ROADS IN INDIA: DESIGNED TO FAIL?

by
Prof. Prithvi Singh Kandhal

BACKGROUND

Potholed roads are a common sight across rural and urban India especially during and
after monsoons. Every year crores and crores of rupees are spent by the highway
agencies in extensive pothole patch repairs. Because of adverse media coverage these
agencies do patch repairs of main streets in urban areas and main highways in rural
areas after the monsoon season is over. By lanes in towns and cities and some
secondary roads in rural areas usually remain neglected for years. This ritual is
repeated year after year despite the fact that due to potholes several lakhs of people
are involved in accidents causing serious injuries and in many cases fatalities. Also,
India is losing thousands of crores every year in road user costs in terms of loss of
wage hours due to increased travel time; excessive usage of fuel (due to slow and
stop movement); and increased vehicle wear and tear.

The Indian public has been brainwashed in believing potholes are a natural
phenomenon during rains (as if water in the Indian monsoon has some chemical to
dissolve the bituminous road!). Here in India the roads have to bear the brunt of only
three months of monsoon rain every year. If roads last for three years in India they
would last only nine months in many other countries where it rains almost throughout
the year. That would be the case if our highway engineers are called upon to build
roads there.

If somebody asks the aam aadmi (common man) in India, Why roads in India fail
prematurely especially during monsoons?, the majority response would be: Indian
highway engineers intentionally construct road in such a way so that it keeps on
failing prematurely and they keep on getting fat budget for maintenance (pothole
repair) and resurfacing year after year.

1
2
3
Whereas lack of quality control is a contributing factor, there is a major fundamental,
engineering problem which the Indian public does not know. Of some ten types of
bituminous paving mixes specified and used in India, seven are open graded (water-
trapping) problematic mixes. Examples: Bituminous Macadam (BM) Gradings 1 and
2; Semi Dense Bituminous Concrete (SDBC) Gradings 1 and 2; Dense Bituminous
Macadam (DBM) Grading 1; Premix Carpet (PMC); and Mixed Seal Surfacing
(MSS). The Built-Up Spray Grout (BUSG) is no different. The remaining three are
dense graded (and therefore desirable) mixes. Examples are: Dense Bituminous
Macadam (DBM) Grading 2; Bituminous Concrete (BC) Grading 1; and Bituminous
Concrete (BC) Grading 2.

The water-trapping mixes also happen to be initially cheaper than the dense graded
mixes and therefore are used commonly. (It does not matter if they generally last for
1-2 years compared to dense graded mixes which may last for 7-8 years. In other
words, they are very expensive based on life cycle costs.) Water is enemy number one
of bitumen. That is why, water-trapping mixes fail prematurely especially during
monsoons. This is simple common sense and not rocket science. All across India, the
deadly combination of BM and SDBC is being used brazenly. PMC is also used
extensively.

Most developed countries in the world generally have three dense graded bituminous
mixes in their specifications: one each for base course, binder course and wearing
course. And they have good durable roads despite heavy rainfall sometimes
throughout the year. It is simply amazing as to why Indian highway engineers need
additional seven water-trapping, problematic bituminous mixes for road
construction/resurfacing?

Obviously, some engineers are technically ignorant about the fundamental principle
of highway engineering to keep the water away from bituminous mixes. Others keep
on using these water-trapping bituminous mixes knowing fully well about their
impending premature failure resulting in fat budgets for pothole repairs/resurfacing.

4
A technical review of individual bituminous mixes used in India follows.

TECHNICAL REVIEW OF BITUMINOUS MIXES USED IN INDIA

This technical review has been largely taken from two Indian Roads Congress (IRC)
papers by Kandhal et al published in 2008 and 2010 (1,2). All ten bituminous mixes
specified in India by the Ministry of Transport and Highways (MORTH) have been
reviewed below.

Bituminous Macadam (BM)

Bituminous Macadam (BM) is an open graded, permeable, and recipe type mix
produced without any quality control on its volumetrics or strength (stability). The
primary problem with the BM mix is that being very open graded, it is highly
permeable and therefore will trap moisture or water. BM and SDBC were developed
several years ago, when conventional hot mix plants were not common. At that time,
hot mixing was done in small portable plants or concrete mixers in which much fine
aggregate could not be used due to limitations of the available heating and mixing
equipment. Now, good hot mix plants are normally available almost all across India.

Figures 1, 2, and 3 shows a typical cross-section of flexible pavement as being used in

India. Figure 1 does not have a BM layer and the Dense Bituminous Macadam
(DBM) is resting directly on unbound Wet Mix Macadam (WMM). However, Figures
2 and 3 show cross-sections where BM has been used as a base, binder or profile
corrective course (PCC) with no outlet for water thus creating a bath tub situation
within the pavement.

Fig. 1 Typical cross-section of flexible pavement in India

5
Fig. 2 Flexible pavement with BM as a base course or PCC

Fig. 3 Flexible pavement with BM as a base/binder course

The fundamental question thus boils down to BM versus DBM. Should BM be

deleted and densely graded DBM used instead in all cases? To answer that question
BM and DBM should be compared both from the engineering aspect (primary) and
economical aspect (secondary). This has been done considering the following factors:

Permeability: It has been acknowledged in many IRC and MORTH publications that
BM is a much more open mix compared to the densely graded DBM. The MORTH
Manual for Construction and Supervision of Bituminous Works (3) states on page 52,
Because of the open-graded aggregate matrix, the voids content (in the BM) can be
as high as 20-25 percent. Some researchers have reported air voids of about 10% in
lab compacted BM specimens. This range of 10-25% air voids can occur because BM
has two gradings and within each grading BM can be relatively coarse or fine
considering the combination of lower and upper values for each sieve. Table 1 gives
air voids and permeability data obtained on the BM mix (4). In this case four BM
gradations were used: Grading 1 (both coarse and fine) and Grading 2 (both coarse
and fine). The test data was obtained on 150-mm diameter specimens compacted with
75 blows (equivalent of 50 blows on 100-mm diameter specimens) in accordance with
Kandhal Modified Marshall Method included in the Asphalt Institute Manual MS-2.
The air void content ranges from 8.3 to 15.4 percent. The test data on Gradings 1 and
2 are comparable because both gradings have about the same amount of material
passing the 4.75 mm sieve. Figures 4 and 5 show the open texture of BM specimens

6
Grading 1 and Grading 2, respectively. When these specimens were placed under a
water tap, the water readily passed through them indicating very high permeability.

Figure 4. Open surface texture of BM Grading 1

Figure 5. Open surface texture of BM Grading 2

TABLE 1. AIR VOIDS AND PERMEABILITY TEST DATA FOR

BITUMINOUS MACADAM (BM)
Mix Type Bitumen Content, Air Voids, % Permeability,
% cm/sec
BM Grading 1 (Coarse) 3.25 13.6 3.4
BM Grading 1 (Fine) 3.25 8.9 0.4
BM Grading 2 (Coarse) 3.4 15.4 3.6
BM Grading 2 (Fine) 3.4 8.3 0.6

Even if the scenario of about 10% air voids in the BM in the lab is considered, the
voids in the field can be as much as 15% (at least 95% compaction of the lab density

7
is usually required). According to numerous studies all over the world, dense graded
bituminous mixes become permeable when air voids are more than 7-8%. BM type
open graded mix, which has a large number of interconnected voids, becomes
permeable at relatively lower air voids, i.e. for air voids more than 5-7%. So there
cannot be any argument about the fact that the BM is a highly permeable mix
compared to the dense graded DBM. It has been said, three things are important in
highway construction drainage, drainage, and drainage. No permeable asphalt layer
is desirable within the pavement structure (unless it is specifically for drainage with
proper outlets) whether it is a PCC, base course, binder course or whatever. If this
fundamental requirement is disregarded, the potential for premature pavement distress
is increased. A permeable layer always attracts and traps water, moisture or moisture
vapour. Water can come from the top, from the sides, or from the non-flexible courses
underneath (5). If there is a premix carpet (which is highly permeable despite sand
seal coat) right over the BM, rainwater will have direct access to the BM and can
cause havoc. Premix carpet will be discussed in detail later.

