Leonardo Electronic Journal of Practices and Technologies Issue 30, January-June 2017

p. 105-118
ISSN 1583-1078

Engineering, Environment

A study on the mechanical and field performance properties of

polypropylene fibres in asphalt mix

Hassan Suleiman OTUOZE1*, Stephen Pinder EJEH2, Yusuf Dada AMARTEY3,

Manasseh JOEL4, Abdumumin Ahmed SHUAIBU5, Shuaibu Asuku SULEIMAN6 and
Abdulhafiz Michael ABANDA7

1,2,3,5
Department of Civil Engineering, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria.
4
Department of Civil Engineering, Federal University of Agriculture, Makurdi, Nigeria
6
Samaru College of Agric, Division of Agric Colleges, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria.
7
Department of Civil Engineering, Federal University of Technology, Minna, Nigeria.
E-mail(s): 1 hassanotuoze@yahoo.com; 2 engrdrspejeh@yahoo.com;
3
dadaamartey@yahoo.co.uk; 4 manassehjoel@yahoo.com; 5 abdulshub4u@gmail.com,
6
asukus@yahoo.com; and 7 abanda_4real@yahoo.com
*
Corresponding author, phone: +2348032895989

Received: November 26, 2016 / Accepted: June 14, 2017 / Published: June 30, 2017

Abstract
Researchers have been using polymers in asphalt mixes to improve both laboratory
and field performance properties of asphalt. Polymer asphalt were known to mitigate
traffic distresses and impart upon service life and durability of asphalt pavement. The
study focuses on Marshall Test as key laboratory quality control index of asphalt and
on simple performance test (SPT) characteristics of High Density Polypropylene
(HDPP) waste as measure of durability. The Hot Mixed Asphalt samples were
prepared using 0% (control), 0.5%, 1.0% and 1.5% HDPP fibre contents as
percentages of the total asphalt mixes. Based on Asphalt Institute recommendations of
106ESAL for heavy traffic and optimum bitumen content 6.0% obtained, SPT’s were
conducted for rutting and indirect tensile strength to simulate field behaviour of the
polymer asphalt. An optimum content of 0.5% HDPP enhanced both Marshall
properties and SPT’s requirements of HDPP asphalt than the conventional asphalt
(control) and could mitigate pavement failures.

107
 A study on mechanical and field performance properties of polypropylene fibres in asphalt mix
Hassan Suleiman OTUOZE, Stephen Pinder EJEH, Yusuf Dada AMARTEY, Manasseh JOEL, Abdumumin
Ahmed SHUAIBU, Shuaibu Asuku SULEIMAN and Abdulhafiz Michael ABANDA

Keywords
Asphalt Mix; Distress; Polypropylene; Marshall Test; Simple Performance Tests;
Indirect Tensile Strength; Rutting

Introduction

Pavement is the structural materials laid down on an area intended to sustain vehicular
or foot traffic, such as a road or walkway and its structure normally consists of a few layered
materials arranged from the topmost (surfacing) in the order of strength to ensure adequate
stability under traffic loads [1]. Distresses in asphalt pavements are major service problems of
roads as the main source of connectivity in low income economies leads to high rates of
accident [2]. Increasing vehicular traffic volume and high axle loading increased the
economic malady and lack of return on investment as pavement fails to reach the design life
and yield returns on investments [3].
Researchers, governments and road agencies have been challenged to improve,
strengthen and increase pavement life to yield good service quality and durability requirement
[4]. According to [5], pavement distresses and poor performance have led to increased use of
fibre reinforcement for bituminous mixtures. A number of fibre materials such as ethylene
vinyl acetate (EVA), low density polyethylene (LDPE), high density polyethylene (HDPE)
and ethylene-propylene-diene (EPDM) have been used in asphalt mix. Elastomers like
styrene-butadiene-styrene (SBS), styrene-butadiene random copolymers (SBR) and styrene-
isoprene-styrene (SIS) and poly-butadiene-base materials have also been used. Others are
asbestos, glass, carbon and cellulose fibres which also impart on the desired properties of
pavement. [6] set the pace on strengthening and extending pavement life when he used wire
mesh reinforcement in bituminous mixtures to improve upon resistance to pavement
deformation and reflective cracking. Large interests apparently evolved in mitigating failures
using different materials and different methods.
According to [7], fibres and polymers in asphalt mixture can help improve resistance
to high temperature rutting, medium temperature fatigue and low temperature cracking
thereby increasing the durability of pavement structure. In other words additives, such as
fibres can increase the amount of strain energy absorbed during fatigue and fracture process
of the mix in the resulting composite [8]. Also, fibres provide three-dimensional networking

