A

Project Report
On
COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN BITUMEN
ROADS AND PLASTIC BITUMEN ROADS.
A Thesis Submitted in Partial fulfillment of the Requirement for the award of Degree of

BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY IN CIVIL ENGINEERING.

Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam Technical University

Submitted by:

AKASH NAYAK ( 2104850009002 )

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF –

Er. REENA
(Assistant Professor)

SR Institute of Management and Technology

( Affiliated to Dr.A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, Lucknow )
Session – 2023-2024
i
 DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
S.R. INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY
LUCKNOW.

CERTIFICATE

This is certify that project entitled "COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN BITUMEN

ROADS AND PLASTIC BITUMEN ROADS” submitted by AKASH NAYAK
2104850009002, ARYAN PAL 2104850009012, RAHUL KUMAR 2104850009041,
RAJAT TIWARI 2104850009044, UPDESH PAL 2104850009059 in the partial
fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the degree of Bachelor of Technology
(Civil Engineering) of Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University (formerly known as
AKTU), is a record of students own work carried under our supervision and guidance. The
project report embodies result of original work and studies carried out by students and the
content does not form the basis for the award of any other degree to the candidates or to
anybody else.

Er.Aditya Singh Er.Reena

Head of Department Assistant Professor
ii
 DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
S.R. INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGYLUCKNOW.

DECLARATION

We declare that the Project entitled “COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN BITUMEN

ROADS AND PLASTIC BITUMEN ROADS” is the bonafide work carried out by us,
under the esteemed guidance of Er. REENA . Further we declare that this had not
previously formed the basis of award of any degree, diploma, associate-ship or other similar
degrees or diplomas, and had not been submitted anywhere else.

AKASH NAYAK 2104850009002

ARYAN PAL 2104850009012
RAHUL KUMAR 2104850009041
RAJAT TIWARI 2104850009044
UPDESH PAL 2104850009059

iv
 DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
S.R. INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY LUCKNOW

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

In the sense of great pleasure and satisfaction we present this project entitled
"COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN BITUMEN ROADS AND PLASTIC
BITUMEN ROADS" the completion of this project is no doubt a product of invaluable
support and contribution of number of people.
We would like to express our sincere thanks to our guide Er.Reena . Department of Civil
Engineering for his continuous help and valuable suggestion and also providing encouraging
environment, without which our project and its documentation would not have been
possible. We are also grateful to our head of department Mr.Aditya Singh his valuable
help, encouragement and inspiration. The completion of any task is not only the reward to
the person activity involved in accomplishing, it but also the person involved in inspiring
and guiding. We are grateful to our friend for their constant motivation and comments that
has helped us to complete this report.

v
 DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
S.R. INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY LUCKNOW

ABSTRACT

The rapid growth of population, industrialization, and consumerism has led to an alarming
accumulation of waste worldwide. Proper waste disposal is crucial, both in rural and urban areas.

This study delves into the suitability of plastic waste for road infrastructure. We explore the
geotechnical properties of soil mixed with plastic waste and analyze its impact on pavement
subgrade. Notably, plastic alone is insufficient for subgrade stability, but when combined
with quarry dust, it maintains the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) within the required range.

Key aspects covered in this study include:

1. Waste Disposal Challenges: The escalating waste production necessitates innovative

disposal methods. Conventional approaches are inadequate, and the need for
sustainable alternatives is evident.

2. Plastic Waste in Pavement: Our project proposes a novel technique by incorporating

plastic, quarry dust, and tire waste into the sub-grade soil of pavements. We aim for
safe and efficient waste disposal.

3. Basic Process: Waste plastic is ground into powder and mixed with bitumen. This
increases the melting point of bitumen, enhancing road flexibility during winters.
Shredded plastic acts as a binding agent, prolonging asphalt life.

4. Results and Suitability: Geotechnical tests reveal that plastic, when combined with
quarry dust, improves subgrade stability. The study assesses index properties and
CBR values for various soil-waste mixtures.

In summary, this comparative study sheds light on the potential of plastic waste in road
construction, emphasizing sustainability, cost-effectiveness, and environmental benefits.
vi
 CONTENTS

Items Page No

 Certificate i

 Acknowledgement ii

 Abstract iii

 Contents iv

 List of Tables ix

 List of figures x

 List of abbreviations xv

 List of symbols xvii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION 1-6

1.1 General 1

1.2 Bituminous mix design 2

1.2.1 Overview 2

1.2.2 Objectives of Bituminous mix design 2

1.2.3 Requirements of bituminous mixes 2

1.2.4 Different layers in a pavement 3

1.2.5 Types of bituminous mix 3

1.3 Polymer modification 5

1.3.1 Present Scenario 5

1.3.2 Waste plastic: the problem 5

1.3.3 Role of polyethylene in bituminous pavements 6

vii
1.4 Objectives of present investigation 6

1.5 Organization of Thesis 6

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW 7-14

2.1 Studies on polyethylene 7

2.2 Studies on Use of waste polyethylene in paving mixes 7

CHAPTER 3

RAW MATERIALS 15-25

3.1 Constituents of a mix 15

3.1.1 Aggregates 15

3.1.2 Fly Ash 16

3.1.3 Granulated blast furnace slag 16

3.1.4 Bituminous Binder 17

3.1.5 Polyethylene 17

3.2 Materials used in present study 17

3.2.1 Aggregates 17

3.2.2 Fly ash& Slag 19

3.2.3 Binder 24

3.2.4 Polyethylene 24

CHAPTER 4

EXPERIMENTAL WORK 26-36

4.1 General 26

4.1.1 Determination of specific gravity of polyethylene 26

4.1.2 Determination of tensile properties of polyethylene 27

4.1.3 Determination of softening point of polyethylene 28

4.2 Preparation of Marshall samples 29

viii
4.3 Tests on Marshall samples
4.3.1 Marshall test 30

4.3.1.1 Retained stability test 31

4.3.2 Drain down test 32

4.3.3 Static indirect tensile strength test (ITS) 33

4.3.3.1 Tensile strength ratio 35

4.3.4 Static creep test 36

CHAPTER 5

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 37-53

5.1 Introductions 37

5.2 Parameters used 37

5.3 Effect of polyethylene concentration on Marshall properties of SMA, BC and

DBM mixes with stone dust as filler 39

5.3.1 Marshall stability 39

5.3.2 Flow value 42

5.3.3 Unit weight 44

5.3.4 Air void 46

5.3.5 Void in mineral aggregate (VMA) 48

5.3.6 Void filled with bitumen (VFB) 49

5.3.7 Retained stability 52

5.4 Effect of polyethylene concentration on Marshall properties of SMA, BC and DBM

mixes with slag as a part of fine aggregates and fly ash as Filler 53

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSION 54-55
6.1 Future scope 56

REFERENCES 57-58

ix
 LIST OF THE TABLES
Table 3.1 Gradation of Aggregates for SMA 22

Table 3.2 Gradation of Aggregates for BC 23

Table 3.3 Gradation of Aggregates for DBM 23

Table 3.4 Specific Gravity of Aggregates 24

Table 3.5 Physical Properties of Coarse Aggregates 24

Table 3.6 Chemical Composition of Fly Ash and Slag in Percentage (By Weight) 24

Table 3.7 Physical Properties of Binder 26

Table 3.8 Physical Properties of Polyethylene Used 27

Table 5.1 Optimum Binder Content 52

Table 5.2 Comparison of Stability at OBC 52

Table 5.3 Comparison of Flow at OBC 52

Table 5.4 Retained stability of SMA, BC and DBM With and Without Polyethylene 53

Table 5.5 Optimum Binder Content 64

Table 5.6 Comparison of Stability at OBC 64

Table 5.7 Comparison of Flow at OBC 64

Table 5.8 Retained Stability of SMA, BC and DBM With and Without Polyethylene

with Fly Ash and Slag 65

Table 5.9 Drain Down of Mixes without Polyethylene 66

Table 5.10 Drain Down of Mixes with Polyethylene 66

Table 5.11 TSR of Mixes with Stone Dust and with Fly Ash and Slag With and Without

Polyethylene 70

x
 LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 3.1 XRD result of fly ash 25

Fig. 3.2 XRD result of granulated blast furnace slag 25

Fig 3.3 OMFED Polyethylene Used 27

Fig 4.1 Results of two set of polyethylene samples given by DSC 822

Fig 4.2 Marshall Test in Progress 33

Fig 4.3 Drains Down Test of SMA without Polyethylene 35

Fig 4.4 Loading Configuration for Indirect Tensile Strength Test 36

Fig 4.5 Close View of Indirect Tensile Strength Test on Progress 37

Fig 5.1 Phase Diagram of Bituminous Mix 41

Fig 5.2 Variations of Marshall Stabilities of SMA with Different Binder and

Polyethylene Content 42

Fig 5.3 Variations of Marshall Stabilities of BC with Different Binder and

Polyethylene Content 43

Fig. 5.4 Variations of Marshall Stabilities of DBM with Different Binder and

Polyethylene Content 43

Fig. 5.5 Variations of Flows Value of SMA with Different Binder and Polyethylene

Content 44

Fig. 5.6 Variations of Flows Value of BC with Different Binder and Polyethylene

Content 44

Fig. 5.7 Variations of Flows Value of DMB with Different Binder and Polyethylene

Content 45

Fig. 5.8 Variations of Unit Weight Values of SMA with Different Binder and

Polyethylene Content 46

xi
Fig. 5.9 Variations of Unit Weight Values of BC with Different Binder and

Polyethylene Content 46

Fig. 5.10 Variations of Unit Weight Values of DBM with Different Binder and

Polyethylene Content 47

Fig. 5.11 Variations of VA Values of SMA with Different Binder and Polyethylene

Content 47

Fig. 5.12 Variations of VA Values of BC with Different Binder and Polyethylene

Content 48

Fig. 5.13 Variations of VA Values of DBM with Different Binder and Polyethylene

Content 48

Fig. 5.14 Variations of VMA Values of SMA with Different Binder and Polyethylene

Content 49

Fig. 5.15 Variations of VMA Values of BC with Different Binder and Polyethylene

Content 49

Fig. 5.16 Variations of VMA Values of DBM with Different Binder and Polyethylene

Content 50

Fig. 5.17 Variations of VFB Values of SMA with Different Binder and Polyethylene

Content 50

Fig. 5.18 Variations of VFB Values of BC with Different Binder and Polyethylene

Content 51

Fig. 5.19 Variations of VFB Values of DBM with Different Binder and Polyethylene

Content 51

Fig. 5.20 Variations of Marshall Stabilities of SMA with Different Binder and

Polyethylene Content 54

Fig. 5.21 Variations of Marshall Stabilities of BC with Different Binder and

xii
 Polyethylene Content 55

Fig. 5.22 Variations of Marshall Stabilities of DBM with Different Binder and

Polyethylene Content 55

Fig. 5.23 Variations of Flows Value of SMA with Different Binder and Polyethylene

