EXPLORATORY STUDIES IN THE USE OF GENERAL AND

MULTILAYER PLASTICS IN BITUMEN

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Engineering
In

Chemical Engineering
(Polymer Technology)

Prepared By
VRUNDA L SOLANKI

DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING

FACULTY OF TECHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING
THE MAHARAJA SAYAJIRAO UNIVERSITY OF BARODA
VADODARA

2021-2022

i|Page
 EXPLORATORY STUDIES IN THE USE OF GENERAL AND
MULTILAYER PLASTICS IN BITUMEN

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ENGINEERING
In
(Polymer Technology)

Prepared by:
VRUNDA L SOLANKI

Guided By:
Dr. N.V. BHATE

Co-Guided By:
Dr. S.M. DAVE

DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING

FACULTY OF TECHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING
THE MAHARAJA SAYAJIRAO UNIVERSITY OF BARODA
VADODARA

2021-2022

ii | P a g e
 CERTIFICATE

DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING

FACULTY OF TECHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING
THE MAHARAJA SAYAJIRAO UNIVERSITY OF BARODA
VADODARA

This is to certify that Ms. Vrunda Lalitbhai Solanki (Seat no. 152009)
student of The M. S. University of Baroda Faculty of Technology &
Engineering, Chemical Engineering Department, has successfully completed
her report on “EXPLORATORY STUDIES IN THE USE OF GENERAL
AND MULTILAYER PLASTICS IN BITUMEN” for the degree of Master of
Engineering (Polymer Technology) for the academic year 2022.
This work has not been submitted elsewhere for the purpose of the degree to the
best of our knowledge.

Guide Co-Guide
Dr. N.V.BHATE Dr. S.M.DAVE
Chemical Engg. Dept. Highway and Transportation Engg. Dept.
Faculty of Technology Faculty of Technology and Engineering
and Engineering

Head of the Department Dean

Dr. Nitin V. Bhate Faculty of Technology and Engineering
Chemical Engg. Dept. The Maharaja Sayajirao University of
Faculty of Technology and Engineering Baroda
M.S. University of Baroda

iii | P a g e
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I take this opportunity to express my deep sense of gratitude and sincere thanks
to my guide Dr. N.V. Bhate, HOD of Chemical Engineering; Co-guide Dr. S.M.
Dave, for their guidance, constructive criticism meticulous evaluation, and
encouragement throughout this work. I will always remain indebted to them for
allowing me to work on the significant subject of exploratory studies in the use
of general and multilayer plastics in bitumen.

I am grateful to lab assistants of chemical and highway and transportation, for

the encouragement and guidance provided in pursuing this work.

I am thankful to Leevams company, for providing help in my research work.

Also, thanks to the DST Fist company for providing high-quality equipment.
Special thanks to Dr. Jignesh Shukla and Mr. Snehal Modi from Atul Industries
for providing the additive G modifier for my research work.

I am very grateful to THE MAHARAJA SAYAJIRAO UNIVERSITY OF

BARODA that has given me this opportunity to carry out this project work. It is
a great experience to kick-start research work after a long time.

Vrunda L Solanki
ME 2021-2022
PRN:2020033800104576

iv | P a g e
 ABSTRACT

Solid waste management has become a grave problem especially because of the mixing of bio-
compostable and non-bio compostable waste because non-biocompos table contains a greater
percentage of plastic waste having different characteristics. The segregation of these wastes is
a mammoth task and extremely challenging. Several attempts have been made to use this
mixture of plastics to be processed for a given application. There have been several success
stories of recycling PET bottles into carpets, synthetic garments, etc. Similarly, other plastic
wastes can be recycled into useful products based on their characteristics using different
processing techniques. The purpose of this study is to find a viable option for waste
management by mixing it with bitumen. On one hand, this approach manages large amounts
of non-biodegradable waste plastic in an eco-friendly fashion whilst on the other, it improves
the conventional bitumen in terms of mechanical properties which is equivalent to high-quality
bitumen. In this test, high-density polyethylene (HDPE) with mfi 0.5643 g/10 min (without
modifier) and 0.804g/10 min (with modifier); multilayer plastic with mfi 2.9478 g/10 min
(without modifier) and 2.821 g/10 min (with modifier) is used in different proportions. 4% and
4.5% were found to be the optimum loading for HDPE without and with modifier respectively.
0.9% and 1.1% are found optimum for multilayer without and with modifier respectively. Basic
tests like penetration, softening, ductility, separation, viscosity, specific gravity, and flash
points were carried out. Also, the Marshal stability and flow were found to be in the range of
16- 24 KN for HDPE and 22- 28 KN for multilayer plastic.

v|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 Introduction …………………………………………………..1

1.1 Multilayer plastics …………………………………………………….....2
1.2 High-Density Polyethylene .......................................................................6
1.3 Bitumen ………………………………………………………………….6
1.4 Polymer Modified Bitumen ……………………………………………...7
CHAPTER 2 Literature Survey ……………………………………………..9
CHAPTER 3 Methodology and Experimentation………………………….15
3.1 Penetration ................................................................................................. 17
3.2 Softening…………………………………………………………………20
3.3 Viscosity…………………………………………………………………22
3.4 Elastic Recovery……...………………………………………………….24
3.5 Flash Point……………………………………………………………….26
3.6 Determination of Separation……………………………………………..28
3.7 Specific Gravity………………………………………………………….30
3.8 Marshal Stability………………………………………………………....31
CHAPTER 4 Cost Estimation.......................................................................... 43
Conclusion.......................................................................................................... 45
References .......................................................................................................... 46

vi | P a g e
 LIST OF FIGURES

Fig no Title Page

no
1.1 Statistics of plastic waste generated for the years 2001- 2041 1

1.2 Pie chart of plastic waste discarded 2

1.3 Various layers of multilayer packaging 3

1.4 Flexural strength of multilayer plastic 4
1.5 Tensile strength of multilayer plastic 5
1.6 Bitumen 7
3.1 HDPE is cut into small chips and transformed into pellets 15
3.2 Multilayer plastic shredded into small pieces and transformed into 21
pellets
3.1(a) Penetration apparatus 18
3.2(a) Ring and ball apparatus 21
3.3(a) Apparatus for determining kinematic viscosity 23
3.4(a) Ductilometer for testing elastic recovery 25
3.5(a) Pensky-Martin apparatus 27
3.6(a) Determination of separation 29
3.7(a) Specific gravity 31
3.8(a) Gradation of stone dust 32
3.8(b) Gradation and different tests for fine aggregate 33
3.8(c) Different physical tests for coarse aggregates 34
3.8(d) Gradation and different tests for coarse aggregates 35
3.9(a) Bituminous concrete specimen 36
3.9(b) Bituminous concrete specimen 36
3.9(c) Bituminous concrete specimen 36
3.9(d) Bituminous concrete specimen 37
3.10 Marshal flow and stability apparatus 37
3.11(a) Voids in mixture plot 41

vii | P a g e
 3.11(b) Voids in mineral aggregates plot 41
3.11(c) Voids filled in bitumen plot 42

