Materials and Structures (2017) 50:254
https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-017-1126-3
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Evaluation of waste materials as alternative sources of filler
in asphalt mixtures
V. Antunes . A. C. Freire . L. Quaresma . R. Micaelo
Received: 5 June 2017 / Accepted: 4 December 2017 / Published online: 7 December 2017
 RILEM 2017
Abstract There are many different ways to reduce
the construction industry’s impact on environment.
The incorporation of waste in the fabrication of
construction materials may be beneficial for both the
waste management sector and the construction indus-
try. The aim of this research was to investigate the use
of three different waste materials (construction and
demolition waste, brick powder and fly ash) as filler in
asphalt mixtures. Limestone filler was used as refer-
ence material. The materials were characterized in
terms of their geometrical, physical and chemical
properties, and the interaction with bitumen was
assessed with two mastic test methods using four
different bitumens. The specific surface of waste
V. Antunes  L. Quaresma  R. Micaelo (&)
FCT-UNL – Faculty of Science and Technology,
Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Campus de Caparica,
2829-516 Caparica, Portugal
e-mail: ruilbm@fct.unl.pt
V. Antunes
e-mail: v.antunes@campus.fct.unl.pt
L. Quaresma
e-mail: lmtq@fct.unl.pt
A. C. Freire
LNEC – National Laboratory for Civil Engineering, Av.
do Brasil 101, 1700-066 Lisbon, Portugal
e-mail: acfreire@lnec.pt
R. Micaelo
CERIS, CESUR, Universidade de Lisboa,
1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal
materials shows a wide-ranging variation due to
material specific shape and texture of particles.
However, the Rigden voids and bitumen number tests
adequately measure the stiffening effect of these
materials. The delta ring and ball test results showed
there is a good relation with the filler content when the
results are affected by the bitumen type. The f/b ratio
for a specific bitumen–filler combination can be
determined from the maximum filler-to-bitumen ratio
and the recommended stiffening increase. The mastics
with these waste materials showed strong resistance to
water damage.
Keywords Filler  Filler–bitumen interaction 
Construction and demolition waste  Brick powder 
Fly ash
1 Introduction
In 2012, 2.5 billion tons of waste was generated in the
European Union [1]. This means about 6 tonnes per
person in a single year. Under Directive 2008/98/EC
[2], which defines waste policy in Europe, all countries
have enforced waste management procedures in recent
years and are promoting waste reduction. Because less
than 4% of generated waste is considered hazardous,
re-using and/or recycling waste is a major objective.
Furthermore, for construction and demolition waste
254 Page 2 of 13
(CDW), which is one of the most important types of
waste currently produced (25–30%), the directive
stipulates that by 2020 70% (in weight) of the non-
hazardous CDW will be set for re-use, recycling or
undergo other material recovery. In many countries
this target has already been met with backfilling [3].
However, this is not the best available option because
CDW has high potential for recycling and re-use [4].
This is also true for waste resulting from many
industrial processes.
In road construction, the most commonly used
waste is reclaimed asphalt from old pavements, which
is recycled in new pavement bound layers [5]. Another
common practice is to use blast-furnace slag and fly
ash to manufacture blended cements, which also helps
reduce CO2 emissions due to clinker replacement [6].
However, in some countries there are protocols with
end-of-waste criteria that allow for the processing of
many other wastes (e.g. packaging, waste from the
manufacturing of glass), into aggregates for road
construction with no fear of causing harm to human
health or the environment [7].
Asphalt mixtures are produced with mineral aggre-
gates, bitumen, filler and, possibly, additives. Filler is a
very fine aggregate obtained from natural rocks or from
industrial processes. The most commonly used filler is
limestone powder. Portland cement and lime are also
used, with some studies [8–11] pointing to performance
(bitumen–aggregate adhesion strength, water and frost
resistance) benefits. Often, the specifications for paving
materials only set requirements on the type of filler and
its gradation [12]. Also, a broad range of filler-to-
bitumen ratios in asphalt mixture is allowed. However,
mastic (bitumen and fine aggregate) properties are
essential for the performance of the asphalt mixture
[13–16]. Furthermore, in a previous study [17] about
the influence of the chemical constitution of fillers in
the mastic behaviour, it was concluded that fillers
should not be simply excluded because of mineralogical
composition.
In general, fly ash and slag dust may be used as filler
in asphalt mixture [18, 19]. However, actual use is
quite small in Europe [20]. In the literature, several
studies can be found concerning on the replacing of
traditional filler materials with different waste: recy-
cled concrete powder [21]; cement kiln dust [22];
waste glass [23]; brick powder [24]; rice husk ash [25];
coal waste powder [26]; oil shale [27]; waste bleach-
ing clay [28]; and paper industry wastes [29]. Most of
Materials and Structures (2017) 50:254
these studies compare the performance of the asphalt
mixture made with the alternative filler and that made
with the traditionally used filler. The results revealed
higher stiffness, longer fatigue life and better rutting
performance using brick powder and recycled con-
crete powder, although low-temperature properties
decreased with the latter filler. Water susceptibility
increased with the use of green liquor dregs (paper
industry waste), and the resistance to abrasion was
worsened by waste bleaching clay. Compaction target
was not attained with waste glass. Thus, asphalt
mixtures with oil shale filler presented a mixed
performance for the two different mixtures tested.
Previous studies showed that filler–bitumen inter-
action is highly affected by the geometrical, physical
and chemical properties of fillers [12]. Hence, non-
conventional materials should be properly character-
ized before testing in an asphalt mixture.
2 Objectives and scope
The objectives of this study were (1) to examine the
use of waste materials as alternative sources of filler in
asphalt mixtures; and (2) to investigate the character-
ization of waste materials and their interaction with
the bitumen with conventional methods.
The waste materials studied were construction and
demolition waste, brick powder and fly ash. First, the
materials were characterized in terms of their physical,
geometrical and chemical properties and, secondly,
they were mixed with different binders to study their
interaction. The absorption test and the delta ring and
ball test were used to this purpose. In addition, the
water susceptibility of mastics with wastes was
measured with one binder. These materials are com-
pared to the most commonly used material, limestone
powder.
3 Materials and experiments
3.1 Materials
3.1.1 Fillers
The fillers investigated in this study were: construc-
tion and demolition waste (CDW); brick powder
(BP); fly ash (FA); and limestone filler (L). The
