Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
5(6):411-418
Copyright @ Chinese Society of Pavement Engineering
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Abstract: Many factors affect the strength and durability of foamed bitumen treated materials, such as binder content, active filler type
and content, aggregate composition and gradation, moisture content, compaction effort, and curing regime. This preliminary study
investigates the effects of bitumen and active filler on standard mechanical test results. The results failed to demonstrate any consistent
trend with bitumen content variation; however, four percent foamed bitumen appears an optimum value in some cases. The addition of
cement always resulted in the highest mechanical performance, compared with the addition of hydrated lime and quicklime.
Key words: Active filler; Cold in situ recycling; Foamed bitumen; Mechanical testing methods; Pavement rehabilitation.
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────
12
Introduction aggregate composition and gradation, moisture content, compaction
effort, curing regime, and the like can affect the properties of the
Premature failure of deteriorated road pavements, resulting from foamed bitumen mixture.
unreliably-predicted traffic demands and more heavily-trafficked This preliminary study focuses on the effects of two binder media:
axle group loading, is a severe problem encountered worldwide in bitumen and active filler. Two main objectives were identified,
road networks. This issue has resulted in the implementation of namely, a) to study the mechanical performance of foamed bitumen
many different rehabilitation technologies to address road mixes with variable bitumen contents, and b) to compare and
restoration, among which cold in situ recycling (CISR) has been determine the effects of different active fillers on foamed bitumen
widely accepted [1]. CISR is a common in situ stabilization process mixes using mechanistic testing methods.
in which small quantities (1% to 4% by mass) of binders (i.e., Previous research projects have endeavored to determine the
cement as Portland and Blended cement, lime, foamed bitumen or optimum bitumen content for foamed bitumen mix design, but a
bitumen emulsion and miscellaneous chemicals) are usually consistent value has yet to be identified. Table 1 summarizes some
incorporated into reclaimed pavement materials at ambient previous research studies related to the determination of foamed
temperature. This allows improved engineering properties without bitumen content.
removal from the rehabilitation site. As a consequence of increased Studies of the benefits of adding different types of active fillers
demand and the pursuit of more cost-effective and environmentally (cement, lime, fly ash) in foamed bitumen mixes are available.
friendly methods, foamed bitumen stabilization, which presents Some examples include adjusting the fine fraction of the aggregate
outstanding performance among CISR techniques, has become a gradation, improving the adhesion of the bitumen to the aggregate,
popular rehabilitation method. assisting in the dispersion of bitumen, reducing the moisture
Foamed bitumen was initially proposed by Csanyi in the sensitivity, and improving early mechanical strength [13]. These
mid-1950s at Iowa State University in North America [2]. The processes have been consistently incorporated into the selection of
original process was modified in 1968 to enable foamed bitumen to active filler type and content. Lancaster et al. [14] first confirmed
be more easily implemented in the field, with Mobil Oil Australia the supply function of active fillers when insufficient fines content
replacing steam with cold water [3]. When hot bitumen (around is observed, and suggested that 2% by mass of dry aggregate of
160°C to 180°C) comes into contact with pressurized cold water and cementitious additives should be the maximum value in foamed
air, foam forms and the bitumen spontaneously expands to 10–15 bitumen mix in order to prevent shrinkage cracks.
times its original volume, coating the moist and cold aggregate Compared with cases of inclusion of inactive filler and exclusion
particles. Due to the presence of bitumen—an intrinsically flexible of active filler, an apparent increase in indirect tensile strength was
product—in addition to an adequate quantity of cement or lime investigated, where foamed bitumen mixes were treated with any
(inducing a relatively high stiffness to the parent materials), this type of cementitious filler [15]. Kavussi and Hashemian [16]
seems to be an ideal material for flexible pavements. As a result, conducted indirect tensile strength tests and the Marshall Stability
this technique has had a renaissance over the past few decades. test to support the theory that both cement and lime contribute to a
However, due to the lack of a standardized mix design procedure, significant increase in the mechanical strength of foamed bitumen
various factors such as binder content, active filler type and content, mixes. They also noted that the total amount of active filler should
be limited to a low value, possibly 1.5% by mass of dry aggregate,
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Curtin University, P.O. Box otherwise a brittle instead of a flexible state was likely to occur,
U1987, Perth, WA, Australia 9845. associated with deformation and cracking.
