Construction and Building Materials 404 (2023) 133127

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Development of a modified Marshall mix design for Hot-mix asphalt

concrete mixed with recycled plastic based on dry mixing processes
Peerapong Jitsangiam a, *, Korakod Nusit b, Pimpawat Teeratitayangkul c, Ghim Ping Ong d,
Chotchanit Thienchai a
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chiang Mai University, Huai Kaew Road, Mueang, Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand
b
Centre of Excellence on Energy Technology and Environment, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Naresuan University, Tha-Po, Mueang,
Phitsanulok, 65000, Thailand
c
Department of Environmental Science, Faculty of Science and Technology, Chiang Mai Rajabhat University, Chang Phueak Road, Mueang, Chiang Mai 50300, Thailand
d
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, National University of Singapore, Lower Kent Ridge Road, 119077, Singapore

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Plastic waste, particularly single-use plastic products, is becoming a more significant environmental problem that
Plastic waste must be mitigated effectively. Applying thermoplastic waste in the hot-mix asphalt concrete would create an
Hot-mix asphalt concrete alternative to recycling plastic waste before going to landfills. This study aims to introduce a modified Marshall
Marshall mix design
mix design framework developed for hot-mix asphalt concrete mixed with recycled plastic (ACP). The Marshall
Dry mixing
Optimum plastic waste
mix design method was used as the baseline procedure for the ACP mix design development of the dry mixing
process in which plastic was mixed directly with the hot aggregate instead. Two types of recycled plastic,
multilayer, and mixed plastics, were employed in the ACP mix design development process. A new parameter of
the plastic-to-binder ratio (PBR) and a replacement concept were introduced as add-on steps to the conventional
Marshall mix design to appropriately determine an optimum amount of additional plastic and asphalt binder
according to the developed mix design. A full series of laboratory tests were also conducted to compare con­
ventional asphalt concrete (AC) and ACP performances. The laboratory test results indicated the superior per­
formance of ACP over AC.

1. Introduction
Plastic waste from the plastic recycling chain, especially leftover
plastic (e.g., plastic bags and packing plastic), has become a significant
concern for every sector globally. Thailand has been recently ranked
among the top six countries which allow plastic waste to end up in the
ocean [1]. Over 300 million tons of plastic are produced yearly,
continually rising [2]. This amount of produced plastic is almost
equivalent to the weight of the entire human population; therefore, it is
necessary to find solutions to minimize plastic waste pollution.
Recent research demonstrates that household plastic waste can be
used in asphalt concrete (AC) [3–6]. More than 90% of road networks
worldwide rely on AC as a surfacing material rather than concrete [7].
The proper amount of additional plastic to AC generally improves
mixture properties [8,9]. Various kinds of plastic waste could be used as
a mixture additive, and they were primarily researched on the labora­
tory scale [5]. Current research streams could depend upon two
processes for utilizing the plastic waste in AC. The two methods that are
usually used to add the selected plastic waste (additive) to the asphalt
mixture are the wet and dry processes [10,11]. Before adding an asphalt
binder to the mixture, the additive was mixed with the hot binder in the
wet process [4,6,12–15], while in the dry process, the additive was
blended with the hot aggregate before adding the binder [3,16–18]. It
could be said that the dry mixing process would be a better option for
Thailand and other developing countries. The backup reason is that the
road construction contractors could directly implement the plastic waste
into their project; the dry mixing process can be applied to almost all
available AC mixing plants in Thailand, which are the batching plants.
On the other hand, the wet mixing process needs to involve asphalt
binder manufacturers to alternate their manufacturing processes to add
the plastic into the normal process [11]. It is hard to alter their mass
production line. Consequently, for the wet mixing method, it is difficult
to take this as an early step in the promotion scheme of adding plastic
waste into AC based on Thailand’s conditions.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: peerapong@eng.cmu.ac.th (P. Jitsangiam).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.133127
Received 19 March 2023; Received in revised form 28 June 2023; Accepted 23 August 2023
Available online 6 September 2023
0950-0618/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc/4.0/).
P. Jitsangiam et al.
Fig. 1. Research methodology.
Vasudevan et al. [18] were the first to study AC’s dry mixing with
plastic waste systematically. The characteristics of plastic-coated
aggregate (PCA) were also examined in-depth in this research. The
PCA is a composite material formed by a coating film layer over an
aggregate. In this research, plastic waste was generally made up of
polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), and polystyrene (PS), which
were the types of plastic mainly used for packing. The softening points of
those plastic types vary between 110 ◦ C and 140 ◦ C, without toxic gas
emissions during softening. Softened plastics could form a film-like
structure over an aggregate when spread over heated aggregates at
around 160 ◦ C. The well-mix PCA was blended with a hot asphalt binder
to form the AC with PCA in the mixture, becoming the so-called asphalt
concrete mixed with plastic (ACP), i.e., the main material of this study.
The mixtures are instantaneously transported to the site for construction
purposes and laid over the road base layer by conventional construction
techniques. The AC with PCA showed improved binding and poor wet­
ting properties [12]. Based on this PCA concept, some trial road pave­
ments were established in India and a few other countries, following the
Indian road standard of IRC: SP:98–2013 [19].
The literature review demonstrates that the previous studies on
asphalt concrete with recycled plastic (ACP) are mainly focused on their
performances and influencing factors. In those studies, the amounts of
other plastic were altered to investigate its effects on the ACP perfor­
mances and volumetric properties. However, a clear methodology for
determining the optimum plastic content in ACP still needs to be made
available. The fundamental of the AC mix design method was formed to
select component materials to optimize volumetric properties rationally;
the required performances are achieved following the mix character­
ization. The basic concept of AC mixture design was initially developed
by Bruce Marshall of the Mississippi Highway Department around 1939
and then refined by the U.S. Army for the Marshall mix design. The
Marshall method determined the asphalt binder content at the desired
density, satisfying minimum stability and flow values range [20].
2
Construction and Building Materials 404 (2023) 133127
Moreover, the Marshall method is still widely used by the local road
authorities in most developing countries for their routine work [21]. The
conventional Marshall mix design is for two constituents of aggregate
and binder. Still, if the recycled plastic is added into the mixture of
aggregate and binder as the 3rd constituent, the conventional Marshall
mix design procedures would be limited.
Therefore, the modified Marshall mix design must be developed to
accommodate adding such 3rd constituent of recycled plastic into the
mixture. Besides, the modified mix design should overcome the varia­
tion of plastic types to be a universal hot mix design approach that can
be used for all plastic types.
Therefore, this research aims to develop the mix design framework
for ACP based on the Marshall method. The Plastic Institute of Thailand
(PITH) researched the recycled plastic used in this study to reasonably
represent household plastic waste [22]. According to the beforemen­
tioned reviews, the dry mixing process is focused on during ACP mix
design development. Necessary assumptions and terminologies were
also created in this research; consequently, an appropriate amount of
other recycled plastic and optimum asphalt binder content can be
simultaneously determined based on the developed mix design process.
2. Methodology
In this research, the mix design of ACP was explored and investigated
based on a series of trial mixes. Based on the Marshall mix design
approach, this process was conducted to gain additional knowledge
about adding recycled plastic into the typical hot mix asphalt. Only a dry
mixing technique was employed in this research. The research meth­
odology of this study is shown in Fig. 1.
At the early stage of this research, the job mix formula (JMF) of
conventional AC was designed based on the Marshall method. The
aggregate properties and gradation are preliminarily investigated at this
early stage. The suitable aggregate gradation obtained from the early
P. Jitsangiam et al. Construction and Building Materials 404 (2023) 133127

