOflHE_lENlEItASPIW.T-SADOBl_ IIIMI'on_nEICATOI/DI TMU TMU

A • 1A Ie ICAT PUIE_lE

~X Lob. m.t --"CAT X -~ .... 127 ... I~t_ t~t_ - 'NeIghI nlir-,. .... - ~MP_,. ..... ---_ .... -----till I lIZ

I 100'- -.- I 100.-lIZ , .U." lIZ 100'-M -n.5O" M _.1 n.., ... .. '14., -... f4 211.1 11'-II IS1:I 3UI'W. II I"" M.H'W. ~. 122.2 nn'W. ... 131.7 zuno - 7704 I ...... ftI 11.1 I ...... - 11.1 II ...... - 11.7 1:LeW "01) 411.1 ,-'"' .. 00 " .1 I.5ft - 21 un; GIG SU 5 ...... - '04 - U -- SI.I -- .. T_ UIU TIIIt lIa

II.. 28 IOCAT

-~ Lob. - --"CAT -,.,... .... m.. ~ .... I~-- WeIghI--..... - WoWC'-" -...... ---_ .. -- ---ItI.I till

I MII.Ift -.- I 100_ 112 Z.I ...... lIZ 100...... - JIIt.1 IUK III au I'UC'to .. au M.7K .. 287.1 IZAft .. 177.1 .I.u... II I • AIK ... cs. ...... ~. ta.J ZUK AI 110.2 ZI.2K ftI 85 IUft - ... w.a... ., II.Z IU31I - f404 """' ..00 IO.t IUft - a.7 un; - JCI.S un; ... z.s ... Z.I -- 85 -- 87.2

T_ nl ... TIIIt 1m.7 .. 28

-~ Lob. - - X -AMw* la. m.. .- I~I-- w.wt--..... - WoWC'-" - ..... ----- -- ---Ita Ita I lOUIS -.- I MII.Ift 112 .. ....,... ta IGO_ M JfU ruK M JIIZ.I fUn; M JIZ ., ..... .. 111.5 IIIM"Io .. 20CA

_ ... II tsU 17 ..... ... III 22.Z7" ... IZI.I 17_

AI IU 15.1 .... .. • fA 11.71 ... - II.Z M..SII1' - JU 11.11 ... .. 00 ".5 U7'W. ~oo IU tAft - 21.1 ..,. .... - at UI'" 4200 • - u .-a- s ... -- 7U

T_ IZlZ.7 T_ 11111

IOCAT ."

-~ .... m.7 --="-T

I~-- Wo9CnIi_ ......

..... _---I UZ I 100_ -.-lIZ 2.1 ft.H'W. a Z54 7U7% N 2ICI.I SUlO ... II ZIU ,..11 ... ... 13504 Z7.n'W. - Mol 20._ - 11.4 I'.IZ'W. .. 00 51.5 I."'" QIO 12 I.JC'" - 1.2 ..zoo __

77.7

TabI: 12"'.1

SA

-~ UtI. IlTI\o8 ~T 111-1- - ~ .... - ...... ..... _---lin

I 100.- -....-In .ao.-M 310.Z n.on; N lOU 50.13 .. !".7 ".2Il" .11 t22.Z 2Onr. QI asA .TAft 8- 12 - ( .) 11.84'" .. 00 41 , ..... - JII.2 5.N'" - 1.1 __ III

II

ToUt: 11n3

Franclscottl 596xMIX

GRADA.lIOH COMPARISON USING TME NCAT O'IEH TAIIlEAREPRESENfS 1lE GRADATlON OF THE AOOREGATEWITH NO ASPIW.T AOOEO

TAIIlE B RfPR£SEHTS TMEGRADA.l1ON Of THE AGGREGf.TE AFTER ASPIW.T WAS ~ N40 IIURHT OFF INSIDE THE NCAT OVEN

TA8LE TABLE A a

1A ,a AGGREGATE. UME~ ~CAT NCAT

f~ 1o.z:l.85 -- w.wc.........,t. PercenI passing .... w.wc-t. Parcenlpuoq -*.r- _dl __ 1Ir1I -*1Iew -*---

'112 1 fll 1 lOO.CIOI' f 1C1C1J1O" 112 11.1 ".118% 112 Ii.f .. eft M 316.4 17.11'" M 336.f 71~ 1M 312.f 42.44'" 114 300.1 4Ii.37'"

• 145.7 3CI.IIn' 18 1&1.6 n.Ift .,. f02.3 22.43'" .,6 104.5 24."'" 6'30 trI.2 15._ A) 113.1 17.zK I'SO 111.1 1.71'" 1150 lO.II Uola IrtOC 4C.II 1.1" .,00 4&.1 7.%n' II2IIQ 28..5 :U"" GOO 32.1 4 ..... 4200 4 -GOO 2.7 -aIO ..... C2.II ~ ..... 51.1

TaIII: 1231.7 Tallt fllU

2A GcM.cJon Ana ..... Lob. .-..z to.aa5 2B

IoOGRBIATE. UIofE ADDED ~T .... ~_t. ParcenI ..... GcMatIotX Lob' ~ -*1Iew -*--.. ~ ,til

sa- ~nMwd~ PercenI ....... 1 1OOJI05 ..:II.r-

-* __ 1In til 7.2 -.41.

,til MI 365.6 -..sa ~ tcICI..OOK 114 2!l9.7 C5.IIl~ IQ '0D.CICIW0 18 131.1 111ft M 3T.l.6 lO.25% III 107.7 2Uft ..c JZ3 4CAZ" 1130 11..1 17..1n'

• 1311 3U6'K 1150 n.a lUOK .,1 84.2 2Uft 1100 4U 7.Jft ao 11.1 11.04% GOO 32 4.lW I'SO 82.8 12.e% -GOO 2.3 .,00 I7A 7"'" ~ ..... Ii5..I GOO IU 4.ICI'K 42IOQ :u TaIII: 1222.1 4110 ..... 116.5

TGIIt 1255.6 Gnddan AnaIpIe Lob. II1II-3 lo.z:l.85 .... w.wcrellllnedt. PercenI .....

-*1Iew ..:II ....... 1112

M ~T 1 1OOJI05 N3GRB3ATE. UMEADDED til 3.4 "73'K

GcMatIotX Lob. .... 7 MI 363.6 7DAn' ~ 114 3OZ.3 .,ft

Sew w.wcftlloNd~ PercenI..-,g 18 154.3 33.7a -*-- -* ..... 11& US 2C.~

, 1IZ A) 15.1 18.~ 1 loo.CIOI' 1150 74 10.82% 112 lOO.CIOI' .fOO C7.7 &.88% 3m 391.1 III~ GOO 32.3 4~ M 325.7 44.2&% -GOO 4.& III flO.l 3Uf% ~- 49.8 .,6 111.7 23.13% 6'30 11.4 16.02'" TaIII: 1242.& I'SO 722 10.40% 1100 47 6.75% GOO 32.1 4.25% .noo 4.1 Gndatlon Ana'r'''. Lab. 59Q-4

~- 50.6 IG-23-85 Sieve WrI4C_t. Pen:enI pusInQ

Tato!: 1286 eac:hsleve eedI_sIze 1I1l

4-A 1 100.00% non~CAT III 100.00%

A3GREGATE. lIMEADDED 318 370.1 70.66% GnddorX Lab' 596X-8 114 313.1 45.83% IG-24-85 III 147.1 34.17%

Slew Welitll.-.edln PercenI passing /116 107 25.69%

"""'sf""" eadlsfeveliZe Ir30 15.6 18.11% 1t12 1150 792 11.83% 1 100.00% .,00 53.5 7.59% 112 3.6 99.72% GOO 35.6 4.76% 3/11 37U 71.11% -41200 3.8 114 307.5 47.45% -200 .... ", 5&.3

• 150 35.91% In5 11&.6 26.94% Tollt 1261.3 6'30 106.1 18.78% I'SO 8&.1 12.00% 1100 57.4 7.58% Il2OO 37.5 4.69% 4200 3.& B-13 ..zoo_ 57.4

T_ 1299.6

IRWlNIWINSORlSTUTE P 647x MIX

GRADATION COMPARISON USING THE NCAT OVEN TABLE A REPRESENTS 1HE GRADATION OF THE AGGREGAlE WIlH NO ASPHALT ADOEO

TABLE B REPRESENTS 1HE GRADATION OF THE AGGREGAlE AFTER ASPHAlT WAS ADOEO AKJ BURNT OfF INSIDE THE r..

TABLE A

NOtWICAT NCAT -5 -1

112 2.9 99.78% 3Ia 258.7 79.98% lJ4 278.8 58.65% III 1&4.9 44.60%

112 100.00% .16 1<40.3 33.76% 318 246.5 80.87% ~ 122.1 24.~ lJ4 263.9 59.97% 150 112.8 15.78% Ira 216.2 a.01% "00 79.1 9.73% .16 1eA 31.60% noo ~.5 15.10% ~ 120.6 22.14% 4200 15.4 150 105.3 13.88% ~-" 73.3 .100 71.3 8.29% Ir200 42.1 4.99% TataI: 13015.8 4200 10.8 ~-" 52.8

TataI: 1274.9

~ ..z 112 .. 99.70% 112 15.4 99.e% 318 2a.2 81.64% 318 1118.7 82.21% 14 287.8 60.27% 14 255.8 60..11% .a 217.1 44.1 .. % .. 202.3 42.64% .16 186.1 31.81% .16 145.8 30.06% ~ 131.7 22.03% ~ 107.2 20.80% .so 109.4 13.80% .so 16.1 13.37% .,00 71.8 8.57% .100 156.7 8.~% noo 41.5 5.49% noo 33.3 5.59% 4200 6.1 4200 4.1 ~w.h 67.8 ~-" 80.7

ToCaI: 13-46.5 Total: 1158.2

-7 ? -3

112 100.00% 112 100.00% JIB 276.7 75.87% 3Ia 273.2 78.89% lJ4 220.5 56.65% 14 263.9 58.50% Ira 166.1 42.17% Ira 202.3 42.87% .16 137.3 30.19% .16 153.6 31.01% IJO 114.9 20.18% 130 119.6 21.76% fI50 90 12.33% 150 100.3 14.02% .100 55.8 7.46% .100 68 8.76% 1200 32 4.67% 1200 41.1 5.59% 41200 7.5 41200 5.6 ·200 wash 46.1 ·200 wash 66.7

Total: 1146.9 Total 1294.3

-8 -4

112 7.6 99.40% 112 100.00% 318 242.5 80.37% 3/8 253.7 79.60% 114 248.6 60.86% 11-4 234.2 60.78% 118 204.3 44.82% tIS 188.4 45.63% In6 146.6 33.32% 1/16 150.5 33.53% 1/30 125 23.51% 130 122.2 23.71% .50 112.1 14.71% 1150 104.1 15.34% .100 75 8.82% 1/100 70.6 9.66% .200 44.3 5.34% 11200 42.5 6.25% 41200 10.2 41200 4.7 ·200 OIash 57.9 ·200 wash 73

8-14 Total: 1274.1 Total: 1243.9

VALCOIROCKY MOUNTAIN 688x Mix

QRAD,4.T1ON oot.FARISON USING THE NCAT OVEN TASlEAREPRESENTS TlE ~TION Of THE AGGREGATE WITH NO ASPHAlT AOOED

TABlE B REPRESENTS TlE ~TION OF THE AOGREGATEAFTER ASPHAlT WAS ADOEDNlO BURNT OFF INSIDE THE NCAT OVEN

-5

III 311 .. II ." 130 ., .,00 GIO 4DI ..... TcDt .. U2 3M ... II ." ao 1150 .,00 GIO 4DI ...... TcDt

·1

1Q 3/8 ... II ." Q)

1150 .,00 ~ .dJO -2OD~

TaIaI:

-8

lQ 3/8 ... #8 .,6 1130 IJ50 .,00 jJ20Q

.jJ2OQ

-2ODwash

Tota::

TABLE A

,00.00% 7JI1.5 75.67% 17U 'UII% 2Il1O. 1 45.32%

"U 35.5ft. nO.7 2U9% 171.' 12.05% IU 5.00% 27.1 2.78%

2.7 31.3

tzZlJI

U IU,% au 71.10%

U'U 8.U% 182 G.3O'IG.

122.. SUO%. , • .2 24.2t% 112.3 1C1.11C% '17.2 4.49% 211 2.5C% 2..

