See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/305108675

LABORATORY EVALUATION OF MODIFIED POROUS ASPHALT MIXTURES

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Article · April 2016

CITATIONS READS

0 811

1 author:

Mohammed Abbas Al-Jumaili

University Of Kufa
24 PUBLICATIONS   17 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

sustainability of cold recycling mix View project

Al-Hindi district sewage network View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammed Abbas Al-Jumaili on 10 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

P a g e | 104

Available online at http://arjournal.org

APPLIED RESEARCH JOURNAL

RESEARCH ARTICLE

ISSN: 2423-4796
Applied Research Journal Vol.2, Issue, 3, pp.104-117, March, 2016

LABORATORY EVALUATION OF MODIFIED POROUS ASPHALT MIXTURES

Mohammed Abbas Hasan Al-Jumaili,

Department of civil engineering /University of Kufa

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Article History:
Received: 15, February, 2016
Final Accepted: 12 March, 2016
Published Online: 22, March, 2016
Key words:
Asphalt flow drain, polyprolene, porous asphalt
and styrene butadiene styrene.
Porous asphalt mixture (PAM) is mainly applied to the surface drainage
layer on high-speed trafficked highway pavements because it has many
application advantages such as : noise reduction and safety during rainfall
due to its open structure water is stored and moved horizontally within the
layer which reduces splash and spray effects and thus increases the visibility
of drivers during rainfall. On the other hand the major disadvantage of
porous asphalt layers are low stiffness , high rutting and durability .The
objective of this study was to compare the influence of two modifier types
(styrene-butadiene-styrene [SBS] and propylene modifier [PP]) on a
porous asphalt mixture performance . The PAM evaluation was based on air
voids, asphalt flow drain down, and abrasion resistance at the mix design
step. The mix performance has been investigated by permeability, moisture
susceptibility, and rutting. The test results emphasized the importance of
using the modifier in in minimizing the abrasion loss, reducing rutting and
enhancing the durability of the PAC mixture. Porous asphalt mixtures
prepared with 5 % SBS modifier were the most effective at increasing the
abrasion resistance and reducing rutting; and the PP had no effect on the
mix strength.

© Copy Right, ARJ, 2016. All rights reserved

1. INTRODUCTION
Porous asphalt (PA) also namely open-graded (OG) asphalt has been use as a wearing surface since the
1950s. Its first major use in Australia was about 1973 and in Japan was about 1987. Porous asphalt is a
developing in road surfacing technology; Porous asphalt is an innovative road surfacing technology, which
allows water to enter into the asphalt mixes beyond its continuous air voids. Porous asphalt designed so that
after laying and compacting, they form a surface with a void’s more than 20 percent. They are used in
wearing courses and always laid on impervious base course, was promising and effective in enhancing traffic
safety. The use of porous asphalt also to reduce noise and glare [1] with proper installation and maintenance,
porous paving allows for infiltration of up to 80% of annual runoff volume.
PA is used worldwide for its favorable splash and spray properties and its reduction of Aquaplaning under
rainy conditions as well as its noise reduction properties. Switzerland started using PA in 1979 with mixed
results. According to a survey taken in 2004, nine of the 26 cantons use PA. In particular, canton Vaud in
western Switzerland is known as one of the leaders in promoting and using PA. Currently, 1/3 of the Vaud
motorways are covered with porous asphalt and the use of PA is planned to be extended to most of the
motorway surfaces in the canton Vaud up to an altitude of 600m. In addition, there are several bridge trial
sections with PA. Despite its benefits, porous asphalt can suffer from problems, which can affect both its
performance and its service life. The open structure exposes a large surface area to the effects of air and
water, leading to rapid aging of the binder. In addition the clogging of the pores can reduce the functionality
prematurely [2].
The application of porous asphalt is to provide skid resistance, especially in the wet season, which is
markedly better than that of dense graded asphalt. The potential of aquaplaning, much reduced at normal
*Corresponding author: Mohammed Abbas Hasan Al-Jumaili, Email: drmoh_kufauniv@yahoo.com
Department of civil engineering /University of Kufa .
P a g e | 105 Mohammed Abbas Hasan Al-Jumaili

