CRPB Project 1 Merged

A
Project Report
on
USE OF WASTE PLASTIC AND CRUMB RUBBER IN
CONSTRUCTION OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS
Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the
degree of
BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY
IN
CIVIL ENGINEERING
Submitted by
N.RAMYA 17KH1A0106
M.BHARGAVA 18KH5A0101
SK.REYAZ 17KH1A0118
B.SRINIVASARAO 17KH1A0108
K.VENKATA SUMANTH 17KH1A0123
Under the Esteemed Guidance of

S.MAHESWARI M.Tech
Assistant professor
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

NARASARAOPETA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
(Approved by AICTE, New Delhi; Affiliated to JNTUK, Kakinada
& ISO 9001:2015Certified)
NARASARAOPET, Guntur – 522 601, A.P
2017-2021
NARASARAOPETA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
(Approved by AICTE, New Delhi; Affiliated to JNTUK, Kakinada
& ISO 9001:2015Certified)
NARASARAOPET, Guntur – 522 601, A.P
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the report “Use of waste plastic and crumb rubber
in construction of flexible pavements” entitled is the bonafied work of N.RAMYA
(17KH1A0106), M.BHARGAVA (18KH5A0101), SK.REYAZ (17KH1A0118),
B.SRINIVASARAO (17KH1A0108), K.VENKATA SUMANTH (17KH1A0123)
submitted for the partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the degree
of Bachelor of Technology in Civil Engineering by JNTUK, Kakinada during the
academic year 2017- 2021.
GUIDE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT

S.MAHESWARI M.Tech M.RAMESH BABU M.Tech
Assistant professor Assistant professor
External Examiner
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We are very much thankful to our guide S.MAHESWARI Assistant Professor, Narasaraopeta
Institute of Technology, Narsaraopeta, Guntur (Dt) for the encouragement and constant support to
carry out this work successfully.
We would like to take this opportunity to express our gratitude to our Chairman SRI M.V.
KOTESWARA RAO, B.Sc and our Principal DR.P.HARIKRISHNA PRASAD B.Tech, M.Tech,
Ph.D, MIEEE, MISTE, MACSIT for giving us this opportunity to do the project work.
We are very much thankful to M.RAMESH BABU M.Tech, Head of the Department of Civil
Engineering.
We are also thankful to all our faculty members for their suggestions and the moral support extended
by them.
We place our gratitude to all our friends and well wishers who helped directly or indirectly to
complete this project work.
Finally we would like to extend our heartfelt thanks to our beloved parents whose blessings and
encouragement were always there as source of strengths and inspiration.
Submitted by
N.RAMYA 17KH1A0106
M.BHARGAVA 18KH5A0101
SK.REYAZ 17KH1A0118
B.SRINIVASARAO 17KH1A0108
K.VENKATA SUMANTH 17KH1A0123
Ⅰ
ABSTRACT
Generation of plastic waste and rubber waste is increasing day by day and the necessity to dispose of
this waste in a proper way is arising. Nowadays pavements are subjected to various kinds of loading
which affects the pavement performance condition that causes various distresses. Use of plastic and
rubber in pavement design as an innovative technology not only strengthened the road construction
but also increase the road life.
In this study, different tests were conducted on aggregates, bitumen, and bituminous mixes. The effect
of the addition of waste plastic in the form of locally available PET bottles had been checked on
aggregates as well as on bitumen. As per visual inspection, 4%, 6%, 8% and 10% plastic coating was
made on aggregates and sample were checked for crushing, impact, water absorption and coating and
stripping value.
Effect of addition of waste plastic and crumb rubber on bitumen had been studied by varying
concentrations of CRP from 0% to 12.5% i.e. 0%, 5%, 7.5%, 10% and 12.5% in bitumen. Various
tests such as penetration, ductility, softening point, flash and fire point were performed on the
samples. The optimum percentage was taken from these tests which had shown satisfactory results
for all the tests performed. Later, that optimum percentage value was used for preparing bituminous
mixes for testing pavement properties such as Marshall Stability, Marshall Flow values.
As per the test results, in DBM and BC about 7.5% and 10% plastic waste with crumb rubber
replacement in bitumen shows better results than conventional bitumen as well as 10% plastic coating
to aggregates also improve the load-bearing capacity.
By using plastic waste in flexible pavement design, the problem of plastic and waste rubber disposal
gets solved as well as the performance of roads gets improved.
Keywords— Pavement, Bitumen, Waste plastic, Crumb rubber, Plastic coated aggregate, CRPB(Crumb rubber with
bitumen).
Ⅱ
DECLARATION
We (N.RAMYA(17KH1A0106),M.BHARGAVA(18KH5A0101),SK.REYAZ(17KH1A0118),
B.SRINIVASARAO(17KH1A0108),K.VENKATA SUMANTH(17KH1A0123)), the Students
of the NARASARAOPETA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, here by this project titled
“USE OF WASTE PLASTIC AND CRUMB RUBBER IN CONSTRUCTION OF
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS” being submitted to the department of Civil Engineering,
NARASARAOPETA INSTITUTION OF TECHNOLOGY, Kotappakonda road, Yellamanda,
Narasaraopeta, Guntur district.
This is a bonafied work done by us and it’s not been submitted to any other institution or
university for the award of any degree.
Project Associates:
N.RAMYA
M.BHARGAVA
SK.REYAZ
B.SRINIVASARAO
K.VENKATA SUMANTH
Ⅲ
INDEX
TOPICS Page No
Acknowledgement I
Abstract II
Declaration III
List of Figures VI
List of Tables Ⅷ
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION ( 1-7 )
1.1 General
1.2 Binder modification
1.2.1 purpose of Bitumen modification
1.2.2 Advantages of Bitumen modification
1.3 Crumb Rubber
1.4 Plastic
1.5 Utilizing the waste plastic and crumb rubber
1.6 Objective of study
Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ( 8-13 )
2.1 General review about crumb rubber in different bituminous mixes

2.2 General review about plastic in different bituminous mixes
Chapter 3: EXPERMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS ( 14-45 )
3.1 General
3.2 Materials used
3.2.1 Aggregates
3.2.1.1 Coarse aggregate
3.2.1.2 Fine aggregate
3.2.2 Filler
3.2.3 Crumb rubber
3.2.4 Plastic
3.2.5 Binder
3.3 Tests for aggregates
3.3.1 Crushing value test
3.3.2 Impact value test
3.3.3 Coating and Stripping of bitumen aggregate mix
3.3.4 Water absorption
Ⅳ
3.4 Tests for bitumen
3.4.1 penetration test
3.4.2 Softening point test
3.4.3 Ductility test
3.4.4 Flash and fire point test
3.5 Sample preparation

3.5.1 Marshall sampling mould
3.5.2 Mixing procedure
3.5.3 Calculation involved
3.6 Void analysis

3.6.1 Mix volumetrics
3.7 Marshall testing
Chapter 4: ANALYSIS OF RESULTS ( 46-61 )
4.1 Plotting curves for aggregate tests

4.2 Plotting curves for bitumen tests
4.3 Optimum bitumen content
4.4 Plotting curves for marshall tests
4.5 Analysis
4.5.1 Finding optimum bitumen content
4.5.2 Finding optimum CRP content
Chapter 5: CONCLUSION ( 62 )
REFERENCE ( 63-72 )
Ⅴ
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO FIGURE NAME PAGE NO

1.1 CRUMB RUBBER SAMPLE 4
1.2 WASTE PLASTIC BOTTLE 7
3.1 AGGREGATE GRADATION CURVE FOR DBM 16
3.2 AGGREGATE GRADATION CURVE FOR BC 16
3.3 CRUSHING TEST SETUP 18
3.4 CRUSHING TEST SETUP UNDER UTM 19
3.5 IMPACT TEST SETUP 20
3.6 IMPACT TEST 20
3.7 AFTER COATING AND STRIPPING OF
BITUMEM AGGREGATE TEST 21
3.8 PENETRATION TEST OF BITUMEN 23
3.9 SOFTENING POINT TEST OF BITUMEN 24
3.10 DUCTILITY TEST OF BITUMEN 25
3.11 FLASH AND FIRE POINT TESTS OF BITUMEN 26
3.12(A) MARSHALL COMPACTION MOULD 27
3.12(B) MARSHALL HAMMER AND MOULDS 28
3.13 FRIED AGGREGATE 33
3.14 UNIFORM COLOUR THROUGHOUT THE MIX 33
3.15 MARSHALL SAMPLES REMOVING FROM MOULDS
3.16 CLOSER VIEW OF A MARSHALL SAMPLE 34

3.17 MARSHALL MOULDS FOR OBC DETERMINATION 35
3.18 LOOSE MIX (UN COMPACTED) FOR AIR VOIDS
CALCULATION 35
3.19 BULK SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST SETUP 37
3.20 MAXIMUM THEORETICAL SPECIFIC GRAVITY
TEST SETUP 38
3.21 PHASE DIAGRAM OF BITUMINOUS MIX 38
3.22 MARSHALL STABILITY TEST SETUP CLOSE VIEW 42
3.23 MARSHALL STABILITY TEST SETUP 43
Ⅵ
4.1 CRUSHING VALUE OF AGGREGATE VS % PLASTIC
COATED 46
4.2 IMPACT VALUE OF AGGREGATE VS % PLASTIC
COATED 47
4.3 WATER ABSORPTION VALUE OF AGGREGATE
VS % PLASTIC COATED 47
4.4 COATING AND STRIPPING VALUE OF AGGREGATE
VS % PLASTIC COATED 48
4.5 PENETRATION VALUE vs. CRP CONTENT 49
4.6 SOFTENING POINT VALUE vs. CRP CONTENT 50
4.7 DUCTILITY vs. BITUMEN CRP CONTENT 50
4.8 FLASH POINT vs. CRP CONTENT 51
4.9 FIRE POINT vs. CRP CONTENT 51
4.10 MARSHALL STABILITY vs. BITUMEN CONTENT 52
4.11 MARSHALL FLOW vs. BITUMEN CONTENT 52
4.12 MARSHALL STABILITY vs. BITUMEN CONCRET 53
4.13 MARSHALL FLOW vs. BITUMEN CONTENT 53
4.14 MARSHALL STABILITY VALUE vs. CRP CONTENT 55
4.15 MARSHALL FLOW VALUE vs. CRP CONTENT 55
4.16 VMA vs. CRP CONTENT 56
4.17 VA vs. CRP CONTENT 56
4.18 VFB vs. CRP CONTENT 57
4.19 BULK UNIT WEIGHT vs. CRP CONTENT 57
4.20 MARSHALL STABILITY VALUE vs. CRP CONTENT 58
4.21 MARSHALL FLOW VALUE vs. CRP CONTENT 59
4.22 VMA vs. BITUMEN CONTENT 59
4.23 VA vs. BITUMEN CONTENT 60
4.24 VFB vs. BITUMEN CONTENT 60
4.25 BULK UNIT WEIGHT vs. CRP CONTENT 61
Ⅶ
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO PAGE NO
1.1 TYPE OF PLASTICS 5
1.2 WASTE PLASTIC AND ITS SOURCES 5
3.1 MORTH GRADATION FOR DBM (NMAS 25 mm) 15