prepared from the designed JMFs. The short-term and long-term per­
formances of ACP are then investigated in the laboratory. This research
conducted performance tests with (1) conventional asphalt concrete as
the baseline mixture and (2) ACP with the mixed plastic type. The
performances of AC and ACP mixtures are compared to acquire more
knowledge about ACP behavior at the final stage.

3. Materials and methods

3.1. Aggregates

Limestone aggregates used in this project were collected from the hot
bins of a local asphalt mix manufacturer in Chiang Mai province,
Thailand. Those aggregates were transported from the Sila Mae rock
quarry in Lampang province, Thailand. Four size fractions (A to D) of
aggregate were used as A (19.0–13.2 mm), B (13.2–4.75 mm), C
(4.75–2.36 mm), and D (Passing 2.36 mm) were targeted. Then,
Fig. 2. Particle size distribution of the dense-graded asphalt concrete used in aggregate factions of A to D were blended with assigned portions for all
this project.
fractions to achieve the target grading of the dense-graded asphalt
concrete. Fig. 2 shows the target grading curves of the dense-graded
Table 1 asphalt concrete used in this project. Table 1 demonstrates the basic
Aggregate properties. properties of the study aggregate.
Tests Standard Properties
methods 3.2. Asphalt binder

Gradation AS 1141.11.1 [23] See Fig. 2

Specific gravity/water absorption, % (Coarse AS 1141.6.1 [24] 2.63/0.44
The asphalt cement type AC60-70 was selected as a standard asphalt
aggregate) binder following DH-S 408/2532 [30], as shown in Table 2. The AC
Specific gravity/water absorption, %/% (Fine AS 1141.5 [25] 2.60/0.41 60–70 was used throughout this project because it is a commonly used
aggregate) asphalt cement type in Thailand, with around 1.2 million tons of annual
Weight loss from Los Angeles abrasion test, AS 1141.23 [26] 26
usage.
%/%
Soundness (magnesium sulfate), % ASTM C 88-99a 4.2
[27] 3.3. Recycled plastic waste
Aggregate impact value (AIV), % BS 812:112 [28] 20
Aggregate crushing value (ACV), % BS 812–110 [29] 25 The recycled plastic used for this project was sourced and prepared
by the Plastic Institute of Thailand (PITH). The mix proportion of plastic
waste was designed based on the analytical results from the material
Table 2 flow analysis (MFA) report conducted by PITH in 2021 [36]. Fig. 3 ex­
Properties of asphalt cement type AC60-70. hibits two types of recycled plastic used for the mix design development
Properties Unit AC60-70 Test method in this research; it consists of (1) mixed plastic and (2) multilayer plastic.
Min Max Test In Fig. 3, the mixed plastic used in this research refers to a combi­
Penetration at 25 ◦ C, 100 g, 0.1 mm 60 70 68 AASHTO nation of polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS), and
and 5 sec T49 [31] polyethylene terephthalate (PET). The mix proportions between PE, PP,
Flashpoint (Cleveland open ◦
C 232 – 330 AASHTO PS, and PET are 68.00%, 20.33%, 3.95%, and 7.72%, respectively. This
cup) T48 [32]
combined recycled plastic would be believed to reflect a potential plastic
Ductility at 25 ◦ C and 5 cm/ cm 100 – >150 AASHTO
min T51 [33] waste that can be taken from the landfills following the MFA report [36].
Solubility in % 99 – 99.93 AASHTO Figs. 4 and 5 show the Fourier transform infrared spectrometer (FT-IR)
Trichloroethylene T44 [34] analyses and different thermal analyses (DTA) on four main types of
Thin-film oven test, 3.2 mm, AASHTO mixed plastics. In Fig. 4, the similarity degrees of all results confirm that
at 163 ◦ C for 5 hrs T179 [35]
Loss on heating % – 0.8 0.05
all mixed plastic types made from various plastic products can still be
Penetration of residual % of 54 – 71 categorized as plastics’ principal polymer groups (PE, PP, PS, and PET).
original Besides, the melting temperatures of all mixed plastic were determined
Ductility of residual cm 50 – >150 through DTA. As the target mixing temperature of 160˚C, the melting
temperatures of the mixed PP, PP, and PS are below such a mixing
stage is then employed in the following trial stage for estimating the temperature, except the mixed PET has a melting temperature beyond
Plastic-to-Binder Ratio (PBR). Consequently, the amount of other recy­ 160˚C, as shown in Fig. 5.
cled plastic is initially predicted. It should be noted that the uniformity The linear low-density polyethylene and polyethylene terephthalate
of the plastic-aggregate mixture was investigated using visual inspec­ (LLDPE/PET) plastic type is one of the multilayer recycled plastics
tion. Based on the Marshal laboratory mixing process, the consistent generally collected from household waste in Thailand (see Fig. 2). Fig. 6
color of the aggregate-coated plastic, which was different from the shows the results of the different thermal analysis (DTA) for LLDPE/PET.
original aggregate, existed after cooling down processes. Some as­ Two peaks of its melting temperatures can be detected. One is more than
sumptions to describe the state and position of recycled plastic in the 160˚C, a target mixing temperature of the ACP mixture.
mixture are required to incorporate the recycled plastic into the AC
mixture. Therefore, the volumetric properties of the ACP mixture can be 3.4. Performance tests
properly examined according to the Marshall method. After the JMF of
AC and ACP are obtained, the samples for performance tests are The Marshall mix design for ACP was fully established based on a
series of trial mixes performed in the previous section. New assumptions

