Asian Transport Studies, Volume 1, Issue 4 (2011), 445-455

2011 ATS All rights reserved

Resistance to Disintegration of Rubberized Porous Asphalt

Herda Yati KATMAN a, Mohd Rasdan IBRAHIM b, Mohamed Rehan KARIM c,

Abdel Aziz MAHREZ d
a
College of Engineering, Universiti Tenaga Nasional, KM 7, Jalan Kajang-Puchong, 43009
Kajang, Selangor, Malaysia; E-mail: herdayati77@yahoo.com
b
Civil Engineering Department, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia;
E-mail: rasdan@um.edu.my
c
E-mail: rehan@um.edu.my
d
E-mail: aziz112@hotmail.com

Abstract: Porous asphalt mainly rely on the binder content and binder properties for cohesion
between aggregate particles where good cohesion would increase resistance to permanent
deformation like raveling and stripping. This paper presented the results of a Cantabro
Abrasion Loss Test on rubberized porous asphalt. Specimens were prepared with different
percentages of binder content, rubber content and mixing process namely wet process and dry
process. Two kinds of samples, an air-cured sample and a water-soaked sample, were used to
simulate raveling and stripping respectively. Results indicated that the incorporation of a low
amount of rubber resulted in better abrasion resistance in wet mixing process, while resistance
to abrasion increases as rubber content increase on samples prepared by a dry mixing process.
The study showed that dry process samples were more effective than wet mix samples in
reducing abrasion loss for both conditions of sample.

Keywords: Rubberized bitumen, Crumb rubber, Cantabro abrasion loss test, Porous asphalt

1. INTRODUCTION

Permanent deformation is an important factor in flexible pavement design. With the increase
in traffic load and tire pressure, which cause deflection and stress to the pavement, most of
the permanent deformation occurs in the upper layers rather than in the subgrade (Huang,
1993). Examples of the effect of permanent deformation are raveling and stripping. Porous
asphalt also faces the same problem since this is designed to possess high voids content. Due
to the high volume of pores in the mix, water easily penetrates through it and accelerates the
oxidation process which can cause stripping because of the decrease in binder viscosity. This
phenomenon accelerates mix disintegration and the loss of surface aggregate as a result of
traffic stresses.
The Cantabro Abrasion Loss Test, developed in Spain, is widely used to determine the
likely resistance of a mixture to the impact and abrasion effects offered by traffic (Khalid and
Walsh, 1999b). It is widely used in other European countries to design and evaluate porous
asphalt. Currently, the test is being developed as European Standard test method PrEN 12697-
17 (OFlaherty, 2002).
Specification limits can be set in terms of the abrasion loss in the Cantabro to safeguard
against excessive disintegration while in service. Typically, a 30 percent Cantabro abrasion
loss is the limit for mix acceptance at 18oC test temperature, or 25 percent at 25oC test