LIST OF TABLES

Table no Title Pg no
2.1 Most Common Polymers Used in Multilayer Packaging Materials, 12
Their Functions in The Packaging, and Some Applications
3.1 Requirement of polymer modified bitumen for plastomeric 16
thermoplastic
3.1.1 Penetration values of HDPE- modified bitumen 18
3.1.2 Penetration values of multilayer plastic modified bitumen 18
3.1.3 Penetration values of HDPE with 3% additive G modified bitumen 19
3.1.4 Penetration value of HDPE with 5% additive G modified bitumen 19
3.1.5 Penetration values of HDPE with 10% additive G modified bitumen 19
3.1.6 Penetration values of multilayer with 3% additive G modified 19
bitumen
3.1.7 Penetration values of multilayer with 5% additive G modified 20
bitumen
3.1.8 Penetration values of multilayer with 10% additive G modified 20
bitumen
3.2.1 Softening point for HDPE modified bitumen 21
3.2.2 Softening point for multilayer modified bitumen 21
3.2.3 Softening point for HDPE with additive G modified bitumen 22
3.2.4 Softening point for multilayer with additive G modified bitumen 22
3.3.1 Viscosity of HDPE modified bitumen 23
3.3.2 Viscosity of multilayer modified bitumen 23
3.3.3 Viscosity of HDPE with additive G modified bitumen 24
3.3.4 Viscosity of multilayer with additive G modified bitumen 24
3.4.1 Elastic recovery for HDPE modified bitumen 25
3.4.2 Elastic recovery for multilayer modified bitumen 25

viii | P a g e
 3.4.3 Elastic recovery for HDPE with additive G modified bitumen 26
3.4.4 Elastic recovery for multilayer with additive G modified bitumen 26
3.5.1 Flash point for HDPE modified bitumen 27
3.5.2 Flash point for multilayer modified bitumen 27
3.5.3 Flash point for HDPE with additive G modified bitumen 28
3.5.4 Flash point for multilayer with additive G modified bitumen 28
3.6.1 Separation test for HDPE modified bitumen 29
3.6.2 Separation test for multilayer modified bitumen 29
3.6.3 Separation test for HDPE with additive G modified bitumen 29
3.6.4 Separation test for multilayer with additive G modified bitumen 30
3.8.1 Moulds with HDPE modified bitumen 38
3.8.2 Moulds with multilayer modified bitumen 39
3.8.3 Moulds with HDPE modified bitumen 39
3.8.4 Moulds with multilayer modified bitumen 39
3.8.5 Moulds of HDPE with additive G modified bitumen 40
3.8.6 Moulds of multilayer with additive G modified bitumen 40

ix | P a g e
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Due to great emphasis on energy in the modern world, one way of conserving energy is to use
lightweight material. Plastics are the best examples of lightweight materials because they are
cheap, durable, flexible are produced in large volumes. Uptill 2017, 8300 million metric tonnes
of new plastic was produced worldwide and if the system of waste management does not
improve 12000 million metric tonnes of plastic will be released into the environment by the
year 2050. As seen from fig 1.1, more than 17 million metric tonnes of waste is produced in
India itself in the year 2022. Plastics become a part of municipal wastes and are used in landfill
after a year of usage. The landfill is another problem of plastic waste, as waste is dumped
without any compaction and segregation so it consumes a large area of valuable land. As seen
from fig 1.2, nearly 79% of plastic waste in used in landfill. About 21–23 wt% water content
is present in landfills which become home to houseflies, and mosquitoes; also plasticizers can
leach into the soil from landfills easily which can cause groundwater pollution, it also produces
an unpleasant odor. To dispose of plastic waste, it is also dumped in water bodies, which
pollutes the rivers and oceans, kills marine life, and forms ocean garbage patches. In the year
2010, 4.8–12.7 million metric tons of plastic entered the ocean.

Fig 1.1 Statistics of plastic waste generated for years 2001- 2041

1|Page
 Fig 1.2 Pie chart of plastic waste discarded

1.1 Multilayer plastics

Single-use plastics are the group of plastics that are used only once and then discarded. Single-
use plastic waste statistics show that 380 million tons of single-use plastics are made each year
and multilayer plastics fall under the category of single-use plastics. It is estimated that
multilayer is responsible for 26% of the flexible packaging in the market by weight. Most of
today’s packaging films are multilayer structures ranging from 3 to 12 layers. Multilayer films
are also referred to as co-extruded films because they have been made by a multilayer
coextrusion process. The mechanical, physical, and oxygen barrier qualities are improved by
combining multiple layers of various materials. Multilayer films have many applications in the
high-volume packaging industry, medical packaging, and food industry. By regulating the
oxygen content inside the package, which is essential for maintaining the freshness of the
produce for a longer period, and the transmission rate of oxygen, carbon dioxide, and moisture,
the combination of multiple polymer layers considerably extends shelf life. Individual layers
contribute to specific functional properties, such as enhancing tensile strength permeation
resistance. Other common properties that need to be considered include optics, formability,
machinability, economics, sealability, and adhesion. An individual layer may contain polymer
blends, neat polymer, recycled material, or additives. Important key properties for multilayer
structures in flexible packaging include good barrier properties, selective permeability,
machinability, sealability, and damage-preventing properties, such as impact
strength.Coextruded structures have varying amounts of bulk/core layers, sealant layers, barrier
layers, and tie layers. Common materials for forming the bulk layer include PE, PP, acrylates,
ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), and polystyrene (PS). A typical five-layer multilayer film

2|Page
structure consisting of a core layer, two intermediate layers, and two skin layers is illustrated
in fig 1.3.

Fig 1.3 Various layers of Multilayer packaging

As we have seen different layers of multilayer films, lets check the tensile and flexural strength
for this material by Universal testing machine(UTM).

3|Page
 Fig 1.4 Flexural strength of multilayer plastic

4|Page
 Fig 1.5 Tensile strength of multilayer plastic

5|Page
As seen from the curves (fig 1.4 and 1.5) tensile strength is very low but flexural strength is
high which indicates that secondary recycling of multilayers is a challenging task. This material
is suitable for the applications including compression moulding.

1.2 High-density polyethylene

Polyethylene is the most popular plastic in the world. It has a very simple structure, the
simplest of all commercial polymers. A molecule of polyethylene is a long chain of carbon
atoms, with two hydrogen atoms attached to each carbon atom. Sometimes it is
a little more complicated. Sometimes some of the carbons, instead of having hydrogen
attached to them, will have long chains of polyethylene attached to them. This is called
branched, or low-density polyethylene, or LDPE. When there is no branching, it is called
linear polyethylene, or HDPE, short for high density polyethylene. Linear polyethylene is
much stronger than branched polyethylene, but branched polyethylene is cheaper and easier
to make. As a result of branching, side groups become attached to the main chain. Branching
leads to a decrease in crystallinity, lowered density, and impaired stiffness. Branched, low
density polyethylene has good toughness and pliability. It has outstanding electrical
properties, it is resistant to acids and bases, and has high tear strength. Branched polyethylene
is used for films, drapes, table cloths, squeeze bottles, and coatings for foil. Linear, high-
density polyethylene has high crystallinity and high melting temperature. Linear polyethylene
has a greater hardness and tensile strength than branched polyethylene.. This plastic has a
wide variety of applications including plastic bottles, milk jugs, shampoo bottles, bleach
bottles, etc. 20% of total waste is constituted of high-density polyethylene, of total waste
generated in India every year. High-density polyethylene can be recycled and recycling code
is 2.

1.3 Bitumen

Bitumen is a viscous liquid or solid, consisting essentially of hydrocarbons and their

derivatives, and is substantially non-volatile and softens gradually when heated. It is black or
brown in colour and possesses waterproofing and adhesive properties as seen in fig 1.6. It is
obtained by refinery processes from petroleum and is also found as a natural deposit or as a
component of naturally occurring asphalt, in which it is associated with mineral matter.

6|Page
Bitumen is a complex mixture of high molecular weight hydrocarbons and non-hydrocarbons
which can be separated into fractions like asphaltene, resins, aromatics, and paraffin with
maltene as a matrix. The fraction of asphaltene and resin are dependent on how and from where
the bitumen is obtained. Additionally, asphaltene is soluble in light aromatic hydrocarbons and
insoluble in low molecular weight paraffin such as heptane whereas resins are soluble in
heptane. Three types of hydrocarbons are present in bitumen; paraffinic, naphthenic and
aromatic, non-hydrocarbons in bitumen have heterocyclic atoms consisting of sulphur,
nitrogen, and oxygen. The analysis of bitumen manufactured from a variety of crude oils shows
that most bitumen contains: Carbon 82–85%, Hydrogen 8–11%, Sulphur 0–6%, Oxygen 0–
1.5%, Nitrogen 0–1%, and traces of nickel, iron, chromium, calcium, and magnesium.
Functional groups present in bitumen (in decreasing order): Carboxylic acid, Anhydride,
Phenolic, 2-Quinolone, Sulfide, Sulfoxide, Ketone, Pyridinic, and Pyrrolic.

