Ijraset Journal For Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology
Authors: Ayush Goswami, Mahesh Ram Patel
DOI Link: https://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2023.49460
Certificate: View Certificate
Stone mastic asphalt is recognized for its remarkable durability, making it a crucial component for constructing pavements on aerital roads, which must withstand heavy traffic. When road authorities choose asphalt for main roads under these conditions, they often prefer stone mastic asphalt. The most crucial aspect of this type of asphalt is ensuring that SMA is implemented correctly, as it has excellent performance characteristics. However, improper implementation can lead to changes in performance. European countries favor SMA for its outstanding performance. There have been recent ad-vancements in SMA methods, including computation and artificial intelligent systems such as artificial neural network and fuzzy logic (ANN and FL) in various engineering fields. It is vital to consider the resilient module when discussing fuzzy logic and SMA performance characteristics. Air voids, bulk density, and permeability coefficient are some of the critical SMA features that should be evaluated when applying fuzzy logic. In the initial stages, fuzzy logic utilizes weighted average operations to input data, and the output undergoes assessment by a mathematical model. Through experimental study, ap-plying fuzzy logic can enhance the accuracy of evaluation.
I. INTRODUCTION
Infrastructure development in India has identified the construction of new roads and strengthening of bridges as a major focus area. To create a strong and sustainable wearing course for bridge construction, mastic asphalt is the preferred material due to its desirable properties. This material is made up of a mixture of coarse aggregate, sand, limestone fine aggregate, filler, and bitumen. It has a low void content and the binder content is adjusted to completely fill the voids. Mastic asphalt is pourable and requires no compaction on site, making it an ideal surfacing material for bridges. However, the high percentage of bitumen content can cause drain down during mixture and transportation.
Stone matrix asphalt (SMA), also known as stone mastic asphalt, is a type of high-quality asphalt that was originally developed in Europe to resist rutting and improve durability in heavy traffic road. SMA has a high content of coarse aggregate that interlocks to create a stone skeleton, providing deformation resistance. The skeleton is filled with a bitumen and filler mastic that includes fibers to stabilize the bitumen and prevent drainage during transport and placement. SMA consists of coarse aggregate, filler, binder, and fiber. Its design is largely determined by the selection of aggregate grading and the type and proportion of filler and binder. SMA has improved rut resistance, durability, and good fatigue and tensile strength. It is commonly used for surface courses on high volume roads due to its benefits of wet weather friction, lower tire noise, and less severe reflective cracking. Mineral fillers and additives are used to prevent asphalt binder drain-down during construction and increase mix durability.
A. Stone Mastic Asphalt
Stone mastic asphalt (SMA) is a type of asphalt mixture used for road construction and surfacing. It is a high-quality mix that consists of large stones, sand, filler, and bitumen binder. The large stones in the mix provide a high level of durability and resistance to wear and tear, while the sand and filler help to create a smooth, even surface. The use of SMA results in a pavement that is more resistant to deformation, cracking, and potholes compared to traditional asphalt mixes. It also has improved skid resistance and can reduce noise levels compared to conventional asphalt surfaces. SMA is typically used for high-traffic roads and motorways, where a durable and long-lasting surface is essential. It can also be used in more demanding applications, such as airport runways, industrial estates, and heavy-duty truck parks.
Advantages and Uses of Stone Mastic Asphalt:
Stone mastic asphalt is a type of asphalt mix that is commonly used in paving and construction projects. Some of the main uses and advantages of stone mastic asphalt include:
As we know now the stone mastic asphalt is a versatile and durable paving material that provides a range of benefits, making it a popular choice for a variety of projects
B. Bagasse
Bagasse is the fibrous residue that remains after sugarcane or other plant materials have been crushed to extract their juice or sap. It is primarily composed of cellulose, hemicelluloses, and lignin and is used as a biofuel source for the production of energy, as well as for manufacturing paper, building materials, and animal feed.
In India, bagasse is a major agricultural waste generated by the sugarcane industry. According to the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, the country produces about 27 million tonnes of bagasse every year. While some of it is used as a fuel in the sugar mills to generate electricity and steam, a significant portion of it remains unutilized and is either burned or disposed of in landfills, leading to environmental problems.