3
P. Jitsangiam et al.
Fig. 3. (a) The mixed plastic, and (b) the multilayer plastic.
in conjunction with the new parameter of PBR with the replacement
concept of plastic adding were made to logically incorporate recycled
plastic into the typical Marshall mix design approach. This Marshall mix
design for ACPs is based on only the asphalt binder AC 60–70 and the
recycled plastic used in this project.
The performance evaluations of strength, deformation, moisture
sensitivity, abrasion resistance, and frictional resistance were performed
with the conventional AC and ACP samples prepared based on the JMF
designed in this research. The performance test methods and testing
standards are summarized as follows.
• The Indirect Tensile Strength (IDT) Test. The splitting or indirect tensile
strength of AC and ACP samples was determined according to ASTM
D6931 [37].
• The Moisture Damage Resistance Test. The moisture sensitivity of AC
and ACP samples was examined according to ASTM D4867 [38].
According to the standard, the test samples were divided into
conditioned and unconditioned groups. At least three specimens with
about the same air void content are required for each group. The
conditioned samples were submerged in the water bath at 60 ◦ C for
24 h for the wetting–drying cycle, while the unconditioned group
was left untouched at room temperature before the strength tests.
Finally, the conditioned and unconditioned sample IDT tests were
conducted based on ASTM D6931 [37]. The ratio between averaged
IDT obtained from a condition and the unconditioned sample is the
Tensile Strength Ratio (TSR). AASHTO R35 [39] recommended that
all asphalt mixtures generally require a minimum TSR value of 80%.
• The Resilient Modulus (Mr) Test. This research determined the elastic
response or resilient modulus of AC and ACP samples according to
ASTM D7369 [40]. The same platform as the IDT test was employed
for the resilient modulus test. Instead of static loading, the repeated
loads were applied to the test sample for 0.1 sec with a rest period of
0.9 sec. Each test sample was loaded up to 20% of its IDT strength to
ensure the applied load stayed within the elastic range. The reference
temperature of 25 ◦ C was employed and recommended in the liter­
ature as the reference temperature for mechanistic-empirical design
[41].
• The Indirect Tensile Fatigue Test. This research performed the indirect
tensile fatigue test of test samples according to EN 12697–24 [42].
The IDT testing platform was employed for the indirect tensile fa­
tigue test, like the resilient modulus test. The continuous or cyclic
4
Construction and Building Materials 404 (2023) 133127
load with the frequency of 1 Hz was applied to the test sample in the
fatigue test. The number of cycles to failure (Nf), representing each
sample’s fatigue life, was determined and recorded for further
analysis. The more significant number of Nf illustrates the test sam­
ple’s higher fatigue resistance level.
• The Dynamic Creep Test. According to AS 2891.12.1 [43], the cylin­
drical sample is axially compressed to monitor its permanent defor­
mation. For conducting the dynamic creep test, the cyclic load was
applied to the test specimen with a period of 0.5 sec and a rest period
of 1.5 sec. The testing temperature was set to 50 ◦ C in the testing
chamber. The cumulative deformations (both elastic and permanent)
are monitored for 10,000 cycles during testing. The more extensive
permanent deformation indicates that the asphalt mixture is more
susceptible to rutting failure.
• The Cantabro Test. This research conducted the Cantabro test ac­
cording to AG:PT/T236 [44] to observe how the study material can
withstand abrasion. The cylindrical samples were placed in the
specific drum at the beginning of the test. The drum started rotating,
and the asphalt sample got impact and abrasion inside the drum.
After the specified number of drum rotations was reached, the weight
losses of the sample were determined to characterize the abrasion
resistance of the asphalt mixture.
• The Permeability Test. This research determined the permeability of
asphalt concrete according to CRD-C 48–92 [45]. The standard was
generally employed for testing the concrete sample; therefore, the
CRD-C 48–92 modification has been made for the permeability
measurement of asphalt concrete in this research. The test samples
were subjected to 200 psi (1.38 MPa) water pressure during the test.
Darcy’s law for unidirectional flow at the constant head was
employed to calculate the test sample’s permeability.
• The Hamburg Wheel Tracking Test. The susceptibility to rutting failure
of AC and ACP samples was examined according to AASHTO T324
[46]. According to AASHTO T324 [46], the test samples were sub­
merged in the water at 50 ◦ C during the test. The steel wheels can run
back and forth on the test samples at approximately 50 cycles per
minute during testing. The tests are typically terminated at 20,000
passes or 10,000 cycles; therefore, about 7 h are required for testing
each mixture. Rahman and Hossain [47] reviewed many pieces of
literature and specifications based on Hamburg wheel tracking tests.
Their review recommends the maximum rutting depth of 4 mm as
the acceptance criteria of the designed mixture for pavement
P. Jitsangiam et al. Construction and Building Materials 404 (2023) 133127

Fig. 4. FT-IR spectrums of (a) PE, (b) PP, (c) PS, and (d) PET to principal polymer types.

5
P. Jitsangiam et al.
Fig. 5. DTAs of (a) PE, (b) PP, (c) PS, and (d) PET with their defined melting temperatures.
construction. However, the rutting criteria may vary significantly
based on the testing conditions and the local engineer’s experiences.
• The Friction Resistance Test. Due to no standard test to evaluate AC
and ACP friction resistance at the laboratory scale, this study
developed a method to measure the AC and ACP friction resistance
using the accelerated polishing machine and the British Pendulum
Tester (BPT). The frictional resistance of pavement surface is
generally degraded under the pavement age, climate, environmental,
and traffic conditions. In 2016, National Center for Asphalt Tech­
nology (NCAT) in the U.S.A developed the Three-Wheel Polishing
Device (TWPD) to simulate the deterioration behavior of asphalt
pavement. A similar polishing machine was also fabricated for this
project, as shown in Fig. 7. More details of the TWPD development
can be found in Vollor and Hanson [48].
The pavement surface’s frictional or skid resistance can be deter­
mined by various instruments, such as British Pendulum Tester (BPT),
Dynamic Friction Tester (DFT), fixed-slip side-force, and locked-
wheeled system. This study selected to use the BPT for the friction
evaluations through the skid resistance value (SRV), which is directly
obtained from the measurement from the BPT. For measuring the skid
resistance of the study materials, the ACP and RACP mixtures, the road
surface wearing was simulated in the laboratory by TWPD based on the
following procedure.
(1) The initial Skid Resistance Values (SRV at 0 cycles) of the asphalt
concrete slab were measured by the British Pendulum Tester
6
Construction and Building Materials 404 (2023) 133127
(BPT), according to ASTM E303 [49]. The tested slab’s temper­
ature must be obtained before the skid resistance measurement.
This temperature was used for calculating the corrected skid
resistance at 35 ◦ C and the frictional coefficient (μ), as illustrated
in Fig. 8.
(2) The TWPD polishes each concrete slab to attain 5 thousand cycles
(Fig. 9).
(3) After the specified number of polished cycles was attained, the
slab surface temperature was measured and recorded.
(4) Place the BPT on the concrete slab and measure the SRV ac­
cording to ASTM E303 [49].
(5) Steps 2 to 4 were repeated to obtain the frictional coefficients
after 10, 25, 75, and 100 thousand polished cycles.
3.5. The proposed mix design process for ACP
3.5.1. New assumptions
The typical Marshall mix design considers only two material com­
binations, i.e., mixed aggregates and asphalt binder. While adding the
third constituent of plastic in a mix, whether the conventional Marshall
mix design can accommodate such three constituents in mixing would
be questioned. This caution would be especially for the dry mixing
process since the additional plastic is generally homogenized with a
binder in the wet mixing process, i.e., considered as the two material
combinations. In addressing the Marshall mix design process, volu­
metric property determinations strongly depend on the basic properties
(air void (AV), void in mineral aggregate (VMA), and the void filled with
P. Jitsangiam et al. Construction and Building Materials 404 (2023) 133127

