Digest Journal of Nanomaterials and Biostructures Vol. 6, No 4, October-December 2011, p.

1823-1834

LABORATORY INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPERTIES OF STONE MATRIX

ASPHALT MIXTURES MODIFIED WITH RGP–SBS

MOJTABA GHASEMIa, SEYED MORTEZA MARANDIb

a
Ph.D. Student, Department of Civil Engineering, Bahonar University, Kerman,
Iran
b
Assist. Prof., Department of Civil Engineering, Bahonar University, Kerman,
Iran

The objective of this study is to evaluate the advantages of adding recycled glass powder
(RGP) and styrene butadiene styrene (SBS) polymer to the base bitumen with the
penetration grade of 60/70 and to modify stone matrix asphalt (SMA) in flexible
pavement. Initial studies were conducted for determining the physical properties of
bitumen and modifiers. Seven different combinations were provided by mixing different
amounts of SBS and RGP with base bitumen. Then, asphalt mixture performance tests
including Marshall Stability, indirect tensile strength and resilient modulus were
performed on the modified and control asphalt samples. The results of the evaluation
showed that SMA mixtures modified by 3.5% RGP and 1.5% SBS presented the best
results in the experiments conducted in this research and also considerably increased
mechanical and physical properties of asphalt and bitumen.

(Received October 10, 2011; accepted November 22, 2011)

Keywords: Stone matrix asphalt, Moisture damage, Compressive strength test,

Indirect tensile strength (ITS), SBS, Recycled glass powder

1. Introduction

Traditional bitumen materials have been successfully used in most of highways and
airports for years. In recent years, increase in the traffic loads in terms of number and weight of
heavier trucks and vehicles with higher tire pressure have increased damage to pavements. To
construct more stable pavements, materials with better properties are required. Polymer
modification is one of the ways for overcoming the weakness of bitumen and, as a result,
improving the performance of asphalt mixtures. Different polymer materials like polyethylene,
ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), polypropylene, etc. have been evaluated as modifiers in order to
improve bitumen performance [1]. SBS is in the group of elastomers, which improves the elastic
properties of bitumen and is probably the best polymer for modifying bitumen. Although bitumen
flexibility increases in low temperatures, some researchers have referred to the decrease of
resistance and endurance against penetration at higher temperatures [2].
Additionally, it seems that modifying asphalt mixtures by polymers has the maximum
potential for the successful application in designing flexible pavements. These advantages include
increasing the pavement’s useful lifetime or decreasing the thickness of base or asphalt concrete
layer [3, 4].
Awanti et al. (2008) found that (a) the Marshall flow and stability values of polymer
asphalt were more than those of the traditional asphalt, (b) indirect tensile strength of polymer
asphalt was more than that of traditional asphalt at different temperatures and (c) the sensitivity of
polymer asphalt against moisture is lower than that of traditional asphalt [5].
Xiao et al. (2007) found that modifying bitumen by SBS led to the resistance improvement
against initial cracking although it does not affect the aging of asphalt mixture [6].
_________________________________________
*Corresponding author: mojtabaghasemi93@[Link]
1824

Nowadays, environmental issues and material recycling considerations have become part
of daily life. Therefore, using useless broken glass is an appropriate option for improving asphalt
performance. Although improvement in asphalt performance has been obtained by polymer
modification, studies with regard to decreasing SMA problems using SBS and RGP seem to be
attractive. The authors of this research have not observed any information regard to the effect of
simultaneous combination of SBS and RGP on SMA properties.