However, in recent years, there has been increasing interest in using bagasse for various purposes such as production of biofuels, animal feed, and paper pulp. Additionally, bagasse is being explored as a potential reinforcement material in composite materials, including in the construction of low-cost housing. The Indian government has also initiated various schemes and incentives to encourage the utilization of bagasse and other agricultural waste for renewable energy production and other applications.
Hence our aim is to use Bagasse as a reinforcing matial in SMA.
C. Coir Fiber
Coir fiber is a natural fiber extracted from the husk of coconut fruit. In Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA), coir fibers are used as a reinforcement material to improve the mechanical properties and durability of the asphalt pavement. The addition of coir fibers to the SMA mix helps to increase the tensile strength, reduce the risk of cracking, and enhance the resistance to permanent deformation.
Coir fibers are particularly useful in hot and humid climates, as they have a high resistance to moisture absorption and are less likely to break down in such conditions. The use of coir fibers in SMA also has environmental benefits as it reduces the reliance on synthetic fibers, which can be harmful to the environment.
Overall, the addition of coir fibers to SMA has been found to result in improved pavement performance, particularly in terms of rutting resistance and cracking resistance, making it an attractive option for road construction and rehabilitation projects.
II. MATERIALS USED
The Following Materials were used:
Basic Materials and There Properties
The materials used are as follows.
A. Aggregate
The granular component of bituminous concrete mixtures, known as aggregate, constitutes a significant portion of the mixture's weight, up to 90-95%, and contributes heavily to the load bearing and strength characteristics of the pavement. As a result, it is critical to monitor the quality and physical properties of the aggregates to ensure a well-functioning pavement. The necessary properties for suitable aggregates in pavement are outlined below:
a. Coarse Aggregate (CA)
For this study, the coarse aggregate used was naturally occurring and was retained on a 4.75mm IS sieve. To be suitable for use, coarse aggregate must be screened, crushed rock with an angular shape, free of dust particles, clay, vegetation, and organic matter. It should also possess the following characteristics:
b. Fine Aggregate (FA)
For this study, naturally occurring fine aggregate (natural sand) that passes through a 4.75mm IS sieve was utilized. As for the fine aggregate, it must be sourced from clean, screened quarry dust that is free of clay, loam, vegetation, or organic matter. The fine aggregate should possess the following properties:
Table:Physical Properties of Aggregates
Sl. No. |
Physical Parameters |
Results |
Permissible Value |
1. |
Flakiness Index |
13.63 % |
Not to exceed 15% |
2. |
Elongation Index |
12.71 % |
Not to exceed 15% |
3. |
Los Angeles Abrasion Test |
16.32 % |
Not to exceed 30% |
4. |
Impact Value Test |
15.55 % |
Not to exceed 30% |
5. |
Specific Gravity |
2.64 |
Range between 2.6 to 2.7 |
B. Bitumen
In this research, the type of asphalt binder used is VG30. The bitumen utilized must possess certain characteristics.
Table: Physical Properties of Bitumen
Sl. No. |
PROPERTY |
RESULT |
Permissible limit |
1. |
Specific Gravity(at 270C) |
0.995 |
0.99-1.05 |
2. |
Penetration Value(at 250C) |
46.23 mm |
60-70 mm |
3. |
Ductility(at 250C) |
104.5 cm |
Minimum 100 mm |
4. |
Softening Point |
51ºC |
45°C to 52°C |
5. |
Flash Point |
267 ºC |
not be less than 220°C |
6. |
Fire Point |
345 ºC |
not be less than 260°C |
Table: gradation of aggregates
Sieve Size (in mm) |
Wt. retained (grams) |
% Wt. Retained |
Cumulative % retained(by weight) |
Cumulative % passing(by weight) |
26.5 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
19 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
100 |
13.2 |
60 |
5 |
5 |
95 |
9.5 |
384 |
32 |
37 |
63 |
4.75 |
468 |
39 |
76 |
24 |
2.36 |
36 |
3 |
79 |
21 |
1.18 |
24 |
2 |
81 |
19 |
0.600 |
36 |
3 |
84 |
16 |
0.300 |
12 |
1 |
85 |
15 |
0.75 |
60 |
5 |
90 |
10 |
Pan |
120 |
10 |
100 |
0 |
So the aggregates of different grades were sieved through different IS Sieves and they were kept in different containers with proper marking. The Naturally available Sand used is of Zone-II.
