See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/229041319

MIX DESIGN FOR COLD-IN-PLACE PAVEMENT RECYCLING; DOES IT

GUARANTEE PERFORMANCE?

Article · January 2008

CITATION READS

1 1,017

11 authors, including:

Abdul Aziz Mohd yazip Matori

Gonzaga University kumpulan ikram sdn.bhd
160 PUBLICATIONS   7,119 CITATIONS    12 PUBLICATIONS   57 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Selected physical properties of binary mixtures of crude glycerol and methanol at various temperatures View project

Soliton solution for different partial differential equations View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Abdul Aziz on 17 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

MIX DESIGN FOR COLD-IN-PLACE PAVEMENT RECYCLING;
DOES IT GUARANTEE PERFORMANCE?
Sufian, Zulakmal
Senior Assistant Director,Public Works Department,
Kuala Lumpur,Malaysia
zulakmal@jkr.gov.my

A.Aziz, Nafisah
Head of Engineering, Roadcare (M) Sdn. Bhd,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
nafisah@roadcare.com.my

Matori, Mohd Yazip

Manager, Kumpulan Ikram Sdn. Bhd.
Kuala Lumpur , Malaysia
yazip@ikram.com.my

Hussain, Mat Zin

Manager, Kumpulan Ikram Sdn. Bhd.
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
matzin@ikram.com.my

Abstract

Pavement recycling has been around in Malaysia since the late 80s. Prior to
2004, pavement-recycling work was carried out primarily based on overseas
practice with minimal local values, in the design and construction procedures.
Realizing the fact that local material and expertise differ in many ways from
those available overseas, the Public Works Department (PWD) of Malaysia
embarked on a large-scale study to research on the most appropriate
practice for cold in-place pavement recycling works (CIPR) in Malaysia. The
study scrutinizes all stages of recycling works, from laboratory mix design,
trial lay, construction and long term performance.

This paper highlights the mix design procedures for CIPR works adopted by
the PWD. It discusses, on the use of laboratory strength parameters such as
modulus, retained indirect tensile strength and unconfined compressive
strength to determine the optimum binder content of recycled samples. Four
binding agents namely emulsion cement, lime and foamed bitumen are used
in the study, and the paper details the difference in the design approach
between the agents.

The paper will also highlight, key variations between laboratory and in-situ
samples, and provide solutions to minimize the impact of such variations
during construction.

1
INTRODUCTION

Background

The Cold-In-Place Recycling (CIPR) technique was first introduced in Malaysia around the mid
80’s. Since then, the concept of recycling road pavements as an alternative rehabilitation
measure has become popular and acceptable. The technique involves recycling of all the asphalt
pavement section and a portion of the underlying materials with an addition of stabilizing agents
to produce a stabilized base course. One of the advantages of the CIPR is cost savings of up to 40
percent over conventional techniques (Sufian et al, 2005).

Although the CIPR technique is gaining acceptance as a cost effective solution in rehabilitating
distressed pavement, very little local research has been carried out on its cost effectiveness,
design, construction and long term performance. Subsequently, the Public Works Department
(PWD) has embarked on a research work in this field, in collaboration with Kumpulan Ikram and
Roadcare Sdn. Bhd. The study aims to establish a comprehensive design and construction
guidelines on CIPR for Malaysia.

Objectives

The objective of this paper is to highlight the mix design procedures for CIPR works adopted by
the PWD. It discusses on the use of laboratory strength parameters such as modulus, retained
indirect tensile strength and unconfined compressive strength to determine the optimum binder
content of recycled samples. Four stabilizing agents namely emulsion, cement, lime and foamed
bitumen are used in the study, and the paper details the difference in the design approach
between the agents. This paper will also highlight key variations between laboratory and in-situ
samples, and provide solutions to minimize the impact of such variations during construction.

RESEARCH BRIEF

All together, nine (9) trial sites were constructed on Federal Roads, each 1km long and are fairly
uniform in terms of terrain, geometrics, level of traffic, pavement type and surface condition.
Each site was further divided into five (5) sections of 200m each. Four CIPR sections were
constructed utilizing the four stabilizing agents and a control section was constructed along side,
using the conventional rehabilitation option such as mill and replace, followed by one or two
layers of asphalt overlay, or partial/full reconstruction.

