wasidfarooqreshif 2.unlocked

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


SMA 14 (50% FA : 50% OPC). ....................................................................................... 94

Table 4.25:Comparison b/w practically and graphically obt.values (100 % OPC) ......... 94


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 4.17: Density Vs Bitumen Content ....................................................................... 83

Figure 4.18: VTM Vs Bitumen Content .......................................................................... 84

Figure 4.19: Stability Vs Bitumen Content ...................................................................... 84



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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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





graph.


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

Poly. (density)

78



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

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


Therefore, OBC for SMA 14 (50% Fly-Ash:50% cement) = (7 + 5.85 + 5 + 5.15)/ 4

= 5.75


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

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





graph.


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

Poly. (density)

81



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

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


Therefore, OBC for SMA 14 (100 % cement) = (5.6 + 5.9 + 5 + 5.2)/ 4 = 5.425


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

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

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





graph.


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

Poly. (density)

84



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

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


Therefore OBC for SMA 14 (100% hydrated lime) = (7 + 6.55 + 5.05 + 6.4)/ 4 =6.25


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

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

Poly. (vma)

86

4.10 Determination of Optimum Bitumen Content


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).


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)


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)


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)


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).



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)



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)



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


SMA 14 (100% Fly Ash)



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


SMA 14 (50% FA : 50% OPC).



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)



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


SMA 14 (100% hydrated lime)



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.


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.


Theoretical Maximum Specific Gravity and Density of Bituminous Paving Mixtures.

Philadelphia, ASTM D 2041.

107


Resistance to Plastic Flow of Bituminous Mixtures Using Marshall Apparatus.



Percent Air Voids in Compacted Dense and Open Bituminous Paving Mixtures.



Resilient Modulus of Bituminous Mixtures. Philadelphia, ASTM D 4123 - 82.


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.

http://www.rktron.com.my/

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


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 )










Max SG of Mix, Gmm = D 2.321 2.304 2.313

D + B – E


(100/Gmm) – (G/H)

AC Gmm


(%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)




Weight of Bowl and Sample in Air (gm) = C 3699.8 3699.5.





Max SG of Mix, Gmm = D 2.320 2.309 2.315

D + B – E


(100/Gmm) – (G/H)

AC Gmm


(%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










Max SG of Mix, Gmm = D 2.312 2.312 2.312

D + B – E


(100/Gmm) – (G/H)

AC Gmm


(%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


(mm)

Stiffness

(Kg/mm) In Air In


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


(mm)

Stiffness

(Kg/mm) In Air In


Corr. Stability cc.


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


(mm)

Stiffness

(Kg/mm) In Air In


Corr. Stability cc.


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


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


100% Fly Ash

50%:50% Fly Ash : OPC

100% OPC

100% Hydrated Lime


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


100% OPC

100% Hydrated Lime



Poly. (100% OPC)


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


100% OPC

100% Hydrated Lime



Poly. (100% OPC)


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


100% Fly Ash


100% OPC

100% Hydrated Lime



Poly. (100% OPC)


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


(mm)

Stiffness

(Kg/mm) In Air In


Corr. Stability cc.


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)


No. Sample 1 2 3




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)


No. Sample 1 2 3





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)


No. Sample 1 2 3





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





A 973 991 1053 1080 1091 1038

B 631 619 628 631 629 628

C 499 512 512 598 588 542





A 369 348 335 328 320 340

B 317 298 292 285 271 293

C 524 467 450 442 436 464

130





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





A 685 604 573 563 550 595

B 3461 3344 3245 3314 3464 3366

C 2271 2179 2066 2022 2001 2108





A 757 783 787 842 851 804

B 345 416 468 527 569 465

C 1817 1741 1767 1756 1793 1775

131





A 224 232 262 304 360 276

B 177 171 178 191 189 181

C 201 190 185 185 185 189





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





A 2075 1949 1872 1860 1836 1918

B 1830 2160 2457 2593 2684 2345

C 1106 1047 997 976 966 1018

132





A 2108 1977 1925 1920 1885 1963

B 1801 1682 1609 1630 1623 1669

C 2327 2182 2112 2059 2076 2151





A 332 309 298 292 289 304

B 224 207 201 198 197 205

C 280 265 265 262 236 262





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





A 426 399 394 398 395 402

B 1089 1050 1023 998 1004 1033

C 2210 2070 2029 1986 1964 2052





A 1108 1046 1015 998 997 1033

B 2016 1996 1870 1946 1873 1940

C 1607 1549 1565 1545 1518 1557





A 86 96 112 132 162 117

B 264 256 250 246 247 253

C 544 505 488 478 470 497

134





A 433 401 386 385 377 396

B 213 245 196 178 167 200

C 600 571 530 519 507 545

wasidfarooqreshif 2.unlocked

Documents