driving speeds, and together with improved visibility, may be important benefit for using this type of mix.
Porous asphalt is a type of mixture that consists of relative coarse aggregates bound together by a mixture of
sand, filler and bitumen hereafter called mortar. After laying and compaction this results in a structure with a
relative large amount of interconnected voids. Compared with dense asphalt concrete, the porous asphalt
concrete has a very open structure with void contents around 20 % [3]. Improvements primarily included the
use of modified asphalt binders and fibers. The modified binders and fibers alleviated some of the problems
that were encountered with open-graded friction courses in the United States [4], [5] and [6].
The objective of this research is to measure some laboratory properties of porous asphalt mixtures (PAM)
to evaluate the design of porous asphalt mixture and the performance of modified and unmodified PAM .
The mix design procedure including the determination of the aggregated gradation, air void analysis, drain
down characteristics, Cantabro Abrasion Test (aging and un-aging test), and optimum asphalt content to
achieve the these properties of porous asphalt mixture without modifier and modified with SBS .
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Porous pavement systems can provide an excellent system for the removal of pollutants. Two long term
monitoring pavements in Maryland and Virginia provide an estimate of porous asphalt’s ability to remove
pollutants. The storage capacity and efficiency of the system is dependent on the degree of clogging within
the porous system. With proper maintenance the porous system should be able to effectively remove
pollutants [7].
Binder type and content are important as this influence the selection of an appropriate grading which will
have a significant impact on the structural integrity of the mix. The binder should also be in sufficient
quantity to provide for durability and resistance to abrasion. Three asphalt cement binder characteristics are
considered as very important to the performance of the pavement in service. These are: temperature
susceptibility, viscoelasticity and aging [8].
AASHTO T 305, Determination of Drain down Characteristics in Uncompacted Asphalt Mixtures, is now
the most widely accepted test method in the United States for determining drain down (survey results).
Similar to the methods discussed earlier, the difference in mass before and after oven storage is used to
determine drain down. In this method, however, the mix is held in a woven wire basket, allowing the binder
to drain off through the wire. Figure 2 illustrates this test in progress. Another test that is commonly used,
particularly with open-graded mixtures, is the Cantabro test. In this test, compacted mixture specimens are
tumbled in a Los Angeles abrasion test drum, without the steel balls used in the LA abrasion test. The change
in mass before and after testing is an indication of the durability of the mixture. Fibers have been reported to
improve this durability in some cases [9] , [5] confirmed the suitability of the Superpave gyratory compactor
to prepare specimens for Cantabro testing in place of the Marshall compacted specimens originally used.
The Austroads drain down test method is similar to the German method in that 1 kg of mix is placed in a
tared glass beaker, then held for 60 ± 1 min before the beaker is turned upside down, allowing the mix to
fall out. In the Austroads method, the oven temperatures are specified according to the mix type (open-
graded or SMA) and whether or not a modified binder is used; the specified temperatures range from 160°C
for an unmodified OGFC to 185°C for a modified SMA. In addition, a supplementary procedure can be
used with polymer-modified binders if the amount of binder remaining in the beaker is more than 0.3% of
the original mass of the mix. This procedure involves using a solvent to wash the residue from the beaker
through a tarred 0.600- mm sieve to determine whether a significant amount of the fine aggregate particles
was trapped in the modified binder adhering to the beaker [10].
3. METHODOLOGY
The methodology adopted for study includes the selection of asphalt paving materials from the locality ,
test for its suitability and obtain a desired gradation as per NCAT gradation criteria for porous asphalt
mixtures (Marshall Specimens with 50 blows of compaction are subjected to air void confirmation, drain
down, ageing and Cantabro abrasion tests for varying binder contents and hence optimum binder content is
obtained. Compacted specimens prepared using optimum binder content and are checked for Marshall
Stability, Permeability, Moisture Susceptibility and rutting tests to evaluate the performance of Porous
Asphalt.
4. MATERIALS
In this study, the materials have been used in preparing asphalt mixtures were divided into aggregate with
two different gradations, two types of asphalt cement as it will be indicted below.
4.1. Aggregates
P a g e | 106 Applied Research Journal Vol.2, Issue, 3, pp.104-117, March, 2016

The aggregate used in this work was crushed quartz obtained from Al-Nibaie quarry; this aggregate is
widely used in local asphalt paving. The aggregates used in the porous asphalt mixtures consisted of
(crushed) coarse aggregate and a screenings fine aggregate. A small percentage of filler was also used in this
particular mix design. Routine tests which performed on the aggregate to evaluate their physical properties
are made in the NCCRL. Tests results in Table. 1 show that the chosen aggregate met the Super pave
specifications.
Table 1 Physical Properties of Aggregate
No. Laboratory Test AASHTO Test Super pave
Coarse aggregate designation results Specification
1 Apparent specific gravity T 85 2.671 …
2 Bulk specific gravity T 85 2.632 …
3 Percent wear by (Los Angeles abrasion) ,% T96 20.3 35-45 Max.