The writer has investigated and reported (6,7) many real-life field case histories of
premature pavement failures from across the world. In a majority of cases, bituminous
layers, which trapped water, were the real culprits. There was stripping of bitumen in
the permeable layer as well as in the adjacent layers overlying or underlying it due to
traffic action. Figures 6 and 7 show a failure in Oklahoma, US, which was
investigated by the writer (7). On this project an open type binder course was used. It
was saturated with water since there were no subsurface edge drains at the edge of the
pavement. This led to stripping in the binder course under traffic. Note that majority
of the potholes appeared near the pavement edge where water accumulated and did
not have any positive outlet. Potholes are often found more in number in the right lane
(in the US), which carries heavy truck traffic. It is; therefore, felt that BM layer
without an outlet should not be used for long term pavement performance.

Structural Strength: Many highway agencies across the world give structural value
to a BM type mix (used for drainage) of 50% of dense graded DBM type mix. IRC
Publications 37 and 81 on flexible pavement design state that 7 mm of DBM is equal
to 10 mm of BM. In either case, the DBM is far superior to the BM in terms of
structural strength and fatigue life. Some engineers are suggesting using polymer-
modified bitumen (PMB) in the BM to increase its structural strength. If that is the
objective, why not simply use the stiffer DBM in the first place. First of all, hardly
any agency in the world uses PMB in a base course mix. Moreover, using PMB in an
un-designed, recipe type BM mix, which unlike the DBM has hardly any quality
control criteria at the design or mixing stage, is not simply justified. Therefore, DBM
is by far superior to the BM in terms of structural strength, mix design criteria, and
mix production control.

Use as a PCC: It has been surmised that BM is a good material for profile corrective
course (PCC) because it resists reflection cracking. No other country is using a
permeable, water-trapping type mix for PCC. Only dense graded mixes such as DBM
or BC are used for transverse or longitudinal profile correction in other countries (8)
in courses called scratch courses, levelling courses or wedge courses, which are same
as Indias PCC. The reasons for using dense mixes are: to stay away from water-
trapping permeable mixes and also to facilitate easy feathering of the mix from a
specified depth to almost zero in a wedge type PCC. It is normally argued/believed

8
that BM has a better resistance to reflection cracking and accordingly, many
pavement designers introduced a layer of BM between DBM and WMM in India. It
does not appear that this conclusion is based on any research. [Bituminous Concrete
or BC mixes with smaller nominal maximum aggregate size (NMAS) and higher
bitumen contents are also highly flexible according to published research.) Assuming

Figure 6. Road failure in Oklahoma, US resulting from saturated open graded

binder course (Ref. 7)

Figure 7. Close up of stripped binder course in Oklahoma, US (Ref. 7)

that BM has a better resistance to reflection cracking, it is still a water-trapping

permeable mix and as discussed earlier, the potential for failure by far exceeds the
perceived advantage of resisting reflection cracking.

9
Cost Considerations: The use of BM is quite often made on the premise that BM is
cheaper than DBM and, therefore, it is suitable for use in developing country like
India. That is simply not correct as discussed below.

Comparative cost analysis of BM and DBM has been done based on the 2013 Basic
Schedule of Rates (BSR) of BM and DBM obtained from the Rajasthan PWD Circle
in Jaipur. The cost of BM Grading 2 in place is Rs 5,354 per cu m and the cost of
DBM Grading 2 in place is Rs. 6,851 per cu m. Considering that 100 mm thick BM is
equal to 70 mm thick DBM as per IRC guidelines, the actual cost of DBM in place
comes out to be Rs. 4,796 per cu m. That is a saving of Rs. 558 per cu m or about 10
percent, when DBM is used in lieu of BM. That is a lot of savings on a road project.
The preceding cost analyses have clearly established that DBM is much cheaper than
the BM on equivalency cost basis. It is not understood as to why the Indian engineers
are ignoring this fact.

Traffic Conditions: According to some highway engineers, BM is intended for low-

traffic roads only, although it is being used extensively on national highways and state
highways. However, the fact remains that any layer, which traps water, should not be
used whether it is a low-volume or high-volume road. The concept of perpetual
pavement or long lasting pavements is relevant even for less traffic roads. The need
today is to construct pavements needing less maintenance avoiding frequent overlays,
besides providing a good riding surface for many years. The design concept should,
therefore, be same for both heavy traffic and low traffic. In any case, the thickness of
different bituminous layers will be different depending upon the traffic intensity.

General Statements: General statements are sometimes made like (a) BM is a

popular mix or (b) BM has been widely used with success throughout the
country. The concept of success is myopic and it does not envisage in the concept of
long-term performing pavements. The normal life of pavement in India is between 2
to 4 years compared to 8 to 10 years in other countries. The developed countries are
talking of perpetual/long-term pavements capable of performing for 50 years or more.
This may look strange but our vision should accordingly extend to give precedence to
durability over deceptive cost saving. The concept of sound economics/engineering
suggest that we should accept changing the permeable mixes by dense and relatively
less permeable mixes to give long life to our bituminous pavements.

Road pavement is analogous to RCC roof in the house; we do not want both to allow
any permeation and/or capture of rainwater. Using BM is like providing RCC without
any vibrator, which results in a honeycombed RCC structure. Would those who
believe in BM construct their house roof like that? It may not fail right away but
would not last long.

Even the Central Road Research Institute (CRRI) has stated in 2008 the following in
their investigational report (9) on premature failure of NH-91 in Uttar Pradesh: For
ensuring long term pavement performance, focus now must shift to the use of dense
graded bituminous mixes (such as DBM and BC) rather than the open graded and
semi dense bituminous mixes (such as BM and SDBC).Bituminous Macadam is
a highly permeable mix which is prone to rutting and water induced damage.
Bituminous Macadam, though is widely used at present, but needs to be gradually
replaced with DBM in the coming years, because it is not cost effective in the long

10
run and does not perform better during the design life of a pavement subjected to
heavy traffic. Similarly, the use of Semi-Dense Bituminous Concrete is also needed to
be discouraged as it suffers from "pessimism" voids, which have potential to trap
water resulting into damage due to moisture. It should be substituted by Bituminous
Concrete as it is a better performing mix and is also cost effective in the long run.

The simple and big question is: will BM ever be banned by MORTH and state
highway agencies?

Semi Dense Bituminous Concrete (SDBC)

There is no engineering logic in using a semi-dense mix when only dense,

continuously graded mixes are technically desirable. In most developed countries (8)
either dense mixes (HMA) are provided or the open graded asphalt friction course
(OGFC) is provided as wearing course. Semi-dense mixes which are neither dense
graded nor open graded contain the so-called pessimum voids when constructed.
Terrel and Shute (10) advanced the concept of pessimum void concept for stripping.
Figure 8 shows the general relationship between air voids and relative strength of
bituminous mixes following water conditioning. The amount of strength loss depends
upon the amount and nature of voids. As shown in the figure, at less than 4 percent air
voids, the mix is virtually impermeable to water, so it is essentially unaffected.
Unfortunately, region B to C of Fig. 8 is where mix is semi-dense. As the voids
increase to D and beyond, the mix strength becomes less affected by water because
the mix is now free draining like asphalt treated permeable base (ATPB). The region
B to C can be called pessimum void content because it represents opposite of
optimum. The objective is to stay out of the pessimum void range. A semi-dense

Fig. 8 Pessimum voids in semi-dense mixes (Ref. 10)

mix, which has a potential for having pessimum voids in it, is likely to trap
moisture/water and causing stripping. As mentioned earlier, this also has been
acknowledged by the CRRI while investigating NH-91 in Uttar Pradesh (9).