C. Mineral Filler
The fillers constitutes 8% to 12% of the mixture. In this study we have used 20% hydrated lime and 80% fine aggregates passing through 75µm for good binding properties.
Table: Specific Gravity of Filler Materials
Sl. No. |
Filler |
Specific Gravity |
1. |
Hydrated Lime |
2.25 |
2. |
Fine Aggregates |
2.70 |
D. Coir Fibres and Bamboo
In this study two types of fibres were used Bamboo and Coir Fibre. 0.3% by weight of aggregate has been added to minimize the drain down effects.
Table: Specific Gravity of Fibres
Sl. No. |
FIBRE |
SPECIFIC GRAVITY |
1. |
Bamboo |
0.685 |
2. |
Coir |
0.684 |
III. METHODOLOGY
Table: Amounts of raw materials
Polythene % |
Wt. of Fibre(gm) |
Wt. of Aggregate (gm) |
MIX 1 |
3.6 |
1152 |
MIX 1 |
3.6 |
1152 |
MIX 1 |
3.6 |
1152 |
MIX 2 |
3.6 |
1140 |
MIX 2 |
3.6 |
1140 |
MIX 2 |
3.6 |
1140 |
MIX 3 |
3.6 |
1134 |
MIX 3 |
3.6 |
1134 |
MIX 3 |
3.6 |
1134 |
MIX 4 |
3.6 |
1128 |
MIX 4 |
3.6 |
1128 |
MIX 4 |
3.6 |
1128 |
MIX 5 |
3.6 |
1116 |
MIX 5 |
3.6 |
1116 |
MIX 5 |
3.6 |
1116 |
A. Void Analysis
The samples were weighed in air and also immersed in water so that water replaces the air present in the voids of specimens. But some amount of water will be absorbed by the aggregates which give flawed results. Therefore, the samples were coated with paraffin wax so that it seals the mix completely and checks the absorption of liquid into it.
B. Mix Volumetric
The volumetric parameters (refer Figure 4.5) 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, VFB etc. and absorbed bitumen content (Pab). The absorbed bitumen is a important parameter, which is ignored in bituminous mix design in many cases (Chakroborty & Das, 2005)
Theoretical Maximum Specific Gravity of the mix(Gmm)
Gmm=Wt of mix/Volume of the (mix air voids)
Bulk specific gravity of the mix (Gmb)
Gmb=Wt of mix/Bulk volume of the sample Percentage of the aggregate present(Ps)
Ps=Wt of aggregate/Wt of mix
Air voids (VA)
VA= [(Wt of mix/Gmb-Wt of mix/Gmm)/(Wt of mix/Gmb)]*100
Bulk specific gravity of aggregate (Gsb)
Gsb=Wt of aggregate/Vol of(aggregate mass+air void in aggregate+absorbed bitumen)
Voids in mineral aggregates (VMA)
VMA= [(Wt of mix/Gmb-Wt of mix*Ps/Gsb)/(Wt of mix/Gmb)
Table: Gradation table with Fibre
Sieve Size (mm) |
% Retained |
4% |
5% |
5.5% |
6% |
7% |
13.2 |
5 |
57.42 |
56.82 |
56.52 |
56.22 |
55.62 |
9.5 |
32 |
367.49 |
363.65 |
361.72 |
359.80 |
355.97 |
