Noor Azreena Kamaluddin MFKA2008

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/43811547
Evaluation of stone mastic asphalt using palm oil fuel ash as ﬁller material
Article
Source: OAI
CITATIONS READS
5 2,189
1 author:
Noor Azreena Kamaluddin

Lund University
9 PUBLICATIONS 25 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
InDeV - In-Depth understanding of accident causation for Vulnerable road users View project
Motorcyclist safety in Malysia View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Noor Azreena Kamaluddin on 13 April 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

EVALUATION OF STONE MASTIC ASPHALT USING PALM OIL FUEL ASH
AS FILLER MATERIAL
NOOR AZREENA BINTI KAMALUDDIN
A project report submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the award of the degree of
Master of Engineering (Civil - Transportation and Highway)
Faculty of Civil Engineering

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
JUNE 2008
iii
“Dedicated to my beloved mother,

Napisah Jusoh and father, Kamaluddin Md. Noh
My sisters, Noor Aizam, Noor Adeeb, Intan Baiduri and Norlia
My brothers, Ahmad Azwan, Mohd. Kamarul Hafiz, Mohd Safari and Luqman
My nephew, Mohd Afiq Ruzaini
My sweeties nieces, Nur Fatin Nadia and Putri widat Khairina
and to very special person, Mohd Faizal Abd. Rahman
for their love, support and patience are awesome”
I Love u all very much......Thank you
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
In the name of Allah S.W.T, I would like to express my gratefulness to Him

for giving me strength to finish my master project. I also would like to express my
deep sense of gratitude to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mohd Rosli Hainin, my project’s
supervisor, for his extraordinary help, guidance, encouragement and critics in making
and completing this project. I am very thankful to all my members of project
presentation consisted of Assoc. Prof Dr. Abdul Aziz bin Chik, Tn. Hj. Che Ros bin
Ismail and Miss Nor Hidayah Hassan for their critical judgments and advice during
the masters project presentation.
During the various phases of the laboratory research, I was fortunate and
happy to be associated with all technicians of Highway and Transportation
Laboratory UTM, Mr. Suhaimi, Mr. Ahmad Adin, Mr. Abdul Rahman, Mr. Azman
and Mr. Sahak. I thank to their contribution during the laboratory experimental
work. Special thanks also to all my fellow postgraduate friends, Wadat, Ros, Tiong,
Esarwi, Nhat and Ricky for their support, assistance and encouragements towards the
success of this study. Last but not least, thank you very much for those who involve
direct or indirectly in completing this project. I hope this project can give “new
energy” as a contribution for the research development.
v
ABSTRACT
This paper presents a study of laboratory evaluation on the performance of

Stone Mastic Asphalt (SMA) using Palm Oil Fuel Ash (POFA) as filler material.
POFA produced by burning palm fibre and shell which is generally used as boiler
fuel to produce steam for electricity generation in the mill. POFA is one of the
materials identified to have a potential of becoming an alternative filler material in
SMA mixes. In this project, a small portion of POFA (passing 75µm) was used to
modify asphalt mixtures. POFA was incorporated into asphalt mixes by using dry
process method which refers to technologies that mix POFA with the aggregate prior
to mixing it with asphalt binder. The aggregate gradations use in this study is gap
graded (stone mastic asphalt with 14mm nominal maximum aggregate size-SMA14).
The percentage of POFA added was varied from 0 to 7 % (2% hydrated lime) by
weight of the total aggregate which is 0 to 100% by weight of the filler content.
Samples was prepared and compacted using Marshall Method. Several performance
indicators of mixes was evaluated using laboratory work were moisture induced
damage/stripping resistant and Marshall volumetric properties. The performance
results of modified asphalt mixes were compared to conventional asphalt mixes
(unmodified samples). Based on the results, the performance of HMA mixes such as
stability, flow and stiffness was significantly affected with the addition of POFA.
The results suggest that 50% POFA by weight of filler content is the optimum value.
vi
ABSTRAK
Kajian ini dijalankan untuk menilai tahap prestasi ‘Stone Mastic Asphalt’
(SMA) yang ditambah abu kelapa sawit (POFA) sebagai bahan pengisi. POFA
terhasil dari proses pembakaran sabut dan tempurung kelapa sawit yang pada
kebiasaannya digunakan sebagai bahan bakar dandang untuk menghasilkan wap bagi
menjana sistem elektrik di dalam kilang memproses minyak kelapa sawit. POFA
adalah salah satu bahan yang dikenalpasti mempunyai potensi untuk dijadikan bahan
pengisi alternatif di dalam campuran SMA. Di dalam kajian ini, POFA (melepasi
saiz ayak 75μm) digunakan dalam kuantiti yang sedikit untuk mengubahsuai
campuran SMA. POFA akan dimasukkan ke dalam campuran asfalt dengan
menggunakan kaedah proses kering (dry process) di mana POFA dicampurkan ke
dalam aggreget sebelum diadun dengan bitumen. Campuran aggregate yang akan
digunakan di dalam kajian ini ialah ‘gap graded’ (Stone mastic asphalt dengan
14mm saiz nominal maksimum – SMA 14). Peratus POFA yang digunakan di dalam
kajian ini divariasikan dari 0 hingga 7% (2% hydrated lime) dari berat keseluruhan
aggreget di mana 0 hingga 100% dari berat keseluruhan bahan pengisi. Sampel
disediakan dan dipadatkan dengan menggunakan kaedah Marshall. Beberapa ujian
prestasi campuran yang dijalankan ialah ujian kerosakan akibat lembapan (moisture
induced damage) dan ciri-ciri isipadu Marshall. Keputusan prestasi campuran yang
telah diubahsuai dibandingkan dengan campuran yang tidak diubahsuai (tanpa
POFA). Berdasarkan dari keputusan yang diperolehi, dapat diperhatikan bahawa
POFA memberi kesan yang ketara terhadap prestasi campuran asfalt terutamanya
kestabilan, aliran dan kekukuhan. Keputusan menunjukkan 50% POFA dari
kandungan pengisi adalah nilai optimum yang boleh digunakan.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER TITLE PAGE
DECLARATION OF THE STATUS OF THESIS

SUPERVISOR’S DECLARATION
TITLE PAGE
DECLARATION ii
DEDICATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv
ABSTRACT v
ABSTRAK vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS vii
LIST OF TABLES xi
LIST OF FIGURES xiii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS/SYMBOLS xvi
LIST OF APPENDICES xviii
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Problem Statement 3
1.3 Objective of the Study 4
1.4 Scope of the Study 4
1.5 Significant of the Study 5
viii
2 LITERATURE REVIEW 6
2.1 Introduction 6
2.2 Hot Mix Asphalt 7
2.3 Stone Mastic Asphalt 7
2.3.1 Advantages of SMA 10
2.3.2 Disadvantages of SMA 11
2.3.3 Composition of SMA 11
2.4 Stone Mastic Asphalt Materials 13
2.4.1 Aggregate 13
2.4.2 Asphalt Binder 13
2.4.3 Mineral Filler 16
2.5 Palm Oil Fuel Ash (POFA) 16
2.5.1 Chemical Composition of POFA 18
2.6 Grading Types 18
2.6.1 Dense Graded 19
2.6.2 Gap Graded 20
2.6.3 Open Graded 21
2.6.4 Fine Gap Graded 22
2.7 Mix Design Method 22
2.7.1 Marshall Mix Design Method 24
2.8 Stripping 27
3 METHODOLOGY 28
3.1 Introduction 28
3.1.1 Aggregate 30
3.1.2 Palm Oil Fuel Ash (POFA) 30
3.1.3 Stabilising Agent 31
3.1.4 Stone Mastic Asphalt (SMA) Mixture 32
3.2 Operational Framework 34
3.3 Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregate 35
3.3.1 Apparatus 35
3.3.2 Procedures 36
3.4 Washed Sieve Analysis of Mineral Filler 36
ix
3.4.1 Apparatus 37
3.4.2 Procedures 38
3.5 Aggregate Gradation 38
3.6 Specific Gravity of Aggregates 39
3.6.1 Specific Gravity for Coarse Aggregate 40
3.6.1.1 Apparatus 40
3.6.1.2 Procedures 40
3.6.2 Specific Gravity for Fine Aggregate 41
3.7 Bituminous Binder 43
3.8 Palm Oil Fuel Ash (POFA) 44
3.9 Marshall Mix Design 44
3.9.1 Marshall Sample Preparation (Compacted Sample) 45
3.9.2 Theoretical Maximum Density (Loose Mix) 47
3.9.3 Flow and Stability Test 50
3.9.4 Data Analysis 53
3.9.4.1 Bulk Specific Gravity 53
3.9.4.2 Void Fill with Bitumen (VFB) 54
3.9.4.3 Void in Total Mix (VTM) 54
3.9.4.4 Void in Mineral Aggregate (VMA) 54
3.9.4.5 Determination of Optimum Bitumen 55
Content (OBC)
3.9.5 Binder Draindown Test 56
3.9.5.3 Calculation 58
x
3.10 Moisture Induced Damage Test 59

3.10.1 Apparatus. 59
3.10.2 Procedures 60
3.10.2.1 Preparation of Laboratory Test Specimens 60
3.10.2.2 Evaluation of Test Specimens and Grouping 61
3.10.2.3 Preconditioning of Test Specimens 61
3.10.2.4 Testing 64
3.10.3 Calculations 66
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 68

4.1 Introduction 68
4.2 Materials Preparation 68
4.2.1 Aggregate 69
4.2.1.1 Aggregate Gradation 69
4.2.1.2 Washed Sieve Analysis 71
4.2.1.3 Specific Gravity 71
4.2.2 Asphalt Cement 72
4.2.3 Palm Oil Fuel Ash (POFA) 72
4.3 Marshall Sample 73
4.3.1 Sample Preparation 74
4.3.2 Determination of Optimum Bitumen Content (OBC) 74
4.3.3 Theoretical Maximum Density (TMD) 75
4.3.4 Results of Volumetric Properties 75
4.3.5 Determination of Optimum POFA Content 79
4.4 Moisture Induced Test 80
5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 86

5.1 Conclusions 86
5.2 Recommendations 87
REFERENCES 88
APPENDICES A-G 91
xi
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO TITLE PAGE
2.1 Design criteria for the Marshall method 26
2.2 Minimum percent voids in mineral aggregate (VMA) for

26
the Marshall method
3.1 SMA mix requirements 29
3.2 50 blows Marshall criteria for surface mixes 33
3.3 Gradation limit for SMA 14 39
3.4 Total number of samples 45
4.2 Mass of dust in washed sieve analysis 71
4.3 Specific gravity of materials 71
4.4 Chemical composition and physical properties of POFA 73
4.5 Details of mixes produced 74

xii
4.6 Marshall mix design results of the SMA mixes 76
4.7 Moisture Induced Damage results 82

xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO TITLE PAGE
2.1 Comparison between SMA and conventional HMA 8
2.2 SMA aggregate skeleton 9
2.3 Major components of SMA mixture 12
2.4 Palm oil shell 17
2.5 Palm Oil Fuel Ash (POFA) after grounded 17
2.6 Structure of dense graded mix 19
2.7 Structure of gap graded mix 20
2.8 Structure of open graded mix 21
3.1 Palm Oil Fuel Ash (POFA) after grounded 31
3.2 Flow chart for laboratory process and analysis 34
3.3 Mechanical sieve shaker 37

xiv
3.4 The aggregate was sieve in the mechanical sieve shaker 37
3.5 Automatic Marshall compactor 48
3.6 Apparatus for TMD test 48
3.7 Water bath for submerging sample 52
3.8 Machine for flow and stability test 52
3.9 Draindown test apparatus 56
3.10 Dimension of wire basket 57
3.11 Unconditioned samples wrapped with plastic 62
3.12 Conditioned samples in water bath for curing 63
3.13 Unconditioned and conditioned samples in the water bath

63
before test
3.14 Indirect Tensile Strength (ITS) test 64
3.15 Unconditioned samples after tested 65
3.16 Conditioned samples after tested 65
4.2 Stability vs Bitumen Content 77
4.3 Flow vs Bitumen Content 77

xv
4.4 Density vs Bitumen Content 77
4.5 VTM vs Bitumen Content 78
4.6 VFA vs Bitumen Content 78
4.7 VMA vs Bitumen Content 78
4.8 Tensile strength for unconditioned and conditioned

82
samples
4.9 Samples without POFA 83
4.10 Samples with 25% POFA 83
4.14 Unconditioned samples 85
4.15 Conditioned samples 85

xvi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS/SYMBOLS
POFA Palm Oil Fuel Ash

HMA Hot Mix Asphalt
SMA Stone Mastic Asphalt
NAPA National Asphalt Pavement Association
TSR Tensile Strength Ratio
SMA 14 Stone Mastic Asphalt with Nominal Maximum Aggregate Size
of 14mm
JKR Jabatan Kerja Raya
UTM Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
AAPA Australia Asphalt Pavement Association
DG Dense Graded
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
US United State
VMA Voids in Mineral Aggregate
VFA Voids Filled with Asphalt
VTM Voids in Total Mix
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials
PG Performance Grade
OBC Optimum Bitumen Content
MRP Malaysia Rock Product
TMD Theoretical Maximum Density
SSD Saturated-Surface-Dry
LAA Los Angeles Abrasion
xvii
ITS Indirect Tensile Strength

SiO2 Silicon Dioxide
AlO3 Aluminium Oxide
FeO3 Ferric Oxide
CaO Calcium Oxide
MgO Magnesium Oxide
SO3 Sulphur Trioxide
LOI Loss on Ignition
OPC Ordinary Portland Cement
HL Hydrated Lime
Gsb Combined bulk specific gravity of total aggregate
Gmb Bulk specific gravity of compacted mix
Gmm Theoretical maximum density
AC Asphalt Cement
xviii
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX TITLE PAGE
A Aggregate size distribution and determination of filler 91
B Wash sieve analysis (SMA 14) 92
C Specific gravity for coarse and fine aggregate (SMA 14) 93
D Marshall test results 96
E Determination of OBC at 4% air void (NAPA) for SMA 14 103
F Theoretical maximum density (TMD) for SMA 14 108
G Moisture induced damage results 113

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Over the last few decades, the Malaysian palm oil industry has grown to
become a very important agriculture-based industry, where the country is today the
world’s leading producer and exporter of palm oil (Yusoff, 2004). At the same time,
there are lot of researches has been conducted in order to investigate other alternative
material as a filler/modifier in asphalt mixes. The concept of modifying asphalt
mixes is not new. In fact, since years ago there have been numerous efforts to
modify asphalt mixes in order to get a better performance and quality of hot asphalt
mixes.
However, in Malaysia, the application of ash as filler in hot mix asphalt is not
significant enough. This is due to the less number of researches being conducted in
evaluating the potential of ash as an alternative material to improve the performance
of asphalt mixes according to Malaysian condition. Hence, there is a need to conduct
a detailed study on the performance of Malaysian hot mix asphalt using Palm Oil
Fuel Ash (POFA) as a modifier/filler. Recycling of the waste product will not only
have environmental significance, but it also has potential to be cost effective and
improve performance of new flexible pavements as compared to conventional hot
2
mix asphalt. Besides, if the enhanced characteristics of asphalt pavement using

