GUIDELINES FOR LONG LASTING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENTS IN INDIA

By PROF. PRITHVI SINGH KANDHAL*, PROF. A. VEERARAGAVAN** & R. K. JAIN*** [This paper was published as Paper No. 564 in the Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, Volume 71-3, October-December 2010. Authors responses to comments received on this paper are also given at the end.] ABSTRACT The MORTH Specifications (2001) for producing and placing dense-graded bituminous paving mixes have been reviewed in detail and recommendations made. The recommendations based on the current state-of-the-art technologies pertain to: selection of viscosity grade bitumen; amount of natural sand in fine aggregate; Marshall mix design procedures in the latest Asphalt Institute MS-2; mixing and compaction temperatures based on viscosity graded bitumen; minimum mat compaction density based on theoretical maximum specific gravity of loose mix; and quality acceptance criteria. It has been recommended to have only one specification each for all dense graded bituminous mixes used in base course, binder course, and wearing course. Together, all recommendations form guidelines for obtaining long lasting pavements in India. 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND At the present time bituminous paving mixes are generally produced and placed in India as specified in MORTH Publication, Specifications for Road and Bridge Works, Fourth Edition 200130. There is a proliferation of bituminous paving mixes in India. Eight mixes (two gradings each of BM, DBM, SDBC and BC) are specified in the MORTH specifications. A case was made on detailed technical grounds in a recent Indian Roads Congress paper10 by Kandhal, Sinha and Veeraragavan to essentially have only four dense graded mixes of different nominal maximum aggregate size (NMAS) in the specifications, as is the case in most countries of the world. The following four dense graded mixes were proposed along with their recommended rut resistant gradations as given in Table 1: 25 mm NMAS Dense Bituminous Macadam (DBM) Base Course 19 mm NMAS Bituminous Concrete (BC) Binder Course 12.5 mm NMAS Bituminous Concrete (BC) Wearing Course Grading 1 (for heavy traffic) 9.5 mm NMAS Bituminous Concrete (BC) Wearing Course Grading 2 (for light to medium traffic, urban areas, and thin application) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* Associate Director Emeritus, National Center for Asphalt Technology (NCAT), Auburn University, USA (currently Jaipur) < pkandhal@eng.auburn.edu> ** Professor of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai <av@iitm.ac.in> *** Former Chief Engineer, Haryana PWD <rk_7343@rediffmail.com>

TABLE 1. PROPOSED FOUR DENSE GRADED MIXES FOR INDIA Grading Proposed Proposed BC Proposed BC DBM Base Binder Course Wearing Course Course Grading 1 Nominal Aggregate Size Lift Thickness Sieve Size, mm 37.5 26.5 19 13.2 9.5 4.75 2.36 1.18 0.6 0.3 0.15 0.075 Bitumen Content 25 mm 19 mm 12.5 mm

Proposed BC Wearing Course Grading 2 9.5 mm

75-100 mm Percent Passing 100 90-100 71-95 56-80 38-54 28-42 7-21 4-7 4.0-5.5

50-75 mm

30-50 mm

25-40 mm

100 90-100 66-86 55-75 35-55 28-44 20-34 15-27 10-20 5-13 4-7 4.0-5.5

100 90-100 70-88 53-71 38-54 24-38 17-29 12-22 7-15 4-7 5.0-7.0

100 90-100 55-75 40-55 29-44 21-33 14-25 7-15 4-7 5.2-7.5

Note: Wearing course grading 1 is recommended for heavy traffic roads (more than 1500 commercial vehicles per day). Wearing course grading 2 is recommended for light to medium traffic roads, in urban areas, and for thin (25 mm) applications

It was also recommended to delete the open graded, highly porous Bituminous Macadam (BM) and the Semi Dense Bituminous Concrete (SDBC) mixes from the MORTH specifications because both of these mixes have serious technical flaws and are not cost effective. A detailed technical and economical comparison of BM with DBM was made in the paper10 in terms of permeability, structural strength, use as PCC (profile corrective course), cost considerations, traffic conditions, and general statements. It was concluded with technical justifications that dense graded DBM should be used in lieu of highly porous, open graded, undrained BM especially to obtain long lasting pavements. However, despite many fundamental, technical flaws associated with BM as mentioned in the paper, some engineers still advocate to retain it in the specifications. This is probably due to the following misconceptions:

Dense graded DBM is not flexible enough to be placed directly on WMM and therefore a flexible BM course is necessary between the WMM and DBM. If the DBM was not flexible it would not rut at all. But that is not the case. If there is uneven settlement /consolidation of WMM, the DBM is flexible enough to deform and adjust similar to BM if that is what is desired. It is a common practice in most countries of the world to place DBM type bituminous base course directly on crushed stone base course (we call it WMM). That practice has resulted in durable long lasting pavements without any problems. BM is cheaper than DBM and that is why it is good for a developing country like India. A detailed, comparative cost analysis given in the paper shows that the DBM is cheaper than the BM by 15 to 21% if the relative structural strengths are considered. Only when the BM is used as PCC to correct camber/super elevation it is cheaper than the DBM. But the problem still remains that the undrained BM PCC would trap moisture/water creating a bath tub within the pavement and thus will be potentially detrimental to the pavement.

Some engineers have suggested retaining the BM but providing outlet for the water trapped in the open graded BM. To do this, the BM has to be extended all the way to the edge of the embankment (that is, day lighted) or pavement edge drains have to be constructed to drain the BM. Both of these solutions are very expensive propositions. If BM is used as PCC for correcting camber, it may not be possible to drain the BM wedge (triangle) especially if it is towards a raised median. Moreover, rainwater falling in the raised median may also enter sideways into the porous BM wedge and cause stripping and potholes. Such a case has been observed on a national highway in India. As mentioned in that paper, it is time to move on from open graded cheaper mixes to dense graded, durable mixes if the objective is to have long lasting pavements both for low-volume and high-volume roads. If the dense graded 9.5 mm NMAS wearing course as recommended in Table 1 is adopted, there is no need for the semi-dense SDBC, which is technically flawed due to pessimum voids as explained in the IRC paper. The recommended dense graded mix (which can also be used in thin 25 mm applications) will be more durable and cost effective than the SDBC, because the former is only about 5% costlier than the latter. Some discussion of how the recommended base course, binder course, and wearing course mixes (Table 1) should be used in new pavements as well as in overlays follows. Base course mixes, which use relatively larger size aggregate, are not only stiff/stable but also are economical because they use relatively lower bitumen contents. Surface or wearing course mixes with smaller aggregate on the other hand have relatively higher bitumen contents, which not only impart high 3

flexibility but also increase their durability. The binder (intermediate) course mix serves as a transition between the base course and wearing course. Several studies3,30,34 have shown that permanent deformation (rutting) within flexible pavement is usually confined to the top 100 to 150 mm of the pavement. This means both the binder and wearing course mixes should be designed to be resistant to rutting. That is why in extreme cases of heavy traffic loads and high tyre pressures, it is considered prudent to use Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA) mix in which due to stone-on-stone contact the load is carried directly by the coarse aggregate skeleton. It is not necessary to use all three bituminous courses (base, binder, and wearing) in a new flexible pavement unless the traffic is very high. For example, the following combinations can be used depending upon the total thickness of the bituminous course(s) required as per structural design based on IRC:37.

WMM + DBM Base Course + BC Binder course + BC Wearing Course WMM + BC Binder Course + BC Wearing Course WMM + BC Wearing Course only

For low-volume roads only a granular base and a bituminous wearing course may suffice based on structural requirements. Some examples are given below for suggested bituminous courses for total required bituminous layer thickness considering the recommended lift thicknesses for the four mixes (given in Table 1): Required Total Bituminous Layer Thickness Less than 50 mm 75 mm 125 mm 150 mm or more Use BC Wearing Course only (Grading 1 or 2) BC Binder Course + BC Wearing course DBM Base Course + BC Binder Course + BC Wearing Course

If the total design bituminous layer thickness falls between 50 mm and 75 mm, or between 125 mm and 150 mm, use the higher thickness. It has been surmised by some that a BC wearing course is too stiff and will crack if placed directly over WMM. This is not correct because the BC wearing course has relatively lower stiffness due to its lower NMAS (12.5 or 9.5 mm) and high bitumen content. This combination is being used in other countries including Australia and South Africa. Similarly, a bituminous overlay required for strengthening flexible pavement can consist of the following depending upon the required thickness as per IRC:81: BC Binder Course + BC Wearing Course BC Wearing Course only Unlike most developed countries, overloading is a major concern in India. On very heavily trafficked road with severe overloading problem, it is recommended 4

to modify the BC wearing course and BC binder course (that is, the top 100 mm of the pavement only, which is likely to rut) as follows: Ensure to use viscosity graded VG-30 grade bitumen as per latest IS73:20064, which is significantly more rut resistant than the old 60/70 penetration bitumen. Use polymer modified bitumen (PMB) Use Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA) as per IRC Specifications approved recently

Critical review of the bituminous paving mixes and their specifications is warranted considering less than expected durability of bituminous mixes in India especially after monsoon rains. This paper can be considered as a continuation of the IRC paper referred above, which reviewed the proliferation of bituminous mixes in India and recommended desirable mixes along with their gradations. This paper reviews the specifications for producing and placing the selected four dense graded bituminous mixes to obtain long lasting bituminous pavements. Both reviews are expected to be helpful to the contractors who are currently designing their own projects (including bituminous mix selection) under the Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) programme. Revisions to the current MORTH specifications have been suggested as follows in terms of materials; design of mix; construction operations; and quality control and acceptance. Only the suggested changes to the MORTH specifications have been given in this paper. It has been recommended to have only one specification for all dense graded bituminous mixes used in base course, binder course, and wearing course.