4.75 |
39 |
447.88 |
443.196 |
440.86 |
438.52 |
433.84 |
2.36 |
4 |
45.94 |
45.45 |
45.22 |
44.98 |
44.50 |
1.18 |
3 |
34.45 |
34.09 |
33.91 |
33.73 |
33.37 |
0.6 |
2 |
22.97 |
22.72 |
22.60 |
22.49 |
22.25 |
0.3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0.75 |
5 |
57.42 |
56.82 |
56.52 |
56.22 |
55.62 |
Filler |
10 |
114.84 |
113.64 |
113.04 |
112.44 |
111.24 |
Binder |
|
48 |
60 |
66 |
72 |
84 |
Fibre |
|
3.6 |
3.6 |
3.6 |
3.6 |
3.6 |
Table: Gradation table without Fibre
Sieve Size (mm) |
% Retained |
4% |
5% |
5.5% |
6% |
7% |
13.2 |
5 |
57.6 |
57 |
56.7 |
56.40 |
55.8 |
9.5 |
32 |
368.64 |
364.80 |
362.88 |
360.96 |
357.12 |
4.75 |
39 |
449.28 |
444.60 |
442.26 |
439.92 |
435.24 |
2.36 |
4 |
46.08 |
45.60 |
45.36 |
45.12 |
44.64 |
1.18 |
3 |
34.56 |
34.20 |
34.02 |
33.84 |
33.48 |
0.6 |
2 |
23.04 |
22.80 |
22.68 |
22.56 |
22.32 |
0.3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0.75 |
5 |
57.6 |
57 |
56.7 |
56.40 |
55.80 |
Filler |
10 |
115.20 |
114 |
113.40 |
112.80 |
111.60 |
Binder |
|
48 |
60 |
66 |
72 |
84 |
Table: Correction Factors
Volume of Specimen (cm3) |
Average thickness of Specimen (mm) |
Correction Factors |
445-455 |
55.50 |
1.26 |
456-469 |
57.30 |
1.19 |
470-481 |
58.68 |
1.14 |
482-494 |
60.35 |
1.09 |
495-507 |
61.91 |
1.04 |
508-521 |
63.48 |
1 |
522-534 |
65.20 |
0.96 |
535-545 |
66.60 |
0.93 |
546-558 |
68.40 |
0.89 |
559-572 |
69.70 |
0.83 |
Table: Calculation of Parameters without fibres
Sample Nos |
Bitumen Content (%) |
Wt before paraffin coating (gm) |
Wt after paraffin coating (gm) |
Wt in water (gm) |
Ht (mm) |
Wt of Aggregate Mix(gm) |
Flow (mm) |
Load Taken (KN) |
A-1 |
4 |
1194 |
1212 |
709 |
64.30 |
1152 |
3.22 |
296 |
A-2 |
4 |
1185 |
1197 |
697 |
64.55 |
1152 |
2.52 |
256 |
A-3 |
4 |
1187 |
1202 |
703 |
65.10 |
1152 |
3.11 |
287 |
B-1 |
5 |
1179 |
1197 |
707 |
62.57 |
1140 |
4.20 |
351 |
B-2 |
5 |
1196 |
1198 |
701 |
63.15 |
1140 |
4.68 |
322 |
B-3 |
5 |
1185 |
1207 |
716 |
63.18 |
1140 |
3.58 |
292 |
C-1 |
5.5 |
1181 |
1192 |
747 |
57.20 |
1134 |
3.84 |
221 |
C-2 |
5.5 |
1177 |
1186 |
756 |
57.12 |
1134 |
4.29 |
279 |
C-3 |
5.5 |
1182 |
1190 |
758 |
61.10 |
1134 |
4.89 |
329 |
D-1 |
6 |
1201 |
1204 |
740 |
58.42 |
1128 |
4.64 |
272 |
D-2 |
6 |
1193 |
1201 |
754 |
57.35 |
1128 |
4.47 |
328 |
D-3 |
6 |
1184 |
1192 |
750 |
58.49 |
1128 |
5.43 |
254 |
E-1 |
7 |
1180 |
1209 |
705 |
61.20 |
1116 |
5.52 |
448 |
E-2 |
7 |
1182 |
