Road Materials and Pavement Design

ISSN: 1468-0629 (Print) 2164-7402 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/trmp20

Utilisation of warm-mix asphalt technology

to improve bituminous mixtures containing
reclaimed asphalt pavement

Sheriff A. El Sharkawy, Abdallah H. Wahdan & Sameh A. Galal

To cite this article: Sheriff A. El Sharkawy, Abdallah H. Wahdan & Sameh A. Galal (2017)
Utilisation of warm-mix asphalt technology to improve bituminous mixtures containing
reclaimed asphalt pavement, Road Materials and Pavement Design, 18:2, 477-506, DOI:
10.1080/14680629.2016.1162731

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2016.1162731

Published online: 31 Mar 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 178

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=trmp20

Download by: [Islamic Azad University Bushehr Branch] Date: 16 May 2017, At: 22:07
Road Materials and Pavement Design, 2017
Vol. 18, No. 2, 477506, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2016.1162731

Utilisation of warm-mix asphalt technology to improve bituminous

mixtures containing reclaimed asphalt pavement
Sheri A. El Sharkawya , Abdallah H. Wahdanb and Sameh A. Galalc
a Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt; b Faculty
of Engineering, Al Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt; c Faculty of Engineering, Al Fayoum University, Al
Fayoum, Egypt

(Received 9 September 2015; accepted 2 March 2016 )

Pavement recycling is a logical way to conserve our diminishing supply of construction mate-
rials and reduce the cost of preserving our existing pavement. In this research road recycling
was discussed briey through a number of lab tests using Marshall test, Indirect Tensile (IDT)
test and Loaded Wheel Track Rutting (LWTR) test on Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP).
These tests were conducted to justify the properties and analyse the strength of RAP mix-
tures containing Sasobit material, which is considered a Warm-mix Asphalt Wax (WMAW)
to improve the characteristics of the mix, and reduce the standard viscosity temperature, bitu-
men amount and compaction temperature. The study used bitumen penetration grade (PG)
(60/70) produced by local Sues factories. The bituminous layer used was the wearing surface
layer. Samples for RAP were taken from CairoFayoum desert road. The virgin materials were
gathered and tested according to Egyptian specications. To achieve this goal, several samples
were considered for Marshall test and IDT test using dierent ratios of RAP (15%, 20%, 30%,
40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80% and 100%) with dierent amounts of WMAW (1.5% and 3%) and
taking dierent compaction temperatures (115, 125 and 135C). As for the LWTR test, the
samples were made with 15%, 20%, 60% and 80% RAP. The results were compared to the
standard mix (no WMAW at 135C compaction temperature). Laboratory results showed that
the use of RAP with WMAW resulted in improvement in compactability, increase in the soft-
ening point, reduction in penetration and increase in resistance to rutting. In addition, Analysis
of Variance (ANOVA) using SPSS software was also used to compare the means of results for
stability and air voids of Marshall test, IDT test and LWTR test to that of the standard mix.
The ANOVA analysis showed signicance in results when using the WMAW, and the most
signicant results were obtained when using 1.5% WMAW additive at a temperature of 125C
with 20% RAP mixture.
Keywords: reclaimed asphalt pavement; Marshall test; indirect tensile test; loaded wheel
track rutting test; Warm-mix asphalt wax; analysis of variance

1. Introduction
During the construction of new asphalt pavements, high production temperatures were tradition-
ally needed to make the asphalt binder uid during mixing to completely coat the aggregate and
have good workability during hauling, placement and compaction. Several new processes had
been developed to reduce the mixing and compaction temperatures of asphalt concretes without
sacricing the quality of the resulting pavement. One of these technologies was the warm-mix
asphalt (WMA) technology (EAPA, 2014).

*Corresponding author. Email: shireefadel@ymail.com

2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

478 S.A. El Sharkawy et al.

The term WMA technology was described as the reduction of temperature to the asphalt con-
cretes (HMA) pavement material and has the following advantages: reduction of paving costs,
extending the paving season, improvement of asphalt compaction and improvement of working
conditions by reducing exposure to fuel emissions, fumes, and odours. One of the applications
of WMA technology is Sasobit, which is an organic wax produced during coal gasication,
added to the binder with no mix modications. The melting point of the Warm-mix Asphalt Wax
(WMAW) is approximately 98C and it is completely dissolved in asphalt binder at a temperature
of 115C. It produces a reduction in binder viscosity. This enables production temperatures to be
reduced by 7C. At temperatures below its melting point, the WMAW forms a lattice structure
in the asphalt binder that is the basis for the reported stability of asphalt containing WMAW and
reported improvement in compatibility (Hurley & Prowell, 2005).
WMAW eect was studied on the amount of optimum bitumen content. The specimens
prepared by Marshall Compacter showed signicant reduction of air voids in compacted mix
containing WMAW. The additive was described in the research as a long-chain hydrocarbon. It
is an alkane with a chain length of 40115 carbon atoms produced by the coal extraction pro-
cess. It was demonstrated that WMAW had an excellent oxidation and ageing stability and can
be stored indenitely. In addition, the results showed an increase in stability in the case of voids
lled asphalt (VFA), while ow remained in the permissible ranges with the samples containing
WMAW (Ma Kridan, Arshad, & Rahman, 2011; Xui-wei & Xiao-Ning, 2006).
Marshall testing was also used to justify the properties of Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP)
using WMA technology with WMAW as an additive to the mix using less bitumen and com-
paction temperature considering the common asphalt types used in Egypt. To achieve these
goals, several samples were considered using dierent ratios of RAP (15%, 20%, 30%, 40%,
50, 60%, 70%, 80% and 100%) using dierent amounts of the WMA additive (1.5% and 3%)
under dierent compaction temperatures (115C, 125C and 135C). Finally, it was concluded
that the relationship between air voids and RAP ratio using WMAW could be used to compare
the results with the allowable tolerance of air voids that resulted in the elimination of ratios of
RAP beyond 25% due to the specication of wearing surface layer (El Sharakawy, Galal, &
Wahdan, 2014).
The eectiveness of WMA technology regarding WMAW on the optimum bitumen content
was also studied and a comparison was initiated between using WMAW and the control mix. To
full this purpose, two types of mixes had been produced by Marshall Method procedure. Each of
the mixes contained ve dierent bitumen contents ranging from 4% to 6% by weight of bitumen
at an interval of 0.5% in accordance with Malaysian public work department (PWD) Section 4
standard specications for road works. Volumetric properties such as bulk density (Gmb ), air
voids in compacted mix (AV), VFA as well as Marshall stability and ow were calculated to
determine the eect of WMAW on the amount of optimum bitumen content. The specimens
results which were prepared by Marshall Compacter showed signicant reduction in air voids in
compacted mix accompanied with adding WMAW on the mix in most cases (Ma Kridan et al.,
2011).
Further studies were carried out and used WMA design applications by using WMAW as an
additive. Three dierent mixing and compaction temperatures were selected (115C, 125C and
135C for mixing and 100C, 110C and 120C for compaction). For the control mix (without
WMAW), the mixing temperature was set at 155C and compaction temperature at 135C. Mar-
shall Method was used to produce all samples investigated to determine the suitable amount of
WMAW to be added into the asphaltic concrete mix. Five dierent concentrations of WMAW
were added, ranging from 1% to 3% by weight of the bitumen at intervals of 0.5%. The results
obtained showed that there were no substantial dierences in volumetric properties, stability val-
ues and stiness properties between the control mix and the WMAW-added mixes which were
 Road Materials and Pavement Design 479

produced at a mixing temperature of 135C. The WMAW mix produced at a mixing temperature
of 135C with WMAW concentration of 1.5% complied with all the specication criteria, while
other mixes, especially those which were produced at mixing temperatures of 125C and 115C,
did not meet the specication requirements compared to the control mix (Ma Kridan, Arshad, &
Rahman, 2010).
Furthermore, WMA mixtures containing 0%, 15%, 30%, 50% and 60% of RAP had been stud-
ied. The study was done using Marshall test, cyclic creep test and indirect tensile (IDT) test. It
was found that reaching to 60% RAP increased asphalt binders viscosity as a main factor of rut-
ting. Therefore Marshall Stability was increased and the ow values were decreased by 30.78%
in the 60% mixtures. In addition, the results showed minimum permissible tensile strength of
70% from the standard by using 50% RAP which was considered satisfying. The project used
penetration grade bitumen (AC 60/70). It was concluded that temperature increase caused an
increase in rutting potential. However, the mixtures with RAP were less sensitive to temperature
than virgin mixes (Nejad, Azarhoosh, Hamidi, & Roshanib, 2014a). Another study had used 75%
RAP with WMAW and dierent grades of additional virgin binder for base courses. The goal was
to create mixtures containing 75% RAP with similar performance properties to a control mix-
ture. The softer grades of additional asphalt were designed to lower the overall mix stiness of
the mixtures containing RAP (Mallick, Kandhal, & Bradbury, 2008).
Further research had been adopted studied the High RAP content mixes and determined
whether changing the binder grade or binder source aected the mix design volumetric prop-
erties and mix stiness. The study used one source which was signicant in dierence and an
optimum asphalt content (up to 0.5%) was obtained for virgin and 25% designs with dierent
binder grades and dierent binder sources were used. The experiments for WMA on RAP were
just made with limited RAP ratio up to 55% RAP and the temperature was decreased by 19C.
The WMA mix had only a slightly better performance in the rutting tests and the fatigue results
were similar to that of the HMA. The dynamic modulus test was performed and found to be
lower than the HMA by 6% to 15%. The results indicated that the dynamic modulus was signif-
icantly aected by RAP content and material type. In addition, by comparing the results to that
of the virgin mix, the stiness of 25% RAP mixes was about 3043% higher than that of virgin
mixes with dierences occurring in the temperature ranges. The 55% mixes were about 25% to
60% stier than the virgin mixes. The tensile strength of the samples was found to be higher than
that of the virgin mixes. The Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) had indicated that the total strain
was signicantly aected by the source of the material and the high performance grade of the
virgin binder, but not RAP content. The studies indicated that 30% RAP have been performing
equal to or better than virgin mixes for most measures of pavement performance, and overall
the overlays containing RAP had more path cracking, but the extent of cracking was acceptable
(West & Marasteanu, 2013).
IDT test had been used as a method for determining the tensile strength of a sample. The
optimum asphalt contents and volumetric properties were determined for each aggregate/binder
combination test; the samples were produced to evaluate the mixes ability to be compacted over
a range of temperatures. It was found that the results were all comparable or even better than that
of the standard mixes regarding IDT strength and dynamic modulus (Osullivan & Wall, 2009).
Other tests used wheel-tracking rutting tester on mixtures that resist permanent deformation.
The rutting created was measured by repeated passage of a wheel over a prismatic bituminous
concrete sample. The laboratory simulation of the rutting phenomenon had explained the actual
approach of pavement stress conditions so that the results obtained could provide one of the
selection criteria for the mix design. The sample used was put in a tester plate with dimensions
of 500 * 180 mm with a thickness of 50 mm. It was placed in a metal frame and rested on a steel
base plate. The assembly was placed in the rutting tester. The test was carried out on a sample
480 S.A. El Sharkawy et al.