Fig. 6. DTA results of LLDPE/PET.

Fig. 7. Three-Wheel Polishing Device (TWPD).

7
P. Jitsangiam et al. Construction and Building Materials 404 (2023) 133127

Fig. 8. Skid Resistance Value measured by the BPT.

Fig. 9. Slab polishing process.

bitumen (VFB)) of the mixed aggregates and asphalt binder. Adding the into two. By doing this, the plastic addition becomes a part of the asphalt
recycled plastic would alter such basic properties of both primary ma­ binder for the volumetric property calculations.
terials, which may lead to variations in the final volumetric property;
Assumption 2. - The replacement concept is proposed in this research to
hence, the volumetric properties of ACP may not meet the criteria
incorporate recycled plastic into the mix (Fig. 10(b)). According to the
specified by the Marshall mix design. It can be underlined that the
replacement concept, the additional plastic is homogenized with the asphalt
current assumptions made for the Marshall mix design framework may
binder; therefore, the percentage of binder per aggregate weight can be
need to be revised for the AC mixture with three constituents.
calculated based on the combined weight between the asphalt binder and
Based on the beforementioned reason, new assumptions are needed
additional plastic. The total volume of the mix is generally converted to
to ensure that all the Marshall mix design criteria are met when adding
100%, and a volume of such a plastic addition is tied into the 100% total mix
the recycled plastic into the mixture. According to a series of trial mixes
volume (see Fig. 7).
made in this research, adding plastic to the AC mixture significantly
affects the calculated AV and VMA of the mix; both volumetric prop­
3.5.2. New mix design parameters
erties did not meet the values required by the Marshall specifications.
A new mix design parameter of the so-called Plastic-to-Binder Ratio
Further discussion on out-of-range volumetric properties was given later
(PBR) was established. The PBR definition can be expressed through Eq.
in this publication. In this research, the Marshall criteria based on the
(1).
Thailand Department of Highways were strictly followed [30], and
recycled plastic was added to the mixtures. This target was rigorously Weightofplatic
PBR(%) = × 100 (1)
completed to ensure that the long-term performance of ACP could be Weightofbinder
accepted based on the relatively short period of the study. The Marshall
PBR determines a proper amount of plastic when an optimum binder
mix design requirements were used to assure the long-term performance
content is obtained based on the Marshall mix design process. The PBR
of the mixes at the laboratory level in this study.
directly corresponds to the binder contents; therefore, a proper PBR is
Two new assumptions for a tentative Marshall mix design for ACP
defined at the PBR value of the corresponding air void of 4%. The
were proposed, by which more details are shown in Fig. 10.
determination process of an optimum PBR will be illustrated later in this
Assumption 1. - Fig. 10(a) shows that a plastic-coated layer completely research. It should be noted that using PBR can overcome the variation
melts within the asphalt binder during hot mixing. As the typical mix design of plastic types and their properties while adding to a mixture. Whatever
concept, this assumption was made to transform three mixture constituents plastic types and properties, a suitable PBR value can be graphically

8
P. Jitsangiam et al. Construction and Building Materials 404 (2023) 133127

Fig. 10. (a) the 1st assumption, and (b) the 2nd assumption of Marshall mix design of ACP.

assigned to meet a mix’s 4% air voids. 5. Aggregate grading design

3.5.3. A tentative Marshal mix design method for ACP
The purposed Marshall mix design procedure for ACP developed in
this research is shown in Fig. 11.
Step 1: Aggregate selection and grading design.
The typical aggregate evaluation process for use with the Marshall
mix design methods includes three basic steps that can be followed.
In obtaining appropriate aggregate gradation, a blending calculation
is performed. Generally, aggregates with various sizes from one source
or stockpiles are used to obtain the final aggregate gradation for a mix
design. Trial blends of different aggregate gradations are usually per­
formed until an acceptable final mix design gradation is achieved. The
considerations for a trial blend include the following:

4. Determination of aggregate physical properties (7) All gradation specifications need to be met.
(8) Typical specifications generally require the percent retained by
The main properties of the target aggregate are required to deter­ weight on particular sieve sizes within a specified band.
mine. They are.
Step 2: Asphalt binder evaluation.
(1) Toughness and abrasion, Generally, a typical generic asphalt binder selection and evaluation
(2) Durability and soundness, procedure do not exist for the typical Marshall mix design method.
(3) Cleanliness and deleterious materials, and However, the experiences of road agencies in many countries show that
(4) Particle shape and surface texture. the Marshall mix design applies to various types of asphalt binder,
depending upon the area and loading conditions. For this project, the
This process would include the determination of other aggregates’ asphalt binder of AC 60–70 was the only type used throughout the
descriptive physical properties. In the case of acceptable aggregates, project. Therefore, all results from this project rely on only the AC 60–70
further tests are required to characterize the aggregate fully. They are to binder type. The specific properties of the employed AC 60–70 can be
determine items (5) and (6) as follows. seen in Table 2.
Step 3: Recheck the suitability of the aggregate grading obtained in
(5) Gradation and size, and Step 1.
(6) Specific gravity and absorption. Recheck the suitability of an assigned grading curve by preparing
three samples of the 6% binder with no plastic (control) based on

9
P. Jitsangiam et al. Construction and Building Materials 404 (2023) 133127

Fig. 11. Tentative Marshall mix design procedure for ACP.

Fig. 12. Hot mixing scheme of aggregate and LLDPE/PET.

