Utilizing Waste Plastic Bottles in Bituminous Asphalt Mix

Mekelle University
Ethiopian Institute of Technology - Mekelle (EiT-M)

Department of Civil Engineering
A Study
On
Utilizing Waste Plastic Bottles in Bituminous

Asphalt Mix
A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Award of BSc. Degree in Civil Engineering
2014
Utilizing Waste Plastic Bottles in Bituminous Asphalt Mix
"Utilizing Waste Plastic Bottles in

Bituminous Asphalt Mix"
A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Award of BSc. Degree in Civil Engineering
By
ABEL GEBRETSADIK, CE/UR0272/02, SECTION ONE
SOSINA SEYOUM, CE/UR0694/02, SECTION THREE
MILLION BAYOU, CE/UR0602/02, SECTION TWO
ABRAHAM SEBSIBE, CE/UR0281/02, SECTION FOUR
RUTHA TADESSE, CE/UR0652/02, SECTION TWO
ADVISOR
Dr. TENSAY GEBREMEDHIN
Department of Civil Engineering
Ethiopian Institute of Technology - Mekelle
June, 2014
ii | P a g e
2014
Declaration
We, the undersigned students, declare that this research is our own work and all source of materials
used to comply this report have been monotonously acknowledged.
Name: ABEL GEBRETSADIK

Signature:
Name: SOSINA SEYOUM
Signature:
Name: MILLION BAYOU
Signature:
Name: ABRAHAM SEBESIBE
Signature:
Name: RUTHA TADESSE
Signature:
Approved By
Dr. TENSAY GEBREMEDHIN
Signature:
iii | P a g e
2014
Certificate
iv | P a g e
2014
Acknowledgement
Most of all, we would like to thank God, for helping us through all the difficulties and making it
all possible. We would also like to congratulate ourselves for the hard work and work ethics
throughout the period of the research. This research would not be possible if it wasn't for our
parents, so we would like to thank them for their continuous support and encouragement.
We are indebted to express our sense of gratitude to our advisor Dr. Tensay Gebremedhin for his
continuous encouragement throughout the work and contribution with valuable guidance and
supervision.
We are grateful to CRBC - Addis Engineering P.L.C for providing all the necessary materials and
laboratory without any limitations for the successful completion of the research. Also we are grateful
for all workers of CRBC - Addis Engineering P.L.C Material Testing Laboratory.
We would like to acknowledge the following persons for their limitless support, encouragement,
and ideas.
Mr. GirmaSahale
Mr. MechalWolde
Mr. Zemedkun
Mr. Xia
Mr. DemekeGeremew
Mr. AlemayehuSheferaw
Mr. Yared G/medhin (M.A)
Mr. Ermias G/medhin
All the Group Members

v|Page
2014
Abstract
In the design of highway, the pavement is either flexible or rigid. Flexible pavements consists
different layers namely; Wearing Course, Binder Course, Base Course, Sub-Base, and sometimes
capping layer. The part which is directly in contact with the wheel load is the wearing surface; the
wearing surface is made of HMA which is a mixture of Course Aggregate, Fine Aggregate, Mineral
Fillers, and Bitumen. A Properly mixed HMA gives a good durability and strength for the road but
now a days asphalt concrete pavements are expected to perform better as they are experiencing a
very large amount of traffic volume, increased loads and increased variations in daily or/and seasonal
temperature over what has been experienced in the past. This expectation leads in finding another
means to increase the performance of the road.
This research use Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) as HMA modifier. PET is one component of
plastic material, and the research is concerned with the possibility of utilizing waste plastic bottle as
an ingredient in asphalt concrete to increase the mixture engineering property and at the same time
decrease cost of construction by decreasing the amount of asphalt cement (bitumen) required.
The experimental work include all aggregate quality physical Property tests , bitumen tests and
Asphalt concrete mix design by using Marshall Method of mix design for both modified and
unmodified mix. In this specific investigation the dry process is used for introducing the PET in to
the AC; in dry process PET size passing 1.18mm sieve was mixed with hot aggregate at 165OC for a
period of 120 seconds, at this stage the PET will form a thin film around the aggregate and coat the
surface of the aggregate. After the completion of this, the required amount of bitumen at 160OC is
introduced in to the coated aggregate and mixed for 120 seconds until the bitumen coated all the
aggregate. Overall, more than 114 Marshall Samples with, PET content of 0%, 0.3%, 0.6%, 0.9%,
1.2%, and 1.5%, also Bitumen contents with 4%, 4.5%, 5%, 5.5%, 6%, and 6.5% both by weight of
total aggregate were prepared.
The first step of this investigation was to find the proper method of mixing and PET size that could
be effectively employed in to the AC. Due to this trial and error procedure additional 82 Marshall
Specimen were prepared and tested.
vi | P a g e
2014
The Marshall test conducted with PET showed better performance than the controlled specimen.
From the experimental result the increase in Marshall Stability is found to be 29.77% while the
optimum bitumen decreased as the PET content increased up to 0.9%; the percentage decrease in
OBC is found to be 8.36%. Finally, a PET content of 0.9% by weight of total aggregate has found to
be the optimum PET content that could increase the engineering property of AC and decrease the
bitumen required.
vii | P a g e
2014
Table of Content
Declaration .................................................................................................................................... iii
Certificate ...................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgement ........................................................................................................................... v
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... vi
Table of Content .......................................................................................................................... viii
List of Figures............................................................................................................................... xii
List of Abbreviations......................................................................................................................xv
CHAPTER 1 ......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.1
GENERAL ................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2
BITUMINOUS ASPHALT MIX DESIGN ........................................................................................ 1
1.2.1 OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................... 1

1.2.2 OBJECTIVES OF BITUMINOUS MIX DESIGN ............................................................................... 2
1.2.3 TYPES OF PREMIX COMMONLY USED ........................................................................................ 3
1.2.4 METHODS OF MIX DESIGN ....................................................................................................... 3
1.2.5 PROPERTIES CONSIDERED IN HMA......................................................................................... 12
1.3
WHY POLYMER MODIFICATION?............................................................................................ 14
1.3.1 PLASTIC BOTTLES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS ............................................................ 14

1.3.2 ROLE OF PET IN BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT ............................................................................. 17
1.4
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE ........................................................................................................... 18
1.4.1 GENERAL OBJECTIVE ............................................................................................................. 18

viii | P a g e
2014
1.4.2 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE............................................................................................................... 18

CHAPTER 2 ....................................................................................................................................... 19
2.
LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................................... 19
CHAPTER 3 ....................................................................................................................................... 23
3.
MATERIALS FOR BITUMINOUS ASPHALT MIX ............................................................ 23

3.1
CONSTITUTE OF A MIX ........................................................................................................... 23
3.1.1 AGGREGATES ......................................................................................................................... 23

3.1.2 MINERAL FILLER .................................................................................................................... 31
3.1.3 BITUMEN ................................................................................................................................ 32
3.2
MATERIALS USED IN THIS STUDY........................................................................................... 37
3.2.1 AGGREGATE ........................................................................................................................... 37

3.2.2 BITUMEN ................................................................................................................................ 38
3.2.3 MINERAL FILLER .................................................................................................................... 39
3.2.4 POLYETHYLENE TEREPHTHALATE (PET) ............................................................................... 39
CHAPTER 4 ....................................................................................................................................... 42
4.
EXPERIMENTAL WORKS ..................................................................................................... 42

4.1
GENERAL ............................................................................................................................... 42
4.2
PREPARATION OF MARSHALL SAMPLES ................................................................................. 42
4.3
TESTS ON SAMPLES ................................................................................................................ 46
4.3.1 THICKNESS AND BULK SPECIFIC GRAVITY ............................................................................. 46

4.3.2 STABILITY AND FLOW TEST ................................................................................................... 48
ix | P a g e
2014
4.3.3 DENSITY AND VOID ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 49

4.4
RETAINED STABILITY OR IMMERSION STRENGTH TEST .......................................................... 52
CHAPTER 5 ....................................................................................................................................... 53
5.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS............................................................................................... 53

5.1
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 53
5.2
BULK SPECIFIC GRAVITY (BSG) ............................................................................................ 55
5.3
MARSHALL STABILITY ........................................................................................................... 56
5.4
VOID IN THE MIX (VIM) ........................................................................................................ 59
5.5
FLOW VALUE ......................................................................................................................... 59
5.6
VOID IN THE MINERAL AGGREGATE (VMA) .......................................................................... 60
5.7
VOID FILLED WITH ASPHALT (VFA) ...................................................................................... 61
5.8
IMMERSION STRENGTH TEST .................................................................................................. 62
CHAPTER 6 ....................................................................................................................................... 64
6.
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 64
CHAPTER 7 ....................................................................................................................................... 66
7.
RECOMMENDATION.............................................................................................................. 66
CHAPTER 8 ....................................................................................................................................... 67
8.
REFERENCE.............................................................................................................................. 67
CHAPTER 9 ....................................................................................................................................... 69
x|Page

9.
2014
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. 69
APPENDIX A. AGGREGATE QUALITY TEST RAW DATA ................................................................. 69
APPENDIX B. MARSHALL TEST RAW DATA ...................................................................................... 75
xi | P a g e
2014
List of Figures
FIGURE 1-1 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT LAYERS ............................................................................................. 2
FIGURE 1-2 WASTE PLASTIC BOTTLES .................................................................................................. 14
FIGURE 1-3 COLLECTED AND STORED WASTE PLASTIC BOTTLES ......................................................... 15
FIGURE 1-4 SOLID WASTE COMPOSITION OF ADDIS ABABA CITY ........................................................ 16
FIGURE 3-1 AGGREGATE GRADATION................................................................................................... 26
FIGURE 3-2 GAUGING FLAKY AGGREGATES ......................................................................................... 29
FIGURE 3-3 MEASURING MINERAL FILLERS FOR PREPARATION OF MARSHALL SAMPLE ...................... 31
FIGURE 3-4 SHREDDED PET ................................................................................................................. 40
FIGURE 3-5 CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF PET ...................................................................................... 40
FIGURE 3-6 PET RECYCLING SYMBOL.................................................................................................. 41
FIGURE 4-1 WASHING AGGREGATE WITH 0.075MM SIEVE.................................................................... 43
FIGURE 4-2 DIFFERENT AGGREGATE SIZES, SIEVED AND MARKED ....................................................... 44
FIGURE 4-3 MEASURED AGGREGATE FOR MARSHALL SAMPLE PREPARATION ...................................... 44
FIGURE 4-4 MEASURED AGGREGATE AND BITUMEN IN MIXING MACHINE ........................................... 45
FIGURE 4-5 MEASURING THICKNESS OF MARSHALL SAMPLES USING CALIPER..................................... 46
FIGURE 4-6 BSG COMPUTATION........................................................................................................... 47
FIGURE 4-7 MARSHALL STABILITY AND FLOW TEST IN PROGRESS ....................................................... 48
FIGURE 4-8 MTD TEST ON PROGRESS .................................................................................................. 51
FIGURE 5-1 BSG VS. BITUMEN CONTENT ............................................................................................. 55
FIGURE 5-2 STABILITY VS. BITUMEN CONTENT .................................................................................... 56
FIGURE 5-3 OBC VS. PET CONTENT..................................................................................................... 57
xii | P a g e
2014
FIGURE 5-4 PLASTIC AGGREGATE BITUMEN INTERACTION MODEL FOR THE PLASTIC WASTE COATED
AGGREGATE, AND BITUMEN MIX .................................................................................................. 58
FIGURE 5-5 VIM VS. BITUMEN CONTENT ............................................................................................. 59
FIGURE 5-6 FLOW VS. BITUMEN CONTENT............................................................................................ 60
FIGURE 5-7 VMA VS. BITUMEN CONTENT............................................................................................ 61
FIGURE 5-8 VFA VS. BITUMEN CONTENT ............................................................................................. 62
xiii | P a g e
2014
List of Tables
TABLE 1-1 CORRECTION FACTOR FOR MARSHALL STABILITY (ASPHALT INSTITUTE) .......................... 10
TABLE 3-1 AGGREGATE GRADATION FOR AC (ERA 2012 MANUAL) ................................................... 37
TABLE 3-2 SPECIFIC GRAVITY AND WATER ABSORPTION OF AGGREGATES ......................................... 38
TABLE 3-3 PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF AGGREGATE USED IN THIS INVESTIGATION ............................... 38
TABLE 3-4 SELECTION CRITERIA FOR ASPHALT GRADES (ASPHALT INSTITUTE) .................................. 39
TABLE 3-5 PROPERTY OF BITUMEN USED IN THIS INVESTIGATIONS ...................................................... 39
TABLE 4-1 ERA 2012 MANUAL SPECIFICATION FOR MARSHALL TEST ................................................ 49
TABLE 4-2 COMPUTED BULK SPECIFIC GRAVITY AND AGGREGATE PERCENTAGE USED ...................... 50
TABLE 5-1 MARSHALL TEST RESULTS .................................................................................................. 53
TABLE 5-2 OBC AND OTHER RESULTS ................................................................................................. 57
TABLE 5-3 RETAINED MARSHALL STABILITY ....................................................................................... 63
xiv | P a g e
2014
List of Abbreviations
10%FACT
10% Finest Aggregate Crushing Value
AASHTO
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
AC
Asphalt Concrete/ Asphalt Cement
ACV
Aggregate Crushing Value
AIV
Aggregate Impact Value
AR
Asphalt Residue
ASTM
American Society for Testing and Materials
BS
British Standard
CRBC
China Road and Bridge Corporation
DBM
Dense Bitumen Macadam
ERA
Ethiopian Road Authority
FI
Flakiness Index
HMA
Hot Mix Asphalt
HRA
Hot Rolled Asphalt
LAA
Los Angeles Abrasion
MC
Medium Curing
xv | P a g e

MTD
Maximum Theoretical Density
OBC
Optimum Bitumen Content
PE
Polyethylene
PET
Polyethylene Terephthalate
PG
Performance Grade
PP
Polypropylene
RC
Rapid Curing
RTFO
Rolling Thin Film Oven
SC
Slow Curing
SHRP
Strategic Highway Research Program
SSD
Saturated Surface Dry
TFO
Thin Film Oven
VFA
Void Filled With Asphalt
VIM
Void in the Mix
VMA
Void in the Mineral Aggregate
WC
Wearing Course
WRAP
Waste and Resource Action Program
2014
xvi | P a g e
2014
Chapter 1
1. Introduction
1.1 General
Bituminous binders are widely used by paving industry. In general pavements are categorized into
two groups, i.e. flexible and rigid pavement.
A. Flexible Pavement
Flexible pavements are those, having low flexural strength and are rather flexible in their structural
action under loads. These types of pavement layers reflect the deformation of lower layers on-to the
surface of the layer.
B. Rigid Pavement
If the surface course of a pavement is of Plain Cement Concrete or reinforced concrete then it is
called as rigid pavement since the total pavement structure cant bend or deflect due to traffic loads.
Cost wise rigid pavements are more expensive than the flexible pavements.
Pavement design and the mix design are two major considerations in case of pavement engineering.
The present study is only related to the mix design of flexible pavement considerations. The design
of asphalt paving mixtures is a multi-step process of selecting binders and aggregate materials and
proportioning them to provide an appropriate compromise among several variables that affect
mixture behavior, considering external factors such as traffic loading and climate conditions.
1.2 Bituminous Asphalt Mix Design

1.2.1 Overview
Asphalt mix design is performed in order to determine the combination of asphalt and aggregate that
will give long lasting performance as part of the pavement structure. Mix design involves laboratory
procedures developed to establish the necessary proportion of materials for use in asphalt. These
procedures include determining an appropriate blend of aggregate sources to produce a proper
gradation of mineral aggregate, and selecting the type and amount of asphalt cement to be used as the
1|Page
2014
binder for the gradation. Well-designed asphalt mixture can be expected to serve successfully for
many years under a variety of loading and environmental conditions.
Figure 1-1 Flexible Pavement Layers

In hot mix asphalt, binder and aggregate are blended together in precise proportions. The relative
proportions of these materials determine the physical properties of the HMA and ultimately how the
HMA performs as finished pavement.
1.2.2 Objectives of Bituminous Mix Design
Main objectives of bituminous mix design are to find;
1. Optimum bitumen content to ensure a durable pavement,
2. Sufficient strength to resist shear deformation under traffic at higher temperature,
3. Proper amount of air voids in the compacted bitumen to all for additional compaction
done by traffic,
4. Sufficient workability, and
5. Sufficient flexibility to avoid cracking due to repeated traffic load.
2|Page
2014
1.2.3 Types of premix commonly used

