A Study On Use of Waste Polyethylene in Bituminous Paving Mixing
A Study On Use of Waste Polyethylene in Bituminous Paving Mixing
MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
In
CIVIL ENGINEERING
MONIKA MOHANTY
211CE3244
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the thesis entitled A STUDY ON USE OF WASTE
POLYETHYLENE IN BITUMINOUS PAVING MIXES submitted by Monika
Mohanty bearing roll no. 211CE3244 in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award
of Master of Technology in Civil Engineering with specialization in Transportation
Engineering during 2011-2013 session at the National Institute of Technology, Rourkela is
an authentic work carried out by her under my supervision and guidance.
To the best of my knowledge, the results contained in this thesis have not been submitted to
any other University or Institute for the award of any degree or diploma.
Date:
Place: Rourkela
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my deep sense of gratitude from the core of my heart to my supervisor
Prof. Mahabir Panda, Professor of the Civil Engineering Department, NIT Rourkela for
initiating an interesting study, his personal commitment, interesting discussion and valuable
advice. He has been continuously encouraging me throughout the work and contributing with
valuable guidance and supervision.
I am very grateful to Prof. Nagendra Roy, HOD of Civil Engineering Department, Prof.
Prasanta kumar Bhuyan, and Prof. Ujjal Chattaraj for their helpful suggestions during my
entire course work. I also extend my sincere thanks to the Department of Civil Engineering,
Ceramic Engineering and Metallurgy Engineering at Nit Rourkela for providing all the
facilities needed for this project work.
My thanks to Mr. S. C. Xess, Mr. Hari Mohan Garnayak, Rahul bhai and Sambhu bhai of
Highway and Concrete Laboratory can never be enough in mere words. They simply helped
in every possible way they could. Without their guidance and cooperation I could not have
finished this research.
I also want to convey sincere thanks to all my friends, especially to Transportation
Engineering Specialization for making my stay in the campus a pleasant one. Last but not the
least I would also like to thank my parents and the Almighty whose blessings have helped me
in achieving great strides.
Monika Mohanty
Roll no. 211ce3244
ii
ABSTRACT
Bituminous mixes are most commonly used all over the world in flexible pavement
construction. It consists of asphalt or bitumen (used as a binder) and mineral aggregate which
are mixed together, laid down in layers and then compacted. Under normal circumstances,
conventional bituminous pavements if designed and executed properly perform quite
satisfactorily but the performance of bituminous mixes is very poor under various situations.
Todays asphaltic concrete pavements are expected to perform better as they are experiencing
increased volume of traffic, increased loads and increased variations in daily or seasonal
temperature over what has been experienced in the past. In addition, the performance of
bituminous pavements is found to be very poor in moisture induced situations. Considering
this a lot of work has been done on use of additives in bituminous mixtures and as well as on
modification of bitumen. Research has indicated that the addition of polymers to asphalt
binders helps to increase the interfacial cohesiveness of the bond between the aggregate and
the binder which can enhance many properties of the asphalt pavements to help meet these
increased demands. However, the additive that is to be used for modification of mix or binder
should satisfy both the strength requirements as well as economical aspects.
Plastics are everywhere in todays lifestyle and are growing rapidly throughout particularly in
a developing country like India. As these are non-biodegradable there is a major problem
posed to the society with regard to the management of these solid wastes. Low density
polyethylene (LDPE) has been found to be a good modifier of bitumen. Even, the reclaimed
polyethylene originally made of LDPE has been observed to modify bitumen. In the present
study, an attempt has been made to use reclaimed polyethylene which has been obtained from
plastic packets used in packaging of a very popular brand of milk named OMFED, in dry
form with the aggregates like a fibre in a bituminous mix. Detailed study on the effects of
these locally waste polyethylene on engineering properties of Bituminous concrete (BC),
iii
Dense Bituminous macadam (DBM) and Stone mastic asphalt (SMA) mixes, has been made
in this study.
The present locally available OMFED polyethylene used as stabilizer in SMA, BC and DBM
mixes to fulfil the present requirements of paving mixes. Optimum binder content (OBC) and
optimum polyethylene content (OPC) have been derived by using Marshall Procedure. The
OBCs have been found to be 4% for SMA and 4.5% for both BC and DBM by using stone
dust as filler. By replacing some gradation of fine aggregate by granulated blast furnace slag
and fly ash as filler the OBCs have been found to be 5% of bitumen for SMA and 4% of
bitumen for both BC and DBM mixes. Similarly, OPC has been found to be 2% by weight of
mixes for SMA and DBM and 1.5% for BC mixes where stone dust has been used as filler.
After replacement of some gradation of fine aggregate by slag and considering fly ash as
filler the OPCs have been found to be 1.5% of polyethylene for all types of mixes. Then
considering OBC and OPC, the SMA, BC, and DBM mixes have been prepared and different
performance tests like Drain down test, Static indirect tensile Strength Test and Static Creep test
have been carried out to evaluate the effects of polyethylene as an stabilizer on mix properties. It
is concluded from present investigation that addition of OMFED Polyethylene to mixes improve
the mix properties like Marshall Stability, Drain down characteristics and indirect tensile
strength.
Key Words:
macadam (DBM), OMFED polyethylene, Marshall Properties, Static indirect tensile strength,
and Static creep Test
iv
CONTENTS
Items
Page No
Certificate
Acknowledgements
ii
Abstract
iii
Contents
iv
List of Tables
ix
List of figures
List of abbreviations
xv
List of symbols
xvii
ABSTRACT
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1-7
1.1 General
1.2.1
Overview
1.2.2
1.2.3
1.2.4
1.2.5
1.3.1
Present Scenario
1.3.2
1.3.3
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
8-18
CHAPTER 3
RAW MATERIALS
19-27
19
3.1.1
Aggregates
19
3.1.2
Fly Ash
20
3.1.3
21
3.1.4
Bituminous Binder
21
3.1.5
Polyethylene
22
22
3.2.1
Aggregates
22
3.2.2
24
3.2.3
Binder
26
3.2.4
Polyethylene
26
CHAPTER 4
EXPERIMENTAL WORK
28-38
4.1 General
28
4.1.1
28
4.1.2
29
4.1.3
30
vi
31
Marshall test
4.3.1.1
32
33
4.3.2
34
4.3.3
35
4.3.3.1
4.3.4
37
38
CHAPTER 5
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
39-78
5.1 Introductions
39
39
41
5.3.1
Marshall stability
41
5.3.2
Flow value
44
5.3.3
Unit weight
45
5.3.4
Air void
47
5.3.5
48
5.3.6
50
5.3.7
Retained stability
52
Marshall Stability
53
54
vii
5.4.2
Flow value
55
5.4.3
Unit weight
57
5.4.4
Air void
59
5.4.5
60
5.4.6
62
5.4.7
Retained stability
64
65
66
5.6.1
67
5.6.2
67
5.6.3
69
70
5.7.1
5.7.2
5.7.3
73
5.7.4
71
75
Strain Vs time relationships for mixes with fly ash and slag at
different temperatures
77
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUDING REMARKS
79-80
81
REFERENCES
82-87
viii
22
23
23
24
24
Table 3.6 Chemical Composition of Fly Ash and Slag in Percentage (By Weight)
24
26
27
52
52
52
Table 5.4 Retained stability of SMA, BC and DBM With and Without Polyethylene
53
64
64
64
Table 5.8 Retained Stability of SMA, BC and DBM With and Without Polyethylene
with Fly Ash and Slag
65
66
66
Table 5.11 TSR of Mixes with Stone Dust and with Fly Ash and Slag With and Without
Polyethylene
70
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 3.1
25
Fig. 3.2
25
Fig 3.3
27
Fig 4.1
Fig 4.2
33
Fig 4.3
35
Fig 4.4
36
Fig 4.5
37
Fig 5.1
41
Fig 5.2
Fig 5.3
42
Fig. 5.4
43
Fig. 5.5
43
Fig. 5.6
44
Fig. 5.7
44
Fig. 5.8
45
46
Fig. 5.9
Fig. 5.10
46
Fig. 5.11
47
Fig. 5.12
47
Fig. 5.13
48
Fig. 5.14
48
Fig. 5.15
49
Fig. 5.16
49
Fig. 5.17
50
Fig. 5.18
50
Fig. 5.19
51
Fig. 5.20
51
Fig. 5.21
54
xi
Polyethylene Content
Fig. 5.22
55
Fig. 5.23
55
Fig. 5.24
56
Fig. 5.25
56
Fig. 5.26
57
Fig. 5.27
57
Fig. 5.28
58
Fig. 5.29
58
Fig. 5.30
59
Fig. 5.31
59
Fig. 5.32
60
Fig. 5.33
61
61
xii
Fig. 5.34
Fig. 5.35
62
Fig. 5.36
62
Fig. 5.37
63
Fig. 5.38
63
Variation of its Value of SMA, DBM AND BC with Stone Dust as Filler in
Different Temperatures
Fig. 5.39
68
Variation of its Value of SMA, DBM and BC with Fly Ash and Slag in
Different Temperatures
69
Fig. 5.40
71
Fig. 5.41
71
Fig. 5.42
72
Fig. 5.43
72
Fig. 5.44
73
Fig. 5.45
73
Fig. 5.46
74
Fig. 5.47
74
Fig. 5.48
75
Fig. 5.49
75
Fig. 5.50
76
Fig. 5.51
76
Fig. 5.52
77
xiii
Fig. 5.53
77
Fig. 5.54
78
Fig. 5.55
78
xiv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
HMA
SMA
BC
Bituminous concrete
DBM
SMAWP
BCWP
DBMWP
SMAFS
BCFS
DBMFS
SMAFSWP
BCFSWP
DBMFSWP
HDPE
LDPE
PET
Polyethylene Terephthalate
EVA
Ethylene-vinyl acetate
FAUP
GBFS
MORTH
DSC
OBC
OPC
ITS
TSR
VA
Air void
VMA
VFB
xvi
LIST OF SYMBOLS
G
Soaked stability
Standard stability
xvii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
Bituminous binders are widely used by paving industry. In general pavements are categorized
into 2 groups, i.e. flexible and rigid pavement.
