USE OF MODIFIED BITUMINOUS BINDERS IN INDIA: CURRENT IMPERATIVES By Prof. Prithvi Singh Kandhal* and Dr. M.P.

Dhir** [Published in the Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, Volume 72-3, OctoberDecember 2011. Authors responses to comments received on this paper are also given at the end.] ABSTRACT Bituminous binders are predominantly used in surfacing the vast network of roads in India. In recent years, traffic loads and tyre pressures have increased, which has created a situation for which modified binders with enhanced performance are needed. However, current specifications and guidelines for selection and use of different types of modified binders such as polymer modified bitumen (PMB) and crumb rubber modified bitumen (CRMB) are inadequate. An attempt has been made in this paper to evaluate the contemporary situation in regard to the use of modified binders in India. The development and use of modified bituminous binders in Europe and North America has been described in detail including the fundamentals of bitumen modification. These were kept in perspective while making recommendations for use of modified binders in India and identifying current imperatives.

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Surfaced roads in India are very predominantly, if not entirely, constructed with the use of bituminous binders. This is largely because these binders have been most suited to the major imperatives of road development: low initial cost, phased development, and ready availability. With the socio-economic progress in India, the road network has to be extended to more difficult environs. More importantly, traffic loads carried by the network have been growing heavier and heavier. These situations can be exemplified as follows: Heavy channelized traffic to be carried in tropical and sub-tropical locales with high temperatures; and high tyre pressures in trucks (need ability to resist permanent deformation/rutting). Higher potential for developing fatigue cracking due to repeated loads (need elasticity for fatigue resistance).

* Associate Director Emeritus, National Center for Asphalt Technology, Auburn University, Alabama (currently in Jaipur) pkandhal@eng.auburn.edu ** Formerly Director, Central Road Research Institute, New Delhi mittardhir@yahoo.com

Higher potential for thermal cracking at sites where pavements are subjected to sub-zero temperatures for extended periods (need resistance to thermal cracking).

Therefore, during the last two decades, highway engineers in India have become increasingly aware that there were indeed situations for which upgraded bituminous binders were needed. 1.2 Modified binders are those bituminous binders whose properties have been modified by the use of additive(s). Bitumen binders have been modified11,12 in order to: stiffen binders and mixes at high temperatures to minimize rutting soften binders at low temperatures to improve relaxation properties and strain tolerance thus minimizing non-load associated thermal cracking improve fatigue resistance especially where higher strains are imposed on bituminous mixes. improve aggregate-bitumen bonding to reduce stripping improve bituminous pavement durability with accompanying net reduction in life cycle costs permit thicker films of bitumen on aggregate in special bituminous mixes such as open graded asphalt friction courses (porous asphalt) and stone matrix asphalt. 1.3 However, there are conditionalities for the production and use of a modified binder/mix with different modifiers since the changes in the properties/performance are not the same. In other words, there is need to match the road site conditions with appropriate types of modifier and choose the type and dosage of the modifier so that life cycle costs are minimized. Exercising of this choice is predicated to the availability of relevant decision-making data. 1.4 Use of latex rubber in southern parts of the country some four decades back may have heralded the use of modified binders in India. The past decade (2001-10) however marked a major surge in the use of modified bitumen for roads and airports, especially the use of crumb rubber modified bitumen (CRMB) and polymer modified bitumen (PMB). The Indian Roads Congress (IRC) brought out a special publication (SP:53) in 1999 to provide tentative guidelines on the use of modified bitumen in road construction6. Although that publication had four different specifications for PMB (elastomer), PMB (plastomer), CRMB, and natural rubber modified bitumen (NRMB), it was implied that their performance was equal in absence of any recommendations for their use for specific traffic and/or climatic conditions. SP:53 was revised in 2010 with one notable feature in that the specifications for different types of modified binders were unified into one specification irrespective of the modifier type or its concentration7. 1.5 An attempt has been made in this paper to evaluate the contemporary situation in regard to the use of modified bituminous binders in India. Presented first is the picture on development and use of modified binders in Europe and North America. This is followed by a section on current use of modified binders in India and by a discussion

as to whether the prevailing situation is satisfactory or there are strong imperatives for change. 1.6 Modified binders are meant to be used carefully for deriving due technical and life cycle cost advantages. The paper is essentially directed at the following: Does the prevailing framework permit exercising of correct options? If not, what issues (imperatives) need to be addressed for the fulfillment of this objective.

1.7 The imperatives, so identified, concern the Indian Roads Congress (IRC), Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), the road authorities (users), and the business interests of the modified binder sector.

2. DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF MODIFIED BINDERS IN EUROPE AND NORTH AMERICA It is considered prudent to give the history of development and use of modified binders in developed countries to provide proper perspective and background for their use in India. 2.1 European Experience 2.1.1 Although patents for modifying bitumen with natural and synthetic polymer were granted as early as 1843, test projects utilizing modified bitumen were placed in Europe in the 1930s. Neoprene latex was introduced in the 1950s in North America and was primarily used in Canada and the western United States11. 2.1.2 Europeans were clearly ahead of the US in the 1970s in developing and using modified bitumen binders. The following factors provided the impetus for development of modified bitumen binders during that period11. The cost of bitumen had increased substantially making the modification costs more attractive and within reach especially in view of long term benefits. European highway authorities expect innovation in bituminous road construction technology emanating from contractors who often warrant the performance of bituminous pavements. These warranties provided financial incentive to the contractors for using higher quality materials which reduce life cycle costs.

2.1.3 During this period the highway authorities in Europe were faced with the task of upgrading and maintaining an already well developed highway network. It was deemed necessary to develop effective techniques and materials for resurfacing and strengthening of existing highways. When a new idea is put forward both the highway authorities and contractors are willing to share the technology and are willing to try it without fear of criticism in case it fails. In many cases the new technologies were patented by the contractors14. 3

2.1.4 During this period modified bitumen technology was developed in France and other European countries. Besides improving the performance and durability of hot mix asphalt (HMA), the modified binders were highly successful in the following applications14. Durable chip seals (surface dressing) Thin HMA wearing course Durable open graded asphalt friction courses (porous asphalt) Asphalt wearing course for bridge decks Durable slurry seals (microsurfacing)

