Paper No.

535

RUTTING IN FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS A CASE STUDY

V.K. SINHA*, H.N. SINGH** & SAURAV SHEKHAR***

ABSTRACT
Flexible pavements are generaly adopted for construction of roads in India. Bitumen as a binder is known to be highly sensitive to high temperatures. Distresses in the form of ruts, cracking, ageing etc. are common on Flexible pavements. These are still observed on pavements constructed presently with thick layers of binder courses at high cost. Rutting one of the commonly observed permanent nature distress is the subject matter of this case study. The effect of high pavement temperature on the stability of mix in conjunction with lower softening point of bitumen has been studied in the context of prevailing high temperature in top pavement layers. Study brings out the inadequacies in existing specifications and suggests some follow up actions to improve the existing specifications. Use of modifiers in the top binder courses like DBM to enhance the thermal dependent characteristics of the bituminous mixes is one of the recommendations. Adoption of catalogue type performance based specifications covering different climatic regions of the country are also suggested.

1. INTRODUCTION

Flexible pavements have been traditionally provided on most of the important highways of the country. Thick bituminous pavement layer broadly comprising of a DBM layer of 160 to 180 mm topped with 50 mm bituminous concrete are being provided presently by way of strengthening. The bitumen used in the design of mixes for SDBC, PC, DBM and BM is typically of 60/70 grade. However, in few cases wearing course, having bituminous concrete 50 mm thick is also being provided with modified bitumen. Modifiers in such cases are either CRMB or PMB. Use of modifiers, however, is not common. The design of mixes are being done as per Marshall method with normal 75 blows for all locations without considering the effects of climatic, traffic variations etc. Despite the construction of thicker pavement, such bituminous pavements suffer from rutting frequently in quite early age. Such deformations in the form of rutting are more pronounced at locations of intersections, curves and in stretches where heavy traffic operates with low speed and is subject to frequent stop/start condition. Such early rutting of the flexible pavements should concern all highway engineers. This is particularly so, when constructing long performing pavements is the moto of all highway agencies in view of huge investment being made on the construction of such highways. The Paper is based on a case study representing a typical rutted stretch of a four-lane road which has been

widened and strengthened recently with thick bituminous pavement layers. The effect of high temperature of pavement layers on in-service behaviour of compacted bituminous mixes is the key objective of this case study.
2. STUDY STRETCH

The stretch considered is about 250 m long, suffering substantial rutting to a maximum depth upto 35 mm. This stretch is near an intersection. Heavy trucks with high axle loads in large number (about of 4500 trucks per day) are operating on this stretch, at a relatively low speed with frequent stop/start condition. The crust composition of this stretch is given in Table 1.
TABLE 1. CRUST COMPOSITION
AT THE

STUDY STRETCH

S.No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Type of layer Bituminous Concrete (BC with CRMB 60) Dense Bitumen Macadam (DBM Layer II) Dense Bitumen Macadam (DBM Layer I) Wet Mix Macadam (WMM) Granular Sub-Base (GSB)

Thickness (mm) 50 80 80 250 260

The study stretch comprises both types of surfaces (i) Exposed DBM surface without BC and (ii) DBM layer covered with BC surface in adjoining length. Same traffic is operating on both these surfaces. Time lag between laying of DBM and laying of BC on the DBM is on average about six months plus.

* Secretary General, IRC } E-mail: secretarygen@irc.org.in ** Executive Engineer (Retd.) PWD Bihar, Material Engineer, Quest Consultants Pvt. Ltd. *** Director, SA Infrastructure Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Written comments on this Paper are invited and will be received upto 31 st December, 2007

178
3. RUT DEPTH MEASUREMENT

SINHA, SINGH & SHEKHAR ON BC layer, in general, was not found significantly disturbed. Subsidence under the wheel paths was observed to be due to the deformation of top layer of DBM. The above observations reveal that the actual rutting is due to permanent deformation in the DBM (Layer II), immediately underneath the BC layer. Both the bituminous mix material as taken from the cores at rutted locations and at fair locations, were tested in the laboratory for the engineering properties. Tables 3 and 4 give the test details for the BC portion at rutted and fair locations respectively. It is seen that the density of the mix are same for both locations. Marginally higher bitumen content has been noted in the rutted portion. Optimum Bitumen Content (OBC) under job-mix formula (JMF) was 5.0 per cent with permissible variation of 0.3 per cent. Such marginal variations could be due to migration of bitumen during formation of the rut, due to movement of aggregates from rutted portion and due to some aggregate particles being cut partly through cutting of the cores. Some reduction in air voids is also noticed. These factors might contribute marginally to the process of rutting or may even have arisen due to rutting. The variations are, however, insignificant.
4. INVESTIGATION DONE

The rut depth measurements has been done in the field using a string line across the carriageway. The details of rut depth with assumed chainages are furnished in Table 2. Fig 1 depicts the general appearance of the rutted portion. Cores were taken from both rutted and fair locations. At rutted locations, the top layer of DBM (Layer II) was observed to have undergone deformations, whereas
TABLE 2. DETAILS OF RUT DEPTH

