Performance Assessment of Otta Seals On Low Traffic Volume Roads

MAKERERE
UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, DESIGN,

ART & TECHNOLOGY
SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
CIV 4200 Civil Engineering Project II
Performance Assessment of Otta Seals on Low Traffic Volume Roads
By
Name
Registration number
Signature
Waiswa Ronald
11/U/452
....
Ssekamwa Dennis Derrick
11/U/472
....
This Final Year Project Report has been duly submitted to the Department there
above in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the programme leading to the
following award: Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering.
MAIN SUPERVISOR
CO-SUPERVISOR
Assoc. Prof Umaru Bagampadde
Eng. David Kaddu
Signature...
Signature..........
Date: 21st-July-2015
Date: 21st-July-2015
JULY 2015
July 21, 2015
DECLARATION
We, Ronald Waiswa Regn No. 11/U/452 and Dennis Derrick Ssekamwa Regn No. 11/U/472
declare that this report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the
programme/degree leading to the following award:
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering (BSc. CIV), at Makerere University is our own and
has never been submitted/reproduced for any award/qualification in any university or institution
of higher learning whatsoever; and we hereby declare to be held responsible for everything herein.
..
Declaration signature
Date: Tuesday, July 21, 2015
...
Declaration signature
Waiswa & Ssekamwa July, 2015
Date: Tuesday, July 21, 2015
July 21, 2015

DEDICATION
We dedicate this report to our parents/guardians whose efforts towards our academic excellence
have proved worthwhile. We also appreciate our supervisors for the guidance and support rendered
to us throughout the entire project implementation process. To our friends and the Civil
Engineering classmates, with whom we have shared the joyful and tough moments of the course.
II
July 21, 2015
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We appreciate and thank the Almighty God for the life and strength that has enabled us get this far
in the project. We would also like to take this opportunity to thank the people who have enabled
us go through this final year project which has exposed us to great challenges and experiences in
the engineering field. We further register our sincere appreciation to our departmental supervisors
Assoc. Prof. Umaru Bagampadde and Eng. David Kaddu, for their guidance and patience during
this period.
We cannot of course, forget to thank Mr. William Ntume and Fred Mukasa, the in-charge of the
Structures Laboratory and Highway Laboratory respectively at Makerere University who guided
our practical work, acquisition of material and apparatus used in laboratory tests. We thank Eng.
Patrick Etoko, Mr. Samson Obela and Ms. Prosy Nabukalu, of Kireka Central Materials
Laboratory who gave us practical assistance in carrying out certain tests. We also thank our
colleagues and all our classmates for the moral support given to us.
III
July 21, 2015

ABSTRACT
To seal the low traffic volume roads in Uganda, there has been an advocacy of using low cost seals
such as penetration macadam, single and double surface dressing, slurry seals, quarry-dust seals,
sand seals, cold premix and Otta Seals. Of importance to this research, is the Otta Seal which
comprises essentially a 16-32 mm thick bituminous surfacing constituted of an admixture of
graded aggregates ranging from natural gravel to crushed rock in combination with relatively soft
(low viscosity) binders, with or without a sand seal cover.
This report therefore considers a research on the performance assessment of Otta Seals on low
traffic volume roads in Uganda. The performance was typically assessed by developing different
designs of the mix using marshall mix design tests. The Otta Seal developed in this research
constituted of natural gravel of size <19mm and MC-3000 as the low viscosity binder. Four (4)
natural gravel samples from four (4) different borrow pits in different places i.e. Kanyanya, Kireka,
Kajjansi and Mutundwe were obtained and then subjected to suitability tests. The aim of this was
to locate at least one sample that could meet the minimum Otta Seal requirements. The suitability
tests conducted were: Gradation, Strength tests (for which case we considered the 10% FACT
values), Plasticity Index and Fines Content. Only the material from the borrow pit in Kanyanya
met all the minimum requirements of the gravel needed to be used in Otta Seal construction. The
MC-3000 cutback bitumen was obtained from Mt. Elgon Labour-based Training Centre and its
specific gravity obtained for confirmation purposes. After these preliminary tests on both the
natural gravel and bitumen, marshall mix design specimens were prepared by varying the binder
content in steps of 0.5% around an assumed value which was 4.0% using material from Kanyanya
borrow pit and MC-3000 cutback as the bitumen. These specimens were then subjected to flow
and stability analyses. The essence of conducting the marshall mix design tests was to determine
the optimum binder content that could represent an optimum design for the Otta Seal mix. After
analysis of all the results, the Optimum Binder Content (OBC) was found to be 3.9% of the dry
weight of aggregates.
Key Words: - Low-Volume Roads, Marshall Test, Otta Seal, Performance Assessment, Suitability.
IV
July 21, 2015
Contents
DECLARATION............................................................................................................................ i
DEDICATION............................................................................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ........................................................................................................... iii
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................. iv
List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. vii
List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. viii
List of Acronyms .......................................................................................................................... ix
Chapter One .................................................................................................................................. 1
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Problem Statement.............................................................................................................. 2
1.3 Main Objective .................................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Specific Objectives .............................................................................................................. 3
1.5 Justification ......................................................................................................................... 3
1.6 Benefits ................................................................................................................................. 3
1.7 Scope of the Study ............................................................................................................... 3
Chapter Two .................................................................................................................................. 5
LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................ 5
2.1 Development of the Otta Seal............................................................................................. 5
2.1.1 Origin ............................................................................................................................. 5
2.1.2 Aggregates ..................................................................................................................... 5
2.1.3 Bitumen .......................................................................................................................... 6
2.1.4 Design ............................................................................................................................ 6
2.2 Use of the Otta Seal ............................................................................................................. 8
2.2.1 Regional ......................................................................................................................... 8
2.2.2 Global ............................................................................................................................. 8
2.3 Otta Seal Requirements ...................................................................................................... 8
2.3.1 Aggregate Strength ........................................................................................................ 9
2.3.2 Gradation (Particle Size Distribution) ......................................................................... 10
2.3.3 Fines Content ............................................................................................................... 13
July 21, 2015
2.3.4 Plasticity Index............................................................................................................. 13

2.3.5 Binder Specifications ................................................................................................... 13
2.4.1 Mechanism of Performance ......................................................................................... 14
2.4.2 Marshall Mix Design Tests .......................................................................................... 15
Chapter Three ............................................................................................................................. 16
MATERIALS AND METHODS ............................................................................................... 16
3.1 Materials ............................................................................................................................ 16
3.1.1 Aggregates ................................................................................................................... 16
3.1.2 Bitumen ........................................................................................................................ 16
3.2 Methods .............................................................................................................................. 17
3.2.1 Laboratory Tests .......................................................................................................... 17
3.2.2 Analysis of Results ...................................................................................................... 18
Chapter Four ............................................................................................................................... 20
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS .................................... 20
4.1 Aggregate Strength ........................................................................................................... 20
4.2 Gradation Tests ................................................................................................................. 20
4.3 Fines Content..................................................................................................................... 20
4.4 Plasticity Index .................................................................................................................. 21
4.5 Gravel Wastage from Screening ...................................................................................... 22
4.6 Marshall Mix Design Tests ............................................................................................... 22
4.7 Discussion........................................................................................................................... 25
Chapter Five ................................................................................................................................ 28
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................... 28
5.1 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 28
5.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 29
References .................................................................................................................................... 31
Appendices ................................................................................................................................... 34
Appendix A .............................................................................................................................. 34
Appendix B .............................................................................................................................. 49
VI
July 21, 2015

List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Origin of the Otta Seal (Otta Valley, Norway). (Source: NPRA, 1999). ...................... 5
Figure 2.2 General grading envelope for Otta Seals. (Source: NPRA, 1999). ............................. 12
Figure 4.1 Gradation curves superimposed on the Otta Seal gradation envelope. ....................... 21
Figure 4.2 A Plot of Bulk Density against Binder Content. ......................................................... 26
Figure 4.3 A Plot of Stability against Binder Content. ................................................................. 26
Figure 4.4 A Plot of Flow against Binder Content. ...................................................................... 26
Figure 4.5 A Plot of Void Content against Binder Content. ......................................................... 26
Figure 4.6 A Plot of Voids filled with Binder against Binder Content. ....................................... 26
Figure B.1 Air drying samples collected from the different borrow pits...................................... 49
Figure B.2 Washing samples in preparation for wet sieving. ....................................................... 49
Figure B.3 Riffling process. .......................................................................................................... 49
Figure B.4 Arranging test sieves for sieve analysis. ..................................................................... 49
Figure B.5 Preparation of the samples for liquid and plastic limit analyses................................. 50
Figure B.6 Tamping the samples in preparation for the 10% FACT analysis. ............................. 50
Figure B.7 Liquid limit determination. ......................................................................................... 50
Figure B.8 Conduction of the 10% FACT analysis. ..................................................................... 50
Figure B.9 Measuring about 1.2kg of the gravel for the marshall mix design tests. .................... 51
Figure B.10 Mixing of MC-3000 bitumen and natural gravel to make marshall mix design
specimens. ............................................................................................................................. 51
Figure B.11 Oven drying the samples and monitoring the temperature at 135. ....................... 51
Figure B.12 Adjusting the marshall compaction apparatus for compaction. ................................ 51
Figure B.13 Marshall Compaction apparatus adjusted to give 75blows/face. Note the reading on
the meter gauge. .................................................................................................................... 52
Figure B.14 Placement of collars to extrude the specimens from the molds. ............................... 52
Figure B.15 Placing the marshall hammer in position to start compaction. ................................. 52
Figure B.16 Extrusion apparatus................................................................................................... 52
Figure B.17 Extruded marshall mix design specimens. ................................................................ 53
Figure B.18 Measurement of specimen height using a slide caliper. ........................................... 53
Figure B.19 Specimens in a water bath maintained at 40 for 1 hr. ........................................... 53
Figure B.20 Specimens being subjected to stability and flow analyses. ...................................... 53
VII
July 21, 2015