Content 56

Fig. 5.24 Variations of Flows Value of BC with Different Binder and Polyethylene

Content 56

Fig. 5.25 Variations of Flows Value of DBM with Different Binder and Polyethylene

Content 57

Fig. 5.26 Variations of Unit Weight Values of SMA with Different Binder and

Polyethylene Content 57

Fig. 5.27 Variations of Unit Weight Values of VBC with Different Binder and

Polyethylene Content 58

Fig. 5.28 Variations of Unit Weight Values of DBM with Different Binder and

Polyethylene Content 58

Fig. 5.29 Variations of VA Values of SMA with Different Binder and Polyethylene

Content 59

Fig. 5.30 Variations of VA Values of BC with Different Binder and Polyethylene

Content 59

Fig. 5.31 Variations of VA Values of DBM with Different Binder and

Polyethylene Content 60

Fig. 5.32 Variations of VMA Values of SMA with Different Binder and Polyethylene

Content 61

Fig. 5.33 Variations of VMA Values of BC with Different Binder and Polyethylene

Content 61

xiii
Fig. 5.34 Variations of VMA Values of DBM with Different Binder and Polyethylene

Content 62

Fig. 5.35 Variations of VFB Values of SMA with Different Binder and Polyethylene

Content 62

Fig. 5.36 Variations of VFB Values of BC with Different Binder and Polyethylene

Content 63

Fig. 5.37 Variations of VFB Values of DBM with Different Binder and Polyethylene

Content 63

Fig. 5.38 Variation of its Value of SMA, DBM AND BC with Stone Dust as Filler in

Different Temperatures 68

Fig. 5.39 Variation of its Value of SMA, DBM and BC with Fly Ash and Slag in

Different Temperatures 69

Fig. 5.40 Deformation Values at 30 ℃ FOR SMA, BC, and DBM 71

Fig. 5.41 Deformation Values at 40 ℃ FOR SMA, BC, and DBM 71

Fig. 5.42 Deformation Values at 50 ℃ FOR SMA, BC, and DBM 72

Fig. 5.43 Deformation Values at 60 ℃ FOR SMA, BC, and DBM 72

Fig. 5.44 Time Vs Strain at 30 ℃ for SMA, BC, and DBM 73

Fig. 5.45 Time Vs Strain at 40 ℃ for SMA, BC, and DBM 73

Fig. 5.46 Time Vs Strain at 50 ℃ for SMA, BC, and DBM 74

Fig. 5.47 Time Vs Strain at 60 ℃ for SMA, BC, and DBM 74

Fig. 5.48 Deformation Values at 30 ℃ for SMA, BC, and DBM 75

Fig. 5.49 Deformation Values at 40 ℃ for SMA, BC, and DBM 75

Fig. 5.50 Deformation Values at 50 ℃ for SMA, BC, and DBM 76

Fig. 5.51 Deformation Values at 60 ℃ for SMA, BC, and DBM 76

Fig. 5.52 Time Vs Strain at 30 ℃ for SMA, BC, and DBM 77

xiv
Fig. 5.53 Time Vs Strain at 40 ℃ for SMA, BC, and DBM 77

Fig. 5.54 Time Vs Strain at 50 ℃ for SMA, BC, and DBM 78

Fig. 5.55 Time Vs Strain at 60 ℃ for SMA, BC, and DBM 78

xv
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
HMA Hot mix asphalt

SMA Stone mastic asphalt

BC Bituminous concrete

DBM Dense bound macadam

SMAWP Stone mastic asphalt with polyethylene

BCWP Bituminous concrete with polyethylene

DBMWP Dense bound macadam with polyethylene

SMAFS Stone mastic asphalt with fly ash and slag

BCFS Bituminous concrete with fly ash and slag

DBMFS Dense bound macadam with fly ash and slag

SMAFSWP Stone mastic asphalt with fly ash, slag and polyethylene

BCFSWP Bituminous concrete with fly ash, slag and polyethylene

DBMFSWP Dense bound macadam with fly ash, slag and polyethylene

HDPE High density polyethylene

LDPE Low density polyethylene

PET Polyethylene Terephthalate

EVA Ethylene-vinyl acetate

FAUP Fly Ash Utilisation Programme

GBFS Granulated blast furnace slag

MORTH Ministry of Road Transport & Highways

DSC Differential scanning calorimeter

OBC Optimum Binder Content

OPC Optimum polyethylene content

xvi
ITS Indirect tensile strength test

TSR Tensile strength ratio

VA Air void

VMA Void in mineral aggregates

VFB Void filled with bitumen

xvii
 LIST OF SYMBOLS
GSb Bulk specific gravity of aggregate

Gse Effective specific gravity of aggregate

Mb Mass of bitumen used in mix

Gb Specific gravity of bitumen

Ga Apparent specific gravity

Gmm Theoretical maximum specific gravity of mix

Gmb Bulk specific gravity of mix

PS Percentage of aggregate present by total mass of mix

ST Indirect Tensile Strength

S2 Soaked stability

S1 Standard stability

W1 Initial mass of the plate

W2 Final mass of the plate and drained binder

xviii
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
Bituminous binders are widely used by paving industry. In general pavements are
categorized into 2 groups, i.e. flexible and rigid pavement.
Flexible Pavement
Flexible pavements are those, which on the whole have low flexural strength and are
rather flexible in their structural action under loads. These types of pavement layers
reflect the deformation of lower layers on-to the surface of the layer.
Rigid Pavement
If the surface course of a pavement is of Plain Cement Concrete then it is called as
rigid pavement since the total pavement structure can’t bend or deflect due to traffic
loads.
Pavement design and the mix design are two major considerations in case of
pavement engineering. The present study is only related to the mix design of flexible
pavement considerations. The design of asphalt paving mixtures is a multi-step
process of selecting binders and aggregate materials and proportioning them to
provide an appropriate compromise among several variables that affect mixture
behaviour, considering external factors such as traffic loading and climate conditions.

1.2 Bituminous mix design

1.2.1 Overview
The bituminous mix design aims to determine the proportion of bitumen, filler, fine
aggregates, and coarse aggregates to produce a mix which is workable, strong, durable
and economical. There are two types of the mix design, i.e. dry mix design and wet
mix design.

1.2.2 Objective of Bituminous mix design

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 1

 Main objectives of bituminous mix design are to find;
1. Optimum bitumen content to ensure a durable pavement,
2. Sufficient strength to resist shear deformation under traffic at higher temperature,
3. Proper amount of air voids in the compacted bitumen to allow for
additionalcompaction done by traffic,
4. Sufficient workability, and
5. Sufficient flexibility to avoid cracking due to repeated traffic load.

1.2.3 Requirements of bituminous mixes

Bituminous mixture used in construction of flexible pavement should have following
properties;
1. Stability
2. Durability
3. Flexibility
4. Skid resistance
5. Workability

1.2.4 Different layers in a pavement

 Bituminous base course Consist of mineral aggregate such as stone, gravel, or
sand bonded together by a bituminous material and used as a foundation upon
which to place a binder or surface course.
 In bituminous binder course a bituminous-aggregate mixture is used as an
intermediate course between the base and surface courses or as the first
bituminous layer in a two- layer bituminous resurfacing.
 Asphaltic/Bituminous concrete consists of a mixture of aggregates
continuously graded from maximum size , typically less than 25 mm, through
fine filler that is smaller than 0.075 mm. Sufficient bitumen is added to the
mix so that the compacted mix is effectively impervious and will have
acceptable dissipative and elastic properties.

1.2.5 Types of bituminous mix

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 2

 Dense-Graded Mixes
Dense mix bituminous concrete has good proportion of all constituents. It offers good
compressive strength and some tensile strength.
Gap-graded mix
Some large coarse aggregates are missing and have good fatigue and tensile strength.
Open-graded mix
Fine aggregate and filler are missing; it is porous and offers good friction, low strength.
Hot mix asphalt concrete
HMA is produced by heating the asphalt binder to decrease its viscosity, and drying
the aggregate to remove moisture from it prior to mixing. Mixing is generally
performed
with the aggregate at 150 °C for virgin asphalt.