445
 KATMAN, H.Y., et al. / Asian Transport Studies, Volume 1, Issue 4 (2011), 445-455

temperature (OFlaherty, 2002). The limit value for the Cantabro loss suggested in Spain is
30% to 35% of initial weight at 25oC test temperature (Zoorob et al., 1999).
Zoorob et al. (1999) found that regardless of the bitumen type, the abrasion loss decreased
as the bitumen content increased. This is due to the improved mix cohesion and hence
resistance to tensile impact stresses. Thicker binder films provide greater cohesion between
the coated aggregate particles and act as a cushion dissipating the dynamic energy which
gradually disintegrates the compacted specimen. The study showed that 7% Styrene
Butadiene Styrene (SBS) modified bitumen reduced the abrasion loss by approximately half
compared to that of straight run bitumen, while the introduction of fibers into the SBS
modified mix showed no significant benefits with respect to the abrasion loss. A similar
pattern was observed by Cabrera and Hamzah (1996) who found that porous mixes suffered
almost complete disintegration at 3% bitumen content. Nevertheless the performance was
found to be better at bitumen contents exceeding 3.5%.
Khalid and Walsh (1999a) studied the correlation between rheology and Cantabro testing.
Three types of binders, 100 pen., EVA and SBS, were used in the study. It found that within
the temperature range from -15oC to 35oC, a useful correlation (y = axb) has been established
between the loss modulus G*sin and the Cantabro loss for the three binders used. This study
also found that the Cantabro loss characterizes the three binders in the same order as their
rheological properties in their un-aged and aged states.
Zoorob et al. (1999) mentioned that the type of additive would have a significant effect on
the resistance to bitumen stripping. Compared to 50 penetration grade straight run bitumen,
the study showed that the 7% SBS modified binder film experienced more damage when
conditioning in washing solution for 2 days at 30oC. Also found that the binder dissolved in
the solution which the original black color had changed to brown.
Different experiences were observed regarding the types of mixing process. Wong (2007)
mentioned that the dry process exhibits unstable performance, ranging from acceptable to
disastrous. The main reason for the fluctuating performance of the dry process is claimed to
be a result of poor control in the gradation of the aggregate and crumb rubber and lack of
understanding of the volume changes taking place due to swelling of the crumb rubber during
the mixing process and handling. This finding is different from that of Sandra et al. (2004),
which showed that the dry process presents some advantages versus the wet process. Aside
from the mixing process, the performance of the rubberized mixes is influenced by many
factors. For instance, the binder types, rubber contents, aggregate gradations and rubberized
binder preparation all play a part.
In this study, the Cantabro Abrasion Loss Test conducted on an air-cured sample was
performed in order to measure the resistance to raveling while the Cantabro Abrasion Loss
Test on water soaked sample was carried out to simulate stripping of the mix. Raveling and
weathering are the wearing away of the pavement surface caused by the dislodging of
aggregate particles due to stripping and the loss of asphalt binder due to hardening. The
Particle Loss test is used as an indicator of cohesion for a given binder type and content by
measuring particle loss (or abrasion) after turns in a Los Angeles machine.

2. LABORATORY INVESTIGATION

2.1 Materials
The materials used in this study were tested and conform to the Malaysia Standard for Road

446
 KATMAN, H.Y., et al. / Asian Transport Studies, Volume 1, Issue 4 (2011), 445-455

Works requirement. Aggregates with nominal size 20mm, 10 mm and quarry dust supplied by
Hanson Quarry Sdn. Bhd, Cheras were used in sample preparation. Bitumen penetration grade
80/100 from Engineering Bitutech Sdn. Bhd. was used as a binder. A 2% Ordinary Portland
Cement was used as a mineral filler. Rubber used was crumb tire with 40 mesh in size from
Rubplast Sdn. Bhd. Porous gradation used in this research is shown in Figure 1.

100
90 mid-pt
80 Lower limit
70 Upper limit
% passing

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 0 1 10 100
Sieve size(mm)

Figure 1. Aggregates gradation for the porous asphalt

2.2 Preparation of Rubberized Binder and Mixture

Four different percentages of 40 mesh rubber crumb (3%, 6%, 9% and 12%) were blended
with bitumen penetration grade 80/100 to form four different rheology of rubberized bitumen.
The amount of rubber crumb is by weight of the binder. Firstly, the bitumen grade 80/100 was
heated to 160oC and then mixed with the rubber crumb with a propeller mixer at a low speed
for about 2 minutes. Then the blend was heated up and stirred at higher speed of 150 rpm for
one hour. The resultant rubberized bitumen was then used for the sample preparation by wet
mixing process.
The wet mixing process refers to any method that adds rubber to bitumen, which is then
well blended before incorporating the rubberized bitumen into the mix. In preparing the dry
process sample, rubber was added directly into the aggregate prior to being mixed with
bitumen grade penetration 80/100.

