j '

ir
:
I-60.NCSA.68
A Simple Guide
for the
DESIGN OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS
USING CRUSHED STONE
National Crushed Stone Association
op,
FOREWORD
In 1965, the National Crushed Stone Association issued
its Statement of Policy With Respect to the AASHO Road
Test. Since then, many authorities have agreed with NCSA's
position and refuse to accept the so-called layer equivalency
concept which evolved from the findings of the Road Test.
One in particular, the world-renowned Francis N. Hveem, in
his 1968 NCSA Convention paper said:
'I have always deplored the use of this
term in the engineering design of pave-
ments......It enables salesmen or promot-
ers of some particular type of pavement
to pose as engineers. Too much depends
upon the circumstances, the nature of
materials, climatic conditions and above
all, the weight of traffic, to justify any
such concept as an 'equivalency ratio'
f
ixed
for all materials and conditions.'
This guide for the design of flexible pavements has been
reviewed and approved by NCSA's Technical Committee.
Questions regarding any of the information it contains should
be directed to Frank P. Nichols, Jr., NCSA's Engineering
Director. We feel that this publication will assist you in the
se1ction of material types and thicknesses for a variety of
pavement design situations.
W. L. Carter
Executive Director
March 1968
INTRODUCTION
The design of flexible pavements appears more and more
complex as more and more research is performed. Basically,
however, the observation of certain fundamental principles in
design and construction can usually result in successful and
serviceable structures at modest cost.
The typical flexible pavement should embrace three
main elements. The firstperhaps the most important though
often given the least considerationis the
foundation, either
a firm, unyielding subbase or a stabilized or otherwise im-
proved suhgrade. The second is the
base.
whose function is to
transmit and cushion wheel load stresses to an extent that the
foundation and subgrade are not overstressed. The third is
the bituminous mat,
a combination of layers of aggregates
and bituminous binders whose function is to resist abrasion,
tangential stresses from acceleration and deceleration, and the
infiltration of moisture. The following notes have been pre-
pared to provide guidance to engineers and architects charged
with the selection of materials and methods of construction
for these elements. Emphasis is laid on the advantages and
the proper use of dense graded crushed stone for the founda-
tion and base courses.
THE FOUNDATION,OR IMPROVED SUBGRADE
Construction of a proper foundation for a flexible pave-
ment structure should involve considerably more than just
smoothing up the native soil and rolling it, although in a few
isolated areas this may be about all that is necessary. The
mere fact that the bare soil is smooth and hard and can sup-
port heavy loads when fairly dry is poor insurance against
subsequent loss of support. If the native soil cannot be made
permanently stable and essentially non-resilient under all an-
ticipated conditions of load and weather, it should be strength-
ened by one of several proven methods. Attempts to "bridge
over" weak subgrades by use of thin semi-rigid bases or by
thickening the bituminous mat have resulted in some costly
failures.
Blanket of Granular Material
The most popular method of foundation preparation in-
volves a granular material blanket of such thickness that, it is
believed, the native soil is beyond the depth of frost penetra-
tion or the influence of applied loads. Research has shown,
however, that legal wheel loads are often felt to depths of sev-
eral feet, deeper in most cases than the frost line. Soils which
are resilient or lacking in shear strength, even though blanket-
ed to a depth great enough to protect them from freezing,
may still be stressed enough to cause damaging deflections or
permanent deformations under repeated heavy loadings. Fig-
ure 1 shows fatigue cracking caused primarily by resiliency of
the foundation layer.
Figure 1. Surface distress commonly associated with inadequate support at the
foundation level.
-
dr
Available test methods, such as the California Bearing
Ratio test, ASTM Standard Method D
1883,*
may give some
idea of the shear strength of the soils involved, but standard
tests for resiliency are still in the developmental stage. The
presence of a high percentage of silt sized particles, and more
particularly the presence of shiny flakes of mica, may be a
danger sign foreboding critical resiliency that will lead in time
to serious fatigue cracking of the bituminous surface. Perhaps
the only reliable indication of the supporting power of the
native soil is the performance of highways in adjacent areas.
Local granular materials from roadside pits often lack
stability or may be resilient themselves and thus will not per-
form the functions of a foundation layer. Some areas, how-
ever, are blessed with abundant local materials of good qual-
ity which, being neither resilient nor frost-susceptible, have
performed well on other projects. In such areas this type of
foundation construction may be the most logical choice.
Specifications for such materials should require a reasonable
gradation cohesionless sands are undesirableand a degree of
stability equivalent to a CBR value of around 20 or more in
a soaked condition. Good drainability is desirable, but too
open a texture may not be a wise choice unless positive out-
lets are provided at frequent intervals for the removal of free
water which might otherwise soften the underlying soil.
Crushed Stone Subbase
More reliable granular subbases have been built of crushed
stone on extensive sections of the interstate and primary sys-
tems in states such as Virginia and Connecticut. Materials for
this purpose may have a variety of gradations, usually open
and free draining, with top sizes preferably in the 2 to 3 inch
range (See Figure 2). Such large particles, keyed together
and confined by denser layers above, permit the attainment
of extremely high stability. The same precautions noted
above must be followed with respect to provision of positive
* See Appendix B
3
outlets for drainage. Too open a gradation may also invite in-
filtration of soil fines from beneath.