Off-set from Kerb edge (m) Chainage 102.300 102.250 102.200 102.150 102.100 102.050 102.000 101.950 101.900 101.850 101.800 101.770 101.750 101.720 101.700 101.650 101.600 33 26 22 10 12 9 12 4 8 2 9 2 1 14 22 8 12 12 12 21 12 23 28 2 16 21 9 12 9 1 15 2 10 5 3 11 18 10 11 6 9 15 1 18 14 32 19 21 21 17 15 4 4 7 15 9 11 6 0 4 0 10 -4 2 -5 6 6 10 3 5 3 14 9 5 2 5 5 1 6 -2 14 10 5 5 18 5 6 2 11 8 4 1 0 2 -4 2 -1 8 4 6 6 14 9 8 8 8 8 9 7 1 2 4 2 -2 1 2 -2 2 -2

The methodology of investigation is based on the

TABLE 3. ENGINEERING PROPERTIES BC
OF

Junction Crossing

RUTTED PORTION

OF

Core No.

Density (gm/cc)

Bitumen content (%) 5.475 5.551 5.520

OF

FI + EI (%)

Air Voids (%) 3.09

01 R 02 R 03 R

2.511 2.497 2.508

32.70

3.63 3.20

TABLE 4. ENGINEERING PROPERTIES

FAIR PORTION

OF

BC

Core No.

Density (gm/cc)

Bitumen content (%) 5.080 5.137 5.105

FI + EI (%)

Air Voids (%) 3.9

01 S 02 S
Fig 1. Showing the Rutted Portion of the Pavement (Not to Scale)

2.5 2.496 2.486

29.34

3.67 4.05

03 S

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE PAVEMENTS - MEETING RUTTING IN FLEXIBLE 178TH COUNCILA CASE STUDY process of elimination of lesser or insignificant causes to enable focusing on the main cause. Rutting in bituminous pavement can occur due to variety of causes. Some of the common causes for rutting could be as given below. Inappropriate mix design Incorrect grading Excessive Binder content Excessive fines like sand/clay Round aggregates with smooth texture

179

Inadequate initial field compaction and density Effects of hot weather temperature on pavement Effects of heavy traffic loads Effect of slow speed (frequent stop/start or stationary condition) Effect of secondary compaction 4.1. Inappropriate Mix Design Initial mix design was done by Marshall method with 75 blows. Grading of aggregates followed in actual execution are broadly as prescribed under Job-Mix Formula (JMF). The Design Bitumen Content (OBC) has been arrived as per Marshall test. Tables 5, 6 & 7 give the details of the gradation and

other engineering properties of BC mix with CRMB 60, as used in actual construction of the rutted portion. Tables 8, 9 &10 give similar details for DBM (Layer II) underneath BC. From the perusal of the tables it will be seen that actual execution has been done in accordance with MOSRT&H Specifications and as per JMF. Some marginal variations in gradation determined by extraction of bitumen and from dry aggregates taken from Hot Bins are just natural and are not significant. Binder content also appears to be as per JMF and MOSRT&H Specifications. Natural sand has not been used. Similarly, rounded aggregates are also not used as is evident from Photo 1.

Photo 1.

TABLE 5. SUMMARY OF AGGREGATE GRADATION FOR BC (CRMB 60) (GRADATION AFTER EXTRACTION OF BINDER)

Sieve Sizes (Percent Passing) Range as per MOSRT& H Specifications As per approved JMF Permissible Variation for JMF Date 18.4.05 26.4.05 Sample No. BC/33 BC/34 BC/35 BC/36

26.5 100

19.0 90 100 94 7

13.2 59 79 74 6

9.5 52 72 63 6

4.75 35 55 46 5

2.36 28 44 35 4

1.18 20 34 25 4

0.60 15 27 19 4

0.30 10 20 13 3

0.15 513 9 3

0.075 2-8

100 7

6 1.5

Gradation as per samples taken at the time of laying mix at rutted locations 100 100 100 100 93.45 94.11 95.4 93.74 73.17 75.19 73.21 72.55 64.57 63.59 66.09 65.84 46.55 46.19 45.68 45.1 34.26 35.12 34.17 34.82 25.86 24.14 26.11 25.16 18.08 18.16 18.16 18.72 12.14 11.56 12.09 12.1 8.15 8.26 8.11 8.7 6 7 5 6

180

SINHA, SINGH & SHEKHAR ON

TABLE 6. SUMMARY OF AGGREGATE GRADATION OF DRY AGGREGATES FOR BC (CRMB 60) (GRADATION DETERMIND FROM DRY AGGREGATES FROM HOT BINS)

Sieve Sizes (Percent Passing) Range as per MOSRT&H Specifications As per approved JMF Permissible Variation for JMF Date 18.4.05 26.4.05 Sample No. BC/33 BC/34 BC/35 BC/36

26.5 100

19.0 90 100 94 7

13.2 59 79 74 6

9.5 52 72 65 6

4.75 35 55 46 5

2.36 28 44 35 4

1.18 20 34 25 4

0.60 15 27 19 4

0.30 10 20 13 3

0.15 513 9 3

0.075 2-8

100 7

6 1.5

Gradation as per samples taken at the time of laying mix at rutted locations 100 100 100 100 93.9 93.2 94.5 92.8 73.22 72.55 76.2 73.2
OF