3.2 MORTH GRADATION FOR BC (NMAS 13 mm) 15
3.3 TESTS ON AGGREGATES 16
3.4 PROPERTIES OF BINDER 17
3.5 TESTS RESULTS OF AGGREAGATES 22
3.6 TESTS RESULTS OF MODIFIED BITUMEN 26
3.7 DIMENSIONS OF MORSHALL SAMPLING MOULD & HAMMER 27
3.8 AMOUNTS OF RAW MATERIALS FOR BC 31
3.9 AMOUNTS OF RAW MATERIALS FOR DBM 32
3.10 CALCULATION OF Gmb 39
3.11 MEAN CALCULATION OF Gmm 40
3.12 CALCULATION OF Gsb 41
3.13 MEAN CALCULATION OF VMA, VA, VFB 41
3.14 MARSHALL STABILITY FOR DBM & BC 44
3.15 MARSHALL STABILITY AND FLOW VALUES FOR DBM 44
3.16 MARSHALL STABILITY AND FLOW VALUES FOR BC 45
4.1 DATA FOR PLOTTING CURVES OF DBM 54

4.2 DATA FOR PLOTTING CURVES OF BC 58
Ⅷ
Use of waste plastic and crumb rubber in construction of flexible pavement 2021
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
India has a road network of over 5,472,144 kilometres (3,400,233 mi)as on 31 March 2015, the
second largest road network in the world. Road network is the mode of transportation which
serves as the feeder system as it is the nearest to the people. So the roads are to be maintained in
good condition. The quality of roads depends on materials used for construction. Pavements are
generally of two types: flexible and rigid pavement. A flexible pavement is the one which has a
bitumen coating on top and rigid pavements which are stiffer than flexible ones have PCC or
RCC on top. The flexible pavements are built in layers and it is ensured that under application of
load none of the layers are overstressed. The maximum intensity of stress occurs at top layer,
hence they are made from superior material mainly bitumen.
In the construction of flexible pavements, bitumen plays the role of binding the aggregate
together by coating over the aggregate. It also helps to improve the strength of the road. But
its resistance towards water is poor. Anti-stripping agents are being used. Bitumen is a sticky,
black and highly viscous liquid or semi-solid which can be found in some natural deposits or
obtained as by-product of fractional distillation of crude petroleum. It is the heaviest fraction
of crude oil, the one with highest boiling point (525°C) .Various Grades of Bitumen used for
pavement purpose:30/40, 60/70 and 80/100.
The desirable properties of bitumen for pavement are:

• Excellent binding property with aggregates, both cohesive and adhesive in nature.
• Repellant to water.
• Thermoplastic in nature (stiff when cold, liquid when hot).
It has primarily flexible pavement design which constitutes more than 98% of total road
network. Being a vast country, India has widely varying climates, terrains, construction
materials and mixed traffic conditions both in terms of loads and volumes. Increased traffic
factors are such as heavier loads, higher traffic volume and higher tyre pressure demand higher
performance pavements. So to minimize the damage of pavement surface and increase
Dept. of Civil Engg, NIT Narasaraopet Page 1

durability of flexible pavement, the conventional bitumen needs to be improved. There are so
many modification processes and additives that are currently used in bitumen modifications
such as styrene butadiene styrene (SBS), styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR), ethylene vinyl acetate
(EVA) and crumb rubber modifier (CRM).
1.2 Binder modification

Binder properties may be improved by different process and materials. Binder modification
has been driven by the increase in traffic loads, new refining technologies, enhancement in
polymer technology, the increasing need to recycle waste material such as plastic bag, plastic
bottle, rubber and etc.
When we use the bitumen modifier, selected polymer/rubber or a blend of two or more
modifier shall have the following properties:
• Compatible with bitumen,

• Resist degration at mixing temperature,
• Capable of being processed by conventional mixing and laying machinery,
• Produce required coating viscosity at application temperature and
• Maintain premium properties during storage, application and in-service.
The polymer and rubber modified bitumen shall be classified into four types as per
IS:15462.2004 given below:
a) Type A PMP(P) – Platomeric thermoplastics based,

b) Type B PMB(E) – Elastomeric thermoplastics based,
c) Type C NRMB – Natural rubber and SBR latex based and
d) Type D CRMB – Crumb rubber/treated crumb rubber based.
Type A, Type B and Type C shall be further classified into three grades according to their
penetration value and Type D shall be further classified into three grades according to their
softening point values as given below:
Grades of Type A PMB(P) : PMB(P) 120, PMB(P) 70 and PMB(P) 40,

Grades of Type B PMB(E) : PMB(E) 120, PMB(E) 70 and PMB(E) 40,
Grades of Type C NRMB : NRMB 120, NRMB 70 and NRMB 40,
Grades of Type D CRMB : CRMB 50, CRMB 55 and CRMB 60.

Note: PMB(P) 120, PMB(E) 120 and NRMB 120 means that corresponding to this grade has
penetration value between 90 to 150. PMB(P) 70, PMB(E) 70 and NRMB 70 means that
corresponding to this grade has penetration value between 50 to 90. PMB(P) 40, PMB(E) 40
and NRMB 40 means that corresponding to this grade has penetration value between 30 to 50
and CRMB 50, CRMB 55, CRMB 60 means that corresponding to this grade has softening
point value 500c, 550c and 600c minimum respectively.
1.2.1 Purpose of Bitumen modification

• To obtain softer blends at low temperature for reducing cracks.
• To increase the stability and strength of mixtures.
• To improve the asphalt cohesive strength in Pavements.
• To improve oxidation and resist aging.
• To reduce costs of pavement.
1.2.2 Advantages of Bitumen modification

• Lower susceptibility to daily &seasonal temperature variations.
• Higher resistance to deformation at elevated pavement temperature.
• Better age resistance properties, higher fatigue life of mixes.
• Better adhesion between aggregate & binder.
• Prevention of cracking & reflective cracking and
• Overall improved performance in extreme climatic conditions & under heavy traffic
condition.
1.3 Crumb Rubber

Crumb rubber is recycled rubber produced from automobiles and truck scraped tires. During
the recycling process of this rubber crumb, steel and tire cord (fluff) are removed, and tire
rubber are produced with a granular consistency. Crumb rubber usually consists of particles
ranging in size from 4.75 mm (No. 4 sieve) to less than 0.075 mm (No. 200 sieve). Most
processes that incorporate crumb rubber as an asphalt or bitumen modifier use particles
ranging in size from 0.6 mm to 0.15 mm (No. 30 to No. 100sieve).

Figure 1. Crumb rubber sample
Crumb rubber is manufactured from two primary feed stocks: tire buffing (shredded rubber),
a byproduct of tire retreading and scrap tire rubber. On average, 10 to 12 pounds of crumb
rubber can be derived from one passenger tire.
Crumb rubber used in hot mix asphalt normally has 100 percent of the particles finer than4.75
mm (No. 4 sieve). Although the majority of the particles used in the wet process are sized
within the 1.2 mm (No. 16 sieve) to 0.42 mm (No. 40 sieve) range, some crumb rubber
particles may be as fine as 0.075 mm (No. 200 sieve). The specific gravity of crumb rubber is
approximately 1.15, and the product must be free of fabric, wire, or other contaminants.
1.4 Plastic
A plastic is a type of synthetic or man-made polymer; similar in many ways to natural resins
found in trees and other plants. India’s consumption of Plastics will grow 15 million tonnes
by 2015 and is set to be the third largest consumer of plastics in the world. Various activities
like packing consume almost 50-60% of the total plastics manufactured .Plastic offer
advantages lightness, resilience, resistance to corrosion, colour, fastness, transparency, ease of
processing etc. The plastic constitutes two major category of plastics based on physical
properties; (i) Thermoplastics and (ii) Thermo set plastics. The thermoplastics, constitutes
80% and thermo set constitutes approximately 20% of total postconsumer plastics waste
generated .In a thermoplastic material the very long chain – like molecules are held together
by relatively weak Van der Waals forces. In thermosetting types of plastics the molecular are
held together by strong chemical bonds making it quite rigid materials and their mechanical
properties are not heat sensitive.

