Effect of using various waste materials as mineral filler on the properties of asphalt mix

Technical Paper
  • 85 Downloads

Abstract

Environmental waste caused by technological and industrial development is increasing. In Egypt, tens of thousands of tons of industrial waste are disposed of each year. One of the cheapest and most effective ways to eliminate such waste and protect the environment is recycling in hot mix asphalt (HMA) mixture. We carried out a laboratory investigation into the effects of different fillers on some properties of such HMA mixtures, considering two types of industrial and byproduct waste filler, namely ceramic waste dust (CWD) and marble waste dust (MWD). Ceramic waste dust (CWD) was enhanced using cement dust at 1:1 ratio to remove its plasticity. Lime stone dust (LSD) was used as control filler. Subsequently, 17 HMA specimens were prepared using the Marshall mix design method for wearing surface mix (mix 4C). Marshall stability (MS) and flow tests were applied to the specimens, and MS and flow values recorded. For the optimum bitumen content (OBC) and different waste ratios, the Marshall parameters were determined. Then, some special tests were performed to measure the different mix characteristics, including loss of stability and wheel tracking tests. The results led to important conclusions regarding use of ceramic waste dust (CWD) enhanced by cement dust and marble waste dust (MWD) to improve most of the properties of HMA mixtures. Finally, this study recommends a proposed mix with mineral filler formed of 35 wt.% CWD enhanced by cement dust or 15 wt.% MWD respectively.

Keywords

Waste Filler Ceramic Marble Loss of stability Wheel tracking 

Introduction

The continuing rapid growth in traffic, along with the rise in allowable axle loads, necessitates enhancement of highway paving materials. The aim of highway researchers is to provide safe, economical, durable, and smooth pavements that are qualified to carry predicted loads. To achieve this, many engineers and researchers have been motivated to identify paving materials that can reduce pavement damage and enhance the performance of asphalt pavements. Filler, as one of the components in asphalt mixtures, plays an effective role in their properties and behavior, especially regarding binding and aggregate interlocking effects [1].

Various studies have elucidated that the properties of the mineral filler have a considerable influence on the properties of HMA mixtures. The introduction of environmental rules and approval of dust collection strategies support reuse of most types of fines in HMA mixtures. However, the fines vary in terms of their gradation, particle shape, surface area, void content, mineral composition, and physicochemical properties, changing their effect on the properties of HMA mixtures [2].

The durability and quality of bituminous roads depend on the amount and type of filler material used. Various materials such as lime, cement, granite powder, stone dust, and fine sand are typically used as fillers in bituminous mixes. Lime, cement, and granite powder are expensive and can be used for other purposes more effectively. Fine sand, ash, waste concrete dust, and brick dust finer than sieve size of 0.075 mm appear to be more suitable as filler materials [3]. Exploitation of waste powder as filler in asphalt mixtures has become a subject of great research effort over the past few years. Recycled waste lime [4], phosphate waste filler [5], municipal solid waste incineration ash [6], baghouse fines [7], Jordanian oil shale fly ash [8], waste ceramic materials [9], waste marble materials [10], and waste tires [11] have all been investigated for use as fillers. It has been proved that such types of recycled filler can indeed be used to formulate HMA mixtures with enhanced performance. The present study was therefore carried out to investigate the behavior of bituminous mixes with different types of locally available filler material.

Various types of industrial waste material (ferrochromium slag, black carbon, marble powder, glass powder, ceramic, etc.) have been used as fillers in HMAs. Üstünkol researched use of industrial waste material to modify HMAs. Use of marble powder, fly ash, phosphogypsum, and glass powder as filler resulted in MS properties meeting Turkish highway construction specifications [12].

Ceramic production in the Bilecik–Eskişehir–Kütahya area represents 43.2 % of the total ceramic production in Turkey [13]. Using ceramic waste in HMA mixtures is an effective approach to decrease environmental pollution. There are a few studies in literature regarding use of CW waste as aggregate in concrete and HMA; for example, Pacheco et al. researched the feasibility of using ceramic waste as aggregate in concrete. The results showed that the compressive strength of concrete specimens increased with increasing ceramic waste ratio, and that addition of ceramic aggregate resulted in HMA with enhanced performance [14]. Van de Ven et al. examined the possibility of using ceramic waste from electrical insulators, plastic waste, and household waste. Their results showed that sintered household waste, plastic waste, and ceramic waste could be used as coarse aggregate in HMA. Likewise, on addition of ceramic waste, the MS and flow values increased compared with control samples [15].