List of Tables
Table 2.1 Average aggregate spread rates for an Otta Seal. (Source: IFG, 2002) .......................... 7
Table 2.2 Average binder spray rates for an Otta Seal. (Source: IFG, 2002) ................................. 7
Table 2.3 Otta Seals in various countries (as per 2007). (Source: Overby & Pinard, 2007) .......... 9
Table 2.4 Aggregate strength requirements for Otta Seals. (Source: NPRA, 1999) .................... 10
Table 2.5 Otta Seal aggregate grading requirements. (Source: ORN 3, 2000) ............................. 11
Table 2.6 Material requirements for Otta Seals. (Source: NPRA, 1999) ..................................... 12
Table 4.1 Aggregate Strength test results. .................................................................................... 20
Table 4.2 Fines Content of the gravel samples. ............................................................................ 21
Table 4.3 Plasticity Indices of the samples. .................................................................................. 21
Table 4.4 Gravel Wastage from Screening. .................................................................................. 22
Table 4.5 Summary results of the marshall mix design tests. ....................................................... 23
Table 4.6 Results for particle density determination of natural gravel. ........................................ 24
Table A.1 Sieve analysis results for Mutundwe borrow pit.......................................................... 34
Table A.2 Sieve analysis results for Kireka borrow pit. .............................................................. 34
Table A.3 Sieve analysis results for Kajjansi borrow pit............................................................. 35
Table A.4 Sieve analysis results for Kanyanya borrow pit. ......................................................... 35
Table A.5 Atterberg results for Mutundwe borrow pit. ................................................................ 36
Table A.6 Atterberg results for Kireka borrow pit. ...................................................................... 37
Table A.7 Atterberg results for Kajjansi borrow pit. .................................................................... 38
Table A.8 Atterberg results for Kanyanya borrow pit. ................................................................. 39
Table A.9 Ten Percent Fines Aggregate Crushing Test (10% FACT) results. ............................. 40
Table A.10 Marshall mix design test results for . % binder content. ....................................... 41
Table A.16 Marshall mix design test results for 6.0% binder content. ......................................... 47
Table A.17 Otta Seal Trial Contracts. ........................................................................................... 48
VIII
July 21, 2015

List of Acronyms
10% FACT
Ten Percent Fines Aggregate Crushing Value
AADT
Average Annual Daily Traffic
ACV
Aggregate Crushing Value
AIV
Aggregate Impact Value
BS
British Standard
DANIDA
Danish International Development Agency
DFID
Department for International Development
IFG
International Focus Group on Rural Road Engineering
MC
Medium Curing (a type of Cutback Bitumen)
MELTC
Mount Elgon Labour-based Training Centre
MoWT
Ministry of Works and Transport
NPRA
Norwegian Public Roads Administration
ORN
Overseas Road Note
SEAMIC
Southern and Eastern African Mineral Centre
TRL
Transport Research Laboratory
UBoS
Uganda Bureau of Statistics
UNRA
Uganda National Roads Authority
VMA
Voids in Mineral Aggregate
IX
July 21, 2015
Chapter One
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The roads constructed in Uganda have been either left unpaved (in which case they comprise what
we call gravel roads) or paved. From a recent study carried out by the Uganda Bureau of Statistics
last year, it was noted that, the national roads network remained un-changed for the period 2010
to 2011. However, there was a notable increase in the length of paved roads from 3,264km in
2011 to 3,317km in 2012 representing a two percent increase, while unpaved roads increased from
16,736km in 2011 to 17,683km in 2012, representing a six percent increase (UBoS, 2013).
Despite this development, the current unpaved network of roads still pauses a big challenge
majorly in terms of maintenance (due to gravel losses and various structural distresses),
rehabilitation (due to general pavement failure and functional distresses) and serviceability (due
to dustiness in hot weather and/or muddy surfaces during wet seasons) to the general public. Now
because these gravel roads are openly exposed to distress-causing environmental factors, they
tend to suffer early deterioration. This effect puts a high demand on the limited maintenance
resources of road agencies, reduces access to a level that severely curtails social and economic
development, and can put lives at risk in rural communities. Besides maintenance costs, there are
also concerns about gradual gravel resource depletion and environmental degradation associated
with mining of gravel from deposits to replenish gravel lost on roadways. Due to these
issues, such roads will ultimately call for sealing operations to improve on their serviceability,
extend their service lives and reduce on the gravel losses so as to preserve the limited gravel
resources for sustainability. Since most of these gravel roads are low-volume rural roads, and carry
very little traffic ranging between 50 100 /, their upgrade using conventional chip
seals, is generally not economically justifiable by the level of traffic. This requires consideration
of low-cost surfacing options. One type of such surfacing options that can provide an economic
and practical alternative to traditional surfacings, like the Chip Seal, is the Otta Seal. The Otta
Seal, according to Tuffour and Braimah (2014), is simply a bituminous chip seal constructed to
upgrade low-volume gravel roads to surfaced standards using natural gravel or crushed rock
containing some amount of fines for the seal coat. The natural gravel used may be an assortment
of laterites and quartzite or simply one of either. However, the biggest challenge with this relatively
new type of technology is the lack of information regarding its design, construction and
July 21, 2015
performance due to an empirical approach to its design and to some extent, the reluctance of the
concerned road authorities/agencies to embrace new technology. The purpose of this study
therefore is to assess the performance of this seal (Otta Seal) under different designs so as to draw
information and criteria regarding its construction for optimum performance.
1.2 Problem Statement
The gravel roads found in the country include, among others; highly trafficked and low-volume
ones. The low-volume roads are mostly found in rural and semi-urban areas of the country. To
avoid loss of gravel material from such roads which, according to Pinard and Overby (2006), such
loss rates range in the order of 30-50 mm per annum, depending on factors such as traffic, climate
and terrain; such unpaved or gravel roads may be upgraded by bituminous surfacing to reduce
gravel loss and prolong their life. However, because most of these low-volume roads carry very
little traffic (in most cases substantially less than 50veh/day), their upgrade using conventional
chip seals is generally not economically justifiable by the level of traffic, (Tuffour & Braimah,
2014). This requires consideration of low-cost surfacing options. One type of such surfacing
options that can provide an economic and practical alternative to traditional surfacings, like the
Chip Seal, is the Otta Seal (mainly because of the approach to its construction which calls for the
use of locally available materials). Unfortunately, lack of information regarding this relatively new
type of bituminous surfacing has suppressed its more widespread use, despite its excellent
performance in a number of countries, mainly in Africa but also in some parts of Asia and South
America, (Overby & Pinard, 2012). This information lacking includes mainly the criteria to adopt
in the selection of natural gravel material and binder amounts to be used in its construction. The
selection being based on aggregate suitability (i.e. minimum requirements of the aggregates) and
binder (bitumen) content/proportion (i.e. percentage of bitumen) required for optimum
performance. This research was therefore conducted to assess the performance of Otta Seals under
different designs so as to draw information and criteria regarding its construction for optimum
performance.
1.3 Main Objective
To Assess the Performance of Otta Seals on Low Traffic Volume Roads in the Rural and Semiurban Areas of the Central Region of Uganda.
July 21, 2015
1.4 Specific Objectives

I.
To evaluate the aggregate strengths of natural gravels from parts of the central region in
line with Otta Seal requirements as opposed to the use of conventional stone chippings;
II.
To characterize the same gravel samples (suitability assessment) in relation to Otta Seal
requirements (characterization will employ the conduction of physical tests i.e. sieve
analysis and Atterberg limits);
III.
To determine the performance of natural gravel mixed with bitumen (using marshall mix
design tests); and
IV.
To compare findings from the study on the use of Otta Seals with established practice
elsewhere.
1.5 Justification
The construction of Otta Seals on low traffic volume roads has proved to be a more economic and
practical alternative to traditional bituminous surfacings like the Chip Seal. Because the approach
to its design is basically empirical, inadequate designs have been often developed during its
construction; such incidences are a key factor contributing greatly to the emergence of pavement
distresses and deterioration. Therefore performance assessment of Otta Seals on such low traffic
volume roads in order to come up with an optimum design is of paramount importance.
1.6 Benefits
The research will be of use to the concerned road agencies (District Local Governments in
particular) that are majorly responsible for such low volume roads. It will avail them with the
information on what criteria to follow in the selection of gravel material and binder content for
Otta Seal construction.
1.7 Scope of the Study
The research involved the collection of four (4) gravel samples from four (4) borrow pits situated
within the areas of Kanyanya, Kireka, Kajjansi and Mutundwe in the central region of Uganda;
and also called for the acquisition of MC-3000 type of cutback bitumen from Mt Elgon Laborbased Training Centre in Mbale. It further involved the conduction of suitability tests which were
strength tests, characterization tests (in terms of particle size distribution, plasticity index and fines
July 21, 2015
content) on the natural gravel and an assessment of the performance of the Otta Seal constructed
using such gravel material passing the requirements. The performance assessment tests were
carried out using marshall mix design tests.
July 21, 2015
Chapter Two
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Development of the Otta Seal
2.1.1 Origin
The Otta Seal is a particular type of bituminous surfacing that was originally developed in the early
1960s by the Norwegian Road Research Laboratory. It derives its name from the location in
Norway where it was first used-the Otta Valley, (Roads Department of Botswana, 1999). NPRA
(1999) and Joshi and Jha (2012) describe Otta Seals as consisting essentially of a 16-32 mm thick
bituminous surfacing constituted of an admixture of graded aggregates ranging from natural
gravel to crushed rock in combination with relatively soft (low viscosity) binders, with or without
a sand seal cover.
In agreement with the above, Hongve (2006), further states that the Otta Seal technology has since
been applied successfully inter alia in a number of Sub-Saharan countries Uganda inclusive on
secondary roads.
Figure 2.1 Origin of the Otta Seal (Otta Valley, Norway). (Source: NPRA, 1999).
2.1.2 Aggregates
As any other seal, the Otta Seal employs the use aggregates together with bitumen or asphalt
cement as a binder. Due to low cost considerations, the most commonly used type of aggregates
are the natural gravels albeit crushed stone is sometimes used. According to Lennox and
Mackenzie (2008), natural gravel is defined as a naturally occurring material which can be
July 21, 2015
excavated and used successfully in certain conditions as a low traffic volume road surface if
complying with certain grading (aggregate sizes) and plasticity requirements, and watered and
compacted. Petts, et al. (2006) define natural gravel as any naturally occurring granular material,
including laterite gravel, used as a road surfacing material. However, Cook, et al. (2013) state that
gravel is simply a naturally-occurring, weathered or naturally transported rock within a specific
coarse particle size range. It can be seen that all the definitions given by the different researchers
relate to the same thing.
2.1.3 Bitumen
The type of bitumen used in Otta Seals is very critical for its performance and a good result requires
that both the binder type and application rates are tailored to the gravel/aggregate properties. The
following binder properties are considered:
Be soft enough to initially coat the fines in the aggregate;
Be soft enough to rapidly move up through the matrix of aggregate voids by the action of
rolling and traffic;
Remain soft long enough to continue moving up through the matrix of aggregate voids
over a period of 4 to 8 weeks; and
Be able to be applied in large enough quantities in one spray operation.
The type of binder used in addition to the above properties should also:
Be viscous enough to provide sufficient stability after the initial curing of the seal;
Be durable enough to give the expected service life;
Be able to be used with the available equipment and skills;
Be environmentally friendly to the greater possible extent; and
Be economical in use.
2.1.4 Design
The Otta Seal option using natural gravel, has a simple design. It is however, noted (Overby &
Pinard, 2007) that its design is entirely empirical, thats, it is based on experience in the selection
of both an appropriate type of binder and an aggregate application rate. Fortunately, guidelines are
July 21, 2015
now available to guide practitioners in its design. Its construction is similar in principle to that of
a conventional bituminous surface treatment. Nevertheless, many of its construction activities can
be undertaken using Labour-based methods -a major advantage in terms of employment provision.
The design is generally amenable to changes during construction. This is in contrast to the design
of a chip seal which has a Rational Approach (i.e. it relies on confirmatory trials on site) and is not
easily amenable to design changes during construction. The following subsections explain the key
constituencies of an Otta Seal:
2.1.4.1 Aggregates
Depending on the grading of the natural gravel, the spread rates are as follows in Table 2.1 with
the spread units modified to/2:
Table 2.1 Average aggregate spread rates for an Otta Seal. (Source: IFG, 2002)
Dense grading
16-20
2.1.4.2 Binder
Aggregate Spread rate (/ )

