Guided By: Prof. Bhavik G. Patel Prof. Chirag B. Patel
Guided By: Prof. Bhavik G. Patel
Prof. Chirag B. Patel
INTRODUCTION
The use of plastics in various places as packing materials and the products such as bottle, polythene sheet, containers packing strips etc. are increasing day by day.
Plastic is a non-biodegradable material and researchers found that the material can remain on earth for 4500 years without degradation.
The threat of disposal of plastic will not solve until the practical steps are not initiated at the ground level. It is possible to improve the performance of bituminous mixed used in the surfacing course of roads.
This results in production of plastic waste from all sort livings from industrial manufactures to domestic users.
Studies reported in the used of re-cycled plastic, mainly polyethylene, in the manufacture of blended indicated reduced permanent deformation in the form of rutting and reduced low – temperature cracking of the pavement surfacing.
Bituminous binders are widely used by paving industry. A pavement has different layers. The main constituents of bituminous concrete (BC) are aggregate and bitumen.
Generally, all the hard surfaced pavement types are categorized into 2 groups, i.e. flexible and rigid.
Road surface with neat bitumen can cause bleeding in hot climate, may develop cracks in cold climate, possess fewer loads bearing capacity and can cause serious damages because of higher axle load in present conditions due to rapid infrastructure development.
OBJECTIVES
To utilize waste plastic as a pavements ingredient.
To evaluate the physical properties of modified bitumen and conventional bitumen.
To evaluate the properties of aggregates by coating plastic over it and by blending the plastic with bitumen in different ratios (LDPE, HDPE) and comparing with unmodified materials
To evaluate the performance test like Marshall Stability using polymer modified bitumen and conventional bitumen.
To study & compare the effect of modified bitumen in the bituminous concrete mix design with conventional bitumen.
To compare the cost of modified bitumen with conventional bitumen.
NEED OF MODIFIED BITUMEN
Increasingly heavy traffic condition.
Sever climate conditions with daily and seasonal variations of atmospheric temperature.
Desire to maintain roads at high serviceability level.
Higher degree of flexibility at low temperature.
Prevention of cracking ,raveling , deformation & creep failure.
Reduced cost of maintenance and vehicle operation cost.
SOURCES OF MODIFIER
1. LDPE 2. HDPE
Imtiyaz khan and Dr. P.J. Gandaliya, “Utilization of waste polyethylene material in Bituminous concrete mix for improved performance of flexible pavements.” International journal of scientific research, September – 2012 Vol-1 Pg no. 57,58
The bitumen modified with 4% polythene waste is showing better performance as compared to other mixes the marshall stability which is strength parameter has shown increasing trend with a maximum increase percent of 34.26%as compared to Conventional mix when modified with 4% Polythene Waste.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Afroz Sultana.SK, K.S.B. Prasad, “Utilization of waste plastic as a
strength modifier in surface course of flexible and rigid pavements.” International journal of engineering research and application, July-August 2012 Vol-2 PgNo.1185to1191
In this study they investigate the potential use of waste plastic as modifier for asphalt concrete and cement concrete pavements.
By using plastic as a coating over aggregates, the properties of aggregates are improved. This shows hat weak aggregates can be used in construction by using plastic as a binder material.
Mrs.Vidula Swami, Abhijeet Jirge, Karan patil, Suhas patil, Sushil patil, Karan salokhe , “Use of waste plastic in construction of bituminous road.” international journal of engineering science and technology , May -2012, vol-4 , 2351 -2355.
The problems like bleeding are reduce in hot temperature
region.
Plastic has property of absorbing sound, which also help in reducing the sound pollution of heavy traffic.
The waste plastics thus can be put to use and it ultimately improves the quality and performance of road.
Total material cost of the project is reduced by 7.99%
Problem Identification
Selection Of Material
Testing On Material
Testing On Bituminous Mix
Bitumen LDPE HDPE
Aggregate
Result
Conclusion
Cost Analysis
Analysis Of Result
METHODOLOGY
TEST ON AGGREGATE
Aggregate Impact Test:
This test is sufficient to determine the toughness of the road aggregates.
It also use for assess their suitability in road construction on the basis of impact value.
Flakiness Index
This test is used for determine the
thickness of the aggregate.
The test is applicable to sizes larger
than 6.3 mm.
