Guided By: Prof. Bhavik G.

Patel
Prof. Chirag B. Patel
 INTRODUCTION
 The use of plastics in various places as packing materials and the
products such as bottle, polythene sheet, containers packing strips etc.
are increasing day by day.

 Plastic is a non-biodegradable material and researchers found that the

material can remain on earth for 4500 years without degradation.

 The threat of disposal of plastic will not solve until the practical steps are
not initiated at the ground level. It is possible to improve the
performance of bituminous mixed used in the surfacing course of roads.

 This results in production of plastic waste from all sort livings from
industrial manufactures to domestic users.

 Studies reported in the used of re-cycled plastic, mainly polyethylene, in

the manufacture of blended indicated reduced permanent deformation
in the form of rutting and reduced low – temperature cracking of the
pavement surfacing.
 Bituminous binders are widely used by paving industry. A
pavement has different layers. The main constituents of
bituminous concrete (BC) are aggregate and bitumen.

 Generally, all the hard surfaced pavement types are categorized

into 2 groups, i.e. flexible and rigid.

 Road surface with neat bitumen can cause bleeding in hot climate,
may develop cracks in cold climate, possess fewer loads bearing
capacity and can cause serious damages because of higher axle
load in present conditions due to rapid infrastructure
development.
 OBJECTIVES
 To utilize waste plastic as a pavements ingredient.

 To evaluate the physical properties of modified bitumen and conventional

bitumen.

 To evaluate the properties of aggregates by coating plastic over it and by

blending the plastic with bitumen in different ratios (LDPE, HDPE) and
comparing with unmodified materials

 To evaluate the performance test like Marshall Stability using polymer

modified bitumen and conventional bitumen.

 To study & compare the effect of modified bitumen in the bituminous

concrete mix design with conventional bitumen.

 To compare the cost of modified bitumen with conventional bitumen.

 NEED OF MODIFIED BITUMEN
 Increasingly heavy traffic condition.

 Sever climate conditions with daily and seasonal variations of

atmospheric temperature.

 Desire to maintain roads at high serviceability level.

 Higher degree of flexibility at low temperature.

 Prevention of cracking ,raveling , deformation & creep failure.

 Reduced cost of maintenance and vehicle operation cost.

 SOURCES OF MODIFIER

1. LDPE 2. HDPE
 LITERATURE REVIEW

 Imtiyaz khan and Dr. P.J. Gandaliya, “Utilization of waste

polyethylene material in Bituminous concrete mix for improved
performance of flexible pavements.” International journal of
scientific research, September – 2012 Vol-1 Pg no. 57,58

 The bitumen modified with 4% polythene waste is showing better

performance as compared to other mixes the marshall stability
which is strength parameter has shown increasing trend with a
maximum increase percent of 34.26%as compared to
Conventional mix when modified with 4% Polythene Waste.
 Afroz Sultana.SK, K.S.B. Prasad, “Utilization of waste plastic as a
strength modifier in surface course of flexible and rigid
pavements.” International journal of engineering research and
application, July-August 2012 Vol-2 PgNo.1185to1191

 In this study they investigate the potential use of waste plastic as

modifier for asphalt concrete and cement concrete pavements.

 By using plastic as a coating over aggregates, the properties of

aggregates are improved. This shows hat weak aggregates can be
used in construction by using plastic as a binder material.
 Mrs.Vidula Swami, Abhijeet Jirge, Karan patil, Suhas patil,
Sushil patil, Karan salokhe , “Use of waste plastic in
construction of bituminous road.” international journal of
engineering science and technology , May -2012, vol-4 , 2351
-2355.

 The problems like bleeding are reduce in hot temperature

region.

 Plastic has property of absorbing sound, which also help in

reducing the sound pollution of heavy traffic.

 The waste plastics thus can be put to use and it ultimately

improves the quality and performance of road.

 Total material cost of the project is reduced by 7.99%

 METHODOLOGY
Problem Identification Selection Of Material

Bitumen
Testing On Material LDPE
HDPE
Aggregate

Testing On Bituminous
Result
Mix

Cost Analysis Analysis Of Result

Conclusion
 TEST ON AGGREGATE
 Aggregate Impact Test:

 This test is sufficient to determine

the toughness of the road
aggregates.

 It also use for assess their

suitability in road construction on
the basis of impact value.
 Flakiness Index

 This test is used for determine the

thickness of the aggregate.

