stone matrix asphalt using non conventional fiberscivil.srpec.org.in/files/project/2014/6.pdf ·...
TRANSCRIPT
Stone Matrix Asphalt using Non Conventional Fibers
Guided By: Prepared By:
Prof. Bhavik Patel Patel Ravi N. (100780106020)
Patel Karan A. (100780106025)
Prajapati Arjun D. (100780106054)
Chaudhari Kiran J. (090780106046)
Content 1. Introduction
2. Objective
3. Literature Review
4. Methodology
5. Tests to be conducted
6. Result and analysis
7. Conclusion and Future Scope
8. References
Introduction: • A highway project involves huge amount of investment. In current
situation a Stone Matrix Asphalt(SMA) of strong, resistive to fatigue
load, durable and economical is essentially required.
• SMA is mixture of different grades of aggregate, asphalt as binder and
non conventional fibers.
• The fibers improve the properties of the SMA mix by forming a type
of micromesh in the asphalt mix to prevent the drain down of the
asphalt so that it will increase the stability and durability of the
mixture.
Introduction (cont…)
• SMA is a gap graded mixture containing 70-80% coarse aggregate of
total aggregate mass, 6-7% of binder, 8-12% of filler, and about 0.3 -
0.5% of fiber or modifier.
• By this project we try to achieve these requirements through a number
of tests on the mix with varied proportions and finalizes with the best
one.
• In this project two types of fibers are used as the stabilizers
1) Coconut Fiber
2) Jute Fiber
Physical appearance of jute fibers Physical appearances of coconut fiber
Advantages of Stone Matrix Asphalt
Following are the advantages of Stone Matrix Asphalt.
• High stability against permanent deformation
• High wear resistance
• Slow aging and durability to premature cracking of the asphalt
• Good low temperature performance
• Longer service-life
• Higher asphalt content
• Premium materials and additives
• Better long-life behaviour
Objective
• To use non conventional fibers such as Coconut fibers and Jute fibers
as stabilizer in SMA mixture.
• To compare the physical properties between conventional bitumen
and modified bitumen.
• To compare the stability and flow value of SMA with fibers and
without fibers.
Literature Review 1. ‘Resilient characteristics of Stone Matrix Asphalt mixes’, Arpita Suchismita,
Mahabir Panda, Ujjal Chattraj, ACEE Int. J. on Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Vol. 01, No.01, Feb-2011
‘In the present study, an attempt has been made to study the
resilient properties of mixtures of stone matrix asphalt made with two
types of conventional binders namely bitumen 80/100 and 60/70, with 0.3%
by weight of a non – conventional natural fiber, namely coconut fiber. The
mixes subjected to both static and repeated load indirect tensile strength
tests. It is observed that the natural fibres have propounding effect on the
resilient properties of the mixes.’
Literature Review
2. ‘Experimental Investigation on Coir Fiber Reinforced Bituminous Mixes’,
T SUBRAMANI, Vol.2, Issue 3, May-June 2012, Page no: 1794-1804
‘The project studies the suitability of coir as a reinforcing material in
bituminous mixes. Marshall method of mix design was adopted for the
mixes and the optimum bitumen content, fibre content and fibre length are
determined for coir fibre reinforced bituminous mixes and their
performance is analysed. An optimum bitumen content of 5%, optimum
fibre content of 0.46% and fibre length of 17.25 mm was obtained after
analysis. On studying the Marshall parameters, it is found that the
addition of coir fibre to semi dense bituminous concrete mix contributes
significantly in improving the performance of the mix.’
Literature Review
3. ‘Indian Highways’, Indian Road Congress (IRC), P. Vilvakumar, N. Senthil,
S. Lakshmi, C. Kamaraj and S. Gangopadhyay, Vol. 41 No. 6, June 2013, PP
: 51-58
‘It is proposed to investigate the influence of sugarcane fibres as
stabilizing additive on engineering properties on Stone Matrix Asphalt mix
(SMA). SMA is a gap graded bituminous mixture that maximizes coarse
aggregate’s content in the mix which provides better stone-on-stone
contact. Additives are generally used in SMA mix to prevent drain down of
binder. The dosages of fibres proposed in this study were 3g, 5g, 7g and 10g
by weight of mix i.e., 0.26%, 0.43%, 0.6% and 0.86% by weight of mix
respectively. In this study 50 mm thick SMA mix was designed as per
MoRTH Specifications.’
