paper 1

Junaid Ahmed Barbhuiya1
www.ijetst.in Page 369
IJETST- Vol.||03||Issue||05||Pages 369-378||May||ISSN 2348-9480 2016
International Journal of Emerging Trends in Science and Technology
Effects Of Waste Materials Using As Partial Replacement Of
Conventional Filler In Asphalt Mixture
,Jit Banerjee2
and Pabitra Rajbongshi3
1 M.Tech Scholar,Civil Engineering Department, NIT Silchar,Assam-10,junaidbarbhuiya@gmail.com
2 M.Tech Scholar,Civil Engineering Department, NIT Silchar,Assam-10, jitbanerjee38@gmail.com
3 Associate Professor,Civil Engineering Department,NIT Silchar,Assam-10,prajbongshi@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT:
The effect of filler on properties of asphalt mixture is remarkable as it is one of the crucial components in
asphalt mixture. The main objective of this study is to investigate effects of three different types of waste
materials such as rice husk ash(RHA),fly ash(FA) and brick dust(BD) using as partial replacement of
conventional filler such as stone dust(SD) in asphalt mixture. Other conventional fillers such as lime and
cement were also studied for comparison. Four filler contents (1%, 2%, 3% and 4%) of RHA,FA and BD
were used to determine optimum filler content. The experimental investigations showed that Marshall
stability and optimum bitumen content varies with the variation of types and quantity of filler. Results also
indicated that waste materials used in this investigation can be constructively used as partial replacement
of conventional filler in asphalt mixture.
Key Words: Asphalt mixture,Filler, Marshall stability,Optimum bitumen content.
1. INTRODUCTION
Asphalt-concrete mixture is formed from
aggregates and asphalt, and is widely used in the
surface layer of flexible-pavement road. The
aggregates are expected to provide a skeleton to
resist the repeated traffic load applications and the
asphalt provides adhesive action among aggregate
particles and contributes viscous-elastic properties
to the mixture. Aggregates are usually classified
by their size when blending aggregate proportions
in the mixture. Generally, aggregates that are
larger than 4.75 mm are categorized as coarse,
whereas those smaller than 4.75 mm are fine
aggregates. Filler refers to aggregate particles that
are finer than 75 μm in size[1]. Filler imparts a
considerable importance on the properties of
asphalt mixture. The amount of filler influences
the optimum bitumen content. The workability
during the operation of mixing and compaction of
asphalt mixture a consequential property of
asphalt-filler mastic also affected by filler
materials . The addition of mineral filler increases
the resilient modulus of an asphalt mixture. On the
other hand, a disproportionate amount of filler
may weaken the mixture by raising the amount of
asphalt [2].
Environmental concerns over diminishing landfill
space in conjunction with a sharp increase in
waste disposal costs created an urgent need to find
new, more economical, and environmentally
sound methods to recycle waste materials. The
highway industry is capable of utilizing waste
materials in large quantities if their effect on
pavement performance proves to be technically,
economically and environmentally satisfactory
[3].
Now a days, there is an increasing interest in
the utilization of waste materials. In the case of
construction industry there was a growing trend
towards the development and use of waste as
supplementary cementitious materials[4]. Many
researchers investigated the effect of fillers on
properties of asphalt mixture. The purpose of this
investigation is to find the effect of waste
materials such as RHA,FA and BD using as
partial replacement of conventional filler such as
SD in asphalt mixture and compared with that of
other conventional fillers such as cement and
lime. Also an attempt has been made to determine
the optimum filler content since the effect of
fillers varies with the variation of both type and
quantity of the fillers. For this purpose, four
different filler contents of RHA,FA and BD were
taken to resolve the best one.
2. BACKGROUND LITERATURE
Mei-zhu Chen et al[5] in 2011 investigated
the use of recycled brick powder as replacement