taken from an actual pavement; however, the test plate was generally prepared in the laboratory
and compacted in its frame by using the laboratory-tired compactor using two-level compaction
procedures. The wheels of the tester were tted with smooth tires (400 8) inated to a pressure
of 6 105 Pa and loaded to 5000 N. Both wheels passed over the centre of the samples at
the same time. Load time at the centre of the plate was approximately 0.1 s, comparable with
roadway loading conditions. Pressure readings did not deviate from specied pressure by more
than 5%. The test temperature was selected for all bituminous concrete and the test temperature
was chosen to be relatively high to reproduce the most unfavourable pavement conditions.
Additional measurements were taken by using a depth gauge with a resolution of 0.1 mm; the
gauge reference point was linked to the sample-holder frame. The test was stopped after dierent
numbers of cycles to measure the rut. The thickness of the plate did not have a direct inuence
on the results, since it was at the same level of voids content. The benets from using the rutting
test have been described to reproduce the most severe loading conditions encountered on roads
and to reject or correct mixtures judged unstable, whose use might lead to a risk of rutting. It
was concluded that the rutting tester in its current form had made it possible to correctly specify
the proper selection criteria for mixtures resistant to rutting (Brosseaud, Delmore, & Hiernaux,
1992).
In addition, several researchers investigated a set of WMA mixtures that encompass a variety
of variables, including dierent WMA additives and three RAP contents (0%, 15% and 45%).
The compaction temperatures were chosen to comply with the manufacturer recommendations
as 125C and 135C, respectively. The authors had evaluated the low-temperature, cracking
behaviour of these mixtures in conjunction with moisture and rutting resistance characterisa-
tion. Low temperature testing of WMARAP mixtures was achieved through IDT testing. Test
results showed that chemical additives improved moisture susceptibility, fracture and bulk stress
relaxation. The authors used the Hamburg wheel-tracking test to evaluate the permanent defor-
mation characteristics of the HMA and WMA mixtures. It was found that the WMAW additive
performed the best among the WMA mixtures with regard to rutting resistance due to the sti-
ening characteristic of this particular organic additive. The introduction of RAP led to increased
resistance to permanent deformation and moisture damage. Furthermore, RAP reduced thermal
cracking resistance according to the low-temperature performance tests in both HMA and WMA
(Hill, Behnia, Buttlar, & Reis, 2013). High rap content was also tested in other pavement sur-
face layers of up to 25% RAP using WMAW as an additive in the RAP mixtures. The rutting
resistance was tested and found that high RAP WMA mixes were highly rut resistant and were
comparable to virgin mixes in most cases and that RAP aggregate does not absorb additional
asphalt. In addition, durability testing of aged specimens indicated that high RAP mixes might
be more prone to durability issues over time than control mixtures (Doyle & Howard, 2010).
Further lab testing was applied to study WMA with RAP increase from 50% to 100% in the
areas of rutting, moisture damage, durability, cracking and mixing uniformity. It was concluded
that mixtures with more than 50% RAP do not add value to the highway system and that WMA
with 50% RAP for use as base pavement layer performed adequately in all performance areas
investigated (Howard, Doyle, & Cox, 2013).

2. Problem statement and objectives

A road pavement has to be designed to guarantee an adequate response to the increase in the
severity of trac loads. In addition, pavements have to oer good surface quality, responding
to the demands of comfort and safety. However, even well-designed road pavements reach a
phase, at a certain point in their life, where their general condition demands the rehabilitation of
their structural and functional quality. The rehabilitation could be undertaken, as usual, through
 Road Materials and Pavement Design 481

an overlay, with one or more layers (bituminous in general), or by the improvement of their
characteristics, using pavement recycling.
The main aim of this research was to study the eect of using WMAW material with RAP
on the physical and mechanical properties of asphalt mix, to determine the optimum bitumen
content for the new RAP mix and to make a comparison between using standard mix and RAP
mix with the WMA additive based on experimental results using dierent ratios of RAP and
dierent ratios of WMAW. In this research Marshall test, IDT test and Loaded Wheel Track
Rutting (LWTR) test were selected to evaluate the properties of a mix. Marshall test was used to
study the mechanical properties of mixtures and the IDT strength test was used to determine the
tensile properties of asphalt concrete, which can be further related to the cracking properties of
the pavement. The IDT test was performed by applying compressive loads along a diametrical
plane through two opposite loading strips. The testing for LWTR was executed for ratio (15%,
25%, 60% and 80%) RAP to evaluate the rutting resistance for the mixtures.

3. Research methodology
3.1. Materials sampling and testing
In this research, the materials were sampled from actual reclaimed asphalt piles extracted from
Cairo Fayom desert road. Preparation and experimenting of the samples followed closely the
Marshall Procedure (ASTM D6926, 2007; ASTM D6931, 2007). The tests used in this study
were Marshall test, IDT test and rutting test after subjecting the samples to dierent compaction
temperatures (115C, 125C and 135C). The compaction temperatures were chosen based on
the following reasons. As for 115C, it was chosen based on the manufacturers manual which
stated that the decrease in compaction temperatures should not be less than 115C. In addition,
the experimental work resulted in cracks in the mixture when using compaction temperature
less than 115C due to weak bonding between aggregates and bitumen. As for 125C, lots of
previous researches regarding similar studies concluded that 125C was the least best compaction
temperature to be used. As for 135C, this was considered to be the maximum allowable and
ideal compaction temperature (ASTM D2493, 1995). Therefore, the research had to take all
three temperatures into consideration.
To achieve these aims, an experimental programme used dierent ratios of RAP (15%, 20%,
30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80% and 100%) and dierent ratios of WMAW (1.5% and 3%).
The Marshall method was used to determine the optimum bitumen content for conventional and
modied asphalt mixtures. Several identical samples were produced for each alternative. The
bitumen range was regulated according to the bitumen demand for each mixture. Flow, stability
and volumetric properties values were tabulated to explain the eect of using and not using
WMAW.
The IDT test was also used to determine the tensile properties of the asphalt concrete, which
could be further related to the cracking properties of the pavement. This test was performed by
applying compressive loads along a diametrical plane through two opposite loading strips and
by using a temperature control system like water bath capable of maintaining a temperature of
25C 1C. As for the LWTR test, the mixture types were the standard mix type and WMA mix
including RAP. The standard mix was also produced according to the Marshall test standards and
compacted by the mould compactor.
Furthermore, the mix was tested for rutting resistance using the wheel track rutting tester by
subjecting a rolling 738 N steel wheel on the specimen surface at 50 passes a minute; a total of
20,000 total passes were repeatedly rolled across the specimens surface while being submerged
in water at 50C. The temperature chosen was the maximum temperature a sample could be
482 S.A. El Sharkawy et al.

exposed to in summer regarding Egypts weather conditions. The samples used included dierent
RAP ratios (15%, 25%, 60% and 80%).
Finally, one-way ANOVA using SPSS software was used to compare the means of results for
stability and air voids of Marshall test, IDT test and rut depth of LWTR test of the standard mix
by calculating the variations due to RAP increase, ratio of WMAW increase and temperature
increase. The analysis used a signicance of 95% (Sig () < 0.05). The point of the technique
was to put test data together in groups obtained under similar conditions. It then looked at dif-
ferences and variabilities between dierent groups; then the technique showed which changes in
conditions produced abnormal changes in results. The changes were then considered statistically
signicant.
Generally, the analysis was conducted using several dierent independent variables such
as RAP percentage increase, WMAW ratio and temperature increase. Finally, a comparison
was made between standard mix and RAP mix with WMAW based on both experimental and
ANOVA analysis results.

4. Material selection
The materials used in this research were divided into three groups:

(1) Virgin materials, which consisted of coarse aggregates type 1 dolomite, ne aggregates
type 2 dolomite, crushed sand, natural sand, white ller and Bitumen PG (60/70) in order
to accomplish a standard mix for wearing surface.
(2) WMA additive material of dierent ratios was selected upon some tests.
(3) RAP material gathered from actual reclaimed asphalt piles extracted from CairoFayom
desert road. Eligibility testing was performed on the extracted materials to evaluate the
RAP content before performing any tests. The eligibility of RAP component material
was checked rst to examine the validity of these components.