-
:
Jc
-

7'---S-
' Sr

s '-
-.'
C. -

ur 2
C ar e Open Graded Crus her Run Stone of
a Type
Suited for Subbase Construction.
Subgrade or Subbase Stabilization
A third method of foundation improvement is available
through chemical stabilization of the native soils, usually with
cement or hydrated lime. Cement is more suitable in friable
soils where mixing and compacting may be most easily ac-
complished; 6 to 10 percent cement by weight is most gener-
ally specified. Lime, which reacts more slowly, is more effec-
tive in cohesive soils which are not easily pulverized. Either
method, where it can be successfully carried out, is extremely
effective in killing the plasticity, resiliency, and frost suscep-
4
tibility of the native soil and in providing a stable working
platform on which to construct subsequent layers.
On some projects, preference should be given to chem-
ical stabilization in the granular subbase rather than in the na-
tive soil. Here a reasonably uniform aggregate material such
as stone screenings or crusher run, which may be too high in
fines for the more usual free draining subbase, is stabilized by
the addition of 4 or 5
percent cement. Such a mixture usu-
ally makes a truly superior foundation course for the layers
above and greatly reduces the load stresses on the soil be-
neath. Being relatively impervious, it is not so necessary that
these stabilized subbases be drained.
It is the nature of any cement stabilized soil or aggregate
mixture to develop shrinkage cracks. It is important therefore
that the base material above such foundations be of a type
that will absorb these cracks rather than reflect them through
to the surface.
The choice of method of foundation construction de-
pends upon types of soils in the grade, the availability of ma-
terials in the area, and the depth of probable frost penetra-
tion. Again it is emphasized that only in rare cases may foun-
dation construction be ignored.
THE BASE COURSE - WHERE CRUSHED
-STONE IS THE IDEAL CHOICE
As already noted, attempts to use rigid or semi-rigid
bases for flexible pavements often produce undesirable re-
sults. Concrete base slabs must have joints or else they will
develop cracks; either the joints or the cracks will reflect
through bituminous surfacings, creating maintenance prob-
lems as well as an unsightly condition. (See Figure 3)
Soil cement or cement treated aggregates, although quite
successfully used in many areas as
subbases,
often create the
same sort of problems when used as bases (See Figure 4).
Even hot mixed asphaltic bases may tend to develop cracks
which are reflected through successive resurfacings, particu-
larly where local bank run aggregates are used in poorly de-
signed mixes. (See Figure
5)
-.--t--- ----
-.. .&r_4,
1
4
Figure 3. Cracks Reflected Through
4 Inches of As phaltic Concrete from
Joints )background) and Random
Cracks )foreground) in a Portland Ce-
ment Concrete Bas e.
Figure 4. Cracks Reflected Through
2'/ Inches of Hot Mixed Sand As phalt
from a Soil Cement Bas e.
_
----=--
AT
Figure 5. Hot Mixed Sand As phalt Us ed as Bas e and Surface 7-inch total thick-
nes s ) on Lightly Traveled Highway is Badly Cracked. Attempts to Fill Cracks and
Seal Surface Uns ucces s ful.
6
The ideal material for use as a base for flexible pavement
is quality controlled, dense graded crushed stone. Properly
graded, compacted, and supported by an adequate founda-
tion, dense graded stone possesses all the attributes required
of a base course. Through internal friction between its parti-
cles, it resists lateral displacement and further densification
under traffic. Thus it normally needs no cementitious addi-
tives and so should not develop shrinkage or fatigue cracks.
Research at the laboratory of the National Crushed
Stone Association has determined that the following are the
most desirable characteristics of a graded aggregate base:
The grading should be continuous from the maxi-
mum size down to and including the dust of frac-
ture.
2. The maximum size of aggregate should be the larg-
est that can be handled without segregation.
3. The quantity passing No. 200 sieve should be be-
tween 5 and 12 percent and not over 10 percent
where frost penetration may be a problem. Even
lower percentages are preferable.
4. The plasticity index should be kept as low as pos-
