100%(6)100% ont trouvé ce document utile (6 votes)
2K vues36 pages
This technical note by Prof. Prithvi Singh Kandhal describes the primary root cause (use of water-trapping bituminous mixes) for generally poor condition of roads across rural and urban areas. Radical changes have been recommended in terms of deleting the problematic mixes and using durable and cost effective bituminous mixes/applications only.
This technical note by Prof. Prithvi Singh Kandhal describes the primary root cause (use of water-trapping bituminous mixes) for generally poor condition of roads across rural and urban areas. Radical changes have been recommended in terms of deleting the problematic mixes and using durable and cost effective bituminous mixes/applications only.
This technical note by Prof. Prithvi Singh Kandhal describes the primary root cause (use of water-trapping bituminous mixes) for generally poor condition of roads across rural and urban areas. Radical changes have been recommended in terms of deleting the problematic mixes and using durable and cost effective bituminous mixes/applications only.
Potholed roads are a common sight across rural and urban India especially during and after monsoons. Every year crores and crores of rupees are spent by the highway agencies in extensive pothole patch repairs. Because of adverse media coverage these agencies do patch repairs of main streets in urban areas and main highways in rural areas after the monsoon season is over. By lanes in towns and cities and some secondary roads in rural areas usually remain neglected for years. This ritual is repeated year after year despite the fact that due to potholes several lakhs of people are involved in accidents causing serious injuries and in many cases fatalities. Also, India is losing thousands of crores every year in road user costs in terms of loss of wage hours due to increased travel time; excessive usage of fuel (due to slow and stop movement); and increased vehicle wear and tear.
The Indian public has been brainwashed in believing potholes are a natural phenomenon during rains (as if water in the Indian monsoon has some chemical to dissolve the bituminous road!). Here in India the roads have to bear the brunt of only three months of monsoon rain every year. If roads last for three years in India they would last only nine months in many other countries where it rains almost throughout the year. That would be the case if our highway engineers are called upon to build roads there.
If somebody asks the aam aadmi (common man) in India, Why roads in India fail prematurely especially during monsoons?, the majority response would be: Indian highway engineers intentionally construct road in such a way so that it keeps on failing prematurely and they keep on getting fat budget for maintenance (pothole repair) and resurfacing year after year. 2
3
4
Whereas lack of quality control is a contributing factor, there is a major fundamental, engineering problem which the Indian public does not know. Of some ten types of bituminous paving mixes specified and used in India, seven are open graded (water- trapping) problematic mixes. Examples: Bituminous Macadam (BM) Gradings 1 and 2; Semi Dense Bituminous Concrete (SDBC) Gradings 1 and 2; Dense Bituminous Macadam (DBM) Grading 1; Premix Carpet (PMC); and Mixed Seal Surfacing (MSS). The Built-Up Spray Grout (BUSG) is no different. The remaining three are dense graded (and therefore desirable) mixes. Examples are: Dense Bituminous Macadam (DBM) Grading 2; Bituminous Concrete (BC) Grading 1; and Bituminous Concrete (BC) Grading 2.
The water-trapping mixes also happen to be initially cheaper than the dense graded mixes and therefore are used commonly. (It does not matter if they generally last for 1-2 years compared to dense graded mixes which may last for 7-8 years. In other words, they are very expensive based on life cycle costs.) Water is enemy number one of bitumen. That is why, water-trapping mixes fail prematurely especially during monsoons. This is simple common sense and not rocket science. All across India, the deadly combination of BM and SDBC is being used brazenly. PMC is also used extensively.
Most developed countries in the world generally have three dense graded bituminous mixes in their specifications: one each for base course, binder course and wearing course. And they have good durable roads despite heavy rainfall sometimes throughout the year. It is simply amazing as to why Indian highway engineers need additional seven water-trapping, problematic bituminous mixes for road construction/resurfacing?
Obviously, some engineers are technically ignorant about the fundamental principle of highway engineering to keep the water away from bituminous mixes. Others keep on using these water-trapping bituminous mixes knowing fully well about their impending premature failure resulting in fat budgets for pothole repairs/resurfacing. 5 A technical review of individual bituminous mixes used in India follows.
TECHNICAL REVIEW OF BITUMINOUS MIXES USED IN INDIA
This technical review has been largely taken from two Indian Roads Congress (IRC) papers by Kandhal et al published in 2008 and 2010 (1,2). All ten bituminous mixes specified in India by the Ministry of Transport and Highways (MORTH) have been reviewed below.
Bituminous Macadam (BM)
Bituminous Macadam (BM) is an open graded, permeable, and recipe type mix produced without any quality control on its volumetrics or strength (stability). The primary problem with the BM mix is that being very open graded, it is highly permeable and therefore will trap moisture or water. BM and SDBC were developed several years ago, when conventional hot mix plants were not common. At that time, hot mixing was done in small portable plants or concrete mixers in which much fine aggregate could not be used due to limitations of the available heating and mixing equipment. Now, good hot mix plants are normally available almost all across India.
Figures 1, 2, and 3 shows a typical cross-section of flexible pavement as being used in India. Figure 1 does not have a BM layer and the Dense Bituminous Macadam (DBM) is resting directly on unbound Wet Mix Macadam (WMM). However, Figures 2 and 3 show cross-sections where BM has been used as a base, binder or profile corrective course (PCC) with no outlet for water thus creating a bath tub situation within the pavement.
Fig. 1 Typical cross-section of flexible pavement in India
6
Fig. 2 Flexible pavement with BM as a base course or PCC
Fig. 3 Flexible pavement with BM as a base/binder course
The fundamental question thus boils down to BM versus DBM. Should BM be deleted and densely graded DBM used instead in all cases? To answer that question BM and DBM should be compared both from the engineering aspect (primary) and economical aspect (secondary). This has been done considering the following factors:
Permeability: It has been acknowledged in many IRC and MORTH publications that BM is a much more open mix compared to the densely graded DBM. The MORTH Manual for Construction and Supervision of Bituminous Works (3) states on page 52, Because of the open-graded aggregate matrix, the voids content (in the BM) can be as high as 20-25 percent. Some researchers have reported air voids of about 10% in lab compacted BM specimens. This range of 10-25% air voids can occur because BM has two gradings and within each grading BM can be relatively coarse or fine considering the combination of lower and upper values for each sieve. Table 1 gives air voids and permeability data obtained on the BM mix (4). In this case four BM gradations were used: Grading 1 (both coarse and fine) and Grading 2 (both coarse and fine). The test data was obtained on 150-mm diameter specimens compacted with 75 blows (equivalent of 50 blows on 100-mm diameter specimens) in accordance with Kandhal Modified Marshall Method included in the Asphalt Institute Manual MS-2. The air void content ranges from 8.3 to 15.4 percent. The test data on Gradings 1 and 2 are comparable because both gradings have about the same amount of material passing the 4.75 mm sieve. Figures 4 and 5 show the open texture of BM specimens 7 Grading 1 and Grading 2, respectively. When these specimens were placed under a water tap, the water readily passed through them indicating very high permeability.
Figure 4. Open surface texture of BM Grading 1
Figure 5. Open surface texture of BM Grading 2
TABLE 1. AIR VOIDS AND PERMEABILITY TEST DATA FOR BITUMINOUS MACADAM (BM) Mix Type Bitumen Content, % Air Voids, % Permeability, cm/sec BM Grading 1 (Coarse) 3.25 13.6 3.4 BM Grading 1 (Fine) 3.25 8.9 0.4 BM Grading 2 (Coarse) 3.4 15.4 3.6 BM Grading 2 (Fine) 3.4 8.3 0.6
Even if the scenario of about 10% air voids in the BM in the lab is considered, the voids in the field can be as much as 15% (at least 95% compaction of the lab density 8 is usually required). According to numerous studies all over the world, dense graded bituminous mixes become permeable when air voids are more than 7-8%. BM type open graded mix, which has a large number of interconnected voids, becomes permeable at relatively lower air voids, i.e. for air voids more than 5-7%. So there cannot be any argument about the fact that the BM is a highly permeable mix compared to the dense graded DBM. It has been said, three things are important in highway construction drainage, drainage, and drainage. No permeable asphalt layer is desirable within the pavement structure (unless it is specifically for drainage with proper outlets) whether it is a PCC, base course, binder course or whatever. If this fundamental requirement is disregarded, the potential for premature pavement distress is increased. A permeable layer always attracts and traps water, moisture or moisture vapour. Water can come from the top, from the sides, or from the non-flexible courses underneath (5). If there is a premix carpet (which is highly permeable despite sand seal coat) right over the BM, rainwater will have direct access to the BM and can cause havoc. Premix carpet will be discussed in detail later.