2.2 North America Experience 2.2.1 In the meantime, lower initial cost of unmodified (neat) bitumen in the US was a limiting factor in accepting higher quality, relatively expensive modified binders. However, in early and mid 1980s, the use of polymer modified bitumen (PMB) proliferated in the US as newer polymers were developed; European binder and mix technologies were introduced; rutting started to become a major problem due to heavy loads and high tyre pressures; and concept of lower life cycle costs became better understood1. 2.2.2 Different types of modified bitumen containing elastomers and plastomers were introduced and promoted for use by the highway authorities in the US. Many of the products were patented so their real composition was not known. No unified European guide specifications were available for use in the US. This created confusion in implementing modified bitumen technology. To alleviate the complex situation, Task Force 31 was created to develop national guide specifications for different types of polymer modified bitumens. This task force was a joint effort of the American Association of State Highways and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Associated General Contractors (AGC), and the American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA). Since polymer modified bitumens were of different types (such as elastomers and plastomers) it was neither technically possible nor desirable to have a common specification for all types. Put simply, apples cannot be compared with oranges. Therefore, the modified binders were divided into different classes, each class with its own specification (AASHTO, 1992). Three separate guide specifications1 were developed in 1992 by the AASHTO-AGCARTBA Task Force 31 for PMB (elastomer), PMB (elastomer latex), and PMB (plastomer). 2.2.3 Later, the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) followed suit and developed specification individually for each class of modified bitumen during the 1995-1997 period as shown in Table 1. 2.2.4 In spite of specifications available for each type of polymer modified bitumen, the highway authorities in the US had difficult time selecting the appropriate type because there was a lack of reliable comparative field performance data for all types. Moreover, the AASHTO and ASTM specifications were primarily based on empirical tests such as softening point, penetration, Frass breaking point, and ductility similar to 4

European specifications. The ASTM specification given in Table 1 generally state that the guide specifications are not performance based; just provide a reference for specifying polymer modified bitumens; and reflect the properties of currently available commercial products. Table 1. ASTM Standard Specifications for different types of modified bitumens Name of Standard ASTM Designation D 5976 Type I Polymer Modified Asphalt D 5840 D 5841 D 5892 D 6114 Type II Polymer Modified Asphalt Type III Polymer Modified Asphalt Type IV Polymer Modified Asphalt Asphalt-Rubber Binder (called CRMB in India) Modifier type SBS/SB Block Copolymer or similar SBS latex or similar Ethyl Vinyl Acetate (EVA) or similar Non cross-linked SBS Block Copolymer or similar Crumb rubber from tyres

2.2.5 There was a need for developing performance based specifications for all road paving bitumen binders, which should be blind to the type of modification or refining process. A 50-million dollar, 5-year Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) was undertaken from 1987 to 1992 to develop a performance based grading system for bitumen, which was based on engineering principles to address common asphalt pavement distress problems. The so-called Superpave performance grading (PG) system includes new bitumen tests and specifications with the following salient features10: 1. Tests and specifications are intended for bitumen binders, which include both modified and unmodified bitumens. 2. The physical properties measured by Superpave bitumen tests are directly related to field performance by engineering principles rather than just the experience. 3. A long-term bitumen aging test, which simulates aging of bitumens during 510 years in service, was developed and included for the first time. 4. Tests and specifications are designed to eliminate or minimize three specific types of asphalt pavement distresses: rutting, fatigue cracking, and thermal cracking. Rutting typically occurs at high temperatures, fatigue cracking at intermediate temperatures, and thermal cracking at low temperatures. 5. The entire range of pavement temperatures experienced at the project site is considered. New testing equipments were developed/adopted for testing bitumens for this purpose. A rotational viscometer is used to measure the bitumen viscosity at 135 C. A dynamic shear rheometer (DSR) is used to measure the viscoelastic properties of the bitumen at two temperatures: high temperature corresponding to the maximum 7-day pavement temperature during summer at the project site, and intermediate temperature corresponding to the average annual temperature of the pavement at the project site. A bending beam rheometer and a direct tension tester are used to measure the

rheological properties of the bitumen at the lowest pavement temperature during winter at the project site. 2.2.6 The Superpave performance grade (PG) bitumen is based on climate. For example, PG 64-22 bitumen is suitable for a project location, where the average 7-day maximum pavement temperature is as much as 64 C, and the minimum pavement temperature is 22 C. 2.2.7 The high temperature grades are PG 52, PG 58, PG 64, PG 70, PG 76, and PG 82. The low temperature grades are 4, 10, -16, -22, -28, -34 and so forth. Both high and low temperature grades are in increments of 6 Celsius degrees. The Superpave PG grading system has been implemented by most states in the US. 2.2.8 Although the use of modified bitumen had increased in the US prior to Superpave technology, it increased significantly after the PG grading system was adopted. That is because some PG grades with a wide range of maximum and minimum temperatures cannot be made with unmodified (neat) bitumen. PG 64-22 (equivalent to Indias VG-20 bitumen grade) is the most commonly used paving bitumen in large parts of the US. However, this grade is bumped up two grades for use on heavily trafficked roads. That is, PG 64-22 is bumped up to PG 76-22 which can be produced only with modification. PG 76-22 is also suited for use on Indias heavily trafficked roads. Table 2 gives the US Specification for PG 76-22 which is a polymer modified binder.

Table 2. US Specification for PG 76-22 Modified Binder Specified value S. No. Test property 1 Viscosity at 135 C, Pa.s, max. 3 2 DSR: G*/sin delta at 76 C, kPa, min. 1.00 3 RTFO Residue: 2.20 DSR: G*/sin delta at 76 C, kPa, min. 4 PAV Residue: 5,000 DSR: G* sin delta at 31 C, kPa, max. 5 Creep stiffness S at -12 C, MPa, max. 300 m-value at -12 C, min. 0.300 6 Direct tension failure strain at -12 C, %, min. 1.0 Note: PG 76-22 modified binder is suitable for heavy trafficked roads in hot climate of India. It is being used in the Middle East.

2.2.9 However, it was realized that SHRP research was conducted on unmodified bitumen only and therefore Superpave PG specifications may not completely cover the requirements desired from modified binders. Therefore, many states in the US adopted the so-called PG Plus specifications for modified bitumen binders. In conventional PG specifications, dynamic shear rheometer (DSR) is used to measure the complex modulus G* and phase angle delta. Whereas G* is analogous to total stiffness modulus of the binder, phase angle indicates the amount of elastic component in G*. Neat bitumen has a phase angle close to 90 degrees. Lower the phase angle, the more the bitumen binder is elastic. In PG Plus specifications some states require that the phase angle should not be more than 75 degrees just to ensure 6

