This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]

On: 23 November 2014, At: 10:52

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Pavement Engineering

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gpav20

Effect of Filler Types on Marshall Stability and Retained

Strength of Asphalt Concrete
a b a
Ahmad H. Aljassar , Sayed Metwali & Mohammed A. Ali
a
Civil Engineering Department , Kuwait University , P.O. Box, 13060, Safat, Kuwait
b
Maintenance Sector , Ministry of Public Works , P.O. Box, 324, 15454, Dasman, Kuwait
Published online: 31 Jan 2007.

To cite this article: Ahmad H. Aljassar , Sayed Metwali & Mohammed A. Ali (2004) Effect of Filler Types on Marshall
Stability and Retained Strength of Asphalt Concrete, International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 5:1, 47-51, DOI:
10.1080/10298430410001733491

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10298430410001733491

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 The International Journal of Pavement Engineering, Vol. 5 (1) March 2004, pp. 47–51

Effect of Filler Types on Marshall Stability and Retained

Strength of Asphalt Concrete
AHMAD H. ALJASSARa,*, SAYED METWALIb,† and MOHAMMED A. ALIa,‡

a
Civil Engineering Department, Kuwait University, P.O. Box 5969, Safat 13060, Kuwait; bMaintenance Sector, Ministry of Public Works,
P.O. Box 324, Dasman 15454, Kuwait

(Received 30 December 2002; Revised 20 May 2004; In final form 8 June 2004)

Mineral fillers play a critical role in the performance of asphalt mixes. Several types of mineral fillers
are used worldwide. In Kuwait, two main mineral fillers are used; ordinary Portland cement (OPC) and
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 10:52 23 November 2014

pulverized limestone. This paper presents the results of a study undertaken to compare the effects of
using the two types of mineral fillers on the strength of asphalt mixes as measured by Marshall stability
and retained strength. Three filler contents were considered in the study; they were: 4, 5, and 6% by
weight of aggregate. The analysis showed that both filler types have similar effect on Marshall stability.
However, using OPC resulted in higher values of retained strength.

Keywords: Mineral fillers; Asphalt concrete; Marshall stability; Retained strength; Kuwait

INTRODUCTION performance of asphaltic concrete, especially by increas-

Most pavements in Kuwait are constructed using asphalt
mixes, consisting of locally-produced 60/70 penetration-
grade asphalt cement, aggregate, and mineral filler.
Kuwait specifications allow the use of pulverized lime-
stone or ordinary Portland cement (OPC) as a filler
material. The specifications also require that 4 – 6% of
filler be present in the approved mixes (MPW, 1987). This
paper presents the results of a study conducted to evaluate
this locally-produced material as filler in local asphalt
mixes. A comparative analysis of the properties of asphalt
concrete using limestone and OPC is presented in
this paper.
Background
The filler material is considered to be one of the main
components of asphalt mixes. Pavement deformation and
moisture damage are common distress found in pavements
today. The use of mineral fillers such as hydrated lime is
known to provide a decrease in moisture susceptibility.
In many cases, mineral fillers will also increase the
mixture stiffness (Mohammed et al., 2000). The
characteristics of mineral filler material have been
investigated to determine their potential in upgrading
ing hot mix stability and durability to alleviate problems
with rutting and shoving. The use of certain mineral fillers
offer enhanced opportunity for increased stiffness and
strength in asphalt concrete (Benson and Martinez, 1984).
Specifications require most of the filler particles to pass
through sieve no. 200 (i.e. less than 75 mm in size) (MPW,
1987; ASTM, 1999). Filler material is generally produced
by crushing and screening of aggregates, limestone,
Portland cement, and fly ash (Roberts et al., 2000). Lime is
often used as mineral filler in asphalt concrete. It is an
effective asphalt modifier for improving the moisture
resistance of asphalt pavements. It can also improve
pavement performance and durability in other ways.
Hydrated lime added to asphalt can increase penetration
and lower viscosities of asphalt cements (Peterson, 1988).
Cement is also used as a filler material in asphaltic
concrete and is found to improve anti stripping properties
of asphaltic concrete (Ramswamy et al., 1983a,b).
In Kuwait, fillers are produced by crushing dolomitic
limestone to a powder of which 85% passes the no. 200
sieve. The percent filler material contained in asphalt
mixes has a direct effect on their properties and short and
long-term performance. The current limestone filler
production in Kuwait stands at around 168,000 tons,
annually. In addition to limestone, Kuwait specifications

