guided by: prof. bhavik g. patel prof. chirag b....

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.

guided by: prof. bhavik g. patel prof. chirag b....

Documents