that the modified bitumen does have adequate amount of polymer (most likely elastomer). Some states require empirical tests such as elastic recovery in ductility test and torsion recovery to achieve the same objective in PG Plus specifications. 2.2.10 Besides wearing courses modified binders are also generally used in bituminous binder courses (which are within about 100 mm from the road surface) on heavily trafficked roads in the US. This is because most field studies have shown that rutting within the bituminous pavement usually occurs to the depth of about 100 mm from the road surface. 2.2.11 The resilient modulus of asphalt pavement containing PMB is generally higher than that for asphalt pavement containing unmodified binder. However, the range of resilient moduli in both cases is very wide due to many factors such as different aggregate types, gradation, void parameters and construction variability. That is, there is too much overlap between the moduli of asphalt pavements with and without modified binders. Therefore, so far, most states in the US have not reduced the thickness of bituminous layers when PMB is used in lieu of unmodified binder. 2.2.12 It would be prudent now to discuss the various types of polymers used in the US for manufacturing modified binders; their compatibility with bitumen; their storage stability; and test procedures used for their characterization. Crumb rubber modified bitumen (CRMB) which is called asphalt-rubber binder in the US, will also be discussed. 2.3 Types of Polymers 2.3.1 The term polymer simply refers to a very large molecule made by chemically reacting many (poly) smaller molecules (monomers) to one another either in long chains or clusters. The sequence and chemical structure of the monomers from which it is made determines the physical properties of a specific polymer. When polymers are incorporated into bitumen, the properties of the modified bitumen depend on the polymer system used and the compatibility of the polymer with the bitumen11. 2.3.2 Polymers most often used in modifying bitumen can be grouped in two general categories: elastomers and plastomers. As the name implies, elastomers can be stretched like a rubber band and recover their shape when the stretching force is released. Elastomers add only a little strength to the bitumen until they are stretched when they really get stronger. Plastomers form a tough, rigid, three dimensional networks within the bitumen. These plastomers give high initial strength to the bitumen to resist heavy loads. However, plastomers may crack at high strains11. 2.3.3 Polymer droplets can also be emulsified in water; this water based emulsion is called latex (example SBR Latex). It is easy to incorporate the water based latex into water based asphalt emulsions. That is why; surface dressing (chip seals) and slurry seals were the first paving applications, which took advantage of polymer modified bitumen11. 2.3.4 If two or more different monomers are used to make polymers, the resulting polymers are called random or block copolymers. For manufacturing block copolymers, a polymer of one monomer is chemically reacted to a block of another

monomer. For example, SBS (styrene-butadiene-styrene) is made up of a block of polystyrene chemically combined with a block of polybutadiene and another block of polystyrene. In case of random polymer, the monomers are randomly mixed in the polymer chain. SBR (styrene-butadiene rubber) is an example of a random polymer. Although SBR is composed of same monomer as SBS but its random orientation gives it different physical properties11. 2.3.5 Specific binder and asphalt mix properties can be achieved by selecting a right type of polymer and ensuring it is compatible with the bitumen. Generally, elastomers are chosen to give a more resilient, flexible pavement whereas plastomers are chosen to obtain high stability or stiffness modulus. Both elastomers and plastomers are complex systems whose characteristics are dependent upon so many factors such as concentration; the molecular weight; the chemical composition; and the molecular orientation of a particular polymer as well as the crude source, the refining process, and the grade of the bitumen used11. 2.3.6 Elastomers: Elastomeric polymers have the ability to resist permanent deformation and cohesive failure in the bituminous mix by stretching and then recovering their shape when the deforming force is removed. Similar to a rubber band, an elastomer exhibits little strength at low tensile strains. That is why; if the stiffness of a bituminous mix is measured as resilient modulus (a non-destructive low strain test) it may be similar to the mix made with unmodified base bitumen. Since the tensile strength of an elastomer increases with elongation, dynamic tests which measure accumulated shear strain over a number of cycles should be used to fully understand the value of elastomeric modification of the bituminous mix. Several different types of elastomeric polymers are used for modifying bitumen. Examples are: styrene-butadiene-styrene (SBS) block copolymer; styrene-butadiene rubber; styrene isoprene styrene (SIS); and ethylene terpolymer (ETP). 2.3.7 Plastomers: As mentioned earlier, the rigid, three dimensional networks of plastomers impart quick early tensile strength to the bituminous mix under heavy loads. These bituminous mixes also exhibit high moduli in low strain tests such as resilient modulus. However, despite high early strength these mixes have lower strain tolerance. At high pavement strains such as those occurring in bituminous overlay over concrete joints, such mixes crack in form of fatigue cracking or reflection cracking11. Plastomers used for modifying bitumen for flexible pavement construction are generally polyolefins such as polyethylene, polypropylene or copolymers of polyolefins. Polyolefins are typically incompatible with bitumen and separate quickly in heated storage. However, some novel chemical systems have been developed to stabilize polyethylene in bitumen. Examples of plastomers for modifying bitumen are: ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA); ethylene butyl acrylate (EBA); polyethylene; and ethylene-methyl-acrylate (EMA) copolymer.

2.4 Compatibility of Polymers with Bitumen 2.4.1 It should be recognized that there is a complex relationship between the chemical composition of bitumens, their colloidal structure, and their physical and rheological properties. Anything such as a polymer which modifies the chemical composition of bitumen definitely modifies its structure and, consequently, its properties3. 2.4.2 If a thermoplastic polymer is mixed hot with bitumen without any special precautions, one of the following three situations occurs3: The most likely result is that the mix is heterogeneous because the polymer and bitumen are not compatible; the constituents of the mix separate; and the mix does not possess the characteristics of a typical bitumen. Infrequently, the mix is totally homogenous even at the molecular level and therefore the polymer is compatible with bitumen. The oils in the bitumen solvate the polymer perfectly and the resulting binder is stable. However, the improvement in the service quality of binder is very slight; only its viscosity increases. Therefore, this is not the desired result. The mix is micro heterogeneous and consists of two distinct finely interlocked phases. This is the compatibility which is desired and which gives the bitumen genuinely modified properties. The compatible polymer absorbs some of the oily fractions and swells to form a polymer phase distinct from the residual bitumen phase comprising of heavy fractions of the binder (asphaltenes, resins and rest of the oils).

2.4.3 The third desirable situation mentioned above typically occurs when the polymer content is low (less than about 4 percent) wherein the bitumen is the continuous phase of the system and the polymer phase is dispersed throughout the bitumen matrix. The bitumen phase has a relatively higher asphaltene content (because some of its oil has been absorbed by the polymer) which increases its cohesion and elasticity. At high service temperatures (about 60 C), high stiffness modulus of the polymer phase enhances the mechanical performance of the modified binder. At low service temperatures, the stiffness modulus of the dispersed polymer phase is lower than that of the bitumen matrix, which reduces its brittleness3. 2.5 Storage Stability The storage stability of modified binders is very important during actual use. Since the modified binders have two distinct phases as mentioned earlier, there is always a potential for separation or sedimentation unless the polymer and bitumen are chemically cross-linked like some reactive terpolymers, which have better storage stability. The potential for separation increases when (a) the difference in density between the two phases increases and (b) the viscosity of the continuous phase decreases3.