Marble waste is one type of waste material that can be reused. Marble blocks are cut into smaller blocks to obtain desirable smooth shapes. During this cutting operation, about 25 % of the marble is reduced to dust [16]. On the other hand, in developed countries, many studies have been carried out to investigate use of such marble waste as filler in HMA mixtures. Most such research has confirmed the possibility of using such marble waste as a filler in HMA mixtures with enhanced properties [17, 18].

In the work presented herein, the Marshall design method was used for HMA preparation. Waste ceramic and waste marble were used at different ratios as mineral filler for preparation of HMA specimens. The experimental results were compared with a control mix and with specification values.

Objectives

The main objectives of this research are to investigate the effects of the quality and quantity of mineral filler (ceramic waste dust enhanced by cement dust, and marble waste dust) on the design properties and performance of HMA mixtures and determine the optimum waste filler content to achieve the best values of stability and flow, then provide recommendations.

Experimental work

In the first stage, 10 types of test were conducted on the chosen materials to ensure their validity: five tests on aggregate (Los Angeles abrasion, water absorption, specific gravity, stripping value, and selection of design gradation to attain the condition of stone-on-stone contact) and five tests on bitumen (penetration, softening point, flash point, viscosity, and ductility). In the second and third stage, the optimum bitumen content (OBC) was determined by Marshall mix design and kept constant for all mixes. Lime stone dust (LSD) was used as control filler, then replaced to some percentage by ceramic waste dust (CWD) enhanced by cement dust or marble waste dust (MWD). Marshall stability (MS) and flow tests were applied to the specimens, and MS and flow values recorded. According to these values, the optimum ratio of CWD enhanced by cement dust or MWD was determined. Also, all the properties of the investigated specimens were compared with those of a control mix without waste material additives. In the final stage, various special tests were conducted on the mixes with optimum waste filler content, including loss of stability and wheel tracking tests.

Materials

The asphalt concrete mixes tested in this study were composed of aggregate, bitumen, and mineral filler. The engineering properties of the applied materials were determined by conducting laboratory tests according to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), as presented below.

Aggregate

Table 1 presents the properties of the used aggregate according to the Egyptian specification of asphalt concrete mixes. Table 2 presents the aggregate design gradation and specification limits according to the Egyptian code.
Table 1

Properties of aggregate used

Test no.

Test

 

AASHTO designation no.

Result

Specification limit

1

Los Angeles abrasion (%)

 After 100 revolutions

 After washing after 500 revolutions

T-96

6%

≤ 10%

28%

≤ 40%

2

Water absorption (%)

T-85

2.4%

≤ 5%

3

Bulk specific gravity (g/cm3)

T-85

2.576 g/cm3

Table 2

Aggregate gradation

Sieve size

Design gradation

Specification limit

Inches

mm

1

25

100

100

3/4

19

88.6

80–100

1/2

12.5

73.6

3/8

9.5

71.1

60–80

No. 4

4.75

49.2

48–65

No. 8

2.36

40.8

35–50

No. 16

1.18

35.8

No. 30

0.6

28.4

19–30

No. 50

0.3

17.6

13–23

No. 100

0.15

11.0

7–15

No. 200

0.075

7.8

3–8

Bitumen

One type of bitumen, viz. Suez asphalt cement (60/70 penetration grade, 1.02 g/cm3 specific gravity), was used in this study to prepare all investigated asphalt mixtures. Table 3 presents the different properties of the used bitumen.
Table 3

Properties of bitumen used

Test no.

Test

AASHTO designation no.

