Uploaded byamit941290
PPTX, PDF389 views

Rutting in pavement + waste plastic

The document summarizes a study on rutting potential of bituminous mixes using a wheel tracker device. It includes an introduction describing the background and objectives of rutting in pavements. It then reviews 17 previous studies on factors affecting rutting like binder grade, aggregate type and size, and use of additives. The literature review establishes that softer binders, larger aggregate size and additives like polymers and waste plastics can improve rutting resistance.

Embed presentation

Downloaded 14 times
1 / 109
2 / 109
3 / 109
4 / 109
5 / 109
6 / 109
7 / 109
8 / 109
9 / 109
10 / 109
11 / 109
12 / 109
13 / 109
14 / 109
15 / 109
16 / 109
17 / 109
18 / 109
19 / 109
20 / 109
21 / 109
22 / 109
23 / 109
24 / 109
25 / 109
26 / 109
27 / 109
28 / 109
29 / 109
30 / 109
31 / 109
32 / 109
33 / 109
34 / 109
35 / 109
36 / 109
37 / 109
38 / 109
39 / 109
40 / 109
41 / 109
42 / 109
43 / 109
44 / 109
45 / 109
46 / 109
47 / 109
48 / 109
49 / 109
50 / 109
51 / 109
52 / 109
53 / 109
54 / 109
55 / 109
56 / 109
57 / 109
58 / 109
59 / 109
60 / 109
61 / 109
62 / 109
63 / 109
64 / 109
65 / 109
66 / 109
67 / 109
68 / 109
69 / 109
70 / 109
71 / 109
72 / 109
73 / 109
74 / 109
75 / 109
76 / 109
77 / 109
78 / 109
79 / 109
80 / 109
81 / 109
82 / 109
83 / 109
84 / 109
85 / 109
86 / 109
87 / 109
88 / 109
89 / 109
90 / 109
91 / 109
92 / 109
93 / 109
94 / 109
95 / 109
96 / 109
97 / 109
98 / 109
99 / 109
100 / 109
101 / 109
102 / 109
103 / 109
104 / 109
105 / 109
106 / 109
107 / 109
108 / 109
109 / 109
1JUNE 2020 STUDY ON RUTTING POTENTIAL OF BITUMINOUS MIXES USING WHEEL TRACKER DEVICE Presented by: AMIT KUMAR Roll No. 1824007 TRANSPORTATION ENGG. Under the guidance of Dr. S.K. SUMAN Assistant professor NIT Patna
2JUNE 2020 CONTENTS 1 List of Acronyms 2 Introduction 3 Literature Review 4 Methods and Materials 5 Laboratory Investigation 6 Results and Discussions 7 Conclusions 8 References
3JUNE 2020 LIST OF ACRONYMS BC WTD LDPE PP AADT PG RAP AC NMAS CA BC Bituminous Concrete WTD Wheel tracker deice LDPE Low density polyethylene PP Polypropylene AADT Annual average daily traffic HMA Hot mix asphalt RAP Reclaimed asphalt pavement AC Asphalt concrete NMAS Nominal maximum aggregate size CA Course Aggregate
4JUNE 2020 Cont.… (LIST OF ACRONYMS) SD VFB VMA OBC RD PRD WTS WTR CSI HMA SD Stone dust VFB Voids filled with Bitumen VMA Voids in mineral aggregate OBC Optimum bitumen content RD Rut depth PRD Proportional Rut depth WTS Wheel tracking slope WTR Wheel tracking rate CSI Complex stability index PG Performance grade
JUNE 2020 5 INTRODUCTION
6JUNE 2020 Background Majority of roads in India are flexible, for which bulk of distress is either rutting or fatigue. Rutting is a major form of distress in pavements. It is also known as permanent settlement of pavement. Mainly attributed to shear deformation in the upper HMA layers. Visible as longitudinal grooves along the wheel path.
7JUNE 2020 Heavy channelized traffic Inadequate compaction Improper mix design High temperature Poor subgrade Rutting Cont.… (INTRODUCTION)
8JUNE 2020 Rutting Reduction in pavement life Servicibility problem (hydroplaning) Safety concerns Uneconomical scenarios Hindrance to Road network Cont.… (INTRODUCTION)
9JUNE 2020 Fig 1. Rutting in pavement (source – Wikipedia)
10JUNE 2020 Fig 2. Rutting in pavement ( source – Wikipedia )
11JUNE 2020 Problem Statement Premature failure - early and costly rehabilitation Functional constraints Safety concerns for road users Economic burden on taxpayers Hence, this subject needs to be properly addressed through evaluation and mitigation measures so that the occurrence and resulting impacts can be minimized. Cont.… (INTRODUCTION)
12JUNE 2020 Scope Cont.… (INTRODUCTION) Studying pavement failure mode for BC mix Minimizing failures so as to get good serviceability from huge road assets Systematic assessment of pavement with known design and influencing factors Use of waste plastic as an additive – Green roads
13JUNE 2020 Cont.… (INTRODUCTION) Objectives To investigate the rutting potential of BC mix (II) with and without using waste plastic. To compare the effectiveness of LDPE and PP waste plastic against rutting. To propose suitable recommendations for use of LDPE and PP as an additive in BC mix.
JUNE 2020 14 LITERATURE REVIEW
15JUNE 2020 S. N AUTHOR(S)/ JOURNAL MATERIAL EQUIPMENT PROPERTIES /PARAMETE R RESULTS 1 Shahbaz Khan et al./ Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 104 (2013) 149- 157 Granular material Bitumen LHVS Laser Profilometer Falling weight deflectometer Mercury thermometer Rut depth Modulus of each layer Air void Initial average rutting found after 5000 passes is about 2mm. Change(decrease) in air voids were 0.4% for BC and 1.626% for DBM for rutted section.
16JUNE 2020 2 Nikhil Saboo Praveen Kumar J.Mater.Civil Eng.,2016,28(7):04 016024 VG 10 binder VG 30 binder PMB Aggregate DSR Wheel tracking device Rut depth Moisture susceptibilit y Temperature susceptibility of elastomeric modified bitumen is lower compared to plastomeric modified. VG 10 not suitable for extremely heavy loading even at 50°C VG 30 not suitable for extremely heavy loadings at temp greater than/equal to 60°C. Mixes with PMB showed lower rut depth compared to VG mixes. Cont.… (Literature Review)
17JUNE 2020 3 Niya Dong et al./ Construction and Building Materials 216(2019) 588- 598 PG 64-22 PG 70-22 Aggregate HWTT Thermoco uple probe Strain rate Creep stiffness modulus Dynamic modulus Rut depth Creep rate PG 70-22 mixes are less temperature sensitive and more rut resistant than PG 64-22. Mixes with stiffer asphalt binder can effectively reduce permanent deformation at high temperature. For evaluation of permanent deformation, the validity of the HWTT is higher than IDT test. Cont.… (Literature Review)
18JUNE 2020 4 Sungum Kim et al./ J.Mater.Civ.Eng.,20 18.30(2):04017280 RAP Aggregate HWTD No. of laoding passes at failure. Rut depth Effect of NMAS RAP with larger NMAS performed better than those with small NMAS in both rut and anti stripping resistance. As NMAS decreases rut depth increases regardless of source As NMAS increased the SIP increased for all aggregate source. The test temperature of 50°C was not enough to distinguish size effects of aggregate, 64°C and 70°C were. Cont.… (Literature Review)
19JUNE 2020 5 Ibrahim Sel et al./ J.Mater.Civ.Eng.,201 4,26(8):04014037 Hydrated lime Liquid antistrip- ping additive Binder (PG 64- 22, PG 70-22, PG 76- 22) Aggregat e HWTD Average deformation Temperature dependence As the test temperature increases the average deformation increases accordingly. The mixes with higher PG binder accumulates less deformation than those with lower grade binder Lime performed better than liquid and liquid performed better than binder without additive. Cont.… (Literature Review)
20JUNE 2020 6 Vishnu Radhakarishn an et al. Road Materials and Pavement Design, 2019 Vol. 20, No. 1, 90–109 VG30 VG40 CRMB WTD Rut depth Air void For same initial air void, field and laboratory rut depth correlated. Mixes with higher compaction rutted less Mixes with softer binder rutted more both in filed and in laboratory. Higher initial air void content produced higher rut depth. Suitability of WTD for testing rutting susceptibility was demonstrated. Cont.… (Literature Review)
21JUNE 2020 7 B. Javilla et al. Construction and Building Materials (2017), vol 153 157–164 AC-20 Limeston e AC-13 Basalt Asphalt Mixture SBS Modified Asphalt Binder WTD Stress Temperature Moisture Limestone mixture was more rut resistance than Basalt mixture. Temperature was a more significant factor than stress. Rutting resistance showed a strong correlation with the moisture content. Primary rutting contributed a significant percentage of the final rutting. Cont.… (Literature Review)
22JUNE 2020 8 B. Javilla et al. Construction and Building Materials (2017), vol. 155, 1215– 1223 AC-13 Basalt asphalt mixture AC-20 Limeston e mixture WTD Temperature dependence CSI DS AC-13 and AC-20 mixtures were both temperature and stress dependent. Secondary rutting parameters had higher correlation than primary indicators. Cont.… (Literature Review)
23JUNE 2020 9 H.A.A. Gibreil et al. Construction and Building Materials (2017), vol 142, 101– 108 HDPE CRP (crumb rubber powder) WTD IDT Marshall test Stability Flow DS Resistance to deformation in moderate and high temperatures increased with the addition of the modifiers. Ductility reduced with modifiers. Temperature susceptibility decreased with addition of modifiers. Modifiers improved the stability values. DS improved with addition of both HDPE and CRP. Cont.… (Literature Review)
24JUNE 2020 10 T. Xu et al. Constructio n and Building Materials (2014), 53, 561–567 SBS modified binder Crushed Limeston e powder Polyester Fiber Triaxial repeated load test WTD DS Strain values The polyester fibres improve the deformation resistance of the asphalt mixtures. A strong correlation was found between the strain slope and the total rut depth in the wheel tracking test. Cont.… (Literature Review)
25JUNE 2020 11 H. Ziari et al. Petroleum science and technology 2016, vol 34(9), 819- 823 PET (Polyethyl ene terephtha late) WTD DSR Rut depth Flow number Reduction in permanent deformation when PET is used. With increase in dynamic load, the produced stresses were absorbed with PET particles and it led to delay in rutting phenomenon. Cont.… (Literature Review)
26JUNE 2020 12 G.Sarang et al. Road Materials and Pavement Design, 2016 Vol. 17, No. 4, 933–945 VG 30 PMB 40 Lime Waste plastic (polyethyl ene and polypropy lene) Marshall test ITS WTD Deformation Stability ITS No stabilizing additive is required in SMA with PMB. PMB mix showed better performance than SWP in Marshall stability and tensile strength parameters. PMB mixes showed better performance than SWP in both rutting and fatigue tests . Cont.… (Literature Review)
27JUNE 2020 13 P. Chaturabong Et al. Construction and Building Materials (2017), vol 146, 175– 182 VG 30 Granular material HWTD AMPT Rut depth Total proximity length Failure mechanism in the HWT and FN test is similar. The validity of dry HWTD in measuring rutting resistance of the asphalt mixture was established. Cont.… (Literature Review)
28JUNE 2020 14 W. Zhang et al. J.Mater.Civ. Eng.,2017,2 9(9):04017 098 PG binder Aggregate HWTD Binder extractor Falling weight deflectom eter (FWD) Rutting resistance index(RRI) Field rut depth in general decreased with increased RRI. HWT test results alone do not have strong relationship with the field rut depth. Other factors, such as climate and pavement structure have to be considered. RRI, Pavement age, AADT, pavement structure are critical influence factors. Cont.… (Literature Review)
29JUNE 2020 15 H. Wang et al. J.Mater.Civ. Eng.,2009, 21(4):181- 185 Aggregate Binder (VG 30) HWTD Rut depth Dynamic stability The asphalt intermediate course has the greatest effect on rut development followed by asphalt base course. Longitudinal grades also effects the rutting depth. Cont.… (Literature Review)
30JUNE 2020 16 B.Javilla et al. Constructio n and Building Materials 153 (2017) 157-164 AC-20 limestone AC-13 basalt asphalt mix AC-25 Recycled hot mix asphalt HWTD Rut depth Dynamic Stability AC-13 mix were more rutting resistance as compared to Ac- 20 mix. Rutting rate increased exponentially after 50°C and greater than 1000 cycles. Cont.… (Literature Review)
31JUNE 2020 17 Y.DU et al. Constructio n and Building Materials (2018), vol 168, 893- 905 Aggregate Binder (VG 30) HWTD DSR Rut Depth Dynamic Stability Flow number Semi flexible pavement is suggested. Cooling technologies of aphalt pavement should be used. More laboratory test methods should be developed to reproduce the real field pavement environment. Cont.… (Literature Review)
32JUNE 2020 18 Quing Lu John T.Harvey Transporta tion Research Record 1970 Aggregate Binder Hydrated lime Anti- stripping agent HWTD LVDT Rut depth Mixes treated with hydrated lime showed lower rut depth than mixes with liquid anti stripping agents which showed lower rut depth than untreated mixes. Compaction profile variability existed which gave inconsistent results across the sample itself. Binders using no acid performed well. Cont.… (Literature Review)
JUNE 2020 33 Literature Gap Waste plastic as an additive against rutting has been less researched. Majorly only HDPE plastic has been investigated. For dry WTD, fewer parameters have been examined.
JUNE 2020 34 METHODS AND MATERIALS
35JUNE 2020 Methods Blending of aggregates as per MoRTH, 2013 for BC (II). Trial and error method was adopted. Characterization test for aggregates – Impact value, Crushing value, Abrasion value, Shape test and specific gravity. Characterization test for binders – specific gravity, penetration value and softening point. Marshall Mix design – OBC WTD – evaluation of rutting potential of conventional and modified bituminous mixes.
36JUNE 2020 Materials Material Source CA (20 mm) Gaya CA (10 mm) Gaya Stone dust Gaya Bitumen (VG 30) Gaya Cement – OPC 53 Table 1: Material and their source Cont.… (Methods and Materials)
37JUNE 2020 Plastic material Thickness (µ) Softening point (°C) Biscuit cover 40 160-170 Milk pouch 60 100-120 Table 2: Waste plastics and their parameters. Cont.… (Methods and Materials)