The main types of premix are asphalt concrete, bitumen macadam and Hot rolled asphalt. Each type
can be used in surfacing or road bases.
Asphalt concrete (AC)
Asphalt concert is a dense continuously graded mix which relies for its strength on both the interlock
between the aggregate particles and the lesser extent on the properties of the bitumen and the filler.
AC is a type of hot mix that meets strict requirement. It is a high quality, carefully controlled at
mixture of asphalt cement and well graded; high quality aggregate thoroughly compacted in to a
uniform dense mass typified by dense graded paving mix
Bitumen macadam
Close graded bitumen macadams also called dense bitumen macadams (DBM) are continuously
graded mixture similar to asphaltic concrete but usually with less dense aggregate structure. The
advantage of this method is the quality control testing is simplified and this should allow more
intensive compliance testing to be performed. Aggregate which behave more satisfactory for asphalt
concrete will also be satisfactory in DBM.
Hot Rolled Asphalt (HRA)
Hot Rolled asphalt is a gap graded mix which relies for the properties primary on the bitumen, filler
and fine aggregate. HRA has several advantages compared to AC. It is less sensitive to proportioning
making easier to manufacture, and it is also easier to lay and compact. It requires fewer aggregate
size and therefore fewer stockpiles and cold feed bins.
1.2.4 Methods of Mix Design
To produce an asphalt mix design, asphalt binder and aggregate are blended together in different
proportions in the laboratory. The resulting mix is evaluated using a standard set of criteria's to
permit selection of appropriate binder content. The type and grading of the aggregate and the
stiffness and amount of the asphalt binder influence the physical properties of the mix. The design
(optimum) binder content is selected to ensure a balance between the long term durability of the mix
3|Page
2014
and its resistance to rutting and other type of road failure. There are three widely used methods of
asphalt mix design.
HVEEM METHOD
MARSHALL METHOD
SUPERPAVE METHOD
HVEEM METHOD
This method developed by F.N. Hveem of the California division of highways, has been used by that
organization since the early 1940's. As in the case with Marshall Method, actual design criteria vary
among organization using this method. Although the equipment for mix evaluation is the same, the
design philosophy embodies in this procedure is as follows
a. Stability is a function primarily of the surface texture of the aggregate
b. Optimum asphalt content is dependent on the surface area, surface texture and porosity of
the aggregate and asphalt stiffness
c. If required the design asphalt content is adjusted to leave a minimum of 4% calculated air
void to avoid bleeding or possible loss of stability.
Kneading compaction (ASTM D1561) is used to prepare specimens for laboratory testing over range
of asphalt content. The compaction effort was established to produce densities considered
representative of those obtained under traffic soon after construction.
The Hveem stabilometer, a closed system tri-axial compression test provides the key performance
measure in this method. Mix specimens are tested in this device at 60oC over a range of binder
contents, and stability curve as a function of asphalt content is produced. By setting a minimum level
of stability consistent with the applied traffic, the design asphalt content is selected. For the same
aggregate and asphalt cement, design binder contents selected with this procedure generally tend to
be slightly lower than those obtained using 75 blows Marshall Procedure.
4|Page
2014
SUPERPAVE METHOD
Superpave, not specifically a HMA mixture, refers to a complete paving system. The name
Superpave comes from SUPerior PERforming PAVEments.The Superpave mix design system was
developed through research performed during the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP).The
paving system consists of a new asphalt binder grading specification, a new mix design method and a
new HMA paving performance specifications.
There is no magic ingredient in Superpave mixes; they are still a mixture of aggregate and asphalt
cement. SHRP research revealed that the three main distresses of todays pavement are rutting,
fatigue cracking, and low temperature cracking. The Superpave mix design system addresses these
dominant issues. Mixes are designed to accommodate the traffic loading expected as well as the
historical climatic conditions of the location for the pavement.
The component for the HMA mixture is carefully selected, each having to meet specific
requirements. The PG binder grade is established by looking at both the historical high and low
temperatures of the pavement at the site. Aggregate must meet specific consensus properties
including coarse and fine aggregate angularity, flat and elongated particles and clay content. Because
of the design criteria, Superpave mixes must have strong aggregate structures which in general, result
in a course aggregate blend and lower asphalt content than standard mixes. The heart of the new mix
design method is the use of the Superpave gyratory compactor for the compaction of the design
specimens. This compactor is a product of the SHPR research and is designed to approximate the
compaction effort of the pavement rollers. The Superpave mixes are designed to match the expected
traffic loads and the high and low expected pavement temperature of the pavement.
The paving specifications for Superpave have an increased emphasis on the field compaction.
Achieving the proper compaction of a Superpave mix is critical to performance. The primary
problem that led to the development of the Superpave paving system was pavement deformation in
the form of rutting. The resultant Superpave mixes have a much greater stone-on-stone contact than
previous mixes ,and are more rut resistant, but are also more difficult to compact .Heavier roller and
greater compaction effort are required to achieve proper mixes density. To ensure that proper density
is being achieved, contractors are often required monitoring the densities with devices such as a
nuclear density or a non-nuclear gauge.
5|Page
2014
MARSHALL METHOD
The concept of the Marshall method of designing paving mixtures was formulated by Bruce
Marshall; formerly a bituminous engineer with the Mississippi State Highway Department. The U.S
corps of Engineers through extensive research and correlation studies, improved and added certain
features to Marshalls test procedure, and ultimately developed mix design criteria. The Marshall
Test procedures have been standardized by the American society for testing and materials procedures
are given in ASTEM D 1559.
Generally Marshall Method has been applicable to dense-graded HMA paving mixtures using
penetration Grade asphalt binders and containing aggregates with a maximum size of 25mm or less.
The Marshall method is used for both laboratory design and the quality control of hot mix asphalt
pavements.
General Procedure
The Marshall Mix design process consists of three basic steps
1. Aggregate Evaluation
Determine acceptability of aggregate for use in HMA construction; test often performed
include Los Angeles abrasion, Sodium or Magnesium sulfate soundness, sand equivalent,
presence of deleterious substances, polishing, crushed face count, and flat and elongated
particle count.
If the material acceptable in the above step then perform other required tests gradation,
specific gravity and absorption.
Perform blending calculation
Prepare a specimen weight by multiplying the % aggregate retained between sieves times
an aggregate weight of approximately 1200gm,then determine the cumulative weights
starting with the material passing 0.075mm sieve.
2. Asphalt Cement Evaluation
Determine appropriate asphalt cement grade for type and geographical location of
mixture being designed
6|Page
2014
Verify that specification properties are acceptable

Determine asphalt cement specific gravity and plot viscosity data on a temperatureviscosity plot
Determine the ranges of mixing and compaction temperature from the temperatureviscosity plot
3. Preparation of Marshall Specimens
Dry and sieve aggregates in to size and store in clean sealable containers. Separate
enough material to make 18 specimens of approximately 1200gm each. Minimum
aggregate and asphalt cement requirements to prepare one series of test specimens of a
given gradation are 25Kg and 4liter respectively
Weigh up aggregate for 18 specimens placing each in a separate container and heat to
mixing temperature
It is desirable to prepare trial specimens prior to preparing all aggregate batches. Measure
the height of the trial specimen(h1) and check against height requirement for Marshall
specimens 63.5mm 1.27mm .If the specimen is outside the range adjust the quantity of
aggregate
Q=2.5*1200/h1
Where Q, Weight of aggregate to produce a specimen 63.5mm tall
andH1, is height of trial specimen

Heat sufficient asphalt cement to prepare a total of 18 specimens .Three compacted
specimens each should be prepared at six different asphalt contents. Asphalt content
should be selected at 0.5% increments.
Review appropriate specification to determine number of blows per side and type of
compaction equipment required for compaction of Marshall specimens
Remove the hot aggregate, place it on a scale and add the proper weight of asphalt
cement to obtain the desired asphalt content.
7|Page
2014
Mix asphalt cements and aggregate until all aggregate is coated, it is helpful to work on a
heated table. Mixing can be by hand, but a mechanical mixer is preferred.
Check temperature of freshly mixed material; if it is above the compaction temperature,
allow it to cool to compaction temperature ;if it is below compaction temperature discard
the material and make a new mix
Place a paper disc in to an assembled, preheated Marshall mold and pour in loose HMA.
Check the temperature, spread the mixture with a heated spatula or trowel 15 times
around the perimeter and 10 times over the interior. Remove the collar and mold material
inside the mold so that the middle is slightly higher than the edges. Attach the mold and
base plate to the pedestal. Place the preheated mold and apply the appropriate number of
blows to both sides.
Allow specimens to sit at room temperature overnight before further testing
Determine the bulk specific gravity for each specimen by weighing in air, submerged
samples in water and allow saturate prior to getting submerged weight in SSD condition.
Remove the sample and weigh in air in saturated surface dry condition.
Calculate MTD
4. Density and Voids Analysis
For each specimen, use the bulk specific gravity (Gmb) and Theoretical Maximum
specific gravity(Gmm) to calculate the percent voids or VIM
Calculate the density of each Marshall specimen as follows

Density (g/ml) =bulk specific gravity (Gmb)*density of water
Calculate the VMA for each Marshall specimen
8|Page
2014
Calculate the VFA(voids filled with asphalt) for each Marshall specimen using the VIM
and VMA as follows
5. Marshall Stability and Flow Test

Heat the water bath to 60OC 1OC and place specimens to be tested in the bath for at
least 30 but not more than 40 minutes. Place specimens in the bath in a staggered manner
to ensure that all specimens have been heated for the same length of time before testing.
use a water bath large enough to hold all specimens prepared for the mixture design
After heating for the required amount of time, remove a specimen from the bath, pat with
towel to remove excess water, and quickly place in the Marshall testing head.
Bring the loading ram in to contact with the testing head. Zero the pens if using a load
deformation recorder or Zero flow gauge, and place the gauge on the rod of testing head.
Testing should be completed within 30sec from the time the specimen is removed from
the bath.
6. Stability Correction
It is possible while making the specimen the thickness slightly vary from the standard specification
of 63.5 mm. Therefore, measured stability values need to be corrected to those which would have
been obtained if the specimens had been exactly 63.5mm. This is done by multiplying each measured
stability value by an appropriated correlation factors given below
9|Page
2014
Table 1-1 Correction Factor for Marshall Stability (Asphalt Institute)
Volume of specimen (cm3) Thickness of specimen(mm) Correction factor
457-470
57.1
1.19
471-482
68.7
1.14
483-495
60.3
1.09
496-508
61.9
1.04
509-522
63.5
1.00
523-535
65.1
0.96
536-546
66.7
0.93
547-559
68.3
0.89
560-573
69.9
0.86
7. Prepare Graphical Plots

The average values of the above properties are determined for each mix with different bitumen
content and the following graphical plots are prepared
Density Vs. Asphalt Content
Marshall stability Vs. Asphalt content
Flow Vs. Asphalt content
VMA Vs. Asphalt content
VFA Vs. Asphalt content
10 | P a g e
2014
8. Optimum Asphalt Content Determination

There are two methods which is commonly used
Method I
Determine the asphalt content which corresponds to the specification median air void
content (4%).This is the optimum asphalt content
Determine the following properties at this optimum asphalt content by referring to the
plots
Marshall stability
Flow
VMA
VFA
Density
Compare each of these values against the specification values and if all are within the
specification, then the preceding optimum asphalt content is satisfactory. If any of these
properties are outside the specification range, the mixture should be redesigned.
Method II. ASPHALT INSTITUTE METHOD IN MS-2
Determine
asphalt content at maximum stability
asphalt content at maximum density
Asphalt content at midpoint of specified air void range (4%)
average the three asphalt contents selected above

for the average asphalt content, go to the plotted curves and determine the following
properties
stability
flow
11 | P a g e
air void
VIM
VFA
VMA ( at 4% VIM)
2014
1.2.5 Properties considered in HMA

There are several properties that contribute to the quality of asphalt mixture pavement. They include
stablity,durablity,impermeablity,workablity,flexiblity,and fatigue resistance.
Stablity
Stablity of an asphalt mixture pavement is the ablity of the mixture to resist shoving and rutting
under load. A stable pavement maintains the shape and smoothness required under repeated loading
an unstable pavement develops ruts(channel),ripples(washboarding or corrugation),raveling and
other signs of shifting of the asphalt mixture.
Stablity is required to be high enough to handel traffic adequatly,but not higher than traffic condition
required. Cause's for instablity
Excess binder in asphalt mixture
Excess medium size sand in asphalt mixture
Rounded aggregate
Durablity
The durablity of an asphalt mixture pavement is the ablity of the asphalt pavement to resist changes
in the binder oxidation and disintegration of the aggregate.These factors may be the result of
weather,traffic,or a combination of two. Durablity of an asphalt mixture may be enhanced by three
methods. They are
Maximum binder content
Using a sound aggregate
Designing and compacting the asphalt mixture for maximum impermeability
12 | P a g e
2014
Impermeablity
Impermeablity is the resistance of an asphalt pavement to the passage of air and water in to or
through the mixture. Basically this characterstic is related to void content of the compacted asphalt
mixture,Although impermeablity is important for the durablity of a compacted paving asphalt
mixure,vertually all asphalt mixture used in highway construction is permeable to some degree.This
is acceptable as long as the permeablity is within specified limits.
Resistance to moisture induced damage
Some HMA mixes,when subjected to moisture or water lose adhesion betwwen the aggregate surface
and
asphalt
cement
binder.Aggregate
properties
are
primerly
responsible
for
this
phenomenon,although some asphalt cements are more prone to moisture damage (stripping) than
others.If a HMA mix is prone to stripping,then antistripping agents should be used, Making the mix
impermeable to water also minimizes the problem.
Workablity
Workablity describes the ease with which a paving asphalt mixture may be placed and compacted.
Workablity may be improved by changing mix design parameters,aggregate source and/or gradation.
Workablity can be affected by
Harsh asphalt mixture has a tendency to segregate during handling and also may be
difficult to compact.
Excess fines
Excessive coarse aggregate
Too low an asphalt mixture temperature
Low fine content
Flexibility
Flexibility is the ablity of an asphalt mixture pavement to adjust to gradual settlements and
movements in the subgrade with out cracking. Since virtually all subgrades either settle(under
loading) or rise from soil expansion.
13 | P a g e
2014
An open graded asphalt mixture with high binder content is generally more flexible than a dense
graded low binder content asphalt mixture.
Fatigue resistance
Fatigue resistance is the pavements resistance to repeated bending under wheel loads(traffic). This is
affected by
Air voids
Binder viscosity
Lack of compaction
Inadequate pavement thickness
As the percentage of air void in the pavement increases,either by design or lack of
compaction,pavement fatigue life is drastically shortened.
Skid resistance
Skid resistance is the ablity of an asphalt surface to minimize skidding or slipping of vehicle
tires,particularly when the roadway surface is wet. Best skid resistance is obtained with rough
textured aggregate in an open graded mixture with an aggregate of 12.5-9.5mm aggregate size.
1.3 Why Polymer Modification?