Elongation Index
This test is used for determine the length of the aggregate.
The elongation test is not applicable for sizes for smaller than 6.3 mm.
Specific gravity & water absorption Test
The specific gravity of an aggregate is considered to a measure of the quality or strength of the material.
The specific gravity is calculated by dividing the dry weight of aggregate by the weight of equal volume of water.
Water absorption is not grater than the 2% of total weight of aggregate.
Crushing Value Test
The hardness of coarse aggregate may be assessed by
aggregate crushing test.
Abrasion Value Test
It is used for determine abrasion value of given road aggregate.
As per IS 2386 PART IV the permissible limit of abrasion value test is maximum 30%.
RESULT OF AGGREGATE TESTING
Sr. no Tests Method Test Result Permissible Limit
1 Impact test IS 2386 PART IV 19.40 % Max 27 %
2 Flakiness & Elongation
(shape) test
IS 2386 PART I 27.20 % Max 30%
3 Specific gravity
IS 2386 PART III
Coarse Aggregate 20 mm 2.76
2.5 to 3.0 Coarse Aggregate 10 mm 2.64
Coarse Aggregate 6 mm 2.80
Stone dust 2.72
water absorption test 0.94% Max 2%
4 Crushing test IS 2386 PART IV 22.8% Max 30%
5 Abrasion value test IS 2386 PART IV 11.14% Max 30%
Penetration Test
A grade of 80/100 bitumen means the penetration value is in
the range 80 to 100 at standard test conditions. In hot
climates, a lower penetration grade is preferred. The Figure
shows a schematic Penetration Test setup.
TESTS ON BITUMEN
Softening Point Test Softening point denotes the temperature at which the bitumen
attains a particular degree of softening under the specifications of test.
The test is conducted by using Ring and Ball apparatus.
Ductility Test
Ductility is the property of bitumen that permits it to undergo great deformation or elongation.
Ductility is defined as the distance in cm, A minimum ductility value of 75 cm has been specified.
Flash and Fire Point test
Flash Point:- The flash point of the material is the lowest
temperature at which the vapor of substance momentarily
takes fire in the form of the flash under specified condition
of the test.
Fire Point:- The fire point is the lowest temperature at
which the material gets ignited and burns under specified
condition of test.
Flash and Fire point test
RESULT OF BITUMEN TESTING
Sr. no
Types of test Test method Result Permissible Limit
1 Penetration test IS: 1203-1978 64 60 to 70
2 Softening point test IS: 1205-1978 45 40 to 55
3 Ductility test IS: 1208-1978 80 75 (min)
4 Specific Gravity IS : 1202-1978 1.02 0.99 (min)
5
Flash Point
IS:1209-1978
245
273 90 to 370 °C Fire Point
MARSHALL STABILITY TEST
Physical Properties Of Aggregate
Aggregate constitutes the granular part in bituminous concrete mixtures which contributes up to 90-95 % of the mixture weight and contributes to most of the load bearing & strength characteristics of the mixture.
Hence, the quality and physical properties of the aggregates should be controlled to ensure a good pavement.
MARSHALL STABILITY TEST
PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS OF AGGREGATE As per MORTH Specifications the aggregate shall be conform to
the grading given in following table.