1-1 Objectives
The objectives of this research include:
1. Determining and comparing the physical properties of unmodified and modified bitumen,
2. Determining the compatibility of base bitumen with SBS and RGP,
3. Determining Marshall characteristics of modified and unmodified SMA mixtures,
4. Determining indirect tensile strength of modified and unmodified SMA mixtures,
5. Evaluating and comparing sensitivity of modified and unmodified SMA mixtures against
moisture,
6. Determining compression strength of modified and unmodified SMA mixtures, and
7. Determining resilient modulus of modified and unmodified SMA mixtures.
Laboratory studies were conducted on the bitumen modified by SBS and RGP in order to
evaluate engineering properties like penetration, softening point, flash point, ductility, specific
gravity and percentage of loss on heating. Performance tests such as Marshall strength, indirect
tensile strength, tensile strength ratio, compression strength and resilient modulus were done to
examine engineering properties of SMA mixtures modified by SBS and RGP and control mixtures.
SBS polymer was selected for this research for the following reasons: this polymer was
appropriate for the climate of Iran; only a small percentage of it was required for bitumen
modification (about 5 to 6 percent by weight) and it had medium costs. According to the studies
conducted by Awanti et al. (2008), 5% SBS was used for the combination with base bitumen [5].

2. The Experimental Program

For investigating the properties of SMA modified by SBS and RGP, an extensive
experimental study was conducted. Fig. 1 demonstrates the experimental design of this study. In
the present study, a total of seven modified binders were evaluated by a randomized complete
block experimental design. A total of 192 Marshall Specimens (50 blows/side) were constructed
and tested. All the replicates were randomly applied in order to ensure the fairness of testing.

2.1. Material Properties

The used aggregate was river-type granular soil excavated from a huge mine located in
EkhtiarAbbad Kerman site, south-east of Iran. In 1994, the SMA Technical Working Group
(TWG) of Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) developed Model Material and Construction
Guidelines for SMA [7]. The specifications of the guideline recommended a maximum L.A.
Abrasion loss of 30 percent. A single gradation was also specified which corresponded with the
European 16 mm SMA with 100 percent passing the 19.0 mm sieve and 85 to 95 percent passing
the 12.5 mm sieve (Fig. 2). The value of the sand equivalent of the tested soil was determined
according to ASTM D 2419 - 02 [8] which was76%. ASTM Test Method for Specific Gravity of
Soils (D 854 - 02) was used to find the specific gravity of the tested soil which was 2.827 at the
temperature of 20°C [9]. The values of water absorption ratio, abrasion loss and frost action of the
tested soil were determined according to ASTM C-127, ASTM DC-131 and ASTM C-88 which
were 1.7%, 14.2% and 0.72%, respectively. The above-mentioned information is summarized in
Table (1). The applied filler was calcium carbonate (CaCO3) which came from an asphalt plant.
Calcium carbonate was constructed for passing through an ASTM #200 sieve and had a specific
gravity of 2.724.
 1825

Fig. 1 Flowchart of experimental design.

Fig. 2. Envelope of SMA gradation and design gradation.

Table 1. The tested aggregate properties.

Sand Water Abration Frost

Specific
Equivalent absorption loss (%) action
Gravity
(%) ratio (%) (%)
76 2.827 1.7 14.2 0.72

In this research, a kind of asphalt binder with the normal paving of 60/70-penetration
grade was used for producing all test specimens which was taken from the Isfahan Mineral Oil
Refinery. This used asphalt binder properties are summarized in Table (2).
1826

Table (2): The used bitumen properties.

Property Test method Quantity

Penetration at 25 oC, 100g, 5 s (deci-millimetre, d-mm) ASTM D-5 65
Softening Point, ring and ball (oC) ASTM D36 50
Flash Point, Cleveland open cup (oC) ASTM D-92 292
Ductility at 25 oC at 5 cm/min (cm) ASTM D-113 165.4
Specific gravity at 25 oC (gr/cm3) ASTM D-70 1.017
Loss on heating, wt (%) ASTM D-6 0.05

The recycled glass was crushed and groundusing a jaw crusher and a ball mill,
respectively, for 10 min in order to obtain RGP, which was made for passing through an ASTM
#200 sieve and had the specific gravity of 2.47. The RGP particle size distribution was determined
by a laser particle analyzer and is given in Table (3).

Table (3) Particle size distribution of RGP.

