1 Analysis of the Mechanical Properties of asphaltic pavement consisting of

2 rubber residue from original recharge

3 Thiago da Silva Neres Mourao1, Ma. Ana Carolina da Cruz Reis2, Nailton Silva Costa Mafra3
4 （1 Unidade de Ensino Superior Dom Bosco, São Luis , Brazil, email）
5 (2 Universidade Federal do Maranhao, São Luis , Brazil , email )
6 (3 Instituto Federal do Maranhao, São Luis , Brazil, nailton.mafra@hotmail.com )
7

8ABSTRACT

9 The following study carried out the analysis of the mechanical properties of an asphalt
10pavement having in its composition rubber residues of the tire bandage, resulting from the
11process of retreading these tires, in a hot - rolled asphalt concrete type asphalt coating. The
12rubber residue was incorporated by drought into the hot - rolled asphalt concrete; a mixture
13composed of large aggregate, small and asphalt binder, in two different granulometries, replacing
14the aggregate in an equivalent way both in relation to the percentage and the granulometry. The
15Marshall test was used to analyze the volumetric properties and to determine the optimum binder
16content to be used in the mixtures with the different rubber granulometries. Each mixture studied
17and thus perform the analysis of the mechanical properties through the tests of Stability,
18Resilience Module and Tensile Strength by diametric compression.
19 Keywords: pavement, analysis, mechanical, rubber residue
20

211. INTRODUCTION

22 The development of large urban centers can be observed by the increase in the need to
23expand the road network. Thus, with the gradual increase in the number of highways in the
24country, the negative environmental impact caused by the execution of the projects also
25increases, considering a large-scale extraction of raw material for the construction of the layers
26of its pavements, for example, leading to rapid exhaustion of the material in the loan areas, with
27this shortage of raw material,
28 The search for materials that can be made available as technical necessities in a
29sustainable way, and still provide considerable reduction in the final costs of works of this size,
30are being carried out more, and more studies that make feasible.
31 An incorporation of unserviceable materials in construction, such as a use of discarded
32tires, where many times is not a suitable destination, and ends up becoming a liability in the
33environment.
34 Therefore, the reuse of rubber as an alternative for application in the construction
35industry, but for determination of the feasibility of using the studied material for use in road
36pavement coatings, it is necessary to have a suitable methodology for both the specific tests to
37study the material itself and the analysis of the results that are obtained for the pavement layers.
38laboratory tests. Thus, the present study carried out an analysis of the characterization and the
39mechanical behaviour of the material.
40

1
 12. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2 The study was carried out from the molding of asphalt mix bodies with rubber
3incorporation from tire retreating, replacing the equivalent percentage of part of the
4corresponding aggregate of granulometry. For this substitution, the incorporation of a percentage
5of 5% of rubber was analyzed in two different ways: a rubber of greater granulometry replacing
6the gravel 0 of the conventional reference mixture, of the strip C of the DNIT [1], and a thinner
7rubber in replacement of the same reference mixture. For this, a mixture composed of three types
8of materials was defined: conventional aggregate (gravel powder, gravel 0 and gravel 1), asphalt
9binder CAP 50/70, and rubber from tire retreating.
10 Regarding the particle size of the rubber, two grades were used: one of medium particle
11size and one of finer granulometry were used. As DNIT-ES 031/04 [1] standard presents
12granulometric classification in only three levels - large (retained in sieve 10), small (passed
13through sieve 10 and retained in sieve n. 200), and filler material (at least 65% of the material
14passed through the 200 sieve) - it was necessary to create a medium grade range, which
15comprised between the grainy and small size grading, in order to have two more homogeneous
16rubber types. Thus, all the material retained on the No. 10 sieve (2,00 mm aperture) was defined
17as the mean rubber, and for fine rubber all material passed through the same sieve No. 10. Both
18were incorporated at a percentage of 5% in the asphalt mixture, replacing gravel 0 and gravel
19powder, respectively. The material considered large (retained on the No. 4 sieve, opening 4.75
20mm) was discarded. The representative sample of the original rubber used for the granulometry
21test (Figure 1), and the three rubber granulometries obtained at the end of the test (Figure 2), can
22be observed as follows:
23
24
25 FIGURE 1
26
27 FIGURE 2
28
29
30 After the determination of the aggregates, binder and rubber used in the study, and
31subsequent sieving of the aggregates for an asphalt mixture within the limits of the C range
32established by the DNIT, three binder contents were previously established to study the mixtures:
334% , 4.5% and 5%. In addition to the binder contents, a percentage of 5% of rubber to be
34incorporated into the blends was established in two different ways, given their granulometry: a
35medium grade rubber replacing the grit 0 in an equivalent percentage (5%) and a thinner rubber
36also replacing the crushed powder in an equivalent percentage (5%). For a better identification of
37the blends studied and subsequent preparation of the specimens, they were named from the
38granulometry and percentage of rubber incorporated and binder content used, as shown in Figure
393.
40
41 FIGURE 3
42
43
44
45