POFA as filler are significant, it could be a potential for POFA to be used as a
modifier in HMA mixes.
It is necessary to address the engineering properties, environmental and

economic concerns before using these materials in order to achieve sustainable
development. SMA containing a waste material should perform equal or better than
conventional SMA. In addition, it should be also noted in environmentally issues
both for the initial construction and future recyclability.
The type of aggregate gradation used in this study was gap graded gradation
which is stone mastic asphalt (SMA14). Stone mastic asphalt is a tough, stable, rut-
resistant mixture that relies on stone-to-stone contact to provide strength and a rich
mortar binder to provide durability. The estimated 20-25% increase in cost is more
than offset by the increase in life expectancy of the mix, primarily through the
decreased rutting and increased durability. SMA is considered to be a premium mix
by several state Departments of Transportation for use in areas where high-volume
traffic conditions exist and frequent maintenance is costly (NAPA, 2002).
In this study, the investigation was conducted by using binder PG 76 on a

range of gap graded (SMA 14) containing 0% (control), 25%, 50%, 75% and 100%
Palm Oil Fuel Ash (POFA) by the total weight of the filler content. The performance
of modified and conventional SMA were compared through laboratory tests on the
mechanical properties such as stability, flow, stiffness and resistance to moisture-
induced damage in order to investigate the influence of utilisation of Palm Oil Fuel
Ash (POFA) as filler material in hot mix asphalt mixtures.
3
1.2 Problem Statement
Within the last few years, environmental issues are increasingly becoming
more important in Malaysia and all over the world. The ash produced by burning
palm fibre and shell is considered to be a waste product and the disposal of which
poses enormous problems. In many develop countries, due to the increasing cost of
materials and the continuous reduction of natural resources, the use of waste material
is a potential alternative in the construction industry. Waste material likes Palm Oil
Fuel Ash (POFA), when properly processed, have shown to be effective as
construction materials and readily meet the design specifications (Mannan and
Ganapathy, 2002). This will have the double advantage of reduction in the cost of
construction material and also as a means of disposal of waste. In this study, the
feasibility of using POFA as filler material will be evaluated.
On the other hand, the increases of traffic loading and number of heavy
vehicles caused pavements tend to fail prematurely either structurally or functionally
even though they have been designed to last longer. Repeated application of traffic
loads can cause structural damage to asphalt pavements in the forms of fatigue
cracking of asphalt layer, rutting along the wheel tracks and loss of adherent between
aggregate and asphalt cement and cause stripping. These kinds of damages quite
worst especially in hot climatic conditions like Malaysia. Government has spent
millions of ringgit to repair and maintain roads in this country. Development of
modified asphalt mixes has been explored over the past few decades in order to
improve the performance of pavements mixes. Utilisations of POFA as modifier
material in asphalt mix have not been firmly established and explored. Thus, there is
a need to conduct a study to evaluate the performance of HMA after being modified
using Palm Oil Fuel Ash (POFA) according to Malaysian condition. In this study,
resistance of compacted bituminous mixture to moisture-induced damage using
POFA was investigated.
4
1.3 Objectives of the Study
This study was conducted to achieve several objectives. The objectives of

this study are:
i. To evaluate the performance of Marshall properties of hot mix asphalt

mixes with POFA as filler.
ii. To investigate the stripping potential due to moisture induced damage

of the asphalt mixes using POFA as filler and compared the tensile
strength and Tensile Strength Ratio (TSR) values.
1.4 Scope of the Study
The scope of this study focused on the effect of utilising Palm Oil Fuel Ash
(POFA) as filler material in hot mix asphalt. The gap graded gradation (SMA14)
was used as typical type of aggregate gradation in the mixture.
Each sample of SMA mixes was compacted as stipulated in the JKR

specifications (JKR/SPJ/2007) using Marshall design procedures. The stone mastic
asphalt mixes was modified using Palm Oil Fuel Ash (POFA). The size of POFA
that was used in the asphalt mixes is passing sieve size 75µm. The numbers of
samples prepared were divided into five categories where the percentage of POFA
used in this mixes varied from 0 to 100% by the total weight of the filler content.
These categories include unmodified samples, samples added with 25% of POFA,
samples added with 50% of POFA, samples added with 75% of POFA and samples
added with 100% of POFA in order to identify which mix that meets the desired
performances.
5
The addition of POFA in the mixes was used the method of ‘dry process’
where ash is added as part of the aggregate component first before it was blended
with the asphalt cement. The POFA was replaced a dust composition in the mixes
and reacted as filler in the mixes to improve properties of the mixture. Hydrated
lime was used in this study as stabilising agent. Laboratory stability and flow test
(Marshall) and indirect tensile strength test were performed on the mix design that
meets the best performances for volumetric properties and stripping resistance
(moisture-induced damage) measurements. The entire test was conducted at
Highway and Transportation Laboratory, UTM, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia.
1.5 Significant of the Study
From the result obtained in the end of this study, it can be proposed to
consider utilisation of POFA in stone mastic asphalt as filler material and to improve
resistance to moisture-induced damage in order to provide pavement with better
durability and strength by minimizing the distresses occurred in HMA pavement.
Hence, the road pavement will provide a safe and smooth riding for vehicular travel.
In addition, the utilisation of POFA can also be proposed to solve waste problem in
order to get sustainable development or use it as an alternative material in pavement
construction. Based on the findings, it can be proposed that utilisation of POFA in
the mixture should be taken into consideration for further studies in the future.
Utilisation of POFA in the pavement design is not well establish and explored.
Hence, contractors may have problem using POFA in the SMA mix cause by lack of
experience since this mix is considered as new mix for road pavement compared to
standard asphaltic concrete. So, from this study, the information obtained would
provide valuable information to agencies who desire to construct SMA pavement
using Palm Oil Fuel Ash (POFA) as filler material.
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
For the past several years, there have been limited studies to incorporate some
of waste materials into HMA. Materials involved to date include ground rubber tires,
ground glass, asphalt shingles, contaminated sand/soils, incinerator ash and various
kinds of waste polymers (Waller, 1993). There are perhaps other waste materials
that could be included in similar studies of hot mix asphalt in the future. One
governing criteria would be quantify of material available for use. There must be a
sufficient amount and a continuous supply in order for a specific material to be
considered for use.
There are two primary factors that must be taken into account when the
matters of incorporating waste materials into hot mix asphalt are considered. One
consideration is cost, there needs to be a balance between disposals of the waste
material in the normal manner as compared to incorporation into the hot mix asphalt.
A second consideration is the effect on quality and performance of the HMA. It
would be poor economics indeed to incorporate a waste material that substantially
increases the cost of the HMA and at the same time shortens the service life or
increase maintenance costs (Waller, 1993).
7
2.2 Hot Mix Asphalt
Hot mix asphalt (HMA) is a complex material upon which many different
and sometimes conflicting performance demands are placed. It must resist
deformation and cracking, be durable over time, resist water damage, provide a good
tactile surface, and yet be inexpensive, readily made and easily placed. In order to
meet these demands, the mix designer can manipulate all of three variables (Asphalt
Institute, 2001):
i. Aggregate. Items such as type (source), gradation and size,

toughness and abrasion resistance, durability and soundness, shape
and texture as well as cleanliness can be measured, judged and altered
to some degree.
ii. Asphalt binder. Items such as type, durability, rheology, purity as
well as additional modifying agents can be measured, judged and
altered to some degree.
iii. The ratio of asphalt binder to aggregate. Usually expressed in
terms of percent asphalt binder by total weight of HMA, this ratio has
a profound effect on HMA pavement performance. Because of the
wide differences in aggregate specific gravity, the proportion of
asphalt binder expressed as a percentage of total weight can vary
widely even though the volume of asphalt binder as a percentage of
total volume remains quite constant.
2.3 Stone Mastic Asphalt
Stone Mastic Asphalt (SMA) originated in Germany in the 1970’s to provide

maximum resistance to rutting caused by the studded tyre on European roads. SMA
is dense, gap graded hot mix asphalt with a large proportion of coarse aggregate
8
(>60%) and a rich bitumen filler mastic. SMA is characterised by its high coarse
aggregate content which foams a stone skeleton structure. The voids of the structural
matrix are filled with high viscosity bituminous mastic (JKR, 2007).
A view of a typical SMA mixture and for a comparison with conventional

dense graded mixture is shown in Figure 2.1 (NAPA, 2002). Cores from SMA
mixture (left) illustrate the greater percentage of fractured aggregate and higher
percentage of asphalt binder, compared to the conventional Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA)
mixture (right) which contains a more uniform aggregate gradation and less asphalt
binder.
Figure 2.1: Comparison between SMA and conventional HMA
Stone Mastic Asphalt (SMA) is a tough, stable, rut resistant mixture that
relies on stone-to-stone contact to provide strength and a rich mortar binder to
provide durability (NAPA, 2002). It is consisting of two parts which are coarse
aggregate skeleton and a binder rich mortar. SMA’s stone-on-stone concept is
illustrated in Figure 2.2 (NAPA, 2002). The rationale used in the SMA mix design is
to first develop an aggregate skeleton with coarse aggregate-on-coarse-aggregate
contact that is generally referred to as stone-on-stone contact. The second part of the
mix design rationale is to provide sufficient mortar of the desired consistency.
Satisfactory mortar consistency and thus good performance requires relatively high
asphalt cement content.
9
Figure 2.2: SMA Aggregate skeleton
Typically, SMA mixes have polymer modified bitumen contents that range
between 5.5-7.5%. The polymer modified bitumen may be further stabilised using
cellulose fibres to prevent excessive binder draindown. Additionally, the presence of
the fibres enhances the durability of the SMA mix by allowing the use of higher
bitumen content (JKR, 2007).
SMA is able to provide durable surfacing and exhibit high resistance to

rutting due to heavy axle loads. This mix is recommended to be used in high stress
areas such as climbing lanes or where excessive axle loads are expected (JKR, 2007).
It has been found to be very deformation resistant due to its stable aggregate skeleton
structure. The excellent structural properties of the material are derived from its
aggregate skeleton and the fibres are used primarily as a bitumen carrier to increase
the thickness of binder coating and thereby reduce oxidation (Nunn, 1994). In world
terms, it is considered to be a high quality flexible road surfacing when considering
strength, long life and good return on investment despite higher initial costs (AAPA,
2002).
SMA provides improved performance for high speed, heavily trafficked roads
when compared to more conventional forms of asphalt such as Dense Graded (DG)
asphalt. SMA provides a smooth, low noise pavement with sufficient texture to
promote safety through reduced water splash and spray and good frictional resistance
for vehicle traffic. Its durability and stability are enhanced by the higher bitumen
content and it is able to support even heavier traffic loads with the use of polymer
10
modified binders. At the end of its service life, like other asphalt, it is 100%
recyclable (AAPA, 2002).
2.3.1 Advantages of SMA
The primary advantage of SMA is the extended life with improved

performance compared to conventional dense graded hot mix asphalt (HMA). The
other advantages are noise reduction, improved frictional resistance and improve
visibility (NAPA, 2002). Stone mastic asphalt has a number of advantages over
conventional dense graded asphalt. These include the following (Campbell, 1999):
i. Resistance to permanent deformation or rutting (30-40% less

permanent deformation than dense graded asphalt). The stone to
stone contact of an aggregate skeleton should prevent the mix from
becoming temperature sensitive and thus susceptible to permanent
deformation at high temperatures (Ven et al., undated).
ii. The mechanical properties of SMA rely on the stone to stone contact
so they are less sensitive to binder variations than the conventional
mixes (Brown et al., 1997).
iii. Good durability due to high binder content (slow ageing), resulting in
longer service life (up to 20%) over conventional mixes.
iv. Good flexibility and resistance to fatigue (3-5 times increased fatigue
life).
v. Good low temperature performance.
vi. Good wear resistance.
vii. Good surface texture.
viii. Wide range of applications.
ix. SMA can be produced and compacted with the same plant and
equipment available for dense grade asphalt.
x. More economical in the long term.
11
2.3.2 Disadvantages of SMA
The disadvantages of SMA are that it requires additives, premium crushed

aggregates and high binder content compared to conventional asphaltic concrete
(Nunn, 1994). There are several disadvantages when using the SMA which are
(Campbell, 1999):
i. Increased cost associated with higher binder and filler contents and
fibre additive.
ii. High filler content in SMA may result in reduced productivity. This
may be overcome by suitable plant modifications.
iii. Possible delays in opening to traffic as SMA mix should be cooled to
40C to prevent flushing of the binder surface.
iv. Initial skid resistance may be low until the thick binder film is worn
off the top of the surface by traffic.
2.3.3 Composition of SMA
Stone mastic asphalt is a delicate balance between the mastic and the
aggregate fraction requiring good quality aggregates, consistent grading and careful
dosage of mineral fibres to avoid an unstable mix. Variations in production can alter
the mix dramatically, hence the use of additives and/or modified binders (Campbell,
1999).
The design philosophy revolves around developing a strong stone skeleton

with a high stone content, high bitumen and mortar content and a binder carrier.
Typical parameters are that the coarse aggregate (> 2.36 mm sieve) makes up 70-
80% of the aggregate weight, the fine aggregate range 12-17% and the filler fraction
is in the range 8-13% (Campbell, 1999).
12
SMA is a blend of crushed coarse aggregate, crushed fine aggregate (or

sand), mineral filler, asphalt cement and stabilising agent. The stabilising agent is
used to prevent draindown of the asphalt cement and typically consist of fibres
and/or polymer. All the major components of SMA mixtures are shown in Figure
2.3 (NAPA, 2002) which stone skeleton mixture provides the gap-graded stone-on-
stone structure to carry heavy traffic loads, prevent rutting and provide long term
durability (Roberts et al., 1996).
Figure 2.3: Major Components of SMA mixture
The mineral filler, sand (fine aggregate), and asphalt cement provides the
binder adhesive to bond the stone skeleton together and provide a cohesive mixture.
Finally, additives such as fibers or polymers are used as a stabiliser to help protect
the mastic within the overall structure hence prevents draindown of the asphalt
cement. Mineral fillers and additives are used both to minimise asphalt binder
draindown during construction and to improve mix durability but at the same time,
increase the amount of asphalt binder used.
13
2.4 Stone Mastic Asphalt Materials
Selection of materials is important in SMA design. The coarse aggregate

should be a durable, fully crushed rock with a cubicle shape (maximum of 20%
elongated or flat aggregate). Fine aggregate should be at least 50% crushed. Filler
can be ground limestone rock, hydrated lime or flyash. In general, materials of
similar quality to those used in dense graded asphalt wearing courses are required for
the same conditions of SMA mix (Campbell, 1999).
2.4.1 Aggregate
The strength, toughness and rut resistance of SMA depends mostly on the
aggregate in the mix being 100% crushed aggregate with good shape (cubicle) and
stringent limits for abrasion resistance, flakiness index, crushing strength and where
appropriate, polishing resistance (Campbell, 1999).
Fine aggregate requirements vary from 50% crushed/50% natural sand but
trending to 75%/25% to even higher proportions of crushed material. The sand used
must be crushed sand as the internal friction of the sand fraction largely contributes
to the overall stability of SMA.
2.4.2 Asphalt Binder
The grade of asphalt cement used in SMA is typically the same or slightly
stiffer grade than conventional dense graded mixtures. The stiffer asphalt binder is
14
useful in minimising rutting and any potential draindown problem to higher

temperatures. However, a stiffer binder may cause thermal cracking. Due to high
optimum asphalt content and increased film thickness, the thermal cracking will be
less particularly comparing the SMA mixtures with dense graded mixture (Roberts et
al., 1996).
Asphalt is a dark brown to black, highly viscous, hydrocarbon produced from

petroleum distillation residue. This distillation can occur naturally, resulting in
asphalt lakes or occur in a petroleum refinery. Asphalt can be classified by its
chemical composition and physical properties. The pavement industry typically
relies on physical properties for performance characterisation. An aggregate’s
physical properties are a direct result of its chemical composition. Typically, the
most important physical properties are (Asphalt Institute, 2001):
i. Durability. Durability is a measure of how asphalt binder physical

properties change with age (sometimes called age hardening). In
general, as an asphalt binder ages, its viscosity increases and it
becomes more stiff and brittle.
ii. Rheology. Rheology is the study of deformation and flow of matter.
Deformation and flow of the asphalt binder in HMA is important in
HMA pavement performance. HMA pavements that deform and flow
too much may be susceptible to rutting and bleeding, while those that
are too stiff may be susceptible to fatigue cracking.
iii. Safety. Asphalt cement like most other materials, volatilises (gives
off vapor) when heated. At extremely high temperatures (well above
those experienced in the manufacture and construction of HMA)
asphalt cement can release enough vapor to increase the volatile
concentration immediately above the asphalt cement to a point where
it will ignite (flash) when exposed to a spark or open flame. This is
called the flash point. For safety reasons, the flash point of asphalt
cement is tested and controlled.
iv. Purity. Asphalt cement, as used in HMA paving, should consist of
almost pure bitumen. Impurities are not active cementing constituents
and may be detrimental to asphalt performance.
15
Some asphalt cements require modification in order to meet specifications.

Asphalt cement modification has been practiced for over 50 years but has received
added attention in the past decade. There are numerous binder additives available on
the market today. The benefits of modified asphalt cement can only be realised by a
judicious selection of the modifier but not all modifiers are appropriate for all
applications. In general, asphalt cement should be modified to achieve the following
types of improvements (Roberts et al., 1996):
iv. Lower stiffness (or viscosity) at the high temperatures associated with
construction. This facilitates pumping of the liquid asphalt binder as
well as mixing and compaction of HMA.
ii. Higher stiffness at high service temperatures. This will reduce rutting
and shoving.
iii. Lower stiffness and faster relaxation properties at low service
temperatures. This will reduce thermal cracking.
iv. Increased adhesion between the asphalt binder and the aggregate in
the presence of moisture. This will reduce the likelihood of stripping.
Stone mastic asphalt contains more binder than conventional dense graded
mixes, with percentages ranging from about 6.0% up to 7.5%. Heavy duty
performance is usually enhanced with polymers and fibres. These help to provide a
thick aggregate coating to the aggregate and the prevention of drain down during
transportation and placement. Modified binders are used for several reasons,
including (Campbell, 1999):
i. To increase the resistance to permanent deformation.

ii. To increase the life span of the pavement surface.
iii. To reduce application and damage risks especially in cases of very
thin layers.
iv. To reduce the need for drainage inhibitor.
16
2.4.3 Mineral Filler
The function of mineral filler is essentially to stiffen the binder rich SMA. A
higher percentage of very fine filler may stiffen the mixture excessively, making it
difficult to work with and resulting in crack susceptible mixture. Mineral filler shall
be incorporated as part of combined aggregate gradation (JKR, 2007). Mineral filler
is that portion passing the 0.075 mm sieve. It will usually consist of finely divided
mineral matter such as rock dust, Portland cement, hydrated lime, ground limestone
dust, cement plant or fly ash (Campbell, 1999). The material shall pass 0.075 mm
sieve by not less than 70% by weight. The amount of filler to be added shall be not
less than 8% by weight of the combined aggregates, where if cement used it shall not
exceed 2% by weight of the combined aggregates (JKR, 2007). From the past
experience, utilisation of hydrated lime will greatly assist in resisting stripping under
adverse moisture conditions and is strongly recommended for inclusion in SMA
mixes.
2.5 Palm Oil Fuel Ash (POFA)
Palm Oil Fuel Ash (POFA) is a by-product produced in palm oil mill. After
palm oil is extracted from the palm oil fruit, both palm oil husk and palm oil shell
(see Figure 2.4) are burned as fuel in the boiler of palm oil mill. Generally, after
combustion about 5% palm oil fuel ash by weight of solid wastes is produced (Sata et
al., 2004). The ash produced sometimes varies in tone of colour from whitish grey to
darker shade based on the carbon content in it (Abdullah et al., 2006) (see Figure
2.5). In other words, the physical characteristic of POFA is very much influenced by
the operating system in palm oil factory.
In practice, POFA produced in Malaysian palm oil mill is dumped as waste

without any profitable return (Sumadi and Hussin, 1995). Either in 20th or 21st
17
century, POFA is still considered as a nuisance to the environment and disposed

without being put for any other use as compared to other type of palm oil by-product
(Abdullah et al., 2006). Since Malaysia is continuous to increase production of palm
oil, therefore more ashes will be produced and failure to find any solution in making
use of this by-product will create severe environmental problems.
Figure 2.4: Palm oil shell
Figure 2.5: Palm Oil Fuel Ash (POFA) after grounded.