Size, nm Percent Passing

4587 100
3961 99.6
3420 88
2953 52.4
2550 14.3
2202 0.6
1901 0

The microscopic morphology of the recycled glass powder is shown in Fig. 3 as was
measured by Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM).SEM examinations indicated that the glass
powders mainly consisted of coarse and angular flaky particles with a broad range of particle size.
Moreover, to verify the absorption degree of RGP, the specific surface area test was conducted.
According to ASTM C204, the specific surface area of the recycled glass powder was 467 m2/kg.
Therefore, the recycle glass powder had high absorption.
 1827

Fig. 3. SEM morphology of RGP

2.2. Preparation Procedure of the Specimen

While modifying the base binder, different percentage of solid-formed SBS and RGP was
mixed at 170°C using a high-speed stirrer which rotated at 3,000 rpm. Blending was done for 2 h
in order to obtain a homogeneous binder [10, 11].
2.3. Test Procedure
Compatibility of the SBS-RGP Binder
The compatibility of SBS, RGP and asphalt was investigated through the following
techniques:
• The dispersion uniformity of SBS and RGP was confirmed by having the binder pass
through an ASTM #100 sieve at 170°C. The prepared binder could be stored for the future usage
[12].
• The storage stability (separation tendency) of SBS-RGP modified binders was measured
in the following way [13]: the sample was put into an aluminum foil tube which was 32 mm in
diameter and 160 mm in height. The tube was sealed without an air enclosure and was vertically
stored in an oven at 163°C. After 48 h, the tube containing the modified asphalt was cooled down
to the ambient temperature and horizontally cut to three equal parts. The upper and lower parts
were then melted and stored separately in small cans labeled T and B, respectively, and the
softening points of T and B were determined. The sample could be assumed to have good storage
stability, when the difference of the softening points between T and B is less than 2.5°C [10, 14].
Marshall Properties
For preparing the mix design, the mix design procedure for SMA was followed which was
as proposed in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Rep. No. 425 [15].
Locally available materials with normal SMA specifications were used for producing the reference
mix which including the 60/70 penetration grade asphalt without any mineral fibers. Laboratory
specimens were prepared using 50 blows of the Marshall hammer per side. The optimum asphalt
content for SMA mixtures is usually selected for producing 4% air voids and less than 0.3% drain
down.
In the present study, all SMA samples were compacted using 50 blows of the Marshall
hammer per side. The optimum asphalt content for the control mixture was 6.11% at 4% air voids
which was used in preparing SBS-RGP-modified SMA mixtures for maintaining consistency
throughout the study. Three identical samples were constructed for each mixture.
Tensile Strength Testing
1828

Tensile strength testing is used for evaluating the asphalt mixture’s fatigue potential and
moisture susceptibility. Previous studied have indicated that the tensile strength of hot-mix asphalt
is related to fatigue cracking [16]. Higher tensile strength means that asphalt pavement can tolerate
higher strains before failing (i.e., cracking). Furthermore, the moisture susceptibility of the asphalt
mixture could be evaluated by comparing the tensile strength of asphalt mixtures in wet and dry
conditions [17]. In this study, the tensile strength of all samples was tested according to AASHTO
T283. The indirect tensile strength was done at 25°C with 50.8 mm/min deformationrate and a
Universal Testing Machine (UTM Zwick 1498) was also applied. The indirect tensile strength was
determined using the following equation: ITS = (2Pmax)/(πdh) where Pmax represents the breaking
load (N) of the specimens under diametral compression and d and h are average values of the
diameter (mm) and height (m) of the Marshall specimens, respectively.
Water sensitivity of mixture can be evaluated using the value of tensile strength ratio
(TSR) in the following way: TSR = ITS1/ITS2 where ITS1 is the average indirect tensile strength of
the conditioned specimen, MPa and ITS2 is the average indirect tensile strength of unconditioned
specimen, MPa.
Toughness Index (TI) as a parameter which describes the toughening characteristics in the
post-peak region was also calculated according to the IDT test results [18]. The normalized stress
and strain were achieved through dividing their values by the maximum stress and strain values. A
dimensionless TI was calculated as shown below:

TI = (1)

Where TI is the toughness index, Aε is the area under the normalized stress–strain curve
up to strain Ap, Ap is the area under the normalized stress–strain curve from εp to ε, ε is the strain at
the point of interest and εp is the strain corresponding to the peak stress. TI is used for comparing
the performance of a specimen with that of an elastic, perfectly plastic reference material for
which the TI remains a constant of 1 [18]. In the case of an ideal brittle material with no post-peak
load carrying capacity, the value of TI equals zero. Here, TIs were calculated up to the tensile
strain of 0.01 plus the strain at failure.
Compression Strength Test
A Zwick 1498 universal testing machine was used for performing the compression
strength test. In order to accurately apply the axial compressive loading on the specimen, two-end
surfaces must be kept parallel through very smooth cutting. The compression strength test was
done under a load controlled mode which had the loading rate of 10 KN/min and the maximum
load was recorded during the test. Ninety-six Marshall specimens were used in this test, which
were set into four groups. The first group was cured in air at room temperature for 24 h; the second
group was cured in a 25°C water bath for 24 h; the third group was subjected to 25 cycles of
freezing and thawing and were put in plastic freezing bags and about 10 ml of water was added to
each bag. They were kept in a freezer at -20°C for 4 h followed by 4 h of thawing at 25°C. The
fourth group was cured in an oven at 50°C for 4 h. The first three groups were subjected to the
compression strength test at 25°C and the fourth group was tested at 50°C.
The results of all the compression strength tests were used for obtaining the coefficients
mentioned below [1].
The following equation was applied in order to compute Kh

Kh=R25/R50 (2)

Kh is coefficient of heat resistance, R25 is compression strength (MPa) at 25°C and R50 is
compression strength (MPa) at 50°C.
The following equation was used for calculating Kf

Kf=Rf/Rw (3)
 1829

Kf is coefficient of frost resistance, Rf is compression strength after 25 cycles of freeze-thaw

(MPa) and Rw is compression strength of water absorbed specimen (MPa).
Kw was computed using the following equation:

Kw = Rw/R25 (4)

Kw is the coefficient of water resistance.

Resilient Modulus
The resilient modulus (MR) shows the ratio of an applied stress to the recoverable strain
which takes place after removing the applied stress. Here, it was determined from doing tests on
cylindrical specimens for each mixture at the designed asphalt contents in an indirect tension
mode. Approximately 15% of the indirect tensile strength of each mixture was applied on the
vertical diameter for the conventional and SBS-RGP modified specimens. The frequency of load
application was 1 Hz with the load duration of 0.1 s in order to represent field conditions and the
resting period of 0.9 s.
The tests were conducted at 25°C which was according to ASTM D4123. Using an
environmental air chamber, the test temperature was maintained. Each specimen was placed inside
the chamber at the set temperature for 3 h before testing. Three samples were made for each of the
eight kinds of evaluated mixtures and their averages represented MR for each mixture.

3. Test Results and Discussion

Compatibility of the SBS-RGP Binder
Table 4 compares the difference of the top and bottom sections of the SBS-RGP modified
binders. The maximum difference was 1.4 in softening points for SBS-RGP modified binders,
which indicated that the storage stability of SBS-RGP modified binders was effectively improved.
Table (4) Basic properties of SBS-RGP modified asphalt binders

