Difference between asphalt and bitumen?
 

Folks

My neighbour is getting quotes for surfacing his driveway. He's
getting contractors offering him either a bitumen surface or an
asphalt one for about 50% extra cost (may have that the wrong way
round).

He's asked me and I've no idea what the difference between the two is
and I've no idea. From some brief searches it seems a bit confusing
i.e. bitumen is used to make asphalt?

Can anyone advise on the difference and would you recommend it? The
two prices are about £1,500 vs £2,300 or thereabouts?

thanks

tommy

In article , MrC
writes
Folks

My neighbour is getting quotes for surfacing his driveway. He's
getting contractors offering him either a bitumen surface or an
asphalt one for about 50% extra cost (may have that the wrong way
round).

He's asked me and I've no idea what the difference between the two is
and I've no idea. From some brief searches it seems a bit confusing
i.e. bitumen is used to make asphalt?

Can anyone advise on the difference and would you recommend it? The
two prices are about £1,500 vs £2,300 or thereabouts?

thanks

tommy

Bitumen is a component used in the manufacture of asphalt, its normally
a liquid that is mixed with fillers and aggregate to produce a finished
material. By a bitumen surface they are probably referring to a spray
system where the bitumen is applied to the surface either with an
aggregate in it or the aggregate can be sprinkled on whilst the bitumen
is still wet, if you use pea shingle you get a nice gravel effect drive
that stays in one place. By an asphalt surface you are looking at the
traditional finish that we all love (or hate). Something to consider is
the longevity of the spray applied system, it wont last as long as the
asphalt, how long this is will depend on the amount of traffic
--
David

I believe that a bitumen surface is applying a mix of small gravel and
bitumen, an asphalt surface is bitumen mixed with a wide range of
particle sizes( like a concrete mix). Asphalt is ideally applied as a
much thicker layer, with a much heavier roller as it is a less flexible
mix, but takes greater loadings. IME, both are poor surfaces compared
with concrete. Asphalt in particular suffers from surface "heave" if the
subsoil/base is not stable.

Regards
Capitol

In article ,
says...

I believe that a bitumen surface is applying a mix of small gravel and
bitumen, an asphalt surface is bitumen mixed with a wide range of
particle sizes( like a concrete mix). Asphalt is ideally applied as a
much thicker layer, with a much heavier roller as it is a less flexible
mix, but takes greater loadings. IME, both are poor surfaces compared
with concrete.

??

Haven't seen them building concrete roads in years. They were usually an
un-mitigated disaster.


Asphalt in particular suffers from surface "heave" if the
subsoil/base is not stable.

Concrete will crack in similar circumstances. Once it cracks and rain
gets in, followed by frost, its well on its way to Valhalla.

I think they are both ugly but the alternative of gravel drove me nuts.

Some years back we replaced gravel (P.I.A.) with what I think the
installer caled tarmacadam. He gave me the impression asphalt was very
heavy duty applications,and mostly suitable for roads, bit of an over
kill for drives.

Bitumen to him was something cowboys specialised in.

Whatever he used for us it is standing up beautifully.
--
Paul Mc Cann

Paul Mc Cann wrote:

In article ,
says...

I believe that a bitumen surface is applying a mix of small gravel and
bitumen, an asphalt surface is bitumen mixed with a wide range of
particle sizes( like a concrete mix). Asphalt is ideally applied as a
much thicker layer, with a much heavier roller as it is a less flexible
mix, but takes greater loadings. IME, both are poor surfaces compared
with concrete.


??

Haven't seen them building concrete roads in years. They were usually an
un-mitigated disaster.



No, they can and do last ages. If built properly. Cheap too. Hrad
wearing, but nosiy and low grip.


Asphalt in particular suffers from surface "heave" if the
subsoil/base is not stable.


Concrete will crack in similar circumstances. Once it cracks and rain
gets in, followed by frost, its well on its way to Valhalla.

I think they are both ugly but the alternative of gravel drove me nuts.

Some years back we replaced gravel (P.I.A.) with what I think the
installer caled tarmacadam. He gave me the impression asphalt was very
heavy duty applications,and mostly suitable for roads, bit of an over
kill for drives.

The original macadam roads were IIRC crushed stone chippings that bedded
down. MOT type I etc. Tarmacadam (tarmac) was the application of a
layer of hot tar to the surface into whch chippings are rolled. Tough
flexible and reasonably hard wearing, and NO DUST (the bane of the 30's
motorists). Its what most B roads are. Coulur depends on what colour
chippings are rolled in. Flint makes for a briown road, granite for a
grey/black one.


Asphalt is I think a deeper layer of tar and stone filler, that is super
smooth and what best motorways are made of. You can even add ground up
car tyres for super quite and exta good grip.

Bitumen? Not sure what that is - maybe a cold applied layer with
chippings thrown on top. Sets by solvent evaoporation?



Bitumen to him was something cowboys specialised in.

Whatever he used for us it is standing up beautifully.

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 10:44:20 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Thanks all for the feedback. I'll pass it on.

tommy

Paul Mc Cann wrote:

Haven't seen them building concrete roads in years. They were usually an
un-mitigated disaster.


All new motorways have a concrete base! Topped with a bituminous layer
which is replaceable when it wears.

Regards
Capitol

In article ,
says...


Paul Mc Cann wrote:

Haven't seen them building concrete roads in years. They were usually an
un-mitigated disaster.


All new motorways have a concrete base! Topped with a bituminous layer
which is replaceable when it wears.

Regards
Capitol

Is this true ?

They actually pour and let set a complete concrete road and then
tarmacadam over it ?

Are you perhaps referring to some type of foundation ?


--
Paul Mc Cann

Capitol wrote:



Paul Mc Cann wrote:


Haven't seen them building concrete roads in years. They were usually
an un-mitigated disaster.


All new motorways have a concrete base! Topped with a bituminous
layer which is replaceable when it wears.


NO, they don't.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
All new motorways have a concrete base! Topped with a bituminous
layer which is replaceable when it wears.


NO, they don't.


Go out and look at the M11 repairs! Pratt!

Regards
Capitol

Capitol wrote:



The Natural Philosopher wrote:

All new motorways have a concrete base! Topped with a bituminous
layer which is replaceable when it wears.


NO, they don't.


Go out and look at the M11 repairs! Pratt!


One case doesn not make it unbbiquitous.

The M11 was built from concrete. On an MOT base. Cheap, haerdwearing,
crap grip and expensive to repair if you want to take it up...

Its now being resurfaced...

NO motorway has a concrete BASE. SOME have concrete SURFACES. SOME are
repaired by stiicking asphalt over, though I suspect thsi is a bodge
that will not last...

Regards
Capitol

Try

http://www.highwaysmaintenance.com/Asphtext.htm

MrC wrote in message . ..
Folks

My neighbour is getting quotes for surfacing his driveway. He's
getting contractors offering him either a bitumen surface or an
asphalt one for about 50% extra cost (may have that the wrong way
round).

He's asked me and I've no idea what the difference between the two is
and I've no idea. From some brief searches it seems a bit confusing
i.e. bitumen is used to make asphalt?

Can anyone advise on the difference and would you recommend it? The
two prices are about £1,500 vs £2,300 or thereabouts?

thanks

tommy