 The test is applicable to sizes larger

than 6.3 mm.

 Elongation Index

 This test is used for determine the length of the

aggregate.

 The elongation test is not applicable for sizes for

smaller than 6.3 mm.
Specific gravity & water absorption Test

 The specific gravity of an

aggregate is considered to a
measure of the quality or
strength of the material.

 The specific gravity is

calculated by dividing the dry
weight of aggregate by the
weight of equal volume of
water.

 Water absorption is not

grater than the 2% of total
weight of aggregate.
 Crushing Value Test

 The hardness of coarse aggregate may be assessed by

aggregate crushing test.

 Abrasion Value Test

 It is used for determine

abrasion value of given
road aggregate.

 As per IS 2386 PART IV the

permissible limit of
abrasion value test is
maximum 30%.
 RESULT OF AGGREGATE TESTING
Sr. no Tests Method Test Result Permissible Limit

1 Impact test IS 2386 PART IV 19.40 % Max 27 %

2 Flakiness & Elongation IS 2386 PART I 27.20 % Max 30%

(shape) test
3 Specific gravity
Coarse Aggregate 20 mm 2.76

Coarse Aggregate 10 mm 2.64

IS 2386 PART III 2.5 to 3.0
Coarse Aggregate 6 mm 2.80

Stone dust 2.72

water absorption test 0.94% Max 2%
4 Crushing test IS 2386 PART IV 22.8% Max 30%

5 Abrasion value test IS 2386 PART IV 11.14% Max 30%

 TESTS ON BITUMEN
Penetration Test
 A grade of 80/100 bitumen means the penetration value is in
the range 80 to 100 at standard test conditions. In hot
climates, a lower penetration grade is preferred. The Figure
shows a schematic Penetration Test setup.
Softening Point Test

 Softening point denotes the temperature at which the bitumen

attains a particular degree of softening under the specifications
of test.

 The test is conducted by using Ring and Ball apparatus.

 Ductility Test

 Ductility is the property of bitumen that permits it to

undergo great deformation or elongation.

 Ductility is defined as the distance in cm, A minimum

ductility value of 75 cm has been specified.
Flash and Fire Point test

 Flash Point:- The flash point of the material is the lowest

temperature at which the vapor of substance momentarily
takes fire in the form of the flash under specified condition
of the test.

 Fire Point:- The fire point is the lowest temperature at

which the material gets ignited and burns under specified
condition of test.
Flash and Fire point test
 RESULT OF BITUMEN TESTING
Sr. no
Types of test Test method Result Permissible Limit

1 Penetration test IS: 1203-1978 64 60 to 70

2 Softening point test IS: 1205-1978 45 40 to 55

3 Ductility test IS: 1208-1978 80 75 (min)

4 Specific Gravity IS : 1202-1978 1.02 0.99 (min)

Flash Point 245

5 IS:1209-1978
Fire Point 273 90 to 370 °C
 MARSHALL STABILITY TEST

Physical Properties Of Aggregate

 Aggregate constitutes the granular part in bituminous concrete

mixtures which contributes up to 90-95 % of the mixture weight
and contributes to most of the load bearing & strength
characteristics of the mixture.

 Hence, the quality and physical properties of the aggregates

should be controlled to ensure a good pavement.
MARSHALL STABILITY TEST
PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS OF AGGREGATE
As per MORTH Specifications the aggregate shall be conform to
the grading given in following table.
Nominal aggregate size 13 mm 10 mm

Layer Thickness 35-40 mm 25-30 mm

IS Sieve (mm) Cumulative % by weight of total aggregate passing
26.5 100
19 79-100 100
13.2 59-79 79-100
9.5 52-72 70-88
4.75 35-55 53-71
2.36 28-44 42-58
1.18 20-34 34-48
0.6 15-37 26-38
0.3 10-20 18-28
0.15 5-13 12-20
0.075 2-8 4-10
 Proposed Combined Gradation of BC
Combined Upper
Sieve Size 20 mm 10 mm 6 mm Stone Dust Lower limit
Gradation Limit