Materials and Structures (2017) 50:254
construction and demolition waste was obtained from
a local waste management centre and it was ground to
powder at the laboratory. The material collected at
the centre had, according to EN 933-11, the following
composition [30]: 74% Rc (concrete, concrete prod-
ucts, mortar, concrete masonry units); 19% Ru
(unbound aggregate, natural stone, hydraulically
bound aggregate); 5.3% Rb (clay masonry units,
calcium silicate masonry units, aerated non-floating
concrete); 1.2% Ra (bituminous materials); 0.4%
other constituent groups (glass, wood, metals, rubber,
gypsum and clay and soil); and 1.1 cm3/kg of floating
materials. The brick powder was obtained by grind-
ing clay bricks at the laboratory. Clay bricks used
were fabricated in Portugal in compliance with NP
EN 771-1 ? A1:2016 standard [31]. However, this
material could also be obtained from local waste
management centres if they separated these products
in the CDW stream, and directly from the clay brick
and tile industry (non-conforming products). The fly
ash was obtained from a power plant in Portugal, and
it is classified as type N in accordance with NP EN
450-1:2012 standard [32]. The limestone filler was
provided by a local asphalt producer that uses
limestone aggregates, and obtained from the dust
collection system of the asphalt plant.
The waste materials were compared with the
limestone filler because it is the material type which
is most often recommended in construction specifica-
tions [12]. In Portugal, until some years ago, con-
struction specifications [33] required the use of a
minimum quantity of imported filler (limestone,
Portland cement or hydraulic lime) for most asphalt
mixtures when using granite aggregates.
3.1.2 Binders
Four different binders were used in testing: non-
modified 35/50 pen; non-modified 50/70 pen; polymer
modified bitumen; and bitumen 35/50 modified with
adhesion promoter additive. The polymer modified
bitumen was a commercial binder, classified as PMB
45/80-65 according to the EN 14023:2010, while the
bitumen modified with adhesion promoter additive
(35/50A) was modified in the laboratory by adding
0.3% (w/w) of POLYRAM L200 (polyamine sur-
factant). This binder was included because adhesion
promoter additives are commonly used with certain
Page 3 of 13 254
aggregate types. Table 1 presents the basic properties
of these binders.
3.2 Laboratory experiments
In general, the test methods adopted in this investiga-
tion are the ones indicated in the European Standard
EN 13043 [34], for the characterization of aggregates
for bituminous mixtures. However, other complemen-
tary tests were added to the experimental program.
3.2.1 Particle size distribution
The test method defined in EN 933-10 [35] was
adopted to determine the particle size distribution of
the studied materials. An air jet sieving apparatus was
used. The pressurized air flow promotes the separation
of particles and creates a pressure difference to normal
air pressure across the sieve. Three sieves (2, 0.125
and 0.063 mm) were used.
3.2.2 Particles shape
The waste materials were observed in a Scanning
Electron Microscope (SEM). Samples were prepared
for testing in accordance to ASTM E 986 [36]. The
particle shapes listed in [37] were used as reference in
the analysis of SEM images.
3.2.3 Water content
The test method defined in EN 1097-5 [38] was used to
determine the water content (w) of the materials. The
samples were weighed before and after 24 h in an oven
at 110 C.
3.2.4 Particle density
The pyknometer method defined in EN 1097-7 [39]
was used to measure the particle density (SG) of the
fillers.
3.2.5 Specific surface
The Blaine method (EN 196-6) [40] was used to
measure the specific surface (SS) of the fillers. The
specific surface of the material is indirectly deter-
mined from the time for a defined volume of air to run
through a sample of the material.
254 Page 4 of 13
Table 1 Physical Test
properties of binders
Penetration EN 1426
Softening point EN 1427
Penetration index EN 12595
3.2.6 Chemical composition
The chemical composition of the waste materials in
terms of the mass proportion of calcium oxide (CaO)
and silicon dioxide (SiO2) compounds was deter-
mined. EN196-2 [41] was followed for testing. SiO2
was measured by the dual insolubilisation method.
CaO was separated with ethylenediaminetetraacetic
acid (EDTA). The composition of the fly ash, the
construction and demolition waste and limestone filler
was measured. The composition of the brick powder
was found in [24].
3.2.7 Methylene blue value
The experimental test defined in EN 933-9 [42] was
used to determine the methylene blue value (MBF) of
the fillers. This test was adopted to assess the presence
of damaging components, namely clay minerals and
organic matter.
3.2.8 Rigden voids
The Rigden voids (RV) corresponds to the void
content of a dry compacted filler sample, using a
standardized mould and compaction scheme. Testing
was performed in accordance to the EN 1097-4
standard [43].
3.2.9 Bitumen number
The test method laid out in EN 13179-2 [44] was used
to determine the bitumen number (BN) of the fillers.
This test aims to evaluate the stiffening effect of fillers
in the presence of water despite the term bitumen. The
test procedure consists in adding water, at a constant
rate, to a water-filler mixture until this mixture allows
a metal cylinder to be inserted 5.0–7.0 mm, during a
period of 5 s. BN corresponds to double the volume of
water in ml added during testing.
Materials and Structures (2017) 50:254
Units Binder
35/50 PMB 45/80-65 50/70 35/50A
0.1 mm 43 51 66 46
C 55.5 71.6 53.3 54.0
– - 0.3 0.3 - 0.5
3.2.10 Water susceptibility
The test method defined in EN 1744-4 [45] was
followed to determine the water susceptibility (ws) of
the studied fillers in bituminous mixtures, whereby the
quantity of filler detached from the bituminous mastic,
in the presence of hot water (60 C), is measured as a
proportion of the total filler. The mastic was made with
a low viscosity bitumen solution, obtained by disso-
lution of the 50/70 pen bitumen in kerosene.
3.2.11 Absorbing capacity
The absorption test measures the ability of filler to
absorb bitumen. The test consists of adding filler
continuously (4–8 g per minute) to the bitumen
sample (15 g) and mixing it by hand (1–2 turn/s).
The test is stopped when the mixture becomes brittle
or crumbly. The bitumen was heated at 150 C before
the test, and then during the test the bowl is heated on a
hot plate. According to the test protocol defined in NF
P 98-256-1 [46] only the filler fraction finer than
0.08 mm is used. In order to have the same material
used in all tests, it was not sieved for this test. The
absorbing test result (PA) corresponds to the amount
of filler added to the mixing bowl. Also, the filler/
bitumen volumetric ratio (f/bmax) of the final mixture
is obtained as:
qb  PA
f =bmax ¼ ð1Þ
15  2:65
where qb is the bitumen density (g/cm3).
3.2.12 Delta ring and ball
The ring and ball method defined in EN 1427 [47] was
used to determine the softening point of the binders
and mastics. The delta ring and ball (DTR&B ) value
corresponds to the difference between the softening
point of the mastic and the bitumen. This test measures
the increase in the viscosity of the bitumen due to the
Materials and Structures (2017) 50:254 Page 5 of 13 254

