Results and Discussions

This unit presents the results and discussion of the study based on conceptual framework.

This study aims to evaluate the design mixture in terms of its mechanical properties, such as

ASTM D3203 (“Standard Test Method for Percent Air Voids in Compacted Dense and Open

Bituminous Paving Mixture”), AASHTO T165 (“Standard Test Method for Effect of Water on

Compressive Strength of Compacted Bituminous Mixtures”), AASHTO T167 (“Method of Test

for Fabricating Specimens for Compressive Strength of Bituminous Mixtures”), ASTM D5

(“Standard Test Method for Penetration of Bituminous Materials”). All test were performed in

the Department of Public Works and Highways Bureau of Research and Standards under the

supervision of three laboratory technician and the assistant chief director of the asphalt section,

Engr. Cielito .

The following parameters for the design mixture of the study:

Coarse Aggregate Size:

Target Air void:

Table 1.

Cumulative
Sieve Size Required % % Difference Weight (g) Weight (g)

¾” 100% -- -- --

IA 93% 7% 84g 84g

3/8” 41% 52% 624g 708g

 No. 4 20.5% 20.5% 246g 954g

No. 8 16% 4.5% 54g 1008g

No. 16 9% 7% 84g 1092g

No. 30 6% 1.5% 18g 1110g

No. 50 --- 1.5% 18g 1128g

No. 200 5% 1% 12g 1140g

Portland Cement -- 5% 60g 1200g

Computation of Table 1

% Difference Weight Cumulative Weight

IA = 100% - 93% = 7% 0.07 (1200g) = 84g 84g

3/8” = 93% - 41% = 52% 0.52 (1200g) = 624g 84g + 624g = 708g

No. 4 = 41% - 20.5% = 20.5% 0.205 (1200g) = 246g 708g + 246g = 954g

No. 8 = 20.5% - 16% = 4.5% 0.045 (1200g) = 54g 954g + 54g = 1008g

No. 16 = 16% - 9% = 7% 0.07 (1200g) = 84g 1008g + 84g = 1092g

No. 30 and No. 50 = 9% - 6% = 3%

No. 30 = 1.5% 0.015 (1200g) = 18g 1092g + 18g = 1110g

No. 50 = 1.5% 0.015 (1200g) = 18g 1110g + 18g = 1128g

No. 200 = 6% - 5% = 1% 0.01 (1200g) = 12g 1128g + 12g = 1140g

Portland Cement = 5% 0.05 (1200g) = 60g 1140g + 60g = 1200g

Table 2.

Cumulative
Sieve Size Required % % Difference Weight (g) Weight (g)

¾” 100% -- -- --

IA 96% 4% 48g 48g

3/8” 44% 52% 624g 672g

No. 4 23.5% 20.5% 246g 918g

No. 8 16% 7.5% 90g 1008g

No. 16 7% 9% 108g 1116g

No. 30 4% 1.5% 18g 1134g

No. 50 -- 1.5% 18g 1152g

No. 200 3% 1% 12g 1164g

Portland Cement -- 3% 36g 1200g

Computation of Table 2

% Difference Weight Cumulative Weight

IA = 100% - 96% = 4% 0.04 (1200g) = 48g 48g

3/8” = 96% - 44% = 52% 0.52 (1200g) = 624g 48g + 624g = 672g

No. 4 = 44% - 23.5% = 20.5% 0.205 (1200g) = 246g 672g + 246g = 918g

No. 8 = 23.5% - 16% = 7.5% 0.075 (1200g) = 90g 918g + 90g = 1008g

No. 16 = 16% - 7% = 7% 0.07 (1200g) = 108g 1008g + 108g = 1116g

No. 30 and No. 50 = 7% - 4% = 3%

No. 30 = 1.5% 0.015 (1200g) = 18g 1116g + 18g = 1134g

No. 50 = 1.5% 0.015 (1200g) = 18g 1134g + 18g = 1152g

No. 200 = 4% - 3% = 1% 0.01 (1200g) = 12g 1152g + 12g = 1164g

Portland Cement = 4% 0.05 (1200g) = 36g 1164g + 36g = 1200g

Table 3.