18
2.5.1 Chemical Composition of POFA
Both physical properties and chemical analysis indicated that POFA is a

pozzolanic material (Awal and Hussin, 1997; Sumadi and Hussin, 1993). This
pozzolanic material is grouped in between Class C and Class F as specified in ASTM
C 618-92a. POFA is moderately rich in silica content meanwhile lime content is
very low as compared to OPC (Awal & Hussin, 1997). However, the chemical
composition of POFA can be varied due to operating system in palm oil mill
(Abdullah et al., 2006).
2.6 Grading Types
Classification of particulate material by grading is important in pavement

engineering as the value of many relevant properties such as internal friction, voids
content, wear resistance and permeability depend on the distribution of particle sizes
(Lay, 1998). In addition, the density of mixtures depending on their grading and the
characteristics of their finer particles.
The primary division between asphalt mix types is in terms of particle size
distribution (generally referred to as grading). Within each grading type, there are
further variations in terms of binder type as well as types and proportions of
component materials for particular applications such as ultra thin surfacing. The
principal mix types are (AAPA, 2002):
iv. Gap graded asphalt.

ii. Dense graded asphalt.
iv. Open graded asphalt.
iv. Fine gap graded asphalt.
19
2.6.1 Dense Graded
A well graded (or dense graded) particle size distribution is one which will
permit each particle to fit into the voids created by inter-particle contact of the larger
sizes, thus producing close-packing and maximum mix density. Grading changes
can thus directly increase the density of the placed material (Lay, 1998). Figure 2.3
shows the structure of dense graded mix.
Figure 2.6: Structure of dense graded mix
A dense graded asphalt mix has a continuous distribution of aggregate

particle size and filler (evenly distributed from coarse to fine) and a low design air
void content, generally in the range of 3 to 7%. Dense graded mixes are also often
referred to as asphaltic concrete (AC) and represent the most widely used form of
asphalt. This type of mix provides the greatest load carrying capacity for structural
layers as well as a range of other properties appropriate to a wide variety of wearing
course applications (AAPA, 2002).
20
2.6.2 Gap Graded
SMA is also a gap graded mix, but with a high proportion of coarse aggregate
providing an interlocking stone-on-stone skeleton that resists permanent deformation.
The coarse aggregate skeleton is filled with mastic of bitumen, filler and fine
aggregate (Lay, 1998). Figure 2.4 shows the structure of gap graded mix. Generally,
fibres or modified binders are used to prevent drainage of the relatively high binder
content during transport and placing. When used as a wearing course, SMA has the
following advantages (AAPA, 2002):
i. High durability.
ii. Low permeability.
iii. Low traffic noise.
iv. High resistance to reflection cracking.
v. High rut resistance.
Figure 2.7: Structure of gap graded mix

21
2.6.3 Open Graded
The particle size distribution of an open graded mix is characterised by a

large proportion of coarse aggregate and only small amounts of fine aggregate and
filler. Open graded has relatively high air voids, generally in the range 18 to 25%,
and relies largely on mechanical interlock of aggregate particles for stability. Being
permeable, they are less durable than dense type mixes although durability is assisted
by an increase in binder film thickness around the individual aggregate particles
using high binder contents, and the use of modified binders. Coarse textured
aggregates with angular shape are desirable for surface texture and stability.
As open graded mixes are permeable, it is important that they are placed on a
base that is (Lay, 1998):
i. Waterproof to minimise vertical movement of moisture into the

pavement;
ii. Free draining to provide lateral drainage to the edges of the pavement.
Open graded is not recommended for use at intersections due to relatively

low shear resistance and potential for oil droppings to soften the binder and fill the
voids, reducing drainage ability (AAPA, 2002). Figure 2.5 shows the structure of
open graded mix.
Figure 2.8: Structure of open graded mix

22
2.6.4 Fine Gap Graded
A fine gap graded asphalt mix is a dense (low air voids) mix but with
intermediate sized fractions replaced by finer fractions. It may also contain more
filler. Fine gap graded mixes rely for stability on the stiffness of the fine aggregate /
filler / binder mixture. When used in residential streets and other lightly trafficked
applications, they provide a fine textured surface and a workable mix that is more
readily compacted to low air voids. The combination of low air voids and relatively
high binder contents provides an extremely durable surface as well as good fatigue
resistance. Fine gap graded mixes are not generally used as wearing course in more
heavily trafficked applications due to poor rutting resistance at high surface
temperatures (AAPA, 2002).
2.7 Mix Design Method
The mix design procedure for SMA mixtures is similar to dense graded
mixtures but there are some significant differences. The Marshall and Superpave
design methods has been used to design SMA mixtures. The criteria for both
methods have been set to ensure coarse stone on coarse stone contact and to ensure
that high asphalt content are selected (Roberts et al., 1996).
The overall objectives for the design of asphalt paving mixes is to determine
an economical blend and gradation of aggregate and asphalt that yields a mix having
sufficient:
i. Asphalt to ensure a durable pavement.

ii. Mix stability to satisfy the demands of traffic without distortion or
displacement.
23
iii. Voids in total compacted mix to allow for a slight amount of

additional compaction under traffic loading without flushing, bleeding
and loss of stability.
iv. Workability to permit efficient placement of the mix without
segregation.
By manipulating the variables of aggregate, asphalt binder and the ratio

between the two, mix design seeks to achieve the following qualities in the final
HMA product (Roberts et al., 1996):
i. Deformation resistance. HMA should not distort (rut) or deform

(shove) under traffic loading. HMA deformation is related to
aggregate surface and abrasion characteristics, aggregate gradation,
asphalt binder content and asphalt binder viscosity at high
temperatures.
ii. Fatigue resistance. HMA should not crack when subjected to repeated
loads over time. HMA fatigue cracking is related to asphalt binder
content and stiffness.
iii. Low temperature cracking resistance. HMA should not crack when
subjected to low ambient temperatures. Low temperature cracking is
primarily a function of the asphalt binder low temperature stiffness.
iv. Durability. HMA should not age excessively during production and
service life. HMA durability is related to air voids as well as the
asphalt binder film thickness around each aggregate particle.
v. Moisture damage resistance. HMA should not degrade substantially
from moisture penetration into the mix. Moisture damage resistance
is related to air voids as well as aggregate mineral and chemical
properties.
vi. Skid resistance. HMA placed as a surface course should provide
sufficient friction when it contact with a vehicle's tyre. Low skid
resistance is generally related to aggregate characteristics or high
asphalt binder content.
vii. Workability. HMA must be capable of being placed and compacted
with reasonable effort. Workability is generally related to aggregate
24
texture/shape/size/gradation, asphalt binder content and asphalt binder

viscosity at mixing and lay down temperatures.
2.7.1 Marshall Mix Design Method
Most of private laboratories use the Marshall mix design method because it is
a proven method and requires relatively light, portable and inexpensive equipment.
Like the Hveem and Superpave methods, the Marshall method has been proven to
produce quality HMA from which long-lasting pavements can be constructed. The
basic concepts of the Marshall mix design method were originally developed by
Bruce Marshall of the Mississippi Highway Department around 1939 and then
refined by the U.S. Army. Typically, the Marshall mix design method consists of
three basic steps (Asphalt Institute, 2001):
i. Aggregate selection. Different agencies/owners specify different

methods of aggregate acceptance. Private labs may or may not run
periodic aggregate physical tests on a particular aggregate source. For
each mix design, gradation and size requirements are checked. Often,
aggregate from more than one source is required to meet gradation
requirements.
ii. Asphalt binder selection.
iii. Optimum asphalt binder content determination. In the Marshall
method, this step can be broken up into 5 sub steps:
a. Prepare a series of initial samples, each at different asphalt

binder content. For instance, two to three samples each might
be made at 4.5, 5.0, 5.5, 6.0 and 6.5 percent asphalt by dry
weight for a total of 10 to 15 samples. There should be at least
two samples above and two below the estimated optimum
asphalt content.
25
b. Compact these trial mixes using the Marshall drop hammer

which is 50 blows per face. This hammer is specific to the
Marshall mix design method.
c. Test the samples in the Marshall testing machine for stability
and flow. This testing machine is specific to the Marshall mix
design method. Passing values of stability and flow depend
upon the mix class being evaluated.
d. Determine the density and other volumetric properties of the
samples.
e. Select the optimum asphalt binder content. The asphalt binder
content corresponding to 4 % air voids is selected as long as
this binder content passes stability and flow requirements.
The design criteria and minimum percent voids in mineral aggregate (VMA)
for the Marshall method is shown in Table 2.1 and Table 2.2 (Wright and Dixon,
2004).
In SMA design, usually the Marshall method of mix design is used to verify
satisfactory voids in SMA mixtures. Laboratory specimens were prepared using 50
blows of the Marshall hammer per side. SMA mixtures have been more easily
compacted on the roadway to the desired density than the effort required for
conventional HMA mixtures (Ibrahim, 2005).
The Marshall method specified procedure of heating, mixing and compacting

the mixture of asphalt and aggregates, which is then subjected to a stability-flow test
and a density-voids analysis (Garber and Hoel, 2002).
26
Table 2.1: Design criteria for the Marshall method

Light traffic Medium traffic Heavy traffic
Marshall Method Mix
surface and base surface and base surface and base
Criteria
Min Max Min Max Min Max
Compaction, number of
35 50 75
blows each end of specimen
Stability, lb 750 - 1200 - 1800 -
(N) (3336) - (5338) - (8006) -
Flow, 0.01 in (0.25mm) 8 18 8 16 8 14
Percent air voids 3 5 3 5 3 5
Percent air voids in mineral
See Table 2.2
aggregate (VMA)
Percent voids filled with
70 80 65 78 65 75
asphalt (VFA)
Table 2.2: Minimum percent voids in mineral aggregate (VMA) for the Marshall
method
Nominal Maximum Particle Design air void (percent)
Size 3.0 4.0 5.0
mm in. Minimum VMA (percent)
1.18 No. 16 21.5 22.5 23.5
2.36 No. 8 19.0 20.0 21.0
4.75 No. 4 16.0 17.0 18.0
9.5 3/8 14.0 15.0 16.0
12.5 ½ 13.0 14.0 15.0
19.0 ¾ 12.0 13.0 14.0
25.0 1.0 11.0 12.0 13.0
37.5 1.5 10.0 11.0 12.0
50 2.0 9.5 10.5 11.5
63 2.5 9.0 10.0 11.0
27
2.8 Stripping
The infiltration of moisture into hot mix asphalt pavements is one of the most
common causes of degradation in pavement structures. When moisture enters the
pavement structure, it can find its way between the aggregate and the asphalt cement,
leading to a loss of cohesion within the pavement. This separation of aggregate from
the asphalt cement by an aqueous boundary layer is commonly referred to as
stripping (Khaled and Gary, 2004). Stripping is a failure mode that can be
manifested in many different ways. The effects of stripping are most often very
evident in surface features such as ruts or cracks in the asphalt. However, the effects
of stripping can also be seen in situations where shoving of the asphalt matrix has
taken place. Many factors in addition to the presence of water can contribute to
stripping. Relevant factors include, but are not limited to asphalt mix characteristics,
traffic loading, and climate. However, it is believed that pavement experiences the
greatest destructive effect when an interaction occurs between one or more of the
aforementioned effects while moisture is present.
Several laboratory and field tests have been established to evaluate how
moisture-susceptible a paving mix. The tests performed have been both quantitative
and qualitative in nature. The quantitative tests are numerous and include the Texas
Freeze-Thaw Pedestal Test, the Immersion-Compression Test, the Tunnicliff and
Root Conditioning, the Lottman Test, and the Modified Lottman Test. Qualitative
measures to determine moisture susceptibility include the Boiling Water Test and the
Static Immersion Test.
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses several tests that were conducted in achieving the
objectives of the study. In this study, the stone mastic asphalt (SMA14) was
modified with Palm Oil Fuel Ash (POFA) as filler material. All the SMA mixtures
design were performed in Highway & Transportation Laboratory, UTM. The
procedures used for the laboratory works was referred to JKR/SPJ/2007, American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) as guides ensuring the
laboratory works and materials fulfilled the Malaysian Road Works specifications.
Table 3.1 shows the SMA mix requirements as specified in JKR/SPJ/2007.
29
Table 3.1: SMA mix requirements

Parameter Requirement
VTM 3 – 5%
VMA min 17%
Stability min 6200 N
Flow 2 – 4mm
Draindown max 0.3%
The laboratory works can be divided into several stages beginning with the
aggregates preparation and distribution into different particle sizes through sieve
analyses. Firstly, the quarry aggregate was dried sieve and blended meeting the
gradation limit fulfilling the JKR specification. Washed-sieve analysis that was
referred to ASTM C 117 was determined the proportion of mineral filler content
required in the aggregate gradation. The determination of specific gravity for coarse
and fine aggregates was done according to ASTM C 127 and C 128. For this study,
Palm Oil Fuel Ash (POFA) added is in a form of powder where the size was passing
75µm sieve. The amount of ash added to the mixes was expressed in the percentage
(25%, 50%, 75% and 100%) of the total weight of the filler. Type of bitumen that
used was PG76.
The second stage was performing the Marshall sample for the mix design of
SMA14. Dry process was adopted in preparing the modified asphalt mixes. 75
samples were prepared in order to determine the optimum bitumen content (OBC)
for each mix design. The bulk specific gravity and density of compacted sample
were done in accordance to ASTM D 2726. The stability and flow test were
conducted for Marshall sample according to ASTM D 1559. An average value of
theoretical maximum density was obtained through the test as described in ASTM D
2041 on three samples using rice method for each different mixes. Binder draindown
test was carried out with three incompact specimens for each mix design which were
designed conforming to the optimum bitumen content (OBC). After obtaining the
optimum bitumen content (OBC), moisture induced damage test as described in T
283 was carried out with six samples (dry and after partial saturation and moisture
conditioning) for each mix design to predict long term stripping susceptibility of the
compacted bituminous mixture.
30
3.1.1 Aggregate
The aggregates were used in this project based on the gradation requirements
that meet gap graded specifications. A coarse aggregate, fine aggregate, filler,
stabilising agent (Hydrated Lime) and Palm Oil Fuel Ash (POFA) blended in gap
graded gradations to satisfy the grading requirements for SMA mixtures which
referred to JKR specification. The coarse aggregate used was screened crushed hard
rock and retained on 4.75mm sieve opening angular in shape, free from dust, clay,
vegetative and other organic matter and deleterious substances. The fine aggregate
was screened quarry fines. They were non-plastic and free from clay, loam,
aggregations of material, vegetative and other organic material and deleterious
substances. The specific gravity for coarse and fine aggregate was determined
according to ASTM C 127 and C 128. The aggregates used in this study were
obtained from Malaysia Rock Product (MRP) quarry, which locates at Kulai, Johor,
Malaysia.
3.1.2 Palm Oil Fuel Ash (POFA)
The Palm Oil Fuel Ash (POFA) used in this study was collected from a
factory processing palm oil owned by Yayasan Pembangunan Johor in Ladang Alaf
at the area of Bukit Lawang, Johor. The ash was found at the flue of tower where all
the fine ashes that were trapped while escaping from the burning chamber of the
boiler. Among the available ashes there, only the one looks grayish were sorted out
and collected. Firstly, collected POFA were dried in the oven at the temperature of
110ºC ± 5 for 24 hours in order to remove moisture in it.
Secondly, the dried ashes were sieved through a 300μm sieve in order to
remove bigger size of ash particles and impurities. Only the fine ashes passing
through 300μm sieve were collected and ground in a modified Los Angeles Abrasion
31
test machine having 10 stainless bars which each of it is 12 mm diameter and 800mm
long in order to acquire finer particles. The fineness of the ash was checked by wet
sieving through 75μm sieve after grinding of 4kg ash in seven hours (see Figure 3.1).
Finally the grounded ashes were stored in airtight container and kept in a humidity-
controlled room to isolate from the atmospheric humidity. Then, it is used as filler
material to fill voids and hence reduced optimum asphalt content, meet specifications
for aggregate gradation as stipulated in JKR specification, increased stability and
improved bond between asphalt cement and aggregate. The amount of filler added
was not less than 8% by weight of the combined aggregate.
Figure 3.1: Palm Oil Fuel Ash (POFA) after grounded.
3.1.3 Stabilising Agent
In this study, hydrated lime was used as stabilising agent. Stabilising agent
was incorporated as part of the combined aggregate gradation. It was of finely
divided mineral matter of hydrated lime (calcium hydroxide). The hydrated lime was
used sufficiently dry to flow freely and essentially free from agglomerations. The
total amount of hydrated lime used in this study was constant which was 2% by
32
weight of the combined aggregates. The hydrated lime also was treated as an anti-
stripping agent.
3.1.4 Stone Mastic Asphalt (SMA) Mixture
The task in this study was blended gap graded gradation with Palm Oil Fuel
Ash (POFA) at several different concentrations, 25-100% by weight of the filler
content with 25% increments. SMA14 mixture was used to satisfy the requirements
of gap graded specification. SMA mixture designed referred to the mixture design
method that was developed by JKR Malaysia specification (JKR/SPJ/2007).
The asphalt cement used in this study was PG 76 that commonly used in
Stone Mastic Asphalt (SMA) mixture. The Marshall compaction used 50 blows
compaction effort with the standard Hammer as specified in ASTM D 1559 (see
Table 3.2). The bulk specific gravity and density of Marshall compacted samples
were done based on ASTM 2726.
The stability and flow test were conducted according to ASTM D 1559. The
determination of theoretical maximum density was obtained according to the test as
described in ASTM D 2041.
33
Table 3.2: 50 blows Marshall criteria for surface mixes