This paper is based on findings and available data, up to 24 months of the monitoring period for
three sites (Sufian et al, 2007) as summarized in Table 1 below:-

1
 Table 1: Description of Each Site Prior to Treatment

Structural Thickness(mm) Traffic Pavement Condition

Subgrade
Site FWD Ctrl
Granular Granular Modulus Crack Rut IRI
AC AADT HCV (%) Deflection
Roadbase Sub-base (Mpa) Index Index (m/km)
(µm)

Site 1: FT 190 140 260 132 77 29,326 14 968 C5 R5 5.0

Site 2: FT 14 120 168 141 86 5,500 20 708 C4 R4 3.6

Site 3: FT 1739 50 127 152 190 4,300 10 953 C4 R4 5.2

The pavement rehabilitation design was carried out using the mechanistic-empirical approach.
All sections were designed such that the strain at each layer interface and on top of the subgrade
would not exceed the allowable strain for a given traffic loading. Table 2 depicts the pavement
design for each respective section.
Table 2: Study Sections and Respective Treatment
Site
Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5
(Design Loading)
1 (FDR - Foamed) (FDR - Cement) (FDR - Emulsion) (FDR - Lime) (Control)
FT 190 CIPR 250mm CIPR 250mm CIPR 250mm CIPR 250mm Mill & Replace 180mm
Klang, Selangor ACBC 60mm ACBC 100mm ACBC 100mm ACBC 70mm ACBC 70mm
(53 msa) ACWC 50mm ACWC 50mm ACWC 50mm ACWC 50mm ACWC 50mm
2 (FDR - Emulsion) (FDR - Foamed) (FDR - Cement) (FDR - Lime) (Control)
FT 14 CIPR 150mm CIPR 150mm CIPR 175mm CIPR 200mm Mill & Replace 160mm
Kemaman, Terengganu ACBC 80mm ACBC 70mm ACBC 80mm ACBC 80mm ACWC 100mm
(19 msa) ACWC 60mm ACWC 50mm ACWC 50mm ACWC 60mm
3 (FDR - Emulsion) (FDR - Foamed) (Control) (FDR - Cement) (FDR - Lime)
FT 1739 CIPR 150mm CIPR 150mm Mill & Replace 75mm CIPR 130mm CIPR 175mm
Kemahang, Kelantan ACBC 60mm ACBC 60mm ACBC 60mm ACBC 60mm ACBC 60mm
(4 msa) ACWC 50mm ACWC 50mm ACWC 50mm ACWC 50mm ACWC 50mm

Field Test/Survey

The field test programme was carried out before, during and after construction. The tests include
coring and Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) test, the Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD)
test, visual surface condition survey, walking profiler, traffic and axle load survey. The after
construction monitoring tests are carried out at months 1, 6, 12, 24, 36 and 60.

Laboratory Tests

Pre-construction laboratory tests were carried out to determine the engineering properties of the
existing materials, and the outputs were used for mix design purposes. The tests included
determination of binder content, aggregate grading, penetration and softening point etc. During
and post-construction tests were also carried out to determine the performance of the CIPR
mixes. The tests included Indirect Tensile Strength Test (ITS), Unconfined Compressive
Strength Test (UCS), resilient modulus etc.

2
MIX DESIGN PROCEDURES

The purpose of mix design is to establish the most effective method of treating the materials in
the recycled layer. Representative samples taken from the layer were prepared to simulate as
closely as possible the gradation of material achieved during the actual recycling process. For
this purpose, a small milling machine is normally recommended to mill samples from the road
pavement. However, trial pit samples were utilized for the mix design process in this research.

The main objectives of the mix design are to establish the expected grading of the material to be
recycled, its optimum moisture content, and the cement or bituminous binder content required at
this moisture content to obtain the specified strength.

Important Considerations in the Mix Design Process.

The mix design process involves sampling and testing of representative materials, identification
of the required structural properties of the stabilised layer, assessment of types and quantities of
stabiliser required and laboratory confirmation of stabilised material properties.

Initial testing of the material, taken from several pits and about 150kg in total, includes
establishing the grading, moisture content, maximum dry density and optimum moisture content.
Gradation tests are then undertaken on the samples to decide whether the grading of the
composite layer to be recycled is acceptable and to ascertain whether the addition of imported
material is required to improve the gradation of the recycled layer. The OMC for the trial pit
samples is determined, without inclusion of cement, using the Proctor test. When working with
bitumen emulsions, “Fluid Content” is used in place of Moisture Content in defining the
moisture/density relationship. Maximum density is achieved at the optimum total fluid content
(OTFC), which is the combined mass of moisture and bitumen emulsion (before breaking) in the
mix.