filler (volumetric f/b of 0.6). For the fabrication of the

mastic, the bitumen and filler were pre-heated at
150 C. The two components were mixed by hand in a
small bowl, and then poured into the metal rings.

4 Results and discussion

4.1 Characterization of fillers

Table 2 lists the results of the tests for the materials

studied. Limit values found in specifications currently
used in Portugal [19] were included in the table. The
three waste materials are very fine (100% parti-
cles \ 125 lm), and considerably finer than lime- Fig. 1 SEM imaging of limestone filler
stone. Nevertheless, they conform to gradation
specifications. The content of harmful particles (active
clay and organic materials), as identified by the
Methylene Blue value, was low in all materials.
Moreover, the water content was also very low.
The fly ash is the least dense material investigated.
This information is of special importance in defining
the filler content in asphalt design from a standard
filler/bitumen mass ratio. However, current design is
mostly based on volumetric proportioning of
materials.
Moreover, the specific surface of fly ash is very low.
Specific surface is usually larger in finer materials.
However, it is also affected by particle shape. In
contrast, the specific surface of brick powder was the
largest of the tested fillers while CDW and limestone
Fig. 2 SEM imaging of construction and demolition waste
have intermediate and similar values.
Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4 show SEM images of the
shape but different textures. Brick powder particles
particles that compose these fillers. Most particles of
have a rough texture while limestone and CDW
limestone, CDW and brick powder have an angular
particles are smoother. Moreover, these two fillers

Table 2 Filler properties

Filler type SG (mg/m3) Grading (% passing) w (%) MBF (g/kg) SS (m2/kg) BN RV (%)
0.063 0.125 2.0

L 2.73 80 92 100 0.55 3.3 560 28 36

CDW 2.63 82 100 100 0.87 5.0 525 36 40
BP 2.71 87 100 100 0.22 3.3 650 36 45
FA 2.51 93 100 100 0.00 1.7 346 23 36
National specificationsa – 70–100 85–100 100 B1 B 10 – – 28–38
a
[19]
254 Page 6 of 13
Fig. 3 SEM imaging of brick powder
Fig. 4 SEM imaging of fly ash
show also some granulous shaped particles. Some
variability was anticipated in the characteristics due to
the variation of raw materials in CDW. For the
limestone filler, these variations can be related to
natural variations of rock characteristics within the
extraction area and/or the grinding process applied.
Fly ash is quite different and is composed by nearly
perfect spherical, smooth particles. These shape
characteristics explain why the specific surface value
of fly ash was very small despite the small size of its
particles.
The bitumen number and Rigden voids tests are
used to measure the ability of filler to fix bitumen.
Moreover, the two test results were found to be
interrelated [12]. The rheology of the bitumen around
filler particles is affected due to the physicochemical
Materials and Structures (2017) 50:254
interaction with the filler. In literature [48, 49], a two-
layer model is admitted. The layer closer to the filler
particle is adhered to it, being often referred as the
rigid layer, and is defined mainly by adsorption and
absorption mechanisms [49]. Around this inner layer
there is an outer layer with less flow ability than ‘‘free’’
bitumen. This layer is referred to as ‘‘partly influ-
enced’’ bitumen layer. Combination of solid (filler)
and fluid (bitumen layers) volumes is referred to in this
paper as the bitumen fixated by the filler.
Fly ash has low values for both bitumen number and
Rigden voids. However, limestone and fly ash have
equal Rigden voids, but the bitumen numbers are
significantly different. In contrast, CDW and brick
powder have equal bitumen number values while the
Rigden voids are higher for brick powder.
In a recent study [50] that evaluated the character-
istics of commonly used natural and industrial fillers,
it was found that the specific surface does not explain
all the variation in the ability of different fillers to fix
bitumen. Hence, the gradation, the shape and texture
of particles affect their interaction in dry and wet
conditions, which can be assessed by the Rigden voids
and Bitumen number test methods. In the literature
[11] it is stated that two types of voids contribute to the
Rigden voids: (1) voids between particles; and (2)
voids inside particles. In some materials, voids inside
particles can also result from agglomeration of the
finest particles, as seen in SEM images (e.g. hydrated
lime [50]). For the studied waste materials, SEM
images (see Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4) did not show substantial
agglomeration and, therefore, the Rigden voids were
not very high (below 50%).
However, CDW and brick powder have Rigden
voids higher than the maximum level defined in
Portuguese construction specifications manual (see
Table 2) [19]. The same is true with recommended and
commonly used fillers (e.g. Portland cement, hydrated
lime) [50]. In addition, broader intervals of Rigden
voids are considered in EN 13043 [34], and adopted by
other institutions [20].
Table 3 presents the simplified chemical composi-
tion of the waste materials. The silicon dioxide content
is high in brick powder and fly ash. As expected, the
calcium oxide content is high in limestone followed by
CDW because of the proportion of concrete products
in its composition. Several studies mention the
increased water sensitivity of asphalt mixture with
silica rich aggregates [51–53]. On the other hand,
Materials and Structures (2017) 50:254 Page 7 of 13 254