Flexible Pavement
Flexible pavements are those, which on the whole have low flexural strength and are rather
flexible in their structural action under loads. These types of pavement layers reflect the
deformation of lower layers on-to the surface of the layer.
Rigid Pavement
If the surface course of a pavement is of Plain Cement Concrete then it is called as rigid
pavement since the total pavement structure cant bend or deflect due to traffic loads.
Pavement design and the mix design are two major considerations in case of pavement
engineering. The present study is only related to the mix design of flexible pavement
considerations. The design of asphalt paving mixtures is a multi-step process of selecting
binders and aggregate materials and proportioning them to provide an appropriate
compromise among several variables that affect mixture behaviour, considering external
factors such as traffic loading and climate conditions.
Overview
The bituminous mix design aims to determine the proportion of bitumen, filler, fine
aggregates, and coarse aggregates to produce a mix which is workable, strong, durable and
economical. There are two types of the mix design, i.e. dry mix design and wet mix design.
1.2.2
1.2.3
1.2.4
1.2.5
Dense-Graded Mixes
Dense mix bituminous concrete has good proportion of all constituents. It offers good
compressive strength and some tensile strength.
Gap-graded mix
Some large coarse aggregates are missing and have good fatigue and tensile strength.
Open-graded mix
Fine aggregate and filler are missing; it is porous and offers good friction, low strength.
Hot mix asphalt concrete
HMA is produced by heating the asphalt binder to decrease its viscosity, and drying the
aggregate to remove moisture from it prior to mixing. Mixing is generally performed with the
aggregate at 150 C for virgin asphalt.
1.3
Polymer modification
1.3.2
Today availability of plastic waste is enormous. The use of plastic materials such as carry
bags, cups, etc is constantly increasing. Nearly 50% to 60% of total plastic are consumed for
packing. Once used, plastic packing materials are thrown outside and they remain as waste.
Plastic wastes are durable and non-biodegradable. The improper disposal of plastic may
cause breast cancer, reproductive problems in humans and animals, genital abnormalities and
much more. These plastic wastes get mixed with water, disintegrate, and take the forms of
small pallets which cause the death of fishes and other aquatic life who mistake them as food
material. Sometimes they are either land filled or incinerated. Plastic wastes get mixed with
the municipal solid waste or thrown over a land area. All the above processes are not ecofriendly as they pollute the land, air and water. Under these circumstances, an alternative use
of these plastic wastes is required. So any method that can use this plastic waste for purpose
of construction is always welcomed.
1.3.3
Use of polyethylene in road construction is not new. Some aggregates are highly hydrophilic
(water loving). Like bitumen polyethylene is hydrophobic (water hating) in nature. So the
addition of hydrophobic polymers by dry or wet mixing process to asphalt mix lead to
improvement of strength, water repellent property of the mix. Polyethylenes get added to hot
bitumen mixture and the mixture is laid on the road surface like a normal tar road. Plastic
roads mainly use plastic carry-bags, disposable cups, polyethylene packets and PET bottles
that are collected from garbage as important ingredients of the construction material. Polymer
modification can be considered as one of the solution to improvise the fatigue life, reduce the
rutting & thermal cracking in the pavement. Creating a modified bituminous mixture by using
recycled polymers (e.g., polyethylene) which enhances properties of HMA mixtures would
not only produce a more durable pavement, but also provide a beneficial way of disposal of a
large amount of recycled plastics.
The performance of bituminous mix under water with and without polyethylene
admixture with different filler and replacing some percentage of fine aggregate by
slag.
Evaluation of SMA, BC, and DBM mixes using different test like Drain down test,
Static Indirect tensile Strength test, Static Creep test etc.
Conclusions and scope for future scope of this work is summarized in Chapter 6.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1
Studies on polyethylene
1. IPC, Institute for Interconnecting and Packaging Electronic Circuits (1995) published
a test manual for determining the tensile strength, elongation and Youngs modulus of
organic free films by using ASTM D 618, ASTM D 882, ASTM D 1005 and ASTM
D 2370.
2. Sichina et al. Characterized Polymers Using TGA (thermo gravity analysis).
According to him TGA measures the amount and rate of change in the mass of a
sample as a function of temperature or time in a controlled atmosphere to determine
the thermal and/or oxidative stabilities of materials as well as their compositional
properties. It is especially useful for the study of polymeric materials, including
thermoplastics, thermo-sets, elastomers, composites, films, fibers, coatings and paints.
2.2
1. Bindu and Beena (2010) studied how Waste plastic acts as a stabilizing additive in
Stone Mastic Asphalt when the mixtures were subjected to performance tests
including Marshall Stability, tensile strength, compressive strength tests and Tri-axial
tests. There results indicated that flexible pavement with high performance and
durability can be obtained with 10% shredded plastic.
2. Fernandes et al. (2008) studied Rheological evaluation of polymer modified asphalt
binders by using thermoplastic elastomer styrene butadiene styrene (SBS) and they
compared the properties of Modified binder by addition of both oil shale and aromatic
8
oil to improve their compatibly. The rheological characteristics of the SBS PMBs
were analyzed in a dynamic shear rheometer (DSR) and the morphology accessed by
fluorescence optical microscopy. The results indicated that the aromatic and shale oils
have similar effects on the microstructure, storage stability and viscoelastic behaviour
of the PMBs. Thus, shale oil could be successfully used as a compatibilizer agent
without loss of properties or could even replace the aromatic oil.
3. Awwad and Shbeeb (2007) indicated that the modified mixture has a higher stability
and VMA percentage compared to the non-modified mixtures and thus positively
influence the rutting resistance of these mixtures. According to them modifying
asphalt mixture with HDPE polyethylene enhances its properties far more than the
improvements realized by utilizing LDPE polyethylene.
4. Gawande et al. (2012) gave an overview on waste plastic utilization in asphalting road
by using both wet and dry method. They said that use of modified bitumen with the
addition of processed waste plastic of about 5-10% by weight of bitumen helps in
improving the longevity and pavement performance with marginal saving in bitumen
usage and according to them use of waste plastics in the manufacture of roads and
laminated roofing also help to consume large quantity of waste plastics. Thus, these
processes are socially highly relevant, giving better infrastructure.
5. Khan and Gundaliya (2012) stated that the process of modification of bitumen with
waste polythene enhances resistance to cracking, pothole formation and rutting by
increasing softening point, hardness and reducing stripping due to water, thereby
improving the general performance of roads over a long period of time. According to
them the waste polythene utilized in the mix forms coating over aggregates of the
mixture which reduces porosity, absorption of moisture and improves binding
property.
6. Prusty (2012) studied the behaviour of BC mixes modified with waste polythene. He
used various percentages of polythene for preparation of mixes with a selected
aggregate grading as given in the IRC Code. Marshall Properties such as stability,
flow value, unit weight, air voids are used to determine optimum polythene content
for the given grade of bitumen (80/100) in his study. Considering these factors he
observed that a more stable and durable mix for the pavements can be obtained by
polymer modifications.