Nominal aggregate size 13 mm 10 mm
Layer Thickness 35-40 mm 25-30 mm
IS Sieve (mm) Cumulative % by weight of total aggregate passing
26.5 100
19 79-100 100
13.2 59-79 79-100
9.5 52-72 70-88
4.75 35-55 53-71
2.36 28-44 42-58
1.18 20-34 34-48
0.6 15-37 26-38
0.3 10-20 18-28
0.15 5-13 12-20
0.075 2-8 4-10
Proposed Combined Gradation of BC
Sieve Size 20 mm 10 mm 6 mm Stone Dust Combined
Gradation Lower limit
Upper
Limit
26.5 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
19 67.54 100 100 100 98.30 79 100
13.2 29.43 100 100 100 71.90 59 79
9.5 10.37 70.39 100 100 66.53 52 72
4.75 6.87 35.02 63.75 100 42.03 35 55
2.36 4.4 20.28 30.74 100 28.90 28 44
1.18 3.2 12.84 12.73 84.06 22.90 20 34
0.6 2.31 9.69 5.73 63.25 18.13 15 27
0.3 1.68 7.56 4.35 38.88 14.80 10 20
0.15 1.17 6.3 3.45 18.17 7.63 5 13
0.075 8.87 2.37 2.08 5.57 3.63 2 8
Mix proportion
20 mm 10 mm 6 mm Stone Dust Total
36 % 10 % 25 % 29 % 100 %
100 98.30
71.90 66.53
42.03
28.90
22.90 18.13
14.80
7.63 3.63
100
79
59
52
35
28
20 15
10 5 2
100 100
79
72
55
44
34
27
20
13 8
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Gra
dat
ion
Sieve Size
Blending of Aggregate
Combined Gradation
Lower limit
Upper Limit
Physical Properties Of Modified Aggregate
% of
Plastic
Aggregate impact value
IS 2386 (part IV)
%
Abrasion value Test IS
2386 (part IV)
%
Aggregate Crushing Value
IS 2386 (part IV)
%
0 19.4 21.42 22.8
1 17.32 18.67 19.52
2 14.21 16.37 17.9
3 13.73 15.58 15.61
4 10.84 12.02 11.39
Modified Aggregate Natural Aggregate
Physical Properties Of Modified Bitumen
Bitumen is binder in bituminous concrete and in this research the bitumen modified with two modifiers and after doing modification of bitumen the change in physical properties of bitumen should be check first and is shown as below.
% of Modifier Softening point(°C)
(IS: 1205 – 1978)
Penetration value (mm)
(IS: 1203 - 1978)
Ductility (cm)
(IS: 1208 – 1978)
0 45 64 80
1 47 61 59
2 48 57 43
3 52 55 30.5
4 55 51 21.5
Result of Polymer Modified Bitumen
First we find optimum binder content for bituminous mix design by Marshall Stability test. We take bitumen as 4%, 4.5%, 5%, and 5.5% by weight of mix and check the stability, density and flow. In table we show that we get maximum stability and density at the 5% bitumen.
Hence we adopt 5% bitumen for mix design and then modified the bitumen with 1%, 2%, 3% and 4% modifier by weight of bitumen and also modified aggregate with 1%, 2%, 3% and 4% modifier by weight of aggregate.
Then conducting the test using modified bitumen and modified aggregate. Result of Marshall Stability test as shown in the table below for neat and modified bitumen and modified aggregate.
Optimum Binder Content
Sr. No Bitumen % By Wt.
of Mix
Bulk Density (Gmb)
Air Voids %
VMA % VFB %
Stability (Kg.)
Flow mm
1 4.00% 2.356
8.39 17.63 52.41 988.50 2.40
2 4.50% 2.348
7.97 18.33 56.50 1087.70 3.10
3 5.00% 2.390 5.01 17.33 67.60 1232.30 3.50
4 5.50% 2.382
5.18 18.02 71.28 1177.40 4.2
Test Result of Bituminous Concrete Mix Design with Neat Bitumen by Marshall Method
Test Result of Bituminous Concrete Mix Design with Modified Bitumen (HDPE) by Marshall Method
Sr.
No Bitumen % By Wt.
of Mix
Modifier % By Wt.
of Bitumen
Bulk Density (Gmb)
Air Voids %
VMA %
VFB %
Stability (Kg.)
Flow mm
1 5.00% 1.00% 2.392 5.62 17.34 67.61 1254.4 3.5
2 5.00% 2.00% 2.402
5.31 17.09 68.91 1273.4 3.1
3 5.00% 3.00% 2.415 4.97 16.81 70.41 1360.9 2.9
4 5.00% 4.00% 2.420
5.00 16.86 70.35 1316.7 2.7
Test Result of Bituminous Concrete Mix Design with Modified Aggregate (LDPE) by Marshall Method
Sr. No
Bitumen % By Wt.
of Mix
Modifier % By Wt.
of Bitumen
Bulk Density (Gmb)
Air Voids
%
VMA %
VFB %
Stability (Kg.)
Flow mm
1 5.00% 1.00% 2.309 5.50 17.26 68.14 1192.20 3.70
2 5.00% 2.00% 2.403 5.44 17.22 68.40 1272.40 3.20
3 5.00% 3.00% 2.411 5.35 17.17 68.82 1370.40 2.90
4 5.00% 4.00% 2.417 5.19 17.04 69.52 1417.90 2.60
Comparison Of Bituminous Concrete mix with Using Different Modifier
Comparison of stability, flow, bulk density, air void, VMA and VFB by using the different modifier like HDPE and LDPE in bituminous concrete mix as shown below.