The determination of the Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) is done on specimens,

prepared with a range of stabilizer contents and cured for 7 days, and tested in compression in
accordance with test 11, BS 1924 or BS 1881: Part 116. For ITS test, a standard Marshall
Compaction technique of 75 blows per side is carried out (ASTM D1559) and samples are cured
for 72 hours at 40oC.

For cement and lime, the UCS values should be plotted against stabilizer using the average of
each pair of results. The laboratory mixed stabilizer content required to achieve the specified
strength can then be selected from this plot. For foamed bitumen and emulsion, the average of
the added bitumen content from the plot at which the soaked, unsoaked ITS and density are
maximum is taken as the design Bitumen Content (BC).

Mix Design Parameters

The specified mix design parameters in the Malaysian Specification (REAM ,2005 ) are shown
in Table 3.

3
 Table 3: Specified Design Parameters
Requirements on test parameters
Stabilising agents
ITS ITS soaked TSR UCS Compaction
Foamed/ Bitumen
≥ 0.2 MPa ≥ 0.15 MPa ≥ 75% ≥ 0.7 MPa ≥ 97%
Emulsion
Cement ≥ 0.2 MPa Not specified Not specified 2 – 5 MPa ≥ 97%
Lime
≥ 0.2 MPa Not specified Not specified 2 – 5 MPa ≥ 97%
*(Interim values only)

Laboratory Mix Design and Field Parameters

Gradings. Laboratory mix design process is carried out using samples taken from the trial pits. It
was observed that the aggregate gradation of these samples normally lies within the specified
envelope for the coarser aggregates but are slightly outside the limits for the finer aggregates
(passing 450µm). This is mainly due to the manual crushing of the trial pit samples which
produces less fine materials.

On the other hand, aggregate gradation of recycled materials obtained from behind the recycler
usually falls within the specified envelope. In this case, the milling process produces relatively
higher percentage of fine materials.
Aggregate Gradation - LAB vs Construction

100
90
80
70
% passing

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Sieve Size (mm)

Lab Construction LL UL

Figure 1: Gradation that shows gradations of test pit and behind recycler
materials

Optimum moisture content (OMC).The field moisture contents were mostly lower than the OMC of
laboratory design mixes. Some were even lower than the allowable tolerance of ±20% of the
laboratory OMC. This may be due to insufficient water being added to the recycled materials
during the recycling process. It should also be highlighted that the OMC for laboratory design
mix is determined using aggregates which do not include cement filler, whereas the field
moisture contents were determined on samples that had been mixed with 1 – 3% cement.

4
Optimum binder content (OBC).The fields OBC were calculated by deducting the bitumen contents
of the reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) materials from the total bitumen content of the
recycled material. The field OBCs for emulsion and foamed treated materials were found to be
significantly similar with those of the design mixes. This is as expected since the injection of the
bituminous binder is controlled by a computerized system of the recycling machine.

Cement and lime contents of the recycled materials were not evaluated since their amounts were
predetermined and controlled by spreading the required quantities within a specified area.

Bulk density. The field bulk densities, as measured by the proctor test, did not differ significantly
from the laboratory bulk densities at OMC and OBC for each treatment type. This suggests that
slight variation in the aggregate gradation has insignificant influence on the bulk density of the
materials. This also indicates that the current practice of using trial pit samples for mix design
purposes is adequate without the need to use a small milling machine to simulate the actual
recycling process. However, the authors are currently carrying out further research to evaluate
the effects of different gradations on volumetric and strength parameters.

Indirect tensile strength test (ITS). The ITS values for field samples did not differ significantly from
those of the laboratory samples. This shows that despite the significant difference between field
and design mix moisture contents, it does not affect the ITS values significantly.

The Tensile Strength Retained (TSR) values for field samples were within the allowable
tolerance set at 75% of the unsoaked ITS values. However, the field TSR values were
significantly lower than the laboratory TSR values. It is suspected that some percentage of
cement was lost during the construction process, possibly blown away by wind and/or passing
traffic, resulting in lower cement contents in the recycled materials, hence lower soaked ITS
values.

Unconfined compressive strength test (UCS).The UCS values for field samples were found to be
significantly higher than those of the design mixes. This suggests that the higher percentage of
fine materials present in field samples increases the UCS values.