Warm mix asphalt

It is produced by adding zeolites waxes, asphalt emulsions, or sometimes even water to the
asphalt binder prior to mixing. This allows significantly lower mixing and laying
temperatures and results in lower consumption of fossil fuels, thus releasing less carbon
dioxide, aerosols and vapours.
Cold mix asphalt
It is produced by emulsifying the asphalt in water with prior to mixing with the aggregate. It
results less viscous asphalt and the mixture is easy to work and compact. The emulsion
breaks after evaporation of water and the cold mix asphalt ideally behaves as cold HMA.
Cut-back asphalt concrete
It is produced by dissolving the binder in kerosene or another lighter fraction of
petroleum which makes asphalt less viscous and the mix is easy to work and compact. After
the mix is laid down the lighter fraction evaporates. Because of concerns with pollution
from the volatile organic compounds in the lighter fraction, cut-back asphalt has been
largely replaced by asphalt emulsion.
Mastic asphalt concrete
Mastic asphalt is produced by heating hard grade blown bitumen (oxidation) in a green
cooker (mixer) until it has become a viscous liquid before it is added to aggregates. Then
bitumen aggregate mixture is cooked (matured) for around 6-8 hours and once it is ready the

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 3

 mastic asphalt mixer is transported to the work site where it generally laid to a thickness of
around 3⁄4–13⁄16inches(20-30 mm) for footpath and road applications and around 3⁄8 of an
inch (10 mm) for flooring or roof applications.

1.3 Polymer modification

1.3.1 Present Scenario
Bituminous binders are widely used in road paving and their viscoelastic properties are
dependent on their chemical composition. Now-a-days, the steady increment in high traffic
intensity in terms of commercial vehicles, and the significant variation in daily and seasonal
temperature put us in a situation to think about some alternative ways for the improvement
of the pavement characteristics and quality by applying some necessary modifications
which shall satisfy both the strength as well as economical aspects. Bitumen can also be
modified by adding different types of additives to achieve the present requirement. One of
these additives is the polymers.

1.3.2 Waste plastic: the problem

Today availability of plastic waste is enormous. The use of plastic materials such as carry
bags, cups, etc is constantly increasing. Nearly 50% to 60% of total plastic are consumed
for packing. Once used, plastic packing materials are thrown outside and they remain as
waste. Plastic wastes are durable and non-biodegradable. The improper disposal of plastic
may cause breast cancer, reproductive problems in humans and animals, genital
abnormalities and much more. These plastic wastes get mixed with water, disintegrate, and
take the forms of small pallets which cause the death of fishes and other aquatic life who
mistake them as food material. Sometimes they are either land filled or incinerated. Plastic
wastes get mixed withthe municipal solid waste or thrown over a land area. All the above
processes are not eco- friendly as they pollute the land, air and water. Under these
circumstances, an alternative useof these plastic wastes is required. So any method that can
use this plastic waste for purpose of construction is always welcomed.

1.3.3 Role of polyethylene in bituminous pavements

Use of polyethylene in road construction is not new. Some aggregates are highly hydrophilic
(water loving). Like bitumen polyethylene is hydrophobic (water hating) in nature. So the
addition of hydrophobic polymers by dry or wet mixing process to asphalt mix lead to

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 4

 improvement of strength, water repellent property of the mix. Polyethylenes get added to hot
bitumen mixture and the mixture is laid on the road surface like a normal tar road. Plastic
roads mainly use plastic carry-bags, disposable cups, polyethylene packets and PET bottles
that are collected from garbage as important ingredients of the construction material.
Polymer modification can be considered as one of the solution to improvise the fatigue life,
reduce the rutting & thermal cracking in the pavement. Creating a modified bituminous
mixture by using recycled polymers (e.g., polyethylene) which enhances properties of HMA
mixtures would not only produce a more durable pavement, but also provide a beneficial
way of disposal of a large amount of recycled plastics.
1.4 Objectives of present investigation
A comparative study has been made in this investigation between SMA, BC, and DBM
mixes with varying binder contents (3.5% - 7%) and polyethylene contents (0.5% - 2.5%).
The objectives of this investigation are to observe the followings;
 Study of Marshall properties of mixes using both
1. Stone dust as filler and,
2. Slag as fine aggregate and fly ash as filler.
 The effect of polyethylene as admixture on the strength of bituminous mix with
different filler and replacing some percentage of fine aggregate by slag.

 The performance of bituminous mix under water with and without polyethylene
admixture with different filler and replacing some percentage of fine aggregate by
slag.
 To study resistance to permanent deformation of mixes with and without
polyethylene.
 Evaluation of SMA, BC, and DBM mixes using different test like Drain down
test, Static Indirect tensile Strength test, Static Creep test etc.

1.5 Organization of Thesis

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 5

 The thesis consists of six chapters as described below:
 Chapter 1 describes general idea about flexible pavement, its performance
characteristics, present scenario, and utilization of polyethylene in achieving present
requirement.
 Chapter 2 deals with a review of previous work on laboratory studies.
 Chapter 3 explains the material used in present investigation.
 Chapter 4 deals with experimental investigation.
 Analysis of the results and discussion on the experimental investigations is
discussed in Chapter 5.
 Conclusions and scope for future scope of this work is summarized in Chapter 6.

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 6

 CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Studies on polyethylene
1. IPC, Institute for Interconnecting and Packaging Electronic Circuits (1995)
publisheda test manual for determining the tensile strength, elongation and Young’s
modulus of organic free films by using ASTM D 618, ASTM D 882, ASTM D
1005 and ASTMD 2370.
2. Sichina et al. Characterized Polymers Using TGA (thermo gravity analysis).
According to him TGA measures the amount and rate of change in the mass of a
sample as a function of temperature or time in a controlled atmosphere to determine
the thermal and/or oxidative stabilities of materials as well as their compositional
properties. It is especially useful for the study of polymeric materials, including
thermoplastics, thermo-sets, elastomers, composites, films, fibers, coatings and
paints.

2.2 Studies on Use of waste polyethylene in paving mixes

1. Bindu and Beena (2010) studied how Waste plastic acts as a stabilizing additive in Stone
Mastic Asphalt when the mixtures were subjected to performance tests including Marshall
Stability, tensile strength, compressive strength tests and Tri-axial tests. There results
indicated that flexible pavement with high performance and durability can be obtained
with 10% shredded plastic.

2. Fernandes et al. (2008) studied Rheological evaluation of polymer modified asphalt

binders by using thermoplastic elastomer styrene butadiene styrene (SBS) and they
compared the properties of Modified binder by addition of both oil shale and aromatic
oil to improve their compatibly. The rheological characteristics of the SBS PMBs were
analyzed in a dynamic shear rheometer (DSR) and the morphology accessed by
fluorescence optical microscopy. The results indicated that the aromatic and shale oils
have similar effects on the microstructure, storage stability and viscoelastic behaviour of
the PMBs. Thus, shale oil could be successfully used as a compatibilizer agent without
loss of properties or could even replace the aromatic oil.

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 7

3. Awwad and Shbeeb (2007) indicated that the modified mixture has a higher stability and
VMA percentage compared to the non-modified mixtures and thus positively influence the
rutting resistance of these mixtures. According to them modifying asphalt mixture with
HDPE polyethylene enhances its properties far more than the improvements realized by
utilizing LDPE polyethylene.
4. Gawande et al. (2012) gave an overview on waste plastic utilization in asphalting road by
using both wet and dry method. They said that use of modified bitumen with the addition
of processed waste plastic of about 5-10% by weight of bitumen helps in improving the
longevity and pavement performance with marginal saving in bitumen usage and
according to them use of waste plastics in the manufacture of roads and laminated roofing
also help to consume large quantity of waste plastics. Thus, these processes are socially
highly relevant, giving better infrastructure.
5. Khan and Gundaliya (2012) stated that the process of modification of bitumen with waste
polythene enhances resistance to cracking, pothole formation and rutting by increasing
softening point, hardness and reducing stripping due to water, thereby improving the
general performance of roads over a long period of time. According to them the waste
polythene utilized in the mix forms coating over aggregates of the mixture which reduces
porosity, absorption of moisture and improves binding property.

6. Prusty (2012) studied the behaviour of BC mixes modified with waste polythene. He used
various percentages of polythene for preparation of mixes with a selected aggregate
grading as given in the IRC Code. Marshall Properties such as stability, flow value, unit
weight, air voids are used to determine optimum polythene content for the given grade of
bitumen (80/100) in his study. Considering these factors he observed that a more stable
and durable mix for the pavements can be obtained by polymer modifications.
7. Swami et al. (2012) investigated that the total material cost of the project is reduced by
7.99% with addition of plastic to bitumen between the ranges of 5% to 10%. They
concluded that by modification of bitumen the problems like bleeding in hot temperature
regions and sound pollution due to heavy traffic are reduced and it ultimately improves
the quality and performance of road.
8. Pareek et al. (2012) carried out experimental study on conventional bitumen and polymer
modified binder and observed a significant improvement in case of rutting resistance,

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 8

 indirect tensile strength and resilient modulus of the bituminous concrete mix with
polymer modified bitumen. They also concluded that Polymer modified bitumen results a
high elastic recovery (79%) and better age resistance properties (The loss in weight on
heating in thin film oven is 6 times higher as compared to conventional bitumen of
60/70).
9. Sangita et al. (2011) suggested a novel approach to improve road quality by utilizing
plastic waste in road construction. According to them India spends Rs 35,000 crores a year
on road construction and repairs, including Rs 100,000 crores a year just on maintenance
and roads by bitumen modification lasts 2-3 times longer, which will save us Rs 33,000
crores a year in repairs, plus reduced vehicle wear and tear.