211.5

121'"

J 19.76% 307.5 75..,% 174.9 61.56% 1 •. 3 45.116% 1t4.5 36.79% 115.1 27.611% 190.6 12.58% 821 5.29% 21.5 3.03%

1.9 3&.4

1262.8

100.00% 358.3 72.81% 167.1 60.13% 207.7 44.37% 123.5 35.00% 122.4 25.71% 188.2 11.43% 89.8 4.61%

21 2.56% 3.1

30.7

1311.8

-1

~

-3

4

TABLE 8

NCAT

,Q 3/8 .. .. .,6 Q) ., .,00 ~ ~ -200waII

TataI:

1Q 3/8 .. II .,6 Q)

fSO .,00 ~ ~ .. wall

TataI:

1Q 3/8 ... Ira

'" 1130 IJ50 .,00 ~ ..-:roo -200 wasil

Total:

lQ 3/8 ... Ira #16 #30 #50 .,00 #200 ..-:roo ·200 wasil

Total:

'00.00% 349.5 7U9% 1COU 8100% 204.5 4143% 12U S3.15% 1102 X23% 159.7 1U9% 71.4 U6% 2U 2.75% 3.t

30.11

123(.8

U 19.62% 340.5 72.14% 157.1 tIC).56%

117.7 4S.AI5% 120.6 3t«W. 117.5 27.19% 1115.9 12.62% 83JI 6.26% 30.7 2.115% U

32.5

1275.9

5.J 89.55% 285.5 7S.29% 17S.9 a1J4% 184.9 44.62% 120.11 34.36% 109.8 25.03% 1&0.5 11.39% n .4 4.81% 24.2 2.75% 2.2

30.2

1176.7

100.00% 303.9 76.69% lSS.4 64.71% 216.9 48.14% 147.4 36.83% 130.8 26.80% 191.3 12.13% 91 .6 5.10%

30 2.80% 3.9

32.6

1303.8

8-15

TABLE 8

NCAT

349.5 1«'4 204.5 1216.9 UG.2 159:7 71.4 26.1 3.1

30.11

1234.6

4.11 34Il..5 157.9 117.7 131.6 U7.5 185..11 83JI 30.7 U

32.5

1275.9

5.J 285.5 175..9 184.9 120.8 109.8 1&0.5

77.4 242 2.2

302

1176.7

303.9 1SS.4 216.9 147.4 130.8 191.3 91.6

30 3.9

32.6

1303.8

100.00% 71.69% IICI.OD% 0.43% S3.15% 24.23% U.29% U6% 2.75%

19.62% 72.84Yo 6O.5S% 45.85ro x.«W. 27.11% 12.62% 6.26% 2.IIS%

19.55% 75.2!Wo &O.3C% 44.62% 34.36% 25.03% 11.39% U1% 2.75%

100.00% 76.69% 64.71% 48.14% 36.83% 26.80% 12.13% 5.10% 2.80%

APPENDIX C

• Frequency Figures for Each Sieve Size

o

12.5 MM (1/2) SIEVE FREQ. DISTR. (MEAN DIFF.S)


-0.80% -0.70% -0.60% -0.40% -0.30% 0% 0.00%


C-l

9.5 MM (3/8) SIEVE FREQ. DISTR. (MEAN DIFF.S)

2 ~~~~~~1~~1I~~1I~~1~~~


/

. _._---- ~y I .- ----_ .

o ++~HH44~~~H4~~++~HH~++~~44++~rH~~~ -0.70% -0.50% -0.30% -0.10% 0.10% 0.30% 0.50% 0.70% 0.90% 1.10% 1.30% 1.50% 1.70%


C-2

Ul W o Z w 0::

2~

-

~1 -o o u. o ~

-


//


VV

l£i~~ - ----f-- ----1-- - ----1-- ------I-~

o f---0.05% 0.15% 0.25% 0.35% 0.45% 0.55% 0.65% 0.75% 0.85% 0.95% 1.05% 1.15%


C-3

-

I--

UJ W o Z w 0:::


2 ~~~~~~~~-I'~~-M~6/~6~ME~AN~D~I~F~FE~RE~N~C~E~S~~~~

WERE WITHIN THIS RANGE

~ ._- -~--"--- -- -r- - ._- -- -~-- -- ---~~- -- -c--- -~

G1 +4~+4~~~r+~~4-~~~~~-r~~~~~~~~~ o o LL o =tt

o ~~+4~+4~~~~4-~~~~~+4·~~-~~~~~H -0.80% -0.65% -0.50% -0.35% -0.20% -0.05% 0.10% 0.25% 0.40% 0.55% 0.70% 0.85%


C-4


2 -,----.--,--,-,..-----.--.--.---r-.---r--i---=-6/-:-::-6 -=-ME-==--:-A-::-::N:-=D--=IF==F==E=-RE==N:-::-C==E~S-----r--,..----,----,

tJ) w o z w n:: 51 o o LL o :f:I:

o


~.25% ~.15% ~.05% 0.05% 0.15% 0.35% 0.45%


C-5


2 ~~~~~~~~~~~~6~/~6~ME~AN~D~I=F=FE=RE~N~C=E~S~-r~-.

UJ W 0 Z w It:: ::J1 I--

0 0 0 u.. 0 =t:I:

1---, I

o ~ -0.05%


II v J;p

t-- t--- -- --I- -- -- -- -- ---r--I --f- -- -- --1--- --I--

I--

0.05% 0.15% 0.25% 0.35% O.45~ 0.55% 0.65% 0.75% 0.85% 0.95%


C-6

tn W o z w ~

G 1 +--+ o o u.. o =It

o --J!..----+-



-- -- -- -- -I

0.40% 0.50% 0.60% 0.70% 0.80%


C-7

til UJ o z UJ 0:=


2~~~~~~~--~~~6~/6~ME~AN~~D~IF=F=ERE~N~C~E~S--~~


--~-- -- -- -- -- -I 5 1 -1--+

o o u.. o ~

o -&---+--0.00% .30% 0.40% 0.50% .70%


C-8

APPENDIX D

METHOD lWO

* Data Used to Create Figure 6



* Detennination of Correction Factors Using Analysis Method Two

#8 #16 #30 #SO

#100 #200

SIEVE SIZE 112 318 #4 #8 #16 #30 fiO #100 #200

~~ .. :.·~tQtJ:·. EXPERIMENTAL

SIEVE SIZE

SIEVE SIZE 112 318 tI4

• #18 #30 MiO

#100 #200

FINE FINE FINE FINE FINE FINE

DESCRIPTION

COARSE COARSE


AGGREGATE DESCRIPTION

COARSE COARSE


99.66% 70.52%

. 4% 33.61% 24.79% 17.36% 11.32% 7.30% 4.60%

EACH SIEVE SIZE

99.81% 80.17% 59.51% 43.91% 32.09% 22.67% 14.63% 9.16% 5.88%

29.14% 2 . 9 12.23% 8.82% 7.43% 6.04% 4.02% 2.69%

19.64% 20.66% 15.60% 11.82% 9.42% 8.05% 5.47% 3.28%

DATA USED TO GENERATE FIGURE 6

OFlHE PERCENT DIFF.S BElWEEN EXP.

AND CONTROl. SPECIMENS ALL POSSIBLE COMBINATIONS PRECISON

(151.% 0.30 1.51

3 2.12 2.11 1.20 1.19 0.73 0.45

(1SI.%

0.35 2.63 1.97 1.70 2.01 1.94 1.35 0.78 0.45

PRECISION (151.%

1.38 .64

0.60 0A3 0A3 OA3 0.43 0.14


ONLY l00PAIREO

TEST RESULTS

PRECISION (151.%

0.95 0.64 0.60 0.60 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43

PERCENT PASSINCl'ERC NT PASSING NE SIEV SINGLE OPERATOR PRECISION EACH SIEVE SIZE AND RETAINED ON THE A B

98.17% 81.19% 66.56% 41.61% 26.68% 16.92% 8.99% 5.01% 274%

NEXT FINER SIEVE HTO

16.99% 14.63% 24.95% 14.93% 9.n% 7.93% 3.97% 228%

D-l

STANDARD DElMTION T 27 OF lHE AFTER 1 SPLIT

PERCENT DIFF.S AGGREGATE BETWEENEXP. ONLY

AND CONTROL SPECIMENS 100 PAIRED ALL POSSIBLE TEST RESULTS

COMBINATIONS PRECISON (D1SI.%

0.57 1.77 1.8 2.3

2.12 1.72 1.01 0.54 0.29

PRECISION (151.%

COMBIHATiONS PRECISION (D25I.%

0.95 0.6

0.64 0.6

0.43 0.43 0.43 0.14

DIFF. BETWEEN

COLUMN A - COLUMN B

RECISION (1SI.%

.. . a.U:.

·.w.m~,. ..... DIFF.

BETWEEN A-COLUMNB

PRECISION (151.%

If {~

·fA.l 1~~ ... <0 UG" "f~

DIFF. BETWEEN

COLUMN A - COLUMN B

PRECISION 11SI.%

... . .. • WWk EXPERIMENTAL

SI SIZE

SIEVE SIZE 112 a/8 1M II .. 8 130 1150 .. 00 IZOO

~ ·ExPERIMENTAL

S

SIEVE SIZE 112 a/8 1M II .. 6 f30 1150 .. 00 IZOO

SIEVE SIZE 112 a/8 1M 1M .. 8 130 1150 .. 00 1200

AGGREG E DESCRIPTION

COARSE COARSE


COARSE COARSE

FINE ANE FINE FINE FINE FINE FINE

COARSE COARSE

FINE FINE FINE FINE FINE ANE ANE

99.29% 81.99% 64.10% 41 .67% 29.43% 21.19% 13.53% 7.85% 4.34%

99.79% 74.16% 61.42% 45.51% 35.18% 25.81% 11.86% 5.01% 2.77%

100.00% 75.54% 51.29% 36.74% 26.02% 18.76% 13.00% 8.80% 6.13%

17.30% 17.89% 22.43% 12.24% 8.24% 7.65% 5.89% 3.50%

Cl'ER N ASSINGO AND RETAINED ON THE

NEXT FINER SIEVE

26.64% 12.73% 15.91% 10.33% 9.37% 13.95% 6.85% 2.24%

24.46% 24.M 14.56% 10.72% 7.26% 5.76% 4.20% 2.67%

DATA USED TO GENERATE FIGURE •

SINGLE OPERATOR PRECISION DIFF. A B BETWEEN

r-~~R~3~~rr~S~r-~~AT~Or-~OLUMNA.COLUMNB T27

AFTER 1 SPLIT AGGREGATE

BETWEENEXP. ONLY

(1S~%

COMBINATIONS PRECISON (015),%

0.59 1.91 1.73 2.33 2.97 2.72 1.78 1.2

2.13

100 PAIRED TEST RESULTS

PRECISION (1S~%

0.95 0.60 0.64 0.60 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43

SINGLE OPERATOR PRECISION A B

AFTER3S AAS 0 STANDARD DEVIATION T27

OFlHE AFTER 1 SPLIT PERCENT DIFF.S AGGREGATE BElWEEN EXP. ONLY

D CONTROL SPECIMENS 100 PAIRED ALL POSSIBLE TEST RESULTS COMBINATIONS

RECISON PRECISION (1S),% (1S),%

COMBINATIONS PIIECISON (D1S),%

0.30 2.35 1.38 2.29 0.60 2.06 0.60 2.04 0.60 1.81 0.43 0.88 0.60 0.38 0.43 0.21 0.14

V~: DIFF.

BETWEEN COLUMN A • COLUMN B

PRECISION (1S~%

"' 1M 1\4 t). .4a '¢U$

.. hl

H·MBOMH - ................. .