38JUNE 2020 Test Test method Result Code specification Specific gravity test IS: 1202-1978 1.0 0.98-1.01 Penetration value test 25°C, 100 g, 5 s, (d mm) IS: 1203-1978 68 60-70 Softening point test (°C) IS: 334-1982 52 50-55 Table 3: Characterization of binder. Cont.… (Methods and Materials)
39JUNE 2020 Test Test method Result Code specification Aggregate Impact value (%) IS: 2386 (Part Ⅳ) 1963 8-11 <30 Aggregate crushing value test (%) IS: 2386 (Part Ⅳ) 1963 18.30 <45 Aggregate abrasion value test(%) IS: 2386 (Part Ⅳ) 1963 23.47 <30 Shape test (%) IS: 2386 (Part Ⅰ) 1963 FE: 13 EE: 11 FE+EE < 30 Specific gravity test IS: 2386 (Part Ⅳ) 1963 20mm: 2.67 10mm: 2.67 Stone dust: 2.64 2.5 - 3 Table 4: Characterization of aggregates. Cont.… (Methods and Materials)
JUNE 2020 40 Fig. 3: Shredded milk pouch plastic (LDPE)
JUNE 2020 41 Fig. 4: Shredded biscuit cover(PP)
JUNE 2020 42 LABORATORY INVESTIGATION
43JUNE 2020 Collection of aggregate Collection of bitumen Collection of waste plastic Characterization tests Blending of aggregate OBC determination Preparation of conventional samples Preparation of modified samples Evaluation of samples by WTD Comparison of different samples Conclusion and recommendations Methodology chart
44JUNE 2020 Cont.… (Laboratory Investigation) Blending of Aggregates Intermixing of two or more fine or coarse aggregate to produce a combination of aggregates with improved gradation and other properties Materials blended were CA 20 mm, CA 10 mm, stone dust and cement Trial and Error method was adopted, Proportion was varied until the required aggregate gradation was achieved.
45JUNE 2020 Formula: P = Aa + Bb + Cc + Dd Where, P = % of material passing a given sieve for the blended aggregate A (CA 20mm), B (CA 10mm), C (SD) and D (cement). A, B, C and D = % of material passing a given sieve for each constituent of mix A, B, C and D. a, b, c and d = proportion (decimal fractions) of constituent A, B, C and D to be used in blend. (a + b + c + d = 100) Cont.… (Laboratory Investigation)
46JUNE 2020 Marshall Mix design To determine OBC Samples were prepared at 4.5%, 5%, 5.5%, 6% and 6.5% Cont.… (Laboratory Investigation)
47JUNE 2020 Mixture components CA I, CAII, Stone dust,Cement,Binder Weight 1200 gms Height 60-63 mm Diameter 100mm Mixing temperature 160°C Compaction temperature 150°C Testing temperature 60°C Table 5: Marshall mix design Cont.… (Laboratory Investigation)
48JUNE 2020 Optimum bitumen content (OBC) was found by taking average value of the following three bitumen contents . 1. Bitumen content at maximum stability value. 2. Bitumen content at maximum bulk density. 3. Bitumen content at 4% air voids. The flow value, volume of bitumen, VFB and VMA were checked for MoRTH, 2013 specification. Cont.… (Laboratory Investigation)
JUNE 2020 49 Fig. 5: Marshall Samples
50JUNE 2020 Wheel tracker testing It is a laboratory arrangement to simulate the movement of wheel on the pavement Two types of samples were prepared – conventional and modified with plastic waste. Dry process was used to prepare waste plastic mix. Test was done by two procedures – procedure A (1000 load cycles / 15 mm) and procedure B (10000 load cycles / 20 mm). Cont.… (Laboratory Investigation)
JUNE 2020 51 Mixture components CA I, CA II, Stone dust, cement, Binder Weight 11 kgs L X B 305mm X305mm Height 50mm Mixing temperature 160°C Compaction temperature 150°C Testing temperature 60°C Table 6: Wheel tracker design
52JUNE 2020 Procedure A parameters Rut depth (RD). Proportional rut depth( PRD) PRD = (RD/50) X 100 It is the rut depth at the end of the test Cont.… (Laboratory Investigation)
53JUNE 2020 Wheel tracking rate ( WTR) WTR = 3 rn + rn-1 – rn-2 – 3 rn-3 (as per EN 12697– 22:2003(E) ) Where, n is the total number of readings taken at 100 load cycles interval up to 1000 load cycles, excluding the initial reading ri is the change in vertical displacement from the initial value, r0, to the i relevant reading, in millimeters (mm ) Cont.… (Laboratory Investigation)
54JUNE 2020 Rut resistance index (RRI) RRI = N X (1-RD) Where, N = no. of cycles at the completion of test RD = rut depth in inches at completion of test, assuming the max allowable rut depth is below 1 inch. Cont.… (Laboratory Investigation)
55JUNE 2020 Procedure B parameters Rut depth (RD). It is the rut depth at the end of the test Proportional rut depth( PRD) PRD = (RD/50) X 100 Cont.… (Laboratory Investigation)
56JUNE 2020 Wheel tracking slope (WTSAIR) WTSAIR = (d10000 – d5000) 5 Where, d5000, d10000 is the rut depth after 5000 load cycles and 10000 load cycles, in mm Cont.… (Laboratory Investigation)
57JUNE 2020 Rut resistance index (RRI) RRI = N X (1-RD) Where, N = no. of cycles at the completion of test RD = rut depth in inches at completion of test, assuming the max allowable rut depth is below 1 inch. Cont.… (Laboratory Investigation)
58JUNE 2020 Dynamic stability (DS) DS = N (t2 – t1) (d2 – d1) Where, t2 = 60 minute t1 = 45 minute d2 = deformation at 60th minute d1 = deformation at 45th minute N = speed of test wheel rolling (26.8 times/minute) Cont.… (Laboratory Investigation)
59JUNE 2020 Complex stability index (CSI) CSI = N (t2 – t1) d1 (d2 – d1) Where, t2 = 60 minute t1 = 45 minute d2 = deformation at 60th minute d1 = deformation at 45th minute N = speed of test wheel rolling (26.8 times/minute) Cont.… (Laboratory Investigation)
60JUNE 2020 Fig. 6: Aggregates before coating
61JUNE 2020 Fig. 7: Aggregates after coating
62JUNE 2020 Fig. 8: WTD sample before testing
63JUNE 2020 Fig. 9: WTD sample after testing Fig. 9: WTD sample after testing
64JUNE 2020 Fig. 10: WTD sample after testing at different plastic contents.
JUNE 2020 65 Fig. 11: wheel tracker device
JUNE 2020 66 Fig. 12: Roller compactor
67JUNE 2020 Fig. 13: Wheel tracker device set-up.
JUNE 2020 68 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
69JUNE 2020 Blending of Aggregates Material % composition 20mm 17 10mm 25 SD 55 Cement 3 Table 7: Constituents and their composition Cont.… (Results and Discussions)
70JUNE 2020 Sieve,mm lower limit,% upper limit,% Observed,% 19.00 100 100 98.97 13.20 90 100 90.64 9.50 70 88 77.31 4.75 53 71 58.31 2.36 42 58 50.55 1.18 34 48 36.06 0.60 26 38 30.94 0.30 18 28 18.38 0.15 12 20 13.89 0.075 4 10 4.78 Table 8: MoRTH , 2013 specification and observed values Cont.… (Results and Discussions)
71JUNE 2020 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 19 13.2 9.5 4.75 2.36 1.18 0.6 0.3 0.15 0.075 %Passing Sieve size,mm lower limit upper limit observed values Fig. 14: Gradation envelope obtained Cont.… (Results and Discussions)
72JUNE 2020 Marshall Mix design S.NO Properties Bitumen content % MoRTH specifica tions.4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 1 Marshall stability value, KN 9.79 11.77 12.88 10.72 10.44 Min 9 2 Flow value, mm 2.25 2.31 2.45 3.35 4.26 2-4 3 Theoretical maximum density, gm/cc 2.43 2.41 2.39 2.37 2.35 - 4 Bulk density, gm/cc 2.28 2.29 2.30 2.28 2.27 - 5 Volume of air voids, % 5.97 5.03 4.06 3.82 3.24 3-5 6 Volume of bitumen, % 10.28 11.45 12.63 13.71 14.82 - 7 Voids in mineral aggregate, % 11.38 11.54 11.68 12.26 12.65 >15 8 Voids filled with bitumen, % 63.25 69.48 75.68 78.23 82.06 65-75 9 Optimum bitumen content 5.5 Min 5.4 Table 9: Properties of bituminous mix
JUNE 2020 73 Graphs obtained for Marshall mix design 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 Stability,kN Bitumen content,% Stability vs Bitumen content Fig. 15: Stability vs bitumen content graph 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 Flow,mm Bitumen content % Flow vs Bitumen content Fig. 16: Flow value vs bitumen content graph 2.275 2.280 2.285 2.290 2.295 2.300 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 Bulkdensity,gm/cc Bitumen content,% Bulk density vs Bitumen content Fig. 17: Bulk density vs bitumen content graph 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7VA% Bitumen content % VA,% vs Bitumen content Fig. 18: air void vs bitumen content graph
JUNE 2020 74 35.00 45.00 55.00 65.00 75.00 85.00 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 VFB,% Bitumen content,% VFB,% vs Bitumen content,% Fig. 19: VFB vs bitumen content graph 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 VMA% Bitumen content,% VMA,% vs Bitumen Content,% Fig. 20: VMA vs bitumen content graph
JUNE 2020 75 Wheel Tracker testing Sample No. RD (mm) PRD (%) WTR(µm/ cycle) RRI (NA) 1 4.45 8.89 2.15 824.80 2 4.14 8.28 2.08 837.00 3 4.04 8.09 1.90 840.94 4 4.19 8.38 2.04 835.04 5 4.21 8.43 2.01 834.25 6 4.37 8.74 2.15 827.95 Avg. 4.23 8.46 2.05 833.33 Table 10: Results of conventional mixes (Procedure A)
JUNE 2020 76 Sample No. RD (mm) PRD (%) WTSAIR (mm/103 load cycles) RRI (NA) DS (load cycles/ mm) CSI (load cycles/ mm2) 1 10.43 20.87 0.506 5893.70 705.26 161.38 2 10.49 20.99 0.496 5870.07 717.85 158.81 3 10.62 21.24 0.484 5818.89 705.26 151.34 Avg. 10.51 21.03 0.495 5860.88 709.45 157.17 Table 11: Results of conventional mixes (Procedure B) Cont.… (Results and Discussions)
JUNE 2020 77 Rutting Parameters Mixture Type 4% LDPE Mix 6% LDPE Mix 8% LDPE Mix 10% LDPE Mix 12% LDPE Mix RD (mm) 3.66 3.51 2.86 2.53 2.26 PRD (%) 7.38 7.02 5.73 5.07 4.52 WTR (µm/cycle) 1.64 1.61 1.28 1.12 1.09 RRI (NA) 854.72 861.67 887.33 900.12 911.02 Table 12: Results of LDPE modified mixes (Procedure A) Cont.… (Results and Discussions)
JUNE 2020 78 Rutting Parameters Mixture Type 4% LDPE Mix 6% LDPE Mix 8% LDPE Mix 10% LDPE Mix 12% LDPE Mix RD (mm) 8.17 7.30 6.41 5.64 5.02 PRD (%) 16.35 14.6 12.83 11.28 10.04 WTSAIR,(mm/103 load cycles) 0.368 0.337 0.295 0.259 0.230 RRI (NA) 6780.83 7126.08 7437.74 7779.52 8023.62 DS (load cycles/mm) 928.13 1068.43 1257.06 1405.02 1608.00 CSI (load cycles/mm2) 248.59 320.92 424.64 542.56 696.24 Table 13: Results of LDPE modified mixes (Procedure B) Cont.… (Results and Discussions)
JUNE 2020 79 Table 14: Results of PP modified mixes (Procedure A) Rutting Parameters Mixture Type 4% PP Mix 6% PP Mix 8% PP Mix 10% PP Mix 12% PP Mix RD (mm) 3.85 3.74 3.44 2.94 2.54 PRD (%) 7.71 7.48 6.88 5.88 5.09 WTR (µm/cycle) 1.83 1.85 1.64 1.31 1.19 RRI (NA) 848.15 852.75 864.56 884.24 899.73 Cont.… (Results and Discussions)
JUNE 2020 80 Table 15: Results of PP modified mixes (Procedure B) Rutting Parameters Mixture Type 4% PP Mix 6% PP Mix 8% PP Mix 10% PP Mix 12% PP Mix RD (mm) 9.15 8.41 8.07 7.59 6.18 PRD (%) 18.31 16.83 16.15 15.18 12.37 WTSAIR,(mm/103 load cycles) 0.426 0.394 0.376 0.355 0.288 RRI (NA) 6395.01 6686.40 6820.20 7010.40 7624.67 DS (load cycles/mm) 764.10 874.01 880.38 973.09 1118.97 CSI (load cycles/mm2) 190.25 235.15 247.05 290.90 412.21 Cont.… (Results and Discussions)
JUNE 2020 81 Rutting Parameters Mixture Type Conv. Mix 4% LDPE Mix 6% LDPE Mix 8% LDPE Mix 10% LDPE Mix 12% LDPE Mix RD (mm) 4.23 3.66 3.51 2.86 2.53 2.26 PRD (%) 8.46 7.38 7.02 5.73 5.07 4.52 WTR (µm/cycle) 2.05 1.64 1.61 1.28 1.12 1.09 RRI (NA) 833.3 854.72 861.67 887.33 900.12 911.02 Table 16: Comparison between Conv. and LDPE modified mixes(Procedure A) Cont.… (Results and Discussions)
JUNE 2020 82 4.23 3.66 3.51 2.86 2.53 2.26 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 CONV MIX 4% LDPE 6% LDPE 8% LDPE 10% LDPE 12% LDPE Rutdepth(mm) Type of mix Rut depth at 1000 load cycles Fig. 21: Rut depth at 1000 load cycles for conv. and LDPE modified mixes 2.05 1.64 1.61 1.28 1.12 1.09 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 CONV MIX 4% LDPE 6% LDPE 8% LDPE 10% LDPE 12% LDPE WTR(µm/loadcycle) Type of Mix Wheel Tracking Rate Fig. 22: Wheel Tracking rate for conv. and LDPE modified mixes
JUNE 2020 83 833.33 854.72 861.67 887.13 900.12 911.02 780 800 820 840 860 880 900 920 940 CONV MIX 4% LDPE 6% LDPE 8% LDPE 10% LDPE 12% LDPE RRI Type of mix Rut Resistance Index Fig. 23: Rut resistance index for conv. and LDPE modified mixes Rut depth reduction nearly 40% Wheel tracking rate reduction by nearly 39% RRI surged by 10%
JUNE 2020 84 Rutting Parameters Mixture Type Conv. Mix 4% LDPE Mix 6% LDPE Mix 8% LDPE Mix 10% LDPE Mix 12% LDPE Mix RD (mm) 10.51 8.17 7.30 6.41 5.64 5.02 PRD (%) 21.03 16.35 14.6 12.83 11.28 10.04 WTSAIR,(mm/ 103 load cycles) 0.495 0.368 0.337 0.295 0.259 0.230 RRI (NA) 5860.88 6780.83 7126.08 7437.74 7779.52 8023.62 DS (load cycles/mm) 709.45 928.13 1068.43 1257.06 1405.02 1608.00 CSI (load cycles/mm2) 157.17 248.59 320.92 424.64 542.56 696.24 Table 17: Comparison between Conv. and LDPE modified mixes(Procedure B) Cont.… (Results and Discussions)
JUNE 2020 85 10.51 8.17 7.3 6.41 5.64 5.02 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 CONV MIX 4% LDPE 6% LDPE 8% LDPE 10% LDPE 12% LDPE Rutdepth(mm) Type of mix Rut depth at 10000 load cycles Fig. 24: Rut depth at 10000 load cycles for conv. and LDPE modified mixes 0.495 0.368 0.337 0.295 0.259 0.23 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 CONV MIX 4% LDPE 6% LDPE 8% LDPE 10% LDPE 12% LDPE WTSair(mm/10^3load cycles) Type of mix Wheel Tracking slope Fig. 25: Wheel tracking slope for conv. and LDPE modified mixes