Marshall’s sample fabrications. Then, check the following:
(1) Air void of the specimen is less than 4%,
(2) VMA and VFB meet Marshall specifications, and
(3) Stability and flow meet Marshall’s specifications.
If the criteria shown in Step 3(1) – (3) are not achieved, redesign the
mixed aggregate gradation until the values required by Marshall speci­
fication are met (alter Step 1(7) – (8)).
Step 4: Estimation of the PBR for additional plastic.

10
P. Jitsangiam et al.
Fig. 13. Assigned grading curve of mixed aggregates.
Fig. 14. Determination of the suitable PBR for multilayer plastic adding (Step 4).
(1) Fabricate test samples with varying PBR of 0%, 2%, 4%, 6%, and
8% (3 replications for each PBR) of the 6% binder content based
on the replacement concept,
(2) Determine the Stability and the Flow with a series of volumetric
properties,
(3) Plot graph between PBRs and air voids,
(4) Graphically derive a maximum PBR at the 5% air void,
(5) Select a suitable PBR (at the 3.5% air void recommended) within
a range between PBR = 0 and a maximum PBR, and
(6) Recheck the Stability and Flow with a series of volumetric
properties of samples at a suitable PBR to comply with Marshall’s
specifications.
In the investigation series, it was observed that adding plastic to the
mixture resulted in larger air void spaces. The objective was to achieve a
target air void (AV) of 4.0 %, but it was found that this target could not
be met. To quantify the percent of binder required to obtain a calculated
11
Construction and Building Materials 404 (2023) 133127
AV under 4.0 %, a binder content of 6.0% was assigned. A higher binder
content typically leads to lower air voids in a binder series. Using a
plastic-binder mixture (PBRs of 0 to 8 %) under the assigned binder
content series can ensure that the point of the binder (the plastic-binder
mixture) is obtained at the desired 4.0% AV. The choice of 6.0% binder
content is based on the expectation that it generally yields the least air
voids in a binder series. This decision allows for the achievement of the
desired AV target. When an optimal PBR at the recommended 3.5% AV
was obtained, the fixed amount of plastic (i.e., the fixed ratio of plastic to
aggregate by weight) was also gained. For the recommended 3.5% AV, it
was assigned to ensure that the final PBR following Step 5 (the next step)
can be achieved at 4.0% AV.
Step 5: Determination of an optimum binder content.
Prepare a series of trial mixes with varying binder (asphalt binder
and plastic) contents of 4.0%, 4.5%, 5.0%, 5.5%, and 6.0 % by adding
plastic at a selected PBR derived from Step 4. The optimum asphalt
binder content is graphically determined based on the integrated results
P. Jitsangiam et al. Construction and Building Materials 404 (2023) 133127

Fig. 15. A series of relevant graphs of Marshall stability and flow together with volumetric properties (Step 5).

of Marshall Stability and Flow, density analysis, and void analysis. An median air void content, which is typically equal to 4%. After the asphalt
optimum asphalt binder content can be determined as follows. binder at 4% air voids is determined, specify all Marshall properties at
Plot a series of relation graphs: this optimum asphalt binder content (from the graphs plotted in Step 5
(1) – (6)). Compare each of these values against specification values, and
(1) Asphalt binder content versus density, if all are within specification, then the preceding optimum asphalt
(2) Asphalt binder content versus Marshall stability, binder content is satisfactory. Otherwise, the mixture should be rede­
(3) Asphalt binder content versus flow, signed if any properties are outside the specification ranges.
(4) Asphalt binder content versus air voids, It should be noted that with a series of trial mixes with varying binder
(5) Asphalt binder content versus VMA, and (asphalt binder and plastic) contents of 4.0%, 4.5%, 5.0%, 5.5%, and 6.0
(6) Asphalt binder content versus VFA. % by adding plastic at a selected PBR derived from Step 4, a new series of
PBRs were obtained due to the fixed amount of plastic by adding more
Then, determine the asphalt binder content corresponding to the asphalt binder. For example, the binder of 4% is the combination of a

12
P. Jitsangiam et al. Construction and Building Materials 404 (2023) 133127

Fig. 16. Determination of the PBR corresponding to the optimum binder content and the 4% air voids (Step 6).

prepared for rechecking the suitability of aggregate gradation in Step 3.

Table 3 Then, a sample set with various PBR was assembled according to Step 4.
The Marshall mix design results in asphalt concrete with multilayer plastic (Step
The PBR of 5.25% (see Fig. 14) was graphically determined to estimate
7).
the amount of LLDPE/PET added to the mix. It was found that based on
Marshall parameters Units Mixture Specification the 5.25% PBR, 3.78 g of LLDPE/PET was added into the mix with 1,200
values [23]
g of mixed aggregates to fabricate the ACP cylindrical samples following
Optimum binder % 5.4 ±0.30% the Marshall sample preparation procedure. The replacement concept
Density g/ml 2.412 2.387–2.416
determined the asphalt binder added to the mixture. For example, at the
Air void (AV) % 4.0 2.80–4.70
Void in mineral aggregate % 13 >14 assigned 4% binder content, it is a combination of 3.78 g of LLDPE/PET
(VMA) and 44.22 g of asphalt binder to achieve 48.00 g of total binder content;
The void filled with bitumen % 69 69–81 by which, this 48.00 g of total binder is around 4% of 1,200 g of the
(VFB) mixed aggregate to prepare one Marshall sample. Based on Step 5 of the
Stability Kg 1570
tentative mix design procedure, a series of Marshall sample preparations
>816
Flow 0.01″ 13 12–14
Stability/Flow Lbs./ 266 >160 were made by varying the binder contents of 4.0%, 4.5%, 5.0%, 5.5%,
0.01″ and 6.0%.
Strength index % 86 >80 To follow ACP’s proposed tentative mix design, fifteen samples
Plastic-to-binder ratio (PBR) % 6.2 NA.
(three replicated samples for each binder content) were made in a trial
series of Marshall mix design tests with varying binder contents from
fixed amount of plastic, corresponding to the optimal PBR from Step 4, 4.0% to 6.0%. Then, the Stability and Flow tests were conducted in
and the asphalt binder. Consequently, the 4% binder yields a new PBR in conjunction with volumetric calculations and analyses to obtain all
a series of trial mixes to determine the suitable PBR at 4% AV, as detailed essential volumetric properties of this ACP mix. As Step 5 of the tentative
in Step 6. mix design procedure explained, all relevant graphs were plots (see
Step 6: Determine suitable PBR corresponding to the optimum Fig. 15). The optimum binder content can be defined as 5.4%, corre­
binder content (OBC) at the 4% air voids. sponding to the 4% air voids and all values of a series of relevant graphs.
This process can be achieved by plotting the PBR values corre­ According to Step 6, the PBR of 6.2% at the 4% air voids was also
sponding to the assigned binder contents (4.0, 4.5%, 5.0%, 5.5%, and graphically determined, as shown in Fig. 16. Table 3 shows this Marshall
6.0 %) versus air voids. mix design for ACP. When the PBR and the optimum binder content at
Step 7: Determination of mixed proportions. the 4% air voids were established, all constituents of mixed aggregate,
Based on an optimum binder content (Step 5), a suitable PBR (Step asphalt binder, and recycled plastic can be known for the ACP mix based
6), and a designed aggregate gradation, a mix of proportions of mixed on the Marshall mix design method (Step 7).
aggregate, asphalt binder, and plastic can finally be determined. Based on this mix design exercise using the LLDPE/PET recycled
plastic, the VMA of the mix of 13% is slightly out of the requirement of
more than 14% (see Table 4). This VMA result would explain that a
5.1. The mix design exercise significant plastic part had a melting temperature more than the mixing
temperature; therefore, it would transform into a fine particle portion in
5.1.1. Mix design exercise using the multilayer recycled plastic the mixture matrix because it could not be wholly melted during mixing.
This research used the multilayer recycled plastic type of LLDPE/PET An increase in a fine particle portion could decrease the void spaces of
to validate a tentative mix design scheme. Fig. 12 demonstrates the hot the only aggregate material (VMA).
mixing scheme of mixed aggregates and LLDPE/PET, in which a
consistent mixture can be seen after mixing. 5.1.2. Mix design exercise using the mixed plastic
The target grading curve of mixed aggregates is shown in Fig. 13. The The same steps for ACP mix design were performed in this section, as
aggregate properties and gradation attained the standard requirement demonstrated in the previous section. The JMF for asphalt concrete
specified in Step 1 of the tentative mix design procedure. The control blended with mixed plastic was established for a series of performance
samples (a mixture between aggregate and selected binder) were

