BSC Thesis PDF

USE OF NON-BIODEGRADABLE PLASTICS IN FLEXIBLE
PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION
BY
MUHAMMAD SHAHROZ (14L-5731)

MUHAMMAD HARIS (13L-5806)
WALEED BIN YOUSUF (13L-5786)
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF
BACHELOR OF SCIENCE
IN
CIVIL ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF COMPUTER & EMERGING
SCIENCES, (LAHORE CAMPUS) PAKISTAN
(2018)
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF COMPUTER &
EMERGING SCIENCES, (LAHORE CAMPUS)
PAKISTAN
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
USE OF NON-BIODEGRADABLE PLASTICS IN

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION
MUHAMMAD SHAHROZ (14L-5731)

MUHAMMAD HARIS (13L-5806)
WALEED BIN YOUSUF (13L-5786)
BSc Civil Engineering
Year of Submission (2018)

CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL
It is certified that the research work presented in this thesis, entitled USE OF NON-
BIODEGRADABLE PLASTICS IN FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION was
conducted by MUHAMMAD SHAHROZ, MUHAMMAD HARIS & WALEED BIN
YOUSUF under the supervision of HEC Approved Advisor Dr. SHAHID ALI, Professor and
Head of Civil Engineering Department and ASIM IQBAL, Assistant Professor, Civil
Engineering Department, NUCES, Lahore Campus.
No part of this thesis has been submitted anywhere else for any other degree. This thesis is
submitted to the DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science CIVIL ENGINEERING at National
University of Computer & Emerging (Lahore Campus) Islamabad, PAKISTAN.
(JULY, 2018)
Candidate Names:
1. Muhammad Shahroz Signature-------------------------------
2. Muhammad Haris Signature-------------------------------
3. Waleed Bin Yousuf Signature--------------------------------

Examination Committee:
a) Dr. Shahid Ali Signature---------------------------------
Professor & HOD HEC approved PhD Supervisor, NUCES, Lahore Campus.
b) Asim Iqbal Signature---------------------------------

Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering Department, NUCES, Lahore Campus.
i
TURNITIN ORIGINALITY REPORT
ii
DEDICATION
Starting with the name of ALMIGHTY ALLAH (The Most Gracious, The Most Merciful), this
whole work is dedicated to my beloved parents, whose utmost love and prayers brought me to
this height, my respectable teachers whose guidance and efforts made me stand in this world.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First praise is to ALLAH, the ALMIGHTY, on whom ultimately, we depend for sustenance and
guidance. Without His Help and Blessings, I was not able to bring this work. I gratefully
acknowledge the enthusiastic supervision of Mr. Asim Iqbal during this thesis. Without his
support this work could never be possible. I am also thankful to Dr. Shahid Ali, H.O.D, Civil
Engineering Department and university authorities for providing us facilities and convenience to
complete this job.
Finally, yet importantly, I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to my beloved parents for
their blessings, my friends for their help and wishes for the successful completion of this thesis.
iv
ABSTRACT
Nowadays plastic waste consisting of wrappers of junk foods, chocolates, chips, hand carry bags,
plastic bottles and all other forms of plastic are mainly responsible for creating significant
environmental and critical economic problems. Massive amount of energy and other natural
resources are utilized during the production of plastics depleting the environment in various
ways. Polymer addition in asphalt for pavement construction enhances the life and structure of
road. Asphalt properties are made better with addition of polymer particularly in the form of low-
density plastics. The term Plastic Road is used for the roads constructed with plastic waste and
these roads are known to have better durability and performance as compared to conventional
roads. Further it has been discovered that such streets were not subjected frequent structural
failures as compared to the traditional pavements. According to research, the utilization of
higher level of plastic waste diminishes the need of bitumen by 10%. It enhances the quality and
material strength of the pavement. Structural strength and durability of flexible pavement can
also be enhanced by polymer addition in asphalt. Plastic waste replaces 10% to 15% of bitumen
approximately and also saves around an amount of about Rs. 70,000 to Rs. 80,000 for each
kilometre of a road patch during flexible pavement construction.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL ................................................................................................ i

TURNITIN ORIGINALITY REPORT ...................................................................................... ii
DEDICATION.............................................................................................................................. iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................ iv
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... v
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... x
ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................................... xii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 13
1.1 GENERAL .......................................................................................................................... 13
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT ................................................................................................. 13
1.3 SCOPE OF PROJECT ........................................................................................................ 14
1.4 RESEARCH METHODOLGY .......................................................................................... 14
1.4.1 NUMBER OF SAMPLES ........................................................................................... 15
1.5 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................... 15
1.6 THESIS ORGANIZATION ................................................................................................ 15
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................. 17
2.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 17
2.2 HOT MIX ASPHALT......................................................................................................... 17
2.2.1 BASIC MATERIALS IN HMA .................................................................................. 18
2.2.1.1 AGGREGATES .................................................................................................... 18
2.2.1.2 BITUMEN ............................................................................................................ 19
2.3 POLYMER ADDED ASPHALT ....................................................................................... 19
2.3.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 19
2.3.2 POLYMER STRUCTURE & GROUPING ................................................................ 20
2.4 PLASTIC POLYMERS ...................................................................................................... 20
2.4.1 TYPES OF PLASTICS ................................................................................................ 21
2.5 WASTE PLASTIC UTILIZATION IN HMA .................................................................... 23
2.5.1 PLASTIC UTILIZATION IN BITUMEN (BINDER) ................................................ 24
2.5.2 PLASTIC UTILIZATION AS AGGREGATE COATING ........................................ 25
2.5.3 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 26
CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS & METHODOLOGY ............................................................... 27
vi
3.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 27
3.2 LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES............................................................................ 27
3.3 MATERIALS SELECTION ............................................................................................... 29
3.4 MATERIAL PROPERTIES ............................................................................................... 30
3.4.1 BITUMEN ................................................................................................................... 30
3.4.1.1 PENETRATION TEST ........................................................................................ 30
3.4.1.2 DUCTILITY TEST ............................................................................................... 31
3.4.1.3 SOFTENING POINT TEST ................................................................................. 31
3.4.1.4 FLASH AND FIRE POINT TEST ....................................................................... 32
3.4.1.5 SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST ................................................................................ 32
3.4.1.6 SUMMARY OF BITUMEN PROPERTIES ........................................................ 33
3.4.2 WASTE PLASTIC PROPERTIES .............................................................................. 33
3.4.3 AGGREGATE PROPERTIES..................................................................................... 34
3.4.3.1 SIEVE ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 34
3.4.3.2 SPECIFIC GRAVITY & WATER ABSORPTION TEST .................................. 35
3.4.3.3 LOS ANGELES ABRASION TEST .................................................................... 35
3.4.3.4 AGGREGATE IMPACT VALUE TEST ............................................................. 36
3.4.3.5 AGGREGATE CRUSHING VALUE TEST........................................................ 37
3.4.3.6 SUMMARY OF AGGREGATES TEST RESULT ............................................. 38
3.5 TESTING PROGRAM ....................................................................................................... 39
3.5.1 BLENDING OF AGGREGATES ............................................................................... 39
3.5.2 MARSHALL TEST ..................................................................................................... 39
3.5.2.1 DETERMINING OPTIMUM BINDER CONTENT ........................................... 41
3.6 PREPARATION OF POLYMER MODIFIED HMA ........................................................ 42
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ...................................................................... 44
4.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 44
4.2 BLENDING OF AGGREGATES ...................................................................................... 44
4.3 MARSHALL TEST ............................................................................................................ 46
4.3.1 STABILITY vs B.C ..................................................................................................... 47
4.3.2 FLOW vs B.C .............................................................................................................. 47
4.3.3 BULK DENSITY (Gmb) vs B.C ................................................................................... 48
4.3.4 AIR VOIDS (Va) vs B.C .............................................................................................. 49
4.3.5 VOIDS FILLED WITH ASPHALT (VFA) vs B.C..................................................... 49
4.3.6 VOIDS IN MINERAL AGGREGATES (VMA) vs B.C ............................................ 50
vii
4.3.7 CALCULATING OPTIMUM BINDER CONTENT (OBC) ...................................... 51
4.4 POLYMER ADDITION IN HOT MIX ASPHALT ........................................................... 51
4.4.1 STEP (I) – CONVENTIONAL HMA SAMPLE ........................................................ 51
4.4.2 POLYMER (LDPE) MODIFIED HMA SAMPLE ..................................................... 52
4.4.2.1 STABILITY vs P.C .............................................................................................. 53
4.4.2.2 FLOW vs P.C ........................................................................................................ 53
4.4.2.3 BULK DENSITY (Gmb) vs P.C ............................................................................ 54
4.4.2.4 AIR VOIDS (Va) vs P.C ....................................................................................... 54
4.4.2.5 VMA vs P.C .......................................................................................................... 55
4.4.3 OPTIMUM PLASTIC CONTENT DETERMINATION ............................................ 56
4.5 COST ANALYSIS.............................................................................................................. 57
4.5.1 CALCULATIONS ....................................................................................................... 57
4.5.2 CONVENTIONAL HMA ............................................................................................ 57
4.5.3 POLYMER MODIFIED HMA ................................................................................... 57
4.6 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 58
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................ 59
5.1 GENERAL .......................................................................................................................... 59
5.2 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................. 59
5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................... 61
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 62
ANNEXURE (A) ......................................................................................................................... 64
ANNEXURE (B).......................................................................................................................... 66
viii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 2-1: TYPES OF PLASTICS AND THEIR APPLICATIONS [4]. ................................ 21