1 2
2
 1 Thus, the organization established for the preparation of the specimens was divided into
2two stages, presented in Tables 1 and 2, highlighting their respective levels of binder and rubber.
3
4
5 TABLE 1
6
7 TABLE 2
8
9
10
112.1 Characterization of Asphalt Mixture
12
13 In order to evaluate the stability values of the mixtures analyzed, the minimum parameters
14established by standard DNIT-ES 031/06 [1] were considered, where a minimum stability value
15of 500 kgf for asphalt mixtures was established. Three specimens were tested for each type of
16mixture, containing both thin rubber and medium rubber, randomly selected. To obtain the
17stability value, it was necessary to break the specimen in the Marshall press by applying a
18gradually increasing N load until the rupture was reached. Thus, the load of the rupture load (L)
19is measured, which is then multiplied by two correction factors to obtain Marshall stability: a)
20constant (C) of the ring used in the press equal to 1943,42 kgf / mm; b) Correction constant for
21the height of the test specimen (Fc), presented in table contained in the Marshall dosage
22standard. The results were obtained to calculate the average adopted for analysis of the mixture,
23being equal to 554.33 kgf. The results were obtained for the analysis of the mixtures with fine
24rubber and optimum binder content (F5BTOL). The results of the three test specimens of the
25mixture, as well as the mean, are shown in Table 3.
26
27
28 TABLE 3
29
30
31 The results of the mixtures with medium rubber and optimum binder content (M5BTOL),
32and subsequent correction of these values, which were used to calculate the mean adopted in the
33analysis of the mixture equal to 511.02 kgf, are presented in Table 4.
34
35 TABLE 4
36
37
38 Thus, it was found that for the averages of the mixtures studied, all reached the minimum
39stability required by DNIT-ES 031/06 [1]. Based on the study by Patriota (2004) [2], it is
40possible to observe the gradual decrease of the stability of the mixtures with the increase of this
41content of rubber for incorporations of higher rubber contents, keeping the CAP content constant
42the analysis of a single rubber content (5%).
43 Thus, for the analysis of the mechanical properties of the test specimens and verification of
44the results obtained in the resilient modulus and tensile strength.
45