Table 3 Chemical composition smooth, which does not favour bonding, the test result
Filler type SiO2 (%) CaO (%) Other components (%)
showed excellent performance. Asphalt mixtures with
acidic aggregates are said to have less water resistance
L 6 34 60 [53, 56]. However, waste materials performed well in
CDW 35 25 40 testing despite the high contents of silicon dioxide in
BPa 68 2 30 their composition.
FA 51 3 46 Although this test method is the standardized
a
[24] European method for the determination of the water
susceptibility of fillers for asphalt mixtures, no relation
is found in the literature between these test method
results and the results of tests in asphalt mixtures.
hydrated lime (rich in calcium oxide) increases the Apeagyei et al. [57] investigated the effect of water
resistance against moisture damage [54]. However, conditioning at high temperature (60 C) in the
recent studies have concluded that (1) particle surface durability of asphalt mixtures made with different
area is the key variable affecting bitumen adsorption aggregates and fillers, which had previously shown
[55] and, (2) water stripping problems were not different levels of sensitivity to water. They found that
detected in bitumen–filler mastics with river sand this conditioning procedure affected mainly the cohe-
filler (98% SiO2) [17]. Therefore, brick powder and fly sive strength of the mixture, which is dependent of the
ash should not be simply excluded because of the low mastic properties and that mixtures with the sensitive
calcium oxide content. filler were less durable. Hence, these results suggest
that the EN 1744-4 test method may adequately
4.2 Filler–bitumen interaction evaluate the water susceptibility of fillers, which
should be confirmed with other test methods on
Filler–bitumen interaction was investigated by means asphalt mixtures.
of the water susceptibility test, the absorbing test and Furthermore, Chen et al. [21, 24] evaluated the
the Delta ring and ball test. Table 4 lists the tests performance of one asphalt mixture with recycled
results. concrete powder and brick powder and found less
water sensitivity in these mixtures.
4.2.1 Water susceptibility
4.2.2 Absorbing capacity
The waste materials were not shown to be susceptible
to water damage according to the EN 1744-4 [45] test Table 4 presents the f/bmax values (volume ratio)
method. The mass ratio of filler particles separated obtained in the absorption test. Note that these f/
from the mastic, in the presence of hot water (60 C), b values correspond to a limit state condition for the
was very small and similar to the results for limestone. mastic. The mastic loses the fluid consistency at high
Note that the same binder was used for testing all temperatures because the binder is fixed by filler
fillers. Despite fly ash particles being round and particles and resistance to flow occurs from particle to

Table 4 Mastic results: absorption, softening point and water susceptibility test results
Filler type f/bmax (volume) DTR&B (C) ws (%)
35/50 PMB 45/80-65 35/50A 50/70 35/50 PMB 45/80-65 35/50A 50/70

L 1.42 1.20 1.52 1.52 10.8 7.8 12.1 12.0 0.3

CDW 1.15 0.94 1.10 1.25 11.7 9.1 15.8 14.8 1.0
BP 0.85 0.91 1.06 1.06 14.2 7.8 18.1 19.0 1.2
FA 1.43 1.48 1.64 1.64 6.7 4.6 11.2 10.6 0.6
254 Page 8 of 13
particle contacts [48]. Therefore, the f/b adopted in
practice always has to be well below these values.
The highest f/bmax values (average 1.55) were
obtained for fly ash and the lowest values (average
0.95) were obtained for brick powder. This means that
the amount of fly ash that can be mixed with bitumen
before the mixture becomes crumbly is larger than
with other materials, and therefore, the stiffening
effect of fly ash is substantially lower. In contrast,
CDW has an inferior ability to steady bitumen around
its particles than brick powder, but clearly greater than
limestone and fly ash.
However, the type of bitumen also affects the
filler’s absorbing capacity. There is a variation of
0.2–0.3 in f/bmax values with the bitumens used for
testing. The results indicate that harder binders
incorporate less filler. This may have occurred because
the temperature used in testing (150 C) was the same
with all binders, and they have different viscosities at
that temperature. In general, the adhesion promoter
additive extended the workability of filler–bitumen
mixtures with the exception of CDW. This behaviour
could be related to the composition of CDW, specif-
ically the presence of hydrated lime mortar waste.
Hydrated lime has very specific properties [11, 15, 58],
and in a previous study [17] a similar behaviour for
hydrated lime was found.
Besides the effect on the aggregate–bitumen inter-
action and reaction with water, in the literature [9] it is
mentioned that amines also have an effect on the
molecular interactions between the components of
bitumen. The bitumen becomes softer and slightly
more susceptible to temperature. This explains, there-
fore, the increase of f/bmax values with 35/50A.
Fig. 5 f/bmax versus Rigden (a) 2.0
voids (a) and bitumen
number (b)
1.6
1.2
f/bmax
0.8
0.4 L 35/50
CDW
BP
FA
0.0
30 35
RV [%]
Materials and Structures (2017) 50:254
Previously [50], it was concluded that f/bmax is
strongly related to some filler properties (RV and BN).
Figure 5a, b plots RV and BN values versus f/bmax,
respectively, and the linear models obtained for
traditionally used fillers (natural and industrial). In
the same way, the studied materials show a strong
linear relationship between the geometrical/physical
properties of the material and the maximum filler-to-
bitumen ratio. The coefficient of determination is 0.73
and 0.74 for the RV and BN models, respectively,
considering only data obtained in this study. These
models can, therefore, provide an estimate of the
maximum f/b ratio for each filler material.
4.2.3 Delta ring and ball
The softening test results for the 16 mastics are
presented in Table 4. DTR&B values show a large
range of variation with both the binder and the filler
used. Regarding the fillers, the highest DTR&B values
are generally obtained for brick powder followed by
CDW. The increase of the softening point by fly ash is
much smaller than that induced by the other wastes,
and also by the reference material (limestone). The
polymer modified bitumen is the binder which was
least affected by the filler. In addition, there is an
indication that stiffer binders result in lower DTR&B
values. It is observed that the higher the softening
point of the bitumen is, the lower the DTR&B value of
mastics. The same conclusion was drawn before with
other fillers and bitumens [59]. Furthermore, the
antistripping additive caused an increase of DTR&B
values for the same fillers. This is considered to be
related with the bitumen’s stiffness. As stated before,
(b) 2.0
f/bmax = - f/bmax = -
R² = 0.73 R² = 0.74
1.6
1.2
f/bmax
0.8
0.4
PMB 45/80-65
35/50A
50/70
0.0
40 45 50 20 25 30 35 40
BN [%]
Materials and Structures (2017) 50:254 Page 9 of 13 254