4 Soundness loss by sodium sulfate solution,% T104 3.12 10-20 Max.

5 Fractured pieces, % T176 96% 95 Min

Fine aggregate

6 Apparent specific gravity T 84 2.69 …

7 Bulk specific gravity T 84 2.627 …
8 Sand equivalent,% T176 55 45 Min.
The filler is a non- plastic material that passing sieve No.200 (0.075 mm). In this work, the asphalt mixes
were prepared using Portland cement as mineral filler. The Portland cement was obtained from kufa cement
factory in Najaf governorate, south of Baghdad. The physical properties of the fillers are presented in Table
.2 below.
Table 2 Properties of Portland cement filler
Physical properties Specific gravity Surface area (m2/kg) % Passing sieve
No.200(0.075mm)
Result 2.41 244 94

The selected gradation follows National Asphalt Pavement Association [11], for porous asphalt paving
mixtures for (19 mm) aggregate maximum sizes are shown in Table .3.
Table 3 The gradation for porous asphalt mixtures
Sieve Size National Asphalt Pavement Association Mid Specification
mm (NAPA, 2003)
19 100 100
12.5 85-100 93
9.5 55-75 65
4.75 10-25 18
2.36 5-10 8
0.075 2-4 3

4.2. Asphalt Cement

Asphalt cement (PG 58-16) was obtained from Richmond Company in EAU. These binders were used on
highways which have been carrying high traffic loading and hot climate. Table 4 summaries the properties
of asphalt type.
4.3. Modifiers
SBS is a thermoplastic polymer that improves the overall performance of asphalt pavement by increasing
the stability, elasticity, and stiffness of asphalt binders [12]. SBS softens under high temperature; therefore, it
can be easily added and mixed with asphalt binder. The SBS polymer, used in this study, brought from the
Kraton Company in France. The SBS added to asphalt binder with a percentage (1, 3, and 5%) by the weight
P a g e | 107 Mohammed Abbas Hasan Al-Jumaili

of asphalt. Table 5 presents the SBS properties. Polypropylene fiber was obtained from MIX UK Ltd
company in England .

Table 4 Asphalt cement properties and superpave specifications

Test Parameter PG58-16 Specification
(AASHTO M 320)
Average 7 days maximum pavement design temperature, oC 58 58
Minimum pavement design temperature , oC -16 -16
Properties of original binders
Cleveland open cup flash point , oC (AASHTO T48) 238 230°C,min
Rotational Viscometer (RV) at 135°C ,Pa.s (AASHTO T316) 1.02 3.0 Pa.s,max
Dynamic Shear , G*/sinδ at 58°C at 10 rad/s , kPa (AASHTO T 315) 1.80 1.00 kPa, min
Properties of residue binder from rolling thin film oven test (AASHTO T240)
Mass Loss , % weight (AASHTO 240) 0.44 1%, max
Dynamic Shear , G*/sinδ at 58°C at 10 rad/s , kPa (AASHTO T 315) 3.36 2.2 kPa, min
Properties of residue binder from pressure aging vessel (PAV) test (AASHTO R29)
Dynamic Shear , G*.sinδ at 25°C at 10 rad/s , kPa (AASHTO T 315) 3576 5000 kPa, max
Creep stiffnes m-value at -6 oC (AASHTO T313)
S-value , MPa 288
m-value 0.51 300 MPa ,max
0.3, min
Direct tension failure strain at -6 oC @ 1.0 mm/min, % 2.32 1.0 %, min.
(AASHTO T314)

Table 5 The main properties of polypropylene and SBS

Material Properties Value

Specific gravity 0.91g/cm3

Specific surface area 260 m2/kg
Young's modulus 5.5-7 Gpa
Tensile strength 350 Mpa
Polyproplene Melting point 165 oc
Fiber Specific gravity 0.91g/cm^3
Flash point 375oC

SBS Density(Kg/m3) 1247

Melting point 197
Apparent White

Fig.1 indicates the photo of SBS and PP modifier types used in preparing porous asphalt mixtures.

Figure 1 Photo of SBS and propylene fiber modifier

4.4. Asphalt mixtures

Seven porous asphalt mixture types of different combinations of one asphalt type and two modifier
types are coded as shown in Table 6.
P a g e | 108 Applied Research Journal Vol.2, Issue, 3, pp.104-117, March, 2016

Table 6 The Code for the seven porous asphalt mixtures

Asphalt mixture code Description

Control mix Control mix PG58-16 penetration grade asphalt

Mix 01 PG 58-16 with 1 % SBS
Mix 02 PG-58-16 asphalt with 3 % SBS
Mix 03 PG-58-16 asphalt with 5 % SBS
Mix 04 PG-58-16 asphalt with 1 % PP
Mix 05 PG-58-16 asphalt with 3 % PP
Mix 06 PG-58-16 asphalt with 5 % PP