2.6 Crumb Rubber Modified Bitumen (CRMB) 2.6.1 During the time period when highway engineers in the US were trying to understand complex polymer modified bitumen (PMB) systems as previously discussed, came another far more complex and least understood modified binder: crumb rubber modified bitumen (CRMB). In the US, CRMB is simply called AsphaltRubber (AR) binder. Rubber from discarded tyres is ground to a particulate or crumb prior to adding it to bitumen to produce CRMB. 2.6.2 Charles McDonald, who was an engineer with City of Phoenix, Arizona, US, developed the AR technology in the early 1960s. The use of AR or CRMB was sporadic in the US until 1991, when the US Congress mandated its use in all 50 states through central legislation. This was done in spite of the fact that the performance of bituminous pavements with CRMB was mixed in the US in the past13. Whereas in some projects the CRMB enhanced the performance of the bituminous pavement, there was no significant improvement in other projects. This political decision by the US Congress, which was not based on sound engineering principles, was opposed both by the asphalt industry and the state highway departments officials at that time9. 2.6.3 Since most of the states did not have any experience in using CRMB, the US Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) undertook an ambitious practical training programme for state highway engineers. The training manual8 emphasized the importance of stringent quality control requirements right from the production of the CRMB at or in close proximity of hot mix asphalt plant; transportation of CRMB from production site to asphalt mix plant; storage of CRMB in contractors plant; and final testing of CRMB just prior to adding it to aggregates in asphalt plant pug mill or drum. 2.6.4 During the mandate all 50 states in the US used CRMB in numerous bituminous paving projects from 1991 until 1995 when the mandate was repealed. Thereafter, most states discontinued the routine use of CRMB in bituminous paving mixtures. There are three primary reasons for this. 2.6.5 First, the use of CRMB requires development of a statewide infrastructure consisting of strategically placed blending terminals or on-site blending units. This is required because CRMB must be used as soon as possible because its quality can start to deteriorate as early as 6 hours after production. 2.6.6 Second, the quality control requirements right from the production to the end use of CRMB are too cumbersome because of two issues: (a) crumb rubber tends to separate and settle down in the bitumen and (b) crumb rubber is prone to degradation (devulcanization and depolymerization) if its use is delayed thereby losing its vital properties including viscosity. 2.6.7 Third, many states such as Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Minnesota, Nevada, Washington, and Wisconsin have reported mixed performance of bituminous pavements constructed with CRMB and the cost effectiveness of CRMB was found to be none to marginal9.

10

2.6.8 At the present time, CRMB is used on a routine basis only in four states in the US: Arizona, California, Florida, and Texas. The remaining 46 states do not appear to have much interest in developing the necessary infrastructure and implementing the necessary quality control programme to ensure effective use of CRMB. 2.6.9 Production of CRMB: CRMB is produced by the so-called wet process in which crumb rubber is added to hot bitumen and the mixture is agitated mechanically until there is a reaction between the bitumen and crumb rubber. The reaction is not a chemical process but rather a diffusion process that includes the physical absorption of aromatic oils from the bitumen into the polymer chain of the rubber. The rubber particles swell as they absorb oils, which cause the viscosity of the CRMB to increase during the first hour or so. After the reaction and associated swelling is over, the viscosity of the blend levels off. 2.6.10 If the CRMB is maintained at high temperature for a prolonged period of time (as little as 6 hours), the crumb rubber begins to degrade (devulcanize and depolymerize) causing the CRMB viscosity to decrease from its plateau level (also called the target viscosity). Physical and chemical properties of CRMB are influenced by the following factors. a. Bitumen Crude Source and Method of Refining: The chemical composition of bitumen varies from one petroleum crude source to another, from which it is refined. No two crude sources are the same. The method of refining also affects bitumens chemical composition in terms of asphaltenes and maltenes contents. Since bitumen is a hydrocarbon and crumb rubber also contains substantial amounts of hydrocarbons, their mutual chemical compatibility affects the physical and chemical properties of CRMB. The type and amount of oil readily available in bitumen for absorption by crumb rubber also affects these properties. Bitumens low in aromatic oils tend to produce CRMB with poor adhesive properties5. b. Source of Crumb Rubber: Crumb rubber can be obtained from truck tyres or automobile tyres or both. Whole truck tyre contains 18 percent natural rubber compared to 9 percent in an automobile tyre and 2 percent in tyre treads. The amount of natural rubber has shown to affect the properties of CRMB significantly. Each lot of crumb rubber may have different chemical composition depending on the source (truck tyres or automobile tyres or mixture of both) and, therefore, when combined with the same source of bitumen may give different properties. c. Method of Producing Crumb Rubber: Crumb rubber is produced from discarded tyres by two methods: (a) grinding at ambient temperatures and (b) grinding cryogenically cooled tyre rubber. The grinding method affects the crumb rubber particle morphology, which in turn affects the rate of reaction and properties of CRMB. d. Amount and Size of Crumb Rubber: Both the amount and size of crumb rubber particles affect the properties of CRMB.

11

2.6.11 Transportation of CRMB: Even after the crumb rubber has reacted with bitumen, it has a tendency to separate from bitumen partially and settle down during transportation and storage at the contractors plant until CRMB is used. Therefore, it is essential that the truck tankers carrying CRMB are equipped with heavy-duty recirculation devices or mechanical agitators to keep the crumb rubber in suspension. 2.6.12 CRMB Use in the US: Even then, the few states in the US, which use CRMB on a routine basis at the present time, require that the CRMB should be used within a specified number of hours after production. For example, California, Kansas, and Arizona specify that the CRMB must be used within 4, 6, and 10 hours, respectively5. This kind of requirement does not allow the CRMB to be produced at oil refineries, which are generally far away from asphalt mix plants. That is why; an infrastructure of numerous blending terminals or on-site blending units are necessary within a state. At the present time, only four states in the US use CRMB on a routine basis besides PMB; some were forced to use it because of state legislation. Three of these four states also use Performance Grades PG 76-22 for heavily trafficked roads. However, they have different specification for CRMB (called asphaltrubber in the US) and PMBs because the CRMB cannot meet PG 76-22 specification requirements. On heavily trafficked roads they prefer and specify PG 76-22 made with polymers (commonly elastomers). Florida uses CRMB only in friction courses. Not only CRMB and PMBs are different materials and therefore need different specifications; it is also not possible to use the dynamic shear rheometer (DSR) for testing CRMB because it has discreet rubber particles. Since CRMB and PMB are different materials with different field performance, the four states specify the binder type to be used on specific projects considering the traffic and mix type. A next generation of asphalt-rubber (CRMB) is being examined in Florida, Texas, and Arizona, which can potentially meet PG 76-22 requirements. It is called terminal blend asphalt rubber, which is manufactured by blending digested ground tyre rubber with some SBS polymer. However, use of CRMB in road paving applications is not that urgent now in the US because other uses of discarded tyres are now in vogue such as producing electric energy, use as fuel in lime and cement kilns, and recycling to make different products from tyres.

2.7 Test Procedures Specific to Modified Binders 2.7.1 Several test procedures specific to modified binders have been adapted or developed to identify and measure their improved properties and to differentiate them from unmodified binders. These test procedures and criteria are included in the specifications for modified binders11.