amines affect the interaction between functional
groups of the bitumen, causing a decrease in stiffness.
4.2.4 Recommended filler–bitumen ratio
Currently, most specifications for bituminous materi-
als set a range for the recommended f/b in asphalt
mixture regardless of the filler used. However, this
range is considerably large. A different approach is
based on the filler’s specific stiffening effect. Some
construction specifications define DTR&B require-
ments for asphalt mixture design, although different
DTR&B values are recommended for optimizing
asphalt mixture behaviour. Kandhal [60] advises not
exceeding 11 C while Sanders and Nunn [61]
recommend 8–16 C for high modulus asphalt mix-
tures. Specifications used in Bavaria (Germany)
require DTR&B between 8 and 25 C [20], and in
Poland less than 20 C [62]. Portuguese specifications
set the DTR&B range (12–16 C) based on research
studies made at the Belgium Road Research Centre
(BRRC) [63]. They also proposed a way to estimate
DTR&B as:
1021:2  f =b
DTR&B ¼
100  RV  ð1 þ f =bÞ
where RV is the Rigden voids (%); and f/b is the filler-
to-bitumen volume ratio.
Figure 6 compares DTR&B values obtained from
testing and predicted by Eq. (2). The mastic was
fabricated with f/b of 0.6 following the test protocol. In
general, the BRRC model overestimates the stiffening
power of fillers. In some situations, differences in
DTR&B values reach 12 C. This is comparable to
reducing the filler-to-bitumen ratio by half. Similar
conclusions were obtained before with traditionally
used fillers [17]. This occurs probably because soft
grade bitumen (pen 60/70) was used in the original
study. Hence, DTR&B results are closer to the model
estimates for binder 50/70.
In previous sections similar conclusions were
drawn from the results of the absorption and Delta
ring and ball tests. This indicates that both tests are
suitable for assessing the filler stiffening effect and the
interaction of a specific filler–bitumen combination.
To overcome test dependency of the bitumen used, in a
previous study [17], the two consistency test results
were related to the normalization of DTR&B and f/bmax
values, as:
  
f f
D ¼ 1737:6   460:0 ð3Þ
b bmax
where a is the temperature susceptibility of bitumen
and f/b is the filler-to-bitumen ratio used in the
softening point test. The linear model, Eq. (3), was
obtained for three bitumens (50/70, 35/50A and PMB
ð2Þ 45/80-65) and several natural and industrial fillers.
The temperature susceptibility was defined from the
well-known linear relation between the logarithm of
penetration test result (Pen) and the temperature (T)
(log Pen = aT ? b). Figure 7 plots DTR&B =a versus
ðf =bÞ=ðf =bmax Þ for the studied materials, and com-
pares with the above model. With the exception to two
data points, with PMB 45/80-65, the experimental

30 1,200
L 35/50 L PMB 45/80-65
BP 35/50A CDW 35/50A
25 CDW 50/70 1,000
FA PMB 45/80-65 BP 50/70
BRRC - Eq. (2) FA
800 Eq. (3)
20 f/b=0.60
R&B /a [°c]
TR&B[ºC]

15 600

f/b=0.45
10 400

5 f/b=0.30 200

0 0
25 30 35 40 45 50 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
RV [%] ( f/b)/( f/bmax)

Fig. 6 DTR&B versus RV Fig. 7 Variation of (DTR&B)/a with (f/b)/(f/bmax)