4.1. Experimental work

In this research, the tests were divided into three groups, Marshall test, IDT test and rutting test
using LWTR test, but before performing these tests some eligibility tests were carried out for the
materials used in these tests.
Tests were applied in order to design a standard mix which was compared using the Marshall
procedure, but rst some eligibility tests were run as a standard procedure before mix design.

4.2. Eligibility tests applied on materials

The tests done were sieve analysis on the aggregates, sand and white ller; abrasion test; resis-
tance to abrasion of small size coarse aggregates by use of Los Angeles machine, aggregate
specic gravity and absorption test, and Bitumen adhesion test.
Sieve analysis test was performed on aggregate components to satisfy specications according
to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Ocials (AASHTO). Table 1
summarises the results of sieve analysis of the materials in the mixture obtained for design control
mix. Several trials were made to obtain the best mix ratio that satises the specications accord-
ing to AASHTO. From Table 1 it can be noticed that the percentages of dierent components of
the aggregates and in turn the total sum of components achieved the specications of wearing
surface layers. The mould used in the experiments regarding the standard mix weighed 1100 g,
which consisted of coarse aggregates (Type 2) 385 g, ne aggregates (Type1) 209 g, natural sand
 Road Materials and Pavement Design 483

Table 1. Grading envelope of the aggregates used for the standard mixture.
Course Fine Specications
aggregates aggregates Natural Crushed White for design
Specimens Type 2 Type 1 sand sand ller Sum control layer 4C

Ratio (%)
Sieve
number 19 35 21 21 4 100 100

% passing sieve 100 19 100 35 100 21 100 21 100 4 100 100

1
% passing sieve 70.2 13.34 100 35 100 21 100 21 100 4 94.3 80 100
3/4
% passing sieve 6.1 1.16 94.4 33.04 100 21 100 21 100 4 80.2
1/2
% passing sieve 2.3 0.44 65.5 22.93 100 21 100 21 100 4 69.4 60 80
3/8
% passing sieve 0.8 0.15 17.6 6.16 100 21 100 21 100 4 52.3 48 65
no. 4
% passing sieve 4.5 1.58 95 19.95 81 17.01 100 4 42.5 35 50
no. 8
% passing sieve 2.1 0.74 58 12.18 46 9.66 100 4 26.6 19 36
no. 30
% passing sieve 1.2 0.42 14 2.94 33 6.93 100 4 14.3 13 23
no. 50
% passing sieve 0.6 0.21 6 1.26 23 4.83 85 3.4 9.7 7 15
no. 100
% passing sieve 0.2 0.07 2 0.42 11 2.31 65 2.6 5.4 3 8
no. 200

231 g, crushed sand 231 g and white ller 44 g. Other tests such as crushing test, absorption and
specic gravity of material, Los Angeles (LA) abrasion loss test, bitumen adhesion test, liquid
limit and plastic limit are summarised in Table 2.

4.3. Marshall test

One of the functions for Marshall testing is that it provides the performance prediction mea-
surement. The stability portion of the test measured the maximum load supported by the test
specimen at a loading rate of 50.8 mm/minute. Basically, the load was increased until it reached
its maximum and then when the load just began to decrease, the loading was stopped and the
maximum load was recorded. During the loading, an attached dial gauge measured the speci-
mens ow as a result of the loading. The ow value was recorded in 0.25 mm increments at the
same time the maximum load was recorded. The Marshall test was performed using 4%, 4.5%,
5%, 5.5% and 6% asphalt ratio. The number of samples used was 15 (three samples for each
bitumen ratio). Results were obtained for stability, ow, air voids ratio and voids lled with bitu-
men (VMA).The apparatus was rst calibrated, and the correction factor used for volumes from
471 to 482 cm3 is 1.14, which gives 58.7 mm sample thickness, and as for volumes from 483 to
495 cm3 it is 1.09, which gives a sample thickness of 60.3 mm.
The results of ow and stability due to Marshall tester are summarised in Table 3 along with
other criteria such as specimens weight in air, submerged weight after 2 min, weight of speci-
men in water, volume of specimen, unit weight of specimen, average specic gravity, theoretical
specic gravity air voids ratio (VFA) and voids lled with bitumen (VMA) for dierent bitu-
men asphalt contents. The optimum bitumen content was concluded from design curves to be
484 S.A. El Sharkawy et al.

Table 2. Eligibility tests results for materials.

Crushing test

Aggregates Aggregates Egyptian

Specimens type 2 type 1 specications

Crushing ratio (%) 0.3 0.5 Not more than 1%

Absorption and specic gravity of material

Aggregates Aggregates Natural Crushed White Egyptian

Specimens type 2 type 1 sand sand ller specications

Absorption (%) 2.15 2.25 Not more than 5%

Total unit weight 2.583 2.56
(g/cm3 )
Dry unit weight 2.64 2.62 2.65 2.79 2.89
(g/cm3 )
Apparent unit 2.74 2.72
weight (g/cm3 )

Los Angeles (L.A.) abrasion loss test

Aggregates type 2 Aggregates type 1 Egyptian

Specimens (course aggregates) (ne aggregates) specications

Abrasion ratio after 100 rounds (%) 5.1 6.2 Not more than 10%
Abrasion ratio after 500 rounds (%) 21.9 24.7 Not more than 40%
Bitumen adhesion test
Aggregates type 2 Aggregates type 1 Egyptian
(course aggregates) (ne aggregates) specications

Result Samples have a good Samples have a good Good adhesion

adhesion with bitumen adhesion with bitumen with bitumen
Liquid limit and plastic limit (passing from sieve 40)

Result of test (eye inspection) None None

No separation between bitumen and aggregate particles, then the sample adheres well with bitumen

(5 + 0.3) from the entire design mix, and other criteria are summarised in Table 4 according to
specications of Egyptian code.

4.4. Recycled mix properties

The recycled mix was obtained from CairoFayoum desert road from several piles that were
put on the side of the road. Randomly heavy packs of RAP were collected and tested in the
laboratory. Several experiments were conducted to dierentiate between using standard mix and
recycled mix added by dierent amounts of WMAW.

4.5. The bitumen content of RAP mix

An extraction test was performed to determine the bitumen content of the RAP mix obtained
from CairoFayoum road (ASTM, 2172, 2007) and to separate the asphalt aggregate mixture.
Hence the asphalt content determined in the laboratory for the RAP mix was found to be 5.19%,
Table 3. Laboratory mix design from Marshall test for standard mixture.
Specimen number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Bitumen ratio (%) 4 4.5 5 5.5 6

Specimens weight in air (g) 1138.8 1142.8 1144.1 1148.1 1154.2 1153.1 1159.6 1150.6 1150.9 1162 1149.6 1168.2 1157.1 1149.4 1159.8
Submerged weight after 2 1140.4 1144.4 1146.4 1148.7 1155 1154.6 1160 1151.5 1151.5 1162.5 1150.4 1168.8 1157.5 1149.7 1160
minutes (g)
Weight of specimen in 657.7 656 661.4 666.3 668 666.4 677.8 670.9 671 676.1 669.6 679.2 672.1 663.7 673.7
water (g)
Volume of specimen (cm3 ) 482.7 488.4 485 482.4 487 488.2 482.2 480.6 480.5 486.4 480.1 489.6 485.4 486 486.3
Density of specimen 2.36 2.34 2.36 2.38 2.37 2.36 2.41 2.39 2.4 2.39 2.39 2.39 2.38 2.37 2.39
(g/cm3 )

Road Materials and Pavement Design

Average Density 2.353 2.371 2.398 2.388 2.378
Theoretical specic gravity 2.517 2.5 2.483 2.466 2.45
(g/cm3 )
Air voids ratio (A.V) (%) 6.52 5.16 3.42 3.16 2.94
Voids lled with bitumen 15.36 15.12 14.56 15.32 16.07
(VMA) (%)
Average Marshall stability 1067 1131 1253 1075 1037
(Mg)
Flow (mm) 2.3 2.2 2 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.8 2.7 3 3 3 3.5 3.4 3.5
Average ow (mm) 2.17 2.37 2.67 3 3.47

485
486 S.A. El Sharkawy et al.

Table 4. Optimum physical and mechanical properties of the mixture

from Marshall test.

Design criteria Final result Specications

The specic gravity for mix 2.4 g/cm3

Marshall stability 1253 Mg Not less 0.90 Mg
Flow 2.7 mm 2 4
Air voids 3.4% 3 4
Voids mineral aggregates 14.56% Not less than 14%

while the design percentage was 5.0% bitumen. This error can be explained due to various causes
such as spilling of the mixture of bitumen and solvent during centrifuging, during weighting
of aggregate and bitumen itself. The recycled mix was subjected to bitumen extraction test at
dierent ratios (15%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80% and 100%) of RAP to determine
the bitumen ratio of the mixes.

4.6. Sieve analysis for RAP mix

Sieve analysis was carried out to clarify if all the ratios of the collected mix were within the
permissible values when changing the RAP mixes ratio by 15%, 20%, 30, 40%, 50%, 60%,
70%, 80% and 100% as summarised in Table 5, and the RAP classication was as follows:
course aggregates 21.7%, ne aggregates 33.7%, sand 40% and ller 4.6%. The results indicated
that the RAP gradation was within the permissible ranges and equivalent to the upper wearing
surface layer according to specications, which meant that Marshall test, IDT test and LWTR
test could be carried out on these various mixes without the concern that these mixes would not
be homogeneous when adding them to virgin materials.
The distribution of RAP in the dierent percentages of the mixture was according to the
equivalent weight of each aggregate; then the weight was subtracted from the original weight
of aggregates in the standard mixture. The distribution followed the specications regarding the
upper wearing surface layer (ASTM D692, 2007).