TABLE 2-2: TYPES AND CLASSIFICATION OF POLYMERS [14]. .................................... 22
TABLE 3-1: SOURCES OF MATERIALS USED ..................................................................... 29
TABLE 3-2: SUMMARY OF BITUMEN PROPERTIES .......................................................... 33
TABLE 3-3: WASTE PLASTIC PROPERTIES ......................................................................... 33
TABLE 3-4: RESULTS OF AGGREGATE TESTING ............................................................. 38
TABLE 4-1: 19 MM NOMINAL SIZE AGGREGATE GRADATION FOR WEARING
COURSE ....................................................................................................................................... 45
TABLE 4-2: SUMMARY OF MARSHALL TEST RESULTS .................................................. 46
TABLE 4-3: MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF HMA USING OBC (4.7%) .......................... 51
TABLE 4-4: MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF ASPHALT MIX WITHOUT ADDITION OF
LDPE............................................................................................................................................. 51
TABLE 4-5: MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF ASPHALT MIX WITH LDPE BAGS
ADDITION ................................................................................................................................... 52
TABLE 4-6: COMPARISON OF MODIFIED HMA HAVING OPC (10%) WITH
CONVENTIONAL HMA ............................................................................................................. 56
TABLE 4-7: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ...................................................................................... 57
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 2-1: CROSS-SECTION OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT ............................................... 18

FIGURE 3-1: FLOW CHART OF LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURE ....................... 28
FIGURE 3-2: PLASTIC WASTE COLLECTED FROM NEARBY DISPOSED WASTE ...... 29
FIGURE 3-3: SOURCE OF AGGREGATE (SARGODHA CRUSH) ....................................... 29
FIGURE 3-4: PENETRATION APPARATUS .......................................................................... 30
FIGURE 3-5: PENETRATION TEST BEING PERFORMED ON BITUMEN ........................ 30
FIGURE 3-6: DUCTILOMETER ............................................................................................... 31
FIGURE 3-7: SOFTENING POINT TEST BEING CONDUCTED ON 60/70 BITUMEN
SPECIMEN ................................................................................................................................... 31
FIGURE 3-8: FLASH & FIRE POINT TEST BEING CONDUCTED ...................................... 32
FIGURE 3-9: SPECIFIC GRAVITY COMPUTATION FOR BITUMINOUS MATERIAL.... 32
FIGURE 3-10: SIEVE ANALYSIS TEST BEING CONDUCTED ON SIEVE SHAKER ....... 34
FIGURE 3-11: SPECIFIC GRAVITY AND WATER ABSORPTION APPARATUS ............. 35
FIGURE 3-12: LOS ANGELES ABRASION TEST ................................................................. 36
FIGURE 3-13: AGGREGATE IMPACT VALUE TEST ........................................................... 36
FIGURE 3-14: AGGREGATE CRUSHING TEST BEING PERFORMED ON UTM ............. 37
FIGURE 3-15: SIEVED AGGREGATES OF DIFFERENT SIZES .......................................... 39
FIGURE 3-16: MARSHALL TEST BEING DONE ON 3.5% B.C SPECIMEN ...................... 40
FIGURE 3-17: MARSHALL SPECIMENS FOR DIFFERENT BINDER CONTENT
PERCENTAGES .......................................................................................................................... 41
FIGURE 3-18: LDPE ADDED MARSHALL SPECIMENS FOR VARYING P.C AT 4.7%
OBC .............................................................................................................................................. 43
FIGURE 4-1: SHRP GRADATION CURVE FOR 19 MM NOMINAL AGGREGATE SIZE 44
FIGURE 4-2: STABILITY VS B.C ............................................................................................ 47
FIGURE 4-3: FLOW VS B.C...................................................................................................... 48
FIGURE 4-4: GMB VS B.C .......................................................................................................... 48
FIGURE 4-5: VA VS B.C ........................................................................................................... 49
FIGURE 4-6: VFA VS B.C ......................................................................................................... 50
FIGURE 4-7: VMA VS B.C........................................................................................................ 50
x
FIGURE 4-8: STABILITY VS P.C............................................................................................. 53
FIGURE 4-9: FLOW VS P.C ...................................................................................................... 53
FIGURE 4-10: BULK DENSITY VS P.C .................................................................................. 54
FIGURE 4-11: VA VS P.C .......................................................................................................... 55
FIGURE 4-12: VMA VS P.C ...................................................................................................... 55
xi
ABBREVIATIONS
PC Plastic Content
BC Bitumen Content
WPB Waste Plastic Bags
LDPE Low-Density Polyethylene
HDPE High-Density Polyethylene
HMA Hot Mix Asphalt
OBC Optimum Bitumen Content
ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
ITS Indirect Tensile Strength
SSD Saturated surface dry condition
VFB Voids Filled Bitumen
VMA Voids Mineral Aggregates
Vb Bitumen Volume
Va Air Voids
xii
Chapter 1 Introduction
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
Fast industrial development incorporated with increasing population growth resulted into an
excess in the generation of waste materials with an obvious increment. Disposal of such vast
measure of waste particularly non-biodegradable waste materials turned into an issue of
awesome worry in developed as well as developing countries. Reusing waste materials into
useful items is thought to be a standout amongst the most sustainable solutions for this issue.
Therefore, steps to introduce new and creative uses of waste materials are broadly supported [1].
There have been various research studies in order to find out the ways for utilizing some of the
waste materials into construction materials considering their performance, availability,
environmental impacts and feasibility studies. These research studies are used to find out a
proper utilization of safe and economical waste material incorporated with efficient construction
materials. Utilization of waste materials in construction of highways and flexible roads is not
only a cost-effective idea but also considered a best option in terms of serviceability [1].
It is demonstrated that the use of certain polymers for flexible pavements enhance the overall
performance as it provides much higher resistance to rutting and cracking due to thermal
expansion. In addition, it is also proven in providing a good resistance to fatigue damage,
stripping and high thermal susceptibility. Polyethylene is widely used plastic material and it has
been proven to be one of the most effective polymer additive. [2, 3].
Low-density Polyethylene (LDPE) making up thin plastic bags are widely used in packaging.
But its disposal in huge amount produces an environmental problem as they are non-
biodegradable in nature. Several research methodologies have been carried out for the utilization
of plastic and waste plastic bags in construction materials. They can be utilized as binder
modifier or as aggregate coat in accordance to their chemical composition and physical state.
Results of the modified asphalt mix were encouraging and showed an enhancement in terms of
performance and durability. [1, 4].
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT

Plastic is widely used in today‟s life as it has many applications in numerous sectors such as in
carrying consumer goods, packaging, agriculture, protective wrappings and construction. Due to
13
its wide range of uses, it makes up a significant amount of municipal waste. It constitutes (10-
13%) by weight of municipal waste [5].
Being a non-biodegradable material, it causes an environmental concern, as it will remain in the
environment for hundreds of years depicting waste disposal crisis. Therefore, the use of
innovative and sustainable approaches is much needed to effectively handle its growing
quantities. One of the solution is to recycle it into useful products [6].
However, the deterioration of road network due to increase in traffic loading leading to more
loading cycles causes a challenge for their maintenance [2].
To cope with this problem scientists and engineers are constantly searching for different
techniques to enhance asphalt pavements‟ performance. The primary purpose of this study is to
devise a way for using waste plastic bags as asphalt modifier and to review the feasibility of
asphalt mixed with plastic wastes in terms of performance and cost.
1.3 SCOPE OF PROJECT

Basic purpose of this endeavor is to examine the incorporation of polyethylene in bituminous
mix and its ability to upgrade the mechanical properties of the mix, Marshall Stability & Flow
Test and resistance of wearing course against structural failures. Furthermore, consolidated into
the degree of the investigation is to separate the economy achieved by this method and its impact
on the waste organization.
1.4 RESEARCH METHODOLGY

To accomplish research objectives, following methodology was adopted:
 Literature review of past books, scientific journals and reports on polymer additions in Hot
Mix Asphalt.
 Field studies of the recycled polymer processing plants to get more information and collect
samples.
 Detailed study of HMA design.
 Finding Optimum Binder Content (OBC) using Marshall Mix design method. Five
percentages of bitumen have been examined to determine the best percentage of bitumen for
the aggregates used, which include 3.5,4, 4.5, 5 and 6% by weight of the mix.
14
 Finding the results and effects of LDPE polymer addition in HMA and comparing it with
conventional HMA in terms of bulk density, Marshall stability, flow and air voids. Intended
percentages are from (6-18%) by weight of OBC.
 End Results and Discussions.
 Conclusions & Recommendations.
1.4.1 NUMBER OF SAMPLES

 Marshall Test Design Method is used for preparing samples.
 Conventional HMA Samples = 5 (%ages) x 3 samples for each %age = 15 samples.
 LDPE modified HMA Samples = 7 percentages of LDPE (starting from 6 - 18 % with 2%
increment by weight of OBC) x 2 samples for each percentage = 14 sample.
 Total no. of samples = 29 samples.
1.5 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