The writer has investigated and reported (6,7)
many real-life field case histories of premature pavement failures from across the world. In a majority of cases, bituminous layers, which trapped water, were the real culprits. There was stripping of bitumen in the permeable layer as well as in the adjacent layers overlying or underlying it due to traffic action. Figures 6 and 7 show a failure in Oklahoma, US, which was investigated by the writer (7). On this project an open type binder course was used. It was saturated with water since there were no subsurface edge drains at the edge of the pavement. This led to stripping in the binder course under traffic. Note that majority of the potholes appeared near the pavement edge where water accumulated and did not have any positive outlet. Potholes are often found more in number in the right lane (in the US), which carries heavy truck traffic. It is; therefore, felt that BM layer without an outlet should not be used for long term pavement performance.
Structural Strength: Many highway agencies across the world give structural value to a BM type mix (used for drainage) of 50% of dense graded DBM type mix. IRC Publications 37 and 81 on flexible pavement design state that 7 mm of DBM is equal to 10 mm of BM. In either case, the DBM is far superior to the BM in terms of structural strength and fatigue life. Some engineers are suggesting using polymer- modified bitumen (PMB) in the BM to increase its structural strength. If that is the objective, why not simply use the stiffer DBM in the first place. First of all, hardly any agency in the world uses PMB in a base course mix. Moreover, using PMB in an un-designed, recipe type BM mix, which unlike the DBM has hardly any quality control criteria at the design or mixing stage, is not simply justified. Therefore, DBM is by far superior to the BM in terms of structural strength, mix design criteria, and mix production control.
Use as a PCC: It has been surmised that BM is a good material for profile corrective course (PCC) because it resists reflection cracking. No other country is using a permeable, water-trapping type mix for PCC. Only dense graded mixes such as DBM or BC are used for transverse or longitudinal profile correction in other countries (8) in courses called scratch courses, levelling courses or wedge courses, which are same as Indias PCC. The reasons for using dense mixes are: to stay away from water- trapping permeable mixes and also to facilitate easy feathering of the mix from a specified depth to almost zero in a wedge type PCC. It is normally argued/believed 9 that BM has a better resistance to reflection cracking and accordingly, many pavement designers introduced a layer of BM between DBM and WMM in India. It does not appear that this conclusion is based on any research. [Bituminous Concrete or BC mixes with smaller nominal maximum aggregate size (NMAS) and higher bitumen contents are also highly flexible according to published research.) Assuming
Figure 6. Road failure in Oklahoma, US resulting from saturated open graded binder course (Ref. 7)
Figure 7. Close up of stripped binder course in Oklahoma, US (Ref. 7)
that BM has a better resistance to reflection cracking, it is still a water-trapping permeable mix and as discussed earlier, the potential for failure by far exceeds the perceived advantage of resisting reflection cracking. 10 Cost Considerations: The use of BM is quite often made on the premise that BM is cheaper than DBM and, therefore, it is suitable for use in developing country like India. That is simply not correct as discussed below.
Comparative cost analysis of BM and DBM has been done based on the 2013 Basic Schedule of Rates (BSR) of BM and DBM obtained from the Rajasthan PWD Circle in Jaipur. The cost of BM Grading 2 in place is Rs 5,354 per cu m and the cost of DBM Grading 2 in place is Rs. 6,851 per cu m. Considering that 100 mm thick BM is equal to 70 mm thick DBM as per IRC guidelines, the actual cost of DBM in place comes out to be Rs. 4,796 per cu m. That is a saving of Rs. 558 per cu m or about 10 percent, when DBM is used in lieu of BM. That is a lot of savings on a road project. The preceding cost analyses have clearly established that DBM is much cheaper than the BM on equivalency cost basis. It is not understood as to why the Indian engineers are ignoring this fact.
Traffic Conditions: According to some highway engineers, BM is intended for low- traffic roads only, although it is being used extensively on national highways and state highways. However, the fact remains that any layer, which traps water, should not be used whether it is a low-volume or high-volume road. The concept of perpetual pavement or long lasting pavements is relevant even for less traffic roads. The need today is to construct pavements needing less maintenance avoiding frequent overlays, besides providing a good riding surface for many years. The design concept should, therefore, be same for both heavy traffic and low traffic. In any case, the thickness of different bituminous layers will be different depending upon the traffic intensity.
General Statements: General statements are sometimes made like (a) BM is a popular mix or (b) BM has been widely used with success throughout the country. The concept of success is myopic and it does not envisage in the concept of long-term performing pavements. The normal life of pavement in India is between 2 to 4 years compared to 8 to 10 years in other countries. The developed countries are talking of perpetual/long-term pavements capable of performing for 50 years or more. This may look strange but our vision should accordingly extend to give precedence to durability over deceptive cost saving. The concept of sound economics/engineering suggest that we should accept changing the permeable mixes by dense and relatively less permeable mixes to give long life to our bituminous pavements.
Road pavement is analogous to RCC roof in the house; we do not want both to allow any permeation and/or capture of rainwater. Using BM is like providing RCC without any vibrator, which results in a honeycombed RCC structure. Would those who believe in BM construct their house roof like that? It may not fail right away but would not last long.
Even the Central Road Research Institute (CRRI) has stated in 2008 the following in their investigational report (9) on premature failure of NH-91 in Uttar Pradesh: For ensuring long term pavement performance, focus now must shift to the use of dense graded bituminous mixes (such as DBM and BC) rather than the open graded and semi dense bituminous mixes (such as BM and SDBC).Bituminous Macadam is a highly permeable mix which is prone to rutting and water induced damage. Bituminous Macadam, though is widely used at present, but needs to be gradually replaced with DBM in the coming years, because it is not cost effective in the long 11 run and does not perform better during the design life of a pavement subjected to heavy traffic. Similarly, the use of Semi-Dense Bituminous Concrete is also needed to be discouraged as it suffers from "pessimism" voids, which have potential to trap water resulting into damage due to moisture. It should be substituted by Bituminous Concrete as it is a better performing mix and is also cost effective in the long run.
The simple and big question is: will BM ever be banned by MORTH and state highway agencies?
Semi Dense Bituminous Concrete (SDBC)
There is no engineering logic in using a semi-dense mix when only dense, continuously graded mixes are technically desirable. In most developed countries (8) either dense mixes (HMA) are provided or the open graded asphalt friction course (OGFC) is provided as wearing course. Semi-dense mixes which are neither dense graded nor open graded contain the so-called pessimum voids when constructed. Terrel and Shute (10) advanced the concept of pessimum void concept for stripping. Figure 8 shows the general relationship between air voids and relative strength of bituminous mixes following water conditioning. The amount of strength loss depends upon the amount and nature of voids. As shown in the figure, at less than 4 percent air voids, the mix is virtually impermeable to water, so it is essentially unaffected. Unfortunately, region B to C of Fig. 8 is where mix is semi-dense. As the voids increase to D and beyond, the mix strength becomes less affected by water because the mix is now free draining like asphalt treated permeable base (ATPB). The region B to C can be called pessimum void content because it represents opposite of optimum. The objective is to stay out of the pessimum void range. A semi-dense
Fig. 8 Pessimum voids in semi-dense mixes (Ref. 10)
mix, which has a potential for having pessimum voids in it, is likely to trap moisture/water and causing stripping. As mentioned earlier, this also has been acknowledged by the CRRI while investigating NH-91 in Uttar Pradesh (9).