63.2 64.33 67.11 66.7

44.66 43.99 44.71 46.38

33.68 33.61 36.13 36.08

24.75 24.81 24.68 28.2

17.25 18.56 20.07 22.22

10.10 12.93 14.17 15.72

7.87 9.79 8.89 8.90

6 7 5 6

TABLE 7. SUMMARY

ACTUAL BITUMEN CONTENT VS DESIGN BITUMEN CONTENT

Properties Measured

Binder Bulk Air VMA VFB content Density Voids (%) (%) (%) (gm/cc) (%)

Stability Retained (kg.) Stability (%)

Flow Stability (mm) / Flow (kg/mm)

AIV (%)

FI & EI (%)

Average Core Density (gm/cc)

Properties as per approved JMF Specified Limit as per MOSRTH Specifications Date 18.4.05 26.4.05 Sample No. BC/33 BC/34 BC/35 BC/36

5.00 Min 5.0

2.480

4.28

16.05

71.0

1240

95.17 90 Min

3.2 2.5 4.0

987.5 250 - 500

15.23 Max 30

24.85 Max 30

Not 3-5 specific

Min 14 65 - 75 Min to 16 1200

As per actual samples taken at the time of laying mix at rutted locations 5.010 5.002 5.020 5.011 2.474 2.473 2.472 2.472
OF

4.48 4.52 4.52 4.52

AND

15.44 15.46 15.5 15.5

71.0 70.76 70.8 70.8

1358.8 1375.17 1418.7 1386.0

96.6 96.9

2.87 2.90 2.93 2.93

473.45 474.2 484.2 473.04

16.14 15.57 15.5 15.8

26.8 26.3 27.6 27.9

99.56 99.35

TABLE 8. SUMMARY

MEASURED

CALCULATED PROPERTIES OF DENSE BITUMINOUS MACADAM (DBM) (60/70) (GRADATION AFTER EXTRACTION OF BINDER)

Sieve Sizes (Percent Passing) Range as per MOSRT&H Specifications As per approved JMF Permissible Variation for JMF

45.0 100 100 8

37.5 95-100 100 8

26.5 63-93 85 8

13.2 55-75 63 7

4.75 38-54 45 6

2.36 28-42 34 5

0.30 7-21 13 4

0.075 2-8 4 2

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE PAVEMENTS - MEETING RUTTING IN FLEXIBLE 178TH COUNCILA CASE STUDY
Date 2.8.04 3.8.04 Sample No. DBM/272 DBM/ 273 DBM/274 DBM/ 275
TABLE 9. SUMMARY
OF

181

Gradation as per samples taken at the time of laying mix at rutted locations 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 85.08 84.84 84.34 86.52 63.65 63.42 62.14 63.53 46.21 45.98 44.27 46.47 34.24 33.45 34.60 35.49 13.68 13.04 12.12 14.48 4.48 4.57 4.20 4.55

MEASURED AND CALCULATED PROPERTIES OF DENSE BITUMINOUS MACADAM (DBM) (60/70) (GRADATION DETERMINED FROM DRY AGGREGATES TAKEN FROM HOT BINS)

Sieve Sizes (Percent Passing) Range as per MOSRT&H Specifications As per approved JMF Permissible Variation for JMF Date 2.8.04 3.8.04 Sample No. DBM/272 DBM/ 273 DBM/274 DBM/ 275
TABLE 10. SUMMARY
OF

45.0 100 100 8

37.5 95-100 100 8

26.5 63-93 85 8

13.2 55-75 63 7

4.75 38-54 45 6

2.36 28-42 34 5

0.30 7-21 13 4

0.075 2-8 4 2

Gradation as per samples taken at the time of laying mix at rutted locations 100 100 100 100 97.50 98.56 100 100 82.65 85.76 84.34 86.52 63.09 62.45 62.14 63.53 43.9 44.55 44.27 46.47 32.93 35.46 34.60 35.49 13.61 15.51 12.12 14.48 4.48 5.98 4.20 4.55

MEASURED AND CALCULATED PROPERTIES OF DENSE BITUMINOUS MACADAM (DBM) (60/70) (AS PER LAB TESTS RESULT OF RUTTED SAMPLES)

Properties Measured

Binder Bulk content Density (%) (gm/ cc) 4.580 2.43

Air Voids (%) 4.20

VMA (%)

VFB (%)

Stability (kg.)

Flow (mm)

FI & EI (%)

AIV (%)

Average Core Density (gm/cc)

Properties as per JMF Specified Limits as per MOSRT&H Specifications Date 2.8.04 3.8.04 Sample No. DBM/272 DBM/273 DBM/274 DBM/275

14.90 Min 12 to 14 14.97 15.36 15.62 15.10

71.74 66.75

1120 Min. 990

2.82 2-4

26.84 < 30

13.1 < 30

98%

Min 4.0 Not 3-6 specified

As per actual samples taken at the time of laying mix at rutted locations 4.59 4.60 4.57 4.58 2.481 2.470 2.479 2.477 4.39 4.82 4.32 4.40 70.67 68.62 71.24 70.86 1321.1 1152.3 1272.2 1137.6 2.33 2.50 2.40 2.40 26.86 27.99 25.85 27.36 16.77 98.99 17.20 17.44 98.95 16.97

4.2. Compaction and Density Details of Table 7 for BC and Table 10 for DBM suggest that there is no significant problem due to lack of compaction and inadequate density of the rutted portion at the time of execution. The compaction density does not appear to be a significant cause of rutting from the specifications point of view.

