Volumetric Balance and Marshall Response of AC-WC Mixtures Incorporating Kampar River Sand as a Partial Replacement for Stone Dust

Material/property	Bulk specific gravity	SSD specific gravity	Apparent specific gravity	Absorption/result [%]
Crushed aggregate, 19 mm	2.477	2.523	2.598	1.881
Crushed aggregate, 12 mm	2.554	2.571	2.598	0.659
Stone dust	2.631	2.632	2.633	0.040
Kampar River sand	2.580	2.630	2.720	2.040
Los Angeles abrasion [%]	-	-	-	27.18

Table 2:

Characteristics and processing temperatures of the 60/70 penetration-grade binder

Property/process	Standard	Test condition	Result
Penetration	SNI 2456:2011	25 °C, 5 s	61.4 [0.1 mm] (6.14 mm)
Softening point	SNI 2434:2011	Initial water temperature 25 °C; two results	48.15 [°C] (48.25; 48.05)
Ductility	SNI 2432:2011	25 °C; pulling rate 5 cm/min	146.5 [cm]
Kinematic viscosity	SNI 06-6837-2002 / ASTM D2170	135 °C	300 [cSt] (300 mm²/s)
Mixing temperature	Laboratory procedure	Recorded operating temperature	160 [°C]
Compaction temperature	Laboratory procedure	Recorded operating range	140–150 [°C]
Binder specific gravity	SNI 2441:2011 / ASTM D70	25 °C	1.030 [g/cm³] (1.03 kg/L)

* Note. The reported softening point is the mean of two measurements, 48.25 and 48.05 °C. The equivalent units 300 cSt and 300 mm²/s are both provided for clarity. A value of Gb = 1.030 was used in all volumetric calculations.

Table 3:

Aggregate proportions during the replacement stage

Fine-fraction replacement [%]	19-mm aggregate [%]	12-mm aggregate [%]	Stone dust [%]	River sand [% of total aggregate]	River sand [%] of fine fraction
0	13.00	26.00	61.00	0.00	0
5	13.00	26.00	57.95	3.05	5
10	13.00	26.00	54.90	6.10	10
15	13.00	26.00	51.85	9.15	15
20	13.00	26.00	48.80	12.20	20

Recalculated combined gradations at the five river-sand replacement levels

Fine materials used in the study: (a) stone dust and (b) Kampar River sand

Source location of Kampar River sand: (a) Sumatra context, (b) regional Riau context, and (c) the Danau Bingkuang Kampar River corridor. Base map: Google Maps; location information provided by PT Sumber Mineral Riau; adapted by the authors

Documentation of materials, compacted specimens, and Marshall testing: (a) aggregate weighed and packaged by batch, (b) compacted Marshall specimens, and (c) loading apparatus

Marshall indicator curves used to determine the optimum binder content (binder content 5.0–6.5%)

Table 4:

Recalculated combined gradations and the adopted AC-WC specification envelope

Sieve size [mm]	Passing, 0% [%]	Passing, 5% [%]	Passing, 10% [%]	Passing, 15% [%]	Passing, 20% [%]	Lower limit [%]	Upper limit [%]
4.750	61.87	62.26	62.65	63.04	63.43	53	69
2.360	46.56	46.95	47.34	47.73	48.12	33	53
1.180	34.89	35.54	36.18	36.83	37.47	21	40
0.600	27.46	27.45	27.44	27.43	27.41	14	30
0.300	15.77	15.55	15.33	15.11	14.89	9	22
0.150	7.91	7.61	7.31	7.01	6.71	6	15
0.075	5.95	5.67	5.39	5.10	4.82	4	9

* Note. The recalculated gradations account for the contribution of all four aggregate components at each sieve size. As shown in Table 4 and Figure 1, every mixture remained within the adopted AC-WC gradation envelope.

Table 5:

Specimen-level data from separate batches at binder contents of 5.9 and 6.0%

Binder content [%]	Specimen	Gmb	Gmm	VIM [%]	VMA [%]	VFA [%]	Stability [kg] / Flow [mm] / MQ [kg/mm]
5.9	1	2.299	2.401	4.26	16.45	74.13	1351.3 / 3.15 / 428.98
5.9	2	2.297	2.401	4.32	16.51	73.80	1322.2 / 3.11 / 425.15
5.9	3	2.297	2.401	4.34	16.52	73.75	1394.9 / 3.21 / 434.54
5.9	Mean	2.298	2.401	4.31	16.49	73.89	1356.1 / 3.16 / 429.61
6.0	1	2.306	2.397	3.79	16.27	76.69	1060.7 / 3.10 / 342.16
6.0	2	2.307	2.397	3.77	16.25	76.81	1176.9 / 3.05 / 385.88
6.0	3	2.308	2.397	3.73	16.22	77.00	1133.3 / 3.05 / 371.59
6.0	Mean	2.307	2.397	3.76	16.25	76.83	1123.7 / 3.07 / 366.41

Effect of river-sand replacement on mean Marshall stability and Marshall quotient

Mean VMA and VIM responses relative to the adopted specification limits

Table 6:

Marshall results at 5.9% binder content, reported as the mean ± standard deviation of three specimens