*Corresponding author. Tel.: +965-4817-240. Fax: +965-4817-524. E-mail: aljassar@civil.kuniv.edu.kw

†
E-mail: smetwali@hotmail.com
‡
E-mail: maali@kuc01.kuniv.edu.kw

ISSN 1029-8436 print/ISSN 1477-268X online q 2004 Taylor & Francis Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/10298430410001733491
 48 A.H. ALJASSAR et al.

allow the use of Portland cement and hydrated lime as a TABLE I Aggregate size gradation of the “Type III” asphalt mix
filler material in asphalt mixes (MPW, 1987).
A review of earlier studies on mineral fillers in asphalt Passing %
ASTM
concrete indicates that different types of mineral fillers sieve size Job mix Specification limits
were used to modify the properties of asphalt concrete 00
1 1/2 100 100
(Kallas et al., 1962; Dartnell, 1967; Puzinauskas, 1983; 100 100 100
Benson and Martinez, 1984; Tayebali et al., 1998). 3/400 100 100
In Edmonton, Canada, a study was conducted using lime 1/200 87 66–95
3/800 78 54–88
stone dust, calcined shale and asbestos as fillers in No. 4 52 37–70
asphaltic concrete. Standard Marshall mix design method 8 38 26–52
was used and resulted in the following order of 16 32 18–40
30 22 13–30
performance for fillers: calcined shale, limestone dust, 50 12 8–23
and asbestos (Dartnell, 1967). In a similar study, three 100 7 6–16
fillers of volcanic origin, a lime filler and three fillers 200 4 4–10
prepared in the laboratory by mixing lime filler with
different ratios of montmorillorite were used and it was
found that the type and origin of mineral fillers play an
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 10:52 23 November 2014

important role in asphalt concrete properties (Fucic,
1976). In Singapore, quarry dust, OPC, and sulphur were
used as filler materials. Marshall stability and tensile
strength tests were conducted. It was found that quarry
dust performs best among the three fillers tested
(Ramswamy 1983a,b). Fly ash, when used as a
replacement for Portland cement and hydrated lime
in production of asphalt concrete mixtures, showed
significant improvements in its moisture resistance
characteristics (Rosner et al., 1981).
An investigation was undertaken to evaluate the
effectiveness of using hedmanite (rock wool natural
fibres) as filler in improving the performance of asphalt
concrete pavements and to compare hedmanite with lime
as filler and conventional asphalt mix containing crushed
stone filler (Baig and Al-Abdul Wahab, 1998). Results of
this study indicated that certain percentages of both
hedmanite and lime are effective in improving resilient
modulus, while the Marshall stability loss and tensile
strength loss were higher in hedmanite mixtures than in
lime mixes and better quality asphalt concrete mixes
concrete can be prepared by using lime rather than
hedmanite as filler.
Objective
The objective of the study was to evaluate and compare the
use of pulverized limestone as a filler material in Kuwait’s
local asphalt mixes, and its Portland cement alternative.
The considered mix is known locally as “Type III” and has
the gradation shown in Table I. The job mix filler content
was 4%, and the optimum bitumen content (OBC)
was 4.2%.
The two variables in the specimens were the filler type
and content. The filler types considered were limestone
and OPC, which are the two common filler types used in
Kuwait. The characteristics of the two filler types were
evaluated in this study using the two standard tests:
Marshall test and retained strength test. Three filler
contents were considered in the study; they were: 4, 5,
and 6% by weight of aggregate. These values are within
the range specified in the MPW specifications
(MPW, 1987).
MARSHALL TEST
Marshall method of mix design is still the only
standard method specified by the MPW in Kuwait.
The standard Marshall procedure as per AASHTO T-245
(AASHTO, 1990) was followed to prepare the test
specimens for the two filler types considered at the three
filler contents. Compaction was carried out as per local
specifications, 75 blows were applied on both top and
bottom of the specimen using an automatic compactor
(MPW, 1987). The specimens then were tested in the
Marshall testing machine for stability and flow.
Design of Experiment