Result

Specification limit

1

Penetration (0.1 mm)

T-49

66

60–70

2

Softening point (°C)

T-53

46

45–55

3

Flash point (°C)

T-48

+ 270

+ 250

4

Kinematic viscosity (cSt)

T-201

435

+ 320

5

Ductility (cm)

T-51

+ 100

≥ 95

Mineral filler

The mineral filler used in the investigated mixes was limestone dust with bulk specific gravity of 2.75 g/cm3. Table 4 presents the gradation of the different types of mineral filler and the specification limits.
Table 4

Mineral filler gradation

Sieve size

Design gradation

Specification limit

Inches

mm

LSD

CWD/cement dust

MWD

No. 30

0.6

100

100

100

100 %

No. 50

0.3

100

100

100

No. 100

0.15

92

97

90.3

85 % (min)

No. 200

0.075

80

96

85.8

65 % (min)

Improved asphalt mixtures

Seventeen HMA mixtures were prepared to evaluate the effect of using different alternative waste materials as mineral filler on the properties of the asphalt mix. The first HMA mixture consisted of the selected materials with the optimum bitumen content (5.1%) and 100% limestone dust as control mineral filler, being called the “Control Mix.” Then, eight HMA mixtures with the selected materials, the optimum bitumen content (5.1%), and different contents of ceramic waste dust enhanced by cement dust (25, 30, 35, 40, 50, 65, 75, 100 % by weight of mineral filler) were prepared, and the Marshall mix design method was conducted to determine the optimum ceramic/cement dust content (OCC), leading to the first comparison mixture (“Comp. Mix. 1”). Another eight HMA mixtures with the selected materials, the optimum bitumen content (5.1%), and different contents of marble waste dust (10, 15, 20, 25, 35, 50, 75, 100% by weight of mineral filler) were prepared, and the Marshall mix design method was conducted to determine the optimum marble content (OMC), leading to the second comparison mixture (“Comp. Mix. 2”). Then, these three main mixtures (Control Mix, Comp. Mix. 1, and Comp. Mix. 2) were subjected to special tests to compare the performance of HMA mixtures with ceramic waste dust enhanced by cement dust or marble waste dust as additive. Table 5 presents these 17 HMA mixtures.
Table 5

The 17 HMA mixtures

Filler type

Code

Description

Function

Objective

LSD

Mix 0

OBC % AC 60/70 + 100% LSD

Determine stability and flow

Control mix

CWD enhanced by cement dust

Mix 1

OBC % AC 60/70 + 25% CWD/cement dust + 75% LSD

Determine OCC of comparison mixes

Comp. mix. 1

Mix 2

OBC % AC 60/70 + 30% CWD/cement dust + 70% LSD

Mix 3

OBC % AC 60/70 + 35% CWD/cement dust + 65% LSD

Mix 4

OBC % AC 60/70 + 40% CWD/cement dust + 60% LSD

Mix 5

OBC % AC 60/70 + 50% CWD/cement dust + 50% LSD

Mix 6

OBC % AC 60/70 + 65% CWD/cement dust + 35% LSD

Mix 7

OBC % AC 60/70 + 75% CWD/cement dust + 25% LSD

Mix 8

OBC % AC 60/70 + 100% CWD/cement dust + 0.0% LSD

MWD

Mix 9

OBC % AC 60/70 + 10% MWD + 90% LSD

Determine OMC of comparison mixes

Comp. mix. 2

Mix 10

OBC % AC 60/70 + 15% MWD + 85 % LSD

Mix 11

OBC % AC 60/70 + 20% MWD + 80% LSD

Mix 12

OBC % AC 60/70 + 25% MWD + 75% LSD

Mix 13

OBC % AC 60/70 + 35% MWD + 65% LSD

Mix 14

OBC % AC 60/70 + 50% MWD + 50% LSD

Mix 15

OBC % AC 60/70 + 75% MWD + 25% LSD

Mix 16

OBC % AC 60/70 + 100 % MWD + 0.0% LSD

Experimental work and results

Optimum bitumen content (OBC)

Five HMA mixtures with the selected materials in the previous stage, different bitumen contents (4.5, 5.0, 5.5, 6.0, 6.5%), and 5 % limestone dust (LSD) as control mineral filler were prepared, and the Marshall mix design method was conducted for the wearing surface mix (mix 4C) to determine the properties of the mixtures according to AASHTO T-166 [19]. Also, these five HMA mixtures were tested using Marshall apparatus to obtain stability and flow values. Then, the results were compared to determine the optimum bitumen content (OBC), yielding a value of 5.1 % to provide maximum stability and suitable flow, actual specific gravity, and acceptable percentage of air voids. Table 6 presents the properties of the OBC mixture with 5% LSD as control filler.
Table 6