12

2.7.2 Softening point (ring and ball) has been used for modified binders to measure their resistance to flow at high temperatures. This test is widely used in Europe for paving bitumens as an indicator of resistance to rutting during hot summer. Penetration test has been used as an indicator of binder stiffness at intermediate temperature of 25 C. 2.7.3 Toughness and tenacity test was used in the US to measure tensile strength during elongation of neoprene modified bitumen binders15. It is still used in some states. A force ductility test was also developed to measure tensile properties by using an inexpensive force adapter in the standard ductility machine. 2.7.4 Elastomer modified bitumens have the unique ability to elastically recover from deformation which is a desirable property for paving binders. A torsion recovery test was developed in the US as a field test to identify presence of elastomers in modified bitumens. This test is specified in California besides other states. An elastic recovery after ductility test, also included in the Task force 31 Specification1, has been widely accepted and used in the US and Europe for elastomer modified bitumens. 2.7.5 Unfortunately, most of the tests used for modified binders are empirical and not performance based. Rather, these tests identify the presence of certain types of modifiers. It is the performance which should be measured to gain the most benefit from the modification11. 2.7.6 As mentioned earlier, some of the SHRP Superpave tests (see Table 2) described in Section 2.2.5 are not adequate to fully characterize modified binders. National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 9-10, Characterization of Modified Asphalt Binders in Superpave Mix Design was undertaken to address that problem. Its recommendations2 are still being examined. 2.7.7 Some countries like Australia have adopted more rational test methods for measuring consistency and stiffness of modified binders in lieu of softening point and penetration (Table 3). Special elastometer consisting of concentric cylinders is used. This can be considered as a step towards the performance based specification which is based on rational test methods.

Table 3. Australian Specification for PMB Class A15E Specified value S. No. Test property 1 Consistency at 60 C (Pa.s) min. 8,000 2 Stiffness at 25 C, (kPa), max. 30 3 Viscosity at 165 C (Pa.s) max. 0.9 4 Torsional recovery at 25 C, 30 s, %, min. 58 5 Softening point C, min. 82 Note: PMB Class A15E is suitable for heavy trafficked roads in hot climate of India.

13

2.8 Field Performance of Pavements with Polymer Modified Bitumen Polymer modified bitumens especially those with elastomers are routinely used today in the US in flexible pavement structures or overlays carrying high volumes of traffic. Although there have been numerous laboratory and field studies comparing the performance of PMB modified and unmodified bitumen mixes, there had not been a concerted effort until 2007 to quantify the benefits of using PMB mixes or to develop guidance on when the use of PMB mix is cost-effective. Von Quintus et al16 conducted an extensive investigation of over 35 real-world pavement sections in North America to quantify the benefits of using PMB modified mixes. The test sections used in performance comparisons included both roadway and accelerated pavement test sections. Performance data for the test sections were derived from published literature or other public sources such as the Long-Term Pavement Performance or the National Center for Asphalt Technology (NCAT) databases. On the basis of the performance comparisons made between PMB modified and unmodified bitumen sections, it was found that PMB mixes significantly enhance not only the rutting performance of flexible pavements but also their fatigue and fracture performance. The examples used in this 2007 study show an extended service life for deep-strength asphalt pavements of 5 to 10 years through the use of PMB mixes on the basis of the performance observations from the companion unmodified test sections. [Since the average life of bituminous surfacing in the US is about 8-10 years, this means the increase in service life ranging from about 50 to 100 percent.] According to the researchers, a definite bias exists between the predicted and measured distress values for the sections with PMB mixtures when using current mechanisticempirical distress prediction models. This finding suggests a need for different calibration factors in PMB mixes (due to their enhanced performance) for use in rutting and fatigue cracking prediction equations.

3. 3.1

HISTORICAL USE OF MODIFIED BINDERS IN INDIA. Initiation

3.1.1 Use of latex rubber some four decades ago may be said to have marked the introductory use of modified binders in India. At that time there were sharp fluctuations in the demand-supply position of rubber in southern India. Therefore, thought was given to incorporate latex rubber into bitumen. Some road test sections were laid with rubber latex modified binder. Fuller benefit would have been available if at that time the binder technology knowledge level was high enough and the necessary equipment had the requisite capabilities. Even now, one refinery on the southwest coast produces about 20,000 tonnes per year of latex rubber modified bitumen. 3.1.2 Inflow of information from international sources on potential benefits of modified bitumen binders and laying of test sections started catching the interest of some sections of Indian road community during the 1980s and the 1990s. Many people knowledgeable in modified binder technology and commercial interests played a key role in the introduction of modified binders on Indian roads during that period.The suppliers set up offices and plants, and ushered in marketing efforts.

14

Currently, there are suppliers for a variety of modified binders such as latex rubber, crumb rubber, elastomeric, and plastomeric thermosetting polymers. 3.2 Guidelines

3.2.1 As the interest was picking up, the Indian Roads Congress brought out6 a special publication (SP:53) in 1999 titled, Tentative Guidelines on Use of Polymer and Rubber Modified Binders. This document contained, inter alia, separate requirements for different grades of elastomeric and plastomeric thermoplastic modifiers, and latex and crumb rubber modifiers. Indicative dosages were also given along with grade selection criteria based on maximum and minimum atmospheric temperatures at the site. Requirements of softening point and elastic recovery were different for different types and grades of modifications. However, there was no guidance as to which modified binder was suitable based on traffic level and intensity. The Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) also developed similar separate specifications for different modified binders in 20024. 3.2.2 Recently, the Indian Roads Congress has issued the 2010 version of SP:53 wherein the specifications for different types of modifiers have been unified7. Obviously, to accommodate the CRMB the minimum elastic recovery requirement was reduced for all modified binders including PMB with elastomer,

3.3

Usage

3.3.1 During the past decade (2001-2010), use of modified bitumen has picked up impressively, crossing 0.5 million tonnes per year mark. Currently, it may be in the range of 12-15 percent of the total bitumen consumed on roads. Nearly 80 percent of this consumption is in respect of crumb rubber modified bitumen. Latex rubber is used only to the extent of 15,000 20,000 tonnes per year, consumed mostly in and around the state of Kerala. The remaining 20 percent is shared between elastomeric and plastomeric thermoplastic polymers broadly in the ratio of 2:1, respectively. 3.3.2 Increasing consideration is being given to the use of modified binders in important airport pavement projects. Airports at Delhi, Hyderabad and Bangalore may be cited as examples of their substantial use. A notable aspect is that SP: 532010 provisions are not being followed in toto. The requirements in respect of softening point, elastic recovery, etc, are being enhanced vis--vis those of SP:532010. In other words, PMBs with elastomers which meet the enhanced requirements are being largely used. 3.3.3 Cost wise, crumb rubber modified bitumen is being quoted at the lowest rate, only up to about 10 percent higher than the price of unmodified bitumen. The costliest modification is that with SBS type polymers about 30 percent cost increase with 3% SBS and 50% increase with 5% SBS. Higher initial cost does not necessarily mean that SBS modified binder is less advantageous on life cycle cost basis. Choice is to be made in each case on the basis of lowest life cycle cost. 3.3.4 The IRC guidelines in SP:53 does not throw the requisite light as to how choice is to be made of the modifier and its dosage in surface course of a bituminous