Cumulative
Sieve Size Required % % Difference Weight (g) Weight (g)

¾” 100% -- -- --
 IA 97% 3% 36g 36g

3/8” 47% 50% 600g 636g

No. 4 22% 25% 300g 936g

No. 8 16% 6% 72g 1013g

No. 16 6% 10% 120g 1128g

No. 30 3% 1.5% 18g 1146g

No. 50 -- 1.5% 18g 1164g

No. 200 2% 1% 12g 1176g

Portland Cement -- 2% 24g 1200g

Computation of Table 3

% Difference Weight Cumulative Weight

IA = 100% - 97% = 3% 0.03 (1200g) = 36g 36g

3/8” = 97% - 47% = 50% 0.50 (1200g) = 600g 36g + 600g = 636g

No. 4 = 47% - 22% = 25% 0.25 (1200g) = 300g 636g + 300g = 936g

No. 8 = 22% - 16% = 6% 0.06 (1200g) = 72g 936g + 72g = 1008g

No. 16 = 16% - 6% = 10% 0.10 (1200g) = 120g 1008g + 120g = 1128g

No. 30 and No. 50 = 6% - 3% = 3%

No. 30 = 1.5% 0.015 (1200g) = 18g 1128g + 18g = 1146g

No. 50 = 1.5% 0.015 (1200g) = 18g 1146g + 18g = 1164g

No. 200 = 3% - 2% = 1% 0.01 (1200g) = 12g 1164g + 12g = 1176g

Portland Cement = 2% 0.05 (1200g) = 24g 1176g + 24g = 1200g

Table 4: Stability Correlation Ratios

Volume of Specimen Approximate Thickness of Specimen Correlation Ratio

𝑐𝑚3 mm in.

200 to 213 25.4 1 5.56

214 to 225 27.0 1 1/16 5.00

226 to 237 28.6 1 1/8 4.55

238 to 250 30.2 1 3/16 4.17

251 to 264 31.8 1¼ 3.85

265 to 276 33.3 1 5/16 3.57

277 to 289 34.9 1 3/8 3.33

290 to 301 36.5 1 7/16 3.03

302 to 316 38.1 1½ 2.78

317 to 328 39.7 1 9/16 2.50

329 to 340 41.3 1 5/8 2.27

341 to 353 42.9 1 11/16 2.08

354 to 367 44.4 1¾ 1.92

368 to 379 46.0 1 13/16 1.79

380 to 392 47.6 1 7/8 1.67

393 to 405 49.2 1 15/16 1.56

406 to 420 50.8 2 1.47

421 to 431 52.4 2 1/16 1.39

432 to 443 54.0 2 1/8 1.32

444 to 456 55.6 2 3/16 1.25

457 to 470 57.2 2¼ 1.19

471 to 482 58.7 2 5/16 1.14

483 to 495 60.3 2 3/8 1.09

496 to 508 61.9 2 7/16 1.04

 509 to 522 63.5 2½ 1.00

523 to 535 64.0 2 9/16 0.96

536 to 546 65.1 2 5/8 0.93

547 to 559 66.7 2 11/16 0.89

560 to 573 68.3 2¾ 0.86

574 to 585 71.4 2 13/16 0.83

586 to 598 73.0 2 7/8 0.81

599 to 610 74.6 2 15/16 0.78

611 to 625 76.2 3 0.76

Table 5: Average thickness with corresponding correlation ratio

Gradation Thickness Average Correlation

Type Thickness Ratio

A1 72.6 72.6 71.8 71.8 72.2 0.8200

A2 73.2 73.2 73.2 73.2 73.2 0.8063

A3 70.6 70.6 70.8 70.8 70.7 0.8368

B1 72.6 72.6 73.8 73.8 73.2 0.8063

 B2 71.6 71.6 72.2 72.2 71.9 0.8238

B3 72.6 72.6 72.4 72.4 72.5 0.8163

C1 74.0 74.0 72.6 72.6 73.3 0.8044

C2 72.0 72.0 73.0 73.0 72.5 0.8163

C3 73.0 73.0 72.2 72.2 72.6 0.8150

Computation of Table 5

Gradation Type Average Thickness

72.6 + 72.6 + 71.8 + 71.8

A1 = 72.2
4

73.2 + 73.2+ 73.2 + 73.2

A2 = 73.2
4

70.6 + 70.6 + 70.8 + 70.8

A3 = 70.7
4

72.6 + 72.6 + 73.8 + 73.8

B1 = 73.2
4

71.6 + 71.6 + 72.2 + 72.2

B2 = 71.9
4

72.6 + 72.6 + 72.4 + 72.4

B3 = 72.5
4

74.0 + 74.0 + 72.6 + 72.6

C1 = 73.3
4
 72.0 + 72.0 + 73.0 + 73.0
C2 = 72.5
4

73.0 + 73.0 + 72.2 + 72.2

C3 = 72.6
4

Note: Computation for correlation ratio were tabulated using interpolation method under table 4.