Fig 1.6 Bitumen

1.4 Polymer-modified bitumen (PMB)

PMB is obtained by incorporation of thermoplastics or a blend of polymeric and other additives

compatible with bitumen. High shear mixing is required for high modified bitumen. The
following properties should be kept in mind when using modifiers with bitumen:

- Compatible with bitumen.

- Resist degradation at mixing temperature.
- Capable of being processed by conventional mixing and layered machinery.
- Produce required coating viscosity at application temperature.

7|Page
 - Maintain premium properties during storage, application and in-service.

PMB can be classified into 4 types:

Type A, PMB(P)- Plastomeric thermoplastics

Type B, PMB(E)- Elastomeric thermoplastics

Type C, NRMB- Natural rubber and SBR latex

Type D, CRMB- Crumb rubber/ treated crumb rubber based.

The present work focuses on utilizing the waste plastics in bitumen. Several tests are performed
on the polymer modified bitumen and optimum loading of plastic by weight percentage is
deduced.

1.5 Outline of thesis

Chapter 1 outlines the basic introduction about multilayer plastics, HDPE, polymer-modified
bitumen and bitumen. Chapter 2 outlines the literature of the work performed by various
researchers. Chapter 3 explains the methodology of the experiments performed in the lab.
Chapter 4 contains the cost estimation part of polymer-modified bitumen. Chapter 5 deduces
the result and conclusion of the thesis.

8|Page
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE SURVEY

The quantity of plastic waste in municipal solid waste (MSW) is increasing due to increase in
population, urbanization, development activities, and changes in lifestyle which is leading to
widespread littering on the landscape. Hence disposal of waste plastic is a serious problem
globally due to its non-biodegradability and unaesthetic view. They are not disposed of
scientifically & possibility to create ground and water pollution. This waste plastic partially
replaced the conventional material to improve desired mechanical characteristics for particular
road mix. In road making process, bitumen is used as binder. Such bitumen can be modified
with waste plastic and bitumen mix is made which can be used as a top layer coat of flexible
pavement. The waste plastic modified bitumen (PMB) mix shows better binding property,
stability, density and more resistant to water (Gawande,2012). The polymer bitumen blend is
a better binder compared to plain bitumen as blend has increased softening point and decreased
the penetration value with a suitable ductility(Vasudevan,2007). Many types of research on
PMMA mixture have been conducted over the past two decades. Although addition of virgin
polymers to asphalt to enhance the properties of asphalt over a wide temperature range in
paving applications was done quite some time ago, recycled polymers added to asphalt have
also shown almost the similar result in improving the road pavement performance as compared
to virgin polymers (Kalantar, 2012).

In the highway infrastructure, a huge number of original materials and technologies have been
invented to determine their suitability for the design, construction and maintenance of these
pavements, plastics are one of them. Considering the environmental approach, due to high
usage of polythene in day-to-day business, the pollution to the environment is enormous. The
use of plastic materials such as carry bags, cups, etc. is constantly increasing day by day. Since
the polythene is not biodegradable, the need of the current hour is to use the waste polythene
for some beneficial purposes. The use of these materials in road construction proves eco-
friendly, economical and use of plastic gives strength to the sub-base course of the pavement
(Chhabra,2014). Series of experiments were conducted on bitumen with recycled polymer as a
modifier. In these experiments, 50/70 grade bitumen and waste HDPE plastic in powder form

9|Page
was used as modifiers which were followed by mixing the bitumen with a modifier in a mixer;
the mixture was agitated at about 500 rpm at 160˚C for 15 minutes and then it was kept in small
containers covered with aluminum foil. In this experiment, the conclusion was that at about 4%
HDPE the properties were at their optimum value, beyond that properties start to degrade and
one can say that it is the threshold point for HDPE (Kofteci,2016).

(Shrama,2019) conducted experiments on bitumen mixed with HDPE and LLDPE in different
proportions, namely 1% to 7%.VG30 grade bitumen with waste HDPE and waste LLDPE was
blended using lab mixer. Following parameters were measured,namely, “penetration, softening
and storage stability” From the experiments following conclusions were drawn:By
incorporation of polythene, the hardness and stiffness of the bitumen increases, which in turn
leads to the enhancement in the resistance of modified bitumen. Due to this improvement in
the hardness the road constructed using modified bitumen can resist penetration in comparison
to the traditional road built from neat bitumen. PMB has dual phase morphology, PMB behaves
as asphaltene rich phase- As the concentration of polythene increases, it becomes polythene
rich phase with bitumen dispersed in it. So, there is possibility of phase separation between
bitumen and polymer. Similar experiment was carried out by (Justo, C.E.G. and Veeraragavan,
A, 2002) ,which states that on addition of 8% percent by weight of processed plastic is desirable
in saving 0.4% bitumen by weight of mix as it improves the stability, strength, life and other
desirable properties of bitumen.

Studies have showed that the use of recycled polyethylene in bituminous pavement mixes
reduces the permanent deformation in the form of rutting and the low temperature cracking of
pavement surfacing (Flynn,1993). Experiments were carried out on bitumen mixed with
HDPE, EPDM and SBS in different proportions, namely 1% to 5%.60/70 grade bitumen with
waste HDPE, EPDM and SBS was blended using four-blade impeller (RW20) from IKA
(Germany). Following parameters were measured “Rheological properties” from experiments
conclusions were as follows, A high energy mixing process is always necessary to stabilize and
disperse a polymer in polymer-modified binders. This process may lead to changes in the
rheological response of such materials as a consequence of bituminous components oxidation,
yielding an increase in the linear viscoelastic functions and steady-state viscosity. The
interactions among them may become sufficiently strong, yielding a plateau region in the
mechanical spectrum (Pe´rez-Lepe and F.J. Martı´nez-Boza,2003). Utilization of recycled PET
could reduce road construction cost because this material is not expensive compared to bitumen

10 | P a g e
and it also easy to found. Therefore, PET modified asphalt mixture can oppose the previously
road failures. Additionally, it enhances the level of performance and the lifespan of the road.
4.8% of PET was found to be an optimum content. In conclusion, utilization of PET in asphalt
mixture can give more superiority compared to asphalt mixture without PET which is known
as conventional asphalt mixture. Having considered the economic and environmental prudent
angles, utilization of PET as an additive to asphalt mixture is suitable to be used for road
pavement (Farhana, Razali and Razelan, 2007). Another material which is commonly used in
bitumen is Polypropylene(PP), tests were conducted on bitumen and 2% of PP was found to be
optimum with increased strength of pavements (Otuoze, and Shuaibu, 2017).

Many plastics have been used in bituminous mix, now a novelty plastic, namely; multilayer
plastic is used in this study. In multilayer, plastic films are combined with a metalized film or
laminated to aluminium foil for more demanding packaging applications. Aluminium is the
most effective vapor and aroma barrier. However, in recent years, the amount of aluminium
foil used in packaging has decreased to reduce recycling problems. The packaging industry
generally requires that films are sealable and this is often done thermally. Various sealing
methods include constant temperature sealing or variable temperature sealer in addition to high
frequency, radiofrequency, ultrasonic, and pressure sensitive sealing. Common polymer resins
for a sealant layer include LDPE (low-density polyethylene), PP, ionomers of acid copolymers,
EMA (ethylene methacrylate), or EVA (Ethylene-vinyl acetate) blends with LLDPE (linear
low-density polyethylene), and metallocene VLDPE (very low-density polyethylene).
Important factors when choosing the sealant layer include heat seal strength and hot tack
strength, sealing speed, economics, seal initiation temperature, and coefficient of friction
(Wagner Jr. and Marks 2010).

