wasidfarooqreshif 2.unlocked
Post on 20-Apr-2015
56 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
PSZ 19:16 (Pind. 1/07)
√
DECLARATION OF THESIS / UNDERGRADUATE PROJECT PAPER AND COPYRIGHT
Author’s full name : WASID FAROOQ RESHI _____________
Date of birth : 17 JANUARY 1986 ______
Title : EVALUATION OF STONE MASTIC ASPHALT USING FLY ASH, CEMENT
AND HYDRATED LIME AS MINERAL FILLER.
Academic Session : 2010/ 2011 _______
I declare that this thesis is classified as :
I acknowledged that Universiti Teknologi Malaysia reserves the right as follows:
1. The thesis is the property of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
2. The Library of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia has the right to make copies for the purpose of
research only.
3. The Library has the right to make copies of the thesis for academic exchange.
Certified by:
SIGNATURE SIGNATURE OF SUPERVISOR
G0617596 ASSOC PROF DR MOHD ROSLI BIN HAININ
(NEW IC NO. /PASSPORT NO.) NAME OF SUPERVISOR
Date: 15 JULY 2011 Date: 15 JULY 2011
NOTES : * If the thesis is CONFIDENTAL or RESTRICTED, please attach with the letter from
the organization with period and reasons for confidentiality or restriction.
UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA
CONFIDENTIAL (Contains confidential information under the Official Secret
Act 1972)*
RESTRICTED (Contains restricted information as specified by the
organization where research was done)*
OPEN ACCESS I agree that my thesis to be published as online open
access (full text)
“I hereby declare that I have read this report and in my opinion this report is
sufficient in terms of scope and quality for the award of the degree of
Master of Engineering (Civil – Transportation and Highway)”
Signature : ....................................................
Name of Supervisor I : ASSOC. PROF. DR. MOHD ROSLI BIN HAININ
Date : 15 JULY 2011
EVALUATION OF STONE MASTIC ASPHALT USING FLY ASH, CEMENT
AND HYDRATED LIME AS MINERAL FILLER
WASID FAROOQ RESHI
A project report submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the award of the degree of
Master of Engineering (Civil – Transportation and Highway)
Faculty of Civil Engineering
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
JULY 2011
ii
I hereby declare that this project report entitled “Evaluation of Stone Mastic Asphalt
using Fly ash, Cement and Hydrated lime as mineral filler” is the result of my own
study except as cited in the references. The project report has not been accepted for
any degree and is not concurrently submitted in candidature of any other degree.
Signature : ……………………………………
Name : WASID FAROOQ RESHI
Date : 15 JULY 2011
iii
“This Project is dedicated to my respected father
Prof. (Dr) Farooq Ahmad Reshi, my mother Sajada
Reshi, my Grandparents, my uncle Er Showkat
Ahmad Reshi and my sister for their unconditional
love, support and patience”
“Also I owe special thanks to all my lecturers,
friends and cousins, for their encouragement,
motivation, support, and help. Thanks for being
there on my side.”
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, I would like to thank Allah SWT for His blessings and help. He
gave me guidance, strength and knowledge to complete this thesis. It was with some
trepidation and sense of somewhat awesome responsibility that I began this project
work and it brings fright on me to find a proper word of appreciation to acknowledge
those who gave me promptitude of help, unfailing courtesy, and the sense of personal
regards for me all throughout its long gestation. These mere words are only a fraction
in return of actually what I was rendered. I hope they know my indebtedness to them
for their help. In particular, I would like to express my profound sense of
indebtedness, heartfelt gratitude and sincere respect to my reverend project
supervisor, Assoc. Prof Dr. Mohd Rosli Bin Hainin, for his invaluable guidance,
encouragement, tutelage, motivation, time, direct supervision and constant
inspiration as my esteemed guide in this study.
Thanks to all my friends especially Aminu Suleiman, Mudasir, Muzamil,
Halmat, Zaieem, Faisal, Naveed, Anwar, Fahmi, Arif, Shazeana, Fadzlin, and Suriani
for their support and help. Also, I am also extremely grateful to all the technicians in
Highway and Transportation laboratory Mr Suhaimi, Mr Sahak, Mr Rahman, Mr
Azri, Mr Azman and Mr Ahmad Adin for their cooperation.
Last but not the least, I am extremely grateful to all my family members
especially, my father, my mother, my uncle, my sister and my brother in law for their
miraculous love and support which inspired me to do the right things at the right
time. Thank you all and love you all.
v
ABSTRACT
Malaysia is producing over 2 million tons of fly ash annually, which is
expected to double by 2013 as demand for energy is growing very rapidly. The ash
produced by burning coal is considered to be a waste product and the disposal of
which poses mammoth problems. In Asia, the application of fly-ash as filler in Stone
Mastic Asphalt (SMA-14) is not noteworthy enough. Using fly-Ash as filler
substitute in the construction of (SMA-14) pavements can reap some unprecedented
benefits like decreasing the material cost of (SMA-14), and it will be a feasible way
of disposing off this industrial waste. It will also serve the purpose of sustainability
by replacing the traditional mineral fillers like cement and hydrated lime, which need
a lot of energy and resources to be produced. The objectives of this study were to
evaluate and compare the performance of Marshall properties and resilient modulus
of (SMA-14) containing “100% fly ash”, “50 % cement : 50 % fly-Ash”, “100%
cement” and “100% hydrated lime” by the total weight of the filler content. An
investigation was conducted using PG 76 on a range of (SMA-14) to investigate the
influence of utilization of fly-Ash as mineral filler replacement in (SMA-14)
mixtures. Marshall results obtained for all types of (SMA-14) mixes were found to
be in agreeement with the specifications prescribed by JKR. Obtained Optimum
Bitumen Content‟s were found to be inversely proportional to the specific gravity of
the mineral filler used and the results of binder drain down were found to be directly
proportional to the specific gravity of the mineral filler used. With respect to the
resilient modulus, the feasibility of using fly-Ash as filler material in (SMA-14) was
found to be the highest of all types of mineral fillers used. From the results of this
research, it can be concluded that fly Ash has performed exceptionally well under the
tests needed to confirm its feasibility for its utilization as mineral filler replacement
material in (SMA-14) and it will shift gears to sustainable pavement construction.
vi
ABSTRAK
Lebih 2 juta tan abu terbang dihasilkan di malaysia saban tahun yang mana
jumlah ini dijangkakan akan berlipat ganda menjelang tahun 2013 seiring dengan
permintaan tenaga.Abu terbang yang terhasil dari pembakaran arang batu dikira
sebagai bahan terbuang di mana pelupusan bahan ini menimbulkan masalah besar. Di
Asia, penggunakan abu terbang sebagai bahan pengisi di dalam SMA-14 adalah tidak
begitu jelas. penggunakan abu terbang sebagai pengisi di dalam pembinaan turapan
SMA-14 mampu menyumbangkan faedah yang tidak ternilai seperti mengurangkan
kos bahan SMA-14 dan merupakan kaedah yang munasabah dalam melupuskan sisa
industri. Penggunaan abu terbang ini juga mampu memenuhi tujuan pembangunan
mapan dengan menggantikan pengisi mineral tradisinal seperti simen dan kapur
terhidrat yang mana ia melibatkan penggunaan banyak tenaga dalam penghasilannya.
Objektif kajian ini adalah untuk menilai dan membandingkan ciri-ciri marshall dan
resilient modulus ke atas SMA 14 yang mengandungi 100% debu terbang, “ 50%
simen:50% debu terbang,100% simen dan 100% kapur terbidrat daripada jumlah
berat pengisi. Satu kajian menggunakan PG76 ke atas SMA 14 turut dijalankan untuk
mengkaji pengaruh penggunaan abu terbang sebagai pengganti pengisi mineral di
dalam campuran SMA 14. Keputusan marshall yang diperolehi untuk semua jenis
campuran SMA14 menunjukkan kesinambungan dengan spesifikasi yang ditetapkan
oleh JKR. Kandungan bitumen optimum yang diperolehi menunjukkan perkadaran
songsang dengan dengan graviti tentu pengisi mineral manakala keputusan binders
drain down menunjukkan perkadaran terus. Dari segi Resilient modulus,
kebolehlaksanaan abu terbang sebagai pengganti pengisi mineral dalam SMA 14
adalah tertinggi berbanding pengisi lain. Secara kesimpulannya, abu terbang
menunjukkan pelaksanaan yang sangat baik sebagai pengganti pengisi mineral dalam
SMA 14 seiring dengan konsep pembangunan mapan dalam pembinaan turapan.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION ii
DEDICATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv
ABSTRACT v
ABSTRAK vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS vii
LIST OF TABLES xi
LIST OF FIGURES xiii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS/SYMBOLS xv
LIST OF APPENDICES xvi
CHAPTER 1 .............................................................................................................................. 1
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background of the Study ............................................................................................. 1
1.2 Problem Statement ....................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Objectives of the Study ............................................................................................... 3
1.4 Scope of the Study ....................................................................................................... 4
1.5 Significance of the Study ............................................................................................ 5
viii
CHAPTER 2 .............................................................................................................................. 7
LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 7
2.2 Fly ash - an engineering material ..................................................................................... 9
2.3 Fly Ash Environmental benefits. ................................................................................... 11
2.4 Fly Ash Production ........................................................................................................ 11
2.5 Fly Ash Handling ........................................................................................................... 13
2.6 Fly Ash Characteristics .................................................................................................. 13
2.6.1 Size and Shape. ........................................................................................................... 14
2.6.2 Chemistry. ................................................................................................................... 14
2.6.3 Color. .......................................................................................................................... 15
2.7 Fly Ash Quality .............................................................................................................. 16
2.8 Fly Ash Quality Assurance and Quality Control ........................................................... 17
2.9 Fly Ash Uses in Highways: ............................................................................................ 18
2.10 Fly ash in asphalt pavements (Flexible Highways) ..................................................... 18
2.11 Fly Ash Potential Benefits. .......................................................................................... 19
2.12 Utilization of Mineral-Fillers ....................................................................................... 19
2.13 Mix design and specification requirements ................................................................. 20
2.14 Description of Stone Mastic Asphalt ........................................................................... 22
2.15 Stone Mastic Asphalt
Properties………………………………………………………………..…..……24
2.16 Stone Mastic Asphalt Composition ............................................................................. 27
2.17 Stone Mastic Asphalt Materials ................................................................................... 28
2.18 Advantages and Disadvantages of Stone Mastic Asphalt ............................................ 31
2.19 Perceived disadvantages of SMA include: .................................................................. 31
2.20 Life Cycle Costing ....................................................................................................... 33
2.21 Specification by JKR: .................................................................................................. 35
CHAPTER 3 ............................................................................................................................ 36
METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................. 36
3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 36
3.2 Operational Frame Work ........................................................................................... 38
3.3 Sieve Analysis ........................................................................................................... 39
3.3.1 Dry Sieve Aggregate (For Fine and Coarse Aggregate) ........................................ 39
ix
3.3.2 Washed Sieve Analysis (For Mineral Filler) ......................................................... 41
3.3.3 Aggregate Gradation .............................................................................................. 42
3.4 Determination of Specific Gravity for Aggregate ..................................................... 43
3.4.1 Course Aggregate .................................................................................................. 43
3.4.2 Fine Aggregate....................................................................................................... 45
3.5 Bituminous Binder .................................................................................................... 47
3.6 Marshall Mix Design ................................................................................................. 47
3.6.1 Marshall Specimen Procedure .................................................................................... 49
3.6.2 Theoretical Maximum Density (TMD) Test.......................................................... 50
3.6.3 Data Analysis ......................................................................................................... 53
3.6.4 Analysis of Bulk Specific Gravity .............................................................................. 53
3.6.5 Analysis of Void in Mineral Aggregate (VMA) ......................................................... 55
3.6.6 Analysis of Air Void in the Compacted Mix (VIM) ................................................... 55
3.6.7 Void Filled with Bitumen (VFB) ................................................................................ 56
3.6.8 Marshall Stability and Flow Test ........................................................................... 56
3.6.9 Determination of Optimum Bitumen Content (OBC) ........................................... 59
3.6.10 Drain down Test .................................................................................................... 60
3.7 Resilient Modulus Test (Indirect Tensile Modulus Test) .......................................... 62
CHAPTER 4 ............................................................................................................................ 66
RESULTS, DATA ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION .................................................................. 66
4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 66
4.2 Raw Materials Used .................................................................................................. 67
4.2.1 Aggregates ............................................................................................................. 67
4.3 Gradation of Aggregates ........................................................................................... 68
4.4 Test for washed sieve analysis .................................................................................. 69
4.5 Specific Gravity ......................................................................................................... 70
4.6 Bitumen ..................................................................................................................... 71
4.6.1 Specific Gravity ..................................................................................................... 71
4.7 Marshall Sample ........................................................................................................ 71
4.7.1 Sample Preparation ................................................................................................ 72
4.8 Theoratical Maximum Density ( TMD ) ................................................................... 72
4.9 Volumetric Properties results and graphical analysis: .............................................. 73
4.10 Determination of Optimum Bitumen Content ........................................................... 86
x
4.11 Marshall Results and Specification ........................................................................... 87
4.12 Volumetric Properties results for verification sample: ............................................. 89
4.13 Marshall Results and Specification .............................................................................. 91
4.14 Comparison of graphical and practical resuts: ............................................................ 93
4.15 Binder Drain Down Test Result ................................................................................ 95
4.16 Resilient Modulus ..................................................................................................... 97
4.16.1 Results for Resilient modulus ................................................................................ 97
4.16.2 Resilient Modulus for Stone Mastic Asphalt -14 mixes at 25°C ........................... 98
4.16.3 Resilient Modulus for Stone Mastic Asphalt -14 mixes at 40°C .............................. 99
CHAPTER 5 .......................................................................................................................... 102
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................ 102
5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 102
5.2 Finding and Conclusions ......................................................................................... 102
5.3 Recommendations ................................................................................................... 105
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 106
APPENDICES A –F.........................................................................................110-134
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1. 2001 Fly ash production and use. ................................................................... 12
Table 2.2. Fly ash uses. .................................................................................................... 12
Table 2.3 Sample oxide analyses of ash and portland cement ......................................... 15
Table 2.4: AASHTO M 17: Specification requirements. ................................................ 20
Table 2.5 Relative Performance of SMA ......................................................................... 33
Table 2.6: SMA Mix Requirement (JKR/SPJ/2008) ....................................................... 35
Table 3.1: Gradation Limit for SMA 14 (JKR/SPJ/2008) ............................................... 43
Table 3.2: Design Bitumen Contents ............................................................................... 47
Table 3.3: SMA Mix Requirement (JKR/SPJ/2008) ....................................................... 60
Table 4.1: SMA 14 Gradation Limit for ......................................................................... 68
Table 4.2: Test for washed sieve analysis ........................................................................ 69
Table 4.3: Specific Gravity of Materials Used ................................................................ 70
Table 4.4: Details of Mixes Produced .............................................................................. 72
Table 4.5 : Theoretical Maximum Density ...................................................................... 73
Table 4.6: Volumetric Properties Results for SMA 14 (100% Fly Ash) ......................... 74
Table 4.7: Volumetric Properties Results for SMA 14 (50% F.A : 50% OPC)............... 77
Table 4.8: Volumetric Properties Results for SMA 14 (100 % cement) ......................... 80
Table 4.9: Volumetric Properties Results for SMA 14 (100% hydrated lime) ................ 83
Table 4.10 : Optimum Bitumen Content .......................................................................... 86
Table 4.11: Marshall Results and Specification for SMA 14 (100% Fly Ash) ............... 88
Table 4.12: Marshall Results and Specification for (50% FA : 50% OPC)..................... 88
Table 4.13: Marshall Results and Specification for SMA 14 (100 % cement) ................ 89
Table 4.14: Marshall Results and Specification for SMA 14 (100% H.L) ...................... 89
Table: 4.15: Volumetric Properties Results for SMA 14 (100% Fly Ash) ...................... 90
xii
Table: 4.16: Volumetric Properties Results for SMA 14 (50% F.A:50% OPC) ............. 90
Table: 4.17: Volumetric Properties Results for SMA 14 (100% Cement) ...................... 90
Table: 4.18: Volumetric Properties Results for SMA 14 (100% Hydrated lime) ............ 91
Table 4.19: Verification Results and Specification for SMA 14 (100% Fly Ash) .......... 92
Table 4.20: Verification Results and Specification for (50% FA:50% OPC). ................ 92
Table 4.21: Verification Results and Specification for SMA 14 (100 % cement) .......... 92
Table 4.22: Verification Results and Specification for SMA 14 (100% hyd.
lime) ................................................................................................................................. 93
Table 4.23: Comparison between practically and graphically obtained values for
SMA 14 (100% Fly Ash) ................................................................................................. 94
Table 4.24: Comparison between practically and graphically obtained values for
SMA 14 (50% FA : 50% OPC). ....................................................................................... 94
Table 4.25:Comparison b/w practically and graphically obt.values (100 % OPC) ......... 94
Table 4.26: Comparison between practically and graphically obtained values for
SMA 14 (100% hydrated lime) ........................................................................................ 95
Table 4.27: Drain Down Test Results .............................................................................. 96
Table 4.28: Resilient Modulus Results for SMA 14 Mixes at 25°C ................................ 98
Table 4.29: Resilient Modulus Results for SMA 14 Mixes at 40°C ................................ 98
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure2.1. Method of fly ash transfer can be dry,wet or both.......................................... 10
Figure 2.2. Fly ash particles at 2,000x magnification. ..................................................... 14
Figure 2.3. Typical ash colors. ......................................................................................... 16
Figure 2.4. Stone matrix asphalt. ..................................................................................... 21
Figure 2.5: Comparison of Common Asphalt Mix Types ............................................... 24
Figure 2.6: Stone Mastic Asphalt Components ............................................................... 28
Figure 3.1: Mechanical Sieve .......................................................................................... 40
Figure 3.2: Compaction Hammer .................................................................................... 48
Figure 3.3: TMD Test Machine ....................................................................................... 51
Figure 3.4: Specimen will be weighed in Water .............................................................. 54
Figure 3.5: Machine for Flow and Stability Test ............................................................. 57
Figure 3.6: Samples will be submerged in the Water at 60oC 30 to 40 Minutes ............. 59
Figure 3.7: Basket used in Drain-down Test.................................................................... 61
Figure 3.8: Universal Testing Machine............................................................................ 63
Figure 3.9: Specimen were placed into the Loading Apparatus Position ........................ 65
Figure 4.1 : SMA 14 Gradation Limit ............................................................................. 69
Figure 4.2: Density Vs Bitumen Content ......................................................................... 74
Figure 4.3: VTM Vs Bitumen Content ............................................................................ 75
Figure 4.4: Stability Vs Bitumen Content ........................................................................ 75
Figure 4.5: Flow Vs Bitumen Content ............................................................................. 76
Figure 4.6: VMA Vs Bitumen Content ............................................................................ 76
Figure 4.7: Density Vs Bitumen Content ......................................................................... 77
Figure 4.8: VTM Vs Bitumen Content ............................................................................ 78
Figure 4.9: Stability Vs Bitumen Content ........................................................................ 78
xiv
Figure 4.10: Flow Vs Bitumen Content ........................................................................... 79
Figure 4.11: VMA Vs Bitumen Content .......................................................................... 79
Figure 4.12: Density Vs Bitumen Content ....................................................................... 80
Figure 4.13: VTM Vs Bitumen Content .......................................................................... 81
Figure 4.14: Stability Vs Bitumen Content ...................................................................... 81
Figure 4.15: Flow Vs Bitumen Content ........................................................................... 82
Figure 4.16: VMA Vs Bitumen Content .......................................................................... 82
Figure 4.17: Density Vs Bitumen Content ....................................................................... 83
Figure 4.18: VTM Vs Bitumen Content .......................................................................... 84
Figure 4.19: Stability Vs Bitumen Content ...................................................................... 84
Figure 4.20: Flow Vs Bitumen Content ........................................................................... 85
Figure 4.21: VMA Vs Bitumen Content .......................................................................... 85
Figure 4.22: Resilient Modulus for SMA 14 mixes at 25°C ............................................ 99
Figure 4.23: Resilient Modulus for SMA 14 mixes at 40°C .......................................... 100
xv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS/SYMBOLS
AASHTO - American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials
ASTM - American Society for Testing and Materials
F.A - Fly Ash
HMA - Hot Mix Asphalt
H.L - Hydrated Lime
JKR - Jabatan Kerja Raya
MR - Resilient Modulus
OBC - Optimum Bitumen Content
OPC - Ordinary Portland Cement
SMA - Stone Mastic Asphalt
SSD - Saturated Surface Dry
TMD - Theoretical Maximum Density
UTM - Universal Testing Machine
VFB - Voids Filled With Bitumen
VIM - Voids in mix
VMA - Voids in Mineral Aggregate
VTM - Voids in Total Mix
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A ........................................................................................................................ 110
AGGREGATE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND DETERMINATION OF FILLER ............ 110
Appendix B ........................................................................................................................ 112
SPECIFIC GRAVITY FOR AGGREGATE (SMA 14) .................................................... 112
Appendix C ........................................................................................................................ 115
THEORETICAL MAXIMUM DENSITY (SMA 14) ................................................... 115
Appendix D ........................................................................................................................ 119
MARSHALL TEST RESULTS ..................................................................................... 119
Figure 1: Density Vs Bitumen Content for all types of mineral filler mixes ................. 123
Figure 2: VTM Vs Bitumen Content for all types of mineral filler mixes .................... 123
Figure 3: Stability Vs Bitumen Content for all types of mineral filler mixes ................ 124
Figure 4: Flow Vs Bitumen Content for all types of mineral filler mixes ..................... 124
Figure 5: VMA Vs Bitumen Content for all types of mineral filler mixes .................... 125
VERIFICATION SAMPLE RESULT ........................................................................... 126
Appendix E ........................................................................................................................ 127
DRAIN DOWN TEST ....................................................................................................... 127
Appendix F ......................................................................................................................... 129
RESILIENT MODULUS TEST ........................................................................................ 129
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
Sustainability is the key word for future success. Most of the developments
in Asia have come up without giving due respect to “Sustainability”. “Sustainable
development”, which is a priority issue throughout the world today; “is the
development, which meets the needs of present generation without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland Commission,
1987). Sustainable development demands the co-ordination of “Environment”,
“Society”, and “Economy”. Economy and society solely depend on the environment
because if something is un-environmental then the society will be affected and when
the society will be affected obviously economy will be affected because economy is
generated by the society.