1 3
2
 13. MECHANICAL TESTS AND ANALYSIS

23.1 Resilience Module Test

3 For the performance of the Resilient Module test, the guidelines established in DNIT-ME
4135/10 were followed. Thus, for each test specimen, three cycles of forces were applied,
5measuring the displacement occurred and the resilient modulus reached in each of them. The
6values of Resilient Modulus obtained for mixing with fine rubber 1458.0 MPa, 1331.0 MPa and
71284.0 MPa, values obtained from the average of the cycles applied in each specimen, as well as
8the minimum proposed by Bernucci et al. al. (2008) [3] can be seen in Table 5.
9
10 TABLE 5
11
12
13 The values of Resilient Modulus of the mixture with average rubber, 1045.0 MPa, 986.0
14MPa and 917.0 MPa, resulting from the average of the cycles applied to each test specimen, as
15well as the minimum proposed by Bernucci et al. (2008) [3] can be seen in Table 6.
16
17 TABLE 6
18
19
20 The Resilient Modulus results of the conventional asphalt concrete mix adopted as
21reference for comparison of the results, obtained by Sousa (2016) [4], can be seen in Table 7.
22
23 TABLE 7
24
25 The results of Resilient Module averages of the blends with fine rubber, medium rubber,
26and reference blend were respectively: 1357.67 MPa, 982.67 MPa, 7853.00 MPa. These values,
27as well as the minimum limit of 2452 MPa proposed by Bernucci et al. (2008) [3] for framing
28dry rubber asphalt in track C of DNIT, are presented and compared to the conventional asphalt
29concrete mix adopted as a reference in Figure 3.
30
31
32 FIGURE 3 Graph of Data
33
34 If for the values obtained in the Marshall stability tests the unsatisfactory volumetric
35parameters of the mixtures studied did not cause them to be below the standard limit (500 kgf),
36the same can not be said for the results obtained in the test of Resilient Module. It was observed
37a low mechanical strength of the analyzed mixtures due to the high percentage of rubber
38incorporated, causing an effect that impaired the mechanical behavior of the material: too much
39increase of the flexibility by the incorporation of a high rubber content, consequently increasing
40its volume of voids , and considerably reducing the value of the Bitumen / Emptiness mapping,
41resulting in a compromise of Resilient Module results.
42 For experimental mixtures of rubber asphalt with the same binder content, and compared to
43a reference mixture in conventional asphalt concrete, it is possible to see the reduction of the
44Resilient Modulus of the experimental mixtures, indicating that there is a flexibility of the
45material coming from the incorporation of the rubber ( PATRIOT, 2004) [2]. This same behavior
1 4
2
 1can be observed in the literature of Specht (2002) and Bertollo (2002) [5-6]. It can be seen from
2the graph that the fine rubber blend gave a somewhat more favorable result than the medium
3rubber blend, although both were below the minimum value of 2452 MPa proposed by Bernucci
4et al. (2008) for framing the rubber asphalt in the parameters of the C band of the DNIT. Thus,
5rubber blends with rubber content (5%) are not recommended for use in asphalt layers. It is also
6possible to verify the influence of the granulometry of the rubber used in the mixtures in the
7result of Resilient Module obtained, favoring a possible use of the fine rubber in lower contents
8of the material to be incorporated in the asphalt mixture.
9
103.2 Tensile Strength by Diametral Compression

11 The tensile strength test was performed according to the current guidelines in standard
12DNIT-ES 031/06 [1], which establishes as a minimum parameter a diametral compression tensile
13strength of 0.65 MPa. Table 8 presents the RT results obtained for the three specimens of both
14blends studied, with fine rubber and medium rubber, as well as information such as
15Identification, thickness and diameter of the CP tested. The RT results for fine rubber were 0.34
16MPa, 0.37 MPa and 0.39 MPa. While mixtures with medium rubber presented RT values of 0.36
17MPa, 0.29 MPa and 0.42 MPa, resulting in an overall mean of 0.36 MPa.
18
19
20
21 TABLE 8
22
23
24
25
26 It can be observed that in any specimen, whether it be the mixture composed of fine rubber
27or medium rubber, the minimum tensile strength required in the standard was reached, 0.65 MPa.
28This was due to the high percentage of rubber used to make the mixtures (5%), which eventually
29increased its flexibility too much, consequently increasing its volume of voids. The result was
30the low value of the Bitumen / Voids ratio, resulting in a compromise of the mechanical strength
31of the studied rubber asphalts. Patriota (2004) [2] reports in his research that due to the
32incorporation of rubber in asphalt mixtures with the same binder content it is possible to verify
33the occurrence of reduction of tensile strength, compromising the structural capacity of the
34material gradually to increase the rubber content used. From its results, it was verified that for
35the addition of rubber contents of 2%, 3% or more in the mixture of asphalt concrete, it is also
36necessary to use a high binder content, exceeding the range of 6% of CAP. Due to the increase of
37the binder content, their experiments showed that when CAP levels above 6% are used for
38asphalt mixtures, they present a greater tendency for permanent deformation. The gradual
39decrease in tensile strength of asphalt mixtures modified by the incorporation of rubber is
40confirmed by Specht et al. (2002), and Bertollo (2002). [5-6]
41

424. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

43 With the accomplishment of this study, it was possible to analyze the possibility of
44incorporation of the rubber of bandage, originating from the process of tire retreading, in hot
1 5
2
 1asphaltic mixtures, making use of two different granulometries of this rubber - fine and average.
2Asphalt mixtures modified with the addition of rubber analyzed, presented lower values of
3Marshall stability, resilient modulus and tensile strength when compared to a mixture of
4conventional asphalt concrete adopted as the reference, indicating a greater flexibility of the
5mixtures, and lower stiffness, causing the coating to absorb minor stress levels.
6 From the study presented, it can also be concluded that despite the unsatisfactory results
7when compared to the minimum limits set in standard and proposed by authors, the mixture with
8rubber of finer grain size showed a slightly more favorable behavior than the mixture with
9medium rubber, thus proving influence of the size of the rubber particles on the mechanical
10behavior of rubber asphalt. Thus, according to the results obtained and analysis of the
11mechanical and volumetric parameters of the blends with rubber asphalt, and subsequent
12comparison to the minimum parameters required by the standard as the basis for the development
13of the work, DNIT-ES 031/06. We can conclude that a high percentage of rubber used in the
14analyzed mixtures, gave the test specimens an increase in flexibility, which consequently
15increased the number of voids, requiring a higher binder content, in order to reduce these voids.
16The mixtures with medium rubber presented the most unsatisfactory results when compared to
17the blends with fine rubber. Therefore, it is inappropriate to point out the mechanical viability of
18the mixtures with 5% rubber for asphalt coating, regardless of their granulometry, especially for
19the coating layer. For tracks with low traffic volume, the use of the blend with thin rubber for the
20bonding layer can be studied, since they presented slightly more satisfactory results, and such a
21layer requires less mechanical resistance.
22 Therefore, this study also shows that the recycling of tires unserviceable by the retreading
23process is feasible, since in addition to bringing the tires back to the new state, it produces a
24rubber residue that can be incorporated into asphalt mixtures intended for paving, lower levels
25than the one used in the present research, becoming an alternative for the destination of this
26environmental liability, and resulting in possible mechanical improvements of asphalt pavement.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43

1 6
2
 15. REFERENCES

2 [1] DNIT – Departamento Nacional de Infra-estrutura de Transportes. Manual de

3pavimentação. 3a edição - Rio de Janeiro, 2006.
4 [2] PATRIOTA, M. B. Análise laboratorial de Concreto Betuminoso Usinado a Quente
5Modificado com Adição de Borracha Reciclada de Pneus – Processo Seco. Sergipe, 2004.
6 [3] BERNUCCI, L. B.; MOTTA, LAURA MARIA GORETTI; CERATTI, JORGE
7AUGUSTO PEREIRA; SOARES, JORGE BARBOSA. Pavimentação asfáltica: formação básica
8para engenheiros. Rio de Janeiro: Petrobras: Abeda, 2006.
9 [4] SOUZA, A.A.P. Análise das Propriedades Volumétricas do Asfalto Borracha para
10Composição da Camada de Concreto Asfaltico de Pavimentos Rodoviários. Dissertação de
11Monografia, Curso de Engenharia Civil, UNDB, 2016
12 [5] SPECHT, L.P.; CERATTI, J.A. e PALUDO, I. Utilização de Borracha Reciclada como
13Agregado de Concreto Asfáltico: Avaliação Laboratorial. 16º Encontro de Asfalto, IBP, Rio de
14Janeiro. 2002.
15 [6] BERTOLLO, S. A. M. et al. Avaliação Laboratorial de Misturas Asfálticas Densas
16Modificadas com Borracha Reciclada de Pneus. Tese de Doutorado, Escola de Engenharia de
17São Carlos, Universidade de São Paulo. 2002.
18
19

1 7
2