Medium grading
13-16
Coarse grading
13-16
The viscosities of binders used in construction should reflect the grading of aggregate employed
and the level of traffic at the time of construction. Normally MC-800, MC-3000 or 150/200
penetration grade bitumen are used. Different binders are used with different aggregate grading
and traffic levels to come up with an Otta Seal. The spray rates are of course, not calculated by
design and must be chosen empirically through road trials. The range of spray rates for different
levels of traffic that can be employed during trials is given in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2 Average binder spray rates for an Otta Seal. (Source: IFG, 2002)
AADT (/)
<100
100-500
>500
Binder Spray rate (/ )

1.8-2.2
1.8-2.0
1.6-1.8
If MC-3000 cutback bitumen is used as the binder in the construction, the spraying temperature
ranges between135 155.
July 21, 2015
2.2 Use of the Otta Seal

2.2.1 Regional
The technology has been so far applied in various parts of the country. Such areas where it has
been observed are: Busamaga in Mbale District (applied on Busamaga-Magada-Bumuluya Model
Road in particular), Lamwo, Kapchorwa, Sironko, Wakiso, Nakasongola etc. Although theres
noticeable progress of the technology in some parts of the country especially in the Eastern region
where trials are being conducted by Mt. Elgon Labour-based Training Centre (MELTC), its
applicability is not well evidenced in other parts. This is mainly attributed to the empirical nature
of its design, lack of information regarding its properties, design, construction and performance
and the reluctance of the construction industry to embrace new technology.
2.2.2 Global
According to Overby and Pinard (2007), the technology has been field tested and successfully
applied in a number of countries and under a variety of conditions. However, the technology is
still not fully understood by practitioners because it does not comply with conventional thinking
on road surfacings, and there is still some uncertainty regarding its acceptance as a standard type
of surfacing. Nevertheless, as indicated in Table 2.3, its use is becoming more widespread as more
and more experience is gained.
2.3 Otta Seal Requirements
Any Otta Seal construction necessitates the availability and usage of both bitumen and aggregates
as the two major components. The aggregates referred to in this context are the natural gravels
which majorly consist of laterites and quartzite. Like the chip seals, such natural gravels used in
this type of seal will have to meet certain minimum requirements as published in the Guide to the
use of Otta Seals by NPRA (1999). Taking into consideration the availability, quality, and haulage
distances of gravel material located in any borrow pit, the so selected material is only considered
fit for use in Otta Seal Constructions basing on the following criteria:
July 21, 2015
Table 2.3 Otta Seals in various countries (as per 2007). (Source: Overby & Pinard, 2007)
Country
Norway
Sweden
Iceland
Kenya
Botswana
Zimbabwe
South Africa
Bangladesh
Australia
Namibia
Nepal
Tanzania
Chile
Ghana
Length (km)
12000
4000
2000
500
2400
80
30+/20+/2.2 (two trials)
Trials
Trials
100+/100+/20+/-
2.3.1 Aggregate Strength

The 10% FACT Value (for both dry and wet conditions) is the only strength index used in
assessing the quality of aggregates, with the minimum value being dictated by the level of traffic
at the time of construction, (Tuffour and Braimah, 2014). However, it should be taken into account
that even though this is an acceptable and often used parameter of assessment, the Aggregate
Impact Value test (AIV) has advantages as a substitute for the ACV or 10% FACT test for
controlling aggregate strength on site as stipulated in the Roads Department of Botswana (2002).
The 10 percent Fines Aggregate Crushing Value (10% FACT) is defined as the force in
required to crush a sample of size between 9.5 and 13.2 mm aggregate so that 10 percent of the
total test sample after crushing passes a 2.36mm sieve. The greater the percentage of weak/soft
particles in the material being tested, the lower the 10% FACT Value.
The aggregates used for Otta Seals have this value of strength relatively lower in magnitude as
compared to those required for the conventional Chip Seals, (see Table 2.4). As the table shows,
the required aggregate strength for Otta Seals is lower than that of a Chip Seal. Such lower values
Due to overlaying/strengthening operations, the number of kilometres of Otta Seals has been reduced to 3,500 km in
2007.
July 21, 2015
can be tolerated simply because the graded particle matrix results in less internal pressure caused
by stone to stone contact.
Table 2.4 Aggregate strength requirements for Otta Seals. (Source: NPRA, 1999)
Aggregate
Strength AADT at the time of construction
Requirements
< 100
> 100
Min. Dry % FACT
90
110
Min. Wet/Dry Strength Ratio
0.6
0.75
BS Test Designation
BS 812 Part 111:1990
Also, the soft binders used in this type of seals are, in addition, able to surround, coat and hold in
place any particle that may break during rolling (NPRA, 1999).
Note: The shape of particles also affects the strength with cubical or rounded materials being
stronger than flaky or elongated materials, (Roads Department of Botswana, 2002). The
explanation to this phenomenon is that; as compared to cubic and/or rounded particles, flaky
particles tend to impede compaction. These particles tend to lock up with adjacent aggregate
particles more readily than cubic and/or rounded particles and resist reorientation into a denser
configuration hence hampering compaction. They additionally have a tendency to fracture along
their weak, narrow dimension when subjected to compaction loading. If they are present in large
amounts, this fracturing can effectively change the aggregate gradation as larger flat and elongated
particles are broken into smaller, more cubic particles. The resulting greater number of fine
particles will fill existing void spaces and reduce the VMA. This reduction in VMA can result into
little room available for the asphalt binder to coat the aggregate particles, which can result in
mixture instability (rutting and shoving).
2.3.2 Gradation (Particle Size Distribution)
The essential feature of the particle size distribution of aggregates for Otta Seals is the wide range
allowed for each particle size so that a variety of natural gravels can be processed and used for the
construction. The grading of the material is based on the level of traffic expected, (Overseas Road
Note 13, 2000). In saying expected, ORN is not clear about the time when to consider the traffic.
Is it at the time of construction or rather at a certain point in time after construction? The answer
to this has been given by the NPRA (1999) where it is argued out that the preferred aggregate
grading will, to some extent, depend on the traffic volume at the time of construction, as well as
10
July 21, 2015
during the two months immediately following the sealing operation, as this contributes
significantly in forming the Otta Seal.
The preferred maximum size is 16mm but 19mm can be accepted in the first seal where a double
seal is to be constructed. However, the use of such aggregates beyond 16mm up to 19mm or more,
should preferably be avoided where possible as this may lead to loss of stones during service,
(NPRA, 1999). Of course in the field, gravel materials are processed by removing such over-size
aggregates and excessive fines if present. These large aggregates generally do not bond and
embed well in seal mats and, hence, are easily dislodged from their placement positions by
traffic, leading to pothole development. Excessive fines are removed so as to reduce the plasticity
of the soil and also improve the adhesion of binder to aggregate surfaces. The processing may also
involve reducing the contents of fractions that are over-represented.
According to the ORN 3 (2000), roads carrying light traffic (< 100 /), a 'coarse' grading
should be chosen while a 'dense' grading should be applied to one carrying> 100 /. Table
2.5 shows the grading envelope according to the ORN 3:
Table 2.5 Otta Seal aggregate grading requirements. (Source: ORN 3, 2000)
Percentage Passing
Dense
Coarse
Sieve (mm)
100
100
19.0
79-100
77-100
16.0
61-100
59-100
12.0
42-100
40-85
9.5
19-68
17-46
4.750
8-51
1-20
2.360
6-40
0-10
1.180
3-30
0-3
0.600
2-21
0-2
0.300
1-16
0-1
0.150
0-10
0-1
0.075
Because most low-volume roads carry minimal traffic usually within the range of 50
100 /, NPRA (1999) provides a more generalized grading envelope cutting across the
Dense and the Coarse Particle Size Distributions (see Table 2.6).
Aggregates should be screened to remove stones greater than 19mm
11
July 21, 2015
Table 2.6 Material requirements for Otta Seals. (Source: NPRA, 1999)
Sieve Sizes (mm)
19
16
13.2
9.5
6.7
4.75
2.00
1.18
0.425
0.075
Overall Grading Requirements (% Passing)