Table 1.1 Types of plastics

Thermoplastic Thermosetting
Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Bakelite
Polypropylene (PP) Epoxy
Polyvinyl Acetate (PVA) Melamine
Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Polyester
Polystyrene (PS) Polyurethane
Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE) Urea – Formaldehyde
High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) Alkyd
Table 1.2 Waste plastic and its sources

PET Drinking water bottles etc.,
PP Bottle caps and closures, wrappers of detergent, biscuit, vapors packets,
microwave trays for readymade meal etc.,
PVC Mineral water bottles, credit cards, toys, pipes and gutters; electrical fittings,
furniture, folders and pens, medical disposables; etc
PS Yoghurt pots, clear egg packs, bottle caps. Foamed Polystyrene: food trays,
egg boxes, disposable cups, protective packaging etc
LDPE Carry bags, sacks, milk pouches, bin lining, cosmetic and detergent bottles
HDPE Carry bags, bottle caps, house hold articles etc.
Plastics may be classified also according to their chemical sources. The twenty or more
known basic types fall into four general groups: Cellulose Plastics, Synthetic Resin Plastics,
Protein Plastics, Natural Resins, Elastomers and Fibers.
1.5 Utilizing the waste plastic and crumb rubber

Plastic and rubber are everywhere in today’s lifestyle. The main problem is what to do with
waste. Use of plastic waste which is non-biodegradable is rapidly growing and researchers
have found that the material can remain on earth for 4500 years unchanged and without
degradation. Plastic and rubber are very versatile material.
Due to the industrial revolution, and its large scale production they seemed to be a cheaper
and effective raw material. Today, every vital sector of the economy starting from agriculture

to packaging, automobile, electronics, electrical, building construction, communication

sectors has been virtually revolutionized by the applications of plastics and rubbers.
Several studies carried out by Health Departments have proven the health hazard caused by
improper disposal of plastic waste and rubber waste. The health hazard includes reproductive
problems in human and animal, genital abnormalities etc. Although the waste plastic and
rubber taking the face of the devil for the present and future generation, we can’t avoid the
use of plastic and rubber but we can reuse it.
This threat of disposal of plastic and rubber will not solve itself and certain practical steps
have to be initiated at the ground level. On the other hand, the road traffic is increasing with
time hence there arises a need to increase the load bearing capacities of roads which can be
made possible by utilizing the waste plastic and crumb rubber in flexible pavement design.
Use of polyethylene in road construction is not new. Some aggregates are highly hydrophilic
(water-loving). Like bitumen, polyethylene is hydrophobic (water-hating) in nature. So the
addition of hydrophobic polymers by dry or wet mixing process to asphalt mix lead to
improvement of strength, water repellent property of the mix.
Polymer modification can be considered as one of the solutions to improvise the fatigue life,
reduce the rutting & thermal cracking in the pavement. Creating a modified bituminous
mixture by using recycled polymers (e.g., polyethylene) which enhances properties of HMA
mixtures would not only produce a more durable pavement but also provide a beneficial way
of disposal of a large number of recycled plastics.
Crumb rubber obtained from the shredding of those scrap tire has been proven to enhance the
properties of plain bitumen since the 1840’s. It can be used as cheap and environment-
friendly modification process to minimize the damage of pavement due to increase in service
traffic density, axle loading and low maintenance services which deteriorated and subjected
road structure to failure more rapidly.
• Stronger road with increased Marshall Stability value.
• Better resistance towards rainwater and water stagnation so no stripping and no
potholes.

• Increase binding and better bonding of the mix thus reduction in pores in aggregate.
• No leaching of plastics.
• No effect of radiation like UV.
• The load withstanding property increases. It helps to satisfy today’s need for
increased road transport.
Figure 1.2 Waste plastic Bottles
1.6 Objective of study

The present study visualize the use of waste material i.e. waste tyres powder and plastic
mixed with bitumen, which has potential use in highway and construction industry. The large
scale use of such materials will not only help in conserving the ecological balances, but will
open up opportunities for the industries to produce a low cost material based on these waste,
for mass scale applications. The study also encourages the use of these potentially hazardous
wastes for mass scale without affecting the environment, cultivation, human and animal lives.
1. To determine the basic properties of aggregates, bitumen, plastic wastes used and
Crumb rubber.
2. To select the optimum percentage of plastic waste (PET) and rubber (fine size) to be
blended with commonly used bitumen to produce maximum compressive strength.
3. To study the Marshall properties of the Dense Bituminous Macadam and bitumen
concrete mixes with PET bottles and crumb rubber so as to determine how they affect
the properties of mixes and to compare it with each other and with the conventional
mix.

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 General reviews about crumb rubber in different bituminous mixes

Souza et al. (1994) studied the particles size disruption of crumb rubber influenced the
physical properties of bitumen rubber blend. Asphalt containing 0.2 and 0.4 mm size rubber
indicated the best laboratory results, In general, small difference in the particles size has no
significant effects on blend properties. However, the crumb rubber size can certainly make a
big difference in bituminous properties.
Shankar et al. (2009) crumb rubber modified bitumen (CRMB 55) was blended at specified
temperatures. Marshall’s mix design was carried out by changing the modified bitumen
content at constant optimum rubber content and subsequent tests have been performed to
determine the different mix design characteristics and for conventional bitumen (60/70) also.
This has resulted in much improved characteristics when compared with normal bitumen and
that too at reduced optimum modified binder content (5.67 %).
Nuha S. Mashaan et al. (2012) studied the road pavement construction, the use of crumb
rubber in the modification of bitumen binder is considered as a smart solution for sustainable
development by reusing waste materials. It is believed that crumb rubber modifier (CRM)
could be one of the alternative polymer materials in improving bitumen binder performance
properties of hot mix asphalt. This study aims to present and discuss the findings from some
of the studies, on the use of crumb rubber in asphalt pavement. They concluded the
application of crumb rubber modifier in the asphalt modification of flexible pavement. From
the results of previous studies, it aspires to consider crumb rubber modifier in hot mix asphalt
to improve resistance to rutting and produce pavements with better durability by minimising
the distresses caused in hot mix asphalt pavement. Hence, road users would be ensured of
safer and smoother roads. Furthermore, the use of crumb rubber modifier as an additive in
bitumen modified binder would reduce pollution problems and protect our environment as
well.
Sharma Pavan Kumar (2013) studied that waste Crumb Rubber as a modifier the properties
of bitumen will be change and this change in physical properties like softening point,
penetration value, elastic recovery and Marshall stability was checked by different test. In

this study we used modifier in proportion 8%, 10%, 12% and 14% by the weight of VG-30
bitumen. They conclude that crumb rubber modified bitumen reveals that the Marshal
Stability value, which is the strength parameter of bituminous concrete, has shown increasing
trend and the maximum values have increased by about 18% by addition of crumb rubber.
This will provide more stable and durable mix for the flexible pavements. Thus, these
processes are socially highly relevant, giving better infrastructure.
MohdRasdan Ibrahim (2013) evaluated the performance of Rubber crumbs can be mixed
with aggregates within the asphaltic mix (dry process) or blended in bitumen at a specific
temperature where rubber crumbs serves as a binder modifier (wet process). Crumb rubber
modification by the wet process has been shown to have the ability to help improve the
rutting resistance, resilience modulus, and fatigue cracking resistance of asphaltic mixes.
Crumb rubber modifications of bitumen have been proven to improve characteristics of
bituminous binder such as the viscosity, softening point, loss modulus, and storage modulus.
This subsequently improves the rutting resistance, resilience, and improving fatigue cracking
resistance of asphaltic mixes. In order to achieve a superior and balanced CRMB in term of
high and low temperature properties, factors such as the mixing time, temperature,
characteristics, and source of the crumb rubber and bitumen type must be considered since
these are the factors that govern the resulting performance of asphaltic mixes.
HarpalsinhRaol et al. (2014) studied to take care of both these aspects. Plastic waste,
consisting of carry bags, cups, thermocoles, etc. can be used as a coating over aggregate and
this coated stone can be used for road construction. Secondly the waste tires are powdered
and the powder is blended with bitumen and this blend is used along with plastic coated
aggregate. Crumb Rubber Modified Bitumen is hydrocarbon binder obtained through
physical and chemical interaction of crumb rubber (produced by recycling of used tires) with
bitumen and some specific additives. Crumb rubber gives the satisfactory results by using it
in 15% of proportion to replace the bitumen for various tests of bitumen & bitumen mix.
Crumb rubber gives the Marshall Stability value of 1615.84 kg by using 15% of crumb
rubber powder with bitumen mix, which is 1.6 times greater than the Marshall Stability value
of conventional bitumen mix.

NabinRanaMagar (2014) study aims in investigating the experimental performance of the

bitumen modified with 15% by weight of crumb rubber varying its sizes. Four different
categories of size of crumb rubber will be used, which are coarse (1 mm - 600 μm); medium
size (600 μm - 300 μm); fine (300 μm- 150 μm); and superfine (150 μm - 75 μm). Common
laboratory tests will be performed on the modified bitumen using various sizes of crumb
rubber and thus analyzed. He observed that the sample prepared using crumb rubber size
(0.3-0.15mm) give the highest stability value of 1597.64 kg, minimum flow value, maximum
unit weight, maximum air voids and minimum VMA and VFB % values. So the best size to
be used for crumb rubber modification can be suggested as (0.3-0.15mm) size for commercial
production of CRMB.
BahaVuralKok et al. (2015) focused on the properties of the crumb-rubber-modified

bitumen and asphalt mixtures were compared to different contents of styrene–butadiene–
styrene (SBS) modified-bitumen and asphalt mixtures. The tests showed that to achieve the
same performance, as with SBS-modification, the CR-content must be used at much higher
than SBS. 8%-CR modification was determined as the most suitable content according to
both binder and mixture tests. Overall, the rheological and mechanical test results made it
apparent that crumb rubber modification exhibits superior performance with respect to
bitumen and mixture properties. In addition, an 8% crumb rubber content was determined to
be the most suitable content, yielding much better test results than unmodified bitumen and
the other mixtures. The use of crumb rubber is preferred over SBS modification because it
can provide a significant cost savings due to the high price of SBS and will also prevent the
accumulation of this waste material in the environment.
Athira R Prasad et al. (2015) studied the use of waste materials like plastics and rubber in
road construction is being increasingly encouraged so as to reduce environmental impact.
Plastics and rubbers are one of them. The plastic waste quantity in municipal solid waste is
increasing due to increase in population and changes in life style. Similarly most tires,
especially those fitted to motor vehicles, are manufactured from synthetic rubber. Disposal of
both is a serious problem. This waste plastic and rubber can be used to partially replace the
conventional material which is bitumen to improve desired mechanical characteristics for
particular road mix. In the present study, a comparison is carried out between use of waste
plastic like PET (Polyethylene Teraphthalate) bottles and crumb rubber (3%,
4.5%,6%,7.5%,9% by weight of bitumen) in bitumen concrete mixes to analyze which has

