Chapter 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Locale of the Study

The investigation took place in the Philippines, a tropical nation with only rainy and dry

seasons. It has a generally high temperature, a high humidity level, and a lot of rainfall.

The Philippines is situated at 14° 34' 59.99" N latitude and 121° 00' 0.00" E longitude.

Because it is located above the equator and is a part of the northern hemisphere, it is

vulnerable to earthquakes and typhoons, which can cause flooding and significant damage

to homes, crops, and other things. In the Philippines, asphalt is frequently used to build

roads. Because of its rainy and dry seasons, the Philippines provides a fantastic choice for

employing asphalt. Commonly, the DPWH oversees asphalt specifications and design

guidelines, but occasionally the DOTR and DLG as well.

Figure 3.1 : Asphalt road in the city of Manila, Philippines

Source: Adapted from [70]

44
3.2 Research Design

As the researchers aim to innovate the asphalt mixtures using LDPE, the study was

executed using experimental quantitative research to evaluate if the LDPE-asphalt mixture

achieved the specifications followed by DPWH in utilizing asphalt pavements. The

gathered results on Marshall stability, flow, bulk specific gravity, and air voids were

compared to prove the viability of LDPE-asphalt mixture as road pavement using the

standards of DPWH with ASTM and ACI specifications. After proving the viability of the

experimental mixtures, each percent of LDPE content was also compared according to the

increase/decrease percent of the tested properties to the control mix provided by the test

results of the DPWH project used.

3.3 Design Mix

3.3.1 Formulation of the LDPE-Asphalt Samples

The following percentages are recommended by the Optimum Plastic Content

(OPC) of the Indian Road Congress (IRC). IRC is the premier body of Highway

Engineers in India who primarily studied the effectiveness of PE modified asphalt

mixture. The percentages considered in the study is within the recommended range

which is 6% to 10%.

The formulation of samples is as follows:

- Control Mix with 0% LDPE content

- 6% of the total weight of asphalt binder will be LDPE

- 8% of the total weight of asphalt binder will be LDPE

45
 - 10% of the total weight of asphalt binder will be LDPE

3.3.2Design and Dimensions

Table 3.3.2A DPWH specification for marshall samples

Sample No. Diameter Height Volume of Specimen

(mm) (mm) (𝒎𝒎𝟑 )

1 101.60 63.50 514815

2 101.60 63.50 514815

3 101.60 63.50 514815

3.3.4 Sample Prototype

Figure 3.3.4A Marshall Test Sample

46
3.4 Materials Used

The experimental mixture was composed of Aggregates (coarse and fine aggregates),

Portland cement were used as mineral filler, asphalt cement (AC) as the bituminous

material, and recycled LDPE plastics as the modifier. The aggregate or the solid

composition of the mixture has contributed 90-95% of the total weight of the sample, while

the fluid asphalt binder has contributed 5-10%. Using the wet process of mixture, the LDPE

plastics were added to the asphalt cement during the melting process that was used as the

mixture’s binder.

• Coarse and Fine Aggregates

- Coarse Aggregates: Materials passed through the 12.5 mm sieve are considered

coarse aggregates. The majority of the coarse aggregate used in concrete is made

up of gravel, with crushed stone making up most of the remainder. A coarse

aggregate with a nominal size of ¾” and ⅜” were used to help make concrete and

asphalt mixes more compact.

- Fine Aggregates: Consisted of natural sand and/or crushed stone with most particles

passed through the No. 4 sieve (4.75 mm). These are commercially known as S-1

with a maximum size of 5 mm. Fine aggregates are used as a vital ingredient for

concrete and asphalt mixes, pavement seal coat, sand bedding, fairways sand,

masonry, etc.

47
 Figure 3.4: Coarse Aggregates and Fine Aggregates
Source: Adapted from [57]

• Mineral Filler

Type I Portland Cement or commonly known as general-purpose portland cement

suitable for all uses where no particular cement characteristics are required. This

type of cement is also used in building sidewalks, paving roads, building reinforced

concrete bridges, railroads, reservoirs, water pipes, and producing mixed mortar.

