Wma

Experimental Investigation on Mix Design Properties and Moisture Sensitivity Characteristics of Dense Bituminous Macadam Mixes Modified With
REDISET, A Warm Mix Additive.
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Warm mix asphalt technology was stared in 1990s in Europe basically to reduce Green house effect. Aspha-min, Warm mix asphalt Foam, and Sasobit were the technologies developed as WMA additive. Some new technologies such as Evotherm, Rediset, LEA (Low Energy Asphalt) and Double Barrel Green were developed (Graham and Brian 2005). Even though Warm mix asphalt technology was started in Europe, the investigation on WMA was made very fast in US. National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA) started examining about WMA technologies in 2002 and National Center for Asphalt Technology (NCAT) started research on WMA technologies in 2003 (Kandhal 2010).
Warm mix asphalt (WMA) is a developing technology which allows the mixing, lay down and compaction of asphalt mixes at lower temperatures compared to Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA). Warm mix asphalt technology reduces production temperature by as much as 30% (Graham and Brian 2005). Generally hot mix asphalt (HMA) is produced in batch plants or in drum plants at a temperature between 138 C to 160 C. The fuel consumption will be too high in case of HMA due to continuous process of heating aggregates. This increases the energy costs and production of pollution gases. But in case of Warm mix asphalt (WMA) technology due to the addition of additive, The temperature required for heating the aggregate is less that is around 120 C (Zhanping et al. 2007). Thus it reduces the fuel consumption and greenhouse gases.
1.2 Various Types of WMA Additives And Advantages

As the Warm Mix Asphalt technology found with many advantages, many agencies and manufacturers across the world started research on Warm mix asphalt technique. Depending upon the requirement, Different agencies started manufacturing different products of WMA with different properties. Some of the type of WMA additives is explained below.
Highway Technology, Department of Civil, DSCE
Page 1
Experimental Investigation on Mix Design Properties and Moisture Sensitivity Characteristics of Dense Bituminous Macadam Mixes Modified With REDISET, A Warm Mix Additive.
Aspha-Min: It is the product of Eurovia Services GmbH based in Germany. Aspha-Min is the manufactured synthetic sodium aluminium silicate, also called as Zeolite. These are framework silicates with large empty spaces in their structures that allow the presence of large cations, such as sodium and calcium. It contains about 21% of water by mass, which is released at about temperature of 85C-185C. When Aspha-min is added to the mix at the same time as the liquid asphalt binder, water is released. Eurovia recommends that Aspha-Min to be added at the rate of 0.3 % by weight of the mix which reduces about 28C of temperature in a HMA (Graham and Brian 2005).
Sasobit: It is the product of Sasol International, Germany. It is the paraffin wax derived from the coal gasification. This reduces brittleness at lower temperatures as compared to bitumen paraffin waxes. It helps in mix workability at lower temperature. Sasobit is designed as the flow improver for the asphalt, both during mixing process and lay down operation. Sasol recommends that it should be added at the rate of 0.8% by of mass of the binder (Stacey and Amy 2008). Sasobit is available in two forms, flakes for molten addition or pills for direct addition to the mix.
Warm asphalt mix foam: This is a component of soft binder and hard foamed binder, which are added at different time during mixing. WAM-Foam is product of Shell petroleum company Ltd., U.K. and Kolo-veidekke, Norway. Initially soft binder is added at a temperature about 100C120C to coat the aggregate. Later hard binder foam is mixed with the aggregate.
Revix: Revix is the technology based on chemical additive. It was developed in 2007 by Mathy Technology and Engineering Services and Paragon technical services in the US. This technology is not mainly related to the principle of foaming or viscosity reduction. Combination of surfactants, waxes, processing aids, polymers, etc. is used to reduce the internal friction between aggregate particles in the asphalt mixture.
Page 2
Rediset-WMX: This technology was developed in 2007 by Akzo Nobel Surfactants. This additive is in a solid form and consists of cationic surface active agents. Rediset-WMX helps in improving wetting of the aggregate surface and provides good aggregate adhesion. By using this additive it is possible to reduce a temperature up to 30%.
Rediset-WMX is the solid additive which can be blended in liquid asphalt binder. The recommended dosage is that 1.5 to 2.5 % by weight of the asphalt binder. The additive can be blended into asphalt before mixing or can be added just before as the asphalt enters the mixers. Asphalt treated with Rediset-WMX can be stored before use (Sundaram and Almeida 2009).
Advantages of warm mix asphalt technologies are mentioned below. Warm mix asphalt technology helps in reducing the fuel consumption which is used to dry and heat the aggregate, thereby saving the energy. According to studies it is observed that the energy consumption is reduced up to 30 percent. Emission from the fossil fuels can be comparatively reduced as compared to Hot mix asphalt (HMA). By using WMA technology, the fumes and odour can be reduced at the plant and paving area. This helps in working condition at both places. By producing WMA at normal HMA temperatures, it may be possible to extend the paving season into the colder months of the year since WMA additive act as a compaction aid.
1.3 Objectives and Scope

The main objectives of the present study are as follows:
To study the effect of WMA additive on the viscosity of bitumen binder at different temperatures. To study the effect of mixing temperature on mix design properties of DBM
Without the warm mix asphalt additive. With the warm mix asphalt additive Rediset WMA.
Page 3
To compare the differences between Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) and Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA) produced using the same mix design. The present study involves preparation of Hot Mix Asphalt and Warm Mix Asphalt
samples at different temperature and different additive dosage rate to the required specifications. The performance of the prepared samples is tested by laboratory tests like Marshal Stability, Volumetric Properties, Indirect Tensile Strength and Moisture Susceptibility.
1.4 Organization of Report

The contents of this report have been divided into five chapters including the introduction chapter. Chapter 2 provides an extensive literature review on some laboratory studies that were conducted to examine the Warm Mix Asphalt techniques. Chapter 3 provides the step by step explanation on the methodology utilized to conduct the experimental work. Chapter 4 consists of test results, analysis and discussion. Chapter 5 gives the conclusion for the research work done.
Page 4
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 General
At the Bitumen Forum of Germany in 1997, warm mix asphalt (WMA) technology was identified as one of means to lower emissions. The WMA technology was introduced in the United States in 2002 when the NAPA sponsored an industry scanning tour to Europe for asphalt paving contractors (John Angelo et al. 2008). In 2004, the World of Asphalt convention featured a demonstration project of WMA, and since then, WMA additive manufacturers have successfully performed many demonstration projects throughout the United States (Kandhal 2010).
2.2 Effect of WMA Additives on Binder Viscosity

It has been well established that the rheological properties of any new binder should be studied extensively in order to decide whether this binder is applicable to be utilized or not. Traditionally, the most common rheological characterization of a binder has been reported using viscosity. Viscosity is the physical material characteristics or property that can be employed and utilized to describe the resistance of liquids to flow (Asphalt Institute 2003). According to Tejash and Serji (2009), viscosity is defined as the ratio of shear stress to shear strain rate at any given temperature and shear rate.
The concept of warm mix technology is to reduce the asphalt binder viscosity, which helps the asphalt to attain the required viscosity to coat the aggregates and thus compact the mixes at lower temperatures (Anand 2010). Studies conducted by Tejash and Serji (2009), measured the viscosity of binder after short term aging for WMA and HMA. The obtained viscosity of the plain binder without any additive is normalized. Rotational viscometer was used to measure all the viscosities at 135 C. Result indicated that, the binders with no warm mix asphalt additives had the highest viscosities than the binder with warm mix asphalt additive.
Page 5
2.3 Mix Design of WMA

The design methods followed by different agencies vary due to the usage of different WMA additives and different binder. Some of the mix design practiced by different agencies is discussed.
Graham and Brian (2006) studied about Aspha-Min use in Warm Mix Asphalt. Two aggregates, granite and limestone were used. The Superpave gyratory compactor was used to determine the mixture compactibility at different temperatures. Mixes were compacted at 149 C, 129 C, 110 C and 88 C, with mixing temperature about 19 C above the compaction temperature. The additive Aspha-min was added at rate of 0.3% by mass of the mix.
Stacey and Amy (2008) evaluated warm mix asphalt technology by using Sasobit. In this study the nominal maximum aggregate size of Superpave 9.5mm and 12.5mm were used. The mix is produced using penetration grade 64-22 binder, designated by VDOT SM-9.5A mixture and VDOT SM-12.5A mixture. Mix production was carried out at different temperatures of 149C, 162C and 121C. WMA additive Sasobit was added at a rate of 1.5% by weight of the binder.
Elie and Edward (2011) conducted laboratory test for the CECABASE Warm Mix Additive using an aggregate of a size 19.0mm as specified by Caltrans Standard specification and NDOT specification for Road and Bridge construction. PG 64-28 polymer modified asphalt binder was used for the study. Temperature of 160C and 132C were maintained for the preparation of HMA and WMA mixes respectively. CECABASE warm mix additive was added to asphalt binder at a rate of 0.4% by weight of binder. Mix design was carried out according to Caltran and NDOT specification for the HVEEM design method.
Page 6
2.4 Volumetric Properties of WMA Mixes

The volumetric properties of warm mix asphalt vary with the addition of different types of WMA additives at different rate and temperature. Graham and Brian (2006) evaluated three different WMA additives, Aspha-Min, Sasobit and Evotherm and concluded that all three technologies improved the compactibility of the asphalt mixture and resulted in lower air voids compared HMA.
Stacey and Amy (2008) determined percent air voids (Va), Voids in mineral aggregate (VMA), Voids filled with asphalt (VFA), Percent absorbed binder (P ba), Percent effective binder (Pbe). Samples were compacted in the Superpave gyratory compactor in accordance with AASHTO T312. Plant produced and laboratory produced samples were prepared at different temperatures. The plant produced samples were different in total air voids between the plant compacted and laboratory compacted samples (Stacey and Amy 2008). Zhanping et al. (2007) studied the effect of asphalt that contains wax in them naturally. Results concluded that using waxy bitumen lowered the air voids and improved the compactibility. Table 2.1 shows the volumetric results obtained by different agencies. Table 2.1. Volumetric tests Results Tested By NCAT NCAT NCAT NCAT VTRC VTRC VTRC VTRC WRSC WRSC Type HMA WMA WMA WMA HMA WMA WMA WMA HMA WMA Temperature ( C) 149 130 110 88 149 149 130 110 160 132 Gb g/cc ( ) 2.544 2.544 2.544 2.544 2.508 2.509 2.508 2.507 2.425 2.445 % AC 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 5.4 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.8 % Air voids 4.4 3.7 3.9 4.9 4.2 4.1 5.1 5.1 4.0 4.7 % VMA 15.0 14.4 14.6 15.5 17.3 16.2 17.1 17.3 15.9 16.1 % VFB 70.8 74.3 73.2 68.2 70.4 74.5 70.2 70.4 75.4 70.7
Source : NCAT (2005), VTRC (2008), WRSC (2011)
Page 7
2.5 Indirect Tensile Strength