+
Corresponding Author E-mail: p.jitsangiam@curtin.edu.au Halles and Thenoux [17] used indirect tensile strength tests,
Note: Submitted August 17, 2011; Revised June 25, 2012; Accepted tri-axial resilient modulus, and tri-axial permanent deformation tests
July 27, 2012. to determine the mechanical properties of foamed bitumen mixes
Vol.5 No.6 Nov. 2012 International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 411
Jitsangiam et al.
Table 1. Summary of Previous Research Studies Related to the Determination of Bitumen Content.
Research Projects Research Methodology Findings References
A relationship Exists Guidelines can be Used to Select the Host Material with Higher Fine Contents Ruckel et al. (1983);
between Bitumen Content Appropriate Bitumen Content when the Requires Higher Bitumen Content. Muthen (1998);
and Aggregate Gradation, Gradation Envelope of the Host Material Normally the Bitumen Content Range is
Nataatmadja (2001); [3–5]
Especially the Fines is Given from 3% to 5%
Contents Controlling at Target Bitumen Content can Possibly be 5% Fines Requires 3.5% Foamed Akeroyd (1989)
4.75mm Sieve Passing and Determined by Fines Content in Host Bitumen, while 5% Foamed Bitumen was
[6]
0.075mm Sieve Passing Material Suitable for Aggregate with 20% Fines
Six Hveem Testing Procedures:
Foamed Bitumen Content Bitumen Content (in the Range of 1.5 to
Resistance Value Test, Relative Stability Bowering (1970)
can be Determined by 3.5%) Could Protect Well-graded
Test, Cohesion Test, Free Swell Test,
Mechanical Performance Materials Against Environmental
Unconfined Compressive Strength Test
Testing Disruption [7]
and Californian Permeability Test
Five Tests Based on California Division
of Highways Test Procedures: Modified
Sufficient Bitumen Content
Resistance Value; Modified Relative The Minimum Required Level for Bowering and Martin
to Display Structural
Stability; Cohesion; Free Swell and Foamed Bitumen Content is 1.5% (1976)
Properties
Permeability; Unconfined Compressive
Strength
No Positive Value Observed to Determine
Bitumen Contents on Eight the Optimum Bitumen Content, with the
Hveem, Hubbard-Field and Iowa K-test
Different Gradation Exception of 4% Bitumen Content Lee (1981) [9]
Methods
Materials Providing an Excellent Marshall Stability
Test Benchmark for all Treated Materials
0.5% Bitumen Content Provided the
The Influence of Bitumen Optimum Stability Under Two Different
Content on Different Curing Curing Times, and 1% Bitumen Content
Marshall Stability Test Brennen et al. (1983) [10]
Times and Moisture Presented the Best Water Sensitivity
Sensitivity Performance when Treating with
Recycled Asphalt Pavement
2% Foamed Bitumen Content was Mohammad et al. (2003)
Optimum Bitumen Content Retained Indirect Tensile Strength
Determined as Maximum Value [11]
3%–6% Bitumen Content is Typical.
Higher Bitumen Content Resulting in a
Thick Film would Simply Lubricate the
Visually Inspected by Observing Coating
Typical Bitumen Content Aggregate Particles, Whilst Lower Roberts et al. (1984) [12]
Quality
Bitumen Content Resulting in Insufficient
Coating would Decrease Mixture Stability
and Water Susceptibility
incorporated with different active filler types under different curing Materials
stages. It was noted that cement improves the indirect tensile
strength and resilient modulus of the foamed bitumen mix to a Aggregates
higher degree than hydrated lime, while fly ash does not affect the
mechanical properties but rather works as a mineral filler of the The virgin aggregates used in this laboratory study were blends of
aggregate gradation. Vorobieff and Preston [18] presented to the crushed rock base (CRB) and crushed limestone (CLS) from local
NZIHT that lime is more preferable for use in Australia, as quarries, in varying proportions. Both CRB and CLS were
Australian rehabilitation works are mostly base course works where nominally graded at a maximum size of 19 mm, conforming to
lime shows good performance. Mainroads Western Australia (MRWA) Specification 501
Limited information is available in Western Australia concerning requirements. The four representative aggregate mixtures used in
the effect and best performance of different types of active fillers on this study were:
the mechanical properties of foamed bitumen mixes. 100% crushed rock base and 0% crushed limestone (Mix A1);
75% crushed rock base and 25% crushed limestone (Mix A2);
Materials and Laboratory Testing Methods 50% crushed rock base and 50% crushed limestone (Mix A3);
25% crushed rock base and 75% crushed limestone (Mix A4).