11
It is felt that in a tropical country like India thicker wearing courses of 40 mm should
be provided on all roads to ensure against the penetration of water from top and
thereby to prevent crack initiation from top. Unfortunately, the use of SDBC has been
advertently promoted to some extent because only SDBC Grading 2 has been
specified by MORTH for a thin layer of 25 mm. However, the fact remains that thin
25 mm mat cools rapidly after lay down and it is not possible to compact it to the
desired level. This results in high permeability and reduced life. It should also be
noted that BC is only 10 percent more expensive than the SDBC as is evident from
the following prices obtained from the 2013 Schedule of Rates of Rajasthan PWD,
Jaipur Circle:

Semi-Dense Bituminous Concrete (SDBC) Grading 2 Rs. 7,758 per cu m

Bituminous Concrete (BC) Grading 2 Rs. 8,553 per cu m

Unfortunately across India the deadly combination of BM and SDBC continues to

be used even in heavy rain areas like northeast India. It is simply unacceptable.
Rainwater permeates through the semi dense SDBC (or its cracks) and is stored in the
underlying BM bath tub. The water or moisture vapor from the BM can cause
stripping in the BM as well as in the overlying SDBC, quite often also causing
debonding (scaling) of the SDBC from the BM. This scaling results in numerous
shallow potholes on the road as shown in Figure 9. These shallow potholes are
sometimes repaired with premix carpet (PMC) mix which can perpetuate the problem.

Figure 9. Shallow potholes (scaling) on SDBC on a state highway

Although MORTH has rightly deleted SDBC in its revised 2013 Specification (11),
no circular was issued for the information of highway engineers as to why it was
deleted. Unfortunately, it is being used at the present time because it is still in the IRC
Specification. The simple question is: will SDBC be banned by MORTH and state
highway agencies?

12
Dense Bituminous Macadam (DBM)

At the present time the dense bituminous macadam (DBM) is specified for use as a
base course and/or binder course. Two gradations of the DBM are specified in Section
505 of 2013 MORTH specifications: Grading 1 has a NMAS (nominal maximum
aggregate size) of 37.5 mm and Grading 2 has a NMAS of 25 mm.

Table 2 gives the existing MORTH composition of DBM Gradings 1 and 2. The
specified percentage of fine aggregate is the same in both gradings (28-42 percent),
the main difference is just some large size aggregate particles (25-45 mm size) are
contained in Grading 1. It was discussed earlier that the use of large stone mix
(NMAS of 37.5 mm or larger) has several disadvantages such as segregation (Figure
10) and high permeability (Fig. 11). These disadvantages outweigh the marginal
gain in stability, if any, over a 25 mm NMAS mix. Since Grading 1 is highly
permeable, it has to be sealed or overlaid before rainy season otherwise water will
penetrate it and damage the underlying WMM course. Experienced Indian highway
engineers advise this but why dont they simply ban the problematic DBM Grading 1
altogether and use only the DBM Grading 2? This writer has observed on two national
highways in India deteriorated DBM Grading 1 in the lower lift of the total DBM,
which was disintegrated due to stripping and could not be retrieved intact by coring
(Fig. 12). The simple question is: will MORTH and state highway agencies ever ban
the problematic DBM Grading 1?

Fig. 10. Segregation of DBM Grading 1 (37.5 mm NMAS mix) resulting in

honeycombing

13
Fig. 11. Effect of nominal maximum aggregate size (NMAS) on permeability of
in-place asphalt pavement

Fig. 12. Deteriorated DBM Grading 1 used in lower

DBM lift could not be retrieved intact while coring

TABLE 2. EXISTING MORTH GRADATIONS FOR DENSE BITUMEN

MACADAM (DBM) (Ref. 9)

Grading 1 2
Nominal Aggregate Size 40 mm 25 mm
Lift Thickness 80-100 mm 50-75 mm
Sieve, mm Percent Passing
45 100
37.5 95-100 100
26.5 63-93 90-100
19 - 71-95
13.2 55-75 56-80
9.5 - -
4.75 38-54 38-54

14
 2.36 28-42 28-42
1.18 - -
0.6 - -
0.3 7-21 7-21
0.15 - -
0.075 2-8 2-8
Bitumen Content, % Min. 4.0 Min. 4.5

The MORTH specification and IRC:111- 2009 mention a lift thickness of 50-75 mm
for Grading 2. It can be debated whether it should be 50-100 mm as practiced in many
countries including the US.

Bituminous Concrete (BC)

Two gradings of the Bituminous Concrete (BC) have been specified in Section 507 of
the MORTH Specifications (2013). According to MORTH, the BC can be used for
wearing and profile corrective courses. Grading 1 has a NMAS of 19 mm and
Grading 2 has a NMAS of 13 mm.

As discussed earlier, DBM Grading 2 was selected as base course. Now, there is a
need to select a binder course and two wearing (surface) course. BC Grading 1 with a
NMAS of 19 mm is suitable for a binder course because by definition it binds the base
course (NMAS of 25 mm) and the wearing course (NMAS of 13 mm) with an
intermediate (transition) NMAS of 19 mm. BC Grading 2 with a NMAS of 13 mm is
suitable for a wearing course. Therefore, BC Grading 1 should be renamed as a binder
course and used as such in the pavement design in lieu of the upper lift of DBM.

There is a need to add a new BC gradation with a NMAS of 9.5 mm, which can be
used for light to medium traffic, and in urban areas to provide smooth and highly
impermeable and durable bituminous road surface. BC Grading 3 is also suitable for
thin asphalt lifts and should be preferred over BC Grading 2. This BC gradation with
a NMAS of 9.5 mm is being used successfully across the US even on interstate
highways. Such a gradation was proposed in the IRC paper by Kandhal, Sinha and
Veeraragavan (1). All three BC gradations are shown in Table 3.

TABLE 3. AGGREGATE GRADING FOR BITUMINOUS CONCRETE (BC)

GRADINGS 1, 2 AND 3

SPECIFICATION BC GRADING NUMBER*

Grading 1 2 3

Nominal maximum 19 mm 13.2 mm 9.5 mm

aggregate size
Layer thickness 50 mm 25/40 mm 25/40 mm
IS Sieve size (mm) Percent passing by weight
26.5 100
19 90-100 100

15
13.2 59-79 90-100 100
9.5 52-72 70-88 90-100
4.75 35-55 53-71 55-75
2.36 28-44 42-58 40-55
1.18 20-34 34-48 29-44
0.6 15-27 26-38 21-33
0.3 10-20 18-28 14-25
0.15 5-13 12-20 7-15
0.075 2-8 4-10 4-7
Bitumen content (min.) 5.2% 5.4% 5.7%
Note: BC Grading 1 should be used as binder course; BC Gradings 2 and 3
should be used for wearing courses. Proposed BC Grading 3 should be
preferred over BC Grading 2 for thin asphalt lifts and city streets.

COMBINATIONS OF DENSE GRADED BASE COURSE, BINDER COURSE

AND WEARING COURSE

Some discussion of how the recommended base course, binder course, and wearing
course mixes should be used in new pavements as well as in overlays follows.

Base course mixes, which use relatively larger size aggregate, are not only stiff/stable
but also are economical because they use relatively lower bitumen contents. Surface
or wearing course mixes with smaller aggregate on the other hand have relatively
higher bitumen contents, which not only impart high flexibility but also increase their
durability. The binder (intermediate) course mix serves as a transition between the
base course and wearing course. Several studies have shown that permanent
deformation (rutting) within flexible pavement is usually confined to the top 100 to
150 mm of the pavement. This means both the binder and wearing course mixes
should be designed to be resistant to rutting. That is why in extreme cases of heavy
traffic loads and high tyre pressures, it is considered prudent to use Stone Matrix
Asphalt (SMA) mix in which due to stone-on-stone contact the load is carried directly
by the coarse aggregate skeleton.

It is not necessary to use all three bituminous courses (base, binder, and wearing) in a
new flexible pavement unless the traffic is very high. For example, the following
combinations can be used depending upon the total thickness of the bituminous
course(s) required as per structural design based on IRC:37.

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

WMM + BC Binder Course + BC Wearing Course
WMM + BC Wearing Course only

For low-trafficked roads only a granular base and a bituminous wearing course may
suffice based on structural requirements as practiced in many developed countries.

Some examples are given below for suggested bituminous courses for total required
bituminous layer thickness considering the recommended lift thicknesses for the four
mixes:

16
Required Total Bituminous Use
Layer Thickness

Less than 50 mm BC Wearing Course only (BC Grading 2)

75 mm 125 mm BC Binder Course (BC Grading 1) + BC
Wearing course (BC Grading 2)
150 mm or more DBM Base Course (DBM Grading 2) + BC
Binder Course (BC Grading 1) + BC Wearing
Course (BC Grading 2)

If the total design bituminous layer thickness falls between 50 mm and 75 mm, or
between 125 mm and 150 mm, use the higher thickness.