108
 Leonardo Electronic Journal of Practices and Technologies Issue 30, January-June 2017
ISSN 1583-1078 p. 105-118

effect in asphalt concrete and stabilise the binder on surface of aggregate particles and prevent
from any movement at higher temperature [9].
Among the researches existing researches, [10] studied the behaviour of mixtures of
polypropylene and Aramid fibres to evaluate the performance characteristics of a modified
asphalt mixture. The results showed that the fibres improved the mixture’s performance in
several unique ways against the anticipated major pavement distresses: permanent
deformation, fatigue cracking, and thermal cracking. In their test on Stone Mastic Asphalt
(SMA) and glass fibre, [11] observed that the fibre has the potential to resist structural
distresses that occur in road pavement as a result of increased traffic loading, thus improving
fatigue life by increasing the resistance to cracking and permanent deformation especially at
higher stress level.
Asphalt mixes generally improved in stiffness when 0.5% of the fibres were used to
evaluate viscosity and complex shear modulus of fibre reinforced [4]. A great deal of
enhancement on visco-elasticity which reduced the phase angle between stress and strain due
to reduction in total and permanent strains were recorded. This leads to high resistance to
permanent deformation in the fibre reinforced binders.
Specific industrial materials used for pavement strengthening are expensive.
Approximately 30,000,000 tons of HDPP was consumed worldwide in 2001 and the products
generate monumental waste disposal and environmental problems after their use [12].
Polypropylene (PP) is known to have good heat and chemical resistance, resistance to
deformation at elevated temperatures, high stiffness, surface hardness and toughness at
normal temperature [13]. The differences between HDPP and LDPP are the densities and
crystalline or amorphous structure depending on the desired phase.
The research is directed at evaluating potentials of converting HDPP waste into fibres
for asphalt reinforcement to mitigate pavement distresses and the field performances. Various
tests conducted are Marshall Test for laboratory control of quality as well as indirect tensile
strength and rutting for simple performance test (SPT’s) criteria. Studies have shown that
crack bridging activation and matrix micro-structural mechanical behaviour are SPT’s and age
related and as such, the study focuses on synergy of both Marshall and SPT properties to
evaluate the impact of PP fibre on strength, service and durability of asphalt mix.

109
 A study on mechanical and field performance properties of polypropylene fibres in asphalt mix
Hassan Suleiman OTUOZE, Stephen Pinder EJEH, Yusuf Dada AMARTEY, Manasseh JOEL, Abdumumin
Ahmed SHUAIBU, Shuaibu Asuku SULEIMAN and Abdulhafiz Michael ABANDA

Material and method

Test on bitumen
Table 1 shows ductility, penetration, softening point, specific gravity, solubility and
flash and fire point tests are evaluations of grade, purity and safety respectively.
Table 1. Consistency, Purity and Safety Tests Values of Bitumen Sample
Test Conducted ASTM Code Code Values Test Values
0
Penetration at 25 C, 0.1 mm ASTM D5-97 60-70 67.7
Penetration Index (PI) - -2 to +2 -0.338
Softening point (0C) ASTM D36-95 46-56 50.5
Flash point (Cleveland open cup) (0C) ASTM D92-02 Min. 232 295.2
Fire point (Cleveland cup) (0C) ASTM D92-02 Min. 232 306.5
Ductility at 250C (cm) ASTM D113 Min. 50 122.4
0
Specific gravity at 25 C (g/cc) ASTM D70 0.97 -1.02 1.022
Solubility in trichloroethylene (%) ASTM D2042 Min. 99 99.02

The tests conducted were according to relevant recommendations of code standards

for the 60/70 penetration bitumen and were found to meet requirements of good control of
quality of bitumen used.