100
80-100
52-100
36-98
20-80
10-70
0-48
0-38
0-25
0-10
The graph in Figure 2.2 has been developed from Table 2.6 after NPRA (1999) to depict the
general grading envelope for Otta Seal aggregates:
Figure 2.2 General grading envelope for Otta Seals. (Source: NPRA, 1999).
Thus, any gravel material can only be considered fit for Otta Seal construction if its gradation
curve falls/lies somewhere within the grading envelope in the above graph and is as smooth and
parallel to the envelopes as possible.
12
July 21, 2015
2.3.3 Fines Content

In addition to the overall grading, the quantity and nature of the dust component (percentage
passing 0.075 mm) must be controlled. Very dusty aggregate results in problems with adhesion of
the bitumen to the stone particles. This amount of fines (< 0.075) should preferably not
exceed10%. A higher fines content may result in construction problems, as the binder tends to
coat the finer particles before the larger ones, and may lead to a less durable surfacing with inferior
surfacing characteristics. However, aggregates with fines contents up to 15% have performed well
on some projects (in Botswana), and no surfacing defects have yet been recorded due to excessive
fines contents on any of these projects (NPRA, 1999).
2.3.4 Plasticity Index
According to the MoWT (2010) Road Design Manual, the plasticity Index of the fines content is
not to exceed 12% irrespective of the level of traffic expected to use the road although other authors
like the International Focus Group on Rural Road Engineering (2002) and Tuffour and Braimah
(2014) recommend a maximum value of 10%. This limit appears to be dictated by the need to
minimize the clay content in order to reduce binder demand because such particles require high
amounts of binder for wetting during bituminous construction due to their large surface area.
2.3.5 Binder Specifications
Penetration grade bitumen
The hardest type of bitumen that can be used for Otta Seal considering hot climatic conditions is
the 150/200 penetration grade.
Cutback bitumen
Cutback bitumen in the MC3000-and MC 800 viscosity ranges are the most common binders used
in the Otta Seal.
The range of acceptable binder viscosities for Otta Seals is provided by the following standard
types:
o MC 800 cutback bitumen (softest),
13
July 21, 2015
o MC 3000 cutback bitumen (medium), and

o 150/200 penetration grade (hardest).
An Otta Seal will in most cases require a cutter that produces a medium curing (MC) cutback
bitumen. And for this case, MC-3000 is always chosen simply because of its relative hardness as
compared to MC-800, ease of handling and availability on local markets. MC-3000 is obtained by
cutting back 80/100 or 150/200 penetration grade types of bitumen using power paraffin as a cutter.
The amount of the cutter required is between 8 12% of total mixture for the case of 80/100 base
bitumen and 5 8% of total mixture for the case of 150/200 base bitumen, (NPRA, 1999).
Note: The durability of the binder can be improved by replacing 3% points of the cutter with
flux oil where the 80/100 penetration grade is used as base bitumen.
Flux oil
Fluxing is the addition of heavy oil that affects the long-term viscosity and durability of the binder.
It is such a process that slows down the hardening process of the bitumen and, within certain limits
will produce a more durable seal. Engine oil, used or unused, is suitable for this purpose. Fluxing
should be carried out in moderation, as theres a risk of disintegration of the seal if the binder is
excessively fluxed, (Overby, 1999).
The spraying temperature for MC-3000 cutback bitumen ranges between 135 155 but an
optimum temperature of 145 is usually considered on site. It should however be noted that
cutback bitumen should not be held at spraying temperature for periods exceeding twelve (12)
hours. This causes loss of light oil fractions and an undesirable change in binder properties,
(NPRA, 1999).
2.4 Performance Assessment
2.4.1 Mechanism of Performance
The mechanism of performance of an Otta Seal is such that graded aggregate is placed on a
relatively thick film of comparatively soft binder which, on rolling and trafficking, can work its
way upwards through the aggregate interstices. In this manner, the graded aggregate relies both on
mechanical interlocking and bitumen binding for its strength a bit like a bituminous premix,
14
July 21, 2015
(NPRA, 1999). After 4-8 weeks of trafficking and rolling, the seal has an appearance like that of
a premix. However, it should be noted that the construction procedures of an Otta Seal are different
from those of a premix (cold mix asphalt) and/or hot mix asphalt although they may have a similar
appearance and structure in the end.
Because of this property of having an appearance and/or structure a bit like that of a bituminous
premix, the performance of an Otta seal can be assessed by employing the Marshall Mix Design
Tests.
2.4.2 Marshall Mix Design Tests
In this method, the resistance to plastic deformation of a compacted cylindrical specimen of
bituminous mixture is measured when the specimen is loaded diametrically at a deformation rate
of 50/. There are two major features of the Marshall method of mix design.
(i) density-voids analysis and (ii) stability-flow tests. The Marshall Stability of the mix is defined
as the maximum load carried by the specimen at a standard test temperature of 60C. The flow
value is the deformation that the test specimen undergoes during loading up to the maximum load.
Flow is measured in 0.25 mm units. In this test, an attempt is made to assess the performance of
the Otta Seal under different percentages of asphalt cement (bitumen). An optimum amount of the
binder is then obtained that gives the best performance of the seal.
15
July 21, 2015
Chapter Three
MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 Materials
3.1.1 Aggregates
A total of four (4) gravel samples distributed within the Central Region of Uganda were considered
in this study. These samples were obtained from the areas of Kanyanya, Kireka, Kajjansi and
Mutundwe
This is contrary to what was stated in the proposal of collecting five (5) gravel samples from five
places, the fifth place being Wakiso. The reason as to why material from Wakiso was left out was
because the borrow pits there had too much fines from the preliminary survey carried out and
therefore could not pass the gradation requirements from just visual inspection. This material could
be considered maybe for base and sub-base design in any road construction but not for Otta Seal.
The criteria for choosing these places was based on material availability. Permission to access
these gravel pits situated within these areas was sought from the concerned personnel responsible.
These gravel samples were collected in situ and brought to the laboratory at the University and
some to the Central Materials Laboratory in Kireka.
These four (4) samples were each subjected to suitability tests 3.2.1, for Otta Seal requirements
as described in 2.3. Only ONE sample of these passed the general requirements and was used in
the performance assessment tests. Samples that did not meet these requirements were discarded.
An idea was held such that in case no sample met all the requirements, blending would be done to
have the test sample for performance assessment tests meet the minimum Otta Seal requirements.
3.1.2 Bitumen
About 1.5 (net volume) of MC-3000 cutback bitumen was required for the tests. However, to
cater for storage losses, haulage spills, evaporation and any other unaccounted-for losses, a total
of about 10 was obtained. This was acquired from Mt. Elgon Labor-based Training Centre in
Mbale district on requisition.
16
July 21, 2015
3.2 Methods
3.2.1 Laboratory Tests
3.2.1.1 Aggregate Strength
The Ten Percent Fines Aggregate Crushing Value (10% FACT) defined there above was
determined by measuring the load required to crush a prepared aggregate sample such that 10%
of the material passed a specified sieve after crushing. The specified sieve in this case was the
2.36mm sieve. This test was carried out on the samples using particles which passed the 14mm
sieve and were retained on the 10mm sieve in accordance with BS 812 Part 111:1990.
3.2.1.2 Gradation Tests
The particle size distribution of each gravel material source was determined using wet sieving
method in accordance with BS 1377 Part 2:1990 on representative portions of the gravel samples.
This was done after the materials had been oven dried at 105 for 24 hours.
3.2.1.3 Fines Content
The fines content of each gravel sample was determined using dry sieving method in accordance
with BS 1377 Part 2:1990. The percentage of material passing the 0.075 sieve was read from
the gradation curves and stated.
3.2.1.4 Plasticity Index
The plastic and liquid limit tests were carried out in accordance with BS 1377 Part 2:1990 on the
fines fraction (below 0.425mm) of the unscreened samples.
3.2.1.5 Screening
This procedure was used to bring the grading of the natural gravel samples to the grading of Otta
Seals. It basically involved the removal of over-size fractions i.e. particles that exceeded the size
of 19mm.
3.2.1.6 Gravel wastage from screening
The quantity of gravel material reduced whenever the material was subjected to screening. For the
case of this study, it was important to establish the extent of material wastage arising from the
screening process. The masses of the unscreened samples were weighed and then the materials
17
July 21, 2015
wasted from these samples after screening also weighed. The wasted masses were expressed as
percentages of the original sample masses.
3.2.1.7 Marshall Mix Design Tests
A total of twenty one (21) test specimens were prepared. Seven (7) different percentages of
bitumen content giving seven (7) aggregate-bitumen combinations were adopted. The percentages
were varied from 3.0% through 6.0% in steps of 0.5% around an assumed value of 4.0%,
evaluated from findings of trial contracts by Overby (1999). For each aggregate-bitumen
combination, three (3) test specimens were prepared. The average values of the parameters being
tested for the three (3) test specimens of each aggregate-bitumen combination were taken for that
particular combination. About 1.2 of natural gravel was required for each test specimen. It will
again be noted here that the natural gravel that was used in these tests, was the one from Kanyanya
borrow pit. This is because it is the only one sample that met all the Otta Seal requirements and so
there was no such need for blending, see Tables 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 & 4.4 and Figure 4.1.
The procedure/steps for preparing the test specimens and conducting the experiments for the
Marshall Mix design tests were carried out in accordance with ASTM 1559-89: Standard Test for
Resistance to Plastic Flow of Bituminous Mixtures Using Marshall Apparatus.
3.2.2 Analysis of Results
3.2.2.1 Aggregate Strength
These were presented in a tabular form using Microsoft Excel.
3.2.2.2 Gradation Tests
The obtained gradation curves were superimposed on the gradation envelopes of the Otta Seal and
compared.
3.2.2.3 Fines Content
These were obtained by reading off the percentages of masses of material passing the 0.075
sieve from the gradation curves. They were then presented in a tabular.
3.2.2.4 Plasticity Index
The plasticity indices were obtained by getting the differences between the liquid limits and the
plastic limits of the samples. The results were then tabulated.
18
July 21, 2015
3.2.2.4 Gravel Wastage from Screening