Recycling industrial by-products as construction materials in highway
construction can help generate “green highways” or “sustainable highways”, where
use of virgin materials and large amounts of energy is avoided (Tuncer B. Edil,
2006). The necessary step for planned societal switch to extensive use of by-products
(wastes from industry) in highway construction is the need of the hour. Over the last
2
few decades, the Malaysian thermal electric industry has grown to become a very
significant producer of Fly-Ash. Nowadays, there are a lot of researches that have
been conducted in order to investigate other alternative material as a filler/modifier
in (SMA) mixes, for example POFA. The pursuit for modifying asphalt mixes will
continue and a lot of efforts have been put by researchers to make improvements in
asphalt mixes in order to get better performance and quality of hot asphalt mixes.
However, in Malaysia, the application of Fly-ash as filler in (SMA) is not popular
enough. This is due to the fact that a few numbers of researches have been
conducted in evaluating the potential of Fly-Ash as an alternative filler material to
improve the performance of (SMA) mixes.
Fly-Ash, when properly processed, has shown to be effective as construction
materials and voluntarily meet the design specifications. Using Fly-Ash will have
the twofold advantage: firstly, it will reduce the cost of construction of stone mastic
asphalt pavements; secondly; it‟s a means of disposal of waste. And also SMA is a
superior type of asphalt mix which is much better than conventional dense graded hot
mix asphalt. It is durable, stronger, rut-resistant, crack resistant, flexible, fatigue
resistant, skid resistant, wear resistant and more economical in long term as it needs
very less maintenance due to its higher design life (Craig Campbell, 1999).
Therefore, in this study, we aimed at evaluation of performance of stone mastic
asphalt using industrial waste (fly-ash) and conventional mineral fillers (cement and
hydrated lime). The performance of (SMA-14) with different types and proportions
of filler were compared through laboratory tests on the mechanical properties such as
stability, flow, resilient modulus to investigate the influence of utilization of Fly-Ash
as filler replacement in (SMA-14) mixtures.
3
1.2 Problem Statement
Malaysia is producing over 2 million tons of fly ash annually which is
expected to double by 2013 as demand for energy is growing very rapidly (RockTron
International, 2010). The ash produced by burning coal is considered to be a waste
product and millions of tons of fly ash have been already land-filled and the ones
getting produced is creating enormous problems in its disposal. The mineral fillers
mostly used in SMA are cement or hydrated lime which are unsustainable materials
and need a lot of energy and resources to be produced.
Due to absence of the sustainability concept, most of the developments in
Asia didn‟t pay much attention towards preservation of environment and can be
classified as inefficient developments with respect to energy and material
consumption. To keep pace with the rest of the world and to work for further
development, this research proposal aimed at using Fly-Ash as a new sustainable
indigenous building material for the construction of sustainable highways and after
its use its performance was tested on some vital parameters and compared with the
conventional ones.
1.3 Objectives of the Study
This study was conducted to achieve two objectives. The objectives of this
study are:
4
1. To evaluate the performance of Marshall Properties of Stone Mastic Asphalt
(SMA-14) containing “100% Fly-Ash”; “50% cement : 50% fly-Ash”; “100%
cement” and “100% hydrated lime” as total weight of mineral filler.
2. To evaluate performance of (SMA-14) containing “100% Fly-Ash”; “50%cement:
50% fly-Ash”; “100% cement” and “100% hydrated lime” as total weight of mineral
filler, by comparing their resilient modulus.
1.4 Scope of the Study
In this study, the feasibility of using Fly-Ash as filler material in Stone
Mastic Asphalt (SMA-14) was evaluated. Stone mastic asphalt is popular asphalt in
Europe for the surfacing of heavily trafficked roads, airfields and harbor areas. In
Malaysian hot conditions repetitive application of traffic loads on conventional
(HMA) can cause structural damage in the form of fatigue cracking, rutting and
stripping but (SMA) is a tough, stable, rut resistant mixture that relies on stone-to-
stone contact to provide strength and a rich mortar binder to provide durability. In
Malaysia, the application of Fly-ash as filler in (SMA) is not momentous enough.
This is due to the actuality that fewer numbers of researches were conducted in
evaluating the prospective application of Fly-Ash. Hence, there is a need to conduct
a comprehensive study on the performance of (SMA) using Fly-Ash. In this study,
the investigation was conducted using PG 76 on a range of (SMA 14) containing
“100% Fly ash”; “50 % cement : 50 % fly-Ash”; “100% cement”, & “100% hydrated
lime” by the total weight of the filler content. The aggregates that were used were
procured from MRP quarry located at Ulu Choh, Pulai and the fly-ash was acquired
from Tenjung power station in Johore state. Marshall mix design and all other tests
in lab were performed in conjunction with the specifications referred from
JKR/SPJ/2008. The performance of (SMA-14) with different types and proportions
of filler were compared through laboratory tests on the mechanical properties such as
5
stability, flow, resilient modulus to scrutinize the influence of utilization of Fly-Ash
as mineral filler replacement in (SMA-14) mixtures. All the tests and laboratory
work were performed at Highway and Transportation Laboratory D 02, Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia.
1.5 Significance of the Study
This study can have a huge impact on the highway construction industry and
it can redefine the rules of using conventional materials for construction of stone
mastic asphalt pavement. As we know that stone mastic asphalt is a comparatively
new type of pavement for Asia and its adoption for highway construction is not so
popular because of its high cost and unawareness of its advantages among masses,
which can be attributed to the fact that very few researches have been done with
respect to its feasibility in this continent.
In this study, the feasibility of using stone mastic asphalt was evaluated using
a new filler material (Fly-Ash), which is supposed to be a waste and then its
performance was compared with the conventional mixes. This helped us to
understand the feasibility of using Fly-Ash in stone mastic asphalt in terms of its
economic benefits and also green benefits. As we know that stone mastic asphalt is
more durable than conventional dense graded hot mix asphalt but its cost makes it
unattractive to be adopted. This research helped reducing the cost of stone mastic
asphalt by the application of an industrial waste with an attempt to not to
compromise with its quality. Also in the long run, if we analyze properly, stone
mastic asphalt pavements less often need maintenance and repair than the
conventional dense graded hot mix asphalt. Although it‟s initial cost is more than the
conventional mixes, but in the long run stone mastic asphalt is more economical than
conventional mixes due to its better design life. Therefore this research helped to
consider utilization of Fly- ash in stone mastic asphalt as filler material and to
6
improve resistance to rutting damage in order to endow with pavement with better
durability and strength by minimizing the distresses which occurred in HMA
pavement. This research promotes building of sustainable highways, economical
highways and also better performance and safety are complimentary.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
For the past several years, there have been limited studies to incorporate some
of waste materials into HMA. Materials involved to date include ground rubber tires,
ground glass, asphalt shingles, contaminated sand/soils, incinerator ash and various
kinds of waste polymers (Waller, 1993). There are perhaps other waste materials
that could be included in similar studies of hot mix asphalt in the future. One
governing criteria would be to quantify material available for use. There must be a
sufficient amount and a continuous supply in order for a specific material to be
considered for use. There are two primary factors that must be taken into account
when the matters of incorporating waste materials into hot mix asphalt are
considered. One consideration is cost, there needs to be a balance between disposals
of the waste material in the normal manner as compared to incorporation into the hot
mix asphalt. A second consideration is the effect on quality and performance of the
HMA. It would be poor economics indeed to incorporate a waste material that
substantially increases the cost of the HMA and at the same time shortens the service
life or increase maintenance costs (Waller, 1993).
8
Strategies need to evolve for sustainable development. Civil engineers are
among the group of professionals who supervise use of large quantities of natural and
processed materials in construction activities such as buildings, highway facilities,
water resources facilities, and environmental applications. These materials use
natural resources and consume large quantities of energy to extract, process, and
transport. Therefore, civil engineers are in a unique position to apply principles of
sustainable development to construction materials procurement (Tuncer B. Edil,
2006).
Sustainable development requires that engineers employ sustainable
engineering practices that meet additional constraints in terms of environment being
sustainable. This concept of environmentally sustainable project is often referred to
in a short hand as green such as “green buildings” and “green highways” (Tuncer B.
Edil, 2006).
World industries annually generate millions of metric tons of solid by-products.
Most of these materials have been landfilled in the developed countries at considerable
cost since the inception of modern environmental regulations in the late 1970s and early
1980s. Recently there has been a shift in societal attitudes resulting in strong interest in
developing beneficial reuse markets for industrial by products. As a result,
environmental regulations have changed and beneficial reuse of industrial by-products is
now permissible in a variety of applications. Green highways concept aims at
encouraging and accelerating the wide spread use of recycled materials. Fly ash and
many other industrial by-products can be used beneficially as highway construction
materials (Miller and Collins 1976).
The highway construction industries have the greatest potential for reuse because
they use vast quantities of earthen materials annually, but it doesn‟t mean that we can put
any amount and type of rubbish we want. A proper research has to be done in this field
before employing any material and mostly this research will be area specific because
same materials can have different properties at two different places. In some cases, a by-
9
product is inferior to traditional earthen materials, but its lower cost makes it an
attractive alternative if adequate performance can be obtained. In other cases, a by-
product may have attributes superior to those of traditional earthen materials. Often
select materials are added to industrial by-products to generate a material with well-
controlled and superior properties (Tuncer B. Edil, 2006).
2.2 Fly ash - an engineering material
Fly ash:
Fly ash is the finely divided residue that results from the combustion of
pulverized coal and is transported from the combustion chamber by exhaust gases.
Over 61 million metric tons (68 million tons) of fly ash were produced in 2001.
(American Coal Ash Association FHWA-IF-03-019; 2003).
Fly ash source:
Fly ash is produced by coal-fired electric and steam generating plants.
Typically, coal is pulverized and blown with air into the boiler's combustion chamber
where it immediately ignites, generating heat and producing a molten mineral
residue. Boiler tubes extract heat from the boiler, cooling the flue gas and causing
the molten mineral residue to harden and form ash. Coarse ash particles, referred to
as bottom ash or slag, fall to the bottom of the combustion chamber, while the lighter
fine ash particles, termed fly ash, remain suspended in the flue gas. Prior to
exhausting the flue gas, fly ash is removed by particulate emission control devices,
such as electrostatic precipitators or filter fabric bag houses.
(American Coal Ash Association, FHWA-IF-03-019; 2003).
10
Figure2.1. Method of fly ash transfer can be dry,wet or both.
Source: (American Coal Ash Association FHWA-IF-03-019; 2003)
Fly ash uses:
Currently, over 20 million metric tons (22 million tons) of fly ash are used
annually in a variety of engineering applications. Typical highway engineering
applications include: portland cement concrete (PCC), soil and road base
stabilization, flowable fills, grouts, structural fill and asphalt filler.
Fly ash potential:
Fly ash is most commonly used as a pozzolan in PCC applications.
Pozzolans are siliceous or siliceous and aluminous materials, which in a finely
11
divided form and in the presence of water, react with calcium hydroxide at ordinary
temperatures to produce cementitious compounds.
The unique spherical shape and particle size distribution of fly ash make it a
good mineral filler in hot mix asphalt (HMA) applications and improves the fluidity
of flowable fill and grout. The consistency and abundance of fly ash in many areas
present unique opportunities for use in structural fills and other highway
applications. (American Coal Ash Association FHWA-IF-03-019; 2003).
2.3 Fly Ash Environmental benefits.
Fly ash utilization has significant environmental benefits including:
(1) Producing1 ton of cement will produce 1 ton of CO2, so replacing 1 ton of
cement by fly ash means preventing 1 ton of CO2 going into atmosphere.
(2) Net reduction in energy use and greenhouse gas and other adverse air
emissions when fly ash is used to replace manufactured cement or hydrated lime.
(3) Reduction in amount of coal combustion byproducts that must be disposed off
in landfills, and
(4) Conservation of other natural resources and materials.
(American Coal Ash Association FHWA-IF-03-019; 2003).
2.4 Fly Ash Production
Fly ash is produced from the combustion of coal in electric utility or
industrial boilers. There are four basic types of coal-fired boilers: pulverized coal
12
(PC), stoker-fired or traveling grate, cyclone, and fluidized-bed combustion
(FBC) boilers. The PC boiler is the most widely used, especially for large
electric generating units. The other boilers are more common at industrial or
cogeneration facilities. Fly ash is captured from the flue gases using electrostatic
precipitators (ESP) or in filter fabric collectors, commonly referred to as
baghouses. The physical and chemical characteristics of fly ash vary among
combustion methods, coal source, and particle shape.
Table 2.1. 2001 Fly ash production and use.
As shown in Table 2.1, of the 62 million metric tons (68 million tons) of
fly ash produced in 2001, only 20 million metric tons (22 million tons), or 32
percent of total production, was used. The following is a breakdown of fly ash
uses, much of which is used in the transportation industry.
(American Coal Ash Association FHWA-IF-03-019; 2003).
Table 2.2. Fly ash uses.
13
2.5 Fly Ash Handling
The collected fly ash is typically conveyed pneumatically from the ESP or
filter fabric hoppers to storage silos where it is kept dry pending utilization or further
processing, or to a system where the dry ash is mixed with water and conveyed
(sluiced) to an on-site storage pond. The dry collected ash is normally stored and
handled using equipment and procedures similar to those used for handling portland
cement:
➤ Fly ash is stored in silos, domes and other bulk storage facilities.
➤ Fly ash can be transferred using air slides, bucket conveyors and screw conveyors,
or it can be pneumatically conveyed through pipelines under positive or negative
pressure conditions.
➤ Fly ash is transported to markets in bulk tanker trucks, rail cars and barges/ships.
➤ Fly ash can be packaged in super sacks or smaller bags for specialty applications.
Dry collected fly ash can also be moistened with water and wetting agents,
when applicable, using specialized equipment (conditioned) and hauled in covered
dump trucks for special applications such as structural fills. Water conditioned fly
ash can be stockpiled at jobsites. Exposed stockpiled material must be kept moist or
covered with tarpaulins, plastic, or equivalent materials to prevent dust emission.
(American Coal Ash Association FHWA-IF-03-019; 2003).
2.6 Fly Ash Characteristics
Some of the characteristics of Fly-Ash include:
14
2.6.1 Size and Shape.
Fly ash is typically finer than portland cement and lime. Fly ash consists of
silt-sized particles which are generally spherical, typically ranging in size between 10
and 100 micron (Figure 2.2). These small glass spheres improve the fluidity and
workability of the mix. Fineness is one of the important properties contributing to its
widespread application in highways.
Figure 2.2. Fly ash particles at 2,000x magnification.
2.6.2 Chemistry.
Fly ash consists primarily of oxides of silicon, aluminum iron and calcium.
Magnesium, potassium, sodium, titanium, and sulfur are also present to a lesser
degree.
15
When used as a mineral admixture, fly ash is classified as either Class C or
Class F ash based on its chemical composition. American Association of State
Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) M 295 [American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM) Specification C 618] defines the chemical composition of
Class C and Class F fly ash. Class C ashes are generally derived from sub-
bituminous coals and consist primarily of calcium alumino-sulfate glass, as well as
quartz, tricalcium aluminate, and free lime (CaO). Class C ash is also referred to as
high calcium fly ash because it typically contains more than 20 percent CaO.
Class F ashes are typically derived from bituminous and anthracite coals and consist
primarily of an alumino-silicate glass, with quartz, mullite, and magnetite also
present. Class F, or low calcium fly ash has less than 10 percent CaO.
Table 2.3 Sample oxide analyses of ash and portland cement
2.6.3 Color.
Fly ash can be tan to dark gray, depending on its chemical and mineral
constituents. Tan and light colors are typically associated with high lime content. A
brownish color is typically associated with the iron content. A dark gray to black
color is typically attributed to an elevated unburned carbon content. Fly ash color is
usually very consistent for each power plant and coal source.
16
Figure 2.3. Typical ash colors.
Source: (American Coal Ash Association FHWA-IF-03-019; 2003)
2.7 Fly Ash Quality
Quality requirements for fly ash vary depending on the intended use. Fly ash
quality is affected by fuel characteristics (coal), cofiring of fuels (bituminous and sub
bituminous coals), and various aspects of the combustion and flue gas
cleaning/collection processes. The four most relevant characteristics of fly ash are
loss on ignition (LOI), fineness, chemical composition and uniformity.
LOI is a measurement of unburned carbon (coal) remaining in the ash and is
not a critical characteristic of fly ash when used as mineral filler in asphalt. Some fly
ash uses are not affected by the LOI, like, filler in asphalt, flowable fill, and
structural fills can accept fly ash with elevated carbon contents.
Fineness of fly ash is most closely related to the operating condition of the
coal crushers and the grindability of the coal itself. For fly ash use in applications
such as asphalt filler, fineness should be enough for fly ash to pass 0.075 mm sieve.
A coarser gradation can result in a less reactive ash and could contain higher carbon
17
contents. Limits on fineness are addressed by ASTM and state transportation
department specifications. Fly ash can be processed by screening or air classification
to improve its fineness and reactivity. Some non-concrete applications, such as
structural fills are not affected by fly ash fineness. However, other applications such
as asphalt filler, are greatly dependent on the fly ash fineness and its particle size
distribution.
Chemical composition of fly ash relates directly to the mineral chemistry of
the parent coal and any additional fuels or additives used in the combustion or post-
combustion processes. The pollution control technology that is used can also affect
the chemical composition of the fly ash. Electric generating stations burn large
volumes of coal from multiple sources. Coals may be blended to maximize
generation efficiency or to improve the station environmental performance. The
chemistry of the fly ash is constantly tested and evaluated for specific use
applications. Some stations selectively burn specific coals or modify their additives
formulation to avoid degrading the ash quality or to impart a desired fly ash
chemistry and characteristics.
Uniformity of fly ash characteristics from shipment to shipment is imperative
in order to supply a consistent product. Fly ash chemistry and characteristics are
typically known in advance so asphalt mixes are designed and tested for
performance. (American Coal Ash Association FHWA-IF-03-019; 2003).
2.8 Fly Ash Quality Assurance and Quality Control
Criteria vary for each use of fly ash from state to state and source to source.
Some states require certified samples from the silo on a specified basis for testing
and approval before use. Others maintain lists of approved sources and accept
18
project suppliers' certifications of fly ash quality. The degree of quality control
requirements depends on the intended use, the particular fly ash, and its variability.
Testing requirements are typically established by the individual specifying agencies.
(American Coal Ash Association FHWA-IF-03-019; 2003).
2.9 Fly Ash Uses in Highways:
Fly-ash can be used as:
Fly Ash in Portland Cement Concrete (rigid highways), Fly Ash in Stabilized
Base Course, Fly Ash in Flowable Fill, Fly Ash in Structural Fills/Embankments, Fly
Ash in Soil Improvements, Fly Ash in Asphalt Pavements, Fly Ash in Grouts for
Pavement Subsealing. The unique spherical shape and particle size distribution of fly
ash can make it good mineral filler in asphalt pavement applications. The
consistency and abundance of fly ash in many areas present unique opportunities for
use in structural fills and other highway applications (Tuncer B. Edil, 2006).
2.10 Fly ash in asphalt pavements (Flexible Highways)
Fly ash can be used as mineral filler in HMA paving applications. Mineral
fillers increase the stiffness of the asphalt mortar matrix, improving the rutting
resistance of pavements, and the durability of the mix. Some of the benefits of fly
ash in asphalt pavements can be as under depending upon the quality and
proportioning of fly ash available which needs to be properly researched (Miller and
Collins 1976).
19
2.11 Fly Ash Potential Benefits.
Fly ash can have properties of mineral filler for gradation.
➤ Due to hydrophobic properties of fly ash, reduced asphalt stripping is expected.
➤ Lime in some fly ashes may also reduce stripping.
➤Where available locally, fly ash may cost less than other mineral fillers.
➤Also, due to the lower specific gravity of fly ash, similar performance is expected
using less material by weight, further expected to reduce the material cost of HMA.
➤Fly ash is normally expected to meet mineral filler specification requirements for
gradation, organic impurities and plasticity.
(American Coal Ash Association FHWA-IF-03-019; 2003).
2.12 Utilization of Mineral-Fillers
Mineral fillers increase the stiffness of the asphalt mortar matrix, improving
the rutting resistance of pavements. Mineral fillers also help reduce the amount of
asphalt drain down in the mix during construction, which improves durability of the
mix by maintaining the amount of asphalt initially used in the mix. Mineral fillers
have become more necessary as mixture gradations have become coarser (eg Stone
Mastic Asphalt SMA). Asphalt pavements with coarse gradations are increasingly
being designed because they perform well under heavy traffic conditions. Some
mixtures require higher dust to asphalt ratios.