sible: non-plastic fines are the best.
5. The aggregate should be compacted to the maxi-
mum density attainable, preferably not less than
100 percent of AASHO T-180(ASTM D 1557).
6. The aggregate should consist of crushed stone
throughout the size range to assure the highest
strength and greatest rigidity.
(See NCSA Engineering Bulletin No. 12-Characteristics of
Graded Base Course Aggregates Determined by Triaxial Tests
available from the Association's Washington office.)
7
It is emphasized that the grading should be uniform,
from a maximum size as large as can be handled properly
down to and including a closely controlled percentage of non-
plastic fines. The actual percentage passing one of the inter-
mediate sieve sizes is not as important as is the fact that this
percentage should not vary widely from load to load. Varia-
bility, even within permissible ranges, is undesirable for sever-
al reasons, but principally on account of the effect produced
on the density to which the material can be compacted and
on the moisture content needed to obtain this density. The
maximum density in standard tests like AASHO T- 180 varies
appreciably as the percentages of coarse and fine aggregate
vary. (For a more complete explanation of compaction con-
trol of graded aggregates, see Nichols' paper in Highway Re-
search Board Bulletin 325.)
Research by NCSA has also shown that an increase of
only six pounds per cubic foot in the density of a given aggre-
gate mixture can increase its shearing resistance in the CBR
test around 21/2 times, further emphasizing the importance of
compaction control on base materials. The importance of ad-
equate and uniform compaction cannot be overemphasized.
Achievement of this goal is facilitated by good construction
techniques which minimize segregation during laydown. (See
Figure 6)
Figure 6. Proper Equipment for Handling and Spreading Aids in Ob-
taining Uniform Density and Minimizes Segregation.
8
Specifications for the materials and methods of con-
struction required for a high class crushed aggregate base
course should contain paragraphs similar to those suggested
in Appendix A. The materials specifications, while permitting
a variety of gradations--and consequently maximum econ-
omy of productionemphasize the importance of uniformity
of gradation from truckload to truckload. This important at-
tribute is seldom present in naturally occurring deposits, and
can be assured only by the careful quality control exercised
by reputable commercial producers. It will be noted that
these specifications have a great deal to say about how the
materials are to be blended, sampled, and tested at the source,
hauled to the job, spread, and compacted.
A further note is appropriate for the designer of pave-
ments to be subjected to deep frost penetration. For such
service, the base material's job mix formula should be estab-
lished toward the lower limit of the range with regard to the
amount passing the 200 mesh sieve. If this requirement can-
not be met by the local producers, it may be found necessary
to incorporate an appropriate stabilizing admixture to render
the minus 200 material innocuous Emulsified asphalt, port-
land cement, and lime-fly ash have all been used with success
where proper attention has been given to the necessary curing
conditions.
As noted earlier, stabilization should not be resorted to
as a substitute for compaction or for the purpose of making
the base strong enough to bridge over weak spots in the foun-
dation. The addition of more than two or three percent ce-
ment, by weight, may cause shrinkage cracking and make the
base brittle. Admixtures to a stone base material should be
for the sole purpose of altering the character of the fines to
maintain the mixture's inherent stability under all weather
conditions.
Finally, the importance of achieving the maximum den-
sity practicable for the grading selected for the job is again
emphasized. It is not the value of density, per Se, that is im-
9
portant; higher density values can often be obtained by in-
creasing the percentage of fines, but this may create other un-
desired effects. The important point is that the material
placed in the road be compacted so that little or no addition-
al densification can possibly occur under traffic. This may be