26.5 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

19 67.54 100 100 100 98.30 79 100

13.2 29.43 100 100 100 71.90 59 79

9.5 10.37 70.39 100 100 66.53 52 72

4.75 6.87 35.02 63.75 100 42.03 35 55

2.36 4.4 20.28 30.74 100 28.90 28 44

1.18 3.2 12.84 12.73 84.06 22.90 20 34

0.6 2.31 9.69 5.73 63.25 18.13 15 27

0.3 1.68 7.56 4.35 38.88 14.80 10 20

0.15 1.17 6.3 3.45 18.17 7.63 5 13

0.075 8.87 2.37 2.08 5.57 3.63 2 8

20 mm 10 mm 6 mm Stone Dust Total

Mix proportion

36 % 10 % 25 % 29 % 100 %
 Blending of Aggregate

120

100 100
100
98.30 100

79
80
72
79
Gradation

71.90 Combined Gradation

60 55 66.53
Lower limit
59
44 Upper Limit
52
40 34
42.03
27
35
20 28.90
20 13 28
22.90
8 20
18.13
15
14.80
10
7.63
0 3.63
5
02 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Sieve Size
Physical Properties Of Modified Aggregate

Aggregate impact value Abrasion value Test IS Aggregate Crushing Value

% of
IS 2386 (part IV) 2386 (part IV) IS 2386 (part IV)
Plastic
% % %

0 19.4 21.42 22.8

1 17.32 18.67 19.52
2 14.21 16.37 17.9
3 13.73 15.58 15.61
4 10.84 12.02 11.39

Modified Aggregate Natural Aggregate

 Physical Properties Of Modified Bitumen

 Bitumen is binder in bituminous concrete and in this

research the bitumen modified with two modifiers and after
doing modification of bitumen the change in physical
properties of bitumen should be check first and is shown as
below.

Result of Polymer Modified Bitumen

Softening point(°C) Penetration value (mm) Ductility (cm)

% of Modifier
(IS: 1205 – 1978) (IS: 1203 - 1978) (IS: 1208 – 1978)

0 45 64 80
1 47 61 59
2 48 57 43
3 52 55 30.5
4 55 51 21.5
 Optimum Binder Content

 First we find optimum binder content for bituminous mix

design by Marshall Stability test. We take bitumen as 4%, 4.5%,
5%, and 5.5% by weight of mix and check the stability, density
and flow. In table we show that we get maximum stability and
density at the 5% bitumen.

 Hence we adopt 5% bitumen for mix design and then

modified the bitumen with 1%, 2%, 3% and 4% modifier by
weight of bitumen and also modified aggregate with 1%, 2%,
3% and 4% modifier by weight of aggregate.

 Then conducting the test using modified bitumen and

modified aggregate. Result of Marshall Stability test as shown in
the table below for neat and modified bitumen and modified
aggregate.
Test Result of Bituminous Concrete Mix Design with Neat Bitumen by
Marshall Method

Sr. No Bitumen Bulk Air VMA % VFB Stability Flow

% By Wt. Density Voids % % (Kg.) mm
of Mix (Gmb)

1 4.00% 2.356 8.39 17.63 52.41 988.50 2.40

2 4.50% 2.348 7.97 18.33 56.50 1087.70 3.10

3 5.00% 2.390 5.01 17.33 67.60 1232.30 3.50

4 5.50% 2.382 5.18 18.02 71.28 1177.40 4.2

Test Result of Bituminous Concrete Mix Design with Modified Bitumen
(HDPE) by Marshall Method

Sr. Bitumen Modifier Bulk Air Voids VMA VFB Stability Flow
No % By Wt. % By Wt. Density % % % (Kg.) mm
of Mix of (Gmb)
Bitumen

1 5.00% 1.00% 2.392 5.62 17.34 67.61 1254.4 3.5

2 5.00% 2.00% 2.402 5.31 17.09 68.91 1273.4 3.1

3 5.00% 3.00% 2.415 4.97 16.81 70.41 1360.9 2.9

4 5.00% 4.00% 2.420 5.00 16.86 70.35 1316.7 2.7

Test Result of Bituminous Concrete Mix Design with Modified Aggregate
(LDPE) by Marshall Method

Sr. Bitumen Modifier Bulk Air VMA VFB Stability Flow

No % By Wt. % By Wt. Density Voids % % (Kg.) mm
of Mix of (Gmb) %
Bitumen

1 5.00% 1.00% 2.309 5.50 17.26 68.14 1192.20 3.70

2 5.00% 2.00% 2.403 5.44 17.22 68.40 1272.40 3.20

3 5.00% 3.00% 2.411 5.35 17.17 68.82 1370.40 2.90

4 5.00% 4.00% 2.417 5.19 17.04 69.52 1417.90 2.60

 Comparison Of Bituminous Concrete mix with Using
Different Modifier
 Comparison of stability, flow, bulk density, air void, VMA and VFB by using the
different modifier like HDPE and LDPE in bituminous concrete mix as shown
below.
BCM with different Modifier
1450
1400
1350
1300
Stability, Kg