Literature Review 4. ‘Coir fiber as stabilizing additive in stone matrix asphalt’, Beena K. S and
Bindu C. S, International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering, ISSN
0974-5904, Vol. 04, No. 01, February 2011, pp. 165-177
‘Synthetic fibres are conventionally used in the construction of Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA) in bituminous pavements. This paper envisages the laboratory investigation carried out to determine the feasibility of using coir, in bituminous gap graded mix. Marshall Stability tests and tri-axial tests were conducted with varying percentage bitumen by weight of mineral aggregate (6% to 8%) and by varying percentage fibre by weight of mix (0% to0.4%). The variation in the fibre content from 0 to 0.3%, gives an increase in the retained stability and shear strength of 17% and 22.45 % respectively compared to the conventional SMA mix. The drain down test results gives an optimum fibre content of 0.3%. The splitting tensile test shows that the percentage decrease in strength, in the soaked condition was found to be decreasing in the fibre stabilized SMA at different temperatures. Thus coir fibre can be used as an effective stabilizing additive in SMA.’
Literature Review 5. ‘Stone Matrix Asphalt: assessing the effects of cellulose fiber
additives’, A. R. Woodside, W. D. H. Woodward and H. Akbulut, Proc. Instn
Civ.EngrsMun. Engr, 1998 Sept., pp. 103 - 108
‘German bituminous surfacing mixture known as stone mastic
asphalt may possess levels of in-service performance that resist the growing
incidence of premature failure experienced by traditional materials such as
hot rolled asphalt. A high stone content grading requires the use of a
stabilizing additive to ensure long-term performance. The most common
type of additive is cellulose fiber. This paper assesses the effect that the
addition of differing types of this fiber has on measurable bituminous mix
properties. The addition of cellulose fiber to SMA mixtures may affect
performance in ways not being considered at present. While the addition of
small amounts (0-3%) will reduce binder drainage, greater additions may
affect in-service properties such as cohesiveness, stiffness and resistance to
permanent deformation.’
Methodology :
1 • Tests on bitumen and aggregates
2 • Blending of aggregate
3 • Selection of binder content
4 • Selection of Non Conventional fiber
5 • Preparation Mixes
6 • Marshall Test
7 • Analysis of Result
8 • Conclusion
Experimental Overview
Bitumen Tests
1. Penetration Test
2. Ductility Test
3. Softening Point Test
4. Specific Gravity Test
5. Viscosity test
6. Flash & fire point test
Aggregate Tests
1. Specific Gravity test
2. Impact value test
3. Abrasion value test
Marshall Test
1. Marshall Stability Test
Bitumen Tests
1. Penetration Test: It measures the hardness or grade of bitumen by
measuring depth in tenths of a millimetre.
2. Ductility Test: Ductility is the property of bitumen that permits it to undergo
the deformation or elongation.
3. Softening Point Test: Softening point denotes the temperature at which the
bitumen attains a particular degree of softening under the specifications of
test.
4. Specific Gravity Test: Specific gravity is the density property of bitumen.
5. Viscosity Test: Viscosity denotes the fluid property of bitumen which
measures the resistance of flow.
Bitumen Tests 6. Flash point and Fire point Test: At high temperature depending upon the
grades of bitumen material leave out volatiles. And these volatiles catch fire
which is very hazardous and therefore it is essential to qualify this
temperature for each bitumen grade
Aggregate Tests
1. Specific Gravity Test: The specific gravity of an aggregate is considered to
a measure of the quality or strength of the material. Stone having low
specific gravity values are generally weaker than those having higher
values.
2. Impact Value Test: This test is conducted to determine the toughness of
stone or the resistance of aggregates to fracture under repeated impacts.
3. Abrasion Value Test: Abrasion value test is conducted to determine their
resistance against wearing. Los Angeles machine is used to determine the
abrasion value.
