Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00591

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Construction Materials

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

Stability and permeability characteristics of porous asphalt

pavement: An experimental case study
Mohammad Nadeem Akhtar a, *, Abdullah M. Al-Shamrani a, Mohammed Jameel b,
Nadeem A. Khan c, Zainah Ibrahim d, J.N. Akhtar e
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Fahad Bin Sultan University, Tabuk, Saudi Arabia
b
Department of Civil Engineering, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia
c
Department of Civil Engineering, Jamia Millia Islamia University, New Delhi, India
d
Department of Civil Engineering, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
e
Department of Civil Engineering, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India

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

Keywords: The systematic behavior of porous asphalt pavement (PAP) under normal traffic conditions has
Porous asphalt pavement been studied in detail in the present work. In the first phase, an observation program measured
Stability the stability by Marshall Test for all the prepared design mix samples with normal bitumen (60/
Normal bitumen
70). For the permeability test in the second phase of observation, a model is developed in the
Marshall test
Permeability
laboratory on the same falling head permeability test. The maximum permeability reaches 0.394
cm/sec for a fresh sample and 0.245 cm/sec after one year of environmental exposure. The
maximum stability was 26.9 kN, and the average value obtained was 21 kN. The present work
approach provides effectively reliable results in terms of stability and permeability of porous
asphalt mix. The primary goal of this research is to reduce the possibility of floods and increase
driver protection during inclement weather. A particular emphasis was placed on the mix ratio
differences between aggregates to achieve the desired permeability while maintaining the
necessary stability. The findings indicate that the checked sample looked excellent in terms of
permeability.

1. Introduction

Porous Asphalt Pavement (PAP) has achieved traction in road building operations in many European countries during the last three
decades. PAP is capable of wicking rainwater away from the pavement floor. The study conducted to date demonstrates the porous
asphalt’s favorable characteristics. Attempts are made to identify highly permeable mixtures with sufficient deformation and me­
chanical properties [1–3]. The scientific approach is based on experimental tests on both the mixed components (aggregates and
bitumen) of porous asphalt. The primary test used for the mix design is the Marshall test. Such a test has been widely used in the
pavement engineering community of Asian and European countries. However, some countries, such as the United States, do not rely on
this approach [4,5]. It possesses several exceptional properties, including porosity and mechanical properties, which can be achieved
by carefully selecting and regulating the aggregate gradation, the amount of asphalt in the mix, and the strength of the asphalt binder.
Improved stress deformation characteristics for porous asphalt mixes have been achieved by creating a new generation of asphalt

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (M.N. Akhtar).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00591
Received 28 November 2020; Received in revised form 29 May 2021; Accepted 4 June 2021
Available online 6 June 2021
2214-5095/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
M.N. Akhtar et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00591

Table 1
Porous asphalt mix design criterion.
(inch/mm) Sieve Size (%) Passing

0.75/19 100
0.50/12.5 85− 100
0.375 55− 75
No. 4/4.75 10− 25
No. 8/2.36 5− 10
(AASHTO T164) Binder Content 6− 6.5%
Total mix Fibre material 0.3 % cellulose or o.4% mineral
Rubber Solids (SBR.) Bitumen content by mass 1.5− 3% or TBD
(ASTM D6752/AASHTO T275) Air Void Content 16.0− 22.0 %
(ASTM D6390) * Draindown ≤0.3 %
(AASHTO 283) ** Retained Tensile Strength ≥80 %
(ASTM D7064-04) Cantabro abrasion test on unaged samples ≤20 %
Cantabro abrasion test on 7 days aged samples ≤30 %