accomplished more easily with the addition of a very small
percentage of calcium chloride, which may provide the added
advantage of combatting potential frost susceptibility.
THE BITUMINOUS MAT
The choice of the type and thickness of the bituminous
mat to be used depends upon a number of factors. For
less important rural highways and other locations where traf-
fic volumes are apt to be light, there is often a great advantage
to be gained through the use of stage construction, by which
a temporary or semi-permanent wearing surface is applied as
part of initial construction and a final surfacing is programmed
for later application when needed. Under this system, the
temporary surfacing should possess a high degree of flexibility
to withstand the relatively high deflections which may occur
early in the pavement's life. Various types of bituminous sur-
face treatment have been used successfully as temporary rid-
ing surfaces.
Where heavier traffic is expected and where superior rid-
ing quality is deemed essential, a bituminous concrete mat is
generally called for. Standard state highway specifications
are usually the best guide to suitable mixtures for this pur-
pose in a given area. Suitable mixes are also defined under
ASTM Standard Specification D 1663 for Hot-Mixed, Hot-
Laid Asphalt Paving Mixtures. Although other types of ag-
gregate have been used successfully in some bituminous
mixes, crushed stone meeting the quality requirements of
ASTM Standard Specification D 692 truly sets the standard
of excellence for this purpose.
10
On a base and foundation constructed in accordance
with this guide, a thickness of bituminous concrete of from
four to six inches is most highly recommended. The lower
portion of this thickness is usually termed the binder, and
should contain stone with a top size of
3/4
inch or somewhat
larger. The upper l'/4to l'/2 inch wearing surface mix gener-
ally does not contain aggregate as large as
3/4
inch, but a top
size smaller than inch is not recommended. Finer mixes are
often considerably less durable and develop fatigue cracks at
an early age. In addition, although some fine mixes have high
skid resistance at low speeds, heavy downpours often pro-
duce water films thick enough to cause vehicles to "hydro-
plane," causing complete loss of steering control. Coarser
mixes tend to break this water film and minimize the prob-
lem.
THICKNESSES OF THE BASE AND BITUMINOUS MAT
If the designer has assured himself that a permanently
firm, non-resilient subgrade or subbase will be provided as a
foundation, the question of thickness of the crushed stone
base and bituminous mat becomes relatively simple. Recall
though that the key to this relative simplicity is the assump-
tion that the foundation can be relied on to provide support
equivalent to a CBR value of 20 at all times and under all con-
ditions. The total thickness required above this foundation
can 'be estimated from design curves devised by the Corps of
Engineers and many other agencies. To add a factor of safety
without adding unduly to the cost, the designs may be se-
lected to satisfy a slightly lower CBR, say, 15.
Depending only upon the volume and weight of traffic
expected, the total thickness of base and bituminous mat re-
quired over a CBR of 15 might vary from 7 to 15 inches. As
an additional factor of safety to account for ever increasing
wheel loads and tire pressures, the table of standard designs
presented below includes total thicknesses of from 8 to 18
inches.
Er
The table of designs just referred to gives thicknesses in
terms of five categories of traffic. Traffic counts ordinarily
are made in terms of the average daily volume of (a) automo-
biles and pickups, (b) light commercial vehicles like package
haulers, (c) more heavily loaded vehicles like dump trucks,
and (d) trailer trucks and large buses. For design purposes,
however, it is generally necessary to consider only the heavier
vehicles of designations (c) and (d).
A typical design table for use where crushed stone aggre-
gates meeting the specifications of Appendix A are available
for the base course is presented next:
Table 1
Standard Designs for Construction on a Non-Resilient
Foundation With a Support Value Equivalent to CBR 20
Thickness of High
Type Bituminous
Mat
Traffic Category1