These results were presented in a tabular form.
3.2.2.5 Marshall Mix Design Tests
These results were presented in tabular forms and graphs/charts using MS-Excel.
19
July 21, 2015
Chapter Four
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
4.1 Aggregate Strength
The strength test results that were carried out in accordance with BS 812 Part 111:1990 are shown
in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1 Aggregate Strength test results.
S/N
1
2
3
4
Place/Source of
Gravel
Kanyanya
Kireka
Kajjansi
Mutundwe
Wet strength
(kN)
365
227
286
314
Dry strength
(kN)
474
310
473
382
Wet/Dry strength
ratio
0.77
0.73
0.61
0.82
As can be seen from Table 4.1, all of the samples passed this requirement except that the one from
Kajjansi showed a small deviation in the wet/dry strength ratio. The Kajjansi material had the value
of this ratio as 0.61 which was less than 0.75 but more than 0.60. This could make such material
only applicable to roads where the traffic expected at the time of construction is less than say 100
/ (see Table 2.4 under 2.3.1). However, with this exception, all the samples had their
strengths (TFVs) and wet/dry strength ratios well above the minimum requirements. For a detailed
table of results, see Table A.9 in Appendix A.
4.2 Gradation Tests
The gradation tests carried out in accordance with BS 1377 Part 2:1990 on representative portions
of the gravel samples using wet sieving gave the following results.
Figure 4.1 shows the gradation curves superimposed on the Otta Seal gradation envelope. As can
be seen from the figure, all the gravel samples met the gradation requirement for Otta Seal. This
can be observed as the specific gradation curves all fell within the Otta Seal gradation envelope,
See Tables A.1 through A.4 in Appendix A.
4.3 Fines Content
The fines content values i.e. percentage of material passing the 0.075 sieve for the different
borrow pit materials can be read off the gradation curves from Figure 4.1. Table 4.2 shows these
results.
20
July 21, 2015
100
Percentage Passing (%)
90
Legend
Otta Seal Envelope
Kireka
Mutundwe
Kajjansi
Kanyanya
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.063
0.630
6.300
63.000
Sieve Size (mm)

Figure 4.1 Gradation curves superimposed on the Otta Seal gradation envelope.
From Table 4.2, it is observed that all the samples had their fines content values well below the
maximum of 10% as stated by Overby (1999). Therefore all the samples met this suitability
requirement.
Table 4.2 Fines Content of the gravel samples.
Source
Fines Content (%)
Kireka
5.18
Mutundwe
2.21
Kajjansi
2.15
Kanyanya
3.33
4.4 Plasticity Index

The plasticity indices were obtained by getting the differences between the liquid limits and the
plastic limits of the samples. The results are given in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3 Plasticity Indices of the samples.
S/N
1
2
3
4
Place/Source
Kanyanya
Kireka
Kajjansi
Mutundwe
LL (%)
23
44
34
34
PL (%)
14
25
14
14
PI (%)
9
19
20
20
21
July 21, 2015
It can be observed from Table 4.3 that none of the samples except that from Kanyanya passed the
plasticity index requirement. Samples from the areas of Kireka, Kajjansi and Mutundwe showed a
bit of plasticity whilst the one from Kanyanya was not all that very plastic. The PI according to
MoWT, was not to exceed 12%; Kanyanya had a PI of 9% hence passing the requirement. For
more about this analysis, refer to Tables A.5 through A.8 in Appendix A.
4.5 Gravel Wastage from Screening
These results were obtained by deducting the masses of representative portions after screening
from the masses before screening. The results are given in Table 4.4:
Table 4.4 Gravel Wastage from Screening.
It can be observed from Table 4.4 that the material from Kanyanya and Mutundwe suffered the
highest wastages while the ones from Kireka and Kajjansi suffered less with Kireka suffering the
least. Although it is technically adequate, this observation renders the material from Kanyanya as
being not economical since most of the hauled aggregates would be wasted.
4.6 Marshall Mix Design Tests
The Marshall Mix design tests were carried out on twenty one (21) test specimens. Seven (7)
different percentages of bitumen content giving seven (7) aggregate-bitumen combinations were
adopted. The percentages were varied from 3.0% through 6.0% in steps of 0.5% around an
assumed value of 4.0% evaluated from findings of trial contracts by Overby (1999). For each
aggregate-bitumen combination, three (3) test specimens were prepared. The average values of the
parameters being tested for the three (3) test specimens of each aggregate-bitumen combination
22
July 21, 2015
were taken for that particular combination. Detailed test results have been appended in Tables A.10
through A.16 in Appendix A. Table 4.5 gives a summary of the results.
Table 4.5 Summary results of the marshall mix design tests.
As can be seen from Table 4.5, (see also Figure 4.2), the bulk density of the mix initially increased
with an increase in binder content. This is because the binder was absorbed into the pores of the
aggregates and hence increased the overall mass of individual particles hence bulk density up to
an optimum value. When more bitumen was added, it was simply adsorbed onto the aggregate
surfaces causing a poor aggregate-aggregate interlock and relative motion between the individual
aggregates. The less dense bitumen replaced the more dense aggregates hence reducing the overall
bulk density.
The stability (see Table 4.5 and Figure 4.3) initially increased with binder content because of the
increased locking-up of aggregates and stiffness of the mix due to the absorbed bitumen that
enhanced aggregate-aggregate binding. More bitumen added was rather adsorbed onto the
aggregate surfaces which caused relative motion between the aggregates and hence a weaker
matrix.
The flow (see Table 4.5 and Figure 4.4) increased with binder content because addition of bitumen
reduced the internal friction between the aggregate particles and enhancing the possibility of
relative motion between them. As more of the binder was added, the mixture became weaker and
more compressible which increased its susceptibility to deformation.
23
July 21, 2015
The void content (see Table 4.5 and Figure 4.5) decreased with an increase in binder content
because the binder added filled the air voids present. Bitumen was added up to a point of reaching
saturation; where the mixture could not take in any more bitumen.
The percentage of voids filled with binder (see Table 4.5 and Figure 4.6) increased with binder
content because initially the air pores absorbed bitumen and all got filled up. The more binder that
was added was adsorbed onto the aggregate surfaces and thus existed between the aggregate
interstices. All of this thus increased the overall percentage of voids filled with binder.
Particle density determination was carried out and the specific gravity of the gravel was found to
be about 2.985 as can be seen from Table 4.6.
Table 4.6 Results for particle density determination of natural gravel.
Parameters (g)
Set A
Set B
Mass of jar (m1)
1030.38
1348.45
Mass of jar + gravel (m2)
1699.22
1966.69
Mass of jar + water + gravel (m3)
2704.82
2988.12
Mass of jar + water (m4)
2270.70
2579.81
2.85
2.94
Gs = (m2-m1)/{(m4-m1)-(m3-m2)}
Average Gs
2.895
The specific gravity of MC-3000 bitumen was also determined as 0.998.

To come up with the optimum binder content, the charts were plotted. The data values being
extracted from Table 4.5.
The procedure from here was then to determine the optimum binder content. The original marshall
procedure determines the optimum binder content as the average of the following three values:
1. Binder content at maximum mix density (3.95% from Figure 4.2);
2. Binder content giving a void content halfway between the upper and lower requirements
for the mix in consideration (3.80% from Figure 4.3).
Note: The nominal spray range for the MC-3000 in an Otta Seal construction between
1.6 2.2/2 for an aggregate spread rate of 16/2 (see table 2.1 and 2.2 under 2.3.1).
24
July 21, 2015
Taking the density of bitumen as approximately 1000/3 and that of aggregates as

2895/3, and considering the so stated ranges of material application, the following
minimum and maximum binder contents were obtained:
Minimum binder content =
(1.6103 1000)/2
Maximum binder content =
(16103 2895)/2
(2.2103 1000)/2
(16103 2895)/2
100 = 3.45%
100 = 4.75%
Now from the graph in Fig.4.3, 3.45% binder content corresponds to a void content of
12.9% while 4.75% corresponds to a void content of 11.5%. Therefore the upper and
lower bounds are respectively 12.9% and 11.5% with the halfway value being 12.2%.
3. Binder content at maximum stability (3.95% from Figure 4.5).
The optimum binder content was therefore calculated as follows:
=
3.95 + 3.80 + 3.95

= 3.90%
3
This value obtained above thus represents the optimum binder content for which an Otta Seal gives
optimum performance.
4.7 Discussion
In an effort to come up with an optimum binder content for an Otta seal, we performed performance
assessment tests on natural gravel mixed with differing binder amounts. The performance was
assessed by way of conducting the Marshall Mix design tests.
The natural gravel (which comprised four different samples) was first of all subjected to suitability
tests, in which case three samples failed to pass all the requirements. Only the sample from
Kanyanya passed all the requirements. The suitability tests were: strength tests, particle size
distribution, plasticity index and fines content. In terms of strength, all the natural gravels showed
adequate strength, for even AADT exceeding 100 vehicles (see Table A.9 in appendix A).
25
July 21, 2015
Figure 4.2 A Plot of Bulk Density against

Binder Content.
Figure 4.5 A Plot of Void Content against
Binder Content.
Figure 4.3 A Plot of Stability against Binder