412 International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology Vol.5 No.6 Nov. 2012
Jitsangiam et al.
Table 2 lists the main properties of aggregates with different CRB fillers.
and CLS proportions. The measurement of particle size distribution
and the relationship of optimum moisture content (OMC) and Sample Preparation
maximum dry density (MDD) followed MRWA Test Methods
WA115.1 and WA 133.1, respectively [19]. Mixing
Foamed Bitumen Condition The oven-dried aggregates were placed into a mixer (Wirtgen
WLM30) with a nominated percentage and type of active filler for
The bitumen used was a standard Class 170 binder. According to BP pre-mixing, until the active filler was homogeneously blended with
Australia Pty Ltd [20], the density of this type of bitumen at 15°C is the aggregates. This step, defined as ―dry mix‖ and ideally carried
1040 kg/m3, and viscosity at 60°C and 135°C is 170 and 0.4 Pa·s, out only in the laboratory, was to prevent active filler particles
respectively. A laboratory-scale foamed bitumen machine, Wirtgen forming lumps when they came into contact with water (negating
WLB 10S, was used to produce the foamed bitumen. When 2.5% the purpose of the filler). Subsequently, a certain amount of water
cold foaming water was incorporated with hot bitumen at roughly was added to achieve a target moisture content, which was chosen
180°C, a foamed bitumen product with an expansion rate of 12–15 as 100% of the OMC of the raw aggregates in this study. The mixes
times and a half-life of 20 s was yielded. It was deemed to be a good were then fabricated by spraying different amounts of foamed
foam quality with the exclusion of the use of a foaming agent, with bitumen into the aggregates, producing approximately 15 kg batches
the foaming characteristic limits derived from the South African of foamed bitumen mixtures.
Asphalt Academy used as a reference [13]. Based on prior research A technique was introduced to roughly estimate the binding
concerning bitumen content, 3%, 4%, and 5% bitumen contents quality of the treated material after mixing: when a small amount of
were used in accordance with the proportion proposed by Muthen loose mixed material was firmly squeezed by hand, a good
(1998), where bitumen was injected into four different aggregate consistency was observed if a few black dots of bitumen remained
blends, producing corresponding foamed bitumen treated mixtures stuck on the palm of the hand. Mixtures were deemed to be
for further compaction [4]. deficient when there were either no black dots remaining, or the
Other than the variant bitumen contents used in the bitumen bitumen was visibly ―nubby.‖
content research, only 4% bitumen content was considered in the
selection of active filler. This is because the practical bitumen Compaction
content used in field is always around 4% in Western Australia
based on the author‘s experience. An automatic Marshall Compactor was employed to fabricate six
specimens of each mix for indirect tensile strength (ITS) and
Active Fillers indirect tensile resilient modulus (ITMR) tests. The specimens were
compacted with 75 blows to one side, in a mold 101±1 mm in
In researching bitumen content, hydrated lime was added to the diameter and 76±1 mm in height. A modified compaction method
aggregates at 1% proportion by mass to constrain the influence of was also used to prepare three samples of each mix for an
active fillers and further stabilize the aggregates. Three active fillers, unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test. In this process, a mold
namely Portland cement, hydrated lime, and quicklime, were then of 100 mm diameter and 200 mm height was used, in which
added to the aggregates with variable percentages by mass (0%, 1%, material was compacted with 25 blows each for eight layers, using a
3%, and 5%). Table 3 lists some major properties of these active 4.9 kg rammer at a 450 mm drop height.