Preliminary tests on mineral aggregates

Table 2 shows aggregate quality control in accordance to their respective code
recommendations.

Table 2. Preliminary Test Values of Aggregate materials

Test Conducted Code Used Code Limits Test Result
Aggregate Crushing Value (%) BS 812 Part 112 Max. 25 22.8
Aggregate Impact Value (%) BS 812 Part 111 Max. 25 16.3
Aggregate Los Angeles Abrasion Value (%) ASTM C131 Max. 30 18.9
Specific Gravity (Coarse Aggregate) (Gc) (g/cc) ASTM C127 2.55 – 2.75 2.70
Aggregate Moisture Absorption (%) BS 812 Part 2 Max. 2 1.4
Coarse Aggregate Flakiness Index BS812 Part 105 ˂35 26
Specific Gravity (Fine Aggregate) (Gf) (g/cc) ASTM C128 2.55 – 2.75 2.63
Specific Gravity of Mix Aggregates (Gsb) (g/cc) ASTM C127 - 2.71

Strength characterization, shape, moisture absorption and gravity tests were conducted
on aggregates to assess and were within ranges of code specifications to certify the aggregates
good for the mix.

110
 Leonardo Electronic Journal of Practices and Technologies Issue 30, January-June 2017
ISSN 1583-1078 p. 105-118

Consistency tests of cement filler

Tests conducted on cement filler include specific gravity, setting time and soundness
using relevant codes and Table 3 shows the values obtained.
Table 3. Preliminary Test Values of Cement Filler
Test Conducted Code Used Code limit Result Obtained
Specific gravity ASTM C188 3.15 3.15
Initial Setting time (minutes) BS EN 196 Part 3 Min. 45 98
Final Setting time (minutes) BS EN 196 Part 3 Max 375 230
Soundness (mm) BS EN 196 Part 3 Max. 10 3.5
The tests, having satisfied the quality of cement filler showed to it will impart on
density and bond enhancement and improve the overall strength and stability of asphalt.

Aggregate material sampling, grading, proportioning and blending

Aggregate materials were sampled according to the recommendation of BS EN932-1
(2003) and particle size distribution was done according to BS EN 933-1 (2003). The passing
sieve diameter (PSD) for Coarse, fine aggregates and cement filler are shown in Tables 4.

Table 4. Combined Aggregate Mix and Range of Specification Requirements

Sieve Size Percentage Cumulative Cumulative Percent Passing
(mm) Retained Percentage Retained Percent Passing (ASTM D3515)
25.00 - - 100 100
19.00 2.7 2.7 97.3 95 – 100
12.50 9.7 12.4 87.6 82 – 92
9.50 9.2 21.6 78.4 73 – 86
6.30 12.7 34.3 65.7 -
4.75 10.3 44.6 55.4 49 – 67
2.36 10.9 55.5 44.5 33 – 53
1.18 12.0 67.5 32.5 -
0.60 10.0 77.5 22.5 14 – 36
0.30 7.7 85.2 14.8 11 – 28
0.15 6.2 91.4 8.6 -
0.075 2.1 93.5 6.5 6 – 11
Pan 6.5 100 - -
Combined aggregates fall within aggregate envelop safe zone formed by standard
specification range and could be adjudged good for aggregate parking and interlocking.

Marshall Test experimental plan and specimen preparation

Asphalt Institute (1994) recommendations were used to prepare specimens weighing
1200g weight, 101.5mm diameter and 63.5mm height compacted with 75 hammer blows on