4.7. Using WMAW with RAP mix

The accomplishment of this research was based upon the assurance of the eligibility of materials
used in the laboratory tests with RAP. In this research, the ratio chosen for the WMAW were
0, 1.5% and 3% with dierent RAP ratios (15%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80% and
100%). Then a new asphalt mix was produced using these materials at dierent temperatures
115C, 125C and 135C and the mix was evaluated using bitumen tests, Marshall test, IDT test
and rutting test as laboratory tests.

4.8. Using WMAW with bitumen

Bitumen tests were performed with and without using the WMA additive to study the eects of
the additive on the properties of bitumen along with studying the most suitable ratio of WMAW
to be added.

4.9. Eligibility tests for bitumen

Several tests were carried out with the bitumen to suggest the most suitable ratio for adding
WMAW to the mix. The kind of bitumen used was the common kind that contractors use for
Table 5. Grading envelope for the aggregates used in dierent RAP mixtures regarding the CairoFayoum road.
Mixture type

Design curve

100%
Sieve Standard 100% 85% 15 % 80% 20 % 70% 30 % 60% 40 % 50% 50% 40% 60 % 30% 70 % 20% 80 % Speci-
number mix RAP Standard RAP Total Standard RAP Total Standard RAP Total Standard RAP Total Standard RAP Total Standard RAP Total Standard RAP Total Standard RAP Total cations

% passing 100 100 85 15 100 80 20 100 70 30 100 60 40 100 50 50 100 40 60 100 30 70 100 20 80 100 100
sieve 1
% passing 94.3 100 80.2 15 95.2 75.4 20 95.4 66 30 96 56.6 40 96.6 47.2 50 97.2 27.7 60 97.7 28.3 70 98.3 18.9 80 98.9 80 100
sieve 3/4
% passing 69.4 78.3 59 11.7 70.7 55.5 15.7 71.2 48.6 23.5 72.1 41.6 31.3 72.9 34.7 39.2 73.9 27.8 47 74.8 20.8 54.8 75.6 13.9 62.6 76.5 60 80
sieve 3/8
% passing 52.3 57.6 44.5 8.6 53.1 41.8 11.5 53.3 36.6 17.3 53.9 31.4 23 54.4 26.2 28.8 55 20.9 34.6 55.5 15.7 40.3 56 10.5 46.1 56.6 48 65
sieve
no. 4

Road Materials and Pavement Design

% passing 42.5 44.6 36.1 6.7 42.8 34 8.9 42.9 29.8 13.4 43.2 25.5 17.8 43.3 21.3 22.3 43.6 17 26.8 43.8 12.6 31.2 43.8 8.5 35.7 44.2 35 50
sieve
no. 8
% passing 26.6 32.5 22.6 4.9 27.5 21.3 6.5 27.8 19.6 9.8 28.4 16 13 29 13.3 16.3 29.6 10.6 19.5 30.1 8 22.8 30.8 5.3 26 31.3 19 36
sieve
no. 30
% passing 14.3 17.2 12.2 2.6 14.8 11.4 3.4 14.8 10 5.2 15.2 8.6 6.9 15.5 7.2 8.6 15.8 5.7 10.3 16 4.3 12 16.3 2.9 13.8 16.7 13 23
sieve
no. 50
% passing 9.7 8.3 8.2 1.2 9.4 7.8 1.7 9.5 6.8 2.5 9.3 5.8 3.3 9.1 4.9 4.2 9.1 3.9 5 8.9 2.9 5.8 8.7 1.9 6.6 8.5 7 15
sieve
no. 100
% passing 5.4 4.6 4.6 0.7 5.3 4.3 0.9 5.2 3.8 1.4 5.2 3.2 1.8 5 2.7 2.3 5 2.2 2.8 5 1.6 3.2 4.8 1.1 3.7 4.8 3 8
sieve no.
200

487
488 S.A. El Sharkawy et al.

Table 6. Dierent tests for bitumen incorporating WMA additive by dierent percentages.

Type of sample
Bitumen (B)
without
Sasobit (S) B + 1.5%S B + 3.0%S B + 3.5%S

Penetration test (25C, 100 gm, 5 s),0.1 mm 56 44 36 30

Kinematic viscosity (at 135C) centistoke 339 290 241 216
Absolute viscosity (at 60C) poise 1522 1522 1522 1522
softening point (ring and ball) C 52 56 87 92
Ductility test (at 25C, 5 cm/min) cm + 100 + 100 + 100 + 100
The ash point test (The Cleveland Open Cup) C + 250 + 250 + 250 + 250
Solubility test on bitumen (using 99.9 99.0 99.0 99.9
trichloroethylene) %
Residual after heating 0.3 0.39 0.4 0.39
Penetration test on the residual after heating (% 69 70 77 80
from the original penetration)
Ductility test for residual after heating (at 25C, + 100 + 100 + 100 + 100
5 cm/min)

projects in Egypt. The bitumen chosen for this testing was the Sues bitumen (6070) because the
wax ratio and tests made on it conrmed that the quality of this type is the most suitable kind to
be used in road projects. The tests made were on three ratios of WMAW added to bitumen: 1.5%,
3% and 3.5%. The results were compared to that of bitumen without addition of WMAW. The
tests were conducted in the Institute of Petroleum Research in Cairo. The results for these tests
are summarised in Table 6. Figure 1 shows the relationship between temperature and viscosity to
estimate the ideal temperature for 1.5% and 3% WMAW with bitumen that meets 280 Centistoke
viscosity which was considered ideal for bitumen 60/70 used in Egypt.
By studying the relationship between viscosity and temperature with 1.5% and 3.0% WMAW,
it was observed that 280 centistoke viscosity was considered ideal to use at temperature of
132C for compacting and workability. From Figure 1, a range of temperature could be accepted
from 125C to 135C due to dierent assumptions for the tting curve. Marshall test and IDT
test were run at dierent temperatures as 115C, 125C and 135C to study the behaviour
of samples towards the change in temperature, WMA additive ratio and dierent amounts
of RAP.

4.10. WMAW percentages selection

Table 6 indicates that the softening point of the sample which includes 3.5% WMAW reached
92C, which indicated diculty in workability and compaction for the sample and non-
homogeneous state for the mix. In addition, the manufacturer recommended that the rates
should not exceed 3% because of stiening eects at low temperatures. For these reasons, the
percentages selected in this study were 1.5% and 3%.

4.11. Marshall test for RAP

Several mixes were made with dierent ratios of recycled mixes as follows: 15%, 20%, 30%,
40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80% and 100% with dierent ratios of WMA additive (0%, 1.5% and
3.0%). The tests were performed by dierentiating each element for every sample and then
comparing the results to that of the standard mix.
 Road Materials and Pavement Design 489

Figure 1. Relation between viscosity and temperature by adding 1.5% and 3.0% WMAW.

For the sample preparation, the experiments were handled at three dierent temperatures
115C, 125C and 135C to realise the eects of WMAW on the mix at a lower temperature state.
After the sieve analysis gradation for the RAP mix, the aggregates and bitumen were heated and
weighed separately up to 170C. The RAP content was also weighed and mixed with the standard
mix, then the compaction temperature was adjusted by using a thermometer and then the mix-
ture was arranged and transferred to the compaction mould on the Marshall compactor. Then the
samples were subjected to 75 blows on the top side of the specimen mix with a standard hammer
(47.66N), and the samples were reversed and given 75 blows again. Then the mould with sam-
ples were cooled and kept at room temperature for 24 h. Later the samples were removed from
the mould by gentle pushing. The next day the samples were weighed in air, soaked in water
and then weighed after 2 min. Finally, the sample was soaked in a water bath at a temperature
of 60C for half an hour. At least three samples were prepared by the same method with vary-
ing quantities of bitumen, RAP and compaction temperature. Finally, the samples were tested
490 S.A. El Sharkawy et al.

Table 7. Mechanical Properties of dierent mixtures of RAP from Marshall test.

No Sasobit 1.5% Sasobit 3.0% Sasobit

Temperature (C) Temperature (C) Temperature (C)
RAP (%) Test 115 125 135 115 125 135 115 125 135

0 Marshall stability (Mg) 1035 1153 1276 1218 1322 1470 1329 1494 1565
Flow (mm) 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.6
15 Marshall stability (Mg) 1205 1305 1520 1340 1441 1545 1479 1641 1685
Flow (mm) 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.6
20 Marshall stability (Mg) 1287 1388 1567 1471 1572 1631 1582 1706 1790
Flow (mm) 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.6
30 Marshall stability (Mg) 1416 1529 1690 1562 1663 1727 1683 1783 1908
Flow (mm) 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.6
40 Marshall stability (Mg) 1562 1685 1856 1679 1773 1860 1848 1958 2058
Flow (mm) 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.5
50 Marshall stability (Mg) 1747 1864 1994 1870 1976 2042 1950 2053 2133
Flow (mm) 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.5
60 Marshall stability (Mg) 1872 2008 2089 1952 2094 2143 2063 2167 2208
Flow (mm) 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.4
70 Marshall stability (Mg) 2015 2158 2287 2102 2307 2375 2283 2392 2439
Flow (mm) 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.4
80 Marshall stability (Mg) 2115 2300 2404 2296 2424 2447 2300 2414 2463
Flow (mm) 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.3
100 Marshall stability (Mg) 2229 2385 2427 2375 2479 2503 2403 2506 2542
Flow (mm) 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.4

with the Marshall Apparatus to record the stability and ow. The tests results are summarised in
Table 7 and the volumetric properties for dierent RAP mixtures are summarised in Table 8.