better ability to modify bitumen so as to use it for road construction. Based on the
experimental investigation they concluded that, by carrying out Marshall Test for control mix
samples which was prepared by adding 5%, 5.5%, 6%, 6.5%,7% bitumen by weight of
aggregate to form BC mix, OBC(Optimum bitumen content) was obtained as 5.1%. Addition
of PET and rubber in 3%, 4.5 %, 6%, 7.5% and 9% to BC mix samples keeping constant
OBC. It was found that in all three cases, the optimum content was obtained as 6%. Since the
Marshall stability is higher in case of PET bottles compared to rubber, they can be regarded
as the best modifier among two. Thus, it can be concluded from the study that the modifiers
when used in 6% by weight of bitumen can improve the stability of pavements, best among
them being PET bottles. The use of rubber and PET in roads can solve the problem of
environmental damage which can be caused by their disposal.
YazanIssa (2016) Studied the change in asphalt mixture properties after adding tires rubber.
Some important properties of asphalt mix, including stability and flow are investigated. The
original sample is prepared without adding rubber for (4.5%, 5% and 5.5% bitumen). Other
samples are prepared by adding rubber to bitumen in wet process with 5%, 10% and 20% by
bitumen weight. The results showed that the properties of rubber–asphalt mixture are
improved in comparison with normal asphalt pavement. It is concluded that the use of tires
rubber in asphalt pavement is desirable. The suitable amount of added rubber was found to be
10% by bitumen weight. Stability and flow were improved by adding rubber to the asphalt
pavement. The appropriate percentage was 10% from bitumen weight. Standards indicated
that minimum stability of Marshal Test at heavy traffic (75blows) is 680 Kg and maximum
flow is 4mm.
V. Suganpriya et al. (2016) performed a study, an attempt was made to assess the
stabilization of the bitumen containing crumb rubber waste in shredded form by performing
basic tests such as Penetration Test, Ductility Test, Softening Point Test, Viscosity Test and
Flash & Fire Point Tests. On the basis of the performance of the modified bitumen, the range
of optimum percentages of crumb rubber waste were selected for further investigations
related to Bituminous Concrete Mixes such as Semi Dense Bituminous Concrete (SDBC).
Marshall Values, namely Marshall Stability Value, Marshall Flow Value, Voids present in
air, Voids in Aggregates and Voids in Bitumen, determined from Marshall Stability Test,
serve as the benchmark values to assess the quality of Bituminous Concrete. As crumb rubber
content increases, Marshall Stability Values also increase, which shows that the modified mix

is durable and long lasting. It is also observed that the maximum quantity of crumb rubber
waste, which could be added in Bitumen, is up to 12%. The addition of crumb rubber waste
beyond 12% results in the segregation of crumb rubber particles. After obtaining the data
from the Marshall test and the data analysis, it was found that the crumb rubber modified
sample was able to resist deformation in a better way as compared to the conventional
sample. The result clearly shows that the rates of deformation in crumb rubber modified mix
are better than the conventional mix.
B.Sudharshan Reddy et al. (2016) studied on internal factors such as crumb rubber quantity,
type, particle size, source and pure bitumen composition, and external factors such as the
mixing time, temperature, and also the mixing process (dry process or wet process). The
present study aims in investigating the experimental performance of the bitumen modified
with 15% by weight of crumb rubber varying its sizes. Four different categories of size of
crumb rubber will be used, which are coarse (1 mm -600 μm); medium size (600 μm - 300
μm); fine (300 μm-150 μm); and superfine (150 μm - 75 μm). Common laboratory tests will
be performed on the modified bitumen using various sizes of crumb rubber and thus
analyzed. Marshall Stability method is adopted for mix design. Finally a comparative study is
made among the modified bitumen samples using the various sizes of Crumb Rubber
particles and the best size is suggested for the modification to obtain best results. By studying
the test results of common laboratory tests on plain bitumen and crumb rubber modified
bitumen it is concluded that the penetration values and softening points of plain bitumen can
be improved significantly by modifying it with addition of crumb rubber which is a major
environment pollutant. They observed that the sample prepared using crumb rubber size (0.3-
0.15mm) give the highest stability value of 1608.64 kg, minimum flow value, maximum unit
weight, maximum air voids and minimum VMA and VFB % values.
2.2 General reviews about Plastic in different bituminous mixes

Dr. R. Vasudevan states that the polymer bitumen blend is a better binder compared to plain
bitumen. Blend has increased Softening point and decreased Penetration value with a suitable
ductility. When it used for road construction it can withstand higher temperature and load.
The coating of plastics reduces the porosity, absorption of moisture and improves soundness.
The polymer coated aggregate bitumen mix forms better material for flexible pavement
construction as the mix shows higher Marshall Stability value and suitable Marshall

Coefficient. Hence the use of waste plastics for flexible pavement is one of the best methods
for easy disposal of waste plastics. Use of plastic bags in road help in many ways like Easy
disposal of waste, better road and prevention of pollution and so on.
V.S. Punith(2001), some encouraging results were reported in this study that there is
possibility to improve the performance of bituminous mixes of road pavements. Waste
plastics (polythene carry bags, etc.) on heating soften at around 130°C. Thermo gravimetric
analysis has shown that there is no gas evolution in the temperature range of 130-180°C.
Softened plastics have a binding property. Hence, it can be used as a binder for road
construction.
Sabinaetal(2001) studied the comparative performance of properties of bituminous mixes

containing plastic/polymer (PP) (8% and 15% by weight of bitumen) with conventional
bituminous concrete mix (prepared with 60/70 penetration grade bitumen). Improvement in
properties like Marshall Stability, retained stability, indirect tensile strength and rutting was
observed in Plastic modified bituminous concrete mixes.
Verma S.S. (2008) Concluded that Plastics will increase the melting point of the bitumen.
This technology not only strengthened the road construction but also increased the road life.
Dr. R. Vasudevan and S. Rajasekaran, (2007) stated that the polymer bitumen blend is a
better binder compared to plain bitumen. Blend has increased Softening point and decreased
Penetration value with a suitable ductility.
Zahra et al (2010) conducted a study using powdered PET in 2%,4%,6%,8%,10% with

80/100 penetration grade. It was found that viscosity increases by 5% by every 2% increase
of PET. It was observed that penetration shows considerable decrease with increase in PET
content.
Prasad et al (2013) investigated the use of PET waste by mixing 2%,4%,6%,8%,10% with
80/100 grade bitumen and found that MSV, FV, bulk density increases with increase in PET
content whereas VFB decreases.OBC was obtained as 5.4% and optimum content of PET was
8%.

CHAPTER 3
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
3.1 General
This chapter describes the experimental works carried out in this present investigation. This
chapter has been divided into two parts.
First part deals with the experiments carried out on the,
1. Normal aggregates and plastic coated aggregates
2. Bitumen and modified Bitumen.
Second part deals with the experiments carried out on the Marshall stability, Marshall flow,
Bulk specific gravity of the mix, Maximum theoretical specific gravity of the mix, Bulk
specific gravity of aggregates, Air voids, Voids in Mineral Aggregates and Voids filled with
Bitumen.
3.2 Materials used

3.2.1 Aggregates
The grades of aggregates and their quantities to be used for preparing Marshall
samples were graded as per Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (2001) given in Table
3.1 and Table 3.2 respectively.
The DBM mix, which use relatively larger size aggregate, are not only stiff or stable but also
are economical because they use relatively lower bitumen contents and need less breaking
and crushing energy or effort.
BC mix with smaller aggregate in the other way having relatively higher bitumen contents,
which not only impart high flexibility but also increase their durability.
3.2.1.1 Coarse Aggregates

The Coarse aggregates consisted of stone chips, up to 4.75 mm IS sieve size. Its specific
gravity was found as 2.67. Standard tests were conducted to determine their physical
properties as summarized in Table 3.4.

3.2.1.2 Fine Aggregates

The Fine aggregates, consisting of stone crusher dusts with fractions passing 4.75 mm and
retained on 0.075 mm IS sieve. Its specific gravity was found to be 2.61.
3.2.2 Filler
The Aggregate passing through 0.075 mm IS sieve is called as filler. Here Portland cement
(Grade 43) was used as filler material. Its specific gravity was found to be 3.1.
Table 3.1 MORTH gradation for DBM (NMAS 25mm)
IS Sieve (mm) Percent Passing
Specification Grading Grading adopted
37.5 100 -
26.5 90-100 -
19.0 71-95 85
13.2 56-80 66
4.75 38-54 40
2.36 28-42 33
0.300 7-21 12
0.075 2-8 5
Binder Content % by weight Min. 4.5 4.5 to 5.5
Table 3.2 MORTH gradation for BC (NMAS 13 mm)

IS Sieve (mm) Percent Passing
Specification Grading Grading adopted
19 100 100
13.2 90-100 95
9.5 70-88 75
4.75 53-71 60
2.36 42-58 50
1.18 34-48 40
0.600 26-38 32
0.300 18-28 20
0.150 12-20 15
0.075 4-10 5
Binder Content % by weight 5-7 5.0 to 6.0

120
100
80
Aggregate passing
60 Upper limit
Adopted grading
40
lower limit
20
0
0.075 0.3 2.36 4.75 13.2 19 26.5 37.5
Sieve size (mm)
Figure 3.1 Aggregate gradation curve for DBM

120
100
80
Aggregate passing
60 Upper limit
Adopted grading
Lower limit
40
20
0
0.075 0.15 0.3 0.6 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.5 13.2 19
Sieve size (mm)
Figure 3.2 Aggregate gradation curve for BC

Table 3.3 Tests on aggregates

Property Method of Test Specification
Aggregate Impact Value (%) Max 24%
Aggregate Crushing Value (%) IS: 2386 (Part-IV) Max 35%
Coating And Stripping of Bitumen (IS:6241) Minimum Retained
Aggregate Mix Coating 95%
Water Absorption (%) (IS:2386 Part III) Max 2%
3.2.3 Crumb rubber

The Crumb rubber used in Bitumen Tests and preparing Marshell samples was of Fine size
(IS Sieves 300 μm - 150 μm). The Specific gravity was found to be 1.15.
3.2.4 Plastic
The PET bottles shredded in shredding machine were used. The Specific gravity was found to
be 1.38.
3.2.4 Binder
The Bitumen used in preparing Marshall samples was of 80/100 penetration grade. The
Specific gravity was 1.01. It’s important properties is given in table 3.4.
Table 3.4 Properties of Binder

Property Method of Test Test Result
Specific gravity IS : 1202-1978 1.01
Penetration at 25°C (mm) IS : 1203-1978 85
Softening Point (°C) IS : 1205-1978 48
Ductility (cm) IS : 1208-1978 80
Flash Point (°C) IS : 1209-1978 248
Fire Point (°C) IS : 1209-1978 291
3.3 Tests for Aggregates

The Coating of plastic to the aggregates with varying percentages i.e: 0%, 4%, 6%, 8% and
10%. After coating of plastic to aggregates, cool at for 24hrs at room temperature. After
cooled aggregates following tests as follows:

• Aggregate Crushing Value (%) - [IS: 2386 (Part-IV)]

• Aggregate Impact Value (%) - IS: 2386 (Part-IV)
• Coating And Stripping of Bitumen Aggregate Mix - (IS:6241)
• Water Absorption (%) - (IS:2386 Part III)
3.3.1 Crushing Value Test

The aggregate crushing value provides a relative measure of resistance to crushing under
gradually applied crushing load. The test consists of subjecting the specimen of aggregate in
standard mould to a compression test under standard load conditions (See Fig 3.3). Dry
aggregates passing through 12.5 mm sieves and retained 10 mm sieves are filled in a
cylindrical measure of 11.5 mm diameter and 18 cm height in three layers. Each layer is
tamped 25 times with at standard tamping rod. The test sample is weighed and placed in the
test cylinder in three layers each layer being tamped again. The specimen is subjected to a
compressive load of 40 tonnes gradually applied at the rate of 4 tonnes per minute. Then
crushed aggregates are then sieved through 2.36 mm sieve and weight of passing material
(W2) is expressed as percentage of the weight of the total sample (W1) which is the
aggregate crushing value.
Aggregate crushing value = (W1/W2)*100

Crushing test is carried out for normal aggregates and Coated aggregates.
Figure 3.3 Crushing Test Setup

Figure 3.4 Crushing Test Setup under UTM
3.3.2 Impact Value Test

The aggregate impact test is carried out to evaluate the resistance to impact of aggregates.
Aggregates passing 12.5 mm sieve and retained on 10 mm sieve is filled in a cylindrical steel
cup of internal dia 10.2 mm and depth 5 cm which is attached to a metal base of impact
testing machine. The material is filled in 3 layers where each layer is tamped for 25 numbers
of blows (see Fig-3.4). Metal hammer of weight 13.5 to 14 Kg is arranged to drop with a free
fall of 38.0 cm by vertical guides and the test specimen is subjected to 15 numbers of blows.
The crushed aggregate is allowed to pass through 2.36 mm IS sieve. And the impact value is
measured as percentage of aggregates passing sieve (W2) to the total weight of the sample
(W1).
Aggregate impact value = (W1/W2)*100

Impact test is carried out for normal aggregates and Coated aggregates.

Figure 3.5 Impact test setup
Figure 3.6 Impact test

3.3.3 Coating And Stripping of Bitumen Aggregate Mix

Bitumen adheres well to all normal types of road aggregates provided they are dry and free
from dust. In the absence of water there is practically no adhesion problem of bituminous
construction.
Adhesion problem occurs when the aggregate is wet and cold. This problem can be dealt with
by removing moisture from the aggregate by drying and increasing the mixing temperature.
Further the presence of water causes stripping of binder from the coated aggregates. This
problem occurs when bitumen mixture is permeable to water.
Several laboratory tests are conducted to arbitrarily determine the adhesion of bitumen binder
to an aggregate in the presence of water. Static immersion test is one specified by IRC and is
quite simple. The principle of the test is by immersing aggregate fully coated with binder in
water maintained at 400C temperature for 24 hours.
Coating And Stripping of Bitumen Aggregate test is carried out for normal aggregates and
Coated aggregates.
Figure 3.7 After the Coating And Stripping of Bitumen Aggregate test

3.3.4 Water Absorption

The difference between the apparent and bulk specific gravities is nothing but the water
permeable voids of the aggregates. We can measure the volume of such voids by weighing
the aggregates dry and in a saturated surface dry condition, with all permeable voids filled
with water. The difference of the above two is MW.
MD is the dry mass of the aggregate,

MW is the weight of dry aggregates minus weight of aggregates saturated surface dry
condition. Thus,
Water Absorption = (MW/MD)*100

Water Absorption test is carried out for normal aggregates and Coated aggregates.
Table 3.5 Tests results of aggregates
Test Result (%) Stand.
Pure 4% coat 6% coat 8% coat 10% Value
aggregates coat
Crushing (%) 20.31 18.82 16.94 16.71 15 30% Max
Impact (%) 12 11.2 10 8.54 7.8 30% Max
Water absorption 1 0.5 0 0 0 Max 2%
(%)
Coating and 98 99 99 100 100 Minimum
stripping value of Retained
aggregates (%) Coating
95%
3.4 Tests for Bitumen

The addition of crumb rubber (50%) and plastic (50%) to the bitumen with varying
percentages i.e: 0%, 5%, 7.5%, 10%, 12.5%. After addition of crumb rubber and plastic to
bitumen, to prepare the samples for required test. The bitumen test as follows:
• Penetration Test [IS: 1203-1978]

• Softening Point Test [IS: 1205-1978]
• Ductility Test [IS: 1208-1978]
• Flash Point and Fire Point [IS: 1209-1981]

3.4.1 Penetration Test

The Penetration test used to evaluate the hardness or softness of bitumen. It is done by
penetrometer equipment by placing the mould under the penetration needle.
The penetration value expressed as 1/10 of mm. If the penetration value is high the bitumen is
said to be soft bitumen. Penetration test is carried out for conventional bitumen and modified
bitumen.
Figure 3.8 Penetration test of Bitumen

3.4.2 Softening Point Test

The test is conducted by using Ring and Ball apparatus. It is used to find out temperature
susceptibility at which temperature bitumen changes its property. Higher softening point
indicates lower temperature susceptibility and the type of bitumen is hard bitumen which is
used for warm Climates. Softening Point test is carried out for conventional bitumen and
modified bitumen.
Figure 3.9 Softening point test of Bitumen

3.4.3 Ductility Test
Under traffic loads the bituminous pavement is subjected to repeated deformation and
recoveries. The ductility test is carried out for finding the adhesive property of bitumen and
its ability to stretch. The ductility value affected by factors such as pouring temperature,
dimension briquette, level of briquette in water bath, presence of air pockets in the modulus
briquettes, test temperature and rate of pulling. The ductility value vary from 5-100 cm.
Ductility test is carried out for conventional bitumen and modified bitumen.
Figure 3.10 Ductility test of Bitumen
3.4.4 Flash and Fire Point Test

The test is carried out by using apparatus. It is important because sometimes bitumen
materials leave out volatiles at temperatures depending upon their grade. These volatiles
catch fire causing a flash. To eliminate fire hazards during heating of bitumen. The flash
point of a material is the lowest temperature at which the vapour of a substance momentarily
takes fire in the form of a flash. The fire point is the lowest temperature at which the material
gets ignited and burns under specified conditions. Bitumen sample sample is heated at the
rate of 5-60C per minute. Flash and Fire point test is carried out for conventional bitumen and
modified bitumen.
Fire point Flash point
Figure 3.11 Flash and Fire Point Tests of Bitumen
Table 3.6 Test results of Modified Bitumen
S.No Crumb Penetration Softening Point Ductility Flash Point Fire Point
and (mm) (°C) (cm) (°C) (°C)
plastic
(%)
1 0 86 47 83 245 290
2 5 81 49 65 254 297
3 7.5 79 55 54 267 305
4 10 67 60 49 278 328
5 12.5 63 63 40 288 347
Stand. 60Min 40Min 50Min 220Min 290Min

Values

3.5 Sample Preparation

3.5.1 Marshall Sampling Mould
The specifications of the Marshall sampling mould and hammer are given in table 3.7.
Table 3.7 Dimensions of Marshall Sampling mould & hammer

APPARATUS VALUE WORKING TOLERANCE
MOULD
Average internal diameter (mm) 101.2 ±0.5
HAMMER
Mass (kg) 4.535 ±0.02
Drop Height (mm) 457 ±1.0
Foot diameter (mm) 98.5 ±0.5
Figure 3.12(A) Marshall Compaction mould

Figure 3.12(B) Marshall hammer and moulds

3.5.2 Mixing Procedure

The mixing of ingredients was done as per the following procedure (STP 204-8).
1. Required quantities of coarse aggregate, fine aggregate & mineral fillers were taken in
an iron pan.
2. This was kept in an oven at temperature 1600c for 10min. This is because the
aggregate and bitumen are to be mixed in heated state so preheating is required.
3. The bitumen was also heated up to its melting point prior to the mixing.
4. The required amount of CRP was weighed and kept in a separate containers.
5. The aggregates in the pan were heated on a controlled gas stove for a few minutes
maintaining the above temperature.
6. The CRP was added to the bitumen and it was mixed for 5 minutes.
7. For DBM: Now bitumen (54, 60, 66 gms), i.e. 4.5%, 5.0%, 5.5% was added to this
mix and the whole mix was stirred uniformly and homogenously. This was continued
for 15-20 minutes till they were properly mixed which was evident from the uniform
colour throughoutthe mix.
For BC: Now bitumen (60, 66, 72 gms), i.e. 5.0%, 5.5%, 6.0% was added to this mix
and the whole mix was stirred uniformly and homogenously. This was continued for
15-20 minutes till they were properly mixed which was evident from the uniform
colour throughout the mix.
8. Then the mix was transferred to a casting mould.
9. This mix was then compacted by the Marshall Hammer. The specification of this
hammer, the height of release etc. are given in Table – 3.7.
10. 75 no. Of blows were given per each side of the sample so subtotal of 150 no. of
blows was given per sample.
11. Then these sample moulds were kept separately and marked.
3.5.3 Calculations involved

The crumb rubber and plastic content were varied from 0 to 12.5% and for each content,
3samples were prepared. The coarse aggregate was gravel and 5 per cent by mass of total
aggregate of portland cement was added and the percentage of fine aggregate reduced
accordingly. The Plasticity Index requirement shall not apply if filter is cement.

CRP: Crumb rubber and plastic

Total weight of sample = 1200 gm
Bitumen Contents for DBM = 4.5%, 5 %, 5.5%
Bitumen Contents for BC = 5.0%, 5.5%, 6%
Example calculations for DBM 4.5 % & CRP 0% :

Weight of bitumen = 1200*0.045 = 54gms
Weight of aggregate (with filler) = 1200 - 54 =1146 gm
Weight of filler (Cement) = 1146*0.05 = 57.3gms
Weight of aggregate (without filler) = 1146 – 57.3 = 1088.7 gms
a) If CRP 5%
Weight of plastic = 1.35gms
Weight of Crumb = 1.35gms
Weight of CRP =2.7gms
Weight of Bitumen = 51.3gms
Calculations for BC 5.5 % & CRP 0% :

Weight of bitumen = 1200*0.055 = 66gms
Weight of aggregate (with filler) = 1200 - 66 = 1134 gms
Weight of filler (Cement) = 1134*0.05 = 56.7gms
Weight of aggregate (without filler) = 1134 – 56.7 = 1077.3 gms
a) If CRP 5%
Weight of plastic = 1.65gms
Weight of Crumb = 1.65gms
Weight of CRP = 3.3gms
Weight of Bitumen = 62.7gms
The samples were named, the weight of CRP, aggregate and cement for each sample
calculated and shown in Table – 3.8 and 3.9 below.