Figure 3.4.1: Portland Cement

Source: Adapted from [59]

48
• Asphalt Cement

Repurposed Asphalt Cement is the practice of reusing or recycling used or

abandoned asphalt ingredients to produce new asphalt goods.

Figure 3.4.2: Repurposed Asphalt Cement

Source: Adapted from [60]

• Plastic Content

LDPE waste such as plastic bags, plastic sachets, and plastic bottles were used as a

binder for the experimental asphalt mixture. LDPE waste was shredded into strips

at an estimated size of 5 to 10 mm. As the wet method was used, shredded plastics

are directly added to the hot asphalt binder.

Figure 3.4.3: Shredded LDPE plastics

Source: Adapted from [61]

49
• Hydrated Lime

Asphalt pavements with good performance were made with the use of a modifier

called hydrated lime . Other advantages have been discovered in the lab and on the

job site as hydrated lime use has increased globally.

Figure 3.4.4: Hydrated Line

Source: Adapted from [73]

3.5 Equipments and Apparatus

3.5.1 Marshall Test Machine

Figure 3.5.1: Marshall Test Machine

Source: Adapted from [62]

50
3.5.2 Asphalt Mold

Figure 3.5.2: Asphalt Compaction Mold

Source: Adapted from [63]

3.5.3 Marshall Impact Compactor

Figure 3.5.3: Marshall Impact Compactor

Source: Adapted from [64]

51
3.5.4 Thermometer

Figure 3.5.4: Thermometer

Source: Adapted from [65]

3.5.5 Drying Oven

Figure 3.5.5: Laboratory Drying Oven

Source: Adapted from [66]

52
3.5.6 Laboratory Water Bath

Figure 3.5.6: Laboratory Water Bath

Source: Adapted from [67]

3.5.7 Weighing Scales

Figure 3.5.7: Laboratory Weighing Scales

Source: Adapted from [68]

53
 3.5.8 Universal Extruder

Figure 3.5.8: Universal Extruder

Source: Adapted from [69]

3.6. Process and Experimentation

The production of experimental samples was the foundation of accuracy of the test results

that was obtained. Before the mixing process, the aggregates underwent sieve analysis,

with DPWH grading 310B specification, that determined the particle sizes and distributed

the aggregates uniformly in the mixture. After being distributed equally, the aggregate

components, the materials used such as the aggregates, bitumen, and LDPE were then

weighed to determine the theoretical values that were used in the succeeding process.

The aggregates were heated as a preparation for the mixing process. At the same time, the

asphalt cement (AC) and LDPE (in distinct percent content: 6%, 8%, and 10%) were

melted and mixed using the wet process at a range of 54-173℃ to form the fluid binder.

After preparing the components, the binder with LDPE and the aggregates were mixed

54
(binder should be 5-5.5% of the total weight of the sample), molded and then compacted.

The mixtures produced a total of twelve (12) samples; Three (3) Marshall samples for each

percent of LDPE added in binder and control mix with 0% LDPE was then tested for

Marshall stability, flow, bulk specific gravity, and air voids.

After the production of samples, the samples were cured as a preparation for testing.

Initially, the data for bulk specific gravity and air voids was obtained using ASTM D2726

or AASHTO T166 where the theoretical and actual weights of the samples was used using

formula-based equations. Using the Marshall Stability Test Apparatus, stability and flow

data were obtained following the process provided by ASTM D6927-06. The results were

primarily evaluated to determine if it achieved the standards of DPWH in the utilization of

asphalt road pavements. The data collected from the tests provided was also evaluated

using one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to compare the significant difference of

the results. Another statistical treatment used in the study is the T-test, which determined

the viable percent of LDPE content to be used in the utilization of road pavements and to

show the improvements of the ideal percent of LDPE content in terms of mechanical,

physical, and workability properties.

The analysis of data satisfied the objective of the study with concrete results that are

obtained through thorough investigation and experimentation using scientific methods. The

progress of the research was documented throughout the process of the research and was

presented as follows.