Property 5%SBS 4.5%SBS 3.5%SBS 2.5%SBS 1.5%SBS 0.5%SBS 0%SBS

+0%RGP +0.5%RG +1.5%RG +2.5%RG +3.5%RG +4.5%RG +5%RGP
P P P P P
Penetration, (d-mm) 42 41 41 40 40 40 39
Flash Point,(oC) 256 260 260 262 268 270 283
Ductility (cm) 102 105 109 122 115 109 103
Specific gravity 0.963 1.003 1.042 1.085 1.124 1.169 1.208
Loss on heating, wt (%) .47 .43 .39 .38 .33 .28 .24
Storage Stability
Top ring and ball, (oC) 62.6 62.8 62.9 63.1 63.4 63.5 63.8
Bottom ring and ball, 61.8 61.9 61.9 62.0 62.2 62.2 62.2
(oC)
Difference 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.6
Penetration Index (PI) 1.02 1.00 1.01 .98 1.02 1.03 1.00

The basic properties of the SBS-RGP modified asphalt binder were evaluated and the
results are presented in Table 4. The results demonstrate that SBS-RGP is effective for improving
the basic properties of asphalt cement. Table 4 shows that the softening point of SBS-RGP
modified asphalt binder is higher than that of asphalt cement whereas the least increase is 26.9%
for 5%SBS and the most increase is 30.6% for 5%RGP. Moreover, penetration and percent loss of
heat and air (aging) of the SBS-RGP modified asphalt binder is lower than those of asphalt cement
whereas, in penetration, the least reduction is 36.4% for 5%SBS and the most reduction is 40.9%
for 5%RGP. In aging, the least reduction is 50.0% for 5%SBS and the most reduction is 75.5% for
5%RGP.
The temperature susceptibility of asphalt binders is quantified using the penetration index
(PI). The maximum calculated values of PI are 1.03 and -0.87 for SBS-RGP modified asphalts and
asphalt cement, respectively. Higher value of PI indicates lower temperature susceptibility of the
1830

binder. Thus, the temperature susceptibility of the SBS-RGP modified asphalts is lower than that
of the asphalt cement.

Marshall Properties
Results of the Marshall test are summarized in Table 5. SBS and RGP addition raised the
Marshall quotient (MQ) and stability of the control mixture by 78.95 and 80.15%, respectively,
whereas irregularity in flow value was observed by adding this modifier. Higher stability may be
caused by higher viscosity of the SBS-RGP modified asphalt binder compared with asphalt
cement.

Table (5) Marshall Test Results of Control and SBS-RGP Asphalt Mixtures
Sample Mixture BSG VTM(%) VMA(%) VFB(%) Stability Flow MQ Drain
No. type (kN) (mm) (kN/mm) down(%)
1 60/70 2347 4.33 14.92 70.11 6.822 4 1.71 0.287
binder
2 5%SBS 2341 4.24 14.97 71.68 11.58 5.3 2.18 0.272
+0%RGP
3 4.5%SBS 2340 4.09 14.84 72.45 10.61 4.9 2.17 0.269
+0.5%RGP
4 3.5%SBS 2332 3.65 14.97 75.62 10.716 5.7 1.88 0.269
+1.5%RGP
5 2.5%SBS 2312 4.09 15.54 73.67 12.29 5.5 2.23 0.267
+2.5%RGP
6 1.5%SBS 2326 3.85 14.74 73.88 10.098 3.3 3.06 0.265
+3.5%RGP
7 0.5%SBS 2323 3.64 14.68 75.21 9.946 4.3 2.31 0.264
+4.5%RGP
8 0%SBS 2280 3.96 15.93 75.15 8.982 3.7 2.43 0.261
+5%RGP

Note: BSG = bulk specific gravity; VTM = volume of total mix; VMA= volume of voids in
mineral aggregates; VFB= volume filled with binder.

Tensile Strength Testing

The tensile strengths of control and SBS-RGP asphalt mixtures are given in Fig. 4. It can
be seen that the indirect tensile strength was improved by adding SBS and RGP to the base
bitumen and the 1.5% SBS plus 3.5% RGP mix achieved the highest value.
 1831

Fig. 4. Indirect tensile strength of unmodified and modified mixtures

Fig. 5 summarizes the result of the tensile strength ratio (TSR) for the samples conditioned
with [Link] is observed in this figure that the modified samples have higher TSR values
compared with the unmodified control mixture. Overall, it can be concluded that adding RGP and
SBS reduces a mixture’s moisture susceptibility in most cases.