(American Coal Ash Association FHWA-IF-03-019; 2003).
20
2.13 Mix design and specification requirements
Fly ash must be in a dry form when used as mineral filler. Typically, fly ash
is handled in a similar manner to hydrated lime - it is transported to the HMA plant
in pneumatic tankers; stored in watertight silos at the plant; and metered into the
HMA using an auger.
Engineering Properties: The physical requirements for mineral filler in bituminous
paving are defined in AASHTO M 17.
Table 2.4: AASHTO M 17: Specification requirements for mineral filler using
asphalt paving mixtures.
Organic impurities: Although no standard for carbon content or LOI is specified for
fly ash used as mineral filler, laboratory asphalt mortar evaluations incorporating fly
ashes with LOIs up to 10 percent perform satisfactorily.
Plasticity: Fly ash is a non-plastic material.
Gradation: Most fly ashes typically fall within a size range of 60 to 90 percent
passing the 75 μm (No. 200 sieve).
21
Fineness: There is no fineness standard for mineral filler beyond the AASHTO M 17
gradation requirements; however, often a requirement for a maximum percent
passing the 20 μm (No. 635) sieve was specified. Typically, fly ash has 40 to 70
percent passing the 20 μm sieve and performs well in mortar testing and field
performance.
Figure 2.4. Stone matrix asphalt.
Specific gravity: The specific gravity of fly ash varies from source to source; it is
typically 2.0 to 2.6. Most "non-fly ash" mineral fillers have a specific gravity
ranging from 2.6 to 2.8; therefore, HMA designed with fly ash will usually require a
lower percentage by weight to obtain the same performance (e.g., voids in mineral
aggregate, stiffness, drain down, etc.).
Rigden voids: Research indicates that mineral fillers with more than 50 percent voids
as determined using the modified Rigden's voids test tend to overly stiffen the
asphalt binder. Most fly ashes have a Rigden void of less than 50 percent.
(American Coal Ash Association, FHWA-IF-03-019; 2003).
22
2.14 Description of Stone Mastic Asphalt
Stone mastic asphalt had its origins in Germany in the late 1960‟s as an
asphalt resistant to damage by studded tyres. Stone mastic asphalt is a popular
asphalt in Europe for the surfacing of heavily trafficked roads, airfields and harbor
areas. It is also called splittmastixasphalt in German speaking countries and
elsewhere may be called split mastic asphalt, gritmastic asphalt or stone matrix
asphalt. In Australia it is normally called stone mastic asphalt or SMA for short.
There are many definitions of SMA. APRG Technical Note 2 (1993) defines
SMA as “a gap graded wearing course mix with a high proportion of coarse
aggregate content which interlocks to form a stone-on-stone skeleton to resist
permanent deformation. The mix is filled with a mastic of bitumen and filler to
which fibres are added in order to provide adequate stability of the bitumen and to
prevent drainage of the binder during transport and placement.”
The European definition of SMA (Michaut, 1995) is “a gap-graded asphalt
concrete composed of a skeleton of crushed aggregates bound with a mastic mortar.”
The binder content is generally increased because of segregation problems. “These
materials are not pourable. It is common practice to use additives and/or modified
binders in the manufacture of these materials especially to allow the binder content to
be raised and to reduce segregation between the coarse fraction and the mortar.”
Australian Standard AS2150 (1995) defines SMA as “a gap graded wearing
course mix with a high proportion of coarse aggregate providing a coarse stone
matrix filled with a mastic of fine aggregate, filler and binder.”
The BCA (1998) defines SMA as “a gap graded bituminous mixture
containing a high proportion of coarse aggregate and filler, with relatively little sand
23
sized particles. It has low air voids with high levels of macrotexture when laid
resulting in waterproofing with good surface drainage.”
Technically, SMA consists of discrete single sized aggregates glued together
to support themselves by a binder rich mastic. The mastic is comprised of bitumen,
fines, mineral filler and a stabilising agent. The stabilising agent is required in order
to provide adequate stability of the bitumen and to prevent drainage of the bitumen
during transport and placement. At the bottom, and in the bulk of the layer, the voids
in the aggregate structure are almost entirely filled by the mastic, whilst, at the
surface the voids are only partially filled. This results in a rough and open surface
texture. This provides good skidding resistance at all speeds and facilitates the
drainage of surface water (Nunn, 1994).
The structure of SMA is fundamentally different from dense graded asphalt.
This is clear if a mix is considered as merely consisting of stones and mastic
(bitumen, fines, filler and stabilising agent). The SMA has a stone skeleton which is
bound by a rich (overfilled) mastic. In comparison, conventional dense graded
asphalt consists of an underfilled (lean) mastic in which, by volume, only few stones
are found. Figure 2.5 provides a comparison of the structures of SMA, dense graded
asphalt and open graded asphalt.
Since its “discovery” in Europe in the early 1960s, and the completion of many trials
in America, Australia and several other countries, SMA has risen in status to such a
level that it is now regarded as the premium pavement surfacing course for heavy
duty pavements, high speed motorways and highways, and other roads having high
volumes of truck traffic (Craig Campbell, 1999).
24
Figure 2.5: Comparison of Common Asphalt Mix Types
2.15 Stone Mastic Asphalt Properties
The concept behind the development of SMA is fairly straight forward. The
SMA mixture consists of two major components:
(a) A “skeleton” of large sized aggregate, and
(b) A “mortar”, or mastic, consisting of the remaining aggregate, the asphalt binder,
and a stabilizing additive (Haddock, et al, 1993).
25
APRG (1998) indicates that the essence of SMA is a high coarse aggregate
content with a high binder and filler content. This binder/filler mixture forms a
“mastic”. A stabilizing agent is normally used to avoid binder drainage during
transport and placement. Due to the voids between the coarse aggregate being filled
with the rich mastic, the resulting air voids are lower than would otherwise be the
case with a conventional dense graded asphalt. Stone mastic asphalt has excellent
deformation and durability characteristics, along with good fatigue resistance. Stone
mastic asphalt has a rough surface texture which offers good skid resistance and
lower noise characteristics than dense graded asphalt.
The enhanced deformation resistance, or resistance to rutting, compared to
dense graded asphalt is achieved through mechanical interlock from the high coarse
aggregate content forming a strong stone skeleton. In dense graded asphalt, the lean
mastic provides the stability. The improved durability of SMA comes from its slow
rate of deterioration obtained from the low permeability of the binder rich mastic
cementing the aggregate together.
The increased fatigue resistance is a result of higher bitumen content, a thicker
bitumen film and lower air voids content. The higher binder content should also
contribute to flexibility and resistance to reflection cracking from underlying cracked
pavements. This is supported from the experience from trials undertaken in the
United States, where cracking (thermal and reflective) has not been a significant
problem. Fat spots appear to be the biggest problem. These are caused by
segregation, draindown, high asphalt content or improper amount of stabiliser
(Brown, et al, 1997).
The rich mastic provides good workability and fret resistance (aggregate
retention). The high binder and filler content provides a durable, fatigue resistant,
long life asphalt surfacing for heavily trafficked areas.
26
The difficult task in designing an SMA mix is to ensure a strong stone
skeleton and that it contains the correct amount of binder. Too much binder assists
in pushing the coarse aggregate particles apart, while too little results in a mix that is
difficult to compact, contains high air voids and has too thin a binder coating - and
hence is less desirable (Wonson, 1998).
An SMA, properly designed and produced, has excellent properties:
(1) The stone skeleton, with its high internal friction, will give excellent shear
resistance,
(2) The binder rich, voidless mastic will give it good durability and good resistance
to cracking,
(3) The very high concentration of large stones - three to four times higher than in a
conventional dense graded asphalt - will give it superior resistance to wear, and
(4) The surface texture is rougher than that of dense graded asphalt and will assure
good skid resistance and proper light reflection.
In Germany, surface courses of SMA have proven themselves to be
exceptionally resistant to permanent deformation and durable surfaces subject to
heavy traffic loads and severe climatic conditions (DAV, 1992).
There is little detailed, recorded SMA performance data. It has a very good
reputation in Europe and performance has been reported as exceptional in almost
every case – perhaps this is a recommendation of its own. Stone mastic asphalt
surface courses are reported to show excellent results in terms of being particularly
stable and durable in traffic areas with maximum loads and under a variety of
weather conditions (Wonson, 1996).
27
2.16 Stone Mastic Asphalt Composition
Stone mastic asphalt is a delicate balance between the mastic and the
aggregate fraction requiring good quality aggregates, consistent gradings and careful
dosage of mineral fibres to avoid an unstable mix. Variations in production can alter
the mix dramatically, hence the use of additives and/or modified binders.
The design philosophy revolves around developing a strong stone skeleton
with a high stone content, high bitumen and mortar content and a binder carrier.
Typical parameters are that the coarse aggregate (> 2.36 mm sieve) makes up 70-
80% of the aggregate weight, the fine aggregate 12-17% and the filler fraction is in
the range 8-13%. In America‟s view of SMA, its percentage of passing sieves, 0.075
mm, 2.36 mm and 4.75 mm are 10%, 20% and 30% respectively and the gap
gradation comes into being. Crushed stone over 5 mm occupies 70%, mineral filler
and asphalt content are high, and some stabilizers (fibres or polymers) are employed
(Shen, et al, undated). Binder contents are typically in the range of 6.5 - 7.5% by
mass of mix for 14 mm and 10 mm mixes. Typically, Europeans use slightly lower
binder contents.
Cellulose fibres (acting as binder carriers) have been found to be excellent
stabilising agents, and are typically used at a rate of 0.3% by mass of the mix
(Wonson 1996, 1997).
The mix is filled with a mastic of bitumen and filler to which fibres are added
in order to provide adequate stability of bitumen and to prevent drainage of the
binder during transport and placement. The addition of small quantity of cellulose or
mineral fibres renders adequate stability of the bitumen by creating a lattice network
of fibres in the binder. The addition of fibres also prevents drainage of the bitumen
during transport and placement.
28
In summary, the high stone content forms a skeleton type mineral structure
which offers high resistance to deformation due to stone to stone contact, which is
independent of temperature. The fibres added to the binder stiffen the resulting
mastic and prevent draining off during storage, transportation and laying of SMA.
The mastic fills the voids, retaining the chips in position and has an additional
stabilizing effect as well as providing low air voids and thus highly durable asphalt
(AAPA, 1993).
2.17 Stone Mastic Asphalt Materials
Selection of materials is important in SMA design. The coarse aggregate
should be a durable, fully crushed rock with a cubicle shape (maximum of 20%
elongated or flat aggregate). Fine aggregate should be at least 50% crushed. Filler
can be ground limestone rock, hydrated lime or PCC. In general, materials of similar
quality to those used in dense graded asphalt wearing courses are required for the
same conditions. Figure 2.6 shows the individual components of SMA.
Figure 2.6: Stone Mastic Asphalt Components
29
Aggregates:
The strength, toughness and rut resistance of SMA depends mostly on the
aggregate in the mix being 100% crushed aggregate with good shape (cubicle) and
stringent limits for abrasion resistance, flakiness index, crushing strength and where
appropriate, polishing resistance. Fine aggregate requirements vary from 50%
crushed/50% natural sand but trending to 75%/25% to even higher proportions of
crushed material. The sand used must be crushed sand as the internal friction of the
sand fraction largely contributes to the overall stability of SMA.
Binder
Stone mastic asphalt contains more binder than conventional dense graded
mixes, with percentages ranging from about 6.0% up to 7.5%. Heavy duty
performance is usually enhanced with polymers and fibers. These help to provide a
thick aggregate coating to the aggregate and the prevention of drain down during
transportation and placement.
Class 320 bitumen is commonly used for most applications. Multigrade
binders and polymer modified binders (PMB) can be used to give even greater
deformation resistance. The type of PMB most commonly used with SMA is styrene
butadiene styrene (SBS) which is an elastomeric polymer type. Brown et al (1997a)
reported that SMA incorporating an SBS PMB produced more rut resistant mixes
than SMA with unmodified binder. Superior fatigue lives are also reported as a
consequence of using an SMA/SBS system.
Modified binders are used for several reasons, including:
(1) To increase the resistance to permanent deformation,
(2) To increase the life span of the pavement surface,
30
(3) To reduce application and damage risks especially in cases of very thin layers,
and
(4) To reduce the need for a drainage inhibitor (though this can still be necessary
with some PMBs).
Mineral Filler
Mineral filler is that portion passing the 0.075 mm sieve. It will usually
consist of finely divided mineral matter such as rock dust, Portland cement, hydrated
lime, ground limestone dust, cement plant or fly ash. Experience in Australia has
shown that hydrated lime will greatly assist in resisting stripping under adverse
moisture conditions and is strongly recommended for inclusion in SMA mixes.
Fibres
The inclusion of cellulose or mineral fibres during the mixing process as a
stabilizing agent has several advantages including:
(1) Increased binder content,
(2) Increased film thickness on the aggregate by 30-40%,
(3) Increased mix stability,
(4) Some interlocking between the fibres and the aggregates which improves
strength, and
(5) Reduction in the possibility of drain down during transport and paving.
(Craig Campbell, 1999)
There are many binder carriers on the market including cellulose, mineral
rock, wool fibres, glass fibres, silaceous acid (artificial silica), rubber powder and
rubber granules and polymers (less often). When both technical aspects and costs are
considered, cellulose fibres have turned out to be the best carriers in practice
(Wonson, 1996).
31
2.18 Advantages and Disadvantages of Stone Mastic Asphalt
Stone mastic asphalt has a number of advantages over conventional dense
graded asphalt. These include the following:
(1) Resistance to permanent deformation or rutting (30-40% less permanent
deformation than dense graded asphalt). Van de Ven, et al (undated) also suggests
that the stone to stone contact of an aggregate skeleton should prevent the mix from
becoming temperature sensitive and thus susceptible to permanent deformation at
high temperatures.
(2) The mechanical properties of SMA rely on the stone to stone contact so they are
less sensitive to binder variations than the conventional mixes (Brown, et al, 1997a).
(3) Good durability due to high binder content (slow ageing), resulting in longer
service life (up to 20%) over conventional mixes.
(4) Good flexibility and resistance to fatigue (3-5 times increased fatigue life),
(5) Good low temperature performance,
(6) Good wear resistance,
(7) Good surface texture,
(8) Wide range of applications,
(9) SMA can be produced and compacted with the same plant and equipment
available for dense grade asphalt, and
(10) More economical in the long term.
(Craig Campbell, 1999)
2.19 Perceived disadvantages of SMA include:
(1) Increased cost associated with higher binder and filler contents, and fibre
additive,
32
(2) High filler content in SMA may result in reduced productivity. This may be
overcome by suitable plant modifications,
(3) Possible delays in opening to traffic as SMA mix should be cooled to 40°C to
prevent flushing of the binder surface, and
(4) Initial skid resistance may be low until the thick binder film is worn off the top of
the surface by traffic (Craig Campbell, 1999).
Apart from good stability and durability that ensures a long service life, other
advantages are claimed for SMA including:
(1) It can be laid over a rutted or uneven surface because it compresses very little
during compaction. This also helps to produce good longitudinal and transverse
eveness (Nunn, 1994). There is no harm to the final evenness of the surface even
when applied in different mat thicknesses.
(2) If the pavement lacks stiffness, such that a dense graded asphalt with
conventional binder may suffer premature fatigue induced cracking, then it may be
beneficial to place SMA because of its improved fatigue resistance properties
(Austroads, 1998).
(3) An anticipated secondary benefit of SMA is the retardation of reflection cracks
from the underlying pavement (Austroads, 1998).
An indication of the relative performance of SMA in comparison to
conventional dense graded asphalt (DGA) has been provided by Nordic asphalt
technologists (Carrick et al, 1991) and is summarised in Table 2.5
33
Table 2.5 Relative Performance of SMA
2.20 Life Cycle Costing
Costs are always difficult to obtain and compare. Evidence to date in both
the United States and Australia shows that the initial costs of SMA are 20-40%
higher than conventional dense graded asphalt in place in road applications. To
determine whether SMA is more cost effective than a conventional dense graded
asphalt surfacing, whole of life or annualised cash flow techniques are used. These
techniques take into account the higher initial cost of SMA (20- 40% higher than
conventional dense graded asphalt in place in road applications) and the longer life
expectancy of SMA (Craig Campbell, 1999).
34
APRG (1998) found that if a conventional dense graded asphalt was designed
to achieve a 20 year design life based on a certain layer thickness required, say 50
mm asphalt overlay to resist deformation and/or fatigue, then it would not be
unreasonable to allow an additional five years life if an SMA was substituted.
The increased initial costs of SMA compared to conventional dense graded
asphalt result from the use of premium quality materials, higher bitumen content, use
of fibres, increased quality control requirements and lower production rates due to
increased mixing times. However, costs vary considerably with the size of the
project, and also on haul distances.
Collins (1996) reported that the State of Georgia had produced a set of life
cycle costs based on the State‟s experience and reasonable mix designs. The analysis
showed there were savings in the order of 5% using SMA over dense graded asphalt
for overlay work. The analysis used the assumptions of rehabilitation intervals of 7-
10 years for dense graded mixes and 10-15 years for SMA. The costings were based
on an overlay of an existing Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement, and a 3%
differential discount rate over a 30 year analysis period and assumed:
(1) The costs of SMA are on average 25% higher than dense graded asphalt,
(2) The period between resheeting is on average 10 years for dense graded and 15
years for SMA,
(3) Continued inflation rates at 4%, and
(4) A 30 year analysis period.
However, even considering the potential for increased costs, the Georgia
Department of Transport (DOT) have found the use of SMA to be quite cost
effective based on improved performance and the potential for increased service life.
The Alaska DOT (NAPA, 1998), has found that the approximately 15% increase in
SMA cost compared to conventional mixtures is more than offset by a 40%
additional life from a reduction in rutting.
35
Justification for the use of SMA is in whole of life or annualized costing. It
appears that SMA could be cost effective for major routes with high performance,
durability and frictional requirements. Given that a life span increase of five to ten
years can be obtained, and the additional advantages are gained, it is clear that the
choice of SMA can be a good investment.
2.21 Specification by JKR:
Refer to the road technical instruction by JKR, the requirement of SMA mix
must be satisfied. The individual test value at the mean optimum bitumen content
shall be read from the plotted smooth curves and shall comply with the design
parameter size as show Table 2.6 below. If the entire requirement complies with
table below, the mixture with the mean optimum bitumen content shall be used in
plant trials.
Table 2.6: SMA Mix Requirement (JKR/SPJ/2008)
VIM 3-5%
VMA Min 17%
Stability Min 6200 N
Flow 2-4 mm
Drain down Max 0.3%
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
Several tests were conducted for achieving the objectives of the study. In this
study, the Stone mastic asphalt (SMA-14) was modified with “Fly-Ash”; “Fly-Ash,
cement & pan dust”; “cement & pan dust”; and “hydrated lime” as filler material.
The investigation was conducted using PG 76 on a range of (SMA- 14) containing
“100% Fly ash”; “50 % cement : 50 % fly-Ash”; “100% cement”; and “100%
hydrated lime” by the total weight of the filler content.
After performing washed sieve analysis, specific gravity tests and aggregate
gradation, 15 Marshall Samples were made from each type of (SMA-14) filler
mixture to obtain the optimum bitumen content (OBC). So, 60 samples were casted
for four cases to obtain (OBC) in each case. 3 samples were made at each (OBC)
obtained to verify the results. So, 12 samples were casted for verification of four
cases. For Theoretical maximum density (TMD), a total of 8 samples were tested for
four cases (2 for each case). For binder drain down test 3 samples from each type of
mixture were tested; that is, 12 more samples were tested for drain down test. Then
finally for the resilient modulus, again 3 samples from each type of mixtures were
37
tested; that is, 12 more samples were tested for resilient modulus. Therefore, a total
of 104 Marshall samples were tested. The aggregates that were used were procured
from MRP quarry located at Ulu Choh, Pulai and the fly-ash was acquired from
Tenjung power station in Johore state. All the SMA mixture designs were performed
in Highway & Transportation Laboratory D02, UTM. The procedures used for the
laboratory works were referred to JKR/SPJ/2008, American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM) as guides ensuring the laboratory works and materials
fulfilled the Malaysian Road Works specifications. In the end the performance of
(SMA-14) with different types and proportions of filler was compared on the
mechanical properties such as stability, flow, resilient modulus to investigate the
influence of utilization of Fly-Ash as mineral filler replacement in (SMA-14)
mixtures.
38
3.2 Operational Frame Work: The following flow chart for lab process and
Analysis was followed.
Sieve Analysis of Coarse, Fine
and mineral Aggregate
Aggregate Grading
Washed-Sieve Analysis
Specific Gravity Test for
Coarse and Fine Aggregate
Marshall Mix Design for SMA14
Marshall Test (Bulk Specific Gravity, Stability and
Flow)
Theoretical Maximum Density (TMD) for Loose
Mixture
Resilient Modulus test for evaluating performance
Analysis and Discussions
Drain-down test
Verification of OBC‟s
“Evaluation of Stone Mastic Asphalt using Fly ash, Cement and
Hydrated lime as mineral filler”
39
3.3 Sieve Analysis
This method was used primarily to determine the grading of aggregates
including both coarse and fine fractions ensuring the aggregate were well blended
within the gradation limit as specified in JKR (2008).
3.3.1 Dry Sieve Aggregate (For Fine and Coarse Aggregate)
This method covered the determination of the particle size distribution of
coarse and fine aggregates which were greater than 75μm in size by dry sieving. The
quarry aggregates were obtained from stockpiles containing various sizes of 10mm,
5mm and quarry dust. A weighed sample of dried aggregate was separated through a
series of sieves arranging progressively with opening size of 12.5mm, 9.5mm,
4.75mm, 2.36mm, 600μm, 300μm, 75μm and a pan. Dry sieve analysis was done in
accordance to ASTM C 136 (1992).