5. EXPERIMENTAL WORKS
5.1. Marshall Test
Selection of mid specification of aggregate gradation after that the aggregate is first sieved, washed, and
dried to a constant weight at 110ºC. Coarse and fine aggregates are combined with mineral filler to meet the
gradation; the combined aggregate is then heated to a temperature of (160ºC) before mixing with asphalt
cement. The asphalt cement is heated to a temperature of (150ºC) to produce a kinematic viscosity of
(170±20) centistokes. Then, asphalt cement is added to the heated aggregate to achieve the desired amount,
and mixed thoroughly by hand using a spatula for two minutes until all aggregate particles are coated with
asphalt cement. According to (ASTM D1559) [13], this method includes preparation a cylindrical specimen
of 4 inches (102 mm) in diameter and 2.5 ±0.05 inches (63.5 mm) in height. The temperature of mixture
immediately prior to compaction temperature is (150ºC). The mold assembly is placed on the compaction
pedestal and 50 blows on the top and the bottom of specimen are applied with specified compaction hammer
of 4.535 kg sliding weight, and a free fall in 18 inches (457.2 mm). The specimen in mold is left to cool at
room temperature for 24 hours, then it is extracted from the mold using mechanical jack.
5.2. Cantabro Abrasion Loss Test.
The Cantabro test is conducted to evaluate the resistance to particle loss of the mixtures according to
(ASTM D7064) [14]. The objective of Cantabro Loss test was to determine the abrasion resistance of
Marshall compacted specimen. These specimens shall be tested in 7 days after compaction finished, for two
conditions with and without conditioning. The “with conditioning” specimen was placed in water bath at 25
Cº for 24 hours and then tested in Los Angeles Abrasion Machine (see Fig. 2) for 300 rotations, while for the
“without conditioning” specimen, it was placed directly in the Los Angeles Abrasion Machine The
compacted specimens are individually put in the Los Angeles testing machine without steel sphere. After Los
Angeles drum has been rotated for 300 revolutions at a speed of (30–33) revolutions per minute, the loose
material broken off from surface of the test specimen is discarded. The masses of the specimens before and
after the test are recorded. The percentage loss by weight of original specimen is calculated as the Cantabro
abrasion this test can be conducted on un-aged specimens, aged specimens and the corresponding abrasion
losses are termed as Un-aged Abrasion Loss (UAL), Aged Abrasion Loss (AAL) respectively. The loss in
the specimen weight is expressed in percentage of ratio of weight of disintegrated particles to the initial
weight of the specimen shows in equation 1:

( )
% . = ∗ 100 (1)

Where:
A= initial weight of specimen before placing in the Los Angles Abrasion drum
B= final weight of specimen after 300 revolutions in the Los Angles Abrasion drum
5.3. Drain down Test
The drains down characteristics of uncompacted bituminous mixes are evaluated using basket drainage
test (AASHTO T305) [15].A sample of the uncompacted hot open graded mix will be placed in a wire
basket, which is placed on a plate of known weight. The entire test set-up is placed in an oven Forced draft
oven, capable of maintaining the temperature in a range from 250-350°F (120-175°C) within ± 3.6°F (± 2°C)
for 1 hr.
At the end of the heating period, the basket containing the sample is taken out of the oven along with the
plate and the weight of the plate is determined. Fig. 2 shows the sketch of wire-basket, the amount of drain
P a g e | 109 Mohammed Abbas Hasan Al-Jumaili

down is considered to be that portion of material that separates itself from the sample as a whole and gets
deposited on the plate. The wire basket to be used for this test is made of wire-mesh of 6.3 mm opening (0.25
inch). The depth of the wire-basket is 165 ± 16.5 mm, and the width is 108 ± 10.8 mm, with a basket bottom
25 ± 2.5 mm from the bottom of the wire basket assembly. The binder drainage loss is calculated by using
the equation 2:
( )
% = ∗ 100 (2)
( )
Where:
A= mass of the empty wire basket, (g)
B= mass of the wire basket and sample, (g)
C= mass of the empty catch plate or container, (g) and
D= mass of the catch plate or container plus drained material (g).

A. Basket drain down B .Sketch of Wire-Basket C. Asphalt flow drain down

Figure 2 Drain down test

5.4. Air Void Analysis

The air void percentages of the porous asphalt samples were very difficult to determine due to the higher
porosity. Three specimens were prepared for each percentage of asphalt contents from (4.0 % to 6.5 %) to
evaluate the theoretical maximum relative density (Gmm), and bulk relative density (Gmb). The bulk relative
density (Gmb) was the more difficult of the two densities to determine. The theoretical maximum density
(Gmm) of the loose mix was determined using the Rice Method according to ASTM D2041/D2041M [16]
procedure Calculate the Theoretical maximum relative density of the sample as follows in Equation 3. Bulk
relative density or the actual specific gravity of the mix Gmb is the specific gravity considering air voids and
is found out by Equation (1-3b) It is obtained by measuring the total weight of the mix and its volume.
Volume is determined by measuring the dimensions of the sample or for better accuracy it can be measured
by the volume of water it displaces. The air voids in compacted specimen (A.V.) calculated from equation 5
corresponds to the Gmb and Gmm as shown in Equations 3 and 4 respectively are obtained in accordance with
ASTM standard test method (ASTM D3203) [17]:
= (3)
( )
Where:
Gmm = Theoretical maximum relative density of the mixture
A = mass of dry sample in air, (g)
B = mass of container under water, (g)
C = mass of container and sample under water, (g).
= (4)
Where:
A: mass of dry sample in air, (g).
B: weight of sample in water, (g).
C: weight of surface-dry sample, (g).
P a g e | 110 Applied Research Journal Vol.2, Issue, 3, pp.104-117, March, 2016