Results and analysis
Physical properties of conventional bitumen
Test Description Results Permissible Limit
Penetration Value 64 mm 60 – 70 mm
Softening Point 45.40° 40° – 55°
Ductility Value 93cm Min. 50 cm
Flash point 245° 90° - 370°
Fire Point 273° 90° - 370°
Results and analysis
Physical properties of aggregate
Test Description Results Permissible Limit
Specific Gravity 2.72 2.5% - 3.5%
Impact Value 6.30 % Max. 27%
Abrasion Value 11.14 % Max. 30%
Marshall Test The marshall test is widely used to determine the stability and flow
characteristic of bituminous mixes.
1. Marshall Stability Test:
• In this method, the resistance to plastic deformation of a compacted
cylindrical specimen of bituminous mixture is measured when the specimen
is loaded diametrically till its failure.
• First the Marshall specimens are prepared as per the given specifications.
The physical properties (dimension, weight, etc.) were recorded. Before
testing the code specifies that for Marshall Test the sample has to be placed
in water bath for 30 (± 5 minutes) at a temperature of about 60°C. The time
of testing between taking out of sample from water bath and testing should
not exceed 30 seconds. Load is applied vertically at a rate of 50 mm per
minute on the sample at 60° C and its stability and flow value were recorded
from the respective gauges.
Marshall Test
Fig. Marshall Test Apparatus
Grading Requirement for Marshall Test Cube
SMA Designtion 13mm SMA 19mm SMA
Nominal aggregate size 13mm 19mm
Nominal layer thickness 40-50mm 45-75mm
IS sieve Cumulative % by weight of
total aggregate passing
Cumulative % by weight of
total aggregate passing
26.5 - 100
19 100 90-100
13.2 90-100 45-70
9.5 50-75 25-60
4.75 20-28 20-28
2.36 16-24 16-24
1.18 13-21 13-21
0.6 12-18 12-18
0.3 10-20 10-20
0.075 8-12 8-12
Aggregate Gradation
100
93.82
62.54
46.18
23.54
18.61 16.31 15.72
13.87 11.05
100
90
45
25
20
16 13 12
10 8
70
28
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Combined Gradation Lower Limit Upper Limit
Blending of aggregate • Individual sieve analysis has been done on four different types of
quarry aggregate to mix their proportion for SMA. The mix proportion
obtained from various trials is:
32% of 20 mm Aggregate
30% of 10 mm Aggregate
23% of 6 mm aggregate
15% of Stone Dust Aggregate
• This proportion has been obtained after a few trial and errors with
a view to obtaining an optimum blend.
Blending of aggregate
Optimum Fiber Content
• By referring various literatures we concluded that by adding 0.3% of
fibers, the stability and flow value is higher as compared to the
conventional bitumen.
• Hence, in this study we selected fiber content of 0.3% and performed
different tests by varying bitumen content of 5%, 5.5%, 6%, 6.5%.
Technical calculation of Marshall stability test • Bulk Spacific Gravity of aggregate
• Maximum Specific Gravity of mix (Gmm)
• Effective specific gravity of mixed aggregates (Gse)
• Air voids in compacted mix
• Voids in mineral aggregate (VMA)
• Voids filled with bitumen (VFB)
Results and Discussion
Bitumen %
Fiber % Stability(kg)
Flow Value (mm)
Bulk Density (gm/cc)
VMA (%)
VFB (%)
Air Voids
(%)
5.0 0.0 958 2.4 2.329 16.54 61.36 6.391
5.5 0.0 1091 2.8 2.34 16.586 68.53 5.22
6.0 0.0 1263 3.3 2.373 16.86 80.18 3.143
6.5 0.0 1159 4.2 2.362 16.7 82.99 2.84
Test Results By Marshall Method of SMA Without Fibre
• Stability of SMA without fiber
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
Sta
bil
ity
,kg
Bitumen %
Stability
Stability
• Flow Value of SMA without fiber
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
Flo
W V
alu
e,m
m
Bitumen %
Flow Value
Flow Value
• Bulk Density of SMA without fiber
2.325
2.33
2.335
2.34
2.345
2.35
2.355
2.36
2.365
2.37
2.375