Fig. 5. Comparison of tensile strength ratio for unmodified and modified mixtures

Most pavement agencies suggest that the TSR value should be greater than 70–80% in
their mix design specifications [19]. As shown in Fig. 5, the average TSR value of the SBS-RGP
modified mixtures (85%) is by about 16% greater than that of the conventional mixture (73%).
As can be seen in Fig. 6, the toughness index increased for four modified mixtures. Thus, the
mixtures’ strength and their resistance to the fatigue cracking which is associated with the
brittleness increased by adding SBS and RGP to the base bitumen.
1832

Fig. 6 Toughness index (TI) of unmodified and SBS-RGP modified mixtures

Compression Strength Test

According to Table 6, modified mixtures have satisfactory results of compression strength and
higher coefficient of water, heat and frost resistance than the control mixture. In addition, the
mixture modified by 2.5% RGP + 2.5% SBS outperforms all other modifiers.
Table (6) Compression strength test results
60/70 5%SBS 4.5%SBS 3.5%SBS 2.5%SBS 1.5%SBS 0.5%SBS 0%SBS
Binde +0%RG +2.5%RG +3.5%RG +4.5%RG +5%RG
r P +0.5%RG +1.5%RG P P P P
P P
R50 1.63 1.69 1.80 1.91 1.96 1.94 1.88 1.71
(Mp
a)
Rf 1.72 2.21 2.45 2.87 3.12 2.97 2.65 2.05
(Mp
a)
R25 2.21 2.54 2.77 3.15 3.35 3.29 3.03 2.42
(Mp
a)
Rw 1.98 2.35 2.58 2.96 3.18 3.09 2.81 2.20
(Mp
a)
Kw 0.90 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.91
Kh 1.36 1.50 1.54 1.65 1.71 1.69 1.61 1.41
Kf 0.87 0.94 0.95 0.97 0.98 0.96 0.94 0.93

Resilient Modulus
Fig. 7 presents the MR test results. This figure demonstrates that the MR values for the
control and SBS-RGP modified asphalt concrete samples were between 1535 and 3493KPa. The
percentage increase in the average MR was comparatively significant.
 1833

Fig. 7. Resilient modulus of unmodified and modified mixtures

For comparing the workability obtained from different tests, the data from Marshall
stability, indirect tensile strength, tensile strength ratio, toughness index, compression strength and
resilient modulus for unmodified and SBS-RGP modified mixtures, respectively, were ranked, as
summarized in Tables 7. The test results did not clearly indicate better asphalt type because
rankings may change from one test to another. The Kw and Kf results showed no large difference
between mixture types. However, more testing is needed before a definite conclusion can be taken.

Table (7) Workability ranking of unmodified and SBS-RGP modified mixtures

Tests 60/70 5%SBS 4.5%SBS 3.5%SBS 2.5%SBS 1.5%SBS 0.5%SBS 0%SBS
Binde +0%RG +2.5%RG +3.5%RG +4.5%RG +5%RG
r P +0.5%RG +1.5%RG P P P P
P P
MQ 8 5 5 7 4 1 3 2
ITS 8 4 3 5 2 1 6 7
TSR 8 4 3 5 2 1 6 7
TI 5 3 7 6 2 1 8 3
Kw 8 4 4 2 1 2 4 7
Kh 8 6 5 3 1 2 4 7
Kf 8 5 4 2 1 3 5 7
MR 8 1 5 6 7 4 3 2

In comparison with other test types, a completely different picture was demonstrated by TI
results. According to the ranking, the SMA modified by the 1.5% SBS plus 3.5% RGP performed
best while the base SMA ranked the last. This is in agreement with the binder tests. Overall, test
results exhibited that the modified binders increased the resistance of the SMA. However, a
specific combination of SBS and RGP which was better than others could not be clearly identified.

