Evaluation of the strength and environmental properties of

Warm Mix Asphalt Rubber

Author: Avinaash Veeramah Supervisor: Mrs. Reshma Rughooputh
METHODOLOGY (contd) COMPARATIVE L.C.A
PROBLEM STATEMENT
2) Comparative Life Cycle Assessment (L.C.A) quantifying Main Indicators for Pavements
Hot Mix Asphalt most widely used paving material locally
environmental damage Gross Energy Global Warming
Satisfactory performance till now 3) Comparative Cost Analysis production cost Requirements (GER) Potential (GWP)

Increasing traffic load + changing climate - surface deterioration Weighted GER for whole Life Cycle
100
Weighted GWP for whole Life Cycle
100
100

100 81.06

Weighted GWP / %
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
78.64
High production temperature + high emission of GHGs

Weighted GER / %
80.15 80
80 73.18
60
60
Local maintenance strategy milling increasing load to landfills Production Temperature of Modified Mixes 40
40

Paradigm shift towards sustainability modified HMA Marshall Stability v/s Temperature Marshall Flow v/s Temperature 20 20

30 5 4.85
27.36 0 0
25.75 3.87
23.85 Control Mix MM1 MM2 Control Mix MM1 MM2

Average Stability / kN
Modified Mix 1

Average Flow / mm
25 4
Modified Mix 1
Better structural Reducing load to 20 3
3.6 Modified Mixes more environmental friendly
Minimum Flow
performance landfills 15 Minimum 2
value
MM2 causes the least environmental damage.
Stability value Maximum Flow

AIM
10 1 value

Modify HMA to improve Reducing

5
130 140 150 160
0
130 140 150 160 RELATIVE COST ANALYSIS
Temperature / C Temperature / C
Reducing Cost of materials, transport and production costs considered
strength and environmental energy Optimum Production Temperature = 145 C
GHGs

=
Relative cost of asphalt mixes per tonne / %

+
requirements 110.2
properties. Energy (- 6.8 kWh / every 125.0
100.0
- 15 C GHGs 100.0 88.5
0.3 km paved) 75.0
50.0
Marshall & Maximum Densities of asphalt mixes
Preserving natural 2.70
25.0
2.64 i. Lower density for modified mixes 0.0
resources 2.60
2.59
2.53 ii. Higher degree of compaction HMA MM1 MM2
BACKGROUND
Density / Mg/m3

2.50
2.50 2.47 MM2 cheapest RAP reduces need for aggregates & binder.
2.40 iii. Fewer roller passes required
Traditional HMA locally 2.40
Aggregates & binder biggest cost components of asphalt.
iv. Save in fuel, machine hours, man hours
2.30
WMA produced at lower temperature v. Less voids better structural performance MM1 cost of wax and rubber negates energy reduction.
Organic Wax 2 % 2.20
Previous local research Control Mix MM1 MM2

(individual)
RAP 25 %
Marshall Stability & Flow for asphalt mixes Comparison of Immersion Index (moisture CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS
Crumb rubber 10 % 50.00 45.93 susceptibility)
100.00 MM2 most sustainable alternative to HMA locally.
Each mix solution to single problem 40.00 97.50
96.60 .
Holistic approach combination of 3 additives 30.00 26.30 26.62 95.00

91.20
METHODOLOGY
20.00
90.00
10.00
3.68 3.75 3.29
1) Laboratory Testing Marshall Method 0.00
Control Mix MM1 MM2 85.00
HMA MM1 MM2 Readily implemented no major investments required.
i. Control HMA mix (160 C) Marshall Stability / kN Marshall Flow / mm
Similar mix design
Strength of MM1 similar to HMA. & MM2 >> MM1
ii. Modified Mix 1 Wax + Rubber only More resilient pavements, mitigation measure for climate
MM2 better resistance to increasing traffic load change, solid waste management strategy
iii. Modified Mix 2 Wax + Rubber + RAP Modified Mixes less prone to moisture damage Should become the new standard in Mauritius