 To determine the Optimum Binder Content (OBC) and Optimum Plastic Content (OPC) that
can be added in bitumen yielding effective results.
 Comparison of experimental results of conventional HMA with Polymer added HMA.
 To conduct economic calculations.
1.6 THESIS ORGANIZATION
This thesis is organized into five chapters and annexures to explain the complete research. Each
of the chapter is briefly described below.
Chapter 1 gives the introduction about plastic and its utilization in road construction which
includes general information, problem statement, scope of project, research methodology,
research objectives and structure of thesis.
Chapter 2 is the study of literature review.
Chapter 3 explains materials used with experimental design and methodology including quality
test on bitumen and aggregates, including mix design method.
Chapter 4 summarizes the results and discussions.
15
Chapter 5 explains the conclusions and recommendations for the modified asphalt and
conclusions.
16
Chapter 2 Literature Review
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Flexible pavement is a combination of two or more materials comprising of aggregates, bitumen
binder and air voids. How the aggregate particles in bituminous mix react to the loads being
transmitted on the binder course is directly related to the structural strength and failure
mechanism of the pavement [7].
The traffic and vehicular intensities are increasing day by day and due to the inadequate
measures for the maintenance of pavement and lack of the high-quality materials during
construction results in the structural failures of different kinds of road networks. Deterioration of
pavement structures can be reduced if better steps are employed during construction and post-
construction phases of pavement which involves using the high strength quality materials,
enhanced roadway design and configuration and latest technological developments be utilized
during design procedures [2].
Numerous factors affect the serviceability of flexible pavements which include the physical and
chemical properties of materials used in the mix and the quantity of bitumen, aggregates along
with additives being used in the blend. Structural strength and life of a flexible pavement can be
enhanced by the utilization of different kinds of additives in the mix. These include polymers,
latex, filaments and other relevant additives [2, 8].
It is a proved fact now that the polymer addition in bituminous mixes improves the overall life
and quality of the pavement structure by enhancing the pavement strength and resistance against
rutting and other structural failures. Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE) plastics when added to
the bituminous mixes not only increase the structural life of pavement instead these also
contribute towards the reduction of environmental plastic pollution [3, 9, 10].
2.2 HOT MIX ASPHALT

Hot-Mix Asphalt (HMA) is the most generally utilized material around the globe. It is known by
a wide range of names: HMA, asphaltic solid, plant blend, bituminous blend, bituminous cement,
and numerous others. It is a mix of two essential materials which are binder and aggregates.
Aggregates incorporate both coarse and fine materials, normally a blend of various size crushed
rocks and sand. Crushed rocks add up to roughly 95% of the aggregate blend by weight. They
17
are blended with roughly 5% bitumen to create HMA. By volume, HMA blend is around 85%
crushed rocks and sand, 10% bitumen and 5% air voids. Performance of HMA mixes is
enhanced when polymer additives are added in the mix also increasing the workability of the
mix. Since asphalt is significantly more adaptable than P.C.C, black-top solid asphalts are called
Flexible Pavements [11].
Black-top solid asphalts are properly built structures having a combination of different material
layers situated on compacted sub-grade soil. Figure 2-1 demonstrates a cross-section of normal
flexible asphalt structure.
Figure 2-1: Cross-section of Flexible Pavement
2.2.1 BASIC MATERIALS IN HMA

2.2.1.1 AGGREGATES
Aggregates are hard, latent materials, such as, sand, rock, gravel and slag etc. Appropriately
chosen and evaluated aggregates are then blended with the binder to shape HMA asphalts.
Aggregates are the primary load supporting segments of HMA asphalt.
Aggregates usually comprise 95% mass of properly compacted HMA. Aggregates are the
primary constituent in HMA and the structural performance of the flexible pavements greatly
18
rely on the quality and strength of the aggregates used. There are three basic types of aggregates
that can be used in the mix which are filler, fine aggregate and coarse aggregate. Aggregates
which retain on the 2.36 mm sieve are referred to as “Coarse Aggregates” while aggregates
passing through the 2.36 mm sieve and retaining on the 0.075 mm sieve are called “Fine
Aggregates”. Sandy particles passing through the 0.075mm sieve are called “Filler”. It is usually
the dust particles from minerals and rocks which help in densifying the hot mix by filling the
small pores [11, 12].
2.2.1.2 BITUMEN
Bitumen binds the aggregate particles firmly in hot mix. It is the end product of raw petroleum in
the refined liquid form. It is a thick black viscous liquid. Carbon and Hydrogen are the main
elements in the bitumen, few other elements like Sulphur, Oxygen etc. are also present in the
bitumen. Varying the temperature of a bitumen material changes its physical properties. It is in
the liquid form as oil having lower consistency when heated at maximum temperatures. At room
temperature most asphalt blends have the consistency of delicate elastics such as rubber. At
subzero temperatures, it can turn out to be exceptionally brittle and hard. Numerous bitumen
binders contain small amounts of low and high-density plastics to enhance their strength and
workability; such binders are known as Polymer Modified Bitumen. Bitumen specifications are
mainly altered to control the effect of consistency with the increase or decrease in temperature
[11].
2.3 POLYMER ADDED ASPHALT

2.3.1 INTRODUCTION
Keeping in mind the end results to enhance the performance of asphalt, numerous polymeric
substances have been added to bitumen blend as additives in numerous structures. Polymer
modification of bitumen offers variety of advantages. Resistance against many structural failures
like rutting, fatigue, thermal cracking etc. is significantly increased by the addition of polymers
in hot mixes [3].
Polymers are for the most part utilized in bitumen blend as modifiers. They additionally can be
added to form an aggregate covering material. Polymers can also be used as the replacement of
19
aggregates in bitumen blend; it is merely dependent on the certain size of the particle being
replaced in the mix. Modified bitumen mix properties rely upon different factors such as polymer
attributes, blending conditions and similarity of polymer with asphalt blend substance.
Polymers have numerous varieties and characterizations. Plastics are the most broadly utilized
polymers these days. Extensive research has been completed to decide the optimum amount of
waste plastic to be used in the asphalt blends. Waste plastic use in asphalt blend will be
explained and past investigations in this field will be audited later in this part.
2.3.2 POLYMER STRUCTURE & GROUPING

'Polymer' is a derived word and its meaning is “many parts”. Polymer basically alludes to large
molecules atoms made by chemical combination of numerous small molecules (monomers) to
form long chains. Synthetic structure, sub-atomic weight and arrangement of monomers of a
particular polymer decide its physical properties [13].
Polymers can be named Elastomers or Plastomers. Elastomers (Rubbers) have the elastomeric
properties defining the capacity of a polymer material to recover to the unique size and shape
after the removal of load. Elastomers normally incorporate copolymers of styrene and butadiene.
They likewise incorporate natural and synthetic rubbers (e.g. Scrap Rubber Modifier CRM) [2].
Plastomers are brittle in nature but achieve high strength and resistance to distortion at a faster
rate than Elastomers. Plastomers incorporate Ethylene Vinyl Acetate (EVA), polyethylene and
various compounds comprising of polypropylene. Elastomeric and Plastomeric Polymers are
normally sub-divided into either Thermosets or Thermoplastics. Thermosets when initially
heated form a complex structure on cooling and this process cannot be reversed when reheated.
On contrary to it, Thermoplastics also form complex structures upon cooling but reshaping is
possible when re-heated [14].
Table 2-2 presents a rundown polymer composes, characterized by their deformational and
thermal characteristics.
2.4 PLASTIC POLYMERS

Plastics are largely organic in nature containing polymers of high atomic masses. The raw
materials required for manufacturing plastics are characteristic items such as, cellulose, coal,
20
natural gas, salt and crude petroleum. Distinctive plastics have diverse polymer chain structures
which define their physical attributes. By far most of the polymers depend on long chains of
Carbon or in a combination with Nitrogen, Oxygen or Sulphur [4].
2.4.1 TYPES OF PLASTICS

The Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI) built up an exceptional numbered coding framework in
1988 to enable customers and recyclers to properly distinguish the kind of resin that was utilized
as a part of manufacturing an item. Producers use a coding framework and place a SPI code or
number on every plastic item which is generally carved into the base of plastic product.
Table 2-1 outlines the most widely recognized sorts of plastics utilized and their applications [4].
Table 2-1: Types of plastics and their applications [4].

Plastic Type Abbreviation Applications
Polyethylene Terephthalate PET Plastic bottles
High Density Polyethylene HDPE Detergent bottles and cleaners
Polyvinyl Chloride PVC Pipes, fittings, credit cards, toys,

electrical fittings, pens; medical
disposables
Low Density Polyethylene LDPE Grocery bags and packaging films
Polypropylene PP Bottle caps and closures, diapers,

microwaveable meal trays, medicine
and syrup bottles, also produced as
fibres and filaments for carpets
Polystyrene PS Styrofoam, Take-away food

containers, egg cartons, disposable
cups, plastic cutlery, CD and
cassette boxes.
21
Others Polycarbonates like CDs,

eyeglasses, riot shields, security
windows
Table 2-2: Types and Classification of Polymers [14].
22
Polymer Type Example Deformational Thermal

Classification Classification
Natural Rubber (NR), Elastomer Thermoset
Polyisoprene, Isoprene,
Natural
Rubber Latex (NRL)
Synthetic Latex / Styrene-Butadiene (SBR) Elastomer Thermoset
Rubber
(Random Polychloroprene Latex Elastomer Thermoset
Copolymers) (Neoprene)
Polybutadiene (PB, BR) Elastomer Thermoset
Reclaimed Crumb Rubber Modifiers Elastomer Thermoset
Rubber
Styrene-Butadiene-Styrene Elastomer Thermoplastic
(SBS)
Styrene-Isoprene-Styrene Elastomer Thermoplastic
(SIS)
Styrene-Butadiene (SB) Elastomer Thermoplastic
Diblock
Block Acrylonitrile-Butadiene- Elastomer Thermoplastic
Copolymers Styrene
(ABS)
Reactive-Ethylene- Elastomer Thermoplastic
Terpolymers
(RET)
Plastics Low / High Density Plastomer Thermoplastic
Polyethylene
(LDPE / HDPE), Other
Polyolefins.
Ethylene Acrylate Copolymer Plastomer Thermoplastic
Ethyl-Vinyl-Acetate (EVA) Plastomer Thermoplastic
Ethyl-Methacrylate Plastomer Thermoplastic
Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Plastomer/Elastomer Thermoplastic
Ethylene-Propylene-Diene- Plastomer Thermoplastic
Monomer
(EPDM)
Acrylates, Ethyl-Methacrylate Plastomer Thermoplastic
(EMA), Ethyl-Butyl-Acrylate
(EBA)
Combinations Mixtures of Above Varies Varies
2.5 WASTE PLASTIC UTILIZATION IN HMA
Several studies have been done on the addition of polymers to hot mix asphalt in order to
enhance the performance of asphalt blends. One of the highly used polymer for this purpose is
23
recycled waste plastic. It can be used as coating of an aggregate, as blend modifying agent or as a
substitute material for aggregates partially.
2.5.1 PLASTIC UTILIZATION IN BITUMEN (BINDER)