Graham and Brian (2006) evaluated strength of the WMA mix using PG 64-22 binder and the granite and limestone aggregates. Mixture strength was evaluated based on indirect tensile strength at 25 C. Indirect tensile strength of the mixture is sensitive to binder. The result indicate that although the strength varied over the different aging times, there were no change in strength for either the control mix or for the warm mix at particular age time.
Anand (2010) determined indirect tensile strength of different types of WMA mixtures by preparing four WMA mixtures and a control WMA mixtures in the laboratory. Three test samples for each mixtures were prepared by gyratory compactor at 86 gyrations. Bulk specific gravity of the compacted samples were measured after curing it for one day at room temperature. Indirect tensile strength of samples were measured using the master loader 3000 after curing samples in the oven at 25 C for two hours. Samples are tested for indirect tensile strength only after the samples are stabilized at 25 C. The samples prepared with additives showed greater results than the samples without additives.
2.6 Moisture Sensitivity

The ability of the mixes to resist moisture damage was measured using two tests. Tensile strength ratio (TSR) and Hamburg wheeltrack tests. Each test measures moisture sensitivity differently. The TSR test compares conditioned and unconditioned indirect tensile strength of specimen sets. The Hamburg wheel-track test subjects submerged samples to a simulated traffic load based on the theory that moisture damage cause rutting (Stacey and Amy 2008).
Anand (2010) evaluated the moisture sensitivity of WMA mixtures using the modified Lottman test following AASHTO T283. Six samples (three for dry condition and three for wet condition) for control WMA mixtures and WMA mixtures were prepared with 20 gyrations. For wet conditioning, three samples were saturated at between 70% and 80% were placed in freezer at -18 C for 16 hours and in water bath at 60C for one day followed by conditioning in water bath at 25 C for two hours. The tensile strength ratio values of WMA samples ranged between 58.6% and 69.1%, all below the Superpave specification of 80%.
Page 8
2.7 Summary
Aspha-Min, Sasobit and Evotherm technologies improved the compactibility of the asphalt mixture and resulted in lower air voids compared HMA. CIR-foam with 0.3% Aspha-Min, CIRfoam with 1.5% Sasobit and CIR-foam with any additive resulted in improving the compactibility thereby lowering the air voids.
Indirect tensile strength of the mixture is sensitive to the binder and temperature. WMA mixtures using Evotherm additive was much stronger than the mixtures produced without additive. WMA mixture with Rediset WMX additive had tensile strength ratio higher than 80% that is a ratio of indirect tensile strength of the conditioned samples over the dry samples.
The binders with no warm mix asphalt additives had the highest viscosities than the binder with warm mix asphalt additive. Asphalt binder behaves differently at different temperature and viscosity of asphalt decreases with the increase in temperature.
Page 9
CHAPTER 3 MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY

3.1 General
This chapter discusses the methodology adopted and the materials used in the preparation of hot mix asphalt and Warm mix asphalt specimens for the Marshall Stability, Indirect tensile strength and Moisture sensitivity tests. Details of HMA and WMA mix design, preparation of specimens at different temperature and specimen testing have been discussed in this chapter.
3.2 Research Plan

Various tests were conducted to determine the physical properties of Bitumen and the coarse aggregate. Penetration test, Softening point test, Specific gravity test and Ductility test were conducted to know the physical properties of Bitumen while Abrasion test, Crushing test, Shape test, Specific gravity test and Impact test were conducted on the aggregates to know its physical properties.
Dense bituminous macadam grading-2 was selected as a gradation. Different temperatures of 155 C, 135 C and 115 C and additive rate of 1.5% and 2.5% by weight of binder were selected. The schematic representation of the laboratory research plan is shown in Figure 3.1.
Page 10
Experimental Investigation on Mix Design properties and moisture sensitivity characteristics of Dense Bituminous Macadam mixes modified with REDISET, a Warm Mix additive.
Stone Dust Coarse Aggregate
Specific Gravity Abrasion Value Crushing Value Elongation Index Flakiness Index
Aggregates Pocketing
Materials Test for their basic properties
Marshall Mix design for HMA & WMA
Bitumen
Impact Value Density Specific gravity
DBM at 155 C
1.5% & 2.5% additive rate at 135 C
1.5% & 2.5% additive rate at 115 C
Determination of OBC by Marshall Stability Test Determination of Volumetric Properties Indirect tensile strength test
Viscosity Test for binder with1.5% and 2.5% additive rate at 95, 105, 115, 125, 135 and 155 C using Brookfield Viscometer
Water absorption Penetration Test Softening Point Specific Gravity Ductility Test Flash & Fire Point
Moisture sensitivity test
Result & Analysis
Fig.3.1. Laboratory Research Plan
Page 11
3.3 Materials
The basic test conducted on the materials used for preparation of HMA and WMA specimens and there obtained results are listed below.
3.3.1 Bitumen
Plain bitumen of viscosity grade 30 was used for preparation specimens. The tests conducted on this bitumen and there results are tabulated in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1. Physical properties of Bitumen Sl. No 1 2 3 4 5 Tests Penetration Test (dm) Ductility Test (cm) Softening point (C) Flash point (C) Fire point (C) Results 66 79 51 330 345 Range 60-70 75 minimum 45-55 175 minimum 175 minimum As Per IS 1203-1978 IS 1208-1978 IS1205-1978 IS 1209-1978 IS 1209-1978
3.3.2 Aggregates
The aggregates which have good and sufficient strength, hardness, toughness and soundness have to be chosen. Crushed aggregates produce higher stability. The properties of bituminous mix are very much dependent on the aggregate size and their grain size distribution. Hence while selecting the gradation of aggregates care has to be taken to select the proper grade as per the specification. Ministry of Road Transport and Highway specifies the gradation for different layers of the bituminous courses.
Coarse aggregates used in the preparation of specimen were obtained from stone crusher located near Anjanapura of Bangalore district. The tests conducted to check the physical properties and there results are tabulated in Table 3.2.
Page 12
Table 3.2. Physical Properties of Coarse Aggregates
Sl. No.
Tests
Results
IS-Codes
Specifications for DBM
1 2 3 4 5 6
Specific gravity Crushing Value Abrasion Value Impact Value Water Absorption
Combined Elongation and Flakiness Indices
2.62 24.8% 32.0% 20.89% 0.25% 29.0%
IS-2386 Part III IS-2386 Part IV IS-2386 Part IV IS-2386 Part IV IS-2386 Part III IS-2386 Part I
Max 35% Max 27% 2.0% Max 30%
3.3.3 Warm Mix Asphalt Additive

Rediset WMX 8017 was used as a Warm Mix Asphalt additive obtained from Akzo Nobel Coatings IPL, Mumbai. This additive developed by Akzo Nobel Surfactants, US. Rediset WMX is in solid form which is added to bitumen before mixing. The recommended dosage rate is 1.5 to 2.5 per cent by weight of the asphalt binder. Rediset WMX is shown in Fig.3.2
Fig. 3.2. Rediset WMX-8017
Page 13
3.4 Dense Bituminous Macadam Gradation

Dense Bituminous Macadam grading-2 is selected as base layers. The bituminous mix design is done as per Marshall Mix design of MS-2, and the gradations for these mixes were obtained from MoRTH (2001). Desired gradation for DBM grading-2 is given in Table 3.3. Table 3.3. Composition of Dense Bituminous Macadam (DBM) Layer (MoRTH-2001)
Grading Nominal Aggregate Size Layer Thickness IS Sieve(mm) 45 37.5 26.5 19 13.2 9.5 4.75 2.36 1.18 0.6 0.3 0.15 0.075 Below 0.075 Bitumen Content % by mass of total mix Bitumen grade 2 25mm 50-75mm Cumulative % by wt of total aggregates passing 100 90-100 71-95 56-80 38-54 28-42 7-21 2-8 100 Min 4.5 65 or 90 Passing at Mid Point Gradation Total Weight of Aggregate(kg)
100 95 83 68 46 35 14 5 100 5.25
0.06 0.144 0.180 0.264 0.132 0.252 0.108 0.06
Total=1.2kg 60/70
Page 14
3.5 Viscosity Determination

A rotational viscometer was used to compare the viscosity of the virgin binder and the binder with WMA additive Rediset. The viscosities of the asphalt binders with 1.5%, 2.0%, 2.5% and 3.0% additive rate were measured at different temperature such as 95, 105, 115, 125, 135, and 155C as per ASTM D 4402 (2006). For all the viscosity tests, 10.5 grams of binder was tested with a SC4 - 27 spindle maintaining a constant rotational speed of 20 RPM. Test was conducted only after binders were poured in the testing tube just prior to testing. Binder mixtures are stirred thoroughly prior to pouring to testing tube to ensure that the test specimen is homogenous.
The test equipment to measure rotational viscosity is as shown in Figure 3.3. Brookfield viscometer and Thermosel system. The Brookfield viscometer is comprised of a motor, spindle, control keys, and digital readout. Many sizes of the spindle are available for the Brookfield viscometer to suit the viscosity range of the binder being tested. Most asphalt binders can be tested with only two spindles: SC4 - 21 and SC4 - 27, the latter is used most frequently. The Thermosel system consists of a stainless steel sample chamber, a thermo container equipped with electric heating elements, and a temperature controller to set the test temperatures.
Fig. 3.3. Brookfield viscometer, temperature controller and SC4 - 27 spindle
The procedure to determine viscosity are summarized below: Turn on the Thermosel power and set the controller to the desired test temperature (with sample holder and spindle in the Thermosel chamber).
Page 15
Wait until equilibrium is reached at the test temperature. Remove sample holder, with the extracting tool, and add the volume of sample specified for the spindle used (10.5 mL for the SC4 - 27 spindle). Using the extracting tool put the filled sample chamber back into the Thermosel container. Attach the selected spindle to the viscometer using the coupling; then lower the spindle into the asphalt in the Thermosel. The liquid level should intersect the spindle shaft at a point approximately 3 mm (1/8 inch) above the upper conical body/spindle shaft interface.
Allow the asphalt to come to equilibrium at the desired temperature (this takes about 15 minutes). Start the viscometer at a 20 RPM setting. Record three viscometer readings 60 s apart at the test temperature.
3.6 Marshall Test