12 It is felt that in a tropical country like India thicker wearing courses of 40 mm should be provided on all roads to ensure against the penetration of water from top and thereby to prevent crack initiation from top. Unfortunately, the use of SDBC has been advertently promoted to some extent because only SDBC Grading 2 has been specified by MORTH for a thin layer of 25 mm. However, the fact remains that thin 25 mm mat cools rapidly after lay down and it is not possible to compact it to the desired level. This results in high permeability and reduced life. It should also be noted that BC is only 10 percent more expensive than the SDBC as is evident from the following prices obtained from the 2013 Schedule of Rates of Rajasthan PWD, Jaipur Circle:
Semi-Dense Bituminous Concrete (SDBC) Grading 2 Rs. 7,758 per cu m Bituminous Concrete (BC) Grading 2 Rs. 8,553 per cu m
Unfortunately across India the deadly combination of BM and SDBC continues to be used even in heavy rain areas like northeast India. It is simply unacceptable. Rainwater permeates through the semi dense SDBC (or its cracks) and is stored in the underlying BM bath tub. The water or moisture vapor from the BM can cause stripping in the BM as well as in the overlying SDBC, quite often also causing debonding (scaling) of the SDBC from the BM. This scaling results in numerous shallow potholes on the road as shown in Figure 9. These shallow potholes are sometimes repaired with premix carpet (PMC) mix which can perpetuate the problem.
Figure 9. Shallow potholes (scaling) on SDBC on a state highway
Although MORTH has rightly deleted SDBC in its revised 2013 Specification (11), no circular was issued for the information of highway engineers as to why it was deleted. Unfortunately, it is being used at the present time because it is still in the IRC Specification. The simple question is: will SDBC be banned by MORTH and state highway agencies?
13 Dense Bituminous Macadam (DBM)
At the present time the dense bituminous macadam (DBM) is specified for use as a base course and/or binder course. Two gradations of the DBM are specified in Section 505 of 2013 MORTH specifications: Grading 1 has a NMAS (nominal maximum aggregate size) of 37.5 mm and Grading 2 has a NMAS of 25 mm.
Table 2 gives the existing MORTH composition of DBM Gradings 1 and 2. The specified percentage of fine aggregate is the same in both gradings (28-42 percent), the main difference is just some large size aggregate particles (25-45 mm size) are contained in Grading 1. It was discussed earlier that the use of large stone mix (NMAS of 37.5 mm or larger) has several disadvantages such as segregation (Figure 10) and high permeability (Fig. 11). These disadvantages outweigh the marginal gain in stability, if any, over a 25 mm NMAS mix. Since Grading 1 is highly permeable, it has to be sealed or overlaid before rainy season otherwise water will penetrate it and damage the underlying WMM course. Experienced Indian highway engineers advise this but why dont they simply ban the problematic DBM Grading 1 altogether and use only the DBM Grading 2? This writer has observed on two national highways in India deteriorated DBM Grading 1 in the lower lift of the total DBM, which was disintegrated due to stripping and could not be retrieved intact by coring (Fig. 12). The simple question is: will MORTH and state highway agencies ever ban the problematic DBM Grading 1?
Fig. 10. Segregation of DBM Grading 1 (37.5 mm NMAS mix) resulting in honeycombing 14
Fig. 11. Effect of nominal maximum aggregate size (NMAS) on permeability of in-place asphalt pavement
Fig. 12. Deteriorated DBM Grading 1 used in lower DBM lift could not be retrieved intact while coring
Grading 1 2 Nominal Aggregate Size 40 mm 25 mm Lift Thickness 80-100 mm 50-75 mm Sieve, mm Percent Passing 45 100 37.5 95-100 100 26.5 63-93 90-100 19 - 71-95 13.2 55-75 56-80 9.5 - - 4.75 38-54 38-54 15 2.36 28-42 28-42 1.18 - - 0.6 - - 0.3 7-21 7-21 0.15 - - 0.075 2-8 2-8 Bitumen Content, % Min. 4.0 Min. 4.5
The MORTH specification and IRC:111- 2009 mention a lift thickness of 50-75 mm for Grading 2. It can be debated whether it should be 50-100 mm as practiced in many countries including the US.
Bituminous Concrete (BC)
Two gradings of the Bituminous Concrete (BC) have been specified in Section 507 of the MORTH Specifications (2013). According to MORTH, the BC can be used for wearing and profile corrective courses. Grading 1 has a NMAS of 19 mm and Grading 2 has a NMAS of 13 mm.
As discussed earlier, DBM Grading 2 was selected as base course. Now, there is a need to select a binder course and two wearing (surface) course. BC Grading 1 with a NMAS of 19 mm is suitable for a binder course because by definition it binds the base course (NMAS of 25 mm) and the wearing course (NMAS of 13 mm) with an intermediate (transition) NMAS of 19 mm. BC Grading 2 with a NMAS of 13 mm is suitable for a wearing course. Therefore, BC Grading 1 should be renamed as a binder course and used as such in the pavement design in lieu of the upper lift of DBM.
There is a need to add a new BC gradation with a NMAS of 9.5 mm, which can be used for light to medium traffic, and in urban areas to provide smooth and highly impermeable and durable bituminous road surface. BC Grading 3 is also suitable for thin asphalt lifts and should be preferred over BC Grading 2. This BC gradation with a NMAS of 9.5 mm is being used successfully across the US even on interstate highways. Such a gradation was proposed in the IRC paper by Kandhal, Sinha and Veeraragavan (1). All three BC gradations are shown in Table 3.
TABLE 3. AGGREGATE GRADING FOR BITUMINOUS CONCRETE (BC) GRADINGS 1, 2 AND 3
SPECIFICATION BC GRADING NUMBER* Grading 1
2 3 Nominal maximum aggregate size 19 mm 13.2 mm 9.5 mm Layer thickness 50 mm 25/40 mm 25/40 mm IS Sieve size (mm) Percent passing by weight 26.5 100 19 90-100 100 16 13.2 59-79 90-100 100 9.5 52-72 70-88 90-100 4.75 35-55 53-71 55-75 2.36 28-44 42-58 40-55 1.18 20-34 34-48 29-44 0.6 15-27 26-38 21-33 0.3 10-20 18-28 14-25 0.15 5-13 12-20 7-15 0.075 2-8 4-10 4-7 Bitumen content (min.) 5.2% 5.4% 5.7% Note: BC Grading 1 should be used as binder course; BC Gradings 2 and 3 should be used for wearing courses. Proposed BC Grading 3 should be preferred over BC Grading 2 for thin asphalt lifts and city streets.
COMBINATIONS OF DENSE GRADED BASE COURSE, BINDER COURSE AND WEARING COURSE
Some discussion of how the recommended base course, binder course, and wearing course mixes should be used in new pavements as well as in overlays follows.
Base course mixes, which use relatively larger size aggregate, are not only stiff/stable but also are economical because they use relatively lower bitumen contents. Surface or wearing course mixes with smaller aggregate on the other hand have relatively higher bitumen contents, which not only impart high flexibility but also increase their durability. The binder (intermediate) course mix serves as a transition between the base course and wearing course. Several studies have shown that permanent deformation (rutting) within flexible pavement is usually confined to the top 100 to 150 mm of the pavement. This means both the binder and wearing course mixes should be designed to be resistant to rutting. That is why in extreme cases of heavy traffic loads and high tyre pressures, it is considered prudent to use Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA) mix in which due to stone-on-stone contact the load is carried directly by the coarse aggregate skeleton.
It is not necessary to use all three bituminous courses (base, binder, and wearing) in a new flexible pavement unless the traffic is very high. For example, the following combinations can be used depending upon the total thickness of the bituminous course(s) required as per structural design based on IRC:37.
WMM + DBM Base Course + BC Binder course + BC Wearing Course WMM + BC Binder Course + BC Wearing Course WMM + BC Wearing Course only
For low-trafficked roads only a granular base and a bituminous wearing course may suffice based on structural requirements as practiced in many developed countries.