1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00%
PMB 1254.4 1273.4 1360.9 1316.7
PCA 1236.5 1272.4 1370.4 1417.9
1000
1050
1100
1150
1200
1250
1300
1350
1400
1450
Stab
ility
, Kg
% of Modifier
BCM with different Modifier
Stability Vs Binder %
1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00%
PMB 3.5 3.1 2.9 2.7
PCA 3.7 3.2 2.9 2.6
2
2.5
3
3.5
4Fl
ow
, mm
% of Modifier
BCM with different Modifier
Flow Vs Binder %
1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00%
PMB 2.392 2.402 2.415 2.420
PCA 2.399 2.403 2.411 2.417
2.375
2.380
2.385
2.390
2.395
2.400
2.405
2.410
2.415
2.420
2.425
Den
sity
, gm
/cc
% of Modifier
BCM with different Modifier
PMB PCA
Density Vs Binder %
1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00%
PMB 5.62 5.31 4.97 5.00
PCA 5.5 5.44 5.35 5.19
4
4.5
5
5.5
6A
ir V
oid
s, %
% of Modifier
BCM with different Modifier
PMB PCA
Air voids Vs Binder %
1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00%
PMB 17.34 17.09 16.81 16.86
PCA 17.26 17.22 17.17 17.04
16.50
16.70
16.90
17.10
17.30
17.50
VM
A, %
% of Modifier
BCM with different Modifier
PMB PCA
VMA Vs Binder %
1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00%
PMB 67.61 68.91 70.41 70.35
PCA 68.14 68.4 68.82 69.52
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
VFB
, %
% of Modifier
BCM with different Modifier
PMB PCA
VFB Vs Binder %
SUMMARY
In term of flow parameter, it is obviously clear that the flow value is decrease with increase in the modifier and the stability value increase with the increase in the percentage of modifier.
From the result we get the high value of stability by adding 3 % of HDPE in the bitumen and by modifying the aggregate with 4% LDPE. We can see the flow value of the modified bituminous mix is decrease.
COST ANALYSIS
Economic Analysis
This gives the details of a comparative cost study on Waste plastic HDPE in Bitumen and LDPE with aggregate and conventional bituminous road construction.
For that we take cost of 1 km national highway of 14 meter wide and the depth is 40 mm. We find the material cost for the same and compare with convenient bitumen mix with the modified bitumen mix. Rate analysis was done as per R&B SOR 2012-13.
Length * Width * Thickness = 1000*14*0.04 = 560 cum
Economic Analysis Of Conventional Bitumen
Sr. No. Description Unit Qty. Rate Cost Total Cost
Material Required
1 Bitumen 5% of Mix Tonne 67.2 43681.6 2935404.86
2 20 - 10 mm 36% Cum 191.52 550 105336
3 10 - 6 mm 10% Cum 53.2 520 27664
4 6 mm below 25% Cum 133 365 48545
5 Stone Dust 29% Cum 154.28 150 23142 3140091.86
QUANTITY OF ROAD
Economic Analysis of Polymer modified bitumen (HDPE)
Sr.
No. Description Unit Qty. Rate Cost Total Cost
Material Required
1 Bitumen 5% of Mix Tonne 65.184 43681.6 2847342.72
2 Modifier (HDPE) 3% of
Bitumen Tonne 2.01 16000 32160
3 20 - 10 mm 36% Cum 191.52 550 105336
4 10 - 6 mm 10% Cum 53.2 520 27664
5 6 mm below 25% Cum 133 365 48545
6 Stone Dust 29% Cum 154.28 150 23142 3084189.72
Sr.