111
 A study on mechanical and field performance properties of polypropylene fibres in asphalt mix
Hassan Suleiman OTUOZE, Stephen Pinder EJEH, Yusuf Dada AMARTEY, Manasseh JOEL, Abdumumin
Ahmed SHUAIBU, Shuaibu Asuku SULEIMAN and Abdulhafiz Michael ABANDA

each side to simulate heavy traffic situation of greater than 106 ESALs. The specimens are
tested for bulk specific gravity in accordance with [14]. The specimens are kept immersed in
water in a thermostatically controlled water bath at 600C for 30 to 40 minutes and then
transferred within 30 seconds to the Marshall Test head and tested for both Marshall stability
and flow in accordance with ASTM D1559 (2001). The volumetric tests carried out are CDM,
VMA, VIM and VFB. Theoretical Maximum Specific Gravity of the Mix (Gmm) were
determined using ASTM D 2041-95 and Bulk Specific Gravity or Compacted Density of the
Mix (CDM) using ASTM D1188-96. ASTM D3203-94 was used to estimate Void in the Mix
(VIM). ASTM D1559 (2004) was used to determine the stability and flow of specimens.

Indirect tensile strength (ITS) test

The test comprises measurement of compressive load, vertical and radial
displacements. It is used to determine the loading values for resilient modulus, fracture energy
and fatigue resistance tests. It was carried out following the recommendations of ASTM
D4123-2005a and ASTM D6931-2012 at a temperature of 250C. The values obtained for ITS
of asphalt are shown in Table 5.
Table 5. Indirect Tensile Strength of HDPP fibre asphalt
Specimen Peak load at ITS Avg. ITS
HDPP Content
Identity failure (N) (kPa) (kPa)
1 13,455 1341.91
0% HDPP 2 13,391 1322.89 1339.78
3 13,928 1354.55
1 14494.5 1418.45
0.5% HDPP 2 14935.5 1459.33 1441.79
3 14838.5 1447.59
1 6282.5 620.63
1.0% HDPP 2 6363 621.72 595.75
3 5637.5 544.88
1 2288 219.11
1.5% HDPP 2 2595 246.26 230.92
3 2389 227.40

Rutting of asphalt mix

Rutting resistance of the asphalt mixes was determined using Asphalt Pavement
Analyser (APA) and load repetitions of 10,000 cycles to permanent deformation and at 500C
following the recommendations of NCHRP Report 508:2003 [15] and AASHTO T324.
Rutting was carried out as part of field performance criteria. The values for rutting test are

112
 Leonardo Electronic Journal of Practices and Technologies Issue 30, January-June 2017
ISSN 1583-1078 p. 105-118

shown in Table 6.
Table 6. Rutting evaluation values of asphalt mix (mm)
No of No of
0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5%
Cycles Cycles
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 400 2.03 2.17 3.87 9.11
25 0.22 0.45 0.52 1.21 425 1.76 2.30 4.75 11.04
50 0.48 0.71 1.14 2.64 475 2.15 2.33 5.38 11.18
75 0.81 0.90 1.92 4.46 500 2.36 2.47 5.48 11.86
100 0.91 0.99 2.15 5.01 600 2.75 3.50 8.21 16.80
125 0.95 1.16 2.25 5.23 1000 3.35 3.92 9.08 18.82
150 1.00 1.26 2.37 5.50 2000 4.62 5.19 10.16 21.28
175 1.05 1.42 2.49 5.78 3000 5.00 6.11 11.45 25.05
200 1.22 1.56 2.89 6.71 4000 5.95 6.63 12.47 30.50
225 1.27 1.59 3.43 6.68 6000 6.87 7.38 13.10 30.26
250 1.47 1.72 3.49 7.22 7000 6.96 6.73 14.34 31.63
275 1.60 1.74 3.59 7.31 8000 7.33 7.44 17.83 34.22
300 1.69 1.96 3.71 8.23 9000 6.29 7.74 21.23 37.11
325 1.70 2.05 3.71 8.61 10000 7.65 8.96 23.56 39.63
350 1.81 1.95 3.74 8.19 Max rut depth 7.73 8.96 23.56 39.63
375 1.92 2.15 3.84 9.03 Average 3.75 4.15 9.55 18.82

Results and Discussion

Marshall Test results for HDPP fibre reinforced asphalt

Findings from the results of Marshall Test parameters for the asphalt mixes are shown
in Figures 1 to 6.