Some examples are given below for suggested bituminous courses for total required bituminous layer thickness considering the recommended lift thicknesses for the four mixes:
17 Required Total Bituminous Use Layer Thickness
Less than 50 mm BC Wearing Course only (BC Grading 2) 75 mm 125 mm BC Binder Course (BC Grading 1) + BC Wearing course (BC Grading 2) 150 mm or more DBM Base Course (DBM Grading 2) + BC Binder Course (BC Grading 1) + BC Wearing Course (BC Grading 2)
If the total design bituminous layer thickness falls between 50 mm and 75 mm, or between 125 mm and 150 mm, use the higher thickness.
It has been surmised by some that a BC wearing course is too stiff and will crack if placed directly over WMM. This is not correct because the BC wearing course has relatively lower stiffness due to its lower NMAS (12.5 mm or 9.5 mm) and high bitumen content. This combination is being used in other countries including Australia and South Africa. Similarly, a bituminous overlay required for strengthening flexible pavement can consist of the following depending upon the required thickness as per IRC:81:
BC Binder Course (BC Grading 1) + BC Wearing Course (BC Grading 2) BC Wearing Course only (BC Grading 2)
Unlike most developed countries, overloading is a major concern in India. On very heavily trafficked road with severe overloading problem, it is recommended to modify the BC wearing course and BC binder course (that is, the top 100 mm of the pavement only, which is likely to rut) as follows:
Ensure to use viscosity graded VG-30 grade bitumen as per latest IS73, which is significantly more rut resistant than the old 60/70 penetration bitumen. Use polymer modified bitumen (PMB) Use Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA) as per IRC Specifications IRC:SP:79-2008
Premix Carpet (PMC)
Before the premix carpet (PMC) is discussed, a little history is in order. When this writer was serving as highway engineer in the Rajasthan PWD during early 1960s, it was very common to use bituminous surface dressing (SD) or chip sealing on most types of roads. Surface dressing was very effective in water-proofing the WBM roads because of heavy bitumen application rate followed by chip application. Surface dressing was scheduled once in 3 or 4 years on all roads. Very potholes dotted the roads at that time. Traffic volumes were generally less during that time period. Road construction was largely manual and hardly mechanized. Bitumen for surface dressing was applied with perforated tin cans. Spreading the surface aggregate (chips) by hand was an art learnt through practice, usually by swirling the basket containing aggregate. 18 As is usual with surface dressing, chips were dislocated and became loose if the treated road was opened too soon to traffic or slow speeds were not maintained just after construction. The finished road surface was not black and therefore not too appealing to the public. Too overcome these perceived problems, the premix carpet (PMC) was introduced with the IRC publishing its specification for the first time in 1962. As mentioned earlier, road construction was still manual. Single size chips (nominal size 12 mm) were either broken by labourers by hand or obtained from stone crusher plants (if available nearby). Hot bitumen was applied as tack coat through perforated tin cans. The mix containing almost single size aggregate (11.2 mm to 13.2 mm) could easily be coated with about 3-3.5% bitumen either by hand on flat pans placed over wooden log fire; or small drums rotated by hand; or small portable mixing plants. Under such circumstances graded aggregate could not be used.
The mix was taken in hand carts and spread over tack coated road surface using hand rakes. After rolling the road surface appeared shining black, no loose stone and impressive to public unlike surface dressing. It was realized that the PMC was highly permeable to rainwater due to single size aggregate being used in the mix. Therefore, the use of sand seal coat was warranted to seal the surface of the open graded mix. Sand was mixed with about 7% bitumen, applied on the open surface, and rolled. These days some highway engineers require the PMC to be laid with a paver to obtain a smooth surface. It is not understood as to how a mix with NMAS of 12 mm can practically laid in 20 mm lift; normally the lift thickness should be at least 2.5 times (preferably 3 times) the NMAS.
With the advent of the PMC, surface dressing started to die across India and is almost non-existent in many states such as Rajasthan. This is ironical that surface dressing is still being used extensively and successfully on low to medium-trafficked roads in developed countries such as US, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. Indian engineers argue that surface dressing is successful in those countries because the construction (bitumen application and chip spreading) is mechanized there. It is not understood as to what is preventing the Indian engineers in this day and age to require/mandate bitumen distributors (already available for tack coat work) and mechanized chip spreaders (being manufactured and used in Gujarat) (12).
The PMC has probably served India well for over 50 years especially during the time mechanization was almost not there. However, due to significant increase in vehicular traffic and PMCs inherent water-trapping characteristics its service life has decreased significantly in recent years. Time has come now to think out of the box and consider surface dressing in lieu of PMC for low to medium-trafficked roads because it is highly economical (as discussed later) as well as highly effective in water-proofing the road pavement.
The undesirable water-trapping characteristic of the PMC, which causes potholes due to increased hydraulic pressure under traffic, is discussed below.
To keep things in perspective, lets compare PMC with open graded asphalt friction course (OGFC), which is used in developed countries primarily for road safety. Although OGFC is not used in India, experience with OGFC is applicable to PMC used in India in certain aspects. Both are highly water permeable (porous) mixes and are placed 20 mm thick. The OGFC is placed on dense bituminous concrete (similar 19 to BC Grading 2) to provide a skid resistant wearing surface during rainfall or when the pavement is wet. The rainwater penetrates the open surface of the OGFC; goes to its bottom; then flows within 20 mm thick OGFC towards the shoulders; and then exits from the exposed edge of the OGFC onto shoulders. Since there is no rainwater on the surface of OGFC there is no hydroplaning or skidding of motor vehicles on its surface. OGFC is highly permeable to water since it has over 18% air voids (13). The OGFC is durable despite high air voids because it has about 6% polymer modified bitumen content, which provides thick bitumen film around the aggregate particles.
The premix carpet (PMC) on the other hand is substantially more open graded and more porous (permeable to water) than the OGFC because the former uses very coarse aggregate (nominal size of 11.2 to 13.2 mm). Its air void content is estimated to be over 25 percent. Although a sand seal coat is provided on the surface of the PMC, it is not completely effective in making the PMC waterproof at the surface. Even if there is a small patch where the PMC has lost its sand seal, the water on roads in cities and towns can penetrate it at that spot, flow sideward like in OGFC, and flood the entire PMC below the sand seal (Figure 13). The hydraulic pressure induced by traffic in the water trapped within the PMC below the seal coat is likely to cause stripping within the PMC and the underlying bituminous course. If the underlying course is WMM or WBM, it would get saturated and lose its strength especially if it contains some plastic material.
Intrusion of water from the unsealed areas of PMC is analogous to porous 20 mm OGFC (PMC in our case) overlaid by dense BC which has cracks. Surface water can penetrate the OGFC through cracks and flood the entire OGFC (Figure 14). This writer has observed this phenomenon while conducting forensic investigation in Australia (Figure 15). It was hard to believe the sight of water oozing out of the OGFC although it had not rained for weeks. That is why; OGFC is always milled off before placing a dense bituminous surfacing.
Figure 13. Surface water entering the premix carpet (PMC) through an unsealed area saturating it under the seal as well, causing stripping within PMC and the underlying bituminous course when subjected to traffic loads.
20
Figure 14. Premix carpet (or OGFC) sandwiched between two BC courses can be saturated with surface water entering through the cracks in the top BC course, causing stripping in the PMC and adjacent BC courses.
Figure 15. Free water oozing out of the OGFC sandwiched between two BC courses. It was observed when a section of the road was cut by cold milling.
The surface water permeability of an in-service PMC was determined recently with a grease ring method. Although it is simple, crude, falling head water permeability test, it does give some relative permeability values. A ring about 225 mm in diameter and about 25 mm high is made on the road surface to be tested using heavy grease. Putty can also be used in lieu of heavy grease. The ring is filled with water up to a depth of 12.5 mm and timer is started. Time taken by the water to penetrate and disappear from the road surface is measured in seconds as measure of relative water permeability.