10. Sabina et al. (2009) evaluated the performance of waste plastic/polymer modified
bituminous mix and observed that the results of marshal stability and retained stability of
polythene modified bituminous concrete mix increases 1.21 and 1.18 times higher than
that of conventional mix by using 8% and 15% (by weight of bitumen) polythene with
respect to 60/70 penetration grade of bitumen. But modified mix with 15% polyethylene
showed slightly decreased values for Marshall Stability than that of the mix with 8%
modifier in their results.
11. Reinke and Glidden (2002) tested the resistance of HMA mixtures to failure by using the
DSR (dynamic shear rheometer) creep and recovery tests and reported that result shows
improved resistance in case of polymer modified binders.
12. Karim et al. gave a potential solution to strength loss of bituminous pavement under water.
They compared performance of bituminous mix under water with and without
polyethylene admixture and conclude that bitumen mixes with polyethylene performed
well under water and showed even better Marshall Stability than normal bituminous mix
under normal condition Keeping the environment safe from pollution will be an added
bonus.
13. Yousefi (2009) stated that the polyethylene particles do not tend to rip in bitumen medium
and these particles prefer to join together and form larger particles due to interfacial and
inter-particle attractive forces and the only obstacle in the modification process was the
existence of partitions made from molten bitumen. According to the author whenever,
particles had enough energy to come close together and overcome the thin remained

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 9

 bitumen film which was separating particles, the coalescence of polyethylene particles
occurred and lead to polymer phase separation.
14. Vasudevan (2004) utilized polythene/polypropylene Bags for integrated development of
Rural and Arterial road network for socio-economic Growth. He studied both dry and
wet mixing process by adding polymer with respect to the weight of bitumen used. Author
reported that polymer bitumen blend is a better binder compared to plain bitumen resulting
higher Marshall Stability and decreasing the possibilities of pot- holes formation.
15. Verma (2008) studied that plastic increases the melting point of the bitumen and makes
the road flexible during winters resulting in its long life. According to author while a
normal “highway quality” road lasts four to five years, plastic-bitumen roadscan last up
to 10 years and it would be a boon for India’s hot and extremely humid climate, where
temperatures frequently cross 50°C and torrential rains create havoc, leaving most of the
roads with big potholes.
16. Moghaddam and Karim (2012) reported that the utilization of waste material in asphalt
pavement would be beneficial in order to find an alternative solution to increase service
life of asphalt pavement and reduce environmental pollution as well. Form their study it is
concluded that Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) reinforced mixtures possess higher
stability value, flow, fatigue life in comparison with the mixtures without PET.
17. Wegan and Nielsen (2001) studied microstructure of polymer modified binders in
bituminous mixtures by preparing thin sections of the specimen and analysing that thin
section by Infrared Fourier Transform Spectrometer. When thin sections were illuminated
with the UV-light, the polymer phase emits yellow light, fine and coarse aggregates often
appeared green, the bitumen phase is black and air voids or cracks appear with a yellow-
green colour.
18. Herndon (2009) investigated moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixture using
phosphonylated recycled polythene. They indicated that there is a significant reduction
in moisture susceptibility with the addition of recycled unmodified polyethylene to
asphalt concrete mixtures in both the Wet Process and the Dry Process.
19. Jain et al. (2011) studied mitigation of rutting in bituminous roads by use of waste
polymeric packaging materials and concluded that rutting of bituminous mix can be
reduced to 3.6 mm from a value of 16.2 mm after application of 20,000 cycles, by adding

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 10

 optimum quantity of polyethylene in bituminous mix for road construction, ultimately
improves pavement performance, besides alleviating disposal problems of WPPM for
clean and safe environment.
20. Firoozifar et al. (2010) investigated the novel methods to improve the storage stability and
low temperature susceptibility of polythene modified bitumen. They used Kerosene, Oleic
Acid, Aromatic oil, B-oil etc for increasing stability of polythene modified bitumen and a
fluorescent microscope to observe the homogeneity of the samples.
21. Aslam and Rahman (2009) studied both dry and wet mix and concluded that the dry
process is more economical and beneficial for construction of flexible pavements. Because
in case of higher percentage of polythene in wet process they get separate out from
bitumen on cooling, so it needs some additives.
22. ScienceTech Entrepreneur (2008) propossed that the durability of the roads laid with
shredded plastic waste is much more compared with those which asphalted with the
ordinary mix. While a normal highway road lasts 4 to 5 years it is claimed in this paper
that plastic-bitumen roads can last up to 10 years. According to this paper rainwater will
not seep through because of the plastic in the tar. So, this technology will result in lesser
road repairs.

23. The Indian Roads Congress Specifications Special Publication: 53 (2002) indicate that the
time period of next renewal may be extended by 50% in case of surfacing with modified
bitumen as compared to unmodified bitumen.
24. Habib et al. studied rheological properties of bitumen modified by thermoplastic namely
linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE), high density polyethylene (HDPE) and
polypropylene (PP) and its interaction with 80 penetration grade of bitumen through
penetration test, ring & ball softening point and viscosity test. It was observed that
thermoplastic copolymer shows profound effect on penetration rather than softening point.
According to author Visco-elastic behaviour of polymer modified bitumen depend on the
concentration of polymer, mixing temperature, mixing technique, solvating power of base
bitumen and molecular structure of polymer used and PP offer better blend in comparison
to HDPE and LLDPE.
25. Punith and Veeraragavan studied Behavior of Asphalt Concrete Mixtures with reclaimed
polyethylene as additive. The dynamic creep test (unconfined), indirect tensile test,

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 11

 resilient modulus test, and Hamburg wheel track tests were carried out in their
investigation on blend of PE (2.5, 5.0, 7.5, and 10% by weight of asphalt) with (80/100)
paving grade asphalt and observed that the rutting potential and temperature susceptibility
can be reduced by the inclusion of PE in the asphalt mixture.

26. Sui and Chen (2011) studied application and performance of polyethylene as modifying
additive in asphalt mixture. They added polyethylene as additive to hot mineral aggregate
for few minutes, and then added the asphalt mixing together which simplifies the
construction process and reduces the cost of construction. They concluded that there is
improvement on high temperature stability, low temperature cracking resistance and water
resistance on modification and evaluate polyethylene as additive in the technical,
economic and environmental aspects.

27. Casey et al. (2008) studied the development of a recycled polymer modified
binder for use in stone mastic asphalt. From their study it was found that the addition of
4% recycled HDPE into a pen grade binder produced the most promising results, and
results obtained from wheel track and fatigue tests show that although the binder does not
deliver equivalent performance means dose not perform to the same high levels asa
proprietary polymer modified binder, it does out-perform traditional binders used in stone
mastic asphalt.
28. Al-Hadidy and Yi-qiu (2009) investigated the potential use of pyrolysis a low density
polyethylene (LDPE) as a modifier for asphalt paving materials. Their research results
indicate that modified binders show higher softening point, keeping the values of ductility
at minimum range of specification of (100+ cm), and cause a reduction in percentage loss
of weight due to heat and air (i.e. increase durability of original asphalt).
29. Attaelmanan et al. (2011) carried out Laboratory evaluation of HMA with high density
polyethylene as a modifier. The analyses of test results show that the performance of
HDPE- modified asphalt mixtures are better than conventional mixtures because the
moisture susceptibility and temperature susceptibility can be reduced by the inclusion of
HDPE content of 5% by weight of asphalt in the conventional asphalt mixture. They also
carried out drain down, Marshall, indirect tensile strength, flexural strength and resilient
modulus tests and got positive results in each cases.

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 12

30. Ahmadinia et al. (2012) carried out an experimental research on the application of waste
plastic bottles (Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET)) as an additive in stone mastic
asphalt (SMA). Wheel tracking, moisture susceptibility, resilient modulus and drain down
tests were carried out in their study on the mixtures that included various percentages
of waste PET as 0%, 2%, 4%, 6%, 8% and 10% by weight of bitumen content. Their
results show that the addition of waste PET into the mixture has a significant positive
effect on the properties of SMA which could improve the mixture’s resistance against
permanent deformation (rutting), increase the stiffness of the mix, provide lower binder
drain down and promotion of re-use and recycling of waste materials in a more
environmentally and economical way.
31. Vargas et al. (2013) analysed the chemically-grafted polyethylene as asphalt modifiers.
Their results show that the softening point of asphalt increased, while the penetration
degree decreased in blends prepared with grafted polyethylene and the phase distributions
of micrographs from fluorescence microscopy show that non- grafted polyethylene
polymers were not readily miscible with asphalt. The results of rheological tests carried
out in their study indicate that most of asphalt blends exhibit improved performance at
higher temperature with grafted polyethylene such as enhancing rutting resistance, flow
activation energy and superior time–temperature- dependent response as compared to the
reference polyethylene blends.

32. Rahman and Wahab (2013) used recycled polyethylene terephthalate (PET) as partial
replacement of fine aggregate in modified asphalt in their investigation. In term of
economic value, it shows that this recycled PET could reduce cost of road construction
because this recycled material is cheaper than bitumen and easy to obtain, which also
improves the level of performance and the service life of the road. It can be concluded
from their study that the application of recycled PET modified asphalt gives more
advantages compared to the conventional asphalt mixture especially in term of permanent
deformation.
33. Panda and Mazumdar (2002) utilized reclaimed polyethylene (PE) obtained from LDPE
carry bags to modify asphalt cement. They studied the basic properties such as Marshall
stability, resilient modulus, fatigue life, and moisture susceptibility of mixes with 2.5% of

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 13

 PE and compared with those of asphalt cement. They concluded that at a particular
temperature and stress level, polymer modification increases the resistanceto moisture
susceptibility, resilient modulus and fatigue life of mixes.
34. Denning and Carswell (1981) used NOVOPHALT binder which is Austrian asphalt (B70)
modified with 7% by weight of PE. They have suggested that higher mixing and laying
temperatures will be required for mixtures containing NOVOPHALT and reported that
asphalt concrete using polyethylene modified binders were more resistant to permanent
deformation at elevated temperature.
35. Airey et al. (2004) studied Linear Rheological behaviour of bituminous paving materials.
They concluded that the rheological behaviour of asphalt mixtures incorporating a range
of unmodified and modified binders showed similarities to the rheological characteristics
of the constituent RTFOT aged binders and the stiffening effect of the DBM asphalt
mixture for both the unmodified and SBS modified binders was found to be approximately
100 times greater at high complex modulus values and approximately 6,000 times greater
at low complex modulus values.
36. Murphy et al. (2001) examined the possibility of incorporating waste polymer into
bitumen as a modifier, evaluated the performance of recycled modified bitumen and
compare their properties with those of standard bitumen and polymer modified bitumen.
They concluded polypropylenes are not useful in improving the properties of bitumen and
displayed practical difficulties during mixing and testing, suggesting poor cohesion with
bitumen.
37. Panda and Mazumdar (1999) studied the engineering properties of EVA-modified
bitumen binder for paving mixes and found that 5% EVA concentration in modified
binder by weight is adequate to enhance the properties. They observed that the
penetration, ductility, and specific gravity of the modified binders decrease as compared
with unmodified bitumen while the softening point temperature, temperature susceptibility
and viscosity increase.