4.12. Analysis of Marshall testing

4.12.1. Analysis of the result
The eect of changing RAP ratio, WMAW and temperature on stability, air voids and unit
weight was examined and is illustrated in Figures 24, respectively. From Figures 24 it can
be noticed that by changing the ratio of RAP, WMAW and temperature, the results varied as
follows.

Changing RAP ratio Increasing RAP ratio from 0% to 15% (decreasing standard mix ratio
from 100% to 85%) led to increasing stability by approximately 10.06% at temperature 125C
and 0% WMA additive as shown in Figure 5, but the air voids ratio increased by approximately
15.19%. Increasing the RAP ratio from 0% to 20% led to increasing stability by approximately
21.00%, but the variation regarding air voids increased by 37.0% for the same conditions as
shown in Figure 6.

Eect of changing WMAW ratio On the other hand, changing the WMAW ratio from 0% to
1.5% led to increasing stability by approximately 11.03% at temperature 125C and 15% RAP
as shown in Figure 5. The air voids variation ratio increased by 16.66% for the same conditions.
In addition, changing the WMAW ratio from 0% to 3.0% led to increasing stability by approx-
imately 5.14% at temperature 125C and 15% RAP as shown in Figure 5. The variation in air
voids ratio increased by 18.59% for the same conditions as shown in Figure 6.
 Road Materials and Pavement Design 491

Table 8. Volumetric properties of dierent mixtures of RAP from Marshall test.

No Sasobit 1.5% Sasobit 3.0% Sasobit

Temperature (C) Temperature (C) Temperature (C)
RAP
(%) Marshall properties 115 125 135 115 125 135 115 125 135

0 Unit weight (Gbulk ) g/cm3 2.36 2.37 2.38 2.37 2.38 2.39 2.38 2.39 2.41
Air voids (A.V) (%) 4.75 4.26 3.82 4.43 3.82 3.46 3.94 3.46 2.81
Voids mineral Agg. (VMA) (%) 14.71 14.28 13.89 14.43 13.89 13.56 13.99 13.56 12.98
(VFA) (%) 67.70 70.11 72.45 69.29 72.45 74.46 71.80 74.46 78.29
15 Unit weight (Gbulk ) g/cm3 2.35 2.36 2.38 2.36 2.37 2.38 2.37 2.38 2.39
Air voids (A.V) (%) 5.03 4.83 4.14 4.75 4.43 3.94 4.55 4.10 3.62
Voids mineral Agg. (VMA) (%) 14.36 14.17 13.56 14.10 13.81 13.37 13.92 13.52 13.08
(VFA) (%) 64.93 65.90 69.40 63.44 67.92 70.49 67.31 69.62 72.30
20 Unit weight (Gbulk ) g/cm3 2.32 2.34 2.35 2.34 2.35 2.36 2.34 2.36 2.37
Air voids (A.V) (%) 6.20 5.71 5.27 5.71 5.03 4.75 5.47 4.83 4.47
Voids mineral agg. (VMA) (%) 15.21 14.77 14.37 14.77 14.15 13.89 14.55 13.97 13.64
(VFA) (%) 59.21 61.28 63.28 61.28 64.42 65.80 62.36 65.40 67.23
30 Unit weight (Gbulk ) g/cm3 2.31 2.32 2.33 2.32 2.33 2.34 2.33 2.33 2.34
Air voids (A.V) (%) 6.60 6.40 6.08 6.36 6.08 5.75 6.08 5.79 5.43
Voids mineral agg. (VMA) (%) 15.16 14.98 14.69 14.94 14.69 14.39 14.69 14.43 14.10
(VFA) (%) 56.44 57.25 58.59 57.41 58.59 59.99 58.59 59.81 61.44
40 Unit weight (Gbulk ) g/cm3 2.32 2.33 2.34 2.331 2.33 2.34 2.34 2.34 2.36
Air voids (A.V) (%) 6.48 6.16 5.75 6.12 5.79 5.51 5.75 5.39 4.87
Voids mineral agg. (VMA) (%) 14.64 14.35 13.98 14.31 14.01 13.76 13.98 13.65 13.17
(VFA) (%) 55.71 57.05 58.80 57.22 58.62 59.89 58.80 60.46 63.00
50 Unit weight (Gbulk ) g/cm3 2.33 2.33 2.34 2.33 2.34 2.35 2.34 2.35 2.37
Air voids (A.V) (%) 6.16 5.88 5.63 5.92 5.55 5.15 5.47 5.03 4.55
Voids mineral agg. (VMA) (%) 13.93 13.67 13.45 13.71 13.37 13.00 13.30 12.89 12.45
(VFA) (%) 55.76 56.98 58.07 56.81 58.44 60.36 58.82 60.95 63.45
60 Unit weight (Gbulk ) g/cm3 2.33 2.34 2.34 2.34 2.35 2.35 2.35 2.36 2.37
Air voids (A.V) (%) 5.88 5.71 5.39 5.63 5.31 4.99 5.23 4.67 4.35
Voids mineral Agg. (VMA) (%) 13.25 13.10 12.80 13.02 12.73 12.43 12.65 12.13 11.84
(VFA) (%) 55.61 56.34 57.84 56.71 58.23 59.82 58.62 61.49 63.25
70 Unit weight (Gbulk ) g/cm3 2.34 2.35 2.35 2.35 2.36 2.37 2.36 2.37 2.38
Air voids (A.V) (%) 5.67 5.35 5.07 5.15 4.63 4.47 4.59 4.22 3.94
Voids mineral Agg.(VMA) (%) 12.63 12.33 12.07 12.15 11.66 11.51 11.62 11.29 11.03
(VFA) (%) 55.05 56.57 57.97 57.56 60.29 61.17 60.50 62.54 64.21
80 Unit weight (Gbulk ) g/cm3 2.35 2.35 2.36 2.35 2.36 2.38 2.36 2.37 2.38
Air voids (A.V) (%) 5.31 5.03 4.75 4.99 4.63 4.14 4.71 4.35 3.82
Voids mineral Agg. (VMA) (%) 11.86 11.60 11.34 11.56 11.22 10.77 11.30 10.96 10.47
(VFA) (%) 55.18 56.60 58.08 56.81 58.74 61.50 58.30 60.32 63.47
100 Unit weight (Gbulk ) g/cm3 2.34 2.35 2.36 2.35 2.36 2.37 2.35 2.365 2.378
Air voids (A.V) (%) 5.43 5.23 4.91 5.07 4.75 4.47 5.03 4.75 4.22
Voids mineral Agg. (VMA) (%) 11.09 10.90 10.60 10.75 10.45 10.19 10.72 10.45 9.96
(VFA) (%) 50.99 51.99 53.66 52.81 54.53 56.11 53.02 54.53 57.54

Eect of changing Temperature Furthermore, by increasing the temperature from 115C to

125C in a mix with 15% RAP, the stability values increased by approximately 10.06% and the
variation regarding air voids decreased by approximately 15.19%. In addition, by increasing the
temperature from 125C to 135C, the stability increased by 11.78% and the air voids decreased
by approximately 8.42%.
The Egyptian code for road construction states that the ratio of air voids for the wearing sur-
face ranges from 3% to 5%. Therefore, from Figure 2, it was concluded that the ratios of RAP
492 S.A. El Sharkawy et al.

Figure 2. Relation between RAP content ratio and air voids with dierent ratios of WMAW.

higher than 5% or less than 3% should be excluded. The Egyptian code for highways and bridges
classied the trac in Egypt into three categories: light, medium and heavy trac, according to
the value of stability. On the other hand, using WMAW with the RAP mix increased the stability
as shown in Figure 7. Furthermore, this conclusion was used to validate the road requirement
design criteria in a manner so that the category of the road could be improved to the higher class.
Furthermore, adding WMAW to the mix aected extremely the properties of the mix. In addition,
the air void decreased with the increase in RAP ratio.
In addition, the variations in stability and air voids are shown in Figures 4 and 5. It was shown
that mixtures containing RAP and WMAW were likely close to the standard mixtures and even
gave better results. The phenomenon of increasing stability and decreasing air voids due to RAP
increase and adding WMAW is likely due to the ageing of asphalt and increased number of load
repetitions along the years, which aected the results increasingly. In addition, increasing the
temperature also had its positive eect on the asphalt mix properties.