Vol.5 No.6 Nov. 2012 International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 413
Jitsangiam et al.
ITMR Testing
414 International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology Vol.5 No.6 Nov. 2012
Jitsangiam et al.
3%
1%
Quicklime
Hydrated lime
0% Cement
Bitumen Content
No clear trends were evident from the ITMR test results, as seen in
Fig. 3. Mix A1 and Mix A3 typically achieved the highest resilient
modulus at a bitumen content of 4%, with peak values at 624 MPa
and 273 MPa, whereas Mix A2 and Mix A4 did not show clear
trends for bitumen content requirements. However, ITMR values
versus gradation clearly demonstrated that with an increasing
percentage of introduced CLS, the peak ITMR values decreased
Fig.2. GCTS STX-300 Dynamic/stress-path Soil Tri-axial System correspondingly.
for UCS Testing.
Active Filler Selection
Mix A1 Mix A2
715.0 Mix A3 Mix A4 As expected from previous research in the literature, cement always
624.0 provided the highest resilient modulus of all the fillers tested,
615.0 including hydrated lime and quicklime, as illustrated in Fig. 4. The
534.0 511.0
515.0 addition of 1% cement created a significant increase in ITMR
ITMR (MPa)
Vol.5 No.6 Nov. 2012 International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 415
Jitsangiam et al.
95.0 Mix A1
Mix A2 415.0
85.0 Mix A3 82.9 358.0
Mix A4 365.0
80.5
75.0 73.4 313.0
315.0 289.0
68.0
UCS (kPa)
295.0
65.0 68.4
ITS (kPa)
265.0
267.0 271.0
55.0
214.0
49.5 58.5 215.0
203.0
45.0 165.0 191.0 200.0 167.0
44.4
144.0
35.0 115.0
27.0 Mix A1 Mix A2
33.6
25.0 65.0 Mix A3 Mix A4
17.8 18.3
15.0 15.0
2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6%
Bitumen Content (% by mass) Bitumen Content (% by mass)
Fig. 5. ITS Values for Foamed Bitumen Materials with Different Fig. 7. UCS Values for Foamed Bitumen Materials with Different
Bitumen Contents. Bitumen Contents
5% but it was still very low compared to the strength of cement. Upon
increasing to 5%, both fillers exhibited similar tensile strengths, but
again were very low compared to cement.
3% The addition of 5% active filler, proposed as an extreme case in
this study, far exceeds the amount suggested by Kavussi and
Hashemian of 1.5% [16]. The cement-treated samples in particular
1% became cementitious products rather than foamed bitumen mixtures.
Quicklime
Hydrated lime Consequently, shrinkage cracking is likely to occur when samples
Cement exhibit cementitious properties, even when they possess a higher
0% tensile strength. This shrinkage problem for foamed bitumen
stabilized material still needs more investigation for very high
200 300 0400 100500 cement contents.
ITS (kPa)
Fig. 6. ITS Values for Foamed Bitumen Materials with Different
Unconfined Compressive Strength
Active Fillers.
Bitumen Content
Fig. 5 show ITS values for foamed bitumen treated materials with
Due to the ambiguity of the results, strong conclusions could not be
different bitumen content. It is interesting to observe that apart from
drawn. Prevalent trends were not apparent, and the mixtures
an increasing trend in Mix A2, the other three materials
behaved uncharacteristically as the bitumen content varied. Fig. 7
demonstrated roughly parabolic prevalent strength curves. They also
presents curves for Mix A1 and Mix A3, and it is clear that the
showed an optimum strength at around 4% bitumen content. It may
optimum bitumen content cannot be determined from a peak in the
be inferred, from these results together with the ITMR values, that
curves as expected. Instead of showing a peak at an intermediate
with a fines content in the range of 9.0% to 11%, 4% bitumen
proportion of bitumen content, these data demonstrated an
content could exhibit the highest tensile strength. Similar to the
unexpected decrease. It was also observed that Mix A2 exceeded the
ITMR results, the ITS values of foamed bitumen mixes
strength obtained by the equivalent Mix A1 counterpart, which was
(incorporating the same bitumen content) decreased significantly
always lower in tensile strength test results. This reflected
with an increasing proportion of CLS.