DIFF. BETWEEN

~~~nr.~~ .... r-~rr.~Or-'COLUMNA.COLUMNB T27

AFTER 1 SPLIT AGGREGATE

ONLY

F'::..::~==~=t ~: ::~~TS

D-2

PRECISON (D1S),%

0.35 2.63 1.97 1.7

2.01 1.94 1.35 0.78 0.45

PRECISION (1S),%

1.38 0.64 0.60 0.60 0.43 0.43 0.48 0.14

PRECISION (1S~%

MEAN STD.DEV.

MEAN STD.DEV.

MEAN STD.DEV.

112 31S #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200

~.17% O.SS% 1.17% 0.54~0 0.30% 1.51% 1.93% 2.12~0

~.5S·/. 1.44% O.SW. 0.14% 0.570/. 1.77% 1.800/. 2.30%

~.03% ~.30% 0.80% O.SO~.

0.30% 2.35% 2.29% 2.06%

0.07% 0.040/. 0.16% 0.20% 0.22% 2.1Wo 1.200/. 1.19% 0.73% 0.45%

0.15% 2.120/0

0.22% 0.16% 0.12% 1.01% 0.54% 0.29%

0.05% ~.21% 0.13% 0.16% 0.06% 2.04% 1.81% 0.88% 0.3So/. 0.21%

D-3

FRANCISCOTTI

511X-2 511X .. ,.,OFF

51eX-3 SlIX.7 ,.,DIFF

Slex-4 5ISX .. %DIFF

RALSTON

S1EVE SIZE NCAT-1 ""MlCAT-4 ,.,OFF

NCAT-2 _CAT .. iDiFF

NCAT-3 n_CAT-7 ,.,DIFF

NCAT-4 na6iS1CAT ... i IFF

EXPERIMENTAL· CONTROL ~ m H ft ffl m _ ~ _

r'.49% 71 .<15% 48.37% 32.88% 2<1.18% 17.23% 11 .32% 7.27% • . 53% EXP.

~:ro~ ~::~~ 4~~1 3~:~~ ~~~ 1~::: HI m: ~J:: CONTROL

~'.41% 88.52% .5.01,., 33.85% 2<1.84% 17.34% 11.30% 7.35% 1(0. 00% 70.25% ".5Z'lI. 33.85% 28~ 11.04% 12AS% 7._

4.73% EXP. 4.80% CONTROL

OD.5li'i :O.73i OASi -0.21% ·' .52'lL -1.71% -1 .15i -0.53% OD.07%

88.78% 81.80% 66.82% 41.02% 20.01% 18.21% D8.18% 78.01% 80.04% 42.78% 27.84% 17.75% .. O'.M 2.'8'5 0.58% -1.741 .. 1.831 -1M"

DB.23% 82.45% 88.90% 43.55% 27.68% 17.58% 88.118% 81 .77% 88.71% 43.18% 28.40% 18.18% :O.4~ 0.fl8i 2.20% 0.36" :a.52" -a.sRl

0.23%

7.58% 7.5B% 0.01%

4.3B% EXP. 4.25% COmOl 0.12%

4.78% EXP.

~:~~ cow;ROl

;1150 "'00 !Zoo 10.02% 8.22%

5.82% 3.01 % EXP. 4.54% 2.43% COmOl

1.81% 1.07% 0.58%

8.048% •. 85% 9.30% 5.04%

-O.82i -0.39%

8.08% • . 55% 8.06% 4.80% o.o,i .0.05%

5.2<1% 5.22% 0.01i

2.44% EXP. 2.5D% CONTROL

OD.15'i

2.58% EXP. 2 83% CONTROL

..a.oK


VALCOIROCKY MOUNTAIN/CAS PIT:

~ m H ft ffl m _ ~ _ NCAT" 100.00% 71 .E~% 80.00% 43.43% 33.15% 24.23% 11.29% 4.88% 2.75% EXP. NON NCAT-4 100.00% 75.87" 6U8% 1532% 35.54% 28.41% 12.05~ 5.00% 2.78% CONTROL I'IIIFF 0.00% -3.9B% .u8i .1.88% -2.38% -2.25% -0.75 -0.14% -0.03%

NCAT-2 NDNNfAT-I

NCAT-3 NDNNCAT-7

gU2% 72.84% 80.58% <I5.B5% 38.40% 27.19" D' .51% 73.80" 58.11~ 43.30% 33.20% 2<1.21% 0.11" -0.87" lAS 2.55% 3.20% 2.98%

12.02% 10.84~ 1.77

5.28% 4.41% 0.77%

81.55% 75.29% 80.34% 44.82% 34.35% 25.03% 11.38% 4.81 % 88.78% 7Ug 8158% <I5.B9% 38.78% 27.88% 12.5B~ 528% ·;.21% -0.' -1.22% -1.23% -2.43% -2.85% -1.20 -O.4B%

Irwtn Windsor/Slut. Pit:

2.85% EXP. 2.54% CONTROL 0.31%


'II tiFF -0.22% ::0. -1.3* 1AB% .16i 2.211 l.sQi 1M'" 1.iii

NCAT-2 MAS% B2.21% 80.11% 42.84% 30.08% 2O.BO% 13.37% 1.47% NDNNCAT-I !!i7l!!! BU,% 80.27% 44.14, 31 .Bl% 22.03% 13.90% e.~ % DFF :;;2ii 0.56% -0.16% .1.50% • . 75% -1.23% -0.54% .0.iDi

5.58% EXP SA8% CONTROl .11%

NCAT-3 I~.OO% 7B.88% 58.50% 42.B7% 31 .01% 21.78% 14.02% e.78% 5.58% EXP NDNNCAT-7 l~t .. ooOO! 75.87% 58.85% 42.1n!! 3018% 20.1B% 12.33% 7m 4.87% CONTROL % DIFF " ~3.02% 1.85% o.7ii O.Bl% 1.5&'11 1.88'11 1 .~ 0.81%

IlCAT-4 11).).00% 71.80% 00.76% <15.83'1' 33.53% 23.71% 15.34% 8.88% 8.25% EXP ~ND~N~N~c:.-.:!Ur"::!!..-I!p;!'iA~9%~_B!!l0~.3~7%~.....!!!eO!<!.8~8%~~44~.!!B2f:l%~.:!33~.~32f:l%~-,,23~.!~I~%~...!1;4.~n~%~...,80!,! .. 884~2~~f-...,50~.'~~0!:ll~~CONTROL 'II DIfF ~.89% -0.77% -O.oa% 0.81% 0.21'11 020% O.~% ~ • ~

D-4

FRANClscom

51ex-1 SISX" %DIFF

SlIX-2 Slex-1 'l\DlfF

SlBX-3 58ex .. 'l\DlfF

SIIX-4 58IX-4 \\DIFF

SIEVE SIZE NCAT" non-NCAT..a I'IlIFF

NCAT-2 noMiCAT-7 "DIFF

NCAT-3 ~T-I

NCAT-4 nooWlCAT-4 %biFF

8Ul% M.52% 45.01% 33.85% 2<1.84'11 17.34% ".30% 100.00% 88.58% ".28% 31 .Bl% 23.13'11 15.02% lOAO%

0.00% .1iS% .1 .32% -2.18% -2.47% -2.00% .1.1B%

100.00% 70.88% <15.83% 34.17% 2S.88% 11.11% 11 .83% 88.5&% Bi.81% 42."'11 30.8B,., 22A3% 15.40% 879% 0.4'% .04% 3.40% 3.48% 3.25% 2.71% iOri

112 3/1 M II "'I 1130 ~O 87.80% 78.72% 65.03% .1.77'11 27.83i 1B.37'11 F.02'11 8B.98'11 71.61% 68.04'11 42.78% 27.84% 17.75,., 830%

98.78% 81 .80% 6B.62% 41.02% 26.01% 1829% 89.0B% 79.68% 88.05'11 39.70% 2<1.77% 15.39% .U2% 2."i 0.57% 128% 124% Old'lL

1B."'11 80.76% 85.8811 40.10% 24.11% 15;12% 8B.88% BI .77% e8.71% 43.1B% 28AO% lB.15% :0.58' -O.99'1& -1.02% 0.3.08% -3.49% .2.731

-0.851 4.5~ 4.72" 3.58% i741 1.91%

8.4B% 8.0B% Uoi

8.08% 9.4B'II

-1.39%

B.35% B22% 1.13%

7.59% B.I8% U2'i

",aD 5.62'11 5.04'11 0.57%

4.85% 4.80% 0.05'1

4.55% 5.22%

.o./lji

5.2<1% 4.54% 0.6li'i

• . 73% EXP. 425% CONTROL UBi

4.38% EXP. j:~1 CONTROL

4.78% EXP. 3.7B'II CONTROL

mo 3.01% EXP. 2.58, CONTROL 0;13%

2M% EXP. 2.83% CONTROL

-0.111%

2.58% EXP. 2.83~ CONTROL

-0.2

2.B3% EXP. 2.43% COHllIOL d.gOi

SIEVE SIZE 112 3/1 H II "'B 130 iII50 "'00 !Zoo NCATOO1 100.00% 71 .88% 80.00% 43.43% 33.15% 2<1.23% 11 .28% 4.88% 2.75'11 EXP. ~CAT-I 88.51'% 73.89% 58.11% 43.30% 33.20% 2<1.21'11 10.84% 4.49, 2.54'11 CONTROL

NCAT-2 non-NCAT-7

9/1.62% 72.84% SD.58% 45.85% 3BAO% 27.18% 12.82% 5.2B% 2.B5% EXP. 3.03'11 CONTROL

'IIDIFF 98.78% 7Ul% 81 58% 45.8R 36.79% 27.8B% 12.5B, 5.2D'II

-O.lB'II

NCAT-3 88.55% 75.28% 80.34'11 ".82% 34.36'11 25.03% 11 .31% 4.11% 2.75% EXP. ~n~o~~~CA~T~"~...!1~00~.oo~%f-~n~8~1~'~~8O~1~3~%~~"~.~37~'II~~35~~~0~%~-,,25~.7f.1~%~...!I~IA;3~%~-;4.~81~'II~-420·.~8818~~~CONTROL I'IIIFF -0.45% 2.4B% 0.21% 0.29% -0.84'11 .o.e9% .0.04% 0.20'11 ~

NCAT-4 100.00% 7B.89% 84.77% 48.14% 38.83% 2B.BO% 12.13% 5.19% 2.80% EXP. non-NfAT; 100.00% 75.87% eua% 45'iR 3554% 28;18% 12.05'11 5.~ 2.76% CONTROL "DlFF d.oo" 1.02" 3.09i1 2.8P 1.29% 0.31% 0.08% D.lF 0.02%

NCAT-1 n_CAT" %DIFf O.OB% .UB% -1.12% 0.35 1.95% 2.38% usi 1.18% 0.61%

NCAT-2 111.<15'11 8221'11 80.11% 42.84% 30.08% 2O.BO% 13.37% n.~CAT-1 100.00% 75.87% 58m 42.17% 30.18% 2O.1B% 1233% I'DIFF -0.55% e.33'11 3A 0.48'11 -0.1.% 0.62% 1.04%

8.47% 5.58% EXP 7 AI!'! 4.87% O!?HTROl 1.01% 0.82%

NCAT-3 100.09% 78.8B'II 58.50% 42.87'% 31.01% 21.78% 14.02% B.78'11 5.5B% EXP

~~~.DFF~~~CA~r~-I~-I!~~~~0%~~~~I!a~7~:~~~~0.~;~~%~~~~I:~:~:~~~~i~:~~%~-"~~I:~~~:~...!~;4.~~f.':~--O~B~:~~~:~~~~~~~~CONTROl

NCAT-4 100.00% 78.80% 80.76% 45.83% 33.53% 23.71% 15.34% ~On-NCAT06 100.00% 80.87, 598f% 43.01'11 31.60% 22.14% 13.B8%

DIFF 0.00% .1.08% 0.1t% 2.82% 1.93% 1.58% 1.46%

6.25% EXP 4M% CONTROL 1.28%

snx.1 SHI-7 \I iliff.

SHX-2 SIIX-I 110M.

5111--1 5111-5 IIODFF.

snx~

5"1" % blFF.

RALSTON SEVEIIZE NCAT-1 -..:AH %DFF

NCAT-2 non-NCAT .. ibFF NCAToI !!D!!=I!CAH

m m ~ • m _ _ _ _ I"lAB" 71.45" 48,37'IL 32.88'" 24,18'" 17.23" 11 .32% 7.27% 4.53" EXP.

100.00" 'ill" 44.211'l1 31 .Bl'" 23.13'" 18.D2" Ig~~1 8.75% U~ CONTROL • 031110 . 110 2.11'" 1.07% 1.64% 1.21% 0.52% .

Ei ,41% 119.52'IL 45,01% 33,115% 24,84'" 17.34'" 11.30% 1\1.72% 71.11% 47.45'" 35,111'" 28,84'" 18.711'l1 12.00% -\1.31% -UO% ·2AS% -2.2ri -2.10% -1.44'" OlI.l)41O

100.00% 70.88% 45._ 34.17'IL 2Uow. le.l1% 11.83'11 100.00'11 70 Rl 44.52'IL 33._ 28.38% 18.04'" ~:n~

&.00"" D. 1.314 0.31" -0.it4 .0.83%

7.35% 7.58%

-lI.23%

8._ 8.1A D.81%

lIZ m ~ .. ",. no _ ", .. 87.5Oi 79.72% 85.03'" 41.77'" 27.93'" lU7'" 10.68 5.12% F'.08% 7S p'll 00 05'IL 38,7A 24.77'IL 15.311'l1 ffi 4 -

Si.7A IUD'll 00.12'IL 41.02% 28.01'" 18.29'" 6I..1,g'll 81 .77% 88.71'" 43.111'l1 29AD'II 18.15'11

•• 08% 0.03% -lI.09% -2,111'l1 -2.:18% -UBi

6!.11% 8O.711'l1 85._ 40,10% 24.81% 15A2% G<08% 77;" 84.1B'IL 38.S7'IL 25.~ IS§; -t'.bi 2~i 1.5Oi 0.12% -0. -0

~!.23" 12.45" 88.90% 43.55'" 27.BB% 17.59'" '!._ 78.a" 88.04% ~ 711'l1 27.84'" 17.75'" -".73'" 2. 'II 2.87%.76% 0,04'" -O,IB'"

BAS% GAI%

-1.00%

8.0S'IL

JiR 8.35" 8.30" 0.05"

4.85% 5.22%

::a.57" 4.55% 4.54'" 0.00%

5.24'11 5.04'" 0.1e"

4.73'" EXP. 4.(low. CONTROL O.tIri

4.3A EXP. HR cafTROL

4.711'l1 EXP. j:~ CONTROL

11200 3.01% EXP.

HR CONTROL

2.44'" EXP. 2.B3'" CONTROL

::O.SII

2.58%EXP. 2.m CONTROL 0.1 'II

2.83" EXP. t.511" CONTROL .35%

VALCO/ROCKY MOUNTAINICAS PIT:

"D 0.24'" -3,72'IL -1.57" 743" -3. -3.45% -1 .2S'IL -lIA3% -lI.29"

NCAT-2 ' •. B2'IL n,84'" BO.511'l1 45.85" 3UO% 27.111" 12.12% 5.2A 2.85" EXP, ~n~.~~~ca~T~"~~1~00~OnO%~_n~,B~I~"'~~80~.1~3~%r-~44r.~'7="r-~35r'T.00%~~25T7.n~'IIr-~1flA3~%r-~4.~Bl~"'r-~2.5~B~%~CONTROL % OFF -0._ 0,13'11 OA3% 1,411'l1 1.40% lAS% 1.1B'IL 0.B5% 0.28%

NCAT~

~T" 100.00'11 7U,% 84.77% 48.14% 38.83% 2B.80% 12.13% 51.51% 73._ 58.11% ~ 1£% 33,20% 24.21% 10.84% 6.4K 2.th 5.88% . i i8Si 2.58i t.M

Irwin W1ndeorlstute Pit:

4.81% 5.00%

-lI.I8%

5.10% 4.4B'IL 0.81%

2.75% EXP, J$R CONTROL

2.10% EXP.

~~ CONTROl

NCAT-2 '~.45'11 82.21'11 80.11% 42.84% 3O.0B% 20,BO% 13.37'IL SA7'11 5.50% EXP i~Fi!ii;i'",T"''':''''-'irlri·_*,--,80'7'i·3;,;7'IL~_B07!.88mi%:-,>;~!'.!n2%~--=;33i'i.3;;2;;%r-..,23~, 59;lii"'r--,14r·7i;1ii"'r--:8~':r.82!i%r--f5.3:\~'IIz.CONTROL 'i1iiFF G.D4% 1.83% -lI.75% :2.1A -3.28% -2.71% -1 .34% -lI.35'11 0:8%

NCAToI l Cl;.oo% 7B._ 58.50% 42.87l1 31.01'" 21 ,7A 14.02'IL ~T-5 lC-J.OO% 80.87% 59:!a ~ 01% 31.80'11 22.14% 1~:fR

;;.00% -1.77'" -1.13" -lI.80% -lI,38'"

hi#

I S .DO% 78.80% BO.7II'lI 45.83% 33.53% 23.71% 15.34'11 ;;.7Il% Bl.84% 80.27% 44.14% 31.81% 22.03% 13._ 630i -16411 0,51% 1_ l.m l.M fA%

5.50% EXP tIl CONTROL

8,25% EXP 5_ CONTROL Uri

0-5

m m ~ • m ~ m _ _ 581X-t 59IX ..

88.48% 71.45% 41.37'11 32.88'11 24,18'11 17,23" 11.32'11 7.27'IL 4.53% EXP.

%DFF.

5HX-2 snx-5 llliFF.

88.72'IL ~ 11'11 47.451 3~.01'11 28 94% 18.78'11 12.00'11 7 SA j 11% CONTROL OlI.S , % -1.00 - .03'11 -2,78% -1 .55% -0.67", -lI.31'11 • %

511X-3 581X" 'II DIFF.

snx~

5"1-7 'II DIFF.

'IIDFF.

NCAT-2 nan-NCAT-5 %DFP.

NCAT..J

~T"

NCAT~ _CAT-7 %DFF.