4.13. Analysis for Marshall testing using ANOVA

To study the results from a statistical point of view, the SPSS program was used to evaluate the
variation in RAP increase due to variations in temperature and WMAW. The data were studied
 Road Materials and Pavement Design 493

Figure 3. Relation between RAP content ratio and unit weight with dierent ratios of WMAW.

using the one-way ANOVA technique with respect to 95% signicance ( < 0.05). The results
are illustrated in Table 10.
Table 10 summarises the one-way ANOVA technique for all mixes by calculating the varia-
tion in RAP ratio increase compared to the standard mix (with no WMAW at 135C), taking into
consideration the temperature and WMAW ratio variations. In addition, Table 9 also summarises
that the most signicant results appeared in the mix containing 1.5% WMA additive with 20%
RAP at 125C compared to the other mixes which included bitumen content of 3.75%. In addi-
tion, there was no signicance in results of the mix containing 1.5% WMAW at 115C. To add
to the study, the one-way ANOVA technique was also used to study the WMA additive eect
compared to that of the standard mix due to RAP increase at a constant temperature of 115C,
125C and 135C compared to the standard mix. The results are summarised in Table 10.
From Table 10, the results indicate non-signicance of the sample due to WMAW increase at
115C compared to the standard mix at the same temperature. From Table 10 the results indicate
the signicance of the mix containing 1.5% WMAW at 125C ( = 0.048 < 0.05), but on the
other hand the results with the mix containing 3.0% WMAW showed no signicance. In Table
10 the mixes at 135C also indicated signicance in results, but it is preferable to use lower
temperature due to energy conservation. Therefore, it was recommended to use mixes containing
1.5% WMAW at 125C and 20% RAP as a result from Marshall testing. In addition, the optimum
bitumen content for this mix was estimated to be 3.75%. Finally, it is concluded that WMAW
improved compactability of the RAP mix by lowering the air voids of the mix.

5. IDT test
As a way of describing the apparatus, it is cylindrical with specimen loaded diametrically across
the circular cross section. The loading causes tensile deformation perpendicular to the loading
494 S.A. El Sharkawy et al.

Figure 4. Variation in stability compared to the standard mix (%).

direction, which yields a tensile failure. The IDT test was determined by measuring the ultimate
load to failure of a specimen which is subjected to a constant deformation rate of 50.8 mm/min
on its diametrical axis according to ASTM D6931. The moulds were prepared in the same way
as in Marshall testing, but with a slight modication done to the Marshall Apparatus exactly to
the breaking point part by removing the Marshall Jaw crusher and replacing it with IDT tests.
The IDT test was performed using dierent mixtures with the same ratio of RAP as done in the
Marshall test.

5.1. IDT test results

A large number of samples were tested using the IDT test. The tests used 15%, 20%, 30%,
40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80% and 100% RAP considering dierent ratios of WMAW (0%, 1.5%
and 3.0%) under dierent compaction temperatures (115C, 125C and 135C). The results are
shown in Figure 6.

5.2. Analysis of the results using laboratory test

Figure 6 illustrates the eect of changing the RAP ratio, WMAW and temperature on the results
of the IDT test. From Figure 8, it can be noticed that for 15% RAP and 85% virgin mix
 Road Materials and Pavement Design 495

Figure 5. Variation in air voids compared to the standard mix (%).

when using 1.5% WMAW, the tensile strength increased by approximately 7.57% at tempera-
ture 125C. In addition, increasing the WMAW ratio by 3%, the tensile strength increased by
approximately 17.93% at 125C when compared to 0% RAP. On the other hand, by increas-
ing the RAP ratio by 70%, the tensile strength value increased by approximately 67.66% when
adding 1.5% WMAW. Likewise by adding WMAW by 3.0% to the mix, the tensile strength value
increased also by 78.48% at 125C.
Furthermore, by increasing the temperature from 125C to 135C with 15% RAP and 1.5%
WMAW, the tensile strength value increased by approximately 1.63% when compared to that
of the standard mix. In addition by increasing the RAP by 70% with 1.5% WMAW, the tensile
strength increase reached approximately 61.88%. In addition when the RAP ratio increased from
15% to 20% at 125C and 1.5% WMAW, the tensile strength increased by 17.09% and by adding
3% WMAW, the tensile strength increased at 125C to reach 22.21%. It can be noticed that
changing the WMAW ratio from 1.5% to 3.0% had a slight improvement in the tensile strain
resistance as shown in Figure 8. Finally, it can be concluded that much higher ratio of RAP causes
much higher stiness, which results in cracking and compaction problems. Addition of WMAW
improved the compactability of the RAP mix by lowering its air voids. The use of WMAW with
RAP at 125C increased the testing results to nearly the same as that of the standard mixes at
higher temperatures.
496 S.A. El Sharkawy et al.

Figure 6. IDT values according to calculations for all ratios of RAP.

5.3. Analysis for IDT testing using ANOVA

In addition, the one-way ANOVA analysis by SPSS program was used to compare the results
to that of the standard mix (with no WMAW at 135C) by dierentiating the temperature and
WMAW ratio in a statistical matter. The signicance taken was 95% ( < 0.05), just like in the
Marshall test. The results are summarised in Table 11.
In addition, Table 11 also shows that the most signicance in results appear in the mix con-
taining 1.5% RAP at 125C compared to other mixes. Also non-signicance can be found in
results of the mix containing 1.5% WMAW at 115C. In addition, statistical hypothesis testing
was done by applying the one-way ANOVA technique to study the WMAW eect compared to
the standard mix due to RAP increase in an equal temperature of 115C, 125C and 135C. The
results are summarised in Table 12.
From Table 12, the results indicate signicance in results due to WMAW increase at 115C
and mixtures containing 1.5% and 3.0% WMAW at 125C ( = 0.048 < 0.05) compared to
the standard mix at the same temperature, unlike the mixtures containing 1.5% and 3.0% of
WMAW at 135C. As a result, it is preferable to use lower temperature due to energy conserva-
tion. Therefore, it is recommended to use mixes containing 1.5% WMAW at 125C like in the
Marshall test.
 Road Materials and Pavement Design 497

Figure 7. Relation between RAP content ratio and stability values with dierent ratios of WMAW.

6. LWTR test apparatus

Sample preparation followed the same procedure as in Marshall testing through sieve analysis
for both virgin material and RAP. The mix was heated at 150C and remaining weight of virgin
bitumen from design Marshall was added. Then the new bitumen was blended with RAP in order
to coat the new aggregates with the old ones. The WMAW was dissolved into the hot asphalt
prior to mixing. It was added to the heated asphalt 1520 min prior to mixing and stirred often
to completely dissolve it in the asphalt binder. The solution of WMAW and asphalt was then
poured on top of the heated aggregate inside the bucket mixer and mixed. Rut depths, number of
passes, and water bath temperature were then collected and recorded.
The mould used was dierent from that used in the Marshall test, and had dimensions of
35 cm * 25 cm * 5 cm in order to t the LWTR test apparatus. The air void ratio chosen for the
sample to meet was 5% as maximum air voids applicable for wearing surface specications.
Since the desired air voids ratio was already decided and the volume of the mould was known,
then the weight of the sample could be calculated. The weight of the sample was conducted by
the following calculation to follow Gmm testing. Weight of sample in mould = A * B * C, where
A is the maximum specic gravity for the sample obtained from Gmm testing, B is the volume
498 S.A. El Sharkawy et al.

Table 9. Output from SPSS program showing one-way ANOVA analysis regarding RAP ratio variation
due to Marshall test results compared to the standard mix.
Sum of Degree of Mean
Mix content squares freedom (Df) square F Sig.

Sasobit3.0%_135C Between groups 9679.84 24 403.33 40.722 0.02

Within groups 19.81 2 9.90
Total 9699.65 26
Sasobit1.5%_135C Between groups 14020.99 24 584.21 58.964 0.02
Within groups 19.82 2 9.91
Total 14040.81 26
Sasobit3.0%_125C Between groups 11509.94 24 479.58 55.010 0.02
Within groups 17.44 2 8.72
Total 11527.38 26
Sasobit1.5%_125C Between groups 12619.71 24 525.82 185.187 0.01
Within groups 5.68 2 2.84
Total 12625.39 26
NoSasobit_125C Between groups 24240.83 24 1010.04 36.576 0.03
Within groups 55.23 2 27.62
Total 24296.06 26
Sasobit3.0%_115C Between groups 17131.15 24 713.8 18.676 0.05
Within groups 76.44 2 38.22
Total 17207.59 26
Sasobit1.5%_115C Between groups 21828.76 24 909.53 6.500 0.14
Within groups 279.87 2 139.93
Total 22108.63 26
NoSasobit_115C Between groups 32590.91 24 1357.95 26.616 0.04
Within groups 102.04 2 51.02
Total 32692.95 26

Table 10. Output from SPSS program showing one-way ANOVA analysis regarding WMA additive ratio
variation due to Marshall test results compared to Standard mix.
Sum of Degree of Mean
Mix content squares freedom (Df) square F Signicance

Sasobit eect at 115C

Sasobit1.5%_115C Between groups 24740.1 25 989.6 15.39 0.2
Within groups 64.3 1 64.3
Total 24804.39 26
Sasobit3.0%_115C Between groups 17156.99 25 686.28 13.56 0.21
Within groups 50.6 1 50.6
Total 17207.59 26
Sasobit eect at 125C
Sasobit1.5%_125C Between groups 12622.84 25 504.91 197.71 0.05
Within groups 2.55 1 2.55
Total 12625.39 26
Sasobit3.0%_125C Between groups 11513.81 25 460.55 33.93 0.14
Within groups 13.57 1 13.57
Total 11527.38 26
Sasobit eect at 135C
Sasobit1.5%_135C Between groups 14251.97 24 593.83 42.99 0.02
Within groups 27.62 2 13.81
Total 14279.6 26
Sasobit3.0%_135C Between groups 9679.84 24 403.33 40.72 0.02
Within groups 19.81 2 9.9
Total 9699.65 26
 Road Materials and Pavement Design 499

Figure 8. Variation in IDT compared to the standard mix (%).

of the sample in mould and C is the desired compacted ratio due to air voids ratio. To verify the
term (A), A = D/((D + F) G), where D is the weight of the sample (2500 g), F is the cylinder
weight + weight of water and G is the weight of the cylinder + water + weight of sample.
For the next step, the mould was compacted using a hydraulic standard roller compactor that
had a maximum compaction load of 30 KN. The apparatus compacted the asphalt slab to reach
the target desired density by applying specic loads simulating standard pavement rollers. Then
the sample was put in a water bath at 50C for half an hour and left for 24 h to cool down; then the
sample was subjected to the LWTR test. The test was performed by rolling a 738 N steel wheel
on the specimen surface at 50 passes a minute for 20,000 total passes that were repeatedly rolled
across the specimens surface. Upon completion of the test, the average rut depth for the samples
tested was recorded. This test is considered a torture test to compare potential rutting performance
between dierent mixtures. Samples were considered to be satisfying if they exhibited no more
than 6.0 mm of rutting after 20,000 passes.