Indirect tensile stiffness modulus. The moduli of field foamed and emulsion treated samples were
not significantly different from those of the design mixes. Again, this shows that despite the
significant difference between field and design mix moisture contents, it does not affect the
resulting modulus values significantly.

Compaction. The field dry density of the compacted recycled layer is determined using the sand
replacement method. Proctor test is also carried out on loose samples obtained from behind the
recycler. The ratio between these two dry densities gives the degree of field compaction. In most
cases, the field compaction satisfies the minimum specified 97% degree of compaction except in
Site 1 where lower degree of compaction was recorded.

The detailed comparison between the mean values of laboratory mix design and field parameters
is shown in Table 4.

5
 Table 4: Comparison between Laboratory Mix Design and Field Parameters
Measured Parameters
Bulk Density Soaked ITS FDT Dry Density
Stabiliser Section OBC (%) OMC/MC (%) ITS (kPa) TSR (%) UCS (Mpa) Modulus (Mpa) Grading Proctor Compaction (%)
(g/cm3) (kPa) (g/cm3)
Lab Field Lab Field Lab Field Lab Field Lab Field Lab Field Lab Field Lab Field Lab Field Lab Field Lab Field Lab Field
Foamed Site 1 -FT 190 2.0 2.0 5.3 5.0 2.065 1.966 242 336 215 293 89 86 1.0 2.2 1549 5051 Out Within 1.911 1.961 2.138 89
Bitumen Site 2 -FT 14 2.0 1.8 4.9 3.3 1.870 1.977 290 195 283 177 98 91 0.9 1.3 1084 1147 Out Within - 2.013 1.780 1.967 100 103
Site 3 -FT1739 2.0 2.0 5.4 5.1 2.213 1.999 325 273 333 228 102 84 1.8 1.6 7899 6348 Out Within 1.898 2.027 1.937 98
Site 1 -FT 190 3.5 4.6 5.3 3.3 2.065 2.046 270 268 228 220 84 82 0.5 2.0 863 2223 Out Within 1.978 1.961 2.081 95
Emulsion Site 2 -FT 14 4.2 3.4 5.2 4.1 1.950 1.956 255 258 200 209 78 80 2.3 1.5 829 1616 Out Within - 1.948 1.939 1.919 100 102
Site 3 -FT1739 4.5 3.2 4.8 5.4 2.142 2.142 270 233 255 202 94 87 1.7 1.2 2811 3393 Out Within 2.031 2.044 2.059 99
Site 1 -FT 190 3.0 5.5 3.9 2.071 2.256 1.9 2.9 Out Within 2.171 1.967 2.213 98
Cement Site 2 -FT 14 3.5 - 5.8 5.3 2.090 2.168 - - - - - - 2.4 4.5 - - Out Within - 2.109 1.970 2.082 100 101
Site 3 -FT1739 4.0 5.2 5.4 2.135 2.128 2.1 3.6 Out Within 2.018 2.024 2.039 99
Site 1 -FT 190 3.0 5.5 4.5 2.071 1.973 0.6 1.5 Out Within 1.888 1.967 2.012 94
Lime Site 2 -FT 14 3.5 - 5.4 5.7 2.058 2.097 - - - - - - 2.4 1.7 - - Out Within - 2.075 1.947 2.007 100 103
Site 3 -FT1739 4.0 5.4 5.6 2.120 2.081 1.1 0.5 Out Within 1.984 2.005 2.037 97

FIELD PERFORMANCE

The research sites are monitored for their functional and structural performance. At this stage of
the study, the performance of the pavement system as a whole is considered instead of the
performance of individual pavement layer. The functional performance of the pavements is
evaluated using the International Roughness Index (IRI). The structural performance is measured
in terms of the FWD central deflection, Crack Index (CI) and Rut Index (RI). The CI and RI are
defined (TRL , 1999), (Sufian et al, 2007 ) as follows :-

C0: no crack R0: no rut

C1: single crack R1: 1 ≤ R ≤ 5 mm
C2: more than one crack - not connected R2: 6 ≤ R ≤ 10 mm
C3: more than one crack - interconnected R3: 11 ≤ R ≤ 15 mm
C4: crocodile cracks R4: 16 ≤ R ≤ 25 mm
C5: severe crocodile cracks with loose blocks R5: R > 25 mm