Table 3.8 Amounts of raw materials for BC

BC Bitumen CRP Weight of Weight of Weight of Weight of
(%) (%) bitumen CRP Aggregate Cement
(gm) (gm) (gm) (gm)
5.0 0 60 0 1083 57
5 57 3
7.5 55.5 4.5
10 54 6
12.5 52.5 7.5
BC 0 66 0 1077.3 56.7
5 62.7 3.3
5.5 7.5 61.05 4.95
10 59.4 6.6
12.5 57.75 8.25
0 72 0 1071.6 56.4
5 68.4 3.6
6.0 7.5 66.6 5.4
10 64.8 7.2
12.5 63 9

Table 3.9 Amounts of raw materials for DBM

DBM Bitumen CRP Weight of Weight of Weight of Weight of
(%) (%) bitumen CRP Aggregate Cement
(gm) (gm) (gm) (gm)
0 54 0 1088.7 57.3
5 51.3 2.7
4.5 7.5 49.95 4.05
10 48.6 5.4
12.5 47.25 6.75
DBM 0 60 0 1083 57
5 57 3
5.0 7.5 55.5 4.5
10 54 6
12.5 52.5 7.5
5.5 0 66 0 1077.3 56.7
5 62.7 3.3
7.5 61.05 4.95
10 59.4 6.6
12.5 57.75 8.25

Figure 3.13Fried aggregates
Figure 3.14Uniform colour throughout the mix

Figure 3.15 Marshall samples removing from moulds
Figure 3.16 Closer view of a marshall sample

Figure 3.17Marshall moulds for OBC determination
Figure 3.18Loose mix(uncompacted) for air voids calculation

3.6 Void analysis

For analysis of voids, the samples were weighed in air and also in water so that water
replaces the air present in the voids. But by this process some amount of water will
beabsorbed by the aggregates which give erroneous results.
3.6.1 Mix Volumetrics

The volumetric parameters are to be checked from the Marshall samples, prior to Marshall
test. The following are equations which would be used to determine volumetric parameters
such as VMA, VA and VFB.
Gmb
VMA = (1 − × Ps)
Gsb
Gmb
VA = (1 − )
Gmm
VMA−VA
VFB = 100 × ( )
VMA
Where,
Gmb= Bulk specific gravity of the mix
Gmm= Maximum theoretical specific gravity of the mix
Gsb= Bulk specific gravity of aggregates
VMA = Voids in Mineral Aggregates
VA = Air Voids
VFB = Voids filled with Bitumen.
To calculate value of Gmb we need to calculate the bulk volume of the sample for which3
readings are needed. i.e.
• Weight of the sample in air (A)
• Weight of the sample at saturated surface dry condition (B)
• Weight of the sample in water (C)
A
Gmb= B−C

To calculate value of Gmm we need to calculate 3 readings. i.e

• Dry mass (A)
• Mass of the flask, lid,and water (B)
• Mass of the flask, lid,sample and water (C)
A
Gmm= (A+B−C)
Figure 3.19Bulk specific gravity test setup

Figure 3.20Maximum theoretical specific gravity test setup
Figure 3.21 Phase Diagram of bituminous mix

All the parameters are shown in Table – 3.10, 3.11,3.12 & 3.13.
Example calculations for DBM(5.0%) & CRP(0%):

Gmb calculations:
Wt of the sample in air (gm) = A = 1186gms
Wt of the sample at SSD (gm) = B = 1189gms
Wt of the sample in water (gm) = C = 674.4496350gms
A 1186
Gmb= 𝐵−𝐶= 1189−674.4496350 = 2.304925
Table 3.10 Calculation of Gmb

BC / DBM CRP% Gmb
5.0% DBM 0 2.304925
5 2.293893
7.5 2.275731
10 2.258427
12.5 2.219557
5.5 % BC 0 2.668241
5 2.628602
7.5 2.584494
10 2.56012
12.5 2.52277
Example calculations for DBM(5.0%) & CRP(0%):
Gmm calculations:
Dry mass (A) = 1200gms

Mass of the flask, lid, and water (B) = 3450gms
Mass of the flask, lid, sample and water (C) = 4156.848639gms
A 1200
Gmm= 𝐴 + 𝐵 − 𝐶= 1200+ 3450−4075.17821= 2.087603559

Table 3.11: Mean Calculation of Gmm
DBM/BC CRP% Gmm

DBM-5.0 0 2.43333
5 2.393276
7.5 2.354519
10 2.3217408
12.5 2.280653
BC 5.5 0 2.8056275
5 2.7322553
7.5 2.6649861
10 2.63489714
12.5 2.59381228
To calculate value of Gsb:
Coarse aggregates may have been obtained from more than one quarry and the specific
gravity of individual sizes from a common aggregate source may be different. Fine material
may be crusher dust, sand or a blend of the two. The mineral filler fraction of cement, the
BSG of which are very different and must be tested separately. The BSG’s of the individual
coarse aggregate fractions, the fine aggregate and mineral filler fractions are used to calculate
the Bulk Specific Gravity (Gsb) of the total aggregate using the following formula;
where:
Gsb = bulk specific gravity for the total aggregate,

P1, P2... Pn= individual percentages by weight of aggregates,
G1, G2,..Gn = individual bulk specific gravities of aggregates.

Table 3.12 Calculation of Gsb
DBM/BC Sieve size Gsb Gsb Proportion(%)

(mm)
DBM 5.0 19 - 9.5 2.624745 2.624745 30.48
9.5 – 4.75 2.624745 26.0526
4.75 - dust 2.624745 40
BC 5.5 19 - 9.5 3.019535 3.019535 25.396
9.5 – 4.75 3.019535 20.282
4.75 - dust 3.019535 54.312
Gmb 2.304925
Va(%) = (1 -𝐺𝑚𝑚 ) *100 = (1 - 2.433333 ) *100= 5.275%
𝐺𝑚𝑏 𝑃𝑠 𝐺𝑚𝑏 100

𝑉𝑀𝐴 = 100 − = 100 − × 100+𝑃 × 100
𝐺𝑠𝑏 𝐺𝑠𝑏 𝑏
2.304925 100
= 100 − 2.624745 × 100+5 × 100 = 16.3666%
Where,
Pb = asphalt content, percent by weight of aggregate = 5
(𝑉𝑀𝐴−𝑉𝑎 ) (16.3666−5.275)
𝑉𝐹𝐵 = × 100 = × 100 = 67.769%
𝑉𝑀𝐴 16.3666
Table 3.13 Mean Calculation of VMA, VA, VFB
DBM/BC CRP% VA VMA VFB

DBM-5.0 0 5.275 16.3666 67.769
5 4.1525 16.7667 75.2336
7.5 3.346 17.42578 80.7985
10 2.727 18.05365 84.895021
12.5 2.6788 19.46404 86.237184
BC 5.5 0 4.896817 16.24080719 69.86649
5 3.793693 15.08037044 74.86333
7.5 3.020358 14.21351566 78.88036
10 2.837953 13.87345386 79.56232
12.5 2.738914 13.61238478 79.9287

3.7 Marshall testing
The Marshall test was done as procedure outlined in ASTM D6927 – 06.
Marshall Stability Value :

It is defined as the maximum load at which the specimen fails under the application of the
vertical load. It is the maximum load supported by the test specimen at a loading rate of 50.8
mm/minute (2 inches/minute). Generally, the load was increased until it reached the
maximum & then when the load just began to reduce, the loading was stopped and the
maximum load was recorded by the proving ring.
Marshall Flow Value :

It is defined as the deformation undergone by the specimen at the maximum load where the
failure occurs. During the loading, an attached dial gauge measures the specimen's plastic
flow as a result of the loading. The flow value was recorded in 0.25 mm (0.01 inch)
increments at the same time when the maximum load was recorded.
The Marshall Stability and Flow Values are shown in Table – 3.14, 3.15& 3.16.
Figure 3.22 Marshall stability test setup close view

Figure 3.23 Marshall stability test setup

Table 3.14 Marshall Stability For DBM & BC

DBM/BC Bitumen (%) Mean Marshall Flow
Stability(kg) (mm)
DBM 4.5 651 6.1
5.0 659 5.8
5.5 654 5.4
BC 5.0 603 6.0
5.5 610 5.5
6.0 607 5.2
From the Above marshall stability values, Adopted DBM (5.0%) and BC(5.5%). For the
further investigation on CRP used DBM – 5% and BC – 5.5%.
Table 3.15 Marshall Stability and Flow Values For DBM

DBM(%) CRP (%) Sample Stability(kg) Flow (mm)
5.0 0 1 652 6.4
2 659 6.2
3 653 6.0
5 1 789 5.8
2 794 5.5
3 792 5.3
7.5 1 982 4.5
2 989 4.4
3 992 4.2
10 1 952 3.8
2 965 3.6
3 959 3.3
12.5 1 845 3.2
2 862 3.0
3 851 2.7

Table 3.16 Marshall Stability and Flow Values For BC
BC (%) CRP (%) Sample Stability(kg) Flow (mm)
5.5 0 1 603 6.8
2 610 6.6
3 607 6.0
5 1 759 5.7
2 775 5.4
3 772 5.2
7.5 1 886 4.3
2 895 4.2
3 892 3.5
10 1 989 3.6
2 991 3.1
3 990 3.0
12.5 1 975 3.0
2 982 2.8
3 979 2.6

CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
4.1 Plotting Curves for Aggregate tests
4curves were plotted, i.e:

• Aggregate Crushing Value (%) - [IS: 2386 (Part-IV)]
• Aggregate Impact Value (%) - IS: 2386 (Part-IV)
• Coating And Stripping of Bitumen Aggregate Mix - (IS:6241)
• Water Absorption (%) - (IS:2386 Part III)
crushing test
25
20
15
10
0
0% coat 4% coat 6% coat 8%coat 10% coat
Figure 4.1 Crushing value of aggregates Vs % Plastic coated