4.3. Effect of High Pavement Temperature on Performance of BC and DBM Layer The key objective of the case study was to assess the likely effect of high temperature on the performance of top bituminous layers in a flexible pavement. It is a common knowledge that bitumen as a material is quite sensitive to high temperature. Stability aspects of bitumen

182

SINHA, SINGH & SHEKHAR ON depth-wise in increment of 20 mm. The first measurement was done at 20 mm below the top of BC surface and thereafter it was measured broadly at the interface of BC and underlying DBM layer. The measurement in DBM layer continued thereafter at interval depth of every 20 mm. The layer-wise pavement temperature was measured for both locations i.e. covered with 50 mm BC wearing course as well as at locations where top surface of DBM was not covered with BC. The corresponding layer-wise temperatures as measured are furnished in Table 11. Fig 2 again shows these temperatures layerwise. Fig 3 shows the equipment used for making the temperature measurement. From the perusal of the Table 11, it will be seen that
TEMPERATURE DATED 7.6.07
AT

mix for both top BC layer and underneath DBM layer were accordingly investigated. 4.3.1. Measurement of pavement temperature: Two different types of thermometers were used for recording the temperature.One was electronically controlled digital thermometer and the other was ordinary glass mercury thermometer. These were duly calibrated before the measurement. The ambient air temperature on the day of measurement was 48 oC layer-wise pavement temperature was measured during the peak summer hour of 2.30 P.M. in the month of June 2007. The temperature measurement was done on the rutted portion of the pavement at number of locations. The temperature was measured at different locations
TABLE 11. LAYER WISE RECORDING
OF

2.30 PM

DBM Layers Exposed to Sun (Partial Construction) Location of recorded temperature in (oC) Temperature in Digital Thermometer in (oC) Temperature in Glass Thermometer in (oC)

DBM Layer Covered with BC CRMB-60 (Completed Cosntruction) Location of recorded temperature at particular place near chowk Top surface of BC (at the depth of 20 mm from top) Below 50 mm BC (at the inter -face of BC and DBM layer) Below 20 mm (from DBM Top surface) Below 40 mm (from DBM Top surface) Below 60 mm (from DBM Top surface) Below 80 mm (from DBM Top surface) Below 100 mm from DBM Top surface) Temperature in Digital Thermometer in (oC) Temperature in Glass Thermometer in (oC) in (oC)

Top surface of DBM (at the depth of 20 mm from top) Below 20 mm (from above)

68.2

67

60.2

59

63.7

63

57.3

56

Below 40 mm

58.8

58

55

54

Below 60 mm

56

54

54.2

53

Below 80 mm

53.9

52

52.7

51

Below 100 mm

53.9

52

51.3

50

50.2

49

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE PAVEMENTS - MEETING RUTTING IN FLEXIBLE 178TH COUNCILA CASE STUDY BC (CRMB) 60 (50 mm) 60oC

183

57oC DBM (Layer II) with 60/70 grade bitumen Thickness - 80 mm 54oC 52oC 51oC DBM (Layer I) with 60/70 grade bitumen Thickness - 80 mm WMM Thickness 250 mm GSB Thickness 260 mm
Fig. 2. (a) Layer-wise Temperatures of Location having DBM with BC (CRMB 60) (Not to scale) Fig. 3. Temperature Measured under the different Layers of Pavement

55oC

50oC

DBM (Layer II) with 60/70 grade bitumen exposed to Sun

68.2oC 63.7oC

Thickness 80 mm

58.8oC 56 C
o

the pavement temperature in top BC layer was observed to be 60oC and at the interface of DBM and BC layer it was 57oC. Against this, the pavement temperature in the top DBM layer (where BC has not been laid) was 68.2 o C. The difference of 8 o C is due to better characteristic of CRMB modifier with respect to specific heat and other associated thermal attributes. It is further observed that the temperature gradient also, is less steep at locations covered with CRMB 60 than the locations where top layer was DBM without BC. The advantage of modifiers like CRMB in this respect needs to be noted. 4.3.2. Softening point of bitumen used: The bitumen of 60/70 grade was procured from Panipat and Halida refineries. As per the test results done by the oil companies, the softening point was 49oC (Panipat) and 47oC (Haldia). The softening point for CRMB as per Panipat refinery test was 61oC. The softening point of 60/70 grade bitumen used, when compared with the pavement temperature in DBM layer (vide Table 11) is much lower than the temperature of corresponding pavement layers. The summer temperature, broadly of this or still higher range, normally occurs in the plains of India for at least three months. During these months the bituminous mixes of the pavement layers are obviously in a very soft state of cohesion. The heavy traffic operating during these months actually subject the mix

DBM (Layer I) with 60/70 grade bitumen 53.9oC Thickness 80 mm WMM Thickness 250 mm GSB Thickness 260 mm
Fig. 2. (b) Layer-wise Temperatures of Location having DBM without BC (Not to scale)