88Al'" 88.52% 45.01% 33.115% 24,84% 17.34% 11.30% 88.68'5 87.Bl% 42.44'" 30.88% 22,43% 15AD% 1I.7II'lI -lI.lri Uri> is" 2.88% 2Al% 1.94% 1m

88.73% 70,47'IL 41.14'11 33.n'll 24,48% 16.77% 10.82'11 100.00% ll! 25'11 44.52'11 ~._ 28,39% 10.04" 12AS% ..o.2~ 11.22" u'2i :0.,41 -1.I~i -2.27" -1.13%

100.00% 70,88% 45.83% 34.17% 25,(;J% 18.11% 11.83'11 100.00% II!! 58% 44.22) 31.11'11 23,13" lB.02'IL 10AO'lL

0.00% ,.O,,~ 1.51li ~.364L 2.51" 2.09% 1.42'1.

1II.7A 11.80% 88.62'11 41 .02% 28.01'" lB.21I% 88.01l'll 77.113% 114.19'" 39.87% 25.14% 15.68% ::0.3215 SolN 2043% , .05% 0.88" 0.&1"

BAli'll 8,22% 6,2ri

-lI.85'11 1.1 N: -lI.35% -2.87% -2.B3 -2.l2'IL - ,

-lI.8A i.iii 2.85 3,711'11 3."% 2.19%

UK B,OIl'll 1.27'IL

7.35% B.ll1'l1 1.1B'IL

8.911'l1 7.BB%

-lI.90'll

7.!i8'II 8.75'" 0.84%

",00 5.82% 5.22% 0.38%

4.85" 4.54% 0.11"

4.55% 5.04'11

-lI.48%

5.24'11 4.80'11 0.84%

4,73% EXP. 3.711'l1 COKTROL 0.95'11

4.38% EXP. j 80'11 CONTROL

.421

4.78% EXP. 4.25'11 CONTROL oJh,

'f00 .01% EXP.

UR CONTROL

2.44% EXP, 2A3% CONTROL 0.01%

2.58% EXP. 2 __ CONTROL

-0.03'11

2,93% EXP.

~:i: CONTROL

~_m m ~ • m _ ~ __ NCAT-t 100.00% 71 ,_ 80.00% 43,43% 33.15% 24.23'11 11 .28% 4.88% 2.75" EXP. non-NCAT.. 100.00% ~ V! 80.13" 44,37'IL 35.00% 25,71% l1A3% 4.11" 2,m CONTROL "DFF. 0.00% -:T.m -0.14" :0.84'11 -US'll -1.48% -0.14'11 0.25% a,friO