modifiers/additives. However, the discontinuous porosity is generated by the aggregate gradation. Implementation of porous asphalt
has created awareness of many advantages over and above rapid rainfall-runoff drainage [6,7].
Permeable paving systems have evolved into a well-known solution across the world. Porous asphalt can be used for the Permeable
Pavement System (PPS) in the Sustainable Drainage System (SUDS). It will help eliminate most of the stormwater runoff contamination
and hydroplaning due to its pores or vacuum, in other words, due to its porosity. The water will penetrate from the pavement surface
made up of Porous Asphalt (pores within it) and seeps underground or underlying soil [8–11]. The research conducted by [11] presents
the resemblance and differences of various mix design procedures used in the USA for porous asphalt mixtures. It recommends the
merits and demerits of various design procedures. High content amount of Air voids leads to permeability, diminishing the stormwater
runoff quantity on the pavement surface. Consequently, it reduces the splashes and flooding on rainy days. The result is a decrement in
hydroplaning potential, enhancing visibility, mitigating the chances of accidents, and increasing road safety [11]. Porous asphalt is
unique, as it mixes vehicular functionality with stormwater treatment and control.
If properly engineered and built, porous asphalt has an outstanding prospect for urban areas [12]. Porous asphalt pavement has
been used successfully in diverse climates across the United States for the last 3 decades. It contains a paved surface that constitutes a
part of the stormwater management network that decreases runoff and stormwater. It also replenishes groundwater. In the last 20
years, numerous parking lots were built using Porous Asphalt, which did not require any maintenance other than routine cleaning
[13].
The research work carried out by [14] shows that the Marshall stability ranges from 5.89 to 7.90 kN for asphalt concrete with
mineral filler, while that for hydrated lime is 8.2 kN. This indicates that replacing mineral fillers with lime enhances the mixture
strength, while mixture flow with hydrated lime decreases. A model was prepared to show the different layers of components and
Porous Asphalt Pavement (PAP) functioning [15]. Analyses of data by [16] demonstrate a general pattern of an increased percentage of
connected air voids between 2.36 mm–4.75 mm aggregate, thereby increasing the permeability.
In light of the above discussion, the present case study fills the literature review gap. Limited studies have been reported with
variations in aggregate ratio. In the present study, 3 samples for 10 different design mixes (A to J) have been prepared for 3 parameters
(total of 90 samples), i.e., Marshall stability, the initial coefficient of permeability (k0), and permeability coefficient at 360 days (k360)
have been studied. The Marshall test evaluated the stability of prepared samples. For the permeability test, a model was developed on
the concept of falling head permeability test. Permeability was carried out for the freshly prepared mix and the same samples after
having one year of exposure to an open environment.

2. Materials and methods

In Saudi Arabia, asphalt binder materials used to build and maintain roads may be either a neat asphalt binder (NAB) or a polymer-
modified binder (PMB). The asphalt binder must fulfill as per AASHTO M320 [17] to meet the performance-based requirements in both
cases. In the present study, the normal bitumen 60/70 grade was used as a native material. An asphalt binder of this form comes
directly from the petroleum refineries owned by Saudi Aramco. A 60/70 penetration grade asphalt binder is classified by Saudi
Aramco, while this form has also been graded to PG 64− 10 in the Superpave grading system. Therefore, it can only be used in projects
requiring a PG of 64− 10 by the Superpave mix design specifications without modification. Locally available coarse aggregate retained
on the selected sieve. The crushed gravel of uniform consistency has been used in the mix design. Crushed stone or crushed gravel
coarse aggregate was used with a wear percentage of no more than 40 %, as described by AASHTO T96 [18]. The combined and graded
materials with the weight (mass) composition requirements are shown in Table 1. As per the requirement, coarse aggregate should be
free of clay balls, organic matter, harmful substances, elongated components (>3:1), and not more than 8.0 % flat, defined by ASTM
D4791 [19].
For this study, 90 specimens from 10 different mixes (A to J) were compacted. All samples were prepared in the lab as per the
required design mix procedure. According to Asphalt Institute Manual, No SP-2 and (AASHTO 2005), the aggregates (1200 g) were
heated at 160 ◦ C. The heated aggregate was thoroughly mixed into a standard pan. The bitumen is heated to 160 ◦ C, and the required
amount of the first trial of bitumen is added to the heated aggregate and thoroughly mixed. The mix is placed in a mould and

2
M.N. Akhtar et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00591

Fig. 1. Systematic diagram for the whole experimental program of the present case study.

compacted with the number of blows specified.