254 Page 10 of 13
results obtained are close to model predictions. In this
sense, it is considered that waste materials and
reference materials follow the same model of solid
particles–bitumen interaction.
The geometrical/physical characteristics of these
very fine materials, which can be globally quantified
by the Rigden voids and bitumen number, are the most
important for the filler stiffening effect. Thus, the filler
stiffening effect on a specific binder can be quantified
by the two different mastic consistency test methods
used. However, for asphalt design purposes, the f/b is
required. Based on the discussion of experiments
performed, a different methodology is analysed for the
f/b selection.
The method is applied as following: (1) adoption of
a certain DTR&B interval; (2) determination of the
ðf =bÞ=ðf =bmax Þ interval, using Eq. (3), for the refer-
ence bitumen; (3) calculation of the f/b interval for
each filler–bitumen combination based on the absorp-
tion test results. It is admitted that the ðf =bÞ=ðf =bmax Þ
interval ensures the durability and stability of the
asphalt mixture with different binders.
This way, adopting the DTR&B interval (12–16 C)
recommended by BRRC and the binder with the
closest results to estimates (50/70), using Eq. (3), a
ðf =bÞ=ðf =bmax Þ between 0.45 and 0.51 was estimated.
Table 5 presents the f/b interval determined for the
materials investigated in this paper. The f/b (volume)
values vary from 0.38 to 0.83. The filler content is, as
expected, lower with brick powder and CDW and
higher with fly ash. Moreover, the polymer modified
binder and the penetration grade 35/50 require less
filler to achieve the same stiffening level. In general,
values obtained for the waste materials and the
reference filler are in agreement with the practice of
asphalt production. This methodology is reasonable
and should be further investigated in future studies.
Table 5 f/b in asphalt Filler type f/b (volume)
mixtures
35/50
L 0.63–0.71
CDW 0.51–0.58
BP 0.38–0.43
FA 0.64–0.72
Materials and Structures (2017) 50:254
5 Environmental and economic benefits of using
waste materials
Currently, fillers used in asphalt mixtures are chosen
depending on the aggregates available in the region
and the specifications for paving materials. Thus, good
quality aggregates can be scarce in large regions. In
this case, construction companies are forced to buy
aggregates produced a long distance from their
production sites. This option has an associated
economic and environmental cost. Zaumanis et al.
[64] indicates an energy consumption of 54 MJ/t for
crushed stone production and 0.9 MJ/t-km for trans-
portation. Thus, transport is responsible for 0.06CO2-
eq/t-km. For example, asphalt producers from some
Portuguese regions buy limestone filler from produc-
ers located at a distance of 200–400 km away. This
occurs in granite-predominant regions (north and
centre) because, in most cases, dust collected at the
plant has a very intense stiffening effect [65].
Industrial fillers (e.g. Portland cement, hydrated
lime) can be also used, though these materials are
more expensive, and for production the energy use and
emissions are considerably higher. For example,
Stafford et al. [66] estimated 632 CO2eq/t in the life
cycle assessment of a Portland cement industrial unit.
Recycling waste materials, such as the ones studied
in this investigation, into asphalt mixtures have
potential environmental and economic benefits. The
main destination of fly ash is the cement industry. In
contrast, the recycling of CDW is not common, and the
most frequent destination is landfill deposit. For
example, the typical cost for CDW deposit is
10–15 €/t. With a small amount of energy input,
construction and demolition waste, including bricks
and tiles, can be ground into powder and used locally
as an alternative source of filler. This helps reduce
transportation of raw materials over long distances and
deposit in landfills, with obvious environmental and
economic benefits.
PMB 45/80-65 35/50A 50/70
0.54–0.61 0.68–0.77 0.68–0.77
0.42–0.48 0.49–0.56 0.56–0.63
0.41–0.46 0.47–0.54 0.47–0.54
0.66–0.75 0.73–0.83 0.73–0.83
Materials and Structures (2017) 50:254
6 Conclusions
The study described in this paper examines the
possibility of using three different waste materials as
alternative sources of filler in asphalt mixture. The
analysis is mostly based on the use of conventional test
methods. The waste materials studied were construc-
tion and demolition waste, brick powder and fly ash.
These materials are compared with limestone filler
(reference). The main findings can be summarized as
follows:
• Waste materials have finer gradation than lime-
stone filler and the specific surface has a wide-
ranging variation due to material specific shape
and texture of particles; construction and demoli-
tion waste and brick powder have angular shaped
particles while fly ash particles are round and
smooth;
• The mastics with waste materials showed strong
resistance to water damage; there is strong bitumen
bonding with fly ash despite the singular charac-
teristics of its particles; these good results can also
be related with the absence of harmful fines
(measured with Methylene Blue test);
• The Rigden voids and bitumen number tests
measure the stiffening effect of the waste materi-
als; the higher the test value is, the higher the
increase in mastic viscosity for a constant filler
content added; fly ash induces less stiffening of
mastic than reference material, whereas brick
powder has a considerably greater effect;
• The maximum filler-to-bitumen ratio varies inver-
sely with the Rigden Voids and Bitumen Number
values, and the models found in the literature for
natural and industrial fillers are also applicable to
waste materials investigated;
• The delta ring and ball is overestimated by the
BRRC model, although the results showed a good
relation with the filler content when the bitumen is
incorporated in the model.
• The f/b ratio for a specific bitumen–filler combi-
nation can be determined from the maximum filler-
to-bitumen ratio and the recommended stiffening
increase.
These waste materials have potential environmen-
tal and economic benefits. Brick powder and con-