Replacement [% of fine fraction]	Gmm*	Gsb	Gmb	Stability [kg]	Flow [mm]	MQ [kg/mm]	VMA [%]	VFA [%]	VIM [%]	Pbe [%] **
0	2.401	2.589	2.298 ± 0.001	1356.13 ± 36.59	3.16 ± 0.05	429.56 ± 4.72	16.49 ± 0.04	73.89 ± 0.21	4.31 ± 0.04	5.462
5	2.401	2.588	2.313 ± 0.002	1951.87 ± 58.71	3.12 ± 0.02	626.30 ± 20.38	15.91 ± 0.07	76.88 ± 0.42	3.68 ± 0.08	5.448
10	2.401	2.586	2.319 ± 0.009	1753.30 ± 160.07	3.45 ± 0.04	508.31 ± 47.59	15.60 ± 0.32	78.24 ± 1.87	3.40 ± 0.36	5.419
15	2.401	2.585	2.351 ± 0.001	2063.27 ± 38.48	3.70 ± 0.01	557.62 ± 8.97	14.42 ± 0.03	85.55 ± 0.20	2.08 ± 0.03	5.404
20	2.401	2.583	2.355 ± 0.001	1869.53 ± 183.95	3.84 ± 0.03	487.49 ± 51.01	14.21 ± 0.04	86.50 ± 0.27	1.92 ± 0.04	5.375
Specification	-	-	-	≥ 800	2–4	≥ 250	≥ 15	≥ 65	3–5	-

* Note. Results are reported as the mean ± standard deviation of three independent batches. *The appendix reported Gmm = 2.401 for all mixtures, whereas Gsb was calculated or reported separately for each composition. VIM, VMA, and VFA were recalculated from specimen-level Gmb.

** Pbe was derived from Gse = 2.6196 and the Gsb of each composition; it was not measured directly. Gmm should still be verified for each composition before these data are used as the basis for a field mixture design.

Table 7:

Specimen-level Gmb and Gmm data for the replacement stage at 5.9% binder content

Replacement [% fine fraction]	Specimen	Gsb	Gmb	Gmm	VIM [%]	VMA [%]	VFA [%]
0	1	2.589	2.299	2.401	4.25	16.46	74.21
0	2	2.589	2.297	2.401	4.31	16.52	73.89
0	3	2.589	2.297	2.401	4.33	16.53	73.83
5	1	2.588	2.312	2.401	3.70	15.99	76.81
5	2	2.588	2.315	2.401	3.58	15.88	77.59
5	3	2.588	2.311	2.401	3.74	16.02	76.59
10	1	2.586	2.309	2.401	3.81	16.08	76.32
10	2	2.586	2.325	2.401	3.16	15.51	79.63
10	3	2.586	2.324	2.401	3.20	15.55	79.44
15	1	2.585	2.350	2.401	2.11	14.59	85.57
15	2	2.585	2.351	2.401	2.07	14.57	85.77
15	3	2.585	2.352	2.401	2.04	14.54	85.97
20	1	2.583	2.354	2.401	1.95	14.46	86.50
20	2	2.583	2.356	2.401	1.87	14.39	87.03
20	3	2.583	2.355	2.401	1.90	14.42	86.79

* Note. VIM, VMA, and VFA were recalculated using the composition-specific Gsb values, specimen-level Gmb values, and the Gmm value reported in the laboratory appendix. Because composition-specific Gmm values were not available, the table supports transparency of the current calculation basis but does not replace the need for future Gmm verification.

Table 8:

Compact pass/fail summary for the adopted Marshall and volumetric criteria

Replacement [% fine fraction]	Stability ≥ 800 kg	Flow 2–4 mm	MQ ≥ 250 kg/mm	VMA ≥ 15%	VFA ≥ 65%	VIM 3–5%	Overall
0	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass
5	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass
10	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass
15	Pass	Pass	Pass	Fail	Pass	Fail	Fail
20	Pass	Pass	Pass	Fail	Pass	Fail	Fail

* Note. Pass/fail status was assigned from the mean values in Table 6 and the adopted limits used in this study. The 15 and 20% mixtures failed overall because their VMA and VIM values were below the specified limits, even though their mechanical indicators satisfied the adopted thresholds.

Table 9:

Table caption, the numbering is automatic, use “Update Field”

Response	df1	df2	F	p	Eta-squared
Gmb [-]	4	10	111.949	< 0.001	0.978
Stability [kg]	4	10	16.911	< 0.001	0.871
Flow [mm]	4	10	319.646	< 0.001	0.992
MQ [kg/mm]	4	10	15.372	< 0.001	0.860
VMA [%]	4	10	131.026	< 0.001	0.981
VFA [%]	4	10	120.855	< 0.001	0.980
VIM	4	10	111.949	< 0.001	0.978

* Note. Eta-squared represents the proportion of total variation associated with replacement level. The ANOVA for Gmb, VMA, VFA, and VIM was recalculated from specimen-level mass data using the composition-specific Gsb values. The large effect sizes should not be interpreted as overcoming the limitations of the small number of replicates or the need to verify Gmm for each composition.

References

Authors

Metrics

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/cee-2027-0021 | Journal eISSN: 2199-6512 (formerly 1336-5835) | Journal ISSN: 1336-5835

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Submitted on: Jul 12, 2026

Accepted on: Aug 6, 2026

Published on: Sep 17, 2026

Published by: University of Žilina

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

Keywords:

AC-WC,

optimum binder content,

Kampar River sand,

Marshall characteristics,

VIM,

VMA

Related subjects:

Business and economics,

Business management,

Industries,

Environmental management

© 2026 Doni Rinaldi Basri, Rahmat Tisnawan, Novreta Ersyi Darfia, Zulham Shadri, published by University of Žilina
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

AHEAD OF PRINT

Volumetric Balance and Marshall Response of AC-WC Mixtures Incorporating Kampar River Sand as a Partial Replacement for Stone Dust

Figures & Tables

Table 1:

Table 2:

Table 3:

Figure 1:

Figure 2:

Figure 3:

Figure 4:

Figure 5:

Table 4:

Table 5:

Figure 6:

Figure 7:

Table 6:

Table 7:

Table 8:

Table 9:

Paradigm

My account