7. Swami et al. (2012) investigated that the total material cost of the project is reduced
by 7.99% with addition of plastic to bitumen between the ranges of 5% to 10%. They
concluded that by modification of bitumen the problems like bleeding in hot
temperature regions and sound pollution due to heavy traffic are reduced and it
ultimately improves the quality and performance of road.
8. Pareek et al. (2012) carried out experimental study on conventional bitumen and
polymer modified binder and observed a significant improvement in case of rutting
resistance, indirect tensile strength and resilient modulus of the bituminous concrete
mix with polymer modified bitumen. They also concluded that Polymer modified
bitumen results a high elastic recovery (79%) and better age resistance properties (The
loss in weight on heating in thin film oven is 6 times higher as compared to
conventional bitumen of 60/70).
9. Sangita et al. (2011) suggested a novel approach to improve road quality by utilizing
plastic waste in road construction. According to them India spends Rs 35,000 crores a
year on road construction and repairs, including Rs 100,000 crores a year just on
maintenance and roads by bitumen modification lasts 2-3 times longer, which will
save us Rs 33,000 crores a year in repairs, plus reduced vehicle wear and tear.
10
10. Sabina et al. (2009) evaluated the performance of waste plastic/polymer modified
bituminous mix and observed that the results of marshal stability and retained stability
of polythene modified bituminous concrete mix increases 1.21 and 1.18 times higher
than that of conventional mix by using 8% and 15% (by weight of bitumen) polythene
with respect to 60/70 penetration grade of bitumen. But modified mix with 15%
polyethylene showed slightly decreased values for Marshall Stability than that of the
mix with 8% modifier in their results.
11. Reinke and Glidden (2002) tested the resistance of HMA mixtures to failure by using
the DSR (dynamic shear rheometer) creep and recovery tests and reported that result
shows improved resistance in case of polymer modified binders.
12. Karim et al. gave a potential solution to strength loss of bituminous pavement under
water. They compared performance of bituminous mix under water with and without
polyethylene admixture and conclude that bitumen mixes with polyethylene
performed well under water and showed even better Marshall Stability than normal
bituminous mix under normal condition Keeping the environment safe from pollution
will be an added bonus.
13. Yousefi (2009) stated that the polyethylene particles do not tend to rip in bitumen
medium and these particles prefer to join together and form larger particles due to
interfacial and inter-particle attractive forces and the only obstacle in the modification
process was the existence of partitions made from molten bitumen. According to the
author whenever, particles had enough energy to come close together and overcome
the thin remained bitumen film which was separating particles, the coalescence of
polyethylene particles occurred and lead to polymer phase separation.
14. Vasudevan (2004) utilized polythene/polypropylene Bags for integrated development
of Rural and Arterial road network for socio-economic Growth. He studied both dry
11
and wet mixing process by adding polymer with respect to the weight of bitumen
used. Author reported that polymer bitumen blend is a better binder compared to plain
bitumen resulting higher Marshall Stability and decreasing the possibilities of potholes formation.
15. Verma (2008) studied that plastic increases the melting point of the bitumen and
makes the road flexible during winters resulting in its long life. According to author
while a normal highway quality road lasts four to five years, plastic-bitumen roads
can last up to 10 years and it would be a boon for Indias hot and extremely humid
climate, where temperatures frequently cross 50C and torrential rains create havoc,
leaving most of the roads with big potholes.
16. Moghaddam and Karim (2012) reported that the utilization of waste material in
asphalt pavement would be beneficial in order to find an alternative solution to
increase service life of asphalt pavement and reduce environmental pollution as well.
Form their study it is concluded that Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) reinforced
mixtures possess higher stability value, flow, fatigue life in comparison with the
mixtures without PET.
17. Wegan and Nielsen (2001) studied microstructure of polymer modified binders in
bituminous mixtures by preparing thin sections of the specimen and analysing that
thin section by Infrared Fourier Transform Spectrometer. When thin sections were
illuminated with the UV-light, the polymer phase emits yellow light, fine and coarse
aggregates often appear green, the bitumen phase is black and air voids or cracks
appear with a yellow-green colour.
18. Herndon (2009) investigated moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixture using
phosphonylated recycled polythene. They indicated that there is a significant
reduction in moisture susceptibility with the addition of recycled unmodified
12
polyethylene to asphalt concrete mixtures in both the Wet Process and the Dry
Process.
19. Jain et al. (2011) studied mitigation of rutting in bituminous roads by use of waste
polymeric packaging materials and concluded that rutting of bituminous mix can be
reduced to 3.6 mm from a value of 16.2 mm after application of 20,000 cycles, by
adding optimum quantity of polyethylene in bituminous mix for road construction,
ultimately improves pavement performance, besides alleviating disposal problems of
WPPM for clean and safe environment.
20. Firoozifar et al. (2010) investigated the novel methods to improve the storage stability
and low temperature susceptibility of polythene modified bitumen. They used
Kerosene, Oleic Acid, Aromatic oil, B-oil etc for increasing stability of polythene
modified bitumen and a fluorescent microscope to observe the homogeneity of the
samples.
21. Aslam and Rahman (2009) studied both dry and wet mix and concluded that the dry
process is more economical and beneficial for construction of flexible pavements.
Because in case of higher percentage of polythene in wet process they get separate out
from bitumen on cooling, so it needs some additives.
22. ScienceTech Entrepreneur (2008) propossed that the durability of the roads laid with
shredded plastic waste is much more compared with those which asphalted with the
ordinary mix. While a normal highway road lasts 4 to 5 years it is claimed in this
paper that plastic-bitumen roads can last up to 10 years. According to this paper
rainwater will not seep through because of the plastic in the tar. So, this technology
will result in lesser road repairs.
13
23. The Indian Roads Congress Specifications Special Publication: 53 (2002) indicate that
the time period of next renewal may be extended by 50% in case of surfacing with
modified bitumen as compared to unmodified bitumen.
24. Habib et al. studied rheological properties of bitumen modified by thermoplastic
namely linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE), high density polyethylene (HDPE)
and polypropylene (PP) and its interaction with 80 penetration grade of bitumen
through penetration test, ring & ball softening point and viscosity test. It was observed
that thermoplastic copolymer shows profound effect on penetration rather than
softening point. According to author Visco-elastic behaviour of polymer modified
bitumen depend on the concentration of polymer, mixing temperature, mixing
technique, solvating power of base bitumen and molecular structure of polymer used
and PP offer better blend in comparison to HDPE and LLDPE.
25. Punith and Veeraragavan studied Behavior of Asphalt Concrete Mixtures with
reclaimed polyethylene as additive. The dynamic creep test (unconfined), indirect
tensile test, resilient modulus test, and Hamburg wheel track tests were carried out in
their investigation on blend of PE (2.5, 5.0, 7.5, and 10% by weight of asphalt) with
(80/100) paving grade asphalt and observed that the rutting potential and temperature
susceptibility can be reduced by the inclusion of PE in the asphalt mixture.
26. Sui and Chen (2011) studied application and performance of polyethylene as
modifying additive in asphalt mixture. They added polyethylene as additive to hot
mineral aggregate for few minutes, and then added the asphalt mixing together which
simplifies the construction process and reduces the cost of construction. They
concluded that there is improvement on high temperature stability, low temperature
cracking resistance and water resistance on modification and evaluate polyethylene as
additive in the technical, economic and environmental aspects.
14
27. Casey et al. (2008) studied the development of a recycled polymer modified binder
for use in stone mastic asphalt. From their study it was found that the addition of 4%
recycled HDPE into a pen grade binder produced the most promising results, and
results obtained from wheel track and fatigue tests show that although the binder does
not deliver equivalent performance means dose not perform to the same high levels as
a proprietary polymer modified binder, it does out-perform traditional binders used in
stone mastic asphalt.
28. Al-Hadidy and Yi-qiu (2009) investigated the potential use of pyrolysis a low density
polyethylene (LDPE) as a modifier for asphalt paving materials. Their research results
indicate that modified binders show higher softening point, keeping the values of
ductility at minimum range of specification of (100+ cm), and cause a reduction in
percentage loss of weight due to heat and air (i.e. increase durability of original
asphalt).
29. Attaelmanan et al. (2011) carried out Laboratory evaluation of HMA with high
density polyethylene as a modifier. The analyses of test results show that the
performance of HDPE-modified asphalt mixtures are better than conventional
mixtures because the moisture susceptibility and temperature susceptibility can be
reduced by the inclusion of HDPE content of 5% by weight of asphalt in the
conventional asphalt mixture. They also carried out drain down, Marshall, indirect
tensile strength, flexural strength and resilient modulus tests and got positive results in
each cases.