JUNE 2020 86 5860.88 6780.83 7126.08 7473.74 7779.52 8023.62 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 CONV MIX 4% LDPE 6% LDPE 8% LDPE 10% LDPE 12% LDPE RRI Type of mix Rut resistance index Fig. 26: Rut resistance index for conv. and LDPE modified mixes 709.45 928.13 1068.43 1257.06 1405.02 1608 0 500 1000 1500 2000 CONV MIX 4% LDPE 6% LDPE 8% LDPE 10% LDPE 12% LDPE DS(loadcycle/mm) Type of mix Dynamic stability Fig. 27: Dynamic stability for conv. and LDPE modified mixes
JUNE 2020 87 157.17 248.59 320.92 424.64 542.56 696.24 0 200 400 600 800 CONV MIX 4% LDPE 6% LDPE 8% LDPE 10% LDPE 12% LDPE CSI(loadcycles/mm^2) Type of mix Complex stability index Fig. 28: Complex stability Index for conv. and LDPE modified mixes Rut depth and slope reduction of almost 50% DS and CSI displayed considerable improvement RRI improved by nearly 30%
JUNE 2020 88 Table 18: Comparison between Conv. and PP modified mixes(Procedure A) Rutting Parameters Mixture Type Conv. Mix 4% PP Mix 6% PP Mix 8% PP Mix 10% PP Mix 12% PP Mix RD (mm) 4.23 3.85 3.74 3.44 2.94 2.54 PRD (%) 8.46 7.71 7.48 6.88 5.88 5.09 WTR (µm/cycle) 2.05 1.83 1.85 1.64 1.31 1.19 RRI (NA) 833.33 848.15 852.75 864.56 884.24 899.73 Cont.… (Results and Discussions)
JUNE 2020 89 Fig. 29: Rut depth at 1000 load cycles for conv. and PP modified mixes 4.23 3.85 3.74 3.44 2.94 2.54 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 CONV MIX 4% PP 6% PP 8% PP 10% PP 12% PP Rutdepth(mm) Type of mix Rut depth at 1000 load cycles 2.05 1.83 1.85 1.64 1.31 1.19 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 CONV MIX 4% PP 6% PP 8% PP 10% PP 12% PP WTR(µm/cycle) Type of mix Wheel tracking rate Fig. 30: Wheel tracking rate for conv. and PP modified mixes
JUNE 2020 90 833.33 848.15 852.75 864.56 884.24 899.73 780 800 820 840 860 880 900 920 CONV MIX 4% PP 6% PP 8% PP 10% PP 12% PP RRI Type of Mix Rut resistance index Fig. 31: Rut resistance index for conv. and PP modified mixes Rut depth reduction of nearly 35% WTR dropped around 38% RRI value increased up to 8%
JUNE 2020 91 Rutting Parameters Mixture Type Conv. Mix 4% PP Mix 6% PP Mix 8% PP Mix 10% PP Mix 12% PP Mix RD (mm) 10.51 9.15 8.41 8.07 7.59 6.18 PRD (%) 21.03 18.31 16.83 16.15 15.18 12.37 WTSAIR,(mm/ 103 load cycles) 0.495 0.426 0.394 0.376 0.355 0.288 RRI (NA) 5860.88 6395.01 6686.40 6820.20 7010.40 7624.67 DS (load cycles/mm) 709.45 764.10 874.01 880.38 973.09 1118.97 CSI (load cycles/mm2) 157.17 190.25 235.15 247.05 290.90 412.21 Table 19: Comparison between Conv. and PP modified mixes(Procedure B) Cont.… (Results and Discussions)
JUNE 2020 92 10.51 9.15 8.41 8.07 7.59 6.18 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 CONV MIX 4% PP 6% PP 8% PP 10% PP 12% PP Rutdepth(mm) Type of mix Rut depth at 10000 load cycle Fig. 32: Rut depth at 1000 load cycles for conv. and PP modified mixes 0.495 0.426 0.394 0.376 0.355 0.288 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 CONV MIX 4% PP 6% PP 8% PP 10% PP 12% PP WTSair(mm/10^3load cycles) Type of mix Wheel tracking slope Fig. 33: Wheel tracking slope for conv. and PP modified mixes
JUNE 2020 93 5860.88 6395.01 6686.4 6820.2 7010.49 7624.67 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 CONV MIX 4% PP 6% PP 8% PP 10% PP 12% PP RRI Type of mix Rut resistance index Fig. 34: Rut resistance index for conv. and PP modified mixes 709.45 764.1 874.01 880.38 973.09 1118.97 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 CONV MIX 4% PP 6% PP 8% PP 10% PP 12% PP DS(loadcycle/mm) Type of mix Dynamic stability Fig. 35: Dynamic stability for conv. and PP modified mixes
JUNE 2020 94 157.17 190.25 235.15 247.05 290.9 412.21 0 100 200 300 400 500 CONV MIX 4% PP 6% PP 8% PP 10% PP 12% PP CSI(loadcyckle/mm^2) Type of mix Complex stability index Fig. 36: Complex stability index for conv. and PP modified mixes Rut depth and slope value went down by almost 40% RRI showed 25% improvement. Considerable improvement in DS and CSI values
JUNE 2020 95 Rutting Parameters Mixture Type 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% LDPE PP LDPE PP LDPE PP LDPE PP LDPE PP Rut depth (mm) 3.66 3.85 3.51 3.74 2.86 3.44 2.53 2.94 2.26 2.54 PRD (%) 7.38 7.71 7.02 7.48 5.73 6.88 5.07 5.88 4.52 5.09 WTR (µm/cycle) 1.64 1.83 1.61 1.85 1.28 1.64 1.12 1.31 1.09 1.19 RRI (NA) 854. 72 848. 15 861. 67 852. 75 887. 13 864. 56 900. 12 884. 24 911. 02 899. 73 Table 20: Comparison between LDPE and PP modified mixes(Procedure A) Cont.… (Results and Discussions)
JUNE 2020 96 3.66 3.51 2.86 2.53 2.26 3.85 3.74 3.44 2.94 2.54 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 4% MIX 6% MIX 8% MIX 10% MIX 12% MIX RD(mm) Type of mix Rut depth LDPE PP Fig. 37: Rut depth at 1000 load cycles for LDPE and PP modified mixes 1.64 1.61 1.28 1.12 1.09 1.83 1.85 1.64 1.31 1.19 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 4% MIX 6% MIX 8% MIX 10% MIX 12% MIX WTR(µm/cycle) Type of mix Wheel tracking rate LDPE PP Fig. 38: Wheel tracking rate for LDPE and PP modified mixes
JUNE 2020 97 854.72 861.67 887.13 900.12 911.02 848.15 852.75 864.56 884.24 899.73 800.00 820.00 840.00 860.00 880.00 900.00 920.00 4% MIX 6% MIX 8% MIX 10% MIX 12% MIX RRI Type of mix Rut resistance index LDPE PP Fig. 39: Rut resistance index for LDPE and PP modified mixes On an average, LDPE samples demonstrated 10% lower rut depth. LDPE sample had 15% lower WTR values. RRI values obtained for both the samples were almost similar.
JUNE 2020 98 Rutting parameters Mixture Type 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% LDPE PP LDPE PP LDPE PP LDPE PP LDPE PP RD (mm) 8.17 9.15 7.30 8.41 6.41 8.07 5.64 7.59 5.02 6.18 PRD (%) 16.35 18.31 14.6 16.83 12.83 16.15 11.28 15.18 10.04 12.37 WTSAIR (mm/103 load cycles) 0.368 0.426 0.337 0.394 0.295 0.376 0.259 0.355 0.230 0.288 RRI (NA) 6780.83 6395.01 7126.08 6686.40 7473.74 6820.20 7779.52 7010.49 8023.62 7624.67 DS (load cycles/mm) 928.13 764.10 1068.43 874.01 1257.06 880.38 1405.02 973.04 1608.00 1118.97 CSI (load cycles/mm2) 248.59 190.25 320.92 235.15 424.64 247.05 542.56 290.90 696.24 412.21 Table 21: Comparison between LDPE and PP modified mixes(Procedure B) Cont.… (Results and Discussions)
JUNE 2020 99 Fig. 40: Rut depth at 10000 load cycles for LDPE and PP modified mixes 8.17 7.30 6.41 5.64 5.02 9.15 8.41 8.07 7.59 6.18 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 4% MIX 6% MIX 8% MIX 10% MIX 12% MIX RD(mm) Type of mix Rut depth LDPE PP 0.368 0.337 0.295 0.259 0.230 0.426 0.394 0.376 0.355 0.288 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 4% MIX 6% MIX 8% MIX 10% MIX 12% MIX WTSair(mm/10^3loadcycle) Type of mix Wheel tracking slope LDPE PP Fig. 41: Wheel tracking slope for LDPE and PP modified mixes
JUNE 2020 100 6780.83 7126.08 7473.74 7779.52 8023.62 6395.01 6686.40 6820.20 7010.49 7642.67 0.00 2000.00 4000.00 6000.00 8000.00 10000.00 4% MIX 6% MIX 8% MIX 10% MIX 12% MIX RRI Type of mix Rut resistance index LDPE PP Fig. 42: Rut resistance index for LDPE and PP modified mixes 928.13 1068.43 1257.06 1405.02 1608.00 764.10 847.01 880.38 973.09 1118.97 0.00 500.00 1000.00 1500.00 2000.00 4% MIX 6% MIX 8% MIX 10% MIX 12% MIX DS(loadcycles/mm) Type of mix Dynamic stability LDPE PP Fig. 43: Dynamic stability for LDPE and PP modified mixes
JUNE 2020 101 248.59 320.92 424.64 542.56 696.24 190.25 235.15 247.05 290.90 412.21 0.00 200.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 4% MIX 6% MIX 8% MIX 10% MIX 12% MIX CSI(loadcycles/mm^2) Type of mix Complex stability index LDPE PP Fig. 44: Complex stability index index for LDPE and PP modified mixes LDPE samples produced around 15% lower rut depth. Slope value of LDPE was nearly 18% lower than PP mix. RRI values differed by around 7% DS and CSI value for LDPE were around 30% higher than PP mixes.
JUNE 2020 102 CONCLUSIONS
JUNE 2020 103 Rutting depth decreased on adding plastic as an additive. Rut depth varied inversely with plastic content. Parameters such as WTR, WTS, RRI, DS and CSI showed improved performance on mixing plastic. LDPE plastic demonstrated better performance than PP plastic. Suitability of wheel tracker device to assess rutting potential has been established in this research. Cont.… (Conclusions)
JUNE 2020 104 Cont.… (Conclusions) Recommendations Maximum improvement was observed for 8-10% plastic content. Therefore, the optimum percentage of plastic content is 8-10% by weight of bitumen. LDPE mix demonstrated around 15% better performance than PP mix. Therefore, it is a better additive.
JUNE 2020 105 Future scope of work Other plastics such as PET, PVC, PS etc. should also investigated for their efficacy as an additive. Similar research for DBM mix. Cont.… (Conclusions) Air void ratio of samples should be examined for better correlation
JUNE 2020 106 REFERENCES
JUNE 2020 107 Banerjee, A., Smit, A.F. and Prozzi, J.A. (2012). "Influence of operational tolerances on HMA performance." Construction and Building Materials , 27, 15-23. Brovelli, C., Crispino, M., Pais, J. and Pereira, P. (2015). "Using polymers to improve the rutting resistance of asphalt concrete." Construction and Building Materials , 77, 117-123 Chaturabong, P. and Bahia, H.U. (2017). "Mechanisms of asphalt mixture rutting in the dry Hamburg Wheel Tracking test and the potential to be alternative test in measuring rutting resistance.“ Construction and Building Materials , 146, 175-182 Doh, Y.S., Yun, K.K., Amirkhanian, S.N. and Kim, K.W. (2007). "Framework for developing a static strength test for measuring deformation resistance of asphalt concrete mixtures". Construction and Building Materials , 21, 2047-2058. Dong, N., Fujian, Ni., Zhou, L. and Mab, X. (2016). "Comparison of the Hamburg, indirect tensile, and multi-sequenced repeated load tests for evaluation of HMA rutting resistance.". Construction and Building Materials , 216, 588-598. Fakhri, M. and Hosseini, S.A. (2017). "Laboratory evaluation of rutting and moisture damage resistance of glass fiber modified warm mix asphalt incorporating high RAP proportion.". Construction and Building Materials , 134, 626-640. Gibreil, H.A.A. and Fang, C.P. (2017). "Effects of high-density polyethylene and crumb rubber powder as modifiers on properties of hot mix asphalt". Construction and Building Materials , 142, 101-108. Grebenschikov, S. and Prozzi, J.A. (2011). "Enhancing Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design Guide Rutting Performance Predictions with Hamburg Wheel-Tracking Results.". Journal of the Transportation Research Board (pp. 111-118). Washington D.C. Transportation Research Record EN 12697 -22 (2003). Bituminous mixtures - Test methods for hot mix asphalt - Part 22: Wheel tracking. EN 12697 -33 (2003). Bituminous mixtures - Test methods for hot mix asphalt - Part 33: Specimen prepared by roller compactor IRC: SP:98 (2013). Guidelines for the use of waste plastic in hot bituminous mixes (dry process) in wearing courses Javilla, B., Fang, H., Mo, L., Shu, B. and Wu, S. (2017). "Test evaluation of rutting performance indicators of asphalt mixtures". Construction and Building Materials , 155, 1215-1223
JUNE 2020 108 Khan, S., Nagabhusana, M.N., Tiwari, D. and Jain, P.K. (2013). "Rutting in Flexible Pavement: An approach of evaluation with Accelerated Pavement Testing Facility.".Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences , 104, 149-157. Lu, Q. and Harvey, J.T. (2006). "Evaluation of Hamburg Wheel-Tracking Device Test with Laboratory and Field Performance Data.".Journal of the Transportation Research Board (pp. 25-44). Washington D.C: Transportation Research Record. Lv, Q., Huang, W., Sadek, W., Xiao, F. and Yan, C. (2019). "Investigation of the rutting performance of various modified asphalt mixtures using the Hamburg Wheel-Tracking Device test and Multiple Stress Creep Recovery test." Construction and Building Materials , 206, 62-70. Radhakrishnan, V., Chowdari, G.S., Reddy, K.S. and Chattaraj, R. (2019). "Evaluation of wheel tracking and field rutting susceptibility of dense bituminous mixes". Road Materials and Pavement Design , 20 (1), 90-109. Saboo, N. and Kumar, P. (2016). "Analysis of Different Test Methods for Quantifying Rutting Susceptibility of Asphalt Binders.“ J. Mater. Civ. Eng. , 28 (7), (1-8). Tsai, B., Coleri, E., Harvey, J.T. and Monismith, C.L. (2016). "Evaluation of AASHTO T 324 Hamburg-Wheel Track Device test.". Construction and Building Materials , 114, 248-260. Wang, H., Zhang, Q. and Tan, J. (2009). "Investigation of Layer Contributions to Asphalt Pavement Rutting." J. Mater. Civ. Eng , 21 (4), 181-185. Xu, T., Wang, H., Li, Z. and Zhao, Y. (2014). "Evaluation of permanent deformation of asphalt mixtures using different laboratory performance tests". Construction and Building Materials , 53, 561-567. Yinfei, D., Jiaqi, C., Zheng, H. and Weizheng, L. (2018). "A review on solutions for improving rutting resistance of asphalt pavement and test methods." Construction and Building Materials , 168, 893-905. Zhang, W., Shen, S., Wu, S. and Mohammad, L.N. (2017). "Prediction Model for Field Rut Depth of Asphalt Pavement Based on Hamburg Wheel Tracking Test Properties." J. Mater. Civ. Eng , 29 (9), 1-10. Ziari, H., Kaliji, A.G. and Babagoli, R. (2016). "Laboratory evaluation of the effect of waste plastic bottle (PET) on rutting performance of hotmix asphalt mixtures". Petroleum science amd technology , 34, 819-823.
109JUNE 2020 THANK YOU  PRESENTED BY: AMIT KUMAR ROLL NO. 1824007