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 14

 CHAPTER 3

RAW MATERIALS
3.1 Constituents of a mix
Bituminous mix consists of a mixture of aggregates continuously graded from maximum
size, typically less than 25 mm, through the fine filler that is smaller than 0.075mm.
Sufficient bitumen is added to the mix so that the compacted mix is effectively impervious
and will have acceptable dissipative and elastic properties. The bituminous mix design aims
to determine the proportion of bitumen, filler, fine aggregates, and coarse aggregates to
producea mix which is workable, strong, durable and economical.
The basic materials used are as follows:
 Aggregates
 Fly Ash
 Slag
 Bituminous Binder
 Polyethylene
3.1.1 Aggregates
There are various types of mineral aggregates used to manufacture bituminous mixes can be
obtained from different natural sources such as glacial deposits or mines and can be used
with or without further processing. The aggregates can be further processed and finished to
achieve good performance characteristics. Industrial by-products such as steel slag, blast
furnace slag, fly ash etc. sometimes used by replacing natural aggregates to enhance the
performance characteristics of the mix. Aggregate contributes up to 90-95 % of the mixture
weight and contributes to most of the load bearing & strength characteristics of the
mixture.Hence, the quality and physical properties of the aggregates should be controlled to
ensure a good pavement. Aggregates are of 3 types;
Coarse aggregates
The aggregates retained on 4.75 mm sieve are called as coarse aggregates. Coarse aggregate
should be screened crushed rock, angular in shape, free from dust particles, clay, vegetations
and organic matters which offer compressive and shear strength and shows good
interlocking properties. In present study, stone chips are used as coarse aggregate with

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 15

 specific gravity 2.75.
Fine aggregates
Fine aggregate should be clean screened quarry dusts and should be free from clay, loam,
vegetation or organic matter. Fine aggregates, consisting of stone crusher dusts were
collected from a local crusher with fractions passing 4.75 mm and retained on 0.075 mm IS
sieve. It fills the voids in the coarse aggregate and stiffens the binder. In this study, fine
stones and slag are used as fine aggregate whose specific gravity has been found to be 2.6
and 2.45.
Filler
Aggregate passing through 0.075 mm IS sieve is called as filler. It fills the voids, stiffens the
binder and offers permeability. In this study, stone and fly ash are used as filler whose
specific gravity has been found to be 2.7 and 2.3.
3.1.2 Fly Ash
At present, as per the report of the Fly Ash Utilisation Programme (FAUP), out of the huge
quantity of fly ash produced, only about 35% finds its use in commercial applications such
as mass concrete, asphalt paving filler, lightweight aggregate, stabilizer to road bases, raw
material for concrete, additives to soil, construction of bricks etc. The remainder fly ash is a
waste requiring large disposal area, causing a huge capital loss to power plants and
simultaneously causing an ecological imbalance and related environmental problems (Dhir,
2005). Inthis investigation fly ash is used as one type of filler.
3.1.3 Granulated blast furnace slag
Granulated blast furnace slag (GBFS) is a by-product obtained in the manufacture of pig
iron in the blast furnace and is formed by the combination of iron ore with limestone flux. If
the molten slag is cooled and solidified by rapid water quenching to a glassy state, it results
granulated blast furnace slag of sand size fragments, usually with some friable clinker- like
material. The physical structure and gradation of granulated slag depend on the presence of
chemicals such as lime, alumina, silica and magnesia, whose percentages may vary
depending on the nature of iron ore, the composition of limestone flux and the kind of iron
being produced. In present study granulated blast furnace slag is used as fine aggregates by
replacing some gradation of natural aggregates.

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 16

 3.1.4 Bituminous Binder
Bitumen acts as a binding agent to the aggregates, fines and stabilizers in bituminous
mixtures. Bitumen must be treated as a visco-elastic material as it exhibits both viscous as
well as elastic properties at the normal pavement temperature. At low temperature it behaves
like an elastic material and at high temperatures its behaviour is like a viscous fluid. Asphalt
binder VG30 is used in this research work. Grade of bitumen used in the pavements
shouldbe selected on the basis of climatic conditions and their performance in past. It fills
the voids, cause particle adhesion and offers impermeability.

3.1.5 Polyethylene
Stabilizing additives are used in the mixture to provide better binding property. Now-a days
polypropylene, polyester, mineral and cellulose are commonly used as fibers. In this present
study polyethylene is used as stabilizing additive to improve performance characteristics of
pavement.
3.2 Materials used in present study
3.2.1 Aggregates
For preparation of Bituminous mixes (SMA, DBM, BC) aggregates as per MORTH
grading as given in Table 3.1, Table 3.2 and Table 3.3 respectively, a particular type of
binder and polyethylene in required quantities were mixes as per Marshall procedure. The
specific gravity and physical properties of aggregate are given in Table.3.4 and Table. 3.5.

Table 3.1: Gradation of aggregates for SMA

Sieve size (mm) Percentage passing
19 100
13.2 94
9.5 62
4.75 28
2.36 24
1.18 21
0.6 18
0.3 16

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 17

 0.075 10

Table 3.2: Gradation of aggregates for BC

Sieve size Percentage
(mm) passing
19 100
13.2 79-100
9.5 70-88
4.75 53-71
2.36 42-58
1.18 34-48
0.6 26-38
0.3 18-28
0.15 12-20
0.075 4-10

Table 3.3: Gradation of aggregates for DBM

Sieve size (mm) Percentage passing
37.5 100
26.5 90-100
19 71-95
13.2 56-80
9.5 -
4.75 38-54
2.36 28-42
1.18 -
0.6 -
0.3 7-21
0.15 -
0.075 2-8

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 18

 Table 3.4: Specific gravity of aggregates
Types of aggregates Specific gravity
Coarse 2.75
Fine (Stone) 2.6
Fine(Slag) 2.45
Filler(Stone dust) 2.7
Filler(Fly ash) 2.3

Table 3.5: Physical properties of coarse aggregates

Property Test Method Test Result
Aggregate Impact IS: 2386 (P 14.3
Value (%) IV)
Aggregate IS: 2386 (P 13.02
Crushing IV)
Value (%)
Los Angels IS: 2386 (P 18
Abrasion IV)
Value (%)
Flakiness Index IS: 2386 (P I) 18.83
(%)
Elongation Index IS: 2386 (P I) 21.5
(%)
Water Absorption IS: 2386 (P 0.1
(%) III)

3.2.2 Fly ash& Slag

Both the fly ash and slag used in present investigation are collected from Rourkela steel
plant.The chemical composition and XRD results are given in Table 3.6.

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 19

 Table 3.6: Chemical composition of fly ash and slag in percentage (by weight)
Constituents Fly ash Slag

Fe2O3 10.3% 4.012%

CaO 4.206% 26.638

%
MgO 3.023% 16.124
%
Sillica 56.4% 32.14%

Al2O3 29% 21%

Carbon 7.18% 0%

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 20

 900
FA.RD

400

100

20 30 40 50 60

Position [°2Theta]

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 21

 Fig. 3.1 XRD result of fly ash
Visible Ref. Code Score Compound Displaceme Scale Factor Chemical
Name nt [°2Th.] Formula
* 83-0539 77 Quartz 0.000 0.983 SiO2
* 79-1454 67 Mullite - 0.000 0.197 Al 4.75
syntheti Si1.2
c 5
O9.6
3

225
SLAG.RD

100

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 22

 25

20 30 40 50 60

Position [°2Theta]
Fig. 3.2 XRD result of granulated blast furnace slag

Visible Ref. Code Score Compoun Displacem Scale Chemica

d Name e nt Facto l
[°2Th.] r Formul
a
* 81-0065 42 Silico 0.000 0.931 Si O2
n
Oxide

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 23

 3.2.3 Binder
One conventional commonly used bituminous binder, namely VG 30 bitumen was used in
this investigation to prepare the samples. Conventional tests were performed to determine
the physical properties of these binders. The physical properties thus obtained are
summarized in Table 3.7.
Table 3.7: Physical properties of binder
Property Test Method Value
˚(mm)
Penetration at 25 C IS : 1203-1978 67.7

Softening Point ( ˚C) IS : 1203-1978 48.5

Specific gravity IS : 1203-1978 1.03

3.2.3 Polyethylene
In present study polyethylene is used as stabilizing additive (OMFED polyethylene used for
milk packaging which is locally available). The Omfed polyethylene packets were collected;
they were washed and cleaned by putting them in hot water for 3-4 hours. They were then
dried.

Shredding
The dried polyethylene packets were cut into thin pieces of size 50 mm×5 mm maximum.
This is because to maintain uniformity in size of polyethylene in mix. When the
polyethylene is to be added with bitumen and aggregate it is to be ensured that the mixing
will be proper.

Specific Gravity of polythene was found as 0.905.

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 24

 Fig. 3.3: OMFED polyethylene used

Table 3.7: Physical properties of polyethylene used

Properties Results

Specific gravity 0.905

Softening point 54.22℃
Young modulus 109.75 Mpa
Strain at break 1351 %
Strain at peak 1271.5 %
Displacement at 135.15 mm
break
Displacement at 127.15 mm
peak
Load at peak .0146
kn
Stress at peak 14.59 Mpa

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 25

 CHAPTER 4

EXPERIMENTAL WORK

4.1 General
This chapter describes the experimental works carried out in this present investigation. It
involves mainly 2 processes. i.e.