184

SINHA, SINGH & SHEKHAR ON 4.3.3. Stability loss study: Stability of the mix is one of the key design consideration in the Marshall method of design. IRC:SP:53-2002 prescribes requirements of mix prepared with modified bitumen. This is reproduced in Table 13. It will be observed that minimum Marshall stability (75 blows) at 60oC is 1200 kg. It also prescribes the requirement of minimum retained stability of 90 per cent after 24 hours in water bath at 60oC. For high rainfall areas it is 100 per cent. Minimum Marshall stability for both BC and DBM with 60/70 grade bitumen as prescribed in MOSRT&H Specifications (Fourth Revision 2001) is 900 kg only. No criteria for retained stability has been prescribed in MOSRT&H Specifications for BC and DBM with 60/ 70 grade bitumen. Prescribing same stability for BC and DBM (900 kg) and not prescribing any minimum percentage for retained stability in normal 60/70 grade bitumen is a gap in the specifications. It needs to be addressed. The tests for Retained Stability is done as per ASTM D-1075. ASTM D-1075 basically prescribe the procedure to evaluate the effect of hot weather temperature on cohesion of compacted bituminous mixes. For this purpose, the procedure prescribes conducting
OF

of top DBM layers into a kneading action. The determination of stability by applying blows as per Marshall, therefore deserves reconsideration. Hveem method is more suitable under such situations. Specifications should look into this aspect, because according to authors the temperature of the mix higher than softening point may be a significant factor to the occurrence of rutting in flexible pavements in our country. According to Australian Asphalt Pavement Association (AAPA) Asphalt guide (Table 3.2 of the guide), pavement temperatures as reproduced in Table 12 are to be rated as high to medium temperature category, deserving special consideration for the selection of bitumen type, including mix design.
TABLE 12. PAVEMENT TEMPERATURE

Temperature Category
High Medium Low

Maximum Pavement Temperature > 58oC 52 oC - 58oC

< 52oC
(Source: AAPA, Asphalt Guide 2002)

TABLE 13. REQUIREMENTS

MIX

PREPARED WITH

MODIFIED BITUMEN

Sl.No.

Properties Hot Climate

Requirement Cold Climate 1000

Method of Test High Rainfall 1200 ASTM:D:15591979 ASTM:D:15591979 Stability /flow

1.

Marshall Stability (75 blows)at 60oC, kg, Minimum Marshall Flow at 60oC, mm Marshall Quotient kg/mm Voids in compacted mix, % Requirement of retained stability after, 24 hours in water at 60oC, % Minimum Coating with aggregate, %

1200

2. 3. 4. 5.

2.5 -4.0 250-500 3.0-5.0 90

3.5-5.0

3.0-4.5

95

100

ASTM:D:10751979

6.

95

95
(Source: IRC:SP:53-2002)

100

AASHTO T 182

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE PAVEMENTS - MEETING RUTTING IN FLEXIBLE 178TH COUNCILA CASE STUDY
TABLE 14. RETAINED STABILITY
OF

185

BC MIX AFTER 24 HOURS

AT

DIFFERENT TEMPERATURES

Compaction

75 blows Binder CRMB-60

Date- 3/7/07 to 4/7/07

STABILITY AFTER 24 HOURS IN WATER BATH @650C Sl. No Volume of marshall specimen (cc) (A) 486.5 483.5 484.0 Proving Ring Reading (B) 385 390 380 Calibration factor of Proving Ring (C) 2.767 2.767 2.767 Volume Correction (D)* 1.09 1.09 1.09 CORRECTED VALUE (Kg) E = BxCxD 1161.2 1176.3 1146.1 1161.2
* D is corelated to A

FLOW IN (mm)

1 2. 3.

4.4 4.5 4.3 4.40

STABILITY AFTER 30 MINUTES IN WATER BATH @600C Sl. No Volume of marshall specimen (in cc) 486.0 480.5 485.5 484.0 483.5 487.0 Proving Ring Reading Calibration factor of Proving Ring Volume Correction CORRECTED VALUE (Kg) FLOW IN (mm)

1 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

415 400 410 405 415 410

2.767 2.767 2.767 2.767 2.767 2.767

1.09 1.14 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09

1251.7 1261.7 1236.6 1221.5 1251.7 1236.6 1243.4

2.9 3.3 3.2 3.4 3.0 3.1 3.15

Retained Stability = 24 hours stability * 100 at 650C 30 minute stability = 1161.2 1243.3 *100 = 93.40%
STABILITY AFTER 24 HOURS IN WATER BATH @600C Sl. No Volume of marshall specimen (in cc) 486.5 484.5 485.0 Proving Ring Reading Calibration factor of Proving Ring Volume Correction CORRECTED VALUE (Kg) FLOW IN (mm)

1 2. 3.