2. MATERIALS 2.1 Bitumen Indian Standard Specification for Paving Bitumen IS:73:20063 must now be used for all bituminous mixes. This revised standard issued in July 2006 specifies viscosity graded bitumen only such as VG-30 and VG-10. It replaced penetration graded bitumen such as 60/70 and 80/100. The new viscosity graded (VG) bitumens, which will provide consistent resistance to rutting at high pavement temperatures must be specified in MORTH specification by issuing a corrigendum, and implemented as soon as possible so that the use of substandard penetration graded bitumen is discontinued. Tables 2, 3, and 4 give the standard viscosity grades (VG), their general applications, and selection criteria. The viscosity grades are readily available now in India with no extra cost. The contractors especially those with PPP or BOT projects must use VG grades only to ensure adequate rut resistance and durability of their projects. Since all types of modified bitumen (Table 4) are not considered equal in performance, the type of modifier should be specified for each contract. Polymer 5

modified bitumen is suitable for highly-trafficked roads. Testing of modified bitumen at the point of delivery should be specified in the contract since phase separation during transport is quite common. Polymer can also be added at the hot mix plant site to avoid phase separation and/or degradation. However, it is necessary to have appropriate blending equipment and a testing laboratory to conduct all tests required in the specification.
TABLE 2. VISCOSITY GRADED (VG) BITUMENS AND THEIR GENERAL APPLICATIONS

Viscosity Grade (VG)

General Applications

VG-40 (40-60 penetration)

Use in highly stressed areas such as those in intersections, near toll booths, and truck parking lots in lieu of old 30/40 penetration grade

VG-30 (50-70 penetration)

Use for paving in most of India in lieu of old 60/70 penetration grade

VG-20 (60-80 penetration)

Use for paving in cold climatic, high altitude regions of North India

VG-10 (80-100 penetration)

Use in spraying applications and for paving in very cold climate in lieu of old 80/100 penetration grade

TABLE 3. SELECTION CRITERIA FOR VISCOSITY-GRADED (VG) PAVING BITUMENS BASED ON CLIMATIC CONDITIONS Highest Daily Mean Air Temperature, 0C Less than 200 C 20 to 300 C More than 300 C Lowest Daily Mean Air Temperature, C More than 100 C -10 C or lower
0

VG-10 VG-10

VG-20 VG-10

VG-30 VG-20

TABLE 4. SELECTION CRITERIA FOR GRADE OF MODIFIED BITUMEN Highest Daily Mean Air Temperature, 0C Less than 20 C 20 to 300 C More than 300 C
0

Lowest Daily Mean Air Temperature, 0C

Grade of Modified Bitumen

Grade of Modified Bitumen

Grade of Modified Bitumen

More than -100 C -100 C or lower

PMB/NRMB 120 CRMB 50 PMB/NRMB 120 CRMB 50

PMB/NRMB 70 CRMB 55 PMB/NRMB 120 CRMB 50

PMB/NRMB 40 CRMB 60 PMB/NRMB 70 CRMB 55

PMB= Polymer modified bitumen NRMB= Natural rubber modified bitumen CRMB= Crumb rubber modified bitumen

2.2 Coarse Aggregate The stripping test IS:6241 has been specified for coarse aggregate in the present MORTH specifications. This test, which is conducted on coarse aggregate only, is antiquated and proven to be inadequate based on research conducted in the past. Most mixtures pass this easy static-immersion test and, therefore antistripping agents are not used when actually needed resulting in stripping problems. In many cases, the fine aggregate is hydrophilic and causes stripping, which can be worse than that from the coarse aggregate. Many of the stripping problems (especially potholes after monsoons) in India are potentially due to reliance on this antiquated test. There is a need to use the Water Sensitivity or Moisture Susceptibility Test AASHTO T 283, which is conducted on the whole bituminous mix. This test, which is most commonly called Moisture Susceptibility Test, is also used in the Superpave mix design. This test is already in the MORTH specifications Section 800 as a water sensitivity test and therefore it is recommended to make it mandatory to be conducted on all bituminous mixes at the time of mix design and once a week during mix production. IS 6241 can be retained only as a screening test for the coarse aggregate. The recommended revised physical properties of coarse aggregate are given in Table 5. TABLE 5. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF COARSE AGGREGATE
Property Test Requirement Test method

Cleanliness Particle Shape

Grain size analysis Flakiness and Elongation Index (combined) Heavy traffic (more than 1500 commercial vehicles/day) Light traffic (less than 1500 commercial vehicles/day) Los Angeles Abrasion Value

Max. 5% passing 0.075 mm

IS 2386 Part I IS 2386 Part I

Max. 35% Max. 40%

Strength *

Binder and wearing course: Max. 30% Base course: 35%

IS 2386 Part IV

Aggregate Impact Value

Binder and wearing course: Max. 24%

IS 2386 Part IV

Base course: 27% Polishing ** Durability Polished Stone Value Soundness (either Sodium or Magnesium Sulphate) 5 cycles Max. 12% Sodium Sulphate Max. 18% Magnesium Sulphate Water Absorption Stripping *** Water Absorption Max. 2% IS 2386 Part III IS 2386 Part V IS 2386 Part V Min. 55 IS 2386 Part IV

Coating and Stripping of Bitumen Aggregate Mixtures

Min. Retained Coating 95%

IS:6241

Notes: * The aggregate may satisfy either of the two tests. ** Only for wearing courses *** This test shall be conducted as a screening test for coarse aggregate only. It is mandatory to conduct AASHTO T 283 (Annexure I), which is conducted on the whole bituminous mix as specified in Table 6.

Consideration should be given to increase the maximum Los Angles abrasion values by 5% because the presently specified values are too stringent and may necessitate transport of aggregates over long distances at high costs. The State of Georgia in the US has the best roads in the US. It has granite as the predominant aggregate type with high LA abrasion values. Georgia specifies6 maximum LA abrasion of 50 % for granite aggregate. Whereas, very high LA values beyond a threshold value are not desirable, very low values do not necessarily mean it is a better aggregate16. Consideration should also be given to delete the Aggregate Impact Value (AIV) test because the LA Abrasion test subjects the aggregate to both impact and abrasion (from steel balls and aggregate to aggregate contact when the drum is rotated). Unlike AIV, LA Abrasion simulates the processing of aggregate in a drier drum. Most countries in the world including the US specify LA Abrasion test only. Not all tests specified in Table 5 need to be conducted very frequently. Tests such as Polished Stone Value and Soundness need to be conducted at the time of source (quarry) approval and less frequently thereafter. Kandhal et al 16,17,23 and others7 have conducted research and reported on several new test methods for testing and characterizing coarse aggregates for bituminous mixes. The new test methods pertain to particle shape, angularity 8

and surface texture (such as uncompacted void content) and soundness & durability (such as Micro-Deval test). The new improved test methods have been adopted by AASHTO and need to be considered by the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), IRC, and MORTH to enhance the quality of bituminous mixes in India. 2.3 Fine Aggregate Fine aggregate is defined as material passing either 4.75 mm or 2.36 mm sieve. Right now, the MORTH specification is not clear in terms of crushed sand versus natural sand used as a fine aggregate. One can use 100 percent natural sand (which tends to contain rounded particles) in all bituminous courses, which increases the potential for rutting problems. Many agencies in the world limit the amount of natural sand to 50 percent in the DBM type base courses and 10 percent in the BC binder and wearing courses (layers within 100 mm of the road surface) to minimize rutting problem. This requirement should also be included in the MORTH specifications. Kandhal et al15,16,17,21,25 and others8 have also researched and reported on new improved test methods for testing and characterizing fine aggregates for bituminous mixes. The new test methods pertain to particle shape (such as fine aggregate angularity or FAA test) and plastic fines (such as Methylene Blue test). These new test methods have been adopted by AASHTO and need to be considered by BIS, IRC and MORTH. 2.4 Filler Many highway engineers in India like to specify adding mineral filler to the bituminous mix even if there is no deficiency of fines in the aggregates used. This is not justified. All asphalt plants in India are required to have baghouses to collect the fines from the dryer. These baghouse fines should be incorporated back into the mix in a controlled manner through a screw conveyer. Many studies 9,16 in the US have shown that the baghouse fines (which are same as stone dust or mineral dust resulting from the aggregate crushing operation) are good mineral fillers. Portland cement does not have any advantage over stone dust and therefore its use is not cost effective. However, if the designed mix fails the Moisture Susceptibility test (AASHTO T 283) then addition of 1-2% hydrated lime is desirable. Hydrated lime is not only a good antistripping agent, it can also retard the oxidation or aging of the bitumen during service. In regions of India where hydrophilic aggregates such as quartzite and granite are used in mixes, it should be made mandatory to add hydrated lime in every ton of hot mix produced in the whole region. For example, in and around Jaipur only quartzite aggregate is used in bituminous mixes and, therefore, this requirement if implemented will be very helpful. Unfortunately, there is no Indian standard for hydrated lime to be used in bituminous mix (there is for building lime). Therefore, a reference needs to be made to AASHTO M 303, Lime for Asphalt Mixtures, which specifies active lime content (CaOH2 + CaO) above 90 percent. 9