Apparatus Required:
I. Sieves with various sizes mounted from 12.5 mm to pan;
II. Empty barrels;
III. Mechanical sieve shaker (Figure 3.1); and
IV. Balance accurate to 0.1 gram
40
Figure 3.1: Mechanical Sieve
Procedure:
1. Firstly, all the quarry aggregates obtained were dried in air at room
temperature before sieving;
2. The series of sieves were arranged in increasing opening size from
bottom to top onto the mechanical sieve shaker;
41
3. The dried aggregates were placed on the top sieve and the shaker was
started for sieving;
4. The sieved aggregates were separated according to the size and were
placed in different barrels;
5. For mixing purpose, the aggregate were weighed and batched
according to aggregate mix design.
3.3.2 Washed Sieve Analysis (For Mineral Filler)
This test method covers the determination of total amount of mineral fillers
which is finer than 75μm sieve by washing. Washed sieve analysis was done to
remove clay or dust from the aggregate during the test that according to ASTM C
117 (1992).
Apparatus:
I. A nest of two sieves of 600μm (top) and 75μm (bottom);
II. Container;
III. Water;
IV. Oven with temperature maintain at 110±5°C; and
V. Balance accurate to 0.1 gram.
Procedure:
1. The aggregate sample was weighed and recorded as „A‟, then placed
into the container;
2. The container was filled up with water until all the aggregates were
immersed;
3. The aggregate sample was agitated and then poured carefully over the
600μ sieve which was nested above the 75μm sieve to separate the
42
suspended particles finer than 75μm such as dust and silt-clay material
from the aggregates;
4. The aggregates sample was washed by stream of water to remove the
suspended particles and the process was continued until the washed
water that passed through the sieve was clear;
5. The washed aggregates were dried 24 hours in an oven at a maintained
temperature of 110 ± 5°C; and
6. After 24 hours, the aggregates sample was weighed and reported as „B‟
and the percentage of mineral filler needed to be considered for samples
was calculated as follows and was reported to the nearest 0.1%.
Percentage of Mineral Filler = [(A – B) / A] x 100
Where:
A = Original dry mass of sample, gram; and
B = Dry mass of sample after washing, gram.
3.3.3 Aggregate Gradation
Gradation or grain-size analysis is the test performed on aggregates. The
gradation specifications for bituminous mixes require a grain-size distribution that
provides a dense, strong mixture. The mixture is a combination of coarse aggregate,
fine aggregate and the mineral filler. Table 3.1 illustrates the appropriate envelope
for aggregates gradation that was used in this study.
43
Table 3.1: Gradation Limit for SMA 14 (JKR/SPJ/2008)
Sieve size ( mm ) Gradation Limit
% Passing % Retained Lower Upper
12.5 100 100 100 -
9.5 72 83 77.5 22.5
4.75 25 38 31.5 46
2.36 16 24 20 11.5
0.600 12 16 14 6
0.300 12 15 13.5 0.5
0.075 8 10 9 4.5
3.4 Determination of Specific Gravity for Aggregate
The specific gravity may be expressed as bulk specific gravity, saturated
surface dry (SSD) specific gravity and apparent specific gravity. Determination of
aggregates specific gravity can be classified into two parts which are coarse and fine
aggregates. The coarse aggregates is defined as the aggregates that are retained on
the 4.75mm sieve while fine aggregates are those that passing 4.75mm sieve and
retained on sieve of 75μm.
3.4.1 Course Aggregate
The specific gravity for coarse aggregate was determined through the
procedure as in ASTM C 127 (1992).
44
Apparatus:
I. Balance with accuracy of 0.5g;
II. Sample container;
III. Oven which can maintain temperature of 110±5°C;
IV. Water; and
V. Towel.
Procedure:
1. A sample of selected coarse aggregates were weighed and then were
washed to remove the dust;
2. Next, the aggregate sample was immersed in container filled up with
water for 24 hours;
3. After 24 hours, a small tank was filled with water and the aggregate
sample was immersed in the tank using a perforated vessel to weigh
the sample inside water and the mass was recorded as „A‟;
4. The sample of aggregate was dried with a damp towel. The aggregates
with saturated-surface-dry were weighed again and the mass was then
recorded as „B‟.
5. The aggregates sample was heated in an oven for 24 hours at a
maintained temperature of 110 ± 5°C;
6. After drying for 24 hours, the aggregate was cooled in air at room
temperature for one to three hours before weighing. The mass of
aggregate was then recorded as „C‟;
7. The specific gravity for coarse aggregate was obtained using the
following formula and the results obtained were reported to the
nearest 0.01:
Specific Gravity (Coarse Aggregate) = [C / (B – A)]
Where:
45
A = Weight of aggregate in water, gram;
B = Weight of saturated-surface-dry aggregate in air, gram; and
C = Weight of oven-dry aggregate in air, gram.
3.4.2 Fine Aggregate
The specific gravity for fine aggregate was determined through the procedure
as in (ASTM C 128 (1992).
Apparatus:
I. Balance which has a capacity of 1kg and accurate to 0.1g;
II. Pycnometer;
III. Container and tray;
IV. Water spray;
V. Non-absorbent paper;
VI. Oven capable of maintaining temperature at 110 ± 5°C;
VII. Mould in a frustum form of a cone with dimensions of 40±3mm
inside diameter at the top, 90±3mm inside diameter at the bottom, and
75±3mm in height; and
VIII. Tamper with a weight of 340±15g and has a flat circular face
25±3mm in diameter.
Procedure:
1. Pycnometer was filled with water until ¾ of the pycnometer. Then its
weight was recorded as „A‟;
2. The water was decanted away until ¼ of the pycnometer and about
500g fine aggregate was added into the pycnometer;
46
3. Next, the pycnometer was rolled, inverted and agitated well for 10
minutes to eliminate all air bubbles in the aggregates;
4. The pycnometer containing aggregates was filled up with water to its
original level of ¾ of its volume. The aggregates were then soaked
for 24 hours;
5. After 24 hours soaking, the total weight of pycnometer, aggregates
and water was weighed and recorded as „B‟;
6. The aggregate was transferred from pycnometer into a container and
was placed in an oven until the aggregate achieved a constant weight;
7. The dried aggregate was cooled in air at room temperature for 1±½
hours before weighing. The mass of oven dry aggregate was recorded
as „C‟;
8. The dried aggregates was poured onto a tray and sprayed by water.
The aggregates were blended until they stuck together;
9. The cone test was performed using tamper and cone mould. The cone
mould was placed on the flat and smooth non-absorbent paper. The
damp aggregate was filled up loosely into the mould;
10. Holding the mould, the aggregates were lightly tamped and tamper
was allowed to fall freely with 25 drops to distribute over the surface.
The drops was about 5mm above the top of aggregates surface;
11. Then the mold was removed carefully. If about 1/3 of the aggregates
would slump, the aggregates were considered as saturated surface dry.
If not, the cone test was repeated till we reached the condition. The
weight of saturated surface dry aggregates was weighed and recorded
as „D‟; and
12. The specific gravity for fine aggregate was calculated using the
following formula:
Specific Gravity (Fine Aggregate) = C
D (B-A)
Where:
47
A = Weight of pycnometer filled with water, gram;
B = Weight of pycnometer with water and aggregates, gram;
C = Weight of oven-dry aggregates in air, gram; and
D = Weight of saturated surface aggregates, gram.
3.5 Bituminous Binder
Bitumen PG-76 was used for this study. The bitumen contents for the sample
is ranged as in Table 3.2 according to JKR/SPJ/2008.
Table 3.2: Design Bitumen Contents
Mix type Bitumen content ( % )
SMA 14 5 – 7
3.6 Marshall Mix Design
Marshall Method used a standard test specimen of 102mm in diameter (4-
inch) and 64mm in height (2.5-inch). The main purpose of the design was to obtain
optimum bitumen content for each mix. Marshall Design was divided into two levels
of laboratory works which were sample preparation and testing. For each design mix
of SMA-14, three specimens were prepared for each combination of aggregates and
bitumen content at 5.0%, 5.5%, 6.0%, 6.5%, and 7.0% using Marshall Hammer
compactor of 50 blows per face.
48
Apparatus:
I. Specimen mould cylinders including base plate and extension collar;
II. Automatic compaction hammer having flat, circular tamping face and
a 4.5 kg sliding weight with free fall of 457.2mm (Figure 3.2);
III. Hot plates and oven with temperature of 80°C for heating aggregates,
bitumen and specimen molds;
IV. Containers for heating aggregates and bitumen;
V. Trowel and spatula for spading and hand mixing purpose;
Figure 3.2: Compaction Hammer
VI. Thermometer with temperature of 200°C to measure mixing and
compacting temperature;
VII. Balance with the accuracy of 0.1gram;
VIII. Hand gloves for handling hot equipment;
IX. Marking chalks for identifying specimens;
X. Scoop for batching aggregates;
49
XI. Spoon for placing mixture into mould;
XII. Grease for sweeping the inside mould surface;
XIII. Filter papers having same diameter as the mould;
XIV. Saucepan for mixing bituminous materials; and
XV. Specimen extractor with diameter lesser than 100mm and 13mm thick
for extracting compacted specimen from the mould.
3.6.1 Marshall Specimen Procedure
The steps to prepare Marshall Specimen were specified according to ASTM
D 1559 (1992). The procedure is listed below:
1. The aggregates with mineral filler was blended to produce a batch of
1200g test specimen;
2. The container containing the batch was placed into the oven with
temperature between 105°C to 110°C for 24 hours before mixing
process;
3. Bitumen was also heated in the oven for 6 hours before mixing to
produce a viscosity of 170±20 centistokes;
4. The specimen mould cylinders and base plate were cleaned and
heated in oven at temperature between 95°C to 150°C;
5. Mixing process began by placing dried aggregates into saucepan and
mixing them dryly until they reached the mixing temperature of
160°C;
6. The fluid bitumen that was weighed according to the specification
required was poured into the saucepan. Rapidly, the aggregates and
the bitumen was mixed together until aggregates were thoroughly
coated;
50
7. The remaining bitumen was also heated on hot plates to maintain the
desired viscosity;
8. The mould was swept by grease, and a piece of filter paper was put in
the bottom of the mould before the mixture was introduced;
9. The mixture was then spaded vigorously with a heated spatula or
trowel 15 times around the perimeter and 10 times over the interior;
10. The mixture surface was smoothed with a trowel to a slightly rounded
shape and then filter paper was placed again before compaction;
11. The temperatures of the mixture immediately prior to compaction was
kept within the limits of compacting temperatures of 135°C;
12. The mold assembly was placed on the compaction pedestal in the
mould holder and 50 blows were applied. The axis of the compaction
hammer was kept perpendicular to the base of the mould;
13. The base plate and collar were removed and the mould was reversed
and reassembled. The same number of blows were applied to the face
of the reversed specimen; and
14. After compaction, the base plate, collar and filter paper were removed
from the mould before transferring it to a smooth flat surface. The
mould was allowed to cool at room temperature before extracting the
specimen using specimen extractor.
3.6.2 Theoretical Maximum Density (TMD) Test
The Theoretical maximum density of bituminous mixtures is an intrinsic
property which is the value that is influenced by the composition of the mixtures in
terms of types and amounts of aggregates and bituminous materials. The test was
conducted for determining the density and maximum theoretical specific gravity of
loose bituminous mixture using the Rice method. The test apparatus is as illustrated
in Figure 3.3 and procedure was carried out in accordance to ASTM D 2041 (1992).
51
Figure 3.3: TMD Test Machine
Apparatus:
I. Vacuum container;
II. Balance with ample capacity and accurate to three decimal places;
III. Oven (if necessary);
IV. Container or pan;
V. Vacuum pump or water aspirator to evacuate air from vacuum
container;
VI. Residual pressure manometer of 30mm Hg; and
VII. Manometer or vacuum gauge;
Procedure:
1. The prepared mixture sample was placed in a container and the
particles of sample were separated handily; care was taken to avoid
fracturing the aggregate, so that the particles of the fine aggregate
portion shall not be larger than 6.3mm;
2. If the sample wasn‟t sufficiently soft to be separated manually, it
was warmed in an oven until it could be separated;
3. The sample was then cooled at room temperature prior to weighing.
The net mass of the sample was be designated as „A‟;
52
4. Vacuum container was filled up with water until it was full and
then the weight of container including the lid was determined as
„B‟;
5. The mixture sample was placed into the empty vacuum container
and the water was added till one inch from mixture surface;
6. The lid was installed and the sample was applied with gradually
increased vacuum removing air trapped, until the residual pressure
manometer gave reading of 30mm Hg or less;
7. This residual pressure was maintained for 5 to 15 min. During the
vacuum period, a mechanical device of rubber mat surface was
continuously used to agitate the container and the contents at
intervals of about 2 min;
8. At the end of the vacuum period, the vacuum was gently released
and the container was fully filled up with water. The weight of the
assembly was then determined and recorded as „C‟;
9. The maximum theoretical specific gravity was then calculated as
follow:
Maximum Theoretical Specific Gravity, TMD = A
A + B - C
Where,
A = Mass of oven-dry sample in air, gram;
B = Mass of vacuum container filled with water, gram; and
C = Mass of vacuum container filled with water and sample (after vacuum),
gram.
53
3.6.3 Data Analysis
When all Marshall Tests were completed, each parameter was required to be
analyzed to determine the optimum bitumen content. The specimens were tested to
determine their volumetric composition and their strength characteristics. Plots were
prepared, for percentage of bitumen content versus:
i. Bulk Specific Gravity;
ii. Voids in Mineral Aggregate (VMA);
iii. Air Voids in the Compacted Mix (VIM);
iv. Void Filled with Bitumen (VFB);
v. Stability; and
vi. Flow
3.6.4 Analysis of Bulk Specific Gravity
This test covers the determination of bulk specific gravity and density of
compacted bituminous specimen. It was useful in calculating percentage air voids
and the unit weight of compacted mixes. The values obtained might also be used in
determining the relative degree of compaction. The method was conducted in
accordance to ASTM D 2726 (1992).
Apparatus:
I. Balance; and
II. Water bath equipped with overflow outlet to maintain water level.
54
Figure 3.4: Specimen will be weighed in Water
Procedure:
1. The compacted specimens were taken out from the mould and
allowed to be cooled at room temperature;
2. Mass of specimen in water – the specimen was immersed in a water
bath at 25°C for 3 to 5 min and then weighed in water. The mass was
recorded as „C‟;
3. Mass of saturated-surface-dry specimen in air – the specimen was
surface dried by blotting quickly with a damp towel and then weighed
in air. This mass was designated as „B‟;
4. Mass of oven-dry specimen – the specimen was oven-dried to
constant mass at 110 ± 5°C. The specimen was allowed to cool and
weighed in air. This mass was designated as „A‟;
5. The Marshall bulk specific gravity of the specimen was calculated as
follows and the values obtained were reported to the third decimal
place:
Bulk Specific Gravity = A
B- C
55
Where:
A = Mass of dry specimen in air, gram;
B = Mass of saturated-surface-dry specimen in air, gram; and
C = Mass of specimen in water, gram.
3.6.5 Analysis of Void in Mineral Aggregate (VMA)
Void in Mineral Aggregate may be defined as the volume of intergranular
void space between the aggregate particles of a compacted paving mixture that
include air voids and the effective bitumen content (volume of bitumen not absorbed
into the aggregate). It can be expressed as a percentage of the total volume of the
specimen. This value was obtained using the following formula:
VMA, % = 100 – [Gmb x Ps / Gsb]
Where:
Gmb =bulk specific gravity of compacted mixture;
Gsb =combined bulk specific gravity of the total aggregate and
Ps = percent of aggregate in the mixture.
3.6.6 Analysis of Air Void in the Compacted Mix (VIM)
Void in Mix or Air Voids is the total volume of the small pockets of air
between the coated aggregate particles throughout a compacted paving mixture,
56
expressed as a percent of the compacted mixture. To find the VIM percentage, the
following equation was used:
Va, % = 100 x [1 – (Gmb/Gmm)]
Where:
Gmb = bulk specific gravity of compacted mixture; and
Gmm = theoretical maximum specific gravity.
3.6.7 Void Filled with Bitumen (VFB)
Void Filled with Bitumen (VFB) is the percent of the volume of the VMA
that filled with bitumen. The following formula was used to calculate the VFB:
VFB = VMA – VIM x 100
VMA
3.6.8 Marshall Stability and Flow Test
The test covered the measurement of stability and flow of the bituminous
specimens using the Marshall apparatus and the Compression Testing Machine
(Figure 3.5). After heating to 60°C in a water bath, the specimens were placed in the
testing machine between two collar-like testing heads, and compressed radially at a
constant rate of displacement.
57
Apparatus:
I. Marshall testing head consist of upper and lower
segments;(Figure3.5)
II. Flow meter;
III. Thermometer with a range from 20°C to 70°C;
IV. Rubber gloves to remove specimens from water bath;
V. Compression machine; and
VI. Water bath.
Figure 3.5: Machine for Flow and Stability Test
The method was used to obtain maximum load and flow for bituminous
paving specimens that were prepared. The test procedure is listed as below (ASTM
D 1559, 1992):
58
1. Specimen was immersed in the water bath with the temperature
maintained at 60 ±1°C for 30 to 40 minutes;
2. The guide rods and the test heads were thoroughly cleaned prior
conducting the test. Besides, the guide rods were lubricated so that
the upper test slides freely over them. The testing-head temperature
was maintained at 21°C to 38°C;
3. Specimens were then extracted from the water bath and dried before
placing it in the lower testing head. After that, the upper testing head
was placed on the specimen and the complete assembly was then
located in position on the testing machine;
4. The flow meter was placed in position over one of the guide rods and
then the flow meter was adjusted to zero. While the test load was
applied, the flow meter sleeve was held firmly against the testing
heads upper segment;
5. The flow meter reading was recorded before the specimen was being
loaded;
6. The load at a constant rate of testing head movement of 50.8mm per
minute was applied to the specimen until the maximum load reading
was obtained and the load decreased as indicated by the dial;
7. Afterwards, the maximum load until it will began to decrease was
noted or converted from the maximum micrometer dial reading;
8. The last reading at the flow meter was recorded. The last value of
flow meter was deducted to the previous value, which was indicated
as a flow value in mm unit;
9. The elapsed time starting from specimen removal from water bath to
maximum load being determined did not exceed 30s.
59
Figure 3.6: Samples will be submerged in the Water at 60oC 30 to 40 Minutes
3.6.9 Determination of Optimum Bitumen Content (OBC)
The average values of bulk specific gravity, stability, flow, VFB, and VMA
were obtained and plotted separately against the bitumen content and smooth curves
were drawn through the plotted values. The mean optimum bitumen contents were
determined by averaging four optimum bitumen contents as specified in JKR (2008):
i. Peak of curve taken from stability graph;
ii. Flow equal to 3mm from the flow graph;
iii. Peak of curve taken from the bulk specific gravity graph; and
iv. VIM equal to 3.5% from the VIM graph.
The individual test values at the mean optimum bitumen contents were then
read from the plotted smooth curves and complied with the SMA design criteria as in
Table 3.3. If one or more design criteria wouldn‟t have met the specification, the
60
grading and/or the quality of the aggregate must have been adjusted and new
Marshall Tests would have been required to be carried out again until satisfactory
results would have been achieved.
Table 3.3: SMA Mix Requirement (JKR/SPJ/2008)
Parameter Requirement
VIM 3 – 5 %
VMA Min 17%
Stability Min 6200 N
Flow 2 – 4 mm
Drain down Max 0.3 %
3.6.10 Drain down Test
The drain-down test was done using AASHTO Standards T245 and it was
anticipated that it would simulate conditions that the mixture is likely to encounter as
it is produced, stored, transported, and placed. This test considered the portion of the
mixture (fines and bitumen) that separated itself from the sample as a whole and
flowed downward through the mixture (NAPA, 1999). Binder drain-down tests are
generally done on open graded and SMA mixtures compared to conventional dense-
graded mixes. The test also reflected the drain-down potential produced at the field.
In the laboratory procedures, the loose sample was placed inside the standard wire
basket sizes 6.3 mm. Figure 3.7 show the drain-down test basket.
61
Figure 3.7: Basket used in Drain-down Test
Apparatus:
I. Oven capable of maintaining the temperature in a range from 120 -
200 °C.
II. Pan or metal tray with appropriate size.
III. Standard cylindrical shaped basket meeting the dimensions.
IV. The basket must be constructed using standard 6.3 mm sieve cloth as
specified in AASHTO M92. (Figure 3.7)
V. Spatula, trowels, mixer and bowls as needed.
VI. Balance accurate to 0.1 gram.
Procedure:
1. The mass of loose mixture sample and the initial mass of the pan was
determined to the nearest 0.1 gram;
2. The loose sample was then transferred and placed into the wire basket
without consolidating or disturbing it;
3. The basket was placed on the pan and the assembly afterwards
located into the oven for 3 hours at the temperature of 170 °C;
62
4. After the sample was placed in oven for 3 hours, the basket and the
pan was removed;
5. The final mass of the pan was determined and recorded to the nearest
0.1 gram;
6. Percentage of drain-down was calculated using formula as shown
below:
Drain-down, % = [(C – B) / A] x 100
Where:
A = Weight of sample, g
B = Weight of metal tray before test, g
C = Weight of metal tray after test, g
3.7 Resilient Modulus Test (Indirect Tensile Modulus Test)
After the sample of Marshall was casted at OBC, the indirect resilient
modulus test was done for each sample to determine the value of resilient modulus
for each sample. For the resilient modulus, sample was tested at temperature room
25‟C and 40‟C. The standard test followed ASTM D 4123-82.