395 405 395

2.767 2.767 2.767

1.09 1.09 1.09

1191.3 1221.5 1191.3 1201.4

3.6 3.4 3.6 3.53

Retained Stability = 24 hours stability * 100 at 600C 30 minute stability = 1201.4 *100 = 96.63% 1243.3

186

SINHA, SINGH & SHEKHAR ON

TABLE 15. RETAINED STABILITY
OF

BC MIX AFTER 24 HOURS

AT

DIFFERENT TEMPERATURES

Compaction

75 blows Date- 4/7/07 to 5/7/07 Binder 60/70 Bitumen without CRMB

STABILITY AFTER 24 HOURS IN WATER BATH @650C Proving Ring Calibration factor Volume CORRECTED Reading of Proving Ring Correction VALUE (Kg) (B) 320 330 340 (C) 2.767 2.767 2.767 (D)* 1.09 1.09 1.09 E = BxCxD 965.1 995.3 1025.5 995.3 4.6 4.9 4.7 4.73 FLOW IN (mm)

Sl. No

Volume of marshall specimen(cc) (A) 487.5 483.5 486.5

1 2. 3.

* D is corelated to A

STABILITY AFTER 30 MINUTES IN WATERT BATH @600C Proving Ring Reading Calibration factor of Proving Ring Volume Correction CORRECTED VALUE (Kg) FLOW IN (mm)

Sl. No

Volume of marshall specimen (in cc) 485.5 481.5 486.0 484.5 484.0 487.0

1 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

400 395 400 390 410 405

2.767 2.767 2.767 2.767 2.767 2.767

1.09 1.14 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09

1206.4 1191.3 1206.4 1176.3 1236.6 1221.5 1206.4

2.8 2.9 3.1 3.0 3.2 3.3 3.05 mm

Retained Stability = 24 hours stability * 100 0 at 65 C 30 minute stability = 995.3 *100 = 82.50% 1206.4 Compaction 75 blows Binder 60/70 bitumen
STABILITY AFTER 24 HOURS IN WATER BATH @ 600C Sl. No Volume of marshall specimen (in cc) 484.5 486.0 483.5 Proving Ring Reading Calibration factor of Proving Ring Volume Correction CORRECTED VALUE (Kg) FLOW IN (mm)

1 2. 3.

360 375 370

2.767 2.767 2.767

1.09 1.09 1.09

1085.8 1131.0 1115.9 1110.9

3.8 3.7 3.8 3.77 mm

Retained Stability = 24 hours stability * 100 at 600C 30 minute stability = 1110.9 1206.4 *100 = 92.08%

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE PAVEMENTS - MEETING RUTTING IN FLEXIBLE 178TH COUNCILA CASE STUDY
TABLE 16. RETAINED STABILITY
OF

187

DBM MIX AFTER 24 HOURS

AT

DIFFERENT TEMPERATURES

Compaction

75 blows Binder 60/70 Bitumen

Proving Ring Reading (B) 370 365 355

Date-7/7/07 to 9/7/07

STABILITY AFTER 24 HOURS IN WATER BATH @550C Sl. No Volume of marshall specimen(cc) (A) 486.5 488.5 484.5 Calibration factor of Proving Ring (C) 2.767 2.767 2.767 Volume Correction (D)* 1.09 1.09 1.09 CORRECTED VALUE (Kg) E = BxCxD 1115.9 1100.9 1070.7 1095.8
* D is corelated to A

FLOW IN (mm)

1 2. 3.

3.3 3.2 3.0 3.2

STABILITY AFTER 30 MINUTES IN WATER BATH 600C Sl. No Volume of marshall specimen (in cc) 486.5 487.5 481.5 484.5 480.0 483.5 Proving Ring Reading Calibration factor of Proving Ring Volume Correction CORRECTED VALUE (Kg) FLOW IN (mm)

1 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

390 395 410 360 400 385

2.767 2.767 2.767 2.767 2.767 2.767

1.09 1.09 1.14 1.09 1.14 1.09

1176.3 1191.3 1293.3 1085.5 1261.8 1161.2 1194.9

2.9 2.7 3.1 3.7 34 3.3 3.18

Retained Stability = 24 hours stability * 100 0 at 55 C 30 minute stability = 1095.8 1194.9 *100 = 91.71% Binder 60/70 bitumen
STABILITY AFTER 24 HOURS IN WATER BATH @600C Sl. No Volume of marshall specimen (in cc) 486.5 484.0 487.0 Proving Ring Reading Calibration factor of Proving Ring Volume Correction CORRECTED VALUE (Kg) FLOW IN (mm)

1 2. 3.

330 345 330

2.767 2.767 2.767

1.09 1.09 1.09

995.3 1040.5 995.3 1010.4

3.8 4 3.7 3.8

Retained Stability = 24 hours stability * 100 0 at 60 C 30 minute stability = 1010.4 *100 = 84.56% 1194.9

188
TABLE 17. RETAINED STABILITY

SINHA, SINGH & SHEKHAR ON

OF

DBM MIX AFTER 24 HOURS

AT

DIFFERENT TEMPERATURES

Compaction

75 blows Binder 60/70 Bitumen

Proving Ring Reading (B) 335 330 320

Date-30/6/07 to 2/7/07

STABILITY AFTER 24 HOURS IN WATER BATH @600C Sl. No Volume of marshall specimen(cc) (A) 486.5 483.5 487.0 Calibration factor of Proving Ring (C) 2.767 2.767 2.767 Volume Correction (D)* 1.09 1.09 1.09 CORRECTED VALUE (Kg) E = BxCxD 1010.4 995.3 965.1 990.3
* D is corelated to A

FLOW IN (mm)

1 2. 3.