struction and demolition waste can certainly be
obtained locally and, therefore, avoid transportation
Page 11 of 13 254
of manufactured fillers over long distances. Further-
more, construction and demolition waste has a
considerable percentage of calcium oxide, which is
one of the reasons pointed out for the use of limestone,
Portland cement and hydrated lime (stronger adhesion
and water induced stripping resistance). Waste pro-
duction and management is a global problem. The
road construction sector can contribute to a more
sustainable environment by replacing natural
resources with waste materials.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no
conflict of interest.
References
1. Eurostat (2015) Eurostat—data explorer. http://appsso.
eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do. Accessed 11 April 2016
2. E.-E.P. and Council (2008) Waste Framework Directive
2008/98/EC of 19 November, 2008
3. B.I. Service (2011) Service contract on management of
construction and demolition waste—SR1 (project under the
Framework contract ENV.G.4/FRA/2008/0112), Paris,
France
4. European Commission (2016) Studies—environment—
European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/
waste/studies/mixed_waste.htm. Accessed 11 April 2016
5. EAPA (2014) Asphalt in figures 2014. European Asphalt
Pavement Association, Belgium
6. González-Fonteboa B, Carro-López D, de Brito J, Martı́nez-
Abella F, Seara-Paz S, Gutiérrez-Mainar S (2017) Com-
parison of ground bottom ash and limestone as additions in
blended cements. Mater Struct 50:84. https://doi.org/10.
1617/s11527-016-0954-x
7. Environment Agency (2013) Aggregates from inert waste.
End of waste criteria for the production of aggregates from
inert waste, Oxon, UK
8. Airey GD, Collop AC, Zoorob SE, Elliott RC (2008) The
influence of aggregate, filler and bitumen on asphalt mixture
moisture damage. Constr Build Mater 22:2015–2024.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2007.07.009
9. Curtis CW (1990) A literature review of liquid antistripping
agents, mineral additives and test for measuring stripping.
National Academy of Science, USA
10. Khodaii A, Mousavi ES, Khedmati M, Iranitalab A (2016)
Identification of dominant parameters for stripping potential
in warm mix asphalt using response surface methodology.
Mater Struct 49:2425–2437. https://doi.org/10.1617/
s11527-015-0658-7
11. Lesueur D, Petit J, Ritter H-J (2013) The mechanisms of
hydrated lime modification of asphalt mixtures: a state-of-
the-art review. Road Mater Pavement Des 14:1–16. https://
doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2012.743669
254 Page 12 of 13
12. Bahia HU, Faheem A, Hintz C, Al-Qadi I, Reinke G, Dukatz
E (2010) Test methods and specification criteria for mineral
filler used in HMA. Transportation Research Board, USA
13. Jakarni FM (2012) Adhesion of asphalt mixtures. PhD
Thesis, University of Nottingham, UK
14. Read J, Whiteoak D (2003) The shell bitumen handbook,
5th edn. Thomas Telford, London
15. Little DN, Epps JA (2006) The benefits of hydated lime in
hot mix asphalt. National Lime Association, USA
16. Kim YR (2008) Modeling of asphalt concrete. McGraw
Hill, New York
17. Antunes V, Freire AC, Quaresma L, Micaelo R (2016)
Effect of the chemical composition of fillers in the filler–
bitumen interaction. Constr Build Mater 104:85–91. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.12.042
18. ASTM D242-95 (Reapproved 2000) Standard specification
for mineral filler for bituminous paving mixtures. ASTM
International, USA
19. EP (2012) Construction specifications book. 14.03—Mate-
rials (in Portuguese). Estradas de Portugal, Lisbon
20. Petho L (2013) Mastic performance assessment in stone
mastic asphalt. Austroads Ltd, Sydney
21. Chen M, Lin J, Wu S (2011) Potential of recycled fine
aggregates powder as filler in asphalt mixture. Constr Build
Mater 25:3909–3914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2011.04.022
22. Ekblad J, Lundström R, Simonsen E (2015) Water suscep-
tibility of asphalt mixtures as influenced by hydraulically
active fillers. Mater Struct 48:1135–1147. https://doi.org/
10.1617/s11527-013-0220-4
23. Androjić I, Dimter S (2016) Properties of hot mix asphalt
with substituted waste glass. Mater Struct 49:249–259.
https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-014-0492-3
24. Chen M, Lin J, Wu S, Liu C (2011) Utilization of recycled
brick powder as alternative filler in asphalt mixture. Constr
Build Mater 25:1532–1536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2010.08.005
25. Al-Hdabi A (2016) Laboratory investigation on the prop-
erties of asphalt concrete mixture with Rice Husk Ash as
filler. Constr Build Mater 126:544–551. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.09.070
26. Modarres A, Rahmanzadeh M (2014) Application of coal
waste powder as filler in hot mix asphalt. Constr Build
Mater 66:476–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.
2014.06.002
27. Azzam MOJ, Al-Ghazawi Z (2015) Evaluation of incor-
porating oil shale filler aggregate into hot mix asphalt using
Superpave mix design. Constr Build Mater
101(Part):359–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.
2015.10.071
28. Sangiorgi C, Tataranni P, Simone A, Vignali V, Lantieri C,
Dondi G (2016) Assessment of waste bleaching clay as
alternative filler for the production of porous asphalts.
Constr Build Mater 109:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2016.01.052
29. Pasandı́n AR, Pérez I, Ramı́rez A, Cano MM (2016)
Moisture damage resistance of hot-mix asphalt made with
paper industry wastes as filler. J Clean Prod 112(Part
1):853–862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.016
30. Freire AC, Neves J, Roque A, Martins I, Antunes ML, Faria
G (2013) Use of construction and demolition recycled
Materials and Structures (2017) 50:254
materials (C&DRM) in road pavements validated on
experimental test sections. In: 2nd International conference
on WASTES—solutions, treatments and opportunities,
pp 91–96
31. IPQ, NP EN 771-1 ? A1:2016-pt (2016) Specification for
masonry units. Part 1: clay masonry units. Instituto Por-
tuguês da Qualidade, Caparica
32. IPQ, NP EN 450-1:2012-pt (2012) Fly ash for concrete. Part