1.3.1 Plastic Bottles and Environmental
Problems
As Ethiopia is one of the fastest growing
economies in the world road construction is being
carried out in a vast range. These roads are
usually a mixture of Aggregate, Bitumen, and
mineral fillers. Bitumen is a byproduct of crude
oil; but since Ethiopia yet doesnt produce a crude
oil, bitumen is not also available locally. This
Figure 1-2 Waste Plastic Bottles
14 | P a g e
2014
leads to a high cost and loss of foreign currency.
Figure 1-3 Collected and Stored Waste Plastic Bottles

On the other hand, as the country gets bigger and more modernized, high volume of solid waste is
generated. Especially in the capital city, Addis Ababa, the volume of the waste product is very high
compared to other regional cities. City of Addis Ababa generates a solid waste of 0.4kg/c/day, more
than 200,000t are collected each year and about 550t/day, 80% of the total waste collected (Tessema,
2010). According to the research conducted by Tessema in 2010, the physical composition of the
solid waste in Addis Ababa is: 60% Organic, 15% Recyclable, and Others 25%. The detail
composition is presented below
Vegetable 4.2%
Paper 2.5%
15 | P a g e
Plastic 2.9%
Wood 2.3%
Bone 1.1%
Textiles 2.4%
Metals 1.5%
Glass 0.5%
Combustible Leaves 15.1%
Non-Combustible Stone 2.5%
All Fines 65%
2014
Figure 1-4 Solid Waste Composition of Addis Ababa City
16 | P a g e
2014
As it can be observed from the above mathematical figures, 15% of the solid waste in Addis Ababa
can be recycled. One of the solid wastes that can be recycled is Plastic; the quantum of plastic waste
is highly increasing due to an increase in population, urbanization, development activities and change
in life style. Thus, disposal of waste plastic has become a serious problem both nationally and
globally due to their non-biodegradability and unaesthetic views.
Researchers found that this material can remain in the earth for about 4500 years without
degradation. These plastic wastes have created water pollution in most rivers found in Addis Ababa.
According to the Waste and Resources ActionProgram (WRAP) survey, most plastics collected for
recycling from the household waste stream are plastic bottles. Themajority of bottles are made from
Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) estimated that the ratio is 55-60%.
Hence this research is intended to partially replace the conventional material by waste plastic bottles
and improve the desired mechanical characteristics of a road mix. This will also decrease both the
environmental pollution due to the presence of plastic waste and decrease road project costs by
decreasing the amount of bitumen needed. Even if we cannot avoid using plastic bottles, there is a
possibility of reusing it.
1.3.2 Role of PET in Bituminous Pavement
Utilization of waste material as secondary material is being developed worldwide. One of these
waste materials is plastic bottles which are being produced in large amount. In food industries,
plastic bottle is mostly made by Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET), and PET become very popular
during the last decade because it is known as safe, durable and good material for packaging. Today,
producing waste plastic becomes a main problem in many societies when it can be found almost
everywhere specially in landfills. Hence, waste plastic may cause environmental pollution because it
is not a biodegradable material. Thus, it would be rewarding if waste plastics can be reused, for
instance, in projects such as pavement construction as a useful material in order to improve service
life of road pavement in one way and preventing from environmental pollution as well.
On the other hand by increasing number and frequency of passing vehicles, especially heavy vehicles
such as trucks and vans which have higher gross weight than passenger cars, service live of road
pavement decreases. There are different ways to improve asphalt mixture properties. First is
constructing road pavement with higher thickness and second is using different types of additives as
17 | P a g e
2014
modifier such as polymers in asphalt mixture. Constructing high-thickness pavement will cause
considerably higher construction cost. Thus, using additives might be a better solution to overcome
the pavement deterioration problem.
1.4 Research Objective

1.4.1 General Objective
The first and main objective of our research is to Utilize Waste Plastic Bottles in Bituminous Asphalt
Mix by recycling waste plastic bottles that are highly polluting our country, almost the whole city of
Addis Ababa.
1.4.2 Specific Objective
The plastic bottles or scientifically PET, are one of the biggest potential threat for the environment
and health of the community. So this research is a way to people to clean their community and at the
same time generate income by collecting waste plastic bottles. At the current time the factories that
crush and cut the plastic bottles are buying 1kg of plastic bottle for 2.5 - 3 ETB; and if we can utilize
these plastic bottles for asphalt construction the demand will be high and peoples who are engaged in
the plastic collection business can generate more income.
Most of all, since this research is intended to decrease the amount of bitumen used in the asphalt mix
at the same time increasing the quality of the asphalt mix; our country will save a lot of foreign
currency which is lost by importing bitumen material.
Hence, this research project aims in decreasing environmental pollution, create job opportunity,
decrease the amount of bitumen required for asphalt mix, and increase engineering characteristics of
the mix which leads to high quality of Highways with longer life and smaller cost.
18 | P a g e
2014
Chapter 2
2. Literature Review
The quantum of plastic waste in municipal waste is increasing due to increase in population,
urbanization, development activities and changes in life style, which leading widespread littering on
the landscape. Thus the disposal of waste plastic is a menace and become a serious problem globally
and also in Ethiopia due to non-biodegradability and unaesthetic view. Thus, it would be rewarding if
waste plastics can be reused, for instance in project such as pavement construction as a useful
material in order to improve service life of road pavement in one way and also preventing from
environmental pollution as well. This is done by using PET
As a part of bitumen; by mixing the liquid bitumen with that of PET(Wet process)
As coated coarser aggregate(dry process)
As fine aggregate replacement and other methods
Wan MohdNazmi, Wan Abdul Rahman, AchmedFauzi Abdul Wahab; the objective of this research
is to determine optimum quality and the effect usage of the recycled PET as a partial fine aggregate
replacement in modified asphalt mixture by determining the permanent deformation and stiffness
behavior. The result obtained from the lab test testing reveals the maximum permanent deformation
of modified asphalt mixture 20% replacement with recycled PET. However the stiffness of PET
modified asphalt mixture tends to decrease compare to unmodified asphalt mixture. The finding
indicates that PET has the ability to improve permanent deformation properties of asphalt mixture. In
the environmental and economic aspects, PET modified asphalt mixture is found suitable to be used
for road pavements.
Afroz Sultan.SK,K.S.B.Prasad; the research investigates the potential use of plastic as a modifier for
asphalt concrete and cement concrete pavement. Plastics waste can be used as a coating over
aggregate and this coated stone can be used for road construction. Unmodified and modified asphalt
binder was subject to rheological test. The performance tests including, Marshall Stability, loss of
stability test were conducted using plastic coated aggregate and polymer modified bitumen on HMA
mixtures. The result showed better values for asphalt concrete.
19 | P a g e
2014
TaherBaghaeeMoghaddam, Mohammed RehanKarim; this research program investigates the effects

of adding waste PET particles in to the asphalt mixture with the maximum size of 2.36mm. Different
percentage of PET was added in to the mixture during dry process. Gap graded mixture and
penetration grade 80-100 asphalt binder have been used for this study. To evaluate PET reinforced
asphalt mixture different laboratory investigation has been conducted on specimens. Marshall
Stability test was carried out. Besides, stiffness modules test and indirect tensile fatigue test were
conducted on specimens at optimum asphalt content. It was observed that in many cases PET
reinforced mixture had better mechanical properties in comparison with control mixture.
Miss Apurva J Chavan; According to this research the plastic waste (PET) which is cleaned is cut in
to a size such that it passes through 2-3mm sieve using shredding machine. The aggregate mix is
heated and the plastic is effectively coated over the aggregate. This plastic coated aggregate is mixed
with hot bitumen and the resulted mix is used for road construction. The use of this modification will
not only strengthen the road construction but also increase the road life as well as will help to
improve the environment.
Osamu Kamada and Masaru Yamada; in this study, waste plastics were mixed with an asphalt
mixture as part of aggregate and the application of waste plastics to material of asphalt mixture was
researched from the effect of the mixed plastics on the properties of the mixture. Dense graded and
porous asphalt mixtures were used in the experiment. The results indicated fluidity-resistant of dense
graded asphalt mixtures is improved by mixed with PET and also bending fatigue destructionresistant and anti-stripping of dense graded asphalt mixture are improved.
K.V.R.prasad ,Dr.S.P.Mahendra , and Dr.N.S.Kumer; There experimental study was conducted out
to investigate the use of polyethylene Terephthalate(PET) waste in bituminous mixes. Strength and
deformation characteristics are determined from Marshall Stability and flow values. The result
showed the modified bituminous binder provides better stability when compared to conventional
binders.
According to Flynn (1993) re-cycled PET from drinking bottles may be useful in asphaltic
(bituminous) pavement, resulting in reduced permanent deformation in the form of rutting and
reduced low temperature cracking of the pavement surfacing.
20 | P a g e
2014
Lilies WidoJoko,P.Eliza Purnamasari; this research explores the effect of adding plastic and cement
as ingredient to the mixture of asphalt concrete on the characteristic of Marshall, plastic that are
added are 6% in weight. It was observed that the optimum bitumen content on the addition of 4%
plastic and Marshall Stability increased by 19% compared to AC-WC without addition of plastic.
The positive effect of plastic bottle on the characteristics of Marshall, along with its environmental
advantages, makes this material a feasible additive.
For the past decade significant researches has been conducted on Plastics to modify asphalt mixture.
Plastics can successfully improve the performance of asphalt pavements at low, intermediate, and
high temperatures by increasing mixture resistance to fatigue cracking, thermal cracking and
permanent deformation (Aflaki &Tabatabaee, 2008). The purpose of modifying asphalt mix is to
achieve the desired engineering properties such as increase stability, shear modulus, fatigue
resistance, resistance to thermal fracture at low temperatures, and decrease permanent deformation
under load (rutting). Other benefits include greater adhesion to the aggregate and increase tire
traction (Gonzlez Uranga, 2008).
Suroso, (2004) notes that one way for increasing softening point of asphalt was by adding plastic into
bitumen. The result shows on one hand, increase in the softening point of asphalt, but on the other
hand, the value of bitumen penetration decreases.
The effect of softening point of a binder on resistance to permanent deformation of bituminous
pavement mixes has been studied by various researchers. In Hot rolled asphalt it was found that the
rate of rutting in the wheel tracking test at 45C, was halved by increasing softening point by
approximately 5C (Fernando & Guirguis, 1984). Therefore it is expected that by using the PET in
the bituminous mix the rate of rutting will decrease due to the increase in softening point. Hence, the
asphalt will not easily be affected by temperature differences, while the value of stability increases
too. Suroso (2004) also indicates that plastic content of 3%, 3.5% and 4% could improve the quality
of plastic asphalt admixture. Also Pavement with polymer modification exhibits greater resistance to
rutting and thermal cracking, and decreases fatigue damage, stripping and temperature susceptibility
(Robinson, 2004).In Ethiopia context, as far as our investigation on this area, we cannot find any
research regarding on using plastic bottle waste for asphalt construction. But similar studies like,
21 | P a g e
2014
using tire in mix design was conducted by students of Addis Ababa University and the result was
impressive.
Vascudevan et.al, 2006, Suggested use of waste plastic for construction of flexible pavement.
22 | P a g e
2014
Chapter 3
3. Materials for Bituminous Asphalt Mix
Bituminous mix consists of a mixture of aggregates continuously graded from maximum
size,typically less than 25 mm, through the fine filler that is smaller than 0.075mm.
Sufficientbitumen is added to the mix so that the compacted mix is effectively impervious and
willhave acceptable dissipative and elastic properties. The bituminous mix design aims todetermine
the proportion of bitumen, filler, fine aggregates, and coarse aggregates to producea mix which is
workable, strong, durable and economical.
The types of HMA most frequently used in tropical countries are manufactured in anasphalt plant by
hot-mixing appropriate proportions of the following materials;
i.
Coarse Aggregate, defied as materials having particle size larger than 2.36mm;
ii.
Fine aggregate, defined as materials having particle size less than 2.36mm and larger than
0.075mm;
iii.
Fillers, defined as materials having particle size less than 0.075mm, which may originate
from fines in the aggregate or be added in the form of cement, lime or ground rock; and
iv.
Paving grade bitumen with viscosity charactersitics appropriate for the type of HMA, the
climate, and loading conditions where it will be used.
3.1 Constitute of a Mix

3.1.1 Aggregates
Aggregates (or mineral aggregates) are hard, inert materials such as sand, gravel, crushed stone, slag,
or rock dust. Aggregates are the principal load-supporting components of an Asphalt Concrete
pavement. They total constitute 90 to 95 percent of the mixture by weight and 75 to 85 percent by
volume. Because about 95% of the weight of dense-graded HMA is made up of aggregates, HMA
pavement performance is greatly influenced by the characteristics of the aggregates.
23 | P a g e
2014
Classification of aggregates based on preparation

Asphalt Concrete paving aggregates are classified according to source or means of preparation. A
brief description of the classification is presented as follows.
Pit or Bank-Run Aggregates
Both gravel and sand are typically pit or bank-run natural aggregates. They usually are screened to
proper size and washed to remove dirt before being used for Asphalt Concrete paving purposes.
Processed Aggregates
When natural pit or bank-run aggregate has been crushed and screened to make it suitable for
Asphalt Concrete pavements, it is considered a processed aggregate. Crushing typically improves the
particle shape by making the rounded particles more angular. Crushingalso improves the size
distribution and range. Crushed stone is also a processed aggregate. It is created when the fragments
of bedrockand large stones are crushed so that all particlefaces are fractured. Variation in size of
particlesis achieved by screening. Aggregates that havereceived little or no screening are known as
crusher run. These aggregates are generallymore economical than screened aggregates and can be
used in Asphalt Concrete pavements in many instances. In the processing of crushed limestone, the
rock dust produced is separated from the othercrushed aggregate and may be used as crushed sand or
as a mineral filler in Asphalt Concrete pavements.
Synthetic Aggregates
Aggregates produced by altering both physical and chemical properties of a parent material are called
synthetic or artificial aggregates. Some are produced and processed specifically for use as
aggregates; others are the byproduct of manufacturing and a final burning process. Blast furnace slag
is an example of a synthetic aggregate.
Aggregate mineralogy
A majority of natural aggregates are composed of a combination of minerals, among the important
minerals found in aggregates are silica minerals (quartz),feldspars ferromagnesian minerals,
carbonate minerals, and clay minerals; these minerals and associated rocks are described in ASTM
C294.
24 | P a g e
2014
Effect of mineralogy in performance

Scientifically minerals have definite chemical composition and usually specific crystalline structure,
the physical and chemical properties of aggregate can be expected to be associated with mineralogy
of the aggregate. Most aggregate are composed of several minerals ,often with variable composition.
Even with aggregate of uniform mineralogy, the properties may be altered by oxidation, hydration,
leaching ,weathering and foreign coatings. Therefore,mineralogy alone cannot provide a basis for
predicting the behavior of an aggregate in service past performances of similar aggregates under
similar environmental and conditions can be helpful in evaluating aggregates. In addition, mineral
composition of coarse aggregate also affect the skid resistance of HMA. Quartz and feldspar are
harder and more polish resistant minerals which are normally found in igneous rock such as basalt.
On the other hand, calcite and dolomite, which occurs in limestone are soft minerals. Limestone that
have a high percentage of soft materials tend to polish more rapidly than most other aggregate types.
The acid insoluble residue test has been used to measure the amount of harder materials present in
carbonate aggregates. Some agencies use polishing test to evaluate the polishing potential of an
aggregate.
Desirable Properties of Aggregates

Selection of an aggregate material for use in an Asphalt Concrete pavement depends on the
availability, cost, and quality of the material, as well as the type of construction for which it is
intended. To determine if an aggregate material is suitable for use in asphalt construction, evaluate it
in terms of the following properties:
1. Size and grading: The maximum size of an aggregate is the smallest sieve through which 100
percent of the material will pass. How the Asphalt Concrete is to be used determines not only
the maximum aggregate size, but also the desired gradation (distribution of sizes smaller than
the maximum).Aggregate gradation is the distribution of the particle size expressed as the
percent of the total weight. Gradation is determined by sieve analysis, that is by passing the
material through a series of sieve stacked with progressively smaller opening from the top to
bottom, and washing the material retained on each sieve .The gradation as a percent of the
total volume is of most importance, but expressing gradation as a percent by weight is much
easier and is standard practice. The gradation as a percent by the weight is much easier and is
25 | P a g e
2014
standard practice. The gradation by the volume and weight as the same as long as the specific
gravities of the various aggregate being used are approximately equal.
Figure 3-1 Aggregate Gradation
2. Cleanliness:Foreign or deleterious substances make some materials unsuitable for paving

mixtures.Ideally, aggregate should be free of all silt and clay size particles. During HMA
production, the free silt and clay particles are removed by the dust extraction process or are
included as filler. However, any fine material stuck on the aggregate may not be removed and
can prevent the bitumen from completely coating the aggregate. Excess clay can also cause
balling on contact with bitumen.
i.
Sand Equivalent Value
This test is utilized to establish the proportion of detrimental clay-like or plastic fines in fine
aggregate passing the 4.75mm sieve. In the test, oven-dried fine aggregate and a solution of
calcium chloride, glycerin and formaldehyde are mixed and poured into a graduated cylinder.
Agitation loosens the plastic fines from the coarser sand like particles and, after further
26 | P a g e
2014
addition of solution; the plastic fines are forced into suspension. At the end of a prescribed
sedimentation period the heights of sand and clay are measured. The Sand Equivalent Value
is the ratio of the height of the sand to clay, expressed as a percentage.
ii.
Plasticity Index
This is defined as a range of moisture content, expressed as a percentage of the mass of an