The Marshall Stability test was carried out on bituminous mixes with varying bitumen contents at different temperature and different additive rate. It was adopted in investigations to determine the Optimum Binder Content (OBC) with emphasize on maximum stability, maximum unit weight and 4 percent voids or 75 percent voids filled with bitumen. The test was carried out according to the ASTM: D: 1559-65. Marshall Apparatus used is shown in Figure 3.4.
Fig. 3.4. Marshall Apparatus

Highway Technology, Department of Civil, DSCE Page 16
3.7 Indirect Tensile Test

After determining the physical parameters, the cylindrical specimen was conditioned to the required temperature. Then the specimen was placed horizontally between the loading pads in the unconfined compression testing machine, Such that the load is applied on the circumference of the specimen. Two dial gauges were fixed vertically and horizontally to measure the displacement at the centre of the tensile region. The load at failure was noted down.
The test has many advantages, the most obvious being simplicity of test procedure. The theoretical distribution of stresses for a concentrated load is shown in fig. In practice, the applied load is distributed over a finite area by loading strips. It has been shown that the width & type of loading strip plays a significant part in the stress distribution pattern within the specimen. Indirect tensile strength is determined by the equation. ITS = 2P/dt Where, P = Load at failure in kg. d = Avg. diameter of the specimen in cm. t = Avg. thickness of the specimen in cm. (3.1)
Test Procedure For Conducting Indirect Tensile Strength Test: Step 1- The specimens after extracting from mould is immersed in water bath maintained at a temperature of 251 oC for a period of 2 hours. The specimens subjected to the above condition are called as Unconditioned Specimens.
Step 2- After subjecting the specimens to the above condition, the specimen is now taken for testing. The sample is required to be tested in the Marshall testing machine. The 2 Braking heads attached to the mould as required for determining stability in the Marshall test is replaced by 2 curved steel strips 12.7mm wide & having the same inside curvature as that of the specimen.
Page 17
Step 3- The specimen is placed in the mould & the mould is placed in the testing machine. The load is applied at the rate of 50 mm/minute until the specimen fails by splitting along the vertical diameter. The load at failure is recorded & the indirect tensile strength is calculated.
3.8 Moisture Sensitivity Test

The moisture damage in asphalt mixtures is determined as a loss of strength due to the presence of moisture in terms of a tensile strength ratio (TSR) that is defined as a ratio of the indirect tensile strength of a wet specimen over that of a dry specimen. Two different sets of samples are subjected to indirect tensile test. One set is conditioned for 24 hours by soaking it in water at 25C. The other set is unconditioned sample that are kept in the water bath at 25C for 2 hours. The mix is susceptible to moisture if the Tensile strength ratio is lesser that 80%.
TSR = {(Indirect tensile strength of conditioned specimen/ indirect tensile strength of unconditioned specimen) X 100} (3.2)
Page 18
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 General
Samples of plain bitumen and bitumen with WMA additive at 1.5%, 2.0%, 2.5% and 3.0% dosage rate were tested for viscosity using brook field viscometer at 95, 105, 115, 125, 135 and 155 C. Specimens were prepared for DBM Grading-2 at 155, 135 and 115 C. Specimens with warm mix additive were prepared at a rate of 1.5% and 2.5% of the binder at 135 C and 115 C. The specimens were prepared with same variation of 4.5, 5.0, 5.5 and 6.0 percent of bitumen content. The casted specimens were tested for Marshall Stability, Indirect Tensile Strength and Moisture Susceptibility. The results of the above mentioned tests and the discussions are presented in this chapter.
4.2 Viscosity Test Results

A rotational viscometer was used to compare the viscosity of the virgin binder and the binder with WMA additive Rediset. The viscosities of the binders were measured at different temperature such as 95, 105, 115, 125, 135, and 155C as per ASTM D 4402 (2006). For all the viscosity tests 10.5 grams of binder was tested with a SC4 - 27 spindle maintaining a constant rotational speed of 20 RPM. The results obtained for plain bitumen, bitumen with 1.5%, 2.0%. 2.5% and 3.0% additive is tabulated in Tables 4.1. The graph representing the viscosity at different temperature is shown in Figure 4.1. Temperature corresponding to the mixing and compaction at minimum and maximum viscosity level is shown in Table 4.2.
Page 19
Table 4.1 Viscosity of binder at different temperature and different dosage rate
Temperature ( C) 95 Plain Bitumen (cP) 2480 2450 2450 2450 2450 1280 1280 1250 1250 1250 830 830 800 800 800 650 650 630 630 630 450 450 430 430 430 180 150 150 150 150 1.5% additive (cP) 2400 2380 2350 2350 2350 1200 1180 1150 1150 1150 750 750 750 750 750 580 600 580 580 580 400 430 430 400 400 130 100 100 100 100 2% additive (cP) 2330 2300 2300 2280 2280 1130 1130 1100 1100 1100 730 700 700 700 700 530 500 500 500 500 380 380 350 350 350 80 80 80 80 80 2.5% additive (cP) 2180 2150 2150 2130 2130 1030 1000 980 980 980 680 680 680 650 650 450 430 450 450 430 350 330 330 330 330 80 80 50 50 50 3% additive (cP) 2000 1950 1950 1930 1930 950 950 950 950 950 650 630 630 630 630 430 400 400 400 400 330 330 300 300 300 50 80 80 30 30
105
115
125
135
155
Page 20
10000
1000
Viscosity (cP)
Plain Bitumen 1.5% additive 2% additive 2.5% additive 3% additive

Max. Mixing Range Min. Mixing Range Max. Compaction Range Min. Compaction Range
100
10
95 105 115 125 135 Temperature (C) 145 155 165
Fig. 4.1. Viscosity at different temperature and different dosage rate
Table 4.2 Temperature corresponding to mixing and compaction at minimum and maximum viscosity level
Bitumen with Additive 0.00% 1.50% 2.00% 2.50% 3.00% Temperature ( C) Range of Mixing Temperature Range of Compaction Temperature Minimum Maximum Avg. Minimum Maximum Avg. 164 156 160.0 147 141 144.0 155 149 152.0 141 135 138.0 147 140 143.5 134 130 132.0 147 139 143.0 134 129 131.5 141 135 138.0 130 126 128.0
Viscosity of the binder was reduced with the increase in the temperature as well as with the addition of the WMA additive Rediset. As per Table 4.1, viscosity was reduced from 2480cP to 2000cP with the addition of 3.0% additive at 95 C. As per Table 4.2, temperature corresponding to mixing and compaction at minimum and maximum viscosity level shows that, difference in the mixing and compaction temperature is higher for plain bitumen when compared to the bitumen with warm mix asphalt additive Rediset.
Page 21
4.3 Design of DBM Mix

The Marshall Stability specimens were prepared with plain bitumen by varying the binder content from 4.5 per cent to 6 per cent by an increment of 0.5 per cent. Three specimens were prepared for each binder content. In the conventional Marshall mix design 1.2 kg of aggregates were used to prepare the specimen.
Marshall Stability test was conducted and properties like stability, flow, bulk density, volume of voids and voids filled with bitumen are found for plain bitumen and for bitumen with WMA additive Rediset varying dosage rate of 1.5% and 2.5% at a temperature of 135 C and 115 C.
The Marshall Stability test results of DBM at 155 C, 135 C and 115 C is presented in Table 4.3. The Marshall properties of specimens with 1.5% and 2.5% WMA additive at 135 C and 115 C are shown in the Tables 4.4.
The graphs were plotted between bitumen content and Marshall Stability, Bulk density and Air voids. The bitumen content corresponding to maximum stability, Bulk density and 4.5% air voids was obtained from these graphs. The average of the three bitumen contents was calculated and treated as optimum bitumen content (OBC). Table 4.5 shows the OBC values for DBM with different additive rate and at different temperature.
Page 22
Table 4.3. Marshall Test Properties of Dense Bituminous Macadam Grade 2 at 155, 135 and 115 C.
Properties 4.5% 8.60 2.00 2321 5.54 64.98 DBM at 155 C 5.0% 5.5% 9.20 2.67 2330 4.51 71.84 12.78 3.00 2319 4.35 74.24 6.0% 12.49 3.33 2316 3.84 78.08 4.5% 9.17 4.33 2315 5.76 64.00 DBM at 135 C 5.0% 5.5% 9.82 5.00 2319 4.97 69.66 10.36 5.33 2311 4.67 72.82 6.0% 9.23 5.67 2310 4.10 76.89 4.5% 7.72 2.67 2278 7.28 58.09 DBM at 115 C 5.0% 5.5% 8.73 3.33 2280 6.58 63.01 9.71 4.67 2277 6.06 67.02 6.0% 9.03 5.33 2276 5.49 70.97
Stability (kN) Flow (mm) Bulk Density (kg/m3) Vv (%) VFB (%)
Table 4.4. Marshall Test Properties of Dense Bituminous Macadam Grade 2 with 1.5% and 2.5% additive at 135 and 115 C.
Propertie s 1.5% additive at 135 C 4.5% 5% 5.5% 6.0% 9.33 4.2 10.0 4.8 10.67 5.5 10.72 6.2 1.5% additive at 115 C 4.5% 5.0% 5.5% 6.0% 7.60 3.50 9.31 4.70 10.21 5.20 10.69 5.50 2.5% additive at 135 C 4.5% 5.0% 5.5% 6.0% 9.49 4.50 10.24 5.30 10.74 5.80 10.77 6.30 2.5% additive at 115 C 4.5% 5.0% 5.5% 6.0% 7.50 4.20 9.42 5.30 11.07 5.50 11.21 6.20
Stability (kN) Flow (mm) Bulk Density (kg/m3)
2328
2325 4.76 70.5
2323 4.211 74.90
2322 3.625 79.10
2320 5.60 64.70
2324 4.93 69.85
2323 4.21 74.90
2321 3.64 78.99
2330 5.19 66.51
2332 4.47 71.95
2329 3.94 76.18
2326 3.45 79.87
2329 5.23 66.31
2328 4.65 71.12
2327 4.03 75.73
2327 3.41 80.08
Vv (%) 5.242 VFB (%) 66.28
Page 23
Table 4.5. OBC for DBM with different additive rate and at different temperature
Maximum stability Condition Stability (kN) 12.78 10.36 9.71 10.72 10.69 11.21 10.77 Bulk Density % Air Voids Bitumen Content 5.7% 5.1% 5.5% 5.5% 5.6% 5.5% 5.6% Optimum Bitumen Content (OBC) 5.6% 5.2% 5.4% 5.7% 5.7% 5.5% 5.5%
Bitumen Gb Bitumen Air Content (kg/m3) Content Voids 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 2319 2300 2280 2323 2323 2332 2328 5.5% 5.0% 5.0% 5.5% 5.5% 5.0% 5.0% 4.45 4.7 6.06 4.32 4.21 3.94 4.03
DBM at 155 C DBM at 135 C DBM at 115 C With 1.5% additive at 135 C With 1.5% additive at 115 C With 2.5% additive at 135 C With 2.5% additive at 115 C
Comparison of Marshall Properties: Marshall Properties of specimens prepared at