Justo and Veeraragavan considered the possibility of utilizing plastic bags in processed form
as a modifying agent in asphalt blends, the prepared plastic was utilized as an additive substance
with heated asphalt in various content ratios starting from 0% - 12 % by weight of bitumen and
blended well to acquire the bitumen (modified). Lab results have given exceedingly promising
outcomes for the utilization of modified asphalt. Results depict that processed plastics addition
around 8.0 % by weight of bitumen helps significantly in enhancing the strength or quality,
fatigue life and other comprehensive properties of asphalt blend, even under adverse water-
logging conditions. In this way the life of the modified asphalt surface course is anticipated to
increment significantly in contrast with the utilization of customary bitumen. Plus, the utilization
of 8.0 % plastic in the processed form by weight of bitumen brings about a sparing of 0.4 %
bitumen by weight of the blend that would contribute in decreasing the overall cost of the asphalt
blend [1].
As per Chen, re-cycled Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) might be valuable in asphalt mixes,
depicting a significant decrease in the deformations through rutting of the asphalt surfacing. PET
is broadly utilized as a material of water and soft drink bottles and it is reused ordinarily. Chen's
examination point was to assess the rut resistance of PET as polymer additive to asphalt blends.
Study investigates the maximum rate of PET that can be used as bitumen modifier and
examining the PET modified mixes with ordinary mixes in term of rut resistance. The tests
incorporate the determination of Marshall Tests, Penetration Index and Three Wheel Immersion
Tracking Test which are normally used to assess the rut resistance. The maximum plastic content
was 7.5% and the OBC for conventional mix was 5.3% while the optimum binder content for
PET modified mix was 5.2%. Results showed that PET asphalt mixes give better resistance
against permanent deformations because of the improved binding property of plastic in PET
asphalt mix which exhibited greater toughness and lower rut depth as compared to the regular
blends [12].
Kalantar studied the possibility of utilizing waste PET as polymer added substances in asphalt
blends. Waste PET is powdered and blended in extents 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 % (by the weight of
24
OBC) with bitumen at temperature 150°C. PET altered blends brought about higher protection
from prolonged deformation and higher protection from rutting because of their higher softening
points when contrasted with conventional blends. Reduction in consistency and increment in the
resistance to flow and temperature changes additionally shows up in PET modified blends [3].
2.5.2 PLASTIC UTILIZATION AS AGGREGATE COATING

Awwad and Shabeeb studied utilizing polyethylene as one kind of polymers to improve asphalt
blend properties, two kinds of polymers in two states were added to coat aggregates (Grounded
and Ungrounded Low-Density Polyethylene (LDPE) and High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE)).
Optimum Bitumen Content (OBC) is first calculated by Marshall Test Method. After conducting
Marshall Tests, seven different ratios of polyethylene starting from 6 up to 18% with an
increment of 2% by weight of optimum binder content were opted for testing. Flow, Bulk
Density and Stability values were calculated through the tests. Experiments concluded that 12%
of grounded High-Density Polyethylene gives better physical and chemical properties. It is
determined that it enhances the stability, decreases the density in addition to a small increment of
air voids [2].
Jain announced that the use of waste polymeric packaging material (WPPM) in the bituminous
blends upgrade asphalt life in addition, these are also environment friendly. Study incorporates
reusing milk sacks and other HDPE packs as modifiers in bituminous blends. Results depicted
that the ideal percentage of WPPM is 0.3% to 0.4% by weight of black-top blends. Higher
percentages unfortunately resulted in more than required stiffness of blends. It is discovered that
utilization of WPPM in bituminous blends significantly improve structural properties of the
pavement resulting in decreased rutting and cracking. Utilization of WPPM in street
development process is a reasonable choice for disposing of non-biodegradable plastic waste
[10].
Sabina analyzed characteristics of asphalt blends having a plastic content of about 8 & 15% by
weight of OBC with customary asphalt blends. Plastic sheets were used in the small shredded
form having a nominal particle size of 2.0 - 3.0 mm. Aggregates after being sieved were placed
in oven and heated at a high temperature of about 160°C. Shredded plastic waste was then added
in heated aggregates before adding the optimum amount of bitumen. Samples were prepared for
Marshall Test for regular and modified blends. It was concluded from the experimental result
25
that modified samples showed about 1.21 & 1.18 times more Marshall Stability as compared
regular samples at percentages 8% & 15% separately. ITS and rutting were additionally
enhanced in adjusted blends. ITS for regular blend was 6.42 kg/cm2 while it was 10.7 & 8.2
kg/cm2 for adjusted blends at 8% and 15% individually. Rutting for traditional blend was about 7
mm while it was 2.7 mm and 3.7 mm for adjusted blends at 8% and 15% separately.
Subsequently PP altered bituminous blends are considered to be stronger than conventional
blends and have an enhanced structure life in actual field conditions [15].
2.5.3 CONCLUSION
In the wake of auditing the past examinations done on the of plastics and plastics squanders in
the bituminous blends as a modifier, it can be deduced that there are diverse types of plastics
which can be utilized in bituminous blends to enhance blend properties. Properties of adjusted
blends are identified with numerous factors, for example, kind of plastic used, form and amount
of the plastic utilized in the mix. In our research project, only one kind of plastic would be
considered that is thin plastic bag mainly composed of Low-Density Polyethylene that would be
used for coating of aggregates in hot mix asphalt. The impact on mechanical properties and
strength of the mix after adding LDPE in the range 6-18% with 2% incremental by the mass of
OBC in the HMA will be studied. Materials used in the research project were obtained from
local sources as mentioned in the next chapter.
26
Chapter 3 Materials & Methodology
CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS & METHODOLOGY
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The primary goal of this investigation is to assess the properties of HMA altered with waste
plastic bags. Process and methodology on how this examination is completed will be clarified in
detail.
This chapter manages two subjects.
In the first phase, materials characterization is done to determine the physical properties of
aggregates, bitumen and waste plastics.
In the second phase, there is complete elaboration of experimental test work to accomplish
research goals.
3.2 LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES

This examination scheme merely depends on laboratory tests as the primary method to
accomplish study objectives.
Lab tests are classified into many phases which start with assessment of the properties of utilized
materials i.e. aggregates, bitumen, and plastics.
Sieve analysis is done for each aggregate type to acquire the grading of aggregate sizes. The
aggregates are then mixed with binder for preparation of asphalt mix. From that point forward,
HMA with various bitumen contents are prepared and Marshall test is carried out to find out
optimum bitumen content (OBC). The value obtained is then used for the preparation of HMAs
mixed with different percentages of LDPE plastic contents. Marshal Test will be used to assess
the properties of these modified mixes. In the end, lab tests are obtained and analyzed.
Following figure gives an overall idea of experimental works to be done in this research.
27
Data Collection
Material Selection
Material Evaluation
Aggregates Bitumen Plastic bags

(LDPE)
Aggregate
Blending
Determination of OBC
Preparation of Polymer modified

HMA
Evaluation of Polymer modified

HMA
Analysis & Results
Figure 3-1: Flow chart of laboratory testing procedure
28
3.3 MATERIALS SELECTION

Hot mix asphalt and waste plastic bags are required for the study. Primary sources of these
materials are shown in table (3.1).
Table 3-1: Sources of materials used
Materials Sources
Aggregates Crushed rocks (Sargodha)
Bitumen UltraChemicals, DHA, Lahore
Waste Plastic Bags Local Thin Plastic Bags
Figure 3-2: Plastic waste collected from nearby disposal site.
Figure 3-3: Source of aggregate (Sargodha Crush)
29
3.4 MATERIAL PROPERTIES

3.4.1 BITUMEN
In this research 60/70 asphalt binder was used. A variety of lab tests were carried out in order to
determine asphalt properties such as penetration, ductility, softening point, specific gravity, flash
point and softening point.
3.4.1.1 PENETRATION TEST

Consistency of binders is measured by penetration test. It is measured as a distance in tenths of a
millimetre. Specified loading, time and temperature conditions are specified for the test under
which standard needle penetrates the test specimen. Softer consistency is indicated by higher
penetration value. First, sample is heated enough to melt properly, then cooled and kept at a
specified temperature. Penetrometer (penetration apparatus) is used to measure penetration in
„mm‟ at a standard temperature of 25ºC. ASTM D5-95 is its standard test specification.
Figure 3-4: Penetration Apparatus
Figure 3-5: Penetration test being performed on bitumen
30
3.4.1.2 DUCTILITY TEST

Elasticity of bitumen is measured with the help of ductility test. Bitumen ductility is measured by
the elongation distance before fracturing when briquet specimens‟ two ends are pulled in
opposite directions at specified temperature and speed. ASTM D113-86 is its standard
specification.
Figure 3-6: Ductilometer
3.4.1.3 SOFTENING POINT TEST