2.38
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
Bu
lk D
ensi
ty, G
mb
Bitumen %
Bulk Density
Bulk Density
• VMA of SMA without fiber
15.8
15.9
16
16.1
16.2
16.3
16.4
16.5
16.6
16.7
16.8
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
VM
A
Bitumen %
VMA
VMA
• VFB of SMA without fiber
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
VF
B
Bitumen %
VFB
VFB
• Air Voids of SMA without fiber
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
Air
Vo
ids
%
Bitumen %
air voids
air voids
Bitumen %
Fiber %
Stability (kg)
Flow Value (mm)
Bulk Density (gm/cc)
VMA (%)
VFB (%)
Air Voids
(%)
5.0 0.3 1074 2.6 2.333 16.40 62.01 6.23
5.5 0.3 1291 3.1 2.344 16.44 69.20 5.06
6.0 0.3 1337 3.6 2.378 15.68 81.25 2.94
6.5 0.3 1240 4.5 2.336 16.76 82.57 2.92
Test Results By Marshall Method of SMA with Coconut Fibre
• Stability of SMA with Coconut Fiber
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
Sta
bil
ity
,kg
Bitumen %
Stability
Stability
• Flow Value of SMA with Coconut fiber
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
Flo
w V
alu
e,m
m
Bitumen %
Flow value
flow value
• Bulk Density of SMA with Coconut fiber
2.33
2.335
2.34
2.345
2.35
2.355
2.36
2.365
2.37
2.375
2.38
2.385
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
Bu
lk D
ensi
ty
Bitumen %
Bulk Density
Bulk Density
• VMA of SMA with Coconut fiber
15.6
15.8
16
16.2
16.4
16.6
16.8
17
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
VM
A
Bitumen %
VMA
VMA
• VFB of SMA with Coconut fiber
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
VF
B
Bitumen %
VFB
VFB
• Air Voids of SMA with Coconut fiber
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
Air
vo
ids
%
Bitumen %
air voids
air voids
Bitumen (%)
Fiber (%)
Stability (kg)
Flow Value (mm)
Bulk Density (gm/cc)
VMA (%)
VFB (%)
Air Voids
(%)
5.0 0.3 1104 2.4 2.34 16.14 63.13 5.95
5.5 0.3 1270 3.0 2.36 15.87 72.81 4.41
6.0 0.3 1419 3.6 2.385 15.43 82.95 2.65
6.5 0.3 1297 4.3 2.378 16.13 86.48 2.18
Test Results By Marshall Method of SMA with Jute Fibre
• Stability of SMA with Jute fiber
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
Sta
bil
ity
,kg
Bitumen %
Stability
stability
• Flow value of SMA with Jute fiber
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
Flo
w V
alu
e,m
m
Bitumen %
Flow Value
Flow Value
• Bulk Density of SMA with Jute fiber
2.335
2.34
2.345
2.35
2.355
2.36
2.365
2.37
2.375
2.38
2.385
2.39
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
Bu
lk D
ensi
ty
Bitumen %
Bulk Density
Bulk Density
• VMA of SMA with Jute fiber
15.3
15.4
15.5
15.6
15.7
15.8
15.9
16
16.1
16.2
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
VM
A
Bitumen %
VMA
VMA
• VFB of SMA with Jute fiber
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
VF
B
Bitumen %
VFB
VFB
• Air Voids of SMA with Jute fiber
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
Air
Vo
ids
%
Bitumen %
air voids
air voids
Comparison of results of SMA without and with
coconut and jute fibers
• Comparison of stability
Fig. Stability Vs. Bitumen %
5 5.5 6 6.5
Without Fiber 958 1091 1263 1159
coconut fiber 1074 1219 1337 1240
Jute fiber 1104 1270 1419 1297
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Sta
bil
ity
Stability Vs. Bitumen %
• Comparison of Flow value
5 5.5 6 6.5
Without Fiber 2.4 2.8 3.3 4.2
coconut fiber 2.6 3.1 3.6 4.5
Jute fiber 2.4 3 3.6 4.3
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Flo
w V
alu
e
Flow Value Vs. Bitumen %
. Fig. Flow Value Vs. Bitumen %
• Comparison of Bulk Density
5 5.5 6 6.5
Without Fiber 2.329 2.34 2.373 2.362
coconut fiber 2.333 2.344 2.378 2.36
Jute fiber 2.34 2.36 2.385 2.378
2.3
2.31
2.32
2.33
2.34
2.35
2.36
2.37
2.38
2.39
Bu
lk D
ensi
ty
Bulk Density Vs. Bitumen %
Fig. Bulk Density Vs. Bitumen %
