INVESTIGATION OF PREMATURE PAVEMENT DISTRESSES ON

TYPICAL NATIONAL HIGHWAY PROJECT

By

Prof. Prithvi Singh Kandhal* and Prof. A. Veeraragavan**

[Paper published in the Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, Volume 79-2, April-June 2018.]
[Comments and responses from authors are also included.]

ABSTRACT

Premature pavement distresses primarily in terms of moderate to severe fatigue cracking were
observed on a four-laning, 50-km national highway project. This paper describes in detail the
systematic sampling and testing plan which was executed to determine the specific cause(s) of the
premature pavement distresses.
In general, good construction quality control and quality assurance of various pavement courses was
not exercised, which led generally to the development of premature “bottom up” fatigue cracking
on the project. Remedial measures to rehabilitate this distressed national highway project have
been described in detail based on the category, severity, and extent of the distresses. General
recommendations have also been made to avoid such pitfalls on other major highway projects.

1. INTRODUCTION

After four-laning of a 50-km national highway was completed, premature pavement distresses were
observed on it during the first monsoon. The following pavement distresses were observed: open
surface texture; raveling; hungry surface; alligator cracks; and potholes. By far, fatigue cracking was
the primary distress ranging from moderate cracking (one to two cracks in wheel path) to severe
cracking (alligator cracks in the wheel path or block cracks across the lane).
Further successive deterioration of pavement occurred during the second and third monsoons.
Several areas of severe alligator cracks also developed shallow and deep potholes which required
extensive patching.
It was decided to investigate the specific cause(s) of premature pavement distresses on the entire
project by systematic sampling and testing so that suitable remedial measures could be
recommended.
__________________________________________________________________________
* Associate Director Emeritus, National Center for Asphalt Technology (NCAT), Auburn University,
USA (currently Jaipur) < pkandhal@gmail.com>
** Professor of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai <av@iitm.ac.in>

1
 2. OBJECTIVE
The objectives of this investigation were (a) prepare a systematic pavement evaluation plan for each
section; (b) conduct a visual inspection of the pavement surface; (c) obtain samples of all pavement
layers; (d) test all samples in an independent laboratory; (e) analyze the test data and draw
conclusions; and (f) recommend remedial measures considering the type, severity, and extent of
specific pavement distress.

3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND DETAILS

3.1 Project Description

Four - laning of this project was completed on a Design, Build, Finance, Operate and Transfer (Toll)
basis. The concession period of this project is 20 years excluding the construction period.

3.2 Pavement Design

The pavement design life adopted for bituminous layers was 10 years of stage construction option
and the underlying base and subbase layers were designed for full operation period of 20 years. Both
the bituminous and granular layers design life period was adopted as per Indian Roads Congress IRC:
37 – 2001, “Guidelines for Designing Flexible Pavements”.

For the entire project road (new construction and reconstruction of existing lanes) flexible pavement
thickness was adopted in accordance with IRC: 37-2001 and strengthening of the existing two-lane
carriageway flexible overlay thickness was adopted in accordance with IRC 81-1997.The four-lane
pavement design was completed using the mechanistic method of pavement design.

Vehicular movement on the project road indicated that the traffic pattern was significantly different
along the length of the project. Therefore, this project road was divided into two different
homogenous sections as shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Homogeneous Section-wise Cumulative Traffic

Homogeneous Design 10 Year msa
Section Chainage, km LHS RHS
1 0+000 to 35+000 70 70
2 35+000 to 50+000 68 95

2
The pavement temperature was considered as 35°C. In accordance with IRC: 37-2001, the resilient
modulus (Mr) of the Bituminous Concrete (BC) and Dense Bituminous Macadam (DBM) layers was
considered as 1700 MPa and the Poisson’s ratio for BC and DBM layer was considered 0.5. The
statistical level of reliability used in the design was 80 percent. Design CBR of 15% was considered.
The VDF values adopted in pavement design based on traffic survey for two-axle, three-axle and
multi-axle tracks are 1.40, 2.57 and 3.27 respectively for the up direction and these values were
2.30, 5.69 and 15.10 in the down direction.

The actual tensile strain values were calculated using in the FPAVE program as per IRC:37-2001, and
the actual strains were computed using various trial pavement structural layer combinations. The
tyre pressure used for the analysis was 0.56 MPa and standard axle used was dual type, having a
mass of 8160 kg. This resulted in consideration of single tyre load of 20,500 N.
Pavement thicknesses adopted
Tables 2 and 3 show homogeneous section-wise adopted MSA, CBR and pavement thickness values.
Table 2: Thickness of Pavement Layers (LHS Side)
H. Design Layer Thickness, mm
CBR% MSA
Section Chainage, km BC DBM WMM GSB SG
1 0+000 to 35+000 15 70 40 100 250 200 500
2 35+000 to 50+000 15 68 40 100 250 200 500

Table 3: Thickness of Pavement Layers (RHS Side)

H. Design Layer Thickness, mm
CBR% MSA
Section Chainage, km BC DBM WMM GSB SG
1 0+000 to 35+000 15 70 40 100 250 200 500
2 35+000 to 50+000 15 95 50 100 250 200 500

The thickness of BC ranged from 40 to 50 mm whereas the DBM consisted of a single layer 100 mm
thick.
3.3 Pavement Construction and Quality Control
General
The pavement layers’ construction was carried out with the materials satisfying the “MORTH
Specifications for Road and Bridge Works (4th Revision)”. The Project Quality Plan (PQP) was
submitted and approved by Independent Engineer. The construction activities were carried out as
per the submitted PQP. The detailed description of various layers of construction is described below:

3
Subgrade
The construction of subgrade was carried out as per the specifications of the clause 305 of the
MORTH Specifications. The subgrade was constructed using soils with 15% CBR from identified
borrow areas. The pavement design was based on the 4-day soaked CBR at maximum dry density.
The construction and quality control tests were carried out as per agreed Project Quality Plan.
Granular Subbase (GSB)
The construction of GSB was carried out as per Clause 401 of MORTH Specifications (4th Revision).
Grading I as per Table 400-1 was used. The construction and quality control tests were carried out as
per agreed Project Quality Plan.
Wet Mix Macadam (WMM)
The construction of WMM Layer was carried out as per Clause 406 of MoRTH (4th Revision). The
construction and quality control tests were carried out as per agreed Project Quality Plan.
Bituminous Layers
The BC and DBM layers were constructed in the project as follows:
TheBC layer was constructed with Polymer Modified Bitumen Grade PMB-40. The DBM layer was
constructed with VG-30 Bitumen. The bituminous layers’ construction was carried out after duly
applying the prime coat and tack coat as per MORTH specifications. The construction of DBM and BC
layers were carried out as per the clause 507 and 509 of MORTH Specifications. All aggregates met
the MORTH requirements.

4 PAVEMENT EVALUATION PLAN

The pavement evaluation plan consisted of the following steps:

4.1 Review of Mix Designs

Hot mix asphalt mix designs of BC and DBM involved in the construction of this project were studied
in detail before inspection of the projectroad to ensure Marshall Mix Design data met the
specifications.

4.2 Sampling Plan

It was proposed to locate a representative “distressed” or poor section and a relatively “good”
section on this project. These sections were intended to be at least 500 m long; cores to be obtained
in the lane adjacent to the median, which carries truck traffic; and cores to be obtained in the wheel
track near the median in that lane. This type of approach for systematic pavement investigation has
been used successfully across the world by the first writer in the past[1]. Comparison of the test data

4
from relatively good and poor areas is generally helpful in isolating the cause(s) of poor
performance. Moreover, it also gives the general range of pavement test properties on the project
being investigated. This approach is highly successful if only one primary distress type is being
investigated, it may be cracking; rutting; or raveling/potholes.
Figure 1shows the sampling plan for a typical “distressed” (poor) or “good” section which involves
the following:
 Five (5) 150-mm diameter cores to comprise BC and DBM layers (subjectively evaluate the
adhesion between the two asphalt layers during coring).
 One (1) small test pit about 750 mm by 750 mm in the middle of the 500-m test section in
line with cores to visually examine the condition of in-situ BC and DBM (especially stripping).
Also, obtain samples of BC and DBM for determination of maximum specific gravity (Gmm)of
the mixes from this test pit. [This was later changed to an extra 150-mm diameter core
because the pits were taking too long. This extra core was brought to the testing laboratory;
warmed at 110C; and opened to examine stripping, if any.]
 Five (5) test pits along the edge of the pavement near shoulder to test the in-situ density of
WMM, GSB, and subgrade and take samples of all three both for determining in-situ
moisture content, optimum moisture content, optimum dry density; gradation and PI in the
laboratory. Subgrade samples were also used to determine the in-situ CBR values.
 Two (2) coring right on the crack to examine the depth of the crack within the pavement
(only in distressed section).

Total number of samples to be collected from project site and pits to be dug in both poor and good
sections:
 150-mm diameter cores = 6×2 = 12
 150-mm diameter cores directly on cracks = 2 ×1 = 2 (poor sections only)
 Edge pits for testing WMM, GSB, and subgrade = 2×3×5 = 30

5
 Figure 1. Sampling plan
4.3 Testing Plan
Full depth cores of BC and DBM were brought to the laboratory and evaluated for poke marks
(generally indicate inadequate density) and stripping. Layer thicknesses were measured before
sawing to separate BC and DBM layers. Also, the bond between the two asphalt layers was
evaluated before sawing. Bulk specific gravity was obtained for BC and DBM layers. Cores were then
warmed at 110°C or so to crumble them and evaluate % stripping in the mix, if any. Photograph were
taken of some typical stripped mixes. Extraction test was then conducted on the loose, crumbled mix
to determine bitumen content and gradation. Gmm was measured on the loose mix of BC and DBM
obtained from the extra 150-mm diameter core. Gmm was measured after heating and remixing the
loose mix to ensure all aggregate particles are coated with bitumen.

Total number of Tests

 Measurement of thickness of each asphalt layer in full depth cores = 2×2 × 5 = 20
 Bulk specific gravity of cores = 2×10 = 20
 Gmm of loose samples (BC and DBM) obtained from extra cores = 2 ×2 = 4
 Visual evaluation of stripping in 2 layers of all cores = 2×10 = 20
 Extractions (bitumen content and gradation) of BC and DBM=2×10 = 20
 WMM Tests (in-situ moisture content; in-situ density; optimum dry density; optimum
moisture content; gradation; and PI = 10
 GSB Tests (in-situ moisture content; in-situ density; optimum dry density; optimum moisture
content; gradation; and PI = 10

6
  Subgrade Tests: gradation; moisture content; LL; PL; PI; in-situ density; and in-situ CBR = 10

4.4 Summary and Tabulation of Test Data

All necessary calculations such as % air voids and % compaction of WMM and GSB were made. Then,
all test data were tabulated along with JMF values and specification limits. Mean, standard
deviation, and 95% confidence limits (CL)were calculated for all 5-test data each for relatively good
and poor (distressed) sections and reported on one sheet for comparison. The meaning of 95% CL
means: if 100 samples (not 5) are taken of the same material, 95 samples would statistically have the
property within the CL or range. Thicknesses of bituminous courses and bond between the DBM and
BC (yes or no) were also reported on one sheet for each section.