20.00 7.00

16.00 6.00
Stability (kN)

Flow (mm)

12.00 5.00

8.00 4.00

4.00 3.00

0.00 2.00
4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 4.0 4.5
5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0
Bitumen Content (%) Bitumen Content (%)
0%HDPP/FR 0.5%HDPP/FR 1.0%HDPP/FR 0%HDPP/FR 0.5%HDPP/FR 1.0%HDPP/FR
1.5%HDPP/FR 2.0%HDPP/FR 2.5%HDPP/FR 1.5%HDPP/FR 2.0%HDPP/FR 2.5%HDPP/FR
3.0%HDPP/FR 3.0%HDPP/FR

Figure 1. Relationship between stability & BC Figure 2. Relationship between flow & BC

113
 A study on mechanical and field performance properties of polypropylene fibres in asphalt mix
Hassan Suleiman OTUOZE, Stephen Pinder EJEH, Yusuf Dada AMARTEY, Manasseh JOEL, Abdumumin
Ahmed SHUAIBU, Shuaibu Asuku SULEIMAN and Abdulhafiz Michael ABANDA

2.600 50.0
2.500
45.0
2.400
2.300 40.0
35.0

VMA (%)
2.200
CDM (g/cc)

2.100 30.0
2.000
25.0
1.900
1.800 20.0
1.700 15.0
1.600
10.0
1.500
4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0
4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0
Bitumen Content (%)
Bitumen Content (%)

0%HDPP/FR 0.5%HDPP/FR 1.0%HDPP/FR 0%HDPP/FR 0.5%HDPP/FR 1.0%HDPP/FR

1.5%HDPP/FR 2.0%HDPP/FR 2.5%HDPP/FR 1.5%HDPP/FR 2.0%HDPP/FR 2.5%HDPP/FR
3.0%HDPP/FR 3.0%HDPP/FR
Figure 3. Relationship between BSG & BC Figure 4. Relationship between VMA & BC
18.00 90.00
16.00 85.00
14.00 80.00
VIM (%)

VFB (%)

12.00
75.00
10.00
70.00
8.00
6.00 65.00

4.00 60.00
2.00 55.00
4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0
Bitumen Content (%) Bitumen Content (%)

0%HDPP/FR 0.5%HDPP/FR 1.0%HDPP/FR 0%HDPP/FR 0.5%HDPP/FR 1.0%HDPP/FR

1.5%HDPP/FR 2.0%HDPP/FR 2.5%HDPP/FR 1.5%HDPP/FR 2.0%HDPP/FR 2.5%HDPP/FR
3.0%HDPP/FR 3.0%HDPP/FR
Figure 5. Relationship between VIM & BC Figure 6. Relationship between VFB & BC

The various trends emanating Marshall Test are summarized:

a) The stability increased from 0 to 0.5% HDPP contents, the optimum being 15.97 kN at
0.5% HDPP. The value accounts for 9.99% increase in strength and is responsible for
compensating in tensile strain suffered by asphalt specimen when loaded. Increasing
HDPP content beyond the optimum threshold drastically increased the void and
deformation and reduces the overall strength of the mix. The findings agreed with [16]
and [17] who observed increase in strength and higher fracture energy of PP fibre
reinforced mix.
b) The CDM of the mix increased up to the optimum as bitumen content increased and then,
dropped because of increasing bitumen content. CDM decreased as HDPP is increasing
because inadequate aggregates surface contact grip offset by HDPP thereby entraining
voids with the asphalt mix. HDPP is lower in specific gravity than mineral aggregates;

114
 Leonardo Electronic Journal of Practices and Technologies Issue 30, January-June 2017
ISSN 1583-1078 p. 105-118

thus, lower the density of the compacted asphalt mix. The optimum bitumen content is
observed to be 5.5%.
c) The design VIM used is 5.0% because of increasing volume of compacted mix as HDPP
content increased from 0 to 3.0%. 0 to 0.5% HDPP satisfied the range of 3.0 to 5.0% VIM
content recommended by Asphalt Institute (1997) for a stable mix. The optimum bitumen
content used is 5.5%. VIM excessively increased thereby entraining more voids as HDPP
content increased.
d) The flow results increased as HDPP increased from 0 to 3.0% HDPP content at optimum
bitumen content of 5.5%. 0 to 1.0% HDPP fibre contents meet Marshall Criteria for stable
mix because of higher and low resistance to deformation.
e) The VMA for all 0 to 3% HDPP fibre concrete meets the minimum of 12.0% VMA
recommended by Asphalt Institute (1997) assuaging problem of quick traffic densification
that may lead to fatigue failure. The optimum bitumen content is 5.5%.
f) Also, the VFB for 0 to 3.0% HDPP mixes are within range of 65 – 75% recommended by
Marshall Criteria for heavy traffic axle loading of 106 ESAL. The optimum bitumen
content is also 5.5%.