Oven dried aggregate sample passing a 425m sieve, within which the material is in a plastic
state. It is the numerical difference between the liquid and plastic limit of the material. The
liquid and plastic limits are difficult to determine for materials of relatively low plasticity and
in such cases a limit of 2 per cent in the linear shrinkage test will be easier to apply or use as a
confirmatory test.
3. Toughness/Hardness/:Toughness or hardness is the ability of the aggregate to resist crushing
or disintegration during mixing, placing, and compacting; or under traffic loading.
It can be measured by four tests that are used to establish the ability of an aggregate to resist
crushing and impact during road construction and subsequent service life. All four tests are
carried out on coarse aggregate particles between 10mm and 14mm only.
i.
Aggregate Crushing Value (ACV)
In this test fixed crushing force of 400 KN is applied to the coarse aggregate sample contained within
a mold. The ACV test result is reported as the amount of fines produced passing the 2.36mm sieve,
expressed as a percentage of the initial sample weight. The test is not suitable for weaker aggregates
and should only be used with aggregates that do not produce a compressed lump in the test could
before the maximum specified load has been applied.
ii.
10% Fines Aggregate Crushing Test (10%FACT)
This test is a development of the ACV test and uses the same apparatus. Samples are crushed under a
range of loads so that the load which produces 10 percent of fines finer than 2.36mm can be
determined. An advantage of the test is that it can be used with all aggregates irrespective of their
strength, thus enabling direct comparisons to be made between strong and weak materials.
An approximate relationship between ACV and 10%FACT is given by the following equation. This
relationship is valid in the strength range of 14 to 30 ACV and 100 to 300kN 10%FACT.
ACV = 38 - (0.08 x 10%FACT)
A 10%FACT value of 160kN is approximately an ACV of 25 using this relationship.
27 | P a g e

iii.
2014
Aggregate Impact Value (AIV)
In this test a coarse aggregate sample is subjected to successive blows from a falling hammer to
simulate resistance to impact loading. After testing, the AIV is the amount of material finer than
2.36mm expressed as a percentage of the initial sample mass. The test was designed to be
supplementary to the ACV test for values up to 26. Softer aggregate should be tested using a
modified procedure to ensure that the generation of excessive fines does not invalidate the result. The
AIV has considerable advantages because the equipment is simple, easily portable and does not
require a large crushing pressure.
iv.
Los Angeles Abrasion (LAA)
In this test an aggregate sample is subjected to attrition and impact by steel balls whilst rotating
within a steel cylindrical drum at a prescribed rate for a set number of revolutions. On completion of
the test, the sample is screened on a 1.70mm sieve. The coarser fraction is washed, oven dried and
weighed. The loss in weight expressed as a percentage of the original sample weight is the Los
Angeles Abrasion Value.
4. Soundness:Although similar to toughness, soundness is the aggregates ability to resist
deterioration caused by natural elements such as the weather.
i.
Soundness - Sodium or Magnesium Test
These two tests, which are identical in procedure, can be carried out on both coarse and fine
aggregate and they estimate the degree of resistance of the aggregate to in-service weathering.
An aggregate sample is exposed to, normally, five cycles of immersion in a saturated solution
of either sodium or magnesium sulphate followed by oven drying. The result calculated from
the ASTM test method is the total percentage loss of material while the British Standard
method reports the percentage material retained during the test. The required properties are
expressed as percentage material lost during the test. Both of these tests are severe and it is
known they can give variable results depending on aggregate characteristics such as shape,
size, porosity and permeability. In reality, the test may measure the number of friable
particles among sound aggregates rather than its general performance. The tests are relatively
time consuming and are normally used where an absolute minimum of aggregate
deterioration is required such as on airfields, motorways and trunk roads. However, they are
28 | P a g e
2014
particularly useful for testing aggregate obtained from rock which is thought to be susceptible
to rapid weathering such as partially degraded basalt.
5. Particle shape:The shapes of aggregate particles influence the asphalt mixture overall
strength and workability as well as the density achieved during compaction. When
compacted, irregular particles such as crushed stone tend to lock together and resist
displacement.
i.
Flakiness Index
It is desirable that coarse aggregates used in bituminous mixtures have a satisfactory shape and that a
large proportion of the material tends to be cubical and not flaky. The Flakiness Index is determined
for material passing a 63mm sieve and retained on a 6.3mm sieve. The index represents the
percentage of the aggregate whose least dimension is less than 0.6 times the mean dimension.
Figure 3-2 Gauging Flaky Aggregates
29 | P a g e
2014
6. Surface texture:Workability and pavement strength are influenced by surface texture. A

rough, sandpapery texture results in a higher strength than a smooth texture. Although
smooth-faced aggregates are easy to coat with an asphalt film, they are generally not as good
as rough surfaces. It is harder for the asphalt to grip the smooth surface.
7. Absorption:The porosity of an aggregate permits the aggregate to absorb asphalt and form a
bond between the particle and the asphalt. A degree of porosity is desired, but aggregates that
are highly absorbent are generally not used.Aggregates with high water absorption usually
indicate low durability and can also cause problems during HMA design. It can be routinely
measured as part of the procedure to determine the relative densities of the various size
fractions of aggregate. It is the difference in mass between saturated surface dry and oven
dried aggregate expressed as a percentage of the oven dried sample mass. Coarse aggregate
having water absorption of 2 per cent or less is considered durable.
8. Stripping:When the asphalt film separates from the aggregate because of the action of water,
it is called stripping. Aggregates coated with too much dust also can causepoor bonding
which results in stripping. Aggregates readily susceptible to stripping action usually are not
suitable for asphalt paving mixes unless an anti-stripping agentis used.
i.
Static Immersion tests
The tests are generally unreliable both in terms of repeatability and reproducibility and are usually
not quoted in any aggregate specifications used for hot mix asphalt. Their Usefulness is more
relevant to surface dressing design. If other suitable apparatus is Unavailable, the AASHTO T182
test may be useful. In this test, coarse aggregate is coated with a known amount of bitumen and then
immersed in distilled water for 48 hours. At the end of this period the degree of stripping is assessed
by visually estimating whether the percentage of bitumen left on the chippings is greater or less than
95 per cent.
ii.
Immersion strength tests
In the immersion strength test (Whiteoak, 1990) the Marshall stability of compacted hot mix asphalt
samples is measured after immersion in water maintained at 60OC for 48 hours and expressed as a
percentage of the stability of samples measured by the standard Marshall method where samples are
immersed in water at 60OC for 35 5 minutes. The samples may first be vacuum treated under
30 | P a g e
2014
waterto ensure complete saturation. A minimum value of 75 per cent should be attained for
satisfactory resistance to damage by moisture.
As discussed previously, it is primarily the physical properties of aggregate that determine the
suitability for use in HMA. Basic physical and mechanical properties such as density, porosity, and
strength and chemical or physicochemical properties such as wetting, adhesion, and stripping are
functions of the composition and structure of the minerals in the aggregate. An understanding of the
mineralogy and identification of minerals can provide information on the potential physical and
chemical properties of an aggregate for a given use, and can help avoid the use of aggregate
containing harmful mineral constituents. The project specification requirements should be selected so
that aggregates having undesirable mineral components are not accepted for use.
3.1.2 Mineral Filler
Mineral filler is defined as that portion of the aggregate passing the 0.075mm sieve. Mineral filler
material - also referred to as mineral dust or rock dust - consists of very fine, inert mineral with the
consistency of flour, which is added to the hot mix asphalt to improve the density and strength of the
mixture.
Figure 3-3 Measuring Mineral Fillers for Preparation of Marshall Sample

31 | P a g e
2014
3.1.3 Bitumen
Asphalt cement and tar are considered bituminous materials. Quite often, these two terms are used
interchangeably due to misconceptions resulting from their similarity in appearance and in some
parallel applications. However, asphalt cement and tar are two distinctly different materials with
different origins and different chemical and physical characteristics. Asphalt cement is a dark brown
to black cementations materials that is either naturally occurring or is produced by petroleum
distillation. Tar, on the other hand, is primarily manufactured from the destructive distillation of
bituminous coal and has a very distinct odor. Asphalt cement is used principally in Ethiopia paving
applications. Tar is hardly ever used in paving because of some undesirable physical characteristics
such as very high temperature susceptibility, significant health hazards such as severe eye and skin
irritation when exposed to its fumes.
Asphalt cement is mans oldest engineering material. Its adhesive and waterproofing properties were
known at the dawn of civilization. It was used by a thriving shipbuilding industry in Sumeria about
6000 B.C. An ancient civilization in the Indus Valley (Northwestern India) used asphalt cement in
the construction of large public baths or tanks about 3000 B.C. The use of naturally occurring
asphalts as a mortar for building and paving blocks, caulking for ships, and numerous waterproofing
application continued in later years in various parts of the world. Commercially available bitumens
can be classified in two broad parts;
1. Natural Asphalts
These were laid down in geologic strata and occur both as relatively soft asphalt materials and also s
a hard, friable, black material in veins of rock formations, or impregnated in various limestones,
sandstone formations, and the like. The relatively soft asphalt material, almost like heavy petroleum,
is typified in the Trinidad Lake deposit on the Island of Trinidad, in Bermudez Lake, Venezuela, and
in the extensive tar sands throughout western Canada.
2. Petroleum Asphalt
These are colloidally dispersed hydrocarbons in crude petroleum and are obtained by refining
petroleum crudes. Following the discovery of the refining process in the early 1900s and the
popularity of automobiles, large quantities of petroleum asphalt were processed by the oil companies.
32 | P a g e
2014
Gradually these refined asphalts become plentiful and of good quality. This forced the native
(natural) asphalt into a position of relative unimportance. Asphalts most commonly used in flexible
pavement construction can be divided into three types:
a) Asphalt Cements
b) Emulsified asphalts and
c) Cutback asphalts
Asphalt Cement
Asphalt cement is obtained by the distillation process from crude petroleum using different refining
techniques. At ambient temperature asphalt cement is a black sticky, semisolid, and a highly viscous
material. It is strong and durable cement with excellent adhesive and waterproofing characteristics. It
is also highly resistance to the action of most acids, alkalis and salts. The largest use of asphalt
cement is in the production of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA), which is primarily used in the construction
of flexible pavements throughout the word. The asphalt cement can readily be liquefied by applying
heat for mixing with mineral aggregates to produce HMA. Being very sticky, it adheres to the
aggregate particles and binds them to form HMA, after cooling to ambient temperature; HMA is a
very strong paving material which can sustain heavy traffic loads such as those experienced on
interstate highways and heavy duty airfields.
In literatures, HMA has numerous synonyms. It has been referred to as asphalt concrete, asphaltic
concrete, asphalt cement concrete, asphalt mix, and bituminous concrete etc.
Several standard grades of asphalt cement, based on consistency, are available commercially. Two
methods based on penetration and viscosity is mostly used to classify asphalt cements into different
grades. The penetration grading of asphalt cement is specified in ASTM D946 and is primarily
controlled by the penetration test. Five standard penetration graded asphalt cements, 40-50, 60-70,
85-100, 120-150, and 200-300, are used for paving grade asphalt. It will suffice to mention here that
penetration test involves measurement of penetration of a standard needle into a sample of asphalt
cement under standard temperature, time, and load. Obviously, the higher the penetration, the softer
the asphalt cements. Therefore, 40-50 is the hardest grade, and 200-300 is the softest grade.
33 | P a g e
2014
The second method of classifying asphalt cement is by viscosity grading, as specified in ASTM
D3381. This grading is based on either the viscosity of the original asphalt cement or on the viscosity
of the asphalt cement after aging in the Thin Film oven (TFO) or Rolling Thin Film Oven (RTFO)
test. Both viscosities are measured at 60oC and reported in poises. The viscosity grades based on
original asphalt cements include AC-2.5, AC-5, AC-10, AC-20, AC-30, and AC-40. The numerical
values indicate viscosity at 60oC in hundreds of poises. The viscosity grades based on the asphalt
residue (AR) from the TFO or RTFO test include AR-1000, AR-2000, AR-4000, AR-8000, and AR16000. The numerical values indicate viscosity at 60oC in poises.
Emulsified Asphalts
Emulsified asphalt also called emulsion is a mixture of asphalt cement, water, and emulsifying agent.
Because the asphalt cement will not dissolve in water, asphalt cement and water exist in separate
phases. Hot asphalt cements and water containing the emulsifying agent (like soap) is passed through
a colloid mill to produce extremely small (less than 5-10 microns) globules or droplets of asphalt
cement which are suspended in water. The emulsifying agent imparts an electric charge to the surface
of the droplets which causes them to repel one another, and thus the globule do not coalesce.
Emulsified asphalts are also categorized as liquid asphalt because, unlike asphalt cements, they are
liquid at ambient temperatures.
Emulsions are made to reduce the asphalt viscosity for lower application temperatures.
Two most commonly used types of emulsified asphalts are specified in ASTM D977 and ASTM
D2397:
i)
Anionic: Electro negatively charged asphalt droplets; and
ii)
Cationic: Electro Positively Charged asphalt droplets.
Cutback Asphalts
Cutback asphalts are liquid asphalts which are manufactured by adding (cutting back) petroleum
solvents (also called cutter stock or diluents) to asphalt cements. They are made to reduce the asphalt
viscosity for lower application temperatures. Application to aggregate or pavement cause the solvent
34 | P a g e
2014
to escape by evaporation, thus leaving the asphalt cement residue on the surface. Based on the
relative rate of evaporation, cutback asphalts are divided into three types:
i)
Rapid Curing (RC): Produced by adding a light diluents of high volatility (generally
gasoline or naphtha) to asphalt cement. These are used primarily for tack coat and surface
treatments.
ii)
Medium Curing (MC): produced by adding a medium diluents of intermediate volatility

(generally kerosene) to asphalt cement. These are generally used for prime coat, stockpile
patching mixtures, and road mixing operations.
iii)
Slow Curing (SC): produced by adding oils of low volatility (generally diesel or other gas
oils) to asphalt cement. They are also called road oils. They are generally used for prime
coat, stockpile patching mixtures, and as dust palliatives.
Desirable Properties of Bitumen

1. Consistancy: Consistency describes the degree of fluidity of asphalt cement at a particular
temperature. Since asphalt cement is thermoplastic material, its consistency varies with
temperature. Therefore it is necessary to measure the consistency of different asphalt cements
at the same temperature and shear loading condition is the comparisons are to be made.
i.
Penetration
This is an empirical test in which a prescribed needle, weighted to 100gms, is allowed to bear on the
surface of the bitumen for 5 seconds. The bitumen is held at a temperature of 25 oC in a water bath.
The depth, in units of 0.1mm, which the needle penetrates, is the penetration measurement. As the
test temperature rises, the bitumen gets softer and the penetration value is higher.
ii.
Softening Point
The purpose of the test is to determine the temperature at which a phase change occurs in the asphalt
cement. A number of specifications for penetration grade bitumens also require the softening point
of the binder. For this test, two samples of bitumen are confined in brass rings, loaded with steel balls
and suspended 25mm above a metal plate in a beaker of water or glycerol. The liquid is then heated
at a prescribed rate. As the bitumen softens, the balls and the bitumen gradually sink towards the
plate. At the moment the bitumen touches the plate the temperature of the water is determined, and
35 | P a g e
2014
this is designated as the ring and ball softening point. In the ASTM version of the test, the liquid bath
is not stirred, as it is in BS method, and consequently the ASTM results are generally 1.5 oC higher
than those recorded with the other methods.
iii.
Ductility
A number of specifications call for the ductility of the bitumen to be measured. The presence or
absence of ductility is usually considered more significant than the actual degree of ductility. Some
bitumens having an exceedingly high degree of ductility is also more temperature-susceptible.
Ductility of bitumen is measured by an extension type of test using a standard size briquette of
bitumen molded under standard conditions and dimensions. It is then brought to a constant
temperature, normally 25oc. One part of the briquette is pulled away from the other at a specified
rate, normally 5 cm per minute, until the thread of bitumen connecting the two parts of the sample
breaks. The elongation in centimeters at which the thread breaks is designated the ductility of the
bitumen.
2. Purity: The Solubility Test is a measure of the purity of bitumen. The portion of the bitumen
that is soluble in carbon disulphide represents the active cementing constituents. Only inert
matters such as salts, free carbon or non-organic contaminants are insoluble. Due to the
hazardous nature of carbon disulphide, trichloroethylene is usually employed in the solubility
tests. Determining solubility is simply a process of dissolving 2g of bitumen in 100ml of
solvent and filtering the solution through a glass fiber filter. The amount of material retained
on the filter is determined by weighing and is expressed as a percentage of the original
sample weight.
3. Safety
i.
Flash and Fire Point by Cleveland Opencup
Normally bitumen is free from water as it leaves the refinery; however, vehicles carrying the bitumen
may have moisture in their tanks. If any water is present it will cause the bitumen to foam when
heated above 100oC. Bitumen foaming is a safety hazard and a number of specifications require the
binder to be free of water and not to foam at 175oC. Bitumen, if heated to a high enough temperature,
will also release fumes that can ignite in the presence of a spark or open flame. The temperature at
which this occurs is called the flashpoint and is normally well above the temperatures used in paving
operations. However, to ensure there is an adequate margin of safety, the flash point of the binder is
often measured and controlled. The flash point is determined by the Cleveland Open Cup method in
36 | P a g e
2014
which the sample of bitumen is heated at a constant rate until a test flame, passed across the cup,
causes the vapors above the surface to ignite. The lowest temperature at which the test flame causes
ignition is taken as the flash point.
3.2 Materials Used in this Study
3.2.1 Aggregate
For preparation of mix aggregate grading as given below in table 3-1 was obtained as per ERA 2012
Flexible Pavement Design Manual Volume I from CRBC - Addis Engineering P.L.C asphalt
batching plant which is located in Addis Ababa, around Hanamariam. Since Asphalt Concrete is the
most common type of mix in Ethiopia, this project focuses on this type of mix and the table given
below is a specification of ERA and Asphalt Institute for AC Wearing Course. Bulk specific gravity
and physical property of the aggregate used are also presented in table 3-2 and 3-3 respectively.
Table 3-1 Aggregate Gradation for AC (ERA 2012 Manual)
Sieve Size (mm) Percentage Passing Sieve (%)