Asphalt Content Selection Limiting Criteria
Test Property
HMA Sand Asphalt HMA Sand Asphalt
500 (2220) 500 (2220)
Stability, lb (N) Peak Peak
min min
Flow, 0.01 in.
- - 20 max 20 max
(0.25mm)
Unit Weight
Total Mix, pcf Peak Peak - -
(g/ml)
Voids Total Mix 4 6 3-5 5-7
Voids Filled
80 70 75-85 65-75
With Asphalt
34
3.2 Operational Framework
The operational framework for this study is summarised in the Figure 3.1
below:
Sieve Analysis of Coarse and Fine

Aggregate
Aggregate Grading
Washed-Sieve Analysis
Specific Gravity Test for Coarse and Fine

Aggregate
Marshall Mix Design for SMA14
Marshall Test (Bulk Specific Gravity,

Stability and Flow)
Theoretical Maximum Density (TMD) for

Loose Mixtures
Moisture Induced Damage Test
Analyses and Discussions
Figure 3.2: Flow chart for laboratory process and analysis

35
3.3 Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregate
Sieve analysis for fine and coarse aggregate was carried out on dry aggregate
taken from Malaysia Rock Product Sdn. Bhd. (MRP). This method was used
primarily to determine the grading of aggregates including both coarse and fine
fractions ensuring the aggregate were well blended within the gradation limit as
specified in JKR (2007). It is a process of separating dry aggregate into different
sizes through a series of sieves of progressively smaller openings for determination
of particle size distribution.
3.3.1 Apparatus
(i) Sieves - Sieves were mounted on substantial frames that was

constructed in a manner that prevent loss of material during sieving.
Suitable sieve sizes were selected to furnish the information required
by the specifications covering the materials to be tested.
(ii) Mechanical sieve shaker (Figure 3.3) - A mechanical sieve shaker was
imparted a vertical and/or lateral motion to the sieve, caused the
particles thereon to bounce and turn so as to present different
orientations to the sieving surface.
(iii) Oven - An oven of appropriate size capable of maintaining a uniform
temperature of 110±5ºC (230±9ºF).
36
3.3.2 Procedures
(i) The samples were dried to constant weight at a temperature of

110±5ºC (230±9ºF).
(ii) The sieves were nested in order of decreasing size of opening, from
top to bottom and the samples were placed on the top sieve. The
sieves were stirred up by mechanical apparatus for a sufficient period.
(iii) The quantity of material was limited on given sieve so that all
particles have opportunity to reach sieve openings a number of times
during the sieving operation (Figure 3.4).
(iv) The sieve process was continued for a sufficient period.
(v) In order to prevent the overloading of individual sieve, the portion of
the sample finer than 4.75mm (No. 4) sieve was distributed among
two or more sets of sieves.
3.4 Washed Sieve Analysis of Mineral Filler
Washed-sieve analysis that was referred to ASTM C 117 to determine the

proportion of mineral filler content required in the aggregates gradation. This test
method covers the determination of total amount of mineral fillers and removes clay
or dust on the aggregate by washing.
37
3.4.1 Apparatus
(i) Balance – Reachable to the nearest 0.1g.

(ii) Sieves - Wire cloth 0.075mm (No. 50) and 2.36mm (No. 8).
(iii) Oven - The oven capable of maintaining a temperature of 110±5ºC
(230±9ºF).
Figure 3.3: Mechanical Sieve Shaker
Figure 3.4: The aggregate was sieve in the mechanical sieve shaker
38
3.4.2 Procedures
(i) The known weight of dry sample, A was put in the sieve size 2.36mm.
(ii) The sample was washed and it was continued until the water coming
through the sieve is clear.
(iii) Then the residue on each sieve was dried to constant weight at a
temperature of 110±5ºC (230±9ºF).
(iv) The dried weight was recorded, B.
(v) The required filler was calculated as follows:
Dust percentage = [(A – B) / A] x 100
Where:
A = Weight of dry sample before wash, g
B = Weight of dry sample after wash, g
3.5 Aggregate Gradation
Gradation or grain-size analysis was the test performed on aggregates. The

percentage of aggregate required for every sieve size was determined according to
JKR/SPJ/2007. Then the mass retained was calculated using the percent passing for
every sample size. The gradation of the combined coarse aggregate, fine aggregate
and mineral filler for SMA14 should conform to the appropriate envelopes as
illustrates in Table 3.3.
39
Table 3.3: Gradation limit for SMA14

ASTM Sieve (mm) SMA14 (%)
19.0 100
12.5 100
9.5 72-83
4.75 25-38
2.36 16-24
0.600 12-16
0.300 12-15
0.075 8-10
3.6 Specific Gravity of Aggregates
Specific gravity test was performed to determine the absorption rate of the
aggregate and the volume of water in the aggregate. It was expressed as bulk
specific gravity, saturated-surface-dry (SSD) specific gravity and apparent specific
gravity. This test was conducted in two phases, which were for fine aggregate and
coarse aggregate. Coarse aggregate was define as the aggregate retained on sieve
size 4.75mm while fine aggregate was defined as the aggregate passing sieve size
4.75mm and retain on sieve size 75μm. The specific gravity of aggregate was useful
in making weight-volume conversions and in calculating the volumetric properties of
compacted hot mix asphalt.
40
3.6.1 Specific Gravity for Coarse Aggregate
The specific gravity test of coarse aggregate was conducted to determine the
value of bulk, SSD and apparent specific gravity. The equipment and procedures for
determining the specific gravity and water absorption of coarse aggregates according
to outlined in ASTM C 127.
3.6.1.1 Apparatus

(ii) Sample container - A wire basket of 3.35mm (No. 6).
(iii) Water tank.
(iv) Sieves with size 4.75mm (No. 4).
3.6.1.2 Procedures
(i) The sample of aggregate was mixed and it was reduced to the
approximate quantity needed, 1 kg.
(ii) All the material passing a 4.75mm (No. 4) sieve by dry sieving was
rejected and washed to remove dust or coatings from the surface.
(iii) The test sample was dried to constant weight at a temperature of
110±5ºC (230±9ºF).
(iv) The sample was cooled in air at room temperature until the aggregate
has cooled to a temperature that was comfortable to handle.
(v) Subsequently the aggregate was immersed in water at room
temperature for a period of 15 to 19 hours.
(vi) The test sample was removed from the water and it was rolled in a
large absorbent cloth until all visible films of water were removed.
(vii) The larger particles were wiped individually.
41
(viii) The weight of test sample in the saturated surface-dry condition was
recorded, B to the nearest 1.0g.
(ix) After weighing, the saturated-dry surface test sample was place
immediately in the sample container and its weight in water was
determined, C.
(x) The test sample was dried to constant weight at a temperature of
110±5ºC (230±9ºF).
(xi) The sample was cooled in air at room temperature until the aggregate
has cooled to a temperature that was comfortable to handle and it was
weighed as A.
(xii) Bulk specific gravity was calculated as follows:
Gmb = A / (B-C)
Where:
A = Weight of oven-dry test sample in air, g
B = Weight of saturated surfaced-dry test sample in air, g
C = Weight of saturated test sample in water, g
(xiii) Bulk specific gravity was calculated as follows:
Gma = A / (A-C)
3.6.2 Specific Gravity for Fine Aggregate
The specific gravity test for fine aggregate was conducted to determine the
value of bulk, SSD and apparent specific gravity. The equipment and procedures for
determining the specific gravity and water absorption of fine aggregates were
described below according to ASTM C 128.
42
3.6.2.1 Apparatus

(ii) Pycnometer - A container into which the fine aggregate test sample
can be readily introduced and in which the volume content can be
reproduced within ±0.1cm3. The volume of container filled to mark
was at least 50% greater than the space required to accommodate the
test sample.
(iii) Mold - A metal mold in the form of a frustum of a cone with
dimensions as follows: 40±3mm inside diameter at the top, 90±3mm
inside diameter at the bottom and 75±3mm in height with the metal
having a minimum thickness of 0.8mm.
(iv) Tamper - A metal tamper weighing 340±15g and having a flat circular
tamping face 25±3mm in diameter.
3.6.2.2 Procedures
(i) 500g weight of fine aggregates was placed in the container and 30g
(6% of the sample) of water was mixed to get a saturated surface dry
condition for 24 hours.
(ii) Partially the pycnometer was partially filled with water.
(iii) Immediately the pycnometer was introduced with the approximately
500g of saturated surface dry fine aggregate prepared.
(iv) The additional water was filled to approximately 90% of capacity.
(v) The pycnometer was rolled, inverted and agitated to eliminate all the
bubbles.
(vi) The total weight of the pycnometer, specimen and water were
determined, C to the nearest 0.1g.
(vii) The fine aggregate was removed from the pycnometer and was dried
to constant weight at a temperature of 110±5ºC (230±9ºF).
(viii) The fine aggregate was cooled in air at room temperature.
43
(ix) The weight was record to the nearest 0.1g, A.

(x) The weight of the pycnometer filled with water, B was recorded.
(xi) Bulk specific gravity was calculated as defined in AASHTO M 132 as
follows:
Gmb = A / (B+S-C)
Where:
A = Weight of oven-dry specimen in air, g
B = Weight of pycnometer filled with water, g
C = Weight of pycnometer with specimen and water, g
S = Weight of saturated surface-dry specimen, g
(xii) Apparent specific gravity was calculated as defined in AASHTO M

132 as follows:
Gma = A / (B+A-C)
3.7 Bituminous Binder
PG76 was used as bituminous binder in this study. The bitumen contents for
all of the samples were ranged between 5–7% with 0.5% increment according to
JKR/SPJ/2007.
44
3.8 Palm Oil Fuel Ash (POFA)
In this study, Palm Oil Fuel Ash (POFA) added was passing sieve size 75µm.
The amount of POFA added into mixes was expressed in the percentage which
varied from 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% of the total weight of filler content. The ash
obtained was sieve passing 300µm and ground in the grinder machine for 7 hours to
produce fines ash (passing 75 µm). To assure the size of the POFA, a wet sieve
analysis was conducted to a sample of 200gram which represents 4kg POFA after
grounded in the grinder machine. Los Angeles Abrasion machine was used to
ground the POFA. From the observation, all the POFA was passing the sieve size
75µm.
3.9 Marshall Mix Design
Marshall Method used a standard test specimen of 102mm in diameter (4-

inch) and 64mm in height (2.5inch). These were prepared using a specified
procedure for heating, mixing and compacting the asphalt mixes. The main purpose
of the design was to obtain optimum bitumen content for the mixes. Marshall design
was divided into two stages of laboratory works which were sample preparation and
testing. The procedure for the Marshall design starts with the preparation of test
samples. Three specimens were prepared for each combination of aggregates and
bitumen content at 5.0%, 5.5%, 6.0%, 6.5%, and 7.0% using Marshall hammer
compactor of 50 blows per face. Basically, the procedures for Marshall design are:
(i) Selecting aggregate and asphalt.

(ii) Selecting gradation method.
(iii) Aggregate blending.
(iv) Determination of specific gravity for blended aggregate.
(v) Determination of mixing and compaction temperature.
45
(vi) Preparation of compacted sample with different bitumen content.

(vii) Determination of bulk specific gravity of compacted specimens.
The method of dry process was used in blending the Palm Oil Fuel Ash
(POFA) with the hot aggregate in the hot mix asphalt facility prior to adding the
asphalt cement. Total number of samples were prepared for this study, are described
in the Table 3.4 below:
Table 3.4: Total number of samples

Mix Type Number of Samples
Marshall (Compacted Sample) 75
TMD (Loose Mix) 10
Marshall (Verification) 10
Moisture Induced Damage Test 30
Total Samples 125
3.9.1 Marshall Sample Preparation (Compacted Sample)
The equipment and procedures for preparing the Marshall compacted sample
were outlined in ASTM D 1559.
3.9.1.1 Apparatus
(i) Pans, metal, flat bottom for heating aggregate.

(ii) Pans, metal, round, approximately 4 liters capacity for mixing asphalt
and aggregate.
(iii) Oven and hot plate, electric for heating aggregate, asphalt and
equipment as required.
46
(iv) Scoop for batching aggregates.

(v) Containers, gill types tins, beakers, pouring pots or sauce pans for
heating asphalt.
(vi) Thermometers, armored, glass, or dial type with metal stem, 10ºC to
23ºC for determining temperature of aggregates, asphalt and asphalt
mixtures.
(vii) Balance – To the nearest 0.1g.
(viii) Mixing spoon, large or trowel, small.
(ix) Spatula.
(x) Compaction pedestal.
(xi) Compaction mould, consisting of a base plate, forming mould and
collar extension.
(xii) Compaction Hammer, consisting of a flat circular tamping face
98.4mm in diameter and equipped with a 4.5kg weight constructed to
obtain a specified 457mm height of drop.
(xiii) Mould holder.
(xiv) Oil grease for extruding compacted specimens from mould.
(xv) Gloves.
(xvi) Marking crayons for identifying test specimens.
(xvii) Filter paper.
3.9.1.2 Procedures
The procedures were:

(i) Aggregates and POFA were dried in the oven at temperature of 160ºC
to 170ºC for at least 12 hours before blending process.
(ii) Bitumen was melted at minimum temperatures 170°C (maximum
170°C±5°C) at least for 2 hours.
(iii) Mould was heated at 160°C to 170°C before use. Filtration paper was
cut as mould size and put at the base of mould before it filled by mix
sample.
47
(iv) The heated aggregates were mixed with the Palm Oil Fuel Ash
(POFA) at 170°C for approximately 15 seconds.
(v) Then, required amount of bitumen was added into the aggregate and
mixed for 2 to 3 minutes to yield a mix having a uniform distribution
of asphalt throughout at 150°C to 170°C.
(vi) Oil grease was spread on the inner surface of the mould and the filter
paper was put at base of mould.
(vii) The blended mixes were put inside the mould and flat using the
spatula by penetrating it 15 times at perimeter mould and 10 times at
the middle of the mixes.
(viii) When the temperature reaches 150°C, the filter paper was put at the
top of sample and the compaction was performed.
(ix) The compaction was performed at 50 blows (modified SMA14) for
both top and the bottom surface of the samples. Then samples were
cooled or maintained at room temperature for 24 hours before
extrusion.
3.9.2 Theoretical Maximum Density (Loose Mix)
The theoretical maximum density (TMD) was used to determine the void in
total mix (VTM) for the sample. The equipment and procedures for conducting
TMD test were referred in ASTM D 2041-91 (Figure 3.6). There are two methods to
determine the theoretical maximum density either using calculation or from
theoretical maximum density test. In this study, the calculation method was used to
obtain the theoretical maximum density value by using equation as follows:
48
Maximum Theoretical specific Gravity, TMD = A / (A+B+C)
Where:
A = Mass of oven dry sample in air, gram
B = Mass of vacuum container filled with water, gram
C = Mass of vacuum container filled with water and sample (after
vacuum), gram
Figure 3.5: Automatic Marshall Compactor
Figure 3.6: Apparatus for TMD test

49
3.9.2.1 Apparatus
(i) Vacuum Container.