5. Conclusions

In the present paper, a series of tests was conducted using SBS-RGP modified SMA
mixtures. According to the tested mixtures, the following cases can be concluded:
1. The binder test results exhibited higher softening point, less temperature susceptibility,
less percentage loss in weight and susceptibility to aging and satisfactory compatibility of SBS-
RGP with the base asphalt cement.
1834

2. The mixture test results demonstrated up to 79% higher stability, 34% higher tensile
strength in the temperature range of 25°C, up to 26% lower moisture susceptibility, 167% higher
toughness index, higher compression strength in different conditions and 127% increase in
resilient modulus values at 25°C.
3. In sum, test results showed that the modified binders increased SMA resistance and
workability.
4. According to the ranking, the SMA modified by 1.5% SBS plus 3.5% RGP performed
best while the base SMA ranked the last.
5. The TI results showed a completely different picture compared with other test types.
6. Kw and Kf results demonstrated no high difference between mixture types.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank and appreciate the management and staff of the
“Technical and Soil Mechanic Lab Co.” in Tehran, Iran, for their generous assistance and valuable
comments on the experimental works done in this research.

References

[1] Ahmedzade P., Tigdemir M., Kalyoncuoglu S.F. Laboratory investigation of the properties of
asphalt concrete mixtures modified with TOP–SBS. Construction and Building Materials
21, 626 (2007).
[2] Gorkem, C., andSengoz, B. “Predicting stripping and moisture induced damage of
asphalt concrete prepared with polymer modified bitumen and hydrated lime.” Constr. Build.
Mater., 23, 2227 (2009).
[3] Al-Hadidy, A. I., and Tan, Y..“Effect of polyethylene on life of flexible pavements.”
Constr. Build. Mater., 23, 1456 (2009a)
[4] Al-Hadidy, A. I., and Tan, Y.. “Mechanistic approach for polypropylene modified
flexible pavements.” [Link]., 30, 1133 (2009b)
[5] Awanti, S. S., Amarnath, M. S., and Veeraragavan, A.. “Laboratory evaluation of SBS
modified bituminous paving mix.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 20(4), 327 (2008)
[6] Xiao, F., Amirkhanian, S., and Juang C.H. J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 19(6), 475 (2007).
[7] Model Material and Construction Guidelines, SMA Technical Working Group, (TWG),
FHWA, 1994.
[8] ASTM.(2002). “Standard test methods for sand equivalent value of soils and fine aggregate.”
D2419.
[9] ASTM.(2002). “Standard test methods for specific gravity of soil solids by water
pycnometer.”D 854.
[10] Wen, G., Zhang, Y., Zhang, Y., Sun, K., Fan, Y. Polym. Test., 21, 295 (2001).
[11] Jin, H., Gao, G., Zhang, Y., Zhang, Y., Sun, K., and Fan, Y. Polym. Test., 21, 633 (2002).
[12] Punith, V. S., Veeraragavan, A. J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 19(6), 500 (2007).
[13] ASTM. (2005). “Standard practice for determining the separation tendency of polymer from
polymer modified asphalt.” D7173, West Conshohocken, PA.
[14] Ouyang, C., Wang, S., Zhang, Y., and Zhang, Y. [Link]. Stab., 87, 309 (2005).
[15] Brown, E. R., and Cooley, L. A. (1999). “Designing stone matrix asphalt mixtures for rut-
resistance pavement.” NCHRP Rep. No. 425, National Cooperative Highway Research
Program, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
[16] Goh S W, Akin M, You Z, Shi X. Construction and Building Materials 25, 195 (2011).
[17] Akisetty C, Xiao F, Gandhi T, Amirkhanian S. Construction and Building Materials
25, 950 (2011).
[18] Huang B., Dong Q., Burdette E.G. Construction and Building Materials 23, 3451 (2009).
[19] Lee H J, Lee J H, Park H M. Construction and Building Materials 21, 1079 (2007).