25
100
19
90 - 100
12.5
9.5
56 - 80
4.75
35 - 65
2.36
23 - 49
1.18
0.60
0.30
5 - 19
0.150
0.075
2-8
37 | P a g e
2014
Table 3-2 Specific Gravity and Water Absorption of Aggregates
Water
Specific
Types of Aggregate
Test Method
Absorption
Gravity
Aggregate >4.75mm
ASTM C127; AASHTO T85
2.584
Aggregate between 4.75-0.075mm
ASTM C128; AASHTO T84
2.2
2.547
Aggregate <0.075mm
ASTM D854; AASHTO T100
2.8
2.671
Mineral Filler (Lime)
ASTM D854; AASHTO T100
2.714
Test
Specification
Table 3-3 Physical Properties of Aggregate Used in this Investigation

Property
Test Method
Result
Flakiness Index (FI)
BS 812, Part 105
14 %
< 35%
BS 812, Part 3
10 %
< 25%
10% Fines Aggregate Crushing Test (10%
BS 812, Part 3
354 KN
> 160 KN
Aggregate Impact Value (AIV)
BS 812, Part 3
7%
< 25%
Los Angeles Abrasion (LAA)
ASTM C131 &
13 %
< 30%
81.6%
> 40%
FACT)(Dry)
C535
Sand Equivalence
AASHTO T176 86
3.2.2 Bitumen
80/100 Penetration grade bitumen which is obtained from CRBC - Addis Engineering P.L.C Asphalt
batching Plant has been used as a binder throughout this research. Selection of asphalt grade depends
on the type of climate and Asphalt Institute (MS-2) gives a table that shows temperature and bitumen
grade.
38 | P a g e
2014
Table 3-4 Selection Criteria for Asphalt Grades (Asphalt Institute)
Temperature Condition
Asphalt Grades
Cold, Mean Annual Air Temperature 120/150 Pen, AC-5, AR-2000
85/100 Pen, AC-10, AR-4000
7OC
Warm, Mean annual air temperature
O
85/100 Pen, AC-10, AR-4000
60/70 Pen, AC-10, AR-4000
60/70 Pen, AC-20, AR-8000
40/50 Pen, AC-40, AR-16000
between 7 C and 24 C
Hot, mean annual air temperature
24OC
Table 3-5 Property of Bitumen Used in this Investigations
Property
Test Method
Test Result
Specification
Penetration at 25OC (0.1mm)
ASTM D5
92
80 - 100
Softening Point, OC
ASTM D36
46
42 - 51
Flash Point, OC
ASTM D92
318
219
Fire Point, OC
ASTM D92
360
Ductility, cm
Solubility in
ASTM D2042
100+
100 cm
99.4%
99%
trichloroethylene, %
3.2.3 Mineral Filler

For this specific research, lime is used as mineral filler.
3.2.4 Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET)
PET is the third largest polymer product after the Polyethylene and Polypropylene. Its characteristics
are clear, tough, resistant to solvents and chemicals; density: 1.4 g/cm3: Modulus of Elasticity (E):
2800-3100 MPa; tensile strength 55-75 MPa, and melting point of 260OC. For this typical project all
the shredded PET was obtained from a local company which is located in Addis Ababa.
39 | P a g e
2014
Figure 3-4 Shredded PET

Polyethylene Terephthalate is a thermoplastic polymer resin of the polyester family and is used in
synthetic fibers; beverage, food and other liquid containers. The majority of the world's PET
production is for synthetic fibers (in excess of 60%), with bottle production accounting for around
30% of global demand. In the context of textile applications, PET is referred to by its common name,
"Polyester", whereas the acronym "PET" is generally used in relation to packaging.
Figure 3-5 Chemical Composition of PET
Polyester makes up about 18% of world polymer production and is the third-most produced polymer;
Polyethylene (PE) and Polypropylene (PP) are first and second, respectively.
40 | P a g e
2014
Figure 3-6 PET Recycling Symbol

PET Consists of polymerized units of the monomer Ethylene Terephthalate, with repeating C10H8O4
units. PET is commonly recycled, and has the number "1" as its recycling symbol.
41 | P a g e
2014
Chapter 4
4. Experimental Works
4.1 General
This section mainly involves in two processes; i.e.
1. Preparation of Marshall Samples
2. Test on the samples
Prior to the experimental works, aggregate tests like; Specific gravity, water absorption, gradation,
Aggregate Crushing Value (ACV), Aggregate Impact Value (AIV), Sodium Sulphate Soundness, Los
Angeles Abrasion (LAA), Coating and Striping, Flakiness Index, Sand equivalence, and 10% Fine
Value were obtained. Also Bitumen tests; Penetration, Softening Point, Ductility, Flash & Fire Point,
and Solubility in Trichloroethylene was obtained according to ERA 2012 Manual Specifications.
4.2 Preparation of Marshall Samples

The Marshall samples were prepared according to ERA 2012, Asphalt Institute, and ASTM D1559
specifications. Mixes consisting of 0%, 0.3%, 0.6%, 0.9%, 1.2%, and 1.5% PET by weight of total
aggregate and different bitumen contents; 4%, 4.5%, 5%, 5.5%, 6%, and 6.5% by weight of total
aggregate has been used for this investigation. These additives can be used in two ways: wet or dry
processes. In wet process the additives will be added in asphalt, modified asphalt, before mixing with
aggregate particles, the hot asphalt and the plastic will be stirred at high speed until homogeneous.
This method requires substantial additional funds including fuel, and asphalt mixer at high speed;
however, in a different procedure, the dry process will be considered by adding the additive directly
into the aggregate rather than asphalt, this method offers easier way to insert the plastic into the hot
aggregate, without requiring any other equipment of mixture. In this case, using waste materials as
additives in dry process would be a better solution in order to prevent additional costs. Hence, this
paper completes its investigation using only dry process.
According to ERA 2012 manual and other specifications a minimum of three trial specimens of
Marshall should be prepared for same asphalt contents, in this investigation over 114 Marshall
samples were prepared and tested. In these process, PET size < 1.18mm sieve size were effective;
42 | P a g e
2014
other sizes 4.75mm - 0.075 mm, 4.75 2.36, and 2.36mm - 1.18mm were also used; But their effect
is very low, and in some cases they even decreases the Marshall stability, this is due to high melting
point of PET. Due to this trial and error procedure to find the right size of PET and mixing process
which could be employed in to the mix, additional 82 Marshall Samples were investigated. After a
lot of observations, and considerations the following process were used in all 114 Marshall Samples
prepared to determine the Optimum Asphalt & PET content. The overall process is;
The aggregate which are obtained from the batch plat was thoroughly washed and dried at
110 OC for a minimum of 12hrs.
Figure 4-1 Washing Aggregate with 0.075mm Sieve

After taking out the aggregate from the oven and allow them to cool the materials are sieved
with serious of sieves compiling with ERA 2012 Pavement Design Manual. And transferred
in to plastic bags and marked.
43 | P a g e
2014
Figure 4-2 Different Aggregate Sizes, sieved and marked

Required quantity of Coarse aggregate, Fine Aggregate, and mineral filler in this case 1150g
were taken in to an iron pan and kept in an oven at a temperature of 165OC (only the Coarse
& Fine Aggregates) for a minimum of2hours.
Figure 4-3 Measured aggregate for

Marshall Sample Preparation
44 | P a g e
2014
The iron pan containing the mineral filler is kept in different oven at a temperature of 70OC in
order to avoid over burning. Preheating is required because the aggregates, PET, and bitumen
are to be mixed in heated state, and to remove moisture in the aggregate completely.
The heated aggregate is then transferred in to asphalt mixing machine and the required
amount of shredded PET was weighed and applied in to the aggregate. Mixing time is
between 120 sec - 180 sec.
After the aggregate and PET has been thoroughly mixed in a dry process, the required amount
of bitumen is applied to the mixture and mixed for 120 seconds. While mixing the
temperature should be in a range of 160OC - 165OC.
Figure 4-4 Measured Aggregate and Bitumen in Mixing Machine

Then the mix was transferred in to a casting mold, 75 blows were given each side of the
sample. Then each sample were marked and kept separately, and allowed to cool overnight so
that no deformation will result when removed from the mold by extrusion jack.
45 | P a g e
2014
4.3 Tests on Samples

In this method, the resistance of plastic deformation of a compacted cylindrical specimen, 102mm
diameter X 63.5mm height, of bituminous mixture is measured when the specimen is loaded
diametrically at a deformation rate of 51mm/min. There are three major properties to be determined
at this stage
a) Thickness & Bulk specific gravity
b) Stability and Flow Test
c) Volumetric Analysis
4.3.1 Thickness and Bulk Specific Gravity
Thickness of the Marshall specimen is measured in millimeters by using a Caliper. Usually the
thickness of the specimen is expected to be 63.5 1.27mm, hence determining the thickness is useful
to determine the correction factor for the stability.
Figure 4-5 Measuring thickness of Marshall Samples using Caliper
46 | P a g e
2014
The specific gravity of each specimen is also determined by the procedure given in ASTM D2726
,Bulk Specific Gravity of compacted Bituminous Mixtures Using Saturated Surface-Dry
Specimens, determining Specific Gravity is very useful in volumetric analysis especially Air Void.
Figure 4-6 BSG Computation

In this process, the weight of each specimen in air, in water, and saturated surface dry is measured
with a balance reading 0.10mm. The samples are soaked in water for 3 - 5 minutes in order to make
them fully saturated. The computation of bulk density can be computed from the relation;
47 | P a g e
2014
4.3.2 Stability and Flow Test

After the bulk specific gravity of the test specimens have been determined, the stability and flow
tests are performed: the procedure is as follow
Figure 4-7 Marshall Stability and Flow Test in Progress

Immerse the specimen in water bath at 60OC 1OC for 35 5minutes before test.
With testing apparatus ready, remove test specimen from water bath and carefully dry
surface. Place specimen in lower testing head and center; then fit upper testing head into
position assembly in loading device and place flow meter over marked guide rod.
Apply testing load to specimen at constant rate of deformation, 51mm per minute, until
failure occurs. The point of failure is defined by the maximum load reading obtained. The
total number of Newton's required to produce failure of the specimen shall be recorded as its
Marshall Stability Value.
48 | P a g e
2014
While the stability test is in progress, the flow meter will also record the flow value for the
specimen expressed in units of 0.1mm.
The entire procedure for both the stability and flow measurements, starting with the removal
of the specimen from the water bath, shall be completed within a period of thirty seconds.
Table 4-1 ERA 2012 Manual Specification for Marshall Test
Heavy (1-5)*106 ESA Medium (0.4 - 1)* 106 ESA
Number of Blows (Each Face)
75
50
Min. Stability (N)
8000N
5300N
Flow (mm)
2-3.5
2-4
VFB (%)
65-75
65-78
VIM (%)
4.3.3 Density and Void Analysis

Bulk Specific Gravity of Total Aggregate
After the completion of the stability and flow test, a density and voids analysis is made for each
series of tests specimens. It is the individual components that are important for satisfactory mix
design, the Bulk Specific Gravity of each type of material must be measured so that volumes can be
computed from the weights when necessary.
Bulk Specific Gravity of the individual coarse aggregate fractions, the fine aggregate and mineral
filler fractions are used to calculate the Bulk Specific Gravity (Gsb) of the total aggregate using the
following formula;
Where, Gsb= Bulk Specific Gravity for the Total Aggregate

P1, P2... Pn= Individual Percentages by Weight of Aggregates
G1, G2...Gn= Individual Bulk Specific Gravities of Aggregates
49 | P a g e
2014
Determination of the BSGs of the aggregates is based on the oven dried weight.
For this specific project the Bulk specific gravity of individual aggregates has been determined and
the result is as given below
Table 4-2 Computed Bulk Specific Gravity and aggregate Percentage Used
Sieve Size (mm)
Percentage Retained by Total Weight
Bulk Specific Gravity
of aggregate (%)
(Oven Dried)
19
2.586
9.5
27
2.586
4.75
18
2.582
2.36
14
2.536
0.3
24
2.536
0.075
2.536
Stone Dust
2.671
Mineral Filler (Lime)
2.714
Total
100
Gsb = 2.568
Specific Gravity of Bitumen (Gb)

Specific Gravity of Bitumen is found using a Pycnometer according to ASTM D70. The sample is
placed in a calibrated pycnometer. The pycnometer and sample are weighed, and then the remaining
volume is filled with water. The filled pycnometer is brought to the test temperature, and weighed.
The density of the sample is calculated from its mass and the mass of water displaced by the sample
in the filled pycnometer. For this specific investigation the Specific Gravity of the Bitumen used
(80/100 Pen.) is found to be 1.012 g/cm3.
Maximum Theoretical Density (MTD)
The maximum, air less, theoretical density of the mix is conducted according to ASTM D2041 or
AASHTO T209-94 designations. A weighed sample of paving mixture in the loose condition is
placed in a vacuum vessel. Sufficient water at a temperature of 25C is added to completely
submerge the sample.
50 | P a g e
2014
Figure 4-8 MTD Test on Progress

Vacuum is gradually applied to reduce the residual pressure in the vacuum vessel to 4 KPa (30 mm
of Hg) or less and then held for 15 2 min, and shake the container for 2 minutes. At the end of the
vacuum and shaking period, the vacuum is gradually released. The volume of the sample of paving
mixture is obtained by immersing the vacuum container with the sample in a water bath and
weighing or by filling the vacuum container level full of water and weighing in air. Both the
temperature and mass are measured at this time. From these mass and volume measurements, the
specific gravity or density at 25C is calculated. The total mass of mixture for one test according to
AASHTO is 2.5 Kg for nominal maximum size of 25mm.
51 | P a g e
2014
After computing all volumetric parameters the test results are plotted and smooth (best fit) curves are
drawn. The graphs plotted are:a) Stability Versus Bitumen Content
b) Flow Versus Bitumen Content
c) Bulk Specific Gravity of Mix Versus Bitumen Content
d) VIM Versus Bitumen Content
e) VFA Versus Bitumen Content
f) VMA Versus Bitumen Content
4.4 Retained Stability or Immersion Strength Test

Retained Stability is the measure of moisture induced striping in the mix and subsequent loss of
stability due to weakened bond between aggregates and binder. Simply, it is an indirect measure of
bitumen affinity of aggregates. The test was conducted on Marshall Apparatus , two stability were
determined after placing one sample in water bath at 60OC 1OC for 30 minutes and the other on the
same temperature but for 48hrs. Therefore the retained stability is calculated as;
52 | P a g e
2014
Chapter 5
5. Results and Discussions
5.1 Introduction
The following results are based on a laboratory evaluation done in CRBC - Addis Engineering P.L.C
located in Addis Ababa, Kality Akakai Sub-City. In which the aggregate gradation kept constant and
different asphalt and PET contents. The weight of the aggregate used to create each specimen was
1150g to which a calculated amount of 80/100 Penetration Grade bitumen and PET both by weight of
total aggregate was added for each specimen. For each of these variations three specimens were
prepared and tested. The Final result of the tests conducted on bituminous asphalt mixture with and
without PET is presented in the table below.
Table 5-1 Marshall Test Results
0% PET (Conventional Mix, Without PET)

Bitumen Content (By Weight of
Aggregate)
Bulk Specific Gravity VIM VMA VFA Stability Flow
4.00%
4.50%
5.00%
5.50%
6.00%
6.50%
2.254
2.262
2.266
2.293
2.282
2.276
6.2
5.5
4.8
4.1
3.6
3.2
15.6
15.7
16.2
15.4
16.2
16.8
60.1
65.0
70.3
73.5
78.0
81.2
7.57
8.10
9.67
9.95
9.12
9.18
2.06
1.91
2.22
2.21
2.63
2.40
0.3% PET (By Weight of Aggregate)

Aggregate)
4.00%
4.50%
5.00%
5.50%
6.00%
6.50%
2.256
2.265
2.284
2.287
2.277
2.250
6.2
5.5
4.9
4.2
3.7
3.4
15.8
15.8
15.6
15.9
16.6
18.0
61.0
65.4
68.5
73.3
77.4
81.1
8.53
9.97
11.68
11.46
10.73
10.24
2.31
2.39
2.57
2.96
3.41
3.06
53 | P a g e
2014