1211 |
707 |
60.23 |
1116 |
5.67 |
476 |
E-3 |
7 |
1188 |
1214 |
712 |
60.45 |
1116 |
4.78 |
482 |
Table: Calculation of Parameters with bamboo fibres
Sample Nos |
Bitumen Content (%) |
Wt before paraffin coating (gm) |
Wt after paraffin coating (gm) |
Wt in water (gm) |
Ht (mm) |
Wt of Aggregate Mix(gm) |
Flow (mm) |
Load Taken (KN) |
A-1 |
4 |
1185 |
1195 |
710 |
65.30 |
1152 |
3.63 |
357 |
A-2 |
4 |
1182 |
1187 |
708 |
63.25 |
1152 |
4.15 |
374 |
A-3 |
4 |
1180 |
1187 |
704 |
62.50 |
1152 |
3.10 |
428 |
B-1 |
5 |
1198 |
1206 |
715 |
57.20 |
1140 |
4.89 |
402 |
B-2 |
5 |
1195 |
1204 |
711 |
58.30 |
1140 |
5.24 |
332 |
B-3 |
5 |
1188 |
1197 |
713 |
57.40 |
1140 |
3.88 |
394 |
C-1 |
5.5 |
1175 |
1186 |
746 |
57.40 |
1134 |
4.45 |
477 |
C-2 |
5.5 |
1175 |
1185 |
742 |
57.40 |
1134 |
4.35 |
482 |
C-3 |
5.5 |
1196 |
1206 |
755 |
57.60 |
1134 |
5.18 |
420 |
D-1 |
6 |
1195 |
1205 |
759 |
59.50 |
1128 |
4.18 |
413 |
D-2 |
6 |
1201 |
1210 |
741 |
58.40 |
1128 |
5.45 |
387 |
D-3 |
6 |
1204 |
1215 |
750 |
60.60 |
1128 |
4.48 |
337 |
E-1 |
7 |
1180 |
1190 |
750 |
57.45 |
1116 |
5.18 |
373 |
E-2 |
7 |
1182 |
1189 |
754 |
57.20 |
1116 |
4.94 |
368 |
E-3 |
7 |
1178 |
1184 |
746 |
63.40 |
1116 |
5.67 |
322 |
Table: Calculation of Parameters with Coir fibres
Sample Nos |
Bitumen Content (%) |
Wt before paraffin coating (gm) |
Wt after paraffin coating (gm) |
Wt in water (gm) |
Ht (mm) |
Wt of Aggregate Mix(gm) |
Flow (mm) |
Load Taken (KN) |
A-1 |
4 |
1143 |
1173 |
678 |
56.50 |
1152 |
2.89 |
264 |
A-2 |
4 |
1188 |
1218 |
685 |
57.40 |
1152 |
2.85 |
258 |
A-3 |
4 |
1152 |
1182 |
684 |
56.30 |
1152 |
2.76 |
273 |
B-1 |
5 |
1182 |
1199 |
673 |
57.50 |
1140 |
3.16 |
272 |
B-2 |
5 |
1187 |
1207 |
687 |
58.40 |
1140 |
3.24 |
258 |
B-3 |
5 |
1192 |
1210 |
689 |
57.50 |
1140 |
3.35 |
254 |
C-1 |
5.5 |
1201 |
1214 |
684 |
57.40 |
1134 |
3.65 |
278 |
C-2 |
5.5 |
1180 |
1191 |
690 |
56.70 |
1134 |
3.84 |
303 |
C-3 |
5.5 |
1186 |
1195 |
691 |
57.50 |
1134 |
3.79 |
301 |
D-1 |
6 |
1195 |
1204 |
695 |
58.50 |
1128 |
4.15 |
239 |
D-2 |
6 |
1184 |
1193 |
691 |
57.40 |
1128 |
4.36 |
228 |
D-3 |
6 |
1188 |
1198 |
695 |
58.70 |
1128 |
4.65 |
242 |
E-1 |
7 |
1170 |
1205 |
668 |
58.40 |
1116 |
4.57 |
203 |
E-2 |
7 |
1191 |
1199 |
682 |
56.50 |
1116 |
4.62 |
209 |
E-3 |
7 |
1187 |
1198 |
680 |
58.50 |
1116 |
4.74 |
219 |
C. Marshall Testing
The Marshall test was done as procedure outlined in ASTM D6927 – 06.