Kandhal et al14,16 have reported on new test methods (such as Rigden voids) for testing and characterizing mineral fillers, stone dust, and baghouse fines. BIS, IRC and MORTH should consider these test methods. 2.5 Aggregate Gradation Aggregate gradations for DBM base course, BC binder course, and two BC wearing courses were discussed earlier. The final recommended gradations for use in India are given in Table 1. Justification for adopting these mixes and their respective revised gradations is given in detail in the IRC paper10 mentioned earlier. 3. DESIGN OF MIX At the present time, all bituminous mixes are designed with Marshall Method using 75 blows regardless of traffic. MORTH specification should be able to be used on all types of roads: NH, SH, MDR, and ODR. So 50-blow Marshall Design must be used for low to medium traffic roads such as ODR. It is neither technically correct nor desirable to design all roads with 75 blows as stipulated in the present MORTH specifications because it will give undesirably low bitumen contents for low to medium traffic roads, which will reduce the durability of such roads. Low road durability is a severe problem in India. Only high-volume roads (carrying more than 1500 commercial vehicles per day) should use 75-blow Marshall Design like it is done in most countries of the world33. Even in the Superpave mix design there are 4 levels of lab compaction depending on traffic. In Superpave, there is a compaction level in terms of gyrations, which is equivalent to 50-blow Marshall and is used on most roads with light to medium traffic. Continuing to use 75 blows for all roads in India will reduce the design bitumen content of roads with light to medium traffic by as much as 0.5 percent resulting in lower service life. Quite often, it is argued that the traffic will increase on existing low to medium trafficked roads in a few years. However, by that time the bitumen would get oxidized and therefore get stiffened to counteract the effect of slightly higher bitumen content. MORTH mix design requirements for all dense graded mixes need to be revised as shown in Table 6. The minimum stability, range of flow, and VFB values for both 50 and 75 blow Marshall designs have been taken from the latest sixth edition2 of the Asphalt Institute MS-2, which is widely used successfully worldwide and has been referred to in MORTH specification at several places. These values have been used in very hot climate areas such as in Arizona in the US and other hot, tropical countries successfully. It should also be ensured that the ratio by weight of fines (material passing 0.075 mm sieve) and effective bitumen content (fines/bitumen ratio) in the bituminous mix is between 0.6 to 1.2 as included in Table 6. This way there are some minimum fines to stiffen the bitumen and not too much fines which will make the mortar too brittle (dull) and less cohesive and will also reduce the VMA more than desired. 10

Some values in Table 6 are based on some research done in India. It had also included criteria for heavy rainfall areas. There is no sound technical reason whatsoever for having a different Marshall stability and flow criteria for heavy rainfall areas. It is the pavement temperature and not the amount of rainfall, which affects these properties. Therefore, rainfall has not been considered in Table 6. High rainfall can potentially increase the moisture damage in the mix. For that AASHTO T 283 is enough with 80 % minimum retained tensile strength requirement. It has worked very well in hot and heavy rainfall area of the US (rainfall significantly more than India). Since there is AASHTO T 283 which has been specified now and it requires 60 C water-bath conditioning, there is no need to have Retained Marshall stability after 24 hours in water at 600 C, which is less severe than AASHTO T 283. Extensive research has shown that the air void range of 3 to 5 percent applies to all courses, which is also reflected in the latest Asphalt Institute MS-22. In fact some states in the US specify even lower air voids 2 to 4 percent for the base courses, which do not get further compaction from traffic. This is unlike past practice when higher air voids were specified for base courses compared to binder and wearing courses. TABLE 6. REQUIREMENT OF THE DENSE GRADED BITUMINOUS MIX WHEN USING UNMODIFIED BITUMEN Specification Compaction level (Number of blows) Minimum stability (kN at 60oC) AASHTO T 245 Requirements 75 blows on each face of the specimen for heavy traffic and 50 blows on each face for light to medium traffic 9.0 for heavy traffic roads* (75-blow Marshall specimen) 5.3 for light to medium traffic roads (50-blow Marshall specimen) 2 4 0.6 1.2 3 5 65 75 for heavy traffic* (75-blow Marshall specimen) 65-78 for light to medium traffic (50-blow Marshall specimen) 2 to 5

Minimum flow (mm) AASHTO T 245 Maximum flow (mm) AASHTO T 245 Ratio of fines to effective bitumen content % Air Voids (MS-2 and ASTM D 2041) % Voids filled with bitumen (VFB) Asphalt Institute MS-2

Marshall Quotient. kN /mm (stability/flow) Tensile Strength Ratio (minimum), %, AASHTO T283

80 11

(with freeze & thaw option)(see Annexure I for the outline of this test method)

% Voids in Mineral aggregate VMA Nominal Maximum Particle size (mm) ** 9.5 13.2 3 14 13 Min % VMA related to designed % air voids*** 4 15 14 5 16 15

19.0 12 13 14 26.5 11 12 13 37.5 10 11 12 * Heavy traffic roads are those roads carrying more than 1500 commercial vehicles per day (CVD). ** The nominal maximum particle size is one size larger than the first sieve, which retains more than 10% material. ***For intermediate value of designed percentage air voids interpolate the VMA.

Although the latest MS-2 (sixth edition at the present time) should be used for Marshall Design, many contractors do not follow it completely. For example, the maximum specific gravity of the bituminous mix (Gmm) should not be calculated by a formula from the specific gravity values of individual aggregates and bitumen. Rather, it should be measured directly39 by using ASTM D 2041, which determines the weight and volume of loose, voidless mix to calculate the maximum specific gravity of the mix. Volume of the voidless mix is determined after submerging it in water and removing all air bubbles by applying vacuum. An outline of ASTM D 2041 is given in Annexure II. Also, the bulk specific gravity of the coarse aggregate and the fine aggregate should be measured by using ASTM C 127 and ASTM C 128, respectively, rather than the Indian Standards IS:2386 (Part III), which are outdated and suitable for concrete mixtures only and not for bituminous mixes. The procedures for obtaining the saturated surface dry (SSD) condition of coarse and fine aggregates in the Indian Standards are not correct for bituminous mixes. Both ASTM tests give specific instructions to obtain SSD condition of the aggregate. For example, in case of fine aggregate (ASTM C 128) sand cone method should be used to obtain SSD condition. Unless these three test methods: ASTM D 2041, C 127 and C 128 are used, the calculated values of air voids and VMA can be highly erroneous because the actual amount of bitumen absorbed by the aggregate will not be obtained and considered These three ASTM standards should be incorporated in the MORTH specifications. In accordance with the latest (sixth edition) of the Asphalt Institute Manual MS12

2 as well as Superpave mix design method, the design bitumen content should be selected to correspond with 4.0 percent air voids for all types of mixtures. The selected binder content must satisfy all other Marshall and void properties. The current practice of determining the optimum bitumen content by averaging the bitumen contents corresponding to highest stability, highest density, 4% air voids, etc. should be discontinued. This is because (a) some of the curves are not well defined in terms of their peak and (b) air void content is the most important parameter for selecting the design bitumen content as it affects both rut and fatigue resistance of the bituminous mixes. Minimum tensile strength ratio using AASHTO T 283 has been specified in Table 6 to test the designed mix for moisture susceptibility. The AASHTO T 283 test method involves: preparation of two subsets of Marshall specimens with 6 to 8% air voids; testing one subset in dry condition for indirect tensile strength (Marshall testing machine can be used for this in conjunction with 12.5 mm wide steel strip at top and bottom); conditioning the other subset by vacuum saturating with water, one freeze & one thaw cycle (in 600 C water bath) to cause potential stripping and then testing for indirect tensile strength; and calculating the retained tensile strength from test data on dry and conditioned subsets. AASHTO T 283 has worked very well in hot and heavy rainfall areas of the US (rainfall significantly more than India). It is also used in the Superpave mix design. AASHTO T 283 should replace the presently specified ASTM D 1075, which determines retained Marshall stability. An outline of AASHTO T 283 is given in Annexure I. Where maximum nominal size of the aggregate is more than 25 mm, modified Marshall method developed by Kandhal19,26 using 6-inch diameter specimen as described in the Asphalt Institute Manual MS-2 (Sixth Edition) and ASTM D 5581 should be used. This test method requires modified equipment (which is commercially available) and modified procedure. When the modified Marshall test is used, the specified minimum stability values and the specified flow values given in Table 6 should be multiplied by 2.25 and 1.5, respectively. Kandhal et al20,22 and others observed that the bituminous pavements in the US were achieving densities under heavy truck traffic with high tyre pressures significantly higher than those obtained in the laboratory using 75-blow Marshall compactor. In other words, the pavement density after 2-3 years traffic was greater than 75-blow Marshall laboratory design density. Increasing the number of blows above 75 did not help because it simply caused aggregate breakdown (degradation) under the impact type Marshall hammer compaction. That is why; Superpave gyratory compactor (SGC) was developed and made part of the Superpave mix design method. When a bituminous mix needs to be designed in India for very heavy truck traffic, the following option should be considered in a decreasing order of preference for mix design/adjustments: 1. Superpave mix design. This mix design method is fully developed in the US and manuals similar to MS-2 are available for Superpave. Superpave mix design method can be adopted in India or at least allowed for major 13

projects with minor adjustments. It uses a gyratory compactor, which can provide the needed compaction effort based on design traffic without significant aggregate degradation. Optimum bitumen content is selected at 4.0 percent air void content. 2. Use a Rotating Base, Slanted Foot Marshall Hammer. This automated, mechanical Marshall compactor has been used in the US effectively20,22 to achieve high laboratory density using 75 blows. Its foot has a 1-degree bevel or slant. Every time the hammer is lifted, the base supporting the Marshall mould rotates automatically so that the slanted foot falls at different places in the mould causing a kneading action. This standard mechanical Marshall compactor is available commercially from at least three equipment suppliers in the US and if needed, can be fabricated in India. Again, design bitumen content is selected at 4.0 percent air void content. 3. Use a Marshall Hammer with Hugo Foot. Prof. Hugo of South Africa developed the Hugo foot. This foot also causes some kneading action during compaction because it has indents on its face and is also rotated. It is not known whether it is available commercially. 4. Adjustment to Bitumen Content. Conduct the conventional Marshall Mix design with 75 blows and determine the bitumen content at 4.0 percent air void content. Reduce this bitumen content by 0.2 to 0.3 percent and adopt the reduced bitumen content in the job mix formula. This adjustment is based on the fact that the design bitumen content obtained by the Superpave volumetric mix design is generally less than that obtained by conventional Marshall design by 0.2 to 0.3 percent. The preceding changes in the mix design procedures should at least be permitted to be used by PPP or BOT contractors to ensure rut resistant bituminous pavements subjected to very heavy truck traffic. The concept of refusal density has been suggested by some researchers32. However, the increased number of blows (such as 300 or 400) on each side of the specimen used in this test can cause significant breakdown of the aggregate in the mix while the mix is also cooling fast. The degraded mix in the laboratory has no resemblance to the actual mix used on the road, which hardly degrades under rollers and traffic. As mentioned in MORTH Manual for Supervision of Bituminous Construction31, any conclusions drawn from a severely degraded mix in this test may become invalid. Moreover, the extent of degradation varies from aggregate to aggregate depending on their toughness, which is another variable. Since the Marshall stability cannot be completely relied upon to ensure a rut resistant bituminous mix, it is recommended to consider a loaded wheel tester such as Asphalt Pavement Analyzer and Hamburg Wheel Tester to proof test the final Marshall mix design as is done by Georgia DOT. This is especially necessary for very heavy traffic and/or important highway projects. The technology of loaded wheel testers and related acceptance criteria are fully developed and documented by Kandhal et al4,5,11,12,13 and others. It will be in the interest of PPP or BOT contractors to proof test their Marshall designed mixes. 14

4. CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS 4.1 Mixing and Laydown The existing MORTH table for mixing, laying and rolling temperatures for all dense mixes need to be revised, since viscosity grade bitumens have now replaced penetration grade bitumen. Table 7 should be used now. For mixtures containing modified bitumen binders, the suppliers recommendations should be followed. Normally, the mixing, laying and rolling temperatures for modified binders are increased by as much as 150 C compared to unmodified binders. The control of volumetric properties of bituminous mixes18 during production at the plant needs to be made more specific in the specifications. 4.2 Compaction The intial or breakdown rolling should be done with a vibratory roller (8 to 10 tonnes dead weight), unless the mix is tender requiring initial two passes in a static mode (vibration turned off). The intermediate rolling should be done with a pneumatic tyred roller of 12 to 15 tonnes weight having nine wheels with a tyre pressure of at least 5.6 kg/sq cm. The finish rolling should be done with 6 to 8 tonnes smooth wheeled tandem rollers. It is a common practice in the US to use the vibratory roller in vibratory mode for initial or breakdown rolling. This way, the best packing of aggregates and high density is achieved with the vibrations while the mix is still very hot. If a static mode is used first for initial or breakdown rolling, it orients the aggregate particles in a certain manner but that orientation is disturbed again due to vibrations applied later. The vibratory roller should be used in static mode (vibrations turned off) for the first 2 passes only if the mix is tender and unstable to sustain vibratory compaction. The density of finished paving layer should not be less than the 92% and not more than 97% of the average theoretical maximum specific gravity of the loose mix (Gmm) obtained on the day of paving following ASTM D 2041 (see outline in Annexure II). Research by Kandhal and Koehler27,28 and others has indicated that premature distress of pavement can take place if the air void content in the constructed mat exceeds 8 percent (Fig. 1).
TABLE 7. MIXING, LAYING AND ROLLING TEMPARATURES FOR DENSE MIXTURES (DEGREE CELCIUS) Bitumen Viscosity Grade Bitumen Temperature Aggregate Temperature Mixed Material Temperature Laying Temperature *Rolling Temperature

VG-40 VG-30

160-170 150-165

160-175 150-170

160-170 150-165

150 Min 140 Min

100 Min 90 Min

15

VG-20 VG-10

145-165 140-160

145-170 140-165

145-165 140-160

135 Min 130 Min

85 Min 80 Min

*Finish rolling must be completed before the mat cools to these minimum temperatures.

Most states in the US and many countries have changed the compaction criteria from percentage of the lab density of the compacted specimen to percentage of theoretical maximum specific gravity (Gmm) of the loose bituminous mixture. The former criterion has caused all kinds of problems including a large day-today variation. The later criterion gives air voids in the paved mat directly. No less than 92% of Gmm means no more than 8 % air voids in the compacted mat. No more than 97% means no less than 3% air voids in the compacted mat, which may induce bleeding and/or rutting. More and more agencies are moving towards Gmm, which is tested any way during the mix design and daily Marshall Test. So no new test is being introduced. Restricting percent air voids in the mat also allows easy forensic analysis of compacted pavement later in its life without looking for old records on lab compacted density in files. Durability of bituminous pavement is directly related to air voids in the mat on the day of construction, and only vaguely and indirectly related to lab density obtained by a technician on the day of construction. This point has been debated extensively in the US for many years. Some states in the US are requiring 93% minimum of the theoretical maximum specific gravity (that is no more than 7% air voids in the mat when constructed), this is also recommended for India to increase the durability of bituminous roads. There is no technical reason whatsoever not to allow coring for density measurements during the first 24 hours as stipulated in the MORTH specifications. In fact many agencies in the US prefer taking cores on the day of paving before the mat is opened to traffic. 150-mm diameter cores should be taken after the entire thickness of the mat has cooled below 600C, which may take a few hours depending on the lift thickness and prevailing weather. No problems of core distortion whatsoever have been encountered. A large core diameter of 150 mm is preferred to obtain a good representative sample for density. However, cores with less than 100 mm should not be permitted. ASTM D 2726 should be used to measure the density of the extracted core.

16

Fig. 1. Air voids versus extent of raveling (after Kandhal, Reference 27)

4.3 Opening to Traffic The current MORTH specification does not allow traffic for 24 hours after compaction. There is no technical reason not to allow traffic for 24 hours. It defeats the purpose of using hot bituminous mix, which lends itself to fast opening to traffic. Such unreasonable requirement of 24 hours does not exist anywhere in the world. If there is a fear that the traffic will rut the pavement, it means the mat has not been rolled enough. A requirement of 600 C maximum mat temperature is insurance enough. In other words, it should be ensured that traffic is not allowed on the surface until the paved mat has cooled below a temperature of 600 C in its entire depth. Under hot Indian climatic conditions during summer, it is estimated that a 50 mm thick bituminous layer should cool to 600C in about one hour and a 75 mm thick bituminous layer should cool to this temperature in about one and half hour. The time will be shorter if the weather is relatively cooler in spring and autumn and/or a strong breeze is present.

5. QUALITY CONTROL AND ACCEPTANCE The present 2001 MORTH specification does not adequately address the quality control/quality assurance (QC/QA) aspect of the bituminous mixes, which is a very important element of a specification. Quality control is the responsibility of 17

the contractor to keep a control on the process32. Quality assurance or acceptance is the responsibility of the specifying agency. For quality control, the agency specifies the types and minimum frequency of the tests to be conducted by the contractor during construction. Whereas the MORTH specifications have addressed the quality control aspect, it needs to be specific about quality acceptance. There is no question that quality acceptance should be based on statistical principles29. A bituminous paving project should be divided into lots and payment factors should be applied on a lot by lot basis. For example, a lot can be defined as one days bituminous mix production or a maximum tonnage of bituminous mix such as 400 or 500 tonnes. A lot is further divided into 3 to 5 sublots, which are sampled and tested at random. A test value such as bitumen content is obtained for each sublot. The test values of the sublots are analyzed statistically to assess the quality of the lot and its pay factor. The standard test method for determining the bitumen content to be used should be specified such as ASTM D 2171, Standard Test Methods for Quantitative Extraction of Bitumen from Bituminous Paving Mixtures. Different test methods give different test results. Pay factors are determined using three main systems: percent within limits (PWL) of the specification; difference between average sample test value and target job-mix formula (JMF); and probability based. Sample mean values are used in all three methods, but only the PWL and probability based specifications use the sample standard deviation or variance, which takes into account material variability. The US Federal Highway Administration is encouraging the states to implement a form of PWL specification. PWL is defined as the percentage of lot falling between the lower specification limit and the upper specification limit. For example, if the JMF bitumen content is 6.0 +/- 0.4 percent, the percentage of bituminous mix having bitumen content between 5.6 and 6.4 percent. The concept of PWL is based on a normal distribution curve; the percentage of the population within certain limits can be calculated by knowing the area under the curve. After the test values of the sublots are determined, their average and standard deviation is calculated to define the normal distribution for the lot. Using the lower and upper tolerance values, the PWL is calculated using a set of formulas. The pay factor is then based on the PWL value. Normally, a pay factor of 1.0 (100% pay) is applied if the PWL is at least 90 percent. That is, 10% material of slightly lesser quality is acceptable. Although the PWL system of quality acceptance is preferred, it may be too complex and hard to comprehend by the contractors and agency engineers in India at this point in time. Because of this complexity some states like Alabama in the US are using simpler systems. Alabama uses the arithmetic average of the absolute values (negative or positive) of the deviations of sublot values from target. For example, the target JMF bitumen is 6.0 percent and the test values of 4 sublots are 5.7, 6.1, 5.6, and 6.2. Then, the actual deviations are - 0.3, +0.1, - 0.4 and +0.2. The absolute deviations are 0.3, 0.1, 0.4, and 0.2, averaging at 0.25. The 18

Alabama Department of Transportation Specifications1 give tables for determining pay factors corresponding to the number of tests (sublots) and the arithmetic average of the absolute values of the deviations. Table 8 is such a table for bitumen content. Pay factor of 1.02 means 100% plus 2% added bonus, 1.00 means 100% payment, and so forth. Similar tables are available for voids in the lab compacted Marshall specimens and in-place mat density. Whichever test parameter such as bitumen content, voids in lab compacted specimens, and inplace density gives the lowest pay factor, that pay factor is applied to the bid price of the whole lot. The test parameters generally used for price adjustments in order of preference are: in-place mat density, voids in lab compacted specimens, bitumen content, and gradation (usually one or two sieves such as 2.36 mm or 0.075 mm are adequate, too many sieve sizes would dilute the specifications unnecessarily).