Pavement Functional Performance

Generally, before rehabilitation, each section on all 3 sites exhibited severe functional condition
with an average International Roughness Index (IRI) of greater than 3 m/km. After rehabilitation,
all sections recorded a significant reduction in IRI with an average value ranging between 1.17 to
2.63 m/km. However, the IRI gradually increases after 1 month with varying rate of change.
Figure 4 illustrates the functional performance of each section over a 24 months period. It was
observed that the rate of change of IRI for various sections is influenced by the traffic loading.
Twenty four months after construction, higher IRI was observed on Site 1 (high trafficked) with
three of the sections namely cement, lime and foam treated sections having IRI values of greater
than 3m/km. For the same period, all sections within Sites 2 and 3 are having IRI values of less
than 3m/km. Therefore it can be concluded that the rate of change of IRI is dependant on traffic
loading. This is in line with the finding by Patterson (1986), that the development of road
roughness (unevenness) was affected by traffic loading, structural and climatic factors and
surface distress (Jordan et al, 1989).

6
Since the rate of change of IRI is dependant on traffic loading and minimal rate of change was
observed on Site 3, it is reasonable to infer that the increase in IRI on Sites 1 and 2 could have
occurred as soon as the road was opened to traffic. This poses questions as to the appropriate
time to measure IRI for a completed pavement work and the limiting values to be specified for
roads of various traffic levels. The authors would recommend that the IRI be measured before
the road is opened to traffic.

Site 1: Mean IRI vs. Time Site 2: Mean IRI vs. Time Site 3: Mean IRI vs. Time

7.0 7.0 7.0

6.0 6.0 6.0

5.0 5.0 5.0

4.0 4.0 4.0

3.0 3.0
3.0
2.0 2.0
2.0
1.0 1.0
1.0
0.0 0.0
0.0
Pre 1mt h 6 mt h 12 mt h 24 mt h Pr e 1mt h 6 mt h 12 mt h 24 mt h
Pre 1mt h 6 mt h 12 mt h 24 mt h
Time Time
Time

Foam Cement Emulsion Emulsion Foam Cont r ol

Emulsion Foam Cement
Lime Cont rol Lime Cont rol Cement Lime

Figure 2: Pavement Functional Performance over a 24-Month Period

The rate of change in IRI for all sections for the second six month period is higher than that of
the first six month period. This observation is as expected since the rate of pavement
deterioration increases over time due to dynamic impact of heavy vehicles traveling on rough
surface. Within each site, the rate of change of IRI could not be related directly to treatment type.
For both Sites 1 and 2, the lime treated sections registered the highest IRI while for Site 3, IRI is
the highest at the control section.

It is possible that, the change in IRI may also be influenced by the degree of compaction. It was
observed that the mean degree of compaction for lime and foamed bitumen treated sections in
Site 1 were below the minimum specified value of 97%.

Pavement Structural Performance

All sections indicated a significant reduction in central deflection after 24 months. In general, the
deflection had been decreasing gradually from month 1 to month 6 before it started to stabilize
afterwards. This reduction may be due to the stiffening of the surfacing layer as well as curing of
the stabilized layer. This pattern of stiffening has been confirmed through laboratory simulation
tests which indicate the gain in strength (ITS, UCS and modulus) over a period of 28 days.
However, the FWD central deflection values in Site 1 are increasing especially for the lime,
foamed bitumen and control section. This reconfirms the earlier observation on the IRI that the
degree of compaction directly influences the structural performance of lime and foamed bitumen
treated sections.

7
For Site 1, cracks of type C1 to C4 were observed as early as at month 1 for the control section
and at month 6 for the other four sections. No progression of cracks was observed after month 6
except for emulsion treated section, where it continued to develop until month 12 before it
stabilized. Further analysis showed that the cracks are not confined in the wheel paths which
suggest that their development is not solely due to traffic loading. It was also noted that the field
density test (FDT) results for sections which were treated with foamed bitumen, emulsion and
lime indicated relatively low degree of compaction. This indicates that poor compaction is one of
the main contributing factors to the formation of premature cracks. For Site 2, the foamed
bitumen treated section has exhibited type C3 crack after month 24. The location of crack
coincides with the location where the degree of compaction is below the specified minimum
value. Whilst for Site 3, only the cement treated section exhibited crack type C2 after 24 months.
However no direct correlation can be made to the degree of compaction or other strength
parameters.

