This document outlines a study on the design of Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA) mix using waste materials as fillers. The study aims to compare the Marshall properties of SMA samples containing two different fillers: brick dust and lime powder. Literature on previous studies investigating the use of various waste materials in SMA mixes is reviewed. The methodology adopted involves material testing of the bitumen, aggregates, and fillers to be used. A Marshall mix design is then carried out as per specifications, varying the bitumen content. Test results are analyzed to determine the optimum binder content for each filler. The results show that the SMA mix containing brick dust filler meets design criteria and performs better than the lime powder filler mix based on

1. 1
STONE MATRIX ASPHALT(SMA) MIX
DESIGN USING WASTE MATERIALS
“GUIDE”
PROF. SIDDHARTH GUPTE
PARUL INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING &
TECHNOLOGY
“CO-GUIDE”
PROF. N.B. PARMAR
PARUL INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING &
TECHNOLOGY
PRESENTED BY,
AKASH N. KA.PATEL
ENROLLMMENT NO: 140370713006
M.E. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
PARUL INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING &
TECHNOLOGY

2. CONTENTS
• Abstract, objective and scope of the study
• Introduction to SMA
• Literature review
• Methodology
• Material testing
• Conclusion and recommendation
• References
2

3. ABSTRACT
• Asphalt surfacing differs by the proportion of
different size aggregate, the amount of
bitumen added and the presence of other
additives and material.
• The aim is to study the effect of different
fillers on SMA Mix Design. In this study two
fillers named brick dust and lime powder are
used.
3

4. OBJECTIVES
• To study SMA mix design using different fillers.
• To compare Marshall properties of SMA samples
with varying bitumen contents.
• To determine optimum binder content for particular
filler.
4

5. WHAT IS SMA ?
• It is the composition of coarse aggregate + fine
aggregate + fillers + binders.
• Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA) is a gap graded hot mix
which contains high amount of coarse aggregate and
binder contents.
• SMA composition consists of 70−80% coarse
aggregate, 20-25% fine aggregates , 8−12% filler ,
>5.8% binder.
5

6. LITERATURE
REVIEW
6

7. 7
NO. TITLE AUTHOR PUBLISH
/ YEAR
1. Studying properties of SMA mix by
altering aggregate gradation and
filler type.
Salam ridha Al-Etba ,
Dr.P.Sravana &
Amrendra kumar
(INDIA)
Published in IJSERT
in september 2013
Overview – They have used hydrated lime and crushed stone as a mineral filler material in SMA
Mix. They get the maximum stability of 1228 kg and 1238 kg for hydrated lime and crushed
stone respectively and OBC was 7% and 6.5% for hydrated lime and crushed stone respectively.

8. 8
NO. TITLE AUTHOR PUBLISH
/ YEAR
2. laboratory performance of SMA
containing composite of fly ash and
plastic waste.
Umadevi Rongali,
Gagandeep Singh, Anita
Chourasia, P.K. jain
(INDIA)
Published in journal
of scientific &
industrial research
in March 2013
Overview – They have used three fillers. 1. lime 2. fly ash & 3. composite of fly ash and plastic
waste. They found OBC 6% , 6.2 % and 6% for mix filler 1,2 and 3 respectively. Air voids content
4.4 , 4.1 and 4.3 % accordingly. And VCA 30.3 ,32.53 and 32.5 respectively.

9. 9
NO. TITLE AUTHOR PUBLISH
/ YEAR
3. Effect of mineral filler type and
particle size on asphalt-filler Mastic
and SMA laboratory measured
properties
Ratnasamy Muniandy,
Elataher Aburkaba,
LamyaM.J Mahdi
(Malaysia)
Published in
Australian journal
of basic and
applied science in
november 2013
Overview – They adopted SMA mix design of ASTM D 1559. They have used four fillers are lime
stone , ceramic waste ,coal fly ash and steel slag. The OBC was 5.89, 5.81 ,5.66 and 5.87 for lime
stone , ceramic waste ,fly ash and steel slag respectively. They take proportion of 100/0 , 50/50
,and 0/100 of steel slag in each filler. Stability was 9.81 , 9.52 ,9.32 flow values 3.42 ,3.47 and
3.58 respectively.

10. 10
NO. TITLE AUTHOR PUBLISH
/ YEAR
4. Experimental investigation of SMA
mixtures containing steel slag.
A. Behnood and
M.Ameri (Iran)
Published in
Scientia Iranica
1,july 2012.
Overview – they used steel slag as a filler and adopt ASTM D 1559 for Marshall mix design. they
got 6.1 % OBC , maximum stability 11.08 KN 2.89 flow value and 18.7 % VMA.

11. 11
NO. TITLE AUTHOR PUBLISH
/ YEAR
5 Evaluation of SMA using shell ash as
filler material.
Deprizon syamsunur,
Nazahath Naeem and
Eric Loh(Malaysia)
Published in journal
of applied science
in 2013.
Overview – they have used as shell ash as a filler material. ASTM D 1559 method for Marshall
mix Design. The OBC was 6.5 % , maximum stability was 22.93 KN , flow value was in range of
2.72-3.982 mm and VMA was higher than 17 %.