Content.
Figure 4.6 A Plot of Voids filled with Binder
against Binder Content.
In general therefore, strength is unlikely to be
an issue of concern for most natural gravel
deposits in the central region of the country.
This is attributed to the fact that the coarse
fractions of gravelly soils geologically tend
to consist of fragments of hard rock or rocks
Figure 4.4 A Plot of Flow against Binder
Content.
that have quartz as the predominant mineral

(Tuffour and Braimah 2014).
26
July 21, 2015
In terms of particle size distribution, all the samples showed a good positive response with quite
an appreciable degree of parallelism to both the upper and lower bound of the Otta Seal gradation
envelope. This Otta Seal gradation envelope is general and it so happens that any gradation curve
falling within it renders such material fit for use in Otta Seal construction. It should be
remembered however, that the positive response exhibited here, was after screening out the oversize fractions i.e. > 19. Even though this screening process was helpful in reducing such oversize fractions
which tend not to bind properly with smaller fractions and instead end up
contributing to raveling, it has the disadvantage of reducing the quantity of gravel material
available for use. For the gravels evaluated in this study, practically all needed screening, with
one from Kanyanya experiencing as much as over 40% reduction in quantity after the process.
All the samples had their fines content values well below the maximum value of 10%. The material
from Kireka had the biggest value of all (5.18%) followed by Kanyanya (3.33%), then Mutundwe
and Kajjansi which had almost comparable results below 3%. This shows that the samples had
less fines (clayey particles), in general, and hence not very plastic as can be evidenced from the
plasticity index results. Maximum PI recorded was 20%.
Regarding plasticity, it can be seen from Table 4.4 that the PI values ranged between 0 and 20%
with only the material from Kanyanya passing the requirement with a PI of 9%. Material from
other sources did not pass the requirement for plasticity index owing to the high clayey contents
they contained. PI happened to be the key criterion in the selection of which sample to use in the
Marshall Mix design tests. All the other requirements except PI were met by all the samples.
Analysis of results from the performance assessment tests revealed that the optimum binder
content to be used in the construction of an Otta Seal is 3.9%. This optimum value agrees well
with the findings of Overby (1999) where the binder spray rate ranges between 1.6/2 and
2.2/2 for a range of aggregate spread rates between 16/2 and 20/2 for dense grading.
It will be noted however, that the engineering properties of natural gravel depend on the area where
it is formed as it is not a conventional material. The material is subject to decomposition due to
natural processes such as weathering. Suitability tests thus ought to be carried out prior to the
construction of an Otta Seal.
27
July 21, 2015
Chapter Five
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusions
Based on the findings from this study, the following conclusions have been made:
I.
Given that the samples from Kanyanya, Mutundwe, Kajjansi and Kireka exhibited the
following dry strengths; 365, 314, 286, 227 respectively as compared to the
minimum required dry strengths of 90 (for < 100) and 110 (for >
100), it is safe to say that gravel from the given borrow pits has adequate strength which
is well above the required strength of gravel to be used in Otta Seal design. Also samples
from Kanyanya, Kireka and Mutundwe which had wet/dry strength ratio as
0.77, 0.73, 0.82 passed the required wet/dry strength ratio of 0.6 (for < 100)
and 0.75 (for > 100) unlike the sample from Kajjansi that failed with a wet/dry
strength ratio of 0.61.This implies that the strength of gravel from Kajjansi is reduced
greatly with the addition of water.
II.
From the gradation tests it can be seen that the borrow pits had well graded materials
according to the Unified Soil Classification System. Given that the coefficient of Curvature
(Cz) for the borrow pits are 2.2, 1.2, 1.7 2.9 for Kireka, Kajjansi, Kanyanya and
Mutundwe respectively which lie between 1 and 3 hence they can be classified as
well/dense graded which means that there was no excess of particles in any size range
(Craig, 2004). Since all the samples had 35% or less of total sample passing sieve No. 200
(0.075) it can be concluded that they were of granular material according to AASHTO
classification. According to this type of classification, material have group classifications
of: A-2-6(0), A-2-4(0), A-2-6(0) and A-2-7(0) for Mutundwe, Kanyanya, Kajjansi and
Kireka respectively. From the plasticity index results it can be concluded that samples from
Mutundwe, Kajjansi and Kireka have medium plasticity since their PIs were within the
range of 10-20 while that of Kanyanya has low plasticity since its plasticity was in the
range of 5-10 (Das, 2006).
III.
From the marshall mix design tests it can be seen that gravel mixed with bitumen (MC3000) behaved differently depending on the percentage of binder used and grading of the
gravel with the optimum binder content obtained as 3.90% specifically for gravel from
28
July 21, 2015
Kanyanya which had passed all the relevant tests. For the case of stability, as the binder
content was increased, stability of the mix also increased till an optimum value after which
it dropped, while flow of the mix increased with increase in binder content. This implies
that for an optimum performance the gravel has to be well graded hence gradation of
samples has to be predetermined before these tests are carried out. When well graded gravel
is used inherent stability possessed will make it easy to achieve the necessary stability of
the seal without having to resort to hard binders. The optimum binder content will also
vary differently because different gravel samples are of a different nature and their
characteristics change depending on the environmental conditions hence the value obtained
cannot be taken as a conclusive optimum binder content to be used for all gravel samples.
IV.
From the findings by Overby (1999) in Botswana, where the aggregate spread rates range
between 16/2 and 20/2 for dense graded aggregates and an average bitumen spray
rate of 1.9/2 ; the optimum binder content is observed to range between 3.28% and
4.10%. Bitumen spray rates of about 1.6/2 and aggregate spread rates amounting to
16/2 have been evidenced on the Busamaga-Magada-Bumuluya model road
constructed by Mt. Elgon Labour-based Training Centre in Mbale district. Of important
notice also, are the different contractors who have implemented nineteen (19) low-cost
sealing contracts whereof one of the seals to be constructed was the Otta Seal. These
contracts which were also referred to as practical field training exercises were executed in
twenty three (23) districts of the Teso, Lango and Acholi sub-regions, (MELTC, 2015).
Varying lengths of the Otta Seal were constructed, see Table A.17 in Appendix A. The
bitumen spray and aggregate spread rates were averaged at values of 1.7/2 and 16/2
respectively for all of the contractor firms. Looking at this, we found out that our obtained
value for the optimum binder content i.e. 3.90% happens to be in good agreement with
such values for established practice elsewhere.
5.2 Recommendations
Although an optimum binder content for an Otta Seal has been arrived at in this study,
more research should be conducted to relate such optimum values to specific gradations of
29
July 21, 2015
the available gravel material for instance dense, medium or coarse grading in relation to
the level of traffic expected at the time of construction.
MC-3000 cutback bitumen has a low flash point of about 66 and is highly flammable
due to the high contents of volatile organic solvents. This poses a safety hazard in handling
it during Otta Seal construction. Basing on this therefore, there should be further research
in the use of other soft binders say for example the emulsions that are relatively cheaper
and safer to use in the construction of Otta Seals.
Concerning the issue with university laboratories, more necessary equipment should be
installed to avail students with an opportunity of conducting their tests within the proximity
of the university. This in turn helps in reducing on the overall project as outsourcing tends
to prove pretty expensive; and
The college is also urged to liaise with the university council on the issue of final year project
financing. Final year projects prove costly both in monetary terms and time. The university should
set a platform on how to secure funds and sponsor students final year projects to reduce on the
cost implications such students suffer.
30
July 21, 2015
References
Cook, J. R., Petts, R. C., & Rolt, J. (2013). Low Volume Rural Road Surfacing and Pavements; A
Guide to Good Practice. London, United Kingdom: Africa Community Access
Programme.
Craig, R. F. (2004). Craig's Soil Mechanics (7th ed.). London, United Kingdom: Spon Press,
Taylor & Francis Group.
Das, B. M. (2011). Principles of Foundation Engineering, SI (7th ed.). (H. Gowans, & T. Altieri,
Eds.) Stamford, California, United States: Global Engineering: Christopher M. Shortt.
Dr. Gourley, C., Greening, A., Dr. Jones, D., & Petts, R. (2002). Paving the Way for Rural
Development & Poverty Reduction. 20th Conference of ASEAN Federation of Engineering
Organisations, (pp. 1-2). Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Giang, T. V., Pett, R., & Duc, N. H. (2007). Rural Road Surfacing Research for Sustainable Access
and Poverty Reduction in South East Asia. Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for
Transportation Studies, 7, 1944.
Hongve, J. (2006, October). Bituminous Surfacing Options for Low Volume Roads Constructed
by Labour-Based Methods.
International Focus Group on Rural Road Engineering. (2002). Otta Seal. Technical Information.
Joshi, S. G., & Jha, A. K. (2013, July 30). Otta Seal Experience in Nepal. TRB 2013 Annual
Meeting, pp. 1-2.
Lennox, R., & MacKenzie, M. (2008). Eco-Road Building for Emerging Economies: An Initial
Scan for Promising Alternative Technologies. Department for International Development.
Gaborone, Botswana: Global Transport Knowledge Partnership.
Mathers, S. J. (1994). The Industrial Mineral Resource Potential of Uganda. British Geological
Survey, ODA/BGS Technology Development and Research Programme. Nottingham,
United Kingdom: National Environment Research Council.
Ministry of Works and Transport. (2010). Road Design Manual (Vol. 3 Pavement Design; Part I
Flexible Pavements). Kampala, Uganda.
Mt. Elgon Labour-based Training Centre. (July, 2015). A Final Completion Report on the 25
Practical Field Training Exercises in Low Cost Sealing. Mbale: MELTC.
Norwegian Public Roads Administartion. (1999). A Guide to the Use of Otta Seals (3000 ed., Vol.
Publication No. 93). (C. Overby, Ed.) Oslo, Norway: Allkopi AS.
31
July 21, 2015
Overby, C., & Pinard, M. I. (2007, October). The Otta Seal Surfacing. An Economic and Practical
Alternative to Traditional Bituminous Surface Treatments.
Overby, C., & Pinard, M. I. (2008). Appropriate Standards and Specifications for Surfacing of
Low-Volume Rural Roads. The 12th International Conference of International Association
for Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics (IACMAG). Goa, India.
Overby, C., & Pinard, M. I. (2012, November 12). The Otta Seal Surfacing. A Practical and
Economic Alternative to Traditional Bituminous Surface Treatments.
Pinard, M. I., & Obika, B. O. (1997). Optimal Use of Marginal Aggregates for Achieving Cost
Effective Surfacing on Low Volume Roads in Developing Countries. Paper Presented at
the Low Volume Roads Session of the 1997 13th IRF World Meeting in Toronto, Ontario,
Canada. Gaborone, Botswana.
Pinard, M. I., & Overby, C. (2006, October). Note on Pavement and Surfacing Technologies for
Low-Volume Roads. 1-2. Retrieved November 6, 2014
Pinard, M. I., & Overby, C. (2013). Review of Low-Cost Seal Technology Options on Low Volume
Roads in Uganda. Mbale: InfraAfrica Consultants.
Roads Department; Ministry of Works, Transport & Communications. (1999). The Design,
Construction and Maintenance of Otta Seals (Vol. Guideline No. 1). (M. I. Pinard, Ed.)
Gaborone, Botswana.
Roads Department; Ministry of Works, Transport & Communications. (2002). The Use of Silcret
and Other Marginal Materials for Road Surfacing (Vol. Guideline No. 8). (C. Overby,
Ed.) Gaborne, Botswana.
Southern and Eastern African Mineral Centre. (2008, January). Opportunities in Mining
Investment in Uganda. (M. W. Gebremichael, G. R. Nkini, E. C. Kimaro, & L. Moshi,
Eds.) Mineral Potential of SEAMIC Member Countries, 10(1), 20. Retrieved November 6,
2014
The Central Materials Laboratory. (2000). Laboratory Testing Manual. (S. S. Rutajama, & C.
Overby, Eds.) Dar es Salaam, The United Republic of Tanzania: Novum GrafskAS,
Skjetten Norway.
Transport Research Laboratory. (2003). Manual for the Labour-based Construction of Bituminous
Surfacings on Low-Volume Roads. Crowthorne, Berkshire, United Kingdom: Department
for International Development.
32
July 21, 2015
Tuffour, Y. A., & Braimah, A. (2014, July). Suitability of Natural Gravels in Ghana for Otta Seal
Construction. Journal of Engineering, 04(07), 46-53. Retrieved from
http://www.iosrjen.org
Uganda Bureau of Statistics. (2013). Statistical Abstract. Kampala, Uganda: Ben Paul
Mungyereza.
33
July 21, 2015