Site 1: Mean FWD Ctrl. Deflection Site 2: Mean FWD Ctrl. Deflection Site 3: Mean FWD Ctrl. Deflection
vs. Time vs. Time vs. Time

800 800 800

600 600 600

400 400 400

200 200 200

0 0 0
Bef or e 1mont h 6 mont h 12 24Mt h Bef or e 1mont h 6 mont h 12 24Mt h Bef or e 1mont h 6 mont h 12 24Mt h
mont h mont h mont h

Time Time Time

Foam Cement Emulsion Emulsion Foam Cement Emulsion Foam Cont r ol

Lime Cont r ol Lime Cont r ol Cement Lime

Site 1: Crack Index vs. Time Site 2: Crack Index vs. Time Site 3: Crack Index vs. Time

5 5 5

4
Crack Index

4 4

3 3 3

2 2
2

1 1
1
0
0
Bef ore 1mont h 6 mont h 12 mont h 24Mt h 0
Bef ore 1mont h 6 mont h 12 mont h 24Mt h
Bef or e 1mont h 6 mont h 12 mont h 24Mt h
Time Time
Time

Foam Cement Emulsion Emulsion Foam Cont r ol

Emulsion Foam Cement
Lime Cont rol Cement Lime
Lime Cont rol

Site 1: Rut Index vs. Time Site 2: Rut Index vs. Time Site 3: Rut Index vs. Time

5 5 5

4 4 4

3 3 3

2 2 2

1 1 1

0 0
0
Bef ore 1 6 12 24 Mt h Bef ore 1mont h 6 mont h 12 mont h 24 Mt h
Bef ore 1mont h 6 mont h 12 mont h 24 Mt h
Time Time
Time

Foam Cement Emulsion Emulsion Foam Cont rol

Emulsion Foam Cement
Lime Cont rol Cement Lime
Lime Cont rol

Figure 3: Pavement Structural Performance over a 24-Month Period

8
Moderate rutting (R3) was recorded at the control section of Site 1 at month 6 while very low
rutting (R1) was recorded for the other sections except the lime treated section which recorded a
rut index of 2. At 24 months, the rut index for all the sections remained unchanged. Very low
rutting (R1) was recorded for all sections at Sites 2 and 3 up to 24 months. Figure 3 summarizes
the structural performance of the 3 sites over a 24 month period.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

From the results of the studies carried out the followings can be concluded:

a. The design parameters used in the current Malaysian Specification for Cold-In-Place
Recycling are suitable and adequate to ensure field performance.

b. There were variations in the aggregate gradation between the laboratory mix design and
the field samples due to different method of aggregate sampling, crushing and mixing.
However, it can be concluded that the current practice of using samples from trial pit
for mix design is sufficient to provide seed values (ITS, UCS, modulus and density)
that are attainable by the actual field samples. Therefore it is not necessary to use a
small milling machine to obtain the samples for mix design purposes as normally
recommended.

c. The variations between laboratory OMC and field MC do not seem to affect the field
performance. However it is recommended that the laboratory mix design OMC be
determined with the presence of cement to facilitate a more accurate determination of
moisture to be added during construction.

d. Adequate compaction of the treated layer is of great importance as it directly affects the
field performance. Therefore it is critical to control the compaction process properly
during construction.

e. Proper mix design process which includes derivation of aggregate grading, moisture
content, binder content and strength parameters is very crucial as it will simulate and
guarantee field performance.

9
 REFERENCES
1. Department for International Development Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne.,
Overseas Road Note 18 (1999) . A guide to the pavement evaluation and maintenance of
bitumen-surfaced roads in tropical and sub-tropical countries. Transport Research
Laboratory, Crowthorne
2. Jordan,PG., Cooper, D R C. (1989). Road profile deterioration as an indicator of structural
condition. Department of Transport TRRL Research Report 183: Transport and Road
Research Laboratory, Crowthorne.
3. Road Engineering Association of Malaysia (REAM) (2005). Specification for Cold In-Place
Recycling.

4. Sufian,Zulakmal.,A.Aziz,Nafisah.,Matori,Yazip.,Hussain Mat Zin (2007).“RESEARCH ON

FUNDAMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF STABILISED FULL DEPTH RECLAIMED
(FDR) PAVEMENT LAYER – Early Findings on Pavement Performance”. Presented at
the 7th Malaysia Road Conference ( MRC ) Malaysia.
5. Sufian,Zulakmal.,A.Aziz,Nafisah.,Matori,Yazip.,Hussain , Mat Zin (2005).“COLD IN-
PLACE PAVEMENT RECYCLING IN MALAYSIA”. Presented at 2005 International
Symposium On Pavement Recycling at Sao Paolo, Brazil.

10

View publication stats