2.3 Cantabro Abrasion Loss Test

The test was performed on an air cured sample and a water soaked sample. The wet soaked
sample was prepared by immersing the air-cured sample in a water bath at 491oC for four
days. On the fifth day the samples were taken out of the bath and allowed to drain for 18
hours. The Cantabro Test was performed following a method adapted from BS EN 12697-
17:2004. In this test, the sample was placed in the Los Angeles Machine without the charge of
steel ball. The machine was operated for hundreds of rotations at a speed of 30 to 33 rpm. The
sample was then removed and its mass determined to the nearest 0.1 gram and recorded as
M100. Again, the same sample was placed in the Los Angeles Machine and rotating was
continued until 700 rotations, with the mass of the sample recorded after each hundred
rotations. Nevertheless, results of Cantabro Test at 300 rotations were discussed throughout

447
 KATMAN, H.Y., et al. / Asian Transport Studies, Volume 1, Issue 4 (2011), 445-455

this paper.
The percentage of Air Abrasion Loss (AAL) and Water Abrasion Loss (WAL) at each
hundred rotations was calculated based on equations 1 and 2. The term Air Abrasion Loss
(ALr) refers to abrasion loss for air cured samples whereas Water Abrasion Loss (WALr)
refers to water soaked samples.

ALr = [(M iw M r ) / M iw ]* 100 (1)

WALr = [(M iw M r ) / M iw ]* 100 (2)

where:
Miw : initial mass of sample
Mr : mass of sample after each hundred rotation
r : number of rotations (100, 200,300, 400, 500, 600 and 700 rotations)

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Effects of Binder Content on Abrasion Loss

Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the abrasion loss reduction in rubberized mixes prepared by wet
mixing process, as the binder content increases. These results agree with the findings obtained
by Cabrera and Hamzah (1996), Zoorob et al. (1999) and generally concur with the findings
of several other researchers. This was expected because high amounts of binder content
improve mix cohesion and hence improve the resistance to tensile stresses.

50
Air Abrasion loss (%)

40

30

20

10

0
0% 3% 6% 9% 12%
Rubber Contents
4% Binder 5% Binder 6% Binder
Figure 2. Air abrasion loss on samples prepared by wet mixing process

448
 KATMAN, H.Y., et al. / Asian Transport Studies, Volume 1, Issue 4 (2011), 445-455

100

Water Abrasion Loss (%)

80

60

40

20

0
0% 3% 6% 9% 12%
Rubber Contents

4% Binder 5% Binder 6% Binder

Figure 3. Water abrasion loss on samples prepared by wet mixing process

3.2 Air Abrasion Loss Result on Wet Mixing Process Sample

The effect of rubber content on air abrasion loss brought about by wet mixing process sample
is shown in Figure 4. The results show that the air abrasion loss generally increases with the
increase of the rubber content. Nevertheless, samples with low rubber content show similar
result to the control mix as shown by sample made by 5% and 6% binder content. For both
binder contents, best resistance of abrasion is achieved by rubber content 3% followed by 6%,
0%, 9% and 12%. The corresponding resistance loss of samples made by 6% binder content
are 4.92%, 3.41%, 4.35%, 5.47%,and 6.16% for rubber content 0%, 3%, 6% and 12%
respectively. Even the difference on resistance loss is not significant (1.51%, 0.94% for 0% to
3% rubber and 3% to 6% rubber respectively), it still showed that incorporating rubber in
porous mixes improves resistance to abrasion. It can be concluded that only a low amount of
rubber i.e. 3% and 6% is needed to improve the resistance compared to control mix (0%
rubber), further increases in rubber content results in a decrease in the resistance of abrasion.

50
41.24
Air Abrasion loss (%)

40
29.54

30
20.30

16.20
15.57
13.42

13.20

20
7.30

7.30
7.25

6.16
5.47
4.92

10
4.35
3.41

0
4% 5% 6%
Binder Contents

0% Rubber 3% Rubber 6% Rubber 9% Rubber 12% Rubber

Figure 4. Air abrasion loss versus binder content on samples prepared by wet mixing process