• Comparison of VMA
5 5.5 6 6.5
Without Fiber 16.54 16.586 15.85 16.7
coconut fiber 16.4 16.44 15.68 16.76
Jute fiber 16.14 15.87 15.43 16.13
14.5
15
15.5
16
16.5
17
VM
A
VMA Vs. Bitumen %
Fig. VMA Vs. Bitumen %
• Comparison of VFB
5 5.5 6 6.5
Without Fiber 61.36 68.53 80.18 82.99
coconut fiber 62.01 69.2 81.25 82.57
Jute fiber 63.13 72.81 82.95 86.48
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
VF
B
VFB Vs. Bitumen %
Fig. VFB Vs. Bitumen %
• Comparison of Air voids
5 5.5 6 6.5
Without Fiber 6.391 5.22 3.143 2.84
coconut fiber 6.23 5.06 2.94 2.92
Jute fiber 5.95 4.41 2.65 2.18
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Air
Vo
ids
Air Voids Vs. Bitumen %
Fig. Air Voids Vs. Bitumen %
Conclusion
Marshall Stability
• It is observed that with increase in binder content the Marshall
Stability value increases up to certain binder content and then
decreases. At 6% bitumen content and 0.3% Coconut fiber content the
stability increases about 5.86% and at 6% bitumen content and 0.3%
Jute fiber content the stability increases about 12.35% compared to
conventional bitumen content without fiber.
Flow value
• The flow value increases with increase in binder content and
decreases with increase in stiffness of the binder. At 6% bitumen
content and 0.3% Coconut and Jute fiber content the flow value
increases about 9.1% compared to conventional bitumen content
without fiber.
Future Scope
• In this study Marshall properties has been studied. One type
of binder, two natural fibres as coconut and jute fibre have been tried
in this Study.
• However, some of the properties such as drain down value
and resistance to rutting can further be investigated. Some other
synthetic and natural fibres can also be tried in SMA mixes and
compared. Only one gradation has been adopted here, so an attempt
can be made to compare different gradations suggested by various
agencies.
• Coconut fibre and jute fibre used in this study is a low cost
material, therefore a cost-benefit analysis can be made to know its
effect on cost of construction. Moreover, to ensure the success of this
new material, experimental stretches may be constructed and periodic
performances monitored.
References : 1. ‘Coir fiber as stabilizing additives in stone matrix asphalt’, Beena K. S., Bindu C. S., International
Journal of Earth sciences and engineering, ISSN 0974-5904, Vol. 4 No. 1, February 2011, pp. 165-177
2. ‘Experimental investigation on Coir fiber reinforced bituminous mixes’, T SUBRAMANI, Vol.2,
Issue 3, May-June 2012, Page no: 1794-1804
3. ‘Indian Highways’, Indian Road Congress(IRC), P. Vilvakumar, N. Senthil, S. Lakshmi, C. Kamaraj, S.
Gangopadhyay, Vol. 41 No. 6, June 2013, pp. 51-58
4. ‘Resilient characteristics of Stone Matrix Asphalt mixes’, Arpita Suchismita, Mahabir Panda, Ujjal
Chattraj, ACEE Int. J. on Civil and Environmental Engineering, Vol. 01, No.01, Feb-2011
5. ‘Stone Matrix Asphalt: assessing the effects of cellulose fiber additives’, A. R. Woodside, W. D. H.
Woodward and H Akbulut, Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs Mun. Engr, 1998 Sept., pp. 103 - 108
• IS: 2386 (1963), “Methods of Test for Aggregates for Concrete (P - I): Particle Size and Shape
• IS: 2386 (1963), “Methods of Test for Aggregates for Concrete (P-III): Specific Gravity, Density, Voids,
Absorption, Bulking
• IS: 1203 (1978), “Methods for Testing Tar and Bituminous Materials: Determination of Penetration
• IS: 1205 (1978), “Methods for Testing Tar and Bituminous Materials: Determination of Softening Point
• IS: 1208 (1978), “Methods for Testing Tar and Bituminous Materials: Determination of Ductility”,
Bureau of Indian Standards
• MoRTH 500 : Base and Surfaces Courses (Bituminous)
Thank You…