55
Figure 3.6 Process and Experimentation

56
3.7. Testing Methods

3.7.1 ASTM D6927-06: Standard Test Method for Marshall Stability and

Flow of Bituminous Mixtures

The Marshall mix design method uses the Marshall Stability and Flow Test as a

performance prediction measure. This method is widely used in construction

materials laboratories to select and proportion aggregate and asphalt materials for

pavement construction due to its simple procedure and economical equipment.

Engineers can estimate how well an asphalt mixture will perform and the maximum

load it can support using the Marshall Stability and Flow Test, since not all asphalt

is created the same. The Marshall mix design approach helps engineers in selecting

the optimal asphalt binder content at a density that meets stability and flow value

requirements.

Procedures:

● Prepare Marshall Test Specimens.

● Record the Thickness of Specimens.

● Maintain the Temperature of Water Bath at 60 ± 0.5°C.

● Completely Submerge the Specimen in Water Bath.

● After Specified Time Period Remove & Test the Specimens.

● Adjust Dial Gauge at Zero Reading.

● Record Stability and Flow Gauge Reading.

57
3.7.2 ASTM D2726 or AASHTO T166: Standard Test Method for Bulk

Specific Gravity and Density of Non-Absorptive Compacted Bituminous

Mixtures

The bulk specific gravity is the ratio of the weight of a stated volume of aggregate,

including the permeable and impermeable voids in the particles, to the weight of an

equal volume of gas-free distilled water at the stated temperature. Because it is used

to determine voids in the overall mix, voids in mineral aggregate, and voids filled

with asphalt, bulk specific gravity of aggregate is important information for

designing hot mix asphalt. Proper measurements of the bulk specific gravity of

compacted hot-mix asphalt (HMA) samples are essential to HMA mix design, field,

control, and construction acceptance. Water absorption can also be an indicator of

asphalt absorption and a highly absorptive aggregate may lead to a low durability

asphalt mix.

𝐷𝑟𝑦
𝐺𝑚 = (Eq.1)
𝑆𝑆𝐷 − 𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑚𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑑

Gm = bulk specific gravity

Dry = mass of the dry specimen in air (g)

SSD = mass of the saturated surface-dry specimen in air (g)

Submerged = mass of the specimen in water (g)

Procedures:

58
 ● Prepare Marshall Test Specimens.

● Record Weight of Dry Specimen in Air.

● Maintain the Temperature of Water Bath at 25 ± 1°C.

● Completely Submerge the Specimen in the Water Bath for 3 to 5 minutes.

● Tare Mesh Bucket and Record Weight of Specimen in Water (Maintain

Temperature of Water in Tank during Test at 25 ± 1°C).

● Surface Dry the Specimen by Blotting Quickly with a Damp Cloth Towel.

● Record Weight of SSD Specimen in Air.

3.7.3 Air Voids

Air voids are small air spaces or pockets of air that occur between the coated

aggregate particles in the final compacted mix. To allow for some additional

pavement compaction under traffic and to provide spaces into which small amounts

of asphalt can flow during this compaction, asphalt mixtures must contain a certain

percentage of air voids. The aim of asphalt mix design is to achieve an asphalt mix

with a practicable percentage of air voids without compromising long-term

performance. When there are too many air voids, the asphalt becomes permeable

to air and water, which reduces its service life while asphalt becomes rutted and

deformed under traffic when there are insufficient air voids. Percent air voids is

calculated by comparing a test specimen’s bulk specific gravity (Gm) with its

theoretical maximum specific gravity (Gt) and assuming the difference is due to

59
air. Percent air voids is typically calculated using Gm and Gt in the following

equation:

𝐺𝑡 − 𝐺𝑚
𝑉𝑣 = 𝑥 100 (Eq.2)
𝐺𝑡

Vv =Air voids

Gt = theoretical maximum specific gravity

Gm = bulk specific gravity

[Link] Theoretical Maximum Specific Gravity

Theoretical maximum specific gravity is needed to calculate air void

content. Therefore, it is involved in in-place air void determination during

HMA pavement construction. The composition of the mixture in terms of

the effective specific gravity of aggregates (2.817), specific gravity of

asphalt binder (1.03), and the percent content of the bitumen in the mixture

are based on the theoretical maximum specific gravity and density values,

which are fundamental properties in the mixture. Theoretical maximum

specific gravity (Gt), is the specific gravity without considering air voids,

and the formula to be used is:

100
𝐺𝑡 = 100 − 𝑃𝑏 𝑃𝑏 (Eq.3)
+
𝐺𝑠𝑒 𝐺𝑏

60
 Gt = Theoretical maximum specific gravity

Gse = Effective Specific Gravity of the aggregate

Pb = Percent asphalt binder

Gb = Specific Gravity of the asphalt binder

3.8. Summary of Apparatus and Equipment with Testing Methods

Table 3.8.1: Summary of Apparatus and Equipment with Testing Methods

Marshall Test Machine

Universal Extruder

61
 ASTM D6927-06 Asphalt Compaction
Marshall Stability and Mold
Flow

Marshall Impact
Compactor

Thermometer

62
 Laboratory Drying Oven
ASTM D2726
Bulk Specific Gravity

Laboratory Water Bath

Laboratory Weighing
Scales

3.9 Statistical Analysis

One-way ANOVA or Analysis of Variance is a type of statistical test that is commonly

used when comparing and analyzing two (2) or more independent groups by means of their

results to prove whether there is statistical evidence that proves they are significantly

different. In order to determine if there are significant differences in the test results of each

63
sample with different LDPE content (6%, 8%, and 10%), the study utilized one-way

ANOVA. Using the test apparatus and equipment, as well as the provided formulas, the data

for marshall stability, flow, bulk specific gravity, and air voids were gathered. Each sample

with a different percentage of LDPE content (6%, 8%, and 10%) produced three (3) results

for each property tested. The mean (𝑥) of each result were computed and then analyzed as

it achieved the standards provided by DPWH displayed in Table 3.8F Summary of Results.

The means (𝑥) were also analyzed, using the presented statistical treatment, that proved

that the values displayed significant differences statistically. There are two (2) possible

hypotheses when conducting one-way ANOVA; First is null hypothesis (Ho) which

indicates that there are no significant differences between the results, it also indicates that

the produced means are statistically equal. While alternative hypothesis (Ha) means that at

least one of the results is significantly different. In order to reject the null hypothesis, it

only requires one result to show a significant difference.

Ho = 𝑥1 = 𝑥2 = 𝑥3 = 𝑥𝑛

Ha = At least one (1) mean is significantly different

The first process is to identify the degrees of freedom which was obtained through

calculation using the formulas as given that helped in identifying the hypothesis:

a.) 𝑑𝑓𝑏𝑒𝑡𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑛 = 𝑅 − 1 (Eq.4)

b.) 𝑑𝑓𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛 = 𝑁 − 𝑅 (Eq.5)

where: R = Number of conducted tests

64
 N = Total number of results

The degrees of freedom were used to identify the 𝐹𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 using the Table of Critical Values

for the F-Distribution using the 0.05 (5%) significance level or a confidence level of 95%.

𝐹𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 value played an important role in what the hypothesis presented.

After solving the critical F-value, the grand mean (𝑋) was calculated using the equation:

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑜𝑓 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑠
𝑋= (Eq.6)
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑠

The sum of squares, which measured the deviation of the results away from the mean value,

was computed using the solved mean (𝑥) and grand mean values (𝑋) using the equations:

a.) 𝑆𝑆𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = Σ(𝑥𝑛 − 𝑋)2 (Eq.7)

b.) 𝑆𝑆𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛 = Σ(𝑥𝑛 − 𝑥𝑛 )2 (Eq.8)

c.) 𝑆𝑆𝑏𝑒𝑡𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑛 = 𝑆𝑆𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 − 𝑆𝑆𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛 (Eq.9)

where: 𝑥𝑛 = respective test results of each % of LDPE content (6%, 8%, and 10%)

𝑥𝑛 = respective mean of the results of % of LDPE content (6%, 8%, and 10%)

𝑆𝑆𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = total sum of squares

𝑆𝑆𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛 = sum of squares within group means