Indirect tensile strength (ITS)

The trends indicated by Indirect Tensile Strength (ITS) at various HDPP contents are
as shown in Figure 7.

1600

1400

1200
Average ITS (kPa)

1000

800

600

400

200

0
0% HDPP 0.5% HDPPFR 1.0% HDPPFR 1.5% HDPPFR

HDPP Content (%)

Figure 7. Relationship between Average ITS Values and HDPP content

The ITS results for 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5% HDPP asphalt are respectively 1441.793,

115
 A study on mechanical and field performance properties of polypropylene fibres in asphalt mix
Hassan Suleiman OTUOZE, Stephen Pinder EJEH, Yusuf Dada AMARTEY, Manasseh JOEL, Abdumumin
Ahmed SHUAIBU, Shuaibu Asuku SULEIMAN and Abdulhafiz Michael ABANDA

595.746 and 230.9216kPa. Only 0.5% HDPP fibre asphalt meets the recommendations of
ASTM D6931-12 and ASTM D4123-05a of minimum ITS value of 1,100kPa. The values of
ITS for 1.0 to 1.5% HDPP fibre asphalt were below minimum requirement and could lead to
poor rutting resistance especially at higher ambient temperature. At optimum of 0.5% HDPP,
ITS increased by 8%.

Permanent deformation (Rutting)

The plots of rutting test conducted for various proportions of HDPP are in Figure 8.
40,00
35,00
30,00
25,00
Maximum rut depth (mm)

20,00
15,00
10,00
5,00
0,00
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
No of cycles of repitition
0% HDPP 0.5% HDPPFR 1.0% HDPPFR 1.5% HDPPFR

Figure 8. Relationship between Maximum Rut Depth and Load Cycles

Maximum rut of 8 mm was recommended for 8, 000 load cycles of NCHRP Report
508:2003 [15] and 12.5 mm at 10,000 cycles of load repetitions for AASHTO T324
recommendation. Based on these recommendations, only 0.5% HDPP content in Figure 8
meets the recommendations of both NCHRP Report 508:2003 [15] and AASHTO T324 to be
adjudged a good mix. The rut depth of 1.0 – 1.5% HDPP contents were increasing because of
increasing voids and could cause high oxidation of bitumen, high moisture susceptibility and
low deformation resistance failures.

Conclusion

The following conclusions could be made from the research:

• For the Marshall properties, 0.5% HDPP content gave optimally better results than the
control (0% HDPP) for the heavy traffic situation simulated. At this optimum, asphalt

116
 Leonardo Electronic Journal of Practices and Technologies Issue 30, January-June 2017
ISSN 1583-1078 p. 105-118

stability, flow resistance and void requirements are enhanced to withstand the ever-
changing traffic and environment situations without failing prematurely.
• Indirect Tensile Strength (ITS) increased by 8% at the optimum HDPP which lies at
0.5%. Also, the rut depths at 8,000 and 10,000 cycles are respectively 7.44 mm and
8.96 mm respectively. These values could improve field performance and the
resistance of asphalt mixtures against pavement distresses. Higher HDPP content
could lead to increased rutting as a result of increase in voids.

Acknowledgements

Sincere appreciations go to Engr. Michael Esenwa, of McAsphalt Laboratory, Ontario,

Canada, who facilitated access to their equipment’s and facilities.