NCAT-2 S9.62'11 72.84% 60.58'11 45.B5'11 38.40% 27,1"' 12.82'11

~~~T-5 1~:~: ~~~ ~::~~l 4~,~ 3~:~ ,:~: 1~:~~: NCAT-3 _CAT .. "DIFF.

NCAT~

='7'N

88.55" 75.2S'IL 80.34'11 44.82% 34.3B'IL 25,03'1\ 11._ 88.51" Z; II 59.11'11 43.30% 33.20% 24.21% 1s:m 0.04%. 1.23" 1.33% 1.1H 0.62%

5.28% 5.00% O.ze'll

4.11'11 4_ 0.32%

5.10% 5.29%

:a.1ft

2.85'11 EXP. ~ 1,'11 CONTROL

,0 %

2.75% EXP. 2.54% CONTROL 0.21i

2.BO% EXP. 3.03% CONTROL

Ob.2N

m m ~ .. m m m _ _ 88.7B% 78.l1A 58.85% 44.50% 33.7A 24.42% 15.79% 9.73% 8.10% EXP 98,40% III 37'11 80._ 44.82% 33.32% 23.51'11 14.71'6 B.B2'IL 5.34'11 CONTROL O.'7'IL ~.30'll -2.21'11 -0.33'11 0.44% 0.91'11 1.08% 0.91% 0.75'11

NCAT-2 S8AS% B2.21'11 60.11'11 42.114'11 30.08% 20.80'11 13.37% n.~CATi 100.00% BO~% 59.87'" 43,01% 31.80% 22.14'11 ~:II %DFf. -lI.55% 1 'II 0.15% -lI.3B'II -1 .55% -1.34%

NCAT~ 100.00'11 711,BO% 80.78'" 45.83% 3'.53% 23.71% 15.34% nan-flCAT-7 100.00% 75.87% 58.85% 42.17% 30.19% 20.1A 12.33% Ud!f. o.Obi 3.13% 4.13% Uri 3,:£1% 3.53'11 3.01%

8.47'IL 8.29'IL 0.111'l1

8.7A 8.57% 0.19'11

8.86'11 7.4A i20%

5.B9'11 EXP 4.88'11 CONTROL O.Bl'11

U8% EXP ~11 CONTROL

8.25% EXP 4.B7'11 CONTROL U7%

MONK PIT;

SlEVEIIZE lIZ :1/1 1M fII f1' - 150 f1aa l!2aa SIEVE SIZE 112 311 1M fII !II 1130 lr.~i f1ao ,,~% EXP NCAT01 &iA7% 82.21% 62.56% 38.03% 25.14% 17.44% 11.Hi 6.521 3.17% EXP NCAT-t AUbi 82.21'11. 52.51ii 38.03% 25.14" 17.~" 8.52% NON NCAT06 &c.5O% 12,~% 82.74% 41A0% 28.80% 20.64'11. ~.~ 7.88% 3.72'11> CONTROL non-NW" 89.24'11. 78.83'11. 63.42'11> ~3,15% 31.80% 23.12% 14~ 8.27% ~ 13% CONTROL % OFF .0.03% 2. 2% -0.18% -3.37% -3.78% -3.10% -1.14% .0.55% % IlIFF 0.24% 3.38% .o.81ii ~.11% -ulii -5.89% -3. -1.74% - A8%

NCAT-2 S!.53% IIU1'11. 85.02'11> 42._ 3O.1!O'II. 22.64% 14.711% U7% 7.81% EXP NCAT-2 88.53% 83.61'11. 85.02'11> 42.88% 30.80% 22.54% 14.78% 8.57'11. 7.81% EXP NONNCAT06 5<.24'11. 7U~: 83.42'11> 43.15% 31 .60'11. 23.12'11> 14.~ 8.27'11. 3.83% CONTROL nor>N:AT:l 118.5Q'11. 82.73'11. 88.32'11> ~2Al% 28.37% 18.88% 12'm 7.28'11. 3~% CONTROL % OFF -0.71'11. 1.59% -U7% -0.80% .0.59% .0.0 1.30% 4.27% %DlfF .0.08% 0.88% -1 .31'11. 0.27% 2.43% 2.B7% 2. 2.29'11. 4 6% .';>

NCAT-3 5i,16'11. 81.88'11. 84.78'11. 43.70% 31.90% 23.41% 14.84% 7.91% 3.14'11. EXP NCAT'" 89.16'11. 81.611% 84.711% 43.70% 31.90% 23.41% 14.84% 7.91'11. 3.14% EXP !!ONNCAT.7 98.59'11. gz.I;l'll. 66.3~ 42.41% 28.37% 18._ 12~ 728'11. 3,55'11. CONTROL non-NCAI" 89.50% 78.511% 63.64'16 42.Bl% 30ABli 21·Bl% 1~:HI 7.811% 3,23% CONTROL "OFF D.57'11. ·1 .05'11. -1.5 % 1.28% 3.53'11. 3.74% 2. % 0.83% -0.41'11. %DlFF .0.33% 2.10% 1.24'16 0.B9'16 1A2'II> .59% 0.211% .0.08'11.

HCAT-4 100.00% BU7% 84.06'11. 42.26% 211._ 21.37'11. 13.~'16 7._ 3.15'11. EXP NCAT-4 100.00% 80.47% &1.06'11. 42.28% 28._ 21 .37% 13.44'11. 7._ 3.15% EXP _NCAT .. 99.50% Ie ~8'% 83.54% 42.81% 30..111% 21.81'16

137R I 611% 3.23'% CONTROL non-N~ t1.50'16 B008'16 82.74'16 4~~ ~B,8gl 20.54% 13.15'16 7.811% 3.72'11. CONTROL

% OFF ; .50% O. ri 0.52% .0.54'11. .0.50% -0.45'16 .0.2 .0.28'11. .0.08% %DlFF 0.50'16 0.37'16 1.32% .B7'16 0.88 0.83% 0.28'Iro .0.211% -0.58%

PAGOSA TROUT L.JJ<ES 15 POSSIBLE COMBINATIONS PAGOSA TROUT LAKES 15POSSBLECOMB~TIONS

112 W 1M .. f11 1130 150 f10a ma 112 311 1M .. f1' 113' 151 f1aa -NCAT-4 1~:;.00% 71.34'% 52.40'11. 35.85'16 25.35% lB.28% 12.53'% 8.311% 5.B3'% EXP NCAT..c 100.00% 78.34% 52.40% 35.85'11. 25.35% 18.28% 12.53% 8.36% 5.83% EXP NonNCAI-1 5 •. 74% 7350% 48.45'16 33.21'16 ~:~t 16.08% p.08% 7.57% Uil CONTROL Non NCAT-3 88.46% 72.27'16 47.85'11. 32.01'11. 22.27% 15.76'16 10'01 6.97'16 4.74'16 CONTROL t blFF b.2h l.W 8.SH BOt 2.191 lAW o.1K +lb.' b.SON 4.01'11 4.as4 3.U" !i.&' 2.55% I. 1.§§'kI i.oK

NCAT~ 100.00% 74,93% 5U6% 37.58'% 27.07% 19.71% 13.81% 8.~'16 8.81% EXP NCAT~ 100.00% 74.83'11. 50.4B% 31.58% 21.07% 19.71% 13.Bl% 8.~% 8.81'16 EXP NonNCAT-i 88.- 7!._ 54.75% ~1·27'II. 28.60'11. 21.25'16 14.52'11> 9.84'11. ~m CONTROL NonNCAT-l 88.74'11. ZHit 48.45'11. 33.28'11. 22.75% 18.08'11. 11.08'11. 7.57'11. 5.33'11. CONTRO~

" DIFf aiR -136% ..c.29% -3.tn. -2.53" .1 .5& .o.71i .o.2ili -. " %DFF 0.21ii l .Ol'11. 4.33% 4.32i 3.62'J6 2.72'11 1.87% 1.27"

NCAT .. 100.00% 75.65'11. 51.00% 31.76% 25.83% 18.28'16 12.85'11. 8.59'J6 5.84% EXP NCAT-6 1oo.liil'II. 75.85% 51.00'11. 38.76'16 25.63" 18.28'11. 12.15% 8.50'11. 5.94'16 EXP

NonN~~ ~~, 72.27'16 47.95'11. ~2.01'11. ~271 15.76% 10.59'11. 1.87% t.~% CONTROL NonNCAT·2 gg.B~ I6;'II. 54.75'11. 41 .27% 28.60'16 21.25'11. It·52l 8.84'11. 8.13'11. CONTROL 'II.bl 3.38'11. 3.05'11. 4.75" 3.36 2.54'11. 2.0S" 1.82" . 0" 'OFF 0.2 -1 " -3.75'11. .... 51'16 -3.97" -2.96'11. - .87 ~1.o5i ::O.il8'11.

D-6

MONK PIT:

a '!III 112 rBi" ON II 2~fl% I\I3D H.f1i ... 00 ruD SIEVE BIlE 112 8~li ON II .... I\I3D IISD ",DD l12aa ~..., ' •. aN 62.56", 38.03% 17.44% B.52% 3.17% EXP NCAT01 89.47% 82.581 38.03% 25.1 .... 17."% 11.11 ... 8.52% 3.17% EXP

~y.z G!.59% 8a~r' 86.32% 4~t% 28.~~ !~ 12.50% 7.28% 3'R CONTROl IIII/WICAT .. 89.50% 7~.11 83.54% 42.Bl% 30.48% 21.81% 13.73% 7.66% 3.23" CONTROL 0._ .0.2" -3.78% -4. " -3.23 ·1~ .0.78% .0. % DIFF .0.02% .0._ -4.78% -5.34% -4.3B" -2.82% -1.13% .0.08"

NCAT,z Ge.53% 83.111" 85.02% 42.88% 3O.11K 22.54% 14.78% 8.57% 7.81% EXP NCAT,z Ge.53% 83.81" 85.02% 42._ 30_

22.54" 1 •. 78% 9.57" 7.111" EXP n·~I" Q.'.50'110 7!.m 83.54" ~~ ,1" ~~ 21.81% 13.73" 7._ HJI CONTROl

.....-:AT -6 88.50'lI0 80 !!!!! 82.741 41.40'lI0 28._ 20.54" lNtl

7.88" UR CONTROL 'II.DIFF -".97'110 .04% 1.48% -D. 3% 0.72% 1.03" 1.91" " DlFF .0.97" 3.52% 2.28 1.28" 1.90'lI0 2.00" 1.91"

NCAT-3 8U.I8% 81 .88" 64.78% 43.70% 31.80% 23.41% 14.84" 7.91" 3.1.% EXP NCAT-3 99.18% 81.88" 84.78% 43.70'lI0 31.80% 23,41% 14.84" 7.91% 3.14% ExP .....-:AI:i '9.50'lI0 BO 08'11 82.74" 41 .40'lI0 28.~ ~.54'11. 1~:J~ 7._ 3.72% CONTROL _AT .. 88.24! q13" 831R 43.15" 31 ._ 23.12%

ltil B.27% 1m CONTROL

"DFF -lI.34" 1.5l1'li 2.04" 2.30% 3. .87% 0.25% .0.- %DtFF .0.07% .65% 1. 0.55% 0.30% 0.28% .0.35%

NCAT-4 100.00'lI0 BO,47'110 84.08% 42.28% 29._ 21.37% 13,..% 7._ 3.15% EXP NCAT-4 100.00'lI0 BO.47% 84.116'1' 42.28% 29.88% 21.37% 13,..% 7._ 3.15% EXP nol>ll!;!I:I GD.24% 79.13% 83.42% 43.15%

31'1 ~~2! 14H! B.27'11o 3.83% CONTROL .-.NCAT ... 8B.59! !~.nI 86.32% .2.41% 28.37% 18.88% 1~:R 7.26% 3.55% CONTROL %DFF 0.7B% 1.84% 0.64% .o.B8% -1 . :.8% -1. 'II. .o.B8% -0.48% 'II. DIFF 1.41% -2.27'110 .0.15% 1.50'lI0 1.70% 0.10% .0.40%

PAGOSA TROUT LAKES 15 POISIIi.E COMIftATIONS PAGOSA TROUT LAl<ES 15 PO_LE CDMBlNATIONS

112 3/1 ON II .... I\I3G IISO "'00 Iloa 112 3/1 ON II .... 1\130 iii' "'00 11200 NCAT-4 lCO.OO" 76.34% 52.40% 35.85% 25.35% lB.26% 12.53% 8.38% 5.83% EXP NCAT-4 100.00% 79.34% 52.40% 35.85% 25.35% lB.28" 12.53% B.38% 5.83" EXP

Non~I-Z a8.BO" 7UII'IIo 54.75% ~H; !.il Y:~; lU2% 8.84% Ja CONTROL NonF-Z DO.7a% 78.37'110 56.00'lI0 3Ul% ~Hil 20.00% 13.82% B.91% :Utl CONTROL "61 biDi :O.BfiI -255% -i.BK -1.21i \lOb di1'i :s." :S.8M -Dd% -1.1il .1.69'1 ::0,55'.4

NCAT-5 lCO.OO'IIo 74.83% SO.48% 37.59% 27.07% la.71% 13.81% 9"'% 8.81'" EXP NCAT-5 100.00'1' 74.83% SO._ 37.59% 27.07'110 18.71'" 13.81'" 9"'% 8.81% EXP

Noa~~ S9._ 72.27% 47.851 ~01% 22f% 15.78% 10.59% 8.97'110 t~ CONTROL Noa~T-8 100.00'lI0 79.03% SO.I2% ~.2glf! 24.3~ 17~ 11.114'" 7._ 5M CONTROl "'DI 5.5111 Bri 2.52 .5il 4. ,,. 3.85'" 3.221 2.47% 'II DI 0.601 :tI.40'i> 0.35% . 39" 2.7 2. 1.S" 1.45% O •

NCAT-8 lCO.OO'" 75.65'" 51.OD'II 35.75% 25.83% lB.29'" 12.85'" B.58% 5.114" EXP Noa~-l GD.74'" 73.50'lI0 4B.45'11 ~U~ ~'il

lS.on. 11.on. 7.57% ~ 331 CONTROL 112 3/1 ON .. .... iI3I ilISD "'00 1100 ",bIf m", £iii", 4.54% 2.20'1' 1.fi 1.02% .81 NCAT-4 100.00'lI0 78.34'" 52.40'lI0 35.85" 25.35% lB.2ft, 12.53'1' 8.38% 5.83'1' EXP

Non~:! 100.00'1' 75.03% &0.12% ~iR ~R 17.4II'IL 11.114'" 7'- ni: CCMlIOl 'II DI 0.00'1' 1.31% 2.28 ... 0.7li'ii0 0.5li'ii0 0.37'110

NCAT-5 100.00'" 74.83" 50.45% 37.59% 27.07% 19.71'" 13.Bl'" 9.44% 8.81" EXP NonNCAT-7 98.78% 79.37" 56.0D% 38.151% 27.73% 20.00'lI0 13.82'" 8.91% 5.34" CONTROL

" DiFF 0.21'" -4.75'" -5.54 ... -1.02% :a.Sri :a.28'I' 0.2D'1' 0.53% 6.27'"

NCAT-e 100.00'1' 75.85'" 51.00'1' 3e.78% 25.83% 18.29% 12.85'" 1.5li'ii0 5.114'" EXP

Noa~~I-Z 99.78'" 79.37% ~:~I 3B 9% 27.73% 20.00'lI0 13.821 8,!!1% 6.34% CONTROL U 0.21% -3.73'" -1. 'II. -2.10'lI0 -1.71% .0.95 .0.33'" -0,40"

NCAT-e 100.011% 7U5% 51.00% 38.78% 25.53% lB.29% 12.85% B.58% 5.114" EXP NonNCAT-8 100.00'lI0 75.03" 50.12% 34.20'1' 24.37'" 17.41% 11.~ 7.DO'1' 5.84% CONTROL %DlFF o.OiriI o.iS d.H iSH I1ri 0.80% O. D.,,", 0.3O'i>

0-7

DATA USED TO GENERATE FIG. 1

FRANClSCOm CONTROL ONLY

112 318 /14 (j8 116 1130 !¥SO 1100 #ZOO 1.38% 1):.l)W;,

" DIFF. -0.41% ·2.83% ·2.08% ·3.18% ·3.93% ' 3.84% ·2.66% · 1.71% ·1 .02"- 0.84% {.,t'I"4', 0.60% , ~~,

0.43% 1~: 0.43% ~~,

" DtFF. -0.41% ·1 .97% -1 .82% -1 .13% -0.69% .().62% .().62% '().59'16 .().47'16 0.43% H~:: 0.43% ii=~:

0.1." .li:,~.i!* % DlFF. -0.13% -3.SO% -5.02% -5.23% -4.51% ~.38'16 -2.21% -1.42"- -0.91%

" DIFF. -0.00% 0.66% 0.26% 2.05% 3.24% 3.02% 2.04% 1.13% 0.55%

% DlFF. D.26'K -0.87% -2.93% -2.05% -0.58% 0.27% 0.45% 0.30% 0.11%

" DlFF. 028% -1 .53% -3.19% ·4.10% ~.81% -2.76% -1 .59% .().83% -0.44%

MEAN -0.07% -1 .84% -2.46% -2.27% -1 .71% -1.18% -0.77% '().52% ·0.36% Slll.DEV. 0.31% 1.45% 1.75% 2.57% 2.96% 2.59% 1.78% 1.07% 0.60% RALSTON

RALSTON A B DIFF. RALSTON AASHTOT27 A-B

112 :!II .. (j8 116 '"" !¥SO 1100 1n00 STD.DEV. (I!!) STD. DEV. (IS) 021% 1.20% 0.95% ~i

" ilifF. 0.12'11 ·1 .68% ·1 .85% -2.79% -2.71% -2.07% -1 .08% -0.50% -0.16% 0.96% 0.60% iIl3~, 2.51% 0.64% l~: 2.59% 0.60% i~ 1.98% 0.43% ~~,

" DIFF. -0.00% -1 .75% -1 .86% 0.21% 0.36% 0.28% 0.13% .().05'16 ·0.21% 1.01% 0.43% I.I~: 0.43% 0.43% :.0-:116%: 0.12% 0.14% A~~:

" DIFF. 0.39% -3.83% -2.52'16 -3.20'16 ~.26'16 -2.48'16 ·1 .26% .().68'16 -0.40%

" DIFF. -0.12% -0.08% .().01'16 3.00'16 3.07% 2.35% 1.22% 0.45% .().05%

% DlFF. 0.27% -2.16% .().67'16 -0.42% -0.56% -0.41% -0.18% -0.18% .().24'16

,. ilifF. 0.39% -2.08% .().S6% ~.41% ~.83% -2.76% -1.40% -0.83% -0.19%

MEAN 0.17% -1 .93% -1.26% ·1 .10% -1.12"- -0.85% .().43'16 -027% -021%

Slll.DEV. 021% 1.20% 0.96% 2.51% 2.59% 1.98% 1.01% 0.43% 0.12% VALCOIROCKY MOUNTAIN/CAS'

A B DIFF.

VALCOJROCKY MOUNTAIN/CAS PIT VALCO/ROCKY MOUNTAIN/CAS PIT STD. DEV. !1~ AASHTOT27

0:36% STD. DEV. 11!!) 1.63% 1.38% .O'~,

112 318 /14 (j8 116 !\GO !¥SO 1100 1200 1.86% 0.60% ~~: " DlFF. 0.4S'I!o 1.77% 2.570;4 2.02% 2.34% 2.26% 1.20% 0.51% 0.24% 1.74% 0.60% ' 1,,~:

2,28% 0.60% ~~~, 2,24% 0.43% ~~,

1.17% 0.60% ~~, "DIFF. 0.24% 0.26% 0.12% -0.54% -1.25% -1 .19% -0.54% -0.29% ·0.25% 0.56% 0.43% ·It·~~:

0.35% 0.14% M~~:

%DIFF. -0.00% 2,86% 1.55% 0.95% 0.54% 0,78% 0.62% 0.38'16 0,22%

%DIFF. -O.25~' -1.51% ·2.45'16 -2,56% -3.59% ~.47'16 ·1.74% .().80% -0.49%

% IIIF~. -O.49~i 1.09% -1 .02% ·1 .07% -1 .80% -1 ,50% -0.58% -0,13% .().02%

'I6DlFF. -O.24S 2.60% 1.43% 1.49% 1.79% 1,97% 1.16% O.SS% 0.47%

MEAN -0.04% 1.18% 0,37% 0.05% -0.33% -0,19% 0.02% 0.06% 0.03% STD.DEV. 0.36% 1.83% 1.86% 1.74% 2.28% 2.24% 1.17% 0._ 0,35%

0-8

IRWINI WINDSOR I SnrrE IRWINI WINDSOR I STUTE

112 3/8 #4 tIS #16 130 #50 #100 #200 A B DIFF. IRWINI WINDSOR I STUTE STD. DEY. ('Sl AASHTOT27

%DIFF. 0.:;0% -0.98% -0.30% -1.14% -0.21% 0.12% -0.02% -0.28% -0.50% 0.35% STD. DEY. !'Sl 3.79% 0.95% 1~: 2.93% 0.64% is: 1.72% 0.60% iii%::

%DIFF. O.rlD% 4.79% 3.32% 0.64% 1.41% 1.97% 1.55% 0.83% 0.32% 1.87% 0.60% j ii--·f 2.08% 0.43% t~: 1.53% 0.43% itQ%. 0.91% 0.43% O:~:

%DIFF. 0.60% 0.29% -0.89% -1.82% -1.72% -1.36% -0.82% -0.53% -0.36% 0.57% 0.43% ~J~W