15

pavement. The exercising of choice requires, inter alia, good data on relative quantitative improvements in performance for a set of conditions. If such data are not available adequately, then one has to guess the basis being used for deciding on the type and concentration of the modifiers. Considering the present usage rates of different modified binders mentioned earlier, one is led to think that the choices are probably being made on the basis of lowest initial cost, which is not desirable. 3.4 Performance and Economics 3.4.1 There is gross inadequacy of published data in India on relative performance with and without different binder modifications under typical conditions of loading, climate, and their combinations. Interactions with users and other knowledgeable people bring out a picture which is less than reassuring. Some of the notables in this regard follow. (a) Unlike in developed countries, whenever modified binders are used short test sections using unmodified bitumen are not built in India for evaluation of relative field performance. (b) Systematic exercises are generally not undertaken at the pavement design stage for objectively choosing the modifier and its concentration. That decision is either a given one as part of the project design or decided otherwise subjectively. (c) Quality checks are prescribed but proper implementation is yet to become a norm. There have been cases of separation in modified binder, leading to poor results. (d) Good data on actual benefits/economies realized from the use of modified binders is rather scarce and the decision process currently being adopted lacks rigour. 3.4.2 Until relative field performance data is obtained in India, there is no other recourse but to rely on similar data or experience in the developed countries. A comparative field performance study of different modified binders has been undertaken by IIT Madras recently. This study has been sponsored by MORTH. More such studies should be undertaken across India to obtain field performance data under different traffic and climatic conditions.

4. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR USE OF MODIFIED BINDERS IN INDIA 4.1 There is an urgent need to collate all available good performance data on different modifiers to identify the gaps, and to institute systematic studies for filling those gaps. In the interim, the history of development, use, and experience with modified binders in developed countries should be helpful in making recommendations for their use in India. It has been well established that modified binders made with different polymers (elastomers and plastomers) and different modifiers (crumb rubber and natural rubber) are complex systems with vastly different physical and chemical characteristics. Therefore, there cannot be a common specification for these different types of modified binders. Each type must have its own separate specification similar to AASHTO and ASTM. In case of a common specification like in IRC:SP:53-2010, the following consequences are expected: (a) lowering the requirements to the level where a weak modifier like crumb rubber can also qualify, would lower the performance standard for all modifiers; (b) suppliers of better and more expensive products will tend to downgrade the quality of their products so as to be more

16

competitive pricewise if that is the criterion for decision making; and (c) lowering the quality will come in the way of producing still better products thus having a negative effect on further R&D activities.

4.2 Polymer modified bitumen (PMB) with elastomers is most commonly used with success on major highways in the developed countries because elasticity in this PMB provides resistance to both rutting and fatigue cracking. Such PMBs are also relatively more stable and maintain their integrity better compared to PMBs with plastomers, CRMB, and NRMB (natural rubber modified bitumen). Superpave performance grades have been made successfully with these PMBs. PMBs with elastomers are therefore recommended for heavily trafficked roads in India. 4.3 Polymer modified bitumen with plastomers are hardly used in flexible pavements in the developed countries because although they provide higher strength initially, they are prone to cracking at high strains and do not rebound after deforming force is removed. Therefore, there is no need to have a specification in India for PMBs with plastomers to avoid its unnecessary and improper use, until proper technical justification is provided. 4.4 A separate specification may be considered if desired for natural rubber modified bitumen (NRMB) for its limited use in India to support the local industry in southern India. It should not be used on heavily trafficked roads where only PMBs with elastomers should be used as mentioned earlier. However, NRMB should be used with caution because like CRMB it has degradation problems if kept at high temperature for too long. 4.5 It has been established that CRMB is much more complex and least understood compared to PMBs with elastomers. Because of the complex and varying chemical composition of crumb rubber obtained from tread/side wall of truck and/or car tyres, its compatibility with bitumen is always questionable. That is why; CRMB has given mixed performance in the US. No high performance grade PG grade such as PG 76-22 can be made with CRMB because it lacks adequate elastic component. If India were to adopt PG grading today, PG 76-22 would be recommended for heavily trafficked roads. Therefore, CRMB is not recommended for use in India on heavily trafficked roads. 4.6 If CRMB is considered for use on medium trafficked roads, it should have its own separate specification and should be specified as such for specific projects. This is because its elastic recovery is considerably lower than that of PMBs with elastomers. Some of the tests specified in the Superpave PG grading system such as dynamic shear rheometer (DSR) cannot be conducted on CRMB samples because it has discreet rubber particles. That means, it is not possible to specify maximum phase angle delta (which is obtained with DSR) to ensure some elasticity in the CRMB. Rather, elastic recovery test with ductility machine has to be maintained and continued at the present time. 4.7 If CRMB is specified for medium trafficked roads, it should be blended on site in close proximity of hot mix plants so that it can be used within 6-8 hours after production. Claims that the so-called chemically modified CRMB in India does

17

not have settlement and/or degradation problems have not been validated as yet with any reported meaningful field test data. The number of CRMB manufactures is growing in India; many do not have qualified technical staff who understands this complex, unpredictable binder material. Obviously, if on-site blending is done, a fully equipped testing laboratory staffed with qualified technicians should be mandatory at the blending terminal. 4.8 Use of any modified binder in bituminous mix on low volume rural roads such as PMGSY is detrimental to their durability. The current practice of using CRMB in such applications should be discontinued until proper technical justification is provided. 4.9 Pending the availability of nationally accepted performance data from Indian road projects, it would be a good idea for both road users and road business interests if the supplier of modified bitumen or the construction contractor warranty its performance on a specific project.

CURRENT IMPERATIVES

Based on the detailed recommendations made for use of modified bitumen binders in India in preceding Section 4, the following current imperatives have been identified: 1. IRC:SP:53-2010, Guidelines on Use of Modified Bitumen in Road Construction must be revised immediately by deleting the common specification table for all types of polymers and modifiers so that substandard PMB is not used in India. There is no need to have any specification table for modified binders in this publication. Rather, reference should be made to current edition IS 15462, Polymer and Rubber Modified Bitumen Specification. IRC:SP:53 should remain only a guide (as the name implies) for using modified binders. Historically, the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) has the responsibility of maintaining standards for all road paving binders. 2. The Indian Roads Congress should request the BIS to delete IS 15462 and develop three separate standards one each for PMB (elastomer), CRMB, and NRMB with different IS designations similar to ASTM standards mentioned earlier. This would facilitate selecting and specifying appropriate modified bitumen by the engineer for a specific project depending on traffic. 3. Revised IRC:SP:53 must state only PMB (elastomer) should be used for heavily trafficked roads. No recommendation should be made for PMB (plastomer), its use is not advised for flexible pavements in India. 4. Revised IRC:SP:53 must state CRMB can be used on medium trafficked roads only. Its use on low volume roads should be banned. CRMB must be blended on site so that it can be used within 6-8 hours of production. A fully equipped testing laboratory staffed with qualified technicians must be required at the blending terminal. 5. India should collect and collate data on relative performance obtainable under different sets of site conditions with different types and levels of bitumen modification. Pending the availability of these findings, modified binder

18

suppliers and construction contractors should provide warranties on field performance.