30. Ahmadinia et al. (2012) carried out an experimental research on the application of
waste plastic bottles (Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET)) as an additive in stone
mastic asphalt (SMA). Wheel tracking, moisture susceptibility, resilient modulus and
drain down tests were carried out in their study on the mixtures that included various
15
percentages of waste PET as 0%, 2%, 4%, 6%, 8% and 10% by weight of bitumen
content. Their results show that the addition of waste PET into the mixture has a
significant positive effect on the properties of SMA which could improve the
mixtures resistance against permanent deformation (rutting), increase the stiffness of
the mix, provide lower binder drain down and promotion of re-use and recycling of
waste materials in a more environmentally and economical way.
31. Vargas et al. (2013) analysed the chemically-grafted polyethylene as asphalt
modifiers. Their results show that the softening point of asphalt increased, while the
penetration degree decreased in blends prepared with grafted polyethylene and the
phase distributions of micrographs from fluorescence microscopy show that nongrafted polyethylene polymers were not readily miscible with asphalt. The results of
rheological tests carried out in their study indicate that most of asphalt blends exhibit
improved performance at higher temperature with grafted polyethylene such as
enhancing rutting resistance, flow activation energy and superior timetemperaturedependent response as compared to the reference polyethylene blends.
32. Rahman and Wahab (2013) used recycled polyethylene terephthalate (PET) as partial
replacement of fine aggregate in modified asphalt in their investigation. In term of
economic value, it shows that this recycled PET could reduce cost of road
construction because this recycled material is cheaper than bitumen and easy to
obtain, which also improves the level of performance and the service life of the road.
It can be concluded from their study that the application of recycled PET modified
asphalt gives more advantages compared to the conventional asphalt mixture
especially in term of permanent deformation.
33. Panda and Mazumdar (2002) utilized reclaimed polyethylene (PE) obtained from
LDPE carry bags to modify asphalt cement. They studied the basic properties such as
16
Marshall stability, resilient modulus, fatigue life, and moisture susceptibility of mixes
with 2.5% of PE and compared with those of asphalt cement. They concluded that at a
particular temperature and stress level, polymer modification increases the resistance
to moisture susceptibility, resilient modulus and fatigue life of mixes.
34. Denning and Carswell (1981) used NOVOPHALT binder which is Austrian asphalt
(B70) modified with 7% by weight of PE. They have suggested that higher mixing
and laying temperatures will be required for mixtures containing NOVOPHALT and
reported that asphalt concrete using polyethylene modified binders were more
resistant to permanent deformation at elevated temperature.
35. Airey et al. (2004) studied Linear Rheological behaviour of bituminous paving
materials. They concluded that the rheological behaviour of asphalt mixtures
incorporating a range of unmodified and modified binders showed similarities to the
rheological characteristics of the constituent RTFOT aged binders and the stiffening
effect of the DBM asphalt mixture for both the unmodified and SBS modified binders
was found to be approximately 100 times greater at high complex modulus values and
approximately 6,000 times greater at low complex modulus values.
36. Murphy et al. (2001) examined the possibility of incorporating waste polymer into
bitumen as a modifier, evaluated the performance of recycled modified bitumen and
compare their properties with those of standard bitumen and polymer modified
bitumen. They concluded polypropylenes are not useful in improving the properties of
bitumen and displayed practical difficulties during mixing and testing, suggesting
poor cohesion with bitumen.
37. Panda and Mazumdar (1999) studied the engineering properties of EVA-modified
bitumen binder for paving mixes and found that 5% EVA concentration in modified
binder by weight is adequate to enhance the properties. They observed that the
17
18
CHAPTER 3
RAW MATERIALS
3.1 Constituents of a mix
Bituminous mix consists of a mixture of aggregates continuously graded from maximum size,
typically less than 25 mm, through the fine filler that is smaller than 0.075mm. Sufficient
bitumen is added to the mix so that the compacted mix is effectively impervious and will
have acceptable dissipative and elastic properties. The bituminous mix design aims to
determine the proportion of bitumen, filler, fine aggregates, and coarse aggregates to produce
a mix which is workable, strong, durable and economical.
The basic materials used are as follows:
Aggregates
Fly Ash
Slag
Bituminous Binder
Polyethylene
3.1.1 Aggregates
There are various types of mineral aggregates used to manufacture bituminous mixes can be
obtained from different natural sources such as glacial deposits or mines and can be used with
or without further processing. The aggregates can be further processed and finished to
achieve good performance characteristics. Industrial by-products such as steel slag, blast
furnace slag, fly ash etc. sometimes used by replacing natural aggregates to enhance the
performance characteristics of the mix. Aggregate contributes up to 90-95 % of the mixture
weight and contributes to most of the load bearing & strength characteristics of the mixture.
19
Hence, the quality and physical properties of the aggregates should be controlled to ensure a
good pavement. Aggregates are of 3 types;
Coarse aggregates
The aggregates retained on 4.75 mm sieve are called as coarse aggregates. Coarse aggregate
should be screened crushed rock, angular in shape, free from dust particles, clay, vegetations
and organic matters which offer compressive and shear strength and shows good interlocking
properties. In present study, stone chips are used as coarse aggregate with specific gravity
2.75.
Fine aggregates
Fine aggregate should be clean screened quarry dusts and should be free from clay, loam,
vegetation or organic matter. Fine aggregates, consisting of stone crusher dusts were
collected from a local crusher with fractions passing 4.75 mm and retained on 0.075 mm IS
sieve. It fills the voids in the coarse aggregate and stiffens the binder. In this study, fine
stones and slag are used as fine aggregate whose specific gravity has been found to be 2.6 and
2.45.
Filler
Aggregate passing through 0.075 mm IS sieve is called as filler. It fills the voids, stiffens the
binder and offers permeability. In this study, stone and fly ash are used as filler whose
specific gravity has been found to be 2.7 and 2.3.
21
3.1.5 Polyethylene
Stabilizing additives are used in the mixture to provide better binding property. Now-a days
polypropylene, polyester, mineral and cellulose are commonly used as fibers. In this present
study polyethylene is used as stabilizing additive to improve performance characteristics of
pavement.
Percentage passing
19
100
13.2
94
9.5
62
4.75
28
2.36
24
1.18
21
0.6
18
0.3
16
0.075
10
22
Percentage passing
19
100
13.2
79-100
9.5
70-88
4.75
53-71
2.36
42-58
1.18
34-48
0.6
26-38
0.3
18-28
0.15
12-20
0.075
4-10
Percentage passing
37.5
100
26.5
90-100
19
71-95
13.2
56-80
9.5
4.75
38-54
2.36
28-42
1.18
0.6
0.3
7-21
0.15
0.075
2-8
23
Specific gravity
Coarse
2.75
Fine (Stone)
2.6
Fine(Slag)
2.45
Filler(Stone dust)
2.7
Filler(Fly ash)
2.3
14.3
13.02
18
IS: 2386 (P I)
18.83
Elongation Index
(%)
Water Absorption
(%)
IS: 2386 (P I)
21.5
0.1
Fly ash
Slag
Fe O
10.3%
4.012%
CaO
4.206%
26.638%
MgO
3.023%
16.124%
Sillica
56.4%
32.14%
Al O
29%
21%
Carbon
7.18%
0%
24
900
FA.RD
400
100
0
20
30
40
50
60
Position [2Theta]
Visible
Ref. Code
*
*
83-0539
79-1454
2 25
Score
SL AG.RD
1 00
25
0
20
30
40
50
60
Po sition [2Theta]
Ref. Code
81-0065
Score
Compound
Name
42 Silicon
Oxide
Displaceme
nt [2Th.]
0.000
25
Scale
Chemical
Factor
Formula
0.931 Si O
3.2.3 Binder
One conventional commonly used bituminous binder, namely VG 30 bitumen was used in
this investigation to prepare the samples. Conventional tests were performed to determine the
physical properties of these binders. The physical properties thus obtained are summarized in
Table 3.7.
Table 3.7: Physical properties of binder
Property
Test Method
Value
Penetration at 25 C
IS : 1203-1978
67.7
Softening Point ( C)
IS : 1203-1978
48.5
Specific gravity
IS : 1203-1978
1.03
(mm)
3.2.3 Polyethylene
In present study polyethylene is used as stabilizing additive (OMFED polyethylene used for
milk packaging which is locally available). The Omfed polyethylene packets were collected;
they were washed and cleaned by putting them in hot water for 3-4 hours. They were then
dried.