It has been surmised by some that a BC wearing course is too stiff and will crack if
placed directly over WMM. This is not correct because the BC wearing course has
relatively lower stiffness due to its lower NMAS (12.5 mm or 9.5 mm) and high
bitumen content. This combination is being used in other countries including
Australia and South Africa. Similarly, a bituminous overlay required for strengthening
flexible pavement can consist of the following depending upon the required thickness
as per IRC:81:

BC Binder Course (BC Grading 1) + BC Wearing Course (BC

Grading 2)
BC Wearing Course only (BC Grading 2)

Unlike most developed countries, overloading is a major concern in India. On very

heavily trafficked road with severe overloading problem, it is recommended to modify
the BC wearing course and BC binder course (that is, the top 100 mm of the pavement
only, which is likely to rut) as follows:

Ensure to use viscosity graded VG-30 grade bitumen as per latest IS73, which
is significantly more rut resistant than the old 60/70 penetration bitumen.
Use polymer modified bitumen (PMB)
Use Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA) as per IRC Specifications IRC:SP:79-2008

Premix Carpet (PMC)

Before the premix carpet (PMC) is discussed, a little history is in order. When this
writer was serving as highway engineer in the Rajasthan PWD during early 1960s, it
was very common to use bituminous surface dressing (SD) or chip sealing on most
types of roads. Surface dressing was very effective in water-proofing the WBM roads
because of heavy bitumen application rate followed by chip application. Surface
dressing was scheduled once in 3 or 4 years on all roads. Very potholes dotted the
roads at that time. Traffic volumes were generally less during that time period. Road
construction was largely manual and hardly mechanized. Bitumen for surface dressing
was applied with perforated tin cans. Spreading the surface aggregate (chips) by hand
was an art learnt through practice, usually by swirling the basket containing
aggregate.

17
As is usual with surface dressing, chips were dislocated and became loose if the
treated road was opened too soon to traffic or slow speeds were not maintained just
after construction. The finished road surface was not black and therefore not too
appealing to the public. Too overcome these perceived problems, the premix carpet
(PMC) was introduced with the IRC publishing its specification for the first time in
1962. As mentioned earlier, road construction was still manual. Single size chips
(nominal size 12 mm) were either broken by labourers by hand or obtained from stone
crusher plants (if available nearby). Hot bitumen was applied as tack coat through
perforated tin cans. The mix containing almost single size aggregate (11.2 mm to 13.2
mm) could easily be coated with about 3-3.5% bitumen either by hand on flat pans
placed over wooden log fire; or small drums rotated by hand; or small portable mixing
plants. Under such circumstances graded aggregate could not be used.

The mix was taken in hand carts and spread over tack coated road surface using hand
rakes. After rolling the road surface appeared shining black, no loose stone and
impressive to public unlike surface dressing. It was realized that the PMC was highly
permeable to rainwater due to single size aggregate being used in the mix. Therefore,
the use of sand seal coat was warranted to seal the surface of the open graded mix.
Sand was mixed with about 7% bitumen, applied on the open surface, and rolled.
These days some highway engineers require the PMC to be laid with a paver to obtain
a smooth surface. It is not understood as to how a mix with NMAS of 12 mm can
practically laid in 20 mm lift; normally the lift thickness should be at least 2.5 times
(preferably 3 times) the NMAS.

With the advent of the PMC, surface dressing started to die across India and is almost
non-existent in many states such as Rajasthan. This is ironical that surface dressing is
still being used extensively and successfully on low to medium-trafficked roads in
developed countries such as US, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. Indian
engineers argue that surface dressing is successful in those countries because the
construction (bitumen application and chip spreading) is mechanized there. It is not
understood as to what is preventing the Indian engineers in this day and age to
require/mandate bitumen distributors (already available for tack coat work) and
mechanized chip spreaders (being manufactured and used in Gujarat) (12).

The PMC has probably served India well for over 50 years especially during the time
mechanization was almost not there. However, due to significant increase in vehicular
traffic and PMCs inherent water-trapping characteristics its service life has decreased
significantly in recent years. Time has come now to think out of the box and consider
surface dressing in lieu of PMC for low to medium-trafficked roads because it is
highly economical (as discussed later) as well as highly effective in water-proofing
the road pavement.

The undesirable water-trapping characteristic of the PMC, which causes potholes due
to increased hydraulic pressure under traffic, is discussed below.

To keep things in perspective, lets compare PMC with open graded asphalt friction
course (OGFC), which is used in developed countries primarily for road safety.
Although OGFC is not used in India, experience with OGFC is applicable to PMC
used in India in certain aspects. Both are highly water permeable (porous) mixes and
are placed 20 mm thick. The OGFC is placed on dense bituminous concrete (similar

18
to BC Grading 2) to provide a skid resistant wearing surface during rainfall or when
the pavement is wet. The rainwater penetrates the open surface of the OGFC; goes to
its bottom; then flows within 20 mm thick OGFC towards the shoulders; and then
exits from the exposed edge of the OGFC onto shoulders. Since there is no rainwater
on the surface of OGFC there is no hydroplaning or skidding of motor vehicles on its
surface. OGFC is highly permeable to water since it has over 18% air voids (13). The
OGFC is durable despite high air voids because it has about 6% polymer modified
bitumen content, which provides thick bitumen film around the aggregate particles.

The premix carpet (PMC) on the other hand is substantially more open graded and
more porous (permeable to water) than the OGFC because the former uses very
coarse aggregate (nominal size of 11.2 to 13.2 mm). Its air void content is estimated
to be over 25 percent. Although a sand seal coat is provided on the surface of the
PMC, it is not completely effective in making the PMC waterproof at the surface.
Even if there is a small patch where the PMC has lost its sand seal, the water on roads
in cities and towns can penetrate it at that spot, flow sideward like in OGFC, and
flood the entire PMC below the sand seal (Figure 13). The hydraulic pressure induced
by traffic in the water trapped within the PMC below the seal coat is likely to cause
stripping within the PMC and the underlying bituminous course. If the underlying
course is WMM or WBM, it would get saturated and lose its strength especially if it
contains some plastic material.

Intrusion of water from the unsealed areas of PMC is analogous to porous 20 mm

OGFC (PMC in our case) overlaid by dense BC which has cracks. Surface water can
penetrate the OGFC through cracks and flood the entire OGFC (Figure 14). This
writer has observed this phenomenon while conducting forensic investigation in
Australia (Figure 15). It was hard to believe the sight of water oozing out of the
OGFC although it had not rained for weeks. That is why; OGFC is always milled off
before placing a dense bituminous surfacing.

Figure 13. Surface water entering the premix carpet (PMC) through an unsealed
area saturating it under the seal as well, causing stripping within PMC and the
underlying bituminous course when subjected to traffic loads.

19
Figure 14. Premix carpet (or OGFC) sandwiched between two BC courses can be
saturated with surface water entering through the cracks in the top BC course,
causing stripping in the PMC and adjacent BC courses.

Figure 15. Free water oozing out of the OGFC sandwiched between two BC
courses. It was observed when a section of the road was cut by cold milling.

The surface water permeability of an in-service PMC was determined recently with a
grease ring method. Although it is simple, crude, falling head water permeability test,
it does give some relative permeability values. A ring about 225 mm in diameter and
about 25 mm high is made on the road surface to be tested using heavy grease. Putty
can also be used in lieu of heavy grease. The ring is filled with water up to a depth of
12.5 mm and timer is started. Time taken by the water to penetrate and disappear from
the road surface is measured in seconds as measure of relative water permeability.

The first test (Fig. 16) was made on PMC without any seal coat. It was not even
possible to fill the ring with water because it was penetrating the PMC as fast it was
poured. On filling rapidly, water penetrated fully in about 5 seconds. The second test
(Fig. 17) was made on PMC with moderate amount of sand seal coat. The measured
field permeability was 105 seconds. The third test (Fig. 18) was made on PMC with
adequate amount of sand seal coat. The measured field permeability was 545 seconds.
It is not uncommon to see non-uniform application of sand seal coat on PMC because

20
Fig. 16. Field permeability of PMC without any sand seal coat

Fig. 17. Field permeability of PMC with moderate sand seal coat

Fig. 18. Field permeability of PMC with adequate sand seal coat

21
it is usually spread manually (Fig. 19). It is a matter of great concern. During a similar
test on BC wearing course, water remained at 12.5 mm level for hours and therefore
the field water permeability was almost zero (Fig. 20).