Two readings were taken from the dial gauge i.e. initial reading (I) & final reading (F) The Marshall Flow Value (f) is given by
The Marshall Stability Values are shown in Table – 4.9, 4.10 and 4.11 The Marshall Flow Values
Table: Calculation of marshall design Parameters without fibres
Sample Nos |
Bitumen Content (%) |
Bulk volume of sample |
Gmb |
Ps |
Gmm |
VA (%) |
Gsb |
VMA (%) |
Stability (KN) |
A-1 |
4 |
504 |
2.404762 |
0.950495 |
2.62 |
8.215194 |
2.73 |
16.2742 |
8.791209 |
A-2 |
4 |
501 |
2.389222 |
0.962406 |
2.62 |
8.808338 |
2.73 |
15.77285 |
7.603208 |
A-3 |
4 |
501 |
2.399202 |
0.958403 |
2.62 |
8.42742 |
2.73 |
15.77285 |
8.523909 |
B-1 |
5 |
491 |
2.437882 |
0.952381 |
2.56 |
4.770239 |
2.74 |
15.26306 |
10.42471 |
B-2 |
5 |
500 |
2.396 |
0.951586 |
2.56 |
6.40625 |
2.74 |
16.78832 |
9.56341 |
B-3 |
5 |
491 |
2.458248 |
0.94449 |
2.56 |
3.974669 |
2.74 |
15.26306 |
8.672409 |
C-1 |
5.5 |
442 |
2.696833 |
0.951342 |
2.93 |
7.957932 |
3.59 |
28.53452 |
6.563707 |
C-2 |
5.5 |
431 |
2.75174 |
0.956155 |
2.93 |
6.083954 |
3.59 |
26.71057 |
8.286308 |
C-3 |
5.5 |
431 |
2.761021 |
0.952941 |
2.93 |
5.767205 |
3.59 |
26.71057 |
9.77131 |
D-1 |
6 |
466 |
2.583691 |
0.936877 |
2.89 |
10.59893 |
3.24 |
25.2901 |
8.078408 |
D-2 |
6 |
445 |
2.698876 |
0.939217 |
2.89 |
6.613273 |
3.24 |
21.76446 |
9.74161 |
D-3 |
6 |
446 |
2.672646 |
0.946309 |
2.89 |
7.520909 |
3.24 |
21.93988 |
7.543808 |
E-1 |
7 |
507 |
2.384615 |
0.923077 |
2.55 |
6.485671 |
2.79 |
21.10454 |
13.30561 |
E-2 |
7 |
507 |
2.38856 |
0.921552 |
2.55 |
6.330974 |
2.79 |
21.10454 |
14.13721 |
E-3 |
7 |
502 |
2.418327 |
0.919275 |
2.55 |
5.163659 |
2.79 |
20.31873 |
14.31541 |
Table: Calculation of marshall design Parameters with coir fibres
Sample Nos |
Bitumen Content (%) |
Bulk volume of sample |
Gmb |
Ps |
Gmm |
VA (%) |
Gsb |
VMA (%) |
Stability (KN) |
A-1 |
4 |
496 |
2.364919 |
0.982097 |
2.98 |
20.64029 |
3.16 |
26.50061 |
7.840808 |
A-2 |
4 |
534 |
2.280899 |
0.945813 |
2.98 |
23.45977 |
3.16 |
31.73091 |
7.662608 |
A-3 |
4 |
500 |
2.364 |
0.974619 |
2.98 |
20.67114 |
3.16 |
27.08861 |
8.108108 |
B-1 |
5 |
525 |
2.28381 |
0.950792 |
2.58 |
11.48025 |
2.75 |
21.03896 |
8.078408 |
B-2 |
5 |
521 |
2.316699 |
0.94449 |
2.58 |
10.20548 |
2.75 |
20.43273 |
7.662608 |
B-3 |
5 |
520 |
2.326923 |
0.942149 |
2.58 |
9.809183 |
2.75 |
20.27972 |
7.543808 |
C-1 |
5.5 |
531 |
2.286252 |
0.934102 |
2.92 |
21.70369 |
3.26 |
34.49101 |
8.256608 |
C-2 |
5.5 |
504 |
2.363095 |
0.952141 |
2.92 |
19.07208 |
3.26 |
30.9816 |
8.999109 |
C-3 |
5.5 |
503 |
2.375746 |
0.948954 |
2.92 |
18.63885 |
3.26 |
30.84438 |
8.939709 |
D-1 |
6 |
509 |
2.365422 |
0.936877 |
2.95 |
19.81619 |
3.24 |
31.60154 |
7.098307 |
D-2 |
6 |
502 |
2.376494 |
0.945516 |
2.95 |
19.44088 |
3.24 |
30.64778 |
6.771607 |
D-3 |
6 |
504 |
2.376984 |
0.941569 |
2.95 |
19.42427 |
3.24 |
30.92299 |
7.187407 |
E-1 |
7 |
535 |
2.252336 |
0.926141 |
2.87 |
21.52138 |
3.22 |
35.21797 |
6.029106 |
E-2 |
7 |
519 |
2.310212 |