More Related Content

PDF
Irc 58-2015 c c road thick design
byKEVINMISTRY8
 
PDF
Widening and Strengthening of Roads PPT
byNaresh Anumandla
 
PDF
Hot bituminous mix design
byPriyansh Singh
 
PDF
Rigid pavement
bypjainrahul
 
PPT
Pavement skid resistance
byHai Vo
 
PPT
Superpavemixdesign
bypradip dangar
 
PPTX
BITUMEN MIXES FOR ROAD
bykumawat123
 
PPT
Marshall Mix Design
byAkhil Ahuja
 
Irc 58-2015 c c road thick design
byKEVINMISTRY8
 
Widening and Strengthening of Roads PPT
byNaresh Anumandla
 
Hot bituminous mix design
byPriyansh Singh
 
Rigid pavement
bypjainrahul
 
Pavement skid resistance
byHai Vo
 
Superpavemixdesign
bypradip dangar
 
BITUMEN MIXES FOR ROAD
bykumawat123
 
Marshall Mix Design
byAkhil Ahuja
 

What's hot

PPTX
Pavement Design_IRC-37-2018.pptx
byJignesh patel
 
PPTX
Coal Tar Based Pavement Sealcoat: Health and Environmental Overview
byOhio Environmental Council
 
PDF
05-Superpave Binder Specification ( Highway and Airport Engineering Dr. Sheri...
byHossam Shafiq I
 
PPT
Fresh Concrete
byGAURAV. H .TANDON
 
PPTX
Aging of bitumen
bySushmitha Gowda
 
PPTX
Ppt u girder casting by l.k.prasad
byLachhmikant. Prasad
 
PDF
Types of road material and its tests
byGovt, Polytechnic Tekari, Gaya
 
PPTX
Design ppt
bytishu001
 
PPTX
Geotextile fo soil stabilization
byAglaia Connect
 
PPTX
Strengthening and Widening of road (P.W.D)(Summer Training)
byArif Siddiqui
 
PPTX
SOIL STABILIZATION USING LIME AND CEMENT
byA. R. Atiq
 
PPTX
Janssen's theory
byErankajKumar
 
DOCX
Bituminous mix design
byEr.BASAVARAJ Pachhapure
 
PPTX
Cold mix asphalt
byRupam Fedujwar
 
PPTX
Marshall method of mix design
byThapar Institute of Engineering and Technology.
 
PPTX
mech STONE MASTIC ASPHALT ppt
byMOHAMMED IMRAN SHAIK
 
PPTX
Marshall mix design method by ravindra c
byŔąvî Bøňđ
 
PDF
Rigid pavement design
bygeorgezac
 
PPTX
Benkelman beam deflection studies
byvikasravekar
 
PPT
polymers for concrete repair
byKris Kiran
 
Pavement Design_IRC-37-2018.pptx
byJignesh patel
 
Coal Tar Based Pavement Sealcoat: Health and Environmental Overview
byOhio Environmental Council
 
05-Superpave Binder Specification ( Highway and Airport Engineering Dr. Sheri...
byHossam Shafiq I
 
Fresh Concrete
byGAURAV. H .TANDON
 
Aging of bitumen
bySushmitha Gowda
 
Ppt u girder casting by l.k.prasad
byLachhmikant. Prasad
 
Types of road material and its tests
byGovt, Polytechnic Tekari, Gaya
 
Design ppt
bytishu001
 
Geotextile fo soil stabilization
byAglaia Connect
 
Strengthening and Widening of road (P.W.D)(Summer Training)
byArif Siddiqui
 
SOIL STABILIZATION USING LIME AND CEMENT
byA. R. Atiq
 
Janssen's theory
byErankajKumar
 
Bituminous mix design
byEr.BASAVARAJ Pachhapure
 
Cold mix asphalt
byRupam Fedujwar
 
Marshall method of mix design
byThapar Institute of Engineering and Technology.
 
mech STONE MASTIC ASPHALT ppt
byMOHAMMED IMRAN SHAIK
 
Marshall mix design method by ravindra c
byŔąvî Bøňđ
 
Rigid pavement design
bygeorgezac
 
Benkelman beam deflection studies
byvikasravekar
 
polymers for concrete repair
byKris Kiran
 

Similar to Rutting in pavement + waste plastic

PDF
Using Waste Plastic And Rubber In Asphalt Flexible Pavement
byIRJET Journal
 
PDF
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF MODIFIED BITUMEN BINDERS WITH WASTE PET BOTTLES AND...
byIRJET Journal
 
PDF
Evaluation of Design Mix Bituminous Concrete using Plastic Waste in Road Pave...
byijtsrd
 
PDF
IRJET- Study on the Performance of Rubberised Bitumen with Plastic Waste
byIRJET Journal
 
PDF
IRJET- Utilization of Waste Plastic and Waste Rubber in Flexible Pavement
byIRJET Journal
 
PDF
Rutting resistance of filler modified bituminous concrete surfaces 2
byIAEME Publication
 
PPTX
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT USING POLYETHYLENE TEREPHTHALATE (PET...
byPRASANTHSUNDAR14
 
PDF
A LABORATORY STUDY ON ACID MODIFIED BITUMINOUS MIXES IN COMPARISON FOR RUTTIN...
bycivejjour
 
PDF
A Laboratory Study on Acid Modified Bituminous Mixes in Comparison for Ruttin...
bycivej
 
PDF
IRJET- Comparative Experimental Study Between RCC, Bituminous Mix and Mod...
byIRJET Journal
 
PDF
"Study Of Bituminous Concrete Using Polymers And Varoius Types Of Additives ”
byIRJET Journal
 
PDF
20320130406006 2-3
byIAEME Publication
 
PDF
IRJET- Improvising Pavement Strength using Plastic Waste
byIRJET Journal
 
PDF
IRJET- Modification of Bituminous Concrete Mix using Rubber and Plastic Waste...
byIRJET Journal
 
PDF
An Experimental Study on Modification of Dense Graded Bituminous Mix Design
byijtsrd
 
DOCX
Influence of mix properties on the permanent deformation characteristics of b...
byeSAT Journals
 