. .= ∗ 100% (5)
Where:
A.V: The air voids in compacted specimen (%).
Gmb : The bulk relative density (g/cm3).
Gmm : Theoretical maximum relative density (g/cm3).
5.5. Permeability
Permeability is one of the critical properties, as it marks the ability of the porous asphalt to properly drain
the fluid through the system. The falling head permeability test was conducted using a permeability test set
up in the laboratory (see Fig. 3). The Permeability test was conducted on nine cylindrical porous asphalt
specimens with 150 mm diameter and 150 mm height at optimum asphalt content for each porous asphalt
mixture. The procedure was completed as per the manufacturer’s procedure. The procedure summary was as
follows: each sample was wrapped securely with a thin plastic wrap, and then secured in a metal mould. The
permeameter was then placed on the top surface of the sample in the mould. The moldable sealant was then
applied around the base of the permeameter. Four five pound weights were placed on the base to prevent a
break in the sealant. Once the apparatus was secured with a sample, the permeameter was filled with water at
a steady rate. Once the water reached the top of the meter and was allowed to settle, the rate at which the
water level dropped was determined. A water level change of 10 cm was measured for each time trial. The
time was recorded over a change in head of 10 cm. The change in head height (10cm) and the time (s) was
recorded for each sequence. The sequence was completed five times per sample and an average coefficient of
permeability was calculated.

Figure 3 Permeability test.

The coefficient of permeability was calculated using the following equation:

K = (a L / At) ln(h1/h2) (6)

Where:
K = coefficient of permeability
a = inside cross-sectional area of the standpipe (cm2)
L = length of the sample (cm)
A = cross-sectional area of permeameter through which water can penetrated the pavement area (cm2)
t = elapsed time between h1 and h2 (s)
h1 = initial head (cm)
h2 = final head (cm)
P a g e | 111 Mohammed Abbas Hasan Al-Jumaili

The permeability test was conducted at a water temperature of 17oC, therefore a temperature correction
factor of 1.08 was applied to each of the coefficient of permeability measurements from the Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT) Method test for Measurement of Water Permeability of Compacted
Asphalt Paving Mixtures [18].
5.6. Evaluation of Moisture Sensitivity
The moisture susceptibility test used to evaluate HMA for stripping is accomplished by performing
AASHTO T-283[19]. This test is not a performance based test but serves two purposes .In this test, two
subsets of test specimens are produced. Specimens are compacted in Marshall hammer and achieving an air
void content approximately seven percent [13]. Test specimens are sorted so that each subset has the same
air void content. One subset of three specimens is considered control specimens.
The other subset of the three specimens is considered conditioned subset which is subjected to vacuum
saturation followed by a freeze cycle at minimum 16 hrs at -18°C followed by a 24 hour thaw cycle at 24 hrs
at 60°C. After conditioning both subsets are tested for indirect tensile strength which is accomplished by
Indirect Tensile Machine in Baghdad University in condition of equal speed (50.8mm/min), as shown in
Fig.5 shows some of apparatuses used in the test.
The test result reported is the ratio of tensile strength of the conditioned subset to that of the
unconditioned subset. This ratio is called the “tensile strength ratio” or “TSR”, Minimum 80 percent. The
TSR value is obtained through testing the dry and wet samples and calculating the corresponding ratio:
TSR = S2/S1 (7)
Where,
TSR = Tensile Strength Ratio
S1 = Average dry sample strength
S2 = Average conditioned sample strength
According to AASHTO laboratory produced samples should achieve a minimum TSR value of 80% to
meet moisture susceptibility requirements.
5.7. Wheel Tracking Permanent Deformation Testing
The Pavement Wheel Tracker is a device for testing the wearability of asphalt mixes by simulating
roadway conditions. The test provides information about the rate of permanent deformation from a moving,
concentrated load. It uses a Linear Value Displacement Transducer (LVDT’s) to measure the deformation of
the specimen. The loaded wheel applies about 700 N (158 pounds) of load at contact points and passes
repetitively over the sample for up to 10,000 cycles. If the maximum allowed deformation is reached before
10,000 cycles, the wheel will lift off the failed sample.
Test results are compiled in a Microsoft Access database application which provides several means of
reporting results. Wheel-tracking machine is constructed so as to enable the test specimen in its cradle to be
moved backwards and forwards under the loaded wheel in a fixed horizontal plane. The centre-line of the
tyre track is (5 mm) from the theoretical center of the specimen.
The centre of the contact area of the tyre describes a simple harmonic motion with respect to the center of
the top surface of the test specimen with a total distance of travel of (230±10) mm and a constant loading
frequency of (26.5±1.0) load cycles per 60 seconds for the test device in approximately 10,000 load cycles,
(AASHTO Designation: T 340-10).
In this study, compacted asphaltic slabs are prepared at air voids equal to (4%) using Roller Compactor
Device according to (EN12697-Part 33:2003) and Superpave system (AASHTO Designation: T 312-2010).
The dimensions of the compacted slabs used in this work are 320 mm (12.8 inch) in length and 280 mm
(11.2 inch) in width and 40 mm (1.6 inch) in height as proposed by [20]. To perform WTT for the cylindrical
specimens, specimens are compacted using Superpave Gyratory Compactor (SGC) to Ndes. to get appropriate
air void for rutting test.
The amount of loose mix required for specimen preparation is calculated based on maximum theoretical
specific gravity (Gmm) of the loose mix. The estimated weight is placed into the mold, which is placed inside
the SGC, and the specimen is then compacted to the desired height.
The compacted specimens, which are 6 in. (150 ±2 mm) in diameter by 1.2 in. (40 ±2 mm) in height, are
cooled to room temperature for a period of 24 hours in accordance with [20].The specimens are placed in
mold and then placed in on the carriage table of WTD for testing as shown in Fig.4.
P a g e | 112 Applied Research Journal Vol.2, Issue, 3, pp.104-117, March, 2016