Shredding
The dried polyethylene packets were cut into thin pieces of size 50 mm5 mm maximum.
This is because to maintain uniformity in size of polyethylene in mix. When the polyethylene
is to be added with bitumen and aggregate it is to be ensured that the mixing will be proper.
Specific Gravity of polythene was found as 0.905.
26
0.905
Softening point
54.22
Young modulus
109.75 Mpa
Strain at break
1351 %
Strain at peak
1271.5 %
Displacement at break
135.15 mm
Displacement at peak
127.15 mm
Load at peak
.0146 kn
Stress at peak
14.59 Mpa
27
CHAPTER 4
EXPERIMENTAL WORK
4.1 General
This chapter describes the experimental works carried out in this present investigation. It
involves mainly 2 processes. i.e.
Tests on samples
Prior to the experimental work, the specific gravity, tensile strength, and softening point of
polythene used in this investigation were calculated.
The weight of the polyethylene in air was measured by a balance. Let it be denoted by
a.
A piece of iron wire was attached to the balance such that it is suspended about 25
mm above the vessel support.
The polyethylene was then tied with a sink by the iron wire and allowed to submerge
in the vessel and the weight was measured. Let it be denoted as b.
Then polyethylene was removed and the weight of the wire and the sink was
measured by submerging them inside water. Let it be denoted as w.
28
29
=109.75 Mpa
OMFE D1
mW
0.2
0.0
-0.2
Glass Transition
Onset
52.28 C
Midpoint
53.91 C
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
55.0
60.0
65.0
70.0
75.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
min
S T A R e S W 8. 10
30
^exo
mW
0.2
0.0
Glass Transition
Onset
51.83 C
Midpoint 54.53 C
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
-1.2
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
55.0
60.0
65.0
70.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
75.0
5.0
min
S T A R e S W 8. 10
Fig 4.1 Results of two set of polyethylene samples given by DSC 822
Required quantities of coarse aggregate, fine aggregate & mineral fillers were taken in
an iron pan and kept in an oven at temperature 160 C for 2 hours. Preheating is
required because the aggregates and bitumen are to be mixed in heated state.
The required amount of shredded polythene was weighed and kept in a separate
container.
31
The aggregates in the pan were heated on a controlled gas stove for a few minutes
maintaining the above temperature. Then the polyethylene was added to the aggregate
and was mixed for 2 minutes.
Now bitumen was added to this mix and the whole mix was stirred uniformly and
homogenously. This was continued for 15-20 minutes till they were properly mixed
which was evident from the uniform colour throughout the mix.
Then the mix was transferred to a casting mould. 75 no. of blows were given per each
side of the sample so subtotal of 150 no. of blows was given per sample. Then each
sample was marked and kept separately.
Marshall test
(ii)
Voids analysis.
The Marshall stability of the mix is defined as the maximum load carried by the specimen at
a standard test temperature of 60C. The flow value is the deformation that the test specimen
undergoes during loading up to the maximum load. In India, it is a very popular method of
characterization of bituminous mixes due to its simplicity and low cost. In the present study
the Marshall properties such as stability, flow value, unit weight and air voids were studied to
obtain the optimum binder contents (OBC) and optimum polyethylene contents (OPC).
32
33
drain down method suggested by MORTH (2001) was adopted in this study. The drainage
baskets fabricated locally is shown in Fig-4.2. The loose un-compacted mixes were
transferred to the drainage baskets and kept in a pre-heated oven maintained at 150C for
three hours. Pre-weighed plates were kept below the drainage baskets when placed inside
oven to collect the drained out binder drippings. From the drain down test the binder drainage
has been calculated from the equation:Drain down equation is =
100
Where,
W = Initial mass of the plate
W = Final mass of the plate and drained binder
X = Initial mass of the mix
For a particular binder three mixes were prepared at its optimum binder content and the drain
down was reported as an average of the three.
34
35
S =
Where
S = Indirect Tensile Strength, KPa
P = Maximum Load, KN
T = Specimen height before testing, mm
D = Specimen Diameter, mm
The test temperature was varied from 5 to 40 at an increment of 5 . The tensile
strength was reported as the average of the three test results.
36
100
37
38
CHAPTER 5
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5.1 Introductions
This chapter deals with test results and analysis carried out in previous chapter. This chapter
is divided into four sections. First section is deals with parameter used for analysis of
different test results. Second section deals with calculation and comparison of optimum
binder content (OBC) and optimum polyethylene content (OPC) of SMA, BC, and DBM
mixes with and without polyethylene with stone dust used as filler. Third section deals with
calculation and comparison of Optimum binder Content (OBC) and Optimum polyethylene
content (OPC) of SMA, BC, and DBM mixes with or without polyethylene by replacing
some gradation of fine aggregate by granulated blast furnace slag with fly ash as filler. Fourth
section deals with analysis of test results of drain down test, static indirect tensile and static
creep test at different test temperature.
Gsb =
Gse =
Gse= (M
M )/ (
39
M
Volume of aggmass
M
Volume of (mix air void)
M
Bulk volume of mix
) 100
VMA = [1-
P ] 100
100
40
41
OBC are found as 4% for modified SMA, BC and DBM mixes with polyethylene at different
concentration. From the graphs it can be observed that with addition of polyethylene stability
value also increases up to certain limits and further addition decreases the stability. This may
be due to excess amount of polyethylene which is not able to mix in asphalt properly. That
polyethylene concentration in mix is called optimum polyethylene content (OPC) which is
found as 2% for SMA and DBM and 1.5% for BC mixes.
16
15
Polyethylene
contents, %
Stability , kN
14
13
0.50%
12
1%
11
1.50%
10
2%
2.50%
9
8
2.5
3.5
4.5
5.5
Bitumen contents, %
6.5
7.5
Fig 5.2 Variations of Marshall Stabilities of SMA with different binder and polyethylene
contents
42
20
Stability, kN
18
Polyethylene
contents, %
16
0%
14
0.50%
12
1%
10
1.50%
2%
8
3.2
3.7
4.2
4.7
5.2
Bitumen contents, %
Fig. 5.3 Variations of Marshall Stabilities of BC with different binder and polyethylene
contents
18
17
Polyethylene
contents, %
Stability, kN
16
15
0%
14
0.50%
13
1%
12
1.50%
11
2%
10
2.50%
9
8
3.2
3.7
4.2
4.7
5.2
Bitumen contents, %
Fig. 5.4 variations of Marshall Stabilities of DBM with different binder and
polyethylene contents
43
Polyethylene
contents, %
Flow values, mm
5
4.5
0
4
0.50%
1%
3.5
1.50%
2%
2.5
2.50%
2
3.2
3.7
4.2
4.7
5.2
5.7
6.2
6.7
7.2
Bitumen contents, %
Fig. 5.5 Variations of flows value of SMA with different binder and polyethylene contents
5
Flow values, mm
4.5
Polyethylene
contents, %
0%
3.5
0.50%
1%
2.5
1.50%
2%
2
1.5
3.2
3.7
4.2
4.7
5.2
Bitumen contents, %
Fig. 5.6 Variations of flow values of BC with different binder and polyethylene contents
44
3.6
3.4
Polyethylene
contents, %
Flow values, mm
3.2
0%
0.50%
2.8
1%
2.6
1.50%
2.4
2%
2.2
2.50%
2
3
3.5
4.5
5.5
Bitumen contents, %
Fig. 5.7 Variations of flow values of DMB with different binder and polyethylene
contents
45
2.54
2.52
Polyethylene
contents, %
2.5
0%
2.48
0.50%
2.46
1%
2.44
1.50%
2.42
2%
2.4
2.50%
2.38
3.2
3.7
4.2
4.7
5.2
5.7
6.2
6.7
7.2
Bitumen contents, %
Fig. 5.8 Variations of unit weight values of SMA with different binder and polyethylene
contents
2.44
2.42
Polyethyle
contents, %
2.4
2.38
2.36
0.5
2.34
2.32
1.5
2
2.3
2.28
3.2
3.7
4.2
4.7
5.2
Bitumen contents, %
Fig. 5.9 Variations of unit weight values of BC with different binder and polyethylene
contents
46
2.5
2.45
Polyethylene
contents, %
0%
2.4
0.50%
2.35
1%
1.50%
2.3
2%
2.50%
2.25
2.2
3.2
3.7
4.2
Bitumen contents, %
4.7
5.2
Fig. 5.10 variations of unit weight values of DBM with different binder and polyethylene
contents
Polyethylene
Contents, %
6
5.5
0%
5
VA
0.50%
1%
4.5
1.50%
2%
3.5
2.50%
3
3
Bitumen contents, %
Fig. 5.11 Variations of VA values of SMA with different binder and polyethylene
contents
47
6.5
VA
6
5.5
Polyethylene
contents, %
0
0.5
4.5
1.5
2
3.5
3
3.2
3.7
4.2
4.7
5.2
Bitumen contents, %
Fig. 5.12 Variations of VA values of BC with different binder and polyethylene contents
6.5
6
Polyethylene
contents, %
5.5
0%
VA
0.50%
1%
4.5
1.50%
2%
3.5
2.50%
3
3.2
3.7
4.2
4.7
5.2
Bitumen contents, %
Fig. 5.13 Variations of VA values of DBM with different binder and polyethylene
contents
48
observed that with addition of polyethylene to mix the VMA values increases than that of
conventional mixes.