TABLE 8. PAY FACTORS FOR BITUMEN CONTENT (AFTER ALABAMA, REF. 1) Arithmetic Average of the Absolute Values of the Deviations of the LOT Acceptance Tests from the Job-Mix Formula 1.02 1.00 0.98 0.95 0.90 0.80*

Lot Pay Factor 1 Test 2 Tests 3 Tests 4 Tests

0.000.19

0.000.62 0.000.44 0.000.36 0.000.31

0.630.68 0.450.48 0.370.39 0.320.34

0.690.75 0.490.53 0.400.43 0.350.38

0.760.88 0.540.62 0.440.51 0.390.44

Over 0.88 Over 0.62 Over 0.51 Over 0.44

* The Department may require removal and replacement of the Lot.

Many states in the US have developed their own statistically based quality acceptance criteria using test data from some pilot projects. Similar data needs to be developed in India. However, specifications such as that of Alabama can be introduced as a starting point subject to revision later based on test data collected and analyzed in India.

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following general guidelines have been provided in the paper to obtain long lasting bituminous pavements: 19

Specification for Paving Bitumen IS:73:2006, which specifies viscosity grades (VG) only should be used to ensure optimum rut resistance in bituminous pavements. The use of substandard bitumen based on the older, now defunct IS:73 (which specified penetration graded bitumen) should be discontinued immediately. For example, VG-30 bitumen should be used in lieu of 60/70 penetration bitumen and VG-10 should be used in lieu of 80/100 penetration bitumen. The paper gives guidelines for selection of VG grades in India based on climatic conditions. There is a need to restrict the amount of natural sand (which tends to have rounded particles) to 10 percent in wearing and binder course (within top 100 mm of pavement) and to 50 percent in base course (more than 100 mm from the pavement surface). This would reduce the potential for rutting in bituminous courses. Right now, there is no restriction on the amount of natural sand in the fine aggregate for all bituminous mixes. Asphalt Institute MS-2 (latest edition) should be followed completely in designing dense graded bituminous mixes using the Marshall method. This includes selecting design bitumen content corresponding to 4.0 percent air voids. Maximum specific gravity of mix should not be calculated with a formula but measured by using ASTM D 2041. The calculated maximum specific gravity usually gives erroneous values of air voids and VMA because the actual amount of bitumen absorbed by the aggregate is not considered. Bulk specific gravity of coarse aggregate and fine aggregate should be measured in accordance with ASTM C 127 and C 128, respectively. The current BIS standards should not be used for measuring aggregate specific gravity since they are outdated and will give erroneous results. MORTH specifications should be able to be used on all types of roads: NH, SH, MDR, and ODR. Therefore, 50-blow Marshall Design should be used for low to medium traffic roads and 75-blow Marshall Design should be used for high traffic roads (carrying more than 1500 commercial vehicles per day). Revised mix design requirements have been presented in the paper for both levels of compaction. A revised table of mixing, laying, and rolling temperatures has been presented corresponding to new bitumen viscosity grades. Right now, the MORTH specifications do not have adequate mat compaction requirements. It has been recommended that the density of the finished compacted layer should not be less than 92 percent nor more than 97 percent of the theoretical maximum specific gravity of loose mix determined by ASTM D 2041. 150-mm diameter cores should be obtained to measure the pavement density.

7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors only.

8. REFERENCES 20

1. Alabama Department of Transportation. Standard Specifications for Highway Construction. 2006 Edition. Montgomery, Alabama, USA. 2. Asphalt Institute. Mix Design Methods for Asphalt Concrete. MS-2, Sixth Edition, 1997. 3. Bureau of Indian Standards. Paving Bitumen Specification (Third Revision) IS 73:2006, July 2006. 4. Cooley, L. A. Jr. and P.S. Kandhal. Evaluation of Asphalt Pavement Analyzer as a Tool to Predict Rutting. Proceedings, Ninth International Conference on Asphalt Pavements, Copenhagen, Denmark, August 17-22, 2002. 5. Cooley, L.A. Jr., and P.S. Kandhal. Loaded Wheel Testers in the United States: State of Practice. Transportation Research Board, Transportation Research Circular Number E-C016, July 2000. 6. Georgia Department of Transportation. Specifications for Highway Construction, 2001 Edition. Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 7. Hossain, M.S., F. Parker, and P.S. Kandhal. Uncompacted Voids and Particle Index Tests for Evaluating Coarse Aggregates. Transportation Research Board, Transportation Research Record 1721, 2000. 8. Hossain, M.S., F. Parker, and P.S. Kandhal. Tests for Evaluating Fine Aggregate Particle Shape, Angularity, and Surface Texture. Transportation Research Board, Transportation Research Record 1673, 1999. 9. Kandhal, P. S. Evaluation of Baghouse Fines in Hot Mix Asphalt. National Asphalt Pavement Association, Information Manual 127, 1999. 10. Kandhal, P. S. ,V. K. Sinha and A. Veeraragavan. A Critical Review of Bituminous Paving Mixes Used in India. Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, Vol. 69-2, July-September 2008. 11. Kandhal, P.S. and L.A. Cooley, Jr. Simulative Performance Test for Hot Mix Asphalt Using Asphalt Pavement Analyzer. Journal of ASTM International, Vol. 3, No. 5, 2006 12. Kandhal, P.S. and L.A. Cooley Jr. Accelerated Laboratory Rutting Tests: Evaluation of the Asphalt Pavement Analyzer. Transportation Research Board, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 508, 2003. 13. Kandhal, P.S. and R.B. Mallick. Potential of Asphalt Pavement Analyzer (APA) to Predict Rutting of Hot Mix Asphalt. Proceedings, 1999 International Conference on Accelerated Pavement Testing, Reno, Nevada, October 18-20, 1999. 14. Kandhal, P.S., C.Y. Lynn, and F. Parker. Characterization Tests for Mineral Fillers Related to Performance of Asphalt Paving Mixtures. Transportation Research Board, Transportation Research Record 1638, 1998. 15. Kandhal, P.S., C.Y. Lynn, and F. Parker. Tests for Plastic Fines in Aggregates Related to Stripping in Asphalt Paving Mixtures. Asphalt Paving Technology, Vol. 67,1998. 16. Kandhal, P.S. and F. Parker. Aggregate Tests Related to Asphalt Concrete Performance in Pavements. Transportation Research Board, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 405, 1998. 17. Kandhal, P.S. Aggregate Tests for Hot Mix Asphalt: State of the Practice. Transportation Research Board Circular No. 479, December, 1997.

21

18. Kandhal, P.S., K.Y. Foo, and J.A. DAngelo. Control of Volumetric Properties of Hot-Mix Asphalt by Field Management. Transportation Research Board, Transportation Research Record 1543, 1996. 19. Kandhal, P.S. and T. Wu. Precision of Marshall Stability and Flow Test Using 6-inch (152.4mm) Diameter Specimens. ASTM. Journal of Testing and Evaluation, Vol. 24, No. 1, January, 1996. 20.Kandhal, P.S., S.A. Cross, and E.R. Brown. Heavy Duty Asphalt Pavements in Pennsylvania: An Evaluation for Rutting. Transportation Research Board, Transportation Research Record 1384, 1993. 21. Kandhal, P.S. Evaluation of Fine Aggregate Particle Shape and Texture and Its Effect on Permanent Deformation of Asphalt Paving Mixtures. ASCE, Materials: Performance and Prevention of Deficiencies and Failures, 1992. 22. Kandhal, P.S., S.A. Cross, and E.R. Brown. Evaluation of Heavy Duty Asphalt Pavements for Rutting. Proceedings, Seventh International Conference on Asphalt Pavements, Nottingham, U.K.,Vol. 4 (Construction), 1992. 23. Kandhal, P.S., J.B. Motter, and M.A. Khatri. Evaluation of Particle Shape and Texture of Mineral Aggregates and Their Blends. Asphalt Paving Technology, Vol. 61, 1992. 24. Kandhal, P.S. and M.A. Khatri. Improved Rice Method for Determining Theoretical Maximum Specific Gravity of Asphalt Paving Mixtures. Transportation Research Board, Transportation Research Record 1353, 1992. 25. Kandhal, P.S., J.B. Motter, and M.A. Khatri. Evaluation of Particle Shape and Texture: Manufactured Versus Natural Sands. Transportation Research Board, Transportation Research Record 1301, 1991. 26. Kandhal, P.S. Large Stone Asphalt Mixes: Design and Construction. Proceedings, Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Vol. 59, 1990. 27. Kandhal, P.S. Pennsylvania's Experience in Compaction of Asphalt Pavements. American Society for Testing and Materials. Special Technical Publication No. 829, 1984. 28. Kandhal, P.S. Specifications for Compaction of Asphalt Pavements. Proceedings, Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Vol 52, 1983. 29. Kandhal, P. S., R. Cominsky and J. A. Motter. Development and Implementation of Statistically Based Specifications for Hot Mix Asphalt in Pennsylvania. Transportation Research Board, Transportation Research Record 1389, 1993. 30. Ministry of Road Transport & Highways. Specifications for Road and Bridge Works, Section 500, Fourth Revision, 2001, Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi. 31. Ministry of Road Transport & Highways. Manual for Construction and Supervision of Bituminous Works. Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi, November 2001. 32. Rao, S. K.,J. K. Das and P. R. Chowdhury. Asphalt Mix Design Refusal Density Approach for Heavily Trafficked Roads. Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, Vol. 68-1, April-June 2007. 33. Roberts, F.L., P.S. Kandhal, E.R. Brown, D.Y. Lee, and T.W. Kennedy. Hot Mix Asphalt Materials, Mixture Design and Construction. NCAT Textbook, NAPA Education Foundation, Lanham, Maryland, Second Edition, 1996.