Figure 4 Wheel track and porous asphalt mixture slab.

6. TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

6.1. Optimum Asphalt Content
Once the design gradation was determined, it was then used to prepare several specimens at various
asphalt contents in order to determine the optimum asphalt content. Five asphalt contents were evaluated,
4.0%, 4.5%, 5.0%, 5.5%, 6.0% and 6.5 % asphalt cement. These six were selected based on engineering best
practice after consultation with public and private sector experts. The specimens were evaluated based on
Cantabro Abrasion Test (un-aging and aging), the drain down characteristics and an air void analysis. The
results for each were utilized to determine the optimum asphalt content.
The National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA, 2003) recommends that the optimum asphalt
content for porous asphalt be determined by asphalt content that meets the following requirements: air voids
greater than 18 % and drain down less than 0.3 %. However the National Centre for Asphalt Technology
recommends the optimum asphalt content for OGFC as air voids greater than 18 %, drain down less than
0.3% and in addition to these two, it introduces two more requirements to be met, namely: Cantabro
Abrasion of un-aged specimens less than 20 % and Cantabro Abrasion of aged specimens less than 30 % .
The test results of various experiments conducted on Porous Asphalt Specimens for determining optimum
binder content, namely: -Air Void content, Cantabro Abrasion, Ageing Potential and Drain down Potential
are tabulated below.
The National Asphalt Pavement Association [11] recommends that the optimum asphalt content for
porous asphalt be determined by asphalt content that meets the following requirements air voids greater than
18 % and drain down less than 0.3 % .However the National Centre for Asphalt Technology recommends the
optimum asphalt content for Open Graded Friction Coarse OGFC as air voids ranges (10-25 %), asphalt flow
drain less than 0.3% and in addition to these two, it introduces two more requirements to be met, namely:
Cantabro Abrasion of un-aged specimens less than 20 % and Cantabro Abrasion of aged specimens less than
30 % .Optimum asphalt content will be determined from figures 5 through 10 below.
P a g e | 113 Mohammed Abbas Hasan Al-Jumaili

28 Control mix
26 Mix 01
24 Mix 02
22 Mix 03
20

Air voids (%)

18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
Asphalt content (%)
Figure 5 The Air void for various porous asphalt mixtures

Porous asphalt mixtures have significantly higher percentages of air voids in order to promote adequate
infiltration. An air void percentage ranging from 16% to 22% (or greater) has been recommended [11].

28 Control mix Mix 01 Mix 02

Mix 03 Mix 04 Mix 05
Mix 06
23
Cantabro loss (unaged) , %

18

13

3
4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
Asphalt content (%)
Figure 6 The abrasion loss (un-aging)

40 Control mix Mix 01 Mix 02

Mix 03 Mix 04 Mix 05
35 Mix 06
Cantabro loss (aged),%

30

25

20

15

10

5
4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
Asphalt content (%)
Figure 7 The abrasion loss (aging)
P a g e | 114 Applied Research Journal Vol.2, Issue, 3, pp.104-117, March, 2016

1 Control mix Mix 01 Mix 02

Mix 03 Mix 04 Mix 05
0.9
Mix 06
0.8

Asphalt flow down , %

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
Asphalt content (%)
Figure 8 The drain down results

Referring to Figs.6 and 7 the abrasion losses in the Cantabro test for un-aged and aged conditions for Mix
03 with 5 % SBS polymer by weight of asphalt were lower compared with the other porous asphalt
mixtures. The use of modified porous asphalt mixture with high percentage of SBS minimized the abrasion
loss and, thus, increased durability of the mixture.
The use of Mix 06 with 5 % PP fiber made it easier to obtain a greater resistance to drain down by 40 %
reduction in asphalt flow down in comparison with control mix as shown in Figure 10. The asphalt content
values which fulfill all the four requirements were selected for control and modified asphalt porous mixtures
from Figures 5 to 8 .The optimum asphalt content values are summarized in Table 7 below for various
porous asphalt mixtures.
Table 7 Optimum asphalt content of various asphalt mixtures.
Mix type Control mix Mix 01 Mix 02 Mix 03 Mix 04 Mix 05 Mix 06
O.A.C (%) 5.38 4.63 4.75 4.5 5.0 4.88 5.13

6.2. Marshall Stability and Flow

Porous asphalt mix specimens compacted with 50 blows of Marshall Rammer are prepared by adopting
the desired gradation mentioned above using optimum binder content values. Marshall stability, flow and
Marshall stiffness are summarized in Table 8.