Apparatus:
I. Universal Testing Machine (Figure 3.8) – The testing machine should
have the capability of applying a load pulse over a range of
frequencies, load durations, and load levels.
63
II. Temperature-Control System- The temperature-control system should
be capable of controlling over a temperature range from 41 to 104ºF
(5 to 40 ºC) and within ±2ºF (± 1.1ºC) of the specified temperature
within the range. The system should include a temperature within the
range; the system should also include a temperature-controlled cabinet
large enough to hold at least three specimens for a period of 24 h prior
to testing.
III. Measurement and Recording System-The measurement and recording
system should include sensors for measuring and recording horizontal
and vertical deformations. When Poisson‟s ratio is to be assumed,
only measurement system for horizontal deformation is required. The
system should be capable of measuring horizontal deformations in the
range of 0.00001 in.
Figure 3.8: Universal Testing Machine
64
Procedure:
1. The specimens were placed in a controlled-temperature cabinet and
brought to the specified test temperature. The temperature was
monitored and the actual temperature was made known, the
specimens remained in the cabin for the specified test temperature for
at least 24 h prior to test;
2. The thickness for each specimen was measured;
3. The specimens were placed into the loading apparatus position; the
loading strips were kept parallel and centre to vertical diameter plane.
The balance and the electric measuring system was adjusted as
necessary;
4. The specimen was pre conditioned by applying a repeated sine or
other suitable waveform load to the specimen without impact for a
minimum period sufficient to obtain uniform deformation readout.
Depending upon the loading frequency and temperatures, a minimum
for a given situation was determined so that the resilient deformation
was stable. Resilient modulus evaluation included tests at 25⁰C and
40⁰C.
5. Each resilient modulus determination was completed within 4 min
from the time the specimens was removed from the temperature
control cabinet. The 4 min testing time limit will be waived if loading
is conducted within a temperature-control cabinet meeting the
requirements;
6. The results were obtained from the computer.
65
Figure 3.9: Specimen were placed into the Loading Apparatus Position
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS, DATA ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION
4.1 Introduction
The laboratory tests were performed on a series of mixtures of (SMA- 14)
containing “100% Fly ash”; “50 % cement : 50 % fly-Ash”; “100% cement”; and
“100% hydrated lime” by the total weight of the filler content. These tests yielded
some important results which have been analyzed in this chapter. The tests ranged
from “washed sieve analysis” to “specific gravity test for coarse and fine aggregate”,
to “Marshall Mix design for SMA-14 with 50 blow compaction effort”, to “Marshall
Test (measuring bulk specific gravity, stability and flow)”, to “Theoretical Maximum
Density (TMD) for Loose Mixture”, to obtain mean optimum bitumen contents
(OBC‟s) for all mixes. Individual test values at the mean optimum bitumen contents
were then read from the plotted smooth curves and complied with the SMA design
criteria. Then recasting of the series of mixtures of (SMA-14), at graphically
obtained mean optimum bitumen content was done to verify whether the graphically
determined parameters like (VTM, VMA, stability and flow) complies with the
results obtained practically and specifications. Verification of sample mixes was
performed with respect to binder drain-down test also, as drain down test also forms
a part of specification, that a mix should pass, if it wants to clear SMA mix
requirement for (JKR/SPJ/2008). This procedure to check graphical results with
67
actual performance is called verification of mean optimum bitumen content (OBC) of
sample. When all the mixes passed the verification test then Resilient Modulus test
for evaluating performance of each mix at the “graphically obtained and verified
OBC” was done to compare the performance of each sample mix under deviatoric
stress to analyze the simulation of pavement response to traffic loading.
4.2 Raw Materials Used
The natural aggregates and pan dust that were used were procured from MRP
quarry located at Ulu Choh, Pulai, fly-ash was acquired from Tenjung power station
in Johore state, Ordinary Portland cement used was a local Malaysian brand called
Phoenix, hydrated lime used was also a local Malaysian brand named Orchid. The
bitumen used for making Marshall samples was PG-76. It is a performance grade 76
bitumen and is well suited for stone mastic asphalt pavements. It is a polymer
modified bitumen and thus nullifying the need of addition of stabilizers in the mix.
Performance grade was selected, because of its quality of behaving exceptionally
well, under a range of temperatures, without much change in its properties and thus
exhibiting a uniform behaviour. All the materials consumed; their properties
complied in accordance to the specifications prescribed by JKR SPJ/JKR/2008 and
ASTM 1992.
4.2.1 Aggregates
The natural aggregates, fly ash, cement, pan dust and hydrated lime that were
procured were sieved and stored in various bins based on the aggregate size passing
sieve sizes 12.5, 9.5, 4.75, 2.35, 0.600, 0.300, 0.075mm and conformed to
68
JKR/SPJ/2008. Then all the aggregate samples, with required gradation, that would
be required for cooking, were filled in plastic bags with a weight of 1200 g minus
the weight of dust lost in washed sieve analysis.
4.3 Gradation of Aggregates
Sieve analysis was performed to obtain the required size of aggregates, so
that they conform to specifications of JKR/SPJ/2008. Batching of aggregates was
done in accordance to the passing percentage of aggregates on each size. Blending
was done in conjunction with the following table and graph. For comprehensive
detaling of sieve analysis please refer to appendix.
Table 4.1: SMA 14 Gradation Limit for
Size of sieve mm Gradation Limit
% Passing % Retained Lower Upper
12.5 100 100 100 -
9.5 72 83 77.5 22.5
4.75 25 38 31.5 46
2.36 16 24 20 11.5
0.600 12 16 14 6
0.300 12 15 13.5 0.5
0.075 8 10 9 4.5
69
Figure 4.1 : SMA 14 Gradation Limit
4.4 Test for washed sieve analysis
The test of washed sieve analysis was in accordance with ASTM C 117-90
and this test was performed to check the fraction of dust present in the aggregates so
that the dust on aggregates that gets washed away by washing and weight of dust lost
would be lessened from the weight of filler material that will be added later to avoid
disturbance in gradation. Fly ash, Cement, pan-dust, hydrated lime, all could pass
0.075 mm sieve size and were utilized as filler material. For comprehensive detaling
to check the filler content utilized please see appendix.
Table 4.2: Test for washed sieve analysis
Mixture type Washed mass of dust (g)
SMA 14 24.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0.312 0.582 0.795 1.472 2.016 2.754
% P
assi
ng
^0.45 Sieve Size
SMA 14
Lower LimitUpper LimitSample
70
4.5 Specific Gravity
This is one of the most important steps in this project, as all the calculations
and analysis later will be utilizing the values of specific gravity. Therfore, the
correctness of the values obtained here will reflect in the final result All the steps in
this test were followed in accordance with ASTM C 127-88 and ASTM C 128-88
for coarse aggregate and fine aggregates respectively. All the results are summarized
in the Table 4.3 to reflect water absorption and specific gravity for materials that
have been used in the study. Specification says that water absorption for coarse
aggregate and fine aggregate should in no case cross more than 2% mark and it
didn‟t. For comprehensive detaling of calculating specific gravity please see
appendix.
Table 4.3: Specific Gravity of Materials Used
Materials utilized Specific Gravity
obtained
% Absorption
obtained
Bitumen PG-76 1.03 -
Fine
aggregate
SMA 14 (Apparent) 2.6875
1.122 SMA 14 (Bulk) 2.6093
SMA 14 (Bulk SSD) 2.6380
Coarse
aggregate
SMA 14 (Apparent) 2.6315
1.189 SMA 14 (Bulk) 2.5516
SMA 14 (Bulk SSD) 2.5821
Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) 3.130 -
Fly-Ash (F.A) 2.30 -
Hydrated lime (H.L) 2.24 -
71
4.6 Bitumen
The bitumen used for making Marshall samples was PG-76. It is a
performance grade 76 bitumen and is well suited for stone mastic asphalt pavements.
It is a polymer modified bitumen and thus nullifying the need of addition of
stabilizers in the mix. Performance grade was selected because of its reliable
consistency and it works exceptionally well under a range of temperatures without
much change in its properties and thus exhibiting a uniform behaviour. This bitumen
was available in laboratory of UTM, D02, Skudai Johore.
4.6.1 Specific Gravity
The specific gravity of the bitumen utilized, that is, (PG-76) is equal to a
numerical value of 1.03 and it is universally accepted. As it is a polymer modified
bitumen, therefore no additives and stabilizers are required.
4.7 Marshall Sample
For casting Marshall samples, a methodology prescribed in ASTM D 1559
was followed. All the equipments used for the procedure were conforming to the
specifications prescribed by the mentioned code. The lab work was executed in
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) Skudai, at Highway lab, D02, Johore.
72
4.7.1 Sample Preparation
The equipment and procedures for preparing the Marshall samples were in
conjunction with ASTM D 1559. All the samples were made by using the wet
process. Four types of mixes of SMA-14 were prepared. The mixes were categorized
into two spectrums; one type contained fly ash as mineral filler varied in proportions
of 100 % fly ash (no cement) and 50 % fly ash (Rest is 50% cement) and the other
type contained the conventional fillers with 100 % cement and 100 % hydrated lime.
Table 4.4 below shows the detailed description of the types of mixes that were used
in Marshall test.
Table 4.4: Details of Mixes Produced
Criteria
Mix Type
SMA 14 (F.A Samples) SMA 14 (Conventional)
100% F.A 50:50
FA:OPC 100% OPC 100% H.L
Asphalt
Content (%) 5 – 7 (PG-76) 5 – 7 (PG-76)
Marshall
Compaction 50 blows/side 50 blows/side
4.8 Theoratical Maximum Density ( TMD )
The Theoretical Maximum Density (TMD) test is one of the prerequisites
for carrying out all the volumetric calculations and therefore it forms the foundation
for the final result. It is an intrinsic property of sample and depends upon the amount
and type of aggregates and bitumen used. The test was conducted to get the density
and max theoretical specific gravity of the loose mixture by Rice Method. This test
73
used 6% of bitumen by weight of SMA-14 sample. The sample used for test
weighed 1500 grams. Table 4.5 shows the results of density for SMA 14 for the tests
carried out. For comprehensive detaling of Theoretical Maximum Density
calculations please see appendix.
Table 4.5 : Theoretical Maximum Density
Types of mix SG maximum
( Gmm )
SG effective
( Geff )
SMA 14
100% F.A 2.3070 2.5050
50:50
FA:OPC 2.3125 2.5120
100% OPC 2.3145 2.5140
100% H.L 2.3120 2.5120
4.9 Volumetric Properties results and graphical analysis:
All the volumetric parameters like bulk-density, stability of sample, flow of
sample, Voids in Mineral Aggregate, Voids Filled with Asphalt, Voids in Total Mix
and Stiffeness play a pivotal role for obtaining (OBC) optimum bitumen content of
the mix type. The bulk specific gravity of the samples was estimated by following
the specifications prescribed in ASTM D 2726 and the values of parameters like
stability and flow were determined by following the specifications prescribed in
ASTM D 1559. Table 4.6 and Table 4.7 reflects the volumetric properties and
results for SMA 14 mix types containing (100% Fly Ash) and (50% Fly-Ash : 50%
cement) as total weight of mineral filler and Table 4.8 and 4.9 reflects the
volumetric properties results for SMA 14 containing (100 % cement) and (100%
hydrated lime) as total weight of mineral filler. For comprehensive detaling of
calculations on Marshall test and their volumetric properties please see appendix.
74
Table 4.6: Volumetric Properties Results for SMA 14 (100% Fly Ash)
Bitumen
Content
(%)
Density
( g / cm3 )
Stability
( kg )
Flow
( mm )
VMA
( % )
VFA
( % )
VTM
( % )
Stiffness
( kg / mm )
5.0 2.223 861.9 2.58 17.79 60.65 4.92 345.6
5.5 2.239 903.5 2.92 17.65 67.72 3.59 313.9
6.0 2.227 864.1 3.96 18.50 70.12 3.45 229.2
6.5 2.242 890.2 3.78 18.42 76.82 2.20 255.4
7.0 2.247 869.5 5.31 18.66 81.82 1.32 181.2
The final mean of (OBC) Optimum Bitumen Content was confirmed by
taking average of four optimum bitumen contents at specified points as follows; (1)
Curve peak of the bulk specific gravity graph, (2) At VTM 3.5% from the VTM
graph, (3) Curve peak of the stability graph and (4) At 3 mm flow from the flow
graph.
Figure 4.2: Density Vs Bitumen Content
2.2
2.21
2.22
2.23
2.24
2.25
2.26
2.27
2.28
2.29
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
De
nsi
ty
% Bitumen Content
Density Vs Bitumen Content
density
Poly. (density)
75
Figure 4.3: VTM Vs Bitumen Content
Figure 4.4: Stability Vs Bitumen Content
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
% V
TM
% Bitumen Content
VTM Vs Bitumen Content
vtm
Poly. (vtm)
800
820
840
860
880
900
920
940
960
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
Stab
ility
% Bitumen Content
Stabilty Vs Bitumen Content
stability
Poly. (stability)
76
Figure 4.5: Flow Vs Bitumen Content
Therefore, OBC for SMA 14 (100% Fly Ash) = (7 + 5.78 + 6 + 5.5)/ 4 = 6.07
Figure 4.6: VMA Vs Bitumen Content
11.5
22.5
33.5
44.5
55.5
66.5
77.5
88.5
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
Flo
w (
mm
)
% Bitumen Content
Flow VS Bitumen Content
flow
Poly. (flow)
17.4
17.6
17.8
18
18.2
18.4
18.6
18.8
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
VM
A
Bitumen Content
VMA Vs Bitumen Content
vma
Poly. (vma)
77
Table 4.7: Volumetric Properties Results for SMA 14 (50% Fly-Ash : 50% cement)
Bitumen
Content
(%)
Density
( g / cm3 )
Stability
( kg )
Flow
( mm )
VMA
( % )
VFA
( % )
VTM
( % )
Stiffness
( kg / mm )
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
2.228
2.240
2.228
2.249
2.256
1142.0
1010.9
946.7
984.3
953.6
2.85
3.43
3.46
3.21
4.67
17.61
17.59
18.48
18.15
18.32
61.43
68.02
70.24
78.21
83.69
4.90
3.76
3.63
2.09
1.13
445.5
303.5
297.7
329.1
212.8
The final mean of (OBC) Optimum Bitumen Content was confirmed by
taking average of four optimum bitumen contents at specified points as follows; (1)
Curve peak of the bulk specific gravity graph, (2) At VTM 3.5% from the VTM
graph, (3) Curve peak of the stability graph and (4) At 3 mm flow from the flow
graph.
Figure 4.7: Density Vs Bitumen Content
2.18
2.19
2.2
2.21
2.22
2.23
2.24
2.25
2.26
2.27
2.28
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
De
nsi
ty
% Bitumen Content
Density Vs Bitumen Content
density
Poly. (density)
78
Figure 4.8: VTM Vs Bitumen Content
Figure 4.9: Stability Vs Bitumen Content
0.51
1.52
2.53
3.54
4.55
5.56
6.5
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
% V
TM
% Bitumen Content
VTM Vs Bitumen Content
vtm
Poly. (vtm)
900
950
1000
1050
1100
1150
1200
1250
1300
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
Stab
ility
% Bitumen Content
Stability Vs Bitumen Content
stability
Poly. (stability)
79
Figure 4.10: Flow Vs Bitumen Content
Therefore, OBC for SMA 14 (50% Fly-Ash:50% cement) = (7 + 5.85 + 5 + 5.15)/ 4
= 5.75
Figure 4.11: VMA Vs Bitumen Content
11.5
22.5
33.5
44.5
55.5
66.5
77.5
88.5
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
Flo
w (
mm
)
% Bitumen Content
Flow Vs Bitumen Content
flow
Poly. (flow)
17.4
17.6
17.8
18
18.2
18.4
18.6
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
VM
A
% Bitumen Content
VMA Vs Bitumen Content
vma
Poly. (vma)
80
Table 4.8: Volumetric Properties Results for SMA 14 (100 % cement)
Bitumen
Content(%)
Density
( g / cm3 )
Stability
( kg )
Flow
( mm )
VMA
( % )
VFA
( % )
VTM
( % )
Stiffness
( kg / mm )
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
2.229
2.243
2.239
2.216
2.220
1060.3
1057.0
928.1
847.4
872.3
3.06
2.86
3.85
4.97
5.43
17.56
17.50
18.08
19.34
19.64
61.64
68.42
72.12
72.34
76.82
4.93
3.70
3.25
3.60
2.81
359.8
384.7
249.7
170.8
167.1
The final mean of (OBC) Optimum Bitumen Content was confirmed by
taking average of four optimum bitumen contents at specified points as follows; (1)
Curve peak of the bulk specific gravity graph, (2) At VTM 3.5% from the VTM
graph, (3) Curve peak of the stability graph and (4) At 3 mm flow from the flow
graph.
Figure 4.12: Density Vs Bitumen Content
2.22.212.222.232.242.252.262.272.282.29
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
De
nsi
ty
% Bitumen Content
Density Vs Bitumen Content
density
Poly. (density)
81
Figure 4.13: VTM Vs Bitumen Content
Figure 4.14: Stability Vs Bitumen Content
11.5
22.5
33.5
44.5
55.5
66.5
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
% V
TM
% Bitumen Content
VTM Vs Bitumen Content
vtm
Poly. (vtm)
800
850
900
950
1000
1050
1100
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
Stab
ility
% Bitumen Content
Stability Vs Bitumen Content
stability
Poly. (stability)
82
Figure 4.15: Flow Vs Bitumen Content
Therefore, OBC for SMA 14 (100 % cement) = (5.6 + 5.9 + 5 + 5.2)/ 4 = 5.425
Figure 4.16: VMA Vs Bitumen Content
11.5
22.5
33.5
44.5
55.5
66.5
77.5
88.5
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
Flo
w (
mm
)
% Bitumen Content
Flow Vs Bitumen Content
flow
Poly. (flow)
17
17.5
18
18.5
19
19.5
20
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
VM
A
% Bitumen Content
VMA Vs Bitumen Content
vma
Poly. (vma)
83
Table 4.9: Volumetric Properties Results for SMA 14 (100% hydrated lime)
Bitumen
Content
(%)
Density
( g / cm3 )
Stability
( kg )
Flow
( mm )
VMA
( % )
VFA
( % )
VTM
( % )
Stiffness
( kg / mm )
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
2.219
2.207
2.200
2.219
2.233
1479.3
1183.0
971.2
1074.6
1039.1
1.42
0.54
2.29
4.17
4.46
17.93
18.82
19.48
19.25
19.15
60.10
62.60
65.79
72.75
79.24
5.27
5.21
4.82
3.40
2.14
1223.3
2295.8
521.5
261.9
232.0
The final mean of (OBC) Optimum Bitumen Content was confirmed by
taking average of four optimum bitumen contents at specified points as follows; (1)
Curve peak of the bulk specific gravity graph, (2) At VTM 3.5% from the VTM
graph, (3) Curve peak of the stability graph and (4) At 3 mm flow from the flow
graph.
Figure 4.17: Density Vs Bitumen Content
2.182.19
2.22.212.222.232.242.252.262.272.28
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
De
nsi
ty
% Bitumen content
Density Vs Bitumen Content
density
Poly. (density)
84
Figure 4.18: VTM Vs Bitumen Content
Figure 4.19: Stability Vs Bitumen Content
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
% V
TM
% Bitumen content
VTM Vs Bitumen Content
vtm
Poly. (vtm)
950
1050
1150
1250
1350
1450
1550
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
stab
ility
% Bitumen Content
Stability Vs Bitumen content
stability
Poly. (stability)
85
Figure 4.20: Flow Vs Bitumen Content
Therefore OBC for SMA 14 (100% hydrated lime) = (7 + 6.55 + 5.05 + 6.4)/ 4 =6.25
Figure 4.21: VMA Vs Bitumen Content
0.51
1.52
2.53
3.54
4.55
5.56
6.57
7.58
8.5
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
Flo
w (
mm
)
% Bitumen Content
Flow Vs Bitumen Content
flow
Poly. (flow)
17.8
18
18.2
18.4
18.6
18.8
19
19.2
19.4
19.6
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
VM
A
% Bitumen Content
VMA Vs Bitumen Content
vma
Poly. (vma)
86
4.10 Determination of Optimum Bitumen Content
The final mean of (OBC) Optimum Bitumen Content was confirmed by
taking average of four optimum bitumen contents at specified points as follows;
1. Curve peak of the bulk specific gravity graph
2. At VTM 3.5% from the VTM graph
3. Curve peak of the stability graph
4. At 3 mm flow from the flow graph
Table 4.10 : Optimum Bitumen Content
Types of mix
Optimum
Bitumen
Content
SMA 14
100% F.A 6.070 %
50:50
FA:OPC 5.750 %
100% OPC 5.425 %
100% H.L 6.250 %
Table 4.10 shows the results gotten in this study. The results show that
Optimum Bitumen Content for sample using hydrated lime and fly Ash as mineral
filler is higher than the sample using ordinary Portland cement. It is because of the
fact that hydrated lime and fly ash have lesser specific gravity (2.24 and 2.30
respectively) than ordinary Portland cement (OPC; specific gravity 3.13). This
means that mineral filler with less specific gravity was consumed more
volumetrically as its space occupancy was more; that is; their volume was more for
the same weight of mineral fillers used. It is a logical fact that when weight is kept
constant for all types of mineral fillers with different specific gravities; the one with
lower specific gravity will have more volume than the one having higher specific
87
gravity. Therefore, when volume of mineral filler is high that means more amount of
bitumen will be absorbed and hence higher optimum bitumen content can be
expected. Higher OBC‟s in hydrated lime and Fly Ash can also be justified by the
fact that their particles are spherical in shape and are very fine (that is; although
smaller in size, but more number of particles are present in fly ash and hydrated lime
for the same weight, when compared with cement) when observed under electron
microscope. This fact helps us in understanding that more surface area was available
for bitumen to get absorbed as well as adsorbed in case of hydrated lime and fly Ash
compared to cement and hence higher OBC was obtained. And also the authenticity
of the results can be appreciated by the fact that the optimum bitumen content
obtained for the mix containing “50% Cement : 50% Fly Ash” as total weight of
mineral filler is 5.75 %, which is exactly the average value of the two optimum
bitumen contents obtained for mixes containing “100% Cement” and “100% Fly
Ash”; which are 5.425% and 6.07% respectively.