of filler material in asphalt mixture. They carried
out a comparative study on the performance of
two mixture using recycled brick powder and
limestone filler. They performed various test and
the result showed that mixtures prepared with
recycled brick powder have better mechanical
properties than mixtures with limestone filler [5].
Anggraini Zulkati et al [1] in 2012 investigated
the role of filler on the mechanical performance of
asphalt-concrete mixture using three wearing
course (W3B) mixtures incorporating granite,
hydrated lime, and kaolin as filler. The results
showed that the presence of filler in an asphalt-
concrete mixture affects the mixture’s
performance in three ways: filler influences the
amount of asphalt content, filler affects the
workability during mixing and compaction, and
the resultant properties of asphalt-filler mastic
contribute to the mixture’s performance. The
results show that the properties of the filler
determine its interaction with asphalt and its
contribution to the mixture’s performance [1].
Baoshan Huang et al [6] in 2007 presents a
laboratory investigation into the effects of
different fillers on some properties of asphalt
mastics and HMA mixtures. Three filler types and
four filler contents were used to obtain the master
curves of mastics and to characterize the stiffening
effect of filler in mastics. The results suggested
that fillers had significant influence on the
properties of HMA mixtures.With the increase of
filler content,some properties of HMA improved
while others decreased [6]. Shaopeng wu et al [7]
in 2011 investigated some properties of asphalt
mastic containing recycled red brick powder used
as filler. They investigated mastic consisted of
asphalt and filler at a mass ratio of 1:1. It was
found that recycled red brick powder have some
negative effect on low temperature properties of
mastic but it has some positive effect on high
temperature properties of mastic [7]. Sebnem et al
[4] in 2013 have utilized rice husk ash as filler
with lime in which total filler content is varied to
evaluate the optimum filler content which is
determined later as 5% with 4.73% optimum
bitumen content. These two optimum values are
obtained from Marshall Stability test. Also flow
values; VMA (voids in mineral aggregate), Vf
(void percentage), Marshall Stability, Flow and
VFB (voids filled with bitumen) with different
bitumen contents and different filler content have
been evaluated and shown in graphs. It is
concluded that Marshall Stability values of rice
husk ash and lime modified asphalt (2.5%
RHA+2.5% Lime Stone) are considerably
increased up to a point and then decreased [4].
Jaafar et al [8] in 2014 had carried a study on
recycling of reclaimed asphalt pavement with rice
husk ash replacing the ordinary Portland cement
as filler. In this study Marshall test and indirect
tensile test were carried out and result of the
Marshall stability test although had shown
decrease in stability value but indirect tensile test
result had shown that the use of rice husk ash can
increase the tensile strength of the mix. So it was
concluded that up to 70% reclaimed asphalt
pavement materials with 27% fresh aggregates
and with 3% filler (of which 75% is Portland
cement and rest is rice husk ash) could be used to
have a satisfied mix design criteria to be used in
roadway [8]. Debashish Kar et al [9] 2014 carried
out a study to explore the use of fly ash in
bituminous paving mixes. It is observed that the
mixes with fly ash as filler exhibit marginally
inferior properties compared to control mixes and
satisfy desired criteria specified by a much higher
margin. Hence, it has been recommended to
utilize fly ash wherever available, not only
reducing the cost of execution, but also partly
solve the fly ash utilization and disposal
problems[9]. Dipu Sutradhar et al [10] in 2015
studied the effect of types of filler on the behavior
of bituminous mixes.According the properties of
bituminous mixes containing filler like waste
concrete dust and brick dust is studied and
compared with the mixes containing filler like fine
sand and stone dust mixture generally used. The
study indicates the possibility of using waste
concrete dust and brick dust as filler in bituminous
mix [10].
3 MATERIALS
3.1 AGGREGATES
In this investigation, aggregates which were used
in asphalt mixture were collected from local
source. Physical properties of aggregates are
shown in Table 1.
For preparation of asphalt mixture, dense
graded bituminous macadam (DBM) is adopted as
the grading of aggregates as per MORTH
specifications which is shown in Table 2.
3.2 FILLER