Consistency of binder is also measured by softening test. It is that temperature at which bitumen
changes from semi-solid state to softened state. Softening point test is used to determine the
temperature susceptibility of bitumen. Bitumen loaded samples along with steel balls are placed
in brass rings hanging in a beaker of water and ethylene glycol at 25 mm above a metal plate.
Then heating of liquid takes place at a specified rate. As the bitumen softens, the balls and
bitumen slowly sink towards the plate. Temperature of the water is determined at the instant
when bitumen just touches the plate. This temperature is referred to as the Softening Pont of
specimen under consideration. Test specification is ASTMD36-2002. Figure 3-7 shows softening
point test for bitumen samples.
Figure 3-7: Softening point test being conducted on 60/70 bitumen specimen
31
3.4.1.4 FLASH AND FIRE POINT TEST

It is also known as safety test. It shows the highest temperature at which materials can be safely
transported and heated. Flash Point is the minimum temperature at which vapors of bituminous
material temporarily catches fire in the form of flash when the test flame is applied. Fire Point is
the minimum temperature at which burning of bituminous material is sustained at least for 5
seconds. Standard test specification for this test is ASTM D92-90.
Figure 3-8: Flash & Fire Point Test being conducted
3.4.1.5 SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST

Specific gravity of bitumen is the ratio of material volume given at 25°C to that of an equal water
volume at 25°C. Binder specific gravity effects the absorption capacity of bitumen and also
Marshall specifications for mix design. Test specification is ASTMD D70.
Figure 3-9: Specific Gravity Computation for Bituminous Material
32
3.4.1.6 SUMMARY OF BITUMEN PROPERTIES
Table 3-2: Summary of bitumen properties
Test Specifications Results ASTM Specifications

Limits
Penetration (0.01mm) ASTM D5-06 63 60-70
Ductility (cm) ASTM D113-86 128 Min. 100 cm
Softening point (°C) ASTM D36- 49 46-56
2002
Flash point (°C) ASTM D92-02 240 Min. 232°C
Fire point (°C) ASTM D92-90 252
Specific gravity ASTM D70 1.03 1.01-1.06
(g/cm3)
3.4.2 WASTE PLASTIC PROPERTIES
Table 3-3: Waste plastic properties
Properties Details
Plastic type Waste plastic bags
Plastic material Low density polyethylene
Size (mm) 2.00-4.50
Density (g/cm3) 0.93
Melting point (°C) 112
33
3.4.3 AGGREGATE PROPERTIES

Followings tests were performed to determine the properties of aggregate used.
3.4.3.1 SIEVE ANALYSIS
Sieve Analysis is done to find out the particle size distribution of coarse and fine aggregates.
Stack of standard sieves are arranged in descending order from top to bottom and sample is
placed on the topmost sieve and the whole assembly is shaken mechanically or manually. It
results into the separation of aggregates in different size particles retained on each sieve. ASTM
C136 is the standard specification of this test.
JMF (Job Mix Formula) currently being used by NHA (National Highway Authority) was
adopted for this study. NHA specifications were used for aggregate gradation so the aggregate
that we have used in this project is of Class A as specified by NHA.
Figure 3-10: Sieve analysis test being conducted on sieve shaker

34
3.4.3.2 SPECIFIC GRAVITY & WATER ABSORPTION TEST

Higher the specific gravity of an aggregate, higher is the strength. Water absorption is measured
as the ratio of absorbed water to the weight of oven dried aggregate. ASTM C127 is the
designation for specific gravity test and ASTM C128 is the standard designation for water
absorption test.
Figure 3-11: Specific Gravity and Water Absorption Apparatus
3.4.3.3 LOS ANGELES ABRASION TEST

Hardness of coarse aggregate is measured by Los Angeles Abrasion Test. Resistance against
wear and tear of the aggregate indicates the service life and structural strength of the aggregate
used in pavements. Higher the LAAV, lower is the strength of aggregates against wear and vice
versa. ASTM C131 is standard designation for this test.
35
Figure 3-12: Los Angeles Abrasion Test

3.4.3.4 AGGREGATE IMPACT VALUE TEST
It measures the resistance of aggregates against impact loads, also, referred to as toughness of
aggregates. Aggregates are broken down into smaller fragments under heavy vehicular loads due
to the application of impact loads posed by traffic. Aggregates must be strong enough to resist
impact loads for a longer service life and durability. Its assembly consists of end-base in circular
shape having two vertical guides and a hammer.
Figure 3-13: Aggregate Impact Value Test
36
3.4.3.5 AGGREGATE CRUSHING VALUE TEST

This test provides a relative measure of aggregate resistance against compressive loads when
applied gradually. It is the percentage by mass of the fine crushed aggregate obtained and its
numerical value provides the aggregate strength used in pavement construction. Aggregates
having lesser ACV indicate that aggregates are stronger having longer lifespan and economic
performance. Traffic and vehicular loads are the main factors responsible for the crushing of
weaker aggregates. Therefore, aggregates must be stronger enough to resist failure actions under
such loads when used for road construction.
Figure 3-14: Aggregate crushing test being performed on UTM
37
3.4.3.6 SUMMARY OF AGGREGATES TEST RESULT
Table 3-4: Results of aggregate testing
Test Coarse Fine Filler Standard Specifications

Aggregates Aggregates Designation
Bulk Specific
Gravity (Gsb) 2.63 2.62 2.64
Apparent ASTM C127 2.5 – 3.00

Specific 2.69 2.72 2.64
Gravity (Gsa)
Effective
Specific 2.66 2.61 2.64
Gravity (Gse)
Water
Absorption 2.35 2.15 2.01 ASTM C128 <5%
Crushing
Value 11.02% BS 812 <15%
Impact Value
12.24% BS 812 10-30%
Los Angeles
Abrasion 23.12% ASTM C131 <40%
Value
38
3.5 TESTING PROGRAM

3.5.1 BLENDING OF AGGREGATES
Asphalt blend requires the joining of at least two aggregates having diverse gradations to create
an aggregate mix that meets specific gradation for a specific asphalt blend.
Accessible aggregates and sand are incorporated together to achieve the best possible degree of
gradation as per ASTM specifications. This strategy relies upon proposing distinctive trial
extents for aggregate materials from entire gradation. For each aggregate's size percentage is
calculated and compared with the specified limits. The results obtained are compared with the
permissible limits, if they lie within the specified limits then no changes are needed. However, if
they do not fall within the specified limit, adjustments need to be made until all aggregate sizes
fall within the specified limit.
Figure 3-15: Sieved Aggregates of different sizes
3.5.2 MARSHALL TEST

This test is carried out in order to find out the optimum bitumen content which is then added to
specific aggregate blend to acquire a mix of desired strength and durability. As per standard 75
blow Marshall design method was used designated as ASTM D 1559-89. Using different
bitumen contents, 15 samples each of weight 1275 gm were prepared. Three samples for each
bitumen content were prepared to have an average value of Marshall Stability, Bulk Density and
Flow. Marshall Specimens for different bitumen content are shown in Figure 3-17. Marshall
39
Properties of the bitumen blend such as stability, flow, density, air voids in aggregate mix, and
voids filled with asphalt percentage are obtained for various bitumen contents. The following
graphs are then plotted.
 Stability vs. Bitumen Content;
 Flow vs. Bitumen Content;
 Bulk Specific Gravity (Density) vs. Bitumen Content;
 Air voids (Va) vs. Bitumen Content;
 Voids Filled with Bitumen (VFB) vs. Bitumen Content
These graphs are put to use to obtain optimum bitumen content.
Figure 3-16: Marshall Test being done on 3.5% B.C Specimen
40
3.5.2.1 DETERMINING OPTIMUM BINDER CONTENT

The OBC for a proposed mix can be calculated by taking the average of three values of bitumen
content as followed:
 Bitumen content at the highest stability
 Bitumen content at the highest value of bulk density
 Bitumen content at the median of allowed percentages of air voids (Va = 3-5%)
 OBC =
Figure 3-17: Marshall specimens for different binder content percentages
41
3.6 PREPARATION OF POLYMER MODIFIED HMA

 There are a wide range of strategies for usage of waste plastic materials in asphalt blend. In
this investigation, waste plastic bags are added in asphalt blend to achieve aggregate coating
and not to improve bitumen properties as bitumen modifier.
 After obtaining optimum bitumen content, a total of 29 samples were prepared in order to
figure out the effect of adding waste plastic bags to asphalt blend samples.
 Procedure for adding waste plastic bags to asphalt mix is as follows.
 Waste plastic sacks are grinded and then sieved to acquire a granular size ranging for 2.00 to
4.50 mm.
 After grinding a specific amount of waste plastic bags, these are then mixed with coarse
aggregates and heated at 185°C -190°C for around two and a half hours. The heating
temperature and duration is selected on the basis of many experimental trials.
 Fine aggregates are heated at the same temperature and same duration in a separate pan in
order to avoid the formation of an insulating layer of melted plastic around aggregates which
may weaken the bond.
 The specified amount of bitumen is then heated to 150°C.
 Mixture of waste plastic bags and coarse aggregates are further mixed with fine aggregates
and hot bitumen at OBC. All the ingredients are carefully and vigorously mixed to form a
homogenous asphalt blend.
 After the preparation of modified asphalt blend, specimens are prepared, compacted and
tested as per standard 75-blow Marshall Method designated as ASTM D 1559-89.
42
Figure 3-18: LDPE added Marshall specimens for varying P.C at 4.7% OBC
43
Chapter 4 Results and Discussions
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Experimental work and results are divided in two groups in this chapter. Firstly, Marshall Test is
performed with varying bitumen percentages i.e. 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0 and 5.5% and the optimum
bitumen content (OBC) is calculated from these experiments.
After OBC has been determined, next step involves adding different polymer percentages i.e. 6,
8, 10, 12,14,16 & 18% in hot asphalt mix according to the mass of OBC.
Marshall test results for modified samples are studied and finally the optimum plastic content is
obtained.
4.2 BLENDING OF AGGREGATES