The sample is taken out of the mold after few minutes using a sample extractor. The compaction hammer and well-cleaned mold
assembly were heated to 160 ◦ C. At a uniform temperature, a continuous supply of asphalt material was provided to the mixer. The
flames used for drying and heating have been appropriately adjusted to prevent damage to the aggregate and remove soot or unburned
fuel. For drum-mix plants, the preparation of aggregates above does not apply. In the laboratory mixer, it is required to satisfy the job
mix formula. Then dried aggregate was combined in the amount of each fraction of aggregate before adding in the asphalt. The
calculated asphalt material shall be weighed and inserted into the mixer according to the design criterion and specification of the
material being used at the indicated temperature. The amount of aggregate and asphalt materials required was mixed until a complete
and uniform coating of the asphalt material and aggregate was secured. Mixing time was regulated by the observer. The present case
study’s systematic experimental setup for Marshall Stability Test, which is used as a primary asphalt quality indicator, is shown in
Fig. 1.
Fig. 1 shows the heating process in the oven for 24 h before mixing. Asphalt mixing with the aggregate and other materials in the
asphalt mixer for some time, not more than 90 s, maintaining temperature 160 ◦ C. Fifty blows on each face compacted all prepared
samples by Marshall Hammer. Fig. 1 also shows samples of various trial mixes and curing of porous asphalt samples under 60 ◦ C.
Finally, the prepared sample of porous asphalt is seen in the Marshall Testing Machine for stability test.

3. Results and discussions

3.1. Marshall stability

Marshall flow is a measure of permanent deformation of the asphalt mixtures determined during the Marshall stability test. Ex­
periments have been carried out to investigate the possibility of a porous asphalt design mix with normal bitumen (60/70) grade for
normal traffic conditions. With the experimental matrix of aggradations and asphalt content, 3 Marshall Samples of each series from (A
to J) were tested. Marshall Stability is a condition in which the load displays the maximum value needed when checking a test object
using the Marshall technique for the effects of a press failure. Measurement and calculations of total materials and stability (S) have
been carried out for all mixed samples. Table 2 summarizes the average test values done in each series. The coarse aggregate of size 6.3
mm, 9.5 mm, and 12.5 mm has been used in the mixes. The sieve analysis of natural coarse aggregate (NCA) for this case study, along
with their upper and lower limits set by ASTM-C136-06 [20], has been presented in Fig. 2
The other mixed materials, i.e., fine aggregate (3 %), cement (3.8 %), gypsum (1 %), Stone Dust (1%), and optimum bitumen
content (OBC) 5 %, were fixed in all series (A to J). For the present study, 5% binder content was fixed in all the prepared mixes. The
reason is a reduction in air void (%) with increasing binder content (%). The relationship between air void (%) and binder content for
compacted specimens studied by Putman et al. (2012) showed maximum air void content at 5 % binder content. The Mean Void
Content (MVC) of each mix is presented in Table 2. The samples were compacted to achieve the target dimensions with the desired
voids content between 16–22%. Sample H mix reached the highest stability (26.9 kN), whereas sample E has a minimum (18 kN). The
stability value varies for different aggregate ratios, as shown in Table 2. These results indicate that the deviation in aggregate size has a

3
 M.N. Akhtar et al.
Table 2
Marshall test results.
Mix aggregates (mm) MVC
Sample Ratio Mix Weight Percent of each mix Cement Gypsum Stone Dust Binder Content Impact S (kN) Total
12.5 9.5 6.3 0.075 (%)

Percent (%) 0 43.1 43.1 3 3.8 1 1 5 100

A 0:1:1 50 17 17.20
Weight (g) 0 517.2 517.2 36 45.6 12 12 60 1200
Percent (%) 0 28.7 57.5 3 3.8 1 1 5 100
B 0:1:2 50 22.7 16.52
Weight (g) 0 344.4 690 36 45.6 12 12 60 1200
Percent (%) 0 57.5 28.7 3 3.8 1 1 5 100
C 0:2:1 50 19.3 17.66
Weight (g) 0 690 344.4 36 45.6 12 12 60 1200
Percent (%) 0 21.6 64.6 3 3.8 1 1 5 100
D 0:1:3 50 20 16.10
Weight (g) 0 259.2 775.2 36 45.6 12 12 60 1200
4