Appendices
Appendix A
Table A.1 Sieve analysis results for Mutundwe borrow pit.
Dry Mass before Washing = 2444g
Sieve Size
Mass Retained
(mm)
(g)
20.000
0
14.000
464
10.000
514
5.000
852
2.360
308
1.180
66
0.600
96
0.425
14
0.300
20
0.212
20
0.150
20
0.063
16
Mass passing
(g)
2444
1980
1466
614
306
240
144
130
110
90
70
54
Percentage passing
(%)
100.00
81.01
59.98
25.12
12.52
9.82
5.89
5.32
4.50
3.68
2.86
2.21
Table A.2 Sieve analysis results for Kireka borrow pit.

Sieve size
Mass Retained
(mm)
(g)
20.000
0
14.000
352
10.000
550
5.000
814
2.360
340
1.180
116
0.600
42
0.425
10
0.300
10
0.212
8
0.150
10
0.063
16
Mass passing
(g)
2392
2040
1490
676
336
220
178
168
158
150
140
124
Percentage passing
(%)
100.00
85.28
62.29
28.26
14.05
9.20
7.44
7.02
6.61
6.27
5.85
5.18
34
July 21, 2015
Table A.3 Sieve analysis results for Kajjansi borrow pit.

Sieve Size
Mass Retained
(mm)
(g)
20.000
0.00
14.000
232.00
10.000
692.00
5.000
1216.00
2.360
202.00
1.180
36.00
0.600
8.00
0.425
2.00
0.300
1.77
0.212
1.77
0.150
1.72
0.063
2.00
Mass Passing
(g)
2448.00
2216.00
1524.00
308.00
106.00
70.00
62.00
60.00
58.23
56.46
54.74
52.74
Percentage Passing
(%)
100.00
90.52
62.25
12.58
4.33
2.86
2.53
2.45
2.38
2.31
2.24
2.15
Table A.4 Sieve analysis results for Kanyanya borrow pit.

Sieve Size
Mass Retained
(mm)
(g)
20.000
0
14.000
240
10.000
508
5.000
1046
2.360
384
1.180
108
0.600
40
0.425
12
0.300
10
0.212
10
0.150
10
0.063
10
Mass Passing
(g)
2460
2220
1712
666
282
174
134
122
112
102
92
82
Percentage Passing
(%)
100.00
90.24
69.59
27.07
11.46
7.07
5.45
4.96
4.55
4.15
3.74
3.33
35
15.0
32.00
16.0
17.0
18.0
19.0
20.0
21.0
22.0
23.0
32.50
33.00
24.0
36
34.00
34.50
Moisture Content (%)
33.50
32.55
15.7
Plasticity Index
g
g
g
g
g
Average Moisture content
mm
g
g
g
g
g
Average penetration
Container No.
Mass of wet soil + container
Mass of dry soil + container
Mass of container
Mass of moisture
Mass of dry soil
Moisture content
LIQUID LIMIT
Continer N
Mass of container
Mass of moisture
Mass of dry soil
Moisture content
PLASTIC LIMIT
BS 1377 : Part 2 :1990
Natutal Gravel
Test method :
Mutundwe
Location:
Soil Description
Average Penetration (mm)
35.00
33.20
17.3
35.50
34.39
20.2
36.00
35.60
22.8
m1
m2
m3
m1-m2
m2-m3
(m1-m2)/(m2-m3)*100
Test No
m1
m2
m3
m1-m2
m2-m3
(m1-m2)/(m2-m3)*100
Test No
13.98
13.95
35.60
35.60
34.39
34.39
33.20
33.20
32.55
32.55
20
%
Plastic Limit
Plasticity Index %
%
% 34
% 14
Liquid Limit
Oven temperature
8.82
24.78
9.10
26.46
6.68
20.11
0.80
0.80
0.80
8.64
0.80
36.36
27.26
35.98
27.34
26.54
34.40
25.58
2
27.59
20.91
22.8
Sample 4
20.2
17.3
9.63
7.31
105
1.35
1.02
Sample 3
1.42
1.24
Sample 2
11.05
8.55
15.7
Sample 1
12.40
Sampe 2
9.57
Sampe 1
PLASTIC & LIQUID LIMIT - CONE PENETROMETER
34
34
14
34
Average

July 21, 2015
Table A.5 Atterberg results for Mutundwe borrow pit.
14.0
42.50
15.0
16.0
17.0
18.0
19.0
20.0
21.0
22.0
23.0
43.00
43.50
24.0
37
44.50
44.00
42.66
15.2
Plasticity Index
g
g
g
g
g
mm
`
g
g
g
g
Average penetration
Container No.
Mass of container
Mass of moisture
Mass of dry soil
Moisture content
LIQUID LIMIT
Continer No
Mass of container
Mass of moisture
Mass of dry soil
Moisture content
PLASTIC LIMIT
BS 1377 : Part 2 :1990
Natural Gravel
Soil Description:
Test method :
Kireka
Location:
45.00
43.61
19.5
45.50
44.86
21.3
46.00
45.67
22.2
m1
m2
m3
m1-m2
m2-m3
(m1-m2)/(m2-m3)*100
Test No
m1
m2
m3
m1-m2
m2-m3
(m1-m2)/(m2-m3)*100
Test No
0.80
9.06
19.84
45.67
45.67
23.50
16.47
0.80
7.03
15.67
44.86
44.86
0.80
9.90
22.70
43.61
43.61
27.72
19.67
0.80
8.05
18.87
42.66
42.66
Plastic Limit
19
% 44
% 25
Liquid Limit
Plasticity Index %
C
105
Oven temperature
29.70
20.64
2
33.40
23.50
22.2
Sample 4
25.48
25.00
21.3
6.20
8.00
Sample 3
1.58
2.00
19.5
14.60
14.00
Sample 2
20.80
22.00
15.2
Sample 1
2
22.38
Sample 2
24.00
Sample 1
44
44
44
25
Average

July 21, 2015
Table A.6 Atterberg results for Kireka borrow pit.
Location:
22.50
14.0
22.00
15.0
16.0
17.0
18.0
19.0
20.0
21.0
22.0
23.0
24.0
38
23.50
23.00
22.12
15.2
Plasticity Index
g
g
g
g
g
mm
g
g
g
g
g
BS 1377 : Part 2 :1990
Natutal Gravel
Kajjansi
Average penetration
Container No.
Mass of container
Mass of moisture
Mass of dry soil
Moisture content
LIQUID LIMIT
Continer N
Mass of container
Mass of moisture
Mass of dry soil
Moisture content
PLASTIC LIMIT
Test method :
Soil Description
Ave ra ge Pe netration (mm)
24.00
22.98
18.4
23.74
21.4
24.50
24.12
23.3
m1
m2
m3
m1-m2
m2-m3
(m1-m2)/(m2-m3)*100
Test No
m1
m2
m3
m1-m2
m2-m3
(m1-m2)/(m2-m3)*100
Test No
23.74
23.74
22.98
22.98
22.12
22.12
Plasticity Index %
Plastic Limit
Liquid Limit
20
% 14
24.12
22.41
13.12
16.32
% 34
24.12
5.32
3.01
3.61
5.24
21.72
0.80
0.80
0.80
105
0.80
28.53
23.21
20.73
17.12
Oven temperature
27.76
22.52
2
16.93
13.92
23.3
Sample 4
13.83
13.84
21.4
9.62
8.67
Sample 3
1.33
1.20
18.4
1.42
1.65
Sample 2
11.04
10.32
15.2
Sample 1
12.37
Sampe 2
11.52
Sampe 1
23
23
14
23
Average