6.1. LWTR rutting test results

Figure 9 presents the results of the LWTR test. It was noted that both standard mixture and RAP
with WMAW were well within the maximum allowable rut depth criteria of 6 mm for attaining
passing results.
500 S.A. El Sharkawy et al.

Table 11. Output from SPSS program showing one-way ANOVA analysis regarding RAP ratio variation
due to IDT test results compared to standard mix.
Sum of Degree of Mean
Mix content squares freedom (Df) square F Signicance

IDT_NoSasobit_115C Between groups 33618.52 21 1600.88 13.61 0.004

Within groups 588.00 5 117.60
Total 34206.52 26
IDT_NoSasobit_125C Between groups 20600.85 21 980.99 10.41 0.008
Within groups 471.00 5 94.20
Total 21071.85 26
IDT_Sasobit1.5%_115C Between groups 27862.35 21 1326.78 13.39 0.005
Within groups 495.50 5 99.10
Total 28357.85 26
IDT_Sasobit1.5%_125C Between groups 17225.17 21 820.25 18.03 0.002
Within groups 227.50 5 45.50
Total 17452.67 26
IDT_Sasobit1.5%_135C Between groups 16322.07 21 777.24 14.83 0.004
Within groups 262.00 5 52.40
Total 16584.07 26
IDT_Sasobit3.0%_115C Between groups 36364.67 21 1731.65 15.69 0.003
Within groups 552.00 5 110.40
Total 36916.67 26
IDT_Sasobit3.0%_125C Between groups 18099.24 21 861.87 10.47 0.008
Within groups 411.50 5 82.30
Total 18510.74 26
IDT_Sasobit3.0%_135C Between groups 14708.19 21 700.39 6.55 0.023
Within groups 535.00 5 107.00
Total 15243.19 26

6.2. Analysis of the results

6.2.1. Eect of changing WMAW
Figure 10 shows the eect of using WMAW on RAP through the LWTR test. Adding the WMA
additive by 1.5% with 15% RAP mix decreased the rut depth by approximately 40.43% than
without using any WMAW at 500 cycles. Furthermore, by adding 3.0% WMAW to the same
mix, the rut depth decreased by approximately 52.34%.

6.2.2. Eect of Changing RAP

As it is shown in Figure 10, for 20% RAP and 500 cycles the rut depth decreased by 31.91%.
By increasing the RAP ratio from 20% to 60%, the rut depth decreased by 68.09%. In addi-
tion for 15% RAP at 5000 cycles without WMAW, the rut depth decreased by 23.44%,
but when adding WMAW by 1.5% and 3%, the rut depth decreased by 42.19% to 53.75%,
respectively. This indicated improvement in rutting resistance caused by RAP incorporating
WMAW.
Figure 10 shows that lower total rut depth might be attributable to the lower air voids of the
fabricated WMAW test samples, the increased stiness of binder due to diusion and blending of
new bitumen with RAPLs bitumen. There was a dierence of approximately 1.0 mm between
the results of rut depth between the standard mix and RAP with WMAW test samples. The
standard mix had an average rut depth of 3.5 mm. The WMA mix with RAP samples had an
average rut depth of 2.5 mm and for all laboratory-mixed specimens, the increase in WMAW
content from 0% to 3% produced reduction in rutting depth from 4.2 mm to 2.6 mm accordingly,
 Road Materials and Pavement Design 501

Table 12. Output from SPSS program showing one-way ANOVA analysis regarding WMA additive ratio
variation due to IDT test results compared to standard mix.

Mixture content Sum of squares Df Mean square F Signicance

Sasobit eect at 115C

Sasobit1.5%_115C Between groups 20718.66 23 900.81 7.65 0.06
Within groups 353.17 3 117.72
Total 21071.85 26
Sasobit3.0%_115C Between groups 26502.24 23 1152.27 11.79 0.03
Within groups 293.17 3 97.72
Total 26795.41 26
Sasobit eect at 125C
Sasobit1.5%_125C Between groups 17396.17 23 756.36 40.16 0.01
Within groups 56.50 3 18.83
Total 17452.67 26
Sasobit3.0%_125C Between groups 16453.57 23 715.37 16.45 0.02
Within groups 130.50 3 43.50
Total 16584.07 26
Sasobit eect at 135C
Sasobit1.5%_135C Between groups 18290.24 25 731.61 3.32 0.41
Within groups 220.50 1 220.50
Total 18510.74 26
Sasobit3.0%_135C Between groups 15202.69 25 608.11 15.02 0.20
Within groups 40.50 1 40.50
Total 15243.19 26

indicating improvement in rutting resistance of mixtures with the addition of the WMAW. Rut
depths of WMA containing RAP were signicantly reduced from those of WMA without RAP,
while the change in rut depths of the standard mix was less than that of the WMA mix samples,
which means that the eect of RAP on rutting resistance improvement with WMA seemed to
be more signicant than that on standard mixes. Some of the results in the 60% and 80% ratio
showed sudden increase in rut depth due to the non-homogenous nature or due to increasing
stiness with less exibility. As a result, both ratios were considered excluded due to sudden
iniction point.
Samples without RAP were not as good as those with RAP even with WMAW in rutting
resistance, which might be attributed to the reduced oxidation of asphalt binder due to lowered
mixing temperatures. Only mixtures containing 60% and 80% RAP had an inection point, while
other mixtures evaluated in this study did not experience inection points. The results indicated
that the incorporation of WMAW would signicantly reduce the rutting and show even better
rutting resistance, which indicated that WMA containing high percentages of RAP would exhibit
a good resistance to damage.
Finally, the improvement of rutting resistance caused by RAP might be due to the fact that
the aggregates of RAP are covered and protected by aged asphalt binder. The bond between
aggregates and asphalt in RAP is stronger than that between aggregates and virgin binder, mak-
ing the mixture containing RAP less vulnerable to damage. The incorporation of RAP into
WMA and control HMA mixtures improved rutting resistance, which means that both WMA
and HMA containing higher percentages of RAP were more likely to exhibit better rutting resis-
tance. This phenomenon could be attributed to the stiening eect from aged asphalt binder
in RAP.
502 S.A. El Sharkawy et al.

Figure 9. LWTR test results under loading vs. number of passes.

Figure 10. Variation in rut depth of RAP when adding WMAW to the RAP mixture.

6.3. Analysis for LWTR testing using ANOVA

The one-way ANOVA analysis was also used to compare the results to the standard mix (mix
with no WMAW at 135C) in a statistical matter. Evaluation of the rut depth results has taken into
 Road Materials and Pavement Design 503

Table 13. Output from SPSS program showing one-way ANOVA analysis regarding WMA additive ratio
variation due to LWTR test results compared to standard mix.

Mixture content Sum of squares Df Mean square F Signicance

Standard_1.5% Sasobit Between groups 130.70 25 2.905 6.612 0.001

Within groups 4.39 5 0.439
Total 135.10 30
Standard_3.0% Sasobit Between groups 99.12 25 2.203 5.736 0.003
Within groups 3.84 5 0.384
Total 102.96 30
15% RAP_ No Sasobit Between groups 100.19 25 2.226 5.826 0.003
Within groups 3.82 5 0.382
Total 104.01 30
15% RAP_1.5% Sasobit Between groups 100.34 25 2.230 6.990 0.001
Within groups 3.19 5 0.319
Total 103.53 30
15% RAP_3.0% Sasobit Between groups 75.14 25 1.670 6.329 0.002
Within groups 2.64 5 0.264
Total 77.78 30
20% RAP_ No Sasobit Between groups 73.77 25 1.639 4.958 0.005
Within groups 3.31 5 0.331
Total 77.07 30
20% RAP_1.5% Sasobit Between groups 73.24 25 1.627 5.457 0.003
Within groups 2.98 5 0.298
Total 76.22 30
20% RAP_3.0% Sasobit Between groups 52.56 25 1.168 4.350 0.008
Within groups 2.69 5 0.268
Total 55.25 30
60% RAP_ No Sasobit Between groups 72.90 45 1.620 4.895 0.005
Within groups 3.31 10 0.331
Total 76.21 55
60% RAP_1.5% Sasobit Between groups 73.49 45 1.633 5.517 0.003
Within groups 2.96 10 0.296
Total 76.45 55
60% RAP_3.0% Sasobit Between groups 52.37 45 1.164 4.319 0.008
Within groups 2.69 10 0.269
Total 55.06 55
80% RAP_ No Sasobit Between groups 130.55 45 2.901 7.444 0.001
Within groups 3.90 10 0.390
Total 134.44 55
80% RAP _1.5% Sasobit Between groups 100.98 45 2.244 7.080 0.001
Within groups 3.17 10 0.317
Total 104.15 55
80% RAP _3.0% Sasobit Between groups 51.63 45 1.147 3.983 0.012
Within groups 2.88 10 0.288
Total 54.51 55

consideration RAP increase and the WMAW ratio. The test used 95% signicance ( < 0.05) as
well as Marshall and IDT tests. The results are summarised in Table 13.
From Table 13, all the results for the mixes containing 1.5% and 3.0% WMAW
( = 0.048 < 0.05) showed signicance in results due to the WMAW increase compared to
the standard mix at the same temperature, except the mix containing 80% RAP. Therefore, from
an economical point of view, it is preferable to use 1.5% WMAW. Finally, from all that men-
tioned above and all tests results, the optimum bitumen content to be added to the RAP mix was
504 S.A. El Sharkawy et al.

considered to be 3.75% in a mixture of 20% RAP and 1.5% WMAW at 125C. The previous mix
is considered to be the most suitable for the case study of CairoFayoum desert road.