Percent (%) 0 64.6 21.6 3 3.8 1 1 5 100

E 0:3:1 50 18 18.30
Weight (g) 0 775.2 259.2 36 45.6 12 12 60 1200
Percent (%) 43.1 43.1 0 3 3.8 1 1 5 100
F 1:1:0 50 24 18.20
Weight (g) 517.2 517.2 0 36 45.6 12 12 60 1200
Percent (%) 28.7 57.5 0 3 3.8 1 1 5 100
G 1:2:0 50 23.5 17.90
Weight (g) 344.4 690 0 36 45.6 12 12 60 1200
Percent (%) 57.5 28.7 0 3 3.8 1 1 5 100
H 2:1:0 50 26.9 19.71
Weight (g) 690 344.4 0 36 45.6 12 12 60 1200
Percent (%) 21.6 64.6 0 3 3.8 1 1 5 100
I 1:3:0 50 21 17.46
Weight (g) 259.2 775.2 0 36 45.6 12 12 60 1200

Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00591

Percent (%) 64.6 21.6 0 3 3.8 1 1 5 100
J 3:1:0 50 19 19.98
Weight (g) 775.2 259.2 0 36 45.6 12 12 60 1200

S: indicates stability. MVC: Mean Void Content.

M.N. Akhtar et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00591

Fig. 2. Grain size distribution curve of natural coarse aggregate.

Fig. 3. Relationship between aggregate mix ratios and stability.

significant impact on the sample’s stability.

The performance of cement and gypsum in Asphalt Mixes was first introduced by [21]. A recent review article by [22] discussed the
effect of different filler materials on Marshall’s characteristics of bitumen mixes. According to the studies conducted by the in­
vestigators mentioned above, ordinary portland cement (OPC) and gypsum in bitumen material can improve the stability of the mixes.
In the present study, an effort has been made to improve the stability of PAP by adding 3.8 % OPC and 1 % gypsum by weight of total
mix materials, respectively. The results obtained show that maximum stability values were found when 3.8 % OPC and 1 % gypsum
were used in mixes (A to J). Adding cement and gypsum at lower percentages improves the Marshall characteristic of the mixes,
particularly its stability, without significantly decreasing the permeability coefficient of the mixes.
The study done by [15] reported the Marshall Stability of 8.274 kN, which is much lower than the present study. Another research
[14] recorded Marshall stability for asphalt concrete 5.89–7.90 kN. The study by [23] shows that polypropylene fiber and fly ash used
as fillers in asphalt mixtures improved Marshall’s stability. The addition of 2 percent Polypropylene fiber has resulted in a stability
value of 20 kN (same as Sample D). As shown in Table 2, the aggregates variation gives massive changes in the stability values. Fig. 3
shows the upper and lower limits in the aggregate gradation of porous asphalt envelope. Another essential factor for the permeable
asphalt pavement is the gap between 2.36 mm–4.75 mm sieve sizes within the suggested aggregate gradation [16]. As per the present
study mentioned in Table 2, a 1:1 ratio of 9.5 mm and 6.3 mm reached maximum stability, whereas the 3:1 ratio was minimum.

5
M.N. Akhtar et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00591

Fig. 4. (a) and (b) Falling head permeability test and side view of the developed model.