3.6 3.7 3.3 3.5

STABILITY AFTER 30 MINUTES IN WATER BATH @600C Proving Ring Reading Calibration factor of Proving Ring Volume Correction CORRECTED VALUE (Kg) FLOW IN (mm)

Sl. No

Volume of marshall specimen (in cc) 497.5 486.5 484.5 480.0 485.0 487.5

1 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

405 395 415 400 390 410

2.767 2.767 2.767 2.767 2.767 2.767

1.04 1.09 1.09 1.14 1.09 1.09

1165.5 1191.3 1251.7 1261.8 1176.3 1236.6 1213.9

3.2 3.1 2.9 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.93

Retained Stability = 24 hours stability * 100 at 600C 30 minute stability = 990.3 *100 = 81.58% 1213.9 Compaction 75 blows Binder 60/70 bitumen
STABILITY AFTER 24 HOURS IN WATER BATH @650C Sl. No Volume of marshall specimen (in cc) 498.5 496.5 488.0 Proving Ring Reading Calibration factor of Proving Ring Volume Correction CORRECTED VALUE (Kg) FLOW IN (mm)

1 2. 3.

265 270 260

2.767 2.767 2.767

1.04 1.04 1.09

762.6 777.0 784.2 774.6

5.5 6.3 3.3 5.0

Retained Stability = 24 hours stability * 100 0 at 65 C 30 minute stability = 774.6 1213.9 *100 = 63.81%

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE PAVEMENTS - MEETING RUTTING IN FLEXIBLE 178TH COUNCILA CASE STUDY the tests at a temperature of 60oC 1oC. These tests are done in a bath tub at 60oC by keeping the samples both for 30 minutes and for 24 hours. The stability after 30 minutes and after 24 hours is compared and the ratio of the stability values gives the retained stability (per cent basis) at the temperature of 60oC. This loss of stability with temperature is a measure of stable performance of the bituminous mixes at high temperature. Ten number of samples have been tested in the laboratory to study the effect of high temperature in terms of the retained stability. These samples have been taken for different types of bitumen mixes i.e. BC with CRMB 60, BC with 60/70 grade, bitumen (without CRMB), DBM with 60/70 grade bitumen (without CRMB). The samples have been taken directly from batch mix plant producing these mixtures as per the JMF and as used in the construction of the rutted portion of the road project, comprising the study stretch for this case study. Details of these tests are furnished in Tables 14 to 17. The JMF for this stretch prescribes a retained stability of 95 per cent for BC (CRMB 60) layer. Fig 4 shows in a graphical form the retained stability (per cent basis) of different mixes at temperatures 650C & 600C after 24 hours as compared to stability value at 600C after 30 minutes. Fig 5 shows, in the form of a histogram, the stability values of these mixes at the temperatures of 600C and 650C. The typical values presented in the Tables and Figures as above, indicate the likely loss of stability at high temperature. This is interesting when compared with the lower softening points of these mixes. It is observed that loss of stability is substantial at a higher temperature, particularly in case of DBM mixes. The behaviour of BC mixes with modifiers like CRMB is much better as compared to those without a modifier. 4.3.4. Retained stability for BC mix: Retained stability of BC mix with CRMB after 24 hours at 60oC is 96.63 per cent which is well above 90 per cent prescribed in IRC:SP:53-2002. The retained stability of the BC mix of 60/70 bitumen without CRMB at 65oC, however is 82.50 per cent against 93.40 per cent with CRMB at 65oC. It is 92.08 per cent without CRMB as against 96.63 per cent with CRMB at 60oC. The effect of modifier like CRMB or PMB in preventing the stability loss at higher temperature is thus quite vivid. 4.3.5. Retained stability for DBM mix: The retained stability for top layer of DBM at 60oC is about 82 per cent. The retained stability at 650C for DBM is

189

far low, around 63 per cent. The stability loss in case of DBM at higher temperatures deserves early consideration for up-gradation and updation of our specifications of top layers of flexible pavement. The test results obliquely suggest that perhaps we cannot have flexible pavements in our country lasting for 20 to 30 years with the use of 60/70 grade bitumen without modifiers. Performance grade bitumen with superpave type specifications needs to be evolved. We should otherwise consider providing composite or even rigid pavements as an alternative considering the expected long-term pavement life of 20 years plus.

ASTMD 1075-1979 Fig. 4. Layer-wise retained stability of pavement materials Vs various temperatures

Fig. 5. Histogram Showing Stability (kg) of different mix at 600C (30 min), 600C (24 hours) & 650C (24 hours)

190

SINHA, SINGH & SHEKHAR ON bituminous pavements are inadequate and need early updation. Rutting observed in the case study obviously, had the compound effect of both the high pavement layer temperature and slow moving/stationary vehicles.