Impact test
14
12
10
0
Figure 4.2Impact value of aggregates Vs % Plastic coated
Water Absorption test

1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Figure 4.3Water absorption value of aggregates Vs % Plastic coated

Coating and Stripping test

100.5
100
99.5
99
98.5
98
97.5
97
Figure 4.4Coating and stripping value of aggregates Vs % Plastic coate

4.2 Plotting Curves for bitumen tests
5 curves were plotted, i.e:

• Penetration Value vs. CRP Content
• Softening Point Value vs. CRP Content
• Ductility vs. bitumenCRP Content
• Flash Point vs. CRP Content
• Fire Point vs. CRP Content
100
90
80
70
Penetration (mm)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 7.5 10 12.5
CRP (%)
Figure 4.5Penetration Value vs. CRP Content

70
60
50
Softening Point (°C)
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 7.5 10 12.5
CRP (%)
Figure 4.6Softening Point Value vs. CRP Content
90
80
70
60
Ductility (cm)
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 7.5 10 12.5
CRP(%)
Figure 4.7Ductility vs. bitumenCRP Content

300
290
280
Flash Point (°C)
270
260
250
240
230
220
0 5 7.5 10 12.5
CRP(%)
Figure 4.8Flash Point vs. CRP Content
360
350
340
330
Fire Point (°C)
320
310
300
290
280
270
260
0 5 7.5 10 12.5
CRP (%)
Figure 4.9Fire Point vs. CRP Content

4.3 Optimum BitumenContent

4curves were plotted, i.e:
Marshall stability value (DBM)

stability (kg)
660
658
656
654
652
650
648
646
4.5 5 5.5
Bitumen content (%)
Figure 4.10 Marshall stability vs. Bitumen content
Marshall flow for DBM(mm)
6.2
5.8
flow (mm)
5.6
5.4
5.2
5
4.5 5 5.5
Bitumen content (%)
Figure 4.11 Marshall flow vs. Bitumen content

Marshall stability value (BC)
stability (kg) 612
610
608
606
604
602
600
598
5 5.5 6
Bitumen content (%)
Figure 4.12 Marshall stability vs. Bitumen content
6.2
5.8
flow ()mm
5.6
5.4
5.2
4.8
5 5.5 6
Bitumen content (%)
Figure 4.13 Marshall flow vs. Bitumen content

4.4 Plotting Curves for Marshall tests
6 curves were plotted. i.e:

• Marshall Stability Value vs. CRP Content
• Marshall Flow Value vs. CRP Content
• VMA vs. CRP Content
• VA vs. CRP Content
• VFB vs. CRP Content
• Bulk unit weight vs. CRP Content
For each % of CRP, 3 samples of DBM and BC have been tested. So the average value of the
3were taken. The mean values are shown in Table 4.1 and 4.2.
Table 4.1 Data for plotting curves of DBM
S.N CRP Unit weight Mean VMA Mean Mean VFB Mean Mean
o (%) (Gmb) (%) VA (%) Stability Flow
(%) (Kg) (mm)
1 0 2.304925 16.3666 5.275 67.769 654.6666 6.2
2 5 2.293893 16.7667 4.1525 75.2336 791.6666 5.53
3 7.5 2.275731 17.42578 3.346 80.7985 987.6666 4.36
4 10 2.258427 18.05365 2.727 84.895021 958.6666 3.56
5 12.5 2.219557 19.46404 2.6788 86.237184 852.6666 2.96

Marshall stability value (DBM)
stability (kg)
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 5 7.5 10 12.5
CRP (%)
Figure 4.14Marshall Stability Value vs. CRP Content
Marshall Flow value (DBM)
5
Flow (mm)
0
0 5 7.5 10 12.5
CRP (%)
Figure 4.15 Marshall Flow Value vs. CRP Content

VMA (DBM)
20
19.5
19
18.5
18
VMA (%)
17.5
17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
0 5 7.5 10 12.5
CRP (%)
Figure 4.16 VMA vs. CRP Content
VA (DBM)
5
VA (%)
0
0 5 7.5 10 12.5
CRP (%)
Figure 4.17 VA vs. CRP Content

VFB (DBM)
100
90
80
70
VFB (%)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
3.99 4.085 4.18 4.275 4.75
CRP (%)
Figure 4.18 VFB Vs CRP Content
Unit weight (BC)
2.32
Bulk Unit weight
2.3
2.28
2.26
2.24
2.22
2.2
2.18
2.16
0 5 7.5 10 12.5
CRP (%)
Figure 4.19 Bulk unit weight vs. CRP Content

Table 4.2 Data for plotting curves of BC
S. CRP Unit weight Mean VMA Mean VA Mean VFB Mean Mean
No (%) (Gmb) (%) (%) (%) Stability Flow
(Kg) (mm)
1 0 2.668241 16.24080719 4.896817 69.86649 606.6666 6.46
2 5 2.628602 15.08037044 3.793693 74.86333 768.6666 5.43
3 7.5 2.584494 14.21351566 3.020358 78.88036 891 4
4 10 2.56012 13.87345386 2.837953 79.56232 990 3.23
5 12.5 2.52277 13.61238478 2.738914 79.9287 978.6666 2.8
1200
1000
800
Stability (Kg)
600
400
200
0
0 5 7.5 10 12.5
CRP (%)
Figure 4.20Marshall Stability Value vs. CRP Content

Marshall Flow value (mm) BC
6
Flow (mm)
0
0 5 7.5 10 12.5
CRP (%)
Figure 4.21 Marshall Flow Value vs. CRP Content
VMA (BC)
16.5
16
15.5
15
VMA(%)
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
0 5 7.5 10 12.5
Bitumen content (%)
Figure 4.22 VMA vs. Bitumen Content

VA (BC)
4
VA (%)
0
0 5 7.5 10 12.5
Bitumen content (%)
Figure 4.23 VA vs. Bitumen Content
VFB (BC)
82
80
78
76
VFB (%)
74
72
70
68
66
64
0 5 7.5 10 12.5
CRP (%)
Figure 4.24 VFB vs. Bitumen Content

Unit weight (BC)
2.7
Bulk Unit weight
2.65
2.6
2.55
2.5
2.45
0 5 7.5 10 12.5
CRP (%)
Figure 4.25 Bulk unit weight vs. CRP Content
4.5 Analysis
4.5.1 Finding Optimum Bitumen Content
The value of Bitumen content at which the sample has maximum Marshall Stability Value
and minimum Marshall Flow Value is called as Optimum Bitumen Content.
For DBM: 4.5%, 5.0% and 5.5% of bitumen contents performed the marshall stability and
flow tests. (From table 3.14 & Figures 4.10, 4.11) 5.0% gives optimum bitumen content
value.
For BC:5.0%, 5.5% and 6.0% of bitumen contents performed the marshall stability and flow
tests. (From table 3.14 & Figures 4.12, 4.13) 5.5% gives optimum bitumen content value.
4.5.2 Finding Optimum CRP Content
For DBM: From the Figure 4.14&4.15 we get the Optimum CRP Content as 7.5% and also
from Figures 4.16, 4.17&4.18 we conclude that upon addition of CRP the voids present in the
mix decreases.
For BC: From the Figure 4.20&4.21 we get the Optimum CRP Content as 10% and also from
Figures 4.22, 4.23&4.24 we conclude that upon addition of CRP the voids present in the mix
decreases.

CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
• By studying the test results of common laboratory tests on plain bitumen and CRP
modified bitumen it is concluded that the penetration values, softening points flash
point and the fire point of plain bitumen can be improved significantly by modifying
it with in addition of crumb rubber and plastic which is a major environment
pollutant. Use of crumb rubber and plastic leads to be excellent pavement life, driving
comfort and low maintenance.
• 10% of plastic coating samples showed more strength than conventional bitumen.
• Overall, the rheological and mechanical test results were made it apparent that CRP
modification exhibits superior performance with respect to bitumen and mixture
properties. In addition, 10% of CRP content for BC and 7.5% of CRP content for
DBM was determined to be the most suitable content, yielding much better test results
than unmodified bitumen and the other mixtures. The use of crumb rubber and plastic
will also prevent the accumulation of this waste material in the environment.
• From the table 4.1 it can be observed that the DBM sample prepared using 7.5% CRP
give the highest stability value of 987.6666 kg, minimum flow value, maximum unit
• From the table 4.2 it can be observed that the BC sample prepared using 10% CRP
give the highest stability value of 990 kg, minimum flow value, maximum unit
• Plastic with crumb rubber can be utilized as a partial blending material in design of
flexible pavement.
• It can be used as a partial replacement in bitumen as well as coating over aggregate.

REFERENCES
[1] Souza and Weissman (1994) “Laboratory Investigation of Different Standards of Phase
Separation in Crumb Rubber Modified Asphalt Binders”.
[2] Shankar (2009) “Use of Waste Rubber Tyre in Flexible Pavement”, International Journal
of Application or Innovation in Engineering and Management.
[3] Nuha S. Mashaan et al. (2012) “An overview of crumb rubber modified asphalt”,
International Journal of the Physical Sciences Vol. 7(2).
[4] Sharma Pavan Kumar (2013) “Experimental Study of Flexible Pavement by Using Waste
Rubber Tyres”, International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT).
[5] MohdRasdan Ibrahim, HerdaYatiKatman, Mohamed RehanKarim, SuhanaKoting and

Nuha S. Mashaan (2013) “A Review on the Effect of Crumb Rubber Addition to the
Rheology of Crumb Rubber Modified Bitumen”, Hindawi Publishing Corporation in
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering.
[6] HarpalsinhRaol et al. (2014) “EFFECT OF THE USE OF CRUMB RUBBER IN

CONVENTIONAL BITUMEN ON THE MARSHALL STABILITY VALUE”, International
Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology.
[7] NabinRanaMagar,”A Study on the Performance of Crumb Rubber Modified Bitumen by

Varying the Sizes of Crumb Rubber”, International Journal of Engineering Trends and
Technology (IJETT).
[8] BahaKok and HakanColak (2011) “Laboratory comparison of the crumb-rubber and SBS
modiﬁed bitumen and hot mix asphalt”, Firat University Engineering Faculty, Civil
Engineering Department Elazig, Turkey.
[9] Athira R Prasad et al. (2015) “Bituminous Modification with Waste Plastic and Crumb
Rubber”,IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering.