The gradation of aggregate mix was done in accordance with NHA Class-A SHRP Gradation for
wearing course. 19 mm is the nominal size of aggregates as per Superpave Gradation. NHA
Class A gradation limits and gradation curve is shown in in Table 4-1 and Figure 4-1.
Figure 4-1: SHRP Gradation Curve for 19 mm Nominal Aggregate Size
44
Table 4-1: 19 mm Nominal Size Aggregate Gradation for Wearing Course
Superpave 19 mm Nominal Size Gradation Requirements
Control Points Restricted Zone After Blending %

Sieve, mm Boundary Passing
Min Max Min Max
25 - 100.0 - - 100%
19 90.0 100.0 - - 90%
12.5 - - - - 77%
9.5 - - - - 70%
4.75 - - - -- 44%
2.36 23.0 49.0 34.6 34.6 29%
1.18 - - 22.3 28.3 21%
0.600 - - 16.7 20.7 16%
0.300 - - 13.7 13.7 10%
0.150 - - - - 8%
0.075 2.0 8.0 - - 5%
45
4.3 MARSHALL TEST

15 samples having weight 1275 gm each were prepared using five different bitumen percentages
3.5, 4, 4.5, 5 and 5.5% to find the optimum bitumen content (OBC). Table 4-3 and Figures 4-2 to
4-7 show summary of Marshall Test results.
Table 4-2: Summary of Marshall Test results
Bitumen Sample Stability Flow Gmb Va Vb VMA VFA

Content (kg) (mm) (g/cm3) (%) (%) (%) (%)
(%)
1 1514 3.35 2.3 7.45 9.01 16.46 54.74
2 1405 3.1 2.29 8.65 8.90 17.55 50.71
3.50 3 1360 2.46 2.31 7.31 9.03 16.34 55.26
Average 1426.33 2.97 2.3 7.80 8.98 16.78 53.51
1 1550 3.55 2.33 5.50 9.14 14.64 62.43
2 1370 2.86 2.31 6.40 9.06 15.46 58.60
4 3 1460 2.52 2.34 5.82 9.10 14.92 60.99
Average 1460 2.98 2.33 5.91 9.10 15.01 60.64
1 1445 2.98 2.34 4.40 9.15 13.55 67.53
2 1512 3.32 2.35 4.76 9.19 13.95 65.88
4.50 3 1528 3.12 2.37 4.39 9.18 13.57 67.65
Average 1495 3.14 2.353 4.52 9.17 13.69 67.01
1 1601 3.5 2.34 4.01 9.15 13.16 69.53
2 1348 3.38 2.36 3.56 9.19 12.75 72.08
5 3 1248 2.81 2.34 4.56 9.13 13.69 66.69
Average 1399 3.23 2.346 4.04 9.16 13.20 69.37
1 1558 4.25 2.34 3.87 9.11 12.98 70.18
2 1356 4.07 2.35 3.74 9.13 12.87 70.94
5.50 3 1270 4.12 2.33 3.98 9.08 13.06 69.53
Average 1394.67 4.15 2.34 3.86 9.11 12.97 70.21
46
 Bulk Density (Gmb)

 Air Voids Content (Va %)
 Percent Volume of Bitumen (Vb %)
 Percent Voids in Mineral Aggregates (VMA %)
 Percent Voids Filled with Asphalt (VFA %)
4.3.1 STABILITY vs B.C

Stability refers to the maximum load sustained by the specimen till failure when loading is
applied at a constant rate of 50 mm/min [16]. In Figure 4-2, stability against different for
different bitumen contents is shown. Stability increases as the B.C increases till it reaches the
peak at bitumen content 4.4%. Further increment of bitumen after this point resulted in decrease
of stability.
Stability vs Bitumen Content

1520
1500
1480
Stability (kg)
1460
1440
1420
1400
1380 R² = 0.6377
1360
3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Bitumen Content (%)
Figure 4-2: Stability vs B.C
4.3.2 FLOW vs B.C

Flow is defined as the maximum vertical deformation caused in a specimen at maximum load
[16]. In Figure 4-3, flow values against varying bitumen contents are shown. Flow increases as
the binder content increases till the peak at the maximum bitumen content of 5.5%.
47
Flow vs Bitumen Content

4.3
4.1
3.9
3.7
Flow (mm)
3.5
3.3
3.1
2.9
2.7
2.5
3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Bitumen Content (%)
Figure 4-3: Flow vs B.C
4.3.3 BULK DENSITY (Gmb) vs B.C

Bulk density is the actual density of the compacted mix. In Figure 4-4, bulk density values
against different bitumen contents are mentioned. Bulk density increases as the bitumen content
increases till the peak at bitumen content 4.8%. Gradual decrease in bulk density is observed
after peak value when bitumen content is increased further.
Bulk Density vs Bitumen Content

2.36
2.35
2.34
Gmb (g/cm3)
2.33
2.32
2.31
2.3 R² = 0.9719
2.29
3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Bitumen Content (%)
Figure 4-4: Gmb vs B.C
48
4.3.4 AIR VOIDS (Va) vs B.C

Va (%) is air voids percentage by volume in specimen [16]. In Figure 4-5, Va (%) values for
different bitumen contents are mentioned. Maximum air voids content value is at the lowest
bitumen percentage (3.5%). As bitumen content increases, air voids tend to decrease.
Air Voids vs Bitumen Content

9
8
7
6
Va (%)
5
4
3
2
R² = 0.9983
1
0
3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Bitumen Content (%)
Figure 4-5: Va vs B.C
4.3.5 VOIDS FILLED WITH ASPHALT (VFA) vs B.C

Voids Filled with Asphalt (VFA) is the percentage of voids in mineral aggregates filled with
asphalt [16]. In Figure 4-6, VFA values against different bitumen contents are shown. Minimum
VFA content value is at the lowest bitumen percentage (3.5%), VFA% increases gradually as
bitumen content increases due to the increase of voids percentage filled with bitumen in the mix.
49
Voids Filled with Asphalt vs Bitumen Content

75
70
VFA (%) 65
60
55
50 R² = 0.9973
45
40
3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Bitumen Content (%)
Figure 4-6: VFA vs B.C
4.3.6 VOIDS IN MINERAL AGGREGATES (VMA) vs B.C

Voids in Mineral Aggregates (VMA) is the percentage of voids by volume in the aggregates
before adding bitumen [16]. In Figure 4-7, VMA% values against different bitumen contents are
shown. Maximum voids in mineral aggregates is at the lowest bitumen percentage (3.5%),
VMA% decrease gradually as bitumen content increases.
Voids in Mineral Aggregates vs Bitumen Content

18
17
16
15
VMA (%)
14
13
12
11
R² = 0.9983
10
3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Bitumen Content (%)
Figure 4-7: VMA vs B.C
50
4.3.7 CALCULATING OPTIMUM BINDER CONTENT (OBC)

 Bitumen content at maximum stability = 4.3 %
 Bitumen content at maximum bulk density = 4.8 %
 Bitumen content at the median of allowed percentages of air voids = 5 %
 OBC = (4.3 + 4.8 + 5)/3 = 4.7%
 Optimum Binder Content calculated is 4.7%.
Table 4-3: Mechanical Properties of HMA using OBC (4.7%)
Mechanical Value AI Specifications

Property Min Max
Stability (kg) 1470 1000 *

Flow (mm) 3.2 2 3.5
VMA (%) 14.1 14 *
Va (%) 4.23 3 5
3
Gmb (g/cm ) 2.35 2.2 2.5
4.4 POLYMER ADDITION IN HOT MIX ASPHALT

4.4.1 STEP (I) – CONVENTIONAL HMA SAMPLE
Mechanical properties of mix prepared with OBC (4.7%) without addition of polymer is shown
in Table 4-4.
Table 4-4: Mechanical properties of asphalt mix without addition of LDPE
Sample Bitumen Stability Flow Gmb Va Vb VMA VFA

Content (kg) (mm) (g/cm3) (%) (%) (%) (%)
(%)
1 4.7 1509 2.89 2.37 3.87 11.82 15.70 73.34
2 4.7 1529 3.06 2.36 4.60 11.74 16.04 74.89
Average 4.7 1519 2.975 2.365 4.24 11.78 15.87 74.12
51
4.4.2 POLYMER (LDPE) MODIFIED HMA SAMPLE

14 samples were prepared at OBC to find the effect of LDPE addition in HMA by considering
seven proportions of LDPE 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 and 18% by the weight of OBC. Table 4-5 shows
the mechanical properties of asphalt mix using different percentages LDPE (By weight of OBC).
Table 4-5: Mechanical properties of asphalt mix with LDPE bags addition
Plastic Sample OBC Stability Flow Gmb Va Vb VMA VFA