𝑆𝑆𝑏𝑒𝑡𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑛 = sum of squares between the group means

65
Variance, as defined, is the measurement of the spread between the results in a group of

data. After computing the sum of squares, the variance (MS) was computed using the

formulas:

𝑆𝑆
a.) 𝑀𝑆𝑏𝑒𝑡𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑛 = 𝑑𝑓𝑏𝑒𝑡𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑛 (Eq.10)
𝑏𝑒𝑡𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑛

𝑆𝑆
b.) 𝑀𝑆𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛 = 𝑑𝑓𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛 (Eq.11)
𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛

where: 𝑀𝑆𝑏𝑒𝑡𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑛 = Variance between the group mean

𝑀𝑆𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛 = Variance within the group mean

Using the obtained variance (MS) values, the F-value, which indicates the type of

hypothesis, was obtained using the formula:

𝑀𝑆𝑏𝑒𝑡𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑛
𝐹= (Eq.12)
𝑀𝑆𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛

The F-value was compared to the obtained 𝐹𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 which determined the type of hypothesis

of the gathered results if it were either null or alternative. If the F-value is greater than the

𝐹𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 , null hypothesis is rejected. On the other hand, when the F-value is less than 𝐹𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 , it

failed to reject the null hypothesis.

a.) If F > 𝐹𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 : Reject null hypothesis

b.) If F<𝐹𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 : Failed to reject null hypothesis

The effects of LDPE to the conventional asphalt mixture were further evaluated using the

statistical treatment known as t-test. Unlike the one-way ANOVA used in the comparison

of modified asphalt mixtures, T-test was used to compare the means of only two (2) groups.

66
Though, similar to one-way ANOVA, its conclusion can be a null hypothesis (Ho) or

alternative hypothesis (Ha). In the study, the sample with the highest mean (for Marshall

stability, flow, bulk specific gravity, and air voids) that achieved the standards of DPWH

were compared accordingly to both the control mix (asphalt grading B mixture with 0%

LDPE) and the sample test results provided by DPWH. Similarly, the primary step in

executing t-test is to calculate the degree of freedom of the groups. For two (2) sample

groups, the formula is given as:

𝑑𝑓 = 𝑁1 + 𝑁2 − 2 (Eq.13)

where: 𝑁1 = Total number of results of LDPE modified asphalt

𝑁2 = Total number of results of DPWH test results accordingly

The critical value of t was obtained using the Table of Critical Values for the T-Distribution

under the 95% confidence level or 5% significance level.

After finding the 𝑇𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 value, the mean (𝑥) of each group were solved. This was used in the

progressing formulations to reach a hypothesis.

By providing the mean (𝑥) of each group, the standard deviation (SD) was calculated, for

each group (LDPE modified mixture or control mix/DPWH test results), using the formula:

Σ(𝑥𝑛 −𝑥)2
𝑆𝐷 = √ (Eq.14)
𝑛−1

where: 𝑥𝑛 = respective test results

𝑥 = mean of test results

67
 𝑛 = size of analyzed group

By providing the standard deviations of each of the considered groups, the t-value that were

used to compare with 𝑇𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 was computed using the formula:

|𝑥1 −𝑥2 |
𝑇= 𝑆𝐷 𝑆𝐷
(Eq.15)
√ 𝑛 1+ 𝑛 2
1 2

where: 𝑥1 = mean value of LDPE modified mixture

𝑥2 = mean value of DPWH test results

𝑆𝐷1 = standard deviation of LDPE modified mixture

𝑆𝐷2 = standard deviation of control mix/DPWH test results

𝑛1 = amount of data in LDPE modified mixture test result

𝑛2 = amount of data in control mix/DPWH test results

Like one-way ANOVA, the t-test hypothesis was either null hypothesis (Ho) or alternative

hypothesis (Ha) that was determined by comparing the t-value and the 𝑇𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 value. The

hypothesis concluded is dependent on the following conditions:

a.) If T > 𝑇𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 : Reject null hypothesis

b.) If T<𝑇𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 : Failed to reject null hypothesis

68