Despite the fact that SMA-14 containing 100 % fly ash as mineral filler
showed a higher requirement of bitumen by a small percentage than its cement
counterpart but still it will be more economical than using cement and obviously
hydrated lime (as it consumed highest bitumen); as fly ash is easily available in
quantum and it is a waste from coal consuming stations and factories, and its disposal
creates enormous problems for our surroundings.
4.11 Marshall Results and Specification
The values of OBC‟s were gotten from the graphs which were drawn based
on the values of volumetric properties. Individual test values of parameters at the
mean optimum bitumen contents were then read from the plotted smooth curves and
must comply with the SMA design criteria prescribed by JKR/SPJ/2008. Table 4.11
and 4.12 shows the Marshall results for SMA 14 containing (100% Fly Ash) and
88
(50% Fly-Ash : 50% cement) as total weight of mineral filler and Table 4.13 and
4.14 shows the Marshall results for SMA 14 containing (100 % cement) and (100%
hydrated lime) as total weight of mineral filler. Based on the results it can be
observed that all the values comply with the range of specifications prescribed by
JKR and this implies that all the values of optimum bitumen contents obtained are
correct with regard to the norms prescribed. This means that our result is correct
graphically and analytically on paper but in order to double check the results
practically; verification of results obtained was required.
Table 4.11: Marshall Results and Specification for SMA 14 (100% Fly Ash)
Parameter Value at OBC
graphically
Specification
VTM 3.1 3 – 5
VMA 18.25 Min 17 %
Stability ( kg ) 887
Min 6200 N
= 632 Kg
Flow ( mm ) 3.6 2 – 4
Table 4.12: Marshall Results and Specification for SMA 14 (50% FA : 50% OPC).
Parameter Value at OBC
graphically
Specification
VTM 3.75 3 – 5
VMA 18.05 M in 17 %
Stability (Kg)
990 Min 6200 N
= 632 Kg
Flow ( mm ) 3.25 2.0 – 4.0
89
Table 4.13: Marshall Results and Specification for SMA 14 (100 % cement)
Parameter Value at OBC
graphically
Specification
VTM 4.1 3 – 5
VMA 17.7 Min 17 %
Stability ( kg ) 1010 Min 6200 N
= 632 Kg
Flow ( mm ) 3.25 2 – 4
Table 4.14: Marshall Results and Specification for SMA 14 (100% hydrated lime)
Parameter Value at OBC
graphically
Specification
VTM 4.2 3 - 5%
VMA 19.40 Min 17 %
Stability ( kg ) 1000
Min 6200 N
= 632 Kg
Flow ( mm ) 2.75 2 – 4
4.12 Volumetric Properties results for verification sample:
Three verification samples were casted at graphically obtained mean
optimum bitumen contents of 6.07%; 5.75%; 5.43% and 6.25% for SMA-14
containing (100% Fly Ash);(50% Fly Ash : 50% Cement); (100% cement) and (100
% hydrated lime) as mineral filler respectively and all the volumetric paramaters (eg:
stability, flow, VMA,VFA,VTM, density, stiffness) were checked (cross verified), in
order to be sure that our results are correct both on paper and in practicality. For
90
comprehensive detaling of calculations on Marshall test and their volumetric
properties please see appendix.
Table: 4.15: Volumetric Properties Results for SMA 14 (100% Fly Ash)
Bitumen
Content
(%)
Density
( g / cm3 )
Stability
( kg )
Flow
( mm )
VMA
( % )
VFA
( % )
VTM
( % )
Stiffness
( kg / mm )
6.07
2.233
917.8
3.49
18.37
71.63
3.14
263.7
Table: 4.16: Volumetric Properties Results for SMA 14 (50% Fly Ash:50% Cement)
Bitumen
Content
(%)
Density
( g / cm3 )
Stability
( kg )
Flow
( mm )
VMA
( % )
VFA
( % )
VTM
( % )
Stiffness
( kg / mm )
5.75
2.231
1001
3.18
18.17
68.55
3.85
317.9
Table: 4.17: Volumetric Properties Results for SMA 14 (100% Cement)
Bitumen
Content
(%)
Density
( g / cm3 )
Stability
( kg )
Flow
( mm )
VMA
( % )
VFA
( % )
VTM
( % )
Stiffness
( kg / mm )
5.43
2.234
1035.1
3.15
17.76
66.31
4.20
347
91
Table: 4.18: Volumetric Properties Results for SMA 14 (100% Hydrated lime)
Bitumen
Content
(%)
Density
( g / cm3 )
Stability
( kg )
Flow
( mm )
VMA
( % )
VFA
( % )
VTM
( % )
Stiffness
( kg / mm )
6.25
2.209
980.2
2.91
19.38
69.18
4.15
354.7
4.13 Marshall Results and Specification
The values of Mean Optimum Bitumen Contents obtained graphically were
used to cast three samples for each specific type of SMA-14 mix. The values of
parameters required for SMA-14 mix at OBC must be in the range of the
specification prescribed by JKR/SPJ/2008. Table 4.19 and 4.20 shows the
verification results for SMA 14 containing (100% Fly Ash) and (50% Fly-Ash : 50%
cement) as total weight of mineral filler and Table 4.21 and 4.22 shows the
verification results for SMA 14 containing (100 % cement) and (100% hydrated
lime) as total weight of mineral filler. Based on the results it can be observed that
all the values comply with the range of specifications prescribed by JKR and this
implies that all the values of optimum bitumen contents obtained are correct with
regard to the norms prescribed. This means that that our result is not-only correct
graphically and analytically on paper, but practically also, as has been testified by the
verification results. Therefore, all the results have been double checked to confirm
the authenticity of the results obtained.
92
Table 4.19: Verification Results and Specification for SMA 14 (100% Fly Ash)
Parameter Value at OBC
Verified practically
Specification
VTM 3.14 3 – 5
VMA 18.37 Min 17 %
Stability ( kg ) 917.8
Min 6200 N
= 632 Kg
Flow ( mm ) 3.49 2 – 4
Table 4.20: Verification Results and Specification for SMA 14 (50% FA:50% OPC).
Parameter Value at OBC
Verified practically
Specification
VTM 3.85 3 – 5
VMA 18.17 Min 17 %
Stability (Kg)
1001.03 Min 6200 N
= 632 Kg
Flow ( mm ) 3.18 2.0 – 4.0
Table 4.21: Verification Results and Specification for SMA 14 (100 % cement)
Parameter Value at OBC
Verified practically
Specification
VTM 4.20 3 – 5
VMA 17.76 Min 17 %
Stability ( kg ) 1035.07 Min 6200 N
= 632 Kg
Flow ( mm ) 3.15 2 – 4
93
Table 4.22: Verification Results and Specification for SMA 14 (100% hyd. lime)
Parameter Value at OBC
Verified practically
Specification
VTM 4.15 3 - 5%
VMA 19.38 Min 17 %
Stability ( kg ) 980.17
Min 6200 N
= 632 Kg
Flow ( mm ) 2.91 2 – 4
4.14 Comparison of graphical and practical resuts:
A comparison of values of all the parameters obtained for all SMA-14 mix
types for both graphical and practical results was done to examine the difference in
values for both categories. Table 4.23 and 4.24 below shows the comparison results
for SMA 14 containing (100% Fly Ash) and (50% Fly-Ash : 50% cement) as total
weight of mineral filler and Table 4.25 and 4.26 shows the comparison results for
SMA 14 containing (100 % cement) and (100% hydrated lime) as total weight of
mineral filler. Based on the results it can be observed that all the values comply
with the range of specifications prescribed by JKR and our result is correct.
Although all the values obtained graphically and practically are not exactly same but
they are very near to each other and within specified values and it can be said there is
no major variation in the results whatsoever. Therefore, all the results have
confirmed that the obtained OBC‟s are the real OBC‟s and all the mixes qualify the
specifications set by JKR .
94
Table 4.23: Comparison between practically and graphically obtained values for
SMA 14 (100% Fly Ash)
Parameter Value at OBC
Verified practically
Value at OBC
graphically
VTM 3.14 3.1
VMA 18.37 18.25
Stability ( kg ) 917.8 887
Flow ( mm ) 3.49 3.6
Table 4.24: Comparison between practically and graphically obtained values for
SMA 14 (50% FA : 50% OPC).
Parameter Value at OBC
Verified practically
Value at OBC
graphically
VTM 3.85 3.75
VMA 18.17 18.05
Stability (Kg)
1001.03 990
Flow ( mm ) 3.18 3.25
Table 4.25: Comparison b/w practically and graphically obt.values for(100 % OPC)
Parameter Value at OBC
Verified practically
Value at OBC
graphically
VTM 4.20 4.1
VMA 17.76 17.7
Stability ( kg ) 1035.07 1010
Flow ( mm ) 3.15 3.25
95
Table 4.26: Comparison between practically and graphically obtained values for
SMA 14 (100% hydrated lime)
Parameter Value at OBC
Verified practically
Value at OBC
graphically
VTM 4.15 4.2
VMA 19.38 19.40
Stability ( kg ) 980.17 1000
Flow ( mm ) 2.91 2.75
4.15 Binder Drain Down Test Result
Binder drain down test was performed on three samples for each type of
SMA-14 mix containing (100% Fly Ash); (50% Fly-Ash : 50% cement); (100 %
cement) and (100% hydrated lime) as total weight of mineral filler at their Optimum
Binder Content to confirm that the binder drain down property of the mixture is
under specification. According to JKR/SPJ/2008, value of binder drain down
should not exceed 0.3% by weight of the total mixture. Table 4.27 reflects the
results for binder drain down test. Based on the result, percentage binder drain
down of each type sample conforms to the specification for SMA 14 mixes. For
comprehensive detaling of calculations on binder drain down test please see
appendix.
96
Table 4.27: Drain Down Test Results
Types of Mix % age Binder Drain
Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample3 Average
100% Fly Ash 0.01 0 0.01 0.007
50%:50% Fly Ash : OPC 0.01 0.01 0.009 0.009
100% OPC
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.02
100% Hydrated Lime
0 0 0.01 0.003
The results show that the binder drain down is the highest for SMA-14 mix
containing (100% Cement), followed by (50% Fly Ash : 50% OPC), followed by
(100% Fly Ash) and then the lowest for 100% Hydrated Lime. This sequence can
be attributed to the fact that mineral fillers help reduce the amount of asphalt drain
down in the mix during construction, which improves durability of the mix by
maintaining the amount of asphalt initially used in the mix (FHWA-IF-03-019;
2003). If we analyze, we can observe that the sequence of decreasing percentage of
drain down follows the trend of decreasing specific gravity of the mix. Ordinary
Portland cement (OPC) has highest specific gravity of 3.13; fly ash and hydrated
lime have lesser specific gravity of 2.30 and 2.24 respectively. This means that
mineral filler with less specific gravity will be consumed more volumetrically as
their space occupancy will be more; that is; their volume will be more for the same
weight of mineral fillers used. Therefore, when mineral filler is more volumetrically
that implies that binder drain down is less and the results verify that percentage
binder drain down is inversely proportional to the volume of the mineral filler
consumed or in other words it is directly proportional to the specific gravity of given
mineral filler.
97
4.16 Resilient Modulus
Resilient modulus test was performed on three samples for each type of
SMA14 mix containing (100% Fly Ash); (50% Fly-Ash : 50% cement); (100 %
cement) and (100% hydrated lime) as total weight of mineral filler, at their Optimum
Binder Content, to measure and compare their resilient modulus at two different
temperatures. Resilient modulus is simply the ratio of deviatoric stress applied to the
recoverable strain observed. The test was accomplished by the application of
repeated indirect load tension, accompanied by compressive loads exhibiting a
feasible waveform like a haversine waveform.
To determine the pavement reaction to traffic loading, resilient modulus plays
an important part. This parameter will help us to predict the performance of roads.
Although it was perceived before that high stiffness means higher resistance to
permanent deformation, now it is an established fact that resilient modulus at less
temperatures like 10°C and below is connected with cracking; as mixes become
stiffer (that is; higher resilient modulus) at low temperatures and tend to crack
earlier than extra flexible mixtures (lower resilient modulus). All the procedures in
this test will conform to ASTM D 4123-82.
4.16.1 Results for Resilient modulus
Universal Testing Machine (UTM) was used to determine the final result of
the data of resilient modulus for each type of SMA14 mix containing (100% Fly
Ash); (50% Fly-Ash : 50% cement); (100 % cement) and (100% hydrated lime) as
total weight of mineral filler at their Optimum Binder Content. All of the mentioned
mixes were tested at temperatures of 25 degrees and 40 degrees celcius. Frequecy of
loadings used were 0.5 Hz and 1.0 Hz for both temperatures. For comprehensive
detaling of calculations on resilient modulus test please see appendix.
98
Table 4.28: Resilient Modulus Results for SMA 14 Mixes at 25°C
Mix Type Temperature,
°C
Frequency,
Hz
Resilient
Modulus, MPa
100%
F.A 25
0.5 3031 1883.50
1.0 736
50%:50%
F.A:OPC 25
0.5 2023 1518.85
1.0 1014.7
100%
OPC 25
0.5 1760.3 1844.00
1.0 1927.7
100%
H.L 25
0.5 1162.3 1336.15
1.0 1510
Table 4.29: Resilient Modulus Results for SMA 14 Mixes at 40°C
Mix Type Temperature,
°C
Frequency,
Hz
Resilient
Modulus, MPa
100%
F.A 40
0.5 365.7 391.20
1.0 416.7
50%:50%
F.A:OPC 40
0.5 215.3 236.65
1.0 258
100%
OPC 40
0.5 257 279.00
1.0 301
100%
H.L 40
0.5 289 334.65
1.0 380.3
4.16.2 Resilient Modulus for Stone Mastic Asphalt -14 mixes at 25°C
The results of resilient modulus for SMA 14 mixes at 25°C is shown in figure
below. The result reveals that the sample mix containing 100 % Fly-Ash as total
mineral filler by weight exhibits the highest resilient modulus when compared with
samples containing (50% Fly-Ash : 50% cement); (100 % cement) and (100%
hydrated lime). At 25°C temperature, sample containing 100 % Fly-Ash as mineral
filler showed a result of 1883.50 Mpa; while as sample containing (100 % cement);
(50% Fly-Ash : 50% cement); and (100% hydrated lime) as mineral filler showed a
result of 1844.00 Mpa, 1518.85 Mpa, and 1336.15 Mpa respectively.
99
Therefore, higher resilient modulus of the sample mix containing 100 % Fly-
Ash stands for greater pavement structural capability. Also, higher resilient modulus
represents higher immunity to rutting in flexible stone mastic asphalt pavement by
dropping the chances of lingering deformation in the sub-grade soil.
Figure 4.22: Resilient Modulus for SMA 14 mixes at 25°C
4.16.3 Resilient Modulus for Stone Mastic Asphalt -14 mixes at 40°C
The results of resilient modulus for SMA 14 mixes at 40°C is shown in
figure below. The result again reveals that the sample mix containing 100 % Fly-
Ash as total mineral filler by weight exhibits the highest resilient modulus when
compared with samples containing (50% Fly-Ash : 50% cement); (100 % cement)
25
100% Fly Ash 1883.5
100% OPC 1844
50% Fly Ash : 50% OPC 1518.85
100% Hydrated lime 1336.15
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Re
silie
nt
Mo
du
lus;
Mp
a
Resilient Mod. at 25°C Temperature
100
and (100% hydrated lime). At 40°C temperature, sample containing 100 % Fly-Ash
as mineral filler showed a result of 391.20 Mpa; while as sample containing (100%
hydrated lime), (100 % cement); and (50% Fly-Ash : 50% cement); as mineral filler
showed a result of 334.65 Mpa, 279.00 Mpa, and 236.65 Mpa respectively.
Therefore, also at 40°C higher resilient modulus of the sample mix containing
100 % Fly-Ash stands for greater pavement structural ability at this temperature.
Also, higher resilient modulus represents higher immunity to rutting in flexible stone
mastic asphalt pavement by dropping the chances of residual deformation in the sub-
grade soil.
Figure 4.23: Resilient Modulus for SMA 14 mixes at 40°C
When comparing the results of resilient modulus for all the types of mixes at
25°C and 40°C, we can observe that, at higher temperature, the resilient modulus
tends to fall by a considerable amount in each case. This phenomenon can be
attributed to the fact that bitumen looses its hardness at higher temperatures and this
will make the adhesive bond between aggregates and bitumen to become very weak.
This property of bitumen is called visco-elasticity and this means that viscosity of
40
100% Fly Ash 391.2
100% Hydrated lime 334.65
100% OPC 279
50% Fly Ash : 50% OPC 236.65
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Re
silie
nt
Mo
du
lus;
Mp
a
Resilient Mod. at 40°C Temperature
101
bitumen will change with the change in temperature. At higher temperatures
viscosity decreases considerably and bitumen behaves much like a fluid and is ultra
soft but at lower temperatures bitumen has higher viscosity and it ceases to behave
like a fluid and it behaves more like a solid adhesive binder. This implies that when
bitumen is used as binder in stone mastic asphalt pavements, mechanical properties
like resilient modulus will be affected by its realtime or instantaneous temperature.
Also it was observed that the sample mix containing 100 % Fly-Ash has
highest resilient modulus at both temperatures. So, mix containing 100 % Fly-Ash
has highest structural capacity and highest rutting resistance. But, as we know that,
higher resilient modulus at lower temperatures like 10°C and below can be
associated with potential risk of cracking of the pavement. Since, for this project, the
test for lower temperature was conducted at 25°C, which is considered as a normal
temperature in Malaysia and very seldom we have pavement temperature below
25°C in Malaysia, therefore it can be used as mineral filler in SMA-14 pavement
without any doubt whatsoever.
Therefore, with respect to resilient modulus, the feasibility of using Fly-Ash
as filler material in Stone Mastic Asphalt (SMA-14) is the highest of all types of
mineral fillers and gets a big green signal.
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to summarize the relevance of results obtained
in data analysis and to propose any recommendation that will be useful for future
studies. The main aim of this research was to determine the performance of
(SMA14) with different types and proportions of filler and comparisons were made
through laboratory tests on their volumetric paramaters (eg: VMA, VFA, VTM,
density) and mechanical properties (such as stability, flow, binder drain down,
resilient modulus, stiffness) to scrutinize the influence of utilization of Fly-Ash as
filler replacement in (SMA-14) asphalt pavement.
5.2 Finding and Conclusions
Following findings were made in this study:
The summaries of finding that can be drawn are as follows:
103
1. The results show that higher Optimum Bitumen Contents belonged to
samples containing (100 % Hydrated lime) and (100 % Fly Ash) as total
weight of mineral filler, having OBC‟s of 6.25 % and 6.07 % respectively.
The results also show the lower Optimum Bitumen Contents belonged to
samples containing (100 % Cement) and (50 % Fly Ash : 50 % Cement) as
total weight of mineral filler, having OBC‟s of 5.425 % and 5.75 %
respectively.
2. The reason for the above result can be attributed to the fact that hydrated lime
and fly ash have got lesser specific gravity (2.24 and 2.30 respectively) than
cement (SG = 3.13). Mineral filler with less specific gravity was consumed
more volumetrically as their space occupancy was more. When volume of
mineral filler was high that means more amount of bitumen was absorbed.
Since weight of mineral fillers used was same for all mix types and volume is
inversely proportional to specific gravity, therefore obtained OBC‟s are
inversely proportional to the specific gravity of the mineral filler used.
3. Also due to shape and fineness of hydrated lime & fly-ash particles, more
surface area was available for bitumen to get absorbed as well as adsorbed
compared to cement and hence higher OBC was obtained.
4. The authenticity of the results can also be appreciated by the fact that the
OBC obtained for the mix containing (50 % Fly Ash : 50 % Cement) as total
weight of mineral filler is 5.75 % . It is exactly the average value of the two
OBC‟s obtained for mixes containing 100% Fly Ash and 100% Cement;
which are 6.07% and 5.425% respectively.
5. The values obtained graphically and practically (verification samples) for
parameters of samples at obtained OBC‟s of 6.07 % ; 5.75 % ; 5.425 % ; and
6.25 % for SMA-14 mixes, containing (100 % Fly ash); (50 % Fly Ash : 50
% Cement); (100% Cement), and (100% Hydrated lime) respectively, to
verify our OBC‟s, were all complying with the SMA design criteria
prescribed by (JKR/SPJ/2008). The results for all the cases showed that
VTM‟s were within a range of 3-5 %; VMA‟s were more than 17 %,
104
Stabilities were more than 632 kg and Flows were within a range of 2-4 mm
as prescribed by the code.