Six types of fillers were used in this
investigation such as RHA,FA,BD,SD,lime and
cement. Physical properties of all these fillers are
shown in Table 3.
3.3 BITUMEN
Asphalt mixtures were prepared by using 80/100
penetration grade bitumen. Physical properties of
this bitumen are shown in Table 4.
Table 1. Physical properties of aggregates
Property Test standard Test result
Crushing
value
IS:2386(4) 26.3%
Impact value IS:2386(4) 24%
Abrasion
value
IS:2386(4) 38%
Specific
gravity
IS:2386(3) 2.35
Flakiness
Index
IS:2386(1) 10.62
Elongation
Index
IS:2386(1) 13%
Angularity
No.
IS:2386(1) 10
Table 2. Grading of aggregates
Sieve size
(mm)
Percentage
passing
(Specified
range)
Percentage
passing
(Adopted)
37.5 100 100
26.5 90-100 95
19 71-95 85
13.2 56-80 70
4.75 38-54 45
2.36 28-42 35
0.3 7-21 15
0.075 2-8 5
Filler 0 0
Table 3. Physical properties of fillers
Filler type Specific gravity
RHA 2.0
FA 2.3
BD 2.78
SD 2.76
Lime 2.36
Cement 3.2
Table 4. Physical properties of bitumen
Property Test
standard
Test result
Specific Gravity IS:1202 1.01
Penetration IS:1203 95
Ductility IS:1208 >100cm
Flash/Fire point IS:1209 326ºC
Loss on heating IS:1212 0.6%
Softening point IS:1205 40.2 ºC
Solubility IS:1216 0.5%
4. METHODOLOGY
Aggregates and bitumen were collected from local
source and physical properties of both aggregates
and bitumen were found out in the laboratory.For
preparation of asphalt mixture,guidelines of
MORTH [11] were followed.
Marshall samples were prepared by using six
different types of fillers. Out of those six types of
fillers, three conventional fillers were used such as
SD,lime and cement and remaining three fillers
are waste materials such as RHA,FA and BD used
as a partial replacement of SD. Filler content of
SD,lime and cement were used as 5%,2% and 2%
respectively as per MORTH [11] specification.
Four bitumen content (4.5%,5%,5.5% and 6%)
were considered for preparing Marshall samples.
In case of waste materials, four filler contents
(1%,2%,3% and 4%) were used as partial
replacement of SD to determine optimum filler
content based on maximum Marshall stability. So
four samples of SD, four samples of lime,four
samples of cement, sixteen (4x4) samples of
RHA,sixteen (4x4) samples of FA and sixteen
(4x4) samples of BD were prepared. A total of 60
Marshall samples were prepared for Marshall test
and Marshall stability,flow value, bulk density,
percentage of air voids,percentage of voids in
mineral aggregate (VMA) and percentage of voids
filled with bitumen (VFB) were determined. Also
optimum bitumen content were determined by
taking the average of bitumen contents
corresponding to maximum Marshall
stability,maximum bulk density and 4% air voids.
Marshall test results using SD as filler for
different bitumen contents are shown in Table 5.
Marshall stability varies from 9.2 to 10.55
KN,maximum Marshall stability is observed as
10.55 KN for 5% bitumen content. Flow value
varies from 2.13 to 6.8, bulk density varies from
2.25 to 2.27,air voids varies from 3.56% to to