The tie layer’s main task is to provide adhesion to join incompatible layers together. The
bonding between layers happens in a molten state and the bonds are mechanical and/or
chemical in nature. Modifiers or grafted functional groups are often used together with a base
polymer to reach a sufficient adhesion level. Common tie layer resins include EVA, PP, LDPE,
LLDPE, HDPE (high-density polyethylene), acid copolymers, and acrylate copolymers. They
are often modified with rubbers, tackifiers, maleic anhydride, or olefinic tougheners (Wagner
Jr. and Marks 2010).

11 | P a g e
The barrier layer is used to provide resistance against certain elements, such as oxygen, aroma,
moisture, chemicals, flavor, oil, and grease. PET, PP, and HDPE are used for moisture barrier,
whereas EVOH, PA (Polyamide), and PVDC (polyvinylidene chloride) provide oxygen,
aroma, and flavor barrier properties. Crystallinity and polarity influence a polymer’s oil
resistance; thus, ionomers and PA are also used as oil barriers. PP and HDPE generally have
the greatest oil resistance among polyolefins due to their crystallinity. PET and PVDC both
provide for some chemical barrier needs (Wagner Jr. and Marks 2010; Butler and Morris 2013).
Table 2.1 shows polymers used in multilayer with their functions and applications.

Table 2.1 Most Common Polymers Used in Multilayer Packaging Materials, Their Functions
in The Packaging, and Some Applications (Catherine and Eddo Hoekstra 2016)

Plastic Polymer Functions In Multilayers Applications

Moisture barrier
Airtight packaging for fresh
Polyethylene The heat-sealable food contact layer
produce (LDPE, HDPE), carton
(PE) Can be combined with gas barriers (e.g.,
liners (LLDPE)
PA, EVOH)

Moisture barrier
Modified atmosphere
to provide mechanical strength
packaging, thermoformed
Polypropylene Heat seal coatings may be used (PVDC,
containers for hot-filled
(PP) acrylate)
packaging, and microwaveable
combination with gas barriers (e.g.,
packaging
PVDC coatings, PA, EVOH)

Plastic bottles for carbonated

Gas/aroma barrier
Polyethylene soft drinks, cheese and meat
Moisture barrier
terephthalate packaging, snack food wrapper
Heat resistance
(PET) boil-in-bag, ovenware
To provide mechanical strength
containers, sterilizable pouches

Gas barrier
Polyamide Boil-in-bag packaging
Heat resistance
(PA) Thermoformed packaging
To provide mechanical strength

12 | P a g e
 Can be used as an outside layer of a heat
seal film → film will not stick to the
sealing bar surface

Gas permeability
Can be combined with gas barriers
Fresh produce breathable
(coextruded or laminated) →
Polystyrene packaging with printed outer
Commercially available structures:
(PS) layers (such as fresh meat
e.g., PS/EVOH/PP, PS/PVDC/PE,
packaging).
PS/PVDC/PS, PS/EVOH/PE
Printability

The oxygen barrier must be shielded from

Modified atmosphere
moisture and is frequently sandwiched
Ethylene vinyl packaging
(coextruded) between PE or PP, as well
alcohol (EVOH) Packing of oxygen-sensitive
as between PET, PA, or PS in some
food
applications.

Polyvinylidene The heat-sealable food contact layer Modified atmosphere

chloride Gas and/or moisture barrier to prevent packaging applied as a coating
(PVDC) abrasion and scratches on the surface or coextruded film

Moisture barrier
Heat-sealable food contact layer; heat
Modified atmosphere
Ethylene-vinyl sealable extrusion coatings on PET films
packaging applied as a coating
acetate (EVA) Tie layer for co-extrusion of polar (e.g.,
or coextruded film
PA, PET-G) and non-polar (e.g., PE)
polymers

Hot-filled packaging,
Heat resistance Microwavable packaging, Fruit
Polycarbonate
Moisture barrier juice carton packaging with
(PC)
Mechanical strength modified atmospheric
packaging barriers

13 | P a g e
 Packaging for fresh food (such
as PVC/PE films)
Polyvinylchloride Gas/aroma barrier
packaging for modified
(PVC) Mechanical strength
atmospheres (such as
PE/PVC/EVOH sheets)

Polyethylene Gas/aroma and moisture barrier

For, rewashing, reuse beverage
naphthalate Heat resistance
bottles (e.g., beer), hot refills
(PEN)

2.1 Gaps in literature

Research is done on many polymer blends with bitumen especially PET, LDPE, PP,etc. No
research has been done yet on this plastic blend with bitumen to the best of my knowledge.

14 | P a g e
 Chapter 3

Methodology and Experimentation

HDPE waste with recycling code 2 and multilayer plastics with recycling code 7 were collected
and then cut into small pieces of size 2 mm and then transformed into pellets by extrusion. The
experiments were focused on mixing of HDPE and multilayer plastic with bitumen and
maximizing the plastic loading in bitumen. A surface modifier (Additive G) was used to
enhance the efficiency of plastic to bitumen. The experiment was performed in two batches,
one without additive G and one with additive G. 3%,5% and 10% of additive G were added on
a weight % basis. It showed enhanced properties as compared to polymers-modified bitumen.

Fig 3.1 HDPE is cut into small chips and transformed ito pellets

15 | P a g e
 Fig 3.2 Multilayer plastic shredded into small pieces and transformed into pellets

Different proportions of plastics namely HDPE and multilayer plastic were added into bitumen
at 180 0C and 220 0C respectively. This polymer-modified bitumen was then tested in highway
and transportation lab. Basic tests like penetration, softening, elastic recovery, flash point,
separation and viscosity were performed and optimum percentage is decided by these tests.
Based on IS 15462:2004 the below mentioned are the optimum values for tests performed. The
important recommended properties are given in table 3.1

Table 3.1 Requirement of polymer modified bitumen for plastomeric thermoplastic

Sr no Characteristics Grade and requirements Method of test
PMB 120 PMB 70 PMB 40 IS No. Annex
1 Penetration at 90 TO 150 50 TO 90 30 TO 50 1203 -
250C,mm
2 Softening 50 55 60 1205 -
point, 0C
3 Flash point, 0C 220 220 220 1209 -

16 | P a g e
 4 Elastic 50 40 30 1209 A
recovery of
half thread in
ductilometer
at 150C, %
5 Separation 3 3 3 B
difference in
softening
point, 0C
6 Kinematic 1-3 2-6 3-9 1206(part -
viscosity at 1)
1500C, poise

3.1 Penetration

Penetration test is used to determine the hardness of the bitumen and suitability of bitumen for
use under different climatic conditions and various types of construction. The penetration of a
bitumen is the distance in tenths of a millimeter that a standard needle will penetrate the
bitumen under a load of 100 gm applied for 5 seconds at 250C. According to IS 15462: 2004,

PMB is further classified as below based on the penetration values:

PMB(P) 120: 90-150 (mm)

PMB(P) 70: 50-90 (mm)

PMB(P) 40: 30-50 (mm)

The procedure for penetration test is outlined below:

1) Prepare the sample and put it in a water bath at 250C for 30 minutes.
2) Take out the sample from water bath and measure the temperature with a thermometer
gun.
3) Place the sample on penetration apparatus set the load to 0 and start timer for
penetration and apply 100g of load.
4) Note down the values then take average of the same.