SELECTION OF MIX DESIGN AND TEST The following statistical model was used to study the
MATERIALS effect of filler content and type on Marshall stability:

Y ijk ¼ m þ T i þ Cj þ TC ij þ 1ijk ð1Þ

For the study, a local asphalt mix design approved by the
Ministry of Public Works (MPW) for use in a paving
project was used. The aggregate material (Gabbro) used in
the lab mixes was also obtained from an approved paving
project. The aggregate particles were sieved according to
the required size ranges in preparation to blend
the considered asphalt mix with the approved gradation.
i ¼ 1; 2; j ¼ 1; 2; 3; k ¼ 1; 2; 3; 4;
where Yijk is Marshall stability for the k-th specimen, for
the i-th filler type and for the j-th filler content; m, overall
mean; Ti, the effect of the i-th filler type; Cj, the effect
of the j-th filler content; TCij, the effect of the interaction
 EFFECTS OF FILLERS ON ASPHALT CONCRETE 49

TABLE II Marshall stability results (in kN) TABLE III ANOVA of Marshall stability results

Filler content by weight of Source Sum of squares df Mean square F

aggregate
Filler type (T) 0.956 1 0.956 0.215
Filler type 4% 5% 6% Filler content (C) 2.486 2 1.243 0.279
T £C 0.895 2 4.948 1.111
Pulverized limestone Mean 15.524 16.782 17.436 Error 80.152 18 4.453
SD (^) 1.014 1.536 3.717 Total 93.489 23
Ordinary Portland Mean 17.260 17.578 16.102
cement (OPC)
SD (^) 1.987 1.860 1.453
significant effect on the Marshall stability of asphalt
mixes.
of the i-th filler type with the j-th filler content; 1ijk, the
experimental error.
RETAINED STRENGTH TEST
Based on this model, Marshall stability results were
analysed using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) (Anderson
Retained strength test, the standard test specified by the
and McLean, 1974) to determine the effect of filler
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 10:52 23 November 2014

MPW, Kuwait, was performed as per AASHTO T-165

content and type on Marshall stability. A PC version of
SPSS statistical software (SPSS, 1999) was used for the
analysis.
Results
Four triplicate specimens were prepared for 4, 5 and 6%
filler content for each filler type. A total of 24 specimens
were prepared and tested for Marshall stability. The
Marshall stability test results are summarized in Table II
and presented graphically in Fig. 1.
Mean Marshall stability values for 4, 5 and 6%
limestone powder as filler were observed to be 15.524,
16.782, and 17.426 kN, respectively. Increasing limestone
powder in the mix results in an increase in Marshall
stability as shown in Fig. 1. Corresponding mean flow
values were 11, 11, and 13, respectively. These results met
the specifications requirements of MPW (MPW, 1987).
Mean Marshall stability values for 4, 5 and 6% cement
content were 17.26, 17.578 and 16.102 kN, respectively.
Increasing the cement content resulted in a slight increase
in stability, then a drop after a 5% content as shown in
Fig. 1. Corresponding mean flow values were 11, 11, and
13, respectively. It is evident from the ANOVA results
presented in Table III that filler type and content (as long
as within specifications limits 4 – 6%) have no statistically
(AASHTO, 1990) to evaluate the effect of filler type and
content on loss of compressive strength of asphalt mixes
after immersion in water. The index of retained strength is
calculated using the following equation:
S2 £ 100
Index of retained strength ð%Þ ¼ ; ð2Þ
S1
where S1 is compressive strength of dry specimen;
S2, compressive strength of immersed specimen.
Design of Experiment
The following statistical model was used to study the
effect of filler content and type on retained strength:
yij ¼ m þ T i þ Cj þ TCij þ [ijk ð3Þ
i ¼ 1; 2; j ¼ 1; 2; 3; k ¼ 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6;
where yij is index of retained strength for the k-th
specimen of i-th filler type at the j-th filler content; m,
overall mean; Ti, the effect of the i-th filler type; Cj,
the effect of the j-th filler type; TCij, the effect of
the interaction of the i-th filler type with the j-th filler
content; [ ijk, the experimental error.
Based on this model, retained strength test results were
analysed using ANOVA (Anderson and McLean, 1974) to
determine the effect of filler content and type on retained
strength.