Aggregate)
4.00%
2.258
6.5
15.9
58.9
10.30
2.40
4.50%
2.267
5.6
16.0
65.0
11.67
2.50
5.00%
2.287
5.1
15.7
67.5
12.09
2.94
5.50%
2.287
4.3
16.0
73.1
11.55
3.52
6.00%
2.275
3.8
16.9
77.5
10.89
3.91
6.50%
2.262
3.4
17.7
80.8
10.93
3.12

Aggregate)
4.00%
2.247
6.8
16.6
59.1
12.54
2.92
4.50%
2.265
5.5
16.3
66.2
13.28
3.01
5.00%
2.278
4.7
16.3
71.2
13.41
3.19
5.50%
2.259
3.8
17.3
78.3
13.24
3.19
6.00%
2.245
4.0
18.3
78.3
12.26
3.26
6.50%
2.234
3.4
19.0
82.1
11.45
3.22

Aggregate)
4.00%

2.239
7.2
17.1
57.8
10.98
3.17
4.50%
2.253
6.6
17.0
61.4
10.90
3.26
5.00%
2.268
5.2
16.8
69.2
12.47
3.29
5.50%
2.245
4.2
18.1
76.9
11.57
3.29
6.00%
2.242
3.9
18.5
79.2
11.42
3.36
6.50%
2.232
3.8
19.3
80.5
10.13
3.42
54 | P a g e
2014

Aggregate)
4.00%
2.249
7.6
17.0
55.4
10.16
3.56
4.50%
2.248
7.0
17.5
60.2
10.25
3.47
5.00%
2.261
5.7
17.3
67.0
11.36
3.59
5.50%
2.251
4.8
18.0
73.5
10.98
3.62
6.00%
2.236
4.0
19.0
79.0
10.82
3.75
6.50%
2.229
3.6
19.6
81.7
10.40
3.81
5.2 Bulk Specific Gravity (BSG)
BSG Vs Bitumen Content

2.3
Bulk Specific Gravity
2.29
2.28
0% PET
2.27
0.3% PET
2.26
0.6% PET
2.25
0.9% PET
2.24
1.2% PET
2.23
2.22
3.50%
1.5% PET
4.00%
4.50%
5.00%
5.50%
6.00%
6.50%
7.00%
Biumen Content
Figure 5-1 BSG vs. Bitumen Content
55 | P a g e
2014
From the trend of Fig.5-1 it is observed that the Bulk Specific Gravity of the compacted specimen
slightly increased for PET content 0.3% and 0.6%. But the value of BSG decreased for PET content
of 0.9%, 1.2%, and 1.5% from the conventional mix value. In ERA 2012 Pavement Design Manual,
there is no specified minimum or maximum value of specific gravity, but the value of the specific
gravity is controlled by keeping the value of VIM between 3 - 5% as specified in ERA 2012
Pavement Design Manual. This is due to, the presence of non-molten PET even after mixing the
aggregate and the PET for at least two minutes. Hence, this PET's will result in a decrease of the
density as the weight of the PET is smaller than that of bitumen and at the same time results in the
increment of the VIM. The Value of BSG for the conventional mix is 2.281 and for the PET content
of 1.5% the BSG reduced to 2.247; and the percentage reduction is 1.49%.
5.3 Marshall Stability

It has been mentioned that the first aim of this research is to increase the engineering properties of
bituminous asphalt mix and also decrease the cost of construction. From fig. below, it is shown that
the stability value has drastically increase when the content of PET increased up to some level, but
passing that level the stability decrease. ERA 2012 Pavement Design Manual gives a minimum value
of 8000N for (1 - 5) * 106 ESA.
Stability Vs Bitumen Content

14
13
0% PET
Stability
12
0.3% PET
11
10
0.6% PET
0.9% PET
1.2% PET
7
6
3.50%
1.5% PET
4.50%
5.50%
6.50%
Bitumen Content
Figure 5-2 Stability vs. Bitumen Content
56 | P a g e
2014
It is also possible to observe that not only the increment of the stability but also the max value of
each PET content shift toward left. This implies that the OBC will be decreased as the content of
PET increases; this will decrease the amount of bitumen required.
Table 5-2 OBC and Other Results
OBC
VIM
5.74
5.52
5.49
5.26
5.41
5.44
4.0
4.3
4.5
4.7
4.9
5.1
BSG
Marshall Stability
2.281
2.280
2.286
2.268
2.254
2.247
VMA (at 4% VIM)
9.34
11.19
11.76
13.30
11.87
11.07
16.2
16.7
16.8
17.9
18.5
18.9
VFA
75.4
73.3
72.5
72.6
72.4
71.5
Flow
2.34
2.89
3.18
3.13
3.31
3.66
OBC Vs PET Content

5.80
5.70
y = 3851.2x2 - 77.235x + 5.7355
OBC
5.60
5.50
5.40
5.30
5.20
0.00%
0.20%
0.40%
0.60%
0.80%
1.00%
1.20%
1.40%
1.60%
PET (%ge By Weight of Aggregate)

Figure 5-3 OBC vs. PET Content
57 | P a g e
2014
The Marshall Stability value with 0.9% PET was found to be 13.30KN, which is higher than the
conventional value of 9.34KN and the percentage increase in stability value has been found to be
29.77%. On the other hand, the OBC decreased up to some point and starts to go up again, it is found
that the OBC of the conventional mix is 5.74% by weight of aggregate and the OBC of 0.9% PET is
found to be 5.26% both by weight of aggregate. The Percentage reduction in bitumen content is
found to be 8.36%.
The increase in stability is due to the ability of the PET to modify the strength of the aggregate by
coating around and forming a thing film, and also by increasing the bonding between bitumen and
aggregate. This process can be explained scientifically as follow, Waste Polymers or PET is
hydrocarbon with long chains. The bitumen is a complex mixture which is also long chain
hydrocarbons. When bitumen is mixed with plastic coated aggregate a portion of bitumen diffuse
through the plastic layer and binds with aggregate. The plastic layer has already bonded strongly with
the aggregate. During this process three dimensional internal cross linked network structure results
between polymer molecules and bitumen constituters. Therefore the bond becomes stronger and the
removal of bonded bitumen becomes difficult.
Where
Figure 5-4 Plastic Aggregate Bitumen Interaction Model for the Plastic
Waste Coated Aggregate, and Bitumen Mix
A, is Area of Plastic Bonded with aggregate (PET Coating)

B, is area of bitumen- Plastic blend (due to diffusion between molten PET and hot bitumen)
C, is area of loosely bonded bitumen with dispersed PET
D, is area of plain bitumen layer
58 | P a g e
2014
5.4 Void in the Mix (VIM)
VIM Vs Bitumne Content
0% PET
VIM
0.3% PET
0.6% PET
0.9% PET
4
1.2% PET
1.5% PET
3
2
3.50%
4.50%
5.50%
6.50%
Bitumen Content
Figure 5-5 VIM vs. Bitumen Content
From the relation between VIM, Bitumen, and PET content it is observed that as the bitumen content
increase the VIM decreases and on the other hand increases in PET content has increased the VIM.
The increament in VIM is a result of density reduction, and should be controlled in both in the mix
design stage and construction stage.ERA 2012 Pavement Design Manual gives a value of 3 - 5 % Air
Void (VIM) for (1 - 5) * 106 ESA.
5.5 Flow Value

Flow is the total deformation in mm, when the Marshall samples reach the maximum stability. It is
observed from the graph that with the increase in binder content flow value increases and by addition
of PET the flow value increase than the conventional mixes.ERA 2012 Pavement Design Manual
gives a value of 2 - 3.5 mm for (1 - 5) * 106 ESA.
59 | P a g e
2014
Flow Vs Bitumen
Content
4.5
0% PET
Flow
3.5
0.3% PET
0.6% PET
0.9% PET
2.5
1.2% PET
2
1.5% PET
1.5
3.50%
4.00%
4.50%
5.00%
5.50%
6.00%
6.50%
7.00%
Bitumen Content
Figure 5-6 Flow vs. Bitumen Content
5.6 Void in the Mineral Aggregate (VMA)

Void in the Mineral aggregate is a space or void in the aggregate that is to be filled with bitumen.
From the laboratory result the VMA is calculated from the relation stated earlier and plotted against
bitumen and PET content. ERA 2012 Pavement Design Manual gives a minimum value of 12% at
4% VIM for nominal maximum size of aggregate 25mm.
60 | P a g e
2014
VMA Vs Bitumen Content

20
19
0% PET
VMA
18
0.3% PET
17
0.6% PET
0.9% PET
16
1.2% PET
15
1.5% PET
14
3.50%
4.00%
4.50%
5.00%
5.50%
6.00%
6.50%
7.00%
Bitumen Content
Figure 5-7 VMA vs. Bitumen Content
5.7 Void Filled with Asphalt (VFA)

Void filled with asphalt (VFA) is the percentage of the void (VIM) which is actually filled with
bitumen. The following fig. describes the relation between the VFA, Bitumen, and PET content.ERA
2012 Pavement Design Manual gives a value of 65 - 75% for (1 - 5) * 106 ESA.
61 | P a g e
2014
VFA Vs Bitumen Content

90
85
0% PET
80
0.3% PET
VFA
75
0.6% PET
70
0.9% PET
65
1.2% PET
60
1.5% PET
55
50
3.50%
4.00%
4.50%
5.00%
5.50%
6.00%
6.50%
7.00%
Bitumen Content
Figure 5-8 VFA vs. Bitumen Content
5.8 Immersion Strength Test

. In the immersion strength test (Whiteoak, 1990) the Marshall stability of compacted hot mix asphalt
samples is measured after immersion in water maintained at 60OC for 48 hours and expressed as a
percentage of the stability of samples measured by the standard Marshall method where samples are
immersed in water at 60OC for 35 5 minutes.
Afer the OBC of the mix has been found by the method of Asphalt Institute, six Marshall samples
were prepared with 0% PET with OBC of 5.74% by both weight of total aggregate, and 0.9% PET
with OBC of 5.26% by both by weight of aggregate were prepared. And the Marshall retained value
has been determined.
It has been observed that, the Retianed Stability of the sample with PET is much greater than that of
the conventional sample. This implies that the bond between the aggregate and the bitumen has
62 | P a g e
2014
improven due to presence of PET. The Value of the retained stability for the conventional mix (with
out PET) is found to be 77.9% and the retained stability for 0.9% PET content is 90.5%. And the
perecentage increament in retained stability as compared to the conventional mix is 13.92%.
Table 5-3 Retained Marshall Stability
PET, % OBC, %
0.00
5.74
Conventional
Marshall Stability
Marshall Stability
after 48hr Soaking
Retained
Stability
9.51
7.41
77.9
Specification
75%
0.90
5.26
13.02
11.78
90.5
63 | P a g e
2014
Chapter 6
6. Conclusion
Overall, the effect of PET on the properties of the Marshall specimen were impressive. For the
Density - Voids analysis the PET did not cause the values to exceed the suggested range of values in
standards. In this study, a total of 114 Marshall samples were prepared and tested. The samples were
prepared from a combination of aggregate, mineral filler, bitumen, and PET; the aggregate and the
mineral fillera are graded accoding to ERA 2012 Flexible Pavement Design Manual, where as PET<
1.18 mm sieve size were considered. Due to a trial and error procedure to find the right size and
mixing proces, additional 82 Marshall Samples were investigated. The effecct of waste plastic bottles
in bitumunious asphalt mix has been studied by varying the concentration of asphalt by 0.5%
increment and by varying the concentraion of PET by 0.3%. Based on this study, the following
findings were made:
The Marshall Stability Value for the conventional mix (with out PET) is found to be 9.34KN
and the Value for 0.9% PET is 13.30KN, and the increament in Marshall Stability is
29.77%.The increase in stability is due to the ability of the PET to modify the strength of the
aggregate by coating around and forming a thing film, and also by increasing the bonding
strength between bitumen and aggregate due the diffusion between molten PET and bitumen.
From the Laboratory investigations the Optimum PET conten is found to be 0.9% by weight
of Total aggregate.
The OBC of the conventional mix is 5.74% by weight of aggregate and the OBC of 0.9%
PET is found to be 5.26% both by weight of aggregate. The Percentage reduction in bitumen
content is found to be 8.36%.
The total amount of PET to be utilized is about 2.07 tone/lane/km with 5cm thickness.
After the rough cost analysis, the percentage reduction in cost by utilizing the waste plastic
has been found to be 8.52% compared to the conventional mix with out PET.
The Flow value of Marshall specimens with PET has shown a slight increament, but with in
the limit of 2 - 3.5%.
64 | P a g e
2014
The Retained Stability also show an increament, this increament indicate that the presence of
PET in the HMA has improved the bonding energy between the aggreget and the asphalt
cement. Hence, PET is usefull in decreasing the water suspetability of the bitumnious mixute.
The Value of Bulk Specific Gravity of the Marshall Specimens decreases as the percentage of
PET increases. The value of BSG for 0% & 1.5% Pet is 2.281% & 2.247 respectively; the
perecentage reduction is found to be 1.49% PET.
VIM is the total perecentage of void in the mix; according to the investigation made the VIM
increase as the amount of PET increases. This is the effect of the reduction in BSG as the
amount of PET increase.Evenif the value of the VIM increased with respect to increament in
PET it is within the limit of 2 - 5 %.
The value of VMA at 4% VIM, was calculated for each PET contents and it is observed that
the VMA increased as the Percentage of PET increased. The increament of VMA is due to
the presence PET which are not molten even after the dry process for a minimum of 120
seconds.
The Value of VFA has shown a reduction as the perecentage of PET increased. This is due to
the increament of VMA as the perecentage of PET increased.
From all the above observations it is concluded that the use of waste plastic bottles in bitumunious
asphalt mix has improved the over all engineering properties of bitumunious mixes. Thus, this
investigation expores not only the utilization of plasitc bottles which area poluting the coutntry, but
also provides an opportuity to improve pavement material in surface courses thus makingn it more
durable.
65 | P a g e
2014
Chapter 7
7. Recommendation
One reason that these preliminary results are impressive is that it should be possible to improve them
significantly through further research. By performing an extensive Marshall Mix design, the OBC for
each PET amount could be determined. In addition the aggregate gradation, aggregate type, and size
and state of the PET could be altered so that the positive effects of the PET on the internal friction of
the mixture could be optimized. Another important variation possible in the design of PET with
asphalt pavement is the way or process of adding the PET to the mix. The point at which the PET is
added to the mixture and mixing temperature could significantly change the properties of the HMA.
This concept should be combined with lab and field research done on the PET modified asphalt
mixtures. Also Intensive studies are required to improve the PET addition process; the advantages
and disadvantages of adding PET to either the aggregate (dry process) or the asphalt cement (wet
process) on a large scale must be determined. Most of the successful work in this area involves a
separate feed to input the PET simultaneously with the aggregate. Experimentally, this is best
represented by the dry process which is used in this study. The benefits, if any, of the wet process
should be determined so that the results may be compared.
In this specific investigation properties of HMA were only investigated using Marshall Specimens,
but in addition to this it would be necessary to study a wider range of properties; including fatigue
life, rutting, performance in different temperatures, and stiffness. Hence we recommend further and
deep investigation on this area.
66 | P a g e
2014
Chapter 8
8. Reference
ERA 2012 Pavement Design manual-volume 1, Flexible Pavements
Asphalt Institute, Mix Design for Asphalt Concrete and Other Hot-Mix , Manual Series No.2
(MS-2), Asphalt Institute
Tanzania Laboratory Testing Manual 2000, the United Republic of Tanzania Ministry of
Works.
Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Method of Sampling and Testing,
AASHTO
ASTM Specifications and Laboratory Manual
British Standard
Freddy L. Roberts, Hot Mix Asphalt Materials, Mixture Design, and Construction, National
Asphalt Pavement Association Research and Education Foundation
Tessema
T.2010,"Overview
Of
Addis
Ababa
City
Solid
Waste
Management
System"http://www.google.com.et/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=11&ved=0
CFEQFjAK&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.un.org. Retrieved on March 7, 2014.
Camilla Louise Bjerkli.2005." The cycle of plastic waste: An analysis on the informal plastic
recovery system in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia". Norwegian university of Science and
Technology.
Robin L Schroeder, "The use of recycled material in highway construction, U.S Department
of Transportation Federal Highway Administration 1994.Vol. 58.
67 | P a g e
2014
Lilies Widojoko, P. Eliza Purnamasari. August 2012, " Study the Use of Cement and Plastic
bottle Waste as Ingredient Added to the Asphaltic Concrete Wearing Course", 8th
International Conference on Traffic and Transportation Studies Changsha, China.
Zahra Kalantar, AbdelazizMahrez, Mohamed Rehan Karim.2012," Properties of Bituminous
Binder Modified With Waste Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET)".
R. Vasudevan, S. K. Nigam, R. Velkennedy, A. Ramalinga Chandra Sekar and B.
Sundarakannan, "Utilization of Waste Polymers for Flexible Pavement and Easy Disposal of
Waste Polymers,Proceedings of the International Conference on Sustainable Solid Waste
Management", 5-7, Chennai,India, September (2007) pp. 105-111.
S.Rajeskaran, Dr.R.Vasudervan,Dr.SamuvelPaulraj. Reuse of Waste Plastics Coated
Aggregate-Bitumen Mix Composite for Road Application-Green Method, American
Journalof Engineering Research. E-ISSN: 2320-0847 P-ISSN, 2320-0936 Volume-02, Issue11, PP-01-13. www.ajet.org
Shiva Prasad K, Manjunath K.R.K.PR Prasad, study on Marshall Stability Properties of BC
Mix Used In road Construction by Adding Waste Plastic Bottles.
Assist.Prof.Dr.HamedM.Jassim,Assist.Lect.Omar.t.Mahmood,Assist.Lect.Sheelan.A.Ahmed.
Optimum use of Plastic Waste to enhance the Marshall Properties and Moisture Resistance
of Hot Mix Asphalt.
68 | P a g e
2014
Chapter 9
9. Appendices
APPENDIX A. Aggregate Quality Test Raw Data
RESISTANCE TO ABRASION OF SMALL SIZE COARSE AGGREGATE
BY USE OF THE LOS ANGELES MACHINE
TEST METHOD : AASHTO T 96-94
Location:
Source:
Material type:
Lab.Ref.No :
CRBC Asphalt Batching
Plant
Request. No:
Crushed Agg.
Date sample:
Sample from:
MATERIAL
DESCRIPTION :
SIEVE SIZES
Belt
Date test:
Crushed Stone
1 1/2 - 1"
1 - 3/4 "
GRADE
NUMBER OF BALLS
WT. OF INDICATED SIZE
06-03-2014
1250 +
25
3/4 - 1/2 "
1/2 - 3/8 "
1/4'' No.4
3/8 - 1/4 "
No.4-No.8
12 BALLS
8 BALLS
6 BALLS
1250 +
25
1250 +
10
1250 +
10
2500 +
10
2500 +
10
5000 +
10
WT.OF TESTED SAMPLE