 Preparation of Marshall samples

 Tests on samples
Prior to the experimental work, the specific gravity, tensile strength, and softening point
ofpolythene used in this investigation were calculated.
4.1.1 Determination of specific gravity of polyethylene
Specific gravity of polyethylene was found out by following the guidelines of ASTM
D792-
08. The procedure adopted is given below:
 The weight of the polyethylene in air was measured by a balance. Let it be denoted
by “a”.
 An immersion vessel full of water was kept below the balance.
 A piece of iron wire was attached to the balance such that it is suspended
about 25mmabove the vessel support.
 The polyethylene was then tied with a sink by the iron wire and allowed to
submerge inthe vessel and the weight was measured. Let it be denoted as “b”.
 Then polyethylene was removed and the weight of the wire and the sink was
measured bysubmerging them inside water. Let it be denoted as “w”.

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 26

 The specific gravity is given by
s = a / (a + w - b)
Where:
a = Apparent mass of specimen, without wire or sinker, in air
b = Apparent mass of specimen and of sinker completely immersed and of the wire
partiallyimmersed in liquid
w = Apparent mass of totally immersed sinker and of partially immersed
wire. From the experiment, it was found that a = 19 gm
b = 24 gm
w = 26 gm
=> s = 19 / (19+26-24) = 19/21 =0.90476

Take specific gravity of polyethylene = 0.905.

4.1.2 Determination of tensile properties of polyethylene

The ability to resist breaking under tensile stress is one of the most important and widely
measured properties of materials. Tensile strength of polyethylene was calculated by using
INSTORN – 1195 CORPORATION with Sample rate = 9.103 pts/sec and Crosshead speed
(speed at which sample is stretched) = 50 mm/min. Rectangular Polyethylene samples were
prepared according to ASTM D882. Dimension of polyethylene was measured by using
digital Vernier calliper (Width = 10mm, Thickness = 0.1mm, Gauge length = 10mm, Grip
distance = 40mm). The following results are found out from this test;

Stress =109.75 Mpa

Young’s modulus (also called as tensile Elastic
modulus) = strain

Strain at break = 1351 %

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 27

 Strain at peak = 1271.5 %
Displacement at break = 135.15
mmDisplacement at peak =
127.15 mm Load at peak = .0146 kn

Stress at peak =14.59 Mpa (Stress at peak or ultimate tensile strength or tensile strength at
break is the percentage increase in length that occurs under tension before break. If
polyethylene possesses high elongation and high ultimate tensile strength it is called as
tough)

4.1.3 Determination of softening point of polyethylene

Softening point of polyethylene was determined by using DSC 822, a low temperature
differential scanning calorimeter with rate of heating 10 ℃ /𝑚i . The temperature was
maintained in between 25 ℃- 80℃ according to melting point of polyethylene. The glass
transition temperature is found as 54.22℃ (It the temperature at which phase change occurs
and it is the service temperature).

mW

0.2

OMFED1, 01.01.2013 00:48:01

0.0 OMFED1, 9.0000 mg

-0.2

Glass Transition
-0.4
Onset 52.28 °C
Midpoint 53.91 °C

-0.6

-0.8

-1.0

M 50:I 20 e
. 25.0 . 30.0 . 35.0 . 40.0 . 45.0 . 50.0 . 55.0 . 60.0 . 65.0 . 70.0 . 75.0 °C
E N T Rour kel a: ME T T LER T AR S 8. 10
00 05 10 15 2 0 25 30 35 40 45 50 min

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 28

 ^exo
mW
0.2

OMFED2, 01.01.2013 01:02:12

0.0 OMFED2, 10.0000 mg

Glass Transition
-0.2 Onset 51.83 °C
Midpoint 54.53 °C

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1.0

-1.2

25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 °C

. 0 0 . 05 . 1 0 . 1 5 . 2 0 . 2 5 . 3 0 . 3 5 . 4 0 . 4 5 . 5 0 min

MME NIT Rourkel a: MET TLER STARe SW

8. 10

Fig 4.1 Results of two set of polyethylene samples given by

DSC 822

4.2 Preparation of Marshall samples

The mixes were prepared according to the Marshall procedure specified in ASTM D1559.
For SMA, BC, and DBM mixes the coarse aggregates, fine aggregates and filler were mixed
with bitumen and polyethylene according to the adopted gradation as given in Table 3.1, Table
3.2, and Table 3.3 respectively. First a comparative study was done on SMA, BC, and DBM
mixes by using stone dust as filler in between with and without polyethylene in mixes. Again a
comparative study was done on SMA, BC, and DBM mixes by using slag and fly ash as filler
in between with and without polyethylene in mixes. Here Optimum Binder Content (OBC) and
optimum polyethylene content (OPC) was found by Marshall Test. The mixing of ingredients
was done as per the following procedure;
 Required quantities of coarse aggregate, fine aggregate & mineral fillers were taken
in an iron pan and kept in an oven at temperature 160 ˚ C for 2 hours.

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 29

 Preheating is required because the aggregates and bitumen are to be mixed in heated
state.
 The required amount of shredded polythene was weighed and kept in a separate
container.

 The aggregates in the pan were heated on a controlled gas stove for a few minutes
maintaining the above temperature. Then the polyethylene was added to the
aggregate and was mixed for 2 minutes.
 Now bitumen was added to this mix and the whole mix was stirred uniformly and
homogenously. This was continued for 15-20 minutes till they were properly mixed
which was evident from the uniform colour throughout the mix.
 Then the mix was transferred to a casting mould. 75 no. of blows were given per each
side of the sample so subtotal of 150 no. of blows was given per sample. Then each
sample was marked and kept separately.
4.3 Tests on Marshall samples
4.3.1 Marshall test

In this method, the resistance to plastic deformation of a compacted cylindrical specimen of

bituminous mixture is measured when the specimen is loaded diametrically at a deformation
rate of 50 mm/min. Here are two major features of the Marshall method of mix design.
(i) Stability, flow tests and
(ii) Voids analysis.
The Marshall stability of the mix is defined as the maximum load carried by the specimen at
a standard test temperature of 60°C. The flow value is the deformation that the test
specimen undergoes during loading up to the maximum load. In India, it is a very popular
method of characterization of bituminous mixes due to its simplicity and low cost. In the
present study the Marshall properties such as stability, flow value, unit weight and air voids
were studied to obtain the optimum binder contents (OBC) and optimum polyethylene
contents (OPC).

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 30

 Fig. 4.2 Marshall test in progress

4.3.1.1 Retained stability test

Retained Stability is the measure of moisture induced striping in the mix and subsequent loss
of stability due to weakened bond between aggregates and binder. The test was conducted
following STP 204-22 on the Marshall machine with the normal Marshall samples. The
stability was
determined after placing the samples in water bath at 60 °C for half an hour and24 hours.

s2×100
Retained stab=ility
s1

S2 =Soaked stability (after soaking of 24 hours at 60℃)

S1= Standard stability

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 31

 4.3.2 Drain down test
This test method covers the determination of the amount of drain down in un-compacted
asphalt mixture sample when the sample is held at elevated temperatures comparable to
those encountered during the production, storage, transport, and placement of the mixture.
The test is particularly applicable to mixtures such as open-graded friction course and
Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA). The drain down method suggested by MORTH (2001)
was adopted in this study. The drainage baskets fabricated locally is shown in Fig-4.2.
The loose un-compacted mixes were transferred to the drainage baskets and kept in a pre-
heated oven maintained at 150°C for three hours. Pre- weighed plates were kept below
the drainage baskets when placed inside oven to collect the drained out binder drippings.
From the drain down test the binder drainage has been calculated from
the equation:-

W2−W1
Drain down equation is = × 100
X

Where,

W1= Initial mass of the plate

W2= Final mass of the plate and drained binderX =

Initial mass of the mix
For a particular binder three mixes were prepared at its optimum binder content and the
draindownwas reported as an average of the three.

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 32

 Fig. 4.3 Drain down test of SMA without polyethylene

4.3.3 Static indirect tensile strength test

In this test, a compressive load of 51 mm/minute is applied on a cylindrical Marshall
specimen along a vertical diametrical plane through two curved strips made up of stainless
steel, whose radius of curvature is same as that of the specimen. The sample was kept in the
Perspex water bath maintained at the required temperature for minimum 1/2 hours before
test, and the same temperature was maintained during test. This loading configuration
developed a relatively uniform tensile stress perpendicular to the direction of the applied
load and along the vertical diametric plane and the specimen failed by splitting along the
vertical diameter.

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 33

 Fig. 4.4 Loading configuration for indirect tensile strength test
The tensile strength of the specimen was calculated according to ASTM D 6931 (2007)
fromthe failure load noted from the dial gauge of the proving ring.
2×P
ST=
П×D×T

Where

ST= Indirect Tensile Strength,

KPa

P = Maximum Load, KN
T = Specimen height before testing, mm
D = Specimen Diameter, mm
The test temperature was varied from 5 ℃ to 40℃ at an increment of 5 ℃ . The tensile strength
was reported as the average of the three test results.

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 34

 Fig. 4.5 Close view of indirect tensile strength test on progress

4.3.3.1 Tensile strength ratio

The tensile strength ratio of asphalt mixes is an indicator of their resistance to moisture
susceptibility. The test was carried out by loading a Marshall specimen with compressive
load acting along the vertical diametric-loading plane. The test was conducted followed by
AASHTO T 283 at 25°C temperature and the tensile strength calculated from the load at
which the specimen fails is taken as the dry tensile strength of the asphalt mix. The
specimens were then placed in a water bath maintained at 60°C for 24 hours and then
immediately placed in an environmental chamber maintained at 25°C for two hours. These
conditioned specimens were then tested for their tensile strength. The ratio of the indirect
tensile strength (ITS) of the water-conditioned specimens to that of dry specimens is the
tensile strength ratio.

