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…