## 6 Results and Discussion  
For the ash-free mix, it was decided to start varying the content from 4.0%, varying from 0.5% to 6.0%, thus resulting in five contents. Five copies were executed for each grade chosen. Table 5 documents all the average parameters for each mix content. It shows also the results of the densities for each binder content of the M1 mixture (without ash) and the tests of creep, tensile strength and modulus of resilience, values that conform to the reference standard [190]. For the mixture with ash, the test results are presented in Table 6, also referenced by the standard [191]. There is little difference when comparing the results of the mixes with and without ash (Figures 3 and 4). However, it is important to highlight the difference in the behavior of the mixtures in the tensile strength (RT) and resilient modulus (MR) tests. The test is performed to determine the modulus of resilience (Figure 4), with the purpose of determining the relationships between recoverable deformations (resilience), with the cracks that appeared in the asphalt coatings. The tests are based on the energy stored in the elastically deformed body that is returned when the stresses causing the deformations cease. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Results of Attempts** & **I** & **II** & **III** & **IV** & **V** \\ \hline CAP Amount (\%) & 4.00 & 4.50 & 5.00 & 5.50 & 6.00 \\ Measured Specific Mass (Gmm) & 2.542 & 2.510 & 2.498 & 2.467 & 2.432 \\ Specific Apparent Mass (Gmb) & 2.318 & 2.380 & 2.386 & 2.390 & 2.405 \\ \% Voids (\% V) & 8.80 & 5.19 & 4.47 & 3.12 & 1.10 \\ Voids Filled with Bitumen (VCB) & 9.19 & 10.62 & 11.82 & 13.03 & 14.30 \\ Mineral Aggregate Voids (VAM) & 17.99 & 15.81 & 16.29 & 16.15 & 15.40 \\ Bitumen-Vacuum Ratio (RBV) & 51.08 & 67.17 & 72.56 & 80.68 & 92.86 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} (DNT-ES 031/2006).  
\end{table} 
Table 6: Marshall dosing parameters obtained for mixture M2 (with ash) and results of mechanical tests. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Reference** & **VV(\%)** & **RBV (\%)** & **VAM (\%)** & **ESTABILITY (kgf)** & **RT (MPa)** \\ \hline \hline (DNIT-ES 031/2006) & 3–5 & 75–82 & TMN 19 mm & \textgreater{}500 & \textgreater{}0.65 \\
**Results of Attempts** & **I** & **II** & **III** & **IV** & **V** \\ CAP Amount (\%) & 4.00 & 4.50 & 5.00 & 5.50 & 6.00 \\ Density Max. Theoretical & 2.655 & 2.632 & 2.610 & 2.589 & 2.567 \\ Apparent Specific Mass (Gmb) & 2.365 & 2.387 & 2.388 & 2.383 & 2.394 \\ \% Voids (\% V) & 10.92 & 9.31 & 8.51 & 7.96 & 6.74 \\ Vacuum with binder (VCB) & 9.38 & 10.65 & 11.83 & 12.99 & 14.24 \\ Aggregate gaps. Mineral (VAM) & 20.30 & 19.96 & 20.34 & 20.95 & 20.98 \\ Asphal-Void Ratio (RBV) & 46.21 & 53.36 & 58.16 & 62.00 & 67.87 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} (DNIT-ES 031/2006).  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Marshall dosing parameters obtained for mixture M1 (without ash) and results of mechanical tests. The test is standardized in Brazil by the [192] standard, and is conducted by repeatedly applying a load in the vertical diametric plane on the regular cylindrical specimen. For this test the [PERSON]'s ratio of 0.35 was adopted (Figure 5). Analyzing the MR curves, it is observed that the ashless mixture has greater elasticity, or it can also be determined that a greater stiffness determines the amount of ash in the mixture, which in turn maintains an elastic balance in the mixture. The mean MR was taken as the arithmetic mean of all the results obtained in the tests after applying the Grubbs test. In this research, no extreme value was ruled out by the criteria adopted. The value of the average MR behavior, characteristic of each mixture, is considered as the arithmetic mean of the results that fell within the 95% confidence interval. Figure 4: Resilience Module. Figure 3: Maximum Specific Mass Measured (Gmm). There was a decrease of approximately 12% in the MR value of the mixture M1 (5.3%) relative to M2 (5.2%). Mix M2 is slightly less stiff than M1, despite its lower binder content.