Results
Specimens for compressive strength tests were prepared as
per AASHTO T-167 (AASHTO, 1990) using limestone
powder and OPC as fillers. Six specimens were prepared
for 4, 5, and 6% filler content for each filler type. A total of
36 specimens, were prepared. The AASHTO test method
T-165 “Effect of water on cohesion of compacted
bituminous mixtures” was used to determine the index
of retained strength. The specimens for each filler type and
FIGURE 1 Marshall stability as a function of filler content. content were separated into two groups after determining
 50 A.H. ALJASSAR et al.
FIGURE 2 Testing for compressive strength in the universal testing
machine.
the bulk specific gravity as per method A of AASHTO
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 10:52 23 November 2014
T-165. Group 1 of the test specimens were conditioned at
258C by storing them in an air bath for 4 h before testing
them for compressive strength as per AASHTO T-167.
Group 2 specimens were immersed in water for 4 days at
508C. The specimens were transferred to second water
bath maintained at 258C and stored for 2 h before testing
for compressive strength as per AASHTO T-167.
Compressive strength of both the wet and dry specimens
were tested in the Universal Testing Machine as shown in
Fig. 2. The index of retained strength was calculated as per
AASHTO T-165.
The index of retained strength results are summarized in
Table IV. Mean index of retained strength values for 4, 5,
and 6% limestone powder as filler were observed to be
41.81, 65.44, and 44.31%, respectively. The index of
retained strength values increased by almost two times
when OPC was used as filler. The results for 4, 5, and 6%
cement as filler were 84.63, 83.26 and 97.66%,
respectively. As shown in Fig. 3, increasing pulverized
limestone content up to 5% resulted in an increase in the
retained strength. However, at 6% limestone filler content
the retained strength dropped to almost the value at 4%
filler. In contrast to pulverized limestone, increasing the
cement content to 5% caused a slight drop, followed by an
increase at 6% cement content.
Statistical ANOVA of retained strength test results was
performed to determine the effect of filler type and content
on retained strength. Table V presents the ANOVA results
which show that both filler type and filler content have
significant effect on retained strength.
TABLE IV Index of retained strength results (%)
Filler content by weight
of aggregate
Filler type 4% 5% 6%
Pulverized limestone Mean 41.81 65.44 44.31
SD (^) 5.97 6.26 7.01
Ordinary Portland cement (OPC) Mean 84.63 83.26 97.66
SD (^) 3.47 5.26 2.99
FIGURE 3 Index of retained strength as a function of filler content.
TABLE V ANOVA of retained strength test results
Source Sum of squares df Mean square F
Filler content (C) 42.625 2 21.314 11.605
Filler type (T) 322.580 1 322.580 175.639
C£T 50.627 2 25.314 13.783
Error 22.039 12 1.837
Total 437.875 17
CONCLUSIONS
Mineral fillers play a critical role in the performance of
asphalt mixes. Several types of mineral fillers are used
worldwide. In Kuwait, two main mineral fillers are used;
OPC and pulverized limestone. The purpose of this
research was to compare the effect of using the two types
of mineral fillers on the strength of asphalt mixes as
measured by Marshall stability and retained strength. The
analysis showed that both filler types have no significant
effect on Marshall stability. However, using OPC resulted
in higher values of Retained strength. Interestingly, the