449
 KATMAN, H.Y., et al. / Asian Transport Studies, Volume 1, Issue 4 (2011), 445-455

In high bitumen content, none of the mixes exceed the Maximum Permissible Air Abrasion
Loss i.e. 25 % as suggested by European Studies.
The results also revealed that at high binder content such as 6%, mixes perform similarly,
with the air abrasion loss values that are almost the same at these rubber content levels.
However, at low binder content (4%), the difference in performance of the mixes is
significant and the air abrasion loss increases as the rubber content increases. At 5% binder
content, resistance offered by the control mix, 3% rubber and 6% rubber is almost the same.
However, further increase in rubber content appears to significantly decrease the resistance to
abrasion. Among all mixes, there are only two mixes that exceed the permissible limit, those
prepared with 9% and 12% rubber and both prepared with 4% binder content.

3.3 Water Abrasion Loss Result on Wet Mixing Process Sample

The effects of the rubber content on water abrasion loss achieved with control mix and
rubberised mixes prepared by wet mixing process are summarized in Figure 5.
Rubber content has a significant effect on water abrasion loss. It seems that about 53% of
the mixes exceed the 40% water abrasion loss level which is the maximum permissible value.
Generally, water abrasion loss increases with increase in rubber content for all binder content
levels. However at 6% binder, the water abrasion loss achieved by 3% rubber is better than
control mix being 0.93% lower. A further increase in rubber content results in a decrease in
the resistance to water abrasion loss. It can be concluded that the amount of binder content is
crucial in order to evaluate the performance of rubberized mixes. Besides that, result also
showed that low rubber content is needed to improve resistance to stripping. Among all the
mixes, the sample prepared with 3% rubber made with 6% binder content is the best whereas
the worst performance was for the sample with 6% rubber made with 4% binder content.

100
80.33
74.61
Water Abrasion Loss (%)

67.65
67.55

65.68

80
49.15

47.55

60
42.11
37.99
35.56
33.40

26.11

40
22.63
17.76
16.83

20

0
4% 5% 6%
Binder Contents

0% Rubber 3% Rubber 6% Rubber 9% Rubber 12% Rubber

Figure 5. Water abrasion loss versus binder content on samples prepared by wet mixing
process

3.4 Air Abrasion Loss Result for Dry Mixing Process Sample

The effects of the rubber contents on air abrasion loss achieved for the control and rubberized

450
 KATMAN, H.Y., et al. / Asian Transport Studies, Volume 1, Issue 4 (2011), 445-455

mixes which were prepared by dry mixing process are summarized in Figure 6 below. Binder
content of 6% was used in sample preparation.

5 4.92

4
Air abrasion loss, %

3 2.50 2.50
2.14
1.88
2

0
0% 3% 6% 9% 12%
Rubber contents

Figure 6. Air Abrasion Loss versus rubber content for samples prepared by dry mixing
process

The sensitivity of air abrasion loss for varying rubber content levels shows no apparent
relation between the two factors. Nevertheless, it clearly shows that incorporating rubber to
the mixes improves the resistance to abrasion loss to approximately double that of the control
mix. The air abrasion loss is almost similar for all rubberized mixes, with values of 2.14%,
2.5%, 1.88% and 2.5% for samples made by 3%, 6%, 9% and 12% rubber content
respectively. Therefore, from the results obtained, the difference in air abrasion loss for each
rubber content level is not significant since the difference ranges from 0.36% to 2.78% only.
It seems that 9% rubber exhibits the best resistance to air abrasion loss. None of the samples
exceeded the Maximum Permissible Air Abrasion Loss.

3.5 Water Abrasion Loss Result for Dry Mixing Process Sample

Figure 7 shows the effects of the rubber contents on water abrasion loss achieved by control
mix and rubberized mixes prepared by dry mixing process. All samples were prepared having
6% binder content.
Analysis of the results obtained indicates a trend of increase of resistance to water
abrasion loss as rubber content increases. It means that incorporating rubber to the mixes
appear to greatly improve their resistance to water abrasion loss compared with the control
mix. The water abrasion loss obtained was between 5.45% and 17.76%, with the control mix
having the worst among all the mixes. Incorporation of 6% and 12% rubber show nearly the
same result, with 5.69% and 5.45% respectively. The best performing mix (12% rubberized
mix) was observed to be three times better than the control mix. The difference on water
abrasion loss is 2.28%, 9.79%, 3.53% and 3.77% for ranges of 0% to 3%, 3% to 6%, 6% to
12% rubber content respectively.