different temperatures and with different additive rate is compared each other. The graphical representation of comparison of Marshall properties for DBM at 155 C, 135 C, 115 C, 1.5% and 2.5% additive at 135, 115 C are shown in Figure 4.2 (a) to (e).
14
13 12 Stability (kN) 11 155 135 115 1.5% @ 135 1.5% @ 115 2.5% @ 135 2.5% @115 4.5% 5.0% 5.5% Bitumen Content 6.0% 6.5%
10
9 8 7 4.0%
(a)
Page 24
Experimental Investigation on Mix Design Properties and Moisture Sensitivity Characteristics of Dense Bituminous Macadam Mixes Modified With REDISET, A Warm Mix Additive. 7.5 6.5 Flow (mm) 5.5 4.5 3.5 2.5 1.5 4.0% 155 135 115 1.5% @ 135 1.5% @ 115 2.5% @ 135 4.5% 5.0% 5.5% Bitumen Content 6.0% 2.5% @115 6.5%
(b)
2340 2330 Bulk Density (kg/m3) 2320 2310 2300 2290 2280 2270 4.0% 4.5% 5.0% 5.5% Bitumen Content 6.0% 115 1.5% @ 135 1.5% @ 115 6.5% 155 135
(c)
8.0 7.5 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 4.0%
155 135 115 1.5% @ 135 1.5% @ 115 4.5% 5.0% 5.5% Bitumen Content 6.0% 6.5%
% Air Voids
(d)
Page 25
85 80 155 75 % VFB 70 65 60 55 4.0% 135 115 1.5% @ 135 1.5% @ 115 2.5% @ 135 2.5% @115 4.5% 5.0% 5.5% Bitumen Content 6.0% 6.5%
(e)
Figure 4.2 (a) to (e) shows the relationship of Marshall Properties with bitumen content for DBM mix with different additive rate at different temperature. (a) Stability, (b) Flow, (c) Bulk density (Gb), (d) Percentage air voids (Vv), (e) Voids filled with bitumen (VFB). The Marshall Stability values for the specimen of DBM Grade-2 vary with the variation in temperature. As per Table 4.3, the stability value for the mix at 155 C, 135 C and 115 C were 12.77, 10.35 and 9.71 kN respectively. For the same mix with WMA additive Rediset, stability value was found to be improved. As per Table 4.4, stability values were improved to 10.71, 10.69, 10.77 and 11.21 kN with 1.5% and 2.5% additive dosage rate.
The increase in bitumen content initially increased the bulk density but further increase in bitumen content decreases the bulk density. As per Table 4.3, bulk densities for the mix were 2319, 2312 and 2278 kg/m3 at 155, 135 and 155 C respectively. Similarly for the mixes with 1.5% and 2.5% additive at 135 C and 115 C were 2326, 2323, 2329 and 2327 kg/m3 respectively. It was seen that the bulk density was improved by the addition of WMA additive as shown Fig. 4.2 (c).
The percentage air voids in the mix were found to decrease with the increase in the bitumen content. But for the mix at 155 C, 135 C and 115 C, the percentage voids were found to be increased. As per Table 4.3, percentage voids were found to be 4.35, 5.66 and
Page 26
6.06%. Similarly for the mixes with 1.5% and 2.5% additive at 135 C and 115 C as per Table 4.4, percentage voids were 4.51, 4.21, 3.94 and 4.03% respectively. It was seen that the percentage voids were reduced with addition of WMA additive. The voids filled with bitumen (VFB) in the mix were found to be increased with the increase in the bitumen content.
The optimum bitumen content obtained for DBM grade-2 mix was different at different temperature. As per Table 4.5, optimum bitumen content for DBM mix at 155 C was 5.6% at 4% void ratio and for mix at 115 C was 5.35% at 6% void ratio. OBC for mix with 1.5% and 2.5% additive at 135 and 115 C were 5.7% and 5.5% at 4% void ratio respectively.
4.4 Indirect Tensile Strength

The Indirect Tensile Test was conducted on unconditioned specimen. The tensile strength is a very important parameter to predict the cracking behavior of the pavements. The specimen that was soaked in water for two hours at 251 C, i.e. the unconditioned specimen was then tested and the load at failure in Newton is noted. The indirect tensile strength is calculated from the obtained load at failure. The results of the ITS tests performed on DBM specimens are tabulated in Tables 4.6.
Page 27
Table 4.6. Indirect Tensile Strength of DBM at different temperature and additive rate
Condition Bitumen Content (%) 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 Load at failure (kN) 7.4 7.8 8.0 8.1 5.8 5.7 6.2 6.3 4.6 4.8 5.0 4.9 5.9 6.0 6.9 6.4 4.7 5.1 5.4 5.1 5.9 6.1 6.8 6.7 5.0 5.2 5.4 5.5 Indirect Tensile Strength (MPa) 0.734 0.762 0.783 0.775 0.584 0.581 0.630 0.612 0.467 0.507 0.520 0.505 0.594 0.616 0.650 0.649 0.483 0.538 0.556 0.520 0.596 0.634 0.697 0.683 0.528 0.544 0.570 0.552 Average of Indirect Tensile Strength (MPa) 0.736 0.779 0.807 0.784 0.560 0.610 0.660 0.631 0.477 0.494 0.527 0.503 0.578 0.628 0.690 0.655 0.482 0.510 0.538 0.503 0.602 0.635 0.701 0.686 0.524 0.534 0.585 0.551
DBM at 155 C
DBM at 135 C
DBM at 115 C
With 1.5% additive at 135 C With 1.5% additive at 115 C With 2.5% additive at 135 C With 2.5% additive at 115 C
According to study results in Table 4.5, indirect tensile strength values for DBM mixes at 155 C, 135 C and 115 C were 0.807, 0.661 and 0.527 MPa. DBM mix with 1.5% and 2.5% additive rate at 135 C and 115 C were 0.690, 0.538, 0.701 and 0.585 MPa. ITS value was maximum at the temperature of 155 C and later at 135 and 115 C, strength was reduced. For the same mix with 1.5% and 2.5% additive dosage rate at 135 and 115 C, the ITS values were improved when compared to DBM mix without additive. This shows that the Indirect Tensile Strength was improved with the addition of the WMA additive Rediset.
Page 28
4.5 Moisture Sensitivity

The ratio of the indirect tensile strength of the conditioned specimen to the indirect tensile strength of the unconditioned specimen gives the Tensile Strength Ratio (TSR). Indirect tensile strength ratio performed on DBM at 155 C, 135 C, 115 C and mix with 1.5% and 2.5% additive at 135 C and 115 C are shown in Table 4.7.
Table 4.7 - Tensile Strength Ratio for DBM at different temperature and additive rate
Condition Bitumen Content (%) 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 Indirect Tensile Strength (MPa) Conditioned 0.621 0.671 0.713 0.672 0.462 0.526 0.562 0.533 0.396 0.403 0.446 0.418 0.479 0.529 0.599 0.558 0.403 0.447 0.487 0.446 0.551 0.548 0.618 0.593 0.437 0.462 0.528 0.489 Unconditioned 0.736 0.779 0.807 0.784 0.560 0.610 0.661 0.631 0.477 0.497 0.527 0.503 0.578 0.628 0.690 0.655 0.482 0.510 0.538 0.503 0.662 0.635 0.701 0.686 0.524 0.534 0.585 0.551 Tensile Strength Ratio (TSR, %) 84.4 86.1 88.4 85.7 82.5 86.2 85.0 84.5 83.0 81.1 84.6 83.1 82.9 84.2 86.8 85.2 83.6 87.6 90.5 88.7 83.2 86.3 88.2 86.4 83.4 86.5 90.3 88.7
DBM at 155 C
DBM at 135 C
DBM at 115 C
With 1.5% additive at 135 C With 1.5% additive at 115 C With 2.5% additive at 135 C With 2.5% additive at 115 C
Page 29
Moisture sensitivity was also carried out on the test specimens of varying temperature. As per Table 4.12, tensile strength ratio for the mixes at 155 C, 135 C, 115 C and mixes with additive rate 1.5% and 2.5% at 155 C, 135 C and 115 C were 88.4, 85.0, 84.6, 86.8, 90.5, 88.2 and 90.3% respectively. It shows that the Tensile strength ratio (TSR) values for all the DBM mix were above the specification 80%. TSR of the mixes with WMA additive were higher when compared to the mixes without additive.
Page 30
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 Conclusions
Following conclusions are made based on the results obtained in the present investigation:
Viscosity of binder found using Brookfield Rotational Viscometer was maximum at