No. Description Unit Qty. Rate Cost Total Cost
Material Required
1 Bitumen 5% of Mix Tonne 67.2 43681.6 2935404.86
2 Modifiers (LDPE) 4%
of Aggregate Tonne 21.28 12000 255360
3 20 - 10 mm 36% Cum 183.86 550 101123
4 10 - 6 mm 10% Cum 51.07 520 26556.4
5 6 mm below 25% Cum 127.68 365 46603.2
6 Stone Dust 29% Cum 148.11 150 22216.5 3387263.96
Economic Analysis of PCA used in Bituminous Concrete (LDPE)
Description Name of
Modifier
% of
Modifie
r
Cost of 1
km road
Cost
difference in
Percentage
Stability,
kg
Density,
Gmb
Air
void
(%)
Flow,
mm
Neat -- 0 3140091.86 0.00 1232.3 2.532 5.61 3.5
With PMB HDPE 3 3084189.72 -1.78 1360.9 2.541 4.97 2.9
With PCA LDPE 4 3387263.96 7.87 1417.9 2.549 5.19 2.6
Comparisons of Cost and Marshall properties of Modified and Convenient Bituminous Concrete
So, as from the Table if we propose the BC material used in binder course there is about 1.78% cost decrease by using HDPE and 7.87% cost increase by using LDPE in BC. There is nominal difference in the cost by using modifier but we find that the stability and density increase and the flow value and air void decrease in BC. In this chapter we show the cost analysis of without modifier, with adding 3% of HDPE by wet process and 4% of LDPE by dry process. Here we show the cost of BC is decrease when we use the modifier by wet process and the cost increase by dry process. But in opposite side we get benefit of increase in stability and density and decrease in flow value and air void when we use modifier in BC.
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES PAPERS
1) Imtiyaz Khan and Dr. P.J.Gundaliya, “Utilization of Waste Polyethylene Material in Bituminous Concrete Mix for Improved Performance of Flexible Pavements”, International Journal of Scientific Research, September-2012, Vol.-1, 57-58.
2) Mrs.Vidula Swami et. al., “Use of Waste Plastic in Construction of Bituminous Road”, International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology, May-2012, Vol.-4, 2351-2355.
3) Rokade S, “Use of Waste Plastic and Waste Rubber Tyres in Flexible Highway Pavements”, international conference on future environment and energy, 2012, Vol. – 28,105-108.
4) Afroz sultana. SK and K.S.B.Prasad, “Utilization of Waste Plastic as a Strength Modifier in Surface Course of Flexible and Rigid Pavements”, International Journal of Engineering Research and Application, July-August 2012, Vol. – 2, Issue 4, 1185-1191.
5) Pravin Kumar and Rashi Garg, “Laboratory Studies on Waste Plastic Fiber Modified Bitumen”, Highway Research Journal, January-June 2010, 45-60.
6) R. Vasudevan et. al., “Utilization of Waste Polymers for Flexible Pavement and Easy Disposal of Waste Polymers”, International Conference on Sustainable Solid Waste Management,5 - 7 September 2007, Chennai, India. pp.105-111
7) Amit Gawande et. al., “An Overview On Waste Plastic Utilization In Asphalting Of Roads”, Journal of Engineering research and Studies, Vol. III, Issue II, April-June 2012, 01-05.
8) Nuha S. Mashaan et. al., “An overview of crumb rubber modified asphalt”, International Journal of the Physical Sciences, Vol. 7(2),9 January 2012, pp. 166 – 170.
9) Nuha S. Mashaan et. al., “Effect of blending time and crumb rubber content on properties of crumb rubber modified asphalt binder”, International Journal of the Physical Sciences, Vol. 6(9), 4 May, 2011, pp. 2189-2193.
BOOKS AND CODES 1) Dr.N.B.Lal and L.R.Kadiyali, “Principles and Practices of Highway Engineering”, Khanna Publication.
2) S.K.Khanna and C.E.G. Justo, “Highway Engineering”, Nem Chand and Bros.
3) IRC: SP: 53-2010,“Guidelines on Use of Modified Bitumen in Road Construction”, Indian Road Congress.
4) IS: 2386 (Part I, III, and IV), “Methods of Test for Aggregates for Concrete”, Bureau of Indian Standards.
5) IS: 1202-1978, “Methods for Testing Tar and Bituminous Materials: Determination of Specific Gravity”, Bureau of Indian Standards.
6) IS: 1203-1978, “Methods for Testing Tar and Bituminous Materials: Determination of Penetration”, Bureau of Indian Standards.
7) IS: 1205-1978, “Methods for Testing Tar and Bituminous Materials: Determination of Softening Point”, Bureau of Indian Standards.