Table 6: Marshall Design Criteria

Light Traffic Medium Traffic Heavy Traffic

Marshall Method Surface & Base Surface & Base Surface & Base

Mix Criteria Min. Max. Min. Max Min. Max

Compaction, number
of blows each end of 35 50 75
specimen

Stability, N 3336 5338 8006

(lb.) (750) -- (1200) -- (1800) --

Flow, 0.25mm 8 18 8 16 8 14

Percent Air Voids 3 5 3 5 3 5

Percent Voids Filled
70 80 65 78 65 75
With Asphalt (VFA)

NOTES
1. All criteria, not just stability alone, must be considered in designing an asphalt
paving mix. Hot mix asphalt bases that do not meet these criteria when tested at
60℃ (140 deg. F) are satisfactory if they meet the criteria when tested at 38℃
(100 deg. F) and are placed 100mm (4inches) or more below the surface. This
recommendation applies only to regions having a range of climatic conditions
similar to those prevailing throughout most of the United States. A different lower
test temperature may be considered in regions having more extreme climatic
conditions.
2. Traffic classifications
 Light Traffic conditions resulting in a Design EAL < 104
Medium Traffic conditions resulting in a Design EAL between 104 and 106
Heavy Traffic conditions resulting in a Design EAL > 106
3. Laboratory compaction efforts should closely approach the maximum density
obtained in the pavement under traffic.
4. The flow value refers to the point where the load begins to decrease.
5. The portion of asphalt cement lost by absorption into the aggregate particles must
be allowed for when calculating percent air voids
6. Percent voids in the minimal aggregate are to be calculated on the basis of the
ASTM bulk specific gravity for the aggregate.

Table 7:

Gradation Air (g) H2 O (g) SSD (g) BSG

Type

A1 1218.2 717.8 1248.9 2.29

A2 1257.7 737.0 1287.7 2.28

A3 1261.9 719.2 1257.8 2.27

AVERAGE BSG:

B1 1245.1 732.5 1291.2 2.26

B2 1245.1 712.3 1285.1 2.17

B3 1234.1 708.5 1264.5 2.21

AVERAGE BSG:
 C1 1241.4 709.2 1272.5 2.20

C2 1233.0 697.9 1264.2 2.18

C3 1257.4 90.8 1294.9 2.08

AVERAGE BSG:

Air (g)
Computation of Table 7: BSG =
SSD (g) −H2 O (g)

1218.2 1257.7
A1 = = 2.29 A2 = = 2.28
1248.9 − 717.8 1287.7− 737.0

1224.7 2.29+2.28+2.27
A3 = = 2.27 Aave. = = 2.28
1257.8 − 719.2 3

1261.9 1245.1
B1 = = 2.26 B2 = = 2.17
1291.2 –732.5 1285.1 –712.3

1234.1 2.26+2.17+2.21
B3 = = 2.21 Bave. = = 2.21
1264.5−708.5 3

1241.4 1233.0
C1 = = 2.20 C2 = = 2.18
1272.5 –709.2 1264.2− 697.9

1257.4 2.20+2.18+2.08
C3 = = 2.08 Cave. = = 2.15
1294.9 − 690.8 3
Table 8: Stability and Flow

Gradation Stability Flow

Type 40 – 45 30 – 35
< 40 – fail > 38 - fail

A1 47 32

A2 43 38

A3 41 37

B1 43 32

B2 44 34

B3 41 36

C1 45 37

C2 43 33

C3 52 28

Table 9: Gmm (Max. Specific Gravity) Edwards Vacuum Pump Apparatus

A1 – A2 B1 – B2 C1 – C2

Weight of sample 2451.8 1500 1500

 Weight of container 2497.6 2497.6 2497.6
only

Weight of container 7681.5 7681.5 7681.5

with water

Weight of sample 9197.5 8610.0 8607.2

after vacuum

Gmm 2.62 2.60 2.61

Note:

1500g = minimum required

Computation of Table 9

Wt. of sample
Gmm =
(Wt. of sample+Wt. of container w/ water)−Wt. of sample after vacuum

For A1 – A2

2451.8
Gmm = = 2.62
(2458.1+7681.5)−9197.5

For B1 – B2

1500
Gmm = = 2.60
(1500+7681.5)−8610.0

For C1 – C2

1500
Gmm = = 2.61
(1500+7681.5)−8607.2
(different specimens with varying percentage of aggregate sizes) (WALA PANG

PROPORTION)

Results of (test)

(Explain table 1.)

