Concrete Property Test
Workability 1-1: Combined Grading
www.cptechcenter.org
Purpose – Why Do This Test? Test Method – Refer to ASTM C 136 for
Comprehensive Guidance
Aggregate grading may influence the water requirement,
workability, and paste content of a mixture. These in turn 1. Obtain a representative sample of the aggregates.
may impact the risk of segregation, bleeding, and increased
2. Dry the sample to a constant mass.
shrinkage of concrete paving mixtures.
3. Sieve the sample.
It is desirable to cost-effectively blend different aggregate
sizes to obtain a smooth grading curve for the combined 4. Determine the mass of material retained on each
aggregates system. individual sieve and calculate the percentage retained.
Principle – What is the Theory? Output – How Do I Interpret the Results?
The sieve analysis (amount of material retained or passing Points on the coarseness/workability chart (figure 2) represent
a series of sieves with different-sized openings) is compared the coarseness factor and the workability factor for a mixture
to optimized systems using a number of numerical and based on the grading test results of each individual aggregate.
graphical models. The closer the batch grading is to the For an optimized grading mixture, the points should plot above
optimum, the lower the risk of grading-related problems in the control line (28<workability factor<44) and inside the
the mixture. zone labeled well graded (45<coarseness factor<75).
Test Procedure – How is the Test Run? continued on next page
Sieve analyses are conducted in accordance with ASTM
C 136 for the coarse and fine fractions, and the data are
applied to the following models.
The coarseness/workability chart plots a single point on a
graph, with the coarseness factor on the horizontal axis and
the workability factor on the vertical axis, where
Coarseness factor = ([percent retained on 3/8-in. sieve] /
[percent retained on #8 sieve]) • 100
Workability factor = percent passing #8 sieve • 100
The 0.45 power chart plots the combined grading on a
chart with sieve size on the horizontal axis (scale = sieve
size [μm] 0.45) and percent passing on the vertical axis.
The combined percent retained chart plots the material
retained on each sieve with sieve size on the horizontal axis
and percent passing on the vertical axis.
Test Apparatus (figure 1)
• Scale.
• Sieves.
• Oven.
• Mechanical sieve shaker (optional). Figure 1. Sieve analysis test equipment
FOR MORE INFORMATION
CP Tech Center I Iowa State University I 2711 S. Loop Dr. Suite 4700, Ames, IA 50010-8664 I 515-294-5798
Workability 1-1: Combined Grading, continued
50
When the sample combined grading plot on the 0.45 power
Workability factor (percent)
chart (Figure 3) crosses back and forth across the maximum
45
density line, it indicates gap grading. Sandy
Well 40
A general rule of thumb for optimized grading is to have graded
minus ¾"
between 8 and 18 percent retained on each individual sieve on
35
the combined percent retained chart (Figure 4). Note that the Coarse Well graded
gap
1½" to¾ "
combined gradation shown in Figure 4 has two sieves that fall graded
30
outside the “8–18” band, but this does not necessarily indicate Rocky
Control
that the mixture is unacceptable. All three charts should be used line
25
in conjunction before determining that a mixture’s combined 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20
gradation is unacceptable. Two or more points in a valley on the Coarseness factor (percent)
________________________________________________________
combined percent retained chart indicates a more severe gap Figure 2. Coarseness factor chart
grading condition that should be addressed.
Each of the charts (figures 2 through 4) provides a 100%
90%
different perspective of gradation. When used together, the
80%
information in these three charts can provide the contractor
Percent passing
70%
and the agency with a basis for evaluating the combined
60%
grading of a concrete mixture.
50%
40%
30%
Construction Issues – What Should
20%
I Look For? 10%
0%
Modest variations in grading are to be expected from batch
#16
#8
#30
2½"
1½"
#4
#200
#50
#100
1"
2"
⅜"
½"
¾"
to batch and generally do not have a significant impact on Sieve size
performance. Extreme variations in grading and workability ________________________________________________________
Figure 3. 0.45 Power curve
should be addressed as they occur.
Workability concerns attributable to aggregate grading can 24%
be identified by observing the following conditions: 22%
20%
• Stockpile segregation and/or inconsistent stockpiling
Percent retained
18%
methods. 16%
14%
• Inconsistent slump (mixture water is static while grading
12%
changes). 10%
8%
• Excessive bleeding.
6%
• Variation in vibrator frequencies. 4%
2%
• Edge slump. 0%
#100
#200
#16
#30
#50
¾"
½"
⅜"
2½"
#4
#8
1½"
2"
1"
• Poor consolidation observed in cores.
Sieve size
________________________________________________________
• Segregation observed in cores. Figure 4. Combined percent retained chart with “8–18”
limits
APRIL 2008
This test summary is one of a set of summaries originally published Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed
in chapter 7 of the Testing Guide for Implementing Concrete Paving in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect
Quality Control Procedures (Fick, G., Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, the view of Federal Highway Administration or Iowa State University.
2008). The testing guide is a product of a 17-state, Federal Highway Iowa State University does not discriminate on the basis of race, color,
Administration pooled-fund project, Material and Construction age, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, sex,
Optimization for Prevention of Premature Pavement Distress in PCC marital status, disability, or status as a U.S. veteran. Inqueries can be
Pavements, TPF-5(066). The project was managed by the National directed to the Director of Equal Opportunity and Diversity, Iowa State
Concrete Pavement Technology Center at Iowa State University. University, 3680 Beardshear Hall, 515-294-7612.