7. Conclusions and recommendations

(1) Adding WMAW to the RAP mixture is useful for decreasing the ratio of bitumen and
virgin mix materials as it gave the same results at low temperature. Therefore, WMA can
be used in a wide aspect, especially in the developing countries for energy conservation.
(2) WMAW lowered the viscosity temperature of the mix and improved the Marshall sta-
bility and decreased the air voids of the sample within the permissible ranges regarding
RAP mixes.
(3) All possible ratios of RAP were subjected to Marshall testing. Some of the ratios had
failed to satisfy the requirements regarding wearing surface (4C) layer according to the
specications and Egyptian code. The relationship between air voids and RAP ratio was
used to exclude the RAP samples not following these specs. The usable ranges of RAP
reached up to 20% with using the WMAW regarding the materials used in this case study
for CairoFayoum desert road.
(4) WMAW reduced the measured asphalt viscosity which permitted the reduction of the mix
temperature and promoted asphalt mixing and compaction. Below its melting point, the
WMAW solidies into a lattice structure that stiens the asphalt binder. The reduction in
mix temperature with the WMAW is thought to reduce binder ageing, which would help
compensate for its stiening eects.
(5) The stability increase in Marshall due to RAP was likely to appear to ageing of asphalt
and increased number of load repetitions along the years which aected the results
increasingly.
(6) The unit weight has a direct relationship with temperature and with the variation of the
WMAW.
(7) The results of the ANOVA analysis in Marshall testing showed that the mix containing
1.5% RAP at 125C is the most signicant among all mixes.
(8) The use of WMAW with RAP at 125C increased the testing results nearly the same as
the standard mixes at higher temperatures in both Marshall test and IDT test.
(9) Increasing WMAW ratio from 1.5% to 3% increased tensile strength results with better
workability and compactability even when subjected to lower temperatures.
(10) The ANOVA analysis of the IDT test results showed signicance in the results due to
WMAW increase at 115C compared to the standard mix. In addition, the results showed
that the mixes containing 1.5% and 3.0% WMAW at 125C are even more signicant due
to temperature at 125C ( = 0.048 < 0.05). Furthermore, 1.5% WMAW was found to
be even more signicant. On the other hand, the mixes containing 1.5% and 3.0% at
135C were not. Therefore, it is preferable to use mixtures containing 1.5% WMAW at
125C.
(11) The results of 60% and 80% RAP showed sudden increase in rut depth due to their non-
homogenous nature or due to increased stiness with less exibility due to the inection
point phenomenon.
(12) The lower total rut depth might be attributable to the lower air voids of the fabricated
WMAW test samples, the increased stiness of binder due to diusion and blending of
new bitumen with RAPs bitumen.
(13) The ANOVA analysis in the LWTR test showed signicance in the mixtures containing
1.5% and 3.0% WMAW ( = 0.048 < 0.05) compared to the standard mix at the same
 Road Materials and Pavement Design 505

temperature, but the mix containing 80% RAP was the least signicant. Therefore, it is
recommended to use mixes containing 1.5% WMAW.
(14) The incorporation of RAP signicantly reduced rutting of WMA mixtures containing
60% and 80% RAP, which showed better rutting resistance. Therefore, WMA containing
high percentages of RAP exhibited good resistance to damage.
(15) The optimum bitumen content to be added for the RAP mix is considered to be 3.75%
included in a mix of 20% RAP and 1.5% WMAW at 125C, and this mix is considered
to be the most suitable mix based on the tests demonstrated and ANOVA analysis in the
case study of CairoFayoum desert road.
(16) Adding a warm-mix to the RAP is considered to be a winning combination, as lower
mixing temperatures resulted in less binder ageing during production. A RAP mix pro-
duced at warm-mix temperatures should then have ample stiness to resist rutting, as
well as sucient viscoelastic behaviour to resist cracking.
(17) Further study is needed to study WMA technology economically and to give a complete
cost analysis based on the initial cost of materials, maintenance, and life cycle of the
WMA mixture.
(18) Other additives should be considered for testing the use of higher RAP ratios in order to
decrease the use of virgin materials.
(19) It is recommended that further research should be carried out to study the eect of adding
WMAW to the RAP mix on thermal fatigue cracking.
(20) This study can be used to validate the road requirement design criteria in a manner so
that the category of the road can be improved to a higher class in Egypt.

Disclosure statement
No potential conict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
ASTM D692. (2007). Standard specication for coarse aggregate for bituminous paving mixtures. West
Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials, Annual Book of ASTM Standards,
ASTM International.
ASTM D2172. (2007). Standard test methods foe quantitative extraction of bitumen from bituminous paving
mixtures. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials, Annual Book of
ASTM Standards, ASTM International.
ASTM D2493. (1995). Standard viscosity-temperature chart for asphalts. West Conshohocken, PA:
American Society for Testing and Materials, Annual book of ASTM Standards, ASTM International.
ASTM D6926. (2007). Standard practice for preparation of bituminous specimens using Marshall Appa-
ratus. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials, Annual book of ASTM
Standards, ASTM International.
ASTM D6931. (2007). Standard test method for indirect tensile (IDT) strength of bituminous mixtures. West
Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials, Annual book of ASTM Standards,
ASTM International.
Brosseaud, Y., Delmore, J.-L., & Hiernaux, R. (1992). Use of lPC wheel-tracking rutting tester to select
asphalt pavements resistant to rutting. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Record.
Doyle, J. D., & Howard, I. L. (2010). Laboratory investigation of high rap content pavement surface layers
(Final report FHWA/MS-DOT-RD-10-212). Mississippi department of transportation, Mississippi state
university.
El Sharakawy, S. A., Galal, S. A., & Wahdan, A. H. (2014, December). Studying the inuence of using
Sasobit on physical and mechanical properties of reclaimed asphalt pavement. Al Azhar Thirteenth
International Conference, Nasr city, Cairo, Egypt.
506 S.A. El Sharkawy et al.

European Asphalt Pavement Association. (2014, June). The use of Warm Mix Asphalt (EAPA - Position
Paper). Belgium. Retrieved from http://www.eapa.org/userles/2/Publications/EAPA%20paper%20-
%20Warm%20Mix%20Asphalt%20-%20version%202014.pdf.
Hill, B., Behnia, B., Buttlar, W. G., & Reis, H. (2013). Evaluation of warm mix asphalt mixtures con-
taining reclaimed asphalt pavement through mechanical performance tests and an Acoustic Emission
Approach. Journal of materials in civil engineering (ASCE), 25(12), 18871897.
Howard, I. L., Doyle, J. D., & Cox, B. C. (2013). Merits of reclaimed asphalt pavement-dominated warm
mixed exible pavement base layers. Road Materials and Pavement Design (Special Issue from 88th
Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Annual Meeting), 14(S2), 106128.
Hurley, G. C., & Prowell, B. D. (2005). Evaluation of Sasobit for use in warm mix asphalt. National Center
for Asphalt Technology (NCAT Report 0506), Lanham, MD.
Ma Kridan, F. A., Arshad, A. K., & Rahman, M. Y. A. (2010). Development of warm mix asphalt and
compliance with the requirements set by specications. European Journal of Scientic Research, 48(1),
118128.
Ma Kridan, F. A., Arshad, A. K., & Rahman, M. Y. A. (2011). The eect of warm mix asphalt addi-
tive (Sasobit) on determination of optimum bitumen content. International Journal of Research and
Reviews in Applied Sciences, Malaysia. Retrieved from www.arpapress.com/Volumes/Vol6Issue4/
IJRRAS_6_4_04.pdf
Mallick, R. B., Kandhal, P. S., & Bradbury, R. I. (2008). Using warm mix asphalt technology to incorporate
high percentage of reclaimed asphalt pavement (rap) material in asphalt mixtures. Washington, DC:
Transportation research board (TRB 2008).
Nejad, F. M., Azarhoosh, A., Hamidi, G. H., & Roshanib, H. (2014). Rutting performance prediction of
warn mix asphalt containing reclaimed asphalt pavements. International Journal of Road Materials
and Pavement Design (RMPD), 15(1), 207219.
Osullivan, K. A., & Wall, P. A. (2009). The eects of warm mix asphalt additives on recycled asphalt
pavement. A major qualifying project report submitted to the faculty of the Worcester polytechnic
institute.
The use of warm mix asphalt. Paper by European Asphalt Pavement Association (EAPA), Belgium, June
2014. Retrieved from www.eapa.org
West, R., & Marasteanu, M. (2013). Improved mix design, evaluation, and material management. Practices
for asphalt concretes with high reclaimed asphalt pavement content (National cooperative highway
research program, Report 752). Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board (TRB). Retrieved
from http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_752.pdf
Xui-wei, L. Z., & Xiao-Ning, Z. (2006). Experimental study and numerical analysis of the rutting problem
of an asphalt pavement. 25th Southern African Transport Conference (SATC 2006), Pretoria, South
Africa.