%DIFP. -0.::0% 5.n% ·3.62% 1.98% 1.61% 1.85% 1.57% 1.11% 0.81%

%DIFF. O.~O% 1.27% -0.59% -0.68% -1 .51% -1.48% -0.81% -0.25% 0.14%

%DIFF. O.EO% -4.50% -4.21% -2.66% -3.12% -3.33% -2.38% -1.36% -0.67%

MEAN 0.25% 1.11% 0.16% -0.58% -0.59% -0.37% -0.15% -0.08% -0.04% MONK PIT STD. DEV. O.~% 3.79% 2.93% 1.72% 1.87% 2.08% 1.53% 0.91% 0.57%

A B DIFF.

MONK PIT MONK PIT STD. DEY. !lSI AASHTOT27

0.65% STD. DEY. (lSI 112 318 #4 tIS #16 130 #50 #100 #200 2.59% 0.95% .... 1".'

226% 0.60% 1A; 0.98% 0.64% 0:.'

%DIFF. 0.27% 1.26% -0.68% -1.75% -2.70% -2.58% -1.62% -0.60% 0.09% 2.27% 0.60% f~' 234% 0.43% 1ru~' 1.49% 0.43% t~, 0.60% 0.43% fr1~·:

%DIFF. O.SI% -2.64% -3.58% -1 .01% 0.52% 0.88% 0.65% 0.38% 0.17% 0.17% 0.43% ~~;

%DIFF. O.Gl% 0.52% -0.80% -1.41% -1.58% -1.27% -0.58% 0.01% 0.49%

%DIFF. 0.65% -3.90% -290% 0.74% 3.22% 3.46% 2.27% 0.99"" 0.08%

%DIFF. -0.26% -0.75% -0.12% 0.34% 1.12% 1.31% 1.04% 0.61% 0.40%

%DIFF. -0.91% 3.15% 278% -0.40% -210% -215% -1 .23% -0.38% 0.32%

MEAN 0.11% -0.39% -0.88% -0.58% -0.25% -0.06% 0.09% 0.17% 0.26% STD. DEV. 0.65% 2.59% 2.26% 0.98% 227% 2.34% 1.49% 0.60% 0.17%

D-9

FRANCISCOTTI CONTROL ONLY

1/2 3/8 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200

%DIFF.

%DIFF.

%DIFF.

%DIFF.

%DIFF.

%DIFF.

MEAN STD. DEV.

%DIFF.

%DIFF.

%DIFF.

%DIFF.

% DlFF.

%DIFF.

MEAN STD.DEV.

-0.41% -2.63% -2.08% -3.18% -3.93% -3.64% -2.66% -1.71% -1.02%

-0.41 % -1.97% -1.82% -1.13% -0.69% -0.62% -0.62% -0.59% -0.47%

-0.13% -3.50% -5.02% -5.23% -4.51% -3.38% -2.21% -1.42% -0.91%

-0.00% 0.66% 0.26% 2.05% 3.24% 3.02% 2.04% 1.13% 0.55%

0.28% -0.87% -2.93% -2.05% -0.58% 0.27% 0.45% 0.30% 0.11%

0.28% -1.53% -3.19% -4.10% -3.81% -2.76% -1.59% -0.83% -0.44%

-0.07% -1.64% -2.46% -2.27% -1.71% -1.18% -0.77% -0.52% -0.36% 0.31% 1.45% 1.75% 2.57% 2.96% 2.59% 1.78% 1.07% 0.60%

RALSTON

1/2

0.12%

-0.00%

0.39%

-0.12%

0.27%

0.39%

0.17% 0.21%

3/8

-1.68%

-1 .75%

-3.83%

-0.08%

-2.16%

-2.08%

-1.93% 1.20%

#4

-1.85%

-1.86%

-2.52%

-0.01%

-0.67%

-0.66%

-1 .26% 0.96%

#8

-2.79%

0.21%

-3.20%

3.00%

-0.42%

-3.41%

-1.10% 2.51%

#16

-2.71%

0.36%

-3.26%

3.07%

-0.56%

-3.63%

-1.12% 2.59%

#30

-2.07%

0.28%

-2.48%

2.35%

-0.41%

-2.76%

-0.85% 1.98%

D-10

#50

-1.08%

0.13%

-1.26%

1.22%

-0.18%

-1.40%

-0.43% 1.01%

#100

-0.50%

-0.05%

-0.68%

0.45%

-0.18%

-0.63%

-0.27% 0.43%

#200

-0.16%

-0.21%

-0.40%

-0.05%

-0.24%

-0.19%

-0.21% 0.12%

%DIFF.

%DIFF.

%DIFF.

%DIFF.

%DIFF.

%DIFF.

MEAN STD. DEY.

%DIFF.

%DIFF.

%DIFF.

%DIFF.

%DIFF.

%DIFF.

MEAN STD. DEY.

VALCO/ROCKY MOUNTAIN/CAS PIT

1/2 3/8 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 0.49% 1.77% 2.57% 2.02% 2.34% 2.28% 1.20% 0.51% 0.24%

0.24% 0.26% 0.12% -0.54% -1 .25% -1.19% -0.54% -0.29% -0.25%

-0.00% 2.86% 1.55% 0.95% 0.54% 0.78% 0.62% 0.38% 0.22%

-0.25% -1.51% -2.45% -2.56% -3.59% -3.47% -1.74% -0.80% -0.49%

-0.49% 1.09% -1.02% -1.07% -1.80% -1 .50% -0.58% -0.13% -0.02%

-0.24% 2.60% 1.43% 1.49% 1.79% 1.97% 1.16% 0.68% 0.47%

-0.04% 1.18% 0.37% 0.05% -0.33% -0.19% 0.02% 0.06% 0.03% 0.36% 1.63% 1.86% 1.74% 2.28% 2.24% 1.17% 0.56% 0.35%

IRWIN! WINDSOR / STUTE

1/2 3/8 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200

0.30% -0.98% -0.30% -1 .14% -0.21% 0.12% -0.02% -0.28% -0.50%

0.00% 4.79% 3.32% 0.84% 1.41% 1.97% 1.55% 0.83% 0.32%

0.60% 0.29% -0.89% -1 .82% -1.72% -1.36% -0.82% -0.53% -0.36%

-0.30% 5.77% 3.62% 1.98% 1.61% 1.85% 1.57% 1.11% 0.81%

0.30% 1.27% -0.59% -0.68% -1.51% -1.48% -0.81% -0.25% 0.14%

0.60% -4.50% -4.21% -2.66% -3.12% -3.33% -2.38% -1.36% -0.67%

0.25% 1.11% 0.16% -0.58% -0.59% -0.37% -0.15% -0.08% -0.04% 0.35% 3.79% 2.93% 1.72% 1.87% 2.08% 1.53% 0.91% 0.57%

0- 11

MONK PIT

112 318 #4 #18 #16 #30 #60 #100 #200

%DIFF. 0.27% 1.26% -0.68% -1.75% -2.70% -2.58% -1.62% -0.60% 0.09%

%DIFF. 0.91% -2.64% -3.58% -1.01% 0.52% 0.88% 0.65% 0.38% 0.17%

%DIFF. 0.01% 0.52% -0.80% -1.41% -1.58% -1.27% -0.58% 0.01% 0.49%

%DIFF. 0.65% -3.90% -2.90% 0.74% 3.22% 3.46% 2.27% 0.99% 0.08%

%DIFF. -026% -0.75% -0.12% 0.34% 1.12% 1.31% 1.04% 0.61% 0.40%

%DIFF. -0.91% 3.15% 2.78% -0.40% -2.10% -2.15% -1.23% -0.38% 0.32%

MEAN 0.11% -0.39% -0.88% -0.58% -0.25% -0.06% 0.09% 0.17% 0.26% STD.DE"V. 0.65% 2.59% 2.260/. 0.98% 227% 2.34% 1.49% 0.60% 0.17%

PAGOSA TROUT LAKES

112 318 #4 #18 #16 #30 #150 #100 #200

%DIFF. -0.06% -3.49% -8.30% -8.01% -6.85% -5.16% -3.43% -2.07% -1 .30%

%DIFF. -0.33% -7.11% -8.05% -6.60% -5.47% -4.24% -3.02% -1.94% -1.60%

%DIFF. -0.26% -1.53% -3.66% -0.94% -1.62% -1.40% -0.85% -0.42% -0.31%

%DIFF. -0.05% -5.88% -9.55% -5.35% -4.98% -3.91% -2.53% -1.34% -1.01%

%DIFF. 0.01% -2.39% -1.25% 2.66% 1.87% 1.25% 0.90% 0.73% 029%

%DIFF. -0.20% 1.96% 4.63% 7.07% 5 .23% 3.76% 2.58% 1.65% 0.99%

%DIFF. -0.54% -2.76% -2.17% -2.19% -2.10% -1.74% -1.34% -1.02% -0.90%

%DIFF. -0.21% 4.34% 5.88% 4.41% 3.36% 2.51% 1.68% 0.92% 0.70%

%DIFF. 0.34% 4.72% 6.81% 9.26% 7.33% 5.49% 3.92% 2.67% 1.89%

% DlFF. 0.28% 1.23% -1.49% 1.25% 0.48% 0.33% 0.50% 0.60% 0.59%

MEAN -0.10% -1.09% -1.71% 0.16% -0.27% -0.31% -0.16% -0.02% -0.07% STD.DEV. 0.27% 4.05% 5.96% 5.83% 4.76% 3.59% 2.48% 1.59% 1.14%

0-12

COMBINATIONS: Where n = sample set,

6 COMBINATIONS PER AGGREGATE SOURCE

FRANCISCOTTI

CONTROL SPECIMENS 1/2 3/8 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200

596X-5 99.59% 67.61% 42.44% 30.68% 22.43% 15.40% 9.78% 6.16% 3.78% 596X-6 100.00% 70.25% 44.52% 33.86% 26.36% 19.04% 12.45% 7.88% 4.80% %DIFF. -0.41% -2.63% -2.08% -3.18% -3.93% -3.64% -2.66% -1.71% -1.02%

596X-5 99.59% 67.61% 42.44% 30.68% 22.43% 15.40% 9.78% 6.16% 3.78% 596X-7 100.00% 69.59% 44.26% 31.81% 23.13% 16.02% 10.40% 6.75% 4.25% %DIFF. -0.41% -1.97% -1.82% -1.13% -0.69% -0.62% -0.62% -0.59% -0.47%

596X-5 99.59% 67.61% 42.44% 30.68% 22.43% 15.40% 9.78% 6.16% 3.78% 596X-B 99.72% 71.11% 47.45% 35.91% 26.94% 18.78% 12.00% 7.58% 4.69% %DIFF. -0.13% -3.50% -5.02% -5.23% -4.51% -3.38% -2.21% -1.42% -0.91%

596X-6 100.00% 70.25% 44.52% 33.86% 26.36% 19.04% 12.45% 7.88% 4.80% 596X-7 100.00% 69.59% 44.26% 31.81% 23.13% 16.02% 10.40% 6.75% 4.25% %DIFF. -0.00% 0.66% 0.26% 2.05% 3.24% 3.02% 2.04% 1.13% 0.55%

596X-6 100.00% 70.25% 44.52% 33.86% 26.36% 19.04% 12.45% 7.88% 4.80% 596X-B 99.72% 71.11% 47.45% 35.91% 26.94% 18.78% 12.00% 7.58% 4.69% %DIFF. 0.28% -0.87% -2.93% -2.05% -0.58% 0.27% 0.45% 0.30% 0.11%

596X-7 100.00% 69.59% 44.26% 31.81% 23.13% 16.02% 10.40% 6.75% 4.25% 596X-B 99.72% 71.11% 47.45% 35.91% 26.94% 18.78% 12.00% 7.58% 4.69% % DIFF. 0.28% -1.53% -3.19% -4.10% -3.81% -2.76% -1.59% -0.83% -0.44%

RALSTON CONTROL

SIEVE SIZE 1/2 3/8 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 non-NCAT-5 99.08% 77.93% 64.19% 39.97% 25.14% 15.68% 8.22% 4.54% 2.43% non-NCAT-6 98.96% 79.61% 66.04% 42.76% 27.84% 17.75% 9.30% 5.04% 2.59% %DIFF. 0.12% -1.68% -1.85% -2.79% -2.71% -2.07% -1.08% -0.50% -0.16%

non-NCAT-5 99.08% 77.93% 64.19% 39.97% 25.14% 15.68% 8.22% 4.54% 2.43% non-NCAT-7 99.08% 79.69% 66.05% 39.76% 24.77% 15.39% 8.08% 4.60% 2.63% %DIFF. -0.00% -1.75% -1.86% 0.21% 0.36% 0.28% 0.13% -0.05% -0.21%

non-NCAT-5 99.08% 77.93% 64.19% 39.97% 25.14% 15.68% 8.22% 4.54% 2.43% non-NCAT-8 98.69% 81.77% 66.71% 43.18% 28.40% 18.15% 9.48% 5.22% 2.83%

0-13

%DIFF. 0.39% ~::~~rl ; , ,-2.f~~/lDr3.20% -3.26% -2.48% -1.26% -0.68% -0.40% \i. , ~'~' , ,',.', .. ~ ."

non-NCAT-6 98.96% iWl.61%'" 66.04% '42.76% 27.84% 17.75% 9.30% 5.04% 2.59% non-NCAT-7 99.08% 79.69% 66.05% 39.76% 24.77% 15.39% 8.08% 4.60% 2.63% %DIFF. -0.12% -0.08% -0.01% 3.00% 3.07% 2.35% 1.22% 0.45% -0.05%

non-NCAT-6 98.96% 79.61% 66.04% 42.76% 27.84% 17.75% 9.30% 5.04% 2.59% non-NCAT-8 98.69% 81.77% 66.71% 43.18% 28.40% 18.15% 9.48% 5.22% 2.83% %DIFF. 0.27% -2.16% -0.67% -0.42% -0.56% -0.41% -0.18% -0.18% -0.24%

non-NCAT-7 99.08% 79.69% 66.05% 39.76% 24.77% 15.39% 8.08% 4.60% 2.63% non-NCAT-8 98.69% 81.77% 66.71% 43.18% 28.40% 18.15% 9.48% 5.22% 2.83% %DIFF. 0.39% -2.08% -0.66% -3.41% -3.63% -2.76% -1.40% -0.63% -0.19%

VALCO/ROCKY MOUNTAIN/CAS PIT:

CONTROL 1/2 3/8 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200

NON NCAT-! 100.00% 75.67% 61.68% 45.32% 35.54% 26.49% 12.05% 5.00% 2.78% NON NCAT-E 99.51% 73.90% 59.11% 43.30% 33.20% 24.21% 10.84% 4.49% 2.54% %DIFF. 0.49% 1.77% 2.57% 2.02% 2.34% 2.28% 1.20% 0.51% 0.24%

NON NCAT-! 100.00% 75.67% 61.68% 45.32% 35.54% 26.49% 12.05% 5.00% 2.78% NON NCAT-7 99.76% 75.41% 61.56% 45.86% 36.79% 27.68% 12.58% 5.29% 3.03% %DIFF. 0.24% 0.26% 0.12% -0.54% -1.25% -1.19% -0.54% -0.29% -0.25%

NON NCAT -! 100.00% 75.67% 61.68% 45.32% 35.54% 26.49% 12.05% 5.00% 2.78% NON NCAT-! 100.00% 72.81% 60.13% 44.37% 35.00% 25.71% 11.43% 4.61% 2.56% %DIFF. -0.00% 2.86% 1.55% 0.95% 0.54% 0.78% 0.62% 0.38% 0.22%

NON NCAT-E 99.51% 73.90% 59.11% 43.30% 33.20% 24.21% 10.84% 4.49% 2.54% NON NCAT-7 99.76% 75.41% 61.56% 45.86% 36.79% 27.68% 12.58% 5.29% 3.03% %DIFF. -0.25% -1.51% -2.45% -2.56% -3.59% -3.47% -1.74% -0.80% -0.49%

NON NCAT-E 99.51% 73.90% 59.11% 43.30% 33.20% 24.21% 10.84% 4.49% 2.54% NON NCAT-2 100.00% 72.81% 60.13% 44.37% 35.00% 25.71% 11.43% 4.61% 2.56% %DIFF. -0.49% 1.09% -1.02% -1.07% -1.80% -1.50% -0.58% -0.13% -0.02%

NON NCAT-7 99.76% 75.41% 61.56% 45.86% 36.79% 27.68% 12.58% 5.29% 3.03% NON NCAT-2 100.00% 72.81% 60.13% 44.37% 35.00% 25.71% 11.43% 4.61% 2.56% %DIFF. -0.24% 2.60% 1.43% 1.49% 1.79% 1.97% 1.16% 0.68% 0.47%

Irwin Windsor/Stute Pit:

CONTROL

D-14

1/2 3/8 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 NON NCAT-! 100.00% 80.67% 59.97% 43.01% 31.60% 22.14% 13.88% 8.29% 4.99% NON NCAT-E 99.70% 81.64% 60.27% 44.14% 31.81% 22.03% 13.90% 8.57% 5.49% %DIFF. 0.30% -0.98% -0.30% -1.14% -0.21% 0.12% -0.02% -0.28% -0.50%

NON NCAT-! 100.00% 80.67% 59.97% 43.01% 31.60% 22.14% 13.88% 8.29% 4.99% NON NCAT-7 100.00% 75.87% 56.65% 42.17% 30.19% 20.18% 12.33% 7.46% 4.67% %DIFF. 0.00% 4.79% 3.32% 0.84% 1.41% 1.97% 1.55% 0.83% 0.32%

NON NCAT-! 100.00% 80.67% 59.97% 43.01% 31.60% 22.14% 13.88% 8.29% 4.99% NON NCAT-E 99.40% 80.37% 60.86% 44.82% 33.32% 23.51% 14.71% 8.82% 5.34% %DIFF. 0.60% 0.29% -0.89% -1.82% -1.72% -1.36% -0.82% -0.53% -0.36%

NON NCAT-E 99.70% 81.64% 60.27% 44.14% 31.81% 22.03% 13.90% 8.57% 5.49% NON NCAT·7 100.00% 75.87% 56.65% 42.17% 30.19% 20.18% 12.33% 7.46% 4.67% %DIFF. -0.30% 5.77% 3.62% 1.98% 1.61% 1.85% 1.57% 1.11% 0.81%

NON NCAT·E 99.70% 81.64% 60.27% 44.14% 31.81% 22.03% 13.90% 8.57% 5.49% NON NCAT·! 99.40% 80.37% 60.86% 44.82% 33.32% 23.51% 14.71% 8.82% 5.34% %DIFF. 0.30% 1.27% -0.59% -0.68% -1.51% -1.48% -0.81% -0.25% 0.14%

NON NCAT·7 100.00% 75.87% 56.65% 42.17% 30.19% 20.18% 12.33% 7.46% 4.67% NON NCAT-t 99.40% 80.37% 60.86% 44.82% 33.32% 23.51% 14.71% 8.82% 5.34% %DIFF. 0.60% -4.50% -4.21% -2.66% -3.12% -3.33% -2.38% -1.36% -0.67%

MONK PIT: CONTROL

SIEVE SIZE 1/2 3/8 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 NON NCAT..! 99.50% 80.09% 62.74% 41.40% 28.90% 20.54% 13.15% 7.66% 3.72% NON NCAT·E 99.24% 78.83% 63.42% 43.15% 31.60% 23.12% 14.77% 8.27% 3.63% %DIFF. 0.27% 1.26% -0.68% -1.75% -2.70% -2.58% -1.62% -0.60% 0.09%

NON NCAT..! 99.50% 80.09% 62.74% 41.40% 28.90% 20.54% 13.15% 7.66% 3.72% NON NCAT-7 98.59% 82.73% 66.32% 42.41% 28.37% 19.66% 12.50% 7.28% 3.55% %DIFF. 0.91% -2.64% -3.58% -1.01% 0.52% 0.88% 0.65% 0.38% 0.17%

NON NCAT..! 99.50% 80.09% 62.74% 41.40% 28.90% 20.54% 13.15% 7.66% 3.72% NON NCAT-E 99.50% 79.58% 63.54% 42.81% 30.48% 21.81% 13.73% 7.66% 3.23% %DIFF. 0.01% 0.52% -0.80% -1.41% -1.58% -1.27% -0.58% 0.01% 0.49%