17 | P a g e
 Fig 3.1(a) Penetration apparatus

The observations are tabulated in table 3.1.1 and 3.1.2

Table 3.1.1 Penetration values of HDPE modified bitumen
Sr no Weight % of HDPE Penetration value(mm)
1 1 44.13
2 2 28.96
3 3 31.53
4 4 33.33
5 5 27.16

Table 3.1.2 Penetration values of multilayer plastic modified bitumen

Sr no Weight % of multilayer Penetration value (mm)
plastic
1 0.1 46
2 0.2 42.3
3 0.3 45
4 0.4 44
5 0.5 42.6
6 0.6 41.43
7 0.7 43.3
8 0.8 40
9 0.9 42.76
10 1.0 36.56

18 | P a g e
The penetration test was also repeated for polymer-modified bitumen with 3%,5% and 10%
additive G- a modifier to address the surface properties of plastics and thereby make it
compatible with bitumen. The penetration values are given in table 3.1.3 and 3.1.4.

Table 3.1.3 Penetration values of HDPE with 3% additive G modified bitumen

Sr no Weight% of HDPE Penetration value(mm)

1 4.4 11.2
2 4.5 11.1
3 4.6 5.9

Table 3.1.4 Penetration value of HDPE with 5% additive G modified bitumen

Sr no Weight% of HDPE Penetration value(mm)

1 4.4 12.2
2 4.5 12.1
3 4.6 7.3

Table 3.1.5 Penetration values of HDPE with 10% additive G modified bitumen
Sr no Weight % of HDPE Penetration value(mm)
1 4.1 36.33
2 4.2 35
3 4.3 33.78
4 4.4 32.12
5 4.5 32.76
6 4.6 21.73

As seen from table 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 the penetration values are out of range so the experiment
failed with 3 wt% and 5 wt% of additive G. Hence, 10 wt% of additive G was found to be
optimum.

Table 3.1.6 Penetration values of multilayer with 3% additive G modified bitumen

Sr no Weight % of multilayer Penetration value(mm)

plastic
1 1.0 18.9
2 1.1 17.63
3 1.2 14.56

19 | P a g e
Table 3.1.7 Penetration values of multilayer with 5% additive G modified bitumen

Sr no Weight % of multilayer Penetration value(mm)

plastic
1 1.0 25.37
2 1.1 22.01
3 1.2 20.6

As seen from table 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 the penetration values are out of range so the experiment
failed with 3 wt% and 5 wt% of additive G. Hence, 10 wt% of additive G was found to be
optimum.

Table 3.1.8 Penetration values of multilayer with 10% additive G modified bitumen
Sr no Weight % of multilayer Penetration value(mm)
plastic
1 1.0 34.73
2 1.1 31.73
3 1.2 27.53

Results for Penetration test:

4% and 4.5% is found optimum loading for HDPE and 0.9% and 1.1% is found optimum
loading for Multilayer plastic. Penetration for virgin bitumen is 55 while penetration decreases
for polymer modified bitumen with and without Additive G. Strength of road is increased as
compared to virgin bitumen.

3.2 Softening point

Softening point denotes the temperature at which the bitumen attains a particular degree of
softening under the specifications of this test. Generally, a higher softening point indicates
lower temperature susceptibility and is preferred in hot climates The test is conducted by ring
and ball apparatus as per IS.1201-1220.1978. The procedure of determination of softening
point is outlined below:

1) A brass ring containing a test sample of bitumen is suspended in liquid like water or
glycerine at a given temperature.
2) A steel ball is placed upon the bitumen sample and the liquid medium is heated at a rate
of 50 C per minute.
3) Temperature is noted when the softened bitumen touches the metal plate which is at a
specified distance below.

20 | P a g e
 Fig 3.2(a) Ring and ball apparatus

The observations are tabulated in table 3.2.1 and 3.2.2

Table 3.2.1 Softening point for HDPE modified bitumen
Sr no Weight % of HDPE Softening point
1 1 59
2 2 66
3 3 67
4 4 62
5 5 65

Table 3.2.2 Softening point for multilayer plastic modified bitumen

Sr no Weight % of multilayer Softening point
plastic
1 0.1 61
2 0.2 63
3 0.3 62
4 0.4 61
5 0.5 63
6 0.6 59
7 0.7 67
8 0.8 61
9 0.9 61
10 1.0 62

21 | P a g e
The softening test was also repeated for polymer-modified bitumen with 10% additive G- a
modifier to address the surface properties of plastics and thereby make it compatible with
bitumen. The softening test values are given in table 3.2.3 and 3.2.4.

Table 3.2.3 Softening point for HDPE with additive G modified bitumen
Sr no Weight % of HDPE Softening point
1 4.1 62
2 4.2 60
3 4.3 61
4 4.4 63
5 4.5 65
6 4.6 64

Table 3.2.4 Softening point for multilayer with additive G modified bitumen
Sr no Weight % of multilayer Softening point
plastic
1 1.0 61
2 1.1 63
3 1.2 60

Results for Softening test:

All weight% of plastics fall under the standard range of Softening point but as decided on the
basis of penetration test, 4% and 4.5% is optimum for HDPE and 0.9% and 1.1% is optimum
for Multilayer, we will consider the same values as optimum for softening point as well.

3.3 Viscosity
Viscosity is defined as the inverse of fluidity. Viscosity is the general term for consistency and
is the measure of resistance to flow. The degree of fluidity of the binder at the application
temperature greatly influences the strength characteristics as per IS.1201-1220.1978. The
procedure for viscosity test is outlined below:

1) Heat the sample and fill it in viscosity tube. Meanwhile, set the temperature 1500C in
apparatus.
2) As soon as temperature is attained, place the tube in apparatus for 30 minutes with
closed end.
3) After 30 minutes, open the lid and the sample goes upward due to pressure difference.
4) Note down the reading and multiply it with tube constant (0.84 in our case).The result
obtained is in centistoke, convert it into poise.

22 | P a g e
 Fig 3.3(a) Apparatus for determining kinematic viscosity

The observations are tabulated in table 3.3.1 and 3.3.2

Table 3.3.1 Viscosity of HDPE modified bitumen
Sr no Weight % of HDPE Viscosity (Poise)
1 1 2.01
2 2 5.06
3 3 5.94
4 4 6.01
5 5 7.04

Table 3.3.2 Viscosity of multilayer modified bitumen

Sr no Weight % of multilayer Viscosity (Poise)
plastic
1 0.1 3.01
2 0.2 3.05
3 0.3 3.11
4 0.4 3.27
5 0.5 3.51
6 0.6 3.52
7 0.7 3.50
8 0.8 3.49
9 0.9 3.58
10 1.0 3.55

23 | P a g e
The viscosity test was also repeated for polymer-modified bitumen with 10% additive G- a
modifier to address the surface properties of plastics and thereby make it compatible with
bitumen. The viscosity test values are given in table 3.3.3 and 3.3.4.

Table 3.3.3 Viscosity of HDPE with additive G modified bitumen

Sr no Weight % of HDPE Viscosity (Poise)
1 4.1 4.03
2 4.2 4.20
3 4.3 4.14
4 4.4 4.28
5 4.5 4.38
6 4.6 5.06

Table 3.3.4 Viscosity of multilayer with additive G modified bitumen

Sr no Weight % of multilayer Viscosity(Poise)
plastic
1 1.0 3.06
2 1.1 3.29
3 1.2 3.70

Results for Kinematic viscosity test:

All weight% of plastics fall under the standard range of Kinematic viscosity but as decided on
the basis of penetration test, 4% and 4.5% is optimum for HDPE and 0.9% and 1.1% is
optimum for Multilayer, we will consider the same values as optimum for Kinematic viscosity
as well. The viscosity increases as compared to virgin bitumen.