Fig. 19. PMC surface with non-uniform application of sand seal coat

Fig. 20. Field permeability of BC Grading 2

It is quite evident from the preceding field experiments that generally the PMC with
sand seal coat would easily take in and trap water during rains. Once the PMC is
saturated with water, the hydraulic pressure resulting from traffic above can loosen up
the sand seal in other areas of the PMC. This writer has observed this phenomenon on
Jaipur streets (Figure 20). As already mentioned, the hydraulic pressure also causes
stripping in the PMC as well as in the underlying bituminous course. That is why;
PMC deteriorates rather rapidly during monsoons especially in towns and cities where

22
streets usually get flooded. The average life of PMC in Jaipur is about 1-2 years. Its
bitumen content is about 3.5 percent.

Figure 21. Failure of premix carpet (PMC) during the first monsoon within
Jaipur city

Obviously, there are cases where PMC with good, uniform sand seal coat and/or very
dry climate has endured well. However, fundamentally it does not make any sense as
to why we place a highly porous bituminous mix like PMC in the first place and then
try to seal it. We do not have any idea as to what depth, if any; the estimated 6 mm
thick sand seal coat really penetrates the 20 mm thick PMC when rolled.

There are numerous other questions related to PMC which need to be answered: total
air voids in PMC; absolute volume of sand seal coat; unfilled voids in PMC; depth of
sand seal penetration in PMC; etc. etc. It is amazing as to why no such research was
conducted in India for the last 60 years to answer these legitimate questions. On the
other hand, hundreds of research papers have been published across the world in case
of surface dressing in terms of its rational design, construction and performance. How
come hardly any research has been conducted in India where PMC is used, especially
on its structure, volumetrics, performance and durability? It appears some engineers
just have a gut feeling that PMC does work and is good for India and therefore
there is no need for any research on it.

This writer could not find any published data on average life of PMC in India either.
Some PMGSY engineers revealed its average life to be 2 years without significant
distress such as ravelling and potholes. This is not acceptable.

If the PMC is a panacea for low to medium trafficked roads in India, why this
technology cannot be exported to developed countries in this global world. However,
that would require fundamental, sound engineering justification which is almost
nonexistent and hard to come by in case of the PMC.

23
Therefore, time has come now to ban the PMC altogether because its continued use
cannot be justified technically as well as economically anywhere; be it city streets,
low volume roads (such as PMGSY), or medium to high volume roads.

So what are the alternatives for PMC in India? The discussion follows.

For low to medium-trafficked roads where PMC is used right now, use single or
double surface treatment. If black road surface is desirable for surface dressing to
impress motoring public as well as minimize chip loss, use precoated chips. It should
be noted all these alternatives are much cheaper than the PMC as shown in Table 4.
Note that the cost of single coat surface dressing is only 1/3 of the cost of PMC. It is
not understood as to why it cannot be used on low volume roads such as PMGSY; that
would save India thousands of crores of rupees every year. Just imagine how many
thousands of additional kilometers of PMGSY roads can be built with the savings.
Even if double surface dressing with precoated chips is used its cost is three-fourth
(3/4) of the cost of PMC.

Now is the time to take this matter seriously especially when the excuse that surface
dressing is not completely mechanized is no longer valid. The service life of surface
dressing is not considered less than the service life of the PMC. So whats the excuse
now when the whole world is using surface dressing with success and IRC has a very
good standard specification for surface dressing?

Table 4. Comparison of Costs for PMC and Recommended Alternates

No. Option Cost per sq m in Cost per km lane in

rupees rupees
1 20 mm PMC with sand seal coat 210 7.88 lacs
2 25 mm BC Grading 2 205 7.69 lacs
3 Surface dressing, single 70 2.62 lacs
application with VG-10, nominal
chip size 13.2 mm, mechanical
means
4 Surface dressing, single 79 2.96 lacs
application with VG-10, nominal
chip size 13.2 mm, mechanical
means with precoated chips
5 Surface dressing, double 140 5.24 lacs
application with VG-10, chip size
13.2 mm, mechanical means
6 Surface dressing, double 149 5.58 lacs
application with VG-10, chip size
13.2 mm, mechanical means with
precoated chips
7 40 mm BC Grading 2 320 12.00 lacs
Notes: All options except surface dressing include one tack coat. Precoated chips
coated with 1% VG-10 costs Rupees 1,107 per cu m. In case of double surface
dressing, only top application used precoated chips. Lane width = 3.75 m

24
Besides significantly lower construction cost, surface dressing offers the following
functional advantages compared to PMC (12):

1. Excellent sealing of road surface, which does not allow ingress of rainwater
into the lower layers thus resulting in a durable pavement
2. Minimizes oxidation of bitumen because it exists in thick film and stone chips
provide protection from sun rays
3. Higher resistance to skidding which reduces accident hazards
4. Retards reflection cracking because of flexible behaviour
5. Environmental friendly because chips need not be heated

Obviously, the highway agencies have to mandate the use of mechanized bitumen
distributor and chip spreader, which are already available in India, to ensure the
functional success of surface dressing.

For medium to heavy-trafficked roads and city roads use BC Grading 2 in lieu of the
PMC. Although it is permissible to lay BC Grading 2 in 25-40 mm depth according to
IRC:111- 2009 (14), it is preferable to use 40 mm depth to ensure adequate
compaction during construction (thin lifts cool rapidly). It is ironical that the cost of
25 mm BC Grading 2 is lower than the cost of PMC (Table 4).

Although the initial cost of 40 mm BC Grading 2 is about 50% more than the cost of
20 mm PMC, BC Grading 2 is actually 24.1% cheaper than the PMC based on life
cycle cost analysis (LCCA) given in Annexure. This is a very conservative analysis in
that the remaining service life, salvage value, maintenance expenses, and user
operating costs were not even considered, which all favour BC. Therefore, savings
will be much more than 24.1 percent. More importantly, BC Grading 2 provides
significant structural strength to the road pavement for future traffic growth whereas
PMC has almost zero structural strength to offer.

Mixed Seal Surfacing (MSS)

The Indian Roads Congress adopted the Mixed Seal Surfacing (MSS) specification
IRC:SP:78-2008 (15) probably as an alternate to the PMC; both are applied in 20 mm
thickness. Since hot mix asphalt plants are now widely available across India, it was
considered practical and easy to adopt a hot mix which would encompass or
incorporate both the PMC and the sand seal in one mix rather than two different
applications. This would also reduce cost of construction. As shown in Table 5, two
gradations are specified for MSS: one is closed gradation (Type A with NMAS of
9.5 mm) and the other is open gradation (Type B with NMAS of 9.5 mm or 12.5
mm). Since the closed graded mix has NMAS of 9.5 mm it can be placed in 20 mm
thick course similar to PMC. Both are recipe type mixes with no mix design
requirements such as Marshall required for BC.

TABLE 5. AGGREGATE GRADINGS FOR MIX SEAL SURFACING

IS Sieve size, mm Type A Type B
% Passing by weight % Passing by weight
13.2 --- 100

25
11.2 100 88-100
5.6 52-88 31-52
2.8 14-38 5-25
0.090 0-5 0-5

Both MSS mixes are not really dense graded mixes similar to BC Grading 2. The
question is: why not adopt well designed dense graded BC Grading 3 with NMAS of
9.5 mm proposed earlier under BC to achieve the same purpose? Gradations of BC
Grading 2 and proposed BC Grading 3 are included in Table 3 for comparison. That
would ensure an almost impermeable and durable mix, also designed with the
Marshall Method. Grading 3 is even used as a wearing course on US interstate
highways with satisfactory performance.

Therefore, there is no need for MSS; rather it should be deleted from the Indian
specifications and replaced with a more densely graded, more durable BC Grading 3.

