Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MORTH) has just revised their
Specifications for Roads and Bridges (the so-called orange book). The draft revised
specification has been posted on the Indian Roads Congress (IRC) web site at
www.irc.org.in presumably for inviting comments within a short time period.
First of all, I would like to commend Shri V. K. Sinha, Director General Roads (who
has just retired) and Shri R. P. Indoria, Secretary General IRC for expediting the
revision of the whole orange book after its urgency was pointed out in my letter dated
27 January 2009 to you all; it was titled, “When will be the orange book revised?”.
I had the privilege of submitting detailed draft revision to Section 500 related to
bituminous pavements (copy also sent to you on 18 May 2009) on request of MORTH
and IRC. While many revisions suggested by me have been incorporated, I was very
disappointed with the following two items, which need to be addressed before the
orange book is published.
• BM and more BM
Not only the BM has been retained in the revised specifications, a “lean” BM
with 2.5% bitumen content has also been added now to make things worse.
The thinner bitumen coating in the “lean” BM is likely to strip more easily
rendering the BM into rubble of bare stones. I have observed numerous
premature pavement failures resulting from stripping in many countries of the
world. It is not a good sight when we see bare or poorly coated aggregate
particles resulting from stripping. I wish I could show all those disaster slides
but there is no forum in India to share these experiences.
2. Water flows from the less pervious GSB to highly porous BM. This is the
law of hydraulics on which the 2-layer drainage system is already functioning
in the US (discussed in the attached IRC paper). The revised BM Specification
Clause 506 states, “Since the bituminous macadam is an open-graded mixture,
there is a potential that it may trap water or moisture vapour within the
pavement system. Therefore, adjacent layer should have proper drainage
quality to prevent moisture-induced damage to the BM.” By adjacent layer
they obviously mean the GSB. What the highway engineers with old mindset
do not realize that the water in saturated GSB will flow into more porous
(pervious) BM layer and not vice versa according to the principles of
hydraulics, no matter what they write in the specifications.
Going into the 21st Century, we are extremely proud of our space technology such as
Chandrayaan and we should be. However, we are going back to the 19th Century in
terms of bitumen technology due to some engineers with old mindset. If we had a
reasonably good reputation of building durable bituminous roads in India, please add
not one but two more BMs by all means. Unfortunately, we do not. Using BM without
providing direct, positive outlet for water is against the concept of long lasting
pavements, which is being adopted by developed countries. Providing pavement edge
drains or extending the BM all the way to the embankment edge (similar to GSB) to
drain it directly will be too expensive which even the developed countries have
difficulty affording it.
Finally, I am beginning to believe that it is a battle between the “ego” of the engineers
with old mindset and fundamental principles of pavement engineering and drainage
(hydraulics). If you believe in the latter which is necessary for long lasting pavements
in India, it is time to speak up and write to the Secretary General of IRC to delete both
BMs and also include a 9.5 mm mix in lieu of SDBC for thin applications. Please e-
mail to secretarygen@irc.org.in as soon as possible. Time is of essence.
Caution is advised for BOT or PPP contractors who have to maintain their highway
for 15-20 years. If you use BM within your pavement as PCC and/or base course,
keep in mind there is a potential for premature failure of the highway, which will cost
too much in its rehabilitation since it is deep down.
If you have any questions on the two items, please feel free to contact me via e-mail.
Sincerely,
Prof. Prithvi Singh Kandhal
Jaipur
pkandhal@eng.auburn.edu
5 September 2009