Table 2.

Properties of Materials

(Discuss…..)

Design mix proportion (give tables)

Design mix proportion for specimens

Design mix proportion for actual construction of the road

Technical Specifications
 This specifications establishes the principles to be followed in the design mix and the

kinds of materials to be used for the design of a reformulated porous asphalt. This also entails the

results for the testing of materials.

Item 100 – Materials Details

101.1 - Aggregates

101.1.1 Coarse Aggregate

Coarse aggregate shall consist of crushed stone or crushed gravel or a

combination of two. The maximum size of coarse aggregate used shall not exceed 19 mm and

shall conform to the applicable requirements of Item 703 (DPWH Bluebook), Aggregates.

101.1.2 Fine Aggregates

Fine aggregate shall conform to the applicable requirements of Item 703,

Aggregates.

101.2 – Mineral Filler

The mineral filler to be used shall be Portland cement and it shall conform to the

requirements of Item 703 A, Mineral Filler.

Item 300 - Design Mix

300.1 Mixing Temperature

Aggregates shall be heated to 20°C above the recommended mixing temperature.

Polymer modified bitumen should not be heated above 200°C. The ideal mixing temperature

should be established prior to blending and may be determined by using a Bitumen Test Data

Chart, plotting viscosity with respect to temperature. Mixing temperature must not exceed 180°C

or that recommended by the polymer modified bitumen supplier.

300.2 Proportioning of Porous Asphalt Mixture

The proportion of polymer modified bitumen shall be 4.0 to 5.5 percent for Type I and

4.5 to 6.5 percent by total dry aggregate weight for Type II. The exact percentage to be used

shall be fixed by the Engineer in accordance with the job-mix formula and other quality control

requirements. Samples shall be taken from the hot bins in the asphalt plant. Sieve analysis shall

be carried out on the samples and the proportioning of the mixture will be based on the results

obtained.

300.3 Recommended Mix Design of Porous Asphalt

The percent void content of porous asphalt mixture shall be designed by adjusting the

ratio of fine and coarse aggregates. The following gradation is recommended to yield a higher

percentage of voids, high stability and requirements necessary in the design of the mix.

Item 400 – Testing

Item 200 - Testing

200.1 Test of Materials

Test of materials and of concrete shall be made in accordance with standards of ASTM

Standards for the physical and mechanical testing of fine and coarse aggregates.

200.2 Test for Slump

Uniformity or consistency of concrete mix is important to a successful concrete project.

The "slump" test shall be based on American Society for Testing and Materials C 143.

200.3 Tests of Laboratory-Cured Specimens

 Cylinders for strength test shall be taken in accordance with “Method of test for

Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens” (ASTM C 39) and “Method of test for

Split Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens” (ASTM C496).

Beam type for strength test shall be taken in accordance with “Method of test for Flexural

Strength of Beam type Concrete Specimens” (ASTM C78).

Computations of Weight of Materials

Computation of the design mixture for cylindrical specimen

Computation of the design mixture for road type specimen

Computation of design mixture of experimental concrete for cylindrical specimen

Computation of design mixture of experimental concrete for road type specimen

Program of Works

The method used to determine the number of days that the project will be completed is

through the PERT/CPM, in which it indicates the number of hour each laborer could perform in

a day.

Table 5.