ANNEXURES 22

Annexure I Outline of AASHTO T 283, Resistance of Compacted Asphalt Mixtures to Moisture-Induced Damage Scope and Summary of Test Method This method covers preparation of compacted bituminous mixtures and the measurement of the change of diametral tensile strength resulting from the effects of water saturation and laboratory accelerated stripping phenomenon with a freeze-thaw cycle. The result may be used to predict long-term stripping susceptibility of bituminous mixtures and evaluate liquid anti-stripping additives that are added to bitumen or pulverized mineral materials such as hydrated lime, which are added to the mineral aggregate. Each set of 6 compacted specimens is divided into two equal subsets. One subset is tested in dry condition for indirect tensile strength. The other subset is subjected to vacuum saturation and a freeze-thaw cycle (thawing in a hot water bath) before testing for indirect tensile strength. Numerical indices of retained indirect tensile strength properties are calculated from the test data obtained by testing the two subsets: dry and conditioned.

Testing Equipment 1. Vacuum container, vacuum pump, manometer, and other accessories as specified in ASTM D2041, Theoretical Maximum Specific Gravity and Density of Bituminous Paving Mixtures. 2. Balance or scale accurate to 0.1 percent of the test load 3. Two water baths capable of maintaining temperatures of 60 C +/- 1 C and 25 C +/- 0.5 C 4. Freezer maintained at 18 C +/- 3 C 5. 10-ml graduate cylinder 6. Loading jack and ring dynamometer (Marshall stability testing machine can be used) to provide a vertical rate of deformation of 50 mm (2 inches) per minute and capable of reading the maximum failure load 7. Steel loading strips with a concave surface having a radius equal to the normal radius of the test specimen. The loading strips shall be 12.7 mm (0.5 inch) wide for specimens 100 mm (4 inches) in diameter. The loading strips for 150 mm (6 inches) diameter specimens shall be 19.05 mm (0.75 inch) wide. The length of the loading strips shall exceed the thickness of the specimens. Steel strip are provided at the top and bottom of specimens during indirect tensile testing. Test Procedure 1. Make at least 6 compacted specimens for each mixture, 3 to be tested dry and 3 to be tested after partial saturation and moisture conditioning with a freeze-thaw cycle. Some extra specimens will need to be made to establish compaction procedures in order to obtain specified air void 23

contents in the test specimens by trial and error. 2. Compact the 6 specimens with a Marshall compactor so that the compacted specimens have air voids of 7.0 +/- 0.5 percent. This level of high air voids can be obtained by adjusting the number of Marshall blows applied on each side of the specimen by trial and error (start at about 10 blows as a starting point). Air void content must be calculated from the bulk specific gravity of the compacted specimen (determined by saturated surface dry method as per procedure given in the Asphalt Institute MS-2) and the maximum theoretical specific gravity of the loose bituminous mixture obtained by ASTM D 2041. 3. Separate the 6 specimens into 2 subsets so that the average air voids of the two subsets are approximately equal. One set will be tested dry. Keep it at room temperature and then place in a 25 C +/- 0.5 C water bath for 2 hours prior to determining their indirect tensile strength. The other subset will be conditioned as follows: (a). Place and submerge the 3 specimens in the vacuum container filled with water at room temperature. Apply a vacuum of 13-67 kPa absolute pressure (10-26 inches Hg partial pressure) for 30 minutes. Remove the vacuum and leave the specimens submerged in water for 5 to 10 minutes. [Note: The water saturation procedure noted above deviates from AASHTO T 283, which obtains a specified degree of saturation. The above procedure keeps the time of saturation constant.] (b). Wrap a plastic film around each saturated specimen and place the wrapped specimen in a plastic bag containing 10 ml of water and seal the plastic bag. Place the plastic bag in a freezer at temperature of 18 C +/- 3 C for a minimum of 16 hours. Remove the specimens from the freezer. (c). Place the specimens in a water bath maintained at 60 C +/- 1 C for 24 hours. Remove the plastic bag and the plastic film from each specimen after placing the specimens under water. (d). Remove the specimens from hot water bath and place in a water bath maintained at 25 C +/- 0.5 C for 2 hours. (e). Remove the conditioned specimens and test for indirect tensile strength. 4. Determine the indirect tensile strength of the 3 dry and 3 conditioned specimens at 25 C +/- 0.5 C after removing from water bath. First, measure their mean thicknesses (t). Then place the two steel loading strips on the bottom and top of the specimens across diameter and place in the Marshall testing machine or a compression-testing machine. Apply load to the specimens diametrally at a vertical rate of 50 mm (2 inches) per minute. 5. Record the maximum compressive strength noted on the testing machine and continue loading until a vertical crack appears in the specimen. Remove the cracked specimen from the machine and visually estimate the approximate degree of moisture damage (extent of stripped or bare aggregate) on the fractured faces of the 24

specimen on a scale of 0 to 5 (5 being the most stripping). 6. Calculate the tensile strength of each specimen as follows in SI units:

St = 2000 P/ t d Where, St = tensile strength, kPa P = maximum loads, N t = specimen thickness, mm d = specimen diameter, mm 7. Express the numerical index of resistance of bituminous mixture to the detrimental effects of water as the ratio of the original strength that is retained after accelerated moisture and freeze-thaw conditioning. 8. Calculate the tensile strength ratio (TSR) as follows: Tensile strength ratio (TSR) = S2 / S1 Where, S1 = average tensile strength of the dry subset, kPa S2 = average tensile strength of the conditioned subset, kPa **************** Annexure II Outline of ASTM D 2041, Theoretical Maximum Specific Gravity and Density of Bituminous Paving Mixtures Scope and Summary of the Test Method This test method covers the determination of the theoretical maximum specific gravity and density of uncompacted bituminous paving mixtures at 25 C. The theoretical maximum specific gravity (Gmm) is used: (a) to calculate air voids in compacted bituminous mixtures, (b) to calculate the amount of bitumen absorbed by the aggregate, and (c) to provide target value for the compaction of paving mixtures in the field. A sample of loose paving mixture is placed in a tared vacuum vessel. Water at 25 C is added to completely submerge the sample. A specified amount of vacuum is gradually applied to remove the air bubbles entrapped between bituminous mix particles. After the vacuum is released, the volume of the sample of the voidless paving mixture is obtained by either immersing the vacuum container with the sample in a water bath and weighing or by filling the calibrated vacuum container level full of water and weighing in air. 25

Testing Equipment 1. Container (either a or b below) (a) Vacuum bowls Either a metal or plastic bowl with a diameter ranging from 180 to 260 mm and a bowl height of at least 160 mm. The bowl shall be equipped with a stiff, transparent cover fitted with a rubber gasket and a connection for the vacuum line. The hose connection shall be covered with a small piece of fine wire mesh to minimize loss of any fine material from the mix. (b) Vacuum flask for weighing in air only A thick-walled volumetric glass flask with a capacity of approx. 4000 ml, fitted with a rubber stopper with a connection for the vacuum line. The hose connection shall be covered with a small piece of fine wire mesh to minimize loss of any fine material from the mix. 2. Balance capable of being read to the nearest 0.1 gram. If weighing is to be done under water, a suitable suspension arrangement shall be provided for weighing the sample while suspended from the center of the balance 3. Vacuum pump, capable of evacuating air from the vacuum container to a residual pressure of 4.0 kPa (30 mm of Hg) or less. Provide a suitable trap between the pump and container to minimize water vapour entering the vacuum pump. 4. Residual pressure manometer or calibrated absolute pressure gauge with a bleed valve to adjust the vacuum level. 5. Water bath capable of maintaining a constant temperature of 25 +/- 1 C and suitable for immersion of the suspended container. Calibration of Containers (a) Bowls Determine the mass (B) of the container immersed in water at 25 +/- 1 C. If the bowl is used for weighing in air, place the volumetric lid on the bowl while under water. Remove the water-filled bowl with the lid in place and dry prior to determining the combined mass of the bowl, lid and water. Repeat 3 times and average the 3 masses. Designate the average mass as D. (b) Flasks Calibrate the volumetric flask by accurately determining the mass of the flask filled with water at 25 +/- 1 C. Use a glass cover plate to ensure the flask is completely full. Test Procedure 1. Separate the particles of the loose paving mixture (while it is warm) by hand so that the particles are not larger than about 6 mm. Dont fracture the aggregate. Place the mix sample directly into the tared bowl or flask. Weigh the container with the sample and designate the net mass of the sample only as A. [Note: The 26

minimum sample size shall be 1500g for mixes with nominal maximum aggregate sizes of 12.5 mm or smaller; and shall be 2500g for mixes with nominal maximum aggregate sizes from 19 to 25 mm.] 2. Add sufficient water at 25 C to cover the sample completely. Place the cover (bowels) or stopper (flasks) on the containers. 3. Place the container with the sample and water on a mechanical agitation device or agitate manually at frequent intervals (2 to 3 minutes). Begin removing entrapped air by gradually applying vacuum and increasing the vacuum pressure until the residual manometer reads 3.7 +/- 0.3 kPa (27.5 +/- 2.5 mm of Hg). After achieving this level within 2 minutes, continue the vacuum and agitation for 15 +/- 2 minutes. Gradually release the vacuum with the bleed valve. 4. Weighing in water Suspend the bowl (without lid) and contents in water for 10 +/- 1 minutes and then determine mass. Designate the mass under water of the bowl and sample as C. 5. Weighing in air Bowl Submerge the bowl and sample slowly in the 25 +/- 1 C water bath. Keep it there for 10 +/- 1 minutes. Immerse the lid in water and slide it onto the bowl without removing water from the bowl so that no air is trapped inside the bowl. Remove the bowl with the lid in place from the water bath. Dry the bowl and lid with a dry cloth. Determine the mass of the bowl, sample, and lid and designate it as E. Flask Fill the flask slowly with water ensuring not to introduce any air into the sample. Place the flask in water bath for 10 +/- 1 minutes to stabilize the temperature at 25 C without submerging the top of the flask. Completely fill the flask with water using a cover plate without entrapping air beneath the cover plate. Wipe the exterior of the flask and cover plate. Determine the mass of the flask, plate and its contents completely filled with water. Designate this mass as E. 6. Calculations Calculate the maximum specific gravity of the sample of loose paving mixture as follows:

Bowls Used Under Water Determination: Gmm = A / [A-(C-B)] Where: Gmm = maximum specific gravity of the mixture A = mass of the dry sample in air, g B = mass of bowl under water, g C = mass of bowl and sample under water, g 27

Bowls in Air Determination: Gmm = A / (A+D-E) Where: Gmm = maximum specific gravity of the mixture A = mass of dry sample in air, g D = mass of lid and bowl with water at 25 C, g E = mass of lid, bowl, sample and water at 25 C, g Flask Determination Gmm = A /(A+D-E) Where; Gmm = maximum specific gravity of the mixture A = mass of dry sample in air, g D = mass of cover plate and flask filled with water at 25 C, g E = mass of flask, cover plate, sample, and water at 25 C, g

Comments on Paper No. 564, Guidelines for Long Lasting Bituminous Pavements in India by Prof. P.S. Kandhal, Prof. A. Veeraragavan & R.K. Jain B.M. Bhagabat Does DBM have advantage over BM and SDBC in urban road construction? A.K. Sinha Our experience has shown that premix carpet (PC) with seal coat is flexible in character and more suitable for less important highway especially where one is not very sure about the base below. Do you suggest use of PC in aforesaid situation or you suggest discarding it and using BC or similar wearing course? S. Das Gupta Is it advisable to use seal coat over premix carpet (PC) from the long lasting point of view of bituminous pavements in high precipitation areas? Col. A.K. Tiwari 1. How will life/performance of bituminous pavement be affected due to reduction in elastic recovery in the recently revised IRC:SP:53? 2. Unless bid documents insist on equipment for viscosity and torsion recovery test, the revised IRC:SP:53 will be useless. 28

3. Stone matrix asphalt (SMA) must be done with PMB and not plain bitumen. Shri Ghansham Das It is a well established fact that polymer modified bitumen (SBS based) enhances the life of pavements and its performance in better than any other types of bitumen. MORTH and IRC should insist on state governments to use PMB in particular sections of roads. Dr. P.K. Jain 1. Where SMA should be used? If it is used in binder course does it serve purpose of long lasting asphalt pavements? 2. What is your opinion or experience with thin SMA for maintenance of city roads? 3. What is your recommendation for use of PMB in binder and base course for long lasting pavements?

Dr. (Ms) Vandana Tare I have question regarding number of blows to be given for preparation of sample. The bituminous mix undergoes densification due to secondary compaction, what should be the recommended compaction level for highways carrying different traffic levels and urban roads? Shri Narayan. C. Bagalkot For allowing traffic over bitumen/asphalt surface it is said that there is no technical reason not to allow traffic for 24 hrs. If this is the case, under Paper no. 562, co-author Dr. A. Veeraragavan has come out with investigative report saying that DBM has failed due to allowing traffic immediately over it. DBM life comes down drastically by doing so. Can you explain please? A.C. Bordoloi In northeast India, we always have continuous rainfall during rainy season as a result of which we face many problems in maintaining our highways like occurrence of big potholes, stripping of bituminous surface, etc. BM, SDBC, PC and SC layers are highly porous, water usually enters through pores causing pot holes in 2 to 3 years old surface. Only stone dust is used as filler in bituminous course. Now, during the last 2 - 3 years, DBM and BC layers have been used in bituminous surface with limestone filler which has very good anti-stripping qualities. In some cases, additional anti-stripping agent has also been used. It is observed that with the adoption of this specification, the quality of pavement and durability of surface and riding quality has increased significantly. I agree with the views of proposing four dense graded mixes. Also, use of lime stone filler in regular courses will definitely give durability and better riding quality and also maintenance cost will reduce significantly. 29

Shri Rajib Chattaraj In this paper, the authors have addressed almost all the issues relating to the design, construction and quality control of dense graded bituminous mixes where the present 4th Revision of Ministrys Specification needs revision. However, let me have clarifications on some points as follows: 1. Long lasting pavements what is the perspective of the durability of bituminous pavement that has been considered 20 years, 30 years, 40 years or 50 years ? 2. In para 3 : Design of Mix after table 6, it has been mentioned : The maximum specific gravity of the bituminous mix should be determined by using ASTM D 2041 and not by the formula. Maximum specific gravity of bituminous mix should be determined correctly for ascertaining air voids of the mix which is very important rather most important feature. Here the concept of effective specific gravity of the aggregates comes into play. The precision of the test as per ASTM D 2041 is the best when the Bituminous Mix is close to the design asphalt content. Thus, the maximum specific gravity (Gmm) as determined by the test as per ASTM D 2041 (with asphalt content close to design asphalt content from experience) may be used to determine the effective specific gravity of aggregate Gse from the equation Gse =
Pmm Pb as per clause 4.06 of MS-2 (Sixth Edition). Pmn Pb Gmm Gb

[Gmm = Maximum specific gravity of the paving mix (no air void) determined as per ASTM D 2041. Gse = Effective specific gravity of aggregate. Pmm = Percent by weight of total loose mix (100) Pb = Asphalt content at which ASTM D 2041 was performed, percent by total weight of mix. (should be close to design asphalt content for the particular type of mix, say 5.3% for BC) Gb = Specific gravity of asphalt]. This Gse value should be used to determine Gmm of bituminous mixes with different asphalt content (from design asphalt content) by the formula Gmm =
Pmm as per clause 4.07 of MS-2 (Sixty Edition) Ps Pb + Gse Gb

[Gmm = Pmm = Ps = Pb = Gse = Gb =

Maximum specific gravity of paving mix (no air voids) (also known as Rice density after the name of inventor) Percent by weight of total loose mixture (100) Aggregate content, percent by total weight of mixture. Asphalt content, percent by total weight of mixture. Effective specific gravity of aggregate. Specific gravity of asphalt]. 30

This will be useful to determine air voids of bituminous mixes with different asphalt content (from design asphalt content) and will help in plotting the curve air void-vs-bitumen content. With this approach, Gmm determined by ASTM D2041 and that determined by theoretical formula should be equal at design asphalt content. It is true if we check the numerical example as given in MS-2 (Table 4.2) Maximum specific gravity of paving mix Gmm, determined as per ASTM D2041 = 2.535, corresponding to the Asphalt Content = 5.3% by wt. of total mix. With this Gse is calculated as :100 5.3 94.7 = = 2.761 100 5 .3 39.45 5.15 2.535 1.030

This value of Gse may be used for mix with any asphalt content, to determine Gmm theoretically. For example, with 4% asphalt content :Gmm =
100 96 4 .0 + 2.761 1.030 = 100 = 2.535 34.299 + 5.146

Which is the same value as determined by ASTM D2041. Thus, both the methods for determination of Maximum Specific Gravity of mix are useful [for different purpose]. 3. It is also stated that as per the latest edition of Asphalt Institute Manual MS-2, the design bitumen content should be selected to correspond with 4.0% air voids for all types of mixtures. But as per 5.15 : Selection of final mix design of MS-2 (Sixth Edition) it is rather stated, the mix should not be designed to optimize one particular property. The design asphalt content should be a compromise and selected to balance all of the mix properties Different properties are more critical for different circumstances depending on traffic, structure, climate, construction equipment and other factors. However, the current practice of determining the optimum bitumen content by averaging with equal weightage of the bitumen content corresponding to (i) maximum stability (ii) maximum density (iii) 4% air void has shortcoming in the way it is generally seen that the bitumen contents corresponding to maximum stability and maximum density are nearer to each other and are somewhat more than that corresponding to 4% air void. Thus, the design bitumen content by averaging three bitumen contents, does not corresponds to 4% air void. On that other hand, if 4% air void be considered as the only guiding parameter for selection of design bitumen content, then it will come down by 0.2 to 0.3% that what it generally matches with the current practice. In that case too, will it be justified to decrease 0.2 to 0.3% further in design 31

bitumen content (done with 75 no. of blows of compaction level) for heavily trafficked road, as suggested in priority no. 4 in the list of alternative ways of superior mix design methods ? 4. In para 4.2 : Compaction :- It is mentioned that intermediate rolling should be done with PTR of 12 or 15 tones weight having nine wheels why nine wheels, if the number wheels are seven then load per wheel will be more which would rather be advantage for imparting more kneading action, which in turn will be helpful to achieve better shear strength ? 5. In 4.2 Compaction last para :- for density measurement-cutting cores from the paving mat has been mentioned. Well, it is agreed that taking cores is the best way to judge, however nothing has been mentioned here about nondestructive ways of checking density. If the cores are cut from the paving mat, then why those cores are tested for checking density along, the volumetric properties, stability, flow, bitumen content etc. should also be checked. 6. In this paper captioned as Guidelines for long lasting bituminous pavements in India, all the good practice of design and construction of bituminous pavements have been thoroughly covered. Probably it does not related to the concept of Long-life pavement (European term) which is same as Perpetual pavement (American Term).