NON NCAT-E 99.24% 78.83% 63.42% 43.15% 31.60% 23.12% 14.77% 8.27% 3.63% NON NCAT-7 98.59% 82.73% 66.32% 42.41% 28.37% 19.66% 12.50% 7.28% 3.55% %DIFF. 0.65% -3.90% -2.90% 0.74% 3.22% 3.46% 2.27% 0.99% 0.08%

NON NCAT-E 99.24% 78.83% 63.42% 43.15% 31.60% 23.12% 14.77% 8.27% 3.63% NON NCAT-E 99.50% 79.58% 63.54% 42.81% 30.48% 21.81% 13.73% 7.66% 3.23% % DIFF. -0.26% -0.75% -0.12% 0.34% 1.12% 1.31% 1.04% 0.61% 0.40%

NON NCAT-7 98.59% 82.73% 66.32% 42.41% 28.37% 19.66% 12.50% 7.28% 3.55%

0-15

NON NeAT -f 99.50% 79.58% 63.54% 42.81% 30.48% 21.81% 13.73% 7.66% 3.23% %DIFF. -0.91% 3.15% 2.78% -0.40% -2.10% -2.15% -1.23% -0.38% 0.32%

PAGOSA TROUT LAKES CONTROL

1/2 3/8 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 Non NCAT-1 99.74% 73.50% 46.45% 33.26% 22.75% 16.09% 11.09% 7.57% 5.33% Non NCAT-2 99.80% 76.99% 54.75% 41.27% 29.60% 21.25% 14.52% 9.64% 6.63% %DIFF. -0.06% -3.49% -8.30% -8.01% -6.85% -5.16% -3.43% -2.07% -1.30%

Non NCAT-3 99.46% 72.27% 47.95% 32.01% 22.27% 15.76% 10.59% 6.97% 4.74% Non NCAT-7 99.79% 79.37% 56.00% 38.61% 27.73% 20.00% 13.62% 8.91% 6.34% % DIFF. -0.33% -7.11% -8.05% -6.60% -5.47% -4.24% -3.02% -1.94% -1.60%

Non NCAT-1 99.74% 73.50% 46.45% 33.26% 22.75% 16.09% 11.09% 7.57% 5.33% Non NCAT-8 100.00% 75.03% 50.12% 34.20% 24.37% 17.49% 11.94% 7.99% 5.64% %DIFF. -0.26% -1.53% -3.66% -0.94% -1.62% -1.40% -0.85% -0.42% -0.31%


Non NCAT-2 99.80% 76.99% 54.75% 41.27% 29.60% 21.25% 14.52% 9.64% 6.63% Non NCAT-7 99.79% 79.37% 56.00% 38.61% 27.73% 20.00% 13.62% 8.91% 6.34% %DIFF. 0.01% -2.39% -1.25% 2.66% 1.87% 1.25% 0.90% 0.73% 0.29%

Non NCAT-2 99.80% 76.99% 54.75% 41.27% 29.60% 21.25% 14.52% 9.64% 6.63% Non NCAT-8 100.00% 75.03% 50.12% 34.20% 24.37% 17.49% 11.94% 7.99% 5.64% %DIFF. -0.20% 1.96% 4.63% 7.07% 5.23% 3.76% 2.58% 1.65% 0.99%


Non NCAT-7 99.79% 79.37% 56.00% 38.61% 27.73% 20.00% 13.62% 8.91% 6.34% Non NCAT-8 100.00% 75.03% 50.12% 34.20% 24.37% 17.49% 11.94% 7.99% 5.64% %DIFF. -0.21% 4.34% 5.88% 4.41% 3.36% 2.51% 1.68% 0.92% 0.70%

Non NCAT-2 99.80% 76.99% 54.75% 41.27% 29.60% 21.25% 14.52% 9.64% 6.63% Non NCAT-3 99.46% 72.27% 47.95% 32.01% 22.27% 15.76% 10.59% 6.97% 4.74% %DIFF. 0.34% 4.72% 6.81% 9.26% 7.33% 5.49% 3.92% 2.67% 1.89%

Non NCAT-1 99.74% 73.50% 46.45% 33.26% 22.75% 16.09% 11.09% 7.57% 5.33% Non NCAT-3 99.46% 72.27% 47.95% 32.01% 22.27% 15.76% 10.59% 6.97% 4.74% % DIFF. 0.28% 1.23% -1.49% 1.25% 0.48% 0.33% 0.50% 0.60% 0.59%

D-16

FIGURE 8

DATA USED FOR GRAPH OF

DlFF. BETWEEN FIG\D 7 .

. . .· ..•...• ,.:,.·' .. · .. : ... JIQQTTJ

SIEVE SIZE 1/2 3/8 #4 #8

#16 #30 #50 #100 #200

SIEVE SIZE 1/2 3/8 #4 #8

#16 #30 #50 #100 #200

PRECISION ,1S11%

0.07 1.1

1.97 2.53 2.16 1.35 0.64 0.46

0.25 0.36 1.87 1.99 1.55 0.58

o -0.2

PRECISION l1S11%

0.13 1.29 1.52 1.68 0.77 0.76 0.30 0.31

......... ,~b§TgN. •.

0.82 1.2 1.66 1.52 1.29 0.58 0.11 0.15

FIG.7-6

.,Q~06 -4H9: tJ.45 a85 1.69 0.,69 0.$4 fU~

~ii5t ~B~84 (l21 G;41 0.25 ..(HIO 4).1'1 .. Q;~

VALCO/ROCKY MOUNTAIN/CAS PIT

SIEVE SIZE 1/2 3/8 #4 #8

#16 #30 #50 #100 #200

0.25 1.26 1.14 1.68 1.81 0.57 0.13 0.21

0.97 1.69 1.46 1.44 1.38 0.28 -0.05 0.07

412 .,eAr! .. lMil2 tl·~ O.4! o.~ (ua J},.J-i.1

D-17

SIEVE SIZE 1/2 3/8 #4 #8

#16 #30 #50

#100 #200

SIEVE SIZE 1/2 3/8 #4 #8

#16 #30 #50

#100 #200

FIGURE 8

DATA USED FOR GRAPH OF DIFF. BETWEEN FIG. 6 AND 7

IRWINI WINDSOR I STUTE

2.84 2.29 1.12 1.27 1.65

1.1 0.48 0.14

MONK PIT

1.64 1.66 0.34 1.67 1.91 1.06 0.17

-0.26

MEAN

1.68 1.33 1.1

1.41 1.51 0.92 0.35 0.02

0.96 1.13 1.69 2.37 2.29 1.35 0.77 1.7

0-18

1,t6 tl96 {LOt 4t14 0.14 0.1& G.t:! ~h1.g

(t68 ~ta3 4,35. ·O~10 : ",0.3S· . .. 0.21 .:.~: • -0.60 "':U~q .

0.02

1. Detenninatfon of Correction Factors Using Analysis Method Two

0-19

Determination of Correction Factors

DATA USED FOR GRAPH OF DlFF. BETWEEN FIG. 6 D 7

SIEVE SIZE 112 3/8 #4 tIfJ #16 #30 #60

#100 #200

SIEVE SIZE 112 3/8 #4 tIfJ #16 #30 #60

#100 #200

SIEVE SIZE 112 3/8 #4 tIfJ #16 #30 #50

#100 #200

PRECISION

!1SI,%

0.07 1.1 1.97 2.53 2.16 1.35 0.64 0.46

0.25 0.36 1.87 1.99 1.55 0.58 o

-0.2

0.25 1.26 1.14 1.68 1.81 0.57 0.13 0.21

0.13 1.29 1.62 1.68 0.77 0.76 0.30 0.31

0.82 1.2

1.66 1.62 1.29 0.68 0.11 0.15

0.97 1.69 1.46 1.44 1.38 0.28 -0.05 0.07

7·6

Q;=Q6 tt1S' Q,-4S Q~$ us 6.=5$ 0".3"4 ~A~.

tHW O~84 ti~l ~M:7 41& 0;'00 ~ttt ~t~~

"" "'O:;n ":.:""" j~-4

J t3-i. '0,24-QA~ tM!9 ~.1~ ~:M

(1S)AASHTO

LIMITS

"10

D-20

1.38 0.64 0.6

0.43 0.43 0.43 OA3 0.14

0.96 0.6 0.64 0.6

0.43 OA3 0.43 0.14

1.38 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.43 0.60 0.43 0.14

IS THE DIFF. BETWEEN FIG. 6 AND 6 :;coAAi¢.nON WITHIN (1S) AASHTO ::FAClOR LIMITS? 18EQUIRSo. {%:l

y y y N N N Y N

y N Y Y Y Y Y N

y y y y y y y y

oAt UG e;::i:.

U1

SIEVE SIZE 112 318 #4 fIfj

#16 #30 #50

#100 #200

SIEVE SIZE 112 318 #4 tIfJ

#16 #30 #60

#100 #200

Determination of Correction Factors

DATA USED FOR GRAPH OF DIFF. BETWEEN FIG. 6 AND 7

2.84 2.29 1.12 1.27 1.65 1.1

0.48 0.14

1.64 1.66 0.34 1.67 1.91 1.06 0.17 -0.26

1.68 1.33 1.1

1.41 1.61 0.92 0.36 0.02

0.96 1.13 1.69 2.37 2.29 1.35 0.77 1.7

MEAN

\ ···· M:$

~;~ 'Q;~ ~.:1:;( {U4 :0.1'3 tl4~ Q::U

.{j:~6$

:0=.;5$ 1 .~ tUQ 0<'38. ·t;~ '0;60 i,..

0.47

0-21

0.95 0.64 0.60 0.60 0.43 0.43 OA3 0.43

0.95 0.60 0.64 0.60 0.43 0.43 0.43 OA3

N N Y Y Y Y Y Y

Y Y N N Y Y N N

"' :~j!1

'-~~

:O:,Jr t$.~

APPENDIX E

CPL-5120

CP-L5120 . ./ 7/01/96 Draft V -

Page 1

Colorado Procedure L5120

Method of Test For

Determination of the Asphalt Binder Content of Bituminous Mixtures By the Ignition Method

1. Scope

1.1 This method ottest determines the asphalt binder content of bituminous mixtures by heating the mixture until the asphalt binder fraction of the

mix ignites and is burned away. The gradation of

the remaining aggregate may then be determined

using CP 31. The applicability of this procedure to mixtures containing recycled asphalt pavement

(RAP) has not been determined.

1.2 This standard may involve hazardous

materials. operations. and equipment. This

standard does not purport to address all of the

safety problems associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to consult and establish appropriate safety and health

practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

2. Referenced Documents

Colorado Procedures:

CP-30 Field Sampling Aggregates for use as

Highway Material CP-31 Sieve analysis, -200 Washed

Gradation CP~ 1 Sampling Fresh Bituminous Paving

Mixtures CP-55 Method for reducing samples of Hot

Bituminous Pavements to Test size CP-L 5105 Standard Practice for Preparation of

Test Specimens of Bituminous

E-1

Mixtures by Means of Gyratory Shear Compactor

CP-L 5115 Standard Method for Preparing and Determining the Density of

Bituminous Mixture Test Specimens by Means of the SHRP Gyratory Compactor

3. Summary of Test Methods

3.1 A specimen of bituminous mixture is

heated in an oven having a temperature of 5380 C

(10000 F) until the asphalt binder fraction ignites

and is bumed away. The asphalt binder content is calculated by dividing the weight loss of the

specimen during ignition by the mass of the bituminous mixture before ignition. A correction

factor is determined for each bituminous mixture and then applied to the measured asphalt binder content of field produced bituminous mixture.

4. Apparatus

4.1.1 Forced-air ignition fumace, with internal balance, capable of maintaining a temperature of

500· C (9300 F) to 650· C (1200· F), having an

internal balance thermally isola~ed from the furnace chamber and accurate at room temperature to 0.1 gram. The balance shall be

capable of weighing a 3,500 gram specimen

contained in a basket assembly while it is heated.

The National Center for Asphalt Technology Asphalt Content Tester (NCAT oven). is an oven

containing a temperature compensated internal

CP-L 5120 7/01/96 Draft Page 2

scale which has been found to be suitable for

determining asphalt binder contents. It is the only oven which currently has been evaluated for the

purposes of this procedure. 4.1.2 Forced-air ignition furnace, without internal balance, capable of maintaining a temperature of

5000 C (930° F) to 650° C (1200° F) may also be

suitable. A testing procedure has not been

developed or tested using this type of equipment.

Potential users of this type of equipment will need

to develop and use a test procedure which can be shown by statistical methods to provide adequate

test result accuracy.

4.2 Two tempered stainless steel 2.36 mm (No.8) mesh perforated basket assemblies, apprOximate dimensions (L x W x H) 26.7 x 26.7 x

5.1 cm with 5 cm support legs. The baskets shall be nested. The top basket shall be provided with

No. 20 mesh screening on the legs to confine the

aggregate.

4.3 Stainless steel catch/drip pan per basket

assembly, approximate dimensions (L x W x H) of

28.0 x 28.0 x 2.6 cm.

4.4 Oven - A forced draft oven capable of maintaining a temperature of 121 ± 5°C.

4.5 External balance, at least 10 kg capacity, sensitive to 0.1 g.

4.6 Safety equipment High temperature face

shield, gloves, and a fire resistant long sleeve

coat. In addition, a heat resistant surface capable

of withstanding a temperature of 6500 C and a

protective cage capable of surrounding the basket

assembly shall be provided.

4.7 Miscellaneous equipment a pan having

dimensions of approximately (L x W x H) 38 x 38 x 5 cm for transferring specimen after ignition,

spatulas, bowls, and wire brushes.

E-2

5. Reducing Production Samples to Test Size

NOTE 1: The word specimen represents a test

quantity of bituminous mixture. When the

specimen's mass exceeds the capacity of test

equipment, it may be divided into multiple units,

tested, and the results recombined.

NOTE 2: The word sample represents a quantity

of bituminous mixture gathered from a stockpile or

roadway in accordance with CP-41.

5.1.1 If the bituminous mixture is not suffiCiently

soft to separate with a spatula or trowel, place it in a pan and warm it in a 121 ° C (2500 F) oven until it can be so handled.

5.1.2 Sampling of HBP shall be done according

to CP-30. Two separate, identical specimens shall

be selected from each bituminous mixture

production sample in accordance with CP-55. The two specimens shall not be combined at any time

after they have been taken.

5.2 The specimens shall conform to the mass

requirements shown in the appropriate column of

Table 1 depending on whether or not an aggregategradation is required.

6. Determination of Mix Correction Factors Using Laboratory Mixed Specimens

6.1 The results measured by this procedure

may be affected by the types of aggregate and

asphalt binder contained in the bituminous mixture.

To ensure accuracy, a correction factor shall be

established for each mix design.

6.2 At least three laboratory produced

specimens conforming to the mass requirements

of Table 1 (gradation not required) shall be prepared at the design asphalt binder content.

Record the weights according to Section 6.2.1

CP-L 5120 7/01/96 Draft

Page 3

TABLE 1: Size of Specimen

Nominal Maximum Sieve size Minimum mass of Minimum mass of

Aggregate size, mm specimen (g). specimen (g).

(If a gradation (H a gradation

is required) is not required)

4.75 (no. 4) 1200 1100

9.S 3/8 in. 1200 1100

12.5 %in. 1700 1100

19.0 3/4 in. 2200 1500

25.0 1 in. 3000 2200

37.5 1 %in. 5500 3300

Some specimen weights specified here may exceed the capacity of the temperature compensated internal