13
P. Jitsangiam et al. Construction and Building Materials 404 (2023) 133127

Fig. 17. A series of relevant graphs of Marshall stability and flow and volumetric properties of asphalt concrete with mixed plastic used for the performance tests.

Fig. 18. The PBR corresponding to the optimum binder content and the 4% air voids of asphalt concrete with mixed plastic.

14
P. Jitsangiam et al. Construction and Building Materials 404 (2023) 133127

Table 4 than AC following this study’s test sample and conditions.

The Marshall mix design results in ACP (the combined plastic). Apart from the Stability and Flow tests, the performance tests that
Marshall parameters Units Mixture Specification represent the short-term strength of the study materials are the resilient
values (DOH) modulus (Mr) and indirect tensile (IDT) strength. The resilient modulus
Optimum binder % 5.7 ±0.30% demonstrates a material response under repeated load actions (five
Density g/ml 2.397 2.387–2.416 pulses). The tensile strength can be evaluated using indirect tensile
Air void (AV) % 4.0 2.80–4.70 strength tests. According to Table 5, ACP illustrates much higher Mr
Void in mineral aggregate % 13.77 >14 values than that measured from conventional AC samples. Similar
(VMA)
Void filled with bitumen % 72 69–81
findings were observed from the IDT test results.
(VFB) For the long-term performance of the study materials, the dynamic
Stability Kg 1445 >816 creep and indirect fatigue responses were assigned to capture the
Flow 0.01″ 16 0.1 12–16 behavior of the sample under several cyclic loading conditions. These
Stability/Flow Lbs./ 198 >160
tests would indicate the ability of the study material to withstand the
0.01″
Strength index % 89 >80 traffic under in-service conditions. Table 5 shows the compared results
Plastic-to-binder ratio (PBR) % 2.35 NA. of the creep and indirect fatigue tests between AC and ACP. Table 5
shows ACP’s creep performance is better than AC’s. This result indicates
that ACP has a vertical deformation rate per the number of cyclic loading
tests in this research. Figs. 17 - 18 and Table 4 demonstrate the job mix cycles lesser than one of AC. Besides, ACP depicts a lesser fatigue
design process results based on the tentative mix design procedure. deformation than AC, as shown in Table 5. Therefore, ACP exhibits
better long-term performance than AC based on these specific tests and
5.2. Performance test results conditions.
In assessing the moisture damage resistance of the ACP, the tensile
Table 5 shows all results of performance tests conducted in this strength ratio (TSR) and the permeability were chosen as the
study. All performance test results confirm that ACP performs better

Table 5
Performance test results of the ACP and the AC samples.
No Test Unit AC ACP % Improvement Remark

1 Stability kg. 1,210 1445 16.26% > 816 kg. [23]

2 Flow mm. 14.8 16.1 − 8.78% 8–16 mm. [23]
3 Resilient modulus MPa. 3,192 4,768 49.37% –
4 Indirect tensile strength kPa. 969 975 0.62% –
5 Tensile strength ratio % 76 94 23% –
6 Dynamic creep (Creep rate) (με/sec.) 4.85x10-13 1.95x10-13 59.88% –
7 Indirect tensile fatigue No. of a cycle to failure 137 175 27.73% –
8 Cantabro % wt loss 4.34 3.88 10.59% –
9 Permeability k (m/s) 7.07x10-7 2.30x10-7 67.46% –
10 Hamburg wheel tracking mm. 2.44 2.33 4.51% –

Fig. 19. Hamburg wheel tracking test results.