12. 12
NO. TITLE AUTHOR PUBLISH
/ YEAR
6. Performance evaluation of SMA
using low cost fibers
K.B. Raghuram and
Venkaiah Chowdary
(INDIA)
Published in journal
of IRC in september
2013.
Overview – prepared SMA Marshall mix design using SP-79 method of IRC. They used fly–ash,
cement and rock dust as a filler material. Maximum stability was 16 KN, 15.8 KN and 15.5 KN
flow value was 4.7 , 3.2 and 4.9 VMA was 18 ,19 and 17 respectively.

13. 13
NO. TITLE AUTHOR PUBLISH
/ YEAR
7. Waste plastic as a stabilizing additive
in SMA.
Bindu C.S. , Dr. K.S.
Beena(India)
Published in IJET in
2010.
Overview – they were used ordinary Portland cement as a filler. Adopted IRC :sp-79 SMA mix
method. Stability , flow value , VMA and VFB were 13.5 KN, 2.6 , 19.2 , 74 respectively.

14. METHODOLOGY
14

15. 15

16. MATERIALS ADOPTED FOR SMA
Type Material used
Bitumen PMB-40
Filler Brick dust and lime powder
Aggregates
20 mm , 10 mm, 6 mm and fine
aggregates
16

17. TESTING OF MATERIALS
• Bitumen testing
• Aggregates testing
• Filler testing
17

18. BITUMEN TEST RESULTS
Property
PMB-40 (IS:SP:53-2010)
Test Method
Obtained Value Specific Value
Flash Point 331°C >220°C IS: 1209 - 1978
Penetration 42.66 mm(average of three) 30/50 IS: 1203 - 1978
Softening Point 68.15°C(average of two) 35< value< 70 IS: 1205 - 1978
Specific Gravity 1.0285 0.97< value < 1.03 IS: 1202 - 1978
Elastic Recovery@25°C 4 cm <6 cm IS: 1208 - 1978
Ductility 34 cm >30 cm IS: 1208 - 1978
18

19. AGGREGATES TEST RESULTS
Property Test Method Obtained value in % Specification
Cleanliness Grain size analysis IS:2386(P-1)
20mm 0.04 < 2 % passing
0.075 mm sieve10mm 0.1
Particle shape
Flakiness index IS:2386(P-1)
20mm 14.63
< 30 %
10mm 15.24
Elongation index IS:2386(P-1)
20mm 17.55
10mm 12.01
Strength
Los Angeles
abrasion value
IS:2386(P-4)
20mm 17.96
< 25 %
10mm 16.40
Aggregate impact
value
IS:2386(P-4)
20mm 7.69
< 18 %
10mm 8.26
Water absorption
Water absorption
test
IS:2386(P-3)
20mm 0.2
< 2 %
10mm 0.7
19

20. FILLER TESTING
20
Filler Brick dust Lime powder Test Method
Specific gravity
2.675 1.923 IS 2386-3(1963)
% Passing from
75µ sieve
87.4 91
IRC : SP : 79 –
2008

21. 21

22. 22

23. 23

24. PERCENTAGE ADOPTED FOR SMA
24
MATERIAL PERCENTAGE (%)
20 mm Aggregate 48
10 MM Aggregate 24
6 mm Aggregate 15
Filler 13

25. 25
MARSHALL
TEST

26. 26
Filler type
Bitumen
content
(%)
Theoretical
specific
gravity
G t
Bulk
specific
gravity
G m
% Air
voids
V v
% volume
of
bitumen
V b
VMA VFB
Stability
(KN)
Flow
(mm)
Brick dust
5 2.58 2.45 5.03 11.35 16.38 69.28 12.3 2.4
5.5 2.57 2.46 4.40 12.46 16.86 73.90 16.8 2.6
6 2.55 2.44 4.30 13.44 17.74 75.75 16 2.9
6.5 2.53 2.43 4.0 14.42 18.42 78.31 11.8 3.1
7 2.51 2.42 3.72 15.38 19.10 80.53 13 3.4
Lime
powder
5 2.47 2.33 5.60 10.80 16.40 65.85 9.2 2.6
5.5 2.45 2.34 4.33 11.89 16.22 73.30 12.9 2.9
6 2.44 2.33 4.32 12.85 17.17 74.85 12.2 3.1
6.5 2.42 2.32 4.11 13.78 17.88 77.04 7.7 3.4
7 2.41 2.31 3.95 14.73 18.68 78.86 7.8 3.9

27. 27
12.3
16.8
16
11.8
13
9.2
12.9
12.2
7.7 7.8
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
stability(KN)
bitumen %
Stability vs bitumen %
brick
lime

28. 28
2.4
2.6
2.9
3.1
3.4
2.6
2.9
3.1
3.4
3.9
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
Flow(mm)
bitumen %
Flow vs bitumen %
brick
lime