GRADE
NUMBER OF BALLS
12 BALLS
2500 +
10
WT. OF INDICATED SIZE
2500 +
10
WT.OF TESTED SAMPLE

TEST RESULTS
TRIAL
NUMBER OF REVOLUTION
TOTAL WT. OF SAMPLE TESTED,
(g)
500
500
5000
5000
Average
69 | P a g e

WT. OF TESTED SAMPLE RETAINED ON No. 12 SIEVE
(g)
PERCENT LOSS
(%)
4365
4361
13
13
2014
13
SAND EQUIVALENT VALUE

TEST METHOD : AASHTO T 176-86
Location:
Source:
CRBC Asphalt Batching Plant
Material type:
Crushed sand
Sample from:
Belt
REF. NO.:
DATE SAMPLED:
DATE TESTED:
04-03-2014
TEST No.
A.
SAND READING, mm
95
96
B.
CLAY READING, mm
117
117
81.2
82.1
SAND EQUIVALENT =
A x 100 %
B
AVERAGE SAND EQUIVALENT, %
81.6
70 | P a g e
2014

AGGREGATE CRUSHING VALUE
TEST METHOD : BS:812 Part 110 (1990)
Location:
Source:
Lab.Ref.No :
CRBC Asphalt Batching Plant
Request. No:
Material type:
Crushed Agg.
Date sample:
Sample from:
Belt
Date test:
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION :
TRIAL No.
05-03-2014
CRUSHED STONE
Mass of sample
(14mm pass and 10mm Retain)
2543
2538
Mass of sample
retained on B.S Sieve,2.36mm
2273
2275
Mass of sample
passing B.S Sieve,2.36mm
270
263
10.6
10.4
Average ACV
10
71 | P a g e

Location:
2014
Lab.Ref.No :
Source:
CRBC Asphalt Batching

Plant
Material type:
Crushed Agg.
Sample from:
Belt
Purpose:
Request.
No:
Date
sample:
Date test:
06-03-2014
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION :
Basalt
10 PERCENT FINE VALUE AND WET / DRY RATIO

BS 812 part 110:1990
DRY SAMPLE
Test no.
Mass of the test specimen
(Passing 14mm & Retained on 10mm
Sieve
Mass of Aggregate Retained on the 2.36mm sieve
Mass of Aggr passing the 2.36mm sieve
% Pass
WET SAMPLE
M1 (gm)
2530
2528
2421
2415
M2 (gm)
M1(gm)M2(gm)
2253
2254
2150
2274
277
274
271
278
((M1- M2)-M1)*100
10.9
10.8
11.2
11.5
Maximum force
(KN)
377
377
317
309
T.F.V.
(KN)
353.1
355.7
292.1
278.9
AVERAGE
T.F.V.
(KN)
WET / DRY RATIO
(%)
354
285
81
72 | P a g e
2014
Flakiness Index Record

BS 812:Section 105.1:1989
Location:
Source: CRBC Asphalt Batching Plant
Material type: Crushed Agg.
Sample from:
MATERIAL
DESCRIPTION :
Belt
Lab.Ref.N
o:
Request.
No:
Date
sample:
Date test:
PURPOSE
Sieve Size / Nominal

Size
(mm)
Retained Sample
(gm)
63
50
37.5
0.0
28
0.0
20
1001
36.4
14
1000
36.4
10
500
18.2
6.3
250
9.1
Sum
2751
771.0
% Retained
Take Mass Retained in gm for FI Calculation only that of %

Retained >5%.
Flakiness Index Calculation
Sieve Size (mm)
Mass
Passing
(gm)
100% Passing
100% Retained
Mass Retained
(gm)
63
50
50
37.5
37.5
28
73 | P a g e
2014
28
20
890
111
20
14
856
144
14
10
441
59
10
6.3
169
81
2356
395
TOTAL
FI=Total Mass Passing / Total Mass

Retained * 100
FI=
14
Put Flakiness Index to the nearest Whole

number.
74 | P a g e
2014

Appendix B. Marshall Test Raw Data
Sample No
Lab Ref No
Bitumen Density (g/cm3), P

Avg.BulkSp.Gr.TotalAgg.
(Gsb)
Sample Declaration
Type of Bitumen
80/100
Tamping Nos
75*2 Blows
1.012
Kind of Mixture
Wearing Coarse
2.568
Proposed Use
Tamping Temperature
160 o c
0% PET
Test Date
Method Used
Marshal
ASTM D 1559
Material Name
19 mm
9.5 mm
4.75 mm
2.36 mm
0.3 mm
0.075 mm
Pan
Filler
Material
Proportion (%)
5%
27%
18%
14%
24%
7%
2%
3%
Sampl
e Size
(mm)
Wt. Of
Specim
en in
air
(gm)
Wt. Of
Specim
en in
Water
(gm)
SSD
Wt. Of
Specim
en in
air
(gm)
62.3
1165.40
651.90
1169.40
64.0
1170.30
654.70
1173.50
63.1
1169.50
652.70
1171.60
AVG
63.1
63.7
Specim
en
Aspha
lt
Conte
nt
Height
(mm)
A
1
2
2
3
AVG
4.00%
4.50%
1167.20
656.70
1173.20
Vol. Of
Specim
en (DC) cc.
Bulk
Densi
ty
(gm/c
c)
B/E
Theory
Densityg/cm
3
517.5
0
518.8
0
518.9
0
516.50
2.252
2.256
VI
M
(%)
(G
F)/
G
x10
0
H
VMA
(%)
P(
%)
6.3
2.403
6.1
96.2
0
VFA
(%)
Stabili
ty in
KN
Cor
r.
Coef
f.
Correct
ed
Stabilit
y in KN
Flow
valu
e
(0.1
m)
100(F*I)/G
sb
100*(1VV/VM
A)
15.6
59.8
7.10
1.00
7.10
1.98
15.5
60.5
7.05
1.00
7.05
2.11
8.56
1.00
8.56
2.10
7.57
2.06
2.254
6.2
15.6
60.1
2.254
6.2
15.6
60.1
2.260
5.6
15.8
64.5
7.79
1.00
7.79
2.50
63.2
1171.30
661.30
1182.70
521.40
2.246
16.3
62.1
8.21
1.00
8.21
1.19
63.4
1171.80
661.90
1183.90
522.00
2.280
4.8
15.0
68.3
8.30
1.00
8.30
2.03
2.262
5.5
15.7
65.0
8.10
1.91
63.4
2.394
6.2
95.7
0
75 | P a g e
2014

1
2
3
63.3
5.00%
16.2
68.6
9.43
1.00
9.43
2.14
16.2
66.3
9.77
1.00
9.77
2.23
9.81
1.00
9.81
2.28
9.67
2.22
63.2
1174.10
667.30
1180.50
513.20
2.288
3.9
16.2
75.9
2.266
4.8
16.2
70.3
2.320
3.0
14.4
79.3
9.37
1.00
9.37
2.12
1174.60
658.00
1175.70
517.70
2.381
5.5
95.2
0
2.251
1175.20
659.90
1176.50
516.60
2.275
16.0
69.7
10.03
1.00
10.03
2.24
62.3
1175.80
662.10
1176.90
514.80
2.284
4.5
15.7
71.5
10.45
1.00
10.45
2.27
2.293
4.1
15.4
73.5
9.95
2.21
2.292
3.2
15.8
80.0
9.32
1.00
9.32
3.28
62.7
1176.70
662.80
1176.20
513.40
2.391
4.9
94.8
0
62.3
62.3
6.00%
5.1
519.10
AVG
2.260
1175.80
62.4
519.20
656.70
1
5.50%
1178.50
1168.50
63.1
659.30
62.9
AVG
1173.30
62.9
1177.20
667.10
1178.50
511.40
2.302
15.5
82.2
9.56
1.00
9.56
2.35
62.9
1179.10
657.20
1180.80
523.60
2.252
4.9
17.3
71.9
8.84
0.96
8.49
2.26
2.282
3.6
16.2
78.0
9.12
2.63
17.9
75.0
8.86
0.96
8.51
2.21
16.0
85.9
9.81
1.00
9.81
2.42
9.23
1.00
9.23
2.56
9.18
2.40
2.367
2.7
94.3
0
AVG
62.8
62.5
1180.30
655.85
1181.35
525.50
2.246
4.5
62.4
1182.10
671.20
1185.60
514.40
2.298
2.3
62.2
1183.10
666.81
1184.80
517.99
2.284
2.8
16.5
82.7
2.276
3.2
16.8
81.2
3
AVG
6.50%
62.4
2.351
93.9
0
76 | P a g e
2014
Stability of bituminous Mixture Using Marshall Apparatus

Sample No
Lab Ref No

(Gsb)
Sample Declaration
Type of Bitumen
80/100
Tamping Nos
75*2 Blows
1.012
Kind of Mixture
Wearing Coarse
2.568
Proposed Use
Tamping Temperature
160 o c
0.3% PET
Test Date
Method Used
Marshal
ASTM D 1559
Material Name
Material
Proportion (%)
Specim
en
Aspha
lt
Conte
nt
19 mm
9.5 mm
4.75 mm
2.36 mm
0.3 mm
0.075 mm
Pan
Filler
5%
27%
18%
14%
24%
7%
2%
3%
Sampl
e Size
(mm)
Heigh
t
(mm)
Wt. Of
Specim
en in
air
(gm)
Wt. Of
Specim
en in
Water
(gm)
SSD
Wt. Of
Specim
en in
air
(gm)
Vol. Of
Specim
en (DC) cc.
Bulk
Densi
ty
(gm/c
c)
B/E
Theory
Densityg/cm
3
VI
M
(%)
(G
F)/
G
x10
0
H
VMA
(%)
P(
%)
Stabili
ty in
KN
Cor
r.
Coef
f.
Correct
ed
Stabilit
y in KN
Flow
valu
e
(0.1
m)
100(F*I)/G
sb
100*(1VV/VM
A)
15.5
62.6
8.07
1.04
8.39
2.19
15.7
61.8
9.32
1.04
9.69
2.36
7.51
1.00
7.51
2.38
8.53
2.31
63.72
1145.80
648.80
1154.45
505.65
2.266
64.20
1145.32
654.68
1161.23
506.55
2.261
64.13
1145.63
647.95
1158.94
510.99
2.242
6.8
16.4
58.6
2.256
6.2
15.8
61.0
5.9
16.2
63.7
9.54
1.00
9.54
2.49
15.9
64.9
9.73
1.04
10.12
2.66
9.86
1.04
10.25
2.02
9.97
2.39
4.00%
5.8
VFA
(%)
2.405
6.0
95.8
AVG
64.02
63.42
1146.21
649.55
1157.62
508.07
2.256
65.03
1145.83
656.15
1162.48
506.33
2.263
63.26
1146.32
659.80
1163.23
503.43
2.277
5.0
15.4
67.5
2.265
5.5
15.8
65.4
15.4
69.5
11.15
1.04
11.60
2.41
15.6
68.5
11.94
1.04
12.42
2.22
10.60
1.04
11.02
3.08
11.68
2.57
2
3
4.50%
2.397
5.6
95.4
AVG
63.90
64.27
1146.09
663.54
1164.23
500.69
2.289
4.7
64.36
1146.74
661.07
1163.15
502.08
2.284
4.9
63.82
1147.28
661.87
1165.28
503.41
2.279
5.1
15.8
67.6
2.284
4.9
15.6
68.5
3
AVG
5.00%
64.15
2.402
94.9
77 | P a g e
2014
1
2
3
5.50%
64.12
1147.32
660.84
1164.93
504.09
2.276
4.7
63.00
1147.75
664.42
1166.72
502.30
2.285
63.76
1146.92
668.04
1166.94
498.90
2.299
3.7
2.287
2.388
16.2
71.1
10.45
1.04
10.87
3.21
15.9
72.9
10.36
1.04
10.77
3.09
15.4
75.8
12.25
1.04
12.74
2.58
4.2
15.9
73.3
11.46
2.96
4.3
17.0
74.9
10.33
1.04
10.74
3.59
16.2
79.4
10.27
1.04
10.68
3.33
10.36
1.04
10.77
3.31
10.73
3.41
4.3
94.5
AVG
63.63
64.36
1147.83
660.65
1167.42
506.77
2.265
66.02
1148.00
665.89
1167.86
501.97
2.287
63.93
1147.99
664.74
1168.24
503.50
2.280
3.6
16.5
77.9
2.277
3.7
16.6
77.4
3.8
18.4
79.2
10.23
1.00
10.23
2.94
18.2
80.2
10.51
1.00
10.51
2.87
9.59
1.04
9.97
3.37
10.24
3.06
2
3
6.00%
2.366
3.3
94.1
AVG
64.77
64.32
1148.56
655.04
1167.79
512.75
2.240
63.86
1148.63
656.38
1168.02
511.64
2.245
63.79
1149.24
661.08
1168.69
507.61
2.264
2.8
17.5
84.0
2.250
3.4
18.0
81.1
2
3
AVG
6.50%
63.99
2.329
3.6
93.6
78 | P a g e
2014

Sample No
Lab Ref No

(Gsb)
Sample Declaration
Type of Bitumen
80/100
Tamping Nos
75*2 Blows
1.012
Kind of Mixture
Wearing Coarse
2.568
Proposed Use
Tamping Temperature
160 o c
0.6% PET
Test Date
Method Used
Marshal
ASTM D 1559
Material Name
Material
Proportion (%)
Specim
en
Aspha
lt
Conte
nt
19 mm
9.5 mm
4.75 mm
2.36 mm
0.3 mm
0.075 mm
Pan
Filler
5%
27%
18%
14%
24%
7%
2%
3%
Sampl
e Size
(mm)
Heigh
t
(mm)
A
1
Wt. Of
Specim
en in
air
(gm)
Wt. Of
Specim
en in
Water
(gm)
SSD
Wt. Of
Specim
en in
air
(gm)
649.8
0
657.4
9
655.0
0
Vol. Of
Specim
en (DC) cc.
Bulk
Densi
ty
(gm/c
c)
B/E
Theory
Densityg/cm
3
1164.1
514.30
2.259
1166.61
515.11
2.263
1174.76
519.76
2.252
VI
M
(%)
(G
F)/
G
x10
0
H
VMA
(%)
P(
%)
VFA
(%)
0.96
10.58
2.52
15.8
60.8
10.32
0.96
9.91
2.31
6.6
16.2
59.0
10.85
0.96
10.42
2.37
2.258
6.5
15.9
58.9
10.30
2.40
6.0
16.3
63.6
12.34
1.00
12.34
2.65
15.7
66.6
11.32
0.96
10.87
2.31
12.28
0.96
11.79
2.54
11.67
2.50
11.50
2.65
AVG
63.7
63.9
1162.80
653.50
1168.24
514.74
2.259
63.1
1170.20
660.71
1174.86
514.15
2.276
63.7
1166.60
655.17
1170.00
514.83
2.266
5.7
16.1
64.8
2.267
5.6
16.0
65.0
16.0
65.6
5.00%
62.8
1168.90
659.18
1172.53
513.35
11.02
1170.50
63.6
57.1
64.1
AVG
15.9
1165.70
4.50%
Flow
valu
e
(0.1
m)
63.2
Correct
ed
Stabilit
y in KN
100*(1VV/VM
A)
1161.80
4.00%
Cor
r.
Coef
f.
100(F*I)/G
sb
63.8
Stabili
ty in
KN
2.277
6.8
2.412
2.402
2.410
6.2
5.2
5.5
95.6
95.1
94.7
11.98
0.96
79 | P a g e
2014