15
P. Jitsangiam et al.
Fig. 20. The number of polished cycles versus (a) the SRV at standard temperature (SRVt) and (b) the frictional coefficient (μ) of ACP and AC.
comparison properties in this research. As exhibited in Table 5, ACP
shows much better moisture damage resistance based on TSR and
permeability. It should be noted that adding plastic into the mixes would
enhance the reduction of connected void spaces in the material matrix,
leading to a lesser water penetration rate [50]. ACP’s superior moisture
damage resistance should be highlighted and used in a tropical area with
relatively warmer temperatures and high humidity.
Table 5 also illustrates the rutting potential of ACP and AP. The AC
and ACP demonstrate exemplary performance on rutting through the
Hamburg wheel tracker tests. AC and ACP rutting results are 2.44 mm.
and 2.33 mm., respectively. Both values are well below the threshold of
4.00 mm. [47]. However, the rutting resistance of ACP is better than the
AC, as shown in Fig. 19.
The abrasive resistance of pavement surface material is usually used
to assess the ability of a material to withstand the polishing action from
vehicle tires in the field. The Cantabro test captured the study materials’
abrasion resistance performance. Table 5 illustrates the compared re­
sults of the Cantabro tests. The weight loss obtained from the ACP
sample is less than that obtained from the AC samples. Therefore, the
ACP samples demonstrate better abrasion resistance than the AP sam­
ples, as shown in Table 5.
Generally, the frictional resistance of asphalt surfaces of road pave­
ments is a crucial performance parameter. It relates to the safety con­
dition of road pavements in service. However, there is no standard test at
the laboratory level to evaluate such a friction property of AC. This study
16
Construction and Building Materials 404 (2023) 133127
used the BPT to evaluate the frictional resistance of test slabs polished
using the accelerated polishing machine. The test results are illustrated
in Fig. 20.
The SRV at the standard temperature (SRVt) can be directly deter­
mined from the BPT test results. Besides, the friction coefficient (μ) was
also evaluated because of the test standard. Vollor and Hanson [48]
specify that the SRVt value is approximately 100 times the friction co­
efficient value. Fig. 20 exhibits the compared results of the frictional
characteristics obtained from ACP and AC slabs. The number of pol­
ishing cycles represents the degree of polishing actions (traffic) on a test
slab. It can be seen that SRVt and μ values of AC and ACP against the
number of polishing cycles are almost identical. This result would
indicate that adding plastic to the AC does not affect the friction char­
acteristics of the material.
6. Concluding remarks and recommendations
Based on the Marshall mix design method, this research aims to
develop the mix design concept for asphalt concrete mixed with recycled
plastic. A mix design that can overcome such variation is needed because
of plastic and polymer products’ significant range of plastic waste. At the
early step of the design process, the modified Mashall mix design was
initiated to properly mix recycled plastic into the hot mix asphalt pro­
duction process. Then, the essential ACP properties through the primary
and performance tests were compared to AC, the benchmark. The main
P. Jitsangiam et al.
conclusions of this research can be made as follows.
• The Marshall mix design for ACPs was fully established based on this
research’s series of trial mixes. In conjunction with the new param­
eter of PBR with the replacement concept of plastic adding, the new
assumptions were made to logically incorporate recycled plastic into
the typical Marshall mix design approach. This Marshall mix design
for ACPs was based on only the asphalt binder AC 60–70 and recy­
cled plastic types used in this project.
• The series of performance tests of ACPs compared to AC, a bench­
mark material, corresponded to the job mix formula derived from the
Marshall mix design of ACPs developed in this study. The plastic
input used for the JMF was obtained from the PITH and based on the
MFA of 2021. All results of performance tests firmly indicated that
ACPs perform better than AC. It could be concluded from this study
section that adding plastic into the AC becoming ACP can enhance
the relevant engineering properties of the materials.
The recommendations for further research on this topic can be
drawn. The two assumptions of this proposed mix design were for the
volumetric calculations to obtain the volumetric parameters corre­
sponding to the Marshall mix design procedure. In this study, the plastic
used was a combination of PE, PP, PS, and PET with a ratio of
68%:20.33%:3.95%:7.72%, respectively, and this would mean that with
the relatively low portion of PET, of which melting temperature are
more than the mixing temperature of 160 ◦ C, the proposed mix design
process would be still valid. However, in the case of a relatively large
portion of PET, it would not be, by which a limit of the maximum portion
of PET to make this proposed mix design valid is still not in the
investigation.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgments
This research is supported by the Alliance to End Plastics Waste Inc
(AEPW). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations
expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not reflect
the views of AEPW. Additionally, the research teams from the civil en­
gineering departments at Chiang Mai, and Naresuan Universities,
Thailand, together with the Plastic Institute of Thailand (PITH) and the
Federal of Thai Industry (FTI), are gratefully acknowledged for
providing general guidance and valuable input.
References
[1] D. Marks, M.A. Miller, S. Vassanadumrongdee, The geopolitical economy of
Thailand’s marine plastic pollution crisis, Asia Pac. Viewp. 16 (2020) 266–282,
https://doi.org/10.1111/apv.12255.
[2] V. Shanmugam, O. Das, E. Rasoul, K. Neisiany, S. Babu, M.S. Singh, F. Hedenqvist,
S.R. Berto, Polymer Recycling in Additive Manufacturing: an Opportunity for the
Circular Economy, Mater. Circ. Econ. 2 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1007/s42824-
020-00012-0/Published.
[3] E. Ahmadinia, M. Zargar, M.R. Karim, M. Abdelaziz, P. Shafigh, Using waste plastic
bottles as additive for stone mastic asphalt, Mater. Des. 32 (2011) 4844–4849,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MATDES.2011.06.016.
[4] D. Casey, C. McNally, A. Gibney, M.D. Gilchrist, Development of a recycled
polymer modified binder for use in stone mastic asphalt, Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
52 (2008) 1167–1174, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2008.06.002.
17
Construction and Building Materials 404 (2023) 133127
[5] M.A. Dalhat, K. Al-Adham, M.A. Habib, Recycling of different plastics in asphalt
concrete, Use Recycl, Plast. Eco-Efficient Concr. (2019) 287–305, https://doi.org/
10.1016/B978-0-08-102676-2.00013-X.