23
Polyethylene
contents, %
21
VMA
19
0%
0.50%
17
1%
15
1.50%
2%
13
2.50%
11
3.2
3.7
4.2
4.7
5.2
5.7
6.2
6.7
7.2
Bitumen contents, %
Fig. 5.14 Variations of VMA values of SMA with different binder and polyethylene
content
20
19
Polyethylene
contents, %
18
VMA
17
16
0.5
15
14
1.5
2
13
12
3.2
3.7
4.2
4.7
5.2
Bitumen contents, %
Fig. 5.15 Variations of VMA values of BC with different binder and polyethylene
content
49
22
21
Polyethylene
contents, %
20
VMA
0%
19
0.50%
18
1%
17
1.50%
2%
16
2.50%
15
3.2
3.7
4.2
4.7
5.2
Bitumen contents, %
Fig. 5.16 Variations of VMA values of DBM with different binder and polyethylene
content
Polyethylene
contents, %
90
85
VFB
0%
80
0.50%
75
1%
70
1.50%
2%
65
2.50%
60
3.2
3.7
4.2
4.7
5.2
5.7
6.2
6.7
7.2
Bitumen contents, %
Fig. 5.17 Variations of VFB values of SMA with different binder and polyethylene
content
50
100
95
Polyethylene
contents, %
90
VFB
85
80
0.5
75
70
1.5
2
65
60
3.2
3.7
4.2
4.7
5.2
Bitumen contents, %
Fig. 5.18 Variations of VFB values of BC with different binder and polyethylene content
80
Polyethylene
contents, %
75
VFB
70
0%
0.50%
65
1%
60
1.50%
2%
55
2.50%
50
3.2
3.7
4.2
4.7
5.2
Bitumen contents, %
Fig. 5.19 Variations of VFB values of DBM with different binder and polyethylene
content
51
Optimum polyethylene
content (%)
(%)
0%
6%
2%
4%
0%
4.5%
2%
4%
BC without polyethylene
0%
4.5%
BC with polyethylene
1.5%
4%
Stability(kN)
12.765
14.965
12.76
17.444
BC without polyethylene
10.875
BC with polyethylene
17.587
Flow(mm)
3.9
4.02
2.6
BC without polyethylene
3.9
BC with polyethylene
2.45
52
highest retained stability followed by DBM with polyethylene and then SMA with
polyethylene.
Table 5.4 Retained stability of SMA, BC, and DBM with and without polyethylene
Types of mix
Avg. stability
after half an
hour in water
at 60 c
Avg. stability
after 24
hours in
water at 60 c
Avg. retained
Stability, in %
SMA without
10.932
8.497
73.22
10.875
8.497
78.13
12.765
9.962
74.04
14.965
12.013
80.27
17.587
14.13725
76.38
17.444
14.2105
81.46
Design
requirement
polyethylene
SMA with
polyethylene
DBM without
polyethylene
DBM with
Minimum 75%
(as per MORTH
Table 500-17)
polyethylene
BC without
polyethylene
BC with
polyethylene
53
Stability, kN
16
15
Polyethylene
contents, %
14
13
0%
0.50%
12
1%
11
1.50%
10
2%
9
3.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
Bitumen contents, %
Fig. 5.20 Variations of Marshall Stabilities of SMA with different binder and
polyethylene contents
54
20
Polyethylene
contents, %
Stability, kN
18
0% Polyethylene with
stone dust
0%
16
14
0.50%
12
1%
10
1.50%
2%
3
3.5
4.5
5.5
Bitumen contents, %
Fig. 5.21 Variations of Marshall Stabilities of BC with different binder and polyethylene
contents
19
Polyethylene
contents, %
18
Stability, kN
17
16
0% polyethylene with
stone dust
15
0%
14
0.50%
13
12
1%
11
1.50%
10
3
3.5
4.5
Bitumen contents, %
5.5
2%
Fig. 5.22 Variations of Marshall Stabilities of DBM with different binder and
polyethylene contents
55
Polyethylene
contents, %
Flow values, mm
4.5
4
0% polyethylene with
stone dust
3.5
0%
3
0.50%
2.5
1%
2
3.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
1.50%
Bitumen contents, %
2%
Fig. 5.23 Variations of flows value of SMA with different binder and polyethylene contents
Polyethylene
contents, %
Flow values, mm
4.5
0% polyethylene with
stone dust
0%
3.5
0.50%
1%
1.50%
2.5
3
3.5
4.5
5.5
2%
Bitumen contents, %
Fig. 5.24 Variations of flows value of BC with different binder and polyethylene contents
56
Polyethylene
contents, %
Flow Values, mm
3.5
0% of polyethylene with
stone dust
0%
2.5
0.50%
1%
1.5
1.50%
3
3.5
4.5
5.5
2%
Bitumen contents, %
Fig. 5.25 Variations of flows value of DBM with different binder and polyethylene contents
Polyethylene
contents, %
2.52
Unit weight, gm/cc
2.5
0% polyethylene with
stone dust
0%
2.48
2.46
2.44
0.50%
2.42
1%
2.4
2.38
1.50%
2.36
3.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
2%
Bitumen contents, %
Fig. 5.26 Variations of unit weight values of SMA with different binder and
polyethylene contents
57
2.44
Polyethylene
contents, %
2.42
2.4
0% polyethylene with
stone dust
0%
2.38
2.36
0.50%
2.34
1%
2.32
2.3
1.50%
2.28
2%
3
3.5
4.5
5.5
Bitumen contents, %
Fig. 5.27 Variations of unit weight values of BC with different binder and polyethylene
contents
2.5
Polyethylene
contents, %
2.45
0% polyethylene with
stone dust
0%
2.4
2.35
0.50%
2.3
1%
2.25
1.50%
2.2
2%
3
3.5
4.5
5.5
Bitumen contents, %
Fig. 5.28 Variations of unit weight values of DBM with different binder and
polyethylene contents
58
6.3
Polyethylene
contents, %
5.8
5.3
0% polyethylene with
stone dust
VA
4.8
4.3
0%
3.8
0.50%
3.3
2.8
1%
2.3
1.8
1.50%
3.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
Bitumen contents, %
2%
Fig. 5.29 Variations of VA values of SMA with different binder and polyethylene
contents
6.5
Polyethylene
contents, %
6
5.5
VA
5
4.5
4
0.50%
3.5
1%
3
1.50%
2.5
3
3.5
4.5
5.5
2%
Bitumen contents, %
Fig. 5.30 Variations of VA values of BC with different binder and polyethylene contents
59
6.5
Polyethyene
contents, %
VA
5.5
0% polyethylene with
stone dust
0%
5
4.5
0.50%
1%
3.5
1.50%
2%
3
3.5
4.5
5.5
Bitumen contents, %
Fig. 5.31 Variations of VA values of DBM with different binder and polyethylene
contents
60
19
Polyethylene
contents, %
18
VMA
17
0% polyethylene with
stone dust
0%
16
15
0.50%
14
1%
13
1.50%
12
2%
3
Bitumen contents, %
Fig. 5.32 Variations of VMA values of SMA with different binder and polyethylene
content
20
Polyethylene
contents, %
19
VMA
18
17
16
0.50%
15
1%
14
1.50%
13
2%
3
3.5
4.5
5.5
Bitumen contents, %
Fig. 5.33 Variations of VMA values of BC with different binder and polyethylene
content
61
24
Polyethylene
contents, %
23
22
0% polyethylene with
stone dust
0%
VMA
21
20
19
0.50%
18
17
1%
16
1.50%
15
3
3.5
4.5
5.5
2%
Bitumen contents, %
Fig.5.34 Variations of VMA values of DBM with different binder and polyethylene
content
Polyethylene
contents, %
90
VFB
85
0% polyethylene with
stone dust
0%
80
75
0.50%
70
1%
65
1.50%
60
3.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
2%
Bitumen contents, %
Fig. 5.35 Variations of VFB values of SMA with different binder and polyethylene
content
62
100
Polyethylene
contents, %
95
90
80
0% of polyethylene with
stone dust
0%
75
0.50%
70
1%
65
1.50%
VFB
85
60
2%
3
3.5
4.5
5.5
Bitumen contents, %
Fig. 5.36 Variations of VFB values of BC with different binder and polyethylene content
80
Polyethylene
contents, %
75
0% polyethylene with
stone dust
0%
VFB
70
65
0.50%
1%
60
2%
55
3
3.5
4.5
5.5
Bitumen contents, %
Fig. 5.37 Variations of VFB values of DBM with different binder and polyethylene
content
63
Optimum polyethylene
and slag
content (%)
(%)
0%
6%
1.5%
5%
0%
4.5%
1.5%
4%
BC without polyethylene
0%
4.5%
BC with polyethylene
1.5%
4%
Stability(kN)
13.94
16.24
12.98
18
BC without polyethylene
14.23
BC with polyethylene
18
Flow(mm)
3.6
2.5
2.35
BC without polyethylene
3.7
BC with polyethylene
addition of fly ash and slag to conventional mix and again addition of polyethylene to the
mixture with fly ash and slag the retained stability value increases. It means resistance to lose
of stability due to stripping in mixes increases with addition of polyethylene and also by
addition of fly ash and slag. BC mixes with polyethylene result highest retained stability
followed by SMA mixes with polyethylene and then DBM mixes with polyethylene with fly
ash and slag.