References

1. Hijab M., Zaynab, A.B., Hadi, A.A., Road pavement failure induced by poor soil
properties along Gombi-Biu highway, Nigeria. Journal of Engineering and Applied
Science. 2012, vol. 4, p. 22-27.
2. Ogundipe O.M., Roads pavement failure caused by poor soil properties along Aramoko-
Ilesha Highway, Nigeria. Journal of engineering and applied sciences; 2008; 3(3), p. 239-
241.
3. Otuoze H.S., Shuaibu A. A., Ahmed H. A., Garba A., Yusuf O.K., Binding properties of
poly-vinyl chloride thermoplastic waste modified bitumen for flexible pavement mix.
Proceedings of 2014 Nigeria Engineering Conference, Faculty of Engineering, Ahmadu
Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria, 2014, p. 502 – 510.
4. Ye Q., Wu S., Rheological properties of fibre reinforced asphalt binders. Indian Journal of
Engineering and Material Sciences, 2009; Volume 16, p. 93-99.
5. Abdelaziz M., Mohamed R.K., Herda Y.K., Fatigue and deformation properties of glass
fiber reinforced bituminous mixes. Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation
Studies, 2005, vol. 6, p. 997 – 1007.
6. Zube E., Wire mesh reinforcement in bituminous resurfacing, Highway Research Record,
Bulletin 131, 1956, p. 1-18.

117
 A study on mechanical and field performance properties of polypropylene fibres in asphalt mix
Hassan Suleiman OTUOZE, Stephen Pinder EJEH, Yusuf Dada AMARTEY, Manasseh JOEL, Abdumumin
Ahmed SHUAIBU, Shuaibu Asuku SULEIMAN and Abdulhafiz Michael ABANDA

7. Taher B.M., Mohamed R.K. and Mahrez A. A review on fatigue and rutting performance
of asphalt mixes. Scientific Research and Essays; 2011; Vol. 6(4), p. 670-682.
8. Mahrez A., Karim M.R., Katman H.Y., Fatigue and deformation properties of glass fiber
reinforced bituminous mixes. Journal of Eastern Asia, Transport Studies 6, 2005, p. 997-
1007.
9. Ahmedzade P., Tigdemir M., Kalyoncuoglu S.F., Laboratory investigation of the
properties of asphalt concrete mixtures modified with TOP–SBS, Journal of Construction
and Building Materials, 2007, 21, p. 626-633.
10. Kaloush K.E, Zeiada W.A, Biligiri K.P., Rodezno M.C., Reed J., Evaluation of fibber-
reinforced asphalt mixtures using advanced material characterization tests, Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering Tempe, AZ 85287-5306, 2006.
11. Mahrez A., Karim M.R., Fatigue characteristics of stone mastic asphalt mix reinforced
with fibber glass, International Journal of the Physical Sciences; 2010, vol. 5(12), p. 1840-
1847, ISSN 1992 – 1950.
12. Sperling L. H., Introduction to physical polymer science. Lehigh University Bethlehem,
Pennsylvania John Wiley&Sons Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey, 2006, 4th Edition, p. 473-536.
13. Mohammed S., Patil K.A., Rheological properties of recycled low density polyethylene
and polypropylene modified bitumen. International Journal of Advanced Technology in
Civil Engineering, 2013; ISSN: 2231 –5721, vol. 2, Issue-2, p. 24-26.
14. ASTM D1559, Test Method for Resistance to Plastic Flow of Bituminous Mixtures using
Marshall Apparatus, American Society for Testing Materials, 2004, Section 4, vol.4.03,
Philadelphia, USA.
15. Cooley L.A., Kandhal P.S., Buchanan M. S., Fee F., Epps A., Loaded wheel testers in the
United States: State of the practice. NCAT Report No. 2000-4, National Centre for
Asphalt Technology, Auburn, AL, 2000.
http://www.eng.auburn.edu/center/ncat/reports/rep00-04.pdf.
16. Cleven A.M., Investigation of the properties of carbon fibre modified asphalt mixtures,
Master of Science Thesis in Civil Engineering Michigan Technological University, U.S.A,
2000, p. 1-92.
17. Chen J.S., Lin K.Y., Mechanism and behaviour of bitumen strength reinforcement using
fibres. Journal of Material Science, 2005, vol. 40, p. 87-95.

118