5.25, VMA varies from 14.86 to 16.20 and VFB
varies from 64.67 to 78.
As per MORTH specifications, minimum
stability must be 9 KN, flow value must be ranged
between 2 to 4, percentage of air voids must be
ranged between 3 to 6,minimum VMA related to
3%,4% and 5% air voids must be 11,12 and 13
respectively and VFB must be ranged between 65
to 75.
Table 6 showing the Marshall test results
using lime as filler for different bitumen contents.
Maximum stability was observed as 11.92 KN for
5% bitumen content which is greater than 9 KN.
For 4.5% bitumen content, Marshall stability is
8.12 KN which is below 9 KN.
Marshall test results using cement as filler
different bitumen contents is shown in Table 7. It
is observed that maximum Marshall stability is
12.81 KN for 5% bitumen content which is greater
than 9 KN and for all other bitumen content
Marshall stability is below 9 KN.
Table 5. Marshall test results using SD as filler
Bitumen
(%)
4.5 5.0 5.5 6
Marshall
stability
(KN)
9.20 10.55 10.09 9.35
Flow
value
(mm)
2.13 3.34 5.85 6.8
Bulk
density
(g/cc)
2.26 2.27 2.26 2.25
Air
voids
(%)
5.25 4.16 4.01 3.56
VMA
(%)
14.87 14.86 15.66 16.20
VFB
(%)
64.67 71.98 74.37 78.00
Table 6. Marshall test results using Lime as filler
Bitumen
(%)
4.5 5.0 5.5 6
Marshall
stability
(KN)
8.12 11.92 10.18 9.19
Flow
value
(mm)
7.35 3.65 5.35 4
Bulk
density
(g/cc)
2.24 2.27 2.25 2.23
Air
voids
(%)
5.63 3.90 4.21 4.18
VMA
(%)
15.18 14.59 15.80 16.70
VFB
(%)
62.89 73.29 73.35 74.97
Figure 1 shows the variation of Marshall
stability of RHA using as filler for different
bitumen contents and for different filler contents.
Maximum Marshall stability is observed as 11.31
KN for 5% bitumen content and 1% RHA and
minimum Marshall stability is 5.79 KN for 4.5%
bitumen content and 4% RHA. So 1% RHA is
considered as optimum filler content based on
maximum Marshall stability.
Figure 2 shows the variation of flow values
of RHA using as filler for different bitumen
contents and for different filler contents.
Maximum flow value is observed as 7.7mm for
4.5% bitumen content and 3% RHA and minimum
flow value is 2.2mm for 4.5% bitumen content
and 4% RHA.
Figure 3 shows the variation of bulk density
Maximum bulk density is observed as 2.25 for 5%
bitumen content and 1% RHA and minimum bulk
density is 2.19 KN for 6% bitumen content and
2% RHA.

Table 7. Marshall test results using Cement as
filler
Bitumen
(%)
4.5 5.0 5.5 6
Marshall
stability
(KN)
7.91 12.81 8.33 7.47
Flow
value
(mm)
4.75 2.7 3.3 5
Bulk
density
(g/cc)
2.25 2.28 2.26 2.23
Air
voids
(%)
5.88 4.07 4.26 4.8
VMA
(%)
15.45 14.80 15.91 17.30
VFB
(%)
61.93 72.49 73.19 72.25
Figure 4 shows the variation of air voids
Maximum air voids is observed as 6.08% for
5.5% bitumen content and 1% RHA and
minimum air voids is 3.59% for 6% bitumen
content and 4% RHA.
Figure 5 shows the variation of VMA of
RHA using as filler for different bitumen
Maximum VMA is observed as 18.11% for
6% bitumen content and 2% RHA and
minimum VMA is 14.72% for 5% bitumen
content and 4% RHA.
Figure 6 shows the variation of VFB of
RHA using as filler for different bitumen
Maximum VFB is observed as 77.65% for 6%
bitumen content and 4% RHA and minimum
VFB is 60.86% for 4.5% bitumen content and
4% RHA
Figure 1: Varriation of Marshall stability of
RHA using as filler
Figure 2. Varriation of flow values of RHA
using as filler
Figure 7 shows the variation of
Marshall stability of FA using as filler for
different bitumen contents and for different
filler contents. Maximum Marshall stability is
observed as 14.83 KN for 5.5% bitumen
content and 3% FA and minimum Marshall
stability is 7.74 KN for 4.5% bitumen content
and 1% FA. So 3% FA is considered as
optimum filler content based on maximum
Marshall stability.

Figure 3. Varriation of bulk density of RHA
using as filler
Figure 4. Varriation of air voids of RHA using as
filler
Figure 5. Varriation of VMA of RHA using as
filler
Figure 6. Varriation of VFB of RHA using as
filler
Figure 7. Varriation of Marshall stability of FA
using as filler
Figure 8. Varriation of flow value of FA using as
filler
Figure 8 shows the variation of flow values
of FA using as filler for different bitumen contents
and for different filler contents. Maximum flow
value is observed for 4.5% bitumen content and
2% FA and minimum flow value is for 5.5%
bitumen content and 4% FA.
Figure 9 shows the variation of bulk density
of FA using as filler for different bitumen contents