July 21, 2015
Table A.7 Atterberg results for Kajjansi borrow pit.
Location:
15.0
18.00
16.0
17.0
18.0
19.0
20.0
21.0
22.0
19.00
20.00
23.0
39
22.00
23.00
21.00
18.97
15.8
Plasticity Index
g
g
g
g
g
mm
g
g
g
g
g
BS 1377 : Part 2 :1990
Natutal Gravel
Kanyanya
Average penetration
Container No.
Mass of container
Mass of moisture
Mass of dry soil
Moisture content
LIQUID LIMIT
Continer N
Mass of container
Mass of moisture
Mass of dry soil
Moisture content
PLASTIC LIMIT
Test method :
Soil Description
24.00
20.05
17.3
25.00
22.79
19.4
26.00
24.78
22.2
m1
m2
m3
m1-m2
m2-m3
(m1-m2)/(m2-m3)*100
Test No
m1
m2
m3
m1-m2
m2-m3
(m1-m2)/(m2-m3)*100
Test No
Sample 2
Sample 3
5.76
23.24
24.78
24.78
0.80
4.93
21.63
22.79
22.79
0.80
5.22
26.04
20.05
20.05
0.80
4.50
23.72
18.97
18.97
0.80
27.36
22.43
29.02
24.52
%
%
9
Plastic Limit
Plasticity Index %
% 23
% 14
Liquid Limit
Oven temperature
29.80
24.04
2
32.06
26.84
22.2
Sample 4
19.4
17.3
105
14.6
14.1
15.8
Sample 1
1.5
10.3
1.6
1.1
9.7
11.9
10.8
1.37
13.4
Sampe 2
12.2
Sampe 1
22
22
14
22
Average

July 21, 2015
Table A.8 Atterberg results for Kanyanya borrow pit.
Average force that produces 10% material passing 2.36mm sieve Fav = (F1+F2)/2
TFV = Fav
W/D = TFVwet/TFVdry
Ten Percent Fines Value
Wet/Dry Strength Ratio
kN
kN
m = m2/m1 *100
Percentage of material passing 2.36mm sieve

Maximum force applied on sample
Force that produces 10% material passing 2.36mm sieve
f
Fi = (14f)/(m+4)
%
kN
kN
c
d
m2 = c-d
1
5304
1828
3476
2206
1812
394
2
5206
1828
3378
2112
1812
300
Wet
2
4568
980
3588
1382
980
402
Dry
1
4452
980
3472
1312
980
332
Kireka
1
6250
2426
3824
2146
1812
334
2
6118
2316
3802
2122
1812
310
Wet
2
5580
1806
3774
2188
1806
382
Dry
1
5610
1806
3804
2202
1806
396
Kajjansi
Kanyanya
Dry
Wet
1 2 1 2
4016 4124 5468 5358
474 474 1812 1812
3542 3650 3656 3546
2098 2166 2218 2178
1812 1812 1812 1812
286 354 406 366
314
314
0.82
382
382
227
227
0.73
310
310
286
286
0.61
473
473
365
365
0.77
474
474
9.2 10.7 9.8 10.9 11.3 8.9 9.6 11.2 8.7 8.2 10.4 10.1 8.1 9.7 11.1 10.3
90 94 110 114 65 68 90 92 85 82 140 137 105 108 140 138
308 320 376 388 221 233 308 313 291 281 478 468 360 369 477 471
BS 812 Part 111:1990

14 - 10 mm
2.36 mm
7.5% m 12.5%
105C
4 hrs
24 hrs
15 mm
10 mins 30 s
Mutundwe
Dry
Wet
Unit
1 2 1 2
5700 5664 4822 4744
g
1812 1812 980 980
g
3888 3852 3842 3764
g
2170 2224 1358 1389
g
1812 1812 980 980
g
358 412 378 409
g
Mass of material passing 2.36mm sieve + tray

Mass of tray
Mass of material passing 2.36mm sieve
Reference
Size fraction tested
Separating sieve
Allowable range of the percentage passing the separating sieve, m
Drying temperature for all test specimens
Drying Duration for test specimens (Dry procedure)
Drying Duration for test specimens (Wet procedure)
Average penetration of plunger
Average duration of penetration of plunger
Parameter
Designation
Description
Test No.
Test Number
a
Mass of crushed sample + tray before sieving
b
Mass of tray
m1 = a-b
Mass of sample before sieving
Ten Percent Fines Aggregate Crushing Test (10% FACT) Results

July 21, 2015
Table A.9 Ten Percent Fines Aggregate Crushing Test (10% FACT) results.
40
July 21, 2015
Table A.10 Marshall mix design test results for 3.0% binder content.
41
July 21, 2015
42
July 21, 2015
43
July 21, 2015
44
July 21, 2015
45
July 21, 2015
46
July 21, 2015
47
July 21, 2015
Table A.17 Otta Seal Trial Contracts.

S/N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
District
Agago
Nwoya
Amuru
Apac
Kaberamaido
Otuke
Ngora
Lira
Kumi
Kumi
Kitgum
Lamwo
Gulu
Amuria
Soroti
Katakwi
Alebtong
Serere
Dokolo
Road Name
Odok-Wocieng
Anaka-Amuru
Keyo-Lalem
Amonoloko-Awir Adir
Kaberamaido-Kalaki
Otuke T/C Alangi-River Moroto
Mukura-Ngora
Boroboro-Amach
Kumi-Omatenga (Section I)
Kumi-Omatenga (Section II)
Awuk-Lyanyadyang
Palabek-Lokung
Laroo-Pageya (Section II)
Amuria-Wera
Gweri-Awoja
Katakwi-Toroma
Alebtong-Abako
Kamod-Kasilo
Adwoki-Bata
Length of Otta Seal (m)

300
300
300
270
250
300
500
250
400
400
300
300
300
250
500
500
300
400
150
48
July 21, 2015
Appendix B
Figure B.1 Air drying samples collected from

the different borrow pits.
Figure B.3 Riffling process.
Figure B.2 Washing samples in preparation

for wet sieving.
Figure B.4 Arranging test sieves for sieve

analysis.
49
July 21, 2015
Figure B.5 Preparation of the samples for

liquid and plastic limit analyses.
Figure B.7 Liquid limit determination.
Figure B.6 Tamping the samples in

preparation for the 10% FACT analysis.
Figure B.8 Conduction of the 10% FACT

analysis.
50
July 21, 2015
Figure B.9 Measuring about 1.2kg of the

gravel for the marshall mix design tests.
Figure B.11 Oven drying the samples and

monitoring the temperature at 135.
Figure B.10 Mixing of MC-3000 bitumen and

natural gravel to make marshall mix design
specimens.
Figure B.12 Adjusting the marshall

compaction apparatus for compaction.
51
Figure B.13 Marshall Compaction apparatus

adjusted to give 75blows/face. Note the
reading on the meter gauge.
Figure B.14 Placement of collars to extrude

the specimens from the molds.
July 21, 2015
Figure B.15 Placing the marshall hammer in

position to start compaction.
Figure B.16 Extrusion apparatus.
52
July 21, 2015
Figure B.17 Extruded marshall mix design

specimens.
Figure B.19 Specimens in a water bath

maintained at 40 for 1 hr.
Figure B.18 Measurement of specimen height

using a slide caliper.
Figure B.20 Specimens being subjected to

stability and flow analyses.
53

Performance Assessment of Otta Seals On Low Traffic Volume Roads

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Performance Assessment of Otta Seals On Low Traffic Volume Roads

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

MAKERERE

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, DESIGN,

Ssekamwa Dennis Derrick

Assoc. Prof Umaru Bagampadde

Eng. David Kaddu

CIV 4200 Civil Engineering Project II

July 21, 2015

Date: Tuesday, July 21, 2015

Waiswa & Ssekamwa July, 2015

Date: Tuesday, July 21, 2015

CIV 4200 Civil Engineering Project II

July 21, 2015

Waiswa & Ssekamwa July, 2015

CIV 4200 Civil Engineering Project II

July 21, 2015

Waiswa & Ssekamwa July, 2015

CIV 4200 Civil Engineering Project II

July 21, 2015

CIV 4200 Civil Engineering Project II

July 21, 2015

CIV 4200 Civil Engineering Project II

July 21, 2015

2.3.4 Plasticity Index............................................................................................................. 13

Waiswa & Ssekamwa July, 2015

CIV 4200 Civil Engineering Project II

July 21, 2015

Waiswa & Ssekamwa July, 2015

CIV 4200 Civil Engineering Project II

July 21, 2015

Waiswa & Ssekamwa July, 2015

CIV 4200 Civil Engineering Project II

July 21, 2015

Ten Percent Fines Aggregate Crushing Value

Average Annual Daily Traffic

Aggregate Crushing Value

Aggregate Impact Value

Danish International Development Agency

Department for International Development

International Focus Group on Rural Road Engineering

Medium Curing (a type of Cutback Bitumen)

Mount Elgon Labour-based Training Centre

Ministry of Works and Transport

Norwegian Public Roads Administration

Overseas Road Note

Southern and Eastern African Mineral Centre

Transport Research Laboratory

Uganda Bureau of Statistics

Uganda National Roads Authority

Voids in Mineral Aggregate

Waiswa & Ssekamwa July, 2015

CIV 4200 Civil Engineering Project II

July 21, 2015

CIV 4200 Civil Engineering Project II

July 21, 2015

Waiswa & Ssekamwa July, 2015

CIV 4200 Civil Engineering Project II

July 21, 2015

1.4 Specific Objectives

CIV 4200 Civil Engineering Project II

July 21, 2015

Waiswa & Ssekamwa July, 2015

CIV 4200 Civil Engineering Project II

July 21, 2015