5. VISUAL INSPECTION, TEST RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDED REMEDIAL

MEASURES

Tentative selection of relatively good and poor areas was made prior to the field inspection based on
details of distresses notedafter the first monsoon since construction. These areas were then finalized
during this inspection.

Both good and poor areas were selected on normal height embankments. Although road surface
appeared to be dry and raveled at many places, the predominant distress on this road is medium to
high severity (alligator) cracking mostly on the wheel tracks of the inside lane (next to median).
Figure 2 shows typical fatigue cracking (sometimes in form of block cracking) in the lane. Figures 3
and 4 show close-ups of the cracks. Note that water laden with white fines from the WMM had
oozed out of the full depth cracks in Figure 3.

Core taken directly on the crack (Figure 5) showed the bottom up crack traversing both DBM and BC.
That is why; fines from the WMM were brought up to the road surface by moisture/water.
All core samples were brought to the testing laboratory and tested. As mentioned earlier, in lieu of
excavating a 750 mm by 750 mm pit, an extra 150-mm diameter core was taken which was warmed
in the laboratory at 110°C opened up, and both BC and DBM evaluated for stripping. Table 4 gives
the details of thicknesses, condition of bond between DBM and BC, and observation of stripping
within mixes for all cores.

7
 Figure 2. Typical fatigue cracking

Figure 3. Close-up view of fatigue cracks also showing white stains of fines brought up from WMM

8
 Figure 4. Another close-up view of fatigue crack

Figure 5. Core showing bottom up crack traversing both DBM and BC

There was good bond between DBM and BC in all cores. No stripping was observed in both mixes
since hydrated lime was used in both mixes. However, the mix from both good and poor area
contained significant amount of dusty, friable aggregate particles in DBM and BC, which is

9
considered highly detrimental to the performance of the asphalt mix. It probably came from the
overburden in the stone quarry.
Tables 5 through 9, respectively, give detailed test data for good and poor areas of BC, DBM, WMM,
GSB, and subgrade, which are discussed below:

Bitumen Concrete (BC) Grading 2 (Table 5)

Mix Composition: The mix design appears satisfactory. However, the job mix formula (JMF) was not
reproduced well during mix production. Look at numerous asterisks in the table, which indicate test
data were outside the permissible JMF tolerances. Although not significantly different, both
relatively good and poor areas have gradation much coarser than the JMF, the latter even more. This
is indicated by the percentages passing 2.36 mm, 0.300 mm, and 0.075 mm sieves as follows:

Percent Passing JMF Good Area Poor Area

2.36 mm 48 +/- 4 40 38
0.300 mm 20 +/- 3 12 11
0.075 mm 7.3 +/- 1.5 4.8 2.7

Coarse mixes have high air voids as shown later and are permeable to water. Such mixes are also
prone to raveling because the fine matrix holding the coarse aggregate particles is lacking.
The JMF bitumen content was 5.15 percent. However, the relatively good area has a mean of 4.7%
and the poor area has a mean of 4.6%, both being deficient in bitumen content and outside the JMF
tolerance of +/- 0.3 percent. Deficient bitumen content makes the mix brittle and more prone to
raveling and cracking especially when there is inadequate support from the underlying pavement
courses, which is the case on this project as discussed later.
Both gradation and bitumen content test data show lack of quality control during mix production.
This shows on the road surface which is dry and raveled at many places.

In-Situ Air Voids: At the present time, mean air void content is 10.5% for the good area and 10.3%
for the poor area with air voids as high as 11.1 percent. Both mean air voids are very high and
unacceptable because asphalt mixes oxidize (age) rapidly if the air void content at the time of
construction is more than 8%, which is the specification limit. Normally in-situ air voids reduce from
8% to near the design air voids (about 4%) due to densification from traffic during the first 2-3 years.
This shows that air voids at the time of construction must have been 11-12 percent or more on this
project. High air voids also lead to a brittle mix prone to raveling and cracking. Asphalt pavement

10
with more than 8% air voids has interconnected voids which allow water intrusion into the
pavement during rains. That is why, such pavements develop problems such as potholes during the
monsoon, which was the case on this project.

DBM Grading 1 (Table 6)

Mix Composition: Unlike BC Grading 2 above, the bitumen content and gradation are acceptable
despite some test values outside the tolerance ranges.
In-Situ Air Voids: At the present time, the mean air voids in good and poor areas are 9.0 and 8.8
percent, respectively. This is unacceptable because at the time of construction more than two years
ago these values must have been 10% or even more. The DBM was also used by traffic before laying
the BC, which causes some densification. MORTH does not allow more than 8% air voids at the time
of construction. As discussed in detail in BC above, high air voids cause the mix to be brittle (due to
aging) and prone to raveling and cracking. Asphalt pavement with more than 8% air voids has
interconnected voids which allow water intrusion into the pavement during rains. That is why, such
pavements develop problems such as potholes during the monsoon.
As a rule, DBM Grading 1 which was used on in this section is generally more permeable than DBM
Grading 2 and therefore should not have been used at all. DBM Grading 1 is also prone to
segregation and potholing which was also the case on this project [2].