Table 3
Effect of permeability on porous asphalt mix design.
Mix Code Permeability (k0) (cm/sec) Permeability (k360) (cm/sec) Reduction (%)

A 0.056 0.031 44.64

B 0.052 0.026 50
C 0.065 0.028 56.92
D 0.049 0.023 53.06
E 0.078 0.032 58.97
F 0.157 0.098 37.57
G 0.131 0.087 33.58
H 0.196 0.112 42.85
I 0.112 0.078 30.35
J 0.393 0.245 37.65

3.2. Permeability

Permeability is a critical feature of porous asphalt. This is also the primary distinction between traditional and porous asphalt
blends. New methods for determining drainage capacity had to be created. A procedure for quantifying this property objectively is
critical for analyzing these mixtures. One of the initial tasks in this research is to establish a technique for measuring permeability. A
model is developed in a lab on the same concept of falling head permeability test as shown in Fig. 4a and b.
( )
aL h1
k = 2.3 log (1)
At h2

Where k is permeability coefficient measured in (cm/s), ‘A’ is the cross-sectional area of the sample measured in (cm2), L is the height
of the sample in (cm), ‘a’ is the cross-sectional tube area (a) (cm2), t is time (t) (s) and h1 and h2 are the starts and end level respectively.
Each sample permeability was measured from the series (A to J) to test the mix seepage characteristics. Initial permeability values on
new porous asphalt layers ranged between 0.4 to 0.04 cm/sec and one-year permeability in the range of 0.245 to 0.02 cm/sec.

3.2.1. Permeability reduction over time

The permeability value at 5 % bitumen content was found to be 0.91 cm/sec. The experimental permeability (k0) is shown in
Table 3, measured simultaneously with the stability test (Marshal Test) in the first observation phase. Significant differences were not
observed in the case of permeability (k0) of freshly mixed samples. Permeability of porous asphalt layers decreases with higher or lower
progression with the age of mix. All kinds of dirt on the pavement and the consequent filling of voids in the layer account for this

6
M.N. Akhtar et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00591

Fig. 5. Relationship between permeability and stability values.

progression. The permeability of composite materials such as stone dust, coarse and fine sand, river bed, and OPC was studied [24–26].
In single cases, post-compaction of the layer can also lead to reduced permeability. In the present study, the samples were tested
without pre-or post-compaction process.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) of Mississippi and North Carolina needs a porous asphalt mixture with a permeability of
at least 30 m/day and 100 m/day. Results of the permeability test at different mix codes are illustrated in Table 3. It can be observed
that the permeability in meters per day ranges from about 440 to 42 for fresh samples and 211 to 20 for one-year samples. However, the
lower range results are on edge over the higher range, reasonably satisfactory for porous asphalt pavement than Mississippi and North
Carolina D.O.T. results discussed by [11]. The word permeability usually refers to the ease with which a porous surface will permeate
permeable water. Permeability in porous asphalt depends on how often the water can flow through interconnected voids. The labo­
ratory work findings in this paper confirm that approximately 50 % reduction in the samples was observed. Table 3 shows the initial
coefficient of permeability (k0), permeability coefficient at 360 days (k360), and the percentage reduction in k is summarized. The
secondary value (k360) was lower than the corresponding initial k (k0) values. The decrease in k in one-year time is higher (A to E) than
(F to J). It shows that the variation in aggregate size affects permeability reduction over time. Permeability elimination is dependent on
a variety of variables, including the climate, traffic loads, the type of blend, and the installation. After five years of traffic, some areas
retain appropriate permeability values; others have become nearly utterly thick within a year. As a result, no consistent support for
calculating permeability over time has been discovered in previous studies. Field findings revealed that, over time, porous asphalt
display a lack of permeability. The systematic review by [27,28] examined many studies exploring the obstruction and closing of voids
due to compaction traffic.