Table 8 Marshall Stability, flow and Marshall stiffness of various porous mixtures
Mix type Marshall Marshall Marshall stiffness National Asphalt Pavement
stability (kN) flow(mm) (kN/mm) Association (NAPA,2003)
requirements
Control mix 8.6 3.9 2.21 Marshall stability >5 kN
Mix 01 9.4 3.8 2.47 Marshall flow(mm) 2-6 mm
Mix 02 12.4 2.8 4.43 Marshall stiffness >2 kN/mm
Mix 03 10.8 3.1 3.48
Mix 04 8.7 3.8 2.29
Mix 05 9.5 3.5 2.71
Mix 06 10.1 3.3 3.06

Referring to Table 8 the Mix 02 exhibits high Marshall Stiffness among various porous asphalt mixtures.
6.3. Average Coefficient of Permeability
P a g e | 115 Mohammed Abbas Hasan Al-Jumaili

Fig. 9 presents the average coefficient of permeability values of various asphalt mixtures.

1.60

Coeeficent of permeability (k) ,cm/sec

1.40

1.20

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00
Control mix Mix 01 Mix 02 Mix 03 Mix 04 Mix 05 Mix 06
Mix type

Figure 9 Average coefficient of permeability of various porous asphalt mixtures

The porous asphalt mixes contained 5 % PP give highest values of coefficient of permeability among
various porous asphalt mixtures with increasing of 90 % in comparison with control mix.
6.4. Moisture Sensitivity
Tensile strength ratio results are clearly illustrated in Fig. 10, whereby it is apparent that as modifier
concentration increases the TSR values will increase.

100
Tensile strength ratio (ITS), %

95

90

85

80

75
Control Mix 01 Mix 02 Mix 03 Mix 04 Mix 05 Mix 06
mix
Mix type

Figure 10 ITS for various porous asphalt mixtures.

As seen in Fig. 10, the addition of SBS increased TSR values. The ability of SBS to protect against
moisture damage is dependent on the SBS percentages in the porous asphalt mixtures. It is recommended to
use 5% SBS in porous asphalt mixtures because these resistance to moisture damage with 15 % more than
control mix without any modifier. The SBS additive is effective in improving moisture resistance of hot mix
asphalt [21].

6.5. Rut Depth

Fig. 11 presents the rut depth values of seven porous asphalt mixtures at standard temperature of 40 oC.
P a g e | 116 Applied Research Journal Vol.2, Issue, 3, pp.104-117, March, 2016

20 Control mix Mix 01 Mix02

18 Mix 03 Mix04 Mix 05
Mix 06
16
Rut depth (mm) 14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Load cycle (N)
Figure 11 Rut depth values versus load cycle for various porous asphalt mixtures at 40 oC temperature

It can be noticed the SBS modifier has significant effect in decreasing rut depth and this effect increase
with changing the SBS percentages from 1 to 5 % by weight of asphalt. The other modifier (PP) has less
reduction in rut depth values. Table 9 summarizes the rut depth values of modified and unmodified porous
asphalt mixtures

Table 9 Rut depth values of various asphalt mixtures

Mix type Control mix Mix 01 Mix 02 Mix 03 Mix 04 Mix 05 Mix 06
Rut depth (mm) 17.2 12.6 10.4 7.81 16.83 15.54 14.77