[10]YazanIssa (2016) “Effect of Adding Waste Tires Rubber to Asphalt Mix”, International
Journal of Scientific Research and Innovative Technology
[11] V. Suganpriya, S. OmPrakash, V. Chandralega “Study of Behaviour of Bitumen

Modified with Crumb Rubber”, International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology
(IJERT).
[12] B.Sudharshan Reddy, N.VenkataHussain Reddy “Performance Evaluation of Crumb

RubberModified Bitumen by Using Various Sizes of Crumb Rubber”, International Journal
for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
[13] A. H. Ali, N. S. Mashaan, and M. R. Karim, “Investigationsof physical andrheological

properties of aged rubberised bitumen,” Advances in Materials Science and Engineering, vol.
2013,Article ID 239036, 7 pages, 2013.
[14] IS.15462 : 2004, Polymer and rubber modified bitumen – Specification
[15]IS.1201-1220.1978, “METHODS FOR TESTING TAR AND BITUMINOUS

MATERIALS”.
[16] IS.2386.part I-V.1963, “METHODS OF TEST FOR AGGREGATES”.
[17] ASTM D1559-89, “Standard Test for Resistance to Plastic Flow of Bituminous Mixtures
Using Marshall Apparatus”.
[18] IS:6241, Method of Test for Determination of Stripping value of Road Aggregates.
[19] STP 204-11, “Standard Test Procedures Manual”, Section: ASPHALT MIXES, Subject:
MARSHALL STABILITY AND FLOW.
[20] The United Republic of Tanzania_Laboratory Testing Manual (2000), Ministry of works.
[21]Dr C. E. G. Justo, Dr S. K. Khanna, Dr A. Veeraragavan, “Highway Engineering”

(NemChand& Bros., Roorkee, 2015), PP. 339-380.

[22] S.Rajasekaran, Dr R. Vasudevan, DrSamuvelPaulraj, “Reuse of waste plastics coated

aggregates-Bitumen Mix composite for Road Application – Green Method”, American
Journal of Engineering Research, 2013, PP. 1-13.
[23] Dr S D Khandekar, SasaneNeha B., Gaikwad. Harish and Dr J R Patil, “Application of

Waste Plastic as an Effective Construction Material in Flexible Pavement”, submitted To
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET), 2015, PP. 1943-
1948.
[24] Shirish N. Nemade and Prashant V. Thorat, “Utilization of Polymer Waste for
Modification of Bitumen in Road Construction”, Scientific Reviews and Chemical
Communications, Volume 2, Issue 3, 2013, PP. 198-213.
[25] MohdRasdan Ibrahim HerdaYatiKatman, Mohamed RehanKarim, SuhanaKoting, and

Nuha S. Mashaan,” A Review on the Effect of Crumb Rubber Addition to the Rheology of
Crumb Rubber Modified Bitumen”, Advances in Materials Science and Engineering Volume
2013, Article ID 415246, 8 page.
[26] Prasad K.V.R, Mahendra.S.P, Kumar.N.S, (2013)"Study on Utilization of Pet

PolyethyleneTeraphthalate) Waste in Bituminous Mixes",IJECT ,Vol. 4, Issue Spl – 1.
[27]. HarpalsinhRaol,AbhijitsinhParmar,JitendraJayswal,Dhaval Patel,(2014),"Effect of the

use of Crumb rubber in conventional bitumen on the Marshall Stability value",IJRET,Vol
3,Issue 1.
[28] Zahra N.K., Abdelaziz M, Mohamed.R.K, (2010) "Properties of Bituminous Binder

Modified with Waste Polyethylene Terephthalate ", Proceeding of Malaysian Universities
Transportation Research Forum And Conferences, UniversitiTenagaNasional.
[29] Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1999. ASTM D-6373, Standard Specification for
Performance Graded Asphalt Binder, pp: 1102-1136.

[30] AslamShahan-ur-Rahman “Use of Waste Plastic in Construction of FlexiblePavement”,

New Building Materials & Construction World, 2009.
[31] Bahia, H.U. and Anderson, D.A., Strategic highway research program binder rheological
parameters: Background and comparison with conventional properties. Transport. Res. Rec.
1488, 1995, 32, 39.Vasudevan R., Nigam S.K., Velkennedy R., Ramalinga Chandra Sekar A.,
Sundarakannan B. Utilization of Waste Polymers for Flexible Pavement and Easy Disposal of
Waste Polymers, International Conference on Sustainable Solid Waste Management, 5 - 7,
Chennai, India pp-105-111, 2007. Baker, R.E., Polymer modified bitumen. Indian Highways,
1998, 1, 85–94.
[32] Button, J.W. and Little, D.N., Additives Have Potential to Improve Pavement Life, 1998
(Roads and Bridges: USA).
[33] Collins, J.H., Bouldin, M.G., Gelles, R. and Berker, A., Improved performance of paving
asphalt by polymer modification. Proc. Assoc. Asphalt Paving Technol., 1991, 60.
[34] Das, A., (1998). Analytical design of bituminous pavements based on field performance,
unpublished PhD thesis, Civil Engg. Dept., IIT, Kharagpur.
[35] Denning, J.H. and Carswell, J., Improvement in rolled asphalt surfacing by the addition
of organic polymers, Report LR 989, TRRL, Crowthrone 1981.
[36] Justo C.E.G. and Veeraragavan A “Utilization of Waste Plastic Bags in Bituminous Mix
for Improved Performance of Roads”, Centre for Transportation Engineering, Bangalore
University, Bangalore, India, 2002.
[37] Sabina, Khan Tabrez A, Sangita, Sharma D.K., Sharma B.M, Performance Evaluation.
of Waste Plastic/ Polymers Modified Bituminous Concrete Mixes, Journal of Scientific and
Industrial Research Vol.68,2009.

[38] Shukla, R.S. and Jain, P.K., Improvement of waxy bitumen by the addition of synthetic
rubbers, polymers and resins. Highway Res.Bull., 1984, 38, 17–28 (IndianRoads Congress,
Delhi).
[39] Shuler, T.S., Collins, J.H. and Kirkpatrick, J.P., Polymer modified asphalt properties
related to asphalt concrete performance. In Asphalt Rheology Relationship to Mixture,
ASTM, STP 941, edited by O.E. Briscoe, 1987 (ASTM: Philadelphia).
[40] T. Awwad Mohammad and Sheeb Lina, the Use of Polyethylene in Hot Asphalt
Mixtures, American Journal of Applied Sciences 4 (6) pp-390-396, 2007.
[41] Vasudevan, R., Utilization of waste plastics for flexible pavement, Indian Highways
Indian Road Congress, Vol. 34, No.7, 2006.
TEST PHOTOS
Sieving crumb rubber to fine size

Plastic shredded into Coarse size pieces
Plastic shredded into fine size pieces

Pouring modified bitumen into Ductility test mould
Pouring modified bitumen into Softening test ring moulds

Pouring modified bitumen into Pensky-Martens closed cup
Flash and Fire point test setup

Ductility test Mould After removed from water bath
Ductility test setup

Ductility Sample pulling by machine
Tested Marshall Samples

CRPB Project 1 Merged

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRPB Project 1 Merged

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRPB Project 1 Merged

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A

Under the Esteemed Guidance of

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

GUIDE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION ( 1-7 )

Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ( 8-13 )

2.1 General review about crumb rubber in different bituminous mixes

Chapter 3: EXPERMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS ( 14-45 )

3.5 Sample preparation

3.6 Void analysis

3.7 Marshall testing

Chapter 4: ANALYSIS OF RESULTS ( 46-61 )

4.1 Plotting curves for aggregate tests

FIGURE NO FIGURE NAME PAGE NO

3.16 CLOSER VIEW OF A MARSHALL SAMPLE 34

3.1 MORTH GRADATION FOR DBM (NMAS 25 mm) 15

4.1 DATA FOR PLOTTING CURVES OF DBM 54

The desirable properties of bitumen for pavement are:

Dept. of Civil Engg, NIT Narasaraopet Page 1

1.2 Binder modification

• Compatible with bitumen,

a) Type A PMP(P) – Platomeric thermoplastics based,

Grades of Type A PMB(P) : PMB(P) 120, PMB(P) 70 and PMB(P) 40,

Dept. of Civil Engg, NIT Narasaraopet Page 2

1.2.1 Purpose of Bitumen modification

1.2.2 Advantages of Bitumen modification

1.3 Crumb Rubber

Dept. of Civil Engg, NIT Narasaraopet Page 3

Figure 1. Crumb rubber sample

Dept. of Civil Engg, NIT Narasaraopet Page 4

Table 1.1 Types of plastics

Table 1.2 Waste plastic and its sources

1.5 Utilizing the waste plastic and crumb rubber

Dept. of Civil Engg, NIT Narasaraopet Page 5

to packaging, automobile, electronics, electrical, building construction, communication

Dept. of Civil Engg, NIT Narasaraopet Page 6

Figure 1.2 Waste plastic Bottles

1.6 Objective of study

Dept. of Civil Engg, NIT Narasaraopet Page 7

2.1 General reviews about crumb rubber in different bituminous mixes

Dept. of Civil Engg, NIT Narasaraopet Page 8

Dept. of Civil Engg, NIT Narasaraopet Page 9

NabinRanaMagar (2014) study aims in investigating the experimental performance of the

BahaVuralKok et al. (2015) focused on the properties of the crumb-rubber-modified

Dept. of Civil Engg, NIT Narasaraopet Page 10

Dept. of Civil Engg, NIT Narasaraopet Page 11

2.2 General reviews about Plastic in different bituminous mixes

Dept. of Civil Engg, NIT Narasaraopet Page 12

Sabinaetal(2001) studied the comparative performance of properties of bituminous mixes

Zahra et al (2010) conducted a study using powdered PET in 2%,4%,6%,8%,10% with

Dept. of Civil Engg, NIT Narasaraopet Page 13

3.2 Materials used

3.2.1.1 Coarse Aggregates

Dept. of Civil Engg, NIT Narasaraopet Page 14

3.2.1.2 Fine Aggregates

Table 3.2 MORTH gradation for BC (NMAS 13 mm)

Dept. of Civil Engg, NIT Narasaraopet Page 15

Sieve size (mm)