lower temperature of 95 C. Further with the increase in temperature up to 155 C, viscosity was reduced to lower values. The value of Viscosity was still lower when the binder was tested with 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 and 3.0% additive dosage rate. Viscosity was minimum for the binder with 3.0% additive rate at 155 C. It was seen that the, viscosity reduced with the increase in the temperature as well as with the addition of WMA additive Rediset.
Marshall Stability initially increases with the increase in the bitumen content from
4.5% to 5.5%, further increase in the bitumen to 6.0% decreases the stability value.
From the results of Marshall properties, for the DBM Grade-2 mix, WMA additive
Rediset added at a rate of 2.5% weight of the bitumen shows the maximum stability against the DBM mix at 135 and 115 C. Mix with additive of 1.5% dosage rate also showed improved stability at 135 and 115 C than the mix without WMA additive.
Flow value was seen to be increased with the increase in additive rate but decreased
with decrease in temperature. The increase in bitumen content initially increased the bulk density but further increase in bitumen content decreases the bulk density. The addition of WMA additive Rediset improved the Bulk Density of the mix. It was also seen that there was very less difference between the densities of 1.5% and 2.5% additive rate specimens. The percentage air voids in the mix were found to decrease with the increase in the bitumen content. Air voids of DBM mix with WMA additive Rediset at 135 C was the lowest when compared to the mix without additive at 155 C which indicate that, WMA additives are effective in compacting mixtures at a lower temperature. The voids filled with bitumen (VFB) in the mix were found to increase with the increase in the bitumen content.
Page 31
The indirect tensile strength of a mix with WMA additive was higher than the mix without WMA additive. This shows that the WMA additive play important role in increasing the strength of the specimen.
The Tensile strength ratio (TSR) values for all the DBM mix were above the specification 80%. TSR of the mixes with WMA additive were higher when compared to the mixes without additive. These results indicate that the mixes with WMA additive are more susceptible to moisture damage.
5.2 Recommendations
Warm mix additive Rediset added at 2.5% dosage rate showed better stability for DBM mixes when compared to mixes with 1.5% additive dosage rate. So in terms of stability, it is better to use 2.5% of WMA additive Rediset to DBM mix. Air voids was low as 3.94% in the mix with 2.5% additive at 135 C when compared to mixes with 2.5% additive at 115 C and 1.5% additive at 135 C and115 C. So in terms of air voids, it is better to use 2.5% WMA additive for DBM mix at 135 C.
5.3 Scope for Further Research

The conclusions drawn in the above sections are based on the laboratory studies performed on DBM Grade-2 mixes, at different temperatures and different additive rate. After the analyses of results at different stages of this study, it was found that the following issues needs to be addressed as part of the future scope of study. This study includes only four main tests like viscosity, marshall stability, indirect tensile strength and moisture sensitivity. Rutting potential and fatigue resistance parameters were not considered for study. Considering these parameters, rutting and fatigue behavior of the mix with WMA additive can be carried out. Also the effect of aging on the binder with additive can be analyzed.
Page 32
REFERENCES
AASHTO T-316-06. (2006). Standard Method of Test for Viscosity Determination of Asphalt Binder Using Rotational Viscometer. Anand, S. (2010) Comprehensive evaluation of four warm asphalt mixture regarding viscosity, tensile strength, moisture sensitivity, dynamic modulus and flow number. University of IOWA. IOWA. ( http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/594)
Elie, Y. H., and Edward, M. (2011) Evaluation of the CECABASE RT Warm Mix Additive. Final report, University of Nevada Reno, Nevada.
Graham, C. H., and Brian, D. P. (2005). Evaluation of aspha -Min zeolite for use in warm mix asphalt. National Center for Asphalt Technology Report 05 -04. Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama.
John, D. A., Eric, H., and John, B. (2008) Warm Mix Asphalt: European Practice. International Technology Scanning Program. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
Kandhal, P. S. (2010). Warm mix asphalt technologies: An overview. Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, Paper No. 561, pp. 143-152. Shu, W, G., Zhanping, Y. and Thomas, J. (2007). Laboratory evaluation and pavement design for warm mix asphalt. Mid-Continent transportation research symposium report. Iowa state University, Ames, Iowa.
S.K. Khanna and C.E.G. Justo, Highway Material testing (Laboratory Manual), Nemchand and Bros, Roorkee 1997. Stacey, P. E., and Amy, H. (2008). Laboratory Evaluation of Warm Asphalt Technology for use in Virginia. Virginia Transportation Research Council Report. In cooperation with the U.S Department of Transportation, VTRC 09R11.
Page 33
Sundaram, L., and Angelo, A. (2008). Surface active bitumen additive for warm mix asphalt with adhesion promoting properties. Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry LLC. Tejash, G., and Serji, A. (2010) Laboratory Simulation of Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA) Binder Aging Characteristics. Clemson University research report. Clemson University, Clemson SC.
Page 34
OUTCOME OF THE PROJECT WORK RESULTING IN AN ARTICLE

A paper entitled Evaluation of Warm Mix Asphalt Technology was presented on 24 th August in a National Students Conference on Recent Advancement in Civil Engineering (RACE 2012) organized by Department of Civil Engineering, K L University, Vaddeswaram, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, INDIA. Copy of the certificate is attached.
Page 35
Annexure-A
Tabulation of Obtained Values of Viscosity, Marshall Properties, Indirect Tensile Strength and Moisture Sensitivity for the Mix at Different Temperature and Different Additive Dosage Rate
Table A.1. Viscosity of binder with different dosage rate at 95 C

Time (sec) 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300 Plain Bitumen 1.5% Additive Torque cP Torque cP 10.2 2480 9.9 2400 10.2 2480 9.9 2400 10.2 2480 9.9 2400 10.2 2480 9.9 2400 10.2 2480 9.9 2400 10.2 2480 9.8 2380 10.2 2450 9.8 2380 10.1 2450 9.8 2380 10.1 2450 9.8 2380 10.1 2450 9.8 2380 10.1 2450 9.7 2350 10.1 2450 9.7 2350 10.1 2450 9.7 2350 10.1 2450 9.7 2350 10.1 2450 9.7 2350 10.1 2450 9.7 2350 10.1 2450 9.7 2350 10.1 2450 9.7 2350 10.1 2450 9.7 2350 10.1 2450 9.7 2350 2% Additive Torque cP 9.7 2350 9.7 2350 9.6 2330 9.6 2330 9.6 2330 9.6 2330 9.5 2300 9.5 2300 9.5 2300 9.5 2300 9.5 2300 9.5 2300 9.4 2280 9.4 2280 9.4 2280 9.4 2280 9.4 2280 9.4 2280 9.4 2280 9.4 2280 2.5% Additive Torque cP 9.0 2180 9.0 2180 9.0 2180 9.0 2180 9.0 2180 9.0 2180 9.0 2180 8.9 2150 8.9 2150 8.9 2150 8.9 2150 8.9 2150 8.9 2150 8.8 2130 8.8 2130 8.8 2130 8.8 2130 8.8 2130 8.8 2130 8.8 2130 3% Additive Torque cP 8.3 2000 8.3 2000 8.3 2000 8.3 2000 8.2 1980 8.2 1980 8.2 1980 8.1 1950 8.1 1950 8.1 1950 8.1 1950 8.1 1950 8.0 1930 8.0 1930 8.0 1930 8.0 1930 8.0 1930 8.0 1930 8.0 1930 8.0 1930
Page 36

Plain Bitumen Time (sec) 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300 Torque 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 cP 1280 1280 1280 1280 1280 1280 1280 1280 1280 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 Torque 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 cP 1200 1200 1200 1200 1180 1180 1180 1180 1180 1180 1150 1150 1150 1150 1150 1150 1150 1150 1150 1150 Torque 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 cP 1130 1130 1130 1130 1130 1130 1130 1130 1130 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 Torque 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 cP 1030 1030 1030 1030 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 980 980 980 980 980 980 980 980 980 Torque 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 cP 980 980 980 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 1.5% Additive 2% Additive 2.5% Additive 3% Additive

Page 37


Page 38

Plain Bitumen Time (sec) 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300 Torque 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 cP 180 180 180 180 150 150 150 150 180 180 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 Torque 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 cP 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Torque 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 cP Torque 100 0.4 100 0.4 80 0.4 80 0.4 80 0.4 80 0.4 80 0.4 80 0.4 80 0.3 100 0.3 100 0.3 80 0.3 80 0.3 80 0.3 80 0.3 80 0.3 80 0.3 80 0.3 80 0.3 80 0.3 cP 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Torque 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 cP 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 80 80 80 80 80 50 50 50 30 30 30 30 30 1.5% Additive 2% Additive 2.5% Additive 3% Additive
Page 39
Table A.7. Marshall properties of DBM mix at 155 C Bitumen Content