3.2.2. Relationship between Marshall stability and permeability

Porous asphalt’s durability is shorter than the compact mix due to low resistance to disintegration. The development of a new
grading design for porous asphalt [29] was investigated by varying percentages of aggregate with maximum sizes of 20, 14, and 10
mm. Mixtures containing aggregate measures 14 and 10 mm were found to have strong permeability and toughness. Simultaneously,
the gradation needs to be modified for aggregates containing 20 mm to meet the Marshall Stability criterion. Compared to the present
study, most previous studies were smaller and did not investigate Stability and Permeability’s relationship. Table 2 shows that the
average stability was 21 kN, whereas the maximum reached 26.9 kN at 2:1:0. It has also been found that the permeability reduction
rate was high for the (A to E) series, where stability was maximum. The results were supported by [30] mixtures aggregate have large
interconnected voids allowing water to flow freely. However, over time, voids are gradually filled up, which has the adverse effect of
reducing mix permeability but, on the other hand, increases mix stability. A separate graph relationship between permeability versus
stability can be seen in Fig. 5; the combining stability and permeability for various mixes were plotted to determine the balance
between the requirements of stability and permeability.

4. Conclusion

This investigation aims to mitigate the increased risk of flooding and pollution and evaluate porous pavement mixes performance
properties such as permeability and stability at optimal bitumen material. Marshall tests were used to determine the stability of
prepared samples. Based on the principle of the dropping head permeability test, a model was created. The permeability of the freshly
prepared blend was determined, and the permeability of the same samples after one year of exposure to open space was also deter­
mined. Below are the main conclusions of the present study.

i The prepared samples reached satisfactory Marshall Stability results in all series (A to J). The sample H having an aggregate ratio of
2:1:0 (size of aggregate 12.5 mm, 9.5 mm, 6.5 mm), achieved maximum stability of 26.9 kN.

7
M.N. Akhtar et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00591

ii The permeability value was acceptable in all the series of samples. The best Permeability was found in sample J with a permeability
coefficient of 0.394 cm/sec for a fresh sample and 0.245 cm/sec for one-year environment exposure.
iii Among the samples prepared, the design mix (sample J, having an aggregate ratio of (3:1:0), has the best permeability value. The
stability value for sample J is 19 kN, which is in line with the work carried out by past studies. Therefore, sample J is the best design
mix for stability, permeability, and permeability reduction after one year of exposure to the environment.
iv The current work method is simple and effective for calculating the design mix for PAP in practice.

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.

Acknowledgment

The authors acknowledge their gratitude to FBSU, Tabuk Saudi Arabia, for providing lab facilities throughout the research work.
Furthermore, the authors extend their appreciation to the deanship of scientific research at King Khalid University for funding this
work through a research group program under grant number (RGP 2/77/41).