CPM/PERT Activity Table

IMMEDIATE
ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION PREDECESSOR a M B
A Develop initial mix design 1 2 3
B Finalize mix design A 1 2 3
C Canvassing of materials B 1 2 3
D Buying of materials C 2 3 4
E Making formworks D 2 3 4
F Submerging jute E 20 21 22
G Sun-drying of jute F 1 2 3
Cutting and shredding of
H jute fiber G 2 3 4
Mixing concrete (28 day
I specimen) H 1 2 3
J Curing(28 day specimen) I 27 28 29
Mixing concrete (14 day
K specimen) H 1 2 3
L Curing(14 day specimen) K 13 14 15
Mixing concrete (7 day
M specimen) H 1 2 3
N Curing(7day speciment) M 6 7 8
O Testing of specimen J,L,N 1 2 3

Expected time
a+4m+b
𝑡=
6
1+4(2)+3 1+4(2)+3
𝑡𝐴 = =2 𝑡𝐼 = =2
6 6
1+4(2)+3 27+4(28)+29
𝑡𝐵 = =2 𝑡𝐽 = =28
6 6
1+4(2)+3 1+4(2)+3
𝑡𝐶 = =2 𝑡𝐾 = =2
6 6
2+4(3)+4 13+4(14)+15
𝑡𝐷 = =3 𝑡𝐿 = = 14
6 6
2+4(3)+4 1+4(2)+3
𝑡𝐸 = =3 𝑡𝑀 = =2
6 6
20+4(21)+22 6+4(7)+8
𝑡𝐹 = = 21 𝑡𝑁 = =7
6 6
1+4(2)+3 1+4(2)+3
𝑡𝐺 = =2 𝑡𝑂 = =2
6 6
2+4(3)+4
𝑡𝐻 = =3
6

Variances
 ACTIVITY T 𝜎2
A 2 days 0.82
B 2 days 0.82
C 2 days 0.82
D 3 days 0.82
E 3 days 0.82
F 21 days 0.82
G 2 days 0.82
H 3 days 0.82
I 2 days 0.82
J 28 days 0.82
K 2 days 0.82
L 14 days 0.82
M 2 days 0.82
N 7 days 0.82
O 2 days 0.82

(3 − 1)2 2 (15 − 3)2 2

𝜎𝐴2 = = = 0.82 𝜎𝐿2 = = = 0.82
6 3 6 3
(3 − 1)2 2 (3 − 1)2 2
𝜎𝐵2 = = = 0.82 2
𝜎𝑀 = = = 0.82
6 3 6 3
(3 − 1)2 2 (8 − 6)2 2
𝜎𝐶2 = = = 0.82 𝜎𝑁2 = = = 0.82
6 3 6 3
(4−)2 2 (3 − 1)2 2
𝜎𝐷2 = = = 0.82 𝜎𝑂2 = = = 0.82
6 3 6 3
(4 − 2)2 2
𝜎𝐸2 = = = 0.82
6 3
(22 − 20)2 2
𝜎𝐹2 = = = 0.82
6 3
(3 − 1)2 2
𝜎𝐺2 = = = 0.82
6 3
(3 − 1)2 2
𝜎𝐼2 = = = 0.82
6 3
(29 − 27)2 2
𝜎𝐽2 = = = 0.82
6 3
(3 − 1)2 2
𝜎𝐾2 = = = 0.82
6 3
 CRITICAL
ACTIVITY ES LS EF LF SLACK PATH
A 0 0 2 2 0 Yes
B 2 2 4 4 0 Yes
C 4 4 8 8 0 Yes
D 8 8 11 11 0 Yes
E 11 11 14 14 0 Yes
F 14 14 35 35 0 Yes
G 35 35 37 37 0 Yes
H 37 37 40 40 0 Yes
I 40 40 42 42 0 Yes
J 42 42 70 70 0 Yes
K 40 54 42 56 14 No
L 42 56 56 70 14 No
M 40 40 42 42 0 Yes
N 42 63 49 70 21 No
O 70 70 72 72 0 Yes
Critical Path = 2 + 2 + 2 + 3 + 3 + 21 + 2 + 3 + 2 + 28 + 2 + 2 = 72.

The total number of working days for the completion of the proposed project study is 72 days.

I J
START A B C D E F G H FINI
K L G
SH
M N

Figure 2. CPM/PERT Diagram

Summary of Compressive Strength Test, MPa

CURING NORMAL 0.75% JUTE 0.85% JUTE 1% JUTE 2% JUTE

TIME FIBER FIBER FIBER FIBER
7 days 17.05 17.95 18.85 15.6 12.25
14 days 19.2 19.45 19.15 16.25 13.65
28 days 21.25 21.85 22.13 18.7 14.45

Explanation

Summary of different test with explanation and bill of materials / cost estimate