WMM (Table 7)
Gradation: Although within the specified MORTH range, the gradation of WMM both in good and
poor areas is on the fine side. The material passing 0.075 mm should not exceed 8% as per MORTH.
However, it is excessive: 13.4% in good area and 13.7% in poor area. According to Yoder [3],
excessive fines interfere with the interlocking of aggregate in the WMM and therefore lower its
structural strength. Once water gets into the WMM through cracks in the asphalt courses, it
becomes weaker and weaker and does not provide adequate support to the overlying asphalt
courses. Fines from the WMM have been brought to the road surface as mentioned earlier (Figure
3).

11
 TABLE 4. Condition of cores

MORTH Good Area Poor Area

Spec. or Location no. Location no.
Test Property Std. Std.
Project Mean 95% CL Mean 95% CL
Spec. 1 2 3 4 5 Dev. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Dev.
Thickness, mm 143 145 122 133 112 131 14 103-159 131 141 118 129 116 136 129 10 109-149
DBM 100 101 102 79 92 75 90 12 66-114 104 97 83 89 86 102 94 9 76-112
BC 40 or 50 42 43 43 41 37 41 2 37-45 27 44 35 40 30 34 35 6 23-47
Bond between
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes - - - Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes - - -
DBM and BC
% Stripping in
Mix
DBM None None
BC None None

12
 TABLE 5. Bituminous Concrete (BC) Test Data

MORTH Per. Good Area Poor Area

Test JMF
Spec. or
Property Rang Std 95% Std 95% CL
JMF 1 2 3 4 5 Mean 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mean
e (%) Dev. CL * Dev. *
Thickness,
37 41 43 43 42 41.2 34 30 40 35 44 27 35
mm
Passing BC
Sieve Size, Grading-2
mm

26.5 100 ±7 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 100
19 100 ±7 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 100
93 (90-
13.2 100) ±6 93 91 93 90 90 91 2 87-95 90 92 92 91 92 83* 90 4 86-94
9.5 76 (70-88) ±6 81 78 76 79 80 79 2 75-83 70 68* 76 79 78 68* 73 5 69-77
4.75 58 (53-71) ±5 61 58 52* 59 55 57 4 49-65 53 49* 52* 54 57 52* 53 3 45-61
2.36 48 (42-58) ±4 45 39* 37* 41* 38* 40* 3 34-46 37* 35* 38* 38* 41* 39* 38* 2 32-44
1.18 38 (34-48) ±4 27* 25* 24* 23* 25* 25* 1 23-27 25* 23* 25* 26* 25* 26* 25* 1 23-27
0.6 30 (26-38) ±4 21* 19* 19* 20* 20* 20* 1 18-22 20* 18* 23* 19* 18* 21* 20* 2 18-22
0.3 20 (18-28) ±3 13* 13* 11* 13* 12* 12* 1 10-14 11* 10* 14* 10* 8* 12* 11* 2 9 -13
0.15 15 (12-20) ±3 9* 9* 8* 8* 7* 8* 1 6-10 6* 7* 6* 5* 3* 8* 6* 2 4- 8
4.4-
0.075 7.3 (4-10) ±1.5 5.1* 4.7* 4.8* 4.7* 4.5* 4.8* 0.2 5.2 2.9* 3.1* 2.7* 1.7* 1.3* 4.2* 2.7* 1 2.3-3.1
%
Bitumen 5.15 (Min. 3.9-
±0.3 5.3 4.4* 4.2* 4.7* 5.0 4.7* 0.4 4.3* 4.3* 4.5* 4.8* 5.2 4.7* 4.6* 0.3 3.8-5.4
Content 5.4) 5.5
by wt.
2.354 2.36 2.342 -
Gmb 2.450 2.370 2.387 2.364 2.395 2.392 2.382 0.01 2.409 4 2.404 2.412 2.395 2.364 2.371 2.385 0.02 2.428
Gmm 2.561 2.650 2.660
% Air 9.5-
Voids 4.3 (3-5) 10.9 10.3 11.1 10 10.1 10.5 0.5 11.5 11.1 9.6 9.3 10.0 11.1 10.9 10.3 0.8 8.7-11.9
Place asterisk on test data not meeting

13
 specification
95% CL = Mean +/- 2 Std. Dev.

TABLE 6. Dense Bituminous Macadam (DBM) Test Data

Good Area Poor Area

Per.
MORTH
Test JMF
Spec. or
Property Range Location No. Std 95 % Location No. Std 95 %
JMF Mean Mean
Dev CL* Dev. CL*
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6
Thickness,
75 92 79 102 101 89.8 102 86 89 83 97 104 93.5
mm
Gradation
% Passing, DBM
Sieve Size, Gradg-1
mm
45 100 ±8 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 100
100 (95-
37.5 ±8 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 100
100)
86 (63-
26.5 ±8 100* 99* 100* 72* 74* 89 15 85-93 92 100* 87 82 100* 82 91 8 87-95
91)
64 (55-
13.2 ±7 81* 72* 68 52* 54* 65 12 57-73 69 79* 65 69 79* 65 71* 6 63-79
75)
42 (38-
4.75 ±6 61* 50* 43 41 44 48 8 42-54 48 47 44 43 50* 43 46 3 40-52
54)
35 (28-
2.36 ±5 44* 39 30 29* 32 35 6 33-37 36 33 34 31 37 33 34 2 32-36
42)
11 (7-
0.3 ±4 14 12 11 8 11 11* 2 9- 13 8 10 7 10 14 13 10* 3 8 - 12
21)
0.075 4.2 (2-8) ±2 6.5* 5.1 4.3 4 4.2 4.8* 1 3-7 3.2 4.3 3.9 3.6 5.2* 4.5 4* 1 2-6
%
Bitumen 4.25 3.8-
±0.3 4.8* 4.3 4.6* 3.4* 3.7* 4.2 0.6 3.4-5.0 4.3 5.2* 4.1 4.4 5.2* 4.5 4.6 0.5
Content (Min. 4) 5.4
by wt.
Gmb 2.490 2.377 2.389 2.337 2.335 2.367 2.361 0.024 2.313 - 2.568 2.568 2.584 2.584 2.547 2.522 2.562 0.024 2.514