DOCX
Influence of mix properties on the permanent deformation characteristics of b...
byeSAT Journals
 
PDF
G0333035040
byinventionjournals
 
PDF
Rutting Assessment of Crumb Rubber Modifier Modified Warm Mix Asphalt Incorpo...
byIRJET Journal
 
PDF
Study of Rutting Potential of Modified Binders and their comparison with Un-M...
byAbdullah Alvi
 
Using Waste Plastic And Rubber In Asphalt Flexible Pavement
byIRJET Journal
 
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF MODIFIED BITUMEN BINDERS WITH WASTE PET BOTTLES AND...
byIRJET Journal
 
Evaluation of Design Mix Bituminous Concrete using Plastic Waste in Road Pave...
byijtsrd
 
IRJET- Study on the Performance of Rubberised Bitumen with Plastic Waste
byIRJET Journal
 
IRJET- Utilization of Waste Plastic and Waste Rubber in Flexible Pavement
byIRJET Journal
 
Rutting resistance of filler modified bituminous concrete surfaces 2
byIAEME Publication
 
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT USING POLYETHYLENE TEREPHTHALATE (PET...
byPRASANTHSUNDAR14
 
A LABORATORY STUDY ON ACID MODIFIED BITUMINOUS MIXES IN COMPARISON FOR RUTTIN...
bycivejjour
 
A Laboratory Study on Acid Modified Bituminous Mixes in Comparison for Ruttin...
bycivej
 
IRJET- Comparative Experimental Study Between RCC, Bituminous Mix and Mod...
byIRJET Journal
 
"Study Of Bituminous Concrete Using Polymers And Varoius Types Of Additives ”
byIRJET Journal
 
20320130406006 2-3
byIAEME Publication
 
IRJET- Improvising Pavement Strength using Plastic Waste
byIRJET Journal
 
IRJET- Modification of Bituminous Concrete Mix using Rubber and Plastic Waste...
byIRJET Journal
 
An Experimental Study on Modification of Dense Graded Bituminous Mix Design
byijtsrd
 
Influence of mix properties on the permanent deformation characteristics of b...
byeSAT Journals
 
Influence of mix properties on the permanent deformation characteristics of b...
byeSAT Journals
 
G0333035040
byinventionjournals
 
Rutting Assessment of Crumb Rubber Modifier Modified Warm Mix Asphalt Incorpo...
byIRJET Journal
 
Study of Rutting Potential of Modified Binders and their comparison with Un-M...
byAbdullah Alvi
 

Recently uploaded

PPTX
Basics of internal combustio nengines, vapor compression cycle
byPrashantPatunkar1
 
PPT
Escape-17-plenary-gani-grossmann-final.ppt
bynewjourneynewlife201
 
PDF
22nd Safety Convention by IE(I) dt 27.12.25 by Rajesh Prasad.pdf
byRajesh Prasad
 
PPTX
PVD MNA 501 Recipe Review with understanding
byNritaGaur1
 
PPTX
Unit 5 - THERMO ELECTRIC ENERGY BASED PROCESSES .pptx
byarivazhaganrajangam
 
PPTX
PEMET 413 COMPOSITE MATERIALS MOD1 LECTURE 3.pptx
byVINAY B
 
PPTX
Unit 2 - ABRASIVE PROCESS AND BROACHING.pptx
byarivazhaganrajangam
 
PPTX
narrow-band-dfr-presentation-megger.pptx
byssuser52ed331
 
PPT
Data Streams and Mining_1.ppt UNIT ONE COVERED
byBhupendraSingh564079
 
PPTX
Forouzan6e_ch02_PPTs_Physical.pptxmcgrawhill
byshaiviadesh
 
PPTX
MOD 1 (concrete technology -cement,aggregates .pptx
bytkmmullonkal
 
PPTX
Slide sur les concepts_Module_5_STP.pptx
bydine46
 
PPTX
STM Unit 2 Complete notes for engineering students for better understanding
byLakshmiVivekaKesanap
 
PPTX
STM Unit 1 Complete notes for engineering students for better understanding
byLakshmiVivekaKesanap
 
PPT
Unit 1 - SHAPER, MILLING AND GEAR CUTTING MACHINES .ppt
byarivazhaganrajangam
 
PDF
Arithmetic for computers and its types..
bysuganyapownaiya
 
PPTX
MOHSIN IJAZ PRESENTATION Final-climate.pptx
byakashhussain2851
 
PPTX
Lecture 2_Introduction to engineering design.pptx
bylynxvill3
 
PPTX
UNIT-1.pptx...................................
byRavinderKaur647214
 
PDF
Module 2 Python progr 1BPLCK105B-by Dr.SV.pdf
bySURESHA V
 
Basics of internal combustio nengines, vapor compression cycle
byPrashantPatunkar1
 
Escape-17-plenary-gani-grossmann-final.ppt
bynewjourneynewlife201
 
22nd Safety Convention by IE(I) dt 27.12.25 by Rajesh Prasad.pdf
byRajesh Prasad
 
PVD MNA 501 Recipe Review with understanding
byNritaGaur1
 
Unit 5 - THERMO ELECTRIC ENERGY BASED PROCESSES .pptx
byarivazhaganrajangam
 
PEMET 413 COMPOSITE MATERIALS MOD1 LECTURE 3.pptx
byVINAY B
 
Unit 2 - ABRASIVE PROCESS AND BROACHING.pptx
byarivazhaganrajangam
 
narrow-band-dfr-presentation-megger.pptx
byssuser52ed331
 
Data Streams and Mining_1.ppt UNIT ONE COVERED
byBhupendraSingh564079
 
Forouzan6e_ch02_PPTs_Physical.pptxmcgrawhill
byshaiviadesh
 
MOD 1 (concrete technology -cement,aggregates .pptx
bytkmmullonkal
 
Slide sur les concepts_Module_5_STP.pptx
bydine46
 
STM Unit 2 Complete notes for engineering students for better understanding
byLakshmiVivekaKesanap
 
STM Unit 1 Complete notes for engineering students for better understanding
byLakshmiVivekaKesanap
 