and for different filler contents. Maximum bulk
density is observed for 5% bitumen content and
2% FA and minimum bulk density is for 5.5%
Figure 10 shows the variation of air voids of
FA using as filler for different bitumen contents
and for different filler contents. Maximum air
voids is observed for 4.5% bitumen content and
1% FA and minimum air voids is for 5.5%
Figure 9. Varriation of bulk density of FA using
as filler
Figure 10. Varriation of air voids of FA using as
filler
Figure 11. Varriation of VMA of FA using as
filler
Figure 12. Varriation of VFB of FA using as filler
Figure 11 shows the variation of VMA of FA
using as filler for different bitumen contents and
for different filler contents. Maximum VMA is
observed for 5.5% bitumen content and 2% FA
and minimum VMA is for 4.5% bitumen content
and 3% FA.
Figure 12 shows the variation of VFB of FA
for different filler contents. Maximum VFB is
observed for 5.5% bitumen content and 3% FA
and minimum VFB is for 4.5% bitumen content
and 1% FA.
Figure 13. Varriation of Marshall stability of BD
using as filler

Figure 14. Varriation of flow values of BD using
as filler
Figure 15. Varriation of bulk density of BD using
as filler
Figure 16. Varriation of air voids of BD using as
filler
Figure 17. Varriation of VMA of BD using as
filler
Figure 18. Varriation of VFB of BD using as filler
Figure 13 shows the variation of Marshall
stability of BD using as filler for different bitumen
Maximum Marshall stability is observed as 13.52
KN for 5.5% bitumen content and 3% BD and
minimum Marshall stability is 7.06 KN for 6%
bitumen content and 1% BD. So 3% BD is
considered as optimum filler content based on
maximum Marshall stability.
Figure 14 shows the variation of flow
values of BD using as filler for different bitumen
Maximum flow value is observed for 4.5%
bitumen content and 3% BD and minimum flow
value is for 5.5% bitumen content and 4% BD.
Figure 15 shows the variation of bulk
density of BD using as filler for different bitumen
Maximum bulk density is observed for 5%
bitumen content and 3% BD and minimum bulk
density is for 5.5% bitumen content and 2% BD.
Figure 16 shows the variation of air voids of
BD using as filler for different bitumen contents
and for different filler contents. Maximum air
voids is observed for 4.5% bitumen content and
4% BD and minimum air voids is for 6% bitumen
content and 3% BD.
Figure 17 shows the variation of VMA of
BD using as filler for different bitumen contents
and for different filler contents. Maximum VMA
is observed for 5.5% bitumen content and 2% BD
and minimum VMA is for 5% bitumen content
and 3% BD.
Figure 19. Comparison of Marshall stability of
different fillers

Figure 18 shows the variation of VFB of BD
for different filler contents. Maximum VFB is
observed for 6% bitumen content and 3% BD and
minimum VFB is for 4.5% bitumen content and
4% BD.
Figure 20. Comparison of flow values of different
fillers
Figure 21. Comparison of bulk density of different
fillers
Figure 22. Comparison of air voids of different
fillers
Figure 19 showing the comparison of
Marshall stability of all types of fillers used in this
investigation for different bitumen contents.
Maximum Marshall stability is observed for 5.5%
bitumen content and 3% FA and minimum
Marshall stability is for 6% bitumen content and
3% BD.
Figure 20 showing the comparison of flow
value of all types of fillers used in this
Maximum value is observed for 4.5% bitumen
content and lime and minimum value is for 4.5%
bitumen content and SD.
Figure 21 showing the comparison of bulk
density of all types of fillers used in this
Maximum value is observed for 5% bitumen
content and 3% BD and minimum value is for
5.5% bitumen content and 1% RHA.
Figure 22 showing the comparison of air
voids of all types of fillers used in this
Maximum value is observed for 5.5% bitumen
content and 1% RHA and minimum value is for
6% bitumen content and 3% BD.
Figure 23 showing the comparison of VMA
of all types of fillers used in this investigation for
different bitumen contents. Maximum value is
observed for 5.5% bitumen content and 1% RHA
and minimum value is for 4.5% bitumen content
and 3% FA.
Figure 24 showing the comparison of VFB of all
types of fillers used in this investigation for
different bitumen contents. Maximum value is
observed for 6% bitumen content and 3% BD and
minimum value is for 4.5% bitumen content and
cement.