IIIIIIIV

21/2Y
1.,,
V
6"
Thickness of Well
Compacted Dense
Graded Stone Base6"8"
8210 2 122
Note 1. Definition of Traffic Categories:
Number Average Daily Volume of Heavy Trucks
and Buses in One Direction
0-15
II

16-50
III

51-200
IV

201-800
V

801 and over

12
Note 2. Base courses in designs for categories III, IV, and V,
must be constructed in two layers; bottom layer
may he stabilized with 4% portland cement by
weight; top layer should extend through outside
shoulder for emergency traffic use.
Although these thicknesses may not be entirely appro-
priate in all areas, they are believed suitable for the Middle to
North Atlantic States and similar climatic conditions. Where
frost penetrations are deeper than in these areas, it is sug-
gested that the foundation layers be extended to greater
depths. Where there is little or no frost penetration, slight
modifications may be made in both base and foundation
thicknesses, but neither should be reduced drastically.
No substitution ratios are offered for the use of alter-
nate materials of lower or higher quality than those described
above. The use of lower class materials in layers of greater
thickness is seldom justified since failures are likely to origi-
nate within the layers themselves. The use of higher quality,
more expensive materials like asphaltic concrete to replace
some of the graded crushed stone base cannot be justified
economically. Some reasons for these statements may be
found in the following section.
THE FALLACY OF SELECTING DESIGNS BASED ON
- "EQUIVALENT THICKNESSES"
Data from the AASHO Road Test have indicated to
some that certain equivalent thicknesses of different types of
base material might be universally applicable. The fallacy in
this concept has been clearly exposed in two reports by the
Engineering Director of the National Crushed Stone Associa-
tion.* These reports recognize that at certain levels in the
Nichols, F. P., Jr.. "Facts and Fallacies Concerning Crushed Stone Bases,"
pre-
sented at the 50th Annual Convention, National crushed Stone Association,
Miami Beach, Florida, January 27. 1967, and
"A Practical Approach to Flexible Pavement Design," presented at the Second
International Conference on the Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, Uni-
versity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, August 7-11, 1967.
13
pavement structure certain types of material provide better
performance than other types. They indicate, however, that,
at the base course level in the foregoing table, a properly
graded and compacted crushed stone, which usually needs no
cementitious additive, possesses all of the attributes of an
ideal base material with respect to the ability to resist lateral
displacement, fatigue cracking, further densification under
traffic, and the tendency to soften after being frozen in a sat-
urated condition. While other, more costly materials may
also possess most of these attributes, they are not significant-
ly
better at the base level than crushed stoneon some counts
they are actually inferiorso that on the basis of pure eco-
nomics they are not as good a buy.
As noted earlier, in areas where frost may be a problem
and where the aggregates available cannot be processed to
meet the suggested requirements in the Appendix, with par-
ticular regard to the percentage passing the No. 200, it may
be found advisable to add a small percentage of cement or a
similar stabilizing agent to overcome these deficiencies. Ce-
mentitious additives should be added in limited quantities,
however, and only for this purpose. They should not be add-
ed to make the base strong enough to bridge over weak spots
in the foundationonly to maintain the material's inherent
stability under all weather conditions.
The pavement designer who has access to good quality
crushed stone for his base course is in a fortunate position in-
deed. If he can also be assured of the required uniformity,
which is a function of the quality control practices of reput-
able producers and contractors, he can be confident that a
quality job will result.
14
APPENDIX A
Suggested Items for Specifications for Materials and construction
of Graded Crushed Aggregate Bases or Subbases
A. MATERIALS
1.
The material should consist essentially of the products of crushing
operations down to the including the dust of fracture.
2.
Coarse aggregate retained on the No. 4 sieve should preferably consist of
hard, durable particles of stone, capable of withstanding the effects of
handling, spreading, and compacting without serious degradation productive
of deleterious fines. Where stone is unavailable and economics dictate the use
of other materials, at least
75
percent of the particles larger than 3/8 in. shall
have two or more freshly fractured faces."
3.
Fine aggregate passing the No. 4 sieve shall consist primarily of
manufactured (crushed) sand and finer mineral matter. The fraction passing
the No. 200 sieve of either the final blend or any added fine mineral matter
shall not exceed 80 percent of the fraction passing the No. 50 sieve. The
fraction passing the No. 40 sieve of either the final blend or any added fines
shall not have a liquid limit greater than 25 or a plasticity index greater than
4.