14
 2.409 - 2.61
Gmm 2.600 2.595 2.809
% Air 7.2-
4.3 8.4 7.9 9.9 10.0 8.8 9 0.9 7.2-10.8 8.6 8.6 8.0 8.0 9.3 10.2 8.8 0.8
Voids 10.4
Test data with asterisk not meeting specification
95% CL = Mean +/- 2 Std. Dev.

TABLE 7. Wet Mixed Macadam (WMM) Test Data

Good Area Poor Area

MoRTH
Test Property
Spec. Location No. Std 95% Location No. Std
Mean Mean 95% CL *
1 2 3 4 5 Dev. CL * 1 2 3 4 5 Dev.
% Passing,
Sieve Size, mm
53 100 100 100
45 95-100 100 100
26.5 - - -
22.4 60-80 78 86*
11.2 40-60 60* 67*
4.75 25-40 40 48*
2.36 15-30 32* 39*
600 micron 8 - 22 22 27*
75 micron 0-8 12.4* 13.7*
60% of % passing
600 micron 13.2 16.2
Plasticity Index 6 MAX 6 7
Optimum Moisture
Content 6.5 7
Optimum Dry
Density 2.37 2.32

15
 In-Situ Moisture 3.6- 7.
6.4 6.4 5.26 5.3 8.7 6.4 1.4 6.4 8.7 5.3 6.4 6.9 1.3 4.3-9.5
Content 9.2 5
In-Situ Density Min 98% 2.18
2.
of 2.2 2.2 2.21 2.3 2.3 2.24 0.03 - 2.1 2.11 2.2 2.1 2.13 0.02 2.09-2.17
1
Lab.MDD 2.30
% Compaction 94 95 96 91
* * 93* 95* * 94.6 * 92* 91* 93* 92* 91.8

TABLE 8. Granular Subbase (GSB) Test Data

Good Area Poor Area

MoRTH
Test Property
Specs Location No. Std. 95% Location No. Std. 95% CL*
Mean Mean
1 2 3 4 5 Dev. CL* 1 2 3 4 5 Dev.
% Passing,
Sieve Size, mm
75 100 100 100
53 80-100 100 100
26.5 55-90 78 87
9.5 35-65 54 65*
4.75 25-55 40 53
2.36 20-40 34 46*
0.85 - 26 36
0.425 25-10 23 31*
0.075 3-10 17.2* 24.5*
Plasticity Index 6 Max 15 15
Optimum
Moisture 7 7
Content

16
Optimum Dry
Density 2.31 2.21
In-Situ
6.5-
Moisture 8.7 8.7 7.5 7.5 9.9 8.5 1 6.4 8.7 9.9 8.7 8.7 8.5 1.3 5.9-11.1
10.5
Content
Min 98%
2.18-
In-Situ Density of Lab. 2.24 2.21 2.22 2.21 2.22 0.02 2 2 2.01 2 2 2.01 0.02 1.97-2.05
2.26
MDD 2.2
TABLE 9. Subgrade Test Data

Good Area Poor Area

Test MoRTH Soil
Location No. Std 95% Location No. Std
Property Specs. Group Mean Mean 95% CL *
1 2 3 4 5 Dev. CL * 1 2 3 4 5 Dev.
Gradation
% Passing,
Sieve Size,
mm
75 100 100
19 100 99
10 96 98
4.75 85 89
2 73 77
SC
0.425 57 62
0.075 43 51
Liquid Limit 48 44
Plastic Limit 23 20
Plasticity
Index 25 Max 25 24
In-Situ 9.1-
9.9 9.9 11.1 9.9 9.9 10.1 0.5 6.4 5.3 8.7 9.9 9.9 8 2.1 3.8-12.2
Moisture 11.1

17
Content

In-Situ Min 97% 1.92

Density of Lab. 2 2 2.04 2.1 2.1 2.04 0.06 - 2 2 2 1.9 2 1.97 0.02 1.93-2.01
MDD 2.16
In-Situ
CBR** 6 4

18
Plasticity Index (PI): According to MORTH, PI of WMM should not exceed 6 percent. However, it is
borderline (6) in the good area and exceeds (7) in the poor area. WMM with high PI, lose strength in
presence of water.
In-Situ Density: The in-situ density of WMM should be at least 98% of optimum dry density (MORTH).
However, the mean density is 95% in the good area and much lower, that is, 92% in the poor area. Both
values indicate inadequate compaction in the field, which further reduces the strength of the WMM.

Granular Sub-Base (GSB) (Table 8)

Gradation: The gradation of GSB in the poor area is finer all the way and is outside the range of MORTH
Grading 1. This is not desirable because it reduces the permeability of GSB to facilitate subsurface
drainage. Moreover, the material passing 0.075 mm sieve should not exceed 10%, but it is excessive:
18.2% in good area and 23.5% in poor area. These values make the GSB highly impermeable. That is
why; in-situ moisture content is 8.5 percent with the value as high as 9.9 percent.
Plasticity Index (PI): According to MORTH, PI of GSB should not exceed 6. However, it is excessive: 15
both in good and poor areas.
In Situ Density: The in-situ density of GSB should be at least 98% of the optimum dry density. However,
it is highly deficient: 96% in good area and only 91% in poor area. This reduces the structural strength of
the GSB. Therefore, the GSB on this project is not only highly impermeable but, it does not have
adequate strength.