0.930776 |
2.87 |
19.50481 |
3.22 |
33.22084 |
6.207306 |
E-3 |
7 |
517 |
2.317215 |
0.931553 |
2.87 |
19.26081 |
3.22 |
32.9625 |
6.504307 |
Table: Calculation of marshall design Parameters with bamboo fibres
Sample Nos |
Bitumen Content (%) |
Bulk Volume Of sample |
Gmb |
Ps |
Gmm |
VA (%) |
Gsb |
VMA (%) |
Stability (KN) |
A-1 |
4 |
486 |
2.458848 |
0.964017 |
2.97 |
17.21051 |
3.15 |
24.75015 |
10.60291 |
A-2 |
4 |
480 |
2.472917 |
0.970514 |
2.97 |
16.73681 |
3.15 |
23.80952 |
11.10781 |
A-3 |
4 |
484 |
2.452479 |
0.970514 |
2.97 |
17.42494 |
3.15 |
24.4392 |
12.71161 |
B-1 |
5 |
486 |
2.481481 |
0.945274 |
2.95 |
15.88198 |
3.20 |
26.69753 |
11.93941 |
B-2 |
5 |
491 |
2.452138 |
0.946844 |
2.95 |
16.87666 |
3.20 |
27.44399 |
9.86041 |
B-3 |
5 |
487 |
2.457906 |
0.952381 |
2.95 |
16.68117 |
3.20 |
26.84805 |
11.70181 |
C-1 |
5.5 |
441 |
2.689342 |
0.956155 |
2.94 |
8.525769 |
3.21 |
19.89319 |
14.16691 |
C-2 |
5.5 |
443 |
2.674944 |
0.956962 |
2.94 |
9.015525 |
3.21 |
20.25485 |
14.31541 |
C-3 |
5.5 |
454 |
2.656388 |
0.940299 |
2.94 |
9.646678 |
3.21 |
22.187 |
12.47401 |
D-1 |
6 |
445 |
2.707865 |
0.9361 |
2.93 |
7.581394 |
3.24 |
21.76446 |
12.26611 |
D-2 |
6 |
469 |
2.579957 |
0.932231 |
2.93 |
11.94685 |
3.24 |
25.76799 |
11.49391 |
D-3 |
6 |
467 |
2.601713 |
0.928395 |
2.93 |
11.20433 |
3.24 |
25.45008 |
10.00891 |
E-1 |
7 |
442 |
2.692308 |
0.937815 |
2.89 |
6.840564 |
3.23 |
21.83013 |
11.07811 |
E-2 |
7 |
435 |
2.733333 |
0.938604 |
2.89 |
5.420992 |
3.23 |
20.57222 |
10.92961 |
E-3 |
7 |
432 |
2.740741 |
0.942568 |
2.89 |
5.16468 |
3.23 |
20.02064 |
9.56341 |
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Three samples had been tested for each percentage of the bamboo and coir fibre. The average of the three values had been taken for the analysis. All the average values have been mentioned below in the table:
1) Stability value first increases with increase in binder content then at a certain point it decreases gradually. Firstly it in-creases because bond between binder and aggregates becomes stronger and it decreases because applied load is trans-mitted as hydrostatic pressure making fractions across constant point immobilized. This makes the mixture weak against plastic deformation and stability falls. From the graph the average stability value of coir fiber is highest fol-lowed by bamboo fiber and without fiber SMA mix. 2) Flow value increases with the increase in binder content because at lower binder content the mixes provides more sta-bility as its homogeneity is not much disturbed but it is lost when binder content is increased. From the graph coir fiber has the least flow value (2.80mm) followed by bamboo fiber and mix without fiber mix. 3) OBC is found to be 5.5%.It is found where maximum stability occurs. 4) VA decreases with the increase in binder content because air voids is filled progressively. At 7% binder content the VA value of coir fiber is much more than bamboo and without fiber mix due to improper mixing.