Built-up Spray Grout (BUSG)

Built-up Spray Grout (BUSG) has been recommended as a base course for flexible
pavements. It is not a bituminous mix; rather a two-layer composite construction of
compacted, almost singe sized crushed aggregates with application of hot bitumen
after each layer. Single sized key aggregate is then applied at the top. Obviously, this
type of bituminous construction is highly permeable because the sprayed bitumen
does not fill the voids in the coarse aggregate adequately. Therefore, this type of
construction is considered water trapping. This has been proven from the fact that
potholes repaired with BUSG technique quite often reappear in a year or two.

Therefore, BUSG should be banned for use in India. Although BUSG has been rightly
deleted from recently revised 2013 MORTH Specification (11), no circular has been
issued by MORTH as to why it was deleted and whether or not it should be used by
highway agencies.

DETAILED RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BITUMINOUS CONSTRUCTION

In view of the preceding fundamental technical observations (although radical for

India), the following detailed recommendations are made for (a) construction of new
flexible pavements, (b) improving ride quality programme (IRQP), and (c) periodical
renewal (PR). Together, these three construction activities constitute major portion of
bituminous road construction activities in India.

Construction of New Flexible Pavements

As technically justified in detail earlier, delete from the specifications the following
eight water-trapping bituminous mixes/applications: Bituminous Macadam (BM)
Gradings 1 and 2; Semi Dense Bituminous Concrete (SDBC) Gradings 1 and 2;
Dense Bituminous Macadam (DBM) Grading 1; Premix Carpet (PMC); Mixed Seal
Surfacing (MSS), and the Built-Up Spray Grout (BUSG). Use the following dense
graded (and therefore desirable) mixes: Dense Bituminous Macadam (DBM) Grading

26
2 for base course; Bituminous Concrete (BC) Grading 1 for binder course; and
Bituminous Concrete (BC) Grading 2 for wearing course. Use Stone Matrix Asphalt
(SMA) binder and base courses for very heavy and/or overloaded truck traffic.
Introduce Bituminous Concrete (BC) Grading 3 with a nominal maximum aggregate
size (NMAS) of 9.5 mm for use in thin lifts as well as on city streets for smooth
surface.

It is not necessary to use all three bituminous courses (base, binder, and wearing) in a
new flexible pavement unless the traffic is very high. For example, the following
combinations can be used depending upon the total thickness of the bituminous
course(s) required as per structural design based on IRC:37.

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

WMM + BC Binder Course + BC Wearing Course
WMM + BC Wearing Course only

For low-trafficked roads only a granular base and a bituminous wearing course may
suffice based on structural requirements.

Some examples are given below for suggested bituminous courses for total required
bituminous layer thickness considering the recommended lift thicknesses for the four
mixes:

Required Total Bituminous Use

Layer Thickness

Less than 50 mm BC Wearing Course only (BC Grading 2)

75 mm 125 mm BC Binder Course (BC Grading 1) + BC
Wearing course (BC Grading 2)
150 mm or more DBM Base Course (DBM Grading 2) + BC
Binder Course (BC Grading 1) + BC Wearing
Course (BC Grading 2)

If the total design bituminous layer thickness falls between 50 mm and 75 mm, or
between 125 mm and 150 mm, use the higher thickness.

Unlike most developed countries, overloading is a major concern in India. On very

heavily trafficked road with severe overloading problem, it is recommended to modify
the BC wearing course and BC binder course (that is, the top 100 mm of the pavement
only, which is likely to rut) as follows:

Ensure to use viscosity graded VG-30 grade bitumen as per latest IS73, which
is significantly more rut resistant than the old 60/70 penetration bitumen.
Use polymer modified bitumen (PMB)
Do not use CRMB which often is of dubious quality due to inadequate
specifications and lack of quality control (16,17)
Use Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA) as per IRC Specifications IRC:SP:79-2008

For low trafficked roads such as PMGSY, do not use PMC. In lieu of PMC, use
single or double surface dressing (with or without precoated chips) or BC Grading 2

27
or BC Grading 3 directly on WBM or WMM. As discussed earlier, 40 mm BC
Grading 2 is cheaper than PMC by 24.1% based on life cycle cost analysis.

Improving Ride Quality Programme (IRQP)

Improving Ride Quality Programme (IRQP) is practiced across India for the implied
purpose. MORTH issued revised guidelines for IRQP for national highway stretches
in September 2002 (16). The guidelines are also used by the state highway agencies
for roads other than national highways with all kinds of variations as noted from NITs
published in newspapers. Table 6 gives various options for IRQP along with costs
based on 2013 Rajasthan PWD Basic Schedule of Rates (BSR). The first seven
options are listed in the MORTH circular of September 2002. Options 8 and 9 have
been used by some states. Option 10 has been proposed in this paper in lieu of
Options 1 through 9 as discussed later.

Based on the preceding detailed technical discussion, BM, SDBC, PMC, MSS and
BUSG should be deleted from the Indian Specifications (both MORTH and IRC) and
therefore should be excluded from Table 6. Use of WMM (see options 1, 2, 3, and 4
in Table 6) is not advised if IRQP is being conducted on an existing road consisting of
bituminous course because that would mean abandoning its structural contribution (in
terms of tensile strength) to the rehabilitated pavement system.

Therefore, Option 10 consisting of 60 mm BC Grading 2 in two applications: 20 mm

(average) scratch or leveling course applied with a paver to fill depressions followed
by 40 mm uniform thick wearing course in recommended. In developed countries,
dense graded wearing course mix is used for leveling for practical purposes and also
for ease in feathering. It also provides a dense wearing course. Both leveling and
wearing courses provide highest structural strength to the pavement compared to the
first nine options.

Cost of Option 10 is very comparable to the other 9 options listed in Table 6 even
without considering life-cycle costs. More importantly, Option 10 is also considered
most durable and would therefore revolutionize the conditions of roads across India.
There are hardly any logical technical and economical reasons to use Options 1
through 9 in lieu of Option 10. If so warranted for the ride quality and/or pavement
design, the thickness of BC Grading 2 scratch or leveling course can be increased
from 20 mm to 30 mm in Option 10.

MORTH Circular also recommends use of CRMB or PMB in bituminous mixes used
for IRQP. Whereas PMB is acceptable and should be used in courses within 100-150
mm from the road surface; CRMB should not be used as explained earlier.

Table 6. Comparison of Costs for Various Options in Improving Ride Quality

Programme (IRQP)

No. Option Cost per sq m Cost per km-lane

in rupees in rupees
1 225 mm WMM + 20 mm PMC with sand 541.34 20.30 lacs
seal coat

28
2 225 mm WMM + 20 mm MSS 511.34 19.18 lacs
3 150 mm WMM + 20 mm PMC with sand 446.22 16.73 lacs
seal coat
4 150 mm WMM + 20 mm MSS 416.22 15.61 lacs
5 75 mm BUSG + 25 mm SDBC 461.00 17.29 lacs
6 50 mm BM + 25 mm SDBC 521.50 19.56 lacs
7 75 mm BM + 25 mm SDBC 684.25 25.66 lacs
8 50 mm BM + 20 mm MSS 518.50 19.44 lacs
9 50 mm BM + 20 mm PMC with sand seal 561.50 21.06 lacs
coat
10 60 mm BC Grading 2 in two applications: 525.20 19.70 lacs
20 mm (average) Scratch or leveling
course + 40 mm wearing course
Notes: All options except BUSG include two tack coats. Lane width = 3.75 m

Periodical Renewal (PR)

Periodical Renewal (PR) is also practiced across India for the implied purpose.
MORTH also issued revised guidelines for PR for national highway stretches in
September 2002 (18). The guidelines are also used by the state highway agencies for
roads other than national highways with all kinds of variations as noted from NITs
published in newspapers. Options 1, 2, 3, and 4 in Table 7 are listed in the MORTH
guidelines circular along with costs based on 2013 Rajasthan PWD Basic Schedule of
Rates (BSR).

Based on the preceding detailed technical discussion, problematic SDBC, PMC, and
MSS should be deleted from the Indian Specifications (MORTH and IRC) and
therefore should not be used for PR as well.

As mentioned earlier, singe or double surface dressing with or without precoated

chips (Options 5, 6, 7, and 8 in Table 7) should be used for low to medium trafficked
roads. Surface dressing would really waterproof the pavement structure compared to
PMC and MSS. It is amazing to note that the cost of PMC is about three times the
cost of singe surface dressing. Even double surface dressing with precoated chips is
much cheaper than the PMC. It should be noted that surface dressing is used world
wide with high degree of success. PMC is used only in India despite its high costs and
unacceptable durability.