Unit 1 - SHAPER, MILLING AND GEAR CUTTING MACHINES .ppt
byarivazhaganrajangam
 
Arithmetic for computers and its types..
bysuganyapownaiya
 
MOHSIN IJAZ PRESENTATION Final-climate.pptx
byakashhussain2851
 
Lecture 2_Introduction to engineering design.pptx
bylynxvill3
 
UNIT-1.pptx...................................
byRavinderKaur647214
 
Module 2 Python progr 1BPLCK105B-by Dr.SV.pdf
bySURESHA V
 

Rutting in pavement + waste plastic

  • 1.
    1JUNE 2020 STUDY ONRUTTING POTENTIAL OF BITUMINOUS MIXES USING WHEEL TRACKER DEVICE Presented by: AMIT KUMAR Roll No. 1824007 TRANSPORTATION ENGG. Under the guidance of Dr. S.K. SUMAN Assistant professor NIT Patna
  • 2.
    2JUNE 2020 CONTENTS 1 Listof Acronyms 2 Introduction 3 Literature Review 4 Methods and Materials 5 Laboratory Investigation 6 Results and Discussions 7 Conclusions 8 References
  • 3.
    3JUNE 2020 LIST OFACRONYMS BC WTD LDPE PP AADT PG RAP AC NMAS CA BC Bituminous Concrete WTD Wheel tracker deice LDPE Low density polyethylene PP Polypropylene AADT Annual average daily traffic HMA Hot mix asphalt RAP Reclaimed asphalt pavement AC Asphalt concrete NMAS Nominal maximum aggregate size CA Course Aggregate
  • 4.
    4JUNE 2020 Cont.… (LISTOF ACRONYMS) SD VFB VMA OBC RD PRD WTS WTR CSI HMA SD Stone dust VFB Voids filled with Bitumen VMA Voids in mineral aggregate OBC Optimum bitumen content RD Rut depth PRD Proportional Rut depth WTS Wheel tracking slope WTR Wheel tracking rate CSI Complex stability index PG Performance grade
  • 5.
  • 6.
    6JUNE 2020 Background Majority ofroads in India are flexible, for which bulk of distress is either rutting or fatigue. Rutting is a major form of distress in pavements. It is also known as permanent settlement of pavement. Mainly attributed to shear deformation in the upper HMA layers. Visible as longitudinal grooves along the wheel path.
  • 7.
    7JUNE 2020 Heavy channelizedtraffic Inadequate compaction Improper mix design High temperature Poor subgrade Rutting Cont.… (INTRODUCTION)
  • 8.
    8JUNE 2020 Rutting Reduction inpavement life Servicibility problem (hydroplaning) Safety concerns Uneconomical scenarios Hindrance to Road network Cont.… (INTRODUCTION)
  • 9.
    9JUNE 2020 Fig 1.Rutting in pavement (source – Wikipedia)
  • 10.
    10JUNE 2020 Fig 2.Rutting in pavement ( source – Wikipedia )
  • 11.
    11JUNE 2020 Problem Statement Prematurefailure - early and costly rehabilitation Functional constraints Safety concerns for road users Economic burden on taxpayers Hence, this subject needs to be properly addressed through evaluation and mitigation measures so that the occurrence and resulting impacts can be minimized. Cont.… (INTRODUCTION)
  • 12.
    12JUNE 2020 Scope Cont.… (INTRODUCTION) Studyingpavement failure mode for BC mix Minimizing failures so as to get good serviceability from huge road assets Systematic assessment of pavement with known design and influencing factors Use of waste plastic as an additive – Green roads
  • 13.
    13JUNE 2020 Cont.… (INTRODUCTION) Objectives Toinvestigate the rutting potential of BC mix (II) with and without using waste plastic. To compare the effectiveness of LDPE and PP waste plastic against rutting. To propose suitable recommendations for use of LDPE and PP as an additive in BC mix.
  • 14.
  • 15.
    15JUNE 2020 S. N AUTHOR(S)/ JOURNAL MATERIAL EQUIPMENTPROPERTIES /PARAMETE R RESULTS 1 Shahbaz Khan et al./ Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 104 (2013) 149- 157 Granular material Bitumen LHVS Laser Profilometer Falling weight deflectometer Mercury thermometer Rut depth Modulus of each layer Air void Initial average rutting found after 5000 passes is about 2mm. Change(decrease) in air voids were 0.4% for BC and 1.626% for DBM for rutted section.
  • 16.
    16JUNE 2020 2 NikhilSaboo Praveen Kumar J.Mater.Civil Eng.,2016,28(7):04 016024 VG 10 binder VG 30 binder PMB Aggregate DSR Wheel tracking device Rut depth Moisture susceptibilit y Temperature susceptibility of elastomeric modified bitumen is lower compared to plastomeric modified. VG 10 not suitable for extremely heavy loading even at 50°C VG 30 not suitable for extremely heavy loadings at temp greater than/equal to 60°C. Mixes with PMB showed lower rut depth compared to VG mixes. Cont.… (Literature Review)
  • 17.
    17JUNE 2020 3 NiyaDong et al./ Construction and Building Materials 216(2019) 588- 598 PG 64-22 PG 70-22 Aggregate HWTT Thermoco uple probe Strain rate Creep stiffness modulus Dynamic modulus Rut depth Creep rate PG 70-22 mixes are less temperature sensitive and more rut resistant than PG 64-22. Mixes with stiffer asphalt binder can effectively reduce permanent deformation at high temperature. For evaluation of permanent deformation, the validity of the HWTT is higher than IDT test. Cont.… (Literature Review)
  • 18.
    18JUNE 2020 4 SungumKim et al./ J.Mater.Civ.Eng.,20 18.30(2):04017280 RAP Aggregate HWTD No. of laoding passes at failure. Rut depth Effect of NMAS RAP with larger NMAS performed better than those with small NMAS in both rut and anti stripping resistance. As NMAS decreases rut depth increases regardless of source As NMAS increased the SIP increased for all aggregate source. The test temperature of 50°C was not enough to distinguish size effects of aggregate, 64°C and 70°C were. Cont.… (Literature Review)
  • 19.
    19JUNE 2020 5 IbrahimSel et al./ J.Mater.Civ.Eng.,201 4,26(8):04014037 Hydrated lime Liquid antistrip- ping additive Binder (PG 64- 22, PG 70-22, PG 76- 22) Aggregat e HWTD Average deformation Temperature dependence As the test temperature increases the average deformation increases accordingly. The mixes with higher PG binder accumulates less deformation than those with lower grade binder Lime performed better than liquid and liquid performed better than binder without additive. Cont.… (Literature Review)
  • 20.
    20JUNE 2020 6 Vishnu Radhakarishn anet al. Road Materials and Pavement Design, 2019 Vol. 20, No. 1, 90–109 VG30 VG40 CRMB WTD Rut depth Air void For same initial air void, field and laboratory rut depth correlated. Mixes with higher compaction rutted less Mixes with softer binder rutted more both in filed and in laboratory. Higher initial air void content produced higher rut depth. Suitability of WTD for testing rutting susceptibility was demonstrated. Cont.… (Literature Review)
  • 21.
    21JUNE 2020 7 B.Javilla et al. Construction and Building Materials (2017), vol 153 157–164 AC-20 Limeston e AC-13 Basalt Asphalt Mixture SBS Modified Asphalt Binder WTD Stress Temperature Moisture Limestone mixture was more rut resistance than Basalt mixture. Temperature was a more significant factor than stress. Rutting resistance showed a strong correlation with the moisture content. Primary rutting contributed a significant percentage of the final rutting. Cont.… (Literature Review)
  • 22.
    22JUNE 2020 8 B.Javilla et al. Construction and Building Materials (2017), vol. 155, 1215– 1223 AC-13 Basalt asphalt mixture AC-20 Limeston e mixture WTD Temperature dependence CSI DS AC-13 and AC-20 mixtures were both temperature and stress dependent. Secondary rutting parameters had higher correlation than primary indicators. Cont.… (Literature Review)
  • 23.
    23JUNE 2020 9 H.A.A.Gibreil et al. Construction and Building Materials (2017), vol 142, 101– 108 HDPE CRP (crumb rubber powder) WTD IDT Marshall test Stability Flow DS Resistance to deformation in moderate and high temperatures increased with the addition of the modifiers. Ductility reduced with modifiers. Temperature susceptibility decreased with addition of modifiers. Modifiers improved the stability values. DS improved with addition of both HDPE and CRP. Cont.… (Literature Review)
  • 24.
    24JUNE 2020 10 T.Xu et al. Constructio n and Building Materials (2014), 53, 561–567 SBS modified binder Crushed Limeston e powder Polyester Fiber Triaxial repeated load test WTD DS Strain values The polyester fibres improve the deformation resistance of the asphalt mixtures. A strong correlation was found between the strain slope and the total rut depth in the wheel tracking test. Cont.… (Literature Review)
  • 25.
    25JUNE 2020 11 H.Ziari et al. Petroleum science and technology 2016, vol 34(9), 819- 823 PET (Polyethyl ene terephtha late) WTD DSR Rut depth Flow number Reduction in permanent deformation when PET is used. With increase in dynamic load, the produced stresses were absorbed with PET particles and it led to delay in rutting phenomenon. Cont.… (Literature Review)
  • 26.
    26JUNE 2020 12 G.Saranget al. Road Materials and Pavement Design, 2016 Vol. 17, No. 4, 933–945 VG 30 PMB 40 Lime Waste plastic (polyethyl ene and polypropy lene) Marshall test ITS WTD Deformation Stability ITS No stabilizing additive is required in SMA with PMB. PMB mix showed better performance than SWP in Marshall stability and tensile strength parameters. PMB mixes showed better performance than SWP in both rutting and fatigue tests . Cont.… (Literature Review)
  • 27.
    27JUNE 2020 13 P. Chaturabong Etal. Construction and Building Materials (2017), vol 146, 175– 182 VG 30 Granular material HWTD AMPT Rut depth Total proximity length Failure mechanism in the HWT and FN test is similar. The validity of dry HWTD in measuring rutting resistance of the asphalt mixture was established. Cont.… (Literature Review)
  • 28.
    28JUNE 2020 14 W.Zhang et al. J.Mater.Civ. Eng.,2017,2 9(9):04017 098 PG binder Aggregate HWTD Binder extractor Falling weight deflectom eter (FWD) Rutting resistance index(RRI) Field rut depth in general decreased with increased RRI. HWT test results alone do not have strong relationship with the field rut depth. Other factors, such as climate and pavement structure have to be considered. RRI, Pavement age, AADT, pavement structure are critical influence factors. Cont.… (Literature Review)
  • 29.
    29JUNE 2020 15 H.Wang et al. J.Mater.Civ. Eng.,2009, 21(4):181- 185 Aggregate Binder (VG 30) HWTD Rut depth Dynamic stability The asphalt intermediate course has the greatest effect on rut development followed by asphalt base course. Longitudinal grades also effects the rutting depth. Cont.… (Literature Review)
  • 30.
    30JUNE 2020 16 B.Javillaet al. Constructio n and Building Materials 153 (2017) 157-164 AC-20 limestone AC-13 basalt asphalt mix AC-25 Recycled hot mix asphalt HWTD Rut depth Dynamic Stability AC-13 mix were more rutting resistance as compared to Ac- 20 mix. Rutting rate increased exponentially after 50°C and greater than 1000 cycles. Cont.… (Literature Review)
  • 31.
    31JUNE 2020 17 Y.DUet al. Constructio n and Building Materials (2018), vol 168, 893- 905 Aggregate Binder (VG 30) HWTD DSR Rut Depth Dynamic Stability Flow number Semi flexible pavement is suggested. Cooling technologies of aphalt pavement should be used. More laboratory test methods should be developed to reproduce the real field pavement environment. Cont.… (Literature Review)
  • 32.
    32JUNE 2020 18 QuingLu John T.Harvey Transporta tion Research Record 1970 Aggregate Binder Hydrated lime Anti- stripping agent HWTD LVDT Rut depth Mixes treated with hydrated lime showed lower rut depth than mixes with liquid anti stripping agents which showed lower rut depth than untreated mixes. Compaction profile variability existed which gave inconsistent results across the sample itself. Binders using no acid performed well. Cont.… (Literature Review)
  • 33.
    JUNE 2020 33 LiteratureGap Waste plastic as an additive against rutting has been less researched. Majorly only HDPE plastic has been investigated. For dry WTD, fewer parameters have been examined.
  • 34.
    JUNE 2020 34 METHODSAND MATERIALS
  • 35.
    35JUNE 2020 Methods Blending ofaggregates as per MoRTH, 2013 for BC (II). Trial and error method was adopted. Characterization test for aggregates – Impact value, Crushing value, Abrasion value, Shape test and specific gravity. Characterization test for binders – specific gravity, penetration value and softening point. Marshall Mix design – OBC WTD – evaluation of rutting potential of conventional and modified bituminous mixes.
  • 36.
    36JUNE 2020 Materials Material Source CA(20 mm) Gaya CA (10 mm) Gaya Stone dust Gaya Bitumen (VG 30) Gaya Cement – OPC 53 Table 1: Material and their source Cont.… (Methods and Materials)
  • 37.
    37JUNE 2020 Plastic materialThickness (µ) Softening point (°C) Biscuit cover 40 160-170 Milk pouch 60 100-120 Table 2: Waste plastics and their parameters. Cont.… (Methods and Materials)
  • 38.
    38JUNE 2020 Test Testmethod Result Code specification Specific gravity test IS: 1202-1978 1.0 0.98-1.01 Penetration value test 25°C, 100 g, 5 s, (d mm) IS: 1203-1978 68 60-70 Softening point test (°C) IS: 334-1982 52 50-55 Table 3: Characterization of binder. Cont.… (Methods and Materials)
  • 39.
    39JUNE 2020 Test Testmethod Result Code specification Aggregate Impact value (%) IS: 2386 (Part Ⅳ) 1963 8-11 <30 Aggregate crushing value test (%) IS: 2386 (Part Ⅳ) 1963 18.30 <45 Aggregate abrasion value test(%) IS: 2386 (Part Ⅳ) 1963 23.47 <30 Shape test (%) IS: 2386 (Part Ⅰ) 1963 FE: 13 EE: 11 FE+EE < 30 Specific gravity test IS: 2386 (Part Ⅳ) 1963 20mm: 2.67 10mm: 2.67 Stone dust: 2.64 2.5 - 3 Table 4: Characterization of aggregates. Cont.… (Methods and Materials)