1: definition, specifications and conformity criteria. Instituto
Português da Qualidade, Caparica
33. JAE (1998) Construction specifications book. 14.03—Ma-
terials (in Portuguese), Junta Autónoma de Estradas,
Almada
34. IPQ, NP EN 13043:2004/AC:2010 (2010) Aggregates for
bituminous mixtures and surface treatments for roads, air-
fields and other trafficked areas. Instituto Português da
Qualidade, Caparica
35. CEN, EN 933-10:2009 (2009) Test for geometrical prop-
erties of aggregates. Part 10: Assessment of fines—grading
of filler aggregates (air jet sieving). European Committee
for Standardization, Belgium
36. ASTM, ASTM E986-04 (2010) Standard practice for
scanning electron microscope beam size characteriza-
tion. American Society for Testing and Materials, USA
37. Pereira E (1995) Grading analysis of cement with the laser
diffraction method (in Portuguese). National Laboratory for
Civil Engineering, Lisbon
38. IPQ, NP EN 1097-5:2011 (2011) Test for mechanical and
physical properties of aggregates—part 5: determination of
the water content by drying in a ventilated oven. Instituto
Português da Qualidade, Caparica
39. IPQ, NP EN 1097-7:2012 (2012) Determination of the
particle density of filler—Pyknometer method. Instituto
Português da Qualidade, Caparica
40. IPQ, NP EN 196-6:2010 (2010) Methods of testing
cement—part 6: determination of fineness. Instituto Por-
tuguês da Qualidade, Caparica
41. IPQ, NP EN 196-2:2006 (2006) Methods of testing cement.
Chemical analysis of cement. Instituto Português da Qual-
idade, Caparica
42. IPQ, NP EN 933-9:2011 (2011) Tests for geometrical
properties of aggregates—part 9: assessment of fines—
methylene blue test. Instituto Português da Qualidade,
Caparica
43. IPQ, NP EN 1097-4:2012 (2012) Tests for mechanical and
physical properties of aggregates—part 4: determination of
the voids of dry compacted filler. Instituto Português da
Qualidade, Caparica
44. IPQ, NP EN 13179-2:2010 (2010) Tests for filler aggregate
used in bituminous mixtures. Part 2: Bitumen number.
Instituto Português da Qualidade, Caparica
45. CEN, EN 1744-4:2005 (2005) Tests for chemical properties
of aggregates. Part 4: determination of water susceptibility
of filler for bituminous mixtures. European Committee for
Standardization, Belgium.
46. AFNOR, NF P 98-256-1 (2005) Tests relating to pave-
ments—tests on constituants of bituminous mixtures—part
1: determination of fines particles absorbing capacity (in
French). Association Française de Normalisation, France
Materials and Structures (2017) 50:254
47. IPQ, NP EN 1427:2010 (2010) Bitumen and bituminous
binders—determination of softening point: Ring and Ball
method. Instituto Português da Qualidade, Caparica
48. Hesami E, Birgisson B, Kringos N (2014) Numerical and
experimental evaluation of the influence of the filler–bitu-
men interface in mastics. Mater Struct 47:1325–1337.
https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-013-0237-8
49. Buttlar W, Bozkurt D, Al-Khateeb G, Waldhoff A (1999)
Understanding asphalt mastic behavior through microme-
chanics. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 1681:157–169.
https://doi.org/10.3141/1681-19
50. Antunes V, Freire AC, Quaresma L, Micaelo R (2015)
Influence of the geometrical and physical properties of filler
in the filler–bitumen interaction. Constr Build Mater
76:322–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.
12.008
51. Taylor R (2007) Surface interactions between bitumen and
mineral fillers and their effects on the rheology of bitumen–
filler mastics, PhD Thesis, University of Nottingham, UK
52. Curtis CW, Ensley K, Epps J (1993) Fundamental properties
of asphalt–aggregate interactions including adhesion and
absorption. National Academy of Science, USA
53. Grenfell J, Apeagyei A, Airey G (2015) Moisture damage
assessment using surface energy, bitumen stripping and the
SATS moisture conditioning procedure. Int J Pavement Eng
16:411–431. https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2015.
1007235
54. Little D, Epps J (2006) The benefits of hydrated lime in hot
mix asphalt (Updated version by Peter E. Sebaaly in 2006),
5th ed. National Lime Association, USA
55. Clopotel C, Bahia H (2013) The effect of bitumen polar
groups adsorption on mastics properties at low tempera-
tures. Road Mater Pavement Des 14:38–51. https://doi.org/
10.1080/14680629.2013.774745
56. Hamedi GH, Nejad FM, Oveisi K (2016) Estimating the
moisture damage of asphalt mixture modified with nano
Page 13 of 13 254
zinc oxide. Mater Struct 49:1165–1174. https://doi.org/10.
1617/s11527-015-0566-x
57. Apeagyei AK, Grenfell JRA, Airey GD (2014) Observation
of reversible moisture damage in asphalt mixtures. Constr
Build Mater 60:73–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2014.02.033
58. Lesueur D, Little D (1999) Effect of hydrated lime on rhe-
ology, fracture, and aging of bitumen. Transp Res Rec J
Transp Res Board 1661:93–105
59. Matos P, Micaelo R, Duarte C, Quaresma L (2014) Influ-
ence of bitumen and filler on the selection of appropriate
mixing and compaction temperatures. Int J Pavement Res
Technol 7:237–246
60. Kandhal P (1981) Evaluation of baghouse fines in bitumi-
nous paving mixtures. J Assoc Asph Paving Technol
50:150–203
61. Sanders P, Nunn M (2005) The application of Enrobé à
Module Elévé in flexible pavements, UK
62 Grabowski W, Wilanowicz J (2008) The structure of min-
eral fillers and their stiffening properties in filler–bitumen
mastics. Mater Struct 41:793–804. https://doi.org/10.1617/
s11527-007-9283-4
63 EP (2009) Construction specifications book. 15.03—Paving
methods (in Portuguese), Estradas de Portugal, S.A.,
Almada, Portugal
64 Zaumanis M, Mallick RB, Frank R (2014) 100% recycled
hot mix asphalt: a review and analysis. Resour Conserv
Recycl 92:230–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.
2014.07.007
65 Quaresma L, Antunes M de L (2002) Granitic filler in
bituminous mixtures (in Portuguese). National Laboratory
for Civil Engineering, Portugal
66 Stafford FN, Dias AC, Arroja L, Labrincha JA, Hotza D
(2016) Life cycle assessment of the production of Portland
cement: a Southern Europe case study. J Clean Prod
126:159–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.110