Marshall properties at optimum bitumen content (OBC)

Property

Result

Specification limit

Stability (kg)

1360

900 kg (min)

Flow (mm)

3.5

2–4 mm

Stiffness (kg/mm)

389

300–500 kg/mm

Bulk specific gravity, Gmb (g/cm3)

2.394

% Air voids in total mix (Va)

3.45

3–5 %

Optimum ceramic/cement dust content (OCC)

Eight HMA mixtures with the selected materials, the optimum bitumen content (5.1%), and different contents of ceramic waste dust enhanced by cement dust (25, 30, 35, 40, 50, 65, 75, 100% by weight of mineral filler) were prepared, and the Marshall mix design method was conducted to determine the optimum ceramic/cement dust content (OCC), yielding a value of 35 %. Table 7 presents the Marshall test results for different contents of ceramic waste enhanced by cement dust, whereas Table 8 presents the properties of the OCC mixture.
Table 7

Properties of mixtures with ceramic waste enhanced by cement dust

Mix. no. properties

M1

M2

M3

M4

M5

M6

M7

M8

Stability (kg)

1378

1459

1640

1409

1415

1462

1327

1239

Flow (mm)

3.9

3.9

3.6

4.2

3.8

3.86

3.66

3.6

Stiffness (kg/mm)

353

374

456

335

372

379

363

288

Specific gravity (g/cm3)

2.377

2.380

2.405

2.396

2.381

2.389

2.390

2.374

% Air voids

4.15

3.77

3.41

3.58

3.79

3.66

3.62

3.88

% Voids in Mineral Aggregate (VMA)

12.67

12.56

11.65

11.97

12.52

12.23

12.19

12.93

% Voids Filled with Asphalt (VFA)

67.24

69.98

70.73

70.09

69.73

70.07

70.3

70.0

% Cement dust/bitumen

12.5

14.7

17.16

19.6

24.5

31.8

36.9

49

Table 8

Properties of OCC mixture

Property

Result

Specification limit

Stability (kg)

1640

900 kg (min)

Flow (mm)

3.6

2–4 mm

Stiffness (kg/mm)

456

300–500 kg/mm

Bulk specific gravity (g/cm3)

2.405

% Air voids

3.41

3–5%

Optimum marble content (OMC)

Eight HMA mixtures with the selected materials, the optimum bitumen content (5.1%), and different contents of marble waste dust (10, 15, 20, 25, 35, 50, 75, 100% by weight of mineral filler) were prepared, and the Marshall mix design method was conducted to determine the optimum marble content (OMC), yielding a value of 15%. Table 9 presents the Marshall test results for different marble waste contents, whereas Table 10 presents the properties of the OMC mixture.
Table 9

Properties of mixtures with marble waste

Mix. no. properties

M9

M10

M11

M12

M13

M14

M15

M16

Stability (kg)

1288

1496

1323

1457

1453

1051

1227

1084

Flow (mm)

3.4

3.5

3.5

3.97

3.6

3.97

4.53

4.97

Stiffness (kg/mm)

379

427

378

367

404

265

271

218

Specific gravity (g/cm3)

2.367

2.384

2.354

2.409

2.380

2.403

2.402

2.408

% Air voids

4.55

4.26

4.48

4.06

4.22

3.88

3.92

3.68

Table 10

Properties of OMC mixture

Property

Result

Specification limit

Stability (kg)

1496

900 kg (min)

Flow (mm)

3.5

2–4 mm

Stiffness (kg/mm)

427

300–500 kg/mm

Bulk specific gravity (g/cm3)