3.4 Elastic recovery

This is a simple test intended to optimize the dose of polymeric additive in bitumen and also
help in assessing the quality of PMB in a laboratory as per IS 15462: 2004. The procedure for
elastic recovery is outlined below:

1) The sample is filled in mold and kept for 30 minutes in water at temperature 250C.
2) The sample is stretched for 10 cm and is cut from middle and kept undisturbed for 1 hour.
3) After 1 hour the elastic recovery is calculated by the given formula:

; where X is length of a recombined specimen

24 | P a g e
 Fig 3.4(a) Ductilometer for testing elastic recovery
The observations are tabulated in table 3.4.1 and 3.4.2

Table 3.4.1 Elastic recovery for HDPE modified bitumen

Sr no Weight % of HDPE Elastic recovery(%)
1 1 26
2 2 31
3 3 33
4 4 33
5 5 37

Table 3.4.2 Elastic recovery for multilayer modified bitumen

Sr no Weight % of multilayer Elastic recovery (%)

plastic
1 0.1 25
2 0.2 27
3 0.3 26
4 0.4 27
5 0.5 29
6 0.6 27
7 0.7 33
8 0.8 33
9 0.9 38
10 1.0 37

The elastic recovery test was also repeated for polymer-modified bitumen with 10% additive
G- a modifier to address the surface properties of plastics and thereby make it compatible with
bitumen. The elastic recovery test values are given in table 3.4.3 and 3.4.4.

25 | P a g e
Table 3.4.3 Elastic recovery for HDPE with additive G modified bitumen

Sr no Weight % of HDPE Elastic recovery(%)

1 4.1 32
2 4.2 34
3 4.3 37
4 4.4 40
5 4.5 43
6 4.6 42

Table 3.4.4 Elastic recovery for multilayer with additive G modified bitumen

Sr no Weight % of multilayer Elastic recovery(%)

plastic
1 1.0 36
2 1.1 43
3 1.2 43

Results for Elastic recovery test:

All weight% of plastics fall under the standard range of Elastic recovery but as decided on the
basis of penetration test, 4% and 4.5% is optimum for HDPE and 0.9% and 1.1% is optimum
for Multilayer, we will consider the same values as optimum for Elastic recovery as well. The
elastic recovery increases as compared to virgin bitumen.

3.5 Flash point

The flash point of a material is the lowest temperature at which the application of test flame
causes the vapours from the material momentarily catch fire in the form of a flash under
specified conditions of test as per IS.1201-1220.1978. Pensky- Martin closed cup apparatus is
used to determine the flash point. The procedure for flash point determination is outlined
below:

1) The sample is poured into the Pensky Martin closed cup and temperature is increased
slowly.
2) Later flame is provided at every 10 degree rise after 1800C.
3) As soon as we see the first flame the temperature is noted down.

26 | P a g e
 Fig 3.5(a) Pensky martin closed cup apparatus

The observations are tabulated in table 3.5.1 and 3.5.2

Table 3.5.1 Flash point for HDPE modified bitumen

Sr no Weight % of HDPE Flash point

1 1 190
2 2 195
3 3 210
4 4 222
5 5 220
Table 3.5.2 Flash point for multilayer modified bitumen

Sr no Weight % of multilayer Flash point

plastic
1 0.1 198
2 0.2 201
3 0.3 200
4 0.4 195
5 0.5 190
6 0.6 200
7 0.7 210
8 0.8 200
9 0.9 216
10 1.0 185

27 | P a g e
The flash point test was also repeated for polymer-modified bitumen with 10% additive G- a
modifier to address the surface properties of plastics and thereby make it compatible with
bitumen. The softening test values are given in table 3.5.3 and 3.5.4.

Table 3.5.3 Flash point for HDPE with additive G modified bitumen

Sr no Weight % of HDPE Flash point

1 4.1 190
2 4.2 200
3 4.3 210
4 4.4 215
5 4.5 215
6 4.6 210

Table 3.5.4 Flash point for multilayer with additive G modified bitumen

Sr no Weight % of multilayer Flash point

plastic
1 1.0 200
2 1.1 210
3 1.2 200

Results for Flash point test:

All weight% of plastics fall under the standard range of flash point but as decided on the
basis of penetration test, 4% and 4.5% is optimum for HDPE and 0.9% and 1.1% is optimum
for Multilayer, we will consider the same values as optimum for flash point as well.

3.6 Determination of separation

Modified bitumen’s relative stability to separation under storage in static conditions is

determined in heated oven without agitation. The test is performed as per IS 15462: 2004.
The procedure for determination of separation is outlined below:

1) The sample is filled in aluminum/steel rod with one end closed.

2) It is heated and kept undisturbed in oven at 1600C for 48 hours.
3) Softening point is determined for top and bottom samples and the middle portion is
discarded. The difference in softening point of bottom and top samples should not
exceed more than 3.

28 | P a g e
 Fig 3.6(a) Determination of separation

The observations are tabulated in table 3.6.1 and 3.6.2

Table 3.6.1 Separation test for HDPE modified bitumen

Sr no Weight % of HDPE Top Bottom

1 4 61 62

Table 3.6.2 Separation test for multilayer modified bitumen

Sr no Weight % of Top Bottom

multilayer
1 0.9 60 61

The separation test was also repeated for polymer-modified bitumen with 10% additive G- a
modifier to address the surface properties of plastics and thereby make it compatible with
bitumen. The separation test values are given in table 3.6.3 and 3.6.4.

Table 3.6.3 Separation test for HDPE with additive G modified bitumen

Sr no Weight % of HDPE Top Bottom

1 4.5 60 61

29 | P a g e
Table 3.6.4 Separation test for multilayer with additive G modified bitumen

Sr no Weight % of Top Bottom

multilayer
1 1.1 61 63

Results for Determination of separation test:

The separation test is determined only for the optimum weight% of polymer. All the values
fall in the desired range, which states the the polymer does not settle in the bottom while
storage.

 From above basic tests we conclude that 4% and 4.5% is optimum for HDPE without
and with modifier while 0.9% and 1.1% is optimum for multilayer plastic without and
with modifier, hence we will determine specific gravity for these optimum values only.

3.7 Specific gravity

Specific gravity test measures how much lighter or heavier bitumen is compared with the same
volume of water. It also helps to find the impurities present in bitumen. It was determined using
standard specific gravity bottle of 25 ml as per IS 1202-1978. The procedure is outlined below:

1) Take empty specific gravity water weight.

2) Fill the bottle with water and again measure the weight.
3) Now fill half bottle with polymer-modified bitumen and let it cool then measure the
weight.
4) Add water to half bottle and measure the weight.

30 | P a g e
 Fig 3.7(a) Specific gravity

The observations of polymer-modified bitumen without an with additive G are given below.

A. For HDPE modified bitumen: 1.02

B. For HDPE with additive G modified bitumen:1.01
C. For multilayer modified bitumen:1.03
D. For multilayer with additive G modified bitumen:1.02

Results for Specific gravity test:

The specific gravity is determined only for the optimum weight% of polymer. All the values
fall in the desired range. There is less difference in the specific gravity values of virgin
bitumen and polymer modified bitumen.

3.8 Marshal stability

The Marshal Stability test was performed on the optimum percentage of both the plastics. We
require coarse and fine aggregates to prepare the mould for testing marshal stability, some basic
tests are performed on these aggregates before preparing the mould as per MORTH standards.
These tests are basically physical tests on aggregates which are necessary to know the quality
of the aggregates used. Gradation test is done to know the grain size analysis,i.e; proportion of
different size of stones used, the data is given in fig 3.8.1, 3.8.2, and 3.8.3. Impact test is used
to determine the toughness property against the sudden impact sustainability, the data is given
in fig 3.8.2 and 3.8.3. Crushing test in compressive strength against gradual compressive load,
the data is given in fig 3.8.2 and 3.8.3. Higher the water absorption, more porous material

31 | P a g e
which states that the material is weaker, the data is given in fig 3.8.2 and 3.8.3. Los angeles
abrasion test is done to find wear and tear against surface, the data is given in fig 3.8.3. Specific
gravity is a strength test. Higher the specific gravity, stronger the material, the data is given in
fig 3.8.2 and 3.8.3. Shape test is done to determine the shape of the aggregate. Angular particles
are needed for good interlocking properties, the data is given in fig 3.8.3.