References

[1] J. Gerardu, F. Van Gorkum, J. Van der Plas, Les enrobés drainants en Hollande. Une evaluation, Rev Gen Routes Aerodr, 1982.
[2] J. Chavet, Evaluation of the Belgian experiments with porous asphalts–bitumen, flexible and durable, in: 3rd Eurobitume Symposium 1985, The Hague,
Netherlands, September 11–13, 1985, Publication of: Eurobitume, 1985.
[3] Y. Decoene, Enseignements tirés de 10 ans de recherche sur les enrobés drainants en Belgique, 4EME EUROBITUME SYMPOSIUM 1989-MADRID, 4-6 OCT. 1989
(1989).
[4] M. Pasetto, N. Baldo, Electric arc furnace steel slags in “high performance” asphalt mixes: a laboratory characterization, TMS Fall Extraction and Processing
Division: Sohn International Symposium (2006) 443–450.
[5] M. Pasetto, N. Baldo, Comparative performance analysis of bituminous mixtures with EAF steel slags: a laboratory evaluation, in: Proceedings of the 2008 Global
Symposium on Recycling, Waste Treatment and Clean Technology, REWAS, 2008, pp. 565–570.
[6] X. Kuang, J.-Y. Kim, I. Gnecco, S. Raje, G. Garofalo, J.J. Sansalone, Particle separation and hydrologic control by cementitious permeable pavement, Transp. Res.
Rec. 2025 (2007) 111–117.
[7] C. Pagotto, M. Legret, P. Le Cloirec, Comparison of the hydraulic behaviour and the quality of highway runoff water according to the type of pavement, Water
Res. 34 (2000) 4446–4454.
[8] B.O. Brattebo, D.B. Booth, Long-term stormwater quantity and quality performance of permeable pavement systems, Water Res. 37 (2003) 4369–4376.
[9] C. Carlson, O. Barreteau, P. Kirshen, K. Foltz, Storm water management as a public good provision problem: survey to understand perspectives of low-impact
development for urban storm water management practices under climate change, J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 141 (2015), p. 04014080.
[10] J. Mullaney, P. Rikalainen, C. Jefferies, Pollution profiling and particle size distribution within permeable paving units–with and without a geotextile, Manag.
Environ. Qual. Int. J. (2012).
[11] B.J. Putman, L.C. Kline, Comparison of mix design methods for porous asphalt mixtures, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 24 (2012) 1359–1367.
[12] J. Drake, A. Bradford, T. Van Seters, Stormwater quality of spring–summer-fall effluent from three partial-infiltration permeable pavement systems and
conventional asphalt pavement, J. Environ. Manag. 139 (2014) 69–79.
[13] W. A. P. Association (Ed.), Porous Asphalt Pavements, Wisconsin Asphalt Pavement Association, Madison, Wis, 2015.
[14] O.M. Ogundipe, Recent publications view all, Transp. Res. Procedia 14 (2016) 685–693.
[15] A. Sharma, Satyender, D. Sharma, Laboratory Performance of Porous Asphalt Pavement, 2017.
[16] H. Nakanishi, M. Hamzah, M.M. Hasan, P. Karthigeyan, O. Shaur, Mix design and application of porous asphalt pavement using Japanese technology, IOP Conf.
Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. (2019), p. 012026.
[17] M. AASHTO, Standard Specification for Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder, 320-10, 2010.
[18] C. ASTM, Standard Test Method for Resistance to Degradationof Small-Size Coarse Aggregate by Abrasion and Impact in the Los Angeles Machine, 131-01 atau
AASHTO T 96-02, 2021.
[19] S. D. ASTM, Standard Test Method for Flat Particles, Elongated Particles, or Flat and Elongated Particles in Coarse Aggregate ed, 2010.
[20] ASTM-C136-06, Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates, 2006.
[21] M.N. Fatani, A.M. Khan, Improvement of dune sand asphalt mixes of pavement bases, Eng. Sci. 2 (1990).
[22] G.M. Harun-Or-Rashid, M.M. Islam, A review paper on: effect of different types of filler materials on Marshall characteristics of bitumen hot mix, Int. J. Mater.
Sci. Appl. 9 (2020) 40.
[23] I. Sholichin, D.A. Sutama, Variations in the Addition of Polypropylene Fiber, Fly Ash and Immersion in Asphalt Mixtures on Stability and Flow, 2021.
[24] M.N. Akhtar, J. Akhtar, O.H. Al Hattamleh, A.M. Halahla, Sustainable fly ash based roof tiles with waste polythene fibre: an experimental study, Open J. Civ.
Eng. 6 (2016) 314.
[25] J. Alam, M. Khan, M. Akhtar, Fly ash based brick tiles: an experimental study, Int. J. Emerg. Trends Eng. Dev 6 (2013) 35–44.
[26] M. Akhtar, M. Khan, J. Akhtar, Use of the falling-head method to assess permeability of fly ash based roof tiles with waste polythene fibre, Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 5
(2014) 476–483.
[27] S. Suresha, G. Varghese, A.U. Ravi Shankar, Laboratory and theoretical evaluation of clogging behaviour of porous friction course mixes, Int. J. Pavement Eng.
11 (2010) 61–70.
[28] L.D. Poulikakos, M.N. Partl, A Comparison of Swiss and Japanese Porous Asphalt through Various Mechanical Tests, 2003.
[29] H. Hardiman, Application of packing theory on grading design for porous asphalt mixtures, Civ. Eng. Dimens. 6 (2004) 57–63.
[30] M. Hamzah, M. Samat, K. Joon, R. Muniandy, D. Tech, G.-k. Bangwha2-dong, Modification of aggregate grading for porous asphalt, in: Proceedings of the 3rd
Eurasphaly and Eurobotume Congress, Vienna, Austria, 2004.