1250
1200
1150
1100
1050
1000
1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00%
PMB 1254.4 1273.4 1360.9 1316.7
PCA 1236.5 1272.4 1370.4 1417.9
% of Modifier

Stability Vs Binder %
 BCM with different Modifier
4

3.5
Flow, mm

2.5

2
1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00%
PMB 3.5 3.1 2.9 2.7
PCA 3.7 3.2 2.9 2.6
% of Modifier

Flow Vs Binder %
 BCM with different Modifier
2.425
2.420
2.415
2.410
Density, gm/cc

2.405
2.400
2.395
2.390
2.385
2.380
2.375
1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00%
PMB 2.392 2.402 2.415 2.420
PCA 2.399 2.403 2.411 2.417
% of Modifier

PMB PCA

Density Vs Binder %
 BCM with different Modifier
6

5.5
Air Voids, %

4.5

4
1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00%
PMB 5.62 5.31 4.97 5.00
PCA 5.5 5.44 5.35 5.19
% of Modifier

PMB PCA

Air voids Vs Binder %

 BCM with different Modifier
17.50

17.30

17.10
VMA, %

16.90

16.70

16.50
1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00%
PMB 17.34 17.09 16.81 16.86
PCA 17.26 17.22 17.17 17.04
% of Modifier

PMB PCA

VMA Vs Binder %
 BCM with different Modifier
72

70

68
VFB, %

66

64

62

60
1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00%
PMB 67.61 68.91 70.41 70.35
PCA 68.14 68.4 68.82 69.52
% of Modifier

PMB PCA

VFB Vs Binder %
 SUMMARY

 In term of flow parameter, it is obviously clear that the

flow value is decrease with increase in the modifier
and the stability value increase with the increase in
the percentage of modifier.

 From the result we get the high value of stability by

adding 3 % of HDPE in the bitumen and by modifying
the aggregate with 4% LDPE. We can see the flow
value of the modified bituminous mix is decrease.
 COST ANALYSIS

Economic Analysis

This gives the details of a comparative cost study on Waste

plastic HDPE in Bitumen and LDPE with aggregate and
conventional bituminous road construction.

For that we take cost of 1 km national highway of 14 meter

wide and the depth is 40 mm. We find the material cost for the
same and compare with convenient bitumen mix with the
modified bitumen mix. Rate analysis was done as per R&B SOR
2012-13.
 QUANTITY OF ROAD

 Length * Width * Thickness

= 1000*14*0.04
= 560 cum
 Economic Analysis Of Conventional Bitumen

Sr. No. Description Unit Qty. Rate Cost Total Cost

Material Required

1 Bitumen 5% of Mix Tonne 67.2 43681.6 2935404.86

2 20 - 10 mm 36% Cum 191.52 550 105336

3 10 - 6 mm 10% Cum 53.2 520 27664

4 6 mm below 25% Cum 133 365 48545

5 Stone Dust 29% Cum 154.28 150 23142 3140091.86

 Economic Analysis of Polymer modified bitumen
(HDPE)

Sr.
Description Unit Qty. Rate Cost Total Cost
No.

Material Required

1 Bitumen 5% of Mix Tonne 65.184 43681.6 2847342.72

Modifier (HDPE) 3% of
2 Tonne 2.01 16000 32160
Bitumen

3 20 - 10 mm 36% Cum 191.52 550 105336

4 10 - 6 mm 10% Cum 53.2 520 27664

5 6 mm below 25% Cum 133 365 48545

6 Stone Dust 29% Cum 154.28 150 23142 3084189.72

 Economic Analysis of PCA used in Bituminous Concrete
(LDPE)

Sr.
Description Unit Qty. Rate Cost Total Cost
No.