over. scale. These specimens may be divided, the separate parts tested and the results recombined.

and follow the instructions for the Preparation of

Labcratory Produced Specimens contained within

CP-L 5105 or CP-L 5115.

6.2.1 Before mixing ~he specimens, record the

weights of both the oven-dry aggregate and the

asphalt binder contained in each specimen to the

nearest 0.1 gram.

6.3 Follow Sections 7.1 through 7.14 to obtain

an uncorrected asphalt binder content

determination for each of the three specimens.

6.4 Determine the difference, or correction

factor, between the actual asphalt binder content and the uncorrected asphalt binder content

measured using both the temperature

compensated internal oven scale and the external

scale for each of the three specimens as specified

in Sections 6.4.1 to 6.5.

E-3

6.4.1 Determine the actual asphalt binder content

for each of the specimens (Section 9.1).

6.4.2 Following Section 7, determine the

measured asphalt binder content for each of the

specimens using both the external scale (Section

9.2.1) and the temperature compensated internal oven scale (Section 9.2.2).

6.4.3 Determine the correction factors for each of

the specimens (Section 9.3).

NOTE 3: If the difference between the lowest and

highest correction factor is greater than 0.30

percent, then mix and burn another specimen or

specimens until the correction factors determined

using three specimens of the same bituminous

mixture are within 0.30 percent of each other.

CP-L 5120 71.01/96 Draft Page 4

6.5 Calculate the average correction factors

fOT both the external scale and the temperature

compensated internal oven scale.

7. Test Procedure

7.1 All production specimens shall be dried as

specified in Section 7.1.1. Laboratory mixed specimens which have been exposed to moisture

or have been stored at less than 1 00" C (212" F)

for greater than 48 hours shall be dried according

to Section 7.1.1. Laboratory mixed specimens

which have not been exposed to moisture and

wh ich have not been stored at less than 100" C

(2120 F) for greater than 48 hours shall be heated

according to Section 7.1.2.

7.1.1 Specimens as specified in Section 7.1 shall

be dried in a 121" C (250· F) oven for 10 ± 5 hours.

7.1.2 Initially dry specimens (as specified in

Section 7.1) shall be heated by plaCing them into

a 121" C (250· F) oven for 3 ± 1 hours.

7.2 Setthe test temperature to 538" C (1000· F) by pressing the 'TEMP" key on the NCAT oven,

entering "538" and pressing the "ENTER" key.

Allow a minimum of 2-112 hours for the NCAT oven

to reach test temperature. Record the temperature set point prior to the initiation of the

test.

7.2.1 Enter a correction factor of zero into the

NCAT oven keyboard for all mixes by pressing the

"CAliS" key, entering "a" and pressing the "ENTER" key. Press the "CALIS. FACTOR" key

on the NCAT oven panel to verify that the

corre·::tion factor is zero. The correction factor is

labeled as the "calib. factor" on the NCAT oven

tape printout.

7.3 Weigh the empty basket assembly,

E-4

consisting of the two baskets and drip pan with

wire guards in place, on an external scale and

record the weight.

7.4 Remove the top basket of the assembly

and evenly distribute approximately % of the

testing specimen in the bottom basket. Spread the

bituminous mixture to a uniform depth in the tray,

leaving a gap of approximately 10 mm between

the specimen and the edge of the basket. Finer

material should be kept near the center of the

basket tray.

7.5 Place the top tray onto the bottom tray and load the remaining specimen into the top tray.

Place the top cover over the basket and fasten the

restraining wire into the slots on the drip tray of the

basket assembly.

7.6 Weigh the loaded basket assembly on an

external scale and record the weight. Determine

the net weight of the mix contained in the basket

assembly.

7.7 Press the ''WEIGHT'' button on the NCAT

oven keyboard and enter the weight of the

bituminous mixture being tested, rounded to the

nearest whole gram, into the temperature

compensated internal scale oven and then press

the "ENTER" button.

7.8 Tare the temperature compensated scale

oven digital readout by. pressing a wire into the

hole at the right hand end of the display panel.

NOTE 4: Wear protective clothing (Section 4.6)

whenever working near the NCAT oven while

the oven door is open.

7.9 Open the chamber door. Lift the loaded

basket assembly using the locking handle tool and

place it into the NCAT oven. Close the oven door

and allow 2 to 3 seconds !()r the oven scale to

stabilize. Compare the external scale reading of

the loaded basket assembly weight to the NCAT

oven scale reading. Verify that the NCAT oven

scale's weight reading equals the weight

determined in Section 7.6 within ± 5 grams.

Differences greater than 5 grams or failure of the

oven scale to stabilize may indicate that the basket

assembly is contacting the interior walls of the

oven.

7.10 Initiate the test within 10 seconds of

closing the oven door by pressing. the

"START/STOP" button. This will lock the oven

door. After approximately 20 seconds the

temperature compensated internal oven scale will

zero itself and the digital timer will start running.

NOTE 5: Do not attempt to open the oven door while Error 11 is flashing since the oven's contents may ignite violently. Tum off the oven and allow the contents to cool before opening the oven door.

7.11 Once,the specimen weight is stable for a

period of 2-3 consecutive minutes the light

indicating a stable weight will illuminate without

blinking and an audible beep will sound. Press the

"START/STOP" button to stop the test and unlock

the oven door. Use the locking handle to remove

the basket assembly within 5 minutes of the

illumination of the light signaling the end of the

test.

7.12 Place the hot basket assembly on top of

the ceramic cooling plate and place the safety

cage over it.

7.13 Remove the printed tape from the

temperature compensated intemal oven scale and

record the weight loss in percent, the temperature

compensation, and the calculated asphalt binder

content for the specimen. Record the specimen

number and retain the printout as a record of the

E-5

test.

CP-L 5120 7101/96 Draft

Page 5

7.14 Allow a minimum of 35 minutes for the

basket assembly to cool to room temperature or

until it is warm to the touch. Weigh the basket

assembly containing the residual aggregate on an

external scale and record the weight

7.15 Determine the uncorrected asphalt binder

content for the external scale and the temperature

compensated internal oven scale (Sections 9.2.1 and 9.2.2).

7.16 Determine the corrected asphalt binder

content for the external scale and the temperature

compensated internal oven scale (Section 9.4)

8. Gradation (Optional)

8.1 Empty the residual aggregate from the

baskets into a flat pan. Use a small wire brush to

ensure that any residual fines are removed from

the baskets. Weigh the residual aggregate on an

external scale and record the weight.

8.2 Perform a gradation analysis in

accordance with CP 31 .

8.3 COOT has verified that the gradation

results are the same with and without exposure to

heat for aggregates from a wide variety of sources.

However, there may be aggregates which degrade

when exposed to the heat required to bum asphalt

binder. If aggregate degradation is suspected, or

if the test results will be used for project

acceptance, Sections 8.3.1 to 8.3.6 may be used

to verify whether aggregates have a tendency to

degrade.

8.3.1 Obtain a sample of the final aggregate

blend in question from a conveyor bett discharge

or a stopped conveyor belt according to CP 30.

CP-L 5120 7/01/96 Draft Page 6

~+k~.d ~bj~c:+ 1-0 ~~~\C __ •

8.3.2 Using a sample splitter, split a sample

weighing at least 8 times the sample size specified in Table 1 (gradation required) into 8 specimens

having approximately equal mass. Set 4 specimens aside.

8.3.3 Mix 4 of the aggregate specimens with

asphalt cement to yield specimens having an asphalt binder content within 0.5 percent of the mix

in question.

8.3.4 Test the 4 mixed specimens as specified in Section 7.

8.3.5 Using CP-31 , determine the gradation of the 4 specimens which were mixed with asphalt

binder and burned. Determine the gradation of the

4 specimens which were set aside in Section

8.3.2.

8.3.6 Calculate the average percent passing each sieve size for the 2 sets of 4 specimens. Compare the average gradation at each sieve size

for the two sets of specimens. If the gradation of

the aggregate exposed to the heat applied in

Section 8.3.4 is more than 3 percent finer than the untreated aggregate on any of the sieves, the

aggregate may be sensitive to heat degradation.

If the average gradation is within 3 pe~cent on all screens, the aggregate is not sensitive to heat degradation.

8.3.7 If an aggregate has been found to be

sensitive to heat degradation in Section 8.3.6, apply a correction factor to the percent passing

each screen to account for the degradation caused by the NCAT oven.

9. Calculations

9.1 The actual asphalt binder content of a laboratory mixed specimen is determined as

follows:

E-6

Pb(actuaJ) = __ w'_b_ X 100 Ws + Wb

where,

Pb(&ctu&l) = percent of asphalt binder in

specimen

weight of aggregate in specimen weight of asphalt binder in specimen

9.2.1 The uncorrected asphalt binder content of

a specimen is determined using an external scale as follows:

where,

Pb(unc:orr) = uncorrected asphalt binder content, in percent, determined

by the mass loss measured on an external scale.

Wm(ln~ial) = Weight of the bituminous mixture specimen before using the temperature compensated intemal oven scale measured at 121 0 C (250· F).

Wm(ftnal) = Weight of the bituminous mixture specimen after using the temperature compensated

internal oven scale measured at

room temperature.

WbaSkat = Weight of the empty basket assembly at room temperature.

9.2.2 The uncorrected asphalt binder content of a specimen is automatically calculated by the

temperature compensated internal oven's scale

software using the bituminous mixture weight input

in Section 1.7. At the end of each test, the

uncorrected asphalt binder content is printed on a paper tape.

9.3 The mix correction factor is determined for

asphalt binder contents determined using each

method of measurement (both the external scale and the temperature compensated internal oven scale) as follows:

Cf = Pb(actua/) - Pb(meaSUred)

where,

Cf = asphalt binder correction factor determined for a specific method

of measurement e.g. using the

external or the temperature

compensated internal oven

scales.

Pb(meallnd) = uncorrected asphalt binder content of a specimen as determined in Sections 9.2.1 or

9.2.2.

E-7

CP-L 5120 7/01/96 Draft

Page 7

9.4 The corrected asphalt binder content for

field produced specimens using both the external scale and the temperature compensated internal

oven scale is determined as follows:

Pb(corr) = Pb(uncorr) + C,

where,

Pb(corr) = asphalt binder content of field produced specimens corrected for

the aggregate and asphalt binder sources.

10. Report

10.1 Report the corrected asphalt binder

contents determined using the external scale.

Results from the temperature compensated

internal oven scale should be reported for information only .