Avg. stability
after 24
hours in
water at 60 c
Avg. retained
Stability, in %
and slag
Avg. stability
after half an
hour in water
at 60 c
SMA without
13.94
10.87
74.98
16.24
13.28
80.8
12.98
10.31
77.48
18
14.72
81.78
14.23
11.51
75.9
18
14.48
84.45
Design
requirement
polyethylene
SMA with
polyethylene
DBM without
polyethylene
DBM with
Minimum 75%
(as per MORTH
Table 500-17)
polyethylene
BC without
polyethylene
BC with
polyethylene
65
SMA
1.8
BC
1.2
SMA
BC
0.8
SMA
BC
SMA
BC
The effect of temperature on the indirect tensile strength of mixes with and without
polyethylene is also studied.
67
3500
3000
Polyethylene
contents, %
2500
SMAWP
IDT, kPA
2000
BCWP
1500
SMA
DBMWP
BC
DBM
1000
500
0
0
10
20
30
Temperature, C
40
50
60
Fig. 5.38 Variation of ITS values of SMA, DBM AND BC with stone dust as filler in
different temperatures
68
3500
3000
polyethylene
contents, %
2500
ITS I, kPA
SMAFSWP
BCFSWP
2000
DBMFSWP
SMAFS
BCFS
1500
DBMFS
SMA
1000
BC
DBM
500
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Temperatures, C
Fig. 5.39 Variation of ITS values of SMA, DBM AND BC with fly ash and slag in different
temperatures
69
Table 5.11 TSR of mixes with stone dust and with fly ash and slag with and without
polyethylene
Types of mixes
Tensile
Strength ratio of
mixes with stone
dust (%)
76.81
80.4
82.14
85.4
79.26
81.6
SMA without
Tensile strength
ratio of mixes with
Design
requirement
polyethylene
SMA with
polyethylene
DBM without
polyethylene
DBM with
84.78
87.2
79.68
82.7
87.26
89.1
Minimum 80%
(as per MORTH
Table 500-17
polyethylene
BC without
polyethylene
BC with
polyethylene
70
It is observed from the time Vs stain graphs that BC mixes with polyethylene give the
minimum strain as compared to other mixes.
Types of mixes
Deformation, mm
0.3
BCP
0.25
SMAP
0.2
BC
0.15
SMA
0.1
DBMP
0.05
DBM
0
-0.05
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Time, min
Types of mixes
Deformation, mm
0.5
BCP
0.4
SMAP
BC
0.3
SMA
0.2
DBMP
0.1
DBM
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Time, min
71
0.7
Deformation, mm
0.6
Types of mixes
0.5
BCP
0.4
SMAP
BC
0.3
SMA
0.2
DBMP
0.1
DBM
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Time min
Types of mixes
0.6
Deformation, mm
BCP
0.5
SMAP
0.4
BC
SMA
0.3
DBMP
0.2
DBM
0.1
0
0
10
20
30
40
Time, min
50
60
70
80
72
5.7.2 Strain Vs time relationships for mixes with stone dust at all
temperatures
0.7
0.6
Types of mixes
0.5
BCP
Strain
0.4
SMAP
BC
0.3
SMA
0.2
DBMP
0.1
DBM
0
-0.1
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Time, min
Types of mixes
0.7
BCP
Strain
0.6
SMAP
0.5
BC
0.4
SMA
0.3
0.2
DBMP
0.1
DBM
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Time, min
73
1
0.9
0.8
Types of mixes
0.7
BCP
Strain
0.6
SMAP
0.5
BC
0.4
0.3
SMA
0.2
DBMP
0.1
DBM
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Time, min
Types of mixes
1
Strain
BCP
0.8
SMAP
BC
0.6
SMA
0.4
DBMP
0.2
DBM
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Time, min
74
Types of mixes
Deformation, mm
0.3
BCFSP
0.25
SMAFSP
0.2
BCFS
0.15
SMAFS
0.1
DBMFSP
0.05
DBMFS
0
-0.05
20
40
60
80
Time, min
Types of mixes
0.5
BCFSP
0.4
SMAFSP
BCFS
0.3
SMAFS
0.2
DBMFSP
0.1
DBMFS
0
0
20
40
60
80
Time, min
75
0.7
0.6
Deformation, mm
Types of mixes
0.5
BCFSP
0.4
SMAFSP
0.3
BCFS
0.2
SMAFS
0.1
DBMFSP
DBMFS
0
0
20
40
60
80
Time, min
Types of mixes
Deformation, mm
0.5
BCFSP
0.4
SMAFSP
BCFS
0.3
SMAFS
0.2
DBMFSP
0.1
DBMFS
0
-0.1
20
40
60
80
Time, min
76
5.7.4 Strain Vs time relationships for the mixes with fly ash and
slag at different temperatures
0.6
0.5
Types of mixes
Strain
0.4
BCFSP
SMAFSP
0.3
BCFS
0.2
SMAFS
DBMFSP
0.1
DBMFS
0
0
20
40
60
80
Time, min
Types of mixes
0.7
Strain
0.6
BCFSP
0.5
SMAFSP
0.4
BCFS
0.3
SMAFS
0.2
DBMFSP
0.1
DBMFS
0
0
20
40
60
80
Time, min
77
1
0.9
0.8
Types of mixes
Strain
0.7
BCFSP
0.6
SMAFSP
0.5
BCFS
0.4
0.3
SMAFS
0.2
DBMFSP
0.1
DBMFS
0
0
20
40
60
80
Time, min
Types of mixes
Strain
0.7
BCFSP
0.6
SMAFSP
0.5
BCFS
0.4
0.3
SMAFS
0.2
DBMFSP
0.1
DBMFS
0
0
20
40
60
80
Time, min
78
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUDING REMARKS
In this study, three types of mixes i.e. SMA, DBM and BC are prepared with VG30 grade
bitumen used as a binder. The effect of addition of waste polyethylene in form of locally
available artificial milk with brand OMFED packets in the bituminous mixes has been
studied by varying concentrations of polyethylene from 0% to 2.5% at an increment of 0.5%.
Using Marshall Method of mix design the optimum bitumen content (OBC) and optimum
polyethylene content (OPC) have been determined for different types of mixes. It has
been observed that addition of 2% polyethylene for SMA and DBM mixes and 1.5%
polyethylene for BC mixes results in optimum Marshall Properties where stone dust is
used as filler. But when small fraction of fine aggregates are replaced by granulated blast
furnace slag and filler is replaced by fly ash, optimum Marshall Properties for all types of
mixes result with only 1.5% polyethylene addition. The OBCs in case of modified SMA,
BC and DBM mixes by using stone dust as filler are found 4% and OBCs in case of
modified (i) SMA, and (ii) BC, and DBM by using fly ash and slag are found to be 5%
and 4% respectively.
Using the same Marshall specimens prepared at their OPCs and OBCs by using both (i)
stone dust as filler and (ii) replacing of stone dust by fly ash and fine aggregate by slag,
for test under normal and wet conditions it is observed that the retained stability increases
with addition of polyethylene in the mixes, and BC with polyethylene results in highest
retained stability followed by DBM with polyethylene and then SMA with polyethylene.