For medium to heavy trafficked roads, BC Grading 2 listed as Option 9 should be

used. Although the cost of 25 mm BC Grading 2 (NMAS of 12.5 mm) is comparable
to problematic SDBC, PMC and MSS, it would be better to use BC Grading 3
(NMAS of 9.5 mm) to facilitate thin lift paving. However, thin lifts do cool rapidly
and it is difficult to obtain adequate compaction. Therefore, use of 40 mm BC
Grading 2 should also be considered in terms of constructability, structural strength,
longevity, and lower life cycle costs.

MORTH Circular also recommends use of CRMB or PMB in bituminous mixes used
for PR. Whereas PMB is acceptable and should be used; CRMB should not be used as
explained earlier.

29
Table 7. Comparison of Various Options for Bituminous Periodical Renewal
(PR) with Costs

No. Option Cost per sq m in Cost per km lane in

rupees rupees
1 20 mm PMC with sand seal coat 210 7.88 lacs
2 20 mm MSS 180 6.75 lacs
3 25 mm SDBC 183 6.86 lacs
4 25 mm BC Grading 2 205 7.69 lacs
5 Surface dressing, single 70 2.62 lacs
application with VG-10, nominal
chip size 13.2 mm, mechanical
means
6 Surface dressing, single 79 2.96 lacs
application with VG-10, nominal
chip size 13.2 mm, mechanical
means with precoated chips
7 Surface dressing, double 140 5.24 lacs
application with VG-10, chip size
13.2 mm, mechanical means
8 Surface dressing, double 149 5.58 lacs
application with VG-10, chip size
13.2 mm, mechanical means with
precoated chips
9 40 mm BC Grading 2 320 12.00 lacs

Notes: All options except surface dressing include one tack coat. Precoated chips
coated with 1% VG-10 costs Rupees 1,107 per cu m. In case of double surface
dressing, only top application used precoated chips. Lane width = 3.75 m

ARGUMENTATIVE INDIAN (ENGINEER)

Indians are generally considered argumentative, highway engineers are no exception.

Sometimes arguments are made for the argument sake only, quite often without any
technical justifications. Some likely arguments which come to mind on the subject of
this paper are as follows [this writers response is given in parenthesis]:

Experience from other countries cannot be emulated in India. [Indigenous

research is always welcome but in absence of the same we cannot continue
with poor specifications. Granite is granite or limestone is limestone, whether
it is in the US or India. Similarly, AC-30 bitumen used in the US in the past is
similar to VG-30 bitumen currently used in India. Traffic is also computed in
ESALs both in the US and in India. Therefore, there is no reason as to why
experience with bituminous mixes cannot generally be used in India with
some minor adjustments.]
Why the US highway technology is being imposed on us by the writer?
[Having practiced as a highway engineer in India for 20 years and in the US
for 30 years, the writer has no intention to impose US technology on India.
Ironically, more than 95% of asphalt technology being used in India is already

30
 based on US asphalt technology; be it testing of bitumen, aggregates and
mixes; bitumen grading; Marshall Mix Design; or construction specifications.
We may not like it but it is a fact. We should not make it a national pride to
hold on to the outdated problematic bituminous mixes used only in India with
no fundamental technical justifications. Bituminous mixes/applications which
have been researched widely and have performed well in extreme US climate
(which is much more extreme in terms of hot/cold and dry/wet compared to
India) and varying traffic conditions (very low to very high, sometimes
overloading in timber logging country) should be adopted. We need not import
any well proven technology if our roads are in good shape. Unfortunately, our
roads are generally in terrible shape as highlighted by public during 2014
Indian elections.]
Mixes such as BM, SDBC and PMC are good for India! [That is a very vague
statement. If these mixes are really good why our roads are generally in bad
shape and cannot endure 3 months of monsoon. Moreover, why our
researchers are not writing international technical papers so that the
technology of these good mixes can be exported by India in this global
world.]
India cannot afford expensive mixes! [The cheap mixes being used generally
fail prematurely and are really expensive based on life cycle cost analyses as
presented in this paper.]
The problem lies in poor quality construction and not in the specified
bituminous mixes. [Agree poor quality construction is part of the problem in
many cases. However, specifying bituminous mixes which inherently have the
potential for trapping water is fundamentally the main problem which needs to
be addressed.]
There are success stories of the mixes being used! [If 80% projects fail
prematurely due to problematic bituminous mixes and 20% survive, the latter
cannot be called Success Story, there are always exceptions.]
Lets keep all the ten bituminous mixes in the specifications but provide a
guidance table listing their advantages and disadvantages. [Why are we so
obsessed with outdated mixes such as BM, SDBC and PMC that we do not
want to let them go? Providing a table would really confuse the Indian
highway engineers at large who are hardly trained in asphalt technology. Why
give 10 tools to a novice carpenter when only three good working tools would
suffice? In India, the patient (road) is dying and needs radical surgery
(removal of problematic bituminous mixes) to save its life. It should not be
made a prestige or ego issue by the specifiers.]
Lets conduct field performance research on all 10 bituminous mixes and
eliminate those that do not perform. [This is a good excuse (and delaying
tactic) not to act now. It does not matter if our roads stay in bad shape for
another 10 years while unnecessary field research is conducted. Those
suggesting this research should first be asked to write a technical paper
justifying the use of the problematic mixes (identified in this paper) on
fundamental technical grounds. That is really going to be difficult; thats why
nobody wants to undertake it.]

31
MAIN CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This technical note (paper) describes in detail as to why bituminous roads generally
fail prematurely in India especially during monsoons.

Of some ten types of bituminous paving mixes used in India, seven are open graded
(water-trapping) problematic mixes. Examples: Bituminous Macadam (BM) Gradings
1 and 2; Semi Dense Bituminous Concrete (SDBC) Gradings 1 and 2; Dense
Bituminous Macadam (DBM) Grading 1; Premix Carpet (PMC); and Mixed Seal
Surfacing (MSS). The Built-Up Spray Grout (BUSG) is no different. Their use is
simply unacceptable and results in poor performing roads in India. The remaining
three are dense graded (and therefore desirable) mixes. Examples are: Dense
Bituminous Macadam (DBM) Grading 2; Bituminous Concrete (BC) Grading 1; and
Bituminous Concrete (BC) Grading 2.

Therefore, these seven bituminous mixes should be deleted from the Indian
specifications (both MORTH and IRC) and their use in new flexible pavement
construction, in Improving Ride Quality Programme (IRQP), and in Periodical
Renewal (PR) programme should be banned. Detailed guidelines have been given in
this paper for selection of acceptable bituminous mixes/applications based on
durability and economics in case of new construction, IRQP and PR. They are given
briefly as follows:

New Flexible Pavement Construction. Do not use the seven water-trapping

bituminous mixes listed above. Use DBM Grading 1 as base course; BC Grading 1 as
binder course; and BC Grading 2 as wearing course depending on the pavement
design thickness. A new BC Grading 3 with nominal maximum aggregate size
(NMAS) of 9.5 mm has been proposed for thin lifts and city streets.

On heavily-trafficked roads use PMB in top 100-150 mm of the pavement or use

Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA) as per IRC:SP:79-2008. Do not use CRMB because
generally it is of dubious quality due to inadequate specification and lack of quality
control.

Improving Ride Quality Programme (IRQP). Do not use PMC, MSS and SDBC as
listed in MORTH Guidelines Circular dated 26 September 2002. Do not use WMM if
the existing road consists of bituminous course(s). Use 60 mm BC Grading 2 in two
applications: 20 mm (average) scratch or leveling course (with a paver) followed by a
40 mm wearing course. The thickness of the scratch or leveling course can be
increased from 20 mm to 30 mm if so required. Of all the options given in MORTH
guidelines circular this is not only economical but would also result in a highly
durable and smooth road pavement. In other words, MORTH circular dated 26
September 2002 should be withdrawn and revised as recommended.