Subgrade (Table 9)
Gradation: The poor area has finer gradation all the way compared to the good area. The material
passing 0.075 mm is 43% in good area and 51% in the poor area.
Liquid Limit and Plasticity Index (PI): The liquid limit ranges from 44 to 48 % and the PI range is from 24
to 25. Together with the % passing 0.075 mm sieve, they represent a soil classification of SC (clayey
sand) which typically have CBR of about 6 to 10 as per literature. This supports the measured in-situ CBR
of 6% in the good area and 4% in the poor area as discussed next.
CBR: The subgrade soil sample was brought to the laboratory and compacted at 3 different compaction
levels at a moisture content equal to the in-situ moisture content. CBR values were determined on
samples compacted to 3 different compaction levels. A plot of density versus CBR was made. The CBR
corresponding to the in-situ density was obtained from the plot. Figures 6 and 7 show such plots for
good and poor areas, respectively.

19
 Figure 6. Density versus CBR plot for good area

Figure 7. Density versus CBR plot for poor area

The in-situ CBR values of relatively good area was determined to be 6 percent and the CBR value for the
poor area was determined to be 4 percent. These are much below the CBR value of 15 used in the
structural design of the pavement for a design life of 10 years. Although borrow areas with CBR higher
than 15% were identified for constructing the subgrade, it appears local or different soil (typically with

20
much lower CBR value) was used on this project. Inadequate compaction of the subgrade and subbase
layers apart from low CBR value resulted in early failure.

Had the CBR of 4% been used for determining the thickness of DBM course, that thickness would have
been significantly more. Moreover, the thickness of DBM would also have been even greater if a 20-year
design life (traffic) was used in lieu of 10-year design life (the so-called stage construction). Traffic is
usually opened on the DBM without the BC overlay. This likely caused the bottom-up fatigue cracking in
the DBM which besides the reduced thickness also had substandard GSB and substandard WMM to
support it. Moreover, the quality of DBM itself was also substandard. Such development of fatigue
cracks in the DBM under similar circumstances have been observed by the authors on other major
projects. These bottom up fatigue cracks in the DBM soon get reflected in the BC later. This finally
results in disintegration of the entire asphalt pavement structure; full depth cracks were observed on
this project.

General
Based on the preceding discussion, it can be concluded that all five pavement courses on this project are
largely substandard in quality, which collectively have caused the premature distresses. This is rather
unusual. Generally, one or two pavement courses are substandard in the poor area and therefore can be
isolated as cause(s) for premature distress.

Recommended Remedial Measures

This project experienced substantial distresses during the first, second and third monsoons since it was
constructed. As immediate measure, all potholes should be repaired. The areas which show severe loss
of road surface should be milled off and replaced with BC Grading 2 (with gradation on the finer side of
the JMF) containing elastomeric PMB-40. [This work was carried out soon after this field evaluation.]
These measures would ensure the safety and comfort of the motoring public.
Then, pavement deflections should be measured on the entire project using a falling weight
deflectometer (FWD) which is more reliable and faster than the Benkelman Beam. Plot the results on a
linear graph. Use IRC: 81-1997 to determine the thickness of asphalt overlay to bring deflections below
the acceptable level or IRC:115-2014 should be used.
Conduct a “broad” survey of the road surface in this section to identify the following three (3) road
surface categories:

21
Type A
Road surface showing “severe” fatigue cracks (alligator type) in the wheel tracks and/or block cracks in
the entire lane.
Type B
Road surface showing “moderate” fatigue cracks (one or two longitudinal cracks in the wheel track). This
surface is likely to become Type A in the near future.
Type C
Surface showing no fatigue cracks. There is no guarantee that fatigue cracks would not appear in the
future given the substandard quality of underlying pavement courses (even in the good areas) unless
proven otherwise with additional explorations like this one.

Type A Recommended Remedial Measures

Any suggested remedial measures should take into consideration the following:
1. All or most of the pavement courses are substandard in quality.
2. Alligatored BC cannot be kept within the pavement system because it is shattered and therefore
likely to cause problems in future if overlaid without removal from the distressed areas.
3. Intrusion of rainwater in the pavement system from the surface including the full depth cracks is
causing serious problems in terms of disintegration (potholes/loss of surface). The
recommended overlay system must ensure “complete sealing” of the existing pavement.
4. The existing pavement has bottom up fatigue cracking and therefore may not provide resistance
to tensile strains. The new asphalt overlay must have its “own” reinforcement system to (a)
resist tensile strains at its bottom; (b) arrest cracking; and (c) increase its fatigue life.
5. Despite its “own” reinforcement, the new asphalt overlay would be subjected to extraordinary
stresses and strains due to inadequate support of the underlying courses. Therefore, the new
asphalt overlay should be more flexible than BC Grading 2; resistant to reflection cracking; and
highly rut resistant at the same time.

Ideally, all pavement courses which are substandard should be replaced. However, it is not practical
nor economical. Therefore, the following remedial measures are recommended for Type A Category:
1. Mill off the existing BC Grading 2 exhibiting alligator cracks and/or block cracking and replace
with BC Grading 2 (redesigned with finer gradation) containing elastomeric PMB-40 from a
reliable international supplier. Ensure good quality control in mix production and compaction.