29. 29
2.45
2.46
2.44
2.43
2.42
2.33
2.34
2.33
2.32
2.31
2.3
2.32
2.34
2.36
2.38
2.4
2.42
2.44
2.46
2.48
4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
bulkspecificgravity(Gm)
bitumen %
Bulk specific gravity (Gm) vs bitumen %
brick
lime

30. 30
5.03
4.4
4.3
4
3.72
5.6
4.33 4.32
4.11
3.95
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
airvoids(Vv)%
bitumen %
Air voids (Vv) vs bitumen %
brick
lime

31. 31
16.38
16.86
17.74
18.42
19.1
16.4
16.22
17.17
17.88
18.68
16
16.5
17
17.5
18
18.5
19
19.5
4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
VMA(%)
bitumen %
Voids in mineral aggregates(VMA) vs bitumen %
brick
lime

32. 32
69.28
73.9
75.75
78.31
80.53
65.85
73.3
74.85
77.04
78.86
60
65
70
75
80
85
4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
VFB(%)
bitumen %
Voids filled by bitumen (VFB) vs bitumen %
brick
lime

33. ANALYSIS OF OBC
33
OBC Corresponding To, Brick Dust Lime Powder
Maximum Stability
5.5 % 5.5 %
Maximum Bulk Specific Gravity
(G M )
5.5 % 5.5 %
Design Air Voids By Median
(4%)
6.5 % 7 %
OBC (avg) 5.83 % 6.0 %
Maximum stability at OBC
16.3 KN 12.2 KN

34. Requirement of SMA mix
MIX DESIGN
PARAMETERS
REQUIREMENT AS
PER IRC:SP-79
OBTAINED VALUE AT OBC
BRICK DUST LIME POWDER
Minimum stability 3.4 KN 16.3 KN 12.2 KN
Flow(1.0 mm/unit) 2-4 2.8 3.1
Air void content % 3 to 5% 4.25 4.32
Bitumen content% 5.8% min 5.83 6.0
Voids in mineral
aggregate(VMA)
17 min 17.78 17.17
Voids filled by
bitumen (VFB)
70-85 75.7 74.85
34
As per IRC SP:79 and MoRTH-2001

35. CONCLUSION
• The specific gravity of brick dust was found to be
2.675 and 1.925 for lime powder.
• From the study it is clear that for, stability value,
bulk specific gravity, VMA & VFB brick dust have
higher values than lime powder.
• It is also clear that for, flow value and air voids
lime powder have higher values than brick dust.
35

36. • Optimum binder content (OBC) shows higher
value for lime powder (6.0%) which is greater
than brick dust (5.85%).
• It is to be noted that both the fillers satisfy the
basic SMA criteria.
• Hence, it can be concluded that brick dust can
be a better option over lime powder.
• It can be used where maintenance is required
during frequent intervals.
36

37. RECOMMENDATIONS
• Study can be carried out using other types of
bitumen.
• Comparative study can be carried out using other
fillers(marble dust , cement , shell ash , fine-
sand).
• Rutting test , Indirect tensile strength (ITS) test
and skid resistance test can also be performed.
37

38. ACHIEVMENTS
38

39. ACHIEVMENTS
39

40. 40

41. 41

42. 42

43. 43

44. REFERENCES
• IRC : SP-79 ,2008 for stone matrix asphalt.
• K.B. Raghuram ,Venkeiah Chowdary Performance
evaluation of stone matrix asphalt using low cost fibers
• Umadevi rongali, Gagandeep singh , P.K.Jain, Anita
chourasiya, Laboratory performance of stone matrix
asphalt containing composite of fly ash and plastic waste
• Ashish Talati and Vaishakhi Talati ,Study of stone matrix
asphalt for the flexible pavement.
• Dr. Praveen kumar and Maj P. Anand, Laboratory study on
mastic asphalt
44

45. REFERENCES
• Salam ridha Al-Etba , Dr.P.Sravana & Amrendra kumar
(INDIA) “Studying properties of SMA mix by altering
aggregate gradation and filler type” ,IJSERT in september
2013
• Ratnasamy Muniandy, Elataher Aburkaba, LamyaM.J Mahdi
(Malaysia) “Effect of mineral filler type and particle size on
asphalt-filler Mastic and SMA laboratory measured
properties” Australian journal of basic and applied science
in november 2013
• A. Behnood and M.Ameri (Iran), “Experimental
investigation of SMA mixtures containing steel slag”,
Scientia Iranica 1 july 2012
45

46. REFERENCES
• Taher baghaee moghaddam , Mohamed Rehan Karim ,
Properties of SMA mixtures containing waste Polyethylene
Terephthalate.
• Taher baghaee moghaddam , Mohamed Rehan Karim ,
Mehrtash Soltani , Utilization of waste plastic bottles in
asphalt mixture.
• www.civilengineering.com
• Referencr book of Highway engineering , khanna & justo.
46

47. THANK
YU
47