The first test (Fig. 16) was made on PMC without any seal coat. It was not even possible to fill the ring with water because it was penetrating the PMC as fast it was poured. On filling rapidly, water penetrated fully in about 5 seconds. The second test (Fig. 17) was made on PMC with moderate amount of sand seal coat. The measured field permeability was 105 seconds. The third test (Fig. 18) was made on PMC with adequate amount of sand seal coat. The measured field permeability was 545 seconds. It is not uncommon to see non-uniform application of sand seal coat on PMC because 21
Fig. 16. Field permeability of PMC without any sand seal coat
Fig. 17. Field permeability of PMC with moderate sand seal coat
Fig. 18. Field permeability of PMC with adequate sand seal coat 22
it is usually spread manually (Fig. 19). It is a matter of great concern. During a similar test on BC wearing course, water remained at 12.5 mm level for hours and therefore the field water permeability was almost zero (Fig. 20).
Fig. 19. PMC surface with non-uniform application of sand seal coat
Fig. 20. Field permeability of BC Grading 2
It is quite evident from the preceding field experiments that generally the PMC with sand seal coat would easily take in and trap water during rains. Once the PMC is saturated with water, the hydraulic pressure resulting from traffic above can loosen up the sand seal in other areas of the PMC. This writer has observed this phenomenon on Jaipur streets (Figure 20). As already mentioned, the hydraulic pressure also causes stripping in the PMC as well as in the underlying bituminous course. That is why; PMC deteriorates rather rapidly during monsoons especially in towns and cities where 23 streets usually get flooded. The average life of PMC in Jaipur is about 1-2 years. Its bitumen content is about 3.5 percent.
Figure 21. Failure of premix carpet (PMC) during the first monsoon within Jaipur city
Obviously, there are cases where PMC with good, uniform sand seal coat and/or very dry climate has endured well. However, fundamentally it does not make any sense as to why we place a highly porous bituminous mix like PMC in the first place and then try to seal it. We do not have any idea as to what depth, if any; the estimated 6 mm thick sand seal coat really penetrates the 20 mm thick PMC when rolled.
There are numerous other questions related to PMC which need to be answered: total air voids in PMC; absolute volume of sand seal coat; unfilled voids in PMC; depth of sand seal penetration in PMC; etc. etc. It is amazing as to why no such research was conducted in India for the last 60 years to answer these legitimate questions. On the other hand, hundreds of research papers have been published across the world in case of surface dressing in terms of its rational design, construction and performance. How come hardly any research has been conducted in India where PMC is used, especially on its structure, volumetrics, performance and durability? It appears some engineers just have a gut feeling that PMC does work and is good for India and therefore there is no need for any research on it.
This writer could not find any published data on average life of PMC in India either. Some PMGSY engineers revealed its average life to be 2 years without significant distress such as ravelling and potholes. This is not acceptable.
If the PMC is a panacea for low to medium trafficked roads in India, why this technology cannot be exported to developed countries in this global world. However, that would require fundamental, sound engineering justification which is almost nonexistent and hard to come by in case of the PMC.
24 Therefore, time has come now to ban the PMC altogether because its continued use cannot be justified technically as well as economically anywhere; be it city streets, low volume roads (such as PMGSY), or medium to high volume roads.
So what are the alternatives for PMC in India? The discussion follows.
For low to medium-trafficked roads where PMC is used right now, use single or double surface treatment. If black road surface is desirable for surface dressing to impress motoring public as well as minimize chip loss, use precoated chips. It should be noted all these alternatives are much cheaper than the PMC as shown in Table 4. Note that the cost of single coat surface dressing is only 1/3 of the cost of PMC. It is not understood as to why it cannot be used on low volume roads such as PMGSY; that would save India thousands of crores of rupees every year. Just imagine how many thousands of additional kilometers of PMGSY roads can be built with the savings. Even if double surface dressing with precoated chips is used its cost is three-fourth (3/4) of the cost of PMC.
Now is the time to take this matter seriously especially when the excuse that surface dressing is not completely mechanized is no longer valid. The service life of surface dressing is not considered less than the service life of the PMC. So whats the excuse now when the whole world is using surface dressing with success and IRC has a very good standard specification for surface dressing?
Table 4. Comparison of Costs for PMC and Recommended Alternates
No. Option Cost per sq m in rupees Cost per km lane in rupees 1 20 mm PMC with sand seal coat 210 7.88 lacs 2 25 mm BC Grading 2 205 7.69 lacs 3 Surface dressing, single application with VG-10, nominal chip size 13.2 mm, mechanical means 70 2.62 lacs 4 Surface dressing, single application with VG-10, nominal chip size 13.2 mm, mechanical means with precoated chips 79 2.96 lacs 5 Surface dressing, double application with VG-10, chip size 13.2 mm, mechanical means 140 5.24 lacs 6 Surface dressing, double application with VG-10, chip size 13.2 mm, mechanical means with precoated chips 149 5.58 lacs 7 40 mm BC Grading 2 320 12.00 lacs Notes: All options except surface dressing include one tack coat. Precoated chips coated with 1% VG-10 costs Rupees 1,107 per cu m. In case of double surface dressing, only top application used precoated chips. Lane width = 3.75 m
25 Besides significantly lower construction cost, surface dressing offers the following functional advantages compared to PMC (12):
1. Excellent sealing of road surface, which does not allow ingress of rainwater into the lower layers thus resulting in a durable pavement 2. Minimizes oxidation of bitumen because it exists in thick film and stone chips provide protection from sun rays 3. Higher resistance to skidding which reduces accident hazards 4. Retards reflection cracking because of flexible behaviour 5. Environmental friendly because chips need not be heated
Obviously, the highway agencies have to mandate the use of mechanized bitumen distributor and chip spreader, which are already available in India, to ensure the functional success of surface dressing.
For medium to heavy-trafficked roads and city roads use BC Grading 2 in lieu of the PMC. Although it is permissible to lay BC Grading 2 in 25-40 mm depth according to IRC:111- 2009 (14), it is preferable to use 40 mm depth to ensure adequate compaction during construction (thin lifts cool rapidly). It is ironical that the cost of 25 mm BC Grading 2 is lower than the cost of PMC (Table 4).
Although the initial cost of 40 mm BC Grading 2 is about 50% more than the cost of 20 mm PMC, BC Grading 2 is actually 24.1% cheaper than the PMC based on life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) given in Annexure. This is a very conservative analysis in that the remaining service life, salvage value, maintenance expenses, and user operating costs were not even considered, which all favour BC. Therefore, savings will be much more than 24.1 percent. More importantly, BC Grading 2 provides significant structural strength to the road pavement for future traffic growth whereas PMC has almost zero structural strength to offer.
Mixed Seal Surfacing (MSS)
The Indian Roads Congress adopted the Mixed Seal Surfacing (MSS) specification IRC:SP:78-2008 (15) probably as an alternate to the PMC; both are applied in 20 mm thickness. Since hot mix asphalt plants are now widely available across India, it was considered practical and easy to adopt a hot mix which would encompass or incorporate both the PMC and the sand seal in one mix rather than two different applications. This would also reduce cost of construction. As shown in Table 5, two gradations are specified for MSS: one is closed gradation (Type A with NMAS of 9.5 mm) and the other is open gradation (Type B with NMAS of 9.5 mm or 12.5 mm). Since the closed graded mix has NMAS of 9.5 mm it can be placed in 20 mm thick course similar to PMC. Both are recipe type mixes with no mix design requirements such as Marshall required for BC.
TABLE 5. AGGREGATE GRADINGS FOR MIX SEAL SURFACING IS Sieve size, mm Type A Type B % Passing by weight % Passing by weight 13.2 --- 100 26 11.2 100 88-100 5.6 52-88 31-52 2.8 14-38 5-25 0.090 0-5 0-5
Both MSS mixes are not really dense graded mixes similar to BC Grading 2. The question is: why not adopt well designed dense graded BC Grading 3 with NMAS of 9.5 mm proposed earlier under BC to achieve the same purpose? Gradations of BC Grading 2 and proposed BC Grading 3 are included in Table 3 for comparison. That would ensure an almost impermeable and durable mix, also designed with the Marshall Method. Grading 3 is even used as a wearing course on US interstate highways with satisfactory performance.