expectations from the author‘s experience, demonstrating how the
introduction of small proportions of CLS can be beneficial to
Active Filler Selection
compressive strength. For foamed bitumen stabilization to be
effective, adequate fine particles must be distributed throughout the
All three active fillers, regardless of the variant type and content,
mixture to allow the bitumen to coat these particles and in turn form
contributed to an increase in tensile strength compared to mixes
a mortar to bond the coarser particles together.
without active fillers, as shown in Fig. 6. As the percentage of active
filler increased, so did the tensile strength, with cement always
providing a significantly higher percentage increase compared with
Active Filler Selection
the other two active fillers, hydrated lime and quicklime. When
416 International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology Vol.5 No.6 Nov. 2012
Jitsangiam et al.
Vol.5 No.6 Nov. 2012 International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 417
Jitsangiam et al.
11. Mohammad, L.N., Abu-Farsakh, M.Y., Wu, Z., and Abadie, C. Asphalt, Transportation Research Record, No. 2095(-1), pp.
(2003). Louisiana Experience with Foamed Recycled Asphalt 127–135.
Pavement Base Materials, Transportation Research Board 18. Vorobieff, G. and Preston, N. (2004). Bitumen Stabilisation -
82nd Annual Meeting (CD-Rom), Washington, DC, USA. an Australian Perspective, NZIHT Stabilisation of Road
12. Roberts, F.L., Engelbrecht, J.C., and Kennedy, T.W. (1984). Pavements seminar.
Evaluation of Recycled Mixtures Using Foamed Asphalt, 19. Main Roads Western Australia (2011). Testing Methods (Soil),
Asphalt Mixtures and Performance, Washington, DC., USA, 2011.
pp. 77–85. 20. BP Australia Pty Ltd (2008). Paving Grade Bitumen - Class
13. Asphalt Academy (2009). Technical Guideline: Bitumen 170, Class 320, Class 600, Road Construction and
Stabilised Materials. A guideline for the design and Maintenance Applications.
construction of bitumen emulsion and foamed bitumen 21. Saleh, M. (2004). New Zealand Experience with Foam
stabilised materials, Pretoria, South Africa. Bitumen Stabilization, Transportation Research Record, No.
14. Lancaster, J., McArthur, L., and Warwick, R. (1994). 1868(-1), pp. 40–49.
VICROADS Experience with Foamed Bitumen Stabilisation, 22. Ramanujam, J., Jones, J., and Janosevic, M. (2009). Design,
17th ARRB Conference, Vol. 17. Part 3, pp. 193–211, Gold Construction and Performance of In-situ Foamed Bitumen
Coast, Queensland, Australia. Stabilised Pavements, Queensland Roads Edition No. 7, pp.
15. Hodgkinson, A. and Visser, A.T. (2004). The Role of Fillers 56–69.
and Cementitious Binders when Recycling with Foamed 23. Australian Standard (1995). Method 13.1: Determination of
Bitumen or Bitumen Emulsion, Proceeding of 8th Conference the resilient modulus of asphalt—Indirect tensile method,
on Asphalt Pavements for Southern Africa, Sun City, South Methods of Sampling and Testing Asphalt, AS2891.13.1-1995.
Africa. 24. Australian Standard (2000). Method 10: Determination of
16. Kavussi, A. and Hashemian, L. (2004). The Effect of Lime and indirect tensile strength of concrete cylinders (‗Brazil‘ or
Cement in Foam Bitumen Mixes, International RILEM splitting test), Methods of Testing Concrete, AS 1012.10-2000.
Conference on the Use of Recycled Materials in Building and 25. Main Roads Western Australia (2011). Testing Method WA
Structures, pp. 76–83, RILEM Publications SARL. 143.1 – 2011: Determination of the unconfined compressive
17. Halles, F.A. and Thenoux, G.Z. (2009). Degree of Influence of strength of laboratory compacted specimens, 2011.
Active Fillers on Properties of Recycled Mixes with Foamed
418 International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology Vol.5 No.6 Nov. 2012