6. The results of the binder drain down test was recorded highest for SMA-14
mix containing (100% Cement) = 0.02 %, followed by (50% Fly Ash : 50%
OPC) = 0.009 %, followed by (100% Fly Ash) = 0.007 % and then the
lowest for (100% Hydrated Lime) = 0.003 %. All the results are within the
limit of 0.3 % set by JKR.
7. This trend followed by drain down result can be attributed to the fact that
mineral fillers help reduce the amount of asphalt drain down by maintaining
the amount of asphalt initially used in the mix (FHWA-IF-03-019; 2003). The
results verify that percentage binder drain down is inversely proportional to
the volume of the mineral filler employed or in other words it is directly
proportional to the specific gravity of the mineral filler used.
8. Marshall results for verification samples are in agreeement with
specifications prescribed by JKR and graphically obtained results. There is
no major variation in the results whatsoever, therefore OBC‟s are correct. So,
graphically obtained OBC‟s are the real OBC‟s.
9. At 25°C temperature, sample containing 100 % Fly-Ash as mineral filler
showed a result of 1883.50 Mpa; while as sample containing (100 % cement);
(50% Fly-Ash : 50% cement); and (100% hydrated lime) as mineral filler
showed a result of 1844.00 Mpa, 1518.85 Mpa, and 1336.15 Mpa
respectively.
10. At 40°C temperature, sample containing 100 % Fly-Ash as mineral filler
showed a result of 391.20 Mpa; while as sample containing (100% hydrated
lime), (100 % cement) and (50% Fly-Ash : 50% cement) as mineral filler
showed a result of 334.65 Mpa, 279.00 Mpa, and 236.65 Mpa respectively.
11. The result reveals that the sample mix containing 100 % Fly-Ash as total
mineral filler by weight exhibits the highest resilient modulus, at both 25°C
105
and 40°C, when compared with other types. So, mix containing 100 % Fly-
Ash has highest structural competence and highest rutting immunity.
12. Therefore, with respect to resilient modulus, the feasibility of using Fly-Ash
as filler material in Stone Mastic Asphalt (SMA-14) is the highest of all types
of mineral fillers and gets a big green signal.
From the results of this research we can say that Fly Ash has
performed exceptionally well under all the tests needed to confirm its
feasibility for its utilization as mineral filler material replacement in SMA-14.
Its utilization will prove beneficial and economical to mankind in many ways.
With the excellent results in terms of resilient modulus and binder drain down
test, it is recommended to utilize the Fly Ash as mineral filler replacement for
conventional mineral fillers that have been traditionally used for a long time
now and to shift gears to sustainable pavement construction.
5.3 Recommendations
A few recommendations can be suggested as follows:
1. For further research other proportions and percentages of mineral
fillers can be used to determine the optimum proportion and
percentages of the concoctions to be used to optimize the results.
2. To further test the performance of fly ash as mineral filler and
comparison of fly ash with other mineral fillers, other tests like creep
test and wassex wheel test can be performed in future.
3. Same type of research can be carried out on SMA-20 also to widen
the scope of this study.
REFERENCES
AAPA (1993), Extract of AAPA European Study Tour, Asphalt Review, Australian
Asphalt Pavement Association, Volume 12, Issue 3, September 1993.
AAPA (1998), Stone Mastic Asphalt Design Guide – AAPA Implementation Guide
IG-4 (Draft), Australian Asphalt Pavement Association, Melbourne, Australia.
American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials. Standard Method
of Test, Mineral Filler for Bituminous Paving Mixtures, AASHTO Designation
M17-83, Part 1 Specifications, 14th Edition, 1986.
American Society for Testing and Materials. (1992). Standard Test Method for
Specific Gravity and Absorption of Coarse Aggregate. Philadelphia, ASTM C 127.
American Society for Testing and Materials. (1992). Standard Test Method for
Specific Gravity and Absorption of Fine Aggregate. Philadelphia, ASTM C 128.
American Society for Testing and Materials. (1992). Standard Test Method for Bulk
Specific Gravity and Density of Compacted Bituminous Mixtures Using Saturated
Surface-Dry Specimens. Philadelphia, ASTM D 2726.
American Society for Testing and Materials. (1992). Standard Test Method for
Theoretical Maximum Specific Gravity and Density of Bituminous Paving Mixtures.
Philadelphia, ASTM D 2041.
107
American Society for Testing and Materials. (1992). Standard Test Method for
Resistance to Plastic Flow of Bituminous Mixtures Using Marshall Apparatus.
Philadelphia, ASTM D 1559.
American Society for Testing and Materials. (1992). Standard Test Method for
Percent Air Voids in Compacted Dense and Open Bituminous Paving Mixtures.
Philadelphia, ASTM D 3203.
American Society for Testing and Materials. (1992). Standard Test Method for
Resilient Modulus of Bituminous Mixtures. Philadelphia, ASTM D 4123 - 82.
American Society for Testing and Materials. (1992). Standard Test Method for
Coating and Stripping of Bitumen Aggregate Mixtures. Philadelphia, ASTM D 1664
– 80.
Austroads (1993), APRG Technical Note 2, Australian Road Research Board, August
1993, Vermont South, Victoria, Australia.
AUSTROADS, Pavement Reference Group, 2001. PAT 01 Austroads (1997),
Selection and Design of Asphalt Mixes: Australian Provisional Guide, APRG Report
No. 18, ARRB Transport Research Ltd, Vermont South, Victoria, Australia.
BCA (1998), Specification for Stone Mastic Asphalt (Draft), Bitumen Contractors
Association of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand.
Brown, E.R., Haddock, John E., Mallick, Rajib B. and Lynn, T.A.(1997a),
Development of a Mixture Design Procedure for Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA),
Asphalt Paving Technology 1997 - Journal of the Asphalt Paving Technologists,
Volume 66, pp 1- 25.
Brown, E.R., Mallick, R.B., Haddock, J.E., Bukowski, J. (1997), Performance of
Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA) in the United States, NCAT Report No. 97-1.
108
Carrick, J.J., MacInnis, W.K., Davidson, J.K., Schenk, W. and Emery, J.J. (1991),
Development of Stone Mastic Mixes for Ontario Use, Proceedings, Canadian
Technical Asphalt Association, Volume 36, pp267-282.
Collins, R. (1996), Georgia’s Experience with Non-conventional Mixes, Paper
presented at 1996 AAPA Pavements Industry Conference.
Craig Campbell (1999), “The Use of Stone Mastic Asphalt On Aircraft Pavements.”
Deakin University.
(FHWA-IF-03-019; 2003), Fly Ash Facts For Highway Engineers, American Coal
Ash Association.
Guidelines for Materials, Production, and Placement of Stone Matrix Asphalt,
National Asphalt Pavement Association, Information Series 118, August 1994.
Haddock, John E. and Anthony J. Kriech (1993), Stone Matrix Asphalt in Indiana,
Heritage Research Group, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Jabatan Kerja Raya (JKR) (2008). Standard Specification for Road Works. Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia, JKR/SPJ/ 2008-S4
L. Allen Cooley, Jr. and Michael H. Huner. Evaluation of Fly Ash Sources for Use as
Mineral Filler in Hot Mix Asphalt, Proceedings: 14th International Symposium on
Management and Use of Coal Combustion Products, Volume 2, Palo Alto, California,
January 2001.
Michaut, J.P. (1995), Ruflex or Stone Mastic Asphalt, European Asphalt Magazine,
January 1995.
Miller R. H. and Collins R. J. (1976) “Waste Materials as Potential Replacement
forHighway Aggregates,” National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report
No.166, Transportation Research Board, 1976, 1-24
109
National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA), 1999, Designing and Constructing
SMA Mixture, State of the Practice, QIP 122
NAPA (1998), Designing and Constructing SMA Mixtures – State-of-the- Practice,
National Asphalt Pavement Association, Quality Improvement Series 122, USA.
Nunn, M.E. (1994), Evaluation of Stone Mastic Asphalt (SMA): A High Stability
Wearing Course Material, Transport Research Laboratory Project Report 65.
RockTron International (2010), “International Greentech & Eco Products Exhibition
& Conference Malaysia”. www.rktron.com.my.
Shen Aiqin, Liang Naixing, Fu Jing, Wang Jiangshuai, Liu Fuming, Tang Jianxin
(Undated), Research on the Performance of Modified Asphalt Mixture and SMA.
Tuncer B. Edil (2006) “Green Highways: Strategy for Recycling Materials for
Sustainable Construction Practices.”, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Geological
Engineering Program and Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering,
Madison, WI, USA.
Van de Ven M.F.C., Smit, A.D.F., Lorio R. (Undated), Stone Mastic Asphalt Mix
Design Based on a Binary System, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa.
Wonson, K. (1996) SMA – The European Experience, 1996 AAPA Pavements
Industry Conference, Asphalt Review, Australian Asphalt Pavement Association,
Volume 15, No 2, September 1996.
Wonson, K. (1997), Australian Asphalt Pavement Association Workshop on Recent
Developments in Asphalt, Stone Mastic Asphalt, Cairns, Australia.
Wonson, K. (1998), Stone Mastic Asphalt Proves its Value, The Earthmover and the
Civil Contractor, Innovations in Asphalt, March 1998.
110
Appendix A
Aggregate (MRP Quarry)
AGGREGATE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND DETERMINATION OF FILLER (SMA 14)
Sieve ` Gradation % % Marshall TMD
Size ^0.45 Limit Passing Retained Mass Mass Mass Retained Mass Mass Mass Retained
(mm) Lower Upper
Passing
(g)
Retained
(g)
On Each Sieve
(g)
Passing
(g)
Retained
(g)
on each Sieve
(g)
12.5 3.116 100 100 100 - 1200 0 0 1200 0 0
9.5 2.754 72 83 77.5 22.5 930 270 270 930 270 270
4.75 2.016 25 38 31.5 46 378 822 552 378 822 552
2.36 1.472 16 24 20 11.5 240 960 138 240 960 138
0.600 0.795 12 16 14 6 168 1032 72 168 1032 72
0.300 0.582 12 15 13.5 0.5 162 1038 6 162 1038 6
0.075 0.312 8 10 9 4.5 108 1092 54 108 1092 54
Pan (gram) 108.0 108.0
Washed-sieve Analysis
1) Mass of blended aggregates (gram): Before = 1092.0 = 1092.0
After = 1066.8 = 1066.8
Aggregate Dust (gram): 25.2 25.2
2) Mass of blended aggregates (gram): Before = 1192.0 = 1192.0
After = 1068.2 = 1068.2
Aggregate Dust (gram): 23.8 23.8
Average Aggregate Dust (gram): 24.5 24.5
Average Total Filler Content (gram) = Pan - Average Aggregate Dust 83.5 83.5
= 108 – 24.5 = 83.5 g
111
OPC (2% by total weight of aggregate) (0.02 * 1200)= 24 grams
For 100% cement: use 24 g cement & (83.5 – 24 )= 59.5 g of pan dust. (JKR; when OPC is used as filler dont exceed 2 %)
For 100% Hydrated lime: use (108 – 24.5)= 83.5 g of hydrated lime.
For 100% Fly Ash: use (108 – 24.5)= 83.5 g of Fly Ash.
For 50% Fly Ash : 50% Cement: use (0.5 * 108)= 54g of Fly Ash ;(0.5 * 24) =12g of cement & (54 – 12 – 24.5)= 17.5g
of pandust.
112
Appendix B
Specific Gravity for Aggregate (SMA 14)
SPECIFIC GRAVITY FOR COARSE AGGREGATE (SMA 14)
Coarse Aggregate – 528gm Sample 1 Sample 2 Average
In Water 504.9 506.1
Saturated Surface Dry (SSD) 824.4 825.5
Ovendry 814.8 815.7
SG Bulk, Gsb = Ovendry
SSD - In water 2.5502 2.5530 2.5516
SG Bulk, Gssd = SSD
SSD - In water 2.5802 2.5840 2.5821
SG Apparent, Gsa = Ovendry
Ovendry - In water 2.629 2.634 2.6315
Absorption, % = (SSD - Ovendry)
Ovendry 1.178 1.201 1.189
AGGREGATE GRADATION FOR COARSE AGGREGATE (SMA 14)
Coarse Sieve Size % Mass
(gm) (mm) Retained Retained (g)
1200 9.5 22.5 270
4.75 46 552
113
SPECIFIC GRAVITY FOR FINE AGGREGATE (SMA 14)
Fine Aggregate – 500 gm Sample 1 Sample 2
Picnometer 277.7 277.7
Picnometer + Water (600ml) B 844.3 844.3
Picnometer + Water (600ml) + Sample C 1154.1 1155.5
Saturated Surface Dry (SSD) S 500 500
Ovendry A 494.6 494.3
Sample 1 Sample 2 Average
SG Bulk, Gsb = A 2.600 2.618 2.609
B + S - C
SG Bulk, Gssd = S 2.628 2.648 2.638
B + S - C
SG Apparent, Gsa = A 2.676 2.699 2.6875
A + B - C
Absorption, % = S - A 1.091 1.153 1.122
A
AGGREGATE GRADATION FOR FINE AGGREGATE – SMA 14
Fine Sieve Size % Mass
(gm) (mm) Retained Retained (g) (*2.5)
675 2.36 11.5 345
0.600 6 180
0.300 0.5 15
0.075 4.5 135
114
SPECIFIC GRAVITY AND WATER ABSORPTION OF BLENDED AGGREGATE FOR SMA 14
SG BlendedBulk = 100 100
% Coarse + % Fine 68.5 + 31.5 2.569
SGbulk Coarse
SGbulk Fine 2.552
2.609
SG BlendedApparent = 100 100
% Coarse + % Fine 68.5 + 31.5 2.649
SGapp Coarse
SGapp Fine 2.632
2.688
Water Absorption =
100
100
% Coarse + % Fine 68.5 + 31.5 1.167
WA Coarse WA Fine
1.189
1.122
115
Appendix C
SMA 14: (100% Fly Ash)
THEORETICAL MAXIMUM DENSITY
Sample 1 Sample 2 Average
Weight of Bowl in Air (gm) = A 2199.9 2200.1
Weight of Bowl in Water (gm) = B 1386.6 1386.5
Weight of Bowl and Sample in Air (gm) = C 3695.8 3697.6
Weight of Sample (gm) = D = (C – A) 1495.9 1497.5
Weight of Bowl and Sample in Water (gm) = E 2235.4 2233.6
Asphalt Content of Mix (%) = G 6.0 6.0
SG of Asphalt, Gb = H 1.03 1.03
Max SG of Mix, Gmm = D 2.312 2.302 2.307
D + B – E
Effective SG of Aggregate, Gse = 100 – G 2.511 2.499 2.505
(100/Gmm) – (G/H)
AC Gmm
Gmm at specified of % AC‟s = 100 5.0 2.338
(%AC/Gb) + [(100 - %AC)/Gse] 5.5 2.322
6.0 2.307
6.5 2.292
7.0 2.277
116
SMA 14 ( 50% Fly Ash : 50% Cement )
THEORETICAL MAXIMUM DENSITY
Sample 1 Sample 2 Average
Weight of Bowl in Air (gm) = A 2200.1 2200.1
Weight of Bowl in Water (gm) = B 1386.6 1386.6
Weight of Bowl and Sample in Air (gm) = C 3697.9 3698.0
Weight of Sample (gm) = D = (C – A) 1497.8 1497.9
Weight of Bowl and Sample in Water (gm) = E 2239.1 2234.3
Asphalt Content of Mix (%) = G 6.0 6.0
SG of Asphalt, Gb = H 1.03 1.03
Max SG of Mix, Gmm = D 2.321 2.304 2.313
D + B – E
Effective SG of Aggregate, Gse = 100 – G 2.523 2.501 2.512
(100/Gmm) – (G/H)
AC Gmm
Gmm at specified of % AC‟s = 100 5.0 2.343
(%AC/Gb) + [(100 - %AC)/Gse] 5.5 2.328
6.0 2.312
6.5 2.297
7.0 2.282
117
SMA 14 100% cement
THEORETICAL MAXIMUM DENSITY (SMA 14)
Sample 1 Sample 2 Average
Weight of Bowl in Air (gm) = A 2199.9 2200.1
Weight of Bowl in Water (gm) = B 1385.3 1386.1
Weight of Bowl and Sample in Air (gm) = C 3699.8 3699.5.
Weight of Sample (gm) = D = (C – A) 1499.9 1499.4
Weight of Bowl and Sample in Water (gm) = E 2238.8 2236.2
Asphalt Content of Mix (%) = G 6.0 6.0
SG of Asphalt, Gb = H 1.03 1.03
Max SG of Mix, Gmm = D 2.320 2.309 2.315
D + B – E
Effective SG of Aggregate, Gse = 100 – G 2.521 2.507 2.514
(100/Gmm) – (G/H)
AC Gmm
Gmm at specified of % AC‟s = 100 5.0 2.345
(%AC/Gb) + [(100 - %AC)/Gse] 5.5 2.329
6.0 2.314
6.5 2.299
7.0 2.284
118
SMA 14: 100 % hydrated lime
THEORETICAL MAXIMUM DENSITY
Sample 1 Sample 2 Average
Weight of Bowl in Air (gm) = A 2199.9 2200.0
Weight of Bowl in Water (gm) = B 1386.6 1386.6
Weight of Bowl and Sample in Air (gm) = C 3697.9 3698.6
Weight of Sample (gm) = D = (C – A) 1498.0 1498.6
Weight of Bowl and Sample in Water (gm) = E 2236.8 2237.1
Asphalt Content of Mix (%) = G 6.0 6.0
SG of Asphalt, Gb = H 1.03 1.03
Max SG of Mix, Gmm = D 2.312 2.312 2.312
D + B – E
Effective SG of Aggregate, Gse = 100 – G 2.512 2.512 2.512
(100/Gmm) – (G/H)
AC Gmm
Gmm at specified of % AC‟s = 100 5.0 2.343
(%AC/Gb) + [(100 - %AC)/Gse] 5.5 2.328
6.0 2.312
6.5 2.297
7.0 2.282
119
Appendix D MARSHALL TEST RESULTS (100% Fly Ash)
Sample
No
%
Bitumen
Content
Weight(gram) Bulk
Volume
Specific Gravity Volume - % Total Voids (%) Stability (kg) Flow
(mm)
Stiffness
(Kg/mm) In Air In
Water SSD Bulk TMD Bitumen Aggregate Voids VMA VFA VTM Measured
Corr.