Percentage (%) (kg) (mm) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
(%)
1 4.7 1758 2.95 2.34 4.31 11.71 16.02 73.10
6 2 4.7 1760 2.97 2.36 4.33 11.73 16.06 73.04
Average 4.7 1759 2.96 2.35 4.32 11.72 16.04 73.07
1 4.7 1766 3.09 2.33 4.38 11.68 16.06 72.73
8 2 4.7 1768 3.11 2.35 4.4 11.66 16.06 72.60
Average 4.7 1767 3.1 2.34 4.39 11.67 16.06 72.67
1 4.7 1971 3.22 2.34 4.33 11.69 16.02 72.97
10 2 4.7 1973 3.24 2.36 4.35 11.71 16.06 72.91
Average 4.7 1972 3.23 2.35 4.34 11.7 16.04 72.94
1 4.7 1985 3.4 2.33 4.53 11.66 16.19 72.02
12 2 4.7 1987 3.6 2.35 4.55 11.68 16.23 71.97
Average 4.7 1986 3.5 2.34 4.54 11.67 16.21 71.99
1 4.7 2034 3.4 2.331 4.76 11.64 16.4 70.98
14 2 4.7 2036 3.42 2.353 4.78 11.66 16.44 70.92
Average 4.7 2035 3.41 2.342 4.77 11.65 16.42 70.95
1 4.7 1932 3.88 2.31 4.7 11.55 16.25 71.08
16 2 4.7 1934 3.9 2.33 4.72 11.57 16.29 71.03
Average 4.7 1933 3.89 2.32 4.71 11.56 16.27 71.05
1 4.7 1719 4.01 2.3 4.85 11.53 16.38 70.39
18 2 4.7 1721 4.03 2.32 4.87 11.55 16.42 70.34
Average 4.7 1720 4.02 2.31 4.86 11.54 16.4 70.37
52
4.4.2.1 STABILITY vs P.C

Generally, the stability of modified mixes is higher than the conventional bitumen mixes. All the
values of stability for different modifier percentages are higher than stability of conventional
mix. The maximum stability value is found nearly (2035 kg) at LDPE content around 14%.
Figure 4-8 shows that the stability of modified asphalt mix increases as the P.C increases till it
reaches the peak at 14 % P.C then there is steep decline at higher P.C content.
Stability vs Plastic Content

2100
2050
2000
Stability (kg)
1950
1900
1850
1800
1750 R² = 0.8178
1700
1650
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Plastic Content (%)
Figure 4-8: Stability vs P.C

4.4.2.2 FLOW vs P.C
Generally, the flow of modified mix is higher than the conventional mix. Figure 4-9 shows that
the flow increases continuously as P.C content increases. The flow value increases from 3 mm to
4 mm at P.C 18%.
Flow vs Plastic Content

4.5
4
Flow (mm)
3.5 R² = 0.946
2.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Plastic Content (%)
Figure 4-9: Flow vs P.C
53
4.4.2.3 BULK DENSITY (Gmb) vs P.C

The bulk density of modified mix is lower than the conventional asphalt mixes as observed from
the graph. The general trend shows that the bulk density decreases as the P.C content increases.
The maximum bulk density is (2.35 g/cm3) at P.C (6%) and the minimum bulk density is (2.31
g/cm3) at P.C (18%). This decrease of bulk density can be explained to be as a result of the low
density of added plastic material. Figure 4-10 represents mix bulk density and plastic content
relationship.
Bulk Density vs Plastic Content

2.355
2.35
2.345
Gmb (g/cm3)
2.34
2.335
2.33
2.325
2.32
2.315
2.31 R² = 0.8823
2.305
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Plastic Content (%)
Figure 4-10: Bulk Density vs P.C
4.4.2.4 AIR VOIDS (Va) vs P.C

Generally, air voids of modified mixes are higher than conventional mixes. Air voids of modified
mixes increase gradually as the plastic content increases till it reaches the highest Va value at
18% P.C. Figure 4-11 represents asphalt mix air voids against plastic content relationship.
54
Percentage of Air Voids vs Plastic Content

5
4.9
4.8
4.7
Va (%)
4.6
4.5
4.4 R² = 0.8922
4.3
4.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Plastic Content (%)
Figure 4-11: Va vs P.C

4.4.2.5 VMA vs P.C
Voids in mineral aggregates percentage for bitumen mixes is affected by air voids in specimen
(Va) and voids filled with bitumen (Vb). VMA% of modified bitumen mixes is generally higher
than conventional asphalt mix. VMA% of modified asphalt mixes increases as the P.C increases
and it reaches (16.4%) at P.C (18%). Figure 4-12 represents VMA% – P.C relationship.
Voids in Mineral Aggregates vs Plastic Content

16.45
16.4
16.35
16.3
16.25
VMA (%)
16.2
16.15
R² = 0.7698
16.1
16.05
16
15.95
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Plastic Content (%)
Figure 4-12: VMA vs P.C
55
4.4.3 OPTIMUM PLASTIC CONTENT DETERMINATION

 Maximum Stability at P.C = 14 %
 Maximum Bulk Density at P.C = 10 %
 Va% within allowed range of specifications = 6 %
 OPC = (14 + 10 + 6) / 3 = 10 %
 Optimum Plastic Content calculated is OPC = 10%.
Table 4-6: Comparison of Modified HMA having OPC (10%) with Conventional HMA
Properties Conventional HMA Modified HMA with Percentage

10% OPC Change
OBC (%) 4.7 4.7 -
Stability (kg) 1519 1972 +29.82%
Flow (mm) 2.975 3.23 +8.57%
VMA (%) 15.87 16.04 +1.07%
Va (%) 4.24 4.34 +2.36%
Gmb (g/cm3) 2.36 2.35 -0.42%
56
4.5 COST ANALYSIS

An average 1 km of road requires about 16.92 tons of bitumen (bitumen content 4.7 %), using
the polyethylene content of 10% by weight of bitumen. These calculations are based on the
estimated costs of processed plastics.
4.5.1 CALCULATIONS
 Specific Gravity of HMA = 2.4
 Road Lane Width = 3.75 m
 Thickness of the wearing cross = 40 mm = 0.04 m
 Length of road = 1 km = 1000 m