Therefore, there is no need for MSS; rather it should be deleted from the Indian specifications and replaced with a more densely graded, more durable BC Grading 3.
Built-up Spray Grout (BUSG)
Built-up Spray Grout (BUSG) has been recommended as a base course for flexible pavements. It is not a bituminous mix; rather a two-layer composite construction of compacted, almost singe sized crushed aggregates with application of hot bitumen after each layer. Single sized key aggregate is then applied at the top. Obviously, this type of bituminous construction is highly permeable because the sprayed bitumen does not fill the voids in the coarse aggregate adequately. Therefore, this type of construction is considered water trapping. This has been proven from the fact that potholes repaired with BUSG technique quite often reappear in a year or two.
Therefore, BUSG should be banned for use in India. Although BUSG has been rightly deleted from recently revised 2013 MORTH Specification (11), no circular has been issued by MORTH as to why it was deleted and whether or not it should be used by highway agencies.
DETAILED RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BITUMINOUS CONSTRUCTION
In view of the preceding fundamental technical observations (although radical for India), the following detailed recommendations are made for (a) construction of new flexible pavements, (b) improving ride quality programme (IRQP), and (c) periodical renewal (PR). Together, these three construction activities constitute major portion of bituminous road construction activities in India.
Construction of New Flexible Pavements As technically justified in detail earlier, delete from the specifications the following eight water-trapping bituminous mixes/applications: Bituminous Macadam (BM) Gradings 1 and 2; Semi Dense Bituminous Concrete (SDBC) Gradings 1 and 2; Dense Bituminous Macadam (DBM) Grading 1; Premix Carpet (PMC); Mixed Seal Surfacing (MSS), and the Built-Up Spray Grout (BUSG). Use the following dense graded (and therefore desirable) mixes: Dense Bituminous Macadam (DBM) Grading 27 2 for base course; Bituminous Concrete (BC) Grading 1 for binder course; and Bituminous Concrete (BC) Grading 2 for wearing course. Use Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA) binder and base courses for very heavy and/or overloaded truck traffic. Introduce Bituminous Concrete (BC) Grading 3 with a nominal maximum aggregate size (NMAS) of 9.5 mm for use in thin lifts as well as on city streets for smooth surface.
It is not necessary to use all three bituminous courses (base, binder, and wearing) in a new flexible pavement unless the traffic is very high. For example, the following combinations can be used depending upon the total thickness of the bituminous course(s) required as per structural design based on IRC:37.
WMM + DBM Base Course + BC Binder course + BC Wearing Course WMM + BC Binder Course + BC Wearing Course WMM + BC Wearing Course only
For low-trafficked roads only a granular base and a bituminous wearing course may suffice based on structural requirements.
Some examples are given below for suggested bituminous courses for total required bituminous layer thickness considering the recommended lift thicknesses for the four mixes:
Required Total Bituminous Use Layer Thickness
Less than 50 mm BC Wearing Course only (BC Grading 2) 75 mm 125 mm BC Binder Course (BC Grading 1) + BC Wearing course (BC Grading 2) 150 mm or more DBM Base Course (DBM Grading 2) + BC Binder Course (BC Grading 1) + BC Wearing Course (BC Grading 2)
If the total design bituminous layer thickness falls between 50 mm and 75 mm, or between 125 mm and 150 mm, use the higher thickness.
Unlike most developed countries, overloading is a major concern in India. On very heavily trafficked road with severe overloading problem, it is recommended to modify the BC wearing course and BC binder course (that is, the top 100 mm of the pavement only, which is likely to rut) as follows:
Ensure to use viscosity graded VG-30 grade bitumen as per latest IS73, which is significantly more rut resistant than the old 60/70 penetration bitumen. Use polymer modified bitumen (PMB) Do not use CRMB which often is of dubious quality due to inadequate specifications and lack of quality control (16,17) Use Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA) as per IRC Specifications IRC:SP:79-2008
For low trafficked roads such as PMGSY, do not use PMC. In lieu of PMC, use single or double surface dressing (with or without precoated chips) or BC Grading 2 28 or BC Grading 3 directly on WBM or WMM. As discussed earlier, 40 mm BC Grading 2 is cheaper than PMC by 24.1% based on life cycle cost analysis.
Improving Ride Quality Programme (IRQP)
Improving Ride Quality Programme (IRQP) is practiced across India for the implied purpose. MORTH issued revised guidelines for IRQP for national highway stretches in September 2002 (16). The guidelines are also used by the state highway agencies for roads other than national highways with all kinds of variations as noted from NITs published in newspapers. Table 6 gives various options for IRQP along with costs based on 2013 Rajasthan PWD Basic Schedule of Rates (BSR). The first seven options are listed in the MORTH circular of September 2002. Options 8 and 9 have been used by some states. Option 10 has been proposed in this paper in lieu of Options 1 through 9 as discussed later.
Based on the preceding detailed technical discussion, BM, SDBC, PMC, MSS and BUSG should be deleted from the Indian Specifications (both MORTH and IRC) and therefore should be excluded from Table 6. Use of WMM (see options 1, 2, 3, and 4 in Table 6) is not advised if IRQP is being conducted on an existing road consisting of bituminous course because that would mean abandoning its structural contribution (in terms of tensile strength) to the rehabilitated pavement system.
Therefore, Option 10 consisting of 60 mm BC Grading 2 in two applications: 20 mm (average) scratch or leveling course applied with a paver to fill depressions followed by 40 mm uniform thick wearing course in recommended. In developed countries, dense graded wearing course mix is used for leveling for practical purposes and also for ease in feathering. It also provides a dense wearing course. Both leveling and wearing courses provide highest structural strength to the pavement compared to the first nine options.
Cost of Option 10 is very comparable to the other 9 options listed in Table 6 even without considering life-cycle costs. More importantly, Option 10 is also considered most durable and would therefore revolutionize the conditions of roads across India. There are hardly any logical technical and economical reasons to use Options 1 through 9 in lieu of Option 10. If so warranted for the ride quality and/or pavement design, the thickness of BC Grading 2 scratch or leveling course can be increased from 20 mm to 30 mm in Option 10.
MORTH Circular also recommends use of CRMB or PMB in bituminous mixes used for IRQP. Whereas PMB is acceptable and should be used in courses within 100-150 mm from the road surface; CRMB should not be used as explained earlier.
Table 6. Comparison of Costs for Various Options in Improving Ride Quality Programme (IRQP)
No. Option Cost per sq m in rupees Cost per km-lane in rupees 1 225 mm WMM + 20 mm PMC with sand seal coat 541.34 20.30 lacs 29 2 225 mm WMM + 20 mm MSS 511.34 19.18 lacs 3 150 mm WMM + 20 mm PMC with sand seal coat 446.22 16.73 lacs 4 150 mm WMM + 20 mm MSS 416.22 15.61 lacs 5 75 mm BUSG + 25 mm SDBC 461.00 17.29 lacs 6 50 mm BM + 25 mm SDBC 521.50 19.56 lacs 7 75 mm BM + 25 mm SDBC 684.25 25.66 lacs 8 50 mm BM + 20 mm MSS 518.50 19.44 lacs 9 50 mm BM + 20 mm PMC with sand seal coat 561.50 21.06 lacs 10 60 mm BC Grading 2 in two applications: 20 mm (average) Scratch or leveling course + 40 mm wearing course 525.20 19.70 lacs Notes: All options except BUSG include two tack coats. Lane width = 3.75 m
Periodical Renewal (PR)
Periodical Renewal (PR) is also practiced across India for the implied purpose. MORTH also issued revised guidelines for PR for national highway stretches in September 2002 (18). The guidelines are also used by the state highway agencies for roads other than national highways with all kinds of variations as noted from NITs published in newspapers. Options 1, 2, 3, and 4 in Table 7 are listed in the MORTH guidelines circular along with costs based on 2013 Rajasthan PWD Basic Schedule of Rates (BSR).
Based on the preceding detailed technical discussion, problematic SDBC, PMC, and MSS should be deleted from the Indian Specifications (MORTH and IRC) and therefore should not be used for PR as well.