Addition of polyethylene reduces the drain down effect, though these values are not that
significant. It may be noted that the drain down of SMA is slightly more than BC without
polyethylene. However, for all mixes prepared at their OPC there is no drain down.
79
In general, it is observed that the Indirect Tensile Strength (ITS) value decreases with
increase in temperature and for a particular binder, when polyethylene gets added to the
mixes the value further increases in both cases. The BC mixes with polyethylene result in
highest indirect tensile strength values compared to SMA, followed by DBM.
It is observed that by addition of polyethylene to the mixture, the resistance to moisture
susceptibility of mix also increases. BC with polyethylene results in highest tensile
strength ratio followed by DBM mixes with polyethylene and SMA mixes with
polyethylene for both cases.
It is observed from the static creep test that deformation of mix generally decreases by
addition of polyethylene at all test temperatures used. The BC mixes with polyethylene
result minimum deformation compared to others.
From the above observations it is concluded that use of waste polyethylene in form of packets
used in milk packaging locally results in improved engineering properties of bituminous
mixes. Hence, this investigation explores not only in utilizing most beneficially, the waste
non-degradable plastics, but also provides an opportunity in resulting in improved pavement
material in surface courses thus making it more durable.
80
81
REFERENCES
1. AASHTO T 283, Standard method of test for resistance of compacted asphalt
mixtures to moisture-induced damage, American association of state highway and
transportation officials.
2. AASHTO T 305, Drain-down characteristics in un-compacted asphalt mixtures,
American association of state highway and transportation officials.
3. Ahmadinia E., Zargar M., Karim M. R., Abdelaziz M. and Ahmadinia E. (2012),
Performance evaluation of utilization of waste Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) in
stone mastic asphalt, Journal of Construction and Building Materials, Volume 36,
pp. 984989.
4. Airey G. D., Rahimzadeh B. and Collop A. C. (2004), Linear rheological behaviour
of bituminous paving materials, Journal of materials in civil engineering, Volume
16, pp. 212-220.
5. Al-Hadidy A.I. and Yi-qiu T. (2009), Effect of polyethylene on life of flexible
pavements, Journal of Construction and Building Materials, volume 23, pp. 1456
1464.
6. ASTM D 1559, Test method for resistance of plastic flow of bituminous mixtures
using Marshall Apparatus, American society for testing and materials.
7. ASTM D 6931 (2007), Indirect Tensile (IDT) Strength for bituminous mixtures,
American society for testing and materials.
8. ASTM D 792-08, Standard test methods for density and specific gravity of plastic
by displacement, American society for testing and materials.
9. ASTM D88212, Standard test method for tensile properties of thin plastic
sheeting, American society for testing and materials.
82
10. Attaelmanan M., Feng C. P. and AI A. (2011), Laboratory evaluation of HMA with
high density polyethylene as a modifier, Journal of Construction and Building
Materials, Volume 25, pp. 27642770.
11. Awwad M. T. and Shbeeb L (2007), The use of polyethylene in hot asphalt
mixtures, American Journal of Applied Sciences, volume 4, pp. 390-396.
12. Bindu C.S., Beena K.S. (2010), Waste plastic as a stabilizing additive in SMA,
International Journal of Engineering and Technology, Volume 2, pp. 379-387.
13. Casey D., McNally C., Gibney A. and Gilchrist M. D. (2008), Development of a
recycled polymer modified binder for use in stone mastic asphalt, Journal of
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Volume 52, pp. 11671174.
14. Chen (2008/09), Evaluated rutting performance of hot mix asphalt modified with
waste plastic bottles.
15. Das A. and Chakroborty P. (2010), Principles of Transportation Engineering,
Prentice Hall of India, New Delhi, pp 294-299.
16. Fernandes M. R. S., Forte M. M. C. and Leite L. F. M. (2008), Rheological
evaluation of polymer-modified asphalt binders, Journal of Materials Research,
Volume 11, pp. 381-386.
17. Firopzifar S.H., .Alamdary Y.A. and Farzaneh O. (2010), Investigation of novel
methods to improve the storage stability and low temperature susceptivity of
polyethylene modified bitumens, petroleum & Coal, Volume 52, pp.123-128.
18. Gawande A., Zamare G., Renge V.C., Tayde S. And Bharsakale G. (2012), An
overview on waste plastic utilization in asphalting of roads, Journal of Engineering
Research and Studies Vol. III/ Issue II.
83
19. Habib N. Z., Kamaruddin I., Napiah M. and Tan I. M. (2010), Rheological
properties of polyethylene and polypropylene modified bitumen, World Academy of
Science, Engineering and Technology, Volume 72, pp. 293-297.
20. Herndon D. A. (2009), Moisture susceptibility enhancement of asphalt mixtures
using phosphonylated recycled polyethylene.
21. Ipc-tm-650 test methods manual (1995).
22. IRC SP-79 (2008), Tentative specification for SMA, Indian roads congress, New
Delhi.
23. IS: 1203 (1978), Methods for testing tar and bituminous materials: determination of
penetration, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
24. IS: 1205 (1978), Methods for testing tar and bituminous materials: determination of
softening point, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
25. IS: 2386 (1963), Methods of test for aggregates for concrete (P - I): Particle size and
shape, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
26. IS: 2386 (1963), Methods of test for aggregates for concrete (P-III): Specific
Gravity, Density, Voids, Absorption, Bulking, Bureau of Indian Standards, New
Delhi.
27. IS: 2386 (1963), Methods of test for aggregates for concrete (P-IV): Mechanical
Properties, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
28. Jain P. K., Kumar S. & Sengupta J. B. (2011), Mitigation of rutting in bituminous
roads by use of waste polymeric packaging materials, Indian Journal of Engineering
& Materials Sciences Vol. 18, pp. 233-238.
29. Kar D. (2012), A laboratory study of bituminous mixes using a natural fibre,
Unpublished PhD thesis, NIT RKL.
84
30. Karim R.., Islam N., Sajjad M. and Habib A. Polyethylene, a potential solution to
strength loss of bituminous pavement under water, International symposium on geodisasters, infrastructure management and protection of world heritage sites, pp. 204207.
31. Khan I. and Gundaliya P. J. (2012), Utilization of waste polyethylene materials in
bituminous concrete mix for improved performance of flexible pavements, Journal
of applied research, volume 1, issue 12, pp. 85-86.
32. Kumar, P. and Singh, S. (2008), Fiber-Reinforced Fly Ash Sub-bases in Rural
Roads. Journal on transportation engineering., Volume 134, pp. 171180.
33. Mathew T. V. and Rao K. V. K. (2006), Bituminous mix design, Introduction to
Transportation Engineering, NPTEL, pp. 24.1-24.5.
34. Moghaddam T. B. and Karim M. R. (2012), Properties of SMA mixtures containing
waste Polyethylene Terephthalate, International Journal of Chemical and Biological
Engineering 6, pp. 188-191.
35. MORTH specification (2001).
36. Murphy M., OMahony M., Lycett C. and Jamieson I. (2001), Recycled polymers
for use as bitumen modifiers, Journal of materials in civil engineering, Volume 13,
pp. 306-314.
37. Panda M. and Mazumdar M. (2002), Utilization of reclaimed polyethylene in
bituminous paving mixes, Material in Civil Engineering, Volume 14, Issue 6, pp.
527-53.
38. Pareek A., Gupta T. and Sharma R. K. (2012), Performance of polymer modified
bitumen for flexible pavements, International journal of structural and civil
engineering research, Volume 1, pp. 1-10.
85
86
50. Swami V., Jirge A., Patil K., Patil S., Patil S. and Salokhe K. (2012), Use of waste
plastic in construction of bituminous road, International Journal of Engineering
Science and Technology, Volume 4, pp. 2351- 2355.
51. Texas department of transportation (2005), Test Procedure for static creep test.
52. Vargas M. A., Vargas M. A., Sanchez-Solis A. and Manero O. (2013),
Asphalt/polyethylene blends: Rheological properties, microstructure and viscosity
modelling, Journal of Construction and Building Materials, Volume 45, pp. 243
250.
53. Vasudevan R. (2004), Use of Plastics Waste in Construction of Tar Road.
54. Wegan V., Nielsen C. B. (2001), Microstructure of polymer modified binders in
bituminous mixtures, pp.1-19.
55. Yousefi A. A. (2009), Phase-Destabilization mechanism of polymer-modified
bitumens in quiescent annealing, Prog. Color Colorants Coat, Volume 2, pp. 53-59.
87