5.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

A number of experts and users in India were contacted for exchange of views on current practices of using modified binders. Useful discussions with Dr. P.K.Jain of CRRI and Mr. B.R.Tyagi of Ooms Polymer Modified Bitumen Pvt Ltd are thankfully acknowledged. 6. REFERENCES 1. AASHTO-AGC-ARTBA Joint Committee, Guide Specifications for Polymer Modified Asphalt, Task Force 31 Report, 1992. 2. Bahia, H.U. et al, Characterization of Modified Asphalt Binders in Superpave Mix Design, Transportation Research Board, NCHRP Report 459, 2001. 3. Brule, B., Polymer Modified Asphalt Cements used in Road Construction Industry: Basic Principles, Transportation Research Board, Transportation Research Record 1535, 1996. 4. Bureau of Indian Standards. IS 15462:2004, Polymer and Rubber Modified Bitumen Specification, 2004. 5. Hanson, D.I., J.A. Epps and R.G. Hicks, Construction Guidelines for Crumb Rubber Modified Hot Mix Asphalt, Federal Highway Administration Report DTFH61-94-C-00035, August 1996. 6. Indian Roads Congress Publication SP:53, Tentative Guidelines on Use of Polymer and Rubber Modified Bitumen in Road Construction, December 1999. 7. Indian Roads Congress Publication SP:53, Guidelines on Use Modified Bitumen in Road Construction, Second Revision, 2010. 8. Kandhal, P.S. and D.I. Hanson, Crumb Rubber Modifier Technologies, Federal Highway Administration, Crumb Rubber Modifier Workshop Manual, March 1993. 9. Kandhal, P.S., Quality Control Requirements for Using Crumb Rubber Modified Bitumen (CRMB) in Bituminous mixtures, Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, Volume 67-1, 2006. 10. Kandhal, P.S., An Overview of Viscosity Grading System Adopted in India for Paving Bitumen, Indian Roads Congress, Indian Highways, April 2007. 11. King, Gayle, H. King, R.D. Pavlovich, A.L. Epps, and Prithvi Kandhal, Additives in Asphalt, Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Journal of Asphalt Paving Technology, Volume 68A, 1999. 12. Roberts, F.L., P.S. Kandhal, E.R. Brown, D.Y. Lee and T.W. Kennedy, Hot Mix Asphalt Paving Materials, Mixture Design and Construction Textbook published by US National Asphalt Pavement Association, Second Edition, 1996. 13. Shuler, T.S., R.D. Pavlovich, J.A. Epps and C.K. Adams, Investigations of Materials and Structural Properties of Asphalt-Rubber Paving Mixtures Volume 1, Texas Transportation Institute Report FHWA/RD-86/027, 1986.

19

14. Terrel, R.L. and J.L. Walter, Modified Asphalt Pavement Materials The European Experience, Proceedings, the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Volume 55, 1986. 15. Thompson, D.C. and J.F. Hagman, The Modification of Asphalt with Neoprene, Proceedings, the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Volume 27, 1958. 16. Von Quintus, H., J. Mallela and M.S. Buncher, Quantification of Effect of Polymer-Modified Asphalt on Flexible Pavement Performance. Transportation Research Board, Transportation Research Record 2001, 2007. *****************************************

Authors Responses to Comments on Paper No. 573, Use of Modified Bituminous Binders in India: Current Imperatives by Prof. P.S. Kandhal and Dr. M.P. Dhir Shri Bhaskar Ghosh Why are you insisting to produce CRMB impregnated hot matrix at site? What is the harm if we produce it in conventional Stationary hot Mix Plant and bring it to site in tipper truck? Is there any maximum time period between its production and laying? Prof. P.K. Sikdar IRC: 53-2010 must be immediately withdrawn. There is no sense of considering all types of modified bitumen to be just one type. To create convenience for field engineers (in contract etc) by removing the requirement of exercising choice is just a disaster. How a polymer modified binder with different modifiers can be same in its quality and performance? There is plenty of experience of using modified bitumen in the country and many researches are also available. Just one specification for all types is a very unprofessional and crude way of handling the rivalry of modified binder producers. Shri A.V. Sinha 1. The conclusion of the author is that for high performance roads only elastomeric polymer modified binder should be used and plastomeric polymer and CRMB should not be used. The experience on some projects (e.g. Delhi-Gurgaon) does not support this view.

2. IRC:SP:53:2010 is stated to have made compromises on elastic recovery property and hence, by implication, not desirable. Polymer (Elastomer) cannot dictate the benchmarking of data recovery, it will be unfair to other modifiers.

20

3. Use of modified bitumen should not be based on cost alone, but cost plus performance. The user will choose one that is appropriate.

Shri Jitender Kumar 1. Besides restoring the elastic recovery requirement from 60 to 70 % for elastomeric PMB, do you recommend any further upgradation for this material? 2. Do you recommend any further upgradation of specification for CRMB? 3. When we are going for higher softening point of modified binders, why elastic recovery should be measured at 150 C only and why not at higher operating temps. Like 600 C? 4. We really never had plastomeric specifications. It is actually a higher end elastomeric and lower end elastomeric specification. 5. CRMB is more of good waste management than serious bitumen modification. Shri Kaushik Bandopadhyay Would you please clarify the role of (a) Ex-plant transit at the point of execution and (b) Quality control & workmanship with respect to the popular use of PMB & CRMB Shri B.C. Ghosh CRMB must be blended at site for which a well-equipped laboratory should be there at site. My question is that what are the tests to be conducted at site? Dr. Sunil Bose Superpave specifications were designed for neat binders. They are inappropriate for polymer modified bitumen. In fact different asphalts behave differently even when they have the same performance grade. - Natural rubber improves rutting but is sensitive to decomposition and often has compatibility problem. - Use of tyre rubber as asphalt modifier is environmentally good and results in reduced rutting and reflection cracking but special conclusion like high mixing temperature and long digestion time need to be maintained. - SBS increases asphalt elasticity and SBS modified asphalt can be recycled. SBS modified binder performs better at lower temperature.

21

Envelope avoids problems of separation during storage, transportation and application. It increases pavement moisture resistance and results in modified asphalt performing better in high temperature DSR tests. As such plastomers cannot be ruled out. The elastic recovery test has shown to be a good measurement of polymer contribution to binder performance, although no relationship appears to exist between rut resistance and elastic recovery. Elastic recovery and other conventional measurements are inconsistent in ranking polymer modified binder performance and only measure whether or not a modifier is present in the asphalt specimen, not its contribution to the asphalt performance. Shri R.K. Panigrahi For pavement deterioration study how this modified bituminous binder helps to convince the client to utilize this material in larger extent? Cost of the material is very useful or not for conventional or other materials. Your suggestion and inputs for future of this material modified binder.