  • 40.
    JUNE 2020 40 Fig.3: Shredded milk pouch plastic (LDPE)
  • 41.
    JUNE 2020 41 Fig.4: Shredded biscuit cover(PP)
  • 42.
  • 43.
    43JUNE 2020 Collection of aggregate Collectionof bitumen Collection of waste plastic Characterization tests Blending of aggregate OBC determination Preparation of conventional samples Preparation of modified samples Evaluation of samples by WTD Comparison of different samples Conclusion and recommendations Methodology chart
  • 44.
    44JUNE 2020 Cont.… (LaboratoryInvestigation) Blending of Aggregates Intermixing of two or more fine or coarse aggregate to produce a combination of aggregates with improved gradation and other properties Materials blended were CA 20 mm, CA 10 mm, stone dust and cement Trial and Error method was adopted, Proportion was varied until the required aggregate gradation was achieved.
  • 45.
    45JUNE 2020 Formula: P= Aa + Bb + Cc + Dd Where, P = % of material passing a given sieve for the blended aggregate A (CA 20mm), B (CA 10mm), C (SD) and D (cement). A, B, C and D = % of material passing a given sieve for each constituent of mix A, B, C and D. a, b, c and d = proportion (decimal fractions) of constituent A, B, C and D to be used in blend. (a + b + c + d = 100) Cont.… (Laboratory Investigation)
  • 46.
    46JUNE 2020 Marshall Mixdesign To determine OBC Samples were prepared at 4.5%, 5%, 5.5%, 6% and 6.5% Cont.… (Laboratory Investigation)
  • 47.
    47JUNE 2020 Mixture componentsCA I, CAII, Stone dust,Cement,Binder Weight 1200 gms Height 60-63 mm Diameter 100mm Mixing temperature 160°C Compaction temperature 150°C Testing temperature 60°C Table 5: Marshall mix design Cont.… (Laboratory Investigation)
  • 48.
    48JUNE 2020 Optimum bitumencontent (OBC) was found by taking average value of the following three bitumen contents . 1. Bitumen content at maximum stability value. 2. Bitumen content at maximum bulk density. 3. Bitumen content at 4% air voids. The flow value, volume of bitumen, VFB and VMA were checked for MoRTH, 2013 specification. Cont.… (Laboratory Investigation)
  • 49.
    JUNE 2020 49 Fig.5: Marshall Samples
  • 50.
    50JUNE 2020 Wheel trackertesting It is a laboratory arrangement to simulate the movement of wheel on the pavement Two types of samples were prepared – conventional and modified with plastic waste. Dry process was used to prepare waste plastic mix. Test was done by two procedures – procedure A (1000 load cycles / 15 mm) and procedure B (10000 load cycles / 20 mm). Cont.… (Laboratory Investigation)
  • 51.
    JUNE 2020 51 Mixturecomponents CA I, CA II, Stone dust, cement, Binder Weight 11 kgs L X B 305mm X305mm Height 50mm Mixing temperature 160°C Compaction temperature 150°C Testing temperature 60°C Table 6: Wheel tracker design
  • 52.
    52JUNE 2020 Procedure Aparameters Rut depth (RD). Proportional rut depth( PRD) PRD = (RD/50) X 100 It is the rut depth at the end of the test Cont.… (Laboratory Investigation)
  • 53.
    53JUNE 2020 Wheel trackingrate ( WTR) WTR = 3 rn + rn-1 – rn-2 – 3 rn-3 (as per EN 12697– 22:2003(E) ) Where, n is the total number of readings taken at 100 load cycles interval up to 1000 load cycles, excluding the initial reading ri is the change in vertical displacement from the initial value, r0, to the i relevant reading, in millimeters (mm ) Cont.… (Laboratory Investigation)
  • 54.
    54JUNE 2020 Rut resistanceindex (RRI) RRI = N X (1-RD) Where, N = no. of cycles at the completion of test RD = rut depth in inches at completion of test, assuming the max allowable rut depth is below 1 inch. Cont.… (Laboratory Investigation)
  • 55.
    55JUNE 2020 Procedure Bparameters Rut depth (RD). It is the rut depth at the end of the test Proportional rut depth( PRD) PRD = (RD/50) X 100 Cont.… (Laboratory Investigation)
  • 56.
    56JUNE 2020 Wheel trackingslope (WTSAIR) WTSAIR = (d10000 – d5000) 5 Where, d5000, d10000 is the rut depth after 5000 load cycles and 10000 load cycles, in mm Cont.… (Laboratory Investigation)
  • 57.
    57JUNE 2020 Rut resistanceindex (RRI) RRI = N X (1-RD) Where, N = no. of cycles at the completion of test RD = rut depth in inches at completion of test, assuming the max allowable rut depth is below 1 inch. Cont.… (Laboratory Investigation)
  • 58.
    58JUNE 2020 Dynamic stability(DS) DS = N (t2 – t1) (d2 – d1) Where, t2 = 60 minute t1 = 45 minute d2 = deformation at 60th minute d1 = deformation at 45th minute N = speed of test wheel rolling (26.8 times/minute) Cont.… (Laboratory Investigation)
  • 59.
    59JUNE 2020 Complex stabilityindex (CSI) CSI = N (t2 – t1) d1 (d2 – d1) Where, t2 = 60 minute t1 = 45 minute d2 = deformation at 60th minute d1 = deformation at 45th minute N = speed of test wheel rolling (26.8 times/minute) Cont.… (Laboratory Investigation)
  • 60.
    60JUNE 2020 Fig. 6:Aggregates before coating
  • 61.
    61JUNE 2020 Fig. 7:Aggregates after coating
  • 62.
    62JUNE 2020 Fig. 8:WTD sample before testing
  • 63.
    63JUNE 2020 Fig. 9:WTD sample after testing Fig. 9: WTD sample after testing
  • 64.
    64JUNE 2020 Fig. 10:WTD sample after testing at different plastic contents.
  • 65.
    JUNE 2020 65 Fig.11: wheel tracker device
  • 66.
    JUNE 2020 66 Fig.12: Roller compactor
  • 67.
    67JUNE 2020 Fig. 13:Wheel tracker device set-up.
  • 68.
    JUNE 2020 68 RESULTSAND DISCUSSIONS
  • 69.
    69JUNE 2020 Blending ofAggregates Material % composition 20mm 17 10mm 25 SD 55 Cement 3 Table 7: Constituents and their composition Cont.… (Results and Discussions)
  • 70.
    70JUNE 2020 Sieve,mm lowerlimit,% upper limit,% Observed,% 19.00 100 100 98.97 13.20 90 100 90.64 9.50 70 88 77.31 4.75 53 71 58.31 2.36 42 58 50.55 1.18 34 48 36.06 0.60 26 38 30.94 0.30 18 28 18.38 0.15 12 20 13.89 0.075 4 10 4.78 Table 8: MoRTH , 2013 specification and observed values Cont.… (Results and Discussions)
  • 71.
    71JUNE 2020 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 19 13.29.5 4.75 2.36 1.18 0.6 0.3 0.15 0.075 %Passing Sieve size,mm lower limit upper limit observed values Fig. 14: Gradation envelope obtained Cont.… (Results and Discussions)
  • 72.
    72JUNE 2020 Marshall Mixdesign S.NO Properties Bitumen content % MoRTH specifica tions.4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 1 Marshall stability value, KN 9.79 11.77 12.88 10.72 10.44 Min 9 2 Flow value, mm 2.25 2.31 2.45 3.35 4.26 2-4 3 Theoretical maximum density, gm/cc 2.43 2.41 2.39 2.37 2.35 - 4 Bulk density, gm/cc 2.28 2.29 2.30 2.28 2.27 - 5 Volume of air voids, % 5.97 5.03 4.06 3.82 3.24 3-5 6 Volume of bitumen, % 10.28 11.45 12.63 13.71 14.82 - 7 Voids in mineral aggregate, % 11.38 11.54 11.68 12.26 12.65 >15 8 Voids filled with bitumen, % 63.25 69.48 75.68 78.23 82.06 65-75 9 Optimum bitumen content 5.5 Min 5.4 Table 9: Properties of bituminous mix
  • 73.
    JUNE 2020 73 Graphsobtained for Marshall mix design 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 Stability,kN Bitumen content,% Stability vs Bitumen content Fig. 15: Stability vs bitumen content graph 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 Flow,mm Bitumen content % Flow vs Bitumen content Fig. 16: Flow value vs bitumen content graph 2.275 2.280 2.285 2.290 2.295 2.300 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 Bulkdensity,gm/cc Bitumen content,% Bulk density vs Bitumen content Fig. 17: Bulk density vs bitumen content graph 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7VA% Bitumen content % VA,% vs Bitumen content Fig. 18: air void vs bitumen content graph
  • 74.
    JUNE 2020 74 35.00 45.00 55.00 65.00 75.00 85.00 44.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 VFB,% Bitumen content,% VFB,% vs Bitumen content,% Fig. 19: VFB vs bitumen content graph 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 VMA% Bitumen content,% VMA,% vs Bitumen Content,% Fig. 20: VMA vs bitumen content graph
  • 75.
    JUNE 2020 75 WheelTracker testing Sample No. RD (mm) PRD (%) WTR(µm/ cycle) RRI (NA) 1 4.45 8.89 2.15 824.80 2 4.14 8.28 2.08 837.00 3 4.04 8.09 1.90 840.94 4 4.19 8.38 2.04 835.04 5 4.21 8.43 2.01 834.25 6 4.37 8.74 2.15 827.95 Avg. 4.23 8.46 2.05 833.33 Table 10: Results of conventional mixes (Procedure A)
  • 76.
    JUNE 2020 76 Sample No. RD(mm) PRD (%) WTSAIR (mm/103 load cycles) RRI (NA) DS (load cycles/ mm) CSI (load cycles/ mm2) 1 10.43 20.87 0.506 5893.70 705.26 161.38 2 10.49 20.99 0.496 5870.07 717.85 158.81 3 10.62 21.24 0.484 5818.89 705.26 151.34 Avg. 10.51 21.03 0.495 5860.88 709.45 157.17 Table 11: Results of conventional mixes (Procedure B) Cont.… (Results and Discussions)
  • 77.
    JUNE 2020 77 Rutting Parameters MixtureType 4% LDPE Mix 6% LDPE Mix 8% LDPE Mix 10% LDPE Mix 12% LDPE Mix RD (mm) 3.66 3.51 2.86 2.53 2.26 PRD (%) 7.38 7.02 5.73 5.07 4.52 WTR (µm/cycle) 1.64 1.61 1.28 1.12 1.09 RRI (NA) 854.72 861.67 887.33 900.12 911.02 Table 12: Results of LDPE modified mixes (Procedure A) Cont.… (Results and Discussions)
  • 78.
    JUNE 2020 78 Rutting Parameters MixtureType 4% LDPE Mix 6% LDPE Mix 8% LDPE Mix 10% LDPE Mix 12% LDPE Mix RD (mm) 8.17 7.30 6.41 5.64 5.02 PRD (%) 16.35 14.6 12.83 11.28 10.04 WTSAIR,(mm/103 load cycles) 0.368 0.337 0.295 0.259 0.230 RRI (NA) 6780.83 7126.08 7437.74 7779.52 8023.62 DS (load cycles/mm) 928.13 1068.43 1257.06 1405.02 1608.00 CSI (load cycles/mm2) 248.59 320.92 424.64 542.56 696.24 Table 13: Results of LDPE modified mixes (Procedure B) Cont.… (Results and Discussions)
  • 79.
    JUNE 2020 79 Table14: Results of PP modified mixes (Procedure A) Rutting Parameters Mixture Type 4% PP Mix 6% PP Mix 8% PP Mix 10% PP Mix 12% PP Mix RD (mm) 3.85 3.74 3.44 2.94 2.54 PRD (%) 7.71 7.48 6.88 5.88 5.09 WTR (µm/cycle) 1.83 1.85 1.64 1.31 1.19 RRI (NA) 848.15 852.75 864.56 884.24 899.73 Cont.… (Results and Discussions)
  • 80.
    JUNE 2020 80 Table15: Results of PP modified mixes (Procedure B) Rutting Parameters Mixture Type 4% PP Mix 6% PP Mix 8% PP Mix 10% PP Mix 12% PP Mix RD (mm) 9.15 8.41 8.07 7.59 6.18 PRD (%) 18.31 16.83 16.15 15.18 12.37 WTSAIR,(mm/103 load cycles) 0.426 0.394 0.376 0.355 0.288 RRI (NA) 6395.01 6686.40 6820.20 7010.40 7624.67 DS (load cycles/mm) 764.10 874.01 880.38 973.09 1118.97 CSI (load cycles/mm2) 190.25 235.15 247.05 290.90 412.21 Cont.… (Results and Discussions)
  • 81.
    JUNE 2020 81 Rutting Parameters MixtureType Conv. Mix 4% LDPE Mix 6% LDPE Mix 8% LDPE Mix 10% LDPE Mix 12% LDPE Mix RD (mm) 4.23 3.66 3.51 2.86 2.53 2.26 PRD (%) 8.46 7.38 7.02 5.73 5.07 4.52 WTR (µm/cycle) 2.05 1.64 1.61 1.28 1.12 1.09 RRI (NA) 833.3 854.72 861.67 887.33 900.12 911.02 Table 16: Comparison between Conv. and LDPE modified mixes(Procedure A) Cont.… (Results and Discussions)
  • 82.
    JUNE 2020 82 4.23 3.663.51 2.86 2.53 2.26 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 CONV MIX 4% LDPE 6% LDPE 8% LDPE 10% LDPE 12% LDPE Rutdepth(mm) Type of mix Rut depth at 1000 load cycles Fig. 21: Rut depth at 1000 load cycles for conv. and LDPE modified mixes 2.05 1.64 1.61 1.28 1.12 1.09 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 CONV MIX 4% LDPE 6% LDPE 8% LDPE 10% LDPE 12% LDPE WTR(µm/loadcycle) Type of Mix Wheel Tracking Rate Fig. 22: Wheel Tracking rate for conv. and LDPE modified mixes
  • 83.
    JUNE 2020 83 833.33 854.72861.67 887.13 900.12 911.02 780 800 820 840 860 880 900 920 940 CONV MIX 4% LDPE 6% LDPE 8% LDPE 10% LDPE 12% LDPE RRI Type of mix Rut Resistance Index Fig. 23: Rut resistance index for conv. and LDPE modified mixes Rut depth reduction nearly 40% Wheel tracking rate reduction by nearly 39% RRI surged by 10%
  • 84.
    JUNE 2020 84 Rutting Parameters MixtureType Conv. Mix 4% LDPE Mix 6% LDPE Mix 8% LDPE Mix 10% LDPE Mix 12% LDPE Mix RD (mm) 10.51 8.17 7.30 6.41 5.64 5.02 PRD (%) 21.03 16.35 14.6 12.83 11.28 10.04 WTSAIR,(mm/ 103 load cycles) 0.495 0.368 0.337 0.295 0.259 0.230 RRI (NA) 5860.88 6780.83 7126.08 7437.74 7779.52 8023.62 DS (load cycles/mm) 709.45 928.13 1068.43 1257.06 1405.02 1608.00 CSI (load cycles/mm2) 157.17 248.59 320.92 424.64 542.56 696.24 Table 17: Comparison between Conv. and LDPE modified mixes(Procedure B) Cont.… (Results and Discussions)
  • 85.
    JUNE 2020 85 10.51 8.17 7.3 6.41 5.645.02 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 CONV MIX 4% LDPE 6% LDPE 8% LDPE 10% LDPE 12% LDPE Rutdepth(mm) Type of mix Rut depth at 10000 load cycles Fig. 24: Rut depth at 10000 load cycles for conv. and LDPE modified mixes 0.495 0.368 0.337 0.295 0.259 0.23 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 CONV MIX 4% LDPE 6% LDPE 8% LDPE 10% LDPE 12% LDPE WTSair(mm/10^3load cycles) Type of mix Wheel Tracking slope Fig. 25: Wheel tracking slope for conv. and LDPE modified mixes
  • 86.
    JUNE 2020 86 5860.88 6780.837126.08 7473.74 7779.52 8023.62 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 CONV MIX 4% LDPE 6% LDPE 8% LDPE 10% LDPE 12% LDPE RRI Type of mix Rut resistance index Fig. 26: Rut resistance index for conv. and LDPE modified mixes 709.45 928.13 1068.43 1257.06 1405.02 1608 0 500 1000 1500 2000 CONV MIX 4% LDPE 6% LDPE 8% LDPE 10% LDPE 12% LDPE DS(loadcycle/mm) Type of mix Dynamic stability Fig. 27: Dynamic stability for conv. and LDPE modified mixes