[1] Dr. R. Vasudevan, S.K. Nigam, R. Velkennedy, A. Ramalinga Chandra Sekar, B. SundarakannanìUtilization of Waste Polymers coated Aggregate for Flexible Pavement And easy Disposal of Waste Polymersî Proceedings of the International Conference on Sustainable Solid waste Management, Chennai, India. pp. 105-111, 5-7September (2007) [2] D S V Prasad, M.Anjan Kumar, G V R Prasada Raju, V. KondayyaìA Study on Flexible Pavement Performance with Reinforced Fly ash Sub baseî Interna-tional Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering 4ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 04, No 06 SPL, October, pp. 403- 408(2011) [3] Henning, N. E. (1974). ìEvaluation of lignite fly ash as mineral filler in asphaltic concrete.î Report No. Item (2)-73, Twin City Testing and Engineering Labora-tory, St. Paul, Minn. [4] JianhongDia, Zhanliang Liu, ìInfluence of Fly Ash Substitution for Mineral Powder on High Temperature Stability of Bituminous Mixtureî International Con-ference on Future Energy, Environment,andMaterials2012. [5] J. Mater. ìCoal Ash Utilization In Asphalt Concrete Mixturesî Civ.Eng.11, 295(1999) [6] Meor O. Hamzah , and Teoh C. Yi ì effects of Temperature on Resilient Modulus of Dense Asphalt Mixtures Incorporating Steel Slag Subjected to Short Term Oven Ageingî World Academy of Science, engineering and Technology 46, 008 [7] P Sreejith ìUse of plastic waste in Bitumen Roadsî Powered by WordPress.com (2010) Pada Sabtu, Utilisation Of Waste Plastic In Bituminous Mixes For Road construction,(2010). [8] K.Karthik, ìCarbon fiber modified bitumen in bituminous macadamî, International Journal of Advance Engineering and Research Development Volume 2, Issue 12, December -2015. [9] Anderson, D.A., and Goetz, W.H. (1973), \"Mechanical Behaviour and Reinforcement of Mineral Filler-Asphalt Mixtures\", Proceedings of Association of As-phalt Paving Technologists, Volume 42, No. 1, pp. 37-66, USA. [10] Bindu, C.S. and Beena, K.S. (2014) “Influence of additives on the drain down characteristics of stone matrix asphalt mixtures” volume:03 issue:07, available @http://www.ijret.org [11] Arpita, S., Mahabir, P. and Ujjal, C.R. (2010) “Characteristics of Stone Matrix Asphalt Mixes ”DOI: 02.ACEE. [12] Amit, G., Zamre, G.S., Renge, V.C., Bharsakalea, G.R. and Saurabh, T. (2012) “Utilization of Waste Plastic in Asphalting of Roads” Sci. Revs. Chem. Com-mun:vol 2(2), pag 147-157. [13] Rajmane P.B., Gupta, A.K., Desai, D.B. (2013) \"Effective Utilization of Waste Plastic in Construction of Flexible Pavement for Improving their [14] Performance\", IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering ,PP: 27-30http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jmce/papers/sicete(civil)-volume2/17.pdf.
Copyright © 2023 Ayush Goswami, Mahesh Ram Patel. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Paper Id : IJRASET49460
Publish Date : 2023-03-08
ISSN : 2321-9653
Publisher Name : IJRASET
DOI Link : Click Here