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 35

 4.3.4 Static creep test
This test method is used to determine the resistance to permanent deformation of
bituminous mixtures at specific temperatures. For Static Creep test sample were prepared at
their optimum binder content (OBC) and optimum polyethylene content (OPC) and the test
was conducted following Texas department of transportation (2005). The specimens were
placedin a controlled temperature chamber maintained at specific temperatures (30˚C,
40°C, 50˚C,
60 C) for three to five hours prior to start of the test. Then three cycles of a 125 lb. (556
N)

load was applied for one-minute intervals followed by a one-minute rest period for each
cycle. This allows the loading platens to achieve more uniform contact with the specimen.
The test consists of two stages. In first stage a vertical load of 556 N is applied for 1hours.
The deformation was registered in each 5 min intervals starting from 0 min to 60 min by
using a dial gauge graduated in units of 0.002 mm. Secondly, the load was removed and its
deformation was registered up to next 5 min at 1 min intervals. This test was carried out at
different temperature such as 30 ˚c, 40 ˚c, 50 ˚c, 60 c˚ . A graph has been plot between
time- deformation. Then the deformation was converted to the following relationship.
Strain = (Deformation / Specimen thickness

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 36

 CHAPTER 5
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5.1 Introductions
This chapter deals with test results and analysis carried out in previous chapter. This chapter
is divided into four sections. First section is deals with parameter used for analysis of
different test results. Second section deals with calculation and comparison of optimum
binder content (OBC) and optimum polyethylene content (OPC) of SMA, BC, and DBM
mixes with and without polyethylene with stone dust used as filler. Third section deals with
calculation and comparison of Optimum binder Content (OBC) and Optimum polyethylene
content (OPC) of SMA, BC, and DBM mixes with or without polyethylene by replacing
some gradation of fine aggregate by granulated blast furnace slag with fly ash as filler.
Fourth section deals with analysis of test results of drain down test, static indirect tensile
and static creep test at different test temperature.

5.2 Parameters used

All the Marshall properties were calculated as per Das A. and Chakraborty P. (2010) and the
definitions and other formulae used in calculations are explained below.
Bulk specific gravity of aggregate (GSb)

Magg
Gsb =
Volume of(mass of agg.+air void in agg.+absorved bitumen)

Where Magg = Mass of aggregate

Effective specific gravity of aggregate (Gse)

Magg
Gse =
Volume of(mass of agg+air void in agg)

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 37

 parent specific gravity (Ga)Magg
Ap =
G
a Volume of aggmass

Theoretical maximum specific gravity of mix (Gmm)

Mmix
Gmm =
Volume of (mix − air void)

Bulk specific gravity of mix (Gmb)Mmix

Gmb =
Bulk volume of mix

Air voids (VA):-

Gmb
VA= (1 - ) ×100
Gmm
Voids in mineral aggregates (VMA)

G
VMA = [1- mb × P ] × 100

Gmm S

WherePS= percentage of aggregate present by total mass of mix

Voids filled with bitumen (VFB)

VMA−VA
VFB = ×100
VMA

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 38

 Fig.-5.1 Phase diagram of bituminous mix

5.3 Effect of polyethylene concentration on Marshall properties of SMA, BC and

DBM mixes with stone dust as filler
Here result in variation of Marshall properties with different binder content where
polyethylene content is taken as 0%, 0.5%, 1%, 1.5%, 2% and 2.5% for SMA and DBM
and
0%, 0.5%, 1%, 1.5%, 2% for BC are explained below.

5.3.1 Marshall stability

It is observed from graphs that with increase in bitumen concentration the Marshall stability
value increases up to certain bitumen content and there after it decreases. That particular
bitumen content is called as optimum binder content (OBC). In present study OBC for

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 39

 conventional SMA, BC, and DBM mixes are found as 6%, 4.5%, and 4.5% and
similarly OBC are found as 4% for modified SMA, BC and DBM mixes with polyethylene
at different concentration. From the graphs it can be observed that with addition of
polyethylene stability value also increases up to certain limits and further addition decreases
the stability. This may be due to excess amount of polyethylene which is not able to mix in
asphalt properly. That polyethylene concentration in mix is called optimum polyethylene
content (OPC) which is found as 2% for SMA and DBM and 1.5% for BC mixes.

16

15
Polyethylene
14 contents, %
0
13
Stability , kN

0.50%
12
1%
11 1.50%

10 2%
2.50%
9

8
2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5
Bitumen contents, %

Fig 5.2 Variations of Marshall Stabilities of SMA with different binder and polyethylene
contents

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 40

 20

18
Stability, kN Polyethylene
16 contents, %
0%
14
0.50%
12 1%

10 1.50%

2%
8
3.2 3.7 4.2 4.7 5.2
Bitumen contents, %

Fig. 5.3 Variations of Marshall Stabilities of BC with different binder and polyethylene
contents

18
17 Polyethylene
16 contents, %
Stability, kN

15 0%
14 0.50%
13
1%
12
1.50%
11
2%
10
9 2.50%

8
3.2 3.7 4.2 4.7 5.2

Bitumencontents, %

Fig.5.4

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 41

Flow value

It is observed from graphs that with increase in binder content flow value increases but by
addition of polyethylene flow value decreases than that of conventional mixes, again further
addition of polyethylene after OPC the flow value stars to increase.

5.5

5 Polyethylene
contents, %
Flow values, mm

4.5
0
4
0.50%
3.5 1%
1.50%
3
2%
2.5
2.50%

2
3.2 3.7 4.2 4.7 5.2 5.7 6.2 6.7 7.2

Bitumen contents, %

Fig. 5.5 Variations of flows value of SMA with different binder and polyethylene contents

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 42

 5

4.5
Flow values, mm

Polyethylene
4
contents, %

3.5 0%
0.50%
3
1%
2.5 1.50%
2%
2

1.5
3.2 3.7 4.2 4.7 5.2

Bitumen contents, %

Fig. 5.6 Variations of flow values of BC with different binder and polyethylene contents

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 43

 3.6
3.4

3.2 Polyethylene
contents, %
3
0%
2.8 0.50%
2.6 1%

2.4 1.50%
2%
Flow values, mm

2.2
2.50%

3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5

Bitumen contents, %

Fig. 5.7 Variations of flow values of DMB with different binder and
polyethylenecontents

5.3.2 Unit weight

It is observed that unit weight is increasing with increase binder concentration up to certain
binder content i.e, OBC; then decreasing. With increase in polyethylene concentration in
mixes its value decreases than conventional mix. It happens may be due to lighter weight of
polyethylene as compared to bitumen.

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 44

 2.54

Unit weight, gm/cc 2.52

Polyethylene
2.5 contents, %

2.48 0%
0.50%
2.46
1%
2.44
1.50%
2.42 2%
2.4 2.50%

2.38
3.2 3.7 4.2 4.7 5.2 5.7 6.2 6.7 7.2

Bitumen contents, %

Fig. 5.8 Variations of unit weight values of SMA with different binder and polyethylene
contents
2.44
2.42

2.4
Polyethyle
contents, %
Unit weight, gm/cc

2.38
0
2.36 0.5
2.34 1
1.5
2.32
2
2.3

2.28
3.2 3.7 4.2 4.7 5.2

Bitumen contents, %

Fig. 5.9 Variations of unit weight values of BC with different binder and
polyethylenecontents

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 45

 2.5
Unit weight, gm/cc

2.45 Polyethylene
contents, %
2.4 0%
0.50%
2.35 1%
1.50%
2.3
2%
2.50%
2.25

2.2
3.2 3.7 4.2 4.7 5.2
Bitumencontents,%

Fig. 5.10 variations of unit weight values of DBM with different binder and polyethylene
contents
5.3.3 Air void (VA)

It is observed that with increase in binder content air void decreases. But with addition of
polyethylene to mix the air void is increasing than that of conventional mixes.
6.5

6 Polyethylene
Contents, %
5.5
0%
5
0.50%
VA

4.5 1%
1.50%
4
2%
3.5 2.50%

3
3 4 5 6 7 8
Bitumen contents, %

Fig. 5.11 Variations of VA values of SMA with different binder and polyethylenecontents

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 46

 6.5

6
Polyethylene
contents, %
VA

5.5

5 0
0.5
4.5
1
4 1.5
2
3.5

3
3.2 3.7 4.2 4.7 5.2
Bitumen contents, %

Fig. 5.12 Variations of VA values of BC with different binder and polyethylene contents

6.5

6 Polyethylene
contents, %
5.5
0%
VA

5
0.50%
4.5 1%
1.50%
4
2%
3.5 2.50%

3
3.2 3.7 4.2 4.7 5.2

Bitumen contents,%

Fig. 5.13 Variations of VA values of DBM with different binder and polyethylenecontents

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 47

 23

21 Polyethylene
contents, %
19
0%
0.50%
17
1%
15 1.50%
VMA

2%
13
2.50%

11
3.2 3.7 4.2 4.7 5.2 5.7 6.2 6.7 7.2
Bitumen contents, %

Fig. 5.14 Variations of VMA values of SMA with different binder and polyethylenecontent

20
VMA

19

18

17
0

Fig. 5.15 Variations of VMA values of BC with different binder and polyethylenecontent

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 48

 22

21
Polyethylene
20 contents, %
0%
VMA

19
0.50%
18 1%

17 1.50%
2%
16
2.50%

15
3.2 3.7 4.2 4.7 5.2

Bitumencontents, %

Fig. 5.16 Variations of VMA values of DBM with different binder and polyethylenecontent

5.3.4 Void filled with bitumen (VFB)

It is observed that VFB values of different mixes increase at sharp rate with increase in
bitumen concentration. Variation of VFB with different binder content with different
polyethylene content is shown in graphs below. From these graphs it is observed that with
addition of polyethylene to mix the VFB increases than that of conventional mixes.