Replies by the Authors (Paper no. 564) The authors are encouraged by the numerous comments received on this paper at the time of presentation as well as afterwards. This shows that existing MORTH bituminous specifications which are more than ten years old need to be revised to keep abreast of latest technologies as well as to obtain long lasting pavements. B.M. Bhagabat has asked whether DBM has advantage over BM and SDBC in urban road construction. Besides other disadvantages of BM and SDBC as explained in detail in the paper, these mixes bring open or semi dense trap moisture/water within the pavement system increasing the potential for stripping. This is all the more critical for urban roads in India, where drainage is usually lacking and roads get flooded during monsoons. Both BM and SDBC should be deleted from the specifications. Only the four dense graded bituminous mixes recommended in the paper should be used. Concerning A.K. Sinhas comments on the use of premix carpet (PC) with seal coat, it can be used for low volume rural roads such as PMGSY over WBM, where there is adequate drainage for surface water. By nature, PC is highly porous and therefore its water permeability is very high. That is why; we try to seal it at surface with a seal coat. However, in areas where seal coat has not been applied properly or has been eroded, water can get into the PC easily and spread
32

transversely throughout the PC causing stripping and deterioration. This is evident in case of sections of PMGSY roads constructed with PC, which fall within villages where there is no surface water drainage. These sections deteriorate rapidly and need to be constructed with cement concrete. A.K. Sinha is referred to the following link wherein this phenomenon of PC has been described in detail with illustrations and photographs. http://www.scribd.com/doc/37020149/Premix-Carpet-is-Killing-Our-Roads-inTowns-and-Cities In case of medium traffic roads, 50-mm BC wearing course can be placed directly over WBM or WMM as described in the paper because BC is reasonably flexible due to its lower nominal maximum aggregate size (NMAS) and relatively higher bitumen content. Das Gupta is referred to the preceding response to Shri Sinha. It is not advisable to use PC with or without seal in high precipitation areas. Col. Tiwari has made reference to the recently revised IRC:SP:53-2010. Prior to this revised edition, IRC:SP:53-2002 had four separate specification tables for different types of modified bitumen: PMB (elastomer); PMB (plastomer); CRMB; and NRMB. These tables had different requirements for minimum elastic recovery depending on the modifier type, which is expected and reasonable. PMB (elastomer) had higher minimium elastic recovery of 75% compared to 50% for CRMB. However, IRC: SP:53-2010 has combined all types of modifiers and developed a common specification for modified bitumen. To accommodate CRMB, the common specification was diluted and the minimum elastic recovery was reduced to 50-60%. Obviously, this would lower the quality of PMB (elastomer) and subsequently adversely affect the performance and life of the bituminous pavement. The authors concur with Col. Tiwari that the modified bitumen should be tested with specified testing equipment when it is delivered to the contractors. Concerning Col. Tiwaris comments on the use of PMB in SMA the following observations are made. When SMA was imported from Europe into the US in the late 1980s numerous SMA projects were constructed there using cellulose fiber and unmodified bitumen such as VG-30 and VG-20. Those SMA projects performed in an excellent manner without any problem with rutting. However, in later years PMB with elastomer (primarily PG 76-22 Superpave performance grade) was incorporated into SMA along with cellulose fiber. It is believed that PMB further enhanced the performance and service life of SMA pavement. The authors concur with Shri Ghansham Das that polymer modified bitumen (with elastomers) gives better pavement performance compared to other modified bitumen binders. However, elastomers need not be restricted to SBS only as long as other elastomers meet the same specification requirements. Dr. P.K. Jain has asked about the use of SMA. As mentioned in the paper, SMA
33

should be used on very heavily trafficked roads especially those carrying overloaded trucks. Since rutting is experienced in bituminous layers usually within 100 mm from the road surface, it is recommended to use SMA in the binder course as well unless the BC binder course is highly rut resistant and comparable with Superpave designed dense graded mix as used in the US. IRC: SP:79-2008 Specification for SMA gives gradation for both binder course and wearing course. Thin SMA is not recommended for maintenance of city roads at this time because city roads are not subjected to very heavy loads. Moreover, thin SMA would require designing the SMA with lower NMAS, which makes the mix very sensitive to changes in gradation. IRC: SP:79-2008 does not have any SMA mix with lower NMAS. Concerning the use of PMB, it is recommended to use it in bituminous courses within 100 mm of the road surface, which are likely to rut under traffic. This means PMB should be used primarily in the wearing and binder courses and not in base courses. In response to Shri S.K. Singh it should be noted that we have switched from penetration graded bitumen to viscosity graded bitumen since 2006, which is a significant step forward in getting better quality paving bitumen. If we really need to analyze the stress/strain characteristics of bitumen, then India should move forward to performance grading (PG) system adopted in the US, which requires complex testing system for characterizing bitumen based on engineering principles. It is not necessary for users to test the crude which is used by the refineries for producing paving bitumen so long as the bitumen specification is based on performance observed in the field through comprehensive research projects. In response to Dr. Vandana Tares query, it is to be informed that in designing a mix by the Marshall method, it is assumed that the laboratory compactive effort used in terms of number of blows would obtain a laboratory density which will approximate the mat density in the field after 2-3 years of densification under traffic. Obviously, this laboratory density cannot be achieved physically in the field at the time of construction and further densification does take place under traffic. Since more densification takes place in case of heavily trafficked roads we apply 75 blows to approximate the mat density after 2-3 years. In case of light to medium traffic roads we apply 50 blows to approximate the mat density after 2-3 years under traffic. In summary, the simulation between the laboratory compactive efforts and the ultimate mat density in the field is approximate at best. In response to Shri Bagalkot, there is no contradiction between the statements about allowing traffic on bituminous pavements just after construction in this paper and the Paper No. 562 presented by Prof. Veeraragavan. If a pavement has adequate thickness/structural strength to sustain traffic loads and it is surfaced /resurfaced with a bituminous course, traffic can be opened as soon as the constructed bituminous course has cooled down to ambient temperature in
34

its entire depth. However, if a new pavement is being constructed and all the structural courses such as base course are not in place, the pavement cannot be opened to full fledged traffic because it will fail in fatigue due to inadequate pavement thickness/structural strength. This latter situation was mentioned in Paper No. 562. It should also be mentioned that if DBM is constructed in two courses, do not use DBM Grading 1 in any course because it is highly permeable to water and will soak in water as mentioned in this paper. Use DBM Grading 2 as base course and BC Grading 1 as binder course as mentioned in this paper. The authors are encouraged with the comments made by Shri Bordoloi. His adverse field experience with highly porous BM, SDBC and PC in high rainfall areas confirms authors observations in the paper. He also agrees that the four dense graded bituminous mixes recommended in the paper should be used. Shri Rajib Chattaraj has sought clarifications on some items as follows: 1. Definition of long lasting pavement. This paper does not deal with the so called perpetual pavement. A long lasting pavement should not have any problem with base and binder course during the design period (for example 20 years or so). Its wearing course should last for usual life of 810 years after which it would need to be replaced or resurfaced. 2. The authors concur with whatever Shri Chattaraj has quoted from MS-2 (Sixth Edition) in regard to determining the maximum specific gravity, Gmm, of bituminous mixes at different bitumen contents. He has correctly stated that the Gmm should be determined directly using ASTM D 2041 test in case of at least one mix with known bitumen content.. Then the Gmm for other mixes at different bitumen contents can be theoretically calculated by a formula using the effective specific gravity, Gse, of combined aggregates in the mix. Obviously, in the preceding procedure Gmm was determined directly on at least one mix sample of known bitumen content. Unfortunately, many contractors in India do not even have the test equipment for ASTM D 2041 and, therefore, they can not/do not measure the Gmm of any bituminous mix directly. Rather they just calculate the Gmm for all bituminous mixes from a formula using the specific gravity of individual aggregates and specific gravity of bitumen. That formula is no longer in the MS-2 now. As stated by the authors in the paper that (old) formula should not be used by the contractors for calculating Gmm. They should determine Gmm directly with ASTM test D 2041. Obviously, the theoretical formula mentioned by Shri Chattaraj in his comments is different than the formula mentioned in the paper. So, this is a clear case of misunderstanding. 3. Optimum bitumen content. MS-2 recommends selecting the initial design bitumen content corresponding to 4.0% air voids. Then it goes on to state that different properties should be balanced for different circumstances
35

depending on traffic, structure, climate, construction equipment and other factors. That is easier said than done. The latest US national research on air voids has recommended to design mixes with a narrower range of 3.5 to 4.5% rather than 3 to 5% for air voids to optimize fatigue and rut resistance properties. This leaves no choice but to select the optimum bitumen content corresponding to 4.0% air voids. That is why; Superppave mix design also uses 4.0% air voids as the criteria to select the optimum bitumen content. This is what has been recommended in the paper and this is what also has been incorporated in the latest IRC Specification IRC:111-2009 for Dense Graded Bituminous Mixes. We agree with Shri Chattaraj that there is some confusion in MS-2 on this point. If it is desired to have optimum bitumen content approximating Superpave mix design, then the optimum bitumen content selected at 4.0% air voids using 75 blows of Marshall hammer should be further reduced by 0.2 to 0.3 percent. 4. Compaction. A pneumatic tires roller may have 7 or 9 wheel depending on its width. It is the inflation pressure in the tyres which is most important for effective compaction of the bituminous mat. The inflation pressure can be increased or decreased depending on the strength of the bituminous mix. 5. Density measurement. Nondestructive way of checking density is good for quality control by the contractor during the compaction process. However, the acceptance of mat density in the field by the user should be based on cores. Cores cannot be used effectively for measuring stability and flow of the mix. Marshall specimens compacted daily in the plant laboratory should be used for this purpose. However, cores can be analyzed for volumetric properties such as air voids. 6. Guidelines for long lasting pavements. These guidelines should be used to revise the existing MORTH specifications for bituminous pavements, which are over 10 years old. These guidelines are not meant for obtaining perpetual pavements as mentioned earlier. In closing, the authors would like to state that most of these guidelines on long lasting pavements related to specifications of bituminous pavements have been incorporated in the recent IRC:111-2009 Specifications for Dense Graded Bituminous Mixes. However, it is the MORTH specification which is commonly used by most highway agencies in India. Until MORTH specification is revised along similar lines, we would not achieve our objective of long lasting bituminous pavements.

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

36