Fig 3.8(a) Gradation of stone dust

32 | P a g e
 Fig 3.8(b) Gradation and different tests for fine aggregates

33 | P a g e
 Fig 3.8(c) Different physical tests of coarse aggregates

34 | P a g e
 Fig 3.8(d) Different physical tests for coarse aggregates

35 | P a g e
Now, bituminous concrete specimen are prepared for further testing by the following
procedure.

1) Prepare the trays with stone dust, coarse aggregates, fine aggregates, and calcium
carbonate. The approximate mass will be 1200 g.
2) Place the trays and polymer-modified bitumen the in oven at 1600C temperature for 1
hour.
3) Meanwhile grease the mould and fill the material in the mould.
4) Give 75 blows on each side of the mould and leave it undisturbed for 24 hours.
5) Demould the material and take weight in air and weight in water. Later do the Marshal
flow and stability test.

Fig 3.9 a,b,c,d shows the procedure.

The formulations used for the specimen are as follows:

Formula 1: 38% coarse aggregates, 30% fine aggregates, 30% stone dust, and 2% lime

Formula 2: 35% coarse aggregates, 30% fine aggregates, 33% stone dust, and 2% lime

(a) (b) (c)

36 | P a g e
 (d)

Fig 3.9 Bituminous concrete specimen

Load

Upper segment of
breaking head
Digital
meter

Lower segment of
breaking head

Fig 3.10 Marshal flow and stability test apparatus

37 | P a g e
The following procedure was adopted for the Marshal test:

1) Specimen are heated to 60 ± 1 °C either in a water bath for 30 - 40 minutes or in an

oven for minimum of 2 hours.
2) The specimen are removed from the water bath or oven and placed in lower segment
of the breaking head. The upper segment of the breaking head of the specimen is
placed in position and the complete assembly is placed in position on the testing
machine.
3) The flow meter is placed over one of the posts and is adjusted to read zero.
Load is applied at a rate of 50 mm per minute until the maximum load reading is
obtained.
4) As the first crack appears, note down the stability and flow on the marshal apparatus
then calculate Marshal quotient.

The results obtained from the Marshal test for different formulations with HDPE and
Multilayer with and without Additive G are reported in tables 3.8.1 to

Table 3.8.1 Moulds with HDPE modified bitumen

Weight% Weight% Load(kN) Displacement(mm) Marshal

bitumen HDPE quotient
4 4 18.40 45.09 0.40
4.5 4 18.51 4.09 4.52
5 4 27.43 4.07 6.73
5.5 4 31.32 3.27 9.57
6 4 18.27 5.69 3.21

38 | P a g e
Table 3.8.2 Moulds with multilayer modified bitumen

Weight% Weight% Load(kN) Displacement(mm) Marshal

bitumen Multilayer quotient
4 0.9 24.80 3.53 7.02
4.5 0.9 26.01 8.34 3.11
5 0.9 23.07 4.03 5.72
5.5 0.9 24.15 6.32 3.82
6 0.9 30.0 4.13 7.26

The Marshal quotient values should be in the range of 2.5- 5. As seen from tables 3.8.1 and
3.8.2, only 2 values falls in specified range of Marshal quotient so the mould should be made
more compact hence, it is necessary to increase the fine aggregates.

Similar test was carried out with 3% more stone dust by formulation 2.

Table 3.8.3 Moulds with HDPE modified bitumen

Weight% Weight% Load(kN) Displacement(mm) Marshal

bitumen HDPE quotient
4 4 16.25 4.03 4.03
4.5 4 17.14 4.86 3.52
5 4 24.55 3.99 6.13
5.5 4 22.68 3.05 7.43
6 4 17.65 5.00 3.53

Table 3.8.4 Moulds with multilayer modified bitumen

Weight% Weight% Load(kN) Displacement(mm) Marshal

bitumen Multilayer quotient
4 0.9 22.21 3.50 6.3
4.5 0.9 28.59 4.23 6.75
5 0.9 22.82 4.92 4.63
5.5 0.9 22.29 4.97 4.48
6 0.9 23.42 5.00 4.68

39 | P a g e
4%, 4.5% and 6% of bitumen gives the optimum result for HDPE modified bitumen but we
will use 4% bitumen as optimum bitumen content for making roads due to less cost. Similarly,
5%, 5.5% and 6% of bitumen gives the optimum result for Multilayer plastic, hence we will
use 5% of bitumen in making roads as less bitumen is consumed so less cost.

Trial 1 is performed according to formula 2 and data are tabulated in table 3.8.5 and 3.8.6

Table 3.8.5 Moulds of HDPE with additive G modified bitumen

Weight% Weight% Load(kN) Displacement(mm) Marshal

bitumen HDPE quotient
4 4.5 22.04 4.99 4.41
4.5 4.5 24.79 4.86 5.10
5 4.5 28.15 5.00 5.63
5.5 4.5 19.77 4.08 4.84
6 4.5 29.76 4.86 4.62

Table 3.8.6 Moulds of multilayer with additive G modified bitumen

Weight% Weight% Load(kN) Displacement(mm) Marshal

bitumen Multilayer quotient
4 1.1 21.94 4.92 4.45
4.5 1.1 22.18 4.64 4.78
5 1.1 21.51 4.92 4.37
5.5 1.1 28.97 5.01 5.78
6 1.1 29.02 4.19 6.92

4%, 5.5% and 6% of bitumen content falls under the standard range for HDPE but we will use
4% as optimum content due to less cost. Similarly, 4%, 4.5% and 5% of bitumen content falls
under the range for Multilayer plastic but we will consider 4% of bitumen content as optimum.

40 | P a g e
Results for Marshal tests

(a) Voids in mixture (VIM)

The data shown below in fig 3.11(a), represents the void data in the mix, here mix means
aggregates and bitumen along with polymer. The accepted limit for this test is between 3 to 5
and VIM is a ratio of two properties so the is no unit is assigned to it. The voids in mix
provide a good contact and flexibility to the material. This property is based on compaction
of the roads. Due to traffic, compaction is provided to the road by heavy vehicles hence, this
is a very important property to look upon. All 4 materials fall in the desired range. Best result
is obtained by polymer-modified bitumen as compared to pure as its value is near 4 which is
considered optimum.

VIM
7

6
pure
5
HDPE 4%
Voids in mix

4 HDPE 4.5%
MLP 0.9%
3
MLP 1.1%
2
RANGE
1 range

Fig 3.11(a) Voids in mixture plot

(b) Voids in mineral aggregates (VMA)

This test is independent of binder materials like bitumen because all it includes is aggregate
properties in the test. So basically this is an aggregate test and not polymer modified bitumen
test. The fig 3.11(b) shows the voids filled by bitumen in the aggregate mixture. The
minimum range is 14.

41 | P a g e
 VMA
14.5

14
Voids in mineral aggregates
13.5 PURE

13 HDPE 4%
HDPE 4.5%
12.5
MLP 0.9%
12 MLP 1.1%
11.5 RANGE

11

10.5

Fig 3.11(b) Voids in mineral aggregates plot

(c) Voids filled in bitumen

The data shown below in fig 3.11(c) shows VFB values for different combinations of
bitumen and polymer. The acceptable limit for this test is between 65 and 78. This measures
the crack resistance and durability of the material. Almost all polymer-modified bitumen pass
the test except the additive G modified HDPE.

VFB
90

80

70 PURE
voids filled in bitumen

HDPE 4%
60
HDPE 4.5%
50
MLP 0.9%
40
MLP 1.1%
30
RANGE
20 RANGE
10

Fig 3.11(c) Voids filled in bitumen plot

42 | P a g e
 Chapter 4

Cost Estimation

The objective of the present work was to increase the loading of plastics in bitumen and thereby
propose a partial solution to managing plastic waste. However, the commercial applicability is
governed by the economics. In this section, cost estimation has been done without and with
Additive G based on optimum loading of 4% plastic in case of HDPE and 0.9% in case of
Multilayer plastic.