2.384

% Air voids

4.26

3–5%

Effect of ceramic/cement dust content on Marshall properties

Effect of ceramic/cement dust content on Marshall stability

The results in Table 7 show that the Marshall mix stability for the first three mixes increased as the ceramic/cement dust ratio was increased, achieving its highest value of 1640 kg at 35 % ceramic/cement dust (M3), representing a 17% increase compared with the control mix (M0). For the subsequent mix (M4), in which the ceramic/cement dust ratio was increased to 40%, the mix stability decreased but remained higher than that of the control mix (1360 kg). For the two subsequent mixes (M5 and M6), as the ceramic/cement dust ratio was increased, the mix stability increased, reaching 1462 kg at 65% ceramic/cement dust, but remained lower than the highest stability value. For the two subsequent mixes (M7 and M8), as the ceramic/cement dust ratio was increased, the mix stability decreased, reaching its lowest value of 1239 kg at 100% ceramic/cement dust (M8). This means that substituting 100% of the mineral filler in the mix by ceramic/cement dust decreased the Marshall stability by about 121 kg (9%) compared with the control mix (M0). According to these results, it can be concluded that replacement of limestone dust by ceramic waste enhanced by cement dust had a pronounced effect on the mix stability at the specific replacement percentage of 35%.

Effect of ceramic/cement dust content on Marshall flow

The flow value of the investigated mixes is presented in Table 7. The most suitable value of flow was 3.6 mm, corresponding to the highest value of stability at 35% ceramic/cement dust (M3). This value increased the flow by 2.75% compared with the control mix (M0). The highest flow value was 3.9 mm at 25 or 30% ceramic/cement dust ratio (M1 and M2, respectively). Mix M4 lay beyond the specification value for flow (> 4 mm) according to the Egyptian code.

Effect of marble content on Marshall properties

Effect of marble content on Marshall stability

The results in Table 9 show that the Marshall mix stability for the first two mixes increased as the marble percentage was increased, achieving its highest value of 1496 kg at 15% marble (M2), representing an increase of 9 % compared with the control mix (M0). For the subsequent mix (M3), in which the marble percent was increased to 20%, the mix stability decreased and became lower than that of the control mix (1360 kg). For the subsequent mix (M4), in which the marble percent was increased to 25%, the mix stability increased but remained lower than its highest value. For the subsequent two mixes (M5 and M6), as the marble percent was increased to 50%, the mix stability decreased, achieving its lowest value of 1051 kg at 50% marble (M6). This content decreased the stability by 22.7% compared with the control mix (M0). For the subsequent mix (M7), in which the marble percent was increased to 75%, the mix stability decreased but still remained higher than that of the control mix (1360 kg). For the last mix (M8), in which the marble percent was increased to 100%, the mix stability decreased but did not reach its lowest value. According to these results, it can be concluded that replacement of limestone dust by marble waste had a considerable effect on the mix stability at the specific replacement percent of 15%.

Effect of marble content on Marshall flow

The flow value of the investigated mixes is presented in Table 9. The most suitable value of flow was 3.5 mm, corresponding to the highest value of stability at 15% marble (M10). This mix retained the flow value of the control mix. The highest flow value was 3.97 mm at 25 and 75% marble (in mix M12 and M14, respectively). Two mixes (M15 and M16) gave flow values beyond the specification (> 4 mm) according to the Egyptian code.

Loss of stability test

The loss of stability percentage was used as an index for mix durability under various use cases. Table 11 presents the results of the loss of stability test conducted on the following chosen mixtures: Control Mix with 100% LSD, Comp. Mix. 1 with the optimum ceramic/cement dust content (OCC) at specific replacement percentage of 35%, and Comp. Mix. 2 with optimum marble content (OMC) at specific replacement percentage of 15%. Figure 1 presents the loss of stability percentages versus immersion time for the specified mixes.
Table 11

Loss of stability test results (%)

Time (days)

Control mix

Comp. mix. 1

Comp. mix. 2

1

11

16

14

2

16

20

18

3

19

23

22

Fig. 1

Loss of stability percentage versus time

The control and two comparison mixes (1 and 2) showed loss of stability values in an acceptable range (< 25%) [20]. The control mix showed the lowest loss ratio. For Comp. Mix. 1, the loss of stability increased, reaching a highest ratio of 23 %, representing a 17.4% increase compared with the control mix. For Comp. Mix. 2, the loss of stability was lower than for Comp. Mix. 1 by 4.5%, but higher than that of the control mix by 14.6%. According to these results, it can be concluded that replacement of limestone dust by marble waste had a pronounced effect on the mix stability at its optimum ratio of 15%, compared with ceramic waste enhanced by cement dust at its optimum ratio of 35%.