As mentioned earlier, singe or double surface dressing with or without precoated chips (Options 5, 6, 7, and 8 in Table 7) should be used for low to medium trafficked roads. Surface dressing would really waterproof the pavement structure compared to PMC and MSS. It is amazing to note that the cost of PMC is about three times the cost of singe surface dressing. Even double surface dressing with precoated chips is much cheaper than the PMC. It should be noted that surface dressing is used world wide with high degree of success. PMC is used only in India despite its high costs and unacceptable durability.
For medium to heavy trafficked roads, BC Grading 2 listed as Option 9 should be used. Although the cost of 25 mm BC Grading 2 (NMAS of 12.5 mm) is comparable to problematic SDBC, PMC and MSS, it would be better to use BC Grading 3 (NMAS of 9.5 mm) to facilitate thin lift paving. However, thin lifts do cool rapidly and it is difficult to obtain adequate compaction. Therefore, use of 40 mm BC Grading 2 should also be considered in terms of constructability, structural strength, longevity, and lower life cycle costs.
MORTH Circular also recommends use of CRMB or PMB in bituminous mixes used for PR. Whereas PMB is acceptable and should be used; CRMB should not be used as explained earlier. 30 Table 7. Comparison of Various Options for Bituminous Periodical Renewal (PR) with Costs
No. Option Cost per sq m in rupees Cost per km lane in rupees 1 20 mm PMC with sand seal coat 210 7.88 lacs 2 20 mm MSS 180 6.75 lacs 3 25 mm SDBC 183 6.86 lacs 4 25 mm BC Grading 2 205 7.69 lacs 5 Surface dressing, single application with VG-10, nominal chip size 13.2 mm, mechanical means 70 2.62 lacs 6 Surface dressing, single application with VG-10, nominal chip size 13.2 mm, mechanical means with precoated chips 79 2.96 lacs 7 Surface dressing, double application with VG-10, chip size 13.2 mm, mechanical means 140 5.24 lacs 8 Surface dressing, double application with VG-10, chip size 13.2 mm, mechanical means with precoated chips 149 5.58 lacs 9 40 mm BC Grading 2 320 12.00 lacs
Notes: All options except surface dressing include one tack coat. Precoated chips coated with 1% VG-10 costs Rupees 1,107 per cu m. In case of double surface dressing, only top application used precoated chips. Lane width = 3.75 m
ARGUMENTATIVE INDIAN (ENGINEER)
Indians are generally considered argumentative, highway engineers are no exception. Sometimes arguments are made for the argument sake only, quite often without any technical justifications. Some likely arguments which come to mind on the subject of this paper are as follows [this writers response is given in parenthesis]:
Experience from other countries cannot be emulated in India. [Indigenous research is always welcome but in absence of the same we cannot continue with poor specifications. Granite is granite or limestone is limestone, whether it is in the US or India. Similarly, AC-30 bitumen used in the US in the past is similar to VG-30 bitumen currently used in India. Traffic is also computed in ESALs both in the US and in India. Therefore, there is no reason as to why experience with bituminous mixes cannot generally be used in India with some minor adjustments.] Why the US highway technology is being imposed on us by the writer? [Having practiced as a highway engineer in India for 20 years and in the US for 30 years, the writer has no intention to impose US technology on India. Ironically, more than 95% of asphalt technology being used in India is already 31 based on US asphalt technology; be it testing of bitumen, aggregates and mixes; bitumen grading; Marshall Mix Design; or construction specifications. We may not like it but it is a fact. We should not make it a national pride to hold on to the outdated problematic bituminous mixes used only in India with no fundamental technical justifications. Bituminous mixes/applications which have been researched widely and have performed well in extreme US climate (which is much more extreme in terms of hot/cold and dry/wet compared to India) and varying traffic conditions (very low to very high, sometimes overloading in timber logging country) should be adopted. We need not import any well proven technology if our roads are in good shape. Unfortunately, our roads are generally in terrible shape as highlighted by public during 2014 Indian elections.] Mixes such as BM, SDBC and PMC are good for India! [That is a very vague statement. If these mixes are really good why our roads are generally in bad shape and cannot endure 3 months of monsoon. Moreover, why our researchers are not writing international technical papers so that the technology of these good mixes can be exported by India in this global world.] India cannot afford expensive mixes! [The cheap mixes being used generally fail prematurely and are really expensive based on life cycle cost analyses as presented in this paper.] The problem lies in poor quality construction and not in the specified bituminous mixes. [Agree poor quality construction is part of the problem in many cases. However, specifying bituminous mixes which inherently have the potential for trapping water is fundamentally the main problem which needs to be addressed.] There are success stories of the mixes being used! [If 80% projects fail prematurely due to problematic bituminous mixes and 20% survive, the latter cannot be called Success Story, there are always exceptions.] Lets keep all the ten bituminous mixes in the specifications but provide a guidance table listing their advantages and disadvantages. [Why are we so obsessed with outdated mixes such as BM, SDBC and PMC that we do not want to let them go? Providing a table would really confuse the Indian highway engineers at large who are hardly trained in asphalt technology. Why give 10 tools to a novice carpenter when only three good working tools would suffice? In India, the patient (road) is dying and needs radical surgery (removal of problematic bituminous mixes) to save its life. It should not be made a prestige or ego issue by the specifiers.] Lets conduct field performance research on all 10 bituminous mixes and eliminate those that do not perform. [This is a good excuse (and delaying tactic) not to act now. It does not matter if our roads stay in bad shape for another 10 years while unnecessary field research is conducted. Those suggesting this research should first be asked to write a technical paper justifying the use of the problematic mixes (identified in this paper) on fundamental technical grounds. That is really going to be difficult; thats why nobody wants to undertake it.]
32 MAIN CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This technical note (paper) describes in detail as to why bituminous roads generally fail prematurely in India especially during monsoons.
Of some ten types of bituminous paving mixes used in India, seven are open graded (water-trapping) problematic mixes. Examples: Bituminous Macadam (BM) Gradings 1 and 2; Semi Dense Bituminous Concrete (SDBC) Gradings 1 and 2; Dense Bituminous Macadam (DBM) Grading 1; Premix Carpet (PMC); and Mixed Seal Surfacing (MSS). The Built-Up Spray Grout (BUSG) is no different. Their use is simply unacceptable and results in poor performing roads in India. The remaining three are dense graded (and therefore desirable) mixes. Examples are: Dense Bituminous Macadam (DBM) Grading 2; Bituminous Concrete (BC) Grading 1; and Bituminous Concrete (BC) Grading 2.
Therefore, these seven bituminous mixes should be deleted from the Indian specifications (both MORTH and IRC) and their use in new flexible pavement construction, in Improving Ride Quality Programme (IRQP), and in Periodical Renewal (PR) programme should be banned. Detailed guidelines have been given in this paper for selection of acceptable bituminous mixes/applications based on durability and economics in case of new construction, IRQP and PR. They are given briefly as follows:
New Flexible Pavement Construction. Do not use the seven water-trapping bituminous mixes listed above. Use DBM Grading 1 as base course; BC Grading 1 as binder course; and BC Grading 2 as wearing course depending on the pavement design thickness. A new BC Grading 3 with nominal maximum aggregate size (NMAS) of 9.5 mm has been proposed for thin lifts and city streets.
On heavily-trafficked roads use PMB in top 100-150 mm of the pavement or use Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA) as per IRC:SP:79-2008. Do not use CRMB because generally it is of dubious quality due to inadequate specification and lack of quality control.
Improving Ride Quality Programme (IRQP). Do not use PMC, MSS and SDBC as listed in MORTH Guidelines Circular dated 26 September 2002. Do not use WMM if the existing road consists of bituminous course(s). Use 60 mm BC Grading 2 in two applications: 20 mm (average) scratch or leveling course (with a paver) followed by a 40 mm wearing course. The thickness of the scratch or leveling course can be increased from 20 mm to 30 mm if so required. Of all the options given in MORTH guidelines circular this is not only economical but would also result in a highly durable and smooth road pavement. In other words, MORTH circular dated 26 September 2002 should be withdrawn and revised as recommended.