As listed in Table 9, rutting depth decreased with increasing of SBS or PP percentages in porous asphalt
mixtures. The low rutting values indicate that the PAC layer possesses good resistance to plastic
deformation since PAC has a coarse gradation that results in stone-on-stone contact. Rut depth ranged from
7.81 mm for Mix 03 with %5 SBS to 12.6 mm for the Mix01 with 1 % SBS. The rutting depth value of Mix
04 porous asphalt mixtures modified with 1 % PP fibers was highest among modified asphalt mixtures but
that value is lower than that of control mixture. Also, it can obtain from above table that the Mix 03 reduces
the rut depth by 55 % as compared with control mix.
7. CONCLUSIONS
This study included laboratory evaluation of one asphalt cement (PG 58-16), two modifiers (SBS and PP)
and seven porous asphalt mixtures to investigate the performance of modified porous asphalt mixtures. The
following conclusions have been drawn from this study:
1. One of the major failures associated with porous asphalt mixture is due to the lack of stiffness. Asphalt
modifiers can assist in promoting adhesion between the binder and the aggregates and improving
mixture stiffness.
2. The abrasion losses in the Cantabro test were lower of Mix 03 when using SBS polymeric asphalt with
percentage of 5 % by weight of asphalt compared with the other porous asphalt mixtures. The use
of SBS polymer in modified porous asphalt mixture minimized the abrasion loss and, thus, increased
durability of the mixture.
3. Mixtures without polymers showed greater drain down than those with additives. The use of PP with
5 % by weight of asphalt in mixture greatly reduced the potential for asphalt flow drain down by 40 %.
4. Test results indicated that using polymer-modified asphalt with 5% SBS instead of unmodified binder
reduced rutting and abrasion loss (raveling) and increased moisture damage resistance.
5. The porous asphalt mixtures with SBS polymer have the highest strength and the best resistance to
rutting where the rut depth is reduced by 55 % in case of using Mix03 as compared with the control
mix .
 P a g e | 117 Mohammed Abbas Hasan Al-Jumaili

8. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would also like to acknowledge the National Center for Construction Laboratory and
Research (NCCLR) in Baghdad city for helping me in conducting laboratory tests related to this study. We
would also like to thank postgraduate students in university of Babylon for preparing the mixtures for testing.
9. REFERENCES
[1] Sasana, P., & Ismanto, B. S. 2003, October. The influence of using local materials on quality of porous
asphalt in Indonesia. In Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies (Vol. 4).
[2] Poulikakos Lily. D., Michel Pittet, Laurent Arnaud, Alejandro Junod, Remy Gubler, Eric Simond,
Manfred Partl, André-Gilles. 2006. Mechanical properties of porous asphalt. Recommendations for
Standardization, Research Report.
[3] Hagos, E.T. 2008. The Effect of ageing on binder properties of porous asphalt concrete. PhD Thesis,
Delft University of Technology.
[4] Kandhal, P. 2002. Design, construction, and maintenance of open-graded asphalt friction courses.
Information series 115, National Asphalt Pavement Association, Lanham, MD.
[5] Watson, D., Cooley Jr, L., Moore, K., & Williams, K. 2004. Laboratory performance testing of open-
graded friction course mixtures. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board. (1891): 40-47.
[6] Alvarez, A. E., Epps Martin, A., Estakhri, C., Izzo, R. 2009. Determination of volumetric properties for
permeable friction course mixtures. Journal of Testing and Evaluation, ASTM. 37(1): 1-10.
[7] Balades, J.D., Legret, M., Madiec, H., 1995. Permeable pavements: pollution management tools.
Waterway Science and Technology. 32(1): 49-56.
[8] Asphalt Institute. 2003. Principles of construction of hot-mix asphalt pavements. Manual series no. 22
(MS-22) January 1983. Lexington, USA.
[9] Lyons, K.R. and B.J. Putnam. 2013. Laboratory Evaluation of Stabilizing Methods for Porous Asphalt.
Construction and Building Materials. 49: 772–780.
[10] Austroads. 2014. AG: PT/T235—Asphalt Binder Drain-Off. 2006 [Online]. Available:
www.onlinepublications. austroads.com.au/items/AGPT-T235-06 [accessed Aug.26, 2014].
[11] National Asphalt Pavement Association -NAPA . 2003. Porous asphalt pavement. National Asphalt
Pavement Association, Lanham Maryland.
[12] Tarefder, R. A., and A. M. Zaman. Nanoscale. 2010. Evaluation of moisture damage in polymer
modified asphalts. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering. 22(7): 714–725.
[13] ASTM D 1559. 2005. Test Method for Resistance of Plastic Flow of Bituminous Mixtures Using
Marshall Apparatus.
[14] ASTM D7064.2005. Standard Practice for Open-Graded Friction Course (OGFC) Mix Design.
Annual book of ASTM standards.
[15] AASHTO T305. 2007. Determination of drain down characteristics in uncompacted asphalt
Mixtures. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington DC.
[16] ASTM D2041/D2041M .2005. Standard test method for theoretical maximum specific gravity and
density of bituminous paving mixtures. Annual book of ASTM standards.
[17] ASTM D 3203 .2005. Standard test method for percent air voids in compacted dense and open
bituminous paving mixtures. American Standards for Testing and Materials.
[18] Florida Department of Transportation [FDOT], .2006. .Florida method of test for
measurement of water permeability of compacted asphalt pacing Mixtures. Designation FM 5-565.
[19] AASHTO T 283 .2007.Resistance of compacted asphalt mixtures to moisture-induced damage.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington DC.
[20] European Standard. 2003. Bituminous mixtures-test methods for hot mix asphalt. EN 12697-22,
part-2, Wheel Tracking.
[21] Putman, B. J., and Amirkhanian , S. N. 2007. Laboratory evaluation of anti-strip additives in hot mix
asphalt. Columbia, South Carolina, USA: South Ca

View publication stats