Properties 1 Thickness (cm) Height (cm) Weight in Air (g) Weight in Water (g) Bulk Density (kg/m3) Theoretical Density (kg/m3) Stability (kN) Flow (mm) Vv (%) Vb (%) VMA (%) VFB (%) 101.5 67.3 1241 707 2324 2 101.5 66.9 1250 711 2319 4.5% 3 101.5 65.7 1246 709 2320 Avg. 101.5 66.65 1245 709 2321 1 101.5 66.86 1238 711 2349 2 101.5 67.12 1251 712 2321 5.0% 3 101.5 65.4 1245 709 2323 Avg. 101.5 66.46 1244 710 2331 1 101.5 66.2 1255 713 2315 2 101.5 67.03 1255 714 2320 5.5% 3 101.5 67.1 1259 717 2323 Avg. 101.5 66.77 1256 714 2319 1 101.5 65.73 1258 714 2313 2 101.5 66.5 1259 715 2314 6.0% 3 101.5 66.18 1259 717 2323 Avg. 101.5 66.13 1258 715 2317
2457 9.324 3 5.434
2457 8.667 4 5.615
2457 7.794 3 5.564
2457 8.595 3.33 5.536
2441 10.44 3 3.763
2441 8.289 5 4.917
2441 8.881 4 4.844
2441 9.204 4.00 4.508
2425 13.55 4 4.512
2425 12.31 5 4.339
2425 12.46 6 4.211
2425 12.77 5.00 4.354
2409 12.68 7 4.013
2409 12.46 6 3.930
2409 12.31 6 3.575
2409 12.48 6.33 3.839
10.248 10.253 10.267 10.270 11.549 11.411 11.420 11.460 12.522 12.546 12.562 12.543 13.643 13.654 13.704 13.667 15.75 65.42 15.84 64.68 15.83 64.85 15.80 64.97 15.31 75.42 16.32 69.88 16.26 70.21 15.96 71.84 17.03 73.51 16.88 74.30 16.77 74.89 16.89 74.23 17.65 77.27 17.58 77.65 17.27 79.31 17.50 78.07
Page 40

Properties 1 Thickness (cm) Height (cm) Weight in Air (g) Weight in Water (g) Bulk Density (kg/m3) Theoretical Density (kg/m3) Stability (kN) Flow (mm) Vv (%) Vb (%) VMA (%) VFB (%) 101.8 66.8 1242 706 2317 2 101.8 66.8 1245 707 2314 4.5% 3 101.9 67.1 1241 705 2315 Avg. 101.8 66.9 1242 706 2316 1 101.8 66.9 1252 713 2323 2 102.0 67.2 1248 710 2320 5.0% 3 101.8 66.8 1251 711 2317 Avg. 101.9 67.0 1250 711 2320 1 101.5 67.3 1255 712 2311 2 101.6 67.4 1253 711 2312 5.5% 3 101.5 67.3 1251 710 2312 Avg. 101.5 67.4 1253 711 2312 1 101.5 67.2 1260 715 2312 2 101.7 67.1 1265 718 2313 6.0% 3 101.8 67.2 1264 716 2307 Avg. 101.7 67.2 1263 716 2310
2457 9.54 4 5.710 10.253 15.963 64.231
2457 8.8 4 5.815 10.239 16.054 63.780
2457 9.17 5 5.767 10.245 16.012 63.982
2457 9.17 4.33 5.764 10.246 16.010 63.998
2441 9.9 5 4.842 11.420 16.262 70.225
2441 10.12 6 4.969 11.405 16.374 69.652
2441 9.43 4 5.094 11.390 16.483 69.099
2441 9.81 5.00 4.968 11.405 16.373 69.659
2425 10.85 5 4.688 12.499 17.188 72.723
2425 10.48 5 4.668 12.502 17.170 72.815
2425 9.74 6 4.644 12.506 17.149 72.921
2425 10.35 5.33 4.667 12.502 17.169 72.820
2409 9.39 6 4.037 13.640 17.677 77.162
2409 8.75 5 4.001 13.644 17.645 77.324
2409 9.54 6 4.252 13.608 17.860 76.193
2409 9.22 5.66 4.097 13.631 17.727 76.893
Page 41

Properties 1 Thickness (cm) Height (cm) Weight in Air (g) Weight in Water (g) Bulk Density (kg/m3) Theoretical Density (kg/m3) Stability (kN) Flow (mm) Vv (%) Vb (%) VMA (%) VFB (%) 101.46 67.63 1244 697 2.274 2 101.82 66.83 1245 699 2.280 4.5% 3 101.49 67.45 1243 698 2.281 Avg. 101.59 67.30 1244 698 2.28 1 101.83 66.86 1252 702 2.276 2 101.91 67.43 1255 706 2.286 5.0% 3 101.77 67.65 1251 702 2.279 Avg. 101.84 67.31 1253 703 2.28 1 101.18 67.73 1258 707 2.283 2 101.73 68.40 1257 705 2.277 5.5% 3 101.45 67.30 1255 703 2.274 Avg. 101.45 67.81 1257 705 2.28 1 101.73 68.40 1265 709 2.275 2 101.72 67.53 1262 708 2.278 6.0% 3 101.71 67.51 1266 710 2.277 Avg. 101.72 67.81 1264 709 2.277
2.457 6.83 3 7.457 10.063 17.520 57.437
2.457 7.75 2 7.195 10.089 17.284 58.373
2.457 8.58 3 7.174 10.092 17.266 58.449
2.46 7.72 2.67 7.28 10.08 17.36 58.09
2.441 8.46 4 6.745 11.192 17.937 62.395
2.441 8.94 3 6.351 11.239 17.590 63.894
2.441 8.8 3 6.649 11.203 17.852 62.754
2.44 8.73 3.33 6.58 11.21 17.79 63.01
2.425 9.38 5 5.848 12.347 18.195 67.861
2.425 10.12 4 6.096 12.315 18.411 66.890
2.425 9.64 5 6.245 12.296 18.541 66.316
2.42 9.71 4.67 6.06 12.32 18.38 67.02
2.409 8.47 5 5.562 13.423 18.985 70.702
2.409 8.93 5 5.439 13.439 18.878 71.190
2.409 9.68 6 5.480 13.434 18.914 71.025
2.409 9.03 5.33 5.49 13.43 18.93 70.97
Page 42
Table A.10. Marshall Properties of DBM mix with 1.5% additive rate at 135 C Bitumen Content
Properties 1 Thickness (cm) Height (cm) Weight in Air (g) Weight in Water (g) Bulk Density (kg/m3) Theoretical Density (kg/m3) Stability (kN) Flow (mm) Vv (%) Vb (%) VMA (%) VFB (%) 101.68 66.68 1246 711 2329 2 101.72 66.73 1248 712 2328 4.5% 3 101.78 66.99 1243 709 2328 Avg. 101.72 66.80 1246 710.67 2328 1 101.61 66.83 1255 715 2324 2 101.87 66.97 1251 713 2325 5.0% 3 101.67 66.73 1253 714 2325 Avg. 101.71 66.843 1253 714.00 2325 1 101.35 67.23 1258 716 2321 2 101.48 67.33 1255 715 2324 5.5% 3 101.36 67.23 1257 716 2323 Avg. 101.39 67.26 1257 715.67 2323 1 101.41 67.15 1262 719 2324 2 101.59 67.12 1263 721 2330 6.0% 3 101.68 67.24 1264 717 2311 Avg. 101.56 67.17 1263 719.00 2322
2457 8.67 4 5.229 10.305 15.534 66.338
2457 9.41 4 5.236 10.302 15.538 66.304
2457 9.92 4.5 5.262 10.300 15.562 66.187
2457 9.33 4.16 5.242 10.302 15.545 66.276
2441 10.12 5 4.791 11.426 16.217 70.459
2441 10.14 5.5 4.741 11.432 16.173 70.687
2441 9.84 4 4.765 11.429 16.195 70.574
2441 10.03 4.83 4.766 11.429 16.195 70.573
2425 10.49 5 4.284 12.552 16.836 74.554
2425 10.56 5.5 4.162 12.569 16.731 75.124
2425 10.95 6 4.187 12.565 16.752 75.009
2425 10.66 5.50 4.211 12.562 16.773 74.896
2409 10.44 6 3.531 13.712 17.242 79.523
2409 10.56 5.5 3.269 13.748 17.016 80.791
2409 11.15 7 4.077 13.633 17.710 76.979
2409 10.71 6.16 3.625 13.697 17.323 79.098
Page 43
Properties 1 2 4.5% 3 Avg. 1 101.73 66.76 1250 711 2319 2 101.78 67.33 1253 713 2320 5.0% 3 101.67 67.66 1252 713 2323 Avg. 101.73 67.25 1252 713 2324 1 101.28 67.53 1258 717 2325 2 101.61 67.75 1257 716 2323 5.5% 3 101.55 67.00 1255 714 2320 Avg. 101.48 67.43 1257 716 2323 1 2 6.0% 3 Avg. 101.63 101.62 101.75 101.667 67.95 1265 720 2321 67.45 1262 718 2320 67.61 1266 721 2323 67.670 1264.33 720 2321
Thickness 101.54 101.78 101.62 101.65 (cm) Height 67.63 66.52 66.72 66.96 (cm) Weight in 1224 1233 1238 1232 Air (g) Weight in 695 703 704 701 Water (g) Bulk 2314 2326 2318 2320 Density 3 (kg/m ) Theoretical 2457 2457 2457 2457 Density (kg/m3) Stability 7.55 7.45 7.79 7.60 (kN) Flow (mm) Vv (%) Vb (%) VMA (%) VFB (%) 3 5.847 3 5.315 4.5 5.643 3.50 5.601
2441 8.67 4 4.994 11.402 16.396 69.541
2441 9.41 5 4.942 11.408 16.350 69.774
2441 9.84 5 4.841 11.420 16.261 70.227
2441 9.31 4.67 4.926 11.410 16.336 69.848
2425 10.14 5 4.107 12.575 16.683 75.380
2425 10.00 5.5 4.187 12.565 16.752 75.009
2425 10.49 5 4.339 12.546 16.885 74.302
2425 10.21 5.17 4.211 12.562 16.773 74.897
2409 10.71 5 3.656
2409 10.12 5.5 3.701
2409 11.23 6 3.573
2409 10.69 5.500 3.643 13.695 17.338 78.988
10.238 10.294 10.258 10.263 16.085 15.609 15.901 15.865 63.651 65.950 64.512 64.704
13.694 13.686 13.705 17.350 17.387 17.277 78.926 78.716 79.322
Page 44
Properties 1 Thickness (cm) Height (cm) Weight in Air (g) Weight in Water (g) Bulk Density (kg/m3) Theoretical Density (kg/m3) Stability (kN) Flow (mm) Vv (%) Vb (%) VMA (%) VFB (%) 101.78 66.58 1247 712 2331 2 101.58 66.83 1243 710 2332 4.5% 3 101.64 66.79 1249 712 2326 Avg. 101.67 66.73 1246 711 2330 1 101.61 66.83 1258 719 2334 2 101.87 66.97 1252 715 2331 5.0% 3 101.67 66.73 1256 717 2330 Avg. 101.72 66.84 1255 717 2332 1 101.35 67.23 1261 720 2331 2 101.48 67.33 1258 719 2334 5.5% 3 101.36 67.23 1257 716 2323 Avg. 101.40 67.26 1259 718 2329 1 2 6.0% 3 101.68 67.24 1264 720 2324 Avg. 101.56 67.17 1263 720 2326 101.41 101.59 67.15 1264 721 2328 67.12 1263 720 2326
2457 8.98 4.5 5.153 10.313 15.467 66.682
2457 9.66 4 5.084 10.319 15.403 66.993
2457 9.82 5 5.336 10.292 15.628 65.853
2457 9.487 4.50 5.191 10.308 15.499 66.510
2441 10.21 5 4.386 11.475 15.861 72.347
2441 10.52 5.5 4.487 11.462 15.950 71.867
2441 9.98 5.5 4.537 11.456 15.994 71.630
2441 10.237 5.33 4.470 11.465 15.935 71.948
2425 10.69 6 3.879 12.605 16.484 76.471
2425 10.46 5.5 3.755 12.622 16.377 77.074
2425 11.06 6 4.187 12.565 16.752 75.009
2425 10.737 5.83 3.940 12.598 16.538 76.184
2409 10.54 6 3.378
2409 10.54 6 3.447
2409 11.24 7 3.548 13.708 17.256 79.439
2409 10.773 6.33 3.458 13.721 17.179 79.874
13.733 13.723 17.111 17.169 80.259 79.925
Page 45
Properties 1 2 4.5% 3 Avg. 1 101.82 66.66 1253 715 2329 2 101.64 67.23 1252 713 2323 5.0% 3 101.76 67.66 1254 716 2331 Avg. 101.74 67.18 1253 715 2328 1 101.38 67.43 1259 718 2327 2 101.58 67.65 1254 715 2327 5.5% 3 101.65 67.24 1257 717 2328 Avg. 101.54 67.44 1256 717 2327 1 2 6.0% 3 Avg. 101.73 101.72 67.85 1263 721 2330 67.35 1267 722 2325 101.84 101.76 67.51 1265 721 2325 67.570 1265 721 2327
Thickness 101.65 101.74 101.58 101.66 (cm) Height 67.73 66.42 66.88 67.01 (cm) Weight in 1240 1235 1239 1238 Air (g) Weight in 708 705 706 706 Water (g) Bulk 2331 2330 2325 2329 Density 3 (kg/m ) Theoretical 2457 2457 2457 2457 Density (kg/m3) Stability 7.36 7.48 7.65 7.50 (kN) Flow (mm) Vv (%) Vb (%) VMA (%) VFB (%) 4.5 5.154 3 5.161 5 5.390 4.17 5.235
2441 9.66 5 4.589 11.450 16.039 71.389
2441 8.90 5 4.841 11.420 16.261 70.227
2441 9.70 6 4.512 11.459 15.972 71.748
2441 9.42 5.33 4.648 11.443 16.091 71.122
2425 10.88 5 4.031 12.585 16.616 75.741
2425 11.36 5.5 4.061 12.582 16.643 75.601
2425 10.98 6 4.009 12.589 16.598 75.845
2425 11.07 5.50 4.034 12.585 16.619 75.729
2409 11.24 6 3.276
2409 10.98 5.5 3.496
2409 11.42 7 3.472
2409 11.21 6.167 3.415
10.313 10.311 10.286 10.303 15.467 15.472 15.675 15.538 66.680 66.641 65.617 66.313
13.748 13.715 17.024 17.212 80.755 79.686
13.719 13.727 17.191 17.142 79.805 80.082
Page 46
Table A.13. Indirect Tensile Strength of DBM at 155 C