4. The composite blend shall be free from vegetable matter and lumps or balls
of clay. It shall conform to the overall grading requirements as well as the job
mix tolerances which follow:
Percentages
Overall
Job Mix Tolerances
Passing Sieve SizePercentages PassingBaseSubbase
3m.
100
-0
1 1/2 in.
90-100
2
5
3/4 in.
60-97
58
3/8 its.
40-75
810
No. 4
25-60
788
No. 16
15-40
5+8
No. 50
8-22
55
No. 200010*
3*+3
*Samples shall be tested by wet sieving
The job mix formula chosen shall be suitable for the traffic, climatic
conditions and the type of aggregate available, and shall be approved by the
engineer prior to the start of work. (A plotted graph of the job mix formula from
the No. 4 sieve size down should lie essentially parallel to the plot of mid-range
values of the overall master range). Normally if these materials are to be used for
base course, a 1/i In. top size should be specified; if for subbase, a larger top size
may be permi'tted. Variations from the applicable job mix tolerance or any
variations outside the overall master range shall not be permitted without penalty.
B. CONSTRUCTION CONTROL
Description
Graded crushed aggregates meeting the requirements of Section A
(Materials) may be specified as the base course under relatively light bituminous
wearing surfaces or as a subbase under heavier bituminous mats which include
either a "black base" or a penetration macadam layer. If used as the base course,
the job mix formula will normally prohibit particles which would be retained on a
l'/s inch sieve.
Construction Methods
I. Foundation
Graded crushed aggregate base or subbase courses shall be constructed only
on a properly prepared, firm non-resilient foundation which shall have been
completed at least 500 feet ahead of the aggregate spreading operation. Suhgrade
I
drains extending through the s houlders s hall have been ins talled, when directed by
the Engineer, at low points in the road profile, s paced no more than 50 feet apart
for at leas t 150 feet each s ide of s uch points and at s uch other locations as may be
des ignated on the plans .
2.Mixing
All materials s hall be accurately proportioned and mixed at the s ource in a
pugmill or other device approved by the Engineer. A quantity of water s hall be
added s ufficient to as s ure the optimum mois ture content in the material when
placed. Calcium chloride, portland cement, emuls ified as phalt, lime and fly as h, or
any other additives which may be s pecified s hall be accurately metered into the
aggregate material prior to its entry into the mixer.
3.Sampling and Preliminary Approval
The final mixture s hall be s ampled from the plant output at intervals
corres ponding to no more than 3000 tons , or at leas t daily. Sampling methods
s hall ens ure the cutting of increments from the lull cros s s ection of the proces s
flow; each s ample s hall be a compos ite of three or more increments taken at
random from the volume of material required to make up a truckload. Tes t
portions s hall be obtained by quartering or s plitting the s ample to appropriate
s ize.
Preliminary approval of the material as produced s hall be bas ed upon the
favorable res ults of tes ts performed by the purchas er or his authorized
repres entative on the plant output s amples .
4.handling and Trans porting
Mixed materials s hall be handled and trans ported s o as to minimize
s egregation and los s of mois ture or volatile materials .
5.Spreading
Material that has been s atis factorily mixed and approved s hall be s pread
uniformly over the s urface by means of s elf-propelled mechanical s preaders of an
approved type capable of cutting the loos e material to a s tring-line grade with a
minimum of s egregation. In no cas e s hall the material be dumped directly on the
foundation or on the preceding cours e.
6.Compaction
Compaction s hall be by means of appropriate rollers or vibrators to an
average dens ity equal to at leas t 98 percent of the dens ity obtained on the s ame
material by AASHO Standard Method T-180 (ASTM Standard Method D 1557)
or, if elected by the contractor, 98 percent of the dens ity obtained on a control
s ection cons tructed over a cement s tabilized foundation and compacted with the
approval of the purchas er or his authorized repres entative.
When completed, the s urface s hall be broomed s o as to produce a dis tinctly
granular texture free from loos e material or exces s fines worked up by the
compaction operation.
APPENDIX B
Typical CBR Values for Typical Soil Types
Soils Clas s ification
(
Typical Range in
AASHO Standard
Des ignation M-145)
CBR Values
A-l .aorA-1 .b20+
A-2-4 or A-2-525+
A-2-6 or A-2-78 to 25
A-312+
A-44to25
A.5Oto7
A-6Otol5
A-7-5 or A-7-60 to IS
Lr1
For additional information on crushed stone for use in pave-
ment construction, write to:
Frank P. Nichols, Jr.
Engineering Director
National Crushed Stone Association
1415 Elliot Place, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20007
Also available from NCSA headquarters is a 16mm sound
color motion picture entitled "Graded Aggregate Base Course
Construction," covering the best of recent production and
construction practices with respect to this type of material.
Reservations for the use of this film for showing to interested
groups may be made by writing to the above address.
STqp