Stability cc.
a B c d e f g H i j K l m n o p Q r s
e-d
c b x g (100-b)×g 100-i-j 100-j 100(i/l)
100-
(100g/h) p x o q / r
f Sgbit Sgag
1 5.0 1220.7 681.6 1230.6 549 2.223 0.89 1070.0 952.3 2.11 451.3
2 1220.1 680.5 1230.7 550.2 2.218 0.89 907.1 807.4 3.03 266.5
3 1229.7 684.9 1236.8 551.9 2.228 0.89 928.1 826.0 2.59 318.9
AVG 0 2.223 2.338 10.79 82.21 7.0 17.79 60.65 4.92 861.9 2.58 345.6
1 5.5 1239.4 694 1244.2 550.2 2.253 0.89 1011.8 900.5 3.42 263.3
2 1236.4 686.7 1241.6 554.9 2.228 0.89 988.6 879.8 2.78 316.5
3 1220.4 679.6 1225.6 546 2.235 0.93 1000.2 930.2 2.57 361.9
AVG 0 2.239 2.322 11.95 82.35 5.7 17.65 67.72 3.59 903.5 2.92 313.9
1 6.0 1223.7 681.6 1228.2 546.6 2.239 0.93 1058.3 984.2 5.29 186.1
2 1225.3 680.3 1232.5 552.2 2.219 0.89 895.5 797.0 3.82 208.6
3 1215.1 674.7 1221 546.3 2.224 0.93 872.3 811.2 2.77 292.8
AVG 0 2.227 2.307 12.97 81.50 5.5 18.50 70.12 3.45 864.1 3.96 229.2
1 6.5 1226.6 680.4 1229.1 548.7 2.235 0.89 953.7 848.8 5.31 159.8
2 1243 691.2 1245.9 554.7 2.241 0.89 976.9 869.5 2.76 315.0
3 1243 694.2 1247 552.8 2.249 0.89 1070.0 952.3 3.27 291.2
AVG 0 2.242 2.292 14.15 81.58 4.3 18.42 76.82 2.20 890.2 3.78 255.4
1 7.0 1248.7 697.7 1251.2 553.5 2.256 0.89 1070.0 952.3 4.94 192.8
2 1240.1 689.6 1243.5 553.9 2.239 0.89 942.0 838.4 7.6 110.3
3 1235.8 690 1240.3 550.3 2.246 0.89 918.8 817.7 3.4 240.5
AVG 2.247 2.277 15.27 81.34 3.4 18.66 81.82 1.32 869.5 5.31 181.2
120
MARSHALL TEST RESULTS SMA 14 (50% FLY ASH : 50% CEMENT)
Sample
No
%
Bitumen
Content
Weight(gram) Bulk
Volume
Specific Gravity Volume - % Total Voids (%) Stability (kg) Flow
(mm)
Stiffness
(Kg/mm) In Air In
Water SSD Bulk TMD Bitumen Aggregate Voids VMA VFA VTM Measured
Corr. Stability cc.
a b c d e f g h i j K l m n o p Q r s
e-d
c b x g (100-b)×g 100-i-j 100-j 100(i/l)
100-
(100g/h) p x o q / r
f SGbit SGag
1 5.0 1235.8 692.7 1246.5 553.8 2.231 0.89 1430.5 1273.1 1.91 666.6
2 1242.1 695.2 1253 557.8 2.227 0.89 1197.9 1066.1 3.88 274.8
3 1225.4 679.2 1229.7 550.5 2.226 0.89 1221.2 1086.8 2.75 395.2
AVG 5.0 0 2.228 2.343 10.82 82.39 6.8 17.61 61.43 4.90 1142.0 2.85 445.5
1 5.5 1231.7 687.7 1237.5 549.8 2.240 0.89 1139.7 1014.4 2.77 366.2
2 1233 688.9 1240.5 551.6 2.235 0.89 1163 1035.1 4.25 243.5
3 1234.4 690.9 1240.6 549.7 2.246 0.89 1104.9 983.3 3.27 300.7
AVG 5.5 0 2.240 2.328 11.96 82.41 5.6 17.59 68.02 3.76 1010.9 3.43 303.5
1 6.0 1226 682.2 1236.2 554 2.213 0.89 1000.2 890.2 2.25 395.6
2 1239.7 687.5 1243.6 556.1 2.229 0.89 1046.7 931.6 4.75 196.1
3 1244.6 692.9 1248.1 555.2 2.242 0.89 1144.4 1018.5 3.38 301.3
AVG 6.0 0 2.228 2.312 12.98 81.52 5.5 18.48 70.24 3.63 946.7 3.46 297.7
1 6.5 1246.6 694.5 1249.8 555.3 2.245 0.89 1073.2 955.2 2.3 415.3
2 1246.6 696.1 1249.7 553.6 2.252 0.89 1023.4 910.9 2.7 337.4
3 1237 689.1 1238.8 549.7 2.250 0.89 1221.2 1086.8 4.63 234.7
AVG 6.5 0 2.249 2.297 14.19 81.85 4.0 18.15 78.21 2.09 984.3 3.21 329.1
1 7.0 1248 699.8 1250.7 550.9 2.265 0.89 1144.4 1018.5 3.84 265.2
2 1258 701.5 1259.7 558.2 2.254 0.89 1023.4 910.9 4.19 217.4
3 1247 695.8 1250.1 554.3 2.250 0.89 1046.7 931.6 5.98 155.8
AVG 7.0 2.256 2.282 15.33 81.68 3.0 18.32 83.69 1.13 953.6 4.67 212.8
121
MARSHALL TEST RESULTS (SMA 14-100% cement)
Sample
No
%
Bitumen
Content
Weight(gram) Bulk
Volume
Specific Gravity Volume - % Total Voids (%) Stability (kg) Flow
(mm)
Stiffness
(Kg/mm) In Air In
Water SSD Bulk TMD Bitumen Aggregate Voids VMA VFA VTM Measured
Corr. Stability cc.
a b c d e f g h i j K l m n o p Q r s
e-d
c b x g (100-b)×g 100-i-j 100-j 100(i/l)
100-
(100g/h) p x o q / r
f SGbit SGag
1 5.0 1220.2 691.1 1237.7 546.6 2.232 0.93 1116.5 1038.3 3.19 325.5
2 1224.6 689.1 1237.4 548.3 2.233 0.89 1174.6 1045.4 2.29 456.5
3 1218.8 689.5 1237.9 548.4 2.222 0.89 1232.8 1097.2 3.69 297.3
AVG 0 2.229 2.345 10.82 82.44 6.7 17.56 61.64 4.93 1060.3 3.06 359.8
1 5.5 1230 695.2 1240.2 545 2.257 0.93 1128.1 1049.1 2.95 355.6
2 1236.5 692.7 1243.7 551 2.244 0.89 1232.8 1097.2 2.20 498.7
3 1226 684 1234.5 550.5 2.227 0.89 1151.4 1024.7 3.42 299.6
AVG 0 2.243 2.329 11.98 82.50 5.5 17.50 68.42 3.71 1057.0 2.86 384.7
1 6.0 1235.2 689.7 1242.7 553 2.234 0.89 1093.2 973.0 5.02 193.8
2 1228.9 684.3 1234.6 550.3 2.233 0.89 976.9 869.5 3.32 261.9
3 1242.9 697.3 1249.8 552.5 2.250 0.89 1058.3 941.9 3.21 293.4
AVG 0 2.239 2.314 13.04 81.92 5.0 18.08 72.12 3.25 928.1 3.85 249.7
1 6.5 1236 686.9 1245.9 559 2.211 0.89 860.6 766.0 5.01 152.9
2 1235.4 687 1243.7 556.7 2.219 0.89 953.7 848.8 4.61 184.1
3 1230.3 684.8 1239.3 554.5 2.219 0.89 1042.1 927.4 5.29 175.3
AVG 0 2.216 2.299 13.99 80.66 5.3 19.36 72.34 3.60 847.4 4.97 170.8
1 7.0 1248 695.9 1253 557.1 2.240 0.89 995.5 886.0 4.08 217.2
2 1241.5 687.9 1246.8 558.9 2.221 0.89 1023.4 910.9 5.96 152.8
3 1243.7 685.1 1250.9 565.8 2.198 0.86 953.7 820.1 6.25 131.2
AVG 2.220 2.284 15.09 80.36 4.6 19.64 76.82 2.81 872.3 5.43 167.1
122
MARSHALL TEST RESULTS (SMA 14: 100 % hydrated lime)
Sample
No
%
Bitumen
Content
Weight(gram) Bulk
Volume
Specific Gravity Volume - % Total Voids (%) Stability (kg) Flow
(mm)
Stiffness
(Kg/mm) In Air In
Water SSD Bulk TMD Bitumen Aggregate Voids VMA VFA VTM Measured
Corr. Stability cc.
a b c d e f g h i j K l m n o p Q r s
e-d
c b x g (100-b)×g 100-i-j 100-j 100(i/l)
100-
(100g/h) p x o q / r
f SGbit SGag
1 5.0 1240.7 695.4 1257.1 561.7 2.209 0.86 1698.0 1460.3 2.11 692.1
2 1256.4 699.5 1264.4 564.9 2.224 0.86 1837.5 1580.3 0.82 1927.2
3 1227.1 688 1239.4 551.4 2.225 0.89 1570.1 1397.3 1.33 1050.6
AVG 5.0 0 2.219 2.343 10.77 82.07 7.2 17.93 60.10 5.27 1479.3 1.42 1223.3
1 5.5 1229.8 688.3 1244.6 556.3 2.211 0.89 1442.1 1283.5 0.53 2421.7
2 1244.2 691.5 1251.1 559.6 2.223 0.89 1500.3 1335.2 0.44 3034.6
3 1231.8 688 1251.4 563.4 2.186 0.86 1081.6 930.2 0.65 1431.0
AVG 5.5 0 2.207 2.328 11.78 81.18 7.0 18.82 62.60 5.21 1183.0 0.54 2295.8
1 6.0 1230.5 677.8 1235.9 558.1 2.205 0.89 1102.5 981.2 1.48 663.0
2 1236.4 685.4 1245.1 559.7 2.209 0.89 1070.0 952.3 1.46 652.2
3 1237.3 682.5 1248.1 565.6 2.188 0.86 1139.7 980.2 3.93 249.4
AVG 6.0 0 2.200 2.312 12.82 80.52 6.7 19.48 65.79 4.82 971.2 2.29 521.5
1 6.5 1243.7 686.4 1247.5 561.1 2.217 0.86 1418.9 1220.2 5.21 234.2
2 1233.3 681.7 1236.7 555 2.222 0.89 1104.9 983.3 3.91 251.5
3 1245.9 687.6 1249.4 561.8 2.218 0.86 1186.3 1020.2 3.4 300.1
AVG 6.5 0 2.219 2.297 14.00 80.75 5.2 19.25 72.75 3.40 1074.6 4.17 261.9
1 7.0 1255.5 699.6 1258.3 558.7 2.247 0.89 1349.1 1200.7 4.81 249.6
2 1251 693.8 1253.3 559.5 2.236 0.89 1209.5 1076.5 4.31 249.8
3 1248.2 689.2 1252.3 563.1 2.217 0.86 976.9 840.2 4.27 196.8
AVG 7.0 2.233 2.282 15.18 80.85 4.0 19.15 79.24 2.14 1039.1 4.46 232.0
123
The pattern of all the graphs for density, VTM, Stability, Flow and VMA for all the types of
mixes are shown for comparison purposes and the poly-lines drawn to fit the data were
utilized for OBC analysis.
Figure 1: Density Vs Bitumen Content for all types of mineral filler mixes
Figure 2: VTM Vs Bitumen Content for all types of mineral filler mixes
2.2
2.21
2.22
2.23
2.24
2.25
2.26
2.27
2.28
2.29
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
De
nsi
ty
% Bitumen Content
Density Vs Bitumen Content
100% Fly Ash
50% Fly-Ash : 50% cement
100 % cement
100% hydrated lime
Poly. (100% Fly Ash)
Poly. (50% Fly-Ash : 50% cement)
Poly. (100 % cement)
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
% V
TM
% Bitumen Content
VTM Vs Bitumen Content
100% Fly Ash
50%:50% Fly Ash : OPC
100% OPC
100% Hydrated Lime
Poly. (100% Fly Ash)
Poly. (50%:50% Fly Ash : OPC)
Poly. (100% OPC)
Poly. (100% Hydrated Lime)
124
Figure 3: Stability Vs Bitumen Content for all types of mineral filler mixes
Figure 4: Flow Vs Bitumen Content for all types of mineral filler mixes
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
Stab
ility
% Bitumen Content
Stabilty Vs Bitumen Content
100% Fly Ash
50%:50% Fly Ash : OPC
100% OPC
100% Hydrated Lime
Poly. (100% Fly Ash)
Poly. (50%:50% Fly Ash : OPC)
Poly. (100% OPC)
Poly. (100% Hydrated Lime)
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
Flo
w (
mm
)
% Bitumen Content
Flow VS Bitumen Content
100% Fly Ash
50%:50% Fly Ash : OPC
100% OPC
100% Hydrated Lime
Poly. (100% Fly Ash)
Poly. (50%:50% Fly Ash : OPC)
Poly. (100% OPC)
Poly. (100% Hydrated Lime)
125
Figure 5: VMA Vs Bitumen Content for all types of mineral filler mixes
17
17.5
18
18.5
19
19.5
20
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
VM
A
Bitumen Content
VMA Vs Bitumen Content
100% Fly Ash
50%:50% Fly Ash : OPC
100% OPC
100% Hydrated Lime
Poly. (100% Fly Ash)
Poly. (50%:50% Fly Ash : OPC)
Poly. (100% OPC)
Poly. (100% Hydrated Lime)
126
VERIFICATION SAMPLE RESULT
Legend:
(F.A)--- (100% Fly Ash)
(F:C)--- (50% Fly Ash : 50% Cement)
(C)--- (SMA 14-100% cement)
(H.L)--- (SMA 14: 100 % hydrated lime)
Sample
No
%
Bitumen
Content
Weight(gram) Bulk
Volume
Specific Gravity Volume - % Total Voids (%) Stability (kg) Flow
(mm)
Stiffness
(Kg/mm) In Air In
Water SSD Bulk TMD Bitumen Aggregate Voids VMA VFA VTM Measured
Corr. Stability cc.
a b c d e f g h i j K l m n o p Q r s
e-d
c b x g (100-b)×g 100-i-j 100-j 100(i/l)
100-
(100g/h) p x o q / r
f SGbit SGag
(F.A) 1 6.07 1228.5 678.9 1232.2 553.3 2.220 0.89 1023.4 910.9 3.46 263.3
(F.A) 2 1238 689 1240.7 551.7 2.244 0.89 1186.3 1055.8 3.44 306.9
(F.A) 3 1231.2 683.5 1234.7 551.2 2.234 0.89 883.9 786.7 3.56 221
AVG 2.233 2.305 13.16 81.63 5.2 18.37 71.63 3.14 917.8 3.49 263.7
(F:C) 1 5.75 1229.8 687.4 1242.9 555.5 2.214 0.89 1232.8 1097.2 3.63 302.3
(F:C) 2 1226.5 685.1 1231.2 546.1 2.246 0.93 1070 995.1 3.29 302.5
(F:C) 3 1230.7 688.1 1239.5 551.4 2.232 0.89 1023.4 910.9 2.61 349
AVG 2.231 2.32 12.45 81.83 5.7 18.17 68.55 3.85 1001 3.18 317.9
(C) 1 5.43 1228.3 687.3 1236.8 549.5 2.235 0.89 1418.9 1262.8 2.54 497.2
(C) 2 1229.1 688 1237.9 549.9 2.235 0.89 1000.2 890.2 3.86 230.6
(C) 3 1232.5 689.6 1241.9 552.3 2.232 0.89 1070 952.3 3.04 313.2
AVG 2.234 2.332 11.78 82.24 5.9 17.76 66.31 4.20 1035.1 3.15 347
(H.L) 1 6.25 1250.6 690.7 1256.3 565.6 2.211 0.86 1023.4 880.2 3.73 236
(H.L) 2 1248.4 687.6 1253.7 566.1 2.205 0.86 1209.5 1040.2 2.34 444.5
(H.L) 3 1242.4 685.6 1247.4 561.8 2.211 0.86 1186.3 1020.2 2.66 383.5
AVG 2.209 2.305 13.41 80.62 5.9 19.38 69.18 4.15 980.2 2.91 354.7
127
Appendix E
Drain Down Test
SMA 14 100 % Fly Ash
Sample Identification Average
No. Sample 1 2 3
Binder Content (%)-OPC 6.07 6.07 6.07
Weight of Basket, gm (m1) 832.6 832.5 832.6
Weight of Basket and Sample, gm (m2) 1832.4 1832.7 1832.6
Weight of Metal Tray, gm (m3) 293.9 294 294
Weight of Metal Tray and Binder Paste, gm (m4) 294 294 294.1
Weight of Binder Paste, gm (m5)= m4 - m3 0.1 0 0.1
Weight of Sample, gm (m6) = m2 - m1 999.8 1000.2 1000
% Binder Drain Off = m5 x 100 / m6 0.01 0 0.01 0.007
SMA 14 (50% FA : 50% OPC)
Sample Identification Average
No. Sample 1 2 3
Binder Content (%)-OPC 5.75 5.75 5.75
Weight of Basket, gm (m1) 832.6 832.6 832.6
Weight of Basket and Sample, gm (m2) 1832.4 1832.5 1832.7
Weight of Metal Tray, gm (m3) 367.8 367.8 367.8
Weight of Metal Tray and Binder Paste, gm (m4) 367.9 367.9 367.9
Weight of Binder Paste, gm (m5)= m4 - m3 0.1 0.1 0.1
Weight of Sample, gm (m6) = m2 - m1 999.8 999.9 1000.1
% Binder Drain Off = m5 x 100 / m6 0.01 0.01 0.009 0.009
128
SMA 14 (100 % cement)
Sample Identification Average
No. Sample 1 2 3
Binder Content (%)-OPC 5.425 5.425 5.425
Weight of Basket, gm (m1) 832.9 832.8 832.9
Weight of Basket and Sample, gm (m2) 1832.9 1832.7 1832.6
Weight of Metal Tray, gm (m3) 293.9 293.9 293.9
Weight of Metal Tray and Binder Paste, gm (m4) 294 294.1 294.2
Weight of Binder Paste, gm (m5)= m4 - m3 0.1 0.2 0.3
Weight of Sample, gm (m6) = m2 - m1 1000 999.9 999.7
% Binder Drain Off = m5 x 100 / m6 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.02
SMA 14 (100% hydrated lime)
Sample Identification Average
No. Sample 1 2 3
Binder Content (%)-OPC 6.25 6.25 6.25
Weight of Basket, gm (m1) 832.8 832.7 832.7
Weight of Basket and Sample, gm (m2) 1832.9 1832.6 1832.7
Weight of Metal Tray, gm (m3) 367.7 367.7 367.7
Weight of Metal Tray and Binder Paste, gm (m4) 367.7 367.7 367.8
Weight of Binder Paste, gm (m5)= m4 - m3 0 0 0.1
Weight of Sample, gm (m6) = m2 - m1 1000.1 999.9 1000
% Binder Drain Off = m5 x 100 / m6 0 0 0.01 0.003
129
Appendix F
1. Resilient Modulus for SMA 14 100 % fly ash
Target Temperature: 25c
Pulse Repetition Period (ms): 500
Sample Resilient Modulus (Mpa)
Pulse 1 Pulse 2 Pulse 3 Pulse 4 Pulse 5 Average
A 1642 1597 1542 1501 1479 1552
B 2297 5583 5871 7890 9393 6207
C 1418 1366 1324 1292 1270 1334
Target Temperature: 25c
Pulse Repetition Period (ms): 1000
Sample Resilient Modulus (Mpa)
Pulse 1 Pulse 2 Pulse 3 Pulse 4 Pulse 5 Average
A 973 991 1053 1080 1091 1038
B 631 619 628 631 629 628
C 499 512 512 598 588 542
Target Temperature: 40c
Pulse Repetition Period (ms): 500
Sample Resilient Modulus (Mpa)
Pulse 1 Pulse 2 Pulse 3 Pulse 4 Pulse 5 Average
A 369 348 335 328 320 340
B 317 298 292 285 271 293
C 524 467 450 442 436 464
130
Target Temperature: 40c
Pulse Repetition Period (ms): 1000
Sample Resilient Modulus (Mpa)
Pulse 1 Pulse 2 Pulse 3 Pulse 4 Pulse 5 Average
A 435 406 380 378 369 394
B 393 359 333 331 320 347
C 596 508 496 480 465 509
2. Resilient Modulus for SMA 14 50 F.A : 50 Cement
Target Temperature: 25c
Pulse Repetition Period (ms): 500
Sample Resilient Modulus (Mpa)
Pulse 1 Pulse 2 Pulse 3 Pulse 4 Pulse 5 Average
A 685 604 573 563 550 595
B 3461 3344 3245 3314 3464 3366
C 2271 2179 2066 2022 2001 2108
Target Temperature: 25c
Pulse Repetition Period (ms): 1000
Sample Resilient Modulus (Mpa)
Pulse 1 Pulse 2 Pulse 3 Pulse 4 Pulse 5 Average
A 757 783 787 842 851 804
B 345 416 468 527 569 465
C 1817 1741 1767 1756 1793 1775
131
Target Temperature: 40c
Pulse Repetition Period (ms): 500
Sample Resilient Modulus (Mpa)
Pulse 1 Pulse 2 Pulse 3 Pulse 4 Pulse 5 Average
A 224 232 262 304 360 276
B 177 171 178 191 189 181
C 201 190 185 185 185 189
Target Temperature: 40c
Pulse Repetition Period (ms): 1000
Sample Resilient Modulus (Mpa)
Pulse 1 Pulse 2 Pulse 3 Pulse 4 Pulse 5 Average
A 285 268 269 260 251 266
B 213 196 207 213 212 208
C 300 311 288 283 319 300
3. Resilient Modulus for SMA 14 100 % Cement
Target Temperature: 25c
Pulse Repetition Period (ms): 500
Sample Resilient Modulus (Mpa)
Pulse 1 Pulse 2 Pulse 3 Pulse 4 Pulse 5 Average
A 2075 1949 1872 1860 1836 1918
B 1830 2160 2457 2593 2684 2345
C 1106 1047 997 976 966 1018
132
Target Temperature: 25c
Pulse Repetition Period (ms): 1000
Sample Resilient Modulus (Mpa)
Pulse 1 Pulse 2 Pulse 3 Pulse 4 Pulse 5 Average
A 2108 1977 1925 1920 1885 1963
B 1801 1682 1609 1630 1623 1669
C 2327 2182 2112 2059 2076 2151
Target Temperature: 40c
Pulse Repetition Period (ms): 500
Sample Resilient Modulus (Mpa)
Pulse 1 Pulse 2 Pulse 3 Pulse 4 Pulse 5 Average
A 332 309 298 292 289 304
B 224 207 201 198 197 205
C 280 265 265 262 236 262
Target Temperature: 40c
Pulse Repetition Period (ms): 1000
Sample Resilient Modulus (Mpa)
Pulse 1 Pulse 2 Pulse 3 Pulse 4 Pulse 5 Average
A 332 305 302 299 292 306
B 157 157 161 158 162 159
C 536 451 420 396 386 438
133
4. Resilient Modulus for SMA 14 100 % hydrated lime
Target Temperature: 25c
Pulse Repetition Period (ms): 500
Sample Resilient Modulus (Mpa)
Pulse 1 Pulse 2 Pulse 3 Pulse 4 Pulse 5 Average
A 426 399 394 398 395 402
B 1089 1050 1023 998 1004 1033
C 2210 2070 2029 1986 1964 2052
Target Temperature: 25c
Pulse Repetition Period (ms): 1000
Sample Resilient Modulus (Mpa)
Pulse 1 Pulse 2 Pulse 3 Pulse 4 Pulse 5 Average
A 1108 1046 1015 998 997 1033
B 2016 1996 1870 1946 1873 1940
C 1607 1549 1565 1545 1518 1557
Target Temperature: 40c
Pulse Repetition Period (ms): 500
Sample Resilient Modulus (Mpa)
Pulse 1 Pulse 2 Pulse 3 Pulse 4 Pulse 5 Average
A 86 96 112 132 162 117
B 264 256 250 246 247 253
C 544 505 488 478 470 497
134
Target Temperature: 40c
Pulse Repetition Period (ms): 1000
Sample Resilient Modulus (Mpa)
Pulse 1 Pulse 2 Pulse 3 Pulse 4 Pulse 5 Average
A 433 401 386 385 377 396
B 213 245 196 178 167 200
C 600 571 530 519 507 545
top related