Bitumen % 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 Thickness (mm) 101.62 101.84 101.80 101.96 101.04 101.17 101.70 100.89 101.32 101.64 101.72 101.58 Height (mm) 63.22 62.95 62.56 59.54 60.81 62.78 61.81 62.57 62.64 64.24 65.21 64.76 Load At failure (kN) 7.4 7.1 7.7 7.3 7.8 7.6 8.2 8.0 7.8 8.2 8.1 8.0 Indirect Tensile Strength (MPa) 0.734 0.705 0.770 0.766 0.809 0.762 0.831 0.807 0.783 0.800 0.778 0.775 Avg. Indirect Tensile Strength (MPa) 0.736
0.779
0.807
0.784

Bitumen % 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 Thickness (mm) 101.63 101.64 101.77 101.98 101.76 101.54 101.73 101.66 101.79 101.04 101.17 101.70 Height (mm) 62.33 62.22 60.96 61.83 61.38 57.79 59.83 61.66 61.35 60.81 62.78 61.81 Load At failure (kN) 5.5 5.8 5.3 5.9 5.7 6.0 6.4 6.2 6.7 6.2 6.1 6.3 Indirect Tensile Strength (MPa) 0.553 0.584 0.544 0.596 0.581 0.651 0.670 0.630 0.683 0.643 0.612 0.638 0.661 0.560 Avg. Indirect Tensile Strength (MPa)
0.610
0.631
Page 47

Bitumen % 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 Thickness (mm) 101.63 101.64 101.77 101.98 101.76 101.54 101.73 101.66 101.79 101.04 101.17 101.70 Height (mm) 62.33 62.22 60.96 61.83 61.38 57.79 59.83 61.66 61.35 60.81 62.78 61.81 Load At failure (kN) 5.5 5.8 5.3 5.9 5.7 6.0 6.4 6.2 6.7 6.2 6.1 6.3 Indirect Tensile Strength (MPa) 0.553 0.584 0.544 0.596 0.581 0.651 0.670 0.630 0.683 0.643 0.612 0.638 0.631 0.661 0.610 0.560 Avg. Indirect Tensile Strength (MPa)
Table A.16. Indirect Tensile Strength of DBM with 1.5% additive at 135 C
Page 48
Bitumen % 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 Thickness (mm) 100.77 101.86 101.98 101.76 101.56 101.29 101.78 101.60 101.95 101.77 101.98 101.76 Height (mm) 62.45 59.20 60.44 60.96 61.35 60.81 62.78 61.58 61.83 60.96 61.83 61.38 Load At failure (kN) 4.8 4.7 4.5 4.8 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.1 5.5 4.9 4.8 5.1 Indirect Tensile Strength (MPa) 0.483 0.497 0.467 0.498 0.520 0.514 0.538 0.519 0.556 0.503 0.485 0.520 0.510 Avg. Indirect Tensile Strength (MPa) 0.482
0.538
0.503
Bitumen % 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 Thickness (mm) 101.04 101.17 101.70 100.89 101.96 101.66 101.66 100.95 101.96 101.77 101.98 101.76 Height (mm) 60.81 62.78 61.81 62.57 62.22 60.96 61.35 62.33 62.22 60.96 61.83 61.38 Load At failure (kN) 5.9 6.1 5.8 6.4 6.1 6.3 7.0 6.8 6.9 6.7 6.8 6.7 Indirect Tensile Load (MPa) 0.594 0.617 0.596 0.659 0.611 0.634 0.721 0.683 0.697 0.688 0.687 0.683 Avg. Indirect Tensile Strength (MPa) 0.602
0.635
0.701
0.686
Page 49
Table A.20. Tensile Strength Ratio for DBM at 155 C

% Bitumen Indirect Tensile Strength (MPa) Conditioned 0.621 0.671 0.713 0.672 Unconditioned 0.736 0.779 0.807 0.784 Tensile Strength Ratio (TSR) % 84.4 86.1 88.4 85.7
4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0

% Bitumen Indirect Tensile Strength (MPa) Conditioned 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 0.462 0.526 0.562 0.533 Unconditioned 0.560 0.610 0.661 0.631 82.5 86.2 85.0 84.5 Tensile Strength Ratio (TSR) %
Page 50

% Bitumen Indirect Tensile Strength (MPa) Conditioned 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 0.396 0.403 0.446 0.418 Unconditioned 0.477 0.497 0.527 0.503 83.0 81.1 84.6 83.1 Tensile Strength Ratio (TSR) %
Table A.23. Tensile Strength Ratio for DBM with 1.5% additive at 135 C
% Bitumen Indirect Tensile Strength (MPa) Conditioned 0.479 0.529 0.599 0.558 Unconditioned 0.578 0.628 0.690 0.655 Tensile Strength Ratio (TSR) %
4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
82.9 84.2 86.8 85.2
4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
83.6 87.6 90.5 88.7
Page 51
4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
83.2 86.3 88.2 86.4
% Bitumen Indirect Tensile Strength (MPa) Conditioned Unconditioned Tensile Strength Ratio (TSR) %
4.5
5.0 5.5 6.0
0.437
0.462 0.528 0.489
0.524
0.534 0.585 0.551
83.4
86.5 90.3 88.7
Page 52
Annexure-B
Graphical Representation of Marshall Properties for DBM Mix with Different Additive Rate and at Different Temperature
14 13 12 Stability (kg) 11 10 9 8 7 4.0% Stability Avg Stability
4.5%
5.0% 5.5% Bitumen Content
6.0%
6.5%
Fig.B.1. Stability of DBM mix specimen at 155 C
4.50 4.00 Flow ( mm) 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 4.0% Flow Avg Flow
4.5%
6.0%
6.5%
Fig.B.2. Flow of DBM mix specimen at 155 C
Page 53
2360 Bulk Density (kg/m3) 2350 2340 2330 2320 2310 2300 4.0% 4.5% 5.0% 5.5% Bitumen Content 6.0% 6.5% Gb Avg Gb (kg/m3))
Fig.B.3. Bulk Density of DBM mix specimen at 155 C
6.0 Vv ( % Void Ratio) 5.5 5.0 4.5 Series1 Series2
4.0
3.5 3.0 4.0% 4.5% 5.0% 5.5% Bitumen Content 6.0%
6.5%
Fig.B.4. Air Voids % of DBM mix specimen at 155 C
85 VFB (Voids Filled with Bitumen) % 80 75 VFB 70 65 60 4.0% Avg VFB
4.5%
6.0%
6.5%
Fig.B.5. VFB% of DBM mix specimen at 155 C
Page 54
11.0 10.5 Stability (kN) 10.0 9.5 9.0 8.5 8.0 4.0% Stability Avg Stability
4.5%
6.0%
6.5%
Fig.B.6 Stability of DBM mix specimen at 135 C