4.4. Effect of Heavy Traffic Loading Moving at Slow Speed Literature suggests that permanent deformation like rutting gets further accentuated at high pavement

TABLE 18. TRAFFIC LOADING

Indicative Traffic Volume Traffic category Very heavy Heavy vehicle/lane/day > 1000 > 500 Heavy 500 to 1000 100 to 500 Medium 100 to 500 < 100 Light < 100 Structural design level (MSA) 2 x 107 5 x 106 5 x 106 to 2 x 107 5 x 10 to 5 x 10
5 6

Traffic speed Generally > 25 Km/hr Stop/start Generally < 25 Km/hr Generally > 25 Km/hr Stop/start Generally < 25 Km/hr Generally > 25 km/h Sop/Start, climbing lanes or generally < 25 km/h Generally > 25 km/h

5 x 105 to 5 x 106 < 5 x 10

5

< 5 x 105
(Source: AAPA, Asphalt Guide 2002)

temperature, when the heavy truck traffic operates at a slow speed with frequent stop/start condition as is the case in the study stretch. This is a typical situation on most of heavily trafficked corridors in India, particularly near intersections, roundabouts and adjoining Toll Plazas and other control booths like Check posts, Octroi booths etc. Australian Asphalt Pavement Association (AAPA) gives a table indicating damaging effect of slow moving vehicles. This is reproduced in Table 18. Superpave mix design recommends for additional requirements in the selection of bitumen grade etc. to account for the vehicles moving at a slow speed and for conditions of standing load applications. According to superpave recommendations for slow moving design loads, the binder would be selected one high temperature grade higher, such as a PG-64 instead of a PG-58. For standing design loads, the binder would be selected two high temperature grades higher, such as a PG-70 instead of PG-58. For extraordinary high numbers of heavy traffic loads (between 10,000,000 to 30,000,000 ESAL) the engineer is encouraged to consider one high temperature binder grade higher than the selection based on climate. These recommendations do suggest the additionality of adverse effect due to slow moving vehicles on the performance of flexible pavement. These are over and above the effects due to the hot climatic region. This also speak loudly that our specifications for

4.5. Effect of Secondary Compaction One of the known cause of rutting in flexible pavement is the secondary compaction by the plying vehicles over the time. Compaction of bitumen mixes at refusal density while maintaining a minimum air voids of 3 per cent is being suggested in the literature. Bitumen mixes used in study stretch had been tested for 300 blows, while broadly maintaining air voids at 2.75 per cent and VMA and VFB as per specifications. As the study stretch has been opened to traffic only about a year back, effect of the secondary compaction was not considered in the case study.
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

The present case study is a limited study. It has attempted to examine the adverse effects of high temperature in the top layers of binder course on the overall performance of flexible pavements. It demonstrates that existing pavement design method followed in India requires an early review and upgradation to meet the different (specific) site conditions. The generic nature of specifications as prescribed at present cannot cater to the need of constructing flexible pavements for design life of 20 to 30 years. At least some catalogue type specifications covering different regions of the country need to be evolved on the pattern

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE PAVEMENTS - MEETING RUTTING IN FLEXIBLE 178TH COUNCILA CASE STUDY

191

of performance based specifications like Superpave of USA. The results of the limited case study undertaken are only indicative. More elaborate studies are required to ensure wider understanding of the problems of the flexible pavement. Some of the recommendations are as below: Needs for instrumentation to study the behaviour of temperature on the performance of the bituminous mixes is required to be taken up to enforce development of mechanistic design based on indigenous database. Data bank needs to be created, maintained and analyzed to study the variations and variability in material characterization. Specifications should be evolved considering the need to construct long-term performing pavements. Higher standards in respect of bitumen binder is required to be set. The present standards for viscosity, stability, loss of stability at higher temperature etc. are either inadequately provided or are missing in the existing specifications. Generic nature specifications, as followed today need to be discarded in favour of performance based specifications as highlighted above. Special provisions to account the adverse effect of slow moving/stationary vehicles is to be provided rather presuming transient loads in our design. Specifications need to provide against stability loss at higher temperature. For top DBM layers stability loss at 60oC should preferably be kept around 97 per cent.

Use of modifiers to enhance thermal related characteristics of bitumen should be made mandatory in top DBM layer. General paving bitumen as being used in the DBM layers may not serve. Composite construction including Whitetopping in top layers should be tried on pilot basis to safeguard bituminous roads against deformations at high temperature. Cement is relatively much better binder compared to bitumen. In heavy traffic corridor with high temperature, cement concrete roads may be considered as a viable alternative on long-term performance considerations, based upon life cycle cost.
REFERENCES

1. 2. 3.

Superpave Mix Design Vol. I & Vol. II, Superpave series No.1 & 2 (SP1 & SP2), Asphalt Institute, Lexington. Specifications for Road and Bridge Works, MOSRT&H (Fourth Revision 2001), IRC. IRC:SP:53-2002 (First Revision) Guidelines on Use of Polymer and Rubber Modified Bitumen in Road Construction. Asphalt Guide, Australian Asphalt Pavement Association (AAPA) AUSTROADS Sydney 2002. Highway Research Record No. 189 Design Performance and Surface Properties of Pavement (9 Reports) 1967. The Properties of Asphaltic Bitumen , Edited by J.PH. Pffiffer, Elsevier Publishing Company, Inc. New York Amsterdam, London Brussels.

4. 5. 6.