Wheel tracking test

The wheel tracking test was conducted on some specimens according to the Egyptian code. This test was performed on the following chosen mixtures: Control Mix with 100% LSD, Comp. Mix. 1 with optimum ceramic/cement dust content (OCC) at specific replacement percent of 35%, and Comp. Mix. 2 with optimum marble content (OMC) at specific replacement percent of 15% to study the effect of ceramic/cement dust and marble on the capability of pavement to withstand rutting phenomena. One slab with dimensions of 440 mm × 330 mm × 50 mm according to LTG2015 [20] was prepared for each mixture and subjected to the test at 60 °C under wheel load of 53 kg to indent a straight track in the specimen. The track depth was recorded at regular intervals up to 45 min using a springless dial gauge. The rutting depth results are presented in Table 12 and Fig. 2 to compare the results for the different tested mixtures.
Table 12

Rutting depth (mm) on slabs of the main three mixtures

Mix

Rutting depth (mm)

Control mix

4.7

Comp. mix. 1

2.9

Comp. mix. 2

3.6

Fig. 2

Rutting depth of each mixture

The control mix showed the highest value of rutting depth (4.7 mm). For Comp. Mix. 1, the rutting depth decreased, achieving the lowest value of 2.4 mm, which represents a decrease of 39% compared with the control mix. For Comp. Mix. 2, the rutting depth was higher than that of Comp. Mix. 1 by 20%, representing a decrease of 24% compared with the control mix. According to these results, it can be concluded that replacement of limestone dust by ceramic waste enhanced by cement dust had a pronounced effect on the mix stability at its optimum ratio of 35%, compared with marble waste at its optimum ratio of 15%.

Conclusions

Based on the results of this study, the following conclusions can be made:
  1. 1.

    The optimum content of ceramic waste dust enhanced by cement dust was 35% by weight of mineral filler instead of limestone dust in the modified asphalt mix.

     
  2. 2.

    The best percent of marble waste dust was 15% by weight of mineral filler instead of limestone dust in the modified asphalt mix.

     
  3. 3.

    The asphalt mix with ceramic/cement dust ratio of 35% achieved a stability value about 17% higher than that of the control mix. Also, this content achieved a flow value about 3% greater than that of the control mix.

     
  4. 4.

    The asphalt mix containing marble at percentage of 15% achieved a stability value 10 % higher than that of the control mix. However, this content resulted in the same flow value as the control mix (3.5 mm).

     
  5. 5.

    Ceramic waste dust has low plasticity ratio, preventing its use in HMA formulations, but its plasticity can be removed by using additives such as cement dust at 1:1 ratio.

     
  6. 6.

    Marble waste dust shows no plasticity and thus can be safely used in HMA formulations without further additives.

     
  7. 7.

    The loss of stability value increased when using ceramic waste dust enhanced by cement dust and marble waste dust, compared with the control mix. However, it remained in the acceptable range (< 25%) at the studied content values of 35 % for ceramic/cement dust or 15% for marble.

     
  8. 8.

    Use of ceramic waste dust enhanced by cement dust and marble waste dust at their optimum percentages of 35 and 15%, respectively, had a great effect on the resistance of pavement to rutting (according to the wheel tracking test).

     
  9. 9.

    Use of ceramic waste dust enhanced by cement dust at its optimum percentage (35%) instead of limestone dust was better compared with use of marble waste dust at its optimum percentage of 15%, increasing the stability value by about 9% and the flow value by about 3%.

     
  10. 10.

    Based on the results of this study, a mix was proposed and prepared with 35% ceramic/cement dust by weight of filler. This mix exhibited suitable values for almost all mix properties and is therefore recommended.

     

Recommendations

Based on the conclusions above, the following recommendations can be made:
  1. 1.

    Use of ceramic waste dust enhanced by cement dust and marble waste dust at 35 and 15%, respectively, by weight of filler instead of limestone dust resulted in asphalt mixes with satisfactory properties, in turn providing optimum field performance and limiting pavement rutting to a considerable extent.