[6] S. Ho, R. Church, K. Klassen, B. Law, D. MacLeod, L. Zanzotto, Study of recycled
polyethylene materials as asphalt modifiers, Can. J. Civ. Eng. 33 (2006) 968–981,
https://doi.org/10.1139/l06-044.
[7] P. Jitsangiam, P. Chindaprasirt, H. Nikraz, An evaluation of the suitability of
SUPERPAVE and Marshall asphalt mix designs as they relate to Thailand’s climatic
conditions, Constr. Build. Mater. 40 (2013) 961–970, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
CONBUILDMAT.2012.11.011.
[8] M. Fonseca, S. Capitão, A. Almeida, L. Picado-Santos, Influence of Plastic Waste on
the Workability and Mechanical Behaviour of Asphalt, Concrete 12 (4) (2022)
2146.
[9] B.P. Grady, Waste plastics in asphalt concrete: A review, Waste plastics in asphalt
concrete: A review 2 (1) (2021) 4–18.
[10] A. Behnood, M.M. Gharehveran, Morphology, rheology, and physical properties of
polymer-modified asphalt binders, Eur. Polym. J. 112 (2019) 766–791.
[11] G. King, J. Johnston, M. Voth, Polymer modified asphalt emulsions: composition,
uses, and specifications for surface treatments, (2012).
[12] A.I. Al-Hadidy, T. Yi-qiu, Effect of polyethylene on life of flexible pavements,
Constr. Build. Mater. 23 (2009) 1456–1464, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
CONBUILDMAT.2008.07.004.
[13] M. Attaelmanan, C.P. Feng, A.H. Ai, Laboratory evaluation of HMA with high
density polyethylene as a modifier, Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (2011) 2764–2770,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CONBUILDMAT.2010.12.037.
[14] S. Hinislioglu, E. Agar, Use of waste high density polyethylene as bitumen modifier
in asphalt concrete mix, Mater. Lett. 58 (2004) 267–271, https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0167-577X(03)00458-0.
[15] I.M. Khan, S. Kabir, M.A. Alhussain, F.F. Almansoor, Asphalt Design Using
Recycled Plastic and Crumb-rubber Waste for Sustainable Pavement Construction,
Procedia Eng. 145 (2016) 1557–1564, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
PROENG.2016.04.196.
[16] M.T. Awwad, L. Shbeeb, The Use of Polyethylene in Hot Asphalt Mixtures, Am. J.
Appl. Sci. 4 (6) (2007) 390–396.
[17] A. Modarres, H. Hamedi, Effect of waste plastic bottles on the stiffness and fatigue
properties of modified asphalt mixes, Mater. Des. 61 (2014) 8–15, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.MATDES.2014.04.046.
[18] R. Vasudevan, A.R.C. Sekar, B. Sundarakannan, R. Velkennedy, A technique to
dispose waste plastics in an ecofriendly way – Application in construction of
flexible pavements, Constr. Build. Mater. 28 (2012) 311–320, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.CONBUILDMAT.2011.08.031.
[19] Indian Roads Congress, Guidelines for the Use of Waste Plastic in Hot Bituminous
Mixes (Dry Process) in Wearing Courses, 2013.
[20] T.D. White, Marshall Procedures for Design and Quality Control of Asphalt
Mixtures, in: Assoc. Asph. Paving Technol., Association of Asphalt Paving
Technologists (AAPT), 1985: pp. 265–284.
[21] N.T. Tran, A Comprehensive Evaluation of the Effects of Aggregate Gradations on
Mechanism Performance of Wearing Course Mixtures, (2019).
[22] Plastic Institute of Thailand, Material Flow Analysis of Plastic Waste: Final Report,
Bangkok, (2019).
[23] AS1141.11.1, Methods for Sampling and Testing Aggregates, Method 11.1: Particle
Size Distribution- Sieving Method, Aust. Stand. AS 1141.11.1. (2009).
[24] AS1141.6.1, Methods for sampling and testing aggregates Particle density and
water absorption of coarse aggregate - Weighing-in-water method, Aust. Stand. AS
1141.6.1. (2000).
[25] AS1141.5, Method for sampling and testing aggregates Particle density and water
absorption of fine aggregate, Aust. Stand. AS 1141.5. (2000).
[26] AS1141.23, Methods for sampling and testing aggregates Los Angeles value, Aust.
Stand. AS 1141.23. (2009).
[27] ASTM C 88-99a, Standard Test Method for Soundness of Aggregates by Use of
Sodium Sulfate or Magnesium Sulfate, ASTM Int. West Conshohocken, PA. (2017).
www.astm.org.
[28] BS812-112, Methods for determination of aggregate impact value (AIV), Br. Stand.
Inst. (BSI). (1990).
[29] BS812-110, Methods for Determination of Aggregate Crushing Value (ACV), Br.
Stand. Inst. (BSI). (1990).
[30] Department of Highways, Specification for Asphalt Concrete or Hot-Mix Asphalt,
(1988). https://doi.org/DH-S 408/2532.
[31] AASHTO T 49, Standard Method of Test for Penetration of Bituminous Materials
(ASTM Designation: D5/D5M-13), (2011).
[32] AASHTO T 48, Standard Method of Test for Flash Point of Asphalt Binder by
Cleveland Open Cup, (2018).
[33] AASHTO T51, Standard Method of Test for Ductility of Asphalt Materials, (2018).
[34] AASHTO T44, Standard Method of Test for Solubility of Bituminous Materials,
(2014).
[35] AASHTO T179, Standard Method of Test for Effect of Heat and Air on Asphalt
Materials (Thin-Film Oven Test), (2005).
[36] P.M.N. Ayudhaya, M. Nithitankul, A. Charoensaeng, K. Bootdee, P. Muchan, J.
Preechawong, K. Dokbua, M. Pan-urai, J. Pipattanatornkul, Material Flow Analysis
(MFA) Study of Plastic Waste in Thailand, (2021).
[37] ASTM D6931, Standard Test Method for Indirect Tensile (IDT) Strength of Asphalt
Mixtures, ASTM Int. West Conshohocken, PA. (2017).
[38] ASTM D4867, Standard Test Method for Effect of Moisture on Asphalt Concrete
Paving Mixtures, ASTM Int. West Conshohocken, PA. (2014).
[39] AASHTO R 35, Standard Practice for Superpave Volumetric Design for Asphalt
Mixtures, (2022).
P. Jitsangiam et al.
[40] ASTM D7369, Standard Test Method for Determining the Resilient Modulus of
Asphalt Mixtures by Indirect Tension Test, ASTM Int. West Conshohocken, PA.
(2020). www.astm.org.
[41] J. Stempihar, S. Underwood, K. Kaloush, Resilient Modulus to Dynamic Modulus
Relationship and Pavement Analysis with the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement
Design Guide, (2015).
[42] EN-12697-24, BSI Standards Publication Bituminous mixtures — Test methods for
hot mix asphalt - Part 24: Resistance to fatigue, Br. Stand. (2012).
[43] AS2891.12.1, Methods of sampling and testing asphalt Determination of the
permanent compressive strain characteristics of asphalt - Dynamic creep test, Aust.
Stand. AS 2891.12.1. (1995).
[44] AG:PT/T236, Asphalt Particle Loss, Austroads. (2005). www.austroads.com.au.
18
Construction and Building Materials 404 (2023) 133127
[45] COE CRD-C 48-92, Method of Test for Water Permeability of Concrete, US Army.
(1992).
[46] AASHTO-T324, Standard Method of Test for Hamburg Wheel-Track Testing of
Compacted Asphalt Mixtures, (2019).
[47] F. Rahman, M. Hossain, Review and analysis of Hamburg Wheel Tracking device
test data, (2014).
[48] T.W. Vollor, D.I. Hanson, Development of laboratory procedure for measuring
friction of the HMA mixture –, Phase I (2015).
[49] ASTM E303, Standard Test Method for Measuring Surface Frictional Properties
Using the British Pendulum Tester, ASTM Int. West Conshohocken, PA. (2018).
[50] G.W. Maupin, Asphalt Permeability Testing: Specimen Preparation and Testing
Variability, Transp. Res. Rec. 1767 (1) (2001) 33–39.