Figure 23. Comparison of VMA of different fillers
Figure 24. Comparison of VFB of different fillers
4 CONCLUSIONS
Optimum filler content of RHA,FA and BD
were determined on the basis of maximum
Marshall stability. It was observed that 1% filler
content of RHA, 3% filler content of FA and BD
had shown maximum Marshall stability for
5%,5.5% and 5.5% bitumen content respectively.
So 1%RHA, 3% FA and BD were considered as
optimum filler content. 3% filler content of FA
and BD even showing better Marshall stability
than conventional fillers such as SD, lime and
cement.
Optimum bitumen content of SD, lime and
cement were found out as 5.07%,5.0% and 5.03%
respectively and optimum bitumen content of 1%
RHA, 3% FA and 3% BD were found out as
5.33%,5.1% and 5.1% respectively which is
almost same as SD,lime and cement’
So test results indicated that waste materials
used in this investigation can be constructively
used as partial replacement of conventional filler
in asphalt mixture. These waste materials should
be recommended to use as filler material in
asphalt mixture especially from environmental
and economical point of view.
REFERENCES
[1] Effects of Fillers on Properties of Asphalt-
Concrete Mixture, Anggraini Zulkati, Wong Yiik
Diew, and Darren Sun Delai, American Society of
Civil Engineers, 10.1061/(ASCE)TE.1943-
5436.0000395. © 2012.
[2] Use of Non-Conventional Fillers on Asphalt-
Concrete Mixture, M. N. Rahman and M. A.
Sobhan, International Journal of Innovation and
Applied Studies, ISSN 2028-9324 Vol. 3 No. 4
Aug. 2013, pp. 1101-1109,2013.
[3]Coal ash utilization in asphalt concrete
mixtures, Eleni Vassiliadou Churchill and Serji N.
Amirkhanian, Member, ASCE, JOURNAL OF
MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING, J.
Mater. Civ. Eng., 1999, 11(4): 295-301,1999.
[4] Evaluation of rice hush ash as filler in hot mix
asphalt concrete, Sebnem Sargin,Mehmat
Saltan,Nihat Morova,Sercan Serin,Serdal
Terzi.Construction and Building Materials
48(2013)390-393,2013.
[5]Utilization of recycled brick powder as
alternative filler in asphalt mixture, Mei-zhu
Chen,Jun-tao Lin , Shao-peng Wua,, Cong-hui
Liu, Construction and Building Materials 25
(2011) 1532–1536,2011
[6],Effects of mineral fillers on hot-mix asphalt
laboratory-measured properties, Baoshan huang,
xiang shu and xingwei chen, International Journal
of Pavement Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 1, March
2007, 1–9,2007
[7]Experimental investigation on related
properties of asphalt mastic containing recycled
red brick powder, Shaopeng Wu, Jiqing Zhu ,
Jinjun Zhong, Dongming Wang, Construction and
Building Materials, 25 (2011) 2883–2887,2011
[8] Recycling of reclaimed asphalt pavement with
rice husk ash/ordinary Portland cement blend as
filler, Jaafar Abubakar Sadeeq, Jibrin Mohammed
Kaura, Ochepo Joshua and Ahmad Rabilu, Jordan
Journal of Civil Engineering, Volume 8, No. 4,
2014.
[9] Influence of fly-ash as a filler in bituminous
mixes, Debashish Kar, Mahabir Panda and Jyoti
Prakash Giri, ARPN Journal of Engineering and
Applied Sciences, VOL. 9, NO. 6, JUNE 2014
[10] Effect of Using Waste Material as Filler in
Bituminous Mix Design, Dipu Sutradhar, Mintu
Miah, Golam Jilany Chowdhury, Mohd. Abdus
Sobhan, American Journal of Civil Engineering.
Vol. 3, No. 3, 2015, pp. 88-94,2015
[11] MORTH specifications for road and bridge
works.

paper 1

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to paper 1

Similar to paper 1 (20)

paper 1