     
  2. 2.

    Other waste materials should also be investigated for use in production of asphalt mixes, to overcome dangerous pavement distresses. Elimination of pavement cracking is considered to be a vital goal of such investigations.

     
  3. 3.

    Complete economic evaluation should be carried out to confirm the feasibility of using HMAs containing ceramic waste dust enhanced by cement dust and marble waste dust.

     

References

  1. 1.
    Kalkattawi HR (1993) Effect of filler on the engineering properties of asphalt mixes, M.S. Thesis King Abdul Aziz University, Jeddah, Saudi ArabiaGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Prithvi S Kandhal, Lynn Y, Parker F Jr (1998) Characterization tests for mineral fillers related to performance of asphalt paving mixture, Auburn University, Alabama, NCAT Report No. 98–2Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sutradhar D, Miah M, Golam JC, Mohd AS (2015) Effect of using waste material as filler in bituminous mix design. Am J Civ Eng 3(3):88–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Do HS, Mun PH, keun RS (2008) A study on engineering characteristics of asphalt concrete using filler with recycled waste lime. Waste Manage 28:191–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Katamine NM (2000) Phosphate waste in mixtures to improve their deformation. J Transp Eng 126:382–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yongjie X, Haobo H, Shujing Z, Jin Z (2009) Utilization of municipal solid waste incineration ash in stone mastic asphalt mixture: pavement performance and environmental impact. Constr Build Mater 23:989–996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Deng-Fong L, Jyh-Dong L, Shun-Hsing C (2006) The application of baghouse fines in Taiwan. Resour Conserv Recycl 46:281–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ibrahim A (2005) Assa’ad Abdullah: effect of Jordanian oil shale fly ash on asphalt mixes. J Mater Civ Eng 17:553–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baoshan H, Qiao D, Burdette EG (2009) Laboratory evaluation of incorporating waste ceramic materials into Portland cement and asphaltic concrete. Constr Build Mater 23:3451–3456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bilgin N, Yeprem HA, Arslan S, Bilgin A, Gunay E, Marşoglu M (2012) Use of waste marble powder in brick industry. Constr Build Mater 29:449–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Abdel-Motaleb ME (2007) Impact of high- pressure truck tires on pavement design in Egypt. Faculty of Engineering, Zagazig University. Emir J Eng Res 12(2):65–73Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ustunkol FN, Turabi A Endüstriyel atıkların karayolu üstyapısında değerlendirilmesiGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Saatcioglu G (2010) Türk Seramik Sanayi Raporu 1990–2009 yullari. Turkish ceramics federation, IstanbulGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pacheco-Torgal F, Jalali S (2010) Reusing ceramic wastes in concrete. Constr Build Mater 24:832–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Van de Ven M, Molenaar A, Poot M (2011) Asphalt mixtures with waste materials: possibilities and constraints. Conference on asphalt pavements for Southern Africa [CAPSA11]Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Karasahin M, Terzi S (2007) Evaluation of marble waste dust in the mixture of asphaltic concrete. (Regular Papers). J Sci Direct 21(3):616–620Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    West RC, James RS (2006) Evaluation of a lime kiln dust as a mineral filler for stone matrix asphalt, Proceedings of National Center for Asphalt Technology. In: The 85th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., Accessed Jan 2006Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tuncan M, Tuncan A, Cetin A (2005) The use of waste materials in asphalt concrete mixtures. Anadolu University, Department of Civil Engineering. J Waste Manag Res 23:550–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    AASHTO T166 (2013) Standard method of test for bulk specific gravity (Gmb) of compacted hot mix asphalt (HMA) using saturated surface-dry specimens. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Laboratory Tests Guide (2015) General authority for roads, bridges and land transport, EgyptGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Civil Engineering Department, Benha Faculty of EngineeringBenha UniversityBenhaEgypt
  2. 2.Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering & TechnologyThe Egyptian Chinese UniversityCairoEgypt
  3. 3.Civil Engineering DepartmentHigh Institute of Engineering & TechnologyNew DamiettaEgypt

Personalised recommendations