Authors Responses to Comments The question from Shri Bhaskar Ghosh is not clear. What does he mean by CRMB impregnated hot matrix? Any way, Shri Ghosh is referred to Section 2.6 of the paper. Briefly, the authors mean to state that once the crumb rubber is blended with bitumen to produce CRMB binder, the latter must be used within 6-8 hours to produce hot mix asphalt. This is so because the quality of CRMB as a binder can start to deteriorate as early as six hours after blending rubber in bitumen. The authors agree with Prof. P.K. Sikdar that IRC:SP:53:2010 must be withdrawn immediately because as he stated (a) polymer modified binder with different modifiers cannot be the same in its quality and performance, and (b) having one specification for all types of modified binders is a very unprofessional and crude way of handling the rivalry of modified binder producers. The authors have made similar recommendations in Section 5 Current Imperatives of the paper that IRC:SP:53:2010 must be revised immediately by deleting the common specification table; rather reference should be made to current edition of IS 15462, Polymer and Rubber Modified Bitumen Specifications. The following item-wise responses are given to comments made by Shri A.V. Sinha: 1. It is a common worldwide practice based on extensive performance experience that only elastomeric polymer modified binders are used for heavy-trafficked roads and airfield runways. The authors have not seen any documented experience on Delhi-Gurgaon road. 2. Concerning his comments that elastomeric polymer cannot dictate the benchmark of elastic recovery because it will be unfair to other modifiers, please refer to comments made by Prof. Sikdar. He has stated that it is unprofessional and crude way of handling rivalry of modified binder producers. There is no question elastomeric polymers have better performance

22

compared to CRMB. Therefore, we cannot lower the elastic recovery requirement (that is the benchmark) arbitrarily just to accommodate CRMB in the common specification. It will not be in national interest. 3. The authors agree that use of modified bitumen should not be based on cost alone but cost plus performance. However, this cannot be achieved unless there are separate specifications to choose from.

Item-wise responses to Shri Jitender Kumars queries are as follows: 1. The elastic recovery requirement for elastomeric polymers should at least be restored to 75 percent (and not 70 percent as mentioned by Shri Kumar) as previously specified for elastomeric PMB in IRC:SP:53:2002. Some progressive states in the US have 75 percent minimum elastic recovery requirement even for the RTFOT residue, which is even more stringent. 2. As mentioned in the paper in Section 2.6 Crumb Rubber Modified Bitumen and Section 5.0 Item 4, further upgradation of CRMB specification needs to be made as follows: (a) Use CRMB in hot mix asphalt within 6 -8 hours of its production because it is prone to degradation, (b) Until CRMB is used, truck tankers carrying CRMB and contractors storage tanks should be equipped with heavy-duty recirculation devices or mechanical agitators to keep the crumb rubber in suspension, and (c) A fully equipped testing laboratory staffed with qualified technicians must be required at the CRMB blending terminal in the vicinity of hot mix plant. In addition, minimum percentage of the crumb rubber in the CRMB as well as its gradation should also be specified. 3. Elastic recovery test is conducted after the binder thread is stretched for 10 cm, cut at the center, and then allowed to recover. Since ductility test cannot be conducted at high temperatures such as 60 C because bitumen becomes too soft, ductility test is conducted at 25 C or lower temperatures. Moreover, difference between elastic recovery of different binders become more distinct and significant at relatively lower test temperatures. Historically, elastic recovery tests have been conducted at 15 C for original modified binders and at 25 C for TFOT or RTFOT residue of modified binders. 4. The authors agree with Shri Kumar that we did not really have a true plastomeric PMB specification, which like ASTM D5841 should not have any elastic recovery requirement. It is not understood as to why IRC:SP:53:2002 had elastic recovery requirement for plastomeric PMB specification. 5. As we mentioned in the paper (Section 2.6.12 last paragraph), there are other uses of discarded tyres such as producing electrical energy; use as fuel in lime, brick and cement kilns (its already being done in India); and recycling to make different rubber products such as mats.

In response to Shri Kaushik Bandopadhyay both PMB and CRMB should be tested by the producers at the point of manufacture (quality control) and by the users (contractors or government) at the point of delivery (quality assurance). Quality control requirements are more critical for CRMB. Shri Bandpadhyay is referred to the following IRC paper:

23

Kandhal, P. S. Quality Control Requirements for Using Crumb Rubber Modified Bitumen (CRMB). Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, Volume 67-1, AprilJune 2006. This paper can also be accessed on the internet at the following link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/19383778/Quality-Control-Requirements-forUsing-Crumb-Rubber-Modified-Bitumen-CRMB

Shri B.Ghosh has asked which tests should be conducted on CRMB when produced at site. All tests which are in the specifications for CRMB (Table 5 of IRC:SP:53:2002) should be conducted such as penetration, softening point, elastic recovery of original and TFOT residue, and separation.

Most of the comments which Dr. Bose has made are already mentioned in the paper. He has merely repeated them. For example, we agree all Superpave tests and specification requirements are not applicable to polymer modified bitumen. That is why; many states in the US use PG Plus specifications and tests such as elastic recovery. As mentioned in Section 4.4 of the paper, the authors also agree that natural rubber is sensitive to degradation. The authors also agree with Dr. Bose that the use of tyre rubber in producing CRMB is environmentally good. However, as pointed out in the paper (Section 2.6.6) special precautions need to be taken when producing, transporting, and using CRMB. The authors also concur with Dr. Bose that elastomeric polymers increase asphalt elasticity and SBS modified asphalt can be recycled. Although plastomers have relatively higher stiffness at high temperatures (as shown in DSR tests), elastomers are preferred worldwide for use on high-trafficked roads and airfield runways (see Section 4.2 of paper). Since the use of plastomers is very limited (almost negligible on highways) it is better to delete them to avoid any confusion among the users. The authors agree with Dr. Bose that there may not be direct relationship between elastic recovery and rut resistance. However, the elastic recovery test does indicate the presence and amount of elastomer in the modified bitumen. Since performance based specifications have not been implemented in India as yet, there is no other alternative than relying on the elastic recovery test like it is still being used in the US with PG Plus specifications. A new Repeated Stress Creep Recovery (RSCR) has been developed recently in the US, which is far better than the empirical tests such as elastic recovery. However, RSCR is yet to be implemented even in the US. In response to Shri Panigrahi, modified binders, although expensive, do provide better performance and longer service life compared to unmodified binders on

24

heavy-trafficked roads and airfield runways. Therefore, their life-cycle cost is lower compared to unmodified binders. Suggestions about the use of different types of modified binders are given in Section 4 Recommendations for Use of Modified Binders in India of the paper. Authors Closure It is quite clear from the paper as well as some strong comments reported herein that IRC:SP:53:2010 containing a common specification for all types of modified bitumen should be withdrawn immediately in national interest so that substandard modified bitumen is not used on roads and airfield pavements in India. All recommendations given in Section 4 of the paper concerning the use of various modified binders should be implemented as soon as possible. **********************************************

25