Cost of laying 1km road

Basis: 1000 g of total sample.

Cost of 1 g bitumen = Rs 0.0469

Cost of 1 g additive G modifier = Rs 0.650

Cost of HDPE and multilayer is not included as it is scrap material.

 HDPE without Additive G

If pure bitumen is used, then 1000*0.0469 = Rs 46.922 ………………………….(1)

4% of HDPE = 40 g, and remaining 960 g of bitumen

Therefore, 960*0.0469 = Rs 45.024 ……………………………………………...(2)

 HDPE with Additive G

Now, 10% modifier is used so we will take 10% of 40g HDPE used.

(40*10)/100 = 4g

Cost of 1g modifier is Rs 0.650, so cost of 4g modifier is 4*0.650 = Rs 2.6 ……..(3)

Total 44 g of polymer and Additive G is used so 956 g of bitumen is used so,

Cost of 956 g of bitumen = Rs 44.836 …………………………………………….(4)

The remaining is bitumen so total price is (3)+(4) = 47.436 ……………………...(5)

43 | P a g e
  Multilayer without Additive G

If 0.9% of multilayer plastic is used i.e; 9g multilayer plastic and remaining 991g is bitumen.

Therefore, 991*0.0469 = Rs 46.4779 ……………………………………………...(6)

 Multilayer with Additive G

Cost of 1g modifier is Rs 0.650, so total cost of 9g modifier is 0.9*0.65 = Rs 0.585…(7)

The remaining is bitumen so total price is (4)+(7) = Rs 45.4214 ………………………(8)

It is seen from above equations that cost with HDPE and multilayer plastic is less as
compared to pure bitumen. Also, cost increases if modifier is added but higher strength of
road is obtained as compared to pure bitumen.

44 | P a g e
 Conclusion

 It is concluded that this project acts as a double-edged sword as it benefits both in terms
of properties of the road as well as solid waste management.
 The optimum percentage of HDPE in bitumen is 4% without additive G and 4.5% with
additive G.
 The optimum percentage of multilayer plastic is 0.9% without additive G and 1.1%
with additive G.
 Cost with additive G modified bitumen is slightly higher than without additive G for
HDPE, but properties are enhanced as compared to bitumen used with the additive G.
 Penetration values decrease as we add plastics and additive G into bitumen, which
denotes that it imparts strength to bitumen.
 Softening point is also increased which means this PMB can be used in hot climates as
the material will not melt at temperatures below 60.
 Elasticity is drastically increased of polymer-modified bitumen and additive G
modified bitumen which means the mixture formed will be more compact. Hence, more
strong.
 Marshal load is increased by adding additive G in HDPE and multilayer plastic which
means it can bear heavy traffic loads.

45 | P a g e
 References

Al-Salem, S.M., Lettieri, P., Baeyens, J., The valorization of plastic solid waste (PSW) by
primary to quaternary routes: From re-use to energy and chemicals. Prog. Energy Combust.
Sci. 36 (1),2010, 103–129. [CrossRef]

Amanina Farhana, Akhtar Razali, Intan Suhana Mohd Razelan, Utilization of polyethylene
terephthalate (PET) in bituminous mixture for improved performance of roads.
ResearchGate,2017.

Amit Gawande, G.Zamare, V.C. Renge, Saurabh Tayde, G.Bharsakale-An overview on waste
plastic utilization in asphalting of roads- Journal of engineering research and studies,2012,
volume 3,/01-05

Catherine Simoneau, Eddo Hoekstra, Anja Mieth., Guidance for the identification of polymers
in multilayer films used in food contact materials: User guide of selected practices to determine
the nature of layers. Jr technical report,2016.

Costa, C. M. Costa, P. Lanceros-Mendez, S. “Chapter One - Overview on lightweight,

multifunctional materials,” in: P. Costa, C. M. Costa, S. Lanceros-Mendez, (Eds.), Advanced
Lightweight Multifunctional Materials, WoodheadPublishing,2021, pp. 1-24.

H. S. Otuoze1, and A. A. Shuaibu et al.,2017, An experimental study on the use of

polypropylene waste in bituminous mix, Nigerian Journal of Technology (NIJOTECH)Vol. 36,
No. 3, July 2017, pp. 677 – 685

Heidbreder, L.M., Bablok, I., Drews, S., Menzel, C.,Tackling the plastic problem: A review
on perceptions, behaviors, and interventions. Sci. Total Environ. 668,2019, 1077–1093.

Jones, Daniel . Roach, Peter; Setter, Jane, Esling, John (eds.). Cambridge English Pronouncing
Dictionary (18th ed.).,2011 Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-15255-6

Justo, C.E.G. and Veeraragavan, A., Utilization of Waste Plastic Bags in Bituminous Mix for
Improved Performance of Roads,2002 Banglore University, Bengaluru.[CrossRef]

46 | P a g e
Kalanatarifard A and Y. G., Identification of the Municipal Solid Waste Characteristics and
Potential of Plastic Recovery at Bakri Landfill, Muar, Malaysia, J. Sustain. Dev.,2012, vol. 5.

Khajuria, A., Yamamoto, Y., Morioka, T., Estimation of municipal solid waste generation and
landfill area in Asian developing countries. J. Environ. Biol. 31,2010, 649–654. [CrossRef]

L.Flynn,1993“Recycled Plastic finds it home in Asphalt Binder”, Roads and

Bridges[CrossRef]

Martijn Roosen, 2020 Detailed Analysis of the Composition of Selected Plastic Packaging
Waste Products and Its Implications for Mechanical and Thermochemical Recycling.

R.Vasudevan,”A technique to dispose waste plastics in an eco-friendly way-Application in

construction of flexible pavements”, Construction and building materials,2011,Vol.28,
Department of chemistry , Thiagarajar college of engineering, Madhurai, Tamil Nadu, India,
pp 311-320[CrossRef]

Rishi Singh Chhabra, SupriyaMarik, – A review literature on the use of the waste plastics and
waste rubber tyres in pavement- International journal of core engineering and
management(IJCEM),2014-Volume 1, Issue 1

Sevil Kofteci, Effect of HDPE Based Wastes on the Performance of Modified Asphalt
Mixtures. Procedia engineering. Elsevier.,2016, Pg:1268-1273[CrossRef]

T.Anukiruthika, Anila Wilson, Multilayer packaging: Advances in preparation techniques and

emerging food applications.,the rheological behaviour of polymer-modified bitumen. Fuel 82,
Elsevier,2020.

Wagner Jr. and Marks; Butler & Morris, Cepeliogullar O, Putun AE., Utilization of two
different types of plastic wastes from daily and industrial life. ICOEST Cappadocia. 2013; 1-
13.

Wagner, J.R., Multilayer Flexible Packaging.,2016 William Andrew. [CrossRef]

Zahra NiloofarKalantar, Mohamed RehanKarim, AbdelazizMahrez,-A review of using waste

and virgin polymer in Pavement-Construction and building materials 33,2012,55-62[CrossRef]

47 | P a g e
Books used

[1] Ministry of road transport and highways by Indian road congress, 5th revision

[2] Asphalt mix design methods, 7th edition

Websites used

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1009095/india-plastic-waste-generation/

https://seedscientific.com/plastic-waste-statistics/

https://www.earthday.org/fact-sheet-single-use-plastics/

https://www.bitumenindia.com/

Swicofil polyethylene HDPE;

https://www.swicofil.com/commerce/products/hdpe/184/introduction

Atlas oil viscosity grade bitumen;

http://atlasbitumen.com/bitumen-products/viscosity-grade/

48 | P a g e