2
64.7
1171.20
663.19
1175.97
512.78
2.284
5.2
15.8
66.9
12.98
1.00
12.98
3.21
63.3
1171.70
665.18
1174.61
509.43
2.300
4.6
15.2
69.9
12.27
0.96
11.78
2.96
AVG
63.6
2.287
5.1
15.7
67.5
12.09
2.94
63.9
1172.30
666.75
1177.33
510.58
2.296
3.9
15.7
74.9
11.21
1.00
11.21
3.44
63.5
1171.20
662.83
1176.51
513.68
2.280
16.3
71.7
11.96
1.00
11.96
3.14
63.2
1170.90
660.93
1173.36
512.43
2.285
4.4
16.1
72.7
11.48
1.00
11.48
3.98
2.287
4.3
16.0
73.1
11.55
3.52
16.9
77.3
11.35
1.00
11.35
3.97
17.1
76.3
9.56
1.00
9.56
4.12
11.76
1.00
11.76
3.64
10.89
3.91
2
3
5.50%
2.390
4.6
94.3
AVG
63.5
63.1
1171.80
659.70
1175.00
515.30
2.274
63.9
1172.50
661.20
1177.95
516.75
2.269
63.7
1172.20
662.75
1176.42
513.67
2.282
3.5
16.6
78.9
2.275
3.8
16.9
77.5
3.9
18.1
78.6
9.21
1.00
9.21
2.93
17.8
80.1
11.85
1.00
11.85
3.36
11.73
1.00
11.73
3.07
10.93
3.12
6.00%
3.8
2.365
4.1
93.8
AVG
63.6
64.2
1173.10
661.20
1182.35
521.15
2.251
64.7
1173.80
663.80
1183.41
519.61
2.259
63.9
1171.90
660.40
1175.29
514.89
2.276
2.8
17.2
83.6
2.262
3.4
17.7
80.8
2
3
AVG
6.50%
64.3
2.342
3.5
93.4
80 | P a g e
2014

Sample No
Lab Ref No

(Gsb)
Sample Declaration
Type of Bitumen
80/100
Tamping Nos
75*2 Blows
1.012
Kind of Mixture
Wearing Coarse
2.568
Proposed Use
Tamping Temperature
160 o c
0.9% PET
Test Date
Method Used
Marshal
ASTM D 1559
Material Name
Material
Proportion (%)
Specim
en
Aspha
lt
Conte
nt
19 mm
9.5 mm
4.75 mm
2.36 mm
0.3 mm
0.075 mm
Pan
Filler
5%
27%
18%
14%
24%
7%
2%
3%
Sample
Size
(mm)
Height
(mm)
Wt. Of
Specim
en in
air
(gm)
Wt. Of
Specim
en in
Water
(gm)
SSD
Wt. Of
Specim
en in
air
(gm)
Vol. Of
Specim
en (DC) cc.
Bulk
Densi
ty
(gm/c
c)
B/E
Theory
Densityg/c
m3
VI
M
(%)
(G
F)/
G
x10
0
H
VMA
(%)
P(%
)
Stabili
ty in
KN
Cor
r.
Coef
f.
Correct
ed
Stabilit
y in KN
Flow
valu
e
(0.1
m)
100(F*I)/G
sb
100*(1VV/VM
A)
16.5
59.4
12.45
0.96
11.95
3.01
16.8
58.1
12.95
0.96
12.43
2.95
13.25
1.00
13.25
2.80
12.54
2.92
64.2
1172.80
657.80
1175.60
523.80
2.249
64.3
1174.90
653.80
1178.10
524.27
2.241
64.3
1176.30
659.04
1179.30
520.26
2.251
6.6
16.5
59.7
2.247
6.8
16.6
59.1
5.6
16.4
65.9
12.62
1.00
12.62
2.98
16.3
66.2
13.80
1.00
13.80
2.90
13.41
1.00
13.41
3.15
13.28
3.01
4.00%
6.7
VFA
(%)
2.411
7.1
95.3
AVG
64.3
64.3
1169.90
655.53
1172.50
516.97
2.263
64.7
1172.20
658.07
1175.60
517.53
2.265
65.3
1175.40
659.62
1178.10
518.48
2.267
5.4
16.2
66.6
2.265
5.5
16.3
66.2
16.7
69.1
13.72
1.00
13.72
3.26
16.4
70.2
12.93
1.00
12.93
3.21
13.58
1.00
13.58
3.10
13.41
3.19
2
3
4.50%
2.397
5.5
94.9
AVG
64.8
64.9
1156.80
649.92
1160.20
510.28
2.267
5.1
64.3
1179.30
661.47
1180.30
518.83
2.273
4.9
64.7
1180.20
666.93
1181.40
514.47
2.294
4.0
15.7
74.4
2.278
4.7
16.3
71.2
3
AVG
5.00%
64.6
2.390
94.4
81 | P a g e
2014
64.1
1
2
5.50%
65.5
1179.
1
1183.
2
1180.
3
657.7
8
661.7
6
660.8
1
1180.
20
1185.
30
1183.
30
64.3
AVG
64.6
66.4
1183.10
658.75
1184.10
64.1
1178.30
653.97
1180.70
64.4
1179.80
656.15
1181.30
6.00%
522.4
2
523.5
4
522.4
9
2.25
7
2.26
0
2.25
9
2.347
3.8
17.4
78.0
13.72
3.7
17.3
78.6
12.93
93.9
3.7
8
17.3
78.4
13.58
17.3
78.3
18.0
79.6
12.37
18.6
76.7
12.25
13.69
2.259
3.8
525.35
2.252
3.7
526.73
2.237
4.3
525.15
2.247
3.9
18.2
78.5
2.245
4.0
18.3
78.3
3.3
18.9
82.4
10.07
18.9
82.4
2.338
93.5
AVG
65.0
64.6
1186.40
656.51
1187.10
530.59
2.236
65.1
1184.50
656.56
1186.30
529.74
2.236
64.0
1178.10
652.84
1180.90
528.06
2.231
3.5
19.1
81.5
2.234
3.4
19.0
82.1
2
3
AVG
6.50%
64.6
2.313
3.3
93.1
1.0
0
0.9
6
1.0
0
13.72 3.26
12.41 3.21
13.58 3.10
13.24
3.19
0.96
11.88
3.32
0.96
11.76
3.31
0.96
13.14
3.15
12.26
3.26
0.96
9.67
3.28
12.12
0.96
11.64
3.31
13.60
0.96
13.06
3.07
11.45
3.22
82 | P a g e
2014

Sample No
Lab Ref No

(Gsb)
Sample Declaration
Type of Bitumen
80/100
Tamping Nos
75*2 Blows
1.012
Kind of Mixture
Wearing Coarse
2.568
Proposed Use
Tamping Temperature
160 o c
1.2% PET
Test Date
Method Used
Marshal
ASTM D 1559
Material Name
Material
Proportion (%)
Specim
en
Aspha
lt
Conte
nt
19 mm
9.5 mm
4.75 mm
2.36 mm
0.3 mm
0.075 mm
Pan
Filler
5%
27%
18%
14%
24%
7%
2%
3%
Sampl
e Size
(mm)
Heigh
t
(mm)
Wt. Of
Specim
en in
air
(gm)
Wt. Of
Specim
en in
Water
(gm)
SSD
Wt. Of
Specim
en in
air
(gm)
Vol. Of
Specim
en (DC) cc.
Bulk
Densi
ty
(gm/c
c)
B/E
Theory
Densityg/cm
3
VI
M
(%)
(G
F)/
G
x10
0
H
VMA
(%)
P(
%)
Stabili
ty in
KN
Cor
r.
Coef
f.
Correct
ed
Stabilit
y in KN
Flow
valu
e
(0.1
m)
100(F*I)/G
sb
100*(1VV/VM
A)
16.9
58.4
11.39
0.96
10.93
3.26
17.0
58.1
11.41
0.96
10.95
3.36
11.51
0.96
11.05
2.89
10.98
3.17
66.4
1181.30
657.90
1184.6
526.70
2.243
66.0
1178.10
655.40
1181.1
525.70
2.241
64.8
1176.30
652.80
1179.6
526.80
2.233
7.5
17.3
56.9
2.239
7.2
17.1
57.8
6.3
16.8
62.4
11.19
0.96
10.74
2.56
17.2
60.7
11.97
0.96
11.49
3.49
10.89
0.96
10.45
3.37
10.90
3.26
4.00%
7.1
VFA
(%)
2.413
7.1
95.1
AVG
65.7
66.8
1182.70
662.25
1185.8
523.55
2.259
65.7
1180.30
658.26
1183.3
525.04
2.248
65.9
1181.40
661.08
1185.9
524.82
2.251
6.6
17.1
61.1
2.253
6.6
17.0
61.4
17.0
68.1
12.57
1.00
12.57
3.41
16.8
69.4
11.98
1.00
11.98
3.33
12.86
1.00
12.86
3.13
12.47
3.29
2
3
4.50%
2.411
6.8
94.6
AVG
66.1
64.7
1178.30
660.20
1181.1
520.90
2.262
5.4
65.0
1179.60
660.50
1180.3
519.80
2.269
5.1
65.2
1179.10
661.50
1180.2
518.70
2.273
5.0
16.6
70.1
2.268
5.2
16.8
69.2
3
AVG
5.00%
65.0
2.392
94.2
83 | P a g e
2014
1
2
3
5.50%
64.4
1180.40
655.40
1182.1
526.70
2.241
4.3
65.3
1181.30
658.10
1184.3
526.20
2.245
65.8
1182.20
658.10
1183.7
525.60
2.249
4.0
2.245
2.343
18.2
76.1
11.73
0.96
11.26
3.56
18.1
76.9
11.94
0.96
11.46
3.47
17.9
77.7
12.48
0.96
11.98
2.84
4.2
18.1
76.9
11.57
3.29
3.8
18.5
79.6
11.88
0.96
11.40
3.49
4.2
93.7
AVG
65.2
65.2
1180.40
656.10
1182.1
526.00
2.244
64.5
1179.70
653.20
1181.3
528.10
2.234
18.8
77.7
11.94
0.96
11.46
3.22
65.4
1181.30
658.70
1184.2
525.50
2.248
3.6
18.3
80.3
11.88
0.96
11.40
3.37
2.242
3.9
18.5
79.2
11.42
3.36
19.3
80.3
11.07
0.96
10.63
3.69
19.3
80.5
10.63
0.96
10.20
3.52
9.95
0.96
9.55
3.05
10.13
3.42
2
3
6.00%
2.332
4.2
93.3
AVG
65.0
64.4
1179.70
652.02
1180.8
528.78
2.231
3.8
64.6
1183.70
655.80
1186.1
530.30
2.232
3.7
66.2
1182.50
657.50
1187.2
529.70
2.232
3.7
19.2
80.6
2.232
3.8
19.3
80.5
3
AVG
6.50%
65.1
2.319
92.9
84 | P a g e
2014

Sample No
Lab Ref No

(Gsb)
Sample Declaration
Type of Bitumen
80/100
Tamping Nos
75*2 Blows
1.012
Kind of Mixture
Wearing Coarse
2.568
Proposed Use
Tamping Temperature
160 o c
1.5% PET
Test Date
Method Used
Marshal
ASTM D 1559
Material Name
Material
Proportion (%)
Specim
en
Aspha
lt
Conte
nt
19 mm
9.5 mm
4.75 mm
2.36 mm
0.3 mm
0.075 mm
Pan
Filler
5%
27%
18%
14%
24%
7%
2%
3%
Sampl
e Size
(mm)
Height
(mm)
Wt. Of
Specim
en in
air
(gm)
Wt. Of
Specim
en in
Water
(gm)
SSD
Wt. Of
Specim
en in
air
(gm)
Vol. Of
Specim
en (DC) cc.
Bulk
Densi
ty
(gm/c
c)
B/E
Theory
Densityg/cm
3
VI
M
(%)
(G
F)/
G
x10
0
H
VMA
(%)
P(
%)
Stabili
ty in
KN
Cor
r.
Coef
f.
Correct
ed
Stabilit
y in KN
Flow
valu
e
(0.1
m)
100(F*I)/G
sb
100*(1VV/VM
A)
16.4
57.4
10.85
1.00
10.85
3.23
17.8
52.0
9.25
0.96
8.88
3.33
10.74
1.00
10.74
3.52
10.16
3.36
64.6
1182.30
662.30
1184.7
522.38
2.263
64.3
1185.40
659.10
1191.7
532.64
2.226
65.5
1183.20
662.90
1186.6
523.68
2.259
7.2
16.6
56.8
2.249
7.6
17.0
55.4
7.2
17.7
59.1
11.15
0.96
10.70
3.39
17.3
60.6
9.24
0.96
8.87
3.65
11.65
0.96
11.18
3.37
10.25
3.47
4.00%
7.0
VFA
(%)
2.434
8.6
94.8
AVG
64.8
65.1
1183.70
663.20
1191.4
528.20
2.241
63.2
1185.30
663.70
1190.3
526.57
2.251
63.6
1184.20
662.90
1188.7
525.84
2.252
6.8
17.3
60.8
2.248
7.0
17.5
60.2
17.3
67.4
10.97
1.00
10.97
3.49
17.4
66.7
12.41
0.96
11.91
3.47
11.66
0.96
11.19
3.81
11.36
3.59
2
3
4.50%
2.416
6.8
94.3
AVG
64.0
63.5
1182.10
659.40
1181.8
522.36
2.263
5.6
63.4
1181.90
658.70
1181.9
523.20
2.259
5.8
64.0
1185.60
662.90
1187.3
524.37
2.261
5.7
17.3
67.0
2.261
5.7
17.3
67.0
3
AVG
5.00%
63.6
2.398
93.9
85 | P a g e
2014
1
2
3
5.50%
64.9
1184.20
663.10
1188.7
525.61
2.253
4.7
63.6
1182.90
662.40
1188.4
525.97
2.249
62.8
1185.30
664.20
1190.8
526.57
2.251
4.8
2.251
2.364
18.0
73.9
11.35
0.96
10.90
3.75
18.1
73.1
10.94
0.96
10.50
3.56
18.0
73.5
12.03
0.96
11.55
3.55
4.8
18.0
73.5
10.98
3.62
4.0
19.0
79.2
9.35
0.96
8.98
3.66
19.3
77.7
11.92
0.96
11.44
3.74
12.54
0.96
12.04
3.85
10.82
3.75
4.9
93.5
AVG
63.8
63.2
1186.20
666.90
1197.2
530.26
2.237
63.1
1185.30
665.20
1200.0
531.76
2.229
63.4
1187.90
664.70
1194.5
529.84
2.242
3.7
18.8
80.1
2.236
4.0
19.0
79.0
3.7
19.7
81.3
8.70
0.96
8.35
3.91
19.6
82.1
11.95
0.96
11.47
3.80
11.84
0.96
11.37
3.72
10.40
3.81
2
3
6.00%
2.329
4.3
93.0
AVG
63.2
62.5
1186.20
665.70
1198.3
532.64
2.227
62.5
1185.30
664.20
1195.5
531.29
2.231
62.9
1187.90
668.10
1201.0
532.93
2.229
3.6
19.6
81.7
2.229
3.6
19.6
81.7
2
3
AVG
6.50%
62.6
2.312
3.5
92.6
86 | P a g e

Utilizing Waste Plastic Bottles in Bituminous Asphalt Mix

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Utilizing Waste Plastic Bottles in Bituminous Asphalt Mix

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mekelle University

Ethiopian Institute of Technology - Mekelle (EiT-M)