(ii) Balance.
(iii) Vacuum pump or water aspirator.
(iv) Residual pressure manometer.
(v) Manometer or vacuum gauge.
(vi) Thermometers.
(vii) Water bath.
(viii) Bleeder valve.
(ix) Protective gloves.
3.9.2.2 Procedures
(i) A weighed sample of oven dry paving mixture in the loose condition
was placed in a tarred vacuum vessel. Sufficient water at a
temperature of 25±4C was added to completely submerge the
sample.
(ii) Vacuum was applied 15 minutes to gradually reduce the residual
pressure in the vacuum vessel to 30 mm of Hg or less.
(iii) At the end of the vacuum period, the vacuum was gradually released.
(iv) The volume of the sample of paving mixture was obtained either by
immersing the vacuum container with sample into a water bath and
weighing or by filling the vacuum container level full of water and
weighing in air. At the time of weighing the temperature was
measured as well as the mass.
(v) From the mass and volume measurements the specific gravity or
density at 25C was calculated. If the temperature employed was
different from 25C, an appropriate correction is applied.
50
3.9.3 Flow and Stability Test
This test method covers the measurement of the resistance to plastic flow of
cylindrical samples of bituminous mix loaded on the lateral surface by means of the
Marshall apparatus. Marshal stability was generally the maximum load carried by a
compacted sample tested at 60C at a loading rate of 2 inches/minute. The flow was
measured at the same time as the Marshall stability. The flow was equal to the
vertical deformation of the sample. High flow values generally indicate a plastic mix
that was experience permanent deformation under traffic, whereas low flow values
may indicate a mix with higher than normal voids and insufficient asphalt for
durability and one that may experience premature cracking due to mix brittleness
during the life of the pavement. The flow and stability value of each test sample was
determined in accordance with ASTM D 1559-89.
3.9.3.1 Apparatus
i. Marshall testing head consist of upper and lower segments.

ii. Flow meter.
iii. Thermometer with a range from 20°C to 70°C.
iv. Rubber gloves to remove specimens from water bath.
v. Compression machine.
vi. Water bath (Figure 3.7).
51
3.9.3.2 Procedures
i. Specimen was immersed in the water bath with the temperature

maintain at 60±1°C for 45 minutes.
ii. The guide rods and the test heads thoroughly were cleaned prior
conducted the test. Besides, the guide rods were lubricated so that the
upper test slid freely over them. The testing-head temperature was
suggested to maintain at 21°C to 38°C.
iii. Specimen then was extracted from the water bath and was dried
before placing it in the lower testing head. After that, the upper
testing head placed on the specimen and the complete assembly then
was located in position on the testing machine (Figure 3.8).
iv. The flow meter was placed in position over one of the guide rods and
then the flow meter was adjusted to zero. While the test load was
being applied, the flow meter sleeve needed to be held firmly against
the testing heads upper segment.
v. The flow meter reading was recorded before the specimen was being
loaded.
vi. The load at a constant rate of testing head movement of 50.8mm per
minute was applied to the specimen until the maximum load reading
was obtained and the load decreased as indicated by the dial.
vii. Afterward, the maximum load until it began to decrease was noted or
being converted from the maximum micrometer dial reading.
viii. The last reading at the flow meter was recorded. The last value of
flow meter was deducted to the earliest value, which indicated as a
flow value in mm unit.
ix. The elapsed time started from specimen removal from water bath to
maximum load being determined shall not exceed 30s.
52
Figure 3.7: Water bath for submerging sample
Figure 3.8: Machine for flow and stability test

53
3.9.4 Data Analysis
All Marshall samples need to be analysed in order to determine the optimum

bitumen content (OBC) which refer to the result of volumetric properties. The
amount of ash added to the mixes was expressed in the percentage (25%, 50%, 75%
and 100%) of the total weight of the filler. The POFA modified asphalt concrete
mixes was named as Mix 2 (added with 25% of POFA), Mix 3 (added with 50% of
POFA), Mix 4 (added with 75% of POFA) and Mix 5 (added with 100% of POFA)
while unmodified samples was named as Mix 1 (conventional asphalt mixes). Each
compacted sample was subjected to the following volumetric composition:
i. Bulk Specific Gravity

ii. Void in Total Mix (VTM)
iii. Void Filled with Bitumen (VFB)
iv. Void in Mineral Aggregate (VMA)
v. Stability
vi. Flow
3.9.4.1 Bulk Specific Gravity
After compaction, the sample was removed from the mould and cooled at
room temperature. The bulk specific gravity for each test sample was determined in
accordance with ASTM D 2726. Then the calculation was preceding using the
following equation:
Specific Gravity = A / (B-C)
Where:
A = Weight of dry sample in air
B = Weight of saturated surface dry sample
C = Weight sample in water
54
3.9.4.2 Void Fill with Bitumen (VFB)
Void Fill with Bitumen (VFB) was the percentage of void volume filled with
bitumen. The equation in determining the VFB is as follows:
VFB = [1 – (Gmm*PA / Gmb)] x 100
Where:
Gmm = Theoretical Maximum Density
PA = Aggregate Percentage
Gmb = Aggregate Bulk Specific Gravity
3.9.4.3 Void in Total Mix (VTM)
Void in total mix for hot mix asphalt mixture was defined as void volume
between the aggregates coated by bitumen. The equation in determining the VTM is
as follows:
VTM = [1 - (Gmb / Gmm)] x 100
Where:
Gmb = Bulk Specific Gravity
Gmm = Theoretical Maximum Density
3.9.4.4 Void in Mineral Aggregate (VMA)
Void in Mineral Aggregate may be defined as the volume of intergranular

void space between the aggregate particles of a compacted paving mixture that
include air voids and the effective bitumen content (volume of bitumen not absorbed
55
into the aggregate). It was expressed as a percent of the total volume of the
specimen. This value can be obtained using the following formula:
VMA = 100 – [Gmb x Ps / Gsb]
Where:
Gmb = Bulk specific gravity of compacted mixture
Gsb = Combined bulk specific gravity of the total aggregate
Ps = Percent of aggregate in the mixture
3.9.4.5 Determination of Optimum Bitumen Content (OBC)
The average values of bulk specific gravity, stability, flow, VFB, and VMA
obtained were plotted separately against the bitumen content and smooth curve were
drawn through the plotted values. The mean optimum bitumen content for SMA14
was determined by averaging four optimum bitumen contents as specified in
JKR/SPJ/2007.
Determination of OBC for SMA14 mixes:
i. Peak of curve taken from stability graph

ii. Flow equals to 3mm from the flow graph
iii. Peak of curve taken from the bulk specific gravity graph
iv. VTM equals to 4% from the VTM graph
The individual test values for stability, flow, stiffness, VTM and VFB at the
optimum bitumen content then were determined from the plotted smooth curves and
compare with the desired design criteria. If any of the values do not comply with the
specification, the mix design procedures were repeated until all the design
parameters were satisfied.
56
3.9.5 Binder Draindown Test
Binder draindown test was more significant for SMA mixtures than for
conventional dense-graded mixtures. The test developed for this purpose by
AASHTO T 305 (2000) was anticipated to simulate conditions that the mixture was
likely to encounter as it was produced, stored, transported and placed. Draindown
was considered to be that portion of the mixture (fines and bitumen) that separates
itself from the sample as a whole and flows downward through the mixture
Binder draindown test was conducted on three loose mixtures for each
mixture at the mean of optimum binder content to ensure that the binder draining
property of the SMA mixture was within acceptable levels. It was also provides an
evaluation of the SMA mixture draindown potential produced in the field. The
important aspects of the test were to place the samples of the SMA loose mixtures in
a wire basket fabricated using standard 6.3mm sieve cloth (Figure 3.3).
Figure 3.9: Draindown test apparatus
The basket was positioned on a pre-weighted plate or pan which placed in an

oven for three hours at an anticipated mix production temperature. At the end of
57
three hours, the basket containing the sample was removed from the oven along with
the pan and the pan was weighted. The mass of any binder that draindown from the
bitumen to the pan was measured. The mass was then expressed as a percentage by
the total mixture and should meet the criteria in the previous Table 3.1. The binder
drainage can be reduced by adding a stabilising agent such as organic stabiliser,
mineral fibres or polymers to the mixture.
3.9.5.1 Apparatus
i. Oven capable of maintaining the temperature in range from 120ºC-

175ºC.
ii. Pan or plate with an appropriate size.
iii. Standard cylindrical shaped basket meeting the dimensions shown in
Figure 3.4. The basket was constructed using standard 6.3mm sieve
cloth as specified in AASHTO T 305.
iv. Spatulas, trowels, mixer and bowls as needed.
v. Balance accurate to 0.1 gram.
Figure 3.10: Dimension of wire basket

58
3.9.5.2 Procedures
i. The mass of loose SMA mixture sample and the initial mass of the
pan was determined to the nearest 0.1 gram.
ii. The lose SMA sample then was transferred and placed into the wire
basket without consolidate or disturbing it.
iii. The basket was placed on the pan and the assembly afterward was
located into the oven for 3 hour.
iv. After the sample has been on oven for 3 hour, the basket and the pan
was removed.
v. The final mass of the pan was determined and recorded to the nearest
0.1 gram.
3.9.5.3 Calculation
The percent of binder which drained was calculated by subtracting the initial
pan mass from the final pan mass. The result obtain were divided to the initial total
sample mass and then multiplied with 100 to find a percentage. The calculation can
be formulated as follow:
Binder Drainage (%) = [(C-B)/A] x 100
Where:
A = Mass of initial total sample (gram)
B = Mass of initial pan (gram)
C = Mass of final pan (gram)
59
3.10 Moisture Induce Damage Test
This method covers preparation of specimens and measurement of the change

of diametral tensile strength resulting from the effects of saturation and accelerated
water conditioning of compacted bituminous mixtures in the laboratory. The results
may be used to predict long term stripping susceptibility of the bituminous mixtures
and to evaluate liquid anti stripping additives or pulverulent solids. The resistance of
compacted bituminous mixture to moisture-induced damage was follows T 283.
3.10.1 Apparatus
i. Vacuum container – Preferably type D, from ASTM D 2041 and

vacuum pump or water aspirator from ASTM D 2041 including
manometer or vacuum gauge.
ii. Balance and water bath.
iii. Water bath capable of maintaining a temperature of 60±1ºC.
iv. Freezer maintained at -18±3ºC (optional).
v. Plastic film for wrapping, heavy-duty leak-proof plastic bags – To
enclose the saturated specimens and masking tape.
vi. 10ml graduated cylinder.
vii. Aluminum pans having a surface of 48400-64500mm2 in the bottom
and a depth of approximately 25mm.
viii. Forced air draft oven capable of maintaining a temperature of 60±1ºC.
ix. Loading jack and ring dynamometer from T 245 or a mechanical or
hydraulic testing machine from T 167 to provide a range of accurately
controllable rates of vertical deformation including 50mm per minute.
x. Loading strips – If used, steel loading strips with a concave surface
having a radius of curvature equal to the nominal radius of the test
specimens 101.6mm in diameter, the loading strips should be 12.7mm
60
wide and for specimens 152.4mm in diameter, the loading strips

should be 19.05mm wide. The length of the loading strips should
exceed the thickness of the specimens. The edges of the loading strips
should be rounded by grinding.
3.10.2 Procedures
3.10.2.1 Preparation of Laboratory Test Specimens
i. Make at least six specimens for each test, half to be tested dry and the
other half to be tested partial saturation and moisture conditioning.
ii. Specimens 101.6mm in diameter and 63.5mm thick were usually
used. Specimens of other dimensions may be used if desired and
should be used if aggregate larger than 25mm was present in the
mixture and/or not permitted to be scalped out.
iii. After mixing, the mixture was placed in an aluminum pan and cooled
at room temperature for 2±0.5 hours. Then the mixture was placed in
a 60ºC oven for 20 hours for curing. The pan was placed on spacers
to allow air circulation under the pan if the shelves are not perforated.
iv. After curing, place the mixture in an oven at 150ºC for 2 hours prior
to compaction. Compact specimens in accordance with ASTM D
3387. The mixture was compacted to 7±1% air voids or a void level
expected in the field.
v. After extraction from the molds, the test specimens were stored for 24
hours at room temperature.
61
3.10.2.2 Evaluation of Test Specimens and Grouping
i. Determine theoretical maximum specific gravity of mixture by T 209.

ii. Determine bulk specific gravity by T 166. Express volume of
3
specimens by cm .
iii. Calculate air void by T 269.
iv. Sort specimens into two subsets of at least three specimens each so
that average air voids of the subsets were approximately equal.
3.10.2.3 Preconditioning of Test Specimens
i. One subset was tested dry and the other was preconditioned before
testing.
ii. The dry subset was stored at room temperature until testing. The
specimens were wrapped with plastic or placed in a heavy duty
leakproof plastic bag. The specimens was placed in 25ºC water bath
for a minimum of 2 hours and then tested as described.
iii. The other subset was conditioned as follows:
a. Place the specimens in the vacuum container supported above the

container bottom by spacer. Fill the container with distilled water
at room temperature so that the specimens have at least one inch
of water above their surface.
b. Apply vacuum of 13-67 kPa absolute pressure for a short time (5-
10 minutes). Remove the vacuum and leave the specimen
submerged in water for a short time (5-10 minutes).
c. Determine the specific gravity by T 166. Compare saturated
surface dry mass with saturated surface-dry mass determine in
section 3.10.2.2. Calculate volume of absorbed water.
d. Determine degree of saturation by comparing volume of absorbed
water with volume of air voids from section 3.10.2.2. If the
62
volume of water is between 55% and 80% of the volume of air,

proceed the ‘e‘ procedure. If volume of water was less 55%,
repeat the procedure beginning with ‘a’ using more vacuum and/or
time. If volume of water was more than 80%, specimen has been
damaged and was discarded. Repeat the procedure beginning with
‘a’ using less vacuum and/or time.
e. Moisture conditions the specimens by placing the specimens in a
bath containing distilled water at 60±1ºC for 24±1 hours.
f. After 24±1 hours in the 60ºC water bath, remove the specimens
and place them in a water bath already at 25±0.5ºC for 2±1 hours.
It may be necessary to add ice to the water bath to prevent the
water temperature from rising above 25ºC. Not more than 15
minutes should be required for the water bath to reach 25ºC.
Then, test the specimens.
Figure 3.11: Unconditioned samples wrapped with plastic

63
Figure 3.12: Conditioned samples in the water bath for curing
Figure 3.13: Unconditioned and conditioned samples in the water bath before tested
64
Figure 3.14: Indirect Tensile Strength (ITS) test
3.10.2.4 Testing
i. Determine the indirect tensile strength of dry and conditioned

specimens at 25ºC.
ii. Remove the specimens from 25ºC water bath and place between the
two bearing plates in the testing machine. Care must be taken so that
the load was applied along the diameter of the specimens.
iii. Apply the load to the specimen by means of the constant rate of
movement of the testing machine head of 50mm per minute.
iv. If steel loading strips were used, record the maximum compressive
strength noted on the testing machine and continues loading until a
vertical crack appears. Remove the specimen from the machine and
pull apart at the crack. Inspect the interior surface for stripping and
record the observation.
v. If steel loading strips were not used, stop loading as soon as the
maximum compressive load was reached. Record the maximum
compressive load. Remove the specimen, measure and record the side
65
(edge) flattening to the nearest 0.1mm. The flattening may be easier

to measure if the flattened edge was rubbed with the lengthwise edge
of a piece of chalk.
vi. After recording the flattening, replace the specimen in the
compression machine and compress until a vertical crack appears.
Remove the specimen from the machine and pull apart at the crack.
Inspect the interior surface for stripping and record the observations.
Figure 3.15: Unconditioned samples after tested
Figure 3.16: Conditioned samples after tested