Material Required

1 Bitumen 5% of Mix Tonne 67.2 43681.6 2935404.86

Modifiers (LDPE) 4%
2 Tonne 21.28 12000 255360
of Aggregate

3 20 - 10 mm 36% Cum 183.86 550 101123

4 10 - 6 mm 10% Cum 51.07 520 26556.4

5 6 mm below 25% Cum 127.68 365 46603.2

6 Stone Dust 29% Cum 148.11 150 22216.5 3387263.96

 Comparisons of Cost and Marshall properties of
Modified and Convenient Bituminous Concrete

% of Cost Air
Name of Cost of 1 Stability, Density, Flow,
Description Modifie difference in void
Modifier km road kg Gmb mm
r Percentage (%)

Neat -- 0 3140091.86 0.00 1232.3 2.532 5.61 3.5

With PMB HDPE 3 3084189.72 -1.78 1360.9 2.541 4.97 2.9

With PCA LDPE 4 3387263.96 7.87 1417.9 2.549 5.19 2.6

 CONCLUSION
 So, as from the Table if we propose the BC material used
in binder course there is about 1.78% cost decrease by using
HDPE and 7.87% cost increase by using LDPE in BC. There is
nominal difference in the cost by using modifier but we find
that the stability and density increase and the flow value and
air void decrease in BC.

 In this chapter we show the cost analysis of without

modifier, with adding 3% of HDPE by wet process and 4% of
LDPE by dry process. Here we show the cost of BC is decrease
when we use the modifier by wet process and the cost
increase by dry process. But in opposite side we get benefit of
increase in stability and density and decrease in flow value
and air void when we use modifier in BC.
 REFERENCES
 PAPERS
1) Imtiyaz Khan and Dr. P.J.Gundaliya, “Utilization of Waste Polyethylene
Material in Bituminous Concrete Mix for Improved Performance of Flexible
Pavements”, International Journal of Scientific Research, September-2012,
Vol.-1, 57-58.

2) Mrs.Vidula Swami et. al., “Use of Waste Plastic in Construction of Bituminous

Road”, International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology, May-
2012, Vol.-4, 2351-2355.

3) Rokade S, “Use of Waste Plastic and Waste Rubber Tyres in Flexible Highway
Pavements”, international conference on future environment and energy,
2012, Vol. – 28,105-108.

4) Afroz sultana. SK and K.S.B.Prasad, “Utilization of Waste Plastic as a Strength

Modifier in Surface Course of Flexible and Rigid Pavements”, International
Journal of Engineering Research and Application, July-August 2012, Vol. – 2,
Issue 4, 1185-1191.
5) Pravin Kumar and Rashi Garg, “Laboratory Studies on Waste Plastic Fiber
Modified Bitumen”, Highway Research Journal, January-June 2010, 45-60.

6) R. Vasudevan et. al., “Utilization of Waste Polymers for Flexible Pavement

and Easy Disposal of Waste Polymers”, International Conference on
Sustainable Solid Waste Management,5 - 7 September 2007, Chennai, India.
pp.105-111

7) Amit Gawande et. al., “An Overview On Waste Plastic Utilization In

Asphalting Of Roads”, Journal of Engineering research and Studies, Vol. III,
Issue II, April-June 2012, 01-05.

8) Nuha S. Mashaan et. al., “An overview of crumb rubber modified asphalt”,
International Journal of the Physical Sciences, Vol. 7(2),9 January 2012, pp.
166 – 170.

9) Nuha S. Mashaan et. al., “Effect of blending time and crumb rubber content
on properties of crumb rubber modified asphalt binder”, International
Journal of the Physical Sciences, Vol. 6(9), 4 May, 2011, pp. 2189-2193.
 BOOKS AND CODES
1) Dr.N.B.Lal and L.R.Kadiyali, “Principles and Practices of Highway Engineering”,
Khanna Publication.

2) S.K.Khanna and C.E.G. Justo, “Highway Engineering”, Nem Chand and Bros.

3) IRC: SP: 53-2010,“Guidelines on Use of Modified Bitumen in Road

Construction”, Indian Road Congress.

4) IS: 2386 (Part I, III, and IV), “Methods of Test for Aggregates for Concrete”,
Bureau of Indian Standards.

5) IS: 1202-1978, “Methods for Testing Tar and Bituminous Materials:

Determination of Specific Gravity”, Bureau of Indian Standards.

6) IS: 1203-1978, “Methods for Testing Tar and Bituminous Materials:

Determination of Penetration”, Bureau of Indian Standards.

7) IS: 1205-1978, “Methods for Testing Tar and Bituminous Materials:

Determination of Softening Point”, Bureau of Indian Standards.