  • 87.
    JUNE 2020 87 157.17 248.59 320.92 424.64 542.56 696.24 0 200 400 600 800 CONVMIX 4% LDPE 6% LDPE 8% LDPE 10% LDPE 12% LDPE CSI(loadcycles/mm^2) Type of mix Complex stability index Fig. 28: Complex stability Index for conv. and LDPE modified mixes Rut depth and slope reduction of almost 50% DS and CSI displayed considerable improvement RRI improved by nearly 30%
  • 88.
    JUNE 2020 88 Table18: Comparison between Conv. and PP modified mixes(Procedure A) Rutting Parameters Mixture Type Conv. Mix 4% PP Mix 6% PP Mix 8% PP Mix 10% PP Mix 12% PP Mix RD (mm) 4.23 3.85 3.74 3.44 2.94 2.54 PRD (%) 8.46 7.71 7.48 6.88 5.88 5.09 WTR (µm/cycle) 2.05 1.83 1.85 1.64 1.31 1.19 RRI (NA) 833.33 848.15 852.75 864.56 884.24 899.73 Cont.… (Results and Discussions)
  • 89.
    JUNE 2020 89 Fig.29: Rut depth at 1000 load cycles for conv. and PP modified mixes 4.23 3.85 3.74 3.44 2.94 2.54 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 CONV MIX 4% PP 6% PP 8% PP 10% PP 12% PP Rutdepth(mm) Type of mix Rut depth at 1000 load cycles 2.05 1.83 1.85 1.64 1.31 1.19 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 CONV MIX 4% PP 6% PP 8% PP 10% PP 12% PP WTR(µm/cycle) Type of mix Wheel tracking rate Fig. 30: Wheel tracking rate for conv. and PP modified mixes
  • 90.
    JUNE 2020 90 833.33 848.15852.75 864.56 884.24 899.73 780 800 820 840 860 880 900 920 CONV MIX 4% PP 6% PP 8% PP 10% PP 12% PP RRI Type of Mix Rut resistance index Fig. 31: Rut resistance index for conv. and PP modified mixes Rut depth reduction of nearly 35% WTR dropped around 38% RRI value increased up to 8%
  • 91.
    JUNE 2020 91 Rutting Parameters MixtureType Conv. Mix 4% PP Mix 6% PP Mix 8% PP Mix 10% PP Mix 12% PP Mix RD (mm) 10.51 9.15 8.41 8.07 7.59 6.18 PRD (%) 21.03 18.31 16.83 16.15 15.18 12.37 WTSAIR,(mm/ 103 load cycles) 0.495 0.426 0.394 0.376 0.355 0.288 RRI (NA) 5860.88 6395.01 6686.40 6820.20 7010.40 7624.67 DS (load cycles/mm) 709.45 764.10 874.01 880.38 973.09 1118.97 CSI (load cycles/mm2) 157.17 190.25 235.15 247.05 290.90 412.21 Table 19: Comparison between Conv. and PP modified mixes(Procedure B) Cont.… (Results and Discussions)
  • 92.
    JUNE 2020 92 10.51 9.15 8.418.07 7.59 6.18 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 CONV MIX 4% PP 6% PP 8% PP 10% PP 12% PP Rutdepth(mm) Type of mix Rut depth at 10000 load cycle Fig. 32: Rut depth at 1000 load cycles for conv. and PP modified mixes 0.495 0.426 0.394 0.376 0.355 0.288 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 CONV MIX 4% PP 6% PP 8% PP 10% PP 12% PP WTSair(mm/10^3load cycles) Type of mix Wheel tracking slope Fig. 33: Wheel tracking slope for conv. and PP modified mixes
  • 93.
    JUNE 2020 93 5860.886395.01 6686.4 6820.2 7010.49 7624.67 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 CONV MIX 4% PP 6% PP 8% PP 10% PP 12% PP RRI Type of mix Rut resistance index Fig. 34: Rut resistance index for conv. and PP modified mixes 709.45 764.1 874.01 880.38 973.09 1118.97 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 CONV MIX 4% PP 6% PP 8% PP 10% PP 12% PP DS(loadcycle/mm) Type of mix Dynamic stability Fig. 35: Dynamic stability for conv. and PP modified mixes
  • 94.
    JUNE 2020 94 157.17 190.25 235.15247.05 290.9 412.21 0 100 200 300 400 500 CONV MIX 4% PP 6% PP 8% PP 10% PP 12% PP CSI(loadcyckle/mm^2) Type of mix Complex stability index Fig. 36: Complex stability index for conv. and PP modified mixes Rut depth and slope value went down by almost 40% RRI showed 25% improvement. Considerable improvement in DS and CSI values
  • 95.
    JUNE 2020 95 Rutting Parameters MixtureType 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% LDPE PP LDPE PP LDPE PP LDPE PP LDPE PP Rut depth (mm) 3.66 3.85 3.51 3.74 2.86 3.44 2.53 2.94 2.26 2.54 PRD (%) 7.38 7.71 7.02 7.48 5.73 6.88 5.07 5.88 4.52 5.09 WTR (µm/cycle) 1.64 1.83 1.61 1.85 1.28 1.64 1.12 1.31 1.09 1.19 RRI (NA) 854. 72 848. 15 861. 67 852. 75 887. 13 864. 56 900. 12 884. 24 911. 02 899. 73 Table 20: Comparison between LDPE and PP modified mixes(Procedure A) Cont.… (Results and Discussions)
  • 96.
    JUNE 2020 96 3.663.51 2.86 2.53 2.26 3.85 3.74 3.44 2.94 2.54 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 4% MIX 6% MIX 8% MIX 10% MIX 12% MIX RD(mm) Type of mix Rut depth LDPE PP Fig. 37: Rut depth at 1000 load cycles for LDPE and PP modified mixes 1.64 1.61 1.28 1.12 1.09 1.83 1.85 1.64 1.31 1.19 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 4% MIX 6% MIX 8% MIX 10% MIX 12% MIX WTR(µm/cycle) Type of mix Wheel tracking rate LDPE PP Fig. 38: Wheel tracking rate for LDPE and PP modified mixes
  • 97.
    JUNE 2020 97 854.72 861.67 887.13 900.12 911.02 848.15852.75 864.56 884.24 899.73 800.00 820.00 840.00 860.00 880.00 900.00 920.00 4% MIX 6% MIX 8% MIX 10% MIX 12% MIX RRI Type of mix Rut resistance index LDPE PP Fig. 39: Rut resistance index for LDPE and PP modified mixes On an average, LDPE samples demonstrated 10% lower rut depth. LDPE sample had 15% lower WTR values. RRI values obtained for both the samples were almost similar.
  • 98.
    JUNE 2020 98 Rutting parameters MixtureType 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% LDPE PP LDPE PP LDPE PP LDPE PP LDPE PP RD (mm) 8.17 9.15 7.30 8.41 6.41 8.07 5.64 7.59 5.02 6.18 PRD (%) 16.35 18.31 14.6 16.83 12.83 16.15 11.28 15.18 10.04 12.37 WTSAIR (mm/103 load cycles) 0.368 0.426 0.337 0.394 0.295 0.376 0.259 0.355 0.230 0.288 RRI (NA) 6780.83 6395.01 7126.08 6686.40 7473.74 6820.20 7779.52 7010.49 8023.62 7624.67 DS (load cycles/mm) 928.13 764.10 1068.43 874.01 1257.06 880.38 1405.02 973.04 1608.00 1118.97 CSI (load cycles/mm2) 248.59 190.25 320.92 235.15 424.64 247.05 542.56 290.90 696.24 412.21 Table 21: Comparison between LDPE and PP modified mixes(Procedure B) Cont.… (Results and Discussions)
  • 99.
    JUNE 2020 99 Fig.40: Rut depth at 10000 load cycles for LDPE and PP modified mixes 8.17 7.30 6.41 5.64 5.02 9.15 8.41 8.07 7.59 6.18 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 4% MIX 6% MIX 8% MIX 10% MIX 12% MIX RD(mm) Type of mix Rut depth LDPE PP 0.368 0.337 0.295 0.259 0.230 0.426 0.394 0.376 0.355 0.288 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 4% MIX 6% MIX 8% MIX 10% MIX 12% MIX WTSair(mm/10^3loadcycle) Type of mix Wheel tracking slope LDPE PP Fig. 41: Wheel tracking slope for LDPE and PP modified mixes
  • 100.
    JUNE 2020 100 6780.83 7126.08 7473.74 7779.52 8023.62 6395.01 6686.40 6820.20 7010.49 7642.67 0.00 2000.00 4000.00 6000.00 8000.00 10000.00 4%MIX 6% MIX 8% MIX 10% MIX 12% MIX RRI Type of mix Rut resistance index LDPE PP Fig. 42: Rut resistance index for LDPE and PP modified mixes 928.13 1068.43 1257.06 1405.02 1608.00 764.10 847.01 880.38 973.09 1118.97 0.00 500.00 1000.00 1500.00 2000.00 4% MIX 6% MIX 8% MIX 10% MIX 12% MIX DS(loadcycles/mm) Type of mix Dynamic stability LDPE PP Fig. 43: Dynamic stability for LDPE and PP modified mixes
  • 101.
    JUNE 2020 101 248.59 320.92 424.64 542.56 696.24 190.25 235.15 247.05 290.90 412.21 0.00 200.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 4%MIX 6% MIX 8% MIX 10% MIX 12% MIX CSI(loadcycles/mm^2) Type of mix Complex stability index LDPE PP Fig. 44: Complex stability index index for LDPE and PP modified mixes LDPE samples produced around 15% lower rut depth. Slope value of LDPE was nearly 18% lower than PP mix. RRI values differed by around 7% DS and CSI value for LDPE were around 30% higher than PP mixes.
  • 102.
  • 103.
    JUNE 2020 103 Ruttingdepth decreased on adding plastic as an additive. Rut depth varied inversely with plastic content. Parameters such as WTR, WTS, RRI, DS and CSI showed improved performance on mixing plastic. LDPE plastic demonstrated better performance than PP plastic. Suitability of wheel tracker device to assess rutting potential has been established in this research. Cont.… (Conclusions)
  • 104.
    JUNE 2020 104 Cont.…(Conclusions) Recommendations Maximum improvement was observed for 8-10% plastic content. Therefore, the optimum percentage of plastic content is 8-10% by weight of bitumen. LDPE mix demonstrated around 15% better performance than PP mix. Therefore, it is a better additive.
  • 105.
    JUNE 2020 105 Futurescope of work Other plastics such as PET, PVC, PS etc. should also investigated for their efficacy as an additive. Similar research for DBM mix. Cont.… (Conclusions) Air void ratio of samples should be examined for better correlation
  • 106.
  • 107.
    JUNE 2020 107 Banerjee,A., Smit, A.F. and Prozzi, J.A. (2012). "Influence of operational tolerances on HMA performance." Construction and Building Materials , 27, 15-23. Brovelli, C., Crispino, M., Pais, J. and Pereira, P. (2015). "Using polymers to improve the rutting resistance of asphalt concrete." Construction and Building Materials , 77, 117-123 Chaturabong, P. and Bahia, H.U. (2017). "Mechanisms of asphalt mixture rutting in the dry Hamburg Wheel Tracking test and the potential to be alternative test in measuring rutting resistance.“ Construction and Building Materials , 146, 175-182 Doh, Y.S., Yun, K.K., Amirkhanian, S.N. and Kim, K.W. (2007). "Framework for developing a static strength test for measuring deformation resistance of asphalt concrete mixtures". Construction and Building Materials , 21, 2047-2058. Dong, N., Fujian, Ni., Zhou, L. and Mab, X. (2016). "Comparison of the Hamburg, indirect tensile, and multi-sequenced repeated load tests for evaluation of HMA rutting resistance.". Construction and Building Materials , 216, 588-598. Fakhri, M. and Hosseini, S.A. (2017). "Laboratory evaluation of rutting and moisture damage resistance of glass fiber modified warm mix asphalt incorporating high RAP proportion.". Construction and Building Materials , 134, 626-640. Gibreil, H.A.A. and Fang, C.P. (2017). "Effects of high-density polyethylene and crumb rubber powder as modifiers on properties of hot mix asphalt". Construction and Building Materials , 142, 101-108. Grebenschikov, S. and Prozzi, J.A. (2011). "Enhancing Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design Guide Rutting Performance Predictions with Hamburg Wheel-Tracking Results.". Journal of the Transportation Research Board (pp. 111-118). Washington D.C. Transportation Research Record EN 12697 -22 (2003). Bituminous mixtures - Test methods for hot mix asphalt - Part 22: Wheel tracking. EN 12697 -33 (2003). Bituminous mixtures - Test methods for hot mix asphalt - Part 33: Specimen prepared by roller compactor IRC: SP:98 (2013). Guidelines for the use of waste plastic in hot bituminous mixes (dry process) in wearing courses Javilla, B., Fang, H., Mo, L., Shu, B. and Wu, S. (2017). "Test evaluation of rutting performance indicators of asphalt mixtures". Construction and Building Materials , 155, 1215-1223
  • 108.
    JUNE 2020 108 Khan,S., Nagabhusana, M.N., Tiwari, D. and Jain, P.K. (2013). "Rutting in Flexible Pavement: An approach of evaluation with Accelerated Pavement Testing Facility.".Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences , 104, 149-157. Lu, Q. and Harvey, J.T. (2006). "Evaluation of Hamburg Wheel-Tracking Device Test with Laboratory and Field Performance Data.".Journal of the Transportation Research Board (pp. 25-44). Washington D.C: Transportation Research Record. Lv, Q., Huang, W., Sadek, W., Xiao, F. and Yan, C. (2019). "Investigation of the rutting performance of various modified asphalt mixtures using the Hamburg Wheel-Tracking Device test and Multiple Stress Creep Recovery test." Construction and Building Materials , 206, 62-70. Radhakrishnan, V., Chowdari, G.S., Reddy, K.S. and Chattaraj, R. (2019). "Evaluation of wheel tracking and field rutting susceptibility of dense bituminous mixes". Road Materials and Pavement Design , 20 (1), 90-109. Saboo, N. and Kumar, P. (2016). "Analysis of Different Test Methods for Quantifying Rutting Susceptibility of Asphalt Binders.“ J. Mater. Civ. Eng. , 28 (7), (1-8). Tsai, B., Coleri, E., Harvey, J.T. and Monismith, C.L. (2016). "Evaluation of AASHTO T 324 Hamburg-Wheel Track Device test.". Construction and Building Materials , 114, 248-260. Wang, H., Zhang, Q. and Tan, J. (2009). "Investigation of Layer Contributions to Asphalt Pavement Rutting." J. Mater. Civ. Eng , 21 (4), 181-185. Xu, T., Wang, H., Li, Z. and Zhao, Y. (2014). "Evaluation of permanent deformation of asphalt mixtures using different laboratory performance tests". Construction and Building Materials , 53, 561-567. Yinfei, D., Jiaqi, C., Zheng, H. and Weizheng, L. (2018). "A review on solutions for improving rutting resistance of asphalt pavement and test methods." Construction and Building Materials , 168, 893-905. Zhang, W., Shen, S., Wu, S. and Mohammad, L.N. (2017). "Prediction Model for Field Rut Depth of Asphalt Pavement Based on Hamburg Wheel Tracking Test Properties." J. Mater. Civ. Eng , 29 (9), 1-10. Ziari, H., Kaliji, A.G. and Babagoli, R. (2016). "Laboratory evaluation of the effect of waste plastic bottle (PET) on rutting performance of hotmix asphalt mixtures". Petroleum science amd technology , 34, 819-823.
  • 109.
    109JUNE 2020 THANK YOU PRESENTED BY: AMIT KUMAR ROLL NO. 1824007