66
3.10.3 Calculations
i. If steel loading were used, calculate the tensile strength as follows;
2000 P
St 
tD
Where:
St = Tensile strength, kPa
P = Maximum load, N
t = Specimen thickness, mm
D = Specimen diameter, mm
ii. If steel loading strips were not used, calculate the tensile strength of a
specimens as follows:
S10 P
St 
44000t
Where:
St = Tensile strength, Pa
S10 = Maximum tensile stress corresponding to the width
of flattened area.
P = Maximum load, N.
t = Specimen thickness, mm
67
iii. Express the numerical index or resistance of asphalt mixture to the

detrimental effect of water as the ratio of the original strength that was
retained after the freeze-warm water conditioning. Calculate as
follows:
Tensile strength Ratio (TSR) = S2 / S1
Where:
S1 = Average tensile strength of dry subset
S2 = Average tensile strength of conditioned subset.
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Introduction
There are several researches which used a waste product such as fly ash,
rubber and slag as a modifier to increase engineering properties and improve
pavement performance. Thus, this research was conducted to determine the
feasibility of Palm Oil Fuel Ash (POFA) as a modifier in hot mix asphalt.
Utilisations of POFA into the mixture (SMA 14) in this research were functioning as
filler material.
4.2 Materials Preparation
Aggregate (coarse and fine), Palm Oil Fuel Ash (POFA) as filler, asphalt
cement (PG 76) and hydrated lime which act as stabilising agent were all the main
materials used in this research to satisfy the requirements of gap graded gradations in
Stone Mastic Asphalt (SMA) mixtures. All the properties of the materials used were
69
measured for further analysis purposes. Laboratory test were conducted to determine
the volumetric and engineering properties of the mixes according to the
specifications referred to JKR, ASTM and ASSTHO specification/guideline in order
to investigate the influence of POFA into hot mix asphalt mix.
4.2.1 Aggregate
The aggregate were supplied by MRP Quarry which located at Kulai, Johor,
Malaysia. First and foremost, the aggregate were dry in the oven for 24 hours before
sieve analysis conducted. A sample aggregate for each stockpile were sieve and
blend together to determine the proportion of each stockpile that meet gap graded
specification (SMA 14) which referred to JKR specifications. As a result, the
gradation of blended aggregate obtained were use into design mix in order to
determine the volumetric and engineering properties of the mixes.
4.2.1.1 Aggregate Gradation
The aggregates were blended according to JKR specification for gap graded
(SMA 14) as tabulated in Table 4.1 and shown in Figure 4.1. Table 4.1 presents the
percentage of aggregate passing and retained on each sieve size while Figure 4.1
illustrate the semi-log graph for percentage aggregate passing versus sieve size to the
power of 0.45. Aggregates were batched based on the percentage passing on each
sieve size. Details of aggregates gradation can be referred in Appendix A.
From the upper and lower limit as stated in specification, it has been noticed
that the mixture has relative low percentage of fine aggregate which passing 4.75mm
sieves and high percentage of filler content (passing 0.075mm) compared to dense
graded. Low percentage of fine aggregate is necessary to provide a mixture with
70
stone on stone contact (coarse to coarse) and to provide a mixture meeting the
minimum VMA requirement (17%). The high of filler content in SMA mixture was
function to fill and minimise void in coarse aggregate and adequately stiffen the
binder to ensure draindown of the binder not occur during construction.
Table 4.1: Gradation limit for SMA 14

Gradation Percentage Percentage
Sieve Size (mm)
Limit Passing Retained
19 100-100 100 0
12.5 100-100 100 0
9.5 72 - 83 77.5 22.5
4.75 25 - 38 31.5 46
2.36 16 - 24 20 11.5
0.6 12 - 16 14 6
0.3 12 - 15 13.5 0.5
0.075 8 - 10 9 4.5
SMA 14
120
100
80
% Passing
60
40
20
0
0.312 0.582 0.795 1.472 2.016 2.754 3.116 3.762
Upper Limit
^0.45 Sieve Size
Sample
Low er Limit
Figure 4.1: Gradation Limit for SMA 14

71
4.2.1.2 Washed Sieve Analysis
Washed sieve analysis was conducted to determine the filler content (material
passing 75 µm) that needed in the mixture and determine the amount of filler which
stick to the coarse aggregate according to ASTM C 117. Filler used in this research
were dust, hydrated lime and POFA. The amounts of filler content needed in each
mixes in this research are shows in Table 4.2. All the detail calculations in
determining the filler content were shown in the Appendix B.
Table 4.2: Mass of dust in washed sieve analysis

Sample Mass of Dust (gram)
Marshall Compacted Sample (1200 g) 16.95
TMD (1500 g) 21.4
4.2.1.3 Specific Gravity
Specific gravity and absorption of aggregates were determine and analysed

according to ASTM C 127 for coarse aggregates and ASTM C 128 for fine
aggregates. Detail calculation of the specific gravity was attached in the Appendix
C. The average specific gravity for each materials used in this research are
summarise in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3: Specific Gravity of materials

Material Specific Gravity
Asphalt Cement 1.03
Coarse Aggregate 2.563
Fine aggregate 2.400
Palm Oil Fuel Ash (POFA) 2.22
Hydrated Lime 2.24
72
4.2.2 Asphalt Cement
PG 76 was used for all SMA 14 mixture both conventional and modified
mixes as recommended by JKR specification. Specific gravity for asphalt cement
(PG 76) was 1.03 (Table 4.3).
4.2.3 Palm Oil Fuel Ash (POFA)
The POFA used in the SMA mixes were ranged from 0% to 7% by the total
weight of aggregate (0 to 100% by weight of filler content with 25% increment) and
2% of hydrated lime was used as stabilised agent. POFA used was in a form of
powder that generated by grinding in the grinder machine (Los Angeles Abrasion
Machine) which has size passing 75μm sieve size. The specific gravity of the POFA
used in this study was 2.22. Dry process was applied as addition method of POFA
during the mix production. Table 4.4 shows the chemical composition and physical
properties of Palm Oil fuel Ash (POFA).
73
Table 4.4: Chemical composition and physical properties of POFA

Test OPC POFA
Physical Properties:
Fineness : Surface Area (m2/kg) 225-300 500-725
Specific Gravity 3.15 2.22-2.64
Chemical Composition (%)
Silicon Dioxide (SiO2) 20 40-55
Aluminium Oxide (AlO3) 6 11-13
Ferric Oxide (FeO3) 3 4.5-8.0
Calcium Oxide (CaO) 60-63 8.-10
Magnesium Oxide (MgO) 1.5 4-5
Sulphur Trioxide (SO3) 2.0 1-3
Alkalies 1.0 2.5-4.0
Loss on Ignition (LOI) 2.0-2.7 4-18
Pozzolanic Activity Index with OPC - 112
4.3 Marshall Sample
The equipments and procedures for preparing the Marshall samples both for
unmodified (without POFA) and modified (with POFA) were referred to ASTM D
1559.
74
4.3.1 Sample Preparation
Five types of blends were prepared by varying the percentage of POFA added
at several different concentrations which was 0 to 100% with 25% increments by
weight of filler content. Three samples were prepared for each bitumen contents
which have ranged between 5 – 7%, both unmodified and modified samples in order
to obtain the optimum bitumen content (OBC) as shown in Appendix D. The detail
type of mixes produced in this study are summarise in the Table 4.5.
Table 4.5: Details of mixes produced

Criteria Mix Type
POFA (%) 0 25 50 75 100
Asphalt
5 – 7 % (PG76)
Content (%)
Curing Period n/a*
Marshall
50 blows/face
Compaction
*
Not applicable
4.3.2 Determination of Optimum Bitumen Content (OBC)
Optimum Bitumen Content (OBC) was determined at 4% air voids as referred

to National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA) specification for stone mastic
asphalt (SMA) requirement. The values of OBC were found increase from 6.5 to 7%
when 25% of POFA was added in the mixture. Results indicate that all the mixes
contain POFA has higher optimum bitumen content compared to conventional mix.
All the mixes contain POFA increased their OBC range from 6.7 to 7.3 %. This
could be due to the absorption of asphalt with the finer material (POFA) in the mixes
75
which increased the asphalt content needed. Results shows the OBC increase with
the increases of POFA content from 25 to 50 % but it gradually decrease when the
percent of POFA added was increased from 75 to 100%. It was also found that most
of the volumetric properties meet the specification requirement for SMA 14 mixtures
which has stipulated by JKR except flow’s result for Mix Design 4 with 75% POFA
which was less than 2.0mm. All the graphs for determination of optimum bitumen
content at 4% air void were shown in Appendix E.
4.3.3 Theoretical Maximum Density (TMD)
Theoretical Maximum Density test was conducted using the Rice Method at
6% bitumen content for each mixes. The TMD test was conducted twice to verify
the results. Size of the sample was determined according to ASTM D 2041 based on
the size of largest particle of aggregate in the mixes. The sample weight used in this
study was 1500gram. The full results for TMD were shown in Appendix F.
4.3.4 Results of Volumetric Properties
Based on the results obtained, relationship between volumetric properties

(stability, stiffness, flow, VTM and VFB), bitumen and POFA content were
evaluated. Then the optimum bitumen and POFA content that most improve the
HMA mixes were determined. Results indicate all the volumetric properties values
obtained for modified mixes were almost the same as conventional mix. The values
of volumetric properties slightly increased and decreased inconsistently as the
percentage of POFA increased but still within the specification range. However,
stability increased with the increase of the amount of POFA added except stability
76
for Mix 3 (50% POFA added) which was decreased. It can be seen that insignificant
effect of POFA added on other volumetric properties such as flow, VMA and VTM
for conventional mix and modified mixes (with POFA added). All the results at
optimum bitumen content are recorded in Table 4.6 both for unmodified and
modified mixes with different POFA added.
Table 4.6: Marshall mix design results of the SMA mixes

Volumetric Control 25% 50% 75% 100% Specification
properties Mix POFA POFA POFA POFA (JKR/SPJ/2007)
OBC (%) 6.50 7.00 7.3 6.8 6.7 -
Stability, S (kg) 839.38 847.74 764.71 960 1000 >632
Flow, F (mm) 2.24 3.00 2.26 1.93 2.17 2.0-4.0
Stiffness
375.28 282.58 338.37 497.41 460.83 -
(kg/mm)
VMA (%) 18.27 19.23 20.08 18.73 18.34 Min 17
VTM (%) 4.05 4.02 4.29 4.0 3.69 4 1
Draindown (%) 0.14 0.25 0.06 0.06 0.04 Max 0.3
77
Stability vs Bitumen Content

1250
1200
1150
Stability (kg)
1100
1050
Mix 1 (0% POFA)
1000
Mix 2 (25% POFA)
950
900 Mix 3 (50% POFA)
850 Mix 4 (75% POFA)
800 Mix 5 (100% POFA)
750
4.50 5.50 6.50 7.50
Bitumen (% )
Figure 4.2: Stability vs Bitumen Content
Flow vs Bitumen Content

3.5
3.0
Flow (mm)
2.5 Mix 1 (0% POFA)

Mix 2 (25% POFA)
2.0
Mix 3 (50% POFA)
Mix 4 (75% POFA)
1.5
Mix 5 (100% POFA)
1.0
4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5
Bitumen (%)
Figure 4.3: Flow vs Bitumen Content
Density vs Bitumen Content

2.26
2.25
2.24
2.23
Density
Mix 1 (0% POFA)

2.22 Mix 2 (25% POFA)
2.21 Mix 3 (50% POFA)
2.20 Mix 4 (75% POFA)
2.19 Mix 5 (100% POFA)
2.18
4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5
Bitumen Content (% )
Figure 4.4: Density vs Bitumen Content

78
VTM vs Bitumen Content

9
8
7
VTM (%)
6 Mix 1 (0% POFA)
Mix 2 (25% POFA)
5
Mix 3 (50% POFA)
4 Mix 4 (75% POFA)
3 Mix 5 (100% POFA)
2
4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5
Bitumen (% )
Figure 4.5: VTM vs Bitumen Content
VFA vs Bitumen Content

90
85
80
VFA (%)
75 Mix 1 (0% POFA)

Mix 2 (25% POFA)
70
Mix 3 (50% POFA)
65 Mix 4 (75% POFA)
60 Mix 5 (100% POFA)
55
4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5
Bitumen (%)
Figure 4.6: VFA vs Bitumen Content
VMA vs Bitumen content

20.0
19.5
19.0 Mix 1 (0% POFA)

VMA (%)
Mix 2 (25% POFA)

18.5 Mix 3 (50% POFA)
Mix 4 (75% POFA)
18.0
Mix 5 (100% POFA)
17.5
17.0
4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5
Bitumen (%)
Figure 4.7: VMA vs Bitumen Content

79
4.3.5 Determination of Optimum POFA Content
POFA was added into the mixes as filler material. Optimum POFA content
was selected based on the percentage of POFA added that most improve the
properties of the modified mixes. Based on the results at optimum bitumen content
as shown previous in Table 4.6, it can be seen that the stability was decreased with
the increased of POFA content from 25 to 50% but it gradually increased when the
percent of POFA added was 75 to 100%. Stability for mix with 25%, 75% and 100%
of POFA was higher than conventional mix while mix with 50% of POFA was lower
than conventional mix. However, all the values were fulfilling the JKR specification
which should be greater than 632 kg.
From the volumetric properties results, it clearly shown when substitute

100% of POFA as filler, it gave the better result which was the stability and stiffness
were greater than conventional mix and other mixes but the tensile strength was very
low. The OBC for the mix which have 100% of POFA was 6.7%, just 0.2% higher
than conventional mix. It can be seen that all the values for each mixes slightly
increased and decreased as the percentage of POFA increased but still within the
specification range. It was noticed that during the mixing process, the higher the
POFA added, the higher the workability of the mixes.
The results indicate that by adding 50% POFA gave properties that meet the
minimum acceptable requirements, despite of having values less than conventional
mixes (without POFA). Since POFA is a byproduct and the amount is abundant, the
use of it is possible in replacing of filler. However, all mixes will be used for further
consideration to verify on the moisture induce damage resistance.
80
4.4 Moisture Induced Test
From the visual observation, there were no significant different (not obvious)
between unmodified mix and modified mixes (with POFA) in term of stripping
resistance. All the mixes contain 2% of hydrated lime which act as an anti-stripping
agent to increase stripping resistance of the mixes. With this result, known that
POFA added was not affecting the stripping behavior of the mixes neither modified
nor unmodified.
All the samples were prepared with 7  1% air voids to simulate the field
condition after compaction and before open to the traffic. Mixture without POFA
(unmodified) needed 22 blows to achieve 7  1% air voids, mixture with 25% POFA
needed 18 blows, mixture with 50% POFA and 75% POFA needed 20 blows and
mixture with 100% POFA needed 15 blows to achieve 7  1% air voids. After all the
compacted samples were prepared, it was sort into two subsets which one subset was
tested in dry condition while the other one was tested in wet condition. The dry
subset was stored at room temperature until tested (24 hours). The samples were
wrapped with plastic. Before being tested, it was placed in a 25°C water bath for a
minimum 2 hours and then tested as described in the AASHTO T 283. The other
subset was placed in the vacuum container and vacuum (25mm/hg) was applied for a
short time (5 minutes) and the sample was leaved to submerge in water for a short
time (5 minutes). The degree of saturation for conditioned samples must be between
55 to 80%. Then the samples were placed in the water (60°C) for 24 hours. Before
tested, it was placed in a 25°C water bath for a minimum 2 hours and then tested as
described in the AASHTO T 283.
For dry (unconditioned) samples, the tensile strength was between 5.25 to
6.83kPa. From the results, it shown that the tensile strength for mix 1 (unmodified)
and 3 (50% POFA added) was the same which was 6.83kPa while tensile strength for
mix 2 (25% POFA added) and 4 (75% POFA added) was 6.17 and 6.14kPa and the
tensile strength for mix 5 (100% POFA added) decreased to 5.25kPa.
81
Tensile strength for conditioned sample was lower than dry sample for all
mixes as shows in the Table 4.3. From the TSR value, it clearly shows that the ratio
between dry and conditioned samples for all mixes was greater than 80% and all the
mixes have enough moisture induced damage/stripping resistance to sustain the load
from vehicles and exposed to severe condition without large degradation of the
structures. From the results analysis, Mix 4 (75% POFA added) has greater TSR
value and the tensile strength between unconditioned and conditioned samples was
almost the same which the value was 1.0 but the volumetric properties were not
fulfilling the JKR specification. For moisture induced damage resistance, mix design
3 was the better mixes compared to other because the tensile strength of the mixes
was higher compared to others. Table 4.7 and Figure 4.1 shows the results of
moisture induced damage resistance of the compacted samples. Detail results for
moisture induced damage were shown in Appendix G.
82
Table 4.7: Moisture Induced Damage Results

Tensile
Density VTM (%) ITS (kg)
Mix Strength (kPa) TSR
Dry Cond. Dry Cond. Dry Cond. Dry Cond.
1 2.1790 2.1856 7.18 6.90 675 628 6.83 6.37 0.93
2 2.1751 2.1779 6.65 6.53 616 562 6.17 5.59 0.90
3 2.1659 2.1658 6.78 6.79 683 567 6.83 5.68 0.83
4 2.1572 2.1606 7.09 6.95 627 614 6.14 6.15 1.00
5 2.1512 2.1507 6.64 6.66 538 482 5.25 4.72 0.90
6
Tensile Strength (kPa)
0
Mix 1 Mix 2 Mix 3 Mix 4 Mix 5 Dry
Mix Design Conditioned
Figure 4.8: Tensile strength for unconditioned and conditioned samples

83
Unconditioned Conditioned
Figure 4.9: Samples without POFA
Figure 4.10: Samples with 25% POFA
84
85
Figure 4.14: Unconditioned samples
Figure 4.15: Conditioned samples

CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusions
Based on this study, it was observed that the performance of SMA mixes was
significantly affected with the addition of Palm Oil Fuel Ash (POFA) as filler
material. Utilisation of POFA in the mixture can enhance the stability, stiffness and
tensile strength of the mixes. Initially, OBC values were found to increase as the
percentage of POFA increased but it gradually decreased when the percentage of
POFA increase to 75% and 100%. According to the results of the laboratory work
on the Marshall samples and moisture induced damage resistance on the unmodified
and modified mixes, the following conclusion have been drawn.
i. POFA can be use as mineral filler in hot mix asphalt without

degradation of engineering properties of the mixture.
ii. Marshall properties obtained shows that the stability and stiffness of
the modified mixes tend to increase after the samples were added with
POFA.
iii. POFA does not influence or affect the stripping behaviour of the
mixture.
87
iv. Utilisation of POFA can reduce environment problem by using it as

filler material in HMA especially SMA and reduced the cost of
treatment and disposal of the waste.
Utilisation of POFA in HMA does not have any apparent effect to the mixes.
Therefore, it can be used or recycled rather than disposed in the landfill without any
purpose.
5.2 Recommendations
It is recommended that further studies be conducted on a variety of gradation

type such as dense graded and porous graded. Different percentage of POFA use can
be investigated to determine the effect to the mixture. Instead of moisture induced
damage resistance, other pavement deterioration due to rutting, fatigue and aging
should be studied in order to investigate the engineering properties of the mixes.
Detail study should be conducted to investigate the effect of utilisation of POFA in
hot mix asphalt mixture in order to provide strength and durable pavement by
minimising the distress occurred in HMA pavement. Hence, the road pavement will
provide a safe and smooth riding for vehicular travel. In addition, the most important
effort is to compile all the results obtained from all research that are related and
revised by a responsible board in order to make worth of it in improving the hot mix
asphalt performance according to Malaysian condition.
88
REFERENCES
Abdullah, K, Hussin, M. W., Zakaria, F., Muhammad, R., and Abdul, H. Z. (2006).
POFA: A potential partial cement replacement Material in Aerated Concrete.
Proceedings of the 6th Asia-Pacific Structural Engineering and Construction
Conference (ASPEC 2006). 5 -6 September 2006. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (2000).
Determination of Draindown Characteristics in Uncompacted Asphalt Mixtures.
Washington D. C. AASHTO T 305.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (1993).
Resistance of Compacted Bituminous Mixture to Moisture-Induce Damage.
Washington D. C. AASHTO T 283-89.
American Society for Testing and Materials (1992). Standard Test Method for
Materials Finer than 75-m (No. 200) Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing.
Philadelphia, ASTM C 117.
Specific Gravity and Absorption of Coarse Aggregate. Philadelphia, ASTM C
127.
Specific Gravity and Absorption of Fine Aggregate. Philadelphia, ASTM C 128.
American Society for Testing and Materials (1992). Standard Test Method for Bulk
Specific Gravity and Density of Compacted Bituminous Mixtures Using Saturated
Surface-Dry Specimens. Philadelphia, ASTM D 2726.
Theoretical Maximum Specific Gravity and Density of Bituminous Paving
Mixtures. Philadelphia, ASTM D 2041.
89
Resistance to Plastic Flow of Bituminous Mixtures Using Marshall Apparatus.
Philadelphia, ASTM D 1559.
Asphalt Institute (2001). HMA Construction: Marshall Method. Manual Series No.
22 (MS-22). Lexington, KY
Australia Asphalt Pavement Association Asphalt Guide (AAPA) (2002). Stone
Mastic Asphalt Surfacing.
Awal, A. S. M., and Hussin, M. W. (1997). Some Aspects of Durability
Performances of Concrete Incorporating Palm Oil Fuel Ash. Proceedings of
Fifth International Conference on Structural Failure, Durability and
Retrofitting. Singapore, 210-217.
Brown, E. R., Haddock, John E., Mallick, Rajib B., and Lynn, T. A. (1997).
Development of a Mixture Design Procedure for Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA),
Asphalt Paving Technology. Asphalt Paving Technologists. Volume (66), 1- 25.
Campbell, C. (1999). The use of stone mastic asphalt on aircraft Pavement.
Bachelor Thesis. Deakin University.
Garber, N. J., and Hoel, L. A. (2002). Traffic and highway Engineering. (3rd ed.)
United States of America: Brooks/Cole.
Ibrahim, M. A. (2005). Laboratory Comparison Study for the use of stone matrix
asphalt in Hot weather Climates. Hashemite University, Jordan; Elsevier.
Jabatan Kerja Raya (JKR) (2007). Standard Specification for Road Works. Kuala
Lumpur, JKR/SPJ/2007.
Ksaibati, K., and Gary L. C. (2004). Laboratory Evaluation of Bottom Ash Asphalt
Mixes. MPC (04), 159. Mountain-Plains Consortium.
Lay, M. G. (1998). Handbook of Road Technology. (3rd ed.). Gordon and Breach
Science.
Mannan M.A. and Ganapathy C. (2002). Concrete from an agricultural waste-oil
palm shell (OPS). Building and Environment. (39),441-448. Elsevier.
National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA) (2002). Designing and
Constructing SMA Mixtures: State-of-the-Practice. Quality Improvement Series
122.
Nunn, M. E. (1994). Evaluation of stone mastic asphalt (SMA): A high stability
wearing course material. Transport Research Laboratory.
90
Roberts, F. L., Kandhal, P. S., Brown, E. R., Lee, D. Y., and Kennedy, T. W. (1996).
Hot Mix asphalt materials, mixture design and construction. (2nd ed.) NAPA
education Foundation: Lanham, Maryland.
Sata, Jaturapitakkul, C., and Kiattikomol, K. (2004). Utilization of Palm Oil Fuel
Ash In High-Strength Concrete. Materials In Civil Engineering. ASCE (16),
623-628.
Sumadi, S.R., and Hussin, M.W. (1993). Agricultural Ash (AA)–Construction
Material for the Future. Kongres Sains & Teknologi Malaysia (1), 105-114.
Sumadi, S.R., and Hussin, M.W. (1995). Palm Oil Fuel ash (POFA) as a future
partial cement replacement in Housing Construction. Ferrocement. (25), 25-34.
Ven, V. D. M. F. C., Smit, A. D. F., and Lorio R. (Undated). Stone Mastic Asphalt
Mix Design Based on a Binary System. University of Stellenbosch, South
Africa.
Waller, H. F. (1993). Use of waste material in Hot-Mix Asphalt. ASTM
International.
Wright, P. H., and Dixon, K. K. (2004). Highway engineering. (7th ed). United state
of America: John Wiley & Son, Inc.
Yusoff, S. (2004). Renewable energy from palm oil-innovation on effective
utilization of waste. Cleaner Production. (14), 87-93.
91
APPENDIX A
AGGREGATE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND DETERMINATION OF FILLER
SMA 14
Sieve Gradation % % Marshall TMD (1500)

Size ^0.45 Limit Passing Retained Mass Mass Mass Retained Mass Mass Mass Retained
Passing Retained on each Sieve Passing Retained on each Sieve
(mm) Lower Upper (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g)
19 3.762 100 100 100 - 1200 0 0 1500 0 0
12.5 3.116 100 100 100 0 1200 0 0 1500 0 0
9.5 2.754 72 83 77.5 22.5 930 270 270 1162.5 337.5 337.5
4.75 2.016 25 38 31.5 46 378 822 552 472.5 1027.5 690
2.36 1.472 16 24 20 11.5 240 960 138 300 1200 172.5
0.6 0.795 12 16 14 6 168 1032 72 210 1290 90
0.3 0.582 12 15 13.5 0.5 162 1038 6 202.5 1297.5 7.5
0.075 0.312 8 10 9 4.5 108 1092 54 135 1365 67.5
Pan (gram) 108 gram Pan 135 gram

Washed-sieve Analysis
1) Mass of blended aggregates (gram): Before = 1092 Before = 1365
After = 1075.2 After = 1344.4
Aggregate Dust (gram): 16.8 20.6
2) Mass of blended aggregates (gram): Before = 1092 Before = 1365
After = 1074.9 After = 1342.8
Aggregate Dust (gram): 17.1 22.2
Average Aggregate Dust (gram): 16.95 21.4
Average Filler Content (gram) = Pan - Average Aggregate Dust 91.05 113.6
Weight of pan used (gram) = Average filler content - HL 67.05 83.6

Total Aggregate Weight (gram) = Filler + Total Agg. Retained 1183.05 1478.6
92
APPENDIX B
WASH SIEVE ANALYSIS (SMA 14)
Mix Marshall TMD

Sample 1 2 1 2
Mass before washing, (g) 1092 1092 1365 1365
Mass after washing, (g) 1075.2 1074.9 1344.4 1342.8
Mass of Dust, (g) 16.8 17.1 20.6 22.2
Average, (g) 16.95 21.4
93
APPENDIX C
SPECIFIC GRAVITY FOR COARSE AGGREGATE (MRP – SMA14)
Coarse Aggregate Sample 1 Sample 2 Average
In Water 604.7 604.5
Saturated Surface Dry (SSD) 984.3 985.8
Ovendry 975.4 974.1
Ovendry
SG Bulk, Gsb = 2.57 2.555 2.563
SSD  InWater
SSD
SG SSD, Gssd = 2.593 2.585 2.589
SSD  InWater
Ovendry
Sg Apparent, Gsa = 2.631 2.636 2.634
Ovendry  InWater
SSD  Ovendry
Absorbtion, % = 0.91 1.201 1.06
Ovendry
AGGREGATE GRADATION FOR COARSE AGGREGATE (MRP – SMA14)

Coarse Sieve Size % Mass
(gram) (mm) Retained Retained (g)
9.5 22.5 328.5
1000
4.75 46 671.5
94
SPECIFIC GRAVITY FOR FINE AGGREGATE (MRP – SMA14)

Fine Aggregate – 700g Sample 1 Sample 2
Picnometer 281.8 281.8
Picnometer + Water (600ml) B 872.2 872.8
Picnometer + Water (600ml) + Sample C 1166.6 1168.3
Saturated Surface Dry (SSD) S 500 500
Ovendry A 491.0 493.2
Sample 1 Sample 2 Average
= A
SG Bulk, Gsb 2.388 2.412 2.400
B S C
= S
SG SSD, Gssd 2.432 2.445 2.439
B S C
= A
SG Apparent, Gsa 2.497 2.495 2.496
A BC
= SA
Absorbtion, % 1.83 1.39 1.61
A
95
AGGREGATE GRADATION FOR FINE AGGREGATE (MRP-SMA14)

Fine Sieve Size % Mass
(gram) (mm) Retained Retained (g)
2.63 11.5 358
0.600 6 187
700
0.300 0.5 16
0.075 4.5 140
SPECIFIC GRAVITY FOR AGGREGATE BLENDED (MRP-SMA 14)

SG Bulk, Gsb (Coarse Aggregate) 2.563
SG Bulk, Gsb (Fine Aggregate) 2.400
SG Apparent, Gsa (Coarse Aggregate) 2.634
SG Apparent, Gsa (Fine Aggregate) 2.496
100
SG Blendedbulk =
%Coarse % Fine 2.770

Gbulk Coarse Gbulk Fine
100
SG Blendedapparent =
%Coarse % Fine 2.855

Gapp Coarse Gapp Fine
96
APPENDIX D: MARSHALL TEST RESULT (SMA 14 - CONVENTIONAL)

%
% BIT BIT. WEIGHT (gram) BULK SPEC. GRAV. VOLUME - % TOTAL VOIDS (%) STABILITY (kg) FLOW STIFFNESS
SPEC. SPEC. SSD IN IN VOL. MAX. FILLED TOTAL
NO. NO. AIR WATER cc. BULK THEOR. BIT AGG. VOIDS AGG. (BIT) MIX MEAS. CORR. (mm)
a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s
% Bit. d bxg (100-b)g 100-i-j 100-j 100(i/l) 100-(100g/h) Corr. q

by wt. c-e f SGbit SGagg Factor pxo r
of mix.
5 1226.60 1215.80 680.70 545.90 2.2271 0.93 1352.86 1258.16 1.10 1143.78
1239.40 1226.40 686.30 553.10 2.2173 0.89 1080.69 961.81 1.56 616.54
1243.90 1236.20 695.10 548.80 2.2526 0.89 1102.60 981.31 1.52 645.60
AVG 5 549.27 2.2323 2.3978 10.837 82.26 6.90 17.74 61.09 6.90 1067.09 1.39 765.86
5.5 1244.80 1238.20 691.30 553.50 2.2370 0.89 1075.27 956.99 1.72 556.39
1245.20 1239.20 695.60 549.60 2.2547 0.89 1034.34 920.56 1.31 702.72
1245.80 1236.70 691.60 554.20 2.2315 0.89 981.79 873.79 1.92 455.10
AVG 5.5 552.43 2.2411 2.3812 11.967 82.15 5.88 17.85 67.04 5.88 917.11 1.65 555.83
6 1238.30 1233.00 688.30 550.00 2.2418 0.89 960.66 854.99 2.63 325.09
1261.40 1256.10 696.00 565.40 2.2216 0.86 924.06 794.69 2.07 383.91
1254.20 1250.20 697.50 556.70 2.2457 0.89 923.35 821.78 1.97 417.15
AVG 6 557.37 2.2364 2.3648 13.028 81.54 5.43 18.46 70.59 5.43 823.82 2.22 370.53
6.5 1261.50 1258.30 699.70 561.80 2.2398 0.86 936.78 805.63 2.23 361.27
1241.60 1239.10 691.90 549.70 2.2541 0.89 935.78 832.84 2.20 378.57
1252.10 1249.90 700.70 551.40 2.2668 0.89 988.39 879.67 2.28 385.82
AVG 6.5 554.30 2.2536 2.3486 14.221 81.73 4.05 18.27 77.85 4.05 839.38 2.24 375.28
7 1262.70 1259.70 702.60 560.10 2.2491 0.86 856.19 736.32 2.62 281.04
1262.00 1259.60 706.80 555.20 2.2687 0.89 983.13 874.98 2.44 358.60
1248.00 1242.50 690.10 557.90 2.2271 0.89 965.85 859.60 2.67 321.95
AVG 7 557.73 2.2483 2.3326 15.280 81.11 3.61 18.89 80.87 3.61 823.64 2.58 319.65
97
MARSHALL TEST RESULT (SMA 14 – 25% POFA)

%

by wt. c-e f SGbit SGag Factor pxo r
of mix.
5 1248.40 1237.50 692.40 556.00 2.2257 0.89 1097.73 976.98 1.81 539.77
1246.30 1238.20 692.20 554.10 2.2346 0.89 1228.28 1093.17 1.31 834.48
1244.70 1235.70 690.30 554.40 2.2289 0.89 1125.30 1001.52 1.54 650.34
AVG 5 554.83 2.2297 2.3965 10.82 82.22 6.96 17.78 60.87 6.96 1023.89 1.55 659.16
5.5 1244.50 1239.30 690.60 553.90 2.2374 0.89 1107.79 985.93 1.63 604.86
1244.40 1240.20 688.60 555.80 2.2314 0.89 1113.83 991.31 1.72 576.34
1244.20 1238.40 688.50 555.70 2.2285 0.89 1088.70 968.94 1.88 515.39
AVG 5.5 555.13 2.2324 2.3799 11.92 81.88 6.20 18.12 65.80 6.20 982.06 1.74 563.32
6 1245.50 1236.80 688.80 556.70 2.2217 0.89 1066.00 948.74 1.90 499.34
1249.50 1244.20 692.90 556.60 2.2354 0.89 1063.33 946.36 1.94 489.08
1245.50 1240.30 691.00 554.50 2.2368 0.89 1058.06 941.68 1.80 523.15
AVG 6 555.93 2.2313 2.3635 13.00 81.41 5.59 18.59 69.91 5.59 945.59 1.88 503.42
6.5 1253.00 1248.00 693.90 559.10 2.2322 0.89 1014.39 902.81 2.22 407.59
1257.40 1252.60 699.90 557.50 2.2468 0.89 1168.50 1039.97 2.32 448.26
1256.50 1251.20 699.00 557.50 2.2443 0.89 975.74 868.41 2.54 341.89
AVG 6.5 558.03 2.2411 2.3474 14.14 81.33 4.53 18.67 75.76 4.53 937.06 2.36 397.34
7 1233.10 1241.10 682.90 550.20 2.2557 0.89 960.82 855.13 2.81 304.32
1255.80 1247.30 696.10 559.70 2.2285 0.89 923.66 822.06 3.59 228.99
1244.50 1235.70 690.00 554.50 2.2285 0.89 973.07 866.03 2.60 333.09
AVG 7 554.80 2.2376 2.3314 15.21 80.77 4.02 19.23 79.08 4.02 847.74 3.00 282.58
98

%

of mix.
5 1242.30 1230.30 683.20 559.10 2.2005 0.89 1208.56 1075.62 1.45 741.81
1245.50 1235.60 687.10 558.40 2.2128 0.89 1126.64 1002.71 1.71 586.38
1240.40 1233.30 685.80 554.60 2.2238 0.89 1276.43 1136.02 1.43 794.42
AVG 5 557.37 2.2123 2.3973 10.74 81.54 7.72 18.46 58.19 7.72 1071.45 1.53 700.29
5.5 1240.20 1236.50 689.40 550.80 2.2449 0.89 1240.22 1103.79 1.37 805.69
1238.50 1231.20 687.50 551.00 2.2345 0.89 1154.44 1027.45 1.85 555.38
1246.80 1236.70 687.70 559.10 2.2119 0.89 1099.69 978.73 1.78 549.85
AVG 5.5 553.63 2.2304 2.3806 11.91 81.78 6.31 18.22 65.37 6.31 1036.66 1.67 622.00
6 1246.40 1243.10 691.90 554.50 2.2418 0.89 1212.81 1079.40 1.69 638.70
1241.90 1239.60 689.80 552.10 2.2452 0.89 1206.13 1073.45 1.74 616.93
1246.40 1244.10 693.00 553.40 2.2481 0.89 1179.50 1049.76 1.70 617.50
AVG 6 553.33 2.2451 2.3643 13.08 81.88 5.04 18.12 72.17 5.04 1067.54 1.68 635.44
6.5 1248.00 1246.10 697.80 550.20 2.2648 0.89 1149.89 1023.40 1.40 731.00
1251.20 1246.30 691.10 560.10 2.2251 0.86 1067.96 918.45 1.95 471.00
1253.30 1243.80 692.60 560.70 2.2183 0.86 960.43 825.97 1.85 446.47
AVG 6.5 557.00 2.2361 2.3481 14.11 81.12 4.77 18.88 74.73 4.77 922.60 1.73 532.27
7 1257.40 1253.10 697.30 560.10 2.2373 0.86 1006.85 865.89 2.51 344.98
1220.80 1213.20 671.00 549.80 2.2066 0.89 998.76 888.89 1.90 469.07
1274.40 1270.00 706.90 567.50 2.2379 0.86 992.65 853.68 1.88 454.08
AVG 7 559.13 2.2273 2.3321 15.14 80.37 4.50 19.63 77.09 4.50 869.49 2.10 415.03
99