22
 2. Provide a composite (combination) of non-woven geotextile (GT) paving fabric (which is
continuous and has polyester and glass fibers) and a glass fiber grid reinforcement. The quality
of the composite GT should conform to IRC: SP:59-2002. Application should consist of heavy
tack coat of VG-30 bitumen (not emulsion) at a rate specified by the manufacturer of GT paving
fabric. The nonwoven geotextile together with heavy tack coat would ensure “complete sealing”
of the existing pavement. The glass fiber geogrid would provide “reinforcement” to the
overlying 50 mm asphalt overlay to resist tensile stresses at its bottom. It would also prevent
lateral movement of the overlay asphalt mix.
3. Provide 50 mm of Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA) in accordance with IRC:SP:79-2008 (drafted by
the first author) containing elastomeric PMB-40 over the composite geotextile. A minimum
asphalt overlay thickness of 50 mm is required over geotextile. Although SMA is preferred, BC
Grading 2 with highly modified asphalt binder HiMA can also be considered. HiMA has about 7%
SBS polymer compared to about 3% SBS in conventional PMBs. Research at NCAT Test Track in
the US has shown it is highly resistant to rutting and fatigue cracking. Due to its higher structural
strength, 41 mm of BC with HiMA is approximately equivalent to 50 mm of BC with conventional
PMB. HiMA is commercially available in India.
4. If the pavement deflection analyses show that asphalt overlay should be more than 50 mm, then
additional BC Grading 2 overlay should be provided prior to laying the geotextile.

Type B Recommended Remedial Measures

Same as Type A above except that the existing BC need not be milled off and replaced. However, all
potholes and surface deficiencies of existing BC should be corrected. Cracks over 5 mm wide should be
filled with hot asphalt-rubber or hot VG-30 bitumen. Do not use emulsion which would shrink when
about 35% water contained in it evaporates.

Type C Recommended Remedial Measures

In case the deflection analysis does not require any asphalt overlay, apply Microsurfacing Grade III (6 to
8 mm) in accordance with IRC:SP:81-2008 to the existing road surface to seal it from moisture intrusion
as a preventive maintenance. Then, it would be a matter of “wait and watch”. If fatigue cracks start to
develop, use Type B remedial measures. In case, the deflection analysis requires an asphalt overlay, use
40 mm or 50 mm SMA rather than BC Grading 2 considering the substandard quality of underlying
courses, unless proven otherwise after explorations like this one.

23
 6. SUMMARY
On completion of the four-laning of this 50-km national highway, premature pavement distresses were
observed on it during the first monsoon. The following pavement distresses were observed: open
surface texture; raveling; hungry surface; alligator cracks; and potholes. By far, premature fatigue
cracking was the primary distress ranging from moderate cracking (one to two cracks in wheel path) to
severe cracking (alligator cracks in the wheel path or block cracks across the lane). Therefore, this was
the primary focus of this investigation.
Further successive deterioration of pavement occurred during the second and third monsoons. Several
areas of severe alligator cracks also developed shallow and deep potholes which required extensive
patching.
It was decided to investigate the specific causes of premature pavement distresses on the entire project
by systematic sampling and testing so that suitable remedial measures could be recommended.
In general, good quality control of various pavement courses was not exercised during construction,
which led generally to the development of “bottom up” fatigue cracking on this project. The following
general deficiencies were noted on this project:
Subgrade: CBR values from the trial pits of 6 in good area and 4 in the poor area were less than the CBR
value of 15 used in the structural design of this project. This apart from inadequate compaction of the
subgrade layer resulted in an under designed pavement.
Granular Subbase (GSB): Gradation; plasticity index (PI) and % compaction did not meet MORTH
requirements. This results in poor subsurface drainage and inadequate support to the overlying
pavement courses especially in presence of water.
Wet Mix Macadam (WMM): Gradation; plasticity index (PI) and % compaction did not meet MORTH
requirements. This results in weak WMM which provides inadequate support to the overlying pavement
courses especially in presence of water.
Dense Bituminous Macadam (DBM) Base Course: DBM has excessive air voids (due to inadequate
compaction) which allow water intrusion during rains causing potholes. High air voids also make the mix
more prone to cracking. Some DBM mixes contained soft, friable aggregate most likely from quarry
overburden. Also, traffic allowed on the DBM during construction before placing the BC can induce
bottom up fatigue cracking in it. These cracks then reflect though the BC at a later date.
Bituminous Concrete (BC) Wearing Course: Deficient bitumen content; gradation outside JMF
tolerances (generally coarser which allows intrusion of rainwater); and high air voids (due to poor
compaction) made the mix more prone to cracking. Some BC mixes contained soft, friable aggregate

24
most likely from quarry overburden. In most cases, BC did not provide an impermeable surface for the
pavement to prevent water intrusion.
Based on preceding deficiencies, all five pavement courses were substandard in quality. This resulted in
a rather complex investigation, where the relatively good area also had serious deficiencies in case of
some test parameters.
It has been recommended that pavement deflections should be measured on the entire project using a
falling weight deflectometer (FWD). Plot the results on a linear graph. Use IRC: 81-1997 or IRC-115-2014
to determine the thickness of asphalt overlay to bring deflections below the acceptable level, wherever
needed.
Conduct a “broad” survey of the road surface on the entire project to identify the following three (3)
road surface categories:
Type A: Road surface showing “severe” fatigue cracks (alligator type) in the wheel tracks and/or block
cracks in the entire lane.
Type B: Road surface showing “moderate” fatigue cracks (one or two longitudinal cracks in the wheel
track). This surface is likely to become Type A in the near future.
Type C: Surface showing no fatigue cracks. There is no guarantee that fatigue cracks would not appear in
the future given the substandard quality of underlying pavement courses (even in the good areas) unless
proven otherwise with additional explorations like this one.