6.5 6.0 5.5 Flow 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 4.0% Flow Avg Flow
4.5%
6.0%
6.5%
Fig.B.7 Flow of DBM mix specimen at 135 C

2325 Bulk Density (kg/m3) 2320 2315 Gb
2310
2305 2300 4.0%
Avg Gb (kg/m3)
4.5%
6.0%
6.5%
Fig.B.8 Bulk Density of DBM mix specimen at 135 C
Page 55
6.0 5.5 % Void Ratio 5.0 Vv 4.5 4.0 3.5 4.0% Avg Vv
4.5%
6.0%
6.5%
Fig.B.9 Air Voids % of DBM mix specimen at 135 C
80 78 76 74 72 70 68 66 64 62 60 4.0%
VFB (%)
VFB Avg VFB
4.5%
6.0%
6.5%
Fig.B.10 VFB % of DBM mix specimen at 135 C
11 10 Stability (kN) 9 8 7 6 5 4.0% 4.5% 5.0% 5.5% Bitumen Content 6.0% 6.5% Stability Avg Stability
Fig.B.11 Stability of DBM mix specimen at 115 C

7 6 5 Flow 4 3 2 1 4.0% 4.5% 5.0% 5.5% Bitumen Content 6.0% 6.5% Flow Avg Flow
Fig.B.12 Flow of DBM mix specimen at 115 C
2288 2286
Bulk Density (kg/m3)
2284 2282 2280 2278 2276 2274 2272 4.0% 4.5% 5.0% 5.5% Bitumen Content 6.0% 6.5% Gb Avg Gb (kg/m3)
Fig.B.13 Bulk Density of DBM mix specimen at 115 C

8.0 7.5 % Air Voids 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 4.0% Vv Avg Vv
4.5%
6.0%
6.5%
Fig.B.14 Air Voids % of DBM mix specimen at 115 C
Page 57
73 71 69 67 65 63 61 59 57 55 4.0%
VFB (%)
VFB
Avg VFB
4.5%
6.0%
6.5%
Fig.B.15 VFB % of DBM mix specimen at 115 C

11.5 11.0 Stability (kN) 10.5 10.0 9.5 9.0 4.0% Stability Avg Stability
4.5%
6.0%
6.5%
Fig.B.16 Stability of DBM mix with 1.5% additive at 135 C

7.5
7.0 6.5 Flow 6.0 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 4.0% Flow Avg Flow
4.5%
6.0%
6.5%
Fig.B.17 Flow of DBM mix with 1.5% additive at 135 C
Page 58
2334 Bulk Density (kg/m3) 2332 2330 2328 2326 2324 2322 2320 2318 4.0% 4.5% 5.0% 5.5% Bitumen Content 6.0% 6.5% Gb Avg Gb (kg/m3)
Fig.B.18 Bulk Density of DBM mix with 1.5% additive at 135 C

5.5 5.0 % Air Voids 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 4.0% Vv
Avg Vv
4.5%
6.0%
6.5%
Fig.B.19 Air Voids % of DBM mix with 1.5% additive at 135 C

83 81 79 77 75 73 71 69 67 65 4.0%
VFB
VFB Avg VFB
4.5%
6.0%
6.5%
Fig.B.20 VFB of DBM mix with 1.5% additive at 135 C

11.5 11.0 10.5 10.0 9.5 9.0 8.5 8.0 7.5 7.0 4.0%
Stability (kN)
Stability Avg Stability
4.5%
6.0%
6.5%

6.5 6.0 5.5 Flow 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 4.0% 4.5% 5.0% 5.5% Bitumen Content 6.0% 6.5% Flow
Avg Flow

2330 2328 Bulk Density (kg/m3) 2326 2324 2322 2320 2318 2316 2314 2312 4.0% 4.5% 5.0% 5.5% Bitumen content 6.0% 6.5% Gb Avg Gb (kg/m3)

6.0
5.5
% Air Voids
5.0
4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 4.0% Vv Avg Vv
4.5%
6.0%
6.5%
Fig.B.24 Air voids % of DBM mix with 1.5% additive at 115 C

82 80 78 76 VFB 74
72
70 68 66 64 4.0% 4.5% 5.0% 5.5% Bitumen Content 6.0%
VFB Avg VFB
6.5%
Fig.B.25 VFB % of DBM mix with 1.5% additive at 115 C

11.5 11.0 Stability( kN) 10.5 10.0 9.5 9.0 8.5 8.0 4.0% 4.5% 5.0% 5.5% Bitumen Content 6.0% 6.5% Stability Avg Stability

7.5
7.0
6.5 Flow 6.0 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 4.0% 4.5% 5.0% 5.5% Bitumen Content 6.0% 6.5% Flow Avg Flow

2336 Bulk Density (kg/m3) 2334 2332 2330 2328 2326 2324 2322 4.0% 4.5% 5.0% 5.5% Bitumen Content 6.0% 6.5% Gb Avg Gb (kg/m3)

5.5 5.0 % Air Voids 4.5 Vv 4.0 3.5 3.0 4.0% Avg Vv
4.5%
6.0%
6.5%
Fig.B.29 Air Void % of DBM mix with 2.5% additive at 135 C

83 81 79 77 75 73 71 69 67 65 4.0%
VFB
VFB Avg VFB
4.5%
6.0%
6.5%

12.0 11.5 11.0 10.5 10.0 9.5 9.0 8.5 8.0 7.5 7.0 4.0%
Stability (kN)
Stability
Avg Stability
4.5%
6.0%
6.5%
7.5 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 4.0%
Flow
Flow Avg Flow
4.5%
6.0%
6.5%

2332 Bulk Density (kg/m3) 2330 2328 2326 2324 2322 2320 4.0% 4.5% 5.0% 5.5% Bitumen Content 6.0% 6.5% Gb Avg Gb (kg/m3)
6.0 5.5 % Air Voids 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 4.0% 4.5% 5.0% 5.5% Bitumen Content 6.0% 6.5% Vv Avg Vv
Fig.B.34 Air voids % of DBM mix with 2.5% additive at 115 C
83 81 79 77 75 73 71 69 67 65 4.0%
VFB
VFB Avg VFB
4.5%
6.0%
6.5%

VITA
Name: Date of Birth: E-mail: Father Name: Mother Name: Permanent Address: Shivraj.B.S 25th February 1987 raj25.shivu@gmail.com Shivling.B.R Shivleela.B.S Sri Siddalingeshwara Traders, Channagiri Davangere (Dist) 577213 Education: B.E. in Civil Engineering, from J. N. N. College of Engineering, Shivmoga, Karnataka, India. M-Tech in Highway Technology, from Dayananda Sagar College of Engineering, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.
Page 65

Wma

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Wma

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Experimental Investigation on Mix Design Properties and Moisture Sensitivity Characteristics of Dense Bituminous Macadam Mixes Modified With

REDISET, A Warm Mix Additive.

1.2 Various Types of WMA Additives And Advantages

Highway Technology, Department of Civil, DSCE

Highway Technology, Department of Civil, DSCE

1.3 Objectives and Scope

Highway Technology, Department of Civil, DSCE

1.4 Organization of Report

Highway Technology, Department of Civil, DSCE

2.2 Effect of WMA Additives on Binder Viscosity

Highway Technology, Department of Civil, DSCE

2.3 Mix Design of WMA

Highway Technology, Department of Civil, DSCE

2.4 Volumetric Properties of WMA Mixes

Source : NCAT (2005), VTRC (2008), WRSC (2011)

Highway Technology, Department of Civil, DSCE

2.5 Indirect Tensile Strength

2.6 Moisture Sensitivity

Highway Technology, Department of Civil, DSCE

Highway Technology, Department of Civil, DSCE

CHAPTER 3 MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY

3.2 Research Plan

Highway Technology, Department of Civil, DSCE

Stone Dust Coarse Aggregate

Materials Test for their basic properties

Marshall Mix design for HMA & WMA

Impact Value Density Specific gravity

1.5% & 2.5% additive rate at 135 C

1.5% & 2.5% additive rate at 115 C

Moisture sensitivity test

Result & Analysis

Fig.3.1. Laboratory Research Plan

Highway Technology, Department of Civil, DSCE

Highway Technology, Department of Civil, DSCE

Table 3.2. Physical Properties of Coarse Aggregates

Specifications for DBM

2.62 24.8% 32.0% 20.89% 0.25% 29.0%

Max 35% Max 27% 2.0% Max 30%

3.3.3 Warm Mix Asphalt Additive

Fig. 3.2. Rediset WMX-8017

Highway Technology, Department of Civil, DSCE

3.4 Dense Bituminous Macadam Gradation

100 95 83 68 46 35 14 5 100 5.25

0.06 0.144 0.180 0.264 0.132 0.252 0.108 0.06

Highway Technology, Department of Civil, DSCE

3.5 Viscosity Determination

Fig. 3.3. Brookfield viscometer, temperature controller and SC4 - 27 spindle

Highway Technology, Department of Civil, DSCE

3.6 Marshall Test

Fig. 3.4. Marshall Apparatus

3.7 Indirect Tensile Test

Highway Technology, Department of Civil, DSCE

3.8 Moisture Sensitivity Test

Highway Technology, Department of Civil, DSCE

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.2 Viscosity Test Results

Highway Technology, Department of Civil, DSCE

Highway Technology, Department of Civil, DSCE

Plain Bitumen 1.5% additive 2% additive 2.5% additive 3% additive

Fig. 4.1. Viscosity at different temperature and different dosage rate

Highway Technology, Department of Civil, DSCE

4.3 Design of DBM Mix

Highway Technology, Department of Civil, DSCE