%
BIT % BIT. WEIGHT (gram) BULK SPEC. GRAV. VOLUME - % TOTAL VOIDS (%) STABILITY (kg) FLOW STIFFNESS

of mix.
5 1233.80 1228.20 677.50 556.30 2.2078 0.89 1232.99 1097.36 1.32 831.34
1231.80 1225.80 680.00 551.80 2.2215 0.89 1244.70 1107.78 1.46 758.75
1242.00 1235.70 683.80 558.20 2.2137 0.89 1314.14 1169.58 1.31 892.81
AVG 5 555.43 2.2143 2.3793 10.75 82.32 6.93 17.68 60.79 6.93 1124.91 1.36 825.12
5.5 1246.00 1233.20 683.40 562.60 2.1920 0.86 1098.59 944.79 1.66 569.15
1239.30 1232.90 681.00 558.30 2.2083 0.89 1374.46 1223.27 1.34 912.89
1244.60 1236.90 681.50 563.10 2.1966 0.86 1231.74 1059.29 1.55 683.41
AVG 5.5 561.33 2.1990 2.3630 11.74 81.32 6.94 18.68 62.84 6.94 1075.78 1.52 709.31
6 1254.90 1250.00 686.30 568.60 2.1984 0.86 1163.71 1000.79 1.56 641.53
1244.90 1240.80 684.00 560.90 2.2122 0.86 1302.75 1120.36 1.46 767.37
1241.90 1239.30 685.30 556.60 2.2266 0.89 1284.68 1143.36 1.65 692.95
AVG 6 562.03 2.2124 2.3469 12.89 81.38 5.73 18.62 69.21 5.73 1088.17 1.56 699.04
6.5 1244.60 1242.20 687.40 557.20 2.2294 0.89 1157.90 1030.53 1.89 545.25
1248.60 1245.10 686.90 561.70 2.2167 0.86 1109.20 953.91 1.84 518.43
1257.20 1255.60 697.60 559.60 2.2437 0.89 1159.63 1032.07 1.93 534.75
AVG 6.5 559.50 2.2299 2.3311 14.07 81.59 4.34 18.41 76.43 4.34 1005.50 1.89 532.95
7 1254.80 1249.60 687.80 567.00 2.2039 0.86 998.13 858.39 2.02 424.94
1250.60 1248.60 693.90 556.70 2.2429 0.89 1054.29 938.32 1.87 501.78
1242.60 1241.00 687.30 555.30 2.2348 0.89 1064.34 947.26 2.15 440.59
AVG 7 559.67 2.2272 2.3154 15.14 81.05 3.81 18.95 79.88 3.81 914.66 2.09 438.68
100

%

of mix.
5 1246.30 1228.60 681.90 564.40 2.1768 0.86 1150.44 989.38 1.53 646.65
1247.30 1234.50 683.80 563.50 2.1908 0.86 1214.30 1044.30 1.55 673.74
1246.90 1234.60 683.90 563.00 2.1929 0.86 1316.96 1132.59 1.53 740.25
AVG 5 563.63 2.1868 2.3580 10.62 82.13 7.26 17.87 59.40 7.26 1055.42 1.54 686.82
5.5 1242.30 1238.20 683.80 558.50 2.2170 0.89 1560.39 1388.74 1.43 971.15
1241.30 1236.10 683.80 557.50 2.2172 0.89 1291.75 1149.66 1.62 709.66
1240.60 1232.50 678.40 562.20 2.1923 0.86 1190.81 1024.10 1.48 691.96
AVG 5.5 559.40 2.2088 2.3421 11.79 82.52 5.69 17.48 67.46 5.69 1187.50 1.51 786.42
6 1252.00 1244.70 682.50 569.50 2.1856 0.86 1157.74 995.66 1.74 572.22
1250.80 1248.10 690.70 560.10 2.2284 0.86 1316.02 1131.78 1.35 838.35
1241.20 1237.10 680.30 560.90 2.2056 0.86 1270.38 1092.53 1.48 738.19
AVG 6 563.50 2.2065 2.3264 12.85 81.99 5.15 18.01 71.38 5.15 1073.32 1.52 704.59
6.5 1250.80 1246.80 688.10 562.70 2.2157 0.86 1245.40 1071.05 1.81 591.74
1246.30 1243.00 681.40 564.90 2.2004 0.86 1057.04 909.06 2.14 424.79
1254.60 1251.20 684.40 570.20 2.1943 0.86 1144.39 984.17 2.20 447.35
AVG 6.5 565.93 2.2035 2.3109 13.91 81.45 4.65 18.55 74.95 4.65 988.09 2.05 482.00
7 1251.70 1247.50 687.20 564.50 2.2099 0.86 1090.82 938.10 2.15 436.33
1252.90 1250.40 691.10 561.80 2.2257 0.86 1259.65 1083.30 2.32 466.94
1258.60 1257.30 700.40 558.20 2.2524 0.89 1218.46 1084.43 2.28 475.63
AVG 7 561.50 2.2293 2.2956 15.15 81.96 2.89 18.04 83.99 2.89 1035.28 2.25 460.12
101
VOLUMETRIC PROPERTIES OF SMA 14
Stability vs Bitumen Content Density vs Bitumen Content

1250 2.26
1200
2.25
1150
1100 2.24
Stability (kg)
1050 2.23
Density
1000 2.22
950
2.21
900
850 2.20
800 2.19
750 2.18
4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 7.50
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
Bitumen (%)
Bitumen Content (% )
VTM vs Bitumen Content Flow vs Bitumen Content

9 3.5
8
3.0
7
Flow (mm)
2.5
VTM (%)
5 2.0
4
1.5
3
2 1.0
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
Bitumen (%) Bitumen (%)

102
VFA vs Bitumen Content VMA vs Bitumen content

90 20.0
85 19.5
80
19.0
VMA (%)
VFA (%)
75
18.5
70
65
18.0
60 17.5
55 17.0
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
Bitumen (%) Bitumen (% )
Mix 1(Control 0% POFA)
Mix 2 (25% POFA)
Mix 3 (50% POFA)
Mix 4 (75% POFA)
Mix 5 (100% POFA)

103
APPENDIX E
DETERMINATION OF OBC AT 4% AIR VOID (NAPA) FOR SMA 14
VTM vs Bitumen Content (MIX 1)

8
7
6
5
VTM (%)
4
3
2
1
0
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8
Bitumen (%)
104

8
7
6
5
VTM (%)
4
3
2
1
0
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8
Bitumen (%)
105

9
8
7
6
VTM (%)
5
4
3
2
1
0
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8
Bitumen (%)
106

8
7
6
5
VTM (%)
4
3
2
1
0
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8
Bitumen (%)
107

8
7
6
5
vtm (%)
4
3
2
1
0
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8
Bitumen (%)
108
APPENDIX F
THEORETICAL MAXIMUM DENSITY FOR SMA 14
CONVENTIONAL MIX
MAXIMUM SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF BITUMINOUS PAVING MIXTURES

Weight of Bowl in Air (g) = A 2206.1 2206.1
Weight of Bowl in Water (g) = B 1390.1 1390.1
Weight of Bowl and Sample in Air (g) = C 3765 3751.9
Weight of Sample (g) = D = C –A 1558.9 1545.8
Weight of Bowl and Sample in Water (g) = E 2285.2 2286.7
Asphalt Content of Mix (%) = G 6 6
SG of Asphalt, Gb = H 1.03 1.03
Max SG of Mix, Gmm = D 2.3484 2.3811 2.3648
DBE
Effective SG of Aggregate, Gse = 100  G 2.5574 2.5987 2.5780
100 / Gmm   G / H 
AC Gmm
5.0 2.3978
100 5.5 2.3812
Gmm at specified of % AC’s =
% AC / Gb   100  % AC  / Gse  6.0 2.3648
6.5 2.3486
7.0 2.3326
109

25% POFA MIX

Weight of Bowl in Air (g) = A 2206.3 2206
Weight of Bowl and Sample in Air (g) = C 3760.2 3757.7
Weight of Bowl and Sample in Water (g) = E 2284.1 2288
Max SG of Mix, Gmm = D 2.3540 2.3730 2.3635
DBE
100 / Gmm   G / H 
AC Gmm
5.0 2.3965
100 5.5 2.3799
% AC / Gb   100  % AC  / Gse  6.0 2.3635
6.5 2.3473
7.0 2.3314
110

50% POFA MIX

Max SG of Mix, Gmm = D 2.3539 2.3746 2.3642
DBE
100 / Gmm   G / H 
AC Gmm
5.0 2.3973
100 5.5 2.3806
% AC / Gb   100  % AC  / Gse  6.0 2.3642
6.5 2.3481
7.0 2.3321
111

75% POFA MIX

Weight of Bowl and Sample in Water (g) = E 2277 2278
Max SG of Mix, Gmm = D 2.3425 2.3513 2.3469
DBE
100 / Gmm   G / H 
AC Gmm
5.0 2.3793
100 5.5 2.3630
% AC / Gb   100  % AC  / Gse  6.0 2.3469
6.5 2.3311
7.0 2.3154
112

100% POFA MIX

Max SG of Mix, Gmm = D 2.3287 2.3241 2.3264
DBE
100 / Gmm   G / H 
AC Gmm
5.0 2.3580
100 5.5 2.3421
% AC / Gb   100  % AC  / Gse  6.0 2.3264
6.5 2.3109
7.0 2.2956
113
APPENDIX G: MOISTURE INDUCED DAMAGE RESULTS

Density VMA VFA VTM ITS Thick. Dia. Tensile Strength
Mix Sample Sat. Swell TSR
Dry Cond. Dry Cond. Dry Cond. Dry Cond. Dry Corr. Cond. Corr. (mm) (mm) Dry Cond.
1 2.1915 20.54 67.63 6.65 299 695 64 101 6.98
2 2.1807 20.94 66.03 7.11 67.72 2.08 276 642 64 101 6.45
3 2.1834 20.84 66.43 7.00 70.45 1.90 269 626 63 101 6.38
Mix
4 2.1580 21.76 62.88 8.08 269 626 63.5 101 6.33 0.93
1
5 2.1876 20.68 67.06 6.81 302 702 63 101 7.17
6 2.1928 20.50 67.83 6.59 73.82 2.41 265 616 63 101 6.29
Average 2.1790 2.1820 21.00 20.89 65.85 66.76 7.18 6.90 70.66 2.13 675 628 6.83 6.37
1 2.1656 21.86 67.71 7.06 266 619 64.5 101 6.17
2 2.1726 21.61 68.71 6.76 73.63 1.82 254 591 65 101 5.84
3 2.1805 21.33 69.88 6.42 265 616 64 101 6.19
Mix
4 2.1856 21.14 70.67 6.20 78.46 2.15 242 563 64 101 5.65 0.90
2
5 2.1794 21.37 69.72 6.47 264 614 64 101 6.17
6 2.1755 21.50 69.15 6.63 79.33 1.73 229 533 65 101 5.27
Average 2.1751 2.1779 21.52 21.42 69.10 69.51 6.65 6.53 77.14 1.90 616 562 6.17 5.59
1 2.1616 22.23 68.64 6.97 352 819 65.5 101 8.03
2 2.1691 21.96 69.73 6.65 78.74 2.45 229 533 64 101 5.35
3 2.1672 22.03 69.45 6.73 78.31 2.29 246 572 64.5 101 5.70
Mix
4 2.1724 21.84 70.20 6.51 263 612 63.5 101 6.19 0.83
3
5 2.1611 22.25 68.56 6.99 73.37 2.49 256 595 64 101 5.98
6 2.1638 22.15 68.95 6.88 266 619 63.5 101 6.26
Average 2.1659 2.1658 22.07 22.08 69.26 69.24 6.78 6.79 76.81 2.41 683 567 6.83 5.68
1 2.1540 21.42 66.18 7.23 72.28 2.10 255 593 64.5 101 5.91
2 2.1464 21.70 65.09 7.56 301 700 67 101 6.72
3 2.1594 21.23 66.96 7.00 65.58 1.84 264 614 64.5 101 6.12
Mix
4 2.1669 20.95 68.07 6.67 259 602 64 101 6.05 1.00
4
5 2.1585 21.26 66.82 7.04 249 579 66 101 5.64
6 2.1684 20.90 68.29 6.61 74.52 2.71 273 635 63.5 101 6.43
Average 2.1572 2.1606 21.31 21.18 66.66 67.14 7.09 6.95 70.79 2.22 627 614 6.14 6.15
1 2.1541 20.56 68.26 6.51 239 556 65.5 101 5.46
2 2.1492 20.74 67.52 6.73 226 526 66 101 5.12
3 2.1510 20.67 67.79 6.65 77.62 2.13 211 491 65.5 101 4.82
Mix
4 2.1501 20.71 67.65 6.69 229 533 66 101 5.19 0.90
5
5 2.1574 20.44 68.77 6.37 78.34 2.83 205 477 65.5 101 4.68
6 2.1436 20.94 66.68 6.97 79.11 2.38 206 479 66 101 4.67
Average 2.1512 2.1507 20.67 20.68 67.81 67.75 6.64 6.66 78.36 2.45 538 482 5.25 4.72
114
View publication stats

Noor Azreena Kamaluddin MFKA2008

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Noor Azreena Kamaluddin MFKA2008

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Noor Azreena Kamaluddin

Motorcyclist safety in Malysia View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

NOOR AZREENA BINTI KAMALUDDIN

A project report submitted in partial fulfillment of the

Faculty of Civil Engineering

“Dedicated to my beloved mother,

In the name of Allah S.W.T, I would like to express my gratefulness to Him

This paper presents a study of laboratory evaluation on the performance of

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE

DECLARATION OF THE STATUS OF THESIS

3.10 Moisture Induced Damage Test 59

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 68

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 86

TABLE NO TITLE PAGE

2.1 Design criteria for the Marshall method 26

2.2 Minimum percent voids in mineral aggregate (VMA) for

3.1 SMA mix requirements 29

3.2 50 blows Marshall criteria for surface mixes 33

3.3 Gradation limit for SMA 14 39

3.4 Total number of samples 45

4.1 Gradation limit for SMA 14 70

4.2 Mass of dust in washed sieve analysis 71

4.3 Specific gravity of materials 71

4.4 Chemical composition and physical properties of POFA 73

4.5 Details of mixes produced 74

4.6 Marshall mix design results of the SMA mixes 76

4.7 Moisture Induced Damage results 82

FIGURE NO TITLE PAGE

2.1 Comparison between SMA and conventional HMA 8

2.2 SMA aggregate skeleton 9

2.3 Major components of SMA mixture 12

2.4 Palm oil shell 17

2.5 Palm Oil Fuel Ash (POFA) after grounded 17

2.6 Structure of dense graded mix 19

2.7 Structure of gap graded mix 20

2.8 Structure of open graded mix 21

3.1 Palm Oil Fuel Ash (POFA) after grounded 31

3.2 Flow chart for laboratory process and analysis 34

3.3 Mechanical sieve shaker 37

3.4 The aggregate was sieve in the mechanical sieve shaker 37

3.5 Automatic Marshall compactor 48

3.6 Apparatus for TMD test 48

3.7 Water bath for submerging sample 52

3.8 Machine for flow and stability test 52

3.9 Draindown test apparatus 56

3.10 Dimension of wire basket 57

3.11 Unconditioned samples wrapped with plastic 62

3.12 Conditioned samples in water bath for curing 63

3.13 Unconditioned and conditioned samples in the water bath

3.14 Indirect Tensile Strength (ITS) test 64

3.15 Unconditioned samples after tested 65

3.16 Conditioned samples after tested 65

4.1 Gradation limit for SMA 14 70

4.2 Stability vs Bitumen Content 77

4.3 Flow vs Bitumen Content 77

4.4 Density vs Bitumen Content 77

4.5 VTM vs Bitumen Content 78

4.6 VFA vs Bitumen Content 78

4.7 VMA vs Bitumen Content 78

4.8 Tensile strength for unconditioned and conditioned

4.9 Samples without POFA 83