Periodical Renewal. Do not use PMC, MSS and SDBC as listed in MORTH Guidelines Circular dated 26 September 2002. Single or double surface dressing with or without precoated chips should be used for low to medium trafficked roads. Surface dressing would really waterproof the pavement structure compared to PMC and MSS. The cost of PMC is about three times the cost of single surface dressing. Even double surface dressing with precoated chips is much cheaper than the PMC. It 33 should be noted that surface dressing is used world wide with high success. PMC is used only in India despite its high costs and unacceptable durability.
For medium to heavy trafficked roads, BC Grading 2 should be used. Proposed BC Grading 3 (NMAS of 9.5 mm) can be considered for thin lift paving. However, thin lifts do cool rapidly and it is difficult to obtain adequate compaction. Therefore, use of 40 mm BC Grading 2 should also be considered in terms of constructability, structural strength, longevity, and lower life cycle costs.
Unfortunately, the continuation of these seven water-trapping bituminous mixes in MORTH and IRC specifications and MORTH circulars (including the one on IRQP and PR dated 26 September 2002) gives them undesirable technical legitimacy and excuse for continual use by highway engineers across India. Those responsible for these specifications should either (a) delete these undesirable bituminous mixes or (b) publish an IRC paper justifying the use of these seven mixes on technical grounds (rebutting one by one all technical and economical arguments advanced in this paper and two papers published by IRC in 2008 and 2010). Vague responses such as: these mixes are good for India; India cannot afford expensive mixes (although the cheap mixes may generally fail within 1-2 years and are really expensive based on life cycle costs); there are success stories (if 80% projects fail prematurely and 20% survive, the latter cannot be called success story); etc.; etc.
Based on past experience and recent deliberations (2012) of the IRC Flexible Pavement Committee, there is not much hope either of these two actions would occur in the near future. Therefore, it is up to the young, rational highway engineers of India to challenge the old-timers who apparently have hijacked and sealed the fate of bituminous roads in India. Until then, roads in India would continue to be designed to fail prematurely!
REFERENCES 1. Kandhal, P.S., V.K. Sinha and A. Veeraragavan. A Critical Review of Bituminous Mixes Used in India. Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, Volume 69-2, July- September 2008.
2. Kandhal, P.S., A. Veeraragavan, and R.K. Jain. Guidelines for Long Lasting Bituminous Pavements. Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, Volume 71-3, 2010.
3. Ministry of Road Transport & Highways. Manual for Construction and Supervision of Flexible Pavement Works. Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi, November 2001.
4. Communication from IJM (India), BM Test Data Report. October 18, 2007.
5. Kandhal, P.S. Moisture Susceptibility of HMA Mixes: Identification of Problem and Recommended Solutions. National Asphalt Pavement Association, Quality Improvement Publication (QIP) No. 119, December 1992.
6. Kandhal, P.S., C.W. Lubold, and F.L. Roberts. Water Damage to Asphalt Overlays: Case Histories. AAPT Journal of Asphalt Paving Technology, Vol. 58, l989. 34
7. Kandhal, P.S. and I. Rickards. Premature Failure of Asphalt Overlays from Stripping: Case Histories. AAPT Journal of Asphalt Paving Technology, Volume 70, 2001.
8. Roberts, F.L., P.S. Kandhal, E.R. Brown, D.Y. Lee, and T.W. Kennedy. Hot Mix Asphalt Materials, Mixture Design and Construction. NCAT Textbook, NAPA Education Foundation, Lanham, Maryland, Second Edition, 1996.
9. Central Road Research Institute. Investigation of NH-91 in Uttar Pradesh. Indian Roads Congress, Report on Road Research in India, 2008.
10. Terrel, R. L. and J. W. Shute. Summary Report on Water Sensitivity. SHRP Report SHRP-A/IR-89-003, November 1989.
11. Ministry of Road Transport & Highways. Specifications for Road and Bridge Works, Fifth Revision, 2013, Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi.
12. Government of Gujarat. Roads and Buildings Department. Surface Dressing: An Effective But Inexpensive Maintenance Technique. Accessed at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/94645292/12-Final-Surface-Dressing-Rawal-Gujarat on 23 June 2014.
13. Kandhal, P.S. Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Open-Graded Asphalt Friction Courses. National Asphalt Pavement Association Information Series 115, May 2002.
14. Indian Roads Congress. Specifications for Dense Graded Bituminous Mixes. IRC:111-2009.
15. Indian Roads Congress. Specifications for Mixed Seal Surfacing (MSS). IRC:SP:78-2008. 16. Kandhal, P. S. Quality Control Requirements for Using Crumb Rubber Modified Bitumen (CRMB). Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, Volume 67-1, April-June 2006. 17. Kandhal, P.S. and M.P. Dhir. Use of Modified Binders in India: Current Imperatives. Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, Volume 72-3, October- December 2011.
18. MORTH. Revised Guidelines for Selection of National Highway Stretches for Improving Ride Quality Programme (IRQP) and Periodic Renewals (PR). Circular No. RW/NH-33044/10/2000-S&R dated 26 September 2002.
35 ANNEXURE
Life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) of Premix Carpet (PMC) and Bituminous Concrete (BC) Grading 2
Analysis period = 6 years Assumptions: Average life of 20 mm PMC with sand seal coat = 3 years (real 2 years) Average life of 40 mm BC Grading 2 = 6 years (real 7-8 years) [This means 20 mm PMC will be required for rehabilitation of the pavement after 3 years.] Cost of 20 mm PMC per km lane = 7.88 lacs Cost of 40 mm BC Grading 2 per km lane = 12.00 lacs Real discount rate = 4% Net present value (NPV) = Initial cost + Rehab cost (1/(1+r) n ) Salvage value considered equal after the 6 years analysis period (although BC would have a significantly higher structural strength whereas PMC strength is almost zero) Remaining service life after analysis period of 6 years considered equal (although BC would have more service life because it is dense graded) No maintenance activity considered during 6 years period (although PMC is likely to require some activity) User operating costs considered equal (although BC would provide a smoother ride and less operating costs)
Deterministic Approach was used for LCCA, which is easy and is used traditionally. The Net Present Value (NPV) was calculated for PMC and BC for the 6-year period as follows:
NPV of PMC = 14.89 lacs NPV of BC Grading 2 = 12.00 lacs
This means, PMC is 24.1% more expensive than BC Grading 2.
If the remaining service life, salvage value, maintenance costs, and user operating costs are considered (which all are in favour of BC), PMC would be much more expensive than 24.1 percent, which was calculated with very conservative assumptions listed above.
****************************
ABOUT THE WRITER Prof. Prithvi Kandhal is currently Associate Director Emeritus of the National Center for Asphalt Technology (NCAT) at Auburn University, Alabama, USA. Prior to joining NCAT in 1988, Prof. Kandhal served as Chief Asphalt Engineer of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation for 17 years.
36 Prof. Kandhal has served as Chairman of the US Transportation Research Board (TRB) Committee on Bituminous Mixtures. He also served as Chairman of ASTM Committee DO4 on Road and Paving Materials, which is responsible for over 200 standards used worldwide. He is also past President of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists (AAPT), which has members in all continents of the world. Prof. Kandhal has published over 120 papers in the area of asphalt paving technology. He also co-authored the first-ever textbook on hot mix asphalt technology, which is being used in over 25 universities in the US.
Prof. Kandhal has been a practicing highway engineer in India for 20 years and in the US for 30 years. In recent years, he has drafted many standards for the Indian Roads Congress (IRC) including specifications for dense graded bituminous mixes, stone matrix asphalt (SMA) and readymade pothole patching mix, which have been adopted. He was also instrumental single-handedly in introducing viscosity grading of bitumen (VG Grades) in India in lieu of penetration grading in 2005.
In August 2011, Prof. Kandhal was inducted on the Wall of Honor established at the largest asphalt road research center in the world. In April 2012, he received the Honorary Membership which is considered equivalent to Lifetime Achievement Award in Asphalt Road Technology from the International Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists during their annual banquet held in Austin, Texas, USA.