increase of cement content above 5% resulted in a decrease
in Marshall stability, and an increase in the retained
strength. On the other hand, increasing the amount of
pulverized limestone beyond 5% resulted in an increasing
trend for Marshall stability values and a decrease in
retained strength. For the type of mix considered in this
study, a 5% of lime stone fillers and 6% for OPC fillers
seem to be the optimum filler contents.
References
AASHTO (1990) American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Standard Specifications for Transportation
Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing Part II Tests, 15th ed.
(AASHTO, Washington, DC).
Anderson, V.L. and McLean, R.A. (1974) Design of Experiments—A
Realistic Approach (Marcel Dekker, New York).
ASTM (1999) American Society for Testing and Materials, Annual Book
of ASTM Standards (ASTM, USA).
Baig, M.G. and Al-Abdul Wahab, H.I (1998) “Mechanistic evaluation of
lime modified asphalt concrete mixtures”, Journal of Materials in
Civil Engineering 10(3), 153 –160, ASCE, USA.
Benson, F.C. and Martinez, D.F. (1984) Evaluation of Several Mineral
Fillers for Use in Item 340 Hot-mix Asphaltic Concrete, Report No.
FHWA-TX-85-1 þ 200-3, Texas Transportation Institute, TX, USA.
 EFFECTS OF FILLERS ON ASPHALT CONCRETE
Dartnell, L. (1967) “A study of limestone dust calcined shale and asbestos
as mineral fillers in asphalt paving mixtures”, Canadian Tech Asphalt
Assoc. Proceedings, 12, pp. 51–60, Canada.
Fucic, B. (1976) Influence of Filler Types on the Properties of
Bituminous Mixtures Research Report, (Zagreb University, Zagreb,
Yugoslavia).
Kallas, B.F., Puzinauskas, V.P. and Krieger, H.C. (1962) Highway
Research Board Bulletin 329, 6–29, Washington, DC.
Mohammed, L.N., Abadie, C., Gokmen, R. and Puppala, A.J. (2000)
“Mechanistic evaluation of hydrated lime in hot-mix asphalt
mixtures”, Transportation Research Record 1723 (TRB, Washington,
DC), pp 26–36.
MPW (1987) General Specifications for Kuwait Motorway/Expressway
System (Ministry of Public Works, Kuwait).
Peterson, J.C. (1988) “Lime-treated pavements offer increased
durability”, Roads and Bridges Journal 26(1), 85 – 87,
Scranton Gillette Communications, Inc., Des Plaines, IL 60016,
USA.
Puzinauskas, V.P. (1983) Filler in Asphalt Mixtures (Asphalt Institute,
Lexington, KY).
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 10:52 23 November 2014
51
Ramswamy, S.D. and Aziz, M.A. (1983a) “Assessment of effect of filler
on the stripping of bituminous mix”, Fourth Conference of the Road
Engineering Association of Asia and Australasia 3, 159 –170, Jakarta,
Indonesia.
Ramswamy, S.D. and Aziz, M.A. (1983b) “Effect of filler type and shape
of aggregates on the stability of bituminous mixes”, Fourth
Conference of the Road Engineering Association of Asia and
Australasia 3, 171–177, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Roberts, F.L., Kandhal, P.S., Brown, E.R., Lee, D.Y. and Kennedy, T.W.
(2000) Hot Mix Asphalt Materials, Mixture Design, and Construction
(NAPA Education Foundation, Maryland, USA).
Rosner, J.C., Pavlouich, R.D. and Chehovits, J.G. (1981) Fly Ash as a
Mineral Filler and Anti-strip Agent for Asphalt Concrete Report No.
FHWA-AZ-81/173, (FHWA, Washington, DC).
SPSSw (1999) for Windowsw, A Computer Software, version 10.01,
Illinois, USA, October.
Tayebali, A.A., Malpass, G.A. and Khosla, N.P. (1998) “Effect of mineral
filler type and amount on design and performance of asphalt concrete
mixtures”, Transportation Research Record 1609 (TRB, Washington,
DC), pp 36–43.