Type A Recommended Remedial Measures

Details are given in the body of this paper. Briefly, remedial measures consist of (a) mill off existing BC
Grading 2 and replace with new BC Grading 2 with elastomeric PMB-40 Bitumen; (b) provide a
composite geotextile paving fabric and glass fiber grid reinforcement; and (c) provide 50 mm of Stone
Matrix Asphalt.

Type B Recommended Remedial Measures

Same as Type A above except that the existing BC need not be milled off and replaced. However, all
potholes and surface deficiencies of existing BC should be corrected. Cracks over 5 mm wide should be
filled with hot asphalt-rubber or hot VG-30 bitumen, not emulsion.

25
Type C Recommended Remedial Measures
In case the deflection analysis does not require any asphalt overlay, apply Microsurfacing Grade III (6 to
8 mm) in accordance with IRC: SP:81-2008 to the existing road surface to seal it from moisture intrusion.
Then, it would be a matter of “wait and watch

Quality Control
In all remedial measures, strict quality control need to be exercised during bituminous mix production
and compaction. It is especially important for stone matrix asphalt (SMA). If two sets of extractions
(bitumen content and gradation) and Marshall tests are faithfully done every day as per MORTH
requirements, there is no reason as to how the quality can be compromised.

7. GENERAL RECOMMENDTIONS
The following general recommendations are made so that major highways do not develop premature
distresses as observed on this project:
(a) The pavement design life should not be based on “stage construction” such as 10 years. Rather,
it should be for the full operational period.
(b) Construction quality control (QC) needs to be exercised by the contractor and quality assurance
(QA) should be exercised by the concessionaire/Independent Engineer (IE) – both were lacking
on this project.
(c) DBM base course should not be used by traffic for long periods of time; it should be overlaid
with BC as soon as possible so that bottom-up fatigue cracks do not develop in DBM due to
reduced pavement thickness.
(d) Although not applicable to this project, the thickness of DBM should not be reduced when
modified binders are used. This is technically unwarranted and would further aggravate the
problem of under designing the pavement structure.
(e) If subgrade is constructed with high CBR soil from identified borrow areas, it should be ensured
that local soil with low CBR value is not used.

26
 8. BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Kandhal, Prithvi Singh, “Bituminous Road Construction in India”. Textbook. Prentice Hall of India,
New Delhi, July 2016.

2. Kandhal, P.S. and A. Veeraragavan, Review of Practices for Improving Ride Quality and Periodical
Renewal of Bituminous Pavements in India. Paper No. 662. Journal of the Indian Roads
Congress, Volume 77-3, October-December 2016.

3. Yoder, E.J., “Principles of Pavement Design”. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1965.

Comments on Paper No. 681

“Investigation of Premature Pavement Distresses on Typical National Highways Project”
by Prof. P.S. Kandhal, and Prof. A. Veeraragavan, IIT, Madras

Comments of Shri Arvind R. Kale, General Manager (T) & PD, Dhule (MS)
In the design of the flexible pavement, the camber of the cross section has to be considered at the
time of construction in the project road. Basically if the drainage system is properly designed,
the problems of sinking along the wheel path and rutting shall not occur..
Reply by the authors:
The authors appreciate the views of Mr.Kale. However, the premature distress in the project road
was due to inadequate compaction of the pavement layers and poor design of the bituminous
mixes and not due to absence of camber.

Comments of Dr. Sanjay Wakchaure, SE, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, New
Delhi
1. The design CBR is 15% , but the observed CBR was estimated to be in the range of 4-
6% . However, no treatment was suggestion for subgrade.
2. Whether the suggestion made were followed and if so, what is its performance today?
3. The basis for categorization of the pavement sections as moderate, severe etc., for
pavement layers, may be explained.
4. Binder content, density and gradation are not having any issue. However, thickness
variation in layers is quite less. Was the distress related to heavy traffic more than what
was considered is design?

27
5. Is there any the way to find the compaction temperature of bitumen layer ?

Reply by the authors:

The design CBR is 15%, but the agency has not checked the CBR of the soil used for the
construction of the pavement layers. Based on the density- CBR curve for the soil, the CBR of
the constructed soil at site was estimated to be in the range of 4-6%. As the design CBR value is
15%, no treatments were suggested. The performance of the road has further deteriorated, as the
maintenance treatments were not proper. The pavement sections were grouped as ‘good’ or
‘poor’ based on the extent and severity of the distresses. The distresses were observed within
few months after construction and are not traffic related distresses. The extensive distresses were
due to poor quality of construction. The compaction temperature can only be measured during
the construction of the bituminous layers using infrared thermometers and it will not be possible
to estimate the compaction temperature after the construction.

Comments of Shri Venugopal

Is the drainage for the pavement designed to take carriageway runoff and also the adjoining land
runoff? It is clear that the pavements in India start deteriorating during monsoon. It may be due
to lack of adequate drainage, as it contributes to capillary rise of ground water and deterioration
of the pavement. I think, that lack of drainage is the major factor for deterioration of pavements
during monsoon in India.
Reply by the authors:
The authors agree that lack of drainage is one of the major factors causing deterioration of the
pavements in India. The project road has been designed with adequate drainage system.
However, the premature failures on the project road were due to poor quality of construction of
pavement layers that let the water to the underlying layers causing the pre-mature distresses.

******************************************

28