Total volume of Asphalt Mix Wearing Course = 3.75 × 1000 × 0.04 =150 m3
4.5.2 CONVENTIONAL HMA
 Total weight of asphalt mix = 150 × 2400 = 360000 kg
 Weight of bitumen = 4.7 % × 360000 = 16920 kg
 Amount of bitumen used in conventional HMA = 16.92 tons
4.5.3 POLYMER MODIFIED HMA
 Polymer (LDPE) used 10% by weight of bitumen
 Amount of bitumen used = 15.228 tons
 Amount of polythene used = 1.692 tons
 Amount of bitumen saved = 1.692 tons
 Subtracting the collection costs, cleaning costs, shredding costs and mixing costs, the
overall cost saved approximately is Rs 70,000/-.
Size of the road Bitumen Plastics needed Bitumen saved Cost saved
needed
1kmx3.75mx0.04m 16.2 tons 1.692 tons 1.692 tons Rs 70,000
Table 4-7: Economic Analysis
57
4.6 SUMMARY
It is obvious from calculations that modified HMA having 10% OPC has higher stability value as
compared to the conventional HMA. Other mechanical properties of modified mix are still
within the allowed specifications range. There is a slight increase in flow and air voids values in
modified HMA while VMA and bulk density are approximately the same for both the hot mixes.
10% bitumen can be saved if LDPE is being used in its place in pavement construction and this
method also proves to be economical as it can save around 1 lac approximately on a patch of 1
km long flexible pavement.
58
Chapter 5 Conclusions & Recommendations
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 GENERAL
In spite of the fact that bitumen modifiers have been utilized for the timespan of more than 50
years, more concerned behavior is observed in the course of recent years. This more concerned
interest can fundamentally be ascribed to the accompanying elements:
 Massive increase in traffic and vehicular loads are primarily responsible for the failure of
conventional HMA courses. These vast number of pavement failures encourage the need
for modified bitumen courses.
 Waste materials are generated in higher ratios now as compared to past waste loads
generated and also these waste materials cannot be recycled properly like polythene bags,
fly ash etc. Therefore, proper methods should be developed for effective disposal of these
waste materials such as use of plastics as modifiers in bitumen blends.
5.2 CONCLUSIONS
Following conclusions can be drawn on the basis of experimental works and the comparison
between conventional HMA samples and polymer modified HMA samples:
 Waste plastic sheets can be easily used as a modifier for asphalt mixes for sustainable
management of plastic waste as well as for improved performance of asphalt mix.
 Optimum Plastic Content (OPC) that can be effectively used as a modifier in bitumen
mixes is found to be 10% by weight of OBC through experimental work conducted.
 Modified bitumen mix with 10% OPC has approximately 30% more stability value as
compared to the conventional mixes.
 Bulk density tends to decrease with addition of LDPE. This is because of the low density
of plastic material that tends to decrease the overall bulk density of mix.
 Flow value has direct relationship with polymer addition as it increases with the increase
in polymer in mixes but it also increases the stiffness of mix as well
 Cost analysis conducted on 1-kilometre patch of pavement shows that approximately Rs.
70,000-80,000 can be saved if 10% OPC is used by weight of OBC.
59
 Polymer modified HMA demonstrates best outlining properties in terms of design over
conventional bitumen mixes and also it has a higher softening temperature that tends to
reduce rutting phenomena.
 Lesser stripping is observed in courses with modified bitumen mixes.
 Poor quality aggregates can be made stronger by coating them with plastics as it
decreases the aggregate impact value.
 Water absorption capacity of aggregates becomes lesser when aggregates are coated with
plastics. It is due the water-resistant nature of plastics increasing the binding force among
particles.
 There is no evolution of dangerous gases during their production, thus, making it
environmental friendly project.
 Waste materials generated by heavy industries find their useful application in polymer
modified pavements.
 Methods which were previously used for waste disposals were the main reasons of
environmental pollution. This effective and environmental friendly technique helps us to
overcome the hazardous effects caused by landfilling and incineration techniques.
 There is improved solid waste management at urban levels if plastic waste generated is
properly and effectively utilized in such projects.
 Better environmental hygiene is created.
 Life of pavements increase due to the decrease in wear and tear of structures.
 Polymer modified HMA exhibit better physical and chemical properties as compared to
conventional HMA.
Hence polythene blended mixes impressively expand the life of binder courses and spares these
from early wear and tear due to increased structural strength and durability.
60
5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
There are various possible ways which involve effective and proper utilization of plastic wastes.
A significant measure of work needs to be done in this field. However, following steps are
recommended for future development:
 There must be a proper database system showing record of waste plastic bags available at
provincial and urban levels and also depicting their level of accessibility.
 New procedures and techniques must be devised to accumulate waste plastic materials
and also to separate them from undesirable materials.
 New cost-effective procedures should be implanted to mould waste plastic things into
useable shapes to be used as modifiers for bitumen mixes.
 There should be involvement of more concerned stakeholders or specialists who must be
able to develop new plants for proper mixing of cleaned and balanced plastic waste with
bitumen blends.
 Polymer modified HMA should be experimentally tested under different possible quality
conditions to produce best results and field studies should also be conducted and
coordinated with experimental results for better future developments.
 Economic consideration must be a priority while testing the durability of modified
bitumen mixes.
 A comprehensive set of instructions and directions must be formulated according to the
international set of standards for assembling and development of such modified bitumen
pavements.
 Plastic bags utilization is not only beneficial in terms of structural strength and durability
of pavement, in fact, it is also useful in environmental and monetary perspectives.
61
References
REFERENCES
[1] C. Justo and A. Veeraragavan, "Utilization of waste plastic bags in bituminous mix for
improved performance of roads," Centre for Transportation Engineering, Bangalore
University, Bangalore, India, pp. 43-44, 2002.
[2] M. T. Awwad and L. Shbeeb, "The use of polyethylene in hot asphalt mixtures,"
American Journal of Applied Sciences, vol. 4, pp. 390-396, 2007.
[3] Z. Kalantar, A. Mahrez, and M. R. Karim, "Properties of bituminous binder modified
with waste polyethylene terephthalate (PET)," 2009.
[4] Ç. Giriftinoğlu, "The Use of Plastic Waste Materials in Asphalt Pavement," 2007.
[5] A. F. Abdalqader, "Landfills needs assessment in Gaza strip and sites selection using
GIS," Unpublished Master Thesis). The Islamic University of Gaza, Gaza, Palestine,
2011.
[6] V. Swami, A. Jirge, K. Patil, S. Patil, S. Patil, and K. Salokhe, "Use of waste plastic in
construction of bituminous road," International Journal of Engineering Science and
Technology, vol. 4, 2012.
[7] M. H. Sadd, Q. Dai, V. Parameswaran, and A. Shukla, "Microstructural simulation of
asphalt materials: modeling and experimental studies," Journal of materials in civil
engineering, vol. 16, pp. 107-115, 2004.
[8] S. A. Taih, "The effect of additives in hot asphalt mixtures," Journal of Engineering and
Sustainable Development, vol. 15, pp. 132-151, 2011.
[9] T. Yi-qiu and A. Al-Hadidy, "The Effect of Plastomers Polymer Type and Concentration
on Asphalt and Moisture Damage of SMA Mixtures," AL Rafdain Engineering Journal,
vol. 19, pp. 1-11, 2011.
[10] P. Jain, S. Kumar, and J. Sengupta, "Mitigation of rutting in bituminous roads by use of
waste polymeric packaging materials," 2011.
[11] T. Officials and L. Advanced Asphalt Technologies, A Manual for Design of Hot Mix
Asphalt with Commentary vol. 673: Transportation Research Board, 2011.
62
References
[12] T. Chen, "Evaluation of rutting performance on hot mix asphalt modified with plastic
bottles," B. Sc Thesis, University of Technology of Malaysia, Johor Bahru, 2009.
[13] M. D. I. Domingos and A. L. Faxina, "Rheological behaviour of bitumens modified with
PE and PPA at different MSCR creep–recovery times," International Journal of
Pavement Engineering, vol. 16, pp. 771-783, 2015.
[14] G. King and J. Johnston, "Polymer Modified Asphalt Emulsions Composition, Uses, and
Specifications for Surface Treatments," Colorado: Federal Highway Administration,
2012.
[15] T. A. Khan, D. Sharma, and B. Sharma, "Performance evaluation of waste
plastic/polymer modified bituminous concrete mixes," 2009.
[16] M. A. El-Saikaly, "Study of the Possibility to Reuse Waste Plastic Bags as a Modifier for
Asphalt Mixtures Properties (Binder Course Layer)," Faculty of Engineering Civil
Engineering/Infrastructure, 2013.
63
Annexures
ANNEXURE (A)
1. Job Mix Calculations - Equations used for the calculation of HMA mechanical
properties
Va =
Vb =
VMA % = Va + Vb
VFA % =
where
Vb % = Percent bitumen volume.
Va % = Air voids contents in total mix.
B.C %= Percent of Bitumen.
Gmb = Density of compacted mix (g/cm3).
d25 = Density of Bitumen at 25°C.
Gmm = Max. Theoretical density.
VMA = Voids in mineral Aggregates.
VFA = Voids filled with Asphalt
64
Annexures
2. Calculation of physical properties of aggregates - Specific Gravity and Water

Absorption Test (ASTM C127-C128):
A= Weight of Oven-Dry Sample in Air (grams)
B = Weight of Saturated - Surface - Dry Sample in Air (grams)
C = Weight of saturated sample in water (grams)
Bulk Dry S.G =
SSD S.G =
Apparent S.G =
Effective S.G =
Absorption = * 100
3. Calculation of Abrasion value (ASTM C131)
Passing 19mm (3/4”) and retained on 12.5 mm (1/2”) = 2500 grams
Passing 12.5mm (1/2”) and retained on 9.5mm (3/8”) = 2500 grams
A = Original sample weight = 5000 grams
B = Weight retained on the 1.7mm sieve = 3844
LAAV = = 23.12%
65
Annexures
ANNEXURE (B)
PHOTOS
Fig 1 – Aggregate weighing.
Fig 2 – Bitumen weighing.
66
Annexures
Fig 3 – Heating weighed aggregates and bitumen at 160°C.
Fig 4 – Mixing heated aggregates and bitumen in Marshall Mixer.
67
Annexures
Fig 5 – Compacting hot mix sample in Marshall Compactor.
Fig 6 – Removing Marshall specimen by Hydraulic Jack after compaction.
68
Annexures
Fig 7 – Prepared Marshall Specimens.
Fig 8 – Water bath for Marshall Specimens.
69
Annexures
Fig 9 – Marshall Specimen in mesh bucket for testing Maximum Bulk Density.
Fig 10 – Broken Marshall Specimen for finding Maximum Theoritical Density.
70
Annexures
Fig 11 – Desiccator and vacuum machine for finding Gmm.
Fig 12 – Shredded Plastic to be added in Hot Mix.
71
Annexures
Fig 13 – Marshall Stability and Flow Test.
72

BSC Thesis PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BSC Thesis PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

USE OF NON-BIODEGRADABLE PLASTICS IN FLEXIBLE

MUHAMMAD SHAHROZ (14L-5731)

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

USE OF NON-BIODEGRADABLE PLASTICS IN

MUHAMMAD SHAHROZ (14L-5731)

BSc Civil Engineering

Year of Submission (2018)

2. Muhammad Haris Signature-------------------------------

3. Waleed Bin Yousuf Signature--------------------------------

b) Asim Iqbal Signature---------------------------------

CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL ................................................................................................ i

TABLE 2-1: TYPES OF PLASTICS AND THEIR APPLICATIONS [4]. ................................ 21

FIGURE 2-1: CROSS-SECTION OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT ............................................... 18

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT

1.3 SCOPE OF PROJECT

1.4 RESEARCH METHODOLGY

1.4.1 NUMBER OF SAMPLES

1.5 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

1.6 THESIS ORGANIZATION

Chapter 2 is the study of literature review.

Chapter 4 summarizes the results and discussions.

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.2 HOT MIX ASPHALT

Figure 2-1: Cross-section of Flexible Pavement

2.2.1 BASIC MATERIALS IN HMA

2.3 POLYMER ADDED ASPHALT

2.3.2 POLYMER STRUCTURE & GROUPING

2.4 PLASTIC POLYMERS

2.4.1 TYPES OF PLASTICS

Table 2-1: Types of plastics and their applications [4].

Polyethylene Terephthalate PET Plastic bottles

High Density Polyethylene HDPE Detergent bottles and cleaners

Polyvinyl Chloride PVC Pipes, fittings, credit cards, toys,

Low Density Polyethylene LDPE Grocery bags and packaging films

Polypropylene PP Bottle caps and closures, diapers,

Polystyrene PS Styrofoam, Take-away food

Others Polycarbonates like CDs,

Table 2-2: Types and Classification of Polymers [14].

Polymer Type Example Deformational Thermal

2.5.1 PLASTIC UTILIZATION IN BITUMEN (BINDER)

2.5.2 PLASTIC UTILIZATION AS AGGREGATE COATING

CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS & METHODOLOGY

3.2 LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES

Aggregates Bitumen Plastic bags

Preparation of Polymer modified

Evaluation of Polymer modified

Analysis & Results

Figure 3-1: Flow chart of laboratory testing procedure

3.3 MATERIALS SELECTION

Table 3-1: Sources of materials used

Aggregates Crushed rocks (Sargodha)

Bitumen UltraChemicals, DHA, Lahore

Waste Plastic Bags Local Thin Plastic Bags

Figure 3-2: Plastic waste collected from nearby disposal site.

Figure 3-3: Source of aggregate (Sargodha Crush)

3.4 MATERIAL PROPERTIES

3.4.1.1 PENETRATION TEST

Figure 3-4: Penetration Apparatus

Figure 3-5: Penetration test being performed on bitumen

3.4.1.2 DUCTILITY TEST