Periodical Renewal. Do not use PMC, MSS and SDBC as listed in MORTH
Guidelines Circular dated 26 September 2002. Single or double surface dressing with
or without precoated chips should be used for low to medium trafficked roads.
Surface dressing would really waterproof the pavement structure compared to PMC
and MSS. The cost of PMC is about three times the cost of single surface dressing.
Even double surface dressing with precoated chips is much cheaper than the PMC. It

32
should be noted that surface dressing is used world wide with high success. PMC is
used only in India despite its high costs and unacceptable durability.

For medium to heavy trafficked roads, BC Grading 2 should be used. Proposed BC

Grading 3 (NMAS of 9.5 mm) can be considered for thin lift paving. However, thin
lifts do cool rapidly and it is difficult to obtain adequate compaction. Therefore, use of
40 mm BC Grading 2 should also be considered in terms of constructability, structural
strength, longevity, and lower life cycle costs.

Unfortunately, the continuation of these seven water-trapping bituminous mixes in

MORTH and IRC specifications and MORTH circulars (including the one on IRQP
and PR dated 26 September 2002) gives them undesirable technical legitimacy and
excuse for continual use by highway engineers across India. Those responsible for
these specifications should either (a) delete these undesirable bituminous mixes or (b)
publish an IRC paper justifying the use of these seven mixes on technical grounds
(rebutting one by one all technical and economical arguments advanced in this paper
and two papers published by IRC in 2008 and 2010). Vague responses such as: these
mixes are good for India; India cannot afford expensive mixes (although the
cheap mixes may generally fail within 1-2 years and are really expensive based on
life cycle costs); there are success stories (if 80% projects fail prematurely and 20%
survive, the latter cannot be called success story); etc.; etc.

Based on past experience and recent deliberations (2012) of the IRC Flexible
Pavement Committee, there is not much hope either of these two actions would occur
in the near future. Therefore, it is up to the young, rational highway engineers of India
to challenge the old-timers who apparently have hijacked and sealed the fate of
bituminous roads in India. Until then, roads in India would continue to be designed to
fail prematurely!

REFERENCES

1. Kandhal, P.S., V.K. Sinha and A. Veeraragavan. A Critical Review of Bituminous

Mixes Used in India. Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, Volume 69-2, July-
September 2008.

2. Kandhal, P.S., A. Veeraragavan, and R.K. Jain. Guidelines for Long Lasting
Bituminous Pavements. Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, Volume 71-3, 2010.

3. Ministry of Road Transport & Highways. Manual for Construction and Supervision
of Flexible Pavement Works. Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi, November 2001.

4. Communication from IJM (India), BM Test Data Report. October 18, 2007.

5. Kandhal, P.S. Moisture Susceptibility of HMA Mixes: Identification of Problem

and Recommended Solutions. National Asphalt Pavement Association, Quality
Improvement Publication (QIP) No. 119, December 1992.

6. Kandhal, P.S., C.W. Lubold, and F.L. Roberts. Water Damage to Asphalt Overlays:
Case Histories. AAPT Journal of Asphalt Paving Technology, Vol. 58, l989.

33
7. Kandhal, P.S. and I. Rickards. Premature Failure of Asphalt Overlays from
Stripping: Case Histories. AAPT Journal of Asphalt Paving Technology, Volume 70,
2001.

8. Roberts, F.L., P.S. Kandhal, E.R. Brown, D.Y. Lee, and T.W. Kennedy. Hot Mix
Asphalt Materials, Mixture Design and Construction. NCAT Textbook, NAPA
Education Foundation, Lanham, Maryland, Second Edition, 1996.

9. Central Road Research Institute. Investigation of NH-91 in Uttar Pradesh. Indian

Roads Congress, Report on Road Research in India, 2008.

10. Terrel, R. L. and J. W. Shute. Summary Report on Water Sensitivity. SHRP

Report SHRP-A/IR-89-003, November 1989.

11. Ministry of Road Transport & Highways. Specifications for Road and Bridge
Works, Fifth Revision, 2013, Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi.

12. Government of Gujarat. Roads and Buildings Department. Surface Dressing: An

Effective But Inexpensive Maintenance Technique. Accessed at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/94645292/12-Final-Surface-Dressing-Rawal-Gujarat on
23 June 2014.

13. Kandhal, P.S. Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Open-Graded Asphalt

Friction Courses. National Asphalt Pavement Association Information Series 115,
May 2002.

14. Indian Roads Congress. Specifications for Dense Graded Bituminous Mixes.
IRC:111-2009.

15. Indian Roads Congress. Specifications for Mixed Seal Surfacing (MSS).
IRC:SP:78-2008.

16. Kandhal, P. S. Quality Control Requirements for Using Crumb Rubber Modified
Bitumen (CRMB). Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, Volume 67-1, April-June
2006.

17. Kandhal, P.S. and M.P. Dhir. Use of Modified Binders in India: Current
Imperatives. Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, Volume 72-3, October-
December 2011.

18. MORTH. Revised Guidelines for Selection of National Highway Stretches for
Improving Ride Quality Programme (IRQP) and Periodic Renewals (PR). Circular
No. RW/NH-33044/10/2000-S&R dated 26 September 2002.

34
 ANNEXURE

Life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) of Premix Carpet (PMC) and Bituminous
Concrete (BC) Grading 2

Analysis period = 6 years

Assumptions:
Average life of 20 mm PMC with sand seal coat = 3 years (real 2 years)
Average life of 40 mm BC Grading 2 = 6 years (real 7-8 years)
[This means 20 mm PMC will be required for rehabilitation of the pavement
after 3 years.]
Cost of 20 mm PMC per km lane = 7.88 lacs
Cost of 40 mm BC Grading 2 per km lane = 12.00 lacs
Real discount rate = 4%
Net present value (NPV) = Initial cost + Rehab cost (1/(1+r)n)
Salvage value considered equal after the 6 years analysis period (although BC
would have a significantly higher structural strength whereas PMC strength is
almost zero)
Remaining service life after analysis period of 6 years considered equal
(although BC would have more service life because it is dense graded)
No maintenance activity considered during 6 years period (although PMC is
likely to require some activity)
User operating costs considered equal (although BC would provide a smoother
ride and less operating costs)

Deterministic Approach was used for LCCA, which is easy and is used
traditionally. The Net Present Value (NPV) was calculated for PMC and BC for
the 6-year period as follows:

NPV of PMC = 14.89 lacs

NPV of BC Grading 2 = 12.00 lacs

This means, PMC is 24.1% more expensive than BC Grading 2.

If the remaining service life, salvage value, maintenance costs, and user operating
costs are considered (which all are in favour of BC), PMC would be much more
expensive than 24.1 percent, which was calculated with very conservative
assumptions listed above.

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

ABOUT THE WRITER

Prof. Prithvi Kandhal is currently Associate Director Emeritus of the National Center
for Asphalt Technology (NCAT) at Auburn University, Alabama, USA. Prior to
joining NCAT in 1988, Prof. Kandhal served as Chief Asphalt Engineer of the
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation for 17 years.

35
Prof. Kandhal has served as Chairman of the US Transportation Research Board
(TRB) Committee on Bituminous Mixtures. He also served as Chairman of ASTM
Committee DO4 on Road and Paving Materials, which is responsible for over 200
standards used worldwide. He is also past President of the Association of Asphalt
Paving Technologists (AAPT), which has members in all continents of the world.
Prof. Kandhal has published over 120 papers in the area of asphalt paving technology.
He also co-authored the first-ever textbook on hot mix asphalt technology, which is
being used in over 25 universities in the US.

Prof. Kandhal has been a practicing highway engineer in India for 20 years and in the
US for 30 years. In recent years, he has drafted many standards for the Indian Roads
Congress (IRC) including specifications for dense graded bituminous mixes, stone
matrix asphalt (SMA) and readymade pothole patching mix, which have been
adopted. He was also instrumental single-handedly in introducing viscosity grading of
bitumen (VG Grades) in India in lieu of penetration grading in 2005.

In August 2011, Prof. Kandhal was inducted on the Wall of Honor established at
the largest asphalt road research center in the world. In April 2012, he received the
Honorary Membership which is considered equivalent to Lifetime Achievement
Award in Asphalt Road Technology from the International Association of Asphalt
Paving Technologists during their annual banquet held in Austin, Texas, USA.

36