451
 KATMAN, H.Y., et al. / Asian Transport Studies, Volume 1, Issue 4 (2011), 445-455

20
17.76

15.48
Water Abrasion loss, % 15

10 9.22

5.69 5.45
5

0
0% 3% 6% 9% 12%
Rubber contents, %

Figure 7. Water Abrasion Loss versus rubber content for samples prepared by dry mixing
process

3.6 Comparison of Air Abrasion Loss for Wet Process and Dry Process Samples

Comparison of air abrasion loss for wet process and dry process mixes prepared with 6%
binder are presented in Figure 8.
The available results appear to show that the resistance to air abrasion loss obtained with
the dry process mixes are higher than the ones obtained with the wet process mixes as well as
the control mix. The difference in Air Abrasion Loss between the two mixing types increases
as rubber content increases. The difference in Air Abrasion Loss between the two mixing
types for 3%, 6%, 9% and 12% rubber are 1.27% units, 1.85% units, 3.59% units and 3.66%
units respectively. This indicates that the presence of rubber in dry process mixes acting as the
filler of voids between the aggregates thus provides a larger contact surface and better
aggregate interlocking. Whereas in the wet process, the ability of rubber that can swell and
absorb the oil in the bitumen causes a decrease in contact surface between the aggregate and
bitumen and hence a decrease in the resistance to air abrasion of the wet process mixes.
Furthermore, long mixing durations at high temperature in preparation of rubberized bitumen
causes age hardening which rearranges bitumen molecules to form a gel-like structure, thus
affecting the performance of the rubberized bitumen as binder.
At a rubber content level of 3%, there was a relatively small difference between samples
using different mixing processes (1.85% difference) compared to samples with a high amount
of rubber (12%) where the difference of between samples of different mix process was shown
to be 3.66%. For the wet process, 3% rubber shows the best performance while the worst is
12% rubber. For the dry process, 9% rubber content performed best, while at 6% and 12% the
performance was poorest.

452
 KATMAN, H.Y., et al. / Asian Transport Studies, Volume 1, Issue 4 (2011), 445-455

7 6.16
6 5.47
Air abrasion loss, % 4.924.92
5 4.35
4 3.41
3 2.50 2.50
2.14
1.88
2
1
0
0% 3% 6% 9% 12%
Rubber contents, %

Dry process Wet Process

Figure 8. Performance comparison of the rubber content in the air abrasion loss for different
mixing types

3.7 Comparison of Water Abrasion Loss for Wet Process and Dry Process Samples

Based on Figure 9, the results clearly show that the resistance to water abrasion loss obtained
by dry process mixes is higher than the ones obtained when using the wet process and for that
of the control mix. It seems that the addition of rubber in asphalt mixtures using the dry
process improved the properties of resistance to water abrasion up to seven times that of the
wet process. This improvement is shown for 12% rubber content mixes. At rubber content
levels of 3%, 6% and 9%, the dry process mixes had resistance that was better by factors of
1.1, 3.9, and 2.8 times compared to wet mix.
42.11

45
40
Water Abrasion loss, %

35
26.11

30
22.63

25
17.76
17.76

16.83
15.48

20
15
9.22
5.69

5.45

10
5
0
0% 3% 6% 9% 12%
Rubber contents
Dry Process Wet Process

Figure 9. Performance comparison of the rubber in the water abrasion loss for different
mixing types
There is only a slight difference between the dry process and wet process for 3% rubber

453
 KATMAN, H.Y., et al. / Asian Transport Studies, Volume 1, Issue 4 (2011), 445-455

( 1.4%) and this is interpreted to mean that at low rubber content the performance of the
mixes are quite similar. However, the difference increases at higher rubber content levels,
where these are 1.4% units, 16.9% units, 16.9% units and 36.7% units for rubber content
levels of 3%, 6%, 9% and 12% respectively. Therefore, it can be concluded that rubber
content and type of sample preparation have significant effect on resistance to water abrasion.

4. CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of the results of this laboratory test on rubberized porous mixes prepared by
different mixing process, the following conclusions can be drawn.

(1) The resistance to abrasion loss increases with the increase in binder content. This
finding was expected because a high amount of binder contents improves mix
cohesion and hence improves the resistance to disintegration.
(2) In a wet mixing process, the resistance to abrasion offered by the control mix is almost
similar to the rubberized mixes made using low rubber content, such as 3% and 6%.
However, at higher rubber content the resistance is below that of the control mix.
Generally, the abrasion loss is higher at the higher rubber content levels (abrasion loss
by rubber content 12%>9%>6%>3%).
(3) In a dry process, the inclusion of rubber significantly improved the resistance to air
and water abrasion, this being more than double that of the control mix. The sample
prepared with 9% rubber content had the lowest air abrasion loss and thus, its
performance is considered to be the best among all the mix, while the 12% rubberized
mixes offered the best resistance to water abrasion loss.
(4) Comparison between the dry process and the wet process, the results showed that the
resistance to air abrasion loss obtained by the dry process mixes are lower than the
ones obtained with the wet process mixes and the control mix. The differences in Air
Abrasion Loss between the two mixing types increase as rubber content increases.
This indicates that the presence of rubber in dry process mixes act to fill the voids
between the aggregates thus providing a larger contact surface and better aggregate
interlocking; whereas in the wet process, the ability of rubber that can swell and
absorb the oil in the bitumen cause decreases the amount of contact surface between
the aggregate and bitumen; hence a decrease in the resistance to air abrasion for the
wet process mixes. Furthermore long mixing duration (1hour) at high temperature
(160oC) in the preparation of rubberized bitumen causes age hardening which will
rearrange bitumen molecules to form a gel-like structure, hence affecting the
performance of the rubberized bitumen as the binder.
(5) Incorporating rubber to the mixes requires high binder content to fully coat the
aggregate to hence improve mix cohesion.

REFERENCES

Cabrera, J.G., Hamzah, M.O. (1996) Aggregate grading design for porous asphalt, In J.G.
Cabrera and J.R. Dixon (eds.), Performance and Durability of Bituminous Materials,
Spon p10-22.
Khalid, H.A., Walsh C.M. (1999) Correlation of fundamental and empirical properties of

454
 KATMAN, H.Y., et al. / Asian Transport Studies, Volume 1, Issue 4 (2011), 445-455

porous asphalt binders, European Symposium on Performance and Durability of

Bituminous Materials and Hydraulic Stabilised Composites, Leeds, 3-16.
Khalid H.A., Walsh C.M. (1999) Design for long term performance of porous asphalt.
Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium, Performance and Durability of
Bituminous Materials and Hydraulic Stabilised Composites, Leeds, 211-226.
Flaherty, C.A.O (2002) Highways: The Location, Design, Construction & Maintenance of
Road Pavements, 4th edition. London: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Huang, H.H. (1993) Pavement Analysis and Design. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Sandra, B., Margarido, A., Bariani, B.L., Leomar, F.J., Mathias, L.L. (2004) Mechanical
properties of asphalt mixtures using recycled tire rubber produced in Brazil A
laboratory evaluation. Compendium of Papers CD-ROM, the 83rd Annual Meeting of
the Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., January 11-15.
Wong C.C., Wong W. (2007) Effect of crumb rubber modifiers on high temperature
susceptibility of wearing course mixtures. Construction and Building Materials, 21,
1741-1745.
Zoorob, S.E., Cabrera, J.G., Takahashi, S. (1999) Effect of aggregate gradation and binder
type on the properties of porous asphalt, Proceedings of the 3rd European Symposium,
Performance and Durability of Bituminous Materials and Hydraulic Stabilised
Composites, Leeds, 145-162.

455