95

90 Polyethylene
contents, %
85
0%
80
0.50%
75 1%
VFB

70 1.50%
2%
65
2.50%
60
3.2 3.7 4.2 4.7 5.2 5.7 6.2 6.7 7.2

Bitumencontents, %

Fig. 5.17 Variations of VFB values of SMA with different binder and polyethylenecontent

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 49

 100
95
Polyethylene
90 contents, %
VFB

85
0
80 0.5
75 1
1.5
70
2
65

60
3.2 3.7 4.2 4.7 5.2
Bitumen contents, %

Fig. 5.18 Variations of VFB values of BC with different binder and polyethylene content

80

75 Polyethylene
contents, %
VFB

70
0%
0.50%
65
1%
60 1.50%
2%
55
2.50%

50
3.2 3.7 4.2 4.7 5.2

Bitumen contents, %

Fig. 5.19 Variations of VFB values of DBM with different binder and polyethylenecontent

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 50

 Table 5.1 Optimum binder contents

Types of mix Optimum polyethylene Optimum binder

content
content (%)
(%)
SMA without 0% 6%
polyethylene
SMA with polyethylene 2% 4%
DBM without 0% 4.5%
polyethylene
DBM with polyethylene 2% 4%
BC without polyethylene 0% 4.5%
BC with polyethylene 1.5% 4%

Table 5.2 comparisons of stabilities at OBC

Types of mix with stone Stability(kN

dust )
SMA without polyethylene 12.765
SMA with polyethylene 14.965
DBM without polyethylene 12.76
DBM with polyethylene 17.444
BC without polyethylene 10.875
BC with polyethylene 17.587

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 51

 Table 5.3 comparisons of flow at DBC

Types of mix with stone Flow(mm)

dust
SMA without polyethylene 3.9
SMA with polyethylene 3
DBM without polyethylene 4.02
DBM with polyethylene 2.6
BC without polyethylene 3.9
BC with polyethylene 2.45

Table 5.4 Retained stability of SMA, BC, and DBM with and without polyethylene

Types of mix Avg. Avg. Avg. Design

stability stability retained requireme
after half an after 24 Stability, in nt
hour in hours in %
water at 60 water at 60
°c °c
SMA without 10.932 8.497 73.2
2
polyethylene
SMA with 10.875 8.497 78.1
3
polyethylene
DBM 12.765 9.962 74.0
without 4
Minimum
polyethylen

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 52

 e 75% (as per
MORTH Table
DBM with 14.965 12.013 80.2 500-17)
polyethylen 7
e
BC 17.587 14.1372 76.3
without 5 8
polyethylen
e
BC with 17.444 14.2105 81.4
6
polyethylen
e

5.4 Effect of polyethylene concentration on Marshall properties of SMA, BC and

DBM mixes with slag as a partof fine aggregates and fly ash as filler

Here the test result in variation of Marshall properties with different binder content where
polyethylene content is taken as 0%, 0.5%, 1%, 1.5%, and 2% for SMA , BC, and DBM
mixes are explained below by replacing two gradation ( 0.3mm-0.15mm and 0.15mm -
0.075mm) of fine aggregates by granulated blast furnace slag and using fly ash as filler.

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 53

 CHAPTER 6

CONCLUDING REMARKS

In this study, three types of mixes i.e. SMA, DBM and BC are prepared with VG30 grade
bitumen used as a binder. The effect of addition of waste polyethylene in form of locally
available artificial milk with brand OMFED packets in the bituminous mixes has been
studied by varying concentrations of polyethylene from 0% to 2.5% at an increment of
0.5%.

 Using Marshall Method of mix design the optimum bitumen content (OBC) and
optimum polyethylene content (OPC) have been determined for different types of mixes.
It has been observed that addition of 2% polyethylene for SMA and DBM mixes and
1.5% polyethylene for BC mixes results in optimum Marshall Properties where stone
dust is used as filler. But when small fraction of fine aggregates are replaced by
granulated blast furnace slag and filler is replaced by fly ash, optimum Marshall
Properties for all types of mixes result with only 1.5% polyethylene addition. The OBCs
in case of modified SMA, BC and DBM mixes by using stone dust as filler are found 4%
and OBCs in case of modified (i) SMA, and (ii) BC, and DBM by using fly ash and slag
are found to be 5% and 4% respectively.

 Using the same Marshall specimens prepared at their OPCs and OBCs by using both (i)
stone dust as filler and (ii) replacing of stone dust by fly ash and fine aggregate by slag,
for test under normal and wet conditions it is observed that the retained stability
increases with addition of polyethylene in the mixes, and BC with polyethylene results in
highest retained stability followed by DBM with polyethylene and then SMA with
polyethylene.

 Addition of polyethylene reduces the drain down effect, though these values are not that
significant. It may be noted that the drain down of SMA is slightly more than BC
without polyethylene. However, for all mixes prepared at their OPC there is no drain .

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 54

  In general, it is observed that the Indirect Tensile Strength (ITS) value decreases with
increase in temperature and for a particular binder, when polyethylene gets added to the
mixes the value further increases in both cases. The BC mixes with polyethylene result in
highest indirect tensile strength values compared to SMA, followed by DBM.

 It is observed that by addition of polyethylene to the mixture, the resistance to moisture

susceptibility of mix also increases. BC with polyethylene results in highest tensile
strength ratio followed by DBM mixes with polyethylene and SMA mixes with
polyethylene for both cases.

 It is observed from the static creep test that deformation of mix generally decreases by
addition of polyethylene at all test temperatures used. The BC mixes with polyethylene
result minimum deformation compared to others.

From the above observations it is concluded that use of waste polyethylene in form of
packets used in milk packaging locally results in improved engineering properties of
bituminous mixes. Hence, this investigation explores not only in utilizing most beneficially,
the waste non-degradable plastics, but also provides an opportunity in resulting in improved
pavement material in surface courses thus making it more durable.

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 55

 6.1 Future scope

 Many properties of SMA, BC and DBM mixes such as Marshall Properties, drain
down characteristics, static tensile strength, and static creep characteristics have been
studied in this investigation by using only VG 30 penetration grade bitumen and
polyethylene. However, some of the properties such as fatigue properties, resistance
to rutting, dynamic indirect tensile strength characteristics and dynamic creep
behavior needed to be investigated.
 In present study polyethylene is added to them mix in dry mixing process.
Polyethylene can also be used for bitumen modification by wet mixing process and
comparisons made.
 Microstructure of modified bituminous mixture should be observed by using
appropriate technique to ascertain the degree of homogeneity.
 Combination of paving mixes formed with other types of plastic wastes which are
largely available, wastes to replace conventional fine aggregates and filler an
different types of binders including modified binders, should be tried to explore
enough scope of finding suitable materials for paving mixes in the event of present
demanding situations.

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 56

 REFERENCES

1. AASHTO T 283, “Standard method of test for resistance of compacted asphalt

mixtures to moisture-induced damage”, American association of state highway and
transportation officials.
2. AASHTO T 305, “Drain-down characteristics in un-compacted asphalt mixtures”,
American association of state highway and transportation officials.
3. Ahmadinia E., Zargar M., Karim M. R., Abdelaziz M. and Ahmadinia E. (2012),
“Performance evaluation of utilization of waste Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) in
stone mastic asphalt”, Journal of Construction and Building Materials, Volume
36,pp. 984–989.
4. Airey G. D., Rahimzadeh B. and Collop A. C. (2004), “Linear rheological behaviour
of bituminous paving materials”, Journal of materials in civil engineering, Volume
16, pp. 212-220.
5. Al-Hadidy A.I. and Yi-qiu T. (2009), “Effect of polyethylene on life of flexible
pavements”,
Journal of Construction and Building Materials, volume 23, pp. 1456– 1464.
6. ASTM D 1559, “Test method for resistance of plastic flow of bituminous mixtures
using Marshall Apparatus”, American society for testing and materials.
7. ASTM D 6931 (2007), “Indirect Tensile (IDT) Strength for bituminous
mixtures”,
American society for testing and materials.
8. ASTM D 792-08, “Standard test methods for density and specific gravity of plastic
by displacement”, American society for testing and materials.
9. ASTM D882–12, “Standard test method for tensile properties of thin plastic
sheeting”,

American society for testing and materials.

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 57

 10. Attaelmanan M., Feng C. P. and AI A. (2011), “Laboratory evaluation of HMA with
high density polyethylene as a modifier”, Journal of Construction and Building
Materials, Volume 25, pp. 2764–2770.
11. Awwad M. T. and Shbeeb L (2007), “The use of polyethylene in hot asphalt
mixtures”,

American Journal of Applied Sciences, volume 4, pp. 390-396.

12. Bindu C.S., Beena K.S. (2010), “Waste plastic as a stabilizing additive in SMA”,

International Journal of Engineering and Technology, Volume 2, pp. 379-387.

13. Casey D., McNally C., Gibney A. and Gilchrist M. D. (2008), “Development of a
recycled polymer modified binder for use in stone mastic asphalt”, Journal of
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Volume 52, pp. 1167–1174.
14. Chen (2008/09), “Evaluated rutting performance of hot mix asphalt modified with
waste plastic bottles”.
15. Das A. and Chakroborty P. (2010), “Principles of Transportation Engineering”,

Prentice Hall of India, New Delhi, pp 294-299.

16. Fernandes M. R. S., Forte M. M. C. and Leite L. F. M. (2008), “Rheological

evaluation of polymer-modified asphalt binders”, Journal of Materials Research,
Volume 11, pp. 381- 386.
17. Firopzifar S.H., .Alamdary Y.A. and Farzaneh O. (2010), “Investigation of novel
methods to improve the storage stability and low temperature susceptivity of
polyethylene modified bitumens”, petroleum & Coal, Volume 52, pp.123-128.
18. Gawande A., Zamare G., Renge V.C., Tayde S. And Bharsakale G. (2012), “An
overview on waste plastic utilization in asphalting of roads”, Journal of Engineering
Research and Studies Vol. III/ Issue II.

Department of Civil Engineering, SRIMT 58